2002-32-Minutes for Meeting January 09,2002 Recorded 1/17/2002DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS yd ` �00����
E S MARY SUE PENHOLLOW , COUNTY CLERK 1iJ
�O� COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 01/17/2001 01:21:00 PM
Board of Commissioners
1130 N.W. Harriman St., Bend, Oregon 97701-1947
(541) 388-6570 • Fax (541) 388-4752
www.deschutes.org
Tom De Wolf
Dennis R. Luke
MINUTES OF MEETING Mike Daly
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 9, 2002
Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building
Present were Commissioners Tom De Wolf, Dennis R. Luke and Michael M. Daly.
Also present were Mike Maier, County Administrator; George Read, Chris
Schmoyer and Paul Blikstad, Community Development; Laurie Craghead, Legal
Counsel; George Kolb, Road Department; Marty Wynne, Finance Director; media
representatives .Teff Mullens of KBND Radio, Mike Cronin and Jenny Slater of the
Bulletin Newspaper, and Barney Lerten of bendnet, com; and approximately forty
citizens.
Chair Tom De Wolf opened the meeting at 10: 00 a.m.
1. Before the Board was Citizen Input.
None was offered.
2. Before the Board was a Presentation Regarding a Community Park in
Odin Falls Ranch.
PAUL BLIKSTAD:
I had received a call from Mick Tye regarding Odin Falls Ranch. You will
recall that you had a hearing on the addition of six lots in Odin Falls Ranch,
which you approved. To finish the project, they need approval of a map, but
there are some differences between the current map and original map.
Minutes of Board Meeting Page 1 of 26 Pages
Wednesday, January 9, 2002
Quality Services Performed with Pride
BLIKSTAD:
The community park was originally shown as 2.5 acres; the new map says 2.15
acres, and is in a slightly different location. (He showed oversized maps to the
Board at this time.) Because of the differences, Community Development is
hesitant to approve this without Board review and approval.
LUKE:
When a map comes in with an application, isn't that the official map? Isn't the
land surveyed prior to the submission?
BLIKSTAD:
There is generally not a detailed survey done until approval, due to the expense.
DEWOLF:
Will this require a new set of public hearings?
BLIKSTAD:
If you as a Board are comfortable with this, we can go ahead. If not, the Board
needs to decide.
RICHARD MANN:
As mentioned before, this request is two -fold. We want to switch the
community park, which was originally to be on a hillside that is heavily treed;
we prefer it be on the flat land. We also need minor lot changes, as this plan
puts the property line over the underground sprinkler system. It was not
previously surveyed, and these differences were found during the survey. The
original application was for 2.5 acres, but we requested a change to 2.15 acres.
Now it would result in being 2.54 acres, slightly larger than the original plan.
(He indicated the lots on oversized map.)
LUKE:
I don't think that makes a lot of difference. I didn't vote to overturn the
Hearings Officer's decision because of the size of the park. My concern is,
legally what has to be done as a land use action?
CRAGHEAD:
I would have to research this, as I was not previously briefed.
Minutes of Board Meeting Page 2 of 26 Pages
Wednesday, January 9, 2002
DEWOLF:
My only concern is one of precedence. I have no problem with this, but I prefer
legal review it thoroughly.
LUKE:
We need a letter from the homeowners' association indicating its agreement
with these changes. I would also like legal advice on this.
CRAGHEAD:
This needs to be examined before a decision is made.
MANN:
When the new concrete fence is built, the whole nine acres will look great. (He
gave photos of a sample of the fencing to the Board, attached as Exhibit A) I'm
on the board of directors of the homeowners' association, and they do not want
the park where it is indicated now, as they don't want to cut down trees or have
the park on the slope. Parking would also be almost impossible. They prefer a
regular shape instead of an irregular one, too.
(Staff will meet with Laurie Craghead to review this issue and to discuss the
possible legal ramifications. Ms. Craghead will provide the Board with her
opinion.)
3. Before the Board was the Continuation of a Public Hearing (from
December 17, 2001) And Consideration of a Decision on an Application for
a Plan Amendment and Zone Change regarding Property Adjacent to the
City of Sisters (File PA-01-4/ZC-01-4; Applicants are the Sisters School
District and the Sisters Organization of Activities and Recreation, also known
as SOAR).
DEWOLF:
I have a statement to read on this, the Chair's opening statement.
This is a public meeting regarding the Community Development Department's
File No. PA-01-4/ZC-01-4. At the end of December 17, 2001 hearing, the
Board closed the public hearing but left the record open for written comments.
The applicants submitted a letter dated January 4, 2002 and, yesterday, a letter
with supporting documents was submitted by Mel Bryan and Jim Mackey.
Minutes of Board Meeting Page 3 of 26 Pages
Wednesday, January 9, 2002
DEWOLF:
In addition to the record being left open for written comments, the Board left
open the record for comment from Legal Counsel and Community
Development staff regarding whether additional or alternative criteria should be
applied to this case; and, if so, should the new notice be sent for the hearing.
Will staff please present their comments?
DALY:
I have a comment, too.
CRAGHEAD:
I received another submittal this morning from the applicant, a letter dated
January 9, along with supporting documents. The record was left open until
today. We were going to discuss meeting with the applicants' attorney and
County staff to decide whether additional criteria needed to be applied, and
therefore whether a notice for a new hearing is needed. After meeting and
reviewing the information, I feel that all the appropriate criteria have been
applied and no new hearing needs to be noticed.
CHRIS SCHMOYER:
There is one additional criterion to be added. Since the last hearing, staff has
discovered that the Hearings Officer did not provide an element of the
Administrative Rule that should apply in the Board's decision, and it will need
to be included. It is subsection 4 (a) of Oregon Administrative Rule,
660.04.018, and it basically says that when a local government takes an
exception under the reasons section, plan and zone designations must limit the
uses and activities to only those uses and activities which are justified in the
exception.
In this case, we have a proposal to include property within the urban growth
boundary of the City of Sisters so that it can ultimately be annexed into the City
of Sisters and zone public facilities. That zone allows for a school as an
outright permitted use, subject to site plan review. If the BOCC should decide
to approve this decision, a finding would need to be included that requires an
intergovernmental agreement between the City and the County, stipulating that
the property be zoned public facilities following its annexation. This can be
implemented through an intergovernmental agreement between the City and the
County.
