Loading...
2022-94-Minutes for Meeting February 23,2022 Recorded 3/15/2022BOARD • 02 -< 1 COMMISSIONERS 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon (541 ) 388-6570 r Recorded in Deschutes County C J2022-94 Steve Dennison, County Clerk Commissioners' Journal 03/15/2022 8:16:25 AM 2022-94 FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY 9:00 AM WEDNESDAY, February 23, 2022 Barnes Sawyer & VIRTUAL MEETING PLATFORM Present were Commissioners Patti Adair, Anthony DeBone, and Phil Chang. Also present were Nick Lelack, County Administrator; Dave Doyle, County Legal Counsel; and Sharon Keith, Board Executive Assistant (via Zoom conference call) This meeting was audio and video recorded and can be accessed at the Deschutes County Meeting Portal website www.deschutes.org/meetings CALL TO ORDER: Chair Adair called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: CITIZEN INPUT: • Tom Andrade presented testimony on behalf of the Hunnell United Group commenting on concerns of road maintenance in Deschutes County and the history of concerns of the Hunnell Road project. • Dennis Gant, resident living in the Hunnell Road neighborhood, commented on public input regarding concerns of the road project. • Max Robertson, resident, commented on his opinion of the Deschutes County transportation system and lack of proper communication. BOCC MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2022 PAGE 1 OF 8 • Michel Bayard, on behalf of the Hunnell Road Group requested answers from the Road Department. Commissioner DeBone acknowledged the frustration and spoke on the planned project. • Craig Chenoweth, provided testimony regarding concerns on the Simpson Avenue request for proposal and disappointment from the community. • Dana Wilson, commented on the lack of community involvement on the proposed Simpson Avenue project. • Michael Klautzsch, commented on the Simpson Avenue project and lack of neighborhood involvement in the design. • Brian Ginerich, expressed concerns of the Simpson Avenue development project. • Todd Gray presented input via Zoom conference call regarding his support of a CPACE program in Deschutes County. • Perry Brooks, presented input via Zoom conference call and expressed his support of a CPACE program in Deschutes County. Commissioner Chang requested that Deputy County Administrator Erik Kropp captures near term project opportunities on his upcoming staff report. • Donna Owens, expressed her interest to preserve Worrell Park and stop the proposed parking lot. • Dorrine Tye, presented input via Zoom conference call to address the growing concern of the Bend Municipal Airport regulations. Commissioner Adair acknowledge the citizen input also received through email regarding the CPACE program, the Simpson Avenue request for proposals, and the request to save Worrell Park. BOCC MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2022 PAGE 2 OF 8 CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was consideration of approval of the Consent Agenda. CHANG: Move approval of Consent Agenda DEBONE: Second VOTE: CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 1. Consideration of Resolution No. 2022-014, Increasing Transfers Out from the Community Justice Juvenile fund within the 2021-2022 Deschutes County Budget 2. Consideration of Resolution No. 2022-016, Extending 0.9 Limited Duration FTE within the District Attorney's Office 3. Approval of Minutes of the January 20 2022 BOCC Retreat 4. Approval of Minutes of the February 2 2022 BOCC Meeting 5. Approval of Minutes of the February 9 2022 BOCC Meeting ACTION ITEMS: 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Order No. 2022-005, Surrendering Jurisdiction of Portions of NW Pershall Way, NW 101" Street, and SW Helmhotz Way to the City of Redmond Road Department Director Chris Doty, via Zoom conference call presented the hearing process. Commissioner Adair opened the public hearing and called for testimony. Commissioner DeBone inquired on the continuity of ownership. Mr. Doty reviewed the map of the Canyon Trails Development. Hearing no testimony, Commissioner Adair closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chang expressed his support of the project in the consideration of growth. DEBONE: Move approval of Order No. 2022-005 CHANG: Second VOTE: DEBONE: Yes CHANG: Yes BOCC MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2022 PAGE 3 OF 8 ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 7. Request approval to apply for Oregon Health Authority Mental Health block grant funds Health Services staff Janice Garceau and Shannon Brister-Raugust presented via Zoom conference call to request for permission to apply for the grant and reported on the services that would be provided through the funding. CHANG: Move approval of grant application DEBONE: Second VOTE: CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 8. Consideration of Board approval and signature of Telecare Mental Health Service of Oregon, Inc., Document No. 2022-017 Health Services program manager Kara Cronin presented the document for consideration via Zoom conference call. Commissioner Chang requested a future discussion to explore secure residential treatment facilities. DEBONE: Move approval of Document No. 2022-017 CHANG: Second VOTE: DEBONE: Yes CHANG: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 9. Consideration of Board Signature of Premise Health Agreement, Document No. 2022-057 for DOC Health Center Human Resources Analyst Trygve Bolken presented the document for BOCC MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2022 PAGE 4 OF 8 consideration. Commissioner Chang inquired why the document took so long to be presented for approval when the start date is January 1. Mr. Bolken reviewed the process with Premise Health. CHANG: Move approval of Document No. 2022-057 DEBONE: Second VOTE: CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 10.Consideration of Board Signature of Premise Health Agreement, Document No. 2022-058 for DOC Pharmacy Human Resources Analyst Trygve Bolken presented the document for consideration. DEBONE: Move approval of Document No. 2022-058 CHANG: Second VOTE: DEBONE: Yes CHANG: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 11.Board Consideration of Whether to Hear an Appeal of a Hearings Officer Decision regarding Forest Zone Template Dwelling Senior Planner Caroline House presented the proposed single family dwelling in the Forest Use Zone and whether to hear the appeal. Assistant Legal Counsel Adam Smith (via Zoom conference call) commented on the next steps and the request of the applicant and appellant that the Board does not hear this matter. Move approval of Order No. 2022-008 to deny review of an BOCC MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2022 PAGE 5 OF 8 appeal of files number 247-21-00756 CU and 247-22-000-109A CHANG: Second VOTE: DEBONE: Yes CHANG: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 12.Department Performance Measure Updates for Quarter 2 Deputy County Administrator Whitney Hale and Administrative Analyst Laura Skundrick presented the second quarter performance measure updates relative to the goal of healthy communities. Health Services staff Rita Bacho and Debbie George (via Zoom) reported on communicable disease investigations. Environmental Services Supervisor Eric Mone (via Zoom) reported on licensed facility