2016-508-Minutes for Meeting October 17,2016 Recorded 11/7/20162 11 1 6
a�a�a
to or.,
VERRs
DESCHUTESFICIAL
CLERK
CJ 2016.508
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 11/07/2016 03:54:16 PM
111111111111111 1111111
For Recording Stamp Only
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97703-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.ora
MINUTES OF WORK SESSION
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,
MONDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2016
Present were Commissioners Alan Unger, and Anthony DeBone. Also present
were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; and Erik Kropp, Deputy County
Administrator. Attending for a portion of the meeting were Nick Lelack, Peter
Gutowsky and Matt Martin, Community Development; Wayne Lowry, Finance;
James Lewis, Properties; and Timm Schimke, Solid Waste Department. No
representatives of the media or other citizens were in attendance.
Chair Unger opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m.
1. Finance Update.
Wayne Lowry went over the Finance update. The Treasurer's report shows
about the same portfolio as previous, but there will be an influx of cash with
taxes that will soon be collected.
The yield is at 1.09 for the month of September, with investments at about 1.12.
The pool rate is increasing as well.
Vacant positions are mostly at 911, the Sheriff's Office and Health. There are a
lot of active recruitments happening at this time
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session
Monday, October 17, 2016 Page 1 of 8
The tax roll has been certified by the Clerk, with a 5.3% increase in tax levies.
Most is due to growth and goes to the Districts. Last year assessed valuation
went up 6.3%, but this year it is 4.9%, mostly due to the central assessment
process. 5.5% was estimated in the budget for this year. It is early in the year,
however.
Tax bills will go out by the end of next week. Some are processed by the State.
They are not contracting with the banks for lockbox service anymore.
Under the General Fund, filing fees and recording fees are tracked for the Clerk.
These can vary widely based on the economy. For September, $142,000 was
collected and this high amount hasn't happened for nine years.
Community Development increased about 18% last year over the previous year.
Through September, they are about $160,000 greater than this time last year.
The Road Fund is budgeted about the same as before, getting about $1 million
per month from the State.
The Fair & Expo Center Annual Fair netted $422,000. It is normally in the
$300,000 range. He is not certain if food/beverage is a part of this.
Transient Room Tax is about $350,000 ahead of what it was this time last year.
The Legislature may be looking at more flexibility in how room tax can be
used, such as for roads or other infrastructure. This puts the County in an
awkward position, being affiliated with COVA but on the other hand, there
might potentially be more flexibility with the TRT.
Chair Unger wants to know when enough is enough, regarding spending to get
even more tourists. Mr. Anderson stated that the COVA retreat included an
exercise as to how funding is utilized. One choice is to alter the model to take
some funding from advertising to using it to protect the area you are promoting.
The product being advertised needs to be protected, or perhaps there can be
more diversity built in. Impacts need to be mitigated to preserve the visitor
experience. Chair Unger said that this pushes the budgets of other entities,
such as the Forest Service.
PERS rates are about what were expected. Tom Anderson said that this is
probably the most concerning, along with a lawsuit involving Bendbroadband.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, October 17, 2016 Page 2 of 8
2. Discussion of Amendments related to Agricultural Lands.
• Define Agricultural Buildings & Equine Facilities
• Special Setback for Haner Park
• Acknowledge Existing Opportunity for Non -Resource Plan Amendments
Matt Martin provided some background on the items. An extensive public
outreach process took place last year to evaluate agricultural lands and potential
redesignation. The results gave some great feedback, but there are limitations
due to State law. The result was a modest list of amendments to Code. These
were on the 2015-16 work plan. The Planning Commissions has met regarding
these already. There is a public hearing before the Board next Monday to
evaluate the four amendments.
First, rezoning from resource to non -resource was addressed. Multiple projects
have tried to utilize this process in the past. Some of this involves DSL owned
lands. The amendments will acknowledge that this process can be utilized, but
that an exception process is necessary. This would codify this language.
Chair Unger asked if it has to do with the Comp Plan. Mr. Martin explained
that policy 223 acknowledges that a quasi-judicial process can be used. It does
not make it any easier or provide an additional avenue. This won't help with
DLCD regarding Rulemaking at the State level.
Commissioner DeBone asked if this changes the Comp Plan to utilize the name
'non resource land' even though the State doesn't recognize this. Mr. Martin
explained that some of this is understood if it doesn't meet the guidelines for
resource lands. This just acknowledges the existing path. Peter Gutowsky said
many land use cases deal with agricultural land, if it is found to be non -resource
land, it allows a way to get to the appropriate designation. At one time, DSL
Section 11 made it difficult to get there. Hearings Officers indicated that this
pathway is legitimate, through a quasi-judicial process.
Chair Unger asked why they can't land at other than MUA or RR. Nick Lelack
said the Planning Commission did not want to support this at this time.
However, the path exists through State law so this needs clarification. Mr.
Gutowsky indicated that some property owners are looking at future city UGB
activity. Mr. Lelack added that LCDC is working on a similar program
Statewide. It is the one remaining part of the 40 -year old program that has not
yet been properly developed. There has not been a lot of public interest since
the process is already in place but just needs to be confirmed.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session
Monday, October 17, 2016 Page 3 of 8
Chair Unger would like to further examine lands that should or could be more
urbanized. Some developments were planned to be brought into the cities, but
the cities have failed to do so thus far. Mr. Lelack noted that non-agricultural
lands want to be non -resource or exception lands now, because agricultural land
would not be brought into the cities. Chair Unger would like to see cities be
able to develop for future urban uses as appropriate, but the City of Bend does
not seem interested in this now.
The second amendment offers a way for properties that are not resource land.
This allows an option other than an amendment for property owners. This is
not opening up a bigger or broader program.
Mr. Martin indicated this is under Title 18, definitions, where equine facilities
or agriculturally exempt buildings don't require a full building permit. Chair
Unger asked if this is creating a hazardous situation. He said that this does not
change anything about the process.
Mr. Gutowsky said that these are not public buildings. Mr. Martin said this has
become an issue when things have gone from the Oregon Building Code to the
Universal Building Code. Since this change, CDD activity would be codified.
Mr. Lelack indicated that decisions are left up to the building official per
building code. Usually the building is permitted outright. Electrical and
plumbing still require permits. This clarifies any questions about structures that
are in farm deferral. Properties have to be in EFU to get an exempt designation.
Regarding Haner Park, Mr. Martin explained the setback situation there. The
erroneous setbacks have been a big problem for property owners there. The
proposal is to allow a 25 -foot internal setback exception (instead of 100 feet).
Haner Park is F-2 zoned. This would expedite the review process for
development in that area without the burden of an exception. This won't
increase density but will allow for accessory buildings or other changes. There
has been public support for this change and the Planning Commission agreed.
This is specific for Haner Park and no other developments, but Skyliners
development has a similar situation going on. CDD reached out to Skyliners,
but they did not choose to participate. Mr. Gutowsky indicated that Squaw
Creek Estates has the same situation but is located on farmland.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, October 17, 2016 Page 4 of 8
3. Other Items.
Chair Unger said that some people want the County to get involved in the Troy
Field situation. They suggested trading County land to the School District. Mr.
Anderson said the market value is over $2 million. The City and Bend Park &
Rec need to figure it out. Chair Unger said that in Redmond, expansion areas
were to set aside lands for the School District. He is not sure it worked out
exactly how it was planned, but the idea is to lessen expenses for the schools.
Timm Schimke and James Lewis came before the Board to discuss the
demolition landfill. Mr. Lewis said that there have been two environmental
studies done of the sites. The last one looked at what is in the landfill and how
much. OSU Cascades did a separate study and found that the result of this
work shows different material from past studies. There seems to be more fine-
grain material such as sawdust. Mr. Schimke said it could be a matter of the
waste being broken down over time.
Mr. Lewis said DEQ has a materials management plan that offers an
opportunity for grant funds for this. Part of the issue is cleaning up the landfill
at the least cost. This would allow them to get a handle on what can be sold for
fuel or composted into a soil amendment, and what can remain on site. This
affects the cost of redevelopment. It is important for OSU in the event it is
conveyed to them. This seems to be the final piece of the puzzle as to what to
do with the property.
The grant has to be applied for by a municipality, OSU would prepare and
administer the grant, but has to be authorized by the County. It is for $150,000.
Ultimately, the grant would be awarded after the first of the year, and if
successful in the award, the County would do the paperwork involved. Another
MOU would be required with OSU to pass the funds through.
Chair Unger said this helps refine the opportunity and provides some certainty
and less risk. Mr. Schimke stated that the funds are not always available, but
there are funds now and an award depends on competition. DEQ is trying to
focus on what is being generated rather than what is already there, but DEQ is
motivated to figure out what to do with this site. Things look different there
when you analyze the previous studies, but more information is helpful.
Mr. Anderson said that the property might end up being more valuable than is
thought now. An agreement could be developed to reflect this. Mr. Lewis
added that lot could happen between now and then, with master planning OSU
and other factors.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session
Monday, October 17, 2016 Page 5 of 8
DEBONE: Move Chair signature of a letter of support for this grant
application.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: DEBONE: Yes.
UNGER: Chair votes yes.
Mr. Anderson said that there is a request from Neighbor Impact regarding a
grant request. DEQ has added 501(c)(3) nonprofits to those groups that can
apply for grants direct, but they want a letter of support from the County. It is
a good way to deal with food products to keep this material out of the landfill.
It is already being done at some level, but getting funds to handle the program
will be very beneficial. Mr. Schimke indicated this is 'a priority for the State, to
increase diversion rates. All cities are now required to institute this type of
program.
DEBONE: Move Chair signature of a letter of support for this grant
application.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: DEBONE: Yes.
UNGER: Chair votes yes.
Mr. Anderson said the Bend Chamber of Commerce sent out a ballot, but it
appears to ratify who is already in place, since there are no other candidates.