Minutes of Board Meeting Page 4 of 26 Pages
Wednesday, January 9, 2002
DEWOLF:
One question is, we're not zoning public facilities, because we don't have any
such zoning in the County. What you cited earlier indicated that we would have
to limit the development to the specific uses; how can we do that if we don't
have a PF zone and we're not zoning it PF. It seems to me that we don't have
that authority. Secondly, is this criterion enough of a change that we'd have to
renotice and start over, or can this just be done in our conditions?
CRAGHEAD:
On the criteria issue, it's not a new criterion. It was listed in the Hearings
Officer's decision, but she just didn't make a finding on it. Code calls for a
resolution and an intergovernmental agreement. The intergovernmental
agreement would state that they would rezone it upon affirmative approval of
the annexation. The resolution also says that it would be limited to these uses.
That's how we limit the uses, is through that.
DEWOLF:
The IGA would then lay out the limitations based on the PF zone? Would we
go into the kind of specificity as in their PF zone or would we just say it's to be
according to the uses in the application?
CRAGHEAD:
Yes. We would most likely limit it according to what the application states.
DEWOLF:
All of those fit the PF zone?
CRAGHEAD:
Yes.
DALY:
Legal staff told me that this is the time to make some comments about the letter
dated January 8 that we got from Mr. Bryan and Mr. Matthews.
I read all the way through here, and I think they did a tremendous job of
gathering a lot of information. There was one thing that I disagreed with; on
page 7, which says that Sisters hasn't grown much in the past few years. I think
the biggest reason for that is the lack of a sewer system.
Minutes of Board Meeting Page 5 of 26 Pages
Wednesday, January 9, 2002
DALY:
On page 7 they make the statement that "nothing has occurred in the region
recently that would cause this trend of residential value in any of the three
primary school districts to change in the foreseeable future". I think that
statement is in error, simply because the sewer system is now in place.
I've lived in Redmond for the past twenty years. In the late 1970's when the
sewer system came to town, the population in Redmond exploded and continues
to explode. It wouldn't have happened without a sewer system. I think that's
been the biggest thing with the City of Sisters, and why the population hasn't
increased. Now that the sewer system is in place, you'll probably see apartment
buildings and things like that are going to add a tremendous number of families
to that school district. I just wanted to put that on the record that this is my take
on this letter.
DEWOLF:
To continue my statement, because of the submittal of additional written
material by Mr. Mackey and Mr. Bryan, ORS 197.764(5)(e) requires that we
allow the applicant at least seven days after the record is closed to all other
parties to submit final written arguments in support of the application.
The applicant's final submittal shall be considered part of the record, but shall
not include any new evidence. Therefore, the Board will provide the applicant
until noon on January 16, 2002 to submit any further arguments and will then
reconvene for deliberations here on January 17, 2002, at 8:00 a.m.
I should point out that I spoke with the attorney for the school district this
morning, but all we discussed was the specifics of this ordinance and how it
would apply to this.
CRAGHEAD:
All arguments should be submitted to Kevin Harrison, as Chris Schmoyer may
be out of town for a while.
AUDIENCE MEMBER (off the microphone):
Are you going to be taking testimony today?
Minutes of Board Meeting Page 6 of 26 Pages
Wednesday, January 9, 2002
DEWOLF:
We're not taking any oral testimony today. We're abiding strictly by state law
in how this is done. At this point, the record is completely closed except that by
law the applicant has the right to respond to that letter, with information that is
already in the record, to clarify their position on those arguments. There will be
no more testimony taken.
We'll make our final decision next Thursday, and at that point I believe there
are twenty-one days for people who disagree with the decision we make to have
the opportunity to appeal. That appeal would go to the Land Use Board of
Appeals in Salem.
4. Before the Board was an Initial Public Hearing (per Order No. 2001-123)
Regarding the Formation of the Sunriver County Service District.
CRAGHEAD:
The Board initiated the Sunriver County Service District on December 5, and
this is the initial hearing date. It was duly noticed in publications and by
posting, and the notice included the legal description and a map. The decisions
for the Board to make are: 1) can the area be benefited by this service district;
and 2) does it comply with both state and County land use regulations and the
comprehensive plan. As far as specific information regarding the budget and
the justification of the tax rate, this will be addressed by the Sunriver Owners'
Association, and one of their representatives here today is Gary Fiebick.
DEWOLF:
Is this the only public hearing that we hold, or is there an additional one?
CRAGHEAD:
You hold an additional public hearing. State requirements under ORS are kind
of odd that way. You have an initial hearing, which you can continue up to four
weeks without renoticing. At the end of the initial hearing, though, you have to
either approve or disapprove the formation of the district, and then set a final
hearing. In that approval, you also set the name of the district as well as
boundaries and what the tax rate is. Then you have a final hearing, and things
can change in the final hearing.
Minutes of Board Meeting Page 7 of 26 Pages
Wednesday, January 9, 2002
CRAGHEAD:
One thing that just came up this morning is the people in the district have asked
that we change the name from Sunriver County Service District to Sunriver
Service District. So I have pulled the draft order and added some additional
wording at the bottom that is statutorily required, on one provision in section 4.
The County Commissioners would still be the governing body.
LUKE:
In section one, if this is approved, it kind of sounds like it's a done deal. Of
course, there will be an election.
CRAGHEAD:
You approve the formation of the district; but it is not formed until after the
election. This requires the election go forward. This is how the state sets it up.
Chair Tom DeWolf then opened the public hearing.
SHIRLEY MILDES:
I'm President of the Sunriver Owners' Association Board of Directors; and I'm
here with Gary Fiebick, General Manager. I want to give a brief outline of
how we got where we are today, and why we are requesting this.
We have been studying our public safety department for the past three years.
The original issue was retention in the departments. The recommendations of
an ad hoc committee at the beginning of 2001 were two options: stay the same,
or form a district. So the Board at that time decided to go to the voters with an
advisory vote to determine where owner support was. At that time, the Board
took no position on the vote.
After the ballots were mailed, however, the Sheriff stated he was uncomfortable
with the current arrangement and indicated that he would discontinue
commissioning our officers in the near future. At that point it was too late to
recall the ballot, so we went ahead with the vote, although our options had
changed dramatically at that time. We no longer had the option of remaining
the same.
Unfortunately the support for forming a service district failed on that vote; there
were 1,800 people who voted out of a possible 4,200.
Minutes of Board Meeting Page 8 of 26 Pages
Wednesday, January 9, 2002
LUKE:
How many are registered voters?
GARY FIEBICK:
The Sunriver Owners' Association, when it does a ballot, is one vote per
property as opposed to electors. One property could have several owners, or
you could have one family that owns several properties. We can't track this,
although we know that we have a potential of 4,200 ballots on the property
basis. Only 1,837 were turned in, roughly 42%. Out of that, about 56% were
people who received their ballots at a Sunriver address.
