The URL can be used to link to this page

2015-413-Minutes for Meeting August 17,2015 Recorded 9/3/2015 DESCHUTES OFFICIAL NANCYBLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERKS CJ 2015413 COMMISSIONERS ' JOURNAL 09/03/2015 10:08:34 All IIIIIjIIVIJIUIIIIIIIIIIIII1II iJ cis c a ery -1/4 { 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, AUGUST 17, 2015 Present were Commissioners Anthony DeBone, Tammy Baney and Alan Unger. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; David Doyle and Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; and, for a portion of the meeting, Wayne Lowry, Finance; Nick Lelack, Peter Gutowsky and Paul Blikstad, Community Development; Judith Ure, Administration; and Ken Hales, Community Justice. There were no representatives of the media in attendance. Chair DeBone opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. 1. Treasurer/Finance Update. Wayne Lowry indicated there are two months' reports to review. They are entering the time in the Treasurer's calendar when the balances start to decline since fewer tax payments are coming in. They are limited as to where investments can be made, and they are slightly over the amount allowed by County policy for corporate investments. This will adjust over the next sixty days. Market values are still higher than book values, and there is a lot of volatility in the market. The basis points are going up. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, August 17, 2015 Page 1 of 5 Pages The beginning balance budgeted amounts for departments are based on February projections. All had a higher beginning fund balance than expected, except for the Fair/Expo, which needed a general fund contribution of about $46,000. This should adjust as they continue to book events. There were about 40 vacant positions at the end of the year, which is fairly typical. Some of the departmental savings is from salaries not paid. Community Development finished the year very strong, so they are building reserves. Motor vehicle revenue for Road was higher than anticipated. Solid Waste revenue was also higher than expected. Tom Anderson said they have started having the landfills open on Sundays again, and are busy until about 4 PM. Mr. Lowry added that the Health Benefits fund is doing well, but this can change quickly. Justice Court finished with more revenue. Mr. Lowry did a presentation to highlight the Treasurer's page under Finance on the County website. It includes the Treasurer's and investment reports, and finance information provided to the Board. He spoke about the Finance/HR software project and the demonstrations given this month. There have been about fifty staff attending the various demonstrations. In Inside DC, for employees, is the Finance/HR software project update to keep employees informed of what is happening. There were documents created to have the vendors demonstrate certain aspects of their programs. This is a big deal with a lot of moving parts. It will help people change the way they work. It has not changed in about twenty years. 2. Discussion of Whether to Hear an Appeal — Nonfarm Dwelling (Clough). Paul Blikstad gave a brief overview of the item. This case went to a hearing for a couple of reasons. The homesite is on irrigated ground and there was some opposition from neighbors. The Hearings Officer denied the application. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, August 17, 2015 Page 2 of 5 Pages Lately they have seen people getting soils analyses to determine whether soil is suitable for farm use. In Code, there is a remnant standard that talks about the use of areas for septic systems and accessory buildings. It is only within the past few years they have started using the `generally unsuitable' terminology, which he feels is also the same as the `least suitable'. You cannot put a residence, accessory building or a drainfield on a rock pile. `Generally unsuitable' covers them on farm dwellings so they disagree with the Hearings Officer's claim that it has to be located on the least suitable. This could be a limited de novo Board hearing. Peter Gutowsky stated that it has to be generally unsuitable for farming or livestock. Case study says that other improvements have to be on this type of land since you cannot locate improvements on a rock pile. They have coordinated internally, and feel it is prudent to hear this matter. The land was subdivided in 1982. It is EFU and has an $80,000 test for farm income. All the adjacent parcels are similar and have dwellings. Chair DeBone asked if the language could be changed in Code. Mr. Lelack said they have always interpreted `generally unsuitable' to be the same as the `least unsuitable', so the Board needs to decide on this. Evidently, the Hearings Officer understood it differently. It might have been this way in the Administrative Rule at one point. Commissioner Unger asked if other Hearings Officers have been this specific. Mr. Gutowsky stated it depends on the complaint and the burden of proof. The Board chose to hear the appeal in order to give staff clarity and direction, on a limited de novo basis. They were instructed not to consider whether to hear this based on a letter from a citizen. The Board indicated they decided to hear this based on the staff report. BANEY: Move signature of Order No. 2015-042. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Chair vote yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, August 17, 2015 Page 3 of 5 Pages 3. Other Items. Ken Hales said the justice reinvestment program grant has been revised. It will be reviewed by PSCC as well. This is meant to keep inmates in the community, and there will be more funding than before. About 87% goes for direct services for clients, with the rest for victims' services and evaluation. He plans to finance the short-term transitional program, and alternatives to incarceration, for early release from prison; and the discretionary departure screening. The critical components are addressing the goals of 3944 and how to measure. This model is used widely throughout the state. It includes housing funds. The Commissioners asked if this is going to displace others who may need housing. Mr. Anderson stated that Bethlehem Inn added capacity to do this. Some folks will be doing departure assessments with this funding, but he asked if they could do other work. Mr. Hales stated they would fill in for other needs. All of the staff have a specialty caseload but are cross-trained. They are going to be focusing on the outcomes. They budgeted for an analyst positon, which they have never had before but need, with grants getting more complicated all the time. This should be funded for two years minimum. The State prefers to use these programs instead of having to build more prisons. He is aware of the burden of how the money is used. This money looks exactly like 1145 funding with the same philosophy. There can always be change that might require a layoff. He prefers not to advertise these positions as based on grant funding since the employees will be doing other work as well, not just work based on this particular funding. Mr. Anderson stated that any external money is not guaranteed. Some are granted for a specific project. Other are meant to handle normal operations and not on a temporary basis. The Board wants the employees to know that the positions are based on grant funds, at least in part. Mr. Hales said that 10% of the grant can be used for administrative costs as well. They will spend some funds on remodeling the facilities, and will soon have enough people in the programs building for it to be safer. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, August 17, 2015 Page 4 of 5 Pages He has spoken with the Sheriff regarding ideas relating to joint use of these funds. Mr. Anderson thinks there was some interest in the sober station, but the Sheriff has not indicated a desire to partner in this instance. Being no other items discussed, the meeting was adjourned at 2:50 p.m. DATED this /to — Day of 2015 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. 'f Anthony De/Bone, Chair th L.�LCv...- (kr-- Alan Unger, Vice Chair ATTEST: 2 Tammy Baney, o missioner ii Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, August 17, 2015 Page 5 of 5 Pages vies �Ufr" o<2 0 f { Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 17, 2015 1. Finance Update — Wayne Lowry 2. Discussion of Whether to Hear an Appeal —Nonfarm Dwelling (Clough) —Paul Blikstad 3. Other Items PLEASE NOTE:At any time during this meeting,an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2)(e),real property negotiations;ORS 192.660(2)(h),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. To request this information in an alternate format please call(541)330-4640, or email anna.iohnson@deschutes.orq. Monthly Meeting with Board of Commissioners Finance Director/Treasurer AGENDA August 17, 2015 (1) Monthly Investment Reports —June and July 2015 (2) June 2015 Financials M Met co O) 0 to M -y .. O O a f D E O O `-' O \°O \ 1\ \ \ \ O O .. a p > . 0 0 0 0 0 0 c N C• y (A M • • • � > = o N• W (r0 co u N d CO CO 0 .yC > jy c) co r M g 0 11: C to L6 W Tr T • 0 0 o C - OON Y Y C L ` LO CO CO C ix o 0 0 0 O 0 a of » N J an .�.,' co co d N Y V 7 J d c N N & O 1 v_ E U " m ✓ co co d C . F d a 3 w ca E " Z pap E Q LL U N O c Y C a - e -. e e e -.2 e e N N -d O U 0 0 A N N N O U Ea u� m c d c d E ro y c m E E o Y co)E - LL Y E C ac) .E. 5 m > E y - n m y E y O � c m e c d C a ® 3 i U d c ~ b O 0 ,800 E N N N > 2• m ¢ mr0 c @ >- >- c @ N O N ca L U .a co 'rL V r co c H ~ a a c °) C °- E M v a - E 0 O 7 _1 u_ m 1- 2 O F- 0 7 7 i 0 a. N n 20 N CI O N co. Y) A In. . .4°' G O O) N a- t0 0, N O` M a w N ` m 0000000 CO W :� Dc•o c OOOOO V V >, m wo F.=�in W OO al 0 F omn a, >• <on70r r N ao , .0 NC) - O V O) V C `o�N O Q a r CO') 10 0 7 cc 0 c U O y U > 69 CO > C U) V� R T nao m �o O O 4 a (2 O Y p C S O U w N N N N N .- U c a.CD ra I ) E O 8 O C 0 w .a 8UH taco � J CD as -8 a 3 d Uim 1- 7 _j F O I • Deschutes County Investments Portfolio Management Portfolio Details-Investments June 30,2015 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 7/9/2015 8 0.500 0.507 2,000000 2,000 000 2,000,000 - SY510316 .._.:Umpqua Bank......... ..... .. 7/9/2013 .... .... .. .._..... _........._.. . _.......__._.—......... ---..._... 45906KDG76 International Bonds for Recons CASTL E 12/19/2014 9/1/2015 62 AAP, Aaa 0.443 0.457 1,220,000 1,219,048 1,219,069 - - 86459DAB2 Morgan Hill Redev-B CASTLE 10/1/2014 9/1/2015 62 AA- 1.120 0,450 750,000 750,705 750,835 064159BA3 Bank of Nova Scotia CASTLE 4/3/2014 10/9/2015 100 A+ Aa2 0.750 0.621 540,000 540,378 540,189 - - .------..... ..._... ... - _.._....._... 11!1/2015 123 0.434 0.447 418,000.... 417,519 _.......... 88059EGU2 Tennessee Valle Authority CASTLE 12!4!2014 417,381 17275RAC6 Cisco Systems Inc CASTLE 2/27/2014 2/22/2016 236 AA- Al 5.500 0.550 1,874,000 1,931,682 1,933,116 06406HCG20 Bank of New York Mellon Corp CASTLE 4/4/2014 3/4/2016 247 A+ Al 0.700 0,681 1,000,000 999,940 1,000,127 2/3/2016 3133734F6 Federal Home Loan Bank CASTLE 5/2/2014 4/15/2016 289 AA+ Aaa 0.772 0.600 650,000 650,371 650,877 - - 478160AY0 Johnson&Johnson CASTLE 1/7/2014 5/15/2016 319 AAA Aaa 2.150 0.620 1,529,000 1,549,687. 1,549,223 - - 120022332 Lewis&Clark Bank 1218/2014 6/8/2016 343 1.000 1 014 240,000 240,000 240,000 9 Corporate 1,000,000 1,027,230 1,027,664 - - 949746008 Wells Fargo Cor orate Note VINISP 2/20/2014 6/15!2016 350 A+ A2 3.676 0.7 949746QU8 Wells Fargo Corporate Note CASTLE 10/2/2014 6/15/2016 350 A+ A2 3.676 0.870 1,000000 1,027,230 1.026,560 949746QU8 Wells Fargo Corporate Note CASTLE 12/12/2014 6/15/2016 350 A+ A2 3.676 0.860 1,000,000 1.027,230 1,026,677 686053CF4 Oregon School Boards Assoc CASTLE 3/7/2014 6/30/2016 365 Al' Aa2 0.000 0.999 3,000,000 2,980.770 2570,463 - - 686053CF4 Oregon School Boards Assoc CASTLE 6/23/2015 6/30/2016 365 AA- Aa2 0.605 0.609 1,400,000 1,391,026 1,391,534 - 31359YBY2 Federal National Mtg Assn CASTLE 10/16/2014 7/15/2016 380 0.354 0.365 1,693.000 1,682,588 1,686,683 - - Te y u.ho ry C.._ 88059EMP6 Tennessee Valle Authority CASTLE 10/29/2014 7/15!2016 380 0.490 0.507 2,000,000 1,987,320 1,989,852 7800871.,Bs Royal Bank of Canada CASTLE 11/26/2014 7/20/2016 385 AA- Aa3 2.300 0.800 1530,000 1,657 074 1,655,512 94974BFL9 Wells Fargo Corporate Note DA DAV 12/9/2014 7/20/2016 385 Al' A2 1.250 0.834 1,000 000 1,004,240 1,004,344 - - 912828QX1 U.S.Treasury MBS 6/19/2014 7/31/2016 396 AA- Aaa 1.500 0.548 1,000000 1.012 1.012,190 1,010,246 - - 084670BB3 Berkshire Hathaway Inc CASTLE 12/9/2014 8/15/2016 411 AA Aa2 2.200 0.690 2,000,000 2,032.720 2,033,627 - - 005158VD9 Ada County SD PJ 6/1/2015 8/15/2016 411 AA+ Aa1 2.000 0.570 1,160,000 1,177,261 1,178,519 - - 3134G5GE9 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE 12/2/2014 8/26/2016 422 AA+ Aaa 0.570 0.540 3,000,000 3,001,830 3500,319 8/26/2015 3133EDUM2 Federal Farm Credit Bank CASTLE 2/23/2015 9/9/2016 436 AA+ Aaa 0.640 0.640 2,000000 2,002,060 2,000,000' 9/9/2015 31359YLS4 Federal National Mtg Assn PJ 3/5/2014 9/15/2016 _ 442 AA+ Aaa 0.778 0.812 672,000 667,424 665,578 90521APH5 MUFG Union Bank MBS 3/11/2015 9/26/2016 453 A+ A2 1500 1.113 1,800,000 1,805,688 1,808,395 8/26/2016 90521APH5 MUFG Union Bank CASTLE 3/17/2015 9/26/2016 453 A+ A2 1.500 1.085 775,000 777,449 778,932 8/26/2016 3130A1CD8 Federal Home Loan Bank CASTLE 7/17/2014 9/28/2016 455 AA+ Aaa 1.125 0.728 2,000,000 2,005,220 2,003,468 9/28/2015 072031AC1 Bay Area Water Supply CASTLE 6/22/2015 10/1/2016 458 AA Aa2 0.854 0.800 1,000,000 1,001,000 1,000,667 - - 736754MC3 City of Portland Water PJ 6/12/2015 10/1/2016 458 Aa1 5.000 0,560 940,000 991,333 991,896 - - 89114QAE8 Toronto Dominion Bank CASTLE 5/8/2015 10/19/2016 476 AA- Aal 2.375 0,820 1,800,000 1,833,984 1,836,089 - - 3130A3B45 Federal Home Loan Bank MBS 10/28/2014 10/28/2016 485 AA+ Aaa 0.700 0.659 _ 750,000 750,360 750,197 10/28/2015 912828RM4 U.S.Treasury CASTLE 12/27/2013 10/31/2016 488 AA+ Aaa 1000 0.727 1,000,00(3 1,007,580 1,003,596 3133EE8U3 Federal Farm Credit Bank PJ 12/10/2014 11/14/2016 502 AA+ Aaa 0.600 0.648 2,000,000 2,001,420. 1,998,693 - - 0605UTLR1 Bank of America-Corporate CASTLE 5/13/2014 11/14/2016 502 A A2 1.125 1.050 1,000,000 1,000270. 1,001,007 - 3133ECWV2 Federal Farm Credit Bank CASTLE 12/17/2013 12/7/2016 525 AA+ Aaa 0.875 0.722 2,100,000 2,111 634 2,104,750 - 064159DA1 Bank of Nova Scotia CASTLE 6/9/2014 12/13/2016 531 At Aa2 1.100 0.910 1,800,000 1,802,952 1,804,885 - - 06406HCA5 Bank of New York Mellon Corp CASTLE 4/23/2014 1/17/2017 566 A+ Al 2.400 1.067 2,000 000 2,039,420 2,040,457 12/18/2016 912828SC5 U.S.Treasury CASTLE 1/16/2014 1/31/2017 580 AA+ Aaa 0.875 0.844 2,000,000 2,011,100 2,000,979 - 742651 DN9 Private Expt Prig PJ 11/20/2014 2/15/2017 595 1.375 0.799 3,000 000 3,016,680 3,027,727 - - 742651DN9 Private Expt Fdg CASTLE 6/12/2015 2/15/2017 595 A+ Aaa 1.375 0.941 1,100,000 1,106,116 1,107,670 - - 88059E4C5 Tennessee Valley Authority CASTLE 5/15/2015 3/15/2017 623 0.684 0.709 2,443,000 2,411,730 2,414,082 - - I 064159DZ6_ Bank of Nova Scotia CASTLE 5/1/2014 3/17/2017 625 A+ Aa2 0.800 0.906 1,000,000 999,450 998,216 3/17/2016 984135AB9 Berkshire Hathaway Inc CASTLE 4/10/2015 4/1/2017 640 AA Aa2 5.150 1.060 370,000 394,605 396,136 984135AB9 Berkshire Hathaway Inc CASTLE 6/26/2015 4/1/2017 640 AA Aa2 5.150 1.201 1,000,000 1,066,500 1,068,159 - - 912828550 U.S.Treasury WF 1/17/2014 4/30/2017 669 AAA Aaa 0.875 0.950 2,000,000 2,010,160 1,997,297 - - 91159HH05 'US Bancorp CASTLE 4/23/2015 5/15/2017 684 A+ Al 1.650 0.882 1,000,000 1,012,050 1,014,155 4/15/2017 3135GOZD8 Federal National Mtg Assn PJ 10/7/2014 W16/2017 685 AA+ Aaa 2.000 1.127 3,000,000 3,042 810 3,036,511 5/16/2016 961214CH4 Westpac CASTLE 4/7/2015 5/19/2017 688 AA- Aa2 1.200 1.061 2,000,000 2,004,240 2,005,161 - - WASH FED CD Washington Federal CD 5/20/2015 5/22/2017 691 0.900 0,913 200,000 200,000 200,000 - - 3136FPYB7 Federal National Mtg Assn VINISP 2/7/2014 5/23/2017 692 AA. Ace 2.050 0.885 1,460,000 1,495,463 1,491,677 31359MEL3 Federal National Mtg Assn CASTLE 12/23/2013 6/1/2017 701 AA* Aaa 1.061 1.115 1,000,000 984,620 979,333 - - 31359MEL.37 Federal National Mtg Assn CASTLE 1/24/2014 6/1/2017 701 AA- Aaa 1.081 1.136 1,050,000 1,033,851 1,027,894 - - 31771CS97 FICOStrip CASTLE 12/9/2014 6/6/2017 706 Aaa 1.019 1.065 1,028,000 1,011,501 10-07,455 - - 29270CYZ2 'Bonneville Power Administratio CASTLE 4/24/2014 7/1/2017 731 AA- Aa1 1.197 1.171 670,000 669,276 670,349 - - 84247PHS3 Southern CA Public Power Autho CASTLE 6/17/2014 7/1/2017 731 AA- 1.145 1.180 1,000,000 996,350 999,309 - - 3137EADV8 Federal Horne Loan Mtg Corp MBS 5/29/2015 7/14/2017 744 Aaa 0.750 0.787 1,000,000 999,980 999,253 - 3135G0ZF3 Federal National Mtg Assn VINISP 4/6/2015 7/28/2017 758 AA+ Aaa 1.070 0.865 2,000,000 2,005,400. 2,007,674 7/28/2016 98385XAL0 XTO Energy Inc CASTLE 6/17/2015 8/1/2017 762 AAA Aaa 6.250 1.180 2,000,000 2,208,920 2.207,978 - - 005158VE7 Ada County SD PJ 6/1/2015 8/15/2017 776 AA+ Aa1 3.000 0,930 1,000,000 1,041,180 1,043,367 - - 912828TM2 U.S.Treasury CASTLE 9/10/2014 8/31/2017 792 0.625 1.061 1,000,000 998,280 990,713 - - 912828TM2 U.S.Treasury CASTLE 2/19/2015 8/31/2017 792 0.625 0.920 1,000,000 998,280 993,705 313383JB8 Federal Home Loan Bank VINISP 12/26/2013 9/27/2017 819 AA+ Aaa 1.000 1.250 1,000,000 1,003,610 994.547 - - 3136G0074 Federal National Mtg Assn VINISP 2/3/2014 9/27/2017 819 AA* Aaa 1.000 0.943 1,050,000 1,051,575 1,051,314 9/27/2015 31771KAD90 FICO Strip DA DAV 12/10/2014 11/30/2017 883 Aaa 1.205 1.267 2,000,000 1,954760 1,940,873 88059FAZ4 Tennessee Valley Authority CASTLE 11/21/2014 12/15/2017 898 AA+ 1.205 1.268 1,059,000 1,029,337 1,027,159 . ------..._ P ........... .._.2 .._... _..._ 2505,418 _ - ........ 961214825 West ac CASTLE 3/5!2015 1212/2018 926 AA- Aa2 1.600 1.490 2.000 OOD 2,n06 100 31771EAL5 FICOStrip CASTLE 2/24/2015 2/8/2018 953 1.252 1.318 1,260,000 1,223284 1218,224_ - 31771EAL5 FICO Strip CASTLE 2/25/2015 2/8/2018 953 1.257 1.323 740,000 718,436 715,366: - - 06050TLY6 'Bank of America-Corporate CASTLE 5/14/2016 3/26/2018 999 A A2 1.650 1.570 2,000 000 1,997,020 2,004,276 - - 06050TLY6 Bank of America-Corporate CASTLE 5/21/2015 3/26/2018 999 A A2 1.650 1,540 1,000,000 998,510 1,002,927 - - 68607VG665 Oregon State Lottery DA DAV 6/12/2015 4/1/2018 1005 AAA Aa2 5.000 1,120 610,000 676,386 673,885 - - 904121NC0 Umatilla School District PJ 5/7/2015 6/15/2018 1080 AA+ 1.430 1.430 750,000 750,210 750,000 - - 939307HF4 44 0 Hillsboro SD Pension Bonds PJ 3/30/2015 6/30/2018 1095 Aa3 1.732 1.65 985,000 993,944 _..__.—__ —.. 987,3 . — 3134G6HA43 'Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp CAS ILE 5/29/2015 9/18/2018 1175 AA+ Aaa 1.500 1.444 1,000,000 1,001,610. 1,001,272 9/18/2015 3136G16B0 Federal National Mtg Assn VINISP 1/21/2014 12/27/2018 1275 AA+ Aaa 0.750 1.820 1,000 000 999,620 979,335 9/27/2015 912828A75 U.S.Treasury CASTLE 6/8/2015 12/31/2018 1279 AAA Aaa 1.500 1,324 1,000,000 1,009,840 1,005,986 • - SYS10078 Local Govt Investment Pool 1 0,540 0.540 28,963,494 28,963,494 28,963,494 - - anko 0.500 4,949,985 4,949,985' 4,949,985 - SYS10084 Bank of the Cascades 1 0.500 137,429,479, 138,152,097'. 138,047,443, in Lo r- ao 4 NY N w- in ■ Lo co co _c a) 9 ' ON7 co O ..o e o .. c A 0 e. g d OD N 0 LO O', 0 up C O in f L �! co co �O L) C N } .2 C1 0 C? L G O G N d *. 1. a O cis N 6. A A •A 2 O■ co = O to U) c c i .- a rn v� _ L L LL L(7 Lc-) CO co C a L L � r� co go - ° SJ 0) co o O „I; o V ��+ O O� Q� ❑ to j ID CO CO C cc C m O r in GCO 2Q2 "C 1" C C eA 69 NJ CCI 0 M • • N CV II 2 co co N N J 0 C• N N O E U TA al 7• 6g 64 Z m a LL O ) = j N C 3 C , oo o o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 o O O ° M N in N N r N 0 U E t- m 2 '2) ai a,) iii m w c E E = C N O W X aj U 4) ) " '5 E I— ft In' > N CD Q . O 0 - fn o N 7 ... Q N c) C >ft f0 I6 U Q Lt7 ~ F- - Q 0 M -0 -0 NUo r o o , c c C7 U D iu. [n - U 1- o D D ' T o o e ° 0 0 , D o O 0 Q N © W. M N O T.' r M N n r � 3 o COOOC) N N O O O CO ap CO C N mU)� O. 5 H co co O O ° co c- F=m V•, A O uSa0006 � N- N CO 4- 0 0 O N i- t m y e ov Q `n F-�a m o z cv O a)It 0 �R ' to i 5Qa ,,\\, ,;g;',4,; ifr 71 ;ow.e_co CD _ 0 `� cn ai C p �� O .(1) a U ft I-- a) O a u 0 cu v) ro m cu a_ ¢ 0 C N 0. U 1- 2 J 6 C O' N UJ 'O Q. +g+ ,, 2U1- : ui � I-- O Deschutes County Investments i._.._.. ...._...._... Portfolio Management Portfolio Details Investments July 31,2015 Purchase Maturity Days To Ratings Coupon - Par ! Market t Book Call P - CUSIP i Security Broker Y Y - i..- .. Y ;S&P Rate YTM 866', Value ; Value Value Date Date Date Maturity Mood s 45906KDG76 I International Bonds for Recons CASTLE 12/19/2014' 9/1/2015 31 AAA ,Aaa 0,443. 0A57 1,220,000 1,219,500' 1,219,535 - - rA __.. - .:--- -..._.0 ......._._..-,0 Aa2 0750 0.621 540A0+ 750,368 750,417 - - 064159BA3 I Bank of Nova Scotia - CASTLE 413/2014: 10/9/2015 69 A+ 540,178 540,131 - - 86459DAB2 Mor an Hill Redev-B CASTLE 10/1/2014 9/1/2015 31 AA 1 120 0.450 750,000 17275RAC6 Cisco Systems Inc CASTLE 2/27/2014 1111/2015 92 0.434 0.447 418,000 000 417,628 417,537 - - 88059EGU2 Tennessee Valley Authority ---- m ._. Corp -_ Bank of New York Mellon CASTLE 4!4!2014 2/22/2016 205 AA Al 5 500 0.550 174 000 178,862 178,776 3133734F8 Federal Home Loan Bank CASTLE 5/2/2014 I 1 651,318 1 650,78 2/3/2016 06406HCG20 3/4!2016 216 A+ Al 0 700 0.681 1,000 000 4/15/2016 258 AA+ Aaa 0 772 0,600 650 000 650,358 650,784 - - 478160AY0 FJohnson&Johnson CASTLE 1/7/2014 5/15/2016 288 AAA Aaa 2.150. 0.620 1,529000 1,548,846 1,547,291: - - 1 - - -- 240 000 240,000 240,000 9497460U8 I Wells Fargo Corporate Note ;VINISP 2/20/2014 6/15/2016 319 A+ A2 3.676 0.750 1,024,830_,L 1,024,830 1,000000 1025,252 - 9497480U8 120022332 Lewis&Clark Bank 12/8/2014 6/8/2016 312 1 00 CASTLE 1 12/12/2014 6/15/2016 319,A+ A2 3.676 0.860 9 1,000,000 1,024,830 1,024,3511 - - --- ----- ..... --- -------A+ A2 3.676 _.__... _— - - 949746QU8 Wells Fargo_C_Corporate Note CASTLE 10/2/2014 6/15/2016 319 '-- --- - -- 2,972,972~---- g School s ... ... /2016.._ _...__..._.- 0,605 0.999 3,400 000 2 392,132...... 1,392,253 886053CF4 Oregon School Boards Assoc CASTLE • 3/7/2014 6/30/2016 334 A+ Aa2 0.000' 31359YBY2 Federal National Mtg Assn CASTLE 10/18/2014 7/15/2016 349 Aa2 0.354 0.365 1,693000 1,683,282 1 687,198', - - 686053CF4 Oregon ho Boards Assoc CASTLE 6/23/2015 6/30/2016 334 . - - -___0.490 2,000.000 1,988,180 1,990,496 88059EMP6 Tennessee Valle Authority CASTLE 10/29!2014 7/15/2016 349 0490 0.507 __- Y--- _-,.-. __14 _-20--- . 1,630,000 1,853,521 1,653,492 78008TLB8 Royal Bank of Canada CASTLE 11/26/2014 7/20/2016 354�AA Aaa 2 300, 0.800 --- - 0.834. 1,000000 1,004,490 1,004,001 - 84974BFL9 Wells Fargo Car orate Note DA DAV 12/9/2014'. 7120!2016 354 A+ A2 1 250 912828QX1 U.S.Treasury MBS 6/19/2014 7/31/2016 365 AA- :Aaa 1.500` 0.548 1,000000 1,011,250 1,009,444 - 084670BB3 'Berkshire Hathaway Inc CASTLE 12/9/2014 8/15/2016 380 AA Aa2 2.200 0.690+ 2,000 000 2,029,400' 2,031,130 3134G5GE9 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp ASTLE 12/2/2014 8/26/2016 391AA+ .Aaa 0 570: 0.540 3,1,160,000 1,176,855,1 1 170,145 - �- 3,000 000 3 000 630 3 000,145 8/26/2015 9 p T 3/5/2014 9/15!2016 411 2,000,000 9/9/2015 0.812 672,000 667,800 505158VD9 Ada County SD PJ 6/1/2015 8/15/2016 380 AA Aa Federal Farm Credit Bank CASTLE 2/23/2015 9/9/2016 405 AA+ •Aaa 0.6401 0.8401 2,000,000 2,001,080 31359YLS4 Federal National Mt Assn PJ AA+ Aaa o 778 688,028 - 90521APH5 IMUFG Union Bank I MBS 3/1112015 9/26/2016 422 A+ A2 1.500 1.113 1,800,000 1,810,782-7 1,807,788 8/26/2016 31 _r-_ _ 0.728;.. 775,000 779,642 778,667' 8/26/2016 90521APH5 MUFG Union Bank CASTLE 3/17/2015 9/26/2016 422.A A2 1.500 +000,000 2,002,360' 2,002,2851 9/28/2015 3130A1CD8 Federal Home Loan Bank CASTLE 7/17/2014, 9128/2018' 424.AA+ ,Aaa 1.125 072031AC1 :Bay Area Water Supply CASTLE 6/22/2015 10/1/2016 427 AA Aa2 0.854 0.800 940,000 990,130---y 1,000000 1,001,2801 1,000622 - - 89114QAE8 'Toronto Dominion Bank 'CASTLE_ 5/8/2015 10/19/2016 445 AA- fAa1 2.375 0.820 1,800,000 1,832,004 1833,776. - - 3130A3545 Federal Home Loan Bank MBS !10/28/20141.10/28/2016 454 AA+ Aaa 0.700 0.659 _ 750,000 750,188 988,437 50,147 10/28/2015 736754MC3 _City of Portland Water _PJ CASTLE 12/27/2013 10/31/2016 457 AA+ Aaa 1.000 6/12/2015 10/1/2016 427 Aa1_ 5.000 912828RM4 U.S.Treasury CAS 1,007,030 1,003,368 - - 3133EEBU3 Federal Farm Credit Bank PJ 12/10/2014' 11/14/2016 471 Aaa 0.600 2,100,000. 