Loading...
2025-408-Minutes for Meeting November 10,2025 Recorded 12/2/2025vtES C � O BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon (541)388-6570 Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2025-408 Steve Dennison, County Clerk Commissioners' journal 12/02/2025 11:59:01 AM 2025-408 BOCC MEETING MINUTES 1:00 PM MONDAY November 10, 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; and BOCC Executive Assistant Brenda Fritsvold (via Zoom). This meeting was audio and video recorded and can be accessed at the Deschutes County Meeting Portal: www.deschutes.org/meetings. CALL TO ORDER: Chair DeBone called the meeting to order at 1:00 pm. CITIZEN INPUT: • Justin Gottlieb noted that next year is the 250th anniversary of the nation's founding; spoke to the traditional ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and said current -day societal focus on wealth, technology and charity is not working. He encouraged a conversation about cultural frames of reference and governance structures at the county, state, and national levels. COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS: None AGENDA ITEMS: 1. Update on Cleveland Commons from Housing Works Lynne McConnell, executive director of Housing Works, presented an update on Cleveland Commons, a permanent supportive housing facility which opened in BOCC MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 2025 PAGE 1 OF 5 Bend this past January. McConnell provided information on the services offered to residents, including haircuts, veterinary care for pets, and hospice. She acknowledged that the facility has experienced some staffing challenges and shared that one incident proceeded to an investigation, which was completed and is now considered resolved. McConnell said residents of Cleveland Commons are chronically homeless and either disabled or have significant physical and/or mental health challenges. She distributed copies of a recent newsletter which contained information on upcoming and past events hosted by the facility and expressed appreciation for the many service partners who provide needed assistance to residents. In response to McConnell's comments on the need for approximately 700 permanent supportive housing units in Central Oregon, Commissioner Chang noted that Mountain View Community Development is planning a permanent supportive housing facility for East Redmond. McConnell said she knew of no other such facilities being planned at this time. Responding to Commissioner Adair, McConnell confirmed that Cascade Management assumed management of the facility on March 1 St. McConnell said while Cleveland Commons is a low -barrier facility, residents are required to abide by a set of rules and further must pay up to 30% of their income as rent. McConnell added that it can be hard for substance users/abusers to achieve sobriety without stable housing. Commissioner Adair asked if tenants can use drugs in their own apartment. McConnell explained that landlord/tenant laws curtail monitoring this kind of activity in private spaces. Discussion ensued of an article recently published in The Source regarding Cleveland Commons. In response to questions, McConnell said it's generally expected that stabilization of a previously unhoused tenant can take nine months. She added that some residents are particularly challenged by living in a group situation. Commissioner DeBone asked about the source of needed funding for the facility's operations. Saying that most of this is received from the State, McDonnell added that because the construction of the facility was completed under budget, some of the funding received for development is instead now being used for operations. BOCC MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 2025 PAGE 2 OF 5 Commissioner Chang expressed his appreciation that Housing Works has provided more than 1,000 affordable housing units in the County, and further thanked Shepherd's House for helping a large number of people to move towards/achieve sobriety. 2. Update from Terrebonne Sanitary District Guy Vernon introduced the update from the Terrebonne Sanitary District, saying this community -driven effort began in 2019 and explaining the goal of developing a regional wastewater solution to benefit public health, housing, and economic development. Parker Vernon next outlined progress made to date, saying that approximately 90 percent of the system design work has been completed by Parametrix. In addition, coordination with ODOT on a nearby road project resulted in the installation of about 25% of the needed pipeline, and an intergovernmental agreement with the City of Redmond to accept and treat discharge has eliminated the need for a separate treatment plant. The District reported increased numbers of property annexations, with more than 100 additional properties (about 200-250 equivalent dwelling units/EDUs) annexed beyond Phase 1 of the project; another 300-400 EDUs are anticipated to join during the next annexation phase in the spring. Expected benefits of the project include addressing Terrebonne's high septic failure rates, protecting groundwater, facilitating school capacity expansion, and unlocking several hundred developable lots consistent with State housing initiatives. With respect to project financing, Linda Swearingen said the District was approved for a $100,000 Clean Water State Revolving Fund planning loan that will convert to a grant, and applications are pending for additional funding from Business Oregon's Housing and Infrastructure program and a separate Clean Water State Revolving Fund loan. Swearingen explained that funds previously allocated by the County are being used to match other revenue sources. Guy Vernon concluded that once the project is fully designed, its construction cost can be determined. 3. Scope of Work Proposals: Senate Bill 83, Wildfire Building Codes, and Defensible Space Standards Update from Terrebonne Sanitary District Senior Planner Kyle Collin reviewed action taken by the Oregon Legislature earlier this year to repeal the State's Wildfire Hazard Map and associated codes. In presenting local action options for the Board's consideration, Collins proposed separating the potential adoption of R327 building hardening standards for new BOCC MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 2025 PAGE 3 OF 5 residential construction from future consideration of defensible space standards, advising that the latter be taken up when model language is available from the Oregon State Fire Marshal. Collins said if Deschutes County decides to adopt R327 provisions as contained in the State's Building Code, it must adopt those regulations in full. He noted that none of the standards apply to commercial development, and certain exceptions (for example, in the case of rebuilding after a fire) can be made. Commissioner Chang said while it is appropriate to require building hardening for new construction, implementing defensible space requirements would affect many more properties and therefore have broader impact on community resiliency. Saying that it seems appropriate in Deschutes County to have fire hardening standards for new construction, Commissioner DeBone supported referring the question of whether to adopt the State's R327 standards to the Planning Commission to facilitate outreach and awareness. Commissioner Adair stated her support for this option as well. Discussion ensued regarding costs to homeowners and the applicability of existing standards to construction components such as glazing. Acknowledging that many builders are already choosing fire-resistant materials for some components such as roofing, Collins estimated that full fire hardening could increase the construction cost of a single family home by two to three percent, The Board directed staff to refer the question of whether to adopt the State's R327 building hardening standards to the Planning Commission for public input and development of a recommendation to the Board. OTHER ITEMS: • Commissioner Chang relayed discussions on the possible establishment of a multi - county coalition to advocate for significant capital construction investments from the State to address safety concerns along Highway 97. • Commissioner DeBone traveled to Salem last Wednesday for several meetings, including one at the Oregon Department of Emergency Management regarding coverage enhancements for the First Responder Network (FirstNet) Authority, a nationwide public safety broadband network. • Commissioner DeBone attended last Thursday's COIC meeting. • Commissioner Adair