inspections. Behavioral Health Director)anice Garceau (via Zoom) reported on the measurements to promote well-being through behavioral health and community support programs. County Forester Ed Keith and Fire Adapted Communities Coordinator Boone Zimmerlee (via Zoom) reported on sustaining natural resources and air and water quality in balance with other community needs with the goal of maintaining or increasing the number of communities participating in the Firewise USA program. Solid Waste Director Chad Centola and Management Analyst Sue Monette (via Zoom) presented on the measurement to work with solid waste service providers to increase the diversion rate and collect more recyclables. Mr. Centola noted the large increase in collecting yard debris. Mr. Centola reported on the 2022 FireFree days from the end of April through the beginning of June. County Legal Counsel Dave Doyle reported on the legal department's services BOCC MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2022 PAGE 6 OF 8 provided through the continued COVID19 pandemic crisis responses and community health recovery. Commissioner Adair requested the department's measurements are monitored to ensure they are meeting the goals of 98% prior to the next quarter in case there is a need to address. 13.Discussion and review of Draft FY 2023 County Goals and Objectives Deputy County Administrator Whitney Hale introduced the discussion and presented the draft goals and objectives for review. The Board made recommendations for revision. Commissioner Chang feels there is need for more review prior to approval. Ms. Hale will revise the document and present it for further review. OTHER ITEMS: • Commissioner DeBone acknowledged the Deschutes Basin Board of Control has requested consideration of a drought declaration. • Commissioner Chang reported on his experience at the NACO Legislative Session in Washington DC last week. • Deputy County Administrator Whitney Hale presented a draft letter of support from La Pine Community Health Center to submit application for a funding opportunity with Cow Creek Umpqua Indian Foundation. CHANG: Move approval of Board Signature on letter of support DEBONE: Second VOTE: CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried BOCC MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2022 PAGE 7 OF 8 RECESS: At the time of 12:10 p.m. the Board went into Recess and reconvened the meeting at 12:15 p.m. EXECUTIVE SESSION: At the time of 12:15 p.m. the Board went into Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (d) Labor Negotiations. The Board came out of Executive Session at 1:15 p.m. At the time of 1:15 p.m., the Board went into Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Real Property Negotiations. The Board came out of Executive Session at 2:20 p.m. to direct staff to proceed as discussed. f Being no business brought before the Commissioners, the meeting was adjourned at 2:20 pm. DATED this Day of 6A2022 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. PATTI A®AIR, CHAIR AkTHONY DEBONEF VICE CHAIR BOCC MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2022 PAGE 8 OF 8 \)T ES COG�� BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING 9:00 AM, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2022 Barnes Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Bldg - 1300 NW Wall St - Bend (541) 388-6570 1 www.deschutes.org MEETING FORMAT: The Oregon legislature passed House Bill (HB) 2560, which requires that public meetings be accessible remotely, effective on January 1, 2022, with the exception of executive sessions. Public bodies must provide the public an opportunity to access and attend public meetings by phone, video, or other virtual means. Additionally, when in -person testimony, either oral or written is allowed at the meeting, then testimony must also be allowed electronically via, phone, video, email, or other electronic/virtual means. Attendance/Participation options are described above. Members of the public may still view the BOCC meetings/hearings in real time via the Public Meeting Portal at www.deschutes.org/meetings Citizen Input: Citizen Input is invited in order to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on any meeting topic that is not on the current agenda. Citizen Input is provided by submitting an email to: citizeninput@deschutes.org or by leaving a voice message at 541-385- 1734. Citizen input received by noon on Tuesday will be included in the Citizen Input meeting record for topics that are not included on the Wednesday agenda. Zoom Meeting Information: Staff and citizens that are presenting agenda items to the Board for consideration or who are planning to testify in a scheduled public hearing may participate via Zoom meeting. The Zoom meeting id and password will be included in either the public hearing materials or through a meeting invite once your agenda item has been included on the agenda. Upon entering the Zoom meeting, you will automatically be placed on hold and in the waiting room. Once you are ready to present your agenda item, you will be unmuted and placed in the spotlight for your presentation. If you are providing testimony during a hearing, you will be placed in the waiting room until the time of testimony, staff will announce your name and unmute your connection to be invited for testimony. Detailed instructions will be included in the public hearing materials and will be announced at the outset of the public hearing. For Public Hearings, the link to the Zoom meeting will be posted in the Public Hearing Notice as well as posted on the Deschutes County website at https://www.deschutes.org/bcc/page/public- hearing-notices. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZEN INPUT: Citizen Input may be provided as comment on any topic that is not on the agenda. Note: In addition to the option of providing in -person comments at the meeting, citizen input comments may be emailed to citizeninput@deschutes.org or you may leave a brief voicemail at 541.385.1734. To be timely, citizen input must be received by noon on Tuesday in order to be included in the meeting record. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Consideration of Resolution No. 2022-014, Increasing Transfers Out from the Community Justice Juvenile fund within the 2021-2022 Deschutes County Budget. 2. Consideration of Resolution No. 2022-016 Extending 0.9 Limited Duration FTE within the District Attorney's Office. 3. Approval of Minutes of the January 20 2022 BOCC Retreat 4. Approval of Minutes of the February 2 2022 BOCC Meeting 5. Approval of Minutes of the February 9 2022 BOCC Meeting ACTION ITEMS 6. 9:05 AM PUBLIC HEARING -Consideration of Order No 2022-005, Surrendering Jurisdiction of Portions of NW Pershall Way, NW 10th Street, and SW Helmholtz Way to the City of Redmond 7. 9:25 AM Request approval to apply for Oregon Health Authority Mental Health block grant funds. 8. 9:35 AM Consideration of Board approval and signature of Telecare Mental Health Service of Oregon, Inc., Document Number 2022-017. 9. 9:45 AM Consideration of Board Signature of Premise Health Agreement, Document No. 2022-057 for DOC Health Center 10. 10:00 AM Consideration of Board Signature of Premise Health Service Agreements, Document No. 2022-058 for DOC Pharmacy 11. 10:15 AM Board consideration of whether to hear an appeal of a Hearings Officer Decision regarding Forest Zone Template Dwelling 12. 