The URL can be used to link to this page

2025-111-Minutes for Meeting February 12,2025 Recorded 4/17/2025v1 ES COG2< BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon (541) 388-6570 Recorded in Deschutes County OJ2025-111 Steve Dennison, County Clerk Commissioners' Journal 04/17/2025 4:31:02 PM - 2025-111 BOCC MEETING MINUTES 9:00 AM WEDNESDAY February 12, 2025 Barnes Sawyer Rooms Live Streamed Video Present were Commissioners Anthony DeBone, Patti Adair and Phil Chang. Also present were County Administrator Nick Lelack; Senior Assistant County 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 DeBone called the meeting to order at 9:00 am. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZEN INPUT: • Greg Bryant said a community plan for the Deschutes River Woods (DRW) area is long overdue, given DRW's size and growth over the last 30 years. Noting that changing this area's designation to an unincorporated community would clear a hurdle for the County to develop a community plan for it, he indicated that he will make this request of the Planning Commission at its meeting tomorrow evening. Commissioner Chang asked if County Legal Counsel and CDD staff can look into changing this designation as requested. • Emily B (no last name given) said the Board's decision to disband the County's DEIA committee demonstrates indifference to many members of the community. BOCC MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2025 PAGE 1 OF 13 Adding that people such as herself who work in healthcare see the need for DEIA efforts, she said the Board's action appeared to be rushed and undermines trust in the civic process. She asked when residents can expect the County to address the disparities identified in the work of this committee. Commissioner DeBone said the County is an Equal Employment Opportunity employer, and serves all. He spoke to the culture of the organization and said he wants everyone to work together. Commissioner Adair agreed that many laws protecting equal rights have been in effect for decades. She believed the County cares about its employees and culture and that it offers a good place to work. Commissioner Chang said while the Civil Rights Act and EEO have been in place for many years, the County's DEIA committee identified deficiencies in the way that services are extended to or accessible by all members of the community. Commissioner DeBone suggested that the Board review a list of specific disparities at a future meeting. With regard to the State's Wildfire Hazard Map, Commissioner Adair said her property has been designated as high risk along with that of many others. Noting that the insurance coverage limit of the Oregon FAIR plan is $600,000, she said property owners are very concerned, especially as their homes are their main asset. Referring to the presence of many concerned citizens at today's Board meeting, she supported allowing them to speak to this matter. Commissioner Chang said there is a tremendous amount of misunderstanding about what the Wildfire Hazard Map will do and will not do. Saying that he is focused on what will protect Deschutes County homeowners from losing their houses in a fire, he viewed efforts to try to make the Wildfire Hazard Map go away as a distraction from the work needed to protect homes. Commissioner DeBone suggested amending today's meeting agenda to take item #13 before item #12. Commissioner Adair supported this change. CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was Consideration of the Consent Agenda Approval of Amendment #17 to intergovernmental agreement #180009 with the Oregon Health Authority for the funding of Public Health services 2. Approval of Document No. 2025-040, a Notice of Intent to Award a contract for the Negus Sand Shed project BOCC MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2025 PAGE 2 OF 13 3. Approval of Document No. 2025-020, a Notice of Intent to Award a contract for the Wilcox Ave Bridge #02171-03 & #02172-04 Removal project 4. Approval of Document No. 2025-036, a Notice of Intent to Award a contract for the Supply and Delivery of Asphalt Oil for Chip Seal 2025 operations 5. Approval of Document No. 2025-034, a Notice of Intent to Award a contract for the Supplying and Hauling of Crushed, Uncoated Rock for Chip Seal 2025 operations 6. Approval of Document No. 2025-038, a Notice of Intent to Award a contract for the Supply and Delivery of High Build High Performance Waterborne Traffic Line Paint 7. Approval of Board Order No. 2025-003 authorizing the Facilities Director and/or County Administrator approval and signature on budgeted costs for the Courthouse Expansion construction project 8. Consideration of Board Signature on letter reappointing Toni Williams, for service on the Deschutes County Planning Commission 9. Approval of the minutes of the January 31, 2025 Legislative Update meeting 10. Approval of the minutes of the January 22, 2025 BOCC meeting Commissioner DeBone acknowledged the change from using coated rock to uncoated rock for chip seal work and said in the past, the County has collaborated with other jurisdictions to jointly purchase traffic line paint which may have been done as a cost -saving measure. ADAIR: Move Board approval of Consent Agenda as presented CHANG: Second VOTE: ADAIR: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried ACTION ITEMS: 11. Historic Preservation Certified Local Government Grant -Request to Apply Tanya Saltzman, Senior Planner, explained that Historic Preservation grants are made available from the federal government as pass -through funds awarded by BOCC MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2025 PAGE 3 OF 13 the State. Saying that staff seeks authorization to apply for a grant of just under $9,000, she noted most of these funds would be used to send members of the County's Historic Landmarks Commission to the Oregon Heritage Conference. ADAIR: Move to authorize the application of a 2025-2026 Historic Preservation Certified Local Government grant CHANG: Second VOTE: ADAIR: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 13. Senate Bill 762 -Statewide Wildfire Hazard Map Information / Discussion Commissioner DeBone suggested sending a letter to the Legislature and/or Governor on this subject, saying he met with Governor Kotek on Monday and she indicated her understanding that this needs to be addressed. He further spoke with Senator)eff Golden about changing the map to designate the wildfire risk of broad areas instead of individual properties. Commissioner Chang said while he did not necessarily support the Wildfire Hazard Map, he viewed trying to make it go away as unhelpful and a distraction to the work that needs to be done. Commissioner Adair said many property owners have done what they need to do to create defensible space, yet the State says that does not matter in terms of the wildfire risk rating assigned to their property. She stressed that assigning a risk level to individual properties is detrimental to many property owners. Kyle Collins, Associate Planner, provided an overview of SB 762, saying this legislation required the assignment of a wildfire hazard classification to every property which falls within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). Properties in a WUI which are assigned a high wildfire hazard classification are subject to certain requirements relating to structure hardening (e.g., materials, screening, and fencing). In response to questions, Collins said R327 standards are already part of the Oregon Building Code—SB 762 expands where those standards apply. Commissioner Chang said no retrofitting would be required of existing structures unless a redevelopment was sought. BOCC MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2025 PAGE 4 OF 13 Responding to questions, Collins said Deschutes County re-evaluated its local wildfire hazard map five years ago to determine if it needed updating. He noted that the County's map is not a property by property designation, but instead done on a region by region basis which took factors such as topography and vegetation tin account. Commissioner Adair added that the County had recognized areas having irrigation pivots, which the State failed to do with the result that the Wildfire Hazard Map designates some irrigated areas or areas with sprinkler systems as high risk. Commissioner DeBone noted the County's conclusion that most of Deschutes County is at high risk for wildfire. Collins agreed that no area of the County is at low risk for fire, and most are at fairly high risk. Commissioner Chang spoke to public education efforts to increase awareness about wildfire risk and what can be done to reduce it. Noting that much of the land in the County is owned by the federal government and the State, he stressed the need to focus efforts on promoting fuels reduction on public land. Commissioner Chang referred to the work done by the Wildfire Mitigation Advisory Committee in 2019 and 2020 (WMAC Final Report), said the County cannot pretend there is less fire hazard than exists, and said because many properties not designated as high risk are in fact likely to be high risk, lowering the risk designation is not fair to those who are designated as high risk. Adding that any map which designates wildfire hazard risk is going to have boundaries between moderate hazard and high hazard areas, he said the most likely thing to catch someone's property on fire is their neighbor's property. Kevin Moriarty, County Forester, spoke to current programs and initiatives such as Project Wildfire which disseminate information on what people can do to help protect their properties. Commissioner DeBone said objections have been raised over properties being inconsistently rated, which leads to skepticism and distrust. Commissioner Adair said people are worried about their homes and insurance and whether they can sell their property if it's rated as high hazard. Adding that she is hearing of many homeowner policy cancellations, she supported a regional approach instead of an individual property approach. Commissioner Chang said the insurance industry has its own maps and models which it uses to consider extending coverage and premium costs. Adding that BOCC MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2025 PAGE 5 OF 13 coverage contractions and premium increases are primarily driven by events which incur large claims and losses, he agreed that property owners should be recognized for the work they do to reduce fuels and harden their homes. Commissioner DeBone noted that the State offers a process for those who want to appeal the wildfire hazard designation of their property. Commissioner Adair was concerned with how the Wildfire Hazard Map will affect the value of people's homes and noted that some homeowners have had insurance dropped or cannot get coverage. Commissioner DeBone summarized that because the Wildfire Hazard Map is a Statewide map authorized by the Legislature, the Board does not have the