2003-102-Minutes for Meeting January 29,2003 Recorded 2/13/2003COUNTY OFFICIAL
TES
NANCYUBLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERKDS �J 7003'10
COMMISSINERS' JOURNAL
IIIIIIIII Jill 11111111111111102/ 13/2003 02;40;36 PM
2003-000102
DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK
CERTIFICATE PAGE
This page must be included
if document is re-recorded.
Do Not remove from original document.
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1130 NW Harriman St., Bend, OR 97701-1947
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 388-4752
www.deschutes.org
MINUTES OF MEETING
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 299 2003
Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building
1130 NW Harriman St., Bend
Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Tom De Wolf and Michael M. Daly.
Also present were Mike Maier, County Administrator; Sue Brewster, Sheriff's
Office; Scott Johnson, Commission on Children & Families; George Read, Steve
Jorgensen, Christy Morgan, Kevin Harrison, Catherine Morrow, Dave Leslie,
Damian Syrnyk, Doreen Blome', Sandy Ringer, Community Development
Department; David Givans, Commissioners' Office; Ricklsham and Laurie
Craghead, Legal Counsel; media representatives Barney Lerten of bend com and
Mike Cronin of the Bulletin; and twelve other citizens.
Chair Dennis Luke opened the meeting at 10: 00 a.m.
Chair Luke explained to the audience why so many members of the Community
Development Department and Legal Counsel were in attendance. Commissioner
DeWolf read a letter from the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and
Development informing the Board that Deschutes County has satisfactorily
completed all of the tasks in its period review program, and complimented those
doing the work so well, considering the complexity and difficulty of the task. (A
copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit A.)
The Board congratulated the employees and thanked them for their hard work.
These employees were Laurie Craghead, Christy Morgan, Steve Jorgensen, Kevin
Harrison, Catherine Morrow, Doreen Blome', Sandy Ringer, George Read, and
Dave Leslie.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Page 1 of 26 Pages
George Read said that he had invited the others who were no longer employees but
who worked on the periodic review process to the meeting. The Commissioner
then acknowledged the work done by Bruce White, who was in attendance, as well
as other former employees: Heidi Kennedy, Michael Houser, James Lewis, Tracy
White, Karen Green, Geralyn Haas and Brian Harrington.
(Applause from the audience.)
1. Before the Board was Citizen Input.
Jack Weisburger, a retired forestry worker and new Deschutes County resident,
spoke. He said over the past six months he has been reading about the urban -
forest interface, and understands that Deschutes County has numerous
municipal interface situations. He asked why there is no urban forestry
commission in Bend, when even Madras, where there are fewer trees, has one.
Commissioner Luke responded that he recently spoke with Mr. Weisburger
about this issue. He went on to say that local agencies received a federal grant
entitled "Project Impact", which deals with wildfire problems. This grant is
completed, but there is a large group of local agencies working on these
problems. This group includes the County, Bend Fire Department, the Rural
Fire Protection District, the City of Bend, the Bureau of Land Management/
Department of the Interior, the Department of Forestry, members of the
business community, and others. The County Solid Waste Department also
sponsors the very popular "Fire Free" program, when citizens are able to
dispose of yard debris at no cost. He asked Mr. Weisburger to speak with
George Read of Community Development about working with the group.
Mr. Weisburger stated that Commissioner Luke did advise him to contact Mr.
Read but he hadn't gotten around to it yet. He said that he is very interested in
tree survival, and will be speaking with City of Bend Councilors about the
interface in the near future.
2. Before the Board was a Presentation and Update of the Services Provided
to the Community by El Programa de Ayuda.
Mario Huerta, Director of the program, provided an overview of this non-profit
program that helps Hispanic residents of the area be more self-sufficient, and
also strives to promote the Hispanic culture in the area.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Page 2 of 26 Pages
He said his group helped organize the Fiesta Latina, a celebration of Hispanic
culture featuring music, food and fun for Hispanics and Anglos. Over 700
people attended. It is planned again for this year.
His program has also provided clinics for the Hispanic community, and 150
people were treated. His group also encourages students to be involved in
higher education, to give back to the community; the University of Oregon and
Oregon State have helped organize events in this regard, by featuring bi-lingual
speakers. Sixty-two students attended the latest "day of science", with
wonderful results. His program is close to obtaining scholarships for the two
best students.
He said his program is accomplishing its goals to encourage the Hispanic
community to become a part of the greater community, in its activities and
problems. About 720 cases (individuals or families) were helped last year in
regard to housing, legal questions and family issues. He estimated that there are
probably about 4,400 Hispanic residents in Deschutes County, and
approximately 10,000 in the tri -county area.
Commissioner DeWolf asked Mr. Huerta about his background. He said he
was born in Puebla, Mexico. He has a degree in engineering, and was working
in Mexico City when he visited his mother and met his future wife. He began
to improve his English and eventually applied for the position with Programa de
Ayuda. He and his family have been living in Central Oregon for four years,
and really enjoy the area and the people.
Originally Father Mike of the Catholic Church maintained a Hispanic hotline,
but the area was growing so fast that he couldn't handle the calls. As a result
the program was developed. The program now is a separate organization, no
longer a part of the church.
He thanked the Commissioners and the community for their support of and help
with opening doors for the Hispanic community, and said these residents feel
very welcomed and comfortable here.
(Applause from the audience.)
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Page 3 of 26 Pages
3. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Funding Reductions to
the Following Agencies, in the Event that Measure 28 Fails:
Bethlehem Inn, CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocates), COBRA (Central
Oregon Battering and Rape Alliance), El Program de Ayuda, and FAN (Family
Access Network).
Commissioner DeWolf explained that these five of the many programs involved
had been backfilled by the County due to state cuts. The balance of the
programs will be hit with a 3% cut in funding.
DALY: Move approval of these reductions, as submitted by the
Commission on Children & Families.
DEWOLF: Second.
VOTE: DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
4. Before the Board was Consideration of Chair Signature of Oregon Health
Division Grant Revision #7 for Fiscal Year 2003, Decreasing Funding for
Specific Health Services (in the Event that Measure 28 Fails).
DE WOLF : Move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
5. Before the Board was Consideration of a Request for a Policy Change
regarding Department Heads Signing Clinical Affiliation Agreements in
Lieu of Board of Commissioner Signature.
Rick Isham explained that he hasn't talked with Dan Peddycord about this
issue, as Mr. Peddycord was called out of town on a family emergency. He
suggested that this issue be delayed.
He said that traditionally he advises that intergovernmental agreements should
be signed by the Commissioners. About 190 state agencies have authority to
sign on behalf of the state, however.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Page 4 of 26 Pages
The exception that the County's Mental Health Department has in this regard is
that Gary Smith can sign change agreements on behalf of his department if
there is no new program involved. One exception may be found under the ORS
regarding intergovernmental agreements for services to one party that are
provided by another party; that's basically what clinical affiliation agreements
are.
Commissioner Luke indicated that he didn't think it is such a big deal for them
to come to the Board for these, especially since Legal approval is needed
anyway.
Mr. Isham said that the most conservative advice is to have these come before
the Board, as they have in the past for student nursing programs.
Commissioner DeWolf suggested that when Mr. Peddycord returns, the Board
meet with him in this regard to get his suggestions and input, and put the item
back on the agenda if appropriate.
6. Before the Board was a Public Hearing (most recently continued,from
October 2, 2002) on Measure 7 and Ordinance No. 2002-012, regarding
Private Property Compensation Procedures.
Laurie Craghead explained that this hearing had been scheduled some time ago,
but that Measure 7 was null and void at this point.
Chair Luke opened the public hearing.
Being no testimony offered, Chair Luke closed the public hearing.
At this time, this often continued public hearing is closed.
7. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval and Signature of the
Board's Findings and Decision regarding File #A-02-10 and File #A-02-11
(Partition #MP -02-12), Appeals of the Hearings Officer's Conditional
Approval of a Partition to Create Three Parcels in the F-1 Zone
(Appellants/Applicants: Matthew & Rachel Thomas; and Appellants: Sisters
Forest Planning Committee/Paul Dewey).
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Page 5 of 26 Pages
Cathy Tilton explained that final documents have been given to the Board for
review, and included corrections that were discussed at Monday's work session.
Legal Counsel has reviewed and approved them as well.
DEWOLF:
This is nitpicky; I will admit that right off the bat. But on page 5, under the
findings, at the top of the page, I still have trouble defining Sisters Mainline
Road as access, since it is virtually impassable and closed when there's heavy
snowfall, and there's nobody who maintains that during the winter. That said,
with everything else in the findings below, it is all explained; that's just the one
area that troubles me. I just wanted that on tape.
CRAGHEAD:
Okay. We were just talking about just the access from the property line to Bull
Springs; it's not talking about it going from (unintelligible).
DEWOLF:
Uhmm --
LUKE:
I would point out that you have two other pieces of property there that have
being granted access. That is the primary access for two other pieces of
property that were approved. And whether we approve it for this one as the
primary road, it is already approved for two other pieces.
DEWOLF:
Right. And I grant all of that. I don't see anything in there that says that
indicates it is from the property to Bull Springs Road. That was my concern.
But I'm okay; I don't want to change anything. I just wanted that on tape.
1.11ey--W I
But that is the intent. Our intent is not the opening up of the entire road; just
this section of road between Bull Springs and the property.
CRAGHEAD:
And you have that in the conditions of approval.
DALY:
Wait a minute. Is there any conditions on the other folks about maintenance of
that road?
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Page 6 of 26 Pages
CRAGHEAD:
No. They weren't a party, they weren't an applicant.
LUKE:
That was the basis for the appeal, because of the takings clauses; because you
would require them to maintain a road that nobody else was required to
maintain. And that was part of the original appeal to us.
DALY:
I think the appeal was bringing it up to County standards. It wasn't so much
maintenance.
DEWOLF:
Sure it was.
LUKE:
Oh, yeah.
DEWOLF:
I mean, it's a combination of those two things. And from the interpretation that
our staff came to, the Hearings Officer hadn't required that. But when we
asked for that clarification, that was her intention, that Tweedfam was also to be
taking care of that Sisters Mainline Road. And that didn't translate the way it
was intended by the Hearings Officer.
CRAGHEAD:
Just for clarification, we are talking about two different maintenance issues.
One is the issue that was brought before the Board by the applicant, which is
the maintenance or improvement of all of Sisters Mainline Road. The argument
could be on takings. But there is also the issue on whether Bull Springs Road
could be dedicated, and what that does to the maintenance requirements of the
other easement holders on that road. So, we've got the two issues there; one of
which would be handled during the road dedication process, the second one.
DALY:
At the last hearing, we decided that we don't really require any maintenance on
Bull Springs, remember?
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Page 7 of 26 Pages
CRAGHEAD:
But there is a condition of approval that, if it gets dedicated, to the extent that
Bull Springs is brought to meet County standards as a public right of way.
DALY:
But as far as snowplowing and regular maintenance, there's no requirement.
CRAGHEAD:
No, there's nothing in there.
DEWOLF:
But, as long as it is not a County -maintained road, we don't do that anywhere
else either. And if they bring it up to County standards where it would be
adopted into our road system as a County -maintained road, then that would be a
separate issue that we would deal with.
CRAGHEAD:
Right.
DEWOLF:
Okay. Got it.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Yep.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
8. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of the First
Reading of Ordinance No. 2003-001, Amending the Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan to Adopt a New Coordinated Population Forecast for
Deschutes County and the Cities of Bend, Redmond and Sisters.
DAMIAN SYRNYK:
Before you this morning is a proposed coordinated population forecast for
Deschutes County from the year 2000 to the year 2025. It includes the County
as a whole.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Page 8 of 26 Pages
For the people in the audience, the forecast table that is to the right of the Board
(referring to an oversize chart) is a blown -up copy of the blue version that's
available at the table. So, if it is easier for you to use, help yourself. (A copy of
the set of documents is attached as Exhibit B.)
The handouts include the forecast table that's in blue, a copy of the staff report,
a copy of the proposed ordinance 2003-001, and then a January 2003
background report that was prepared in support of the forecast. I also wanted to
point out that we have received three letters on this matter. I'll hand those out
to you in a while.
DEWOLF:
You mean, additionally to what we've received prior?
SYRNYK:
That's correct. We received a new electronic mail message from Jon Jinings
from the local office of the Department of Land Conservation and
Development; a January 28 letter from Kate Kimball, on behalf of 1,000
Friends of Oregon; and then a January 29 letter from Paul Dewey, on behalf of
the Sisters Forest Planning Committee.
What I'm going to do is give most of my staff report from this table here.
Before I finish I'm going to move the table closer for you to see and for the
audience to take a look at, and will go over some of the highlights of the
forecast. Then I'll prepared to answer any questions you might have before you
open up the public hearing.
This is an update of a forecast that the County had originally adopted back in
1998. I'd like to start off with a little history on what is called the coordinated
population forecast. The Oregon Legislature had passed some legislation in
1995 that gave counties the authority and responsibility to coordinate the
development and maintenance of a population forecast, for purposes of
maintaining comprehensive plans.
The County adopted its first coordinated population forecast in 1998. As a
basis for the forecast, the County had used a forecast developed for Deschutes
County by the State of Oregon's Office of Economic Analysis. That is also in
your packet as an attachment to the staff report.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Page 9 of 26 Pages
After the County adopted this forecast, the County has been monitoring how
accurate the forecast has been through the 2000 census and through estimates
that have been developed annually by the Population Research Center of
Portland State University. It became very apparent after the census and the
most recent forecast that the County's been growing faster than was originally
contemplated under the original forecast.
So, in the fall of 2001 we began working on a process to update our forecast.
Several things were happening at once to help drive that; one was the interest
on the part of the cities to develop better forecasts so they could plan for their
anticipated growth. We were also anticipating a new forecast that was to be
prepared by the Office of Economic Analysis. That was supposed to be
available in 2002; we're still waiting. But we did obtain from them a draft
forecast from Deschutes County that we used as a basis for developing the
forecast now before you.
To clarify that, the "we" that I am talking about was a working group of staff
from Deschutes County, and each of the cities. This is on page two of the
background report. I believe Catherine is here, and Mike Byers, who is
working on behalf of the City of Bend. We also had representatives from the
City of Redmond and Gail Thompson from the City of Sisters. To help support
the process, we also obtained a technical assistance grant from the Oregon
Department of Land Conservation and Development in the fall of 2001; and we
began to go to work.
What this working group did was meet at least ten times over the last year,
between January of last year and January of this year, to compare methods and
assumptions, and then build the forecast that is before you this morning. Each
city developed its own forecast for its urban growth boundary. The County
took responsibility for developing the forecast for the unincorporated or, as you
see in the table, non -urban portions of the County.
LUKE:
That's pretty easy. Once the cities figure out how much of the population
they're going to take, all that's left is you guys.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Page 10 of 26 Pages
SYRNYK:
And it worked pretty well. That's what the County did as part of our forecast.
This was a matter that we held an initial public hearing on before the County
Planning Commission on December 12. We tried our best to publicize it
through our usual notice and press releases; I did get some media exposure, but
it didn't attract as much attention as we had hoped. The Commission did
forward it to you for your consideration today.
At the hearing we did receive some written comments and oral testimony.
LUKE:
Any recommendations from them when they forwarded it us?
SYRNYK:
They did forward it to you with a recommendation to adopt. I believe it was
unanimous.
I should clarify that we did receive some testimony that raised concerns about
the forecast and the assumptions that were behind it. What we attempted to do -
- myself on behalf of the County, Mike Byers for the City of Bend, and
representatives from the cities of Redmond and Sisters -- was to more fully
explain our assumptions in the January 2003 report that is before you as part of
the record.
So, we have revised the forecast slightly; meaning that the forecast for the City
of Sisters was slightly reduced with the population that they were going to be
potentially including. We also prepared additional findings that went through
our assumptions for looking at potential build -out in the unincorporated County,
rates of growth, and how we estimated how that might be; and forecast it over
the history of the forecast.
What I'm going to do right now very briefly is cover some of the highlights of
the forecast here.
LUKE:
May I ask a question? The purpose of doing a coordinated population forecast
is to give the governing bodies in the jurisdictions an opportunity to see what
the reasonable forecast population might be over the next ten years. Ten years
is probably fairly accurate; twenty-five years is out a ways, and starts to be
more of a guess. A lot of things can change.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Page 11 of 26 Pages
But, it really isn't part of this as to how to interpret how the infrastructure is
going to handle increase in population, or how you are going to provide police
services or water services. Your job is to, all things being equal, project what
you think the population of the area is going to be so that planners can start
looking at those other areas, and try to determine how they are going to handle
that. Is that a fair statement?
SYRNYK:
That's a good description of what the purpose of the forecast is. One of the
purposes. As I mentioned in the staff report, local governments used to forecast
for several purposes. For the cities, it is critical for them to have some idea of
what their future population might be so they can plan to have enough land
within their urban growth boundaries. Related to that, once they have some
idea of what that is going to be, they can start using the numbers for planning
infrastructure, like their sewer system, water systems, and transportation.
For the County, it is also relevant information, as it gives our County good
information to plan the services that are provided to the County, such as Sheriff
services and patrols, and health and human services. So it does provide for
multiple functions and serves multiple purposes.
In terms of which step comes first, one of the first steps we have to take in
terms of figuring out what we need to do, or should do, or could do, is have a
reliable set of information like the forecast. Once we've got that, t hen the
cities and County can start making decisions on how they can best serve that
kind of growing population, including what kind of resources they might need.
A couple of things that I should mention are that the Office of Economic
Analysis has a schedule of roughly updating their state forecast every five
years. That would include the State of Oregon and each county. So every five
years we have an opportunity to see how our forecast looks when compared
with the State's. There's an additional check that we can use for evaluating the
performance of the forecast, and that's the annual estimates from the Population
Research Center at Portland State University.
One of things you'll notice when looking at the table is that the forecast is for
each July 1 of those five-year periods. That was used because Portland State
University prepares annual estimates of the population of the State of Oregon,
each county and each incorporated city for the purposes of disbursing state
revenues. It also provides us a check to see if we are overshooting or
undershooting the mark, or are pretty close.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Page 12 of 26 Pages
Just briefly, I wanted to kind of highlight some of the things you'll see in the
forecast. Over the life of the forecast each jurisdiction, including the County,
would see some pretty dramatic growth. For the County as a whole, we're
looking at if the forecast were to occur we would see this kind of population
growth by the year 2025, which represents an increase of about 83% over the
entire County.
For the City of Bend, they'd be looking at a population of around 102,000; for
them, that would represent an increase of about 80% as well. Redmond and
Sisters might see more dramatic increases over that period. For Redmond, they
could be looking at a population of a little over 47,000, which would be an
increase of almost 200%; and for the City of Sisters, looking at an increase to a
population of about 4,000 people, which is almost a 300% increase.
For the unincorporated County, we are predicting some pretty good growth over
that period; an increase of 50%. We tried to document that in the background
report that we wouldn't see as much growth because we wouldn't have the
same potential that the cities would have, given the State land use laws and
zoning that is in effect.
LUKE:
Some of this could change if you have a couple of other areas incorporate; and
this would change how we handle services. Because currently you can't run
sewers or do that kind of thing in a non -urban area. You could have some
change just by incorporation.
SYRNYK:
That's true. Some of the population that we might anticipate in the
unincorporated County might become part of a growing population of the City
of La Pine or City of Terrebonne, for example.
That concludes my staff report, and I'd be happy to answer any questions
before the hearing is opened for testimony.
DALY:
I've been hearing that the County is going to be out of buildable land in about
fifteen years, the way it is going. But you are showing a 50% increase over the
next twenty years?
