The URL can be used to link to this page

2016-13-Minutes for Meeting December 21,2015 Recorded 1/20/2016 DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS CJ 2016*13 NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK 1�J LO + COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 01/20/2016 08;12;36 AM uvj1eiiiiiiiiiiu III 3 0-r � E wCl C.z� ©1•, ►, Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes. MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY, DECEMBER 21, 2015 Present were Commissioners Anthony DeBone, Tammy Baney and Alan Unger. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; David Doyle, County Counsel; Wayne Lowry, Finance; Whitney Malkin, Communications; Dan Depotopulos and Tracy Scott, Fair & Expo; Joe Stutler, Forestry Consultant, Nick Lelack and Peter Gutowsky, Community Development; and twelve other citizens including Ted Shorack of The Bulletin. Chair DeBone opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. 1. Presentation by ONDA & the Owyhee Canyonlands Coalition. Dan Morse gave an overview of ONDA (Oregon Natural Desert Association), with 4,500 members, which is based in Bend. They work on a number of issues relating to public lands in this area. He introduced other members of ONDA who were present: Julie Weikel (retired veterinarian, owner of properties in both Deschutes and Harney counties); Stan Shepardson (retired physician); and Brian Sykes (business owner of Ouzel Outfitters, with decades of experience in the area). Chair DeBone asked what the driver is for this decision, since it is something that would have to be decided at the federal level. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, December 21, 2015 Page 1 of 13 Pages Mr. Shepardson said he has been a resident of the area for 40 years, and a participant in Malheur County issues for nearly that long. There are many unique opportunities for the subject area, being wide open and very scenic, with a variety of wild animals. He sees many threats to this area and would like to see some long-term protection. Ms. Weikel stated that she is a newer participant with ONDA, but a lifetime resident of southeast Oregon and knows this country. She thought it was being protected via seclusion, but it is not anymore and is threatened. This is the last big chunk of open space where someone can get out and enjoy it, and it is unique. It is about 2.5 million acres, most of which is already considered wilderness, but it needs permanent protection. There are over 10 million acres in the watershed, but this piece is the heart of the area. It is a treasure for the entire country and should be kept safe for future generations. Mr. Sykes said that his rafting company does wilderness rafting and they depend on protection to keep the areas as pristine as possible. There has been a lot of degradation happening and he would like to see additional protection. Chair DeBone said that many places are great except for the people. We are the problem. Mr. Morse said there are some serious concerns in Malheur County and he hopes to address some of these. He provided a PowerPoint presentation showing federally protected acreage. Some of this area is more recognizable and is visited by many people. (He pointed out the various parts of the area.) Some of the area can be reached only by raft or backpacking. The Owyhee Coalition has asked for 2.5 million acres to be restricted to some activities. Inside that area are 2 million acres of wilderness. There are about 11,000 supporters. One important aspect is that it is home to federally protected wildlife, including Sage Grouse. Mr. Shepardson added that unique wildlife is frequently seen in this area, and this alone is important to recreation. Mr. Morse said that the State would continue to manage wildlife activities. There are also plants that are endangered and some are found only in this locale. Cultural aspects have been studied and in just 5% of the area, 1100 archeological finds have been noted. These were gathering places for the Tribes who consider them critical to their culture. The Birch Creek Ranch is historic and very important historically. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, December 21, 2015 Page 2 of 13 Pages Motorized access has been a concern, but this would remain as it is and the area would be accessible. There are about 2,500 miles of roads and trails. Approximately 1,500 miles of roads are not well maintained, but would remain open as well, under the ONDA proposal. Legislation would provide a plan as to how these roads and trails are utilized. Other trails and roads should be used just for maintenance and ranching purposes. Some are proposed to be closed, about 160 out of 2,400 miles, since they are not being used. Recreational opportunities for businesses would be maintained and enhanced, benefiting the local economy. There is a study available regarding wilderness designations that shows increased economic value when this designation occurs. Commissioner Baney asked if this has happened locally since the Badlands designation was put into place. Mr. Morse said that it is harder to determine this because there are so many other things going on with the area and it has such a large economy. For a smaller economy, it can be directly connected. Mr. Sykes explained that this area is very unique, very remote and does not have a lot of services. This designation can benefit the area through side trips, and the use of motels, café's, stores, etc. They hope not to have to depend on Bend. Mr. Morse stated that grazing would continue, per their proposal. There are grazing impacts over time, but many ranchers are trying to be good stewards. Those facilities and ways to manage cattle would continue, and the grazing permits would be transferable. Ms. Weikel explained that public lands grazing has a lot of problems as a business model, regardless of designations. It is a fragmented industry and affected by the economy as a whole. Public lands grazers are embattled in many ways. Some take a narrow view, but it involves a much bigger picture and is very complex nationally. Mr. Morse said they have put in a lot of effort working with residents, and have shared what they hope to be able to do. Malheur County has not come up with another idea on how to deal with this area. It is too important and there are potential dangers to it, such as drilling for oil and gas, which is occurring just outside this area. They want to hear from locals, but feel this designation is important for a variety of reasons. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, December 21, 2015 Page 3 of 13 Pages Commissioner Baney said she was not aware of other counties' involvement in the Badlands designation in Deschutes County. She asked if it is a study area, or is subject to removal of its current protection, or whether legislation been proposed. Mr. Morse said one million acres is a wilderness study area, in limbo. This creates complications for ranchers that may not be an issue if it was truly wilderness. The BLM may say that something has wilderness features but might not protect it. The Sage Grouse plans do not really protect the land. There is a lot of illegal and impactful ATV activity in parts of the area. Its future needs to be planned out. Commissioner Baney stated that BLM said they would not pay more to protect the Badlands. She asked if enforcement would be a part of this for Owyhee. Mr. Morse said that the BLM has not gone on record one way or another. However, a designation adds line items to the budget each year. There is no silver bullet, but it does give it a leg up when competing with other areas that need management. Commissioner Unger said he wants to learn more. It is important to protect places like this, but it needs a collaborative approach. Others ask where the jobs are going to come from. Judge Joyce of Harney County said they are not at the point of working together. He said that some areas have overlays already, and sometimes this kind of change can hurt the economy. The AOC is concerned about regions being negatively impacted. He feels most people really do want to take care of the area. He would like to see better communication with the impacted government. No one wants to end up in lawsuits, either. It is hard to get the whole story. Mr. Morse stated he would welcome the input of local stakeholders. What is striking to him is that this place speaks for itself. There needs to be new and better management to protect it, while at the same time helping the local economy. He would like to see this conversation move forward. Commissioner Baney said the Board previously sent a letter supporting the decisions of the affected counties, and want to see the parties work together. Commissioner Unger would be happy to help with making sure communication is open and progressing. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, December 21, 2015 Page 4 of 13 Pages Mr. Morse said they had a town hall meeting and there was a lot of support from the locals who care about this area, but some are concerned about anything that comes in as conservation. Commissioners Unger appreciates Representative Cliff Bentz being involved as a voice of reason. Mr. Morse said this would involve a legislative action, and they are approaching the legislature for sponsorship. Commissioner Unger asked for a map showing the currently protected lands. Mr. Morse said there is not much that has any kind of permanent protection. 2. Finance Update. Wayne Lowry explained the investment piece and other parts of his report. They are in compliance with balances, and the basis points have gone up a lot. The Federal Reserve increased the rate by .25 points, so market rates have also increased. Market value is still lower than their book value, which is not often seen. There is a new normal of a few more increases, for a total of maybe 1%. This is driven by economic indicators. Vacant positions are at 52.3, and are coming down. General fund shows tax collections about $300,000 ahead of projections. Departments are starting to recognize savings based on vacancies. The Sheriff's Office has higher revenue based on property tax. Health funds show some savings due to vacant positions and some programs that have been reduced. Community Development is robust for revenue, about a 24% increase over where they were last year. Tom Anderson said that they may want to add positions soon to keep up with demand. Parole & Probation is getting additional grant funds but this will be needed to cover some programs mandated by the State. Solid Waste is ahead of estimate, about 9% over this time last year. 9-1-1 had some savings due to property tax income, but is increasing reserves for the radio project. Capital projects include the remodel projects, some of which are now complete. The big one underway now is the Wall Street building. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, December 21, 2015 Page 5 of 13 Pages Commissioner Unger asked about electrical cooperatives and revenue derived from them. Mr. Lowry explained that there is statute that deals with power generating facilities through cooperatives; here those would be Midstate and Central Electric. There is a value placed on the transmission facilities, and the County gets some revenue from this, with most going to the schools. It is about 4% of gross revenue or $10 a thousand, as determined by the State. 3. County Fair Board Update. Dan Despotopulos said they previously had spoken about increasing membership in the Fair Board. Of the five members, three think it is okay to add more. One asked about geographic representation, but they cannot compromise the quality of the board. Two more members might be appropriate. As terms come up, only employees on the Fair Board are subject to evaluation each year. The Fair Board members have been automatically renewed year after year. He asked if there could be a review process handled by the Commissioners. Mr. Anderson said that the Fair Board is not built into County Code as the Planning Commission is. Neither is it defined in statute. It may be appropriate to do this. Dave Doyle said there is a process to remove a member for a variety of reasons. A renewal is basically a new appointment. Commissioner Baney said they can start with adding two members, and she would like more geographic representation, but they must be sure they are filling the overall needs of the group. Commissioner Unger likes this group being involved with the County Fair Board since that is an important event. Mr. Depotopulos said there are no really big issues to address at this time, but more representation would be helpful. Mr. Anderson stated that they can look at geographic representation being a preference but not a requirement. They need quality and involved members. The Board was supportive of adding two additional members. Mr. Anderson asked if the Board wants to keep Mike Schiel on the Fair Board. The Commissioners support this because he is so involved with the Annual Fair and the facility in general. They asked that a statement be added to the reappointment letter acknowledging his involvement with the Annual Fair. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, December 21, 2015 Page 6 of 13 Pages 4. Discussion regarding Whether to Hear Thornburgh Appeal. Peter Gutowsky provided draft orders, along with a letter from the applicant's attorney. There have been two appeals, from Liz Fancher and Paul Dewey, representing Central Oregon Landwatch and Nunzie Gould. There is only one appeal issue per LUBA, regarding Whychus Creek, de novo. Opponent Nunzie Gould has asked for de novo on ten issues. There is a draft order that addresses the basic issues from the Hearings Officer— Whychus Creek and the wildlife mitigation plan. Ms. Gould's appeal challenges procedural matters as well. If the Board wants to focus on the substantive parts of the remand, that would be Whychus Creek. Otherwise, there are due process issues. The two appeals are asking for different things. The draft orders show the parties for the record. Commissioner Unger stated that standing is important. Mr. Gutowsky said the FMP (Final Master Plan) was remanded, and long ago was approved by the Hearings Officer. That appeal was declined by the Board, so it went to LUBA, and eventually was remanded back to the County for a few items. It went to the Hearings Officer again, and now the Board could hear it de novo. This is a valid case and the FMP is still legitimate. No matter what the Board decides, it will likely end up at LUBA again for the 1 lt" time. However, they give deference to the Board's findings. Ms. Gould challenges a variety of issues while Thornburgh feels there are just a few issues as remanded by LUBA. Commissioner Baney said she is confused about the assignments of errors that were declined by LUBA. Mr. Gutowsky said. LUBA remanded for a typographical error, the wildlife mitigation plan as being feasible now that the resource plan is available, and the impacts to Whychus Creek. The Hearings Officer was only concerned about the thermal impacts to Whychus Creek. This is what the Board is being asked to address. Commissioner Baney said some of this goes a long way back and it seems that this has already been decided. The opponents are asking to revisit ten pieces. Mr. Gutowsky stated that there was no remand fee paid in 2011 so the opponent feels that they should not be able to proceed beyond this. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, December 21, 2015 Page 7 of 13 Pages The CMP (Conceptual Master Plan) was appealed and remanded regarding certain conditions, and those matters are still not resolved at the State level. Whatever the Board decides on the narrow issues, this will likely continue. The CMP was active at the time, and the Hearings Officer felt that the CMP is not an issue in this last remand. The applicant asked to remove one appealable issue and have the Board hear just on the impacts to Whychus Creek, limited de novo, and if there is another appeal from the opponent, that you decline to review those issues. Commissioner Unger wants the Board to have standing and wants this issue to come to a conclusion. He would like to have this determined using what LUBA remanded and the Hearings Officer found still needed to be addressed. The only matter that remains is the thermal impacts to Whychus Creek. Mr. Gutowsky said that the CMP is in process due to appeals and on a different track than the FMP. It has been appealed and remanded. He cannot say if they are linked. The Hearings Officer found that the FMP was filed pursuant to the CMP ultimately being affirmed. The Board found the CMP was initiated, as it was active when the FMP was filed. Once the FMP is filed, the CMP is irrelevant. However, the CMP remained active through various appeals. Chair DeBone would like to address the Whychus Creek issue, and let the other appeals continue through their appeal process. The matters of the CMP are not before the Board at this time. The CMP was ultimately affirmed and the FMP was then exercised as is proper. The FMP is not being considered by LUBA. Commissioner Baney is concerned about the process and that some things that did not occur that should have. Chair DeBone asked about the value of the Board taking more action. Mr. Doyle said that the CMP was alive at the time of the FMP, and the CMP goes away at that point, so should no longer be an issue for the Board to consider. Mr. Gutowsky stated that the Board found that the CMP had been initiated and it did receive approval through the courts. At that time, the FMP was initiated, as is the process; but then the CMP was challenged. Steps were taken at that point in time. The FMP then sat idle for years while the parties addressed the CMP through various appeals. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, December 21, 2015 Page 8 of 13 Pages Commissioner Unger would like to have standing through a hearing de novo just on Whychus Creek. Times have changed over all these years. Chair DeBone said the Hearings Officer found only this part lacking, and this would. require Board review. Mr. Gutowsky said whatever the Board decides will likely be appealed again. Commissioner Baney wants to leave the CMP part in. Commissioner Unger said that they can argue this again and probably come up with the same result. He feels the findings on CMP and FMP originally were correct, and the Board should address what they are being asked to, Whychus Creek, and send it on its way. Chair DeBone agreed and sees this as going into a cragmire and would like to add content only to the Whychus Creek issue. Commissioner Unger would like to firm up what the Hearings Officer feels needs to be addressed, and leave it at that. Commissioner Baney said she wants to open it up for more issues. After further discussion, the Board decided that they would pass on hearing anything from either the applicant or the opponent. UNGER: Move to decline review, through Order No. 2015-057. BANEY: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes no. (Split vote.) 5. Discussion of Lobbyist Services. Judith Ure said the Board has discussed legislative representation, including internal staffing or hiring a consultant. If they wish to experiment, it is probably best to do this during a short session. She reviewed what they are doing and have done. This can probably be done in a short session with some minimal help and appropriate software, but there will not be in-person representation in Salem. They could take the current proposals and ask them to delay for a session. If they go to an internal staffing course of action, it would take about twice the time it does now, at least 20 hours a week for the short session. Support would be needed for this process. Tracking software is available as stand-alone or they could try what AOC uses. There is an annual fee of$500 to $1,000 for either. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, December 21, 2015 Page 9 of 13 Pages The Board and Department Directors might have to spend more time lobbying or being in Salem, as they cannot rely on AOC for this. Finance would need to provide help with revenue forecasting. She said she does not know how to draft legislation effectively. If the Board wants to proceed with the RFP process, the results are available. The session begins in February, so this needs to be determined soon. Mr. Anderson said there is another option of a hybrid, to do the interviews but not hire right away. Commissioner Baney stated that doing interviews without being committed sends a mixed message. Commissioner Unger has not had time to read the information. Commissioner Baney feels it is too close to the session at this point. She said having someone in the building in Salem helps with knowing which legislators are supportive or not in support at the last minute, and being able to draft amendments. Someone needs to be on top of things, especially at the end of the session when things are moving fast. Ms. Ure told Public Affairs Counsel that the County was going to do an RFP and they said they were going to propose, but have not. A thirty-day notice is required to terminate their agreement. They have not been asked to do anything for this session. It may not be an option to go through 2016 with them. PAC can choose to do nothing since the agreement is not in writing. Commissioner Baney asked if the County can use the bill tracking software and let PAC continue the in-person process. They could be provided with a list of what they should track. Mr. Anderson stated they could be back-up while the County tries to find the right fit. PAC could provide the status reports to see how they match up. Ms. Ure said someone needs to set up the conference calls. Commissioner Baney added that the Department Directors need to be trained appropriately. PAC also seems to send a lot of information that is not of importance to the County, based on a shotgun approach. Commissioner Unger wants to wait until after this session to proceed with the RFP process. He is not sure how valuable PAC is. Some Departments do track a lot of information that affects them. Mr. Anderson is more concerned about the long session, which requires a lot more work and oversight. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, December 21, 2015 Page 10 of 13 Pages Ms. Ure said they would need something firm in place well before the long session. Commissioner Baney said the Board tends to be generalists and needs to know what matters to the Departments. Ms. Ure noted that some Departments are not that involved. Nick Lelack said that it is important to have a good relationship with legislative staff so they know what is important to the County. He maintains this, but not all Departments do. Ms. Ure stated that PAC chose not to propose, but they are an active lobbyist firm and their knowledge and help might be beneficial. If additional staff time is available, staff should attend Chamber legislative sessions or meetings with other groups. More help is needed with precision planning. Commissioner Unger is not sure how responsive PAC will be, knowing the climate at this point. If they are being paid through January, they should be able to keep helping the County. It was decided that the current proposals will be on hold to see how things are handled through the short session. Some of the work will be handled internally during the short session, and Ms. Ure will find out how cooperative PAC might be. 6. Other Items. Tom Anderson asked if the Board wants to send out a press release or clarifications, in light of inquiries since the Board's morning meeting regarding the opt out relating to marijuana businesses. Some have already asked about being on the committee that will be formed to address this issue. The Commissioners agreed that this is advisable. Whitney Malkin will meet with Community Development and Legal Counsel to determine how this should be worded. The media is considering this a temporary ban. Mr. Lelack stated that the Board was quoted that they will take this time to investigate and set up a citizen committee. Commissioner Baney does not want the committee to make the decision. They probably cannot do much at this time unless there is more direction from the Board. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, December 21, 2015 Page 11 of 13 Pages Chair DeBone hopes something will come out of the short legislative session. Commissioner Baney said they may want to get proactive on some of the preferred language. Mr. Anderson said that OLCC should handle the medical marijuana part instead of the State Health Authority. Some of the problems already out there are because of the way it was set up. Commissioner Baney said that she would like to see what Clackamas and. Jackson County end up with and whether they are challenged. Mr. Lelack stated that it might be good to receive input on existing rather than new businesses. Commissioner Baney asked if they are overstepping what the Planning Commission did. Mr. Lelack stated that the Planning Commission did not address all aspects and sent those to the Board with basic guidelines. There is a lot more work to be done to refine some of this. The Board feels that they should say they will investigate a committee being formed in January, when they can provide better guidelines on what needs to be addressed. Chair DeBone said they have nothing to present, and the Board needs to provide something to start. Mr. Lelack hopes to be able to evaluate what is being done in the other two counties so see how they are handling some of this. Commissioner Baney said she knows that they will not be able to appease those who want the whole issue to just go away. Mr. Lelack discussed an Improvement Agreement for Tetherow Resort regarding how they post security for one of the phases. They are posting funds instead of a bond, for 120% of the cost of the improvements. BANEY: Move approval. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, December 21, 2015 Page 12 of 13 Pages Mr. Anderson said that a Mr. Campbell called him to advise he is doing a documentary on the William Kuhn situation covering the past thirty years. He wanted to interview Mr. Anderson, who told him that the County cannot be involved due to pending litigation. 7. Adjourn. Being no further items discussed, the meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m. DATED this 1 Day of 2016 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioner Anthony DeBone, Chair Ctja/v1 Uot Alan Unger, Vice Chair ATTEST: C favvitAi, (blue.4 Tammy Baney, Cd> imissloner Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, December 21, 2015 Page 13 of 13 Pages Apo p�' { 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., MONDAY, DECEMBER 21, 2015 Pursuant to ORS 192.640, this agenda includes a list of the principal subjects anticipated to be addressed at the meeting. This notice does not limit the ability of the Board to address additional subjects. Meetings are subject to cancellation without notice. Work Sessions are open to the public and interested citizens are invited to attend. Work Sessions allow the Board to discuss items in a less formal setting. Citizen comment is not allowed, although it may be permitted at the Board's discretion. If allowed, citizen comments regarding matters that are or have been the subject of a public hearing process will NOT be included in the official record of that hearing. Work Sessions are not normally video or audio recorded, but written minutes are taken for the record. 1. Presentation by ONDA & the Owyhee Canyonlands Coalition—Dan Morse, ONDA 2. Finance Update — Wayne Lowry 3. County Fair Board Update —Dan Despotopulos 4. Discussion regarding Whether to Hear Thornburgh Appeal — Peter Gutowsky All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners'meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St.,Bend,unless otherwise indicated. Ifyou 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.lohnson(a�deschutes.org. Board of Commissioners' Work Session Agenda Monday, December 21, 2015 Page 1 of 2 5. Discussion of Lobbyist Services —Judith Ure 6. Other Items These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners wish to discuss as part of the meeting,pursuant to ORS 192.640. At any time during the meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)0), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(b),personnel issues; or other executive session categories. Executive sessions are closed to the public; however, with few exceptions and under specific guidelines, are open to the media. 7. Adjourn 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. Board of Commissioners' Work Session Agenda Monday, December 21,2015 Page 2 of 2 t,--,1 e t ,I. t ,,i , i, 1,1 ,i CO I vim ; ' I V U O m a � CO I An, V) p No .9 "\I4oj C LqI I tt. C.I I � I �' I ii a C i I O "C1 I c, 9.) v' v ,! �, o I O Imo' `" 1aII v 5 lt a. '''I'l'I'. ......... : :::.. u'llort) r-i -•„..... „„,.. CD ' ..,.. .,,. .,„ :r'•:P. ••,,,...; :::R..'.'.9." .:!.• . ,,.. ft, , •!..ii .....„. ,. ■:, ....... , .....„ . • '.„,•1•11. N ,,,..,:::,,,,,,•,,,,,„.., •••„,,,,,„ ,.., „. .„,„„,„:„.. Illitimori . . ,•:,,•::::::,... • „ •• . ,.....„,„„...,.. .....;,,,,. ,$4,....,:::::.,•:,..,::„..:11.1'1.,, • 4,, 0 E .0 ,„„,.:.. ... .... ,.s. ,. ....3,,,,:. ... . ....„ ....; ••.....„,..„. ..:.„... (t „0:, •••,•.,,,:.,..:,:,)::,...,..1,,:".,.,,,,,,•.t::.„. ! '''..0.••••.,,i!,:19.,..,,:,.:.,.............„. ..:,...,1,,:,1....''',:1:.:,.,:•..,:,..., 0 :,:i'„..:.„:.i!.;:..,„..,.,.„.,...:.,: • . (...) a) G) (...) s_ _ a) 1610 ......,......„,,I. 0,....„•••; •;•••;• .....; .,...,..„.,„,........... ; .....,_ .• „.,..,.,„.................. • •••••••••••1,,• olik);.;•2,,,,.2...:.:• :,.....,:,.,...,....:,. „,.H., 0,11,11,X;''• .... 0 0 0 1.101 .....„, ... .iie...i ",t.:,...tii....1...,,,:'..,..::11.1?....:1.!,,,:::::1:.,:•:... • 1,•;.'..., 0 c •— • 0 cla — , .., ,,•;:i > .4.,J, RS .....„ , (.•• ••• ': r .,;.1{.)!' ,,,,,...;.1,14:4314;"1:1:X.:4X.::•'.•1.Ili. " '`j CI) '5 v.) • 0 ,,,::„:„.„..... .... "'"''...,,,:,..,„•:....:,....-,....,..1:):•!...:•,,,,,:„ ,, „, ..: ...,. .1,. giv...., ' '''''''''''''. ''' ''':: :41.-.., •:,;...,:-... 4.•• 0.0::,.,,,;,,,..,:., '4„.•:.•••';i..L.;:...- f' '1.-14 "..4' ". . Ir.;•••:'..,,.; .':.): ir?';',:. , ", ....,..•4. ..., .. U < .. 0 z : ..f10.,,, ::-....i::::.:,,••':.. ... ••••••• • . !,4$•••••!,........,.:,,,-.e.,,,, „,.. — .1_1 a) c) • (I) v) %,- a) 0 ,g:::)::::N1•1":•••3:, .• ' „: ......-.:4;:-....: :: :1:1 '•':'.:::.':::'....g..i.l...•''.......:'..., .,.,.....1::...:',1..,.".:.....,:-.•‘.•,......•..., ,:.:"••:.• • *. ,-• ' . ..1.,...-',-?,••";11 ... 2 _ i,,, -.•:•• ••• •:, , q• 03 4,,,,,.::p.,:t,•,. ..:,...,••••,,. ...' ,,--• ,• C L- Z • ..„ .. . -...„•..... " „.• , •„„,..,,,,,„„,.. . ,...., • ,.., ........, • ... , „...„,„„ • - -,, „..„.„•„,,,,.. ...• ,••• •,..„ -........„.. 11•11r '''::'::‘.. ..::„':'::":::'' „.1* i .•.....,..::':,..,,, •: :::•'.•: - .. tl," • ,:: „„,,,.• 4.-• ra . ... ...., .o.,,. Z tollili . '''' MI .'..1::::',:h•.,.i:,;:a1:1.::,... iiii:.*:.,,.4„:„„;,. .A.,..,...4.- ..il.. IN1000 difor • •_„: „, •, •,,, •...:,•••- 1•11 litti,!..,..'4.;.;,, .,‘+'•'•• ....,,• .,....:: •,...i.,• Att. ..,... ..■,:. .1,1;,'-',0'„ .4 Ct "1,;•::41i:.1.!5'g:•:..‘1,'...1 •„••4.„"!..'''.-„.:. „, ••• •- .„,„. t,, 4,11! , ,. tir) CD 1■• t„: "rolik...% • ;..,,.,.. ,,,,.„, ..11,i!o::..„. ,,.... ,., . 0 :114.;:„.•;.•„:1 :::x•'•,:"•:,,......; •i'„•,..• .• .•.'i%','::••••''.':::•'''''. 111......,..1!..1...:',.:,...°::'..,...i....:.„'';'.,..' tit,,.,,,,,„.„.:•.:. 11111..f„••;:8..',.......'4./1440:',..,"''..: '''':''''''.'''' (1111) ••••:•• ••,..,,, .,„„:,„ ;• ;.•• •. .•• ,;,••••:*4 ,• . 4/. . ' il ' '''' „,..,- 1 i,••••••••!'„••;.:',:••,*: : 4'1°'•• • , i:00;,%4 ..;. •,. • :'• •„',.... .„.".'::••• ,' ,,, ,..,....,• •4„..;• ••ii) . ............, „. . ,• • .,. • ••••■„ „ ':::',•:ii!.., ILI Mi3: •.::: „,,,,,,,,. ;,• ,... LILII.°IS 0 ,•:::;11:14..i11,11::'•11::::•1"•::":i:'„::„.•:, 11•••::::•::":::k:•:'••°:1111/5.•1•!-'••••::":::ii".•••:';I: ••••::':::!:' ••••,..„, .1,•,• .•” X',. ..• "1•• ' ".," xxxx: , ••1.' • :::'••:: ''::::: 1,.1,1:.. XII ••• ''''• '1::••!:': lit":0::' .V.,,..1••'•1t,„:4„,• •11••''''• . r 'IV"...' '''". .'.'.. '..".' 11• ; , „i,•1,‘:!., .... ... . a "".- • .• .„••• .,...,., . •."... . . ., 41Z ' :11ciitto.H1:::.1:•:...:.:.:1,..,' .. ,,1„........,:::...,„,. , „„ii:',....r....1 ••••• •••1 1 2,,.•• - . " .....•,::!..',. xx: 41 ill '''''''1.:•7":::*P1 • ' • '''':" :It'. f :: .. : . t) : • •:'•••'•:.. • ..:x„:•" •:„..:".1,„"„„ f g ":„:•1 "••:•• ' ..• 0 ,.11‘.. x"..x, .1." •... - :•••A„•%!19 X • .....„.... „ . , ,.." """'" • • •11,-•.1".::""- -1 .4k.-.1"•" l'•• - •• . "' 6. ....H....-':.'"'' ....' - . .• •••„:„.......„................. • ... ,:•:,, ,..... . ••••••„. .,.. .: .:::„.:.::‘,„:::.....:„..:.......,..„. •... •••••••••••••••••..„..,...:., ••••••, „.:....• , • ........„..,.................,„„.. . ... ,.:„,„, • ...• --1"0,1 •••",••••: " Z .011 - ''•.••• ' ' •111:1•• ) . , (..) :. '••••-. •"".• ii.:,.i..•.,...:„,::••••••,:::,,,,:,,,,,,,,,,,,„„,„:„.„,„„,„„,....,..,„,„...H.y ..•:.::::"... : ::::::: -.':•::::::: ‘•••••••••• - •• - •-• . • • ,, .,.::::',..1,....... • ..' -' ..:.........,...H.„:.:.. . .:::.,,..".......,.....:: .. ...,.....:.: ::,1.,.,. , 0 ,,,,,, 0 .„,......„ ... .. ,,,,,,,,,• .• • .i ,,. :',,A . . ... . ..,,,.., ...., „,,,.., ••• • .... .... , .... :z4,..,. .,...,.i.: !A, .-:.* fil V,..!.! �.. " v__ c j ✓ { —, y a 1 1 a) u cc r-- ...„ ' .90.-44* iiiii:"" : 0 a-, ) , , I �4 * ' : 1 . "„ L .4* - 1 CC % µwT' , O ,, M a. u J CG <n r; r, v /µ f v �. r I F r r� i r' ri u - � G C C C ri > Z Z. 1- ' rarr,...........)..... ., ...,,,,......,,. .. ...., .. . irik:,:*;.:', •NqN:µl•'- m y1 :N., A( t• 1601. d' ,„.. , C ■ @'∎ 0 j �.• I s i i+; 41 C 4 V$ r 11111 -` i, L l�L ... Pi rC ( i 1 3 s wrwnr f C o ;k; CD DO a ,r. rli • J .wrirr r ,m. aft . \ Oy i ^, i.J,^; + �.% ■ Herr ^ w " ,, .yy CX y'^ e 'W, wb' Y +rb N ., s r ' g. t ,, 0 ,., L►.. w I. a ^ ax .tt ro dy}w d q� U .. µ r'k d r�W t� ryi 4. M,Iy A B ,jY y1 Ind 144 AV'I M1r ;G ti„~»A M t p ' , r, N,,,,,40is,,,,:: , , '^” 4 r h. „r „siP ” ..� -i. 1 .* m. }µ:, x 1 w y N w 4.CO t Z. #r T. riw Px ,.„1-rY7i{ y dp* <k Y . 4 • i`i'i} C f'x ° • o'v '„ i !" t{, S r 11' ; fd aR ash' v . 'k K {A..'CpF;ipl m ' ' ‘'' '''''''.. '. ' . , r ' ,,,, !,,,',,,,i,,,,,I.,,,,,,.,,,,;.,0;.-t.,,„,,,,,,c,,..,,,,i,,,r,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,).,,,,,,,I.,,;,,,,,,,,,,i,,,,,i41,:.;,,,N.li,,.,,,m,I.,,I,,,,,,,,'I,•,.1,'..,t',:troi,11,,,,,,,,..;',,,,',..,,,,tii..i,:.).1,,,f,'fl,:it,p,l'',1.1.':1.41',..,,,, ','..',';,..'. ' ,s,,,,,, , . ',., ,' , , °� {' ' xd { a r ,t ".' „ `° i e ;{^i;N.Pt „ > .a1," ,iit °"ia,01 & i �'" > t �1 ) is•MrC+){ is Y '. K1l I1 5 I ' J P.i•, Nr„ , ! ',1,,,,f,A6 h '< .i ryyp , ril '�Rf y„ ', " e_ey m':,, ” v ""i 1�:%,' 71,:r-',1,',/-‘'.,•'• M 8 ,yyyy 4 ' ,.;•` • /./..,;4••t4'°°:11. 7•44'\..L.....7.--•,•,-,..,„.••.. • a r �i 0. ••••.', "...,'' '•• •••••'•',. '• • •• ..' N'1,\,,. •4•'••.'''•' '-(•*''''• .• •'\ ...\C''\\.. •".••,,'•••..* tc".1 C — ,••.:i.... •••....„ •• -•'•••••••••- •.'.-'••"-".A'•.,'''..'‹l-"i ` ti ' 4 � " i o - •. 'i.-':••• •••,),----- ---••-•• ••••)•)!)•),W` • . • .wit.'„).-.. ', .... ••.‘ . ? ••.•,•,,-4.1„,;,,,,,,),,,,. ', ).,•;;.....,..., 16,14,....:),',..),:,•••„.„-N 2.,•:•..-,77'..•••,... .-.", •••:::z E \ya fj• .r'"v +�+ 'h M,h s . ' +.r m . ti /V r I l •'•• � r,.•, F r; r ,vmo; • 11 V • ! s m a a � E L . t •I>. • u � �3 •a a o• v + G . �0 i Olt° w 0 a c •,,,:•.::..,:,•••‘,:;••.‘,..ro ;• lal r rY t•0 4I n V4• 0 {1 z'„ <,•N I!I+aA °R •r s y d +lX ".N;a q v. k �° + .0 1311:31,44:•••:',0 ::!',,:,' •sa ,< 'i'• p 8s •' A) y 4116C ' hl y 4 y y� "tl 0 C CO C go) ›... .5 cp fill . t +, ..� ca 0 gM L L _c •C/) _ �--' �'"� (/7 •U co O to Q �' •CO Q te-+ s,._ v.)0 1. OR%v C LO a.) N L ' > -J can C 0 CIO ._ .— a.) co S C13 --"CT3 (15 CZ V CIO cn Q •�.. •i CO V Q p O a) N a) - C o 0 z E E `� a) a) 0 c co H 4 O Q Q in a O U l- a) CD E • . • • • • • • . • ...o. *. 4 , '...;*..040 77 117 ,- .t, -...t. '':, ,.. ... .. . !'-‘,,,iii..- ,-- ,....,.., . ., •-•,.. . .'..., , ,, w.low,..-:- , fritft, , ,. 4.qe, ". ......z,-;,,.';',:,'°. ,•••■ ",,.-,,,, g . v • 44. :,0- ...i' ® ' t* ‘44, A'"._.„,„7".. ;fr 4c,,r- •u ,i''t 4". t 1 • ,IN $4, Ti.t, „,,.-P....4•0- -,,,,. 44,''''',!,.,t ' ' p Z', ,,,,,-, t-,,,„;* 4." ' - - ' *'0' *- '4 i.‘ttk " , ,t,,'''''t-,'"",1", '„ 7 "t''''74.. ' - ,, " 1''Z' :, - AS ' t --g, ''' 4.' 0,11('''''''...., or ., ", -,... ,. °', '-..„ . ,...t.,„.-....° ,,,tt.,.°,', • :IN 1. y, , , t'''''' ' r,,i,,,t14,.„,,, ... ...41,11 ,.. r. *,,,,,. , - -1H'414; v.t.* ,A. 147, /, - "*.0044%, 4*."1 ' ,f.; 1.*** f 4,!* firik• '4 ; , t, 4111w.., i' ...,.rt,,,4,.. . , ,, ' . ,* '* ' ,,,41.14t177 . ,t 4. . ', -'''1 ' -,1- - . . , - ... : t `-t,.{ "717‹ *Lir'''0, 7,,,,,. *'*"***....•• ., . •• ''.7. "' 7**...7 0- **0 • *r* l'''"C'11.ft, IiirTo***"411104t4.' ... "Sik ,„14,t,u.",1,10,14.,,, I i . 1(4,iL .,,,,,./,,.2, .i* 4''' ";'" „ ....", -'*,-, -tz•-*'**Nu: * '' " ' - ' ' "40,■1''' *,:c. ." rf-' . ^`', -.'„ . ,.. 4'0..,....t.r,"' *4', .' A. -., ,. . . . . 4.• -IN, .. .S. to .... ii - - t.x oto4'..111‘ .4■-- . IIII,V1,,40.,, A J, , i.,.,„.,' r.'.., ■1 ,Om'' ,'',4,74,,, , . e "" ., 4$ "'".„,,, „s$.0704" „ „aftil , ...„.,,err,' , .4, .. tr„ -^ .., ,,,,'„,,,A . ., - ,,,,,y#,it,,,,i,' 4'.., •,4_Y.. . . ;44 .,, .... .4— , .. „., , .04 ,., , . - .,... .-,,,,,,, ,iwiii;, -24'• ....e,t„,,,., ,4 4. . ,4, ,.eit.,40.::,.04;42 '" ,).• ,. •$,,,,,I No let.„,,,, iv,,,.'..- ,,,, aft'okili; \ *4' '''QTP. ,• • , - la , 41'kr. `. t.tl*..5-1-"• •'' ,t 1'''' 40 *: '.4L'■:'.$0,: .14','.°'"? fr ) ,,...., ,s, i .1-.'. * 4.1 .'''' tl.'•* ;110,11ti *"*.'..Z ". Er .4,,'' 6.• * 0,,toi",7, ;;,--...7 714,,,,,* ..",. ,..4.4 -. , ' ,44/40te^7. . ,... .°„,,...1.7,, .., ,... -3titt .,.• — "'Mk °;, ,'',Ii ..„ 4-, ',... • ,..,, ,,,,i, ..."`ZO.5,, S,°' ' ' .,: .*I'l o,. et a "1 . 4. 4 ., 4.•* • 1„,,, ,,, t . " ‘,",--■ *114 '' ,...... ';t'' ,,•7 * .../7 e .7*.:*.'4"'...'1* , . 4'''' '0''''''''1',,, (111:1,, ''''.4.- "'"'"',,, ■,1116631' ''' trn11. ■° rif.lh 'll'Ir'ill 0,... 1 . 04 ; . "'L i t •*.,,:•*;7:*, ' . '11.1744 ' 1 •*.7.*)*'.1*' '" " .-1 ' '. '• fik4t ' ''• fr,,i t ,,.4■L',. . e., * ,7 . ,,,-,; i , . WOW.je I, 1 ,4" 77 4 1...° °p4'4 • 'i'li 4014:7 1'''' ‘1,7 V"' ff,..4 ' - 7.w 4,*''',:46,., "-:.1-',4:,, , v-- --%.1.0% ..° . ,,.., ,,,,,,,,t, ,, „ "eli, %,.v.i, ', ,.‘t : • ,1,7.".;,1°. ,,,,.1,,' „it, .;.. ' lt,4,.„.""' ' „,'"""4 -,, .... ,414A.64..iir %.:,■,,,'''$'4'.4.'q 4,`,,P ' t. . .. , ........„ , ii, ,„ .' 4,.,,,,t4, ..,,,,,,,,„* -, ,,:s. 7' tt". 7. 16.6..,,,, , , ,..,.'''' •7*'..... '* '' 7,,' ., 71 1.,:),„ *'*,,,if,,*".,,;:--e, '‘,.. ;, ,,,?, ' )t , ,t,,ii.,c.,;1 .,..e. ..., , . ..,. ,.* ...--,-.- _....r „„,, r " " ,t, ..,,,4100-• : ._,,'— . 14 . - . . . . t. *, *. " , .ov"A, 4 tf•1 •10; 1 .......... . . ... I i 1, ''''.* 4,,f,'■:" ilk - ,, $44,'r,,, 5:-.--,- ,,., '..,-. 1,,i,,,, ., - ..,- ' til s , ,�S r v 1 r'444,+ M u g+„N • y "5 a'b� 1 , ,; 1114•”,..,I A ,, ,°. , ',. , At " A .. ;0,, t.,,,,,,,,s4.„, i 4 . , „, ,.. ; ., ., ,,,,... „ , .. . .5, - ' $ - 4,,.. k ''''"," , ". o ., r qq 7 99 b d m C S. 4 d II yy rML M . P;a�. 0. /j , t ,, t,,, ' ,ii'' * ., 7 • t s •r '" . 04/4 1-1-- o ID C ('0 E a)7.=N = C ro}-, L o ,� L Ci) E = 0 can ;72, p tio CU v I ftl 4-1 V a o,0 ' 0 co -o vM Cl) — a von s � '� � � � � y� O v — (o -E as Cl) — +, v o ro Li-) L c a p p w v m v .- 0 a Iv c 2 tx° O U o f a) (o Q (o •L (0 .— L U O a1 (a O � � „, E a > si � Q3 z .c � • • • • •$ ,:t C • 7 a _ `.� v ' ; "' , �, � •.r� rye''� � ; , " w „ �' ter ,..ter • yew ( a # ,•, e 4 1H v 1 q, � du ' ,p., r � '. . & t r k""." a k.; r rw, P"y*'., wr +'p�,�`'/�*( $r,,.w•s.„." .:::::,...,:i.::.....1).,..t.,:*:,...;: .•:;.....,...r .... ., -•.-1 "':,'?.1, • -:',......,,,,...::L ,„...,A...z,I. '' ' fy{rP PAM a, .: I ' I, } Nµpr y"t f. w• �% l � d „1„ t �,.'Y r'14., ','l ..a N , "i.... r ._•-•-•. r. •„... ....,,, ••••,.„,:„..,:„„,„„ :".,, ,, .:”. 7� " , zrr .„ c, - Rik t, w.•,,,..„,......;.• ....„...; . .. . .•": ....4:',.":•:•• ' ' : '°,14.:::'" •,!.j.4Q = = hA C N r0 -05 c C L tuD cu L O co •■ co E o LL L ca O 0 o•_ � v C • 0 C C #11 � � V) s a -o 4.r +•+ O Q o z0 gn•—' 2 _ 3 cO +' c� v *L -0 C C, +, � cu �► V'.) C 'U a-+ 41 4A }�i N > . . . . '. •I,,',. ■''' I. ,', , . , , . 4!'1" , , . , . ,.., ,,' '4 iiii* - .111 "P. ‘ .,.. ,,..,.. . ,....., :)., te,,, ..i.,i . ........„.0... ...,,., ,. . - ., . . .. „, . ....,„, ,.,.. , . T.. ' .'. ' ti, ..•,,,;..i'...,..,',,,..4. ..,......" . , . .....,',.,..,.''‘'',-.....' fr ,,„ . ... .„ , , . ..% .... ..., , ,..1 ' ....1. 4! Ada. ,, Air 44. . ''.''''';':':',',',,A,,,,': .,, .,.., , . ,.. 4., „ ,,,, .,''' -,, ,',' ' -(,,.' , , ' ' '''. '''.',2',:1,' ' :....4: „ .„,„, , , „ ... . „ ' I.', . .,4''''''.,i1','''''' ..'''', ''''9.r:4,;:,,'.::'''',..,,,'.:',‘.*'''''''. .,t':,.., I” ‘,,,',',..,,,,•,';',,:',,'''ifi?.,,... ..,..„,;,,,,,..k:::.,-..,..,,,, ,S. .;•,....,,,-...,„,.,„, ,. ,,,,,, , ..,r ,.:4,:r. .,., ''' ., ., -- :,:,..;i.,,,,.„.„, -''',.:-.-. .,-,•:,::,,,:„,,,,,,i•;,:,:'f"k,,.,,„.?,•;..,c1.,.i:.,.„):ji..ii,i„,+.'i,,,,,:,,,'4,,,,.,':.'•',':',:,',t„.,,...,,,,,.,%4 0';.•,*' ,-:':"7',.,,''.,.,','.'4,., '1,'• ‘',,,,,t”''.;;'„•',,.,.,,,'',.,.',''",'',..,.''''',•,•,•.••. ,,',,1,.,,,''.. .....,;.;:•,,,',•,.:.:,:!,i„',.'''.',..'''..:' ,,,,iii'•"4,,.'.,• t'; *0 00- ... ,,,••••.•-',.,-.,„,,..,.,;... ..x•,,,,°';'••''':':•''''"Ilt,•I,,.','...4,.%-,„,',,,,„..„,.t.• ,''...'•''.'.r'i,•*r.':..,i'.,,'4•,;.,,,,4,,,',,x,,t::•.,,r,.„,•,I. A.'• „.-.,...,-‘,-■„,,',,., .,,,.,.:„1..,,,1,,,,v..,1;,„,,,..,..,,,...',;•,.. •, ' . „. .,. , .. . ,,.,, ,,.•, 1.,,,,,,,, ,,,-, ',,s;■''',?;e,..,,,'„•'fi*/#''''' •I,-- - ,, ,. , ..,•, ,,,' ,.... ,. . ,,I. 4 . . . . . , . ,,. . i:-.. ,.. . .. :.,....., • ,.. . ,,,, . 1•71/,' 0,„ij't.,,,4i■'','iI'''''''' . . , . „,, ,,..I'',-: • , ,, , ,..,. • Ar. +;''`01100111111k ,,.■'`,,., .. • 7 , . ,. ■ ., •.i• • . • I J 0. • • ' ,■,, ,,, ., . , , „' .. '''''''''''...%:;''''';'.■..!,,,, ,:, ,,,,,,, ,, .,, i,,, ' ,”■ ,„ ,, . il,• • • ■ ' ' F 00+, '• 4010:!;91'..,`'1 `,.;..kiij.■;,....■;....,,!,,ii,lili'''',;'. ;;, : A:I,■';'','■';' ' ., i.,, it, i'. " ,,'it.IrtiitIA'TF.,"A'`. . ; ii,',. .,., . ....ii;;; ,.„. ' '■ „ • , h, • . F ,1 I.,'• .; ';.'' t,'....,iki„.::',:ii ',;1,,iii,', ''''A'.'';,'.., i;;; ' ;;;"i„.i• .' ;ft',' . ,,'',;.517.1.4i 4,F)4-; I ''Ali'il'2',,.: '',:14.1,,';' . . ,`..t;';',i,CiF.F.J4 Id '1;‘,r' '''''''''' '' '''''''' :,:tt44'.'",•;•.,:.:.•$'4.4117".ft,..., ':‘,1,1. ••...,.1•11'., ,.,.,„.,,i.,..1,•x•••••?.1f?ll'x'•'; .:‘,:•.!;•.'.....'........1j,;•;'• ,,,(.11...1.,,,,.11,. 4"'''''''''' ' ''''''' ,,„ ..,.... .., ,,‘,..,.;.,1'. , .,".17.,,,,,,,,,,,,;,,,,„*:,.,,,i,i'.4,•,. •,,,,, :,",,..'•'!' .%.,: '.;:!•°•••.:, ..' .:,;•:,,.. !-;1'..:'..e.,•:=„;...'.....t, :•••••'0....,•:•..,•,-„P J.,,,I,./, .*,.,.„...,. . . .. ,..,, , ,.,......,...,:„.,..,- ,,.•,:.:,„,•, • ,.,•1,.:,;,, %,,, ..„,„ „, 'III l'. ..ii.•'• ' • '' : ' '''' ... , , - _,>.'...,.. . .,,,,„4? ..1,,,,,,,t.,,:11,,,.,,Tif','"filfit:..t.”' • Apr: ,,, ,, -IV' •■•',0';'', „.,,,, ' ''''h!WA,,...',.‘'''''e r',I:.,,,,,,,,‘'r'',W,P,■,..j'; .,q.'',' — ,,,...r.., ,,%, ' ` '''''''''',I!IPIIIIIP't'll''Sll'i..k'''' :','',';14i.i'1'''''' ' ,, ,'.''''[■'',11i3.',:2,."':'"I'''r.;;.*:...it.,', , ,, ,. r ',,' , r '''''''''''ij'''' ,",''''';'''''''''''''''";i'''1■Nli 1 .'1'1';''' .''''''''''..;i,:'',',';',' ''',',Li,1 i!t;,.,,,'‘2,,''',''il'','■'''.:..i..4,4cist:',...'' '''('' '' .i .,,.,'• .1.,4,.i',P, 1, .,■:' ;10;;2::•;,..,,4'q '‘,,,,i,'‘I.",,,,,',,,, ,‘';',,","';',';',' ...,';;'''.,..,':',,,',:@ l'■1■,''',,t,,'. ','''r' ''''' '''l;„:.A ,';','.''' ' ,' ':'''':''''''''''''''..;;.L .11`'''' ' ' ' ''''''''',,'■` "'',.t..,''': '',. ',:''',,:g, .'4'.,' ",',.',' , Ai,';P''''''''''. .,',' '.t,",,,4', ',3,,'',.„.„ .1'^ri.t.,:v,:,,,,f;....:, ',.„,1.,,-.',.,.,- ',;,,,,, ,,,,.,.-t,.;',',--'''- '';;:-, '''.:.!1:;,!:,,,..4,,.:5„',;;', , •,..:;:,,,,,,,,,,,, :'-',-:,.• . .. .. ., .-,. -. !',., ......,,-...-::,i,',,,,i.,,,',,O.,,',.:;,..,,,-,. .-1.,,04.1■:. '. ,, ,--.. ;,.,- ...,.. ', ',-';''''k.' ''„".!",',...,',,i,.,;:.• ,'.',' '1.1';',"!:;:,:'',""f{,,' 'r''''''‘VA'''''' ''''''''''''''' ';'''''''''..::,.il'§'?"',...4.#,'";:•''''';',..,ii:',.7,.. ., '— ■.,,,•,,,,. ;,..,. ,ir,'4,1:;':::',.... . •• :* •, . ' . . .11.',.!.':',.,. , ,,,,,•"1.,••,''''' •: • i( F 1 v x .' ' .rxk,"^i� ,� � + „„1w Y ry e.,}� -•i-•••••••••:••• t ” bd�w , :r � � µ�q"• �. P N Y F . 1 . W• ' : ' • 'fir�.••0. .mp b � :4:,••• °x a " a r'"••• � ��i 1 P ' , r x ; {y ;h, ' ''r 1 9,. .i x ,,M 4 ' hA`1 '4: p G '" ' tl '' f u1 " u W r h r dw �" " ! y a;o 5 �' k ` n ° G t �N��. (Y .. ,j 4 , i %. ; a•+, ' w 1 I •••••:!•••,••:••:.:.• w .