The URL can be used to link to this page

2014-359-Minutes for Meeting May 19,2014 Recorded 7/7/2014 DESCHUTES BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK CJ Y014.359 NANCY COMMISSIONERS ' JOURNAL 07/07/2014 11'21'17 AM i 111iii1iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii J-1ES O O 0 P { Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY, MAY 19, 2014 Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Anthony DeBone and Alan Unger. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Wayne Lowry, Finance; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel, Nick Lelack, Will Groves, Lori Furlong, Tim Grundeman, Todd Cleveland, John Griley and Peter Gutowsky, Community Development; and approximately twenty other citizens, including media representative Elon Glucklich of The Bulletin. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. 1. Discussion of Finance/Tax Update. Wayne Lowry explained that regarding the portfolio, they have increased investments, and are now at about $83 million. Debt service is paid this time of the year, so this will reduce the limit. The bulk of the investing has been completed at this time. Rates have not changed that much, so it made sense to go forward with investments. There has been no real change in the general fund, but this is shown combined with the Bethlehem Inn fund. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, May 19, 2014 Page 1 of 13 The Clerk's revenue has increased the second month in a row. The Sheriff s ending balance has improved. Community Development is showing increased activity as is recognized in the projected balance, and they should reach this. Their fund is looking very strong. In regard to capital funds, the jail project was a negative number but will be funded next year. Otherwise, the fund is doing well. Progress payments will become smaller over time. 2. Review of a Request for a Fee Waiver for a Zone Change Application, related to the Bend Airport Master Plan Update. This portion of the meeting was audio recorded. Nick Lelack said there is a request from the City of Bend in the amount of $5,000 for a fee waiver, about the cost of a zone change. He wants to make sure the area and designation are correct. In 2002, 3 subzone districts were adopted but not mapped. A zone change will correct this. (He referred to a handout at this time.) Laurie Craghead reminded the Board that this is a work session and not a public hearing, so they normally would not take testimony. If they do, this will need to be disclosed at a hearing if one occurs. Chair Baney said that she sees this a little differently since it involves another public entity. Commissioner Unger said he supports splitting the fee 50/50 with the City. Commissioner DeBone asked what the work product is. Mr. Lelack replied it would result in an accurate map. There will be a zone change application with findings, which they will take legislatively to the Planning Commission. If supported, it would then come to the Board for final approval. Chair Baney stated that she feels 50/50 is appropriate. Tom Anderson noted that typically the Board makes this type of cost up out of the general fund so other applicants do not have to make up the shortfall for this applicant. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, May 19, 2014 Page 2 of 13 UNGER: Move that the County enter into a 50/50 fee waiver for $5,000 with the City, with the County's portion of the funds coming from general fund. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. 3. Consideration of Hearing an Appeal, either De Novo or On the Record (Leading Edge Fuel Station). Will Groves explained this is in regard to an appeal of a land use decision. It is the second review of this matter. The Hearings Officer approved it, the Board declined to hear it, and the appeal went to LUBA who remanded it and said the Hearings Officer did not appropriately interpret certain factors. The Hearings Office revised the findings and it went back to LUBA, which again declined it. The applicant has agreed to extend the time limit if the Board will hear it. At issue is Code at the Bend Airport, regarding the master plan and transportation plan, which interlock. The effect of the plan is the debate. Plans are general guidance documents that can be updated over time. The opponent feels they are not. The Hearings Officer found the language does not support this, and talks about recommendations and guidance, and accommodating change. Normally staff would not ask the Board to hear this, but would appreciate the Board's interpretation. The opponent would like a de novo review. The Board can hear it on the record or decline review altogether. Staff concurs with the Hearings Officer but the Board has the ultimate ability to decide. Staff recommends an on the record appeal hearing, with no new evidence. There would be legal argument and rebuttal at a hearing. The key reason for this is that all relevant documents have been entered into the record already. The argument is mostly about what Code means in this situation. Ms. Craghead said that the opponents asked for a de novo review. Statute allows an extension of the time period at the request of the applicant. The Commissioners agreed that it should be heard, and on the record. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, May 19, 2014 Page 3 of 13 DEBONE: Move Board signature of Order 2014-015, allowing for this to be heard on the record. UNGER: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. The audio recording ended at this time. 4. Update on Code Enforcement Policies and Procedures Review. Mr. Lelack stated the volume and activity for the department has increased greatly. They are prepared with a presentation and a matrix, to learn if the Board is ready to initiate public hearings and go forward. John Griley conducted a PowerPoint presentation at this time. He said complaint based code enforcement is about 95% of what they do. The average is about 250 cases a year, which are resolved more quickly now than in the past. About 85% of code enforcement cases result in voluntary compliance. Citations are a last resort, with only about 4% of cases requiring a citation. Adjustments to the policies were made due to some redundancy, and the procedure or injunction has changed. The complaint policy is to keep the parties' names confidential during the process, but it then becomes public record when it has been resolved. Most jurisdictions prioritize or allow staff to initiate investigations, but this is a small percentage. In regard to the complaining party not being identified, some jurisdictions will separate this information from the case. Anonymous complaints might be addressed, depending on the nature of the problem. Commissioner Unger said that he does not like anonymous complaints, but it depends on whether it is compelling enough to affect safety or the environment. Ms. Craghead noted that she advises against accepting verbal complaints as well. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, May 19, 2014 Page 4 of 13 Commissioner Unger asked that if a code enforcement person noted something while driving by, how this is handled. The City feels there needs to be more equity. Chair Baney said that if there are safety or health concerns, that is different from other things. Commissioner DeBone stated he is comfortable with the procedure as it is. It already can be awkward. Commissioner Unger said he supports the confidentiality part. Otherwise sometime serious might not be addressed, and he wants a case to have a chance to be properly concluded. Mr. Griley noted that if there are complaints from CDD staff, it is good to be up front with the public or the person subject to a violation. This prevents an awkward situation at the end of the case as well. This could extend to complaints from other agencies and departments. Regarding compliance versus enforcement, Mr. Griley said that every case is unique. Commissioner Unger noted that people do not always hear what you say, and will state that staff told them something else. He suggested this be memorialized. Chair Baney asked about case turnaround. Some seem to take a long time or people complain that something is not moving forward fast enough. There are waiting periods, but she wonders what those are based on. She feels there should be goals or language that will enable things to move forward more quickly. She knows there can be many factors involved, but someone may be watching and they do not know what is happening so think nothing is. Mr. Anderson stated that some violations get double fees if they are not timely. Lori Furlong said that sometimes the courts give them more time than the County would. There is a recommendation made to the Judge but it does not have to be followed. Mr. Lelack asked if a numeric benchmark or target might help. Mr. Griley said that they could have an intended workflow timeframe, and set up certain dates. It can depend on other limiting factors, such as financial aspects. Additional penalties may not resolve it any faster. He understands this issue, and it was included in their recommendations. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, May 19, 2014 Page 5of13 He explained that citations are used as a last resort. An injunction is when a citation did not work at the court level. The reality is that in circuit court, fines are rarely imposed. Courts want to know how to resolve the problem instead. Often a timeframe and fine are set, but are ultimately vacated. Building code violations can be up to $1,000 a day; others are up to $2,000 per day. This is different from other jurisdictions, as initial violation penalties are higher here. Others are tiered or compounded. This has been a big topic in recent months. They need to determine if fines should be tiered or reflective of the type of violation. Chair Baney asked if there is a good model for this. Mr. Griley responded that he could not find good information overall by the type of violation. Ms. Craghead stated that `all other violations' mean zoning, building, and solid waste. This does not include room tax payments or permits from the Road. Department. These presumptive fines are not the same others at this point. Mr. Griley said they are operating status quo at this time. Ms. Craghead noted that the presumptive fine is not yet the same as the actual fine. The Ordinance has not yet been finalized by the Board. The Courts do not know what to do. Mr. Griley stated he is not sure how to go about doing this. He will try to find more complete information from other jurisdictions. The Code Enforcement Association may be of some help. Commissioner Unger feels they are doing very well with voluntary compliance, but if this does not work, they need to pull out the hammer if there is no sense of cooperation. Tim Grundeman said there is a solid waste case that has been going on for two years and the people just will not comply. The Judge finally set a $2,000 fine. However, this is a daily fine. This is an extreme situation and new testing ground. Chair Baney asked if the property owner can come up with this kind of money. Ms. Furlong stated that in general, it is difficult for most. The Court can send it to collection. Ms. Craghead added that there can be an injunction if it is not met, and a filing for contempt and a daily fine, and eventually it becomes the County's responsibility and the property can be seized. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, May 19, 2014 Page 6 of 13 Mr. Lelack said the penalties cannot be so damaging that the property owner cannot get ahead of it. The County wants the situation corrected. Mr. Griley added that often the Judge will go along with what the County recommends. Chair Baney said they should send it out like it is and see what happens. Commissioner Unger noted that it seems to be working in most situations. Mr. Griley said the procedures manual give them the ability to fine, but the fine amounts are set in Code. Chair Baney asked about setting penalties and a timeline. Mr. Griley stated that the existing manual has good ideas, but it also includes restricting permits if there is an existing Code violation. However, they may have to get a permit to get the work done to correct the violation. This is a placeholder at this time. Ms. Craghead stated that this was related mostly to land use. For instance, someone built a house but not according to the permits. They would not issue a permit to build a shop until the other is addressed. Or, they built a shop without permits and wish to expand the house. Or, the issue might have something to do with compliance with flood plain mitigation, or a woodstove permit. Chair Baney said she is not inclined to lean in that direction. Ms. Craghead stated that this has been a citizen request for years. Chair Baney said she is worried about making adjustments for the few, since those adjustments might have unforeseen impacts on the many. Mr. Griley said they could keep the same text with a disclaimer. Mr. Lelack stated that they will not change policy without direction. He recommends a text amendment if it is to remain as a policy; or otherwise remove that portion of the policy. This is an ongoing work plan item. Chair Baney said they could ask for public input to see if anyone else is interested. Ms. Craghead stated that someone may need to do flood plain mitigation or include a heating source. Counsel feels it had unintended consequences. Mr. Anderson noted that there should be sufficient authority without a Code change. Commissioner Unger stated that perhaps someone forgot an issue, so they could maybe not stop the permit but take a look at the first issue again. Mr. Lelack noted that it will still come up in hearings. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, May 19, 2014 Page 7 of 13 Commissioner DeBone stated that if they see a code enforcement issue and there is activity, a bad situation will become obvious. Mr. Lelack said that an example could be a home occupation with a failing septic system, and unintended consequences. Commissioner DeBone stated they would have to stop to fix something, or perhaps it could be well documented. Ms. Craghead said maybe the first has nothing to do with the other and there is no relationship, so they should not hold up the other for the first. Chair Baney said that they are already working towards voluntary compliance, and there should not be a situation going on for long without a remedy, except for the few that might end up in court. She does not feel this is necessary, but would like them to reach clarity sooner. The Board said that this topic should be left in for discussion. Commissioner DeBone asked how County-initiated code enforcement would come up. Mr. Griley replied that it could be from building inspectors or others. If it is on the same property, this is in the manual and they would address it. If it is not the same property and it is not a health or safety issue, they would not. A permit requires an inspection. The Board directed that the appropriate changes be made to the document, that they get feedback from various entities and parties, and then a hearing will be scheduled. The Board would like to see a revised matrix noting the changes. 5. Discussion of the CDD Work Plan for FY 14-15. Mr. Lelack presented the proposed work plan. He said the Planning Commission and Historic Landmarks Commission have reviewed it and are supportive. They held a work session and a public hearing, but there was little testimony. He reviewed a matrix and showed projects that have been initiated that are not on the plan. Some are a carry-over from the previous year. It now includes three citizen-initiated proposals. The only one not listed is from the Sunriver Homeowners' Association board, which wants to be informed of activities that might apply to them. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, May 19, 2014 Page 8 of 13 From a high-level viewpoint, some projects will be carried over from the current year into next year. They have some big items to complete. Any new projects depend on staffing. Several large projects need to be taken on. One item to address is the TDC/PRC issue. Peter Gutowsky spoke about accomplishments, such as the La Pine intergovernmental agreement and local control. Kevin Harris advised him that the department had 300 additional customers this past year and a lot more land use applications. Noteworthy also in La Pine was economic development and the La Pine Land Conveyance Act, which impacts wastewater treatment and Parks and Recreation, which will require coordination into next year. There will be UGB amendments to serve the rodeo grounds with water and sewer. Regarding the agricultural lands program, there is a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and the Board in June. They are working on Goal 11 exception coordination, the brownfields grant, TGM with the City of Bend, the demo landfill, a historic preservation plan, the Oregon spotted frog and sage grouse, and domestic livestock issues. Ms. Furlong stated that they converted software to a building module with the State, and are launching planning and code enforcement this week with the City of Redmond, which is mutually beneficial. It has taken over a year for this software conversion. They had to think about different ways to handle other things, like scanned records. This work will mean involving less staff in the future. They are replacing reports on website and make information more accessible. They have conducted public outreach to contractors and others, with a State coordinator. Harney and. Crook counties are also involved. This system will be region-wide, except for the City of Bend. Chair Baney asked about the life of the contract. Ms. Furlong said that the committee worked on getting input from the east side for the State program. She attended a national Acela conference to learn how agencies can manage this on their own. They are also moving the La Pine CDD office to La Pine City Hall soon. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, May 19, 2014 Page 9 of 13 The code enforcement manual is a big undertaking. Code enforcement has been busy with typical but also high-profile and complicated cases last year, and ongoing. This takes a lot of coordination. Some volunteers help with code enforcement work. Mr. Lelack said that the Acela conversion became a lot bigger undertaking as they went along. Ms. Furlong's participation on a statewide level meant that it could be molded into what the County needs. They also have to make sure the finances stay on budget, while they meet deadlines. Dave Pedersen stated that permits and inspections increased almost double over the previous year. They developed more efficiencies, including sending four inspectors to a class for electrical training. Eventually the hope is they can avoid having to send more than one inspector to the same property for different things. Other efficiencies involve keeping the 10-day turnaround time for plan review. Predesign meetings help with efficiency for bigger projects. They make themselves available to property owners to be there at the start. Mr. Lelack noted that many inspectors are working after hours or on weekends to accommodate customers. Todd Cleveland said he has been very busy with septic inspections. They have on-call help as site evaluations have greatly increased. There are more failing systems seen this time of the year, and more overall building going on. Dealing with potential health hazards is a priority. They have one FTE on the proposed budget. The DEQ is having a problem finding qualified applicants for their part of this work. The County continues to work with the DEQ on south County issues. Inquiries about projects have increased as well. They are working with Neighbor Impact regarding loans and rebates, and are investigation other ways to offer financial assistance. Mr. Cleveland Governor's added that the Governor s efficiency taskforce work was completed this year and recommendations came out of that. Some counties want to push this work to the DEQ. He sits on several advisory groups. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, May 19, 2014 Page 10 of 13 Mr. Lelack said that the destination resort overlay map comes up in August. Some residents have asked to be un-mapped. Mr. Gutowsky added that this is a policy choice for the Board. This activity cannot be done more frequently than every 36 months. It involves public notice and a lot more. They have only done this in the past when there were requests to add to the map, and applicants pay a fee for this. Un-mapping was handled by staff during that process. So handling this would take some time. Mr. Lelack said it could be privately initiated with a fee paid. The process for the County could cost $10,000. Mr. Gutowsky stated that they can continue this conversation and figure out if it should be pursued. Commissioner Unger stated that the work plan elements do not show staff time needed for each, or how far it could go into the year. It would be helpful to know this. Mr. Lelack said that the Planning Commission is prioritizing. There are some proposals from citizens that are not yet on the plan. Mr. Gutowsky stated that he feels they can accomplish what is now in the plan, but if something new gravitates into the m ix, they will need to talk about what should be taken off. Otherwise, they will need additional staff resources, especially for long-range planning. Chair Baney asked that they consider#22, firewise standards, from the beginning of the project. This seems like best practices to her. Mr. Gutowsky said that all new destination resorts have to coordinate with the Forester to be firewise. This policy may just enforce that. They all have CCR's to maintain firewise standards. Early coordination with Miller Tree Farm suggests this, and they seem receptive. The Board agreed they should proceed with the draft to a public hearing. 6. Other Items. Mr. Anderson said that the Assessor is pulling the farm deferral off the Shepherd's property. He has spoken publicly that he has not really farmed the land in a while. No one else brought this up Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, May 19, 2014 Page 11of13 The Assessor offered to meet with him to talk about minimizing the tax bill, through perhaps grazing or a tree farm or a wildlife zone, but Mr. Shepherd has not opted to speak with him at this time. He might at best now have chickens on a couple of acres. The financial impact could be as much as$2,000 a year. Mr. Lelack noted that Mr. Shepherd has testified publicly that he has no farming going on. Mr. Anderson stated that Jerry Aplin wants to meet with the entire Board. This is not recommended. Mr. Anderson is strategizing this issue with Mr. Lelack. Tom: Jerry Aplin wants to meet with the entire Board, not recommended. Strategizing with Nick. Chair Baney had to leave the meeting at this time. Commissioner Unger asked what the south County building is being used for, if Community Development is moving out. Mr. Kropp said that it is used by Health Services, Neighbor Impact and the Sheriff Commissioner DeBone added that Behavioral Health divided the conference room and is expanding. It will become a health hub. OSU Extension has part of the space. Parole & Probation is there as well, so it is mostly spoken for. It is an adequate building, but could use something to make it more aesthetically pleasing. Being no further items brought up for discussion, the meeting adjourned at 3:45 p.m. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, May 19, 2014 Page 12 of 13 DATED this 56 Day of 2014 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioner CI( 51, - 7 Tammy Baney, Chair I4 i/ Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair ATTEST: Alan Unger, Commissioner Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, May 19, 2014 Page 13 of 13 �v-cES o QDeschutes 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., MONDAY, MAY 19, 2014 1. Discussion of Finance/Tax Update — Wayne Lowry 2. Review of a Request for a Fee Waiver for a Zone Change Application, related to the Bend Airport Master Plan Update —Nick Lelack 3. Consideration of Hearing an Appeal, either De Novo or On the Record (Leading Edge Fuel Station) — William Groves 4. Update on Code Enforcement Policies and Procedures Review—John Griley, Nick Lelack 5. Discussion of the CDD Work Plan for FY 14-15 —Nick Lelack 6. Other Items PLEASE NOTE:At any time during this meeting,an executive session could he called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2)(c),real property negotiations;ORS 192.660(2)(h),litigation;ORS 192.660(2)(d),labor negotiations;or ORS 192.660(2)(b),personnel issues;or other issues under ORS 192.660(2),executive session. 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 encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities. If you need accommodations to make participation possible,please call(541)388-6571,or send an c-mail to bonnie.baker@dcschutes.org. „,, F -S-, 1 .3 L„, -,,„ 4 L. ' • Y Z-) cu —a t , (,) , I I �i ,,,d TAI L czt vI �' I :. { i i -',5-t-. I f4) 4- \,4 (f- ttt i.,•9 ”, M N II . L 0 c� I 0 0.i (9. 'tv\ M' ► c� V1 jai APT N} ( C\ NI ✓. ,, C G1; CN �I v - �, II ' 'I I � Cb gl a 2 3 �►,i' __., ., ,:j' "O ;:-Diji tut � 3 � I o�c � :irl v s 1. � �I �I 01' � , co lr i � � I '2 � ! �� ' II 41 , Q ■ a C ---'' k 4,,,, ,,,i, w v., \ u J %) a r �I 4 I rat bo 0 1 s ^i \ ✓ . J J I a ‘11 0.) co ' s> \., > __-) C''''---7.:_:1) NI I V\ 4 .,-, - 4-- T '1i C,: FI Q dj CI a �--• ` al I 1� a., Monthly Meeting with Board of Commissioners Finance Director/Treasurer AGENDA May 19, 2014 (1) Monthly Investment Report (2) April 2014 Financials M c7 O CO O 4 C M y r- I� M C ie e e d ' 0 M M O s O Q e p Q CD ti) ¢ e A e 0 O c") H _ IL ti 4.1, U) CO C�i h • 0 } 0 c7 Q Q co O O d .w e Tr Tr Q y L a 0 4Y O croi — 0) O' U) U N N E .. > uo co c c U � C N to Fr _ 1 co- ( Q1 O o 0 0 J+ 4) d r N- ti ti ` 2 o a o t a0, t O >-Q a c in 1- co o re c a a aoc c "' a nag' ° v ] - cc 03 to N J M 0 = M . . . a cco ao0 c a) J d d O 47. N- C EO^ o V N z Gs to U pin m C Q C G p a e o 0 0 o a o 0 0 O d) = 4 4 n N in N N - N 111 C) O 40 C0 41 41 U E - C) iii co o _ u_ E E v y N 7 C N f0 _ U co Q _ d E _ E y 0 X U U N f6 Z2 Q E U Q1 co N OS C U N d C• ~ cC Q < ta m •C co cu } a o 2 Vi o f� (0 • @ r O U Q N E 10 D C1 H ili 1) .U o p N Crj - -0 c C M "U6 a 0 UDC u_ rn- 2o � c■ D / le- '4) o ° o o ° 0 4 0 CL el. Net cnm O N I7�'I • 6 •• •0) t° ©• a 0 'Y4.,', N N CC Cl) `5 o 0'',I mrn CI za. N T. H U) 0.)' O O Ci d O - N _"= y► ii o � O A' O (QOO N 07 (0 ++ mrnN 4.1 CO N- <- 0 CO n C ro o u_a ,:. '. M eO in ti CO O r o�.M O •' N M l0 T E o z o cv U O � U a 69 6 CAO T • ++ a •4 0--a° 1 Q. ,;. • o m 'c c E „ pZV, () mU N Y F. N U' a ( Q) 2 ¢ O c m n Q ( • oUH � m iiN ~ Ea) J 0 = o i • O o 0; MU --- u_ _1 I- 03 Deschutes County Investments Portfolio Management Portfolio Details-Investments April 30,2014 Purchase Maturity Days To Ratings Coupon Par Market Book Call CUSIP Security Broker Date Date Maturity Moodys S&P Rate YTM 365 Value Value Value Date SYS10078 Local Govt Investment Pool 7/1/2006 - - 1 0.540 0.540 56,948,248 56,948,248 56,948,248 - - SYS10084 Bank of the Cascades 7/1/2006 - - 1 0.250 0.250 3,887,636 3,887,636 3,887,636 - - 938429ZE0 Washington County SD Municipal PJ 5/6/2013 6/1/2014 31 AA- M2 5.000 0.300 600,000 602,406 602,344 - - 972002570 Umpqua Bank 6/7/2012 6/7/2014 37 0,400 0.406 240,000 240,000 240,000 - - PWB9393001582 PremierWest Bank CD 7/6/2012 7/6/2014 66 0,600 0.608 240,000 240,000 240,000 - - 8Y510321 Home Federal Bank CD 9/19/2013 9/19/2014 141 0,130 0.132 100,000 100,000 100,000 - - 4001174329 Columbia State Bank CD 12/5/2013 12/5/2014 218 0.210 0.213 140,000 140,000 140,000 - - 8941748454 Sterling Savings Bank CD 7/1/2013 1/1/2015 245 0.200 0.203 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 - - HFBCD Home Federal Bank CD 2/1/2013 1/31/2015 275 0.200 0.203 140,000 140,000 140,000 - - 94980VAA6 Wells Fargo Corporate Note VVF 3/7/2013 2/9/2015 284 A+ Al 4.750 0.750 2,000,000 2,067,640 2,061,216 - - 91159HGU8 US Bancorp CASTLE 1/22/2014 3/4/2015 307 A+ Al 3.150 0.401 500,000 512,100 511,528 - - 4001154309 Columbia State Bank CD 4/1/2013 3/30/2015 333 0.150 0.152 100,000 100,000 100,000 - - 273-150017-5 South Valley Bank CD 5/20/2013 5/20/2015 384 0.748 0.758 200,000 200,000 200,000 - - 36962G4L5 General Electric-Corporate N CASTLE 11/15/2013 6/29/2015 424 AA+ Al 3.500 0.656 750,000 775,605 774,592 - - 36962G4L5 General Electric-Corporate N CASTLE 11/25/2013 6/29/2015 424 AA+ Al 3.500 0.550 1,275,000 1,318,529 1,318,416 - - 3692G5F7 General Electric-Corporate N CASTLE 9/17/2013 6/30/2015 425 AA+ Al 2.375 0.865 1,400,000 - - p 1,430,814 1,424,358 36962G5F7 General Electric-Corporate N CASTLE 1/10/2014 6/30/2015 425 AA+ Al 2,375 0.501 545,000 556,995 556,831 - - 5Y510316 Umpqua Bank 7/9/2013 7/9/2015 434 0.500 0.507 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,0001 - - 94985H5F7 Wells Fargo Corporate Note CASTLE 9/30/2013 7/20/2015 445 AA- AA3 0.750 0.541 1,000,000 1,003,390 1,002,533 - - 91159HGX2 US Bancorp CASTLE 4/2/2014 7/27/2015 452 A+ Al 2.450 0.501 1,180,000 1,208,155 1,208,364 - - 91159HGX2 U S Bank-Corp Note CASTLE 3/26/2014 7/27/2015 452 A+ Al 2.450 0.500 1,573,000 1,610,532 1,610,820 - - 315G0PR8 Federal National Mtg Assn CASTLE 10/9/2013 10/9/2015 526 AA+ Aaa 0.480 0.450 1,000,000 1,001,370 1,000,432 10/9/2014 064159BA3 Bank of Nova Scotia CASTLE 3/25/2014 10/9/2015 526 A+ Aa2 0.750 0.510 2,000,000 2,006,020 2,006,863 - - 064159BA3 Bank of Nova Scotia CASTLE 4/3/2014 10/9/2015 526 A+ Aa2 0.750 0.621 540,000 541,625 540,999 - - 3134G4HZ4 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE 10/28/2013 10/28/2015 545 AA+ Aaa 0.500 0.500 2,000,000 2,003,560 2,000,000 10/28/2014 742718055 Procter&Gamble CASTLE 12/6/2013 11/15/2015 563 AA- AA3 1.800 0.430 1,000,000 1,019,940 1,020,971 - - SYS10368 Royal Bank of Canada VINISP 3/27/2014 12/15/2015 593 AA- Aaa 2.625 0.6001 1,500,000 1,549,650 1,548,941 - - 532457AN8 Eli Lilly&Co. CASTLE 3/24/2014 1/1/2016 610 AA- A2 6.570 0.500' 1,408,000 1,544,562 1,549,613 - - 084670BG2 Berkshire Hathaway Inc CASTLE 3/3/2014 2/11/2016 651 AA Aa2 0.800 0.500 I 3,000,000 3,015,900 3,015,899 - - 3133ECFM1 Federal Farm Credit Bank CASTLE 4/30/2014 2/22/2016 662 AA+ Aaa 0.490 0.488 4,000,000 3,996,960 4,000,120 - - 17275RAC6 Cisco Systems Inc CASTLE 2/27/2014 2/22/2016 662 AA- Al 5.500 0.550 1,874,000 2,041,123 2,040,599 - - 06406HCG20 Bank of New York Mellon Corp CASTLE 4/4/2014 3/4/2016 673 A+ Al 0.700 0.681 1,000,000 999,850 1,000,346 2/3/2016 064159BV7 Bank of Nova Scotia CASTLE 3/11/2014 3/15/2016 684 A+ Aa2 0.950 0.680 1,000,000 1,007,060 1,005,008 - - 3135GORH8 Federal National Mtg Assn CASTLE 2/6/2014 5/6/2016 736 AA+ Aaa 0.550 0.550 1,000,000 1,000,060 1,000,000 5/6/2014 478160AY0 Johnson&Johnson CASTLE 1/7/2014 5/15/2016 745 MA Aaa 2.150 0.620 1,529,000 1,576,124 1,576,272 - - 9497460U8 Wells Fargo Corporate Note VINISP 2/20/2014 6/15/2016 776 A+ A2 3.676 0.750 1,000,000 1,059,480 1,061,440 - - 686053CF4 Oregon School Boards Assoc CASTLE 3/7/2014 6/30/2016 791 A+ Aa2 0.000 0,999 3,000,000 2,921,850 2,935,991 - - 3130A0UP3 Federal Home Loan Bank CASTLE 2/19/2014 8/19/2016 841 AA- Aaa 0.700 0.700 2,000,000 2,000,600 2,000,000 5/19/2014 3130A0UP3 Federal Home Loan Bank CASTLE 2/19/2014 8/19/2016 841 M+ Aaa 0.700 0.700 2,000,000 2,000,600 2,000,000 5/19/2014 912828RF9 U.S.Treasury CASTLE 12/27/2013 8/31/2016 853 AA+ Aaa 1,000 0.646 1,000,000 1,009,770 1,008,177 - - 31359YLS4 Federal National Mtg Assn PJ 3/5/2014 9/15/2016 868 M+ Aaa 0,778 0.812 672,000 658,620 659,388 - - 3134G4HK7 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE 3/27/2014 10/24/2016 907 M+ Aaa 0.500 1.119 3,015,000 3,017,563 3,017,520 10/24/2014 912828RM4 U.S.Treasury CASTLE 12/27/2013 10/31/2016 914 AA+ Aaa 1.000 0.727 1,000,000 1,008,590 1,006,735 - - 3134G4K98 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE 2/20/2014 11/7/2016 921 AA+ Aaa 0.800 0.800 2,000,000 1.999,060 2,000,000 5/7/2014 3133ECWV2 Federal Farm Credit Bank CASTLE 12/17/2013 12/7/2016 951 M+ Aaa 0.875 0.7221 2,100,000 2,104,977 2,108,616 - - 3136G1XP9 Federal National Mtg Assn PJ 3/6/2014 12/19/2016 963 AA+ Aaa 0.800 0.788 2,000,000 1,997,100 2,000,643 11/19/2014 912828RX0 U.S.Treasury CASTLE 12/20/2013 12/31/2016 975 AA+ Aaa 0.875 0.724 1,000,000 1,003,750 1,003,991 - - 06406HCA5 Bank of New York Mellon Corp CASTLE 4/23/2014 1/17/2017 992 A+ Al 2.400 1.067 2,000,000 2,069,380 2,071,018 12/18/2016 3130A1HX9 Federal Home Loan Bank MBS 4/23/2014 1/23/2017 998 AA+ Aaa 1.000 0.985 2,000,000 2,002,960 2,000,794 7/23/2014 9128285C5 U.S.Treasury CASTLE 1/16/2014 1/31/2017 1006 AA+ Aaa 0.875 0.844 2,000,000 2,005,780 2,001,698 - - 3130A0SM3 Federal Home Loan Bank VINISP 2/21/2014 2/21/2017 1027 M+ Aaa 1.000 0.939 2,000,000 2,004,680 2,003,348 8/21/2014 912828SS0 U.S.Treasury WF 1/17/2014 4/30/2017 1095 AAA Aaa 0.875 0.950 2,000,000 2,000,000 1,995,576 - - 3136FPYB7 Federal National Mtg Assn VINISP 2/7/2014 5/23/2017 1118 AA+ Aaa 2.050 0.885 1,460,000 1,506,136 1,511,184 - - 31359MEL3 Federal National Mtg Assn CASTLE 12/23/2013 6/1/2017 1127 AA+ Aaa 1.061 1.115 1,000,000 961,400 966,773 - - 31359MEL37 Federal National Mtg Assn CASTLE 1/24/2014 6/1/2017 1127 AA- Aaa 1.081 1.136 1,050,000 1,009,470 1,014,461 - - 29270CYZ2 Bonneville Power Administratio CASTLE 4/24/2014 7/1/2017 1157 AA- Aa1 1.197 1.171 670,000 668,446 670,553 - - 313383JB8 Federal Home Loan Bank VINISP 12/26/2013 9/27/2017 1245 AA+ Aaa 1.000 1.250 1,000,000 993,660 991,706 - - 3136G0074 Federal National Mtg Assn VINISP 2/3/2014 9/27/2017 1245 AA+ Aaa 1.000 0.943 1,050,000 1,042,188 1,051,999 9/27/2015 3130A1036 Federal Home Loan Bank MBS 4/17/2014 1/17/2018 1357 1.500 1.508 575,000 576,305 574,829 7/17/2014 31300N71 Federal Home Loan Bank VINISP 4/2/2014 1/30/2018 1370 AA+ Aaa 2.000 1.710 1,500,000 1,512,255 1,515,712 1/30/2015 3136G1AU3 Federal National Mtg Assn VINISP 12/23/2013 1/30/2018 1370 AA+ 0.700 1.420 1,000,000 980,170 987,807 4/30/2014 3135GOVU4 Federal National Mtg Assn VINISP 1/24/2014 4/3/2018 1433 AA+ Aaa 1.125 1.540 1,000,000 989,710 984,280 4/3/2015 3136G16B0 Federal National Mtg Assn VINISP 1/21/2014 12/27/2018 1701 AA+ Aaa 0.750 1.820 1,000,000 980,060 972,425 6/27/2014 141,761,884' 142,470,414 142,489,612 Memorandum Date: May 12, 2014 To: Board of County Commissioners Tom Anderson, County Administrator From: Wayne Lowry, Finance Director RE: Monthly Financial Reports Attached please find April 2014 financial reports for the following funds: General (001), Community Justice—Juvenile (230), Sheriffs (255, 701, 702), Public Health (259), Behavioral Health (275), Community Development(295), Road (325), Community Justice —Adult(355), Commission on Children & Families (370-399), Solid Waste (610), Insurance Fund (670), 9-1-1 (705), Health Benefits Trust (675), Fair & Expo Center (618), and Justice Court (123). 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 Through April 30, 2014 FY 2014-Year to FY 2013 Date(83% of Year) FY 2014 00 Actual Actual Budget , Revised Budget Projection I $Variance Revenues 9j Property Taxes-Current 20,734,019 20,926,013 100%' j 21,031,062 21,656,062 625,000 3 l Property Taxes-Prior 1,108,377 593,304 82%''i' 720,000 652,000 (68,000) Other General Revenues 2,683,531 1,800,693 92%' P 1,955,900 2,081,400 125,500 Assessor 866,121 807,611 99% 812,421 889,421 77,000 County Clerk 1,710,900 1,064,979 75%'!, ' 1,415,487 1,193,487 (222,000) BOPTA 16,419 16,097 106% :0) 15,200 16,097 1,400 District Attorney 174,794 121,265 66%p44 184,194 184,194 - Tax Office 252,869 229,119 110% c) 208,750 231,000 22,250 Veterans 74,348 53,934 76% r 70,920 70,920 -1, Property Management 100,249 76,733 84% ,°E 91,000 91,000 - Grant Projects 2,000 1,667 83% ;'', 2,000 2,000 - Total Revenues 27,723,627 25,691,414 97%',, 26,506,934 27,067,581 561,150 Expenditures Assessor 3,439,127 2,966,462 80% 3,687,131 3,617,131 70,000 County Clerk 1,299,189 1,047,101 70% „%'; 1,500,045 1,385,045 115,000 BOPTA 58,401 51,444 67%' 'iii, 76,901 63,051 13,850 District Attorney 5,034,333 4,449,406 79% 01 5,638,777 5,388,777 250,000 Tax Office 779,725 678,523 80% 846,733 810,000 36,733 Veterans 250,880 237,043 79% 299,163 299,163 - 3re.. Property Management 275,329 206,682 80% ;, 258,807 252,807 6,000 Grant Projects 122,139 109,042 84% 129,951 129,951 - Non-Departmental 1,221,749 1,197,016 83% 1,447,643 1,447,643 - } k Total Expenditures 12,480,872 10,942,720 79% 13,885,151 13,393,568 491,583 Transfers Out 13,930,307 11,208,955 82% d) 13,615,578 16,315,578 (2,700,000) Total Exp&Transfers 26,411,179 22,151,675 81% , ,'„ 27,500,729 29,709,146 (2,208,417) Change in Fund Balance 1,312,448 3,539,739 (993,795) (2,641,565) (1,647,770) Beginning Fund Balance 9,059,394 10,371,843 109%$ 9,500,000 10,371,843 871,843 Ending Fund Balance $ 10,371,843 $13,911,582 $ 8,506,205 $ 7,730,278 $ (775,927) Beginning Net Working Capital-Proposed Budget $ 7,692,433 a) Current year taxes due November, February and May b) PILT received in July -$500,941 c) A&T grant exceeded budget by$38,300 d) Projection includes a transfer to close out the Bethlehem Inn Fund. Page 1 COMM JUSTICE-JUVENILE Statement of Financial Operating Data Through April 30, 2014 FY 2014-Year to FY 2013 Date(83%of Year) FY 2014 %of Actual Actual Budget Budget Projection I $Variance Revenues Federal Grants - 7,272 171% a) 4,254 11,715 7,461 SB#1065-Court Assess. 8,606 13,326 222% b) 6,000 15,316 9,316 Jail Funding HB#2712 101,659 27,255 75% 36,568 36,568 - Discovery Fee 8,703 1,870 23% c) 8,300 2,300 (6,000) Food Subsidy 24,650 19,314 80% 24,000 24,000 - OYA Basic& Diversion 354,583 128,964 35% d) 364,268 359,149 (5,119) Inmate/Prisoner Housing 113,760 28,200 23% e) 125,000 36,198 (88,802) Contract Payments 90,765 5,543 5% f) 120,000 5,543 (114,457) Interest on Investments 6,343 6,123 102% 6,000 7,300 1,300 Leases 1,200 1,173 98% 1,200 1,200 - Grants-Private 1,729 404 32% c) 1,250 539 (711) CFC Interfund Grant 120,595 96,530 n/a g) - 128,041 128,041 Interfund Grant-Gen Fund 20,000 10,000 50% 20,000 20,000 - Miscellaneous 790 400 61% 650 650 - Total Revenues 853,383 346,373 48% 717,490 648,519 (68,971) Expenditures Personnel Services 4,878,315 4,067,176 80% h) 5,109,496 4,880,532 228,964 Materials and Services 1,086,677 850,131 78% f) 1,085,433 1,035,000 50,433 Capital Outlay - - 0% 100 - 100 Transfers Out 50,400 2,745 75% 3,660 3,660 - Total Expenditures 6,015,391 4,920,052 79% 6,198,689 5,919,192 279,497 Revenues less Expenditures (5,162,008) (4,573,679) (5,481,199) (5,270,673) 210,526 Transfers In-General Fund 5,344,523 4,473,620 83% 5,368,346 5,368,346 - Change in Fund Balance 182,515 (100,059) (112,853) 97,673 210,526 Beginning Fund Balance 995,051 1,177,566 105% 1,125,000 1,177,566 52,566 Ending Fund Balance $ 1,177,566 $ 1,077,507 $1,012,147 $1,275,239 $ 263,092 Beginning Net Working Capital-Proposed Budget $1,250,000 a) Includes$7,090 payment on a FY 2013 grant b) Increased utilization c) Revenue trending lower than anticipated d) State informed County of the FY 2014 amount subsequent to preparation of FY 2014 budget e) Housing trending lower than anticipated -$750 billing outstanding f) BRS/Maplestar program discontinued. Projected revenues and expenditures reduced accordingly g) Support to JCP program expenditures was not included in the original budget. CFC interfund grants were awarded during FY 2014 h) Unfilled positions Page 2 SHERIFF -Consolidated Statement of Financial Operating Data Through April 30, 2014 FY 2014 -Year to FY 2013 Date (83% of Year) FY 2014 Actual Actual Budget 4„° Budget Projection $Variance Revenues(Funds 701 &702) Law Enf Dist Countywide 19,512,075 19,558,226 102% '"' 19,116,763 20,250,459 1,133,696 Law Enf Dist Rural 12,228,468 10,856,626 90% 6,t 12,125,008 12,215,381 90,373 Total Revenues 31,740,543 30,414,852 97% ,31 31,241,771 32,465,840 1,224,069 e Expenditures (Fund 255) Sheriffs Services 2,263,061 1,931,538 81% „WP 2,386,512 2,363,738 22,774 Civil/Special Units 723,704 951,451 78% ,*)' 1,215,101 1,150,075 65,026 Automotive/Communications 1,837,849 1,373,320 85%,' , 1,613,040 1,611,790 1,250 Investigations/Evidence 1,425,223 1,198,863 82% ?; 1,462,370 1,418,578 43,792 Patrol 8,174,690 6,887,411 81% - 8,515,898 8,286,654 229,244 Records 685,178 644,134 80% ; 810,086 809,986 100 Adult Jail 12,850,417 11,621,947 80% a , 14,534,459 14,266,156 268,303 Court Security 298,060 243,010 82%=4 292,752 3,100 Emergency Services 185,439 169,236 95% 177,330 203,173 (25,843) Special Services 1,236,781 1,079,259 71%3'g 1,528,933 1,429,298 99,635 Training 481,717 398,199 71% ,'', 558,596 507,879 50,717 Other Law Enforcement Svcs 667,913 679,398 84%,b) 804,314 809,523 (5,209) Non-Departmental 85,253 68,084 83% 81,701 81,701 - Total Expenditures 30,915,283 27,245,848 80% ,,„''II 33,984,192 33,231,303 752,889 Itr Revenues less Expenditures 825,260 3,169,004 i1, (2,742,421) (765,463) 1,976,958 111':, DC Comm Syst Reserve 200,000 200,000 1 Ill 200,000 200,000 - Transfer to Reserve Funds 200,000 200,000 ' ' 200,000 200,000 - Change in Fund Balance 425,260 2,769,004 (3,142,421) (1,165,463) 1,976,958 Beginning Fund Balance 9,128,533 9,553,793 8,161,912 9,553,793 1,391,881 Ending Fund Balance $9,553,793 $12,322,797 ;,, $5,019,491 $8,388,330 $3,368,839 Beginning Net Working Capital -Proposed Budget $7,658,937 I a) Projected savings in Personnel from open unfilled positions b) Personnel expenses will exceed plan due to higher overtime and extra help c) Projected savings in Personnel and Bond Debt expense will be used to offset the cost of renting additional jail beds from Jefferson County and other Jail unexpected expansion expenses d) Postponed purchase of a SAR vehicle and the mapping plotter was purchased for less than$5,000 Page 3-A SHERIFF -Fund 255 Statement of Financial Operating Data Through April 30, 2014 FY 2014 -Year to Date FY 2013 (83%of Year) FY 2014 Actual Actual I Budget ;, Budget I Projection I $Variance Revenues(Fund 255) Law Enf Dist Countywide 18,708,928 17,022,424 70% e ,°3;, 24,478,462 20,855,753 (3,622,709) Law Enf Dist Rural 12,206,355 10,223,425 70%ol i 14,525,221 12,375,550 (2,149,671) Total Revenues 30,915,283 27,245,848 70%ti 39,003,683 33,231,303 (5,772,380) Y Expenditures(Fund 255) Sheriffs Services 2,263,061 1,931,538 81% 2,386,512 2,363,738 22,774 Civil/Special Units 723,704 4 ' 951,451 78% 1,215,101 1,150,075 65,026 Automotive/Communications 1,837,849 1,373,320 85%:4`'!;' 1,613,040 1,611,790 1,250 Investigations/Evidence 1,425,223 1,198,863 82%'8€0', 1,462,370 1,418,578 43,792 Patrol 8,174,690 6,887,411 81% ,a) 8,515,898 8,286,654 229,244 Records 685,178 644,134 80%'' '',' 810,086 809,986 100 Adult Jail 12,850,417 11,621,947 80%19 14,534,459 14,266,156 268,303 Court Security 298,060 243,010 82% 1: 292,752 3,100 Emergency Services 185,439 169,236 95%` 177,330 203,173 (25,843) Special Services 1,236,781 1,079,259 71%' 0 1,528,933 1,429,298 99,635 Training 481,717 398,199 71% 1, ) 558,596 507,879 50,717 Other Law Enforcement Svcs 667,913 679,398 84%r.i'.,{ 804,314 809,523 (5,209) Non-Departmental 85,253 68,084 83%t ' 81,701 81,701 - Total Expenditures 30,915,283 27,245,848 IIZ 80° 33,984,192 33,231,303 752,889 Revenues less Expenditures $ - - * $5,019,491 $ - $(5,019,491) * FY 2014 Contingency-$ 5,284,491 a) Projected savings in Personnel from open unfilled positions b) Personnel expenses will exceed plan due to higher overtime and extra help c) Projected savings in Personnel and Bond Debt expense will be used to offset the cost of renting additional jail beds from Jefferson County and other Jail unexpected expansion expenses d) Postponed purchase of a SAR vehicle and the mapping plotter was purchased for less than $5,000 Page 3-B I SHERIFF-Expenditure Detail Statement of Financial Operating Data Through April 30,2014 FY 2014-Year to 11,,; FY 2013 Date(83%of Year) FY 2014 Actual Actual 'Budget' ' Budget I Projection [ $Variance Expenditures Sheriffs Services Personnel 1,311,042 1,116,231 80% i3 1,396,494 1,373,820 22,674 Materials&Services 952,019 815,308 82%+sD 989,918 989,918 - Capital Outlay - 0%,,;„3 100 - 100 Total Sheriffs Services 2,263,061 1,931,538 81% 2,386,512 2,363,738 22,774 Civil/Special Units Personnel 637,830 854,222 78% 1,099,232 1,039,306 59,926 Materials&Services 85,874 97,229 88% 110,769 110,769 - Capital Outlay - 0%„ 5,100 .. 