The URL can be used to link to this page

2007-590-Minutes for Meeting February 28,2007 Recorded 6/8/2007DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERKDS ~J 200705% NANCY COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 06/08/2007 03:06:01 PM IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II I III 2007-Sa0 Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page If this instrument is being re-recorded, please complete the following statement, in accordance with ORS 205.244: Re-recorded to correct [give reason] previously recorded in Book or as Fee Number and Page , ~~~t"3-c gG Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.orc MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2007 Commissioners' Conference Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend Present were Commissioners Michael M. Daly and Tammy Baney, and County Administrator Dave Kanner; Commissioner Dennis R. Luke was out of the office. Also present for part of the meeting were Dan Peddycord, Health Department; Larry Blanton, Sheriff; Don Webber, Emergency Services; Anna Johnson, Commissioners' Office; Tom Anderson, Dan Haldeman and Barbara Rich, Community Development; and media representative Eric Lukens, The Bulletin; and four other citizens. Chair Daly opened the meeting at 1: 30 p. m. 1. Finance/Tax Update. Marty Wynne gave an overview of Resolution No. 2007-024, authorizing the financing of various capital construction and improvement projects. BANEY: Move approval of Resolution No. 20070-249 subject to legal review. DALY: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. He then gave his monthly investment report. (A copy is attached.) He said that interest rates went down suddenly on February 27, but this won't have any effect on investments unless action is taken on the investment portfolio. Regarding the upcoming bond issue, which includes construction of the RV Park, Mr. Wynne said there would be an excess of $175,000, which could be used for debt service or set it aside as a buffer for the construction costs. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, February 28, 2007 Page 1 of 7 Pages In regard to Knott Landfill improvements, it balances out completely. There is $600,000 in contingency that may not all be needed. The Fair & Expo report shows a decrease in the projected RV camping rental amount. This is because the project will not be completed as early as hoped. It is proposed that these funds will be transferred from the park acquisition fund to cover the shortage. 2. Overview of Emergency Operations Plan. Larry Blanton and Don Webber came before the Board. Mr. Blanton provided a brief written overview of the program. He said that Mr. Webber is doing a good job predicting and planning for things they hope will never happen; there are many exercise drills done with various scenarios in mind. A real-time drill for wildland fires will take place in Deschutes River Woods in May. With wildland fire issues, the group gets lots of activity. The plan has been around for a few years but is a living document that changes regularly. Commissioner Daly stated that he has been traveling around the country, and some of the speakers are people who went through major disasters. Don Webber was asked by the media what the weakest point is in emergency services. He responded, self-preparedness; they can't help everyone, and hope that people will help themselves. The number one issue can be the command structure. FEMA won't try to come in and take over if the entity has proper preparedness in place. Mr. Webber stated they also did a pandemic expertise in conjunction with the Health Department. Dan Peddycord added that a concern with this problem is it can linger on for months and could be worldwide. Theoretically, all departments could be overwhelmed at the same time. Self-preparedness is important because not everyone will be helped right away. This country does not have the ability to provide assistance as it has as in the past, and local entities are often on their own. Critical populations would be helped first - emergency responders, medical workers and so on. The medications expected to work may not, especially against viruses, which mutate quickly. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, February 28, 2007 Page 2 of 7 Pages Mr. Peddycord further stated that many countries are seeing the bird flu in waterfowl; there have been around 300 human cases, with many dying. It can be transmitted person to person. At this time, there is no evidence of the virus mutating, but localities need to be prepared for that possibility. The group discussed the various items on the list. Mr. Webber stated that technologically, the various local entities are constrained. Dan Peddycord pointed out that there are regular drills dealing with various types of emergency situations. Commissioner Daly said that the Board hasn't been invited to the drills, but feels they should be there since they will have to make decisions in the future an will be the voice of the public. Mr. Peddycord stated that if there were a public health event, he would come to Mr. Webber and the Board for a declaration of emergency and to be given the administrative ability to manage the event. Statute delegates authority to him if necessary to restrict the spread of disease, but the Board needs to be involved up front. Dave Kanner said that he surveyed other counties. He is familiar with the Board being the entity to declare an emergency, then someone needs to coordinate the work of the departments, approve expenditures and so on. The current Ordinance now says the Board Chair would do this. He asked if this appropriate. Larry Blanton stated that if it were a law enforcement issue, it would fall under the emergency operations plan. However, someone needs to handle the declaration and the finances. The declaration allows immediate enforcement, but primarily it is a staffing and funding issue. Mr. Peddycord cautioned about the Board's role in administrative actions. The Board should set policy and provide guidance, allowing the County Administrator and the department heads to handle the event, after the Board declares the emergency. Resources are often stretched and someone needs to prioritize and arbitrate. The group then discussed various potential emergency scenarios. Don Webber noted that this region is very active, and is far ahead of the State in this regard. He stated that the media often wants to help but can hinder, and news can become old very quickly. Commissioner Baney asked to see a draft of how to establish the person in charge in various instances. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, February 28, 2007 Page 3 of 7 Pages 3. Continued Discussion of South County Groundwater Project - Local Rule. Tom Anderson briefly reviewed the financial assistance package, and incorporated a letter from the Health Director into his presentation. Commissioner Daly said that someone is telling citizens that there are better and cheaper systems available that they aren't allowed to use. Barbara Rich pointed out that there are on-site systems approved nationally that are not yet approved in Oregon. There are others that have been approved but do not decrease nitrogen output. Mr. Anderson added that dozens were tested and some were approved by the State. The County is not withholding any systems. He said that the comments made are too vague; he would certainly like to know what the systems are. His department's motivation is to make this situation as easy as possible on citizens. Catherine Morrow pointed out that one thing would assist a lot, which is DEQ expediting its approval process, but the County has no control over this. Commissioner Baney pointed out that the County does not set the threshold regarding nitrates. The communications gap is still there, as people are not hearing what they want to hear. Commissioner Daly added that he hopes people will listen to what the scientists have to say. Mr. Anderson stated that there is a lot of information available on all kinds of topics. It is categorized on the website, has been distributed by mail and handed out, but there are going to be people you can't get through to. Mr. Anderson then went through specific financial assistance information covered in his handout. Commissioner Baney asked how they arrived at ten years for a local rule. Ms. Rich replied that this coincides with build-out in the area and the increase in systems, based on population growth. Mr. Anderson stated that all should share in the solution, but this varies as to where they are located. If the process takes twenty years, the solution will take longer to solve, resulting in more nitrates to deal with and the possibility of losing the ability to allow a lower level of retrofit. Ms. Morrow added that the burden would increase the longer it waits; the loading needs to be reduced sooner. The load will eventually get into wells and the rivers, but the concentrations are lower now. The results if this waits will be more serious loading later. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, February 28, 2007 Page 4 of 7 Pages Ms. Rich stated that there are 6,400 existing systems, with the balance of about 2,900 in the future. The largest number has already been built and is loading the system now. Commissioner Daly asked if the County did nothing, would DEQ step in. Mr. Anderson replied that they would but only after the problem is there. Some parts of the State have exceeded the levels, and the DEQ has tried to step in to fix it, after wells are contaminated. It is a long, expensive process then, controlled by the State. They also have a rule that is similar to local rule, called the geographic rule. Ms. Morrow added that when the water has been polluted, it will cost much more and the burden in placed on our children. Also, no funding to help will be available. Mr. Anderson said that there are three main ways to offer financial assistance - grants or rebates, a flat amount, or no cost. Or through the Department of Revenue, pay for the obligation, lien the properties, and the money goes back to the State when the property changes hands. A third party administrator would be necessary to handle this process. A conventional loan program could be offered, with the property as security. Another way is to buy the systems and pass a discount on to the consumer. Or there could be a combination of programs. There could be an income-based test to see who can afford it. The cost could be deferred or a monthly maintenance fee charged. There may not be enough funds available to offer it free to everyone. Pahlisch Homes is offering $3,750 for retrofits/upgrades in exchange for a pollution reduction credit. DEQ has a loan that would be paid back within ten years; it has an interest rate and fee set by the State. The USDA program for rural development assistance is for the elderly or low income. The DEQ existing tax credit is not available currently; the State would have to be lobbied for this, but it could cover the cost of the systems, similar to what is being offered for solar water systems. The State would have to modify the rule to include septic systems. Ms. Rich added that this would have to be in response to external forces; DEQ would not do it within. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, February 28, 2007 Page 5 of 7 Pages Commissioner Baney said that she wants the focus of this issue to be away from being County-driven and more of a partnership with DEQ. Citizens need to understand who is involved and why. The group then discussed how the upcoming public meetings would be handled. Ms. Rich stated that USGS experts will be at the meeting but won't want to debate audience members on their statistics. Mr. Anderson said that an overview should be given, then a staff report and the USGS information, followed by comments from the Health Director and financial information. It makes sense that then the public can make comments or ask questions. Commissioner Daly suggested that the second meeting be dedicated to general testimony once people have heard the presentation. Mr. Anderson said that enforcement is hard to address. Typically, code enforcement is voluntary compliance now. There needs to be some respect given to people who do what they are supposed to do, and no free pass for the others. There is a ten-year grace period to complete the work. He said that the DEQ is close to its final version of the memorandum of understanding regarding their role in this issue and their qualified support of the local rule. It has been difficult to reach consensus and they do not handle criticism well. They support the local rule and understand nitrates, but have heard from a lot of red lot owners and others and want to address those concerns. The County is committed to bring forward a process to look at what can be done with those lots if the local rule is adopted. One idea is to allow a site modification of some kind - fill, selective sewering, or some other means. But this should not raise the burden for others. Ms. Rich added that dealing with the red lots would be a lengthy process, and they would have to redo the regional problem solving issue with the original stakeholders. The MOU says discussions will continue on this issue. Commissioner Daly asked about a sewer system. Mr. Anderson stated that it is very costly. Years ago, it was estimated at $19,000 to $28,000 per lot, because it is not efficient due to the large size of the lots. Also, land would have to be purchased for a treatment plant. Citizens say they want to retain the rural character of the area. Also, a sewer system is prohibited right now under Goal 11, which requires that no other alternative be available. The Commissioners will review the draft package and provide further input in a week. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, February 28, 2007 Page 6 of 7 Pages 4. Legislative Conference Call. The lobbyist firm was unable to conduct the conference call at this time. It will be rescheduled to a mutually convenient time. 5. Other Items. Tammy Raney said that in regard to the La Pine Rural Fire Protection District Measure, a letter of support from Commissioners seems appropriate. The other Commissioners agreed. Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m. DATED this 28th Day of February 2007 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. I 1--Z' is R. Luke, Vice Chair ATTEST: lmut4~- - Recording Secretary Tammy Raney, ComnaVsioner Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, February 28, 2007 Page 7 of 7 Pages NA 0- { Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2007 Finance/Tax Update - Marty Wynne 2. Overview of Emergency Operations Plan - Don Webber 3. Continued Discussion of South County Groundwater Project - Local Rule 4. Legislative Conference Call (3 PM) 5. Other Items PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to: ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), pending or threatened litigation; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572. Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. Monthly Meeting with Board of Commissioners Finance Director/Treasurer AGENDA February 28, 2007 (1) Monthly Investment Report (2) January Financial Data (3) LID and RV Park/Solid Waste Debt Issues ' R M O d co 00 LO co E ^ o T r ~ O ~ } M M M O O O N r+ c R ~ fA d y ~ N V 0 O w O H T co O t 'T7tt~ ac O O O co M 40 Q LO W) C m 7 b4 ~ C14 C4 LO in c 4) E O a La U t + j co N co d _ O) c N T N T E Z LL ! f N v N = E c 4-- d O 0 V 0 m c > y m O E N d c -LL N r + c O d E ; J C y c - d > C 43 0 C d C~ oro'o o^ o ^teo~o°f I~ er O co N O r O co co 0co 0W O OD ' tt) ' N Of 0 O 0 O m O 0 o co co T to O LO O NI co co M I N 69 1 is O) ` U C CL w y M c CU 0 co N 0 m m c r E m 2 SO ~ m OQ F- d 4) Q -00 > E U H M C E m to my c O.g m m (9 0 UI-~LL m- H w La c •3 m 2 f0 O) C O) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O m O O O O O O O O U) O to 0 0 0 O O N I- W to N O to N a3 O to O N c T LO T O 69 Q t. V5 to Y ~ Y o a c m V ~p m m Y m U m C Y U N m C m `•cU Y = E N C N> Y m 0 Q< :E m -fficn cmL m m > m :3 LL Y Y E E 'C C . O' N _ E a) 0-2 m m 0 o m O m m m U U (n C-/) > > 3 O -0-0 O O40to ww o 0 0^ N N N ~ ~ W N U E N ti CL a) 8 m E O) C .)o < 2 o (D Of H N N U E 4) E m N m E O » -j LL d m N Q y o Fem. m co r LLa CY) c d N c ~ N O . N U O ~ N 1 E CL I 3 O U F- F 0'. a N 0 J U m a L m m n m n m ' m m l m m ; m d m m m m ' m m m m m m m m m m m l m m o m W m a m m n m o w - m n m w - {p w - m a m a A ~p m - a m m a m m a a a m ~0 i n m w m - a N a w 0 m - N a w ia 'w ry a w q n m m - a N m s N a g l0 n m m - a N m a w m m <0 m - o W ~ w ~ m - a I N m n - w c N m a N m s w s w ~0 n w m a N m s N m tp m {p a W aw m m a W Z q n 7 {p m m m a m °m m X X X X X n X o Y O W U W d O A d O O N d O is d 'N` " i0 d O tJ O i0 U 0 A d 0 11 O U 0 0 R l0 d m 0 0 ''NN`` W I d m O 0 d O w d 10 d 0 Im` Irmm`{ U IImm'' W U U U O i0 U 10 U N U tl q 10 U U A N A O O n C O C O i r O O V z z z z z z z z Z 0 Z Z z z z " Z Z Z " 0 Z 0 Z " O z z d O Z d O Z d O z ~ O z U 0 Z 0 z 0 z I I I I I i C 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O 0 O 0 {O A O O O O O O O O O O M M O N O M O O N YNI ~ 0 0 N tnO. M tnp 0 0 0 N O O ~~pp N AM M M tnO N N 'O O O O r YOf t00 fO n r ON ~ ~ O m E m O O O O O O N N N aa V Q 0 O O 0 O O 0 m M N W G O O O O O G O O C O O O O O Mm M Q< N ~p O 0 o O 0 M M O~ G O O O O O N O M N m a0 M 0 N r 0 O 0 Cl Ol ~~pp ~O Nl a N tp ml Q C O N IO N O O O 1~ A O O 0 O G 0 O N f0 N f~ l0 10 t~I M OD O h 10 l0 00 N N O O G O U M ; 1~ A M N N a fV O O p a0 Ol m N N M M M T O O W O N ~ m, ~ 9 ~ C 0 O O 0 O OI m O N 0 ~ W I O O O O ~~pp l7 O O 0 O O 0 O N N Q Ip ~ O wI a! M O me Q ' ~ O) Cl Gp OD OI r N C OI ~p N p Vp I CJ N r' c O wI O O N N N Ol C N N O r r! N N ~ O M O O ~O{ M M 0 Iq A 0 1~ ~ O r ~ g O N Im ~ v Q t0 N M m a! q N N O 0 Q m N Ol 10 Q 9 Oi v i C N IIV N N N ifV N N N N N - N - tV N - - N - tV - N - N - N - I~ - N - N - N fV iN N IN N tV N N I N N N IN m N N fV N ^ N iN [V N N E Q t& ~ n . N M O cN W - NN h N O O O O O O O O M M M M O O Q N O O O O O O M th O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O O e M r t0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ttpp O N 0 0 N ~p A ^ ' O f0 M O O (7 M O IC O Yf O M ~tI O OO tf N G m I OJ N n O O O I UD - 0 A N 0 O O O G O 0 O 0 0 N 0 Q 0 N 0 wl 0 0 N. O N 0 N 0 O O 0 (O O N O O A 10 A N wl O ,m, O O O T Oc0 l I O M Q O i O i 1 O tU A T ro O o m O C M I (f J N N ~ ~ ~ N N ~ M N r N IA - T M m N .L. $ - - - - - - - - - - - - - m 0 O 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 0 X N X O ~ O X N X O O X 0 X 0 X Ol X X Q o X r X O R O N X O ~ O n ~ I o X O o X O X O X O X a0a 1 0 a 0 9 0 0 * 0 M X O X 0 ~ 0 a 0 o 0 X 0 X 0 X 0 X 0 X 0 X 0 ° X O pX p X O X A X 0 X 0 IX N m • m C ~ = ~I OY a ~ a q m y Q O N V' Q v t +I v N N Y N M o ~ N N v N o n o N N M N O D Q M N r v N N i N N ~I ( N N N O N ' G D IV N N N Q N N N O N N N 0 N N N o N N N N N N - N I N O N ' N I O N o N N v N N N N N N i wi O NN f~ N O N W N O O ' a i m E w a m m ~ vi ui Yl $ o O • y oE U H ~y wm 7 LL Y m m a 9: J M H OI m O O O O O 0 M 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O o o iw im O of O O I O O G O O O O 0 0 O O X O N O O 8 q V R Q Q f~ N M Q N N N Q N Q N Q O O CJ r M N O Q N O N N N OD Q O O N N lM N N O O O N A eD Q 0 O HI 01 M of 10 M N N N O N N O O M O N M ~~pp OD fM -{p OD lh N N N o W fV O Q Q O_ M S N N m N ~l N {O O N O N N t Q Q Q C E µ ml o o 0 > a • c I Qo I o N ~ I I I I I I c E ~ ~ m ? c a ` Z o m O gg O m m aN Yf o N m N m ap ~w o N Qr ~w np YI o N n n N ~l 0 o N r o N m NI Oy N o N ~ Q N e A o M o pp N m f0 Q ~ N m aa V o N rn QQ ~m o M m $ M M QQ N ~ N M N Q ~ Q a" IC m Q m Q pO N ~w M M M f0 10 r A Q E T I m Q > o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ti n 0Q 0Q 0A oh o I o N \ N0 0 N 0 0 N 0 N 0 tg ;'o, o • C f m ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O S N o N 0 O O O O N O r r O m O Ca O O GO O W O . 0 . 0 o 0 O 0 O O gy O . O ~ " N OI a 0 o 0 M 0 e 0 . 0 . I 01 A 0 0 0 N 0 0 o 0 w~ 0 r 0 > a 9 f O J m l t m NI 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 l0 t0 0 N 0 10 N 0 N 0 N_ 0 ~p O (p O N O ~p O N O ~p O ~p O N 0 N 0 ~p O (p O {p O ~p O N O ~p O ~p O {p O ~p 0 ~p 0 (p 0 {p 0 {p 0 ~p 0 Q (p O ~p O {p O O O O O O O \ O O O O O O ~ A i m 0 m 0 0 ul N 0 ~ iV 0 i3 (_p ~ in n N 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 aa O X M N 0 N 0 ~n \ ~ Q N ~ O M l~ ~ a T fo ~V OI ~ O ~ e N l~ ~ LV ~ O_ a O N n ~ Q N a 3 NI r N c~ c3 O ~ N M n O f~ o a (3 O Q N Q rn ' rn fV N n a n rn ' rn N o LV io fV 3 ~ ~y n rn ~ n a ~p O o ~3 N 6 0 o a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O r 0 0 0 0 0 O O QQ ml U m m U LL U m CN N 7 LL pp ~F U F L LL LL U U LL ~ LL LL d U LL lai U LL U ~ LL LL LL LL LL LL LLI LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL I LL LL ~ O nun Z w w ~ Z m Z w Z w m, w m w m w w D m; m m Z w Z w m d Z w m m m m z w Z w m m ~i m m m m m m m m z m T: Z m T, m II ¢W m w Z w Z w z m z m m z) m m m m > m m ml m m 'a Z u~ z m m o: LL U U m E M > N 'u5 8 o O d 0 N d d w a N x N 2 d M f'O m Y x N S N O. Z w J o N N x m w W a M ° N N m = p N N N w Q m pi ~ M N F N f m r Y (p , Q m Z r O ~p M r ~ O~ M LL I z u) m ~~pp a LL ~ m Ol O X U X Q X m Ol LL Q > ml X N m ml X LL 0 OI > w W x f n 0 m 0 2 Ol t~ X o X a 3 X D X X w a2D x n x n ~ x Y O} < w X X ~ LL X r p~ LL X G p M N t~l O1 N f 0 N M M M m N O wl N M M O M O M M M M M M M lN~l N CM9 M M N N 00 N aD N N M M M ° i M M M M M Cp N M M lD M M M N M N N V M M t~l M N M ~ M M t+J n N (7 Nl O A Hl O Q c M M ' M M M ~y th M M; M M In M l7 CI f+l t+f lh lh t7 M lh M {y ~y M a C ( a o o Y c2 O U L U ( N V c w ' U C kit ~ d v c c U w I w c w w 'O g U o c 'w-w m C w y` U a w m I ` ii m a S w'~m ~e =zwc Wd g i m E c w « > w C LL -Em w o ddz dU m m o N iacr co dE = o U w d J U ca < ~ ~ U L) u c U 3 VI ~ m 1 c o m m o m m m m m m ~ m m ~ m m m w m m m i m m E w .E I LL 2 m Z m LL LL 2 LL 2 LL ~ M U L U LL o M S S 2 I 2 2 2 Z m 2 2 2 2 Z o c L LL L LL LL LL LL LL U m J Memorandum Date: February 20, 2007 To: Board of County Commissioners Dave Kanner, County Administrator From: Marty Wynne, Finance Director RE: Monthly Financial Reports Attached please find January 2007 financial reports for the following funds: General (001), Community Justice - Juvenile (230), Sheriff's (255), Health (259), Mental Health (275), Community Development (295), Road (325), Community Justice - Adult (355), Commission on Children & Families (370-399), Solid Waste (610), Health Benefits Trust Fund (675) and 9-1-1 (705). The projected information has been reviewed and updated, where appropriate, by the respective departments. Cc: All Department Heads GENERAL FUND Statement of Financial Operating Data Seven Months Ended January 31, 2007 RESOURCES: Beg. Net Working Capital Revenues Property Taxes Gen. Rev. - excl. Taxes Assessor County Clerk BOPTA Board of County Comm. District Attorney Finance/Tax Veterans Property Management Grant Projects Total Revenues TOTAL RESOURCES REQUIREMENTS: Expenditures Assessor County Clerk BOPTA BOCC District Attorney Finance/Tax Veterans Property Management Grant Projects Non-Departmental Contingency Transfers Out TOTAL REQUIREMENTS NET (Resources - Requirements) Year to Date Year to Date Revised Bud Actual Variance FY % Coll. % $ 6,215,445 $ 6,736,259 $ 520,814 100% 108% Revised Year End $ Bud et Projection Variance Variance $ 6,215,445 $ 6,736,259 $ 520,814 8% 10,004,167 15,561,400 5,557,233 58% 91% a) 17,150,000 17,450,000 300,000 2% 1,281,114 1,785,292 504,178 58% 81% b) 2,196,196 2,396,196 200,000 9% 638,358 772,010 133,652 58% 71% 1,094,328 1,094,328 - 0% 1,303,142 1,372,305 69,163 58% 61% 2,233,958 2,233,958 - 0% 10,456 13,387 2,931 58% 75% 17,925 16,838 (1,087) -6% 117 27 (90) 58% 14% 200 200 - 0% 137,157 117,182 (19,975) 58% 50% 235,126 235,126 - 0% 146,388 187,881 41,493 58% 75% 250,950 250,950 - 0% 42,000 34,714 (7,286) 58% 48% 72,000 72,000 - 0% 34,528 33,075 (1,453) 58% 56% 59,191 59,191 - 0% 1,167 1,169 2 58% 58% 2,000 2,000 - 0% 13,598,594 19,878,442 6,279,848 58% 85% 23,311,874 23,810,787 498,913 2% 19,814,039 26,614,701 6,800,662 58% 90% 29,527,319 30,547,046 1,019,727 3% Exp. 2,020,603 1,851,656 168,947 831,325 755,567 75,758 40,622 24,970 15,652 357,513 348,666 8,847 2,366,511 2,262,889 103,622 442,675 441,810 865 164,440 113,217 51,223 93,644 109,781 (16,137) 50,905 50,259 646 531,180 572,930 (41,750) 2,161,921 - 2,161,921 9,061,339 6,531,745 2,529,594 7,541,680 7,662,074 (120,394) 16,603,019 14,193,819 2,409,200 3,211,020 12,420,882 9,209,862 58% 53% c) 3,463,890 3,313,890 150,000 4% 58% 53% 1,425,129 1,425,129 - 0% 58% 36% 69,638 69,638 - 0% 58% 57% 612,880 612,880 - 0% 58% 56% c) 4,056,876 3,956,876 100,000 2% 58% 58% 758,871 758,871 - 0% 58% 40% 281,897 281,897 - 0% 58% 68% c) 160,532 180,532 (20,000) -12% 58% 58% 87,265 87,265 - 0% 58% 63% 910,595 910,595 - 0% 58% n/a d) 3,706,151 - 3,706,151 100% 58% 42% 15,533,724 11,597,573 3,936,151 25% 58% 59% 12,928,595 12,928,595 - 0% 58% 50% 28,462,319 24,526,168 3,936,151 14% * 1,065,000 6,020,878 4,955,878 a) Year End Projection based on actual tax collections through December 31, 2006. b) Actual revenues trending in excess of budget primarily interest, cigarette and liquor taxes. c) Assume variances through seven months approximate the variances for FY 2007. d) The Contingency in the Adopted Budget was $3,657,731. The net increase of $48,420 is due to (1) the elimination of a transfer out to the Health Department for the cost of a Public Health Nurse 11 ($68,420) and appropriation transfer to Business Loan Fund ($20,000). * The Unappropriated Ending Fund Balance in the Adopted Budget was $1,045,000. The increase of $20,000 is due to transferring appropriation to the Business Loan Fund. RESOURCES: Beg. Net Working Capital Revenues Federal Grants SB #1065-Court Assess. State Miscellaneous Discovery Fee Food Subsidy Juvenile Crime Prevention Inmate/Prisoner Housing Inmate Commissary Fees Contract Payments Miscellaneous Program Fees Probation Supervision MIP Diversion Fees Interest on Investments Leases Level 7 Total Revenues s COMM JUSTICE-JUVENILE Statement of Financial Operating Data Seven Months Ended January 31, 2007 Year to Date Year End Budget Actual Variance FY % Coll. % Budget Projection Variance $ 364,451 $ 591,907 $ 227,456 100% 7,874 3,414 (4,460) 24,500 33,428 8,928 - 1,028 1,028 1,750 6,411 4,661 22,167 22,163 (4) 184,221 141,923 (42,298) 40,833 41,441 608 1,633 606 (1,027) 387,749 276,160 (111,589) 292 210 (82) - 176 176 - 225 225 1,167 2,755 1,588 8,750 24,750 16,000 20,950 19,950 (1,000) 73,406 62,920 (10,486) 775,292 637,560 (137,732) 58% 58% 58% 58% 58% 58% 58% 58% 58% 58% 58% 58% 58% 58% 58% 58% 58% n/a $ 364,451 $ 591,907 $ 227,456 25% a) 13,498 13,498 - 80% b) 42,000 55,000 13,000 n/a - 1,028 1,028 214% c) 3,000 8,000 5,000 58% d) 38,000 43,000 5,000 45% a)e) 315,808 283,844 (31,964) 59% 70,000 80,000 10,000 22% a) 2,800 2,000 (800) 42% d)f) 664,712 664,712 - 42% 500 500 - n/a - 600 600 n/a - 600 600 138% 2,000 4,500 2,500 165% 15,000 41,000 26,000 56% 35,914 34,414 (1,500) 50% a) 125,839 125,839 - 48% 1,329,071 1,358,535 29,464 Transfers In-General Fund 3,274,406 3,274,406 - 58% TOTAL RESOURCES 4,414,149 4,503,873 89,724 58% REQUIREMENTS: Expenditures Community Justice-Juvenile Personal Services Materials and Services Capital Outlay Juvenile Resource Center Personal Services Materials and Services Capital Outlay Contingency 58% 5,613,267 5,613,267 - 62% 7,306,789 7,563,709 256,920 Exp. 1,428,263 1,316,240 112,023 58% 54% g) 2,448,450 2,348,450 100,000 1,001,429 671,468 329,961 58% 39% e)h) 1,716,736 1,617,772 98,964 58 - 58 58% 0% 100 - 100 1,605,225 1,483,121 122,104 127,199 105,829 21,370 58 - 58 100,061 - 100,061 58% 54% g) 2,751,815 2,666,815 85,000 58% 49% 218,055 197,055 21,000 58% 0% 100 - 100 58% n/a 171,533 - 171,533 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 4,262,293 3,576,658 685,635 58% 49% 7,306,789 6,830,092 476,697 NET (Resources - Requirements) 151,856 927,215 775,359 - 733,617 733,617 a) Payments are requested quarterly. b) Court assessment revenue higher than anticipated. $4,800 / month average in FY 2007; $3,600 / month average in 2006. c) Requests for discovery documents are higher than anticipated. d) Billing is generated in succeeding month with payments being received 3-6 weeks after billing. January billing ($4,208) expected to be received in February. e) Portion of JCP dollars budgeted for FY 2006-07 were received and expended in FY 2005-06. f) BRS billed on a monthly basis after data is collected from several sources and CEOJJC billed quarterly. Amount budgeted is expected to be realized. g) Salary savings on unfilled positions. h) Reduction in anticipated contract payments due to prior year adjustment and lower JCP revenue for FY 06-07. SHERIFF Rev Detail Statement of Financial Operating Data Seven Months Ended January 31, 2007 Year to Date I rcewsea I Year End Budget Actual Variance FY % Con. % Budget Projection Variance RESOURCES: Beg. Net Working Capital $2,177,260 $ 2,211,462 $ 34,202 100% 102% $ 2,177,260 $2,211,462 $ 34,202 Revenues Tax Revenues - Current 8,610,004 13,300,792 4,690,788 58% 90% a) 14,760,006 14,860,006 100,000 Tax Revenues - Prior 201,250 243,520 42,270 58% 71% 345,000 345,000 - Federal Grants 24,074 55,321 31,247 58% 134% b) 41,270 60,000 18,730 Federal Law Enforcemt Grnt - 11 11 58% n/a - 11 11 U.S. Forest Service 42,000 72,000 30,000 58% 100% 72,000 72,000 - State Grant 70,419 48,186 (22,233) 58% 40% 120,718 120,718 - SB #1065-Court Assess. 