•••••••:••••••••• ,� °, ` 4., 0' w " a e w.: ' :,� ,�• a k ro q. k 4"` n "� •:u t 4 :' y n t� i 1 X G. '� '• ;G "�"'- ° p yy , �,,::, 4 ^ ' N t� r"1° 'yF h" P+ m{• �µ di" � t x ' . p{"N t y C <" rC C° 4•M t .. • • rklicit'n • •.»,M1 v, .,a • W r % tp„V &� '; 4, + :° P • y 9 v ` . v?!e,. S , a f "b V Fwr'q, my u :+r u AA w -y r w!1�" l *� •a<,6, 4 v 4wi Lr �"'aA• '�,T "v' : ! alum.•'1,41 •••••°.,•.0:••°1 ,..•••••,":"„45:,,,I;;„■;••••.• • • • .l,,,•.• ',^• • •q, . • :,,: i , . , , _ A s,y, ;...a N . " k r � r � rtl,• • • r ...... nu ;� i i � y� 3 J � " s a ... » �r r`"' Q . �' d ,., 'add' ,. ''•n r "i...N 111''4"�r B 11r ."'4'11011914:"":.:...„V ahy' dn,a•°T r .M;Y6:.^ N „•N �,., ^ c w'�b :• r" " E fir•• , tl M ''i rl,. W.ice •.: r� QTR r r•: , µx, •• y, rr-ilk• ",, ' A k, "' 1s , "b;re P 1 t U ,: ""'. ., A• w,°X Kp +Yy',� " .," xr ry Irv"z• 4,•••-:•.:. .14, ••• . ,.,.....„;:„.:.,,.„...., ,. ',''......000,..„...„0,-.1..-•:,...,..„...44.2:•1:•,•••4....:::•.•t.:...4..„..,„:„..,:-:,..,:::•:•.•••••:•.•:...............:::•..:., .:......::. •. '.. • y y rye w d? ' i r p ', J w gi ; r' a ' r F,,w,.**,',41/4 ue .i r F M y " h• a " x as A „r + a „r ,... ,..,„1,!....„1,,r, iiitt,4, k" Y � 1 t e 1,...'1; a , µti...,.;µ rw, � , t tiw IIP • ry, Ay'4)111 ,, 4. , 1 4. .4.. kf., 1 ,P100,14 : e kr y,fro ',a • m e 4 � 1,d �* ti M1 4 � k. fi 0,10 a „- x •ti " T + k °k•n" " k r L"� '7r It .. ,..s a S "a, a,a x 4n ka^� 4 jot s ten i • ^ fie .. $ ,' . ^' � ' , r yea's' ► «.» . t d p *,#•,!:/) .,%;:,....7‘, ....41,, '. , ,., 44 4 P , :: ' ,1,i ,' :A.,,,,,,,„:, fo: ‘‘t, ty: , , ,,, i , „ , . . 4 ,« i k k r 1 w‘ !., .0 • , i A 4�y,,,,,, 22.1‘,, ,,, ,,,,,1 •.,,,,, '' !M � 4.. .° r . L rt fi e`, .i' l a fi 9 " 9 d , i* y r q,w r .. k : , ■ , r , . . • 1 r', ' *:„,.. • '''''' ' `:, il't)1* ' ', '• 1,V S' ^ , ‘• * 1 ' t.'''"i', , fnini''' V 4, ' '''. 0,' ' '' ' I' ' f '7, ''' ,* ,,' . i„ ,,:. f'''',,....'''6 ' 1 4 4 t• '''.1 ■' s' ■ '' ''''''',,.'I,'Or-,- ....„...„ .a ,' „ , ■•'1 ,4**' A",Z , , ,,,,:srt.c,.,,, ,,, • , , .$', 41:''';1 '„i4'41•:.%1 : &„ 1! st;,?' l- ' , ' 'r.21,'Prti r A 41 . 4 22".'.. A A' r■," . , " , • fl•.:vis',',•.' °,',,,,,,,,o4 0,,, ' , , , ,,i'.1A • 40' 4.,/,'t:• : ;.',., .44... -,,,,,,,,,,, , . • -'4'4,',..'t '' '',, ' , , „,..;'; ,. k ' *. 4 ' 1 ,,,71'''', • ' `",,k14,,lgs;i„,,,, ,„•,. 1) „, s,•41,.:- r;f4'210..iAT,tr'• ,.'` '''s .,'; s ' ,,,,s ,. '.,,-,, -,,);.; r,,,,i,4!;(101,i,.,174 ,,',i, ', • ' Ao ..,,101 - ,,„, ,,,,,,sL is , si,,‘,. t , , . ,f,e, 'IP4t. , -,, 't.*' ',k ',",'Yi or i„ti2.,t,..:r:,,,,,,•,,,,-_,,r)i-,.4,41,.., 11 ;4 ''**1:4 ■ ',1,4', , ' ..,;.. -',' 's , •'''''';;;rlikit'1'4,,,1„..: 1 'i,', fi:, /4 ' p4"'"All} (" fl ? ,10 ,,‘ , • 4itk "11,;.,1:: t.4.041•44:, 3.'..i':*,..'„,s,,..,1, ', ..1, „) ' `' ,I 141.0itii!" 'A . ,,„adii t'' N'E ' " '1' .■ '4'4'' ''t,,21.4'''' 44' '. '''''' e'. , , : 'I', ' ' ,. " -,. ,.,.,1 ,o;t„ ., , , ,, , :, ,. ''', 144 L.f1'4 s:.■'''''1,1 1'0'gI "' 4° r :'''''' "■■1,21ii)'''i Y ' ,,',' 11,00,4` i 114, •i t*1 1..r$4... •. 4,4'. /' 4 ..,_____,....e-.# ,.' '1,74)* '4,1/1....4 ., .,.. ,' •4':;..itki ilii' z ''•''ii',71, ' 40... 4.,, C .4 F.,,,,i, 1, •."" .‘s"tr,', 71 41 ff- . o■ ., , CD . ;,,, ,,.4,44 , 01 Aopoo E w ,4 ' 2 24.4fr''' 0 „ t41 - 111 4 a) co . .,, v) 4-d• .a...... , • 4 1, 4=P As ' :;,,:JO#,, , ,„1" - ■ 0, l47C iP4 ' :'''$' = ;115#i '..;'' ,o,N , 0 ; _ ■ tie .„W."e,'"II, 4.'' *, 0 s■I . ,!r''',2—.1.4.14444 I. 1 1. ..4 '''' '■"' 4'4'oefliiiiiii.6_,,-,,wqr,41,14, ,,, 44k,"‘",....,i'1 ":'' 13 +-P C 0 . .:, ' . tu E . . ,. , , , A 4 $ ■ A' ' , ,, ''14 1 •,. I/1 . , „,t; . 1,,,,',,,:o■o' , , , 14# t F'k's,,,,,.,...,,i, -o ;--, 4 co 41...f 0 c ,,, .;;;e,,f; ,,,t,',i,l, 1 ' , ,,,k,,,$,10,„ , °P', 1. all , . . - , 1''f- I 1010 .■ .., A lir . 6 0 CL6 '' ',:,;•„',',.,i,Ii° ,,, i 110: ''',.;i110.1,M 44 °.'‘,.°. "I ilmii 0 r0 • ', '''.'1?). ,,')°,1''',4 A '1 ''' '''' 41 , '44 -• ,. . ..., , . ,..,, ,' .. ' .";''',''4111°■°;,''''''. it el t CU ! c,-)NIA ''' ' u ' ', .,:411:',#,:.1.1."...i0;11:;: ' 'f' ,'''.'';' .c- 1-1 — O o R _ 7, .a r I• >- -p v yF+:! � k „ L L M- O 4■1 r r �^ vJ 4 '' fir a V .;pwp;riy.;..., 4— 0 rp' E f� (o cu 73 CU c .0 i i " "� L c0 C r. N, Vf TMs{k � N + ,, $' q t - u,• . 'WA '''.i''.it''' CU CU i, "` rt'L U O 7 1 '' p ,rr die nf3}, '7(.46.,0 tf1 O -O I QJ CV dP A ., 7' y i.,',.°.. f ,i � ' i L' v 13 ID u t p v"y �tP°�t � p trr �O s,_ v U 0 CU . Alt',,'. ., r fir;" . 3. ,� __ U O w V Q 03 • fp n3 QJ 41;.. Sri Q T3 4J L` U 1— L p.� U U • O c O E (v O — O 0 C C C v �, to O ID 0 TS •±''"S� ,T',. o a) a ° c a� p� ca•— E `" o > —ID ▪ 1 '471 r0 Pri i000J� U vi ° p a0i � � � o C13 a) 0 S� ++ L o �- �' N 0 tl, q� vi C v 0 3 a awn o Iki 13 LA'�; •U v pcnC Ocn � �' u' v w O �� O � i o o c .3- c a O cu +rv�.... p � c 1-1-1 o c r� q�j +�+ v 0 a a� o o > E v▪ • V L.�� O c�i1 C U O Qjj � o � =s •tea3 (0 > � o ._ ` L o a� •— v F-- +� N ._ 4-' �, .,;14. .4y!.,,.:4 . ..41■4'''' Iti; 7,401 '',t.,''„ ",„. 0 , ,,,,,, .,`,4^ ,,,,.**.,' *_t!'r,:;*'''' .s. '''';'''... .**,, 4141,:!, ' ''''*'^'. ''''.*'1 , ,,* 10 .„'-■tii.mt, „, , **I'''''''''''.■,,':;It.. " .',A4. 4,*.*...,'' ri'''''''';j'r'''''',' 0#14..:414A4,. $0'IV,:" 4/,'''''."'",1,1k,'„4.k°41t!'''',:,..1t,'A',°:■'S4,,0*4',„t.4,,'.° rt ow '1:r.p,,,:16, '''.p;, „Ott ..°IN 1.4, ,,4.''..411.,..4t4. ..■ .; .1.,,'''.■i, ..'4111,,,43 '''' i r '''1'01°... ''''.4::V.'14A.".'.*4. '.#*',',, r'. .'''' .... ob.4.0,4‘,''',■ . "osk ■,, ,.„14■.*.M.:. .„,, ,, ., i,...4:';',' , , ,r 4.:, - .t, * ..14.?.) ,,,,4t.. ,,......, A.:0. l'''" . }.. *,!.''?'"'i,'r.1'r'.,.,', ,.*.4":,.'" '.',,,,',g',',',,..,,,„'a.*{'ill''i''t''''''..o.'1)'!01,.„,''1.0.,°'''0'','1''`,0''”,';''‘''4''4',','.'1.:0,'■',,,1,,..,,,,,.W,!.,,.1'',.,,‘,.'1,°',.''",''..'., , . o I,, ° ' . 14 e „ t ' N -- ',',:'.'N'',:,'„,,':4.„0.'".1,,","1A°1'.'.'.1.4,•,"''4'I'—„t'., ; 22 w . ■'', .' ..:'/''' '■,.,'i'''..,14,''''' ' ■,'' ' -CS = cy 0 = C ,.. .4., u.0 c c .— r■il u fa 1,- 0 �}4 W • w "..c.. I ,M•, iN y -- ' , �'M� mk. iiior • S7' w ;." M N Al , 8, r ;: c,j ) i r *g N i� N c' a a k m rt ' * ,N t p 'k' 4 ' ' a' g v "P 9 8 4,,,,,,„„8','—''' " ,, ° rc VII l 7 , k ;,ir,A ti k , � k g w f r t, ai tj A d , ,r b „ ^`' kf N ,w4P i v ,k �, ;,'•;i', , ,ur �: dp„ d w �^�eyy4 tto a ww '",, �n;•WJ as � n, 4 "�is� �w �,, 4.11,,:,;;:y, yxwd�:." a 9 M. 4 v1i;N+t,,d? s �.,ykvm ""' :. 441-4"+g* I� " -. } r, �y lk 3 ". M\r �. ka,�.� 'a Ci a a ra ° ifG i p; r, rs {q S r & ,,,,,,..,,,%,,,.„0,,,,,A, rN4. rn'. �7 day'+ v� 9� tiff Pow 'y kW' 41� � f, !ItN (i ' +� �Gi�dt� r '` � �I `� 5tii t'��i GI4 IN � �� rN .. N^I � �, r fi '�,jr, w k' r r p tf r y:d ,. " 'k .k,du. ;, , -,a ttirr „" °`a C (II') O co — � C� ro 4-1 U CL) E cu o E a E v) cu L_ c 0 CU VI � � C (I C � +� >. o E V a--+ L... U C 0.� 4-1 C). ra CL L.. = 2 ci, < a) o s- n3 2 o CL U • • • • • • ;„ 6 it ( ly, ' 1 f • Iu k PW g ir8 .. Mki. 04 tai w a w j +Nq' . e prµ ^p°r Ird t • �A `a .•• tai, r., r `'` >.•∎ , fi t,.......,,•::.,.... .....„.• 1. j t n i 9 • Bend, OR 97702 (541) 330-2638 www.onda.org On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Dan Morse<dmorsc @onda.org> wrote: Dear Chair DeBone, Commissioner Baney and Commissioner Unger: As you may know, Oregon Natural Desert Association (ONDA), based here in Bend, is one of the primary proponents of the Owyhee Canyonlands Conservation Proposal put forward by the Owyhee Coalition in July of this year. Other members of the Owyhee Coalition include American Whitewater, American Rivers, The Wilderness Society, Sierra Club, Pew Chartiable Trusts, the Mazamas, Natural Resources Defense Council and Conservation Lands Foundation. We understand that in September this year Deschutes County wrote a letter indicating support for Malheur County's opposition to the conservation proposal. We regret that we were unaware that this issue was on your agenda as we would have happily attended, provided information or presented about our proposal. One of our concerns with the Malheur County resolution is that it misrepresents aspects of our proposal and misstates certain critical facts about the future management of the Owyhee Canyonlands under our proposal, including assertions made about lost economic activity, increased federal land ownership, impacts to grazing and road closures that are simply not true. While we respect differing opinions about the conservation proposal we think it is tremendously important that all stakeholders operate from factual information and a clear understanding of what has been proposed. To clarify our proposal please see the attached letter that was sent to Malheur County in September in response to their resolution. ONDA and the Owyhee Coalition would like an opportunity to present to you the details of our proposal and its benefits for conservation, economics, wildlife and recreation here in Oregon. Would it be possible for the coalition to schedule some time during a commission work-session for such a presentation? We would be pleased to do so. In addition to copying Tom Anderson I've copied Brent Fenty, ONDA's Executive Director and Cone Harlan, ONDA's Owyhee Coordinator on this e-mail. Any of us would be happy to coordinate a date and time to meet with you. Thank you for your consideration, we look forward to further discussions. Sincerely, Dan Morse Dan Morse Conservation Director Oregon Natural Desert Association 50 SW Bond St, Suite 4 Bend, OR 97702 (541) 330-2638 www.onda.org 2 M September 18, 2015 VIA EMAIL Dan Joyce Malheur County Judge 251 "B" St. West, Suite 5 Vale, OR 97918 diovce@malheurco.org Re: Malheur County Resolution regarding the Owyhee Canyonlands Dear Judge Joyce: We write on behalf of the Owyhee Coalition in regard to the recent Malheur County Court resolution (Resolution R15-34) opposing the creation of a National Monument, a National Conservation Area,or Wilderness in Malheur County. The Owyhee Coalition consists of local, regional and national groups that recognize the conservation, recreation and economic values of the area and supports the Owyhee Canyonlands Campaign. Our organizations are a strong, coordinated voice calling for permanent protection of the Owyhee Canyonlands. In July, 2015 the O w yhe e Coalition put forwa r d t h e Owyhee Canyonlands Conservation Proposal. Our proposal seeks to protect 2.5 million acres of public land in Malheur County via a combination of National Conservation Area (NCA), Wilderness, and Wild &Scenic River designations which would need to be enacted through federal legislation. Permanently protecting the most special places within the Owyhee Canyonlands would: • Safeguard its deep, red-rock canyons, rolling plains,wild rivers and ample recreational opportunities for future generations; • Protect the area's fascinating geology, rich ancient history, healthy wildlife habitat and unique ecology; • Prevent extractive uses that would permanently damage these pristine places; • Ensure activities like fishing, boating, hunting and hiking would continue,forever; • Allow working farms and ranches to continue to operate. The Malheur County resolution mischaracterizes the Owyhee Canyonlands Conservation Proposal as a National Monument proposal, misstates acreages associated with the proposal and is factually incorrect and/or highly speculative in many of its assertions. The resolution describes a number of supposed impacts that might result from a generalized set of"special designations" including "National Monument,Wilderness Area, National Conservation Area or similar enhanced federal designations". We respectfully disagree with the notion that these designations have identical management implications and that these designations would lead to the types of outcomes described in the resolution. ( We provide the following information both to clarify the specifics of our proposal and to address those aspects of the County resolution we consider inaccurate or speculative. Mining and natural gas exploration in Malheur County will continue Existing oil and gas leases in the BLM Vale District are outside of the proposed NCA boundary and Wilderness boundaries in the Owyhee Canyonlands conservation proposal (Attachment A). Current mining proposals (Grassy Mtn Gold, Aurora Uranium, Owyhee Mining Company Zeolites near Rome) are also outside of the NCA boundary and would not be impacted. Additionally, nearly 1 million acres of the proposed NCA and Wilderness is currently administered by BLM as Wilderness Study Areas (WSA) and therefore off limits to mineral exploration and development except for valid existing rights. Malheur County cattle production will remain and continue Designation of an NCA and Wilderness Areas in the Owyhee would not close or fundamentally alter cattle grazing. The Wilderness Act explicitly allows for livestock grazing (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136; §4(d)4(2)). In fact, legislation could explicitly grandfather grazing and could allow for some certainty that ranchers now lack in the existing Wilderness Study Areas. Access for hunting,fishing and other recreation will remain open Access to the Owyhee for hunting and fishing by motorized vehicles would still be easily accomplished. Major roads and routes will remain open.The Owyhee Coalition supports the development of a travel management plan for the NCA that would include the designation of roads, routes and trails that would afford reasonable motorized access on many currently existing routes. Hunting is expressly permitted in Wilderness (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136; §4(d)8). Property tax revenues will continue to be generated by ranches These assertions are premised on impacts to grazing, which would not occur. The Wilderness Act explicitly allows for livestock grazing(16 U.S.C. 1131-1136; §4(d)4(2)). Legislation could add a degree of certainty for grazers and allow for access and livestock grazing facility maintenance that isn't currently p ossible in existing Wilderness Study Areas. Search and Rescue access is allowed The Wilderness Act explicitly allows for motorized access to protect the health and safety of persons within the area. (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136; §4(c)). Furthermore,the Owyhee Coalition supports the development of a travel management plan for the NCA that would include the designation of roads, routes and trails that would afford motorized access on many currently existing routes. 2 of 5 Income, jobs and businesses will increase As you are aware, Headwaters Economics completed a study of the Malheur County economy in 2013. We attach that study for your reference (Attachment B)and reiterate one of its primary conclusions—counties with protected public lands enjoy higher per capita income than peer counties without protected public lands. Permanent protection of the Owyhee can and should enhance the tourism sector of the Malheur County economy. Wildfire threats will be addressed BLM can use all available wildfire suppression tactics in NCAs and Wilderness and does so regularly(16 U.S.C. 1131-1136; §4(d)1). Large-scale wildfire threat has far more to do with weather and wind than fuels. BLM is on record about the recent Soda fire saying more grazing would not have prevented its spread due in large part to the high temperatures and winds associated with that fire. Wildlife habitat will improve Protected areas benefit wildlife.The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service generally views wilderness designation as affording one of the highest levels of land protection and, by extension, protection of fish and wildlife—available for federal land. Wilderness designation in the Owyhee would benefit sage-grouse and other of the region's important species.The Owyhee proposal wouldn't eliminate wildlife water developments in the NCA or Wilderness. Maintenance of existing water developments is allowed in Wilderness and new water developments or salt licks could be allowed in the NCA if needed for wildlife and consistent with the NCA purposes. BLM and fire employment could increase We simply don't understand the basis for the assertion regarding loss of BLM jobs. Our experience with the designation of other National Conservation Areas and Wilderness Areas across the country does not support the conclusion that BLM jobs would be lost and, in fact, new BLM positions for the planning and management of these sorts of areas are often created. Similarly, we don't understand the assertion that fire jobs would be lost and suggest that the levels of firefighting employment in the region would not be influenced by the designation of a National Conservation Area and Wilderness Areas in the Owyhee. Designation allows active management Active restoration and management could be allowed in the NCA and could even be one of the purposes of the area. Restoration and management can also occur in Wilderness to benefit the Wilderness resource using a minimum tool decision process administered by BLM (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136; §4(d)1). Clearly we disagree with many aspects of the county's resolution, but we acknowledge and highlight the fact that we all share a deep appreciation for the Owyhee Canyonlands and agree 3 of 5 that at least some of this important area needs permanent protection. Past statements that the County and other stakeholders had identified nearly 1 million acres of the Owyhee for permanent protection'seem at odds with the 45,514 acres identified for protection in this resolution. We strongly hope that the county recognizes the much larger conservation value of the Owyhee. Protecting less than 2 percent of this incredible area would be a tremendous lost opportunity. As a course of action moving forward, we would welcome the opportunity for a dialogue with the County about the Owyhee Canyonlands proposal. As you are aware,Corie Harlan,the Owyhee Coalition Coordinator, made a significant effort to meet with you in July of this year and make you aware of the coalition proposal in advance of its release. Given those discussions, we had hoped for more dialogue about the county's interests and needs. We continue to believe that it would be productive to discuss the goals of our Coalition and opportunities to work with the County. We remain interested in a robust discussion with Malheur County and other stakeholders about the future of the Owyhee. We would be pleased to meet with you in person to further discuss the Owyhee Conservation proposal, Malheur County interests and other aspects of determining the best means of permanently protecting this nationally significant landscape. Please contact Corie Harlan, Owyhee Coordinator, with any questions,thoughts or to arrange a meeting to discuss these issues. Sincerely, Brent Fenty, Executive Director Oregon Natural Desert Association Sara Barth, Senior Regional Director Pacific and Southeast Region,The Wilderness Society Rhett Lawrence, Conservation Director Oregon Chapter, Sierra Club David Moryc, Senior Director River Protection Program American Rivers Thomas O'Keefe, Pacific Northwest Stewardship Director American Whitewater 1 Argus Observer,September 17,2014. http://wwwargusobserver.com/news/lands-committee-counters- wilderness-proposal/article c350c2b2-3e8e-11e4-ba47-cfb5cfdf2b66.html 4 of 5 Ryan Bidwell, Campaign Director Conservation Lands Foundation Adam Baylor,Stewardship &Advocacy Manager The Mazamas Cc: Malheur County Commissioner Larry Wilson Malheur County Commissioner Don Hodge Mary Gautreaux, Deputy State Director, Senator Ron Wyden Dan Whelan, Natural Resources Liaison and Field Representative, Senator Jeff Merkley Kirby Garrett, Legislative Assistant, Congressman Greg Walden Liv Brumfield, Field Representative, Congressman Earl Blumenauer Jerry Perez, State Director, BLM Oregon/Washington Don Gonzalez, District Manager, BLM Vale Harney County Court State Representative Cliff Bentz 5 of 5 X " T14S-R42E T14S-R43E 4X T14S-R44E • R45E Edwards Butt X IL 45E ra[°, r•LUY ;r • Stripe. " r"'"$1 -I- McDowell Rutte3355 Imam: :6 E T15S-R43E 45S-R44E 'WSW` . • Weiser =rogan F F, .7$1.40•1911111.. i:Is, Y k l w�rur r rr i , i 4, kil3 :mom :mos. neallillinit 1111sw- .[®$I® 'MEM 6:1:a 15S-R.'r - 1111111'lIII 0151111111111111: 111511 ill •wnawnr[e{[�FtOrCq[eaa•••l. a m •Y®IIM•wlilf Mli0Y4ia7 Y anSi Ir�ail••air ai N N •■ MI■.NMGMiI w.s.. 1• Eiii lIMMMM1l r■ id •w rene w [e ■ [G .FP4 N G I m • a i ® Jamieson .Fllf ON"® • $li • :MUM/■w re[n�[ a fl f1 a. 'MnnsaINpawwi u Y;gjllgw T16S-R42E T16S-R4 T16S-R44E �e® ''• 'f"IE8®��oa r i-yr:+mem' ryEtal IN ::® Min"" rti ' T16S-R4 8E i[ [cwr fYai ■FIB :"11 a :..1811L. E ■[ rnl ua.E su.0 co •■ wn n■ •E [Gy [n�y[ O a q]IS .Yla �� aJ;� o : as.i® I® FYa•Yi rrMaiN•rYa Y °a■ N Ya.Yllll " WHIM're aa of a Q Ga!• w" [c�ca N�[ I[� itillarifr Y■Meer" %PC a®�AI� •""e�ir f NEE iAIS ill °IIli Mill Nr�Y�•m EOM T17S-R47. sz @ =lir "'a nsmni i •1B UMW ".i m TITS-R46E c TITS^R42E [[ rNYr ENNUI hdm:riirr w Sugarman=° e °ii® ®sa'�®®n m "yette pu:cw°E�rA-� le Nr ■ so ��,-�_ mar• r EGOS ■r rwr-� ,'f-• atp fE er1; iA El IE a wI w F 1:J r•Y. Ir YA • or S _ r aNq :::mg, *[ 2w Ontario 0 22 UM mg ®t� � m� M��h�uftveT .Fruitland T4$S-R42E �•®� �®� T78S-R44E T18�-R45EE T78S R46E T S-R47E . MOM I �/aie Butte �o `®•■y• 29073 B9 ® I. EGO[ m , ov r-� I °E.,a[i[{pinrraazcca.ccl°E.[ia.EEF I°rl�soO Iii�a.. r NmIi:N ii iillliiiiiiiiiiA YM am is ®® ® ® 7atrNf ■Y .7 rM ® °°iq 71'S-R47E N >�aallll IM Y IS IR F EE waS a 7 9�..r ■r. 19S--46E T19S-R42E T18$ �N a�•r n alil�®� wi IllSn;l�l [e� � P ittle Valley �*�® SGO ra OWYi •Ea EN YIIi Y•l® Illllll CI � � �® a[e®®® iw�ns®®®M®iNie ®®dw N, - rM®®:Cif M w i°[I'iPialllliflfit —=MR ••a[ F[a[Gaaa'[aea•YYnnaa.Y F°a[ fisa N w NN Er IGI al•E0IE [w i k, riU,Nl 1p��lfl�Iat�Illaf tlrAf°®�.c18 ,, r ngti iErrilll� l"�rrrnl i mm r $'®RNs®®®® nairaie ar T20S-R42E " - - "11 :tins N ; ® e t . -4SE T20S-R46E n R ':°eehnllllet;'nm ; ®� 3237 Fit 7E NN• (� rnlM rrfNl EMMIMMW:MM=MEN■:RIM 1.01"14.-47° Parma i 70 rce :u' 301 7E T21S-R42E T218^R43E T21S-R44E T21S-R45E T21S-R46- RiversidefCanal 7 oWyhee RtVer Brown Butt 1• 47 X XAd1e:n Q Lease Sales-General Area Other Federal 0 1.75 3.5 7 U .oeperKrcm al lmeriur MI Lakes Private I ■Miles Bureau eI land Management 4M Major Rivers State Lands 0 4,200 8,400 16,800 ®Resource Area Boundary illa U.S.Fish and wlld8fn Service Meter. Bureau of Land Management-Water N j I f ■ vela Emma OR 41111 Bureau of Reclamation ]1112015 'The lease parcels on this map --..n�-,17=.-..�...=7"AI were generated by an automated process rea2"v-"v °^� `1- Draft General Lease Locations* and have not been sdMdually reviewed for accuracy. s m.