[4:32] Recording in progress.

[5:03] On-line.

[5:06] Can I ask a question for you?

[5:08] Do you have your community, m y e e, did you come over you?

[5:12] I'd be curious.

[5:14] Would you like to give an overview?

[5:17] Yes, I'll please.

[5:19] We'll just question.

[5:20] You received a bunch of material that you sent to us about the week we get a half a go.

[5:25] With that, I'll also provide it to the public. Is that put on the website?

[5:28] It was not put on the website, so it will be a part of his presentation which we can provide.

[5:34] Oh, but the whole, like the memo from Jake, which takes description of the G.S. and all that.

[5:40] So that's all going to be included in this.

[5:43] We can, we can get that piece.

[5:46] I just want to make sure that everyone has all the information.

[5:49] Okay.

[5:50] Thank you.

[5:52] Okay.

[5:53] So, as the board will recall in October of 2023, you sent a letter to August of 2023,

[6:01] you sent a letter to the Hoover City Council requesting to discuss the potential of annexation

[6:08] and a joint meeting.

[6:10] And so last summer we had a joint meeting where we went through the opportunity for annexation.

[6:20] out of that was the understanding that perhaps they were

[6:24] phased opportunities and we knew that we had these

[6:30] consent to annexation agreements that existed and so the city

[6:36] and county participated to bring Portland State University

[6:39] on Dr. Lazybee, who with his student carried out

[6:47] analysis with the assistance of our GIS department. And so he is here to present the findings,

[6:55] which were presented to the Hood River City Council last week. Thank you.

[7:01] So Mr. Lizard, thank you for joining us.

[7:05] Well, it's a pleasure to join you, our book commissioners. For my background, I have been on the

[7:13] And I joined faculty at Portland State University for 18 years, teaching in the Headfield School of Government.

[7:21] But during that time, and earlier than that, I was in County and City Management.

[7:27] I started with Allegheny County in Pennsylvania, but then worked for the cities of Vancouver, Washington,

[7:33] and Glendell Arizona with City Manager of the City of Sandy for 21 years and City Manager for

[7:42] Lake Oswego for six years and retired in 2019.

[7:47] So I've had an academic issue, interest in these kinds of issues, but also a fair amount

[7:52] of professional experience as well.

[7:56] Our project though, most of it, the hard work was done by a graduate student at Ph.D.

[8:04] student, in fact, as far as data.

[8:08] She began to work with the city's records on the annexation agreements.

[8:16] And our main task for this study was not a huge annexation strategy or anything like that.

[8:22] Our main task was to look at those agreements and to figure out what is the status of them,

[8:28] how many are there, who what extent are properties included with the agreements and the

[8:34] urban growth boundary and not just to find out where things to, you know, the city has

[8:42] more recently required, I think, required annexation as a condition of extending city services,

[8:49] particular service but prior to that time the annexation agreements were entered into with

[8:58] property owners that did want to have city services. That creates an interesting situation though

[9:04] because if now property wants to develop frankly, they tend to be farther away from the city limits

[9:11] for practical reasons and then so how how how do how to be annexed or with a reasonable

[9:20] boundary and and at least an attempt to be up continues to the city how does that work

[9:27] and these annexation governments could be a part of that. So starting with the city had collected

[9:35] records on property tax lot numbers and whether they had an agreement.

[9:43] To some extent, they also required information as to whether there was something called

[9:47] a time period waiver.

[9:49] And I won't get into that.

[9:51] Your county council would give you more information about the legal issues surrounding these

[9:57] time period waivers with annexations agreed.

[10:00] And state law. But we attempted to get information on that. We were only partially successful and I'll explain that in a moment.

[10:12] But other information we were asked to gather was whether a so-called triple majority could be met in certain areas.

[10:23] And, under state law, cities can add expertise, but basically, by council ordinance, if a majority of the owners and the land area and that says value of the properties of those three majorities have provided written consent to annexation, the city can add an area that meets that test.

[10:44] And so we also then needed to get information on the numbers of properties, that's easy, but the assessed value and the area of the properties as well.

[10:58] So our PhDs do gather data, put it into a Master's spreadsheet over some 350 records with the tax line number.

[11:09] And in some cases it requires some protective work because often a property that wanted to get city services was a larger parcel and had a tax lot number

[11:21] but then it would be subdivided and we had to track down what the subsequent tax lot numbers were for the subdivided property.

[11:30] She put that together in a spreadsheet and then uploaded it into the county GIS system.

[11:38] And I have to say our project would not have been possible without the help of your staff.

[11:44] And specifically, J.K. Edwards and Sophie Christensen from the Records and GIS standpoint.

[11:50] They were invaluable, and what Jake did was basically give us a mirror image of the county GIS system,

[12:00] but it was a standalone database, so we couldn't mess anything up in the real data with our manipulation of information.

[12:08] He also then provided a way for us to match tax thought numbers with other data in your county records database to extract

[12:17] the information we needed on SS value and a lot of sizes.

[12:25] So that was very useful and then you also provided a tool that we could use our mouse

[12:30] and select a group of properties and for further analysis.

[12:35] So again, this was a mapping project so the interesting part is the maps and I'll see if I can

[12:41] bring those up for you now on my screen.

[12:50] Let's start the slideshow here.

[12:57] Okay.

[12:58] Can you see my slideshow?

[13:01] I hope so.

[13:03] The first one I'll show is just the map of the City of Wood River's urban growth boundary.

[13:11] And in this map there's gray areas that do not have annexation agreements.

[13:17] But anything with a color, purple, brown, or green, they all have annexation agreements.

[13:25] So right off the bat, as soon as we got this map, this is what we were very interested

[13:32] to see what pattern was.

[13:35] And again, these components were collected for several decades, from the early 80s on.

[13:43] And so to see him in one place was very helpful, we did, by the way, track the data to the agreements as well.

[13:53] So you can see in the map that there's a fairly good concentration of properties that have these annexation covenants in the south part of the city's urban growth boundary, and also in the west part.

[14:09] So we first looked at the pattern in the south area and said, well, you know, just eyeballing it, it seems like there's quite a few, they have the agreements.

[14:22] Would that area as a whole pass the triple majority requirement?

[14:29] And it turns out it doesn't quite.

[14:33] And so we were able to, with Jake's extraction tool,

[14:37] we were able to pull out data from the GIS database into a spreadsheet

[14:42] and to make the triple majority calculation of owners, area, and value.

[14:47] So when we looked at that whole area, again quite meet the 50%

[14:54] plus target, but there's still quite a few in there.

[14:57] Another thing we were asked could do

[15:00] It was look at potential future housing development. And I have to say this is a bit of a net, crude estimate. We used the city's

[15:10] co-plan designation for the UGB, which is primarily our one or our two. We used that to sort out what the maximum density typically would be.

[15:22] And then for larger lots, lots of larger than a half-acre that would have the development potential,

[15:29] we just assume, well, what would it be if they developed a full zoning density?

[15:36] So this whole area, as a whole, we estimated how the future potential of about 270 homes.

[15:45] Since it didn't meet, well, one thing we needed to do though,

[15:48] And we did need to isolate areas just for calculation purposes by zone.

[15:53] And so there's an area just out of the city limits shown here in the kind of bright

[16:01] yellow.

[16:02] It's the city's artu zone, which is a bit higher density, smaller lot sizes than the R1 zone.

[16:09] So we extracted that area right there, shown in blue, and took a look at that.

[16:16] And that, as well, did not quite meet the triple majority of Parliament.

[16:21] Didn't have a lot of future housing potential because a lot of the lots were already subdivided

[16:30] and had holes on them.

[16:33] But at least it allowed us to calculate the potential within that zone.

[16:36] But we noticed off to the south west in this area here, there was a fairly high concentration of properties with it.

[16:51] And when I go to that map, I'll explain something. The areas covered green are those that we could find agreements or records that indicated that they had this time period waiver.

[17:05] So that the green is though, we know it does have the waiver, but the brown, as areas, that we found the agreements that didn't have a waiver, the dark blue are ones that we couldn't track down the agreements, a lot of these agreements were done in paper filing era and frankly we just didn't have enough time to go property by property.

[17:32] Sometimes we would have to translate from a meet and bounce description to find out where the tax

[17:39] lot number was. So these are unknown. I will say though that in our analysis, usually when

[17:47] it was unknown and we could find the agreement, it typically turned out that the CD had included

[17:53] a clause that had a time period waiver. But anyway, the ones that are colored do have agreements

[18:00] of some kind on them. In this case, there were quite a few pretty high density of properties

[18:11] that did have the agreement and that that area by itself easily met a triple majority requirement.

[18:23] So then we said, well, what if you combine the two areas and that's still met a triple majority

[18:28] requirement, it would be continuous to the city limits as well.

[18:33] So then we thought, well, what else is out there?

[18:36] There was an area to the south of the area we've just been looking at.

[18:41] They were able to see here that had not only a fairly high concentration of properties with these agreements,

[18:48] but also some larger lots that had a fair amount of future development potential.

[18:56] And this is the area here and again, there's some pretty large lots and a high number of

[19:02] of potential of future housing within that.

[19:08] And this area too met a triple majority requirement.

[19:17] So then we looked at the combined three areas.

[19:20] And it's pretty large area.

[19:21] It is a contiguous to the current city limits.

[19:24] It does meet a triple majority requirement.

[19:28] And it does have potential for 164 homes.

[19:32] And before a go any further,

[19:35] There's more work to be done and your staff and the staff for the city are very well

[19:40] versed in the policy issues and I think the two governing bodies are as well.

[19:47] When we talk about triple majority, this is just for facts.

[19:51] Just in background data, how the city specifically uses it, but in discussions with you,

[19:58] What happens with that?

[20:00] A data, it completely up to you, the County Administrator and City Manager emphasized the policy decisions here are up to the elected officials.

[20:11] But as I said earlier, I was, when I worked for City of Vancouver, back in the 1980s, we had the same situation with a lot of annexation governments.

[20:23] And they included Vancouver Mall itself and a lot of the properties in the northeast and east sides of Vancouver.

[20:32] And they did do a wholesale annexation of a large area based on those.

[20:36] But I know other cities have been more development driven.

[20:39] If there's been a property, let's say, a larger property in the south end.

[20:44] You know, they may use these cabinets as way to get a fairly logical boundary wind and

[20:51] if a development might occur.

[20:53] So that's all I'll say about that now.

[20:55] We could talk more about that after the maps are done.

[20:59] So there was one other area off to the east that we looked at.

[21:04] There was kind of a scattering of properties with these annexation agreements.

[21:10] And so we looked at those, it had a sort of logical boundary with some streets and such, and that area, as well, met a triple majority threshold, although not by much.

[21:25] But that's, so that was the analysis we did on the south side, and it did show that if you looked at all these areas,

[21:35] And they would together meet a triple majority requirement.

[21:39] Since we already had a accessibility data, we also added up the total assessed value in

[21:46] that area, and came out using the city's general-elevi tax rate, it computed to a annual tax

[21:57] revenue, if that whole area annexed at $440,000.

[22:02] The other policy issue for you, for you, elected folks, is, well, that some of these areas

[22:09] presumably may need some half-street improvements, they may need sidewalks and curves,

[22:15] and that kind of thing.

[22:15] That's typically something we see and so one of the cities concerns is, well, how do we

[22:21] bring those areas up to city standards?

[22:24] In my experience, one technique that I've seen used is a combination of local improvement

[22:30] districts, and then some city support to encourage those to happen.

[22:36] But another thing that the city could do is some sort of using the idea of tax

[22:42] income financing, but they could say, well, if this area annexes and brings in a certain

[22:47] amount of revenue, we would set aside a certain amount for infrastructure improvements.

[22:52] So that was the reason we made that calculation, but that was the extent of our financial analysis

[22:59] in this project. After we look at the area to the south, then we took a look at this area

[23:07] on the west side of the urban growth boundary. This area called area E, it's immediately

[23:17] contiguous to the city, and it had a lot of properties with the agreements, and so we asked ourselves,

[23:24] Well, could it be the annex without even using a triple majority just it would be a hundred percent

[23:32] And we analyze that it makes it's kind of a oops

[23:41] Nickelback it would make

[23:47] We had created an island so we probably wouldn't want to do that, but otherwise with the properties that had agreements

[23:57] It would be possible just to do an outright annexation, and a limited number of development

[24:03] potential, though, is just just a couple larger lots, but I thought that was interesting.

[24:13] And it is a more practical thing.

[24:15] We looked at, well, what about this larger area here, does that meet a triple majority?

[24:21] majority. And there are some fairly large lots here that would have had more housing potential.

[24:27] And in this case, that area combined does meet a triple majority requirement,

[24:35] and a potential of some 49 additional homes as well. This area here is an open space.

[24:42] It's a stone gate open space, so we assume that would remain an open space, but some of these other areas were

[24:49] developmental and potential.

[24:54] So let me, I think this is the, yeah, awesome.

[25:00] Stop sharing, and if I did

[25:09] my

[25:15] sharing stop, I haven't got my big window back just a

[25:24] minute.

[25:29] Hmm, here we go.

[25:31] So I'd be glad to answer questions tonight.

[25:35] What I emphasize, that this would just more

[25:37] of a mapping exercise to say, what does it look like?

[25:42] You know, there'd be more work to be done.

[25:44] One of the things that the city would need to do

[25:46] if they looked at any specific strategies

[25:49] or work with a potential developer

[25:52] on a potentially biological annexation,

[25:55] they would have to pin down the time period

[25:58] waiver issue and work with, you know, the city attorney to sort out, you know, what to do with that.

[26:06] And so that would do work to be done.

[26:09] There are other issues, as you know, the city's got agreements with other service providers in the, in the urban area,

[26:17] and they'd have to look at the implications of that.

[26:20] And so we didn't look at any of that information, but but I should say, I should say,

[26:27] having kind of been in this business, I found that results very interesting.

[26:34] It was a fairly

[26:35] large concentration of these agreements. And as I said, when I worked for Vancouver,

[26:40] it turned out to be helpful and as their city grew. So with that, members of the commission,

[26:51] I'd be glad to answer any questions on our modest study.

[26:59] Just in study.

[27:01] We have questions.

[27:02] I thought we might.

[27:07] Are you calling on me, OK?

[27:10] Dr. Lason, just to start.

[27:13] So obviously, a city manager or a year expertise is

[27:16] and just about everything.

[27:17] But your academic focus is it in urban planning,

[27:21] is it in the legal side of this is an economics,

[27:24] So what was your current academic focus?

[27:28] I'm teaching currently just general leadership classes

[27:32] on teaching one on contract management,

[27:34] top project management and for many years top budgeting.

[27:41] But my dissertation interest was,

[27:43] basically the whole field of city management

[27:45] and the competencies that city managers need

[27:49] so covered a pretty broad area.

[27:50] So I don't study land use per se, but, but as you know, having worked in Oregon as the city manager for 27 years, you can't escape that, and so I certainly have personal experience and annexation.

[28:09] And in the two cities I was city manager of our different than your situation, in Sandy,

[28:15] Clark and Miss County, in the city's urban growth boundary, had a policy of not allowing

[28:21] subdivisions of less than an acre.

[28:24] And so they really did expect properties if they wanted to get to urban level densities with

[28:30] annex to the city and that's what happened.

[28:36] And then usually they were fairly close to the city limits and so properties annexed as they developed.

[28:45] In Lake Asquiga was a different matter.

[28:47] We did have annexation agreements, and there's two very large, basically islands.

[28:54] They were on the west side of the city boarded by i5, but they could have been island annexed,

[29:01] out of the city council, but for several reasons, Joe's not to do that. But what the city

[29:10] lake that's we go did is they would annex properties only when the property of one or

[29:15] the annex, which created a crazy quilt of inside outside of the city. There was islands everywhere.

[29:23] If you've driven down like country club road in Lake us, we owe some properties on either side of

[29:30] or unincorporated, some incorporated, there's bits and pieces of roads that go from city to county.

[29:36] It was an interesting thing. It wasn't as difficult as you might have thought, but from us

[29:42] city staff, we thought, this is kind of strange. But I think the council thought over the real long

[29:50] hall, most of those properties, they were not in the city, they were on septic. And so they

[29:56] in the real long haul those folks at some point would probably need.

[30:00] We need municipal sewer, one way the other, and end up being in the city. So that's some of my professional background.

[30:09] Yeah, that's really helpful. I just have a whole bunch of questions. I'm trying to figure out which ones you're the appropriate person to ask.

[30:15] But the story you just told about like a sweet go.

[30:17] We have a different pattern of development outside of the city limits, but I was always told that it was rather unusual

[30:27] the amount of dense development that we had outside of our urban growth area outside of our corporate limits.

[30:38] And is that true?