2 001 6401 1,998,772 - --- --- 2,000 Op0 06050TLR1 Bank of America Corporate 1 CASTLE 5/13/2014 3133ECWV2 :Federal Farm Credit Bank CASTLE 12/17/2013 12/7/2016 494 AA+ Aaa 0.875 0,722: 2,100 000 1 00 274 1,104,473. - 2,108,274 1 2,104,473 -- ---�---._. _....._ 11/14/2016 471 A....... Al --1 125 1.0 0. ..-... ---........ ..... 1,802,628 1,804,804 912828SC5 U.S. e Treasury York tMellon Co CASTLE 1 4/23/2014!6/2014 1/31/2017 549 AA+ -Aaa 0 875 0.844 2,000,000 2,030,460 2 000,924 12/18/2016 12/13/2016 500 A+ Aa2 1 100 0.910 1,800,000 Al Z 400 1.07 2,000 000 2,010,4601 2,000,927 742651DN9 Private P 9 PJ 2/15/2017, 564 A+ Aaa 1.375 0.799 3,000 000 3,028,2001 3,026,303 - 064159DZ6 Bank Nova Scotia CASTLE 18 211/2014' 3/17/2017 1,9 5,650 1,198,303 - - = 59411 A* ._ 2/15/2017_ 564 A Aaa 1 375 0.941 1,100005 995,650 998,303 3117/2016__ 984135AB9 ,Berkshire 4/1/2017 609 AA Aa2 5.150 1.0601 370,000 -- --- __ ' _...._' 394,891 - 063 377 ..._ Hathaway 4/30/2017, 638 AA+ Aaa I 0 875 0.950 2,000,000 2,009,060 5/15/2017 1,064,913 J.984135AB9 Berkshire Hathaway Inc CASTLE 6/2612 01 5 912828550 :U.S.Treasury WF 1/17/2014 � 4/1/2017- 608 AA Aa2 - 5 150. - 1.201 :...... 1----- � 1,997,422 - 1,000,000 3135G0ZD8 Federal National Mtg Assn 5/16/2017 654 AA+ Aaa PJ ___-- 2.000 1.127 3,000,000 1,013,496 4/15/2017 3,036,480 10/7/2014 5/19/2017 857 AA- Aa2 1.200 1.061 2,000,000 3,033,033 5/16/2016 91159HHD5 4/23/2015' A+ Al 1650 0.882 1,000,000 US Bancorp CASTLE 961214CH4 Westpac CASTLE 4/7/2015 2,002,820 2,004,932. - - WASH FED CD Washington Federal CD 5/20/2015 5/22/2017 660 0.900 0.913 200,000 200,0001 200,000 - - 9 1,495,493 1,481,923 - - 31359MEBL3 ''Federal National Mtg Assn CASTLE ,12/23/2013. 56/1/2017 6770'AA+ .Aaa 1.061 1.115 1,000,000. 31359MEL37 Federal National Mtg Assn CASTLE 1/24/2014 6/1/2017 670 AA- Aaa 1 081 1.136 1,050,0001 1,035,773 1,028,872• - -. 31771CS97 FICO Strip CASTLE 12/9/2014. 6/6/2017 675 Aaa 1,008,357 - - 1 29270CYZ2 70,335 - - :Bonneville Bonnawlle Power Administratio CASTLE 4/24/2014 7/1/2017 700',AA- Aa1 1.197 1.171 1,028,000 670 OOD 1,012,344 669,431 84247PH53 Southern CA Public Power Autho ,CASTLE 6/17/2014 7/1/2017 700 AA- 1.145 1.180 1,000.0001 996,680' 999,338 - - rp II- / 7/14/2017 71- 0.750 00 - , 999,230 999,283 - - 3135G0ZF3 Federal National Mtg Assn VIN SP 5/29/2015 7/28/2017 727 AA+ Aaa 1 070 0.865. 2,000_000 2,007,340' 2,007,079 7/28/2016 98385XAL0 XTO Energy Inc CASTLE 6/17/2015 8/112017 731 AAA Aaa 6_250. 1.180' 2,000 000 2,200,680 2,199,659 - - 005158VE7 Ada County SD 1PJ 6/1/2015 8/15J2017 745 I AA+ Aal 3.000 0.9301 1,000000, 1,040,5201 1,041,664. - - 3130A8285 Federal Home Loan Bank CASTLE 7/24/2015 8/28/2017 758 Aaa 0.750 0.858 1,000,000 998,990 997,781 - - ._.. .T CASTLE , 1 .9 1 00 998,200' 991,077 - 912828TM2 U S.Treasury CASTLE 9/10/2014 8/31/2017 761 AA+ Aaa 0 625 1.061 1,000 0W 912828TM2 U.S.U Treasury 'CA 2/19!2015 8/31/2017 781 AA+ Aaa 0.625 0.920 1,000 Op0 r 998,200 993,952 - 313383JB8 Federal Home Loan Bank 1VINISP 12/26/2013 9/27/2017 788'AA+ Aaa 1.000 1.250 1.000 000 1,003,890 994,750 - - 3136GOC74 1Federal National Mtg Assn VINISP ' 2/3/2014, 9/27/2017 788 AA+ .Aaa 1.000 0.943, 1,050000, 1,051,103-7 1,051,265 9/2.7/2015 31771KAD90 I Tenn Strip y ry �DA DAV 1 12/10/2014 11/30/2017 852 Aaa 1205 1.2671 2,000,000, 1,951,460E 1,942,949 - - p.. 1.600 1.490 2,000,000 2,007,100 1,028,258 - - 88059FAZ4 :Tennessee Valle Authors CASTLE '11/21/2014 12/15/2017 887 AA+ 1 205 1.268. 1,059,000 1,030,523, 1, 961214BZ5 Westpac CASTLE 3/5/2015 1/12/2018 895 AA Aa2 2,005,240 - - 31771EAL5 FICOStrip _ __ _ CASTLE 2/24/2015 2/8/2018 922 -- 1.252 1.318 1,260,000, 1,227,631 1,219,583 - - ..—._. X740 000 720,989 716,168 B -.� ._ I 570 60 31771EAL5 FICOStnp CASTLE 2/25!2015- 2/8/2018 822. 1.257 1.823 1,985,760 2004,148 - - 06050TLY8 Bank of America Corporate CASTLE 5/14/2015. 3/26/2018 968 A Al 1.850 1.5701 2,000,000' 1 -- .._. .. 997 880 1,002,838 06050TLY6 Bank of America-Corporate CASTLE 5/21/2015 3/26/2018 968 A :Al 1,050 500 904121 NCO _ 5/7/2015 6/15/2018 _ 675,813'93 750,000 - - Umatilla School District PJ 1 974 AAA Aa2 5 000 1.120 __ 1049 AA+ .i. 1 430 1.430 750 000 752,093, 750,000, - - ns Lottery T 1.650 985,000: 987,270 - - II -_ Aaa 1 7321 88857VG885 Oregon State Lotte DA DAV 6/12/2015 4/1/2018 3134G6HA43 Hillsboro SD Pension Bonds PJ 3/30/2015 6/30/201$ x064�+ Aaa 1.500 996 2391 911812015 CASTLE T 1.444i1 1,000000 1,001,320 1000,776, 1.820 1,000 000 1,000,290 979,829 9/27/2.01.5 313fiG16B0 Federal National Mtg Assn VINISP 1/21/2014 12/27/2018 31i2018 9/18/201 912828A75 U.S.Treasury - CASTLE 6/8/2015 1,000,000 1 011,2501 1,005,841 - - Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp _ _ 1248 AAA Aaa O 500T ---- ----- SYS10078 Local Govt Investment Pool 1 1 0.540 1.324 I 0.540 27,506 747 27 506,747 27 506,747 - - SYS10084 Bank of the Cascades 5.540 6,337,636 6,337,636 6,337,636 - - 132,217,383 132,900,656 132,761,197, r y Memorandum Date: August 5, 2015 To: Board of County Commissioners Tom Anderson, County Administrator From: Wayne Lowry, Finance Director RE: Monthly Financial Reports Attached please find Preliminary Fiscal Year End 2015 financial reports for the following funds: General (001), Community Justice - Juvenile (230), Sheriff's (255, 701 , 702), Public Health (259), Behavioral Health (275), Community Development (295), Road (325), Community Justice - Adult (355), Early Learning Hub (370), Solid Waste (610), Insurance Fund (670), 9-1-1 (705), Health Benefits Fund (675), Fair & Expo Center (618), and Justice Court (123). Cc: All Department Heads Deschutes County FY 2016 Beginning Net Working Capital Budget to Actual (Preliminary)Comparison 1 Actual Beginning Budgeted Net Working Beginning Net Capital(as of Fund Working Capital August 4, 2015) Variance General Fund 8,630,800 9,746,606 1,115,806 Community Justice-Juvenile 1,271,324 1,278,464 7,140 LED#1 4,616,439 4,698,963 82,524 LED#2 2,536,601 3,057,938 521,337 Public Health 1,789,387 1,833,658 44,271 Behavioral Health 3,893,237 4,326,698 433,461 Community Development 1,600,000 2,174,995 574,995 Road 9,298,470 11,380,457 2,081,987 Community Justice-Adult 662,516 864,634 202,118 Early Learning Hub 274,299 342,253 67,954 Solid Waste 646,922 1,170,823 523,901 Insurance Fund 3,200,000 3,871,735 671,735 Health Benefits Fund 13,190,000 14,203,821 1,013,821 Fair& Expo Center 100,000 58,723 (41,277) Justice Court 60,000 81,603 21,603 GENERAL FUND Statement of Financial Operating Data July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015(as of FY 2014 August 4, 2015) FY 2016 Actual Budget f Actual I $ Variance Adopted Revenues Property Taxes-Current 21,906,239 22,736,401 23,218,789 482,388 24,090,700 Property Taxes-Prior 704,120 576,500 647,334 70,834 500,000 Other General Revenues 2,116,386 2,247,299 2,302,484 55,185 2,552,960 Assessor 875,381 876,137 819,454 (56,683) 795,202 County Clerk 1,276,019 1,181,190 1,650,844 469,654 1,534,420 BOPTA 16,097 16,117 13,342 (2,775) 11,154 District Attorney 226,973 182,612 274,306 91,694 182,612 Tax Office 236,278 222,199 219,175 (3,024) 192,379 Veterans 80,787 101,986 86,450 (15,536) 70,900 Property Management 91,900 25,000 90,113 65,113 75,000 Grant Projects 2,000 - - - .. Total Revenues 27,532,179 28,165,441 29,322,290 1,156,849 30,005,327 Expenditures Assessor 3,559,750 3,793,770 3,697,588 96,182 4,125,299 County Clerk 1,293,531 1,536,210 1,372,852 163,358 1,624,716 BOPTA 59,895 70,777 60,320 10,457 65,634 District Attorney 5,382,874 5,835,377 5,375,083 460,294 6,146,851 Tax Office 796,232 877,907 777,731 100,176 865,513 Veterans 292,672 359,989 330,582 29,407 388,779 Property Management 248,054 271,569 264,768 6,801 293,574 Grant Projects 130,054 - - - Non-Departmental 1,432,177 1,148,696 1,130,753 17,943 1,163,643 Total Expenditures 13,195,239 13,894,295 13,009,679 884,616 14,674,009 Transfers Out 16,327,584 15,116,394 14,947,204 169,190 15,537,408 Total Exp&Transfers 29,522,823 29,010,689 27,956,883 1,053,806 30,211,417 Change in Fund Balance (1,990,644) (845,248) 1,365,407 2,210,655 (206,090) Beginning Fund Balance 10,371,843 7,692,433 8,381,199 688,766 8,630,800 Ending Fund Balance $ 8,381,199 $ 6,847,185 $ 9,746,606 $2,899,421 $8,424,710 FY 2016 Ending Balance as a percentage of FY 2016 tax revenues 34.3%I Page 1 COMM JUSTICE-JUVENILE Statement of Financial Operating Data July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015(as FY 2014 of August 4, 2015) FY 2016 Actual Budget Actual f $Variance Adopted Revenues OYA Basic&Diversion 322 574 359 149 362,333 3,184 382,817 O , State Grant - 91,379 82,128 (9,251) 91,379 Inmate/Prisoner Housing 47,550 40,000 89,850 49,850 55,000 Jail Funding HB#2712 36,311 36,568 36,226 (342) 36,568 Food Subsidy 23,988 24,000 18,394 (5,606) 24,000 Interfund Grant-Gen Fund 20,000 20,000 20,000 - 20,000 Interest on Investments 7,611 7,000 9,751 2,751 7,000 Leases 5,200 - 7,694 7,694 7,200 SB#1065-Court Assess. 17,335 6,000 24,768 18,768 17,000 Contract Payments 7,415 4,500 9,032 4,532 6,000 Discovery Fee 1,870 3,800 - (3,800) - Case Supervision Fee - - 8,192 8,192 6,000 Federal Grants 9,434 - 1,205 1,205 - CFC Interfund Grant 125,429 - - - - Miscellaneous 909 1,025 1,434 409 950 Total Revenues 625,626 593,421 671,008 77,587 653,914 Expenditures Personnel Services 4,887,572 5,146,491 4,994,826 151,665 5,319,157 Materials and Services 1,035,701 1,057,441 1,007,010 50,431 1,153,324 Capital Outlay - 1,100 - 1,100 100 Transfers Out-Veh Reserve 3,660 3,660 3,660 - 3,660 Total Expenditures 5,926,933 6,208,692 6,005,496 203,196 6,476,241 Revenues less Expenditures (5,301,306) (5,615,271) (5,334,488) 280,783 (5,822,327) Transfers In-General Fund 5,368,346 5,368,346 5,368,346 - 5,464,591 Change in Fund Balance 67,040 (246,925) 33,858 280,783 (357,736) Beginning Fund Balance 1,177,566 1,250,000 1,244,605 (5,395) 1,271,324 Ending Fund Balance $ 1,244,605 $1,003,075 $1,278,464 $ 275,389 $ 913,588 FY 2016 Ending Balance as a percentage of FY 2016 operating budget 14.1% Page 2 SHERIFF-Consolidated Statement of Financial Operating Data July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015(as FY 2014 of August 4, 2015) FY 2016 Actual Budget Actual $Variance Adopted Revenues(Funds 701 &702) Law Enf Dist Countywide 20,624,082 20,365,842 21,370,013 1,004,171 23,138,385 Law Enf Dist Rural 12,526,331 12,751,766 12,953,906 202,140 13,467,486 Total Revenues 33,150,413 33,117,608 34,323,919 1,206,311 36,605,871 Expenditures (Fund 255) Sheriffs Services 2,308,182 2,533,673 2,528,482 5,191 2,942,625 Civil/Special Units 1,132,029 1,192,980 1,217,148 (24,168) 1,205,467 Automotive/Communications 1,701,586 1,886,365 1,854,583 31,782 1,934,375 Investigations/Evidence 1,418,744 1,627,803 1,604,049 23,754 1,751,548 Patrol 8,247,222 8,712,500 8,408,986 303,514 8,814,658 Records 761,260 798,805 769,983 28,822 775,751 Adult Jail 14,277,113 15,397,472 15,334,637 62,835 16,035,619 Court Security 294,563 302,867 356,041 (53,174) 311,175 Emergency Services 194,888 387,102 373,205 13,897 220,485 Special Services 1,352,528 1,655,424 1,587,532 67,892 1,590,250 Training 506,938 551,318 501,561 49,757 576,528 Other Law Enforcement Svcs 801,895 811,498 766,206 45,292 807,198 Non-Departmental 81,701 72,813 72,813 - 93,312 Total Expenditures 33,078,650 35,930,620 35,375,225 555,395 37,058,991 Revenues less Expenditures 71,763 (2,813,012) (1,051,306) 1,761,706 (453,120) DC Comm Syst Reserve 200,000 200,000 200,000 - 200,000 Transfer to Reserve Funds 200,000 200,000 200,000 - 200,000 Change in Fund Balance (328,237) (3,213,012) (1,451,306) 1,761,706 (853,120) Beginning Fund Balance 9,553,793 7,658,937 9,225,556 1,566,619 7,153,040 Ending Fund Balance $ 9,225,556 $ 4,445,925 $7,774,250 $ 3,328,325 $ 6,299,920 Page 3-A • SHERIFF -Fund 255 Statement of Financial Operating Data July 1, 2014 through June 30,2015(as FY 2014 of August 4,2015) FY 2016 1 Actual Budget Actual $Variance Adopted Revenues(Fund 255) Law Enf Dist Countywide 20,817,324 25,428,019 22,624,959 (2,803,060) 27,574,824 Law Enf Dist Rural 12,278,716 14,948,526 12,750,265 (2,198,261) 15,784,087 Total Revenues 33,096,040 40,376,545 35,375,225 (5,001,320) 43,358,911 Expenditures (Fund 255) Sheriffs Services 2,308,182 2,533,673 2,528,482 5,191 2,942,625 Civil/Special Units 1,132,029 1,192,980 1,217,148 (24,168) 1,205,467 Automotive/Communications 1,701,586 1,886,365 1,854,583 31,782 1,934,375 Investigations/Evidence 1,418,744 1,627,803 1,604,049 23,754 1,751,548 Patrol 8,247,222 8,712,500 8,408,986 303,514 8,814,658 Records 761,260 798,805 769,983 28,822 775,751 Adult Jail 14,277,113 15,397,472 15,334,637 62,835 16,035,619 Court Security 294,563 302,867 356,041 (53,174) 311,175 Emergency Services 194,888 387,102 373,205 13,897 220,485 Special Services 1,352,528 1,655,424 1,587,532 67,892 1,590,250 Training 506,938 551,318 501,561 49,757 576,528 Other Law Enforcement Svcs 801,895 811,498 766,206 45,292 807,198 Non-Departmental 81,701 72,813 72,813 - 93,312 Total Expenditures 33,078,650 35,930,620 35,375,225 555,395 37,058,991 Revenues less Expenditures $ 17,390 $4,445,925 $ (0) $(4,445,925) $ 6,299,920 Page 3-B SHERIFF-Expenditure Detail Statement of Financial Operating Data July 1,2014 through June 30,2015(as FY 2014 of August 4,2015) FY 2016 Actual Budget Actual $Variance Adopted Expenditures Sheriffs Services Personnel 1,342,795 1,431,828 1,444,896 (13,068) 1,473,213 Materials&Services 965,387 1,086,745 1,083,585 3,160 1,390,412 Capital Outlay - 15,100 - 15,100 79,000 Total Sheriff's Services 2,308,182 2,533,673 2,528,482 5,191 2,942,625 Civil/Special Units Personnel 1,027,640 1,073,870 1,086,462 (12,592) 1,089,450 Materials&Services 104,389 119,010 130,686 (11,676) 109,469 Capital Outlay - 100 - 100 6,548 Total Civil/Special Units 1,132,029 1,192,980 1,217,148 (24,168) 1,205,467 Automotive/Communications Personnel 400,169 399,334 404,038 (4,704) 429,293 Materials&Services 1,265,667 1,486,931 1,442,645 44,286 1,476,782 Capital Outlay 35,750 100 7,900 (7,800) 28,300 Total Automotive/Communications 1,701,586 1,886,365 1,854,583 31,782 1,934,375 Investigations/Evidence Personnel 1,277,983 1,470,106 1,441,261 28,845 1,528,335 Materials&Services 140,761 157,597 162,788 (5,191) 160,613 Capital Outlay - 100 - 100 62,600 Total Investigations/Evidence 1,418,744 1,627,803 1,604,049 23,754 1,751,548 Patrol Personnel 7,450,178 7,728,332 7,476,400 251,932 7,824,291 Materials&Services 547,770 636,868 587,525 49,343 625,432 Capital Outlay 249,274 347,300 345,060 2,240 364,935 Total Patrol 8,247,222 8,712,500 8,408,986 303,514 8,814,658 Records Personnel 659,297 692,244 666,056 26,188 663,829 Materials&Services 101,963 106,461 103,927 2,534 111,922 Capital Outlay - 100 - 100 - Total Records 761,260 798,805 769,983 28,822 775,751 Adult Jail Personnel 11,899,534 12,675,178 12,681,941 (6,763) 13,363,913 Materials&Services 2,069,651 2,149,314 2,134,487 14,827 2,227,142 Capital Outlay 63,176 94,215 63,177 31,038 172,948 Transfer Out-Jail(D/S&Cap Proj) 244,752 478,765 455,031 23,734 271,616 Total Adult Jail 14,277,113 15,397,472 15,334,637 62,835 16,035,619 Court Security, Personnel 284,173 292,715 318,888 (26,173) 301,472 Materials&Services 10,390 10,052 8,989 1,063 9,703 Capital Outlay - 100 28,165 (28,065) - Total Court Security 294,563 302,867 356,041 (53,174) 311,175 Emergency Services Personnel 169,170 147,942 144,725 3,217 160,660 Materials&Services 25,718 239,060 228,481 10,579 20,625 Capital Outlay - 100 - 100 39,200 Total Emergency Services 194,888 387,102 373,205 13,897 220,485 Special Services Personnel 1,152,258 1,273,721 1,223,523 50,198 1,235,676 Materials&Services 183,769 223,703 207,027 16,676 246,074 Capital Outlay 16,500 158,000 156,982 1,018 108,500 Total Special Services 1,352,528 1,655,424 1,587,532 67,892 1,590,250 Training Personnel 385,634 416,955 418,013 (1,058) 430,076 Materials&Services 121,303 134,263 83,548 50,715 146,452 Capital Outlay - 100 - 100 - Total Training 506,938 551,318 501,561 49,757 576,528 Other Law Enforcement Services Personnel 731,122 717,594 675,931 41,663 713,299 Materials&Services 70,773 81,310 77,972 3,338 87,699 Capital Outlay - 12,594 12,303 291 6,200 Total Other Law Enforcement Svcs 801,895 811,498 766,206 45,292 807,198 Non-Departmental Materials&Services 81,701 72,813 72,813 - 93,312 Total Non-Departmental 81,701 72,813 72,813 - 93,312 Total Expenditures $ 33,078,650 $35,930,620 $35,375,225 $ 555,395 $ 37,058,991 Page 4 LED#1 -Countywide Statement of Financial Operating Data July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015(as FY 2014 of August 4, 2015) FY 2016 Actual Budget Actual $Variance Adopted Revenues Tax Revenues -Current 16,698,208 17,292,244 17,663,115 370,871 19,688,313 Tax Revenues - Prior 532,040 360,700 482,620 121,920 451,000 SB 1145 1,630,823 1,628,947 1,629,017 70 1,733,117 Sheriff Fees 365,577 210,000 323,425 113,425 250,000 Concealed Handgun License - 150,000 160,721 10,721 150,000 Jail Funding HB 3194 107,806 107,806 107,805 (1) 107,806 Jail Funding HB 2712 36,311 46,143 36,226 (9,917) 36,224 State Grant 85,781 85,370 268,203 182,833 85,370 Prisoner Housing 329,918 80,000 292,157 212,157 220,000 Inmate Telephone Fee 83,297 80,000 45,633 (34,367) 35,000 Federal Grants 20,897 20,000 10,072 (9,928) - Work Center Work Crews 69,723 50,000 42,049 (7,951) 50,000 Contracts with Des County 475,815 60,632 98,466 37,834 118,225 Inmate Commissary Fees 32,480 25,000 40,159 15,159 30,000 Interest 50,563 40,000 60,388 20,388 40,000 Donations-"Shop with a Cop" 38,361 65,000 43,417 (21,583) 66,058 Miscellaneous 66,441 64,000 66,540 2,540 77,272 Total Operating Revenues 20,624,082 20,365,842 21,370,013 1,004,171 23,138,385 EXPENDITURES&TRANSFERS DC Sheriffs Office 20,817,324 25,207,970 22,624,959 2,583,011 27,574,824 DC Comm Systems Reserve 80,000 80,000 80,000 - 80,000 Transfer to Reserve Fund 100,000 100,000 100,000 - 100,000 Total Expenditures 20,997,283 25,387,970 22,804,959 2,583,011 27,754,824 Change in Fund Balance (373,200) (5,022,128) (1,434,947) 3,587,181 (4,616,439) Beginning Fund Balance 6,507,110 5,242,177 6,133,909 891,732 4,616,439 Ending Fund Balance $ 6,133,909 $ 220,049 $4,698,963 $4,478,914 $ - Page 5 LED#2- Rural 702 Statement of Financial Operating Data July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015(as FY 2014 of August 4,2015) FY 2016 Actual Budget Actual $Variance Adopted Revenues Tax Revenues-Current 7,988,657 8,272,852 8,420,326 147,474 8,783,959 Tax Revenues- Prior 262,227 169,000 235,019 66,019 216,000 Des CtyTransient Room Tax 2,838,797 2,920,654 3,071,719 151,065 3,151,787 City of Sisters 486,678 523,010 523,010 - 543,930 Marine Board License Fee 155,221 169,000 62,887 (106,113) 130,000 State Grant 124,246 130,600 72,173 (58,427) 108,000 Court Fines& Fees 135,023 130,000 140,939 10,939 130,000 Contracts with Des County 119,984 121,650 121,772 122 125,810 US Forest Service 101,375 76,500 78,910 2,410 76,500 School Districts 65,088 55,000 48,401 (6,599) 55,000 Federal Grants 84,285 42,000 54,497 12,497 20,000 Bureau of Reclamation 24,023 27,000 5,541 (21,459) 27,000 Interest 21,715 21,000 31,697 10,697 21,000 SB#1065 Court Assessment 17,435 15,000 24,768 9,768 24,000 Federal Grants-BLM 16,213 10,000 - (10,000) - Donations&Grants-Private 12,030 - 17,030 17,030 - Miscellaneous 73,333 68,500 45,214 (23,286) 54,500 Total Revenues 12,526,331 12,751,766 12,953,906 202,140 13,467,486 EXPENDITURES&TRANSFERS DC Sheriffs Office 12,278,716 14,948,526 12,750,265 2,198,261 15,784,087 DC Comm Systems Reserve 120,000 120,000 120,000 - 120,000 Transfer to Reserve Fund 100,000 100,000 100,000 - 100,000 Total Expenditures 12,498,716 15,168,526 12,970,265 2,198,261 16,004,087 Change in Fund Balance 27,614 (2,416,760) (16,360) 2,400,400 (2,536,601) Beginning Fund Balance 3,046,683 2,416,760 3,074,297 657,537 2,536,601 Ending Fund Balance $ 3,074,297 $ - $3,057,938 $3,057,938 $ - 1 Page 6 PUBLIC HEALTH Statement of Financial Operating Data July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015(as of FY 2014 August 4, 2015) FY 2016 Actual Budget Actual $ Variance Adopted Revenues State Grant 2,878,140 3,202,798 3,065,592 (137,206) 2,715,364 I Environmental Health-Lic Fac 767,248 779,450 809,115 29,665 802,450 OMAP 812,441 655,250 945,490 290,240 1,023,650 Family Planning Exp Proj 400,900 550,000 236,714 (313,286) 250,000 Interfund Grants &Contract 95,011 123,618 476,976 353,358 64,000 Grants (Intergvt, Pvt, & Local) 139,171 269,678 242,005 (27,673) - Patient Insurance Fees 232,968 196,400 138,130 (58,270) 181,200 State Miscellaneous 229,520 162,352 110,230 (52,122) 150,000 Federal Payments 161,576 150,335 137,837 (12,498) 167,085 Vital Records-Death 100,535 100,000 132,975 32,975 100,000 Health Dept/Patient Fees 80,653 80,216 46,588 (33,628) 41,800 Contract Payments 92,637 69,291 16,459 (52,832) - Vital Records-Birth 36,655 41,000 37,520 (3,480) 40,000 Child Dev& Rehab Center 52,433 39,609 25,568 (14,041) 30,759 Interest on Investments 9,077 6,000 15,422 9,422 13,900 Grants & Donations 38,192 1,500 54,693 53,193 9,229 Miscellaneous 10,135 2,800 32,519 29,719 600 Total Revenues 6,137,293 6,430,297 6,523,833 93,536 5,590,037 Expenditures Personnel Services 6,457,193 6,794,032 6,541,186 252,846 6,833,680 Materials and Services 2,043,710 2,328,582 2,253,802 74,780 2,200,072 Capital Outlay - 60,050 49,701 10,349 100 Transfers Out 157,320 164,640 164,640 - 117,640 Total Expenditures 8,658,223 9,347,304 9,009,328 337,976 9,151,492 Revenues less Expenditures (2,520,930) (2,917,007) (2,485,495) 431,512 (3,561,455) Transfers In-General Fund 2,701,475 2,701,475 2,701,475 - 2,701,475 Transfers In-PH Res Fund 33,000 - - - 58,723 Transfers In-Gen. Fund Other 65,100 65,100 65,100 - 65,100 Total Transfers In 2,799,575 2,766,575 2,766,575 - 2,825,298 Change in Fund Balance 278,645 (150,432) 281,080 431,512 (736,157) Beginning Fund Balance 1,273,934 1,570,821 1,552,578 (18,243) 1,789,387 Ending Fund Balance $ 1,552,578 $ 1,420,389 $ 1,833,658 $ 413,269 $1,053,230 FY 2016 Ending Balance as a percentage of FY 2016 operating budget 11.5% Page 7 BEHAVIORAL HEALTH Statement of Financial Operating Data July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015(as FY 2014 of August 4,2015) FY 2016 r Actual Budget , Actual $ Variance Adopted Revenues Administrative Fee 8,260,932 11,210,767 11,210,767 - 2,005,307 State Grants 7,801,239 9,783,430 7,806,818 (1,976,612) 7,523,964 OHP Capitation 469,069 390,000 381,538 (8,462) 11,807,181 Federal Grants 184,980 204,849 195,048 (9,801) 201,879 Patient Fees 219,846 201,610 211,392 9,782 171,268 Title 19 246,484 180,300 333,886 153,586 241,768 Liquor Revenue 142,665 151,000 134,018 (16,982) 151,000 Divorce Filing Fees 129,788 140,600 128,477 (12,123) 140,600 Interfund Contract-Gen Fund 127,000 127,000 127,000 - 127,000 School Districts 6,952 65,000 - (65,000) - Federal Grant(ARRA) 63,750 34,000 - (34,000) - Interest on Investments 21,190 19,500 37,054 17,554 30,000 Rentals 16,000 18,800 11,612 (7,188) 18,800 Marriage Licenses 6,540 6,500 6,385 (115) 6,500 Local Grants 52,891 - 662,518 662,518 158,967 Claims Reimbursement 12,918 - - - - State Miscellaneous 31,820 - 32,200 32,200 22,000 Justice Reinvestment HB3194 120,000 - - - - Miscellaneous 28,157 5,318 60,534 55,216 100 Total Revenues 17,942,221 22,538,674 21,339,247 (1,199,427) 22,606,334 Expenditures Personnel Services 12,415,866 15,467,644 14,366,806 1,100,838 16,484,443 Materials and Services 6,738,744 9,121,319 6,746,120 2,375,199 8,296,177 Capital Outlay - 188,850 184,361 4,489 100 Transfers Out 204,900 204,900 204,900 - 328,100 Total Expenditures 19,359,510 24,982,713 21,502,187 3,480,526 25,108,820 Revenues less Expenditures (1,417,289) (2,444,039) (162,940) 2,281,099 (2,502,486) Transfers In-General Fund 1,377,302 1,377,302 1,377,302 - 1,377,302 Transfers In-Acute Care Svcs 293,593 187,594 187,594 - 168,864 Total Transfers In 1,670,895 1,564,896 