10:30 AM Department Performance Measure Updates for Q2 February 23, 2022 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 2 of 3 13. 11:00 AM Discussion and review of Draft FY 2023 County Goals and Objectives OTHER ITEMS These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners wish to discuss as part of the meeting, pursuant to ORS 192.640. EXECUTIVE SESSION At any time during the meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations, ORS 192.660(2)(b), personnel issues, or other executive session categories. Executive sessions are closed to the public, however, with few exceptions and under specific guidelines, are open to the media. 14. Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (d) Labor Negotiations 15. Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Real Property Negotiations ADJOURN Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities. If you need accommodations to make participation possible, please call (541) 617-4747. February 23, 2022 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 3 of 3 Dear commissioners, Over 200 of our neighbors have expressed their frustration about not getting responses from the county regarding the design of Hunnell Road. Some of them are in the back of this room and many more wanted to come, but the room would have been too crowded. The previous three speakers have covered the extent of our frustrations and lack of responses. As a result, the HUNS are requesting an open special meeting with commissioners and Chis Doty to get some answers. We are your constituents. Please do not ignore our remaining requests and concerns regarding Hunnell Road. This is a defining moment to preserve a special area and community and prevent Hunnell Road from becoming another Old Bend Redmond highway. Michel Bayard President of the HUNS i 4-'1- Z.-t,4-,.. I t�—f� Carol Martin From: Deschutes County Oregon <donotreply@deschutes.org> Sent: Monday, February 21, 2022 2:27 PM To: Board Subject: Form submission from: Contact Deschutes County ****AUTOMATED EMAIL - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY**** You have an incoming Comment or Question from the County's Website (Deschutes.org). Submitted on: Monday, February 21, 2022 - 2:26pm The following was submitted: Department to Contact Board of County Commissioners Subject Three minute comment to Commissioners Your Message On Wednesday the 23 rd I would appreciate three minutes to address the Commessioners Name Thomas D Andrade Email Address tdandrade@msn.com Phone Number 541 728 8178 ****AUTOMATED EMAIL - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY**** 1 Deschutes County Commissioners February 23, 2022 Good morning Commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to speak and I'd like to also thank our Hunnell United Neighbors that are here to support and listen to our conversation with you. My name is Tom Andrade and my family and I have lived on Hunnell Road since July of 1987. Each of you has a copy of a letter sent on November 22, 2020. It is highlighted to draw your attention to specific issues presented at that time. Those issues remain the same today as they did in November of 2020, our inquiry was never answered. In 1996 Deschutes County conducted a poll to assess public opinion regarding rural road construction and maintenance. I suspect this poll was a preamble to the Transportation System Plan (TSP) that was to be presented to the County Commissioners in 1998. Hunnell Road landowners were never asked or contacted to participate. Yet, the poll does shed light on two important issues those are; ➢ Increasing rural road improvement projects ➢ And the specifics of those projects. The polling participants agreed on the following: ➢ They supported rural road improvement projects. ➢ And agreed that they wanted rural roads to remain as rural roads. That is significant, and translates to retaining curves, ups and downs and thus is intended to limit both speed and traffic volumes by keeping roads local. Moving forward; in 1998 the commissioners reviewed the new TSP, conducted a hearing and approved the plan. As near as we can tell there was no notification sent to any affected Hunnell Road landowners. And yet at that hearing the commissioners must have approved the plan to upgrade Hunnell Road to a "Collector" How does that fit with "keep rural roads local?" Considering the proposed impacts on Hunnell Road property owners as result of the 1998 hearing and the decision, wouldn't the lack of attendance and testimony from Hunnell Road property owners trigger an inquiry as to why Hunnell landowners did not testify or more importantly, were not even present. Was there no consideration of the irretrievable and irreversible consequences of this hearing and the decisions that were made without any testimony from our neighbors, those most affected by the hearing and subsequent decision? In light of the 1996 poll how and why would a decision be made to make Hunnell into a collector? Was there no consideration to just solve the most pressing problem by paving the dirt portion? And why did it take over 20 years to get around to paving a high use, dangerous section of the road? My wife and I specifically asked for copies of any testimony presented to the Commissioners at the 1998 hearing. (Page 1 line 17) That request has gone unanswered. In closing I need to stress the lack of public involvement and participation of Hunnell Road landowners throughout the entire project. Please consider the following; when Cody Smith sent a letter to Hunnell Road property owners in February of 2020 advising that survey personnel would soon be in our community working. The response was immediate. We called, wrote, organized, asked for meetings, all in a collaborative effort to both understand what was planned and to try to work with the county to mitigate the pending impacts to all of us. conclude by stating that if any of us had been notified along any of the afore mentioned decision timelines you can bet we would have been involved. But we were never notified! I yield to the next speaker, Dennis Gant. Rocking K-T Ranch LLC 64715 Hunnell Rd. Bend, Oregon 97703 To: Deschutes County Commissioners 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, Oregon 97703 Subject: Proposed Hunnell Road Improvements Date: November 27th, 2020 Part i Thank you for your service to the citizens of Deschutes County. My name is Tom Andrade, my family and I have lived in Deschutes County on Hunnell Road since 1987. This is a two part letter; part 1) a summary, part 2) a list of facts, issues, agreements, concerns, suggestions and requests regarding the proposed improvements to Hunnell Road and associated other related county actions. To be clear, the Hunnell property owners were collectively caught off guard by Cody Smith's February letter advising us of survey crews working near our properties to initiate a major road improvement project. Since then we have organized and continued to work with road department personnel and elected officials to ease the impact on our neighborhood. Progress has been made in the form of four requested changes to the original plan; specifically the addition of traffic calming devices, "no through trucks," a three way stop at Rogers and Hunnell Roads, and the elimination of a left turn land at the junction of Tumalo and