24,792 33,428 8,636 58% 79% 42,500 42,500 - Mahne Board License Fee 57,717 - (57,717) 58% 0% c) 98,944 98,944 - Narcotic Task Force Grant 58 55,000 54,942 58% 55000% d) 100 110,000 109,900 Transp. of State Wards 2,917 2,241 (676) 58% 45% 5,000 5,000 - SB 1145 981,520 1,274,916 293,396 58% 76% e) 1,682,606 1,682,606 - City of Sisters 218,475 218,475 - 58% 58% 374,529 374,529 - Security & Traffic Reimb 49,000 55,099 6,099 58% 66% f) 84,000 84,000 - Seat Belt Program 3,500 3,843 343 58% 64% 6,000 6,000 - Inmate Commissary Fees 29,167 51,332 22,165 58% 103% 50,000 80,000 30,000 Soc Sec Incentive-Fed 1,750 3,000 1,250 58% 100% 3,000 3,000 - Miscellaneous 7,000 7,474 474 58% 62% 12,000 12,000 - Medical Services Reimb 9,800 11,493 1,693 58% 68% 16,800 16,800 - Restitution 583 293 (290) 58% 29% 1,000 1,000 - Sheriff Fees 85,750 104,764 19,014 58% 71% 147,000 147,000 - Court Fines and Fees 87,500 50,196 (37,304) 58% 33% g) 150,000 100,000 (50,000) Impound Fees 46,667 39,000 (7,667) 58% 49% g) 80,000 55,000 (25,000) Interest 58,333 102,279 43,946 58% 102% 100,000 150,000 50,000 Interest on Unsegregated 4,667 7,633 2,966 58% 95% 8,000 12,000 4,000 Rentals - 25,530 25,530 58% n/a h) - 43,766 43,766 Donations - 250 250 58% n/a - 250 250 Interfund Contract 239,498 127,546 (111,952) 58% 31% i) 410,568 360,568 (50,000) Transport Reimbursements - 351 351 58% n/a - 351 351 Court Security Reimbrsmnt - 6,316 6,316 58% n/a - 6,316 6,316 Sale of Eqp & Material 583 12,665 12,082 58% 1267% j) 1,000 12,665 11,665 Total Revenues 10,857,024 15,912,954 5,055,930 58% 85% 18,612,041 18,862,030 249,989 Transfers In 1,581,115 1,299,064 (282,051) 58% 48% 2,710,483 2,710,483 - TOTAL RESOURCES 14,615,399 19,423,480 4,808,081 58% 83% 23,499,784 23,783,975 284,191 REQUIREMENTS: Exp. EXPENDITURES & TRANSFERS Sheriffs Division 1,063,961 1,083,943 (19,982) 58% 59% k) 1,823,933 1,893,933 (70,000) Automotive/Communications 668,261 612,500 55,761 58% 53% 1) 1,145,591 1,145,591 - Investigations/Evidence 1,052,630 1,028,200 24,430 58% 57% m) 1,804,509 1,804,509 - Patrol/Civil/Comm Supp 4,383,805 4,220,461 163,344 58% 56% n) 7,515,095 7,515,095 - Records 340,308 326,258 14,050 58% 56% 583,385 563,385 20,000 Adult Jail 4,311,001 4,030,577 280,424 58% 55% o) 7,390,287 7,340,287 50,000 Court Security 119,999 111,436 8,563 58% 54% 205,713 195,713 10,000 Emergency Services 73,683 66,721 6,962 58% 53% 126,313 126,313 - Special Services Division 303,886 301,539 2,347 58% 58% 520,947 520,947 - Training Division 97,299 107,160 (9,861) 58% 64% p) 166,798 186,798 (20,000) Contingency 1,176,708 - 1,176,708 58% n/a 2,017,213 - 2,017,213 Transfers Out 200,000 200,000 - 58% 100% q) 200,000 200,000 - TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 13,791,540 12,088,795 1,702,745 581/16 51% 23,499,784 21,492,571 2,007,213 NET (Resources - Requirements) 823,859 7,334,685 6,510,826 - 2,291,404 2,291,404 S SHERIFF Exp Detail Statement of Financial Operating Data Seven Months Ended January 31, 2007 RESOURCES: Beg. Net Working Capital Total Revenues Transfers In TOTAL RESOURCES REQUIREMENTS: Sheriffs Services Personnel Materials & Services Capital Outlay Total Sheriffs Services Automotive/Communications Personnel Materials & Services Capital Outlay Total Automotive/Communications Investigations/Evidence Personnel Materials & Services Capital Outlay Total Investigations/Evidence Patrol/Civil/Comm Support Personnel Materials & Services Capital Outlay Total Patrol/Civil/Comm Supp Records Personnel Materials & Services Capital Outlay Total Records Adult Jail Personnel Materials & Services Capital Outlay Total Adult Jail Court Security Personnel Materials & Services Capital Outlay Total Transport/Court Security Emergency Services Personnel Materials & Services Capital Outlay Total Emergency Services Special Services Personnel Materials & Services Capital Outlay Total Special Services Training Personnel Materials & Services Capital Outlay Total Training Non-Departmental Materials & Services Transfers Out Contingency Total Non-Departmental Total Requirements NET (Resources - Requirements) Year to Date ev se Year End Budget Actual Variance FY % Coll. % Budget I Projection Variance $ 2,177,260 $ 2,211,462 $ 34,202 100% 102% $ 2,177,260 $ 2,211,462 $ 34,202 10,857,024 15,912,954 5,055,930 58% 85% 18,612,041 18,862,030 249,989 1,581,115 1,299,064 (282,051) 58% 48% 2,710,483 2,710,483 - 14,615,399 19,423,480 4,808,081 58% 83% 23,499,784 23,783,975 284,191 Exp. 617,182 607,374 9,808 58% 57% 1,058,026 1,058,026 - 422,052 451,236 (29,184) 58% 62% 723,517 793,517 (70,000) 10,890 11,494 (604) 58% 62% 18,669 18,669 - 1,050,124 1,070,104 (19,980) 1,800,212 1,870,212 (70,000) 145,406 145,417 (11) 58% 58% 249,267 249,267 - 522,797 467,083 55,714 58% 52% 896,224 896,224 - 58 - 58 58% 0% 100 100 - 668,261 612,500 55,761 1,145,591 1,145,591 - 900,346 879,936 20,410 58% 57% 1,543,451 1,543,451 - 131,634 119,947 11,687 58% 53% 225,658 225,658 - 20,650 28,317 (7,667) 58% 80% 35,400 35,400 - 1,052,630 1,028,200 24,430 1,804,509 1,804,509 - 3,930,904 3,736,326 194,578 58% 55% 6,738,693 6,588,693 150,000 309,401 293,921 15,480 58% 55% 530,402 530,402 - 143,500 190,213 (46,713) 58% 77% 246,000 396,000 (150,000) 4,383,805 4,220,460 163,345 7,515,095 7,515,095 - 312,315 288,773 23,542 58% 54% 535,397 515,397 20,000 26,535 37,486 (10,951) 58% 82% 45,488 45,488 - 1,458 - 1,458 58% 0% 2,500 2,500 - 340,308 326,259 14,049 583,385 563,385 20,000 3,474,031 3,348,455 125,576 58% 56% 5,955,481 5,855,481 100,000 791,062 636,775 154,287 58% 47% 1,356,106 1,406,106 (50,000) 45,908 45,346 562 58% 58% 78,700 78,700 - 4,311,001 4,030,576 280,425 7,390,287 7,340,287 50,000 109,471 108,804 667 58% 58% 187,665 187,665 - 10,470 2,633 7,837 58% 15% 17,948 7,948 10,000 58 - 58 58% 0% 100 100 - 119,999 111,437 8,562 205,713 195,713 10,000 62,297 61,505 792 58% 58% 106,795 106,795 - 11,327 5,216 6,111 58% 27% 19,418 19,418 - 58 - 58 58% 0% 100 100 - 73,624 66,721 6,903 126,313 126,313 - 248,928 245,357 3,571 58% 57% 426,733 426,733 - 40,998 35,293 5,705 58% 50% 70,282 70,282 - 13,960 20,889 (6,929) 58% 87% 23,932 23,932 - 303,886 301,539 2,347 520,947 520,947 - 69,547 97,165 (27,618) 58% 81% 119,223 149,223 (30,000) 27,694 9,995 17,699 58% 21% 47,475 37,475 10,000 58 - 58 58% 0% 100 100 - 97,299 107,160 (9,861) 166,798 186,798 (20,000) 13,837 13,839 (2) 58% 58% 200,000 200,000 - 58% 100% 1,176,708 - 1,176,708 58% n/a 1,390,545 213,839 1,176,706 13,791,540 12,088,795 1,702,745 823,859 7,334,685 6,510,826 23,721 200,000 2,017,213 2,240,934 23,721 200,000 - 223,721 - - 2,017,213 2,017,213 23,499,784 21,492,571 2,007,213 - 2,291,404 2,291,404 Sheriff Notes Statement of Financial Operating Data Seven Months Ended January 31, 2007 a) Year End Projection based on actual tax collections through December 31, 2006. b) Reimbursement of COPY grant expenses and HIDTA overtime higher than anticipated. c) The semi-annual invoice in the amount of $33,425 was billed to the Marine Board in January 2007. d) Confirmation has been received on the continuance of the Byrne Grant in the amount of $110,000 for FY 2006-07. e) SB 1145 inmate housing reimbursement for 3rd qtr received in January 2007. f) Reimbursement received from USFS for August fire patrol overtime for the Black Crater Fire ($20,178) and the Lake George Fire ($27,706). g) Revenue will be less than anticipated due to staffing shortages in Patrol. h) The FBI office has not relocated. Projections adjusted to assume rent through June 30, 2007. i) Title III funding has been reduced by $50,000. j) YTD includes $9,430 revenue from prior years' Sheriffs Office auctions. k) Spending for new employee hiring expenses and consulting services will result in total fiscal year spending for Sheriffs Services Division to exceed original budget. 1) YTD spending variance due to timing of expenses related to the purchase and installation of equipment for new vehicles. FY 07 expenditures for vehicle equipment, supplies and installation projected at budgeted amounts. m) YTD variance due to lag in filling open positions and timing of capital expenditures. Most of the labor variance will be absorbed by the pay adjustment starting in January for detectives. n) YTD variance due to lag in filling open positions and timing of material and services expenditures. Most of the labor variance will be absorbed by the non-budgeted temporary labor for civil paper processing and Deputy pay increase starting in January. In addition, expenditures for patrol vehicles and replacement MDTs will be purchased by year end. o) YTD variance due to lag in filling open positions and timing of expenditures for inmate medical care and supplies. Some of the labor variance will be absorbed by the pay adjustment starting in January for Correction deputies. In addition, several major capital equipment items will be purchased before year end and several major maintenance projects will be completed by year end. p) YTD variance resulting from lump sum leave payment due to employee turnover. Some of the labor variance will be offset by under spending in supplies but the Division will end the year over plan. q) Transfer of $200,000 total annual budget to the capital reserve was made in December 2006. HEALTH Statement of Financial Operating Data Seven Months Ended January 31, 2007 Year to Date Revised Year End Budget Actual Variance FY % Coll. % Budget Projection Variance RESOURCES: Beg. Net Working Capital $1,300,000 $ 1,337,663 $ 37,663 100% 103% $1,300,000 $1,337,663 $ 37,663 Revenues Medicare Reimbursement - 3,409 3,409 58% n/a - 3,409 3,409 State Grant 962,378 655,372 (307,006) 58% 40% a) 1,649,791 1,476,671 (173,120) Child Dev & Rehab Center 18,916 16,457 (2,459) 58% 51% 32,428 32,428 - State Miscellaneous 90,406 67,738 (22,668) 58% 44% b) 154,982 154,982 - STARS Foundation 3,150 - (3,150) 58% 0% c) 5,400 - (5,400) OMAP 97,592 122,518 24,926 58% 73% 167,300 167,300 - Family Planning Exp Proj 247,917 265,710 17,793 58% 63% 425,000 425,000 - Grants - 4,750 4,750 58% n/a - 4,750 4,750 School Districts 8,822 933 (7,889) 58% 6% 15,123 15,123 - Contract Payments/ESD 29,750 4,883 (24,867) 58% 10% d) 51,000 19,900 (31,100) Miscellaneous 292 499 207 58% 100% 500 500 - Patient Insurance Fees 29,838 33,563 3,725 58% 66% 51,150 51,150 - Health Dept/Patient Fees 88,404 97,719 9,315 58% 64% 151,550 151,550 - Vital Records-Birth 23,333 20,046 (3,287) 58% 50% 40,000 40,000 - Vital Records-Death 52,500 54,520 2,020 58% 61% 90,000 90,000 - Interest on Investments 29,167 25,651 (3,516) 58% 51% 50,000 50,000 - Donations 6,883 6,020 (863) 58% 51% 11,800 11,800 - Interfund Contract 56,817 51,567 (5,250) 58% 53% 97,401 97,401 - Administrative Fee 5,833 5,831 (2) 58% n/a 10,000 10,000 - Interfund Grant - 3,000 3,000 58% n/a - 3,000 3,000 Drug Court - Byrne - 4,828 4,828 58% n/a - 4,828 4,828 Total Revenues 1,751,998 1,445,014 (306,984) 58% 48% 3,003,425 2,809,792 (193,633) Transfers In-Reserve Fund 58 - (58) 58% 0% 100 - (100) Transfers In-General Fund 1,405,897 1,405,897 - 58% 58% 2,410,109 2,410,109 - TOTAL RESOURCES 4,457,953 4,188,574 (269,321) 58% 62% 6,713,634 6,557,564 (156,070) REQUIREMENTS: Exp. Expenditures Personal Services 2,444,948 2,197,048 247,900 58% 52% e) 4,191,340 3,966,340 225,000 Materials and Services 830,627 724,623 106,004 58% 51% 1,423,932 1,423,932 - Capital Outlay 14,292 - 14,292 58% 0% 24,500 - 24,500 Transfers Out 587,500 575,000 12,500 58% 88% 650,000 650,000 - Contingency 247,253 - 247,253 58% n/a 423,862 - 423,862 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 4,124,620 3,496,671 627,949 58% 52% 6,713,634 6,040,272 673,362 NET (Resources - Requirements) 333,333 691,903 358,628 - 517,292 517,292 a) State Grant includes $192,560 budgeted for the BCC Program, which effective August 2006, will be administered by the State. Actual expenses incurred will be reimbursed. Both State Grant and Personnel/Materials & Services will be less than budgeted but the amount has not been determined. Year end projection is the total of State grant through Rev #6. b) MAC revenues paid quarterly in arrears, 2nd quarter billing not yet received c) Stars Foundation will not be funding Deschutes County Health Department Grant. d) Ready Set Go was budgeted at $36,000. Only $4,900 will be received as the program was not renewed. e) Projected reductions in expenditures due to unfilled positions. MENTAL HEALTH Statement of Financial Operating Data Seven Months Ended January 31, 2007 RESOURCES: Beg. Net Working Capital Revenues Marriage Licenses Divorce Filing Fees Federal Grants State Grants State Miscellaneous Title 19 Liquor Revenue ABHA Client Support Funds Local Grants School Districts Mental Health Jail Comp Contract Payments Miscellaneous Patient Insurance Fees Patient Fees Seizure/Forfeiture Interest on Investments Rentals Donation Interfund Contract Administrative Fee Year to Date Revised Year End Budget Actual Variance FY °k Coll. % Budget Projection Variance $ 3,059,533 $ 3,357,701 $ 298,168 100% 110% $ 3,059,533 $ 3,357,701 $ 298,168 3,208 3,400 192 88,608 94,234 5,626 84,944 34,958 (49,986) 5,171,244 4,587,335 (583,909) 208,620 82,814 (125,806) 135,580 77,346 (58,234) 50,167 74,216 24,049 17,500 15,625 (1,875) 13,708 9,465 (4,243) 40,833 34,890 (5,943) 4,200 4,200 - 14,000 11,409 (2,591) 35,292 39,400 4,108 151,333 123,505 (27,828) 38,627 10,916 (27,711) - 4,808 4,808 64,167 98,988 34,821 11,667 7,900 (3,767) 1,167 3,150 1,983 - 2,860 2,860 1,297,918 1,297, 919 1 58% 62% 5,500 5,500 - 58% 62% 151,900 151,900 - 58% 24% a) 145,618 145,618 - 58% 52% b) 8,864,989 9,111,719 246,730 58% 23% c) 357,634 357,634 - 58% 33% d) 232,422 174,189 (58,233) 58% 86% e) 86,000 104,369 18,369 58% 52°x6 30,000 30,000 - 58% 40% a) 23,500 23,500 - 58% 50% f) 70,000 70,000 - 58% 58% 7,200 7,200 - 58% 48% 24,000 24,000 - 58% 65% 60,500 60,500 - 58% 48% 259,428 211,723 (47,705) 58% 16% 9) 66,217 18,713 (47,504) 58% n/a - 4,808 4,808 58% 90% h) 110,000 144,821 34,821 58% 40% 20,000 16,500 (3,500) 58% 158% 2,000 3,150 1,150 58% n/a - 2,860 2,860 58% 58% 1) 2,225,003 2,271,323 46,320 Total Revenues 7,432,783 6,619,338 (813,445) 58% Transfers In-General Fund 807,128 807,128 - 58% Transfers In-Other 150,614 181,874 31,260 58% TOTAL RESOURCES 11,450,058 10,966,041 (484,017) 58% REQUIREMENTS: Expenditures Personal Services Materials and Services Capital Outlay Transfers Out Contingency TOTAL REQUIREMENTS NET (Resources - Requirements) 52% 12,741,911 12,940,027 198,116 58% 1,383,648 1,383,648 - 70% 258,195 322,725 64,530 630/6 17,443,287 18,004,101 560,814 &7p 3,983,421 3,749,790 233,631 58% 55% j) 6,828,722 6,528,722 300,000 5,046,404 4,192,270 854,134 58% 48% b)k) 8,650,979 8,543,829 107,150 2,917 - 2,917 58% 0% 5,000 5,000 - 87,500 75,000 12,500 58% 50% 150,000 150,000 - 1,055,009 - 1,055,009 58% n/a 1,808,586 - 1,808,586 10,175,251 8,017,060 2,158,191 58% 46% 17,443,287 15,227,551 2,215,736 1,274,807 2,948,981 1,674,174 - 2,776,550 2,776,550 (a) Grant billing done on a quarterly basis. Actual will lag behind budget all year. (b) Use of automated payment system (Express) has created a consistent one-month payment lag resulting in revenues and expenses appearing under budget by about $450,000 on this monthly report. Approx $170,000 was also withheld from our last monthly DHS allotment for repayment due to State related to under spending in several service areas over the last 5 bienniums. State Drug Court grant funds of $252,747 are also included in this line. (c) Variance primarily a result of historical 30-60 day time lag from billing to payment receipt from State for most contracts. (d) Title 19 is a difficult revenue stream to estimate. A 5-year average will be used to estimate the amount for the FY 07-08 budget. (e) Beginning in 2007/08 budget will increase to approximately $105,000, close to the annual average for the last 2.5 years. (f) School District revenues correlate with the school year resulting in a negative variance for most of the year. (g) Patient fees are down dramatically due to a decline in the number of non-OHP patients DCMH is seeing. It is required that we keep our wait list time for OHP clients to 2 weeks and we are enforcing this more closely on ourselves now. (h) Cash balance expected to decline over the course of the fiscal year. It was anticipated interest earnings would exceed budgeted interest in the early part of 2006/07. (i) Administrative fee reduced by $100,000 due to insufficient level of services supporting revenue from CDO and increased by $146,000, in supplemental budget, which is not yet reflected in "Revised Budget'. Q) Unfilled positions are averaging approximately 5.0 FTE each month. (k) To date several DD programs are cumulatively under spent by about $150,000 and this amount is expected to double by year-end. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Statement of Financial Operating Data Seven Months Ended January 31, 2007 Year to Date Year End Budget Actual Variance FY % Coll. % Budget Projection Variance RESOURCES: Beg. Net Working Capital $ 1,063,210 $ 1,989,301 926,091 100% n/a $1,063,210 $1,989,301 926,091 Revenues Admin-Operations 64,896 145,090 80,194 58% 130% a) 111,250 185,000 73,750 Admin-GIS 7,058 2,097 (4,961) 58% 17% b) 12,100 12,100 - Admin-Code Enforcement 239,030 249,566 10,536 58% 61% c) 409,765 409,765 - Building Safety 1,438,208 1,398,271 (39,937) 58% 57% c) 2,465,500 2,465,500 - Electrical 365,313 351,057 (14,256) 58% 56% c) 626,250 626,250 - Contract Services 760,436 374,199 (386,237) 58% 29% d) 1,303,605 1,150,000 (153,605) Env Health-On Site Prog 578,608 417,210 (161,398) 58% 42% 991,900 900,000 (91,900) Env Health-Lic Facilities 306,673 446,895 140,222 58% 85% e) 525,725 525,725 - Env Health - Drinking H2O 33,250 33,780 530 58% 59% 57,000 57,000 - EPA Grant 173,296 5,229 (168,067) 58% 2% f) 297,078 297,078 - Planning-Current 772,844 682,988 (89,856) 58% 52% 1,324,875 1,324,875 - Planning-Long Range 432,585 307,592 (124,993) 58% 41% g) 741,575 741,575 - Total Revenues 5,172,197 4,413,974 (758,223) 58% 50% 8,866,623 8,694,868 (171,755) Trans In-CDD Reserve 58 - (58) 58% 0% 100 - (100) Trans In-CDD Bldg/Elec 117 - (117) 58% 0% 200 - (200) TOTAL RESOURCES 6,235,582 6,403,275 167,693 58% 64% 9,930,133 10,684,169 754,036 REQUIREMENTS: EXPENDITURES & TRANSFERS Admin-Operations Division 1,895,619 1,438,015 457,604 Admin-GIS Division 163,500 123,856 39,644 Admin-Code Enforcement 138,133 114,825 23,308 Building Safety Division 628,625 795,276 (166,651) Electrical Division 230,842 226,166 4,676 Contract Services 445,905 440,415 5,490 Env Health-On Site Pgm 318,494 276,969 41,525 Env Health-Lic Facilities 245,301 238,133 7,168 Env Health-Grant Division 209,802 923 208,879 Env Health - Drinking H2O 35,713 34,813 900 EPA Grant 129,407 112,400 17,007 Planning-Current Division 666,588 655,691 10,897 Planning-Long Range Div 370,893 226,052 144,841 Contingency 313,755 - 313,755 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 5,792,577 4,683,534 1,109,043 58% 47% Exp. 9/61 58% 44% 3,249,633 3,249,633 - 58% 44% 280,285 280,285 - 58% 48% 236,800 236,800 - 58% 74% h) 1,077,642 1,077,642 - 58% 57% 395,729 395,729 - 58% 58% 764,409 764,409 - 58% 51% 545,990 545,990 - 58% 57% 420,516 420,516 - 58% 0% 359,660 359,660 - 58% 57% 61,223 61,223 - 58% 51% 221,840 221,840 - 58% 57% 1,142,723 1,142,723 - 58% 36% 635,817 635,817 - 58% n/a 537,866 - 537,866 NET(Resources - Requirements) 443,005 1,719,741 1,276,736 9,930,133 9,392,267 537,866 - 1,291,902 1,291,902 a) Includes interest revenue which is higher due to Beg NWC more than estimated and M37 fee revenue greater than estimated. b) GIS revenue is for contracted outside customer work, and is based on the volume of requests. c) Revenue is seasonal, the volume being higher during the warmer months. d) Revenue lags a month behind based on invoice and payment timing. e) Revenue is received primarily in January and February after annual license renewals are mailed. 