Loading...
2024-216-Minutes for Meeting June 05,2024 Recorded 7/26/2024E S cOG 2� BOAR® OF IM COMMISSIONERS 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon (541) 388-6570 • 9:00 AM Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2024-216 Steve Dennison, County Clerk Commissioners' .journal 07/26/2024 9:05:28 AM \yviES C�G2� IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIII III III III 2024-216 FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY WEDNESDAY June 5, 2024 Barnes Sawyer Rooms Live Streamed Video Present were Commissioners Patti Adair and Phil Chang. Also present were County Administrator Nick Lelack, Senior Assistant Legal Counsel Kim Riley and BOCC Executive Assistant Brenda Fritsvold. This meeting was audio and video recorded and can be accessed at the Deschutes County Meeting Portal webpage www.deschutes.org/meetings. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Adair called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. and noted the excused absence of Vice Chair DeBone. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZEN INPUT: • Richard Niederhof requested a conversation with the Commissioners regarding the proposed RV park on County -owned property at Fort Thompson Lane, saying that community members want to share their concerns about this proposal and seek the opportunity to present an environmentally -conscientious alternate use for the property. Commissioner Chang proposed scheduling a work session on this matter to enable a discussion when all three Commissioners are present. Noting this property is owned by Deschutes County, he agreed it should be used in a way that benefits all County residents, many of whom may want more trails and more campsites. He clarified that property tax funds were not used for the feasibility analysis conducted BOCC MEETING JUNE 5, 2024 PAGE 1 OF 6 last year and said it may be possible to develop a campground using grant funds and other revenues, with such a facility generating fees that would pay for its development over time. Chip Arthur said this proposal would impact the surrounding community. He shared that a community website documents available information on this matter as well as the community's questions and concerns, and asked that the County respond to these. Commissioner Chang spoke to the misperception that the County is trying to create a managed homeless camp at this location, saying that a campground at Fort Thompson Lane or on County -owned property in La Pine (Drafter Road) could help draw dispersed campers from federal land. While homeless people are one subset of dispersed campers, some of these campers are not homeless and they could afford to pay $35-$40 per night for a campsite. Adding that a market -rate campground would aid in maintaining sanitation for persons recreating in the County, he stressed that the possible development of a managed homeless camp is being explored in a separate process. Bruce Halperin did not understand the reason for the proposal to develop a recreational campground at Fort Thompson Lane and said this initiative appeared to be a means to meet other ends. Saying there are other parks and recreational facilities in proximity to the Fort Thompson Lane property, he questioned why the County thinks it needs to become a park provider, asked to know the justification for this proposal, and urged public discussion of this proposal if it is not abandoned. Gary Knight expressed doubt that the proposal to establish a campground at Fort Thompson Lane would be successful, saying the site lacks good access and any new access would have negative effects. He said while some County residents voluntarily clean up public property for free, homeless persons are not expected or made to do the same. Commissioner Adair shared that the next meeting of the Coordinated Houseless Response Office on June 20th will include a roundtable discussion of homeless encampments at China Hat. Jim Mills said while he maintains the road used to access the proposed campground, he has not received any information from the County on this proposal. He questioned why the County would enter the urban campground business and if doing so would be financially feasible, and suggested that the County host an evening meeting on this subject to enable attendance by persons who work during the day. Commissioner Chang responded that the feasibility study describes the current and projected demand for campgrounds in the County and also addresses the financial feasibility of adding campsites. He said Fort Thompson Lane would not be the access road if a campground was developed. BOCC MEETING JUNE 5, 2024 PAGE 2 OF 6 Kris Olson said this matter is about trust and the fact that some remarks appear to correlate the Fort Thomspon Lane property with a managed camp for homeless persons. He encouraged honesty and transparency, even in the face of opposition or other challenges. Commissioner Chang said while the proposed market rate campground could help draw dispersed campers such as "van lifers" out of the forest, this population is not the one the community is worried about. He added that fewer van lifers on BLM lands could improve the efficiency of service provision to homeless persons and better enable them to exit homelessness. Darrin Kelleher, representing the Groves Family Trust which owns a 40-acre parcel on Hunnell Road, spoke to efforts to rezone this property and subdivide it into four ten -acre parcels. He said because the campground feasibility study showed a collector road through the Groves property, which the property owner is adamantly opposed to, the plans to subdivide the property were immediately withdrawn. Responding that the legal counsel for this rezone proposal had indicated that the Trust wished to offer an easement across its