Hunnell Roads. This is a positive start and appreciated. My family and I are grateful for the inclusion of those four requests. Even so, we remain opposed to the planned improvements to Hunnell road and the irreversible and irretrievable consequences of the overall project. Most recently Chris Doty has changed the original concept of a "neighborhood collector" to that of a "connector" between Cooley and Tumalo Roads, our worst fears. Hunnell Road is the last quiet, safe road in the area, sandwiched between Hwy 97 and Old Bend Redmond Highways. As such the road attracts numerous day users, walking, jogging, bicycling, horse riding, and dog walking. It serves the general area population and is not limited to those of us that live here. This unique and safe environment needs to be protected. Our requests: • Keep Hunnell Road as a neighborhood road. • Make improvements consistent with a neighborhood. • Keep the alignment of any improvements in the current right of way. • Draft a plan that graphically meets the standards of a neighborhood road. • Maintain the three 90 degree turns that currently exist with minimal improvements. • Hit the pause button until Hwy 97 realignment, Hwy 20, and Old Bend Redmond Hwy improvement projects are complete. Use portions of the appropriated 4.6 million to solve higher priority work such as: (The following are simply items that from a birds eye view seem highly important) ➢ Work collaboratively with ODOT to design and construct a bypass to remove east and west bound truck traffic from 3rd street and Greenwood Avenue. ➢ Catch up with deferred road maintenance. ➢ Design and build frontage roads along Hwy 97. ➢ Design and build an east exit/ entrance to Juniper Ridge. In closing, thank you for listening. We would like to extend our appreciation to Commissioner DeBone for taking the time to visit our neighborhood. A special thanks to Commissioner Adair for meeting with our representatives, working well past normal hours, listening and being instrumental in encouraging significant changes to the original road design. And to Commissioner elect Chang for listening to our concerns and offering some initial thoughts. Collectively, you represent what governing should be. Sincerely Thomas and Karen Andrade CC: Chris Doty, Tom Anderson 1 2 3 4 Deschutes County Commissioners 5 November 27t", 2020 M 7 8 Rocking K-T Ranch LLC 64715 Hunnell Rd Bend, Oregon 97703 Part 2 The following is a compilation of issues, conversations, public meeting information, promises, facts, hearsay, a chronology of events and other details pertinent to the proposed improvement to Hunnell 9 Road. 10 My family and I along with the majority of our neighbors specifically moved to this Deschutes County 11 location due to the quiet, and safe neighborhood afforded by this special area. 12 A Deschutes County poll taken in 1996 found that rural Deschutes County landowners supported road 13 improvements but improvements that retained a neighborhood quality. 14 In 1998 the Deschutes County Commissioners held a public hearing that, among many other elements 15 identified Hunnell Road as a "collector." 16 How were affected Hunnell Road landowners notified? 17 '' What testimony to either support Hunnell Road as a "collector" or opposing the "collector" designation 18 was received by the commissioners during those 1998 hearings? (This is not a FOIA request, just a 19 question). 20 In 1998 was the county definition and standards of a "collector" different than it is today? 21 Upon receiving Cody Smith's letter alerting Hunnell Road landowners of surveying crews working in the 22 area, like many others, I called the number on the letter and left a message for Cody. He returned my 23 call quickly. Cody explained that he was alerting landowners regarding the survey crews and that the 24 improvement project to Hunnell had been in the TSP since 1998. Reacting to this new and disquieting 25 information I said, "This will lead to unsafe speeds." Cody replied, "Well then, you will be just like the 26 other roads in the county." I'm sure this was an attempt at humor, however, it begs the question, if we 27 agree that speed will become a problem what problem are we trying to fix? 28 Regarding speed, when citizens enter the Road Department Building one of the prominent features is a 29 barrel of "slow down" signs mounted on stakes. Question, would it not be prudent to design the road 30 project incorporating design engineering that maintains a safe speed? Why continue to proliferate 31 county roads with random "slow down "signs? 32 What is the current daily, vehicle count on Hunnell Road and what is the projected vehicle count at the 33 completion of the proposed project? 34 During the November 181h teleconference with the county road department, Chris Doty answered this 35 question by saying that: The 2040 projection identified 900 trips a day between Tumalo Rd. and Rogers 36 Rd. and 1,100 trips per day between Rogers Rd. and Loco Rd. And, if the number of trips approached 37 2,500 vehicles per day the county would have to take additional measures. This sort of staff work and 38 speculation is alarming to say the least. We are asking "What is the current traffic volume (both north 39 and south bound) and what is the projected traffic volume (again both north and south bound) at the 40 time of opening the new Hunnell Rd?" 41 Specifically what are the "additional measures" Chris is referring to? This also goes to the fact that the 42 county does not seem to have reliable projections of vehicle volumes that will be generated as a result 43 of Hunnell Road improvement project. 44 And if there are additional measures the county would incorporate if traffic volumes exceed 2,500 45 vehicles per day, why wait to fix the problem in a reactive manner? Or, in other words, "Close the barn 46 door after the cow has escaped!" 47 Speed limits are an issue. We have been told by Chris Doty that the improved road will be "posted" 35 48 mile an hour with signs and reactive speed indicators, but that, the Oregon Department of 49 Transportation is the certifying agency and they will determine the actual posted speed at a later date. 50 We need more than "at a later date." The fact that the road is being designed to support a 45 to 55 mile 51 an hour speed makes the probability of a 35 mile an hour speed limit very uncertain. The answer is 52 pretty simple; change the design to that of a 35 mile an hour road. 53 The county has recently incorporated traffic calming devices (islands), three way stop signs at Rogers 54 and Hunnell Roads, "no through truck traffic" and eliminated the left hand turn lane at Tumalo and 55 Hunnell Roads. What guarantees do we have that those elements will be built, stay in place, and not be 56 eliminated or changed as traffic volume increases? 57 Commissioner DeBone stated in an e-mail to Michel Bayard " I agree with the project and that the 58 project will stay in the existing right of way." I hope Commissioner DeBone is a man of his word and the 59 road will stay within the existing right of way. The most recent road templet identified at least three 60 locations where the proposed road will leave the existing right-of-way. 61 The three 90 degree turns that are currently part of the Hunnell Road alignment are considered 62 "dangerous" by county road managers. During the November 18th teleconference the county identified 63 four accidents that occurred along Hunnell Road, none of which occurred at one of the three 90 degree 64 turns. Why not retain the 90 degree turns as "traffic calming devices" by incorporating limited 65 improvements and sign them appropriately? 