[30:41] Is that, would you say, no, you look carefully at the pattern, is it a,

[30:46] moderately admirable pattern?

[30:48] Well, it depends, you know, from the, from Sandy in some of those cities,

[30:52] perspective it is, because, because the, you know,

[30:57] when, when the properties did annex any kind of urban density, they,

[31:00] they, I mean, when they developed they would annex.

[31:03] But Washington County though, right,

[31:05] And some of those areas are very urban and all-in-corporated.

[31:11] Okay. Next question is about the triple majority.

[31:16] You're the request that was given to you was to identify areas where a triple majority existed,

[31:23] so that an annexation could happen with the city's action entirely.

[31:32] If tell us about the value that these agreements have in an area where you're short of that triple

[31:40] majority, but still wish to do an excitation?

[31:44] Well, they still have value because it could be for a variety of reasons some of the intervening

[31:51] properties may be willing to consent fanics and would add to that.

[31:57] And, you know, one area where that happens is if the property is owned by a government and so school district or something like that.

[32:06] So sometimes you could do a combination of kind of voluntary annexation plus the covenants and reach that triple majority.

[32:15] Oh, so might you not have people who simply see the financial advantage to being within the city so that they can develop,

[32:22] land, which otherwise they would have to put money to be asked. Including in fill, somebody wants

[32:28] to do an accessory dwelling, or something like that, and you definitely need cities who are

[32:33] for that, so yeah. Could you remind me of the time period waiver issue, my vague recollection

[32:39] is there was some magic date like 1994 where there was a Court of Appeals of Supreme Court ruling

[32:44] concerning annexation as previous to that date? Is that what the time period waiver refers to?

[32:49] you know, I can't answer that. I'm just not that familiar with them. And so I would, I would, I would defer to your

[32:58] legal counsel in that. You talked about the cost of bringing pastries up to see standards and that's sort of

[33:06] thing. Is that a requirement development extension? No, no. And a lot of areas, there's an expectation from some of the residents.

[33:17] So I live in Portland, I move from Lake US, we go to Portland and I'm in a part of Portland

[33:23] or these that had been unincorporated in Multnomah County, and my particular street has

[33:29] no sidewalks, but the argument is, well, folks close to in, in Irvington, and the rest

[33:41] of the Culliat in the neighborhood in Portland, when they developed inside the city, they

[33:45] the developer was required to put in the curve and sidewalk and things, and so essentially,

[33:50] people have paid it through their mortgage, you know, that somebody's paid for it.

[33:55] It wasn't the general taxpayers, and so you can make an argument that, well, you know,

[34:01] the city's not obligated to put those up to city standards.

[34:05] But again, like I said, one of the things we did in Lake Oswego is we had a program where

[34:11] the city would cover engineering costs and all financing costs and things like that and

[34:18] offered it to residents if they wanted those kinds of improvements that the city would basically

[34:24] subsidize it pretty heavily through it but using a local improvement district process.

[34:30] But that's a policy decision, there's no requirement.

[34:33] And so that's why you identified the taxes that would be generated from those properties

[34:40] because that could be considered a source for the funds to do that, to do whatever

[34:46] it would ever incentives you might want to encourage those properties to consent.

[34:52] Yeah, that's right.

[34:53] There would be an impact on other city services, police and such, but some portion of that presumably.

[35:00] Could be available for that.

[35:02] I have to say, I took a little bit every time the concept of bringing up the city standards comes out, because I live

[35:07] about 150 yards from here, and my street is Chipsil, and I have no sidewalks, and it's a relatively large

[35:14] neighborhood. So, I just been in the city limits for over a hundred, you know, probably 120 years now.

[35:21] No, it's not a universal thing.

[35:24] But maybe you should talk to my city council.

[35:29] I could do that.

[35:35] Have you, do you have examples of situations where,

[35:41] or can you suggest any, could you refer us to an example of cities that have used sort of a mixture of consent to annexation and incentives to achieve the

[35:55] Majority necessary for a voluntary annexation.

[35:59] Who has done the work?

[36:01] You know, that's a great question.

[36:04] And your counterparts at the University Council asked me at the same one.

[36:07] I really don't know.

[36:09] In my own experience, we did use that to eliminate the extended lake as we go.

[36:17] But I'm not familiar with any current cities in Oregon.

[36:22] I know they must be there.

[36:23] but that they're using that combination.

[36:27] Again, my experience was with Vancouver,

[36:30] but that was many years ago.

[36:32] So no, somebody could do that research

[36:36] and poll cities to see.

[36:38] In fact, the Lee Warden cities may have some data on that.

[36:42] OK, great.

[36:43] That's actually a good resource there.

[36:45] And then there was a mention of West Side Fire,

[36:48] who he's helped you talk about the agreements

[36:51] without site agencies. So presumably you're talking about what site fire and ice fountain water

[36:56] just kept. Did you separate out what the costs would be of annexation under that contractual

[37:05] commitment? Is that something that was calculated or could be calculated easily?

[37:09] So we didn't do that. But what what we did do is when we did those extraction areas that we

[37:15] You know, labeled A, B, and C, et cetera, those went into analytical spreadsheets and we provided those spreadsheets to hear staff and to the city staff as well.

[37:28] So they've got that and it could be possible to use that same extraction tool to figure out which areas are covered by those agreements and which aren't.

[37:41] Okay, yeah, I was more interested in the cost of that, but it sounds like that same information

[37:46] is derrivable from city and county records, but it would require some fancy keyboard work.

[37:53] Yeah.

[37:53] Great.

[37:54] No, that's really helpful.

[37:56] I think that that's into my questions for now, so I'll also step back and let other people ask questions

[38:01] and maybe have some more later.

[38:04] Do we have more questions?

[38:05] I just had a quick question.

[38:07] regards to the areas identified.

[38:14] I guess I know the answer, but those can be discretionary

[38:17] nature and where those, so it would be the city's discretion to find an area that would

[38:26] make triple majority, but I would presume that there would be some certain amount of density

[38:33] before identifying those, is that correct?

[38:37] You're exactly right, they're completely discretionary.

[38:41] And we only chose them to see how the numbers worked out,

[38:44] to see if there were some areas that would have enough

[38:48] to be in triple majority.

[38:49] But they were not necessarily logical boundaries

[38:53] for an annexation.

[38:55] In some cases, the one to the south was not even continues.

[38:59] We just were looking at where are the concentrations

[39:03] of these agreements, and I think like most academic studies, this is a pretty simple project,

[39:12] the leads to other questions, and one would be to come up with maybe a more of a strategic

[39:20] plan on whether, if the strategy is more development driven, what are some potential directions

[39:29] to go. If it's more a goal to have the urbanized areas in the city limits in general, that's

[39:38] a different kind of strategy. And there's some interesting questions there, so.

[39:43] Great. Thank you.

[39:45] Sir, did you do the math on the entire urban growth area? What percentage did you reach on each

[39:53] of those three annexation issues?

[39:56] for the entire area of the entire area.

[40:00] How far away are we? That's a good question. No, we didn't. I don't think, I don't think that one's actually pretty easy to do, but no, we didn't think.

[40:17] Ask that question.

[40:18] It would be, it would take some time to go back to the map, but there's a pretty large area on the west side, but the north of the area, we look at that.

[40:28] Apparently, they have no agreements at all, and so that's a very big factor.

[40:36] The CES value may not be that high there yet, because a lot of it's pretty large lots,

[40:42] but it's so you'd have to be a little more, you'd have to make it a smaller area

[40:49] to reach a triple majority.

[40:52] Yeah, and I'm just sort of wondering if you're looking for a policy point of view and

[40:56] trying to generate a package that would avoid the—there would achieve the level of acceptance

[41:06] necessary to do the annexation.

[41:10] You know, we didn't have a trouble majority, but you were looking to figure out how much

[41:14] and what sort of incentives you needed to put in place and how much you were willing to spend

[41:19] on that.

[41:20] That's what that number might tell you if you're at.

[41:22] You know, 8% and that's going to cost you a lot to figure out enough incentives to discourage those folks from protesting the annexation, but if you are at, you know, in the 2030% you can start to imagine the sorts of benefits that they might see, especially some of those large lots, which you described, which have very low assess value now, would clearly have much higher value if they were developable.

[41:53] And knowing that or understanding that would help from a policy point of view to figure out

[41:58] if this is financially wise, move on the city's part.

[42:04] No, it's a good point.

[42:05] And so I think in the database that we've left with your staff, we have, excuse me, all the properties

[42:12] that do have agreements.

[42:13] It's all in the database.

[42:14] And so it would be a pretty simple matter to look at the whole UGB and figure out what those percentages are.

[42:25] Are there any more questions?

[42:26] I'm just, what are we doing today about that?

[42:29] We're going to discuss more.

[42:31] I understand the city council had some reactions to this.

[42:33] We're going to talk about that or do we have plans to meet again?

[42:37] We don't need some plans for a joint meeting with the city council.

[42:40] So I think we wanted to present the information and then to understand if the board would like to request another meeting to discuss

[42:49] or if there was any action you'd like staff to take to the result.

[42:52] I guess I'm wondering if we as a group today have the ability to have further discussion on this.

[42:58] Now what we've seen, Dr. Leson, these more can the students work?

[43:03] Are we going to discuss this, or are we going to discuss this, or are we going to discuss this, or are we going to discuss this,

[43:09] It's not our action items, but if we want to spend some time talking about it now, well it's fresh in our minds, I think that's a good idea.

[43:20] Why don't we set ourselves about 10 minutes because how long will the bridge, will that take half an hour? 15 minutes or something like that?

[43:34] Okay, all right, well we could discuss this, yes, we have time.

[43:40] Great, so I heard some things described about the city council's reaction and the phrase that was used was lack of will.

[43:50] And I don't have information directly, so I don't have a customer rare as here, or our

[43:56] counsel president to prove rare is here.

[44:00] And I don't know if it is a appropriate way for us to get an update on what happened

[44:07] at the C Council meeting.

[44:09] Well, and I will look to Eric and I both attended the City Council meeting last week, and I think

[44:16] Dr. Lason Beak could also weigh in.

[44:18] We present it to the council, and there were a couple of questions, actually a

[44:25] Councillor Rivera asked many of the questions, which was great.

[44:30] I think the sense that we got from the city is that there are existing policies in place,

[44:36] and so from a staff standpoint, I don't believe there is a direction at this time to change

[44:44] What they're doing in regard to annexation, I think, in regards to a lack of will, this annexation process would take, you know, direction from our policy makers if you want to do more with it.

[45:00] For example, if there was a scenario coming out of this in which you saw the potential for annexation

[45:09] by agreement, or to encourage the city to take action because the triple majority exists.

[45:18] So I think I would put that out there.

[45:25] I don't know, I don't know that I have much more to add.

[45:31] I guess if I could phrase the question a little bit differently, the city council

[45:35] sat and watched this and I unfortunately did not have time to

[45:39] I was on the occasion, so I did not watch that meeting, sorry about that.

[45:43] But at the end of it was the disposition.

[45:48] Yeah, that's nice, but we're done or or did they say we'll talk about the

[45:54] or is there any plan as to how the city council is going to or how or when the city council is going to give direction to staff

[46:03] concerning the next step after having gotten this interesting information?

[46:11] From staff perspective, I did not see further direction. However, there may have been conversation later in the meeting

[46:19] and I don't know if it's appropriate to ask Councillor Rivera in regard to that.

[46:25] I don't know if we're on the spot of the major event.

[46:29] I'm happy to get that then.

[46:32] That is, we made our council press it in.

[46:35] So I don't think it was a lack of will.

[46:37] It was now we have this information presented to us.

[46:41] It sounds like both the city and the county staff need to get together to come up with

[46:47] like for certain areas that weren't permitted,

[46:50] why they weren't permitted, is that something that we can find more information up?

[46:55] And in addition to that, we were so open to continuing to have these conversations

[47:01] cost is something that we're going to have to figure out what is that,

[47:04] look like, as far as those agreements for those service areas.

[47:07] So I don't think it was lack of what it was that there's still more information that we need

[47:12] in order to make a mutual decision with you all.

[47:15] Okay, great.

[47:16] And so, I mean, I looked at this, I was actually surprised that the number of, I know

[47:23] that the number of units is kind of a fake metric there, but just, even as a proxy for

[47:28] something else, I was surprised at how large the number was you could achieve with an actual

[47:33] triple majority.

[47:33] I expected that number to be very small, but that you'd be close enough that you could

[47:39] entice people into accepting the annexation, but it looks like there's a real possibility

[47:44] here of getting some potential housing out of this, that I guess I'm confused because I thought

[47:54] the, you know, I was on vacation, so maybe the tubes in information are a little narrow,

[48:00] but I thought that the answer from this was that there wasn't very much to get out of the regions that had triple

[48:10] majorities and it looks like to me like there are and that role or no but the way to get those

[48:17] majorities also depends it's kind of like voting districts it depends on how you cut it right so

[48:24] if so look like we had some that weren't up to 50 percent but if we sliced it differently we

[48:32] could get there so that's one of the questions is which areas are the most important and how do you

[48:37] I want to slice it up so that they can all be above 50%.

[48:42] So that would be one of the decisions.

[48:44] And my question also would be, what role,

[48:48] can you find exactly the role that the county has in this,

[48:51] is it a city driven process?

[48:55] Amixation is the city driven process.

[48:58] However, there is a method by which we could do annexation

[49:01] by agreement.

[49:04] And so we would want to explore that.

[49:06] I would want to offer the caveat in my conversations with City Manager having a elder.

[49:14] She would identify that their staff has a work plan and so understanding this information

[49:21] is wonderful, but there's also a work effort that goes along with it and so I think

[49:26] she would go back to her City Council and say if you're identifying this as a priority

[49:31] are a work project, we need to work it into our program.

[49:35] We're going to talk about this year's work plan though, right?

[49:37] I thought that this was all preamble to discussion about next year, or three years,

[49:43] or five years from now, right?

[49:45] I don't think anyone, maybe I misunderstood.

[49:47] It's nothing.

[49:47] I don't think anyone expected that this day was going to be done,

[49:51] and annexation notes would go flying.

[49:54] annexation is definitely a tool within the toolkit for our housing.

[49:58] All right.

[49:59] We're any...

[50:00] The studies, it looked like they were all west of 12th Street. Is that correct? There was nothing east of 12th Street. There was a piece back in the area of Poffa, million. Okay, that was, there was that one piece.

[50:13] It's really small.

[50:14] It's a handful of toxins there.

[50:17] Okay.

[50:17] And did it have a specific percent on its own or was it part of a larger group?

[50:26] I'm just sort of curious about it.

[50:28] I don't think it was in any of the groups that...

[50:31] Oh, okay.

[50:32] Right. That's what I meant.

[50:33] It wasn't any of the groups that were in the group.

[50:35] We've heard about that because that's where the failing septic is.

[50:38] Correct.

[50:38] The request came to us to help.

[50:41] Correct.

[50:42] And I was wondering if that was part of any of this.

[50:44] Because I didn't think I saw it in the numbers.

[50:46] So it's there.

[50:48] But it wasn't in part of...

[50:49] It wasn't in any of the areas that...

[50:54] If that's a good area that might fit, I think we talked about it like this week or

[50:59] area where eventually your sector systems will fail, so they'll have to.

[51:03] Correct.

[51:03] I just wanted to be accurate that that wasn't actually part of what we just saw, because none

[51:08] of the numbers that applied to that, as I understand it.

[51:13] And Dr. Lazyby, you did the groupings around the specific areas, but not the area off

[51:18] to it would have been the right of the screen, which was a small strip on Elliott, was

[51:30] I think that's something that the city staff certainly were very interested in, if they had some issue, they could use this extraction tool and answer those kinds of questions fairly easily.

[51:46] So it sounds like your graduate student could probably get a job with many of those state legislatures right now.

[51:52] They're trying to Germans.

[51:54] They're special districts.

[51:57] I think they have different criteria there.

[51:59] But it's the same.

[52:00] It's the same.

[52:02] It's the same.

[52:02] But it's the same.

[52:02] It's the same.

[52:03] It's the same.

[52:04] I'm not sure they have it.

[52:05] The same GIS to us.

[52:06] I'm not sure that you can extract it there from there from there.

[52:10] From there title reports.

[52:12] What the voting would be.

[52:15] You'd be surprised.

[52:17] All right.

[52:18] Well, thank you very much.

[52:20] Do we have more questions?

[52:22] I'm excited to see that we have these tools in place now.

[52:26] It sounds like we don't need to ask Dr. Leisenby or his student to do the work at this point,

[52:36] because we now have the tools to work with which we can do further work.

[52:43] Now that we start to understand this, the work to extract,

[52:49] to track, they worked to find the records about the, I guess,

[52:55] a risk-lical waivers and remonstrates and, you know,

[52:58] waivers, consent to organizations that they're met.