property, Commissioner Chang said a campground with RV sites is an allowable conditional use on EFU-zoned land. Commissioner Adair said the County's RV park at the Fairgrounds is not usually full to capacity. jl,ff Ru,rgi� rorZ�rtorl that i 4e toured various areas where people are camping and did B, «u u not see higher -end RVs or camps with families and children; instead, he saw persons who were using drugs and/or had mental health issues. Commissioner Chang referred to areas off of Skyliner Road and the Cascade Lakes Highway and offered to tour these areas with Mr. Bergen. Paul Zaydoff said the Board's adopted goals include a safe community and healthy people, and a large campground would be incompatible with these goals since it would increase traffic and negatively affect property values. He supported leaving this property in its natural state rather than developing it. Alexander Tarnoff questioned the financial feasibility of the proposal, saying a campground would be expensive to develop and a poor economic decision. He noted that the report did not factor in debt service costs, although a campground could not likely be developed without financing. Commissioner Chang recounted his work to enhance recreational opportunities for the community through various efforts, including the considered allocation of Transient Room Tax revenues and his service on the Deschutes Trail Coalition. He said adequate, quality recreational facilities contribute to the quality of life in Deschutes County, and many County residents want paved pathways for walking and bicycling. BOCC MEETING JUNE 5, 2024 PAGE 3 OF 6 CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was Consideration of the Consent Agenda. Approval of Resolution No. 2024-032 authorizing a Partnership Agreement with Neighborlmpact for a US Environmental Protection Agency Community Change Grant Application 2. Approval of Board Order No. 2024-022 authorizing the Deschutes County Sheriffs Office to donate a vehicle to a nonprofit corporation CHANG: Move approval of the Consent Agenda as presented ADAIR: Second VOTE: CHANG: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried ACTION ITEMS: 3. Service Partner Annual Update - Upper Deschutes Watershed Council Jen Patterson, Strategic Initiatives Manager, introduced Kris Knight, Executive Director of the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council, who presented an update on the Watershed Council's projects and priorities. Commissioner Chang asked that the Watershed Council identify opportunities to research artificial or enhanced groundwater recharge, perhaps in conjunction with floodplain restoration projects. Saying that populated areas are growing and more groundwater permits will be needed, he supported mitigating groundwater consumption with enhanced groundwater recharge. 4. Oregon Criminal justice Commission Deflection Program grant funding and Resolution No. 2024-033 adding 1.0 FTE Deputy Sheriff, Corrections DCSO Business Manager Joe Brundage reminded that last week, the Board approved accepting the first half of funding of deflection program funding from the State. These funds will be used to develop and coordinate a program to offer alternatives such as expungement or dismissal to persons arrested for possessing a controlled substance. In lieu of arrest or prosecution, a person could instead receive treatment, recovery support services, housing, case management, and/or other services. BOCC MEETING JUNE S, 2024 PAGE 4 OF 6 Brundage said at this time, the Sheriffs Office seeks authorization to add one Deputy Sheriff in the Corrections division to coordinate this program, and further seeks Board approval to apply for the second half of deflection program funding. Commissioner Adair appreciated that the Sheriffs Office will manage this program. DCSO Captain Michael Shults commented on changes in the jail's population and the fact that the jail is already offering medication -assisted treatment. He said the new program will help people to not recommit. In response to Commissioner Chang, Captain Shults spoke to transferring the management of the deflection program from Behavioral Health to the Sheriffs Office, stressing that DCSO will closely coordinate with Health Services, the District Attorney's Office and other involved stakeholders to successfully implement this program. Commissioner Chang asked to receive regular updates as this program goes forward. Brundage said the new position is not limited duration as the Sheriffs Office expects this State funding to continue long-term. He added that the program coordinator will be in close contact with every law enforcement agency across the County as well as DCHS. CHANG: Move to authorize the application for the remaining annual funding for the Oregon Criminal justice Commission Deflection Program grant ADAIR: Second VOTE: CHANG: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried CHANG: Move to approval of Resolution No. 2024-033 adding 1.0 Deputy Sheriff, Corrections as of June 1, 2024 ADAIR: Second VOTE: CHANG: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 5. Order No. 2024-016 reappointing Pro -Tern judge Gregory Colvin Senior Assistant Legal Counsel Kimberly Riley said the appointment of the Pro-Tem Judge comes before the Board annually. The Pro-Tem Judge fills in during any absence ofJudge Fadeley. CHANG: Move approval of Board Order No. 2024-016 reappointing Pro-Tem BOCC MEETING JUNE 5, 2024 PAGE 5 OF 6 Judge Gregory Colvin ADAI R: Second VOTE: CHANG: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried OTHER ITEMS: Commissioner Chang attended the AOC-organized Commissioner exchange with Wasco and Clatsop counties last week, found it an extremely valuable experience, and was interested to discuss what may be involved when Deschutes County hosts. Commissioner Adair met with Deschutes National Forest Supervisor Holly Jewkes and PNW Regional Forester Jacqueline Buchanan regarding what the federal government can do to address problems arising from encampments in the China Hat area. Commissioner Chang reported on the State's wildfire hazard mapping effort, saying that these maps do not influence insurance coverage or premiums, which are driven by the insurance industry's own models and data. He said County staff have received the draft maps and are in the process of giving feedback to the State. EXECUTIVE SESSION: None ADJOURN: Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:13 am. DATED this day of 2024 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: RECORDING SECRETARY 4TTI AIR, CHAIR ANTHONY DEBONE, VICE CHAIR - ?