authority to change it. A break was announced at 10:12 am. The meeting resumed at 10:20 am. The Board invited members of the audience to speak to this matter. Ceta Kelley asked that the County oppose Section 8 of SB 762 as other counties have done or may do. She objected that individual properties have been identified as high hazard while neighboring properties are not and said this proves that the map is in error and was not developed according to true hazard risk. Adding that the process to appeal is complicated and costly, she said the map will decrease property values and reduce the sales value of many homes. Commissioner Chang reported that the majority of counties in the State have declined to protest the map. Keith Rockrow questioned the Wildfire Hazard Map's accuracy and said it does not provide any useful information that can help to successfully combat fires. Referring to his personal experience in professional firefighting and speaking to how fire behavior is predicted in the short term, he asked that the Board take a stand against Section 8 of SB 762 as Josephine, Douglas and Jackson counties have done. Commissioner Chang said historical data is used to predict the probability of fire ignition at any site in the County at any point in time. • Deborah Finck said while she did not disagree with SB 762 and concurred that property owners should take steps to protect their properties against fire, she took issue with the individual property level of the Wildfire Hazard Map as this BOCC MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2025 PAGE 6 OF 13 may make it difficult for property owners to obtain insurance at a reasonable cost, and could also negatively affect property values. • Tracey Pope said the map is flawed as evidenced by the fact that some areas show as moderate, yet others show as high risk even though some of the former areas have already been affected by fires. Adding that the map's designations affect insurance coverage, she asked how appropriate actions to reduce fuels and protect private property against fire will be documented and accounted for. Commissioner Chang said those who have properties designated as high risk will be prioritized for fuels reduction assistance if that's wanted. While he did not deny that people are experiencing premium increases or coverage contractions, he said that is not happening due to the State's Wildfire Hazard Map as insurance companies use their own proprietary models to make coverage and price decisions. He referred to a February, 2024 meeting of Project Wildfire where Andy Meeuwsen of Country Financial had addressed this: https://bit.ly/3DV1 YyN. • Charlie Masson said while nine acres of his ten -acre parcel are irrigated, his property was designated as high risk but his neighbor's property was designated as moderate risk. He asked to see the raw data/layers used to produce the map to ascertain its veracity. • Jayne Simmons supported repealing SB 762, including the Wildfire Hazard Map. Saying that no catastrophic wildfires happened in the'5Os and'60s as have occurred the last five years, she said in 2020, all fires except one were arson. Adding that many property owners have limbed trees, installed metal roofs and otherwise hardened their homes against fire, she said logging would help protect against wildfires. Commissioner Chang said SB 762 includes landscape resiliency funding, of which Deschutes County has received millions of dollars to reduce fuels on public land. • Judy Trego relayed that she spoke with a low-income person in Sisters who said her insurance premium has increased so much she now worries about losing her home. Trego suggested that the County prohibit the use of any map produced by the State to determine insurance rates. Commissioner Chang said anyone told by their insurance agent that coverage is being denied because of the Wildfire Hazard Map should report this to the State insurance commissioner. • Greg Bryant said fuels reduction must be a group effort since a fire on a neighboring property can affect adjacent properties. • Rich Harp objected that the map seems to target homeowners to take certain actions but does not address public lands. Saying that clear -cutting a half -mile around the city of La Pine would greatly reduce wildfire risk for many, he urged BOCC MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2025 PAGE 7 OF 13 working with the Forest Service to reduce fuels in areas that are not under private ownership. While he believed that insurance companies use their own data to set rates, he said anyone considering moving to La Pine or opening a business in La Pine would likely not do so because of the Wildfire Hazard Map. Commissioner DeBone said Mid -State Electric Co. is doing fuels reduction work. Commissioner Chang added that SB 762 places requirements on utility companies. Commissioner Adair said Congressman Bruce Westerman and Congressman Cliff Bentz are working to address fuels reduction on federal land, adding that she has been asked to be a part of a group helping to address this at the federal level. She agreed that USFS should allow logging on BLM land. Jim Lanzarotta said while it makes sense to reduce fuels on private properties, the government should offer incentives rather than swing a big stick. He spoke to the potential for tremendous negative consequences of a flawed Wildfire Hazard Map. Mitch Elstun said he will appeal the designation of his property as high wildfire risk and asked where reports of burn ban violations can be submitted. Commissioner Chang said most fires which damage property have escaped from burn piles. Jim Dunn requested that the Board oppose SB 762 and the map and said a flawed map diminishes the credibility of the State. Referring to photos of his property, he questioned why it was designated as high risk. He spoke to the large cost associated with some structure hardening materials such as cement siding and said higher residential densities could lead to more fires jumping from house to house. Commissioner Adair said applying "Universal Fire Shield Fire Coat #100" every seven or so years can help protect structures against fire. Gary Moss explained his business manages over 500 acres along Highway 20, and although they are required to irrigate, they had to find higher -cost insurance after their coverage was lost. He said while it's easy for the State to tell the private landowner what it must do, the BLM owns a great deal of land in the County which is not well -managed. Wayne Schmotzer said the data used to develop the map must be improved and asked that the Board stand up for residents who are being hurt by the Wildfire Hazard Map. BOCC MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2025 PAGE 8 OF 13 Cassy Larson recalled labor-intensive forestry in the 1970s, said logging is crucial, and was concerned that the Wildfire Hazard Map negatively affects property values. Mike Mitdall said while he agreed that reasonable fire standards must be met in terms of hardening private property, he asked that the County oppose SB 762 which amounts to an illegal overlay. Saying that one of the 72 properties in his subdivision is designated as moderate risk while all the others are high risk, he said the map doesn't make sense. Marla Gibson said sometimes fire departments respond to fires and do nothing because the fire is not large enough to make money. Adding that BLM firefighters will not go onto private property to fight a fire, she said local firefighters were not allowed to fight a fire at Smith Rock in 1996 because that property is owned by the State. Commissioner Chang said while he is concerned about the way the Wildfire Hazard Map classifies one property as high risk but an adjacent property as moderate risk, he did not think the solution is to classify fewer properties as high risk. He stressed the need to focus on what helps to reduce fire risk and agreed that work is needed to do the same on federal public lands. He supported looking into how the boundary issues are addressed and was concerned to hear that the appeals process is expensive for some people. Commissioner DeBone said the map should designate broad areas and not individual properties. Commissioner Adair said the Wildfire Hazard Map ruins the economic value of people's property. Saying the County must send a message to the State, she read text from a draft resolution which would request that the Governor and Legislature delay implementation of the map to allow for integration with private and public insurance companies. Commissioner DeBone stated his expectation that the State will take action on this matter. Commissioner Chang shared his willingness to support changes in the appeal process. Commissioner Adair concluded that the Wildfire Hazard Map is not needed. See page 11 for continued Board discussion of this matter. A lunch break was announced at 12:12 pm. The meeting resumed at 1:01 pm. BOCC MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2025 PAGE 9 OF 13 12. Public Hearing: Clear and Objective Housing Text Amendments Regarding Definitions, Dimensional Standards, and Accessory Uses Kyle Collins, Associate Planner, said in 2017, the State adopted regulations which require that local governments utilize clear and objective standards, criteria, and procedures when processing applications for housing projects. In 2023, the State expanded this requirement to unincorporated communities, non -resource lands and areas zoned for rural residential use, effective July 1, 2025. The public hearing was opened at 1:05 pm. Collins provided an overview of what constitutes "clear and objective" and said the County has worked since 2023 to modify sections of its Code which were previously not in compliance with this mandate. Staff proposes various changes, including to some definitions to address terms which contain ambiguous or contradictory language. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 9th, after which it voted unanimously to recommend approval of the revisions as presented. In response to Commissioner DeBone, Collins said many cities in Oregon have already made these kinds of changes to their Codes in compliance with the 2017 State mandate. Commissioner DeBone asked to know what an appeal process would look like. Collins said staff would revisit the changes if unintended consequences result. Collins reminded that staff anticipates returning to the Board later this year with the second batch of proposed changes to align with the State's requirement for these standards. There being no one who wished to provide testimony, the public hearing was closed at 1:40 pm. CHANG: Move to close the oral and written records and conduct deliberations at this time ADAIR: Second VOTE: ADAI R: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried Commissioner Adair asked about the change from using the term "single family dwelling" to "single unit dwelling." Collins explained that federal law prohibits housing definitions from referencing familial relations. BOCC MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2025 PAGE 10 OF 13 13. In response to discussion, Collins said the ordinance is not yet ready to be finalized. The Board was in concurrence to direct staff to return in two weeks with a draft ordinance for consideration of first reading. CHANG: Move to conclude deliberations on this matter and direct staff to prepare the appropriate documents for the Board's consideration ADAI R: Second VOTE: ADAIR: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried Continued discussion of Senate Bill 762 -Statewide Wildfire Hazard Map Commissioner Adair supported sending a strong message to the State by urging that it permanently delay the implementation of the Wildfire Hazard Map. Commissioner DeBone preferred that the map show broad areas rather than individual lots. He added that the State should extend the appeal period. Commissioner Chang said both incentives and requirements are needed to ensure that property owners establish defensible space. Commissioner Adair stated her agreement with a letter signed by Crook County and Jefferson County in September of 2024 on this subject and said SB 762 negatively affects property values. Commissioner Chang agreed that it is unfair to place fuels reduction and home hardening requirements on property owners without offering assistance to accomplish this work. He spoke to the need to allocate funds to such assistance and encouraged the development of an appropriate and effective funding formula. Noting that 78 Firewise communities are active in Deschutes County, Commissioner Adair said the wildfire hazard map does not help people who live here. Commissioner Chang said the map would spur property owners to take protective steps against fire. BOCC MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2025 PAGE 11 OF 13 OTHER ITEMS: Emily Horton, Public Health Program Manager, sought authorization to testify in support of SB 837, which would allow a broader range of volunteer services and allow deployment of volunteers outside of declared emergencies. Horton said in the event of an emergency, the County would call on its Medical Reserve Corps members to possibly deploy outside of Oregon if needed. Authorization is also needed to allow volunteers to conduct health screenings when warranted. In response to questions from Commissioners, Horton explained that ServOR is a Statewide volunteer pool database for deployments in various locations and for various reasons. The County would not pay for volunteers to be sent to other states. The County's Medical Reserve Corps currently has about 150 volunteers, most of whom are licensed. CHANG: Move to support prioritization of this bill at Level 2 support, and authorize Public Health staff to testify in support of it ADAIR: Second VOTE: ADAI R: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried Jen Patterson, Strategic Initiatives Manager, spoke to a possible Congressionally -directed spending request from the County and other partners for $1 million to supply furniture, equipment and fixtures for a proposed 15-bed child psychiatric facility in Redmond. Some funding commitments have already been made and other funds are being requested for the facility's construction and operations. ADAIR: Move Board approval of submitting a Congressionally -directed spending request for $1 million to supply furniture, equipment and fixtures for a 15-bed child psychiatric facility in Redmond CHANG: Second VOTE: ADAI R: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried Patterson relayed a request for a letter of support from the Terrebonne Sanitary District' for $2,750,000 in Community Initiated Project funding. The BOCC MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2025 PAGE 12 OF 13 Commissior,er s asked that Wastewater Manager Todd Cleveland draft a letter of support for the Board's consideration. Commissioner DeBone announced a CORE3 team tour of similar facilities in Denver next week, saying he may miss the Board's joint meeting with the Sunriver Service District which is scheduled for February 191" Commissioner Chang reported on the recent Wolf Depredation and Financial Compensation Committee meeting at which the committee recommended that the Board forward three applications from livestock producers regarding confirmed depredations in Crook County and involving requests for prevention work in Deschutes County (where these properties extend) to be forwarded to the State. Commissioner Chang reported on yesterday's SLED meeting, which he attended as an alternate. Commissioner Chang said after the Board agreed to designate HB 2024 as a priority 1 support, Commissioner Adair participated in an AOC Legislative Committee meeting where she voted that AOC oppose that bill. Saying this can be brought up during Friday's Legislative Update meeting to confirm the Board's position on this bill, Commissioner DeBone agreed that when the Board has taken a position on legislation, individual Commissioners who are serving as the representative of the Commission should support that position. EXECUTIVE SESSION: None ADJOURN: Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:23 pm. DATED thisday of 2025 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: RECORDING PHIL CHANG, C60MMISSIONER BOCC MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2025 PAGE 13 OF 13 vT ES c0 G2a BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING 9:00 AM, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2025 Barnes Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Building - 1300 NW Wall Street - Bend (541) 388-6570 1 www.deschutes.org AGENDA 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: The Board of Commissioners provides time during its public meetings for citizen input. This is an opportunity for citizens to communicate to the Commissioners on matters that are not otherwise on the agenda. Time is limited to 3 minutes. The Citizen Input platform is not available for and may not be utilized to communicate obscene or defamatory material. 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 1. Approval of Amendment #17 to intergovernmental agreement #180009 with the Oregon Health Authority for the funding of Public Health services 2. Approval of Document No. 2025-040, a Notice of Intent to Award a contract for the Negus Sand Shed project 3. Approval of Document No. 2025-020, a Notice of Intent to Award a contract for the Wilcox Ave Bridge #02171-03 & #02172-04 Removal project 4. Approval of Document No. 2025-036, a Notice of Intent to Award a contract for the Supply and Delivery of Asphalt Oil for Chip Seal 2025 operations 5. Approval of Document No. 2025-034, a Notice of Intent to Award a contract for the Supplying and Hauling of Crushed, Uncoated Rock for Chip Seal 2025 operations 6. Approval of Document No. 2025-038, a Notice of Intent to Award a contract for the Supply and Delivery of High Build High Performance Waterborne Traffic Line Paint 7. Approval of Board Order No. 2025-003 authorizing the Facilities Director and/or County Administrator approval and signature on budgeted costs for the Courthouse Expansion construction project 8. Consideration of Board Signature on letter reappointing Toni Williams, for service on the Deschutes County Planning Commission 9. Approval of the minutes of the January 31, 2025 Legislative Update meeting February 12, 2025 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 2 of 3 10. Approval of the minutes of the January 22, 2025 BOCC meeting ACTION ITEMS 11. 9:10 AM Historic Preservation Certified Local Government Grant - Request to Apply 12. 9:20 AM Public Hearing: Clear and Objective Housing Text Amendments Regarding Definitions, Dimensional Standards, and Accessory Uses 13. 10:20 AM Senate Bill 762 -Statewide Wildfire Hazard Map Information / Discussion 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) (e) Real Property Negotiations ADJOURN February 12, 2025 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 3 of 3 JrEs C BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING o � REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony ()AJ 7 V QP() -K G-9y J Subject: �° a Date: V E l t r J Name vY C Address RZo-2— (� CT cCS Phone #s �% tom ' S q �f E-mail address Out_ Pq 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 ; :Gregory Bryant y< r} ...' ` o y( l oh nnti�d,({':011-1 Su is sect: Re: Follow Up Da : , Jan 24, 2025 at 3:13:06 PM = William Groves �_ k cc: bryant_gregory@hotmail.com William, Here is my interpretation of 660-022-0020 Counties may amend these designations as circumstances change over time. 5) Site specific unincorporated community boundaries that are shown on an acknowledged plan map on 10/28/1994 are deemed to comply with subsections (2) and (3) of this rule unless the boundary includes land designated for farm or forest use that does not meet the criteria in section (4) of this rule. They did not think that only those on 10/28/1994 would be the only one, circumstances change overtime. On (5) site specific unincorporated community shown on map 10/28/1994 are deemed to comply, at that point in time. I am saying that at this point in time, Deschutes River Woods qualifies as an unincorporated community. We have the store, school, church, gravel pit and at least 1800 residential properties and a population of 5600. If you do not agree with my argument, I would like to sit down with you and discuss. Thank you on the time you have spent on this! Gregory Bryant Sent from my Pad t�J11T.li�� EM read the attached 1survey,993together reviewed confirm the DRW designation was limited to 5 acres in association with the gas station anc didn't cover any additional property. Em -11`I.p Will Groves I Planning Manager t� William Groves „It; 1, RE: Follow Up Jan 29, 2025 at 9:59:21 AM Gregory Bryant Greg, It may be theoretically possible to modify the Deschutes Store "Rural Service Center" designation to include other lands. The Division 22 rules contain, in my understanding, at best some ambiguities that might allow for this process. I can't rule it out. Further investigation into the legal/financial/politically viability of this possibility of this process goes beyond the scope of our informal email chats. I renew my recommendation that you participate in the upcoming CDD work plan hearings (Typically in March, TBD). You would advocate to the Planning Commission and Board that limited resources should be prioritized to investigating this project further. Let me know if you have additional questions. Thanks, M11 Will Groves I Planning Manager I CFM 117 NW Lafayette Ave I Bend, Oregon 97708 Tel: (541) 388-6518 1 Mail: PO Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708 Let us know how we're doing: Customer Feedback Survey Disclaimer. Please note that the information in this email is an informal statement made in accordance with DCC 22.20.005 and shall not be deemed to constitute final County action effecting a change in the status of a person's