[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:18] Are you ready in the back?
[0:25] Are you ready in the back? Are you ready in the front?
[0:26] Almost. We are.
[0:30] Hello, colleagues, ready in front?
[0:35] Well, good morning. Today is Wednesday, September 10, 2025, and we'd like to welcome everyone to the board meeting. We'll call this meeting
[0:42] order at 901 AM. The telephone conference number is 1, 971, 2, 5, 4, 3, 1, 4, 9, conference ID, 8, 6, 9, 1, 4, 6, 7, count, audio capabilities are
[0:57] listen only and are offered on a best effort for the public.
[1:01] Our meeting is also live stream and you can join us online by going to our website.
[1:05] Other viewing options are available at tcTV online.com.
[1:10] Before we get started, I'd like to remind everyone to mute their phone.
[1:14] You can do this by pressing star 6.
[1:17] Please unmute your phone when your agenda item is ready to be discussed.
[1:21] For those joining by a computer, please unmute your microphone and turn on your camera
[1:26] when your agenda item is called.
[1:28] All others must remain muted with their cameras turned off.
[1:31] Thank you.
[1:32] Public comment.
[1:33] Those intending to provide public comment to the board,
[1:36] may attend in person, or email submissions
[1:38] to the public comments email on our website.
[1:42] Public comments received by 12pm on Tuesday
[1:44] will be distributed to the board,
[1:46] posted online before the meeting
[1:48] and become part of the public record.
[1:50] You may also provide public comment virtually
[1:52] by registering ahead of time.
[1:54] To register, please email public comments by 12 p.m. on the Tuesday prior to the board.
[2:00] Public comments can also be mailed to the Board of Commissioners Office.
[2:04] 2-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1.
[2:08] For more information on public comment options, please visit the Board of Commissioners webpage.
[2:13] Do we have anyone signed up in the room or anyone registered online for public comment?
[2:18] We do not.
[2:19] Okay, thank you.
[2:19] We'll welcome again to those in the room and may invite you to sign the guest list if you've not yet done that on the shelf and they took to my right in the back of the room.
[2:29] We will begin with our pledge.
[2:51] Can I say when I look at you right next year, I'm chair, okay, we had no public comments.
[3:01] We do have one agenda item today which is postponed and that is agenda item number four.
[3:08] All right, we will jump into our legislative administrative agenda with consideration of
[3:13] an intergovernmental grant agreement, number PO-1000-0000-000047155, but the Oregon Department
[3:25] of Human Services for Developmental Disabilities Services, and I have listed your front
[3:29] Ken Williams Executive Director, as well as David Richmond Program Manager, Co. McKinley
[3:34] Count SIG.
[3:34] I'm not sure.
[3:35] Are you carrying this search?
[3:37] Thank you.
[3:38] I don't think he's coming to the end.
[3:40] You don't think he's coming to the end?
[3:41] coming to the front and joining us in this conversation and if you wouldn't mind just identifying,
[3:47] make sure that microphone is on, you can tell if you push the button, it should be glowing green
[3:51] in the square around the button, there at the base. Yes. Yeah, but I'm just David Richland,
[3:57] on the program manager with the development, I'll display program for Dilma County.
[4:02] Wonderful.
[4:03] Appreciate you having me today.
[4:06] Do you want me to jump in? Yeah, if you talk to us a little bit about
[4:09] the agreement and then we I know our next item on the agenda is then going to be as
[4:14] sign this agreement and then to make a plan to actually cancel this agreement. So if you
[4:18] could talk about the agreement and then perhaps we can talk about them in one conversation
[4:22] and then take action into motion. Sure. Happy to give a program more of you too for folks that
[4:27] aren't familiar with that. That would be great. I don't know if we had an overview on your programs
[4:31] for quite some time. Yeah, sounds great. Yeah, again, I'm David Richmond with the Developmental
[4:34] Disability Program. We've been serving until the county for a number of years now. It's a long
[4:40] same program that's been subcontracted through the county by the State of Oregon.
[4:45] We serve people with intellectual and development of disability, so things such as folks
[4:52] with CFGIC, deficits, straw policy, down syndrome, autism, obviously it's a big one nowadays
[4:59] traumatic brain injury, feed off call effects and syndrome, freighter will lead to rats,
[5:05] the number of different disabilities,
[5:06] genetic disorders that can be eligible for our program.
[5:09] Our program provides a lifespan case management,
[5:12] so from birth to death,
[5:13] and currently we're serving about 225 people in the county.
[5:17] There's been a number of folks that have come and go through the program
[5:20] and then there's a voluntary program too,
[5:22] so it's not a mandatory program, so people do choose to come and go.
[5:26] A9 of our folks, this is as of last Friday,
[5:28] are currently children.
[5:30] We currently serve folks through nine different adult foster care homes,
[5:34] So I also have one children's posture on them.
[5:36] We have three group columns in the telecommunications area.
[5:40] We have several people in support living.
[5:42] So having support by professional agency
[5:44] coming to their home and providing daily living skill,
[5:48] skills, training things of that nature.
[5:50] Most of our people are served through what's called
[5:52] in-home comprehensive services.
[5:54] And so they receive support, skills training
[5:56] from a personal support worker or a direct support
[5:59] professional comes in and it works with them
[6:01] things like hygiene, behavior management and shopping, budgeting, safety supports, taking the medical
[6:07] appointments, range of medical appointments, things of that nature as well.
[6:11] Marie Mills, you might be familiar with Marie Mills, Marie Mills has been in the clinic for a
[6:16] number of decades now and they don't just provide support living in group homes support,
[6:21] they also provide our folks with job employment services and also what's called
[6:26] They support activities or DSA, which gives folks opportunity to socialize and come and do different crafts activities and things in the community, but also in their facility down on front street.
[6:39] And some of the additional services we offer, they're really popular.
[6:44] In addition to what I mentioned before, as a relief care and giving parents a break from folks, you know, I got a credit to a lot of our families, they serve their family members for many many years.
[6:55] Yeah, I mentioned three group homes. There's not many people at homes that are counting a lot of our families take care of their folks for many decades
[7:02] And again, thank them now for the work they do. It's very challenging work for some of those folks.
[7:07] We are for our assistive technology, different devices. They help people communicate if they don't have traditional communication skills.
[7:13] Home modifications, we just did a fence for a family that has a young boy that runs a lot.
[7:19] So to keep him safe and give my opportunity
[7:21] to be on the side and clean his community,
[7:24] somewhere recently, and we also provide adult
[7:27] and use the best case in the protective service in the soul.
[7:30] So Kylie Petrie is one of our students, one of our staff, who's an abusive investigator and in the out of the case of the abusive neglect, involve people on developmental disabilities, we screen those cases and possibly do investigations on those more closely with law enforcement, when it's criminal matter potentially and also with a DHS and their seniors and fellow officers as well.
[7:53] I just want to give a couple of important notes, as Aaron mentioned, about the contract itself.
[8:00] Some of the things we're at, I believe, back in 2325 that we didn't get to, but just to give folks an update.
[8:11] This has been in two.
[8:13] We've been working with her a number of years now on John Classifications for the DB staff and things.
[8:20] There's different levels under the Department of Administrative Services, and different descriptions.
[8:26] And in DB, some of the positions were paid at the same level as some of the others, like the book we have.
[8:34] And APD, which is aging people, disabilities, the senior's office.
[8:39] So, I want to work with them with those descriptions.
[8:42] And some of these salaries, those positions have a class that have increased.
[8:47] we have seen dollar amounts to those yet, but some decreases well, but we haven't seen
[8:52] the legislature approve those, yes, we're hoping that in the short session, 206,
[8:57] they'll incorporate those into what's called the workload model, which helps fund our program.
[9:02] I'm an eligibility specialist and service coordinator, which also knows the case manager,
[9:05] those two positions, so dratic increases, which will help us potentially if those get implemented at some point.
[9:12] Well, the workload one change it happened in 2023-25, it's of note, if you're familiar with
[9:17] DD at all, the contract should be paid 95% of what the state would think themselves
[9:22] to run the program.
[9:24] I thought it was years ago that it was subcontracted in DD so that the state would have
[9:30] essentially a better, more bank for the buck to pay a nonprofit or a county program to run
[9:34] the programs.
[9:35] That has now changed, we did a lot of advocacy around getting those programs funded at 100%
[9:41] So it's easier for legislative to understand how the program is funded.
[9:44] That means the program currently is funded about 86.4% of the full model at this time.
[9:51] So we're not seeing full funding.
[9:54] But you're probably saying, Tom McKinney, we're still able to maintain all the services.
[9:58] We think we're appropriate to folks and serve people well in our review on February of this last year with highest quarter of the state of Oregon.
[10:05] We had 118 out of 118 areas where perfect score.
[10:08] So, our staff were doing really well.
[10:10] I wanted to just get them to shout out for what they do in the county.
[10:20] There was, you might be aware that there was a initial contract that came out, and then it was, I believe, folks here looked at that, possibly in the sign, and things were ready to go.
[10:29] Then the state pulled back on two different areas.
[10:31] They changed some language, rather than service equity plans.
[10:33] Then also there's a transition that the governor chose to bring back the foster peer in license,
[10:39] in the certification roles, back to the State of Oregon, under the DD Lexington Union, and so
[10:44] that change was also reflected in the screen contact, and we're looking out today, or if you
[10:48] were able to do it. So for us, just to give perspective, over the course of the blame, it takes
[10:54] about 0.3 staff or through FD staff away from our program, over the course of
[11:03] the questions I can answer
[11:05] That was a great overview of your program and contract commissioners. Are there questions or?
[11:12] It's fantastic. I'm getting those high scores.
[11:15] Yeah, thank you.
[11:17] I'd like twice. Congratulations on those high scores. That really is outstanding.
[11:22] Best of all again is it's heartening for us to hear and well done to the people who provide the services.
[11:30] Perfect. Okay. So the contract itself, you'd give you details on the contract.
[11:34] and I'll just give a little context for that.