[53:01] And so I know that that's very time-consuming work to do at a level that you take to the bank,

[53:10] or, you know, this, where you actually can issue an annexation order.

[53:17] Was there any discussion that is a look in our discussion about how much, how close, how good was the job that was done on identifying these documents?

[53:32] Is it, like, is it sort of the 10% back at the envelope or are we 90% of the way there or is any way in for you to know?

[53:43] One of the things I would notice that, you know, further analysis would need to be needed to do that kind of more legalistic look.

[53:54] I think the city's records were pretty good as to the presence of the agreements, but they may have missed up.

[54:00] They kept track-witted in a separate database, tracking down the written agreements.

[54:07] and again, some of these data back many years would take some effort and our recommendation

[54:12] was not to spend a lot of time doing that unless you have some specific areas you want

[54:17] to look at because it is pretty time consuming to try to pin those down.

[54:22] So I think to answer your question, this is more of a first impression, but does need further

[54:29] verification.

[54:30] Well, it also seems as though if that's the case, and you've got basically an over the whole area, and we are at about 50%.

[54:40] If we look harder, we find more rather than less, right?

[54:43] So these are the ones that really do exist, and there could be more.

[54:46] But it is pretty sure that I guess we have to understand the time period before we say this for sure.

[54:57] But the number of...

[55:00] People, the number of waivers could go up, but probably not down.

[55:05] I can give you an example of that. So when that was mayor, we were going through the process of annexing the property that the Columbia

[55:14] Court shall sit on and they were fighting it and they said that their waiver was pre-1994 or whatever the year was. So we couldn't force them and staff went through and dug up all the records.

[55:29] and found four more consents that have been signed by all of them that property since that day.

[55:34] So that was just one problem.

[55:39] So that answers my question.

[55:40] Thank you.

[55:43] Yes, I think that we will discuss this again.

[55:49] And one of the recommendations that Dr. Lazybe made is just to remind us that they have graduate fellows.

[55:56] They have, and that would be a potential project, so that's an application process, where we could bring somebody on board for that specific purpose, and it's a graduate project.

[56:10] So that could be an interesting next step as well.

[56:14] All right, and I would like to point out that we're getting even, we really appreciate what our own planning department and GIS department have been able to do to make this happen.

[56:26] I mean, if this couldn't have happened without, it's just one more instance of how well

[56:35] our planning department on our GST as department function and how hopeful and how confident

[56:41] it would be is.

[56:42] Thank you.

[56:42] Please thank your students for us.

[56:48] All right.

[56:50] Thank you.

[56:54] Thank you very much

[56:57] and our next presentation is the county bridge capital improvement plan

[57:03] and detour options, we're already out there

[57:07] and detour options, so we must be optimistic about this.

[57:11] Oh, I thought that was detour if the bridge fails

[57:13] and nothing's done about it.

[57:17] So now, I think yes, at that point at this time.

[57:21] So maybe I can start with that.

[57:24] However, so we had,

[57:27] Tony, you can, okay.

[57:28] Okay, thank you.

[57:31] So, the county got a consultant to do an evaluation of all of our bridges, O. does inspection of our larger bridges every two years.

[57:43] We don't have inspections of the smaller ones, and so we have them do the inspection of the smaller ones,

[57:49] and then we have them aggregate all of the information and present it to us on how we should proceed going forward.

[57:57] And it's basically a way for us to determine, yeah, for sure,

[58:12] you're all

[58:16] ready.

[58:23] Okay, I'll just keep going.

[58:26] So just a background, what inventory we have.

[58:30] We have 18 bridges that are classified as the larger bridges.

[58:34] are called National Branch of Inventory and you can get federal funding for those, those are the

[58:39] ones that owed out inspects for us.

[58:42] We have nine bridges, not listed on this list, and here it is.

[58:49] These are the ones that DEA had inspected for us, and then this has always been the case.

[58:57] It's just an information I wanted to include.

[59:00] we have two bridges throughout the county that are low restricted. One is on

[59:05] Wyeth and then the other one is on March. There are D2A routes for those. And so currently

[59:13] it's not really an impact to our county. Right.

[59:23] So some of the main instrument

[59:27] So seven maintenance recommendations were considered urgent.

[59:31] So ODOT says, we should do something about this within six months.

[59:38] And let me back in four years to make sure that we do.

[59:42] And traditionally, we have no.

[59:45] I'm just going to say that at this point.

[59:49] 17 maintenance recommendations state that they're high, which means need to be fixed within 12 months, and then 1664

[1:00:00] Retain, or medium, those need to be done before the ODOT comes back in its face.

[1:00:08] And then six are recommended for monitoring, so if there's a river that goes underneath it and it's a high flow event,

[1:00:17] we should go check the bridge to make sure it's standing or it's not concerning, we shouldn't have vehicles on it.

[1:00:29] So budget impacts, what's this mean as far as budget?

[1:00:33] So currently we're transferring $250,000 a year from our road fund, we're transferring it to a capital project fund.

[1:00:42] So it's really used to create that match if we weren't able to apply for federal funding or to replace British in their own.

[1:00:52] It comes from the road fund that can only be used for roads.

[1:00:55] It isn't for, it's not our general fund that can be used to replace something else.

[1:01:01] And that's gas tax money, right?

[1:01:03] Gas tax and vehicle registration, correct.

[1:01:07] So this program is assuming that we're going to spend 200,000 of this every year plus or minus.

[1:01:15] And then this work can be done by both county maintenance team.

[1:01:19] then additionally from contractors. For the ones that have been identified as county maintenance,

[1:01:27] we're starting to work on those, and we should have those done within that 12 months time.

[1:01:36] And then hopefully we'll be able to keep budgeting for a placement or larger scale projects

[1:01:43] even with spending that 200,000 every year.

[1:01:50] So, next one, this is the one that why we have detour routes.

[1:01:55] We have four that are not recommended for maintenance.

[1:01:59] And the reason that they're not recommended for maintenance is either we can't get them.

[1:02:04] One recommendation is handwritten, the railings.

[1:02:08] We can't get that to a standard.

[1:02:10] So, it doesn't make sense to put in the money and the effort to get a substandard thing that we're just going to get called on the next kind of that they expect it.

[1:02:22] Other ones are at a point where they're just deteriorating, we let them go too far at this point.

[1:02:33] The four bridges are firm out and road at the East Park irrigation ditch.

[1:02:40] This is the one that's going to be replaced with the East Park irrigation district project.

[1:02:46] A firm out and road over Neal Creek, that's right at Highway 35.

[1:02:52] Later in this, your agenda has a consent to apply for the RTA grant.

[1:02:58] That's the one that we just received in the Supplemental Project.

[1:03:00] So we are working, we're hopeful that we're working towards replacement of these.

[1:03:09] And then Thompson and Neil Creek, near Highway 35, and then Wyah, which was the previously

[1:03:16] low restricted one, it's also slated.

[1:03:20] And then I, I don't know.

[1:03:22] Is it still low restricted you said previously?

[1:03:24] Previously and still.

[1:03:26] Okay.

[1:03:26] Yes.

[1:03:27] It's already been ideal.

[1:03:27] So nothing is newly loaded restricted and then I just identified the two that were

[1:03:37] weight restricted again and then why it is both on the non-maintained and on the load

[1:03:44] restricted posh is one that we are hoping to get unload restricted.

[1:03:53] That's one.

[1:03:57] So it would teach her a reps on each of these.

[1:04:00] They're considered not maintained.

[1:04:02] And I did that because we don't maintain them.

[1:04:05] And they fail.

[1:04:08] We're going to have to teach her a lesson.

[1:04:10] So can I ask a question?

[1:04:11] Can I go ahead?

[1:04:12] So I apologize.

[1:04:13] Yeah.

[1:04:14] I made a bad joke for them.

[1:04:16] You know for that.

[1:04:18] So.

[1:04:19] So a bridge that has a recommendation for for some children to repair.

[1:04:23] And there's a timeline where it's expected having forbid we didn't have to resources and we're the time to get that done what what we'll do next next step

[1:04:32] So up on the rest

[1:04:34] Closure and detours what what would that look like?

[1:04:38] We haven't gotten to that point. I don't know that there's been anything as far as penalties

[1:04:44] The social media play for not preparing

[1:04:47] the penalty is the rich fails

[1:04:51] If somebody is, or isn't on it, and then it's catastrophic, and the challenge is of that.

[1:04:58] Yeah, and then I'm sure about that.

[1:05:02] And then if you don't maintain bridges, it's hard to get funding for those. Like if it does fail and you didn't put any money into it, no one's going to come out of you. Because you didn't put in the money and effort before. And so it's going to cost more to start.

[1:05:21] So a couple of years ago, the county made a decision to revert a bunch of roads from

[1:05:25] paved roads to gravel roads because they didn't have the funds to keep them patched and

[1:05:30] determine that we'd be cheaper to this conversion than it would be to try to maintain

[1:05:36] them and fail at maintaining them.

[1:05:39] Isn't there have you looked at what the value to the community is of each of these

[1:05:47] and whether there's the option of simply saying we can't afford that origin anymore.

[1:05:52] So three of the four bridges are east of Highway 35.

[1:05:59] One of them is slow restricted and then three of the other ones.

[1:06:03] And you'll see that a little bit more in another map where all of the detours go onto one of these other bridges.

[1:06:10] And so what was identified was the first one would be for Mountain Road, the irrigation ditch and I put them in order on these maps.

[1:06:23] The second one was for Mountain Road at Highway 35. We have not been successful in receiving local bridge funding because there's so many detours.

[1:06:32] But now that we identify, you know, that all of these are in the same condition, all of the

[1:06:37] detourer routes are constrained as well.

[1:06:43] Why if there's detours in it, you know, it accesses federal lands, but it doesn't access homes.

[1:06:53] So that is something that we could consider.

[1:06:55] However, we'll likely be applying for, we're going to be asking to apply for a federal

[1:07:02] land's access program funding if that becomes available for that bridge, because that's

[1:07:11] funding would be a good, good for that source.

[1:07:15] I think that's a good example of the situation where you've done the analysis that in

[1:07:19] of our residents that bridge isn't servicing homes or farms, but it is servicing federal lands.

[1:07:28] So if we can't get federal funding for that, that might be something that's on the cutting line.

[1:07:37] So, thanks.

[1:07:38] I kind of went on a little bit of bridges today a little bit.

[1:07:41] I'd call it Sandy.

[1:07:46] There may be some of these bridges, maybe that potentially are affecting fish out of that.

[1:07:53] Is there a resource there, maybe that we can work with around?

[1:07:58] There is.

[1:07:59] There's other things that we would like to work with around.

[1:08:03] But definitely giving her this information or giving them this information and determining if these are things that

[1:08:09] Can we prioritize, we've already had that conversation,

[1:08:13] can we prioritize bridges that suit both of us?

[1:08:20] I don't know if the ones that we have as failing

[1:08:24] or needing to be prepared, or things that are the same.

[1:08:30] Is that what it's called?

[1:08:31] It's a rope.

[1:08:32] Yeah.

[1:08:33] Maybe you don't have to.

[1:08:34] No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

[1:08:37] Yeah, so that is something that, I mean, any time that we're doing work over a water plane is something that we would definitely be bringing them in on.

[1:08:49] Sure, obviously.

[1:08:50] And, let me wise.

[1:08:52] Absolutely.

[1:08:52] And different sources of funding always help.

[1:08:59] Great.

[1:09:01] So this one's the worst.

[1:09:04] I would say if the county was not getting this replace with the East for irrigation district

[1:09:10] project that we would want to prioritize getting this one fixed.

[1:09:15] So, good news.

[1:09:19] Okay, that's fine.

[1:09:20] Good news is that we have a funding source.

[1:09:23] We have somebody else that's going to do it for us.

[1:09:26] Yeah.

[1:09:26] Which is the East for?

[1:09:27] Yeah.

[1:09:29] This is the Firm Mountain Road here highway 35 over Neil Creek.

[1:09:33] You notice the detour around is Thompson.

[1:09:40] There is another one on glass, that doesn't have one of those approaches,

[1:09:47] but when you see that Thompson's around, it's also going to use for that.

[1:10:00] And this is the Thompson one showing essentially the same D2A route as the firm out in the one next.

[1:10:13] So this is why if there is, it's currently low restricted.

[1:10:22] It really is accessing federal lands. I think there is one home on there.

[1:10:30] So, yeah, this is one that I think we've rated the last of the four to get replaced because of those reasons.

[1:10:41] However, the federal land's access program is a great funding source for this bridge, which is why we're going to prioritize that.

[1:10:49] Because it can't be used for the other three bridges.

[1:10:53] We don't yet know if that's going to be reauthorized, right?

[1:10:57] We're just crossing fingers.

[1:11:03] So just to highlight the other way restricted, this is posh.

[1:11:09] This is one that we do hope to get replaced or not replaced, but repair and get it unloaded, restricted.

[1:11:18] It also accesses that east side of Highway 35.

[1:11:21] So, all of the ones that are looked restricted are currently east of Highway 3-5.

[1:11:29] Is there no?

[1:11:32] I'm bored.

[1:11:33] Oh, great.

[1:11:34] I didn't put that.

[1:11:37] So, my ask is that we adopt this plan, and we move forward in trying to find funding.

[1:11:44] And to give these ones that are in non-maintenance

[1:11:50] safer placed,

[1:11:54] and then a perfect grant on anyone

[1:11:56] it's available.

[1:11:58] The RTA is coming to consent.

[1:12:00] That was on the supplemental agreement.

[1:12:03] And then slap if that becomes available,

[1:12:06] will probably be September or February.

[1:12:11] And then the continuing budget moves from the public work's road signs up 250,000 to this capital road fund,

[1:12:21] so that we can continue this work, and be successful in the

[1:12:35] next slide, says.

[1:12:36] I'm a little careful.

[1:12:39] There you go.

[1:12:40] You know I feel better.

[1:12:45] So I'm working on another brief replacement product problem.

[1:12:49] And we're doing similar sort of calculation.

[1:12:52] So certainly, I think you've done a great job in David Evans.

[1:12:55] It's done a great job in preparing this facility's plan.

[1:13:00] So I've got no problem moving forward with that.

[1:13:02] What would be interesting to identify is if we know the length of the detours,

[1:13:08] which you just provided, and we know the traffic,

[1:13:10] Okay, which I don't know if you know, that can be translated into an economic value of the

[1:13:16] bridge in terms of a benefit cost analysis.

[1:13:19] So it might be, if that's something that we can generate easily, maybe Jake can sort of

[1:13:26] magically make it appear.

[1:13:29] That would be, might help you in your flat grant or anything else that you're trying to do.

[1:13:42] I'm just saying there are models for developing economic value to the community of these things.

[1:13:49] The same models would be helpful to us if we had to make a decision that we simply could afford to maintain 27 bridges.

[1:13:57] 27 bridges in the county that this is a 26-bridge county.

[1:14:01] We need that information to make a decision like that.

[1:14:03] Do some of the create applications require specificly that, or you just would be helpful information to make our point.

[1:14:10] Yeah, I think it would be helpful to make our point for the Federal Lands Access Program.

[1:14:17] There is economic drivers as part of that.

[1:14:23] I don't know if we can necessarily show that on that bridge.

[1:14:29] There are other roads that we're also looking at that same program and just applying for them all that might be successful.

[1:14:41] But I think it's a good sort of detail, what's the current administration.

[1:14:49] And like I said, it will also help us prepare some institutions in the future.

[1:14:54] Hopefully we can keep making a decision to do a little at a time when they won't fail any time.

[1:15:00] I mean, we didn't know the information before we know it now. We're going to keep working to make sure that we aren't in this state that we keep working on the four bridges that we know about, and keep maintaining the ones that we just would have.

[1:15:15] I guess recording stopped, recording in progress.

[1:15:21] I didn't say anything during work, very much.

[1:15:25] Yeah, so from a liability point of view, the state,

[1:15:31] and the state reviews, the state has told us they give us,

[1:15:37] it was a four-year timeline.

[1:15:39] Two-year timeline, okay.

[1:15:41] So they give us the three recommendations.

[1:15:42] timeline and we have to take reasonable actions that the, because I'm looking at

[1:15:50] me saying, there's, there's some term that, or something that we have to do.

[1:15:54] Obviously, we can't magically know whether we're just going to fail, but we've been put on

[1:15:59] notice that there is a situation that needs to be remedy, remedy, so we have to do

[1:16:04] something, or we have to make some, we have to consciously make the decision of

[1:16:09] And that's part of why we're adopting this plan, is to forward with the knowledge that we are not going to be maintaining these four bridges

[1:16:20] because we're not going to see a measurable impact on this four bridges.