property or conferring any rights, including any reliance rights, on any person. From: Gregory Bryant <bryant_greg®ry@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2025 3:13 PM To: William Groves <William.Groves 9deschutes.org> Subject: Re: Follow Up Caution: External email to Deschutes County: If unexpected or unfamiliar, be cautious with links and attachments. Contact your IT Dept if unsure. William, Here is my interpretation of 660-022-0020 Counties may amend these designations as circumstances change over time. 5) Site specific unincorporated community boundaries that are shown on an acknowledged plan map on 10/28/1994 are deemed to comply with subsections (2) and (3) of this rule unless the boundary includes land designated for farm or forest use that does not meet the criteria in section (4) of this rule. They did not think that only those on 10/28/1994 would be the only one, circumstances change over time. On (5) site specific unincorporated community shown on map 10/28/1994 are deemed to comply, at that point in time. I am saying that at this point in time, Deschutes River Woods qualifies as an unincorporated community. We have the store, school, church, gravel pit and at least 1800 residential properties and a population of 5600. If you do not agree with my argument, I would like to sit down with you and discuss. Thank you on the time you have spent on this! Gregory Bryant Sent from my iPad On Jan 24, 2025, at 8:37 AM, William Groves <William.Groves @deschutes.org> wrote: Greg, I read the attached 1993 survey, together with the prior documentation we've reviewed to confirm the DRW designation was limited to 5 acres in association with the gas station and didn't cover any additional property. Will <image001.png Will Graves I Planning Manager I CFM ® 117 NW Lafayette Ave I Bend, Oregon 97708 Tel: (541) 388-6518 1 Mail: PO Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708 <ima <im <im ge0 age age 02.gi 003. 004. f> gif> gif> Let us know how we're doing: Customer Feedback Survey. Disclaimer. Please note that the information in this email is an informal statement made in accordance with DCC 22.20.005 and shall not be deemed to constitute final County action effecting a change in the status of a persons property or conferring any rights, including any reliance rights, on any person. From: William Groves <WilIiam.Groves 9deschutes.org> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2025 8:20 AM To: William Groves <William.Groves @deschutes.org> Subject: Re: Follow Up Hi Greg, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING DATE: February 12, 2025 SUBJECT: Senate Bill 762 -Statewide Wildfire Hazard Map Discussion / Information Item RECOMMENDED MOTION: None —information only at this time although this discussion may inform future Board action on this issue. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: In 2022, the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) and Oregon State University (OSU) developed administrative rules and a statewide Wildfire Risk Map required under Senate Bill (SB) 762. The rules, adopted by the Board of Forestry, established the criteria by which the map was developed, updated, and maintained. The map is intended to inform the following issues: • Educate Oregon residents and property owners about the level of hazard where they live. • Assist in prioritizing fire adaptation and mitigation resources for the most vulnerable locations. • Identify where defensible space standards and home hardening codes will apply. The initial draft of the map (now termed the Wildfire Hazard Map) was released in June of 2022 and soon thereafter temporarily withdrawn for further refinement. The newest draft version of the hazard map was made public last July and a final version was released on January 7, 2025. The release of the Hazard Map has formally started an appeals process for property owners who will be subject to additional regulations in the future. Those potentially affected property owners have received a formal packet from ODF regarding the appeals process. Additionally, until such time that ODF undertakes formal rulemaking to codify new defensible space standards and home hardening codes, the map will not affect most development proposals, regardless of the wildfire hazard status on a particular property. There are noteworthy exceptions to this process for dwelling units within designated resource zones (farm and forest zones) and rural accessory dwelling units (ADUs). It is unclear at this time when the rulemaking process will occur and new regulatory standards will be introduced which apply to residential development more broadly. After rulemaking has been conducted, properties with both of the following characteristics will be subject to new regulatory standards: 1. The property is located within a designated High Hazard area; and 2. The property is located with a designated Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Properties meeting standards will be subject to the following requirements: 1. Fire Hardening: New dwellings, additions to existing dwellings, and certain exterior alterations to existing dwellings must meet the standards set forth in section R327 of the Oregon Residential Specialty Code; and 2. Defensible Space: currently unreleased standards for defensible space established by the State Fire Marshal In the current Legislative session, SB 678 has been introduced to amend SB 762 by replacing the existing requirement of a Wildfire Hazard Map and directing the State Board of Forestry to 1) provide a definition of wildland urban interface and 2) recognize differences across the state in fire hazard, fire risk and structural differences within the interface. The bill would also require that the State Board of Forestry establish minimum standards for minimizing or mitigating fire risk. Property owners should be aware that in 2023, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 82 which explicitly prohibits any insurance company from using a map published by the State to identify areas of wildfire risk or exposure as a basis for increasing insurance premiums, canceling a policy, or refusing to renew a homeowners policy. To assist with questions about hazard map designations and what these mean to property owners, ODF has opened a call center to answer commonly asked questions. This support line is only for questions on the hazard map and will be staffed Monday through Saturday from 6:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. PST from Jan. 7 until mid -March. Interested parties can call 1-844- 996-2259 for assistance or email questions to hazardmap@odf.oregon.gov. BUDGET IMPACTS: None ATTENDANCE: Kevin Moriarty, Deschutes County Forester Kyle Collins, Associate Planner J-c Es c ?� BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING 0 { REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: Date: Name Address l� 1 h Phone #s I -- E-mail address ., r r In Favor ❑ Neutral/UndecidedOpposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary f r 'the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS Doug & Ceta Kelley — 65115 Smokey Ridge Rd, Bend OR 97703 Tax lot: 1611250001302 Thank you for the opportunity to address SB-762 which includes the Wildfire Hazard Map and allowing us to discuss how this will affect some of the Deschutes County property owners. In particular, the proposed Wildfire Hazard Map has significant concern regarding the fairness, accuracy, and legitimacy of the proposed map. I would like to request that Deschutes County join and unite with other Oregon counties to OPPOSE SB762 Section 8 or formally file language to protect us as this is the second attempt (2021 and amended in 2023). Crook County has already become engaged and I would imagine that Jefferson County will want to come on board. Deschutes County has the opportunity to be part of the trifecta and make us stand together as CENTRAL OREGONIANS. (Counties like Josephine, Douglas, and Jackson have already banded together to approach the governor about this issue.) Inconsistencies There are numerous examples throughout our County where tax lots are singled out as being both classified as high hazard and in the wildland urban interface (WUI), despite surrounding identical neighboring parcels being classified as moderate hazard. This rational underscores the true fire risk is not being considered. If the state proceeds with implementing the map, we need the state to provide us with an explanation of the basis for classifying these lots as high hazard when other high -risk areas were intentionally left out. Personally speaking, my ridge/address hasn't seen a wildfire in over 120+ years. (Data supplied per Deschutes.org chart Fire History 1900- 2021) The state is effectively "convicting" certain property owners without a trial and limited grounds to challenge the classification of our property. The state is suggesting Fire Marshall evaluations, which, in my opinion, means Government HOA and violates the understanding of PRIVATE PROPERTY. The only choice for homeowners is to file an appeal and/or Cease and Desist, which must go before an administrative law judge. This puts the burden on the property owners to defend a decision that was made without our involvement and requires us to go through a complicated administrative law process that we cannot financially afford. The suffocation of the state has threatened the future of my biggest asset, my property. The root cause is not responsible home owners and we know this. The domino effect that possibly got overlooked is costly expense for defensible space with no guarantee of zone reform, unfairly penalize certain property owners with decreased property value, and the likelihood of extinct resale value. The coincidental non- renewed/cancellation of property/fire insurance is a separate issue but you can't help but wonder the irony of this OSU/0e5 mapping. How could this be acceptable to any homeowner who has received this letter? I understand this legislation is from the State and not a Deschutes County project, but as you can see, our pleas cannot go unheard and I hope you are able to see this thru rural homeowner eyes. MY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK • Citizen Input can be given regarding any topic that is NOT on the agenda • Public Testimony can be given during Public Hearings only Topic of Input or Testimony: �7j� U 1 Is this topic an item on today's agenda? Yes (please see description of Citizen Input above) El No Name ✓ `ilaf c > Date: C3 Z - 1 Z Address -Z-t I-1�U�o0 Ct�� kc -b��N� 1-7�S� Phone #s � C4, 1- 01 ) LI - Li b C/ E-mail address K�� .7�b c 1z-o V11 ✓ 1 Co THIS FORM IS TURNED IN TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony?V�Yes ❑ No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. • • • ! • . S - Tax Lot: 151308AA02126 Good Morning Commissioners DeBone, Adair and Chang. Thank you for the opportunity to address SB-762, specifically the Wildfire Hazard Map and the maps