Board of County Commissioners - Regular Meeting

Thank you for joining us today for this August 19th, 2026 meeting of the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. We'll now call the meeting to order and we'll start off our meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance. Please join us. Next, we will review, modify as needed, and approve the agenda for today.

Are there any requested changes, additions, subtractions?

It's been moved and seconded. Further discussion?

Acknowledge the added executive session item at the end from yesterday.

Yes. Okay, for that, I'm calling for the vote. Commissioner Adair? Yes. Commissioner DeBone? Yes. And Chair votes yes. Okay, now on to the citizen input portion of our meeting. I don't see any blue forms here, but if there's anyone in the room who would like to provide comment, you're welcome to ask. Come up to the desk now and fill out a blue form later. Also, I'll check in with Eric on whether there are any hands raised online. Okay, seeing none, we can move on from citizen input to commissioner announcements. Are there any commissioner announcements? One thing I'll mention is that this afte

I do want to make a note for people in our community. I just noticed the third older citizen of Deschutes County was just hit last Friday in Sisters. She's in the hospital now, but we had a fatality in Sisters earlier this summer, and I know someone that was walking in the subway parking lot was actually hit and killed walking in the Safeway parking lot, I believe. So everyone, when you're crossing, you've got to look like both ways four or five times. I mean, it really... It's just really, you're taking your life into your hands and please look always and really make sure that that car actual

Yeah. Also a good reminder that there are really important programs and projects described in both the county's transportation safety plan and the state's transportation safety plan and various cities have, some of our cities have transportation safety plans in the works right now as well. Some of these unfortunate incidents are avoidable. We just need to be doing the right things to improve the safety of our roads and sidewalks and crossings and bike lanes and everything else.

So one other note, tomorrow afternoon, tomorrow evening, there's going to be a In the Landscape music event up at Eastlake. So Hunter Lurie is going to be playing and visit Central Oregon sponsors and participates in this performance. So Eastlake tomorrow night, my wife and I will be able to attend. So there may be seats available or participation available still. So Hunter Lurie performing live at Eastlake tomorrow night. Great. Fun events.

But isn't Toto tonight here in Bend? Toto, the romantics, and Christopher Cross. Somebody I know was cool. And I go like, maybe I could have my husband go. So I thought that was a pretty interesting lineup. No one in the room is going? Maybe. Stephanie Marshall. Yes. Okay.

Are there any further commissioner announcements? I will just ask real quickly. I believe there's a Redmond managed camp meeting tomorrow.

Okay. I... I won't. Yeah, I didn't think I saw that on my schedule tomorrow. I did do the yesterday morning, the visioning meeting. Oh, it is way down there. No, I can't. I can't go to that one tomorrow.

I'll be on a plane with my kid heading to take him to college. Will we have staff coverage? Yes, we will have staff coverage, yes.

I do believe the project is getting to actually make something positive happen. Moving down to four people that we were talking to.

I was on the phone with Christy yesterday when she was at the managed camp. They were moving some people in?

Any further commissioner announcements? We can now move on to the consent agenda.

It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion?

Just one slight edit. The May 18th minutes, just the acronym for Orenco was mentioned, so I think it was just missing the E in the middle of it, but I sent that off.

And then there was just one city change on page 7 to 10, which Brent has already done. So thank you. Okay.

So... Is the motion still good or as modified?

So with that, we'll call for the vote. Commissioner DeBone? Yes. Commissioner Adair? Yes. And Chair votes yes. All right. On to action items. Item number five, consideration of first reading of ordinance number 2026-015, Deschutes 2040 Comprehensive Plan Limited Remand.

I move approval of first reading of ordinance number 2026-015 by title only.

It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion?

We've been through many phases on this, and I do appreciate the limited revision, putting this package kind of in its best form that we can at this point in time.

I'll just say I still think that this is a deficient document that does not do enough to protect farm and forest lands, habitat, open space, water resources, and a lot of other things that our constituents care about. So I'll be voting no. Okay. Any further discussion? Calling for the vote. Commissioner DeBone? Yes. Commissioner Adair? Yes. And chair votes no. So we need to do a first reading now.

There it is. Okay. Before the Board of County Commissioners of Deschutes County, Oregon, in ordinance amending ordinance number 2025-007 and title 23, the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan to adopt limited revisions on remand from the Land Use Board of Appeals and superseding inconsistent portions of ordinance number 2024-007 only to the extent necessary. I should have given the number to you, shouldn't I? Ordinance number 2026-015. Thank you, Commissioners. Thank you, Will. Okay, item number six, last ranch remand deliberations involving an application to change the comprehensive plan desig

Caroline, did you happen to bring us copies of the deliberation document, the one in the… I did not.