-bm.-d=-.�»�• w.+ Owyhee Canyonlands Conservation Proposal .�.. .�, .. Ontario'�• Vale 4 r i ''''''''''''''''"(1 DR[GQN f z a ..i > YeiC 1 , w vs 51 Y S�(FJ Bend Qntarl r.r • • Burns �;. ,/fry:. Area of Interest . �'�•;. ;>r �k:t Adrian [AilrORNiA 'NEVADA ._ � W 201 burns. ��. r § ....... w arc, ;„ �. 8oi w , ,,,,‘„7-.1:i,,,fr-,,,,T,•,:-.,,, i ,,,It.i',ft,,,,,,, 44 ,,' ,,,e. ',.':,,, , i� ° pksm r * �" v: a a UT? �r > z N,y " ' .h 4, �. N' ,>y 4 t n`.rr n 'a ' a Ci dr " y n I Y . r , P'a ✓'�" ,,,r+F_ 1 yR te w y q� , A. � r . yi d N �� !d �� A5 ,! y t ' / �'2 � I , .� /'..,, ,Av xsr ti ad T"''"' k` '" ar a � ,:" ^,° Jordan ii,r) . .,. .., ‘ , ! ..',,..,,,,,,,,i. ,r,., , , , .' M ✓ ,,,,,..,,,,i ` 6 Valley,,,.,,,.::,.,,,,,,::,,,,,, � 4 `N. A '',p., , L , p ' �',d" f (Burns I 3, " 7 " . .I.k " y . .n jiuflctioi y a e„a r, fir . r li r.t RK" . ti r ° UkTh FC ` i '^' ,,,,,/ . ` ., {tYir 'h '� " � y d • a ,�, ..sr ,r a ',l ,� t 2 ^s•Fr, ;lw",a t L, i f ( ,; f 1, � ,t,," f"" '"* p �^ )Ctp .' fp,.,./ . � r / r t4 ,,,./121' .r .(111 a ,,,,,,e" '. <r)l f, -AMies ? �S �, ,, ,�. it ,yy ,qa ^+1, f u? mg•,� (2,5/9,032 U.S.Fish and Wildir(e~Service ',.' y1 '� .N„� �".': a („43,1,,,,,', ,,•Proposed Nation Conservation Area State Agency r r P serf acres! ( ` + U.S.Forest Service a�".�R �t... ^` t'�t";4i`y +, �p" e �! �i QPn nstdWli[ a L,012,.;,Oac)ca Proposed Wild&Scenic Rivers ✓� �er �AI7µEE ,County i ° r r ^'9 Existing Wilrle•rne55 n° r ,`'� +"� �• Highway ' '� d� dr r' f �tl', iy r .r„.r F:WILDER Bureau of Land Management i; ��r' -r / � City 7 & ' .' Bureau of Indian Affairs � 4 rl r ” , Bureau of Reclamation Gateway Cnrnmunity Private Individual or Company "': '•""::.. ".; •.'"" `":",•• "'b - 0 \ \/ I I ,--i IL-1 i) . .„, , ., . . ,, .) „ ,..,f.- likSO4,. Canyon .ids , •,, 4 a.-. �r. �I .. , roc - ess . • . Ore on -; kot4T. LOJtPRECT IT. ,,,f...,, ,,,, . : :. . :., f /4 a� �1 9V,r k � q ;, ''O''''''w' yhee C'artyotitands C. �r ' atewid to ;Y^ 01. w 'p o tl ' roton 2 5 million acres " ,;r x, r o Ca yonlands , qr �` t i' t a �. ✓ n :y d' M1 r,w. �.ii?r, y, .S i( �rt! ,,(,:g} . �fi; ,5, , e: 5 , 0 E';• VI/11.D VI70 61 DER A )`1 1 L ,. ,. The Owyhee Canyonlands in southeastern Oregon is the largest " ''^' ` intact, unprotected natural area in the lower 48 states. This The Owyhee Canyonlands is home to over landscape is vast. Protecting this place is big for Oregon and big 200 species, including golden eagles, pronghorn antelope,elk,the imperiled for conservation. Often described as Oregon's Grand Canyon, Greater sage-grouse and the largest herd its deep, red-rock canyons, rolling plains and wild rivers offer of California bighorn sheep in the nation. The fascinating geology, rich ancient ample recreational opportunities, including hiking, rafting, fishing, history and unique ecology come alive in birdwatching, stargazing, hunting and camping. this natural treasure. r I '.41 r!o ^ k I l'f),1! iri +F fit' 4. • -.. x -(s ^ ! +v `, + ; 'W ,:: , ... I '..'4!7'k..-, ..� ..„1.. rk� .. t'Y :F�t':'''''''4-'''." " n I STRONG SU' PORT Statewide and local support for protecting this special place is growing.Conservation groups and businesses have come ■ together to form the Owyhee Coalition,a local Friends of the Owyhee group is calling for protection and thousands of Oregonians have signed the petition to protect the Owyhee area. /^ .,.9,,Jc „,Ai, , ,`! ,0 Iv/1(.:, . C TE 1 T „ . at O. R `U F,. ,V UNDER r .AT Protecting the Owyhee Canyonlands would boost the local While remoteness has long protected the Owyhee,development economy.Research shows communities near protected public pressure including mining and oil and gas development is land experience an economic lift from visitation,increased now clawing at its edges.Before these forces take hold,let's livability,and service sector jobs.Currently,just 16%of total have the foresight to protect the Owyhee's wild rivers,life and private jobs in Malheur County are in travel and tourism-related beauty for generations to come. sectors-a great opportunity area for growth.In an agricultural area stricken with multiple years of drought,options for diversifying the economy are more vital than ever. 1� 1�?�74 �'.i y t'.:(!' C"y:r �, �.; � , .! �'S e.��-t.�.r."''. rk�` C ,x'f" z> r{ �z ry;gy-a*'qR ak`J ��'4, .'tM,S' . w .vas ' e..e.�. ',�: ti; , gyp Rp ... . r f ., y.} 4 F'��f q y: '' •:: L } �y may, d ,?>+1 F ,5 .k F r,„l'? c, 'Ri; , {-.ri-,5”.'w'k7 n t �: b 0', �p t '!� i 1: a .*t W �Gi., ,�� `'f'•+1 ;f • . • ' ' " • • • ' , - , LA eSigge 1,q0 •7'.■'; The Economic Potential of Protected Public Land in Malheur County, Oregon 3 a0P " r • ' '14's "•is. e'• ‘ifh .4"1111"' . „.. ' ■; , .4141011110101111prf The Economic Potential of Protected Public Land in Malheur County, Oregon SUMMER 2013 ABOUT HEADWATERS ECONOMICS Headwaters Economics is an independent,nonprofit research group whose mission is to improve community development and land management decisions in the West. CONTACT INFORMATION Ben Alexander I ben@theadwaterseconomics.org 1 406-599-7423 HEADWATERS ECONOMICS P.O. Box 7059 Bozeman, MT 59771 http://headiNaterseconomics.org Cover Photo: Sean Bagshaw 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 I I. INTRODUCTION 3 III. METHODS AND DATA SOURCES 5 TV. MALHEUR COUNTY ECONOMY 6 V. PROTECTED AREA ECONOMICS 15 VI. PEER ANALYSIS 20 VII. REFERENCES 32 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report provides an initial analysis of the potential economic impact of protecting federal land in Malheur County.The county, located in southeastern Oregon,has 4.6 million acres of public land within its boundaries(almost four-fifths of its land base),and nearly two million of these acres possess unique natural and recreational values. Despite its rural nature,Malheur County is part of the Ontario Micropolitan Statistical Area which is anchored by the city of Ontario,and includes Payette County, Idaho.Because of strong economic connections to Idaho's Treasure Valley and the greater Boise economy,the majority of Malheur County lies in the Mountain Time zone. During the last four decades, Malheur County's population,employment,and real personal income grew slowly.The county lags behind the non-metro portion of Oregon in each of these growth measures. Services related industries and government account for all long-term net employment gains in Malheur County. This shift in industry makeup,along with strong growth in non-labor sources of income(such as retirement and investment income),also accounts for the growth of real personal income in the county. Agriculture is important to the economy of Malheur County and is one of the county's larger industries. However, agriculture's relative share of the economy has fallen over time as farming and ranching have failed to keep pace with gains in the broader economy. In recent decades,agricultural employment declined steeply even as farm and ranch personal income increased. Agricultural output(livestock and crops)in the county has expanded over time and recently farm and ranch average earnings have risen, though they remain below overall earnings per job. There is a high degree of volatility in net farm and ranch business income. This volatility is tied to swings in production costs and commodity prices, which are difficult for producers to control. Going forward,Malheur County should consider how best to capitalize on its abundant federal land as part of any future economic development strategy.Research on the economic role of protected public land in the West, including the non-metro West, is encouraging.Numerous studies show that this land can be an important economic asset that attracts people and business. Western counties with National Parks, National Monuments,or other permanent protections on federal land support above average rates of job growth and are correlated with higher levels of per capita income. Like Malheur County,the economy of the West has changed dramatically in recent decades. Services industries that employ people in a wide range of occupations—from doctors and engineers to teachers and accountants—are driving economic growth and now make up the large majority of jobs in both metro and non-metro areas.At the same time,non-labor income,which consists largely of investment and retirement income, is the largest and fastest-growing source of new personal income in the region. Along with these broad changes,the economic role of public land in the West has shifted.Natural resources and commodities associated with federal land will remain important,but increasingly the value of this public land also is tied to recreation opportunities as well as the natural amenities and scenic backgrounds they provide that help attract people and businesses across a range of sectors. The region's wide-open spaces, mountains,canyons,rivers and other spectacular natural features set communities in the West apart from the rest of the country.These places enjoy benefits that can be measured directly. From 1970 to 2010,western non-metro counties with more than 30 percent of the county's land base in protected federal status increased jobs by 345 percent—more than four times faster than western non-metro counties with no protected federal land. HEADWATERS ECONOMICS 1 There is also a meaningful relationship between the amount of protected public land and higher per capita income levels. On average in 2010, for every gain of 10,000 acres of protected public land in a western non-metro county,per capita income increased by$436. This research sets the stage for an appraisal of how Malheur County performs compared to similar western, rural counties that have a substantial amount of protected federal land. Key findings are: • In standard measures of long-term economic growth,Malheur County is among the poorest overall performers relative to peer counties. This is the case despite better transportation access to larger population centers and markets than all but two peers. • The county fares poorly in sustaining farm and ranch employment compared to protected area peers, while the peer group outperforms the non-metro portion of the United States. • Malheur County performs a little better in qualitative measures of economic stress and well-being, such as the unemployment rate and per capita income, but it is never a top performer compared to protected area peers. • The county has a smaller share of its overall private employment in travel and tourism related sectors ty p than all but two p eers. The peer comparison data do not support a cause and effect relationship between the presence of protected areas in peer counties and stronger economic performance.However,the data do show that peer counties with permanent federal land protections on average grow faster,sustain agricultural employment better,have less economic hardship, and benefit from travel and tourism business activity at rates higher than.Malheur County. This comparison to peer counties mirrors the broader body of research and analysis that points to the protected es of rotected areas for non-metro counties in the West. These benefits include faster economic • g growth,higher income levels, increased travel and tourism activity,and visitation that leads to the attraction of people and businesses across a range of sectors. Natural amenities are not the only element needed for economic success.Other factors such as access to markets and education levels remain important. If economic development efforts in Malheur County were to focus on protecting public land as a way to preserve and brand the unique characteristics of the region while providing access for recreation,the county could see a more promising economic trajectory, especially given its proximity to larger population centers in southwestern Idaho. The experience of protected area peer counties suggests this can be done without burdening the agricultural economy. How Malheur County utilizes these advantages through the combination of local leadership, investments, and policy decisions concerning land management—will play a significant role in determining its economic future and prosperity. HEADWATERS ECONOMICS 2 OWYHEE Canyonlands November 13,2015 Representative Cliff Bentz 900 Court St.NE, H-475 Salem,Oregon 97301 Sent via email: Rep.CliffBentzAstate.or.us Dear Representative Bentz, Thank you for the opportunity to address a number of the community's questions regarding the Owyhee Canyonlands Conservation proposal. Attached please find a document that the Owyhee Coalition pulled together responding to the questions submitted by attendees at the October 29th meeting in Adrian. We want to ensure that Oregonians have accurate information about the proposal and this is a positive step toward making that happen. As you will see from our responses,the Conservation proposal would effectively keep the Owyhee Canyonlands as it is today.Existing grazing would continue in the manner it does today and it is our understanding that no existing mining proposals or oil and gas leases would be affected because they are outside of the proposal's boundaries. And,people would retain the ability to hunt,fish,and recreate throughout the area. A number of the questions addressed in the attached document should be directed to BLM staff or other agency officials. We have tried to note that in our responses so that people can follow up with the appropriate entity if they would like additional information. Also, at the October 29th meeting,there appeared to be confusion about the impacts of a potential national monument,a national conservation area,and wilderness. We recommend that ongoing questions regarding differences between the various designations be posed to BLM as well. The Owyhee Coalition appreciates your ongoing work on this important issue. One thing was clear at the meeting—people recognize and treasure this unique,wild area.The Conservation proposal,which has been years in the making,seeks to protect the red-rock canyons,pristine rivers and intact sagebrush uplands for which the area is known and loved. Please contact me or Cone Harlan,Owyhee Coalition coordinator, at(541)330-2638 if you have additional questions or would like to discuss the Conservation proposal further. Sincerely, Brent Fentli cc: Malheur County Commissioners Larry Wilson and Don Hodge Malheur County Judge Dan Joyce(di oycc@mal heurco.org) Owyhee Coalition Responses to October 29,2015 Adrian Town Hall Follow-up Questions & Statements Grazing 1. Without open range grazing,there is a greater risk for wildfires. I've lived at Owyhee State Park for 3 years. We experienced fire evacuation and loss of sleep due to staying up with my father on fire watch. I can tell you it isn't fun. It's scary. If we get rid of open range grazing and let the grass grow higher, we are basically just setting ourselves up for more fires. So how do you plan on maintaining the grounds in order to prevent wildfires. • The Owyhee Coalition shares the concern about the risks to human safety from wildfire and the risks for economic uses of the landscape. We also share the concerns about long-term ecological health of the Owyhee. The question assumes that any proposal requires a change to "open range grazing." As discussed during the Adrian meeting, livestock grazing is specifically grandfathered into wilderness by the Wilderness Act of 1964 and is not prohibited in other conservation areas. We support the continuation of current grazing rights in the Owyhee Canyonlands conservation proposal's area. Grazing management is instead controlled by BLM management plans that take into account the current science regarding fire, livestock grazing and wildlife among other topics. We would like to see BLM management plans for the area include provisions to maximize resilience to the effects of wildfire and minimize fire risk. BLM can provide examples of current plans that dictate grazing management in the region including the Southeast Oregon Resource Management Plan. 2. So what negative feedback have you heard from Idaho ranchers about Idaho's Owyhee Land Wilderness Area? • The Owyhee Coalition has been briefed on the Idaho Owyhee Initiative and includes members such as the Wilderness Society who were involved with the development of the Owyhee Initiative and remain active in the effort. We understand both that there are a variety of perspectives on the process and outcomes of Owyhee Initiative and that participants in the Idaho effort continue to work together. The Owyhee Initiative website provides additional information about this effort(http://www.owyheeinitiative.ork)and a recent op-ed outlining the potential relevance of the Idaho effort to Oregon can also be found on-line (http://www.idahostatesman.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article41776878.htm I). 3. Can wildlife and range health be maintained in the Owyhee uplands with current grazing levels? • Livestock grazing is a grandfathered use in wilderness areas and the Owyhee Coalition has proposed that the use continue in the national conservation area (NCA)portion of the Owyhee Canyonlands conservation proposal as well. Grazing use is managed and regulated under grazing plans that evaluate and balance current science related to livestock grazing,wildlife and other issues as required by the Taylor Grazing Act and the Federal Lands Policy Management Act. We support the processes under these acts. As noted above, BLM can Page I 1 provide additional information regarding such plans and their grazing management process. 4. Is it right that if Obama declared a Monument the whole area would be closed to grazing? • No.National monuments are typically open to livestock grazing and you can find numerous examples of monuments across the West where livestock grazing continues. Grazing is managed according to the specific legislation or proclamation that first established the national monument and the detailed management plan, which is developed through a public process and comment period, after the monument is established. 5. Ranching: I'm a little confused about how my uncle's ranch would be impacted by what is being proposed. Can someone clarify that for me? • Without knowing the location of the ranch in question it isn't possible to respond to your question specifically. However, livestock grazing is specifically grandfathered into wilderness by the Wilderness Act of 1964 and is not prohibited in other conservation areas. Grazing management is instead controlled by BLM management plans that take into account the current science regarding fire, livestock grazing and wildlife among other topics. The Owyhee Coalition is happy to meet with interested individuals to discuss specific aspects of the Owyhee Canyonlands conservation proposal. You can contact the Coalition at corie @wildowyhee.org. 6. I'm a rancher in Harney County, Oregon, and would like to ask why do we need to designate more Wilderness? My family and a whole lot of ranching families throughout Harney&Malheur Counties have been managing, not protecting the land for a long-term business. This arrangement is short-term and there is no guarantees, no trust from the man! • Wilderness exists to ensure that certain areas are left intact for future generations. As President Lyndon Johnson said upon signing the Wilderness Act in 1964, "If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them something more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Although it may seem like we have a lot of Wilderness, in fact only 4%of Oregon and less than 1%of Oregon's high desert is currently protected as Wilderness. Instead, Oregon's high desert has nearly 3 million acres of Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) that have remained in limbo since they were first established in the 1980s. These areas make up the bulk of the Owyhee Canyonlands conservation proposal and would finally give permanent protection to these deserving areas. The Owyhee Coalition supports multiple-use management of public lands. Many areas of the Owyhee are identified as having wilderness values worthy of designation and thoughtful management,while still. allowing other uses such as grazing. Page 12 7. You said the grazing is grandfathered in. Is that in perpetuity? Is that only if it remains in families down through generations? Or will it transfer to new owners? (Barbara Arnold) • As noted by BLM staff at the Adrian town hall meeting, grandfathered grazing permits in Wilderness Areas are transferrable between generations or with the sale of a ranch. Energy, Mining and Oil and Gas 1. Will this deal shut down the gold mine and uranium mine before they even get off the ground? • The current proposals to develop gold and uranium mining operations are outside of the Owyhee Canyonlands conservation proposal boundaries. Their development and operations would not be impacted by the conservation proposal. More information about the proposals can be found on-line at http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest- news/index.ssf/20 12/0 Umalheur county_targeted_for go.html. 2. What about oil &gas leases? Will we be able to develop that resource? • Based on the current mapping of gas leases in Malheur County,we believe all leases are outside of the Owyhee Canyonlands conservation proposal boundaries. Their development and operations would not be impacted by the conservation proposal. If the conservation proposal were adopted, any new oil and gas leasing would be disallowed within the proposed boundary. Various articles about oil and gas lease interest in Malheur County can be found on-line, including: http://www.argusobserver.com/news/county-poised-to-be-next-hotbed-for-gas- exploration/article 27340be8-9135-11 e3-bd70-0019bb2963f4.html or http://www.argusobserver.com/independent/news/interest-in-natural-gas-comes- to-rnalheur-county/article 2fh 0a0c-7b91-I 1 e2-bb93-00I9bb2963f4.html. 3. 1 am worried that the kind of gas wells we're seeing on the Idaho side will also happen here. What does this proposal do about that? • Valid, existing rights for oil and gas development are honored when creating new national conservation areas and wilderness areas. However,as noted above, the conservation proposal would withdraw the area from new mineral leasing and development(including oil and gas development). The intent is that the most intact and natural lands in the region are left unimpacted by oil and gas leasing. 