accuracy and legitimacy. My name is Keith Rockow I am the current Chair of the Deschutes County Republican Party representing over 44 thousand voters and for the past 24 years I have worked as a Professional Wildland Firefighter. I have taught and trained over 500 professional wildland firefighters. I have fought over 100 wildfires across the United States, many right here in Oregon. Hourly and Daily on any wildland fire incident weather data is collected by professional wildland firefighters on the ground. That Data is turned into the Operations Unit and given to the incident Fire Behavior Analyst. He or she enters that data into a modeling program to produce a map, a map that shows us, the boots on the ground what fire behavior we can to expect the next day. That map is based on data collected each day. Not 2, 3 or 4 years ago. That map combined with the Incident Meteorologist weather data, allows the Fire Behavior Analyst and Meteorologist to predict with remarkable accuracy, what kind of firefighting day we will have. We are using that information to plan our attack and keep ourselves safe. We are using information that is current and not old. Any interpretation and implementation of that map has to be done on the ground, map in hand, comparing the map to what you actually see. Considering the topography, the available fuels and the weather. So, you can decide if your plan is feasible and has potential for success. The Wildfire Hazard Map in SB-762 cannot do that, it does not provide any useful information that can lead to success. The Wildfire Hazard Map in my professional opinion will lead to resources being mis managed and tasked inappropriately and result in devastating consequences. For the towns and counties in Oregon. Josephine, Douglas and Jackson Counties have already banded together to oppose this issue. Crook County is taking action, soon Jefferson Countywill too. I would like to request that Deschutes County stand with other Oregon counties to OPPOSE SB-762 Section 8. J-cEs c ?{ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony �� P �J' Dat Subject: e: V Name 'e k— Address, 0 `' Pxlre V, Phone #s E-mail address In Favor Neutral/Undecided �4—Opposed Submittingwritten documents as art of testimony? Yes No p Y If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS Jres c BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: Date: Name - Address Phone #s E-mail address In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submittingwritten 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 JTES ?� BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: 1 V, t Date: Name c � V /A ) 6 Address c ? Phone #s E-mail address If so, please give a'copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS w��-ces eoG2 a BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK ' Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: t° Date: - Name Address Phone #s 2 E-mail address %ems 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 O w BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING a � REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject:Date: Name Address Phone #s E-mail address OUV111111.1116 VV111,L%111 NuiL v. Vu0..iivii.y. vv -,-a., If so, please give a'copy to the Recording Secretary for the r cord. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS A ?� BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING 0 { Subject: u Name C__�2j' Address Phone #s 7 E-mail address 0, 1 C> C. )ut or Testimony Date:'' If so, please give a;copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS J-CES ww ?a BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING a { REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Y Subject: Date: Name I Address a f oe Phone #s E-mail address 1 j 0 In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submittingwritten' documents as art of testimony? R Yes YNo _ p_ If so, please give acopy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS �J-sEs c O BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony F Subject: _ Date: A, / Name 9 Address L- 1 _s `l , Phone #s 8 M1 Z E-mail address° ,` ro AV V In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting writtendocuments as part of testimony? XYes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS lI so, please glVe U CUpy LU LIX ltGl uIUIIlg OULicLaiy Wl Luc lcwiu. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS J-ces c , ?� BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING , REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: i C) Date:`)`Z(�5 Name Address c �� Cl) Phone #s� E-mail address C ✓ti l CINA In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony;. 1-1C Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS liaie: e ;g f c, - �v e 770 If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record, SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS 0 2{ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: Date: s Name �- ® ZE lie Address _S 0--- Phone #s1 f elm® E-mail address _ S C—A MZ7 a � a M ,2�t � � cxo_t� No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS �-rEs c w �?a BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING o � REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject:., i, Date: r NamezR f Address Phone #s ,..' E-mail address pi In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed c..t.. ..�;„,.„r;++o„ ��ni�mAnfo a� vart of taetimnnv VPc El Nn If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the recora. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS J-cEs e ?� BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING o � REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: Date: Name Address ` --901) Phone #s �% j E-mail address '� = 6 l� V In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed If`so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS U�J-tes c�L a ?{ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING ------------------- REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony By Subject: la.uw-ems ; `` S Date: ` %2 Name o,--- t. pkc67)'t Address Phone #s z E-mail address �'V'►`� ; m C.t_ � � C- n c�V'�--. In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ❑ Yes o If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING DATE: February 12, 2025 SUBJECT: Historic Preservation Certified Local Government Grant - Request to Apply RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to authorize the application for a 2025-2026 Historic Preservation Certified Local Government grant. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The attached memorandum provides an overview of the Certified Local Government (CLG) program and requests support to apply for a 2025-2026 CLG grant in the amount of $8,946. Per Deschutes County Administrative Policy GA-20, grants of any amount that include a match must be approved by the Board of County Commissioners (Board) at a Board meeting. The grant application deadline is February 28, 2025. BUDGET IMPACTS: Staff anticipates a $8,946 grant request, with a 1:1 match to be provided largely by in -kind staff time. ATTENDANCE: Tanya Saltzman, Senior Planner MEMORANDUM DATE: February 5, 2025 TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Tanya Saltzman, AICP, Senior Planner RE: Certified Local Government Grant - Request to Apply REQUEST This memorandum provides an overview of the Certified Local Government (CLG) program and requests support to apply for a 2025-2026 CLG grant in the amount of $8,946. Per Deschutes County Administrative Policy GA-20, grants of any amount that includes a match must be approved by the Board of County Commissioners (Board) at a Board meeting. The grant application deadline is February 28, 2025. If approved by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), grants will be awarded in April. All CLG funded projects must be completed by june 30, 2026 (previous cycles allowed until August 31). II. CLG GRANT OVERVIEW Every twenty-four months, SHPO offers matching grants to jurisdictions that have been "certified" as historic preservation partners with both state and federal governments. Since 1986 Deschutes County has been a CLG and is therefore eligible for grant funding. Over several grant cycles, our historic preservation program identified historic resources, offset costs associated with staffing the Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC), educated the public, and preserved historic structures. The CLG grant is non-competitive, which assures that all CLGs throughout the state benefit. Maximum awards will be in the range of $11,000 - $16,000 for each grant. A 1:1 match is required, which can be in -kind donations, cash, or volunteer time. Historically, Deschutes County has utilized staff time for most, if not all, of the match. State and federal requirements regulate the CLG grant, including project budget, timeline, inspections and audits, reports, billings, and consultant standards. As mentioned above, Deschutes County has been a recipient of CLG funds for decades. CDD staff relies on the professional input and direction of the HLC, an appointed body that provides technical expertise on historic and cultural resource issues for the rural county and the City of Sisters. 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 `AZ',(541)388-6575 c@cdd@deschutes.org ®www,deschutes.org/cd The HLC held a special CLG grant planning meeting on January 6.' Staff then compiled a project list based on the meeting discussion and estimated dollar amount, and returned to the HLC at its regularly scheduled meeting on February 3.1 During that meeting, HLC commissioners agreed with the proposed projects for the application. Given the number of new commissioners, the HLC determined that training opportunities are of high priority and the CLG grant provides an excellent opportunity for this. The Oregon Heritage Conference was recommended as a high -quality training opportunity by staffs contact at SHPO. III. PROPOSED PROJECTS Grant funded reimbursable projects: 1. Training: Oregon Heritage Conference (April 29-May 2, 2026, Woodburn, OR) $7546 Per person cost estimate: Early bird registration: $180 Hotel (3 nights, $150/night): $450 Per diem ($68/day plus $51 first and last days): $238 Mileage (300 miles RT @ $0.70/mile): $210 Total estimated cost per person: $1078 Number of attendees: 7 commissioners (a staff member can be an alternate) 2. City of Sisters update to walking tour brochure (content updates and printing) $1000 3. City of Sisters support for Three Sisters Historical Society/Preservation Month $250 A. HLC annual membership - National Alliance of Preservation Commissions (NAPC) $150 Reimbursable total: $8,946 Match/in-kind staff time estimates: The CLG grant requires a 1:1 match, which is generally provided as in -kind staff time. If priorities shift, staff can adjust its time within the in -kind categories with minimal difficulty. Below is an estimate of anticipated staff time tasks and associated costs. 