DEWOLF:
Were you able to split out what the response was based on the Sunriver
addresses versus the non-Sunriver addresses?
FIEBICK:
No.
MILDE S :
We feel that the vote failed because the voters weren't aware of the present
circumstances at that point. With further research and study, and based on the
fact that we would no longer have commissioned officers, the current board
determined that our best option is forming a district. Our long-range plan, as
expressed in owner surveys, indicates that the majority of the Sunriver owners
want Sunriver to stay as it is. If we wanted to keep our current level of service,
we felt that our only option is forming this district.
We've held two owner forums on the issue, at which we presented all of our
alternatives. There was overwhelming support by those in attendance, which
was over 200 people, for forming a service district. So we believe that with
concerted efforts to present all the current facts to our owners, there will be a
favorable vote.
FIEBICK:
We updated copies of the budget today, and I've highlighted a few changes on
the written pages to explain the budget. (The document was distributed to the
Commissioners at this time; a copy is attached as Exhibit B.)
Minutes of Board Meeting Page 9 of 26 Pages
Wednesday, January 9, 2002
FIEBICK:
Just to highlight the changes from the original document, on page 1, the first
section, summary statement, the difference in budgets between a service district
and how the Owners' Association budgets; down under item number 7, our
initial year budget proposal indicates a levy of $3.30 per thousand. The
maximum rate is $3.95. The maximum rate is shown as "TBD", to be
determined, because there is some sentiment on the SROA board that perhaps
the $3.95 could be somewhat reduced for the good of the district. It's our
understanding, from your legal staff, that in your final order you could, if it was
desirable, reduce the $3.95 to another number.
LUKE:
It is almost impossible to raise it once you've formed. It is sure a lot easier to
levy less than to try to raise the rate later.
FIEBICK:
Right. On page 2, section B, called requirements for budget, we changed the
wage and benefits areas. They were increased in these budget proposals based
on the SROA schedules for 2002, and for all three years they were increased by
7%. Previously we said years two and three were increased by only 5%.
Then I added a couple of comments here which maybe will help the public
understand why we are talking about the maximum tax rate and what we might
levy the first few years. The average annual increase with blended cost
increases and budgets may be about 6% year, although it could be less. There's
a potential of 3.5% increases and tax revenues from increased assessed values
and new value from new construction. The initial tax rate needs room to grow
by about 2.5% annually for some period of years to avoid the need for a special
levy, and that's the crux of what we are now discussing. That was the only
change on that page.
On pages 3 and 4, paragraph 3, titled general organization requirements, you go
down to operating contingency, based on 5% for the total requirements for the
year. The previous document had a 3% contingency.
The last four pages are the revised budget. We have in this forecast the current
SROA budgets that match up with the proposed budgets for this district,
because we've been operating fire and police in SROA for a long time. So we
have a good handle on the costs.
Minutes of Board Meeting Page 10 of 26 Pages
Wednesday, January 9, 2002
DEWOLF:
Would you be rolling any of that beginning networking capital into the startup
operation of this district?
FIEBICK:
The initial plan, as you can see by this proposal, is none; but that is an option
that our association could consider.
DEWOLF:
Your proposal could be on the May ballot this year. If you had a positive vote,
it would begin on July 1St, but you don't have any revenue coming in until
November. Would you be borrowing against future revenue, or using current
revenues as a carryover?
MIKE MAIER:
There are a variety of ways. They can either borrow or they can do tax
anticipation as a governmental unit.
FIEBICK:
We've spoken with Mike Maier and Marty Wynne, so initially the district
budget will be starting brand new, without any working capital, like other
service districts. The same thing might be considered for reserves for furniture
and fixtures.
From what we know about the SROA budget, we developed the 2002-03
budget. Working with County staff and our board, in terms of some policy
issues, we developed the costs for the police department and for the fire
department. For the benefit of some of the Sunriver owners, when they look at
these numbers in this budget, they're going to see that it is a little different than
the budget we've had at Sunriver.
There are three or four items that we currently do not allocate back to
departments in SROA. For the purpose of this service district, we had to
assume that those costs would be costs of a service district regardless of who
does the work. There are things like vehicle maintenance, rent on the facilities,
and accounting and administrative costs that we do not currently allocate, but
they will show up in these departments in this budget. If we did allocate those
under the SROA budget, the total dollars for the two departments probably
wouldn't be much different.
Minutes of Board Meeting Page 11 of 26 Pages
Wednesday, January 9, 2002
FIEBICK:
The third area, besides the department costs, would be under what we call
"other costs". The district will technically be a separate operating entity, a
government agency, and we will have to have an operating contingency. This
will provide for transfers to a replacement fund for fixtures, furniture,
equipment, some expenses for board functions and meetings, training, legal
expenses, insurance - casualty, fire and liability - as well as some computer
costs to establish.
We did build in some interest expenses, assuming that we would borrow in
some manner some working capital the first four months of the district, so we
can operate before we receive tax revenue.
DEWOLF:
But you are showing interest for all three years.
FIEBICK:
We are assuming that the working capital would not be built up to cover four
months every year, so we would be borrowing some amount of money each
year for that initial working capital.
MAIER:
They won't get the bulk of their revenue until November. They may always be
in a position to have to borrow for cash flow assistance at start of each year.
LUKE:
The pathway rangers, are they employees?
FIEBICK:
They are summer, seasonal help. That's one area that the SROA board might
change, in that we might change it so that it's a contracted service rather than a
part of the full-time, formal budget.
LUKE:
Does the budget become part of resolution?
CRAGHEAD:
No, it's just informational at this point, to help you.
Minutes of Board Meeting Page 12 of 26 Pages
Wednesday, January 9, 2002
FIEBICK:
Maybe the public members who haven't been working on this should
understand that the process of developing this three-year budget forecast is for
the purpose of supporting whatever maximum tax rate you establish in the final
order. These are not the "fixed budgets" for the next three years, but rather the
estimates to back up the tax rate.
DEWOLF:
In exchange, the fees that are now charged to support these services would go
away, and homeowners' dues will be reduced, but probably not an equal
amount. But will it be more expensive?
FIEBICK:
Yes, particularly with respect to those organizational costs that are duplicate, if
you will, of what Sunriver Association will have to maintain in the future for
itself anyway, like some of the insurance and contingencies.
LUKE:
To be clear, are you recommending a lower maximum rate at this time?