[11:37] This is, as many of our services,
[11:41] that go to tell my family counseling,
[11:42] money comes from the state to county,
[11:45] the county then subcontracts with
[11:47] tell my family counseling to provide these services.
[11:49] What's a little bit different about this one is that
[11:52] we are actually as the county not required
[11:55] to first receive the funds and then pass them on.
[11:59] We actually have the opportunity to step out
[12:01] of that role and allow these funds
[12:03] to go directly from the state to tell them
[12:06] my chemical counseling center.
[12:07] And we gave it to his position a couple of years ago.
[12:09] We had this conversation for the first time.
[12:12] And this type when it came up again,
[12:14] I actually asked kind of counsel to review
[12:16] and see if there was a reason that we needed
[12:19] to be in this contract.
[12:20] By being in this contract, we actually slowed down payments.
[12:23] I believe to tell them my chemical counseling center
[12:26] because there is a requirement
[12:28] that we put in for the payment.
[12:30] We have to give the information from tell them
[12:32] Emily Counseling Center, which requires, I believe it's, it's Sean and her treasurer's office to get that information.
[12:38] Go into an online system and I think it's a per client base and so it's just, it's complicated and we're not adding any value to the program and in fact we're causing some slowdowns for the program.
[12:50] I might believe by having it come through the county.
[12:52] So I did confirm with county council that it is not a requirement for us to do this, it is an option.
[12:57] I think, David, you said we are one of two counties or three counties remaining in the state
[13:02] or stay in this mix. It's a fairly small one.
[13:04] There's about six, but most of them are in the East Norgen and there's one non-profit
[13:09] of the manges, most of the counties.
[13:11] So for the most part, counties have taken the step back and allowed the streamlining with
[13:16] the state to occur. And so while we are looking today to approve the contract, it's for
[13:21] a six-month window and that really just has to do with the fact that we didn't have time
[13:25] to make that adjustment with the state prior to the contract and we need to get it signed.
[13:30] So, Tom McFanley counseling and this program can be paid, but what we will be taking
[13:35] up in our next agenda item is an intention to basically cancel this contract as of December 31st
[13:42] and this year so that Tom McFanley counseling can go directly to the state on this.
[13:47] So, we'll take these two agenda items together.
[13:50] Did I miss anything?
[13:50] No, the one thing on the out is that Donald Kang is the first Friday Refusal, so my
[13:56] server change is when we want to go back to this recurrence, it's arranged what we can do that to.
[14:00] Okay, no, I appreciate your summary.
[14:02] Yeah, thank you, now I think it's confusing and yet clears up a whole lot of things.
[14:06] So if we do it that way.
[14:08] With that, I think we are ready for a motion unless there are further questions.
[14:11] Is there any further questions?
[14:13] Yeah, sounds like it.
[14:15] Madam Chair, I'm over approval of an Intergovernmental grant agreement number
[14:19] P O dash 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, we're 7 1 1 5 5 with the
[14:25] Oregon Department of Human Services for Developmental Disability Services.
[14:29] Oh, second block.
[14:30] We have a motion in the second.
[14:31] Is there any further discussion?
[14:34] Hearing none, I will call for the vote.
[14:35] All in favour?
[14:36] Could be signify by saying aye.
[14:37] Aye.
[14:38] Aye.
[14:38] Motion carries.
[14:40] We will immediately move on to item number six, which I believe
[14:43] you can read into the record as a motion.
[14:46] And I'm sure I'm as approval of the letter of intent to the
[14:49] Oregon Department of Human Services to terminate intergovernmental grant agreement number
[14:53] PO-1000-00-0047155 for development.
[15:03] I have a motion and a second.
[15:07] Hearing none, I will call for the vote.
[15:09] I will call for the vote.
[15:10] All right.
[15:14] Thank you so much.
[15:15] David, I appreciate you being with us.
[15:17] I appreciate you being in the room.
[15:18] I'd like to have people come in.
[15:20] I'd like to have people come in.
[15:22] I'd like to have people come in.
[15:24] I'd like to have people come in.
[15:28] Okay, moving on to item number seven, which is a contract for goods with Boyd's implementation
[15:34] service LLC for replacement utility vehicles for the Park Steak Department.
[15:39] We have Dan Kies, Director of Parks with us.
[15:41] Good morning, Dan.
[15:42] Thank you for your time.
[15:44] Thank you for your time.
[15:44] Thank you
[15:50] for your time.
[15:50] Thank you for your time.
[15:50] Thank you for your time.
[16:01] have gotten off-carts. We've gotten those last year. We've got four of them out of Portland.
[16:07] I won't say the name of who we got from because the decisions that we would like to move forward
[16:12] this year, but you know, it almost immediately three of them recorded warranty work.
[16:18] We had to figure out a transportation back and forward the Portland. We got that taken care of
[16:23] and then almost following that. We had more warranty work to the point where we actually had to request
[16:29] Lovers from them in order to get by and most of you know if anything about the parks department that utility vehicles are more or less the backbone of what we do
[16:38] They're very important and they they sort of a lot of tasks
[16:42] It's so with that in mind I can I can tell you that by the time that
[16:47] golf carts got into service that we bought last November
[16:52] It was just three weeks ago
[16:53] So we were pretty disappointed in the whole process
[16:57] So we start to look for options and one of the things that we wanted to do is we want to buy local as much as possible.
[17:06] Partners will go sort of, but not like not like Kilma County.
[17:10] And so we had a conversation with Kaboda, which is sold out of Boyd's implement service and telemark.
[17:19] And they provided us with the opportunity to take a look at what are called RTV520s.
[17:26] They're what, in fact, they are a lot better than the, than the Gulf of Cards.
[17:32] We had a, we had a $45,000 this year in the budget to purchase these items, what
[17:39] we'd like to do is to spend $30,000 to $40,000 and $44,000 on to this year to help replate
[17:47] the partnership stock in the meantime, parts, staff is working on a fairly lengthy surplus list
[17:55] will be bringing to you for approval within the coming weeks, which includes getting rid of
[18:02] some of our or ones that no longer work, and then we've been using for parts for a while.
[18:07] So with that in mind, we would like your approval to move forward with this.
[18:12] And if you have any questions, please let me know. I'll be more than happy to answer those.
[18:17] Okay. Thank you. Questions or comments? I am sorry about the trouble with the golf
[18:23] arts, it's wild, it's that gets disappointing. And the sounds like a great solution and I totally
[18:31] support buying local stuff. Very welcome. Thank you. I agree. And also, I think it will be
[18:37] better equipment for the job. The golf court is not built for the kind of the task you guys
[18:43] use them for. So I think it's great move. I think it'll last longer. He's easy to serve as you locally
[18:48] and I think it's a great, great move. Great, thank you.
[18:52] Yeah, and I agree with my colleagues. I think we are ready for a motion.
[18:54] Madam Chair, I move approval of a contract for goods,
[18:57] with Boyd's implementing service LLC, for replacement utility vehicles,
[19:01] for the parks department.
[19:02] I circle up.
[19:03] We have a motion in a second, any further discussion.
[19:06] Hearing none, I will call for the vote.
[19:08] All in favor for the signify by saying aye.
[19:10] Aye. Aye. Aye.
[19:11] Aye. Aye.
[19:12] Thank you, Gary.
[19:12] We're sure thank you very much.
[19:14] Thank you.
[19:14] We'll all come out for a ride.
[19:16] No, no, no, no.
[19:19] Okay, I'm moving on to item eight.
[19:22] Consideration of amendment number one to intergovernmental agreement.
[19:26] Number seven, please, zero, zero, dash, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero,
[19:30] zero, three, four, three, five.
[19:31] With the Oregon Department Administration,
[19:33] for right-of-way services for the Dick Creek Bridge,
[19:36] Payocean Road Project, Crislady Public Works,
[19:39] and what's with the zero state of Oregon?
[19:43] Good morning, commissioners.
[19:44] Dickery Bridge was the bridge on Biosen Road that was previously completed last year,
[19:51] not to be confused with the current ongoing construction of flowerpockery which the road is
[19:58] closed toward. So this we do have two agreements for Dickery, one is for the construction of Dickery
[20:04] and the second one is for right away services. This is specific to the right away services.
[20:08] With this allows essentially extends the contract out until, instead of September 30th of 2024, it extends it out to December 23 of 2025, and that allows the ODOT to do some post construction monitoring.
[20:27] The a little bit of delay in this agreement had to do with the right away agent assigned to this project being and other assigned to other projects.
[20:36] This was part of the run up to ODOT managing and modifying their staff due to some adjustments to trying to reduce the rule over our operating cost, which is currently going through the Senate, is part of their existing bill.
[20:52] So ODOT has been fairly aggressive in trying to reduce their cost for the last couple of years.
[20:58] This agreement also changes the name of the project to comply with current ODOT standards.
[21:03] So, those are the two fundamental items associated with the Dick Creek Bridge.
[21:09] Thank you.
[21:09] Question to comments.
[21:12] No, neither.
[21:13] No, nor do I.
[21:14] So, I would look for motion, please.
[21:16] Man, chair, I move approval of amendment number one to
[21:20] Intergovernmental Agreement.
[21:21] Number seven, three, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero,
[21:25] three, four, three, five.
[21:26] If the Oregon Department of Transportation for
[21:28] for the Dick Creek Bridge A-Ocean Road Project.
[21:32] What is the second?
[21:33] We have a motion in a second.
[21:35] Any further discussion?
[21:37] Hearing none, I will call for the vote.
[21:38] On the favor, please signify by saying aye.
[21:41] Aye. Aye. Aye.
[21:42] Motion carries.
[21:44] Item number nine, also for Chris.
[21:45] Consideration of amendment number two,
[21:47] to enter governing minimum agreement number,
[21:49] seven, three, zero, zero,
[21:51] dash, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero,
[21:53] three, four, three, four,
[21:55] with ordering the Department of Transportation
[21:56] for right-of-way services for dry Greek bridge and Crystal Creek Bridge, Miami-Holy Road,
[22:02] Project.