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Page 13 of 26 Pages
SYRNYK:
For the non -urban County, one of things that we took into consideration is the
existing lots that are in the rural unincorporated County for each zoning district
that we have in the County. We also considered the laws that we have in place,
both locally and at the State level.
Under our current system, the unincorporated County might be able to
accommodate a population of around 81,000 people. That might change if we
were to see, for example, a destination resort developed; or if La Pine or
Terrebonne both see continued growth with the creation of new lots in those
areas. Those are some of the assumptions that underlie our forecast for the
unincorporated County. It wouldn't necessarily see more growth in the EFU
zoned areas because of limitations on the creation of new parcels. The
unincorporated communities and lands that are mapped as eligible for
destination resorts might see some of that population growth if they are more
intensely developed.
One of the things that we did include, and I should point, the forecast is looking
at the La Pine area and Wickiup Junction and neighborhood planning area.
Incorporating those areas, the potential for growth in those areas because of the
presence of water and sewer services and their status of an unincorporated
community. There's potential for quite a bit of development in that area.
LUKE:
You have all done a lot of work on this, and I know the State hasn't been as
cooperative as it should have been. If we had waiting for the State we still
wouldn't be here.
SYRNYK:
One thing I'd also like to point out is that throughout this process we worked
very closely with our regional representatives from the Department of Land
Conservation and Development, Jon Jinings and Laren Woolley. They
provided us with a lot of assistance in making sure we developed a defensible
forecast that would end up being a good tool for planning.
What I am going to do is stop here and hand out copies of the letters we
recently received, and recommend you open the hearing. (A set of the letters is
attached as Exhibit C.)
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Page 14 of 26 Pages
Commissioner Luke then opened the public hearing on the first reading of
Ordinance No. 2003-001.
PAUL DEWEY:
Good morning, Commissioners. Paul Dewey, for the record, representing the
Sisters Forest Planning Committee. I won't go over what I submitted in writing
already, but wanted to make a couple of points; actually, a couple of questions.
One, I would really like to see the DLCD letter that you just received. I don't
know if your intent is to close the record or hearing today.
Commissioner DeWolf gave Mr. Dewey his copy of the letter at this time.
DEWY:
I was going to request, if you are going to close it, seven days to submit some
additional written materials. Again, I don't know whether your plans are to
close it today.
LUKE:
We haven't talked about that yet.
DEWEY:
The other question, looking at Table 2 here, since Mike Byers is here from the
City, I was curious about the 52,800 July 1 forecast for the year 2000. Then the
number jumps to 67,180 for the year 2005; showing a five-year change of 27%.
Then it falls off each five-year period after that. I'm curious as to whether they
have any estimates for the current population. You see these entry signs
coming into Bend, saying population "whatever". That strikes me as a fairly
significant jump by 2005. I would like to hear what the City's rationale was for
that.
LUKE:
Have you driven out Powers Road and around Brookswood lately? You might
want to do that. It would surprise you if you drove out there. There's a lot of
people out there. Did you guys review this? Did the County review the City
numbers?
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Page 15 of 26 Pages
SYRNYK (off microphone, partially unintelligible):
The City Council reviewed them. After the December Planning Commission
meeting, representatives of each city presented the numbers to their respective
councils for adoption. None of them acted to include them in their
comprehensive plans, but I think they are aware of it, and there seemed to be a
consensus to continue working with the County.
DEWEY:
My final question is, to what extent has the County independently reviewed the
cities' numbers. I'm a little bit concerned about taking the totals of the cities,
saying what they say or think their totals to be, and you are left with the remainder.
LUKE:
It is the County's responsibility to make sure these numbers are as accurate as
possible. Although there could be some desire of some of the cities to inflate
their numbers a little bit because of the money that comes, I'm sure those have
been reviewed. You get it on your actual population; you don't get it on what
you might have in ten years, of course. The County's responsibility, and I've
had discussions with George (Read) and Damian, is that they are looking at
these very closely to try to make sure that the cities' numbers and the non -urban
areas' numbers are as accurate as possible. That would be my impression.
DEWEY:
One final thing for Damian to address, perhaps, is whether OEA has an estimate
as to when it will come out with its numbers. Thank you.
MIKE BYERS (City of Bend):
To respond to a couple of questions that Mr. Dewey raised; the July 1, 2002
Portland State University certified population for the City of Bend is 57,750.
And the first few years we had in Bend's forecast was based on continued high
rates of growth that we've seen the last few years. So we've forecast expecting
similar growth patterns during the short term.
As Commissioner Luke indicated, it is harder to forecast what happens as you
get out further because so much of our population comes from in -migration,
which is controlled by or affected by all kinds of conditions outside of the local
area jurisdiction's ability to control things. So, we had high growth and then an
expectation that things might slow down because of unknown conditions,
really.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Page 16 of 26 Pages
Another thing I'll mention is that the cities and the County worked together to
come up with the numbers. The County did not just have what was left over.
We all worked on trying to come up with numbers that were based on our best
knowledge of what's out there, building patterns, past histories and so on. And
we juggled the numbers many times. The City of Bend had eleven different
forecasts we worked on during the process.
LUKE:
In Mr. Dewey's letter, I noticed in part of it that it talked about some of it being
based on building permits and different things. The City of Bend doesn't have
as many second home owners as the whole County does. You have some. How
do you allow for that as you are doing your process?
BYERS:
We have in the past used census data, which has a percentage or second homes
and vacation homes as part of its tally. We have some data from that. We have
a pretty good idea of some of the higher -end communities in Bend that have
those second homes, like Broken Top and Awbrey Butte. In the past for our
housing forecasts we've subtracted a percentage of the new building starts,
around 5% I think, as second homes, no occupied year-round.
LUKE:
So you make an effort to adjust for this.
BYERS:
We look at several different factors and try to blend them all together to come
up with what we think is the best forecast.
LUKE:
Do you use an average, a certain number of people per home, as a check
number against the population estimates?
BYERS:
Generally speaking, yes. When we run different scenarios, we often back -
check them against other scenarios. For example, if we just look at building
permits and ran those out, what would that number be compared with looking at
past growth rates, and so on. So we do different ways to try to test our own
numbers to come up with a reasonable forecast.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Page 17 of 26 Pages
DEWOLF:
You are averaging almost 4.7% growth from July 2000 to July 2002, and
anticipate almost 5.5% growth over the next three years, according to these
numbers. Why would it speed up more in the kind of economic times we're
facing now. I mean, I'm just trying to understand the methodology. It's
actually from 4.68% to 5.44%; almost 2% higher per year in the next three
years than in the first two years.
BYERS:
The jump from the first few years was based on a longer span of growth data
for the Bend urban area, going back through mid -1990's and even the early
1990's. So, even though we have had some years that have been up and down -
- we had some years that were 6+% for the City of Bend -- several years less
than 5%, several years more than 5%, so we looked at that most recent pattern
of growth in Bend, and used that to go out another five to ten years. Even
though we haven't been on the mark maybe this year or last year, we still use
that as a pretty good measurement of how things could continue to go for the
next few years.
DEWOLF:
Did you most recently compare these past two years, the actual numbers, with
what was estimated for these two years? I mean, we had an estimate at some
point that said, here's what is going to happen between 2000 and 2002. Was
that part of this process, to compare actuals?
BYERS:
I guess the way I would hedge that is that in the previous forecast we had done,
just a few years ago, we're already eight or ten years beyond where we thought
we were going to be. That was 1998. That just shows the dramatic rate of
growth we experienced in the last several years, which puts the forecast way out
of whack in just five years.
DEWOLF:
Do we have any copies of testimony that was given at that time, about the
estimates? I mean, we've got questions from Paul, and we've got statements
from Kate Kimball. Do we have similar types of letters from five years ago that
question the methodology at that point? If they exist, it would be nice to have
that as a comparison tool as well.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Page 18 of 26 Pages
BYERS:
I'd have to go back and look at the City's record for the comp plan and general
plan hearings, because that was part of the general plan update. I don't know
about the County's hearings back in 1997 or whenever it was.
DEWOLF:
I just want to compare Kate five years ago to Kate today, and the population
estimates from five years ago to today. Are the questions similar; are the
assumptions similar on the all sides of this thing. Maybe it's a waste of time, I
don't know. It just seems like it would be helpful.
LUKE:
How long do you need the record to remain open to provide that, Damian?
SYRNYK:
Probably, to be safe, at least a week. That would give us time.
GEORGE READ:
I was involved when we adopted the last set. I don't believe anybody testified
at the hearing; it was virtually uncontroversial. I'm 99.99 percent certain there
wasn't any testimony. If we find anything, we will submit it into the record.
Mike (Byers) pointed out that the City had just gone through its comprehensive
plan process at that time, and their projected growth numbers had already been
debated before we did our coordinated population process. So, it was a separate
process. We just used the numbers from that process in our process. If there
had been controversy, it happened before the coordinated population forecast as
part of the comprehensive plan update. There was quite a debate. There was a
working group that went on for two or three years, a citizens' committee. I
know there was a lot of debate over establishing what numbers we should use;
they settled on the numbers and we used those numbers.
DALY:
And they turned out to be totally wrong, is that correct?
LUKE:
They turned out to be conservative.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Page 19 of 26 Pages
Maybe I'll address that a little bit, because I attended a lot of those meetings.
The debate was, were we going to continue to grow at that high growth rate of
the early 1990's. Was the five-year window we were looking at during 1990 to
1995 adequate to make projections that were that high. And the answer was no,
we don't think so. We think we're liable to hit a recession like we did in the
1980's and it will flatten back out. That was the assumption that was used at
that time.
We didn't make that assumption this time. A lot of the debate that staff had
when we started looking at these numbers. We kind of settled on, no, we don't
think it's going to slow down. We had it slow down a little further out because
we just don't know.
DEWOLF:
Can we put this on the agenda for a couple of weeks from now?
No other audience members indicated they wished to testify.
LUKE:
We'll leave the written record open until a week from today at 5:00 p.m., and
this will be back on the agenda for Wednesday, February 12.
CRAGHEAD:
If you do the first reading today and make any changes before the second
reading, you'll have to read those changes into the record. It does delay the
process if you delay the first reading to the next meeting.
LUKE:
Do we continue the public hearing to the 12th so we can have the first reading
then? Or is the public hearing over?
CRAGHEAD:
You can close the public hearing for oral testimony and leave it open for written
testimony. Again, this is a legislative matter so you don't have to worry about
ex parte contacts.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Page 20 of 26 Pages
LUKE:
Let's continue the public hearing until February 12th. We can do the first
reading then. We're not closing the public hearing; we're continuing the public
hearing until February 12, at which time we will also do the first reading if we
so choose..
9. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of an Amended Personal
Services Contract with Helion Software, Inc. for Assessment and Taxation
Software.
DEWOLF: Move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
10. Before the Board was Consideration of the Adoption and Signature of
Deschutes County General Policy No. P-2003-098, Regarding Physical
Inventories of County Capital Assets.
The Finance Department is still working on the details of this policy, so it has
been delayed until further notice.
11. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2003-
011, Authorizing the Financing of Various Capital Construction and
Improvement Projects in an Amount not to Exceed $30,250,000.
Commissioner Luke asked if anyone in the audience had questions on this item;
there was no response.
He went on to explain that if anyone is wondering, there are different funds for
different items, and the funds in the capital construction fund cannot be mixed
with operations funds. (A copy of the analysis sheets for capital projects and
proposed financing is attached at Exhibit D)
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Page 21 of 26 Pages
Commissioner DeWolf added that what the County is doing is going forth with
something that has been planned for many years. Funds were set aside
gradually to avoid having to go to the citizens for more money. Specific excess
properties owned by the County have been sold with the revenue going towards
the Becky Johnson facility and the Human Services building. He further said
that the State is paying a significant amount of rent on the new building, and
without their involvement the project would have been delayed for several
years. Courtroom space is needed before long, as is better space for County
services in southern Deschutes County.
Mike Maier added that this is a good time to sell the bonds, as rates are good.
This action also helps the County be better prepared for the anticipated growth
in the local population.
DEWOLF: Move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
12. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Letters Reappointing
Members to the Deschutes County Extension Advisory Board: Dauna
Johnston (4-H Leaders Association Representative) and Genevieve Waldron
(County Council Representative); and Signature of a Letter Appointing Heather
Moore to the Advisory Board (all three appointments are through December
31, 2003).
Commissioner Luke said that the by-laws of the advisory board allow for their
board to make these appointments. He will be looking into it further.
DEWOLF: Move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Page 22 of 26 Pages
Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda.
DEWOLF: Move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
Consent Agenda Items:
13. Adoption of the Deschutes County Weed Advisory Board Charter; and Annual
Deschutes County Weed List for 2003
14. Signature of Letters Reappointing Kelly Walker and Byron Cheney to the
Deschutes County Weed Advisory Board, through October 14, 2004
15. Signature of Order No. 2002-014, Correcting a Scrivener's Error in the Legal
Description of Documents relating to the Vacation of a Portion of "A" Avenue
in Terrebonne
16. Signature of a Personal Services Contract between Deschutes County and
Merrill O'Sullivan, LLP, for Hearings Officer Services (Tia Lewis)
CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY
SERVICE DISTRICT
17. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts
Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of
$1,712.72.
DEWOLF: Move approval, subject to review.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Page 23 of 26 Pages
CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-11
COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT
18. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts
Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-11 County Service District in the
Amount of $430.72.
DALY: Move approval, subject to review.
DEWOLF: Second.
VOTE: DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
19. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts
Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $810,363.70.
DEWOLF: Move approval, subject to review.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
20. Before the Board were Additions to the Agenda.
A. Before the Board was Consideration of the Appointment of a County
Commissioner to the Bend Metropolitan Planning Organization.
DEWOLF: Move the appointment of Dennis Luke to this organization.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
LUKE: Move the appointment of Mike Daly as alternate.
DEWOLF: Second.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Page 24 of 26 Pages
VOTE: DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
B. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of an
Intergovernmental Agreement with the U.S. Forest Service for the
Sheriffs Office to Provide Patrol Activities on Forest Service Land.
Sue Brewster explained that this is a continuation of a contract that has been
in place since 1997. Since the Sheriff's Office patrols these areas anyway, the
funding received from the Forest Service is helpful.
DALY: Move approval.
DEWOLF: Second.
VOTE: DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
C. Mike Maier explained that the Board voted a few days ago to authorize the
sale of County -owned property: the Bill's Electric property and the
Brosterhous Road property. He clarified that the Board agreed only to sell
them, and did not specify that only Steve Scott, broker of record, was to do so.
He then said that Commissioner Daly wished to have the properties go out on
a sealed bid process through the County's Property Management for a period
of time; and that the broker of record is agreeable to that.
D. LUKE: Move that the bills be approved next week without the signature of
Mike Maier.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Page 25 of 26 Pages
Being no further items brought before the Board, Chair Dennis Luke adjourned
the meeting at 11:25 a.m.
DATED this 29th Day of January 2003 for the Deschutes County Board
of Commissioners.
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
Dennis R. Luke, Chair
Tom DeWolf, Commissioner
Attachments
Exhibit A: Copy of a letter from the DLCD dated January 23, 2003 regarding the
completion of the periodic review work program.
Exhibit B: Deschutes County Coordinated Population Forecast for 2000-2025.
Exhibit C: Letters (3): from 1000 Friends of Oregon, dated January 29, 2003;
from Paul Dewey, dated January 29, 2003; and an e-mail from Jon
Jinings, dated January 27, 2003.
Exhibit D: Analysis of various capital projects and proposed financing.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Page 26 of 26 Pages
OF O
iC�, to
0
Oregon
John A. Kitzhaber, M.D., Governor
January 23, 2003
The Honorable Tom DeWolf, Chair
Board of County Commissioners
Deschutes County Administration Building
1130 NW Harriman
Bend, Oregon 97701
Dear Chair DeWolf:
Department of Land Conservation and Development
635 Capitol St. NE, Suite 150
Salem, Oregon 97301-2540
Phone (503) 373-0050
Director's Fax (503) 378-5518
Main Fax (503) 378-6033
Rural/Coastal Fax (503) 378-5518
TGM/Urban Fax (503) 378-2687
Web Address: http://www.lcd.state.or.us
I am pleased to inform you that Deschutes County has satisfactorily completed all tasks in your
periodic review work program.
Probably the most noteworthy accomplishment of your periodic review was the adoption of an
innovative plan for a new urban neighborhood in south county under the regional problem
solving (RPS) process. Deschutes County is the first jurisdiction in the state to successfully
demonstrate how collaboration under RPS can produce agreement among local, state and federal
participants to address complex regional land use, environmental and natural resource issues.
Through your periodic review the county also updated your comprehensive plan and ordinances
to finish the difficult task of planning for your various unincorporated rural and resort
communities.
County officials and planning staff including George Read, Catherine Morrow and others are to
be commended for their skill, cooperation and leadership in reaching this important milestone
under Oregon's land use planning program. Please contact Jon Jinings, your regional
representative, at (503) 3883-6424, if you have any questions or need any further land use
information or assistance.
Congratulations, /
?mes B. Knight, Manag
Enclosure: DLCD Approval Order No. 001456
cc: Senator Bev Clamo
Representative Tim Knopp
Representative Ben Westland
George Read, Planning Director
Paul Curcio, DLCD
Jon Jinings, DLCD
Exhibit A (1 page) 1'
117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925
(541)388-6575 FAX(541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/
STAFF REPORT
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Damian Syrnyk, Senior Planner
DATE: January 22, 2003
SUBJECT: January 29, 2003 Public Hearing on New Coordinated Population Forecast for
Deschutes County and the cities of Bend, Redmond, and Sisters.
Plan Amendment File No. PA -02-6
Work Session Scheduled January 27, 2003
PURPOSE
This report serves as the Staff Report for the above -referenced proposal. This report provides
background information on coordinated population forecasts and a discussion of the process to
date for developing the proposed population forecast. The purpose of the January 29, 2003
public hearing is for the Board of Commissioners to receive testimony from interested citizens
on a new coordinated population forecast for Deschutes County, including forecasts for the
cities of Bend, Redmond, and Sisters. The adoption of a new population forecast involves
adopting an amendment to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. You will find enclosed
a copy of the proposed plan text (including the forecast) and a background report. These
documents are also identified as Exhibits "A" and "B," respectively, to a proposed adopting
ordinance (Ordinance 2003-001). You will also find enclosed copies of the written testimony
submitted into the record on this matter.
BACKGROUND
Oregon law requires counties to coordinate the development and the maintenance of population
forecasts for use in maintaining and updating comprehensive plans. The 1995 Oregon
Legislature passed House Bill 2709, which recognized the need for ensuring consistency in
forecasting population and codified this obligation of the county:
"195.036 Area population forecast; coordination. The coordinating body
under ORS 195.025 (1) shall establish and maintain a population forecast for the
entire area within its boundary for use in maintaining and updating
comprehensive plans, and shall coordinate the forecast with the local
governments within its boundary. "
Quality Services Performed with Pride Exhibit B (page 1 of 27)
Along with the passage of this bill, the Legislature directed the State Office of Economic
Analysis (OEA) to develop a statewide population forecast for the state of Oregon and all 36
counties for local governments to rely on in developing their local population forecasts.
Population forecasting is a critical part of comprehensive planning in Oregon because it
provides a basis for several functions. First, cities in Oregon develop and maintain population
forecasts for ensuring a 20 -year supply of buildable land within their urban growth boundaries
(UGB). Cities are required to ensure their comprehensive plan and zoning provide adequate
land for residential, commercial, and industrial development. Second, population forecasting
provides information for developing transportation plans and ensuring adequate funding for
capitol improvements. Cities, counties, and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)
rely on such data to ensure an adequate capacity in transportation systems. 'Third, all local
governments rely on such forecasts to ensure they can continue to serve the needs of a
growing or declining population. Public organizations such as school districts, water and sewer
districts, and agencies in the fields of health and human services rely on such forecasts to
provide adequate levels of service and to plan for capital improvements to their infrastructure.