FIEBICK:
Not at this time, but the Board of Directors for the Sunriver Owners'
Association would like to have that option at the final hearing.
LUKE:
We've been very fortunate in this county in that growth continues to bring more
money into the tax base. One of these days that won't happen. If you don't
levy the maximum rate, that's fine, but you should look at having some cushion
and flexibility in the future.
DEWOLF:
If this goes forward, we want to follow your recommendation to allow for a
successful vote.
15
On the $40,000 for insurance, is this based on current costs, or did you get
estimates from a carrier?
Minutes of Board Meeting Page 13 of 26 Pages
Wednesday, January 9, 2002
FIEBICK:
We based it on what we have now. Our forecast for insurance for next year for
Sunriver is about $84,000 year; roughly about half of that is for the liability for
these operations. This is based on our November renewal, but it's not a quote.
It provides $2 million basic liability, with a $10 million umbrella ovent.
MAIER:
If possible, you might want to check with our Risk Management to make sure
you don't have any surprises coming in this.
DEWOLF:
It would be a good double-check.
MEL NUNN:
I'm a Sunriver resident. Probably one of the hardest things I've had to do in
recent times is facing a Board like this. I've lived in Sunriver for about eight
years, and we've always had excellent management there through the various
boards; it's always been well run, and is a smooth -running organization.
It's a hard thing to disagree with some of your neighbors and friends in the
neighborhood. My point is that I'm sure the majority of the people would like
to maintain the status quo. But something has come along that disrupted this;
and the concerns that really threw it out of kilter were the concerns of the
Sheriff s Department.
My point is that those concerns have not been identified or addressed
specifically, yet we're going off creating, in my opinion, a long-term, bigger
problem with a lot of unknowns. I'm leading to the point that basically when
you get into problem solving, you recognize, identify and define the problems,
and then go into a solution mode. We haven't done that. To me, if we had
sufficient time we could solve those problems. But we haven't done that yet. I
feel that we've gone on a whole new route, and there are many unexpected
problems in a long-term special district.
I'm here to encourage you to try to encourage the Sunriver Owners'
Association board to be more specific in addressing the concerns that created
this problem. None of them are documented. The practical way to solve
problems in any business is to find them, set a period of time to address those,
and go about solving them.
Minutes of Board Meeting Page 14 of 26 Pages
Wednesday, January 9, 2002
DEWOLF:
One of the issues that we face as a Board, is that the Sheriff is an independently
elected official and does not answer to us for any sort of operational control of
his department. The only relationship that we are required to have together is
one of budget oversight. We do our best to work with the Sheriff; but in this
situation, he doesn't report to us.
This is an issue between Sunriver and the Sheriff s Office, and we exercise no
operational control of either. Our only role in this is that if the process the
Owners' Association has gone through in putting this together is legal, our role
is to make a decision based on state law based on the potential benefit for the
Sunriver area, and then allow the residents of Sunriver to vote up or down
whether they agree with this proposal. I can't explain the problems in any
detail; I would suggest that you call Les (Sheriff Stiles). I'm not going to defend
or attack our Sheriff. I would suggest that you give him a call; I know he's not
a shy man.
(Audience laughter)
NUNN:
I understand that. I guess what I am saying is that if I were there, I think I'd ask
the question, have you done everything to remedy your problem prior to
creating the district.
LUKE:
Again, Tom (De Woo talks about the law. It is easier for the Commissioners to
authorize this election; it could have been done by petition. If you have
concerns on how special districts operate, the one in Black Butte Ranch has
operated for about ten years, and they are getting ready to go with the
Teamsters for law enforcement. Perhaps they can answer some of your
questions.
NUNN:
Sunriver needs to work with the Sheriff, but the people there like the status quo,
and it has worked well for thirty years. All of a sudden over a few
disagreements you make this major change. Of course the non-residents can't
vote. You don't operate a business that way; you go in and solve the problems.
Minutes of Board Meeting Page 15 of 26 Pages
Wednesday, January 9, 2002
AUDIENCE MEMBER (off microphone):
What is the voting process? Do you define it for us?
DEWOLF:
There's a deadline in March.
CRAGHEAD:
March 12 is the deadline for the documents to get to the Clerk; and after one
more hearing, it would go on the May ballot.
DEWOLF:
The electors within the district will vote at that time. A double majority vote is
required - a 50% turnout and a 50% positive vote.
MIKE BRANNAN:
I'm the Vice President of the Sunriver Owners' Association's Board of
Directors. I'd like to respond to Mel Nunn. After the advisory election, the new
board in August formed three ad hoc committees to look into the situation,
because of the Sheriff s position with regard to our police department. I headed
up one that was looking at the feasibility of a district as a solution. Another one
looked at trying to work with the Sheriff to find out his concerns and how they
could be allayed.
Several options were examined. One, the Sheriff said he was concerned about
accreditation of his officers and how the commissioning of our police would
affect that. The liability issue, and the lack of any kind of management
oversight over our police department - he was commissioning them yet he had
no authority in their daily dealings - were his primary concerns. For quite a
while he placed an officer with our police department to try to get a better
handle on what was happening on a day-to-day basis.
We thought that we had answered the questions as far as liability, but he
basically stated that he was still uncomfortable with the liability situation, and
particularly with the oversight. One of the options we had was to contract with
the Sheriff to provide oversight, to put an officer physically in our police station
on a day-to-day basis, as the captain in charge or whatever, to watch over
things. The Sheriff was not comfortable with this, and felt it was not workable
and didn't want to do it.
Minutes of Board Meeting Page 16 of 26 Pages
Wednesday, January 9, 2002
BRANNAN:
Then we said, how about contracting, such as the City of Sisters does, for police
services. He came back to us with a quote that frankly was about 30% higher
than our existing budget for police services, and said he would not guarantee
that it would be held at that, nor would they stick with any 6% increase.
FIEBICK:
He also said they would not enforce Sunriver's rules and regulations. At that
time there was an issue of whether he could even enforce our 25 -mile per hour
speed limit, since we're a private community. That solution suddenly became
not a very viable option.
Right up until the final decision was made that we would form a district, and the
SROA board unanimously voted to ask you to form this district, he was fairly
adamant that he was not comfortable with the situation and would not let it last.
As you know, when we first met with you in an informal session, Sheriff Stiles
was there and said he was very comfortable with our forming a district, and it
solved his problems. That was the end of it.
Therefore, we have done all of the homework we think we can with the Sheriff
to get to the root of his problems and try to solve them, and he was not
comfortable with where we were going.