The Board indicated approval.
Whitney Hale said the District Attorney has requested that the County publicize
the Deschutes Safe survey. It would be opened up for all residents rather than a
select number, due to the current results. The D.A. has asked for the County to
send out a news release and the survey. Mr. Anderson stated that Ms. Hale
looked at the survey and wants to discuss parts of it. Some of the survey
questions seem to indicate a desire to put more resources into certain programs,
but the question is who is going to pay for it.
Mr. Anderson said that this might be a way for the D.A. to request more money
at budget time, although it also might be a matter of changing priorities. Mr.
Anderson would like the Commissioners to provide him with input on some of
the questions.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, October 17, 2016 Page 6 of 8
Chair Unger asked if disclaimers would be included, if it does involve more
expenses. Mr. Anderson said it can't be new money, and there is only so much
to go around. Commissioner DeBone stated that this talks for the courts, public
safety and other entities, and he doesn't want to raise expectations.
Mr. Anderson said he could invite the D.A. to speak about this at the next
PSCC meeting. Ms. Hale stated that the survey is already out in the community
as -is, but the D.A. wants it to get more attention.
Commissioner DeBone is concerned that this might raise expectations. Mr.
Doyle said that this is being done outside the normal channels for that reason.
Chair Unger feels this needs more discussion before pushing it out to the public
further. Mr. Anderson stated that this needs to come before PSCC since it
could affect all of the jurisdictions. Chair Unger agreed that it involves more
than just the D.A.
It is United Way campaign kick-off time again, and Mr. Anderson wants to be
sure this is done appropriately. He wants to be sure the Board is behind United
Way giving presentations and that want employees to contribute, since there are
other nonprofits that do not get this kind of opportunity. Chair Unger said they
have done this for years, and United Way is a known entity and a partner, and
supports a number of nonprofits. Commissioner DeBone also likes the work
they do.
Mr. Anderson indicated that last Friday, Commissioners Unger signed a letter
of support on behalf of the Board, for Sunriver Airport to apply for grant funds
for physical airport improvements.
DEBONE: Move approval of the letter.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: DEBONE: Yes.
UNGER: Chair votes yes.
Mr. Anderson presented an invoice for eastern Oregon AOC dues, which are
based on PILT revenue. The bill now includes debt from previous years that
the Board did not want to pay at that time. Chair Unger said he wants to stay on
the same path as discussed previously.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, October 17, 2016 Page 7 of 8
Mr. Anderson stated that the County paid the whole amount last year, in two
payments; but not all from the previous years. The same applies for the normal
AOC dues in the past. However, this could limit how the County can
participate and vote on certain issues.
Commissioner DeBone stated that some counties want to be at the table but say
they can't pay dues, when Deschutes County is expected to pay all. Some of
the issues do not involve Deschutes County and he thought he made this clear
to the group. He did not commit the County to this payment.
Chair Unger would like to discuss this next Monday along with other dues,
when Commissioner Baney is here.
Chair Unger disclosed that he is in contract for the sale of his former family
home in Redmond with Best Care, for a respite house for mental health patients.
He wants to be sure that there is no perceived conflict of interest since Best
Care does some work for the County.
4. Adjourn.
Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
APPROVED this 2t Day of (9 2016 for the
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners.
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
04.4 (i144 -14, --
Alan Unger, Chair
Tammy Baney, V e Chair
Anthony DeBone, Commissioner
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, October 17, 2016 Page 8 of 8
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97703-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
WORK SESSION AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,
1:30 P.M., MONDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2016
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. This meeting is 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. Finance Update — Wayne Lowry
2. Second Quarter Discretionary Grant Applications Review & Approval — Judith
Ure
3. Discussion of Amendments related to Agricultural Lands — Matt Martin
• Define Agricultural Buildings & Equine Facilities
• Special Setback for Haner Park
• Acknowledge Existing Opportunity for Non -Resource Plan Amendments
Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners' meeting
rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. 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) 617-4747, or email ken.harms(deschutes.ora.
Board of Commissioners' Work Session Agenda Monday, October 17, 2016
Pagel of 2
4. 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) (h), 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.
5. Adjourn
Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners' meeting
rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. 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) 617-4747, or email ken.harms(cr�.deschutes.orq.
Board of Commissioners' Work Session Agenda Monday, October 17, 2016 Page 2 of 2
Monthly Meeting with Board of Commissioners
Finance Director/Treasurer
AGENDA
October 17, 2016
(1) Monthly Investment Reports — September 2016
(2) September Financials
Investment Income
R ' • 1 • . 1 ,J
N
O
O
▪ }
0
N
L
fe
>• —
To
N O
LI. O
r 1.6
00.
co
Investments By County Function
$ 136,601,264
m
a)
a)
0
$ 136,601,264
N 00 et
CO N M
O M N
N N 0
LO N
0 N
▪ co
• r
a)
E
U
• C
o
n a)
C >
C
d O
0
M
N O
C
co 7.1
> O
C ~
r
H
Investment Income - Net
0
e e 0 0 0 e O
MM r 0
01NCd'MN O
0 0 0 0 0 09
0.0000N
o R O O r• ti
OC)d'OOM
N ) d' O C)
cM O NI- CO
M
Total Investments
Prior Year Comparison
Total Portfolio: By Investment Types
eeeeee e
0 0 O O O In (0
O 0 r- N O N N
r r
n
oi
2
0
N N e
o
E o
U
Z
Term Minimums
N
N o
o p
LLQ M
Deschutes County Investments
Portfolio Management
- - _--
Portfolio Details - Investments —
September 30, 2016
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ __ Purchase Maturity 'Days To Ratings ;Coupon Par Market Book Call
CUSIP Security Broker Date Date :Maturity ;S&P �'Moody's, Rate 'YTM365; Value Value Value Date
072031AC1 Bay Area Water Supply- 'CASTLE ' 6/22/2015 10/1/2016 01AA ;Aa2 0.854 0.800 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 - -
3133XHK68 Federal Home Loan Bank VINISP 112/18/2015 10/19/2016 181 AA+ ;Aaa 5.125 0.8001 1,000,000 1,002,170 1,002,150 - -
91159HHB9 US Bancorp - CASTLE 112/15/2015, 11/15/2016, 451A+ Ali2.200 1.125, 1,000,000 1,000,360 1,001,303 10/14/2016
494751DG2 King County Washington FPD PJ ; 12/15/2015 12/1/2016 61',0,0+ 0.860 0.860 200,000. 199,974 200,000 - - _
54465AEY4 Los Angeles Counn�Redev CASTLE ' 8/24/2016 12/1/2016 61 AA 1.000 0.775; 3,050,000 3,049,634 3,051,132 —
0641590,01 Bank of Nova Scotia CASTLE 6/9!2014 12/13/2016 73; A+ :Aa2 1.100 0.910, 1,800,000 1,800,504_ 1,800,674 -
06406HCA5 Bank of New York Mellon Corp CASTLE ' 4/23/2014 1/17/2017 108', A+ ;A1 2.400. 1.067' 2,000,000 2,005,600 2,007,713 12/18/2016
3130A7BY0 Federal Home Loan Bank PJ 2/17/2016 2/17/2017 139 AA ;Aaa 0.720 0.720, 2,000,000 2,000,740 2,000,000 11/17/2016
984135AB9 Berkshire Hathawaylnc __ CASTLE 4/10/2015 4/1/2017; 182:AA ;Aa2 5.150 1.060, 370,000 377,304 377,467 - -
984135AB9 Berkshire Hathaway Inc CASTLE 6/26/2015 4/1/2017' 182 !AA /Aa2 5.150 1.2011 1,000,000 1,019,740 1,019,474 - -
984135AB9 _ Berkshire Hathaway Inc CASTLE 8/7/2015 4/1/2017' 182 'AA ;Aa2 5.150 1.100' 1,875,000 1,912,013 1,912,511 - -
91159HHD5 US Bancorp CASTLE 4/23/2015 5/15/2017 226 A+ ;Al 1.650' _ 0.882' 1,000,000 1,002,910 1,004,264_ 4/15/2017
961214CH4 :Westpac CASTLE 4/7/2015 5/19/2017. 2301M- ;Aa2 _ 1.200 1.061: 2,000,000 2,000,060 2,001,735 - -
WASH_FED CD Washington Federal CD 5/20/2015 ' 5/22/2017' 233 0.900 _ __0.913 __ 200,000 200,000 200,000 - -
3136FPYB7 ;Federal National Mtg Assn VINISP 2/7/2014 5/23/2017 234, AA+ I
Aaa 2.050 0.885 1,460,000 1,473,096 1,470,776 - -
3134G6ZW60 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE 10/13/2015 5/26/2017 2371AA+ !Aaa 0.720 0.700' 6,000,000 6,004,980 6,000,774 - _
31771CS97 FICO Strip CASTLE 12/9/2014 6/6/2017 248 1Aaa 1.019 1,065, 1,028,000 1,022,819 1,020,783' - -
89233GTC0 . ' , Toyota CP ' -- CASTLE .- 9/20/2016 ' 6/12/2017 ' -,254 ' - - •1.200 ':-1239 ' :;3,000,000 ;2,972,280 2,974 600 -
48125LRD6 JPMorgan Chase - Corporate N CASTLE , 6/10/2016 6/14/2017'. 2561A+ ;Aa3 1,256 1,220; 1,000,000, 1,000,090 1,000,000 - -
929903DT6 Wells Fargo Corporate Note CASTLE 11/23/2015 6/15/2017 257,A+ ;A2 5.750 1.320. 2,000,000 2,058,960 2,061,656 - -
064058AA8 Bank of New York Mellon Corp CASTLE 1 6/6/2016 6/20/2017 262;A IA1 1.969 1.141' 1.000,000 1.005.020 1,005,900 - -
29270CYZ2 Bonneville PowerAdministratio CASTLE 4/24/20141 7/1/2017, 273:AA- ;Aal 1,197 1.171' ___ 670,000 671,347 _ 670,131 - -
84247PHS3 Southern CA Public Power Autho CASTLE 6/17/2014' 7/1/2017: 273;AA- I 1.145 1.180. 1,000,000 1,001,110. 999,741 - -
3137EADV8 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp MBS 5/29/2015' 7/14/2017: 2861 jAaa 0,750 0,7871 1,000,000 1,000,970, 999,711
005158VE7 Ada County SD PJ 6/1/2015 8/15/2017: 318'AA+ _ ;Aal 3.000 0.930, 1,000,000 1,018,460 1,017,824
675371AT5 Oceanside California Pension PJ 5/20/2016 8/15/2017 318 AA 1.806 1.000' 500,000 ' 503,225 503,482
3130A62S5 Federal Home Loan Bank CASTLE 7/24/2015. 8/28/2017' 331 ;Aaa 0.750 0.858; 1,000,000', 1,000,810 999,029',
912828TM2 U.S. Treasury CASTLE 9/10/2014' 8/31/2017 334 'AAA :Aaa 0.625 1.061' 1,000,000 999,730 996,084
912828TM2 U.S. Treasury CASTLE 2/19/2015 8/31/2017; 334;AAA 'Aaa 0.625 0.920; 1,000,000 999,730 997,345