1,564,896 - 1,546,166 Change in Fund Balance 253,606 (879,143) 1,401,956 2,281,099 (956,320) Beginning Fund Balance 2,671,137 3,313,248 2,924,742 (388,506) 3,893,237 Ending Fund Balance $2,924,742 $2,434,105 $4,326,698 $ 1,892,593 $ 2,936,917 FY 2016 Ending Balance as a percentage of FY 2016 operating budget 11.7% Page 8 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Statement of Financial Operating Data July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015(as FY 2014 of August 4, 2015) FY 2016 Actual Budget Actual $Variance Adopted Revenues Admin-Operations 40,102 51,225 59,024 7,799 53,494 Admin-GIS 2,944 2,500 2,110 (390) 2,500 Admin-Code Enforcement 261,188 273,000 306,480 33,480 322,913 Building Safety 1,748,911 1,616,713 2,122,894 506,181 2,152,073 Electrical 408,194 418,506 447,721 29,215 467,770 Contract Services 264,039 211,500 358,815 147,315 276,500 Env Health-On Site Prog 448,367 437,358 497,039 59,681 475,170 Planning-Current 917,674 902,876 1,235,486 332,610 1,069,975 Planning-Long Range 440,222 560,658 604,808 44,150 694,249 Total Revenues 4,531,641 4,474,336 5,634,377 1,160,041 5,514,644 Expenditures Admin-Operations 1,590,779 1,760,362 1,461,189 299,173 1,638,933 Admin-GIS 123,751 129,011 125,463 3,548 132,305 Admin-Code Enforcement 275,521 297,852 286,288 11,564 319,679 Building Safety 688,035 887,384 777,738 109,646 915,194 Electrical 217,271 235,652 225,462 10,190 286,145 Contract Services 220,779 268,979 270,206 (1,227) 326,249 Env Health-On Site Pgm 181,831 274,228 233,477 40,751 338,956 Planning-Current 666,180 829,187 792,256 36,931 949,095 Planning-Long Range 425,323 596,061 539,769 56,292 596,343 Transfers Out(D/S Fund) 179,035 173,673 173,673 - 164,225 Total Expenditures 4,568,505 5,452,389 4,885,522 566,867 5,667,124 Revenues less Expenditures (36,864) (978,053) 748,855 593,175 (152,480) Transfers In/Out In:General Fund-L/R Planning 495,360 166,770 166,770 - 99,039 Out:A&T Reserve (90,360) (90,360) - - Out: CDD Reserve Funds - (687,470) (687,470) - 1,037,652) Net Transfers In/Out 495,360 (611,060) (611,060) - (938,613) Change in Fund Balance 458,496 (1,589,113) 137,795 1,726,908 (1,091,093) Beginning Fund Balance 1,578,705 1,589,113 2,037,201 448,088 1,600,000 Ending Fund Balance $2,037,201 $ - $2,174,995 $2,174,995 $ 508,907 FY 2016 Ending Balance as a percentage of FY 2016 operating budget 9.0% Page 9 ROAD Statement of Financial Operating Data July 1,2014 through June 30, 2015(as of FY 2014 August 4, 2015) FY 2016 Actual Budget Actual . $ Variance Adopted Revenues Motor Vehicle Revenue 11,300,058 11,220,000 11,526,928 306,928 11,440,000 Forest Receipts 1,259,367 1,140,950 1,215,021 74,071 1,250,000 Federal - PILT Payment 1,064,365 1,020,000 1,250,809 230,809 1,250,000 Other Inter-fund Services 850,395 971,700 911,160 (60,540) 947,925 Cities-Bend/Red/Sis/LaPine 1,097,444 804,200 370,459 (433,741) 902,000 State Miscellaneous 595,804 602,629 602,237 (392) 603,572 Sale of Equip& Material 275,086 271,000 271,293 293 278,500 Assessment Payments (P&I) 15,058 225,840 159,692 (66,148) 160,000 Mineral Lease Royalties 206,097 140,000 174,922 34,922 200,000 Interest on Investments 49,562 32,000 77,547 45,547 40,000 Miscellaneous 117,069 25,500 44,825 19,325 36,500 Total Revenues 16,830,304 16,453,819 16,604,893 151,074 17,108,497 Expenditures Personnel Services 5,313,126 5,631,695 5,539,866 91,829 5,704,814 Materials and Services 8,051,744 10,622,604 8,546,413 2,076,191 10,846,101 Debt Service - 117,000 106,554 10,446 - Capital Outlay 121,455 8,875,507 1,764,850 7,110,657 8,503,257 Transfers Out 450,000 600,000 600,000 - 600,000 Total Expenditures 13,936,325 25,846,806 16,557,684 9,289,122 25,654,172 Revenues less Expenditures 2,893,978 (9,392,987) 47,210 9,440,197 (8,545,675) Trans In -Solid Waste 282,148 298,156 298,156 - 326,539 Trans In-Transp SDC - 2,000,000 1,000,000 (1,000,000) 1,000,000 Trans In-Road Imp Res - 1,000 12,388 11,388 - Total Transfers In 282,148 2,299,156 1,310,544 (988,612) 1,326,539 Change in Fund Balance 3,176,126 (7,093,831) 1,357,754 8,451,585 (7,219,136) Beginning Fund Balance 6,846,576 8,954,332 10,022,703 1,068,371 9,298,470 Ending Fund Balance $ 10,022,703 $ 1,860,501 $11,380,457 $9,519,956 $ 2,079,334 I FY 2016 Ending Balance as a percentage of FY 2016 operating budget 8.11%1 Page 10 ADULT PAROLE& PROBATION Statement of Financial Operating Data July 1,2014 through June 30,2015 FY 2014 (as of August 4, 2015) FY 2016 Actual Budget Actual $Variance Adopted Revenues SB 1145 3,028,672 3,025,187 3,025,316 129 3,218,647 DOC Measure 57 220,788 220,788 217,845 (2,943) 230,660 Electronic Monitoring Fee 235,642 220,000 212,894 (7,106) 225,000 Probation Superv. Fees 208,461 190,000 220,081 30,081 210,000 Interfund -Sheriff 50,000 50,000 50,000 - 50,000 Crime Prevention Grant 50,000 50,000 50,000 - 50,000 CFC-Domestic Violence 70,242 47,996 52,612 4,616 46,736 State Subsidy 14,677 15,158 14,960 (198) 15,610 Alternate Incarceration 17,725 15,000 31,775 16,775 20,035 Interest on Investments 7,807 6,150 9,550 3,400 7,000 Probation Work Crew Fees 9,137 4,950 10,191 5,241 6,000 State Miscellaneous 4,142 4,301 4,142 (159) 4,300 Leases 1,323 1,500 1,600 100 1,500 Claims Reimbursement 6,997 - 8,096 8,096 - Justice Reinvest HB3194 458,143 - - - 472,026 Miscellaneous 671 500 835 335 500 Total Revenues 4,384,428 3,851,530 3,909,897 58,367 4,558,014 Expenditures Personnel Services 3,343,789 3,623,526 3,581,700 (41,826) 3,890,276 Materials and Services 1,107,365 1,148,766 1,046,735 (102,031) 1,304,248 Transfer to Veh Maint - - - - 20,736 Capital Outlay - 100 - 100 100 Total Expenditures 4,451,154 4,772,392 4,628,435 (143,757) 5,215,360 Revenues less Expenditures (66,726) (920,862) (718,537) (85,390) (657,346) Transfers In-General Fund 451,189 451,189 451,189 - 451,189 Change in Fund Balance 384,463 (469,673) (267,348) (85,390) (206,157) Beginning Fund Balance 747,520 1,030,824 1,131,982 101,158 662,516 Ending Fund Balance $ 1,131,982 $ 561,151 $ 864,634 $ 15,768 $ 456,359 FY 2016 Ending Balance as a percentage of FY 2016 operating budget 8.8% Page 11 EARLY LEARNING HUB Statement of Financial Operating Data FY 2014 July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015 Note 1 (as of August 4,2015) FY 2016 Actual Budget Actual $Variance Adopted Revenues Federal Grants 258,463 232,218 224,752 (7,466) 213,382 Title IV- Family Sup/Pres 21,994 21,994 - (21,994) - Healthy Start Medicaid 60,561 60,000 54,634 (5,366) - Youth Investment 124,493 - - - - State Grant 55,185 - 105,326 105,326 105,326 HealthyStart/R-S-G 249,125 295,190 217,458 (77,732) - OCCF Grant 132,326 39,499 - (39,499) - Charges for Svcs-Mist 4,138 - - - - Program Fees 4,710 - - - - Miscellaneous - 2,000 5,280 3,280 2,000 Court Fines& Fees 77,873 77,086 77,086 0 77,086 Interest on Investments 2,868 2,500 2,487 (13) 2,400 Donations 50 - - - - Private Grant 130 - 715 715 - Sale of Assets 450 - - - - lnterfund Grants 329,624 7,260 7,260 - - Total Revenues 1,321,991 737,747 694,999 (42,748) 400,194 Expenditures Personnel Services 501,770 265,160 263,621 1,539 304,598 Materials and Services 1,402,021 877,110 765,624 111,486 494,118 Total Expenditures 1,903,791 1,142,270 1,029,245 113,025 798,716 Revenues less Expenditures (581,800) (404,523) (334,246) 70,277 (398,522) Transfers In General Fund 278,739 252,288 252,288 - 175,000 General Fund -Other 89,350 89,350 89,350 - 89,350 Total Transfers In 368,089 341,638 341,638 - 264,350 Change in Fund Balance (213,711) (62,885) 7,392 70,277 (134,172) Beginning Fund Balance 548,572 318,121 334,861 16,740 274,299 Ending Fund Balance $ 334,861 $ 255,236 $ 342,253 $ 87,017 $ 140,127 FY 2016 Ending Balance as a percentage of FY 2016 operating budget 17.5% Note 1: Through June 30, 2014 activity included Children & Families Commission Page 12 SOLID WASTE Statement of Financial Operating Data July 1, 2014 through June 30,2015(as FY 2014 of August 4, 2015) FY 2016 Actual Budget Actual $ Variance Adopted Operating Revenues Franchise Disposal Fees 4,209,029 4,413,809 4,575,673 161,864 4,830,000 Private Disposal Fees 1,518,056 1,550,430 1,680,543 130,113 1,648,500 Commercial Disp. Fees 1,076,538 1,082,144 1,336,173 254,029 1,260,000 Franchise 3% Fees 210,053 210,000 223,323 13,323 220,000 Yard Debris 98,410 92,000 126,468 34,468 104,000 Recyclables 33,345 45,000 28,066 (16,934) 29,000 Special Waste 40,873 25,000 16,382 (8,618) 25,000 Interest 11,028 10,000 17,164 7,164 10,000 Leases 10,801 10,801 10,801 - 10,801 Miscellaneous 21,508 20,000 58,721 38,721 25,000 Total Operating Revenues 7,229,641 7,459,184 8,073,313 614,129 8,162,301 Operating Expenditures Personnel Services 1,777,663 1,936,555 1,856,302 80,253 2,084,433 Materials and Services 3,214,375 3,435,926 3,105,752 330,174 3,501,756 Debt Service 930,157 929,794 929,794 0 932,916 Capital Outlay 25,895 227,000 166,655 60,345 116,450 Total Operating Expenditures 5,948,091 6,529,275 6,058,503 470,772 6,635,555 Operating Rev less Exp 1,281,550 929,909 2,014,810 1,084,901 1,526,746 Transfers Out Appropriation Transfer - - Road 282,148 298,156 298,156 - 326,539 SW Capital & Equipment Reserve 545,000 2,225,000 2,225,000 - 1,400,000 Total Transfers Out 827,148 2,523,156 2,523,156 - 1,726,539 Change in Fund Balance 454,402 (1,593,247) (508,346) 1,084,901 (199,793) Beginning Fund Balance 1,224,767 1,428,003 1,679,169 251,166 646,922 Ending Fund Balance $ 1,679,169 $ 1165,244) $1,170,823 $ 1,336,067 $ 447,129 FY 2016 Ending Balance as a percentage of FY 2016 operating budget 6.7% Page 13 RISK MANAGEMENT Statement of Financial Operating Data July 1,2014 through June 30,2015(as of FY 2014 August 4, 2015) FY 2016 Actual Budget Actual $Variance Adopted Revenues Inter-fund Charges: General Liability 272,823 379,793 379,793 - 859,198 Property Damage 326,526 392,304 392,304 - 394,092 Vehicle 164,150 177,550 177,550 - 179,850 Workers'Compensation 1,520,352 1,561,804 1,563,836 2,032 1,137,484 Unemployment 318,566 317,000 324,829 7,829 320,000 Claims Reimb-Gen Liab/Property 139,123 20,000 43,921 23,921 20,000 Process Fee-Events/Parades 1,400 1,300 1,835 535 1,400 Miscellaneous 14 110 0 (110) 80 Skid Car Training 27,540 24,000 34,020 10,020 27,000 Transfer In-Fund 340 - - - - 95,000 interest on Investments 15,567 15,050 24,331 9,281 25,000 TOTAL REVENUES 2,786,061 2,888,911 2,942,419 53,508 3,059,104 Direct Insurance Costs: GENERAL LIABILITY 5201 Settlement/Benefit 268,561 166,363 5202 Defense 49,872 19,031 5203 Professional Service 33,139 24,849 5204 Insurance 161,994 176,537 5205 Loss Prevention 4,659 19,465 5206 Miscellaneous 5,619 126 5207 Repair/Replacement 4,531 6,346 Total General Liability 528,374 700,000 412,716 287,284 780,429 PROPERTY DAMAGE 5204 Insurance 166,668 178,556 5207 Repair/Replacement 211,158 35,583 Total Property Damage 377,826 250,000 214,139 35,861 429,719 VEHICLE 5203 Professional Service 875 236 5204 Insurance 205 21,300 5205 Loss Prevention 22,021 19,307 5207 Repair/Replacement 69,276 51,823 Total Vehicle 92,377 120,000 92,666 27,334 89,213 WORKERS'COMPENSATION 5201 Settlement/Benefit 478,204 687,001 5203 Professional Service 5,000 5,000 5204 Insurance 155,474 124,195 5205 Loss Prevention 44,261 45,934 5206 Miscellaneous 52,488 54,299 Total Workers'Compensation 735,427 1,075,000 916,429 158,571 984,626 5201 UNEMPLOYMENT-Settlement/Benefits 102,324 200,000 104,383 95,617 151,486 Total Direct Insurance Costs 1,836,329 2,345,000 1,740,333 604,667 2,435,473 Insurance Administration: Personnel Services 324,005 330,406 309,175 21,231 339,585 Materials&Srvc, Capital Out. &Tranfs. 146,109 199,140 131,852 67,288 225,363 Total Expenditures 2,306,443 2,874,546 2,181,360 693,186 3,000,421 Change in Fund Balance 479,618 14,365 761,059 746,694 58,683 Beginning Fund Balance 2,631,057 3,074,957 3,110,676 35,719 3,200,000 Ending Fund Balance $3,110,676 $ 3,089,322 $ 3,871,735 $ 782,413 $3,258,683 FY 2016 Ending Balance as a percentage of FY 2016 operating budget Page 14 109% DESCHUTES COUNTY 9-1-1 Statement of Financial Operating Data July 1,2014 through June 30,2015 (as of FY 2014 August 4,2015) FY 2016 Actual Budget Actual $Variance Adopted Revenues Property Taxes-Current 6,258,760 6,482,015 6,683,234 201,219 6,940,000 Property Taxes- Prior 203,163 138,000 174,000 36,000 100,000 Federal Grants 46,514 150,000 - (150,000) - State Reimbursement 41,813 36,000 50,075 14,075 36,000 Telephone User Tax 756,775 750,000 568,121 (181,879) 750,000 Data Network Reimb. 43,943 30,000 41,803 11,803 30,000 Jefferson County 29,758 30,000 30,686 686 30,000 User Fee 53,229 45,000 54,536 9,536 45,000 Police RMS User Fees 236,717 295,788 283,572 (12,216) 295,788 Contract Payments 39,075 11,000 - (11,000) 11,000 Miscellaneous 45,553 9,000 38,466 29,466 10,000 Claims Reimbursement 29,857 - - - Interest 40,303 30,600 36,785 6,185 40,000 Total Revenues 7,825,460 8,007,403 7,961,278 (46,125) 8,287,788 Expenditures Personnel Services 4,420,333 5,683,538 4,885,484 618,065 6,076,736 Materials and Services 1,996,805 2,077,868 1,987,159 90,709 2,01 9,097 Capital Outlay 66,498 350,000 234,798 115,202 200,000 Total Expenditures 6,483,636 8,111,406 7,107,441 823,976 8,295,833 Revenues less Expenditures 1,341,824 (104,003) 853,837 777,851 (8,045) Transfers Out-Reserve Fund 7,800,000 - - - Change in Fund Balance (6,458,176) (104,003) 853,837 777,851 (8,045) Beginning Fund Balance 10,398,030 3,410,000 3,939,854 529,854 4,650,000 Ending Fund Balance $ 3,939,854 $ 3,305,997 $ 4,793,691 $ 1,307,705 $4,641,955 FY 2016 Ending Balance as a percentage of FY 2016 tax revenues 65.9% Page 15 Health Benefits Trust Statement of Financial Operating Data , FY 2014 1 FY 2015 ' FY 2016 Actual FY 2015 FY 2015 Actual $Variance % of Approved Budget Budget Budget Revenues: Internal Premium Charges $ 14,485,502 $ 15,517,000 $ 16,001,138 $ 484,138 103% $ 16,153,000 Part-Time Employee Premium 16,955 20,000 15,680 (4,320) 78% - Employee Monthly Co-Pay 813,125 810,000 866,646 56,646 107% 865,000 COIC 1,595,847 1,670,000 1,870,995 200,995 112% 1,900,000 Retiree/COBRA Co-Pay 1,061,986 1,260,000 1,089,975 (170,026) 87% 1,336,000 Prescription Rebates 154,981 110,000 145,422 35,422 132% 130,000 Claims Reimbursements&Misc 2,419 50,000 238,900 188,900 478% - Interest 67,057 72,000 92,213 20,213 128% 112,000 Total Revenues 18,197,871 19,509,000 20,320,967 811,967 104% 20,496,000 Expenditures: Personnel Services(all depts) 129,509 144,917 121,638 23,279 84% 117,753 Materials&Services Admin&Wellness Claims Paid-Medical 11,450,686 12,518,124 11,366,449 1,151,675 91% 12,989,042 Claims Paid-Prescription 657,550 718,847 1,245,249 (526,401) 173% 767,309 Claims Paid-DentalNision 1,731,608 1,893,029 1,832,508 60,521 97% 2,020,649 Stop Loss Insurance Premium 275,052 400,000 326,435 73,565 82% 360,000 State Assessments 67,753 215,000 227,597 (12,597) 106% 240,000 Administration Fee(EMBS) 333,188 343,000 419,304 (76,304) 122% 420,000 Preferred Provider Fee 49,712 57,200 38,804 18,396 68% 46,000 Other-Administration 42,969 44,642 45,335 (693) 102% 104,417 Other-Wellness 117,775 195,970 162,582 33,388 83% 149,000 Admin&Wellness 14,726,294 16,385,812 15,664,262 721,550 96% 17,096,417 Deschutes On-site Clinic Contracted Services 850,209 943,500 818,418 125,082 87% 810,000 Medical Supplies 54,806 35,000 79,616 (44,616) 227% 63,000 Other 27,016 26,777 23,726 3,051 89% 27,470 Total DOC 932,031 1,005,277 921,761 83,516 92% 900,470 Deschutes On-site Pharmacy Contracted Services 314,801 306,000 304,556 1,444 100% 287,700 Prescriptions 1,588,726 1,696,000 1,552,760 143,240 92% 1,600,000 Other 13,250 13,321 13,250 71 99% 22,007 Total Pharmacy 1,916,777 2,015,321 1,870,566 144,755 93% 1,909,707 Total Expenditures 17,704,610 19,551,327 18,578,227 973,100 95% 20,024,347 Change in Fund Balance 493,261 (42,327) 1,742,739 (161,133) 471,653 Beginning Fund Balance 11,967,822 11,585,710 12,461,082 875,372 108% 13,190,000 Ending Fund Balance $ 12,461,082 $ 11,543,383 $ 14,203,821 $ 714,239 $ 13,661,653 1-1/0 oftxp covered by Revenues 102.8% 99.8% 109.4% 102.4% Page 16 jrf 8/5/2015 FAIR AND EXPO CENTER Statement of Financial Operating Data Through June 30, 2015 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Actual Budget Actual %of Budget A.proved Operating Revenues Events Revenues $ 458,147 $ 625,000 $ 528,377 $(96,623) 84.5% $ 463,000 ' Storage 35,590 45,000 45,794 794 101.8% 50,000 Camping at F &E 22,866 16,000 14,505 (1,495) 90.7% 20,000 Horse Stall Rental 52,084 52,769 37,698 (15,071) 71.4% 50,000 Concession %-Food 97,917 11,411 11,411 - 100.0% b) - Annual County Fair(net) 205,000 200,000 244,000 44,000 122.0% c) 294,835 Interfund Contract - - 85,111 85,111 d) 84,422 TRT- 1%for Marketing - 292,333 116,670 (175,663) 39.9% 382,641 Miscellaneous 6,648 7,900 11,092 3,192 140.4% 10,900 Total Operating Revenues 878,251 1,318,244 1,184,232 (134,012) 89.8% 1,427,101 Operating Expenditures: General F &E Activities Personnel Services 895,582 926,183 909,177 17,006 98.2% 951,266 Materials and Services 672,862 797,236 655,566 141,670 82.2% 825,027 Total Operating Expenditures 1,568,444 1,723,419 1,564,743 158,676 90.8% 1,776,293 Other: Park Acq/Dev(Fund 130) - 29,000 29,000 n/a e) 30,000 Grants 176,289 - 280 280 n/a - Rights &Signage 72,000 80,000 98,538 18,538 123.2% 115,000 Interest 409 - 678 678 n/a 300 Total Other 248,698 80,000 128,496 48,496 145,300 I Results of Operations (441,495) (325,175) (252,016) 73,159 (203,892) Transfers In I Out Transfer In-General Fund 374,186 365,000 365,000 - 100.0% 300,000 Transfer In-Room Tax-(Fund 160) 262,900 108,544 110,770 2,226 102.1% 25,744 Trans In(Out)-Fair& Expo Reserve 100,000 - - - n/a (62,740) Total Transfers In 737,086 473,544 475,770 2,226 100.5% 263,004 Non-Operating Expenditures Debt Service 112,974 112,213 112,213 (0) 100.0% 116,709 Capital Outlay 176,289 57,600 52,473 5,127 91.1% - Total Non-Operating Expenditures 289,263 169,813 164,686 5,127 97.0% 116,709 Change in Fund Balance 6,328 (21,444) 59,068 80,512 (57,597) Beginning Fund Balance (6,673) 87,000 345) (87,345) -0.4% ,, °41i,`, s 9 x ,' ,,,; Ending Fund Balance ' ] MAUI,:it'74t1'; r> `' i,,ii.X.,: • ,• I a) See "Food &Beverage Activities Schedule" b) July and August Contract with Premier Services c) Revenues and Expenses for the annual County Fair are recorded in a separate fund and the available net income is transferred to the Fair&Expo Center Fund d) Reimbursement from RV Park for personnel expenditures recorded in F&E e) Budgeted transfer from Fund 130 for Fund 601 transferred to Fund 618 instead for maintenance of Center Circle Park Page 17 03 , a) morn m o, m C o C c+J N O r CO N UU d N V M 4 m N d a R.a0 N O r Co O KI a 07 0) N- r V 4 )N 10 ' c° c`O CO el. N u4O L U) 4) 0 In pN m0- VaDO r r--1- N 4 ab N C)N n 10 r CO CO 4 CO 0 a) ca >co p N 03 M 0 V 0) 10 0) 1.1 * LO Y'1 CO N 0 4 M n V ,- in 0 A N to m 0) N 4 V cp.0 r 1-O CO r V p ' O t0 -, CO 0 r 0)V V O n o co co 0) V ti N1 Sc7 ..- ,--N r r r ea N 49 VOL CA to at) a)N 10 V A e N N 1n t• N CD CO CO I, ti 0)In N N co d V 4 O F n V V,-- In N (0 et 1-- ' r_ N V t to of 0i V , Cl r- O. ro V v M r N 0- 01 10 0) CU 0)0) CO CO 0 01 0) e N 0 N N. CO V Q CO CD N cD 0) 0 C7 V CO N, 0) C) O) N CO r CO co. at 0 N- O o 4 C ` CO 7@ C r n C[ co , CO,1 M N M N N- /A, 0 CR N O n 0 0 u) N. 4 M a N m Ip 0. C)• I Cl 00) N 0) r 11001 IV-.0) C0 OO) ' 4 N h CO CA O - D aD OI 0] o .-4 0.3 V ) N tel M N N 10 CO N V CD 'C u] N 10 e N N- Q) t0 1I) 2-A l0 O C) N cD V C7 0 V V CO y 10 4 E, I-- [1 u] 1n 2 V aC C CO I- O) CO I'7 1%-- 10 N O n Ci O CCt ad c0 09 O N O Oi c7 4 V a) a) LL v e7Y C9 N C 40 C ' O 4J u]0)V N V g N N N V CO p N p) �c0 to N 'if,' CO O 07 10 O d' V V CO 0) 40 U 0) 3 Y') 47 1- m I- IT V u') N- M c•1 0. 0) H m �M O I- !D CO 10 4 0) CO C)■ A N 7 L C C) v N o o) V C9 M N Cll -0O w a) toN _ ❑-0 N co h n 140 N 0) CO 1In N W Trn m CO or u4) IV` O _.t0 N 0)r O N N 0 C) N Iti r O) 1n 4 c0 O� a N V M r O r .- C) r o tb N N Ori E OC9 w h CO w In C) CO CO 10 C) CO N cg�pp N r 0) cy�`)11 C0 It) .0 ON I{j N N Q 14D M II] EV-_N v fH O v E N 1-fi N. V N m co 0i Iv M1 C N 0. 01 N CO O CO IC) 3 N a0ap) N a CO 4 c0c0 ^ CD N c0 ' M( V I 0- 0 c0 c0 N-N 01 M 4 N 0)I- — N O 4 CO CD N N 0 r v v N 41 0 w O 4 CO V N aO e O cn Y) V N CD In V V c-1 0 cP N C Y) 0 10 CO ' O ' 0 ' Cr) c+) 0) Co In 0) 0. U) V E1+ s- ,- [V C"i r at)r c M M r N NI ter 4I N V 0 a E p E C) C d U N r a a 0 In C a) E V N C 8 0 0 co U) 0 m O a Z•m ; 8 In r rn k to m D E. w 2 � v oe -a 0 E w D. 7-~C _ 'c.:3 5 C 0 U) O E LL 0 d pp d a )dt - C o f- ... co 01ry W Uw V En C K LL « C ee a i a 1Jcza a m is R a ao - — E m E C y 3 0 m Ema� w� .5 o o aa0 H E LL a re o F G7 0 W JUSTICE COURT Statement of Financial Operating Data July 1,2014 through June 30, 2015 FY 2014 (as of August 4, 2015) FY 2016 Actual Budget Actual $Variance Adopted Revenues Court Fines &Fees 425,632 450,000 459,548 9,548 450,000 State Miscellaneous - 600 - (600) - Interest on Investments 653 815 456 (359) 527 Total Revenues 426,285 451,415 460,004 8,589 450,527 Expenditures Personnel Services 407,456 432,045 423,791 8,254 436,236 Materials and Services 183,148 173,093 159,325 13,768 173,942 Total Expenditures 590,605 605,138 583,116 22,022 610,178 Revenues less Expenditures (164,319) (153,723) (123,112) 30,611 (159,651) Transfers In-General Fund 140,819 74,398 74,398 - 145,747 Change in Fund Balance (23,500) (79,325) (48,714) 30,611 (13,904) Beginning Fund Balance 153,818 107,621 130,317 22,696 60,000 End Fund BaI (Contingency) $ 130,317 $ 28,296 $ 81,603 $ 53,307 $ 46,096 FY 2016 Ending Balance as a percentage of FY 2016 operating budget 7.6% Page 19 CAPITAL PROJECTS • Campus Improvement • North County Campus Deschutes County Campus Improvement(Fund 463) Inception through June 30, 2015 I Received and Committed or Expended Projected Total RESOURCES: Transfer in(Note A) $ 796,617 $ - $ 796,617 Transfer in -General Fund 150,000 - 150,000 Transfer in -General County Projects (142)(Note B) 700,000 120,000 820,000 Oregon Judicial Dept Payment 20,000 - 20,000 Interest Revenue 10,644 - 10,644 Total Resources 1,677,261 120,000 1,797,261 EXPENDITURES: Basement Jail/Boiler Demolition JB1 168,109 - 168,109 Basement Public File View JB2 141,862 - 141,862 1st Floor Public File View JB3 117,980 - 117,980 1st Floor Restrooms/Haslinger Court JB4 401,231 - 401,231 1st Floor DeHoo /Bale Court/Jury Room JB5 81 702 - g 9 Y ►Y 81,702 Accounting Area Open Workspace JB6 40,257 - 40,257 Courthouse DA Offices JB7 34,348 - 34,348 Hearing Room Justice Bldg 2/Basement Phases 1/2 JB8 496,341 307,233 803,574 "Stone Building" 720 - 720 Internal Service Fund Charges 7,477 - 7,477 Total Materials &Services 1,490,028 307,233 1,797,261 Revenues less Expenditures $ 187,233 $ (187,233) - Notes: A. Remaining proceeds of the OSP portion of the FF&C borrowing for the OSP/911 Building. B. FY 2016 Adopted Budget includes a$120,000 Transfer In from Fund 142. Completed Projects JRF 8/5/2015 Deschutes County North County Services Building Inception through June 30,2015 ACTIJAL Received and Encumbrances Project to Expended &Commitments Date RESOURCES: Rental 500 - 500 Expended from Fund 142 for Design Center 1,427,013 - 1,427,013 a) Transfers in: Fund 140 for Unger Remodel 755,000 - 755,000 b) Fund 142 for Unger Remodel 25,000 25,000 c) Fund 142( FY 2012) 600,000 - 600,000 Fund 140 for Antler Building (P&I) 151,736 - 151,736 Interest Revenue 9,550 - 9,550 Total Resources $ 2,943,799 $ 25,000 $ 2,968,799 EXPENDITURES: Design Center-Hwy 97 Land&Building 1,402,013 - 1,402,013 Architecture/Design 47,092 - 47,092 Utilities 26,777 1,000 27,777 Fees, Permits&SDCs 520 - 520 Other 4,552 - 4,552 Total Design Center 1,480,954 1,000 1,481,954 Antler Building Land &Building 601,200 - 601,200 Building Improvements 42,364 - 42,364 Personal Property 6,793 - 6,793 Interest 2,827 - 2,827 Other 928 - 92$ Total Antler Building 654,111 - 654,111 Unger Building Remodel Remodel Construction-Griffin Constr. 