Deschutes County delays enforcement on 1,600-acre Redmond encampment, asks staff for phased removal plan

Deschutes County commissioners voted to hold an active code-enforcement case in abeyance and asked staff to draft a phased plan for addressing unauthorized encampments east of Redmond.

The board’s direction covers the case now recorded as 24724-000300 and follows weeks of public testimony and staff briefings about hazards, waste and fire risk on roughly 1,600 acres east of Redmond. County staff said the violations in the notice include RV occupancy, non‑approved waste disposal, accumulated solid waste and work without permits.

County Community Development staff presented three options: (1) hold the case in abeyance while larger property and planning transactions move forward; (2) pursue a voluntary compliance agreement (VCA) with benchmarks and timelines after a nearby managed camp is operating; or (3) initiate an active removal coordinated under policy GA‑23 with property management, legal counsel and the sheriff’s office. Commissioners discussed the tradeoffs of immediate enforcement versus staged action tied to available alternatives for people experiencing homelessness.

Staff and administration told the board the land east of Redmond is subject to multiple parallel processes: a potential land swap with the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL), partition and conveyance steps, planning for a managed camp on about 10 acres, and interest from the city of Redmond in master planning other portions including “core 3” areas and about 37 acres adjacent to the encampment. Eric Croft, deputy county administrator, said administration’s current priority is completing the DSL land swap and related work before conducting broad removals.

Commissioners stressed public-safety concerns and the strain on nearby businesses and neighbors, citing past fires and large cleanups of trash and debris. Several commissioners said they want firm timelines and more concrete options for people living in encampments — not only removals — and asked staff to make the plan actionable rather than purely aspirational.

The board’s direction: staff should treat the code-enforcement case as in abeyance while county teams finish negotiating land transactions and stand up alternatives; staff will return with a high-level phased staging framework tied to specific actions (for example, activation of the managed camp and conveyance milestones). Commissioners asked for a draft plan to be presented at the board’s next regular cycle; staff indicated a target of roughly 30 days for a conceptual framework the board can refine.

County staff emphasized the plan will focus on phases, notification to encampment residents, cleanup of abandoned camps, and coordination with service providers to maximize the managed camp’s ability to move people into stabilized options. The board did not adopt a timeline with fixed removal dates at this meeting.

Next steps: community development, property management and county administration will prepare the phased plan and return to the board for review and direction so the county can coordinate cleanup activity with openings of alternative housing or services.

Ending: Commissioners reiterated they want enforcement tied to an operational pathway off the land — and also emphasized they expect regular updates while the county completes land transactions and opens the managed camp.