949746080 Wells Fargo Corporate Note DA DAV , 3/8/2016 9/8/2017, 342 A 1A2 1.400 1.450, 461,000 460,862 460,787.
313383JB8 Federal Home Loan Bank VINISP : 12/26/2013' 9/27/2017' 361IAA+ jAaa 1.000 1.250; 1,000,000 1,003,260 997,592
912828PA2 U.S. Treasury CASTLE - 9/10/2015 9/30/2017 364', AAA ;Aaa 1.875, 0.$03; 2,000,000 2,023,600 2,021,129
31771JMR8 FICO Strip CASTLE 10/22/2015 10/6/2017: 370: I 0.751 0.781' 2,000,000 1,980,420 1,984,558
31771KAD90 FICO Strip DA DAV 12/10/2014'', 11/30/2017 425:1 205 1 267 2,000,000: 1,978,220 1,971,541
427542KW4. Hermiston OR .. ''DA.DAV ".:9/21/2016 - ;12/1/2017 426 AA-- 2000 -p901 5910,000 595,35.1 $97509
494751 DH0 King County Washington FPD PJ 12/15/2015 12/1/2017 4' 61AA+ ( 1.220 1.2181 230,000 230,8171 230,000'
SYS60 5BC8 G'e Leweris al Electric
rk Bank6/8 20
orporate N :;CASTLE - 16 12/6/2017 .431 AA+ - *:A1 15 250 X1050 „ .1,#):0-A0.;. ,- 1;048 200 1,0401;p -t'-:(
16 12/8/2017' 433;1.000' 1.0001 240,000 240,000 240,000-
88059FAZ4 ,Tennessee Valley Authority CASTLE 111/21/2014' 12/15/2017' 440 IAA+ 1 1.205', 1.2681 1,059,000 1,047,330 1,043,3991 - -
961214BZ5 Westpac CASTLE 3/5/20151 1/12/2018 468 AA- ,Aa2 1.600: 1.490; 2,000,000, 2,006,740, 2,002,742. - -
94988J5A1 Wells Fargo Corporate Note CASTLE ' 1/29/2016. 1/22/2018; 478' 1Aa2 I 1.650;, 1.5801 1,000,000 1,002,900! 1,000,898', - -
92976WBH8 _ Wachovia Corp _ CASTLE 2/26/20161 2/1/2018; 488iA IA2 5.750, 1.6901 1,000,000 1,056,5$0, 1,053,028, - -
31771EAL5 FICO Strip CASTLE 2/24/2015 2/8/2018; 495 I 1.252' 1.3181 1,260,0001 1,246,480 1,238,301 - -
31771EAL5 FICOStrip CASTLE 2/25/2015 2/8/2018`:, 495 1.257! 1.323; 740,0001 732,060! 727,205', - -
3130A77L3 Federal Home Loan Bank CASTLE 2/16/2016: 2/16/2018: 503;AA+ ?Aaa 1.000 1.000' 3,000,000, 2,999,340 3,000,000' 11/16/2016
3134G8M71 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE 2/26/20161 2/26/2018; 5131AA+ 1 1.050' 1.050, 3,000,000; 3,000,270 3,000,0001 11/26/2016
06050TLY6 Bank 01 America - Corporate CASTLE 5/14/2015; 3/26/2018, 541,A ;Al 1.650. 1.5701 2,000,000; 2,008,300 2,002,322; - -
06050TLY6 Bank of America - Corporate CASTLE 5/21/2015' 3/26/2018; 541;A ;Al 1.650; 1.5401 1,000,000; 1,004,150 1,001,5901 - -
06050TLY6 Bank of America - Corporate CASTLE 5/27/20161 3/26/201811 5411A 1A1 1.650; 1,6201 1,000,000' 1,004,150 1,000,430! - -
68607VG66 Oregon State Lottery DA DAV 6/12/2015; 4/1/2018, 547'AAA iAA2 5.000, 1.120, 610,000; 647,564 644,847: - -
68607VA96 Oregon State Lottery DA DAV 6/13/20161 4/1/2018: 5471AAA 1AA2 1.353 0.9701 200,000 201,398 201,135 - -
084664BE0 Berkshire Hathaway Inc CASTLE 9/4/2015; 5/15/2018, 5911M+ [Aa2 , 5.400! 1.5901 1,107,000 1,181,3461 1,173,693 -
Federal Farm Credit Bank - ASTLE: ".;9/28/2016
3133ECQ56-C5/22/2616---... 59$-AAf IAaa 1I- ;1.080 - 1;;1300.000 °-- 999:600 3.000;000 1014f 8
98385XAP1 XTO Energy Inc CASTLE 8/4/2015' 6/15/20181 622AAA IAaa 5.500 1.5001 1,000,000; 1,070,4301 1,066,522; - -
,
904121NCO Umatilla School District PJ 5/7/2015 6/15/2018; 622; AA+ 1 1.4301 1.4301 750,000, 755,025; 750,000; - -
166764AE0 Chevron Corp CASTLE 4/15/2016; 6/24/2018; 631;AA- IAa2 1.718' 1.1911 2,000,000 2,017,6201 2,017,9401 5/24/2018
939307HF4 Hillsboro SD Pension Bonds PJ 3/30/20151 6/30/20181 637 [Aa3 1.732, 1.6501 985,000! 996,859, 986,361 - -
938429M46'': Washington County -SD Municipal PJ -';9/6/2016- -6/30/2018 :_'637 - -'1585 '' 0.999 -`,250000 r''- 251;958 '252,525- -
88059EMT8 (Tennessee Valley Authority DA DAV 2/22/20161 7/15/20181 65211.021, 1.0651 500,000 491,140: 490,7521 - -
3133EGNU5 Federal Farm Credit Bank CASTLE 8/1/2016; 7/27/20181 6641 M+ !Aaa 0.960 0.960, 1,000,000; 1,000,060, 1,000,000 7/27/2017
3134G9Q67 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE 7/27/2016' 7/27/2018! 664 ,1.050 1.0501 3,000,000' 2,999,190' 3,000,000/ 10/27/2016
3134G8UN7 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE 3/30/2016' 9/28/2018; 727!AA+ ;Aaa 1.200 1,2001 2,000,000; 2,000,480; 2,000,000' 12/28/2016
3134G9YA9 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE ; 6/28/2016; 9/28/2018' 72/ ! 1.010 1.000! 2,520,000' 2,516,422' 2,520,274' 12/28/2016
3134GAND3 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp `- CASTLE 9/28/2016 ' 9/28/2018 `- :727 1.050 1.050 r `4;000,000 .`-3,996,680 '4,000,000 3/28/201,7
89236TAY1 Toyota Mtr Cred - Corp N CASTLE ; 1/5/2016; 10/24/2018 753;AA- Aa3 2.000; 1,770; 784,000 795.470. 787,608; - -
912828WD8 U.S. Treasury CASTLE 12/1/2015; 10/31/2018; 7601 1 1.2501 1.223, 1,000,000' 1,009,060: 1,000,558. - -
42754210(2 Hermiston OR DA DAV - 9/21/2016 .12/1/2018- - -791 AA- .. -3.000 1,001 .' 605,000 1-'627,403 630,859 - -
912828A75 U.S. Treasury CASTLE 6/8/201' 12/31/2018: 821 -AAA IAaa 1.500' 1.3241 1,000,000' 1,014,960; 1,003,843 - -
3135GOK44 Federal National Mtg Assn CASTLE 5/17/2016; 5/16/20191 957;AA+ Aaa 1.250 1.2211 2,000,000'. 2,000,900 2,001,4891, 11/16/2016
250351FJ7 Deschutes County Ore Sch Dist PJ ; 8/16/2016 6/15/20191 987 1.360 1.360, 245,000; 245,064, 245,000. - -
3137EAB1 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE 7/20/2016' 7/19/2019: 1021; 0.875: 0.957; 1,000,000; 996,510' 997,739 - -
3135GON33 Federal National Mtg Assn CASTLE '- 8/18/2016', 8/2/20191 10351AA+ IAaa 0.875' 1.000; 1,000,000' 996,110; 996,507! - -
313586RC5 Federal National Mt Assn CASTLE , 12/4/2015, 10/9/2019 1103, AA- 1.891 2.031; 1400,000: 1,343,832 1,318,888 - -
313586RC5 Federal National Mtg Assn CASTLE I 3/17/2016 10/9/2019; 1103; AA- 1.665: 1.774 600,000' 575,928 569,392' - -
313586RC5 Federal National Mtg Assn CASTLE ', 8/8/2016', 10/9/20191 11031 AA- 1.2521 1.318' 400,000, 383,952; 384,655,
594918AY0 Microsoft Corp CASTLE 8/8/2016' 2/12/20201 1AAA
1229A .Aaa 'r 1.850 1.2981 1,000,000 1,016,560; 1,018,108 1/12/2020
686053DH9 Oregon School Boards Assoc DA DAV 11/2/2015; 6/30/2020! 1368IAA Aai 2 5.373' 2.050; 875,0001 993,361 r 978,3851 - -
686053DH9 Oregon School Boards Assoc CASTLE 6/24/20161, 6/30/2020; 1368:AA 1Aa2 5.3731 1.5701 500,000/ 567,6351 568,789; - -
SYS10078 Local Govt Investment Pool 7/1/2006; - - 1 1.030; 1.030' 29,011,743. 29,011,743: 29,011,743; -1=-11 -
SYS10084 Bank of the Cascades ! 7/1/2006; - -_ _ _ 1 1 0.920; 0.9201 6,525,5211 6,525,5211 6,525,521 -
1 1136,601,264; 137,202,4451 137,061,534;
Memorandum
Date: October 10, 2016
To: Board of County Commissioners
Tom Anderson, County Administrator
From: Wayne Lowry, Finance Director H(
RE: Monthly Financial Reports
Attached please find September 2016 financial reports for the following funds: General
(001), Community Justice — Juvenile (230), Sheriff's (255, 701, 702), Health
Services (274), Community Development (295), Road (325), Community Justice —
Adult (355), Solid Waste (610), Insurance Fund (670), 9-1-1 (705), Health Benefits
Trust (675), Fair & Expo Center (618), and Justice Court (123), Transient Room
Tax (160, 170).