MAIER:
On the proposed contract that Sheriff Stiles gave you, you said it was 30%
higher than the current budget; how does that compare with what it would be
with a service district?
BRANNAN:
I don't know, as we weren't comparing apples to apples. I don't know the
bottom line. We were looking at our current police budget at that time, but
didn't necessarily take into account such things as facility rental and some other
things. His contract for one year was $1,200,000. We did look at the existing
police budget and his bid, which meant less service for more money.
LUKE:
As you run your campaign, you might want to be able to answer the question of
what about what they pay now for Sheriffs Department services, such as the
operation of the jail and the courts.
Minutes of Board Meeting Page 17 of 26 Pages
Wednesday, January 9, 2002
ROGER HAMMERS:
I'm a 15 -year resident. What is the Sheriff s authority and basis to remove his
commissioning of our police department? Who would I talk to from a legal
standpoint to find out what his authority is? It sounds arbitrary, and that he just
doesn't want to do it. And what happens if the election fails?
MAIER:
The Sheriff has the authority to issue commissions, and that is the sole authority
of the Sheriff; the County Board of Commissioners has no control over this.
This basically is the sole decision of the Sheriff.
RICK ISHAM (Off the microphone):
Mike Maier is correct. Basically the Commissioners can't do anything about this.
LUKE:
There are liability questions as well. If the Sheriff certifies them, the County
does have liability for what they do.
(Discussion off the microphone; unintelligible.)
DEWOLF:
Again, these are questions that need to be addressed with the Sheriff. He
doesn't answer to us.
MAIER:
An elected sheriff is one of the most powerful positions in any county. There
are a lot of specific statutory duties that they are responsible for, and they don't
have to answer to the Board of Commissioners; they answer only to the voters.
A whole section in Oregon Revised Statutes details these duties and
responsibilities.
DEWOLF:
This is very different than your typical police chief who is hired rather than
elected. There are over 3,100 counties in the United States, and less than ten of
those sheriffs are appointed. The vast majority of Sheriffs are elected; that's
what the people want. There have been some counties in this nation that have
gone to a home rule charter form of government that have included an
appointed rather than an elected sheriff, but most of them have changed their
charter to go back to electing that sheriff.
Minutes of Board Meeting Page 18 of 26 Pages
Wednesday, January 9, 2002
DEWOLF:
Whether you or I agree with it, that's the way the system works pretty much
everywhere in the United States. We're not unique in that. The position of
Sheriff is one of great responsibility and widespread authority.
AUDIENCE MEMBER (off the microphone):
If the ballot doesn't pass in May, is there a Board action based on this; is there
some kind of fallback position?
FIEBICK:
I can't speak specifically on what the Sunriver board would want to do. There
are four consequences of the vote. One is a done deal. Second, more than 50%
turn out, but fewer vote yes. Or, less than 50% turn out, the majority approves,
and it may go on the November ballot.
LUKE:
You are formed as soon as it's formed; if it is formed in November, you then
may not be able to collect taxes for a year.
DEWOLF:
I think Sunriver has always had a pretty good voter turnout.
DALY:
I believe the question was, what if it fails?
FIEBICK:
We would work with the Sheriff for a period of time, and either contract out or
go back to voting again.
AUDIENCE MEMBER (off the microphone):
What if the Sheriff yanks his authority the day after it fails?
DEWOLF:
I think the citizens need to know about the ramifications of their vote before the
election. These are questions for Gary (Fiebick) and the SROA board to list, so
he can get a response from the Sheriff on some of them and provide the
information to the citizens of Sunriver.
Minutes of Board Meeting Page 19 of 26 Pages
Wednesday, January 9, 2002
FIEBICK:
The SROA board requests that the final hearing be held at Sunriver if possible.
The draft order is for the final hearing to be held on February 6, which is the
same date as the Spring River Special Road District hearing, which is set for
here. We would have to change that one, too, but it would not mean another
mailing.
DEWOLF:
We would like to hold the regular board meeting at Sunriver, as suggested.
We need a general location and time for the notices. If you approve the initial
hearing today, the 13th is okay, too, but it can't be any later.
DEWOLF:
We don't want to wait until the last minute, so it will be held in Sunriver at 10:00
a.m. on February 6, and we'll identify the specific location by the end of the day.
CRAGHEAD:
I will coordinate the notices.
Being no further testimony offered, Chair De Wolf then closed the hearing.
CRAGHEAD:
You need to approve the order as amended, changing the name of the district,
adding statutory language in section 4, and changing the hearing location in
section 5.
LUKE: I move approval of Order No. 2002-008, as amended regarding the
name change, the location of the hearing in section 5, and changing
the language in section 4.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
Minutes of Board Meeting Page 20 of 26 Pages
Wednesday, January 9, 2002
5. Before the Board was a Public Hearing on the Vacation of the Right -of -
Way off Groff Road; and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2002-
001, Vacating the Right -of -Way off Groff Road.
George Kolb gave a brief overview. He said that Keith Johnson called in
December with questions, and said he was not sure what he felt about it, but
since then he has not replied to numerous calls advising of the hearing. Also,
Qwest wants to keep their utility easement in place.
JOHN OGDEN:
I live on Superior Court. The property we own is on the southern boundary of
the easement, and three other owners border on it. (He then referred to map of
the property, and explained where access to the properties on cul-de-sac
originates.) These are ten and twenty acre parcels. This is essentially a dead-
end road going nowhere.
DALY:
Are you opposing the vacation?
OGDEN:
I'm in favor of it. I see no reason for the road to be there. But I would like the
utility easement out, too.
LUKE:
We don't have the authority to remove that easement. Both parties have to
agree; it stays unless the other party removes it. It's not a County agreement.
DEWOLF:
You'll need to coordinate that with Qwest.
KOLB:
They're talking about another easement that had been removed, that hadn't
been accepted by the County. This is a public right of way for utility purposes.
We can't remove that.
OGDEN:
Utilities run in other places; we feel this easement isn't necessary.
Minutes of Board Meeting Page 21 of 26 Pages
Wednesday, January 9, 2002
KOLB:
It's there, and the utility company wants to keep it.
RICK ISHAM:
Qwest doesn't technically have the right to say that you maintain this right of
way. This came up previously in the Sisemore Road area. We assumed it was
unused and no utilities were located there. Subsequently Central Electric
Cooperative contacted us when they couldn't loop their system. Their planning
and expenses to that point, which were substantial, were thwarted by their
inability to rely on this public utility easement that has been removed.