[1:16:25] So really, the not maintained means that we need to replace.

[1:16:30] These are the four bridges that we're going to actively work to replace.

[1:16:33] But we're not obligated to close the tomorrow, for example.

[1:16:37] Correct.

[1:16:38] They are, in a perfectly fine condition as they are.

[1:16:41] Just the repairs won't be a substantial repair.

[1:16:45] We'll see that repair money to fix them to replace them.

[1:16:50] Okay.

[1:16:51] Did you have anything else?

[1:16:54] I have.

[1:16:54] Those were made to be automatically addressed.

[1:16:57] Typically if you're provided notice,

[1:16:59] year given an opportunity to be cured. And so I would think that it would be, yeah, going back to the plan and identifying what steps do you plan to take the thing, what time frame?

[1:17:10] It seems like we're not ignoring the information that we have.

[1:17:15] We also don't have the money, imagine we need to fix everything.

[1:17:18] So, I'm not uncomfortable from an ethical point of view that we're ignoring a problem, but it would be helpful to have some understanding of the ramifications of whether we are in fact meeting our legal obligation.

[1:17:38] Has the state given us notice on these or was this initiated completely?

[1:17:44] So the NBI bridges we have been given notice, but I do have to say that we haven't been

[1:17:54] very successful in completing the work to this point until we have this report.

[1:17:59] We weren't as diligent with the repairs as we should.

[1:18:05] And what triggered the initiation of the report?

[1:18:09] Was it being put on notice or was it just it's a good idea for us to do?

[1:18:13] It's a good idea that we should do and we should have the knowledge of what the condition of our bridges are and

[1:18:20] a recommendation for our maintenance team to be able to to go forward and know what they're doing

[1:18:26] is going to make a natural impact.

[1:18:29] Are

[1:18:32] there any more questions?

[1:18:35] I just want to know how you're going to find the time to get all that done too.

[1:18:42] There are already working on the signs now.

[1:18:44] I think that what's striping is done in a couple weeks, they're all going to take the month off for hunting and the vegetation removal is part of that and then that's a great question.

[1:18:59] But if we don't know the information they can't be targeted and so that's part of the reason of the line is the targeted approach.

[1:19:07] kind of a series full of that though with ODOT's recent step reductions, is ODOT funding

[1:19:14] bridge inspection program or are we going to be stuck without that program in the future?

[1:19:22] Great question. It is federally mandated that somebody and in the state of Washington

[1:19:30] and local jurisdictions do that work,

[1:19:36] I hope not.

[1:19:38] I don't want to take on that liability.

[1:19:43] Even if we would have to consult it out, like, late.

[1:19:51] All right, well, thank you very much.

[1:19:53] Thank you.

[1:19:57] And with that, let me...

[1:20:00] We start on meeting at six o'clock, so we'll take a break.

[1:20:05] Recording stopped.

[1:20:42] I don't know what it's like.

[1:20:43] But what is it cost for parking mayn't know this?

[1:20:47] I guess I can't even ask.

[1:20:48] We don't know.

[1:20:48] But I mean, just a small word.

[1:20:51] I mean, what kind of project do we talk about?

[1:20:53] Like, a public phrase now?

[1:20:55] I know I should have that.

[1:20:56] You know, it's pretty good.

[1:20:57] It's good to be blown.

[1:20:59] Do you know what kind of code it is?

[1:21:01] I don't know what it is.

[1:21:03] Martin V. Laws would come to do with...

[1:21:05] Children's are friendly, those that go for them to follow.

[1:24:19] So that's fine, that's fine, that's fine, that's fine.

[1:25:00] I don't know what I need to do, I don't know what I need to do.

[1:25:16] to the city council meeting in every discussion.

[1:25:21] Bonding for the sake of Bonding.

[1:25:25] The term that they have.

[1:25:28] Bonding capacity available.

[1:25:31] So there's nothing to discuss about when the city.

[1:25:35] Ask for a bond.

[1:26:09] Do you mean how do we prioritize between the big projects that the school wants to do?

[1:26:15] The county wants to do, and there's parks and records to do, and the city wants to do.

[1:26:24] This is a perpetual discussion, but I don't think anyone has ever made a dent in that concept,

[1:26:30] because we have a system that encourages small elements that their own silos,

[1:26:36] And there's no particular incentive for them to work with each other.

[1:26:45] So I have to fix the tax system first.

[1:26:47] And then we can come back and take a look at this.

[1:26:51] OK.

[1:26:52] That's not an end of the quintile.

[1:26:55] I don't know if I have a ticket about it.

[1:27:00] I have some ideas.

[1:27:14] Yeah, I don't think it's as hard as people, I don't know.

[1:27:21] To do what?

[1:27:22] To do what?

[1:27:23] To do what?

[1:27:27] That would take some political will.

[1:27:30] I would, but I think, yeah.

[1:27:33] Are there a lot of people that like to be alive?

[1:27:35] I think that matters in our favor.

[1:27:40] You mean you think that if it came over for rocker changes and that believes that that's

[1:27:49] more and more likely a stunt goes on?

[1:27:52] Because people understand the problems?

[1:27:55] No, because it just becomes more and there interests to address it.

[1:28:00] Because there are more people treated unfairly on the current system and the degree to which

[1:28:05] being treated unfairly gross?

[1:28:08] Is it any particular group of people or just people that have all this 50% of the

[1:28:12] property owners?

[1:28:14] In what way?

[1:28:15] 50% of the property owners don't pay more than their fair share.

[1:28:21] Is that people?

[1:28:23] So do you have one property where you're paying more than your share share in one way or not?

[1:28:26] I do, in fact.

[1:28:27] So I'm exactly on average.

[1:28:29] If you have the two of them, because I own two pieces of property, but I don't think

[1:28:33] And did us a history because of the intent when measure 5 and 50 were written was to break the system.

[1:28:44] It wasn't intended to solve anything.

[1:28:45] It was intended to break things intentionally.

[1:28:48] And it succeeded at that.

[1:28:51] And logically, it created a logical situation where over time it couldn't help but create inequities.

[1:28:59] Now the hit and the hit.

[1:29:02] After six ever year gets.

[1:29:04] Does it get worse every year?

[1:29:06] Pestic.

[1:29:07] It's in some of the logistics who are sort of looking.

[1:29:13] I can't, the cancelled itself.

[1:29:18] Well, it's just a horrible way to stay.

[1:29:28] I need to hamstring the state.

[1:29:31] And the county coffers.

[1:29:35] I know that politically agnostic says you don't even address that because if the

[1:29:42] public wants to, if this is a serious one's to limit the county or state coffers, they can do it.

[1:29:48] But you can do it in a way that's fair, you can do it in a way that's fair.

[1:29:53] Wait, it's chosen as a way that's badly unfair.

[1:29:57] But, but also, just now you're lodging.

[1:30:00] Of thinking that that the growth in our party taxes is disconnected from, from the wider economy.

[1:30:14] Well, from you, from, for instance,

[1:30:17] from the public's reaction to the fact that you tie, you tie all of the income for government to,

[1:30:29] asset that I'm that's illiquid. So I don't have the option of selling part of

[1:30:38] my property to pay my taxes every year. Right, so that's the problem with having

[1:30:44] a purely property tax-based system. So I think that that would be a reason why

[1:30:54] members of the public might say we want to limit the growth of property tax.

[1:31:02] There are obvious, they're very, again, well, reasons why the public might want to do that.

[1:31:07] That doesn't say that we don't want services and we don't want government that says we don't want services and government that says we don't want services and government be paid for

[1:31:47] It's just terrifying to have

[1:32:02] I mean, to me, you know, I keep this.

[1:32:06] There's things that you think are okay with.

[1:32:08] There's sort of things about it.

[1:32:09] It's not that hardly ever.

[1:32:10] It's all self-limiting.

[1:32:12] You think?

[1:32:13] Yeah.

[1:32:14] So, yeah.

[1:32:14] So, try this.

[1:32:17] Good to see you.

[1:32:19] Good to see you.

[1:32:20] Good to see you.

[1:32:21] Good to see you.

[1:32:24] What's that?

[1:32:25] Great, so we'll be accepting to a black hole at some point, so we...

[1:32:29] No.

[1:32:29] And then I'll be...

[1:32:30] Yeah, I'm sorry.

[1:32:32] Okay.

[1:32:33] Sure, so that's not the self-esteem.

[1:32:34] Oh, that's how we're doing.

[1:32:36] I'll be swimming only in the next two years.

[1:32:38] Oh, okay.

[1:32:39] Oh, we'll get to work on that.

[1:32:41] No, I have ideas there.

[1:32:44] That's...

[1:32:53] They'll see me in the internet.

[1:32:55] You try to...

[1:32:57] finalist review discussion, I made a creative solution to partner, no one else had a solution to.

[1:33:04] And Bill looked at me like I was crazy, he could have just kept talking to me or me.

[1:33:08] So, so, okay, I'd probably have, I'd probably have, I'd probably call myself now.

[1:33:14] So, okay, well, I'll try this last version.

[1:33:17] We'll try to get this here, if it doesn't work, then maybe next year we should talk about that.

[1:33:22] I said it in flight with.

[1:33:23] Yeah.

[1:33:39] Yeah.

[1:33:40] Yeah.

[1:33:41] Yeah.

[1:33:42] Yeah.

[1:33:45] Are you guys all ready?

[1:33:49] Yeah.

[1:33:50] Yes.

[1:33:53] Yeah.

[1:34:02] I will call the business meeting Agenda, I'm sorry, the business meeting to order for the

[1:34:11] Democratic Commission at 6 o'clock on August 18, 2025.

[1:34:19] Are there any additions or deletions to the Agenda?

[1:34:25] No, any conflicts or potential conflicts and interest?

[1:34:27] Do we have any public comment in the audience or do we have any public comment online?

[1:34:37] All right.

[1:34:38] Well, great.

[1:34:39] We can start with our County Administrator report.

[1:34:45] Good evening.

[1:34:46] I have a couple of updates for you.

[1:34:49] It has been a busy month.

[1:34:52] The first item was just to report back.

[1:34:54] We have a stakeholder meeting last Monday and

[1:35:00] We might have been going to report about this. I just wanted to note that it was a great meeting. We have a great showing of emergency responders and agencies from both sides of the river. IA4 and Highway 14.

[1:35:24] The bulk of the meeting I would say was given to ODOT to talk about the issues that would arise due to their current funding situation.

[1:35:38] But we then broke out into groups to talk about local roads, needs, communications and then emergency response.

[1:35:47] And when we all came back together, there was the agreement that this was starting a process,

[1:35:55] and that those groups would be organized in the ideas to create a book of procedures that can be implemented

[1:36:02] singly or as a set in order to achieve particular outcome.

[1:36:07] And Charles reported that these are broadly around three lines of effort,

[1:36:12] reducing traffic coming into the county and facilitating the flow of traffic out of the area,

[1:36:18] creating local traffic flows to reduce congestion within specific port and downtown areas,

[1:36:24] and prioritizing critical routes to critical infrastructure, such as hospitals, fire stations, etc.

[1:36:31] So it was a great start to getting everybody together.

[1:36:34] I think what I took home was the intermingling of all of our communication networks is just really

[1:36:46] paramount.

[1:36:47] And so when we talked about people not in the room, public information officers, we had

[1:36:53] one from Providence and I think she highlighted the need for that communication.

[1:36:59] So I think that was a really good start.

[1:37:02] The other item, Commissioner Babis, I didn't know if you were going to report on the courthouse

[1:37:08] facilities, meeting, but just want to note that we're continuing to wittle down our options

[1:37:15] and we're set to get the steering committee back together in early September.

[1:37:20] And hopefully have a report on a final recommendation for the September meeting.

[1:37:28] I identified another number of administrative issues follow up from the last meeting.

[1:37:37] We had the question about management control procedures coming out of the budget process.

[1:37:47] And so as the July meeting I recommended the street pronged plan to enter into the process

[1:37:54] to do the organizational assessment, which would have financial analysis.

[1:37:59] And my thought is that we can bring that back to the board.

[1:38:04] Look at where we are here today and understand at that point if we're going to make major changes.

[1:38:10] I'm always over optimistic on how quickly things begin to happen.

[1:38:15] So my hope is that we're approaching that pre budget process.

[1:38:19] So this winter is my hope.

[1:38:23] And so I would just put that back in your lab if you believe that that is a good point of demarcation in terms of checking in and understanding if you want to do anything further with this year's budget.

[1:38:41] So if that out there for you.

[1:38:44] What did you suggest?

[1:38:46] Six months.

[1:38:49] And a November, which I guess said to you.

[1:38:52] We're putting together the request for proposal that would be, do back and we'd be putting a contract together in October.

[1:39:00] So my hope is that within the next 90 days we're getting to some understanding of some quick changes that we could make.

[1:39:12] from 90 days from now, or 90 days from October.

[1:39:16] Yeah, that's the case.

[1:39:25] Anything else?

[1:39:27] The other item.

[1:39:29] I put some information on our report in regards to the tax refund.

[1:39:33] The question that was asked about the source of the tax refund.

[1:39:39] And the other thing was just a reminder in regards to the timbre deposit interest fund.

[1:39:45] We had that discussion last time that it would be good to put that on the future agenda in regards to policy for the use of that fund

[1:39:55] I have a letter that I walked in that is

[1:40:00] I request from the National Association of Counties to provide a letter of support for the bill, for the surface transportation, reauthorization bill.

[1:40:11] So it would ask for your action on that this evening.

[1:40:18] And we do have the PCs here who has a quick update on the carbon program.

[1:40:25] if that is the case for this point in time.

[1:40:28] When it comes to the letter, are we adding that to,

[1:40:34] did that get added to the consentage?

[1:40:36] I know that came in later.

[1:40:37] It came in now.

[1:40:38] So I'm doing it in a separate motion.

[1:40:41] If you have reviewed it and you, yes, if you were to come back.

[1:40:44] Is it okay if we all just weigh in on whether or not it looked like a good idea to me?

[1:40:51] Yeah.

[1:40:51] I think we should have a motion on it though.

[1:40:53] Okay, all right, and I do have questions on a bunch of the issues that I also talked about, so can I ask those before we go in the next section?

[1:41:04] The first one, emergency response meeting, it sounds like you had a great meeting, what I took from what you said, it sounded the way you recounted it, it sounded like everyone was there for the right reason, and it's taking it seriously, and it's either to solve the problem with the set of first things.

[1:41:22] I think that's a very fresh thing.

[1:41:24] That's really excellent to hear.

[1:41:27] The next thing on the Plegent Discussion,

[1:41:31] I guess.

[1:41:32] I think six months is too long for,

[1:41:38] I think I'm talking about a different piece of it though,

[1:41:41] as you share this thing worried about what I might say next.

[1:41:46] I would like to do is,

[1:41:48] we would like us to have an agenda item that relatively soon to have a discussion as to whether

[1:41:55] we put in place a hiring freeze so that all hiring rehires or replacements, et cetera,

[1:42:03] have to be approved by the Board of Commissioners and I don't know if I have the agreement

[1:42:11] on that, but I'd like to have a agenda item so we can talk about that.

[1:42:15] So I was going to say that that was my recollection of the discussion we had last time not necessarily making

[1:42:23] structural changes based on a six month

[1:42:26] You know happy you're into the budget and if we were gonna have to make adjustments as I think that's how I remember

[1:42:45] coming out of here in and if we do that at the same time.

[1:42:50] And the policy in the timber and trust reserve account,

[1:42:53] I think that's kind of an interesting discussion.

[1:42:55] I think I can go any place.

[1:42:57] I think staff is going to need some time to come up with the wisdom

[1:43:02] that we're going to need to make a policy decision on that.

[1:43:04] So I wouldn't think about something that we could talk about.

[1:43:07] Nearly as soon as simply taking some actions

[1:43:12] which put decision points sooner rather than later, because those will have the biggest impact

[1:43:20] on making sure to shut up easier next but it's cycle.

[1:43:28] Thanks.

[1:43:28] Any else?

[1:43:28] No, that's a thank you.

[1:43:30] Okay.

[1:43:31] Well then, why don't we go to the consumer ID?

[1:43:35] We go to the consumer ID.

[1:43:35] There you are.

[1:43:35] I think that was going to be a good idea.

[1:43:37] Is it a party?

[1:43:38] Oh, I'll excuse me, right.

[1:43:41] I don't have any questions on this, so I need to get those questions off the table.

[1:43:47] Thanks for having me in a moment here.

[1:43:52] Just to quick update on the carbon project that the climate trust is working with us on.

[1:43:58] They've made some good progress this summer.

[1:44:00] They did the field verification work of the inventory and it's been installed in that path.

[1:44:07] So that's good.