5,100 Total Civil/Special Units 723,704 951,451 78% ,;, 1,215,101 1,150,075 65,026 Automotive/Communications 1',i' Personnel 413,153 336,263 90% a 373,535 373,535 - Materials&Services 1,406,033 1,001,307 83% 1,202,505 1,202,505 - Capital Outlay 18,663 35,750 97% 4 37,000 35,750 1,250 Total Automotive/Communications 1,837,849 1,373,320 85%,`;',;," 1,613,040 1,611,790 1,250 Investigations/Evidenc0 Personnel 1,283,221 1,077,198 81%1k, 1,323,285 1,278,593 44,692 Materials&Services 142,001 121,665 88%1 11' , 138,985 139,985 (1,000) Capital Outlay - 0%6q '' 100 - 100 Total Investigations/Evidence 1,425,223 1,198,863 82%3;,;': 1,462,370 1,418,578 43,792 Patrol Personnel 7,325,801 6,191,690 80% `: ' 7,694,405 7,473,459 220,946 Materials&Services 613,033 446,447 79% 563,921 563,921 - Capital Outlay 235,856 249,274 97% 257,572 249,274 8,298 Total Patrol 8,174,690 6,887,411 81% ; 8,515,898 8,286,654 229,244 Records ;;, Personnel 583,461 549,727 78%" l 700,961 700,961 - Materials&Services 101,717 94,407 87%?,J' 109,025 109,025 - Capital Outlay - 0% 100 - 100 Total Records 685,178 644,134 80°� '%', 810,086 809,986 100 Adult Jail Personnel 10,934,201 9,906,534 82% ''b 12,060,079 11,910,079 150,000 Materials&Services 1,879,643 1,606,925 77%fir, 2,097,790 2,047,790 50,000 Capital Outlay 36,573 56,519 74% ''^' 76,590 63,317 13,273 Transfer Out-Jail Debt Service 51,969 17%5 ,;1 300,000 244,970 55,030 Total Adult Jail 12,850,417 11,621,947 80%t; 14,534,459 14,266,156 268,303 Co.,rt Security .,.. Personnel 285,997 234,766 82% ' 285,966 282,966 3,000 Materials&Services 12,063 8,244 84% 9,786 9,786 - Capital Outlay - 0%,,,�,;' 100 - 100 Total Court Security 298,060 243,010 82% 't',; 295,852 292,752 3,100 Emergency Services "3 Personnel 175,729 147,205 98%�l 150,882 176,825 (25,943) Materials&Services 9,710 22,031 84%,11 ;' 26,348 26,348 - Capital Outlay - 0%1'}}i,?' ' 100 - 100 Total Emergency Services 185,439 169,236 95% ii 177,330 203,173 (25,843) Special Services ?' Personnel 1,024,967 930,249 73% li 1,281,831 1,211,196 70,635 Materials&Services 175,717 149,010 70% 211,502 201,502 10,000 Capital Outlay 36,096 - 0% i 35,600 16,600 19,000 Total Special Services 1,236,781 1,079,259 71% 1,528,933 1,429,298 99,635 Training pp Personnel 345,417 302,947 73%,„" '" 415,342 364,725 50,617 Materials&Services 136,300 95,253 67% 143,154 143,154 - Capital Outlay - 0%,^ 100 - 100 Total Training 481,717 398,199 71%4,ii,,, 558,596 507,879 50,717 Other Law Enforcement Services ' Personnel 607,877 617,274 85%"''' 730,083 735,392 (5,309) Materials&Services 60,035 62,124 84% 74,131 74,131 - Capital Outlay - 0%„':' 100 - 100 Total Other Law Enforcement Svcs 667,913 679,398 84%is 804,314 809,523 (5,209) Non-Departmental Materials&Services 85,253 68,084 83%31 81,701 81,701 - Total Non-Departmental 85,253 68,084 83% 81,701 81,701 - Total Expenditures $ 30,915,283 $27,245,848 80% $33,984,192 $33,231 e303 $ 752,889'Rage 4 LED#1 -Countywide Statement of Financial Operating Data Through April 30, 2014 FY 2014-Year to Date FY 2013 (83%of Year) 1 1 FY 2014 Actual Actual I Budget , 'I Budget I Projection I $Variance Revenues Tax Revenues-Current 15,812,544 15,984,514 99% 'a) 16,103,377 16,468,804 365,427 Tax Revenues- Prior 817,322 449,838 89%';, 507,902 501,263 (6,639) Federal Grants 24,510 20,897 82% bY 25,500 20,897 (4,603) State Grant 158,199 63,332 55% 115,524 115,524 - Jail Funding HB 2712 101,659 27,255 59% 46,143 36,143 (10,000) Jail Funding HB 3194 - 107,806 n/a c) - 107,806 107,806 Transp. of State Wards 3,289 3,233 65% , 5,000 5,000 - SB 1145 1,479,991 1,630,823 103%''' 1,584,991 1,630,823 45,832 Prisoner Housing 284,189 218,232 273% e) 80,000 218,232 138,232 Des. Cty Gen Fund Grant - 380,465 7990%,;;f) 4,762 380,465 375,703 Des. Cty Video Lottery Grant 5,000 5,000 100% ,i, 5,000 5,000 - Grants 20,640 - n/a - - - Des Cty Court Security 116,646 49,533 50% '0° 99,318 49,533 (49,785) Des Cty Juvenile Contract 12,051 12,594 126% 10,000 16,792 6,792 Title III Reimbursement 39,916 - n/a y - - - Inmate Commissary Fees 29,756 25,515 170%xill 15,000 30,000 15,000 Work Center Work Crews 53,237 54,461 109% 50,000 60,000 10,000 Concealed Handgun Classes 8,050 2,450 70% ',,"3 3,500 3,500 - Inmate Telephone Fee 97,403 66,468 83% 80,000 80,000 - Soc Sec Incentive-Fed 14,600 10,000 200% 5,000 10,000 5,000 Medical Services Reimb 20,461 15,831 122%:,A, 13,000 18,000 5,000 Sheriff Fees 314,668 303,614 121%,,, ) 250,000 350,000 100,000 Interest 44,629 41,352 129%1Mt 32,000 50,000 18,000 Donations-"Shop with a Cop" 31,717 63,828 123% 51,897 63,828 11,931 Miscellaneous 21,599 21,184 73% 28,849 28,849 - Total Operating Revenues 19,512,075 19,558,226 102% 19,116,763 20,250,459 1,133,696 EXPENDITURES&TRANSFERS DC Sheriffs Office 18,708,928 17,022,424 70% Ilith 24,478,462 20,855,753 3,622,709 DC Comm Systems Reserve 80,000 80,000 100%,9 ' 80,000 80,000 - Transfer to Reserve Fund 100,000 100,000 100%1, hi 100,000 100,000 - Total Expenditures 18,888,928 17,202,424 70% 24,658,462 21,035,753 3,622,709 Change in Fund Balance 623,147 2,355,802 (5,541,699) (785,294) 4,756,405 Beginning Fund Balance 5,883,963 6,507,110 5,541,699 6,507,110 965,411 Ending Fund Balance $ 6,507,110 $ 8,862,912 $ $5,721,815 $5,721,815 I Beginning Net Working Capital -Proposed Budget $5,242,177 I Payment to Sheriffs Fund adjusted monthly to equal actual expenditures attributable to countywide services a) Current year taxes due November, February, and May b) Bureau of Justice SCAPP funding will be less than planned due to qualifying inmate population c) Unanticipated HB 3194 funding for the Adult Jail d) 1145 inmate reimbursement will exceed budget amount for the year e) Based on YTD actual, DOC reimbursement for SB395 (repeat DUI') inmates will exceed plan for the year f) General Fund grant budgeted for LED#2 will be made instead to LED#1 g)State OJD distributions will be less than planned for the year Page 5 h)Civil fees for property sales and concealed handgun licenses will be above plan for the year LED#2-Rural 702 Statement of Financial Operating Data Through April 30, 2014 FY 2014-Year to Date ;,. FY 2013 (83%of Year) '1,3 FY 2014 Actual Actual Budget ;lj, Budget Projection t Revenues 1. Tax Revenues-Current 7,698,340 7,647,216 98%1' 7,839,932 7,878,906 38,974 Tax Revenues- Prior 404,894 221,444 84%ik ,; 263,858 246,565 (17,293) Federal Grants 53,818 37,217 257%1b), 14,500 40,591 26,091 Federal Grants-BLM 20,881 8,389 34%', 1 25,000 15,000 (10,000) US Forest Service 78,750 78,750 103% l' 78,750 2,250 Bureau of Reclamation 40,580 17,007 65%I,' 26,000 26,000 - State Grant 274,465 89,914 53% p', 169,000 169,000 - SB#1065 Court Assessment 8,606 13,426 24% ,) 55,000 15,000 (40,000) Marine Board License Fee 143,724 94,171 63% )3 150,000 150,000 - Des Cty General Fund Grant 136,735 - 0% 003 375,703 - (375,703) Des Cty Transient Room Tax 2,513,265 1,895,248 83% a 2,274,297 2,713,243 438,946 Asset Forfeiture 11,760 - n/a 1' w - - - City of Sisters 468,060 405,565 83%333 486,678 486,678 - Des Cty CDD Contract 54,366 49,392 83%?3 59,270 59,270 - Des Cty Solid Waste Contr 54,366 49,392 83% `, 59,270 59,270 - School Districts 46,212 43,631 109% H' 40,000 50,000 10,000 Claims Reimbursement 860 108 n/a - 108 108 Seat Belt Program 5,390 3,920 39% 10,000 7,000 (3,000) Sheriff Fees 9,617 8,067 81%SEE 3, 10,000 10,000 - Court Fines& Fees 120,247 112,849 90% 3 125,000 125,000 - Interest 20,654 17,696 147% 1 12,000 20,000 8,000 Grants-Private 6,500 5,000 n/a - 5,000 5,000 Donations 11,650 7,000 n/a,,' " - 7,000 7,000 Miscellaneous 44,728 51,226 9970°:01:I' 53,000 53,000 - Total Revenues 12,228,468 10,856,626 j 12,125,008 12,215,381 90,373 11 EXPENDITURES&TRANSFERS DC Sheriffs Office 12,206,355 10,223,425 / 11 70% 14,525,221 12,375,550 2,149,671 DC Comm Systems Reserve 120,000 120,000 100% 120,000 120,000 - Transfer to Reserve Fund 100,000 100,000 100% 100,000 100,000 - Total Expenditures 12,426,355 10,443,425 71% 14,745,221 12,595,550 2,149,671 Change in Fund Balance (197,887) 413,202 (2,620,213) (380,169) 2,240,044 Beginning Fund Balance 3,244,571 3,046,683 2,620,213 3,046,683 426,470 Ending Fund Balance $ 3,046,683 $3,459,885 $ - $2,666,514 $2,666,514 Beginning Net Working Capital -Proposed Budget $2,416,760 Payment to Sheriffs Fund adjusted monthly to equal actual expenditures attributable to countywide services a) Current year taxes due November, February, and May b) HIDTA overtime reimbursements for drug investigations will exceed plan c) Invoiced quarterly. Reimbursements reflect seasonal activity d)Change in distribution of Circuit Court revenue by State e) Due to Transient Room Taxes projected to exceed budget, the$2,650,000 annual payment and an additional projected$63,243 payment will be received from Transient Room Tax Fund Page 6 PUBLIC HEALTH Statement of Financial Operating Data Through April 30, 2014 FY 2014-Year to FY 2013 Date(83%of Year) FY 2014 %of Actual Actual Budget Revised Budge Projection I $Variance Revenues Medicare Reimbursement 68 - n/a - - - Federal Grant& Fed Reimb 630 77,936 1948% 4,000 90,455 86,455 Federal Grant(ARRA) 212,500 63,750 75% 85,000 80,750 (4,250) State Grant 2,795,249 2,501,800 83% a) 3,021,360 3,089,284 67,924 Child Dev& Rehab Center 38,154 22,341 56% b) 39,609 39,609 - State Miscellaneous 248,176 89,555 55% b) 163,310 92,335 (70,975) OMAP 578,042 629,865 103% 612,400 677,477 65,077 Family Planning Exp Proj 519,121 340,326 62% 550,000 420,000 (130,000) Grants (Intergvt, Pvt, & Local) 40,214 78,629 45% 176,513 176,513 - Contract Payments 174,624 71,721 47% b) 151,316 75,000 (76,316) Patient Insurance Fees 214,544 199,925 109% 184,200 240,000 55,800 Health Dept/Patient Fees 95,108 70,450 59% 119,400 82,000 (37,400) Vital Records-Birth 32,475 31,365 77% 41,000 41,000 - Vital Records-Death 112,235 84,570 85% 100,000 100,000 - Environmental Health-Lic Fac 755,693 712,459 95% c) 753,750 753,750 - Interest on Investments 6,262 6,539 109% 6,000 8,000 2,000 Grants& Donations 19,366 63,322 3518% 1,800 63,322 61,522 Interfund Contract 162,757 71,224 39% b)d) 180,426 91,691 (88,735) Miscellaneous 3,425 5,930 424% 1,400 6,000 4,600 Total Revenues 6,008,643 5,121,708 83% 6,191,484 6,127,186 (64,298) Expenditures Personnel Services 6,344,766 5,385,383 75% 7,159,169 6,500,000 659,169 Materials and Services 2,036,535 1,513,263 71% 2,139,075 1,950,000 189,075 Capital Outlay - - 0% 100 - 100 Transfers Out 157,200 117,990 75% 157,320 157,320 - Total Expenditures 8,538,501 7,016,636 74% ✓ 9,455,664 8,607,320 848,344 Revenues less Expenditures (2,529,858) (1,894,929) (3,264,180) (2,480,134) 784,046 Transfers In-General Fund 2,349,357 2,251,230 83% 2,701,475 2,701,475 - Transfers In-PH Res Fund 62,136 24,750 75% 33,000 33,000 - Transfers In-Gen. Fund Other 65,100 48,825 75% _ 65,100 65,100 - Total Transfers In 2,476,593 2,324,805 83% 2,799,575 2,799,575 - Change in Fund Balance (53,265) 429,876 (464,605) 319,441 784,046 Beginning Fund Balance 1,327,199 1,273,934 92% 1,385,592 1,273,934 (111,658) Ending Fund Balance $ 1,273,934 $ 1,703,810 $ 920,987 $ 1,593,375 $ 672,388 Beginning Net Working Capital -Proposed Budget $ 1,570,821 a) Oregon Health Authority grant projected at amended contract amount b) Received quarterly in arrears. Invoices have been submitted c) Majority of fees are due annually and collected in December and January Page 7 d) Interfund contract reduced due to elimination of FTE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH Statement of Financial Operating Data Through April 30, 2014 FY 2014-Year to FY 2013 Date(83% of Year) FY 2014 %of Actual Actual Budget Budget Projection 1 $Variance Revenues Marriage Licenses 5,650 5,085 78% 6,500 6,000 (500) Divorce Filing Fees 122,971 107,064 76% 140,600 130,000 (10,600) Federal Grants 252,331 102,481 41% a) 252,349 201,879 (50,470) Federal Grant(ARRA) 63,750 63,750 250% 25,500 63,750 38,250 State Grants 7,552,648 6,274,261 74% b) 8,533,166 8,077,086 (456,080) State Miscellaneous 62,361 25,920 42% c) 61,860 30,000 (31,860) Adult Mental Health Initiative 229,038 204,299 89% 230,000 594,299 364,299 Title 19 121,876 191,097 132% 144,246 251,096 106,850 Liquor Revenue 144,595 73,325 54% 137,000 147,000 10,000 School Districts 23,317 499 n/a - 499 499 Patient Fees 110,491 180,595 114% 158,082 215,000 56,918 Interest on Investments 19,900 16,232 79% 20,500 20,000 (500) Rentals 16,625 10,750 58% 18,500 18,500 - Administrative Fee 5,224,877 6,873,434 83% 8,318,643 8,318,643 - Interfund Contract-Gen Fund 127,000 72,491 57% d) 127,000 127,000 - Miscellaneous 17,482 40,215 40215% 100 41,000 40,900 Total Revenues 14,094,911 14,241,499 78% 18,174,046 18,241,752 67,706 Expenditures Personnel Services 10,916,057 10,297,411 73% 14,147,348 12,810,808 1,336,540 Materials and Services 5,970,799 4,995,030 71% e) 7,082,738 6,122,720 960,018 Capital Outlay 26,965 - 0% 10,000 - 10,000 Transfers Out 204,000 153,675 75% 204,900 204,900 - Total Expenditures 17,117,821 15,446,116 72% 21,444,986 19,138,428 2,306,558 Revenues less Expenditures (3,022,909) (1,204,618) (3,270,940) (896,676) 2,374,264 Transfers In-General Fund 1,307,787 1,147,750 83% 1,377,302 1,377,302 - Transfers In-OHP-CDO 484,494 - n/a - - - Transfers In-Acute Care Svcs 264,631 244,660 83% 293,593 293,593 - Transfers In-ABHA 524,039 - n/a - - - Total Transfers In 2,580,951 1,392,410 83% 1,670,895 1,670,895 - Change in Fund Balance (441,958) 187,792 (1,600,045) 774,219 2,374,264 Beginning Fund Balance 3,113,095 2,671,137 77% 3,461,651 2,671,137 (790,514) Ending Fund Balance $2,671,137 $2,858,929 $1,861,606 $3,445,356 $ 1,583,750 I Beginning Net Working Capital -Proposed Budget $3,313,248 I a) Federal grant projected at amended contract amount b)Oregon Health Authority grant project at amended contract amount c) Contract for Addiction Recovery terminated d) Received quarterly in arrears e) M&S reduction related to Oregon Health Authority amended contract Page 8 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Statement of Financial Operating Data Through April 30, 2014 FYY2014-Year to FY 2013 Date(83% of Year) FY 2014 Of Actual Actual Budget Budget Projection I $Variance Revenues Admin-Operations 31,848 32,932 59% 56,243 62,605 6,362 Admin-GIS 778 2,879 192% a) 1,500 3,750 2,250 Admin-Code Enforcement 239,264 212,543 119% 178,000 263,000 85,000 Building Safety 1,563,938 1,414,829 113% 1,247,359 1,570,450 323,091 Electrical 336,210 327,191 116% 283,073 382,700 99,627 Contract Services 166,428 197,541 96% b) 204,800 234,771 29,971 Env Health-On Site Prog 340,564 344,576 119% 288,484 422,880 134,396 Planning-Current 798,221 728,828 115% 634,602 845,150 210,548 Planning-Long Range 348,545 325,246 118% 274,527 504,193 229,666 Total Revenues 3,825,796 3,586,565 113% 3,168,588 4,289,499 1,120,911 Expenditures Admin-Operations 1,311,935 1,328,414 80% c) 1,669,409 1,715,138 (45,729) Admin-GIS 117,502 104,054 84% 124,246 126,346 (2,100) Admin-Code Enforcement 208,357 229,121 83% 275,515 279,224 (3,709) Building Safety 599,764 560,776 83% d) 672,796 745,106 (72,310) Electrical 200,596 179,811 82% 218,300 217,272 1,028 Contract Services 163,822 183,895 76% e) 241,036 205,675 35,361 Env Health-On Site Pgm 160,291 148,791 87% 171,529 200,997 (29,468) Planning-Current 581,155 546,427 82% 665,901 675,355 (9,454) Planning-Long Range 356,807 325,238 83% 391,485 436,000 (44,515) Transfers Out(D/S Fund) 179,155 173,338 97% 179,035 173,338 5,697 Total Expenditures 3,879,383 3,779,864 82% 4,609,252 4,774,451 (165,199) Revenues less Expenditures (53,586) (193,299) (1,440,664) (484,952) 1,286,110 Transfers In General Fund-Gen Ops 854,872 - 0% f) 465,121 - (465,121) General Fund-UR Planning 495,360 412,800 83% 495,360 495,360 - A&T Reserve(D/S assistance) 89,577 - 0% f) 89,518 - (89,518) Other - - 0% 100 - (100) Total Transfers In 1,439,809 412,800 39% 1,050,099 495,360 (554,739) Change in Fund Balance 1,386,223 219,501 (390,565) 10,408 400,973 Beginning Fund Balance 192,482 1,578,705 227% 696,290 1,578,705 882,415 Ending Fund Balance $1,578,705 $1,798,206 $ 305,725 $1,589,113 $1,283,388 I Beginning Net Working Capital -Proposed Budget $1,589,113 a) $2,500 to be paid by City of La Pine to set up City's new plan and zoning designations in GIS b)Additional revenue generated from contract plan review and inspections services(Sisters, Redmond) c) Includes$63,891 for the Computer Software, additional Accela training expenses, computer replacement& new Permit Tech position d) Conversion of on-call position (Sisters)to permanent position and re-create Ass't. Building Official position e)Additional contract(on-call)services required to meet plan review and inspection service demands 0 Beginning Fund Balance and FY 14 revenues are projected to be sufficient to cover FY 14 expenditures Page 9 ROAD Statement of Financial Operating Data Through April 30, 2014 FY2014-Year to FY 2013 Date (83%of Year) 1:; FY 2014 %of Actual Actual Budget ,.,, Budget Projection l $Variance Revenues Federal Grant(ARRA) 7,335 - n/a - - - Mineral Lease Royalties 140,591 36,799 26% 140,000 140,000 - Forest Receipts 1,265,279 1,259,367 353% � , 356,270 1,259,367 903,097 Federal- PILT Payment - 1,064,365 n/a W - 1,064,365 1,064,365 State Miscellaneous 542,290 588,197 76% ' 773,452 588,198 (185,254) Motor Vehicle Revenue 10,495,426 9,372,000 89% 3' 10,554,500 11,000,000 445,500 City of Bend 45,486 212,716 69% c) 310,000 783,380 473,380 City of Redmond 315,525 27,482 7% 370,000 294,535 (75,465) City of Sisters 1,861 84,691 847%e«' 1 0,000 84,692 74,692 City of La Pine 10,000 - 0% c) 10,000 - (10,000) Interest on Investments 32,342 37,897 211% 18,000 44,300 26,300 Interfund Contract 526,110 - 0% )33 562,000 527,450 (34,550) ° 2 9 204 414 93/°: ,,,, 220 000 220 000 - Equipment Repairs 55,36 ,,, , Vehicle Repairs 82,542 - 0%,'m',,V, 90,000 75,000 (15,000) Vegetation Management 49,503 - n/a 1 - - - �yj Forester 24,628 - 0%,11 1,500 1,500 - Other Inter-fund Services 30,387 14,278 114% 12,500 44,692 32,192 Inter-Fund Sales- Fuel 623,074 - 0%.e 550,000 - (550,000) Sale of Equip&Material 287,313 201,699 75% ;;,,'' 270,000 302,494 32,494 4 II Miscellaneous 35,018 96,593 416% d' 23,200 97,726 74,526 Total Revenues 14,770,079 13,200,499 92% 14,271,422 16,527,699 2,256,277 Expenditures Services 5,303,241 4,426,821 82% 5,385,717 5,324,993 60,724 Materials and Services 7,277,398 4,826,186 47%3'''=' 10,306,609 8,181,108 2,125 501 Capital Outlay 67,987 121,455 4% ;; 2,882,108 121,456 2,760,652 Transfers Out 275,000 450,000 100% 450,000 450,000 - Total Expenditures 12,923,627 9,824,461 52% 19,024,434 14,077,557 4,946,877 Revenues less Expenditures 1,846,452 3,376,038 'E" (4,753,012) 2,450,142 7,203,154 Trans In -Solid Waste 276,272 211,611 75% y + 282,148 282,148 - Trans In-Transp SDC - - 0% '' 400,000 - (400,000) Trans In-Road Imp Res - - 0% L 1,000 - (1,000) Total Transfers In 276,272 211,611 31% "; 683,148 282,148 (401,000) Change in Fund Balance 2,122,724 3,587,649 ,,,,1„ (4,069,864) 2,732,290 6,802,154 Beginning Fund Balance 4,723,852 6,846,576 114% 6,014,368 6,846,576 832,208 Ending Fund Balance $ 6,846,576 $10,434,225 $ 1,944,504 $9,578,866 $7,634,362 Beginning Net Working Capital -Proposed Budget $8,954,332 a) Payment received annually in February b) One-time PILT payment. Not anticipated at the time the FY 2014 budget was adopted 1 c) Billed upon completion of work d) Payments to be received in June 2014 from other Road Department funds e) Fuel sales to County departments are recorded reductions of M & S expenditure instead of as revenues. Page 10 f)$20,000 claim reimbursement for damaged stop light in La Pine. Also, refund related to 19th Street Junction. g) Transfer from Solid Waste posted quarterly. ADULT PAROLE&PROBATION Statement of Financial Operating Data Through April 30, 2014 FY 2014-Year to FY 2013 Date(83% of Year) FY 2014 %of Revised Actual Actual Budget Budget Projection I $Variance Revenues DOC Measure 57 219,240 220,788 101% a) 219,240 220,788 1,548 Justice Reinvest HB3194 458,143 n/a b) 458,143 458,143 - State Miscellaneous 4,301 4,142 96% 4,301 4,142 (159) Alternate Incarceration 17,725 118% c) 15,000 20,000 5,000 State Subsidy 22,329 14,677 106% 13,826 14,677 851 SB 1145 2,748,555 3,028,672 103% d) 2,951,504 3,029,790 78,286 Probation Work Crew Fees 14,136 6,997 52% e) 13,376 8,000 (5,376) Claims Reimbursement 8,347 n/a f) - 8,347 8,347 Miscellaneous 4,648 621 14% g) 4,500 855 (3,645) Electronic Monitoring Fee 177,947 192,726 124% h) 156,000 231,127 75,127 Probation Superv. Fees 189,330 172,620 99% i) 175,000 205,121 30,121 Interest on Investments 5,743 6,027 100% 6,000 7,250 1,250 Interfund-Sheriff 50,000 41,667 83% 50,000 50,000 - Sale of Equipment 250 - n/a - - - Crime Prevention Grant 50,000 25,000 50% j) 50,000 50,000 - CFC-Domestic Violence 63,906 35,120 47% j) 73,938 73,938 - Total Revenues 3,550,384 4,233,270 101% 4,190,828 4,382,178 191,350 Expenditures Personnel Services 2,956,034 2,783,874 83% 3,361,157 3,344,618 16,539 Materials and Services 912,384 839,270 76% h) 1,100,980 1,064,280 36,700 Capital Outlay - - 0% _ 100 - 100 Total Expenditures 3,868,418 3,623,144 81% 4,462,237 4,408,898 53,339 Revenues less Expenditures (318,034) 610,126 (271,409) (26,720) 244,689 Transfers In-General Fund 435,328 375,990 83% 451,189 451,189 - Change in Fund Balance 117,294 986,116 179,780 424,469 244,689 Beginning Fund Balance 630,226 747,520 106% 707,953 747,520 39,567 Ending Fund Balance $ 747,520 $1,733,636 $ 887,733 $1,171,989 $ 284,256 I Beginning Net Working Capital -Proposed Budget $1,030,824 a)Annual M57 payment calculated slightly higher than expected b) Unanticipated grant for funding of programs and personnel in FY 2014 ($137,216 )and FY 15 ($320,927) c) Received payment of approximately$7,000 from the previous fiscal year d) State grant in aid budget for FY 14 higher than budgeted e) Program participation decreasing f) Insurance settlement g) Number of out of state transfers was less than projected, lowering the fee collection h) Program utilization increase i) Program collection rate is higher, possibly due to more employed offenders Page 11 j) Quarterly payments not yet received CHILDREN&FAMILIES COMMISSION Statement of Financial Operating Data Through April 30, 2014 FY 2014-Year to FY 2013 Date(83%of Year) FY 2014 %of Revised Actual Actual Budget Budget Projection I $Variance Revenues Federal Grants 252,020 125,590 31% a) 402,044 262,798 (139,246) Title IV- Family Sup/Pres 39,533 7,331 33% 21,994 21,994 - HealthyStart Medicaid 80,557 36,454 46% b) 80,000 62,000 (18,000) Youth Investment 196,053 62,524 50% 125,048 125,048 - State Grant - - 0% 55,185 - (55,185) State Prevention Funds 65,270 - n/a - - - HealthyStart/R-S-G 219,950 132,927 52% a) 254,322 264,623 10,301 OCCF Grant 392,440 63,157 33% a) 189,636 133,984 (55,652) Charges for Svcs-Misc 5,148 2,220 111% 2,000 4,000 2,000 Program Fees 5,645 4,710 n/a 5,600 6,060 460 Court Fines & Fees 73,959 64,239 86% 75,034 77,086 2,052 Interest on Investments 3,659 2,320 232% 1,000 2,700 1,700 Donations 13 50 n/a - 50 50 Private Grant - 130 n/a - 130 130 Interfund Grants 358,343 219,812 63% a) 350,375 329,624 (20,751) Total Revenues 1,692,590 721,463 46% 1,562,238 1,290,097 (272,141) it Expend res u Personnel Services 570,985 420,341 78% c) 539,665 506,259 33,406 Materials and Services 1,424,002 826,107 54% b) 1,530,796 1,228,868 301,928 Total Expenditures 1,994,987 1,246,448 60% 2,070,461 1,735,127 335,334 Revenues less Expenditures (302,397) (524,984) (508,223) (445,030) 63,193 Transfers In General Fund 275,984 232,280 83% 278,739 278,739 - General Fund -Other - 67,013 75% 89,350 89,350 - Total Transfers In 275,984 299,293 81% 368,089 368,089 - Change in Fund Balance (26,413) (225,692) (140,134) (76,941) 63,193 Beginning Fund Balance 574,985 548,572 146% 375,704 548,572 172,868 Ending Fund Balance $ 548,572 $ 322,880 * $ 235,570 $ 471,631 $ 236,061 [Beginning Net Working Capital-Proposed Budget $ 318,121 I a) Revised to reflect actual award b) Revised to reflect actual earnings, which are lower than budgeted. Corresponding payment to provider will be lower than budgeted c) Removed 1.0 FTE Early Learning Regional Coordinator from budget and reduced Extra Help line For budgeting and reporting purposes, these activities are presented in a single fund "Children and Families Commission." There are two activities: "Regional Early Learning Hub" and "Substance Abuse Prevention." It is anticipated that Substance Abuse Prevention will be merged with Public Health programs in FY 2015. State funding for the Regional Early Learning Hub after FY 2014 is uncertain. Page 12 SOLID WASTE Statement of Financial Operating Data Through April 30, 2014 FY 2014-Year to FY 2013 Date(83% of Year) FY 2014 %of Actual Actual Budget Budget Projection $Variance Operating Revenues Miscellaneous 19,127 16,154 73% a) 22,000 20,000 (2,000) Franchise 3% Fees 209,076 204,440 102% 200,000 210,000 10,000 Commercial Disp. Fees 971,213 851,627 89% 954,100 1,045,550 91,450 Private Disposal Fees 1,376,005 1,201,083 92% 1,309,350 1,498,000 188,650 Franchise Disposal Fees 3,980,498 3,487,571 85% 4,095,525 4,264,550 169,025 Yard Debris 107,801 72,059 85% 85,000 92,000 7,000 Special Waste 73,568 37,249 149% b) 25,000 40,000 15,000 Interest 8,118 8,589 107% 8,000 9,000 1,000 Leases 10,801 9,001 83% 10,801 10,801 - Recyclables 47,033 28,695 64% c) 45,000 45,000 - Miscellaneous 3,131 - n/a - - - Total Operating Revenues 6,806,370 5,916,467 88% 6,754,776 7,234,901 480,125 Operating Expenditures Personnel Services 1,651,419 1,484,645 79% 1,868,124 1,867,446 678 Materials and Services 2,808,337 2,412,344 72% 3,342,993 3,325,018 17,975 Debt Service 946,711 384,886 41% d) 930,157 930,157 - Capital Outlay 76,335 25,895 47% 55,000 50,896 4,104 Total Operating Expenditures 5,482,802 4,307,771 70% 6,196,274 6,173,517 22,757 Operating Rev less Exp 1,323,569 1,608,696 558,502 1,061,384 502,882 Transfers Out Road 276,272 211,611 75% e) 282,148 282,148 - Capital Reserve 630,000 545,000 100% f) 545,000 576,000 (31,000) Total Transfers Out 906,272 756,611 91% 827,148 858,148 (31,000) Change in Fund Balance 417,297 5,159,856 - (268,646) 203,236 533,882 Beginning Fund Balance 807,470 1,224,767 148% 825,655 1,224,767 399,112 Ending Fund Balance $1,224,767 $6,384,624 $ 557,009 $1,428,003 $ 932,994 Beginning Net Working Capital -Proposed Budget $1,428,003 a) Disposal of tires and appliances less than anticipated b) Unpredictable-revenue mainly from clean-up projects c) Recycling market prices have been down since last Fall d) Payments made November and May e)Transfers will be made quarterly f)As requested during the year; additional $31,000 to come from Contingency Page 13 RISK MANAGEMENT Statement of Financial Operating Data Through April 30,2014 FY 2014-Year to FY 2013 Date(83%of Year) FY 2014 %of" Actual Actual Budget Budget Projection I $Variance Revenues Inter-fund Charges: General Liability 262,333 227,353 83% 272,823 272,823 - Property Damage 313,480 272,105 83% 326,526 326,526 - Vehicle 173,635 136,792 83% 164,150 164,150 - Workers'Compensation 1,448,553 1,260,157 83% 1,512,188 1,512,188 - Unemployment 254,165 258,496 83% 310,203 310,203 - Claims Reimb-Gen Liab/Property 34,401 31,476 79% 40,000 50,000 10,000 Process Fee-Events/Parades 1,300 840 37% 2,300 2,300 - Miscellaneous 76 14 18% 80 80 - Skid Car Training 23,060 21,060 150% 14,000 24,000 10,000 Interest on Investments 12,226 12,065 100% 12,050 15,000 2,950 TOTAL REVENUES 2,523,228 2,220,357 84% 2,654,320 2,677,270 22,950 Direct Insurance Costs: GENERAL LIABILITY Settlement/Benefit 382,659 224,345 Defense 50,919 49,236 Professional Service 85,751 19,509 Insurance 148,035 161,994 Loss Prevention 8,790 3,165 Miscellaneous 3,290 5,099 Repair/Replacement 200 4,531 Total General Liability 679,645 467,878 117% 400,000 570,000 (170,000) PROPERTY DAMAGE Insurance 159,171 166,668 Repair/Replacement 54,449 144,265 - Total Property Damage 213,620 310,933 124% 250,000 350,000 (100,000) VEHICLE Professional Service - 375 Insurance 366 205 Loss Prevention 16,030 15,248 Repair/Replacement 54,919 43,922 Total Vehicle 71,316 59,750 50% 120,000 90,000 30,000 WORKERS'COMPENSATION Settlement/Benefit 367,051 370,934 Professional Service - 5,000 Insurance 141,960 145,048 Loss Prevention 36,000 43,289 Miscellaneous 46,366 38,953 Total Workers'Compensation 591,376 603,223 75% 800,000 670,000 130,000 UNEMPLOYMENT-Settlement/Benefits 137,082 80,468 40% _ 200,000 150,000 50,000 Total Direct Insurance Costs 1,693,039 1,522,253 86% 1,770,000 1,830,000 (60,000) Insurance Administration: Personnel Services 308,508 258,749 78% 333,327 333,327 - Materials&Srvc, Capital Out. &Tranfs. 131,414 122,360 62% 197,193 197,093 100 Total Expenditures 2,132,961 1,903,362 83% 2,300,520 2,360,420 (59,900) Change in Fund Balance 390,267 316,995 353,800 316,850 (36,950) Beginning Fund Balance 2,240,791 2,631,057 2,517,479 2,631,057 113,578 Ending Fund Balance $2,631,057 $2,948,053 * $ 2,871,279 $ 2,947,907 $ 76,628 I Beginning Net Working Capital-Proposed Budget $ 3,074,957 I Page 14 DESCHUTES COUNTY 9-1-1 Statement of Financial Operating Data Through April 30, 2014 FY 2014-Year to Date FY 2013 (83% of Year) FY 2014 %of Actual Actual Budget Budget Projection I $Variance Revenues Property Taxes-Current 6,323,533 5,991,470 101% a) 5,947,600 6,173,348 190,000 Property Taxes- Prior 319,349 173,654 79% 219,007 193,698 (25,309) Federal Grants 46,514 34,885 17% b) 200,000 200,000 - State Reimbursement 35,066 29,350 82% 36,000 36,000 - Telephone User Tax 767,453 378,367 50% c) 750,000 750,000 - Data Network Reimb. 64,247 20,381 68% 30,000 30,000 - Jefferson County 30,755 28,228 94% 30,000 30,000 - User Fee 69,012 51,073 95% 54,000 54,000 - Police RMS User Fees 229,103 72,025 28% d) 256,791 256,791 - Contract Payments 11,885 196 0% e) 137,000 27,000 (110,000) Miscellaneous 10,084 28,911 321% 9,000 28,911 19,911 Claims Reimbursement 46,760 29,627 n/a - 29,627 29,627 Interest 54,324 35,306 58% 60,600 60,600 - Total Revenues 8,008,083 6,873,474 89% 7,729,998 7,869,975 104,229 Expenditures Personnel Services 3,982,162 3,691,139 79% 4,654,796 4,654,796 - Materials and Services 1,929,460 1,502,923 70% 2,132,476 2,132,476 - Capital Outlay 81,515 64,156 11% f) 600,000 600,000 - Total Expenditures 5,993,138 5,258,219 71% 7,387,272 7,387,272 - Revenues less Expenditures 2,014,945 1,615,254 342,726 482,703 104,229 Transfers Out- Reserve Fund 500,000 7,800,000 100% 7,800,000 7,800,000 - Change in Fund Balance 1,514,945 (6,184,746) (7,457,274) (7,317,297) 104,229 Beginning Fund Balance 8,883,086 10,398,030 106% 9,800,000 10,398,030 598,030 Ending Fund Balance $10,398,030 $ 4,213,285 $2,342,726 $3,080,734 $ 702,260 Beginning Net Working Capital -Proposed Budget $3,410,000 a) Current year taxes due November, February, and May b) Reimbursement grant for CAD to CAD Capital Expenditures. Awaiting payment from ODOT c) Payments received quarterly-October, January, April, and July d) New World ($210,115) & IT($46,676). Billed in April e) Radio Consultant reimbursements received in FY 2013. Receipts in FY 2014 have been deferred f) Capital projects are in progress. Some will moved to FY 15 due to resource availability while others will be amended for less expensive alternatives Page 15 Health Benefits Trust Statement of Financial Operating Data Through April 30,2014 FY 2013 FY 2014 - - Year to Date op of Actual Actual (83.3%_ Budget Projection ' $Variance Budget of Year) Revenues: Internal Premium Charges 12,874,815 12,070,667 85% 14,269,138 14,467,500 198,362 Part-Time Employee Premium 30,280 13,885 35% 40,000 15,559 (24,441) Employee Monthly Co-Pay 643,918 665,525 68% 980,000 811,865 (168,135) COIC 1,405,518 1,323,769 83% 1,592,750 1,593,253 503 Retiree/COBRA Co-Pay 963,987 901,103 94% 958,333 1,075,624 117,291 Prescription Rebates 99,330 107,637 213% 50,493 107,637 57,144 Claims Reimbursements 50,493 1,675 n/a - 1,675 1,675 Miscellaneous 1,240 582 n/a - 582 582 Interest 70,959 53,330 89% 60,000 65,299 5,299 Total Revenues 16,140,540 15,138,173 84% 17,950,714 18,138,993 188,279 Expenditures: Personnel Services(all depts) 197,101 114,927 55% 209,676 175,536 34,140 Materials&Services Admin&Wellness Claims Paid-Medical 11,879,332 9,634,991 78% a) 12,321,732 11,609,445 670,115 Claims Paid-Prescription 1,059,923 569,696 54% a) 1,064,841 716,224 375,907 Claims Paid-DentalNision 1,835,199 1,432,378 78% a) 1,825,442 1,738,741 93,264 Claims Refunds (131,375) (166,054) n/a - (166,054) 166,054 Stop Loss Insurance Premium 336,407 230,468 61% 375,000 375,000 - State Assessments 194,510 67,753 32% 215,000 215,000 - Administration Fee(EMBS) 334,141 279,324 85% 330,000 330,000 - Preferred Provider Fee 50,841 41,297 75% 55,000 55,000 - Health Impact 52,224 4,327 8% 55,000 4,327 50,673 Other-Administration 101,616 27,518 46% 60,162 60,162 - Other-Wellness 49,996 105,503 137% 76,739 156,000 (79,261) Adman&Wellness 15,762,814 12,227,201 75% 16,378,916 15,093,846 1,285,070 Deschutes On-site Clinic Contracted Services 804,311 616,876 67% 915,000 915,000 - Medical Supplies 33,155 41,622 416% 10,000 50,000 (40,000) Equipment 2,170 - 0% 250 - 250 Other 46,715 22,233 58% 38,310 38,310 - Total DOC 886,351 680,731 71% 963,560 1,003,310 (39,750) Deschutes On-site Pharmacy Contracted Services 367,193 236,701 82% 289,004 289,004 - Medication and Drugs 1,446,770 1,384,655 92% b) 1,500,000 1,694,655 (194,655) Other 63,518 10,673 90% 11,876 11,876 - Total Pharmacy 1,877,480 1,632,028 91% 1,800,880 1,995,535 (194,655) Total Expenditures 18,723,746 14,654,888 76% 19,353,032 18,268,227 1,084,805 Change in Fund Balance (2,583,206) 483,285 (1,402,318) (129,233) 1,273,085 Beginning Fund Balance 14,551,028 $ 11,967,822 102% 11,700,000 11,967,822 267,822 Ending Fund Balance $ 11,967,822 $ 12,451,107 $10,297,682 $11,838,588 $1,540,906 of Exp covered by Revenues 86.2% 103.3% 92.8% 99.3% Beginning Net Working Capital-Proposed Budget $11,585,710 a) Projection based on combination of annualizing current year and 12-month rolling average Page 16 b) March and April based on February actual of$154,590. Projection for May-June at$155,000 per month. FAIR AND EXPO CENTER Statement of Financial Operating Data Through April 30, 2014 FY 2014-Year to FY 2013 Date(83%of Year) FY 2014 %of Actual Actual Budget Revised Budget_ Projection I $Variance Revenues Miscellaneous $ 4,102 $ 3,491 69.8% $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ - Vending Machines - 106 7.1% 1,500 1,500 - Telephone Fees-Events 255 510 n/a - 510 510 Special Events Revenues 383,339 336,931 85.3% 395,000 497,818 102,818 Interest 76 363 n/a - 363 363 Storage 35,283 35,590 65.9% 54,000 40,000 (14,000) Camping at F& E 16,700 8,018 72.9% 11,000 15,000 4,000 Horse Stall Rental 48,036 6,667 22.2% 30,000 45,000 15,000 Concession %- Food 139,006 87,650 57.7% 152,000 120,000 (32,000) Rights(Signage, etc.) 85,338 60,000 75.0% 80,000 80,000 - Grants - 62,006 34.4% a) 180,000 180,000 - Interfund Rentals 2,400 2,000 83.3% 2,400 2,400 - Annual County Fair(net) 245,000 205,000 82.0% b) 250,000 205,000 (45,000) Interfund Contract 45,000 - n/a - - - Total Revenues 1,004,534 808,331 69.6% 1,160,900 1,192,590 31,690 Expenditures: Personnel Services 821,293 750,419 84.5% 887,593 887,593 - Materials and Services 580,396 530,940 79.5% c) 667,733 652,228 15,505 Debt Service 114,117 69,227 61.3% 112,974 112,974 - Capital Outlay 9,000 176,289 97.9% a) 180,100 180,000 100 Total Expenditures 1,524,806 1,526,875 82.6% 1,848,400 1,832,795 15,605 Revenues less Expenditures (520,272) (718,543) (687,500) (640,204) 47,296 Transfers In: General Fund 320,000 311,820 83.3% 374,186 374,186 - Room Tax-6% (Fund 160) 25,744 21,450 83.3% 25,744 25,744 - Room Tax- 1% (Fund 170) 82,800 157,630 83.3% 189,156 225,734 36,578 Less: Promotion Expenditures Fair& Expo Reserve 50,000 75,000 75.0% 100,000 100,000 - Total Transfers In 478,544 565,900 82.1% 689,086 725,664 36,578 Change in Fund Balance (41,728) (152,643) 1,586 85,460 83,874 Beginning Fund Balance 35,055 (6,673) 48,827 (6,673) (55,500) Ending Fund Balance $ (6,673) $ (159,316) $ 50,413 $ 78,786 $ 28,373 I Beginning Net Working Capital -Proposed Budget $ 87,000 a) Pacific Power and Energy Trust grant for solar panels on the Event Center b) Revenues and Expenses for the annual fair recorded in a separate fund and the available net income is transferred to the Fair& Expo Center Fund c) The expenditure for the fire alarm/suppression system was not included in the FY 2014 budget Page 17 JUSTICE COURT Statement of Financial Operating Data Through April 30, 2014 FY 2014-Year to FY 2013 Date (83%of Year) FY 2014 %of Actual Actual Budget Budget Projection I $Variance Revenues Court Fines& Fees a) 357,920 313,237 74% b)c) 422,500 422,500 - State Miscellaneous - - 0% 600 600 - Interest on Investments 796 530 59% 900 900 - Total Revenues 358,716 313,767 74% 424,000 424,000 - Expenditures Personnel Services 365,245 340,966 76% 445,984 400,830 45,154 Materials and Services 166,294 154,788 81% 190,210 185,704 4,506 Total Expenditures 531,539 495,753 78% 636,194 586,534 49,660 Revenues less Expenditures (172,823) (181,986) (212,194) (162,534) 49,660 Transfers In-General Fund a) 221,716 117,350 83% 140,819 140,819 - Change in Fund Balance 48,893 (64,636) (71,375) (21,715) 49,660 Beginning Fund Balance 104,925 153,818 124% 124,241 153,818 29,577 Ending Fund Balance $ 153,818 $ 89,181 * $ 52,866 $ 132,103 $ 79,237 I Beginning Net Working Capital -Proposed Budget $ 107,621 I a) FY 2013: The Transfer from the General Fund was$579,636. As Justice Court Fines& Fees recorded in the General Fund as revenue totalled $357,920, the net transfer to Justice Court was$221,716 b) YTD Actual reported on "cash basis". April fines, to be received in May -$40,609 c) Collections tend to be seasonal and are greater during February, March and April Page 18 Cr CIIIII) C g E N p• ,0 .. E o U U .1114 0 .1.) 0 1-r-I CC) U 4 vs • • • • • CIII0) Deschutes County Bethlehem Inn (Fund 128) FY 2013-Actual; FY 2014-Year to Date Actual, Budget and Projection Through April 30, 2014 FY 2014-Year to FY 2013 Date(83%of Year) FY 2014 %of Actual Actual Budget Budget Projection $Variance Revenues Grants- Private $ - $ - 0.0% $2,700,600 $ - $(2,700,600) Lease Payments 24,408 20,340 83.3% 24,408 24,408 - Total Revenues 24,408 20,340 83.3% 2,725,008 24,408 (2,700,600) Expenditures Debt Service: Interest Expense 14,617 12,134 49.7% 24,408 14,200 10,208 Total Expenditures 14,617 12,134 49.7% 24,408 14,200 10,208 Change in Fund Balance 9,792 8,206 2,700,600 10,208 (2,690,392) Beginning Fund Balance (2,710,173) (2,700,381) 100.0% (2,700,600) (2,700,381) 219 Ending Fund Balance $(2,700,381) $(2,692,175) $ - $(2,690,173) $(2,690,173) a) Interest on April 2014 negative cash balance: $1,342.24. b) Inception through April 30, 2014: Revenues- Lease Payments $ 93,564 Expenditures: Land/Building (Amertitle)-July 2007 2,241,313 Hickman Williams 17,578 City of Bend -May 2008 250,000 KN EX CO 5,289 Kleinfelder 3,732 Total expended on facility 2,517,913 Interest on Negative Cash Balance 267,826 Total expended 2,785,739 Net $(2,692,175) jrt 5/1/2014 G N La LL- CL N. 0 0 0 CO N O N O r N ti 00 r O r N N- 0 0 Lt) CA CO O CD CO M O LO 'Cr' r N CO CO O O N. N- r e- CO O) N N- N Cr) CO ti Cr) r CD 0 CD N OO Co' O N- O T CO `^O r � r r V Cl: MC0 CO - -- T T CO CO T r EA a 0 0 O l0 LC) O co O i i i i LO N OD co U La an N- N N N co co in co N E O CI- (...) 44 N. 0 0 0 CD N 0) N 0 T N N- CO Cr 0 T ID N. f�- r O O Ln 0) CO 0 (D CO M 0 LC � I.0 N 0) L) O a CO N. N CO T CO 0) N h r N M O N- D M M "a 'O CD O O N co' ti C - CD OD cth" C7 C a C a) LO LO T r 0) N 7 Q N� r NJ M T T T r O N U U X r r 7 co Met a Lu m -a co Q Ce E!3 44 r CN co LO d rNM LOCON� CO m m CO CO CO m CLL C7 ..y ^9 "'7 � � � � � Cn N 00 C O } Q t U O O o o m N 3 0 a m T o C O a Cl) 0) U d t O a) C: O C Z as 3 0 L a E❑ p 0 d p i1 0 O cu m C co E .c U C] O = Ca co LL B p CO V 'c co m N I a) O d .� :_ a O co N CU Cn O CU 7`o 0) , V E ,� • c = 7+ a •Z a) co _N 7 m L 0 0 7 a ca ❑ 72 rna a O Q. e in li U z y — a) E m o_ •y a °l X O < a) cam° aa) o 0 ii o o O O a I-L NA O cai o ar c c ❑ CD N iA co o a�i Q a d o p O OTC C FiJ 'f0 A 2 Q ❑ C .L? '5 o_c e rt W Z � � 'U 7 > > � a. CC ❑ � - O a) ro a1 c -p d V C C C a) 0 F_^ C C , ,_ ,_ .0 p 7 CA 2 3 C a • N c Z Q O O c +� 7 E •O Z. • v v v a a`�i W u co c6 a co o t) 0 0 iri a) Q . m c c c a) .- To a co co I) w w C) o N F- W 2 c' a E w 2 12 N a; C CO CO r r r Q U 2 C 0 0 W F- F- F- O EF- Z U v 0 N in Li- ce n n n n Cl, r 0 r N rt O co 0 Co h N N N CO O 0) N- U r O CO (7) COCOO) 00NCOCO 'V' cO 00 N M C Ln ' ' ' ' O ' - 0) l[) CO LI) LI) r r c') 0 0 N CO ' CO O 01 CA (0 Cfl C") M O N N O CON CO r co- M O 0) 0 CO r v. O r N `-'N C'7 `-'r CO >co r r .r--._. t. .---" M N r ..r 0 0 0 0 0 0) r 03 O M O C) N� NCO CO CO O O CO N� CO OOOOMO CO CO CD 0CDCDNCOC') 'cl- LIC000 N C"J Uw CD CO ' 0000 03 'I' O In CO a aaOrC') COIh0000 ' 0 03 U c OOO QC) Or] r c> N NO) cON: rCOCC) ON N p Ln E .O OrNti N 0) `� co rCO co CO T a co- co U Q r a0 r Qi r c EA O r r CD (..� co H + + ' x m06 CI) +y 0 0 0 O) co 0 0 % In in CO Ln u) h ' ' ' O ' ' CO ' CO ' ' co ' ' 0 0 ' 0 I M O Al C: co M co Cr) r CO CD O CO CO d a; CD Q r r 0 0 30 O N a. i.: Cry '9 X, CN -O Ln CO CO r r 7, O N co co -a O C i I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I N ' ' ' V) I 0 0 7 r N c E 0) co N Cr�pQ Crp +� CO q) 69 —NM O c' r7 C'J _D •g�ii cn -c LO_ U O cn N ` .. Q ao a) 5T � -o CLL CO 000 COr CND 0) NC') 00N- NCON000O N 0) 0) G) Co0L0 r 000 Cc) CO CO � C) 0) 000NCOC') NLI) CO CO IC) h mo - p CO 00 - co O 0) 0 0 O ' C D 'C 1') r 0 Ln Ln r r CO 0) Nr N- CO ' CO ' CO N- Q r m O ULn L = cov co- ovo on r � rn � oimN� COCoCo C7i o o 0c Cr CU -a O O .Q N co O N N- LI) O CON Cr)C'] N CO N OD CD 1''I :E. co #k _c 1 1-9 7 c cY ¢ ~Q r CO r CO N M' ,0 r 0 V 7 C LO H-) r iR 8 "Q h C N O ❑ 0r U I~ 000 Cc') O d) O 0 0000 000) 0 00) E CL) YnC O Z'' -a.•-. r 0 0 0 ' c) 0 CD O ' ' ' O ' O 0 h CO ' C3 C"7 O CO ' i N 2 =r W a -1 zr cr; o00 0o ti o ui cc cc Oaoo r ar ,' $ m •A) N O La Ln � 0 CO N Cr) r � C") Cr) 1' LI 0 CO ❑ L C .. r C7) +' r N N� II) 0 CO Cr) NY CO 0 -0 2 0 O - -C (l) Z r CO r Q) r C Y � 'O r r Cp C N � w 69. 00N 4O CO C Ln 0 O U h N 0_� O N C) "" F1' ca CA CC Ln p CU _LX -O h `n E � OZ .0 r � Cll CU O Q' CnO -c m E u) CV u) D CO ' T CA 3 N azi U : O p 3 t E E g U 7 Cn 6 CO Q 'p N ....N E V .0 +�. wU, rp CO C C))•deGou_ � , 00 o . corn m ' $ � '( aF 'N (n L q) -) i b9. 03 C -p 5 °� C C) N 7 v; O Q '� )W O r m Cn (� 7 O. C 1S CV ti N O ._ U U) O El ' 0 O. N C C7 � UULiOQ WI O � ? c rn0 w O ° C o m s N •-)c c�a 2 - m R) is �' c = .- 'C °) c - N a� to c in w C. F- (n O 1� L L � � U a) E c a U _ U U >e U � 3 v c c c �- vi c a) CU 0 A c 06 oz$ 03 c0 W W W CV C-c a)O CI) N N N N L 0 C To, O._c. 5).5 C O cp.- rp 05 C C rte./ , , QJ a) +-� " O O O N 0 0 )C L c c 7 O 7 N LL LL O O O C) O O O Q.' c1— co H WQW W (n000LL c EzLLu_ 0Q H Z ZZZ _ ...... Q N 00 O 00 N LOC') 'cT 'CO (O 00 0 rn 0 0 O 0 Co N ti N N N N LO CO O C O Ldp ' O Q O ' h ' ' `^^'N NY a0 (0 0 LL al O O I§! 0 C) Cr N N— '- (O N O CD O O CD 00 r a)) I Z .0C100 OM 0 0Nt OLUC) 0 e') co co o I O -O 0 '- 00 "or a N. N 0 tiN0 W." •i- r 0 F" w 1 L[) OOO 0 i ON I. Oet LO 0., ' O ' Ce) 0 N LO o ;l O N. L0 CD '- 0 N LI] N f- ©CI •� 't 0 N CD r O Cr) M N N Co 0 (D N O C !1 ' N r N a * O co O O O M o o o o (D 0) O C') 0 r 0 0 O r 0 0 N 0 0 N N Cr) LO CD "' O ' OOO I 00 00N. QQ ' h ,1- COO ' {7) o N LO o O N. LO O r O O co - co O N `. D O ONO Le) N NOc') ON I. CO CO .- n IZ m in 1- I-- (D co '- N CO , ' CO — C4 LA h sw LO CO N. I n (3a U .-0's CD O O M O O et LO CO Cr) LO CO et CO 0 Cr) N. N- 0 r 0 0 0) 0 Cr) N co N. N 0) v co 1- M CO U) �' a) ' LOOOQ rti N. ' Co a) N QNN ' Co (P U C r a) co N LOO O co Co CO r N CA N N •CI) N O❑ o� N N. N N N O r C 7 0 d r •. N o N r 0L I T CO r) U> .... ° U °- In 0 0 0 O 0 O. ° ' 2 Q a) C o o o , o 0 O 0 C v) a) .0 ° a) O o O 0 0 0 a) rn (D (q °) _1 ro E o i 1. o Lei Lei 0 c I -C w O Q .- o N N g co up (~ C E U C ❑ N r ° m ❑ O CO V U o I, _ Q C U ° a�i a> o w 08 4= 2 Z c a °) _ oC') OO •- Q it) CO CO LOC') � �; )o ") ti ti ° 3` "0 o - oo D) 0 Cr)C") NcoN. N 0) Cr) 17 0 ' L] OOO r N N ' 0001st N- 0N0.1 ' 0 D 0 C -a a) -a N LO O O) (O r' CO — N N N. CA a) 3 a) C C ONO co N N O O C N V O `8' d CD 0 e- 'C) 'h L r C E a) X r N rM .- , O Cy)-0 Ce w 3 � a� Ce E) LL CI C $n N ._ _C N V) LL C) 15 8 C Q a) i cu H v 0 ro C c 0) E Cd,) CU L m C7 ro (2 Ca a) . C) c' Co NE -+ ch UU a) co ` N a' r o p ' I -0N C C ❑ N� ... nO 0 "0 O. C C Nt N O = U) I) IA to � 17 u_ a) a) ter ` c°'i •y LLB a) ' O w co co m v ' 3 3 vv o ° N al ui E E y cn � co 0 n N Y a) C ir a CS CU C . LL Q W > 7 j C D ,_ a ( °C ° 1:3 m - *. - U a a) c O w N Q v o ca •re o i CD D) re O ai a) To U 0 -o . w ro a�i a`hi a) O X ro ¢ w LL FL- ~ m iy ~ U C 11 N d in Q H3 W IX _ICIYCEI- � H wZ U H Z (o a 0"0 v 0 N US U- Ce - 0A- 000 - •,- NN M CO a) OCD000CD N 0 0 N N- U) O) c) ti 0 U O Co) 0 0 0 CI CC) 0 0 0 CO Cn r 0 C`') ct ti a) O O IC) O r i0 l7 CV (] u 4.-7 N O) co- Cfl Ip O O0 0 co N CO CD - CO CO CO CL 69 U N Q .73.,.D ..-6.75. . - N a- 2 O r 0 0 N C'7 0 0 0 0 0 CA r CD C7 N N 40 co -p 0CD00C co NOeh N0 NI- 0NCD ' N 0 CD Na) O co O O N- r co 0 r 0 0 0 r N- Cl_ 0) N 0 0 0 0 CG 00 .^ C'Mu7 ti 0 (D cc N c .a) N ❑ iQ I!7 N 0 003 tD CD N CO CD co 2 CL 69 10 NI- CD 7 O u) 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a) �N a) C 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 N M CO It) Ill u) -O CD U 0 O ' ' ' . © o 0 ' O ' r o ' 'r' r r N N ct5 C N - C] as 'E co C 0 u7 N '�` N co co Co N 0 LL CD O LI- D •► 0 0 CO �r H 0 O 50 N Q W o d -. 11 D m CO r' C N NJ- N r D C "C C) C) O N Cr1 0) 0 0 0 0 r CO C7 N N 0 co rU N V , N U -C3 O CO O 0 CC) co N N U) N 0 N CD r r h 4) V c Q co 0 0 M 0 0 N- r a) ' r 0 0 r CO C'] C7 0) r O C Cv) a ° O 0 4S] O CP 0 r N co N N u 0 ti 00 C M ro •a N as r 7U =) 7 C C) U) ) 0) U) CD co 00 r 0 C`o a`) .E 7aCi44 = L.. O d (7 N y LL i Cl) N ",-' NW cn � � U � # O = p re W N O. E N NCn O0 � � 7) 8 LLoaooO in C C 0 Cl) D r C7 C CO 0 O C CU j) Z L 0 C To 0 to x `� r .4V ro ca .w t_01 C o co 3N o Ca N OU a U 1E1 r a) 43 c T- fCCo U c CO V R co N N 609 O N 0 C 7 N = 0 0 O 3 �r N N •N CD cb C a 0 C p . N N 0 0 LL O U Cn V CD co— CI- < CO O _ CIS C ,,,,, ` co u) 'C U C1 rD+ r 0 C C 7 W ❑ CD . ¢ D D C W Z C O IL I N O IA o 2 C V E w°j N N C C C co 69 C!4 0 CO c` co C C N ° H atS .� m CO 1- c , 2 j C V d 30 N r C 7 d O °, CO r r CO C CO `1C ,CD � re Z .CI C C CD ga N C) + OU rte. W U EMN }N En p C y _ W L 'm c a�'i vUi ai ° ro 3 ° H o L}i. Li O Cn .74-0 N C C v C 7 C U - - N r+ U W N a) 0 C f° 4- O x Co Q W 4 fn - LL. M 2 m Z O y CtMu_ W HH cH W Z 0 S- Z RS aU"a Q Deschutes County General Support Services-BOCC Conference/Seminar, Education/Training and Travel Expenditures County College Expenditures FY 2014 FY 2014 BOCC Conference&Travel Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Total Tammy Baney - Conf/Sem&Educ/Training - 35 - 340 45 - - 60 83 - 563 Travel Meals - - - - 30 50 - - 10 - 90 Accommodations - - - 312 91 104 - - 91 - 598 Airfare - - - - - - - - - - - 7 - .._1 Mileage reimbursement 478 104 450 510 391 105 858 2,896 Ground Transport/Parking - - - - - - - - - - Total Baney 513 104 1,101 677 545 105 60 1,042 - 4,147 Alan Unger _ Conf/Sem&Educ/Training 205 - 10 375 - 110 35 95 118 60 1,008 Travel Meals - - - - - 81 - - - - 81 Accommodations 192 - - 415 - 479 - - 1,086 Airfare - - - - - - - - - - Mileage reimbursement - - - - - 2,056 - - - 2,056 Ground Transport/Parking - - - - - 14 - - - - 14 Total Unger 397 - 10 790 2,739 35 95 118 60 4,245 Tony DeBone Conf/Sem&Educ/Training 520 - 184 340 45 10 120 95 1,222 60 2,596 Travel Meals - 82 - - - 100 - - 114 - 295 Accommodations 618 164 - 415 - 145 - - 1,650 - 2,991 Airfare 658 50 - - - - - 681 - 1,389 Mileage reimbursement - 105 411 - 347 - - 872 - 1,735 Ground Transport 74 - - - - - 178 - 252 Total DeBone 1,795 474 184 1,166 45 601 120 95 4,717 60 9,258 • r Total-BOCC Department Conf/Sem&Educ/Training 725 35 194 1,055 90 120 155 250 1,422 120 _ 4,167 Travel Meals - 82 - - 30 230 - - 124 - 46 Accommodations 810 164 - 1,143 91 727 - - 1,741 - 4,676 Airfare 658 50 - - - - - - 681 - 1,389 Mileage Reimbursement - 583 104 861 510 2,794 105 - 1,731 - 6,687 Ground Transport 74 - - - 14 - - 178 - 266 Total-BOCC Department 2,192 987 298 3,058 722 3,886 260 250 5,877 120 17,650 FY 2014 Original Budget 15,250 Percent of FY 2014 Budget Expended 115.7% BOCC County College _ Printing/Binding - - - - - - 14 - - 14 Office/Co iffier Supplies 176 - - 48 - - - - - - 224 Meeting Supplies - 289 2,362 734 - - - 3,384 Total BOCC County College 176 - 289 2,409 734 - 14 - -- - - 3,622 NOTE: Above amounts include only those expenditures processed for payment. Additional conference and travel costs may have been incurred,but not processed for payment. JRF 4/30/2014 S -k Community Development Department CDX Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Nick Lelack, Community Development Director DATE: May 9, 2014 RE: Fee Waiver Request— Bend Airport Zone Change Summary/ Background The City of Bend is seeking a fee waiver of $5,000 for a zone change within the current boundaries of the Bend Airport. The zone change is to ensure 1) the correct boundaries of the Airport Development (A-D) zone appear on the County's zoning map, and 2) that the three A-D subzoning districts adopted by the County in Ordinance (Ord.) 2003-036 appear correctly on the County's zoning map. Under the County's current fee structure, a zone change is $4,920 plus actual costs of services for providing public notice. The City in the attached request for a full waiver has indicated it would accept a fee waiver of half that amount. The A-D zone was created in 1980 the same year the Bend Airport received an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 3 (Agriculture). The 340 acres of the A-D zone were mapped in 1982. When the County's paper maps were digitized in the mid-to late 1990s, there was apparently an introduced error for the A-D zone. The 16 acres of land on the northeast portion of the airport was misidentified as Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) instead of A-D. The City updated the Bend Airport Master Plan in 1994, but did not submit a land use application to the County. Thus, the EFU mapping error was not discovered until the 2002 Bend Airport Master Plan (BAMP) Update. Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) Ord. 2002-035 adopted the 2002 BAMP into the County's Comprehensive Plan. The 2002 BAMP Update created several zoning districts at the airport: Airfield Operations District (AOD), Aviation Support District (ASD), and Aviation-Related Industrial District (ARID). BOCC Ord. 2003-036 repealed and replaced the A-D zoning ordinance (18.76) in its entirety. Due to a procedural error, the zoning maps for the AOD, ASD, and ARID zoning districts were not adopted. The error was discovered in March 2014 when City and County staff were preparing presentation materials for an open house as part of a federal Environmental Assessment to relocate helicopter operations to the northeast side of the airport. The proposed helicopter site is the same 16 acres shown on the County's GIS map as zoned EFU, but which was rezoned as A-D in 1982. Discussion The City states there is a public benefit to the County waiving the fee as the correct boundaries of the A-D zone will be displayed on the County's zoning map. In addition, the City states the zoning Quality Services Performed with Pride map will reflect the correct boundaries of the A-D's AOD, ASD, and ARID districts. Currently, there is only A-D zoning at the airport, not AOD, ASD, or ARID due to the procedural error regarding the maps. The City discovered the 2002 procedural error while researching the EFU vs. A-D zoning on the 16 acres. County Staff agrees there was an error during the transition from paper to electronic maps and the A-D zone should be applied to the 16 acres on the northeast side of the airport. The City acknowledged the error on page 12 of the 2002 BAMP Update and agreed to fix it: However, during a review of existing zoning for this project, it was discovered that a small area near the northeast corner of the airport is zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU), rather than Airport Development(AD) zoning. County planning staff indicated that this was most likely an oversight which may have been created by a mapping error at some earlier point. The City will pursue re-zoning the small area from EFU to AD at some time in the future." The City is now pursuing the re-zoning from EFU to AD, and requesting a full or partial fee waiver from the County to help correct this error. County staff agrees the zone change to accurately portray the location of the AOD, ASD, and ARID subdistricts in the A-D zone will be a public benefit as applicants will know the allowed uses at the Bend Airport. BOCC Decision The BOCC's options include the following: 1. Approve a full fee waiver and find that the action is in the public benefit per the fee waiver policy(attached). 