All right, we'll go ahead and start the Board of Commissioners meeting for Tuesday, March 3,
2026. Start with the introductions. I'm Pat Malone, Commissioner.
Nancy Wise, Commissioner. Gabe Shepherd, Commissioner.
Vance Crony, County Council. Rick Krueger, Assistant County Administrator.
And join us online. Ryan Jocelyn, District Attorney.
Well,
the sheriff was at our meeting this morning and probably just getting back to the office. So, I assume we'll see him shortly.
Next up review and approve the agenda.
There will be a change in the order 9.1 and 9.2 will
be heard right after the consent calendar.
And the idea is to get all the board meeting business finished before our public hearing at 11.
And then, Rick, you had something to add under other.
Yeah, thank you, Chair.
I would like to add a request for letter of support for our congressional delegations into spending.
It's a duplicate of the one that you are approving today, but it's going to be for representative Hoyle.
So just wanted to make sure Congresswoman Hoyle, excuse me, that's it.
Okay.
And we will take care of that under other, all right, any other changes to the agenda?
If not, I will consider the agenda approved.
Are there any announcements this morning?
Hearing none, we will start off with our proclamation, proclaiming March 2026 as Women's History Month
in Benton County, Lacy Mollell, Director of our Hill Centers.
Good morning.
I'm really happy to be here on behalf of women leaders at Benton County and all of
our staff who are either in in management or leadership roles just simply by being public
servants so whereas throughout history women have played an integral role in shaping societies
fostering innovation and advocating for progress across all sectors including education science
the arts government and business women history women's history month is a time to honor
remarkable achievements of women past and present who have overcome obstacles, broken barriers,
and paved the way for future generations, and provides an opportunity to honor the countless
contributions women have made to the social, economic, cultural, and political fabric of our
community and our nation. Throughout history, women have demonstrated resilience, leadership,
innovation, and courage while advocating for equality, expanding opportunities, and strengthening
families and communities.
The National Women's History Alliance has designated the 2026 theme as leading the change, Women
Shaping a Sustainable Future.
This theme celebrates the pivotal role that women play in addressing today's urgent
challenges including environmental, economic, educational, and societal while forging equitable
resilience and justice-driven communities for tomorrow. From climate change innovators to
economic justice reformers, from education equity advocates to civil engagement pioneers,
women are reimagining systems and creating sustainable blueprints that prioritize both
people and the planet. These inspiring leaders, particularly those from marginalized communities,
demonstrate that sustainable progress is achieved through intersectional efforts that
span environmental stewardship, financial inclusion, social justice, mentorship,
and intergenerational collaboration. And recognizing Women's History Month
month encourages reflection on past progress, awareness of ongoing challenges, and commitment
to advancing equity for all.
Bitten County government is dedicated to fostering an inclusive community where the accomplishments
and potential of women and girls are celebrated and supported.
Now therefore, the Bitten County Board of Commissioners does hereby proclaim March
March 2026 as Women's History Month in Benton County, Oregon, and encourages all community
members to celebrate, support, and uplift the women in our community by fostering opportunities
for education, empowerment, and collaboration.
Are there any comments or ...
Well, I think we should clap more.
Okay.
Well, I will move to proclaim March 2026 as women's history month in Benton County proclamation P2026-003.
Second.
All in favor of the motion say aye.
Aye.
Just a comment I think it's very appropriate to have Lacey Mollell or clinic director
director as reading the proclamation. So thank you.
All right, next up are there
any comments from the public?
Okay, none in the room. Are there any signed up
online? Okay,
and are the comments other than dealing with the landfill? Okay,
go
ahead online and identify yourself please. Yes, Andy Bennett.
Okay, go ahead. Do you
have up to three minutes for a public comment? Okay, thank you. So I'm wanting
to comment and revisit the speed issues out here in North Albany on Scenic Drive,
which have been addressed for at least the last four or five years, I'm
sure. And this last summer, we had a fatality out here in an accident and then shortly thereafter
we had another accident on the corner of Valley View and Scenic. And with the number of new
homes going to be built out here, we really need to get the speed limit down to 35.
I've mentioned many, many times that the methodology and process that ODOT has been
using in Benton County to determine speed limits is not reality. I have not
found one person who's been involved in this speed assessment process who has
actually driven our road and starting at 30 miles an hour going to 35, 40, 45, 50,
55, 60 and so on because that would really let a person know that the in
In the state of Oregon, the basic rule is the rule, and the basic rule for scenic drive
is not 45 miles an hour.
At the most, it would be 35.
And so until the people who are determining these speed limits through the testing and
methodology they use start using the basic rule by getting out there and actually driving
these roads at those speeds, we're going to keep having more accidents and deaths.
And yeah, here again, I'm going to say 35.
We need to get it set there, especially with the new building going to go on out on Powers Road out here,
which would accommodate up to 500 people.
We should probably be putting a stop sign at the corner of Scenic Drive and Powers.
That would really slow people down with all the extra traffic,
which includes the thousands of new homes being built out here.
So, I'm probably put a stop sign on the corner of Oak Grove and powers as well so people can
just not go speeding however they want out in this North Albany area and that's my and
I do also want to say I did not appreciate Pat when you called me up and harassed and
bullied me on the phone back about a year and a half ago and so that has been reported.
it. I just wanted to let you know.
All right, thank you. We have the sheriff with
us. Do you have any comments on that North Albany and Scenic? Yeah, I want to
thank Andy first of all. Thank you for bringing this to light. I might drive
that stretch road a few times every day and that 25th and Scenic when you come
down off the scenic there towards 25th. That can be pretty hairy as well. And so I would
agree with Andy if we could somehow take a look at this. That would be awesome. Thank
you.
Sheriff, do you think you might be willing to reach out to Senator Gelser, Bluwin and
Representative Bosshart Davis and bring this to their attention since they can talk
to ODOT?
Certainly. If that's what you would need me to do, I have no problems doing that.
And it might help if Andy did the same just from a grassroots level, not just the law enforcement side.
Yeah, I have reached out to Representative Davis. So, yeah.
Thank you, Andy. I think it could be, you know, additionally meaningful if our sheriff were to do so as well.
Yeah, I would appreciate it. Thank you so much.
We're only going to make it safer out here.
Andy, this is Commissioner Shepard. I wanted to also add that I've been speaking with a
few folks in that little development on 25th, 26th, you know, that little pocket, specifically
about that intersection that the sheriff just mentioned on 25th and Scenic. And we have
scheduled that intersection and the curve before it for a speed study. We don't have
a date yet, but it is now in the list for a Benton County Sponsored Speed Study so
that we can have some hard data to talk about and to show that there might be, that there's
a need there.
So I just wanted to let you know.
Well, thank you, and I would like to say, when you get to the top of the hill before
you start going down, you don't even need to put your foot on the gas, and you're
going over 45 miles an hour when you get to the bottom when you're coming
40 to 25th so it's that's just one of the areas and with all the new building
and the proposed building on Andy I'm sorry you your three minutes are up I'm
sorry thank you noted your concern though thank you thank you all right
next up we'll start our work session 6.1 Corvall spent county economic
Development Office Quarterly update.