[22:04] So just like Dick Creek, this right-of-way agreement is separate
[22:09] than the actual construction agreement.
[22:11] We do get questions every so often that why is ODOT involved on a county road?
[22:17] And this applies to the ocean and Miami frustrated people on Miami,
[22:21] because those two bridges are currently under construction.
[22:24] And the reason why ODOT manages the bridges on the county road is has to do with a federal money.
[22:30] County cannot manage the federal money tied to these bridges, ODOT has to manage those, that's why ODOT is involved. So this is exactly like the Bay Ocean Road where we are extending this really just an extension of the contract.
[22:56] within 30 days, open that backup.
[22:59] We have post construction monitoring permits.
[23:02] So this extends the contract for the right way services
[23:05] from September 30th of 24 through February 14th of 26th.
[23:12] That's it.
[23:13] Questions, comments, thank you, sir.
[23:14] So I'm for me.
[23:16] None for me either, except to say
[23:18] that I drove over those free business morning
[23:20] and that they're making great progress
[23:22] on the Crystal Creek Bridge.
[23:24] I know it was closed on Monday and and and and they to do some significant work. And so it's just encouraging see the ongoing process progress and also this may not be the right forum for this but I just want to mention that people on that road jump those red lights and I wish there were cameras on the lights to notify the police.
[23:48] Because I've seen some wild and unsafe behavior including vehicles at a head-on in the one lane where somebody had to back up because somebody jumped the red light
[23:59] I've had people behind me when I've had the red light honking and waving like angry like telling me go through the light go through the light
[24:07] It's wild
[24:09] So I think there should be cameras on those lights
[24:15] Chris any comment
[24:20] So, I think that was the interesting idea of never heard that, actually, that might be something
[24:27] I'll bring to O'Donnell's attention.
[24:30] One of the things that we have struggled with in Tillamit County is when we have the signals
[24:34] which we have currently temporary signals up on the family crewed slide, they are in there
[24:41] until we can finish building the rest of that.
[24:44] We, ODOT, had these temporary signals on when they had the cover problem on how we won 31.
[24:53] They currently had these cameras on to whom the highway won 31 over the Tilmach River,
[25:00] whether they're doing some work on that bridge.
[25:02] Ideally, these would be censored.
[25:04] They would take a look.
[25:04] Yes, there's a car there.
[25:05] Let's go ahead and change it.
[25:07] The problem we run out here is that the fog comes in and that is creating a lot of problems with these signals, the brain that we get and tell them that creates problems with these signals.
[25:18] So the, we tried to do those to help reduce some of the red, green light issues, they just, they don't really work.
[25:28] So the, what is the best available signal timing because now we're, we're timed as opposed to sensors picking up vehicles.
[25:35] If we were able to do sensors, this problem would be resolved, but they just don't work until
[25:40] in the count.
[25:41] But I haven't heard the camera for police and sheriff, so this is something that I think
[25:46] I'll raise to ODOT and see if they have any thoughts on that.
[25:50] Thank you.
[25:52] And Chris, so I know that they did have the road closed on Monday and they did some significant
[25:56] work for a commercial.
[25:57] How much longer do we expect to have the one-way lights on my family fully at the two bridges?
[26:03] You mentioned that.
[26:03] 30 days or less?
[26:04] Okay, and that was for both of us.
[26:06] This afternoon at 1 o'clock, I'll have an update
[26:09] on construction schedule associated with that.
[26:12] The contract is pushing for one more day of closure.
[26:15] It's been closed previously for a day
[26:17] because in order to move those beams around,
[26:20] you're looking at 50 foot, 60 foot beams.
[26:24] As they move those around, it takes a large crane.
[26:26] The crane sets up in the middle of the road,
[26:28] but the extend out to give it some security.
[26:34] some stabilization. That takes up the entire road. So there's really not a lot of options.
[26:39] There is no other options other than closer road in order to do these without adding
[26:45] significant expenses. So the contractor is pushing to do one more round of closures.
[26:52] We're pushing back and keep the bridge open. So that discussion with the bridges open.
[26:58] discussion, we'll start taking place at one o'clock through a weekly progress meeting.
[27:04] Okay, so we'll take our fingers crossed that perhaps both of those will be gone within 30 days.
[27:09] So that's correct.
[27:10] That would be great.
[27:11] Okay, thank you.
[27:12] Other questions or comments for yours?
[27:14] All right.
[27:14] I would entertain a motion.
[27:15] Madam Chair, I move approval of amendment number two to our governmental agreement number seven three zero zero
[27:21] dash zero zero zero zero three four three four with the Oregon Department of Transportation.
[27:26] for right-of-way services for dry-click, bridge, and crystal-click bridge on Miami-Full
[27:31] Libre.
[27:32] Oh, I said you look.
[27:33] We have a motion in a second.
[27:34] Is there any further discussion?
[27:36] Hearing none.
[27:37] I will call for the vote.
[27:38] All of favor.
[27:38] Please signify by saying aye.
[27:41] Aye.
[27:42] Thank you, Chris.
[27:44] Okay.
[27:44] Item 10.
[27:45] Consideration of an order in the matter of a notice of intent to award a prevailing wage
[27:50] rate contract for construction of the man's Anita transfer station improvement project.
[27:54] just so we saw a waste program manager. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning.
[28:02] So we put out a call for bids in August for our east wall, the Institute of Construction Project,
[28:08] this so increased capacity for garbage collection, scrap metal, as well as some stormwater
[28:14] infrastructure with re-grading sites, creating some stormwater basins. And so bids are received on August
[28:20] 26, the low bidder came in very close to the engineer's estimate, which was exciting.
[28:26] It was significantly lower than many of the other bids, so we'll anticipate some cost savings
[28:31] on the project, which is great.
[28:33] And LED contractors as a low bidder, so this is a notice of intent to award them the contract
[28:37] to hopefully begin construction, you know, we're getting into the wet season, so we're
[28:41] going to work with them to perhaps break ground sooner rather than later, but excited to
[28:45] get the project going and happy to answer any questions if you do have me.
[28:49] Perfect. Thank you questions commissioners. No, but I think that is exciting
[28:54] Wonderful, I have a question after this topic for you. I'm gonna relate it well
[28:58] topic within your your world
[29:01] Okay, I think we're ready for motion out of chair. I'm a approval of order number 25-060 in the matter of the notice of intent to award a prevailing wage rate
[29:11] Contracts the construction for the man's and the other transfer station improvements project. I second to have a motion in a second any further discussion
[29:19] Hearing none, I will call for the vote on favor, please signify by saying aye.
[29:23] Aye.
[29:24] Thank you.
[29:26] So Justin, I know we've visited about coffee.
[29:28] Are you still there?
[29:29] Yep.
[29:29] We visited about coffee and you landfill previously.
[29:32] And I know that we have kind of said, well, we're watching out and out into the future.
[29:37] I have received phone calls for a number of fellow commissioners that share about landfill.
[29:44] Just asking, you know, if we are looking more intently now because
[29:48] The public, the company that owns our operates, as I understand, was denied their expansion.
[29:55] And it is now in front of the Benton County Commissioners for an appeal, which is illegal.
[30:00] We expected to go to Luba. There is a concern that if that appeal, I think, booze, and they are unable to expand that our timeline for the closure of that landfill becomes very short.
[30:12] So I just didn't know if you were engaged in conversations, particularly in partnership with other counties such as Lincoln County.
[30:21] I believe Lincoln claps at, I think, maybe use that one too as well.
[30:26] Anyway, if there are conversations happening,
[30:28] if we are looking toward what a future solution could be,
[30:32] because I understand looking at the information,
[30:36] there have been some TQ violations and other things
[30:38] that might actually cause that expansion to fail
[30:41] in terms of land use and approval and numbers.
[30:45] Years, like, 25 have been thrown out there or 2030.
[30:48] So you know five years being I think on the short end of closure. So just curious where we might be in those conversations.
[30:57] Yeah, and I appreciate you bring that up commissioner. Yeah, I'm actually over about two years ago. I joined
[31:02] Keep that strong coalition had a good check in meeting with a couple individuals. So this has been on my radar. I will say
[31:10] There's been an update over the last two three months. I think with the recent middle of the application by Republic and the back and forth.
[31:17] It's just come up a couple of times.
[31:19] You talked with the Creamery last week, they're concerned about it.
[31:22] And so we had a good conversation yesterday at our September SWAC meeting, which Commissioner
[31:26] of Fournier was able to attend all the haulers were there, and we had a good roundtable
[31:32] on, you know, what are some other options?
[31:34] Obviously, keep that in strong, is a big local resource instead of touting, you know, keep
[31:40] it local.
[31:41] It's a cost savings for local communities, and so yeah, if it does close from what I saw
[31:47] and some of the paperwork we used to have to do at SWAC.
[31:51] Yeah, it was three years for the current cell.
[31:54] There's a quarry section which can add maybe 10 years.
[31:57] So they were thinking about 13 years potentially or less
[32:01] with the closure of the incinerator outside Salem.
[32:04] That's going to increase the amount of flow of the waste
[32:08] into the coffee and new landfill.
[32:10] And so yeah, this is becoming more and more of a hot topic.
[32:14] one of our swag members, Jesse just is on the keep in strong or shoot on a task force at the state level looking about that version as a way to increase the life of the land fill so
[32:26] you know yesterday with the swag we've got the RMA the new recycling law a lot of the haulers and us are working through and that's
[32:33] a really big push by the end of the year but once 2026 comes
[32:38] We're going to really we're selling waste at least is going to pivot with the haulers or we're going to start looking at some of the other options.
[32:44] But, you know, the haulers with their expertise, Arlington was the kind of next step.
[32:49] But obviously that would be probably hauling the garbage to a rail yard in Portland, then putting it on a train and then truck or sending it on a train over to another landfill, which obviously increased our costs quite a bit.
[33:02] So we're going to need to work on that and try to figure out, yeah, pencil out the numbers.
[33:08] But yeah, this is F-2026 issue to take up and really look at harder, because people are getting
[33:12] more and more concerned.