0 Revenue is received after reimbursement requests are made to the federal government--usually 2-3 months after expense incurred. g) Revenue timing of state transportation planning grant is affecting YTD percentages. h) Expenses for the automated inspection request system and contract plan review included in the year to date. ROAD Statement of Financial Operating Data Seven Months Ended January 31, 2007 Year to Date Year End Budget Actual Variance FY % Coll. % Budget Pro'ection Variance RESOURCES: Beg. Net Working Capital $ 4,643,357 $ 5,171,895 $ 528,538 100% 111% $ 4,643,357 $ 5,171,895 $ 528,538 Revenues System Development Ch 39,083 29,696 (9,387) 58% 44% 67,000 67,000 - Mineral Lease Royalties - 778 778 58% n/a - 778 778 Forest Receipts 1,799,583 3,068,835 1,269,252 58% 99% a) 3,085,000 3,068,835 (16,165) State Grant 198,333 - (198,333) 58% 0% 340,000 340,000 - Motor Vehicle Revenue 4,608,333 4,897,027 288,694 58% 62% 7,900,000 8,073,075 173,075 City of Bend 102,083 147,473 45,390 58% 84% b) 175,000 175,000 - City of Redmond 247,917 356,721 108,804 58% 84% b) 425,000 425,000 - City of Sisters 29,167 - (29,167) 58% 0% b) 50,000 50,000 - Miscellaneous 29,167 48,144 18,977 58% 96% 50,000 50,000 - Road Vacations 1,167 500 (667) 58% 25% 2,000 2,000 - Interest on Investments 87,500 135,239 47,739 58% 90% 150,000 178,773 28,773 Donations 1,400 2,440 1,040 58% 102% 2,400 2,440 40 Interfund Contract 437,500 19 (437,481) 58% 0% c) 750,000 750,000 - Equipment Repairs 154,583 137,509 (17,074) 58% 52% 265,000 265,000 - Vehicle Repairs 58,333 - (58,333) 58% 0% c) 100,000 100,000 - LID Construction 87,500 - (87,500) 58% 0% c) 150,000 150,000 - Vegetation Management 49,583 - (49,583) 58% 0% c) 85,000 85,000 - Inter-fund: Forester 26,250 - (26,250) 58% 0% c) 45,000 45,000 - Sale of Eqp & Material 320,833 323,941 3,108 58% 59% 550,000 550,000 - Sale of Public Lands 292 - (292) 58% 0% 500 500 - Total Revenues 8,278,607 9,148,322 869,715 58% 64% 14,191,900 14,378,401 186,501 Trans In-Road Imp Res 3,772 - (3,772) 58% 0% 6,467 6,467 - TOTAL RESOURCES 12,925,736 14,320,217 1,394,481 58% 69% 18,841,724 19,556,763 715,039 REQUIREMENTS: Exp. Expenditures Personal Services 3,157,236 3,091,575 65,661 58% 57% 5,412,405 5,452,405 (40,000) Materials and Services 4,629,320 2,877,680 1,751,640 58% 36% 7,935,977 7,935,977 - Capital Outlay 2,143,750 735,821 1,407,929 58% 20% 3,675,000 3,675,000 - Transfers Out 525,000 900,000 (375,000) 58% 100% 900,000 900,000 - Contingency 535,700 - 535,700 58% n/a 918,342 - 918,342 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 10,991,006 7,605,076 3,385,930 58% 40% 18,841,724 17,963,382 878,342 NET (Resources- Requirements) 1,934,730 6,715,141 4,780,411 - 1,593,381 1,593,381 a) Annual payment received in January. b) Work performed billed upon completion. c) Payment to be billed and received in June 2007. ADULT PAROLE & PROBATION Statement of Financial Operating Data Seven Months Ended January 31, 2007 RESOURCES: Beg. Net Working Capital Revenues Federal Grant State Grant State Miscellaneous Probation Work Crew Fees Alcohol and Drug Treatment Polygraph Testing Miscellaneous Electronic Monitoring Fee Probation Superv. Fees Cognitive Program Sex Offender Treatment Fees Day Reporting Fees Interest on Investments Leases Rentals Total Revenues Year to Date Year End Budget Actual Variance FY % Coll. % Budget Projection Variance $ 350,000 $ 342,288 $ (7,712) 100% 98% $ 350,000 $ 342,288 $ (7,712) - 702 702 1,199,636 1,558,231 358,595 7,762 24,484 16,722 19,833 27,319 7,486 566 260 (306) - 1,025 1,025 3,383 12,291 8,908 87,500 54,031 (33,469) 128,333 116,475 (11,858) - 35 35 1,750 - (1,750) 193 115 (78) 11,667 18,470 6,803 3,500 12,000 8,500 163 1,410 1,247 1,464,286 1,826,848 362,562 58% n/a - 702 702 58% 76% a) 2,056,519 2,056,519 - 58% 184% b) 13,306 24,484 11,178 58% 80% 34,000 40,000 6,000 58% 27% 970 450 (520) 58% n/a - 1,025 1,025 58% 212% c) 5,800 13,500 7,700 58% 36% d) 150,000 92,000 (58,000) 58% 53% 220,000 200,000 (20,000) 58% n/a - 35 35 58% 0% e) 3,000 - (3,000) 58% 35% f) 330 140 (190) 58% 92% 20,000 25,000 5,000 58% 200% g) 6,000 22,000 16,000 58% 504% h) 280 1,700 1,420 58% 73% 2,510,205 2,477,555 (32,650) Transfers In-General Fund 174,661 174,661 - 58% 77% 227,990 227,990 - Transfers In-Video Lottery 58,333 58,333 - 58% 58% 100,000 100,000 - TOTAL RESOURCES 2,047,280 2,402,130 354,850 58% 75% 3,188,195 3,147,833 (40,362) REQUIREMENTS: Exp. Expenditures Personal Services 1,388,874 1,339,444 49,430 58% 56% 2,380,927 2,380,927 - Materials and Services 343,192 315,308 27,884 58% 54% 588,329 588,329 - Capital Outlay 58 - 58 58% 0% 100 - (100) Contingency 69,323 - 69,323 58% 0% 118,839 - (118,839) TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 1,801,447 1,654,752 146,695 58% 54% 3,088,195 2,969,256 (118,939) NET (Resources - Requirements) 245,833 747,378 208,155 100,000 178,577 78,577 a) Third quarterly payment received in January. b) Variance due to unexpected revenue to assist offenders who participated in Alternative Incarceration Program. c) Variance due to unexpected revenue stemming from training registration and a refund on a piece of equipment. d) Number of offenders assigned to the program less than estimated. e) Revision in protocol related to providing assistance to indigent sex offenders for treatment costs precludes fee collection. 0 Fee collection less than estimated. g) Lease to continue longer than expected resulting in higher revenue than estimated. h) Fee collection greater than estimated. COMM ON CHILDREN & FAMILIES Statement of Financial Operating Data Seven Months Ended January 31, 2007 Year to Date Year End Budget Actual Variance FY % Coll. % Budget Projection Variance RESOURCES: Beg. Net Working Capital $ 571,056 $ 630,729 $ 59,673 100% 110% $ 571,056 $ 630,729 $ 59,673 Revenues Federal Grants 160,388 91,871 (68,517) 58% 33% a) b) 274,951 261,487 (13,464) Title IV - Family Sup/Pres 24,268 6,966 (17,302) 58% 17% b) 41,602 41,602 - HealthyStart Medicaid 102,083 5,859 (96,224) 58% 3% b) c) 175,000 130,000 (45,000) Child Care Block Grant 33,074 5,403 (27,671) 58% 10% b) 56,699 63,240 6,541 Level 7 Services 128,436 116,103 (12,333) 58% 53% b) 220,176 220,176 - Juvenile Crime Prevention 245,913 75,492 (170,421) 58% 18% d) 421,565 390,765 (30,800) State Prevention Funds 109,375 93,750 (15,625) 58% 50% e) 187,500 198,786 11,286 HealthyStart /R-S-G 166,655 287,721 121,066 58% 101% 0 285,694 291,721 6,027 OCCF Grant 190,368 326,345 135,977 58% 100% 326,345 326,345 - Miscellaneous 6,417 - (6,417) 58% 0% 11,000 11,000 - Court Fines & Fees - 14,498 14,498 58% n/a g) - 24,000 24,000 Interest on Investments 8,750 26,071 17,321 58% 174% h) 15,000 31,000 16,000 Grants-Private 7,000 3,800 (3,200) 58% 32% 12,000 12,000 - Total Revenues 1,182,727 1,053,879 (128,848) 2,027,532 2,002,122 (25,410) Trans from General Fund 197,382 196,715 (667) 58% 58% 338,369 338,369 - Trans from Other 99,225 85,050 (14,175) 58% 50% 170,100 170,100 - Total Transfers In 296,607 281,765 (14,842) 58% 55% 508,469 508,469 - TOTAL RESOURCES 3,107,057 3,141,320 34,263 REQUIREMENTS: Expenditures Personal Services Materials and Services Capital Outlay Contingency 2,050,390 1,966,373 (84,017) 58% 63% Exp. 292,003 276,632 15,371 58% 55% 500,577 500,577 - 1,276,123 1,007,248 268,875 58% 46% i) 2,187,640 2,152,947 34,693 2,917 - 2,917 58% 0% 5,000 5,000 - 241,407 - 241,407 58% n/a 413,840 - 413,840 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 1,812,450 1,283,880 528,570 58% 41% 3,107,057 2,658,524 448,533 NET (Resources - Requirements) 237,940 682,493 444,553 - 482,796 482,796 a) Federal grant adjusted due to new grant amounts. b) Federal grant payments received on a reimbursement basis after quarterly expenditures occur. c) Medicaid reimbursements lower state-wide. d) Juvenile Crime revenues reduced due to increased 05/06 contract amendment and subsequent receipt of revenue. e) Increase due to $15,000 underage drinking grant and a $3,714 reduction in A&D 70 funds. 0 Amendment to OCCF IGA increased funding by $4,000. g) State Court fees for Safe Havens not budgeted. h) Interest income increased due to larger BNWC than projected. i) Materials & Services projection adjusted due to net decrease in anticipated revenues. SOLID WASTE Statement of Financial Operating Data Seven Months Ended January 31, 2007 RESOURCES: Beg. Net Working Capital Revenues State Grant Miscellaneous Franchise 3% Fees Commercial Disp. Fees Private Disposal Fees Franchise Disposal Fees Yard Debris Special Waste Interest Sale of Equip & Material Total Revenues Year to Date Year End Budget Actual Variance FY % Coll. % Budget Projection Variance $1,018,342 $ 1,571,953 $ 553,611 100% 154% $1,018,342 $ 1,571,953 $ 553,611 - 20,000 20,000 16,333 17,769 1,436 93,333 37,889 (55,444) 648,900 862,052 213,152 1,141,583 1,208,165 66,582 2,560,752 2,713,204 152,452 33,046 32,451 (595) 17,500 16,939 (561) 46,667 83,313 36,646 15,167 16,807 1,640 4,573,281 5,008,589 435,308 58% n/a a) - 33,750 33,750 58% 63% 28,000 35,000 7,000 58% 24% b) 160,000 160,000 - 58% 77% c) 1,112,400 1,877,500 765,100 58% 62% 1,957,000 2,160,000 203,000 58% 62% 4,389,860 4,651,207 261,347 58% 57% c) 56,650 64,050 7,400 58% 56% 30,000 30,000 - 58% 104% 80,000 138,838 58,838 58% 65% 26,000 32,317 6,317 58% 64% 7,839,910 9,182,662 1,342,752 Trans In-Code Abatement 20,000 20,000 - 58% 100% 20,000 20,000 - TOTAL RESOURCES 5,611,623 6,600,542 988,919 58% 74% 8,878,252 10,774,615 1,896,363 REQUIREMENTS Expenditures Personal Services Materials and Services Debt Service Capital Outlay Transfers Out Contingency Exp. 922,773 880,477 42,296 58% 56% 1,581,897 1,581,897 - 2,181,391 1,500,807 680,584 58% 40% d) 3,739,527 3,739,527 - 215,343 249,851 (34,508) 58% 68% 369,159 369,159 - 159,104 68,827 90,277 58% 25% e) 272,750 263,083 9,667 1,400,000 850,000 550,000 58% 35% 2,400,000 2,400,000 - 300,369 - 300,369 58% n/a 514,919 - 514,919 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 5,178,980 3,549,962 1,629,018 58% 40% NET (Resources - Requirements) 432,643 3,050,580 2,617,937 8,878,252 8,353,666 524,586 2,420,949 2,420,949 a) Grant funds were expected in FY 05-06 but received in FY 06-07. b) Fees are due April 15, 2007. c) Receipts are seasonal - should slow down in the winter. Variance includes revenue for commercial cash customers. d) Some large ticket items are remitted in one annual payment causing a variance between the M&S percentages. e) Large ticket items paid throughout the year cause a discrepancy in the Capital Outlay YTD percentages. Health Benefits Trust Statement of Financial Operating Data Seven Months Ended January 31, 2007 RESOURCES Beg. Net Working Capital Revenues: Internal Premium Charges P/T Emp - Add'I Prem Employee Prem Contribution COIC Retiree / COBRA Co-Pay Medical Services Reimb Prescription Rebates Interest Total Revenues Year to Date Budget Actual Variance FY % Coll. $ 6,800,000 $7,163,864 $ 363,864 100% 105% Year End Budget Projection Variance $6,800,000 $7,163,864 $ 363,864 TOTAL RESOURCES REQUIREMENTS Expenditures: Personal Services Materials & Services Conferences and Seminars Claims Paid-Medical/Rx Claims Paid-Dental/Vision Refunds Insurance Expense State Assessments Administration Fee PPO Fee Health Impact Printing Program Expense/Supplies Other Total Materials & Services Capital Outlay Contingency TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 5,950,000 6,170,218 220,218 58% 60% 10,200,000 10,400,000 200,000 105,000 81,705 (23,295) 58% 45% 180,000 140,000 (40,000) 205,917 185,185 (20,732) 58% 52% 353,000 318,000 (35,000) 417,083 433,034 15,951 58% 61% 715,000 715,000 - 233,333 320,352 87,019 58% 80% 400,000 500,000 100,000 - 128,773 128,773 58% n/a - 128,773 128,773 - 19,217 19,217 58% n/a - 19,217 19,217 145,833 218,295 72,462 58% 87% 250,000 350,000 100,000 7,057,167 7,556,779 499,612 58% 62% 12,098,000 12,570,990 472,990 13,857,167 14,720,643 863,476 92% 78% 18,898,000 19,734,854 836,854 Exp. 78,506 59,524 18,982 58% 44% 134,582 134,582 - 1,750 - 1,750 58% 0% 3,000 3,000 - 5,233,506 3,918,161 1,315,345 58% 44% a) 8,971,725 6,799,362 2,172,363 755,095 639,281 115,814 58% 49% a) 1,294,448 1,108,087 186,361 - (67,467) 67,467 58% n/a - (67,467) 67,467 227,500 177,252 50,248 58% 45% 390,000 390,000 - 23,333 20,782 2,551 58% 52% 40,000 40,000 - 140,000 133,818 6,182 58% 56% 240,000 240,000 - 20,417 18,375 2,042 58% 53% 35,000 35,000 - - 22,493 (22,493) 58% n/a - 40,000 (40,000) 7,000 4,562 2,438 58% 38% 12,000 12,000 - 6,417 - 6,417 58% 0% 11,000 - 11,000 10,150 9,561 589 58% 55% 17,400 17,400 - 6,425,168 4,876,818 1,548,350 58% 44% 11,014,573 8,617,382 2,397,191 - - - 58% 0% 100 - 100 4,520,101 - 4,520,101 58% 0% 7,748,745 - 7,748,745 11,023,775 4,936,342 6,087,433 58% 26% 18,898,000 8,751,964 10,146,036 NET (Resources - Requirements) 2,833,392 9,784,301 6,950,909 a) Projection based on annualizing 30 weeks of claims paid. - 10,982,890 10,982,890 DESCHUTES COUNTY 911 Statement of Financial Operating Data Seven Months Ended January 31, 2007 Year to Date Year End Budget Actual Variance % of FY % Coll. Budget Projection Variance RESOURCES: Beg. Net Working Capital $1,800,000 $2,281,476 $ 481,476 Revenues Property Taxes - Current 1,983,333 3,093,970 1,110,637 Property Taxes - Prior 36,750 54,450 17,700 State Reimbursement 12,250 12,443 193 Telephone User Tax 358,750 367,595 8,845 Data Network Reimb. 19,250 33,718 14,468 Jefferson County 23,917 22,274 (1,643) User Fee 13,956 20,299 6,343 Contract Payments 41,585 67,461 25,876 Miscellaneous 3,500 4,940 1,440 Interest 29,167 70,999 41,832 Interest on Unsegregated Tax 1,167 1,775 608 Total Revenues 2,523,625 3,749,924 1,2263299 TOTAL RESOURCES REQUIREMENTS: Expenditures Personal Services Materials and Services Capital Outlay Transfers Out Contingency 4,323,625 6,031,400 1,707,775 100% 127% $1,800,000 $ 2,281,476 $ 481,476 58% 91% a) 3,400,000 3,470,000 70,000 58% 86% 63,000 63,000 - 58% 59% 21,000 26,000 5,000 58% 60% 615,000 715,000 100,000 58% 102% b) 33,000 33,718 718 58% 54% 41,000 41,000 - 58% 85% c) 23,925 24,600 675 58% 95% b) 71,289 71,289 - 58% 82% d) 6,000 7,900 1,900 58% 142% 50,000 105,000 55,000 58% 89% 2,000 2,000 - 58% 87% 4,326,214 4,559,507 233,293 58% 98% 6,126,214 6,840,983 714,769 Exp. 1,889,319 1,727,758 161,561 425,339 368,484 56,855 158,667 119,463 39,204 75,833 130,000 (54,167) 1,024,468 - 1,024,468 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 58% 53% e) 3,238,832 3,098,832 140,000 58% 51% f) 729,152 716,152 13,000 58% 44% 272,000 272,000 - 58% 100% 130,000 130,000 - 58% n/a 1,756,230 - 1,756,230 3,573,626 2,345,705 1,227,921 58% 38% 6,126,214 4,216,984 1,909,230 NET (Resources - Requirements) 749,999 3,685,695 2,935,696 - 2,623,999 2,623,999 a) Year End Projection based on actual tax collections through December 31, 2006. b) Agencies billed annually, revenues received. c) Crooked River Ranch annual payment received in full. Forest Service payments are received quarterly. d) Revenue for CAD tapes and print outs are higher than estimated. e) Projection reflects reduction in expenditures due to unfilled positions through January 31, 2007. 0 Expenditures projected to be slightly lower than budgeted. O LL O L p y WrN V °0 0 N M W C _ _ L C W O M 7 U c I CW'~ y W O j ~LO O C LL nL N c °o 0) N 7 2 U d d > 7 ~ L N oz F U nQ' O O a X a 2 m O OICO cVi~PO M NIG 0 0'O RO) t0 O O tO r M CIO IM M'MI AI m O d) 0 J • 1 w C tO rm l aO t l~gn O I I t0lu) ' jco c) co m I MINI ' mI O)i V i 0 O (D t ' N C ~ to N N_ O) se fs Ip e N(OIW N 0f~7 ~+ll It0 N MI ItA ! co O: ! I I- Q!1~ ~I I A cm v I M N ~ Iv I I ~ ' I I I I j I •-i~ ! I I I ~ ~ ~ I ~ I I i I I I I I L i I I~ I I I I I I I I I I Io to 1o o ~o o o o I lo lo lo 0 . o 0 lo '0 lo 0 o 0 ~ lo l0 0 I 1N Ir O l 'o) a) I I ' o !cn o ao Ico o lo iA l jco 'm W CM O , 0 0 O i O O l 0 I0 0 O :o O r i0 tO o O m O I o M iM o lO 0 0l0 o IOIOIO c O ' faa O/ m O) O Of p'O to 60 qA O to to tO I N O I n 0 ! 10 (6 0 A- I Ipj I I I0 10 N OIOf q0 i I U i h r 7 m U. N m a I ^ O r N <f N N M o N r IT O) to ! A M Iv I I (O M O) N I~ O I~ ao MINI M ! ~ h i I I I ~ f I I ~ l I I I I C + $ O co i IM O co N N M co V IM ; ( O O O co o) M m Co O O O g co r q 10 j M co im jm I co IM N c0 O i 0 'O O 00 l e- m N O r ^ ct . O O m I ~ O r O I O O O'O O O O O O IO O A O a► m O O IaD N N O 00 c0 N O 0 O il ~ N i0 M Of ! O O U) I N O W O ltq N I M _ Q N O I M V' I I co N Ip) •M : i IN 00 O r jv : m O Im N • M IN M I O Is7 N O Ico N co M C) O • N LL d I I ! i r v I I ~ ; W j l , I C9, N i ja IN I I I I I I I ! I I' ) N I I I I I I I I : C IO O Ip ' ' 0 O cn 0 O IO I ' IO O O ' IO O IO O N tO Iv N v a u~ ! ! 1 10) I0 M o 0 D I 0 Imo I : ~ j I 10 M O O O O O• O O I ' m M m Im m O) I O N co I j r IN O IM I ' co N I .N M I ' I cq N ( W tO I O IO ! I !O r e7 A i j N N ? qfY r O)' I N O I I I I ! I I I ~ ~ IO O ' ' !O N I O i O !O IC , O O j{p Ia ra Ib M N lco IvNf m A O N N i I W IN O O 0 O tO 1- !M : 1 I A Im A O i W a r C14 I C11 cn ! V' ~ I j O) co O co I (Oi N • I I 4 I I (N I r M co I A m O ,a = I I p m O j0 c0 (O . ' N0 I N 0 N N 0 O C6 ' ' ' O cNn tO w I r N' M N Oi ( co N n O r (n a" i I IO w (O I 0 N W N I I ! I , N I a, IN R I I V I' N m I I :m 0 ' I e l ' i ! ev0 d I I U O O 0 O IO O O O ' O O 0 CO" O O I O O , - I ' !O I tO N m IV'I I I M N M m I O N I ' •m A IO m M I IQ7 IN O IO IO OI IW jN m (D O O I I 1 M N l M 1 v O I r 0; 6 W N ) I I N I N at) co I i R < e- m im I N ~ Ir ! I r I i I IA i I m I R O O O O I '1 0 0 0 O ' IN 0 O R 'aa It`M9 N N 'n N IO OO) A I I I C4 I INI N ` I OI I A O I ( Im I N W LL N N N I (0D 10 r M I A a0 - N ! ~ I N _ co _ i I I I ~ I I , , I O m j m Co O O) m O) mco c0 -.v O) m ('T N M (D M' M O O .O O O N V N M N N V . w co r te. O)' r CO M V` O) W. vi at ~ O ~O .N O.~O O - O . O O Oz V` O) O (O r cl ' O C O O' M A O)I I OD m O I Q N (0 N 0 N O t- 0 M W) V N m m W) r M 0 - c. t-- c0 V O M LO Oq C Q1 O Co N Go I O' 1 : 7 0 0 7 N . N ~ M v Z cc ' r C4 ' MI ml OI Ml , l oI O 0I N I 'I m N ' 0 N I I I M! rI N r I I I 0 ^ I °I KI 3I r~ O O I ' ~ N I N V cc . I I ! I V 'I I ' N f I i (r° I j tCD N i . I I V' I I C O ! t0 I ' I ! of in I I tri C4 a c00: Ni ' NI CD I T! r I I ' MI O NI <DI O O) t°9: wi 0 1 009 O) N o NI v) ' i 0 C 1 NI O V i I I 00 I N ( I M CI ( I NI n: AI ~ I I i f cool r I ~ I I ~ I I i ' I I I I I I E I ~I N O ~ r a0 O V) N ' O O ' M m O NI 0 V A co ro "q o tO r 1*- ' NI m Of OD O N I I 0) N O: N O) N N W I M p! O O it . ~ P. A > r I 01 • v SI N M fro t00 PM) i 0 9 I N m : 0 O O _ W ° I I I ; I r I Z ~I vI z d OI O 0 M N' I O I (0I cO co O 1f Y i m a O) • tpl V' ~ O O co r N i 0 c9: t9 O): O)! A M r r r N 0) O ) O I ) A t0 O) N N ' ' ) O O O 0 0 Of! Nj w i pp t(at ' O ° Oi 1 co I O) I '-I {"i A (O 0 co fO (O Ni O' p fo m N cn i 0 M ti O' O t p Q I v I I I I I O N r 1 i O C ro O ! O O OI N O) L (0 OI M 1~ O 09 M r V O) O ( ' N M m P m N I Of' NI O• O OO ( O) N O N N m n i co I R I O . N tN ( (m° cN9: (D N I n! N I I I I i I I I I I I I O I O: OI co 'I ' m N O N Mi ' M N O). r _ m M AI m M M I I O) r r O N Ni (O r, 0) O, ! 1 N 0 O I ! I O M O I I , , I O co I N m . f+l Oi I ~ ~ I m O o L6 N I I m! I ( N N to I I I r c ~j ~ N i i I m ' I i I ` I ~ ~ I l a -0 tD O0j m : m MI ~I ! : i : rI M ' r I c0 ~t m m m I co o r CO m (OI ' I 1 OD t+l Y) (D co ~ m O' O) ~ N o O) j I i {y co N f 7 r-I I i W co v I I ~I I O A I I I N N I r ~ ' I I I I I yl i , . ~ I I ( I I I I I ~ I I ; ' I I I j I m el I I O I I pI r I C E j > I P I s 0) I I '''I ~ Z I w c ~ = I V co ls Cl. >I ° i ; m y W to m c I = "I I j MD LL V W E S A o >I W m ° $ d o W' c V y $ ~ x W~ o V y W > aI W ` r ZI a LL LL 0 06 LLL V ! a ~ c L W E tn LL uyi p C v C W W I c ID C o I p I E Q V CI z mo w! @ (D U j W S s 0 m C W W W U m C C V C L m m tp QZ `y' a~: O ~ I r_ O 16 ~ ' ~ t~ O I w 0) L C aaj y C W y L d yi C C W O C d` W a y W p v I f C 0 O wI F NI A x°I a c°v > < < J I 0 CL 3 F"I I i i ~ r~ 7 ~ o ~I l Z z Deschutes County - Fair and Expo Center YTD-Budget Basis Statement of Financial Operating Data Seven Months January 31, 2007 RESOURCES: Beg. Net Working Capital Receipts: Events Telephone Fees - Events Parking Fees Storage RV / Camping Horse Stall Rental Concession % - Food Vending Machines Interfund Contract Rights (Signage, etc.) Grants Miscellaneous Interest Total Receipts Bud et Actual Variance FY % C011. % Bud et Projection Variance $ 169,300 $ 230,614 $ 61,314 100% 348,000 251,365 (96,635) 58% 3,000 280 (2,720) 58% 3,500 - (3,500) 58% 29,000 16,382 (12,618) 58% 15,000 2,618 (12,382) 58% 16,000 9,349 (6,651) 58% 128,000 121,398 (6,602) 58% 1,000 1,569 569 58% 5,000 5,000 - 58% 16,000 26,046 10,046 58% 17,703 17,705 2 58% 2,912 8,242 5,330 58% 4,375 7,250 2,875 58% 589,490 467,204 (122,286) 58% Transfer from General Fund 150,000 150,000 - 58% Transfer from Park Acq & Devel 85,000 85,000 - 58% Transfer from Annual County Fair 219,000 219,000 - 58% Total Transfers 454,000 454,000 - 58% TOTAL RESOURCES 1,212,790 1,151,818 (60,972) 58% REQUIREMENTS: Expenditures: Personal Services Materials and Services Debt Service Capital Outlay Transfers Out Contingency TOTAL REQUIREMENTS NET (Resources - Requirements) 484,631 475,495 9,136 58% 423,696 374,918 48,778 58% 194,392 194,392 - 58% 40,000 32,971 7,029 58% 135,000 135,000 - 58% - - - 58% 1,277,719 1,212,776 64,943 58° (64,929) (60,958) 3,971 136% $ 169,300 $ 230,614 $ 61,314 Accrued Revenue (Accounts Receivable): Current Month Events 23,814 Prior Months 2,310 Total Accounts Receivable 26,124 40% J 625,000 528,365 (96,635) 6% 5,000 2,280 (2,720) 0% ' 15,000 11,500 (3,500) 30% 55,000 42,382 (12,618) 2% 140,000 30,118 (109,882) 17% 55,000 48,349 (6,651) 44% ' 275,000 268,398 (6,602) 78% 2,000 2,569 569 13% ' 40,000 40,000 - 27% 95,000 105,046 10,046 58% 30,355 30,355 - 165% 5,000 10,330 5,330 97% 7,500 10,376 2,876 35% 1,349,855 1,130,067 (219,788) 50% 300,000 300,000 - 100% 85,000 85,000 100% 219,000 219,000 - 75% ` 604,000 604,000 - 54% a 2,123,155 1,964,681 (158,474) Exp. 57% . 830,872 821,736 9,136 52% 726,617 702,082 24,535 80% 242,708 242,708 - 82% 40,000 40,000 - 100% 135,000 135,000 - n/a 147,958 - 147,958 57% 2,123,155 1,941,526 181,629 - 23,155 k 23,155 Deposits Received for Future Events: 2007 February 10,912 March 12,748 April 8,362 May 4,480 June 2,660 July 58,400 August 890 September 2,490 October 150 November 2,300 2008 and Beyond 39,982 TOTAL 143,374 Deschutes County Fair and Expo Center Statement of Financial Operating Data January 2007 Year to Date Budget Actual Variance FY % Coll. % RESOURCES: Beg. Net Working Capital $ - $ - $ - 100% 0% Receipts: Events 39,000 34,742 (4,258) 58% 6% Telephone Fees - Events - - - 58% 0% Parking Fees 1,000 - (1,000) 58% 0% Storage 1,500 632 (868) 58% 1% RV / Camping 15,000 360 (14,640) 58% 0% Horse Stall Rental - - - 58% n/a Concession % - Food 21,000 14,000 (7,000) 58% 5% Vending Machines - 1,569 1,569 58% 78% Interfund Contract - - - 58% 0% Rights (Signage, etc.) 10,000 10,754 754 58% 10% Grants 2,529 2,529 - 58% 8% Miscellaneous 416 - (416) 58% 0% Interest 625 535 (90) 58% 7% Total Receipts 91,070 65,121 (25,949) 58% 5% Transfer from General Fund - - - 58% 0% Transfer from Park Acq & Devel Fund - - - 58% 0% Transfer from Annual County Fair - 46,000 46,000 58% 21% Total Transfers - 46,000 46,000 58% 8% TOTAL RESOURCES 91,070 111,121 20,051 58% 5% REQUIREMENTS: Expenditures: Personal Services Materials and Services Debt Service Capital Outlay Transfers Out Contingency TOTAL REQUIREMENTS NET (Resources - Requirements) Exp. 69,233 67,316 1,917 58% 8% 60,528 69,227 (8,699) 58% 10% - - - 58% 0% - - - 58% 0% - - - 58% 0% - - - 58% n/a 129,761 136,543 (6,782) 58% 6% (38,691) (25,422) 13,269 f Deschutes County Fair and Expo Center Accounts Receivable January 31, 2007 Current Month Oregon Wrestling 9,549.00 Boat Show 114.50 Master Gardener 150.00 Food & Beverage 14,000.00 Total Current Month 23,813.50 Prior Months: November 2006 Saturday Market 20.00 October 2006 Angus Banquet 125.00 April, 2006 NW Expo & Trade show 2,165.00 Total Prior Months 2,310.00 Total Accrued Revenue as of January 31, 2007 26,123.50 To: Board of County Commissioners, Dave Kanner and Marty Wynne From: Jeanine Faria RE: RV Park Date: February 2, 2007 Attached is the report on the two Fair & Expo Center construction projects, RV Park and Arena Cover, reflecting activity through January 31, 2007. All payments for fees and permits have been made to the City of Redmond, except for the street SDCs, estimated at $58,000. Additional bonds will be issued within the next few months and the proceeds have been included in the report at $1,500,000. Any resources remaining in this capital project fund following completion of this project will be available for debt service. Copy: Mark Pilliod Dan Despotopulos F- U W O w a W W 2 O a c c0 Y a a C N 0 oz~ U D M LL N m z ~O 3 U 4- 0 U) ~a z O U W F- z w U a LU c co a' LL M coo M ~ plMOt0 00004 ~ ~ O to O 00 ~ T- O CO O N O 1*- M O O M A I Oco N01 Nst0)W N11-tA co co N N _ N .G U O I - M O M M M U') N IV aowNOf NV•rnm N V• IIV O ' ' O O to O ~ M O Cl Co O N O M O I co 00 N O N V•Ot0 N 1 C* y to to yV U c m 7 N 0 w M O C C fA m tri U- ~ U N 2 G o d O a n Q) c W N Z -i F- c O oovv O O P- O N OO(AOOM M O r tpve-LnN r r O O V• 0 It 001- ON O O (30p 00 o O I,- V • V O N r a--• M O O O O O O M CO M M O O IT Cl v M O ll- to (p 04 0000I 0 CO O ~ I~ r- M O N r ~ M M 'cr I- O IT M N V Cl 0 M M V• O V M N co 00 r O O0 I` CO ~O~ CA I- N O O cc Co O 00 0 N C A 0 M N ~C to N v a N cn 06 N Z y w (U N N to A ZoCO 0) =•c ~S oUa~ cts aa cU- i O O co C ) ' ti m IT V O an LO U-) c r O CO r r r IT T.- O CO O MMIl- M co Ch N O CO Nt rl- V)cow M Cl) V• co co 0 T- CONO M M V 4 Il- T- O 00 M IT eM t- IT We ONON I't 04 LO CO V P. O V' 00 r• r V co N V INI N N~OCMN A N M ~ O i- N O V• I 04 Uj (flM V O Iq co co O CO co N I- r N Ic'MI CD co co Q O O r O ' O O M N C O C O M N (O 1- N N N NOO N 00 O I~ Il_ V m O M N CO c (o 1 l' otio O 00 • V M N M r v O U) (D CL 0 `V oC~ co tg (o a c N ~ > N > 12 VMain m c d CL W 0 O t0 to r N O co r O N N r N N r O Go to r m Z O M co _O 69 I I CD O C (J 3 (D c o w O N c O c cpp C _O O C~ ° tv o c Q Co N_ N O C N M (D ~ LL Cc 0 LL ~ C O C a) m m E M CD c. (a 3 V N O C T' L L O 'N 7 M tU O 00 O 0 rr N C C U c U > N O LL E :3 N N 3 m avt.N., d 5 m m O U) N C a ` WE 0 co O 6 C Y a Z LL Z O~ 0 CUN 0 ~ U Z N Z ~O c v U M 0 W 0 Z Q W U O CL W .a C f0 Q LL Nfl- M N 0C It tA tn N CA O LO co O N OOr- LO N ti r~ M f~ Cl Lp tC L' 0 0 00 C' - N O O 00 N T- M LO I~. T- G ) G) Ln O tp r V) ~ u) N (O CO co 0) N Ln c l! N M r r V OIl- cM W 00~0 ~ N N N O) O OCOto OOI- Lo N N N -cl!w! OOCA00 0p r- ~ N r t'- 00 04 00 0LO rl v N N LO N tp O 0 M 0 M 0 co N q e-- 00 0 0 q r M M N N M ' ti O L0 i i O LO N 0) 0) CD 00 M 00 co co N CO 'qt OI-M O) OOIT O d' N N w N OCo LO r MOIl- LA LO N N f~ M V r N O O 00 O - ' r to ~ M co M LO 4T t N LO LN N to N ~ CO M CO OD V_ V cwi th N N M Co O r__ M N 00 O C M 'tt N N N N O ' ' O MMcrO e- O O ' r r O O M 'q N Ll) 0 O O LO 0 0 C O C O Lh M M to V_ t: N N N 0)I*- M 0) 1-COf.0 V- N N N to CA CO LO T- O I - N Ln LO O O W) t0 cM ul r ao co LA 00 LA ~ e- i O O r O N 00 N (3i of N (O Cfl a O) CA CA f~ r r M r N O) r M N co co r I~ r IV N W L/) 8 d C V 7 o 0 a O r N CO) L + C U Q) " C C V 2t N 9 ` , U) V to A LL V W 0) E 7 o CO L V v 0 0 ca o U a~ j v d Lo x J(D Oa o W m (D W C2) 2 C " X~ 0 p x U- t5 < C z ~ p 0 d I _j 12 U U F - Z C f0 N ~ ~a N > U ~ O N to L_ O C 0 73 -0 Co 'v c0 a c0 x 0) ~ 3 N O'D o 8 (coo O a M. C LO O 0 - LO 0 CO C:) O cli O 0) ~ N ~ O (p N C O U 0) p O a. M Q C ` C U > E 0 (a On W 0 v to C L N.~ O 'tp O N U- O C7 2 " + U ,o ,0 m 0 C C oCo pL E O f0 N 3 r~+ C a 8 t5 O N N O 0 CD T_ Ls m N M 0 r N U-It 0.. 00 LL Co c(j t0 ~ U ~ 0) Q) Y H mZ a. W ~g°O 0 0 N U U M N Z c Q U W m o U -3 X Z O W Q ~m m~ LLO U Z W O O 1,- 1l. C) 19t C) ti V CO CD O O N It 4 CD O c M - COp r 19) p co O co co N N lqr 05 to 0000 46 0 N M CO) d N I. N N N N 04 C4 pl- r.. co I- ' CO) C4 V) C) CD I p CY) ( 0 P. T 1 CO OD tp N T- O O CA W N N E ti qT IV e- r co M 04 C4 p- ce) O O I C~ c N N CN N ~ r r co CO) LC) r LO O 00 co N O CO N C% Ch c 0) N N Q 0) C U p~ L m o - c U U 0 U U rn c0 U !n O co d N O N N .O N •o ti U t !n a cl V v L ~ O V O V C 01 CA CO O U 0) O N ca s w o 08 N ~ o N~ a ~A a W Oro o U Z d - , E v v c c o > > V eo ci O co 'd 0) p> > -co ~ c i S y W « Q t ~ ~ oOv > - ~ O ~ Z W U U ` U . O 0 a 0 . 0 Q .0 F - Q 1 - U!~0 Y H E N O ~ > M ~(D 0 m aiQm _N O tUA z 2 to C CL ON O C ( - O V 10 1 O " N rI I 1 I I ' I O 10 . (O O O N CO N N I U - ) O Il- . 