2. Approve a partial (i.e., 50%)fee waiver and find that the action is in the public benefit per the fee waiver policy. 3. Deny the fee waiver request. Attachments 1. City of Bend Fee Waiver Request 2. Fee Waiver Policy -2- CNED $ENS APR 1 6 2014 1..,. _- ED ,LivERED BY: :rte--�- April 16, 2014 CIO Nick Lelack, Director 710 NW WAI.l.STREET Deschutes County Community Development Department PO Box 431 117 NW Lafayette Ave BEND,OR 97701 Bend, OR 97701 1541]388-5505 TEL [541]385-6676 FAX BENDOREGON.GOV RE: Fee Waiver Request for Forthcoming zone change application from City of Bend Dear Nick: JIM CLINTON The City of Bend respectfully requests a fee waiver in the amount of Mayor $5,000 for an application for a zone change. The purposes of this JODIE BARRAM requested zone change are twofold. First, to ensure the correct Mayor Pro Tem boundary of the Airport Development(AD) Zone as applied to the Bend VICTOR CHUDOwSKY Airport property is reflected on the County's official zoning map. Second, City Councilor to correctly reflect the districts adopted for the Bend airport through DOUG KNIGHT Ordinance 2003-036 on the County's official zoning map. City Councilor SALLY RUSSELL The request for the fee waiver is based in part on changes in the City Councilor boundary of the AD zone that were inadvertently made in the early MARK CAPELL 1990s. The City has examined the County ordinances through which city councilor the AD Zone was adopted and then applied to the Bend Airport property. SCOTT RAMSAY These documents correctly show the County adopted an exception to City Councilor Goal 3 for this property and that the AD Zone boundaries matched the boundary of the property for which the exception was adopted. ERIC KING City Manager We understand that sometime in the early 1990s when the County was converting its official plan and zoning maps to an electronic format that an error was likely made in how the boundary of the AD zone was digitized. We found that the error was not discovered until very recently as the City was completing a 2013 airport master plan for the Bend Airport. At the same time, we also found that the zoning districts adopted through Ordinance 2003-036 were not reflected on the County's official zoning map. Through this ordinance, the County adopted three (3)sub-districts and incorporated them in DCC Chapter 18.76. These same districts were not mapped concurrently with or after the adoption of this ordinance. The City was not aware that this application would be needed to ensure the 1982 AD zone boundary and the sub-districts are correctly reflected on the County's official zoning maps. There is a public benefit to the County waiving the fee in this situation. The City benefits by ensuring that the boundary of the AD zone is correctly displayed on the County's official zoning map. In addition, the public who uses the airport property and its structures benefits from an accurate application of the zoning districts applied to the airport under DCC Chapter 18.76. The City acknowledges that this application for a zone change would not be necessary if the AD Zone was correctly reflected on the County's official zoning maps, and the zoning adopted through Ordinance 2003-036. That said, we understand that these errors were made before current County staff were involved. The City would accept a waiver of half of the fees to recognize the work Community Development Department Staff have completed to assist us in this manner and to ensure that the zoning for the Bend Airport is accurate. We don't have an accounting of how much staff time went into doing this research, and expect that it was significant and was not accounted for in the County's budget for this year. Please contact Assistant City Attorney Gary Firestone or Senior Planner Damian Syrnyk if you have any questions. Sincerely, Eric King City Manager CC: Gary Firestone Damian Syrnyk 0.--" Community Development Department KPlanning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend,Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX(541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ FEE WAIVER REQUEST FORM Name of Individual/Organization: rr'-I C- G/TLS 6 C ecNn' eo 2 �+J W 'ALL I City/State/Zip: • 6)2 Phone: (s`al ) � SS�S Address: 7/�= � 67 -.2 Type of Permit and Fees: [ ] Building $ [ Planning $5,,LOGO DLJ [ ] Subsurface Sewage $ [ ] Other: $ Total amount of fee(s)requested to be waived: $ S, ( D.UJ - The applicant shall provide a written explanation of the request and explain why one or more of the criteria below are satisfied. The request will be reviewed by the Community Development Director and a response will be provided within ten (10)business days. Criteria that must be met to qualify for a Fee Waiver: A. The applicant meets the criteria for indigency and at least one of the following conditions. Indigence shall be established by the financial hardship process attached (refer to Affidavit of Indigence and Request for Fee Waiver form). 1, There is an immediate need of the Community Development Department's services to protect the applicant's or public's health or safety. 2. Granting the fee waiver will create a long-term efficiency for a Code Enforcement issue. B. The request is from a nonprofit organization that has encountered an extraordinary hardship which could not have been anticipated in planning for and funding of the project; and the fee waiver will benefit the community. (NOTE: The Community Development Director may require performance of community services for some or all of the waived fees.) Quality Services Performed with Pride II C Community Development Department Q Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division at, ``��„\ > ;, J DDp ilp p 1pNJu v„, 111N N �Jr;P`N.p11diNNu;V7,y1ppN1fN qr1'M �H \V\�\\\\N111\l ”1.1\;N\��\`„�\N1A\\1M1U\r2�1\P � P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cddi FEE WAIVER POLICY Effective January 4, 2006, the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners approved Ordinance Nos. 2006-001, 2006-002 and 2006-003, delegating authority to administer and approve septic permit, building permit, and land use permit fee waiver requests to the Community Development Director and County Administrator(DDC 13.08, 15.04.160 and 22.08.010). The Board of County Commissioners of Deschutes County has delegated full authority to the Community Development Department (CDD) Director to administer this policy, with the exception of Items #7 and#8. POLICY GUIDELINES: 1. Fee waivers under this policy provide a public benefit. 2. With the adoption of this policy and continuing with each budget, an amount not to exceed $5,000 shall be set aside into a hardship account within the CDD budget from any savings of budgeted expenses or excess revenue. 3. When money is available in the hardship account of CDD, the CDD Director may authorize fee waivers in amounts not to exceed the fee waiver budget each year. 4. The COD Director shall find an applicant meets one of the following criteria in granting fee waivers: A. The applicant meets the criteria for indigency and at least one of the following conditions. Indigence shall be established by the financial hardship process attached as Exhibit"A." 1. There is an immediate need of the services of the Community Development Department to protect the applicant's or the public's health or safety. 2. Granting the waiver will create a long-term efficiency of a Code Enforcement issue. B. The request is from a nonprofit organization that has encountered an extraordinary hardship that could not have been anticipated in planning for and funding of the project, and the fee waiver will benefit the community. (NOTE: Community Service may be required by the CDD Director for some or all of the waived fees.) 5. Fee Waiver requests covered above shall be submitted on a form provided by CDD. Applicant shall provide a written explanation of the request and explain why one or more of the above criteria are satisfied. The request will be delivered to the CDD Director for review and decision. Quality Services Performed with Pride 6. The applicant may appeal the CDD Director's decision to the Deschutes County Administrator. The applicant may appeal the Deschutes County Administrator's decision to the Board of County Commissioners. 7. The Board of County Commissioners may issue blanket fee waivers, subject to the above criterion, for classes of hardship such as catastrophic fire. 8. The Board of County Commissioners may waive fees in any other case where the public benefit is served and other remedies have been exhausted. FINANCIAL HARDSHIP Some property owners or other responsible persons who lack the financial ability to obtain permits and approvals to pay fees established by the County for Community Development Services may receive relief. The procedure for establishing financial hardships is set forth below: Procedure: In cases where the applicant appears to have insufficient resources to pay fees, the applicant may apply to qualify for financial or other assistance within available resources and under the following procedures. 1. Criteria for Indigency To qualify for assistance under this section, the applicant or other responsible person must demonstrate a substantial financial hardship that makes paying the required fees impractical. 2. Fee Reduction/Waiver An applicant may apply for a reduction or waiver of CDD development fees for permits. The decision to reduce or waive development fees will be made by the CDD Director, considering the following factors: A. The degree of the applicant's indigency; B. The cost of the development permit(s)or approval(s) required; C. Funds available for fee reductions/waivers in CDD's budget or in any other available funds; and D. Other assistance available in the community. 3. Community Service in Lieu of Fees Upon a finding of indigency, the CDD Director may order community service at the rate of $10.00 per hour in lieu of some or all waived fees. A period of time shall be established in which the community service shall be completed. Fee Waiver Policy and Form 1/2006, Rev. 1/2012 Page 2 Community Development Department y P P Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division 1n Pe(Sdn @,rlNNq,;1 qp q q q ad,q r gw,tgo�q;omgo,,'\p\`iW\q�N\\\qNV\\Vq @\N 11��gq\\i\\\\41 q\\N\\\\q\\u\�h\\�\\\\\1��\\P,JV'i V AA P.O. Box 00 7 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.usicdd,/ AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENCE AND REQUEST FOR FEE WAIVER This information is submitted in confidence and is not subject to public disclosure (ORS 192.502(2). APPLICANT'S NAME: I, the undersigned, am requesting a waiver of Deschutes County Fees for Community Development Services because I cannot pay at this time without causing substantial hardship to myself and/or my dependent family. The following information is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I ask the CDD Director to use the information to decide whether I may receive a fee waiver at public expense. I understand I may be required to document or verify this information. 1. PERSONAL Name(print): Phone: ( -) Residence Address: City/State/Zip: Mailing Address(if different): City/State/Zip: Date of Birth: Social Security No. - - [ ] Male [ ] Female Mo/Day/Year Marital Status: [ ] Married [ ] Single [ ] Divorced [ ] Separated [ ]Widowed [ ]Other: Complete the following information for everyone living in your household: Name Relationship Age Monthly Income **Staff Use Only** Description of fees to be waived: Est.Amount: $ Fee Waiver Approved: [ ]Yes [ ] No / / Director, Community Development Dept. pate Comments: Quality Services Performed with Pride 2. EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME Present Employer How Long Occupation Address: City/State/Zip: Phone: ( Hourly wage $ Average Hrs./Week: Net(after tax)monthly income: If unemployed, how long since you were employed: Previous Employer: How Long: Occupation: Address Phone ( Spouse's Employer: How Long: Occupation: Address Phone( Hourly Wage$ Average Hrs./Week: Net(after tax)monthly income: If unemployed, how long since spouse was employed: Other income for you and spouse, dependents or household members (example: Social Security, unemployment, retirement, public assistance, child support,worker's compensation, disability, etc.) Source of Income(Describe) Amount How Long Received How Often Received Other household members who help pay for your living expenses: Name Amount Payment for What Describe 3. PROPERTY AND ASSETS OWNED BY YOU, SPOUSE AND DEPENDENTS Cash Available: Savings Acc't. No: Balance: $ Bank/Branch Office: Checking Acc't. No: Balance: $ Bank/Branch Office: Other Acc't. No: Balance: $ Bank/Branch Office: Real Estate: Address, City Value Amount Owed Equity Payments Made Fee Waiver Policy and Form 1/2006, Rev. 1/2012 Page 4 Credit Card Name/Bank Account Number Expiration Date Motor Vehicle Make/Year Value Amount Owed Equity Payments Made Are any of these motor vehicles used for work(other than driving to and from work)? [ ]Yes [ ] No All other property or assets(example: furniture, boats, guns,jewelry, tools, etc.): Description Value Description Value Money owed to you or spouse by others(example, tax refund, trust,judgment, etc.): Name of Debtor Amount Owed Date Payment Expected 4. MONTHLY EXPENSES List all expenses that are paid monthly by you, individually, or by you,jointly with spouse: Rent/Mortgage: $ Utilities: $ Credit Card: $ Car: $ Insurance: $ Medical: $ Child Support$ Court Order: $ Other: $ [ ] I am willing to perform Community Service to offset the public cost of my request. [ ] I unable to perform Community Service for the following reasons: I certify that the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Applicant Signature Date Fee Waiver Policy and Form 1/2006, Rev. 1/2012 Page 5 � E Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division • ,, ;; ox 6005 117 NW Lafayette udb"��M��t�u' 1 �V�ti�r��@�a�aan�si��,�,i�,, ; P.O. B Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cddi RELEASE TO OBTAIN INFORMATION FOR VERIFICATION (CONFIDENTIAL) APPLICANT'S NAME: I understand that the County may verify my employment and financial situation to determine my eligibility for a fee waiver. I understand that some of the information necessary for this verification is contained in records that are protected under federal and state laws. I have therefore signed this release which allows public and private organizations and individuals to provide the County or its designee with requested information. I understand that organizations and individuals which may be contacted include but are not limited to: • Social Security Administration • State Department of Revenue • Mortgage Holder • Department of Motor Vehicles • Employment Division(s) • Utility Companies • Worker's Compensation Disability Provider • Adult and Family Services Division • Landlords • Private Disability Insurance Provider • Private Life Insurance Provider • Past Employers • Release Assistance Office • Credit Card Holders • Credit Bureaus • Schools and Colleges • Banks, Savings & Loans, Credit Unions (requesting savings, stocks, bonds, checking, loan and credit information including copies of applications) • Other: By signing this release, I specifically authorize the County or its designee to directly contact my current employer by telephone or in writing, and to release and utilize my address as needed by the Board of County Commissioners or its designee. Applicant Signature Date Quality Services Performed with Pride = . Community Development Department f 1 Planning Division Sodding Safety Division Environmental Soils Division a„mNUaamNUNaaa\`NN+u"NaaaarNaaN N onaNNaVNNaaaNN'q,IMP�\\Na\aa\CAM\ih\G",\\\i\N4ati4aaaV\Nano; P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ FEE WAIVER REQUEST FORM Name of Individual/Organization: Address: City/State/Zip: Phone: ( ) Type of Permit and Fees: [ ] Building $ [ ] Planning $ [ ] Subsurface Sewage $ [ ] Other: $ Total amount of fee(s)requested to be waived: $ The applicant shall provide a written explanation of the request and explain why one or more of the criteria below are satisfied. The request will be reviewed by the Community Development Director and a response will be provided within ten (10)business days. Criteria that must be met to qualify for a Fee Waiver: A. The applicant meets the criteria for indigency and at least one of the following conditions. Indigence shall be established by the financial hardship process attached (refer to Affidavit of Indigence and Request for Fee Waiver form). 1. There is an immediate need of the Community Development Department's services to protect the applicant's or public's health or safety. 2. Granting the fee waiver will create a long-term efficiency for a Code Enforcement issue. B. The request is from a nonprofit organization that has encountered an extraordinary hardship which could not have been anticipated in planning for and funding of the project; and the fee waiver will benefit the community. (NOTE: The Community Development Director may require performance of community services for some or all of the waived fees.) Quality Services Performed with Pride r, gym" Community Development Department Uj Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division Y\Y\Pi\��\WP44�\m1 I4\1: 4\\ ; OAON \ `d\" P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ MEMORANDUM DATE: May 12, 2014 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Will Groves, Senior Planner RE: The Flight Shop and Aero Facilities Appeal / Hearings Officer's Decision (File Nos. SP-13-7, A-14-2 and A-13-4). Before the Board of County Commissioners (Board) is an appeal filed by The Flight Shop and Aero Facilities. The appeal is submitted in response to a Deschutes County Hearings Officer's decision on remand from LUBA that a proposed fueling station at the Bend Airport complies with all applicable regulations. The appellant requests the Board formally reconsider the decision. BACKGROUND The applicant, Leading Edge Aviation, requested site plan approval to establish an aviation fueling station at the Bend Airport. The property is owned by the City of Bend. The Hearings Officer issued a decision on July 19, 2013 finding that the proposal complies with all applicable regulations. On July 26, 2013 opponent appealed the decision to the Board. By Order 2013-038 dated August 7, 2013, the board declined to hear the appeal. On November 12, 2013 opponent appealed the Hearings Officer's decision to LUBA (LUBA No. 2013-073). The appeal raised two assignments of error. By a decision dated January 10, 2014, LUBA sustained one assignment of error, and remanded the decision to the county for further proceedings. The Hearings Officer approved the site plan review on remand from LUBA on April 30, 2014. Opponent filed a timely appeal on May 12, 2014. The 90-day period for issuance of a final local decision on remand under ORS 215.435 expires on May 19, 2014. However, the applicant has provided a letter May 13, 2014 providing ninety extra days and any additional time reasonably necessary for the Board to hear this matter. APPEAL The notice of appeal describes several assignment of error. This is summarized below, with references to those pages within the decision where the Hearings Officer addressed the issue. Quality Services Performed with Pride a. By finding that the Bend Municipal Airport AMP does not include any standards and criteria applicable to the Applicant's site plan; b. By finding that the AMP does not preclude approval of the Applicant's fueling station on the subject property; c. By concluding that policy 16.2(h) of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and TSP should be interpreted to not prohibit development except as specifically designated on the Airport Layout Plan; d. By finding that Deschutes County has revised, or has approved revisions, of the Airport Layout Plan several times since the 2002 version in order to reflect actual development at the Airport, most recently in 2013 with the addition of the Applicant's fueling station on the subject property; e. By concluding to not consider the Airport Development Zone Purpose Statement (DCC 18.76.010) in connection with the issues on remand, including whether the AMP or any of its contents must be applied as an approval criterion because of the purpose statement; and f. By finding that the "AMP and ALP are intended to describe recommended airport developments to meet identified needs and to accommodate development that may not have been foreseen at the time the update was adopted". The appellant requests de novo review. If the Board decides to hear the appeal, the review shall be on the record unless the Board decides to hear the appeal de novo because it finds the substantial rights of the parties would be significantly prejudiced without de novo review and it does not appear that the request is necessitated by failure of the appellant to present evidence that was available at the time of the previous review; or whether in its sole judgment a de novo hearing is necessary to fully and properly evaluate a significant policy issue relevant to the proposed land use action (See: DCC 22.32.027(B)(2)(c) and (d)). The Board may, at its discretion, determine that it will limit the issues on appeal to those listed in the notice of appeal or to one or more specific issues from among those listed on the notice of appeal (See: DCC 22.32.027(B)(4)). DECLINING REVIEW If the Board decides that the Hearings Officer's decision shall be the final decision of the county, then the Board shall not hear the appeal and the party appealing may continue the appeal as provided by law. The decision on the land use application becomes final upon the mailing of the Board's decision to decline review. In determining whether to hear an appeal, the Board may consider only: 1. The record developed before the Hearings Officer; 2. The notice of appeal; and 3. Recommendations of Staff(See: DCC 22.32.035(B) and (D)). File No.:A-14-2(A-13-4 and SP-13-7) Page 2 of 3 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board hear this matter. While Staff concurs with the Hearings Officer's code interpretation, the Board has the ultimate ability to interpret the County Code and, if this matter is appealed to LUBA again, the Board's interpretation of the Code will be given deference. Staff also recommends this matter be heard on the record. This will allow the parties to submit written legal arguments in advance of a Board deliberation in this matter, but preclude submissions of new evidence. Staff believes that all relevant documents are presently in the record and that substantial rights of the parties would not be significantly prejudiced without de novo review. Attachments 1. Hearing Officer's decision on Remand (File no. SP-13-7) 2. Notice of Intent to Appeal (File no. A-14-2) 3. Draft Orders to hear this matter de novo and, alternatively, on the record. File No.:A-14-2(A-13-4 and SP-13-7) Page 3 of 3 DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION , * * LAND USE APPLICATION * * A142 Taxmap 17-13-2000 200 SERIAL 151469 13 :27 : 52 12 MAY 2014 Request APPEAL OF SP-13-7 HEARINGS OFFICER DECISION ON REMAND AERO FACILITIES LLC, c/o MICHAEL MCGEAN, FRANCIS HANSEN & MARTIN Location 63132 POWELL BUTTE HWY,BE Zone AD AS Other affected property NONE Submitted date 05/12/14 Accepted date Assigned Planner NONE Expiration date 120th day _ Counter Person WWG Applicant AERO FACILITIES LLC, c/o MICHAEL MCGEAN, FRANCIS HANSEN & MARTIN Own Address 1148 NW HILL STREET Phone (541) 389-5010 City BEND, OR 97701 Receipts 476926 Amount Paid 2801 . 00 Status P Status date 05/12/14 Other Permit' s 134 Permits TN Due to staff Due in mail Mailed Le I1_ - _w _ Due in mail Mailed Admn decision due Due Plan Dir Admn dec Admn decision mailed Admin decision appealed HO Hearing date Staff rpt due Staff rpt mailed HO decision HO Decision mailed Appealed BOC hearing BOC decision BOC decision mailed BOC decision appealed OTHER LAND USE APPLICATIONS ON THIS PROPERTY LIMITED TO FIRST 10 OF 66 LUA ID ACCPT DATE REQUEST A134 07/29/13 APPEAL OF SP137 V124 10/15/12 VARIANCE TO THE FRONT SETBACK SP1119 11/28/11 SITE PLAN FOR MODULAR BUILDING FOR OFFICE/DISPATCH CENTER TU0918 08/04/09 TEMPORARY USE FOR SIX AIRCRAFT HANGARS SP0925 07/27/09 SITE PLAN FOR 6 NEW HANGARS AT BEND AIRPORT. SOP072 08/17/07 NOISE PERMIT FOR BEND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT CU0767 07/03/07 CUP FOR AVIATION RELATED BUSINESS SOP071 06/18/07 NOISE PERMIT S078 06/11/07 SIGN PERMIT (GROUND MOUNTED) FOR THE BEND AIRPORT 5071 01/16/07 SIGN PERMIT FOR CAFE AT THE BEND AIRPORT ]DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 117 NW LAFAYETTE BEND, OREGON 97701 (541) 388-6575 * * RECEIPT * RECEIPT * RECEIPT * RECEIPT * RECEIPT * RECEIPT * RECEIPT * * RECEIPT# 476926 BATCH 6857 INIT WWG 13 :27 :43 12 MAY 2014 Page 1 TRANSIT# A142 Taxmap# 17-13-2000 200 Serial# 151469 Sites : 63132 POWELL BUTTE HWY,BE DESCRIPTION FEE PLANNING FEE 2801 .00 CHECK NUMBER 14966 AMOUNT APPLIED 2801. 00 PROFESSIONAL AIR • e Ru• 1► ...V-■ 2801 . 00 This is a receipt and does NOT constitute a permit or license ,O. 1 Community Development Department s' a Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division 3 ❑ ALA A Wow",;lx'•. • r '"' :•,±;,') ,.. t: ,'..y'. f ..' ....': .F to 4 ,F; P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend,Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX(54.1)385-176:4 http://www.co.desdiutes.or.us/cdd/ APPEAL APPLICATION FEE: $2, 801 EVERY NOTICE OF APPEAL SHALL INCLUDE: 1. A statement describing the specific reasons for the appeal. 2. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body, a request for review by the Board stating the reasons the Board should review the lower decision. 3. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body and de novo review is desired, a request for de novo review by the Board, stating the reasons the Board should provide the de novo review as provided in Section 22.32.027 of Title 22. 4. If color exhibits are submitted, black and white copies with captions or shading delineating the color areas shall also be provided. It is the responsibility of the appellant to complete a Notice of Appeal as set forth in Chapter 22.32 of the County Code. The Notice of Appeal on the reverse side of this form must include the items listed above. Failure to complete all of the above may render an appeal invalid. Any additional comments should be included on the Notice of Appeal. Staff cannot advise a potential appellant as to whether the appellant is eligible to file an appeal (DCC Section 22.32.010)or whether an appeal is valid. Appellants should seek their own legal advice concerning those issues. Michael H. McGean, Francis Hansen & Martin LLP obo Appellant's Name(print):Th e Flight Shop & Aero Facilities Phone:i541 )389-5010 Mailing Address: 1148 NW Hill Street City/State/Zip: Bend, OR 97701 Land Use Application Being Appealed: File No- SP-13-7, Leading Edqe Aviation Property Description: Township 17 . .- 13 Section 2 0 Tax Lot 200 Appellant's Signature: ` EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 22.32.024, APPELLANT SHALL PROVIDE A COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT OF ANY HEARING APPEALED, FROM RECORDED MAGNETIC TAPES PROVIDED BY THE PLANNING DIVISION UPON REQUEST (THERE IS A $5.00 FEE FOR EACH MAGNETIC TAPE RECORD), APPELLANT SHALL SUBMIT THE TRANSCRIPT TO THE PLANNING DIVISION NO LATER THAN THE CLOSE OF THE DAY FIVE (5) DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE SET FOR THE DE NOVO HEARING OR, FOR ON-THE-RECORD APPEALS,THE DATE SET FOR RECEIPT OF WRITTEN RECORDS. (over) 3/13 Statement on Appeal by Opponents The Flight Shop Inc. and Aero Facilities LLC (collectively "Appellants") of Decision of Deschutes County Hearings Officer on Remanded Application A-13-4 and SP-13-7, Leading Edge Aviation Inc. 1. Standing. Appellants have standing to appeal because they are an interested party, and filed comments and appeared in proceedings on the Application with the Planning Division. 2. Statement of Issue. : , - r - . • • i . i- •t 6. -6 - . • - j, error for each and all of the following grounds: a. By finding that the Bend Municipal Airport AMP does not include any standards and criteria applicable to the Applicant's site plan; b. By finding that the AMP does not preclude approval of the Applicant's fueling station on the subject property; c. By concluding that policy 16.2(h) of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and TSP should be interpreted to not prohibit development except as specifically designated on the Airport Layout Plan (Hearings Officer Decision on Remand, p. 14); d. By finding that Deschutes County has revised, or has approved revisions, of the Airport Layout Plan several times since the 2002 version in order to reflect actual development at the Airport, most recently in 2013 with the addition of the Applicant's fueling station on the subject property(Decision on Remand at p. 14); e. By concluding to not consider the Airport Development Zone Purpose Statement (DCC 18.76.010) in connection with the issues on remand, including whether the AMP or any of its contents must be applied as an approval criterion because of the purpose statement; and f. By finding that the "AMP and ALP are intended to describe recommended airport developments to meet identified needs and to accommodate development that may not have been foreseen at the time the update was adopted" (Decision on Remand at p. 16). Page 1 of 2 STATEMENT ON APPEAL 3. Request for Review. For the foregoing reasons, The Flight Shop, Inc. and Aero Facilities, LLC therefore request review by the Board of County Commissioners. Appellants request de novo review by the Board because the matter requires the interpretation of a significant policy issue and the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance. Dated this 12th day of May 2014. FRANCIS HANSEN & MARTIN LLP Martin E. Hansen, OSB #800526 Michael H. McGean OSB#004734 Attorneys for The Flight Shop, Inc. & Pro Air, LLC Page 2 of 2 STATEMENT ON APPEAL CDD COVER SHEET FOR SLB 04/29/2014 16: 11 :31 PL 1 PAGES 1111111 III 1111111111 11111111111 111111111 11111111111111111111 II FILE ID 1713200000200PL20140429161131 TAXMAP 1713200000200 SERIAL 151469 DIVISION PL SITUS 63132 POWELL BUTTE HWY HOUSE# 63132 STREET POWELL BUTTE CONTENT A134/SP137 H . O . Remand Decision RECORD ID A134 LOCATED IN DATE FILE Cover Sheet Identifier AHJKMTWX DECISION OF DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER FILE NUMBERS: A-13-4, SP-13-7 APPLICANT: Leading Edge Aviation 63048 Powell Butte Highway Bend, Oregon 97701 PROPERTY OWNER: City of Bend 710 N.W.Wall Street Bend, Oregon 97701 ATTORNEY FOR APPLICANT: Sharon R. Smith Bryant, Lovlien & Jarvis, PC 591 S.W. Mill View Way Bend, Oregon 97702 ATTORNEY FOR OPPONENTS: Michael H. McGean Francis Hansen & Martin LLP 1148 N.W. Hill Street Bend, Oregon 97701 Attorney for The Flight Shop, Inc. and Aero Facilities, LLC ATTORNEY FOR CITY OF BEND: Gary Firestone Assistant City Attorney 710 N.W.Wall Street Bend, Oregon 97701 REQUEST: The applicant requested and received site plan approval to establish an aviation fueling station on a parcel zoned AD at Bend Airport. Opponent appealed the decision to LUBA and LUBA remanded the decision for further proceedings. STAFF REVIEWER: William Groves, Senior Planner ORIGINAL HEARING: May 28, 2013 ORIGINAL DECISION: July 18, 2013 LUBA REMAND: January 10, 2014 REMAND INITIATION: February 18, 2014 REMAND HEARING: March 4, 2014 REMAND RECORD CLOSED: March 31, 2014 Leading Edge Remand, SP-13-7 Page 1 of 21 APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: A. Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance 1. Chapter 18.04, Title, Purpose and Definitions * Section 18.04.030, Definitions 2. Chapter 18.76, Airport Development Zone --AD *Section 18.76.020, Standards in All Districts *Section 18.76.050, Use Limitations * Section 18.76.060, Dimensional Standards * Section 18.76.070, Airfield Operations District(AOD) * Section 18.76.100, Design and Use Criteria 3. Chapter 18.80,Airport Safety Combining Zone --AS * Section 18.80.026, Notice of Land Use and Permit Applications * Section 18.80.028, Height Limitations * Section 18.80.044, Land Use Compatibility * Section 18.80.078, FAA Notification (Form 7460-1) 4. Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions * Section 18.116.020, Clear Vision Areas * Section 18.116.030, Off-street Parking and Loading * Section 18.116.031, Bicycle Parking 5. Chapter 18.124, Site Plan Review * Section 18.124.030, Approval Required * Section 18.124.060, Approval Criteria * Section 18.124.070, Required Minimum Standards B. Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, the Development Procedures Ordinance 1. Chapter 22.34, Proceedings on Remand * Section 22.34.010, Purpose *Section 22.34.020, Hearings Body * Section 22.34.030, Notice and Hearings Requirements * Section 22.34.040, Scope of Proceeding C. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan II. FINDINGS OF FACT: A. Location: The subject property is located at the Bend Municipal Airport (hereafter"Bend Airport") and is further identified as Tax Lot 200 on Deschutes County Assessor's Map 17-13-20. B. Zoning and Plan Designation: The subject property is zoned Airport Development(AD) and Airfield Operations District (AOD) and also is located within the Airport Safety (AS) Combining Zone for Bend Airport. The property is designated Airport Development on the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan map. C. Site Description: Bend Airport is owned and operated by the City of Bend (hereafter "city" or "Bend"). It consists of 177 predominantly level acres located outside the city limits and developed with a paved runway and taxiways, aircraft hangars and tie-downs, and a variety of aircraft-related businesses operating under leases with the city. The Leading Edge Remand, SP-13-7 Page 2 of 21 proposed fueling station is located on a 6,500-square-foot lease area north of the applicant's existing building, west of Taxiway A and south of Taxilane 7. D. Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses: Bend Airport is surrounded by land zoned Multiple Use Agriculture (MUA-10) and developed primarily with rural residences and small-scale farms. The subject fueling station is surrounded by land within the AD Zone and developed with airport-related uses, including an aircraft fueling station owned by The Flight Shop, Inc. and Aero Facilities, LLC, a Fixed Base Operator (FBO) at the airport (hereafter"opponent"). E. Property History: The applicant and opponent operate aviation-related businesses at Bend Airport on land leased from the city. The applicant's leased areas and facilities are located on the west side of the airport. Opponents' leased areas and facilities are located on both the east and west sides of the airport. Opponents operate an FBO on the west side of the airport. Historically opponents' FBO had the only fueling station at Bend Airport. In 2013 the applicant proposed developing a second fueling station on a leased area on the east side of the airport near opponents' east-side operations. The city approved the lease for the applicant's fueling station, but after opponents objected and filed a civil action against the city and the applicant in Deschutes County Circuit Court to prevent the siting of the proposed fueling station (13CV0240), the location of the applicant's fueling station was changed to the subject site on the west side of the airport. F. Procedural History. The applicant's original site plan application for the fueling station was submitted on April 16, 2013 and was accepted by the county as complete on May 15, 2013. A public hearing on the application was held on May 28, 2013. At the hearing, the Hearings Officer declared her observations and impressions from a site visit to the subject property and vicinity conducted the day of the hearing, received testimony and evidence, left the written evidentiary record open through June 18, 2013, and allowed the applicant through June 25, 2013 to submit final argument pursuant to ORS 197.763. The applicant waived it's the filing of final argument and the record closed on June 20, 2013. On July 18, 2013 the Hearings Officer issued a decision granting site plan approval for the fueling station subject to 11 conditions of approval. On July 26, 2013 opponent appealed the decision to the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (hereafter "board") (A-13-4). By Order 2013-038 dated August 7, 2013, the board declined to hear the appeal. On November 12, 2013 opponent appealed the Hearings Officer's decision to LUBA (LUBA No. 2013-073). The appeal raised two assignments of error. By a decision dated January 10, 2014, LUBA sustained one assignment of error, did not reach the other assignment of error, and remanded the decision to the county for further proceedings. The Flight Shop, Inc. v. Deschutes County, Or LUBA_(2014). On February 11, 2014 the applicant submitted a letter requesting that the remand be initiated effective February 18, 2014. A public hearing on the remand was held on March 4, 2014. At the hearing the Hearings Officer received testimony and evidence, with the applicant's consent left the written record open through March 28, 2014, and allowed the applicant through April 4, 2014 to submit final argument pursuant to ORS 197.763. Staff and the parties agreed that the record on remand would include the LUBA record as well as testimony and evidence submitted on remand. By a letter dated March 31, 2014 the applicant waived submission of final argument and the record closed on that date. The 90-day period for issuance of a final local decision on remand under ORS 215.435 Leading Edge Remand, SP-13-7 Page 3 of 21 expires on May 19, 2014. As of the date of this decision there remain 21 days in the 90- day period.' F. Proposal: The applicant requested and received site plan approval to establish an aviation fueling station on the subject site. The applicant currently operates an aviation- related business at Bend Airport that includes aircraft rental and pilot instruction. The record indicates the aviation fueling station was constructed following issuance of the Hearings Officer's decision granting site plan approval.2 The fueling station is located north of the applicant's existing facility, northeast of the intersection of Powell Butte Highway and Butler Market Road. The approved facility consists of two ground-mounted 12,000-gallon Fire Guard fuel tanks and a self-service fueling system for aviation fuel (AV Gas and Jet A), as well as a paved standing and maneuvering area for aircraft and for fueling trucks. The fueling station is accessible to aircraft from Taxiway A and accessible to fueling trucks from Taxilane 7. The fueling station site is a leased area approximately 6,500 square feet in size. The fuel tanks occupy a 1,700-square-foot area on the west side of the leased area. Three existing aircraft tie-downs on the west side of Taxiway A and the east side of the leased area were removed to provide aircraft access to the fueling station. Patrons of the fueling station pay for fuel using a credit card.' G. Public/Private Agency Notice and Comments: The Planning Division sent notice of the applicant's original site plan to a number of public and private agencies and received responses from: the Deschutes County Transportation Planner; the Bend Fire Department and Airport Manager; and the Oregon Department of Aviation. These comments are set forth verbatim at pages 2-3 of the original staff report and/or are included in the record. The following agencies did not respond or had no comments on the applicant's original proposal: the Deschutes County Building Division; and the Bend Planning and Engineering Divisions and Public Works Department. The record indicates that on remand the county did not give notice to or request comments from agencies. 1 Section 22.24.140 of the county code provides that a continuance or record extension requested or agreed to by the applicant tolls the running of the 150-day period. In previous decisions on remand --e.g., Loyal Land, (A-13-8) -- the Hearings Officer has held that although ORS 215.435(2) (b) authorizes an applicant to extend the 90-day period, Section 22.24.140 is expressly limited to the effect of tolling the 150-day period. I adhere to that holding here and find the 90-day period was not tolled and therefore expires on May 19, 2014_ 2 Opponent argues construction of the fueling station following site plan approval was improper because of opponent's LUBA appeal. However, opponent acknowledged at the public hearing that no stay of the Hearings Officer's decision was requested or issued by LUBA. The record indicates opponent filed a second civil action against the applicant in the Deschutes County Circuit Court (14CV0133) alleging a code violation for the applicant's operation of the fueling station following issuance of LUBA's remand decision, and requesting an injunction requiring the applicant to cease selling fuel and to remove the fueling station from the subject property. A copy of opponent's code violation complaint is included as Exhibit 6 to the applicant's Supplemental Burden of Proof on Remand. 3 In its March 4, 2014 memorandum opponent states the applicant constructed a canopy over the fueling station that was not part of the approved site plan_ Photos of this structure are included in the record as attachments to opponents' March 4, 2014 memorandum. At the public hearing opponent's representative argued the Hearings Officer should deny the applicant's site plan application on remand for this reason alone. However, opponent did not cite, nor have I found, any code provisions or case law authorizing me to deny the application on the basis of an alleged code violation. Leading Edge Remand, SP-13-7 Page 4 of 21 H. Public Notice and Comments: The Planning Division mailed individual written notice of the applicant's original site plan proposal and public hearing to the owners of record of all property located within 250 feet of the subject property. The record indicates this notice was mailed to 31 property owners. In addition, notice of the original public hearing was published in the Bend "Bulletin" newspaper, and the subject property was posted with a notice of proposed land use action sign. As of the date the original record closed, the county had received one letter in response to this notice from opponent's attorney Michael McGean. In addition, Mr. McGean and one member of the public testified at the original public hearing. The record indicates the county mailed notice of the hearing on remand to the parties to the original proceeding. At the remand hearing the applicant's representative and attorney, opponent's representative and attorney, and the city's attorney and airport manager testified. I. Lot of Record: The original staff report states the county recognizes the subject property as a legal lot on the basis of previously-issued building and land use approvals thereon. III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: SCOPE OF PROCEEDINGS AND RECORD ON REMAND A. Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, the Development Procedures Ordinance 1. Chapter 22.34, Proceedings on Remand a. Section 22.34.010, Purpose DCC 22.34 shall govern the procedures to be followed where a decision of the County has been remanded by LUBA or the appellate courts or a decision has been withdrawn by the County following an appeal to LUBA. FINDINGS: This matter is before the Hearings Officer on remand from LUBA. Therefore I find the procedures in Chapter 22.34 are applicable. b. Section 22.34.020, Hearings Body The Hearings Body for a remanded or withdrawn decision shall be the Hearings Body from which the appeal to LUBA was taken, except that in voluntary or stipulated remands, the Board may decide that it will hear the case on remand. If the remand is to the Hearings Officer, the Hearings Officer's decision may be appealed under DCC Title 22 to the Board, subject to the limitations set forth herein. FINDINGS: The site plan application was heard by this Hearings Officer and therefore this matter is properly before me on remand from LUBA. c. Section 22.34.030, Notice and Hearing Requirements A. The County shall conduct a hearing on any remanded or withdrawn decision, the scope of which shall be determined Leading Edge Remand, SP-13-7 Page 5 of 21 in accordance with the applicable provisions of DCC 22.34 and state law. Unless state law requires otherwise, only those persons who were parties to the proceedings before the County shall be entitled to notice and be entitled to participate in any hearing on remand. B. The hearing procedures shall comply with the minimum requirements of state law and due process for hearings on remand and need comply with the requirements of DCC 22.24 only to the extent that such procedures are applicable to remand proceedings under state law. C. A final decision shall be made within 90 days of the date the remand order became effective. FINDINGS: Written notice of the public hearing on remand was provided to the parties to the original site plan proceeding, and only those parties were allowed to participate in the hearing on remand. The procedures for the public hearing complied with the requirements for hearings in Chapter 22.24 of the development procedures ordinance. A final county decision on remand will be made within 90 days of the date the remand was initiated. d. Section 22.34.040, Scope of Proceeding A. On remand, the Hearings Body shall review those issues that LUBA or the Court of Appeals required to be addressed. In addition, the Board shall have the discretion to reopen the record in instances in which it deems it to be appropriate. FINDINGS: The scope of the proceeding on remand is established by LUBA's decision. LUBA described the issue in this matter as"the applicability and effect of the county's adopted Bend Municipal Airport Master Plan on the site plan review application." In the Hearings Officer's remanded decision, I found that Section 18.76.070(A) allows "fuel storage and sales" as an outright permitted use in the AOD Zone, and that Section 18.76.100 requires compliance with the Bend Municipal Airport Master Plan (hereafter "AMP") only for conditional uses in the AOD Zone. I made the following findings concerning the effect of these AOD Zone provisions: "The above-underscored language [Section 18.76.070(A) and Section 18.76.100] makes clear Section 18.76.100 applies only to conditional uses and not to outright permitted uses such as the applicant's proposed fueling station. [Footnote omitted.] Nevertheless, The Flight Shop argues the Hearings Officer should require the applicant to demonstrate its proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the Bend Airport Master Plan. The Flight Shop argues the proposal conflicts with the Airport Master Plan because the plan shows a second fueling station at a different location than that proposed by the applicant— i.e., on the east side of the runway. In his May 28, 2013 memorandum, the Flight Shop's attorney Michael McGean stated in relevant part: 'The County cannot approve a site plan application for a use that is in conflict with the current 2002 Airport Layout Plan approved by Leading Edge Remand, SP-13-7 Page 6 of 21 the FAA and the City of Bend. The Comprehensive Plan for Deschutes County acknowledges that the 2002 ALP 'is the guiding document for airport planning and development.' (Ex. C, Ordinance 2012-005, p. 48. See also OAR[Oregon Administrative Rules] 660-013-0030, requiring coordination of any land use regulation with existing acknowledged plans.' The applicant is in effect asking the County to amend the ALP.' The record includes considerable written testimony from the Flight Shop, the applicant and Gary Judd, the Bend Airport Manager, concerning the applicable provisions of the Airport Master Plan and ALP, and whether and to what extent they affect the siting of airport-related uses through the county's land use process. The Hearings Officer finds I need not reach the merits of The Flight Shop's arguments concerning application of the Airport Master Plan and ALP to the applicant's proposal because the plain language of Section 18.76.100 makes it applicable only to conditional uses and not to uses permitted outright in the AOD Zone under Section 18.76.070(A) such as "fuel storage and sales."As discussed in the findings above, I have found the applicant's proposal falls within this outright permitted use."