Christopher Jacobs, economic development manager, and Lily Bender.
Good morning.
Great to be with you all again. How do I get this started?
Yeah, I'm just going to start sliding. All right, awesome. We're going to mix things up a little
Today, usually I go through the strategic plan updates. Those are in your packet. So if you want to read more in depth about our progress, you can take a look at that, but we're going to kind of walk through a PowerPoint.
And I think it might be quicker and allow for more questions and just touch on really the pertinent stuff.
Right.
This is always kind of a fun time of year to look back at the last progress that you've made over the last calendar year, kind of set a roadmap for the current calendar year.
So we're going to touch on downtown Corvallis. We're going to touch on industrial lands and kind of paint a broad picture of what we've done and what we're going to do moving forward.
Starting out with downtown Corvallis, there's a lot of momentum right now around the downtown
strategic vitality task force and the recommendations that have come out of that.
And so if you haven't taken the survey, I would encourage you to go ahead and do so.
There's some interesting action items, and I think that that planning effort could
lay the foundation for kind of a downtown master plan for Corvallis.
And it also, along with several other things, has kind of initiated council to begin a TIF feasibility study.
So that is underway. We see property ownership changes driving a lot of activity in downtown Corvallis, property consolidation,
new reinvestment folks retiring and selling properties.
We see parking challenges and policy changes on the horizon as we've got white papers that are completed.
They recommend certain policy changes and new technology upgrades.
We see code changes really reshaping development patterns.
So, allowing for greater density, greater height, and removing parking requirements has created the conditions for investment and scale in our downtown like we've never seen before.
market rate and mixed use development patterns are also emerging as we have new incentives like the multi-unit property tax exemption program, which have allowed the Gordon hotel and residences to go under construction.
And we have a second Mukti application for a 13-story, 263-unit mixed-use project at 4th and Western.
So just under two weeks, City Council will hear that second Mukti request.
It's $132 million project.
Did that get delayed?
It was supposed to be heard last night, wasn't it?
It did get delayed.
There was a little hiccup in the public hearing process back in February 2023.
Oh, before either of us were here. When the MAPTI ordinance was adopted by City Council,
it never included a public hearing process. So we held that public hearing last night
and we re-adopted the ordinance. Okay. We're going to be hearing the second MAPTI application.
So that was the cause of the delay. We do see emergent leadership from our Main Street organization
as they've recently received new designation from the Oregon Main Street Association.
And they're doing really great things, beginning the holiday parade again, and the tree lighting,
taking that over, holding wine walk events and other really interesting stuff.
Friday lights, if you haven't been, this great event helped organize by the DCO.
We do see, unfortunately, elevated vacancy rates relative to the rest of the community
in downtown Corvallis, about 11% compared to 3.5%.
I think a lot of this is due to the property consolidation
that's underway, however, as some properties remain vacant
that are under contract and there are plans to redevelop,
but those haven't quite unfolded yet.
We see power constraints from deferred maintenance
and the high cost of public infrastructure
being a major barrier, and that potentially being
one use of tax increment financing
to address some of those public utility challenges.
And then a tourism economy and transition.
So with the dissolution of the PAC-12,
the VisitCorp Alice organization is going
through an experience development plan
to help reimagine what drives tourism in our community,
given that some of the traffic that we could have expected
from the former PAC-12 alignment,
we can't really count on that long-term the way
that we have in the past.
So you mentioned MAPTI is a transformational tool
for downtown Corvallis, mentioned tax increment financing. There's the Main Street Revitalization
Grant Project for the plaza. It's 425 Southwest Madison Ave. That's the $325,000 grant that
was awarded. And that project we just submitted for the final reimbursement. So if you haven't
checked that out, it's where coffee culture is and ever bull. And so there are a couple
new restaurants in there as well. It's a very neat space.
So, industrial development. We have
37 vacant industrial sites total in Benton County, five industrial buildings, 32 vacant industrial,
mostly greenfield spaces, 960 acres of vacant industrial lands available for sale or lease.
Majority of those lands are in South Corvallis, 65 percent of them, while 25 percent are in
And so when we talk about industrial development, this is where we're really spending the bulk
of our time because these are where industrial lands are located.
Four major barriers to developing, our capacity, and deferred maintenance.
Right now, anything over one megawatt requires a load study that can take anywhere from six
weeks to six months, add a lot of cost to the project.
transportation and system plan amendments in South Corvallis.
So there's a bunch of collector roads.
Every 625 feet of a collector road is $2 million.
And so this adds dramatic costs when you have really lines on a map
that we're imagining a certain development pattern that may no longer be accurate.
So we've got to look at that transportation system plan and see if some of these collector roads,
roads, especially the north-south ones are really what we intended them to be. I understand
trying to pull traffic off of Highway 99, however the north-south collector roads don't
really do that effectively. As far as access to Highway 99 east-west roads makes a lot
more sense to me.
Wetland delineation studies and permitting, so state wetland inventory map is, I would
pretty out of date. It was based on records collected decades ago. And newer wetland delineation
studies reveal vastly smaller wetland areas than are imagined on the map or that were
measured at one point long ago. And there's been changes with regard to how the federal
government regulates wetlands. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers following the Sackett
case really doesn't regulate the types of wetlands that we see in South Corvallis,
ones with no clear connection to a body of water above ground.
So right now, we're just working through state DEQ and state DSL on the wetland permitting.
And so there are some encouraging things coming out of the governor's office.
4084 is a fast track bill that includes potentially expedited wetland permitting, so that could
help a lot.
And then industrial code amendments.
So this has been a long time goal of our office is to update the industrial zoning code
in South Corvallis based on best practices.
Following the annexation of South Corvallis Airport Industrial Park, this is something
we're going to be undertaking.
So that annexation application was submitted a couple weeks ago.
There's also the regionally significant industrial sites application that has been submitted as of last week.
So that allows for reimbursement of public infrastructure costs.
Say if the city wanted to participate in putting in one of these roads that may be necessary to serve a development site.
We could be reimbursed the cost of that road over a period of time from state income taxes paid by the development project if they meet the performance requirements of the program.
We continue to respond to a lot of site selection inquiries from the state, and we've delineated 60 acres of the airport industrial park.
So we've got some target sites in our airport industrial park, in particular that we're heavily marketing.
So what have we done over the last 18 months? It's kind of fun to look back on.
I like to call this kind of the foundational stuff. None of it is really going to blow you away,
but it's stuff that's really, really important to kind of build on in order to accomplish the goals that we've set out.
So modernizing a business retention and expansion program that assists more than 200 businesses annually, creating a business registry, adopting new tools like commercial property-assessed clean energy.
Thank you, Board of Commissioners.
Starting our downtown revolving loan fund program again and participating in the Main Street program again have been big wins.
Documenting site conditions and updating prospector records to help with site selection inquiries.
This is one that may not excite a lot of people.
It's really exciting to us.
It's really difficult to compete for these types of investments if you don't know what you have,
and you are not accurately describing the sewer, the water, the electrical capacity,
the gas capacity on these sites.