438,374 182,692 621,066 Security System-Griffin C.O. #1 17,600 13,739 31,339 Architecture/Design 53,731 3,450 57,181 Relocation Costs 26,700 3,600 30,300 d) Fees &Permits 4,316 - 4,316 Utilities 3,020 1,500 4,520 Furniture, Fixtures&Equipment 6,686 13,000 19,686 Other 14,599 - 14,599 Total Unger Building Remodel 565,026 217,982 783,008 Other Internal Service Fund Charges 33,102 1,693 34,795 Evergreen School 3,803 - 3,803 Total Expenditures 2,736,996 220,675 2,957,671 Net $ 206,802 $ (195,675) 11,128 a)The property was purchased in FY 2011 with resources from Fund 142-General County Projects. Also, $25,000 was paid to the architect from Fund 142 in FY 2011. b) The resources for the Unger remodel will be provided by Fund 140 and Fund 142 c) Fund 142 to contribute for the personal property-controls&security system. d) The costs incurred through completion alternate facilities Parole&Probation will paid from Fund 462. jrf 8/5/2015 Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Sotto Division No„ ••a.::, . ‘%17,"' , 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: August 12, 2015 TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner RE: 247-15-000035-CU (247-15-000403-A) Background The applicants, Dana and Karen Clough, applied for a Conditional Use Permit for a nonfarm dwelling on an approximately 20-acre parcel in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU-TRB) Zone. The application was referred to a public hearing due to the fact that the proposed homesite was located on irrigated ground, as well as receiving opposition from neighbors. A public hearing was held on May 26, 2015, and the written record closed on July 10, 2015. The Hearings Officer denied the application in the written decision dated July 21, 2015 (Attachment 4). The applicants appealed the decision within the 12-day appeal period required under County Code. Hearings Officer's Decision The County Hearings Officer denied the conditional use permit application based on the following standard under Deschutes County Code 18.16.040(A) which states: "A. Conditional uses permitted by DCC 18.16.030 may be established subject to ORS 215.296 and applicable provisions in DCC 18.128 and upon a finding by the Planning Director or Hearings Body that the proposed use: 3. That the actual site on which the use is to be located is the least suitable for the production of farm crops or livestock (emphasis added). The Hearings Officer's decision differentiated between the "least suitable" standard above and the "generally unsuitable" standard in DCC 18.16.050(G)(1)(a)(iii). The Hearings Officer found that the applicant did not address in greater detail why the southeast corner of the subject property was the "least suitable" site for farm use on the property. The applicant's reasoning was that this portion of the property did not provide enough area for the dwelling, septic system and reserve area, and any residential accessory structures (there is an existing farm-related The Hearings Officer did find that the proposed homesite area met the"generally unsuitable"standard. Quality Services Performed with Pride structure already in place in the southeast corner of the property). Additionally, this southeast area of the subject property has topographic implications (Attachment 3). Finally, the Natural Gas Pipeline easement restricts where structures can be located (i.e. not within the easement). Staff notes that the "least suitable" standard in Deschutes County Code goes beyond the Oregon Revised Statutes and Oregon Administrative Rules language for nonfarm dwellings, which includes only the "generally unsuitable" standard. The question to be answered in the appeal is how the County interprets the "least suitable" standard in relation to the "generally unsuitable" standard. Should a finding of a generally unsuitable standard qualify as meeting the least suitable standard? Attachments Attached with this memorandum are the following: 1. Assessor's map showing the subject property 2. Aerial photo showing subject property and surrounding area 3. Soils report map showing class 7 soils area 4. Hearings Officer's Decision 5. Applicant's notice of appeal N p B' ' a Q 00 SEE MAPI1225 S ° KD c A. �� — .._ ° rA �r I , �-- —L �//4,,,,,,,.,,,I s s a7/r�f,E/N b FY"a>� � 8 S � � R ■ 'rti �,M A E 1 e � dd pww 1� NEpa a dN e _ — H b N awaaNN N NK'N'N'Y,P797iN r m I FR �, e 1 I m 1 u"' I =1.,. C) I 0 —+ I v w� I g M w c " m w - )xp)aa?)))14 aaw aaa,... .zrd...p a. aawaN NdddN _ o cn rw cn ip —I ITI 1i % v''^ kw.wrp.lu�n w \� A L u �. m W a _ ' I y n f /6 A__— wda awd Nd Kd NJN NNK1 u n, AADH wsaaNNsN-s:r♦-rbasN H Se A. I S 4,I M ar», � �/H ,., � rrdN.NN-v 1 " w. �-, ryy , ,xnr 1II r IL wt, _ - ' b M a 1 g ny :11� , -- / e , L - py� Nmc-pd--KYC.ees N N d w a a vr d,R-¢wy r Naaw I'" y'9 I SEE MAP 171929 1. -.I V mi s CO CO CO CO O { O I I W y y ;i; N w!, . "`• Mr yi a ,w^i^.„, ”:"4 t. 4 E "411`',..".""'...","'-"";:'1.i"••••:'• W ,, u A,1� „ t• . ...,' :y " „q,. , 4.,„ III jtt wu, -M „ra- n q" "({1sWa qs.r w 7 " a ,+ •,.:,t 4:01...v: .:.. . .:::-,:::jkaltAt,7::::,...,.p x".. `'''' r*"; i,� .'d F �' • ti ,. ,� �y`y. r., �R.YM .,. an.ww ( Sf M r' � NJIq.4 ,. p ° N ;,• '...,',.".'•••'.....:'....... ...k.,;011';. . .4'11!.....:1•""l• '31S lit.••• .:•1:1'.•':::1•:!"t bill; • * •„ iri 7 k 4. w .,. „ r e f p i'g i"� r ti Nb ` •"+ J9 g e,m " w x a� „ w, k„ , ,, Mt"„ 9(' :N x•v 4 ; @ a br h x, , i" S d7 y a,• t r. ..., .„,., -.4.1r.....";;,!!;••••••..••••:i:"1:•••••:.... t...414 Ir.,•••:::"„•"••••••,...".'",.:7•;. ,j:;1!'"Iii""•,','. ".,"''' ,,..•.,..:'"" '... •!.....:!:,;:t"'tit. '''''.1°,,,.......,t;':',;11;:,::!.....:t;'''...: 4:' r,...,. , n + r 7 ,s 31 ��jl]• obe"e 84, Lr iq. !9'. ngc8, A1, ,i+ Mµ •-•,40,,..4,,,,. ..::,,,;:.,,.,,:•, .L..;.,,,,...,.,.,4 f r •‘t••:.',....;:i.":""4110k.,,,,, ,T..,•,..„..,•,„„....... •••,..:. • ....:• . • x - . _t in, q rah lµ4 i F °i 4 ,.,, • T175,R13E Section 30 Tax Lot 200 6 Deschutes Co,OR Figure 3: Building Site for Nonfarm Dwelling: ,w Building Site for Nonfarm Dwelling 11781413E Section 30 Tt 200 °" r s� Deschutes Cty.OR "`' r ' 4;1°4°4'g �,yk 4,... :r ff, 4 6y :µt±,$er *l l;44',, ck 7" 4 p4. . ,, . .., . , :,,j ,..,r , ,#.,4.,,,,, : .,., .Jiiiiirt"^ , f iir (,kir,..ii i d•tk . # , � C � ! �wy t is 1 l: 41 . @ ' �w b, •a A V ""' 4 V' r, �, '„ q r" , _ I ;1;414,A reserve drain r7 r �Y o Held$. t w 4, " h r, ! ' �, tt. i, 7 ' T y , i �, Y 4. r. % i .,.. a...tp ttl.t Is t . r • a , " Sage West, i t m .�t.1 t t �{ i ' 10115120'14 1�" � � �, �i t��$s d" ,. .. s � ' ., Considerations for determining suitability of the property for crop,livestock,or merchantable tree production: NRCS estimates that 36A-Deskamp loamy sand, 0-3%slopes will produce 4.0 tons of alfalfa per acre and 1.5 AUMs per acre for pasture, irrigated. The Gosney soil, a contrasting inclusion, will produce 2.0 tons of alfalfa per acre and 0.5 AUMs per acre for pasture,irrigated. Neither soil is rated for non-irrigated farm crops. NRCS estimates that soils in 58C-Gosney-Rack outcrop-Deskamp,0-15%slopes will produce 150#/ac forage on the Gosney soil and 250#/ac on the Deskamp soil for grazing by livestock. Production is very low.Under a high level of management an acre of this soil would support a cow/calf pair for 15 days in late spring,irrigated. NRCS does not recognize the Gosney or Deskamp soils being capable of producing merchantable trees. Sage West,LLC rborine @bendbroadband.com Roger Borine (541)610-2457 Bend,OR Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environrrxntat Soils Division "; �., a .rya av,,ay,a nrq'IreW0 z0.& t rOf t a.',,, + ■ ^ 9 R.:+ ;, A ;'J• vas P 0 Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ DECISION OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARING OFFICER FILE NUMBER: 247-15-000035-CU APPLICANT/OWNER: Dana E. and Karen E. Clough 63080 Stenkamp Road Bend, OR 97701 REQUEST: Conditional use permit for nonfarm dwelling on an 18.08-acre parcel in an Exclusive Farm Use (EFU-TRB) Zone HEARING DATE: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 6:30 p.m. Deschutes County Services Center 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97701 APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY: Liz Fancher, Attorney 644 NW Broadway Street Bend, OR 97701 STAFF CONTACT: Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner RECORD CLOSED: July 10, 20151 1, APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: A. Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance 1. Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use(EFU)Zone * Section 18.16.030, Conditional uses permitted - High value and non-high value farmland ' The record in this matter originally was closed May 26, 2015. Because the Hearings Officer was contacted ex parte after the record was closed, the Applicants attorney requested the record to be re- opened for an opportunity to respond to the matters raised outside of the record. An Order granting the motion to re-open was issued on July 6, 2015, which also granted the Applicant's attorney leave to file a final closing argument by July 17, 2015. Quality Services Performed with Pride * Section 18.16.040, Limitations on Conditional Uses *Section 18.16.043, Single Permit * Section 18.16.060, Dimensional Standards * Section 18.16.070,Yards 2. Chapter 18.80, Airport Safety Combining (AS)Zone * Section 18.80.020, Application of Provisions *Section 18.80.028, Height Limitations *Section 18.80.044, Land Use Compatibility Requirements *Section 18.80.054, Conditional Uses B. Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance C. Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 215, County Planning, Zoning, Housing Codes 1. ORS 215.296, Standards for Approval of Certain Uses in Exclusive Farm Use Zones 2. ORS 215.427, Final Action on Permit or Zone Change Application II. FINDINGS OF FACT: A. LOCATION: The subject property has an assigned address of 22075 Erickson Road. It is identified on Deschutes County Assessor's Map 17-13-30 as Tax Lot 200. B. LOT OF RECORD: The subject property is a legal lot of record pursuant to being parcel 1 of Partition MP-82-14. C. ZONING: The property is zoned Exclusive Farm Use — Tumalo/Redmond/Bend subzone (EFU-TRB). The property is also located within the Airport Safety (AS) Combining Zone. The property is designated Agriculture by the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. D. PROPOSAL: The applicants are proposing to establish a nonfarm dwelling on the subject 18.08-acre parcel in the EFU Zone. The applicants have submitted a conditional use permit application that includes an agricultural soils suitability assessment by Sage West, LLC (Roger Borine). E. SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject property is 18.08 acres and has 16.08 acres of irrigation water rights. On June 2, 2014, the applicants quitclaimed .58 acres of water rights for a water rights transfer in the northeast corner of the property (Exhibit E to Burden of Proof). The property has been used to grow hay, producing approximately 6 tons annually. Livestock have not been grazed on the property within the last five years. The property is generally level and has an existing storage shed and small fenced area, and the property is fenced on three sides (west, north, east). It also has an existing pond, an irrigation pivot, and a driveway extending south from Erickson Road. A PGT gas pipeline and associated easement extends through the eastern portion of the property, including a portion of the proposed homesite, in a general north-south direction. 247-15-000035-CU 2 The applicants' burden of proof states that the northeast corner of the property where the single-family dwelling is proposed "is a part of the pasture that contains Class VII nonagricultural soils that grow weeds rather than forage for livestock." The proposed homesite area includes a lava rock ledge with shallow soils that the applicants state "further impairs the ability of the area to produce crops or support a pasture." According to the Assessor's records, the property is receiving special assessment for farm use. F. SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES: The properties located directly north and east are zoned Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10). Dickey Road borders the property to the west and Erickson Road comprises the northern boundary. The properties to the west and immediately south are zoned EFU-TRB, and farther south are other properties also zoned MUA-10. The surrounding area includes some farming in the form of grass hay and pasture, as well as livestock (horses, cattle). Most of the properties in the vicinity are developed with a single-family dwelling. Further east and northeast are several MUA-10 zone subdivisions including Eastmont Estates, Vista Del Sol, Los Serranos, Los Serranos First Addition and Cleves Acres. Excluding the subject parcel, there are 80 EFU-zoned parcels in the study area (76 privately owned). Of these, 55 parcels have dwellings on them. 33 of the parcels are not receiving farm tax deferrals. 51 of the parcels are twenty acres or smaller. There are 25 parcels that have not been developed with a house. (Exhibit G to Burden of Proof). The applicants state that farming in the study area is limited by the presence of properties with a high percentage of Class VII and VIII soils (Soil Class 58C), as shown on the County's EFU Analysis Soils map. 19 dwellings were constructed during or prior to 1978. 13 dwellings were constructed from 1979 to 1992. 23 dwellings were constructed during or after 1993. The attributes of the adjoining and nearby EFU properties are summarized in the following table. Table: Adjacent and Nearby EFU Tax Lots TL Acre!: Farm Qwner Tax Lots Err.Ac. Tax bU Soil Mapping Units , Leonard 17-12-25, _ ,. . . . .. 101 9.77/0 N 1989 36A, 58C Couch 17-12-25, 102 19.6/13.9 Y 1990 36A, 580 West Grant _...._ 17-13-30,206 18.9/15.8 Y 1989 ` 36A, 368, 58C South G. SOILS: The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) data show the subject property contains the following two soil types: 247-15-000035-CU 3 • 36A, Deskamp loamy sand 0 to 3% slopes. This soil type is comprised of 85% Deskamp soil and similar inclusions, and 15% contrasting inclusions. The Deskamp soil is somewhat excessively drained with a rapid permeability and an available water capacity of about 3 inches. Major use for this soil type is irrigated cropland and livestock grazing. Native vegetation includes Western juniper, mountain big sagebrush, antelope bitterbrush, Idaho fescue and needleandthread. The soil capability rating for the Deskamp soil is 6s/3s. This soil type is considered high-value farmland when irrigated and makes up approximately 93.5% of the property. The proposed homesite is located on this soil type. The applicants state that the area proposed for development is in this mapping unit on soils that are contrasting inclusions similar to those found in the nearby area mapped 58C, Gosney-Rock outcrop-Deskamp. • 58C, Gosney-Rock outcrop-Deskmap complex, 0 to 15% slopes. This soil type is comprised of 50% Gosney soil and similar inclusions, 25% Rock outcrop, 20% Deskamp and similar inclusions, and 5% contrasting inclusions. The Gosney soil is somewhat excessively drained with a rapid permeability and an available water capacity of about 1 inch. The Deskamp soil is somewhat excessively drained with a rapid permeability and available water capacity of about 3 inches. Major use for this soil type is livestock grazing. The soil capability rating of the Gosney soil is 7E, 8s for the Rock outcrop, and 6e for the Deskamp soil. (There is no irrigated soil capability rating for this soil complex) This soil type is not considered a high-value soil when irrigated. This soil type makes up approximately 6.5% of the property. As discussed in detail in the findings below, the applicants submitted a site-specific soils analysis showing the soils on the proposed nonfarm dwelling homesite consist of Class VII soils. The applicants state that they irrigate the northeast corner of the property, despite its poor soils, to control dust and erosion. The applicants also state that the hay grown on the east side of the subject property is of poor quality and yield. This is corroborated by Don Barbin of Custom Hay Farming, who has been providing custom hay farming services for the applicants over the past three years. Mr. Barbin states that the northeast corner of the parcel is characterized by poor/low hay production (Exhibit F to Burden of Proof). The applicants' soils scientist, Roger Borine is a professional soil classifier under OAR 660-033-0030 and 0045. Mr. Borine took soil samples on the subject property on March 1, 2008 and October 15, 2014 and mapped the location of each soil unit in his soils report. The area of Class VII soils identified by Mr. Borine are shown in his report. Katherine Daniels, Farm and Forest Lands Specialist, Community Services Division, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development reviewed the soils assessment for completeness and determined it is consistent with reporting requirements for completeness. The Department did not make a determination with respect to the accuracy and acceptability of the soils assessment. H. PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice to several public agencies and received comments from the Deschutes County Transportation Planner, Bend Fire Department, and the Deschutes County Assessor. These public agency comments are addressed below. The following agencies did not respond to the notice: Deschutes County Environmental Soils Division, Deschutes County Road Department, 247-15-000035-CU 4 Central Electric Cooperative, Century link, Central Oregon Irrigation District and Avion Water Company. I. PUBLIC COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice of the application to all property owners within 750 feet of the subject property. In addition, notice of the public hearing was published in the Bend "Bulletin" newspaper on April 21, 2015, and the subject property was posted with a notice of proposed land use action sign. Several letters were received, all in opposition to the proposed request, with some statements about the farm use of the subject property. Public comments are addressed in the findings below. J. REVIEW PERIOD: This application was submitted on January 27, 2015. The Planning Division sent the applicants an incomplete application letter on February 18, 2015, requiring that the applicant submit a hearings officer deposit, as the application was being referred to a public hearing process. The applicants submitted the hearing officer deposit fee on March 20, 2105. The Planning Division deemed the application completed on the date the deposit was submitted, based on receipt of the hearings officer deposit per DCC 22.08.030(C). The 150th day upon which a final decision from the County is required will be August 17, 2015. The applicant submitted an affidavit showing that the Notice of Land Use Action sign was posted on the property on February 3, 2015. K. LAND USE HISTORY: The subject property has had the following land use application: MP-82-14, Minor land partition to divide an approximately 40-acre parcel into two 20-acre parcels. Supplemental Information for the George Cleveland Partition (MP-82-14) states, "The past use of this property has been a limited amount of pasture and the intended use will be for single family residential use along with pasture land. (Exhibit B to Burden of Proof). III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: TITLE 18 OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE, COUNTY ZONING. A. Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones. 1. Section 18.16.030, Conditional uses permitted High value and non-high value farmland. The following uses may be allowed in the Exclusive Farm Use zones on either high value farmland or non-high value farmland subject to applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, DCC 18.16.040 and 18.16.050, and other applicable sections of Title 18. A. Nonfarm dwelling FINDING: The applicant is requesting conditional use approval to establish a nonfarm dwelling on the subject property. 247-15-000035-CU 5 2. Section 18.16.040, Limitations on Conditional Uses. A. Conditional uses permitted by DCC 18.16.030 may be established subject to ORS 215.296 and applicable provisions in DCC 18.128 and upon a finding by the Planning Director or Hearings Body that the proposed use: 1. Will not force a significant change in accepted farm or forest practices as defined in ORS 215.203(2)(c) on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest uses;and 2. Will not significantly increase the cost of accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest uses;and FINDINGS: The County has applied an area of analysis ("study area")that covers all properties within a one-mile radius of the subject property, shown in geographic information system (GIS) and aerial photographs. The Hearings Officer determines this radius is sufficient to identify farm or forest uses that might be impacted by a proposed nonfarm dwelling, as it includes at least 2,000 acres and is comprised of approximately 55% of EFU-zoned land in both private and public ownership. Accepted Forest Practices: There are no properties zoned for forest use in the surrounding area; the predominant tree species in the surrounding area is juniper, which is not a commercial species. For these reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the proposed nonfarm dwelling will not force a significant change in, or significantly increase the cost of, accepted forest practices on surrounding lands devoted for forest use. Accepted Farm Practices: Three adjoining properties are zoned EFU and are currently in farm use, consisting mainly of irrigated pasture or grass hay and livestock. All three properties have been developed with single-family residences. One of these residences is a nonfarm dwelling. The applicant is proposing a dwelling location on a building site of 1.2 acres in the northeast corner of the property. The proposed homesite is located at least 100 feet from any adjacent farm uses to the north and east. The proposed site is clustered near existing homes and buildings. The north and east boundaries of the subject property are adjacent to lands zoned MUA-10, developed with rural residences. As evidenced on Exhibit G to the Burden of Proof, a majority of the tax-deferred farm parcels are distantly located from the proposed nonfarm dwelling. The record includes information from the Oregon State University Extension Service describing the types of impacts the farming practices in the surrounding area could generate on nearby lands. Maintaining irrigated pasture can generate dust from re-seeding, drifting of herbicides from spraying, vehicle noise from trucks, manure odor from fertilizing, and possible water runoff from irrigation. Grazing livestock can generate dust, manure odor, possible interference with vehicular traffic, and property damage if livestock escape. Danny Sheridan submitted a comment letter stating that he is a large parcel landowner close to the subject property and has been subject to complaints about field burning, burning in general for land clearing, driving tractors at night, and loud noises from irrigation pipe digging. He questions whether residents of the proposed nonfarm dwelling will be tolerant of general farming practices. 