The URL can be used to link to this page

2016-302-Minutes for Meeting June 03,2016 Recorded 6/27/2016DESCHUTES NANCY BLANKENSHIP,FCOUNTY CLERKS CJ 2416'302 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 06/27/2016 02:04:39 PM 101-1111111111111111111111 For Recording Stamp Only Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.ora MINUTES OF BUDGET MEETING — BUDGET WRAP-UP, FRIDAY, JUNE 3, 2016 Allen Room, Deschutes Services Building Present were Commissioners Anthony DeBone, Alan Unger and Tammy Baney. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Mike Maier, Jimm Burton and Bruce Barrett, citizen members of the Budget Committee; Wayne Lowry and Loni Burk, Finance; and, for a portion of the meeting, representatives of 4-H Extension; Jane Smilie and Hillary Saraceno, Health Services, and Timm Schimke, Solid Waste. No representatives of the media were in attendance. Meeting minutes were taken by Bonnie Baker. Chair Bruce Barrett opened the meeting at 9:00 a.m. Wayne Lowry referred to a list of all items that he believes the Committee wanted to discuss further today. At the end of the meeting, there will need to be action taken to adopt budgets. There will be some adjustments made from the original budget document, but none of them is significant. Tom Anderson brought up the room tax discussion, how the dollars flow and the plan for next year. Minutes of Budget Meeting Friday, June 3, 2016 Page 1 of 24 Mr. Lowry spoke about the transient lodging tax funding issues. The Sunriver Chamber of Commerce is not on the list. The flow chart (a copy of which is attached) is based on estimated room tax revenue. There are some beginning fund balances not shown on the schedule. Transient room tax goes back to 1975, and has been growing since then through two increases. This was before the 70/30 split legislation. The only split that affects the County is the recent one from two years ago, with some of it directed to the Fair & Expo. Mr. Anderson said the first 7% is prior to the 70/30 split, and it could be challenged by the lodging association. Mr. Maier stated that the ballot measure language was not that specific. Mr. Lowry noted that legislation in 2003 reached back and said the revenue could not be decreased to these groups. The total expected is $6.2 million, about 7% higher than this year. It is going up by about this much each year. Rates are higher and businesses are growing, and it was established as a percentage of gross revenue. Of the first 6%, 20% goes to COVA and 80% to the Sheriff's Office. A small piece goes to the Fair & Expo Center, which is flexible funding and can be used for operations. The Sunriver Chamber comes out of the 20%, with the balance to COVA. Mr. Anderson stated that he thought it was originally granted to set up and run a small visitors' center. Mr. Lowry stated that the 20% column is spelled out in the County's agreement with COVA. It also talks about the next 1%. The agreement does not mention administrative expenses, so the County takes this out of the County's 80%. The Sheriff s amount was pegged as the amount it costs to run the adult jail. However, this is in the rural district so instead it supports patrol and investigation. The jail is funded by the countywide levy. Mr. Maier said that the jail is the only function that is mandated. It was set at $2,650,000, and for years, the general fund had to supplement to get to that amount. Last year there was a conversation of this amount growing past that original amount, and whether the higher amount is the expected to be the new floor. The Sheriff has asked for $3,151,000 and it seems to him to be considered the new cap. Anything beyond that would go into a reserve. This amount could eventually be nearly $500,000. Mr. Maier said that instead of letting this fund grow and have people wanting to use it, he would like to see it go into dedicated reserves for specific purposes. Mr. Lowry said that at some point maybe the earnings will not be that high. Minutes of Budget Meeting Friday, June 3, 2016 Page 2 of 24 Mr. Anderson asked if the rural district is collected in the Sunriver Service District. Mr. Lowry stated that the Sunriver Service District does not pay into the countywide law enforcement district; nor does Black Butte Ranch. They have their own police services. They do pay into the rural law enforcement district that funds the jail. Mr. Kropp said that patrol services are contracted in the cities of La Pine and Sisters, although this is in writing only for Sisters. Chair Unger does not want to limit the uses of the reserves. There are large capital projects to come in the future. However, some groups feel that they should get part of this money to maintain public areas such as trails. A lot of the money is going towards tourist marketing, and these efforts result in more issues. Mr. Kropp said these are unrestricted funds, and the Board has to decide the priorities. Chair Unger is not ready to share it at this level. The legislature needs to do more. The formula needs to change so there is a cap on marketing to free up funds to address the problems caused by increased tourism. Mr. Lowry said the 70/30 statute put much of this in stone, and some of it cannot be touched, including the amount that goes to COVA. Mr. Maier noted that the reserves are controlled by the Board. There used to be a piece of the COVA funds that went to the Fair & Expo. Mr. Anderson said Commissioner Baney has indicted it was earmarked for public safety, but he does not think this was specifically decided. It could be whatever priority the Board has, per statute. It happens that public safety is one of the Board's priorities at this time. The Fair & Expo only gets their piece of the 1% if they show they are using it for marketing purposes. It has to have a connection to tourism or related events. Mr. Maier said that there could be some significant costs attached to the facilities in the future. Mr. Lowry said that adding something, like air conditioning where it is needed, might be justified; but it cannot be used for maintenance or replacement of existing equipment. Mr. Maier stated that it might be used towards a new sports complex. Mr. Lowry said the 30% is being used for the forgivable loan program, but is an undesignated resource in the general fund that can be used for other things. About $250,000 from the general funds still goes to the Fair & Expo at this point. Mr. Anderson asked if the Committee would like to dedicate the reserves to capital projects. There are also requests that need to be addressed, asking for part of this room tax money. Minutes of Budget Meeting Friday, June 3, 2016 Page 3 of 24 The Sunriver Service District has asked for support, which was limited to a one- time infusion of funds for their training facilities. It could be for either this or operations on an ongoing level to support law enforcement. They requested $148,500 for operations and $300,000 for the facility. Mr. Barrett said that it appears they want an ongoing amount for operations. Mr. Maier supports the one- time funding; however, once the County supports operations, they will never break free. Black Butte Ranch will also want the same. They should have to take care of their own operational costs. Mr. Lowry stated that they still have room in their levy as well. Commissioner Baney joined the meeting at this time. Commissioner Baney stated that instead of allocating a certain amount, perhaps they could get a match for the capital expense. That keeps it holistic so there is clarity as to its purpose. Mr. Maier said that the County could then get a request from Black Butte Ranch for capital funds, or even Eagle Crest. Commissioner DeBone said he supports funding the training facility amount only, and making sure this is clear. Chair Unger is supportive of one time funding like this, but he wants to know if the training facility extends to include La Pine. Mr. Maier stated that he feels they are working together. Commissioner DeBone noted that the facility would be outside of the La Pine district and he is not sure that works for them. However, the Sunriver District has gone through years of trying to find a location and they will not want to have to tackle that issue again. They are also getting the land at no cost from the resort. Mr. Maier asked what $300,000 would buy them. Mr. Anderson said that the funding can be appropriated and then he can get full information on the entire project. Mr. Burton feels that it might also be for their headquarters. Mr. Lowry referred to page 251, and said that Fund 160 shows an amount in the proposed budget as contingency. This would take a budget adjustment. It is teed up if the Board wants to allocate it elsewhere. Mr. Maier thinks it should be limited to $200,000 this year and to a training facility only, and to bring back a formalized plan when it is ready. Mr. Maier wants to be sure the District has some funding set aside for it as well. They can always request additional funding next year if merited. The Board was supportive of the appropriation of $200,000 from the reserves. Mr. Anderson stated that the only other specific ask was from the Sunriver Chamber of Commerce. They still get $30,000. Mr. Maier asked what percentage increase COVA was getting this year. He supports the Chamber getting that same percentage increase of 7% or 8%, which will mean a little less to COVA. The Board was supportive of this. Minutes of Budget Meeting Friday, June 3, 2016 Page 4 of 24 Commissioner DeBone stated that he would communicate with the group to make it clear how the County feels about the overall issue. Chair Unger feels that there should be some kind of Chamber of Commerce in that area and the funding should be to support local businesses. Commissioner Baney asked how that is tied to room tax. Chair Unger said that is how all of the Chambers are funded except for business dues. Commissioner DeBone is not very supportive of the Sunriver Chamber since they do not acknowledge local businesses that well. Commissioner Baney would like them to get together with COVA and the resort to work something out. Mr. Barrett noted there seems to be a lot of dissention in the groups and the idea was to fund the basics. He is not sure whom or what the Chamber is trying to represent. Mr. Kropp said they intend to represent the greater Sunriver area. Commissioner Baney asked how they could bring some continuity. Mr. Maier thought that maybe EDCO could help. Commissioner DeBone said that EDCO deals with traded sector businesses and a lot more, but perhaps can consult and help the Chamber align their own business needs. Mr. Burton stated that they claim to represent all of the area but he is not sure others feel that way. Mr. Maier said that they probably should not be doing specific tourism work but focus on helping local businesses. Commissioner DeBone thinks they need to get their message clear. Mr. Barrett sees a lot of passion and they were successful with their magazine, but it is their only profit center. Commissioner Baney wants to see COVA highlight more than Bend and Redmond. (She referred to the cover of their latest publication) She wants to figure out how to clarify the various roles. She would like to set aside $10,000 for the Sunriver Chamber and have someone meet with them to guide them on how to go