Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Deschutes County weighs shrinking 'green zone', retools managed‑camp RFP as relocations spread to county land
Loading...
Summary
County staff reported a snapshot count of about 160 people camping on county land east of Redmond and commissioners debated concentrating camping to a smaller footprint, accelerating a reworked managed‑camp RFP and meeting with the state lands director to advance a planned land exchange.
Deschutes County commissioners on April 22 heard a staff update showing roughly 160 people living on county‑owned property east of Redmond and debated near‑term steps to reduce fire and safety risks as people dispersed across a 360‑acre “green zone.”
Deputy County Administrator Erica Cropp said the April 14 staff count broke down into 18 people in Hemlock North, 11 on Department of State Lands (DSL) land, 57 in the Core‑3 footprint and 74 in the green zone. “Based on the April 14 count, there were a total of a 160 people living on county owned property East Of Redmond,” Cropp said.
Commissioners discussed whether to try to shrink the green zone or to concentrate people in a smaller temporary footprint while the county completes a permanent managed camp. One commissioner urged narrowing activity to a 20‑acre area on the west side of the green zone to reduce wildfire exposures and improve response: “We really actually have to put them in a certain spot so that we know we can respond, whenever there's an issue,” the commissioner said.
Staff said the county has not yet moved people from the larger Core‑3 footprint and emphasized costs and logistical challenges to consolidating camps: many residents’ vehicles and RVs do not run and some would require help to relocate. Cropp said the county’s immediate priorities remain clearing specific high‑priority footprints, advancing the DSL land exchange that underpins the managed‑camp plan, and reissuing a modified RFP for camp operators.
On procurement, Cropp reported three initial RFP responses were evaluated but none resulted in an award. Staff now plans a “plan B” that breaks the work into smaller, discrete scopes — for example, a minimal day‑to‑day presence versus a larger multi‑task operating contract — so nonprofits can bid on feasible pieces while the county retains legal responsibility. Staff estimated a reworked RFP could be released within one to two weeks after a subgroup meeting and asked the board to expect a faster turnaround and a shorter response window.
Commissioners also debated meeting logistics with the state agency that owns parcels under discussion. Staff said DSL preferred not to meet the full board publicly and proposed staggered individual meetings or tours so each commissioner could meet DSL staff without creating a public meeting. The board directed staff to coordinate the DSL visit and to return with a staff assessment of where people are currently concentrated within the green zone and how many acres that concentration covers.
The board did not adopt a new policy at the meeting but set next steps: reissue the targeted RFP, schedule DSL site tours, and have staff analyze concentration density and operational costs for a smaller temporary footprint.
What’s next: staff expects to release the reworked, smaller‑scope RFP within about one to two weeks and asked for roughly a two‑week response window; timing for implementation will depend on award negotiations and operator ramp‑up.