4. Is this the only alternative we have to keep oil companies out? This is an amazing area. I've been to Northern Colorado—the oil companies have pretty well destroyed access to the area and the beauty of the area. (Angela) • Large areas of the Owyhee Canyonlands conservation Proposal are currently open to future oil and gas leasing and development. A certain, long-term mechanism to prevent oil and gas development is a"withdrawal" which is a congressional action that accompanies national conservation areas and wilderness areas. It can also happen as a standalone piece of legislation. Page 13 • 5. What is the inventory of lands (Wind Values, Mineral Values, Solar Values, Oil Values, Gas Values)? • Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Bureau of Land Management(BLM)must keep a current inventory of these and other multiple use resources and other values on the public lands.Most of BLM's inventory information for resources and other values in the Owyhee region is found either in appendices to the governing land use plan(Southeastern Oregon Resource Management Plan), or in activity-or resource-specific inventories such as rangeland health standards assessments or wilderness inventories--all of which are available on the Vale District website(http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/vale/index.php). Roads,Access and Recreation 1. How many miles of roads currently in this proposed area? • Using BLM data,the Owyhee Coalition estimates that there are 3,215 miles of roads and two-track ways in the proposed national conservation area. Many of the two-track ways have no or limited usage and many are illegal routes. As noted by at least one commenter in Adrian, miles of new"roads"or two-track ways are being created through illegal off-road use. These unofficial "roads"are included in this number. These numbers are again based on the best available data at this time and we hope that BLM can provide its own analysis to confirm this information. 2. How many miles of roads currently exist within the project area, in total? No just the 1,500 miles that will be preserved,but total miles of roads. • As noted above, using BLM data, the Owyhee Coalition estimates that there are 3,215 miles of roads and two-track ways in the proposed national conservation area. This total mileage does not include approximately 1,000 miles of roads and two-track ways that make up the boundary of the proposal and would therefore remain open under the proposal. As noted during the discussion in Adrian, 1,571 miles of roads and two-track ways are already mapped as remaining open under the proposal The remaining routes within the proposal area are two-track ways, many of which have limited use or are illegal;the on-going use of these routes is decided through BLM's management plan Many of these routes are primarily used for administrative and approved uses such as livestock grazing management. The future use of such routes would be determined by the BLM-developed management plan for the area;the Owyhee Coalition supports keeping these routes open for such purposes under such a plan. 3. How many current miles of road would be lost and/or restricted with this proposal? (i.e.- 1,500 miles of road for 2.5 million acres) • The management of roads and two track ways within the area is decided by a BLM-developed management plan for the area. However, it is clear that over 1,500 miles of routes within the proposal and an additional 1,000 miles of road and ways that make up the proposal boundaries would remain open and ensure continued access to the region. Page I 4 4. How many roads will be closed by wilderness or other conservation proposals? • The management of roads and ways within the area is decided by a BLM- developed management plan for the area. However, it is clear that over 1,500 miles of routes within the proposal and an additional 1,000 miles of road and ways that make up the proposal boundaries would remain open and ensure continued access to the region. (see more above) 5. Does a conservation area or wilderness mean all roads will be closed? • No. The Owyhee Coalition members also enjoy access to the region that the various roads and ways provide. Motorized travel on designated roads would be open in the proposed national conservation area. Motorized and mechanized travel is prohibited in wilderness areas except under emergency circumstances or under special use permit(e.g. fire, rescue, or infrequent maintenance).Please see notes above regarding specific numbers. g g P 6. Will this proposal result in loss of public access? What can we do to enhance access to public lands? • The Owyhee Canyonlands conservation proposal would maintain access to the area for a wide variety of recreational,administrative and permitted purposes(e.g. grazing). The proposal seeks to provide a clear network of roads and ways that ensures access while avoiding current issues with cross-country travel that contributes to invasive species and fire risk. 7. Does a National Conservation Area or Wilderness Area mean no roads? • Motorized travel on designated roads would be open in the proposed national conservation area and surrounding the wilderness areas on most of the roads that are used today. Motorized and mechanized travel is prohibited in wilderness areas except under emergency circumstances or under special use permit(e.g. fire, rescue, or infrequent maintenance). 8. The pilots of Oregon and Idaho are concerned about loss of desert and canyon airstrips. Will any proposals protect their status?(Bill Miller) • Airstrips can be allowed in national conservation areas and can be a grandfathered use in wilderness areas when they are a legal and established use at the time of the wilderness designation. Wildlife,Hunting,Fishing and Outfitter/Guide businesses 1. How will this proposal impact hunting and fishing? • Hunting and fishing would continue. The Owyhee Coalition includes hunters and anglers committed to maintaining this use in the region. The State of Oregon retains the authority to manage wildlife populations on all federal lands including those in the Owyhee Canyonlands conservation proposal. In fact, state management of wildlife in other NCAs and other wilderness areas very commonly involves maintaining water developments in these areas, managing populations and improving habitat. Page I5 2. Will outfitters still be able to use this area for their livelihoods? • Outfitters and guides serve as members of the Owyhee Coalition and have been involved in helping the development of the conservation proposal. Outfitting for hunting, fishing and other forms of recreation would be allowed and encouraged in the Owyhee Canyonlands conservation proposal. 3. The state needs to manage for wildlife. Won't land protections lock them out? • The State of Oregon retains the authority to manage wildlife populations on all federal lands including in NCAs and wilderness areas. In fact, state management of wildlife in other NCAs and other wilderness areas very commonly involves maintaining water developments,managing populations and improving habitat. Wilderness 1. Wilderness study areas were identified and protected 25 years ago. What has to happen for this status to change? • The areas identified as wilderness study areas over 25 years ago remain in this administrative status. Only Congress has the authority to designate or release wilderness study areas from this administrative status and to give the WSAs permanent protection under the Wilderness Act of 1964. 2. Do you realize most of the WSA's, when evaluated,were recommended for non- wilderness? • Most of the wilderness study areas in the Owyhee Canyonlands Conservation Proposal were recommended for Wilderness designation in BLM's 1991 Oregon Wilderness Report. Some areas were not. However, some of the "not recommended"rationales are clearly no longer valid. In addition, further inventory of the region over the past several years by the BLM and citizen inventories have found over 1 million acres of additional public land overlooked in the original inventory that contain wilderness characteristics(referred to the BLM as"Lands with Wilderness Characteristics"). The Owyhee Coalition has proposed areas for designation with wilderness characteristics consistent with Wilderness Act criteria. 3. Much of the Owyhee land administered by the BLM is in Wilderness Study Areas or Lands with Wilderness Characteristics. How will grazing rules change on those lands if they become Wilderness?National Monument? • Livestock grazing is a grandfathered use in wilderness and the Owyhee Coalition has proposed that the use continue in the national conservation area(NCA) portion of the proposal as well. Grazing use is managed and regulated under grazing plans which evaluate and balance current science related to livestock grazing,wildlife and other issues as required by the Taylor Grazing Act and the Federal Lands Policy Management Act. BLM can provide links and additional information regarding such plans and their grazing management process. National monuments also typically permit livestock grazing. Grazing is managed according to the specific legislation or proclamation and a detailed resource management plan, which is developed after the area is established. Page 16 4. Most WSA's in Vale District do not meet criteria as laid out in 1964 Wilderness Act, so why 2.5 million acres? Also Mr. Fenty made a comment that his& Bill Marlett's applications for SEOR RAC were not accepted. If memory serves me correctly Stan Shepardson (ONDA member)served on that board at least one term. (Steve Russell) • Most of the wilderness study areas in the Owyhee Canyonlands Conservation Proposal were recommended for Wilderness designation in BLM's 1991 Oregon Wilderness Report. Some areas were not. However, some of the"not recommended"rationale are clearly no longer valid. In addition, further inventory of the region over the past several years by the BLM and citizen inventories have found over 1 million acres of additional public land overlooked in the original inventory that contain wilderness characteristics(referred to the BLM as"Lands with Wilderness Characteristics"). The Owyhee Coalition has proposed areas for designation with wilderness characteristics consistent with Wilderness Act criteria. • Mr. Fenty was responding to a question about the Steens Mountain Advisory Council (SMAC) appointment process and not the SEORAC. As you correctly note, ONDA members have applied to and been appointed to serve on the SEORAC in the past including Matt Little from 2012—2015. Monuments 1. If the area is designated a National Monument,what is there to prevent Congress from declaring it a National Park or Wilderness Area later on? • Congress retains the ultimate authority to designate national parks or wilderness areas and the authority to remove such protections. A national monument can be created by Congress or declared by the President of United States via the Antiquities Act of 1906. 2. Is it true that a National Monument designation would eliminate grazing? • No. National monuments typically permit livestock grazing. Grazing is managed according to the specific proclamation and the detailed resource management plan,which is developed for the monument and must be consistent with the values for which the national monument was established. (explained in further detail in grazing section above) Process 1. Generally when this or similar designations are proposed it's to address a threat to the land, either perceived or factual, so in this case,what's the threat you are wanting to address? If no threat,then what's the point? • The Owyhee Coalition has developed the Owyhee Canyonlands conservation proposal to safeguard the area's deep, red-rock canyons,rolling plains,wild rivers and ample recreational opportunities for future generations. The conservation proposal would permanently protect this area from irresponsible, industrial-scale energy development,to address cross-country vehicle use in sensitive areas, and to ensure habitat resiliency for robust fish and wildlife populations. Page 17 2. How far along is this process and when could we expect a decision on this issue? • The Owyhee Canyonlands conservation proposal has been presented to members of Oregon's congressional delegation. The Owyhee Coalition hopes for a thorough consideration of the proposal and the permanent protection of this important area as soon as possible. The proposal builds on decades of conversations about the future of this important area and seeks to integrate local and statewide concerns, knowledge and interests in the region. 3. Why are the state blocks of land not included? • The State of Oregon retains ownership and management authority over the state lands blocks within the Owyhee Canyonlands conservation proposal. There are no additional regulations on state land from federal national conservation area or wilderness area designation. 4. Look at the past 50 years of federal government management practices(i.e. Birch Creek, weed control, fire suppression). Why do you want government to control more land? • The proposal does not result in the government controlling more land. All lands included in the Owyhee Canyonlands conservation proposal are currently publicly-owned and managed by Bureau of Land Management(BLM). BLM would continue to manage these same areas under the conservation proposal. 5. How has the local community been involved in this process so far? How will we be involved going forward? • The Owyhee Coalition has made extensive efforts to talk with people in Malheur County over more than 5 years to solicit local and statewide input. Staff have met with local elected officials, business owners, ranchers, recreationists,hunters, scientists,outfitters, and community members. The Owyhee Coalition welcomes input on the Owyhee Canyonlands conservation proposal and urges all stakeholders to identify management solutions for this important area as soon as possible. If you want to talk further, please contact corie@wildlowyhee.org. 6. We all love the Owyhee landscape. How did Idaho (of all places)manage to come together? Was that a good experience for Idaho? • Information on the Idaho Owyhee Initiative can be found at http://www.owyheeinitiative.org/index.html. Participants in the Idaho Owyhee Initiative are in the best position to provide additional information and published a recent editorial sharing their experience that can be found at http://www.idahostatesman.com/opinion/readers-opin ion/article41776878.html_ 7. Why hasn't a collaborative been started to resolve issues locally rather than waiting for a National Monument proclamation from Washington, D.C.? • The Owyhee Coalition has made extensive efforts to talk with people in Malheur County over the past several years. Staff have met with local elected officials, business owners,ranchers, recreationists, hunters, scientists, outfitters, and community members. The Owyhee Coalition welcomes input on the Owyhee Page 8 Canyonlands conservation proposal and urges all stakeholders to identify management solutions for this important area as soon as possible. 8. You said in your points of interest that you want to protect our geological sites and certain plants, etc. Exactly how do you plan to protect those things? What will be restricted in order to protect them? • Important geologic sites and rare plants can be impacted by uses such as off-route vehicle travel,mineral development, or uniformed recreation visitors. The designations identified in the Owyhee Canyonlands conservation proposal would require the development of a detailed resource management plan,with public input,that would outline management strategies to educate user groups and balance protection of fragile resources with access and active uses in the area. As has happened in other areas,the plan can also build on interest in the Owyhee area to engage volunteers from the public to help protect these important resources. 9. I'd like to point out that everyone in favor of the Monument does not reside in the designated area. The 2.5 million acres that is proposed for the Monument is a minority to the rest of the state,which decreases the chances for the affected residents to maintain their home and livelihoods. Western Oregon and the East Coast would not let someone not from their area create restrictions or"plans" for their home, so why should we? (Jordan Matteri, Jordan Valley) • There is both local and statewide support for protection of the Owyhee Canyonlands. All lands being discussed for protection are public lands owned by all Americans. Public lands in Western Oregon and the East Coast are managed by federal land management agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the benefit of all citizens.As such, Malheur County residents also have a voice in management of public lands in western Oregon and the East Coast. 10. For all of the people that want this area a Monument, how often do you visit? How much money do you contribute to all the communities affected? Who gives you the right to control how we live and tell us what we can do? • All lands being discussed for protection within the Owyhee Canyonlands are public lands owned by all Americans. Public lands in Western Oregon and the East Coast are also managed by federal land management agencies such as the Bureau of Land.Management(BLM) for the benefit of all citizens. As such, Malheur County residents also have a voice in management of public lands in western Oregon and the East Coast. Economics 1. A. Where is the economic comparison of the production forgone by the designation? • The Owyhee Coalition is not aware of a comprehensive inventory of gas, mining and other resource production potential for the proposed conservation area. However,much of the current production of the area is focused on agricultural and grazing uses which are proposed to continue under the conservation proposal. The foregone production of such resources would also need to necessarily way Page I9 both the impacts on current agricultural uses and on the potential outdoor recreational business opportunities. B. Will not the designation protect all that is started as the NFS lands protected our timber in Eastern Oregon? (Arthur Sappington) • The Owyhee Coalition contracted a study of Malheur County economics and peer counties with protected federal lands. Among the findings of that study were that peer counties with permanent federal land protections on average grow faster, sustain agricultural employment better, have less economic hardship, and benefit from travel and tourism business activity at rates higher than Malheur County. The report can be found at http://headwaterseconomics.org/public-lands/specific- places/owyhee-canyonlands. 2. What was the effect of Monument status on economies of Staircase Monument in Utah and Soda Mountain in Southern Oregon? (Mike Hanley) • The designation of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument has significantly helped augment and enhance the economies of Garfield and Kane Counties in Utah. Since the designation,jobs in the region grew by 38.8 percent (1996-2011; 2012 figures were not available) and real per capita income grew by 30.3 percent(1996-2012). See, e.g.,http://headwaterseconomics.org/dataviz/national- monuments. The same Headwaters analysis cited above shows the economic impacts of national monuments in the West. In general,all of these analyses show the same thing, namely,that"Western counties with protected public lands, like national monuments, have been more successful at attracting fast-growing economic sectors and as a result grow more quickly, on average, than counties without protected public land."A recent opinion piece by a business owner and Chamber of Commerce leader outlines some of the effects at http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2908495-155/op-ed-escalante-is-on-the-rise. A few other examples of the benefits of national monument designation impacts can be found at http://www.riograndedelnorte.org/wp- content/uploads/201.2/1.0/Economic-Impacts-ofMonument-RGDN-FINAL.pdf or https://nmgreenchamber.com/?attachment_id--,23371. 3. What is the cost to the taxpayer in comparison to the way the land is administered now? The cost of Wilderness or other potential conservation designations has been analyzed in numerous cases by the Office of Management and Budget and found to have negligible difference in the cost of management. Other studies have also examined the non-market values of such designations and can be found through the Arthur Carhart Wilderness Training Center(www.wilderness.net). One example can be found at http://www.wilderness.net/library/documents/Morton_2- 31.pd1: One commenter at the Adrian meeting suggested that local taxes were tied to the lands at issue; it is important to clarify that the lands being discussed are federal lands and therefore the tax base used for management of these lands are federal taxes paid by all Americans and not only Malheur County residents. Page 110 4. I'm worried that a National Monument or Conservation Area will mean economic disaster for our community. Why shouldn't I be worried about that? Do you have any real life examples of how something like this does anything but hurt those of us lose to p g Yt g this place? • Many of the communities near national conservation areas and national. monuments have thriving, diverse local economies driven at least in part by multiple-use activities within the federally designated area. Many of the communities have experienced increased economic activity from recreation and tourism alongside continued economic activity from uses such as grazing. A 2014 Headwaters Economics study (http://headwaterseconomics.org/public- lands/protected-lands/national-monuments) found that the local economies surrounding 17 national monuments expanded following the federal designation. Trends in key economic indicators such as population, employment, personal income,and per capita income either continued or improved in each of the regions surrounding the national monuments. 