forward. Mr. Maier said that a representative of the statewide Chamber group or someone in this area with experience might be willing to help them. This can come out of general fund. This issue needs a lot of work to bring some continuity and agreement to Sunriver. The increase in revenue is small and should remain in place as well. Candi Bothum and others from Extension/4-H came before the group. Mr. Maier said that regarding a potential loan to Extension/4-H for $700,000, the number one priority is paying back the loan. He does not want the County to lose money, but they could set it at 1% interest and review it every few years. Mr. Lowry said that they usually charge about what they would have earned elsewhere, which is usually minimal. The money would have to come out of a capital reserve fund. Minutes of Budget Meeting Friday, June 3, 2016 Page 5 of 24 Mr. Maier asked if this is the right amount. Ms. Bothum replied that this needs to be based on their budget; and when they go out to bid, if the cost is more than they can handle, they will have to scale back the project. Mr. Kropp said there are two ways to do it: stick to the amount, or wait for bids and review it then. Ms. Bothum said they hope to get actual numbers soon. Mr. Barrett noted that they seem to have a good plan in place for handling the debt service over fifteen years. Commissioner DeBone wants the agreement to be between 4-H and the County, and to be very clear. Mr. Lowry would like to prove out the sustainability side and make sure the building costs are in line. This should go to the Board for approval at some point. He will talk to a commercial banker as well to see if there are other options. They may not be able to borrow funds like the County can. They will work with Mr. Kropp on the details. Hillary Saraceno and Jane Smilie came before the group. Commissioner Baney noted that the County has contributed to nonprofits before, but some have become a line item over time. This included the Commission on Children & Families and Alternatives to Incarceration, which the community wanted funded. There has been no real conversation since then regarding how this is being done. There is also the early learning side and questions about whether things should be handled differently. Ms. Saraceno said that regarding Alternatives of Incarceration, in 2006 the Sheriff needed to expand the jail, and also wanted to look at ways to stem the tide of more offenders. There was a significant decrease in funding to the CCF and to Juvenile. This changed the ability to invest in programs for children. Through the Public Safety Coordinating Council, they formed Alternatives to Incarceration. This resulted in some funding policy recommendations from this high-level group. The number one priority was evidence -based programs being sustained. Children can be identified as having issues early on through child -teacher -parent intervention. This was tracked for years and it has been shown to make a big difference. Other successful programs were developed to deal with children of incarcerated parents and a home visit program when someone is in the Parole & Probation system. Then there became other priorities. The Early Learning Hub receives funding along with Juvenile, Parole & Probation and Behavioral Health. Juvenile is the only one that details where the money is going. Most departments just invoice the general fund. This covers functional family therapy, Parole & Probation and the behavioral health bridges program. Each tracks its own work. Minutes of Budget Meeting Friday, June 3, 2016 Page 6 of 24 It just happens to be easier to see the funds within her department because their budget is so small, but it is one of the most cost-effective programs they will find. They did regular updates when this was accomplished through the CCF and Judge Sullivan was involved. Jane Smilie said they could revisit how all of this is being done. There is the early learning hub piece, and a $122,000 pass-through federal grant from the Office of Prevention of Violence to Women that goes to the providers, mostly Saving Grace and Mary's Place. Commissioner DeBone stated that nonprofits come in to ask for discretionary funds as well. Commissioner Baney added that the idea is to reconcile if these groups are also funded in other ways. It is not so much that this funding level would change, but it helps to show the County's overall support. Ms. Saraceno said that the original Alternatives to Incarceration funds went to Behavioral Health and Juvenile Justice. The others were rolled into grants that went to all kinds of service partners. Some of this was general fund and some was from grants, so it got complicated. However, the total amount has not increased. Mr. Maier noted that these are unique programs that show results. The Juvenile jail is at one-third capacity, so this investment could be saving $2 million a year. The early intervention piece is a resounding success, as proven by what is happening with the Juvenile jail. Ms. Saraceno stated that their number one policy investment is addressing high risk and low-income kids with programs like this. Multnomah County has found the same result, but Deschutes County monitors it. Commissioner Baney asked about the line item to Alternatives to Incarceration. All of this work has gone away from that program. She wants to highlight what exists and is being done without making it vulnerable. They need to show where the funds come from and where they go. Commissioner DeBone said that it seems to work. The District Attorney also wants to do Deschutes Safe, part of a bigger picture. They need to celebrate when there are successes, and maybe some of these dollars should even go up. Mr. Maier stated that stopping funding of these critical programs now might mean difficulties in ten years. Commissioner Baney added that they need to show that they did not let go of it. Mr. Maier noted that this might not be the whole reason why the Juvenile jail population is down, but he feels it is a big part of it. It means saving money and greater public safety. Minutes of Budget Meeting Friday, June 3, 2016 Page 7 of 24 Ms. Saraceno said that the ELD is in Deschutes County, a 1.02 FTE that is also funded by grants. Ms. Smilie asked how to show this in the budget. Mr. Lowry stated that it was appropriated and transferred already. It could mean moving some pieces around. Ms. Saraceno said that some of it fits naturally in the Hub, which is regional. Ms. Smilie indicated they want to be involved in Early Learning efforts. She wants to see this integrated into public health, maternal and child health, and behavioral health. It helps people to be able to get to this. Commissioner Baney said that this is a policy discussion from the EL Hub to the Division. They had a transition in the CCF until the State got things up and running. They need to know the next piece for the Division. Ms. Saraceno replied that they do not have this now, as it was absorbed into Public Health. The EL Division will no longer exist except in Health. Chair Unger said this was not in the lottery discussion but needs to be tied to other programs. They not only need to know the plan, but it also needs to be noted better. Mr. Lowry stated that it is integrated now, but can be highlighted. Commissioner Baney said that they are missing the ability to show the results of the investment. People might get lost trying to find it. Commissioner DeBone stated that he envisions a presentation to PSCC, to allow for some clarity. Mr. Maier added that it could be shown in the goals or the budget message. Ms. Saraceno said that at one time, they had seven FTE but now they are down to 1.02. That makes it hard to be a part of the regional hub's work. Commissioner Baney asked who is overseeing the rest of the grants. Ms. Saraceno replied that one employee handles grant management for this, WEBCO and others. They only get two grants to cover staffing. Commissioner DeBone stated that he feels PSCC should be staffed. The D.A. also wants more staff to move forward. Mr. Barrett said that Ms. Saraceno has always championed this, and migrated with the programs, and they are calling it the same thing. It appears the program is continuing but needs to be a part of the bigger issue of addressing the problems. Minutes of Budget Meeting Friday, June 3, 2016 Page 8 of 24 Ms. Smilie stated that they did not highlight this in the Health presentation. Ms. Saraceno's role is not just early learning; she is now a deputy public health officer as well. When they took the leap to a regional approach, Ms. Saraceno worked on bringing the region together through WEBCO. Ms. Smilie further explained that she felt it was important to have Ms. Saraceno as a public health officer, so she now has a much broader role. Mr. Anderson said that in hindsight, they probably should have changed the name from early learning, as that is a shadow of what it once was. What they do now is much broader. Ms. Smilie stated that the next time around, they should talk about whether some of the funding is in the right place. They should point out where they are headed, and maybe change the name. Commissioner Baney said that they might have invested more through grants if it all had been clear. The funding needs to be highlighted, along with the benefits. There needs to be clarity on the investment, especially when considering this from a regional perspective. Mr. Anderson stated that the community grant exercise will need more context on the full amount that is being provided to a particular group. Ms. Saraceno noted that there is no duplication in these programs. Chair Unger said he wants to lock it into Public Health, since there may be too much risk if it is in community grants. Perhaps it can be enhanced this way. Ms. Saraceno explained that there has been no increase in funding over ten years. Last year, the program was cut back $70,000. There is no way for the Hub to subsidize it. This negatively affects the community. It has all ended up being competitive at the State level, and this is not good. Mr. Burton stated that this sounds like a good program that needs more marketing and exposure. Ten years down the road there will be results to see. These should be added to the community investment grants. They should know how the funds are being used and the outcomes. It could be a small investment with a great outcome. Mr. Lowry noted that there have been no structural changes to this budget; just more highlighting of these efforts. Minutes of Budget Meeting Friday, June 3, 2016 Page 9 of 24 Timm Schimke referred to handouts, and explained that on a growth projections basis, he has been ultra conservative. They are not compensating for prior years, and do not want to end up dealing with less income than expected. They have a 1995 consulting engineer baseline, but much has changed since then. This was based on tonnage, but much of it now goes into recycling. The first time everything came across the scale was in 1997 when the demo landfill closed. Mr. Maier asked why they continue to use these numbers. He recognizes that there might be a fairly good way to predict out four or five years, but not much longer than that. They proposed a few years of growth and then it tapered off. They used 9% for this year. Mr. Lowry said that it appears the