66 In my mind this project is like going from a skateboard to a Corvette in one step. Why not implement a 67 slower more thoughtful approach, one that will meet some of the county concerns and objectives but 68 also meet some of our concerns, particularly speed, volume and sense of community? Is there a 69 landscape architect on the design team? if there is not one, I suggest a deeper interdisciplinary 70 approach and seek the skills of a Landscape Architect that has experience developing community based 71 road systems. 72 in a teleconference with Robert Townsend (ODOT), Mr. Townsend stated that ODOT did not need 73 Hunnell Rd as a relief/ detour road during the highway 97 realignment, and that he considered Hunnell 74 Road as a "neighborhood road." 75 During the November 181" teleconference, Cody Smith referred to "a constant record of complaints at 76 the 90 degree turns. Is this record available for us to review? (Again this is not a FOIA request rather a 77 question asked in the spirit of cooperation so that we can better understand the issues the county road 78 department is attempting to fix.") Would "improving" and "signing" the 90 degree turns rather than 79 supering and radiusing them to a 45 /55 mph standard be a better answer and would limited 80 improvements solve the complaints the county has been receiving? 81 Mr. Doty, during the November teleconference, was asked; is the county considering continuing the 82 Hunnell Road improvement project north of Tumalo Road and eventually merging Hunnell Road into Old 83 Bend Redmond Highway?" He responded, "No, that portion of Hunnell Road will remain as a 84 "neighborhood road." Looking at an aerial photograph this extension of Hunnell Road improvements 85 seems like a logical next step, a step that would complete the irretrievable and irreversible 86 consequences of this proposed road improvement project. 87 We have heard that the proposed improvements are necessary to meet emergency response into the 88 Hunnell community. On the north end (Sunbeam north) we have had ambulance and fire engine 89 responses in the past from the Tumalo Station, minimal improvement would be gained by the proposed 90 project. 91 Responses to the southern portion can and should use Rogers's road (the highest concentrated 92 population in the Hunnell area.) Regardless, I challenge the notion that it takes a "collector" to improve 93 response time in any significant manner. 94 "Speed kills." 95 "Build a road and they will come." 96 "If it is not broken why fix it." 97 in closing my family and I positively acknowledge the most recent design changes, and thank all those 98 that contributed to those changes. We also support continued discussions, incorporation of both 99 physical and visual traffic calming design standards that are permanent and reliable. We also suggest 100 seeking the skills of a Landscape Architect experienced with community road design. 101 Thank you 102 103 Thomas and Karen Andrade ® Citizen Input can be given regarding any topic that is NOT on the agenda ® Public Testirnony can be given during Public Hearings only Topic of Input or Testimony: Bunnell Road Improvement Project Is this topic an item on today's agenda? 11;Z7 E]Yes (please see description of Citizen Input above) No Name Dennis R Gant Date: 2/23/2022 Address 64636 Hunnell Rd Bend, OR 97703 Phone #s 541-280-7032 E-mail address rnjm@bendbroadband.com THIS FORM IS TURNED IN TO RECORDING SECRETART BEFORE MEETING BEGINS Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony? X YesEl No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. February 22, 2022 From: Larry and Nancy Green 64727 Hunnell Rd. Bend, OR. 97703 To: Phil Chang, Patti Adair, Tony DeBone Deschutes County Commissioners Chris Doty, Director Deschutes County Road Department Cody Smith, PE, Deschutes County Road Department Subject: Proposed Hunnell Road Realignments of Ferns, Arthur, Cole, Green and Mishler Properties Greetings Board of County Commissioners, Mr. Doty, and Mr. Smith. My wife and I have. lived at our address on Hunnell Rd. for 25 years. We were shocked to receive letter correspondence dated March 4, 2020 from Harper Houf Peterson Righellis (HHPR) who have been contracted by Deschutes County to complete a survey for Hunnell Road for proposed roadway "improvements." Why did the County Road Department (CRD) not provide written notice and have public meetings for Hunnell Road residents communicating their intentions and proposed plans prior to engaging a private contractor? The survey letter was the first contact by CRD with the residents of Hunnell Rd. This shows a lack of transparency to residents. In fact, the CRD has continuously employed this method of deception when Mr. Doty in a KTVZ interview airing October 29, 2021 stated "the upgrade has been on the table since 1998, and part of serious discussions since 2012" when Hunnell Rd. was classified as a "Collector Arterial." To our surprise, there was NO input from the public. NO residents living along Hunnell Rd. at the time were provided knowledge of the meeting or legal notice posting. NO telephone communication attempted. NO correspondence sent via U.S. Postal or electronic delivery. In my March 2020 conversation with Mr. Smith, he stated only four properties would be impacted by the process of eminent domain (including ours) and only 8 - 10 power poles would be relocated. But my subsequent conversations with Mr. Smith revealed twelve properties are subject to eminent domain proceedings and according to Century Link (co- owner of the utility poles), approximately 125 poles will need to be relocated. His actions speak further of deception and lack of transparency. Here's another good example. A well recognized local weekly publication published "a public meeting being held this evening (Tuesday, June 14, 2011 from 6 pm - 8 pm) at which the County will outline the proposed Skyliners Road rebuild project. If you use Skyliners Road for ANYTHING (bike ride, run, roller ski, drive to Tumalo Falls or any of the other attractive options up the road) consider making your voice heard tonight at the William Miller Elementary School (the new school on Skyliners Road)." Regretfully, the residents of Hunnell Rd. did not receive this kind of informational notice from either the County road department or from a third party news source alerting residents of so-called "improvements." During our past warm weather weekend while working outside on my Hunnell property, I observed about 40+ folks walking -running (many with dogs), 15+ cyclists, four baby carriages pushed by young mothers, two sibling youngsters walking their off -leash cat, and two equestrians. The quiet solitude of this rural roadway will be lost if developed as proposed in the road department's conceptual plan. If Hunnell Rd. is developed as promulgated, the realignment supports speeding vehicle traffic. This cannot happen. Just a few days ago while walking, Nancy and I witnessed a vehicle speeding at least 65 mph northbound on Hunnell Rd. at the Sunbeam intersection! We were glad we hadn't turned the corner just a few feet away to