-L" e�l� �1- PHIL CHANG, COMMISSIONER BOCC MEETING JUNE 5, 2024 PAGE 6 OF 6 v'� E S (,0 2� BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING 9:00 AM, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 5, 2024 Barnes Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Building - 1300 NW Wall Street - Bend (541) 388-6570 1 www.deschutes.org MEETING FORMAT: In accordance with Oregon state law, this meeting is open to the public and can be accessed and attended in person or remotely, with the exception of any executive session. Members of the public may view the meeting in real time via YouTube using this link: http://bit.ly/3mminzy. To attend the meeting virtually via Zoom, see below. Citizen Input: The public may comment on any topic that is not on the current agenda. Alternatively, comments may be submitted on any topic at any time by emailing citizeninput@deschutes.org or leaving a voice message at 541-385-1734. When in -person comment from the public is allowed at the meeting, public comment will also be allowed via computer, phone or other virtual means. Zoom Meeting Information: This meeting may be accessed via Zoom using a phone or computer. To join the meeting via Zoom from a computer, use this link: http://bit.ly/3h3ogdD. • To join by phone, call 253-215-8782 and enter webinar ID # 899 4635 9970 followed by the passcode 013510. • If joining by a browser, use the raise hand icon to indicate you would like to provide public comment, if and when allowed. If using a phone, press *9 to indicate you would like to speak and *6 to unmute yourself when you are called on. • When it is your turn to provide testimony, you will be promoted from an attendee to a panelist. You may experience a brief pause as your meeting status changes. Once you have joined as a panelist, you will be able to turn on your camera, if you would like to. 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, call (541) 388-6572 or email brenda.fritsvold@deschutes.org. Time estimates: The times listed on agenda items are estimates only. Generally, items will be heard in sequential order and items, including public hearings, may be heard before or after their listed times. 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.. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Resolution No. 2024-032 authorizing a Partnership Agreement with Neighborlmpact for a US Environmental Protection Agency Community Change Grant Application 2. Approval of Board Order No. 2024-022 authorizing the Deschutes County Sheriff's Office to donate a vehicle to a nonprofit corporation ACTION ITEMS 3. 9:15 AM Service Partner Annual Update - Upper Deschutes Watershed Council 4. 9:35 AM Oregon Criminal Justice Commission Deflection Program grant funding and Resolution No. 2024-033 adding 1.0 FTE Deputy Sheriff, Corrections 5. 9:50 AM Order No. 2024-016 reappointing Pro-Tem Judge Gregory Colvin 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. g oI•i" June 5, 2024 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 2 of 2 3 minutes is not acceptable to those of us who have spent many many hours reviewing this proposal and submitting detailed relevant analysis and opinions. We have much knowledge, experience and input that you should appreciate and listen to. This requires a DIALOG with the three of you, NOT just 3-minute monologs..... I suggest you listen to ALL OF US. AND RESPECT US. I am requesting a non -time limited meeting of all three of you county commissioners with those of us county residents who have or wish to ...no expect... response and discussion to our presented written and verbal concerns ... we expect a dialog, not a monolog. Please be aware of OUR current belief ...with strong verifiable evidence ...that you have to date proposed and CONTINUE TO develop a plan AS IF YOU WERE DEVELOPERS, NOT COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, and have done so COVERTLY. Major evidence ... why did you spend $100,000 of our money on the ECONorthwest analysis..AND SO FAR IGNORE ITS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS?? Also, as I am sure you have heard AND WILL HEAR TODAY from others, TO PROPOSE A COMMERCIAL CAMPGROUND SURROUNDED ON 3 SIDES BY QUALITY RESIDENCES AND FARMS, AND HAVE MADE NO EFFORT TO INVOLVE OR EVEN MAKE THEM AWARE OF THIS??? WOW. Deceit by omission?? Where is the principle of TRANSPARENCY in your government concerns? Okay, if you insist on functioning as developers and NOT stewards of the land, you must respect us county residents as the stakeholders, SHAREHOLDERS THROUGH OUR PAYING PROPERTY TAXES, as the true owners of this county land... NOT YOU. And as it is US who are and WILL BE footing the more than $21 million price tag, NOT YOU, Do you not agree it should be US to decide whether to invest OUR money in this development? And not just you??? So ... LISTEN TO AND FOLLOW THE FINDINGS AND CONCERNS FROM YOUR $100,000 STUDY ... AND TO US DESCHUTES COUNTY LAND SHAREHOLDERS Please ... INSTEAD ... Try Being STEWARDS of this land, NOT DEVELOPERS. To end on a possible