consultant went out to 2030 on the projections column. Mr. Schimke replied that they did. He wanted to show positives at the time that they needed to do cell construction. There is still the bigger picture of closure, and funds are inadequate for that. They added a $5 tipping fee increase, and line 12 shows them healthy with this. They would have healthy enough reserves to cover debt service. The Negus transfer station needs to be renovated or rebuilt in 2020-21 master plan, at a cost of about $7 million. Chair Unger noted that it is probably too expensive to be open on Sundays now, but it might make sense later. Mr. Schimke said that if there is a tipping increase, they have to give prior notice to the cities. Redmond would like the transfer station rebuilt to benefit the community. Mr. Unger stated that this should include it being open on Sundays. Mr. Barrett said there are no changes on the first page. The second page shows the $5 increase, but this would not adequately fund beyond Knott landfill. Ms. Schimke stated that this does not account for what they need to do after Knott has to close. They will need to build infrastructure for whatever it might be. This has not been included at all, and this is a huge burden. The first one identified is the $7 million for Negus. Eventually they will need much more. A new landfill will cost $20 million or more. Mr. Lowry stated that the only difference on the third sheet is Negus being bonded, rather than spending reserves. Mr. Schimke added that they are at capacity or beyond, and cannot wait for years to get more money in the bank. He does not advocate bonding for cells that last about five years, but the transfer station would last for fifty years. Mr. Lowry said that in an enterprise situation, bonding is best. Minutes of Budget Meeting Friday, June 3, 2016 Page 10 of 24 Mr. Barrett asked about taking back the annual Road Department transfer of funds. Mr. Schimke replied that they are transferring $326,000 this year. Even keeping this is no substitute for a rate increase. Mr. Barrett said this would contribute to the long-term obligations. There have been few viable opportunities for Road before, at the time, the transfer started, and they justified this by saying there was a big cost of having these trucks on the roads. It seems like in the future that there is a possibility that Road will be better funded, and Solid Waste needs will be more critical. They need to consider this. Commissioner Baney indicated that the trucks are already paying weight miles. They need to get clear on this. At the time, they picked a number out of the sky to address the needs. It is not meant to offset road traffic. They need to mine this further to see what the true impact might be. She asked if the transfer to Road should be an ongoing contribution. Mr. Maier said that the Road Department is in good shape and seems to be able to stay there. He does not want to adjust this until there is a substitute for these funds. The program is going well and the public does not care. Mr. Schimke can manage this for now. Mr. Barrett does not think that eliminating the transfer would jeopardize Road. They chip seal and repave on a schedule and this is secure. They schedule other things if they have the funds. Mr. Maier said that taking $300,000 out means no new equipment operators. Mr. Anderson added that costs continue to climb. They will not be able to keep pace without a major boost at the State level. They always want to have some capacity. Mr. Barrett pointed out that Solid Waste is the bigger burden ahead. They might have to bond to make this viable. He asked if they can bond road work. The funds are already coming into Solid Waste. Commissioner Baney stated that there are not many options in the toolbox for Road. They are not indexed and are limited in other ways. When there is an increase in State tax or other funding, they can use that as a bookmark so that when additional ongoing funding occurs, this is when the County might address the transfer. Mr. Anderson agreed. They have two operations with a basic level of operations. They can control the revenue with one but not the other. Minutes of Budget Meeting Friday, June 3, 2016 Page 11 of 24 Chair Unger said he likes collecting it where it goes and does not like taking landfill funds and using it elsewhere. They should take this back before increasing fees. However, this money is also more flexible. Mr. Schimke said they did reduce it by half. They are looking at potential needs, and removing the transfer will not solve any immediate problems. It would if it was $1 million. However, $300,000 a year, although welcome, will not solve the long-term issues. Mr. Barrett replied that they have a $7 million hole, so this $300,000 per year might be significant over time. Mr. Maier said that maybe they can consider a long-term gradual decrease. Mr. Lowry referred to the first page of the document showing the transfer to Road. They will have $500,000 debt service on Negus in 2019-20. They could start leaving it in Solid Waste to help with Negus. It might mean delaying a tipping fee increase. The cash flow would almost work. Mr. Schimke stated that he does not see this amount eliminating significant problems. He would prefer to see the transfer at a flat level rather than tying it to tonnage, at least until Road funding stabilizes or something else comes in. Commissioner Baney said that the next legislative session will provide more clarity on transportation. She asked if this can be bookmarked for next year. Mr. Anderson replied that they would need to do a tipping increase within six to twelve months. Commissioner Baney and Unger said that they are supportive of this, and it needs to happen. Commissioner DeBone stated that he wants to maintain the Road assets. He approves of the tipping fee increase, and asked if it would be effective the first of next year. Mr. Schimke replied that this can be done. The franchise collectors and cities have to work on it. They will want to incorporate an expansion of services of some kind to the community to help sell it. Mr. Lowry asked if they would need to provide official notice right away. Mr. Schimke said that Redmond requires six months' notice. Chair Unger noted that Redmond requires garbage pickup and the residents have no choice. Commissioner DeBone asked about offsetting three months so it would be just before summer next year. Mr. Anderson said that perhaps they could update the franchise agreements at the same time. Mr. Maier noted that there have never been opportunities for others to bid, and has never been a review process. Mr. Schimke stated that the City of Bend thinks about it every few years, but nothing ever changes. He is not sure how to approach this. Minutes of Budget Meeting Friday, June 3, 2016 Page 12 of 24 Commissioner DeBone said that the media has asked, why not. Chair Unger stated that they have a good relationship with the haulers and get good service. Commissioner Baney reminded everyone that they just had the `don't come into our territory' discussion, so maybe it is time to review this. It has been at least thirty years. Mr. Schimke said that they could perhaps get a ballpark idea of the level of interest. Mr. Maier noted that the public seems to be okay with the way it is. He is not sure what criteria they would use. He asked what could happen if a big company comes in and gives a low -ball bid. They may not want to go down that road. Mr. Schimke stated that the franchise system seems to be effective in controlling the flow. They do not want single contracts that might be a struggle each time, like with Waste Management. Currently the collectors invest in equipment as they need to. All the bids would have to include new equipment to depreciate it out so they can reach a level playing field. This would affect the bid amounts. Mr. Kropp said that Phoenix is in the collection business, with some outside collectors. He thinks this area is too small for that. Also, this is the County and the cities would have to go along with it. Chair Unger stated that he is hearing a policy concept on how to manage solid waste, in case someone wants it justified. It is a controlled system and there are other ways that it is beneficial. Mr. Maier said they could identify trigger points that may lead them to look further out, such as pricing, complaints, less intake, and so on. If the goals are maintained at a certain level, it can stay in place as it is. It is appropriate to do this with the cities and the vendors. Mr. Kropp asked if Mr. Schimke ever hears complaints. Mr. Schimke replied that these seldom happen, except in Sunriver. Sunriver does not want to recognize that their citizens generate garbage, and will not let them put containers at the curb. The collector has to get it out of enclosures, regardless of the weather. The transient population is a nightmare for them because it is hard to tell if something needs to be picked up. There are a lot of absentee homeowners and not exactly single-family dwelling use. That is where the calls come from, when the collector cannot get to the containers or if there is a lot of garbage based on the property use at the time. If it was just the County areas and not the cities, there would be no bidders. Most of the collectors' income is from the urban areas. The much more efficient areas subsidize the rural areas. Minutes of Budget Meeting Friday, June 3, 2016 Page 13 of 24 Mr. Burton stated that they need a position statement so everyone knows the rules. It has not been changed in thirty years, but the reasons why are obvious. Mr. Maier suggested they get the franchise haulers involved so there is clarity. Mr. Schimke said he can ask them to help the County defend the current process. Mr. Lowry said that the system works well as a public service that is privatized. They remain profitable and the work gets done. This is different than going out for the lowest bid. They need to have assurances of flow and customer service. Mr. Schimke stated that there is a potential issue in La Pine. They have some fairly well defined areas, and enough of all kinds of housing. La Pine struggles with this as there is not that large of an efficient base to offset the rural areas. The vendor is barely making money and might decide to drop out. Cascade might take this over someday. Some will avoid the geographical restrictions to get away from this. Wilderness is stuck in their defined area and it is hard for them. Almost all of the providers have some business outside of the County franchise area. What they collect usually goes to the Crescent/Gilchrist landfill in Klamath County. Chair Unger said that the Forest Collaborative is handling forest restoration, but cohesive strategy has come a long way, with Joe Stutler as vice chair. The strategy is to take federal funding to help with fire safety and improving defensible space. There is no established money to do this and sometimes local funding is needed to keep things going. There are five counties involved and they need to work together. Joe Stutler is looking for sources of funding to solve multiple problems. Everyone sees the transient room tax as a source. There is an impact on federal, state and local budgets from visitors who are recreating on the public lands. The room tax keeps going up and they