[33:14] So it's on our radar here at Solid Waste Commissioner.
[33:16] Perfect.
[33:17] Thank you.
[33:17] I figured that it was.
[33:19] But I had a, being a President of the Association of Oregon counties in the next year.
[33:24] People are calling me saying, is the association going to take this up next year?
[33:27] They're going to do something about this.
[33:28] So I was like, well, first I need to know what this is.
[33:30] So I appreciate the work that you're doing.
[33:33] I appreciate that it appears we have a little more breathing
[33:35] room and perhaps keep a feel that we do based on the numbers
[33:39] you've shared.
[33:40] But yeah, let's stay in touch and keep talking about this.
[33:43] Because I think it's one of those things that for a general
[33:46] public and tell them what county they do not think about
[33:48] where their garbage goes.
[33:50] It just goes away and they're happy.
[33:52] Sort of like things like toilets, the flush,
[33:54] faucets that provide water.
[33:56] And most people don't think about it until it is perhaps
[33:59] in jeopardy or until a rate increase occurs in preparation to try to keep it running.
[34:06] So I just want to make sure that we are having the conversations and having them in the
[34:10] public head of anything that might be in nature change.
[34:13] So I appreciate that.
[34:14] Yeah.
[34:14] I just wanted to add to what Justin said.
[34:16] I did enjoy the meeting yesterday and I got some information.
[34:19] One of the things Bitten County has to do, and Justin, correct me if you get this information
[34:23] on, but based on your slide, it made $6 million.
[34:27] as a county that's six million dollars from landfill.
[34:30] So they're looking at a big cut.
[34:34] Also, there's been other closures of other land
[34:37] from the GAMM, which has also passed,
[34:39] come up and create to take on more.
[34:41] So we don't know if that estimate is saying,
[34:43] it could be much lower if on the one's close.
[34:45] But really, I think you mentioned to that,
[34:48] perhaps a rail yard and Yickery Hall,
[34:52] which would shorten our distance for our tracking.
[34:54] For tracking, you can then you still have the extent of rail.
[34:56] And then there's another land full of further out and board me in the Farland, but then again,
[35:03] I was going to turn it towards any kind of barge, but it's something that we're going to have to be
[35:09] talking about in the coming years, so I just and I appreciate you up to yesterday and all the information.
[35:15] Yeah, the conversation about table.
[35:18] Thank you.
[35:18] Appreciate that. Okay. Sorry for the impromptu, but thank you for that.
[35:23] We'll take you off the hot seat.
[35:27] The thing on the item 11, we'll book our car on the hot seat.
[35:30] Consideration on order in the matter of the appointment of a member to determine
[35:33] Accounting Housing Commission, Parker Salman, Housing Coordinator to Department of Community Development.
[35:38] Good morning, Parker.
[35:40] Good morning, questionnaires.
[35:42] Corrin has been a wonderful participant in a thousand commission and is Marliza's
[35:47] Director of Placement and we would love to welcome her as a non-profit representative.
[35:51] of 2000 commission. Perfect. Thank you. Questions or comments, commissioners.
[35:56] None. You said that they do fantastic work and so happening. You have people volunteering
[36:00] and offering their assistance. Likewise, I'm fully supportive and grateful. Perfect. As
[36:05] of my core and is the leader for the House of those action network at care and has been there
[36:10] for I think about four months. So she's still drinking from a firehouse but has definitely made a
[36:15] priority to be at the housing commission as well. We appreciate her for that. She's doing a great job.
[36:20] We are ready for motion.
[36:22] Madam Chair, I move approval of order number 25-061 in the matter of the appointment of a member to the TILMO County Housing Commission.
[36:30] I'm sorry for that.
[36:31] We have a motion in a second.
[36:32] Is there any further discussion?
[36:34] Hearing none.
[36:35] I will call for the vote.
[36:36] On favor, please signify by saying aye.
[36:38] Aye.
[36:38] Aye.
[36:39] Thank you.
[36:42] Item 12.
[36:44] We have a status update on the Federal Emergency Management Administration's implementation of Oregon.
[36:50] biological implementation process, your absolute director, department of community development. Good morning, Sarah. Good morning, commissioners. Thank you so much. It's nice to see you this morning.
[37:02] So yes, have a, have a update. I have a slide deck. I would like to share with you.
[37:08] Going to go through the highlights, the slide deck is mostly so that we can post it on the community development website as a tool and resource for the public.
[37:21] Because as you know, this topic is extensive and we are at a place where we are in a public comment period.
[37:30] This part of the NEPA review process for the draft implementation plan of the 2016 Oregon FEMA Biological
[37:41] opinion. And so I'm going to go ahead and do a share screen and walk you through some
[37:50] things. And then let's see, let me go ahead and go to my slideshow. And then like I am, I am
[37:59] happy to circle back to various things if you need me to, but I'm going to fly through this quickly
[38:07] so I can get to the punchline. So thank you for giving me the opportunity to give you an update
[38:15] today. So quickly, just as I mentioned, we are in process of working with FEMA as a cooperating agency
[38:23] through their Federal National Environmental Policy Act review requirement.
[38:31] And part of this review process is essentially what in Oregon we refer to in EC analysis.
[38:39] So this is an analysis of environmental, social, economic, and energy impacts to whatever a federal agency is preparing to do.
[38:51] So in this case, it's an action to require national flood insurance participating communities
[38:59] to update our land use and development codes for stricter standards.
[39:06] And I would say heavy mitigation standards to allow any type of development in our
[39:13] mapped areas of special flood hazard.
[39:16] So, where we are at right now is we are in this public comment period, it ended, or
[39:23] excuse me, it opened just a short while ago at the end of August and it closes October 6th.
[39:31] So, working with the commissioners, I do plan on providing a letter and some comments for
[39:37] your consideration for the county to submit, but really what I'd like to also urge today is the
[39:45] public to also participate in these public comment period and have some links on the
[39:51] community development page as well as on this slide deck to make sure that folks know
[39:57] where to go to provide comments in this public comment period that is open until October 6th.
[40:04] So why are we looking at these updated regulations as part of this NEPA review process and this
[40:10] implementation plan, and essentially it's to ensure the implementation is consistent with the
[40:18] Endangered Species Act and the Magnus and Stevens Act, which essentially coordinate fishery
[40:24] management to protect Endangered Species and you can see on the side what the need is, and it is
[40:31] essentially to avoid jeopardy, which was something that was determined in the 2016 Viob. Part of that plan
[40:39] includes implementation of known loss standards
[40:42] and known that loss of floodplain functions.
[40:45] When we had our meeting in November last year,
[40:49] at the Port of Telemukbe, we had great community
[40:52] turnout for that.
[40:53] It was that joint meeting with the Board of Commissioners
[40:56] and the Planning Commission, Molly Lawrence
[41:00] from Bandus Feldman, and I gave a presentation
[41:03] on these different known net loss standards
[41:06] and how they could impact development
[41:08] across Oregon specifically until a county and so you can see those three objectives
[41:15] relate to flood storage, water quality and riparian vegetation. Over all state
[41:22] wide, this program and these changes will impact 30 of 36 counties in the
[41:29] state of Oregon. You guys have seen that map before but I think it's really
[41:33] important to show that map again. The other thing is to take a minute to also remind folks
[41:41] of what FEMA's definition of development is. And it is any human cottage change to improved
[41:48] or unimproved real estate. And what that means also is that when we talk, when we think about
[41:56] development in general terms, what we think about is construction of new buildings. If someone says,
[42:02] I'm going to develop our mind immediately visualizes a structure, or some sort of structural
[42:08] improvement to vacant land. And by FEMA's definition, that is absolutely not the case.
[42:15] That's much broader. So there are four paths that FEMA has been working on to achieve those
[42:22] known at loft standards, and that compliance for ESA and MSA, which is the Endangered Species Act
[42:28] the Magnificent Stevenson, excuse me, the Magnificent Stevenson Act.
[42:32] These four pathways, as you can see on your screen, are part of three alternatives that
[42:38] are in the draft environmental impact statement that we are currently reviewing under
[42:44] part of this public comment period for local officials, landowners, business owners, etc.
[42:50] a comment on. And these paths, as you can see on the screen, include four options. And one is
[42:59] the model ordinance that has a very prescriptive mitigation requirements to achieve those
[43:04] known that lost standards that we talked about for our flood function, water quality and
[43:09] riparian vegetation. Option B is an ordinance checklist. This is where we could develop a checklist
[43:17] internally for permitting that folks have to use to demonstrate that they need those known
[43:23] at lost standards. It gives us a little bit of a different path forward. It tries to make it
[43:29] make the process more straightforward. C is a customized community plan. So this means we would take
[43:36] everything that we have existing within our development code potentially out of few things. And we
[43:42] would use what we have to try to demonstrate to FEMA and national marine fisheries that we've
[43:49] got to plan already in place. That meets those known net lost standards. An alternative
[43:54] D would be to develop a habitat conservation plan with essentially NOAA and Nymphs, which is
[44:03] national marine fisheries. Telemet County, we spent two years, almost two years working on
[44:09] options C and D. As FEMA was developing them through 2018, 2019. We had a local working group with local experts,
[44:20] Noah representatives were at these meetings as was FEMA. And unfortunately, we know firsthand that C and D are next to impossible at least for our community to meet.
[44:33] See, we cannot use our current codes to meet those known at law standards, and the cost in the time to develop a habitat conservation plan for telemic county would be substantial.
[44:47] I'm going to show this slide a couple of times, but basically taking those four pathways that I just described.
[44:54] What FEMA is looking for for public comments is to decide which...
[45:00] Of these three alternatives should move forward as part of this need for review process. Alternative 1 is essentially no action. We use the existing development codes we have and those known that lost standards and mitigation requirements would not apply. Alternative 2 would be that we as a community and several communities across the state would implement one of those options.