5. What about payment in lieu of taxes? Will a Monument affect those funds for county functions? Roads, county workers salaries, schools? Will the dam or irrigation be affected? • The Owyhee Canyonlands Conservation proposal would not alter Payments in Lieu of Taxes and the resultant county revenue. The Owyhee Canyonlands conservation proposal would not impact the Owyhee Dam or water rights. Fire 1. How will the proposed affect our ability to manage the land to prevent big fires? • The Owyhee Canyonlands conservation proposal would continue to allow BLM to use all available fire suppression tactics. The Wilderness Act is explicit on this point, allowing all fire suppression tactics. As on all federal lands, human life and property are the top priority for federal land managers, who would continue to take the necessary precautions and actions to protect the public from harm, including wildfire. Weeds 1. A. How will a new designation help stop the advancement of noxious weeds? B. Will ONDA adopt totally new policies to favor native plants? • The spread of invasive species and noxious weeds is caused by numerous factors including industrial development, wildfires, off route OHV use, overgrazing and other surface disturbing activities. Managing land uses to avoid new surface disturbance in ecologically important areas can help reduce the spread of invasive species. Working to maintain and enhance resilient communities of native plants and grasses can increase the resilience and resistance of the landscape to invasive species. The Owyhee canyonlands Conservation proposal would help prevent new surface disturbance and maintain native plant communities. Page 111 Water 1. If the Owyhee River is included in a NCA or National Monument, will downstream irrigation be eliminated or reduced in any way? • Water rights and existing irrigation facilities would not be impacted by any designation in the Owyhee Canyonlands conservation proposal. 2. What happens when they want to breech the darn, and what about the water rights? • The Owyhee Coalition is not aware of any proposal to alter Owyhee Dam operations and the Owyhee Canyonlands conservation proposal does not propose the breaching of the dam or any protections that would require the dam's removal. Wild Horses and Burros 1. Large area within proposed area has wild horses. How will they be managed? Will multiple use still apply? How are we expected to feed a 2 '/z to 3 billion increase in world population when the trend is to use less and less of our natural resources? (John Stoddart, Jordan Valley area property owner) • Wild Horse and Burro Management would continue to take place in accordance with the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971. Nothing in the Owyhee Canyonlands conservation proposal changes or alters the management and responsibilities under that law. Management planning for a National Conservation Area would include wild horses and burros. Unique Question/Comment 1. I would like an opportunity to respond to ONDA's constant referral to the Idaho Statesman op-ed as it is being misrepresented—and I am a co-author of it. (Brenda Richards, Owyhee Initiative Chairman) • The Owyhee Coalition is very interested in the experiences of all parties in the Idaho Owyhee Initiative and would welcome an opportunity to further discuss the Owyhee Initiative and to understand how to correctly portray the Idaho Owyhee Initiative. The editorial referenced can be found at http://www.idahostatesman.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article41776878.html. Statements The following are statements of opinion. We appreciate everyone's concern for and love of the Owyhee Canyonlands. 1. All of this would change how things have been in Malheur County for generations that's been working just fine. Why do we need to change anything?! 2. Every time a special land use designation becomes reality—it opens the door to professional litigators like ONDA, Watersheds, Center for Biological Diversity, etc,to litigate land use plans, etc. History will prove our lives and livelihoods will be hugely affected. This is severe government overreach. 3. Why do these outside groups think they know how to manage this area,and why are they taking away half the county with this proposal? Page 112 4. Several years ago we received an OWEB grant for more than $300,000 to join with the Vale BLM in developing springs, fencing riparian areas, providing off-stream water for livestock&wildlife, and other beneficial improvements. All activities were harmonious with ONDA's stated goals. Sadly,because of continued litigation from ONDA, BLM was unable to complete the grant activities. We were prevented from implementing all but a few activities. The litigation was inane and tedious, and it accomplished nothing valid or substantive other than blocking BLM activities and putting money in ONDA's coffers. We spent about $20,000 on springs and fencing,before we were forced to turn back the money, even after several extensions. Such a waste! The constant litigation of BLM by groups like ONDA will not stop. It won't stop in Owyhee. We tried to do activities that ONDA supposedly supports. We were shut down through litigation. (Kelly Weidernan, Malheur Watershed Council, Ontario) 5. You think nothing will change—is this all about restricting mining,especially oil and gas?! (Marie Teague, Teague Mineral Production,Adrian) 6. They say current use will continue—look what has happened in the past—Owyhee Corridor—Enviro's protested river pollution and all cattle are gone, even though the WSRA says they shall continue in their current capacity. 7. If the ONDA Rep wants to hike, fish,nature gaze, etc,why does he need to have a National Monument for that? He can do that now! No one is topping him. 8. Access for all: Fire, medical, law enforcement, recreational 9. Every time we protect something we seem to make it worse. I don't think that all the burnt forests are very good looking. This will destroy the rest of the sage grouse habitat by fire. 10. My understandings is that if Congress passes legislation designating the Owyhee area as a Wilderness Area that it would preempt President Obama from declaring it a National Monument a more stringent designation 11. Due process: county plans for land use not addressed 12. "Land grabs"are always about water because without water, land is worthless, so what will happen to water rights? Harney County Stockgrowers are against this designation. 13. Water rights: Access to maintain and improvements -END- Page 1 13 Monthly Meeting with Board of Commissioners Finance Director/Treasurer AGENDA December 21, 2015 (1) Monthly Investment Reports — November 2015 (2) November 2015 Financials uO wdC"cy��7'p"tea o o v CO ;1',.';,,:'. E - 0 4 pop .�N._. O o 0 0 o a o •5� '�CO �^ et 2etpON rTr 07 o Its') N ` Lt) 0) co 0) to . . ,q ::' ` C `" l p6t7 in C; r L3=,,,, t7 — t'° a 0 0 Ickv P4ii EY — d � � 0 E a Iri U) �' co 0 n nc N - C) Cl) - t LL d) ' 0) Co r d O o 0 o V ~ ~ { '� � CO- LD 47 4-- U 2 0 0 o - 4- O !' w.^`.,w.01 hi � va0 N- n a U) co N 0 c v E ° E 8 U m C o O to c -' O 7 7 = tfr b4 c z CO c Q u.Z" U > d c 4. o eeeeeee at e e 7 C o C 0 0 u- to O N N O K) 0 0 N C 0 0 1� N 0 N N r N 0 ci g r r r uo +. CCI C1) CD N) u)y 7 ii a) � LL. u, 7 N N to c a) � 42 4) 7 K d N a d E ` O C U N 7 i J _ t0 •- C N U N N f6 a) c y U 4_. Q a C T ›- Q ON Q N @O_ro E" -0 r tri 4 C p d ~ Cl. a) Y tV .0 Q E N N C L, ` M O -0 I • 7 0 U _1 li r -O H 0 D e in / to O e e o e • e C� 12 ,_ 010 o ~ o r co 1► M '1 , C mm* T N E r ... m 1 Q N N H 7° 0 m m y� C OOOpOOn 1,- T oZr � �°u7 _N 0 - 0-4-6Q vi +- 0 � yrom � ti .d NMeT0, 0) r r H 18gN a 1,In O C) C) r r Ci t7 c Q O Q CO r v ti V r 7 m 0 L (ft +� C -,..0 0 cc cu 0 CO So� . O ' 4. -°s Y3 t• ..= aa)) - aimed ° C) CD a V E W 4--. 3 L c r., m C] Z +g vii rn U cn cu V) 0 w 03 70 to H O CI ] w U O V ~ 7,2 m IV- c � Uj � a r mN Q. U Ui J �ro M i= I..., 0_v . O IN.. R� Deschutes County Investments Portfolio Management Portfolio petdils-Investments November 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 17275RAC6 Cisco Systems Inc CASTLE 2/2712014 2/22/2016 83 AA Al 5.500 0.550 174,000 179919 175,925 - - 3133734F6 Federal Home Loan Bank CASTLE 5/2/2014 4/1512016 136 AA+ Aaa 0772 0600 650,000 649,987 650414 __- _-_ 120022332 Lewis&Clark Bank 1218/2014 618/2016 190 1 000 1.014 240,000 240.000 240000 - - 9497460U8 Wells Fargo Corporate Note CASTLE 10/2/2014 615,'2016 197 A+ A2 3 676 0.870 1 000,000 1,015780 780 1 014 979 - _-_- s Assoc A 686053CF4 Oregon School Boards AsCASTLE 3/7/2014 6!30!2016 212 A+ Aa2 0 000 0.999 3 000,000 2,990340 2 982,645 - _..__ 686053CF4 Oregon School Boards Assoc CASTLE 6123!2015 6/302016 212 AA Aa2 0.605 0609 1,400,000 1,395.492 1 395 063 - - 31359YBY2 Federal National Mtg Assn CASTLE 10116/2014 7'15'2016 227 0.354 0.365 1,693,000 1 685 263 1,689,226 - - 88059EMP6 Tennessee Valley Authority CASTLE 10/2912014 71512016 227 0 490 0.507 2000000 1,990,820 1993 816 - - . 7800871_88 Royal Bank of Canada CASTLE 11/2612014 712012016 232 AA Aa3 2.300 0.600 1630,000 1646,023 1645415 - 94974BFL9 Wells Fargo Corporate Note DA DAV 12/9/2014 7/2012016 232 A+ A2 1 250 0 834 1,000,000 1,003,140 100/625 - 9128280X1 U.S.Treasury MBS 6119/2014 7131/2016 243 AA Aaa 1.500 0548 1,000000 1006,170 1,006287 - 31359YLS4 Federal National Mtg Assn PJ 3!5/2014 9/1572016 289 AA+ Asa 0778 0812 672,000 669,016 667901 - - 90521APH5 MUFG Union Bank MBS 391/2015 912612016 300 A+ A2 1.500 1.113 1,800,000 1,806,030 1805,361 8/26/2016 90521APH5 MUFG Union Bank CASTLE 3.'17/2015 9/26/2016 300 A+ A2 1500 1.085 775,000 777,596 777607 8/26/2016 5 A - - 072031ACt Bay Area Water Supply CASTLE 6,'22/2015 1012016 305 AA Aa2 0 854 0.800 1,000,000 1002,650 1000,444 - 891140AE8 Toronto Dominion Bank CASTLE 5/8/2015 ,0.1912016 323 AA- Aal 2.375 0820 1,800.000 1.824,030 1824522 - - _ __- _/- 3133EEBU3 'Federal Farm Credit Bank PJ 12:10/201411114;2016 349 AA+ Aaa 0_600 0648 2,000,000 7,998,860 1999091 - - 06050TLR1 :Bank of America-Corporate CASTLE 511312014 11!1412016 349 A Al 1.125 1.050 1000,000 1 000,590. 1000 100�. - - __ _. _ _.. -__ 3133ECWV2 _Federal Farm Credit Bank CASTLE 12.'172013 12172016 372 AA* Aaa 0 0 2 100,000 2 106,888 2 103,369 - - 064159DA1 Bank of Nova Scotia CASTLE 6/512014 12/1312016 378 A+ Aa2 1.100 0.910 7 800,000 1,804,176 1 803 481 - 1117/2017 __- .... 06406HCA5 Bank of New York Mellon Corp Gor CASTLE 4/2312014 413 A+ Al 2400 1067 2000,000 2029500 /029542 12/1812016 _ - --'- U -_.. P_'... . 912828505 U.S_Treasury CASTLE 1/16/2014 1131/2017 427 AA+ Aaa 0875 0.844 2,000,000 2002180 2000,721 - 742651DN9 Private Expt Ftlg PJ 11!20,'2014 2'15/2017 442 A- 1.375 0.799 3,000,000 3 000 013 320 3029606 - 742651 DN9 Private Expt Ftlg CASTLE 6r1212015 2/15/2017 442 A- Asa 1 375 0.941 1,100,000 1 104 884 1,105,700 - 064159DZ6 Bank of Nova Scotia CASTLE 5/1/2014 3/17/2017 472 A+ Aa2 0.800 0.906 1,000,000 991 110 998 651' 3117 2016 3130A4QV7 Federal Home Loan Bank CASTLE 8/27/2015 3/24/2017 479 AA+ Aaa 0.840 0.808 750.000 750,675 759205 3/24/2016 984135AB9 Berkshire Hathaway Inc CASTLE 4/10/2015 4/112017 487 AA Aa2 5.150 1.060 370.000 387,486 389 913 - - 984135AB9 Berkshire Hathaway Inc CASTLE 6126/2015 41112017 487 AA Aa2 5.150 1201 1000.000 1 047,260 1,051931 - -. ._. _.- 984135A69 Berkshire Hathaway Inc CASTLE 8'7/2015 4111201 r 487 AA Aa2 5150 1.100 1975.000 1 963,3 613. 1,979030 - - 912828SS0 U.S.Treasury_ WE 1/1712014 4/30/2017 516 AAA Aaa 0 875 0 950 2 000.000 2001400 1 997 915 - - - _ __.. 911599905 US Bancorp CASTLE 4.'23!2015 5/15/2017 531 A+ Al 1.650 0.882 1,000,000 1,007210 1,010,858 4115/2017 96 7 2140 94 Westpaq CASTLE 4.712015 5119/2011 535 AA Aa2 1.200 1.061 2000,000 1999760 2,004,019 - gto - _ WASH FED CD Washinn Federal CD 5/20/2015 5/22/2017 538 0.900 0.913 200,000 200,000 200,000_ - - 3136FPV87 Federal National Mtg Assn VINISP 9712014 5/232017 539 qA+ Aaa 2.050 0.885 1,460,000 1.484,382 1,484,710 - 3134G62Wfi0 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE 10/13/2015 5/261201' 542 0720 0.700 6,000 000 5,991,180 6 001 762 5 26/2016 2,650,074 - _3133ECQT4 Federal Farm Credit Bank CASTLE 10126/2015 5/30/2017 546 AA+ Aaa _.. 11 75G 0.750 2,662,000 2,662 000 - - 31359MEL3 Federal National Mtg Assn CASTLE 12/2312013 91/2017 548 AA+ Aaa 1 061 1.115 1,000,000 986730 983,844 - - 31359MEL37 Federal National Mtg Assn CASTLE 1/2412014 6!11201 548 AA- Aaa 1081 1.136 1.050,000 1,036,067 1,032719 - - _.. _--- 31 771 0 5 97 FICO Strip CASTLE 199!2014 61612077 553 Aaa 1.019 1.065 1.028,000 1,012,878 1,011908' - - 9299030T6 Wells Fargo Corporate Note CASTLE 11/23/2015 6115/2017 562 A+ A2 5.750 1.320 2,000,000 2,131,920 2.134,478 - - 29270CYZ2 'Bonneville Power Administratio CASTLE 4/24/2014 7/1/2017 578 AA- Aal 1.197 1.171 670,000 669,008 670,276 - - - _ - 84247/7953 Southern CA Public Power AUtho CASTLE 6/17/2014 7/1/2017 578 AA 1.145 1.180 1,000,000 996,470 999,453. - - 3137EADV8 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp MBS 5/29/2015 79412017 591 Aaa 0.750 0.787 1,000,000 997.380 999,406 - - 3135GOZF3 Federal National Mtg Assn VINISP 416/2015 7/28/2017 605 AA+ Aaa 1.070 0.865 2,000,000 2,006.080 2.004,700 7/28/2016 98385XAL0 XTO Energy Inc CASTLE 6!1712015 8/112017 609 AAA Aaa 6 250 1.1 8 0 2000,000 2,169860 2 166,382' - - 005158VE7 Ada County SD PJ 611/2015 8/15/2017 523 AA+ As/ 3000 0930 1000.000 1034320 1034,8531 - 3130A6255 Federal Home Loan Bank CASTLE 712412015 828/2017 636 Aaa 0.750 0.858 1 000 000 997 080 998,137. - - _. _-_ _. 3134G75P7 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE 813 tr2015 Bp91201 r 637 AA+ Aaa 0 850 0.864 1 750.000 1,750975 1,749,785 2r29l2016 912828TM2 U.S.Treasury CASTLE 9110/2014 813112017 639 AAA Aaa 0.625 1.061 1,000,000 995310 992,507 - - 912828TM2 U.S.Treasury CASTLE 2/19/2015 8/3112017 839 AAA Aaa 0,625 0.920 1,000,000 995,310 994921 - -- - 995.562 313383J68 Federal Home Loan Bank VINISP 12/26/2013 9/27/2017 666 AA+ Aaa 1,000 1250 1,000,000 1,002,740 - - 912828PA2 U.S.Treasury CASTLE 9/10/2015 9/30/2017 669 _ 1875 0.803 2,0X900 2035,700 2,038,834 - - JMR _ - 31771JMR8 FICO Strip CASTLE 1 012 2/201 5 10/6/2017 675 0751 0.781 2,000,000 1960,680 1,971,829 - - p ..- - _ 31771KAD90 FICO Strip DA DAV '12!10/2014 11/30/2017 730 Aaa 1205 1261 2,000000 1954180 1951,118 - - 88059FAZ4 Tennessee Valley Authority CASTLE 1112L2014 12/1512017 745 AA+ 1 205 1268 1,059,000 1.031,127 1,032.584 - - Y Y -__ 9 _-- 961214BZ5 Westpac CASTLE 3/5'2015 1112.12018 773 AA- Aa2 1600 1490 2ODQ000 1.997640 2004526 - - __- 31771 EAL5 'Pico Strip CASTLE 2.124!2015 2182018 800 1252. 1.318 7.260,000 1.227,467 1224.931 - - 31771EAL5 FICO Strip CASTLE 92512015 218/2018 800 1.257 1.323 740,000 720,893 719,321 - - 06050TLV6 Bank of Americo-Corporate CASTLE 5/14/2015 3/26/2018 846 A Al 1 650 1.570 2,000,000 1997,320. 2,003,625 - - or __. - - _ 06050TLY8 Bank of America-Corporate CASTLE 5/21/2015 3/26/2018 846 A Al 1.650 1.540 1,000,000 996,680 1,002481 - - 68607VG665 Oregon State Lottery DA DAV 6/12!2015 4/1/2018 852 AAA Aa2 5.000 1.120 610,000 668963 664,206 - - 0846646EC Berkshire Hathaway Inc CASTLE 914/2015 5.15/2018 896 AA+ Aa2 5.400 1.590 1,107000 1210,383 1207953 - - 98385XAP1 IXTO Energy Inc CASTLE _ 87412015 611512018 927AAA Aaa 5500 1.500 1000,000 +099220' 1,099,024 - - 904121NCO Umatilla School District PJ 517!2015 695!2018 927 AA* 1.430 1 430 750,000 748,695. 750,000 - - 939307HF4 Hillsboro SD Pension Bonds PJ 3130.2015 6/30/2018 942 Aa3 1.732 1.650 985.000 990,743 987,010 - - 912828WD8 U.S.Treasury CASTLE 10!30/2015 10//3112018 1065 1.250 1.006 1,000.000 1,001,130 1.006,978 - - 5949188F0 Microsoft Corp CASTLE 11/3/2015 11/3/2018 1068 AAA Aaa 1.300 1.334 2,000000 1,996,040 1,998,052 - - 3136016B0 Federal National Mtg Assn VINISP 1121/2014 12/27/2018 1122 4A+ Aaa 0750 1.820 1000000 1,000.250 981,80312127/2015 912828A75 U.S.Treasury CASTLE 616/2015 12/3112018 1126 AAA Aaa 1.500 1.324 1000.000 1,006,910 1,005,270 - - 130630KL3 California St DA DAV 10!23/2015 5/12019 1247 2.250 1 350 1,000,000 1,010980 1,029925 - - 130630KL38 California St DA DAV 10,23,2015 5!117019 1247 2.250 1.340 1,000,000 1010.980 1,030,265 - - 6860530H9 Oregon School Boards Assoc DA DAV 11/2/2015 6730/2020 1673.AA Aa2 5.373 2.050 875,000 993.213 1,001.376 - - SVS10078 Local Govt Investment Pool 1 0.540 0.540 65,347,116 65,347,116 65,347,116 - - SY;10084 Bank of the Cascades 1 0.540 0.540 4,760,672 4,760,672. 4.760,672 - - Total 170,142788 170,958,793. 177,050,384 V 1 Memorandum Date: December 14, 2015 To: Board of County Commissioners Tom Anderson, County Administrator From: Wayne Lowry, Finance Director RE: Monthly Financial Reports Attached please find November 2015 financial reports for the following funds: General (001), Community Justice—Juvenile (230), Sheriffs (255, 701, 702), Public Health (259), Behavioral Health (275), Community Development(295), Road (325), Community Justice—Adult(355), Early Learning Hub (370), Solid Waste (610), Insurance Fund (670), 9-1-1 (705), Health Benefits Trust (675), Fair & Expo Center (618), and Justice Court (123). The projected information has been reviewed and updated, where appropriate, by the respective departments. Cc: All Department Heads GENERAL FUND Statement of Financial Operating Data July 1,2015 through November 30,2015 FY 2015 (41.7%of Fiscal Year) FY 2016 % of Actual Actual Budget Budget Projected Variance Revenues Property Taxes-Current 23,196,345 22,062,428 92% a) 24,090,700 24,402,534 311,834 Property Taxes-Prior 647,334 286,412 57% 500,000 500,000 - Other General Revenues 2,324,928 1,411,235 55% b) 2,552,960 2,552,960 - Assessor 819,454 479,123 60% c) 795,202 795,202 - County Clerk 1,650,844 691,645 45% c) 1,534,420 1,534,420 - BOPTA 13,342 7,199 65% c) 11,154 11,154 - District Attorney 299,095 54,494 30% 182,612 182,612 - Tax Office 219,175 117,264 61% 192,379 192,379 - Veterans 104,568 24,540 35% d) 70,900 98,161 27,261 Property Management 90,113 6,250 8% 75,000 75,000 - Total Revenues 29,365,198 25,140,591 84% 30,005,327 30,344,422 339,095 Expenditures Assessor 3,697,588 1,615,312 39% 4,125,299 4,125,299 - County Clerk 1,372,852 506,329 31% 1,624,716 1,624,716 - BOPTA 60,320 27,193 41% 65,634 65,634 - District Attorney 5,375,308 2,308,097 38% 6,146,851 6,146,851 - Tax Office 778,075 318,425 37% 865,513 865,513 - Veterans 330,582 132,996 34% 388,779 388,779 - Property Management 264,768 122,796 42% 293,574 293,574 - Non-Departmental 1,130,753 445,500 38% 1,163,643 1,163,643 - Total Expenditures 13,010,247 5,476,648 37% 14,674,009 14,674,009 - Transfers Out 14,947,204 6,668,999 43% 15,537,408 15,537,408 - Total Exp&Transfers 27,957,452 12,145,647 40% 30,211,417 30,211,417 - Change in Fund Balance 1,407,746 12,994,944 (206,090) 133,005 339,095 Beginning Fund Balance - 8,381,199 9,788,945 113% 8,630,800 9,788,945 1,158,145 Ending Fund Balance $ 9,788,945 $22,783,889 $8,424,710 $9,921,950 $1,497,240 a) Projection based on collecting 94.5% of property tax levy b) Annual payments received to date- PILT$500,000 and Tax on Electric Co-op$504,399 c) A&T Grant. First quarter received in July, second quarter received in October d) Received quarterly. Grant in excess of amount budgeted Page 1 COMM JUSTICE-JUVENILE Statement of Financial Operating Data July 1, 2015 through November 30,2015 FY 2015 (41.7%of Fiscal Year) FY 2016 %of Actual Actual Budget Budget Projected Variance Revenues OYA Basic& Diversion 364,153 125,559 33% a) 382,817 382,817 - State Grant 109,588 20,104 22% a) 91,379 91,379 - Inmate/Prisoner Housing 89,850 31,500 57% b) 55,000 65,000 10,000 Jail Funding HB#2712 36,226 9,057 25% a) 36,568 36,568 - Food Subsidy 18,394 7,555 31% c) 24,000 24,000 - Interfund Grant-Gen Fund 20,000 5,000 25% a) 20,000 20,000 - Interest on Investments 9,751 4,690 67% 7,000 7,000 - Leases 7,694 9,339 130% d) 7,200 25,595 18,395 SB#1065-Court Assess. 