And we arrived.
We didn't have a great handle of what our industrial lands were.
We hadn't documented the site conditions.
And so now we're able to really respond competitively with the sites that we do have available.
We've updated mobile food unit regulations.
And so touching a little bit on Southcore Vallis Food Hub grant program, we have just
under $100,000 left to distribute, four out of five of the projects are complete.
And the only one left that's not complete is the food cart pod.
And so there's been a lot of discussion about citing food truck pods in South Corvallis.
First, we kind of started at the New Holland Building.
They have longer term goals there in terms of commercial footprint of that space,
a budding Highway 99, and then they've since moved to another location that
they're considering, and then two more have actually emerged. So it's been this
sort of enough knocking on doors. You've got a lot of folks in South
Courthouse now talking about starting a food truck pod and looking into what
available resources there are through the Urban Renewal Agency. And so, you
you know, we're trying to really spread our eggs
in lots of different baskets because you don't know
which one of these is going to come to fruition
and there's a great potential for one or more
in Southcore ballots to take root.
We have the airport annexation,
this has been underway like I mentioned
and then the EV gaps analysis.
So I shared that with the BOC at one point as well.
So, what's our roadmap for 2026. What we've completed the regionally significant industrial sites application we're going to hear back and see if we're accepted to that program.
Got to go through the public hearing process for annexation.
We are no longer participating in the EDA grant for industrial site readiness that we're working with a partner that is.
We're working through the downtown TIF district implementation schedule, like I mentioned,
the industrial code changes, the second Mufti application, closing out the food hubs, and
then dealing with some contamination from the Willamette Valley Sportsman Association
in our airport industrial park.
So this has been a long time problem that we're going to deal with finally this year.
All right.
That wraps it up.
Any questions?
I want to go back to the, what was it?
The constraints.
Potential barriers.
Power capacity is one of them.
So OSU is building a new supercomputer.
And I don't know how much of a load that's going to put on our system.
And you're talking here about power capacity.
Are we thinking about downtown and how old the wiring is for all that kind of stuff?
How far are we talking about literal load capacity coming into the city of Corvallis?
Certain areas, depending on the proximity of substations and service lines, are better
equipped than others.
Downtown is one of those where there's this process of looping.
And so the OB project added millions of dollars of cost, added a lot of time to
the project, stuff that they didn't anticipate when they started the project, and stuff
But that's not common in every community, right?
Certain service areas, in particular consumers, power service areas, just are better equipped.
They don't have so much deferred maintenance, such a long timeline for adding capacity.
South Corvallis in particular doesn't have an adequate substation, they've been trying
to site one now for a while, we've just had a meeting with them and we're encouraging
them to site it in the airport industrial park, meaning with who? Pacific power. Pacific power. Okay.
So, as far as those view, I don't know what the conditions are for them to scale for the capacity that's needed.
I imagine the folks that are working on that project have engaged specific power, but I don't know the details of that.
So it's not, it's likely not the same struggles that you're facing right now for the economic development in downtown and south town.
It's likely not.
Okay, thank you.
You mentioned the industrial code amendments. Is that city or county or oath?
Yeah, it's going to be city. So we've got a following annexation. You've got this nifty airport overlay and we don't have such a thing.
So we've got to fix our code to accommodate the FAA regulations in our general industrial
area.
And then there's just some things that don't make a lot of sense about our industrial code,
the way that it is.
One of the use types is limited manufacturing that kind of imagines like an artisanal
sort of 20 employees or less using hand tools to make different things.
And it doesn't really hit on the sort of target industries that we talk about that are innovation
or traded sector companies are looking to flourish in our community.
And so there's some work that needs to happen there.
Luckily, the industrial code changes haven't prevented necessarily folks from developing
in our community.
We've got other barriers that have prevented folks, primarily the high cost of public
infrastructure or wetlands. So we don't even get to the industrial code part that
really shuts the door. There are barriers ahead of that we've we're trying to
address before we worry about the industrial code.
All right you mentioned
the airport and I think I ask this every time what kind of progress has been
been made getting the county out of the picture as far as the airport industrial area.
So as far as the airport industrial area, citing the substation from Pacific would
be a huge win. It would get transmission lines down there that might otherwise add a lot
of cost to a development project. We've got land available so we could really be
competitive in terms of limiting the site acquisition costs for a substation.
The annexation of the airport industrial park is a huge, huge lift now that we've got that
application in, and we're going to go through a public hearing process over the next 60
days.
And then I would highlight the RISIS program as being another huge milestone without having
a way to participate in the development project from a financial perspective, we're kind of
at a competitive disadvantage. With the limited financial resources of Corvallis, you know,
folks don't want to put millions of dollars into public infrastructure prospectively
for a development project, but folks might be willing to do something if they were
going to be reimbursed for the cost of the public infrastructure.
So that's another tool that we've never had that could really be attractive when we're
recording potential development projects or two that I know could have made the difference
on my time here.
Okay.
And you mentioned, I think it was specifically the electrical power infrastructure for the
Gordon Hotel and is it downtown's old and has gotten by with what power was
available and now we have I mean the hotel was the maybe the tipping point
and because I noticed a lot of large holes in the ground for look like
electrical vaults in the surrounding area so the developer did not know ahead
of time that this was gonna be part of part of the building. I don't think they
anticipated just how much added cost would come from the Pacific Power side
of things based on their experience in other communities. I would say that
that there was more of a burden on the developer
undertaking that project from a utility perspective,
specifically Pacific Power.
I can give you another anecdote.
We have the Plaza 425 Southwest Madison,
originally anticipated doing solar on the roof,
couldn't because of issues with Pacific Power.
We're kind of in an odd place.
in terms of our service area requirements for transformers.
OBE had to identify like a 10 by 10 square foot space
on their property.
Actually, they had to contract with another adjacent property
to get this space
because they had already designed their footprint
of their building to have clear sky view
for the transformer.
Now in other parts of the state,
you can wheel these transformers
in and out of the building. And so this is just like one of the added difficulties with
policy that they've encountered on the Pacific Power side. So there's lots of different anecdotes
like this that we've heard about.
And the Gordon Hotel folks are paying most or all of these upgrades?
oh yeah yeah I mean the city hasn't hasn't put forth money to upgrade the
utilities to accommodate that development project or Pacific power or it's all on
the hotel yeah yes when a development project comes through this costs are
passed on to the developer right any other questions
well I was just gonna
say this is timely, the Governor's Prosperity Council, as I think you may have mentioned.
It's nice that the governor recognizes that economic development, we can't just sit back and
it will come to us. We've got to be more active and you folks have
important role in that, but it's nice to get the recognition from the governor's level that this is an issue that needs some attention.
So hopefully we can get some help from the state level or at least guidance or something will come out of the governor's effort.
So thank you for your report and for your efforts.
Thank you.
All right.
Next up, 25-27 financial status update through February 15, 2026.
And for for Santa Anais, our CFO.
Good morning.
Thank you.
Good morning, chair, board of commissioners and members of staff for county financial policy, a semi annual financial update is to be presented to the board.
