Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Homelessness Land Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board places county’s East Redmond code-enforcement case into abeyance while staff pursues site work and partnerships
Summary
Facing an extensive county-owned encampment site in East Redmond, the Board voted to hold its own code‑enforcement case in abeyance while staff pursues a sequence of priority projects — land exchange, managed-camp development, 20 First Street site work and more — and requested options on security and cleanup costs.
Deschutes County commissioners voted May 20 to place a county‑issued code‑enforcement case in abeyance concerning county‑owned property in East Redmond while county staff completes a set of priority actions and coordination steps intended to reduce public‑safety and sanitation risks on the roughly 1,600‑acre property.
Deputy county administrator Eric Croft and property‑management staff told the board they had prepared a phased timeline after the board asked staff at the previous meeting for options. The five priority tasks identified were: (1) advance development of the 20 First Street property in Redmond, (2) complete development and secure operations for a managed‑camp site near Redmond, (3) finish the land‑exchange transaction with the Oregon Department of State Lands (in coordination with the City of Redmond), (4) address the Seventeenth Street interface and adjacent access, and (5) close the temporary safe‑stay area in Juniper Ridge. Staff said the board‑directed sequence is intended to address the parts of the property closest to the city first.
Commissioners discussed risks from fire and public safety and asked staff to return with options and estimated costs for security and cleanup. Multiple commissioners stressed urgency given wildfire and high‑wind risk later in the season; one commissioner requested an estimate for the cost of providing active security patrols or other measures. County staff said the work is underway but that timelines for construction and operations are dependent on procurement, third‑party agreements and operator selection. The board approved abeyance by majority vote and directed staff to return with cost estimates for security and cleanup options and periodic timeline updates.
By placing the county’s own enforcement action on hold, the board foresees addressing the problem through coordinated site development, operational options for a managed camp and property‑management actions rather than immediate enforcement removal across the entire parcel. County staff emphasized that the abeyance applies to the county’s enforcement case only and does not change obligations for others or future enforcement steps if circumstances warrant.