I thought that… It printed out rather uniquely in our packet.

We got corners of it. I printed myself a copy right before I came down here, and then I left it on the printer upstairs.

It printed from the left to the right, and then it stopped. Okay.

Yeah, we're all in that same spot. For discussion, it'd be good to have the large format at this time.

It was a really great idea, though. I mean, honestly...

It's absolutely, the print is absolutely the right size in the board pack, which I appreciate.

And Caroline, I mean, I forget, for deliberations, do you have to review background with us? I mean, we could...

Oh, no, I was just going to read what you said was additional edits are necessary when you have staff comments. additional, staff believes additional edits are necessary.

Okay. And they were necessary and they have been included.

Thank you. And that's what I was going to make sure we're on the same page. So it's a 46-page document. Red lines are included in our packet. And they're just kind of non-substantive edits, clarifications, and the red lines are there. So this is a staff-updated EC from the applicant. Yep. So that's, yeah, making sure we're on the same page.

Caroline, I mean, I think this gets into the next remand issue, but I mean, it's still very complex, you know, potentially confusing, you know, how the... the 1992 comp plan and EC for the entire scenic, you know, overlay and this interact. I mean, if I'm understanding correctly, one of the arguments is, you know, that for this scenic resource, there's already been an EC done. And so we don't you can't layer another site-specific one on top of it. Is that an accurate kind of explanation of that argument or...

I mean, I guess what I want to understand is, is that one of the arguments being made that there was a 1992 policy that included an EC, and one of the arguments is that is the... That is the ECU that we should be working off of. That is the scenic resource protection that we should be adhering to.

Well, I think the previous decision was to use by reference the 1992 EC and not include it in the decision. So that's how it bounced back to us because of this at this time. Because there was an site-specific ECE discussed previous approval process, it was not included in the final decision. Now we have an updated one, which is a lot more kind of dialed in, I guess I'd say. But yeah, we need to work through that and figure out

And then does this set a precedence for the expectation is for EC to be done on site-specific rezones like this?

And there'll be examples of them if and when this package is mature, approved or denied or whatever. There'll be examples.

Carolyn, when was it documented that the distance between Bend and Redmond went from 12 miles to 9 miles?

I mean, I just wonder, I mean, because isn't it like shrinking?

Okay, well, now they're saying it's only nine. So yeah, but 92 was definitely 12.

Well, it says in the document that it was 12 miles in 92. So just it's, you know, it is shrinking.

So I support the fact that the LM overlay compliant development, muted earth tones, existing vegetation is the mitigation and that comes up in the next step of a conditional use process also. I mean, so... Central Oregon Land Watch is saying don't touch anything. But, I mean, to touch something is going to try to be compliant. It's going to have to be compliant with the development. And that's a conclusion I've come to in the past.

At the high level, I just think that they're, you know, basically what we're seeing is that there's parts of Existing policy, comp plan, code that direct protection of existing scenic resources. And that's going to be my overarching take on this.

Yeah, on this on this question of snowball effect. I mean, I think that this this rezone application in and of itself is, you know, viewed in the chronology of of rezone activity to rural industrial in this general vicinity of Deschutes Market Road. It is an example of snowball effect. And if I'm tracking correctly, then we will have a couple of other rezone applications in the immediate area that basically help to illustrate and demonstrate that snowball effect is real. And we do need to think about cumulative effects. of uh you know the loss of efu's own bland you know particularly in this i

One of the things that comes to mind are the multi-story storage buildings kind of on the north part of town. There's one on Division, and also you can see one from the new north bypass road coming out of Bend. Multi-story, bright building with bright contrasted accents on the building. I mean, that is not what would happen in the rural industrial. You know, 30-foot maximum, I think, is what we're talking about here. Is that correct?

And that is to say that muted earth tones and existing vegetation and the setbacks. So as I said, I envision that rural industrial as being just a different urban development that we're seeing where some buildings want to be seen bright and bold. And that's just not allowable in this rural industrial zone.

When did the solar farm go in on the east side of 97 on the way to Redmond? Was that approved in like 2006? Or when did that one come in? Do we remember? I know that was before your time, Carolyn.

Okay. The one that never waters the trees that are supposed to break the view? No.

Or if you're going to plant them, you need to water them too, maybe.

I know. I think it's way longer than 2,200 feet, the length of this project. I know, unfortunately.