positive note, I, as having 50+ plus years of varied professional forestry experience, would like to propose an environmentally conscientious alternative "use" for this over 3/4 of a square mile of almost undisturbed ancient juniper forest that lies in the so-called Golden Triangle.. I would like discuss this "alternative" when we have our DIALOG MEETING. TES �O BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING o { REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony C� �_ f el Subject: G-.. cd Date: ,� Namei_�� Address 14" z-, Phone #s E-mail address /f/4 e/t e In Favor ❑ Neutral/UndecidedPl�ppposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No If so, please give a copy'to the Recording Secretary for the record. elf i(4A SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS Su Na Ac `77 ie #s (5 ail address �`%-Iti1 1'k r i/ ' , n - - LA) �f Date: 7-5 Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes allo If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS r,-man aaaress v F- d , 4-- In Favor Neutral/Undecided❑ Opposed Submitting written documents as art of testimony? Yes KNo Subm g p If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS J-c�s c U� OG 2{ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: Date: f Name Address Phone #s fd E-mail addressKZ rGt, c d In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS a In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? R Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS fist, � June 4, 2024 Commissioners; I am here today to say I am confused and baffled by the Ft Thompson proposal. Since I only have three minutes, I will focus on just one of my confusions, why do we need a County owned park at Ft. Thompson? After listening to Commissioners at six meetings and reading many documents, the only reason 1 can decipher for needing a park is that it is necessary to get the actually desired campground facility through several legal barriers. The park appears to be just a tool to meet other ends. From the very beginning of the campground study, the target has not been dealing with recreation in the county, the focus has been totally on building campgrounds. Commissioner DeBone at six commission meetings consistently said he wants more market rate RV camping capacity throughout the county. He did not mention once the need for parks or recreational facilities. Commissioner Chang regularly talked about needing more campgrounds, especially to draw some dispersed campers out of nearby forests, but not the need for recreational facilities. After the ECONW study pointed out the difficulty of approving a campground at Ft Thompson, we start hearing him say we now need a county park. However, he says the only way to make the park financially viable, is to have a campground with it. After extensive researching, I can't find any support or documentation for needing a new recreational park at the Ft. Thompson site. The ECONW study does not speak to the need for a park or recreational facility anywhere in Deschutes County. The nearly completed Deschutes County 2040 Comprehensive Plan - the County's planning bible - has Goal 8, Recreation. The documentation supporting Goal 8 does not even list a parks or recreation deficiency as a community concern. One more way to look at this is we already have an abundance of recreational facilities near the Ft. Thompson property. About six miles to the southeast is Pine Nursery Park with a broad range of active facilities. Eight miles to the southwest is the new Riley Ranch Nature Reserve on the Deschutes River. Eleven miles to the northwest is the BLM's Maston Trail System with hiking, mountain biking, and horse trails in a setting similar to the Ft. Thompson lands, but it is vastly more scenic. My final concern is why the County thinks it needs to become a direct park provider? This is a very big change for the County. The County's own Comprehensive Plan states more than once that Deschutes County is not a recreation provider. When did the Commission make the conscious decision to get into the park business? What is the justification for the change? Does the Commission plan on creating a park and recreation department that makes our government bigger? Shouldn't this action be publicly discussed? To close, I hope the Commission will drop its attempt to develop a park with a campground at Ft. Thompson. Bruce Halperin 20655 Sunbeam Ln Bend, OR 97703 June 4, 2024 Commissioners; I am here today to say I am confused and baffled by the Ft Thompson proposal. Sin have three minutes, I will focus on just one of my confusions, why do we need a County Since I only park at Ft. Thompson? After listening to Commissioners at six meetings and readingma owned documents, the only reason 1 can decipher for needing a park is that it is necessaryt many actually desired campground facility through several legal barriers. The ark a to get the a tool to meet other ends. p appears to be just From the very beginning of the campground study, the target has not been dealingwith recreation in the county, the focus has been totally on buildingcam Commissioner DeBone at six commission meetings consistently said he wants more market rate RV campgrounds Commissioner camping capacity throughout the county. He did not mention once the need for parks or recreatio facilities. Commissioner Chang regularly talked about needingcampgrounds, especially to more cam nal draw some dispersed campers out of nearby forests, but not he need for recreation After the ECONW study pointed out the difficult of a al facilities. we start hearing him say we ,. nee� y approving a campground at Ft Thompson, county park the park financially viable, is to hay. However, he says the only way to make e a care Aground with it. After extensive researching, I can't find any support or