1 O O r O O N M . O i LA' ! CO 100 I CO v O V O LO I 1 I r c I C) 0 i - C O O to I I v i I % CCOO N pOp 1 110 0 I N 0 i I I ~ 1~ 10 Z 0 m C LL 04 I !0 CA - r-- v LO 04 C%4 IN 0 O I ~ 0 O I IO 0 ~O O 0 O O 0 O ICO C CO O CO O O N ~ CO N I COI COI 1 I LOC,o IM O O IO Cf LA 0 O I 0 0 - C) CA I M q* I O O O h ~ I ~ - ) O O O g ~ I ,N I l0 C) U') C M CO CO M co OD 1 co i co CO cn c CD O 0 p I le 1e I~ I IT- 00 ~ co I I N N I d w I I I I 10 N N 14, ILO O C) I- W ; O O CA N I O 0 lO 0 O 0 i 1' I ' vl co LO 0 O LO i t I 0 N s I ~ O I N IN I O CD d M N a0 LO to W I O 0 C~ 0 O LO Ch ICO • I M I N M C; N IN LO I I ~j CO O C CL M O CO I ItO r- N M CA O r I M Ir- O O M O I I I co 00 co _N i I I I I IC N M I .0. I N I : N 1A I CA I O I LO I C i CN 00 10 CO OD I LO 10 I LO C.) ! I N O m LO N CO N F'- M O I d M O 0 " 1.;r 0 0 co 0 O 1V! N - N qqr N CA I co M 0 O ico iM l M ti r1 I I 17 O -0 O Co C) LA N co C It ~ C N IN 1 ~ I- CA rn C i Co 1 C6 I U3 LO I (fl M; CO 00 ~ O 1 I M COI cM v CO 0 ~ j I 0 to 1 I C.) I m I I ~l I N co % 0 I CO IM N ~I I I I I C 4 IC%j I I d I I I i t I l 1 ' i ! ' I I I rnl ~ i i 3 N -j ca O D ' O N I I LO i I~ co ! NI 1 ! ( Oj 01 IM ' ~ O co O p CO) 1 CO . C I N (6 N C-f I i I i I 0 i I D N I Iti 1 I 0 M U m O 0 0 CA 0 O I I F- i 1 ( ( LO e- I I N N LO r- 0 I l C4 0- C 3 Q ~Q I OD I r- co I CT I c l I v 10 ' N ~ c a; C i , 1 I I I I 1 I I I I i 1 C1 ~ w i 1 I ~ I I ~ i t i ! I I1 tii 0~ I p I I N ~ LO I ' r N co O O O M co M IT 0 - CIF) I LO V O a NI 0D CO 0 O N CO N LO LOI LO I 0 0 0 to 0 O to M 0 04 U~ 06 E CU C O LO O co I j T I M r ' I V CO M LO LA I I 1. e- j C6 qT Co V M ' - LA O O r LO i LQ w co r. LL O LL V Q 0 O N co O O N w 1 N 0 N LA I M I LA O i I M f~ N tO I~ 0 000 -0 -0 N 0) x 0w O N CO I ( ~I I N NI i CO) V m I I I I ' I I ' I 1 I ! ~ C C ~ I ^I I I 1 i I i O I ~I I 1 i t I I 0 CIS O V I 1 I an l , N a~ ~ ` 0 N I 1 I 0I0 p W Cpl ! I I I , I 21 I c~ : ( N U I mo' ° y l N v ~ rn~ + M U ° N w I U 0 I w I t LL! I N - U) c z 0 a Cl 2 4) i - 2 °a m 0 ELw O 1 U) ca a .2 pt u- E w m T i 0 "D c1 c m I ca c~ a m s _ co n, 0 0 t. c~ c c .9 w M H 0 2 d - M w r3+ m N N c a w m C ~ 16 w C CO N O U I N U N C a. 0 0 C p CI N Ui O c W O ~ _ Q ~p 0 w p N I > O J M CLO ~ I H d• CL m ~ Q UI U ~ LL O. Q H CO U Z CO 0 aIH a W I I I U I I 1 z Q > C c. 0 a) ca a 0 Z N N v 0 U) c 0 U a) ti O O N ch 21 N 7 C m m c m E E 0 U c m U C W 0 ° 00 0 ° C 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 N 0 0 N o O 1H 1 E O ~ N I N O a CI O M c j I I a M O 0- co ( ti M O 0 Go 7 N 04 N ; 0 0 co co OF a a 0) E C 0) ~ M 0 O O C) ON O IV N O O I c00o M E 0 C) Oj C ILO CO) 0 E r i I ~ O I M U I I j I ~ ~ I i ~ ~ d I i l I ' l I 103j c p C c ) . C co 0 ~ t U) r- l c a) o cI CL 1 o 0 O s t5~ 6 i L ~ N c N c U c i Q U U ~ Q I I I ~ gy ' I c o p U a . o L ° x ' 0 U 0 o M U > a O y c O ~ L- N m U m s Z U D N 4) c m . c .0 ~ . a a Y Q H Deschutes County Conference, Seminar, Education and Training and Related Travel Expense - Fund: General / Department: BOCC FY 2006-2007 Jul Au Se Oct Nov Dec Jan YTD Total Tammy Baney j Conf/Sem & EductTraining - - - - 335 - 500 835 Travel Meals _ _ _ Accommodations - - - - 420 - - i 420 Airfare Ground Transport - - - - ( - _ _ j _ Total Baney i - - - - 755 ! - 500 1,255 Mike Daly 1 1 Conf/Sem & EductTraining i - - 285 - - 635 ' - 920 Travel Meals I - 27 - 14 - 37 - 78 Accommodations - 1 66 336 131 - j 506 - j 1,039 Airfare - - - - - - 303 303 Ground Transport _ _ Total Daly 1 - 93 621 1 146 - 1,178 j 303 2,340 Dennis Luke Conf/Sem & Educ/Training - - - 285 - 187 - 472 Travel Meals 61 - - - - 37 i 25 123 Accommodations 132 302 - - - 372 66 871 Airfare - - i _ Ground Transport Total Luke 193 i 302 - 285 - 595 91 1,467 Other Board's Office Personnel Conf/Sem & Educ/Training - - - 101 210 - - 311 Travel Meals - - - _ _ Accommodations - - 101 - - - - 101 Airfare - I - _ Ground Transport 7 _ 7 Total Other - - 101 101 210 7 I - 419 Total - BOCC Department Conf/Sem & Educ/Training - j - 285 386 545 822 500 2,538 Travel Meals 61 27 - 14 - 74 25 201 Accommodations 1321 368 436 131 4201 877 66 2,431 Airfare - - - - - j - 303 303 Ground Transport - - - I - _ 7 _ 7 Total - BOCC Department 193 395 721 532 965 1,780 894 5,480 I I FY 06-07 Budget 20,000 Note: The $20,000 budget for BOCC Conferences, Seminars, Education, Training, Meals, Accommodations, Airfare and Ground Transportation is not allocated to these specific line items. It is budgeted as Conferences & Seminars. Deschutes County Sheriff's Office Emergency Services Program Report February 2007 This is a broad brush summary and is the high points of the Program.... what is not reflected here are the many meetings and the many hours spent coordinating emergency planning activities with many agencies and individuals throughout the County, tri-County area and the State. ♦ The County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) was re-written for National Incident Management System NIMS) compliance and submitted to Oregon Emergency Management (OEM) in September 2006. The Plan will be re-submitted to the County for promulgation when the "Hazard Specific" annexes have been completed. The annexes are being drafted now. ♦ The 2nd draft of the County Hazard Vulnerability Analysis (HVA) is being worked on. It was submitted to OEM for first review and was received back several months ago with suggested comments. Hopefully the analysis will be completed in the next month or so for local review and input. ♦ The Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (NHMP) was approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and OEM last spring. A review of the Plan will be conducted this calendar year. o Currently a NHMGP request is in for Wildland Fire Hazard Fuels reduction/mitigation. o A review of Whychus Creek and Carver Lake Moraine will be conducted to see if there are any options available through the Program for mitigating the potential impacts from either of these features. ♦ The Cascade Volcano Plan has just been sent out for its final review and comment by the planning team. This plan is developed to be the "alert and warning" plan for all the volcano's from Mt. Jefferson to Diamond Peak and includes counties, cities and effected agencies on both side of the Cascades. Unlike the Mt. Hood and St. Helens Plan, we have developed a step beyond the alert and notification phase and have included the provision for an Incident Command System (ICS) to be set up to initially manage the event from the "big Picture" perspective. Page 1 of 6 Ver 2.0 Deschutes County Sheriff's Office Emergency Services Program Report February 2007 ♦ There is a great deal of concern regarding the impact from large numbers of citizens evacuating to Central Oregon due to a Cascadia Subduction Zone Earthquake. A meeting was recently held between FEMA and Forest Service (USDA-FS) at the Redmond Air Center (RAC) to discuss using RAC as a staging area for incoming disaster support resources. I have ask that the counties be included in this planning due to the large number of citizens that we will have to shelter and the lack of critical infrastructure to support the efforts. I have also requested that FEMA explore the possibility-of allowing us to work directly with RAC as a "local Resource" if there is a disaster in the tri-county area. This seems to be a prudent use of tax-payer money and will prevent counties from having to duplicate efforts in purchasing expensive disaster resources.... that already exist and are setting on "the shelf" in Redmond. ♦ Pandemic Flu Planning in one form or another continues almost daily. Coordination is occurring with the health departments from the tri- county area, as well as the State Health Department and local health providers, American Red Cross (ARC), local mortuaries, private businesses and individuals. Deschutes County participated in the PanOrA pandemic full-scale flu exercise that was held in November. There was a partial EOC activated and co-located with the County Health Department Operating Center (DOC). We learned a lot by setting up the organizations side-by-side. A lot of emphasis was put on the ICS organization and the development of the Incident Action Plan (IAP) for each of the two-day periods. One of the most significant findings was what we realize for several events ...if it happens, we've got what we've got and we shouldn't expect a lot of help from the outside. ♦ Work continues on Special Population Planning. This is .a gigantic task that nobody wants to claim as their own project. Unless there is disagreement by you, I feel that the data already exists on almost all these individual. Currently the State and Feds are attempting to task the County with the creation, care and feeding of a database to track these persons. Because this population is so dynamic and comes and goes everyday.... unless we create a new position that has the single responsibility of this database it-will never be viable. There is also the recommendation of "voluntary registration" on a web-site. This is good but it's not all inclusive, it will never be current or accurate and how will we (the County) know when to remove them from the "list." Page 2 of 6 ver 2.0 Deschutes County Sheriff's Office Emergency Services Program Report February 2007 ♦ Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) - I serve as a board member on this committee. 'HRSA is a federally funded program to help build depth and response capability in the rural health care system in relation to a large a biological outbreak or any other large scale health emergency. This region is made up of 7 counties. To date there have been trailers purchased and equipped with medical equipment (not drugs) and propositioned throughout the region for quick deployment to an incident., ♦ Business Continuity Planning. I'm just getting started on this project, but it will pay enormous dividends if we ever have local disaster and businesses in the area are impacted and unable to keep their doors open. For this same reason, the County should do Continuity of Operations (COOP) planning for all essential functions/offices. Where will the BoCC, payroll, HR, the tax assessor, etc. all relocate to if the building(s) became uninhabitable? ♦ Except for 2005, the Sheriff's Office has performed at least 1 evacuation every year since 2002.: Except for possible Jackson or Josephine counties, there is not another county in the State that can come close to this number of responses. We are continuing to refine the process for large scale evacuation planning. o Last summer we worked with the City of Bend to develop and "Westside" evacuation plan. (This plan will be revised this year now that the Newport Bridge is open). o The Deschutes County Sheriff's Office (DCSO) Search and Rescue (SAR) volunteers are working to develop detailed planning maps for the largest and most difficult sub-divisions. o DCSO has also been approached by the National Type I Wildland fire teams to provide input into a. plan that "they" can take with them and use when there is a fire in a county that has no plan for evacuations or contingency lines. o DCSO is actively involved in 'emergency and evacuation planning in the Sunriver area. o Along with the use of Emergency Phone Network (EPN - or commonly known as reverse 9-1-1) and the Emergency Alert system (EAS) to notify citizens of an emergency and provide information, this past summer we also partnered with Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and for the first time utilized 5-1-1. 5-1-1 is part of the TripCheck.com part of the Page 3 of 6 ver 2.0 Deschutes County Sheriff's Office Emergency Services Program Report February 2007 ODOT information system. As we evacuated the citizens in the Sisters area we informed them that they could dial this number and would receive almost real time information on the fire, where it was in relation to the homes and any shelter information. We still need to smooth the process out more, but would like to role it out as a national model for getting information out to the public in a disaster. ♦ Training has occurred throughout the tri-county area for in regard to NIMS compliance. o AWR-160 (Introduction to Weapons of Mass Destruction), IS 700 (Introduction to NIMS), IS 100 and 200 (Incident Command Independent Study). ICS 300 and 400 will be taught this year. Almost 160 students have gone through the AWR-160 class. o Many public presentations have been made to the public to emphasize the hazards in Deschutes County and the need to be prepared and self-sufficient. o For the past 3 years we have had a Disaster Expo Day in the County ...and we anticipate having another this year. ♦ Communications are never perfect and are always the first issue to pose a problem on an incident..... but we have gone a long way to mitigate the effects of incompatible systems. First off.... it's standard for Unified Command to be established immediately on scene. There is also a lot of preparation put into the planning and use of various band plans by first responder agencies in the County. And finally, Deschutes County Sheriff's Office is one of the few agencies in the nation who has received a "Black Box" through Department of Homeland Security (DHS) grants and actually USES IT N FIELD DEPOLOYMENT. This is a very technical piece of communication equipment that allows almost any form of communications equipment to communicate with another i.e.; you can talk from a cell phone to an 800 MHz radio. The DCSO radio tech and a group Amateur Radio Emergency Services (ARES)/SAR volunteers are trained in its use. Whenever possible the DCSO Communications trailer is deployed on SAR missions and the "Black Box" is used so that staff remains technically proficient. ARES spends a great deal of time on evenings and weekends exploring different capabilities of the amateur radio frequency spectrum so that in an emergency we can ensure at least some form of redundant communications in almost any scenario. Page 4 of 6 Ver 2.0 Deschutes County Sheriff's Office Emergency Services Program Report February 2007 ♦ Recent Exercises: o Catastrophic Dam Failure (Wickiup) with terrorism component. (Evaluate alert and warning plans) o Aircraft Accident at Redmond Airport to evaluate fire department response time and the multiple patient/mass casualty plans. o Winter Storm table top - Countywide with all cities and utility providers. o Hazardous Materials (HazMat) tabletop with the City of Bend. I hope to deliver this exercise to each city in the County. o In the works.... ■ Wildland Fire Exercise - Full scale in Deschutes River Woods ■ Additional HazMat exercises ■ Dirty Bomb ■ Biological ■ Full-scale aircraft, mass casualty and fatality with a terrorism component. ■ Plan evaluation tabletop in Sunriver. ♦ The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) continues to develop mandates for local responders.... with no allowance for personnel funding through grant programs ...and this has dramatically increased the workload level. Our County is required in many ways to be prepared against the same issues that the large cities may be faced with. o Because we are resource constrained and there are a limited amount of hours in each day for responders to maintain current certification in their real day-to-day jobs, the philosophy in Deschutes County for Weapons of Mass Destruction (WoMD) events is.... if it's an incendiary device, we'll respond like it's a fire; if it's'an explosion, we'll respond' like it's an explosion; if it's a WoMD gas release, we'll respond like it's a HazMat incident; and if it's biological agent, we'll respond like it's any other form of contagious outbreak. o DHS Grant funding is diminishing more each year, and the requirements to qualifying are becoming more stringent. The grant also allows for "certain" items to be applied for.... not necessarily the resources that truly needed by an agency. This year's grant should be available within the next month or Page 5 of 6 Ver 2.0 ~v i Deschutes County Sheriff's Office Emergency Services Program Report February 2007 two. It is certainly not a "cash-cow" grant program and to date; Deschutes County has never considered viewed it as such. ♦ On-going program development: o Continue on developing citizen preparedness and personal self-sufficiency o Many more exercises o On going disaster training for first responders o Plan development and refinement o Continue planning almost daily with County'Depadments, each city, first responder department, hospitals, Red Cross, ODOT, OSP, USFS, ODF, BLM, OEM, FEMA, DHS, etc. Significant Planning Concerns: ♦ Highway 97 and the Railroad running through all the cities in the County and the likelihood of a large HazMat incident. ♦ The increased probability of a large HazMat or MPS/MC/MF (Multiple Patient/Mass Casualty/Mass Fatality) occurring on the Parkway due to the increase number of vehicles and the speeds that they are allowed to travel. ♦ More efficient ways to handle MPS/MC/MF incidents. It doesn't require a large incident to exceed our response capabilities within the tri- county area. ♦ Mass evacuation planning for the area within the constraints of an already overloaded transportation system. ♦ Preparation for a severe winter snowstorm. (Have you noticed almost all the government building have flat roofs?) ♦ Special population planning. ♦ Pet evacuation and planning. ♦ Continued planning for large Wildland fires, etc. Page 6 of 6 ver 2.0 v a~ Co U C U N ~ O N E U C N O CD CL CD -1.1d N T O w 0O _ ~ O m ? c O cu N C c N Mn -0 N ~ p co N E a) m C N E O) CU c cu C C N L C N t 0 C E O U ca co E co U U O c O cu m cu f9 c a~ rn C O O V c ca O c U C 5 m N m L 3 N rn a) E co U U C v 0 N Mn c E 'D (6 0 C C y O O coo E 'O (U m m ` O 0 O U C U O N = CO ca 7 a U O co Vi L C O u> - O " c O m L c o co L Co U c O y a) L O m i w a w C O W V1 W Q 0 U o - w An 0_ O W E o U o o co ami E CO 0 co c 0 -a Q w 0 U In -a Q 2:1 o U c -FU - ~ (D w ° Q O 3 = co U -a CU o CU co c v Q c =3 o U ~ ~ M U -v w o m E U o -a o M L- M U v o M O c 0 c-,° o _ o Z) > 2 C .2 2 C 0 N rn c: L co O - M _ L } J ~t M M r 0 cc w L a Q 13 U 3 ~ 0• :3 0 co co 0 U co 4` 4* Deschutes County Health Department Deschutes County Health System Preparedness Draft # 1 : January 9, 2006 Vision: Response to a catastrophic health event will call upon us to surge our local capacities independent of State and Federal resources -perhaps even for an extended period of time. We must identify and outline a structure related to the most critical components in marshalling a community wide medical system response to a major public health threat. We must recognize that maintaining the continuity of the Health care system will depend upon maintain the continuity of other core public systems and services and visa versa. Key Objectives: • Integrated/Coordinated Response System • Coordinated planning, training, exercise and capacity building • Coordinated Surge plan and local surge ca acit for: o Acute Patient Care o Out patient care o Epidemiology o Mass Rx/ & Immunization Key Health System Functionalities: • Shared/coordinated "in the moment" executive and operational decision making. • Shared surge resources & staff o Ability to acquire and be an honest broker of resources o Local stockpile of surge resources o Cross training staff and building an auxiliary core. • Coordinated contingency plans for alternate/surge capacity sites. o Site selections and formal agreements executed. o Contingency plans for plans that fail. • Shared/coordinated communications - o Internal health system interoperability o Coordinated Health Advisories to public and professionals. • Coordinated Disease prevention and Patient Isolation Plans o For community prevention of infectious Disease o For in-patient and out-patient disease prevention. o For Triage and Field staff (ER, Lab, Epi, EMT, Clinic) protection and prevention o In the moment consultation and planning with infectious disease community of clinicians and epi teams. Health System Preparedness Outline: Draft 3 January 2006 • Coordinated plan and capacity for Surge Epidemiology o Interagency MOUs executed o Staff cross trained, auxiliary core identified. • Coordinated plan and capacity for Mass RX and Immunization. o Site locations identified and facility use agreements executed. o Surge staff and site leaders identified. • Coordinated plan for patient transportation • Coordinated plans for mass mortality. o Surge mortuary, alternate sites, agreements executed. Key Community System Functionalities: • Communication & Interoperability with health care system. • Site Security. • Traffic and transportation flow • Isolation enforcement • Patient transportation • Sanitation • EMS Staff protection • Potable Water • Food and Shelter • Media and Public Advisories Some Key Tasks: • Identify key executive and operational team leaders for all core agencies and functional areas. • Review and agree upon core functionalities o Populate planning teams/task forces by functional area to build the strategy/capacity - consistent with an integrated community health system response. o Remain grounded in our functional roles. • Set Surge capacity response levels to drive practical response plans. • Identify Health System vulnerabilities o Outcome = Hazard X Vulnerability o Critical Care, Trauma staffing o Surge capacity for acute care, infectious disease o Surge capacity for public health Epi, mass Rx, o Etc., etc. • Strategize for infectious disease event in both its geographic and temporal terms • Hold at least monthly briefings for leadership teams on status of progress and to assure that we are all on the same page o Brief Health Director and Health Officer bi-weekly. Health System Preparedness Outline: Draft 3 January 2006 2 l' 00 Deschutes County Health Department DCHD Public Health Preparedness: Critical Task List - Initial Workin Draft 1. Mass Immunization & Mass Prophylaxis • Site Locations o Primary Site Names and Address (6-8) o Formal Use agreements executed for all sites o Contingency site locations and use agreements (4-6) o Site Safety & Security Plan ■ Executed formal agreement with jurisdictional public safety entity ■ Triage/Screening Plan for infectious disease • Public Health Surge Capacity - Staffing and Leadership o Site/Situation Coordinator names (6-8) o Alternate Site Coordinator names (4-6) o Contact information and Address for all site coordinators o Staffing plan for sites o Mutual Aide Agreements Executed with surrounding counties o List Names & contact information (60-100 persons) ■ 60-100 persons in priority by training and capability) o Staff and Logistics Support Plans: ■ Food, Rest, re-supplies - identify who does this. • System Surge Capacity - Local Laboratory Services o Ability to perform large volume of test • Staff Preparation and Training o Personal/Home Preparedness Plan - Required for all leadership and site coordinators - make part of annual evaluation - initiate immediately DCHD Preparedness - Critical Task List 2005-11-18 o Assure completion of core preparedness training for all leadership and site coordinators - initiate immediately o Adopt 5 minute Situation Drill format into all CD team meetings - initiate immediately ■ Provide Scenario - Then ask what top 3 pieces of additional information each member would need and what top 3 response actions each would take. 2. Public Health Authority • Note all ORS and OARs which give statutory authority to public health to evoke emergency powers and public health measures during an emergency or public health threat. Note chain and scope of decision authority. o Address Need for Deputy Administrator Designation in lieu of availability of Director. • Note or Create Personnel Policy for Immediate Authorization of Surge Support Staff - By Department Director or Designee • Note command structure in an multifaceted Incident o Health Components o Shelter o Evacuation o Public Safety 3. Mass Casualty • Hospital Capacity o Note local and regional bed capacity o Note formal triage plan for transition from acute to critical care focus. o Emergency Supply Acquisition Plan • Surge Capacity Plan o Note Alternate Site locations & Contact Information • Formal Facility Use agreements • Contact information for key site administrators • Bed Capacity DCHD Preparedness - Critical Task List 2005-11-18 2 • Staffing Plan • Jurisdictional Authority - who operates the site • Note Logistical support plan • Emergency Supply Acquisition • Food, Sanitation, transportation, etc. o Provide Pert Chart for Response Capability Level according to number of casualties. • Note source of surge response according to level of capacity needed. 