1. Grant administration (limited to no more than 15% of grant amount) $1342 2. City of Sisters staff time for walking tour brochure $250 3. Review and compliance: HLC admin, Goal 5 cultural area rulemaking tasks $5854 4. Education: StoryMap, website upgrades, Preservation Month assistance $1500 If the Board supports pursuing a CLG grant, staff will coordinate with the HLC to finalize the application by the February 28, 2025 deadline. Attachment: Grant Application Request 1 https://www.deschutes.org/bc-hlc/page/historic-landmarks-commission-13 z https://www.deschutes.org/bc-hlc/page/historic-landmarks-commission-14 Page 2 of 2 Grant Application Request Date: 1. Name of Grant: Certified Local Government (CLG) Grant 2. Deschutes County contact:Tanya Saltzman, Senior Planner 3. Funding Agency: State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) 4. Grant Amount: $8,946 5. Does the grant require matching funds? ❑✓ Yes []NO If yes, how much are the required matching funds and what funds does the department plan to use for matching funds? This grant requires a 1:1 match; CDD will provide $8,946 in matching funds --primarily comprised of staff time --from its long range advance planning fees. 6. Grant duration: April 2025 -June 2026 7. Grant application deadline: February 28, 2025 8. Grant description: This grant provides funds for projects related to historic preservation. 9. Requested budget (please provide additional line item details under the broad categories listed below): Amount Requested Personnel Services Materials and Services Capital Total please see below 10. If the grant request includes FTEs, please fill out the table below. Position Title Limited duration or FTEs Notes regular position? n/a 11. Other information: This grant application will offer a number of projects (listed below) to be performed with grant funds and the match from CDD. These projects are a mix of direct costs and in -kind staff time that will satisfy the grant's match requirements. It is anticipated that the matching funds will be provided through staff time. Projects are as follows: • Commissioner training: attendance at Oregon Heritage Conference, spring 2026, Woodburn, OR • Updates to website and StoryMap • Review and compliance (HLC administration; coordination regarding Goal 5 cultural areas rulemaking, other tasks as needed) • Grant administration • Preservation nnnnth (mareriAk and staff time - Sisters and Coi intyy) • HLC membership to National Alliance of Preservation Commission MEETING DATE: February 12, 2025 SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Clear and Objective Housing Text Amendments Regarding Definitions, Dimensional Standards, and Accessory Uses RECOMMENDED MOTION: Following the public hearing staff recommends closing both the oral and written records and setting a date for deliberations. Should a member of the public request to keep the record open, staff recommends leaving the written record open for one week, until February 19, 2025. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Deschutes Board of Commissioners will conduct a public hearing to consider text amendments establishing "clear and objective" housing development standards. Beginning in 2017, the Oregon State Legislature passed a series of bills to encourage efforts to expand the supply of housing statewide. The passage of Senate Bill (SB)1051 prohibited cities from denying applications for housing developments within urban growth boundaries, provided those applications complied with "clear and objective standards, including but not limited to clear and objective design standards contained in the county comprehensive plan or land use regulations." These provisions require local governments to apply only clear and objective standards, criteria, and procedures to applications for housing projects and may not discourage housing through unreasonable delay. In 2023, House Bill (HB) 3197 was passed, which expanded the clear and objective housing standards mandate to "...unincorporated communities designated in a county's acknowledged comprehensive plan after December 5, 1994, nonresource lands and areas zoned for rural residential use as defined in ORS 215.501." The provisions of HB 3197 will become effective on July 1, 2025. The public hearing will consider the first set of proposed clear and objective amendments (file no. 247-24-000705-TA), as part of a larger clear and objective process, with additional amendments expected throughout the first half of 2025. Within the proposed amendments, added language is shown underlined and deleted shown as strikethrough. BUDGET IMPACTS: None ATTENDANCE: Kyle Collins, Associate Planner Will Groves, Planning Manager MEMORANDUM TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Kyle Collins, Associate Planner DATE: February 5, 2025 SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Clear and Objective Housing Text Amendments - Definitions, Dimensional Standards, and Accessory Uses The Deschutes Board of Commissioners (Board) will conduct a public hearing on February 12, 2025 to consider text amendments establishing "clear and objective" housing development standards (file no. 247-24-000705-TA). Attached to this memorandum are the proposed text amendments and a staff report summarizing the changes. Within the proposed amendments, added language is shown underlined and deleted shown as strikethro g . The public hearing will be conducted in -person, electronically, and by nhnna� All record materials can be found on the project website: https://bit.ly/DeschutesClearAndObiective BACKGROUND Beginning in 2017, the Oregon State Legislature passed a series of bills to encourage efforts to expand the supply of housing statewide. The passage of Senate Bill (SB) 1051 prohibited cities from denying applications for housing developments within urban growth boundaries, provided those applications complied with "clear and objective standards, including but not limited to clear and objective design standards contained in the county comprehensive plan or land use regulations."Z The provisions of SB 1051, along with subsequent bills, modified Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS)197.286- 197.314. Of relevance to the current project is ORS 197.307(4)3 which was modified to state: (1) Except as provided in subsection (6) of this section, a local government may adopt and apply only clear and objective standards, conditions and procedures regulating the development of housing, including needed housing. The standards, conditions and procedures: 1 See Board of County Commissioners February 12, 2025 Agenda for more information: https://www deschutes org/bcc/page/board-county-commissioners-meeting 213 2 https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/201 7Rl/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB1 051 /Enrolled 3 https•//oregon public law/statutes/ors 197.307 (a) May include, but are not limited to, one or more provisions regulating the density or height of a development. (b) May not have the effect, either in themselves or cumulatively, of discouraging needed housing through unreasonable cost or delay. In 2023, ORS 197A.4004 (formerly ORS 197,307, as referenced above) was established by House Bill (HB) 31975. The newly established ORS 197A.400 will become effective on July 1, 2025, and states the following [emphasis added]: (1) Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, a local government may adopt and apply only clear and objective standards, conditions and procedures regulating the development of housing, including needed housing, on land within an urban growth boundary, unincorporated communities designated in a county's acknowledged comprehensive plan after December 5, 1994, nonresource lands and areas zoned for rural residential use as defined in ORS 215.501. The standards, conditions and procedures: (a) May include, but are not limited to, one or more provisions regulating the density or height of a development. (b) May not have the effect, either in themselves or cumulatively, of discouraging needed housing through unreasonable cost or delay (3) In addition to an approval process for needed housing based on clear and objective standards, conditions and procedures as provided in subsection (1) of this section, a local government may adopt and apply an alternative approval process for applications and permits for residential development based on approval criteria that are not clear and objective if.• (a) The applicant retains the option of proceeding under the approval process that meets the requirements of subsection (1) of this section; (b) The approval criteria for the alternative approval process comply with applicable statewide land use planning goals and rules, and (c) The approval criteria for the alternative approval process authorize a density at or above the density level authorized in the zone under the approval process provided in subsection (1) of this section. These provisions require local governments to apply only clear and objective standards, criteria, and procedures to applications for housing projects and may not discourage housing through unreasonable delay. Application of typical discretionary standards (e.g. "adequate public facilities," "effective mitigation," etc.) is prohibited. The statute is intended to address the concern that use of discretionary criteria leads to uncertainty, inconsistent administration, and delays that do not serve the goal of efficiently providing an adequate supply of housing stock. 