The projected information has been reviewed and updated, where appropriate, by the
respective departments.
Cc: All Department Heads
Revenues
Property Taxes - Current
Property Taxes - Prior
Other General Revenues
Assessor
County Clerk
BOPTA
District Attorney
Tax Office
Veterans
Property Management
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Assessor
County Clerk
BOPTA
District Attorney
Tax Office
Veterans
Property Management
Non -Departmental
Total Expenditures
Transfers Out
Total Exp & Transfers
Change in Fund Balance
Beginning Fund Balance
Ending Fund Balance
GENERAL FUND
Statement of Financial Operating Data
Year to Date July 1,
2016 through
September 30, 2016
FY 2016 1 (25.0% of the year) FY 2017
% of
Actual Actual ( Budget
Budget I Projected I Variance
24,561,964 0% a) 25,749,791 25,749,791
486,113 157,670 32% 500,000 500,000
2,443,495 1,271,656 52% b) 2,450,622 2,450,622
875,075 220,974 26% c) 849,349 849,349
1,721,618 478,429 26% 1,810,837 1,810,837
12,413 3,312 27% c) 12,350 12,350
194,675 29,177 15% 188,400 188,400
212,618 57,558 28% c) 204,730 204,730
98,161 0% 97,400 97,400
75,000 - 3,750 4% 94,500 94,500
30,681,131 2,222,527 7% 31,957,979 31,957,979
3,857,613
1,447,322
61,911
5,830,655
751,319
333,745
288,776
1,161,328
13,732,670
15,520,033
29,252,703
1,428,428
9,788,945
$ 11,217,374
976,477
321,752
18,717
1,455,140
234,072
103,580
72,328
256,845
3,438,912
6,285,712
9,724,624
(7,502,097)
11,217,374
$ 3,715,277
23%
16%
27%
23%
29%
25%
24%
63%
23%
35%
30%
108%
a) Current year taxes received beginning in October
b) Includes annual PILT Grant - $500,000
c) Includes A & T Grant. Received quarterly - YTD includes 1st quarter
4,187,123
2,043,672
68,890
6,413,365
812,314
422,673
303,213
410,096
14,661,346
17,865,429
32,526,775
(568,796)
10,411,770
$ 9,842,974
4,187,123
2,043,672
68,890
6,413,365
812,314
422,673
303,213
410,096
14,661,346
17,865,429
32,526,775
(568,796)
11,217,374 805,604
$ 10,648,578 $ 805,604
Page 1
Revenues
OYA Basic & Diversion
ODE Juvenile Crime Prev
Leases
Inmate/Prisoner Housing
DOC Unif Crime Fee/HB2712
Food Subsidy
Gen Fund -Crime Prevention
Interest on Investments
OJD Court Fac/Sec SB 1065
Contract Payments
Case Supervision Fee
Miscellaneous
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Personnel Services
Materials and Services
Transfers Out-Veh Reserve
Total Expenditures
Revenues less Expenditures
Transfers In -General Fund
Change in Fund Balance
Beginning Fund Balance
Ending Fund Balance
COMM JUSTICE -JUVENILE
Statement of Financial Operating Data
FY 2016
Actual
413,233
88,030
33,759
59,100
36,090
23,811
20,000
13,147
22,661
8,870
6,347
42,490
767,538
4,947,639
1,172, 705
3,660
6,124,004
(5,356,466)
5,464,591
108,125
1,307,249
$ 1,415,374
Year to Date July 1, 2016
through September 30,
2016 (25.0% of the year)
% of
Actual I Budget
17,425
4,350
9,011
3,852
4,308
5,920
1,771
1,737
658
49,031
1,239,899
253,118
11,000
1,504,017
(1,454,985)
1,366,149
(88,836)
1,415,374
1,326,537
0%
0%
36%
8%
25%
19%
0%
54%
35%
25%
29%
69%
7%
24%
20%
25%
23%
FY 2017
Budget ( Projected Variance
a) 386,725
a) 91,379
b) 48,840
c) 55,000
36,658
20,000
d) 20,000
e) 8,000
17,000
7,000
6,000
e) 950
697,552
5,186,945
1,273,154
44,000
6,504,099
360,217
94,728
83,750
45,000
36,658
20,000
20,000
15,000 7,000
17,000
7,000
6,000
1,400 450
706,753 9,201
(26,508)
3,349
34,910
(10,000)
5,186, 945
1,273,154
44,000
6,504,099
(5,806,547) (5,797,346) 9,201
25% 5,464,591 5,464,591
(341,956) (332,755) 9,201
118% 1,200,000 1,415,374 215,374
$ 858,044 $ 1,082,619 $ 224,575
a) Biennial allocation; reimbursements received quarterly. Projections changed
award
b) Additional detention space leased (beginning 9/26/16)
c) Projection decreased due to lower than expected revenue received YTD from
d) Quarterly payment
e) Increased projection due to revenue received YTD
due to FY 16 expenditures of the biennial
other counties' use of detention
Page 2
Sheriffs Office
0)
Departmental Revenues
Year to Date
C
O
V
a)
O
a
r 0 d' O 0) Lo r 0 O) O r r- CO 00
M CO N a0 00 M CO CO rte• r r N Tr 4.-
1.0
L0 CO N OO Mo N Cfl O OO M OO O CO CO
00 M 1- r CO [t N 10 CO r CO N. N d'
0/r000)COLoCOF-CO V M a) T- TT
CD CD r r r r- r- v�M CO N— O)0
i0-
0
N Lo
N N
Lna)d'r- N00'0Of-N. t -N It Lo CO d'
00 CD0,ul r I�cJ f -4-0)r .C4:1“71)1d)
V CD rNLoco04T LO CO 00 0)I- CO
NI f� 00 to 00 00 Ln N O N CO CO OO u6 M Ln
� LONI-OTrOM
v v 00 Lo M N r CO Lo y-
9
o r- N N d' N r CV M r r N 0) N N
r-r0)r000)000000)M V C0 M 00 LC) M
O NO— (00M0COr0Mref N CO Lo N
Mi'-f-M000000r1010 et 00 e- M1'- r
O
0NrOoLoor 0 r M O
et N N 0) 0 r CO 1� r r 0 1� r N r- et N
0) 00)0r- 000300ryco. sc — M MO) co
op v�'TI r v " O ' M N IT
M
a)
co
0 TO
O V
1N Q
}
40
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o
CD CNN( TNI 0Tr
T r
Lo O 00 r f. Lo
0) O Tr 0) Lo M
M ' CO L0 el- Lo Lo
N M 0) N CO
00 � r
O co 0)
' 10 LOO ' N
r 1� 47
O CO40
OOI.Of-00000MO000
N00N-0-00)"NLo00
d r0C) 04 co 0000 Lor
16
E NLMMMOM)Nrr4-CON00
C") CV r N v-
u)
N V N-
UJ
O
M
M
CO
40
,F O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O p) Lo M d' 00 Lo r N (0 00 CO O Lo M
°-a NNrNNNNrrNNNN N
00
Lo Tr ep r 0) 0) N Lo tom• r- V 1- N N
000)M0)rN Octr-rODr I.-
(0 N eYMdooOM1.f'-1-Lor NN CO
2O 15 O co -r 0) co- r- 00 CMO 10)) 000 Loo N N O
V rNNd'Nrr- MrN CA
Q N M 00
CD 40
X 1C0 -00 r
0O001�00VQ) eP'
W a-. rN00)CONMoorofcoMrTr r
I� 00 C0 M M N Lo 00 r M O Lo 00 10
CO O LA 06) M 0) 0) f- I- M N- Ti 0) N d
•1= Lo t-L00)0)—M00001-0 Lor 4)
C 0-CDr-.0)00NMNL0000Dr CO
L M 4- N 4- 00 r s- CO
0.
r Q.
M
Q
O
a)
0
N c
O a)
Uuo
�
(I)
il
E
0�� .pari
Z 0 r°'" _
�U t�'� w E
a) .p a) a >, p 4
a0) N 3 as
0. O> p C6 (j N V O J 0
N O O '-t 4...