(Emphasis added.) LUBA's decision addressed these findings as follows: "* * * The hearings officer concluded that because DCC 18.76.100 expressly requires that conditional uses in the airport zones must comply with the master plan, but does not include an express requirement to that effect with respect to permitted uses, the master plan simply does not apply in approving permitted uses. We agree with petitioners that the hearings officer's interpretation infers too much from the text of DCC 18.76. The master plan is adopted as part of the TSP, which is part of the county's comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan is frequently a potential source of approval standards or requirements with respect to development approvals, and if such standards or requirements exist in the comprehensive plan, then ORS 197.175(2)(d), if nothing else, requires that development comply with such standards or requirements. That DCC 18.76 does not specify that permitted uses must comply with the master plan, or any other part of the comprehensive plan, does not mean that, as a matter of law, the master plan includes no applicable requirements for permitted development within the airport zones. If in fact the master plan includes a requirement that applies to proposed development, for example, an express or implied prohibition on locating new fuel facilities in certain locations of the airport, then such requirement must be complied with.r 'As an example, runways are allowed in all three zoning districts as outright permitted uses. However, the master plan depicts the existing and future expansion areas for runways, and all of the existing and future airport development is based on the location of the runway as planned in the master plan. Under the hearings officer's interpretation, the runway could be removed or expanded in ways that are entirely inconsistent with the master plan. But we cannot imagine that the county could approve, without consideration of the master plan, a proposal to site a fueling station as an outright permitted use in an area designated on the airport master plan for expansion of the runway, because runway Leading Edge Remand, SP-13-7 . Page 7 of 21 expansion is necessarily limited by the location of the existing runway to one or two areas of the entire airport." (Bold emphasis italicized in original.)4 Having concluded the Hearings Officer misconstrued the language of Section 18.76.070(A) and 18.76.100, LUBA held: "The relevant question, then, is whether the airport master plan includes any applicable standards or requirements with respect to the proposed fuel storage facility. More specifically, the relevant question is whether the airport master plan precludes approval of a fueling station on the west side of the runway in the proposed location. The hearings officer never reached that question, relying instead on inferences drawn from the text of DCC 18.76 to conclude that as a matter of law the master plan does not apply to permitted uses. As explained above, that conclusion is an insufficient basis to conclude that the master plan includes no requirements that apply in approving the proposed fuel storage facility."(Emphasis added.) Based on the above-quote language from LUBA's decision, the Hearings Officer finds that on remand I must determine: (1) whether the AMP includes any approval standards or criteria applicable to the applicant's site plan application; and (2) if such approval standards or criteria exist, whether they preclude approval of the applicant's fueling station in the proposed location. Each of these questions is addressed in findings below. B. At the Board's discretion, a remanded application for a land use permit may be modified to address issues involved in the remand or withdrawal to the extent that such modifications would not substantially alter the proposal and would not have a significantly greater impact on surrounding neighbors. Any greater modification would require a new application. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this provision is not applicable because the applicant did not request, and the board did not grant, approval to modify its application on remand. C. If additional testimony is required to comply with the remand, parties may raise new, unresolved issues that relate to new evidence directed toward the issue on remand. Other issues that were resolved by the LUBA appeal or that were not appealed shall be deemed to be waived and may not be reopened. FINDINGS: Paragraph (A) of this section states "the Board shall have the discretion to reopen the record in instances in which it deems it to be appropriate." In the Hearings Officer's decision 4 The applicant argues, and the Hearings Officer agrees, that the concern expressed by LUBA in Footnote 9 of its decision is unwarranted. Under Section 18.124.060 of the county code all development within the AD Zone requires site plan approval. To obtain such approval an applicant must show, among other things, that its proposed development will"provide a safe environment." It is difficult to imagine how that criterion could be met by the granting of site plan approval for a fueling station or other outright permitted use in an area designated for future runway expansion, where the use could interfere with or impede future aircraft operations. Leading Edge Remand, SP-13-7 Page 8 of 21 in Loyal Land(A-13-8), I held this ordinance language signifies I do not have authority to reopen the record on remand for the following reasons: "Section 22.34.040(A) . . . distinguishes between the board and the 'hearings body.' Subsection (C) refers to 'additional testimony . . . required to comply with the remand' without reference to the board. Opponent argues, and I agree, that when read together these provisions mean only the board can reopen the record on remand. As discussed in the findings above, the board did not issue any order or other direction authorizing me to reopen the record." In the present case, the board did not issue an order authorizing the reopening of this record on remand. However, the applicant, opponent, and (at my request) planning staff submitted new evidence directed toward the issue on remand. That evidence consists primarily of previous county land use decisions (or summaries and excerpts thereof) addressing the interpretation and application of the AMP and Airport Layout Plan (hereafter"ALP"), revisions to the AMP and ALP, regulations and official communications of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) concerning those plans, and official communications of the city related to the AMP and ALP. The Hearings Officer finds these circumstances raise the question of whether and to what extent I can consider this new evidence consistent with the language in Section 22.34.040. In numerous decisions I have held I can take official notice of previous county land use decisions whether or not they are included in the record. I adhere to that holding here. LUBA has held that it can take notice of "law judicially noticed" under Rule 202 of the Oregon Evidence Code. ODOT v. City of Mosier, 41 Or LUBA 73 (2001); North Park Annex Bus. Trust v. City of Independence, 35 Or LUBA 827 (1998). Rule 202, codified in ORS 40.090, defines "law judicially noticed"to include: (2) Public and private official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of this state, the United States, any federally recognized American Indian tribal government and any other state, territory or other jurisdiction of the United States. * * * (4) Regulations, ordinances and similar legislative enactments issued by or under the authority of the United States, any federally recognized American Indian tribal government or any state, territory or possession of the United States. * * * (7) An ordinance, comprehensive plan or enactment of any county or incorporated city in this state, or a right derived therefrom. As used in this subsection, "comprehensive plan" has the meaning given that term by ORS 197.015. The Hearings Officer finds the AMP and ALP and revisions thereto are part of the county's previous and current comprehensive plans and therefore I can take notice of these documents. Similarly, I find I can take notice of federal statutes and regulations, FAA regulations and circulars, and official communications of the FAA and the city under Paragraphs (4) and (2) of Rule 202, respectively, without reopening the record to do so. However, I may not consider any new evidence that does not fall within the parameters"law judicially noticed" under Rule 202, Leading Edge Remand, SP-13-7 Page 9 of 21 Before proceeding to address the questions identified by LUBA, the Hearings Officer notes that opponent raised an additional issue on remand. Opponent argued in its petition for review to LUBA (attached to its March 4, 2014 memorandum),5 that the purpose statement of the AD Zone establishes a mandatory approval criterion requiring the applicant's site plan to be "consistent with" the comprehensive plan and the AMP. As discussed above, Paragraph (A) of Section 22.34.040 states the Hearings Body shall review "those issues that LUBA . . . required to be addressed." LUBA did not require that I address the AD Zone purpose statement on remand. Therefore, I find that issue is not before me. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ON REMAND B. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan LUBA identified the question on remand as whether the AMP includes any standards or requirements applicable to the applicant's proposed fuel storage facility that would preclude approval of the facility at the proposed location. 1. Source of Approval Standards. The AMP is part of the county's Transportation System Plan (TSP) which in turn is part of the county's comprehensive plan. In Save Our Skyline v. City of Bend, 48 Or LUBA 192 (2004), LUBA held a comprehensive plan is a "potential" source of approval standards for quasi-judicial land use permit applications. However, LUBA stated local code provisions requiring that land use decisions be "consistent" with the comprehensive plan "do not mean that all parts of the comprehensive plan necessarily are approval standards." LUBA described the proper analysis of the effect of plan provisions as follows: "Local governments and this Board have frequently considered the text and context of cited parts of comprehensive plans and concluded that the alleged comprehensive plan standard was not an applicable approval standard. Stewart v. City of Brookings, 31 Or LUBA 325, 328 (1996); Friends of Indian Ford v. Deschutes County, 31 Or LUBA 248 258 (1996); Wissusik v. Yamhill County, 20 Or LUBA 246, 254-55 (1990). Even if the comprehensive plan includes provisions that can operate as approval standards, those standards are not necessarily relevant to all quasi-judicial land use permit applications. Bennett v. City of Dallas, 17 Or LUBA at 456. Moreover, even if a plan provision is a relevant standard that must be considered, the plan provision might not constitute a separate mandatory approval criterion, in the sense that it must be separately satisfied, along with any other mandatory approval criteria, before the application can be approved. Instead, that plan provision, even if it constitutes a relevant standard, may represent a required consideration that must be balanced with other relevant considerations. See Waker Associates, Inc. v. Clackamas County, 111 Or App 189, 194, 826 P2d 20 (1992) ('a balancing process that takes account of relative impacts of particular uses on particular[comprehensive plan]goals and of the logical relevancy of particular goals to particular uses is a decisional necessity'). Before considering whether particular plan provisions must be applied as approval standards when considering individual land use permit applications, it is 5 The Hearings Officer assumes opponent's petition is part of the LUBA record which the parties agreed would be included in this record. Leading Edge Remand, SP-13-7 Page 10 of 21 appropriate, as the hearings officer did in this case, to consider first whether the comprehensive plan itself expressly assigns a particular role to some or all of the plan's goals and policies. Downtown Comm. Assoc. v. City of Portland, 80 Or App 336, 339, 722 P2d 1258 (1986); Eskadarian v. City of Portland, 26 Or LUBA 98, 103 (1993); Schellenberg v. Polk County, 21 Or LUBA 425, 429 (1991); Miller v. City of Ashland, 17 Or LUBA 147, 167-69 (1988). We review the hearings officer interpretation of the BAGP [Bend Area General Plan] to determine if her interpretation is correct. McCoy v. Linn County, 90 Or App 271, 275-76, 752 P2d 323 (1988)." In Bothman v. City of Eugene, 51 Or LUBA 426 (2006), LUBA was asked to consider the effect on a zone change application of a geographically-specific "area plan" adopted as part of the city's comprehensive plan. The area plan language stated its policies were "guides"for land use actions within the area subject to the plan, required the city to "recognize" existing uses in the area, and "discouraged" the city from rezoning the subject property. LUBA held that although this area plan did not expressly prohibit rezoning the subject property and was not couched in absolute terms, it nevertheless expressed a strong policy preference that the subject property retain its existing zoning. LUBA held that "read in context the policy clearly mandates that the city be guided by -- at a minimum, consider -- that preference in the context of an application to rezone the subject property." LUBA remanded for the city to reconsider its rezoning decision in light of this policy. Based on LUBA's direction on remand, as well as the analysis in Save Our Skyline, the Hearings Officer finds I must examine the text and context of the comprehensive plan, TSP, AMP and ALP to determine if any provisions therein prohibit the siting of the applicant's fueling station on the subject property. And because the Bend Airport AMP and ALP are, like the area plan in Bothman, geographic- and site-specific plans adopted as part of the comprehensive plan, I must also determine whether and to what extent these plans are to be considered and balanced with other policy considerations in evaluating the applicant's site plan application. 2. Analysis of Comprehensive Plan. a. Comprehensive Plan. The Hearings Officer finds the comprehensive plan states it was not intended to establish approval criteria for quasi-judicial land use applications. The plan's preamble states: The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan is a statement of issues, goals and policies meant to guide the future of land use in this County. This Comprehensive Plan is intended to recognize the expectations and rights of property owners and the community as a whole. Use of this Plan The Comprehensive Plan is a tool for addressing changing conditions, markets and technologies. It can be used in multiple ways, including: * * * To guide public decisions on land use policy when developing land use codes, such as zoning or land divisions. Leading Edge Remand, SP-13-7 Page 11 of 21 This Plan does not prioritize one goal or policy over another. Implementation of this plan requires flexibility because the weight given to the goals and policies will vary based on the issue being addressed. The Plan is not intended to be used to evaluate specific development projects. Instead, the Plan is a 20-year blueprint to guide growth and development. (Emphasis added.) Chapter 1 of the plan states: The purpose of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan is to provide a blueprint for land use conservation and development. This is accomplished through goals and policies that tell a cohesive story of where and how development should occur and what places should remain undeveloped. The Plan provides a legal framework for establishing more specific land use actions and regulations such as zoning. (Emphasis added.) The plan defines its"goals" and "policies" as follows: Goals: A general description of what Deschutes County wants to achieve. The County will direct resources and/or support partner agencies and organizations to implement the goals over the 20-year Plan timeframe. Policies: Statements of principles and guidelines to aid decision making by clarifying and providing direction on meeting the Goals. (Emphasis added.) The Hearings Officer finds there is nothing in the comprehensive plan itself that either establishes approval criteria for, or prohibits approval of, the applicant's fueling station on the subject property. b. TSP. The Executive Summary of the TSP describes its purpose as to provide "a roadmap to meet the needs of air, automobile, bicycle, freight, pedestrian, rail and other modes" of transportation. The TSP specifically addresses aviation planning in Chapters 2 and 5. Chapter 2, "Inventory and Background," describes the Bend Airport AMP in relevant part as follows: In order to guide airport land uses, the County adopted and utilizes the 1994 Bend Municipal Airport Master Plan, as amended in 2002 the "Supplement to 1994 Airport Master Plan," which is incorporated by reference herein. This is the guiding document for airport planning and development. This document incorporates a range of facility improvements for the Bend Municipal Airport over the 20-year planning horizon (2021), including short, intermediate, and long-term projects to improve safety and function at the airport. In 2003 the County adopted DCC 18.76, Airport Development (AD) Zone to identify outright permitted and conditional activities at the airport. The County in 2001 adopted DCC Chapter 18.80, Airport Safety Combing Zone (AS) to ensure surrounding land uses and structures were compatible with airport operations. (Emphasis added.) Leading Edge Remand, SP-13-7 Page 12 of 21 Chapter 5 of the TSP, "Planned Improvements and Policies," Subchapter 5.6, "Airport Plan Goals and Policies," includes Goal 16 describing the purpose of airport planning as to: Protect the function and economic viability of the existing public-use airports, while ensuring public safety and compatibility between the airport uses and surrounding land uses for public use airports and for private airports with three or more based aircraft. Subchapter 5.6 includes Policy 16.2 which provides in relevant part as follows: Deschutes County shall: * * * h. Specifically designate any proposed airport facility relocations or expansions within County jurisdiction on an airport master plan or airport layout plan map, as amended, and establish the appropriate airport zoning designation to assure a compatible association of airport growth with surrounding urban or rural development; * * * k. Participate in and encourage the County adoption of airport master plans for all public use airports and at least an airport layout plan for the remaining State-recognized airfields in Deschutes County; * * *. The Hearings Officer finds these two paragraphs of Policy 16.2, read together, encourage the county to adopt AMPs for the county's public-use airports, and require the county to designate on any such plans "proposed airport facility relocations or expansions." The county adopted an AMP for Bend Airport, and the record shows the applicant's fueling station is designated on the subject property on the 2013 ALP. Nevertheless, opponents argue Policy 16.2(h) prohibits approval of the applicant's fueling station because it was not designated on the subject property on the ALP before the county approved the fueling station. In opponents' view, the ALP drawings/maps strictly prescribe the type and location of all development at Bend Airport. The applicant disagrees with opponents' interpretation of Policy 16.2(h), stating in its March 21, 2014 Supplemental Burden of Proof on Remand: "The policy does not state that such relocations can only occur as designated or that the amended map be incorporated into the TSP. Such a reading would conflict with other provisions of the TSP that consider the AMP as 'guidelines' and encourage the accommodation of unexpected development needs. Rather, this policy is an internal housekeeping directive to keep AMPs current with the actual development of the airport because airport development need not, and consistently has not, followed the ALP. This policy objective has been satisfied because the 2002 Airport Layout Plan has been updated several times, and the most recent of which, the 2013 ALP, designates the subject fuel station in its current location." The Hearings Officer agrees with the applicant that nothing in the language of TSP Policy 16(h) expressly prohibits siting of the applicant's proposed fueling station on the subject property. Leading Edge Remand, SP-13-7 Page 13 of 21 Moreover, I find it is not clear to what extent Policy 16(h) applies to the applicant's private development proposal. Neither the TSP nor the AMP defines the term "facilities." However, in Chapter One of the 2002 AMP update, the subchapter entitled "Airport Facilities" identifies as "facilities" those airport infrastructure elements provided by the city — i.e., runways (paved and dirt), taxiways, runway and taxiway surface lighting, instrument landing and navigational lighting, lighted wind cone, and rotating beacon. Thus, in the context of the AMP, Policy 16.2(h) could be interpreted to apply only to relocations and expansions of airport infrastructure and not to private development such as the applicant's fueling station. I find this more limited interpretation is consistent with the purpose of the ALP. In a March 4, 2014 letter, the city's attorney Gary Firestone stated the ALP is a document required by the FAA that is periodically updated, with the FAA's review and approval, and serves as a supporting document for the city's federal grant allocations for airport improvements. The Hearings Officer finds the manner in which the county has reviewed and approved applications for private development at Bend Airport reflects an historical interpretation of Policy 16.2(h) not to prohibit development approval except as specifically designated on the ALP. In his March 4, 2014, letter Mr. Firestone stated: "Facilities have been developed at the airport other than as anticipated in the 2002 maps, including: (1) a single unit hangar located on a site shown as FBO reserve; (2) a taxiway located in a location where 24 tie-downs are shown on the 2002 maps; (3) the AWOS [Automated Weather Observation Station] facility located in a location different than that shown on the 2002 maps; (4) the Aero Facilities [opponent's] development, while located in the same general area as shown on the 2002 maps, was not built as shown and the phasing is inconsistent with the 2002 maps." In its Supplemental Burden of Proof on Remand, the applicant stated a hangar was constructed on an area designated as a roadway. And the applicant noted opponents themselves received site plan approval to build hangars in areas designated on the ALP drawings for"aircraft apron," "aircraft tiedowns," and "FBO."The ALP has been revised by the city and county, and approved by the FAA, several times since 2002 version in order to reflect actual development at the airport, most recently in 2013 with the addition of the applicant's fueling station on the subject property. Thus, record indicates that county routinely has approved airport development at locations different from those designated on the ALP, and has reflected such development on subsequent ALP revisions. Even assuming for purposes of discussion that Policy 16.2(h) is applicable to private airport development, the Hearings Officer finds the policy is ambiguous with respect to when development must be designated on an ALP. The policy's use of the terms "relocations" and "expansions" in referring to airport development suggests it applies to changes to existing development. However, this language also could be read to refer to changes to the size or location of the area(s) designated for new development. Similarly, use of the terms "as amended" to describe the AMP or ALP could refer to the version of the AMP or ALP existing at the time of a land use application, or it could refer to the AMP or ALP after it has been amended to show the relocation or expansion. In light of this ambiguity, the Hearings Officer finds it is appropriate to look at the context of Policy 16.2(h) which includes the rest of the TSP including the AMP. The TSP describes the AMP as a "guiding document" and the TSP expressly distinguishes it from the provisions of the zoning ordinance that identify uses permitted outright and conditionally. In this context, I find the Leading Edge Remand, SP-13-7 Page 14 of 21 more reasonable reading of Policy 16.2(h) is that it requires the county to keep the AMP and ALP updated as development occurs at the airport, and does proscribe development of particular uses at locations other than those designated on the ALP. In addition, as discussed in the findings below, the 2002 AMP update describes its role as to document "changes in facilities, activity and facility needs that have occurred since the master plan was last updated." Similarly, the introduction to Chapter Four of the AMP, "Airport Development Alternatives," states: "Bend Municipal Airport has experienced substantial growth in activity, which has resulted in a nearly continuous series of improvements since the most recent Airport Master Plan (Century West Engineering) was completed in 1994." (Emphasis added.) In other words, the AMP indicates it is intended to reflect changes to airport development that occurred after the 1994 update and are reflected after the fact on the 2002 update. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds nothing in the TSP that prohibits approval of the applicant's fueling station on the subject property. c. AMP. The 2002 AMP Update consists of text and drawings including the ALP. Chapter One of the 2002 AMP, the Executive Summary and Inventory, states: "This planning addendum document supplements the 1994 Bend Municipal Airport Master Plan [footnote omitted] by documenting changes in facilities, activity, and facility needs that have occurred since the master plan was last updated in July 1994. A copy of the 1994 Master Plan Update is provided in Appendix A of this document. The 1994 master plan serves as the primary reference document for this planning update. These documents combine to represent the current planning for Bend Municipal Airport. The updated plan includes a wide range of facility improvements recommended over the twenty-year planning period." (Bold emphasis added; underscored emphasis in original.) The Executive Summary, under the heading "Existing Land Use and Regulation," states: "Aviation-related uses are permitted outright in the AD zone. Conditionally permitted uses include light and general industrial uses." Chapter Four, Airport Development Alternatives, discusses master planning alternatives for the airport, including improvements to the west side of the airport. Chapter Five of the AMP, Financial Management and Development Program, describes the recommended airport improvements, including shifting the runway 110 feet the east along with the associated taxiways and taxilanes, improvements to the west side of the runway that "focus on refining existing development and maximizing the efficient use of the remaining space," and beginning the process of developing infrastructure on the east side of the runway "as the west side of the airport reaches capacity." Leading Edge Remand, SP-13-7 Page 15 of 21 Finally, Chapter Six of the 2002 AMP, "Airport Layout Plans,"states in relevant part: "In Chapter Four, Airport Development Alternatives, an evaluation was made of future options for airside and landside development at Bend Municipal Airport. This effort has resulted in the selection of a preferred airport development alternative that will accommodate the facility requirements projected through the current 20-year planning period, and beyond. The purpose of this chapter is to describe in narrative and graphic form, the recommended airport development contained in the 20-year master plan. * * * * * * The Airport Layout Plan (ALP) presents the existing and ultimate airport layout and depicts the improvements that are recommended to meet forecast aviation demand. * * * * * * The distribution of airport land uses reflects the mixture of facilities and activities that currently exist or are planned for the airport. The primary purpose of the airport is to accommodate aviation-related needs. The updated airport plan and associated drawings illustrate that the long-term aviation needs of the airport are addressed with the added protection of aviation-related development reserves to accommodate a wide range of unforeseen development needs." (Emphasis added.) The Hearings Officer finds there is nothing in the above-quoted language of the 2002 AMP update that prohibits siting the applicant's fueling station on the subject property. To the contrary, the language indicates the AMP and ALP are intended to describe recommended airport improvements to meet identified needs and to accommodate development that may not have been foreseen at the time the update was adopted — such as the applicant's proposed fueling station. d. ALP. Chapter Six of the 2002 AMP update addresses the ALP. With respect to Drawing 6, the "On- Airport Land Use Plan,"the AMP states in relevant part: "The On-Airport Land Use Plan depicts the recommended uses of airport property associated with the ALP. Four primary use categories are defined. A—Airfield Operations AS--Aviation Support Al—Aviation-Related Industrial OS--Open Space The area surrounding the runway and taxiway is designated airfield operations (A). This area is defined by the required clearances and setbacks associated with the runway, runway approaches, parallel taxiway, and parallel taxiway reserve. Leading Edge Remand, SP-13-7 Page 16 of 21 The west side of the airport is designated aviation support (AS). AS areas accommodate the full range of aviation-related land uses including hangars and other aviation-related buildings, aircraft parking, fueling areas, etc." (Bold emphasis in original; underscored emphasis added.) The record indicates the applicant's fueling station is located in the AS area which the AMP identifies as intended to accommodate uses including "fueling areas," described in plural terms. The 2002 ALP did not designate the subject property for a fueling station. Opponents argue the lack of such designation prohibited the county from approving the applicant's site plan. However, as discussed above, the record indicates the county routinely has approved development at Bend Airport on locations not designated therefor on the ALP, including opponents' eastside hangar development. The record also indicates that in reviewing and approving development proposals for Bend Airport the county generally has not considered ALP designations as binding. At the Hearings Officer's request, Senior Planner Will Groves submitted a memorandum dated March 6, 2014 summarizing county decisions (administrative, hearings officer, and board) involving Bend Airport that have been issued since 2000. The summary states that of the approximately 60 decisions identified, only 12 decisions included any discussion of the AMP and ALP, and 11 of those decisions did not consider the AMP and/or ALP to establish mandatory approval criteria. One of those 11 decisions was the approval of opponents' request for a conditional use permit to site a restaurant at its FBO on the west side of the airport. Professional Air Services (CU-06- 60/SP-06-21). That decision includes the following findings under Section 18.76.100: "As discussed above, the proposed restaurant and office space to accommodate Professional Air Services charter flight service are consistent with the conditional uses in the AS District and, therefore, are consistent with the comprehensive plan and the Bend Airport Master Plan and as discussed below are in compliance with the intent and provisions of Title 18."(Emphasis added.) Opponents don't dispute the evidence of the county's past application of the AMP and ALP. Rather, they argue the city has consistently treated the AMP and ALP as strictly controlling development at Bend Airport. The applicants respond, and the Hearings Officer agrees, that inasmuch as it is the county that must interpret and apply the comprehensive plan and its components as they apply to airport development, the city's past practices and pronouncements are of little if any relevance. Of the twelve county decisions that mention the Bend Airport AMP and ALP, the only one that includes a substantive discussion of the role of the AMP and ALP in quasi-judicial land use proceedings is the 2012 hearings officer and board decision in Gibson Airpark LLC (PA-8-3, ZC- 08-3). In that case, former Hearings Officer Anne Briggs denied an application for a plan amendment and zone change from EFU to AD requested to allow development of airport uses on a 45-acre parcel adjacent to Bend Airport on the south. The board affirmed Hearings Officer Briggs' decision and adopted her findings. The record indicates the board's decision was not appealed.° 6 Hearings Officer Briggs' Gibson Airpark decision was issued in January of 2008. However, the board did not issue its decision on appeal until July 2012, having granted the applicant numerous extensions. Leading Edge Remand, SP-13-7 Page 17 of 21 Hearings Officer Briggs' denial was based in part on her conclusion that the proposal was not consistent with the AMP and ALP. The decision states in relevant part: "As noted above, the City of Bend adopted the Bend Municipal Airport Update to the 1994 Airport Master Plan. The 2002 Update was intended to guide airport planning for the 2002 through 2021 planning period. The plan identifies areas owned by the city, and al locates portions of the property for various air-service functions. The plan does not identify any extra-territorial property that is needed or appropriate for airport related development. In fact, the plan concludes that such additional land is not needed. The applicant proposes to develop the subject property with airport related uses, including additional hangars, storage and office facilities. The proposed use of this site is not explicitly addressed in the Bend Municipal Airport Plan, and Susan Palmieri, the Bend Municipal Airport Manager, expressed concerns that development of this site may adversely affect its ability to satisfy FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] public use standards. The applicant responds with evidence, including findings set out in Deschutes County Ordinance 2003-036, and the draft Urban Renewal Plan that the subject property is appropriate for airport related development. The applicant asserts that concerns regarding specific uses can be addressed at the time a specific development proposal is submitted. Staff responds that the concerns articulated by the FAA and Bend Municipal Airport should be comprehensively addressed through amendments to the Bend Municipal Airport Plan prior to rezoning the subject property for airport uses. Both Statewide Planning Goal 2 and OAR 660-013-0030(2) require that local land use regulations be `coordinated' and be consistent with the State's Aviation System Plan and acknowledged local TSPs. The Deschutes County TSP addresses airport planning in DCC 23.64.200. [Footnote omitted.] DCC 23.64.200(1) provides that the purpose of its airport policies is to `protect the function and economic viability of the existing public use airports, while ensuring public safety and compatibility between the airport uses and surrounding land uses** *.'DCC 23.64.200(2)sets out the airport related policies. The proposed plan and zoning designations, and uses developed in accordance with those designations, are unlikely to include noise sensitive uses, or uses that will interfere with air safety, as the uses themselves are intended to support or supplement airport activities. Therefore, the hearings officer concludes that the proposal is not inconsistent with most of the applicable Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan policies. However, for the same reasons that the proposal is not consistent with the requirements that the county's land use decisions be made from an `adequate factual base,'the hearings officer concludes that the proposal is inconsistent with DCC 23.64.200(2)(a) and the Bend Municipal Airport Master Plan. As noted above, the evidence that the applicant relies on is not included in the plan, and in fact contradicts the plan's estimate of land needed for airport related uses through 2021. Therefore, until the Bend Municipal Airport Master Plan is amended to reflect a need for the subject property, the proposal is not consistent with those plans."(Emphasis added.) Leading Edge Remand, SP-13-7 Page 18 of 21 Hearings Officer Briggs addressed the effect of the TSP in relevant part as follows: "The applicant asserts that the proposed plan amendment and zone change would promote efficient air transit by adding Airport Development-zoned land next to the Bend Airport. This would then allow the establishment of airport- related uses such as hangars, tie-downs, runways, and service roads. * * * The applicant's proposal does not address a fundamental flaw -- it is not consistent with the Bend Municipal Airport Master Plan, which the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan relies upon to ensure consistency with air transportation requirements of Goal 12. Therefore, even though the proposal will not interfere with air service and airport safety per se, it is not consistent with DCC 23.64.020. [Footnote omitted.]"(Emphasis added.) Finally, Hearings Officer Briggs stated the following with respect to the effect of the AMP: "Via Ordinance No. 2003-063, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the 1994 Bend Municipal Airport Master Plan (Master Plan), as amended in 2002 (included herein by reference). The amended Master Plan is now the guiding document for the Bend Airport. The applicant argues that the Master Plan contains 'recommendations' about how to use specific land and should not be taken as a literal binding requirement as to how specific land should be developed. See DCC 23.08.020.' Although staff agrees that the Comprehensive Plan is generally not a site-specific document, the Comprehensive Plan specifically references the Master Plan as the guiding document for the Bend Airport and argues that with respect to the Bend Municipal Airport, the plan is site specific. Drawing 1 of the 2002 Master Plan Update illustrates the existing and ultimate airport layout. Although both the text describing Drawing 1 (pages 77-78) and Drawing 1 indicate anticipated airport growth and development on the west and east sides of the airport, the drawing does not depict anticipated growth to the south of the airport on the Gibson Airpark property. As a result, staff believes the applicant's proposal is not consistent with the Master Plan and, therefore, not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Hearings Officer agrees with staff, although for a somewhat different reason. Unless or until the Bend Municipal Airport Master Plan is updated to include the Gibson Airpark LLC property, a decision to designate the site for airport related development is not supported by an adequate factual basis. [Citation omitted.] "DCC 23.08.020 provides, in relevant part: CT]he purpose of the Comprehensive Plan for Deschutes County is not to provide site-specific identification of the appropriate land uses which may take place on a particular piece of land, but rather it is to consider the significant factors which affect or are affected by development in the county and provide a general guide to the various decisions which must be made to promote the greatest efficiency Leading Edge Remand, SP-13-7 Page 19 of 21 and equity possible, while managing the continuing growth and change of the area.-(Emphasis added.) The applicant argues, and the Hearings Officer agrees, that the decision in Gibson Airpark is distinguishable from the subject application. Unlike the site plan at issue here, plan amendments and zone changes are expressly required to conform with the comprehensive plan under Section 18.136.020(A) of the county code. In addition, the property at issue in Gibson Park was located entirely outside the Bend Airport and therefore not identified for airport development of any kind in either the text of the AMP or on the ALP drawings. And the AMP did not state there was a need for additional hangar space that would justify adding the Gibson property to the airport. In contrast, as discussed above, the subject property is located on the west side of the airport in the AS district that is planned for development of aviation-related businesses and services including "fueling stations." And Chapter Two of the 2002 AMP, "Forecasts of Aviation Demand," states the county anticipated continued rapid growth of airport operations - and the need for facilities and services -- correlating with the rapid growth in the county's population. Even assuming for purposes of discussion that Hearings Officer Briggs's decision is not distinguishable, this Hearings Officer finds it does not support opponents' argument that the AMP and ALP prohibit the applicant's fueling station. At most, I find her decision treated the AMP and ALP in a similar manner to the "area plan" at issue in the zone change application in Bothman, cited above - i.e., as a relevant policy to be considered and balanced against other relevant policy considerations. In the present case, I find other relevant considerations include the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan and TSP, discussed above, which reflect the county's overarching goals of assuring safe operation of the airport and its continued viability as a public use airport. There is no evidence in this record that the applicant's fueling station has or will interfere with the safe operation of the airport or with its continuing viability. In a March 4, 2104 letter, opponents' attorney Michael McGean argued the Hearings Officer also should consider the following in determining the effect of the AMP and ALP: "'* * [A]llowing another new fuel station to be placed on the west side of the Airport would seriously undermine the 2002 AMP for the east side of the Airport. There is simply not enough business and activity to support two fuel stations at the Bend Airport, let alone three. Allowing LEA [applicant] to locate a new fuel station on the west side of the Airport forecloses the possibility of the proposed new fuel station on the east side of the airport under the 2002 AMP."(Emphasis added.) Opponents have not cited, nor has the Hearings Officer found, any provision in the comprehensive plan, TSP, AMP or ALP that state or reflect a policy of assuring no competition for fuel sales. In fact, the applicable FAA regulations governing public use airports reflect the opposite policy. In his March 4, 2014 letter, Mr. Firestone stated: "Under federal law, as enforced through grant agreements, the City cannot unjustly discriminate against an aeronautical service provider that seeks to offer services at the airport. 49 USC 40103(e); see also FAA Grant Assurances 22, 23 (copy attached as Exhibit A). If a third, fourth or fifth entity approached the City about offering fueling services as part of an FBO operation, the City would have to accommodate them, regardless of whether fueling facilities were shown on the Master Plan. To avoid suppressing competition and to provide for development of Leading Edge Remand, SP-13-7 Page 20 of 21 airport facilities and services, the City cannot refuse any entity seeking to lease land for a permitted (aviation related) use so long as space is available and any development will meet applicable setbacks." Section 23 of the FAA Grant Assurances document attached to Mr. Firestone's letter requires the city to guarantee that"it will permit no exclusive right for the use of the airport by any person providing, or intending to provide, aeronautical services to the public." For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds nothing in the ALP prohibits the siting of the applicant's fueling station on the subject property. III. CONCLUSION: LUBA remanded the Hearings Officer's site plan approval with direction for me to answer two questions: • whether the airport master plan includes any applicable standards or requirements with respect to the proposed fuel storage facility; and • whether the airport master plan precludes approval of a fueling station on the west side of the runway in the proposed location. Based on the foregoing discussion, the Hearings Officer has found that the AMP does not include any standards and criteria applicable to the applicant's site plan, and that the AMP does not preclude approval of the applicant's fueling station on the subject property. IV. DECISION: Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearings Officer hereby APPROVES ON REMAND the applicant's site plan for the aviation fueling station, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SET FORTH IN THE HEARINGS OFFICER'S ORIGINAL DECISION. Karen H. Green, Hearings Officer THIS DECISION BECOMES FINAL TWELVE DAYS AFTER MAILING UNLESS TIMELY APPEALED. Dated this 30th day of April, 2014. Mailed this 30th day of April, 2014. Leading Edge Remand, SP-13-7 Page 21 of 21 r Community Development Department_ Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division ..,''':.,+.�{ ^1 s t 19,«. ia7 &�, YM ''"'. t,' j `,,;d:,,''t%a '•••VMS ran6° 1. `rr',,! ;..lt'P:0;4'.• P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 — http://www.co.deschutes.or,us/cdd/ CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FILE NUMBER: SP-13-7 DOCUMENT/S MAILED: Hearings Officer's Decision MAP/TAX LOT NUMBER: 17-13-20, as Tax Lot 200 I certify that on the 30th day of April, 2014, the attached notice(s)/report(s), dated April 30, 2014, was/were mailed by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the person(s) and address(es) set forth on the attached list. Dated this 30th day of April, 2014. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT By: Sher Buckner Leading Edge Aviation City of Bend 63048 Powell Butte Highway 710 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97701 Bend, OR 97701 Sandra Larsen Hearings Officer Ken Helm Oregon Department of Aviation 3040 25th Street, SE Salem, OR 97302-1125 Sharon R. Smith Michael H. McGean Bryant, Lovlien & Jarvis, PC Francis Hansen & Martin LLP 591 SW Mill View Way 1148 NW Hill Street Bend, OR 97702 Bend, OR 97701-1914 Gary Judd Matt Rogers, P.E. City of Bend Century West Engineering 710 NW Wall Street 1020 SW Emkay Drive, Suite 100. Bend, OR 97701 Bend , OR 97702 Edward J. Elkins Gary Firestone- City of Bend 63613 OB Riley Rd. 710 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97701 P.O. Box 431 Bend, OR 97701-0431 Quality Services Performed with Pride Community Development Department ❑ A , Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division \, \V 0\ A o wt,Alt u \ " \\��`� �'1i\\ '‘ P a�\ 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ MEMORANDUM Date: 05/14/2014 To: Board of County Commissioners From: Code Enforcement Staff—John Griley, Tim Grundeman; Lori Furlong -Supervisor RE: Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual Update Summary Community Development Department (CDD) Staff met with the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) in March 2013 to discuss the Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual (Manual) and to seek direction on the BOCC review process. The manual had not been formally reviewed or amended since 1997. The CDD Work Plan includes an action item, carried over from previous years, to update the Manual. Last year, the BOCC directed staff to perform the following tasks in the sequence listed: 1. Complete the internal review and prepare a draft Manual update; 2. Conduct a BOCC work session to present and discuss the draft Manual update; 3. Conduct a BOCC public hearing on the draft Manual update; and 4. BOCC adoption of the Manual Update as proposed or modified by the BOCC following public comment/testimony. The CDD Code Enforcement team (CDD staff, Sheriff's Office, Legal Dept.) has coordinated to prepare the draft Manual Update for the BOCC's consideration. Staff has also surveyed other Oregon Jurisdictions for base level understanding of how our procedures are similar or differ. Staff seeks BOCC direction on whether to: 1. Initiate a public hearing on the draft Manual update as proposed by staff or modified by the BOCC at this work session; or Quality Services Performed with Pride 2. Revise the draft Manual update per BOCC direction at this meeting and schedule a follow-up work session prior to initiating a public hearing. Background Please find in the attached presentation a Code Enforcement program performance report. The report includes workload trends, case resolution and compliance rates. Highlights from the report are: • New reported violations have normalized since a dip experienced in the past recession. • Staff continues with a proactive Code Enforcement program. • Case resolution timeframes continue to improve. • Voluntary compliance continues near 85% of all cases, up from a historic average of about 75%. Update Highlights Please find attached the draft Manual update. An explanation of the draft changes is included in the attached slide presentation. The draft incorporates changes reflective of current practices. Side by side comparison of changes is possible by viewing the existing procedures manual available on the County Website (see http://www.deschutes.orq/Community-Development/Property-Violations-Code- Enforcement.aspx). Changes can be summarized as: • Updates reflective of current practice or operational environment. • Update reflective of current procedural law. • Updates to eliminate redundancy if procedures are addressed in other County policy. • Updates reflective of pending text amendments. Policy& Practices Discussion Items Please find below a list of the key code enforcement policies and practices identified by staff and raised by the public over the past several years. This is likely only a partial list. Other issues may be identified by the BOCC and the public. • Should Code Enforcement accept anonymous complaints? (Matrix#1) • Should CDD staff initiate cases based on observation of a code violation discovered while on County business? (Matrix#1) • Should complainant information be more (or less) rigorously protected? (Matrix #1) • Should confidentiality policy be amended to encourage disclosure or identification of complainant when the complainant is the County or other public agency? (Matrix#1) • Should the frequency of citation issuance be increased in cases of willful disregard for the code? Should other punitive measures be taken to decrease the frequency of blatant code violations? (Matrix#2) • Should a timeline for compliance be developed? (Matrix#2) • Should fines be progressive? Should fines differ based on severity or degree of issue? (Matrix#3) • Should the potential to restrict development permits on properties with pending code violation cases be retained in the manual? (Matrix#3) BOCC Direction Staff seeks direction on next steps: 1. Initiate a public hearing on the draft Manual update as proposed by staff or modified by the BOCC at this work session; or 2. Revise the draft Manual update per BOCC direction at this meeting and schedule a follow-up work session prior to initiating a public hearing. Deschutes County Community Development Department Code Enforcement Procedures Manual Effective Date: , 2014 G�J cES % NZ 4' PREFACE mF a n!, 9 "mss 8ik { kd l t it{I,'q t,{l k,". �„�i'jd �'b Ili{„��u la�{��a ii4fl k; u�t� ?, nl!iiA�!'��Nii y�i7F'IhW�r''$1 r rap Code Enforcement in Deschutes County is a high priority for the Board of County Commissioners ("Board"). In August 1994,the Board established the Deschutes County Code Enforcement Task Force to study County Code enforcement, to recommend improvements to the program and to identify statutory or County Code changes that may be required to increase the effectiveness of County Code enforcement. The task force included citizens, representatives of the construction and real estate industries, representatives of the state court system and law enforcement, County legal counsel, managers of the County's Community Development Department ("CDD") and the County's Code Enforcement staff. The task force met three times during 1994. In January of 1995,they presented a report to the Board containing their recommendations. The Board accepted those recommendations, and directed County staff to begin to implement them. Among the recommendations was the development of a County Code Enforcement policy and procedures manual. The key task force recommendation in 1995 was the implementation of a more "proactive," or County-initiated, code enforcement program. Such a program would begin simultaneously with adoption of the manual and would apply to County Code violations occurring on or after the effective date of the manual. This recommendation effectively created a two-pronged approach to code enforcement— somewhat different policies and procedures for violations occurring before, and after, the effective date of the manual. The intent of this approach was both to increase code enforcement after giving the community ample notice of the County's new, "tougher" enforcement policy, as well as to set enforcement priorities and manage the County's Code Enforcement workload in a manner that is realistic, clear and credible to the community. The original policies and procedures manual reflected this new approach. The County amended the manual in 1997 to reprioritize the criteria in Section V and to reclassify and add enforcement staff. Since then, the County added Deschutes County Code ("DCC") Chapter 1.17 to adopt the required administrative hearings process required by ORS 455.157 adopted by the State Legislature in 2009 for building and specialty code violations. The County also amended Chapter 1.16 to add an additional injunctive remedy once a violation is cited into Circuit Court. In 2014, CDD staff reviewed the manual and suggested changes to the Board, which reviewed the staff proposed changes and made additional changes. This is the manual adopted by the Board in 2014. Prior to the 1995 manual, code enforcement was primarily reactive, generated by complaints. However, the complaint-driven system was not effective by itself in stemming the tide of County Code violations in the County. With the adoption of the original manual, CDD staff, with the assistance of County legal counsel, law enforcement and the court system, and within available resources, was able to undertake more proactive efforts to identify County Code violations and to obtain compliance,along with responding to citizen complaints. Code Enforcement Procedures Manual Similar to the 1995 manual, the proactive efforts under this 2014 manual will focus on the following areas: A Timely monitoring and enforcement by County staff of permit and approval conditions; A Revocation of permits for non-compliance; A Abatement of nuisances and dangerous buildings; A If allowed by the DCC, restricting issuance of permits on property with uncorrected County Code violations; A Assisting in related code enforcement by other agencies;and A Civil procedures to obtain compliance and to recover the County's code enforcement costs The Board believes the policies and procedures in this manual will enhance code enforcement and thereby the quality of life in the County. I. MISSION H, in,4:` rryb„; ", !�4i11i ,1.4� !,t ► '0,4011r4 jl,y ''911t% � . b �,:r, The mission of code enforcement in Deschutes County is to protect the health and safety of the County's residents and visitors, and the livability of the community, by assuring compliance with the County's land use, environmental and construction codes. The County will assure County Code compliance both by encouraging voluntary compliance and by punishing code violators who do not comply. II. PURPOSE r .I i''. li 11flik� ,'J. Fq ! ,"� h R ,,kl�fi'}hlkf♦r1 �I>4u 1, rc:- s. i r. a,'' Ji k,, Irk i; ;.7?,4rl�i iro ° i�. .,(.� i' .:• C�:.a:n L,;a.,,. . The purpose of the Deschutes County Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual (hereafter "manual") is to provide written guidelines for: A. The prioritization of code enforcement cases; B Initiation and investigation of code violation complaints; C. Enforcement of the County Code through voluntary compliance; D. Prosecution of code violators who do not comply; E. Punishment of code violators and the assessment of fines and penalties; and F. Recovery of the County's investigation and enforcement costs. These written guidelines are intended to increase consistency and predictability within the County's code enforcement program, and to educate the County's citizens and property owners about code enforcement and the consequences of violating the County Code. 4,;; ,:, ., Code Enforcement Procedures Manual III. INTERPRETATION „ ra..i8d.pill;ldtl+dWPN P'i,l iuRr�i,!I,`CI @�A�!N�relll,,�43ni�d`.!��°I�r�l�'r'�ii��ii�i��,19"i��LII��+.�6r1h+�.4��IPIl��9 P+d9i,,l�Srl!�I+lir}II��I�V lG�4C!dlffiP�ii�1��H��EEm�'��l{LLf!ii�I�Nu�l lr W,�, b"IJ,'ttNWr:N r, W. This manual describes the standard policies and procedures for code enforcement, and should be interpreted so as to maximize both the efficiency of County Code enforcement and compliance with County Code. This manual should be followed unless otherwise directed by the Director of the CDD or the Board of County Commissioners("Board"). IV. CODE ENFORCEMENT PHILOSOPHY «r.ry.aren..Flrcrrnru uNN�I ,?f'r 4;ldlY,"i 1' '& r rPRrMir $FrI L �elr Y �ef*ki ' m lit) ard Policy. The County's policy is to enforce compliance with County Code in all cases of reported and discovered code violations. However,the County has limited code enforcement resources. Consequently, the County has established, through this manual, both a priority ranking for code enforcement and procedures designed to maximize available code enforcement resources. Code enforcement should follow the priority ranking set forth in section V of this manual. It also should be flexible enough to allow the level of enforcement that best fits the type and circumstances of the code violation(s), within clear and objective criteria set forth in this manual and consistent with the priorities. A. Enforcement Levels. The levels of enforcement available to the County are: 1. Mediated settlement of code violation complaints; 2. Notice of violation (hereafter"NOV"); 3. Double-fee permits required for code compliance; 4. Obtaining voluntary compliance; 5. Sheriff's Office warning; 6. Permit revocation; 7. Citation and prosecution of violation in state court; 8. Civil penalties through County administrative hearings; 9. Dangerous building abatement; 10. Petition for injunction in circuit court; 11. Assisting in enforcement by other regulatory and licensing agencies; 12. Restricting issuance of permits on property with uncorrected code violations; 13. Nuisance abatement; 14. County cost recovery. B. Sequence of Enforcement. The levels of enforcement are not mutually exclusive, and may be used alone or in sequence or combination with other levels. However, in most code violation cases, the County will use the code enforcement levels in the sequence they appear in Paragraph A. C. Criteria for Choosing Level of Enforcement. Some code violation cases may have aggravating circumstances requiring a different sequence for enforcement activity than that set forth in Paragraph A. The County may choose a different sequence if one or more of the following circumstances is present: Code Enforcement Procedures Manual ;; 1. The code violation is severe(e.g.,deviates greatly from the Code); 2. The violation poses a significant threat to public health and safety,or to the environment; 3. The violation may cause economic harm to individuals or to the County as a whole; 4. The physical size or extent of the violation is significant; 5. The violation has existed uncorrected for a significant period; 6. There is a previous history of complaints and code enforcement on the subject property and/or with the alleged code violator; 7. There is good potential for combining enforcement action on the violation with other violations; 8. The relative benefit of code enforcement outweighs its cost; 9. There is good potential that the violation(s)can be established and successfully prosecuted; and 10. There is little likelihood of obtaining voluntary compliance. V. PRIORITIES FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT gg ,,,,; - •a.ux�r� Imll urelA�NHiq�1111W!'Ait � :., � ; ,nuns, � I a, . w Policy. County staff shall attempt to investigate and resolve all code violations within budget and staffing restraints. However, because of limited code enforcement resources,there may be times when all code violations cannot be given the same level of attention and some code violations may receive no attention at all. In circumstances where not all code violations can be investigated, the most serious violations, as determined under the priorities set forth in this section and the criteria for enforcement in Section IV(C)of this manual, should be addressed before the less serious violations are addressed, regardless of the order in which the complaints are received. However, complaints alleging both priority and non-priority violations should be processed together to maximize efficiency. A. Priority Cases. The Board has established the following priorities for CDD code violations: 1. Violations that present an imminent threat to public health and safety; 2. Violations affecting rivers, streams and/or adjacent riparian areas; 3. Solid Waste code violations and Building code violations consisting of ongoing non-permitted construction or failure to obtain permits for construction started after the effective date of this manual. 4. Land use violations. B. Lower Priority Cases. Policy. Complaints alleging code violations that do not fall within the priority ranking above should be processed in the order in which the complaints are received, and as code enforcement resources allow. Exception. At the discretion of Code Enforcement staff, complaints may be processed in any order that maximizes the efficiency of enforcement. 6 :;,,, Code Enforcement Procedures Manual Procedure. All complaints concerning a particular type of code violation (e.g., non-permitted manufactured homes in manufactured home parks), or all complaints of violations occurring in a particular geographic area, may be processed together, regardless of the ordhr in which the complaints are received. C. Solid Waste. The County Solid Waste Department may engage any other County Department/ Office to administer its Code Enforcement program for County solid waste code violations. VI. APPLICABILITY ,„��, w,w��nmea�n�� i��"•. �dh,. C(!`!K�:'!.. `�,aa�k� wF r� �Sii"i I (��i�''�'��r'�,�v��3�,,9�!i :. b I ��Fh�11,i�,��r Policy. This manual applies to all code enforcement carried out by CDD, its employees and agents. Except as otherwise provided, the policies and procedures in this manual apply to all alleged code violations whether or not they existed or were known by the County on the effective date of this manual. The policies and procedures in this manual supersede any conflicting County policies and procedures. Non-Applicability to Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. Many subdivisions and planned communities are subject to private, recorded covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC & Rs). The County's policy is not to enforce private CC& Rs. Non-Applicability to Private Legal Action. Citizens may undertake private legal action to enforce County Code, including civil litigation against the alleged code violator, as well as personally filing citations and prosecuting County Code violations in court. The policies and procedures in this manual do not apply to private legal action to abate violations. Neither should they be interpreted to suggest that the County will participate in such private legal action. VII. INITIATION OF CODE ENFORCEMENT :i fa � �' <; . , ,it; 4, ,1 Code enforcement may be initiated by any of the following methods: A. Citizen Complaints. Any person may make a complaint to the County alleging one or more code violations. 1. Form. A citizen may initiate a complaint by submitting a letter to CDD, completing the complaint form approved by the County and available online, or by contacting CDD. If a citizen submits a complaint by phone or written communication other than a completed complaint form, County staff shall complete the complaint form. If the County receives a written complaint other than the County-approved complaint form, the written complaint shall be attached to a complaint form completed by County staff. To be investigated, a citizen complaint must contain all information required on the complaint form. Code Enforcement Procedures Manual T, 2. Anonymous Complaints Policy. The County's policy is to not accept anonymous County Code violation complaints. The County believes that anonymous complaints are not as reliable as those made by complainants who are willing to identify themselves. In addition, in many cases, the complainant's identification and testimony in court may be necessary for successful prosecution of Code violators and Code enforcement. Exceptions. The County recognizes there may be cases justifying an exception to this policy. These are cases where the nature of an anonymous complaint reliably suggests the existence of code violations presenting an imminent threat to public health and safety or to the environment, which threat easily may be verified by County staff. In such cases, as determined by the CDD Director or designee, County staff shall accept the anonymous complaint and investigate it 3. Confidentiality Policy. The County's policy is to maintain the confidentiality of code enforcement complaint files and computer records, including the identity of the complainant, to the extent legally possible. The County believes it is important to maintain this confidentiality to assure effective investigation and prosecution of code violations. In addition, the County recognizes that some complainants do not want their names disclosed to the alleged code violator for fear of retaliation. However, in some cases it may be necessary for successful prosecution and enforcement for the complainant to be identified and to testify in court. Exceptions. In cases where the County chooses to cooperate with, or defer to, federal or state agencies for code enforcement, the contents of the file may be disclosed, as necessary, to the other agency. Procedure. In order to maintain the confidentiality of code enforcement complaint files and the identity of the complainants, while assuring effective prosecution and enforcement and compliance with state law,the following procedures apply. a. Code enforcement files will be maintained as confidential files throughout investigation, violation prosecution and/or other types of code enforcement to the extent legally permissible. b. The contents of code enforcement files will not be disclosed to anyone other than County staff who have a reason to know about and who are involved in the investigation, or to similar staff of an agency with which the County is cooperating. The contents of the file will not be disclosed to any other person absent court order, until: 1) the investigation is complete and a citation discovery request is made; or 2)the file is closed and disclosure is made pursuant to the public records law. B. Observation by Code Enforcement. Staff, Code enforcement staff often observe additional potential County Code violations while conducting complaint investigations. Such observations may form the basis for additional investigation and enforcement action. Policy. The County's policy is that code enforcement staff shall document on an investigation worksheet any potential code violations the staff observes on property that is the subject of their current investigation. Code Enforcement staff shall investigate documented additional potential violations. If substantiated, staff may address noted additional violations. Staff may also document and address code violations observed on any property adjacent to the subject property, which violations are observable from the subject property. 8 ., Code Enforcement Procedures Manual C. Proactive Code Enforcement. Within available code enforcement resources, the County may undertake a number of County-initiated procedures for proactive code enforcement. These procedures may include: 1. Investigations and prosecutions of code violations in particular geographic areas; 2. Investigations and prosecutions of code violations of a particular type throughout the County; 3. Timely and regular follow-up by CDD staff for compliance with conditions and requirements for permits and approvals; 4. Reporting by County staff of code violations observed while conducting County business; 5. Examination and comparison of County files for evidence of code violations; 6. Revocation of permits and approvals for failure to comply with requirements or conditions; 7. If County Code allows, restriction on issuance of development permits on property with uncorrected code violations; 8. Cooperation with code enforcement by other regulatory and licensing agencies;and 9. Cooperation with utility companies to terminate service, to the extent authorized by law, to non-permitted uses on property. D. Permit/Approval Condition Monitoring by CDD Staff. The County routinely issues land use, environmental and construction permits with a variety of requirements and conditions, and timelines for meeting them. For example, a land use approval may require landscaping the site by a certain date, and building permits expire if construction progress and inspections are not made within periods set by state law. Code violations occur when these permit and approval conditions are not timely met. Policy. The County's policy is that CDD staff may conduct timely and regular monitoring of conditions of approval and similar permit requirements for all permits and approvals. Procedure 1. All persons issued permits or approvals shall be given written notice of the consequences of failure to comply with requirements and conditions, including potential code enforcement. 2. If any permits and approvals are found not to be in compliance with conditions of approval or other permit requirements, staff in the appropriate CDD division assigned to the permit or approval monitoring shall undertake appropriate action to obtain compliance. 3. If the assigned CDD staff are unable to obtain compliance within a reasonable time established for that purpose, they shall report the violation to code enforcement and shall notify code enforcement staff of any enforcement action already taken. 4. Upon receipt of staff notification of non-compliance the case may be forwarded to Sheriffs Office for citation pursuant to Section XI.0 of this manual. E. Report by County Staff. In many cases, County staff may be in a unique position to observe potential code violations. For example, a property appraiser in the Assessor's office may be the only person able to observe new construction for which there is no permit. Policy. Any County staff member may report to code enforcement staff possible code violations they observe while conducting County business. Code Enforcement Procedures Manual 9`;. fe Reports by County staff under this subsection shall be made on a complaint form provided by CDD Code Enforcement Staff. F. Report by County Commissioner. A member of the Board may report a potential code violation, or may request that code enforcement staff investigate a citizen report of a potential code violation. The commissioner may complete a complaint form or report the alleged violation in any other written form. If a Board member submits a written report other than a complaint form, that report shall be attached to a complaint form completed by code enforcement staff. G. Information from Official County Records. Potential code violations may be discovered by examining the County's own official records. For example, cross-referencing between the Assessors records and CDD's records may reveal construction or land use activity without necessary permits or approvals. CDD staff may also discover code violations by comparing the County's own land use, environmental health and construction permit records with each other. Policy. CDD staff may regularly compare all pertinent County records to identify potential Code violations. Procedure. Code violations discovered through comparison of information in County files shall be reported to code enforcement on a complaint form. VIII. RECORDING COMPLAINTS " 4 i yqq�g � 41 A p 1,, , l$10,n�1 141!PE�4b�h41djaCyNTlNffi"f�P{.MO, �id�liP40 *'r'�k i F PM 31'.u,,i'"Fr,`1NiN!Frw .'a..�45t 1. All complaints from received by code enforcement shall be recorded in CDD's computer system. The Complaint Record is the official record of the complaint and its investigation and resolution. The Complaint Record shall include the following minimum information: 1. An assigned complaint number; 2. The tax map number and tax map for the subject property; 3. Which code enforcement staff is assigned to the case; 4. The complaint form; 5. Documentation of investigation; 6. Assessor's information on the subject property. IX. NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION When Code Enforcement initiates investigation, it may provide notice to any CDD division, other County department,or federal or state agency that may have an interest in the alleged code violation. 10 Code Enforcement Procedures Manual X. INVESTIGATION .,. . �ppga �' Ni ,a t + r:,ur:i44,g;vi �}'.a4;M:;4°; , PHq I , kP ri4k ;M;714i$^IM1kiPri"d�G„fli�:�tp�(,!�;,i t l9ia"I{" A. Preliminary Matters. At the beginning of each investigation,the following shall be established: 1. Jurisdiction. The property upon which the alleged code violation has occurred must be land over which the County has code enforcement jurisdiction. 2. Zoning. The zoning of the subject property shall be determined. 3. Permit Status. The status of any land use,environmental health,construction or other similar permits on the subject property shall be determined. 4. Property Ownership. All persons with a recorded legal interest in the subject property should be identified. These persons should include the owners, contract purchasers, lessees and lienholders or other security interest holders. 5. Other Potentially Responsible Persons. In addition to the persons listed in subparagraph 4 of this paragraph, any other persons potentially responsible for the alleged code violation(s) should be identified. These persons could include tenants, construction and landscape contractors and excavators. 6. Identification of Applicable Code Provisions. The code enforcement staff,with the assistance of other CDD staff and County legal counsel as necessary, shall identify the pertinent provisions of the County Code that may have been violated according to the complaint. 7. Prior Complaint History. The code enforcement staff shall examine CDD records to determine the existence and status of any prior or existing code violation complaints on the subject property or concerning the alleged violator. B. Establishing the Elements of a Violation. Before a Notice of Violation ("NOV") is sent, it must be determined whether the complaint, if true, establishes a code violation. If it does not, the case should be resolved by file closure as provided in section XII of this manual. The code enforcement staff, with the assistance of other COD staff and County legal counsel as necessary, and after any necessary field investigation, shall determine if the following elements have been established. 1. Responsible Person. The person or persons who are reasonably believed to have committed the code violation, or who are or may be legally responsible for the alleged code violation, have been identified. 2. Alleged Violation Occurred or is Occurring. A complaint may allege a code violation that occurred in the past (e.g., construction without a permit) or that occurs only intermittently (e.g., surfacing sewage from a drain field, or periodic non-permitted commercial activity in a residential zone). The code enforcement staff shall determine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe the alleged violation occurred or is occurring. Such grounds may be established either by personal observation by the code enforcement staff or by reliable evidence from a complainant. If the code enforcement staff determines that reasonable grounds do not exist, no enforcement action should be taken until the complainant or the code enforcement staff has had a reasonable opportunity to develop such grounds. If no reasonable grounds are developed within a reasonable period,the case should be resolved by file closure as provided in Section XII of this manual. Code Enforcement Procedures Manual 1. C. Assignment of Investigation and Enforcement Responsibility Policy. The responsibility for field investigation and code enforcement should be assigned to the CDD staff most able and qualified to conduct the investigation and undertake appropriate enforcement action. For example, alleged violations of environmental health codes may best be investigated and resolved by County sanitarian. However, all code enforcement activity should be coordinated with code enforcement staff and all NOV's and Voluntary Compliance Agreements (VCA) will be drafted by code enforcement staff. Citations shall be drafted and issued by the Sheriff's Office. Procedure 1. Assignment. Assignment of field investigation and code enforcement responsibility shall be made by the CDD Director, on a case-by-case basis or pursuant to standing policies in this manual or elsewhere. The following criteria shall be used for assignment of responsibility: code violation(s)alleged in the complaint; a. The nature of the cod ( } g b. The knowledge and expertise needed to investigate the alleged violation; c. The history of prior code enforcement on the subject property or with the alleged violator; d. The status of permits and approvals on the subject property; and e. the workload of the relevant CDD division staff and the projected timeline for investigation and resolution of the complaint. 2. Coordination. Whenever responsibility for code enforcement activity is assigned to CDD staff other than code enforcement staff, such staff shall consult with code enforcement staff and keep them advised of their activities. When COD staff other than code enforcement staff is assigned to investigate a code violation complaint for which a Complaint Record has been created, such staff shall enter into the record a report of any action undertaken to investigate or to obtain compliance. D. Field Investigation 1. Purpose. The purposes of code enforcement field investigation are: a. to verify the existence and severity of code violations; b. to document code violations by means of written notes, photographs, witness interviews, etc.; c. to obtain supporting evidence such as photographs, measurements, names and statements of potential witnesses,etc. 2. Coordination. Whenever responsibility for field investigation is assigned to CDD staff other than code enforcement staff,the coordination and notification described in Paragraph C(2)of this section shall occur. t ;',,- Code Enforcement Procedures Manual 3. Preparations and Precautions Policy. Code enforcement staff and other assigned CDD staff, as well as members of the public, should not be exposed to unreasonable risks of violent confrontation or injury during the course of field investigations. Code enforcement staff and other assigned CDD staff shall take whatever actions are reasonable and necessary to minimize the known risk of violent confrontation or injury to themselves or others in conducting their field investigations. Procedure a. Law Enforcement Assistance. When appropriate, the code enforcement staff or other assigned CDD staff should contact the sheriffs office to determine if there have been previous criminal complaints or investigations concerning the subject property or alleged code violator, and whether, in the opinion of the sheriffs office, a field investigation would present any threat to the safety of the code enforcement staff, other staff, the alleged code violator or other persons present during a field investigation. The code enforcement staff or other assigned CDD staff person may request law enforcement assistance in conducting the field investigation, and may postpone such investigation until law enforcement assistance is available. b. Announced/Unannounced Field Visits. At the discretion of the code enforcement staff or other assigned CDD staff, a field visit to the vicinity of the subject property may be conducted with or without prior notice to the property owner, occupant or alleged code violator. The determination of whether or not to give prior notice shall be made on the basis of the following criteria: 1. The nature of the alleged violation; 2. Whether or not prior notice will make detection and documentation of the alleged violation more difficult; and 3. Whether or not prior notice will unnecessarily increase the known risk of violent confrontation or injury to the code enforcement staff or other assigned CDD staff. c. Entering Upon Property or Premises Policy. It is the County's policy that code enforcement staff and other assigned CDD staff shall not enter upon private property or premises to conduct a field investigation without authority to enter. Procedure. Code Enforcement Staff may enter unposted property to seek permission to investigate on the premises. Unless permission is granted, the investigation shall be conducted from public roads or property where permission to enter has been granted. If the code enforcement staff or other assigned CDD staff does not have permission or other authority to enter upon property or premises, and entry upon the property or premises is necessary to conduct the investigation, the code enforcement staff or other assigned CDD staff shall consult with County legal counsel about obtaining a search warrant. E. Report of Investigation.. Upon completion of the field investigation, the code enforcement staff or other assigned CDD staff shall complete a report of investigation in the Case Record. The report shall include the following information: Code Enforcement Procedures Manual of 1. Name of investigator; 2. Date,time and place of field visit; 3. Code violation(s)observed; 4. If no code violation(s)observed,an explanation; 5. Witnesses, if any, interviewed; 6. Evidence, if any,obtained (e.g., photographs); 7. Discussion, it any,of violation with owner,occupant or other responsible person; 8. Action necessary, if known,to correct violation; and 9. Recommended enforcement action. XI. ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES m a ,a ;s, rn �<g o•.wrn n'rui{;a;ctnaau °ei"rXry ktl .,m?i ',b71 i PNi,:1 i, r., 1 It !k ,.e ..14 G 3 g4M r� r�c A. Voluntary Compliance Policy. The primary objective of CDD code enforcement is voluntary compliance. Staff encourages voluntary code compliance by providing code violators and other responsible persons with information about the County Code and an opportunity to comply with the County Code within reasonable timeframes and with little or no penalty. The County believes that voluntary compliance generally is less expensive for all parties and of a more satisfactory and lasting nature than involuntary compliance. Notwithstanding this objective, the County believes that allowing Code violators the opportunity to voluntarily comply any time during code enforcement, or outside reasonable time limits for such compliance, may actually result in abuse of this opportunity in order to delay compliance. Therefore, it is the County's policy to limit the time frame during which Code violators may come into voluntary compliance with little or no penalty. Procedure The following procedure shall apply whenever a code violator brings his or her property into compliance during the code enforcement process: 1. Compliance Timing and Staff Response Timing of Compliance Disposition After complaint/ before citation File closed. Application of permit investigative fees where applicable. After citation/before trial or CDD recommends dismissal of citation, no cost hearing before hearings officer recovery, application of permit investigative fees where applicable. At hrne of trial or bearing CDL) recommends prcose=i.itt.ion, before hearings officer conviction or guilty plea, maximum hoe or civil pei)alt\, injunction, co st recovery, application of permit investigative fees where applicable. 14 Code Enforcement Procedures Manual • 2. Limited Time Frames. Opportunities for voluntary compliance, where provided, shall be of limited duration. The facts in each case differ. Therefore, code enforcement staff shall consider the appropriate time frame for compliance on a case-by-case basis. 3. Time Extended by Voluntary Compliance Agreement. Following the issuance of a NOV, if the alleged violator admits the violation(s) and requests extended time for voluntary compliance, the alleged violator shall sign a "Voluntary Compliance Agreement in a form acceptable to the County." The agreement shall provide that, in exchange for the extended time for voluntary compliance, the alleged violator agrees to abate the violation(s) by a specified time, and, if voluntary compliance is not obtained during this extended time, to waive hearing in any subsequent violation proceeding and consent to entry of judgment and imposition of penalties,costs, injunction,and/or such other relief as is deemed appropriate. B. Notice of Violation 1. When Sent. When the code enforcement staff or other assigned CDD staff determines there are reasonable grounds to believe a violation did or does occur, based upon the information in the complaint and any field investigation, an NOV shall be sent on a standard form approved by the CDD Director or in a letter or notice sent by the appropriate CDD division staff. 2. To Whom Sent. A NOV shall be sent to all persons liable for the violation under Deschutes County Code. 3. How Sent. NOVs shall be sent by certified mail to the best available address for the persons described in Subsection 2 above. 4. Follow Up. If,within 15 days of the mailing of the NOV,the liable persons have not contacted code enforcement staff, code enforcement staff shall determine the next step in the Code enforcement process including forwarding the case to the Sheriff's Office for warning and/or citation. 5. Compliance. If the code enforcement staff determines that the required corrections have been made or the liable persons have provided evidence that no violation exists,the date and method of compliance shall be noted in the Complaint Record and the case shall be resolved by file closure pursuant to section XII of this manual. 6. Corrective Action. In some cases, corrective action may consist of both applying for and obtaining necessary permits or approvals. In such cases, the permit or approval application alone will not be sufficient to assure compliance. The liable person must complete the application process, including all appeals, within a reasonable time and not allow the application to expire. Once permit approval is obtained, the liable person must complete all permit conditions prior to the expiration of any permit approval. Policy. All code violation cases shall remain open until all permit conditions and other required corrective measures are completed. Procedure 1, Where the required corrective action consists of both applying for and obtaining permits or approvals, code enforcement staff, in consultation with other appropriate CDD staff, shall determine a reasonable time frame for applying for and obtaining the necessary permits or approvals. Code Enforcement Procedures Manual 'Cs ................. 2. If at any time during the process for obtaining necessary permits or approvals the alleged violator fails to meet the reasonable timelines established by code enforcement and such failure does not result from the actions of others, the code enforcement staff shall cite the alleged violator pursuant to Paragraph C of this section. 3. If the alleged code violator is not granted the necessary permits or approvals, the Code enforcement staff shall cite the alleged violator pursuant to Paragraph C of this section unless (a)the alleged code violator enters into a written agreement with the County to comply with the County Code within a time frame established by code enforcement staff, or (b) a lender has begun foreclosure proceedings and, in the opinion of code enforcement staff, is likely to address the violation within a reasonable time after the foreclosure. C. Citation and Complaint 1. Non-Compliance. Where voluntary compliance cannot be obtained by CDD within a reasonable time frame, the case shall be forwarded to the Sheriff's Office for warning and/or citation, or code enforcement staff shall initiate administrative enforcement hearing proceedings in accordance with County Code. 2. Field Investigation Required. No citation to state court or citation or notice for administrative enforcement hearing proceeding shall be prepared unless and until a field investigation has verified the existence of a Code violation. 3. Form. All citations to state court shall be on a uniform citation which conforms to ORS 153.045 through ORS 153.051. Citations or notices for administrative enforcement hearing proceedings shall be on the form required by County Code. 4. Service. All citations to state court shall be served in accordance with ORS 153.154. Citations or notices for administrative enforcement hearing proceedings shall be served in accordance with County Code. 5. Setting Arraignment/Administrative Hearings. For citations to state court,the officer serving the citation shall set the date for arraignment. For citations or notices for administrative enforcement hearing proceedings, Code Enforcement Staff shall set the date for the hearing in accordance with the County Code. 6. Arraignment in State Court a. Purposes. The purposes of arraignment are to: 1. Allow the defendant to enter a plea to the citation; 2. Resolve any jurisdictional issues; 3. Set a trial date if the plea is not guilty;and 4. If the plea is guilty, allow the defendant,the Sheriffs Office Deputy and other County Code enforcement staff the opportunity to provide information to the court regarding penalties and related matters. b. Appearance by County Legal Counsel. County legal counsel shall not represent the County at arraignment unless the defendant has legal counsel at arraignment. 7, Failure to Appear at Arraignment. If the defendant fails to appear at arraignment, the code enforcement staff may request that the court enter a default judgment in favor of the County and impose penalties against the defendant. j ,. Code Enforcement Procedures Manual S. Trial. If the defendant pleads not guilty to the allegations in the citation, the Code enforcement staff shall request that the court set the matter for trial at the earliest available date. a. Burden of Proof. The County has the burden of proving at trial, by a preponderance of the evidence,the allegations in the citation. b. Responsibility of Code Enforcement Staff. At trial, the responsibility of the code enforcement staff is to prosecute the case by presenting evidence, calling witnesses and offering any relevant documents and other exhibits in support of the citation. c. Appearance by County Legal Counsel. County legal counsel shall not represent the County at trial unless the defendant is represented by legal counsel at trial. 9. Fines a. Schedule. The schedule of maximum fines for County Code violations is set forth in DCC 1.16.010. b. Amount. If the defendant is convicted,the code enforcement staff shall request that the court impose a fine in an amount consistent with the County Code. 10. Suspension of Fines. The Circuit Court has authority to suspend the imposition of all or a portion of a fine. In some cases,the court may wish to suspend imposition of a fine or a part thereof on the condition that the defendant comply with County Code within a specified time period. a. Policy. It is the County's policy to increase the effectiveness of code enforcement activity and the incentives for code compliance by discouraging any suspension of fines in County Code violation cases. b. Procedure. If a defendant is convicted, code enforcement staff and/or County legal counsel shall advise the court of the County's policy against fine suspension, and shall ask the court not to suspend imposition of fines. 11. Collection and Distribution of Fines. Fines imposed by the court for County Code violations are collected by the State Court Administrator and are remitted in part to the County. a. Policy. It is the County's policy that all fines imposed for County Code violations and remitted to the County should be used to pay the costs of County Code enforcement. b. Procedure. All fines imposed by the court for County Code violations and remitted to the County shall be deposited in the County General Fund and transferred to the CDD Revenue Fund for budgeting and expenditure in the code enforcement program. D. Injunctions Policy. Code enforcement staff shall seek injunctions from the court in cases where other methods of code enforcement may be inadequate or have been unsuccessful. Code Enforcement Procedures Manual 17 Procedure 1. When Sought. Code enforcement staff may contact County legal counsel to obtain/ coordinate injunctions in any case in which: Code violation(s) present an imminent threat to the public health and safety or to the environment;or Code violations have not been corrected within a reasonable time after a defendant was found by the court or County hearings officer to be guilty of a code violation. 2. By Whom. Pursuant to DCC 1.16.040, Code Enforcement staff (or County legal counsel if appearing in the case) may request that the court order injunctive relief and/or abatement as part of the penalty in a code enforcement proceeding. Alternatively, County legal counsel may initiate a separate legal action for injunctive relief and/or abatement of a violation. 3. How Enforced. After issuance of an injunction, if the defendant fails to comply within the time period specified in the injunction, the Sheriff's Office or CDD staff shall request that County legal counsel initiate civil contempt proceedings against the defendant. E. Permit Revocation. Certain County Codes authorize the revocation of permits or approvals for failure to comply with their requirements or conditions. Policy. To maximize code compliance, the County shall revoke permits and approvals to the extent authorized by law in appropriate cases. Revocation of permits are particularly appropriate in cases in which corrective action may not be effective in bringing the subject property into code compliance due to the nature of the violation and the deliberateness of the code violator's actions in violating the Code. Procedure 1. Report to Code Enforcement Staff. If the County staff responsible for monitoring and/or reviewing a particular type of permit determines that the conditions or requirements of a permit or approval have not been met, that staff member shall inform code enforcement staff of such violation, and code enforcement staff shall enter the information in the code enforcement electronic files. 