documentation for needing a new recreational park at the Ft. Thompson site. The ECONW study does not speak to heneed f park or recreational facility anywhere in Deschutes County. The nearly completed Des or a chut County 2040 Comprehensive Plan - the County's planning bible - has Goal 8, Recreati es documentation supporting Goal 8 does not even list a parks or recreation deficiency °n. The community concern. y as a One more way to look at this is we already have an abundance of recreational facilities Ft. Thompson property. About six miles to the southeast is Pine Nursery Park with a broad near the range of active facilities. Eight miles to the southwest is the new Riley Ranch Nature Reserve the Deschutes River. Eleven miles to the northwest is the BLM's Maston Trail System ve on hiking, mountain biking, and horse trails in a setting similar to the Ft. Thompson la m with vastly more scenic. p lands, but it is My final concern is why the County thinks it needs to become a direct park provider? This is a very big change for the County. The County's own Comprehensive Plan states more than once that Deschutes County is not a recreation provider. When did the Commission make g conscious decision to get into the park business? What is the justification for the change? g Does the Commission plan on creating a park and recreation department that makes our government bigger? Shouldn't this action be publicly discussed? To close, I hope the Commission will drop its attempt to develop a park with a campground at Ft. Thompson. Bruce Halperin 20655 Sunbeam Ln Bend, OR 97703 June 4, 2024 Commissioners; I am here today to say I am confused and baffled by the Ft Thompson proposal. Since I only have three minutes, I will focus on just one of my confusions, why do we need a County owned park at Ft. Thompson? After listening to Commissioners at six meetings and reading many documents, the only reason I can decipher for needing a park is that it is necessary to get the actually desired campground facility through several legal barriers. The park appears to be just a tool to meet other ends. From the very beginning of the campground study, the target has not been dealing with recreation in the county, the focus has been totally on building campgrounds. Commissioner DeBone at six commission meetings consistently said he wants more market rate RV camping capacity throughout the county. He did not mention once the need for parks or recreational facilities. Commissioner Chang regularly talked about needing more campgrounds, especially to draw some dispersed campers out of nearby forests, but not the need for recreational facilities. After the ECONW study pointed out the difficulty of approving a campground at Ft Thompson, we start hearing him say we now need a county park. However, he says the only way to make the park financially viable, is to have a campground with it. After extensive researching, I can't find any support or documentation for needing a new recreational park at the Ft. Thompson site. The ECONW study does not speak to the need for a park or recreational facility anywhere in Deschutes County. The nearly completed Deschutes County 2040 Comprehensive Plan - the County's planning bible - has Goal 8, Recreation. The documentation supporting Goal 8 does not even list a parks or recreation deficiency as a community concern. One more way to look at this is we already have an abundance of recreational facilities near the Ft. Thompson property. About six miles to the southeast is Pine Nursery Park with a broad range of active facilities. Eight miles to the southwest is the new Riley Ranch Nature Reserve on the Deschutes River. Eleven miles to the northwest is the BLM's Maston Trail System with hiking, mountain biking, and horse trails in a setting similar to the Ft. Thompson lands, but it is vastly more scenic. My final concern is why the County thinks it needs to become a direct park provider? This is a very big change for the County. The County's own Comprehensive Plan states more than once that Deschutes County is not a recreation provider. When did the Commission make the conscious decision to get into the park business? What is the justification for the change? Does the Commission plan on creating a park and recreation department that makes our government bigger? Shouldn't this action be publicly discussed? To close, I hope the Commission will drop its attempt to develop a park with a campground at Ft. Thompson. Bruce Halperin 20655 Sunbeam Ln Bend, OR 97703 Jres c BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: c a." Date: ��- a Name ` K3 1 `mot *Vk V, Address `�) Phone #s SIC)— -y &- KA In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as art of testimony? Yes No Sub g P If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS Ken Chip Arthur 20545 Pohaku road Bend, OR 97703 info@i hu_nn_etl org 541-390-5614 I am Chip Arthur and I live at the corner of Pohaku and Hunnell Road. I am member of the Huns. I am responsible for the Hunnell.org web site and email notification processes that the Hunnell United Neighbors use to communicate quickly and efficiently. The commission's activities that involve a Fort Thompson RV Park and campground will impact our community members and as result I am documenting on the web site our members information to you and your responses. What I want from you, the commissioner, today is one very simple thing. I want the commissioners to ask their staff to answer the issues posed by three excellent submissions which were recently given to you in the past two weeks. Those submissions were from. a. Bruce Haperin b. Lindsay Wilcox c. Rich Niederhof These submissions are not the standard (Not in my backyard) statements. They were made by people that have extraordinary credentials, education and backgrounds. This is a simple