4. Mass Mortality • Coordinator Name and contact information, Note alternate coordinator name and contact information. • Note capacity of local morgue and Funeral Homes o Address and contact information for key sites and individuals • Surge Capacity Plan o Surge site locations & address o Mobile Site - Refrigeration Trucks o Execute Formal Facility and Truck rental agreements, reimbursement schedule, etc. o Note surge staffing plan o Work closely with Dr. Chris Hatlestad - Medical Examiner. • Family Support Logistics o Identification of injured and deceased o Location of Injured and deceased. o Recovery of Deceased o Family Loss support plan and personnel • Traumatic Event - Behavior Support Plans o Identify Lead Behavioral Support Coordinator DCHD Preparedness - Critical Task List 2005-11-18 o Assure for initiation of Training for Behavioral support teams o Note Local Capacity for critical incident behavioral support. o Note Surge capacity for behavioral support teams 5. High Level County Coordination Plan - Health/Casualty Disaster: • Decision Framework for acquisition & direction of local resources and supports. o Identify Key Decisions Makers and Civic Authorities: Schedule Meeting ASAP. o County Resources ■ Public & Environmental Health ■ Mental Health ■ Sheriff ■ Public Works & Community Development ■ Administration and Supply Acquisition o City Resources ■ Police ■ Fire ■ Public Works ■ Administration o Hospital and Clinic Systems ■ Care Capacity ■ Triage Capacity ■ Supply Acquisition o Private Business Resources. ■ Pharmacy ■ Veterinarian ■ Research ■ Transportation ■ Medical Supply ■ Other DCHD Preparedness - Critical Task List 2005-11-18 4 6. Special Populations • Provisions are made for the health and safety needs of special populations 7. FEMA Cost Recovery • Assure for appropriate authorization and documentation to enable FEMA cost recovery. DCHD Preparedness - Critical Task List 2005-11-18 i DESCHUTES COUNTY GROUNDWATER PROTECTION PROJECT LOCAL RULE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE OVERVIEW MAJOR ELEMENTS: • Introduction/Policy Issues Projected Cost of Retrofits • Projected Funds Available • Basic Assistance Mechanisms • Logistical Issues 1 INTRODUCTION/POLICY ISSUES In order to protect drinking water resources in southern Deschutes County, the County is considering adopting a Local Rule governing the type of septic systems allowed in the affected area. The Rule would also require retrofits of existing systems by requiring existing development to meet at least 35% nitrogen reduction (discharge a maximum of 30 mg/L total nitrogen as N) based on the density of development and the vulnerability of the groundwater to contamination. The nitrogen effluent standard for existing systems can vary by area from a minimum of 30 mg/L to a maximum of 10 mg/L or less total nitrogen as N. The Rule as proposed would require all existing systems to he upgraded within 10 years of the date the rule is adopted. The proposal intends to give property owners a fairly long period of time in which to retrofit systems. The Rule will apply to those unsewered areas between Sunriver and the Klamath County border, an area formally defined as those unsewered areas of Townships 19, 20, 21, and 22 and Ranges 9, 10 and 11. It is the County's desire to provide financial assistance to property owners within the affected area in retrofitting existing systems. According to 2000 census data, over 12% of the population has an income level' below the poverty level, as defined by the census, and undertaking a retrofit of their septic system, even at the lowest reduction level required, would be ,very difficult. Further, again according to the 2000 census, over 18% of the area, population is 65 or older, most of whom live on a fixed income where absorbing\additional expense would be a significant burden. In addition to the figures above, there exists a significant additional segment of the population where the expense of the required retrofit would represent a serious financial burden. In examining the ability of Deschutes County to assist property owners in the retrofit of existing systems, this report will address the following topics: -Potential cost of retrofits -Existing and future financial resources available -Basic assistance types -Other logistical Issues Policy Questions for Board/Community: What is funding level intent? • 100% of all costs? • 75% or 50%? • Assistance to low/moderate income households only? 0 Grants (no payback) at some level acceptable? PROJECTED COST OF RETROFITS Estimated number of retrofits to be done: 6,400* *Based on up to date issued permits in the affected area. Active and pending permits are included in order to provide a conservative estimate of need. 1) Calculation of estimated cost The tables below reflect two methods of calculating total potential cost of retrofits. Both of the methodologies split the retrofits by `required reduction' area. The first method averages cost per retrofit between the low and high and of the cost range. The second goes further and factors in the age of the existing system in projecting the cost of the retrofit (e.g. newer systems will generally be less expensive to retrofit and achieve the required level of nitrate reduction. Rough cost approach Number Lower Upger Lower Cost 11n nr r`n <10 mg/L 1685 $7,500 $18,000 $12,637,500 yr y $30`330,000 20 mq/L 1613 $7,500 $18,000 $12,097,500 $29,034,000 30 m /L 3099 $5,000 $10,000 $15,495,000 $30,990,000 Total 6397 $40,230,000 $90,354,000 $6,289 $14,124 $65,292,000 $10,207 Age related cost approach y~\ <1988 1988+ Lower` ' U per Cost for Newer 11988+ 1<10 mg/L 46 1639 $7,500 $18,000 $12,292,500 $828,000 `20 m /L 127 1486 $7,500 $18,000 $11,145,000 $2,286,000 30 mg/L 150 2949 $5,000 $10,000 $14,745,000 $1,500,000 Total 323 6074 $38,182,500 $4,614,000 $6,286 $14,285 Older Younger, \ $42,796,500 $6,690 Ave cost per syst- age Total average cost Ave cost per system As shown. above, the two methods reflect a wide range of possible total cost, with $65 million'at the high end and $43 million at the low end. While based on the logic of the second method we would expect that the cost will be closer to $43 million than $65 million, there is no way of knowing for certain what the costs will be without investigating property specific characteristics and other variables such as the integrity of existing system, the type of new system chosen, and the variability of retrofit costs over time. The costs could further vary over time as new technologies are approved for use in Oregon. (As a point of comparison, the KCM report from 1997 estimated $200 to $280 million to sewer all or part of the study area.) 2) Estimated Time Frame for Retrofits/Cost Expenditure Total ave cost Ave cost per system Cost for Older <1988) The three tables below show variations on the possible time frame for retrofits. The first table shows an even pace of voluntary retrofits. The second 3 factors in retrofits/upgrades which historically naturally occur each year due to failures, repairs or remodels. The final chart adds in the possible effect of financial incentives offered by the County to encourage property owners to retrofit their systems early. Those incentives are explored later in this report but may include lower percentage rates on loans offered earlier in the ten year required retrofit period, and also the expiration of the rebate currently offered by the developer of Neighborhood 2 in the Newberry Neighborhood. EvP_n ParP_ of Retmfitc /acct im PC an Pni ial m imhPr of nrnnorty rnninarc uill vnh intarily rafrnfit Parh vanrl Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Totals Retrofits 640 640 640 640 640 640 640 640 640 637 6397 Cost Meth l 6532480 6532480 6532480 6532480 6532480 6532480 6532480 6532480 6532480 6501859 65294179 Cost Meth 2 4281600 4281600 4281600 4281600 4281600 4281600 4281600 1 4281600 4281600 4261530 42795930 Retrofits Based on Historical Averages (Adds the historical numher of nnh iraliv nnmirrmn retmfltc to the rn imharc ahnx/PI Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 Totals Retrofits 771 771 771 771 771 509 509 509 509 506 6397 Cost Meth1 7869597 7869597 7869597 7869597 7869597 5195363 519536 3 5195363 5195363 5164742 65294179 Cost . Meth 2 5157990 5157990 5157990 5157990 5157990 3405210 3405-110 3405210 3405210 3385140 42795930 Retrofits Based on Historical AvPraaP.S Inrludinn'Inr.Pntivas /lnrli Or- ('.ni Ov financial PnrIv ranlaromant inronfivocl Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Totals # Retrofits 964 925 887 810 771 500 -150 400 350 341 6397 Cost Meth1 9836996 9443516 9050037 8263077 7869597 5103500 4593150 4082800 3572450 3480587 65295710 Cost Meth 2 6447488 6189588 5931689 5415890 5157990 3345000 3010500 2676000 2341500 2281290 42796934 .a 4 J PROJECTED FUNDS AVAILABLE 1) County Funds a. $369,310 b. $92,500 c. $67,045 d. $1,260,750 e. $2,436,000 f. $1,296,500 g. $30,000,000 $35,435,750* Timinn of Rnnnhi Pnnrl A-Unkilih. National Demonstration Project Loan Funds Carryover TDC Funds Federal Earmark Grant Neighborhood 2 Pollution Reduction Credits (Assumes 50% $7,500 fallback purchase and 50% $3,500 issued rebate-see below) Neighborhood 1 Pollution Reduction Credits (Assumes 100% $7,500 fallback purchase) Remaining Neighborhood 2 Land Sales Neighborhood 3 & 4 Land Sales (Assumes 300 net of 344 gross acres to be sold at $100,000 per acre) , Estimated total County Funds available * Does not include loan payment funds Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Totals a $369,310 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $369,310 b $92,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $92,500 C $67,045 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $67,045 d $315,188 $315.188 $315,188 $315,188 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,260,750 e $609,000 $609,000 $609,000 $609,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,436,000 f $324,125 $324,125 $324,125 $324,125 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,296,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15M $0 $0 $15M $0 $0 $30M Totals $1,777,168 $1.248,313 $1,248,313 $1,248,313 $15M $0 $0 $15M $0 $0 $35.5M Note: figures in table above do not include loan payment funds. Additional Note: County could borrow funds against the future sale of Neighborhood 3 & 4 land sales at market interest rates, to be paid back within a specified term. 22) Other Funds $1,260,750 Pahlisch Rebates (Assumes 360 rebates issued over 4 years) DEQ Clean Water State Revolving Fund Loan Program USDA Rural Development Loan Program Private Lenders Mortgage, Refinance 5 BASIC ASSISTANCE MECHANISMS 1) County Programs a) Full Grants Up to $10,000 per retrofit - no eligibility restrictions (Policy and Legal (gift of public funds) questions) Partial Grants Flat $1,000 per household - Cost $5,800,000 Either program could be limited to qualifying low income households Policy question-retroactivity for previously installed? b) Cost Deferral Program Based on State Dept of Revenue Program County funds improvement, and a lien is established against the property. County is paid back when the property is sold or goes through probate. Owner can make payments if they wish. State interest rate is 6% per year and is only available to those 62 or older. County could adjust interest rate and/or eligibility. Cost-varies depending on terms and limits. c) Conventional Loan Program Funds could be combined with the $350,000 National Demonstration Project funds and used for loans to qualifying households under the terms and limitations specified in the grant. To encourage loan repayments, the interest rate could be set lower than the Cost Deferral Program (b). Alternatively, Cost Deferral could be offered to qualifying lower income households only, while a conventional loan could be offered to all households. d) Reduced Cost System Purchase County could purchase a significant quantity of nitrogen reducing systems at a potentially reduced rate and pass savings on or reduce cost further to property owners. Sales to installers would include requirement that savings are passed on to property owners. 2) Other Programs a) Pahlisch Rebates - Flat $3,500 per retrofit b) DEQ Clean Water State Revolving Fund Loan Program Below market interest rates for qualifying loans. County would apply for loan and re-loan funds to qualifying households. Competitive award process. This program requires all borrowed fund to be paid back within 10 years. c) USDA Loan Program i d) Private Financing through conventional mortgage or refinance. e) DEQ Pollution Control Tax Credit Is intended to cover expenses for "on-the-ground improvements" Note: this incentive would require an amendment to state law to allow application for on-site septic systems. f) Manufacturer Incentives - 7 LOGISTICAL ISSUES 1) Third Party Administrators - for loan administration, etc a. Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council (COIC) b. Central Oregon Regional Housing Authority (COHRA) c. Private lending institutions Grant funding for administration of grant expires 6-30-07. Continued subsidization using CDD funds a question mark. 2) Incentivizing Early Retrofits a. Loan Interest rate increases overtime b. First come, first served c. Grants during first two years d. Pahlisch rebate limited to Neighborhood 2 buildout 3) Retrofit Trigger Events a. System Repair/Alteration b. Time of Sale c. Probate d. Incentives e. Deadline 4) Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Assistance a. Policy question-Should the County assist in this area? b. State law requires that the first two years of O&M is included in the purchase and installation price to property owners c. Assistance difficult to manage through loans or cost deferral d_ One option would be for the County to contract with a certified O&M provider in order to subsidize or cover the cost to qualifying (lower income) households. e. Provide assistance to homeowner associations, etc. to create their own district to provide O&M services 5) Board Policy Question: What shall be done with remaining funds, and funds to be paid back in the future, after all retrofits have been accomplished? a. Long term well network monitoring b. Riparian restoration to remove maximum nitrogen from groundwater before it reaches the rivers c. Ongoing onsite system repairs d. Etc... 8 REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL REVIEWED CODE REVIEW COMMITTEE For Recording Stamp Only BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Ordinance Amending Title 13, Public Services, of the Deschutes County Code and Prescribing an * ORDINANCE NO. 2007-011 Effective Date of DATE, 2007. WHEREAS, extensive monitoring and study by the US Geological Survey and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality in partnership with Deschutes County has shown that the groundwater underlying the south Deschutes County region is threatened by discharges from conventional onsite wastewater treatment systems serving development in the region, WHEREAS, the predominant source of contamination in the basin is from onsite wastewater treatment systems; WHEREAS, nitrogen reducing onsite wastewater treatment systems are available to reduce onsite wastewater treatment system pollutants discharged to the sole source aquifer to maintain and improve public waters in the La Pine basin of the upper Deschutes River Watershed; WHEREAS, specific rules are required to minimize the negative impacts of onsite wastewater treatment system discharge on the groundwater resources of the region; WHEREAS, requiring new development to install the best performing nitrogen reducing systems helps reduce the nitrogen reduction needed for upgrading existing onsite wastewater treatment systems; WHEREAS, the County has invested considerable effort and resources in developing financial assistance programs to aid homeowners upgrading their existing systems; WHEREAS, time is of the essence to take action to begin reducing pollutant loading to the region's groundwater, WHEREAS, the County will continue to develop and identify new programs and methods to provide financial assistance to homeowners upgrading their existing systems; now, therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. ADOPTION. DCC 1.3.14 is hereby adopted to read as described in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2007-011 (M/D/YR) Section 2. ADOPTION. The Staff Report is hereby adopted to read as described in Exhibit "B," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. Section 2. ADOPTION. Resolution 2007-023 is hereby adopted to read as described in Exhibit "C," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. Section 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance takes effect on XXXXX, 2007. DATED this day of 12007. Dated this of , 2007 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON MICHAEL M. DALY, CHAIR DENNIS R. LUKE, VICE CHAIR ATTEST: Recording Secretary TAMMY BANEY, COMMISSIONER Date of 1St Reading: day of , 2007. Date of 2nd Reading: day of )2007. Record of Adoption Vote Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused Michael M. Daly Dennis R. Luke Tammy Baney Effective date: day of 32007. ATTEST: Recording Secretary PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2007-011 (M/D/YR) Chapter 13.14 SOUTH COUNTY ONSITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT 13.14.010. Application. 13.14.020. Definitions. 13.14.030. Siting criteria for new development. 13.14.040. Groundwater level determinations. 13.14.050. Performance standards. 13.14.060. Listing nitrogen reducing systems. 13.14.070. Variances. 13.14.080. Appeals. 13.14.090. Fees. 13.14.100. Violation. 13.14.010. Application. A. The provisions in DCC 13.14 are in addition to the requirements of ORS 454.605 to 454.755 and OAR chapter 340, divisions U71 and 073 and in the event of an inconsistency, the more stringent provisions shall apply. 13.14.020. Definitions. "Department" means, for purposes of this chapter, the Deschutes County, Community Development Department. "Existing Development" means uses on a lot served by an onsite wastewater treafinent system as of the effective date of Ordinance 2007-011. "Lot" means lot or parcel as defined in, ORS chapter 92. Tax lots may or may not be equivalent to legal lots of record, "Maximum Nitrogen Reducing System" means the onsite waster , ter treatinunt system or systems allowed for use in Oregon and-listed by the Department at the i i me the permit is issued as having demonstrated nitrogen reduction to the highest level practicable. "New Development" means the development of a use on a lot where there is no existing use served by an onsite wastewater treatment system. "Nitrate Loading Management Model" means the model produced by the US Geological Survey ("USGS") that specifies the performance standards that must be met by nitrogen reducing systems in order to meet groundwater protection goals. The applicable USGS model and map identifying the performance standards for Existing Development by area shall be the model and map adopted by resolution of the Board. "ODEQ" means the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. "South County" means those portions of Deschutes County contained in Townships 19, 20, 21, 22 and Ranges 9, 10, and 11, except those areas w i t h i n c x i s t ing sewer districts. "WPCF pcrmtt" mcans Water Pollution Control Facility pci-n-tit. 13.14.030. Siting criteria for New Development. New Development shall meet the following criteria in order for an onsite wastewater treatment system to be permitted and constructed on the site: A. For the purpose of site evaluation approval, any modification to the lot, including the placeilient of fill or the installation of groundwater interceptors, shall not be allowed. l3. For site evaluations applied for and approved after the effective date of Ordinance 2007- 011, an onsite wastewater treatment system, including the absorption facility, shall be installed on the property where the use served is located. C. Locating the onsite wastewater treatment system or portion thereof on an adjoining parcel under the same ownership may be permitted if the lots are combined or the lot line adjusted following approval of a lot line adjustment application to the Department. D. The absorption facility shall be installed to provide a minimum 24 inch vertical separation to the highest level attained by a groundwater table as measured from the bottom of the absorption facility to the highest level of the groundwater table. 13.14.040. Groundwater level determinations. Chapter 13.14 1 (XX/200X) 0 A. If groundwater levels cannot be determined prepared and maintained by the Department using soil characteristics indicating and adopted by resolution of the Board. conditions associated with saturation as F. All Existing Development served by onsite defrted in OAR 340-071, then the levels shall wastewater treatment systems, except those direct observation of be determined using under a WPCF permit issued by operating on the subject property and in ODEQ, shall be upgraded with nitrogen the general area. reducing systems no later than ten years from B. The observations shall be taken during a the effective date of Ordinance 2007-011. spring following a winter (October through March) with at least average total 13.14.060. Listing nitrogen reducing precipitation. syste iu s. C. Application for groundwater level A. Onsite astc titer treatment systems for all determinations shall be made to the Existin`- and Xc\~ Development in the South Department by February 15. County shall be on~ite wastewater treatment systcins allowed by the ODEQ. D. If the winter precipitation for the year in which the application is made is not equal to B. Onsita wastewater treatment systems or at least average precipitation levels then the components designed to reduce nitrogen shall application will be held and the be idcnti I icd on a list maintained by the determination made after the next winter with Dep; n t mcnt. at least average precipitation. 1. The list shall categorize the systems or components by demonstrated nitrogen 13. 14.050. Performance standards. reduction capability. A. Performance standards shall apply to: 2. The n i t ro den reduction categories in this 1. New Development at time of application.",' list shall correspond to the nitrogen for site evaluation and permit issuance, reduction categories on the map adopted and under DCC 13.14.050(E). 2 E ' xistmg De~~lopm~nt at time of application for an authorizatloii notice, C_. Vendors or designers of nitrogen reducing major alteration, or major repair, and systems may apply to be listed by the 3. Existing Development at the time of Department as nitrogen reducing systems. upgrade required under DCC 1. Applications must be submitted on a 13.14.050(F). form specified by the Department and B. New Development shall install a Maximum shall be accompanied by the fee Nitrogen Reducing System. established by the Board. 2. Applications must include documentation C. Existing Development located on sites that do of compliance with DCC 13.14.060(A). not meet the 24 inch vertical separation to groundwater shall install a Maximum Nitrogen Reducing System. D. Existing Development on sites that do meet the 24 inch vertical separation to groundwater shall install onsite wastewater treatment systems that reduce nitrogen to at least the level specified for the area within which the property lies. E. Minimum nitrogen reduction standards shall be specified in the Nitrate Loading Management Model and identified on a map D. Data sources submitted in support of an application to list an onsite wastewater treatment system as a nitrogen reducing system shall include at least one of the following: 1. Peer reviewed articles, 2. Third party reports. E. Data submitted in support of an application to list an onsite wastewater treatment system as a nitrogen reducing system shall include but is not limited to: 1. The quality of the septic tank effluent or wastewater influent received by the Chapter 13.14 2 (XX/200X) treatment system during the performance meet the performance standards but test. which the Department has not yet listed 2. The quality of the treatment system or may not issue a permit and that the effluent, applicant will use this system; or 3. If the influent total nitrogen 3. The applicant demonstrates that an concentration is less than 65 mg/L, then extreme or unusual hardship exists. the system's nitrate reduction a. The following factors shall be performance shall be prorated considered by the Department or the accordingly, Board in reviewing an application 4. Organic and inorganic forms of nitrogen for a variance based on hardship: for treatment system influent and 1) Applicant's advanced age or effluent, poor health; 5. Measurements of wastewater flow 2) Applicant's financial ability to during the performance test. jiaytOr a nitrogen reducing system: F. Systems listed by the Department prior to 3) Applicant's need to care for the effective date of Ordinance 2007-011 aged, incapacitated, or disabled shall continue to be listed unless relatives; and performance data indicates that listing \ 4)Environmental impacts from the should be changed or revoked. variance. b. Hardship variances granted by the 13.14.070. Variances. Department may include conditions A. The Department Director or, if on appeal, the such as: Board, may authorize a variance from the 1) Limiting permits to the life of requirements of DCC 13.14.050. the applicant; and 2) Limiting the number of B. Applications to the Department for variances permanent residents using the shall be submitted on 'a form specified by the system. Department and , accompaiued by the fee established by the Board. 13.14.080. Appeals. A. Decisions of the Department made pursuant C. Application must state fully the grounds of to this chapter may be appealed to the Board the application and the facts relied upon by within twelve days of the date the the applicant and must demonstrate how strict Department's decision was mailed. compliance with the standard is B. The appeal shall be filed with the Department impracticable. using a form specified by the Department and D. The Department Director or the Board may fee established by the Board. grant a variance M one of the following C. The documentation supporting the appeal situations: must state fully the grounds on which the 1. The applicant pro ides a report of a applicant is appealing the decision, the facts detailed hydrog~.;ologic investigation by a relied upon by the applicant and must registered hydrogeologist that demonstrate how strict compliance with the demonstrates that the groundwater is standard is impracticable. protected from nitrogen contamination by D. Decisions of the Board may be appealed in the presence of persistent oxygen-limited accordance with DCC 13.40. groundwater conditions that will reduce nitrogen in the groundwater for the life of 13.14.090. Fees. the system; A. The Board shall establish fees by resolution 2. The applicant demonstrates that a for permits and services under DCC 13.14. nitrogen reducing system is available to Chapter 13.14 3 (XX/200X) B. The Board shall adopt any fees adopted by the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission in accordance with ORS 454.745(2). 