247-15-000035-CU 6 The applicants would be required as a condition of approval to sign and record in the Deschutes County Clerk's office, a document binding the landowner, and the landowner's successors in interest, prohibiting them from pursuing a claim for relief or cause of action alleging injury from farming or forest practices for which no action or claim is allowed under ORS 30.396 or 30.397. The Hearings Officer finds that recordation of this document with the County Clerk will help ensure that the proposed nonfarm dwelling will not significantly increase the cost of accepted farm practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm use, nor will it significantly increase the cost of accepted farm practices. The record indicates that most of the dwellings in the study area are either nonfarm dwellings or replacement dwellings — dwellings not related to farm use. I find the presence of dwellings not related to farm use in the study area has not changed the nature of the existing farm practices. The existing close proximity of homes to farmland are already felt in the study area. The Hearings Officer determines that approval of the proposed nonfarm dwelling will not create any new or different impacts. Further, the dwelling location allows sufficient buffers and will create adequate separation between the proposed homesite and the adjacent farm uses. I find that the proposed nonfarm dwelling will not force a significant change in accepted farm practices on surrounding properties devoted to farm use. For the same reasons, I find the proposed nonfarm dwelling will not significantly increase the cost of accepted farm practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm use. Fred and Sheryl Trachsel submitted a fetter in opposition expressing concern that approval of the proposed nonfarm dwelling will open the door for more approvals. I find that, because each application for nonfarm dwelling must be decided on the individual characteristics of the subject property, including but not limited to a soils analysis and a determination of whether each code criterion is met, approval of one specific application for a nonfarm dwelling will not "open the flood gates"to allow for additional approvals. 3. That the actual site on which the use is to be located is the least suitable for the production of farm crops or livestock. FINDING: The Hearings Officer finds that this approval criterion is different from the "generally unsuitable" standard discussed in the findings below. That is because this criterion requires the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed nonfarm dwelling homesite is the least suitable for the production of farm crops or livestock. Reading this standard in conjunction with the "generally unsuitable" standard, the applicant is required to demonstrate the proposed nonfarm dwelling homesite is the least suitable location on the subject property as a whole. In other words, even if the Hearings Officer finds that substantial evidence in the record supports a determination that the soils are "generally unsuitable" for farming, additional proof is required to meet the criterion that the actual proposed homesite is the "least suitable" for the production of farm crops or livestock. The applicant has submitted evidence and testimony to show that the east part of the property does not support farm use as the term is defined in ORS 215.203(2)(a), in relevant part, as "the current employment of land for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money by raising, harvesting and selling crops or the feeding, breeding, management and sale of, or the produce of, livestock." The nonproductive part of the property includes a PGT underground gas line. Heat from the gas line dries out the land and retards the growth of the pasture and crops. The applicant has attempted to grow pasture grass in this area without success. The area is covered with Plantain, a weed that grows in poor soils. On the other hand, Staff noted that the entire property has been irrigated and that there does not appear to be any difference in 247-15.000035-CU 7 vegetation between the Northeast corner (where the proposed homesite is), and the Northwest corner. Staff stated that the northeast corner and the northwest corner are visually indistinguishable in the May 2012 street level included in the record. The applicants have stated that, over five years ago, they unsuccessfully attempted to use the subject property as pasture for horses. Since that time, the property has been used to raise hay. Hay from the west part of the property is harvested. There is conflicting evidence in the record as to whether the amount of hay that grows on the east part of the property is so low that it is not harvested.2 The cost to harvest the area exceeds the value of the small amount of low quality hay that is produced. The applicant contracts with a custom hay farmer to cut the hay on the property. Don Barbin submitted a letter that opines the conditions of the property in the proposed homesite area are generally unsuitable for farm use. Notably, this opinion does not speak to the "least suitable" standard. One opposition letter from a neighboring property owner on Erickson Road states that the applicants have stopped watering and fertilizing the portion of the property on which they desire approval for a nonfarm dwelling. Specifically, "[t]hey bring in large fertilizer trucks to fertilize the lower portion of this property but neglect to care for the rest of the soil. There is an irrigation pivot that used to provide the land water that they no longer put to use." These property owners have lived nearby for 6 years and have witnessed multiple cuttings of hay on the subject property year after year. The applicants have shown that, even with fertilizer added to the subject homesite area, it will not significantly change the crop yield, and would essentially be putting "money down a rat hole." The argument that an applicant has "created" the unsuitable or "least suitable" circumstances has been considered by the Hearings Officer in the Newell application for a nonfarm dwelling in File No. CU-14-6, based on the specific facts of the proposed nonfarm dwelling homesite: The record indicates that in 2003, Robert Seliger transferred irrigation water rights for this area to another part of the subject property and to his adjacent Tax L 1403, and that this area has not been irrigated with TID irrigation water since that time. The record also indicates the remainder of the subject property has high value soils and is irrigated and engaged in farm use consisting of livestock grazing on irrigated pasture and hay production. As discussed in detail in the findings below concerning the "generally unsuitable" standard, the applicant submitted a soil analysis of the proposed homesite showing it has poor quality soils classified as Class VII and VIII soils with or without irrigation. Opponents argue the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with this approval criterion because Mr. Seliger improperly modified the soils on, and removed irrigation from, the proposed nonfarm dwelling homesite. In addition, opponents argue the soils analysis is not credible or reliable for a number of reasons. The Hearings Officer finds no merit to these arguments. As discussed in the findings below concerning the "generally unsuitable" standard, incorporated by reference herein, I have found the soil analysis is credible and reliable, and that modification of soils on and removal of irrigation from the proposed nonfarm dwelling homesite did not render unsuitable an area of the subject property that previously was suitable for the production of farm crops and livestock. For these reasons, and because the remainder of the subject property 2 There is also evidence in the record that shows that hay from the east side of the property is harvested, but is of poor quality and it is difficult to sell such hay for a profit. 247-15-000035-CU 8 has high value soils, is irrigated, and is engaged in farm use, I find the proposed nonfarm dwelling homesite is the "least suitable" site on the subject property for the production of farm crops or livestock. There are several important differences between the quality and quantity of evidence in the record in Newell, CU-14-6, and the subject application. First, the record shows that the proposed NE area for the homesite is currently, or has recently been irrigated, unlike the situation in Newell. Staff witnessed wheel lines and a pivot in the general location during a site visit. The applicant does not dispute that they use irrigation water to control dust. As discussed in detail in the findings below, I find that the question of past or present irrigation is not dispositive with respect to a determination of suitability of soils. This question turns on an examination of the soils methodology used by the applicant's soils engineer, specific data points, a consideration of NRCS data compared to on-site data, surrounding soils data and past farming of the subject property, specifically, the northeast corner that the applicant claims is the "least suitable" for farming. Second, for the same reasons, I find that the question of whether or not the Cloughs have been consistently fertilizing the entire parcel of property is not determinative, just as the Hearings Officer found that alleged "modification" of soils in Newell, without more, did not render the soils unsuitable for farming. The applicant states that the northeast area of the property is the part of the property that produces the lowest yields of hay, which makes it the least suitable site for farm use. They posit that its Class VII soils are not superior to the Class VII soils in the southeast part of the property, but offer no concrete evidence to support their reasoning. Ms. Fancher, on behalf of the applicant, noted that, similar to the Newell application, the Clough property is producing approximately 1/2 ton of hay per acre, which is not a commercial yield. She urges that such low producing land is the type that should be considered for placement of a nonfarm dwelling, where all other criteria may be met. The applicant's soils expert, Roger Borine, went into great detail testifying about the method used for his soils analysis on the subject property and the "on-ground" conditions that may or may not be accurately reflected in the generalized NRCS mapping. Specifically, Mr. Borine testified that there are "lava blisters" on the property that exist in a NE to SW direction of the property. The lava area on the ridge predicts shallow soils. Mr. Borine concentrated his soil samples in these locations because he stated there is "no reason to spend time where good soils are." He commented that the western half of the property is "all good soil." Mr. Weinman testified in opposition to the application, opining that the SE corner of the property, rather than the NE corner is the "least suitable." He stated that the SE corner is all fill and consists of buried rocks. Mr. Wienman's opinion is based on the fact that he used to provide custom haying services in the 1980s and 1990s for the subject property. He also testified that the property yielded 60-70 tons/year of alfalfa hay, when the property was 40 acres in size (prior to its partition). Ms. Fancher countered that such a yield is considered low and not profitable. Mr. Borine testified that the east side of the property was the least suitable for farming, given soils conditions, and noted that there was "not room" in the SE corner of the property for a homesite. Staff noted, and I agree that the detailed, gridded, data-point location map showing where test pits were dug does not wholly coincide within the proposed homesite area. The analysis of the southern quarter of the homesite area appears to be based upon a single test pit. Also, the revised soils map is continued to the southern half of the property with no data 247-15-000035-CU 9 points taken or test pits dug in the southern half of the property. Mr. Borine's testimony was generally focused on a comparison of east vs. west sides of the property. Given the fact that the lava blister flows toward the SW corner of the property (and the western half of the property is said to be suitable for farm use), and given that the existing pipeline affects more than just the NE corner of the property, the Hearings Officer finds that the applicant has failed to meet its burden of proving the 1,2 acre proposed homesite in the NE corner of the property is the "least suitable" for farming, without more. Moreover, there is not substantial evidence in the record to support such a finding. This is not to say that the 1.2 acre proposed homesite is "suitable" for farming. However, without a showing that the proposed site is the "least suitable," for farming, I conclude this criterion is not met. I find that the applicant erred in limiting the detailed soils analysis submitted to the northeast corner of the property. Without this same level of detailed analysis in the southeast corner, it is not possible to compare depth-to-basalt, the primary limitation of agricultural productivity between the two areas. The record does not show evidence to support a finding that the proposed homesite is the least suitable for the production of farm crops or livestock. 3. Section 18.16.050, Standards for Dwellings in the EFU Zones Dwellings listed in DCC 18.16.025 and 1816.030 maybe allowed under the conditions set forth below for each kind of dwelling, and all dwellings are subject to the landowner for the property upon which the dwelling is placed, signing and recording in the deed records for the County, a document binding the landowner, and the landowner's successors in interest,prohibiting them from pursuing a claim for relief or cause of action alleging injury from farming or forest practices for which no action or claim is allowed under ORS 30.936 or 30.937. G, Nonfarm Dwelling. 1. One single-family dwelling, including a manufactured home in accordance with section 18116.070 of this title, not provided in conjunction with farm use may be permitted on an existing lot or parcel subject to the following criteria: a. The Planning Director or Hearings Body shall make findings that: 1. The dwelling or activities associated with the dwelling will not force a significant change in or significantly increase the cost of accepted farming practices, as defined in ORS 215.203(2)(c), or accepted forest practices on nearby lands devoted to farm or forest use. FINDINGS: If the application was approved, the applicant would be required as a condition of approval to execute and record the waiver listed above with the Deschutes County Clerk prior to issuance of a building permit for the dwelling. Therefore, I find that this criterion could be met. 247-15-000035-CU 10 As discussed in the findings above, the record indicates there are no forest practices occurring within the study area, and for that reason the Hearings Officer has found the proposed nonfarm dwelling will not force a significant change in, or significantly increase the cost of, accepted forest practices on nearby lands devoted to forest use. With respect to potential impacts on farming practices, I find that this criterion is virtually identical to DCC 18.16.040(A)(1) and (2), with the exception that this standard lists the dwelling and the activities associated with the dwelling. There was concern expressed by the letters in opposition that the activities associated with the dwelling — more traffic and people, would impact the rural lifestyle. Specifically, a property owner on Erickson Road noted that the road is a narrow, rural road, home to families with children that use the road. They expressed concern that the applicants intend to operate an equestrian boarding facility once a dwelling is built, that will bring increased traffic. Brad and Carol Davis also submitted a letter in opposition that expressed safety concerns on Erickson Road from additional car and truck traffic on the narrow road. The Hearings Officer finds that potential impacts of a future, but not yet proposed use will be analyzed if and when such a proposal is made. Speculative impacts of a speculative use are not appropriately considered at this time. I have determined that the record does not support a determination that increased traffic from a dwelling or accessory use would impact farming in the area. Impact on a "rural lifestyle," as alleged by some of the opponents, is not a criterion to be considered under the Code. Based on the above findings on the criteria set forth in DCC 18.16.040.A, which are incorporated herein by reference, I find this criterion is satisfied. ii. The proposed nonfarm dwelling will not materially alter the stability of the overall land use pattern of the area. In determining whether a proposed nonfarm dwelling will alter the stability of the land use pattern in the area, the County shall consider the cumulative Impact of nonfarm dwellings on other lots or parcels in the area similarly situated, by applying the standards under OAR 660-033-0130(4)(a)(D), and whether creation of the parcel will lead to creation of other nonfarm parcels, to the detriment of agriculture in the area. FINDING: On June 1, 1998, the Land Conservation and Development Commission adopted amendments to the administrative rules implementing Goal 3, Agricultural Lands (OAR Chapter 660-033) to incorporate case law and to clarify the analysis under the "stability" approval criterion. The rules continue to apply the three-step "stability" analysis first articulated in Sweeten v. Clackamas County, 17 Or LUBA 1234 (1989). The rules are as follows: (C) The dwelling will not materially alter the stability of the overall land use pattern of the area. In determining whether a proposed nonfarm dwelling will alter the stability of the land use pattern in the area, a county shall consider the cumulative impact of nonfarm dwellings on other lots or parcels in the area similarly situated by applying the standards set forth in paragraph (4)(a)(D) of this rule. If the application involves the creation of a new parcel for the nonfarm dwelling, a county shall consider whether creation of the parcel will lead to creation of other 247-15-000035-CU 11 nonfarm parcels, to the detriment of agriculture in the area. To address this standard, the county shall: (1) Identify a study area for the cumulative impacts analysis. The study area shall include at least 2000 acres or a smaller area not less than 1000 acres, if the smaller area is a distinct agricultural area based on topography, soil types, land use pattern, or the type of farm or ranch operations or practices that distinguish it from other, adjacent agricultural areas. Findings shall describe the study area, its boundaries, the location of the subject parcel within this area, why the selected area is representative of the land use pattern surrounding the subject parcel and is adequate to conduct the analysis required by this standard. Lands zoned for rural residential or other urban or nonresource uses shall not be included in the study area; (ii) Identify within the study area the broad types of farm uses (irrigated or nonirrigated crops, pasture or grazing lands), the number, location and type of existing dwellings (farm, nonfarm, hardship, etc.), and the dwelling development trends since 1993. Determine the potential number of nonfarm/lot of record dwellings that could be approved under subsections (3)(a) and section 4 of this rule, including identification of predominant soil classifications, the parcels created prior to January 1, 1993, and the parcels larger than the minimum lot size that may be divided to create new parcels for nonfarm dwellings under ORS 215.263(4). The findings shall describe the existing land use pattern of the study area including the distribution and arrangement of existing uses and the land use pattern that could result from approval of the possible nonfarm dwellings under this subparagraph; (ill) Determine whether approval of the proposed nonfarm/lot of record dwellings together with existing nonfarm dwellings will materially alter the stability of the land use pattern in the area. The stability of the land use pattern will be materially altered if the cumulative effect of existing and potential nonfarm dwellings will make it more difficult for the existing types of farms in the area to continue operation due to diminished opportunities to expand, purchase or lease farmland, acquire water rights or diminish the number of tracts or acreage in farm use in a manner that will destabilize the overall character of the study area; 1. Cumulative Impacts Analysis Area. The County has applied an area of analysis including all EFU-zoned land located within a one-mile radius of the subject property's boundaries and including approximately 2,000 acres (hereafter called "study area"). I find this area of analysis is suitable to provide a comprehensive analysis of the character of the area surrounding the subject property because of its size and the number of parcels located within it. The study area includes land within the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zone. There are several areas of Multiple Use 247-15-000035-GU 12 Agricultural (MUA-10) zoning in the study area also. Staff estimates and I agree that the EFU and the MUA-10 zones each cover approximately one-half of the study area. There are 78 EFU-zoned tax lots within the study area excluding the subject parcel. These tax lots range in size from .41 acres to 479.82 acres. Four of these 78 tax lots are in public ownership (BLM, City of Bend, School District #1 and Eastern Star Grange), including the largest one of 479.82 acres. Forty-nine (49) of the tax lots are 20 acres or smaller in size. Twenty (20) of the tax lots are between 20+ and 40 acres; six (6) of the tax lots are between 40+ and 80 acres in size, and three (3) tax lots are larger than 80 acres in size. 2. Types of Farm Uses. The study area contains farm uses that are either grass hay or irrigated pasture and livestock grazing (horses and cattle). 47 tax lots are receiving special assessment for farm use and all but five of such lots have irrigation water rights. Within the study area, approximately 711 acres have irrigation water rights and approximately 1,321 acres are without irrigation water rights (Exhibit G to Burden of Proof). The record indicates that the study area is located within the boundaries of Central Oregon Irrigation District. The study area includes soil types classified as both high value and nonhigh value farmland. High value farmland is mapped as existing on and near the subject property. The Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey, dated January 2, 2014 indicates that of 345.2 acres in the subject area of interest (AOI), 62.9% of the soils are 36A Deskamp loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes, 2.7% of the soils are 36B Deskamp loamy sand, 3-8 percent slopes, and 34.3% of the soils are 58C Gosney-Rock outcrop Deskamp complex, 0 to 15 percent slopes. 3. Existing Dwellings. The record indicates that 53 of the 74 privately owned tax lots in the study area have dwellings. These dwellings were built in the following years: nineteen (19) dwellings prior to 1979, twelve (12) dwellings from 1979 to 1992, and twenty-two (22) dwellings from 1993 to present. I find that the dwellings developed prior to 1979 predated the County's EFU zone and therefore were not subject to EFU zoning requirements. The twelve dwellings developed between 1979 and 1992 included ten farm dwellings, and two nonfarm dwellings. The dwellings constructed up until the late 1980's in this time period were not necessarily reviewed as either farm or nonfarm dwellings. Of the twenty-two dwellings constructed in 1993 or after, nine were nonfarm dwellings, three were farm dwellings, and nine were replacement dwellings. The record is unclear as to the type of dwelling constructed in 2006 on a parcel across Dickey Road to the 247-15-000035-CU 13 southwest of the subject property. The farm dwellings were approved under the prior "tier" standards, which are no longer in existence. The record shows that the nonfarm dwellings approved since 1993 are located on properties generally without irrigation water rights, and have poor soils. 4. Dwelling Development Trends Since 1993. As discussed above, nine of the twenty-two dwellings constructed in 1993 or after were nonfarm dwellings, three were farm dwellings, and nine were replacement dwellings. 5. Potential Nonfarm Parcels. In the EFU zone, two types of land divisions are possible, those where the parent parcel is irrigated (See: DCC 18.16.055(B)) and those where the parent parcel is not irrigated (See: DCC 18.16.055(C)). Because this proposal does not involve the creation of any new parcels for a nonfarm dwelling, I find that it is not necessary to include in this analysis a determination of whether a new parcel will lead to the creation of other nonfarm parcels, to the detriment of agriculture in the area. Rather, the analysis must consider the cumulative impact of approval to the proposed nonfarm dwelling on other similarly- situated parcels— i.e., vacant parcels that are similar in size, soils and irrigation. 