So I am here before you this morning to present the financial status update on the 2025 27 biennial budget.
it as of February 15th, 2026.
So at this point in time, we are over halfway through our first year in the biennium.
And I just wanted to share that the county is stable and expenditures are tracking below
benchmarks.
So the format of the report should be very familiar to you.
It should be what you're used to in the past.
We'll first review a counterwide overview of expenditures by categories.
We will dig a little bit deeper by department and look at revenues and expenditures.
And then we'll take a look at the status of capital improvement projects and then give
you some insight in terms of what's to come next time we meet.
Here is the countywide expenditure budget by category.
And you can see here the breakdown of the 540,274,492 that the Board has approved.
The largest category is in the area of personal services,
and you can see that in all of the areas, everything is below the threshold of 30%
where we ought to be at this period of time.
We have quite a bit of vacancies in various areas of the organization, so that's helping
to contribute below the benchmark levels.
Also for capital outlay, it's a little less than projected levels because we have some
capital improvement projects with little to no expenditures to report to date.
That service and transfers are where they ought to be at this time.
So overall, with 23% of expenditures organization-wide, this is really good news because every major
expenditure is below the threshold of 30%.
And this puts us at a really good position to finish out the four and a half months
that we have for our first biennium or first year of our biennium. This is just a graphical
view of what we just covered. Some folks prefer to look at a chart versus data set, so it's
just here for those that prefer visuals instead.
Okay, we're digging a little bit deeper now
into a more granular view of both the county's revenues and expenditures. This is presented to
by department. So here you'll see what the resources and expenditures, approved
expenditures that each department is working with and where they stand today
against benchmarks for revenue collections and expended amounts year to
date. So because the largest expenditure in most of our departments is by way of
salaries and benefits. I am using the benchmark of 30% as a guide. And so you'll see here
there are some areas on the expenditure side of this table that are highlighted in yellow.
What this means is that, you know, the expenditure levels are slightly higher than our threshold
of 30 percent. So these are being put on the watch list. And essentially financial departments,
sorry, financial services is working with each of the departments and just making sure that
they are aware of what's causing these anomalies. And then we are working closely with them for
a corrective action should that be necessary. So, for ease of visualization on the revenue
side of things, we are slightly using a different benchmark. We're taking into consideration
historical trends of the revenues as they come. A large portion of our revenues is
from property tax, and that is primarily collected in November of each year.
So we do take that into consideration.
You do see some yellow highlights here on the revenue side of things.
And this is because, let's see here,
in the area of fleets specifically for public
works, the revenue from feeable sales are below projected levels and also capital outlay
for vehicle replacement to date is already at 90%.
So nothing to be concerned about.
They are working with a large restricted balance
for these capital outlay replacement.
And so I just have it here as a watch
because their expenditures are pretty high today.
Another area on this watch list is the IT department
with the professional services related
to network related cost being higher than normal.
And then the non-departmental area, we are working closely with the state for the cost
share for the new courthouse project.
And this is an area that I do want to have a conversation about because the county collects
revenue that doesn't necessarily belong to any one particular area in the organization
but serves multiple functions or areas within the county.
So, we account for these revenues in a bucket called non-departmental and so here you can
see a little bit of the revenues that flow through this division or cost centers.
The major portion of the discretionary revenue for the general fund is property taxes and
and about 78% is part of the 64 million that we are.
And coupled with other revenue sources the county has, like the local option levy, which
funds our mental health programs, law enforcement services and emergency services. These are
all accounted for in the non-departmental revenue bucket. So this section just seeks
to provide transparency into the shared revenue streams that the county receives as a whole.
This is a graphical view of our capital improvement projects. The board has approved
a million dollars in this biennium for funding capital improvement projects.
And this is a listing of all of the funded projects for the biennium. You can see here
at the bottom total that it's a lot more than a million dollars. I do have a footnote here
that's that about 596,000 of those are carry forward projects from the last biennium. And
you'll see those identified with an asterisk. So one of them being the courthouse roof paint for
$200,000, the Chiller for about $385,000, and then the online platform tool which I think
was presented to you last meeting for the Permits Applications Licenses Navigation Tool.
So you can see here the remainder of the projects have been approved for the biennium.
Some have already started with incurred costs that you see and many of them
have yet to be scheduled for work.
And a major project and investment for the
county of course is the district attorney office and the courthouse. The
total project amounts to just over 86 million dollars including reserves and so
you can see here we've spent about 40.9 million and so the focus last month has been exterior
weatherproofing, window insulation and applying the roofing systems. So this is the most recent
photo image of the project today and I too am looking very forward to getting a tour
on this later this month or early in April.
So as you know, the county works closely with a number of service districts.
And here's the status of each of the service districts today.
Public works provides oversight on the operations of the service districts, primarily those
that provide water and sewer to the community members.
And they include Alpine, Cascade View, Hidden Valley, South Third, and LC.
You will see that there's a couple of service districts with no expenditures next to them.
The 9-1-1 Emergency Communications and the Library Service District have very little
expenditures to date.
I forgot to put a footnote down at the bottom of this slide.
it's merely a timing issue. Last week we did provide disbursements of property tax collected
for these districts 4.3 million went to emergency services and 3.7 million went to the library
district so making the expenditures to date equivalent to the 49% collected in revenues.
And
then, some budget considerations to think about as we move forward into our biennial
budget.
There is a market study in the works as we speak for AFSCME.
Staff will be conducting a full RFP process, and it is the hope that we will be able
to bring forward the analysis and the updates of the study to the board sometime in May
or June and with a possibility of a July 1 implementation date.
So in the area of recruitment and retention, some of our higher level and tech roles have
proven to be difficult to fill. We've had to go back out for repeated
recruitment and so that's just been a challenge and I know our partners at HR
are working very hard with departments to get those vacancies filled. My
department along with the analyst team are working diligently with their
assigned departments to ensure that staff are understanding their spending authority
levels and are working towards their vacancy factor requirements for the biennium.
And then of course with the expiring PERS bond, the finance and core leadership have
been working very closely and keeping an eye out on the overall cost that this might
have in our next biennial budget period as 44% of the paid benefit cost is related to
hers.
So this is pretty much all that I have for you today. Next time we meet, I am hopeful
that the fiscal year 24-25 audit will be completed so that we can talk more about
where we're at with our fund balances. Staff is also working on a supplemental budget to bring
forward to you next month, likely for your consideration and approval, and it will likely be
more than 10%. So in summary, the county expenditures overall are tracking appropriately.
Revenue collections are aligned, the capital projects you see are progressing, and there
are only a few areas that are on the watch list today.
So at this point, the county does remain stable and operating within its means.
So happy to answer questions that you might have.
I wanted to start by thanking you for your presentation today.
but also, you know, we're talking about the state of our finances, and I wanted to kind
of update my colleagues here about work that I've been doing with Jennifer related to CSC.