[45:30] A through D, so model ordinance checklist, essentially choose your own adventure if you can get there, and then to have a tech conservation plan with alternative to there would be an exemption to having to meet those known that lost standards for projects that require some sort of federal nexus projects that require section seven consultation federal permitting their federal permit requires a state federal permit requirements.
[46:00] some sort of environmental impact statement all on its own. I would say some of the projects
[46:05] that you could think about that we're familiar with of this alternative to that would be
[46:10] exempt from those known at lost standards would be a bridge where public works has to get that
[46:17] federal permit for the bridge or their federal funding that has that nexus that's going to require
[46:22] that environmental impact statement, port projects in water work require this federal
[46:29] nexus. But what I would caution is that just because it's some sort of a facility improvement
[46:35] project, not all facility improvement, improvement projects, we have that federal nexus. So it's
[46:41] still does not get us everywhere we want to go with infrastructure, whether it's port roads,
[46:50] sewer, water, etc. Alternative three means everything must comply with those known
[46:58] at lost standards and mitigation requirements as part of those pathways A through D.
[47:04] So even if your project has that federal nexus, alternative three says, no, you have to go
[47:10] through and meet these known at lost standards anyway. Put the slide in here because I think this
[47:16] This is a really good slide from FEMA.
[47:18] I actually took a photo of it at a presentation because when we talked about development
[47:26] and what is FEMA's definition of development, and moreover, what requires a floodplain
[47:33] development permit, this slide is very telling.
[47:37] Again, it goes beyond structures.
[47:39] And this side is relevant to this conversation because these types of development activities are subject to those known net loss standards and those mitigation requirements.
[47:57] So what do we mean when we talk about known net loss standards and avoid minimize and mitigate?
[48:03] So again, going back to that meeting last November, we had some clear examples of how mitigation would have to occur.
[48:12] using development permits and projects that the department has already worked through.
[48:19] So this means if you put a structure in the flood plan and you're taking away flood storage,
[48:25] how do you create new flood storage to offset that loss? When we talk about tree removal,
[48:31] what are those ratios of where you have to plant additional trees to make up for the tree
[48:37] or two or three that you removed when we talk about paving and drive ways and roofs and
[48:44] impervious surface. What are those mitigation ratios look like? And so this is part of that
[48:50] known at loss to where if you cannot avoid, then you have to minimize and mitigate. So these are
[48:56] part of those standards. I'm going to show you some examples that will be in those pathway options
[49:03] if someone is supportive of alternative 2 or 3.
[49:10] And so instead of redoing the work we've done,
[49:13] both Oregonians for floodplain protection
[49:15] and FEMA have done a couple.
[49:18] So just want to give you a look at this slide.
[49:20] I love the dump truck diagram
[49:23] because there's dump truck that we see on the street
[49:26] usually has 10 cubic yards of material.
[49:29] So if you look at paragraph two for a 1,500 square foot home and 20 foot by 40 foot drive light,
[49:39] require 3,400 cubic feet of soil to be removed from that area in the area of special flood hazard,
[49:49] and the key is also at the same base flood elevation for replacement of flood storage.
[49:56] That's also assuming it's in the same reach, which means you would do that work either on site or within close proximity to where the development was occurring that is hydrologically connected to that area that you're working.
[50:15] This came out of appendix E of FEMA's draft environmental impact statement.
[50:21] they have some great examples in there, but they did their homework too.
[50:26] And you can see on here it has those flood-playing functions, so the no-net-loss standards
[50:32] for flood storage, water quality, and vegetation.
[50:36] And then they did their own analysis of impact, meaning what the proposed project is.
[50:42] And then there you can see what it would be for required mitigation.
[50:47] And those mitigation ratios, et cetera, are in the document.
[50:50] I would say with this conversation today, it's hundreds of pages, I don't think many folks
[50:58] from the public are going to have the time to read it and I love these examples because
[51:04] this really puts it in real time on the ground.
[51:10] Again, so in the draft environmental impact
[51:14] statement, they talk about roughly 5.4% of all residential lands and cities are in the SFHA,
[51:20] We're working with the team, the FEMA team, part of our comments will be there are some discrepancies in some of their tables.
[51:29] We're having cities and counties go through and make sure that those ratios for areas of impact are accurate.
[51:38] But assuming that they're right, so again, for 1500 square foot home, the mitigation area is roughly a quarter of an acre.
[51:47] And I would say this average size of a lot in an urban area, this not only applies to our cities, but also a lot of our
[51:55] unincorporated communities, because if you think about lotting patterns and ocean side, Pacific city,
[52:02] Nesco in, Ida Bill.
[52:07] Most of our lots are roughly, you know, they are roughly 0.10 to a quarter of 0.25 acres in size.
[52:18] And, you know, what you can see by the slide is that it would not be able to mitigate on that property to build a home.
[52:27] At 1,500 square foot home.
[52:31] So, I've got a couple of other things in here in that appendix E for those who might be interested. They also talk about some different projects. So, I pulled the slide out that talks about a port improvement project. We have three ports in our county. The port of Garibaldi is on the water. The port of Nehalam in the port of Tilmik Bay also have areas of special flood hazard mapped within their industrial parks.
[52:57] Just another visual, so you can see with those pathways for mitigation, to those known
[53:03] net loss standards, FEMA has some good diagrams of trees.
[53:07] So how many you would have to replace?
[53:10] And this is in that 170-foot riparian buffer zone that follows bodies of waters and areas
[53:17] and mapped areas of special flood hazard, but you can see that even the tree planting requirements
[53:24] can be substantial, and these alone could trigger an additional hydrologic and hydrologic analysis.
[53:33] If you're planting trees in areas in the floodway, it may limit a building footprint because
[53:39] of the amount of trees that you have to plant, or you have to plant the trees somewhere else
[53:44] and within the same reach, or water shed to meet your mitigation requirements.
[53:51] So I'm going to
[53:52] go back to the slide again. So looking at all those mitigation requirements, we have three alternatives
[53:58] to comment on. Alternative one would be no action, which means that we do not apply the
[54:05] known at lost standards and continue to proceed with what we have for our floodplain development
[54:11] codes. And then alternative two requires updates to apply those known at lost standards and
[54:18] standards for mitigation with the exemption of those federal
[54:22] nexus projects and the alternative three means everybody federal
[54:26] nexus or not going back think about that slide about what's
[54:29] developed what requires permits. We would have to all meet those
[54:34] no net loss standards or mitigate and meet the standards
[54:37] through mitigation. One of the other things to talk about is the
[54:42] residential piece of this. So just want to we put this together as part
[54:47] Oregonians for flip-flip protection and I took this slide because I thought it was very
[54:52] informative when we start talking about those economic, social, environmental and energy impacts
[54:59] as part of the NEPA review. So this is a really good slide for the public to see is that if we change
[55:06] our codes so that would be alternative to or three, this is one of those impacts and
[55:17] then here's
[55:17] analysis for commercial and industrial.
[55:23] So this is part of that social and economic impact analysis
[55:27] if alternative 2 or 3 are chosen by FEMA for implementation and
[55:36] then for agriculture
[55:40] and then taken out of the draft EIS and
[55:47] then the last one I have is for Port Projects.
[55:56] So the other thing is the cost and when we look at economic and social impacts
[56:00] What are the costs to local jurisdictions?
[56:05] And there will be significant costs.
[56:08] As we know, FEMA will not be providing any financial assistance to communities and local jurisdictions
[56:15] to implement alternative two or three if chosen.
[56:23] And I'm just going to read this.
[56:24] It is assumed that each of the 233 NFIP participating communities
[56:29] when spend on average $100,000 to $100,000 to achieve initial adoption and implementation.
[56:38] The total cost may be $23 million to $47 million for the full Oregon Plan area.
[56:48] These costs do not include staff time or training for permit review.
[56:53] And one of my concerns is, even though we are not the city of Portland, we are rural and in some ways we are smaller, we are one of the most heavily impacted areas because so many of our cities and communities are agriculture areas are ports are within these mapped areas of special flood hazard.
[57:16] And then just to add to that alternative 2 and 3 would have major long term impacts on land development and land use.
[57:25] So this is where we are concerned about housing efforts, abilities to expand urban growth boundaries,
[57:34] what this could do for property rights taking issues, et cetera.
[57:42] And then, just wanted to also put in one more slide here about the summary of impacts related to alternative 2 and 3.
[57:53] So alternative 2 and 3 do result in beneficial effects on fish aquatic wildlife and endangered species.
[58:04] And then, again, taking a slide that we put together for our presentation at Oregonians for
[58:11] Flood Prime Protection, this is a slide that takes each of those alternatives, so alternative
[58:18] one, which is the no-action, puts this in a place where we do not see significant or adverse
[58:31] impacts to human, so that would be your social and economic, but based on that 2016 biological
[58:40] opinion that assumes any development in areas of special flood hazard will result in jeopardy
[58:46] of an ESA listed species. It assumes that there are no beneficial effects, alternatives to
[58:54] And three, you start seeing where there are those significant adverse impacts to humans,
[59:04] so the social and economic elements, and over time, you do see those total beneficial
[59:10] effects to ESA listed species, fish and aquatic wildlife vegetation, et cetera.
[59:20] So I'm just going to go back to the slide, as this is in our public comment period, this
[59:25] what we're talking about between now and October 6th. So again for not just local officials,
[59:33] this is this is a call for public action to respond to FEMA and advocate or share
[59:42] thoughts of which of these two alternatives. So I took this slide from FEMA in the meeting that
[59:50] occurred yesterday. We've got two more meetings coming up. So I've got another information slide
[59:55] on this, but this is what FEMA said what they want to hear about.
[1:00:00] And I would just urge the public also to consider, you don't have to be a biologist. You don't have to be a hydrologist or an engineer. You don't have to be a land use expert. This is about human and economic effects.
