2025-382-Minutes for Meeting September 29,2025 Recorded 11/17/2025ES COG2<
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon
(541) 388-6570
1:00 PM
Recorded in Deschutes County C J2025-382
Steve Dennison, County Clerk
Cornmissioners'Journal 11/17/2025 10:35:35 AM
x3�T
2025-382
FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY
BOCC MEETING MINUTES
MONDAY September 29, 2025
Allen Room
Live Streamed Video
Present were Commissioners Anthony DeBone, Patti Adair and Phil Chang. Also present were
County Administrator Nick Lelack; Senior Assistant Legal Counsel Kim Riley;
Deputy County Administrator Erik Kropp; and BOCC Executive Assistant Brenda Fritsvold.
This meeting was audio and video recorded and can be accessed at the Deschutes County
Meeting Portal: www.deschutes.org/meet'DZs.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair DeBone called the meeting to order at 1:00 pm.
CITIZEN INPUT:
• Nathan Jenkinson encouraged the Board to consider implementing proportional
ranked choice voting with five at -large Commissioner positions as a way to ensure
that those living in rural areas receive adequate representation.
• Eric Garrity asked that the Commissioners review and consider a proposal he will
submit for a long-term visitor's area at juniper Ridge.
COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS: None
AGENDA ITEMS:
1. Courthouse Expansion Update
Lee Randall, Facilities Director, introduced the update on the Courthouse
expansion project.
BOCC MEETING SEPTEMBER 29, 2025 PAGE 1 OF 5
Eric Nielsen, Facilities Capital Improvement Manager, reported that the tower
crane was removed on September 12th, and stairwell 2 has been completed.
Mechanical, electrical, and plumbing work is ongoing, and interior remodel work
on the existing courthouse was initiated with phase two of this work expected to
be undertaken in December.
Cory Loomis from Pence Contractors reviewed upcoming work expected over the
next four to six weeks, including construction of the exterior wall and main roof
parapet.
In response to Commissioner Adair, Nelson said there are 13 parking spaces in
the lower level.
Wayne Powderly, Cumming Group, provided an update on the project budget,
saying that healthy balances remain in the contingency funds. It was noted that
the re -roof of the current building, which was planned to happen at the same
time as the expansion work, was budgeted and paid by the County out of Fund
070 as a separate capital works project.
Responding to Commissioner Adair, Randall said the contractor's workmanship
warranty is one year and the manufacturer's warranty on the roofing system is
pro -rated for 20 years.
2. Special Road District Presentation and Discussion
Chris Doty, Road Director, introduced the discussion of Special Road Districts by
explaining that Local Access Roads (LARs) are roads dedicated for public use but
not improved to County standards and thus not maintained by the County.
Saying that Deschutes County has over 380 miles of LARs, he reviewed options
for maintaining such roads, including: securing informal contributions from
neighboring residents; establishing a homeowner's association and entering into
a road maintenance agreement between neighboring properties; or creating a
Special Road District (SRD).
Doty explained that Special Road Districts are independent local governments
formed for the purpose of improving roads which are available for public use
but not maintained by the County. A Special Road District is funded by a
voter -approved permanent tax rate and governed by a three -member board
appointed by the Board of County Commissioners. Sharing that Deschutes
County has 19 functioning SRDs, Doty listed the various powers and duties of an
SRD board and said the County's Legal division provides an informational packet
regarding the formation of SRDs and best practices.
BOCC MEETING SEPTEMBER 29, 2025 PAGE 2 OF 5
Doty said the average paid per lot is $267 each year. In response to
Commissioner Chang, Doty said the rate assessed on each property is based on
its assessed value.
Doty said although the County has minimal oversight over SRD board
appointments as SRDs are separate local governments, County staff and the
Board of Commissioners frequently receive inquiries and complaints relative to
them. Some complaints involve the perceived inadequacy of road maintenance
while others relate to the appointment process for SRD board members, SRD
board meeting procedures, or alleged malfeasance by one or more board
members.
Commissioner Adair asked if those who purchase a house or land within a
Special Road District are informed that they are buying property in an SRD. Doty
said while he was not aware of such a requirement, that disclosure may be
made in a title report.