2. Revocation Procedure. The County staff responsible for monitoring and/or reviewing a particular type of permit shall determine whether to undertake permit revocation proceedings as authorized under the applicable County Code provisions. The following factors shall be considered: a. Whether the criteria for permit revocation set forth in the applicable County Code provisions exist; b. The severity of the deviation from the permit or approval requirements or conditions; c. The deliberateness of the deviation from the permit or approval requirements or conditions;and d. Whether compliance can be achieved more effectively through other code enforcement methods. 18';.' Code Enforcement Procedures Manual F. Nuisance Abatement. Chapter 13.36 of the Deschutes County Code (hereafter"Code") authorizes the abatement of County Code violations that are defined as"public nuisances." Policy. County Code violations constituting public nuisances may be abated pursuant to chapter 13.36 of the code and within available resources. Procedure. When County staff discovers or receives a verified complaint of a code violation that may constitute a "public nuisance," staff shall provide the information to Code Enforcement staff who shall enter the information into the code enforcement file. Code Enforcement staff or other assigned CDD staff may consult County legal counsel to initiate nuisance abatement proceedings pursuant to chapter 13.36 of the code. G. Dangerous Building Abatement. Chapter 15.04 of the code authorizes the abatement of buildings containing violations rendering them "dangerous buildings"as defined in the Code. Policy. County Code violations that may render a structure a "dangerous building" shall be abated pursuant to Chapter 15.04 of the Code and within available resources. Procedure. When a code enforcement staff or other CDD staff discovers or receives a verified complaint of code violations in a structure that may render the structure a "dangerous building," the staff shall provide the information to code enforcement staff who shall enter in the information into a Complaint Record. The Deschutes County Building Official (hereafter "building official") shall be notified and shall promptly consult with County legal counsel to initiate abatement proceedings under chapter 15.04 of the code. H. Investigative Fees. Certain provisions of the State Building Code allow municipalities administering and enforcing a building inspection program to charge investigative fees for work commencing without the required permit. Policy. To maximize the incentives to comply with County Code, the County shall charge investigative fees, to the extent authorized with law, for permits sought for non-permitted construction or installation. Procedure. Whenever County staff discovers or receives a verified complaint of non-permitted construction or installation, the information shall be submitted to code enforcement staff who shall enter the information into the code enforcement Complaint Record. To the extent allowed by law, the County shall charge investigative fees for the permit(s) necessary to comply with the County Code. I. Restricting Issuance of Development Permits. In some cases, persons apply for land use, construction and/or environmental soils permits to develop property upon which there already exist uncorrected County Code violations. Code Enforcement Procedures Manual 19 (Note: Additional County Code and/or statutory authority may be needed to allow refusal to accept permit or approval applications or to refuse to issue permits or approvals due to pending code violations.) It is the County's policy, to the extent authorized by law, not to issue permits or approvals, nor to renew or extend permits and approvals, for development on any property on which there already exists uncorrected code violations. The restriction should continue until such violations are corrected. Exceptions 1. Land use, construction and/or environmental health permits, or renewals or extensions of such permits, sought in order to correct existing County Code violations on the subject property shall be issued if all criteria for issuance are met. 2. These provisions shall not apply to the issuance of agricultural building exemptions as set out in ORS 455.315. Exemption from the state structural code for qualifying agriculture buildings shall be issued if all criteria for the exemption are met. Procedure 1. Determination of Existing Violations. Whenever land use, construction and/or environmental soils permits are applied for,or renewals or extensions of such permits are sought, County staff shall determine if there are existing code violations and the status of those violations. 2. Applications for Permits/Approvals Existing Code Violations. If review of County records and/or consultation with code enforcement staff reveals the existence of unresolved code violations on the subject property, to the extent allowed by law, County staff shall not accept applications for the requested permit(s) or approvals or renewals or extensions thereof, nor shall staff issue permits or approvals or renewals or extensions thereof. Instead, staff shall promptly consult with code enforcement to determine whether the permit or approval, or the renewal or extension thereof, is being sought in order to correct the existing Code violation(s). If the requested permit or approval, or renewal or extension thereof, is determined to be required for code compliance, the application shall be accepted, or the permit or approval shall be issued if all necessary conditions have been met. County staff shall refer persons not allowed to apply for permits or approvals, or to whom issuance of permits or approvals or renewals or extensions thereof has been denied under this subparagraph,to a code enforcement staff to discuss required corrective action. 3. Duration of Permit/Approval Restrictions. To the extent allowed by law, County staff shall not accept or approve any applications for land use, construction and/or environmental health permits or approvals, or renewals or extensions thereof, except as provided above, until all necessary corrective action has been taken with respect to existing code violations under subparagraph 3(a). 4. Coordination. Whenever the provisions of this paragraph apply, code enforcement and other County staff shall closely coordinate their permitting and enforcement activities to assure compliance with this paragraph. 201 Code Enforcement Procedures Manual J. Assisting Enforcement by Other Fteguiatory/Licensing Agencies, In some cases, County Code violations also may constitute violations of federal and/or state statutes or administrative rule. For example, surface mining without County land use approva; may also violate state statutes and administrative rules governing mining, and performing building construction without necessary permits may also constitute violations of state statutes and administrative rules governing the conduct of licensed contractors. Policy. To maximize code enforcement and the incentives for compliance, County staff shall by promptly advise the appropriate federal and/or state agency of County Code violations reported or discovered that may also violate the statutes or administrative rules of that agency. The County shall also cooperate with federal or state agencies, to the extent authorized or required by law or by intergovernmental agreement, to obtain voluntary compliance or to punish violations. The County may defer investigation and prosecution to the appropriate federal or state agency in cases in which, as determined by the CDD Director or designee, the federal or state agency enforcement procedure willresult in more effective correction of the violation(s). Procedure 1. Reporting. Whenever County staff discovers or receives a verified complaint regarding a County Code violation that may also constitute a violation of federal or state statute or administrative rule,the staff shall advise the appropriate federal or state agency. 2. Cooperation. To the extent authorized or required by law or by intergovernmental agreement, County staff shall cooperate with the federal or state agency to obtain voluntary compliance or to prosecute and punish violations. That cooperation may include sharing nformation, conducting joint investigations, appearing as witnesses and/or providing evidence in enforcement proceedings, and coordinating the timing of investigations and/or enforcement proceedings to maximize their effectiveness. 3. Deferral to Other Agency. The County may defer some or all code enforcement to a federal or state agency, and forego County Code enforcement, where the Board, CDD Director or the Director's designee determines that the federal or state enforcement activity will be more effective than County Code enforcement. In making the determination to defer to other agencies,the following factors shall be considered: The nature of the violation and necessary corrective action; The comparative severity of the penalties available to the federal or state agency and to the County;and The comparative time frames required for enforcement by the federal or state agency and by the County. K. Civil Penalties. Monetary penalties, injunctions and other remedies for County Code violations may be assessed through a County administrative hearing procedure, separate from the citing and prosecution of County Code violations in court. Policy. To increase the incentives for compliance or as required by state law, code enforcement staff may engage in County administrative hearing procedure for assessing and collecting civil penalties against County Code violators. Code Enforcement Procedures Manual, County staff may engage in the code enforcement administrative hearing process when, in the opinion of code enforcement staff, such a proceeding would more likely result in code compliance or County enforcement cost recovery. Cost '" .cove=-y. The County incurs costs investigating code violations and enforcing codes. They include the cost of personnel and equipment, legal advice and representation, service of citation,and administrative expenses. It is the policy of the County to maximize code enforcement and to increase the incentives for code compliance by recovering its reasonable code enforcement costs from code violators. [,a,roc;adure. In determining whether to cite a code violator to court or to engage in the administrative hearings process, code enforcement staff may consider which process will result in the maximum cost recovery to the CDD. 9Vl ;ens In many cases, the most effective way for the County to recover its code enforcement costs, as well as to collect any civil penalties assessed through administrative hearings, is to file a legal claim for those costs or penalties against the property subject to code enforcement, or against other property owned by the code violator. Policy. It is the County's policy to assure recovery of its costs, as well as the collection of civil pen- alties assessed through administrative hearings, by filing claims for those costs and penalties in the form of liens on property subject to code enforcement,or upon other property owned by code violators. G„rocedure. In the appropriate cases, the County staff will explore with County legal counsel the means by which liens may be placed against the real property of the code violator for the collection of code enforcement costs and civil penalties assessed through County administrative hearings. 01, RESOLUTION OF CODE COMPLAINTS Policy. It is the County's policy to attempt to reach final, satisfactory resolution of all code violation complaints. However, the County recognizes that not all complaints may be resolved successfully, due to factors outside the County's control. These factors can include the indigence of the code violator,the lack of County or other resources to assist the violator, statutory limitations on potential fines or other penalties for code violations,and the large number of complaints to be resolved. Therefore, the County shall focus its code enforcement resources on the code violations that meet the priorities set forth in Section V of this manual, and attempt to resolve those violations within a reasonable period. It is the County's policy not to close a case until it is resolved. Procedure A. File Closure. A code violation complaint will be resolved by file closure in the following cases: 1. When no code violation is found after investigation; 2. After there is voluntary compliance; 3. After the property owner and/or other responsible person has been found guilty of a violation and has corrected the violation(s); 22 Code Enforcement Procedures Manual • 4. After an injunction has been issued and the property owner or other responsible person has corrected the violation(s); 5. After investigation and prosecution of the violation(s) have been completed by a federal or state agency to which the County deferred code enforcement; 6. When the property on which the violation exists is sold or transferred and a new Code enforcement case is opened in the name of the new owner. B. Notice of Resolution, The County may send written notice to the complainant when the complaint is resolved,describing the resolution. C. Alternate Methods of Resolution. The County may explore alternate methods to resolve Code violations including mediation. XIII. AMENDMENTS ,$, q° EHN '�N�a".r NC4 M r� .,i (�fdh°I i; {tl fb)I f dll .,'i�< iV F . 4 I �1��' si i i ie '�� This manual may be amended when deemed necessary by the CDD Director and the Board. Amendments may be proposed by County staff, Board members and other interested persons. Code Enforcement Procedures Manual 23. zz, ° Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division Imorf 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Nick Lelack,AICP, Director DATE: May 8, 2013 SUBJECT: Work Session—COD Draft Annual Report&Work Plan FY 14-15 SUMMARY/BACKGROUND Each year,the Community Development Department(CDD) prepares an Annual Report and Work Plan describing accomplishments from the prior year and a proposed work plan for the coming fiscal year. The work plan describes the most important objectives and proposed projects in each COD division. It is intended that a review of the draft work plan will provide the Board of County Commissioners(BOCC), the Planning Commission, Historic Landmarks Commission, County Administration and CDD's customers and partner agencies the opportunity to provide input, including additions, modifications and possible re-prioritization.The work plan also serves as the context within which new projects that arise during the course of the year are prioritized and undertaken. The purpose of this work session agenda item is to present and discuss the draft CDD Annual Report and Work Plan for Fiscal Year(FY)2014-15 (July 1,2014 to June 30, 2015) in preparation for a BOCC public hearing in June—the date is to be determined. DISCUSSION One of CDD's primary objectives again in FY 2014-15 will be to maintain high customer service levels with increasing development activity in the rural county and in the cities of La Pine, Sisters, Redmond, and Lake and Klamath Counties while sustaining appropriate staffing levels across all divisions and programs. Two additional high priority objectives will be to complete the installation of the State's ePermitting software,Accela,and to create a 5-year strategic plan for the department. The Planning Division Draft Work Plan,which consistently generates public interest,consists of: 1. Projects listed in the draft Annual Report and Work Plan are proposed to be initiated. 2. Projects listed in the Matrix are not proposed to be initiated, but may be added to the Work Plan by the BOCC. These projects were identified by Comprehensive Plan Policies or citizens.These projects may be initiated if resources become available and only upon BOCC approval. Page 1 Quality Services Performed with Pride The Division's draft Work Plan proposes to carry over projects from the current fiscal year to FY 2014-15 and to utilize available resources to establish, maintain and/or improve several internal tracking systems for: • Comprehensive Plan and Community/Area Plan implementation activities, updates, revisions, and the development of new regional plans. • Destination resorts and major development requirements and obligations. • Potential future text amendments or code sections to be reviewed and/or updated. Each of these tracking systems will be included in subsequent annual reports. Capacity for new proiects will largely depend on: • The forthcoming BOCC/Planning Commission direction to amend the County's Agricultural Lands Program; • The status and decisions regarding the potential federal Endangered Species Act listings of sage grouse and/or Oregon spotted frog; • The timing of applications to adopt and implement the Bend Airport Master Plan(BAMP),and to amend the Redmond Urban Growth Boundary(UGB)for a regional large-lot industrial campus;and, • The recommendation of a Sunriver Owners Association Task Force on safe public access to the Deschutes River at Harper Bridge. One new proiect proposed for next fiscal year per prior BOCC direction: • Reconvene the Transferable Development Credit (TDC) Advisory Committee to determine whether amendments are necessary to implement the Southern Deschutes County groundwater protection program in the New Neighborhood under the City of La Pine's new zoning and development ordinances. HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION&PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW Each year,the Historic Landmarks Commission(HLC)and Planning Commission review the Planning Division Work Plan. On May 5,the HLC reviewed and supported the draft Work Plan as proposed. On April 24,the Planning Commission conducted a work session and on May 8 conducted a public hearing on the draft Planning Division Work Plan. Public input to the Planning Commission included the following: 1. Property owners requested to be unmapped from the County's destination resort maps, and in support of the Planning Division's draft economic development action item: "Announce in August 2014 that the opportunity for remapping lands to the County's Destination Resort Map is available,and process any applications." Staff coordinated with County legal counsel because all of the property owners live in The Rim at Aspen Lakes, a subdivision affiliated with the Aspen Lakes Cluster Development.The BOCC, through Ordinances Nos. 2010-024 and 2010-025 adopted a process and eligibility criteria for amending Deschutes County's destination resort maps. One comprehensive plan policy in particular applies to these unmapping requests: Section 3.9 Destination Resorts Policy 3.9.3 Mapping for destination resort siting. d. For those lands not located in any of the areas designated in Policy 3.9.3(a)though(c), destination resorts may,pursuant to Goal 8, Oregon Revised Statute and Deschutes County zoning code, be sited in the following areas: 5. All property within a subdivision for which cluster development approval was obtained prior to 1990,for which the original cluster development approval designated at least 50 percent of the development as open space and which was within the destination resort zone prior to the effective date of Ordinance 2010-024 shall remain on the eligibility map[emphasis added); According to the underlined wording above, CDD,assuming the BOCC directs staff to initiate a process to amend the County's destination resort maps, could not recommend approving these unmapping request because the lots are located in a subdivision meeting the criteria of Policy 3.93(d)(5).The Comp Plan criterion states,"shall remain." To change this policy,one would need to initiate a comprehensive plan text amendment. Specifically, these residents stated their properties are mapped as eligible for destination resorts and they wish to have their properties removed from the eligibility map. 2. K.J. Phillips, Jerry Hubbard, and Commissioner Powell (excused from the meeting) submitted written proposals for projects to be initiated. These projects are listed on the attached matrix under"Citizen Initiated Requests." After considering public comments provided at the hearing and in writing, the Commission recommended the draft Annual Report and Work Plan to the BOCC as proposed. However, the Commission is in the process of prioritizing all of the projects on the Matrix for the BOCC's consideration should resources become available. In addition,staff received comments from the Haner Park HOA regarding the CDD Work Plan for the BOCC's consideration. REQUESTED BOCC ACTION Discuss the draft CDD Annual Report and Work Plan FY 14-15 and offer whatever additions or modifications the Board deems appropriate. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft CDD Annual Report and Work Plan FY 2014-15 2. Matrix of Comprehensive Plan Policies and Citizen Requested Land Use Projects 3. Public Comments ..__..._.. 1 C _ C e a 0 t c_ ) o V 7 O a 'A N v) co .°, a) d co cA ca 0 13 c C d a N U .2 R N _ a) C c h — rn m •� a a as co N j.i c O O 1z 0 > E 1 Q ui a �n o 3 ,F,-' ' a) C) O U 0 "d N ` N o 0 a) cn N 0 e a7 c 0 a) (N CO N g = C A CO C ui E a) '0 d. C m C Ca u) O a O 0 d N 14 3 ) 0 w. E � cn a) a) CO _c y J ° +„ CO H CO u7 O ❑ W u1 :S cL N- E -0 U E .� "O N �"� O N o y 0 ti C T Oi Y c a CS O U O a) ° y f�LL O Cr E W _@ cy U as -- , a) CIL.Q C a) o % • = c ° L° 3 a) I- . O .c C 01 nj O_ �,u) uJ N f6 C U' m o) a -o a) >, : C o V = 7' > a) o u) o 0 = d ° p "c-6-75 c co a h a N a O O n O N a. ol. a C c a c ❑c O 0 0O 0 .0`+ 0 C 0 E co 3 y w nj O C ° cC NM E C `vTi E Li O H 4 2 w O C 'p c nj d p N C1 4 p C N 0 •` of C c0 m ca >, u> o o C O o -o• • v R o a? '_ > T v E co w " - a m ° m S. a. •. 0 m a) '° U CC � o �a°i •� c C °. co aci c 0 0 ca C S $ coin o c n ca E C o x a �y �. •E .a m 0 aT .c. co � � 9 2a) 8 ,� 0 G G. o• E c0 C N N .V ._ C c c0 C - g Q)113 g Q a, N % a) O f O a) a9 co W O c a) C E ,� a) n c . a) a E v -© a a) a) 3 fi C 0 uJ cca o o2 ° G a 3 r42 2c $ ofl C co m V o a 0 @ w c f6 8 =) c c -0 'v c o_Tica E • N • cE 5 E � o` Q °' C CO 0 E C C p) co �° y of d y 4 N 41 x r L - m = C g 4 as co co o or t c c 42 E co u a T ic,.,C w d a R C C Oas 0 G M V ' C L as crj Cr a N C j rQ 0 0 1 co = ° co co .. N_ O 0 6❑_ a — "- n N a) '0 a, n a) a) >• ❑ a) � M a � o a r ° @ o o a ° 0 a' � c ° - o e° c v• ° a).- O U cn 0 0 E ❑ 0 O c 0) m c a p � L „ c "--- = U C � C �C a° N 3 7 O • cn p -O 7 0 ] U NcD E ° = C m a cc C a) c O O co co 't N U O 3 ° 0 U =O c• oiC 0 CO CO 0 0�a) ° a 0 o _ oE 0 ° 0 �' aig o. W ) 4 • ° m = . U o = d 03 a0 0. c Dry 77, 7 E X. a 0.01 CI..? 0. C > > V p CO c O •- a7 Q1 '!7 x p, X -O x O' a) a) O 5 O .. -7 U) .5 C9 -0' O W < 5 'W co W to w U5 CC � Ua cu •y Ci '- N c•i n E N a) ei u7 cD f- aD of r e- E Q o r U U N in to O u1 .y co O V a E C V ) °) is U) E E C U 7 ca vit v., ..4. u) y Q C a) O N a) ❑as Cs' a c C c E ro •- C) a) `� C ca 'O a U O_ O i +) .0 co co To c�i (d .O .7 C D C c •C a0 a N J :_• O a o' D W C M �O C "¢ m cu o cO w a C �' N p a) O D d) O . 7 O C a) Q 73 _co �ft a) h +.C•_ N m N E H a) L'' a) N E cNn rn T i c m a _ = �yj cD C) C) O 'E o) c) co co T •N E °) O4 ca c o •c ca rnT i C _ N O N �j N N C N M Q) co N .O D. o- d a � N C) U 7�, .C p U cj 'O a) Q E' g O a a) N N o y .LD. .o _ ta• a) = a�oi = xs ;O o a) c m a) o a v, o ) �? CI c d � c c ° t Q o aa) • •- d r c ai a �o 2 n n N N o ` a) o cD 0 Ai c u) TO C 0 cp ► O cV a7 M w-.- a 8 C] ......C d E 7 y 0 N E 0 x V 11 D N M N > of a) 2 to O O C a V) D U) 7 O 3 0_ a 13 -0,(12 ac a) 'C O U C C Q Ca Q) U c O m O a « •O— c vU) Q iv Ti, O y ,= a) cua roc Ci `3 Cu CD VC -0 +, n.) m 110 3 c � T c a � ° �" 0. r a) a) a) ro a) as v) u) c f 0 cu) o cC Q co V « cA a) as T 'C 'O N D�- >, c 3 is C c _ y`I O. C C a) V c 8 a) m a) is c C a O G) co w MIV p co D co) .O co ` cp^ C C C 'c .▪- 7 o O a .c M c6 H a) O c0 a W p "� 00. c U) N U O � op do c >a) co aNi a) 13 a o cn � — V) .-C w � ca � ci) v a 8 Qa) '- O ns Lo ��' ` ° ai cw a V co roc c o � a a -p c a a) o q N 7. c C Cl) u) co c ° Cl)) o as C Q. C a) C ' U 'N a) ro C C ▪u) as a) :,.. O C a) co d) as O OJ Q) O O p '� co C U C p a) — w � a) O C cV C W � '� N y � O a) N � � ca O o �O o ro to C C 7, C y y •t > C O p T 2 —, o_U U C U N U ray E E . E a •V 'a O. .0 ') CO U ^C 0) N Z'0)C C d .-. C p a) � 0_ b O O N U C ' @ � = C 0 a0 a C rt c 't C a D_ 0 3 O a) = O O C E O C O co co O as p O o a) a) a) LL a) t O C .0 Cl) as 0 U ` N Urn 0 '� u) E r Cc a U Via) O Z G1 • v, 307. ro 3 c ? a? "ro o a; oo w o �di • a N O a) ca a0) U 0 c o. . co N a 3 4 7 C lC a0) 0 o E C 8Q E ce E CC w D m 2 [C E co ) u) as c 0 4 6 cD o a c of vi 4 u p ti r '— r N N N N N N CV N a c E E 0 V 0 w C T 1 10 en C co C left. en o c 0 ) O c c -Dc N m N .6� � ° •co V To O a) O oi2 Cr`. o cu) N H a c r co o- o c c . a) •- c 1O . N N 7-. r >,"O 03 _0 U Q co o C a) O 7, m L. 2 Q O a O 7, to til C Q- 'a • a O a) E Q) 0 c co 2 o y .¢ a) 0 = Z+ U N o ? o p a U)0 = a .0 U ° u) o m v o m C � � 2' ln (n p c v L N o E p a� 0 o m b a) '�. m ++ Q) O C Z - ❑ O ❑ V , r U (C O Dl 7 N o- 2 �"? a N .L.+ ` V C y 4 N co 0 O co m '' - �o c 7' a� `O N � a n = 0) c •` b O ai) �o .y �? �' oz `o mow ; c O° v o p 2' (o ..? a co m �CO co f — C E� a) c as Ci C E U a) C N U O •2 C'•J � 'p (a N y C V c .2 a) - N O N 7 O) a) d. C : c C -0 N O a j N U U T C d _ "� 7 O V ( C . N E O N Ia 4 o 0 aOV cY c 0) EQ d 0 I- 7 E .p_. .a). C c U) C a) U C p0_ Q' . "O L 0) 0 U ) 3 0 E a c d t ( y 0) c a) C7.. O f6 en ▪ C C a) 0 ,a N c c J N a "C `1 Q) '0 a) 0) O N U c U ? .E cn I p•= m -C .0 o v CU N a3 Q 0 a) .� a) C .D a1 U d ra C ,p c. a) T E • t C C RS . ,.._ m .o E a -O N E 0) Cc)d CO O � Q) N p N U . Eo Fr C) LO o(n c" .. o Y U.Q c a o o c C E as ° m 0 O p ) 3 m 0) p w 2 N Q) 3 co ca co ot •E 2 V a� , a)r m O• " N O X O V ) O O Z a O a C'] CO_ 7Q 7Oj O co .u) 2(s a) › 0 c ❑ .S12 < U < r a a. < u, o Q 0) O N ') r (Ni C+) N N CO C) CO C) Community Development Department Annual Report & Work Plan ., . r rpY wNt ':Y� Z A I '. '� S 'E 6 11.1'h Y r ., irM✓a.,7. „,y 1 S �' .�� °qL .e. . •.41,�RN.+” '' ,,�.°rw4. +"f .y t f Nr" +'• 'h r 1�4 "'i''' ..mA. ..r-�w t �i � � 1. ,10- "M,' '„N Y" :ail iq d• M I Y,M �:i �rt�ya , .,,ma 1r � w g ' � �� ^y " pr M .�\ yy' N •w ^R aw h y\ Na, h:.* h M*.• %M ' I M .jF � F:^� 7w "u F:' '�ai' '� " ,y 1,1 .ab ,.d^ d w• , ,w , r 1:7 '771.16rie" w L. aw M s. 1 1 7 NW Lafayette Avenue -re'S O0 r Bend, Oregon l4r,:P`' ,. w - Main Line: 541 -388-6575 Fax: 541 -385-1764 Website: www.deschutes.org/cdd April 24, 2014 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Tammy Baney, Chair Tony DeBone, Vice Chair Alan Unger, Commissioner ADMINISTRATION Tom Anderson, County Administrator Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Nick Lelack, AICP, Director DEPARTMENT STAFF Building Safety Dave Pedersen, Building Official Dale Brieske, Electrical Inspector Scott Farm, Building Inspector III Chris Gracia, Building Inspector III Steve Jensen, Building Inspector III Randy Scheid, Assistant Building Official Dan Swarthout, Building Inspector III Jim Williams, Building Inspector II Richard Wright, Building Inspector III Coordinated Services Lori Furlong, Administrative Manager Tracy Griffin, Permit Technician Judy Hackett, Permit Technician Jennifer Lawrence, Permit Technician Marti Mello, Permit Technician Lisa Petersen, Permit Technician Martha Shields, Permit Technician John Griley, Code Enforcement Technician Tim Grundeman, Code Enforcement Technician Environmental Soils Todd Cleveland, Environmental Health Specialist III Operations Kathleen Stockton, Administrative Assistant Planning Kevin Harrison, Principal Planner Peter Gutowsky, AICP, Principal Planner Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner Will Groves, Senior Planner Matt Martin, Associate Planner Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner Cynthia Smidt, Associate Planner Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary Tim Berg, GIS Analyst Programmer 2 CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2014 COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES & HEARINGS OFFICERS DESCHUTES COUNTY Christen Brown • At Large (Chair) PLANNING COMMISSIONERS Hugh Palcic ♦ At Large (Vice Chair) Ed Criss ♦ South County Matt Lisignoli ♦ Redmond James Powell ♦ Bend Steve Swisher • Sisters Todd Turner ♦ Bend DESCHUTES COUNTY Broc Stenman • Unincorporated HISTORIC LANDMARKS Bill Olsen • Pioneer Association COMMISSIONERS Chris Horting-Jones ♦ Unincorporated Sharon Leighty ♦ Unincorporated Dennis Schmidling • City of Sisters Kelly Madden • Ex-Officio Ray Solley ♦ Ex-Officio Rachel Stemach • Ex-Officio DESCHUTES COUNTY Karen Green HEARINGS OFFICERS Ken Helm DESCHUTES COUNTY Cheryl Howard ♦ Chairperson BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN Kevin Tanski • Secretary ADVISORY COMMITTEE Mary Barron Bill Braly Pam Hardy •r..• o, w, .. Phyllis Lewis pit ,ot . , Matt Martin +' Rick Root f Jim Stone . . A r%,,,:; \ m CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 20 14 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Deschutes County Mission Statement & Policies 7 CDD Introduction/Overview 8 Department Goals 9 COORDINATED SERVICES Accomplishments 12 Work Plan 13 CODE ENFORCEMENT Accomplishments 14 Work Plan 15 GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS Accomplishments 16 Work Plan 18 BUILDING SAFETY Accomplishments 20 Work Plan 20 ENVIRONMENTAL SOILS Accomplishments 22 Work Plan 23 PLANNING Accomplishments 26 Work Plan 31 2013 Annual Community Involvement Report 35 STAFF DIRECTORY 38 4 CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 20I 4 DESCHUTES COUNTY MISSION STATEMENT Enhancing the lives of citizens by delivering quality services in a cost-effective manner EXCERPT FROM THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2014-2015 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES: Safe Communities Protect the community through planning, preparedness and coordinated public safety services ♦ Facilitate collaborative planning among County and community partners to enhance emergency preparedness. ♦ Facilitate collaborative planning on County-wide communications and infrastructure. Healthy People Enhance and protect the health and well being of the community through advocacy, education and services • Consider population health, wellness, safety and multi-modal connectivity in the design and implementation of infrastructure. ♦ Assess, preserve, promote and protect the basic health and wellness of residents. Robust Economy Promote policies and actions that simulate economic vitality ♦ Partner with organizations that stimulate economic vitality. ♦ Provide cost-efficient and innovative infrastructure that supports local economic opportunities and livable communities. ♦ Support land use policies that promote beneficial utilization of othe land for economic growth. • Support beneficial management and access policies of publicly owned natural resources to promote tourism and recreational activities. • Pursue interjurisdictional and interdepartmental cooperation to enhance service delivery and the cost effectiveness of public services. Management of Natural Resources Promote environmental stewardship through assessment, advocacy and collaboration ♦ Partner with community members and appropriate agencies to preserve and protect South County's water resources. ♦ Support healthy and sustainable forest and public land management practices and oversight. ♦ Enhance and protect air, land and water resources. CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2014 5 DESCHUTES COUNTY MISSION STATEMENT, CONTINUED Effective Service Delivery Maintain confidence in Deschutes County through sound fiscal management and responsiveness to the public ♦ Continue to provide opportunities for public engagement with Deschutes County government. ♦ Provide support to County operations to ensure cost effective and efficient delivery of services to the public. ♦ Support employee development, productivity and job satisfaction. ♦ Support and promote Deschutes County Customer Service "Every Time" standards. 6 CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2014 INTRODUCTION CDD MISSION STATEMENT The Community Development Department facilitates orderly growth and development in Deschutes County through coordinated programs of Planning, Environmental Soils, Building Safety, Code Enforcement, education and services to the public. This Annual Report highlights the Community Development Department's 2013 accomplishments, the work plan for Fiscal Year 2014-15, and implements the Board's goals and objectives. CDD provides satellite office coverage in Redmond, La Pine and Sisters, as well as services at the main office in Bend. The Department consists of divisions and programs as listed below which provide coordinated planning and development services. Coordinated Services Building Safety Environmental Soils Planning Division Code Enforcement Geographic Information Systems @r 110. J., 6XY,J ■yyy .,'4 3 y ` y r.i 9 - ^ p�yd' IB••. dM wA yM p XrTX� "IM 1;.I�6{fin{ M&`i lq "�,.� } N Main Office Deschutes County Fair& Expo South County Services Center 1 1 7 NW Lafayette Ave. 3800 SW Airport Way 51 340 Highway 97 S. Bend, OR 97701 Redmond, OR 97756 La Pine, OR 97739 Mon., Tues., Thurs., Fri. 8-5, Thursday 8:00-4:30 Tuesday 8-4 Wed. 9-5 (Moving to La Pine City Hall) *Building Services are provided at Sisters City Hall. CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2014 OVERVIEW BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HEARINGS HISTORIC LANDMARKS PLANNING DESCHUTES RIVER BICYCLE AND OFFICERS COMMISSION COMMISSION MITIGATION AND PEDESTRIAN ENHANCEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMITTEE NICK LELACK ............................. CDD Director BUILDING SAFETY PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL SOILS COORDINATED SERVICES DIVISION DIVISION DIVISION DIVISION DAVE PEDERSEN KEVIN HARRISON TODD CLEVELAND LORI FURLONG Building PETER GUTOwSKY Environmental Administrative Official Principal Planners Health Specialist Manager Commercial/Residential Current Planning Onsite Permit Technicians Plan Review Long Range Planning Program Code Enforcement and Inspections Geographic Information Systems Budget Summary FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 (Proposed) Resources 4,292,013 4,476,213 4,457,366 4,914,977 6,230,219 Requirements 4,160,237 4,476,213 4,457,366 4,914,977 6,230,219 Full Time Equivalents FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 Community Development 32.50 28.60 28.60 29.00 32.00 8 CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2014 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOALS SUMMARY This section applies to all Community Development Department (CDD) Divisions and programs. This plan was developed through Planning Commission, Historic Landmarks Commission and Board of County Commissioner (BOCC) work sessions and public hearings, stakeholder meetings, and input from the general public. It includes action items carried over from prior years, ongoing responsibilities and requirements, new projects, compliance measures, and more. CDD's Work Plan Objectives for FY 14-1 5 aim to: 1 . Implement the BOCC's FY 14-15 Goals and Objectives. 2. Employ the County's Customer Service Standards: "Every Add photo Time Standards" Goals: o We respond in a timely and courteous manner, identifying customer needs and striving for solutions (response). o We set honest and realistic expectations to achieve optimum results (expectations). o We provide knowledgeable, timely, professional, respectful service (professionalism). 0 We take ownership of our customer's needs and follow through (follow through). o We value our customers and approach them with an open mind (service). 3. Carry out CDD's mission statement. 4. Partner, coordinate and cooperate with our partner organizations in the public, private and non-profit sectors and citizens to implement this Work Plan. 5. Maintain updated intergovernmental agreements and contracts with cities, vendors, Hearings Officers, and others. 6. Promote robust public engagement that informs, involves, and empowers people and communities, including maintaining and enhancing cooperative relationships and open dialogue with stakeholder organizations. CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2014 9 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOALS, CONTINUED SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 1 . Maintain high customer service levels with increasing IN THE YEAR AHEAD development activity in the rural county and in the cities of La Pine, Sisters, Redmond, and Lake and Klamath counties while: (1) sustaining appropriate staffing levels across all divisions and programs; (2) completing the replacement of aging vehicles and technology; and (3) providing training for existing and new staff on regular updates to Accela and related technologies and equipment. 2. Develop and Adopt a 5-Year Strategic Plan FIVE-YEAR CDD will develop its first 5-Year Strategic Plan in FY 14-15. This STRATEGIC PLAN process started in FY 1 3-14 with staff creating a Draft Strategic Plan Framework (below). The CDD Strategic Plan will carry out the department's Work Plan Objectives (above) and guide decisions over the next five years. The Strategic Plan will be updated on a regular basis. As such, we are committed to revisiting the Strategic Plan annually to refine the alignment of the priorities of the plan with the BOCC's goals and objectives, fiscal realities, and our customers' priorities. We intend to learn what works and what needs to be improved, so that the plan will remain relevant and continue to provide direction over time. We continue to welcome everyone's input on the delivery of this plan and the services our department provides. DRAFT STRATEGIC 1 . Financial Plan. Develop 5-year financial and permit projections PLAN FRAMEWORK with experts, stakeholders, and the BOCC as the basis for creating a financial plan to make sound financial management decisions and build CDD's long-term fiscal strength. 2. Human Resources/Succession Plan/Organizational Culture. The Human Resources element will also address how to empower our department's most valuable asset, our employees. Develop and implement a succession plan to sustain high levels of customer service and efficient operations during transitional periods caused by several senior level retirements. Establish strategies to support and foster an outstanding organizational culture. 3. Facilities Plan. Coordinate with the Property and Facilities Add photo Department, stakeholders, the BOCC and others to conduct a high level evaluation of CDD's existing and potential facilities, including locations and hours of operation where one-stop shared development services shops are provided such as the Sisters and La Pine City Halls, and identify whether improvements may be necessary over the planning period. 10 CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2014 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOALS, CONTINUED 4. Shared Services, Contracts, and Partnerships. Inventory and evaluate, if necessary, all existing shared services (i.e., Intergovernmental Agreements, Joint Management Agreements), contracts (i.e., Hearings Officers, on-call staff), and partnerships (i.e., one-stop shop at the City of La Pine); and explore additional opportunities to provide services that benefit our customers in a cost-effective, efficient manner. 5. Operations Plan. Create a plan for CDD's operations with appropriate policies where applicable to address the following: a. Technology b. Vehicles c. Communications d. Procedures, protocols, and manuals 6. Environmental Sustainability Plan. Evaluate and identify opportunities to exercise cost-effective environmental sustainability in our facilities and operations. Add photo CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2014 1 1 COORDINATED SERVICES OVERVIEW The Coordinated Services Division provides service to customers at the main office in Bend, as well as at satellite offices in Redmond and La Pine. The Division consists of six permit technicians and two code enforcement technicians. The goals of the Division are to ensure minimal wait times, provide accurate information to the public, and ensure the efficient operation of the front counter. Staff also perform basic building plan reviews and addressing in the rural county and City of Redmond under contract. ACCOMPLISHMENTS ♦ Developed, coordinated and facilitated the adoption of intergovernmental agreements and contracts with the state, software vendor, cities, and the County's IT and Legal Departments to install the State of Oregon's ePermitting software program, Accela Automation. ♦ Coordinated and installed Accela Automation for the Building, Environmental Soils, Planning, and Coordinated Services/Code Enforcement Divisions, and for the cities of Redmond (Planning and Building Divisions) and Sisters (Building Division). p .'i, ` ,pH;;°,. • Organized and trained all County CDD staff, Redmond and Sisters staff, and customers to implement and efficiently use Accela. Provided training courses for licensed professionals r!! in conjunction with Central Oregon Builders Association and the State of Oregon on Accela and ePermitting. Much of this training will be ongoing. ( `'' s' °;,�!;' ♦ Converted credit card machines to virtual merchant devices for credit card transactions. ♦ Trained and coordinated with City of Sister's staff on processing building permit applications, estimating and calculating fees, and ensuring the appropriate permits are issued. ♦ Completed the database cleanup project (carried over from prior years). ♦ In coordination with GIS and IT, Coordinated Services continued to assess equipment used by all CDD staff to ensure that operational needs were met. The team developed project list that will enhance service, staff efficiency and communications. Projects included: (1) providing tablets to building and environmental health inspectors and code enforcement technicians in the field to provide real-time inspection results; making data available to inspectors in the field; and improving communication and 12 CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2014 COORDINATED SERVICES, CONTINUED photography tools; (2) providing linkages to historical documents where parcel numbers have changed; (3) creating new types of online permit applications; and (4) reviewing business processes and procedures and making several adjustments to accommodate and fully utilize Accela. WORK PLAN • Train staff in Administration and Crystal Reports as part of the contract with the Accela vendor. This training will allow staff to create custom reports and perform changes in the system to fees, workflows and create new record types saving CDD money by not contracting for these services. ♦ Continue to lead, facilitate and/or participate in training all County, Sisters, and Redmond staff and user groups on Accela. ♦ Continue to coordinate public outreach and education on Accela and all related elements to increase customer use of epermitting, and encourage submittal of applications for all participating jurisdictions at any participating Community Development Department. ♦ Serve on Statewide epermitting committee, participate in national Accela conference, and pursue other actions to ensure Accela meets Deschutes County's needs. ♦ Perform addressing duties in rural Deschutes County and for the City of Redmond. ♦ Create a one-stop development services shop for Southern Deschutes County with the City of La Pine at City Hall, and explore opportunities with the City of Redmond. CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2014 13 CODE ENFORCEMENT OVERVIEW The Code Enforcement program consists of two Code Enforcement technicians (2 FTE in 2013- 2014) plus volunteers, supported by a law enforcement technician from the Sheriff's Department, management and the operating divisions. Code Enforcement is responsible for investigating code violation complaints associated with building, land use, onsite wastewater disposal and solid waste codes, with the overriding goal of achieving voluntary compliance. If necessary, Code Enforcement may issue citations for prosecution in circuit court or before a Code Enforcement hearings officer. ACCOMPLISHMENTS Code Enforcement staff successfully resolved 264 cases in 201 3. Case Initiation Summary Case Turnaround Cases New Total Percent Total 30 60 .'._. 180.W_ 360 Opened Proactive New Change Cases Days Days Days Days Cases Cases Closed 2011 181 7 188 1 (16%) 2011 197 10% 22% 50% 77% I , 2012 252 i 24 276 47% a/a 2012 257 13 2 µ-- 6% 62% ; 77% 2013 241 13 1 254 (8%) 2013 264 8% 21% I 64% 86% Compliance Voluntary Warning Citation Injunction 2011 85% 11% 4% <1% 2012 85% 10% 5% <1% 2013 84% 13% 3% <1% ♦ The number of new Code Enforcement cases increased 8% in Year 201 3. Accommodating this increase, staff maintained consistency in case turnaround times and achieved an 86% voluntary compliance rate. ♦ Utilization of volunteers in the proactive code enforcement program was very successful. Work performed by volunteers directly enhanced productivity and efficiency. ♦ Coordinating with the County Weeds Program Specialist, staff extended proactive enforcement program focus to include identification of noxious weed-infested property. 14 CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 201 4 CODE ENFORCEMENT, CONTINUED ♦ The Code Enforcement Volunteers conducted site visits to all manufactured dwelling and recreational vehicle parks in the rural County. The purpose was to ascertain the level of compliance with the approved number of spaces and types of units. Over the years, many parks have added spaces without planning, building or septic approval and this survey was intended to document the current numbers. Staff will then determine if proactive enforcement might be applicable. ♦ Developed draft Code Enforcement Procedures Manual Update in coordination with County Legal Counsel; conducted BOCC work session on the draft Manual Update; and prepared for BOCC public hearings on the Manual Update in Summer 2014. WORK PLAN Ongoing Projects: ♦ Complete the update of the Code Enforcement procedures manual, including revising sections to reflect current practices, deleting those sections which are no longer appropriate, and adding provisions for updated objectives. One discussion item will be a review of the policy on accepting anonymous complaints. The BOCC will consider adoption of the updated manual after conducting public hearings. ♦ Continue proactive efforts in investigation of illegal second dwellings, review temporary use permits, and follow up on replacement dwellings. ♦ Continue to establish a relationship between CDD Code Enforcement and rural subdivision homeowners associations. Code Enforcement technicians make themselves available to speak at stakeholder meetings to share Deschutes County Code Enforcement information and operating procedures. • Participate in land use text amendment process by providing information and insight to ensure code enforceability. ♦ Survey other code enforcement jurisdictions and incorporate innovative practices where appropriate. This effort includes direct involvement with the Oregon Code Enforcement Association (OCEA) conference participation and networking. ♦ Administer the Code Enforcement Volunteer Program, focusing on proactive, non-threatening case review. Potential Projects (listed in priority order, to be accomplished as time allows). • In cooperation with the Building Safety Division, participate in the development of a text amendment on the County Outdoor Lighting Ordinance. The amendment will update tables to include compact florescent lighting options. ♦ Explore the feasibility of conducting proactive enforcement of certain types of land use permits which have conditions of approval associated with them. Determine the types of conditions that would be applicable for follow up, and whether it would be possible to view from a public vantage point. Landscaping, lighting and signage are examples of possible conditions. CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2014 15 GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS OVERVIEW Geographic Information Systems (GIS) is staffed by one Analyst/ Programmer and supports CDD divisions as well as providing direct service to the public via electronic and web-based mapping. GIS will assist Coordinated Services with the ePermitting (Accela) transition and adding the City of La Pine's Comprehensive Plan designations and zoning districts into the County's database. ACCOMPLISHMENTS • Assisted Coordinated Services Division, Information Technology Department (IT) and other CDD staff to convert to e-permitting software (Accela), including setting up and training staff on mobile devices (tablets) to post real-time inspection results in the field. ♦ Coordinated with the City of La Pine to integrate their comprehensive plan and zoning designations into the County's Geographic Information System (GIS) as they exercise their local authority for implementing land use planning as an autonomous jurisdiction on January 6, 2014. ♦ Coordinated with the City of La Pine to map and extract/ analyze data for the proposed La Pine Urban Renewal Area. ♦ Coordinated with the La Pine Park and Recreation District to map and analyze data for the proposed park district expansion. Add photo ♦ Coordinated with IT as new computers replaced outdated computers or those incompatible with Accela for most of the department. ♦ Served as lead CDD staff CDD to develop and implement DIAL 2. • Coordinated and implemented the installation of the ORCATS Account Manager software to accommodate the migration of CDD's addressing program from AccuTerm to ORCATS/ Accela. ♦ Assisted CDD staff with work station configurations, computer software and spatial analysis questions and concerns. ♦ Contributed to and improved electronic building plan reviews. • Assisted Code Enforcement Officers, Environmental Health staff with maps, exhibits, assessor data and land use records. ♦ Coordinated with CDD and IT staff to create new monthly development statistics reports in Accela. 