[1:00:14] can be about wildlife and ESA effects in water quality, you know, we are all supportive of actions
[1:00:21] that promote water quality, fish habitat, and ESA recovery. But this is, you know, in land use,
[1:00:30] there's a lot of times where it's so technical and data-driven or litigious and there's legal
[1:00:37] list of legal criteria that's not what this is about today. This is about as someone who lives in a
[1:00:43] community. What alternative would you support? And there's some helpful comments,
[1:00:53] ways to write letters for FEMA. Again, this will all be on the community development
[1:00:59] web page two. So folks, can find this about how to comment. There are two meetings
[1:01:06] that are coming up. That's my next slide deck. They're in the evenings, but each meeting
[1:01:11] has a court reporter in attendance to capture verbal comments, so if you want to attend one of these
[1:01:16] virtual meetings, maybe you don't want to write a letter or maybe you don't want to submit comments
[1:01:22] on Fuma's public comment portal. You are welcome to attend one of these meetings and the court
[1:01:27] reporter will be there to take your statement. The meetings that Fuma's holding are virtual only
[1:01:33] So these are the two dates of the meeting, there's one tomorrow night from 6 to 8 and one on September 30th from 6 to 8 and the easiest way to find the meetings is actually to go to the Oregonians for floodplain protection site.
[1:01:51] We have the links in the buttons right there, so you don't have to dig through those female sites and try to figure out where to go.
[1:02:01] And then again, just wording it in a different way, this is what FEMA is looking for in those comments.
[1:02:11] And then just quickly, here's this schedule for implementation.
[1:02:15] So this public comment period is open until or through October 6th.
[1:02:21] FEMA will be continuing to work through that need the process.
[1:02:26] I hope is a cooperating agency to learn a county has an opportunity to remain engaged at the table.
[1:02:33] They will give a formal letter with that technical assistance. Again, no financial assistance.
[1:02:39] They're going to do that for about seven to eight months and then about a year and a half after that letter
[1:02:44] after this need but process is done, we will be required to comply.
[1:02:50] And then, again, putting all of this stuff on the community development website, I've got some other helpful links that I will put up, including quick access to the draft environmental impact statement and others.
[1:03:04] So that was a lot of information in a very short period of time.
[1:03:08] um, happy to answer any questions, but just really, again, the call, the action of the public
[1:03:15] to provide comments on these three alternatives, you know, we have a lot of folks in our
[1:03:20] communities that don't live in floodplains. They don't own property in floodplains, but it's not
[1:03:25] just about the people who live in these floodplains. Think about any road you could pick until
[1:03:31] a county that you drive down to go from point A to point B. Each of those roads traverse
[1:03:38] at some point through a mapped area of special flood hazard. If we cannot afford to maintain
[1:03:45] our roads, right, because paving was on that list, if we cannot even afford to maintain
[1:03:51] to our roads through paving or through infrastructure, et cetera, driving from point A to B will
[1:04:02] become a problem that is an economic and social impact and just encouraging folks to kind
[1:04:10] of broaden their thought in terms of how could this affect me think about your boat lunches.
[1:04:16] Think about where you like to go think about the businesses you like to visit think about
[1:04:21] from an economic standpoint, our truck haulers.
[1:04:24] We have log haulers, we have milk haulers, et cetera.
[1:04:29] It, that ripple effect, the indirect effects
[1:04:32] will impact us all.
[1:04:35] So thank you.
[1:04:36] Thank you, Sarah.
[1:04:37] We appreciate that.
[1:04:39] That's a, we're at a crucial juncture.
[1:04:41] We've been in a couple other crucial junctions.
[1:04:43] And we are at one now with the public comment period.
[1:04:46] It is absolutely, absolutely critical that we get as many
[1:04:50] public comments as we can, and that they're specifically and appropriately directed toward
[1:04:56] the Talking Point's FEMA has asked for. This is a much like a land use decision where
[1:05:02] we often want to rage in a public comment and just talk about how we hate it, but at the end
[1:05:07] of the day, the hate it comments just get circular file because they don't actually address anything
[1:05:12] in the plans. So I think really spending a little time with that slide that had alternative one,
[1:05:18] alternative two and alternative three and recognizing and realizing that alternative one is at this point.
[1:05:25] You know, the one that allows us to remain where we are.
[1:05:30] I did attend the meeting on Saturday and just listen to the famous presentation.
[1:05:35] Just because I thought, oh, what are they going to talk about?
[1:05:37] And I think the thing that was most, I think impactful to me and struck me is that I call it the little bubble chart that Sarah shared.
[1:05:44] They had a version of that bubble chart where it talked about no impact, limited impacts,
[1:05:50] nifacants, impacts, and beneficial impact, and they had shrunk it down, and they had a top
[1:05:56] section, we've said human, and a bottom section, we've said species, and when they did that
[1:06:01] and shrunk it down, what became so absolutely clear is that there is no winning in this particular
[1:06:10] EIS. Either the human beings lose it all, or the fish gain nothing, right, which FEMA is going to say if the fish gain nothing, they have not met their requirement, which means to me this is a false choice.
[1:06:23] When you come down and the analysis says, either fish loser people lose you need a different alternative.
[1:06:28] That alternatives, one, two, and three are not enough and FEMA should be back at the drawing board, looking for a solution in which we have some beneficial and some limited impact.
[1:06:39] That there has to be a better way to implement this than what they've given us, because it is a false choice between people and fish and I just absolutely 100% disagree with that.
[1:06:49] So it's interesting information.
[1:06:51] Take some time with it.
[1:06:52] I absolutely make public comment.
[1:06:55] Absolutely look at how it will impact your communities and speak directly to the points that FEMA is looking for.
[1:07:03] The commissioner comments concerns.
[1:07:06] You can see me moving around here.
[1:07:07] So this is so absurd and it's just lazy and I have a lot of our constituents called me and I have a business with a special hazard in the flood area.
[1:07:22] It's literally hundreds, several hundred people will be the way from the river.
[1:07:28] And if I'm understanding this correctly, if you wanted to...
[1:07:30] Let's say another structure. He has to offset it and pull in the ground on the property. Is that correct?
[1:07:38] He would have to create the storage at the same base flood elevation.
[1:07:43] So it can't be a hole in the ground because then you don't meet those fish egress requirement.
[1:07:49] He would have to find a place in the same way to the same base-blood elevation to create that new flood-storage space at the same elevation he took away.
[1:08:02] So the whole method doesn't work.
[1:08:07] It's absurd.
[1:08:09] I don't know.
[1:08:10] I don't know.
[1:08:11] I don't know.
[1:08:11] I don't know.
[1:08:12] I don't know.
[1:08:12] I don't know.
[1:08:12] I don't know.
[1:08:18] I think if I really appreciate your reference to the roads,
[1:08:22] I think people who think that doesn't affect it,
[1:08:24] it affects everything we do until I'm accounting.
[1:08:27] And that's what I say it's lazy is once again,
[1:08:30] the not considering our situation.
[1:08:32] Here, what we've done, the health of our face,
[1:08:35] the fact that we can keep endangered species,
[1:08:38] I can retain a native salmon here,
[1:08:43] is none of that's taken in consideration on the practices.
[1:08:47] that we already, that the farmers are going to do that,
[1:08:50] whether it's sensitive to the environment.
[1:08:52] And this is one of those things where people,
[1:08:53] I'm going to do all I can to get people to build a climate
[1:08:55] because if we don't, we're doomed.
[1:09:00] I mean, we are a development student.
[1:09:03] Sarah and I have talked about some farmers,
[1:09:04] some of the projects they're trying to expand their operation
[1:09:08] and the plant, or the cost becomes so prohibitive
[1:09:11] that it becomes impossible.
[1:09:14] I just want to ask them with our lawsuit.
[1:09:17] That was the other thing I had for you.
[1:09:20] Before we jump to that course about what do you like to become that we're going to
[1:09:24] AIS and then we could jump to the lawsuit conversation.
[1:09:26] Sure, thank you.
[1:09:29] So Sarah, when you showed the slides that had cost impacts, I wonder if you could
[1:09:34] go back to those for a minute or just seek to them because they're text heavy.
[1:09:40] And just sum up for us that the cost, somebody who's building a house is going to
[1:09:45] for example, 10 to 30 percent higher than whatever was just sum it up, sum up the categories for us.
[1:09:54] Yes. So the estimated increase in construction costs for a single family dwelling to be built in
[1:10:02] area of special flood hazard would result in almost a 30 percent increase in cost to meet those
[1:10:11] offsite mitigation requirements and almost 10% increase in cost if the development could occur
[1:10:19] on the property. And Commissioner Bell has a great question. What I would offer to that is I am
[1:10:27] less worried about the cost as terrible as it is. And for me, my mind goes back to if you are a
[1:10:35] presidential property, your property just simply may not be big enough to do the mitigation
[1:10:43] at all. I mean, that's, they're both frightening, but the reality is that even if you
[1:10:51] have the money, you still may not be able to just because you can't meet mitigation. The monthly
[1:10:57] principle, so the other analysis that we had was that the monthly principal and interest payments
[1:11:04] would be approximately $630 a month or over 7,500 more a year to pay for off-site mitigation.
[1:11:15] Or approximately $2,500 per more a year if the mitigation occurred on site.
[1:11:21] Because with that mitigation, it's not a one and done either.
[1:11:25] You have to maintain it and the building permit, the certificate of occupancy for you to move into your home,
[1:11:33] for your loan to close out or your loan to shift whatever is going to happen, you I cannot
[1:11:39] give you a certificate of occupancy until those mitigation measures are in place.
[1:11:48] Think about if you also have to mitigate and create those mitigation areas, those could take
[1:11:55] extra time. They could take a significant amount of time. I think the cost that we talk about
[1:12:02] to, they don't take into account those interests like those construction interests loans.
[1:12:08] All of those loans that happen while you're building and those loans will continue to
[1:12:13] roll because they won't stop until you have that certificate.
[1:12:18] And it will be the community development departments,
[1:12:22] responsibility to make sure all of that happens and those maintenance areas,
[1:12:28] those mitigation areas continue to be maintained.
[1:12:30] And so it's also ongoing cost, it's ongoing for all of us.
[1:12:37] It will never end.
[1:12:38] It goes into full June cost.
[1:12:41] And flood insurance.