24,768 8,990 53% 17,000 17,000 - Contract Payments 9,032 4,900 82% e) 6,000 8,000 2,000 Case Supervision Fee 8,192 2,838 47% 6,000 6,000 - Federal Grants 1,205 - N/A - - - Miscellaneous 1,434 644 68% 950 950 - Total Revenues 700,288 230,175 35% 653,914 684,309 30,395 Expenditures Personnel Services 4,994,826 2,051,125 39% f) 5,319,157 5,100,000 219,157 Materials and Services 1,007,504 490,528 43% g) 1,153,324 1,153,324 - Capital Outlay - - 0% 100 - 100 Transfers Out-Veh Reserve 3,660 915 25% 3,660 3,660 - Total Expenditures 6,005,990 2,542,568 39% 6,476,241 6,256,984 219,257 Revenues less Expenditures (5,305,702) (2,312,393) (5,822,327) (5,572,675) 249,652 Transfers In-General Fund 5,368,346 2,276,915 42% 5,464,591 5,464,591 Change in Fund Balance 62,644 (35,478) (357,736) (108,084) 249,652 Beginning Fund Balance 1,244,605 1,307,249 103% 1,271,324 1,307,249 35,925 Ending Fund Balance $ 1 307,249 $ 1,271,771 $ 913,588 $ 1,199,165 $ 285,577 a) Payments received quarterly b) Projection increased due to YTD revenue and changes in other regional detention capacity c) Monthly reimbursement based on detention population number trends and received two months in arrears d)Additional office space rented to Rimrock Trails ATS and detention facility space to J Bar J. Not included in FY 16 budget e) More than anticipated number of contract payment community service projects f) Based on YTD actuals and projected vacancies g)Actual M&S expenditures trending high. Will transfer appropriation if necessary Page 2 SHERIFF -Consolidated Statement of Financial Operating Data July 1, 2015 through November 30, 2015 FY 2015 (41.7%of Fiscal Year) FY 2016 %of Actual Actual Budget Budget Projected Variance Revenues(Funds 701 &702) Law Enf Dist Countywide 21,412,103 18,990,632 82% 23,138,385 23,426,494 288,109 Law Enf Dist Rural 13,071,716 10,807,128 80% 13,467,486 13,623,188 155,702 Total Revenues 34,483,818 29,797,760 81% 36,605,871 37,049,682 443,811 Expenditures(Fund 255) Personnel 27,982,132 11,756,878 42% a) 29,213,507 29,122,793 90,714 Materials&Services 6,331,777 2,579,712 43% b) 6,705,637 6,564,298 141,339 Capital Outlay 613,587 615,755 41% c) 868,231 1,031,230 (162,999) Transfers Out 455,031 79,500 46% 271,616 271,616 - Total Expenditures 35,382,528 15,031,846 41% 37,058,991 36,989,937 69,054 Revenues less Expenditures (898,709) 14,765,914 (453,120) 59,745 512,865 DC Comm Systems Reserve 200,000 - 0% 200,000 200,000 - Transfer to Reserve Funds 200,000 - 0% 200,000 200,000 - Change in Fund Balance (1,298,709) 14,765,914 (853,120) (340,255) 512,865 Beginning Fund Balance 9,208,207 7,909,497 111% 7,153,040 7,909,497 756,457 $ 7,909,497 $ 22,675,411 6,299,920 7,569,242 1,269,322 a) Expenditures projected to be less than amount budgeted due to unfilled positions b) Projected expenditures less than budget due primarily to savings in fuel costs c)Additional Capital Outlay of$55,000 for Alive Lock Risk Watches and$86,000 for roof remodel. Purchase of snowmobiles exceeds amount budgeted Page 3-A SHERIFF-Fund 255 Statement of Financial Operating Data July 1,2015 through November 30,2015 (41.7% of Fiscal FY 2015 Year) FY 2016 %of Actual Actual Budget Budget _ Projected Variance Revenues(Fund 255) Law Enf Dist Countywide 22,630,194 9,503,680 34% 27,574,824 23,809,425 3,765,399 Law Enf Dist Rural 12,752,334 5,528,166 35% 15,784,087 13,180,512 2,603,575 Total Revenues 35,382,528 15,031,846 35% 43,358,911 36,989,937 6,368,974 Expenditures(Fund 255) Sheriffs Services 2,528,782 1,221,193 42% a) 2,942,625 2,949,987 (7,362) Civil/Special Units 1,216,848 504,727 43% 1,178,116 1,178,774 (658) Automotive/Communications 1,857,297 783,836 41% b) 1,934,375 1,842,375 92,000 Investigations/Evidence 1,604,049 806,572 46% c) 1,751,548 1,761,741 (10,193) Patrol 8,409,091 3,663,234 42% d) 8,814,658 8,751,581 63,077 Records 770,148 253,250 33% d) 775,751 748,120 27,631 Adult Jail 15,338,956 6,262,947 39% e) 16,062,970 16,134,798 (71,828) Court Security 356,041 112,209 36% f) 311,175 288,051 23,124 Emergency Services 373,205 104,007 47% 220,485 220,485 - Special Services 1,587,532 730,477 46% g) 1,590,250 1,631,840 (41,590) Training 501,561 197,872 34% h) 576,528 578,857 (2,329) Other Law Enforcement Svcs 766,206 352,641 44% h) 807,198 810,016 (2,818) Non-Departmental 72,813 38,880 42% 93,312 93,312 - Total Expenditures 35,382,528 15,031,846 41% 37,058,991 36,989,937 69,054 Revenues less Expenditures $ - - $ 6,299,920 $ - $ 6,299,920 a) Retiree health insurance is higher than anticipated b) Fuel costs are anticipated to be lower than budgeted c)Time management payouts are expected to exceed anticipated budget d) Less than budgeted Personnel expenditures due to unfilled positions e)Additional Capital Outlay of$55,000 for Alive Lock Risk Watches and $86,000 for roof remodel. Additional overtime expenditures are partially offset by unfilled positions f) Personnel expenditures projected to be less than budgeted due to filling a position at a lower step g) Purchase of snowmobiles exceeds amount budgeted h) Positions filled at higher step than budgeted Page 3-B SHERIFF-Expenditure Detail Statement of Financial Operating Data July 1,2015 through November 30,2015 (41.7%of Fiscal FY 2015 Year) FY 2016 %of Actual Actual Budget Budget Projected Variance Expenditures Sheriffs Services Personnel 1,444,896 621,677 42% 1,473,213 1,485,575 (12,362) Materials&Services 1,083,885 591,091 43% 1,390,412 1,385,412 5,000 Capital Outlay 8,425 11% 79,000 79,000 Total Sheriffs Services 2,528,782 1,221,193 42% 2,942,625 2,949,987 (7,362) civiUSoecial Units Personnel 1,086,462 444,355 42% 1,062,099 1,065,395 (3,296) Materials&Services 130,386 53,824 49% 109,469 106,831 2,638 Capital Outlay 6,548 100% 6,548 6,548 Total CiviUSpecial Units 1,216,848 504,727 43% 1,178,116 1,178,774 (658) Automotive/Communication§ Personnel 404,038 180,898 42% 429,293 429,293 - Materials&Services 1,445,359 574,662 39% 1,476,782 1,384,782 92,000 Capital Outlay 7,900 28,275 100% 28,300 28,300 - Total Automotive/Communications 1,857,297 783,836 41% 1,934,375 1,842,375 92,000 Investigations/Evidence Personnel 1,441,261 668,822 44% 1,528,335 1,538,528 (10,193) Materials&Services 162,788 76,080 47% 160,613 160,613 - Capital Outlay - 61,670 99% 62,600 62,600 - Total Investigations/Evidence 1,604,049 806,572 46% 1,751,548 1,761,741 (10,193) Eta! Personnel 7,476,400 3,102,841 40% 7,824,291 7,762,975 61,316 Materials&Services 587,630 295,049 47% 625,432 619,662 5,770 Capital Outlay 345,060 265,344 73% 364,935 368,944 (4,009) Total Patrol 8,409,091 3,663,234 42% 8,814,658 8,751,581 63,077 Records Personnel 666,056 235,973 36% 663,829 636,198 27,631 Materials&Services 104,092 17,276 15% 111,922 111,922 - Total Records 770,148 253,250 33% 775,751 748,120 27,631 Adult Jail Personnel 12,681,941 5,309,712 40% 13,391,264 13,388,823 2,441 Materials&Services 2,138,807 781,249 35% 2,227,142 2,184,011 43,131 Capital Outlay 63,177 92,485 53% 172,948 290,348 (117,400) Transfer Out-Jail(D/S&Cap Proj) 455,031 79,500 29% 271,616 271,616 - Total Adult Jail 15,338,956 6,262,947 39% 16,062,970 16,134,798 (71,828) u Co rt Security Personnel 318,888 106,179 35% 301,472 271,148 30,324 Materials&Services 8,989 6,030 62% 9,703 16,903 (7,200) Capital Outlay 28,165 - N/A - - - Total Court Security 356,041 112,209 36% 311,175 288,051 23,124 Emergency Services Personnel 144,725 62,172 39% 160,660 160,660 - Materials&Services 228,481 10,448 51% 20,625 20,625 - Capital Outlay - 31,387 80% 39,200 39,200 - Total Emergency Services 373,205 104,007 47% 220,485 220,485 - Special Services Personnel 1,223,523 546,603 44% 1,235,676 1,235,676 - Materials&Services 207,027 67,892 28% 246,074 246,074 - Capital Outlay 156,982 115,982 107% 108,500 150,090 (41,590) Total Special Services 1,587,532 730,477 46% 1,590,250 1,631,840 (41,590) Training Personnel 418,013 172,467 40% 430,076 432,405 (2,329) Materials&Services 83,548 25,405 17% 146,452 146,452 - Total Training 501,561 197,872 34% 576,528 578,857 (2,329) Other Law Enforcement Services Personnel 675,931 305,178 43% 713,299 716,117 (2,818) Materials&Services 77,972 41,824 48% 87,699 87,699 Capital Outlay 12,303 5,638 91% 6,200 6,200 - Total Other Law Enforcement Svcs 766,206 352,641 44% 807,198 810,016 (2,818) No-Departmental Materials&Services 72,813 38,880 42% 93,312 93,312 - Total Non-Departmental 72,813 38,880 42% 93,312 93,312 • Total Expenditures $35,382,528 $15,031,846 41% $37,058,991 $36,989,937 $ 69,054 �.__ .. Page 4 LED#1 -Countywide Statement of Financial Operating Data , July 1,2015 through November 30, 2015(41.7% FY 2015 of Fiscal Year) FY 2016 %of Actual Actual Budget Budget Projected Variance Revenues Tax Revenues-Current 17,663,115 18,063,969 92% a) 19,688,313 19,937,058 248,745 Tax Revenues-Prior 482,620 210,879 47% 451,000 451,000 - SB 1145 1,629,017 407,254 23% 1,733,117 1,733,117 - Sheriff Fees 324,105 73,883 30% b) 250,000 200,000 (50,000) Concealed Handgun License 160,721 61,750 41% 150,000 150,000 - Jail Funding HB 3194 107,805 - 0% 107,806 107,806 - Jail Funding HB 2712 36,226 9,057 25% 36,224 36,224 - State Grant 308,843 - 0% c) 85,370 110,023 24,653 Prisoner Housing 292,157 32,196 15% 220,000 220,000 - Inmate Telephone Fee 45,803 15,884 45% 35,000 35,000 - Federal Grants 10,072 - N/A - - - Work Center Work Crews 42,049 19,262 39% 50,000 50,000 - Contracts with Des County 98,466 38,531 33% d) 118,225 172,775 54,550 Inmate Commissary Fees 40,159 14,618 49% 30,000 30,000 - Interest 60,388 11,870 30% 40,000 40,000 - Donations-"Shop with a Cop" 43,417 260 0% 66,058 66,058 - Miscellaneous 67,140 31,219 40% e) 77,272 87,433 10,161 Total Operating Revenues 21,412,103 18,990,632 82% 23,138,385 23,426,494 288,109 EXPENDITURES&TRANSFERS DC Sheriffs Office 22,630,194 9,503,680 34% 27,574,824 23,809,425 3,765,399 DC Comm Systems Reserve 80,000 - 0% 80,000 80,000 - Transfer to Reserve Fund 100,000 - 0% 100,000 100,000 - Total Expenditures 22,810,194 9,503,680 34% 27,754,824 23,989,425 3,765,399 Change in Fund Balance (1,398,091) 9,486,952 (4,616,439) (562,931) 4,053,508 Beginning Fund Balance 6,133,909 4,735,818 103% 4,616,439 4,735,818 119,379 Ending Fund Balance $ 4,735,818 $ 14,222,770 $ - $ 4,172,887 $ 4,172,887 a) Projection based on collecting 94.5% of property tax levy b) Revenue for civil processing is lower than anticipated c) Grant award amount exceeds budgeted amount d) Increase in funding from State for Court Security e) Sale of snowmobile Page 5 LED#2-Rural 702 Statement of Financial Operating Data July 1, 2015 through November 30, 2015 FY 2015 (41.7%of Fiscal Year) FY 2016 70 of Actual Actual Budget Budget Projected Variance Revenues Tax Revenues-Current 8,420,326 8,010,217 91% a) 8,783,959 8,842,486 58,527 Tax Revenues- Prior 235,019 101,639 47% 216,000 216,000 Des Cty Transient Room Tax 3,071,719 2,185,911 69% 3,151,787 3,151,787 - City of Sisters 523,010 226,638 42% 543,930 543,930 - Marine Board License Fee 112,383 64,122 49% b) 130,000 146,189 16,189 State Grant 113,239 54,359 50% b) 108,000 129,156 21,156 Court Fines& Fees 140,939 42,362 33% 130,000 130,000 - Contracts with Des County 121,772 51,800 41% 125,810 125,810 - US Forest Service 78,910 16,830 22% 76,500 76,500 - School Districts 70,028 5,776 11% c) 55,000 80,000 25,000 Federal Grants 54,497 2,676 13% b) 20,000 38,695 18,695 Bureau of Reclamation 10,365 - 0% b) 27,000 40,000 13,000 Interest 31,697 11,292 54% 21,000 21,000 - SB#1065 Court Assessment 24,768 8,990 37% 24,000 24,000 - Federal Grants-BLM 770 - N/A - - - Donations&Grants- Private 17,030 830 N/A - - - Miscellaneous 45,242 23,687 43% d) 54,500 57,635 3,135 Total Revenues 13,071,716 10,807,128 80% 13,467,486 13,623,188 155,702 EXPENDITURES&TRANSFERS DC Sheriffs Office 12,752,334 5,528,166 35% 15,784,087 13,180,512 2,603,575 DC Comm Systems Reserve 120,000 - 0% 120,000 120,000 - Transfer to Reserve Fund 100,000 - 0% 100,000 100,000 - Total Expenditures 12,972,334 5,528,166 35% 16,004,087 13,400,512 2,603,575 Change in Fund Balance 99,381 5,278,962 (2,536,601) 222,676 2,759,277 Beginning Fund Balance 3,074,297 3,173,679 125% 2,536,601 3,173,679 637,078 Ending Fund Balance $ 3,173,679 $ 8,452,641 $ - $ 3,396,355 $ 3,396,355 a) Projection based on collecting 94.5%of property tax levy b) Grant awards exceed budgeted amount c) School district contracted for additional hours for School Resource Deputy d) Sale of snowmobile Page 6 PUBLIC HEALTH Statement of Financial Operating Data July 1,2015 through November 30, 2015(41.7%of FY 2015 Fiscal Year) FY 2016 Actual Actual %of Budget _ Budget Projected Variance Revenues State Grant 3,373,900 1,023,393 36% 2,865,932 3,045,334 179,402 Environmental Health-Lic Fac 818,627 64,144 8% a) 802,450 802,450 - OMAP 945,490 346,644 34% 1,023,650 1,023,650 - Family Planning Exp Proj 236,714 49,778 20% 250,000 250,000 - Interfund Grants&Contract 64,233 266,627 417% b) 64,000 266,627 202,627 Grants(Intergvt, Pvt, & Local) 264,205 5,800 N/A - 5,800 5,800 Patient Insurance Fees 138,130 69,923 39% 181,200 181,200 - State Miscellaneous 163,008 13,049 9% c) 150,000 150,000 - Federal Payments 141,606 69,089 24% c) 292,085 316,861 24,776 Vital Records-Death 132,975 48,905 49% 100,000 100,000 - Health Dept/Patient Fees 46,588 15,621 37% 41,800 41,800 - Contract Payments 16,629 1,544 N/A - 1,544 1,544 Vital Records-Birth 37,520 19,940 50% 40,000 40,000 - Child Dev& Rehab Center 31,720 (0) 0% 30,759 30,759 - Interest on Investments 15,422 6,608 48% 13,900 15,500 1,600 Grants& Donations 36,035 19,497 211% 9,229 20,157 10,928 Miscellaneous 32,519 456 76% 600 600 - Total Revenues 6,495,321 2,021,017 34% 5,865,605 6,292,282 426,677 Expenditures Personnel Services 6,541,186 2,661,851 39% 6,833,680 6,648,165 185,515 Materials and Services 2,279,520 752,220 34% d) 2,200,072 2,398,762 (198,690) Capital Outlay 49,701 3,469 107% e) 3,241 3,469 (228) Transfers Out 164,640 29,410 25% 117,640 117,640 - Total Expenditures 9,035,047 3,446,950 38% 9,154,633 9,168,036 (13,403) Revenues less Expenditures (2,539,726) (1,425,933) (3,289,028) (2,875,754) 413,274 Transfers In-General Fund 2,701,475 1,125,615 42% 2,701,475 2,701,475 - Transfers In-PH Res Fund - 14,681 25% 58,723 58,723 - Transfers In-Gen. Fund Other 65,100 16,275 25% 65,100 65,100 - Total Transfers In 2,766,575 1,156,571 41% 2,825,298 2,825,298 - Change in Fund Balance 226,849 (269,362) (463,730) (50,456) 413,274 Beginning Fund Balance 1,552,578 1,779,427 99% 1,789,387 1,779,427 (9,960) Ending Fund Balance $ 1,779,427 $ 1,510,066 $1,325,657 $ 1,728,971 $403,314 a) Majority of fees are due annually and collected in December&January b) Revenue carried over from FY 2015 c) Received quarterly, in arrears d) Materials&Services increased to reflect amended grants and contracts. Appropriation will be increased as necessary e)Appropriation will be increased before year end Page 7 BEHAVIORAL HEALTH Statement of Financial Operating Data July f,2015 through November 30,2015 FY 2015 (41.7%of Fiscal Year) FY 2016 % of Actual Actual Budget Budget Projected Variance Revenues Administrative Fee 11,294,979 487,839 24% 2,005,307 1,800,000 (205,307) State Grants 7,730,968 3,416,860 41% 8,313,630 8,289,730 (23,900) OHP Capitation 488,538 3,450,861 29% 11,807,181 11,807,181 - Federal Grants 195,048 53,647 27% a) 201,879 201,697 (182) Patient Fees 211,392 73,675 43% 171,268 171,268 - Title 19 333,886 107,434 44% 241,768 241,768 - Liquor Revenue 145,536 40,833 27% 151,000 151,000 - Divorce Filing Fees 128,477 131,689 94% 140,600 131,689 (8,911) Interfund Contract-Gen Fund 127,000 38,223 30% a) 127,000 127,000 - Interest on Investments 37,054 14,499 48% 30,000 34,800 4,800 Rentals 11,612 4,125 22% 18,800 18,800 - Marriage Licenses 6,385 3,660 56% 6,500 10,000 3,500 Local Grants 504,926 157,592 99% 158,967 316,859 157,892 State Miscellaneous 32,200 8,010 36% 22,000 22,000 - Miscellaneous 60,534 1,348 1348% 100 1,479 1,379 Total Revenues 21,308,536 7,990,296 34% 23,396,000 23,325,271 (70,729) Expenditures Personnel Services 14,366,806 6,411,723 37% b) 17,234,305 16,454,842 779,463 Materials and Services 7,007,968 2,302,889 28% c) 8,291,472 7,303,650 987,822 Capital Outlay 181,976 8,094 4% 207,500 207,500 - Transfers Out 204,900 82,025 25% 328,100 328,100 - Total Expenditures 21,761,651 8,804,732 34% 26,061,377 24,294,092 1,767,285 Revenues less Expenditures (453,115) (814,435) (2,665,377) (968,821) 1,696,556 Transfers In-General Fund 1,377,302 573,875 42% 1,377,302 1,377,302 - Transfers In-Acute Care Svcs 187,594 70,360 42% 168,864 168,864 - Total Transfers In 1,564,896 644,235 42% 1,546,166 1,546,166 - Change in Fund Balance 1,111,781 (170,200) (1,119,211) 577,345 1,696,556 Beginning Fund Balance 2,924,742 4,036,523 104% 3,893,237 4,036,523 143,286 Ending Fund Balance $4,036,523 $ 3,866,323 $ 2,774,026 $4,613,868 $1,839,842 a) Received quarterly, in arrears b) Year end projection reflects underspending related to unfilled positions through November 2015 c) Year end projection reflects anticipated underspending on therapist, contracts and program expense Page 8 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Statement of Financial Operating Data July 1,2015 through November 30,2015(41.7%of FY 2015 Fiscal Year) FY 2016 %of Actual Actual Budget Budget Projected Variance Revenues Admin-Operations 59,024 33,771 63% 53,494 53,494 - Admin-GIS 2,110 220 9% 2,500 2,500 - Admin-Code Enforcement 306,480 148,630 46% 322,913 322,913 - Building Safety 2,122,894 1,053,021 49% 2,152,073 2,152,073 - Electrical 447,721 244,302 52% 467,770 467,770 - Contract Services 358,815 177,274 64% 276,500 276,500 - Env Health-On Site Prog 497,039 240,875 51% 475,170 475,170 - Planning-Current 1,230,486 567,687 53% 1,069,975 1,069,975 - Planning-Long Range - 604,808 335,022 48% 694,249 694,249 - Total Revenues 5,629,377 2,800,800 51% 5,514,644 5,514,644 - Expenditures Admin-Operations 1,461,189 683,339 42% 1,638,933 1,638,933 - Admin-GIS 125,463 56,075 42% 132,305 132,305 - Admin-Code Enforcement 286,288 120,613 38% 319,679 319,679 - Building Safety 777,738 320,715 35% 915,194 915,194 - Electrical 225,462 122,253 43% 286,145 286,145 - Contract Services 270,206 131,568 40% 326,249 326,249 - Env Health-On Site Pgm 233,477 128,660 38% 338,956 338,956 - Planning-Current 792,256 399,505 40% 997,851 997,851 - Planning-Long Range 557,991 234,344 39% 596,343 596,343 - Transfers Out(D/S Fund) 173,673 164,105 100% 164,225 164,225 - Total Expenditures 4,903,745 2,361,176 41% 5,715,880 5,715,880 - Revenues less Expenditures 725,633 439,624 (201,236) (201,236) - Transfers In/Out In:General Fund-L/R Planning 166,770 33,012 33% 99,039 99,039 - Out:A&T Reserve (90,360) - N/A - - - Out: CDD Reserve Funds (687,470) - 0% (1,037,652) (1,037,652) - Net Transfers In/Out (611,060) 33,012 -4% (938,613) (938,613) - Change in Fund Balance 114,573 472,636 (1,139,849) (1,139,849) - Beginning Fund Balance 2,037,201 2,151,773 134% 1,600,000 2,151,773 551,773 Ending Fund Balance $2,151,773 $2,624,409 $ 460,151 $ 1,011,924 $ 551,773 Page 9 ROAD Statement of Financial Operating Data July 1,2015 through November 30, 2015(41.7% FY 2015 of Fiscal Year) FY 2016 Actual Actual % of Budget Budget _ Projected Variance Revenues Motor Vehicle Revenue 11,526,928 5,293,651 46% a) 11,440,000 12,347,228 907,228 Forest Receipts 1,215,021 - 0% 1,250,000 1,250,000 - Federal-PILT Payment 1,250,809 1,203,216 96% b) 1,250,000 1,203,216 (46,784) Other Inter-fund Services 911,160 134,716 14% 947,925 947,925 - Cities-Bend/Red/Sis/La Pine 664,062 59,990 7% 902,000 902,000 - State Miscellaneous 602,237 603,572 100% 603,572 603,572 - Sale of Equip& Material 312,452 21,388 8% 278,500 278,500 - Assessment Payments (P&I) 159,692 41,814 26% 160,000 160,000 - Mineral Lease Royalties 174,922 20,783 10% 200,000 200,000 - Interest on Investments 77,547 43,308 108% c) 40,000 100,000 60,000 Miscellaneous 55,109 18,511 51% 36,500 36,500 - Total Revenues 16,949,938 7,440,947 43% 17,108,497 18,028,941 920,444 Expenditures Personnel Services 5,539,866 2,358,984 41% 5,704,814 5,704,814 - Materials and Services 8,565,242 3,738,457 34% d) 10,846,101 9,346,101 1,500,000 Debt Service 106,554 - N/A - - - Capital Outlay 1,764,850 353,173 4% e) 8,503,257 2,600,000 5,903,257 Transfers Out 600,000 - 0% 600,000 600,000 - Total Expenditures 16,576,513 6,450,614 25% 25,654,172 18,250,915 7,403,257 Revenues less Expenditures 373,426 990,333 (8,545,675) (221,974) 8,323,701 Trans In-Solid Waste 298,156 81,635 25% 326,539 326,539 - Trans In -Transp SDC 1,000,000 - 0% 1,000,000 1,000,000 Trans In-Road Imp Res 12,388 - N/A - Total Transfers In 1,310,544 81,635 6% 1,326,539 1,326,539 - Change in Fund Balance 1,683,970 1,071,968 (7,219,136) 1,104,565 8,323,701 Beginning Fund Balance 10,022,703 11,706,673 126% 9,298,470 11,706,673 2,408,203 Ending Fund Balance $ 11,706,673 $12,778,641 $ 2,079,334 $12,811,237 $10,731,903 a) Revenue projection per ODOT(increased fuel sales/economy related) b) Actual PILT was less than budgeted c) Projection based on annualized YTD d) Overlay reserve, $1.5 million, not projected to be expended in FY 2016 e) Budget includes$5.9 million of CIP reserves. Will not be expended in FY 2016 Page 10 ADULT PAROLE& PROBATION Statement of Financial Operating Data , July 1, 2015 through November 30,2015(41.7%of FY 2015 Fiscal Year) FY 2016 %of Actual Actual Budget Budget Projected Variance Revenues SB 1145 3,025,316 756,329 23% a) 3,218,647 3,650,000 431,353 DOC Measure 57 217,845 234,316 102% b) 230,660 234,316 3,656 Electronic Monitoring Fee 212,894 68,004 30% c) 225,000 225,000 - Probation Superv. Fees 220,081 81,191 39% 210,000 210,000 - Interfund-Sheriff 50,000 20,835 42% 50,000 50,000 - Crime Prevention Grant 50,000 12,500 25% d) 50,000 50,000 - CFC-Domestic Violence 52,612 11,684 25% d) 46,736 46,736 - State Subsidy 14,960 3,740 24% 15,610 15,610 - Alternate Incarceration 31,775 4,569 23% e) 20,035 20,035 - Interest on Investments 9,550 3,516 50% 7,000 7,000 - Probation Work Crew Fees 10,191 3,489 58% 6,000 6,000 - State Miscellaneous 4,142 - 0% e) 4,300 4,300 - Leases 1,600 - 0% f) 1,500 875 (625) Justice Reinvest HB3194 - - 0% a) 472,026 759,000 286,974 Miscellaneous 8,931 270 54% 500 500 - Total Revenues 3,909,897 1,200,444 26% 4,558,014 5,279,372 721,358 Expenditures Personnel Services 3,581,700 1,496,295 38% a) 3,890,276 3,890,276 - Materials and Services 1,047,720 498,113 38% a) 1,304,248 1,304,248 - Transfer to Veh Maint - 5,184 25% 20,736 20,736 - Capital Outlay - - 0% 100 100 - Total Expenditures 4,629,420 1,999,591 38% 5,215,360 5,215,360 - Revenues less Expenditures (719,522) (799,147) (657,346) 64,012 721,358 Transfers In-General Fund 451,189 187,995 42% 451,189 451,189 - Change in Fund Balance (268,333) (611,152) 0 (206,157) 515,201 721,358 Beginning Fund Balance 1,131,982 863,649 130% 662,516 863,649 201,133 Ending Fund Balance $ 863,649 $ 252,497 $ 456,359 $ 1,378,850 $922,491 a)Additional funds awarded post budget adoption. A supplemental budget will be adopted to appropriate the additional resources b)Annual payment received in October c) Fees trending under budget due to overestimating offenders ability to pay. If this continues, projection will be reduced. d) Payments received quarterly e) Reimbursement for special population/services f) Per-use lease agreement with Portland State University. No use July-September Page 11 EARLY LEARNING HUB Statement of Financial Operating Data July 1, 2015 through November 30,2015 FY 2015 (41.7%of Fiscal Year) FY 2016 Actual Actual %of Budget _ Budget Projected Variance Revenues Federal Grants 224,752 50,297 24% 213,382 215,985 2,603 HealthyStart Medicaid 66,759 16,961 N/A a) - 16,961 16,961 State Grant 105,326 - 0% 105,326 105,326 - HealthyStart/R-S-G 296,573 5,930 N/A - 5,930 5,930 Miscellaneous 5,291 811 41% 2,000 2,000 - Court Fines& Fees 77,086 79,014 103% 77,086 79,014 1,928 Interest on Investments 2,487 1,328 55% 2,400 2,400 - Private Grant 715 3,285 N/A - 3,285 3,285 Interfund Grants 7,260 - N/A - - - Total Revenues 786,249 157,625 39% 400,194 430,901 30,707 Expenditures Personnel Services 263,621 112,091 37% 304,598 304,598 - Materials and Services 849,478 134,354 27% a) 494,118 517,009 (22,891) Total Expenditures 1,113,099 246,445 31% 798,716 821,607 (22,891) Revenues less Expenditures (326,850) (88,819) (398,522) (390,706) 7,816 Transfers In 0 General Fund 252,288 72,915 42% 175,000 175,000 - General Fund -Other 89,350 22,338 25% 89,350 89,350 - Total Transfers In 341,638 95,253 36% 264,350 264,350 - Change in Fund Balance 14,788 6,433 (134,172) (126,356) 7,816 Beginning Fund Balance 334,861 349,649 127% 274,299 349,649 75,350 Ending Fund Balance $ 349,649 $ 356,083_ $ 140,127 $ 223,293 $ 83,166 a) Grant awarded subsequent to adoption of FY 2016 Budget. Additional resources will be appropriated with a supplemental budget Page 12 SOLID WASTE Statement of Financial Operating Data , July 1, through November 30, 2015(41.7% of FY 2015 Fiscal Year) FY 2016 %of Actual Actual Budget Budget • Projected Variance Operating Revenues Franchise Disposal Fees 4,575,673 2,079,356 43% 4,830,000 4,830,000 - Private Disposal Fees 1,680,543 809,666 49% 1,648,500 1,648,500 - Commercial Disp. Fees 1,336,173 646,076 51% 1,260,000 1,260,000 - Franchise 3% Fees 223,323 17,659 8% a) 220,000 220,000 - Yard Debris 126,468 81,030 78% b) 104,000 104,000 - Recyclables 28,066 11,504 40% 29,000 29,000 - Special Waste 16,382 18,914 76% c) 25,000 25,000 - Interest 17,164 7,344 73% 10,000 10,000 - Leases 10,801 5,400 50% 10,801 10,801 - Miscellaneous 58,721 30,978 124% 25,000 30,978 5,978 Total Operating Revenues 8,073,313 3,707,926 45% 8,162,301 8,168,279 5,978 Operating Expenditures Personnel Services 1,856,302 818,644 39% 2,084,433 2,084,433 - Materials and Services 3,112,683 1,314,383 38% 3,501,756 3,501,756 - Debt Service 929,793 377,985 41% d) 932,916 932,916 - Capital Outlay 166,655 46,136 40% 116,450 116,450 - Total Operating Expenditures 6,065,434 2,557,147 39% 6,635,555 6,635,555 - Operating Rev less Exp 2,007,879 1,150,779 1,526,746 1,532,724 5,978 Transfers Out Road 298,156 81,635 25% e) 326,539 326,539 - SW Capital&Equipment Reserve 2,225,000 - 0% f) 1,400,000 1,400,000 - Total Transfers Out 2,523,156 81,635 5% 1,726,639 1,726,539 - Change in Fund Balance (515,277) 1,069,144 (199,793) (193,815) 5,978 Beginning Fund Balance 1,679,169 1,163,893 180% 646,922 1,163,893 646,924 Ending Fund Balance $ 1,163,893 $2 233,037 $ 447,129 $ 970,077 $652,902 a) Payments due April 15th b) Revenues fluctuate with the weather/seasons c) Unpredictable revenue source; usually involves DEQ clean-ups d) Payments made November and May e)Transfer made quarterly f)Transfer made as resources required in reserve funds Page 13 RISK MANAGEMENT . Statement of Financial Operating Data July 1,2015 through November 30,2015 FY 2015 (41.7%of Fiscal Year) FY 2016 %of Actual Actual Budget Budget Projected Variance Revenues Inter-fund Charges: General Liability 379,793 358,000 42% 859,198 859,198 - Property Damage 392,304 169,216 43% 394,092 394,092 - Vehicle 177,550 74,940 42% 179,850 179,850 - Workers'Compensation 1,563,836 472,225 42% 1,137,484 1,137,484 - Unemployment 324,829 137,345 43% 320,000 320,000 - Claims Reimb-Gen Liab/Property 43,921 1,202 6% 20,000 15,000 (5,000) Process Fee-Events/Parades 1,835 225 16% 1,400 1,400 - Miscellaneous 0 - 0% 80 80 - Skid Car Training 34,020 6,570 24% 27,000 27,000 - Transfer In-Fund 340 - 95,000 100% 95,000 95,000 - Interest on Investments 24,331 13,318 53% 25,000 25,000 - TOTAL REVENUES 2,942,419 1,328,041 43% 3,059,104 3,054,104 (5,000) Direct Insurance Costs: GENERAL LIABILITY Settlement/Benefit 166,363 53,489 Defense 19,031 12,387 Professional Service 24,849 5,000 Insurance 176,537 191,884 Loss Prevention 19,465 4,965 Miscellaneous 126 - Repair/Replacement 6,346 7,422 Total General Liability 412,716 275,147 35% 780,429 800,000 (19,5711 PROPERTY DAMAGE Insurance 178,556 166,978 Repair/Replacement 35,583 1,275 Total Property Damage 214,139 168,253 39% 429,719 400,000 29,719 VEHICLE Professional Service 236 - Insurance 21,300 - Loss Prevention 19,307 5,686 Repair/Replacement 51,823 55,798 Total Vehicle 92,666 61,484 69% 89,213 95,000 (5,787) WORKERS'COMPENSATION Settlement/Benefit 687,001 126,608 Professional Service 5,000 5,000 Insurance 124,195 111,046 Loss Prevention 45,934 20,334 Miscellaneous 54,299 13,573 Total Workers'Compensation 916,429 276,560_ 28% 984,626 900,000 84,626 UNEMPLOYMENT-Settlement/Benefits 104,383 12,362 8% 151,486 140,000 11,486 Total Direct Insurance Costs 1,740,333 793,807 33% 2,435,473 2,335,000 100,473 Insurance Administration: Personnel Services 309,175 124,060 37% 339,585 339,585 - Materials&Srvc,Capital Out.