KOLB:
Then we instituted a policy not to vacate rights of way for utilities if the utility
companies have expressed an interest in keeping that right of way. The road
department has included these in vacations if there is no interest on the part of
the utility company in keeping the easement. If a utility company indicates they
have no interest in keeping the easement, or doesn't respond to our letters, the
vacation can be total.
Since there is a request by Qwest, you have the authority to honor their request
to not include that portion in the vacation.
DALY:
What process is followed?
GEORGE:
We wrote them, and they responded. We sent out letters to all of the utility
companies.
LUKE:
I don't want to second-guess Qwest. We can't start making these decisions, as
this is between the owners and the utility companies.
DEWOLF:
Can we postpone this so you can double-check with Qwest? I don't want to
decide for them. We can meet again in two weeks.
Minutes of Board Meeting Page 22 of 26 Pages
Wednesday, January 9, 2002
DALY:
I think that if Qwest wants to retain an easement, they should have someone
here telling us why.
DEWOLF:
I disagree.
LUKE:
Most of the time it isn't a problem.
DEWOLF:
You would then be setting precedence; with up to twenty agencies having to
come here to explain why they want an easement maintained. We are paying
tax dollars to some of them, such as the cities, and the process is set out in
writing. By asking George Kolb to double-check with them, this should be
sufficient. Every public agency operates under the written process.
DALY:
Technically they can lose this easement.
DEWOLF:
My proposal is to give a couple of weeks to investigate this.
DALY:
Maybe they just always respond this way.
DEWOLF:
I'd like to have George contact them once more.
LUKE:
They might want it if they need to loop it; it's the same thing with fiber optics.
We don't know what they'll need years from now.
KOLB:
I will ask for another letter, confirming their request.
DEWOLF:
I'll continue this hearing to January 23 at our regular board meeting.
Minutes of Board Meeting Page 23 of 26 Pages
Wednesday, January 9, 2002
6. Before the Board was Consideration of a Lease Extension between
Deschutes County and Rainbow House (Property Systems, Inc.), through
June 30, 2002.
LUKE: I move approval.
DEWOLF: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY
SERVICE DISTRICT
7. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts
Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of
$34,408.35 (two weeks).
LUKE: I move approval, subject to review.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-11
COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT
8. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts
Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-11 County Service District in the
Amount of $998.03 (two weeks).
LUKE: I move approval, subject to review.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
Minutes of Board Meeting Page 24 of 26 Pages
Wednesday, January 9, 2002
RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
9. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts
Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $480,256.08 (two
weeks).
LUKE: I move approval, subject to review.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
10. ADDITION TO THE AGENDA
Tammy Credicott stated that a correction easement to Avion Water Company
needs to be authorized. She explained that this is at Avion's request, as the
contractors are ready to go ahead with their work.
Rick Isham said that Jan Wick of Avion had indicated to someone that he was
ready to start work, but there was a question if an easement previously granted
in the correct location. Tammy worked with Road Department; and Legal
worked on a correction easement, which substitutes the alignment description.
The original location will be excavated eventually.
LUKE: I move approval of the correction easement through the landfill
property.
DALY: I second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: I wish to abstain, as I am not familiar enough with this
change to vote on it.
Being no further items brought before the Board, Chair DeWolf closed the meeting
at 11:40 a.m.
Minutes of Board Meeting Page 25 of 26 Pages
Wednesday, January 9, 2002
DATED this 91h Day of January 2002 for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners.
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
Minutes of Board Meeting
Wednesday, January 9, 2002
Tom DeWolf, Chair—**'
De nis R. Luke, Commissioner
ichael M. Daly, Com issioner
Page 26 of 26 Pages
a..` w}i i
• Sunriver County Service District
Budget Proposal for Year 2002 — 03
Summary of Assumptions & Rationale
January 9, 2002
•
•
I. Summary Statement:
Budgeting for the Sunriver CSD differs from the Sunriver Owners Association budgeting
in a number of general respects.
1) SRCSD will be a public or governmental agency as authorized by state
statute; SROA is a private, non-profit Oregon Corporation.
2) SRCSD has a budget year of July 1 through June 30, while SROA has a
budget year from January 1 through December 31.
3) SRCSD has primary budget resources from a property tax levy and a
permanent tax base maximum; SROA has budget funding primarily from
assessments to property owners.
4) SRCSD has a permanent tax rate that can be applied to a "tax assessed value"
that could normally increase 3% per annum, except for new construction,
annexation, etc. SROA's Board of Directors may increase its assessments up
to 6% annually without a vote of the owners.
5) The proposed SRCSD budget is based on historical experience and costs from
SROA's operations, except for a few adjustments required since the SRCSD
will be a stand alone operation requiring certain additional requirements.
6) SRCSD will acquire the personal property assets represented within the
SROA fire and police departments, but SROA will retain the ownership of the
real property assets and lease the same to the SRCSD, on a net lease basis.
These are the current assumptions for real and personal property dispositions.
7) The proposed maximum tax rate is $3.95. Initial year budget proposal
indicates that a levy of $3.30 would fund the district's first year requirements.
A maximum tax rate of $_TBD_ is recommended for consideration in the
final order to establish a district.
8) This budget projection is developed with assumptions that the District's FTE
will remain constant over the next three years.
H. Financial Assumptions & Rationale:
A. Resources:
1. Beginning Net Working Capital represents the unspent funds from the prior
year operations that may be utilized in the current year. There are no such
funds in the first year of a district. Following years will have estimates of
such a resource. It could be unspent contingency, revenues in excess of
budget or expenditures less than budget, in any given year.
2. Ambulance revenue is estimated based on the prior years of experience from
Sunriver operations.
3. Fire/Med revenue is estimated based the prior years of experience from
Sunriver operations.
• Page 2 of 4, SRCSD Proposed Budget, Assumptions & Rationale, 1/09/02
4. Grant revenues may be a future source of partial or special funding.
5. Contracted Services may be a future source of partial or special funding.
6. Tax Revenue — Current Year is the net tax resource necessary to balance the
budget requirements with total resources. This is a net figure because
approximately 8% of each year's tax levy is offset by either a) discount for
early payment, b) delinquent, or unpaid, taxes for the current year levy, and c)
adjustments to the tax roll.
7. Tax Revenue — Prior Years is the collection in the current year from
delinquencies and foreclosures, etc. from prior tax year levies. There are no
such fund sources in the first year of a district. Following years will have
estimates of such a resource based on Deschutes County's experience.
B. Requirements:
The first year budget operating items for the SRCSD were developed by referencing the
2002 budget for SROA, and modifying the numbers with the following assumptions.