[1:12:43] So that's right.
[1:12:44] It's dreadful.
[1:12:45] Considering our current housing shortage, our current housing crisis, this just exponentially
[1:12:53] increases.
[1:12:54] Increases the likelihood that it will become more and more difficult to build housing
[1:13:00] until I'm accounting and that's whether it's an individual building their own house or a developer
[1:13:06] building in the flood hazard area. I was also interested in the I appreciate Commissioner
[1:13:14] Scar emphasizing an alternative one is our best of the three choices and and I was
[1:13:21] interested for you to outline how I think we spend a good deal of time on what are the impacts
[1:13:30] of alternatives to a three-book, could you say a little more about what is the impact of
[1:13:35] alternative one? If we ask a public to, you know, I know you're not asking this, but we could,
[1:13:41] if we ask the public to write in and support alternative one, what does that really mean for them?
[1:13:48] It means there's no change to existing permitting. Now, no one likes the existing permitting
[1:13:54] structure and all of the requirements. I will be the first one to acknowledge that and apologize for
[1:14:00] however it won't change, right? So what we do now, what is what customers and the public can
[1:14:07] expect in terms of stormwater management, maintaining riparian buffer zones as we have them
[1:14:14] today between 15 and 50 feet, not 170, right? So so the predictability of this is your
[1:14:23] permitting process, it's yes or no. Did you elevate? Do you have your
[1:14:29] ventings? Do you have your stormwater? You know, features in place. Are you
[1:14:34] maintaining your right parry and vegetation? If you are within so many
[1:14:39] feet of a body of water, it will stay as it is. And that's that will
[1:14:46] That is why I think it's requirement.
[1:14:49] It will, that is alternative one, but it does not satisfy the ESA component that is brought
[1:14:58] us to this Comber.
[1:15:00] Station today.
[1:15:01] For really is asking for an additional alternative further analysis, it's acknowledging that at this point
[1:15:08] in time, all the three alternatives were better not to meet the compliance and to keep
[1:15:13] working at this than we are to accept one of the false decisions of two or three that basically
[1:15:18] have significant impact on telemic county economy and the economy and the residents who live
[1:15:24] here that is irreversible.
[1:15:27] So I think, yeah, that's right.
[1:15:30] Because it does not ultimately meet
[1:15:32] a lot of response that I've said for my perspective,
[1:15:35] it's saying to FEMA, we refuse to take the false choice,
[1:15:41] which says either that basically we have to take the significant impacts
[1:15:46] of human beings and communities.
[1:15:48] We want number one, you get back to the table.
[1:15:51] So that's my perspective, Sarah, tell me if that's incorrect.
[1:15:55] Yeah, that's correct.
[1:15:55] So that is a great segue to me putting on my Oregonians for floodplain protection hat board member.
[1:16:05] So that is exactly what we're doing is to add maybe a glimmer of hope in this very, you know, depressing conversation is that we as tele McCounty as a member of that organization continue to work and reach out to our congressional
[1:16:25] delegates. And, you know, without over-speaking, they are listening. And we're very appreciative
[1:16:33] of that because Commissioner Scards, exactly what you said, ideally it would be none of the
[1:16:38] above and let's keep working at this at the table. Because we do want to see some beneficial
[1:16:43] effect. We understand that alternative one does not garner the results or help better address
[1:16:49] Those ESA objectives, those, you know, those three objectives of flood function, water quality fish recovery, right pairing habitat protection.
[1:17:00] We can do more, but alternatives to and three are just completely devastating from an economic and social that human impact element.
[1:17:08] I expect movement on that, coming soon, with that, with the pick-ups, which is a part of this, I was excited a couple of months ago at a leadership team meeting because I had shared that we were talking to FEMA FEMA was at the table and was looking at considering that alternative for approach that we developed for tool in the county in lieu of one of the three pick-up options.
[1:17:34] Unfortunately, other federal agencies, we're not willing to come to the table to have that conversation.
[1:17:41] And that is one of the areas we remain today is specifically, you know, urging national marine fisheries.
[1:17:48] Please come back to the table with FEMA and communities and our state and congressional leaders.
[1:17:54] And let's continue to talk about how we could do this better.
[1:17:58] So there are clear winners and losers.
[1:18:00] right? We don't have to pick one or the other. So those conversations are continuing again,
[1:18:08] updates through Oregonians for floodplain protection. That is really where that focused effort is
[1:18:13] coming from and our attorney, our team of attorneys. So looking there, we are skilled in process
[1:18:22] litigation over the 2016 by up. That is that should be starting here this fall. So we are not,
[1:18:32] while we have to be smart and respond during this public comment period today. Remember there's two
[1:18:39] pieces of this. There's this process that FEMA must continue to do. But there's also these other places
[1:18:46] and other arenas where we are advocating for a different kind of change. So both are still ongoing
[1:18:52] and I want to reassure folks who, again, going back to that November meeting, who felt litigation
[1:18:58] was very important, and that telemet County take action. Those actions are continuing.
[1:19:04] Lastly, what I would also just kind of for public benefit, there's been a lot of news about
[1:19:12] FEMA and NOAA and NIMPs and changes in these federal agencies, organization, structure, current
[1:19:18] federal administration cutting programs, what we are talking about today is a lawsuit.
[1:19:26] This is not federal legislation, this is specific to Oregon, so no matter what this current
[1:19:32] administration does in terms of reorganization of these federal agencies, waiting for that
[1:19:39] restructuring reorganization to make this go away is not going to happen.
[1:19:44] That's not a reality.
[1:19:45] So, it is super important that as members of our communities, we don't wait for that to happen.
[1:19:52] We need to participate in this public comment period.
[1:19:56] So, thank you.
[1:19:58] Thank you, Sarah.
[1:19:59] And I would also remind folks that those who are interested in joining the Oregonians for floodplain protection,
[1:20:08] be a part of that conversation as well as the fact that that lawsuit is being funded by donations to that organization.
[1:20:15] There's not some magic out of money out there. It's pushing this lawsuit. This lawsuit is happening because community members from those being individuals to businesses, etc. Governments are
[1:20:26] Are joining forces in putting money into this pot. So it leaves a elected official. I get to say whatever I'd like right, though. So I'm going to also encourage folks.
[1:20:34] If this is scary to you, you know, the Oregonians flood my protection website learn more and write your check because this lawsuit will absolutely die if it goes unfounded.
[1:20:45] So that just has to be on the forefront as well.
[1:20:49] Write your public comments today.
[1:20:51] I'd like to check for them.
[1:20:53] Thank you, Commissioner.
[1:20:54] That's why I want you to clarify that there's two trains
[1:20:58] goals going in this direction.
[1:21:00] We have to pay attention to both of the little
[1:21:02] be active on both, so.
[1:21:03] Absolutely.
[1:21:04] Thank you.
[1:21:05] Commissioner, anything for this?
[1:21:07] I'm just thinking about how to get this message out.
[1:21:10] So the link or on the community development website
[1:21:15] Does it have the slide show you just showed us?
[1:21:20] I'm going to post it as soon as we're done. Yes.
[1:21:24] And I did send out an email the other day to about 75 different community partners
[1:21:30] that we all work with both government agencies, public business owners,
[1:21:36] to let them know is doing this presentation today,
[1:21:39] and the slides and all the information will be on our website later,
[1:21:42] in hopes that people will share.
[1:21:44] Great. Thank you. And also, it occurs to me to ask Jane and Debbie here in the room.
[1:21:51] Yes, after this meeting is concluded, we could take a clip of our recording of this meeting
[1:21:59] if we could just pull out Sarah's presentation and put it someplace with a link so that we
[1:22:06] can all share that link and say, watch this presentation, make your public comment.
[1:22:10] I hope we can do that.
[1:22:12] Yeah, I think we can.
[1:22:13] Additionally, would you like this on the county's home page?
[1:22:17] OK.
[1:22:19] I think it's easier to find no fence security development.
[1:22:23] They have a very complicated date.
[1:22:25] So I think having it there, because there are a lot of people know it would be there, but the same link.
[1:22:30] The same information on our page next, a lot of sense on page.
[1:22:33] Yeah, we could do work with Jeff on that. Thank you. Perfect.
[1:22:37] And I'll let Debbie know as soon as I have everything launched. So she and posted, so she knows it's ready.
[1:22:43] Thank you. Yes, Connie council, got a comment.
[1:22:47] Sure, I'm welcome. The first of all, Karen did the no action alternative and would consider writing letter.
[1:22:53] and I appreciate that you're asking people to do that.
[1:22:57] I am a little bit, I don't want to make it negative, but I mean, if you've gotten overwhelming
[1:23:03] response, you're thinking that you can actually make a difference at the tables.
[1:23:10] That's the hope, Council, and I would say it could come in two ways.
[1:23:14] You know, it could come in the way of what alternative FEMA chooses.
[1:23:18] It could also come by way of those messages getting to our state and federal delegates to help support our efforts to find a different way.
[1:23:30] Okay.
[1:23:31] And to that I think also the importance of even if you don't move in the phone.
[1:23:36] You're voice is even stronger because you're showing that it's not just focusing individually losing their rights.
[1:23:42] We have to all stand up for this.
[1:23:44] Oh, for sure, for businesses, for housing, for future developments, for farms.
[1:23:51] And for the roads, I think Sarah's point about, you know, the roads we all drive on.
[1:23:55] Yeah, it affects all of us.
[1:23:57] It's a huge impact.
[1:23:59] And, you know, the Sarah Shade, but it's a statistic that 5.4% of lands, you know, that our special
[1:24:05] flood hazard, that's how much is impacted by this.
[1:24:08] But if you get go into the EIS, do you go a little deeper back in the appendix?
[1:24:12] There is a Excel table that shows
[1:24:17] Intelligent County what those percentages are.
[1:24:20] And roughly I believe 30% throughout the majority
[1:24:22] of our cities of our residential and commercial lands.
[1:24:26] I think if you put it all together,
[1:24:27] it's somewhere in that range.
[1:24:29] Are in the area of special flood hazard
[1:24:30] and will be impacted?