&Tranfs. 133,868 62,090 28% 225,363 225,363 - Total Expenditures 2,183,376 979,957 33% 3,000,421 2,899,948 100,473 Change in Fund Balance 759,043 348,084 58,683 154,156 95,473 Beginning Fund Balance 3,110,676 3,869,719 121% 3,200,000 3,869,719 669,719 Ending Fund Balance $3,869,719 $ 4,217,803 * $3,258,683 $4,023,875 $765,192 * Ending Fund Balance includes$2,900,000 restricted for Workers'Comp Loss Reserve Page 14 DESCHUTES COUNTY 9-1-1 Statement of Financial Operating Data , July 1, 2015 through November 30, 2015 FY 2015 (41.7%of Fiscal Year) FY 2016 %of Actual Actual Budget Budget Projected Variance Revenues Property Taxes-Current 6,683,234 6,381,867 92% a) 6,940,000 7,043,318 103,318 Property Taxes-Prior 174,000 78,544 79% 100,000 100,000 - State Reimbursement 54,389 13,755 38% 36,000 36,000 - Telephone User Tax 760,914 204,640 27% b) 750,000 750,000 - Data Network Reimb. 41,803 - 0% 30,000 30,000 - Jefferson County 30,686 28,486 95% 30,000 30,000 - User Fee 54,536 2,156 5% 45,000 45,000 - Police RMS User Fees 287,880 27,294 9% c) 295,788 295,788 - Contract Payments - - 0% 11,000 11,000 - Miscellaneous 38,466 8,859 89% d) 10,000 10,000 - Interest 36,785 15,102 38% 40,000 40,000 - Total Revenues 8,162,693 6,760,704 82% 8,287,788 8,391,106 103,318 Expenditures Personnel Services 4,885,484 1,988,189 33% 6,076,736 5,576,736 500,000 Materials and Services 1,987,159 898,993 45% 2,019,097 2,019,097 - Capital Outlay 234,798 - 0% 200,000 200,000 - Total Expenditures 7,107,441 2,887,181 35% 8,295,833 7,795,833 500,000 Revenues less Expenditures 1,055,252 3,873,522 (8,045) 595,273 603,318 Beginning Fund Balance 3,939,854 4,995,106 107% 4,650,000 4,995,106 345,106 Ending Fund Balance $ 4,995,106 $ 8,868,628 $4,641,955 $5,590,379 $948,424 a) Projection based on collecting 94.5%of property tax levy b)Tax received quarterly. 2nd Quarter to be received in February c)The RMS Ops Board is negotiating a new contract with New World Systems d)YTD includes a reimbursement from Bend Police Department for software licenses($4,253) Page 15 Health Benefits Trust Statement of Financial Operating Data FY 2015 FY 2016 July 1,2015 through %of Approved FY 2016 Actual November 30, Budget Budget Projection $Variance 2015(42%of Fiscal Year) Revenues: Internal Premium Charges $ 16,001,138 $ 6,414,155 40% a) $ 16,153,000 $ 15,393,972 $ (759,028) Part-Time Employee Premium 15,680 3,846 N/A a) - 9,230 9,230 Employee Monthly Co-Pay 866,646 347,035 40% a) 865,000 832,884 (32,116) COIC 1,870,995 843,717 44% a) 1,900,000 2,024,922 124,922 Retiree/COBRA Co-Pay 1,089,975 495,607 37% a) 1,336,000 1,189,457 (146,543) Prescription Rebates 145,422 17,337 13% 130,000 130,000 - Claims Reimbursements&Misc 242,601 175,800 N/A - 175,800 175,800 Interest 92,213 44,637 40% 112,000 108,000 (4,000) Total Revenues 20,324,668 8,342,134 41% 20,496,000 19,864,265 (631,735) Expenditures: Personnel Services(all depts) 121,638 48,851 41% 117,753 117,753 - Materials&Services Adman&Wellness Claims Paid-Medical 11,366,449 6,228,954 50% b) 12,335,775 12,988,586 (652,811) Claims Paid-Prescription 1,245,249 385,581 28% b) 1,392,307 1,326,609 65,697 Claims Paid-DentalNision 1,832,508 733,599 36% b) 2,048,918 1,861,336 187,583 Stop Loss Insurance Premium 326,435 146,382 41% 360,000 360,000 - State Assessments 227,597 - 0% 240,000 240,000 - Administration Fee(EMBS) 419,304 197,032 47% 420,000 420,000 - Preferred Provider Fee 38,804 57,653 125% 46,000 157,202 (111,202) Other-Administration 45,335 25,753 25% 104,417 104,417 - Other-Wellness 162,582 64,247 43% 149,000 149,000 - Admin&Wellness 15,664,262 7,839,200 46% 17,096,417 17,607,151 (510,734) Deschutes On-site Clinic Contracted Services 818,418 288,174 36% 810,000 810,000 - Medical Supplies 79,616 26,565 42% 63,000 63,000 - Other 23,726 17,383 63% 27,470 27,470 - Total DOC 921,761 332,121 37% 900,470 900,470 - Deschutes On-site Pharmacy Contracted Services 304,556 115,113 40% 287,700 287,700 - Prescriptions 1,552,760 409,091 26% c) 1,600,000 1,600,000 - Other 13,250 8,621 39% 22,007 22,007 - Total Pharmacy 1,870,566 532,825 28% 1,909,707 1,909,707 - Total Expenditures 18,578,227 8,752,997 44% 20,024,347 20,535,081 (510,734) Change in Fund Balance 1,746,441 (410,863) 471,653 (670,815) (1,142,468) Beginning Fund Balance 12,461,082 14,207,523 108% 13,190,000 14,207,523 1,017,523 Ending Fund Balance $ 14,207,523 $ 13,796,660 $ 13,661,653 $ 13,636,707 $ (124,946) %of Exp covered by Revenues 109.4% 95.3% 102.4%1 96.7% a) Projection-Five months annualized b) Fifty-two week rolling average c) YTD-July,August&September Page 16 FAIR AND EXPO CENTER Statement of Financial Operating Data Through November 30,2015 Year to Date(42%of the FY 2015 year) FY 2016 Actual Actual 1%of Budget Budget 1 Projection j $Variance Operating Revenues Events Revenues $ 528,377 $ 199,720 43.1% $ 463,000 $ 491,512 $ 28,512 Storage 45,794 20,792 41.6% 50,000 54,792 4,792 Camping at F&E 14,505 1,265 6.3% 20,000 21,265 1,265 Horse Stall Rental 37,698 3,445 6.9% 50,000 52,620 2,620 ,, 0.0 vc` 0 0,3 , # i 0, : a1 ...,) .,,,„;. "49•,6%?rat t,303 ",' 3 '^n `_., Concession%-Food 11,411 - N/A Annual County Fair(net) 244,000 200,000 67.8% b) 294,835 285,625 (9,210) Interfund Contract 85,111 21,105 25.0% c) 84,422 21,105 (63,317) TRT- 1%for Marketing 116,670 122,709 32.1% 382,641 354,047 (28,594) Miscellaneous 11,092 3,238 29.7% 10,900 6,238 (4,662) Total Operating Revenues 1,184,232 586,252 41.1% 1,427,101 1,381,039 (46,062) Operating Expenditures: General F&E Activities Personnel Services 909,177 408,232 42.9% 951,266 963,136 (11,870) Materials and Services 655,566 284,761 34.5% 825,027 800,401 24,626 Total Operating Expenditures 1,564,743 692,993 39.0% 1,776,293 1,763,536 12,757 Other: Park Acq/Dev(Fund 130) 29,000 7,500 25.0% 30,000 30,000 - Grants 280 - N/A - Rights&Signage 98,538 12,565 10.9% 115,000 100,665 (14,335) Interest 678 375 125.1% 300 550 250 Total Other 128,496 20,440 14% 145,300 131,215 (14,085) I Results of Operations (252,016) (86,301) (203,892) (251,283) (47,391) Transfers In/Out Transfer In-General Fund 365,000 125,000 41.7% 300,000 300,000 - Transfer In-Room Tax-(Fund 160) 110,770 10,725 41.7% 25,744 25,744 - Trans In(Out)-Fair&Expo Reserve - - 0.0% (62,740) (62,740) - Total Transfers In 475,770 135,725 51.6% 263,004 263,004 - Non-Operating Expenditures Debt Service 112,213 72,281 61.9% 116,709 116,709 - Capital Outlay 52,473 - N/A - - Total Non-Operating Expenditures 164,686 72,281 61.9% 116,709 116,709 - Change in Fund Balance 59,068 (22,857) (57,597) (104,988) (47,391) Beginning Fund Balance (345) 58,723 58.7% 100,000 58,723 (41,277) Ending Fund Balance -$ 58,723 $ 35,866- ,W$ 42,403 $ (46,265) $ (88,668) a) See"Food&Beverage Activities Schedule" b) 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 c) Reimbursement from RV Park for personnel expenditures recorded in F&E Page 17 ��aaaa ...gggg� co w 110NCD CI 04 CO Cl N O �e 1u) N N 4 CT Nco p 1pq QQ pQ 1p0 tp0 ppQ Qp pQ pI z S ' N ' 011 r ED O O O G? M j } a A CO CO O M p tp Cp N 4 pp 0. N r ;^ LL ¢ ca CO CO 0) CD N r r '1� N Ni O C N r O ro N P7 I ce Lg+ CO p p O�9p �p C] 4 0 sr Cl n CO ti v r"- pmm - CD 'C ' 4 ra 04 SOD CO O� 2 Z.-: Cl 0) 0) CO '4) 10 m n O Y � b IA r .- CO `r r r r N m } 44 N W I ' t. F- N CO 0 0 CO r y '47N CO F- O OD O Cl Cl CO Cl r 0) CO CO N co_h C Q 0) N CO ' CO. ' C) CO Cl Cl A Of .0 F- 00 C0 ' r C) 0) {J E CO r r 4, °'r m Xt`ti 100ar r ) CO U7 O CO CO ' ' ' ' rQ OO WC V ; r CO O 2 N 8 "' 4 - L O 04 a O w )n E N a CO 4) C) 4- CD O c0 OF- C- CpO CA off F- i 0 L A) r! 1'- 4 COD Cl CO Cl CO O) ' Om1 47 O C �p�co t0 0! �l] )A Of W r r N 7 Cl C'' w r r E F¢ a t 11 w E°Z 0 w a in St� °g_ v n o > n w ti ri r> 8 a m Cl S a as .-'k!' r r T (p {p N g O m W tO N .0 04 QO ..* Qg- I r r .. Z. `--F 4, a —J_ • C CO CO h 0.-. CO C0) r CO � p N N .-v 'r—' C7 N CO CO CO N IW V i O N 1 U E a o 2 to a m 1 9p 7 IL Cp ij 6 m to c LL 7 L T'�7 0 . 2 m I 0) w CCM m C w $ ' OWO �� 0 �Q+ _ m-e N , fm m 2 Q . IL �iO W V "' m--4Y . la C. a 5 3 e ` c o 7 C h r, 0 C Z W Tt C e cu w � a a@ m 1 g mc` 0cf F ,gas F _ u. a JUSTICE COURT Statement of Financial Operating Data • , July 1,2015 through November 30, 2015 FY 2015 (41.7%of Fiscal Year) FY 2016 Actual Actual %of Budget Budget Projected Variance Revenues Court Fines &Fees 459,548 191,494 43% a) 450,000 450,000 - Interest on Investments 456 211 40% 527 527 - Total Revenues 460,004 191,705 43% 450,527 450,527 - Expenditures Personnel Services 423,791 181,047 42% 436,236 436,236 - Materials and Services 162,205 80,561 46% b) 173,942 173,942 - Total Expenditures 585,996 261,608 43% 610,178 610,178 - Revenues less Expenditures (125,992) (69,903) (159,651) (159,651) - Transfers In-General Fund 74,398 60,730 42% 145,747 145,747 - Change in Fund Balance (51,594) (9,173) (13,904) (13,904) - Beginning Fund Balance 130,317 78,723 131% 60,000 78,723 18,723 End Fund Bal(Contingency) $ 78,723 $ 69,550 $ 46,096 $ 64,819 $ 18,723 a) Monthly revenue recorded in arrears. $40,675 received in December for November activity b) One time software maintenance fee of$24,421 paid in September Page 19 CAPITAL PROJECTS • Campus Improvement • North County Campus Deschutes County Campus Improvement(Fund 463) Inception through November 30, 2015 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) 820,000 - 820,000 Oregon Judicial Dept Payment 20,000 6,619 26,619 Interest Revenue 11,229 - 11,229 Total Resources 1,797,845 6,619 1,804,465 EXPENDITURES: Basement Jail/Boiler Demolition JH1 168,109 - 168,109 Basement Public File View 4B2 141,862 - 141,862 1st Floor Public File View J83 117,980 - 117,980 1st Floor Restrooms/Haslinger Court JIM 401,231 - 401,231 1st Floor DeHoog/Bagley Court/Jury Room JO5 81,702 - 81,702 Accounting Area Open Workspace Aie 40,257 .. 40,257 Courthouse DA Offices T 34,348 - 34,348 Hearing Room Justice Bldg 2/Basement Phases 1/2 4138 669,557 - 669,557 Justice Bldg-Breezeway Connection JB9 320 1 l,Z Y 140,579 "Stone Building" 720 - 720 Internal Service Fund Charges 8,119 - 8,119 Total Materials &Services 1,664,206 140,259 1,804,465 Revenues less Expenditures $ 133,640 $ (133,640) - Notes: A. Remaining proceeds of the OSP portion of the FF&C borrowing for the OSP/911 Building. Com:Mod Projects JRF 12/14/2015 Deschutes County General County Projects(Fund 142) Through November 30, 2015 FY 2016-Year to Date(41.7%of Year) FY 2016 %at Actual Budget Budget I Projection Variance - Revenues Property Taxes, Current $ 676,732 90% $ 750,000 $ 754,718 $ 4,718 Property Taxes, Prior 8,510 43% 20,000 20,000 - Inter-fund Charges OHP-Alcohol/Drug (280) - 0% a) 525,000 525,000 - OHP-Mental Health (270) - o% a) 525,000 525,000 - Road Department(325) - 0% a) 150,000 150,000 - Interest 2,983 27% 11,000 11,000 - Total Revenues 688,225 35% 1,981,000 1,985,718 4,717.54 Expenditures General ADA Projects 2,175 General 69,126 Health Services File Room 154 Total General Projects 71,455 488,590 488,590 - Remodel Projects Courthouse-District Attorney 70,744 100,000 100,000 - Courthouse-sidewalk 14,231 50,000 50,000 - P&P Stairs 36,440 36,440 36,440 - P&P Programs Building 1,035 10,000 10,000 - Road Dept Meeting Room 24,530 250,000 250,000 - South County 215,035 215,035 215,035 - Wall Street Services Building 47,240 834,965 834,965 -, Total Remodel Projects 409,255 1,496,440 1,496,440 - Total Projects 480,710 24% 1,985,030 1,985,030 - Internal Charges-ISF & Insurance 25,390 42% 60,906 60,906 - Tech Improvements 81,593 91% 90,000 90,000 - Total Expenditures 587,693 2,135,936 2,135,936 - Revenues less Expenditures 100,532 (154,936) (150,218) 4,718 Transfers In/(Out) Campus Improvement(463) (120,000) 100% (120,000) (120,000) - Change in Fund Balance (19,468) (274,936) (270,218) 4,718 Beginning Fund Balance 1,373,675 94% 1,460,000 1,373,675 (86,325) Ending Fund Balance $1,354,207 $1,185,064 $1,103,457 $ (81,607) a) Contribution for remodels of Wall Street Services Building, South County and Road Department jrf 12/14/2015 0 Or tocikv-.4 pee , "r,„ Date: December 16, 2015 To: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners From: Judith Ure, Management Analyst Subject: Alternative Legislative Approach The December 21st work session agenda includes a discussion of the proposals received in response to the County's Request for Proposals (RFP) for Legislative Representation and Lobbyist Services. During previous discussions, Board members have considered the alternative of using County staff to coordinate and manage legislative activities without the assistance of a contract lobbyist. If the Board wishes to try this approach, the 2016 session offers an opportunity to do so within an abbreviated timeframe and with a limited number of bills to monitor. At the conclusion of the session, the Board could then evaluate the results and decide how to proceed for the 2017 session as follows: • Continue managing the County's legislative activities with County staff. • Revert to hiring a contract lobbyist. If respondents to the current RFP allow their proposals to remain active, the Board could proceed with the current selection process. • Reissue the RFP if necessary and restart the selection process. Currently an existing Management Analyst spends approximately 10 hours per week during the annual legislative session on tasks that include researching and monitoring the status of bills, compiling department responses and other information, distributing testimony and status reports, and preparing for meetings. Additional costs associated with handling more of the County's legislative activities internally during the 2016 session would likely be minimal, and include: Item Cost Approximately 10 additional hours per week (20 total) of the existing $5,000 Management Analyst's time from approximately January 11 through Wages and Benefits March 11, 2016. Other responsibilities of the Management Analyst would need to be reprioritized, delayed, or assigned to support staff when possible. Between 10 and 20 hours per week of support staff time from $2,000-$4,000 approximately January 11 through March 11, 2016, using a temporary Wages and Fees employee to either assist the Management Analyst or backfill existing staff responsibilities. Bill tracking and monitoring software. Several programs are available with $0-$3,000 different features, including one which closely resembles that used by the License(s) County's previous lobbying firm. Additionally, the Association of Counties makes access to their system available to counties free of charge. Washington and Lane Counties currently use ADC's system. Total Estimated Cost for the 2016 Legislative Session $7,000-$12,000 Activities that could be managed with this level of support in coordination with Department Directors, staff, and professional organizations, Administrative Services, the Board of Commissioners, the Association of Counties (AOC), and the Central Oregon legislative delegation, include: 1. Identify and help prioritize bills potentially of interest to the County, solicit and record information from departments, and track the status of bills throughout the session. 2. Provide status reports to the Board of Commissioners and departments on a weekly basis, or as needed. 3. Monitor bill movements and hearing schedules and notify the Board of Commissioners and departments when a response or testimony is required. 4. Coordinate and facilitate weekly or bi-weekly meetings held remotely between the Board of Commissioners and Deschutes County's local legislative delegation. 5. Arrange meetings and manage logistics for County officials to interact with legislators and legislative staff. 6. Coordinate preparation of position papers, exhibits, testimony, correspondence, and proposed bill text and amendments as needed. 7. Coordinate and share information with the Central Oregon legislative delegation, AOC, and other counties regarding bills of interest and solicit support or opposition when required. 8. Maintain County lobbyist registrations and prepare and submit quarterly lobbying expenditure reports on behalf of the Deschutes County Commissioners, the County Administrator, and other staff as required. 9. During the interim, assist County officials in developing and documenting a legislative strategy for the upcoming session. 10. Support partnerships between Deschutes County and other Central Oregon agencies and groups, including the Central Oregon Cities Organization, Cities of Bend, La Pine, Redmond, and Sisters, local Chambers of Commerce, special districts, and other entities actively pursuing a legislative agenda which may have elements in common with the County. In addition to these activities, Department Directors and Commissioners would potentially need to spend some time on the following, possibly with the assistance of AOC and professional organizations: 1. Act as Deschutes County's representative to the Oregon State Legislature and actively lobby on behalf of the County in coordination with the Board of Commissioners. 2. Work directly with state legislators and staff, the governor's office,public officials and state agencies, special interest and industry groups, local governments, AOC, and other professional organizations to develop support for or opposition to proposed legislation, funding, policy, and regulatory decisions that may affect the County. 3. Review periodic revenue forecasts and the proposed biennial state budget and alert the County to opportunities and obstacles. Identify funding opportunities and assess program requirements and guidelines. 4. Draft proposed legislation to be introduced during the session. 5. Participate in interim work groups and committees. To assist the Board in making a decision to either manage the 2016 session internally or with a contract lobbyist, the December 21St discussion will also include an overview of the respondents to the County's current RFP, the evaluation committee, and the next steps required in the selection process. LIZ FA1VCHE2, ATTORNEY Liz Faucher Sue Stinson,Paralegal BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS C/O PETER GUTOWSKY, PLANNING MANAGER DESCHUTES COUNTY PO BOX 6005 BEND, OR 97708-6005 Re: File Nos. 247-15-000663A and 247-15-000529-A; M-07-02/MA-08-6 Thornburgh Resort Master Plan I am writing, on behalf of Central Land and Cattle Company, LLC and Kameron DeLashmutt to withdraw the following request from the Notice of Appeal it filed of Hearings Officer Dan Olsen's decision in the above-referenced case: "The Board should consider the "Initiation of the CMP" issue addressed on pages 10 and 11 of the hearings officer's decision on the record so that it may explain the relation of the CMP to the FMP in the same way it did in its decision of the CMP initiation of use application filed by Loyal Land— that the purpose of the CMP is to allow the applicant to file the FMP" This leaves the appeal with a request that the Board limit the scope of review of the Central Land/DeLashmutt and Dewey/Gould appeals to the single issue of Whychus Creek mitigation water that was remanded to the County by LUBA. Sincere , Liz Fanche Cc: P. Dewey K.Dej..,ashmutt D. Doyle 644 NW BROADWAY STREET • BEND, OREGON • 97701 PHONE: 341 -385-3067 • FAX: 541-355-3076