We don't have to go so far south or north of this site to imagine what conversion to rural industrial zoning could produce in terms of scenic effects. I mean, just looking at the other side of the highway, just north and just south of of this property gives you a sense of what rural industrial uses look like. And it is a lot different than what is, it's a lot different than what is currently there on this property. So I'm, you know, I'm sorry, but this will, this will have significant scenic impacts. And you know, particularly taken in the context of there being, you know, other rezone applica

So I support the applicant's response for item number two, knowing that the muted earth tones and existing vegetation conditional use is going to be out there in the future, and also we're not going to be building those multi-story white buildings out there. It's just not going to be a fit. So putting direction to this, I support with remand item number two, the applicant's response. And that still puts us into the spot. Do we adopt an updated site-specific EC or not? It's kind of the whole package. I guess on the topic of the EC, I mean, it seems to be very mature now. The applicant and staff

So my vote on both of these topics will be to deny the plan amendment zone change request.

If that is done, is that, I guess it's just, is it setting the precedence for anybody else saying, oh, well, we've got to do our EC now also, or is that still kind of an open item to be done case by case?

So my thought is if an EC line item says that, you know, something could happen in the rural, but we've determined that's not going to be a good fit for our property, they're locking themselves in by saying, Having a piece of paper that says they're never going to be able to do something on the parcel, is that logic reasonable?

Yeah, so if something comes up in the future, it'll be conditional use. It'll be a heck of a discussion, but at least it's not specifically prohibited before it ever even starts to happen. Understood. Great. Well, I support that EC also then.

Okay. Do you have all the information you need?

Move approval of the last ranch PAZC remand request.

And moved and seconded. Any further discussion?

I'll just say again, I found the arguments that this land doesn't have agricultural potential unpersuasive. I am very concerned about impacts to Goal 5 resources, the snowball effect and cumulative losses of Goal 5 protected resources through this series of rezone applications to rural industrial in this vicinity of Deschutes County. Ready for a vote? Commissioner Dubon? Yes. Commissioner Dare? Yes. And Chair votes no.

Item number seven, work session in preparation for a public hearing on the Dickey Road LLC rezone of 51.86 acres from exclusive farm use to multiple use agricultural.

Could you clarify real quick just the BCL remand? Was that a Deschutes County case? Yeah. What is that referring to, I guess?

Oh, and the solar fields. Got it. Yeah, okay. Sorry.

I did have a question or two after reading the staff report and hearings officer's record. There was a rundown of the types of soils present on the property, the 36A soils and the 58C soils. Throughout the, you know, throughout our board packet materials, there is some description of what kind of the spatial layout of where the soils were. But I don't think I read anywhere what the percentages of the site in... you know, in 36A and what percent there is in 58C. So do you either know that off the top of your head?

Yeah, because 36A soils are, they are actually good soils. They're not 7 and 8 if irrigated. and this property does have irrigation rights. So I want to know what... Only 6.4 acres, so... Yeah, I want to know how much 36A soils there are within that breakdown, because that is, you know, it's significant to actually evaluating the agricultural potential of the property.

And there may have been some or there was a couple of times there was a mention that, you know, the current owner of the property acquired the land very fairly recently in the last few years. Do we have a specific date for that?

Actually, it's 69.6, so we could say 70% of the soils were 7 and 8.

Again, that's 7 and 8 without irrigation. But until we know how many 36A soil acres there are, we don't know which, you know, what portion of that 70% is potentially class 3 or 4 soil with irrigation. That's why it's important to understand that. So the question was about the year of acquisition of the property. 2025. 2025, okay. And yeah, 2025, then there was a notation that the property is over 50 acres purchased for $726,000. EFU zone prices. So I think that's an important thing to note as we're talking about this rezone application. Because I'm quite certain that after, you know, if this r

uh water just uh domestic water supply so as avion available is one question there yeah they've provided a well-served report sure dear any questions um no i think we've discussed several things

There was a reference in the transportation analysis, but in a number of ways, the question of how much rural residential development would there be on this property came up in a variety of ways. At minimum, if I'm tracking correctly, MUA 10 property over 50 acres would allow five units and five ADUs. Is that correct?

So what was the date of the hearings officer's decision then? Could you remind me?

Okay. And then the other one came out the two days later. Oh, okay.

7.7 acres of 36A soils. Okay. Thank you. Any further questions? Or anything else for this work session in preparation for the hearing next week? Next week. Okay.

uh next item on our agenda number eight a work session in preparation of uh the board of commissioners presentation for county college on august 25th grab mine in the photocopy room thanks

Well, the slides are real concise about, you know, launching point for each of us to be able to speak about what we do, how and why. You know, a lot of good facts here. So as I say, I think the three of us have done this many times, so we can get through any of this. And these are real interesting political times, too. This will be the last time a three-person board presents like this.