Finally, such forecasts also provide information for private and public economic development
programs.
To develop and adopt its first coordinated forecast in 1998 the County coordinated with all three
cities and relied upon the 1997 statewide forecast of OEA. The 1997 OEA forecast relied on the
July 1, 1990 population of each jurisdiction as a base and forecast population change to the
year 2025. The 1998 coordinated forecast is attached with this report and includes the
population forecast of each city and the unincorporated county.
The results of the 2000 Census and subsequent population estimates of the county's population
by the Population Research Center (PRC) at Portland State University revealed the population
of Deschutes County, including the populations of Bend and Sisters, were growing faster than
predicted under the 1998 forecast. The most recent estimates of population from the PRC, as
of July 1, 2002, show Deschutes County with a population of 126,500, Bend at 57,750,
Redmond at 16,110, and Sisters at 1,080. The 2002 estimate for the population of
unincorporated Deschutes County is 51,560. The 1998 forecast for Deschutes County in the
year 2000 was 113,231. The 2000 Census showed Deschutes County with a population of
115,367. The 1998 forecast shows Bend reaching a population of approximately 57,000 people
in 2009. Redmond's population has grown an average of 9.3 percent per year since the 2000
Census, and could exceed their 1998 forecast by the year 2005. Sister's population grew by
12.5 percent since the 2000 Census, and could continue to grow with the availability of sewer
service in the city.
PROCESS SUMMARY
This section summarizes the process through which the County and each city developed the
proposed forecast. You will find a more complete description in the attached report "Deschutes
County Coordinated Population Forecast 2000-2025: Final Report January 2003" (background
report). The County began work on updating the 1998 forecast in the fall of 2001. In December
2001, the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) awarded the
County a technical assistance grant to fund the coordination and the development of the new
forecast. Beginning in January of this year, the County began developing a forecast for the
unincorporated county while also coordinating with representatives of each city in the
Staff Report — PA -02-6
January 29, 2003 Hearing
Page 2
Exhibit B (page 2 of 27)
i
development of their respective forecasts. You will find a list of the participants on this project
on page 2 of the background report.
This working group met ten (10) times over the last year to coordinate the development of the
forecast. The group relied upon a draft forecast of Deschutes County provided by OEA in
advance of their completing the 2002 statewide forecast. Representatives of each city prepared
forecasts based on their current assumptions for continued growth. The County prepared a
forecast for the unincorporated portion of the county by estimating final build -out of the land in
each zoning district (e.g. EFU, RR10) and then relying on OEA 2002 draft forecast for
Deschutes County to forecast the change in the population of unincorporated Deschutes County
over the life of the forecast. You will notice in the proposed 2003 forecast that each city
captures a larger percentage of the county's total population as population growth in the
rural/unincorporated county slows toward the final years of the forecast.
The County Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed forecast on December
12, 2002. The Commission received oral testimony and a letter from Carrie Ward on behalf of
Friends of Bend. The Bend Metro Parks and Recreation District and 1000 Friends of Oregon
also submitted letters into the record. The Planning Commission forwarded the proposed
forecast to the Board at this meeting. Planning staff involved in the process to date developed
and included additional findings in support of the forecast, including assumptions that are before
you in the January 2003 version of the background report. Staff prepared these additional
findings to respond to the public testimony on the forecast.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board of Commissioners take the following actions:
1. Conduct a public hearing on the proposed forecast;
2. Consider testimony received on this draft, including any questions or issues raised in the
testimony, and;
3. Provide Staff Direction on whether the Board is prepared to make a decision after the
hearing, or after a future work session.
Please contact me at (541) 385-1709 or damians(cD_co.deschutes.or.us if you have any
questions or matters that I can better address at the public hearing.
/DPS
Staff Report — PA -02-6
January 29, 2003 Hearing
Page 3
Exhibit B (page 3 of 27)
1998 Deschutes County Coordinated Population Forecast
Source: Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
Staff Report - PA -02-6
January 29, 2003 Hearing
Page 4
Exhibit B (page 4 of 27)
Year
Bend UGB
July I' Five
Population Year
Increase
Redmond UGB
July 15` Five
Population Year
Increase
Sisters UGB
July I S' Five
Population Year
Increase
Non -Urban County
July I5' Five Year
Population Incresase
Total
County
Population
:;1990:.;
32,550
1 8,635
900
32,873
74,958
1995
1996
39,720
41,210
22.03%
12,585 145.74%
1
945
5.00%
40,850 1
42,239
24.2707o
94,100
1997
42,652
43,675
1998
44,038
45,160
1999
45,359
46,695
2000;
2001
46,607
47,772
17.34%
17,241
37.00%
1,100
16.40%48,283
49,852
18.20%
113,231
2002
48,847
51,472
2003
49,946
53,145
2004
51,069
54,740
2005'°`
2006
52,193
53,341
11.99%
22,414
30.00%
1,250
13.64%
56,382 1
57,932
16.77%
132,239
2007
54,488
59,525
2008
55,632
61,014
2009
56,801
62,447
2010;,:
57,937
11.00%
28,241
26.00%
1,400 1
12.00%
63,853
13.25% 1
151,431
2011 1 59,095
65,225
2012 60,218
66,530
2013 61,362
67,794
2014 62,467
69,014
2015-' 63,591 19.76% 32,548 15.25% 1,550
2016 64,672
10.71% 70,222 9.98% 167,911
71,451
2017 65,772
72,594
2018 66,758
73,756
2019 67,760
74,899
"2020 1 68,776 8.15% 35,845 10.13%
1 1.710 10.32% 76.022 1 R 260/ IQ*) zcz
Source: Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
Staff Report - PA -02-6
January 29, 2003 Hearing
Page 4
Exhibit B (page 4 of 27)
Deschutes County 2003 Coordinated Population Forecast
Year
Bend UGB*
Redmond UGB
Sisters UGB
Non -Urban County
Total
County
July 1"
Forecast
Five Yr.
Change
July I"
Forecast
Five Yr.
Change
July 15'
Forecast
Five Yr.
Change
July 1 S`
Forecast
Five Yr.
Change
2000
52,800
151505
1,100
48,283
117,688
2005
67,180
27.23%
21,582
39.20%
1,556
41.45%
53,564
10.94%
143,882
2010
76,211
13.44%
27,873
29.15%
2,200
41.39%
60,619
13.17%
166,903
2015
84,123
10.38%
34,795
24.83%
2,757
25.32%
67,427
11.23%
189,101
2020
93,712
11.40%
41,051
17.98%
3,394
23.10%
73,447
8.93%
211,604
2025
102,750
9.64%
47,169
14.90%
4,167
22.78°/a
77,134
5.02%
231,220
* UGB means Urban Growth Boundary
Source for July 1, 2000 data: PSU certified population for cities and county GIS data for UGB areas and the rural population.
Staff Report — PA -02-6
January 29, 2003 Hearing
Page 5
Exhibit B (page 5 of 27)
Exhibit B (page 6 of 27)
�>)
0It
OONM-
0000000
z
00
"t
N
O
N
N
q
0
0000000N
0
0
0
0
0
O
ESU
yam,
O
Op
(
d
t-
co
M
N
4j
Z
01
-
N
O
O
O
O (Z
O
M
14
00
to
O
M
M
N
c0
-0
'~ •
0 0
0
N
M
10
t'
M
t-
Q
4.
co
d'
O\
Ll-
t`
d'
+�
co
M
M
UNO,o
ooO
d
[t
cc,
>,N00M0h
Mtn
`ems
{;0,
't
V)
O
�'
t-
t-
'p
�-�
t°nO�NOoO
W
0
iii
O Cd
m
rt
Ci
.
.lam
4-
b
00
N
.? .0
O
--t
.-4
►n
M
N
U)
It
1.0
Gt U
't
d'
N
N
N
Z5
+-JOOOt��
t�
4.
0 CO0tn0LOONO
0
N
U
4
O
Lf)
otnrn�O
p4;:
yr
^a
,-
•-�
cv
Cl
cy)
I
M
-'d
0
-�
N
N
M
d'
7
O
V
OCd
O
o
O
o
((�
r
O
LO
M
00
0
p
o O
^'
0
t`
N�000Nrn
It
't
RQ`
E�
w
LO
�000
O
(n
0"
d'
t-
�'
O
N
MNN—
—
O
"0
U)
N
M
UO
.-c
O>
CL
C:
0
+-+t(ONMtn-O�
t-
CN
LO
0
o
CL
>1
y y
O
00
t`
O`
to
O
o
uu)u)00
Ll-
0�
ix
D�NNCM[td
-+
N
N
rO
d-
[t
t.
0
U
d1`
O
0
0
0
0
0
=>
�> 0
00
c0
c0
[t
N
�t
�° G»
d'
O
M
N
It
M
It
O
tl�
M
O
".+
(D)
V
C7
G4 U
N
,-i
.-,
-
o b
-0
4-0O
4
M
N
O
H
A
y
oo
t-
�
N
—
N
cd
O
t
N—
N
t--
O
't
M
N
N
t,
0
d'
c+')
C,
~
cd
y�
0
O
�otnOt-a00�0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
N
o
N
N
N
O
Lr)
0
Lr)
OLOm'S
O
O
N
N
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
Cl
N
N
N
N
N«
v1
Exhibit B (page 6 of 27)
00NM-11'O
0000000N
O
ESU
lc
t
00
(
-i
�
Cl
t
Ow0�M
N
N
O
M
M
N
c0
-0
'~ •
0 0
0
N
M
10
t'
M
t-
k.0
LO
dt
M
Q'
ct
M
M
co
M
M
ooO
N
Q'M
dJ:
`ems
't
V)
O
O
t-
t-
W
�j cif
o
o
m
o
o
4-
M
00
N
c0
O
O
�o O
d•
O
M
It
1.0
00
°
O
4
O
Lf)
otnrn�O
4)
in
N
t-
M
N
-�
N
N
M
d'
OCd
O
o
O
o
o O
^'
0
t`
'I-
It
't
RQ`
E�
m
LO
�000
O
o
imP
-�
-,
N
"0
U)
N
M
UO
.-c
O>
C:
0
00
t-
CN
LO
0
o
tMlnaOnO�
OW
-+
N
N
rO
d-
[t
0
�> 0
00
c0
c0
[t
N
�t
d'
O
M
4
d
4
0000~NNO
o0
—
N
—
t-
t
O
N
t--
O
't
M
N
(la
to
ct-000O
cd
0
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
N
N
N
N
N
Exhibit B (page 6 of 27)
EXHIBIT 'B"
Deschutes County
Coordinated Population Forecast
2000- 2025
Discussion and Explanation
FINAL REPORT
JANUARY 2003
This project was funded in part by a grant from the
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
PAGE 1 OF 21 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2003-001 (1/29/03)
Exhibit B (page 7 of 27)
EXHIBIT "B"
Table of Contents
Purpose 1
Overview 1
Coordinated Forecast 2
County -wide Patterns 5
Jurisdictional Details
Non -urban County
6
Bend
13
Redmond
17
Sisters
18
The following agencies and individuals were involved in the development of a
coordinated population forecast for Deschutes County.
Deschutes County Community Development Department
George Read, Community Development Director
Catherine Morrow, Principal Planner
Damian Syrnyk, Senior Planner
Tim Berg, GIS Analyst/ Programmer
Bend Community Development Department
Brian Shetterly, Principal Planner
Mike Byers, contract planner
Redmond Community Development Department
Bob Quitmeier, Community Development Director
Chuck McGraw, Senior Planner
Sisters Planning Department
Neil Thompson, City Planner
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
Laren Woolley, Regional Representative - Central 8v Eastern Oregon
Jon Jinings, Regional Representative - Central 8s Eastern Oregon
PAGE 2 OF 21 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2003-001 (1/29/03)
Exhibit B (page 8 of 27)
EXHIBIT "B"
PURPOSE
The purpose of this working paper is to describe and explain the process
and results of the local coordinated population forecast conducted in
Deschutes County in 2002. This paper is divided into the following sections:
• Overview - background information for the forecast,
• Coordinated Forecast - population growth forecasts for each jurisdiction,
• County -wide Patterns - data for the Deschutes County as a whole, and
• Jurisdiction Details - explanation of forecasts for non -urban Deschutes
County, Bend, Redmond, and Sisters.
OVERVIEW
The 1995 Legislature recognized the need for local consistency in
population forecasting and for a coordinated statewide total by adding a statute
requiring counties to:
...establish and maintain a population forecast for the entire area
within its boundary for use in maintaining and updating
comprehensive plans, and shall coordinate the forecast with the
local governments within its boundary. [ORS 195.036]
The state Office of Economic Analysis (OEA), a division of the Department
of Administrative Services, was designated as the main forecasting unit for the
state of Oregon. In addition to preparing population and employment forecasts
that could be used consistently by state agencies, the OEA was given the task
to forecast population and employment changes for the whole state and each
county.
Within the county, the total population forecast for each of the cities and
unincorporated area must match the county -wide forecast as estimated by
OEA. As an alternative to strictly following the OEA forecast, the jurisdictions
must agree on other population figures and justify to the Department of Land
Conservation and Development why the locally prepared forecast is different
than the OEA forecast.
In January 1997, the OEA produced the first statewide coordinated
population and employment forecast for all the counties through the year
2040. Later that year representatives from Deschutes County, Bend,
Redmond, and Sisters - in cooperation with OEA - agreed upon a coordinated
county population forecast through the year 2020.1 Table 1 below shows the
1997 coordinated OEA forecast for the total county population through 2025.
1 These 1997 coordinated population numbers were adopted by the county through Ordinance
98-084 as part of the County Comprehensive Plan, and Bend included the coordinated
population numbers in its 1998 update to the Bend Area General Plan.
PAGE 3 OF 21 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2003-001 (1/29/03)
Exhibit B (page 9 of 27)
EXHIBIT "B"
Table 1
1997 OEA Forecast for Deschutes Count
2000 2005
2010
1 2015 2020
2025
112,846 1 132,829
151,230
1 167,231 181,448
190,697
The rate of population growth in Deschutes County during the late 1990s
and early 2000s was one of the highest in the state. By late 2000 the local
planning staffs were aware that the actual population numbers for the county
were exceeding the OEA population forecast prepared just three years earlier.
The unprecedented rate of population growth statewide during the 1990s
and into this decade also generated interest at the state level for a new OEA
forecast. The OEA was scheduled to generate new population and employment
numbers by March 2002.2
In February 2002, the County Community Development Department
received a grant from the Department of Land Conservation and Development
[DLCD] to coordinate another round of local population forecasting in
anticipation of new OEA numbers. This new effort undertaken by the county
involved six meetings among staff of all four jurisdictions in the county and the
two DLCD regional field representatives. The county and city staffs agreed that
a new forecast was needed and set 2025 year as the ending date for this
coordinated forecast.3 Issues discussed during the coordination meetings
included:
• Data sources including County GIS records,
• Comparison of OEA forecast numbers to actual population numbers,
• Short term (10 year) historic growth rates for each jurisdiction,
• Long term (20 year) historic growth rates for each jurisdiction,
• Growth of urban areas relative to non -urban areas of the county,
• Demographic patterns, and
• Various methods to forecast population change.
COORDINATED FORECAST
The county and city planning staffs evaluated several draft growth
scenarios. Absent new official forecast numbers from OEA the jurisdictions
developed population forecasts for the county as a whole and for each
jurisdiction in five-year increments to the year 2025. Table 2 below provides
2 By early summer OEA had released a preliminary, unofficial, non-binding forecast for
Deschutes County. As of the middle of January 2003 OEA had not yet released official
population forecast numbers for the 36 counties.
3 Redmond is currently conducting an urban reserve study and will independently forecast its
population growth out an additional 25 years to 2050.
PAGE 4 OF 21 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2003-001 (1/29/03)
Exhibit B (page 10 of 27)
EXHIBIT "B"
the forecast numbers and percentage increase in population for each
jurisdiction in five-year increments.
Table 3 below shows how the five-year forecast numbers for each
jurisdiction relates to the countywide total and how each jurisdiction's share of
the total county population changes over time.
Table 2
Deschutes County 2002 Coordinated Population Forecast
Year
Bend UGB*
July 1St Five Yr.
Forecast Change
Redmond UGB Sisters UGB
July 1St Five Yr. July 1st Five Yr.
Forecast Chane Forecast Change
Non -Urban County
July 1St Five Yr.
Forecast Change
Total
County
2000
52,800
15,505
1,100
Total
County
48,283
117,688
2005
1 67,180 27.23%
1 21,582
39.20% 1,556
41.45%
53,564 10.94%
143,882
2010
76,211 13.44%
27,873
29.15% 2,200
41.39%
60,619 13.17%
166,903
2015
84,123 10.38%
34,795
24.83% 2,757
25.32%
67,427 11.23%
189,101
2020
93,712 11.40%
41,051
17.98% 3,394
23.10%
73,447 8.93%
211,604
2025
102,750 9.64%
47,169
14.90% 4,167
22.78%
77,134 5.02%
231,220
* UGB means Urban Growth Boundary
Source for July 1, 2000 data: PSU certified population for cities and county
GIS data for UGB areas and the rural
population.4
Table 3 below shows how the five-year forecast numbers for each
jurisdiction relates to the countywide total and how each jurisdiction's share of
the total county population changes over time.
Figures 1 and 2 on the following page provide graphical representations
of the change in each jurisdiction's percent of the total and share of the future
population growth between 2000 and 2025.
4 The total county population number here for 2000 is higher than PSU estimate of 109,600.
Local planning staffs feel the PSU estimate under -counted the total population for July 1,
2000. The PSU estimate for 2001 of 122,050 persons in the county appears to have corrected
for the undercount in the previous year.
PAGE 5 OF 21 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2003-001 (1/29/03)
Exhibit B (page 11 of 27)
Table 3
Jurisdiction Po ulation and Percent of County Total
Year
Bend
% of
Total
Redmond
% of
Total
Sisters
% of
Total
Non-
urban
% of
Total
Total
County
2000
52,800
44.86%
15,505
13.17%
1,100
0.93%
48,283
41.03%
117,688
2005
67,180
46.69%
21,582
15.00%
1,556
1.08%
53,564
37.23%
143,882
2010
76,211
45.66%
27,873
16.70%
2,200
1.32%
60,619
36.32%
166,903
2015
84,123
44.49%
34,795
18.40%
2,757
1.46%
67,427
35.66%
189,101
2020
93,712
44.29%
41,051
19.40%
3,394
1.60%
73,447
34.71%
211,604
2025
102,750
44.44%
47,169
20.40%
4,167
1.80%
77,134
33.36%
231,220
Figures 1 and 2 on the following page provide graphical representations
of the change in each jurisdiction's percent of the total and share of the future
population growth between 2000 and 2025.
4 The total county population number here for 2000 is higher than PSU estimate of 109,600.
Local planning staffs feel the PSU estimate under -counted the total population for July 1,
2000. The PSU estimate for 2001 of 122,050 persons in the county appears to have corrected
for the undercount in the previous year.
PAGE 5 OF 21 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2003-001 (1/29/03)
Exhibit B (page 11 of 27)
EXHIBIT 'B"
Figure 1
Percent of Total Population
50% 02000 ■ 2025
p 44.86%
40 /0 41.03%
30%
20%
0% 13.17%
0.93% 1.80%
0%
Bend Redmond Sisters Non -urban County
Particular details and facts that support the individual forecasts are
provided below under the section for each jurisdiction. However, in general,
the coordinating group derived the forecast numbers using several underlying
assumptions or themes:
• Growth in the rural portion of the county will slow relative to the urban
areas
• Redmond will capture a greater percentage of the total county growth
• Bend will continue to have high growth rates in the short term followed
by a decline in the rate of growth
• Sisters will grow consistently during the forecast period.