walk home. If the road department's conceptual plans are fulfilled, our community's recreational resource will be lost. Yes, you will gain a highway but lose a community recreational and wildlife resource, one of the amenities that make Deschutes County a desirable place to live. Several residential subdivisions are forecast (proposed) near the Cooley Rd., Robal Rd. and Hunnell Rd. intersections. Residents in these proposed subdivisions would consider driving for outdoor recreation to nearby Riley Ranch or Sawyer Park on OB Riley Rd. or Pine Nursery, thereby increasing daily vehicle trips. If Hunnell Rd. is a recreational corridor with a 25 mph speed, they could leave their vehicles at home and utilize Hunnell Rd. for daily recreation, but that is only as long as Hunnell Rd. retains its current recreational and wildlife character. Increased speed = more deer kills. Founded in 2016, Protect Animal Migration's (PAM) message is simple. Mule deer habitats are shrinking into patches due to development and loss of cover. The deer are in danger of losing connectivity between their summer and winter habitats. When muleys migrate, mule deer/vehicle collisions are going to happen. Hunnell Rd. is a margin boundary of their migration corridor. But we can reduce the number of deer fatalities and make a difference. According to PAM, nearly 1,000 animal vehicle collisions per year occur in the Bend area. It's hard to put a number on the cost to the driver/insurance company, but one estimate is $6,584 per incident. Any reduction in animal/vehicle collisions is a win for both animals and the public. Now let's speak about the costs of this proposed project. Proposed conceptual plans now call for speed reduction islands and reactive speed signage in the $4,600,000 budget. This is good. However, plans call for straightening curves and making road elevation changes resulting in additional collateral costs. Preliminary estimates by Avion utility to realign road elevations of domestic and irrigation lines & meters are roughly $1,000,000. Moving utility poles involves many costly factors depending upon terrain, soil, rock, easements (existing & negotiated), distance between poles, and owner driveways. Estimates can range from $4,000 - $5,000 and up to $40,000 per pole. Furthermore, due to some of the above factors sometimes two poles are required to replace a single pole. Relocation of utility poles could easily add another $1,000,000 plus to the budget. Consequently, a more realistic cost budget should be $6,600,000. This still does not address eminent domain compensation to the affected land owners. That is a lot of money needlessly spent while keeping the existing curves, road elevations, rights -of -way will be half or less than your proposed budget. i believe revision of your current conceptual plan is necessary and beneficial to your eminent domain (condemnation) taking by reducing the aggregate taking area. I and Hunnell United Neighbors have repeatedly asked Hunnell Road be retained in your existing Right -of -Way (ROW). It is substantively important that you take our input in order to maintain our neighborhood - community roadway as a recreational and wildlife corridor because your existing conceptual plan is fast and dangerous. This recreational corridor roadway serves our neighborhood and community because local residents don't have to drive to a public park, thereby creating even more traffic on our roadways. In keeping Hunnell Rd. a low speed, 25 mph, for community recreation/wildlife corridor, it serves as a model for future generations and rural residential development. Based on my ROW and valuation experience, I strongly suggest the proposed realignment crossing the Swalley Canal ROW to Hunnell Rd. be moved north (please see attached plat) thereby taking a smaller portion of the northeast corner of the property across our roadway owned by Mishler Tax Lot 161233BO-00100 (64732 Hunnell Rd.), on Hunnell ROW and (east) across from Arthur's property and barn, Tax Lot 161233BO-01000 (20545 Pohaku Rd.) Your realignment plan for these two ninety -degree curves at Ferns Tax Lot 161228C0- 01600 (64815 Hunnell Rd.) and Cole Tax Lot 16123300-00204 (64786 Hunnell Rd.) will result in a broad curvilinear design that will allow greater vehicle speeds. A walker -jogger - cyclist gathering area has been suggested at the Pohaku Rd. realignment that certainly requires a cross -walk for safety because of the greater vehicle speeds from your realignment. I believe it will be extremely important communicating to a vehicle driver Hunnell Rd. is a neighborhood - community roadway and recreation/wildlife corridor. We have lived here 25 years and witness people powered recreationalists (walkers - and those with baby carriages, joggers, runners, cyclists, and equestrians) have historically equaled or outnumbered recorded vehicle traffic. By retaining the existing chicanes in their curvilinear design, along my property Green Tax Lot 161233BO-01100 (64727 Hunnell Rd.), it is an existing design feature reducing vehicle speeds to 25 mph, again communicating to the vehicle driver that Hunnell Rd. is a neighborhood - community roadway and recreation/wildlife corridor. This is especially important because at Andrade Tax Lot 161233BO-01200/01300 (64715 Hunnell Rd.) there is almost a one mile straight-away to the "rock pile," Sullivan Tax Lot 16123300-00907 (64415 Hunnell Rd. and others) in which drivers will certainly exceed the posted speed limit regardless of calming islands with interactive speed signage. And, beyond is another mile and a half to Rogers Rd. where vehicle drivers will certainly exceed your designated 35 mph speed limit. Several intersections at Sunbeam, Lowe and Harris are similar and certainly require a cross -walk for safety. That is why it is critical to inform vehicle drivers by road design at the north end of Hunnell Rd. to reduce speed and not step on the gas pedal. In closing, I look forward to our positive outcome and working to a final operative for the good of our neighborhood - community roadway and recreation/wildlife corridor. Thank you for your attention in this matter. The courtesy of your reply will be very much appreciated. Respectively submitted, �C ri`y a, Nifx Green. Sent via e-mail, 1st class postage, and personally delivered at BOC meeting. Suggested Realignment of Hunnell - Pohaku Rd. r. �lj -i P"', o 9AIr i .01,N12, 1, HOP- Carol Martin From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Mr. Gray, Carol Martin Friday, February 18, 2022 3:33 PM Todd Gray citizeninput RE: Citizen Input Request to Speak 2/23 Thank you for your email. As it was sent through the Citizen Input email address, it is not only shared with the County Commissioners but is also attached to the next meeting record where Citizen Input is a portion of the agenda and the item is not on the agenda. The meeting will be held in the Barnes Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Bldg - 1300 NW Wall St - Bend. At the meeting on February 23rd, the Citizen Input item is on the agenda for 9:OOam, immediately following the Pledge of Allegiance. Please make yourself known to the Board members at that time and you will have three minutes to speak. The link below provides access to the Public Meeting Portal for posted agendas and meetings of the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. xx-,vw.deschutes.eo-IRe.etim�s