16 CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2014 GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS, CONTINUED ♦ Assisted the Planning Division to analyze: Long Range Planning 0 Demographic data from U.S. Census and develop maps for Newberry County: A Plan for Southern Deschutes County. o Land use zoning data and produce maps for the Deschutes County Sage Grouse Land Use Assessment and Risk Analysis. o Areas affected by the proposed listing of the Oregon spotted frog by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). This assignment also required coordinating with USFWS to share assessor data ofaffected tax lots in the rural county and city of Bend. o Middle Deschutes River and Tumalo Creek drainages within the Bend Urban Area Reserve. o County Transportation System Plan for the purpose of developing a web-based bicycle and pedestrian map. O Transportation System Plan maps and update scriveners' errors. 0 Exclusive Farm Use Lands potentially affected by a Non- Resource Lands designation. 0 Historic landmarks in the rural County for the purpose of providing maps for volunteer photographers and the eventual development of an interactive web-based historic landmark map. Current Planning o Maps for quasi-judicial land use applications, including Urban Growth Boundary amendments affecting the cities of Bend and Sisters. o Maps for Hearing Officer's hearings. o Land use histories and Assessor data. ♦ Provided data and GIS mapping for the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Steering Committee. ♦ Provided data and GIS mapping to the general public. ♦ Updated and maintained the CDD/Planning Division website. CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2014 17 GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS, CONTINUED WORK PLAN • Continue to educate CDD staff on the use of GIS data and products in their work objectives, and identify areas where they may assist ♦ Develop recommendations for technology expenditures in the annual CDD budget ♦ Seek out training opportunities as appropriate, including at least one county sponsored class and technical off-site training and/or conferences ♦ Create Bicycle Route interactive web-based "Story Map," displaying official bicycle routes within Deschutes County ♦ Create Historic Landmarks interactive web-based "Story Map," depicting information on Deschutes County's Goal 5 inventory ♦ Provide monthly technology updates as necessary for the CDD Update ♦ Complete the automation of the CDD monthly statistics, provide training on how to run the reports, and revise/update the reports as necessary ♦ Support the CDD Technology Team in various general projects, including: 0 Implementing Accela, Providing DIAL 2 information and training as necessary and Monitoring and assessing CDD's computer and technology inventory ♦ Propose creative and innovative concepts and designs in CDD's new annual report format and any/all other departmental publications, manuals, forms, etc. that are attractive and user friendly ♦ Support continued improvements in Electronic Document Review for Building Division. ♦ Coordinate with the City of La Pine to update Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map designations. • Support mapping needs for the Southern Deschutes County Goal 11 Exception application. • Support mapping needs for the Agricultural Lands programs. ♦ Create and inventory databases and maps for all surface mines in Deschutes County. Determine which surface mines no longer require Surface Mining Impact Area reviews; update Accela, GIS and DIAL 2. 18 CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2014 GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS, CONTINUED WORK PLAN • Assist with the coordination of CDD software programs, computer systems, and mobile devices, including maintaining training in all areas. Continue to assist in implementing and updating Accela, and training staff and customers on existing and new/updated features. ♦ Provide technical support, including mapping and analysis to the cities of Bend, La Pine, Sisters and Redmond for future Urban Growth Boundary (UGB)/Urban Reserve Area (URA) expansions. Ad..t.m.,.a.,«».H. 1.*..,..c.14 .... �� ,�... .... "? �a .� ';;!'s � t^ d'','r,.. ti !dir�9ira7"��, � .!, •r� ua�:�!k�>ni�fra",at r,e�? Ir- .. m e m • I -..... c m ,c text . m m j CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2014 19 BUILDING SAFETY OVERVIEW The Building Safety Division consists of a Building Official, Assistant Building Official and seven field inspectors and plans reviewers, plus additional on-call staff. The Division provides construction plan reviews, consultations and inspections to assure compliance with the State Building Code. All inspectors are required to be certified by the State of Oregon for the specialty code they enforce. The Building Safety Division also maintains active agreements with neighboring jurisdictions and the State of Oregon for the application of State Codes. h r ACCOMPLISHMENTS • Issued 297 Single Family Dwelling permits in 2013, an 89% ' increase over 2012. ♦ Implemented Accela for inspection scheduling and recording. The use of 'Pad tablets has greatly improved and streamlined many of the inspection functions. 4 �. ., ♦ Sent four inspectors through a State provided class for electrical inspector certification. Completion of the class and successful testing will allow these inspectors to perform electrical inspections and will eliminate the need for two wa inspectors to visit the same site. ♦ Provided first full year of contract Building Official services to the City of Sisters. Continued to provide building services to the City of Redmond, and Lake and Klamath Counties. ♦ Continued to meet the State mandated turnaround time on plan reviews during a notable increase in permit activity. ♦ Promoted and provided pre-construction/pre-design meetings to facilitate a smoother plan review process. ♦ Participated in the offering of State mandated classes for the continuing education of certified inspectors and local design professionals. WORK PLAN ♦ The Division will continue to provide full service to all of its customers through the Plan Review and Inspection process Staff will continue to work with City of Sisters, emphasizing educational opportunities for owners and builders and developing a streamlined and efficient permitting system. Contacts and communication channels that have been developed with Sisters' divisions will continue to be strengthened and engaged as the County provides building permit services. ♦ Continue regular monthly meetings with Central Oregon Builders Association. These meetings benefit both the builders and our staff - feedback from the builders is valuable to us as we fine tune the inspection process and implement State codes as they are developed. 20 CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2014 BUILDING SAFETY ♦ Staff will participate in the development of training opportunities for the inspectors and plan reviewers. These functions typically also involve local design professionals and contractors. ♦ One FTE has been approved for the addition of a building inspector as needed. CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2014 21 ENVIRONMENTAL SOILS OVERVIEW The Environmental Soils Division is staffed by one Environmental Health Specialist III and one on-call inspector who provide site evaluations, design review, permitting, inspection, education and coordination with DEQ for onsite wastewater treatment and dispersal systems. Staff also inspects sewage pumper trucks, reports on the condition of existing wastewater systems, maintains an operations and maintenance tracking system, provides the public with information on wastewater treatment systems and regulations, and investigates sewage hazards. Staff is also engaged in the proactive pursuit of protecting the groundwater in Deschutes County. ACCOMPLISHMENTS In 201 3, the Division: ♦ Assessed 117 sites for onsite wastewater treatment and dispersal systems, up more than 50% from 2012, and issued 810 permits and authorizations for new and existing onsite treatment and dispersal systems, up 11 .5% from 201 2. ♦ Regularly coordinated with Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), including the hydrologist in the Western Region office, to determine the circumstances in South County requiring protective onsite wastewater systems. Staff continued to support and work with DEQ staff on South Deschutes/Northern Klamath Groundwater Protection Steering Committee recommendations. M a , ♦ Replaced approximately 43 antiquated, leaky steel septic tanks . , .ry within the groundwater protection area of South County. " '° ; — - ♦ Permitted and inspected 13 new nitrogen reducing - -Y v alternative treatment technology (ATT) systems in South County, bringing the total to 164 homes which are reducing 1 .. nitrogen loading from their wastewater to standards $ necessary to ensure safe drinking water in South County. f► ♦ In coordination with the Deschutes County/Neighborlmpact Loan Partnership program, assisted a South County property owner, when a nitrogen-reducing ATT system was required to repair a failing onsite system. ♦ Provided five property owners in South County with rebates of $3,750 per property for upgrading conventional onsite systems to nitrogen reducing pollution reduction systems. ♦ Coordinated with the City of Bend to assess sites eligible for onsite wastewater treatment and dispersal systems due to their distances from a sewer collection facility. 22 CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2014 ENVIRONMENTAL SOILS, CONTINUED ♦ Participated in the DEQ Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) work group for the upper Deschutes Basin and City of Bend Stormwater Quality Public Advisory Group. ♦ Reported to the Deschutes County Public Health Advisory Board regarding Groundwater Protection efforts in South County, including steering committee recommendations. ♦ Participated in the Department of Environmental Quality 4 (DEQ) Onsite Program 2013 Legislative Session Budget Note 1 Workgroup (also referred to as the State and Local ;k........ Government Efficiency Task Force), which developed a Final Report on November 29, 2013. The State and Local Government Efficiency Task Force was created by House Bill 2855 in 2011 to "review opportunities to provide services in the most effective and cost efficient manner through �" reorganization of the way services are delivered by state and 411, r ' local government entities and through specific process .. improvements; and consider the ability of intergovernmental agreements, existing or new service districts and technology to achieve cost savings." The Final Report contained two goals: (1) Increase flexibility and efficiencies to meet the needs of rural Oregon; and (2) Administrative Improvements. Each goal contained a series of implementation strategies. Staff participation resulted in Deschutes County retaining local control of the onsite program and the potential for significantly greater flexibility in administering the onsite program in the future. WORK PLAN • The Environmental Soils Division will continue to maintain or exceed service level goals and permit application processing time for site evaluations, design review and inspection of onsite wastewater treatment and dispersal systems. ♦ Staff will coordinate with the DEQ and the planning division on groundwater protection efforts, including implementing the South Deschutes/North Klamath Groundwater Steering Committee recommendations, including participating in discussions regarding Statewide Planning Goal 11 (Public Facilities and Services). ♦ Staff will prioritize addressing sewage health hazards and protecting public health and the environment. ♦ Staff will continue working with the DEQ on permitting protective onsite wastewater systems in South Deschutes County. CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2014 23 ENVIRONMENTAL SOILS, CONTINUED ♦ Given the current workloads and permit activities, a new staff position may be necessary to sustain permit and inspection service level goals. • Provide financial assistance opportunities where needed and appropriate to assist South Deschutes County property owners who do not qualify for conventional loans to upgrade conventional onsite systems to nitrogen reducing pollution reduction systems (Nitrogen Reducing System Rebates and the Neighborlmpact Non-conforming Loan partnership). ♦ Participate on the City of Bend stormwater public advisory technical committee. • Participate in the Upper Deschutes Agricultural Water Quality Management Area Plan review and update. ♦ Monitor and participate as applicable in the 201 5 Legislative Session regarding onsite wastewater legislative and/or rule amendments and water quality issues. ♦ Support the TDC Advisory Committee to review and update, if directed, the TDC/PRC program. • Maintain and update the South Deschutes County Groundwater Protection Annual Report. ♦ Assess staffing needs to maintain service levels. ♦ Update Operation and Maintenance reporting, tracking, and electronic invoicing system as required by DEQ. • Develop an electronic mail list for installers and distributors to improve information transfer and distribution. ♦ As opportunities become available, work with stakeholders to assist in future sewer feasibility studies or logistical research. ♦ Update job descriptions for Environmental Soils staff to meet current responsibilities and requirements. Long-Term Projects ♦ Update County Code Chapter 13.08 to be consistent with contemporary rules and requirements. • Update the DEQ contract for the Onsite Wastewater Treatment System Program to be more consistent with current rules and requirements (current contract dates from 1981). 24 CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2014 PLANNING OVERVIEW The Planning Division is divided into two operational areas: Current Planning and Long Range Planning. The Division consists of ten employees: a Community Development/Planning Director, two Principal Planners, two Senior Planners, one Senior Transportation Planner, a GIS Analyst, two Associate Planners and an Administrative Secretary. CURRENT PLANNING Current Planning is responsible for reviewing land use applications for compliance with Deschutes County Code (DCC) and state law, including zoning, subdivision and development regulations, and facilitating public hearings with hearings officers and the BOCC. Staff is also responsible for verifying compliance with land use rules for building permit applications and septic permits; coordinating with Code Enforcement to respond to complaints and monitor conditions of approval for land use permits; performing road naming duties and assisting with addressing; and providing assistance at the public counter, over the telephone and via email. LONG RANGE PLANNING Long Range Planning is responsible for planning for the future of Deschutes County, including developing and implementing land use policy with the BOCC, Planning Commission, community and partner organizations. It is in charge of updating the County Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations, coordinating with cities and agencies on various planning projects taking place in the region, and coordinating population forecasts with Portland State University and cities. Staff also monitors and participates in annual legislative sessions, and serves on numerous local, regional and statewide committees primarily focusing on transportation, natural resources, growth management and economic development. Three specific disciplines support both current and long range planning, including transportation, wetlands/floodplains, and GIS. GIS is covered separately in this Work Plan. Transportation Planning is responsible for providing comments and expertise on land use applications, and calculating System Development Charges (SDC's) as part of land use application review process or upon request; providing comments to the County's Risk Management Department regarding traffic issues Add photo for permitted events; participating in the annual County Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) process with the Road Department; applying for grants for enhanced bicycle and pedestrian facilities in coordination with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC); participating in Oregon Department of CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2014 25 PLANNING, CONTINUED Transportation (ODOT) funded refinement planning; coordinating road issues with Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the United States Forest Service (USES) for urban interface plans; and serving on several local and regional transportation committees, most notably BPAC, the Bend Metropolitan Planning Organization :44:r."44, Technical Advisory Committee, and Central Oregon Area Commission on Transportation (COACT) Technical Advisory • "°' Committee. , Floodplain and Wetlands Planning is responsible for providing comments and expertise on land use applications, code eff enforcement, and general property inquiries that require development, fill, or removal in mapped floodplain and wetlands. Staff maintains certification as an Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) Certified Floodplain Manager to provide customers with up-to-date and accurate information regarding FEMA regulations, surveying requirements, and construction requirements. Coordination is frequently required with external agencies including FEMA, US Army Corps of Engineers, Oregon Department of State Lands, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the US Forest Service. FY 2013-2014 ACCOMPLISHMENTS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW • Met with 1 ,920 customers in 201 3, compared to 1 ,614 in 2012. ♦ Received 459 land use applications in 2013, compared with 403 applications for 2012. Twelve applications were reviewed by hearings officers in 201 3. ♦ Two appeals were filed with the Land Use Board of Appeals in 201 3. This compares with four appeals in 2012. ♦ A new Deschutes County-City of La Pine Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) was adopted that transferred land use permitting responsibilities within La Pine to the City in January 2014. Coordinated with City staff to seamlessly transfer jurisdiction of land use permitting responsibilities from the County to the City. COORDINATION WITH • Central Oregon Large-Lot Industrial Lands Project OTHER JURISDICTIONS Staff continues to coordinate with the City of Redmond AND AGENCIES regarding a site owned by the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) adjoining its UGB as a plausible location for a regional large-lot industrial campus. Redmond and DSL are currently coordinating with Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council (COIC) for an official endorsement. Following their 26 CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2014 PLANNING, CONTINUED approval, DSL will initiate a City/County UGB plan amendment. • City of Bend Airport Master Plan Staff continues to coordinate with the City of Bend to adopt a - Federal Aviation Administration approved Airport Master Plan into the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. Staff prepared a draft scope of work and an Intergovernmental Agreement on behalf of the City of Bend to outline the process and roles W and responsibilities. 0 `: w `r 0,, ♦ City of La Pine/La Pine Park and Recreation District Land . ,,.„ Transfer Al ,, Staff issued two lot of record decisions for the Properties and Facilities Department. Both decisions pertain to Bureau of Land Management (BLM) property located on the east and west side of Highway 97 in or close proximity to La Pine. A subsequent lot line adjustment application for the west side property was approved for the purpose of creating a legal lot of the property conveyed under the La Pine Land Conveyance Act. This property is in the process of being transferred to the La Pine Park and Recreation District. In December, the Planning Division issued its findings and decision for a partition application initiated by the Property and Facilities Department for the east side property. Similar to the lot line adjustment, the partition creates a legal lot of the property conveyed under the La Pine Land Conveyance Act. This property is also in the process of being transferred to the City of La Pine. In addition, County staff coordinated with City and Park and Recreation District staff to develop options to conduct rodeos and other events on the Park and Recreation District property west of Highway 97 and south ,,, 4 a g of 6tt, Street. f `" . , ♦ La Pine Intergovernmental Agreement (ICA) Transferred land use permitting responsibilities to the City of La Pine in January, updated comprehensive p lan and zoning.,,.. ,,�. .f.,, map designations in the County/City GIS database, and ."" ° "7"< developed an IGA for the County to provide solid waste code rod- , " enforcement services to the City in exchange for office space s,r 7 r " at City Hall, CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2014 27 PLANNING, CONTINUED ♦ Metolius Transfer of Development Opportunities/Appeal Fee Caps/UGB Expansions Staff participated in State work groups to explore legislative concepts to amend State Laws to site the Metolius Transfer of Development Opportunities in Deschutes County, cap appeal fees, and streamline and expedite the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) expansion process. ♦ Oregon Spotted Frog Staff coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to Add photo convene two public meetings in South County relating to a federal proposal to list the Oregon spotted frog as a threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Staff also collaborated with the Road Department and BOCC to provide formal comments into the record during the 75-day public comment period. ♦ Sage-Grouse As a cooperating agency, staff continues to participate with BLM, who recently released a draft programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for federal land use and resource management plan (RMP) amendments to incorporate sage-grouse conservation measures in Central and Eastern Oregon. Staff is also participating with the Governor's Office, Sage-Grouse Conservation Partnership. This involves interagency and interstakeholder coordination on issues related to sagebrush and sage grouse habitat conservation on non-federal lands. Staff completed a baseline assessment and impact analysis to characterize the level of disturbance associated with development in sage-grouse designated habitat subject to the County's permitting authority. The report served as a template to assist Central and Eastern Oregon counties to perform a similar analysis and compliment actions being undertaken by BLM on federal lands. The state's goal is to demonstrate that listing the sage-grouse as a threatened or endangered species under the federal ESA is unnecessary. The Final EIS and Record of Decision (ROD) are scheduled for September 30, 2014. 28 CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2014 PLANNING, CONTINUED ♦ Statewide Planning Goal 11 Exception Staff continues to support the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) South Deschutes/ Northern Klamath County Groundwater Protection Project. DEQ is finalizing the burden of proof to justify a Goal 11 exception for southern Deschutes County with DLCD support. County staff prepared a template for findings and provided draft findings for consistency with the County's Comprehensive and Newberry Country plans. Work sessions and public hearings on the Goal 11 exception application with the Planning Commission and BOCC are expected in early FY 14-15. ♦ Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) Expansions The BOCC adopted ordinances changing the City of Sisters UGB to include the Sisters Eagle Airport and Bend UGB for a new Bend-La Pine School District Middle School and a church. ♦ Certified Local Government Grant Administered $13,000 Certified Local Government (CLG) Grant from the State Historic Preservation Office. Noteworthy projects stemming from this grant include a Reconnaissance omme Level Survey of local, state, and federal landmarks containing • tourism and recreational features and photographing and ' "; incorporating 53 historic landmarks located in the rural county and city of Sisters into an interactive web page. ♦ U.S. EPA Brown field Community-Wide Assessment Grant The Planning Division is administering a 3-year $400,000 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Community-Wide Brownfield Assessment Grant. The project's first phase (to conduct an inventory) started in December. The consultant team is also under contract to evaluate remediation options for the Demolition Landfill and Redmond Shooting Range. PROJECTS • Agricultural Lands Program The Planning Division initiated a public outreach strategy in Spring 2014 to understand community, stakeholder, and landowner opinions about Deschutes County farm designations and land use regulations. By relying upon a series of meetings, public forums, and conversations with Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zoned property owners, this program can help determine if the County needs to change its agricultural zoning at the local and/or state level. CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2014 29 PLANNING, CONTINUED ♦ Destination Resort Text Amendments The BOCC adopted text amendments to Deschutes County Code Title 18 (County Zoning) and Title 19 (Bend Urban Growth Boundary Ordinance), to change the required ratio of residential lots to overnight rental units in destination resorts from 2:1 to 2.5:1 . ♦ Domestic Livestock Keeping domestic livestock on small acreage has been identified as a use that can have detrimental impacts on livability and groundwater quality. Following a Planning Commission recommendation, the BOCC directed staff to make available to property owners a package of existing state and local education and enforcement programs to address livestock management on small rural residential properties in lieu of a regulatory approach. ♦ Harper Bridge Staff continues to coordinate with the Sunriver Owners Association (SROA) and Oregon Marine Board (OMB) on a solution to conflicts between traffic on Spring River Road and those seeking to launch boats or float on the Deschutes River from Harper Bridge. ♦ Housekeeping and Legislative Amendments The BOCC adopted a package of text amendments to incorporate changes in state law into the county zoning ordinance. In addition, "housekeeping" amendments were also adopted to correct scrivener errors and provide additional clarification to existing regulations and the Comprehensive Plan. ♦ Newberry Country Plan The BOCC amended the Comprehensive Plan last spring by adopting an ordinance to formally recognize an area specific plan titled, Newberry Country: A Plan for Southern Deschutes County. The ordinance was subsequently appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). In October, LUBA dismissed it. Staff is implementing the Plan through other actions in this Work Plan. 30 CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2014 PLANNING, CONTINUED ♦ Traffic Study Code Amendment The BOCC adopted a text amendment to Deschutes County Code (DCC) 17.16, Subdivisions, 18.116, Supplemental Provisions, and 18.16.124, Site Plan to develop stand-alone traffic impact analysis requirements. ♦ Expand the Deschutes County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee The BOCC approved increasing the BPAC committee from 9 to 13 members to accommodate the rising demands for BPAC to staff various project committees and to specifically include a member for the City of La Pine area. FY 2014-2015 WORK PLAN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW • Continue to improve pre-application conferences to provide the best available information (e.g., applicable standards, fees, processes) to customers at the start of their projects. ♦ Continue cost accounting system for current planning section and analyze data from that system. Information will be used to review fees and to quantify work tasks not directly tied to land use permits. ♦ Continue to issue all administrative decisions for land use- actions requiring prior notice within 45 days of determination of complete application and for those that do not require prior notice, within 21 days of determination of complete application. ♦ Assist the City of La Pine in performing development review services (previously performed by the County under contract), including sharing case files and property information. ♦ Maintain tracking systems on destination resort reporting requirements and obligations, such as improvement agreements and residential-to-overnight accommodation ratios. This tracking may also include other major existing, approved, or potential developments. Include tracking systems in the appendix to this Work Plan beginning in FY 1 5-16. CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2014 3I PLANNING, CONTINUED ♦ Assist GIS staff regarding the Local Update of Census Addressing and annual annexation updates. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING • Maintain tracking system of Comprehensive Plan and Community/Area Plan implementation activities, updates, necessary revisions, and potential regions/communities for new plans. Include this tracking system in this Work Plan in FY 1 5-16. AGRICULTURAL LANDS • Amend the County's Agricultural Lands Program based on BOCC/Planning Commission direction. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT • Administer the $400,000 U.S. EPA Community-Wide Brownfield Assessment Grant in partnership with the cities of Bend and Redmond. ♦ Announce in August 2014 that the opportunity for remapping lands to the County's Destination Resort Map is available, and process any applications. ♦ Maintain and update the Deschutes County Economic Development Initiatives Report. ♦ Provide staff support to the County's Property and Facilities Department to plan for the redevelopment of the Demolition Landfill site on Simpson Avenue. ♦ Coordinate with the City of Redmond to initiate a UGB amendment for a regional large-lot industrial campus to implement the Central Oregon Large-Lot Industrial Lands Program. NATURAL RESOURCES/ • Initiate with DEQ and process a DLCD-supported Statewide GROUNDWATER PROTECTION Planning Goal 11 Exception for Southern Deschutes County. ♦ Reconvene the Transferable Development Credit (TDC) Advisory Committee to determine whether amendments are necessary to implement the Southern Deschutes County groundwater protection program in the New Neighborhood under the City of La Pine's new zoning and development ordinances. ♦ Participate with the Governor's Office, Sage Grouse Conservation Partnership, involving interagency and inter-stakeholder coordination on issues related to sagebrush and sage grouse habitat conservation on non-federal lands. 32 CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2014 PLANNING, CONTINUED ♦ Monitor and participate in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service process considering listing the Oregon spotted frog as a threatened species under the federal ESA. ♦ Monitor and participate in state-led process to address the effects of the U.S. District Court decisions related to the ESA and floodplain development. TRANSPORTATION • Coordinate with the City of Bend to adopt: 1) the Bend Airport Master Plan (BAMP) Update into the Comprehensive Plan; 2) zoning map amendments to implement the BAMP Update; and 3) text amendment(s) for Deschutes County Code (DCC) 18.76, Airport Development Zone. ♦ Participate in various committees for City of Bend's Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) refinement plan for the West Side of Bend. ♦ Complete the Deschutes County Bicycle Guide Update and interactive web page. HISTORIC PRESERVATION • Develop a Historic Preservation Strategic Plan to provide a framework for shaping the County and City of Sisters' preservation programs and services over the next five years and create a blueprint for allocating Certified Local Government (CLG) grant funding. ♦ Apply for and administer a CLG Grant from the State Historic Preservation Office for spanning 201 5 and 2016 to implement the Historic Preservation Strategic Plan. COORDINATION Local Government ♦ Coordinate with the City of Bend to complete its UGB amendment, and explore a joint planning services agreement. ♦ Coordinate with the La Pine Park and Recreation District and City of La Pine on land use issues to provide for events facilities on the former BLM land west of the City limits. Special Projects ♦ Participate in the process to develop solutions for safe access to the Deschutes River at or near Harper Bridge. Text Amendments ♦ Initiate a text amendment to prohibit the issuance of land use and building permits if a property has a pending code CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2014 33 PLANNING, CONTINUED violation or is in violation with conditions of approval from a prior land use decision. ♦ Develop a list of potential text amendments and/or areas of Deschutes County Code for review. Include this list in this Work Plan in FY 1 5-16. II 34 CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2014 Nick Lelack From: Haner Park HOA Board <hanerparkhoa @gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 8:19 AM To: Peter Gutowsky; Nick Lelack; Tom Anderson Subject: Newberry Country(South County) Plan The Haner Park Homeowners Association took an active role in the development of the Newberry Country (South County) Plan. Members of the HOA board attended public information sessions, provided input on the draft plan and engaged County planning staff with our membership at the annual summer meeting. Overall, we were very pleased with the collaborative approach taken by the County and we were happy to support the plan. While the overall plan is a promising vision for the south county area,there are a number of items that are of higher importance to our membership. We would like to see these items added to the County's work plan. Policy 1.4—Sharing information.... Our membership can only engage with the county on issues we know are occurring. We encourage the county to follow through on actively engaging our homeowners board on land use and planning issues that effect Haner Park and the Upper Deschutes River area. We request that you keep us informed at hanerparkhoa @gmail.com. Policy 5.2 - Develop a work plan, in coordination with property owners,to update the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations to reflect the land use and development patterns in Section 36, Haner Park and other applicable areas with long-standing issues, while protecting ecologically significant natural areas or resources. This is a significant issue for our residents. The current forest zoning regulations are impractical in a rural residential community. Most properties cannot even legally build a wood shed without obtaining a variance i from the County. This is an expensive and unnecessary burden on both the property owners and county staff. Updating the zoning to reflect the actual rural residential conditions that the county has approved is a necessary and urgent need. We request the county to add this to your work plan and provide partial or full reduction in the land use fees associated with the zoning conflicts until the zoning issues have been resolved. Policy 12.4-Work with the U.S. Forest Service to address maintenance of Forest Service roads that provide access to rural subdivisions, such as USFS#44. USFS#44 is a primary access route to Wickiup Reservoir and all of the surrounding areas. It is heavily used for recreation and is a primary safety and emergency access route for the Haner Park residents. Currently, the Haner Park residents fund all of the winter access on that road. It needs more regular grading and gravel for the amount of travel it receives,the majority of which are not Haner Park property owners. Policy 16.11- Participate with all partners in the upper Deschutes Basin on a comprehensive water management plan that restores and manages flows in the upper Deschutes River while meeting the needs of users and property owners. The management of the water flow in the upper Deschutes is unacceptable. Not only is it not wild and scenic, but our property is also being significantly impacted by the extreme high and low flows of the river. Last fall, the widely publicized fish kills near Bend were significant. The upper section just below Wickiup Dam, Haner Park and below also experienced fish kills. We request that the County actively work to stabilize the flows in the river. This can be accomplished by raising the winter flows to the legal, in stream rights of 300 cfs and working to lower the summer flows through conservation and sharing of rights between the irrigation districts. We understand that the County has a number of competing priorities and thank you for working with the Haner Park HOA to accomplish these shared priority items. Sincerely, 2 Nick Lelack From: K.J.Phillips<rrconstdev @comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 4:51 PM To: Nick Lelack; Board; Matt Martin Subject: 5-8-2014 Planning Comm. Mtg-SUBMITTAL Attachments: Robert Parker UofO Community Planning Workshop.htm Rural Development Development in rural areas--be it residential,commercial or industrial-- is permitted by the Statewide Planning Program in order to allow for a variety of lifestyles and community needs. TO: - Deschutes County Planning Commission d/o Deschutes County Planning-CDD/Nick Lelack [printing of Attachment for inclusion will be needed] Please enter this submittal into today's record for- Planning Commission- Public Hearing on Work Plan FY 2014-2015 RE: Citizen Project Item- 1. Unincorporated Community- Spring River/inclusion of DRRH and related *Plan Items- 14,16, 19,20,21,24,27,28, 30,31, & Citizen Project-2. This is a request you fund review of Citizen Project Item- 1,_as a collaborative task, to also review all related *Plan Items, of significant Planning Value to all the DRRH Community, utilizing Community Planning Workshops, under the guidance of Robert 'Bob' Parker AICP, University of Oregon-PPPM Teaching Faculty Program Director CSC Co-Managing Director, rgp @uoregon.edu Mr. Parker is Executive Director, Community Service Center at the University, and, has past experience of exploring solutions to Deschutes County rural land use issues. His experience, the student resources and collaborative funding assistance from absentee-owners (tbd), can help address many Planning Tasks, and, address all citizens concerns, through coordination of Deschutes Planning Department. The County expense will be small, and, the well-guided, collaborative effort will benefit an entire rural community in the Spring River area. Respectfully submitted, K. J. Phillips Deschutes County taxpayer/landowner of Spring River/DRRH Community e ciVOStf This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. 2 April 28, 2014 Dear Planning Director Lelack: Once again,we are writing to request that our two parcels, located at 69225 and 69245 Hawksflight Dr., Sisters, OR 97759, be removed from the destination resort overlay map. Our properties, which consists of two single-family home lots of approximately two acres each, in an area zoned RR-10, in a completed housing subdivision, are impractical/ implausible for siting a brand new resort. They do not meet the county or state destination resort eligibility criteria, such as the 160-acre minimum lot size. A resort cannot be sited on our housing lots. Deschutes County has freely allowed those who were included on the 1992 original resort map to "opt in" and stay on the map. We expect to enjoy the same control over our property, by opting out of the resort map. Remove our property, which is now and has always been in good standing for payment of all property taxes,from the resort overlay map. If there are fees and forms required, please advise us on what we must submit and when. If this request is denied, please provide a written response with the legal and statutory rationale. Sincerely, Merry Ann Moore & Rob Corrigan 69225 Hawksflight Dr. Sisters, OR 97759 merryannmoore @gmail.com, rob @bendcable.com cc: Board of County Commissioners, Deschutes County Planning Commission, Principal Planner Peter Gutowsky Peter Gutowsky From: Rob Kuntz<longboards1 @gmail.com> Sent: Monday,April 28, 2014 3:03 PM To: Nick Lelack Cc: Peter Gutowsky; Planning Commission;Tammy Baney;Alan Unger;Tony DeBone Subject: Opting Out of Destination Resort Map 70020 Camp Polk Road Sisters, OR 97759 April 28, 2014 Nick Lelack, AICP Planning Director Deschutes County Community Development Department Deschutes Services Building 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97701 Dear Planning Director Lelack: We are writing to request that our land parcel, located at 70020 Camp Polk Road, Sisters, OR 97759, be removed from the Deschutes County destination resort overlay map. Our property, a single-family home on 1.74 acres, is in an area zoned RR-10. It is one of 19 parcels in a completed housing subdivision known as The Rim at Aspen Lakes. As such, it is impractical for inclusion in the siting of a new destination resort. This property does not meet the county or state destination resort eligibility criteria, including the 160-acre minimum lot size. A resort cannot be sited on our parcel. Deschutes County has freely allowed those who were included on the 1992 original resort map to "opt in" and stay on the map. We expect to enjoy the same control over our property, by opting out of the resort map. Please remove our property from the destination resort overlay map. If there are fees and forms required, please advise us on what we must submit and when. If this request is denied, please provide a written response with the legal and statutory rationale. Sincerely, Robert R. Kuntz and Marrie Y. Schaefer 70020 Cam p Polk Road Sisters, OR 97759 longboardsl(7gmail.com cc: Board of County Commissioners, Deschutes County Planning Commission, Principal Planner Peter Gutowsky II 2 RECEETED 69295 Hawksflight Drive 1,1AY 0 1 2014 Sisters,OR 97759 April 29,2014 Deschutes County CDD To: Nick Lelack,AICP Deschutes County Community Development Department Deschutes Services Building 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend,OR 97701 Dear Planning Director Lelack, I tried to send you this letter by email to Nick.Lelack@deschates.o g(per the address given on the Deschutes Co.website),but it didn't go through (twice) so I'm following up with this letter.My wife and I want to have our property at 69295 Hawksflight Drive,Sisters,0R97759 permanently removed from the county's destination resort map. Our property consists of a single-family home on 2.3 acres that is zoned RR-10 and is within a completed subdivision.The property does not meet the eligibility requirements for a destination resort property;for example,it does not meet the minimum 160-acre land area. Deschutes County has allowed those who were included on the original 1992 resort map to stay on the map.We expect to be allowed the same freedom to"opt out"of the resort map.Please remove our property from the resort overlay map.If there are forms or fees involved,please so advise us and provide the date at which this information has to reach the county. If this request is denied,please provide us with a response in writing along with the legal and statutory rationale. Sincerely, Derek H.tornfI th G.R.Cornforth Email: dhcgrc @comcast.net Peter Gutowsky From: DEREK CORNFORTH<dhcornforth @gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday,April 29, 2014 7:34 PM To: Nick @mailscan.deschutes.org; "Lelack<Nick.Lelack"@deschutes.org Cc: Peter Gutowsky;Tammy Baney;Alan Unger;Tony DeBone Subject: Request for removal of our property from the Destination Resort Map Dear Planning Director Lelack, We are writing to request that our residential parcel,located at 69295 Hawksflight Drive,Sisters,OR 97759 be removed from the destination resort overlay map. Our property consists of a single family residence located on approx. 