PAGE 6 OF 21 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2003-001 (1/29/03)
Exhibit B (page 12 of 27)
EXHIBIT "B"
COUNTY -WIDE PATTERNS
Deschutes County experienced a substantial increase in its population
during the 1990s. According to data prepared by the Population Research
Center at Portland State University, Deschutes County had the highest percent
change in population of all the Oregon counties - almost 54 percent - between
the 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census periods. In real numbers, the county had the
fifth largest population increase, trailing only the three metropolitan Portland
counties and Marion County. The data below are from the U.S. Census and
the Portland State University Population Research Center.
Table 4
Deschutes ounty Com onents of Po ulation Change April 1, 1990 to A ril 1, 2000
Population
Population
Change Percent
1 1
girths
Deaths
Natural
Increase
Net
Migration
4/l/2000
4 1 1990
Chane
115,367
74,958
1 40,409 1 53.9%
1 12,101
1 7,388
1 4,713
35,696
It is important to note that almost 90 percent of the county population
growth was due to individuals and families moving into the area. In other
words, the rapid growth of the past decade has been primarily driven by
outside national and regional factors rather than local land use conditions and
costs. Central Oregon continues to be a very attractive place for people to live,
work, and retire.
The rapid population increase in Deschutes County has exceeded the
growth rates previously forecast by state experts. For a point of comparison, in
July 1993 Portland State University forecast Deschutes County's 2000
population to be 106, 671. The more recent 1997 Office of Economic Analysis
forecast the county's population in 2000 at 112, 846.
Based on the PSU certified population for the cities, and Deschutes
County GIS and building permit data, the calculated population for the county
as of July 1, 2000 was 117,688 - almost 5,000 more than previous OEA
forecast numbers. In addition, the PSU Certified 2002 population for
Deschutes County was 126,500 - up 8.5% from 2000. The local governments
in Deschutes County expect that the population growth rates will continue to
be higher than predicted in the 1997 OEA forecast.
The chart on the next page compares the OEA 1997 forecast numbers for
Deschutes County to the 2002 locally coordinated forecast and to a forecast
based on a continuation of the County's historical 20 -year average growth rate
of 3.2 percent per year.
PAGE 7 OF 21 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2003-001 (1/29/03) _ -
Exhibit B (page 13 of 27)
EXHIBIT "B"
111
1 111 ■ • ' ' % •• • 1 1 of %
111
11 111 �
• 111
1 111
111 /
oil
11
111 11 1 1 1 1 1 1
Much of the countywide population increase has been within the cities,
but the non -urban (rural) portion of the county has also maintained consistent
growth levels. For the 12 -year period from 1990 through 2001 the county
issued building permits for almost 11,000 new single-family homes outside the
three Urban Growth Boundaries.5
These recent growth rates, combined with the apparent lack of
constraints to rapid growth, led the coordinating group to forecast strong
growth averaging about five percent a year for the county as a whole during the
five year period ending in 2005.
JURISDICTION DETAILS
NON -URBAN COUNTY
The supply of rural buildable lots is limited due to land use regulations
with about 12,800 vacant lots remaining in the inventory as of 2002 according
to county GIS data. If the new construction in the rural parts of the county
continues at the average of 910 homes a year the supply of rural lots would be
gone in 14 years.
This combination of conditions leads to an assumption that the rural lot
supply there will not be consumed by 2015, but there will be very slow growth
5 Even assuming that some of these new dwellings are "second homes" or "future retirement
homes" the total number of dwellings consumes the limited supply of lots for future
development outside of UGBs. The declining supply of rural lots over the long term shifts more
of the future growth into the urban areas.
PAGE 8 OF 21 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2003-001 (1/29/03)
Exhibit B (page 14 of 27)
EXHIBIT "B"
in the non -urban population over the long-term, especially after 2015. This
slower growth leads to a corresponding reduction in the County's historical
share or percentage of total growth and a shift of population to the cities. [See
Table 3 above]
Deschutes County completed the following steps to develop the forecast
for the unincorporated portions of the County. This forecast covers the entire
county with the exceptions of the urban growth boundaries of its three cities.
The County first developed a build -out analysis for the unincorporated county.
The end result was the final number of residential units that could be
developed in each zoning district, based on current zoning and land use law.
The County calculated the number of residential units in each zoning district,
based on current minimum lot size standards and density limitations. The
planning staff made assumptions about the available land to be developed in
exclusive farm and forest uses as part of the calculation. The calculation also
included potential development in the destination resorts Eagle Crest and
Pronghorn.
Forecast Assumptions
1. Potential Dwelling Units. The County assumed that land within each
zoning district would be developed according to the current standards of each
respective zoning district and state law. For each zone, Staff used the
Community Development Department's geographic information system (GIS) to
perform the following calculations for potential number of existing, new, and
total dwelling units. The County assumes that one (1) new dwelling unit per lot
of record (existing and potential) would be developed.
a. Exclusive Farm Use Zones. The County performed two (2)
calculations for the EFU Zones. For the six (6) subzones, not including
the Horse Ridge East subzone, the County assumed each parcel eligible
for a partition under Sections 18.16.055 and 18.16.060 of the EFU Zone
would be partitioned. For the EFU-Horse Ridge East subzone, the
County assumed divisions of parcels greater than or equal to 640 acres
because of the minimum lot size of 320 acres in this subzone.
b. Forest Use (F1 and F2) Zones. Chapters 18.36 and 18.40 of
the County Zoning Ordinance include the applicable standards for land
divisions in the Forest Zones. The County assumed partition of parcels
that would result in new parcels of 240 acres, which could potentially
qualify for a large tract dwelling under the terms of the Forest Use Zones.
The analysis did not include public forest lands or corporate -owned
forest lands. The analysis also allocated potential dwellings per parcel
for parcels less than 480 acres.
PAGE 9 OF 21 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2003-001 (1/29/03)
Exhibit B (page 15 of 27)
EXHIBIT "B"
C. Rural Residential and Multiple Use Agricultural Zone. The
County treated tax lots in these zones the same because each has a
minimum lot size of ten (10) acres. The analysis counted vacant and
developed tax lots less than 19 acres. For potential land divisions to
create lots or parcels of 10 acres in size, the analysis counted tax lots of
19 or more acres in size to develop an estimate of the potential number of
lots that could be created in these districts.
d. La Pine Urban Unincorporated Community. The County
assumed that parcels or lots eligible for a land division would be divided
to create the maximum number of parcels permitted by each zone
district. The La Pine Community has both public sewer and water
services, which allow for greater density. In the La Pine Residential (LPR)
and the Wickiup Junction Commercial/ Residential (LPWJ) zones, the
analysis assumed 25 percent of land for a given property would be
devoted to roads and infrastructure and not available for creation of a
residential lot. For the LPR Zone, the analysis assumed a density of 3.5
units per acre. For the La Pine Commercial (LPC) Zone, which does not
allow land divisions for residential purposes, the analysis assumed no
residential land division and counted individual tax lots with dwellings.
For the Neighborhood Residential General (LPNRG) Zone, the analysis
developed an estimate of 1,717 units based on the planning for the
Neighborhood Planning Area.
e. Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community. The analysis
assumed no new land divisions because of the lack of parcels large
enough for land divisions. The analysis counted the number of vacant
and developed tax lots to determine the number of existing and potential
dwelling units.
f. Terrebonne Rural Community. The County assumed
potential divisions of residential land for new residences, but not the
commercial land. For the TeR Zone, the analysis assumed existing sewer
system and a future public water system that would allow one-half
(0.51) -acre lots. For the TeR5 Zone, the analysis assumed parcels 10 or
more acres in size could be divided to create five (5) -acre parcels under
the terms of the zone. The TeR5 Zone has a minimum lot size of five (5)
acres. For the commercial zones TeC and TeCR, the County assumed no
residential land divisions and counted individual tax lots with
residences.
g. Tumalo Rural Community. The County assumed potential
divisions of residential land for new residences, but not the commercial
land. For the TuR Zone, the County assumed a future public water
system that would allow one-half (0.51) -acre lots. For the TuRS Zone,
the analysis assumed parcels 10 or more acres in size could be divided to
PAGE 10 OF 21 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2003-001 (1/29/03)
Exhibit B (page 16 of 27)
EXHIBIT "B"
create five (5) -acre parcels under the terms of the zone. The TuRS Zone
also has minimum lot size of five (5) acres. For the commercial zone
TuC, no residential land divisions were assumed and the analysis
counted individual tax lots with residences.
h. Resort Community Zones of Black Butte Ranch (BBRR) and
Inn at the 7th Mountain/Widgi Creek (WCR) districts, the analysis
counted vacant and developed tax lots.
i. Urban Reserve Zones. The County has jurisdiction over two
(2) urban reserve zones for the Bend Urban Area: Urban Area Reserve
(UAR10) and Suburban Low Density Residential (SR2.5). The analysis
counted vacant and developed tax lots. For lots zoned UAR 10, the
analysis estimated the potential number of new parcels using the
minimum lot size of 10 acres for parcels 20 or more acres in size. For
the SR2.5 Zone, the analysis estimated the potential number of new
parcels using the minimum lot size of 2.5 acres for parcels five (5) or
more acres in size.
j. Destination Resorts. For the destination resorts of Eagle
Crest and Pronghorn, the analysis included 700 dwelling units and 900
dwelling units, respectively, based on the land use approvals for each
resort.
2. Forecast Growth Rates. County Staff relied on the proposed draft
growth rates from OEA for each five-year period for forecasting the change of
the unincorporated population of Deschutes County over the forecast horizon.
Staff assumed lower rates of growth in each period. As rural lots are developed
and become more scarce, potential buyers will look to lots with the cities for
residential development. The following table shows the proposed growth rates
developed by OEA for Deschutes County and the County's proposed growth
rates for the unincorporated County during the forecast:
Five Year
Period
Unincorporated
Deschutes
County
OEA
2000-2005
10.94%
12.60%
2005-2010
13.17%
14.24%
2010-2015
11.23%
13.30%
2015-2020
8.93%
11.90%
2020-2025
5.02%
9.27%
3. Housing Unit and Household Size. To develop the final
forecast for the unincorporated County, County Staff relied on persons
per housing unit, instead of persons per household, from the 2000
PAGE I 1 OF 21 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2003-001 (1/29/03)
Exhibit B (page 17 of 27)
EXHIBIT "B"
Census. Household size is a term that refers to all of the people who
occupy a housing unit. The household size for Deschutes County in
2000 was 2.50 persons per household. The household size is calculated
by dividing the total population in households by the number of
households. A housing unit may be a house, an apartment, a mobile
home, a group of rooms, or a single room that is occupied as separate
living quarters. The term persons per housing unit refers to the number
of persons living in each housing unit.
To forecast the population of the unincorporated county, Staff
relied on persons per housing unit, rather than persons per household.
The purpose of doing this was to reduce the potential number of persons
per housing unit to account for second homes and vacancies in the
unincorporated county. The 2000 Census showed that 16.5 percent of
the housing units in Deschutes County were counted as vacant because
they were the market or for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. As
indicated above, the persons per household calculated from the 2000
Census was 2.5 persons per household. The County relied on persons
per housing unit size of 2.1 for the county that took into consideration
vacancies and second homes. The housing unit size of 2.1 was
developed using the total population county for the County in the 2000
Census (115,367) and dividing it by the total number of housing units
(54,583). Instead of focusing on only occupied household, this approach
looks at the population as a whole and spreads it across all housing
units.
Results
The following table summarizes the number of potential units in each
district:
Table 5
Non -urban Dwelling Units by Zone
LAND USE
EXISTING
POTENTIAL
TOTAL EXISTING and
CATEGORY
ZONE
UNITS
UNITS
POTENTIAL UNITS
Resource
F1
66
52
118
Resource
F2
949
193
1,142
Unincorporated
LPC
79
37
116
Community
Unincorporated
LPN
0
1,800
1,800
Community
Unincorporated
LPR
84
756
840
Community
Unincorporated
LPWCR
25
332
357
Community
Rural Residential
MUA10
5,093
1,069
6,162
PAGE 12 OF 21 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2003-001 (1/29/03
Exhibit B (page 18 of 27)
EXHIBIT "B"
Table 5
Non -urban Dwelling Units by Zone
Rural Residential
RR10
12,247
6,349
18,596
Urban Reserve
SR2.5
227
124
351
Unincorporated
Community
SURM
1,579
0
1,579
Unincorporated
Community
SURS
2,885
341
3,226
Unincorporated
Community
TEC
14
10
24
Unincorporated
Community
TECR
4
9
13
Unincorporated
Community
TER
294
376
670
Unincorporated
Community
TER5
36
6
42
Unincorporated
Community
TUC
30
48
78
Unincorporated
Community
TUR
93
85
178
Unincorporated
Community
TUR5
62
35
97
Urban Reserve
UAR10
226
190
416
Resource
EFULB
11
56
67
Resource
EFUSC
25
137
162
Resource
EFUTE
44
133
177
Resource
EFUTRB
169
445
614
Resource
EFUAL
37
147
184
Resource
EFULA
7
34
41
Resource
EFUHR
22
100
122
Destination Resort
PRONGHORN
0
700
700
Destination Resort
EAGLE
CREST III
1 0
1 900
900
TOTAL UNITS1
24,308
1 14,464
38,772
The figure on the next page shows the proportions of the existing and
potential units in each rural land use category:
PAGE 13 OF 21 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2003-001 (1/29/03)
_Exhibit B (page 19 of 27)
EXHIBIT "B"
Figure 4
Residential Lots in Nonurban Deschutes County
Urban
Reserve
Destination - Resource
Resort
Unincorporated
Community
Rural
Residential
Using the geographic information system (GIS), the County calculated a
potential of 14,464 residential units. To develop a final population of the
unincorporated county at build -out, the County staff used an historical average
of 910 building permits per year (based on a 12 -year historic average) and an
average of 2.1 persons per housing unit. This resulted in a final population in
the unincorporated county of 81,421 people. This estimate of population relies
on an assumption that the 2.1 persons per housing units takes into account
the fact that some of these new units will be vacation or second homes in the
unincorporated county. According to the year 2000 U.S. Census, the average
household size 2.5 persons for year-round occupied dwellings in Deschutes
County.
Table 6
Unincorporated Buildout Population
Existing + Potential
Persons per
Build -out
units
housing unit
population
38,772
2.1 persons
81,421
To forecast this population change from 2000 to 2030, the County
assumed that the population of the non -urban County would continue to grow,
but at rates below those forecast by OEA. By the year 2030, the County will
begin reaching its build out and possibly seeing a slow down in growth to
approximately one (1) percent per year. This element of the forecast is based
on an assumption that certain unincorporated communities, such as La Pine,
may expand to include additional land within its growth boundary. This
forecast also assumes that other lands that are mapped and eligible for
PAGE 14 OF 21 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2003-001 (1/29/03)
Exhibit B (page 20 of 27)
EXHIBIT 'B"
destination resort development will be developed and include permanent and
year-round housing.
As land in the incorporated portion of the county is built -out, population
growth will slow as population moves to available lands within the urban
growth boundaries of cities. Finally, the forecast assumes that the current
county zoning and state land use laws will not change during the forecast
period to accommodate additional population in the unincorporated portions of
the county.
BEND
The Portland State University Population Research Center estimates
Bend's July 1, 2002 population at 57,750 persons. In the previous coordinated
forecast Bend was not expected to reach this level until 2010, so Bend is about
eight years ahead of the 1997 forecast. In preparing Bend's population
forecast the city's Long Range Planning staff considered eleven different
population growth scenarios. The preferred forecast that makes up Bend's
portion of the coordinated forecast was in the low mid-range of the growth
scenarios. The preferred forecast is based on several factors:
• Historic growth trends for Bend,
• Comparative growth rates and percentages,
• Current age groupings, and
• Conditions that might limit future growth rates.
One aspect of forecasting is to evaluate historic data to determine if there
are patterns or trends that may affect future growth. The average annual
population increase for Bend is shown in Table 7.
Table 7
Bend Average Annual Growth Rate
22 -years (1980-2002) 12 -years (1990-2002
3.9% 1 5.9%6
Source: Portland State University annual reports; annual housing
data from Bend and Deschutes County; city annexation records.
Over the longer 22 -year historic period - including the recession of the
mid-1980s - the annual average growth rate in Bend was almost double the
statewide average. The even higher short-term rate has continued into 2002,
despite the current national economic recession. These short-term growth
6 The 1990-2002 average annual growth rate is for the whole UGB which included parts that
were within County jurisdiction that developed with septic tanks and drain fields. Inside the
Bend city limits during this period the annual growth rate, excluding annexations, was higher
at 6.3% due to sewer service and other factors.
PAGE 15 OF 21 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2003-001 (1/29/03)
Exhibit B (page 21 of 27)
EXHIBIT "B"
rates, combined with other factors described below, create a reasonable
argument for continued high population growth rates in Bend during the next
few years up to 2010.
Although Bend's annual growth rate has been robust during the past 10
years, Redmond's annual growth rates have been even higher with an average
7.0% a year during this period. Redmond's high growth rates and its
increasing share of the total population growth will affect Bend's long term
forecast by reducing Bend's share of total county growth. These comparative
percentage changes for the jurisdictions are shown in Table 2.
Another factor considered in Bend's forecast is the current age
groupings in Bend. Most of the recent population increase has come largely
from "in -migrants" that are baby -boomers and the following generation of
children and grandchildren rather than elderly retirees.? The chart below
shows the age distribution for Bend from the 2000 U.S. Census.
Figure 5
Bend Age Groupings - Year 2000
20
i
.r
15
c
10
d
IL
5
0
5-14 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84
Ages
In the 2000 Census data, the peak of baby -boomers follows the rapidly
declining percent of older residents. The baby -boomer group is in turn followed
by the slightly smaller plateau of the "echo" generation. As Bend's population
ages over 10 or 20 years (imagine the line of age grouping in Figure 5 sliding to
the right) the oldest baby -boomers will be in their early 60s and then early 70s
- still not into the high mortality years. Correspondingly, the baby -boomer
children who are now in their teens and 20s will be in their 30s and mid 40s by
the end of the 2025 forecast period. These age characteristics affect Bend's
7 This fact is supported by the rapid increase in school age children in the Bend schools and
in -migrant age data for Deschutes County.
PAGE 16 OF 21 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2003-001 (1/29/03)
Exhibit B (page 22 of 27)
EXHIBIT "B"
forecast because it is assumed that there will not be a significant natural
decline (death due to aging) of the existing population and that the echo
generation will continue to add to the natural increase (births) of the
population.
The change in Bend's population, as noted earlier, is not primarily due to
natural increase, but is greatly affected by factors that are not influenced by
local political decisions or economic development efforts. Reasons to migrate to
Bend (and other cities throughout Oregon) are relative to the reasons that lead
to people to leave other places - crime, high housing prices, aging school
facilities, poor air and water quality, and so forth.
As part of the population forecasting for Bend the city staff considered
several factors that could be expected to affect Bend's attractiveness to
potential in -migrants. Some of these factors concern the City's ability to
provide for growth (infrastructure `supply); others relate to the overall livability
of Bend (in -migrant `demand). The factors are listed below.
A primary purpose of this forecast is to provide a reasonable basis for
long-term land use and public facility planning. The forecast figure is a
technical tool, indicating a likely future condition based on historical patterns
and what is assumed about future trends. From this standpoint, in the
absence of clear indicators of likely service deficiencies, it is more prudent to
assume that needed public facilities will be available to accommodate growth.