6. Potential Nonfarm Dwellings. There are 21 vacant privately owned tax lots in the study area, including the subject property. The applicant correctly points out that two of the 21 lots are, together, a single legal lot of record. Two other properties are developed with structures other than single-family residential (school buildings and power lines). Four of the vacant properties have obtained conditional use approval for the placement of nonfarm dwellings, which approvals have expired. I find that there is a potential for an additional 18 nonfarm dwellings if all existing, vacant, privately-owned parcels could meet the standards for approval for a nonfarm dwelling. 7. Potential Lot of Record Dwellings. Under Section 18.16.050(E) and OAR 660-033-130(3), a lot of record dwelling may be sited on an EFU-zoned parcel on non-high value farmland if the parcel was created and acquired by the current owner prior to January 1, 1985, has continuously been owned by the present owner since then, and if the lot or parcel on which the dwelling will be sited was part of a tract on November 4, 1993, no dwelling exists on another lot or parcel that was part of that tract. Under Section 18.16.050(F) and OAR 660-033-130(3)(c), a lot of record dwelling may be sited on high value farmland if it meets the criteria for a lot of record dwelling on non-high value farmland and 247-15-000035-CU 14 the Planning Division finds the parcel cannot practically be managed for farm use "due to extraordinary circumstances inherent in the land or its physical setting," such as "very steep slopes, deep ravines ... or other similar natural or physical barriers." The Planning Division has previously determined that lot of record dwellings can be difficult to obtain, given the requirement for ownership prior to 1985, and the land cannot be suitable for farming based on the above factors. Some parcels may qualify for a lot of record dwelling, but without a specific analysis of each and every parcel, this determination cannot be made. No lot of record dwellings have been approved in the study area to date. The Hearings Officer has found in the past that only a small number of tax lots are likely to qualify for lot of record dwellings because the creation and ownership requirements and because of the "extraordinary circumstances" approval criterion. The County's Hearings Officers consistently have held that while it is possible some parcels in the nonfarm dwelling study areas to qualify for a lot-of-record dwelling, without a specific and detailed analysis of each parcel, that determination cannot be made. This Hearings Officer adheres to that holding in this case. I further note that the staff report does not indicate the approval of any lot- of-record dwellings within the study area. 8. Stability and Character of the Land Use Pattern of the Area. Based upon the above findings and data in the record, the Hearings Officer finds that the land use pattern and character of the study area is a mix of farms, rural residences and some juniper woodland. Privately-owned parcels range in size from .41- 118.71 acres in size. Over half of the parcels have been developed with residences and are less than 20 acres in size. 29 of the privately-owned parcels are not receiving farm tax deferral. I find that, in light of the history of dwelling permits described above, land use in the area has been stable, with farming and residential land uses remaining consistent over the years. The record indicates that in the approximately 20 years since the County adopted its EFU subzones and implemented more restrictive rules for farm dwellings, most dwellings approved in the study area have been nonfarm dwellings and replacement dwellings — i.e., dwellings not in conjunction with farm use. However, the record also indicates that in spite of the large number of such dwelling approvals, the study area has retained its predominant agricultural character. The subject property is mostly irrigated, and the proposed dwelling is to be placed on land that has been irrigated in the past. Several of the letters received indicate that the property has had farm use for a number of years, including the area where the 247-15-000035-CU 15 dwelling is proposed. Five witnesses who live, or have lived, near the subject property testified in opposition at the hearing that they have witnessed crops growing on the property. 9. Effect on Stability from Proposed Non-irrigated Partition and Nonfarm Dwellings. Approval of the proposed nonfarm dwelling will make a total of 54 dwellings in the study area. This criterion focuses on what would be the cumulative impact on the stability of the land use pattern in the study area from approving the proposed nonfarm dwelling and whether the approval would set a precedent for approval of additional nonfarm dwellings, thereby driving up the price of land and making it more difficult for existing farms to continue to operate. For the reasons discussed in the findings above, incorporated herein by reference, approval of dwellings in the study area that are not in conjunction with farm use has not cased farm land to increase in cost so that it is no longer affordable for lease or purchase by farmers. I find that the cumulative effect of adding this nonfarm dwelling will not "materially alter the stability of the land use pattern in the area" by making it more difficult for the existing farms to continue operation due to diminished opportunities to expand, purchase of lease farmland, acquire water rights or by diminishing the number of tracts or acreage in farm use. This is because the applicant has proposed to keep everything but the homesite in irrigated agriculture and because the homesite is buffered from all adjacent farm uses by on-site farm use. Therefore, the approval of this nonfarm dwelling should have no effect on the ability of existing farms to expand, purchase or lease farmland or acquire water rights. The Hearings Officer finds that, based on substantial evidence in the record, removal of the homesite from production will not diminish the amount of land in production for farm use. As set forth in the findings above, the approval of the proposed nonfarm dwelling will not set a precedent for the wholesale approval of nonfarm dwellings to the detriment of surrounding farming. The record indicates that, in spite of the relatively large number of dwellings in the study area and the predominance of relatively small tax lots, the vast majority of EFU-zoned land in the study area has continued to be engaged in farm use consisting of livestock grazing on irrigated pasture and hay production. Historical aerial photos show that all of the properties currently employed in farm use have remained virtually the same over several years. Each proposed nonfarm dwelling is reviewed on the conditions that pertain to a subject property and the surrounding area. For these reasons the Hearings Officer finds that the proposed nonfarm dwelling will not materially alter the stability of the land use pattern in the area. This criterion is met. 247-15-000035-CU 16 iii. The proposed nonfarm dwelling is situated on an existing lot or parcel, or a portion of a lot or parcel, that is generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops and livestock, or merchantable tree species, considering the terrain, adverse soli or land conditions, drainage and flooding, vegetation, location and size of the tract. 2. For the purposes of DCC 18.16.050(G) only, "unsuitability" shall be determined with reference to the following: a. A lot or parcel shall not be considered unsuitable solely because of size or location if it can reasonably be put to farm or forest use in conjunction with other land. If the parcel is under forest assessment, the dwelling shall be situated upon generally unsuitable land for the production of merchantable tree species recognized by the Forest Practices Rules, considering the terrain, adverse soil or land conditions, drainage and flooding, vegetation, location and size of the parcel. b. A lot ctr_parcel is not "generally unsuitable" simply. because it is too small to be farmed profitably by itself. If a lot or parcel can be sold, leasedt, rented or otherwise managed as part of a commercial farm or=ranch, it is not "generally unsuitable." A lot or parcel is presumed to be suitable if it is composed predominantly of Class I-VI soils. Just because a lot or parcel is unsuitable for one farm use does not mean it is not suitable for another farm use. If the parcel is under forest assessment, the area is not "generally unsuitable" simply because it is too small to be managed for forest production profitably by itself. * * * (emphasis added). FINDING: Most of the testimony and evidence presented in this matter concerns application of the "generally unsuitable" standard. The applicants state that the subject property is unsuitable due to poor quality of its soils, and not because of its size or location. The applicants also argue that the property is unsuitable based on vegetation. The applicants do not argue unsuitability based on adverse land conditions, drainage, flooding, location or size of the tract. More specifically, the applicants state that the eastern half of the subject property is generally unsuitable; they admit success in raising marketable hay on the western half of the property. In this regard, the applicants' position is that the homesite is on a portion of a lot or parcel that is generally unsuitable. The applicants posit that, by approving a non-farm dwelling on the proposed homesite, it will be more feasible to farm the balance of the property with a resident farmer onsite. The subject property has existing farm use, which appears to have been conducted on the approximately 40-acre parent parcel as one farm unit in the past. The parcel on which the proposed homesite would be sited has been managed for agricultural use together with 247-15-000035-CU 17 adjacent land since at least 1953. It is currently receiving farm deferral. The property is not under forest assessment and the only trees on the site are juniper trees, which have no commercial value. The record includes post-2005 aerial photography which shows the homesite area is irrigated by a single pivot that services the property to the south (17-13-30, 206) as well. The applicants state that the soils in the northeast part of the property produce %2 ton of low quality hay per acre, whereas the NRCS Soil Survey expects yields of 4 tons per acre on the 36A soils found on the west part of the property. Terrain. The record shows that the proposed nonfarm dwelling homesite is located on slightly higher ground than the balance of the subject property. The Borine Study describes the geology of the area: "This study area is primarily volcanic flows overlain by a mantle of volcanic ash deposited during the eruption of Mt. Mazama. Soils on these flows are ashy and sandy in texture. Varying amounts of volcanic ash have been eroded from rock outcroppings and re- deposited in depressions." The Hearings Officer finds that there is nothing concerning the terrain on the subject property or the proposed homesite that renders it "generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops and livestock." Adverse soil or land conditions. During a site visit, staff noted that the proposed homesite is to be located on land that is currently irrigated and appears to have some grass growing on site. The record includes aerial photographs dated 1953, 1994, 2000, 2005, 2006, 2011, 2012 and 2014, which appear to show the homesite area is irrigated agriculture. The applicant testified that biomass is different than forage, and that the existence of biomass is not relevant to the question of whether the property is suitable for farming. The applicant admitted to irrigating the homesite area, but to control dust. The NRCS Web Soil Survey shows the homesite area as consisting of Class 3s soils, which is presumed to be suitable under this criterion. However, the applicants obtained a soils analysis of the proposed nonfarm dwelling homsite performed by Roger Borine of Sage West LLC. The report is attached as Exhibit C to the Burden of Proof. Class 3 soils have "severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require special conservation practices, or both." 36A soils are typically given a rating of 3 when irrigated and a rating of 6 tYp Y g g g g nonirrigated. Class 6 soils have "severe limitations that make them generally unsuitable for cultivation and that restrict their use mainly to pasture, rangeland,forestland or wildlife habitat." Class 7 soils have "very severe limitations that make them unsuitable for cultivation and that restrict their use mainly to grazing, forestland or wildlife habitat." 58C soils are typically given a rating of 7 regardless of whether they are irrigated. The Borine Study found soils on the proposed homesite are Class VII soils that are not considered suitable for the production of hay or pasture. Opponents argue that the Borine Study is not credible and should not be considered by the Hearings Officer. Staff also expressed concerns regarding the position that the soils are unsuitable for farm crops and livestock. The Borine report states: 247-15-000035-CU 18 "The purpose for the soils investigation was to inventory and locate a site for a nonfarm dwelling that is situated on this parcel that is generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops and livestock or merchantable tree species per Deschutes County Code(DCC) 18.16.050(G) — Standards for Dwellings in the EFU Zones — Nonfarm dwelling. This report provides and documents more detailed data on soil classification and soil ratings than is contained in the USDA-NRCS soil maps and soil survey at the published level of detail. This more detailed soils data is directly related to the NRCS Land Capability Classification system(LCC) designation." The NRCS maps show the proposed homesite being located in soil type 36A, Deskamp loamy sand 0 to 3 percent slopes. The NRCS information indicates that this soil type has a land capability classification (LCC) of class 3s (irrigated) and 6s (non-irrigated). The soils analysis/report by Sage West LLC states the following: "An area was identified as LCC 7 soils and has severe limitations that restrict their use. The area is illustrated as LCC 7 in the Soils Map— Order 1 in Figure 2. This area is a gently sloping convex lava flow. Soils are shallow and very shallow and gravelly and very gravelly in the substratum over hard basalt bedrock. The soils and landscapes for a larger area surrounding Tax Lot 200 are illustrated on the NRCS soils map in the Attachments section. The area for the proposed nonfarm dwelling within the red lines was omitted or not observed during mapping of the Soil Survey of the Upper Deschutes River Area, Oregon likely due to road and gas pipeline construction that eliminated the visible connection of the blister ridge that existed between the two 58C mapping units. A proposed building site is located within the required 100 foot setback on the east and 60 foot setback on the north boundaries. The property lines presenting the north and east boundaries of the LCC 7 land should be confirmed by a legal survey since no property corner monuments were located. This will ensure the setback requirements are met. The area of LCC 7 soils is approximately 4.52 acres (Figure 2); and the proposed nonfarm building site within LCC 7 soils and required setbacks is approximately 1.2 acres and 54,700 sq ft (Figure 3). Within this area of LCC 7 soils there is adequate space to locate the initial and reserve septic drain fields with a 10 foot property line setback." The soils analysis/report also states the following: "Considerations for determining suitability of the property for crop, livestock, or merchantable tree production: NRCS estimates that 36A-Deskamp loamy sand 0-3% slopes will produce 4.0 tons of alfalfa per acre and 1.5 AUMs per acre for pasture, irrigated. The Gosney soil, a contrasting inclusion, will produce 2.0 tons of alfalfa per acre and 0.5 AUMs per acre for pasture, irrigated. Neither soil is rated for non-irrigated farm crops. NRCS estimates that soils in 58C Gosney-Rock outcrop-Deskamp 0-15% slopes will produce 150#/ac forage on the Gosney soil and 250#/ac on the Deskamp soil for grazing by livestock. Production is very low. Under a high level of management an acre of this soil would support a cow/calf pair for 15 days in late spring, irrigated. 247-15-000035-CU 19 NRCS does not recognize the Gosney or Deskamp soils being capable of producing merchantable trees. Conclusion: The purpose for this soils investigation was to inventory and locate a potential site for a nonfarm dwelling that is situated on this parcel that is generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops and livestock or merchantable tree species per Deschutes County Code (DCC) 18.16.050(G) -- Standards for Dwellings in the EFU Zones — Nonfarm dwelling. This report provides and documents more detailed data on soil classification and soil ratings than is contained in the USDA-NRCS soil maps and soil survey at the published level of detail. This more detailed soils data is directly related to the NRCS Land Capability Classification system (LCC) designation. Soil mapping units were designed to separate soils in LCC 3-6 from those in LCC 7/8. One area was identified as predominantly LCC 7 soils with severe limitations for farm use. Further, poor soil fertility, shallow soils, low available water capacity, and limited availability of livestock forage are considerations for the determination for suitability for farm use. The building site is located within required setbacks. Within the areas of LCC 7 soils there is adequate space to locate the initial and reserve septic drainfields with the required setbacks. Areas were inventoried in detail and maps with supporting data are included in the report." As set forth the findings above, the Hearings Officer has found that the detailed, gridded, data- point location map showing where test pits were dug does not wholly coincide within the proposed homesite area. The analysis of the southern quarter of the homesite area appears to be based upon a single test pit. Also, the revised soils map is continued to the southern half of the property with no data points taken or test pits dug in the southern half of the property. Accordingly, there is not substantial evidence to support a finding that the NE corner of the property is the least suitable for farming. Notwithstanding this particular finding, the general unsuitability of the parcel as a whole must be determined independently, as follows. The report states that soils less than 10 inches deep and with less than 2 inches of Available Water Capacity (AWC) are Class 7 soils regardless of irrigation. The report states that the subject soils would need to be at least 17 inches deep to have 2 inches of Available Water Capacity. In the portion of the map determined to be class 7 soils by the study, 26 of 29 test pits were at least 10 inches deep to basalt and 11 of 29 test pits were at least 17 inches deep to basalt. Staff noted a concern that the soils of at least 17 inches in depth appear to be clustered in a northeast to southwest band across the center of the proposed homesite. The applicant responded that the deeper soils were the result of the installation of the underground gas line, and did not result in correspondingly more favorable soils depth. A comparison of the agricultural production numbers from the submitted soils study report appear with the NRCS Web Soil Survey (WSS) data shows the following discrepancies, summarized below. Rangeland forage: For 36A soils, the WSS lists 900 pounds, or 1 AUM per acre of "normal- year" rangeland forage. For 58C soils, the WSS lists 558 pounds, or 0.62 AUM per acre of "normal-year" rangeland forage. Normal-year rangeland forage isn't a meaningful number in 247-15-000035-CU 20 the analysis of this property, since the property has irrigation rights and has been managed for irrigated production, not rangeland forage. Alfalfa Hay: The WSS list 4 tons per acre of alfalfa hay for the 36A soils. Staff calculates this as 8.9 AUM per acre (4 tons = 8,000 pounds, 900 pounds = 1 AUM). Staff was unable to obtain an alfalfa hay production for the 58C soils from the WSS. Staff notes that the USDA soils interpretation sheets, upon which staff relied prior to the WSS, show the 58C soils as a soil complex comprised of Gosney, Rock Outcrop and Deskamp components. Component production is listed as Gosney production at 2 tons of alfalfa hay per acre, irrigated; rock outcrop with no production, and Deskamp production at 4 tons of alfalfa hay per acre. Pasture: The WSS list 1.5 AUM per acre when managed as irrigated pasture for the 36A soils. Staff was unable to obtain a pasture AUM estimate for the 58C soils from the WSS. Staff observed that the information from the WSS indicates that the subject soils are generally supportive of irrigated pasture use or Alfalfa Hay production. I agree with such a statement. However, the Hearings Officer finds that the Borine Report calculations are based on "on site" tests and observations of actual conditions on the property and thus, supersede those generalized estimates of the WSS. The Report is focused on the eastern half of the property, and most specifically, on the proposed homesite in the NE corner. Mr. Borine testified in detail at the hearing in support of his report and findings. In particular, he explained the difference between the level of detail of NRCS mapping and specific, on-site analysis of soils. Specifically, the NRCS soil mapping is"correct"for its purpose and detail, which is limited. The NRCS maps 300-1500 acres per day, and its maps are not to be used for regulatory purposes. In this case, the NRCS missed the lava blister area onsite and did not take into consideration the underground pipeline and impacts of road construction on the soils existing on the subject property. According to Mr. Borine, the underground pipeline dries out soil and radiates heat. The applicant also submitted a letter from Don Barbin which states: "Custom hay farming is my sole job and source of income. My hay cutting experience spans 15 years plus. I have been providing custom hay farming services for the Cloughs over the past 3 years. This letter is to report the very poor/low hay production located in the North East corner of the Clough's parcel 200, commonly known as 22075 Erickson Rd. The main reason for this poor/low hay production is based on several things. 1. Because the "TransCanada"gas lines run through this area, the soil is shallow and the pipes generate heat causing the soil there to be dry. It can be observed in the winter when there is a dusting of snow on the ground, the snow over the pipe lines dissipates rapidly. 