Wage and benefit areas were increased by 7% (based on SROA schedules for 7/1/02) for
all three years. Other operating expenses were increased by 3% for year one as well as
years two and three. Most of these expenses were direct budget items in the SROA
budget. The average annual increase, with blended cost increases, in the budget may be
about 6%. With a potential of 3.5% increases in tax revenues, from increased assessed
• values and new values, the initial tax rate needs room to grow by about 2.5% annually for
some period of years to avoid the need for a special levy.
Vehicle Maintenance was established by operating estimates from the SROA Public
Works Department — vehicle maintenance, fuel and related services. These services have
been provided by SROA, but were not allocated directly to the department budgets.
Accounting and Administrative service contract amounts, which are explained in
paragraph #3 below, have been estimated based on the budgets for those cost centers in
SROA. The contract amounts are established based on the percentage of fire and police
personnel to the total for SROA as well as by estimating accounting services and
management activity related to these departments.
A number of new requirements for the district were based on assumptions or the best
estimates available at this time — insurance, legal, interest expense, board functions,
transfer to a Capital Replacement Reserve and an Operating Contingency.
1. Fire Department Operations:
Staffing and expenses are the same as under SROA operations, except for
expense allocations, previously unallocated by SROA. Rent, net lease, is
about $.67 per square foot on the 12,000 (+/-) square foot facility. SROA
intends to retain ownership of the real property. Vehicle maintenance is
• based on past experience with our Public Works — Fleet department, and it
includes allocations for mechanics, parts & supplies, utilities, administrative
• Page 3 of 4, SRCSD Proposed Budget, Assumptions & Rationale, 1/09/02
expenses. However, this proposed amount does not include any cost
allocation for the facility or replacement of capital equipment items.
Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment Lease/Purchase includes a list of current
capitalized personal property items at net book value. The cost is based on the
Public Financing rate of 5.75% over ten years, as recommended by an
independent financial advisor who is the financial advisor for Deschutes
County.
Z. Police Department Operations:
Staffing and expenses are the same as under SROA operations, except for
expense allocations, previously unallocated by SROA. Rent, net lease, is
about $1.09 per square foot on the 2,000 (+/-) square foot facility. SROA
intends to retain ownership of the real property. Vehicle Maintenance is
based on past experience with our Public Works — Fleet department, and it .
includes allocations for mechanics, parts & supplies, utilities, administrative
expenses. However, this amount does not include any cost allocation for the
facility or replacement of capital equipment items. Furniture, Fixtures &
Equipment Lease/Purchase includes a list of current capitalized personal
property items at net book value. The amount is based on the Public
• Financing rate of 5.75% over ten years, as recommended by an independent
financial advisor who is the financial advisor to Deschutes County.
3. General Organization Requirements:
Accounting and Administrative service amounts are based on the prorate
(40%) of current SROA costs in those two areas, based on percentage of
personnel and budget. Interest Expense is an estimate of the cost to borrow
working capital for the first four months of each operating year, since tax
monies are not received until November each year. Operating Contingency
is based on 5% of the total requirements for the year, except that an additional
amount was considered for the first year, start up operation. Legal Expense is
estimated based on the SROA experience. Insurance (casualty, fire,
liability, directors/officers, etc.) is estimated based on the SROA experience
and the proportion of assets, operations and employees transferred.
Computer Expense are estimated for the additional hardware and software
necessary to establish a separate accounting system. Board Functions
include costs for meetings, training, conferences, etc. Transfer to
Replacement Fund is based on the need to replace the current FF&E that has
a replacement value of about $1,500,000.
4. Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment:
The basic assumption is that the District will acquire these items at net book
• value and be responsible for replacement in the future.
• Page 4 of 4, SRCSD Proposed Budget, Assumptions & Rationale, 1/09/02
5. Real Property Leases:
The basic assumption is that SROA will retain ownership of real property, and
the District will pay SROA rent based on triple net lease.
Notes Submitted By SROA Staff.
Gary Fiebick, General Manager
Pete Nielsen, Controller
(10902Revised)
•
0
01/08/2002
• SUNRIVER COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT Draft for 1/9 public hearing
For fiscal years 02/03, 03/04, 04/05
Acct No.
SROA
Bdgt 2002 1
Account description
Proposed
1 02/03
FTE
All years
Proposed
03/04
Proposed
04/05
Beginning net working capital
-
102,000
152,000
Property tax collections
2,679,343
2,679,950
2,742,016
FTE
Prior yr tax collection
Proposed
29,309
57,244
01-208.51 100,000
Ambulance revenue
100,000
100,000
100,000
01-208.5 11,500
Fire med revenue
11,500
11,500
11,500
1
111,500
TOTAL RESOURCES
2,790,843
2,922,759
3,062,760
POLICE
Acct No.
SROA
Account description
Proposed
FTE
Proposed
Proposed
Bd t 2002
02/03
All years
03/04
04/05
488,310
WAGES SUBTOTAL POLICE
522,492 11
559,066
598,201
41-450
58,597
Medical insurance
62,699
65,834
69,126
5,371
Life & Disability Ins
5,747
6,035
6,337
11,231
Wkrs' Comp insurance
12,017
12,618
13,249
PERS Er only
66,827
70,168
73,676
9,766
401(k) Er match
-
-
-
23,439
Profit share
-
-
-
35,646
Medicare 1.45%
7,576
7,955
8,353
5,371
Unemployment insurance
5,747
6,035
6,337
1,955
Other
639,686
PERSONNEL SERVICES POLICE
683,106
727,711
775,278
• 41-501
3,600
Bldg Maint.
3,708
3,819
3,934
41-510
9,000
Supplies
9,270
9,548
9,834
41-512
5,000
Uniforms
5,150
5,305
5,464
41-513
2,400
Printed forms
2,472
2,546
2,622
41-514
3,000
Office supplies
3,090
3,183
3,278
41-520
2,100
Electricity
2,163
2,228
2,295
41-512
750
Nat'I gas
773
796
820
41-522
1,200
Water & sewer
1,236
1,273
1,311
41-524
3,600
Telephone
3,708
3,819
3,934
41-525
480
waste rmvl
494
509
524
41-526
1,200
Postage
1,236
1,273
1,311
41-528
6,000
Communications
6,180
6,365
6,556
41-531
10,800
Fuel
11,124
11,458
11,802
41-540
1,800
Licenses & fees
1,854
1,910
1,967
41-550
12,000
Eqpmt R&M
12,360
12,731
13,113
41-560
1,500
Travel
1,545
1,591
1,639
41-562
720
Meals
742
764
787
41-570
3,900
Schools & Training
4,017
4,138
4,262
41-605
1,800
Medical & Phys
1,854
1,910
1,967
41-610
240
Employee functions
247
255
263
FF&E lease/purchase
25,375
25,375
25,375
Vehicle maintenance
50,000
51,500
53,045
rent police
26,000
26,000
26,000
71,090
MAT'LS & SERVICES POLICE
174,598
178,296
182,104
710,776
TOTAL REQUIREMNTS POLICE
857,704
906,007
957,382
1
01/08/2002
0
2
RANGERS
•PATHWAY
Acct No.