That is, it is better in the long term to plan for expected growth, even if actual
growth rates turn out to be somewhat lower than expected, because the
community will already have planned for the needed facilities rather than being
forced to play "catch-up" due to faulty assumptions to the availability of
adequate facilities.
In addition, Oregon's land use planning law requires cities to provide for
expected growth by resolving any potential building moratorium due to
inadequate facilities, while allowing for expansion of UGBs to handle an
expanding population. Adjusting a population forecast downward by way of
unfounded assumptions that adequate public facilities will not be available
runs counter both to good planning and to state law.
INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPLY
• Water Supply - adequate ground water supply exists, but mitigation will
be necessary. Although the City will need to obtain additional water
rights through the Oregon Water Resources Department, it seems more
reasonable at this time to assume that permits for an adequate water
supply will be obtained than to assume that they will not. The Avion
Water District currently serves most areas outside the UGB.
PAGE 17 OF 21 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2003-001 (1/29/03)
Exhibit B (page 23 of 27)
EXHIBIT "B"
• Sewer Supply - the city has adequate land for expansion of the treatment
plant and facilities.
• Housing Supply - new construction of all housing types continues to be
strong and hundreds of single-family lots are available for construction
or are in the development phase. If additional land is needed to provide
for a 20 -year supply of housing, the UGB may be expanded for that
purpose.
• School Crowding - not a problem in the short term as the district is
building new school facilities; the Bend -La Pine school district has been
successful in passing bonds for new school construction and facility
improvements. While future financing for needed facilities cannot be
guaranteed, historical experience suggests that a lack of school facilities
is unlikely to act as a significant growth constraint.
• Parks and Recreation Opportunities - the Bend Metro Park & Recreation
District recently forecast growth in its service district population that is
comparable to this Coordinated Population Forecast. In late 2002 the
District adopted higher System Development Charges for new housing
development. The new fee level is calculated to accommodate growth by
providing funds needed to buy land and build the expected level of park
and recreation facilities. Also, Bend's proximity to national forest, state
parks, and other public lands will continue to allow new residents to
pursue a wide variety of recreational interests.
• Transportation System - Bend's rapid growth has made it difficult to
provide system components (roads, Dial -A -Ride, trails, bike lanes, and
sidewalks) fast enough to keep up with the short-term demand. Regular
evaluations of system needs are provided through updates to the city's
Transportation System Plan and requirements for coordinated
transportation planning under the new Metropolitan Planning
Organization. Although certain components of the transportation system
are often considered to be operating at less than optimal levels, historical
experience suggests that the overall system will continue to operate at
levels that do not act as a serious constraint to growth.
IN -MIGRATION DEMAND
• Housing Prices - although among the highest in Central Oregon, prices
are still low relative to major metropolitan areas in California,
Washington and other states - the main areas from which people migrate
to Central Oregon.
• Social Services - regional medical and education facilities continue to
grow. Bend will continue to be the regional center for county, state, and
federal social service programs.
• Crime Incidents - increasing relative to the past, but mainly property
crimes and rates lower than metropolitan areas.
PAGE 18 OF 21 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2003-001 (1/2c)/()1)
Exhibit B (page 24 of 27)
19MOMMUMM
• Economic Recession - the most recent recession did not slow growth in
Deschutes County or Bend.$ It would probably take a major national
economic collapse or decline to slow growth in Bend.
• Job Growth - during the past decade in the tri -county Central Oregon
region the rate of job growth has been faster than population growth.
Bend's role as regional retail and service center increases opportunities
for continued job growth in Bend.
• Parks and Recreation Programs - the Park and Recreation District
continues to address the growing demand for its program and facilities
by developing new parks and expanding its recreation programs that suit
the changing interests and demographics of the community.
• Natural Disaster- two wildfires in and adjacent to Bend in the past 12
years did not slow growth and the city and county are better prepared
now to fight wildfires. Volcanic eruptions could discourage people from
moving here.
These factors, and the other points described in the previous pages, support a
pattern of continued rapid growth for Bend in the short term and a long-term
growth pattern that will almost double Bend's current population by 2025.
i?1-5i5��A 81 -All
During the past 12 years, and especially in the most recent years,
Redmond has had exceptional population increases. Growth in the Redmond
UGB averaged about 7.0 percent per year during this time, with the last couple
of years in Redmond approaching 11 percent!
An assumption built into the coordinated forecast is that Redmond's
percentage or share of the total countywide population will continue to increase
slightly over time due to the city's aggressive growth policies and housing
prices that are lower than in Bend. Redmond's portion of total growth is
forecast to increase from the 2000 level of 13.7 percent to 18.4 percent in 2015
and to 21.4 percent by 2025.
In developing a population forecast for the City of Redmond, several
factors were considered:
• Historic growth trends
• Comparative growth rates and percentages, and
• Comparative housing costs
Table 8 shows the average annual growth rate for the Redmond UGB.
8 According to the Oregon Department of Employment Central Oregon Labor Trends
newsletters, between January 2001 and September 2002 the number of non-farm wage and
salary jobs in Deschutes County increased from 51,500 to 54,020.
PAGE 19 OF 21 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2003-001 (1/29/03)
Exhibit B (page 25 of 27)
EXHIBIT "B"
Table 8
Redmond UGB Population Change and
Short-term Avera a Annual Growth Rate
1980 - 1990
1990 - 2000
2000 - 2010 Forecast
6,452 - 7,163
7,163 - 13,481
13,481 - 27,873
1.05%
(6.53%)
(7.53%
Source: Trends from U.S. Census and Portland State University Center for
Population Research; Forecast from Oregon Office of Economic Analysis
Recent analysis of housing costs between Bend and Redmond shows that
the average sale price for a 2200 square foot home, 3-4 bedrooms with 2.5
baths in Bend is $293,225, while the sale price for the equivalent home in
Redmond is $204,606.
Building permit activity also reflects a continued increase in population
growth. In 1999, the Community Development Department issued 394
building permits; of which 360 were single family units including
manufactured homes, and 34 were multi -family units. In 2000, 595 permits
were issued, of which 419 were single family units including manufactured
homes, and 176 were multi -family units. And in 2001, as of June 30th, 433
permits were issued, of which 283 were single family units including
manufactured homes and 150 were multi -family units. The housing permit
numbers are consistent with the PSU July 1, 2002 estimate of 16,110 persons
within the Redmond city limits.
These factors support a continued pattern of substantial growth that will
more than double the City of Redmond's population by 2010, and more than
triple the population by 2025.
SISTERS
The official July 1, 2002 population estimated for Sisters is 1,080.
The Sisters population is forecast to remain small compared to the other
jurisdictions, but will experience consistent growth over the long-term. Sisters
will use the new population forecast numbers as a component of its buildable
lands inventory as their comprehensive plan is updated.
The consistent growth forecast for Sisters is based on the recent
completion of the sanitary sewer system in Sisters. The lack of a sanitary
sewer system artificially limited growth in Sisters during the biggest growth
period in the county's history. The city sewer system, completed in 2001, will
support faster growth than was possible in the past.
The sewer system construction has caused a notable increase in the
issuance of building permits from a pre -sewer average of between 10 and 20
annually to 51 in 2000, to 75 in 2001, to a projected peak of 122 for 2002.
PAGE 20 OF 21 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2003-001 (1/29/03)
Exhibit B (page 26 of 27)
EXHIBIT "B"
This surge in demand is expected to decline over the projection period, with the
exception of a three-year period of no decline from 2009 to 2012 as residential
opportunities in the unincorporated County areas are depleted and a portion of
that demand is transferred to the cities.
The Central Oregon quality of life and our proximity to west coast
population centers like Portland, Seattle and San Francisco insure a steady
stream of visitors, some of whom will choose to relocate. Also, there currently
are a high percentage of retirement homes being built in Sisters, and the
eventual full-time occupancy of these homes over time will help maintain
sustained growth.
The City has community facilities plans for water, wastewater, parks and
transportation. A voter mandated Charter amendment that Systems
Development Charges be paid as development permits are issued ensures there
will be adequate capacity in those systems to accommodate growth. The
Sisters School district has adequate facilities to accept increased enrollment
and their reputation for quality attracts families to the district.
Q:\DATA\Population Update\Coordination Forecast Report - Final.doc
January 17, 2003
PAGE 21 OF 21 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2003-001 (1/29/03)
Exhibit B (page 27 of 27)
JAN 28 2003 7:51PM HP LASERJET 3200
1000
FRIENDS
OF OREGON
I=
P.1
534 SW Third Avenue, Suite 300 • Portland, OR 97204 ' (503) 497-1000 • fax (503) 223-0073 • wv fnends.org
Southern Oregon Office • 33 North Central Avenue, Rm. 429 ' Medford, OR 97,501 - (541) 245-4535 • fax (541) 776-0443
,Willamette Vallry Office • 388 State Street, Suite 604 • Srlem, OR 97301 • (503) 371-7261 • fax (503) 311-7596
Lane County Office • 120 West Broadway • Eugcne, OR 97401 • (541) 431-7059 • fax (541) 431-7078
Central Oregon Office • P.O. Box 8813 • Bend, OR 97708 • (541) 382-7557• fax (541) 382-7552
FAX TRANSMISSION
TO: � 0ma V1 ..� .
FROM: Kate Kimball, Central Oregon Advocate
DATE: l I Z% 10.3
No. of Pages (including cover): �p
�i�vLua�
Exhibit C (page 1 of 10)
JAN 28
1000
FRIENDS
OF OREGON
534 SDG Third Avenue, Suite 300 • Portland, OR 97204 • (503) 497-1000 • faz (503) 223-0073 • www.friende.org
Southern Oregon Office • 33 North Centra) Avenue, Rm. 429 • Medford, OR 97501 • (541) 245-4535 • fax (541) 776-0443
V21arnette Valley Office •:388 State Street, Suite 604 • Salem, OR 97301 • (503) 371-7261 • fax (503) 371-7596
Lane County Office • 120 West Broadway Eugene, OR 97401 • (541) 431-7059 • fax (541) 431-7078
Central Oregon Office • P.O. Box 8813 • Bend, OR 97708 • (541) 382-7557 • fax (541) :382-7552
January 28, 2003
Board of County Commissioners
Deschutes County
1130 NW Harriman
Bend, OR 97701
Re: PA -02-6, Coordinated Population Forecast
Dear Commissioners:
On behalf of 1000 Friends of Oregon, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on
the coordinated population forecast. I incorporate by reference my comments on
December 12, 2002 before the Planning Commission on this subject. I appreciate the
work the staff has done to respond to those comments.
1. General Comments
a. Draft OEA Estimates: As I indicated in my earlier testimony, the county's population
forecast keys off of draft estimates from the Oregon Office of Economic Analysis (OEA).
While I can understand the frustration with OEA's inability to generate final numbers, the
county's actions will set in stone numbers with which OEA may ultimately disagree.
OEA has the more sophisticated analytical capabilities and the fact that the numbers are
not final suggests that OEA has some hesitation in concluding that these numbers are
correct. I request that the county either delay taking action until OEA has final numbers
or that a provision is included to revisit the numbers once OEA releases a final forecast.
The county would not want to bind itself to inaccurate numbers.
The county appears to be trying to stay within range of the OEA draft estimates.
But the OEA numbers are not final so that the county may be committing itself to the
wrong forecast. This can have costly implications. These numbers will be used to
assume the county's future and all land use and transportation planning will assume they
are accurate. If Bend, for example, is not forecast to grow as the county forecast
suggests, Bend will be committing unnecessary resources preparing for people who will
not come. It would be more cost-effective yet simple to provide a review of these
numbers once OEA releases a final forecast.
b. Change in Composition: The 2000 census indicates that 4.304 persons of
Hispanic or Latino origin live in Deschutes County (Exhibit A) while there were 1, 526
Exhibit C (page 2 of 101__
JAN 28 2003 7:51PM HP LASERJET 3200
1000 Friends of Oregon
Coordinated Population Forecast
January 28, 2003
Page 2 of 3
P-3
such persons in the county in 1990 (Exhibit B). The Latino population in the county has
increased by 65% in the last ten years. This has implications for housing density; as the
Latino population in general has more persons per dwelling than the non -Latino
population. The forecast does not take into account this burgeoning population and the
impacts this change has on housing density assumptions. If this trend continues, housing
density will increase. Exhibits A and B also reflect an increase of over 30% in persons
65 years of age and older in Deschutes County, which is another shifting demographic
that impacts future housing demand.
c. Services: The forecast discusses primarily Bend's services (pages 14-15), but
each urban area faces serious services shortfalls. For example, Redmond has the most
pressing water supply problem and has serious school over -crowding that is not
addressed in the forecast. The discussion for Bend is useful but discussion of all services
should be expanded to include each city in the county. In addition, the demographics for
the city of Bend do not necessarily apply to all cities or to the non -urban areas of the
county. These differences should be discussed.
2. Forecast Assumptions
For destination resorts, there is no discussion at all of Sunriver, Black Butte,
Crosswater, or Inn of the Seventh Mountain and the assumptions for residents at those
facilities. Only Eagle Crest and Pronghorn are cited. The forecast report (page 9) states
the number of units that were assumed in the forecast but not the number of residents at
those facilities. The forecast appears to assume the same percentage of non-resident
ownership and the same density at each resort, but there is no basis for this assumption.
Each resort knows how many full-time residents there are. It would be useful to have this
information in the forecast, as the number of dwellings at the resorts is one of the
assumptions. In addition, it is unclear to me that Pronghorn will be fully built -out in 20
years, as assumed in the forecast.
Regarding forecast growth rates, I agree with the assumption that growth rates
will slow down. However, there is no justification for the specific rates that were
selected, only the observation that the rates will probably be lower than OEA forecast.
On what basis did the county decide 8.93% (versus, for example, 7.5%) was appropriate
for the period 2015-2020? While the assumption appears sound, a step is missing to
explain why these particular numbers were selected.
Housing density was an issue I raised in my earlier comments. I stated I thought
it was inappropriate to alter housing density assumptions to take into account non-
resident dwelling ownership. There should be enough information to keep the density
assumptions accurate (as these assumptions are used in other contexts) and to subtract the
number of non-resident owners. The staff has provided more information on this issue,
which I appreciate, but the core question remains: why alter housing density to a number
Exhibit C (page 3 of 10)
JAN
1000 Friends of Oregon
Coordinated Population Forecast
January 28, 2003
Page 3 of 3
we all agree is wrong when the county is really trying to determine the number of
resident (vs. non-resident) owners. If we know that there is 16.5% vacancy, then it
makes more sense to subtract 16.5% of the unincorporated dwellings to arrive at the
number of resident owners and have the correct density for these residents.
The rate of growth was 910 building permits per year based on a 12 -year historic
average. This average was unusually high due to the strong economic conditions. It
would be useful to see how the estimates change using a 20 -year average, as this includes
the slower economic era in the 1980's. The final forecast (Page 12) also assumes "that
other lands are mapped and eligible for destination resort development will be developed
and include permanent and year-round housing". It is unclear how this assumption is
factored into the forecast. The destination resort discussion on page 9 makes no reference
to new resorts and Table 5 does not clearly indicate where these additional units could be
included. In addition, it is stated that the growth rate will slow down by 2030 (page 12)
but the growth rates in page 9 assume a rate slower than OEA throughout the forecast
period.
Conclusion
For the reasons suggested above, I recommend that the forecast be delayed or revisited
when final OEA numbers become available. In addition, I request that the forecast be
modified consistent with the issues raised above.
In my comments before the Planning Commission, I suggested that this forecast is a good
opportunity to engage the public on the future of the county and the cities in it. While
some might think it is folly to energize the public on the question of growth, I believe that
a public that is engaged early on will be provide more constructive and meaningful input
to the decisions that lie ahead. Managing growth is not necessarily about trying to affect
the rate of growth; at its core it is about anticipating growth and growing our
communities in a way that retains their core characteristics. Central Oregon is a
wonderful place to live, which is why so many move here. Keeping it wonderful will
require planning, creativity and a community conversation about how we want to look in
the next twenty years. I encourage you to start this conversation now while we have the
luxury of anticipating issues and not having to respond to urgent problems.
Thank you for your attention to these views.
Sincerely,
PA-- �L_�4
Kate Kimball
OSB #00135
--- Exhibit C (page 4 of 10)-- - - - - -
JHN 28 2003 7:52PM HP LASERJET 3200 P•5
I-' I ti-IA0dl)
American FectPinder
3/28/07 5:37 PM
r �lalf%Qif1 �'d'.
Main i Search Feedback FAQs Glossary Help
Quick Tables
DP -1. Profile of General Demooraohic CharaclerisUcs: 2000
Data Set. Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 10D -Percent Data
Geographic Area: Deschutes county, Oregon
NOTE: For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see lem:Nradn de .mau+.awb rna.ry
damn0le010009.h1m.
np://f+ct£nder.oen+u+.gov/bU leng�� vl name-DEC_2000_SF I_U DPI_zw _id-05000U341017.htm1
Peg. I of 2
Exhibit C (page 5 of 10)
Numbed
Toulation%
[male
AND AGE
57 31
49.
Female
58,063
50.
Under 5 Years
7,014
6.1
5 to 9 years
7.84
8.
10 to 14 years
8,8341
7.
15 to 19 years
7.8y
6.8
0 to 24 years
6,2401
5.
5 to 34 years
14,62412.7
35 to 44 years
18.3651
15,
5 to 54 years
18,0931
15,7
5 to 59 ears
6,3391
5.
0 to 84 years
5,2211
4.
510 74 ears
8,2981
7.
5 to 84 years
5,1261
4.
5 years and over
1,66
1.
Median age ears
38.
X
18 years and over
86.7&
75
Mak
42,73E
37.
remals
44,04C
38.
1 years and over
82,6961
71.
2 yearn and aver
18,154
15.
5 yearn and over
15,084
13.1
Male
6,9461
6.
:mete
8,144
7.1
CE
One race
113J09
98.
wb11e
109,423
94.8
Bled or Mash American
222
0.2
American IrlNan and Ataru Nefiva
956
0.8
Aslan
8491
0.7
Asian Inde
971
0.1
Chinese
1921
0.2
riN*o
134
0.1
.leper...
194
0.
Koren,
11
0.1
Matnanu.e
5
0.1
oer.rA+rn
5
0.
Now Hawaiian end other Padflc Islander
6
0.1
Matt- Hawaiiw
5
0-
GuarnmienorCharno"
0.
earloan
1
0.
Omer P&cMc Islandr
2
0.
some oWerraa
1.57
1.
Two or more reoes
2,25
2.
ew elan, ar/n comOrnacen WIM ons sane.. allerres+a
Ite
111587
9%6.
lack or African American
441
0.
merican Indian and Alaska Native
2 067
1.
sign
1366
1
Native Hawaffan and Other Pacific Islander
2771
0.
np://f+ct£nder.oen+u+.gov/bU leng�� vl name-DEC_2000_SF I_U DPI_zw _id-05000U341017.htm1
Peg. I of 2
Exhibit C (page 5 of 10)
P-
i Uv4ioa t 1
American FactFinder
Quick Tables
OP -1. General Population and Housing Characterfatia• 1990
Data Set: 1990 Summary Tape File 1 (STF D - 100 -Per f data
Geographic Area: Deschutes County, Oregon
NOTE Fnr irdnrmatinn nn .Y,�fi,1e.,► asr„ ....tee... r. . -�- _
1/28/03 5:33 PM
Main I Search I Feedback I FAQs I Glossary I Help
p:/Ifactfinder.census.gov/servlel/BaslcFactsTable?-Iang.sn6_vt_name-DEC-1990_STF 1 _DPI b_ge0_Id-05000US4101 7
Page 1 of 2
Exhibit C (page 6 of 10)
Paul D. Dewey Attorney at Law
1539 NW Vicksburg
Bend, Oregon 97701
January 29, 2003 (541) 317-1993
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1130 NW HarrimanAve.