Carol Martin ( Administrative Assistant 1300 NW Wall Street I rend, Oregon 97703 Tel: (541 ) 388-6571 From: Todd Gray <TGray@meretehotels.com> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2022 1:49 PM To: citizeninput <citizeninput@deschutes.org> Subject: Citizen Input Request to Speak 2/23 Some people who received this message don't often get email from t�ia� a�uc�r� ichotclti�ci�ixa. L����a,w_h� 1itis i� m�portailt [Ir,X'11..RNAI:, MAIL] I am the Chief Financial Officer for Merete Hotel Management and Sycan B Corp. As you may be aware, we are active in the Bend community, having recently opened the Element Hotel and Holiday Inn Express respectively, and are preparing to break ground on a small commercial development adjacent to the Element. As a stakeholder, I would like to express my desire to speak in person at the meeting scheduled on February 23rd, 2022, as part of the Citizen Input Process. A few of the benefits of CPACE: CPACE provides funds that otherwise would have to be provided by traditional bank debt or investment capital. In practice, CPACE has the benefit of lowering the amount of investment capital required and increasing the potential overall return of a project. As a result, CPACE can literally move a project from one that does not pencil to a potentially profitable project. We have run various numbers on potential new projects, with and without CPACE, the estimates with CPACE demonstrated far superior returns than those without CPACE. • As develop across the Pacific Northwest. All things considered equal, a community that offers CPACE compared to one that doesn't have a distinct competitive advantage. Development dollars are going to flow into markets with CPACE compared to those without. • CPACE has successfully been implemented within several judications and communities. A good example of a successful CPACE program can be found within Clark County Washington. There is no need to reinvent the wheel with successful programs already operating. Time is of the essence, the economic impact of COVID is still a barrier to many new developments and with interest rates only increasing alternative financing sources are needed for new development activity. We are currently looking at another hotel project in Deschutes County, its marginal at best. With CPACE, the likelihood of moving forward only increase. or Todd Gray I CFO Merete Hotel Management Merete 840 Beltline Rd., Ste 2021 Springfield, OR 97477 tgray@meretehotels.com (mere t6hotels.com Hotel ^ Management 541-284-0609 1 Fax 541 746-2590 Are you submitting written documentsas part of testimony? U Yes L No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Sharon Keith From: Phil <'hollophil@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2022 4:36 PM To: citizeninput Subject: Simpson Avenue RFP Sonnepeople who received this message don't often get email from hollophil@gmail.Coin. L [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Do not confuse this letter with anot in my backyard' objection. This is not ar projects. You will not hear concerns about falling property values or higher cri the positive impact affordable housing has in neighborhoods and how a varie and vibrant community. While we understand what the County is trying to accomplish, I am shocked b that is behind the action. It would seem to me that the County should at the l contact the affected neighborhood association before launching an RFP to del the community and abuts numerous properties. The County's lack of citizens criteria that are listed in the RFP. None of the criteria even consider things likf open space, tree preservation or other characteristics that are important whe the only considerations are: A. Purchase Price B. Relevant experience demonstrating the ability to accomplish 1 C. Proposed Development Details, including number of affordabl D. Timeline to complete the proposed development. The request for proposal (RFP) unilaterally disregards the existing community developers and the county. The County has an important role to play in all of presented, you as commissioners have grossly missed the mark, as your apprc statewide planning goals, which is Citizen involvement. Instead, the County's ability for citizens to get involved. While the County may not believe what thl I would beg to differ, as the minute a local jurisdiction starts to contemplate L though RFP, they are engaged in planning activity and should take into consid including citizen involvement. A majority of the pre -proposal designs that were submitted are too isolating neighborhood. The scale - both size and density — creates an inherent segreg existing homes. These designs conjure powerful negative images of failed hOL problems with parking lots snuggled up against fence lines and buildings Loon We are asking Commissioners for agency in the process. We want Commissio ensure a fair and equitable process is followed. We want design criteria that community and neighborhoods rather than focusing on density and speed to '1 lil IAI QlilGl IJUIJ. 5) ;Protects the cornmunit) provisions to ensure afforc community. r 1 1 ilding the community and neighborhoods rather than focusing on density and speed to market. Specifically: 1 1 %JV.71G 1YV11117 503-707-2343 2 ability for citizens to get involved. While the County may not believe what they are engaging in is planning type activity, would beg to differ, as the minute a local jurisdiction starts to contemplate uses and development for property, even 1 1 �V1ES CO ®� G- t BOARD OF lka MEETING DATE: February 23, 2022 SUBJECT: Request approval to apply for Oregon Health Authority Mental Health block grant funds. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move approval to apply for Oregon Health Authority Mental Health block grant funds. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Oregon Health Authority received $3 million in stimulus funding through the American Rescue plan and 2020 COVID Relief Bill that increased mental health block grant funds, with 10% of Mental Health Block Grant Funds going to Early Assessment Support Alliance (EASA). Application can be made for stimulus funding up to $150,000, and funds must be used by 9/30/2025 for the purposes of addressing health care disparities by: • Help finding a vaccine • Help getting health care coverage • Help buying food • Help with rent • Help with employment • Addressing substance use disorders o Overdose prevention o Harm Reduction Deschutes County EASA, offers early intervention to young adult's ages 12-27 experiencing their first episode of psychosis in Deschutes Crook and Jefferson Counties. Spanning over 7,834 square miles, the EASA team conducts education, outreach, community visits and offers in clinic visits. Funding through EASA stimulus funds will be used to increase emergency shelter placements for young person experiencing their first episode of psychosis, promoting stabilization, reducing hospitalization and risk for acute care support. Additionally, stimulus funding will aid in addressing health care disparities by allowing flexible funding to purchase food, clothing, cell phones and technology to support treatment and providing alternative transportation options. Finally funding will be used to address the National Opioid crisis, through Harm Reduction Training for clinicians as well as procurement of Fentanyl