[1:24:32] So when people read 0.5.4% across Oregon,
[1:24:35] that's not a big deal.
[1:24:36] It's a very big deal for us here.
[1:24:39] and for visitors who come down and use our programs and use our facilities, use the home.
[1:24:45] It's trying to be located within the hazards zone, so this is... that important.
[1:24:49] It is. I mean, 100%.
[1:24:51] He touches everybody.
[1:24:52] It does touch everybody.
[1:24:53] And as Oregon's economy is beginning to dip and stall a little bit.
[1:24:58] The last thing we want to do is have to tell them a county not only follow the turn to Oregon,
[1:25:02] but go far deeper because of this. Our economy needs to be strong and we can't allow this to
[1:25:09] So, lots of good reasons to get your comments in there and your text.
[1:25:16] Sorry, shameless plug, but really, this is how it happens, right?
[1:25:21] This is how it happens.
[1:25:23] Okay, any other questions or comments for Sarah?
[1:25:25] Will we let her go today?
[1:25:28] So, I actually have, so do you want to come up and make a comment?
[1:25:31] So, I will invite Tilda, who was one of our great community partners on this.
[1:25:36] With a Tom, like they flood improvement districts.
[1:25:38] to tell if you could just make sure that my control is on would be greater
[1:25:42] will be going green at base.
[1:25:45] I'm telling the Jones from the Tellment Bay flood improvement district.
[1:25:52] My first comment is that what do we need to do to get a public meeting in Tellment County?
[1:26:01] It's cowardly of the FEMA to do online public meetings only when half the people in
[1:26:13] town of County don't use their computers don't do online meetings.
[1:26:21] I would say if I would say that we're not going to be able to change that and it's not
[1:26:25] for lack of trying and Sarah's part, trust me, there's been a lot of pushbacks and what I will
[1:26:30] is this is actually part of the larger NEPA process of adjustments that are being done by the
[1:26:35] current administration. I am also on the opposite side of this with some timber work related
[1:26:40] to federal timber, where they're trying to move federal timber sales faster, which is great,
[1:26:46] except they've hold counties out of any money and we want to be able to make our public comments.
[1:26:51] But again, the NEPA process overall, the federal level as I understand it, has been reduced to online
[1:26:56] So that we will not get FEMA to tell my county no matter how hard we push.
[1:27:01] So I think our challenge is how do we help people who typically are not online and do
[1:27:06] not a electronic work to have the opportunity to have their say because that's really
[1:27:11] unfortunately and catastrophically and horrible to our choice.
[1:27:16] Yes.
[1:27:17] I got a question and Bill, this might be for you or Sarah, as could we have our own public
[1:27:22] meeting where at the meeting, there could be a discussion and a consensus of which alternatively
[1:27:28] like, and maybe having group like a letter signed by the residents that don't have been
[1:27:34] actually through the internet. Is that something we could do, or we would have to say,
[1:27:39] do we do, or is it like this?
[1:27:41] Are can we have a public viewing of the September 30 meeting with an opportunity for anyone
[1:27:45] in the room to comment during that public viewing? So I think, you know, we can't get FEMA
[1:27:50] to ask you we get us to FEMA through our electronic link. Commissioner, I would offer that is
[1:27:57] something we could definitely look at setting up and maybe at the port or something and I am
[1:28:02] happy to help do that. So Sarah, let's look at that and let's see if we can do that because then
[1:28:08] that report reporter that's standing there to accept all public comment during a remote meeting.
[1:28:12] If we had the camera and the microphone, so all people had to do a step up to the microphone
[1:28:16] in our room. Thank you for that request. It's a great idea.
[1:28:19] So what time is the meeting tomorrow?
[1:28:23] The meeting tomorrow is the 68.
[1:28:27] 68 PM.
[1:28:29] So you can, can you be set up by then?
[1:28:32] People could come here?
[1:28:33] No, it will be if there's a final meeting is the 30th.
[1:28:36] Is that correct, Sarah?
[1:28:38] It is.
[1:28:38] And we have a hearing tomorrow night till this.
[1:28:40] So it would have to be the 30th.
[1:28:41] It would have to be the 30th.
[1:28:42] But that gives us all time to figure out how we could do that.
[1:28:46] and promote it and get people in the room.
[1:28:48] So yeah, it'll be different in the one.
[1:28:50] OK, and what's the time on the 30th?
[1:28:54] 6 to 8, also 6 to 8.
[1:28:56] OK, so the commissioners are going to try to set it up
[1:29:01] so that people can come to this meeting room?
[1:29:04] You don't know yet, yet, tell the book.
[1:29:06] We'll do a place that will be connected to the theme of public
[1:29:12] correct, so that we can listen to the meeting.
[1:29:14] Like I did on Saturday and then at the end of the meeting they asked for public comment and we would do our best to make
[1:29:20] You know how our system set up so that we can make as many public comments as possible through that link. That that's excellent
[1:29:28] Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for asking a question
[1:29:33] Okay, I think that
[1:29:35] Then thank you Farrow you and I'll talk about that when we meet and how we pull that together
[1:29:40] All right, if that, then I will let's cargo back the other good work she's doing and we will continue on our agenda. Thank you, sir. Thank you.
[1:29:51] Okay, moving on to item 13, consideration of an order and a matter of the transfer of certain county property to Kindred Alpha.
[1:30:02] Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair. So before you as an order regarding a previously foreclosed property, this was part of the 2020 foreclosure proceedings. We've had this parcel ever since. I was recently approached by attorneys for the successor and interest to the previous owner. They indicated they were interested in buying the property back.
[1:30:26] there's a statutory process whereby with foreclosed properties, counties have the ability to sell the property back to a previous owner
[1:30:33] and their statutory minimums as far as what the previous owners have to pay.
[1:30:38] They have to pay the amount that was going on the taxes, plus the interest since the judgment fees, all of that.
[1:30:47] So we went back and forth. There was the negotiating. I also got an estimated staff cost from the
[1:30:54] assessment taxation office regarding how much staff time they estimated they spent dealing with
[1:31:00] this property through the foreclosure and and how much that cost the county and I included
[1:31:05] that in our proposed repurchase price and they were willing to pay all of that. So and just as
[1:31:14] important or perhaps more importantly they're also willing to sign a release releasing us from any
[1:31:19] potential future claims related to this property and for closure proceeds out of the new case law.
[1:31:27] So because otherwise I think this property would be subject to that. So they're willing to provide
[1:31:32] that release if the board grants this order today. Then I'll be back in front of you probably next week
[1:31:40] with the deed once we've received the cashiers check from the success or an interest for the repurchase.
[1:31:49] And the county has done this in the past at times when we determined it was in the county's
[1:31:54] best interest. And in this particular case, I believe it is.
[1:31:58] Thank you. And it sounds like the Tyler V. Hannah Pincase, which is driving our inability to
[1:32:03] sell other properties or housing, has been considered based in your comments.
[1:32:08] Yes, that would that would definitely be a factor if we were not able to agree on a repurchase here.
[1:32:14] And which is why there's a release as part of this negotiated settlement. But
[1:32:19] They qualify for this other statutory process because as the successor and interest,
[1:32:25] they basically sit in the position of the previous owner.
[1:32:29] And there's a statutory process for previous owners to purchase back properties that have been
[1:32:34] foreclosed. So that would be what we're doing here. Perfect. Thank you. I appreciate just closing
[1:32:39] that loop which could have ended up with us having to pay them while they take the property back.
[1:32:43] So it sounds like depending on how the statutes play together. So thank you for that question.
[1:32:47] these presenters. No, none for me. Okay. I think we are ready for a motion.
[1:32:52] Madam Chair, I'm able to prove a order number 25-062 in the matter of the transfer of certain
[1:32:58] county property to Kinder at LLC. Okay. So second, but we have a motion in a second any further
[1:33:03] discussion. Hearing none, I will call for the vote. On favor, please dignified by saying aye.
[1:33:08] Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. motion carries. Thank you, commissioners. Thank you. We are to the point in
[1:33:14] where we had board concerns. Do we have any board concerns today?
[1:33:18] I don't know anything for this morning.
[1:33:20] Okay, no board concerns today.
[1:33:22] We'll go ahead and move into our announcements.
[1:33:24] The commissioners will hold a board breaching on Wednesday, September 10th,
[1:33:28] 25 at 2 p.m. to discuss weekly commissioner updates.
[1:33:32] The meeting will be held on the Board of Commissioners meeting room 106
[1:33:35] to the telecom conference number is 1, 9, 7, 1, 2, 5, 4,
[1:33:43] 3149, on-Francite 866-914607. The local public safety coordinating council, teleconference,
[1:33:51] will be held on Monday, September 15, 2020-25 at 12 p.m. The meeting will be held in the Board
[1:33:57] of Commissioners meeting room 106 in the teleconference number is 1-911-254-3159, conference ID-155-858-952.
[1:34:11] The commissioner will attend the telemic light wave meeting on Tuesday, September 16, 2025 at 9.30 a.m.
[1:34:18] The meeting will be held at the telemic U.D. in the carol law meeting room in telemic.
[1:34:23] With that, we'll introduce our business of the day and we will adjourn this meeting at 10.35 a.m.
[1:34:42] Hi, sister, you tell the hi.
[1:34:44] How are you?
[1:34:45] Just fine.
[1:34:47] Good.
[1:34:47] Are you making a tender meeting on the 30th?
[1:34:50] Hi, I haven't looked at my calendar yet.
[1:34:53] I saw that you said it to me, but I was in vacation last week, so I have a chance to be here.
[1:34:58] I really did.
[1:34:59] Yeah.
[1:35:00] Actually, I just, I had, I'm working on a writing project, so I had a writing retreat by myself.
[1:35:06] And it was very good.
[1:35:08] Yeah.
[1:35:08] It was very good.
[1:35:10] How are you?
[1:35:11] I'm fine.
[1:35:12] I'm fine.
[1:35:14] I'm fine.
[1:35:16] You tell me about the project.