[1:44:07] It's a big step.

[1:44:08] They're a pretty remaining when that came through.

[1:44:11] So they're still got quite a bit to do in overall verification process.

[1:44:16] We now end at December.

[1:44:18] So they're hoping that we'll all be completed by then.

[1:44:21] That's not.

[1:44:22] I probably won't have as much to do with that.

[1:44:25] But I've had fairly frequent correspondence with them.

[1:44:28] Pretty much once or twice a week.

[1:44:30] It's various questions, things that come up.

[1:44:33] Another point to that, though, is they are starting to do pre-sale marketing, and so with potential companies that want to acquire purchase

[1:44:45] carbon credits that will become available for this, specifically our project.

[1:44:50] And so, there is some interest, although overall they would say the interest for credit program.

[1:45:00] Right now is a bit of a low overall, but there is some interest for a project. So that's good.

[1:45:07] So it is moving forward. I wouldn't say there's any alarms going off at this point. It's moving forward.

[1:45:14] So we would say, you know, a low and there's no alarms. The low you're talking about assume is based on the political climate.

[1:45:22] I don't know if that's the cause necessarily. I've been assuming that that's maybe the only thing that could be factoring in.

[1:45:30] But I would just say, generally, in talking with the climate trust, you know, we compared

[1:45:37] it to when we entered into our agreement, market was at a high time at all time high, and

[1:45:42] it ramped up pretty good over about a five-year period.

[1:45:45] But now we come down on that bit, for sure, pricing right now as of today.

[1:45:51] The good news is we're not selling all of our credits at once, we just kind of want to get

[1:45:56] And the agreement we have actually requires them to make an effort to sell some of the credits now within the first couple years.

[1:46:06] So I guess all I'm seeing is they are working diligently to fill up their end of the bargain.

[1:46:13] And so that's occurring, and that's good.

[1:46:15] We're still talking about fairly large sums of money.

[1:46:18] So just to get the ball rolling, if you like there's revenue coming back for the commitment that we're making,

[1:46:23] that actually started in 2023. It was the nice to see some revenue forecast on when that revenue

[1:46:30] could start to come in. Once the sales are completed, looking to get the sales completed in

[1:46:37] the spring of this next year. And potentially we could see that revenue either at the end of

[1:46:44] this fiscal year, potentially May June, work and swap over related into the following

[1:46:48] in the summertime next year.

[1:46:52] So don't quite know for sure if we're going to get

[1:46:54] at this fiscal year or early in the next fiscal year,

[1:46:59] but in these thoughts, the direction it's headed right now.

[1:47:02] I was kind of poking a little bit to try to make this happen.

[1:47:05] So it happens this fiscal year, not a last week,

[1:47:08] but again, don't have control of that.

[1:47:10] It would be kind of interesting to know what their thoughts are

[1:47:14] on, whether it's just a wall based on,

[1:47:17] in that inevitability of this happening, like say, all time high, and how much of it is

[1:47:24] a difference in policy, because I mean, current administration has made it very clear

[1:47:30] that carbon emission and green energy is not nearly as important as the previous administration.

[1:47:36] Yeah, I mean, there could be some effects, but there can also be some counter effects of that same thing.

[1:47:43] And so we talked a little bit about that in general,

[1:47:52] But I think they were interested to kind of steer the conversation away from that and just kind of look at the figure of the picture.

[1:48:01] And there are other factors.

[1:48:03] So, do we, could you ask them questions about how carbon credits have historically tracked recessions and things like that?

[1:48:10] I don't know if there's enough history, but would be interested to know what the economics of the pricing.

[1:48:15] If there's any selling work done on the economics of pricing of carbon and what things affected so we could feel a little bit more comfortable that yeah, it doesn't have to be

[1:48:28] The low can be from 50 different things.

[1:48:32] Yeah, I could follow up and try to give them more info or insight on that.

[1:48:36] I've tried to do a little bit of research on that independently, but I'm trying to do that with climate trust, especially if you can see it.

[1:48:43] They like to be a little bit protective of pricing, working conversation as well, kind of proprietary inside your knowledge, I guess you could say.

[1:48:52] I don't think there's a pricing question, though.

[1:48:55] No, not specifically, but-

[1:48:57] I mean, now.

[1:48:57] I mean, for transition in reasons.

[1:48:59] Does it have a recession?

[1:49:01] Yeah.

[1:49:01] Is it a cyclical or counter cyclical or through recession?

[1:49:04] Or is it a move by recession?

[1:49:06] There's a reasonable question.

[1:49:12] Yeah.

[1:49:13] that credits have existed to know, but I'd like to at least ask that question.

[1:49:19] I have a view that in terms of their caution about sharing pricing information with us.

[1:49:27] It, I have to believe that every client of theirs is skittish about the language, about carbon,

[1:49:36] and windmills, et cetera, that's coming out of the US government.

[1:49:40] So it would be too difficult for them to understand that they have to say something to us.

[1:49:49] We regarding it in an exposed position at this moment,

[1:49:53] where there is a meter running on the costs, which we have to share.

[1:50:00] Here with them in certain circumstances, forget about all the different offerings, but there is a meter running.

[1:50:08] And it's not crazy for us to say, are we doing the right things still given the direction of things we're taking?

[1:50:15] Right, I mean, there is an offering we could take. It would cost us. Yes, to do that.

[1:50:22] We don't have any policy information now that let's just make a decision on that, and that's

[1:50:27] I think what the pressure or other side are kind of poking out a little bit.

[1:50:33] Well, I mean, right now we're proceeding on the climate trust proceeding to effectuate the agreement

[1:50:40] Mark Erberg.

[1:50:45] I think, you know, I guess that it sounds like maybe it's almost a separate, really called

[1:50:51] conversation, that's something that the commissioners want to reinvestigate.

[1:50:57] I think that you always have to be asking questions, especially when there's radical reorganization of the government policy and what economics.

[1:51:11] So, what percent of the total carbon credits are we talking about selling at what rate?

[1:51:21] So are we going to be selling, for instance, if we are going to sell some of them in the next

[1:51:26] two years, what percent I think I did see in the first five years?

[1:51:32] Yeah, let's say it's an hour between 10.

[1:51:34] So the first couple of years were 10 to 50.

[1:51:37] For the overall product we're looking to sell 10 to 15 percent in the next issue.

[1:51:43] In the first issue, it switches the one that's mixed for next summer.

[1:51:48] Yeah, it would come in, yeah, next spring.

[1:51:49] But the first five years is almost the entire thing.

[1:51:54] Let us spread out over about a 10 year period.

[1:51:56] It wasn't the first five, okay.

[1:51:57] Yeah, the first five had any by 60% or something like that, but then it was still

[1:52:04] three significant amounts spread out to about 10 years.

[1:52:06] And that's kind of an estimated cycle timeline of what they're trying to do.

[1:52:12] We've already seen some adjustments just because the agreement took so long to get, for example,

[1:52:17] from what the original timeline was.

[1:52:19] But we are, yeah, I would say it's on track that way.

[1:52:26] Now that now that they're getting a going, and again, the market pricing today will affect prices that you get, and there's different types of credits that are, you know, various projects have, and some of those credits are working more than others too, and that's another differentiation as well.

[1:52:50] So it remains to be seen exactly what we get.

[1:52:54] We put a forward price in the agreement, which is, you can get to them.

[1:52:58] I kind of forced that in the agreement.

[1:53:00] I just wasn't comfortable doing it without that.

[1:53:04] So there is a baseline that they've got to be.

[1:53:08] And if they don't bring forward a total of sales,

[1:53:13] that meets that minimum floor was 1975.

[1:53:19] And you know, we didn't, you can push on and say,

[1:53:22] no, that's not a good idea.

[1:53:25] So that's an ingredient.

[1:53:27] But above that, you know, the average pricing,

[1:53:30] I think even with the latest, the latest amendment

[1:53:35] that we did during that discussion,

[1:53:36] I mean, they were a swinging around 1675 average.

[1:53:41] That's over the average of the next 10 years.

[1:53:43] pricing and so you know they're estimating out quite a ways to what is it right now?

[1:53:50] It didn't I see what it means.

[1:53:51] There's no absolute there. I mean if I was if you had to say what that was I would say the

[1:53:56] range is between five and thirty dollars done from what I've seen in online.

[1:54:01] Well I have the same I think I have the same concern the way I put it is that I'm glad we're not

[1:54:07] selling more than that into what you've described as a law.

[1:54:11] So that, that gives me some amount of comfort that we're not, that this is only 15%.

[1:54:20] I don't know how many sales happen in the course of six months.

[1:54:26] This low is defined by how many data points.

[1:54:30] What that looks like.

[1:54:32] I'm used to looking at an amicated, but I've never looked at anything in a market this small.

[1:54:38] I don't know how small it is, but I would kind of like to understand a little bit more, and we are one of how many clients that they are.

[1:54:50] It's all very proprietary, yeah, interesting.

[1:54:53] But all these people that we're marketing to, these entities.

[1:55:00] The credits that are being marketed to are all doing this involuntary systems, right?

[1:55:05] I don't believe there is any governmental mandates that, maybe I'm missing some, maybe California, some things in place.

[1:55:16] But in most cases, this is voluntary, you know, corporations determining that it's in their corporate interest to acquire carbon credits

[1:55:27] for their own marketing purposes or whatever and so I don't know what a market like that

[1:55:32] looks like through a recession when they have other things to spend on and I think it's

[1:55:39] a lot of those companies have their own kind of self-motivated mandates. They want me to

[1:55:45] certain goals say by 2030 or 2035 and the windows approaching pretty fast for some of those goals

[1:55:52] if they're going to meet it. So at some point, if they're going to meet them, they know they're going to have to purchase credits to meet those types of goals.

[1:56:01] And so now I don't know overall how that market is playing out.

[1:56:09] And we take a fair amount of time to spend it to get that information.

[1:56:13] It's not readily available.

[1:56:15] But I can certainly have some more conversation with the pilot trust.

[1:56:20] You talk about personally, these companies don't publicly help.

[1:56:26] So they're making decisions based on shareholder and turn.

[1:56:32] And they're going to the way that they make those decisions.

[1:56:38] It's not going to be purely altruistic.

[1:56:42] And that's, I don't know how to put a fine action on it, right?

[1:56:47] I think the thing that I guess what I'm not hearing that's, is that perhaps there's

[1:56:55] a shift in how many people are going to be impressed by the marketing, we have

[1:57:03] content credits.

[1:57:05] And that's sort of the question that's out there, is there a shift in that, or are there

[1:57:11] people that are buying these carbon credits in the people they're marketing to, are they

[1:57:14] feeling as they always have? Or has there been a shift in that too? And I mean that

[1:57:19] would be a shift that I don't really know that, I mean I don't know how we would know that.

[1:57:25] But anyway, we're selling into a law or a tiny bit concerned and it would be nice to know

[1:57:31] a little bit more about what a law is.

[1:57:33] I mean, the long range forecast is 16.

[1:57:39] Loosely forecast is that the expectation is that it will increase in future.

[1:57:48] Back to what it was, or even above that.

[1:57:52] But it is clear, hindsight is in 2020 that prices that they're getting seen today are now

[1:57:58] what they were three years ago.

[1:58:00] Well, you know, maybe that's not shocking.

[1:58:03] I understand the concern and also alerts our alternative is to

[1:58:08] then cut down trees, right?

[1:58:11] And so Timber, 300 acres a year, potentially.

[1:58:15] And we've done the math that that being our source of revenue

[1:58:18] or selling credits.

[1:58:22] And that's also a very number of years that varies at a ten year cycle.

[1:58:29] And also, to missiles are also lower at this time, so I haven't

[1:58:36] just, you know, like, trust that protecting our forest, or along the

[1:58:43] period of time, we haven't made any change to our cut, right?

[1:58:49] We've just prevented anyone in the future.

[1:58:51] We haven't done that yet either, but we're in the process of that.

[1:58:55] Well, just so I'm clear when asked those questions as I understand it, the idea with the carbon trust was that based on our current force management plan, we would not have to alter what we were doing to take advantage of the credits.

[1:59:10] So, the only thing I'm doing, I'm not saying that I feel like we should be changing course.

[1:59:17] I'm just asking questions on what they feel like, the lowest and the lowest and the lowest and the lowest.

[1:59:22] And is it based on politics?

[1:59:26] What is it based on?

[1:59:27] I don't think that it certainly doesn't mean talking about scrapping the thing,

[1:59:32] because that wouldn't necessarily change your force management plan anyway.

[1:59:36] What we're saying to this for the amount that we're spending on doing this study, what our share might be of that?

[1:59:44] Yeah, I think we're in a project basically,

[1:59:53] it keeps us doing what we're doing.

[1:59:57] What it does restrict us in is that...

[2:00:00] We can't harvest morning growth. And so we wanted to accelerate harvest. Let's just say you had something you wanted extra revenue for for the next five to ten years. And you want for whatever reason, I don't know what that is. This program would only really do that.

[2:00:21] It would codify your current force management plan by not allowing you at least in a certain amount of time to change it because you couldn't cut more.

[2:00:32] All right, so it does forces to be consistent.

[2:00:37] Which we've been for.

[2:00:38] We've all talked about from positive.

[2:00:40] Maybe we're all very happy with that.

[2:00:42] Yeah, right.

[2:00:43] Yes.

[2:00:45] Thank you.

[2:00:46] Are there any more questions?

[2:00:49] No, okay.

[2:00:49] Thank you very much.

[2:00:50] I just want to be really clear.

[2:00:51] And the questions I was asking about that was looking

[2:00:53] to necessarily change the direction.

[2:00:56] I don't want to just.

[2:00:58] OK.

[2:00:59] Now I think it's a great program.

[2:01:00] I just, it's, you know, when we get into an economic,

[2:01:05] it's an area which involves economics, which are not

[2:01:09] as straightforward as simply your borrowing

[2:01:11] a million dollars to five years and interest rate.

[2:01:15] I think we're complicated in that.

[2:01:16] We ought to be educated, and this is an area where

[2:01:22] our education is limited.

[2:01:25] It is one of those places where we don't know exactly how it's going to turn out.

[2:01:32] You know, when you take your fruit to market, we may not have a price of any place.

[2:01:37] May not.

[2:01:39] Is that sort of sort of shot across the bow?

[2:01:41] You say that we have no control over the market.

[2:01:46] So I don't know what price I'm going to get for him tonight.

[2:01:49] I mean, we'll have the same one.

[2:01:51] We'll have the same world.

[2:01:52] We're price takers, not price.

[2:01:55] Make this.

[2:01:57] This carbon agreement has some of that except that I do have four.

[2:02:01] Did you have the same thing to call it to a 40-year commitment?

[2:02:04] That's like, I'm a county.

[2:02:06] No, I'm having four.

[2:02:07] Thank you very much.

[2:02:08] I would love that.

[2:02:09] Yes.

[2:02:09] I can sit by my own race, whatever amount I want, it's just I may not have any customers.

[2:02:17] Thank you.

[2:02:19] Yes.

[2:02:19] You probably have the same ability.

[2:02:21] Absolutely.

[2:02:21] The customers, yes.

[2:02:24] All right.

[2:02:24] We agreed to the price.

[2:02:25] We just give you no peos.

[2:02:28] Yes.

[2:02:28] Oh, and also in the center of the objective.

[2:02:32] All right.

[2:02:35] And this time it really is.

[2:02:36] Yes, and I was also on vacation, so I was meeting with Commissioner Thilbrady, who I serve on the

[2:02:51] McKamia Housing Authority Board, the McKamia Courts Health Council Board, the McKamia Housing

[2:02:59] Authority Board is worried, of course, with that housing, housing, since they're mostly

[2:03:05] I've got to leave on that.

[2:03:09] So, you know, just trying to be very mindful of revenue there.

[2:03:14] Columbia Gorge Health Council, also very worried about Medicaid dollars coming into the state.

[2:03:21] Also, waiting to see what Oregon leadership does regarding the federal government's request to release information on anyone who is on Medicaid.

[2:03:31] since we have about 5,000 people in the state of Oregon who are undocumented and on Medicaid in the state of Oregon and y'all might have heard that the state of Washington has released information on anyone who's on application.

[2:03:50] I think it's what it's called in Washington,

[2:03:54] so that's been a big scared so far the State of Oregon,

[2:04:00] Oregon have authority so that they will not release it information but not sure how long that will hold.

[2:04:06] Mid-Combia Center for Living, also depends greatly on federal funding and the much-needed

[2:04:15] Resolution Center for Drug Rehabilitation is one of the big projects where we secured

[2:04:21] about $25 million and we're really talking to our partners and staff about, you know, as

[2:04:34] smart to start a new line-up business if we aren't sure if there's going to be enough

[2:04:40] furthering to sustain it and trying to figure out if that's a smart move right now

[2:04:47] although there's huge need and we already have some money's committed. There needs to be a

[2:04:54] decision made within the next six months or else we'll have to be sending money back to the state.