Yeah, that's a great picture. Yeah, that was a good one.

Great job. Oh, and I can be on Zoom for the managed count meeting tomorrow. Yeah, I'll be on Zoom. So hopefully we're going to be making serious progress in the next two weeks.

And this will be the very beginning of the session for everybody also.

And there's always some attrition over the versus a week.

Well, I like the idea of giving people a little bit more insight into the role of the county commissioner. So thank you for trying to take us in that direction. The second to last slide, what commissioners need to know, I almost feel like you could use the word what commissioners need to learn instead of know, because I don't think anyone comes into this job knowing all this stuff. I need to know or learn, but that wouldn't fit.

Yeah. You know, or even on things that you, you know, like I knew a whole lot about wildfire mitigation before I started this role. But what the county's job is within the world of wildfire mitigation is, you know, a whole different thing. A whole different compartment.

Yeah, no, that seems like a really good final slide before we, you know, we see questions from people. They'll see those topics and they'll be interested in asking about them. At this time, do we want to divvy up slides? Kim, you had some suggestions on...

feelings on that flow. I mean, I kind of feel like three slides, only one commissioner doing three slides is kind of a lot to just focus on.

There's three. So it would be. One commissioner do one, one do the next and one do the third one. Okay. Like we wanted one commissioner to talk for three slides and then no, and then they would be. Yes.

So we're going to have the bingo icebreaker until 4.30, and then we will start and maybe until 5.45, at least an hour, an hour and 15. Okay. And then do they have a teeny break then before? Yes, they have a break.

Okay. So you'll watch the break. How late will they go that evening?

So I support you know one slide each and just yeah making a little bit of room case another commissioner wants to build something and just finish it up or whatever.

Yep. Well, and just like Commissioner Chang always says, let's get them asking questions up front early. So maybe there's a moment before we even go into those slides. Maybe there's a whole new slide. So is there any thoughts? Because I was wondering, is somebody coming here for a hot topic or whatever?

Or we could just invite people to ask questions throughout. Oh, yeah. Absolutely.

Oh, you take away the, will it work? Will it not work?

Eight years later, will it work, will it not work? Yes, it's been consistent. So, good idea. Hopefully it'll work for them.

Do commissioners want to pick amongst, like, three, four, and five?

Mm-hmm. Well, I'm happy to do three, the first one. How much time for each slide?

Just tell me, like, seven minutes, six and a half, five.

I don't know. I was just trying to, you know, thinking about the whole thing, if we have an hour plus.

But it is. There's a lot of people here, and it's a lot of moving parts. So, yeah. Okay. You could say three minutes, and then I could talk really fast. I'd say five. Yeah, five minutes. Okay. All right.

And if I'm, you know, as chair, if I'm introducing us before we introduce ourselves, then Commissioner Dubon, do you want to do slide four and I'll do five?

And then, sorry, can you just repeat again, Kim, how we do slides? what commissioners need to know, learn, slide. We're divvying that up.

Yeah. Okay, so we'll each... you know, provide an anecdote or two about one of these topics.

I could talk about noxious weeds. I bought hay years ago from a farm that had the sign up that said they were certified. Their hay was the worst. I bought this whole entire whatever. And so yesterday, of course, I get another noxious weed call. And I'm going, well, we've made a lot of progress, haven't we? Not. So anyway, yeah. I don't think we have those signs anymore, do we? Nick, do you know? There are like metal signs out that a farm will hang because they are certified noxious weed and they have certain color twine on the bales. And honestly, my experience was it meant nothing. I know. You don't want yucky weeds in your hay.

If there's an important story in there about county government's job, then that would be great.

Well, I sent an email today about it to somebody, so hopefully follow up.

Please use this picture. I think it's great.

Thanks, Kim. Okay. At this time, are there any other items? I'll just let everyone know I'll be out second half of tomorrow, Thursday and Friday. Back on Monday. I'll be here for the agenda conference in the morning. Anything else? Additional other items?

No, and I already mentioned that I will be on the managed camp. And it says it's at 1.30. Do we have that really confirmed? Because that time has flipped around, I can't tell you how many times. It's gone to like 2, et cetera. Do we know what time it is?

be an exciting meeting hearing about people moving into the managed camp and operator being up and running and everything.

Any additional other items? Oh, we have an executive session.

No, I know, but we don't have any paperwork on it. Or I don't. I didn't get any.

I didn't either. Looking forward to hearing about it. And if there are no additional other items, we can transition to executive session now. Kim, do you want to read the notice?

Okay. Yeah. Yes. And so we... Are we ready? We are returning from executive session, directing staff to proceed as discussed and adjourning this meeting. Thank you.