2. To the west of the pipe line, hay growth is sparse with primarily drought tolerant "Plantain"(weed) which grows in that area. 3. Shallow soils mixed in among a lava rock ledge. In my view these conditions contribute to very low hay production in that area. 247-15-000035-CU 21 In the Staff Report, several concerns were raised regarding location of the homesite over the 100-foot-wide gas pipeline right-of-way and whether the effects of the pipeline on agricultural production do not impact the proposed homesite. The Hearings Officer finds that substantial evidence in the record shows the impact of the gas pipeline has increased heat and dryness of the soils and surrounding soils, reducing the ability to successfully use that portion of the property for hay production. Staff also noted that additional information on the applicants' farming management actions is required. Mrs. Clough testified at length at the hearing concerning their failed efforts to produce marketable crops and/or raise vegetation for livestock forage. Mrs. Clough testified that when they purchased the subject property, it was infested with plantain. They conducted weed abatement of their fields for 2 successive years, including burning the fields. During this time, they managed to increase the yield of hay but plantain persisted in the poor soils found in northeastern part of pasture. Mrs. Clough stated that plantain is difficult to eradicate and that the costs of attempting to do so would further the losses incurred for raising hay. She also testified that the property is a "poor location" for farming because it is surrounded by numerous nonfarm residences. Dogs kept by neighbors roam off leash and make it infeasible to use the property to pasture horses. Mrs. Clough stated that they cannot raise animals without a resident farmer because dogs run onto the property. Mrs. Clough also testified that the small size of the property is a factor in rendering it difficult to farm. They cannot purchase their own farm equipment and thus must rely on contract hay farmers to harvest and bale the hey. The Cloughs estimate losses of $508 per acre per year. The applicants' efforts to make the property productive were confirmed by a July 9, 2015 letter from Mrs. Hogan. The applicants state that raising hay on the eastern part of the property is not profitable and no reasonable farmer would expect to make a profit raising hay on this property. The applicants rely on Wetherell v. Douglas County, 342 Or 666, 678, 160 P.3d 614 (2007) and the definition of farm use in ORS 215.203(2) as agricultural activities conducted "for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money." The LCDC rule defines profit as gross income rather than net income. The Borine Study and the letter from Don Barbin state that the soils on the proposed nonfarm dwelling homesite are of poor quality. The Borine Study states: "One area was identified as predominantly LCC 7 soils with severe limitations for farm use. Further, poor soil fertility, shallow soils, low available water capacity, and limited availability of livestock forage are considerations for the determination for suitability for farm use. The building site is located with required setbacks. Within the areas of LCC 7 soils there is adequate space to locate the initial and reserve septic drainfields with the required setbacks. Areas were inventoried in detail and maps with supporting data are included with this report." The applicants' burden of proof estimates annual gross beef production potential for the subject property to be$1,301.76 based on assumptions identified by the OSU Extension Service: • One AUM is the equivalent to the forage required for a 1000 pound cow and calf to graze for 30 days (900 pounds forage) • On good quality forage an animal unit will gain 2 pounds per day • Two animal units will eat as much in one month as one animal unit will eat in two months 247-15-000035-CU 22 • Forage production on dry land is not continuous. Once the forage is eaten, it generally will not grow back until the following spring • An average market price for beef is$1.20 per pound The value of beef production on the subject property can be calculated using the following formula: 30 days x 2#/day/acre=60.0 pounds beef/acre (1 acre per AUM) 60.0 pounds beef/acre x 18.08 acres x 1.20/lb = $1,301.76 The applicants posited that the area proposed for nonfarm development would produce enough forage to feed one cow-calf pair for 18 days per year. However, the Hearings Officer notes that the question is whether the subject parcel as a whole is suitable for farming, or alternatively, that the eastern half of the parcel is unsuitable for farming. The suitability of the NE corner in isolation is not dispositive of the question. Staff noted that the proposed homesite is to be located on land that is currently irrigated and appears to have some grass growing at the site. This area appears to be irrigated agriculture in aerial photos dated 1953, 1994, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2011, 2012 and 2014. Numerous property owners in the vicinity testified that they have witnessed the production of hay crops over many years on the subject property. Mr. Wyman has lived in the area for 35 years and farmed the parcel for several years in the 1980s. He testified that a wheelline and handline were used for irrigation, and that now it has a center pivot, which should make it even more productive. Mr. and Mrs. Donald McHone have lived in the area for 38 years and they have seen "great hay crops" harvested on the land. Joseph and Linda Worlein have lived (40 years) -- directly across Erickson Road for 40 years. They submitted a letter stating that the land is farmable and has been for all the years they have been there. The Worleins have witnessed "large quantities" of hay having been raised on the property. They also purchased hay raised on the land from previous owners. With adequate fertilizer and water, this land is capable of growing ample forage crops. Brad and Carol Davis have lived near the subject property for 19 years. They state that there have been 2 to 3 cuttings of hay and/or alfalfa per year. This evidence is contrary to the position of the applicant that the property, or at least the eastern half of the property, is dry, unproductive land. However, there is no evidence that the prior farming practices made a "profit," or that the current property owners may do so under existing circumstances. Accordingly, although the record appears to show past successes of prior property owners farming such property, the applicants presented evidence of their own, failed efforts to farm the property and their inability to make a profit in doing so. In support of the application, the applicants' custom hay farmer, Mr. Barbin advised the applicants that they should not continue to harvest hay from the northeast part of their property due to the poor quality of the hay and the high cost of producing and harvesting it. The hay grown there must be sold at a discount. Mr. Barbin testified that he sold hay to Steve Schroeder for 2 years and that the hay was so poor that the goats and horses would not eat it unless mixed with higher quality hay. This customer no longer purchases hay grown on this portion of the subject property. Supplemental letter May 6, 2015 (Ex. H to response to staff report). According to Mr. Barbin, the area has never produced a good yield which is typically 2 —2.5 tons of hay per acre. He stated that even when the area is planted, watered and fertilized, the soils are so poor that the yield is only .5 tons per acre. Mr. Barbin also stated that the crop is so low in height it was difficult to stay in the bale when cutting and baling. At a rate of 1/2 ton 247-15-000035-CU 23 per acre, the applicants will suffer significant financial losses of $300 per acre times 2 cuttings per season. Mr. Barbin testified that there are large surface rocks and that he cannot disc and reseed due to issues with equipment. Ms. Fancher, on behalf of the applicants, pointed to evidence that farming in Central Oregon is generally not profitable, and that the majority of farm parcels in the region lost money in 2007. The Hearings Officer notes that the region as a whole was in a recession in 2007 and does not find this point to be persuasive on the question of whether the subject property is "suitable for farming," particularly considering other evidence in the record of its past farming use. The applicants also testified that when the property was partitioned in 1982, the expectation was that a non-farm dwelling would be constructed on the subject property. The partition approval did not approve a non-farm dwelling, or any other dwelling on the subject property. I find it is irrelevant what the "intention" was at the time of the prior application. Unless the applicants can meet current approval standards for a non-farm dwelling on this EFU-zoned parcel, the application must be denied. Similarly, I find it irrelevant whether or not the property owner that purchased the parcel to the south of the subject property in 2014 considered the alleged "difficulty" of farming the property. As clarified in the record, the purchaser did not wish to undertake an attempt to develop the subject parcel with a non-farm dwelling. Finally, staff noted, and I agree that the application materials are unclear regarding the size of the homesite, given the discrepancy between the proposed homesite in some figures and the area shown for water rights removal. The applicants stated that COID has approved the removal of 1.18 acres of irrigation water rights from the 1.2 proposed building envelope and that .58 acres have been sold to COID. They further stated that the remaining .6 acres have been removed from the homesite but may be replaced elsewhere on the property or sold. If this application was approved, a condition of approval that prohibits the return of water to any part of the nonfarm dwelling area could be imposed to address such concerns. Based on all of the foregoing, despite the competing evidence, I find that there is evidence in the record to support a finding that the proposed homesite would be situated on a portion of the subject parcel or lot that is generally unsuitable for farming. Drainage and flooding. There does not appear to be any drainage or flooding issues that would render the proposed homesite or any portion of the property as a whole unsuitable for the production of farm crops and livestock. Vegetation. There is conflicting evidence in the record concerning the vegetation in this area. The applicants state that the area supports the growth of weeds (Plantain) but not pasture grass.3 However, they also presented evidence that poor quality/low yield hay is also grown in the subject area. The application lists "Plantain" as the vegetation growing where the proposed homesite is located. Evidence in the record shows that plantain can be eradicated; Mrs. Clough herself testified that they worked hard to replace the areas infested with plantain after purchasing the subject property. It appears that efforts have diminished in recent years, at the same time that 3 The applicant testified that the vegetation on the homesite is plantain,which is a weed that is not suitable for grazing by livestock. It is a weed that"outcompetes" pasture grass and grows in poor soils. Evidence in record shows that plantain is a perennial herb—a common and noxious weed. Mr. Sheridan testified that plantain is not a weed, but a nutritious weed. Mr.Wyman presented evidence that plantain can be eradicated, The applicants state that the type of plantain growing on the property is its Buckhorn Plantain, not Broadleaf Plantain. 247-15-000035-CU 24 the northeastern (and/or eastern) portion of the property has not been fertilized or consistently irrigated. While the cost of eradicating plantain may be costly, I find that, by itself, such vegetation does not render the proposed homesite unsuitable for farm use. Location and size of tract. The subject property is approximately 18.08 acres in size and the proposed nonfarm dwelling homesite is approximately 1.2 acres in size. Staff finds and I agree that there is nothing about the proposed homesite's location or size that renders it generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops and livestock. In Wetherell v. Douglas County, 56 Or LUBA 120 (2008), LUBA held the portion of the parcel that is "generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops and livestock or merchantable tree species" must be large enough to accommodate not only the dwelling but essential or accessory components of that dwelling, such as residential outbuildings such as garages, well, septic system and reserve area. However, LUBA held the proposed homesite need not be large enough to accommodate a driveway. This requirement could be met with a condition of approval requiring the applicant to: (1) revise the plot plan indicating the location of Class VII and VIII soils on-site and (2) requiring the nonfarm dwelling and all accessory dwelling uses, including a detached garage, well, septic drainfield and septic reserve area, to be located within these soils. iv. The proposed nonfarm dwelling is not within one-quarter mile of a dairy farm, feed lot or sales yard, unless adequate provisions are made and approved by the Planning Director or Hearings Body for a buffer between such uses. The establishment of a buffer shall be designed based upon consideration of such factors as prevailing winds, drainage, expansion potential of affected agricultural uses, open space and any other factor that may affect the livability of the nonfarm dwelling or the agriculture of the area. FINDING: The property is not within one-quarter mile of a dairy farm, feed lot or sales yard. The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is met. v. Road access, fire and police services and utility systems (i.e. electrical and telephone) are adequate for the use. FINDING: The applicants submitted the following information to demonstrate that public services and utilities are adequate: 1. Electricity. The applicants submitted a letter from Central Electric Cooperative dated January 10, 2014 indicating they can serve the property. 2. Road access. The applicants intend to access the property from Erickson Road from an existing driveway. The applicant has submitted a copy of an access permit from 1982, which appears to be for the existing driveway. 247-15-000035-CU 25 3. Telephone. The number of existing dwellings in the area indicates that phone service is available, and additionally cellular phone service is available in the area. 4. Domestic water. The applicants submitted a letter from Avion Water Company dated December 23, 2014 indicating they can serve the property. 5. Fire protection. The subject property is located within the Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection District No. 2. 6. Police protection. Deschutes County Sheriff. Based on these findings, required services are adequate for the use. The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is met. vi. The nonfarm dwelling shall be located on a lot or parcel created prior to January 1, 1993, or was created or is being created as a nonfarm parcel under the land division standards in DCC 18.16.055(B) or(C). FINDING: The subject parcel was created by a partition in 1982. The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is satisfied. 3. Loss of tax deferral. Except as provided in DCC 18.16.050(1)(2), pursuant to ORS 215.236, a nonfarm dwelling on a lot or parcel in an Exclusive Farm Use zone that is or has been receiving special assessment may be approved only on the condition that before a building permit is issued, the applicant must produce evidence from the County Assessor's Office that the parcel upon which the dwelling is proposed has been disqualified for special assessment at value for farm use under ORS 308.370 or other special assessment under ORS 308.765, 321.352, 321.730 or 321.815, and that any additional tax or penalty imposed by the County Assessor as a result of disqualification has been paid. FINDING: According to Assessor's records, the property is receiving special assessment for farm use. The Hearings Officer determines that a condition of approval must be included that requires the applicants, prior to submitting an application for building permit, to produce evidence from the County Assessor's Office that the subject property has been disqualified for special assessment at value for farm use under ORS 308.370 or other special assessment under ORS 308.765, 321.352, 321.730 or 321.815, and that any additional tax or penalty imposed by the County Assessor as a result of disqualification has been paid. 5. Section 18.16.060, Dimensional Standards E. Building height. No building or structure shall be erected to exceed 30 feet in height, except as allowed under DCC 18.120.040. FINDING: The applicants did not specify a building height. However, the Hearings Officer finds that this criterion could be satisfied by a condition of approval limiting the height of the nonfarm dwelling to 30 feet. 247-15-000035-CU 26 6. Section 18.16.070. Yards A. The front yard shall be a minimum of: 40 feet from a property line fronting on a local street, 60 feet from a property line fronting on a collector street, and 100 feet from a property line fronting on an arterial street. FINDING: The subject property is a corner parcel that has frontage on two portions of Erickson Road: the north-south portion of Erickson Road, and the east-west portion of Erickson Road that runs between the Powell Butte Highway and the north-south portion of Erickson Road. The north-south segment of Erickson Road is a designated rural collector road, and the east-west portion of Erickson Road is a designated rural local road. The front yard minimum setbacks are 60 feet and 40 feet, respectively, for these two portions of Erickson Road. The applicant has requested a building envelope that accounts for the required front setbacks. The Hearings Officer finds that this criterion will be satisfied by a condition of approval requiring compliance with these required setbacks. B. Each side yard shall be a minimum of 25 feet, except that for a nonfarm dwelling proposed on property with side yards adjacent to property currently employed in farm us, and receiving special assessment for farm use, the side yard shall be a minimum of 100 feet. FINDING: The proposed nonfarm dwelling will abut a property to the south that is in farm use and that is receiving special assessment for farm use. The proposed setback from this adjacent property is approximately 400 feet, meeting the minimum 100-foot setback standard above. The Hearings Officer finds that this criterion could be satisfied by a condition of approval requiring compliance with these required setbacks. C. Rear yards shall be a minimum of 25 feet, except that for a nonfarm dwelling proposed on property with a rear yard adjacent to property currently employed in farm use, and receiving special assessment for farm use, the rear yard shall be a minimum of 100 feet. FINDING: The east property line is the rear property line for the subject property. The proposed dwelling is a nonfarm dwelling and the property directly east is in farm use and receiving special assessment for farm use. The minimum rear setback is 100 feet. The building envelope is shown to incorporate a 100-foot setback from the east property line, meeting the above standard. The Hearings Officer finds that this criterion could be satisfied by a condition of approval requiring compliance with these required setbacks. D. In addition to the setbacks set forth herein, any greater setbacks required by applicable building or structural codes adopted by the State of Oregon and/or the County under DCC 13.04 shall be met. FINDING: There do not appear to be any greater setbacks required by applicable building or structural codes. The Hearings Officer finds that this criterion could be satisfied by a condition of approval requiring compliance with any greater setbacks determined to be required by the Building Division when a building permit is submitted. 247-15-000035-CU 27 7. Section 18.16.080, Stream Setbacks To permit better light, air, vision, stream pollution control, protection of fish and wildlife areas and preservation of natural scenic amenities and vistas along streams and lakes, the following setbacks shall apply: A. All sewage disposal installations, such as septic tanks and septic drainfields, shall be set back from the ordinary high water mark along all streams or lakes a minimum of 100 feet, measured at right angles to the ordinary high water mark. In those cases where practical difficulties preclude the location of the facilities at a distance of 100 feet and the County Sanitarian finds that a closer location will not endanger health, the Planning Director or Hearings Body may permit the location of these facilities closer to the stream or lake, but in no case closer than 25 feet. B. All structures, buildings or similar permanent fixtures shall be set back from the ordinary high water mark along all streams or lakes a minimum of 100 feet measured at right angles to the ordinary high water mark. FINDING: The subject property has no streams or rivers within or adjacent to it. The Hearings Officer finds that the above criteria do not apply to the proposed dwelling. 8. Section 18.16.090, Rimrock Setback Notwithstanding the provisions of DCC 18.16.070, setbacks from rimrock shall be as provided in DCC 18.116.160 or 18.84.090, whichever is applicable. FINDING: The subject property has no rimrock within or adjacent to it. The Hearings Officer finds that the above criterion does not apply to the proposed dwelling. B. CHAPTER 18.80, AIRPORT SAFETY COMBINING ZONE -AS 1. Section 18.80.026, Notice of Land Use and Permit Applications. Except as otherwise provided herein, written notice of applications for land use or limited land use decisions, including comprehensive plan or zoning amendments, in an area within this overlay zone, shall be provided to the airport sponsor and the Department of Aviation in the same manner as notice is provided to property owners entitled by law to written notice of land use or limited land use applications. (ORS 836.623(1); OAR 738-100- 010; ORS 215.416(6); ORS 227.175(6)1 For the Redmond, Bend, Sunriver, and Sisters airports: A. Notice shall be provided to the airport sponsor and the Department of Aviation when the property, or a portion thereof, that is subject to the land use or limited land use application is located within 10,000 feet of the sides or ends of a runway: B. Notice of land use and limited land use applications shall be provided within the following timelines. 1. Notice of land use or limited land use applications involving public hearings shall be provided prior to the public hearing 247-15-000035-CU 28 at the same time that written notice of such applications is provided to property owners entitled to such notice. 2. Notice of land use or limited land use applications not involving public hearings shall be provided at least 20 days prior to entry of the initial decision on the land use or limited land use application. 3. Notice of the decision on a land use or limited land use application shall be provided to the airport sponsor and the Department of Aviation within the same timelines that such notice Is provided to parties to a land use or limited land use proceeding. 4. Notices required under DCC 18.80.026(B)(1-3) need not be provided to the airport sponsor or the Department of Aviation where the land use or limited land use application meets all of the following criteria: a. Would only allow structures of less than 35 feet in height; b. Involves property located entirely outside the approach surface; c. Does not involve industrial, mining or similar uses that emit smoke, dust or steam; sanitary landfills or water impoundments; or radio, radiotelephone, television or similar transmission facilities or electrical transmission lines; and d. Does not involve wetland mitigation, enhancement, restoration or creation. FINDING: The proposed dwelling is subject to the 30-foot height limit in the EFU zone. The subject property is not within the approach surface of the airport. The proposed dwelling does not involve industrial, mining or similar uses that would emit smoke, dust or steam, sanitary landfills or water impoundments, radio, radiotelephone, television or similar transmission facilities or electrical transmission lines. It also does not involve wetland mitigation, enhancement, restoration or creation. For these reasons, the Hearings Officer finds that notice to the Bend Airport sponsor (the City of Bend) and the Oregon Department of Aviation is not required for the proposed dwelling. 2. Section 18.80.028, Height Limitations. All uses permitted by the underlying zone shall comply with the height limitations in DCC 18.80.028. When height limitations of the underlying zone are more restrictive than those of this overlay zone, the underlying zone height limitations shall control.