To improve public understanding of Special Road Districts and preempt issues or
complaints, Doty proposed that the Road Department prepare educational
outreach materials in the form of a one- to two -page flyer explaining the
purpose of SRDs and how these function. Doty also offered to draft a standard
process for recruiting and vetting applicants for SRD boards.
3. Potential issuance of a termination notice to the existing solid waste
franchise holder, originally granted in 1972, for the purpose of replacing it
with a modernized franchise agreement that reflects current operational,
performance, and financial accountability standards
Tim Brownell, Director of the Solid Waste Department, outlined the County's
waste hauling franchise structure, which dates to 1972. He described business
ownership changes and mergers over that time which have resulted in two
companies currently hauling waste in the County. He spoke to the need to
update the terms of these franchises and said the County could issue
termination notices that would allow the existing haulers to continue under the
current franchise terms for six years while the County works to develop modern
agreements to address performance standards, financial transparency,
destination controls for materials, and reporting requirements.
Dave Doyle, County Counsel, confirmed that the County does not contract with
its haulers but instead utilizes language in County Code to grant and regulate
these franchises. He agreed that standalone franchise agreements would
BOCC MEETING SEPTEMBER 29, 2025 PAGE 3 OF 5
provide for clearer enforcement and the ability to impose certain requirements
such as the disposal location of hauled materials.
Commissioner DeBone referred to longstanding partnerships with local service
providers and said issuing termination notices would be a significant step.
Adding that these franchise agreements are entered into knowing that the
franchisees will make a profit from providing the services, he preferred to
proceed with care and maintain open public discussions with all parties.
Commissioner Adair differentiated between the two haulers, saying that
Cascade Disposal has served the community for decades. She expressed
concern about possible cost increases if new requirements are imposed and
asked whether the minimum disposal fee at the landfill could be lowered for a
single small item.
Commissioner Chang said moving to a modern franchise agreement would
ensure financial transparency and allow for addressing performance issues. He
spoke to the need to be able to define waste and recycling streams and asked
how the County can assess rate fairness for account holders without having
audited financial information from the haulers.
With regard to directing where materials are transported, Brownell noted that
because developing a new landfill would require significant investment, its
successful operation would be based on the economics of volume.
The Board directed staff to return in approximately one month with options for
proceeding.
4. Consideration of County Commissioner Five District Map Representation
Options
Commissioner Chang reported that commissioners who serve Montana's
Missoula County must reside within the district in which they file as a candidate, but
all commissioners are elected at -large. Commissioner Chang advocated for
implementing this same model in Deschutes County.
Neither Commissioner Adair nor Commissioner DeBone supported this proposal.
Commissioner DeBone listed ways in which Missoula County differs from Deschutes
County in terms of its population size, how that population is dispersed between
incorporated and unincorporated areas, and how much of its total land area is
public.
BOCC MEETING SEPTEMBER 29, 2025 PAGE 4 OF 5
Saying that Lane County's commissioner districts work well, Commissioner Adair was
concerned about ensuring adequate representation for those who live outside of
cities.
Commissioner Chang encouraged forwarding the Missoula County model to the
District Map Advisory Committee for its consideration as it works to draft a district
map.
The Board took no action on this proposal.
OTHER ITEMS: None
EXECUTIVE SESSION: None
ADJOURN:
Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:01 pm.
DATED this day ofbe-q2025 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners.
ATTEST:
RECC4 IN S CRETARY
PHIL CHANG, COMMISSIONER
BOCC MEETING SEPTEMBER 29, 2025 PAGE 5 OF 5
G��rEs c�C
w ? BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
X
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
r
Subject: 5:t^ ) Date::
Name
Address
Phone #s
E-mail address t) & kI
In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? 1:1Yes No
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
i �, VV^ t ruma'1 mt,06 V'
�" 0� � �,� �a � �1 � � �,� La ice ;
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
MEETING DATE: September 29, 2025
SUBJECT: Courthouse Expansion Update
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
N/A —presentation only.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS%
The Facilities Department will give a presentation to update the Board on the status of the
Courthouse Expansion project. The update will include the work completed to date,
upcoming work, and the project budget. Presentation materials are attached.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
None
ATTENDANCE:
Lee Randall, Facilities Director
Eric Nielsen, Facilities Capital Improvement Manager
Wayne Powderly, Cumming Group
Cory Loomis, Pence Contractors
No
b�0
N
N
L
N
O
Ln
.E
E
O
U
4-j
O
U
4—
O
i
ca
O
m
Ln
0
N
N
v
E
a)
0-
a,
Ln
Ln
w
�l Y
—J�3Q
i
0
CL
W
4)
0
s
401
0
u
v
LL
Y
IRI
L
tA
no
L
v
LL
N
A
CL
D
I
V
O
t�
L
O
401
4�
x
W
. •
OJD
i
O
tWo
c
X
X
O
L
0
v
LL
L
c
LLJ
1 •J
L
w
E
O
O
LL
�+�1I
O
p
'L
p
p
�
O
O.