would like a share of it, to help address problems created by the increased use. Mr. Maier asked how much they are looking for, and what they are doing now to address the problems. He asked if they expect Deschutes County to provide funding for all five counties. He suggested that the five counties get together and see if they will support this financially somehow. They are all getting PILTA money. If there is any kind of agreement, all five need to be a part of it. Chair Unger stated that Mr. Stutler is asking around already. These problems are being created because the County and others are encouraging growth and tourism, which puts pressure on everything. Mr. Maier stated that they get fees for access, trails and camping. Chair Unger stated that it is not enough to manage the local problem. They do good work and it needs to continue. Minutes of Budget Meeting Friday, June 3, 2016 Page 14 of 24 Commissioner DeBone asked what forest management will look like in ten or twenty years. Chair Unger replied that they are focusing on ten years for fuels reduction and management, which needs to go on forever. Commissioner DeBone said that if they need funds to invest to fight off environmentalists, they are stuck. Chair Unger stated that they are in a different mindset now. The challenge now is that the public is loving the forests to death. Commissioner Baney said she is not sure how this coincides with cohesive strategy. Chair Unger replied that they need to be in front of these managers so they can keep the process going. Mr. Maier asked if the steering committee has met and whether they have recommendations. Chair Unger replied that they are trying to bring the elected officials together along with the BLM and USFS to put together projects to go forward. They have been successful in getting a couple of grants. The question is how to sustain the work. Someone needs to be there to own and manage the process. Mr. Barrett stated that it is a position kind of like the Forester for this alone. Chair Unger said the Budget Committee needs to recommend or advocate. They need to bring this up to a level of support. Mr. Barrett noted that it seems similar to WEBCO, with the region under one banner, with a leader. Commissioner Baney said they are funding the collaborative through Joe Stutler. A lot of this is benefiting the other counties, like projects with FEMA. She is sensitive to this. They are mandated to have WEBCO. She attended a conference on cohesive strategies in Jackson, Wyoming, and she did not see this goal discussed there. It seems like they would be adding another level of bureaucracy to convene people. The elected officials should bring people together for this kind of thing, and then convene the community. They already pay Mr. Stutler as a senior advisor. She feels a disconnect as to where this is going. Katie Lighthall and Alison Green are being paid as well. She does not see how this will come together. The counties should handle the convening. Chair Unger said they have been doing some of this, but there are only two part- time staff to work on it. Mr. Stutler wants to find funding to continue what is already happening. Mr. Maier stated that he would like to see the five Chairs of the counties meet and come up with an idea of how much funding is needed, what it is for, and how it would be shared. He does not think they are even close to this yet. Minutes of Budget Meeting Friday, June 3, 2016 Page 15 of 24 Commissioner Baney said that the cohesive strategy is to include the state, cities and agencies. She does not want Deschutes County ending up owning it. Mr. Maier echoed that he does not want this to be just Deschutes County's responsibility. Commissioner Baney added that she likes the idea, but is not sure how to get there. Chair Unger said they need capacity to move forward. Mr. Stutler, along with Ms. Green and Ms. Lighthall, has gotten it to where it is now. Mr. Maier stated that he told Mr. Stutler that if the other players are not going to get involved and contribute, it will not go anywhere. It has been successful thus far, but on the back of Deschutes County. Commissioner Baney said that it is okay to get things going, but they will end up owning it as long as others let them. Mr. Burton stated they do need this, but do not want to kill the goose by ending up with all of it and being unable to push it forward. Others need to contribute. Chair Unger stated that the benefit is mostly seen now in Klamath and Crook counties. Others are not in the game yet. They are supportive but need next steps. Crook gets some FEMA money. Much of the funding is for the La Pine and Klamath basins. None of these agencies have anyone like Mr. Stutler. Mr. Anderson stated that Mr. Stutler is working about twenty hours a week, probably not long-term. They are asking for $150,000 for a coordinator, travel expenses and so on. This would not be to cover costs associated with Mr. Stutler. Commissioner Baney asked how Ms. Lighthall is being paid. Chair Unger replied that she is paid through federal funds, but he does not know for how long. Mr. Barrett noted that there might be skills here that are valuable, if others will help pay for it. Chair Unger asked for a placeholder for funds to get this moving forward or to figure it out later. Mr. Lowry said there is $700,000 in contingency, already appropriated. Something could come out of that. Mr. Anderson said they have resources for people like Mr. Stutler to scope this out further. There has been only one mass meeting of the group. It would be good for them to get together again. Mr. Maier stated that he supports the concept, but does not want Deschutes County to end up subsidizing other counties. If they want to be players, they need to step up. Otherwise, the focus should be only on Deschutes County. Chair Unger said that the work is on the ground, but Mr. Stutler is creating the backbone to help with all of it. Minutes of Budget Meeting Friday, June 3, 2016 Page 16 of 24 Chair Unger asked to speak about Sunriver Airport. He said that Connect Oregon has lottery -backed bonds of $46 million this year. Typically those projects promoted by counties are airports, freight, railroads or trails. Airports can put up 10% of the funds needed and get 90% from the federal government. Private airports like Sisters or Sunriver cannot apply. Sunriver has asked for $2 million to improve ramps, the runway and the terminal. They are last on the list because the other projects are felt to be more beneficial to the public. This is a need that has no funding sources. They need to have the airport in better condition, as this helps with corporate planes and tourism. This is going to be a problem, and the County needs to help in some way. He feels this might be appropriate for room tax funds since Sunriver provides a lot of the room tax. There could be bonding to cover it. He does not want general fund to go to this. Mr. Maier said this is owned by the resort, not the public. The private users should take care of it. Chair Unger stated that like Sisters, they allow the public to use it. Mr. Maier asked if they could sell it and generate some FAA money. Chair Unger stated that it is municipally owned. Mr. Anderson stated that they would have to incorporate into a city, but then the lodging tax would not go to the County. Mr. Maier said that they could form a port authority and go after funding. The County should not be subsidizing private industry. The pilots can pay an additional landing fee. Mr. Anderson stated that this is not an ask, but an update. Regarding a potential sports complex, a feasibility consultant has been hired to determine what the community wants. They will scope it out and apply costs to build and run it, compute what would be offset by revenue, and come up with ideas on how to pay for it. One of those possibilities might be incurred debt, with room tax to back it. It is an unknown at this point. Tourist agencies and the City of Redmond are involved, but it would be located on County land. There might be other options on how to pay for it. They might keep this in mind when looking at limited funds. The County is sharing the cost of the consultant with three other agencies. Commissioner Baney asked if this would be from room tax from both the County and cities. Mr. Anderson stated that Visit Bend is part of the discussion, but the City of Bend is not. Mr. Barrett stated that the City of Bend has regionally classed facilities, and Redmond does as well. He is not excited about getting into a big project like this. Commissioner Baney stated that there is a two -phased approach. The first is due diligence, and the second is refinement. They can drop out at that point. Minutes of Budget Meeting Friday, June 3, 2016 Page 17 of 24 Mr. Anderson stated that it is actually three phases. The first is done. The City of Redmond hired someone who brought back examples of this type of facility around the country. The closest is in Medford. It includes ball fields and other uses. It cost $32 million and they had corporate sponsorships. Phase 2 is the SFA. The consultant, who does this kind of feasibility all over the world, will meet with stakeholders and determine the level of interest, build a vision, and put a sticker price to it. At that time, the County and others can decide whether to go forward. Phase 3 would be to consider renderings of the uses and more detailed cost estimates, along with a financing strategy. An estimate is $45 million, split four ways. Mr. Maier asked if there is any point in finding out what the public thinks at this point. Mr. Anderson stated that the public will be able to use it, but the primary target is outside groups. This market is very lucrative. Mr. Maier noted that some people might think that there are enough amenities here and do not want any more visitors. Mr. Anderson stated that there will never be enough fields. The ones here are always in use. The idea is that the fields would be available for the locals to rent during the week, and on weekends the out of town tournaments would use them. That is why the tourism groups and hotels are so interested. Commissioned Baney said that there is potential in Redmond for hotel development, and this is their tipping point. Chair Unger added that hotels near the Fair & Expo and the airport might mean a conference center. This has lots of potential. Mr. Barrett stated that this might happen anyway with what the Fair & Expo is doing now. He would like to see l9th Street go through from Bend to Redmond. Mr. Maier said he is okay with exploring this. Chair Unger stated that everyone needs to be involved in the expense. It should pay for itself through revenue bonds. Mr. Burton asked what the public thinks about this. Mr. Anderson stated that if it is a revenue bond, it is not subject to a vote. Mr. Lowry went over some of the other budget issues at this time. Minutes of Budget Meeting Friday, June 3, 2016 Page 18 of 24 The Sheriff's Office will receive $3.145 million for the next ten years, subject to an annual review and approval. They are going to recapitalize the business loan fund. The Board is supportive of loaning up to $200,000 for an Extension/4-H building. There will be $10,000 allocated for the Sunriver Chamber for special consulting. $200,000 will be provided for the Sunriver Fire