Strips to assess for synthetic opioids prior to use; potentially saving lives through prevention. See budget below for a breakdown of activities across 3 years. Name Service 2023 2024 2025 Total Program Funds (1) Client Support $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $6,000 Fentanyl Test Strips (2) Harm Reduction $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $3,000 Rental Assistance (3) Client Support $1,750 $1,750 $1,750 $5,250 Emergency Lodging (4) Evaluation Services, Salary $35, 000 $3S,000 $35,000 $105,000 Training (5) Clinical Services $1S,000 $15,000 Admin (6) Indirect Costs $4,417 $6,083 $4,417 $14,917 TOTAL REQUEST $149,167 BUDGET IMPACTS: $149,167 revenue ATTENDANCE: Janice Garceau, Deputy Director, Behavioral Health Division Shannon Brister, Program Manager MEETING DATE: February 23, 2022 SUBJECT: Department Performance Measure Updates for Q2 BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: At the February 23 Board meeting, the departments will provide updates on progress made during Q2 on selected performance measures that fall under the County goal of Healthy People: Enhance and protect the health and well-being of communities and their residents. Additional information is available in the attached staff report. BUDGET IMPACTS: None ATTENDANCE: Laura Skundrick, Administrative Analyst Mission Statement: Enhancing the lives of citizens by delivering quality services in a cost-effective manner. Safe Communities: Protect the community through planning, preparedness, and delivery of coordinated services. Provide safe and secure communities through coordinated public safety and crisis management services. Reduce crime and recidivism through prevention, intervention, supervision and enforcement. Collaborate with partners to prepare for and respond to emergencies, natural hazards and disasters. Healthy People: Enhance and protect the health and well-being of communities and their residents. • Support and advance the health and safety of Deschutes County's residents. • Promote well-being through behavioral health and community support programs. Help to sustain natural resources and air and water quality in balance with other community needs. • Continue to support COVID-19 pandemic crisis response and community health recovery. Economic Vitality: Promote policies and actions that sustain and stimulate economic vitality. • Support affordable and transitional housing options for vulnerable populations through availability of lands, project planning, and appropriate regulation. • Administer land use policies that promote livability and economic opportunity. • Maintain a safe, efficient and economically sustainable transportation system. • Partner with organizations and manage County assets to attract business development, tourism, and recreation. • Support regional economic recovery from the COVID pandemic. Service Delivery: Provide solution -oriented service that is cost-effective and efficient. Ensure quality service delivery through the use of innovative technology and systems. Support and promote Deschutes County Customer Service "Every Time" standards. Promote community participation and engagement with County government. Preserve, expand and enhance capital assets, to ensure sufficient space for operational needs. Maintain strong fiscal practices to support short and long term county needs. Provide collaborative internal support for County operations. Date: February 23, 2022 To: Board of County Commissioners From: Laura Skundrick, Administrative Analyst Re: Department Performance Measure Updates for Q2 Departments have completed their Q2 performance measure updates. At the February 23 Board meeting, the departments will provide updates on progress made during Q2 on selected performance measures that fall under the County goal of Healthy People: Enhance and protect the health and well-being of communities and their residents. Objective: Support and advance the health and safety of Deschutes County's residents. Department: Health Services Performance Measure: Reduce outbreaks and spread of disease by completing 95% of communicable disease investigations within 10 days, as defined by the Oregon Health Authority. Target: 95% Q2 Update: 11/11 = 100% Department: Health Services Performance Measure: Reduce outbreaks and food -borne illness by inspecting a minimum of 95% of licensed facilities (e.g. restaurants, pools/spas/hotels, etc.) per state requirements. Target: 95% Q2 Update: 63/782 = 8%. Significant EH staff time continues to be spent on the COVID-19 response, including 591 business outreach calls this quarter (compared to 377 last qtr), responding to complaints (70 this quarter), and outbreak follow-up. The team is aiming to resume more normal inspection volume when safe to do so (e.g. Omicron surge). Objective: Promote well-being through behavioral health and community support programs. Department: Health Services Performance Measure: See Behavioral Health Oregon Health Plan clients within state timelines. Routine: within 1 week Target: 100% Q2 Update: 177/279 = 63%. Lower rate is due to vacancies/staffing shortages. Objective: Help to sustain natural resources and air and water quality in balance with other community needs Department: Natural Resources Performance Measure: Maintain or increase the number of communities participating in the Firewise USA Program. Q2 Update: Number of Firewise sites has increased to 52 from 42 by the end of December 2021. Department: Solid Waste Performance Measure: Work with solid waste service providers to increase the diversion rate and collect more recyclables than the average prior three year's 64,000 annual (16,000 per quarter) tons. Q2 Update: Just over 21.1 K tons of recycling material were diverted in Q1 2022 Quly to Sept 2021). The quarterly diversion numbers were positively impacted by yard debris and wood waste mulching, which typically runs higher in the summer months (data received by Solid Waste is delayed by one quarter). Objective: Continue to support COVID-19 pandemic crisis response and community health recovery. Department: Legal Performance Measure: The ongoing COVID-19 emergency has compelled Legal to develop and implement effective real time, 24/7 support, dependent upon internal staffing processes that ensure timely, comprehensive legal support. Q2 Update: Continuing 24/7 support of all things COVID continues. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS February 23, 2022 Dan Courtney Tribal Board Chairman and Chair of the Cow Creek Foundation Cow Creek Umpqua Indian Foundation 2371 NE Stephens Street Roseburg, Oregon 97470 Mr. Courtney, We enthusiastically support La Pine Community Health Center's (LCHC) request to Cow Creek Umpqua Indian Foundation for grant program funding to help support patient transportation needs. These funds will help enable LCHC to continue providing patient transportation to their clients. This service provides an important opportunity to support the health of LCHS clients who may not otherwise be able to access care at the clinic. Thank you for this opportunity to support the continued work of LCHC. Sincerely, DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Patti Adair, Chair Anthony DeBone, Vice -Chair Phil Chang, Commissioner 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, Oregon 97703 (541)388-6572 board@deschutes.org @www.deschutes.org