So as you are aware, at our last Community Services Consortium meeting, Jennifer was
able to make it and listen to the financial concerns of that organization, and she and
I had a conversation afterwards. And she's going to reach out to the CFOs from Lincoln
and Lynn to have a conversation a little bit outside the CSC realm about between the three
counties from a financial side. What is CSC really need right now? What do we see as
counties that we can do to help? Or where are the real issues? Where are the issues
right now. So I just wanted to highlight that and say thank you and also offer this because
you're sitting here as an opportunity for folks to ask questions about that specific
potential impact on our budget as well.
Yeah, I was at that meeting and I think probably the
My takeaway was we need two or three options of how to proceed.
It's taken a while to delve into the CSE budget and turning over a lot of rocks to find mostly
the negative things about their budget, and they've been identified, and as far as the
day-to-day operations have gone from a negative to a modest positive, but there's years worth
of basically deficit spending that needs to be, now that it's been recognized, needs to
be addressed.
I can't quite say I look forward to the discussion, but it's a needed,
hopefully at least the
the big pieces have been identified, and now we actually know what the actual situation is
and time to do something about it. And I think it's, that was a good discussion at the last meeting,
and it keeps getting clearer what the actual situation is. So,
And basically, the counties are ultimately responsible to be continued.
But back to our CFO's report this morning, you started out saying we are below benchmarks.
And in financial terms, that's a good thing, is that correct?
That's a good thing.
either revenues are a little higher than rejected or it sounds like from the report
the expenses are slightly under what we had budgeted to this point yes so through
this point we should be at or below that 30% so overall county spending is at
23. So that's a really good position. Just means that the county overall is operating
within its appropriations. The departments are managing their spending responsibly,
which has taken us to this point.
Okay. What was the figure that we're actually at?
23%.
23. Okay.
And I'm on the CIP committee, so I've been involved in some of these projects.
You mentioned a couple of projects that had up to over 500,000 that were carried over
from the last budget cycle, did the dollars also transfer into this budget?
That will be part of the supplemental that will be coming forward to you in April.
And that explains the difference between the million dollars allocated for CIP and the
almost 5.6 million that's on the on the budget side. I
saw reserves I'm not sure
what paid in the $10 million range and I know to make the budget work that was
trim from our 12 million that we would like to be at and make the overall budget
work that was trimmed down to approximately 10 million. Yes that was
part of balancing the current biennium budget that we have along with other
measures such as the vacancy factor savings.
Okay, so we are modestly under-reserved compared to previous years.
Yes, yes.
And that might be an area where we want to beef things up depending on how the budget performs.
Definitely another conversation that we should have in the future as well.
Jennifer, thank you for coming today and presenting to us.
And thank you for presenting the information in such a clear and easy way to understand.
I appreciate that. So thank you, you and your team.
I wonder if it would be possible to get a more in-depth report on the PERS once.
So I'm glad to hear that we have a team working on that.
And once you all know more information, I would love to hear about it more in depth.
Thank you, Commissioner Weiss, for bringing that up.
And I was going to just make a quick comment.
One, just a point of clarification.
Jennifer talked about the CIP projects and the carryover.
One of them was the online platform.
I know it was a small amount.
She mentioned relating to the permitting just so that we don't confuse the project.
this one is actually related to the comprehensive plan update and I think what we can assure you is
all that money has all been spent. I think it's just a matter of a coding. So I just wanted to
make sure we clarified the projects.
But in terms of what Commissioner Wise and I want to emphasize what Jennifer said,
purse costs are something we really need to take seriously. I think you all know and heard from
the last budget period how much we were seeing in terms of an increase. And that was before
the site accounts, as we call them, which Jennifer mentioned, the purse bonds. So kind of the good
Good news, bad news.
Good news is next binding will start to see the payoff of those PERS bonds.
So that's not a cost that we will continue to incur.
Bad news is the payment of those bonds or those bonds keep our cost down on PERS.
It's complicated.
I mean, I will not kid you, it is a complicated matter in terms of how do you manage that.
But it's a real issue for all of local government right now in terms of dealing
with a growth in property tax but a modest small growth when you have excess of some
of these increases in PERS, it's big.
So thank you, Commissioner Wise, for bringing it up, and I do think this is something we
all are going to have to get our heads around.
On the PERS, the site account is another funding stream to the question.
Is it accurate that that site account that we bought a number of years ago is another way we are funding our PERS obligation?
It's helping us keep the rates down.
But basically another, instead of just general fund, it's another funding stream.
It's a funding source that the county is also paying for, so it's kind of a wash.
Commissioner, you have kind of two sources aside to count. The first one is back in 2002 and 2004, we issued what is called Per's Bonds.
And as Jennifer alluded to, we issued that to invest and pay down that rate.
We've been paying that ever since in terms of the form of bonds and a debt service so that again is expense like
Jennifer said that we're paying the other source of side account and I'm gonna get my date wrong. I believe I'm gonna just say
Around 2018-2019 is we made a five million dollar from our reserves
Investment to a side account to in to again same principle in this case
It was actually just paying that end to purge and what it does is it buys down the rate that we pay
So it kept those costs down now that one will continue to last I and Jennifer can correct me if I have this wrong
But I think it's around 2035 that site again will expire
But the purge bonds will again expire as Jennifer alluded to in 2029. I believe
Thank you. Well, I appreciate the
the update. And I think we can try to schedule these on a regular basis, maybe quarterly,
because as you've pointed out, a lot of moving parts, and we want to make sure that the parts
are, most of the parts are moving in the right direction, or if they're not trying to
things relatively early and see what we can do to mitigate any negative consequences. Appreciate
your efforts and your report this morning. Thank you.
All right. Next up is our consent
calendar. Do I hear a motion? Move to approve the consent calendar.
Second. All in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Motion carries and we will now move on to
new business. Let's see if we have the right people here.
Acceptance 9.1. Acceptance of a right away from Ryan and Stacy Cheek for public road and
Utility Purposes and Dave Malone.
Good morning.
All right.
Try that again.
Good morning.
David Malone with Benton County Surveyor with Public Works and we are here for accepting
a right-of-way dedication on Airport Avenue.
The Cheek property has applied for a, I believe it's an accessory farm dwelling which created
a nexus for road improvements, and engineering staff looked at this road and evaluated its
current standard, its substandard according to transportation plan.
It has a narrow right-of-way, they have a lot of frontage on this road, but it was
decided that the best, the improvements that we could get instead of having them pay
for a very small portion of improvements would be to get extra right-of-way along
their entire frontage so that in the future we would have a better opportunity to create
better safe improvements on that road. And so they agreed to that and I have the original
sign notarized right-of-way dedication deed here and we just need the commission to evaluate
that and decide if they want to accept that.
All right. Are there any questions?
If not, I will entertain a motion.
All right. I move to accept the right-of-way dedication from Ryan Pier, Thomas Cheek and
Stacey Marie Cheek for Public Road and Utility Purposes for Airport Avenue, County Road No.
25280.
Second.
All in favor of the motion, say aye.
Aye.
Motion carries.
And you need some signatures, is that right?
And I can just leave this up at the desk so you can get to it this afternoon at
your convenience.