[2:05:00] Which then might go back to the federal government, about $4 million there, and other municipalities promised.

[2:05:10] And then,

[2:05:13] chair, did you want me to talk about?

[2:05:15] Yeah, so meeting, yeah.

[2:05:17] So I wasn't at the last at our July board meeting.

[2:05:23] And I watched the recording, and I also talked to me about the, we are immigrants,

[2:05:36] It's sort of grew, it's in my history, and don't go to Australia,

[2:05:46] and my initial reaction

[2:05:49] was, and thought was about the Native American community who were not immigrants, and

[2:05:57] what their thoughts would be around a proclamation.

[2:06:00] And then of course, I was listening to Arthur's comments like, is that it really in our realm

[2:06:05] and what should we be focusing on?

[2:06:06] We've got a lot of other priorities.

[2:06:09] And because it is per season, this is in my dad

[2:06:12] and chatting with a lot of the workers who I'm close with

[2:06:17] and saying it out with, and I was asking them

[2:06:21] about this proclamation, and they really had no idea

[2:06:26] of what a proclamation was.

[2:06:28] And they asked what it would do for them.

[2:06:31] And if I showed up, could they say,

[2:06:34] There's a proper mission, and that would get rid of them, and I said no, and so they said,

[2:06:42] well, then, does it do anything for me, like it's not helpful,

[2:06:49] so I really do understand

[2:06:51] the intent.

[2:06:54] So, and then I spoke to some of their folks, actually even at the Oregon Health Authority who

[2:07:01] immigrants and and really they said that it felt like it was very like for

[2:07:13] show very performative and actually she was very upset that that's what

[2:07:22] we could have that's where the energy was going and she said that she just

[2:07:28] She didn't want any more attention, but she hasn't been speaking Spanish when she goes out,

[2:07:33] and then she just doesn't want the attention.

[2:07:35] She doesn't want to call attention to any of it.

[2:07:38] She wants it to go away.

[2:07:42] And we need to, like, work people together.

[2:07:45] But what do you care about?

[2:07:46] Like, we need housing when we need a place so that we can live and go to school.

[2:07:52] And we're, you know, have our kids have a safe place to live,

[2:07:55] the sweat matters and our jobs, so I am not a favor of this

[2:08:01] proclamation. I do understand me and tend to

[2:08:04] I appreciate that we have allies to support the community.

[2:08:07] And I love seeing the signs, appreciate that, and I just, I can't, I don't

[2:08:12] need, I don't see the need or the value in the proclamation.

[2:08:16] We'll thank you.

[2:08:17] I don't want to ask Commissioner Moredi to share that with us because after

[2:08:22] the meeting after our commissioners meeting, Arthur and I met, and so I asked Commissioner

[2:08:30] ready if I could share what she said, and so she had like two sentences that I shared

[2:08:37] with that basically people like housing and so I just wanted to make sure that you were able

[2:08:46] to say that.

[2:08:47] Thank you.

[2:08:48] Thanks very much.

[2:08:49] So I had a question for you, but I actually have the answer, so I'll share it.

[2:08:54] My questions have the, what is the Medicaid coverage for U of Accounting?

[2:08:59] What percentage of your population is under Medicaid?

[2:09:03] And Georgetown University has the data for 2023 instance.

[2:09:08] We're at 24.4% which is almost exactly the statewide average.

[2:09:14] So we're right in the middle.

[2:09:16] The 24 percent of the population of the population of the population of the population of her county is on this medicating, and when you look at children, it's

[2:09:28] it's

[2:09:29] 39 percent compared to the 36 percent statewide. So we're a little bit higher on that number, and then for none, I'll do the adult setting quote,

[2:09:37] You know, we're at 24 in the state of just 21.

[2:09:43] So, the basic way to think about what best they have to state what average.

[2:09:46] And I don't know, I just, you know, it's good to know that that's important

[2:09:53] of our population.

[2:09:56] These that will run.

[2:09:59] Yeah, I know that it refers.

[2:10:00] The Department of Human Services and we're serving at one and four, the only answer across the state, women, and also correlates with Medicaid.

[2:10:09] Is this a snack container?

[2:10:13] So, it's good news, the numbers are consistent.

[2:10:19] All right. Sure, you start talking.

[2:10:22] You should be sure about this.

[2:10:24] It's your turn, please give us a favor.

[2:10:25] Okay, so I have been on the caution, but I did attend meetings while I was on vacation.

[2:10:29] And so on the Community Action Council, we continue to be worried about funding sources

[2:10:38] as Commissioner Murray described for some of their things.

[2:10:41] We did just get a contract with the state for a big chunk of our funding, and it was actually

[2:10:47] at the level that we had hoped for.

[2:10:50] So it's like a bit of good news, but I haven't had a chance to ask that just to begin to

[2:10:55] to understand quite with the ramifications of that are, but and then on to the bridge.

[2:11:04] And the problem we saw, I think there was a press release that I received a copy of it in my

[2:11:10] mail yesterday or today and I don't know who that press release was sent to but that was a press release

[2:11:16] concerning the letting of the contract for the design of the bridge.

[2:11:23] So we approve, we the commissioners, the commission, the Twitter Board's own Bridget Sorry, Bridget Sorry, that's what we're called.

[2:11:32] I can do that to get our name right.

[2:11:35] We approved a contract with Q and infrastructure and West for the design of the bridge.

[2:11:45] And that's a major milestone.

[2:11:47] We have funding lined up to do that.

[2:11:49] There are some specific specifics about the funding that we'll determine how far this part of the project can go, but we are into the design phase now, which is.

[2:12:04] So, are there is the idea? Is there the money that the money that the majority has secured? Is that enough for the design phase or only enough to begin the design phase?

[2:12:17] There's a cash flow question on it, so we are waiting at the federal decision on 84 million dollars.

[2:12:34] I didn't see it a little clip online and it did show that cash flow.

[2:12:39] So you might get, if I read the chart correctly,

[2:12:42] that there was, early in the process,

[2:12:45] there was plenty, but later in the process,

[2:12:46] was where the problem potential could be.

[2:12:51] Yeah, each of the chunks of money that we get

[2:12:53] has different strings attached in different timing.

[2:12:56] So for example, Oregon State is giving us some money

[2:12:58] out of lottery bond sales, and those bond sales

[2:13:01] happen in traditional times.

[2:13:04] But they'll always happen at that time, then they've

[2:13:08] for later bond sales, not earlier ones, so that funding isn't available, certain fundings can't be spent with other fundings being available because, you know, there are agreements to keep Oregon and Washington, even, and agreements on federal funds can't make up more than a certain percentage of the project, so we have to track those federal expenditures and match them with state source expenditures,

[2:13:37] whose state source expenditures have to be state funds that didn't derive in some remote and

[2:13:43] unobvious way from federal sources as many of the state funds do.

[2:13:48] So all that's to say it's a very complicated calculation and what we figured out is that we

[2:13:55] definitely have enough money that is allowed to be spent to do the design but not to do it

[2:14:03] in the most efficient manner.

[2:14:05] So, it forces us to stretch the design out longer than one would want to do, so it will

[2:14:12] cost more to do it.

[2:14:13] And we're hoping to get these fellow funds approved, so we can then bring the design back

[2:14:20] into the Agrius and Rational.

[2:14:23] Thank you.

[2:14:24] Thank you.

[2:14:24] That's fine.

[2:14:25] Addering.

[2:14:25] More efficient.

[2:14:26] Yeah.

[2:14:28] We have people working on this.

[2:14:30] You slow it down.

[2:14:31] You tell them the, you know, you talk to you at that.

[2:14:34] Yeah, we can't work on this for the next three months.

[2:14:38] Those people will be assigned to other projects

[2:14:41] and you're not going to get those them back

[2:14:43] onto your projects unless there are no projects happening

[2:14:45] in any place.

[2:14:47] So we're trying to avoid that circumstance.

[2:14:50] And that's all that is to say that we have to be very hopeful

[2:14:55] that we get the 80 through near soul.

[2:15:00] Billion dollars freed up. That was committed to us by the federal government about the year ago January, so the year and a half ago.

[2:15:09] That makes

[2:15:12] sense.

[2:15:14] So there's what?

[2:15:16] There's what?

[2:15:18] Sorry, I can do anything.

[2:15:19] There was a clip he said.

[2:15:21] Well, we will get a design on the shelf, but it will cost more, and then we will not be preceding

[2:15:30] to construction in less, we have other funding sources,

[2:15:34] which is what we're working on now.

[2:15:36] Thank you.

[2:15:36] Well, I understand anything else.

[2:15:40] You must have more.

[2:15:41] This far more detail, then I think,

[2:15:43] do you guys want to hear?

[2:15:44] It's fine, we'll...

[2:15:46] No, no, no, no.

[2:15:48] I don't hear other parts of here.

[2:15:50] Can you get out of here?

[2:15:52] I think that was enough.

[2:15:54] I do, too.

[2:15:55] How do you got a free one?

[2:15:57] I did, but I don't think you want to hear all about them.

[2:16:05] I did, I think we heard everything we needed to on that issue.

[2:16:11] And I went to some others, but I also think that sometimes the details are not that important,

[2:16:18] and I'm waiting to see what happens.

[2:16:23] I'm getting permission on, sir.

[2:16:28] It's hard to follow that.

[2:16:30] Anyway, so, well, I just thought I'd mix it up.

[2:16:34] Yeah.

[2:16:36] I can't afford for us.

[2:16:38] We have not really been giving out a lot of loans.

[2:16:40] People haven't really been applying for them.

[2:16:43] Obviously, due to the times of rent,

[2:16:44] so a lot of the meetings have been getting canceled

[2:16:46] because we just, I mean, they're exactly the meetings,

[2:16:50] but as far as the loan administrative quarters,

[2:16:53] we have not been, we just haven't had a lot of applicants.

[2:16:57] So that's been,

[2:16:58] been a little different. It sounds like I did speak with the Mount Hood Town Hall. They did get

[2:17:05] seven proposals for the solar grant that they have and so they're going to pick through those

[2:17:11] with Lindsay McClure and try to figure that out and to set it to top three and then interview

[2:17:16] from there. So that's kind of exciting. They'll get that done. Something interesting I did

[2:17:22] And then there was food there. I went down to the Pacific Crest Trails days at cascades locks and walked through all that.

[2:17:32] I don't know what that, I know it was going to be.

[2:17:33] But down on the board, it was very, it was really cool.

[2:17:39] I ended up with some of my wife ended up with some new gear out of that.

[2:17:43] So, I couldn't find anything.

[2:17:45] So, yeah.

[2:17:47] So, that's pretty much what I have for you.

[2:17:51] I was just gonna say nothing, I've done the last month involved food, but you bypassed

[2:17:57] me and looked at Chad.

[2:17:59] So you'd say it now?

[2:18:00] I just did.

[2:18:02] So, just said it out of order.

[2:18:07] I'm out with economic lines very much, like McCead has been fairly inactive due to a lack of

[2:18:15] Yeah, a lot of funds at the moment, so haven't been much there on the north-horse side,

[2:18:24] the coalition, which has been very active in the counties and trying to do a lot of outreach

[2:18:31] for us to understand. I didn't make last. They presented to the, um, whatever rotary,

[2:18:38] I agree with that, I mean, understand what's good meaning.

[2:18:42] So, sure thing was, Molly Rogers from Walskow, as well as the jail commander and such

[2:18:51] work, and it sounds like some really good questions, and, you know, actually, people ask

[2:18:57] you about the public safety level you had any impact on, more profound things, so it's been

[2:19:05] I think that's good.

[2:19:09] Also, just operationally, I mentioned in one's past, we're concerned about the contract

[2:19:17] that we had lost.

[2:19:19] The U.S. marshals have what we don't have a contract has.

[2:19:23] Continue to keep numbers a higher rate kind of covering that loss of the

[2:19:34] operational assessment.

[2:19:39] There's a working group, put together that we'll take the next steps

[2:19:47] in understanding and making recommendations to the full board and to the counties, make

[2:19:53] over that word is myself, Sheriff English, the Joe Commander, and Business Manager.

[2:20:00] And then the Sherman Law School Juvenile Directors. So, we're looking for a facilitator. There was an idea, thrown out that the business manager would potentially facilitate that.

[2:20:15] And I think that was a bad idea, just because of any potential inherent.

[2:20:22] No, no, no, no biases to how that should move forward.

[2:20:26] So we're looking for that.

[2:20:28] We're looking for a facilitator.

[2:20:32] Looking at first and foremost for someone that would do a good job,

[2:20:35] and secondly, someone that would be inexpensive based on our current budget

[2:20:42] deficiencies.

[2:20:45] So that then one little piece I did talk to the Joe Commander today apparently, I stood

[2:20:54] come through and asked for a short term hold of which we've informed them that that was

[2:21:02] not a possibility and moved on and apparently that stayed in the parking lot and

[2:21:08] store it, the property owned by, and in particular we're seeing people

[2:21:12] taking pictures and such, but anyway, just in case there's any

[2:21:15] scale up within the community that we're always doing anything

[2:21:18] with ice, that is absolutely not the fact.

[2:21:20] And so that was the answer that was given on this pursuant

[2:21:23] to state law.

[2:21:25] Correct.

[2:21:29] So, that is all I have.

[2:21:32] Can I ask another question, short?

[2:21:34] And so, Sophie has been trying to get me to sign up for a North Park tour.

[2:21:40] To work with two or two or two or two.

[2:21:46] And stated that it's a contractual or statutory requirement,

[2:21:52] that each commissioner do this, does anyone know?

[2:21:54] I think it's...

[2:21:56] Excuse me?

[2:21:57] I thought it was only for the representative, which I have fulfilled.

[2:22:02] I don't know that it's for all is it I can I can double check on that.

[2:22:12] Okay, so I've never done this before so I wasn't done through my last term.

[2:22:16] maybe it was an oversight, but number one, I just wish for one of those to do this and number

[2:22:25] two, I simply am over committed and number of things, number of obligatory meetings I have to go to.

[2:22:31] I can check on the Sophie, but our the way we've been operating, it's just been the representatives from the counties that have done that.

[2:22:41] I have to do that.

[2:22:41] No, if they were food them, I don't know.

[2:22:45] Well, there is on the 28th, the River Rotterie is actually

[2:22:48] touring the facility and there will be lunch provided, so.

[2:22:51] And it is, it's just identified in our charters,

[2:22:55] slash admin code at the board, shall make a visit,

[2:23:00] may make a visit on an annual basis to inspect

[2:23:03] your operation.

[2:23:04] May the show, it is May.

[2:23:07] It's May.

[2:23:08] It's May.

[2:23:09] We may.

[2:23:10] I think it's important that the commissioner rather is going on.

[2:23:15] He is important that as many of us as can go go,

[2:23:19] but I think at this point I'm simply over committed.

[2:23:26] The 21st and going right?

[2:23:28] Arthur, I think truly more so and you're worried.

[2:23:31] That's why in my retirement tour they may not let you back out.

[2:23:35] So I understand.

[2:23:39] Okay.

[2:23:44] Well, I also went to this meeting.

[2:23:49] I think it was that someone's going to grant this people.

[2:23:55] I mean, it's playing how the board felt.

[2:23:59] I attended the R1 Act meeting, which happens every other month.

[2:24:03] We got this wonderful presentation for those of us who are in this area who attend the Arlin Act meetings from Kathy Fitzpatrick from the Cad in Concord, and they were wonderful presentations and we were well prepared and there's no chance to actually present anything.

[2:24:24] We spent the whole time hearing about the lack of funding and it was discouraging.

[2:24:35] Unless there's money for us to be discussing spending, there's maybe not that much for the RNF to do so.

[2:24:44] Hopefully you'll get more interesting when there are more funds.

[2:24:48] So we're all waiting for the end of the month for the 29th.

[2:24:50] and this special session happens.

[2:24:54] Because it was really sobering one of the things

[2:24:56] I went to the same meeting on emergency management

[2:24:58] and it was really sober.

[2:25:00] If this doesn't pass, the lack of snow plowing on I-35,

[2:25:11] and I-4 becoming C, I think it is, level C, which is, there wouldn't even be these are the levels of how much maintenance they do, and there would be nobody, there would be no roads in the state that would be A&B.

[2:25:31] If this doesn't pass.

[2:25:33] So just to understand what was presented to you, did it present what would be the case under the governor's proposal?

[2:25:46] No.

[2:25:46] They were talking no.

[2:25:48] And I think that, obviously, it's if the governor's proposal doesn't pass.

[2:25:53] So yes, this is not under the governor's proposal.