[ORS 836.619; OAR 660-013-00701 A. Except as provided in DCC 18.80.028(B) and(C), no structure or tree, plant or other object of natural growth shall penetrate an airport imaginary surface. [ORS 836.619; OAR 660-013-0070(1)1 B. For areas within airport imaginary surfaces but outside the approach and transition surfaces, where the terrain is at higher elevations than the airport runway surfaces such that existing structures and permitted development penetrate or would penetrate the airport imaginary surfaces, a local government may authorize structures up to 35 feet in height. 247-15-000035-CU 29 C. Other height exceptions or variances may be permitted when supported in writing by the airport sponsor, the Department of Aviation and the FAA. Applications for height variances shall follow the procedures for other variances and shall be subject to such conditions and terms as recommended by the Department of Aviation and the FAA (for Redmond, Bend and Sunriver.) FINDING: The Hearings Officer finds that the proposed dwelling is subject to the 30-foot height that could be met with a required condition of approval meeting the standard under"B" above. 3. Section 18.80.044, Land Use Compatibility. Applications for land use or building permits for properties within the boundaries of this overlay zone shall comply with the requirements of DCC 18.80 as provided herein. When compatibility issues arise, the Planning Director or Hearings Body is required to take actions that eliminate or minimize the incompatibility by choosing the most compatible location or design for the boundary or use. Where compatibility issues persist, despite actions or conditions intended to eliminate or minimize the incompatibility, the Planning Director or Hearings Body may disallow the use or expansion, except where the action results in loss of current operational levels and/or the ability of the airport to grow to meet future community needs. Reasonable conditions to protect the public safety may be imposed by the Planning Director or Hearings Body.[ORS 836.619; ORS 836.623(1); OAR 660-013-00801 A. Noise. Within airport noise impact boundaries, land uses shall be established consistent with the levels identified in OAR 660, Division 13, Exhibit 5 (Table 2 of DCC 18.80). Applicants for any subdivision or partition approval or other land use approval or building permit affecting land within airport noise impact boundaries, shall sign and record in the Deschutes County Book of Records, a Declaration of Anticipated Noise declaring that the applicant and his successors will not now, or in the future complain about the allowed airport activities at the adjacent airport. in areas where the noise level is anticipated to be at or above 55 Ldn, prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of a noise sensitive land use (real property normally used for sleeping or as a school, church, hospital, public library or similar use), the permit applicant shall be required to demonstrate that a noise abatement strategy will be incorporated into the building design that will achieve an indoor noise level equal to or less than 55 Ldn. [NOTE: FAA Order 5100.38A, Chapter 7 provides that interior noise levels should not exceed 45 decibels in all habitable zones j FINDING: The proposed use is not within a noise impact boundary. The Hearings Officer finds that this criterion is not applicable to the proposed dwelling. B. Outdoor lighting. No new or expanded industrial, commercial or recreational use shall project lighting directly onto an existing runway or taxiway or into existing airport approach surfaces except where necessary for safe and convenient air travel. Lighting for 247-15-000035-CU 30 these uses shall incorporate shielding in their designs to reflect light away from airport approach surfaces. No use shall imitate airport lighting or impede the ability of pilots to distinguish between airport lighting and other lighting. FINDING: The proposed dwelling is not considered an industrial, commercial or recreational use. The Hearings Officer finds that the above criterion is not applicable to the proposed dwelling. C. Glare. No glare producing material, including but not limited to unpainted metal or reflective glass, shall be used on the exterior of structures located within an approach surface or on nearby lands where glare could impede a pilot's vision. FINDING: The proposed use is not located in an approach surface according to the Bend Airport Safety Combining Zone map. The proposed dwelling would not produce glare that would impede a pilot's vision. The Hearings Officer finds that the above criterion is met. D. Industrial emissions. No new industrial, mining or similar use, or expansion of an existing industrial, mining or similar use, shall, as part of its regular operations, cause emissions of smoke, dust or steam that could obscure visibility within airport approach surfaces, except upon demonstration, supported by substantial evidence, that mitigation measures imposed as approval conditions will reduce the potential for safety risk or incompatibility with airport operations to an insignificant level. The review authority shall impose such conditions as necessary to ensure that the use does not obscure visibility. FINDING: The proposed use is not a new industrial, mining or similar use. It is a residential use. The Hearings Officer finds that this criterion is not applicable to the proposed dwelling. E. Communications Facilities and Electrical interference. No use shall cause or create electrical interference with navigational signals or radio communications between an airport and aircraft. Proposals for the location of new or expanded radio, radiotelephone, and television transmission facilities and electrical transmission lines within this overlay zone shall be coordinated with the Department of Aviation and the FAA prior to approval. Approval of cellular and other telephone or radio communication towers on leased property located within airport imaginary surfaces shall be conditioned to require their removal within 90 days following the expiration of the lease agreement. A bond or other security shall be required to ensure this result. FINDING: The proposed use does not include a communication facility, and would not cause or create electrical interference. The Hearings Officer finds that this criterion is not applicable to the proposed dwelling. F. Limitations and Restrictions on Allowed Uses in the RPZ, Approach Surface, and Airport Direct and Secondary Impact Areas. 247-15-000035-C U 31 For the Redmond, Bend, Sunriver, and Sisters airports, the land uses identified in DCC 18.80 Table 1, and their accessory uses, are permitted, permitted under limited circumstances, or prohibited in the manner therein described. in the event of conflict with the underlying zone, the more restrictive provisions shall control. As used in DCC 18.80.044, a limited use means a use that is allowed subject to special standards specific to that use. FINDING: The proposed dwelling will not be located within the RPZ, Approach Surface or the Airport Direct impact Areas. The dwelling will be within the Secondary Impact area. Under DCC 18.80 Table 1 a dwelling is a permitted use in the Secondary Impact Area. The Hearings Officer finds that this criterion is met. 4. Section 18.80.078, FAA Notification (Form 7460-1). A. Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 requires that anyone proposing to construct anything which may obstruct the use of airspace by aircraft to provide a notice to that effect to the FAA. Generally, construction proposals in the vicinity of airports may obstruct airspace. Notice to the FAA is required for anything which may affect landing areas, either existing or planned, which are open to the public, or are operated by one of the armed forces. B. FAA Form 7460-1 "Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration"is the notification form. It is to be submitted by the applicant directly to the FAA. Forms are available from the Oregon Department of Aviation or the Northwest Regional Office of the FAA. C. FAA Form 7460-1 should be submitted if the proposed construction or alteration meets the following criteria: 1. Anything over 200'AGL (above ground level at the site). 2. Proposals in the vicinity of an airport, if the proposal would be higher than a slope from the nearest point on a runway and increasing its elevation at a ratio of: Longest Runway Proximity to Runway Slope > 3,200' Within 20,000' 100 to 1 3,200'or less Within 10,000' 50 to 1 For a Heliport Within 5,000' 25 to 1 D. For identification purposes, Deschutes County has established FAA Notification Areas around each of the public use airports within Deschutes County. The boundaries of these areas are based on the runway length. If a proposed construction project is located in one of these areas, the applicant shall determine if the height of the proposed project will require FAA notification as per DCC 18.80.076(C). In Deschutes County, each of the public-use airports has a runway longer than 3,200 feet. Therefore, each FAA notification area includes all land within 20,000 feet of each airport's runway(s), and the slope to be used is 100 to 1. E. FAA notification is NOT required for any of the following construction or alteration: 1. Any object that would be shielded by existing structures of a permanent and substantial character or by natural terrain or 247-15-000035-CU 32 topographic features of equal or greater height, and would be located in the congested area of a city, town, or settlement where it is evident beyond all reasonable doubt that the structure so shielded will not adversely affect safety in air navigation. 2. Any antenna structure of 20 feet or less in height except one that would increase the height of another antenna structure. 3. Any air navigation facility, airport visual approach or landing aid, aircraft arresting device, or meteorological device, of a type approved by the Administrator, or an appropriate military service on military airports, the location and height of which is fixed by its functional purpose. 4. Any construction or alteration for which notice is required by any other FAA regulation. FINDING: The subject property is located approximately one mile from the airport. The proposed dwelling will not affect any landing area. The Hearings Officer finds that no FAA notice is required for the proposed dwelling. IV. DECISION: Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearings Officer hereby DENIES the applicants' proposed conditional use to establish a nonfarm dwelling on the subject property because the applicants failed to establish that the proposed homesite is the least suitable for farming on the subject parcel. Stephanie Marshall Hicks, Hearings Officer Dated this day of July, 2015 Mailed thigalaY of July, 2015 THIS DECISION BECOMES FINAL IF NOT APPEALED WITHIN 12 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION. 247-15-000035-CU 33 Community Development Department i �9 Planning Division Building Safety Division Envirvn�nental Sails Division r p 9 i ,fir ,e4°.iklrtrm;i c 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 1 FILE NUMBER: 247-15-000035-CU DOCUMENT/S MAILED: Hearings Officer's Decision MAP/TAX LOT NUMBER: 17-13-30, 200 I certify that on the 21st day of July, 2015 the attached Hearings Officer's Decision, dated July 21, 2015, was mailed by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the persons and addresses set forth on the attached list. Dated this 2151 day of July, 2015, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT By: Sher Buckner Dana and Karen Clough , , . Brad and Carol Davis 63080 Stenkamp Road 22121 Erickson Road Bend, OR 97701 Bend, OR 97701 Liz Fancher, Attorney Richard Wyman 644 NW Broadway Street 22170 Erickson Road Bend, OR 97701 Bend, OR 97701 Donald and Sharon McHone Danny Sheridan P.O. Box 7976 62664 Erickson Road Bend, OR 97708 Bend, OR 97701 Fred and Cheryl Trachsel Joseph and Linda Worlein 62850 Dickey Road 22070 Erickson Road Bend, OR 97701 Bend, OR 97701 -Janet Hogan . Jan Leonard 62680 Erickson Road 62777 Erickson Road Bend, OR 97701 Bend; OR 97701 Kurt and Jennifer Bomke Grant Carroll 22105 Erickson Road 22079 Erickson Road Bend, OR 97701 Bend, OR 97701 Quality Services Pertorrned with Pride APPEAL OF 247-15-000035-CU Dana and Karen Clough,the applicants and parties in File 247-15-000035-CU, an application for approval of a nonfarm dwelling, hereby appeal the decision of said case written by Deschutes County Hearings Officer Stephanie Hicks. The decision was mailed on July 21, 2015. In this application, the Cloughs sought approval of a nonfarm dwelling on a portion of their property found to be generally unsuitable for farm use by the hearings officer. This area is comprised of Class VII nonagricultural soils. The hearings officer denied the Cloughs' application solely because she questioned whether Class 7 soils where the home was proposed were the "least suitable for the production of farm crops or livestock" of all areas mapped as Class 7 soils by soil scientist Roger Borine as required by DCC 18.16.040, Limitations on Conditional Uses. STATEMENT OF ISSUES The hearings officer's findings on the "least suitable" issue should be reversed or replaced because: A. This new interpretation conflicts with the County's established interpretation that any land generally unsuitable for farm use is the "least suitable." The County's established interpretation is the best interpretation. The term "least suitable" was developed at the State level to require that nonresource uses be located on the "least suitable" parts of q p lands that are suitable for resource use (farm or forest). B. State law does not require that the nonfarm dwelling be located on the area "least suitable" for the production of farm crops and livestock. State law allows nonfarm dwellings and related development on any part of a property that is generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops and livestock. C. The hearings officer faulted soil scientist Roger Borine for failing to study nonagricultural soils in parts of the property that are off-limits to nonfarm development in the same level of detail as he studied other soils—in this case land subject to nonfarm dwelling setbacks (100') and land that is occupied by a gas pipeline and burdened by a pipeline easement to find the worst of the worst soils. This finding should be replaced because: i Prior to the adoption of this interpretation, County land use decisions did not apply the "least suitable" requirement to nonfarm dwelling applications and nonfarm dwellings were approved in the Cloughs' neighborhood without meeting the "least suitable" test. Page 11—Appeal of File 247-15-000035-CU (Clough) a. It is unreasonable to require a soils study of lands that are off-limits to development. For instance, on properties that include the rock cliffs of the Deschutes River, it would be unreasonable to deny approval of a nonfarm dwelling because the house and septic drain field are not built on the rock cliffs or within the 50' rimrock setback area. b. Mr. Borine's professional findings and opinion that soils in the unbuildable part of the Cloughs' property are Class VII soils that are equally unsuitable for farm use should have been accepted by the hearings officer. The hearings officer's rejection of his opinion is based on her misunderstanding of the soils report and the extent and location of the testing conducted by Mr. Borine. Also, her findings should have but do not reflect Mr. Borine's explanation of the basis for this opinion. D. This interpretation, if followed, will require County staff to require that a nonfarm dwelling and associated development, such as a septic drain field, be located on the "worst of the worst" soils on a property. This will make it nearly impossible to approve nonfarm dwellings because, since LUBA's decision of Wetherell v. Douglas County, 56 Or LUBA 120 (2008), septic tanks and drain fields and accessory residential structures are considered a part of the nonfarm dwelling use. Even advanced septic systems require land of marginally decent soils. On properties with Class 8 rock outcrops, the hearings officer's reading of the "least suitable" requirement would require that septic drain fields be sited on Class 8 rock outcrops where they cannot function. REASON FOR BOARD REVIEW The Board of Commissioners should hear this case in order to resolve a conflict between the way its professional planning staff and a new land use hearings officer address the "least suitable" requirement. The Board is the appropriate entity to make decisions of County- wide policy like the one presented by this appeal. The hearings officer's interpretation, if applied, will result in absurd and unfair results. Lands of uniformly poor farm land (Class 6 and 7) will be able to qualify for nonfarm dwellings while those properties with areas of the very worst unbuildable soil, Class 8 rock outcrops, will not. Lands that have extremely poor soils in County-required setback areas will be denied home dwelling approvals while those that have excellent soils in those areas will not. The "least suitable" requirement is not required by State law. The Board is given broad discretion to adopt any interpretation of the requirement as long as it is plausible. Siporen v. City of Medford, 349 Or 247, 243 P3d 776 (2010). This means that the Board may Page 12—Appeal of File 247-15-000035-CU (Clough) interpret the policy in a way that is consistent with good policy and State law—as allowing nonfarm dwelling development on land like the Cloughs' property that is generally unsuitable for farm use. REQUEST FOR DE NOVO HEARING ON ISSUES APPEALED ONLY The Cloughs ask that the Board hear this appeal de n vo on the issues set forth in this notice of appeal only. This case is unusual in that it seeks r view of an unprecedented interpretation of the County's code and that interpr tation was the only basis for denial. The applicants' request de novo review so that they ill have the option to submit additional soils evidence about the unbuildable part f their property. Although the Cloughs believe that this evidence should not be req ired, if the Board decides otherwise they would like to be sure that the Board has the evi ence the hearings officer thought should have been provided to address the new inter retation of"least suitable." The applicant asks that the issues be limited to a rev ew of the hearings officer's new interpretation of the "least suitable" requirement. This is allowed by DCC 22.23.027(4). None of the other issues raised in this case are new and none present questions of law that should be resolved by the Board. Rehearing the entire case, also, will be more time- consuming for the Board and more costly for the applicants and the parties. Page ( 3 —Appeal of File 247-15-000035-CU (Clough) o?I/7.-/C-000 yo3-4 ,61404 m4 Community Development Department Planning 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/ APPEAL APPLICATION FEE: t L. e �o SCANNED AUU 4 1015 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. Appellant's Name (print):-DCcSZGL.. E• it c j j ce.n F. CkDL ■ Phone: (51!) "1~1 - Z 8n o Mailing Address: (c73 ()E C) P k2--)c\ City/State/Zip: ec� 09.„ca n 61710 Land Use Application Being Appealed: 04'1 - \S opoo 3 - ( A Property Description: Township '1 Range \3 Section 3D Tax Lot 2-CO Appellant's Signature: A at/2-4.../ 11,i 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) 3/1 3 Hand Delivered and U.S Certified Mail Tj) ECEIVE3, Paul Blikstad I Community Development Building 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend,OR 97701 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ADMINISTRATION CC:Alan Unger,Tammy Baney,Tony DeBone,Tom Anderson, Erik Kropp Re: Clough Application 247-15-000035-CU Dear Mr. Blikstad: As you may recall,letters dated March 12, 2014 and May 6, 2015 bearing my signature and relating to the issues in the above-referenced appeal were submitted for consideration.The purpose of this correspondence is to make material changes to my opinions expressed in those letters. I request that this correspondence be included in the public record and considered as part of the County record in the event the County elects to proceed with the appeal. When I signed the March 12, 2014 and May 6, 2015 letters, I did not have a full understanding of the entire situation involving the property at issue. I was coerced into signing the letters submitted by the applicants. I now have more information and have reread all the letters, and based on my new, more accurate understanding of the true facts, I wish to set the record straight. After review of the letter and many hours spent at the site in question, I have come to a vastly different conclusion. I have a wider body of evidence and I can see how the prior letters were critically flawed. I now have additional knowledge and information regarding the parcel in question by doing my own independent research. I would like to state on record that the prior letters were prepared in their entirety by Dana and Karen Clough. The letters contain several statements,errors and omissions. Dana was not truthful in the statements that he wrote or the photographs of the rocks. Dana chose not to water the land in the upper field due to his plan to claim it doesn't produce any hay. The land has an automatic pivot that waters daily and can go for a week or more without being managed by a person. Instead of watering with the pivot Dana would run the wheel lines day after day in the west side of the property, rarely operating the pivot on eastern parcel including the pipeline and CUP area. Dana chose not to manage the east portion of the property. The only portion of the fields that he ever fertilized was the west portion of the field irrigated with the wheel line. Excelerite and then followed a year or more later by Beer water. The , M East portion of the field seeking the CUP was never managed with Beer water, fertilizer, Excelerite or water. Based on my own physical hands on labor and observations as well as the contract to farm said parcel to cut rake and bale I have now a wide body of knowledge that refutes all the information in the prior two letters. I successfully baled and sold hay over the Transcanada pipeline on the Clough property and all parts around the line. This parcel is high valued farmland and when properly watered this parcel will yield at minimum 4 to 5 tons per acre easily. Property like this will yield a tremendous amount of good quality hay and sell at a rate of$240/per ton,generating substantial revenue and profit for the limited hours it takes to accomplish baled hay. This Class 7 soil can be farmed,and farmed well. I successfully farmed this year on the property seeking a CUP, including over the gas pipeline. When I met with Paul Blikstad to disavow the statements in my prior letters and explain my true,non-coerced opinions, I also submitted an aerial photo of the Neighbor; James Bauchman at 62690 Erickson Rd, Bend Oregon; property showing excellent hay growth over the exact pipeline that runs through the Clough property. The Gas pipeline has no negative effect to grow hay or any other livestock commodity when properly watered and fertilized. I have validated the aerials by physical eye contact with on the ground verification. These aerials are excellent support of actual growth, quality and health. Based on thorough research and after carefully evaluating this situation in its entirety I feel strongly that this is high quality,farmable land and that this parcel should not be changed. We successfully farmed this parcel. A homesite is not needed to successfully farm this parcel. I'm requesting the precedence of the land to stay EFU. The CUP application should be denied and the land in its entirety should continue to be farmed and the EFU laws need to be upheld. This is the letter I want to stand as my professional opinion.Again, I ask that this YP p g letter be included in the file for this matter and that it be considered in any proceedings affecting this issue. Regards, Don Barbin Concerned Central Oregon Farmer