reported on interviews held last Wednesday for the Fair & Expo Director position. BOCC MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 2025 PAGE 4 OF 5 • Commissioner Adair attended the "Bite of Reality" event hosted by Mid Oregon Credit Union to help youth and young adults gain financial literacy by considering a variety of simulated real -world financial choices and weighing their options in a fun, no -risk environment. EXECUTIVE SESSION: At 2:26 pm, the Board entered Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Real Property Negotiations. The Board exited Executive Session at 2:34 pm and directed staff to proceed as discussed. ADJOURN: Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:35 pm. DATED this ) b day of YK"Alb-�&25 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: _4M1/4L_ RECORDING SECRETARY ANTHONY DEBONE, CHAIR PATTI ADAIR, VICE CHAIR PHIL CHANG, C MMISSIONER BOCC MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 2025 PAGE 5 OF 5 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: 6u". ' -rzA c5�'�i�1/G �'�7Z. Date: -f(� Name��- Address S '} Phone#s_ E-mail address 1-1 In Favor Neutral/Undecided ❑ Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes El No 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: November 10, 2025 SUBJECT: Update on Cleveland Commons from Housing Works RECOMMENDED MOTION: N/A —presentation only. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: In 2021, the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners contributed $2 million towards the construction of Cleveland Commons, a 33-unit permanent supportive housing established to serve persons who have faced significant barriers to stable housing, particularly those with disabilities and long-term histories of homelessness. Other project partners included Neighborlmpact, Housing Works, and FUSE. Shepherd's House manages the day-to-day operations of Cleveland Commons. Residents are provided with wraparound case management services including primary healthcare and behavioral health and substance use recovery services. Lynne McConnell, the Executive Director of Housing Works, will share information on the operations of Cleveland Commons since it opened in early 2025. BUDGET IMPACTS: None ATTENDANCE: Lynne McConnell, Housing Works Executive Director The nurse will be here for drop -in care, on Wednesday's from 8:30am - 11:30am. This is a `first come first served' situation so please be prompt if you would like to be seen that day. Thanks! Beretta! - 7 years old • Thursdays at 6pm, Church Dinner, at CC • Fridays at 2pm, NAM I, at CC • Nov. 5: Haircuts By Kai, 4:30pm • Nov.19: Haircuts By Kai, 4:30pm • Nov. 20: CAMP Pet Clinic • Nov. 26: Thanksgiving Meal 12:15pm, at CC • Nov. 27: Happy Thanksgiving! Why did the scarecrow get promoted in November? Because he was outstanding in his field. 0 Al * s 0 0 0 0 ® g 0► 0 i 0 a What do you get when you cross a turkey with a banjo? A turkey that can pluck itself. 1 FM Please join us on Friday afternoons, at 2pm, for our weekly NAM1 meeting. It is held right here at CC, in the group room. We have hot cocoa and chocolate available during the meeting. It is a time of talking about what's going on in life in the 'here and now', listening to each other, and discussing various mental health related topics. NAMI stands for'NationalAlliance on Mental Illness." Groups are 60-90 minute meetings, held once a week. Each meeting has an agenda, and we review the Principles of Support, and the Group Guidelines at each meeting. These groups are led by individuals with first hand experience with mental illness. Debi and Sarah are newly trained peer leaders. Come learn with us! Are you winter ready? Here are some recourses that may be helpful.. The Lighthouse is doing a cold weather clothing drive, so the Men's House will soon have options. Also the Humane Society Thrift Store provides vouchers for clothing up to $30, every 6 months. Bethlehem Inn also has a clothing closet. 0 0 November 4,1842 -Abraham Lincoln married Mary Todd in Springfield, Illinois. November 7,1885 - Canada's first transcontinental railway, the Canadian Pacific, was completed in British Columbia. November 19,1493 - Puerto Rico was discovered by Columbus during his second voyage to the New World. The Lighthouse is providing Thanksgiving 'Dinner' for us! Come eat with us at 12:15pm Wednesday November 26th at CC. Then Thursday, celebrate however you'd like. Thanksgiving dinner twice? ... yes please! (The church WILL NOT be serving dinner here on Thanksgiving Day) Y w Do you want to contribute? Please reach out to Sarah to. Also we'd love feedback! What do YOU all want this .90 newsletter to be about? 1-14 vS E S COG2A o BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING DATE: November 10, 2025 SUBJECT: Update from Terrebonne Sanitary District RECOMMENDED MOTION: N/A —information only. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Representatives from the Terrebonne Sanitary District will provide an update on the progress being made to establish a sanitary sewer system in Terrebonne in the interest of protecting groundwater and public health. BUDGET IMPACTS: None ATTENDANCE: Kristin Yurdin, District Board Member Guy Vernon, District Board Member Objective Reestablish the Terrebonne Sanitary District (TSD) project as a key regional initiative that advances Deschutes County's goals for housing affordability, environmental protection, and sustainable infrastructure. This project represents a collaborative partnership between the community, Deschutes County, and multiple state and regional agencies —bringing long- term health, housing, and economic benefits to Terrebonne and the greater Central Oregon region. Current Focus The Terrebonne Sewer Project continues to progress as a model for community -driven infrastructure planning. Current efforts are focused on finalizing design, securing key funding, expanding district boundaries to include additional properties, and preparing for construction in alignment with the Redmond Wetlands Project (completion 2027). Comn'tunity Engagement & Public Involvement • Initial Grassroots Support: Early petitions from more than 100 residents played a vital rote in forming the district and establishing the foundation for community -backed infrastructure. • Ongoing Public Interest: Continued property owner requests for annexation show growing confidence in the district and broad recognition of the project's value. • Public Outreach Commitment: The district remains focused on transparent and proactive communication through public meetings, newsletters, and social media to ensure residents remain informed and engaged. Deschutes County - For financial and technical collaboration totaling nearly $3 million in direct support to date. • Chris Doherty, ODOT - Deschutes County • Todd Cleveland, Oregon DEQ • Deschutes County Planning Commission • Linda Swerengin & Nancy Blankenship • Parametrix TSD extends its sincere gratitude to Deschutes County for its ongoing commitment, financial partnership, and leadership in helping move this critical infrastructure project forward. • Formation and voter approval of the Terrebonne Sanitary District • Nearly $3 million in total support from Deschutes County for design, technical assistance, and planning loans • 90% design completion with Parametrix • Coordination with ODOT for sewer line installation during roadway projects • Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the City of Redmond for joint sewage processing • Annexation expansion: Over 100 additional properties included beyond Phase 1 boundaries Benefits of Completion • Public Health & Safety: Addresses Terrebonne's high septic failure rate, protecting residents, groundwater, and local businesses. • Affordable Housing & Growth: Unlocks hundreds of developable lots, aligning with H13 2138 and the Governor's Executive Order on increasing Oregon's housing supply. • Educational Capacity: Enables the school to expand and accommodate more students by resolving septic constraints. • Economic Opportunity: Supports business growth, job creation, and long-term community investment. • Environmental Stewardship: Integrates with the Redmond Wetlands Project (completion 2027) to provide a sustainable, regional wastewater solution. Finance Update who CWSRF 2025 Phrmlrig Loan CIEAN WATER STATE REVOLVIN6 FUND Status: Approved and signed Amount: $100,000 Purpose: • Reimburse and fund annexation of additional properties • Develop a District Management Plan for long-term operations • Explore future annexations Status: Application submitted Amount Requested: $100,000 Purpose: • Finalize design and engineering of the Terrebonne Sewer Project • Secure required permits • Prepare bid -ready documents and issue public bids for construction Timeline: Notice of awards expected by Thanksgiving 2025. Status: Application submitted Amount Requested: $100,000 Purpose: • Support annexation of additional properties • Develop a fair and equitable user charge system, including SDCs and monthly rates Ask for Continued County Support The Terrebonne Sanitary District respectfully requests the continued partnership and advocacy of the Deschutes County Commissioners to help keep the momentum of this essential community project moving forward. Together, we can deliver a lasting infrastructure solution that safeguards public health, expands housing opportunities, and strengthens the future of Terrebonne and Deschutes County. I�N31 E S Co& o < MEETING DATE: November 10, 2025 SUBJECT: Scope of Work Proposals: Senate Bill 83, Wildfire Building Codes, and Defensible Space Standards RECOMMENDED MOTION: Staff recommends the Board select one of the provided scope of work options for reviewing new wildfire mitigation building code standards. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Staff requests direction from the Board of County Commissioners regarding Senate Bill (SB) 83 and new wildfire mitigation development standards available to local jurisdictions per the legislation. This request follows direction from the Board during their July 23, 2025 meeting to create a scope of work for evaluating new wildfire mitigation standards. Depending on the alternative selected by the Board, staff anticipates that any public processes would begin Winter 2025-26. All scoping options provided are specific to fire hardening building code standards for new residential development, as these standards are immediately available for local adoption. Potential defensible space standards will be discussed in the coming months as state direction is refined BUDGET IMPACTS: None ATTENDANCE: Kyle Collins, Senior Planner Will Groves, Planning Manager I E S COG MEMORANDUM TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Kyle Collins, Senior Planner Will Groves, Planning Manager Peter Gutowsky, Community Development Director DATE: November 4, 2025 SUBJECT: Scope of Work Proposals: Senate Bill 83, Wildfire Building Codes, and Defensible Space Standards Staff requests direction from the Board of County Commissioners (Board) regarding Senate Bill (SB) 83' and new wildfire mitigation development standards available to local jurisdictions per the legislation. This request follows direction from the Board during their July 23, 20252 meeting to create a scope of work (SOW) for evaluating new wildfire mitigation standards. The following section outlines several possible public outreach and legislative processes which could guide the development, evaluation, and adoption of new wildfire mitigation text amendments to the Deschutes County Code (DCC). Depending on the alternative selected by the Board, staff anticipates that any public processes would begin Winter 2025- 26. For ease of implementation and differences in state adopted model codes, this legislative effort has been broken into two separate projects: 1) Fire hardening standards for new residential development as outlined in section R327 of the Oregon Residential Specialty Code (ORSC) 2) Forthcoming defensible spaces standards to be released by the Oregon State Fire Marshal All SOW options discussed herein are specific to fire hardening building code standards for new residential development, as these standards are immediately available for local 1 https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2025R1/Downloads/Measu reDocument/SB83/Enrolled 2 https://www.deschutes.org/bcc/page/board-county-commissioners-meeting-243 adoption. Defensible space standards will be discussed in the coming months as state direction is refined. 1. Scope of Work Options Staff has drafted multiple SOW options for the Board's consideration. As outlined in the tables below, these options are generally grouped according to the expected timeframe, with additional public outreach corresponding to a longer potential adoption process. Option 1 - Standard Legislative Amendment Process Outreach Number of Hearings Expected Timeframe Public hearings with If reviewed as land use: 2-3 months, depending on Planning Commission One hearing before the individual hearing (Commission) and Planning Commission and participation. Board*. one hearing before the Board. If reviewed as building code: One hearing before the Board, with optional information session with the Planning Commission. Pros • Fast: allows for the expedited adoption of newly available fire mitigation building codes. • Standardized: matches a majority of legislative efforts in Deschutes County. • Previous History: Builds directly on previous wildfire mitigation efforts already undertaken by the County in 2019-2020, through the Wildfire Mitigation Advisory Committee (WMAC). Cons • Less Upfront Education: Reduced public outreach efforts may produce some confusion from community members. • Limited Public Comment: Reduced opportunity to incorporate feedback from community members in drafting legislative concepts prior to formal hearings processes. Page 2 of 8 Option 2 - Expanded Public Hearing Process Outreach Number of Hearings Expected Timeframe Multiple public If reviewed as land use: 4-6 months, depending on hearings with the Between 3-5 public individual hearing Commission and hearings with the Planning participation and number of Board. Commission, potentially hearings conducted. spread over multiple geographic areas of the County. If reviewed as building code: Between 3-5 public hearings before the Board, with optional information sessions with the Planning Commission as directed. Pros • Greater Upfront Education: Expanded opportunities for formal public comment may produce a more robust legislative outcome. • More Public Engagement: Additional opportunities for the Planning Commission to interface with the public in diverse regions of the County. • Previous History: Builds directly on previous wildfire mitigation efforts already undertaken by the County in 2019-2020, through the WMAC. Cons • Uncertain Outcome: Additional public hearings are not guaranteed to result in a consensus outcome. • Delayed Implementation: will likely result in additional unmitigated development. • Limited Staff Capacity: Technical and capacity challenges from both staff and Commissioners in hosting multiple public hearings across various regions of the County. Page 3 of 8 Option 3 - Community Meeting and Public Hearing Process Outreach Number of Hearings Expected Timeframe Several informal If reviewed as land use: 4-8 months, depending on community One hearing before the individual hearing outreach/education Planning Commission and participation and number of efforts spread over one hearing before the informal public outreach. multiple geographic Board. areas of the County. If reviewed as building Informal outreach code: One hearing before efforts followed by a the Board, with optional standard public information session with hearing process. the Planning Commission. Pros • Greater Upfront Education: Expanded opportunities for public education may provide staff an opportunity to incorporate community perspectives in legislative frameworks prior to a formal hearing process. • Additional Expertise: Staff may be able to invite subject matter experts such as the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) and various fire protection districts to help answer questions regarding possible legislative outcomes prior to a formal hearing process. • More Public Engagement: Increased public involvement to help build community understanding and trust. Cons • Uncertain Outcome: Additional public education events are not guaranteed to result in a consensus outcome. • Delayed Implementation: will likely result in additional unmitigated development. • Limited Capacity: Technical and capacity challenges from both staff and subject matter experts in hosting multiple public education events across various regions on the County. Page 4 of 8 II. BACKGROUND During the 2021 state legislative session, Senate Bill (SB) 7623 was passed to help modernize and improve wildfire preparedness across Oregon. SB 762 was subsequently modified by the passage of SB 804 in 2023. These pieces of legislation were developed to address wildfire issues through three key strategies: creating fire -adapted communities, developing safe and effective responses, and increasing the resiliency of Oregon's landscapes. One of the primary components of SBs 762 and 80 was the creation of a comprehensive Statewide Wildfire Hazard Map (Hazard Map) to guide new wildfire regulations for development. Under SBs 762 and 80, once the Hazard Map was finalized, properties included in both a designated Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) boundary and classified as high hazard would be subject to additional development regulations. SB 80 required that, at a minimum, local governments ensure that properties meeting both of these classifications would be subject to: 1) Home hardening building codes as described in section R327 of the Oregon Residential Specialty Code. 2) Defensible space standards as determined by the Oregon State Fire Marshal. However, due to public concern the state legislature repealed the Hazard Map and all associated requirements in June 2025 with the passage of SB 83. SB 83 also makes available new standards to local governments broadly similar to those originally controlled by the Hazard Map. However, SB 83 makes the following changes to any locally adopted wildfire mitigation standards: • Limits the implementation of section R327 of the Oregon Residential Specialty Code (ORSC) to new dwellings and residential accessory structures over 400 square feet. o Under the newly modified section repairs or replacements of existing components (i.e. - roofs, siding, etc.) and additions to existing dwellings are not mandatorily subject to R327. • Removes requirements for local government to identify specific geographic regions for implementing any adopted wildfire mitigation standards. o Previously, R327 building code standards and associated mitigation requirements were required to be implemented through the establish of a locally adopted "Wildfire Hazard Map." This requirement has been removed and jurisdictions have been granted broad latitude to determine where to implement any locally adopted standards. At the local level, Deschutes County previously went through an exercise in 2019-2020 with the collaborative Wildfire Mitigation Advisory Committee (WMAC) to determine if changes were warranted to the Deschutes County Wildfire Hazard Zone and whether additional 3 https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2021 R1 /Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB762/Enrolled 4 https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023Rl /Down loads/Measu reDocu ment/SB80/En rolled Page 5 of 8 mitigation standards should be considered for new development. That process ultimately concluded with a report summarizing recommendations from the WMAC5 as well as an outreach report gauging public interest in new wildfire mitigation standards'. Ultimately, the Board decided the Deschutes County Wildfire Hazard Zone should remain unchanged. Prior to continued discussions regarding new wildfire mitigation standards, SB 762 was passed and largely removed local discretion on new mitigation standards until present. III. KEY ISSUES Outside of selecting a specific SOW, the Board should be aware of several key issues that will ultimately need to be considered through any public process. The Board does not need to make decisions on these issues at present, but they are provided for informational purposes: Pending State Level Actions Prior to implementation of any new wildfire mitigation standards at the local level, rule making and associated actions must be undertaken by state agencies including the State Building Codes Division (BCD) and the Oregon State Fire Marshal. As of August 5, 2025, temporary rules have been adopted by BCD which modified section R327 of the ORS C71. BCD anticipates making these rules permanent effective January 1, 2026. In the interim period, the temporary rules still allow local jurisdictions to adopt R327 Building Code standards. Standards for defensible space have not yet been developed by the Oregon State Fire Marshal, but it is staffs understanding that a model defensible code will released by the end of 2025. This code will be modeled on the 2024 International Wildland Urban Interface Code, and will likely include a set of minimum standards, with the option for additional stringency at the local level if desired. Staff will provide updates as more information is available. Wooden Shake Roofs It appears that the County's 2001 prohibition on wooden shake roofs has been rescinded. The Deschutes County Code (DCC), currently prohibits the construction of wooden shake roofs, whether in new construction or repairs/replacements, through tailored https•//www.deschutes.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/community development/page/17911 /2020-04-17 wmac final report complete.pdf 6 https://www.deschutes.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/community development/page/17911 /wildfire mitigation outreach summary report.pdf ' https•//www oregon gov/bcd/laws-rules/Documents/20250805-orsc-amend-r327-tr.pdf 8 https•//www.oregon.gov/bcd/codes-stand/Documents/23orsc-r327-a mend.pdf Page 6 of 8 implementation of R327 of the ORSC9. However, SB 83 has modified the R327 section in the following ways: 1) If adopted locally, R327 must be adopted in whole and cannot be adopted in a partial manner 2) R327 can now only be mandated for the construction of new dwellings and certain accessory structures Given these changes, it appears that the Board cannot maintain the previous prohibition on wooden shake roofs without incorporating the other portions of R327. Additionally, it appears that regardless of decisions from the Board, the County can no longer require existing wooden shake roofs to come into compliance with R327 standards when property owners seek a roof replacement or major repair on existing dwellings. Implementation Areas Previously, section R327 required the adoption of a local Wildfire Hazard Zone for implementation of any state level wildfire mitigation standards. Adopted Wildfire Hazard Zones which administered these standards were mandated to incorporate certain geographic, climate, and vegetation features. Additionally, Deschutes County has maintained a locally adopted Wildfire Hazard Zone since 200110. The County Wildfire Hazard Zone covers all areas of unincorporated Deschutes County. SB 83 removes the specific requirement for locally adopted Wildfire Hazard Zones to implement any R327 building code standards or newly developed defensible space standards. SB 83 provides broad latitude to local governments on where new mitigation rules are implemented and may be based on a wide variety of possible attributes. If the Board ultimately determines that new mitigation standards are warranted, a key decision point will be the geographic scope where standards would apply. Should the Board elect to target mitigation standards to specific geographic areas, then any proposed amendments will need to be evaluated under a land use process, which has distinct procedural requirements that must be addressed. Should R327 building code standards be adopted across all areas on the County equally, then the legislative process no longer needs to follow land use procedures. 9 https•//deschutescounty municipalgodeonline com/book?type=ordinances#name=15 04 085 Wildfir e Hazard Zones 10 https•//www deschutes org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/community development/page/17911 /ordinance 2001-024.pdf Page 7 of 8 IV. NEXT STEPS Per the Board's direction, staff will begin scheduling all required public hearings, informational sessions, or public outreach events necessary to evaluate new wildfire mitigation building code standards. Attachments: 1. 2025 Estimate Report for Wildfire -Resistant Homes Construction Costs - Headwaters Economics Page 8 of 8 Construction Costs for Wildfire -Resistant Homes A comparison between California Wildland-Urban Interface Code (CWUIC) Part i, IBHS Wildfire Prepared Home Base, and IBHS Wildfire Prepared Home Plus Pall 2025 Insurance Institute for HEADWATERS Business& Home ECONOMICS Construction Costs for Wildfire -Resistant Homes A comparison between California Wildland-Urban Interface Code (CWUIC) Part 7, IBHS Wildfire Prepared Home Base, and IBHS Wildfire Prepared Home Plus Authors Kimiko Barrett, Ph.D. I Sr. Wildfire Research & Policy I kimi aheadwaterseconomics.org Steve Hawks I Sr. Director for Wildfire I shawksna,ibhs.org This report was produced by Headwaters Economics with generous support from the USDA Forest Service and private foundations. This organization is an equal opportunity provider. The recommendations in this document are general suggestions aimed at reducing the risk of wildfire damage to a single-family home. Implementing these suggestions does not guarantee theprevention of damage. Everyproperty and situation is unique, and we recommend consulting with local fire authorities or professionals for advice tailored to speck conditions. The organizations thatproduced this report are not liable for any damages or losses that may occur by following these recommendations. HEADWATERS ECONOMICS P.O. Box 7059 1 Bozeman, MT 59771 https://headwaterseconomics.org Construction Costs for Wildfire -Resistant Homes - 2 - Fall 2025 Table of Contents Table of Contents ....................... 