[2:25:56] And I'm sure that it probably is going to pass.

[2:25:58] It's just interesting how what a deep hole we've gotten before we got one.

[2:26:03] I think it's just as, because Wayne was explaining to me,

[2:26:06] that the government's proposal is to stop further layoffs,

[2:26:11] but we've already gone from, and we're 20 maintenance people in this region.

[2:26:17] There were 13, and as of, and for the layoffs,

[2:26:20] happened to now we're down at six or sevens.

[2:26:22] Guard, you remember the number?

[2:26:24] Well, and I think if it passes, there would be some high-ups, correct?

[2:26:27] But that's not the way it was described in the press, at least.

[2:26:31] It was described as a measure to that ODOT had carefully done a certain number of

[2:26:38] layouts, and that they would have to do more if there isn't stock gaps

[2:26:45] solution by the governor.

[2:26:46] Or from the governor, from the council.

[2:26:48] So that's kind of a different view, and that's whereas

[2:26:53] my understanding is that with a number of people we have in

[2:26:55] in this region right now, if there's a fire, there aren't people available to keep the road closed.

[2:27:03] Correct.

[2:27:06] Or cloud?

[2:27:07] Or cloud?

[2:27:08] Or cloud?

[2:27:08] We don't have to cloud our entire fire.

[2:27:13] So I'm not.

[2:27:15] I'm not quite sure what the point is of telling us the situation that we'll be in six months if we don't.

[2:27:20] I think in telling, we have a special session that we know, we can speculate, I think it's better to just,

[2:27:26] We will, we will know by their next meeting in the middle of class and the other thing that

[2:27:32] both, um, the administrative and I did was go meet with, uh, Rift, Dexter and Cassidy

[2:27:38] blocks the day that Chad was unavailable and we do that.

[2:27:41] Thank you for supporting secure rules, schools, and, um, talked about me and he has

[2:27:48] her come county, but mostly it was about Cassidy blocks, so we made a little presentation

[2:27:52] and she made it with me so that I can still draw.

[2:27:54] And, but obviously, it's good to stay in touch.

[2:27:59] Did you discuss there the discipline?

[2:28:07] She didn't, we all got this invitation.

[2:28:09] Ten of us.

[2:28:10] Ten of us.

[2:28:11] She didn't.

[2:28:12] The discussion.

[2:28:13] No, I don't think we could.

[2:28:14] No, that came up later.

[2:28:17] And so I said that to all of you.

[2:28:20] So she had a different date book, it's a different topic, as she was doing the 10-year-long

[2:28:26] time.

[2:28:27] So if any of us are doing that, we should coordinate, so we're not.

[2:28:30] Are you doing it?

[2:28:32] I'm deciding, but we should not create quorum.

[2:28:37] Does that mean we have to coordinate on this?

[2:28:39] Is that September?

[2:28:41] That's okay.

[2:28:42] I'll look at it.

[2:28:45] And then I...

[2:28:47] I talked to Nate Stice from the Governor's office from time to time, and he brought me up to speed on something that isn't directly hit a mechanic issue currently, but it's the fact that the people who've lost their homes are having a hard time feeling supported in rebuilding them, and they have been communicating with the Board's Commission, and it's perhaps not as smooth sailing as everybody is.

[2:29:17] which is it might be because the need to protect all of the things that the Board's commission

[2:29:23] and the Board's seeing act, but the fact is not, it stands somewhat in the way that people

[2:29:32] re-building their homes quickly and particularly maybe that's just something on the radar

[2:29:40] that isn't inhood of a county, but if we just never fire inhood of a county, which, I guess,

[2:29:46] when they asked, I mean, or maybe we're not. So, there was a specific situation in which

[2:29:58] the

[2:30:00] That someone has put an application to read that. And, friends of the Board sent in a response, which was tone

[2:30:12] deaf in terms of the, the, it was listing in excruciating detail, the number of hoops that would

[2:30:22] have to be jumped through to do this regularly. And it really was, oh, entirely unrelated to

[2:30:28] specific application that was made, it was simply, it seemed like it was a warning shot that,

[2:30:33] hey, we're going to block rebuilding and shortly after that, the director, friends of the

[2:30:43] Gorge, made a statement which was somewhat more conciliatory, but also ambiguous as to what

[2:30:53] actually means. So I think there is some interesting politics going on here that we should

[2:30:59] all start to pay attention to. Like you said, it doesn't.

[2:31:03] Well that's why I brought it up. I wasn't going to go into the great detail of, yes.

[2:31:07] It was a tone, yeah. Well, I, yes, I have it down here, tone deaf.

[2:31:11] I just, I wasn't reading your notes. That was my, that was my analysis.

[2:31:16] I definitely read that. I was sure.

[2:31:18] I needed to, but yes, it was tone deaf. For people that are having trouble

[2:31:21] figuring out how they're going to be built.

[2:31:25] So yes, so it's all on a radar, which is what I think it should be.

[2:31:28] We're not in a position to do anything about it.

[2:31:30] It's just something that we should know is happening.

[2:31:34] And I listened to what CREA meeting.

[2:31:37] They always discuss the, all of the energy projects going on

[2:31:43] in the Eastern Oregon counties.

[2:31:45] You'll learn a little bit about going through the DLC process,

[2:31:49] C.B. process versus the F.C. process. There was some discussion of microgits in Oregon

[2:31:55] communities, but I think could remember already has some of those, we already have the

[2:32:00] Y-1 and the Manhattan Town Hall-1. And so we're kind of ahead of curve on that. And

[2:32:06] as usual, there's always a discussion of avoidant costs, which is that the people selling the

[2:32:13] How are Eastern Oregon are frustrated by what they feel is a not a very transparent process

[2:32:20] by which the investor or utilities are able to calculate the avoided costs which is what

[2:32:29] they have to pay for the power.

[2:32:33] So, they feel it's not fairly represented.

[2:32:37] I think they think that the calculation process is not as transparent as it should be, and so

[2:32:45] they suspect that it could be more.

[2:32:50] Well, that it could be more because, and I do know from my experience on the millforeport, for instance,

[2:32:59] and what's gone on with the microhydro is that in the beginning, which was many, many years ago,

[2:33:04] that avoided cost was very high.

[2:33:06] But as the price of power that's coming from alternative sources

[2:33:11] has come down, that avoided cost has come down.

[2:33:14] So it's a complicated, I have no expert on this.

[2:33:19] It's just an interesting thing that we've

[2:33:21] learned at one of the next.

[2:33:25] It's the emergency management meeting.

[2:33:27] And in the group that I broke out into,

[2:33:29] we talked about ways to get the information

[2:33:31] in the case of a backup on the bridge,

[2:33:36] you know, what triggers the information going out

[2:33:39] to the public and how soon can that happen?

[2:33:42] And so if you're Christians in red,

[2:33:44] but that discussion, quite skillfully.

[2:33:49] So, thank you.

[2:33:51] You said to ask me, if I'm sitting at my desk,

[2:33:54] I can see the bridge.

[2:33:55] I can see all the traffic on it.

[2:33:56] I can make a phone call.

[2:33:58] That wasn't brought up, but that's been brought up.

[2:34:02] What was this, is he too busy?

[2:34:05] What was he too busy?

[2:34:05] What was he doing in my desk?

[2:34:07] What, what, what, what would you turn to that?

[2:34:09] And of course there's so many moving pieces.

[2:34:11] And it was a really good meaning, just like, I always think that.

[2:34:18] And that's it.

[2:34:20] I think that issue.

[2:34:21] I look quickly at the email that Alson said.

[2:34:24] And Sophie just reset it.

[2:34:25] Thank you.

[2:34:27] Actually close my email as I was reading it.

[2:34:30] In that email, it doesn't actually say the days, there are four specific days and the route.

[2:34:35] All it says that an email is win to RSTP, which is by the way Thursday.

[2:34:41] She doesn't think when the date will be.

[2:34:43] I can't find an email.

[2:34:45] Am I missing something?

[2:34:47] Anyway, I just wanted to throw that out because I looked at the email real quick.

[2:34:50] As a reference, someone asked what the days were.

[2:34:53] All right.

[2:34:55] So I would take issue with the comment that you made this.

[2:35:00] We have no input into this, of course, commission issue.

[2:35:06] Oh, I didn't mean that. Let me clarify it before. I didn't mean that we have no, we shouldn't have

[2:35:14] an opinion what I meant was that this hasn't actually happened on our in our county yet. And so we should be

[2:35:20] well aware that it's going on and that it is an issue because because it could happen in our

[2:35:26] I think we should all just remember that we have a commissioner that we point and we are getting ready to appoint a

[2:35:38] replacement commissioner and depending on the makeup and actions of the commission we made.

[2:35:46] And I feel to do this at the last meeting, so I will, again, point out that we are looking for some.

[2:35:51] We're looking for an outstanding meeting.

[2:35:54] But we know that it's going to be an open meeting.

[2:35:56] Right, but there is not.

[2:35:58] No one could put in an application today, right?

[2:36:00] No, but best checking.

[2:36:03] People can move it.

[2:36:05] If they will have an opportunity to certainly, and we would like to see that.

[2:36:08] There will be a, uh, we have certainly mentioned.

[2:36:10] If you see it up in the year.

[2:36:12] And if anyone wants to, they can talk to you, they can talk to any of us about this in the immediate

[2:36:19] future, but they want to be opportunity until we officially announce it.

[2:36:27] All right, we're on to the consent agenda, and let's see, Terry, do you ever before we move off

[2:36:35] side reports. The letter in regard to support of the federal's or the transportation bill.

[2:36:46] The one from the meco. Yes. Do we have support of the board to sign off on that?

[2:36:53] I think we do. Has everybody had a chance to see that?

[2:36:56] Yeah. Okay. Does everyone support our doing it?

[2:36:58] We depend on that program.

[2:37:01] Okay. Yes. You have this. We have this.

[2:37:07] And do we need a motion later in the business?

[2:37:14] I pick if this one.

[2:37:15] That is a question.

[2:37:17] All right.

[2:37:19] So if there's anything else about the reports?

[2:37:24] Then we're with the consent agenda.

[2:37:27] And let's see, are some of the extra things on the consent agenda

[2:37:30] or are we going to do the supplemental one separately?

[2:37:32] And

[2:37:38] why do of course, disappeared off my screen?

[2:37:41] Is there anything on the supplemental agenda that we want to be?

[2:37:45] Oh, these have been added to the consent agenda.

[2:37:47] So this includes the four things, the grant opportunity,

[2:37:53] because that was the one for one of the bridges.

[2:37:56] And also the emergency management grant for the criminal justice behavior health

[2:38:01] and the headboard of the Senate, which is a mandate.

[2:38:05] So, those are added to it, and is there a motion to accept the consent agenda that can

[2:38:11] include in the supplement?

[2:38:14] I mean, to accept the consent agenda as amended.

[2:38:19] Moved in second.

[2:38:20] Is there any discussion?

[2:38:21] Yeah.

[2:38:21] It's a one question, and Doug is still here.

[2:38:25] I always thought that the timber sales were alphabetical, and you have two wires.

[2:38:29] What happened?

[2:38:32] Well, the sales were told in that year were all ours.

[2:38:36] Oh, so it's death, so it's alphabetical.

[2:38:39] I thought that through year went ABCDB.

[2:38:44] You only have five, seven.

[2:38:48] Larger sales, right here.

[2:38:50] Thank you.

[2:38:51] So what's this here?

[2:38:54] We just completed the ours.

[2:38:56] and so now we're doing the VSNs that are sold in the 2025.

[2:39:03] We might get from now to the next summer, VSNs.

[2:39:09] And does that matter on which side of them?

[2:39:12] That there's different applications of that.

[2:39:16] It serves an institution.

[2:39:18] I think they're meeting them.

[2:39:20] He has you really?

[2:39:22] Yeah.

[2:39:24] There's a lot to do with it.

[2:39:27] So there's a motion.

[2:39:28] Second on.

[2:39:30] Is there a just a bit about how we made it?

[2:39:35] What if I wonder if I don't want to do the sales?

[2:39:38] I just need to have seen from letter i.

[2:39:41] I was not here for the last meeting.

[2:39:45] Oh, that is.

[2:39:45] You can still vote on minutes.

[2:39:47] Okay.

[2:39:47] There.

[2:39:48] Yes.

[2:39:54] because you're not a testing that you were there necessarily just that he was.

[2:40:01] All right, motion ready. Yes.

[2:40:05] Yes.

[2:40:07] Yes.

[2:40:09] Here was yes.

[2:40:11] Motion masks.

[2:40:12] We've got the consentages.

[2:40:17] So, let's see.

[2:40:19] We have our own work session items.

[2:40:24] We need to accept.

[2:40:26] We were asked to accept the county breach capital improvement plan.

[2:40:32] And it sounded like we need a motion for adopting the bridge capital improvement plan.

[2:40:41] Do we need, there were three things we were asked to do.

[2:40:43] Do we need a motion for each of them, a period of grant funding, and a period of applying for grant funding,

[2:40:52] and approving the public works, road funds, the money being transferred to capital improvement.

[2:40:58] You just need the motion on approving the plan at this point that grant application was in your consent agenda and then the third item was just in general.

[2:41:07] And we would like to continue that.

[2:41:08] We would make a motion to adopt the county bridge condition and program plan that was presented tonight.

[2:41:16] I think that motion.

[2:41:17] It's been a second.

[2:41:18] Is that really a discussion?

[2:41:22] All right.

[2:41:22] I would just like to thank you again for such great.

[2:41:25] Can we somewhere ready? Yes. Can we stop at it? Yes.

[2:41:30] Yes. Sure would yes. And the new business will be asking for a presentation from

[2:41:47] So we are going to a process you had an item on your July agenda.

[2:41:53] However, in order to take this process through the legal stuff, we needed to bring it back to you this evening, so that you would approve the resolution in your packet.

[2:42:05] that would authorize the public force department to initiate the previous savings for the

[2:42:10] legalization of Evans Creek Drive and authorize these pictures and document.

[2:42:17] Did you want to say any more on that or are you okay?

[2:42:21] No.

[2:42:22] I think we brought to you last month and we did the wrong process and so we're bringing it to you

[2:42:29] again.

[2:42:30] So this will be brought to you a couple of times to make sure that we're fully going through the legislative or the statutory requirements.

[2:42:40] And so you should be seeing this every month through November.

[2:42:45] So, so we're prepared.

[2:42:48] So it's a road just because it's not in the right place, correct?

[2:42:53] So it's not where it says it is.

[2:42:56] So it's in the right place, we just need to form lines to say it is, anytime there's federal funding that's involved, we have to verify the right way is where the right way is.

[2:43:09] So it is in the right way, we're, I mean, it is, it is surveyed into the right way it's in the right place.

[2:43:15] That is the process that we're going through to make sure that the survey and the documentation meant, where the actual road is.

[2:43:23] Because obviously, is it ever counting we have a lot of ribs that are as traveled or different than the right ways?

[2:43:31] But it moves the culverts.

[2:43:32] We have to get it right.

[2:43:35] Yes.

[2:43:35] Because that culvert is paid for with federal funds.

[2:43:39] So I would just like to make a note that I feel like not necessarily in your behalf,

[2:43:45] but on the plannings to be half, when we're looking at a lot of these houses that are going in,

[2:43:52] that somebody is looking at the Azroad traveled versus the right away.

[2:43:59] I know of different locations that houses are going to be put in an Azroad traveled

[2:44:06] if the road was ever extended, but they fit within the outlay of the right away.

[2:44:15] But if you were to drive the road versus the survey, it is very different.

[2:44:21] There's someone who goes to planning with the proposal to put a structure in a right of way in a planet, in a right of way that he's just on a map.

[2:44:31] It doesn't always match the road.

[2:44:34] No, but in front of my house, it doesn't.

[2:44:36] I know that this is a very common thing.

[2:44:38] And it causes a lot of conflicts.

[2:44:40] You know what we're doing here is we're putting the official right of way where the road is.

[2:44:48] I'm just making a note that I'm just making a note that I know for sure that there's a lot of roads not in the right places and houses are being built where that as road travel.

[2:45:00] If it was continued, we'd go right to the middle of that.

[2:45:04] We ever take an action, I can't say we've never done it, but we're not going to say move the road to match the map.

[2:45:16] No, right.

[2:45:17] So I think that's a separate issue.

[2:45:20] yet to a road legalization process takes time, and yes, having the road not where it says it's going to be, or where it says it is, causes conflict.

[2:45:38] I don't know if we can do it during the planning process.

[2:45:45] or constituents can request a legalization process through you guys, and that's kind of the normal process is somebody would come and say, hey, I want my road legalized, and then you would tell public works to do this work.

[2:46:02] It's generally not the case where we have a road project.