4 https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills laws/ors/ors197a.html S https:Holis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Downloads/Measure Document/HB3197/Enrolled -2- II. OVERVIEW OF AMENDMENTS Numerous sections and language in the Deschutes County Code (DCC) affecting the development of housing do not currently meet the identified thresholds for "clear and objective" standards outlined in HB 3197. The primary focus of the Clear and Objective Code Compliance Project is to ensure the DCC complies with state statute and the objectives of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. With the assistance of consultants from MIG, planning staff have identified areas of the DCC that are not in compliance with statute and drafted packages of text amendments to address each issue. These packages have been broken into distinct segments to provide the public, the Deschutes County Planning Commission, and the Board the opportunity to review and vet the proposed changes in a more structured and confined way. Where possible, planning staff have endeavored to draft amendments that are a policy -neutral conversion of existing discretionary language to non -discretionary language. This ensures the original intent and desired outcome is preserved. When not possible, in certain limited circumstances alternative standards or criteria have been proposed. Additionally, while not exclusively associated with housing development, as part of this process certain amendments have been proposed to broadly remove ambiguity from implementing sections of the DCC, maintain conformity across all development standards, and ensure review clarity for staff and members of the public. The first amendment package proposed through this process will broadly cover the following areas of the DCC: • Definitions for the Deschutes County Zoning Code (DCC Title 18) and the Bend Urban Growth Boundary Zoning Ordinance (Title 19) • Dimensional standards (e.g. height, structural footprints, setbacks, etc.) for Titles 18 and 19 • Accessory structure standards for Titles 18 and 19 III. METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH As noted above, staff has grouped the first proposed package of amendments to address the DCC definitions, dimensional or measurement standards, and the uses and standards associated with accessory structures. Each of these sections has been addressed as follows: Definitions Definitions are the foundational principle for all areas of the development code. Staff has modified the County's existing land use/planning definitions in the following ways: 1) If an existing term has a definition in the ORS, that existing terminology has been adopted verbatim or by reference. Staff understands that ORS terminology takes precedence over the requirements for clear and objective standards, even if these definitions contain some non- objective language. -3- 2) If an existing definition has subjective language (e.g. "adequate," "designed for," etc.) that could be replaced with measurable, quantitative standards, then those new standards have been used. 3) If an existing term has criteria which could reasonably be interpreted in multiple ways (e.g. How should the height of a structure be measured? etc.), then explicit directions on how to interpret the standard have been included within the definition itself or new terms have been added to further clarify inter -definition relationships. 4) If two or more existing terms provided conflicting interpretations (e.g. "lot width versus "lot depth," "yard" versus "setback," etc.), then these terms were simplified into a single term to remove unintentional conflicts. 5) If an existing term has language which has previously been deemed unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful (e.g. Defining a "dwelling unit" based on familial relationships, etc.), then those terms have been modified to remove the offending language. Additionally, certain terms within the existing code have been subject to numerous interpretive challenges over many years (e.g. What types of development constitute "structures"?), and where possible staff has attempted to provide these terms with the broadest possible interpretation and/or align these terms with previous Hearings Officer or Board decisions which have clarified the matter at hand. Finally, as modified definitions could potentially have cascading effects throughout the remaining portion of the DCC, staff has attempted to align all uses of these terms with the new proposed definitions, while maintaining the original intent as much as possible within each corresponding code section. Dimensional Standards Dimensional standards can be categorized as any criteria which require a specific quantitative measurement (e.g. height, setbacks, lot coverage, floor area, etc.). As dimensional standards are another foundational principle for administering the development code, staff has modified several areas of the code dealing with these standards to remove ambiguity and provide explicit directions in how the measurements should be evaluated. To provide specific examples: 1) Nearly all zones have specific height limitations on structures. However, the current DCC is ambiguous in how to evaluate structural height, particularly on properties with sloping or irregular topography. This ambiguity can produce varying height calculations depending on where a specific measurement is taken. Staff has proposed a new definition for "height" which explicitly defines how the height of all structures should be evaluated, regardless of topography, structural design, or other variables. This new "height" definition necessitated the inclusion of other terms which did' not previously exist in the DCC to provide clarity for applicants and staff, such as "average grade," "existing grade," and "finished grade." -4- 2) All zones have specific setback standards which outline the distance required between structures and lot lines or other designated features such as the Ordinary High Water Mark of rivers and streams. However, certain features which interact with setback standards such as "front lot lines" are difficult to identify under the current code in certain circumstances. "Front lot line" is currently defined as: "...the lot line separating a lot from a street other than an alley. In the case of a lot that does not front directly on any street, the front lot line shall be that lot line parallel to and facing the same direction as the front lot lines of the majority of other properties in the immediate area." The application of "the majority of other properties in the immediate area," is a subjective standard and could make setback standards for a property difficult or impossible to evaluate. As such, "front lot line" and the corresponding setback standards have been modified to state: "...In the case of a lot or parcel that does not have street frontage, a front lot line shall be any lot line through which driveway access to the property is provided." 3) Most zones have specific standards for lot coverage, which is the amount of area within an individual property which can be developed with structures. However, the existing DCC remained ambiguous on which structures should be counted towards lot coverage requirements, and which structures should be provided an exemption given the general intent of the standard. The proposed amendments clarify that only those structures which exceed 18 inches above finished grade shall be counted toward lot coverage measurements, allowing for structures such as at - grade patios a minor exemption. Accessory Uses Finally, given that clear and objective standards are now required for all housing development, it is important to distinguish between what constitutes a dwelling unit and structures which may be accessory to a dwelling unit or another use on a property. Distinguishing between these various structures and uses requires an explicit set of standards governing what features or uses are allowed within a particular structure. Community Development Department (CDD) staff continually face challenges in implementing the development code when reviewing applications which appear to fall within a definitional transition between dwelling units and accessory structures such as detached garages, storage buildings, shops, etc. Most zones in Deschutes County only allow the establishment of a single (1) dwelling -unit on a particular property (notwithstanding developments such as Accessory Dwelling Units). Applicants commonly propose establishing accessory structures which contain numerous elements which could be construed to allow residential dwelling use, such as kitchens, full bathrooms, and/or laundry facilities. Historically, staff have attempted to limit these uses through land use decisions or recording legal documents for the property warning future owners that such structures cannot be utilized as secondary dwelling units without adequate land use approval. -5- To remove ambiguity for both applicants and CDD staff, portions of the code dealing with accessory structures and uses have been modified in the following ways: 1) Outlining specifically which components, when taken together, constitute a "dwelling unit." As proposed, structures will be considered dwelling units when they contain the following: • One or more persons living together • Provisions for sleeping, cooking, and sanitation • One kitchen ("kitchen" has been further defined in the proposed amendments) • At least one full bath ("baths," including "full baths," have been further defined in the proposed amendments) 2) Outlining which components may be allowed within accessory structures, and codifying a formal process to ensure accessory structures are not unlawfully converted to, or otherwise use for, dwelling purposes. These proposed changes codify longstanding policies from CDD and provide clear direction for the development of housing and accessory structures, while removing legal risk and uncertainty for future property owners in the County. IV. PUBLIC TESTIMONY & DISCUSSION The following public comments have been received regarding the proposed amendments: Robin Hayakawa, Central Oregon LandWatch: LandWatch expressed concerns regarding the inclusion of the proposed definition "incidental and subordinate." Specifically, it was noted that the terms "incidental and subordinate" have specific meanings outlined in the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) and the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) when dealing with resource zoned lands. To ensure consistency with state law, LanclWatch recommends that the County amend the proposed definition so that, when applied to resource land uses, so that it aligns with the definition under OAR 660-033-0130(42)(a). OAR 660-033-0130(42)(a) specifically provides that "A determination under ORS 215.213(11) or 215.283(4) that an event or activity is 'incidental and subordinate' requires consideration of any relevant circumstances, including the nature, intensity, and economic value of the respective farm and event uses, that bear on whether the existing farm use remains the predominant use of the tract." 2. Nunzie Gould: Ms. Gould's provided testimony during the public hearing before the Deschutes County Planning Commission (Commission) and in supplementary comments following that process. The testimony broadly covered the following themes: • The necessity of balancing various values such as housing affordability when drafting legislative amendments. A desire to evaluate the entire suite of proposed Clear and Objective Housing amendments -6- collectively that will ultimately be included in the project. A general desire that housing should be located inside Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs) where it can be served equitably by public transit and multimodal transportation for the safety of dwellers and to reduce climate emissions. A request that additional new terminology be added to the proposed "Grade" definition to distinguish between natural and existing grade, particularly in areas outside of the Landscape Management Combining Zone. 3. Matt Cyrus, Deschutes County Planning Commission Chair: Chair Cyrus requested a revision to the proposed "grade" definitions in DCC Titles 18 and 19. Specifically, Chair Cyrus expressed concern that the proposed "average grade" definition, which determines the point from which the height of a structure would be evaluated, would be prohibitively restrictive when evaluating structures which have development partially below ground elevation, as in a "walkout basement." Commissioner Cyrus proposed the following replacement definition: "Grade, average", for the purposes of calculating structural height, means the average of four points which shall be the highest finished grade abutting the structure and the lowest finished grade abutting the structure for each of the four sides or elevations. V. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW & DISCUSSION Staff presented information on the proposed amendments at a Planning Commission work session on December 12, 20246. The Commission held a public hearing on January 9, 2025' and left the written record open until January 16, 2025 at 4:00 p.m. The Commission held deliberations on January 23, 20258, ultimately recommending approval of the proposal with unanimous consent among the Commissioners. During the public hearing and deliberations process, Commissioners discussed the following themes and issues: • A general understanding that the amendments presented during the public hearing represent a "point in time" snapshot of the proposal, and specific language would be subject to changes as additional issues were discovered and addressed by Planning staff and partner Divisions in CDD. • Debate surrounding specific language choices related to definitions such as: o Average Grade o Dwelling Unit o Kitchen 6 https://www.deschutes.org/bc-pc/page/planning-commission-48 https://www.deschutes.org/bc-pc/`page/planning-commission-49 $ https://www.deschutes.org/bc-pc/page/planning-commission-55 -7- • Discussion with staff regarding if and when the Commission would be presented the opportunity for further review should any significant changes be necessary in future amendment packages or during the Board review process. Staff assured the Commission that future review of changes to any proposed amendments could be provided if directed by the Board. Additionally, staff addressed many of the public comments submitted and noted where alterations were proposed to address any potential concerns. Outside of scrivener's edits, noteworthy changes are illustrated in the proposed amendments package attached to this memo and broadly cover the following areas: • Alterations to DCC 18.116.040 and 19.92.020, dealing with the provisions of features allowed in dwelling units and accessory structures. Two additional sections, DCC 18.116.045 and 19.92.025, have been proposed to clarify the types of features expressly allowed within dwelling units. Staff has included language which clarifies the following items when evaluating residential developments to ensure consistency in interpretation for both property owners and County staff: 1. Building features which are allowed outright in both dwellings and accessory structures. 2. Building features which are allowed upon recording of a Deschutes County restrictive covenant ensuring that all uses will remain in compliance with the relevant land use regulations. 3. Building features which are allowed upon issuance of an approved land use permit which includes a finding that the proposed use is allowed on the subject lot or parcel. • In response to the comments from Central Oregon LanclWatch discussed above, the following language has been included in the Definitions sections of both Titles 18 and 19: As used in DCC Title 18, the following words and phrases shall mean as set forth in DCC 18.04.030, or, where such words and phrases are defined in applicable Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) and/or Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), as defined therein. If there is any conflict between the definitions set forth in DCC 18.04.030 and the definitions of the same words and phrases in applicable ORS and/or OAR, the definitions in ORS and/or OAR shall prevail." As used in DCC Title 19, words in the present tense include the future; the singular number includes the plural and the plural number includes the singular; unless the context clearly indicates the contrary, the word "shall" is mandatory and not discretionary; the word "may" is permissive; the masculine gender includes the feminine and neuter; and the term "this title" shall be deemed to include the text of this title and accompanying zoning maps and all amendments hereafter made thereto. As used in this title, unless the context requires otherwise, the following words and phrases shall be defined as set forth in DCC 19.04.040, or, where such words and phrases are defined in applicable Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) and/or Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), as defined therein. If there is any conflict -8- between the definitions set forth in DCC 19.04.040 and the definitions of the same words and phrases in applicable ORS and/or OAR, the definitions in ORS and/or OAR shall prevail. • In response to Chair Cyrus' comments discussed above, the following language has been included in both the Definitions and Exceptions sections of Titles 18 and 19 dealing with "average grade": "Grade, average", for the purposes of calculating structural height, shall be the average of two points which shall be the highest finished grade abutting a structure and the lowest finished grade abutting the structure. For the purposes of calculating structural height, the following method may be used as a discretionary alternative when determining average grade: Perimeter Sampling Method: The average of eight measurements around the entire structural footprint perimeter, with the first measurement point starting at the lowest finished grade abutting the structure, and subsequent measurement points spaced equidistantly along the finished grade abutting the structure. VI. FUTURE AMENDMENTS As noted above, the proposed amendments presented herein are the first of several code modifications which will be proposed over the coming months. Upcoming text amendment proposals will address the following areas, subject to modifications as the process unfolds: • Deschutes County Subdivision and Partition Standards (DCC Title 12 and 17) • Deschutes County Goal 5 Resources - Natural Resources (Landscape Management Combining Zones, Wildlife Area Combining Zones, Wetlands and Riparian Resources, etc.) • Cluster and Planned Development Standards • Additional Sections Most Pertinent to the Development of Housing VII. NEXT STEPS At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Board may: • Continue the hearing to a date certain; • Close the hearing and leave the written record open to a date certain; • Close the hearing and set a date for deliberations; or • Close the hearing and commence deliberations. Attachments: 1) Staff Report & Proposed Text Amendments 0 X\ E S ,qk, HEALTH SERVICES February 13, 2025 Re: Support for Senate Bill 837 — the State Emergency Registry of Volunteers in Oregon (SERV-OR) Dear Chair Senator Patterson, Vice Chair Hayden, and Members of the Senate Committee on Health Care: My name is Alex Drungil, and I serve as the Medical Reserve Corps (MRC) Coordinator for Deschutes County. I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony in support of Senate Bill 837, which proposes amendments to the State Emergency Registry of Volunteers in Oregon (SERV-OR). These changes will significantly enhance Oregon's ability to effectively deploy and utilize volunteers in public health and emergency response efforts. Expanding Eligibility for Non -Licensed Support and Administrative Volunteers The Deschutes County MRC is largely composed of non -licensed volunteers who play a crucial role in emereencv and disaster response efforts. These individuals bring diverse skills that are essential to the overall effectiveness of our response capabilities, including logistical coordination, administrative support, and non -clinical patient care. However, current legislation limits their ability to fully engage in these efforts. By expanding eligibility to include non -licensed support and administrative healthcare volunteers, Senate Bill 837 would ensure that these highly capable individuals can contribute meaningfully, helping to reduce gaps in Oregon's emergency response system. A well-rounded response team is critical to effectively managing public health emergencies, and this bill allows us to better utilize all willing and skilled volunteers. Allowing Year -Round Volunteer Service Without an Emergency Declaration Currently, Deschutes County has the only Medical Reserve Corp unit within region 7. Expanding liability coverage for SERV-OR volunteers would greatly help the deployment and protection of the DCMRC to neighboring counties without adequate resources. Senate Bill 837 would align the SERV-OR with the Oregon Department of Human Services (ODHS) volunteer program, providing liability coverage for volunteers in a broader range of response scenarios. This change would: • Improve overall response capacity by allowing volunteers to assist in situations that require immediate action but fall outside the scope of a declared emergency. 2577 NE Courtney Drive, Bend, Oregon 97701 J,(541)322-7400 @healthservices@deschutes.org @www.deschutes.org/health • Reduce administrative burdens and operational delays associated with waiting for an official emergency declaration. • Enhance collaboration and resource -sharing across counties, strengthening Oregon's overall disaster response framework. Clarifying Out -of -State Deployment Under EMAC Oregon law allows SERV-OR volunteers to deploy to other states through the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC), but a gap in the statute prevents this from working as intended. For example, in 2018, Oregon could not send volunteers to Alaska after an earthquake because SERV-OR volunteers were not explicitly designated as "officers of the state," a requirement under EMAC. Senate Bill 837 fixes this issue, ensuring that Oregon can send SERV-OR volunteers to support emergencies in other states, while also providing them with the appropriate tort and workers' compensation coverage. Authorizing Health Screenings for Volunteers To ensure volunteers are assigned appropriately, Senate Bill 837 clarifies that the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) can conduct health screenings of volunteers before deployment. This will: Help volunteers be placed in roles that match their physical capabilities, mobility, and medical conditions. • Ensure safe and effective deployment assignments. • Improve the overall efficiency of Oregon's emergency response system. Conclusion The Deschutes County Medical Reserve Corps strongly supports Senate Bill 837. By expanding volunteer eligibility, allowing year-round service, clarifying out-of-state deployment, and authorizing health screenings. This bill modernizes Oregon's volunteer response framework and ensures a stronger, more efficient disaster and public health response. Alex Drungil Medical Reserve Corps Coordinator Deschutes County Health Services