2 ExecutiveSummary ...................... 4 Methods&Assumptions ................... 6 Roof.............................. 7 Under -Save Area ...................... 7 Exterior Walls ........................ 8 Windows & Doors ...................... 8 Attached Deck ........................ 9 Zone 0 (Near -Home Landscaping) ............ 9 Conclusion...........................10 Appendix: Cost and Materials Tables ............11 Construction Costs for Wildfire -Resistant Homes - 3 - Fall 2025 Executive Summa In January 2025 the County and City of Los Angeles was devastated by catastrophic wildfires that destroyed more than 16,000 structures. As rebuilding efforts begin, constructing homes to wildfire -resistant standards is essential to strengthening long-term community resilience and reducing future wildfire losses. California, a leader in wildfire mitigation, enforces some of the nation's most comprehensive building regulations through its Building Code Chapter 7A (Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure), which outlines materials and construction methods for exterior wildfire exposure in the higher wildfire hazard areas of the state. Homeowners and builders can comply through prescriptive or performance - based approaches, offering flexibility in achieving wildfire resistance. On January 1, 2026, Chapter 7A will become Part 7 (Title 24) of the California Wildland-Urban Interface Code (CWUIC). Complementing state efforts, the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS) has developed the Wildfire Prepared Home (WFPH) program —along with its enhanced Wildfire Prepared Home Plus (WFPH Plus) designation —to standardize mitigation practices nationwide. The IBHS Wildfire Prepared program provides a systems -based approach to wildfire risk reduction through mitigations to the structure and defensible space that reduces the risk of home ignition from embers (WFPH Base) and flames/radiant heat (WFPH Plus). This study provides detailed wildfire -resistant building material cost estimates for constructing homes that meet these standards, with specific pricing for key components such as roofing, eaves, siding, windows/ doors, decks, and landscaping within the critical 0-5 foot noncombustible zone. The three different wildfire - resistant scenarios are compared to building material costs for a home constructed with "traditional" non - wildfire resistant building materials. Analyzing the costs for wildfire -resistant measures beyond five feet from the home, such as the surrounding defensible space, and the space between homes was beyond the scope of this project. However, these areas also require attention. Reducing fuels between homes, including vegetation, outlying buildings, and fencing, disrupts pathways for fire and embers to spread between neighbors. Ultimately, home and property wildfire mitigation strategies are most effective when every home in the neighborhood participates. Outcomes from this analysis suggest that wildfire -resistant building material costs for a one-story, 1,750-square- foot, single-family home (with an estimated total construction cost value of $500,000) do not significantly increase the costs relative to traditional non -wildfire -resistant home construction (i.e., homes not subject to CWUIC Part 7). Key findings from this analysis include: Building to IBHS WFPH Base standards yields a potential savings of more than $4,000 compared to CWUIC Part 7 due to no gutter guard requirement, open eave building material considerations, and non - tempered windows. Building to WFPH Plus adds approximately $2,000 in wildfire -resistant materials over CWUIC Part 7. For a 1,750 SF single -level home, added features include enclosed eaves, noncombustible soffits, and double - tempered windows. Building to CWUIC Part 7 adds about $13,000 over traditional construction costs due to features like flame- and ember -resistant vents, open eave building material considerations, metal gutter systems, fire - rated wallboard for exterior walls, dual -paned single tempered windows, and a 0-5 foot noncombustible zone (rock mulch and metal fence). When constructing a new home, many wildfire -resistant building material costs are comparable to non - wildfire resistant material costs. As indicated with previous studies, some of the most effective strategies to Construction Costs for Wildfire -Resistant Homes - 4 - Fall 2025 reduce structure vulnerability to wildfire are relatively affordable. Risk -reduction strategies such as removing flammable materials from on top of and under the deck, clearing gutter systems, removing vegetation and debris from the roof, ensuring a 0-5 foot noncombustible zone, and relocating flammable materials from underneath the home are critical maintenance tasks with little to no cost to the homeowner. Analysis from this study is explicit to wildfire -resistant building materials and did not capture the full building material costs for constructing an entire home. Values are based on a representative home in Altadena, California with a total estimated construction cost of around $500,000. In other words, there are many other additional components and assemblies within a home that are not required for wildfire -resistant construction and are therefore not included in this analysis. Similarly, there are building materials indicative of home construction preferences in Altadena, California that were assumed in this analysis. For example, common building material assemblies and design practices for this area in southern California include a tiled roof covering, fiber -cement siding, and concrete pour -on -grade patio. Additionally, since the model home was a pour -on -grade foundation, no foundation vents are included in the analysis. The estimated costs for constructing a wildfire -resistant home are derived from a detailed analysis of a specific model home (see Methods& Assumptions section), which provides a clear, standardized baseline for evaluating material and design upgrades. While these figures are highly tailored to the size, layout, and features of that model home, findings from this research offer valuable insights into the broader cost implications of adopting wildfire -resistant practices for a variety of structure types. Differences in individual home components - for example, open eave construction versus enclosed eave construction - will influence associated cost considerations. Many of the expenses for improved wildfire resistant construction, such as wildfire resistant roofs, gutter systems, siding, venting, and a noncombustible zone -can be reasonably extrapolated to larger or more complex homes, though actual costs will vary depending on scale, architectural complexity, site -specific conditions, and materials selected. Assembly Component Traditional CWUIC Part 7 1IxsHSjPF Base t7 , Roof Subtotal: $25,321 $26,311 $26,311 $26,311 Eaves Subtotal: $1,900 $4,284 $3,681 $5,253 Exterior Walls Subtotal: $11,461 $13,569 $13,578 $13,591 Windows/ Doors Subtotal: $8,431 $11,391 $8,431 $12,241 Deck Subtotal: $1,968 $1,968 $1,968 $1,968 Zone 0 Subtotal: $1,106 $3,742 $3,742 $3,742 TOTAL (+18% inflation): $59,223 $72,293 $68,099 $74,465 Comparison to Traditional $- $13,070 $8,876 $15,242 Comparison to CWUIC Part 7 $- $- $(4,194) $2,172 Construction Costs for Wildfire -Resistant Homes - 5 - Fall 2025 Methods & Assumptions Reducing home ignitions from wildfire requires understanding the different types of fire exposures a home might face. Homes burn down in three ways: • Wind-blown embers traveling ahead of a wildfire can land on combustible material and ignite spot fires. Direct and indirect ember ignition scenarios are the most common cause of ignitions. • Radiant heat from a nearby fire can ignite combustible materials. The effect of radiant heat depends upon the