District towards a new training facility. There will be a separate reserve fund for room tax; it will go into capital reserves and will be appropriated as a contingency. The video lottery fund will increase to $823,000, with more for beginning fund balance. The Administration minutes project with the Clerk is approved. There will be an increase in the transfer to Fair & Expo reserves. They will reduce the amount to operations by $250,000. This will help get them closer to self- sufficiency. Mr. Maier asked if the Fair & Expo would be involved with the potential sports center. Mr. Anderson said it is unknown whether remodels or expansions will be needed, but they will require funding for maintenance and replacement of equipment. Mr. Anderson added that the visioning process is limited concerning the Fair & Expo. First they need to get consensus on how to go forward, changes in the market, and what would this entail for capital improvements. Separately, a facilities needs study for all county facilities is looking at what it might cost to replace or improve facilities down the road. This will not be cheap but it is needed to keep things in good shape. This would include the courthouse expansion. Mr. Maier said they might have to buy property to do that part. Minutes of Budget Meeting Friday, June 3, 2016 Page 19 of 24 Mr. Barrett said he talked with Mr. Despotopulos about reserve funds, but they do not have enough to do much. Mr. Anderson stated that they need to figure this out, as they do not want to decrease general fund support of the Fair & Expo without filling in the amount needed somehow. Mr. Lowry said that $55,000 is going into reserves from the general fund, and this will balance the Fair fund. Commissioner Baney asked when they might be self- sustaining. Mr. Anderson replied that they need to increase their market share to increase revenue. There was discussion on how to fit general fund into this. Commissioner Baney said they need to think about the needs of the facility and the business money to support it. They need a long-range plan. Chair Unger wants more to go into reserves. Mr. Lowry stated that they put funds directly into the Fair reserves. This is not related to room tax dollars. This $200,000 could be used for major maintenance. $250,000 is the general fund support. This is their normal budget. If any of this was taken away, the fund would not balance. Mr. Barrett said they need the amount for operations but would add some for reserves. Mr. Lowry stated that last year the Board used this money for the business loan fund. Commissioner Baney said that they need to use the whole 1% for the Fair, and backfill to $250,000. Mr. Anderson stated that they never said the whole 1% would go to the Fair. If this is a public statement, there is no going back. They cannot use this for anything else, so it would not be discretionary. The Board decided to leave it as it is. Commissioner Baney stated they should capitalize the reserve fund by $228,000 just this once. Mr. Anderson stated that there is a benefit of taking this off the table so others can be limited as to what they can ask for. Mr. Burton said that the $250,000 might not be needed in the future if they become more profitable. Mr. Lowry noted that this was already ratcheted back from $300,000. The Board is okay with $250,000 to the Fair and $228,000 into Fair reserves. Discussion occurred regarding the two Hatfield fellows, one for the D.A. and one for Administration. Mr. Maier said that $80,000 is a lot of money for two students. Chances are they will be from somewhere other than Deschutes County. He would rather see a program using interns or a practical program with OSU or COCC, and provide opportunities for someone local. Perhaps they are not as organized as PSU, but he would like to see an attempt to use local resources, and see if COCC or OSU can put something together. That might stretch this money out further and also benefit some locals. He would like to see it go in this direction. Minutes of Budget Meeting Friday, June 3, 2016 Page 20 of 24 He is not impressed with PSU or their MBA program. He knows some who have graduated from there and does not feel it was worth the money. There might be a better graduate program. He thinks they can and should keep the $80,000 local. Mr. Barrett said that these are graduate level students. Mr. Anderson stated that they have already interviewed some of them. Mr. Barrett stated that this is a fairly standard requirement for these programs. He is not sure they can even use local talent. Mr. Burton added that he would like to keep it local, but the need is now. Mr. Maier said he is not sure it is needed. Interns can be more work than they are worth. Mr. Burton stated that the program is already set up with PSU. Others would have to develop it. Mr. Maier indicated that U of 0 has a program, and so does Linfield. No attempt was made to work with them. It will end up being $80,000 every year. Mr. Barrett said he is not convinced of the need, but that is Administration's call. Mr. Anderson said that they want to attract good talent. Mr. Kropp added that he does not see Administration getting this every year. If the person is not placed within the organization, there is no benefit. Mr. Maier said they do not need to spend this much to recruit. Mr. Kropp noted that this program helps to build future leaders. Mr. Maier said that this is not a department head level positon. Maybe it would be in ten years. Commissioner DeBone stated that they went through the interview process. It is a different path to explore. Mr. Maier responded that they do not even live here, so they would be paying for the education of someone from someplace else. This is not a good use of taxpayer funds. Chair Unger would like to see this done at Administration this year, and allow the D.A. to do it next year. That way they can determine if there is value. He would like to allow this experiment. Mr. Maier said he would rather spend the money knowing it is well spent. Mr. Anderson stated that maybe they will not do it this year. It is awkward if Administration gets this but the D.A. doesn't. There is no pressing need, but he and Mr. Kropp thought it might bring talent to the County. Mr. Maier asked if the D.A. has interns. Mr. Kropp said that they have law students helping. The Hatfield program is for 32 weeks rather than an intern. Mr. Maier encouraged checking with COCC and OSU to see if they have something similar. He feels there must be talented people right here. The D.A. has requested an FTE for an analyst and an attorney. Mr. Barrett said it is hard to prove the numbers for prosecutors but it is compelling that they are under stress. Minutes of Budget Meeting Friday, June 3, 2016 Page 21 of 24 Mr. Maier said he agrees with the numbers, but they do not handle that many big cases. He met with Mr. Hummel two weeks ago and appreciates what they do. He wanted to know how staffing is affecting performance measures, but they are not measurable. He wants to see that having 19 prosecutors isn't enough to do the job. No information was given on performance measures, or that victims are not being taken care of, or that attorneys are unable to get into court. Mr. Barrett stated that some of the attorneys leave because they end up with no personal time. Mr. Maier said that they have code enforcement caseload in addition to normal cases. They also took on mental commitment cases, and increased victims' assistance help. They also want to do some of the things that the Public Safety Coordinating Council should be doing. Mr. Anderson said there is a grant opportunity where the State would provide regional funds for an individual to staff PSCC. He has an idea that this person could also help with Deschutes Safe. No decisions have been made, and they don't know if they can even get the grant. Mr. Maier stated that they should put more towards PSCC so they can get more done, rather than for a D.A. pet project. Mr. Kropp said that they used to have a .5 position but this was reduced to .25 so they could add an investigator. Commissioner DeBone said he would like to discuss this more at PSCC. Commissioner Baney noted that this is meant to be all jurisdictions. The question for the budget committee is, what it will fund. Mr. Anderson asked how the PSCC person would be supervised. They might work three days in Deschutes County and the other two at Crook and Jefferson. The scope of work is at the discretion of the PSCC. Commissioner Baney said the State is trying to connect the dots around all the major issues. She does not see the barrier being funding, but more about coordinating the discussions. Mr. Lowry asked if they are going to fund the D.D.A. and staffing. Commissioner Baney asked if there was an impact from the child support enforcement work. Mr. Anderson said they are not doing this. Mr. Maier added that the D.A. says it is a State responsibility, but taking it over was the idea of the former D.A. Mr. Barrett stated that they want a D.D.A. based on need. He does not know how the other program fits. He doesn't want to support either. Mr. Maier said that maybe they can come back next year with some firm numbers and measurable. Mr. Anderson confirmed that the other requests for an increased medical examiner stipend, software, hardware, etc. are approved. Minutes of Budget Meeting Friday, June 3, 2016 Page 22 of 24 Mr. Lowry explained that the elected officials had salary adjustments through cost of living amounts. There were some small adjustments in payroll when positions were filled. Mr. Kropp then listed the elected officials' amounts. Longevity pay was eliminated from the Commissioners' salaries but the COLA was brought up to bring them to the median of the comparables. This puts the Commissioners' pay on an even scale regardless of how long they were in office. Mr. Anderson noted that Susan Ross is retiring and they are considering moving the properties part of the department over to administration. The person in this position handles routine issues but also is the point person on highly visible issues. Mr. Anderson wants to know what is going on with these more closely. There is no linkage to the rest of the work of maintenance and facilities. There is also a half-time person handling administration staffing. These positions would stay where they are now located. It is all in the general fund but is otherwise broken out. This is a good time to break out these very different duties. They may need to have to contract for some of this work since Ms. Ross does not want to work for the County on a contract basis after retirement. The maintenance supervisor will be the interim person overseeing maintenance work. BANEY: Move approval of the Deschutes County budget, as adjusted for approved changes. MAIER: Second. The vote was unanimous. UNGER: Move approval of setting tax amount of levy for bonded indebtedness as discussed. MAIER: Second. The vote was unanimous. Convene as the Countywide Law Enforcement District. DEBONE: Move approval of this budget, as adjusted for approved changes. MAIER: Second. The vote was unanimous. Minutes of Budget Meeting Friday, June 3, 2016 Page 23 of 24 Convene as the Rural Law Enforcement District. BURTON: Move approval of this budget, with adjustments as approved. MAIER: Second. The vote was unanimous. Reconvene as the Deschutes County Budget Committee. Being no further discussion, the Budget Committee meeting ended at 2:15 p.m. DATED this 2-2'12 Day of 2016 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners ATTEST SIGNATURES: 6/1444A -t, Recording Secretary 04., Ulu - Alan Unger, Chair Tammy Baney, Viceiair 4/7 01-1--A,. Anthony DeBone, Commissioner Minutes of Budget Meeting Friday, June 3, 2016 Page 24 of 24 ime Prevention Grant Interfund Grant General Fund Transfer Behavioral Contribution o oo w Ln N m 'Cr. LD ri N Cr) N Ln Ql Ln N ri �-+ M oo ry Lri H- ee m r -I m .