[2:46:06] Hopefully, we already have the right way when we're doing a road project.

[2:46:10] But we've had roads that we've had to legalize, A.G.A. was one of those.

[2:46:16] Do you know, post-canion road, we initiated a legalization process on that.

[2:46:21] Do you know where that is?

[2:46:22] On going.

[2:46:24] Any, I mean, it was two, three years ago.

[2:46:26] Any guess?

[2:46:28] Yeah.

[2:46:30] We also have a one on Neil Creek.

[2:46:32] Right, remember that one?

[2:46:33] Are we still working on that one?

[2:46:35] Go, and it takes years, but I just...

[2:46:39] Not if it's an A, but of just some appreciation for...

[2:46:43] Is anyone working out, or is it just have to sit for certain?

[2:46:45] Is it required to cook for certain amount of time,

[2:46:48] or what the weighting on it, that was would be helpful?

[2:46:51] Yeah, so this one in particular,

[2:46:54] it's been put in because of the ODOT products.

[2:46:57] It also has, I think, MFID work that's happening in conjunction with that and so the property owners are really supportive of this change.

[2:47:11] Any time that a property owner has a consternation about where the road is, it just drags out the process.

[2:47:18] So I know that those candid road may have some challenges with the property owners adjacent and so we want to make sure that we have everything in place.

[2:47:31] We also didn't have surveying so we had to contract that out.

[2:47:37] You know, great, uh, luckily wasco County hired a deputy, surveyor, surveying tech, and so

[2:47:44] they were helping with that process, so that's going to be brought in house.

[2:47:49] We think that one's going to be easier, it's still going to take some time.

[2:47:53] But this one's going to be quite a window, right?

[2:47:57] But this one's going a lot smoother, because the property owners are all supportive

[2:48:01] of this project, they've all been contacted by ODOT, ODOT's really leading the

[2:48:06] The survey, we have a great surveyer that's doing the work, our surveyer, let's give us a sign off on that pre-position, so.

[2:48:16] Right?

[2:48:17] So, let's say, do we have a motion note?

[2:48:22] No, we don't have a motion yet.

[2:48:24] We need a motion to approve the resolution authorizing the public works department to initiate proceedings for the legalization of evidence-free,

[2:48:31] driving commissioners to sign the document.

[2:48:36] That's the motion.

[2:48:40] Who's this route is this?

[2:48:42] It's fine.

[2:48:43] I moved to go through the resolution authorizing the public works department to initiate proceedings for

[2:48:50] the legalization of Evans Creek Drive.

[2:48:57] Oh, God.

[2:48:57] If you're authorizing the commissioners to sign the document.

[2:49:01] I'll second the motion.

[2:49:03] I moved in second.

[2:49:04] Is there any more discussion?

[2:49:07] Yes.

[2:49:08] Mr. Babitz.

[2:49:10] Yes.

[2:49:10] Mr. Monson.

[2:49:12] Sure.

[2:49:12] Yes.

[2:49:13] Right.

[2:49:14] And with that, we are now going to enter into...

[2:49:20] Is there anything else?

[2:49:21] People we...

[2:49:24] We will enter into executive session.

[2:49:28] We're soon into RS192602E.

[2:49:31] E, two conduct deliberations that negotiate real property transactions.

[2:49:36] Once the executive session is complete, the board will come back in the regular session

[2:49:40] to adjourn the meeting.

[2:49:44] So, before we go into, and, as you've done it yet, is there a question?

[2:49:50] Have we paused, then?

[2:49:53] Do you want this one to go through?

[2:49:54] Yes.

[2:49:55] Okay.

[2:49:56] So, well, it seems unusual, is that in this case, there's a-

[2:50:00] The title to the transaction is, that is unusual and, okay,

[2:50:14] recording stopped.

[2:50:18] Okay, so only the Board of Commission staff and media.

[2:50:25] Are you the media?

[2:50:29] I am the media.

[2:50:30] I need to turn the point of your word.

[2:50:32] Can you give us a meeting last time?

[2:50:34] Yeah, I think I take me over here.

[2:50:37] Yeah, yeah.

[2:50:37] Aziza.

[2:50:39] Okay.

[2:50:53] Take.

[2:50:55] Oh.

[2:50:57] You got a sort of safety in my cable there.

[2:51:00] So if you were to the other end of this, go.

[2:51:04] First time seeing the case.

[2:51:05] Yeah, I've never seen anyone.

[2:51:11] Oh, the bottom.

[2:51:15] Some of this side.

[2:51:20] She's gone.

[2:51:23] I think I could have reached that.

[2:51:34] You mean there's technology better than this?

[2:51:38] It's engineering.

[2:51:40] It probably was 15 years ago.

[2:51:43] I've got some HDMI switchers in my lab box that...

[2:51:48] You really have a museum?

[2:51:50] That was going to be too easy.

[2:51:58] But

[2:52:11] we have a minute for that to decide to put it all down.

[2:52:17] There's kind of a little backport box sitting there.

[2:52:20] Sometimes it would show and then other times I wouldn't.

[2:52:23] So I don't have figured out why.

[2:52:27] We'll give it to you.

[2:52:28] I was going to show this at the end of the evening.

[2:52:33] Well, thanks again for letting me bring this to you.

[2:52:37] It's a green energy project.

[2:52:42] We've had a few of these over the years, proposals one way or another,

[2:52:48] but I'm going to

[2:52:49] end this with a question for you.

[2:52:54] You have the appetite for this type of energy project and is it worth it?

[2:52:59] It's worth it, and it's pretty early on in some of the discussions that I've had so far.

[2:53:07] So a little background.

[2:53:09] Twin Creek's Timber managed by Green Diamond has been

[2:53:12] scoping out a Winwheel project on East Side of

[2:53:15] the other county.

[2:53:16] They got a window that while working with them

[2:53:18] on a land exchange project.

[2:53:20] Green Diamond hired a Winwheel Energy Consultant

[2:53:23] Project Management Company to further scope out

[2:53:25] and study needs for the project.

[2:53:27] And as part of their work, Jeff Coons was Scout Clean

[2:53:30] Energy reached out to me to discuss potential

[2:53:33] easements across the county, which may be needed for their project

[2:53:36] and the access to big ed if I want to kill our airlines,

[2:53:40] which goes through some of our property specifically on the east side.

[2:53:46] I think they might be able to access the lines without us,

[2:53:48] potentially, however there must be some efficiency

[2:53:50] to get through the trouble to come across the county.

[2:53:54] Knowing the county, you had looked at windmills

[2:53:57] on the middle mountain in the distant past.

[2:54:00] I asked Jeff if wind turbines could be cited on the county

[2:54:03] as part of their project on the East side and he expressed interest in that.

[2:54:09] He followed up with a list of county parcels in the vicinity of the Green Diamond Project

[2:54:14] that he eventually would have interested in.

[2:54:17] So he is who?

[2:54:19] Jeff Tunes is with Clean Energy.

[2:54:21] Or Scout Clean Energy, sorry.

[2:54:23] Who was contracted by Green Diamond?

[2:54:26] Thanks.

[2:54:31] So, this is all conceptual, at least from my desk right now, at this point, but it will give us an idea of where this is going, and I'll show them out in a few minutes if it ever comes up.

[2:54:43] I checked with Eric Walker, and there's nothing that outright prohibits a developer on private property to develop a one-meal farm in the county at this time, but there are limitations,

[2:54:55] and there's definitely going to be a permitting process in the multiple process.

[2:55:02] There are limitations, also might provide a little bit on that as well here in a minute.

[2:55:10] But all that said, this could be a revenue opportunity and coexist with our tree farm from where I see.

[2:55:20] There's a couple of options going forward, well maybe three, at least don't do many of it, is one.

[2:55:27] But also we could just allow some easements.

[2:55:30] There would be no, there would be minimal revenue to the county, just for the easements

[2:55:34] themselves.

[2:55:35] And the windmills could still go in and be visible and make great opposition that the

[2:55:40] county will probably be involved in, because we may have been involved in easements.

[2:55:46] Or too, if we were to include windmills on county forest as part of this project, at least

[2:55:51] the county could realize a financial windfall.

[2:55:59] There's plenty of pros and cons to wind those out there.

[2:56:03] Green energy, some people like that, a lot.

[2:56:06] And it would be proponents of it.

[2:56:07] But there's also plenty of cons out there.

[2:56:10] And it didn't take me long at all, just searching online.

[2:56:13] There've been some documentaries out there that are somewhat interesting.

[2:56:16] To me, actually, sent one to Allison.

[2:56:21] And, you know, from around the world really, where people just tend to be opposed to wind energy products.

[2:56:28] So, I think, and there's multiple reasons for it, and we can get into that in the future,

[2:56:35] but it gives me pause.

[2:56:38] I know that the county had had winds before.

[2:56:45] And you know, if we participate in the project, certainly, there's permitting constraints or constraints that we would put on on our part, too.

[2:56:54] I can anticipate that there's a limit to how close to the valley, for example, the county would cite turbines.

[2:57:01] Tolerance for this varies depending on who you talk to.

[2:57:05] But I would recommend we have some sensitivity to where we would pursue it if we did.

[2:57:12] Given the county's need for increased revenue sources, I thought we need to have this conversation.

[2:57:18] To continue the conversation, there certainly is going to need to be a lot more research and a lot more questions that need to be answered.

[2:57:27] But at a high level, I want to run this by you to see how you feel about this and is it worth it?

[2:57:35] Do you want to go there or not?

[2:57:37] It's going to take effort.

[2:57:39] From my desk, it's going to take effort.

[2:57:41] I can probably give you the effect of your own needs.

[2:57:45] And he's an idea of what, I mean, understanding what the, what the financial piece could be.

[2:57:52] I mean, obviously,

[2:57:55] you can't stand it down, but I think understand it down a little bit.

[2:58:01] Get you to the next point, which is, is it worth a, it's worth all those other things?

[2:58:06] So long as lines, how many, the county putting it on land is something people could object to.

[2:58:17] If a private company wants to put it on land, does the private, does a public objection count?

[2:58:25] And then the other question, I have two or three other questions.

[2:58:29] First of all, how many wind turbines are we talking about?

[2:58:34] And how many acres it takes up right and I called Joe de Bolcus who's the guy, he's the

[2:58:44] commissioner for a Sherman County who has them both on his land and he's also a commissioner.

[2:58:50] So do you know enough to explain us if this would be similar to the money, the money that comes back to the county

[2:59:02] through the supergrainments, the special infrastructure.

[2:59:06] I can't speak to that yet.

[2:59:09] So if that's part of where the money is.

[2:59:11] It's not just from the, but then if they, we put it on Harry land,

[2:59:17] people could object, but can, it doesn't matter if they object on the private land.

[2:59:23] You know, that would have to go through the land use processes.

[2:59:26] Those avenues would be there.

[2:59:28] And I understand that there's two options depending on the size

[2:59:31] of the project. So there's DLCD, a land-use system, and then there's F-sac, if it's bigger, right?

[2:59:38] The smaller ones that can go through DLCD, and if it's a service size, it has to go through F-sac, I think.

[2:59:43] Yeah, there's a variety of things. We haven't been through it. I talked earlier to Eric, walked her a little bit earlier today, just briefly.

[2:59:53] And he kind of indicated, now we're going to have to work through this, because we haven't had a bunch of these to go through it.

[2:59:58] He's not familiar with that.

[3:00:01] So, most of those questions I'm, I can't answer,

[3:00:07] I listen, you talked to Eric, and there was a limitation on F2.

[3:00:14] He, I was just asking about the permitting process. Obviously, this is one of those areas where there's some learning to do, but he stated that depending on its size,

[3:00:26] when energy facility could have be applied for either through F-Stack or through the county's regular CUP process and their advantages and disadvantages to each process, so we would need to lay that out in its depends on the size, location timing, public supporter opposition.

[3:00:44] If the facility had the capacity to generate more than a hundred and four megawatts of energy, then he believes that would have to go through F-Stack.

[3:00:53] 100 or four. He said, but that's a pretty large facility.

[3:00:59] Yeah.

[3:01:01] He provided a guide, which we can share in regards to the facility

[3:01:07] siding process through FSA. And then he, he said, if a CUP was proposed, the

[3:01:16] proposed facility would be limited to 10 acres or a less, unless otherwise

[3:01:21] allowed by a goal exception, which he said would be very difficult.

[3:01:24] So ten acres, for the whole thing, or per turban.

[3:01:30] Yeah, the, he just stated the proposed facility would be limited to ten acres.

[3:01:35] And so obviously, I am not sure.

[3:01:38] And do they imagine that, are they imagine that this is close to where the,

[3:01:43] whether the gate goes over, and that you can hook up more easily, because the closer to,

[3:01:48] And can you actually do that hook up to the...

[3:01:51] Apparently they put it in a transfer station.

[3:01:54] And I know we actually went through that.

[3:01:57] There were supposedly years ago for a solar energy project.

[3:02:00] It was quite large.

[3:02:02] It was like seven hundred acres or something like six or seven hundred acres.

[3:02:05] There's something like six or seven hundred acres.

[3:02:06] The solar farm on near on the property that you wanted to do it on our property.

[3:02:13] up there, the top of Pinemont, I'm on the drive, up on top, there are some kind of east of

[3:02:21] Parkdale adjacent to that. We have a 1,500 acres there, and they wanted to put a solar

[3:02:27] farm in there for the express purpose of, because they could put in a transfer station right

[3:02:33] adjacent to the big eddy and connect into that. So I presume there's an advantage to the

[3:02:39] One mail is being the same thing, being a transfer station, being able to hook in to that part of the grid.

[3:02:45] Are these, would they be above the foresters this on open land?

[3:02:51] So it wouldn't be on the forest service.

[3:02:53] No, I mean, if it were on the county land, would it be on the forested land or do we have open land?

[3:02:58] We pretty much have forested land in that area.

[3:03:01] And we have to log to do it.

[3:03:02] We would have to have areas clear now.

[3:03:04] I don't have a numbers on that, and he didn't, I asked him about that already, and he didn't have the actual number of atomic area would have to be cleared around the base of the tournament.

[3:03:16] It could be as little as a half acre, or it could be several acres for each turn, and I just don't have those clearance needs.

[3:03:24] For the, he mentioned a number of our belief, a total height of 200 meters.

[3:03:32] He talked about three and a half megawatts per term, and those are kind of estimated starting points at this point.

[3:03:40] That's some numbers he threw out.

[3:03:42] Most of what they're doing, I don't have particular on yet.

[3:03:46] Really very early in the conversation, but again,

[3:03:53] I just felt I need to get in front of you a little bit.

[3:03:56] It's hard to allow you to start thinking about it, too.

[3:03:59] It's hard to know if you don't have any clue at all about what the numbers are.

[3:04:04] And so at risk of misleading everybody,

[3:04:08] I will say that I did ask what the payment is and in one situation they're negotiating.

[3:04:18] Well, I'm not even sure if it was Joe.

[3:04:20] It's really nice.

[3:04:22] It's for, so there's two ways they do it.

[3:04:24] And this is over there, and this is all in private land, it's obviously not on public land.

[3:04:30] And there was a 4.3 megawatt that would generate 21,000 a year, but that was, that's no

[3:04:38] risk.

[3:04:39] There's other ways that they do it where they pay you per megawatt because they may or

[3:04:45] may not actually reach the 4.3.

[3:04:51] So it was 21,000 for, but this is a number that's only for this room, it means nothing, it's just a number so that

[3:05:00] Because otherwise, it's like, is it $5,000? Is it $50,000? I mean, it sounds like it's something like that.

[3:05:07] And that would be, and you said this one is through five.

[3:05:10] Yeah, so I have no idea what it would be in two years, maybe they'll be a wall.

[3:05:14] I didn't proceed with question here. So we're in an executive session.

[3:05:19] I did not tell him that we were doing this. I said, I mean, I didn't tell you that we were,

[3:05:26] That's not my problem.

[3:05:29] So, when is the intersection because there's a request for an easement?

[3:05:33] We're leaving an end or lease.

[3:05:38] And so that's obviously a land transaction, which we get to talk about in a second session.

[3:05:43] But I suspect from the questions that are being asked that all of us, this is the sort of thing that would benefit from public discussion

[3:05:54] to understand what the appetite of our community is for this thing, and as I'm trying

[3:06:02] to understand how we get from something which we have to talk about in an executive

[3:06:06] session to something which we can talk about in public sessions, so we can measure the

[3:06:12] temperature of the community and it will all depend on specifics, and I don't know what

[3:06:16] agreement you have with them about disclosure and underscores, so, but there's a question

[3:06:21] And I think that he brought up was, do we have the appetite for bringing such a thing in public?

Board of Commissioners

Agenda

Transcript