duration of the exposure, distance, and the intensity of the heat. • Direct flame contact occurs when flames spread to touch a building or combustible material. The three standards used in this analysis address one or more of the three types of fire exposure. While IBHS WFPH Base primarily addresses ember exposure, CWUIC Part 7 and IBHS WFPH Plus are intended to reduce vulnerability from all three types of ignition exposure. The cost analysis for this study was based on a representative typical one-story, 1,750-square-foot, single-family home (footprint specifications measuring approximately 35 feet by 50 feet) in Altadena, California. Estimated costs are provided for constructing the home's roof, under-eave area, exterior walls, windows and doors, deck, and near -home landscaping (also known as Zone 0 or the 0-5 foot noncombustible zone) to wildfire -resistant standards. Suggested building materials considered southern California -specific housing trends, general homeowner material and design preferences, and structure and property characteristics. Mitigation measures for broader property management at the parcel level and minimizing fuels between homes, while critical in reducing wildfire risk to the primary structure, were beyond the scope of this project. These measures include maintaining defensible space and modifying sheds, outlying buildings, and other potential vulnerabilities! Findings are adapted from results originally published in Headwaters Economics' report, Construction Costs for a Wildfire -Resistant Home: California Edition (2022) and Building to Wildfire -Retrofitting a Home for Wildfire Resistance: Costs and Considerations (2024).2 Building materials were selected based on their local availability and when possible, costs were verified with a national database (RS Means, 2023) for standard construction costs. Construction costs for building materials were calculated as a per -unit value. For instance, costs to replace individual windows, including glass and frame, were calculated and reported separately from the cost of an exterior wall. An inflation adjustment of 18% was added to total costs for each scenario to account for building material cost data collected in 2023. Because of extensive variability in site conditions, composition, design, and building materials of home construction, it is difficult to assign an explicit cost for a single structure or group of structures. This research is therefore intended to provide an estimate of building materials for improved wildfire resistance. The subsequent sections of this report provide an overview of the primary exterior home components most vulnerable to fire exposure and estimated costs for related wildfire -resistant building materials. It is important to note the estimates do not include contractor markup costs such as labor, overhead, and profit, which can significantly increase baseline building material costs. Residents and homeowners should consult local contractors for accurate, place -based construction costs. I Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety. (2023). IBHS Early Insights: Lahaina Fire — 2023. Retrieved from https://ibhs.or /wp-con- tent/uploads/IBH SEarlvins i Arts-LaliainaFire.pdf 2 Barrett K and Quarles SL. (2024). Retrofitting a Home for Wildfire Resistance: Costs and Considerations. Headwaters Economics. Retrieved from https://headwaterseconomics.org/natural-hazards/retrofitting-home-wildfire-resistance/ Construction Costs for Wildfire -Resistant Homes - 6 - Fall 2025 Building Material Costs Roof Roofs are highly vulnerable to ignition due to their relatively large horizontal surface area. Many Class A fire - rated roof covering options are available with the most common being asphalt fiberglass composition shingled roof. Two vulnerable features of the roof edge can affect the vulnerability of the roof to ignition. These include roof covering profiles where a gap exists between the roof covering and roof sheathing (i.e., the roof deck) and gutters at the roof edge where vegetative debris can accumulate. For this analysis, a tiled roof was assumed for all four scenarios and is the preferred roof covering for Altadena, CA. For the wildfire -resistant homes (CWUIC, WFPH Base, WFPH Plus), flame- and ember -resistant vents, metal flashing for roof valleys, and a fire-resistant underlayment were included in the cost analysis. Assembly Component Traditional CWUIC Pant 7iP Roof Roof covering Tile Tile Tile Tile Flashing None Metal Metal Metal Underlayment Felt Synthetic/Fire-resistant Synthetic/Fire-resistant Synthetic/Fire-resistant Roof gaps/openings Bird stopping Bird stopping Bird stopping Bird stopping Roof vents (ridge) Plastic Flame/ember-resistant vents Flame/ember-resistant vents Flame/ember-resistant vents Subtotal: $25,321 $26,311 $26,311 $26,311 Under-Eave Area Eaves play an important role for building design but they also create vulnerabilities and pathways for the building to ignite. Embers can travel through vents in the cave into the attic or accumulate in gaps between blocking and rafters in open-eave construction. Should flames reach the under-eave area, open eaves can also trap heat. Once there is an ignition in the under -cave area, fire will spread laterally more quickly. Vents in the under-eave area allow air to enter the attic space. During a wildfire, vent openings can allow the entry of wind-blown embers into the interior attic space. If combustible materials in the attic ignite, the house can burn from the inside out. Newer vents have been designed to resist the intrusion of flames and embers. Best practices for ignition resistance of an under-eave area are to enclose the cave with noncombustible soffit material and install flame- and ember -resistant vents ("WUI" vents). For this analysis, an enclosed cave was assumed for WFPH Plus construction, including a continuous linear flame- and ember -resistant vent. For the other home scenarios, an open cave design was assumed with applicable building materials considerations for vents and soffit. Assembly Component Traditional CWUIC Part 7111 i l' U > Eaves Design Open Open Open Enclosed Exposed roof deck Wood Noncombustible - fiber cement Wood N/A Soffit None None None Noncombustible - fiber cement Soffit vents Circular - resin Circular flame/ember- resistant Circular flame/ember- resistant Linear flame/ember-resistant Gaps/openings (vents) None Fire -rated caulk Fire -rated caulk Fire -rated caulk Gutters Vinyl Metal Metal Metal Gutter guard None Metal None Metal Drip edge None Metal Metal Metal Subtotal: $1,900 $4,284 1 $3,681 1 $5,253 Construction Costs for Wildfire -Resistant Homes - 7 - Fall 2025 Exterior Walls Exterior walls and components in the wall assembly can be vulnerable if exposed to embers, flames, or prolonged radiant heat from burning items located close to the home. These exposures can ignite combustible siding and the resulting flames can spread vertically and laterally to other wall components such as windows and the under-eave area. Additional considerations for the exterior wall include exterior wall vents such as gable, forced air, and foundation vents. For this analysis, fiber -cement siding and trim were assumed for all four home scenarios and based on common building material preferences for Altadena, CA. Since the model home is a pour -on -grade foundation, no foundation vents were included in this analysis. Assembly Component Traditional !:WUIC Part 7 , B IS P Ssg r Ext Walls Siding Noncombustible - fiber cement Noncombustible - fiber cement Noncombustible -fiber cement Noncombustible -fiber cement Trim Noncombustible - fiber cement Noncombustible - fiber cement Noncombustible -fiber cement Noncombustible -fiber cement Wallboard None Gypsum Gypsum Gypsum Forced Air vents Vinyl Vinyl Vinyl w/ louver Metal w/ louver Subtotal: $11,461 $13,569 $13,578 $13,591 Windows and Doors The glass of the window is vulnerable to breaking from exposure to radiant heat or direct flame contact. When glass in a window breaks, the combustible materials inside the home can be more easily ignited from the flames and/or embers that enter into the home. Wood- and vinyl -framed windows can burn or melt when exposed to radiant heat or flames, allowing the glass to fall out of the frame and flames and/or embers into the home. Doors, including window glass set in doors, and door frames can fail for the same reasons as windows. Embers can accumulate in the small gaps between the door and frame, resulting in ignition of the door -framing and weather -sealing material including garage, pedestrian, and