SROA
Account description
Proposed
1
FTE
Proposed
Proposed
Bd t 2002
02/03
All years
03/04
04/05
42-406
51,200
Pathway Rangers wages
51,200 2
51,200
51,200-
51,200
WAGES SUBTOTAL RANGERS
51,200 2
51,200
51,200
42-450
6,144
Medical insurance
-
-
-
563
Life & Disability Ins
-
-
-
1,178
Wkrs' comp insurance
1,178
1,178
1,178
1,024
401(k) Er match
-
-
-
2,458
Profit share
-
-
-
3,738
FICA/Medicare 7.65%
3,917
3,917
3,917
563
Unemployment insurance
563
563
563
205
Other
-
-
-
67,073
PERSONNEL SERVCES RNGRS
56,858
56,858
56,858
42-510
2,200
Parts & Supplies
2,266
2,334
2,404
42-512
1,500
Uniforms
1,545
1,591
1,639
42-570
300
Schools & Training
309
318
328
42-602
3,600
Medical & Phys
3,708
3,819
3,934
7,600
MAT'S & SERVICES RANGERS
7,828
8,062
8,304
74,673
TOTAL REQUIREMTS RANGERS
64,686
64,920
65,162
FIRE
Acct No.
SROA
Account description
Proposed
FTE
Proposed
Proposed
Bd t 2002
02/03
All ears
03/04
04/05
642,620
WAGES SUBTOTAL FIRE
687,603 11
735,736
787,237
• 51450
77,114
Medical insurance
82,512
86,638
90,970
7,069
Life & Disability Ins
7,564
7,942
8,339
14,780
Wkrs' Comp insurance
15,815
16,606
17,436
12,852
401(k) Er match
-
-
-
30,846
Profit share
-
-
-
PERS Er only
87,944
92,342
96,959
46,911
Medicare 1.45%
9,970
10,469
10,992
7,069
Unemployment insurance
7,564
7,942
8,339
2,571
Other
841,832
PERSONNEL SERVICES FIRE
898,972
957,674
1,020,272
0
2
01/08/2002
•
51-500
6,825
Bldg Maint
7,030
7,241
7,458
51-501
5,200
Bldg Maint supplies
5,356
5,517
5,682
51-509
10,755
Med supplies
11,078
11,410
11,753
51-510
10,400
Fire supplies
10,712
11,033
11,364
51-511
750
Small tools
773
796
820
51-512
18,600
Uniforms
19,158
19,733
20,325
51-513
1,800
Printed forms
1,854
1,910
1,967
51-514
2,530
Office spplies
2,606
2,684
2,765
51-520
7,200
Electric
7,416
7,638
7,868
51-521
4,000
Nat'I gas
4,120
4,244
4,371
51-522
3,070
Water & sewer
3,162
3,257
3,355
51-523
67,035
Hydrant standby
69,046
71,117
73,251
51-524
3,300
Telephone
3,399
3,501
3,606
51-525
1,440
Waste rmvl
1,483
1,527
1,573
51-526
580
Postage
597
615
633
51-528
5,000
Communications
5,150
5,305
5,464
51-531
5,200
Fuel
5,356
5,517
5,682
51-540
1,200
Licenses & fees
1,236
1,273
1,311
51-550
8,690
Eqpmt R & M
8,951
9,220
9,496
51-560
3,855
Travel
3,971
4,090
4,213
51-562
2,775
meals
2,858
2,944
3,032
51-570
7,990
Schools & traing fire
8,230
8,477
8,731
51-571
8,870
Schools & traing med
9,136
9,410
9,692
51-572
Fire science
-
-
51-575
2,020
Fire prevention
2,081
2,143
2,208
51-605
1,840
Medical & phys
1,895
1,952
2,010
51-620
1,100
Special events
1,133
1,167
1,202
FF&E lease/purchase
76,125
76,125
76,125
Vehicle maintenance
53,000
54,590
56,228
Rent fire
100,000
100,000
100,000
192,025
MAT'LS & SERVICES FIRE
426,912
434,436
442,185
1,033,857
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS FIRE
1,325,884
1,392,109
1,462,456
OTHER COSTS
Acct No.
SROA
Account description
Proposed
FTE
Proposed
Proposed
Bd t 2002
02/03
All years
03/04
04/05
Administration
128,976
135,425
142,196
Accounting
77,686
81,570
85,649
Interest expense
28,010
29,126
30,297
Oper contingency
132,897
138,602
144,618
XFR to replacement fund
100,000
100,000
100,000
Board functions
5,000
5,000
5,000
legal
20,000
20,000
20,000
Insurance
40,000
40,000
40,000
Computer costs
10,000
10,000
10,000
REQUIREMNTS OTHER COSTS
542,569
559,723
577,760
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS
2,790,843
2,922,759
3,062,760
1,707,806
NET EXPENSES DISTRICT
(0)
(0)
0
0
3
01/08/2002
• SUNRIVER COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT
Tax rate calculation for 02/03
Final tax assessed value 01/02
853,977,211
increase by 3.5%
X 1.035
Est'd 02/ 03 assessed value
883,866,413
Times tax rate per 000
3.295
Gross taxes levied 2002/2003
2,912,329
Times assumed collection rate
0.92
Property taxes collected 02/03
2,679,343
Tax rate calculation for 03/04
Est'd tax assessed value 02/03
883,866,413
increase by 3.5%
X 1.035
Est'd 03/04 assessed value
914,801,737
Times tax rate per 000
3.1843
Gross taxes levied 2003/2004
2,912,989
Times assumed collection rate
0.92
Property taxes collected 03/04
2,679,950
Tax rate calculation for 04/05
Est'd tax assessed value 03/04 914801737
increase by 3.5% X 1.035
Est'd 04/05 assessed value 946,819,798
Times tax rate per 000 3.1479
Gross taxes levied 2004/2005 2980452
Times assumed collection rate 0.92
• Property taxes collected 04/05 2742016