� Cr) N tD LD Ln 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N O O O O O Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Lr1 Lf) ri L-1 ri ri r -I O O O O u s 0 0 0 0 r-1 .-i r-1 r1 -0 to Ln- Lri Ln Lr CL = LD LD 1.0 O O O o Ln Ln Ln Ln = m M M M J Ql Ql Q1 Ol NJ CO 00 CO 00 io O Lin m LNr1 m1 LMN r1 F- 00 0) M m N Ln O 00 LO Ln N� m N ri LD N N ri Ln O N- N� f9 Ln N N N N i .-I 00 O O O OLn n M m m � f 6 rri o N � r- ._ = N M rn m rn ao ,- ri r-1 ri r-1 CO V t n M eY �p r 00 -1 v o 0 0 a x M m r\ N N N N N Ln N� Ln Ln Ln LD Lr) N t\ N� O Kt 01 00 O LD 00 m o0 O = al 01 N� N O W N Ln co' N Ln N� N. N� Ln N� N N N N r -I N m c7 Ln LD N v >- O O O U000000 O N N N N N N N A 0 a 0 v 0'0 0 0 0 0( in 0 N r h- c0 O .c .c l0 �� 0.c cl N 0 N CO CO 0 CO CO t. <i r CO M CO N a- r t N- e 0 0 ht0 r M (0 M O c0 M c0 N t0 P 0 0 0 V M N Mo c0 et M c0 00 00 r N N (0 t0 0 0 0) 0 0) CO rt. h ¢t 0 r N d 0 0 CO CV 3.1_5 0 NTOT x--.ci M-rx-.-.N-I-r rs-•.-CO CO - 03) a CO (0 N CNV 0 CO 0)(0 CO 00) V 0) 0 0 CO N CO 0 V h a 0 '7 CD CO .- tr) 0 P: O 4 Of `< aN- 6) O o N.- -a -a r 0 0 (() W 0') a0 t0 D) N to 0 0 M r i+ CO W hN. VM' uhi CO N 0 0) CO N. N 0 CO N m h O 0) O O r.7 T O^ O CO 00 00 r o ar c0 (0 O N t0 CO 0) 0 0 CV CON CMN 0 ar COh CO ((‚(‚4O 0) 0 CO O M h 0 0) (D N 0 CO. 'Cr Nt, r: O di O OOO d) OO r: N N vt N q' o CI N 0 d03 N 0 0) taro V O N( d O CO CO h. CO Rt 0 h CV t0 try N 05 v:c0 C() 6) 0000 OO W c CO V' '7 (V CO r CO N 0) h. N h o 0 O N CO (C) h M V' CO CO N N 0 N O) CO 0 0 CO 0 CO h 'd_ h CO 0 M d) ao h O) 0 0) O O O O 0 6 W CO h N c0 r- O 03y^ CO CO h 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 CO O CO O •V' M h NCO h (O CO h M 0 h O 0 00 h V- N. CO N h 0 0N CO h +- N di r: 05 6 7000)6 05 to ' 01 0 a0 00 O N 00)) 0 0 0 r caro CO N. 0NI 0 CO "t O V h <t O N '7 vt CO t0 h r N N v• - Q r r .- r r- 0 03 i r CO 0) M CO h N N t0 0) CO CO CO 0 h CO CO 0) 10 CO CO D co m to .0- rt O CO h CO CDN 0 r, tt ar O O 0 (0' 0) O N TN t0 o O os 0 M t00 h. NM 0) M O CCD h t0 O0 0M CV CO CO NCO O)hr N^ C�1 .C- ,r.- O O O (C) N CO r CO d' M O 0) t0 M a' GO O e t0 0 (0 0 0 0N CO V' N h 0) CO t0 h O 03t0 CO CD to t0 ct CO h h h co M co 0 l ar h O) M h(O N V cp 0 ✓ D u)v 00o 000 h 0 � v oMtnao or Onto 0 c5 N Ov r r T sr- U r �_ rt h d' N (0 a0 h O N CO N p) V N CO 0 r CO N CO � h V a0 Or c0Nh0 aro y- rCO(6 N �diO Orr N^ N- vN-00 h M N CO 0) CO C 03 COO v. N 00 N N 0)) 00) 400 CO co r 0 CO rt. CO CO to N C N CO 0) 0) N O) co 0o O r .r-- rN- r .r- f O h r N 0 (0 CO N 0) N (0 CO 0 00 CD 0) 8? - O CO 0) hr N 4 CO 0) CO r C0 CO 0 CO N CO 0) 0 ar O 0 r r r r 0 O W o5 CO h CO <t h 0) 0) 00 h 'Ct M 0) M O CO 0) a h N 0 0 0) CO CO 0 0 K CO M O CO h 10 7 O h O 0) M r` h: 0) O) O 0) O r O 0) W h• C) 0 n tc07 00 (0 CO 0 CO ((0 COD CO 0 IN h 0) (00)o00)r(0(ny'h. c O 0)) r; CO0) 05 CO O . 0 0) 0) co CO a0 N( 00)) h ((t N � 0 M V C00 COarr CO O N 0 O Co. (0 0 r 0) O N 0)) h CO Oar co co 0 cd h CO Vt 0 0) 0 M CO 0) 0) d' 0) 0) h 0 p., 0) 0 CV 0) CO N O CO h ar N h 0 CO M CO d' h V N. CO St O N O 0)) (0(01 r` O0i O) 0) 0Oh h CD 0 (0 W T (0 N d N N N N (4) 0) C C C Ta _ .)0 c 0 c c c c 0 0 (0 to 0 0 (0m m > > > d 4 Q m N 0 0) M M O M co'Nom M N N . LL mmd>m Q 0 N R O 2 O d r(NO O�r�M T (O M N 0 O N 00 N LL LL LL >- N LL N yN LL LL (Nnv um)nor O T N N N Qd7N -comcv 5L,5 EEE, N m o rn N 0 m r Q M mM N N 22222 N N 9 J U 00 0)V e ( onO MN 0 m m 0 N N tri m U m WNW.. O n d v d N m m N N N N 22282 O m m m M ZT,R )oO "' U m O Q O N O j N d MO 00000 m m r d M b o M M V M C rn n m m 0 N v d o m N m m O m r r r m m m M M m N n C 0( N V tp Mr0022t0 m N m,..N 2 J N N v P.,- ,R N m Y (0 LL 0 U0Q0-00r0 d z N O n. -m A 040000004 by N 00(0)000)0' d } N V m .00301 H m N M O m O M Coo V 0 .n- N 41. 0)100r W 41, P 0' MMp N N 0D N N m a.i M N N M W y N V LL ...000 M N , M --0.- 04.1, W o U J m M 0 0 N LU 0.0V0 r 0 �r' ..V.0 d) '20 c F,00)0(0n m O M m b N Q o z LL oi- aa W 0 W W < O: 3° 0 w rictOm toi Z z U x c co co wm (A LU Z co I- Z co W 0 2W V!`0.2aE) w z NO o @pA E U (03)9 C9 LL ui 0 W LU ZN c y 0 2O Z> > Oe E..0(13— W 0 w o pd dom m w 0 0 ii. ix O J (~f) 1- O 0 0 1- M101,4 -LO (O O m O E n m O0 m r f0 N N O ? "- N m 82828 m '822 m. m o m r r 222 O M O m N V 1°'" r M .2.- -- EH5E N Q mlonO o sf ota) N r m N 00)00(01 O O Q m O m N O) • o M'M O CD Om N;. O N P V I O M M O 8'22 M d 0 0,N O V O O O O m O r (O O CmO M') O O P O) M M M M gran O O o 0 0 0 r "82! 0 0 0 0.00v d o m 2'82!g OWil 4 T O OBJ 0 0•0•>) y. M• M O O•"�1h m'd'V n r•oih r •Kivl�ih M v O O O RA N.O. O 0 N m O• O r 88887- O T O )Q) N N T V c O M O O2 m O (V N I�•d n n m�N 0.0 0 0 00 O N 0 M 0 ci o e dM O v N N M 8- 22 0 0 0 N 00 o r o fN (on M O fpp d N N N �, oo M m N N 4 00 r Imn O 0 (O MM m o 0 Q M O� m v v N O d N r n m 0 m m m m N m e m O 0 V N N ,0 m O_ m n r O O 0 N (O aD . MOON.0m N O) 00 m m r r Q NO 282222 88 m O O) O O) W N O O ap 18 lop O< 1� {0 00 O 28824 0 O O M m O v N M M O M O N aNi N N N N (D O N N 1D N b ON N m 00 OvOv ' 2§H§§ Oo00 OO N^ N N N 0 0) m( 0 m 0 N N M O N m m (00 m m 0 Q b d M- d N E:2" (O O m N 0 of d m Di' N v, o. N V m' N (+) 0 0 0 8'822 00. O(0 O 0 m O N M O M O g O M 0 N 1-'7- W o m o O o O M O, O '- (oa N M� N 0 01 N M 0 4 0) O O N(O m O WR. M ` m O M 00 m'O O N N ONm.O1J O 2 .0 O 0 n. nl h 0 Q n m 1 M ri DI V O m OI O �n Os ml� it �vr``�nlo CAPITAL RES 000-01. O N m:ml+) ":75 I� ,D. M m N n O a m m U C M E° �` ZO`Wo. 70>0 3N V (LL -0 c 203 m2Q 0oin'. >ENEd3 0(000)0 u V N m W O_ N O. ) W s s 0U s wd "SiW W C W m Z Z f. Ey �m w: K a a, CO 031 I- 51y W c O On) M O d:D O d•M 82:2 o r:r (on o 0.00 W'MV 'WC �r 00 m m m 0. m Q 88 go N'.oV�'=� O O ^ m O O O O ON O I 0i 10 •TN)in 0 o m:N O N O. O gS O O O N 0 on (on 0 N o •- r ro 0 N y Y (0 M 0. I 0 m N 0 O 0rd W 00 W Uy CC 1.2 W Om O .o 0 U (0 0 Z O, F U d ..T.20 Q n0. 00 UW (0 w r•aOmO�(4 M0'0Or,0 �r s•-• (00'(O(0(" 0 (0(01 N N N N O o O O O O 0 0' O 0)0•-N (‚4(0(0(0 m 00 M d 0 0 d 0 m 00)0400 0. o r Di r do (D O 2 N O 22 fV Q WON... e� m0 (D O m O 28 O O r N 2 M rig N ..0,,- O b ` D ` N � n m tD 282222 �- NO O iD n r < o0 O dor.. M m m 00 N . m O O (0 N N b m d 0 m O m m m m O o O m M W d( Q O n m 0 o 'CO 000) ro r m r m m N 0 b N .0.... m 0 o m a0 O Odddd d6 00. 0 N 0 O m C IOD rm 2881:22 M M O r 0 O N In1 N O 0) 0 O ad) m•7 0 (D 0 V m m I!):O 0 0:0 4 rn c o W 282:3'22 O O r m 0 (D QO O_ M HI A d (OD In N.D O' t? (OD 0 of p(d o EO M 00(m0V'!00 NO M O n Om'M M cu O o c r o: ai of N c (d0 (oD .d- QI V (dDd A W • di IX! N 0 0) 1,....0. N(m n N O 0 O N m <0,--- o 0 0 W O 00 N 22 w o d d 0 N m "R222 N O O O M mm do O (d nN M M O m Q d m 0 0 O m m o o ac REVENUE REQUIREMENTS N 0 00 s°,-)&70_ O C C N .0 E N 0 0 p N N C 0 o U w w O �H w > Q c Q w } Z W w 0.. w E E E -7.4.t.0 Z Q UI wQ' d' o o N b >w0D w5 O < U rznw.Uw Da Zo *2',:: O10))1=gW WW 0w M R LL U m W Z a Z H 0�O�WQW 01- - OwZ =1--> 1-Z a> oI-Ow w0 fa.-O�� zU M O'0(01. -(0M O. - M M M M M M M V' V' Rate Increase $5 per ton w -J 20 gE 0 WI= aQ WU 1--, W 0 0, nix OD Z nz O Ox W W O F- Z OW W Z OW0) LL LL LL m Q m m rn' d N .-In m O N 0 00 CMO N < mos r O h a O O O M)Na r 0 m M N N N N 0 O m NN 0 O N N NMm O r m M N r rn O N 0 rn Oo m r m d ro mm N m O h N N .<4 d 9 U 4882s1; 8N rnmN N Q a' N � m r m P N m m O O M 10)0 O m M .5c6", . M Ol, O M N O M w o N OI Q Q N rnC m N M M m N t0 O N M ^ O )O O g Um) N O r') tma " m O rn M O m m m 4.." Ol O rn rn y N m U N ri LL Om] NM (00t)0 m m(OMN10 N v m r C Q N N? m ,z.,.°"--_ ON 10 0. �ri m 0) m W 0 m N q N O) )1. N N W V C LL M f0 N Q0 00 :2. 10 0 0 f0 Or m m m m M. O M O M 2 N (O t0 0 m (J N fD (U 8 00„2c9 O �I i100 q O r �j. N 0) m (� N (V -- LL r M N N N m m r Q M M o r m 0) N4 d m N ^ m O N 0) M M O 1)0a0� 0 c U b rn O rnm 0g.22',;5 OO N m .- `a" O m O Z m oo"fov ro O W r N m rn m HO m W 8-0-. m- O m N 0288- Cl 0 O rn Orn rn 0 r � (N�o N v MN m• aQQ M N � 2282.0- OM) O M N2s§.- 0 m m Q O M m O M q 0) 01 N N ' 00001 N 2. 8 r rn m m 10 0) m m Q 0 0) NI M r N_ N. n J 8888 N F> rn M M t0 U 1� (J N M a 00 ? T 0 m 'a 09.'82A N� rvqi 003 ...,...0„,,c, d 8:18,--r N O OMO tz N m n N PO N 0,1V4,11r c a`°,,NO d v M �.. N Q OD r �ih LL 0101100+' - W r 0 0 d N m N (a O m O 400,%6'. r N N v (V b " " n r LL 0 0 0 ;25 010 0 0 10)0) M m N m O r O Non o vNnin 0 o 0 12 N N M O+ r a M 0 0)4) N Q m U q N LL LL LL rn M M m O 0"‘"1" - N ( m V M M1 . (V v 212240 =1.0.1 -mo rn r O O N4 f+)01'(q n etr r rn 6 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $ RESERVE FUNDS r Or 0 0110 m rn 0 r O N0 O0 m 0 rn O 0 8000.. O N -. 0 0 O W N M O) O•j O m O m m O N O top R r tmO.b 8-2 p r 222 0.a 8'4;7- 22F aQ 000o O M 0010) Q O O .F2 �- m O O N .v2 O O m O n rn 28F: M 00. 00. 0m O M r O O M o r m 0 0 0 M M M 0.0 O . Q O N 0 M O o O O 00 m o gri M N m m1 O t0a 0 O N 00 M N Q M N O r rna M 822 O O M O N Z:: O O N Ooam; Roam, O(ma r 04) m N 0. -ID W''0 o too M�•n O M r miT m �t0.m ri 0000, 8822 ddoscs0 m 00 N N m s - O m M M r m O m M 04 r M 000, N 00 N W COCO I. WOOo- aN-1 10)01' 0 C(0r0 a d 3 U 0 a 0)0)0- N N o m O N oM 04 O N ON O Q O N O O 22 O r M V m N M O N 0 0 0 m O O N o m Q. N ON 0. N tma I N [ra O O rn m O coO M NMvgrn 0 0) O Q N 0 v O6 Nm O m O ONO fma O < O m O M O m Q N V ?7, O. 0 0 N � N m 0,00 0 0 01 0 M .W0 N rn 4 O O O .M 0. N M OM� O m OO Q 0 m t0 M 0 N Or Co O t- 0. O N O M 0 0 Nm r n 0.0., 0 0 0 0. O. .0 ci N to N O m m 0 m 8g N M m 4 0 .5 2 m -c•-50 z o.G x¢. K E W 0 m w 0 0 c Zm rn W y Nv E Z E - w a0 WQ'4) w=z5.5 m w w v w. m E m W Wlc N 0 0 n 5 UW COW O.O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O m M•Q Q • o . d o 0 o N0 m m Nm m r m FA. a o m o d m d '4""r1 - ( a O O m m d d pmp o V .-.0 'P O l0 - m. Om W m O M . m m 0 m 0 n..r <6� a m m m 01 tooamo O rn 0 0 0 m r m rn M r � r (O O Cm'1 N O m O m N m W op M M V8 tmD N O p O V O m m 888 0 N 00 0 O r m r r 0 ai fi ri o r r pi o O M N m m O m N <7,8 M tr0 (O l0 O Q Q (O t0 m 0 N d o o n' (4) m m o 0 M N m m N m m r r ,i‘,5 r M Q (O O r M M M M O M trnp 0 0 0 O0') fra 28 m O V N .82000 W6 m Or O O d O m P m n m O M P Oro 0 m m Oo v o o a e m m N p 0 0 O O O M V' N O r• 0)0)0)0)0)0) N M M M a 0 m 88888 m o o r o of of 0 o <°.1°' .=“0 N n m o m aN- c r N m 0 NQ m r r qr 0..0o.6- rdd m M M (a 88,%.,0 N aS O O N m 0000)00 000 N m 00-9,9 N O 00 r m M m 8 O r m (= m M N M tD tr4 W m O+ m (r0 fro N O m m O �- d m m Q O te. F131 O .. m M O fop tma M a (OD rn O m M 0 0 M m O O O d �0 m 28 O M y 0 00) C O a O N O m Oi r- O l0) tO ro REVENUE REQUIREMENTS O N O r '.N00 O N m r p N C 00 O O O Q o .0 O N m O Om) O m 0 .0 0 ‘13869Z5.:4° - O m M m m N N a P 0 .5 O O O tri > 0 o 0 5 W O K H W W W U'W U> WIW W1.0 Z 30 C4 d U W Z W 0 W~ Z W W cc W I -W ¢2 W w W UU0 W CCD Z (0 A W 0W< W 0 O W Z x i'> n1.