E
mO
O
_U.
®
O
(A
p
GC
O
ui
CA
CL
0
'�
O
®
two
u
ce
'L
®
J
O
a�
i
•i
•—
�
•r
a�
•�
'
X
W
r
ua
2Ln01
N
O
N
be
11d
N
N
N
N
�
Z
a
a
J
W
N
=
a,
c
a
O
o
>
o
V
;
J
p
O
tw
O
O
w
O
O
O
O
=a
-W I
4JQ,
O
a
U
l9
to
i
bA
i
bA
O
Z
E
E
=
'=_
=_
'_=
N
ra
®
O
p
GJ
d
p
m
O
m
.O
m
w
tA
'X
LU
O
ii.
♦+
d
H
(A
n•
0
T
U
N
�
m
m
V
U
C
U
0)
V
a
O.
U
N
c
N
d
T
C
(v c
m
a
>
N m
0A
c
m
ao
m
m
U
N
-
ti
o
m
O H
m
E
a
o
co
o
0
rn
6
U
_
N
'C
A
(6 V
�y i
N
`
a
C
y N N N
�
VQ
C
y
_
E E E E
00
O
L
V
--i V
N
d d d d
U U
v
N o
Cl)
a 'O -0 -0
O m
U
Y
cc
O
w
m m (m6 (ma
c W
C
c
a
�.i O co
04
� 3
co
a
.L`.
Y Y Y Y
a
a 3
a o
-o o
3
a o
a
L c r 0
fL V
>
"a0 (` >
> L
> Q
N
N
N
m
O m C E 0
C
E C
i
O
V
c C c c
m m m m
C
O
D. D_ D_ D_
C
O
N O
Q
' O
' O
-
N
C
O O O O
E
`
N_
N v N U
N_ U
N U
N
E
U G
C V Q
O d
E
N N d d
O
N O
N
N O N N
N N
N N
N
U
U
O_ U
J n. D7 C
C
C
m
Z) Z) D Z)
0
N N
co
co c-i
O
0)
O O
O M
M
(0 �--' O O
ui
C N
N O)
LO
c-i
h
.-i
1",
0)
N
LO
W
Cl)
O
O N N
C 1, m
n
N
(0
O
(0
O
m V N
T N 00 M
N
M
C U
<j .-i
6
LO
n
V
(D
O N
0)
O
O
w O In !-
I�
m m
L 0
O
O
•-�
(D
M d' �'
M
Lo
N
� to CC) v
N
m
N
~
N
N
EH f9
a
(0 V
O N
N
N O
O
V
N O
M
O
c
o
01
Ln O
co
C
N y
a-1 r,0)
d' (�
c0
.� H
i,
M
CD d'
V O
LO
c-1
c-I
M
(0 C.
D7 LO
m
(O (O
(O
(0
m
(D
0)
(O
00
N
00
cc
mN
N c0 I,
N
OO
O'
VI m
C,
N 00
O
d' N
Ln
r
O (D
r, e-i
LO
0)
0)
0)
0)
Cl) 00 Il
0)
d' V
LO ci
00 M
(0 .�
N
o0
LO (O
I�
-
ci
Cl)
00
I-
�
M
-It
M
(0
(O
O V
LO
o
0)
N
N
ti
ri
Q
(A V3
00 m
M N
Ln
co O
O
' ' d'
O O
O Cl) '
O
V
0)
0)
(D d' O O m
0)
N
W
co (D
(31 a1
O 00
13 N
00
C
0) d'
(0 O
O
C
M
O O
O Ln
O c0
O [n
Cl)
l3
LO
LO
n
00
00
co
CO
O r N O -
0) d1 M LO f",
O
N
a
w
U) c-i
r OD
(D
H N
Cl
r,
r (D
O C.