request. It only requires the commissioners to ask staff to respond and I suspect it would be to the staff's benefit to meet with these three individuals. Those submissions were thoughtful expressions that raise serious questions that the Commissioners need to answer. Another item. I hate to use the term back peddling but last week Phil Chang attempted to re -state his position and as well as the commissioner's position on the Fort Thompson project regarding the elephant in the room `a homeless initiative'. I tried to get Goggle to translate it from the video and audio feed from the meeting so I could post to the web but no offense Phil, Google didn't go for it. So, if it is possible for staff to get that piece in digital form I think that information is important. Trying to find it on a video recording does not allow it to be easily found and evaluated. Tony Debone, I recently read you bio again and like that fact you have been a small business owner. As such you are keenly aware of how a salesperson must have a product that is competitive in its market. Have a beer tonight, Tony and pretend you are making the sales pitch for the Fort Thompson location to a RV prospect for a week's stay in Central Oregon. Against all that central Oregon has for competition in my view It will be a very hard sell. Please consider that fact when you might be spending your constituents tax dollars. That's it. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. MEETING DATE: June 5, 2024 SUBJECT: Service Partner Annual Update - Upper Deschutes Watershed Council RECOMMENDED MOTION: N/A BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: In FY24, the Board initiated a $20,000 video lottery fund grant to Upper Deschutes Watershed Council (UDWC), one of the County's service partner organizations. UDWC will present an annual update on their projects and priorities to the Board, recapping the last fiscal year as well as looking ahead to FY25. BUDGET IMPACTS: Service partner grants are made available through the Video Lottery Fund, which is supported by state lottery proceeds. This grant was budgeted for FY24. ATTENDANCE: Jen Patterson, Strategic Initiatives Manager Kris Knight, Executive Director, Upper Deschutes Watershed Council WR U U ct L 0 U) c)) LO C: 4- 0 m E a) (N 0 a U) C)-1.., 0- .> 4-j 0 0 Co Q- 4--J -0 0 C) N - E c 0 0 -0 (D m 0) 0 U) 0 cep 0 4-j C-) - Lro 0 0 0 0 U) a) -0 O ct C: :3 0) a) o 4� LO i a) 4-j 4-a :3 C: _0 c: m Ln -j ul Z 0 0 tA LLJ ce LLI 0- CL D — L-V Y # S L 46 A Lp U) (1) 0- C-) 70 a) (C) 0) 0) T- C: C: 0 M L- (a) CL 0 CY) C: (3) U) Ca C: n 0 0 U ) a) 0 0 0 E -0 m 0) -0 c: m N 0) 0 4 - 0 4� E =3 a) co C) 4- :3 0) 0 D M U- 0 LO C) r_ � —:1 m a) y>- N _ u- O 4-J N L N UO qt .� > a) a) m -0 C_ U a - > Ln U �O CO cii txo v •- 0 +' v 4- O a) E •> C O C L L y- O WU �- C ci N U i aJ U V) N a) 0 N a1 u f6 � Cf (Uf6 C ate+ L E a--� O CO it N Q a-J O O U v N CO N L Q% O N 'p E N i 4--J O L O Q — C O LJJ p C M E i=+ ,- O O VE 11A v C ca O U D v L N p t.L 4- � cv : — �= j L 4- U — p c� Oon :3 c^ V v z4-1 N L N N L v Q p c6 O z W v p L 0 C E— L O C J— 0 L O vi N � c O t1A � LL N C M O �O+ ; O a w® U® D D U Lu z A N O C N C N L E ® a� V a� U v CL LW iz v N -0 N •1J V > C Q. ® v LL O ?> QJ N - E {-' � C O Vr (D � OL (6 = � N cn ® Q U Y _ — m U 2 V' O— to Y (6 4-J cn ® fa C to ■ 0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ C c8 N I— ® � ® (A tJ C� N J m O � ® O O N u 0 N - 4— Q O E Co U : CZ O O O m ® o O U O a)ca � m > 00,E : U) LL � co m �, C a) co C r- U I I&P aA a 4 d J ,g f 4 tom.. .z��L- �'�s _ _ � �$' r•e � � :oil A� y sty _ t FIAT �! aim w Ali k aW I d�i 1. IS 'Is {� t fps 4 Al1 O; Ark nil? 81 I 1��,a Tual WA, p to Al } a74bi id _ Mot MIS F {`A.�. J e r 7 +i� �Ia , r t1 BUT, if 3,� RAJ 1, ✓L � di �F y` �o � • � v "4 "S �,kF, �i j .: R 5 � Q t £, mil t eft{E� � `� • � IN t &p� � -0 � : 0 4 -- 0 # � � ... ■ • �� ) ■ : \ _© / �$ d . * . •. d \ / •. • . « « ■< .? w « .. i .. . • -0 0 _0 c C: m 4-1 E 4-a 0 Co U) E -0 0 E 0 - U) :D M CL 0- E 0 + 00 U) + U) (D M C:) 1� o o cx U) =3 CIO 0) C 4-j 0 rME4 4-0 ;6 4-1 U -0 4-a U) UW L- a) E ID _0p c p-0 C: 4-a M C4/6 0 sn E _F 0 _0 x U) U) > E _1� c 0 M 0 0 CZ c- M M Co 0) 4-1 4-a CIO M 0 _0 (n _0 3a) U_ M 4;• WE x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 2 0 C- c0 f t Trvl `. f ^�. y v t 4^ Vr r k t Yl // WK y"'`av� ,. 1 •— �t'� � �N✓r r � 4 v �t�47i ^u' ANNUAL REPORT s / r v . GREETINGS WATERSHED SUPPORTERS! This past year, the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council led restoration efforts at two significant projects that really couldn't be more different. In the pages of our annual report, you will read about the restoration efforts we led at Riverbend Park and Whychus Canyon over this last year. There are some obvious differences in that one is a project in an urban setting and the other is located at a very remote location. One project is on public land that will be seen by thousands of local residents and tourists every year and the other is located on private land that only a couple hundred people might see annually. One project involved the placement of ten trees to create habitat along 1/3 of a mile of the Deschutes River while the other project involved the placement of more than 4,000 trees along 1.5 miles of Whychus Creek and its floodplain. One project has easy access and allowed for more than 600 students and community volunteers to participate in it while the other will have less than 100 volunteers participating because of the remote location and challenges with access. All that said, both projects are great examples of the different types of work we take on at the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council. We try to be thoughtful about the projects we are willing to tackle because, as a small organization, we can't do them