C) E 0) 0
O_C 7 0 66 o 'C3 o E a 2— O
a cob<o0.Q <OW ni—Oz
0
r
1 --
Total Taxes transferred to Sheriffs Office
The amount of Property Taxes from LED #1 and LED #2 required for Department operations.
r
Deschutes County - Sheriffs Office
Appropriations and Expenditures by Department and Category
Year to Date July 1, 2016
through September 30, 2016
(25.0% of the year)
Ca
Budget I Ye Actual
to tualate (% of Budget I i Bu get g Iry oActual
Appropriations/Expenditures by Category
Personnel 30,550,697 7,239,127 24% 78% 81%
Materials & Services 6,852,234 1,406,219 21% 18% 16%
Capital Outlay 1,278,292 255,327 20% 3% 3%
Transfers Out 273,291 200 0% 1% 0%
Total Appropriations/Expendiutres 38,964,514 8,900,872 23% 100% 100%
I Projection 1 Variance 1
Sheriffs Services
Personnel 1,500,098 328,880 22% 1,355,855 144,243
Materials & Services 1,474,099 425,524 29% 1,538,215 (64,116)
Capital Outlay 76,530 - 0% 46,861 29,669
Total Sheriff's Services 3,050,727 754,405 25% 2,940,931 109,796
Civil/Special Units
Personnel 1,053,721 257,329 24% 1,044,880 8,841
Materials & Services 122,080 12,975 11% 122,080 -
Total Civil/Special Units 1,175,801 270,304 23% 1,166,960 8,841
Automotive/Communications
Personnel 497,557 121,320 24% 503,110 (5,553)
Materials & Services 1,505,187 150,924 10% 1,233,762 271,425
Capital Outlay 50,952 6,251 12% 82,329 (31,377)
Total Automotive/Communications 2,053,696 278,494 14% 1,819,201 234,495
Detective
Personnel 1,568,895 398,917 25% 1,572,895 (4,000)
Materials & Services 180,966 71,562 40% 183,633 (2,667)
Capital Outlay 43,500 28,357 65% 38,357 5,143
Total Detective 1,793,361 498,837 28% 1,794,885 (1,524)
Patrol
Personnel 7,967,602 1,904,321 24% 7,967,602
Materials & Services 589,723 123,747 21% 595,495 (5,772)
Capital Outlay 442,000 210,032 48% 397,209 44,791
Total Patrol 8,999,325 2,238,099 25% 8,960,306 39,019
Records
Personnel 687,006 155,395 23% 624,390 62,616
Materials & Services 132,233 15,924 12% 132,045 188
Total Records 819,239 171,319 21% 756,435 62,804
Adult Jail
Personnel 14,185,302 3,309,176 23% 14,052,434 132,868
Materials & Services 2,242,683 472,396 21% 2,250,739 (8,056)
Capital Outlay 536,310 - 0% 557,895 (21,585)
Transfer Out 273,291 200 0% 273,291 -
Total Adult Jail 17,237,586 3,781,772 22% 17,134,359 103,227
Court Security
Personnel 366,398 59,673 16% 366,398
Materials & Services 21,480 4,032 19% 21,480
Total Court Security 387,878 63,705 16% 387,878
Emergency Services
Personnel 256,878 45,044 18% 235,549 21,329
Materials & Services 26,263 5,703 22% 41,353 (15,090)
Total Emergency Services 283,141 50,747 18% 276,902 6,239
Special Services
Personnel 1,252,628 345,884 28% 1,252,628 -
Materials & Services 195,739 26,007 13% 198,899 (3,160)
Capital Outlay 129,000 10,687 8% 155,641 (26,641)
Total Special Services 1,577,367 382,577 24% 1,607,168 (29,801)
Training
Personnel 455,746 110,888 24% 455,746 -
Materials & Services 148,287 47,227 32% 183,565 (35,278)
Total Training 604,033 158,114 26% 639,311 (35,278)
Other Law Enforcement Services
Personnel 758,866 202,299 27% 851,479 (92,613)
Materials & Services 100,648 21,988 22% 100,648 -
Total Other Law Enforcement 859,514 224,287 26% 952,127 (92,613)
Non -Departmental
Materials & Services 112,846 28,212 25% 112,846
Total Non -Departmental 112,846 28,212 25% 112,846
Page 4
July 1, 2016 through September 30, 2016
co
co
U ' ' co O M r0 ti co
st co O COO CO
c O
j N O M CO
r r
o
N LO CO0 0 00 CO• . 0)0)Nr
O N r �T 1s tt t7 0)
(Z 0) 0) co r co- co
+� o Q o 0 0
04 D NO O O Z r co r......
M N 0
Q c r
w m
J
N ti O n N O N I.
CO COOst co v NO CO
0 o co- C'7 O d' O co- CA
pCC) r 00 N CC) ch CO
U N r � N
(p Q N N CC) 07
a)
>-
000
a) • 0 0
o • O co
CO N r
0)
0
co
co
M
O
M
co CO Is to
1s M N
0v• co ) ctO co
00 to CA
O co 00 00 0) 00
cri co- co -
CO CO 0) t!) O r)
✓ N C� N
• co co O LC) Cr CO. CO 00
p CO t7 CO0 C▪ 00 ti 0
CL L N N N vO O
+� o o a o 0 0
o) O O Z r N O
M N N
o e j r
w 00
J
N 00 co O r co O l!)
Q ' co N OO) N CO COO ''t
N-
O 7 N r COO IO O N
++ U r r 0) 03 1` 0)
C`p Q d' d' 1.0-
0) 0)
� Cfi 0
-co 00O
O t.
N
a `0
» te
(0
� •1 a)
a
Q ,o
20 -
a
a
0)
0) LO • CO ti ti 0
CM I` CO CO N.
mt. CO 0) CO CO
r N ti' M
N N
To Sheriffs Office
LLCOCOC
.5 O
a)=
me
c .c
0)
000
M 00 00
00 r 0)
o N
N CO CO
M CY)
• 0
C c
c
m • f0
O 0
U a g
co
rn
• U
O • `2
r -
w w
Ozs cnI
� o
Revenues
State Grants
OHP Capitation
Administrative Fee
Environmental Health Fees
State - OMAP
Federal Grants
Patient Fees
Local Grants
Title 19
State Shared -Family Planning
State Miscellaneous
Liquor Revenue
Divorce Filing Fees
Interfund Contract -Gen Fund
Vital Records
Interest on Investments
Other
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Personnel Services
Materials and Services
Capital Outlay
Transfers Out
Total Expenditures
Revenues Tess Expenditures
Transfers In -General Fund
Transfers In -Other
Total Transfers In
Change in Fund Balance
Beginning Fund Balance
Ending Fund Balance
Health Services
Statement of Financial Operating Data
FY 2016
Actual
11,940,592
11,756,788
920,156
878,929
1,116,399
676,462
350,727
605,656
129,514
226,258
211,627
151,973
131,689
194,785
61,273
365,510
29,718,339
22,769,593
9,402,751
213,459
445,740
32,831,544
Year to Date July 1,
2016 through
September 30, 2016
(25.0% of the year)
% of
Actual I Budget
2,873,412 26% a)
1,823,430 15%
0%
39,663 4%
296,851 31%
0%
92,481 23%
100,000 23% b)
5,406 2%
23,332 12%
1,300 1%
0%
157,603 120% c)
0%
56,725 32%
23,956 44%
377,014 102%
5,871,173 20%
5,868,556 24% b),
1,764,209 16%
N/A
111,435 25%
7,744,201 22%
(3,113,205) 1 (1,873,028)
4,408,227
227,587
4,635,814
1,522,609
6,165,600
$ 7,688,209
1,171,050 25%
N/A
1,171,050 25%
(701, 978)
7,688,209 132%
$ 6,986,232
Budget
FY 2017
Projected I Variance
11,114,170 11,233,374 119,204
11,941,755 11,941,755
1,143,411 1,143,411
915,350 915,350
945,650 945,650
683,417 683,417
397,225 397,225
442,214 757,370 315,156
253,461 253,461
200,000 200,000
172,000 172,000
151,000 151,000
131,689 157,603 25,914
127,000 127,000
175,000 175,000
55,000 95,000 40,000
367,888 377,014 9,126
29,216,230 29,725,630 509,400
24,660,429 25,021,621 (361,192)
10, 865, 453 10, 865, 453
445,740 445,740
35,971,622 36,332,814 (361,192)
(6,755,392) (6,607,184) 148,208
4,684,193 4,684,193
4,684,193
(2,071,199)
5,827,329
$ 3,756,130
Information on new FY 2017 resources not available during budget preparation:
a) PREP Grant from Oregon Health Authority
b) COHC Perinatal Central Oregon Continuum Initiative for $361,192
c) Received annually
4,684,193
(1,922,991) 148,208
7,688,209 1,860,880
5,765,218 $ 2,009,088
Page 6
Revenues
Admin -Operations
Admin -GIS
Admin -Code Enforcement
Building Safety
Electrical
Contract Services
Env Health -On Site Prog
Planning -Current
Planning -Long Range
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Admin -Operations
Admin -GIS
Admin -Code Enforcement
Building Safety
Electrical
Contract Services
Env Health -On Site Pgm
Planning -Current
Planning -Long Range
Transfers Out (D/S Fund)
Total Expenditures
Revenues less Expenditures
Transfers In/Out
In: General Fund - UR Planning
Out: A & T Reserve
Out: CDD Reserve Funds
Net Transfers In/Out
Change in Fund Balance
Beginning Fund Balance
Ending Fund Balance
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Statement of Financial Operating Data
FY 2016
Actual
86,401
877
349,648
2,435,823
572,160
536,646
671,414
1,325,662
686,012
6,664,642
1,621,971
134,450
306,588
836,425
295,001
328,534
346,978
998,174
506,993
163,940
5,539,054
1,125,588
90,783
(1,037,652)
(946,869)
178,719
2,151,773
$ 2,330,492
Year to Date July 1,
2016 through
September 30, 2016
(25.0% of the year)
% of
Actual I Budget
24,691
55
124,820
804,465
227,449
189,458