Bend, OR 97701
Re: Deschutes County Coordinated Population Forecast
Dear Commissioners:
The Sisters Forest Planning Committee ("SFPC") incorporates by reference the comments of
1000 Friends of Oregon in their letters of December 12, 2002 and January 28, 2003, plus the
comments of the Friends of Bend. Additionally, the SFPC would like to make the following
comments critical of the analysis used by the County.
1. It is inappropriate for the County to be pursuing this forecast when the Office of
Economic Analysis ("OEA") has not yet issued its new official forecast numbers. As is evident
from the January 2003 "Final Report," the past OEA and draft OEA analyses are critical to the
methodology being used by the County. Accordingly, the County should be at least following
the official forecast numbers from OEA and not relying on just drafts. It makes it very difficult
to critique the County's forecast without an official OEA forecast and discussion of underlying
assumptions.
2. At page 6 of the "Final Report," the County points to an "apparent lack of
constraints to rapid growth." This statement ignores recent comments by Bend officials stating
that water may be a constraint to growth and pointing out that mitigation measures which would
allow use of more water are not working out with irrigation districts. The County's forecast
must include an analysis of possible constraints such as a lack of water and water rights.
3. The County's forecast assumptions are not reliable where they rely on Deschutes
County GIS and building permit data because such data is not necessarily reflective of
population. This is particularly the case in Deschutes County where so many dwellings have
been built by non-residents. This forecast, after all, concerns "population" and not just
development of structures. See page 5 of the "Final Report" where the County states that their
analyses is based on PSU certified population figures for the cities and then Deschutes County
GIS and building permit data elsewhere.
4. There should be a separate analysis of the Urban Area Reserve west of Bend
which is obviously going to be having a greater density than a lot size of 10 acres. The
assumptions at page 8 are not consistent with the Cascade Highlands resort development
proposed for that area.
5. The "Final Report" at page 7 states that this analysis did not include "corporate -
owned forest lands." This assumption is not valid given the increasing conversion of industrial
forest lands to residential uses in the Crown Pacific timberlands. Additionally, the
Exhibit C (page 7 of 10)
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
January 29, 2003
Page 2
Weyerhaeuser lands west of Sisters and west of Black Butte Ranch are in the process of being
sold based on their amenity values rather than timber values. In the Crown Pacific lands the
parcels include 240 -acre lots plus some proposed 80 -acre lots (just approved by the County).
Any analysis of potential dwelling units must take into consideration that these corporate -owned
forest lands are being converted. The Commissioners are well aware of the recent Thomas and
Tweedfam/Hap Taylor partitions west of Bend. The SFPC incorporates by reference into the
public comments of this Deschutes County population forecast the materials submitted by the
SFPC in the recent Thomas partition regarding the partitions in these industrial timberland areas.
These lands have the potential for having hundreds of dwellings.
6. The "Final Report" also incorrectly suggests that there will be a shift of
population growth to cities because of the limited supply of parcels in the County. History has
shown that a declining supply of lots in rural areas leads to the loosening of land use regulations
to allow greater partitioning and development in the rural zones. This is reflected in the recent
House Bill 3326.
7. The "Final Report" at page 9 states that the County Staff "relied on the proposed
growth rates from OEA." Again, it is inappropriate to rely on these growth rates from OEA
absent a final analysis by OEA which can be critically reviewed by the public. The growth rates
also appear to be excessive and are apparently based on the past decade of growth which was
stimulated in large part by the stock market and other growth factors in the U.S. economy during
this period. It would be critical to balance that growth period by what is obviously happening
now with a downturn in the economy. This is yet another reason to wait for further analysis
before finalizing this forecast.
8. The County's assumption of a housing unit size of 2.1 versus 2.5 persons per
household is inadequately discussed. First, there is not enough analysis of the phenomenon of
vacant housing due to seasonal or recreational use. Second, there is a failure to analyze the
recent and substantial increase in the Hispanic population in the area which tends to have a
greater density of persons per household. There is also potentially a great difference between
persons per housing unit within the urban growth boundaries and outside of the urban growth
boundaries. That is certainly the case with the destination resorts.
9. The "Discussion and Explanation" of the "Final Report" continues to fail to
adequately explain the underlying assumptions of this forecast. As a result, there is an
insufficient basis to provide meaningful public comment and for the Commissioners to make a
well -reasoned decision on the best forecast.
10. At page 15 of the "Final Report," there is a discussion of infrastructure supply.
The report states that a lack of school facilities is unlikely to act as a significant growth
constraint. To the contrary, the Code provisions for both Bend and Redmond clearly provides
that zone changes as well as subdivision approvals are conditioned on adequate infrastructure,
including schools. Where Redmond has a history of voting down schools and Bend may soon
Exhibit C (page 8 of 10)__
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
January 29, 2003
Page 3
face this phenomenon, there is absolutely no basis for the assumption that school crowding will
not be a problem for growth in these areas.
11. The "Final Report" also contains inadequate and misleading information
regarding past forecasts. Table 2 shows an actual population for -2000 at 117,688 and criticizes
PSU's underestimation of 109,600. The County fails to acknowledge its own overestimation of
128,200. (Comp. Plan, Sec. 23.20.0308). Unfortunately, the County appears to be repeating this
overestimation in the current process.
Conclusion.
The County's Plan Amendment to adopt this new population forecast violates State Goals, ORS
195.036 and the County's Plan Amendment and Citizen Involvement provisions (see Ch. 23.124,
23.128 and 23.20) by failing to provide and use reliable and complete information in this
population forecast. Additionally, no need has been shown for an amendment at this time.
The "Final Report" states that a primary purpose of the forecast is to provide a reasonable basis
for long-term land use and public facility planning. Unfortunately, because the assumptions are
inadequately explained or are clearly wrong, this forecast will not provide such a reasonable
basis. Instead, it appears to be designed to stimulate and presume greater public facilities to
accommodate more growth than will be desirable or necessary. The SFPC respectfully requests
the Commissioners to reject this population forecast and wait for better analyses on which to
base the forecast.
Very truly yours,
PAUL D. DEWEY
PDD:ao
cc: SFPC
Exhibit C (page 9 of 10)
Damian Syrnyk
From:
JININGS Jon [Jon.Jinings@state.or.us]
Sent:
Monday, January 27, 2003 9:32 AM
To:
Dam ian_Syrnyk@co. desch utes. or. us
Cc:
WOOLLEY Laren
Subject:
Re: Public hearing reminder - January 29, 2003
Damian,
Thanks for the note. As you know, DLCD believes Deschutes County has used
acceptable methodologies to reach the Coordinated Population Forecast•
expressed in the Final Report of January 2003.
The county's predictions do exceed population estimates provided by the Oregon
Department of Administrative Services Office of Economic Analysis (Published
January 1997). However, DLCD believes that Deschutes County, along with the
cities of Bend, Redmond and Sisters, has provided sufficient information to
support the conclusions in the report.
The fact the Deschutes County will continue to grow appears undisputed. It is
important that local officials, the local planning community and other
interested parties prepare for the future to avoid negative aspects of
unplanned growth. We believe that the Coordinated Population Forecast will be
a solid tool for the work ahead.
Feel free to share this e-mail with your County Commissioners, or anyone else.
Please let us know if we can be of any assistance.
Thanks,
Jon Jinings
Regional Representative
>>> Damian_Syrnyk@co.deschutes.or.us 01/27/03 09:05AM >>>
Greetings, we're in the homestretch now on the forecat. Just sending a
reminder that the Board of County Commissioners will hold a public hearing
on the forecast this Wednesday at 10:00 am, in the Commissioner's Hearing
Room (1130 NW Harriman Street).
Thanks!
Damian Syrnyk
Deschutes County Planning Division
117 NW Lafayette Ave
Bend, OR 97701
Phone (541) 385-1709
Fax (541) 385-1764
Email damians@co.deschutes.or.us
Website http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/
1
Exhibit C (page 10 of 10)- - -
N O o O u') o M Ln O OD 00 a N M
C -0 N In Wn N N h M N N a o n N
m O a) N aT O N C N 00 t- 00 N
m n U r OM NN e~
C 0 O
C d
.o 'c
c0 a
W W o
m
Um
> L U . . . . . . . . . . .
N C
Lo m
m U m
D
0 0 000000 Ln Wnm00
0 0 000000 am -e r- o
0
>= C O O Ln W N T W 00 N M In r
6 m "I Cl) Cl) N M N N N N
> Cl) W C4
O aOa r r N
N � U
_ m o LO o
f0 E CO r~) rn
m U O aD Ln
a C N
rO 0 0 0 0 O
U j O O O LO 0 LO
m LL In o Ln n o
O Cl) M 00 r 10
M N
V m U
O =L=
(D
M
O � T
m C �
U =O LO O0 O LO O O O O
ULL O l0 O O <t '7 r O O
m . O O IQ W Cl! M LO r-
'5
'O L W r- O N N M
W) N r
Q1
0
L o
O
c Cl
m m
m E Lo
T
a7
0-
C:, O O O O 0 0 0 LO M m O O
O O 0 0 0 C. 0 0 O) 10- r O O
m O O C t0 O W a1 W O N M L �
a V u7 r M W N m N 0 N r CO
m Z m M M N N N r
O m
N
O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O
v 0 0 000000 m UO 00
m O O Ci Ci Ct 0 Ct 0 M r tO O O
O O 0 00 0 0 0 r N O O
m O I om
O) tO V co N M V7 u7
U �2 N Cl)
d N
V
0
00
CD M
y esu
O
F
r -)
O
Um o Sc C3).� mac°.. »� m
fry E- U o
m
0 4^' C U 64 m h U
1 m E > Q U W O > U N
¢'s i> N N N C, N
0 0� Z a NIt E 4)X. 0
Y ID a c m o y � ti
0 COtU m O O h V m h m L U' ° a m o
u�a Cn U �' O m O C N
y p l� y O
c c O aa, 01 M r
a a E o o a m o= 3 c o `m `m m
U J �UUQU�� Z`. mUU�_1
<Y O c
N >
m S
O O O
C
C C
O m Q
0 0 o
O O O
O
Ln
N
LD
O
O
N
00
of E m
Lo
W D
co
M
M
LD
L
M
N
a7
v,
0
C.
o
m
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
L`
O
co
1-
N
a
0D
O
N
�n
�n
n
04
N
N
'
V:
O
CD
'oM
M
co
M
co
co
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
o
r-:
c
r,:
r_:
1�
N
W
m
0)
�
M
"
O
LD
M
r-
L
O
O7
N
00
co
O
U
0
lO
y
a)
v
O
O
O
C
C
O
C
O
O
N
N
o
r
o
N
ao
00
>yi
<Y O c
N >
N
OI
C
m �
(%j m
m
C 01
m
O
CL CA
O N I
> a F
a'C= a O
3
X
E w
a
U LL U)
tD h 00
C
O
m
O
O C
O O
l0 —_
a E
O C �
O =
U LL m
O N
U •0
N y �
O E
C T N
m
E c
O m
fO U
CL
a (6 f0
m
CC CO
m m
E U c
Q C >
O LL
O U h
N U
X
N p Z m
m E m " a
»°
m E =1E•>`
CL C
c E m 2 m o
LL O > > U
U
`U m m m_
mt�0 w c ca
Y
U 07 j, O 7 N OC
> m m O C m�: m
_ E m mLL U
m m C
0 olp.o� a�Z•-
O c6 m X m r
Z �cZ
w 3 w o m
NLOfZLLcoM 0
m E E E E E u
E E O OO O C
O O w i::.5 22
Ol Ol 0)m
j6-0 O
C C C C m C
C C C C C C C m
LL Li LL LL L1 0
Exhibit D (page 1 of 11)
m S
O O O
C
C C
O m Q
0 0 o
O O O
n
D U
O O O
o O
co C
DD m m
r cD
of E m
W D
N
OI
C
m �
(%j m
m
C 01
m
O
CL CA
O N I
> a F
a'C= a O
3
X
E w
a
U LL U)
tD h 00
C
O
m
O
O C
O O
l0 —_
a E
O C �
O =
U LL m
O N
U •0
N y �
O E
C T N
m
E c
O m
fO U
CL
a (6 f0
m
CC CO
m m
E U c
Q C >
O LL
O U h
N U
X
N p Z m
m E m " a
»°
m E =1E•>`
CL C
c E m 2 m o
LL O > > U
U
`U m m m_
mt�0 w c ca
Y
U 07 j, O 7 N OC
> m m O C m�: m
_ E m mLL U
m m C
0 olp.o� a�Z•-
O c6 m X m r
Z �cZ
w 3 w o m
NLOfZLLcoM 0
m E E E E E u
E E O OO O C
O O w i::.5 22
Ol Ol 0)m
j6-0 O
C C C C m C
C C C C C C C m
LL Li LL LL L1 0
Exhibit D (page 1 of 11)
000000 to
(D 0 0 0 0 0 C)
O 1n 00 LO W 00 00
M CO N r LO N t0
M M Cl) N N
r N
O LO
O O
O
,
U) N �
O
� m m
U
O u)
a)
Q M
O 0D
r O
LO
O O
Li
O O
7
O O
c
Ln ti
C) 0O
an a) O O
O -0 >
~ Q)
r
Q �
M
000000 to
(D 0 0 0 0 0 C)
O 1n 00 LO W 00 00
M CO N r LO N t0
M M Cl) N N
r N
O LO
O O
O
O 1-
LO O
O
O M
O u)
O
O 0D
r O
LO
2 —
O
N
O
OO O O
O
OLO
C) 0O
an a) O O
Q
Lr ti O
f`
M
M 00 r
�O
1-
Cl) M N
r
O to
O O
O LO
LO C14
LO O
O v
N
O u)
O
r
r O
N <-
(3) LOLO
O
r
O
rn
vr-- OO
V
Ni
r
an a) O O
1`
O
O
Cl)
er t- O O
O
O
0
r
N M LO h
O
O
tO 6) O O
v 1- O O
N M Ili I --
(N Cl)
N
O
N r
v
O
V0)
V-
O
O
000000
LO
LOrnOO
O
00
000000
rn
vr-- OO
V
Ni
r
an a) O O
O
O
O
a)
er t- O O
O
O
0
r
N M LO h
O
O
O
N
N r M
O
h
O
00
N r
t-
N
00
c sQ)
m
I*
O_
O
O
000000
V'
N
tO 6) O O
v 1- O O
N M Ili I --
(N Cl)
N
O O O
O O O
O O O
O i- O
1- N
'I
N LO
� VI-
C\!
`N N
� 0)
O O
O O
O O
LQ L '
Cl) Cl)
00 CO
Cl) Cl)
O O
O O
O O '
0) 0)
O O
I -T It
a) N M
(D tO 00
O j V'
O
N r
0p
64
O
V0)
V-
O
O
000000
LO
LOrnOO
O
O
000000
rn
vr-- OO
V
O
O
O LO 00 LO 6) 00
00
N Cl) W) N
Q
Ln
!-
M O N to N
(D
N r M
4)
;U)
ci Q)
Cl) Cl) Cl) N
N
N r
F 6
E
U
CQ
ch
Zco
V
O.`O
c sQ)
m
6
O
O
000000
V'
O O O O
O
O
O
0 0 0 0 0 0
(D
O (() O O
y
O
O
0 0 0 0 0 0
Cl)
1- LO O O
L
O
O
0 0 0 0 0 0
rz p
N O O
O O
O
O
O U') d' LO 1l_ IT
14,(D
L.0 e -
U
u7
.--
O t!) It Cl)
N
M r
L.
M
N
I
M -�
'c
a
r
uC,
.E m
�a
XT*
w
Os.
(A
y
E o oa a� o_
7 C
i m
m m m
E
t\
O O
O O O
O O O
O O O
O i- O
1- N
'I
N LO
� VI-
C\!
`N N
� 0)
O O
O O
O O
LQ L '
Cl) Cl)
00 CO
Cl) Cl)
O O
O O
O O '
0) 0)
O O
I -T It
a) N M
(D tO 00
O j V'
CD D7 E
cnN
W Q
Is_ =
O
N r
0p
64
O
V0)
V-
V-
O
Q)
69
I-
O
LO
U_
c
ti
Q)
U
w
C
Q)
O z � •G
co
Q)
Q)
(n
m
O
to
c
a�
U
a
CDcz
LO a a
;U)
ci Q)
(D
rn
F 6
E
U
CQ
ch
Zco
V
O.`O
c sQ)
m
6
c COco O
O U Q)
0.
O
U
U
JQ
O
O O
O
Ch
O
O O
O
r
m
O O
O
N
L
°'
ai
°'
rz p
O r-
O
00
>
I-
v
o
aci >
ti
�1' c
N
> N
0
cc
'c
c
Qui
uC,
.E m
�a
L
w
Os.
a
y
E o oa a� o_
7 C
i m
m m m
E
-o
O O
O
'1C
C Q
O O
O
O
O O
O
t -
U
OO
O O
O
r
0
0
r
O rC)
M
00
N N
CD D7 E
cnN
W Q
Is_ =
0p
64
O
V0)
N
a)Q)
69
I-
O
M
c
Q)
U
w
C
Q)
O z � •G
O
LO
6V
Q)
(n
m
c
a�
U
a
CDcz
LO a a
;U)
ci Q)
(D
rn
F 6
E
U
CQ
ch
Zco
V
O.`O
c sQ)
Q)
6
c COco O
O U Q)
0.
O
U
U
JQ
O
Q
O
>N
�(ii,
o
L
°'
ai
°'
rz p
sillcu
O
C, V N N
L
CLO U
U
Q
ti
�1' c
0
cc
'c
c
Qui
uC,
.E m
�a
a)�
w
Os.
a
y
E o oa a� o_
3 c
i m
m m m
E
-o
r
N
M
N
w
h
00
Exhibit D (page 2 of 11)
000000 Ln
0 0 0 0 0 (D O)
O LO 00 Ln O) 00 00
Cl) 00 N r Ln N to
mm M" N
N
O Lf)
O
U
> U
O 1-
O �
-C
U C
O M
f6 f6
U is
cl
N
a)
p m
O
LO
tt
L2 .-
0
0
> C
O
O
O
-
I-
7;5
O >
~
Obi
r
C) Q'
O Ln i� O
O
000000 Ln
0 0 0 0 0 (D O)
O LO 00 Ln O) 00 00
Cl) 00 N r Ln N to
mm M" N
N
O Lf)
O
L(Df) C14
O 1-
O �
O
O M
(D Lf)
cl
N
O 00
O
LO
tt
L2 .-
L() Q) O O
N
N
O
O O O O
O
O
O O Ln O
0)
LO
Ln
O Ln i� O
O
t`
M
M00 .-
(a
ti
Cl) M N
r
O
�
LO
L(Df) C14
LO O
O �
(D Lf)
O
N
I` LO
r
O
r
tt
LO
L() Q) O O
V
N
'
00
C
00
O
0)
Lf) m00 o O O m
It ti O O (D O 0 T-
N M Lc 1- O O O N
N M h N 000
,It O
N
m
lf)
lD
O
O
O O O O O O
LO
L() Q) O O
(N
N
'
O
C
0)
O
0)
0 0 0 0 0 0
(3)
V' I` O O
O
Cl
a)
O
O)
r
(a
r V
O
O
O
O
N Cl) N I-
O
O
O
O
O
•�
d
L
tf
r-
d'
M 00 N L N
Cl)Cl)M N
Ir
L
'
Ila
N
00
00
C
Cl)
Cl)
O
`-
N
00
00
IT
O
N>
Cn
Cl)
M
Cl
O
O
O
O
N
a_
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C
O
'
O
Il-
O
I-
r-
t�
N
O
CA
It
I
V
Lf) C) O O
O
C
O
M M
O
M
0 0 0 0 0 0
d
0 0 0 0
O
co
0
N LQ�
C
-a
(D
(D
N
0 0 0 0 0 O
N M
O Lo O O
O
O
'd'
-7(D
cu
7
Na)
y
O
Cl
0 00 00 0
LD
Lf)
O
O
O
r
Cl)
.Q
V W
O
Cl
O
O
0 C 0 0 0 0
O Li) LO I- 'IT
r- N O O
(D U7 r
U_
O
O
Cl
O
V-
M
N
U
�•
C
U
Lo
e--
O Ln "j CO
N
00
O
�-
O
00
(D
O
0)
Ci
N
(M N
CD
Cn
E
co
N
cn
W
rn
v
m
O
O
O O O O O O
LO
L() Q) O O
O
O
O
O
C
0)
O
O
0 0 0 0 0 0
(3)
V' I` O O
O
Cl
O
r
(a
r V
O
O
O Lf) 00 LO 0) 00
00
N Cl) N I-
O
O
O
N
N
•�
d
L
tf
r-
d'
M 00 N L N
Cl)Cl)M N
(D
N
N �- M
N
O
I-
Ila
N
00
00
C
N
�
0 d
O
`-
N
IT
O
N>
Cn
N
N
a_
_
(B
N
7
O
C
O
O
0 0 0 0 0 0
d
0 0 0 0
O
O
OCC
C
-a
O
O
0 0 0 0 0 O
(D
O Lo O O
O
O
O
O
cu
y
O
Cl
0 00 00 0
Cl)
Il- Ln O O
O
O
O
r
.Q
V W
O
Cl
O
O
0 C 0 0 0 0
O Li) LO I- 'IT
r- N O O
(D U7 r
O
O
O
O
Cl
O
V-
M
N
U
�•
C
U
Lo
e--
O Ln "j CO
N
M r
O
�-
O
00
(D
0)
L.