2.3 acres,zoned RR-10,in a completed housing subdivision.It is impractical for inclusion in a destination resort. It does not meet the county or state destination resort eligibility criteria of needing at least 160 acres. Deschutes County has allowed those who were included on the original 1992 resort map to stay on the map.We expect to enjoy the same control over our property by being allowed to"opt out of the map. Please remove our property from the resort overlay map and advise us of any forms and/or fees that are required.If this request is denied, please provide us with a written response that provides us with the legal and statutory rationale. Sincerely, Derek H.Cornforth G.R.Cornforth April 29,2014. Email address:dhcgrc @comcast.net April 30, 2014 Nick Lelack, AICP Planning Director Deschutes County Community Development Department Deschutes Services Building 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97701 Dear Planning Director Lelack: We are writing to request that our residential parcel, located at 69335 Hawksflight, Sisters, OR 97759, be removed from the destination resort overlay map. Our property, which consists of a single-family home of approximately 2.32 acres, in an area zoned RR-10, in a completed housing subdivision, is impractical for inclusion in a destination resort area. It does not meet the county or state destination resort eligibility criteria, such as the 160-acre minimum lot size. Deschutes County has freely allowed those who were included on the 1992 original resort map to "opt in" and stay on the map. We expect to enjoy the same control over our property, by opting out of the resort map. Please remove our property from the resort overlay map. If there are fees and forms required, please advise us on what we must submit and when. If this request is denied, please provide a written response with the legal and statutory rationale. Sincerely, Kevin and Ana Blair Email address: akblair @comcast.net cc: Board of County Commissioners, Deschutes County Planning Commission, Principal Planner Peter Gutowsky April 30, 2014 Nick Lelack, AICP Planning Director Deschutes County Community Development Department Deschutes Services Building 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97701 Dear Planning Director Lelack: We are writing to request that our residential parcel, located at 69335 Hawksflight, Sisters, OR 97759, be removed from the destination resort overlay map. Our property, which consists of a single-family home of approximately 2.32 acres, in an area zoned RR-10, in a completed housing subdivision, is impractical for inclusion in a destination resort area. It does not meet the county or state destination resort eligibility criteria, such as the 160-acre minimum lot size. Deschutes County has freely allowed those who were included on the 1992 original resort map to "opt in" and stay on the map. We expect to enjoy the same control over our property, by opting out of the resort map. Please remove our property from the resort overlay map. If there are fees and forms required, please advise us on what we must submit and when. If this request is denied, please provide a written response with the legal and statutory rationale. Sincerely, Kevin and Ana Blair Email address: akblair @comcast.net cc: Board of County Commissioners, Deschutes County Planning Commission, Principal Planner Peter Gutowsky Gutowsky Pete r Gut y From: Frank Baldwin<skibum@bendcable.com> Sent: Monday,April 28, 2014 10'53 AM To: Nick Lelack Cc: Peter Gutowsky;Tammy Baney; Alan Unger;Tony DeBone Subject: Removal from the Destination Resort Overlay Map Frank R. Baldwin 69265 Hawksflight Drive Sisters, OR 97759 541-549-2015 skibum @bendcable.com April 28, 2014 Dear Director Lelack, It is my understanding that it is currently possible that there could be an effort to convert our property and our subdivision and open space to a resort—which would be an erroneous application of existing laws. Therefore we urgently request that our property (69265 Hawksflight Drive) be removed from the destination resort overlay map. For one thing, such a resort cannot be sited on our 19 housing lots. This area is zoned RR-10, and does not either county or state criteria for a destination resort(e g.not be a platted subdivision which we are, nor the meet ( g p , Y 160 acre minimum lot size requirement). I believe both the county and DLCD (in 2008) have confirmed that housing subdivisions cannot become resort locations. It is imperative, and our right, to request exclusion from the destination resort overlay map. Please advise us of any need to formalize this in writing and of any costs which may be involved. Thank you. Sincerely, Frank R. Baldwin cc: Peter Gutowsky Tammy Baney Alan Unger Tony DeBone Nick Lelack From: Jerry Hubbard <jhubbard @chamberscable.com> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 11:17 AM To: Nick Lelack Cc: 'Ogden Construction'; 'Jerry Hubbard' Subject: FW: March 28 Commissioners meeting on camping permits-public input Attachments: Discretionary and Citizen Requested Table.pdf; Code Camping 3 28 13 001.jpg; Code Camping 3 28 13 002.jpg; Code Camping 3 28 13 003.jpg; Code Camping 3 28 13 004.jpg; Code Camping 3 28 13 005.jpg; Code Camping 3 28 13 006.jpg; Code Camping 3 28 13 007_jpg; Code Camping 3 28 13 008.jpg Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged We request the County review the ordinance for camping and bar the use of generators if electrical service is available. The following form March 2013 is still valid. Gerald Hubbard 17065 Azusa Road,Sun river, OR 97707 From: Jerry Hubbard [mailto:ihubbard(a>chamberscable.com] Sent:Thursday, March 28, 2013 12:06 PM To: 'Tom Anderson'; 'Nick Lelack'; 'Alan Unger'; 'Tammy Baney'; DesCo BoCC DeBone Tony Cc: 'Jerry Hubbard'; 'Ogden construction ' Subject: RE: March 28 Commissioners meeting on camping permits - public input The following is our issues and position on allowing people to campout on vacant lots in a residential neighborhood. Current policy: Issues: The existing policy harms the livability of our neighborhood and has a negative impact on our right to live in peace and quiet. Full time residents who have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in their homes and property have a right to enjoy their neighborhood and not be required by county ordinance to live with campers and the intolerable life style they bring to our neighborhood. • Families are living full time with children registered and attended local school. o Is the intent of the ordinance to allow full time living with children attending school. o The current family on Bakersfield at the end of June 2013 will have lived on Bakersfield for two continuous years. • Families do not have on-site potable water • Families do not have on-site disposal of gray and black water sewage o Portable toilets are permitted but who knows if they are being serviced. o Where is the human waste being dumped? o Where is the gray water being dumped? • Families are not connected to MidState Electric Service • Families run gas powered generators from early morning(getting the kids ready for school) until late at night, well past the 10 pm cut off of generators. o Once the neighborhood was quiet and with a generator operating all day the quietness has gone and has been replaced with the constant hum of the generator. • Families bring in horses and Ass's onto al/2 acre lot and do not remove the animal solid waste. Urine goes into the ground. Adjacent lots are high ground water lots and in the Spring you cannot walk across the lots without getting your shoes wet. 1 • Families living in small trailers spend most of their time outdoors around a warming fire, yelling back and forth between family members. • Junk accumulates on the property. • There is no wording in the ordinance requiring the owners to remove their junk and cleanup their property at the end of the six months permit. o Can they leave the site as is until they get a new 6 moth permit. • While the area is zones RR-10 allowing camping for six months harms the full time residents who pay thousands of dollars in property tax vs.a vacant lot taxed at$90 a year. o There is no benefit to permanent residents by allowing camping in the neighborhood. "Don't Tread On Me" applies to permanent residents. o Our property values and property values diminish and the County has the potential of loosing tax revenue when a neighborhood is degraded by campers. New Policy: • Should address the above issues and permanent residents concerns. • Major restrictions should be placed on temporary use of property in a residential neighborhood. Attached are photo's of homes in our neighborhood and one of an open field and several with the camping family who has lived on Bakersfield Road for 1.9 years(can you hear the hum of the generator? We have for almost two years! Sincerely, Mr. and Mrs.Gerald Hubbard, 17065 Azusa Road,Sunriver 97709 541 390 9798 Mrs.and Mrs. David Ogden, 17090 Azusa Road,Sunriver,97709 541 593 2227 2 �k\ � \ \ <J ` « • .. \ / / \ • ` \. O \ 7 «s ƒ\» = 2\ ^ ® \3 < •\ • \ Q_ . y d\ » e» N d • \ 2 ? § u. o z« 2< 4 • • a'2\ E a c- am • \ \ 7 \ « : • 2 : ••:•••••: ••••••:, 2 • yam • b D a• \. y c • • o = .• Ca . • \ƒ\ \ \\•» \ /9 � \ \ ' ° \ \\ • c �•«•. © • © § U G \0) //\\ 2 \\ ? •- ` od s©. / \ \ \• \• � § �^ \ \ ?\ » : . . \ E«2 J • « ©z72 . a - . .ed 2\» ? o : °a 2� Q 2 \ \\\\/ ' \ m\/w ° \\ ^7«<7» - •• §• •2 • . K 7• ..�\ - \ � • / . :\: \ . - 0 _ • a. 0 § ?� : ?k ifta °ƒ liii •• i\ 2 ) 0c• E e ; 5 / \ m 3 ƒ 2 / E \ - 2 •» a e = % •a 0 . ƒ . /\ • _{ 0 of ® « ^ § ® • ) C / CO 5 3 « 7 ¥ E » . N /.2. . \ § \ / $ 5 o 0 ƒ ƒ = • \ / \ o . . 0 0 < e '\ w y • 1' kw�q'" a.rr,="° •�"' , •'. ,y? r � -N hrs $ Inc sd, T a4r w , d ` t$ r " '4 ': � r � Ski t 'a �ti w+<F~�.� y�- '. ' �`�} y� ,' d A.'i- ,e....1-• A9{� _�� {: �� s� � ;;gyp,�� y}y •�' ''� d q 1. `.� -� � � v w a x Ts, t_ so' k r 1,* s `� leer y 'r , "'+• 04. tG b' ti S.i„"-::,41'...71...-, „^; Ji 4f"F J�1,d,Y„ 'q 'M.',.',:„ ■ A ,-,,,>c:� , I f 6 ,,w„w,. .,4,K .+mss fay .--r, J Y tF' . ... iii, d r ' s I r ' kteq ' 2p,� $ #.N A ..! �'9v!�'Fri` ,4 •r ,, ', r xZ ,r t C}, t , oft 5 RF ,�r� M y i v eWa 'Tn $ i 're 1 "�: m y ' l k. �' .�.,,, ""._` E r< p E yl r y r r y ” � '"t i ""{.�•'�.--�—n-- y4 L � t � ""�p"� � �„g+,lr 3 p E E�`liA,f •.:, .'V3e r w ,s 1, {.{x a t .1,, e°b�. Y' .�' { '. e r '$ a .r x at r°` 't°nvr°�` �, , . :".. , r,'=' :.'..� a,..y s , E '' y.qP�' I , s rF �.c.r: 'a,., gn :_. t E 6 te .. .a e.• o^tr � ti�� aWd y C�., t '�)'1 t' ' fs $ $X g}4 F1 7 ,<.-E .s X I a + i, ', � ,ter+ K '4` 1-:-3 j „ r:: • r 4-,. � % o-lr9^�..� 3 r t k g; q :'P,}'F ,7 . t-E� .1 ",. r,� �r ? ::;r ' .c.' y ys,1 Rq;.w •.R , t i v� 1 Aa Rt � g ewu_edb::w � �f b s � ��'9' ..l.» s y '. , .• ' � '',w,4-4",i`� m Rya r•+rr i' 4 r & ( f r c s a,� „" ' -n-_ .r... 0-- r $g E- Fern .h x K�, i .r.,,'".4,, - + - '' Y .'- .'�"i .�, w �, .F ,°��a ��. *°°r7i'' * t ,t� r r w � w . -j.4 .,, Ia rY r 0 .'i::',.1;,:i..iki-4 ''." " .;-',At': '- ''.144;r.PY k/4 4F' Wt" t .r K g A 7"7iJ\; y. � .,� x �� _! 'L�X l:•Y +F n • .,,-#...,""-r, �.", .- . .;.«,T70".. ° 4 � j i 1�¢ , , -�. � _ 9 Fyy 4 �dF �n,., r $L E3'A •i. `.?:dh .nl�.• ,I`• f�..- :,:Rw", qi» .�.,& �A':It� ... ..+'•.,-, ' "::�3� }P:*,�rg�4 ' ,,,,r.,..-4*..rf:,,,,,;::,-.1-,.: N.:*7;e,k,d,-;::!:t1:-.:..----;'s • . :'.t.... ...,,e,-:.--,-.7,,I, ,:. ki.4 r, . _'-i , ,4 _,ft., ,, __7 _ ..:4.44.,;.„,_..„114 ,, .,_, ,,41,,,,..z .. ..,.............._ ,?,,ii : .,.,,. . .t ... :.,,i:.,,,,:., ,,.:::tit.:. .:: to„ $ ir„,...;.,,,,,, ._,.... _.....,,,,,,i4:0.,,,,,,,,,b,,...y$:,...,*,.., , ,_ -- .,,,,,,,... ,1,,. , ,..-,. , 7,,,,,,,,,,,, ,- ,,...., ,,.:„.,.,,;:t.,,,-, ';`,14-irk.-.,11:".,II f.4747( 41.?;,:':',f',,," ',7,—'-' , . -.'.) :'''1-. -,, ., ',.-:„,...7z--,...,,,, ,if,...- - ; .,4tr.,-'tili 4,. ' Vittlfr.i,14:1;..'.t1-,., , ',.sif,:.`r , ; .. -,'=';", vr lo , ....„,:x.,,,,„.z,..„ :_, ,,,.:%. ,;,11,,,,,..,,, ,.,, ,ift, ' '... _ '''--- 'PO .. " ; -,,,.'_)-,-....,,,‘ 14.,';,,fk,r,.,,t,;''.-,.._T I', 4.°.", ' 't — ,' ' ,71‘; ',ite.1,4:4,tiok",711'"Ii;,-'; -,. . ' ' ,,-:15,,,v.y,'+:1'7,1,,2 4I''''7 ', -',„i,.. ,.:41 tit)fl!tr-2Z .t.";:34 i'..,17'''- i. . :- " '"" 44. :.'-` ',J1V§4,t„,,-"4 ,,Airth-.'-,., 1.1 ''''. ,,c-• i'4.1 -;,,Y.:..,- ''.:.;t..''.'''' *71,'‘4'''t:''' 74- ',--;.•:'-t' -"' :: ',1. . :4 jitliee...1.4 , :„.,,;,,,..totp-,' ,,C . 4,..,..,..,, ,„,, ,..,,,,„ ,,s, , .. , , ,, ,,, ,,,. ..... .„,,,, ,. —,.. i ' ' i_t„,„7 , ..,, .7',. ,,i,,,,:c.-;.;;;:',',`-'*,' ",', .`'%111:4,41,4',41';',-: is,',7,, ,.7,-J..,,,,, "I'-';'''fr,I., ., , ,,,,t,,,,,- .,,-,,,,,, [v•A.,,,,i,'L-:*,-!,'.. '''"„_J. ...:f.'1-'','17:7,1i, -" ,;,,l, pi' .;4?:+3;'',i,-ir il.',,::17:,!,''' -'•,4.ti.,,,i::,::"`if4,1.,,Otbif:i.‘Y'Z'&•,i7 ,47, '''''' .,' :- i , '— i::::':,v,"i,k,,,3,,,.. ,j,‘ ,•,, ,,,71,..t.-"— -i';'lr,',,",,i'—, -'-41—:t:,-1, ' 1 , ' ' ,, ,,, ;,,,, ,,,-,, ,,,..,,,,,,i,,,,§i43.,1:,.,_,,,, , 1 .,,',1 _,.,; --4:,,: oi, - .1k,1 ,,,,,,t,-,_:-4 ,, ;#1,,o.,,,-;1_,,,,—,17-4_,4,, ..,' ., ; ::,,,,,,f,:f:t+,'''4.--,,-:'. ,-.1i'i,-"."174,.,....;',','" -',.:,.;:, ,, , 1,1,1. ...,,,,:''.'...:',:. -,-.4.--‘,,,i! 'i`•--!:;?':0 i i''.:41.•,=7...'-:--i--,-- -:....::;-. ..'. ' ,i ":/.'-;:.-07!:*':-.,,W.:14-4:0i:1:::.44::,et. »,.'',, 40t:-2 ... ,_,i's •-- ', , 4 4k::.--''',1107 I'Iodotm,_ 1,,,,-. ' '-' "'. I 1 I ..: : '2, ,r1:-`:-_—j--:. ,^., ' -' . ;..- t''-';;;'.41.-.5'it.,:'-f2.ti.t4'L A 7,,i,43,tii:,-.(?,'.. ., ,--„, Lt,;z4 -,,:mf-:,,,,-,,,,,Lsikt, ,, ; -, it,,,,,,i-{;!, :,:-,4.- ' -—i ::1', - . ,,; ',,!y-' _,-y"..;-_"':,;- ":-,‘:,-.„-,'„,z,i ',"t'E::,.:'.3Vi.fiti, :,,'','','''' , ",,, '::',44 11,,i,ir;1 ",:":_,__ `- , ! 4141:t f ,,, ,i,,,,,,_*,-- -,,,i,,,,:), ,_,,,,,, ,.7:,:,_4', ' i.kki, le, 411 r) 4, , ,,,„ ;...„„,,...„,. ., +,,.. .. .,,,,„ :,,„.. , ..„.„,,,,4, ,..L, „ . ,,,, ,,Ali,,,_-1-__E, ,.,,,,. . ' 1.5iit. i 1 ';',:;''' ',P,;,7t,tF;,=;''ig,,Z,145.11.b'; ss h z'•w�s''y', 1<r'r.k.fd'y' .Z,c} -f".y '-K f Y �;;-' a`rcrs :..l..a;.''2 daoN c•p,.",p..r,-,&';+�w,.r' ';.•r',R A p''+"SYt' Yg r ; z r r `1 :.- T K y 3 y K yx P d q..'.' 7a, `,41 'y`-* Y s & + 'L r P;. a'�y k+ re Ck ! 'k.-1.: ',',.;^ » ,, � " , .nom' ` ^ a� � b 5 -d rr ro p .� " r 2�` ,r ., �" y t f ^i ;;;i�fit . a + '. f N'- y i wraC>' A� 4� te.7 i W1 i } qa dz de a z� x w # p�" � yy'q wn R � 1 f _ : '6 ET. ,� 7 x J s,' ,y p y,,L" 14'5,1‘,„!,..r'_,--,:,..',,'.c", a""^ , 11.',:, ' � lk d . '''°+t i ,•.A9,,1 . . ^ ° !r tl'.`� r 4 w kk ,v4. Y � . , �, & L ,. i R y:ii, � r' , y: . p�i1� 4 ` ;.4.1.'.:7.-t S ^ , .rp 9 r g. i w� # z q,, t{ . T6, `gyp ,,. p„ ,,1 "• 4t•....,: :_,...:--_,,-;;;,.. , i ht : a &r n a y o.f ; '9�i'',,,C.1-,,''',' ,...� k ry . y s ; ,i ,3 �,. 'r .,&p � t' 6� � ,ary � ,er�±± n+. 4 r93F: r I fi wry s' G'°,� .s; .' ke ` T: T��4 ` a1''t „4,4::,,:.4. :0,, bG 9 }' r, F° n. � .' " tp •°c �� re, 'y t& �.q } �s n '-�:' � a a,� r ..7i n r o � 'ev-,...11,..1.;,......, '..t.,',:00.`" z f 1 y �4f� ^zm y b', t r ,� /e i s t,'" •• ', M � + •''' •.i yy T r j ' z _{ C i „ s� t - ds fi e • Z!Al �, � '� �ri +.� ' C;gin rs r°ro z 8, �{ w w � Vyfi w �•naa y g« ; : �"• •0. 4 ' ` i J v . w '. i s1"'r� ,4 . �s M 1. �4 44, ' :,,__, . -.-. p '�h , sc' c P� � � F i� ,_,,;.L'4..-- v T fi e�:,Y"'' 4 �z •�r e g R ' 'aai.�a i au p41e add r °r i L.5 t k , '..',,,- -i..:,4,'V*+,:dgr!'..,f, .,: S i & # �. ? ' { A• a'�x tea ,�„ s.+ir.:s,a„�E,, ... ',^r. .�y,,,,}. �" gat 'y' '..*n n t it4417140 'L ''''%'.'i--^'w''- 0„ 'R .4,•°,..,'#:. z, c•AM .wi a�:;A` .v #w} °.a®' a• ti .tl. ; , x"^11: `� t '0.1:./!-'-',;-..:,..1M.If4', '' '..r.rel8t-,-' -.---- - .1w",'''.,bra � �'�'�* ; '.?w � a: �.� '�°° 4„,k,:'::-4�a ,i �, � n'�4� w'& "�pax t�' S` -s * ``S" r'�, � t� .� x r � xr�+ ��w � ii a 7 .,.',,,,.;..t 117;1,1":—...2, '14 ..,;..0.-',;,^1 J ;1-• .7.'' 1 j1-,0177.."-,%,;i�•• 1, °' as ., tip n L- .‘.',:;;.'' v �{ ''.y, 7^ L 173c `�.:{1� ,Ys R Y { 'r v::,pZ r',,:`.1.-. ,tt� '�...•.., {� , `? :, '3 �. #.._ s s `( tit t`? ! w .4 .44*$t: ,# :,.iii,„4,. ,,,tlit a o-a i .ti c +^�+, �br , »a-;' � "+`�h«,.,ate as �"' ;' " p� & a}wfi � y# {'{j; t, t #`a'A,j. m34,,x} .. y , , ..`L,..... l''' "'�* y"si•- a eq �,,+� ,. $ ,11,0''1"'�i �`t '., "4 4;<� c rh $� a, .. ., 3 e ¢g¢¢¢ygm ,-t is ; ';'t' R+�t' °a, ^• s � t gyt:�pn,•: ,*;,:t..1,,,4,41/4; 7 v 4, �� j'q'rS'r� � 3 � �.., d I�� n � A R .� "S b � � � w�i .,.p :"4t� k�(., tilt;� � Y ,+ ' , ` '' '4�5'7� 0.i �;� �` ^r�4 £ A J AT&� V p.-',.,:;',., '- J 'ir+K+ ' 'r Y a !.,{'! a.. ,, d f: yes y,� • ."..., y, , _ 3"R ! 5 q , ) '� 4 1 5: 4 } ; t,3 a p ea , , , ° e i v q t.fr Cp»y e'W xt 1 . f -I,� { i'• "u n k f� .f 4J ..y 4 �C^ ,,, F ` , ,t;:,,.., .bA . 0 �J.k» �i 4' • $ 'r $J, n b, 9 k r r5+'411' . vM. a KhJ p x� .: . r . .s, • *-,°1' s i t :x :'� * °b I a ry 7'''t' § , a R � R`�g f z dx � „II.?c+ � w9.�s •.,3� � A °'° ° 4 �e "a � a ' ' d i � t � 9f �'r ie36 � .. It'::-,c,- a �1 pi% 4 r':?,,,, : ,!:.,1, " • , a . c�T s -.!'".L7'°;' ."'..'i- ywk �,low. A k J 't A' • *. ryl ,� r i A 1 c r� i -ate +a". , k. j ; s : � 'G ~,$ �q�'"" # „;0.....,,��a -' ?''' ,-.1 .■{a ” �'� r ' F � "• a �Fps .'#t d r. .3 cF ��1,� a �b� • 3' �•� ' t�" .� z^t .��t�r F ° �i ' k 9 aM .**A @ 7 M'N%1 lrw q• Im ,• 2 :. ', '° n p„'' ' •••:, Ayx '. ''''',=. x S> ,;('''',01'-i,•,,,,, . ? a �St r�.;`ii4r' a.rya# 7,Yy qP �'$^t�q 'k % t W g r (� .p t P .l d �w F 'x K k"i 2" .40,,,- ;,11;;:5i:‘ R :64ap L, N ,7&,'','`:„,$f '.. d r ;'�w.R ,:ir dpi nt yy y,. .s t!, .l. � , '' i ,G' } a Mpg i',:" g • Ib �' L 'da•', h .y C9 v` ^Y0»,{ ' re'�g.. F: !{�f,^ ti, s '�• a ti;. (( h :, �a ..��a +� �S�,y� ''Y',--,,,,�F i r.„,',''''' � k' ,, vt t ,: C L r r� Ea j ,F � "t' r �� e �,';d �� , v \ 5 r:,;#�l5 dv' .`FyY4 +� �' ��• � �� 4. ''''':ki �t M& 9 r 0, sy gam,$ k ' '',1.,._ 1} ,: .� y z =ffi r�l i^ R4 ±i' � < 5 ,i �rJ y Ott a r:. .4 if?1-4.' .. -,t, ., ' :i. ,?..!. ':''''''.----t ',-:, r.„' , 4-,:',..7`,.',.1- 1-, ;...i '''` 0. ; ..,f11;t,,",t'T,''44-jli -'".,1:',• , ' ':3 '-,...1:!`,17.7,41,:-.,,, ..._:-.1."ii, 4-1 k",, 1.44-1,..,--,,'i-47,7"'L'..,',4t.''' '- '-:- 'l'-• . • ...-.,,,,,- - -''''1474i-,41...,:"--''‘.-t.,";,-•,.xl"7 -'. --, "4 ''', , , ..'s..,,,--- , ' - '''',.,,,,":',.-.1'.111:--,,'...4?••;-,1.,--, ' ..,t '''', Ilif-•',•:''' -, '• •-., .-e'Vr'-"' rt,.-:.F...•,-'4,.,,`". ; -7,.: • ; 1 '....•1 4.A,' (5 ,, ,, ; ,,,,,,,„, ,,,- ',. __,,,,,-.ca •.,,,,-4:i."''- ' --- , 'i e_' , .,,;,,,,;$1,, , 1,t)..:,0, i ,., 11•f-i;7 ,''-`, ', -'1 :,1;,',-,fi 41101; , , - 1„,,-'13,1i'.1..li. , tk,,,,,, --‘045.,,- ' n: ‘,..." ,,-.1.ti' ,,... ,j.„, ): , !.., 'e 'f'..,*''' ,171110.011L--;^::` I, ...,,. .'. ?..fl ; ,i:', i,-,-,:-..r-i. e ....,..,,Illt°,., • 2• , . .fil 4411,1gir-"f ;' ' , ," ..-;'4,- 4,4, ; f'/Ix' '''''g--I _ . ' ,2,,,,,' ''..1:":`..-..°;-,!, -t.-.'''' t ,.., „„.:,-",Atr'a''''''4 ':1 .: .: '4'' .;,,'-4-`70, 4:,',.. `_ ,' ,14,,,l'•I , "-:,;,-.'01, , ,• .,'i •;',.. ,,_,,,,i,,•- ''..,. I ,,„ ••ill ? ,..,', , -,.",,,o,,,,_:-• iiit4p!', '1', ' e•',,;;,•,, i..•,•--,:- '4.-',1`4 '0' , r __A., . . 7:::i *,-4, ,,e , ' ,• .-! t i: .4:,'''' - -,!-_--.. t 'Yz,....- .4171k:- . li,,,,,'...- .c- -- : i ,,,,‘7,r ,r- it ... i,,,i,..1 . . . f, ,,,,..i -...._ .$ . ___ • , ,-,, ,,, ,,,,,.q'1 . • ',l'",4.^`-- " -,.-f, . i '''' '''' ' ' ay.-N.J.,. '4, _„ , IT _ ''-';7' "Sit°11''.4:;lii". fr, '• ' ' I 4 ,- - ' --- ' - ...,4-.. „:.1 -: ,, t , „,,,,,,, -, ,tkti, r-- 7-- :,? :,,--1._- i- , , , :;,,,..,.., ,,,,),:1„,:::tif, _ ,„,,,:,. -,'',.'. 'i, it--, -' ', - , ' -- 1 th ,A''..-• '.''.,,:-,.."'-„•:',,,i;. : '', -t'l . ; .)6°-.lii..a°,-;::z.,' '.1`), g • ,,,irt--,;" ''' . -' I, it- . . 7 - , °, ' — ',/ _ ---. .',,,z17...,..,''.it . ....,',7'-'1.:.',.' -, ', ' 1:,, 1-7.i, _ __`, , .,. t'.•i' - - ':::" •,,-„;,. . .:;:,4_4:t..,L.',i7,,e,:A'",r114 .4''''''''',',';',,,,,''',''' ' ,'', :i' 1-;.,..: 4...." ..'. ' . . " : 1 ,,,,,,,''' ,:tf?: 4a Pi ' ',. ii -1,4.:!,;- ..1 -t --..-'' , ,-,no,' '.•1,-- -.': - '';',-igei'v I.),":9;i 4 4.4144-'''"01 . ` 1,,''..'''.-°-' ' ' °, „..,.; „_,,,,'-,-,,,,,l'^,,.!1.:,,,..,...:-,„,„,,,n.,--9- i,,0 ,rr. ,,.,.,z...14,,,.:., ,,, , . , ,.,,,i;:it..i ,, ',1' j '.''!'' '„,_ ..1 4"' , 1--'',,,,c..t..--t '•, • .[ '' - Y '' '''' ''0 '''''!'''° i ''''■'`'-ett.''•-•■''''''',4 t'15 ,', t, — T , ,,,,,,,., ..,,-,,,-,n-'''' I ,,,_---...‘',1. (01,, itt:44 i -'1 ° ,., ' )'''''' '-',' =,''' '' -';i1 .e0f.V.t 1 ' ' -° '''P°" -'''''''''''' ''''''' -111 i5j1'■ . ' '- "'" ir•:,, • -3 l" ,:i•',,,,L... 7 g,,,,,,•,,' "s!" ,, I ti• ,1,-_ •r - • '','; ' 11 ' ' -',. ' '-' 0 ."-T'i.' •V - i , s-, ,.1'. 1141-eij ' '--" ' +:1'....'t re?,,,',,, •J ■ " _,.,',,.."":',...CA,C1._:_)6; .,t,,. se '' ttg Atlip',1''•,, _ '', ,4. "II •P.',. ••,: ' • . ,....-&:"- . -0`..:,:•:1' .,,,,••',',.7„ •'•,,.,'4•5".',.',',.:.:;,1 -..,- ,40.- -...,kV, ,, .,,...,,s,;'' le. ', '4, ':., -'':,, .:.',... ‘:*•".„..1..:, ' , _.„.-..,',1v z.,..'4'-';'''°,'yeAkti'j7t;°::',,';1°,,,,,-...,.‘"-` ' , '..1?fir,,r‘' '''':ti.'-',,,,i ,,'.''. ''.;*';'''''4c.fizill° ° '-', 7' .''''-'14,;-°:',',- ''Ae#4.4...' 11-....,-- -::: . '''' ':'',".;;;''-'',.':-.:LT:.;ect.• , ,..,..,,--' ,,s-'‘.1.,,r;- „ ,,_-,--.r, ','",;,`,•,..-_;..,:',.1,,,0‘,-,. -=,..g.v ,..::-)-1.40,,,,,,,•/4,A,„',14,4",''.-7.1 'y ,,.% 4• -:, ----_.:. va,11,-,,,,.„,:',,,;,=:::4.:',-,-.-.1,, \.:-,-,`.:44:t.',F.4.,rii-4.14' . '.t.TA*.; 4-•- ,.., -s.,.:" -,,'''';',,,' ,.•.,:,,1440,,,,tt,:•";-r,i.,',21-s t":14:,.'.`,,k:.'4'i'"‘:•,,, -'', ,l i , •=.10:7,..4.. ._4''''',,:':1,1v, ''',:..„,li 7ii4t24,11f,f,'7,1'.'-'t.'i,.'"17-14:'''''''',''''..-'itg'l 1 ,,,,=.;* - 144;t:,.1-Afit.',-,',..‹.7.-..7,"'.4v,..11,1*-C-7,,,i,,-.,-.'.,','...,,'-',li ,.*-'•., I 1 ' ..,,„.I.;74.k?-7 t , .'''''-1 b , ,,.,,,,,,,'01-.A.,,(44,%.2-,-,..,-,„4 ,,,z,,,:.,_-,,,,,7„,)- ,,,,,„7., ,,,,A.,,:',•_.. ,,r,.,,_,,,L.., . ., ' 0 te,,,,,,,-gitc -mi, „4.1*•‘,,,4,,q,,.,-,,:,„?„4;.?,A-2;,-ft••"'-k•--,V,--rf :t.,*st-ir"--;',„ki',, -7--::T''::,,.. , 444 F§, ?i,.:1',!_..,,I, ,4:,;! :,..ti,.;•-i-,''Ii''''.7''''il'4,,V4-4,,,14`1:Igi--'?"'',„••,'''.;il't-,,,,,,],",47.-.*",'.,'t.t,4''•=2;i'Ag 1!- ., 4, P,,,,,-,. ,,,,,,,, ..,,,,,,,-,..- g-:3, 1,... --,1, ,-V,4.,t'' '.:•,, 1. '■',' ' ''''''.:(4'%111-i;i:ITV''''4-"'t14114C4'.';111"'4"'''''. .';';':'i ':-.. "Z•f:-,,''''.'",-,,,,i-..1 -,'- ,' ' , - ;,,.;?,,,4'--il4- ''it,'.' 4.. , .".`;''':''k -;-: - ;..1 ,0 4,,,;-:'.1:'' .` 'ii0i1 !" 40°,,•:'.11/1^eitk,-4;;;!$7.,,tt,',?" '.#,, "1.`?,rt..7.'"SA ..Ai'',i,,,,,t'*11(‘‘,.7-).10^4:', 1 ', 7 ,,, '',,1`1f-L.,,,H.,"; ;;',1 ...,,,,..4, et' , ,,.4,./""ti.;tick.,;:: ? **.-'i''''''''''',17-2Vr':,`"--'''''''''''.-''''4'.* -,.', ' -:' ''....L2-'', ,•,,,1 k;,_. :„,_„4„40., '- '..i.-„:). Imi4ok 5,:t.:,:ittl',,,,.$;,•,:4,..:ko.,. ‘14":A r.,,sett"..;-'ki 0,I.'';=:1'' .-''.„.,+ 4 1'4#,- '1"li:,..it.'' ; .,"°.*` --;,„-,'''''',•: :, i7,11,-4;1.3.1 ,I:itil:,,,?,:t;r:,:,,"' ii,t:i...'' I ...:1/4„-- .0. , , , ., . ,2 ,..,,, .7— 1 . - i,,, ,,,,,,,,„,,,,., k --,-,I 4 •q. ,'' '!:1,7,4'f.,,ii,l'i;tt:=F= „ -'.:c1 ' l ;.t :if(ilil,*.','',),.1.'',;411'-'2'ci,,i''''',!'iti.it,_:'ett-,': ...','14°4,:,,?:4--‘i-=1 ;i''' 1:.*°----'-.” '0...,,,„?'":- „27' Ij'ei%. „,,„ ':'''' '7''' ' ''' . - - ' , ' '; *:,:-.r ' ,1” t'1;47t7' t•.:„.'--,:.'-';'.4-:--•, ,c,.-..r, if.1;,•4,..7,',;,,,,'''-';--r-i'4 :..,,-,,,'-'7 i,,',44$;i••;'•:*-•;:t'%ki*''"';-„4_,'---fi.;‘4'-.., ,;,_ '!`t$ ,!.,,,,r,,;'"-:',••;_-:-•. i , '',, : _.'''",',1411'f,'ItzV,,,"''_':,11i',::,,4,'",'!;.', i •$;;',...;:-..-'it.,-4..-,4 it:-.,.'X','"5 '' ,- '-'-'- ,L-17'44,:k''-'• " "--- -‘- .'" t f. ' '' -''''''- ''' 4 * 7.7- T.A.,',41'4'-'‘,.,.', ,,,r,,I'iv -.'i,L,,-,.%-„Ttri,,,,N-34,..;;;,_%:,,-,...-;-,-? 4:4,.„ ..„-_:,..,„... „.....,,,,,,,,, ,k-,n;li ".,,,,•-, ,-,,,,,„ 1.?,,,`,,.2,?'r 1....1 r.- .11 _ 4, • .jt.,,,,j',..,."''' ,.itslIn.15,,S";4;:?„,i,.., `-:'°.:.,..,.,T ,rp.„.,,......,.. „,,vq.,,-.- ,,...•-t:,- - 7: .,.',1,v, .-..- ..^,'4i.1,,,,,14,0.,1,-,,,,,,,t ,,-,,,it ,,..,,,, -. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, •..,,...,..,,,,,,.,'_ , .1 .. ,„, \,, , 1 ” - it .4 1 ,.; ,,,z,14"," • 1,',?-",+":,i,;',' t t!°.6 .".;.,:,i4:::•''.:.",,,,,,.,1,".1%°%.,r3.41 ';';ipv'.,,i,,,a0-e.,'7"r:--' .1„,;•4!",„ A...,a e, ,,,„..,i ,, ,_. I ,- ■ -ir., - ,k ;,,,str,‘,,,, - 'i i i .,„--; , 1•.1.7.'"'''q,,..J"..,-_,;',-•L''AkA,1)'of,',.. ' ' !''''4 .-.''''' .1' .' .i.-,T• ,,,,,F. ',,*.,A1,",•:) ,.'" r, - ",„1", ,,` '-'," f:, ,j.,::v, :;,).,„.a,'''•,•,..-. t.,,,,,,)4k..,`..„,,,,..• ,„t'-g._,,,°.,.. .sf,' ,',T, ',. .1 i: ' 1 , . , t T '„ ,-',',_;,-,,-27;i5'....',•-,-t_il,?1,4L,.,!•';.ii,t ,1:!)"?:7.-4 '''''.."'r,.7.7!''.'4 .i,. Jif *.:, i- ,).ri,t', —- ' • , . t k''''',"'''''''...",„,-'.'''''''..:11'14;,,b.--.'..1.::°■1" 'it'd/I..'i '41::',`,'F',' r'''';•if-41', 4, eeibboitsbiz: ..„,..;,:,,..,,:, ,:.,,., ... „ ,.., -'‘ ,. ,.._...:,-,‘-‘,.,.-...,,-,,,,:li,,,itt...1,-.,.--,it--,.; ••:,,,.i,,s. ,f,:.,--,, ,*-14.1,,... , ,,, , ..,„- ,,,,-. 4.---.. ,...L..-. ..., . . , ....„..„,,„... T, --5 1,1 ,, ,',•'-'■,, ?,,,,4%71`,'','"■,,,,— ,7 '<.%N.-- ,. •• •v,., • ,.-•.,.-.1.',-•V:-1,•4 tist::,:r's:i'..; 424/Zift` S'I'•''''''k'''.,:i',-7''''',4,44'-'''' ''''' titt ,.--",,,,„,,,,t,,,.'2 411 :i;,,e''4•Ax.--.,;04...' 1/4714-,i',,,, , 10'1.*:.,,,, ' ,,-.....zi!,,,,7 f, ,—- --:-1.!t,-,-,4,0,., ,,,-,•_,,...:.,,,,,,:,, ,..,4,:'- A5*,':,itt--- •••:.'''','1-,.•,',-.,:s. ',.,z,',..f.',.$41""'' ..,, a 9 �� i ,. :. z: •, - 'r+. a Ny W�` d - `1';,, j �9 „ ei '4 t w � jL P• yA�g ' .tit ^s � *'fir �"�'� � ��¢ � � '$"^�'� �V"� *~ '' 4 ' 5 � ( � a i 'M , +:: ?•',■:',',' , ::!::44,e::i.:::, .e■-'4‘ '' -.4 t'"''. ' ''''' \ :.'1.1-1.-- .:Vii.'...';'.;' ';7,i.'' 1 ..':'.A �' ' R� 7 --�a .,4:,,i'',.'-':,':'.4P' 7 .A W° vk l ry , � K ��f'4 1'"' 7+{'� yi�� Spa «z f - ' ''''' ''' i),It14 i'''''d,#:4','1:i‘.'22.);:'''''',,-'.,:''''':4,"'', .‘ .•''' . ''...' '.. 0,1,0:,,4.,„:::: :-.•;;;;,-ftli-,..,,i1r4,,,,,,,,,,,..i::::;,,,,,-,, , ,,,,,, ',,,, S k"*�P P Vi.l p ec �'t°:-.".;"'''7-,, i.:' Ili ,r!', kC ' * a q `" dr e F' i a w� ": a• tf.. r v .., a:r � ti4` aj°� d G� �� a , yy ;ass x" Q �ai o�x'r,�➢�st�,?��'_',w.'.�I','°WE�ozi a.A'ayf.�y" �x.eb�R`"laP'.Tt•�,^:'µ,a.v��+R��ir'r*"�*�-?¢d E.F:.>?m.'.�r A y'�..ir .��€,°h s 3a.k...�`�e Y+,,ys r��*w,P+F�n''r'a.{\.'',.r s'�r 6'Z'�6't s x"7 ar ir,ro''''....�R° a��h'k t'a n 4Y�� s k r ei�k'R,R�J 1y � 5 N na y I P,Pw.E•..a i may a id' r w ;::',11',':',,,' T _: �+� .. P t n �,tom k r.: ` S zv °t er' f' " r: �" + P P,i b f +r r{ :�• a�4 ......,....-=...i; , it: ii Ai ... �: 7 ry "{ t . .7 a,* HI - P i 4 °P"' 8# :k.:::::. a, 'r 'i,• ¢F :'. . .v . t i fr 'z w'�� ,, gay F r }la y Ii" k ii' p 5: ' 'z R k",%ri 1' ,r P q E }S,Y � �� 3 5 I4�4.' u P s J': t g ..,"..,4,,,,:V.",',a +d u k. 5 r ,.:„,,,',,e:, tE 1 ' , rk r °4 R q. 4 Tom„ 2 f �. �� , } y'y. a .. ,. s ?, ?1, "1r � � -e ,4 & ' �� If — 7,r°�'^x ','r '� x Y S : W�. g3 P 4 � p� -.:,,.......,;:::.....,.P..:::-.::•-:.•;•k 9 .� � x,-. �M 4 Is ' .-,.. rdw "* F E R• +�7 ?s' A y t � R E ` � ,� ka S E�1+i "., n' p. \ + yY fi 9 {y°",. " 3% r�� 5 ,�s. 9P X 1 a ,,,,:,,,,",..,:41,,, : ,E ..1-::t''.{4'{ . b 7 S'r. 45 ° 0.. � i"xur y" % ' a 'r ,;,..e- P 1i Y" t d. ,4..4,..:.-.......... f a p fie 1, Tiy'-" x i (4r s `4> r '4:4:1'u y, . � AA � A a � ! `qs ua :,:14.':'..a } �' a _ '��[ . �' : s 4 4; ;a P p ' k, ' g x a #�qg, f S 7 b'I aB 'i B ° t'd F ..'r d 3.:`�S "z r y YiP d d , ' Y"r J 7 L d $w 'a �2 . �M 9:' ,,...:i IT'. n... .R 9 ,s ::,7'.'.:::, >�� a . „ l :. �d F ="......444 3 i 51 C!' - ac $k £ .. : t fR E � .;;;;4.:,:,:‘,...'::,4,;,..,;..) a h � `a �� ' ? h d a a" im R"lt�t 311:1 " Y r 7:,,•,:- � A. x -�V .& r a 1 i � {uy �d �` � � i 4"is4 a � d� " t�S V P R � .g � : , 4 ;i u� idt f z t '&Y 9 *f, 'ffiiRi�t " '�:! u'A5 % k � w « > tb" 71.:',:;',10;;',1,'} ' 8 C � 5 +�r� ` y ` a 'w ..�t ' '1;�-� t '" �Tr , ` R f y v3� 3 e �'. 4v t „ j_, a"V. i '� k.. 7'W ,t'4 y fix cE ..„, ��F�_ u '� r P i X �V� ', y r 7 �� 3: r � 7"fie ,°� ."5- mp s: q� "r c A k'y i+dF a k._ .: ! r�. 4 p , ,.A '0. t r i°� '" �.. i. .-•$✓ . P' "" rk°'! F w t t dd s a a' ''''5 ''',.:''''.7..;.''.... �` d+ S r �k 4 " � °' . '4,..-',---i-• r i' � . nx- '.W. x d fi.�'. . L. ° W � � 4� 4 s '. 't'a � y.,4 4 r 9 t Kr a t�.'. «: c 4 �� n r r 4','k Y � p P 4 _ .? , •: � : /E 3 rA � ° S { a� a*r • ''. it , , .,0" -.,•,-- - ,j,. ',-• : ,,, ' ,e,''' ,, : .,,‘4, ',..= 1: .,44.*:'i;,, ; ' zk'',' 1 q4:1:,'1' .. ,s --, ' ._,c .-, , i. ,, .,,,:, .D:,,,.,,,,,L4:, : -'-„:', ,,,,„4, - .--' * ' ..'L, 7".‘-_-;,77,': --' ,,,4„,-,:--‘-,:,,,, , i'',.,:',c,f ..,, ,, -,. .--,-'f,...:',-'-..,,,.:,4-4 ,,,, '-'7i,''' -. ,..%., '-: '‘3:1,',‘-,.'i,^1,,,ii ' ir 4 , uils,,":„,,.- ^, '.. ,.,..,;"17;1'15,„, ,:z ,... ".••, gz,11„1":::_.*". 3, ri,1;,z.,,,,, ?1'"0- ,,.'' i. .,„. , ...,.. ;1 ,_.,,,,,_,-,,,,;."7-L-..,„-..i-. -r.',1 t-1:"..,'i,-;., -.4. ''' a v p...4 t' 4'''"i '',-;.,,,';',.• ' ,, -,' , '. e ' ‘ ',4 .,,,, - • .,, ,,,.,._,,,,,,,* :,..„;',. ,-4, ,,--,'',„ -.,,,-'1, ,,,,vtlf.,:vb...f,-,-=-,... =','„ 4 ,' ,, "-',, -.':--.T,,-".. -:=4-- ,c,1.7-",.--',7,,-.,-,kr4i f-4;011.'#‘ , ', 4...." '',;.-° ‘1,4,,,#-,,i.,...: .,, z -.,,-,-;', , ..,,:: '4g, . ;s/,',‘' -'-. ',- '',.:iii-Yr I -.2. ,,,-;,,---,,,,4,,,,,::::„:.f-:i. „'.41;1,,, ,' :.,--, '-, ,. r•-" ' il•-` •,'e 7.,:•,,:''''.,,.., ,;:::,4 ',.,.,,,i,..,,,4;,,,, J, -.•4:'-•!,.-. '.: 1:.:tii..::-'','-4" .- - „ ,,,,k:,4.: '''\‘',.:,-4,,,t, ',I - r•' ., .:;'‘,,•'' ,-, ,. , ,lr 47:o' ''''t '4` -.•;''''''. ' '','' '.,-,,,,.,t,;,t•r-4,,- '' ” ,..;., :-;,-,.x.. ', ,..' " :'` ''' „ ;,,,-., ,,,,,,, , , .._ ..- :4- ” - .,, , 1 1".".4,-;-1,, ,..,=.:;.--t, --,,:, v , ' , ,-. . -,,:,f , 1(4 ,- ' . .1.0.-:-..- .‘,.,' , „fi.,,.:.:,.--‘ '',. ::..":-.' ' '-'- "., 1= -. ' " „, .,,, r ,4' '.. .',",t:, ,1. _,.;;'',; -.,7!;;I'Z'',.,-' ''' 1+-:' - .,.;s•'''' '77,” -- - 'if': 1-' ..:,,,I,.,.‘,''''''''''''4,i,--'1■",:,,"'"?:11tIP';'';',:::: . ----"4:. : mr'' 4‘ . ' '4"?,4*,,.4.'-:-':-1. -,.` ---•s'', :."7°-' •. ,", .i:' it '' , ' 4 ,.1"' ::::,:i ',',,,`,0 .a lir C,' ' • -4 ''',.'r,,,:".':,,,' ' , , ' 1:4,;- ,li;"':'.. ',, :: ' 4 '' 4 '''' ..'il -`.' C '''' ' ,k, ',3,1.* ' .4t= , , :',. '',,, , ' 4.';,,•:: ',',7 to:3: —'''..''''"'' .'‘, , '.', - "--- - '"`, ,I../4,,, t...?,;,,:--,r',- -•' - *--‘,„--''-' -;:,' ., i -..,--i,„, ,t,,,,.-;:- ' .°: , ''‘f, ' :' ' ' . ,'';'. ' '.1.. ,.- '11;',..'i";:l '' --,'-'; ',,..'4 :4''' - .2.:'':'.:f:N.Ttf ''' - Adli:-- '' •-f. -' l'±1"-,-'" ...-', ,,,t,-,,,4" - - - ,i--$7.'42y,,..'''.1 4,''-",;%;:"'''-',,-„,.,,,',1".=4,:. : - ,; --. -,.-- - ,•;;;_if '4N--,,,-_,F7f,ViE",",!:44i'7,"-' ''',-"-',.; ,-z;';‘,:","-== ,.= --.4' .-;,..''''-'--4,,=2,,,--'--,,.'"ii!,- 'ft:".. r, , tl : ..-• ' , '''' - - ,;.?.0‘,:!,--i,,, '-*? ,'1;-,;-.i-'- ....,(, -.%. 'Fi.;:-. i,....':-.-•,.,?-, ',,',:-','',7,-,''.,,, ;-' .f.,, ..'r I, -- ' ' .•-• -....,,,:.=,.„:; ,4,fif !7' ;(1'-;.,'-,,,i.- „ii...,:si'.,',.:,:f-ii!,,, ,,•_:''; , 'Iii,i,i,,,,Ast,,,;:i...;,i„,,,,,,, , , ,-4t:, -,1 ' 1 ''''I.4',,,, , ;! :„.-4v§7.. .,1,,..-:..-!-.1t:1'.:,.,i;L:'7,,;,!-:st,--tit:.,,,,-4'.f„,,,,k; ,,`;::::,;.,, '•-• '41''., ',''' .,..'.',.;',,, ,, i ','''' t.,„,,F. 4.: ,. '... . ..1-.., • ,'„,„,;;;.i` '',-, '''',!7,-t ,,..: , ,,,,,1,,,, -L;,,::‘,.-',4,,,,---d',0-Z7i,41.7,Ar,:';;;I',,,...!:;1 ,-_:14‘,1.. -7,.1.;,:r .:1,-1,,,,e,'..,i;::',,,,•- --', --"1, dr-'- ,,I,;.,, ` , ',.'4;';',',:.:'-'r.xl:-°, -.•,,,.,-): ', "''' ' ;,.'„t-i'' •,' .i-.',.!`:: '',7 ,, , , i-v -, .„,, -,.,,:-:":,o'irf,! -=',',:,= Z:i --' '7"".:, ,„...-.‘!":,,c7,'"4,4,!",-,r4E.,IM'',,,4i;.",44,i,:•:/kt,4t2'4.,, 24 ,,,,,•-"' ., 1 4,„i .4 ' ' .'',, ' 1.,"; ' '"...",4■""; ' ■' '„:"' , '1,0„ "' , ,,-‘;'_'41. ' ■ - ,,‘ r ■ '4" ■:',:-.,:',.-''J'2,1'.'1,t'4'‘14,1':415",,IL-4g1=';i,',',,, °:?:''''.';-:..:-.‘ ... '`" ...- , -',I ----f' .,.:;., '''''',• .',' ' - . 1," .":.; 1:1„' :4;4 ,u.,t444,-`,„11..•*:,44,--.0A--..24::-.,,,v.,--:.v,.'. .., f: . .:-‘- -. ,,-_ -!•,- ;:490.---',e),,,-.,,,,,.. .,.4.,,,,, ,,-, Al.tft.,#0,17-4,1,;,_1' ,',-:. •.- ‘-'4' ,,.,,, ,_ 0:04=E-.1,42i...' lti ,,,z,,,' ,-;-,i ,, , ,,,_,_,,,-,;-,- .,;,i. 4 ,,. .,,-. : ,-,,,,,,-„,-.4, - , ,-, ' ,4:4-,-,-,,1•=,;." ,-4,,,-,-',.„,„:„„,4,-,',.:',!,,,, ,v,i,4.41--= , • s 1%,-2,444,,, :' ' , ,3,t.4,!,;,A,,,,,,,,:,.,,,41;' ..‘ ''', ' :■''''':- .,.' ', 1 ,4:11:4,l '41'5'-('' ''''t.',",="'f'-''',=,.','1,1k::1-,=-'-''' ',-'rJ' - ,, : I •„, '',:i7.,i-:,:, ' ''':: ', ::,., '... s.,',7 ,.i?-,:'., ,:,,': ,-,,'''' -,-;",=- 4:::,-, •-•,- --",,,-.1,.-1!-:1;,---,-!-,-; " -'-'-',':, =";..-r-'="'!'-'''ii'll.'"P-- ',., ,',-::- '''',,",'".!,,,: I 4,—=,, 7;?:1"1:(:)' '.' -'-,:,-;?:,;:-'7..t.'',i1"'‘' '''';:-, -' fi 1, ,..,' Z;:'':',,.,„'„,,, '''-,1 ''',".;1 I,',,,Alt1:-Ttei!-..r,t,-/:;',,i1:' t.T.,,,Ak, 1 '' .::,'---#:',;;itz''.i'V;f-- ...., ; .7.. '',i•,'• -:-.-licif..4v°:;: z..-:4 '..7•,,,,!,, fi.-.7.1-R-',,-;ii,'i:;:-.:;',/'2,..;',,,,,,,-,,;,.,.,ilv.)-..,,z,!tt,t ,t)!1:<--, ,:r--.'',f,,, 1 t ,, , ,_,‘„,,,e,,!,,...t,..;?,,,g,-..,,,?,,,,,7:1,,,,,I,,,,,,,, ,,,,- ',.. ,......„,',.-.-1-4tli::,- ik,',r, 11';',:'1''''L.=• ,, -", 1 "1' .--;-V--,A4'141A;;:,.4‘ ' ,,,1;=7;': ''.--. .4' 't' 1 - -,t4;!,.,- , 4„,, ,,,,o;,,,-.,;,..., , 1 I , - -- ku,;''''';''''''' '''',,it, ',','•=2'..:'.7.7''',,..:e;'7,:f-',t1,'‘‘,-4,•,'21':,t-.,:*,...!';',,,ii.7-,-,--7-1, I',-;',i, . . - ' - . - ''i":1,41.,11,le '' ,i,-;=0,- -,„4„1 . , , ,'11,1- ,'.::; : ":',--:,,, • ::i ''ti , ,'2, . ,,; =,,,,,,,-,2',,, ."-... ...,,,. ,'7.--t'T .; .'1,.4',. - ';',-. --. 1 ,,,, ,.':''':0,.-.,-;,'' . ,-;-'1.4"%i:ii:1-41',1°,1='',S11.-'':.'"::.,‘ 1-.4.!,,, ::-1.,.:1;:.. . ' :.t 12: ..' '. :'',°'' - ,,. --- '' "",-,'N%-c,e'sr."7e'' --":',;‘-'7,` - ... -,-4-7.-,,,,,-1-4' - P r. ' , -' , ,' Y't.; '''' ,,,•,,c4V ' , "h" 1:,' ,a, "S"-•':'' ,:-..,:;IA'-',:,'":9'‘:,:,;4;42:',' :":?'; '4,-::_'.7-•:'1_4*V-1,''''■ ', Z::F.:1-!!?,44:::',, ' •• , , 1_,. 1,-r i -,,. .„-„.::._,=-.-.,:--r_s-t! ".'-''"i',,.'„ 3 ,,,s. ,_,..,,,,,,., i-,:::.,,--.,..1/4'.:-,:-..,::::,-;;,.- i.,.., .,.---- . 4'1 ''4,,, ,..',•-,...,.':'.,:‘,.,..:,?,-,.;:-‘....-,-_:-;-' k_ !,,::,:,,,,-...',,,..:. : ,r,:,,,, ,' . . -4 - :. ', . 1 ,,. ,?„*.,,,20,`-.->.-.42;',i ' ' :---,,,,‘ -,:..:‘:‘,.. - ;,.. ,,,-..,,,,---:‘, ', -,.; . , ,:. .. ,' • - ,, „Iv t: ,..-, '' ._, ,:, , v,,,,kit• ' 44,-"i _,,- ---,=.:',,,,,,-',-..",',1 :.,.•-'i`-: -.• • i,2,-5 ..• . . ' :' , '• ., 4,,t,,,,,,,;';.,.'7,„' ''''' , ,,,,,,,,1-1",,,,..;$, _", AV,,-..,,,.,,,, :',,f,, _ , ', , :' ': ■ :v, •" ;..,, " -e,,,,, s,:,”•' -1!)"„'44, .' ,.-, , ,f " ,':,, ,,-„" " 4, ''c,7,!;F‘'*,,,,ft, ‘4.-",•-• '. ' ,",,?.,''', 2 ,'"'-' %,.....'. '.‘.„,,,,'"';'„'..,;-, 2,-.:`', ,„,. ::'-',1,1f,-;,.,-$:'"i !',:::‘;'\'' 1.",,'.";, ' '4 ::' ' wait,-ivqq,1:17''"i",, ' tivolt, .,,,,.% I' 1,,tir-i 4 ' :-'...1,4.',.7,''''-''t ':, ',:1;":14."-'' •'''''l - '''.:i ' 'r'r-''. •'1■ : :": *.f '-' *6(411114!" .k:t1.64I ' '. *'..r! ' .*i. '''';':'..!r6;' ',,•. ' ,•J.,,„;r'.1,----- .. r lik, ,,,'ff,'4,';',•4... ; ‘,:',.;*f'i'•;' r'!. ., . r r , , '' ,;'.," ' '' '.''.. . ' .‘'•;::"';',5.' :"'''r''• i ,' 1. ■• ‘..,.'.... ; , • .' '.. ' , .: • , - , , .„...„-.....-...4:4'..:...-- .,..„...,...,......:,'...:',11.f. ,,,..;;-:!.t.;t..".':.....;....',1'... ..;-,.4:'...:':..".:-.!. :,:.., „.,...:.. ..,1pi:';''..:1 ..,., ,.::::,::..1'.;.:;, ',. . ' il' . ....:„.' ■,.:-411! .;!.,;•-::'.:,., 1,"„.;-.7:7,';i...!.-','.=:..... .. :i,„,.1.,...:.::::.z.7:r.:t ..:7,.`,)';:.::. '..::' ....'..::'...7": .::::::-::,.. ...4.:,-,k:.•...,kii,;.. il,10-1r-.$4.... !':-.H.'' '''. .'''':: .*ti.'''''''...''''''';i7.f.7'.,..:N.47''4'....:::::::;._!...",..' ......., ... ..:,:..,,,„ : 1...7„. ......:. ..--:-:i.. ....-:',,1- .1';,....:Or'''.i',.::.'7t;;1.til....*:...;;i:-..,:t1....',' . :.,,..*--:... . . . ..,. ..,...,,0!: .....:.,..:Lt.. ..,:,7-.,.....:$., ...,i..i',.,- ..1 ....,,,,,:.:.- , • ,4...."::1„,'" .....,:,...., .....,....14:;". . . itt...,.. ;;,. , t4,..;s",.....t..,.:::- '*:::4.,,:.:t...-, i.;.,:,:..i....:',',........:,....,:, ',::' `.'," . .,...: . ............ 1.!t...,,..,...:1...,,.s., ,,;,....- , , .. , ' ,.::. ...,.:..iizi.iF..,,.,...;:.„......,;.,„..,..,.4.-„„„:„.*,..:,.::.,,f,::,i..7.:;...... .:,-;:',..' :.,f-i...i':. .,, 1,,,,. -...':',./;:',,,,,•,,',', . ,:,,:-,.:'::,„..:::....,.(,', ,,1 _,...7.. . '--*.,77, ..;P''''• :,...::::;#-.7"..'....Z..........:: ::::,...'.:::....:..,..:,....;.::.:.:..t, :.:;::::. ; :.':.,......,. 4....:.::::::,7.,;:f.....,:i7.4...: 1..:,,,:;'41..., .'''g.:.2.•. i... ..;..,....i,,,,,,-.:, ,,,:,,.,,:".';'. ., .4,...„..?„..,..,.,•:;i„,;,, ,....1,..,., .,..,•:,,4..:,:::.,1:AAt :,44- • - ,..4. ... .,.,.. ...,.. . , - - .-- 41,4'1 . .._",.. .:.:. tit.:,,:,.=..!.':".-.:.....:, .,.,.1::i:.:.:.::'':::.,.... .....'i'.. !.....'',.,-,==.-:-...,,, .,,' ' ,.•°:1, .'.4'.:,'‘- 1 `';'',.-.'V.‘..""...',,I. . . . i'::',.4'..'. ...::'1. . . .., . . . ".:4.:.:...„ .:.....7.'..1...'',.,..........,,,:...:.;::::::;‘:Nie ,.,:.;::".;:'::::. .i7r..,?'.7"*-..- .'',L.:.''.,. ' •',.',. ,.=.,,,.,,'!.,:,.,•••; ' ,. :, 4t.'i',..,;"- ,.'-f::,.,,',7„,.'', ,. *.; •...f7.,,,•., :••••:4:.k.r...i.N.::::."'!..:44.,;:".4..,,,:•:,%:::;.:::::.:•,..4'r . :' i'.::‘,: ' • ."..'41,• 1.''•',;lit',1`,'•.,f,, '• • '',,••,.1i ';.• ,..•;f:;"..P09•'' :V. .''' :,-..!,:„. ,,,....;. .., ?,......„.....;„, ,1„..;..;.,-,.;..,-;..r.::,-.-:":.:". 11,..,,fk,-.:, ,',``,:'. .4, .... • .:.•., ..1- ,--.':/,1''' ;,,i-,'....;: ‘„ ..',.i..::...:,,,,;1-"t7,..,''A -;:".:.:' ........:.-f.. , • ,-;.i"...e:41AK:.' '.."::-.,....;..;iikei.., !i.i ,117 ?,- ::. .,:.1.)4.g,„.,:s.,--'4 ..'i,, ..,,:t,.., . . .;:;..,;:....:!)-,■:...,f:,....;'',.. .,,...7.,,,....'7,....;..40-'. ....,, '„,...,•-.4...,, ,, Is,;,.,".';,:,::' ti,g, ...-:.".EI'k::,:''' '.:1„.., .,.:.:-.„: , .:.<.,,:i.:,.;::..,,.'„.,;,:,::. .,. .;!:::'...1i ,,, '• '4. . tg, ',.';,:.,;'j:,;.41!../.1.:' '''.. It ,,,11..;!";::"■`<;$,,i.' 2.'..r:,,.',.:0‘,..,j.::,3.;!,1,!!-i.:.4,....`,,,.";.,-,, .i....: , ..,':,...:',. '......,'"'... .....- .. i.''':.::.::i....i.',...' :, '•:!,..=,,li ''. ''''. ,°; ''.4::''''.1:‘:.'';:i.j'-'''All ,.....'-''.:4:':','.'i.''' ''.!-':'P1''. , ....f.:.'40;7.'1". ',I ..,'.'' . ..:.. . .':4:.'''.41';'" '' '''...:'''''fi k.''!' :',:;?•-:'. '' '''''''.i'`:■i'144i'-'4"74.'"' :; '''.V.1:' 4, * ., '' •..:,--:.,... . '..,, .,. . .f.....,5?1 , . ., .4-,:.'-••:,;,,,=•'.....-,;'.. •,,‘:7,',,'...,,71t,';;5a•:„ , .''',',•,••,',',...,2.,,,',•4.,e',"••,.0...,;:y .,_.. - .••• - •, ...,'..;.7.'• .......,.,...,.'..;;;.',1..-" r..-- .,.:'''''-''''.....'.:::.',',:::::' . ...i..:::•!..,:' "I• •!",••,.":1,'..''.;".3', ,.1""v.:•'c' °°.A,":":',••••:,';;.,-4:,'''.,,.. ..‘ ,::... .,...-.. ,..:.;,..s......,..,. ........::: ,....-:f.,4.' ..t•:;',.:....,I-',,,,,,,,:ty..' '.,..!. ..:..'f.:,...,:.;,:,',='!:...r:.‘,.;.',.:-'.2'''..j.:''', • ...;,:.,..,,,-......`:- .•-•.::::....:ii- • •, !.,,...:, . -,,:. -...,,..'. '..7.-.--. -......„ ....;;;;..., ,.I'.. .. .'::::.o,r..,''.i ::.,.,, ,;''..t:',.:‘ .1 ,. t.....';‘,F7.,;...'.....-1,4"'''..::.0.,',:-,!;.,1.-..c..-,,::...s.;) ...41'.....,:,',..-... . , , ....4.0.i..z:,.,'.,.7(....:.........- • ...±:„;.,:,......:;:;•.:;:..,:R !:...,p,.. ,:)„:..':.' 'y' ,....4..::::', '..:1.'!..,;,'1,...i[1*.:::.ti...'i.:--:..-....F...„i,.. '.., N'1,114t,i',.:-.,„..,..: ,,.:4...:.._..... ,'.: ..;;..il."4:-..:: .;:.,.....t_f41,1/4r.,',.'''.. '..,.;':.!..I ..,: .,"`',,..i''.:. ,l':.,: vi, .. ''t ' .,':I.t...";:.t-ri;..9... ...7•11':---..-,-,=...,::.... .: -.. ,•-' . .. ''''.- 1...:'' '.. ,.., ..!!:1 ,-,.:;' :.:,,„.,'...,;...;!',.';''',;I:4Y.?.,::?.,4', ...,...:5..., , .1?,.....z.t.,....k.. .,..,4.--,, ,;,-..r.- .•.:,., ‘. ' ...2. .... .,. -. .. .,4.-:--'. :....',.,.,i.,...f...,.?.:.;:-.. .....2..,.,..'.z:--:.,.;.4..,‘::.'f',.:k.:,:,..,:::::,''....:::it.i...:11,=:';'...,.:i‘7'.'1''' 1 .,:iro....,.:,„„.... . ,...,.::,°4.,„r*AV..,,..,:Jr.•::....f...,,.. ..t.„.. . .:.,., , ...•• 45.' • ., . ' .,.:.,..,,li,r;',-,..-•;,,,,:.'.,.•'..,!•;!. ''.''j.,•''', ,„,.,4,:!..4,r;..,.,::k.:•:::lit'',:..';',,..;:,:i'..';,!..i.,:k,,. .7:1;•'.',01•:.4,,,,, ..i:;':.:'•:':^.•:.;;;,;(, , ■:,ir,":,:),,,, ,-;:...,..., ..,,,..,..:,.,,.7....!,•,,,,;,,:;:i..:iii,...,.,, '‘•,,;,.fr,,,.„ .'' ......... .. y, ! .. . .....,7_ivftit!...i.:::;::',',.1;,'.-' ,.., ,:,,".:•,. .',..:,-,"eg...•;,...•..::4,:i" .";,-',;:••;, ,,I..,: 4,'.2,1?"‘..'..,f4,v",,,•:.'2,,?,1'.,!''' e,i) ..,,:_,.,;•,',.::::..:,":122.'" ' * ' ' •'•'7" s'/,' :''‘ -.: l''S.• :. ..i''.'.- .7.':.' .. . ' . -• :.-'..:''' . ''''":-..!*. .....'''...]:'-:i4: -;:-; 1''7".'''''''i'•t,',.'4‘f..4,.".4,:•:`;,:itit.'•,,:l',:‘‘...2:•i,i.‘"1;..",-!,.t•ii..-,,,'.,.2p..,"::-'7,. `,;,•'.'i:-.•-•::''• ....,,, " - :*„.;•,.,...- ...,!%!..',.:•*"4.,,,....,,,,:.......:..7,i..i....,f.....„..,..,,,,.,,.., • ..",. ..,,,;1:::......,„„.7 ,....;•,5.-Itt4:14,.i..gr,'„, :t„.",!.;‘•:•-i6!:.i",•,., .!k"":/..;".•,,•..k.•:,:';',:::1;21'-;.,: ,•,:,:....., ',••:.,:.,.., "t ... :,,r.:0 ,,,., ..„, _•-...„,::;,,,,:..'.i.,::;-..:. ... .i'.......1:' .,iL.. .,..:...,.......:....:,..:............ ,-.,.,;.14,.....4,A,„i..;. ,:k:.,,.,,.:;,,f'.....1,.. .;, iir,:.,V!.:'...,q:'',.."-.. ..,''....,....,':;.....,.2. ..,:.;:.. -4,....4',.- '.;,..,-:.:,*"..::,. :-..i.;,':, ..?.:::,......::: . :::.:'.::4;..,...:........,....., ,...:::,::.' ...,i,.N.1,4.,,,:'...$...,,'::.:,.,:ji,:.',..4„..,,,,.:....,...1:,,!,,,.-:::.. ':!;;`,,I,',.'4'i: ,1, ...,.7.„:,...,,..„.,..,. ...:.,...;_...,....!;,..., .:.,:„...;.,...,..,....,,,,,..:::,,..,.,„,...,...., -.....,,,;,...,,.).„::,...,:4-j.t.,74,,,:.,!..,;,,,:74....::.-44:fi.'i,,,,,...,i':.-:-..,!... , ,i',..‘,', : , ::':;.':;;,'' , ,,, ` ,,..„.,i7-iy..,...::::;,: :.,.,...-.74...:,..,,,,. ;F:,.,...,4 .:1:,,4...,.,,..„.. , *7'i...:,,,ii,,i`ii:ki.„.:1;!;‘,..:::'.=,..'kl,-;,, '41..ify.,, l';:! '::;.:;:„.-,i,,,.,:,,,:ii..74.t.;; ',.....:4,:,,,,ti, ..';.... ,...:.,...:.i...., ,,,,.. ...;' ....i ..-:,:11.-.:. r.:...,:.ii.i.,'......i.....-..-.,,.:..,..,.......c='5'.... .,....:.,. .r.:.!4-i-s,.?=.,',....-....f:A! ,, i:''' ,.,,O.:..t ,.;!`1t,i..,ji:,::<.i.‘;,'":-i'„4:,;;;.t.,'''..,t. !;::::-...'::,...i.:''''',',71,' ., ..oir:...-,'is.°pai::,,,....::,..:....:, .4i. . , r ...7,.;.i.:::::;...,,......::.,:.:,.,:,::::e::::.:.::; `..:..!.....:......;1•°t:y„..; ; . 1,44',„ik:;;,'.:',..it!!':,,s,,:t:.::,'i,11-)Ni-1111-::°"7.;-';::(:.,,:..‘-:;:i.:.,j., 4i A-^"" :•..• •40' '',' V4Z-,7,..t4:?:1:::..4",,:f.::::. :-.:::::t:ri;!::,',r:•':: ......:,..:i.?...,:,;°:';;..... &?3:4., ....".; 41J.,-4..t...,,,,,j,,,,j1:....1..:.;.'hi...'4:2-..ft: Ne.:::i''..kt ...,.r'r ,;:i4 ek,7?'.it;,11;f:::747,''..; ,41,<)°:::::,. ..,....,:i.:4:,..,:',.::..., ,...1,..-4,,° ''7,,,),...,:.'6,.41,,,,f,..,ty.,,,,,,. ',.' ': ...„,fr. ,"!,,,,-'',i''-''.2',',''' ',:t,'', . #,, .: :I?'.' '''',k,,''';'.r..;f,j;':'I'',i',',:.F .....i..;!..''.''',,..4' .....:....'...; : '.. ,"''' ::o.> 'h!' ,k'.V: '::..,'i'i:,,,-...,1:' ',.A.'.',..1,..4.°:44.,... .. ..;.%.::.''A,; :...,::,:;,...:..?...**-:-.........,..7"....i. ,,. ,,..4....,.:•4•Ii..:: :,, ,,,i.';;;?!..!..1.•"!',,:•;..;:•;..•-..'„:::-.:•!:....-:::•;;4,,,7:•;......:j.•.:..•,r1:....:., ,.:', • "1.:^:„.., .,-...-7..,:•,•,,•,'.;t,",'•..,•,•:.; ,..E.T,14, :•41„.';.:f1,!`.2,2 :e-47, ,... ,;,7,,;',.,,..,i,:...•••••,',„,-,,.. ..•;...'...":,,,t..,..,...; •,.,.,•":,.,'•.r.',I.".•,..=•••• •'.•%,,, ."7 ..5 : :. ".•. ., ..-...i.k1:..•;:..„.....Z". .. --!....)7f.:-..•••-i-,1;,;*:•A ''..,..Y•,.:-.-. 1%.ii.:t.•,''''!••••;t41,'..-.? ' ,!,,...•:••••....litr*:.•7:7•),IV4,':;,4:-.,,,•,' •',:l'''.. A, .....:.„ ,....,.;.*,.....r:),,..!,, • .;•. - . '-,:•,•••••..,. •4..1',...,,,,.....-•;,T, J.•.••,,,' ' „,r•z••• . • I:44.4;-,•'-"t5•...5--:', ,."•?•rA•.;••=••-•:,,••••••••,‘. :.-.r:.•:'""17,• .. .....,7,-..4. •,r'.'". -»°•,;„-,....,,,,Ji','-:,-.•„-;-,••:,......t.•, ;:•••••;5-,:;",..•,F.t`.•...-...:',..T.;.,„`7, ...',...5.... •,:-.FI,..7•.: ..',.•*:1..^47. , ,hi,It.4;•:.•. :'....`4-i-:):-•%:.,',.;:•.1'.,?:,..:'•.':.•'•'‘,',...::••;•.',..'. '"'''•n''"!.1.-'''•„;.,"' :.,...,..1?,,... or 0 ,.‘,...„.,.:.,,. ...... .....„.4.,,,,..:.,.1..:..,:,....::::,...: ..: ....,.........,...„.„...........:.;....4:„..,..::.:„..,.._:„:..„.,..1„ .,....,:::::..:..,.......,,,,,..„.4.„„„tiv....4..,.....„...i,,.: ,.. ,..,...,.. ,...,..,,,,.7.,_ .,.,..,.4..,4,..:..t.,tii.t.,.,..,,,..,..:....,..,„...,,,,, ......2,:.,;........„.„.., ,,.... ..,.:.............,..:;.!.„..:::,..::,;:........,..::......,,.:...,..,....., ;:..e.,::.::;,:::,„:::;„;..,...i......1. ,...,:............ . ......„.„1:.;.,:::,._,,.......f!.!...,..;.,.,„ ..„,.7.....,,,!,.,45t..;,,,,,.:. ,).....,.;..,:,...;:.,...itit,..„..,.,,.„.4., ,...",-. ::4:: :......,..._..A, ......2. ,,,, ..te::..<1'.c,,,,.,,,.,.2-4,,_, .:.: .... *',,,p,,,F.,:t '''..:::.:'''''''' z' ';'...". IR,--''''','.'-'IV"'.',..i;,';'''' ' 3‘.. ''.. '-''''''''.. ;•--;,*"..''''...1.:.' 1,..':-....'.'....-.'._. . .., ' "'.i...-41:".si,4.'..,;:::,?,:.'.w,a0H'''''',..,*;.;"."'''''.:':'':',,.•.., ....,;:.ii.!:A.q;',:,',.."rA'''.t..:.• ., , ...... -7.''.,,,:" .":: ::#;t::!$::::':::;' .' . 2....,;.,1,4144:::';.'7,igli.':, ''.1'`.1...?,. +...-.... .:;....,'%,,Ii: ';:*'':::;;10,.1e,,... -:,=:i''..ti ''''''':''...ii' 'I".•••IP Olog ,,.••,.: . ' . :. ,...,.,......::.,..:;...„:7..:.,..„:,:.. :. .....: ...., 7 .'. : -,..:.....,;'‘ •47,ti'ilif.:.';...,:tritNi••..",j!.'1,t;',. -,,,4.• • -.' ','4•'...!.,•,•,t,' "s'-`..••, -..ii.474,-•,... ••.4".::."-•'4, ,,..,..Iii„.1".•;.,,N,,•,. .,‘;,....,..-•,,.,:i::_.;•.:.„..•..,".,.?...,,,,,',••:,•..,...i......:.:;‘,..:".......:,•,(1;.,'........:7:::,•;;;,:,&,"::"::;:,..,.;":•..';'..‘4 •4i,':,,w,';',,;.:, ,,",,...T.:.k,•••: :,-.-:.,,,.'•=.4•014t•,,';',i-i%.,;'•;.,';',4;3_i •-•,.,;.1!"',..ff.''''';',"•,:qr.,*.?,:•''•:!!':::,1.,,,tA:':7.,:q „,. ... :-....,0,t,..:. ..„..:;„:..1....•,. .., ,, •:- •...i•-kl.,•,,,4:1'4,”,..-"4...tr 4.1. i.,••;••,,,,14,7‘':-i',,44`,4`•,■,'"•',,,,,:::f,,,,,,,"A„:%.:41.4i:',,.:1':••••g.,,,-13,,.,tv:•",'"4,',.,F,i",i,,,i1 -,„', •.4.,.',..:::•:".,1:::.!::-'.',,•' .........• . . . ..• : .• .....1;:47.,.-..:,..........,z.",...,4.... ::::::.:,....:::::-.;:ii.....:,•:-.,-,..'.-5 ..„,,,:.t!.-::t:.c.i.e..;,..•,:!1;7,..;‘...;:',::.•-:i,'-',„..,..r.i.‘f,,;4k,lk ,,.,-, ,,,..•.... .. ..... . : .. . '• .:. ...,.;.4....',....:::.....?:;...::.:',.... 1':..:..':, .,!.....<:::t....::'., t;:?,,:,-: ::- . :.. .i..lii!.::::,,, ,11::‘:::"';i7:•:;" . ,.,,,. . ,., .„.. ,_„. .,T,..„,,,:„.,.,:.,.,,,,...,...,i ....._7.::„...1::-..,-;=.'r,,,,,,..,' 5 .,'c...1,...,N.51.t.04.4°,,,:;‘,,i.:"A.,,t,:i'.ri:o ....' • • ..,',.-..,7'.....:.;'..,- ;',t. ...::::.:.!:::.-.. k... k;-,.:::';:,:15...... .',..',.':.:i.i)I ,::',..:. : -!',::Vs'':i.. .:;1:it,VV:ii.,I.14.,04,:•;.(4...yrk.,,),.4, ., 44...,,;,:',.^ip,',.:.:I.J.....';‘,2...,!,:i.:'::.., g . ..,. ..:-...i, :,:.,4,..,....,..,::,,,........;;:fii.....,..,.:-. N.,<,,,..t.f7:',;:,........-„,"....,-.... ..,;,,.-,..:*,,Ji.:,,Jci,,',71..,..k.. '',!.4",.42,r.`a."'.:;..4.:-.....k..ii.:',.,41,:,:"It:;;•;:,,',.',,...,;....,:t;.;, _-.1,.y..',..,,,..,,...,i4..,,,': . . ., ..„....,...,..,..:,,., ;.„..,,.........:.....,....,,t;....,,,..,. .i.,,,,.:,!,,,4....,,....r-:.,.........i.,,,, ......?, .....;1..,..: .‘,kf.,:,,,n44',!..',-.,'1'1„,;-.... .k.: • • . ... . 1,..4t1,4..,7:,.,• ..... .-•: ..•••..,.....:-::z"1.. . „,i,;•.;,tf,":".1.i.,.. ...:,,.,..:....:,' -..".;"...:... ...,;:::..,.,. .f.iy;' ,..1..i. ..,1,-.1.:!...1(f1,1iih,.,,,,,:,:iet.i..y.t,iY:•-.;•:"..4'''',,,,,: ;:p11•7414:•'1::'.:*4:ii•; •''''•47:-!''''..7:!••'• ... . ‘ ..•:.s.,t!k „-.„. ...-.-.:,..,...,....-:1'..-1,.,-n.:";•*ft:: ,.,?.,- i!:•:4'..:,"..,'':::• •••::.,:.:%,,..;;,.:1.:.:,......, .::',:•'•;,4,7,`;'.4;474:•:,i4Kii","'y',:e..",",,,,,,i1215,..,,,#,.7,:#:is,'11.k.'..-tth•:4,1 ,,1/4,1:r 01',4t.,t',',3.41.:,,'&,;;.,,,•..:ti,;;;:-. • • •••••,' '...'•:'. ''''''''. •••••••• ''''•-::'''''',.:x-'"•;-'7,i- ':"•;',;,-&'":..11:'*•:':*.,":j:::::'•:••:-:.'''..-*''.''.•. " ' . •''.?-,1',•Z!:4'.. .-:.‘•ei•:',IiY :'''•7.,.).,1":,1;:.1`• "1.4,,,kili.i,if.,,?.Ift.',',', .•'.r::?1,0'..,c,v4,,t...,,,„,.4,4-t,••::11 .. . .. -•*In--.,-7,,i..•,,tk...:.r.•••....•:!'••:,;,'0,,,,..4-....":•',":".,•••'::::::::."7:•:'.,-•••••?.?;,,,,•••,•:5•=., •' .: ...••••:„. ....,,7.:4.':.,,.t.:4,1,,..,,N•,-,,-,1,.Ne:%/...:-,,,,,::. ...-:.‘k.',..,',;1,:.:,,,,-.4•":1".,k.i.o.,.",•.,•`,3J.'":.4.,...A..,,,:„.4•.v,'.•••••••"..,„:A"...„.....,,ht,,,,,,0::::.€•• ". . . '.. :''''' -' '..''''"'.'' ' •.0: •-•....t.l'"''''4.-'i,--.4.,.,l-y,,4'411-4',?...., , fv,,, :e..4,..,g',-- ,...t.,.+-„,,,.. ,,,,...,„.,,,,.;,..,,.71. . - - .. . .. . . ,_ . .... .,„.....:. .... . . ....;,;.. ''...:7-....::::!:.;.;.-;..:;.!:.:-.._::........!..,.....!.k.;:..... ..iirT;''..2.:-. ' :' ' - :...A.::^:<.. '',1-;''',:,,':,.,-,, ,..4'7,c.1:,‘„L-. ..-,\.•'..".t.k.-ftgl:i',.„',.A..?'',./',X3';`."!,''.117,-,IYI'',,...:.;,;:,.,;::?..` Ite''.....'. ..4.-,'..r,„ 4, . . ._ .,:,,,..,...:,......,,.....,.,....,,,............:::::,....,„..:.....:..... .. . .4„.....,,‘„,....„..1:.or:f.i" ,....",,,-, •i",,•;',1„. •••:...f.,,,•,„,.."'•• ''',,„ ,-.:4.{>,.;',f'',.je ''r',..'.":.I''''.'.y.f.t.1!,...,:: , ..4.:,,,•:.,...,_+,...!:.. .._....,•:.i...,,,.„,- ,,,... .....,. '.,-...;'i :, -ki't!.Y....*''''.......:,-.Ci.,'''',.:,.''''li!t4.!,t'ik,4.1i';',11.,!,..:,'.,t4i,14,i':,.-.:-,:';',:::,?....=:..;..J.-"...'7.:: . .„■14:.`,',„' .,1^.,14',,..'. '. ... ..... , ,„ ..,7.1.;.„711;':':'.,::t.':... ......-441r,n74,(t'i 4,:1.4;!4."'4,-..2.1:41'...1::,,Ji!1::::i!.'1=•t'.,';'•4:-.;;;.' ' 3 .._..........,v.,.., ,...............,.., ..... .: ..., , ,.,......,,:,. .: .,...:, ..,,,...:. ....,...,::...t71..::„.„,..„....,i,.....,....i.k,.:i.,,,,„.,T.,,,.,::,,.:... .,,,..,,,;,,..:„i:t1.,:ii.,.,,,..,:.,.;i:;...,,, .e,„,,,. ..., ...-, ' :. . .-..;,.."...;,..•--..'.•'-' : • !:.Iii;ct.Z!..-,,•,- ..4 ...:::-:".-.,...i1.4).,,,.•.'„A.,':.-4,:ii,.,.1,1.•,'.." ..,i,..71.4•41.v.=':•••...'. ..,._."7,-,.•:.......7,,,. .:4y:-.• _ . ...............,....,-.. .... . 1.A..E0ti "..N.11'.......t.-'4••‘.'"•••••le,!:.::Y•'..',.; ,•--...R -.!..ir'ih-xii:1•..:,....‘, ,.'..;:''!.-.4;.::.";',., ' - :..,. .. ......, ......•::'-.''...,-....-:'`.• ' . :L *! i] ';.;■44.!, ,:'.......:...:;,•:.,:!,*..''4,;.:',....--- .:,;-.;•,..'2,.'......,.. ....' . ' ..,,,.....1.4,1:4`7•::::'.• _74,;;..."•:;--;,•:',.,,,. - i '.:' .i!� •.':XN s� , 5 i Fa` <tx S'" 4 " 4 de a + ,'a'" T " h r, :i 1 r C Y �z � 9 ''5 ,','"T'', a.dS E � Y,f 33 � iµ » � , a q$4 i,. �` '��" . � +t*:' z` V 3 4 "3 tai 5, Y � .. ti Z {- ; a�A Py v0} o ��_ d � fif ,w E r.s, x.k S { �` ' :•.�{ t ,Q i ' ,,1 41a v T .f AE ,A'# I' k t g`"t o ° 4 m '�.+NS 8 " t 'd v" t ,, �t r y• 6 r �� i 1 ;'..';'.' � aY •y r : , .� �`+s C 1 I "� ' >�,g rte Yd,.' 5 x a : S '4" � i f 4 f ��. A rk� f:'''.,. 4 +d i a �3 � � 1 _4 :s S'Pr k ##� 4� 4 ,�i !� 3 f °r l p � ,��a E . h^�� R•°I q r 4, � " ! f r x w ��& � 7 `,,' , i'y 17, Y: q a T z�",3 ,,.:::::s-,..:::...........•,: ° �� : 7 �° ;t� J te r .� 1� t ) � �c"' Er ym yy R -0r u � r ' P i 1� - r ° '. s� ° ' F {r�S 3 � .y � F� r ,,:.: , " � °. Asa i3 � r n M S dCy + $E e '�S`a � b 44'.,:-..?7,0'.y '! AmNF il F A A8 ° �ti .. �X y, � ::',.4•:' ; 511 a . > -!.....v,.;': ' � �. s • J t;' , . �; �'1E s A ;=R ¢7 Nb� ty a ! ' ?t b t: "SA �1 t �4 C. r 3 L � ,. ...„.,: {y � qi �," N+. t . ' k � k°'5 u , .. $ ' ' �.}z�4,4" Rt a Far , �4 b d9-,.....!:,-:,..,,,..',,7. ; m F� .. '.r,,4� d; . [ 'R�k 0 a ' � tt1 r * r ` w sc 1 �4Frt t f kk%^,-' „ � ' £ gY^`A �Fpp.. � o p, � "4 :�u 0 1$'e {i.. 44 x 0. 'T � :' w ^ t q* y¢ 7 s � i Y1 ! .."4:'',:v.,'''..,':40::,7-':,.4':,,,� & 'z A d�' rR� ;k± �� ; ,! t, # Y1h �0Rip 1 t M4� ,:. 1${ ��y l ,t F .' is ,o t g4` r r 1.,•"."••••;•..I.:•'.1: �y, d* = �r J�� d�T � .id b > er r.