m
a)
M
C3)
00 N LO r� n
N
m
0)
m m
W
11 (D
M
.ti
Q7
M co
00
co
(D
(O
V 00 r�-I
co
(n
CEO
co
M
M
N
M
ti
H
K
V> fA
O M
M
M
r� O O
O
0) O Il
O O
O O ' N
N
O
O
d'
V
co -q O O 0)
0)
y
(N (D
0)
m
0) V O
O
0) O O)
O O
O C. n
O
N
N
N
0)
M
0)
M
0) 1l N O
0) T M LO h
O
LO
W
d' O)
O 1
CO
N
M
N
M O C
O N O
C
O
h C .-�
0) O 0)
C C
r� LO
C C (D
O C) LO
ci
m
N
c-1
ti
00
00
00 N LO i, r,
N
.O
a
7
- t
LO (C
LO
c-1
LO
a-(
O (0 N
00
V
N M
0) M
(D O (O
N �-1
r
V
O
d'
O
d'
1"
rl
'T V 00 .-�
Cl) co �-1
O
0)
m
m
M
M
N
M
C
Cl)
C
O
E4 64
0)
O)
h
cc
V
U0
L
C
O.
m
by
O
c c
N
N
O
w
Q
N
c c
L- CD
N
m
N
>
w -
O
a
o
�
c N U
Y
c o
O a N
(co
O c c
m
m U
411
`o_
N
UL" ¢ o
m
'�
m U
m
c
m
N N~=
N
fn N
m U N
N
W I. -cc
O
C
O
O.
E 0) O U
c
N (A
LL
O F
_ LC w
D-
:
o w
O
m
L E
O =
bU d
O
N
LLQZLL2
c
mcy
�
N
Ocmmm'
H O G
N d
(:
c
\
c
.o a
Daaccc`)
im
V
Uc c
Oc
pUc
o
o
NU
oOC
Y
E
uZ
O
uj
o
=
WU
F
U
m
E
O
a
N
NNaQE
a
N
\
0
R
E iE o
m
(
(n o 0
ENm c
o
m m a
occ
R
Z U U
¢
0
E r
c y 7)
a
a M
O
w
co J
J
¢_ (�
o m
U F-
m o
_ C.) E
N ¢
(n O
(n
w
a
�O
(n
71
O
W
m
a
C
E
E
U
N O (o N FZ O r
Cl N LO M (n v 'M-I V
14
o W W O
N N N V N r
c-i (o M N
i N co
ci
N O (o O '
V h
ba
C C � C
LQ LO
V
a
W N
Nco
o
m
O
(O
(o
a
m
m
0 0 (o o
v o
0 o rn 0
0 o n o
co 0
LQ o
a
o vS co o
O N
ui o
o
m
d1
N (D
A
'wo
O
N
N
� N
C
o a N
G K O
= x O
U y Q o
CD
N r L
O W
u t `
0 O O
0 U m U
OJ��v
U.
w,
JS�❑
O M
G oD
cli 0)
M M
Cl)
v OR
chco
i (D
c N
N
R
O
U
a
M
(O
t0
Cl)
N
40
rf
Cl
N
n
N
Vk
O
0
M
co
W
m
n
m
44
N N
N N
rl �
N N
N .1
0
U O O O V O 0 O
0 0 0 C .-i o W 0
O o 00 00 N N N O
N Lo c 1t7 (D L' (o m
bD
C O (f)
O
LL 10,
c _ _
'N 'NO p a) U y N <°
o
a @ E g °! y ~
x Q_ O C N
W x (�
d a w c
7 CO o
t � O
� O
o o
0 o m
U m
io
m N
L
0
a
ti
E
O
a
bco
a)
N
0
0
0
0
E
a�
C
C
h
r
N
m a
U N
� a
0 a3
N N
t N
s N
0
(o O O o (o
w N O o oo O
a a o c' un c
C N O oO co
n O O co O
d'
Oo
T
C 64 EA (A (A (A
o
0
a LL o
to
Y a 0 0 i m
o
O
a o
ar m
Y a)
`o m
0
0
0
U
w
c
y
x
W
0
N
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
MEETING DATE: September 29, 2025
SUBJECT: Special Road District Presentation and Discussion
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
n/a
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The Road Department will deliver a presentation regarding Special Road Districts in
Deschutes County and address common observed issues with SRDs, as well as propose
actions to improve education and outreach to SRDs and their patrons.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
n/a.