Ci
N
(M N
CD
Cn
E
N
cn
rn
W
0
00
Co
o
IT
cn
0)
s
i
(D
M
0
?i
C
"O
v
+O.
O 0)
O c a) a
C
o
LO
N
cn
�
c
ami
U
c
oami
0)
)
m
c
0)
Co
U)
in O
O
(D
O
Q
N O C/) >
7
Q
O
C
~
m
o C c a) o
o
IS a v
0
v
°-)
N=
cn
www;
U)
C f6
N
> C N
i
C
O
(6
1f?
c
,c a
ami
E
W
D`mmm�'Q
E
�o
O
N
o
N`
EUU�J
O
(o
O
U
Z
U
IL
U
V
N
M
eh
Ln
CO
h
00
Exhibit D (page 3 of
11)
0 0 0 0 0 0 u)
0 0 0 0 0 0 T
O to 00 1n 0) 00 00
M 00 N V W N (LI
Cl) Cl) Cl) N N
T- N
u>rnoo O CO o m
cr Ih 0 0 O O O r
N M YY h O O O N
N r C-) O 1l O 00
N r h N 00
O
N
co
(D
M
O
rn
O LO
0
O
U N
00
00
tnrnoO
U) � C
0
Cl
f0 m
U
t()
O
m
O
O O O O 00
0)
V t� 0 Cl
O
o
Li a)
O
O
> O
O
O
(n �
t()
ti
O
!P
O
O .0 >
O M
tf)
to
M 00 N W N
C)
r M
N O
O
0 0 0 0 0 0 u)
0 0 0 0 0 0 T
O to 00 1n 0) 00 00
M 00 N V W N (LI
Cl) Cl) Cl) N N
T- N
u>rnoo O CO o m
cr Ih 0 0 O O O r
N M YY h O O O N
N r C-) O 1l O 00
N r h N 00
O
N
co
(D
M
O
rn
O LO
0
O
000000
00
00
tnrnoO
0
0
Cl
t()
t()
O
0
O
O O O O 00
0)
V t� 0 Cl
O
O
O
ti
M
O M Cl
O
O
O to M to 0) 00
00
N Cl) to (-
O
O
O
N
O M
tf)
to
M 00 N W N
(O
r M
N O
O
rl
O
N
00
d
LO r
-'TCl)M
N
M N
N
N r
I�
a
N
0)
O
O
0 0 0 0
U O O
O O ti
a)
v7
O
(D
[t
O
O
O
O O to 0
O
LO
F-
O
{ £
(D
O
O
O
LQ
O to I� O_
a)
U
ti
{� O co
@
to
t!)
Cl)
Cl) 00 r r
to
° ��
Cl)
Cl)
1�
M M N
O
O
r
o `m `m m Q
U U CL
O O O O
O
O
00
O
,C
Q
•'
O
O
r
(O
O t!) O O
O
O
Cl)
Cl)
tt
0)
V y
O
O
O
O
0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O
Cl)
.--
O
O
O
O
O
U
d 0
O
O
O (n Ir to ti It
V
O
O
CO
O
O
C
U
LO
r
O N � M
N
O
O
O
O
O
a)
Ci
N
r
M
O
Il-
Cl
r-
�
G.
r
VN
t�
N
O
Q)
,It
I'
'IT
U) LO
O O
O
to
to (3) O O
O
M M
00 N
to o
O
IT�- O O
N
O (O
(O
O N
0 0
N M to I�
_
IT Cl)
C) L r
CO
N
r
N r Cl)
�
00 Q1
N r
I`
h 0)
r
r
Cl)
V-
2
t2
U
M
M
�Y
Cl)
M
O
O
-.
0
0
000000
00
00
tnrnoO
0
0
Cl
0)
c
0
O
O O O O 00
0)
V t� 0 Cl
O
O
O
r
M
V
O
O
O to M to 0) 00
00
N Cl) to (-
O
O
O
N
.0
tf)
�
M 00 N W N
(O
r M
N O
O
rl
O
N
00
vi
y
-'TCl)M
E
a)
M N
N
N r
I�
a
N
00
>
>
Cl d
O
U O O
O O ti
a)
v7
N
(D
[t
O N
j
N
co
O
F-
O
{ £
(D
O
N >
0
h
a- OL A N O
CL cio
a)
U
{� O co
@
L
C
CLx
(6
�_
° ��
<R
o
O
O
O O O O O O
o `m `m m Q
U U CL
O O O O
O
O
C)
[} C
,C
Q
O
O
0 0 0 0 0 0
(O
O t!) O O
O
O
Cl
O (6
tt
0)
V y
O
O
O
O
0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O
Cl)
.--
i-- to O O
!- N O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
h
r N
U
d 0
O
O
O (n Ir to ti It
V
<- (0 to r
O
O
O
M
C
U
LO
r
O N � M
N
M r
O
r
O
00 m
a)
Ci
N
r
M
r
O
E_
G.
r
VN
N
W
0
-.
00
00
o
U
O
vmV•
L
to9l
M
L
C
Cl
U)
m
U
oLO ff_
c
a�
M J m
(.,,j m :3V
°Q `�
Q
v7 J
2 07
O
O
E
a)
(y), m
> Q U
m
N
m o
O
a
O
U O O
O O ti
a)
v7
N Q O
(D
C7
N O N
co
O
F-
O
{ £
(D
O
d h U y N a0)
0
h
a- OL A N O
CL cio
a)
U
{� O co
@
m
>, C
C
CLx
(6
�_
° ��
<R
o
o o m o `?
U U Q O �c
3`
o `m `m m Q
U U CL
E
W
=`=
.fls.
U
Z
U
ti
U)
r
N
M
tt
W
w
h
00
_ .Exhibit
D (page
4 of 11)
/
co
O
I
`CD
LL
1440/
Y �
L
O (O
O N
O M
CD a0
u)
Cl
O
(O
M
rl-
ti LO
N N
a0 r
LO
Ln
Cl)
ti
O
co
O o
0 0
fA
O O o 0 0 0 m
OOOoOo (n
O N 00 0 (T 00 00
M M N M N N N
N
O
O
(A
LO
N
O O O O O
O Oq f` O
Cl) (0
Cl) M N
O O O LO
(O O C) t}
O M rb r
O N
r r
O O O O o 0 Lo
0 0 0 0 0 0 m
O (O 00 LO CA OD 00
M 00 N - Cf) N (D
Cl) Cl) Cl) N N
N
O
O
O
O
>
rn
(n
U)
O
O
v
N fCf
� U -ffi
C C
c a
LV
p m
i
CA
M
f- (O O O
cl
ti
0
0
0
0
> >
0
0
Cl)
V)
r
)n fn O o
0
0
o
O
r
F- a) N
U
Cl)
p
r
Z
O (O
O N
O M
CD a0
u)
Cl
O
(O
M
rl-
ti LO
N N
a0 r
LO
Ln
Cl)
ti
O
co
O o
0 0
fA
O O o 0 0 0 m
OOOoOo (n
O N 00 0 (T 00 00
M M N M N N N
N
O
O
(A
LO
N
O O O O O
O Oq f` O
Cl) (0
Cl) M N
O O O LO
(O O C) t}
O M rb r
O N
r r
O O O O o 0 Lo
0 0 0 0 0 0 m
O (O 00 LO CA OD 00
M 00 N - Cf) N (D
Cl) Cl) Cl) N N
N
(O fT C) C)
'• n O O
N M (f) r -
N 7 M
N
(Orn OO
v � O O
N CO u7 h
N M
O O O
O O O
O O O
O r- O
ti N
d'
Lo (O
I-
CT) O
O O
O O
Lr) N '
M M
00 00
Cl) Cl)
O O
O O
O O '
f` r-
0) (A
V 1�r
O
O
O
O
O
rn
(n
O
O
O
O
v
CD
C C
c a
LV
N
i
CA
M
f- (O O O
cl
ti
M
t�
CD
M
7
O O O O O O
O (O 'It � ti V
.--
�•
Cl)
V)
r
)n fn O o
0
0
o
fn
N M �
U
Cl)
O
r
Z
COO
O
O
O
N
N cli
U)
00
(A
N r
h
N
00
C
W
tet'
O
v
m
N
(O fT C) C)
'• n O O
N M (f) r -
N 7 M
N
(Orn OO
v � O O
N CO u7 h
N M
O O O
O O O
O O O
O r- O
ti N
d'
Lo (O
I-
CT) O
O O
O O
Lr) N '
M M
00 00
Cl) Cl)
O O
O O
O O '
f` r-
0) (A
V 1�r
V
O
O
O
O
O
rn
O O O O
CAtOO O
O
O
O
O
v
CD
C C
c a
LV
N
N
CA
M
f- (O O O
M
ti
M
t�
CD
C)
7
O O O O O O
O (O 'It � ti V
.--
�•
Cl)
V)
r
O
_
M
M
O U
�
U
Cl)
O
r
Z
00
f6 a)
O
Ill
N
U)
U)
(D
(A
E
C
W
N
v
m
m
W p
c
O O
O
(n
c
O O
O
�-
O O
O
N
O rl
00
00
o
COV
000
C
14-
O
N j
O
N
> N
N
U
C)
o °c) o, a mac°
'4;r
(» Q)
a)
U)
6 7
7 C
V
O
O
O
O
O O O O O O
000000
It
co
O O O O
CAtOO O
O
O
O
O
O
O
qCT
O
C C
c a
LV
O
O
0 0 0 0 0 0
M
f- (O O O
O
O
O
t�
r r
a) NO
O
O
O
O
O O O O O O
O (O 'It � ti V
.--
�•
(ND (OO
O
O
O
_
M
N U
r-
O U
0) � <Y Cl)
N
Cl)
O
O
00
f6 a)
d
N
C- N
CD
(A
E
C
N
N
m
W p
00
00
o
rn
C
O
Cl)
O
(D
N
U
C)
o °c) o, a mac°
'4;r
(» Q)
a)
U)
7
m
c
Um
M a
N a�
m
a)
(D
Q
Z
(» a) m
m o
o.
U
o"e�>O
(n
w v) O`
a)
O O O
•(�
J
C
N 7 O C O O h
N O
U)
a) Q N
y
>
D
�,
c
�-
H
=o
pC
a
[L (n 1-1 com(n a)
O
t C/)0
a 0o ,
U
a)
O
F
w
o m m(n °?L'
Q m 2
w
°
a
h m=3
X
C
>
E o o$ ami o •�
n- (`o (tea m ;Q
0
E
W
v
U
J
�UUQO��
Z�...
0 C
O
N
O
fL
r
N
M
et
N
U
u_
U
0
Exhibit Drpu`ze_5_of 11)
O Ln
O I-
O M
O M
Ln
0 0 0 0 0 0 O
0 0 0 0 0 0 O
O Ln 00 Ln O 0o co
M 00 N r• to N (C
M Cl) M N N
N
O
O
O
Ln
N
O 0 0 0 0 O
O O O Ln O Ln
M M 06 � - Ln
I- M Cl) N
r r
M Ln
t- _N
Ln
00 Lf)
N Ln
ti
N
(D
O
(D
O O O Ln
Ln O O
O Ln O
O N
� r r
0 0 0 0 0 0 Ln
0 0 0 0 0 0 O
O Ll) 00 Ln 6) cc Oct
M 00 N � Ln N (D
Cl) Cl) M N N
•- N
N T O O
I* ti O O
N M LO I, -
C14
N r M
N r
Ln O O O
't Il- O O
N M Ln Il -
04 <- M
N
LnOOO
I�r r- O O
N M Ln I-
N t-
� M
N
O
O
> N
L U
't
OOOO
U)O
O
O
m m
�Uco
M
O LO O O
o m
O
O
CO O O O O O
M
Il- Ln O O
V N
O
O
O
O
O
>
>
O
O
O Ln � Ln t-
V
r (D Ln
.O U
�
.---
O .a >
f N N
C)
�
N
N
O Ln
O I-
O M
O M
Ln
0 0 0 0 0 0 O
0 0 0 0 0 0 O
O Ln 00 Ln O 0o co
M 00 N r• to N (C
M Cl) M N N
N
O
O
O
Ln
N
O 0 0 0 0 O
O O O Ln O Ln
M M 06 � - Ln
I- M Cl) N
r r
M Ln
t- _N
Ln
00 Lf)
N Ln
ti
N
(D
O
(D
O O O Ln
Ln O O
O Ln O
O N
� r r
0 0 0 0 0 0 Ln
0 0 0 0 0 0 O
O Ll) 00 Ln 6) cc Oct
M 00 N � Ln N (D
Cl) Cl) M N N
•- N
N T O O
I* ti O O
N M LO I, -
C14
N r M
N r
Ln O O O
't Il- O O
N M Ln Il -
04 <- M
N
LnOOO
I�r r- O O
N M Ln I-
N t-
� M
N
O O O T
O O O N
O r�: O OCT
ti N 00
!t O
N
O O Cl
O O O
O O O
O h O
I� N
V
Ln Ln
r- r�
N N
V V
O W
O O
O O
Ln Ln '
r') M
00 00
M M
O O
O O
O O '
� O
O
O
000000
't
OOOO
-a
O
O
0 0 0 0 0 0
M
O LO O O
01
O
O
CO O O O O O
M
Il- Ln O O
V N
O
O
000000
•-
f` NOO
y O
O
O
O Ln � Ln t-
V
r (D Ln
.O U
In
.---
O Ln IT M
N
Cl)
N
N
M
N
d
(D
0)
O
J
uJ
�
O L
N O CO
(D
C O
N Q N
N
>
O O O T
O O O N
O r�: O OCT
ti N 00
!t O
N
O O Cl
O O O
O O O
O h O
I� N
V
Ln Ln
r- r�
N N
V V
O W
O O
O O
Ln Ln '
r') M
00 00
M M
O O
O O
O O '
� O
(D ci E
W 0
00
Nr
rn
r
O
`
t4
v.
M
O
O
C
U
O
c
O
o c' 0).�
p
,V-
M
O
M
Ln
�-
L
N
CO ca
Mn
m
(D
0)
O
J
uJ
�
O L
N O CO
(D
C O
N Q N
N
>
U`
9
O O O
0�CD
'� N O
w N
O
N
6 0
o
N
a
0
N
'.'
7
y '� m U N
a
L
V L u 0
U
f6
F -
(a
U
75- o ti m
7
Q co m=
= N
O
CL
rn
O
C
T
>
N co i
Cl O
O
>N
O
O
N
° m cla c`a
E
W
j
f0
O I�
t�
O
N
00
00
O
>
O
ITO_
U
C
y
j
Z
n
N
>
(n
r
N
M
I
N
CO
tl-
-
I6
L9
7
7
C
C
C
O O
O
O
N
Q
O O
O
I�
N
O O
O
r
O Cl
O
M
C
Cl -
O
00
f0
0)
(D ci E
W 0
Exhibit D (page 6 of 11) -- —
00
Nr
rn
`
t4
v.
M
O
O
C
U
O
c
O
o c' 0).�
p
Nt
� Q)
in
m
c
CD
U
ca_
L
w
CO ca
Mn
m
N
O N
N
J
O
�
O L
N O CO
N
C O
N Q N
N
>
U`
c
O O O
0�CD
'� N O
w N
O
N
6 0
o
a
0
N
'.'
7
y '� m U N
a
L
V L u 0
U
F -
(a
U
75- o ti m
�' ai
Q co m=
= N
O
CL
rn
C
O C U U
>
N co i
E
`�
>N
a
E o o a QQ) o
3 c
° m cla c`a
E
W
O
f0
ODUQOcc
O
fU
O
U
Z
n
U
u.
(n
r
N
M
I
N
CO
tl-
00
Exhibit D (page 6 of 11) -- —
tz
59
O
U
to C
� m m
U m
Ln
�
co
O I-
O
O O
> 7
O O
O O
(� C:
LO ti
F— W
T r
O
le
O
59
N
O Ln
O
Ln
u
O I-
O
O
O
O
O
000000
0 0 0 O O O
O
�
r -
O M
O
le
O
c
N a
d
Cl)
O
N
N '
O 00
Ln
O
O
N
0 0 0 0 0 0
Lf)
Ln O O O
O
O
O
O
0 0 0 0 0 0
O)
et r.- 0 Cl
O
O
O
r
O
O Lf) 00 Ln O OO
00
N M LA r-
O
O
O
N
O O Ln O
Cl) 00 N r LL') N
t0
N r M
O
f`
O
00
Ln
M M N
E
N r
t`
co
Ln '
M
N
In
N)
�
M
N
O Ln
O
Ln
u
O I-
O
O
O
O
O
000000
0 0 0 O O O
(O
�
r -
O M
O
le
O
c
N a
d
O
O
N
N '
O 00
Ln
O
O
t`
CD
�''
O
Ln —
N
~
� �
O
O
O
O
O O O O
O
't
N
CD
M
O
O
r
O
O
O
O O Ln O
Ln
N
e-
M N
O
O
Ln
O L'i
E
O.
LU
Ln '
M
M 00 r r
In
N)
M
Cl)
1�
Cl) M N
00
00
Cl)
Cl)
00
O
v
u)
0)
O
O
O
O
O
c
O
O
O
O
O '
O
N
'O
O
I`
O
t`
h
O
OO � �.�
p
6q N
(n
1�
N
O
(A
v
o c a
Ln•� a •�
w
L
V
ct•
`d•
N Ln
O O O
LL)
Ln M O O
M m
�; m S
O
a
�!
2E m co
(0
Ln O
N
Ln O O
It
It� O O
Q) ca h
Ln
Il_
0) r
O Ln 00
U
_
V
N M Ln I-
>O
M
O (O
LO
r- O N
N
N r M
.0
J
O
O 6)
r. Lr)
r
N
Cl)
(O Cl)
s.