¢(IiI=00.00 Q f0(0 r fO O) M M M CO M CO 0 Q Reserves Adjustment W2228 Q 1n Q'1n m M (O N M M? O ro 107 m of W 0 0 A N '82 M N 10 0 Q r (O Q v y 0 d (0 v LL m o rn (0 0 o P V 10 0 O O O �0 V N Q 0 N O) O EU C7 10 000)10 O N C N LL(0 Y) O Q (0 1Nna 10D �� E 0000m ( O 01 N N N n N O N O N 'Jo 9 A 0 N {V O M N J QW 0(00 2 Y M n� of U LL LL LL } LL M O N O rn O rn 0 O 0 V N 10 . (y N i0 d. (0 00 O W M V O1 Q V M 00 M O M N O N 0 O O N CO T- 00 MNMO� a(or Q.- (^ V 0 T h 0 Op N N (h (O (00 O . 0 0 0 0 0( 0 N 0 0 V CON } d. LL V Cn `t J 0 Q m 100 N N Q 04)0-100) 0 m V M1 } N d- LL LL N } LL m(00)0)00 10 0 0 M M 0 0 M M N O 0 O 0 A V m .- 10 N V m g O W (O (O MM r r N a- M M 'C 8 80 n ? 0 V m W N V aD Q, m(n0 No 22-1=': c A N 0. MOQ0.- Q } N V 00 LL 0 C8 and CL -B g O O W O o.N N t0 1 0 O O O O O 00 M O O Q O_ 00.0 00 0100 0 o N N 0 o O o 0 o.=•v r r r aD 0 M 0 0 0 o O P (O o 0 0 0 O O N Q N O O O O M 0N1 vM�N � O O O r r E 0 o m o m o o r0 P:812 v qmo' • O r o 0V 10.10 O l0 O (O (0 .- ' 1010 .�l 000 oion N W r (0(0 r . (0110 LL W M M O OM (0 0- (0 n n OQ V M ( ( N V A J N 1- 0 0 v I- .- N 01 .-NM 700 (0 RESERVE FUND 0 01 T 0 N Or o0( o1hQ aiai0uof M c O.On1 0 � V 0 0.101') .-I A 0 o mi r O O O M OiD 0 011) 00.000 M r O d1ri M r 01 )) - '7' v M 7'4 coI 0: COI (00 QI 0 m 000.00 0O.0M 000..0c. O0 M.'D aD N (01 0 M 0 Cll.,. 17 r i N 0 .-0 C g N 22 0 (0 x« 3 N N' W C CO C Z M WWWU OW 0, w OWUmv d OQ D (p 0 c 0,,100, o4o ccmi j270 10 n10-1ti. ccUF.U�� 0US.U�'16 WO. 0)„,......,,e-5__ cc N Q W N b w ay w mai z w co 0 u_ 010 N 12 i' K o'8 W U 2 O o w w e F o:6 () O 1- Ua. .z.., a g Q = 0 -I � o O 0 to o C7 61 o (no 0 cn Di n. 0 w cn 1Z o m o(0 04 (0nO M N M 0 O m M o o 0g1M a o O O tO V O A O N N 8 0 Q N ON NM O a‘- 000 - o � N M O O 0 O O W 0 O M 01 O O Mro N O N M 100 8 100 0) CO O N 1 . M O MO mOO ' W2 MN. 0_ O 0 N M N 0100) s (•0O) N M lV oO N M 0 0d,7 A 8-g o ��n O N O O 0 o o rn O 8 O 00 Q N v � O 0 13;-- 8g8 O O O 00 M O N 822 0. o 0 0,-,0 0 M V N m.0( O M . D r� o o 0 CO O f0� b 10( c0' Q R' ay� 0. 0 EEE M O O ad 82' 0O CO N O r ro N Nl: N 0 0 0Q1 0 0 O N 0 0 0 0 N O 0 88888 " mc r 2 r A N 'T 9 '0 u. C O'O1 n M N O m 01 r,1 r Q O O 00 10 (C+1 M O i V N 0 0 0 0 N EE 00 A N '0 000 N 10 0 0 0 1- 00 0 0 ' N o t0 0) 0 0 0 00.N. 0 010 v u a v 288288 o . O M m 0 o v 2 0 (Q0 (0 0 n r 1010 O O N O a o0 d N 00 Q N 0 O Q o Q Q 0 O M O 0 O .N- N C'J M 0( 0 N NO N N N d6 O N M (O O 0 N 0 M M Q M M 00 00 00 200... O M 8 W 001 C0] O N 82882 - O O N 0 0 g N ( N 0 CO CO O CO N M O (O V 0 0 O M N00 O O (00 .000W 0 0 N 0 M N OQI 8010008) 001 O (o o au o m ro o O 0 r N M V r 0 N l0 0 0 0 .8- O tOD 0.OPf Q m 00 00 0 (�000)O T- N 0")V. CD0N 0)O. -N M 7 (0 (O 0. 00 0) 0 c -N NNN N NNN NN NM MM O) CO 0 CO rN CO ro n (o V m t00 N M O O N (ro (rD .Q.- 0 O N< lr0 n M O 0 , 0 N (O - 0 rn m M A 0 0 o (n M o 0 O O M M M 0 0 0 ap N (O 0 O 7; o M 0 M O r 'DOA m0 0000. de 88“02 WS O 180 t00 O 0 V M M O r o (M Q0 (o o m 0 V W W O N o L REVENUE REQUIREMENTS WASTE FLOWS (Tons) 0 O .. M CO 000110 ro m O V Z 0> 0 O 0 0 W9 00 M M 82 OJ 82 r r W N dm N 01 O 0 Or) 0 0 M cO M A 0 M M .vv..00M N Q) N PE 0S O O v e N o N O 0 m M O O OgtO NO M O g. .0 2 0 0 2 N O 0C N 10 C N o as 84,03 w 010 0 CC w 0 K (0 W Q C Q ZW a a a Z U W w 111 EEE Wl,_! (n20 W' 00 0 > W U D W D Q Q Q W t. W z �0 ZY p FZ> ww' FQ'Zw 0 v W aK W�mw�Z fy z op, M 7(0(00.000) 0)- M 0MMMMM 1010 EXHIBIT "B" 8% Annual wast flow growth N N m O)" M EEFE m N NOO) t0 c0 M 00O O M N } M m LL - } LL LL LL b O N M N N M N O Ca O e 10 aVl" 9 O n 0 0 M M m O U N m N N E h .-mr M c0ui v ao r c0 m N m M N lV N a) IMoa brn(o g"2 r a M .000 b N m e , N clic; m b b N fD MV N N m V .- N MEM r V OJ E m N t0 bV } N N m LL c`; E 0 ,- N M r oio H b E caD N N } Nv LL N LL (00) c00 N N mo MN E oim•i N m � N < U 0000. oaornr M N (V N 2,08;;E! o EEMR, P N O N O R E O r b E N E N O m c N ' O N N O EREEE V ro E N m m m N E m r N O O r m v v m co r O N O O 0 m W `rm E E OM E R E N E Nolnm Qbv E a N MN m N n OnI r o N 0> O N N N N mn O O N b U m N N V N J N B rn m (J c o o OI E E 2 CN'l N N 10 E m U v q 0 N m O 'R N N O , 7l vi M o v,2i `cf.; E M 0 N) rn O n `O mm 0 0 E o 0 0 0 0 N N O 0) E8E•� N N n�9 Di N LL 12'62,7 N N_0 Ob O V N MMV0 0 .n - No ri ca W m m b N r N rm N N OI M n N N In .0 CM] cnD M 004(00I T- 0. } N R LL } LL M IMM N R D 0 R r E n m N V J 04 0 00040 ` omvmmm m NO cp 0 m 00 COS N 0) . N v M m -- N U Z LL WF' aQ W U I- W ceQ w 2 w 0 Z O m X N Wo w- W (.0 2Q 6 `02 ac) w 2 Nm 2JU U:ry_. ( w WZ OW Q(RMa2i0 K W �' c•c•U to N W W O ry v. CO W 000000 W W Wn.WUU O W O J (0 1-- O O 0 1- (0 (.0 r N n J m MMr Dir v a ilM 2'8 OO In o N N Y N0 -E M N O N N E 10 E O O O J O N W O mo ? ai or � 0.. O N O N co - 0.0 m v r 0 v 0 000 ca EODE md M r ul E b 0 0 E_ N :�E N n O "'DIO cOD N 1 ! CAPITAL RE (0 EEE MvO N OmO 000 vC oJ2m OV 0V ' co M; l OMrO0 ERE ,= Nm�M E MM 0OO : OOR OMN <ONOM N EEp Ob EN o nm 1, r bm 0 0 LL CE OONN 0 MN EMn M a a cmDnNN+li N N r<O0 Oo Dr O N N NM r ooNR EvN §E§ 8 4 O b O O O E 0 E o NO OO ON OONOED J Eie 'O N N NC 72 V m o- mN 0Em oN E• - m E O O0N E OIN ON o 0O 20a) waZ p Z Ewrym io oW C W W E' ryv )) 0< O- N'° W E y E ry 3 c/=l d N C U J Oi 2 cw 'c N •� W w O .ry' O LL co W O +ry' p W 6'ry-' >T ... ry U U ry ry W d c W W c ry o 7 W W ..2-2 o 0 U y5 Zw oWW0nO ULLO �ryU ON0dU WJ v a d(Ow Wm 0-00)0,-.( M V 10(01-N 00 O m m m m n vm e O co b N nv O ,280"-;E“ OO 0 M m 0 N N N 00 n r O O 0! 0 0 0 O. 0 OO. -N Mt 10NN-N N NNN NNNM NNNN N)M 2 o m olNnvoO g8'6,74(7) N NN N N E F21o r o gg. o O i! r o m m m o mr v 0) M cOp N cOD N m E N N N N N M N a O m 00 cNn 0) 0 0 ".7, y by o 0 O N ch f7 (p O D N N 0 M RE m O N m E 00 N m< V m o o M 8 m rn m o m 82 1'1 Mm m m co OI W M m N O O V M M ; O m E b b m 00 cn cornNoo EE a v of T N O nm1+�i �o O V O N N N O N O 6 N r 0 00 N N N0 0 Lri co c6 N N O 7, o O o FP, O m 0.....00 O N M _ C r C N g O O N 00 O 0 N O CN) N N m N rol r v o b N E O Ing n m N N v M m I`OnEaN.rrn No W m o 0 m M» m NN O N N A Ng O N N O N rN O O N ry D II) N M 2 O c` -' O O Q N 10 on o m op REVENUE REQUIREMENTS O .00V E W N f0 O P Vl N n 00(00. N E M O R N N o M m .- O 0 EE co 0 NN N m N N .0 N N cmn O O O O 0 0 NO O 01 Mb CNSO N O N O a E cV o r O m b m o c O c0 N umi E 1D o m m N o O iD M m m N a v N m kg -c 2 cu U m 2 N m O 0 m W 0 _ a a) N M 0 O a a 0 E U W 'S Q W m Z m Q C Q W O Z W w 000 N M 0 oww w 2 2 2 O W W W (Ort Wb >W W5 N N N U W W W Z D (J Z Y Q Q -Q U W z> W W Z co O CLW WWI'QW cc0 0O WO "W')WQ[ti WQcLZ W OP a CL»arOW w0 0QWI-O I -W ZO MM MCM) 'Od' V Central Oregon Cohesive Strategy Initiative -- The Value of Investment to Provide Public Safety, Protection of Natural Resources and Maintain Tourism Based Economy Values to be Protected Central Oregon's prosperity is directly tied to the character of its landscape and the ways the communities integrates it into every aspect of life. People are drawn to Central Oregon for its world-class scenery, outstanding recreation opportunities, and abundant wildlife—all within minutes of the urban centers. Survey after survey has found that the region's quality of life is a key driver that attracts the entrepreneurs and modern businesses that are helping to diversify the local economy.' The Deschutes River in Central Oregon provides numerous ecosystem services benefits to the region. This study analyzed the market and expressed values to six industries in the region: agriculture, tourism, recreation, hotels, real estate, and commercial salmon fishing. Using revealed preference methodologies to assess ecosystem services benefits to these industries, the study found the river provides a total economic value to the industries of $185.2 million annually, of which $134.7 is direct revenue to the region, $28.0 is revenue outside the region, and $22.5 million is the expressed value of products and services that residents receive for free in their market value equivalent. The benefits of the river to these industries create 3,433 in full time equivalent jobs for Central Oregon with an estimated value in wages of $73.0 million.2 Based on Oregon Blue Book estimates, the Real Market Value for Crook, Deschutes, Jefferson, Klamath and Lake Counties is in excess of $38 billion. The 2015 Oregon Travel Impacts study, the latest annual study commissioned by Travel Oregon, the state's tourism agency, showed that visitors to the state generated $10.8 billion last year, up $500 million, or 4.8%, from 2014. In Central Oregon, the growth was sharper still, as visitors spent $701 million in the region in 2015, an increase of more than 6% from 2014. Both the state and regional figures set records. Central Oregon is "leading the charge" for tourism growth in 2015. Tourism employed 8,900 in the region, which included Crook, Deschutes and Jefferson counties. In Deschutes alone, visitors spent $660.2 million and the Central Oregon region generated $14.3 million lodging tax revenues. Crook and Jefferson counties generated $41.8 million and $41.8 million in direct tourism spending in 1 Oregon's Playground Prepares for the Future: A Greenprint for Deschutes County 2 Value of Natural Resources: Deschutes River Corridor and Its Water 1 1 2015.3 In the fall of 2015, DHM Research conducted a review of existing social and opinion research on behalf of the Deschutes River Conservancy. This review explores the values and beliefs of Central Oregon residences and is intended to inform future opinion research, planning and communications efforts.4 Key findings are: • Central Oregonians are positive about the future. They want to come together to address critical issues we face as a state, but they do not believe this is likely to happen in the next 10 years. • The environment is absolutely essential to Central Oregonians' sense of place. For many, it seems to be the foundation of what they love about the state, and also their communities. • Protecting a beloved natural environment is a top -tier public policy priority, and something that many Central Oregon residents are willing to pay for make lifestyle changes, or reallocate funds, to maintain the natural environment. • Central Oregonians are divided when it comes to economic growth vs. environmental protection. • In general, Central Oregonians want less tax and fewer regulations. However, some public services resonate deeply with Central Oregonians' values and, depending on the specifics, elicit backing for sustained or increased taxation. Public Safety and Mitigation Each county in Central Oregon (Crook, Deschutes, Jefferson, Klamath and Lake) have All Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plans. Universally the top two natural hazards are wildland fire and winter storms. By definition, natural hazard mitigation is a method of permanently reducing or alleviating the losses of life, property, and injuries resulting from natural hazards through long and short-term strategies. Both winter storms and wildland fires provide a direct threat to public safety, when comparing the frequency of winter storms and wildland fires, clearly the frequency of wildland fires surpasses winter storms in exponential fashion. In the past decade, wildland fires in Central Oregon average 450 fires, burning in excess of 50,000 acres for all jurisdictions. Preparedness by the public and agencies offer some form of mitigation for both winter storms and wildland fire, but significantly more opportunities to mitigate loss of life, property and injuries exists by reducing risks and hazards from wildland fire. 32015 Oregon Travel Impacts Study 4 DHM Research review 2 The