all. We try to think about where we can not only get the "most bang for the buck" but also the most ecological uplift. Sometimes factors like the visibility of the site and opportunity for education play a role in deciding what projects to take on. At all of our projects we incorporate an education component. That can involve using the project as a classroom for students or as a stop for educational tours. it can also involve the monitoring work we do at various project sites that educates us about the value and benefits we are seeing from our restoration work or how we might consider modifying our approach for future work. Maintaining a philosophy that embraces learning, innovation, and adaptation is critically important in this field of restoring the health of our rivers and streams in Central Oregon. If you support this work and the way we go about doing it, please consider SCAN HERE making a tax-deductible donation. Before the end of the year, we are attempting to raise $200,000 in support of our organization and, through generous donations and ` _IeJ _ _` 1 ali J9P. �G aie rea_. �]� _ Ii 11 n h" "b`' " ""`� '-'' uy ' v"vuy iJ our goal: li you are vile of iiie many v"vino nave ^L� - already contributed this past year, we offer our sincere appreciation for supporting us to learn more as we look ahead to a new year of restoring our rivers and streams! and donate! Kris Knight Executive Director One of the core pieces of UDWC's mission involves long-term monitoring to assess the effectiveness of our restoration actions. This past year involved another year of stream temperature monitoring for the Deschutes River, Tumalo Creek, and Whychus Creek. UDWC has a 20+yearstream temperature datasetwhich is importantfor understanding stream conditions for native fish. it is also used for understandingtemperature changes overtime related to the diversion ofwaterfor irrigation and other uses, restoration ofstreamflow, and trends related to a changing climate. In addition to gathering this data, UDWC also conducts effectiveness monitoring to understand the benefits and effects of our habitat restoration efforts. This past year, we wrapped up the first phase of a study aimed at using remote sensing and on -the -ground measurements to understand the effects of floodplain restoration efforts in Whychus Creek. One outcome from that work for those wishing to take a deeper dive Volunteers and partner agency stoff support our into our monitoring efforts is a StoryMap that can be annual Stream Sampling Day on Whychus Creek. viewed by visiting the QR code below. Monitoring of our floodplain restoration projects in Whychus allows a better understanding of metrics such as depth to groundwater, length of primary and secondary stream channels, habitat diversity, stream temperature, velocity of stream flow, plant species present, amount and diversity of macroinvertebrates, and species and density of fish. Many valuable partners support these efforts by gathering data, offering time or equipment, or providing expertise and funding. Finally, we were once again thrilled to have the support from partner agency staff and community volunteers for our annual Stream Sampling Day on Whychus Creek! Around fifty volunteers came outthisyearto conduct macroinvertebrate sampling throughout sections of Whychus Creek, and our results from this community science event will be available to share in the coming year. Overall, we are excited by what we are learning from these monitoring efforts about how restoration is improving conditions and habitat for native fish in Whychus Creek and we look forward to continuing this learning in the years ahead! Our monitoring team along Whychus Creek conducting vegetation surveys. Photography/Karen Allen SCAN HERE for the Restoration StoryMap. Cover photography/Joe Kline, The Bulletin Above photography/Joe Rudolph, Wolf Water Resources One of the Whychus Canyon Preserve sites in which UDWC has employed new monitoring techniques to understand the effects of floodplain restoration. Creek. UDWC is grateful to BCI Contracting, Wolf Water Resources, and other contractors who Our stream restoration team, Casey and SCAN HERE worked with us to make this project a reality. We are particularly Mathias, at Rimrock Ranch this summer. grateful to our staff members Mathias Pede and Casey Schuder for ti� their tireless efforts this summer and the long days they spent making this project a success! Funding for ❑ this project comes from the Deschutes Land Trust, the Felton Round Butte Fund, the Oregon Department to learn about this of Forestry, the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the restoration project! U.S. Forest Service. Above photography/Joe Kline, The Bulletin As a part of our habitat restoration work, UDWC engaged several volunteers to support revegetotion efforts at the Rimrock Ranch site. Wa !!! 2% i AVa �.� 2 C W B t C& A4&& L id tit )&WY Our youth education program, The Upstream Project, and applying experiential teaching methodologies, we have is committed to working with k-12 students across Central Oregon been successful in reaching students from all backgrounds who to guide them to develop an informed and inspired sense of have a wide variety of learning styles and an even wider range of place and stewardship for our rivers and streams. We have been life interests. developing and refining our approach to watershed education for over 20 years and, through much practice and our own lessons [ewincd From +b,c reachcrs students we work with, L \. Sill II VIII ll ll; ll.Ul.l II�IJ a11U the JIUVCIitJ VVC work VV II , we have found that what works for one student does not always work for all students. Not all students are inspired by science. Not all children are compelled to create a watercolor painting of the swift -moving water in Whychlus Creek. However, as our goal is to inspire ALL students to find some connection to nature that is meaningful, we have learned to be creative and adaptable in order to be effective. By utilizing an interdisciplinary approach Highland Elementary School students learn about restoration efforts and the Oregon spotted frog at Ryan Ranch as a part of their Riverkeepers Storyline. Photography on this page / Martin Sundberg Spending thousands of hours alongside Central r1............ ., nH n;ith J '_t _ irlp-nt`, I--- taught us one thing: ALL kids will find something that lights them up when they have the chance to explore outside. When given the time and space to watch and listen, walk and explore, dig and find, and write and draw, all kids discover something in nature that sparks their imagination. A spark that lights up something inside them that they care about, something they want to know more about or look more closely at. This spark was evident this past year in the Highland Elementary students that we engaged as a part of their school -wide Riverkeepers Storyline, the several Hundred students from Elk Meadow, Caldera, W'estside Village, Pilot Butte Middle School, and others who came out to the Riverbend South restoration site to help with revegetation efforts, and the other hundreds of students we brought out to streamside locations all throughout Central Oregon to explore and learn about our incredible watershed. Thanks to support from individual community members, family foundations, and local businesses, we are able to raise funding for education that enables us to connect youth to the natural world and give them the chance to step out of the classroom and off the bus to develop a sense of stewardship for our rivers and streams. $10,000 AND UP+ Cosmic Depot Oregon Department of Fish r Delaski'Family Foundation Deschutes Brewery and Wildlife i Kellee Taylor EI Sancho Oregon, Department of Forestry i Michael Fisher Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board $5,000AND UP Gear Fix Pacific Power Ken and Ginger Harrison Timothy Ginger Felton Round Butte Fund David and Madie Rchenstein Sarah Haavind Portland General Electric ! Other Family Fund of the Oregon Karen Hearn Roundhouse Foundation Revenue Community Foundation Therese Kollerer Sunderland Foundation Event Loren Smith Martha Lussenhoo Trailhla7ars Fnnnrfatinn i Revenue 0.4% Contributions 6.7% Beverly Marlett U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service' $2,000 AND UP Ana Meyer U.S. Forest Service Kevin Archuleta Erik Lira Munoz Bend Park and Recreation District Curtis and Betsy Norsen HNI-KUND SUPPORTERS City of Bend Ouzel Outfitters Anabranch Solutions i Luno Care Camping' Fund of the Maret Pajutee Antioch Church Santa Barbara foundation David Pilz and Natasha Bellis Bend Park and Recreation District i Lynne Dorsey Sally Russell Car Stickers F Mt. Bachelor Lisa Seales Central Oregon Community College i Qorvo Shevlin Dental Center Children's Forest of Central Oregon Rutherford Giving Fund Steven Shropshire City of Sisters SOLV Energy Sunny Simpkins Common Ground `- . Bob and Joan Taylor Carolyn Spaniel Community Volunteers Family Fund of the Oregon I Sara Wiener Consulting Deschutes Land Trust Community Foundation Wolf Water Resources Eberhard's Dairy Products i Monitoring Visit Bend Free Range Equipment 6.9% $100 AND UNDER High Meadow Neighborhood General and t<T,fJ0 AND OR Amazon Smile Homeowners Administrative E.N. and M.E. Bowerman Lee August Humm Kombucha 8.4% Education- Advised Fund of the Oregon Rika Ayotte Leave No Trace Fundraising 7.4i°' Community Foundation Benevity Community Impact Fund Market of Choice 2.3' Jayson Bowerman John Brune Newport Avenue Joanne and Nelson Mathews Craft Kitchen and Brewery Oregon Department of Fish Revenue Patagonia Bend Justin Curzi and Wildlife The Wonderful Company Marianne Denman Oregon State Parks State Grants $794,550 Richard Wright Dori Eider Parallel 44 Presents Non -Government Grants $521,728 Jeremy Fox Patagonia Bend t Federal Grants $732,371 ,ZOO AND LIP Patricia Green ' Peter Cohen and Gloria Chenoweth Contributions $168,906 Bill and Tracey Anthony Alan Holzman' Pole Creek Ranch ` Bleu Rooster Kellie Jensen Portland General Electric Other Revenue $297,826 Peter Cohen and Gloria Chenoweth Michael Mawdsley Project Bike Event Revenue $10,763 Deli Incorporated Kristine and George McConnell Qorvo Pamela DIDente Jan McGowan Nonprofit Consulting Real Page Total Revenue $2,526,144 Ebersold Distribution, Inc. Cheryl Morgen REI Janie Hayden Sage Murray and Stacy Butler River's Place EXIJenS2S Michael Lattig Megan Marie Myers Art Rugged Thread ` f Educations* $176,897 Sandra and Ron Linder Powder Day, LLC Safeway Century Drive Lubbesmever Art Studio Timothv Reardon Sisters Bakery Restoration $1,804,157 Mountain Supply of Oregon Paul Riedmiller Sisters Coffee i Monitoring $164,841 Chuck and Debbie Newport ` Bruce Ronning Sparrow Bakery Fundraising $55,196 Dennis Oliphant Maille Ryan Stand on Liquid General/Administrative $202,021 OXO International Erica Swantek Photography Strictly Organic Joanne Richter and Sara Wiener Jamie Walden -Mather Sun Country Tours \VUIIUfIVIIJC Roundhouse Foundation, : Tl tllla l(1 l:l f�Yk t Tn4al Frnonccc ]] ,�"'f+r�.r C? An.1441 Yr].�fv�]] •r I Sensible Audio Solutions GRANT FUNDE S U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - U.S. Charitable Gift Trust Bend Park andRecreation District Partners for Fish and Wildlife Net Income ' $123,032 j Bend Sustaind iiiiiy Fund, U.S. Forest Service "Donors listed are from December1, a project of Visit Bend West Coast Provisions i "A significant portion of funding for our education programming 2022 to November 15,2023 Bonneville EnvlronmentafFoundation Zen Art Ink Studios , i -comes from individual contributions and community support.