ATTENDANCE:
Chris Doty, Road Department Director
Cody Smith, County Engineer/Assistant Road Department Director
ES COG2a
V
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
MEETING DATE: September 29, 2025
SUBJECT: Potential issuance of a termination notice to the existing solid waste franchise
holder, originally granted in 1972, for the purpose of replacing it with a
modernized franchise agreement that reflects current operational, performance,
and financial accountability standards
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Provide direction to the Director of Solid Waste regarding a possible notice of termination,
in accordance with the terms of the 1972 agreement and County Code, to Cascade Disposal
and Republic Services for their exclusive collection franchise rights. The Board may also
wish to direct staff to begin the process to review and amend the County Code provisions
pertaining to Solid Waste services.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
In 1972 the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) granted four separate franchises for
solid waste collection as provided under the Solid Waste Collections and Disposal
Ordinance. Each of these franchises have defined legal boundaries outlining the areas of
service for each franchisee. Over the last 20 years these franchises, along with an
additional franchise for the transfer of solid waste and other waste materials and a
recycling and composting lease agreement, have been purchased and consolidated to be
held by two national waste companies. Cascade Disposal (whose parent company is Waste
Connections) operates a franchise originally granted to R.A. Brownrigg. Republic Services
purchased the remaining franchises and lease agreements providing services to the
county.
While these franchises have provided essential services to County residents, the
agreements reflect the policies and conditions of the early 1970s and do not incorporate
contemporary requirements for:
• Performance standards (e.g., customer service metrics, equipment standards, and
compliance monitoring).
• Facility designations (e.g., landfill and transfer station use consistent with the
County's Solid Waste Management Plan).
Financial transparency and reporting (e.g., audited financial statements, tonnage
reporting, fee reconciliation).
DEQ program and reporting requirements (e.g customer outreach, required
recycling program elements, contamination standards)
This lack of modern provisions limits the County's ability to ensure consistent delivery of
service, protect public health and safety, and maintain proper fiscal oversight.
DISCUSSION:
Staff opinion is that updating the franchise agreement is necessary to align with industry
standards and best practices. A new agreement would:
1. Enhance Accountability -Establish clear performance expectations and provide
enforcement tools to ensure compliance.
2. Improve Service Integration - Specify designated facilities for disposal and
processing to ensure alignment with the County's adopted solid waste management
system as well as current and future County infrastructure investments.
3. Strengthen Financial Oversight - Require transparent and timely financial
reporting, including revenue and expense audits tied to franchise fees and ensure
rate payer protections.
4. Provide Legal and Operational Clarity - Eliminate ambiguities in the 1972
agreement and incorporate up-to-date legal protections for both the County and the
franchisee.
Over the past two years, Solid Waste Department staff, in concert with staff from both the
City of Bend and the City of Redmond, has been working to develop a new franchise
agreement to replace the current agreements. Redmond and Bend are likewise interested
to develop an updated standard franchise agreement that the County could administer on
their behalf through an Intergovernmental Agreement.
Staff from the cities and the County began meeting with the two franchisees to discuss a
draft replacement franchise agreement incorporating the provisions outlined above. As
staff has presented to the BOCC, the goal was to develop and negotiate an agreement that
would protect County investments, provide residents with service standards they could
count on and that the franchisees were accountable to, and require financial reporting that
was robust and transparent enough to ensure rates were appropriate and justified. In
consideration for voluntarily entering into a new franchise agreement, staff was willing to
continue the current contractual term of annual renewals with a seven (7) year termination
notification clause, otherwise known as an "evergreen" agreement.