13.14.100. Violation. A. It is unlawful to construct, alter, repair, operate or maintain onsite wastewater treatment systems in the County, or cause the same to be done, contrary to or in violation of any of the provisions of DCC 13.14. B. Violation of any provision of DCC 13.14 is a Class A violation. Chapter 13.14 4 (XX/200X) ittl j'' r~ ..11 Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ STAFF REPORT The Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 at 6:00 P.M. in the La Pine High School Auditorium, to consider the following proposal: PROPOSAL: Adopt a Local Rule to require the use of nitrogen reducing onsite wastewater treatment systems in south Deschutes County to protect the sole source of drinking water and surface waters of the upper Deschutes River watershed. The proposal includes: 1. Requiring new development to install systems achieving the maximum nitrogen reduction practicable 2. Requiring existing systems to meet a variable nitrogen reduction standard established by the Nitrate Loading Management Model 3. Complete upgrades to existing systems within 10 years of the date the rule takes effect. Other programs interacting with the proposal include financial assistance programs funded by the sale and development of land within the La Pine Neighborhood Planning Area. These voluntary programs, existing and planned, include Pollution Reduction Credit Rebates, low interest loans, grants, and cost deferral (lien) programs. STAFF: Tom Anderson, Community Development Department Director Dan Haldeman, Environmental Health Director Catherine Morrow, Planning Director Barbara Rich, Senior Environmental Health Planner Peter Gutowsky, Senior Planner Todd Cleveland, Environmental Health Specialist George Read, Management Analyst 1. EXISTING POLICY: OAR 340-071, Onsite Wastewater Treatment System Rules OAR 340-040, Groundwater Quality Protection Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 23.44, Regional Problem Solving Deschutes County Code Chapter 13.08, Onsite sewage disposal and septic systems Deschutes County Code Chapter 11.12, Transferable Development Credit Program II. BASIC FINDINGS: A. AFFECTED AREA: The areas affected by the proposal are unsewered areas between Sunriver and the Klamath County border, this area is formally defined as those portions of Deschutes County contained in Townships 19, 20, 21, and 22 and Ranges 9, 10 and 11, except those areas within existing sewer districts. Local Rule for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems in South Deschutes County Page 1 of 22 Quality Services Performed with Pride B. AFFECTED USES: Uses affected by the proposal are those uses generating less that 2,500 gallons of residential strength wastewater per day. C. PURPOSE: The goal of the proposed rule is to reduce onsite wastewater treatment system pollutants, particularly nitrogen, discharged to the sole source aquifer in order to maintain and improve public waters in the La Pine basin of the upper Deschutes River Watershed. D. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND: South Deschutes County has been the focus of extensive local, state and federal attention beginning the early 1980's with the identification of significant groundwater impacts from onsite wastewater treatment systems in the La Pine Unincorporated Community. Provided below is a timeline of events related to water quality in the region. 1960's 125-square mile area of La Pine subdivided into over 12,000 lots and 1970's 1982 La Pine Aquifer Study finds high nitrate levels in groundwater underlying the core area of La Pine. 1986 La Pine core area sewered. 1994 Oregon DEQ finds increasing nitrate levels outside of the La Pine area. 1996 County receives a $157,250 Regional Problem Solving grant from DLCD to identify regional problems and evaluate solutions. 1997 Sewer Feasibility Study found creating or expanding sewers in the study areas to cost between $19,000 and $28,000 per household. A 20-year payback at 3% costs between $1,275 and $2,880 per household per year. This estimate also assumed that the sewage treatment plant site and related land could be purchased at $3,000 per acre. 1998 Water Quality Directives resulting from Regional Problem Solving ■ Continue to study nitrates, well head protection and alternative , sewage disposal systems. ■ Do not build a new sewer system in study areas ■ Reduce residential density to meet the carrying capacity of onsite sewage disposal systems through a market-based Transfer of Development Credit Program ■ Identify areas where existing community sewer systems can be expanded (La Pine Sewer District). ■ Support Oregon Water Wonderland II (OWW2) efforts to upgrade the existing sewage treatment facilities for that subdivision 1999 Oregon DEQ receives $5.5 million grant from US Environmental Protection Agency to study the groundwater, model the aquifer, field test nitrogen reducing onsite systems Local Rule for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems in South Deschutes County Page 2 of 22 2000 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amended to include these goals in response to public involvement during Regional Problem Solving: 1. To preserve water and air quality, reduce wildfire hazards and protect wildlife habitat. 2. To ensure that domestic water derived from groundwater meets safe drinking water standards. 3. To develop an equitable, market-driven system, that reduces the potential development of existing lots in floodplains, wetlands, mule deer migration corridors and areas susceptible to groundwater pollution. 4. To create a new neighborhood, primarily residential in character , between La Pine and Wickiup Junction, that provides services efficiently, sustains economic development and reduces adverse impacts to groundwater quality in South Deschutes County. 5. To explore innovative sewage treatment and disposal methods 1999- Field sampling of groundwater and onsite wastewater treatment system 2004 effluent. Results of studies reported at numerous national, regional and state meetings. 2002 Transferable Development Credit Program adopted 2003 Findings of the La Pine National Demonstration Project groundwater investigation and three-dimensional groundwater modeling presented at a public meeting in La Pine. 2005 The US Geological Survey completes the upgrade to the three dimensional groundwater model and produces the Nitrate Loading Management Model 2005 The County convenes the TDC Technical Advisory Committee to amend the Transferable Development Credit Program to better focus the resources created by the La Pine Neighborhood Planning Area on solving the groundwater protection problem. Dec 2005 The TDC Technical Advisory Committee recommends creating the Pollution Reduction Credit program to work in conjunction with a local rule to require the use of nitrogen reducing onsite wastewater treatment systems. May 2006 The Planning Commission, after holding a public hearing in La Pine, recommended that the Board of County Commissioners adopt amendments to the Transferable Development Credit Program to create Pollution Reduction Credits to create financial assistance for homeowners upgrading their existing onsite wastewater treatment systems to better protect groundwater. June The Board of County Commissioners adopted amendments to the 2006 Transferable Development Credit Program to create Pollution Reduction Credits. E. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: public participation plan to Rule during creation of the public participation process Project to include with all Environmental Health Divis March 2006. mmunity Development D mments and suggestions Reduction Credit program develop a notice of the luation and permit appl distributing this notice epartment developed a for the proposed Local The first phase of the Groundwater Protection ication materials. The with permit materials in Local Rule for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems in South Deschutes County Page 3 of 22 The Co solicit co Pollution was to site eva ion began Next the Department developed the first of a series of public information brochures about the issues and the proposal: • Project Overview Brochure, Spring 2006 • South County Groundwater Protection History, Spring 2006 • Why Not Sewer? Brochure, Spring 2006 These brochures were first distributed at an open house for the opening of the South County Services building and at the Home Show at the Deschutes County Fairgrounds in May 2006. Next steps included revising the Groundwater Protection Project website and initiating meetings with area onsite system installers and realtors. Further public information materials were developed in late summer 2006 with monthly articles in the Newberry Eagle beginning in September 2007. Additional public information materials were developed at this time including the following notices and brochures: • Notice of Planning Commission meeting, November 30, 2006 • Notice of Local Rule - Tax Bill Insert, October 2006 • Notice of Groundwater Protection Project (distribution began March 2006) • Groundwater Protection Project Update, September 2006 • But my water was just tested! November 2006 • Pollution Reduction Credit Program Brochure, Fall 2006 The Tax Bill Insert was mailed to 10,243 property owners to provide individual notice of the proposed rule. Following this the Department held a series of public meetings to present the reason for the proposed rule and solicit comments and suggestions about the Local Rule Concepts. The public meetings began with two events held at the La Pine Senior Center: • November 9, 2006 (requested by the La Pine Senior Center) • November 30, 2006 (hosted by the Deschutes County Planning Commission) The attendees at the November 30 meeting hosted by the Planning Commission requested a session specifically for reviewing the scientific basis of the proposed rule. This session was held December 20, 2006 and was presented as the Groundwater Science Open House. The open house format was used to allow interested persons to move from station to station and ask specific questions easily and quickly without having to wait through a lengthy presentation. The Department decided to use this format after receiving feedback from the November 30 meeting that some attendees felt intimidated about asking questions in the lecture format when audience members were loudly responding to questions and answers. The Department, following the Groundwater Science Open House, scheduled additional office hours to provide more opportunities for interested persons to drop by and obtain more information about the science or other aspects of the proposal. The Department scheduled office hours each week in January 2007 on different days of the week and at different times during the day. The variation in locations, times and days were in response to comments that all the meetings were held in the southern portion of the affected area and that they were being held in the evening. By mixing the days, locations and times, Department staff intended to create opportunities for interested Local Rule for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems in South Deschutes County Page 4 of 22 persons to be able to attend at least one session. Unfortunately, times and locations for the office hour sessions in the northern portion of the affected area were constrained by the available space. As a result these sessions were made twice as long as the southern sessions. • January 4, 2007, 5:00 - 7:00, Deschutes County office, La Pine • January 9, 2007, 1:00-5:00, Village Properties office, Sunriver • January 18, 2007, 1:00-5:00, Village Properties, Sunriver • January 23, 2007 3:00 - 5:00, Deschutes County office, La Pine The full list of notices, public information materials, and newspaper articles is available as Appendix A. Appendix B provides a summary of the materials and information provided at the Groundwater Science Open House. These materials were also provided at the office hour sessions. The Transferable Development Credit Technical Advisory Committee and the Deschutes County Planning Commission have also been kept apprised of the Local Rule public comment and participation process. F. PUBLIC COMMENTS: As of this writing, 69 persons have submitted comments in writing to the Department or the Board of County Commissioners. The comments are too numerous to quote in this report but are available for Board review. The list below provides basic comment categories in order by the frequency at which related comments were submitted. Cost: Affects on cost of living, kinds and quantity of financial assistance, cost of upgrades, cost comparisons with other solutions, effect on the real estate market, and ideas for additional financial assistance programs. Science: What is the quantity and quality of science supporting the proposed rule, how much sampling was conducted and where were the wells located, how was the quality of the information assured, was the study design and the results peer reviewed, what are the sources of nitrogen in the region, change drinking water wells instead of onsite systems. Nitrogen Reducing System Performance: Performance verification, who can install and maintain the systems, types of available systems Policy: Why not a moratorium, what happens with Klamath County, existence of case studies, future changes to rule requirements, public participation plans, appeal procedures, time of sale upgrades, enforcement procedures, recent installations, operation and maintenance requirements and costs Sewer: Why not sewer, what is Goal 11, combination of onsite and clusters Public Participation: Notice of events, public participation plan, timing of events DEQ jurisdiction: Commercial and other large system requirements, Klamath County requirements, alternative system approvals, Groundwater Management Area requirements, Geographic Rule adoption instead of Local Rule Local Rule: Performance standards, affected area, time period for upgrades, new development requirements, variance and appeal options, time of sale requirements Local Rule for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems in South Deschutes County Page 5 of 22 Other: Financial reports of previous projects, work plans for previous projects, allow development on high groundwater lots, effect of La Pine incorporation III. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS: A. Sewer Option FINDING: The County retained KCM, Inc. (now KCM-TetraTech, Inc.) to study the feasibility of extending or creating new sewers in the region. The estimates developed in 1997 assumed that sewer treatment plant sites could be acquired for $3,000 per acre and that the cost of financing the treatment works and transmission system would be 3% per year over 20 years. The consultant estimated in 1997 that each lot would be charged between $19,000 and $28,000 for a sewer system hook-up. Since 1997, land, material, and energy costs have increased significantly and would add to the per lot estimated cost. Currently, the City of Bend charges $28,000 to hook up to the existing sewer system plus about $22 per month for service charge. The City of Tualatin charges $40,000 to hook up to sewer. Oregon Water Wonderland Unit 2 charges about $8,500 to hook up to the sewer system. This low charge reflects the low price for the sewer treatment plant site (about $500 per acre) and significant assistance from Deschutes County for land use planning assistance in applying and obtaining approval from the state to expand the existing treatment system to serve the area that was intended to be served by the original system. The creation or extension of sewer systems requires a large initial capital investment to construct or upgrade the treatment site and install transmission facilities. Construction grants are no longer available for creating or extending sewer systems. Construction loan programs are in place with varying fund amounts available with repayment periods ranging from 5 to 20 years. Using the $19,000-$28,000 estimate above, the annual cost to a sewer system user for a loan of this amount at 3% would be between $1,275 and $1,880 per household per year. Public participation during the Regional Problem Solving Project identified the creation or extension of sewers into the rural areas as the least desired solution because of the cost and directed the County to pursue the use of innovative kinds of onsite wastewater treatment systems to protection groundwater quality. The amount of time required to establish extensions to existing sewers is quite long. The expansion of the existing Oregon Water Wonderland Unit 2 sewer took seven years from the time the decision was made to proceed until the first new house was hooked to the system. No new sewers in rural areas have been constructed in Oregon (White, personal communication) B. Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems FINDING: The onsite wastewater treatment systems currently available that reduce nitrogen cost between about $7,000 and $16,000 for upgrades to existing systems depending on the quality of the existing system. Additional costs can be incurred during upgrades if the existing septic tank is damaged or otherwise unsound or if the drainfield is failing or inappropriately located. Operation and maintenance costs range between $25 and $35 per month depending on the system chosen by the property owner. Performance testing of onsite wastewater treatment systems shows they can be as effective as sewer systems for protecting water quality and do not have the negative hydrological impacts of preventing domestic water from recharging the aquifer. Local Rule for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems in South Deschutes County Page 6 of 22 This option avoids the large initial capital investment on a regional basis. Homeowners are able to upgrade systems over time (the proposal is to allow upgrades to occur over a 10 year period). This extended time period allows property owners to take advantage of financial assistance programs as the need arises rather than forcing all property owners to hook up to the sewer by a specific date. Nitrogen reduction can begin as soon as individual systems are installed rather than waiting for the entire sewer system or expansion to be constructed. Therefore, groundwater protection begins immediately with this approach. The figure below shows the increasing nitrogen load to groundwater historically and into the future as the area is built out under different scenarios. The capacity to reduce nitrate loading immediately is an important consideration because every new system installed in south Deschutes County that does not reduce nitrogen increases pollutant loading AND increases the demand for financial assistance. C. Do Nothing FINDING: Environmental impacts of the "Do Nothing" scenario include large areas of the region's groundwater contaminated with nitrate concentrations greater than 10 mg/L nitrate as N (equivalent to 45 mg/L nitrate). Financial impacts of the "Do Nothing" scenario are difficult to determine because, while the costs of sewers or onsite system upgrades are avoided, there are the other market impacts resulting from declining property values because of groundwater quality degradation or the possible imposition of a moratorium on building. Local Rule for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems in South Deschutes County Page 7 of 22 D. Proposed Selected Alternative FINDING: The proposed local rule uses upgrades to onsite wastewater treatment systems because, based on existing information, this approach protects groundwater quality at the lowest capital cost. The monthly cost for sewer service charges or onsite system maintenance are comparable for the two action scenarios. Further, the County proposes to use existing County assets to create financial incentive programs to help homeowners with the cost of upgrading their systems. IV. FINDINGS OF FACT: A. Impacts to groundwater from conventional onsite wastewater treatment systems: 1. Aquifer-scale controls on the distribution of nitrate and ammonium in ground water near La Pine, Oregon, USA. Hinkle, et al, Journal of Hydrology, (2007) 333, 486-503. FINDING: The US Geological Survey submitted the paper cited above to the Journal of Hydrology. In order to have a paper accepted for publication, the manuscript must first pass review by the editors. The editors have the option of accepting, rejecting or forwarding the manuscript for further review. Those rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Those that meet the minimum criteria are passed on to at least 2 experts for review. The expert reviewers, or referees, are matched to the paper according to their expertise. The Journal of Hydrology uses single blind review, where the referees remain anonymous throughout the process. Referees are asked, among other, to evaluate whether the manuscript: • Is original • Is methodologically sound • Follows appropriate ethical guidelines • Has results which are clearly presented and support the conclusions • Correctly references previous relevant work Staff believes that the findings of the Journal of Hydrology paper cited above has been reviewed by experts of national and/or international standing in the field of hydrology to be methodologically sound and has results that support the conclusions that: 1. groundwater in the region is slow moving 2. the source of nitrate in the groundwater is septic tank effluent, 3. the source of ammonium in the groundwater is natural, 4. denitrification can occur in the aquifer at depths where oxygen has been depleted, 5. the nitrate contamination that has entered the aquifer so far is concentrated in the most shallow portions of the aquifer and is slowly moving to greater depths 6. the typical drinking water well produces water that is older than development in the region and therefore is generally not currently contaminated. 2. Three-dimensional groundwater and nutrient fate and transport model FINDING: The US Geological Survey, in partnership with Oregon DEQ, developed the three- dimensional groundwater and nutrient fate and transport model for the La Pine sub-basin of the Local Rule for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems in South Deschutes County Page 8 of 22 Upper Deschutes River watershed. This model built on the groundwater model developed for the Deschutes River watershed by Marshall Gannett, et al. Basic findings of the three-dimensional model are: 1. using nitrogen reducing onsite systems can reduce the nitrogen load and protect the aquifer 3. using nitrogen reducing systems on new development alone won't adequately protect groundwater quality 4. upgrades occurring when systems fail or when houses are remodeled or replaced do not occur quickly enough to protect groundwater quality 5. the aquifer's ability to remove nitrogen is incorporated into the model (via discharge to rivers, pumping wells, or denitrification in the oxygen depleted portions of the aquifer) 6. time is of the essence in that as more development is allowed to occur without taking action, more nitrogen enters the aquifer and more existing systems are created that need upgrades 3. Real estate tests. FINDING: Thirty-one percent (31%) of 8,756 samples collected from private drinking water wells at the time of sale between September 1988 and November 2005 exceeded 1 mg/L nitrate (exceeded background levels). The samples showing greater than background levels of nitrate are shown in the table by concentration: Concentration of N03 Number of samples 1 - 4.99 m /L 2068 5.00 - 9.99 m /L 540 >_10 m /L 82 The samples equaling or exceeding 10 mg/L ranged from 10 to 72 mg/L. This database contains multiple results reported for individual properties because an individual property could have sold more than once during the period between 1988 and 2005. In addition, the quality assurance/quality control of the sample collection and analyses changed over time and could have changed from location to location. There is no information available showing that sample collection and analysis protocols were consistent over the record. While the dataset creates some concerns for the quality of data presented therein, the dataset does show that drinking water wells can be and are impacted by onsite wastewater treatment system effluent in the south Deschutes County region. 4. Drinking water well sampling in 2000. FINDING: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and Deschutes County Community Development Department staff sampled a well network three times between June 2000 and June 2001 as part of the La Pine National Demonstration Project. Data from these sampling events showed 24% of the wells discharged water with nitrate concentrations greater than background levels: Local Rule for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems in South Deschutes County Page 9 of 22 N03 concentrations Number of wells Notes <1.0 m /L 128 Background N03 concentrations 1-6.9 m /L 35 Showing human impacts 7.0-9.9 m /L 5 Oregon Groundwater Management Area trigger >_10 =L 0 Total 168 This dataset was collected in strict compliance with the Oregon DEQ's quality assurance/quality control protocols and the laboratory analyses were conducted in compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency's certification requirements for the DEQ lab. Therefore these data are considered high quality. 