National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy The Federal Land Assistance, Management and Enhancement Act (FLAME) of 2009 directed the US Departments of Agriculture and Interior to develop a cohesive wildland fire management strategy to address the myriad of growing issues surrounding wildland fire (increasing losses to lives, communities, budgets and economies, habitat, forests/landscapes, and watersheds). A collaborative process that included a national scientific analysis, culminated in the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy. The vision of the Cohesive Strategy is to safely and effectively extinguish fire when needed; use fire where allowable; manage our natural resources; and as a nation, to live with wildland fire. The Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy is a strategic push to work collaboratively among all stakeholders and across all landscapes, using best science, to make meaningful progress towards the three goals: Restore and maintain resilient landscapes: Landscapes across all jurisdictions are resilient to fire -related disturbances in accordance with management objectives. Create fire -adapted communities: Human populations and infrastructure can withstand a wildfire without loss of life and property. Safe & Effective wildland fire response: All jurisdictions participate in making and implementing safe, effective, efficient, risk-based wildfire management decisions. The ultimate success of the Cohesive Strategy effort depends on how strategic direction and national priorities can be translated into the on -the -ground, local actions of agencies, organizations, governments, and individuals with meaningful, cumulative effects. The Central Oregon Story In Central Oregon, fire and land managers, cities, counties, non-governmental organizations and private citizens have a long and rich history of identifying shared goals and cooperating to accomplish shared outcomes. Here, a culture of strategic alignment, collaborative engagement and programmatic alignment has existed for decades and continues to build. The challenges of an isolated, geographic location, limited budgets and diverse interests helped steer stakeholders to work together under the concept that groups that cooperate and coordinate efforts can achieve far more than one agency or organization alone. When the Cohesive Strategy was framed in the West, it was quickly recognized as an evolution of collaborative strategies and behaviors that already exist and are enjoyed in Central Oregon. 3 With this positive foundation in place, stakeholders in Central Oregon have witnessed much success through current collaborative efforts: • Increased hazardous fuels and restoration treatments on public lands in the WUI through the Deschutes Collaborative Forest Project; • Establishment of a Fire Adapted Communities Learning Network Hub through Project Wildfire; • BLM is working with NRCS on creating resilient landscapes across jurisdictional lines; • Comprehensive Community Wildfire Protection Plans across Deschutes, Jefferson and Crook Counties; • Integrated wildland fire response including mutual aid and cooperating agency agreements; • Local agreements between federal land managers and private landowners to treat lands regardless of ownership; • Consistent engagement and support by local elected officials, County Emergency Management and law enforcement; • Central Oregon Joint Information System for emergency information; • Agreement between Upper Deschutes Coalition and Deschutes National Forest for treatment both on private and public lands to create resilient landscapes and maintain fire -adapted communities; • Natural Resources Conservation Service is working collaboratively with other federal and state agencies to create resilient landscapes on private, non -industrial forests near communities. • Private land owners with critical sage -grouse habitat have completed Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances (CCAAs) and are working with federal agencies to complete Candidate Conservation Agreements (CCAs) to protect greater sage grouse while maintaining viable economies and grazing operations. • Project Wildfire through a collaborative steering committee, established by county ordinance, continues to facilitate and lead hazardous fuels treatments to create and maintain fire adapted communities, treating over 110,000 acres of private lands with the cooperation and participation of private landowners. 1 4 Even with all these successful efforts, the risk of loss to lives, our natural resources, economies, habitat, and communities is still extreme and there is much work before us. This begs the question: Can stakeholders in Central Oregon continue to use this successful history of coordination and collaboration to achieve greater restoration and reductions of risk on a landscape level, increase the community's understanding and acceptance of risk, and improve the safety and effectiveness of wildfire response, and successfully implement the Cohesive Strategy? The answer is YES. Central Oregon Cohesive Strategy Initiative The Cohesive Strategy provides a solid framework for making meaningful progress towards three goals — Restoring Resilient Landscapes, Fire Adapted Communities and Safe & Effective Wildfire Response. What is the method to achieve that progress? Collaboration... to manage vegetation and fuels; protect homes, communities, and other values at risk; manage human -caused ignitions; and 0 safely, effectively, and efficiently responding to wildfire. Stakeholders in Central Oregon now appreciate a solid platform from which to advance current collaborative philosophies and efforts and integrate them under one umbrella for increased success (the notion of "bigger, better, safer and faster") across jurisdictions. The collective ambition is to bring federal, state, tribal and local agency stakeholders together with interested non-governmental organizations and private landowners across five counties — Deschutes, Jefferson, Klamath, Lake and Crook — to embark on a collaborative journey to identify shared values and goals, and implement prioritized actions to achieve them. These will achieve meaningful progress towards resilient landscapes, fire adapted communities and a safe and effective wildfire response using the Cohesive Strategy as guidance to continue successful implementation. More than just successfully implementing the Cohesive Strategy, this coordinated, collaborative multi -county project aims for recognition as a "regional learning laboratory" for others to either replicate and/or utilize valuable lessons learned to create similar successful environments throughout the western United States. This level of integration, coordination and collaboration will require the following: • Share and implement the purpose of our efforts: o To collaboratively implement the Cohesive Strategy through an "all hands —all lands" approach across five counties, and o Provide the "regional learning laboratory" for success for the Pacific 1 5 Northwest and other areas in the west; • Prioritized landscape treatments across jurisdictions; • Increased, collective investments for these projects; • Continue to identify and leverage resources among all stakeholders. Next Steps: • Create a Steering Committee consisting of senior agency and local government leaders, private land stakeholders and non-governmental leaders. (Completed 10/2015) • The Steering Committee with the support and contributions of all stakeholders will ensure strategic alignment, collaborative engagement and programmatic alignment as the Cohesive Strategy Initiative is implemented. • The Steering Committee will develop a coordinated approach to the three goals of the Cohesive Strategy. • Develop and implement a robust, inclusive communications strategy to strengthen internal and external support for the collaborative efforts of the Initiative. (Completed 4/2016) • Strengthen capacity to collect, analyze, interpret and integrate all types of data and information, including recognized data gaps, to inform decision-making. (Relying on scientific data and analyses, on the part of all stakeholders provides the best opportunity to restore and maintain landscapes, protect communities from wildfire, and effectively respond to wildfires when they occur. Using science and data analysis to support implementation planning and decision-making must continue). • Utilize performance measures and monitoring information to assess effectiveness and accountability. • Develop capacity and support training and utilization of support tools to better inform decision-making and trade-off analyses at all levels of fire D and land management. • Document successes and determine common themes of successful projects. Maintain knowledge and information resources that are easily accessible to stakeholders. • Create incentives for all stakeholders to participate and embrace the principles of the Cohesive Strategy. 6 • Continue to foster Cohesive Strategy behaviors to change behaviors and attitudes, and ultimately change cultures. • Continue to identify and engage all stakeholders. • Identify political education and leveraging opportunities. • Identify all current investments/programs/achievement and their value to truly understand values to be protected and measures of achievement. • Develop the concept of this Regional Learning Lab and how others might take advantage of the learning opportunities here. The path forward Success in Central Oregon depends on the collective commitment by all stakeholders at all levels to take action toward meaningful reductions in risk in the short- and long-term. Looking ahead, this will require: • Prioritized investment and use of resources. Reducing risk significantly will require that existing resources, including budgetary resources, are used more efficiently. • Acceptance of increased short-term risk. Significantly reducing fuels across broad landscapes will require expanded use of wildland fire to achieve management objectives. Using fire as a tool carries inherent risks that must be considered in the short-term to achieve the longer-term benefits. Achieve greater collective investment. Even with greater efficiency and acceptance of short-term risk, current levels of investment may be inadequate to achieve the levels of risk reduction desired. All who have a stake in the outcome, from individual property owners to the federal, state, tribal, and local governments, must share the costs and level of effort necessary to redeem responsibilities for reducing risks posed by wildfire. For the Central Oregon Cohesive Strategy Initiative to realize full potential, there is an immediate need for a full-time coordinator. A coordinator will be the essential point of contact for all stakeholders, implement the communication strategy, facilitate the implementation of the political leveraging strategy, identify new stakeholders and be the "voice" for cohesive strategy implementation. The cost for the coordinator will be approximately $150,000 per year, which includes salary and associated travel, and program costs. It is recommended this be a contracted position and the cost shared by the five counties. There will be no greater investment in the "values to be protected" in Central Oregon than implementing the Cohesive Wildland Fire Strategy. 1 7