front doors. A variety of different windows were assumed for this analysis and based on assumptions of traditional home construction compared to wildfire -resistant (and energy efficiency) requirements. For both the traditional home and WFPH Base, a vinyl -framed, single hung, dual -paned window with non -tempered (annealed) glass was assumed. For compliance with CWUIC Part 7 and energy efficiency standards, a dual -paned, single -tempered casement vinyl -framed window was analyzed. For the highest wildfire -resistance to prolonged radiant heat (WFPH Plus), a dual -paned, double -tempered metal -clad casement window was priced out. Assemb ly!Component Traditional CWUIC Part? J Windows Sliding glass window (48" x 36") Vinyl framed; dual -paned, non -tempered annealed glass (single hung) Vinyl framed; dual -paned, single tempered (casement) Vinyl framed; dual -paned, non -tempered annealed glass (single hung) Dual paned double tempered metal -clad glass window (casement) Doors Pedestrian Wood Wood - solid core Wood - solid core Wood - solid core Side door Wood Wood - solid core Wood - solid core Wood - solid core Sliding glass patio Vinyl Vinyl Vinyl Vinyl Garage Aluminium Aluminium Aluminium Aluminium Subtotal: $8,431 $11,391 $8,431 $12,241 Construction Costs for Wildfire -Resistant Homes - 8 - Fall 2025 Attached Deck Similar to a roof, a deck has a large horizontal surface area and can be vulnerable to embers and under -deck flames. A burning deck can expose the side of the house to extended radiant heat and/or direct flame contact. The deck walking surface and structural support members, as well as what is stored on or below the deck, are therefore important considerations. Enclosing the under -deck area with metal mesh screening can minimize the accumulation of vegetative debris, vegetation, and other combustible materials. Most commonly used deck board products (including wood and plastic composite boards) are combustible. Decks with noncombustible walking surfaces include lightweight concrete or a flagstone product. Regardless of the walking surface, decks are typically supported by solid wood joists, beams, and columns that will be vulnerable to ignition if nearby combustible materials ignite. For purposes of this study and based on homeowner preferences for the Altadena area in southern California, a concrete pour -on -grade patio was assumed for all four home scenarios. A pour -on -grade patio eliminates consideration of a structural support system including joists, beams, and columns that are required for an elevated decking assembly and are not included in this analysis. Assembly Component . Traditional 61VIC Part 7 lsii aNFPJ# a 3 Deck Decking surface Concrete pour -on -slab patio Concrete pour -on -slab patio Concrete pour -on -slab patio Concrete pour -on -slab patio Subtotal: $1,968 $1,968 $1,968 $1,968 Zone 0 (0-5 foot noncombustible zone) Landscaping makes the home vulnerable when it ignites and allows fire to burn directly to the home. Ignition of near -home combustible materials (e.g., mulch, plants, fencing, vegetative debris and other combustible materials) from embers allows flames to touch the home regardless of how well broader vegetation management (defensible space) has been implemented and maintained. Eliminating fuels within five feet of the home is an important mitigation strategy. The type of vegetation, mulch, and other near -home landscaping features and combustible materials in this zone including fencing, will affect the home's vulnerability to ember ignitions and the potential for radiant heat and direct flame contact. This analysis considers mulch and fencing in the material selection within the 0-5 foot noncombustible zone. For the traditional home, bark mulch and a wood fence (including posts) were evaluated. For the three wildfire - resistant home scenarios, rock (pea gravel) mulch and a metal fence were analyzed. While there are many types of fencing, materials included in this study were for privacy fencing (versus a boundary fence such as wrought iron). Assembly P Com onent Traditional CWUIC Part? Zone 0 Mulch Cedar bark Gravel Gravel Gravel Fencing Wood Metal Metal Metal Subtotal: $1,106 $3,742 $3,742 $3,742 Construction Costs for Wildfire -Resistant Homes - 9 - Fall 2025 Conclusion In conclusion, this analysis reinforces that incorporating wildfire -resistant building materials —whether through California Wildland-Urban Interface Code (CWUIC) or the IBHS Wildfire Prepared Home (WFPH) standards —can be achieved at a relatively modest increase in cost compared to traditional construction. For a one-story, 1,750-square-foot mid -range home valued at $500,000, building to WFPH Base increases total construction costs by 2% over a traditional home (and by 3% for WFPH Plus). The estimated costs for building a wildfire -resistant home are based on a detailed assessment of a specific model home, providing a standardized baseline for evaluating material and design upgrades. Although tailored to that home's unique size and features, the findings offer broader insight into the potential costs of adopting wildfire - resistant construction across different types of homes. Variations in design elements —such as open versus enclosed eaves —affect overall expenses. Many fire-resistant upgrades, including roofing, siding, vents, gutters, and a 0-5 foot noncombustible zone, can be extrapolated to larger or more complex homes, though actual costs will vary with scale, design complexity, site -specific conditions, and building materials. These investments provide meaningful protection against wildfire risks, especially when paired with simple, low-cost maintenance actions like clearing debris and maintaining a noncombustible zone. While this study focused on building materials, it also highlights the broader importance of community -wide mitigation, including managing defensible space and reducing fuel continuity between neighboring properties. As wildfire threats intensify across the West, the findings here suggest that building wildfire -resistant homes is both feasible and financially practical —an essential step toward safeguarding communities in high -risk areas. Construction Costs for Wildfire -Resistant Homes - 10 - Fall 2025 Appendix: Cost and Materials Tables Wildfire -Resistant Construction & Costs (2025) Data Tables Cost Estimates 2023-2024 ABOUT THE DATA Pricing is from local suppliers and RSMeans,a national database of construction materials, labor, and contractor 0&P costs. Findings are adapted from results originally published in Headwaters Economics' report, Construction Costs for a Wildfire - Resistant Home: California Edition (2022) and Building to Wildfire -Retrofitting a Home for Wildfire Resistance: Costs and Considerations (2024). RSMeans is updated quarterly, includes average construction cost indices from more than 970 cities, and uses the latest negotiated labor costs for average wages in 30 major cities. Prices include the cost of material as installed (i.e., material plus estimated labor and contractor overhead and profit costs). In some cases, pricing was not available through RSMeans and costs were derived from building subject matter expert, supplier, or local distributors. Pricing includes analyzed building material costs available locally (e.g., at Home Depot and Lowes) and when possible, verified costs with a national database for standard construction costs. In most cases, demolition, labor, and contractor overhead are not included in building material costs. COLUMN DEFINITIONS Assembly: major groupings, or systems, of features such as roof, eaves, exterior walls, windows/doors, and deck. Component: describes the part of the assembly that was priced. Traditional: building materials conventionally used in a non -wildfire -resistant home CWUIC Part 7: California Wildland-Urban Interface Code (CWUIC), Title 24 Part 7 for wildfire -resistant home construction IBHS WFPH Base: Minimum criteria to meet IBHS Wildfire Prepared Home designation, such as creating the 0-5 Foot Noncombustible Zone, upgrading building features, and maintaining the defensible space surrounding the parcel to 30 feet. IBHS WFPH Plus: Additional protective measures beyond the WFPH Base for key building features of the home, and to achieve enhanced wildfire -resistance to flame and radiant heat. ABOUT HEADWATERS ECONOMICS Headwaters Economics is an independent, nonprofit research group. Our mission is to improve community development and land management decisions. https://headwaterseconomics.org PO Box 7059, Bozeman, MT 59771 