In August, the County agreed to entertain revisions to the agreement as proposed by
Cascade Disposal. While waiting for those revisions, on September 2"d Cascade Disposal
notified the County that it was no longer interested to move forward with further
discussions regarding a new franchise agreement and instead preferred to operate under
the existing system.
Throughout this process, Republic Services has voluntarily participated, while Cascade
Disposal has largely not engaged in the process or discussions. The City of Redmond and
County staff is largely in agreement with regard to terms for a new agreement with
Republic Services (note: Redmond's sole service provider) with a few remaining items
pending. However, the performance of Republic Services in many areas has been
concerning over the past few years, to the point that the City of Redmond had provided it
with a Notice of Termination at the end of 2023. The City of Bend is also close to agreement
with Republic, but not with Cascade.
Without both franchisees being amenable to a new agreement, staff does not view it
prudent to continue taking steps to move one party to a new franchise agreement and
have the other operate under current County Code.
Options
1. Continue with the existing franchise arrangement as currently configured
a. Amend County Code to add more elements regarding performance
standards and facility designation authority.
i. This approach would require allowing a relatively substantive period
of time for the franchisee to come into compliance with the new code
(i.e. up to 24 months) or forego their franchise.
ii. The County would want the franchise under these new provisions in
Code to sign a franchise agreement/contract binding them to these
new conditions, as laws applicable to the Code could change.
iii. Enforcement through County Code can be lengthy in implementation
if contested.
iv. Since the County Code relative to the Solid Waste provisions is quite
old, there may be some questions as to how well this could work for
the County. There may be some limitations by law to the degree to
which the County can alter those provisions under which the
franchises were granted.
2. Provide Notice of Termination to both of the franchise holders which would provide
the County (and potentially the cities as well) a six -year window to develop a model
franchise agreement and to conduct a formal RFP procurement process.
a. Staff envisions that a model franchise agreement would include the various
elements cited earlier in this document along with a set term (i.e., 10 or 15
years) that would be competitively bid on a regular basis.
b. The competitive bidding process would ensure resident rates would be at
true market rate, while also allowing efficiencies of one service provider at a
time for the County, ensuring consistency of services and communications
throughout the County.
If Option 2 is selected, staff would likely recommend procuring the services of a seasoned
industry consultant to assist in the development of the process towards a new agreement.
This may include coordination with most or all of the jurisdictions within the County for a
universally adopted service franchise agreement that each city could utilize and County
administer under an IGA.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
Adoption of a modernized franchise agreement would improve revenue accountability
through updated fee structures and reporting requirements. While no immediate fiscal
impact would result from issuing a termination notice, long-term impacts include increased
accuracy in franchise fee collection and better alignment of costs with service delivery for
the residents of Deschutes County.
ATTENDANCE:
Tim Brownell, Director of Solid Waste
' vA ES Co&
o
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
MEETING DATE: September 29, 2025
SUBJECT: Consideration of County Commissioner Five District Map Representation Options
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
A proposal has been put before the Board of County Commissioners for its consideration
to elect Commissioners based on the Missoula County, Montana model. The Missoula
County option (which is similar to the way in which board members for the Bend -La Pine
School District are elected) divides the county into districts of approximately equal
population size. A Commissioner must reside within the district in which they file as a
candidate, but all Commissioners are elected at -large by all the voters of the county
according to which candidates receive the most votes for their respective district.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
N/A
ATTENDANCE:
Nick Lelack, County Administrator
Jen Patterson, Strategic Initiatives Manager
\)T ES COG�a
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING
1:00 PM, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2025
Allen Room - Deschutes Services Building - 1300 NW Wall Street - Bend
(541) 388-6570 ( 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
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.
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.
COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS
AGENDA ITEMS
1. 1:00 PM Courthouse Expansion Update
2. 1:15 PM Special Road District Presentation and Discussion
3. 1:45 PM Potential issuance of a termination notice to the existing solid waste
franchise holder, originally granted in 1972, for the purpose of replacing it
with a modernized franchise agreement that reflects current operational,
performance, and financial accountability standards
4. 2:05 PM Consideration of County Commissioner Five District Map Representation
Options
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.
ADJOURN
September 29, 2025 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 2 of 2