O
O N p
h 'C m CO N
O
= C
� p O
U a U
O
Q
M
LO N
OO
y;.
U
a U
0) �
Q m mZ
U
00
.U..
Ln
'^
O
�
O
a
ip.
O
c
�
3
M�
E
w
M4)
:
a
co m
E O O a 0 0 •�
U
3 c
L ` Q)
m m m Q
E
OD
(n
(D
) Qit�
4)aUUa�
(fl
cu
c0
r
N
0)
et
LO
CO
ti
00
a
Exhibit D (page 7 of 11)
Cl O
00000o
LO
LornOo
0
0
0
0 0
00000o
M
vrl-0o
0
0
o
r
@
O O
O Ln 00 Ln (T 00
00
N M Ln f-
O
O
O
N
U') I-
Cl) 00 N r- Ln N
(D
N S M
(5
I-
O
00N
C>
V
Cl) Cl) Cl) N
N
CV
I�
N
00
C
O �-
N
O
(L) >
N
N
N
t6 3
7 C
O
O
O
O
000000
0 0 0 O O O
(O
0000
O Lf) O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
le
O
c
N a
d
O
O
0 0 0 0 O_ O
Cl)
h LL) O O
O
O
O
t`
CD
O
O
0 0 0 O O O
r
~
� �
O
C
0) O
O
to
O
<'
O Ln '[h Ln I- rt
() Ln It Cl)
't
N
CD
M
O
O
r
O
O
M
00
�
L6 N
U
N
e-
M N
r
(O
m
E
O.
N)
rn
00
O
v
u)
0)
M
c
z
Q?.,
O
O
N
'O
(D
U
c
O
OO � �.�
p
6q N
(n
m
v
o c a
Ln•� a •�
w
L
m
N
E
0)
U
M m
�; m S
O
a
�!
2E m co
E
°
Q) ca h
U
+� p
O] (D
Q
p
(n
U
_
V
>O
(n
h O L
0) *k
U
0 0 lY
N
.0
J
C
0
s.
O
O N p
h 'C m CO N
O
= C
� p O
U a U
O
Q
N
y;.
U
a U
0) �
Q m mZ
C
.U..
Ln
'^
� 6 a)
�
_
'CO)
a
ip.
c
c
� � U
p 0
3
M�
E
w
:
a
co m
E O O a 0 0 •�
U
3 c
L ` Q)
m m m Q
E
) Qit�
4)aUUa�
u
cu
c0
r
N
M
et
LO
CO
ti
00
Exhibit D (page 7 of 11)
r
r
O
TOM
U.
`/
W
L
m
CD
O O O O O O In
0 0 0 0 0 0 a)
O to 00 to Q) 00 00
M 00 N r N N CO
M Cl) Cl) N N
r N
W)
I- O O O O O T-
N M W )l- O O O N
N r C'M O h O 00
N r 1.- (14 00
0 O
N
LO
a)
oC)
O
O
N
O
U N
U) U
C)
� C
CD m
U
m
ti
Eo
j j
O O
O O
0
N
N
c
N U
� C
O O O O O O In
0 0 0 0 0 0 a)
O to 00 to Q) 00 00
M 00 N r N N CO
M Cl) Cl) N N
r N
W)
I- O O O O O T-
N M W )l- O O O N
N r C'M O h O 00
N r 1.- (14 00
0 O
N
LO
a)
oC)
O
O
N
O
1l-
C)
ti
Eo
M
0
N
N
c
N U
� C
O
to
�
00
r
U•)
N
(A
'0
O
O O O O
O
O
O
C
O
O O UO 0
Cn
O
O
NU)
O U) I*- O
!l-
U')
U l
'
O
M
M 00
Cn
M
M
~
M N
M
00
N
0
M
N
O
O
O
O
O
U
O
O
O
O
O
N L
O
O
O
O
O
'
0 C)
r
cq
m�
U)
v
T
C �
= 7
LO
U')
O O O
UO
LDO O O
O
v
UO
U UL
M
N
U) O O
It
V* n O O
N
!l-
CY)
co
O UO 00
N M m I�
N
00
C •O
U')
—7 O N
N � cl
M
V
O
N
CA
tt)
N
M
�`
c�
MCD
CD
N
U7
CD
U')
Cfl
0)
_U
C:
C
N 0)
C)
N
O
f6
N
.0
m
0
0
000000
LO
Lnrnoo
o
O
o
CD
O
O
000000
m
IT 1� 00
o
Cl
o
r
d
O
O
O Cn M U) O 00
co
N M U) P-
O
o
O
N
V
ti
M 00 N 7
DC4
-7 C6
6
r
CD
00jU)
>
y
Cl) M co N
N
N r-
N
00
C
d
0
r
N
V'
O
O)
>
N
N
N
N
a
—
_
m
C6
3
7
C
C
C
-a
O
O
O
o
000000
000000
co
0000
rnU) 00
O
Cl
O
O
o
O
I
O
Q
O
CO
0 0 0 0 0 0
Cl)
1-_ U) 0 0
O
O
O
ha)
cu
41
U)
O
O
666666
r-
ti N 0 0
O
(5
O
r
N
U
d
O
O
O LO cr U7 r- It
'IT
It
CD U') —
O
O
O
M
00
ca
C
. U
Q
e-
Q) Ui M
N
M
o
O
T
E
N
-�
C'�
N
c-
Cl)
.-
CD
N
a.
N
rn
w
ccco
o
L
6q
Cl)
C
p
�-
O
Ei
0)
U
O
oc a)a
C
m
Cn
m
C) a
o
3
O
U
ii
y)
C):
m
tT
CCl)
N
M m
V
N
O
0)
m m N
.0 ]-, Q U
cUD
c ca O
O C U a)
Q
(n
'
N
U
J
ti
0 0,�_
r
•5 Q O
a)
O
Q)
cr I-)�
O
�"
m
O
a y U N
075
'C
co
(U O
Q N
•C
U
U
0 .�
U
m=
O
CNB
C
o C)
`
E
x
p_ri
c
E h mn h
E o o - Q) c)
a .
a) UUQ���
3 c
a m m m Q
0UU�J
E
w+0
U
J
�
Z�
U
ti
(A
a:
cB if
r
N
M
IT
N
CD
I-
00
Exhibit D (page 8 of 11)
0 0 0 0 0 0 N
0 0 0 0 (D 0 0)
O N9 00 LO 0) 00 00
M 00 N r Cn N CO
M M M N N
r N
O N
U
U)
O
It
(0 @
m U m
N
M
� m
7
CA
O
O O
> jO
O
O O
N 12
ti
O
N
O Q >
T r
~
O
Q
O
0 0 0 0 0 0 N
0 0 0 0 (D 0 0)
O N9 00 LO 0) 00 00
M 00 N r Cn N CO
M M M N N
r N
O N
O
O r-
O
It
O
N
M
O M
7
CA
O
O 00
0 0 0 0 0 0
N
LO O O O
In r
O
N
T C
O
0 0 00
O
O
O
) O O O U
O
U')
IQ
O tf) r- O
LO 01) O O
t`
M
M 00 .-
0)
Cn
O
Cl) M N
O
r
Z;;
LON
M
t` LO
r- LO
O
(D
CD
ti
L
Lno o � NT�oo
O Ll! Oct r N M LQ rl-
r 0 N N r M
r r N .-
O O O c
O O O c
O O O c
C) rl- o r
� N
V' `
a)
ti It ((D
I cu
(n
O
It
N
M
7
i
O
O
0 0 0 0 0 0
CO
LO O O O
O
O
O
T C
w
O
O
0 0 0 0 0 O
v
•d• ti O O
O
O
O
M
LO 01) O O
O
O
O
0)
�t r- O Cl
O
O
O
r
N_ Cl) (n ti
O
O
O
N
N r M
O
h
O
00
N r
h
'T
N
00
N �--
ti
'ct
O_
4)
0)
.-
N
N
Lno o � NT�oo
O Ll! Oct r N M LQ rl-
r 0 N N r M
r r N .-
O O O c
O O O c
O O O c
C) rl- o r
� N
V' `
a)
ti It ((D
I cu
RAW
00
O
It
N
M
7
i
O
O
0 0 0 0 0 0
LX)
LO O O O
O
O
O
T C
w
O
O
0 0 0 0 0 O
Cn
•d• ti O O
O
O
O
r cu
U
O
O
O H O Lo CA O
00
N M LQ rl-
O
O
O
N
y
N
rl-
M CO N - LD N
(D
N r cl)
O
�
O 00
ui
0)
'T
'T
� Cr) M N
N
N �--
ti
N00
>
C>
4)
0)
.-
N
N
O Q) � O
OO
Cl)
't
O N >
co
i
CU
o
ac(D
Q m o
N > a)
y~
1
60,
I
C-
as
f
:
d
E O O N O
>i
Q m cri cD
E
W
— (0
N 7
7 C
J
O
O
O
O
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
(D
0 0 0 0
O cf) O O
O
O
O
Cl
O IT
O
C Q
O
0)
O
O
0 0 0 0 0 0
Cl)
r LO 0 0
O
O
O
ca
ti
V N
O
O
O O O O O O
r
ti N 66
O
O
O
Qj
r
c
0) o
O
O
O L I -LO r- v
�}
(D N r
O
O
O
M
U
to
r
O LD 'IT Cl)
N
Cl) r
O
r
O 00
m 0)
N
r
v
.-
CO
m E`
fl
.M-
N
N
0)
W t�
RAW
00
O
It
N
M
=
i
69
M
CD
L
_C
a)
U
w
o
eLO
m
U
m
c
ULO
m m
m
o
o
ca
M
a
0
E
>
Z
(» a) m ami
rn U¢ U
`�
�
� �' CO o
1 N
n
U)
�'
o
N
O Q) � O
OO
Cl)
Oh
N3
i
CU
o
ac(D
Q m o
U
y~
1
60,
I
C-
as
f
:
d
E O O N O
>i
Q m cri cD
E
W
'�
J
Z�
�UU�J
F>ry :
U
�UUQQcr�
U
Li-
Cl)
z
r
N
M
Exhibit D (page 9 of 11)
0 0 0 0 0 0 Ln
0 0 0 o O 0 rn
O to 00 Lr D) 00 00
M 00 N T u) N (D
M Cl) M N N
T N
LOvtioo 0 0 0
N M u) ti O O O N
N T M O ti O 00
N r ti N 00
v o
N
O
O
v
Oif)
U N
U
O
U) � C
(6 (Q
U
�
D m
LO
Ln
0 0
> :3
O O
fII N
u) h
Q) T
f (1)(D
0 0 0 0 0 0 Ln
0 0 0 o O 0 rn
O to 00 Lr D) 00 00
M 00 N T u) N (D
M Cl) M N N
T N
LOvtioo 0 0 0
N M u) ti O O O N
N T M O ti O 00
N r ti N 00
v o
N
O
O
v
Oif)
O
LO
Ln
O
f° E
O
M
m
N
N
'
C O
O
00
LC)
I�i
0) U
LO
N
O
0)
O
O O O O
O
O
O
U j
O
O O u7 O
LO
O
O
N LL
u)
O LO fl_ O
u7
L
'
O
M
M C .-
U7
M
M
N
r
M N
M
M
T
N
CO
O
O
O
O
0)
O
Cl
O
O
O
0) `
O
O
O
O
O
'
7
O
�
O
ti
ti
O
N
O
O
U)
V
a
3 =
O 7
O
L!')
O O O
�
Ln 0) 0 0
M
O M
LL
00
N_
LO O O
It P- O O
M
U
M
O Ln 00
N CO LO I-
00
00
O
C 'O
CY)
LP)
O N
N T M
rl
0
_
N
LO
M
T
(\I T
I-
r-
0
N
(0
It
T
r
U_
C
(0
(O
Z
0) (D
L6
LO
N
(6 E
M
M
f0
�
U
R)
7
O
O
0 0 0 0 Cl 0
LO
Ln 0 0 Cl
O
O
O
0n
C
O
O
0 0 0 0 0 0
m
NT I� O O
CO
O
O
r
(6
0)
O
O
O L'0O Ln O 00
00
N M Ln Il-
O
O
O
N
V
V)
r-
Cl) CO N M N
(0
N c+)
O
P-
O
00
7 >
M M N
T
N
N
r-
C\l
CO
0
0)
'IT
O
N>
N
N
> 0)
— f6
(6 7
7 C
=
O
O
O O O O O O0
0 0 0
O
O
O
[h
O
Cl
O O O O O O
(0
O to Cl O
O
O
O
O
CCa
0)
O
O
0 0 0 0 0 0
Cl)
r- Ln 0 CO
O
O
O
Ll-
0)
V N
O
O
0 0 0 0 0(
r
N O O
O
O
O
T
N
C
0) C
O
O
O P -O
LO Ln V
d
(0 T
ClO
M
Ln
O` V
to
T
O LO Nr Cl)
N
M <-
O
T
O
00
(0 N
'i
N
T
cli
T
O
T
E
d
N)
rn
00
00
co
o
It
U)
m
M
C
O
t
y
L
O
Ln
a)
:3
C-1`.'
(0
cu
KI
C
U
M j
42
U 0)
C
rn
% ";€
U
N
U
C) m
m
O J
V
N
@
<-'
C
M m h
N
cj
w
E
N
rF
N
0)
_
•V Q .0
O
>U
O
Co � L_
U
0)
i N a:N
>
di
a C N O h
CO
(n
N Q) Q N
>
Oa)
a
F-
N
N
j
Q)N
_
0
N
H
U
�
Q N_
U
O
0
C
E o o ai o �'
3 c
`m m `m
E
a
U U Q
U U J
Qi
J
z
IL
U
LL
CO
R:
N
Cl)
(p
ti
OD
Exhibit D (page 10 of 11)
O O I- N
O O r U')
Ln () 0 U')
r r N
O O O N
O O CO U')
Ln M I-- Ln
r r N
r
O O OO N
O O Ln
O 0 Ln
r N
r r r r
O M
Ln
f` Cl) Ln N O I-
0 0 0 0 0 0 V'
O O O N
Cl) I-- N
00
O
I-
I` UO N N
I-
0 6i
0 00
_0
LO
0
M
r 00 I- 0
Or - LO
M
00 00
I` 't
M
Y
O
O
0
't
N
N O
O M
cu '
�O
LO
Cl) r
Ln
c c
U ) N
r
r
\
r
00 Cl) O
U U
C
O
\
\O
x m � _
m
r r r
a) a)
O
=,,CU
N
OrOLn
:3
M d V N
r
m CC
m--06
cn ffi O
U) 0)0-
C
LO
O r O Ln
U) U) �o
- o�U�
pY
0 LOO
O
o
Q 0
3 U 0 "a
V O O
N
dd �� c~
Qdmzt-~w
(D
r
r r N
Ln M
O
M r 00
r
U7
a r O
r r
[�
0 I- d'
r O
Il -
M N
O O 0 N
N It
0
It
O Ln
r
Ln M
N
r
0)
OOOLn
Qz
M
\
0 N r
O m
C
Ln t- O
O N C; L
O r r
O
(D0 N
\
0Lf)
V) M
O
r
M r Ln
r
M
O O I- N
O O r U')
Ln () 0 U')
r r N
O O O N
O O CO U')
Ln M I-- Ln
r r N
r
O O OO N
O O Ln
O 0 Ln
r N
r r r r
m Cl) N
r � 0
d Cl) Ln
r r N
r
O M
0
'T
LO m
O O O N
Cl) I-- N
00
O
O 00 N
I�
M
O O U)
r M to
O O O U')
Cl) Il-
_0
LO
Il- N
0
N
O IT 0 U7
N
0) N r
M
Y
O
z
M r
O �t I-
LL .a
It
O M
cu '
O
m
00 a)
N (u
c c
U ) N
(0 N
U
N a)
r
O
U
U U
C
O
\
"
x m � _
m
r r r
a) a)
O
=,,CU
N
a)
:3
M d V N
r
m CC
m--06
cn ffi O
U) 0)0-
00
r
LO
O O OD 0
tiOLnLO
U) U) �o
- o�U�
pY
0 LOO
O
o
Q 0
3 U 0 "a
V O O
L
dd �� c~
Qdmzt-~w
(D
r
r r N
Ln M
O
M r 00
O
U7
a r O
r r
[�
0 I- d'
r O
Il -
M N
N It
0
It
O Ln
r
Ln M
N
r
0)
OM
Qz
M
(D
0 N r
O m
0
Ln t- O
� Cl)
O
(D0 N
LO LN
0Lf)
V) M
O
r
M r Ln
r
M
r V M
't r
O
G7 00 0
N
M
N
M
I - It
It
Cl)
N o
00 M
^O
Z
coNN 0
O coO
P- r
Ln '
O)
r
Nd
It M
r
00 r
O
m
LOCO 04
O N O
r
N
Il- U7 N
00 0
00
ti UO UO
rl O
It N r
CO O
I�
0 'IT
Ln N Ln
0
,It r O
O 't
..„,
00 N Cl)
0 IT
N
I�P O �
0 V
�
N r- N
v
O
Cl M r
r 0
d'
r M
r
0
(0
L
m Cl) Ln
0 co
m Cl) N
r � 0
d Cl) Ln
r r N
r
O O O
O M
0
'T
LO m
Ln
Cl) I-- N
00
O
O 00 N
I�
M
O O U)
r M to
N I- Lf)
Cl) Il-
00
LO
Il- N
0
N
\
\
N
0) N r
M
Y
O
z
0
O �t I-
y6
It
O M
_ .o u)
O
m
00 a)
C14
c c
U ) N
(0 N
U
N a)
r
O
U
O
C
O
\
r- O
x m � _
m
r r r
N N
O
=,,CU
N
O M
:3
r O M
r
m CC
m--06
cn ffi O
U) 0)0-
00
r
LO
_�
CL u'I--
U) U) �o
- o�U�
Owz
m e
0 LOO
O
O .O O= O
Q 0
3 U 0 "a
V O O
m
dd �� c~
Qdmzt-~w
6) M
r
O O O
O M
0
'T
LO m
O
@
000 0
00
O
O 00 N
r I-�
M
N I- Lf)
Cl) Il-
00
N 0
Il- N
0
N
N
(d
N
0) N r
M
Y
O
z
0
O �t I-
r
It
O M
V U7
O
It
00 a)
C14
W 0
(0 N
N
r
C\
O
c
r- O
ti P-
m
r r r
N N
O
tt V (O
O M
r
r O M
r
Ln 0
r
0 M
00
r
LO
coLO
O ti
0 LOO
O
I- 0) 0
0 Cl)
r
V O O
O O
'I (D N
6) M
r
N Ln
r
Ln M
Ln
M r 00
O
U7
a r O
r r
[�
0 I- d'
r O
Il -
M N
N It
0
It
O Ln
r
Ln M
N
r
0)
OM
M
O
0 N r
V N
0
Ln t- O
� Cl)
O
(D0 N
0Lf)
V) M
O
r
OM) P
N
M
r V M
't r
Ln
G7 00 0
U- O
Ln
r
M
I - It
It
00
0
00 M
0)
coNN 0
O coO
P- r
Ln '
O)
r
0
It M
r
00 r
O
m
O N O
r
N
Il- U7 N
00 0
00
O V M
rl O
It N r
CO O
I�
0 'IT
It moi'
0
,It r O
O 't
r
00 N Cl)
0 IT
O
I�P O �
0 V
�
N r- N
O M
O
Cl M r
r 0
d'
r M
r
0
(0
n
O
@
)
4a
O
rn
c
g c
.0
L
�-
Q
U
..Y
O
o -
>
Vi
a)
=
N
(d
0
N
Y
O
z
X`
o
3
A
_)
_
o
a)
r_>,
o
L
z
^”
U)
c
N
O
N
C
y!
m
as
�`
w
W