382,587
175,436
1,928,961
447,440
33,197
98,101
319,210
79,708
90,758
254,944
99,948
1,423,305
505,656
FY 2017
Budget I Projected Variance
30% 81,551 81,551
6% 1,000 1,000
29% 436,000 436,000
31% 2,600,000 2,776,938
37% 622,500 667,210
0% a) 502,500
32% 598,750 606,250
28% 1,343,350 1,343,350
27% 656,500 614,164
28% 6,842,151 6,526,463
176,938
44,710
(502,500)
7,500
(42, 336)
(315,688)
25% 1,818,730 1,819,293 (563)
23% 143,702 143,702
23% 427,837 430,337 (2,500)
22% 1,453,625 1,453,625
25% 313,684 313,684 -
N/A a)
20% 444,755 415,570 29,185
22% 1,175,469 1,145,614 29,855
22% 452,653 422,653 30,000
N/A
23% 6,230,455 6,144,478 85,977
N/A
N/A
(345,400) 25%
(345,400) 25%
160,256
2,330,492 148%
$ 2,490,749
611,696 381,985 (229,711)
(1,381,600)
(1,381,600)
(769,904)
1,578,206
$ 808,302
(1,381,600)
(1,381,600)
(999,615) (229,711)
2,330,492 752,286
$ 1,330,877 $ 522,575
a) City of Redmond contract cancelled. Services for City of Sisters are reported in the County's Building Safety
and Electrical Divisions
Page 7
Revenues
Motor Vehicle Revenue
Federal - PILT Payment
Other Inter -fund Services
Cities-Bend/Red/Sis/La Pine
State Miscellaneous
Forest Receipts
Sale of Equip & Material
Mineral Lease Royalties
Assessment Payments (P&I)
Interest on Investments
Miscellaneous
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Personnel Services
Materials and Services
Debt Service
Capital Outlay
Transfers Out
Total Expenditures
Revenues Tess Expenditures
Payment from Solid Waste
Trans In - Transp SDC
Trans Out
Total Transfers In
Change in Fund Balance
Beginning Fund Balance
Ending Fund Balance
a) PILT Grant received in July
ROAD
Statement of Financial Operating Data
FY 2016
Actual
12,487,163
1,203,216
1,132,400
728,980
603,572
1,067,643
345,190
135,663
109,142
123,836
402,358
18,339,163
5,668,320
8,658,040
1,605,077
600,000
16,531,437
1,807,727
326,539
1,000,000
1,326,539
3,134,266
11,706,673
$ 14,840,939
Year to Date July 1, 2016
through September 30, 2016
(25.0% of the year)
Actual % of Budget
3,148,477
1,323,365
40,638
21,817
9,551
33,590
26,526
12,271
4,616,234
1,454,659
2,497,508
8,067,643
12,019,810
(7,403,575)
90,613
90,613
(7,312,962)
14,840,939
$ 7,527,976
25%
106% a)
4%
0%
0%
0%
7%
5%
34%
66%
29%
27%
FY 2017
Budget I Projected I Variance
12,470,647
1,250,000
977,400
847,000
593,969
400,000
316,200
175,000
100,000
40,000
42,070
17,212,286
24% 6,106,592
20% 12,582,412
N/A
0% 273,000
9,067,643
43% 28,029,647
(10,817,361)
89%
25% 362,453
N/A
N/A
25% 362,453
(10,454,908)
118% 12,549,601
$ 2,094,693
12,470,647
1,323,365 73,365
977,400
847,000
593,969
400,000
316,200
175,000
100,000
110,000 70,000
42,070
17,355,651 143,365
6,106, 592
12,582,412
273,000
9,067,643
28,029,647
(10,673,996) 143,365
362,453
362,453
(10,311,543)
14,840,939
$ 4,529,396
143,365
2,291,338
$ 2,434,703
Page 8
Revenues
DOC Grant in Aid SB 1145
CJC Justice Reinvestment
DOC Measure 57
Electronic Monitoring Fee
Probation Superv. Fees
DOC -Family Sentence Alt
Interfund - Sheriff
Gen Fund/Crime Prevention
DOJ/Arrest Grant
Alternate Incarceration
State Subsidy
Interest on Investments
Probation Work Crew Fees
State Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Personnel Services
Materials and Services
Transfer to Veh Maint
Capital Outlay
Total Expenditures
Revenues less Expenditures
Transfers In -General Fund
Change in Fund Balance
Beginning Fund Balance
Ending Fund Balance
ADULT PAROLE & PROBATION
Statement of Financial Operating Data
FY 2016
Actual
3,650,200
845,836
234,316
175,399
216,170
110,797
50,000
50,000
46,736
19,492
16,317
15,022
9,531
11,623
842
5,452,282
3,770,605
1,489,673
41,472
5,301,750
150,532
451,189
601,721
863,649
$ 1,465,370
Year to Date July 1,
2016 through
September 30, 2016
(25.0% of the year)
% of
Actual Budget
912,542
845,836
240,315
36,199
53,405
110,797
12,501
7,859
4,092
7,213
2,089
350
2,233,197
FY 2017
Budget I Projected Variance
25% a) 3,650,168
100% b) 845,836
103% c) 234,316
18% 200,000
25% 210,000
100% b) 110,796
25% 50,000
0% d) 50,000
0% d) 46,736
39% e) 20,035
26% e) 15,610
103% f) 7,000
35% 6,000
0% . 4,300
70% 500
41% 5,451,297
1,073,860 24% g) 4,407,793
371,852 22% 1,721,927
5,500 25% 22,000
0% 10,000
1,451,211 24% 6,161,720
781,986 (710,423)
112,797
894,783
1,465,370
$ 2,360,153
25% 451,189
(259,234)
126% 1,162,000
$ 902,766
3,650,168
845,836
240,315 5,999
200,000
210,000
110,796
50,000
50,000
46,736
20,035
15,610
25,000 18,000
6,000
4,300
500
5,475,296 23,999
4,372,000 35,793
1,721,927
22,000
10,000
6,125,927 35,793
(650,631) 59,792
451,189
(199,442)
1,465,370
$ 1,265,928
a) Quarterly payments based on biennial allocation
b) Annual payment based on biennial allocation
c) Received a small grant in addition to biennial allocation
d) Quarterly reimbursement
e) Reimbursed based on actual offender expenses. Projection will be updated as necessary
f) Increased projection due to YTD revenue received
g) Decreased projection due to YTD and anticipated staff vacancies
59,792
303,370
$ 363,162
Page 9
Operating Revenues
Franchise Disposal Fees
Private Disposal Fees
Commercial Disp. Fees
Franchise 3% Fees
Yard Debris
Recyclables
Equip & Material
Special Waste
Interest
Leases
Miscellaneous
Total Operating Revenues
Operating Expenditures
Personnel Services
Materials and Services
Debt Service
Capital Outlay
Total Operating Expenditures
Operating Rev Tess Exp
Transfers Out
SW Capital & Equipment Reserve
Total Transfers Out
Change in Fund Balance
Beginning Fund Balance
Ending Fund Balance
SOLID WASTE
Statement of Financial Operating Data
FY 2016
Actual
4,964,159
1,869,094
1,446,733
238,665
178,658
18,238
16,490
21,806
24,335
10,801
42,543
8,831,521
1,967,190
3,832,421
911,224
74,313
6,785,148
2,046,372
1,400, 000
1,400,000
646,372
1,163,893
$ 1,810,265
a) Franchise and Commercial fees not yet
b) Fee due in April 2017
c) Semi-annual payments (November and
Year to Date July 1,
2016 through
September 30, 2016
(25.0% of the year)
% of
Actual Budget
860,548
591,647
328,562
11,387
42,292
3,537
10,187
4,797
6,628
3,600
11,663
1,874,848
17%
33%
22%
5%
29%
24%
N/A
19%
37%
33%
36%
21%
FY 2017
Budget Projected I Variance
a) 5,195,799
1,787,980
1,473,817
b) 230,000
145,000
15,000
533,917 25%
851,845 19%
0% c)
0%
1,385,763 18%
489,086
0%
0%
489,086
1,810,265 302%
$ 2,299,351
25,000
18,000
10,801
32,500
8,933,897
2,120,146
4,395,018
930,944
158,000
7,604,108
1,329,789
1,375,000
1,375,000
(45,211)
600,000
$ 554,789
5,195,799
1,787, 980
1,473,817
230,000
145,000
15,000
25,000
25,000 7,000
10,801
32,500
8,940,897 7,000
2,120,146
4,395,018
930,944
158,000
7,604,108
1,336,789 7,000
1,375,000
1,375,000
(38,211)
1,810,265
$ 1,772,054
received for August & September due to billing software conversion
May)
7,000
1,210,265
$ 1,217,265
Page 10
Revenues
Inter -fund Charges:
General Liability
Property Damage
Vehicle
Workers' Compensation
Unemployment
Claims Reimb-Gen Liab/Property
Process Fee-Events/Parades
Miscellaneous
Skid Car Training
Transfer In -Fund 340
Interest on Investments
TOTAL REVENUES
Direct Insurance Costs:
GENERAL LIABILITY
Settlement / Benefit
Defense
Professional Service
Insurance
Loss Prevention
Miscellaneous
Repair / Replacement
Total General Liability
PROPERTY DAMAGE
Settlement / Benefit
Insurance
Repair / Replacement
Total Property Damage
VEHICLE
Professional Service
Insurance
Loss Prevention
Repair / Replacement
Total Vehicle
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
Settlement / Benefit
Professional Service
Insurance
Loss Prevention
Miscellaneous
Total Workers' Compensation
UNEMPLOYMENT - Settlement/Benefits
Total Direct Insurance Costs
Insurance Administration:
Personnel Services
Materials & Srvc, Capital Out. & Tranfs.