Here's the original document and once it's signed and the council has signed it we can I can pick it up for recording
And all three commissioners need to sign that just the chair. Okay. Thank you
All
right, Jennifer we need to have you come back up. I
Was trying to be so efficient here. I
skipped over the
Motion to accept your report
I
move to accept receipt of the semi-annual finance report for the period ending February 15,
2026. Second.
All in favor of the motion say aye. Aye.
Motion carries. Thank you again.
Item 9.2, approval of a letter in opposition to clear-cutting at Maryspeak and Alcy Falls.
Is that you Commissioner Shepard?
So I want to start by thanking staff, especially Sean McGuire and Jesse Ott, for putting this
together.
I approached staff last week after the federal government announced plans to clear-cut areas
outside on near Elsie Falls and on Mary Speak, and I asked for a letter of opposition.
And they did a lot of good research.
They put something together for us, and I really appreciate it, and I read it, and
reads really well and I think it is very soundly based on facts and science and I'm really
personally frustrated that this we're talking about again the idea of clear cutting an important
community and cultural resources in Benton County. There are some things that money can't buy
and Old Growth Forest is one of them.
So I just wanted to bring this before the board
to see if we could all potentially join together
in putting a letter of opposition
and there's the public comment period is still open on it.
I don't know how successful public comment will be
with this administration and at this time,
but I wanted to see if we could go on the record
opposing this.
So I just wanted to bring this forward
and as timely a manner as I could.
Well, I just wanted to thank Commissioner Shepard
for heading this up.
And I was in DC at the NACO conference
when this all kind of blew up
and definitely received lots of input
and concern from constituents.
So I very much appreciate and support this.
And I'd be happy to make a motion,
but if Commissioner Shepard would like to make it, okay.
I moved to approve the letter of opposition
to clear cutting at Mary's Peak
and ALSI Falls and to direct staff to submit the letter to the Bureau of Land Management
for the instructions for comment published in the Federal Register. Second. All in favor of the
motion say aye. Aye. Motion carries. Question is there any follow-up that we should be
trying to do besides the letter or after the letter goes in? I think it would be great to
forward this letter also to our federal delegation. I don't think we need a motion to do that.
But beyond that for follow-up, I'm not sure I would defer to Jesse on what he thinks would
be effective at this point. I'm not – it's sad. I don't feel like it's going to be
super effective. I would love to put more energy behind this, but I want to make
sure that, and I appreciate your votes, that we took a stand on this. So I think forwarding
it to our federal delegation would be a great start.
And I think trying whatever we can is always worth it, even if, you know, at least we
can say we tried.
Well, and I assume this affects other areas in Oregon and maybe monitor who else is
involved in this effort to see what kind of coalition we can put together and
especially with our looping in our congressional delegation. Yeah I'm not as
familiar with how this will affect other counties but I think that's
something we can look into and we can call our colleagues and see how they're
reacting to it? We have several AOC meetings coming up and that might be a
opportunity to find out what else is, what other areas are affected.
Commissioner, just to be responsive to the request, number one we will make sure
that the letters get to our federal delegation who will work in coordination and then secondly we will do some follow-up with some of our county colleagues in relation to this to see what information we can get for you.
So thanks for bringing that.
Thank you.
Great.
All right.
We will now move on to item number 10 other and we've got Rick Prager speaking of the letters.
Thank you, Chair, for having this added.
So commissioners, as you just approved, item 7.4, I'm sorry, item 7.3, you did a ratification of a letter requesting support regarding our community initiative project.
Again, as you're all familiar, each and every year the federal, our commission delegation holds a process in which we can apply for grants.
We have this year applied for two, which is the Jackson Frasier Project, which was letter
use approved, as well as the Monroe Health Center. Each, the Senate and the House, have
their own processes. The Senate opened up their process early, which is the ratification
that you approved in my desire to be quick on this. I only did the letter to senators
on this for their process and then soon after I had this done representative
Hoyle opened a per process so we want to just ask for your approval and support
of the same exact letter except it would be from representative Hoyle and that
process just so you know close it was very quick it's only one week it closes
on Thursday.
All right.
And part of the problem, the Senate and the House have
different schedules and so when we did this last week,
the House's portal wasn't
open. That's correct and I just wasn't efficient looking ahead and I should
have just had done one letter and I could have taken care of it once, but
I'm sorry for that, but yes, the answer.
So we need a motion to approve the letter going to Congresswoman Hoyle.
I move to approve a letter requesting support from Congresswoman Val Hoyle regarding CIP funding for the Jackson Fraser Wetland Boardwalk Project.
Second.
All in favor of the motion say aye.
Aye.
Carries is there any other other business hearing none I will recess our board
meeting and we will reconvene here at 11 o'clock for the public hearing on
And the matter of Board of Commissioners reconsidering of an appeal decision in the matter of land
use application number LU-24-027. So, see you all back here at 11.
Good morning.
We will now reconvene our board meeting for March 3, 2026.
This is the time set for the continued hearing in the matter of the board's reconsideration
under the authority in ORS 197.83013B of its November 17, 2025 decision approving an application
for a conditional use permit to expand in an existing landfill.
The Board of Commissioners' decision was appealed to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals in
Luba number 2025-082.
The Benton County case number is LU-24-027.
To all present today, please be respectful and courteous of all who are present
comment during the hearing and deliberations is not respectful or
courteous. I reserve the right to remove anyone who does not abide by this
direction or who engages in disrespectful, discourteous or disruptive behavior.
The Board of Commissioners previously opened the hearing on reconsideration on
January 20, 2026 and voted to reopen the written record to accept additional
evidence, testimony, and argument regarding a limited issue. At the conclusion of that hearing,
the Board continued the hearing to today, March 3, 2026, at 11 a.m. for deliberations.
No additional public testimony will be taken. The purpose of this continued hearing
is for the Board to deliberate and reach a decision on reconsideration of its previous
decision. Under the statute at ORS 197.83013B, we must affirm, modify, or
reverse our previous decision. In doing so, we must determine whether the
applicant has satisfied its burden of proof to establish that the criteria in
the BCC are met. The February 24, 2026 staff report lifts and sets out each of the applicable
criteria which are found in the Benton County Code. We must determine whether a preponderance
of the evidence supports or does not support our original decision that the application
criteria are met. The preponderance of the evidence means evidence which is
greater of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is
offered in the opposition to it. In reaching our decision we may only
consider evidence argument or testimony that is already in the record. We may
not consider evidence argument or testimony that is not in the record. In
In addition, evidence that is completely unrelated to the approval criteria is not relevant
evidence.
It is our job to evaluate the credibility and reliability of the evidence and how much
weight to assign to the evidence.
It is important that our decision-making is free of bias.
Each commissioner must put aside any preconceived perspectives and make a decision based solely
on the evidence included in the record as it applies to the standards and criteria in
the Benton County Code.
As provided in the Benton County Code, 51.835, the Board will consider the entire record
of the proceeding that led to our November 17, 2025 decision, as well as evidence and
testimony submitted during the reconsider the reconsideration proceeding
that is within the parameters we previously set for the written open
record period. I will now ask the board if any commissioner needs to declare any
bias conflict of interest or additional ex parte communication not
previously declared.