5. Shallow monitoring well sampling FINDING: The Oregon DEQ and Deschutes County installed and sampled a network of nearly 200 shallow monitoring wells between 2000 and 2004 as part of the La Pine National Demonstration Project. The table below entitled "Network monitoring well data" shows the descriptive statistics of the sample results from three years of sampling a network of 141 wells. These wells were located at the periphery of the properties on which the field test system was located. The intent of these wells was to provide information on groundwater flow direction, depth to water table, and ambient groundwater quality conditions. The wells were screened at or near the water table in order to document conditions in the shallow aquifer. The total nitrogen, nitrate and chloride results show that on average, ambient conditions in the shallow aquifer are showing the effects of human sewage because total nitrogen and chloride levels are greater than 1.0 mg/L. The bacteria sample (fecal coliform and E. coli) results show that bacteria are not present in the aquifer. Network monitoring well data Nitrate- Nitrite Dissolved Depth to Total Mean of means As N TN Chloride Fecal Oxygen Water Phosphorus 141 Network. Wells (mgli-) (mg,IL) (m !L) Coliforin E. Cali (m !L} Table {ft) (M910 Mean 3.7 4.0 12 N/A N/A 5.1 13.1 0.2 Geometric Mean 0.7 1.3 6.5 N/A N/A 3.3 12.0 N/A Median 1.2 1.5 5.9 ND ND 6.2 11.9 0.2 Standard Deviation 10.5 11 20 N/A N/A 2.8 5.7 0.4 Minimum 0.005 0.1 0.5 ND ND 0.1 4.6 ND Maximum 99 99 139 41 41 8.3 29.9 3.8 Count; 141 141 141 139 139 141 141 105 95% Confidence Level 1.7 1.8 3.3 N/A N/A 0.5 0.9 0.08 99% Confidence Level 2.3 2.4 43 N/A N/A 0.6 1.2 0.10 N/A = statistic not calculable ND = nondetect Local Rule for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems in South Deschutes County Page 10 of 22 The table below shows data from three years of sampling 48 monitoring wells placed in drainfields in the field test program. These wells were intended to capture the effects of the onsite system on the shallow aquifer immediately below the drainfields. The results show that nitrate and chloride levels are elevated in these wells indicating the effects of the drainfield on the aquifer. There are some bacteria results indicating that some contamination may be occurring; however, these results were not replicated during subsequent sampling. Total phosphorus results indicate that the soil removes a significant amount of phosphorus from wastewater. Nitrate- Nitrite Total Dissolved Depth to Total As N Nitrogen Chloride Fecal Oxygen Water Phosphorus 48 Draintreid MW me/L rn /L1 mr/L) Coliform E. Coli wig/L) Table (ft) (mg/L) Mean 9.0 9.2 17 33 47 5.3 12.6 0.18 Geometric Mean 2.4 3.6 12 N/A N/A 3.7 11.6 0.16 Median 4.1 4.2 11 ND ND 6.4 11.1 ` 0.17 Standard Deviation 13 13 15 N/A N/A 2.6 5.6 0.10 Minimum 0.003 0.1 0.7 ND ND 0.1 4.9 0.04 Maximum 52 52 72 1502 2189 8.5 29.0 0.4 Count 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 37 95% Confidence Level 3.8 3.8 4.3 N/A N/A 0.8 1.6 0.03 99% Confidence Level 5.0 5.0 5.8 ' N/A N/A 1.0 2.2 0.04 N/A = statistic not calculable ND = nondetect B. Nitrates as Health Hazard 1. Safe Drinking Water Act standard FINDING: The US Environmental Protection Agency has established the Maximum Contaminant Level for nitrate as N as 10 mg/L. This level is considered protective to prevent methemoglobinemia in susceptible populations. As a point of comparison, the World Health Organization recommends setting the drinking water standard at 45 mg/L nitrate. The two concentrations are the same because 45 mg/L nitrate is equivalent to 10 mg/L nitrate as N. These two measurements use different units to measure the amount of nitrogen contained in a water sample. While the Maximum Contaminant Level does not technically apply to private drinking water wells, private well owners are encouraged to test their wells annually to be assured that their drinking water supply is safe. Z Groundwater Quality Protection FINDING: The Oregon DEQ establishes groundwater quality protection standards in OAR 340- 040. This rule sets the water quality standard for nitrate as N in groundwater at 70% of the drinking water standard, or 7 mg/L. The proposed rule is designed to maintain compliance with this standard on average in south Deschutes County. C. Nitrogen Reducing Systems FINDING: The Oregon DEQ was awarded $5.5 million for the La Pine National Demonstration Project. One of the main tasks of this project was to field test nitrogen reducing systems. Local Rule for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems in South Deschutes County Page 11 of 22 During the project, the DEQ partnered with Deschutes County to install and monitor 49 onsite wastewater treatment systems. Nine of these systems were conventional systems that were installed and monitored on the same schedule as the nitrogen reducing systems. The nitrogen reducing systems included 14 different designs; each design was replicated in two or three locations. Each onsite system was installed at a residential site and monitored monthly for a year and every two months for the following 1.5 to 2 years. The results from the field test were reported at national, regional and state meetings of onsite wastewater treatment professionals. The field test demonstrated that nitrogen reducing systems exist nationally or internationally that protect groundwater while eliminating the need for the extensive infrastructure associated with centralized sewer systems. The La Pine National Demonstration Project results indicate that nitrogen reducing systems range in performance between about 35% to 96% reduction. The Oregon DEQ used the results of this field test when the statewide onsite wastewater treatment system rules were amended in 2005 to allow the use of nitrogen reducing at the residential level under a construction-installation permit. Since the Oregon DEQ amended OAR 340-071 in 2005 three companies have applied and been approved for use in Oregon. Two of these companies produce nitrogen reducing systems and the third does not. A fourth company with a product that is a nitrogen reducing add-on was approved for use in Oregon on February 12, 2007; however, this product is not yet available because the distribution network has not been established in Oregon. Additional wastewater treatment systems have applied for listing in Oregon. Until the DEQ completes review of the current applications, staff does not know whether additional nitrogen reducing systems will be available for use. A non-proprietary system is also now available for installation under a construction-installation permit from the County as a result of the 2005 DEQ rule amendment. Recirculating gravel filters are available for use and data published by the National Small Flows Clearinghouse indicates that these systems provide approximately 50% reduction in total nitrogen on a reliable basis. V. PROPOSED LOCAL RULE: A. Siting criteria for New Development. The proposed Local Rule will allow onsite wastewater treatment systems serving New Development to be sited on lots that are shown to provide 24 inches of natural vertical separation between the bottom of the trench and the highest level reached by groundwater. FINDING: The County, in keeping with direction received during the public participation process conducted during the Regional Problem Solving Project, proposes to codify its current practice of allowing installation of onsite wastewater treatment systems when there is at least 24 inches vertical separation. Lots or parcels with less than 24 inches of separation will not be approved for onsite systems. The County further proposes to deny lots or parcels that have been filled or dewatered. Research conducted during the La Pine National Demonstration Project showed that one foot of soil below the bottom of the trench provided significant protection for the groundwater from contamination by pathogenic organisms. The table below shows data from samples taken from Local Rule for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems in South Deschutes County Page 12 of 22 the unsaturated zone one foot below the trench in a pressure distribution system. The geometric mean and median values represent a 99.9% reduction in bacteria counts from the bacteria levels discharged from the septic tank. The additional foot of soil (for a total of 24 inches) provides added reduction, particularly for those events when higher bacterial counts are seen. This data shows how the soil performs an important treatment function by protecting groundwater from bacterial contamination. These findings are also corroborated by the findings of the USGS report, Organic Wastewater Compounds, Pharmaceuticals, and Coliphage in Ground Water Receiving Discharge from Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems near La Pine, Oregon: Occurrence and Implications for Transport." Bacteria samples taken one foot below a pressure distribution drainfield Fecal Coliform E. coli Fecal Coliform E. coli One foot below trench Septic tank effluent Geometric mean 23 23 159,000 140,000 Median 10 10 102,000 100,000 Minimum ND ND 1,000 1,000 Maximum 100,000- 81,000- 5,800,000 4,400,000 Count 21 21 21 21 The maximum counts reported here were not replicated with subsequent sampling. Further, preliminary research conducted on the performance of soil in reducing emerging contaminants like pharmaceuticals and household contaminants indicates that the natural soil environment provides important treatment for many of these contaminants. (Tchobanoglous & Leverenz, personal communication). Groundwater interceptors are a method used to lower the groundwater level within a specific area. These work by collecting groundwater and diverting it to the nearest surface water drainage. While these systems may work physically, they tend to have adverse impacts on surface water quality by diverting nutrient rich groundwater directly to rivers. The rivers in the Finally, developing high groundwater table lots will add nitrogen loading that can increase the nitrogen reduction requirements for existing and other future development in the area. Increased nitrogen reduction standards can translate into higher treatment costs for property owners. B. Future Development on lots or parcels with high groundwater levels FINDING: The County and Oregon DEQ will initiate a public involvement process to determine whether or how development should be allowed on properties with less than 24 inches of separation from ground surface to the highest level reached by groundwater. The County and DEQ will begin this process during Fiscal Year 07-08. C. The proposed Local Rule will require onsite wastewater treatment systems serving New Development to be sited on the same lot or parcel as the use that it serves. FINDING: The County proposes to eliminate the use of easements to establish a location for a portion or all of the onsite wastewater treatment system on a lot or parcel separate from the lot or parcel where the source of wastewater is located. The County has witnessed the dissolution of easements to the detriment of the lot where the wastewater is generated. In addition, lots or parcels that propose to use easements typically cannot maintain 24 inches of separation from the bottom of the trench to groundwater. Developing these lots can impact wetlands and riparian Local Rule for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems in South Deschutes County Page 13 of 22 resources and is directly counter to the direction received from the public participation process of the Regional Problem Solving Project. Further, developing high groundwater table lots will add nitrogen loading that increases the nitrogen reduction requirements of existing development in the area. D. Groundwater level determinations. FINDING: The County, at DEQ's suggestion, is proposing to codify existing practices used to determine groundwater levels. This procedure is only used for those sites where soil characteristics make it difficult to determine the highest level that groundwater reaches. This procedure only applies to sites for potential future development. E. Performance standards. FINDING: The US Geological Survey and Deschutes County, in a grant from the National Decentralized Water Resources Capacity Development Project, developed the Nitrate Loading Management Model. The development of this model is documented in "Application of Simulation-Optimization Methods for Management of Nitrate Loading to Groundwater From Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems Near La Pine, Oregon" and funded and published by the National Decentralized Water Resources Capacity Development Research Project (WU-HT-03-37). The performance standards are established by setting constraints for the region: 1. Future Development installs the best performing nitrogen reducing system available. This approach reduces the level of nitrogen reduction required for existing systems in many management areas. 2. Existing Development upgrades to achieve a minimum 35% reduction 3. Shallow groundwater meets the 7 mg/L groundwater quality protection standard on average. Additional constraints may be set for the region using this model, including a constraint on the amount of nitrogen reaching the rivers. No river protection constraints are proposed because significant protection for the rivers is provided by reducing nitrogen discharges from onsite systems. Future river protection projects may be considered to improve riparian conditions to reduce nitrogen before it reaches the stream channel. F. Compliance date: Ten years from the effective date of the proposed rule. FINDING: Ten years from 2007 is two years from the time buildout is projected for south Deschutes County. Ten years also allows significant financial assistance to be generated in the form of revenue from land sales in the Neighborhood Planning Area in La Pine. G. Listing nitrogen reducing systems. FINDING: The Oregon DEQ must first approve any system before the County may issue a construction-installation permit. During the listing review, performance data and the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) certification is reviewed. The Oregon DEQ's standard for listing an Alternative Treatment Technology under Treatment Standard 2 is 30 mg/L total nitrogen. Because the sole source aquifer in south Deschutes County requires nitrogen reduction levels greater than that achieved by a system discharging 30 mg/L total nitrogen in the effluent, the Local Rule for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems in South Deschutes County Page 14 of 22 Oregon DEQ and Deschutes County agree that the County should require additional information from system manufacturers or designers in order to determine which listed Alternative Treatment Technologies can support the groundwater quality goals. And, because the NSF certification process commonly uses influent wastewater that is lower strength (is more dilute) than typical single-family residential wastewater, the Oregon DEQ and the County agree that a system's nitrogen reduction capabilities should be defined by field tests of the treatment system. H. Variances and Appeals. FINDING: The County received several comments on the Local Rule concepts that concerned the opportunity to apply for variances or appeals of decisions make under the proposed rule. The draft rule language includes variances in the case of economic or personal hardship or where the environmental protection intent of the proposed rule can be met using methods other than what are contained in the rule. 1. Fees. FINDING: The Community Development Department is currently entirely fee supported. Other means of offsetting the cost for permit fees have not been identified or proposed. Currently retrofits of existing systems would be conducted under a repair permit. Repair permits are currently $320 plus a $40 DEQ surcharge. J. Violations. FINDING: The County currently enforces the Deschutes County Code. The proposed rule would be enforced in the same manner as any other code requirement and the existing County code enforcement policies are expected to continue to apply for the foreseeable future. Currently the county works with violators to achieve compliance in advance of going to court. In the long run, the level of enforcement undertaken will be a decision for Board of County Commissioners in 10 years. However, the Board will have a responsibility to honor the financial commitment made by those who have complied, by not waiving the requirements of those who have not. VI. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE: A. Existing Financial Assistance Programs 1. Pollution Reduction Credit Rebates FINDING: Developers in the Neighborhood Planning Area have the option of generating Pollution Reduction Credits or paying into the County's Partnership a fee in lieu of credits. The fee paid in lieu of generating Pollution Reduction Credits is $7,500 per credit. Currently, Elk Horn Land Development is offering a rebate to homeowners upgrading to nitrogen reducing systems in exchange for the Pollution Reduction Credit created by the upgrade. 2. USDA Rural Development Program FINDING: The USDA offers loans and grants to low income and elderly residents for home improvements. Onsite wastewater treatment system replacements or upgrades qualify for these funds. Local Rule for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems in South Deschutes County Page 15 of 22 A. Planned Financial Assistance Programs 1. Low interest loans FINDING: Developers in the Neighborhood Planning Area have the option of generating Pollution Reduction Credits or paying into the County's Partnership a fee in lieu of credits. The fee paid in lieu of generating Pollution Reduction Credits is $7,500 per credit. Currently, Elk Horn Land Development is offering a rebate to homeowners upgrading to nitrogen reducing systems in exchange for the Pollution Reduction Credit created by the upgrade. 2. Partnership Fund FINDING: Developers in the Neighborhood Planning Area have the option of generating Pollution Reduction Credits or paying into the County's Partnership a fee in lieu of credits. The fee paid in lieu of generating Pollution Reduction Credits is $7,500 per credit. Any funds paid into this fund are dedicated to assisting homeowners upgrading their onsite systems to nitrogen reducing systems. The administration of this program will most likely be through a third party. Funds may be disbursed either as conventional loans, payment deferred loans (liens), and/or grants. 3. State Clean Water Revolving Loan Funds FINDING: Oregon DEQ administers the program for the state revolving loan fund. Loans to communities are available for 10 year periods at about 2% interest plus an annual fee of 0.5% of the amount owed. This is a potential source of funds to help homeowners upgrade their systems. Careful consideration of the impacts of the cost of administering such funds on the interest rate and fees is important. C. Source of Funds FINDING: The County has existing assets of about $350,000 in funds for a low interest loan program, an additional $67,000 in funds for retrofits from the current EPA grant, and the revenue from the sale of county-owned land in the Neighborhood Planning Area in La Pine. Estimates of the land value are based on 300 acres sold at $100,000 per acre for a total of $30 million. The estimated total cost of retrofits in south Deschutes County ranges between $43 million and $65 million. Therefore, considerable financial assistance can be generated by using existing County assets. Using County assets in addition to other programs like the state revolving loan fund would cover the majority of the projected need for financial assistance. VII. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Adoption of the proposed Local Rule in coordination with the development of additional financial assistance programs. Local Rule for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems in South Deschutes County Page 16 of 22 VIII. REFERENCES: Bartholomew N, Gupta SC, Strock JS, 2005. Surface Drainage impacts on Tile Drain Water Quality. Proceedings of the ASA-CSSA-SSSA International Annual Meetings, November 6-10, 2005. Burks, BD and Minnis, MM, 1994. Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems. Hogarth House, Ltd., Madison, Wl. Canter, LW and RC Knox, 1985. Septic Tank System Effects on Ground Water Quality. Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan. Crites, R and Tchobanoglous, G, 1998. Small and Decentralized Wastweater Management Systems. WCB/McGraw-Hill Croen LA, Todoroff K, Shaw GM, 2001. Maternal exposure to nitrate from drinking water and diet and risk for neural tube defects. American Journal of Epidemiology, 153(4):325-31. De Roos AJ, Ward MH, Lynch CF, Cantor KP, 2003. Nitrate in public water supplies and the risk of colon and rectum cancers. Epidemiology, 14(6):640-9. Dorsch MM, Scragg RK, McMichael AJ, Baghurst PA, and Dyer KF. Congenital malformations and maternal drinking water supply in rural South Australia: a case- control study. Am. J. Epidemiol. 119: 473-486. Ebeling J, Tsukuda S, Hankins J, Solomon C. Performance Evaluation of a Recirculating Sand Filter and Peat Filter in West Virginia. Small Flows Quarterly 2003 4-1: 27-37. Gulis G, Czompolyova M, Cerhan JR, 2002. An ecologic study of nitrate in municipal drinking water and cancer incidence in Trnava District, Slovakia. Environmental Research, 88(3):182-7. Hinkle SR, Weick RJ, Johnson JM, Cahill JD, Smith SG, Rich BJ. Organic Wastewater Compounds, Pharmaceuticals, and Coliphage in Ground Water Receiving Discharge from Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems near La Pine, Oregon: Occurrence and Implications for Transport. US Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 05- 5055, 98 p. Hinkle SR, Bohlke, JK, Duff, JH, Morgan DS, Weick RJ, 2007. Aquifer-scale controls on the distribution of nitrate and ammonium in ground water near La Pine, Oregon, USA. Journal of Hydrology, 333, 486-503. KCM, Inc. (now KCM/TetraTech, Inc.), 1997. Deschutes County: South County Regional Cost/Benefit Analysis Regional Problem Solving Project. Final Report. Consultant Report. Land Improvement Contractors of Ontario, 1999. Factsheet No. 3: Drain Tile Water Quality. http://www.drainage.org/factsheets/fs3.htm, downloaded January 23, 2006. La Pine National Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Demonstration Project. Draft Final Report, in review. Mitchell JK, Walker SE, Hirschi MC, Mclsaac GF, 1996. Nitrate losses under various nitrogen management systems. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual conference of the American Water Resources Association, September 22-26, 1996. Morgan, D. S. and R. Everett. 2005. Simulation-Optimization Methods for Management of Nitrate Loading to Groundwater From Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems. Local Rule for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems in South Deschutes County Page 17 of 22 Project No. WU-HT-03-37. Prepared for the National Decentralized Water Resources Capacity Development Project, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, by US Geological Survey, Oregon Water Science Center, Portland, OR. Nugent M, Kamrin M, Wolfson L, D'Itri FM. Nitrate - A Drinking Water Concern. Michigan State University, 1989. Ohio State University Extension, downloaded 2006. Agricultural Drainage: Bulletin 871- 98. http://ohioline.osu.edu/b871/b871 22.html, downloaded April 4, 2006. Proceedings: NOWRA Annual Conference 2000 NOWRA Annual Conference 2001 NOWRA Annual Conference 2002 NOWRA Annual Conference 2003 NEHA Annual Conference 2004 NOWRA Annual Conference 2004 NOWRA Annual Conference 2006 Tchobanoglous, G, and Leverenz, H., UC Davis, personal communication US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2002. Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual. EPA/625/R-00/008. US Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. Consumer Factsheet on: NITRATES/NITRITES. http://ww-w.epa..qov/ogwdw/contaminants/dw contamfs/nitrates.html, downloaded March, 23, 2006. Virtanen, SM, Jaakkola L, Rasanen I, Ylonen K. Aro A, Lounamaa R, Akerblo HK, Tuomilehto J, 1994. Nitrate and nitrite intake and the risk for type 1 diabetes in Finnish children. Childhood diabetes in Finland Study Group. Diabetes Medicine, 1994, 11(7): 656-62. Weyer, PJ, Cerhan JR, Kross BC, Hallberg GR, Kantamneni J, Breuer G, Jones MP, Zheng W, Lynch CF. Municipal Drinking Water Nitrate Level and Cancer Risk in Older Women: The Iowa Women's Health Study. Epidemiology, 2001; 11: 327-338. White, D., Department of Land Conservation and Development, personal communication. World Health Organization, 2003. Nitrate and nitrite in Drinking-water: Background document for development of WHO Guidelines for Dinking-water Quality. WHO/S DE/W SH/04.03/56 Dated this 28th day of February, 2007 BJR:slr Local Rule for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems in South Deschutes County Page 18 of 22 Appendix A Local Rule Communication Plan and Public Outreach Summary Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Ave., Bend, OR 97701 PH: (541) 388-6575, FAX: (541) 385-1764 Web: www.deschutes.org/cdd use "Quick Links" to the Groundwater Protection Project 0 - ~ The goal of the Local Rule is to protect the sole source of drinking water for the residents of south Deschutes County using the least cost option and creating financial assistance programs. Upcoming Events ➢ Public hearing of proposed rule before the Board of County Commissioners, March 13, 2007, La Pine High School Auditorium. Date for continued hearing, March 20, 2007. Web site ➢ www.deschutes.org/cdd/ use "Quick Links" to the Groundwater Protection Project. The documents listed below are available on the "Project News" portion of the website. Articles (PDF files) ➢ Newberry Eagle articles planned for each month ➢ Deschutes County Citizen Update article -January publication ➢ Press releases planned prior to each public meeting or event ➢ Bend Bulletin Article, February 22, 2007 ➢ Newberry Eagle article, February 2007 ➢ Bend Bulletin Article, February 1, 2007 ➢ Bend Bulletin Article, January 17, 2007 ➢ Citizen Update Newsletter, January 2007 ➢ Newberry Eagle articles, January 2007 ➢ Journal of Hydrology paper o Supplement 1 o Supplement 2 o Supplement 3 o Supplement 4 ➢ Groundwater Science Open House Notice December 2006 ➢ Bend Bulletin article, December 21, 2006 ➢ Bend Bulletin article, December 20, 2006 ➢ Newberry Eagle article, December 2006 ➢ Bend Bulletin Article, December 1, 2006 ➢ Bend Bulletin Article, November 2006 ➢ Newberry Eagle article, November 2006 ➢ Newberry Eagle article, October 2006 ➢ Newberry Eagle article, September 2006 ➢ Newberry Eagle article, May 2006 ➢ Deschutes County Citizen Update, May 2006 ➢ Bend Bulletin article, May 2006 ➢ Bend Bulletin article, April 2006 ➢ Bend Bulletin article, February 2006 Notices (PDF files) ➢ Press releases planned prior to each public meeting ➢ Notices of meetings posted at area stores, libraries, La Pine Senior Center, post office, etc. ➢ Office Hours Scheduled in January 2007 ➢ Notice of Planning Commission meeting, November 30, 2006 ➢ Notice of Local Rule - Tax Bill Insert. October 2006 ➢ Notice of Groundwater Protection Project (distribution began March 2006) ➢ Groundwater Protection Project Update, September 2006 Local Rule for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems in South Deschutes County Page 19 of 22 Appendix A Brochures (PDF files) ➢ Frequently Asked Questions ➢ Alternatives Analysis ➢ Retrofit Cost Scenarios, Winter 2007 ➢ Proposed Local Rule Concepts ➢ But my water was just tested! November 2006 ➢ Pollution Reduction Credit Program Brochure, Fall 2006 ➢ Project Overview Brochure, Spring 2006 ➢ South County Groundwater Protection History Spring 2006 ➢ Why Not Sewer? Brochure, Spring 2006 Other Outreach/Participation events: ➢ Installer meetings - typically held by Deschutes County Environmental Health staff o August 22, 2006 o October 17, 2006 o Next meeting tentatively planned for January ➢ Realtor meetings o Regular weekly meetings with COAR representatives - typically held by Deschutes County Community Development Director and Planning Director o September 6, 2006 - conducted by County EH staff and the CDD Director o November 27, 2006 (requested by realty office) - presentation provided by EH staff o December 9, 2006 (requested by two realty offices) - two presentations provided by EH staff ➢ Public meetings and events o May 13, 2003, Presentation of results from the 3-D model, groundwater study and nitrogen reducing system field test to the Board of County Commissioners in La Pine. o May 11, 2006, Planning Commission meeting (part of TDC Amendment Hearing) • All published materials leading up to and following up on TDC amendments also referred to the need for a Local Rule (see "Project News" page of website) o November 9, 2006 (requested by the La Pine Senior Center) o November 30, 2006 (hosted by the Deschutes County Planning Commission) o December 20, 2006 (Science Session requested at 11/30/2006 Planning Commission meeting) o Office Hours: • January 4, 2007, 5:00 - 7:00, Deschutes County office, La Pine • January 9, 2007, 1:00-5:00, Village Properties office, Sunriver • January 18, 2007, 1:00-5:00, Village Properties, Sunriver • January 23, 2007 3:00 - 5:00, Deschutes County office, La Pine ➢ Other public information contacts o On-going one on one contacts with EH staff either in person or by phone/e-mail o Deschutes County Home Show, May 2006 o Open House, May 6, 2006, Deschutes County office, 51340 S. Highway 97, La Pine o Groundwater Science Open House, December 20, 2006, 4:00-6:00 PM, 51340 S Highway 97, La Pine o Weekly office hours with CDD staff for four weeks in January in south Deschutes County Local Rule for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems in South Deschutes County Page 20 of 22 Appendix B Groundwater Science Open House December 20, 2006 Staff Available for Q&A: Deschutes County: Tom Anderson, Dan Haldeman, Barbara Rich, Todd Cleveland, Peter Gutowsky, Jerry Kathan, Jeff Freund US Geological Survey: Dave Morgan, Steve Hinkle Oregon DEQ: Bob Baggett Posters/Info Stations: ➢ USGS Groundwater Model and Groundwater Investigation ➢ Nitrogen Reducing Systems ➢ Onsite Wastewater Treatment System Effects on Groundwater ➢ Background and History ➢ Physical model illustrating groundwater flow ➢ The increase in performance standards required as a result of added development between 1999 and 2005 ➢ Map of monitoring and drinking water wells sampled in the region Print Materials Available for Review: ➢ La Pine National Demonstration Project Draft Final Report ➢ La Pine National Demonstration Project Work Plan ➢ Data from the La Pine Project Innovative System Field Test including onsite system data and monitoring well data ➢ South County Regional Cost Benefit Analysis - Regional Problem Solving, Final Report, August 1997, KCM ➢ CDC Health Water Fact Sheet, Nitrate and Drinking Water from Private Wells, Summer 2003 ➢ Oregon DEQ Fact Sheet, Nitrate in Drinking Water, September 2002 ➢ Oregon DEQ Fact Sheet, Southern Willamette Valley Groundwater Management Area Declared, May 2004 ➢ US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Consumer Fact Sheet on: Nitrates/Nitrites, downloaded from http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/epaprintonly.cgi on 12/15/06. ➢ US EPA web page print out, "Drinking Water from Household Wells," http://www.epa.gov/safewater/privatewells/booklet/concern.html downloaded 12/15/06. ➢ "Spontaneous Abortions Possibly Related to Ingestion of Nitrate Contaminated Well Water - LaGrange County, Indiana, 1991-1994," Center for Disease Control, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, July 5, 1996/ 45(26); 569-572. Downloaded from http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00042839.htm on 7/16/01. ➢ "Municipal Drinking Water Nitrate Level and Cancer Risk in Older Women: The Iowa Women's Health Study," Weyer et al, Epidemiology, May 2001, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp 327-338. ➢ "An Analysis of Nitrate-Nitrogen in Groundwater Beneath Unsewered Subdivisions," Tinker, J.R., Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, Winter 1991, pp 141-150. ➢ "Overview of the occurrence of Nitrate in Ground Water of the United States," Madison, R.J. and J.O. Brunett, National Water Summary 1984, Hydrologic Events, Selected Water-Quality Trends, and Ground-Water Resources, US Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2275, pp 93-105. ➢ "Fate and Transport of Biological and Inorganic Contaminants from On-Site Disposal of Domestic Wastewater," Reneau et al, Journal of Environmental Quality, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp 135 - 144. ➢ "Nitrate/Nitrite Toxicity - Additional Suggested Reading," Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, downloaded from http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HEC/CSEM/nitrate/additional-reading.htmi on 12/15/06. Local Rule for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems in South Deschutes County Page 21 of 22 Appendix B ➢ "Nitrate/Nitrite Toxicity," Case Studies in Environmental Medicine, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Course SS3054, Revised January 2001. ➢ "A demonstration of innovative treatment and disposal technologies in environmentally sensitive karst terrain near Rock Bridge Memorial State Park, Missouri," Solomon et al, National Onsite Demonstration Program, downloaded from http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/nodp/nodp_reports.htm on 12/15/06. ➢ "Evaluation of Movement of Septic System Effluent from Lake Development Into Near-Shore Areas of Table Rock Lake, Midwest Environmental Consultants, December 2001. Handouts ➢ Local Rule Concepts ➢ Local Rule Communication Plan and Public Outreach Summary ➢ Transferable Development Credit Technical Advisory Committee Summary of Accomplishments and Direction excerpted from the minutes December 15, 2006 ➢ Bend Bulletin Article, December 20, 2006 ➢ "But my water was just tested!" Deschutes County CDD, November 2006 ➢ "Pollution Reduction Credit Program," Deschutes County CDD, Fall 2006 ➢ "Project Overview," Deschutes County CDD, Spring 2006 ➢ "South County Groundwater Protection History," Deschutes County CDD, Spring 2006 ➢ "How Contaminants Reach Groundwater," University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service, SL143 ➢ "Why Not Sewer?" Deschutes County CDD, Spring 2006 ➢ "Septic tank waste strength and sampling onsite systems: The nuts and bolts," Rich, B.J., et al, reprinted from 2004 Conference Proceedings, 13th Annual Technical Conference and Exposition National Onsite Wastewater Recycling Association. ➢ Papers from the 2003 Conference Proceedings of the 12th Annual Technical Conference and Exposition of the National Onsite Wastewater Recycling Association: o Denitrifying systems using forced aeration in the La Pine National Demonstration Project o Denitrifying systems using packed bed filters in the La Pine National Demonstration Project o Denitrifying systems using sequencing batch reactors and rotating biological contactors in the La Pine National Demonstration Project ➢ "Chemical and Algae Suffocating Lakes & Streams," Cone, M., Los Angeles Times, September 4, 2004. Estimated Attendance: 60-80 persons Press Coverage: Bend Bulletin, KTVZ Local Rule for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems in South Deschutes County Page 22 of 22 REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL For Recording Stamp Only BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON A Resolution Adopting the Nitrate Loading Management Model to Establish Performance * RESOLUTION NO. 2007-023 Standards for Existing Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems in South Deschutes County. WHEREAS, on C) \TE, -'UOX, the Board of County Commissioners (`Board") adopted Ordinance 2007- 011 to add Deschutes County Code Chapter 13.14 to protect public waters from contamination by onsite wastewater treatment systems, and WHEREAS, the US Geological Survey has conducted significant groundwater investigations in the Upper Deschutes River watershed, in general, and the La Pine sub-basin in particular, WHEREAS, the US Geological Survey and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality developed the three-dimensional groundwater and nutrient fate and transport model of the La Pine sub-basin of the Upper Deschutes River watershed, and WHEREAS, the US Geological Survey developed the Nitrate Loading Management Model to use the results of the groundwater study and three-dimensional groundwater and nutrient transport model to create a groundwater quality management tool for use in south Deschutes County, now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, as follows: Section 1. Performance standards for existing onsite wastewater treatment systems shall be a minimum variable standard determined by the Nitrate Loading Management Model. Section 2. The minimum performance standard required shall be 35% reduction of total nitrogen, which is approximately equal to a maximum of 30 mg/l total nitrogen in wastewater treatment system effluent from a typical residence. Section 3. The maximum performance standard required shall be the maximum practicable using systems approved by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Section 4. The performance standards shall be established to maintain 7 mg/L nitrate as N average concentrations in the shallow groundwater in accordance with OAR 340-040, Groundwater Quality Protection. Section 5. The performance standards for the south Deschutes County region will be identified on the map attached as Exhibit "A," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. PAGE 1 of 2 - RESOLUTION NO. 2007-23 (M/D/Y) DATED this day of 1 2007. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON MICHAEL M. DALY, Chair ATTEST: Recording Secretary DENNIS R. LUKE, Vice Chair TAMMY BANEY, Commissioner PAGE 2 of 2 - RESOLUTION NO. 2007-23 (M/DN) Exhibit "A" Nitrate Loading Management Model Performance Standards for Existing Systems Ex38Fut78ShaII7-B Legend Sewered Area City of La Pine County Boundary Nitrate Loading Management Area Q Minimum 35% reduction (<30 mg/L)' 58% - 78% reduction (20-10 mg/L) - Minimum 79% reduction (10 mg/L) •A0 ware depiMd waneut color we required m meet M:,inum 35% reduction. aqR~ '10111 W 00 -11" ~41d giWr OAU Va Stage Stop Meadows $V nGi`t sourH C~r~nm•on 0 1.75 Mi. City of La Pine w~ Fsbrvery 2e, 2007 10amath Co. DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS February 28, 2007, 3:00 p.m. Conference Call #866.279.1568 / *8678842* Agenda 1. CALL TO ORDER - BOARD CHAIR II. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE a. Revenue Forecast i. Courtney announces forecast likely down b. Co-Chairs' Budget i. Due mid-March c. Kicker plan rejected d. County timber receipt replacement discussions remain general III. COUNTY LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES a. Level 1 issues i. Justice Court 1. Conversation with the city of Bend ii. Community mental health services funding iii. Auction and sale of foreclosed properties - set by commission (on hold) iv. General funding equity - Dropped on Feb. 26 b. Level 2 issues i. Expand treatment court program ii. Foreclosure revenue and school funding calculations - HB 2516 1. Hearing overview iii. Increase funding for Mental Health court iv. Oppose law enforcement collective bargaining changes 1. SB 400 passes from Senate Commerce with few amendments 2. Senate floor vote scheduled tentatively for March 5 3. Vote counts are close 4. SB 4o1 and 402 presumed dead; House bills may still be considered v. Traffic code enforcement in special service districts - bill dropped, amendments maybe needed c. Level 3 issues i. In Harms Way legislation - Rep. Whisnant dropped ii. Community Corrections Act funding IV. OTHER BUSINESS Current Measure Status Report Deschutes Comprehensive 2-28-07 Courtesy of Public Affairs Counsel Wednesday, February 28th Bill No. Title Note /Priori /Position F Status Date HB 2021 Makes public agency liable for workers unpaid wages, Public Hearing scheduled 19-Jan fringe benefits and liquidated damages when public agency fails to include certain information about prevailing rates of wage in specifications for public works rnntrart. H Note: Deschutes Priori : N Position: [n/al HB 2030 Eliminates sunset date on statutory authorization for Public Hearing scheduled 29-Jan counties to maintain property tax bankruptcy accounts, moneys from which are used to fund increased collection costs incurred when counties undertake to collect outstanding property taxes that are also subject to hnnk-n intro rni in nrnraarlinnc H Note: Deschutes Priori : N Position: Fn/al HB 2031 Permits county tax collector to petition county court to Public Hearing held 29-Jan cancel uncollectible disqualified deferral amounts on exempt real Dropertv. H Note: Deschutes Priori : N Position: Fn/al HB 2032 Requires Department of Revenue to pay delinquent Public Hearing scheduled 29-Jan taxes, interest and penalties on homesteads for which property tax deferral is claimed by seniors and persons with disabilities. H Note: Deschutes Priori : N Position: n a HQ 2033 Revises definition of "minimum county road base Referred to Transportation with 10-Jan funding" for purposes of allocating moneys from State subsequent referral to Ways and Means Hiahwav Fund. H Note: Deschutes Priori : N Position: n a HB 2130 Removes limitation on proportion of Criminal Fine and Public Hearing and Work Session held 26-Feb Assessment Account appropriation that Criminal Injuries Compensation Account may disburse to county or city comprehensive victims assistance programs. S Note: Deschutes Priori : N Position: n a HB 2139 Provides that mediation of workplace interpersonal Second reading 26-Feb disputes between employees of public body may be confidential. S Note: Deschutes Priori : N Position: n a HB 2162 Extends certain services provided by county veterans Referred to Health Policy and Public 14-Feb service officers to survivors of veterans. Affairs S Note: Deschutes Priori : N Position: n a HB 2228 Increases authority of county assessors to grant Work Session held 27-Feb extensions of time for filinq propertv tax returns. H Note: Deschutes Priori : N Position: fn/al HB 2229 Limits interest on refunds for property tax overpayment Recommendation: Do pass and be 27-Feb to portion of overpayment not attributable to inaccurate placed on Consent Calendar taxpaver reports. H Note: Deschutes Priori : N Position: fn/al HB 2230 Permits Department of Revenue to consider untimely Referred to Finance and Revenue 22-Feb taxpayer applications for tax relief due to destruction or damaae to real Drooerty. 5 Note: Deschutes Priori : N Position: n a Current Measure Status Report Deschutes Comprehensive 2-28-07 Courtesy of Public Affairs Counsel Wednesday, February 28th Bill No. Title Note / Priori / Position Status Date HB 2231 Extends deadline to file application for reassessment of Referred to Finance and Revenue 22-Feb real or personal property value due to destruction or damage if application is filed within 60 days of destruction or damaae. S Note: Deschutes Priori : N Position: n a HB 2232 Permits county boards of property tax appeals to waive Public Hearing held 31-Jan penalties for first-time delinquent real property or combined tax returns. H Note: Deschutes Priori : N Position: n a HB 2234 Eliminates duplicative property tax appeals process in Referred to Finance and Revenue 22-Feb cases of appeals of omitted property. S Note: Deschutes(3) Priori : N Position: n a HQ 2236 Permits counties to pay contested property tax refunds Recommendation: Do pass and be 27-Feb prior to conclusion of property tax appeals. placed on Consent Calendar H Note: Deschutes Priori : N Position: Fn/al HB 2239 Modifies procedures for reviewing assessment rolls, Recommendation: Do pass with 23-Feb correcting clerical errors and omissions, and adding amendments, be printed A-Engrossed, omitted property to assessment rolls that are prepared and be placed on Consent Calendar by Department of Revenue for assessment and annortinnmPnt of rPntrally ascPSSPr1 nrnnPrtv_ H Note: Deschutes Priori : N Position: [n/al HB 2296 Establishes renewable energy research center at Referred to Education with subsequent 16-Jan Cascades Campus of Oreqon State University. referral to Ways and Means H Note: Deschutes Priori : N Position: n a HB 2302 Expands duties of Oregon Criminal Justice Commission. Public Hearing held 2-Feb H Note: Deschutes Priori : N Position: fn/al HB 2404 Modifies definition of "employment relations" to include Public Hearing held 29-Jan certain staffing levels and safety issues for certain emDlovees who are prohibited from striking. H Note: Deschutes(2) Priori : N Position: n a HB 2463 Authorizes local governments to seek protection under Referred to Judiciary 26-Jan federal bankruptcy law. H Note: Deschutes Priori : N Position: Wall HB 2476 Requires public body to require proof that person Public Hearing held 26-Feb contracting to perform building trade work for public bodv is DroDerly licensed. H Note: Deschutes Priori : N Position: Fn/al HB 2516 Provides that revenue from sale of property due to Referred to Revenue 6-Feb delinquent taxes is not local revenue for purposes of calculation of State School Fund grant for school districts and education service districts. H Note: Deschutes Priori : N Position: n a HB 2527 Requires governing body of public body to provide for Referred to Government Accountability 6-Feb sound, video or digital recording or taking of written and Information Technology minutes of certain hearings not subject to public meetinas law. H Note: Deschutes Priori : N Position: Wall Current Measure Status Report Deschutes Comprehensive 2-28-07 Courtesy of Public Affairs Counsel Wednesday, February 28th Bill No. Title Note / Priori / Position Status Date HB 2534 Allows county community corrections agency to reject, Referred to Judiciary 31-Jan based on offenders noncompliance or outstanding warrants, application for transfer of offenders supervision to countv. H Note: Deschutes Priori : N Position: n a HB 2641 Changes amount of school district local option taxes that Public Hearing held 21-Feb are not considered local revenue for purposes of State School Fund distribution formula. H Note: Deschutes Priori : N Position: n a HB 2691 Increases amount of vehicle registration fees county or Referred to Revenue 15-Feb district may collect. H Note: Deschutes Priori : N Position: n a HB 2723 Grants cities and counties authority to approve creation Referred to Energy and the Environment 21-Feb of lot or parcel that does not meet all requirements for land division for specified purchaser who acquires land without knowledge of legal status of land. H Note: Deschutes Priori : N Position: n a HB 2727 Eliminates offset from State School Fund grants of Referred to Revenue 21-Feb property taxes of school district that are imposed on certain growth in district. H Note: Deschutes Priori : N Position: n a HB 2768 Adds sheriff services to types of services that can be First readin Referred to S k d k 22 F b g. pea ers es - e provided by county service districts. H Note: Deschutes Priori : N Position: n a HIM 5 Urges Congress to pass legislation to reauthorize and First reading. Referred to Presidents 26-Feb extend Secure Rural Schools and Community Self- desk Determination Act of 2000 through federal fiscal year 2016 and to fund Act with mandatory, continuing annrnnriatinn_ S Note: Deschutes Priori : N Position: n a SB 33 Clarifies responsibility of Department of Human Services Referred to Health and Human Services 12-Jan relatinq to drinkinq water. S Note: Deschutes Priori : N Position: n a SB 43 Decreases earliest time for collection of delinquent Referred to Finance and Revenue 11-Jan property taxes from one year to three months. S Note: Deschutes Priori : N Position: n a SB 111 Creates planning authority in each county to develop Public Hearing and Possible Work 15-Feb plan concerning use of deadly physical force by police Session scheduled officers. S Note: Deschutes Priori : N Position: Wail SB 171 Permits counties to share tax return information when Referred to Revenue 23-Feb taxpayers transfer property between counties or operate businesses in multiDle counties. H Note: Deschutes Priori : N Position: n a Current Measure Status Report Deschutes Comprehensive 2-28-07 Courtesy of Public Affairs Counsel Wednesday, February 28th Bill No. Title I Note / Priori / Position Status Date SB 173 Permits Department of Revenue to disclose tax Referred to Revenue 23-Feb information to cities, counties, other political subdivisions of other states or associations established exclusively to provide services to taxing authorities, if city, county, other political subdivision or association has or is governed by law meeting federal Internal Revenue Code rnnfirlantinlihi raniiiramantc H Note: Deschutes Priori : N Position: n a SB 308 Modifies meaning of "owner" and "landowner" for Public Hearing held 31-Jan purposes of certain annexations of territory. S Note: Deschutes Priori : N Position: n a SB 310 Authorizes private sale of county land that is not suited Second reading 12-Feb for construction or placement of dwelling under applicable zoning ordinances and building codes, whether ordinances and codes are adopted by county or other nnvernmPntal entity S Note: Deschutes Priori : N Position: n a SB 319 Changes name of drug court program to treatment court Referred to Judiciary 17-Jan program. S Note: Deschutes Priori : N Position: [n/al SB 374 Establishes framework for local governments to request Referred to Emergency Preparedness 17-Jan and receive mutual assistance from other local and Ocean Policy governments during declared emergencies and in Dreoaration for emeraencv response. S Note: Deschutes Priori : N Position: n a SB 400 Modifies definition of "employment relations" to include Recommendation: Do pass 26-Feb certain staffing levels and safety issues for certain emDlovees who are Drohibited from striking. S Note: Deschutes 2 0 Priori : N Position: n a SB 401 Modifies definition of "supervisory employee" for Public Hearing and Work Session 7-Feb purposes of public employee collective bargaininq law. scheduled S Note: Deschutes 2 0 Priori : N Position: Wall SB 402 Modifies criteria used by arbitrators in public collective Public Hearing and Work Session 7-Feb bargaininq. scheduled S Note: Deschutes 2 0 Priori : N Position: n a SB 422 Directs county clerk to employ personnel on Saturday Public Hearing held 22-Feb- and Sunday immediately preceding primary or general election to provide candidates, political committees, political parties or other persons with information listing electors who have cast ballot at primary or general alarhinn S Note: Deschutes Priori : N Position: n a SB 440 Expands information to be included on manufactured Public Hearing held 5-Feb structure ownership documents issued on or after effective date of Act. S Note: Deschutes Priori : N Position: [n/al SB 475 Prohibits person from disclosing or transferring Social Referred to Commerce 2-Feb Securitv numbers. 5 Note: Deschutes(3) Priori : N Position: n a Current Measure Status Report Deschutes Comprehensive 2-28-07 Courtesy of Public Affairs Counsel Wednesday, February 28th Bill No. Title Note / Priori / Position Status Date SB 497 Requires all judicial officers, city and county elected Referred to Rules 12-Feb officials, members of city or county planning, zoning or development commissions and chief executive officers of cities and counties to file statement of economic interest with Oregon Government Standards and Practices ('nmmiccinn S Note: Deschutes Priori : N Position: n a SB 535 Provides opportunity for counties to reacquire certain Referred to Environment and Natural 16-Feb forestlands previously acquired by State Board of Resources, then Finance and Revenue Forestry from counties without consideration other than statutory revenue sharina. S Note: Deschutes Priori : N Position: n a SB 542 Requires city or county to prepare and review economic Referred to Business, Transportation and 19-Feb impact report before approving or disapproving Workforce Development application for permit to construct retail building larger than 100.000 cross sauare feet. S Note: Deschutes Priori : N Position: n a SB 625 Modifies value of county land eligible to be sold by Referred to Business, Transportation and 26-Feb private sale. Workforce Development S Note: Deschutes Priori : N Position: fn/al SB 650 Makes office of county assessor appointed office unless Referred to Education and General 22-Feb charter provides otherwise. Government S Note: Deschutes Priori : N Position: n a SB 5505 Appropriates moneys from General Fund to Department Public Hearing held 26-Feb of Corrections for certain biennial expenses. 5 Note: Deschutes Priori : N Position: n a