Total Expenditures
Change in Fund Balance
Beginning Fund Balance
Ending Fund Balance
RISK MANAGEMENT
Statement of Financial Operating Data
FY 2016
Actual
Year to Uate July 1,
2016 through
September 30, 2016
(25.0% of the year)
% of
Actual I Budget
FY 2017
Budget 1 Projected Variance I
859,198 232,839 25% 931,319
394,092 97,278 25% 389,101
179,850 49,299 25% 197,155
1,140,241 304,239 25% 1,216,966
335,660 68,541 25% 273,824
71,559 5,088 25% 20,000
1,595 360 20% 1,800
0 0% 105
30,240 1,710 5% 32,000
95,000 - N/A -
39,075 13,639 34%
3,146,510 1 772,993 25%
931,319
389,101
197,155
1,216,966
273,824
20,000
1,800
105
32,000
40,000 50,000 10,000
3,102,270 3,112,270 10,000
205,873 2,496
36,380 5,471
6,304 -
198,516 331,312
5,049
98
29,876 2,117
482,096 341,396 44% 780,000
48,500
166,978
23,145
190,123
21,097
141,853
162,949
381,919
7,450
139,185
45,289
41,895
615,738
81,487
1,580,894
308,591
198,474
2,087,958
1,058,552
3,869,719
$ 4,928,271
14,477
14,477
5,101
3,602
9,747
18,450
68,801
120,740
11,858
201,399
575,721
77,003
33,741
686,466
86,527
4,928,271
$ 5,014,798
7%
18%
22%
0%
27%
850,000 (70,000)
215,000 205,000 10,000
100,000 100,000
900,000 900,000
150,000 145,000 5,000
2,145,000 2,200,000 (55,000)
23% 337,106 337,106
16% 212,799 212,799
25% 2,694,905 2,749,905
407,365 362,365
123% 4,000,000 4,928,271
* $ 4,407,365 $ 5,290,636
* Ending Fund Balance includes $2,900,000 restricted for Workers' Comp Loss Reserve
(55,000)
(45,000)
928,271
$ 883,271
Page 11
Revenues
Property Taxes - Current
Property Taxes - Prior
State Reimbursement
State Grant
Telephone User Tax
Data Network Reimb.
Jefferson County
User Fee
Police RMS User Fees
Contract Payments
Miscellaneous
Interest
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Personnel Services
Materials and Services
Capital Outlay
Total Expenditures
DC 9-1-1 (Funds 705 and 707)
Statement of Financial Operating Data
FY 2016
Actual
7,091,838
139,516
52,851
825,758
51,399
31,743
56,776
314,631
486,783
333,046
76,500
9,460,840
Year to Date July 1, 2016
through September 30,
2016 (25.0% of the year)
% of
Actual Budget
FY 2017
Budget I Projected I Variance
0% a) 7,430,701
43,294 31% 140,000
4,165 1% 640,000
0% 278,500
0% b) 780,000
252 0% 53,000
301 1% 33,000
0% 55,000
11,917 4% b) 280,000
2,990 1% b) 547,653
N/A
26,164 61% 43,000 100,000
89,083 1% 10,280,854 10,337,854
7,430,701
140,000
640,000
278,500
780,000
53,000
33,000
55,000
280,000
547,653
5,066,537 1,365,114
2,727,787 709,471
1,821,228 2,716,814
9,615,552 i 4,791,399
Transfer In - Fund 710 5,723,091
Revenues less Expenditures
5,568,379
Beginning Fund Balance 4,995,106
Ending Fund Balance $ 10,563,485
(4,702,316)
10,563,485
$ 5,861,169
21%
24%
61% c)
34%
114%
6,658,661
2,968,767
4,450,000
14,077,428
400,000
(3,396,574)
9,290,627
$ 5,894,053
6,658,661
2,968,767
4,450,000
14,077,428
57,000
57,000
(3,739,574) 57,000
10,563,485 1,272,858
$ 6,823,911 $ 1,329,858
a) Current year taxes received beginning in October
b) Quarterly payments or not yet invoiced
c) Expenditures for the 9-1-1 phone, computer aided dispatch and radio system projects incurred in the 1st Qtr
Page 12
Revenues:
Internal Premium Charges
Part -Time Employee Premium
Employee Monthly Co -Pay
COIL
Retiree / COBRA Co -Pay
Prescription Rebates
Claims Reimbursements & Misc
Interest
Total Revenues
Expenditures:
Personnel Services (all depts)
Materials & Services
Admin & Wellness
Claims Paid -Medical
Claims Paid -Prescription
Claims Paid-Dental/Vision
Stop Loss Insurance Premium
State Assessments
Administration Fee (EMBS)
Preferred Provider Fee
Other - Administration
Other - Wellness
Admin & Wellness
Deschutes On-site Clinic
Contracted Services
Medical Supplies
Other
Total DOC
Deschutes On-site Pharmacy
Contracted Services
Prescriptions
Other
Total Pharmacy
Total Expenditures
Change in Fund Balance
Beginning Fund Balance
Ending Fund Balance
% of Exp covered by Revenues
Health Benefits Fund
Statement of Financial Operating Data
FY 2016
Actual
$ 15,745,144
8,000
900,225
2,103,195
1,147,682
66,573
314,287
119,284
20,404,390
July 1, 2016
through
September 30,
2016 (25% of
Fiscal Year)
$ 4,207,104
1,454
238,500
554,195
308,713
82,079
39,270
5,431,314
% of
Budget
FY 2017
Approved
Budget
FY 2017
Projection
25% a) 16,670,000 16,828,415
N/A 5,815
26% a) 928,800 954,000
27% a) 2,050,000 2,216,781
26% 1,208,893 1,208,893
0% 130,000 130,000
55% 150,000 150,000
34% a) 115,000 157,079
26% 21,252,693 21,650,983
107,299 30,659 25% 124,499 124,499
12,745,706
914,949
1,927,875
358,991
119,231
487,091
155,634
93,867
152,033
16,955,377
905,222
68,477
31,690
1,005,389
3,705,787 28% b)
224,835 23% b)
451,233 22% b)
91,660 22%
0%
116,168 24%
28,275 16%
34,819 29%
43,943 28%
4,696,720 26%
189,707 21%
0%
4,344 11%
194,052 19%
350,144 74,663 22%
1,670,080 121,346 7%
21,002 5,347 23%
2,041,226 201,356 10%
20,109,291 5,122,787 24%
295,100 308,528
14,207,523 14,502,622 101%
$ 14,502,622 $ 14,811,150
101.5%11 106.0%1
a) Year to date annualized
b) Fourteen weeks of actual plus prior thirty-eight weeks with 6.5% increase
13,463,599
977,251
2,059,150
420,000
225,000
481,500
171,800
119,055
156,350
18,073,705
905,000
85,000
40,319
1,030,319
339,200
1,650,000
23,168
2,012,368
21,240,891
11,802
14,327,000
$ 14,338,802
100.1%1
13,282,373
945,687
1,988,702
420,000
225,000
481,500
171,800
119,055
156,350
17,790,467
905,000
85,000
40,319
1,030,319
339,200
1,650,000
23,168
2,012,368
20,957,653
693,330
14,811,150
$ 15,504,480
103.3%y
$ Variance
158,415
5,815
25,200
166,781
42,079
398,290
181,226
31,564
70,448
283,238
283,238
681,528
484,150
$ 1,165,678
Page 13
Operating Revenues
Events Revenues
Storage
Camping at F & E
Horse Stall Rental
Annual County Fair (net)
Interfund Contract
Miscellaneous
Total Operating Revenues
Operating Expenditures, net of TRT:
General F & E Activities
Personnel Services
TRT Grant
Materials and Services
TRT Grant
Capital Outlay
TRT Grant
Total Operating Exp, net of TRT
Other:
Park Acq/Dev (Fund 130)
Rights & Signage
Interest
Total Other
( Results of Operations
Transfers In / Out
Transfer In -General Fund
Transfer In -Room Tax - (Fund 160)
Trans In(Out)-Fair & Expo Reserve
Total Transfers In
Non -Operating Rev & Exp
Debt Service
Total Non -Operating Expenditures
Change in Fund Balance
Beginning Fund Balance
Ending Fund Balance
FAIR AND EXPO CENTER
Statement of Financial Operating Data
July 1, 2016 through September 30, 2016
FY 2016
Actual
Year to Date (25% of the
year)
Actual I% of Budget
539,591 $ 62,137
59,700 -
19,475 100
51,449 1,020
283,000 300,000
43,605 7,500
7,384 4,498
1,096,364 358,024
899,882 220,173
(124,842) (37,037)
714,323 178,279
(95,265) (42,577)
1,394,098 318,838
30,000 7,500
101,630 4,000
1,587 206
133,217 11,706
(164,516) 50,892
300,000
25,744
(62,740)
263,004
109,927
109,927
(11,440)
58,723
$ 47,283
62,499
6,435
(55,000)
13,934
11.4%
0.0%
0.5%
2.0%
99.1% b
25.0% c
50.5%
31.8%
22.1 %
19.8%
22.3%
18.8%
0.0%
0.0%
23.1%
25.0%
3.6%
25.8%
8.3%
25.0%
25.0%
100.0%
6.3%
0.0%
0.0%
64,826
47,283 120.4%
112,109
Budget 1
545,000 $
60,000
22,000
52,000
02,814
30,000
8,900
1,126,729
995,217
(186,672)
800,712
(226,594)
255,000
(255,000)
1,382,663
30,000
110,000
800
140,800
(115,134)
250,000
25,744
(55,000)
220,744
108,488
108,488
(2,878)
39,277
36,399 $
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
FY 2017
Projection 1 $ Variance
545,000 $
60,000
22,000
52,000
423,000
30,000
8,900
1,246,916
995,217
(186,672)
800,712
(226,594)
255,000
(255,000)
1,382,663
30,000
110,000
800
140,800
5,053
250,000
25,744
(55,000)
220,744
102,536
102,536
0
20,
0
120,187
(0)
0
(0)
0
0
120,187 1
5,952
5,952
123,261 126,139
47,283 8,006
170,544 $ 134,145
Page 14
Deschutes County
Fair and Expo Center
Food and Beverage Activity
July 1, 2016 through September 30, 2016
I July 1 August 1 September 1 Year to Date I
Revenues $ 10,302 $ 3,569 $ 16,506 $ 30,376
Direct Costs
Beginning Inventory 24,921 25,417 27,773 24,921
Purchases 860 3,617 3,248 7,724
Ending Inventory (25,417) (27,773) (26,515) (26,515)
Cost of Food & Beverage 363 1,261 4,506 6,130
Event Expenses 200 864 1,182 2,246
Labor 2,205 1,603 5,026 8,835
Total Direct Costs 2,768 3,728 10,714 17,211