Commissioner Shepard. Thank you. I wish to I do not have
anything for any of the others but I will speak to my ex parte contacts I have a
written document as I did in the first hearing and I will make sure that that
gets submitted and posted online at the end of this hearing but I wanted to
state that due to the importance of the issue the topic of the landfill
often comes up with conversations with constituents
and in local news.
Because of the saturation of this issue locally,
while I believe this to be a comprehensive list
of the comments I received,
some comments that I have since forgotten
or that did not register to me as ex parte contacts
may be unintentionally omitted,
none are intentionally omitted.
On February 6th, I received an email from Alex Ryan
stating that if issues like the landfill aren't addressed,
his family may move away.
On February 22nd, I received an email on another topic from George Hutchinson that
briefly stated approving the landfill expansion was a bad idea.
On February 25th, I received an email from Bruce Calger criticizing staff's change of
recommendation to denial.
Mr. Calger offered that the same information was available before the November hearings
and should have been considered then.
On February 28th, I received an email from Patrick O'Dell opposed to the landfill.
I did not read beyond the first sentence of the email.
On March 2nd, I received an email from Helen Weingartner
opposed to the expansion.
I did not read beyond the first sentence.
I'm still the chair of the Benton County Democrats
and since becoming commissioner,
I've recused myself from any conversations
during any Benton County Democrats meetings
regarding the landfill
and handed over the meeting,
controlled to my next in charge.
There have been no, to the best of my knowledge,
no meetings or discussions of that group
since our last meeting relating to Coffin Beach, Lanfa.
media articles. I have read, seen the title of, or someone has relayed the content of,
the vast majority of articles and letters to the editor or editorials related to the
reconsideration of the expansion of Coffin Beach landfill. These include articles in
the Corvalskas at times, Albany Democrat Harold, Filomet News and other outlets. I understand
that these articles are not a part of the record and cannot be considered when coming
to a decision. My position on the original appeal was clear via my statement on the
November 3, 2025 board of commissioners meeting and the subsequent vote of the board. However,
I approached the reconsideration with an open mind to consider how new evidence could sway
my view on the application. I can and will make a fair and impartial decision on this
land use decision based on the record, the applicable criteria, and free from personal
bias.
I as well only have ex parte contacts. As Commissioner Shepard has said, there's
many news articles. I've seen titles, headlines, read some of them. I also have received text
messages from a community member, Kurt Wright, mostly just letting me know, hey, the GT put
this out or a screenshot of this text, but again, it's all public information that public news
articles. I did also receive an email to a personal email address from the Gazette Times
reporter Cody Mann that said, my boss asked me to try connecting on an
unofficial channel for a question about coffin butte to which I did not respond
but I did forward to our County Council and there have also been several
emails that have been sent to my email box with headlines that I recognized
were most likely about the landfill and such I did not open them or read
them, and I can still make an impartial decision.
All right.
This is concerning ex parte communication. At a January 30th meeting, Representative
Finger McDonald started talking to me about Coffin Butte. I notified her that if this
conversation continued, I would need to leave the room due to ex parte concerns.
The conversation then got back on track.
I want to state that I may have unintentionally omitted contact emails.
Most of the landfill emails go directly to a folder,
folder and I have not looked at that folder and I believe that I can make an unbiased
decision.
So now I will ask, does anyone present wish to rebut the substance of the
justice-closed ex parte communications? Rebut means dispute or oppose the substance
of the communications. If you wish to rebut the substance of the justice follows to ex parte communications, please raise your hand, and county staff will assist you.
No hands, okay?
All right. Now, I will ask for the staff report presentation.
Testation.
Testing.
Okay.
All
right.
So I'm Jesse Winterode with Winterbrook Planning.
Thank you, Chairman Malone and commissioners.
Acting as a contract staff planner for Benton County on this project.
I don't want to repeat everything Chairman Malone just said, so I will not and we'll
get right into the content of the staff report.
We had, on November 6th, after the November 4th deliberations, the entering of or the
pen from DEQ letter came out.
And that had seven Class 1 violations related to monitoring, gas control, and site operations.
After that, the – we can move on to the next page.
There was a timely appeal to Luba.
up the board through the decision for reconsideration, reopen the record allowing the submission
of the DEQ PEN, and then we looked at that PEN and carried on to the next page, very carefully
and said, how does this PEN relate to our previous findings, our previous information
that we used. We talked to MFA, the contract engineering firm for this project, and asked
them what is the technical information in this pen, how does that relate to anything
we've looked at so far. We also had a lot of testimony, I think over 150.
Submissions of test money on that subject. So what the staff report did was we focused
on what we could see made a difference based on the pen. And it's overwhelmingly very similar,
but the odor findings changed significantly and our overall recommendation changed from
approval to denial. As such, we removed conditions throughout the staff report as we couldn't
find appropriate conditions to address the lack of information that we have on odor that
led to our recommendation for denial.
So what we saw from MFA was that some of the
the fundamental application components there, their argument on odor, those assumptions that
went into the model might not be supported by evidence.
And that's because one of the most important pieces was an even distribution of gas coming
out of the landfill, but there was an evidence that that was the case, and there was evidence
of 3DQ violations regarding operations and measuring of the landfill gases.
So that's what changed our mind, and we show that in the staff report and have the MFA
letter to support that.
So the fundamental pieces, the applicant's service mission of monitoring figures are
showing that large portions of the landfill were not surveyed.
And this is something that, you know, the applicant submitted to DEQ.
DEQ also noticed.
And as we can see by those two maps, we have a lot of the air of the landfill that wasn't surveyed by the applicant and their submissions to DEQ.
And as I said, the distribution of surface gas submissions was not.
There wasn't evidence that it was evenly distributed currently, and that was the fundamental basis
for the odor impacts on surrounding adjacent land uses.
So the other piece of that is if you have a landfill that's not operating consistent
with how it should, we can't really use that as the base case for the character of the area in terms of odor.
So we don't want to say this landfill inconsistently operating is the norm that one should assume for the area.
And so absent that we didn't have good evidence for character of the area either.
The applicant's final argument talked about 90% collection of greenhouse gases over four
years period, but it didn't really impact the one they provided a link and didn't really
have evidence for that, how that relates to their odor study, how that relates to much
of anything that we're looking at, but it also didn't address the problem of the even
distribution over the landfill.
That was the core issue that MFA identified.
So if you have landfill gases that are moving in specific areas at greater concentrations,
that could lead to greater odor impacts related to those areas where it's coming
out.
And so that sort of also supported previous adjacent property under testimony, said this odor model doesn't really reflect our lived experiences, which we have seen many times over the past year.
And then we have a technical reason why that would be the case in the pen.
So
overall, our conclusion was they haven't met their burden of proof in relation to odor
impacts, on adjacent land uses or a character of the area.
So we can't – and as I said before, we can't recommend conditions that address those
problems that, you know, why – what is the appropriate assumption for the odor model?
or what is the appropriate character of the area to compare when we're looking at the
change from existing to the future.
And lacking that information, we don't have enough to recommend conditions, and that led
us to a recommendation for denial.