Contact: Kimiko Barrett, kimi@headwaterseconomics.org, 406-224-1837 Construction Costs for Wildfire -Resistant Homes - 11 - Fall 2025 Table 1: Building materials costs for wildfire -resistant standards Assembly Cj4m . �cnt Traditional CWUIC0ar7 SF sL Roof Roof covering Tile Tile Tile Tile Flashing None Metal Metal Metal Underlayment Felt Synthetic/Fire-resistant Synthetic/Fire-resistant Synthetic/Fire-resistant Roof gaps/openings Bird stopping Bird stopping Bird stopping Bird stopping Roof vents (ridge) Plastic Flame/ember-resistant vents Flame/ember-resistant vents Flame/ember-resistant vents Subtotal: $25,321 $26,311 $26,311 $26,311 Eaves Design Open Open Open Enclosed Exposed roof deck Wood Noncombustible - fiber cement Wood N/A Soffit None None None Noncombustible -fiber cement Soffit vents Circular - resin Circular flame/ember- resistant Circular flame/ember- resistant Linear flame/ember-resistant Gaps/openings (vents) None Fire -rated caulk Fire -rated caulk Fire -rated caulk Gutters Vinyl Metal Metal Metal Gutter guard None Metal None Metal Drip edge None Metal Metal Metal Subtotal: $1,900 $4,284 $3,681 $5,253 Exterior Walls Siding Noncombustible - fiber cement Noncombustible - fiber cement Noncombustible -fiber cement Noncombustible - fiber cement Trim Noncombustible - fiber cement Noncombustible - fiber cement Noncombustible - fiber cement Noncombustible - fiber cement Wallboard None Gypsum Gypsum Gypsum Forced Air vents Plastic Plastic Vinyl w/ louver Metal w/ louver Subtotal: $11,431 $13,569 $13,578 $13,591 Windows Sliding glass window (48" x 36") Vinyl framed; single -paned, non -tempered annealed glass (single hung) Vinyl framed; dual -paned, single tempered (casement) Vinyl framed; single -paned, non -tempered annealed glass (single hung) Dual paned double tempered metal -clad glass window (casement) Doors Pedestrian Wood Wood - solid core Wood - solid core Wood - solid core Side door Wood Wood - solid core Wood - solid core Wood - solid core Sliding glass patio Vinyl Vinyl Vinyl Vinyl Garage Aluminium Aluminium Aluminium Aluminium Subtotal: $8,431 $11,391 $8,431 $12,241 Deck Decking surface Concrete pour -on -slab patio Concrete pour -on -slab patio Concrete pour -on -slab patio Concrete pour -on -slab patio Subtotal: $1,968 $1,968 $1,968 $1,968 Zone 0 Mulch Cedar bark Gravel Gravel Gravel Fencing Wood Metal Metal Metal Subtotal: $1106 $3,742 $3,742 $3,742 TOTAL (+18%inflation): $59,223 $72,293 $68,099 $74,465 Comparison to Traditional $- $13,070 $8,876 $15,242 Comparison to CWUIC Part 7 $- $- $(4,194) $2,172 Construction Costs for Wildfire -Resistant Homes - 12 - Fall 2025 Table 2: Minimum criteria to meet wildfire -resistant standards Component C 1CPart7 5G k Roof Requires a Class A fire -rated roof covering. Plug gaps Class A (cover or assembly) Class A (cover or assembly) covering and at ends (i.e., bird -stopped, fire -stopped). A minimum underlayment 36-inch-wide mineral -surfaced asphalt fiberglass composition cap sheet must be installed under metal valley flashing. Where the roof profile results in a gap between the covering and the roof deck, a mineral - surfaced asphalt fiberglass composition cap sheet must be installed over the roof surface. Roofvents WUI vents on horizontal/vertical planes or non- WUI vents or vents covered with WUI vents orvents covered with corrosive 1/16" to 1/8" screen on a sloped roof. noncombustible, non -corrosive noncombustible, non -corrosive 1/16" 1/16" to 1/8" screen on a sloped roof. to 1/8" screen on a sloped roof. Skylights (not Glass unit must be dual -paned, single tempered and N/A Glass unit must be dual -paned, included in protected with noncombustible, non -corrosive 1/16" to single tempered and protected with analysis) 1/8" screen. noncombustible, non -corrosive 1/16" to 1/8" screen. Eaves Soffited or open-eave allowed. If open-eave, nominal 2x N/A Noncombustible soffit for enclosed material (or greater) is required as blocking and rafters. eave; Materials approved for 1 hour Exposed roof deck shall be constructed of a material fire resistance, or 2-inch nominal that is noncombustible, or ignition -resistant, or tested dimension lumber). for 10-minute directflame contact, or have a one -hour fire rating on the exterior side of the framing. Eave/soffit vents WUI vents on horizontal/vertical planes; non -corrosive WUI vents or vents covered with WUI vents or vents covered with 1/16" to 1/8" screen. noncombustible, non -corrosive noncombustible, non -corrosive 1/16" 1/16" to 1/8" screen. to 1/8" screen. Gutter System Noncombustible gutters and downspouts. Gutter cover Noncombustible gutters and Noncombustible cover. Metal drip (downspouts, material unspecified. Metal drip edge assumed. downspouts. No gutter guard req'd. edge assumed, gutter, guard, Metal drip edge assumed. drip edge) Siding Five options for compliance:1) noncombustible 6-inches of noncombustible Noncombustible covering material, 2) ignition -resistant material, 3) heavy timber material on the base of the wall construction, 4) log wall assembly, or 5) assembly (cover). complying with SFM 12-7. Gable vents WUI vents on horizontal/vertical planes. WUI vents or vents covered with WUI vents or vents covered with noncombustible, non -corrosive noncombustible, non -corrosive 1/16" 1/16" to 1/8" screen. to 1/8" screen. Dryervents N/A Louver required over vent opening Louver required over vent opening Foundation WUI vents on horizontal/ vertical planes. WUI vents or vents covered with WUI vents or vents covered with vents noncombustible, non -corrosive noncombustible, non -corrosive 1/16" (Not included in this analysis due to pour -on -grade 1/16" to 1/8" screen. to 1/8" screen. foundation) Windows Four options for compliance:1) multipaned glazing with N/A Dual -paned; double tempered glass a minimum of one tempered pane, 2) glass block units, or fire -resistance rating of not less 3) fire -resistance rating of not less than 20 minutes, or 4) than 20 minutes. meeting performance requirements of SFM 12-7A-2. Doors Noncombustible; ignition -resistant covering; or 20 N/A Noncombustible; ignition -resistant minute fire rated door; or solid core; weather stripping covering; or 20 minute fire rated door; req'd for gaps in the door and door opening (>1/8"). or solid core. Decking surface Noncombustible; Ignition resistance materials, fire N/A Noncombustible treated wood. Mulch Noncombustible Noncombustible Noncombustible Fencing Noncombustible within 5feet. Noncombustible within 5feet. Noncombustible within 5 feet. No parallel (back-to-back) combustible fences within 5 feet of each other (5- 30 feet from house). Construction Costs for Wildfire -Resistant Homes - 13 - Fall 2025 �vSES CO C, G 1 ' �-� I BOARD OF -�„f COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING 1:00 PM, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2025 Allen Room - 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. 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. 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. COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS AGENDA ITEMS 1. 1:00 PM Update on Cleveland Commons from Housing Works 2. 1:20 PM Update from Terrebonne Sanitary District 3. 1:30 PM Scope of Work Proposals: Senate Bill 83, Wildfire Building Codes, and Defensible Space Standards 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. 4. Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Real Property Negotiations ADJOURN Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. This meeting/event is accessible. Accommodations including sign and other language interpreter services, assistive listening devices, materials in alternate formats such as Braille, large print, electronic formats, or language translations are available upon advance request at no cost. Please make a request at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting/event by calling Brenda Fritsvold at (541) 383-6572 or send an email to brenda.fritsvold@deschutes.org. El condado de Deschutes anima a las personas con discapacidad a participar en todos los programas y actividades. Esta reuni6n/evento es accesible. Hay disponibles servicios de interprete de lengua de senas y de otros idiomas, dispositivos de escucha asistida, materiales en formatos alternativos como braille, letra grande, formatos electr6nicos, traducciones o cualquier otra adaptaci6n, con solicitud previa y sin ningun costo. Haga su solicitud al menos 24 horas antes de la reuni6n/el evento Ilamando a Brenda Fritsvold al (541) 388-6572 o envie un correo electr6nico a brenda.fritsvold@deschutes.org.