And so based on the findings of the staff report, information in the record, staff
concludes that odor analysis and evidence provided by the applicant do not sufficiently
demonstrate that the proposal will not seriously interfere with uses on adjacent properties,
the character of the area, or the purpose of the forest conservation zone, which in a roundabout way
refers back to that same issue. As the forest conservation zone, they included the findings
for that in the general conditional use findings. And so if those conditional use findings
findings don't work, then the purpose of the forest zone findings also don't work.
And so that's in here as well.
And therefore, staff recommends that on reconsideration, the board denied the application.
Any questions of staff?
I have questions, but I think I'll save them for during deliberations.
Would you prefer?
Commissioner, the questions need to get out now.
No time during deliberations for questions.
Okay, so I have two questions that I want to ask staff to make sure the answers are easily accessible on the record
First to confirm
The applicant has not submitted evidence into the record that they have met the response times required by DEQ in the pen, correct?
That they have met the the time the the dates that DEQ said they needed to meet
Certain criteria by they have not submitted evidence into the record that they have done so is that correct?
That's correct. Okay. And then the second question relates to page 9 of the staff report.
Page 9 has a section called context of existing use versus proposed expansion. I want to read
through it just for a second because I have a question about a very specific word, so
I just want to read through both paragraphs. Some commenters and planning commissions
argued that the proposed landfill expansion application should be reviewed as a new use
without considering the existing landfill impacts
as a baseline.
However, evaluating an expansion of an existing use
as an entirely new use would not be consistent
with county practice.
Staff reviewed this conditional use application
as an expansion of the existing landfill.
Thus, the existing landfill operations,
as they had been previously approved by Benton County,
are important context and they form the base case
from which potential impacts may be measured.
Now that's been in our staff reports before,
but I wanted to specifically talk about paragraph two,
which says, however, as indicated by the November DEQ PEN, DEQ and EPA take the position that the existing landfill is not operating consistently with DEQ requirements.
This means that for impacts related to violations identified in the November DEQ PEN, the county may, that's an important word here,
the county may not be able to consider existing conditions as a reliable base case for purposes of conditional use review.
So the word may has a couple different uses.
It can mean both must or might.
And so I wanted to clarify that in this case it's more appropriate to consider that as might.
And that it is up to the discretion of the board on whether or not to consider the existing conditions.
Is that correct?
That's correct.
Okay, thank you.
Any other questions of staff?
If not, thank you for your efforts.
And I will now open the hearing for deliberations.
Is there a discussion?
Did we have a motion on the table before we deliberate?
That is fine.
Commissioner, if someone wants to make a motion and then you can deliberate on it,
Other groups have a discussion and get consensus on a motion.
It's up to the chair.
I have a motion if you're ready, Chair.
All right.
I move to adopt an order reversing our November 17, 2025 decision and that the conditional use permit be denied based on evidence in the record and findings in the February 24, 2026 staff report and conclusions developed by the Board of
commissioners during these deliberations and that these findings and
conclusions be adopted as the final decision of the board.
Second. It's been
moved and seconded. All in favor of the discussion of
the
motion. Commissioner Wise. Thank you. It's in moments like these that I like to
remind myself what Maggie Kuhn said which is speak your mind even if your
voice shakes.
I have expressed on the record in the past my disappointment in the tactics
that some of the opponents, some not all, of the landfill expansion have used in targeting
county staff and myself. And I have also expressed on the record my disappointment in some of
Republic Service's business practices. There have been rumors from both sides about
conspiracies and some intimidation tactics attempted by both sides.
However, my job is to set aside the drama and consider the merits of the application
based on the facts as applied to the criteria.
Like every other quasi-judicial land use decision I've made in my eight years as an
elected official, I am able to set aside whatever feelings I have and consider whether
to approve the application by looking at evidence in the record as it relates to the
applicable criteria. My decision is not based on any personal feelings about any participants
in this proceeding. I will never let personal feelings or intimidation or bullying impact
my professional decisions. I would rather be recalled or run over by a garbage truck
then compromise my ethics. Again, I reached my decision today based on the
facts as applied to the criteria. I would also like to speak briefly about the
DEQ letter. I view the evidence in the DEQ letter and the evaluation of that
letter by the county's experts as more credible than republic's expert
evidence. The county's experts evaluated the DEQ letter and concluded
that the DEQ letter includes evidence that raises serious and legitimate questions about the methodology
and assumptions in Republic's odor study, which Republic has not provided adequate rebuttal to.
Therefore, I place greater weight on the DEQ letter and the county's experts than I do on
Republic's odor study.
Is it your turn? All right.
As the planning staff, the
Bent County planning staff report pointed out, seven areas where Republic was in
serious, meaning class one violations of DEQ rules. And this is the basis for my
decision.
Any other discussion?
Yeah. After careful consideration and review of the original record and information added
to the record during the reconsideration process, I will once again be voting to deny LU24-027
for the expansion of Coffinview landfill.
None of the new information in the record
alleviated my concerns from the original application regarding impacts on adjacent
properties or undue burdens on public improvements, facilities, utilities or services.
For the details of those concerns, please review the original record.
I also agree with the staff report for this public hearing that the pre-enforcement notice or
the PEN calls into question the accuracy of the applicant's odor study. The ample evidence
in the record from residents living adjacent to the site and beyond relate significant odor
concerns. I am inclined to give weight to the lived experiences of the residents living
adjacent to and beyond the landfill. And I am also placing greater weight on the DEQ letter
as evaluated by MFA as opposed to the odor study provided by the applicant. And then
I had my two questions, which were already answered. So thank you.
Commissioner, can I clarify? So in your motion, and I might ask you to repeat
But was your motion to reverse your decision and deny the application and adopt the staff report as the findings in conclusion?
Correct. I can read it again if you'd like.
That would be great.
So the motion is to adopt an order reversing our November 17, 2025 decision and that the conditional
use permit be denied based on evidence in the record and findings in the February 24,
2026 staff report and conclusions developed by the board of commissioners during these
deliberations and that the findings and conclusions be adopted as the final decision of the
board. The intention behind this motion is that the staff report, which I believe to be
comprehensive would serve as the findings of facts.
Okay.
And we had a second on that. And so we still have a second on that. Okay.
Go ahead.
Okay.
It's been moved in second ed.
All in favor of the motion. Say aye.
Aye.
Any opposed?
Motion carries.
And this may help with your concerns.
The findings of fact and conclusions of the law are adopted.
A decision of the Board of Commissioners becomes final on the date of the Board of Commissioners adopts written findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The just adopted written decision is the final written decision of the Board of Commissioners adopted this date March 3, 2026.
The final written decision of the Board of Commissioners may be appealed to the Land
Use Board of Appeals.
This hearing is adjourned.
Okay, we get it.
Just to manage.
You?
No, but I've got to recess the meeting.
The hearing was adjourned.
Yeah.
All right. Could you quiet down, please? Could you quiet down, please, so we can finish our
board meeting?
That's what I was going to ask. Nothing else for me. All right. Our board meeting
as adjourned.