Gross Profit 7,534 (159) 5,791 13,165
Gross Profit Percentage 73.1 % -4.5% 35.1 % 43.3%
Other Revenues
Catering/3rd Party 691 350 1,738 2,779
Concessions/3rd Party 655 - - 655
Rentals (Kitchen/Flatware)
Total Other Revenues 1,346 350 1,738 3,434
Expenses
Personnel 9,789 9,789 10,200 29,778
Other Materials & Services 2,456 1,959 913 4,054
Total Expenses 12,245 11,748 11,113 33,832
Income -Food & Beverage Activity $ (3,366) $ (11,557) $ (3,583) $ (17,232)
Page 15
Revenues
Court Fines & Fees
Interest on Investments
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Personnel Services
Materials and Services
Total Expenditures
Revenues Tess Expenditures
Transfers In -General Fund
Change in Fund Balance
Beginning Fund Balance
End Fund Bal (Contingency)
JUSTICE COURT
Statement of Financial Operating Data
FY 2016
Actual ■ Actual
Year to Date July
1, 2016 through
September 30, 2016
(25.0% of the year)
% of
Budget
FY 2017
Budget I Projected I Variance
530,437 93,399 18% a) 520,000
803 381 N/A -
531,240 93,780 18% 520,000
435,314 113,652 25% 458,984
158,695 44,693 26% 175,007
594,008 158,345 25% 633,991
(62,768) (64,565)
145,747 6,249 25%
82,979 (58,316)
78,723 161,702 111%
161,702 $ 103,385
(113,991)
25,000
(88,991)
145,608
$ 56,617 $
561,112
1,500
562,612
458,984
175,007
633,991
41,112
1,500
42,612
(71,379) 42,612
25,000 -
(46,379) 42,612
161,702 16,094
115,323 $ 58,706
a) Monthly revenue recorded in arrears - (September $46,879 revenue not shown). Projection is annualized
Page 16
REVENUES
Room Taxes
Interest
Total Revenues
EXPENDITURES
Administrative
Auditing Services
Interfund Contract
ISF
Public Notices
Printing
Office Supplies
Postage
Total Administrative
Current Distributions
LED #2
Sunriver Chamber (1)
Sunriver Chamber (2)
Sunriver Service Dist (3)
COVA-6%
COVA - 1%
RV Park
Annual Fair
F&E-6%
F&E Reserve Fund
F&E-1%
Total Distributions
Total Expenditures
Balance
Transfer to Gen Cap Reserve
Change in Balance
Beginning Balance
Ending Balance
Fund 160
Budget
Deschutes County
Room Taxes (Funds 160 and 170)
Budget and Actual - FY 2017
YTD 09-30-2016
Actual
$ 5,425,000 $ 2,977,772
3,000 2,049
5,428,000 2,979,821
11,000
68,951
37,291
2,650
1,800
900
2,625
125,217
3,151,787
34,500
10,000
200,000
868,696
758,007
17,238
9,324
368
26,930
787,947
17,250
306,554
270,847
25,744 6,435
5,048,734
5,173,951
1,389,032
1,415,962
254,049 1,563,859
Fund 170
Budget I Actual Budget
Combined
$ 775,000 $ 425,396
- 1,238
775,000 426,634
% of
Actual Budget
$ 6,200,000 3,403,167.85 54.9%
3,000 3,286.83 109.6%
6,203,000 3,406,455 54.9%
1,500 - 12,500
11,324 2,832 80,275 20,070
11,932 2,985 49,223 12,309
400 53 3,050 420
350 - 2,150
125 - 1,025 -
400 3,025
26,031 5,870 151,248 32,799
3,151,787 787,947
- 34,500 17,250
- 10,000 -
- 200,000
- 868,696 306,554
758,007 270,847
40,000 17,954 40,000 17,954
61,000 56,687 61,000 56,687
- - 25,744 6,435
224,703 56,176 224,703 56,176
668,266 58,913 668,266 58,913
993,969 189,728 6,042,703 1,578,761
1,020,000 195,598 6,193,951 1,611,560
(245,000) 231,036 1 9,049 1,794,895
489,049 489,049 - 1 489,049 489,049
(235,000) 1,074,810
235,000 313,406
- $ 1,388,216
1) $30,000 base plus 15% increase to match COVA's increase
2) $10,000 To Sunriver Chamber for consultant
3) $200,000 to Sunriver Service District for Training Facility
(245,000) 231,036
245,000 405,292
$ - $ 636,327
9,049 1,305,846
480,000 718,698
$ 489,049 $ 2,024,543
JRF 10/10/2016
•
10U YE6$
AS UR,o /4;
4J�Ar��,�i� �rJ�A�lJR�m L�idlllll�
Community Development Department
Planning, Building Safety, Environmental Soils, Code Enforcement
PO Box 6005, Bend, Oregon 97708-6005
117 NW Lafayette Avenue
www.deschutes.org/cd
TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
FROM: Matthew Martin, Associate Planner
DATE: October 10, 2016
SUBJECT: Text and Plan Amendments Resulting from Agricultural Lands Public Outreach.
County Land Use File Nos. 247 -16 -000021 -TA and 247 -16 -000022 -PA.
I. SUMMARY
The Planning Division is bringing a package of three amendments to the Board of
Commissioners (Board) for a work session on October 17, 2016. These amendments are the
result of the agricultural lands outreach conducted in 2014/15.
11. BACKGROUND
In 2014, the Board directed the Community Development Department (CDD) to conduct a public
outreach campaign to understand community, stakeholder, and landowner opinions about
Deschutes County farm designations and land uses. In May 2014, the Planning Division
conducted community conversations in throughout the county in Alfalfa, Bend, Brothers, La
Pine, Sisters, and Terrebonne.
The Board held two joint work sessions with the Planning Commission on June 26, 2014 and
September 25 respectively, to discuss the results of the agricultural lands program public
outreach campaign. Following those discussions, both commissions requested additional
information. Specifically, they asked about opportunities to expand housing options in the
Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zone. Staff evaluated HB 2229 and coordinated with former
Planning Director John Anderson and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and
Development in Winter 2015. Based on their input, it was determined HB 2229 in its present
form prevented Deschutes County from initiating legislative amendments to change EFU
zoning.
As a result, staff focused on minor modifications relating to resource zoned lands. During the
development of the Planning Division's FY 2016-2017 work program, the Planning Commission
and the Board supported initiating the following amendments:
• Comprehensive Plan amendment recognizing non -resource lands process allowed
under State law to change EFU zoning;
• Zoning code amendment providing a definition of agricultural and equine exempt
buildings; and,
• Zoning code amendment, reducing setbacks in Forest Use (F-2) zone for Haner Park
Subdivision and an adjoining three acre tax lot.
On March 10, 2016, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive testimony on the
proposed amendments. That same day, the Planning Commission voted in support of the •
proposed definitions of agricultural/equine exempt buildings and setback standard for Haner
Park. Deliberations were continued to March 24 and the Planning Commission voted to not
support the proposed comprehensive plan amendments relating to the non -resource lands
process allowed under State law to change EFU zoning.
11I. SCHEDULE
A work session is scheduled for October 17, 2016, and the public hearing before the Board is
scheduled for October 24, 2016.
Attachment: Draft Ordinance No. 2016-005
Draft Ordinance No. 2016-006
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
For Recording Stamp Only
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Ordinance Amending Deschutes County Code
Title 18 to Provide a Definition of Agricultural
Exempt Buildings and Reducing Setbacks in the
Forest Use 2 ("F2") Zone for the Haner Park
Subdivision.
*
*
*
ORDINANCE NO. 2016-006
WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Community Development Department (CDD) initiated amendments
(Planning Division File No. 247 -16 -000021 -TA) to the Deschutes County Code (DCC) Title 18, Chapter 18.04,
Definitions; and Chapter 18.40, Forest Use Zone (F-2) to provide a definition of agricultural exempt buildings
and reduce setbacks in the F-2 Zone for Haner Park Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Planning Commission reviewed the proposed changes on Month
Day, 2016 and forwarded to the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners ("Board"), a
recommendation of approval; and
WHEREAS, the Board considered this matter after -a duly noticed public hearing on Month Day, 2016,
and concluded that the publicwill benefit from the proposed changes to Deschutes County Code ("DCC") Title
18; now, therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS
as follows:.
Section 1. AMENDMENT. DCC 18.04.030, Defmitions, is amended to read as described in Exhibit
"A," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, with new language underlined and language to
be deleted in atrikethrough.
Section 2. AMENDMENT. DCC 18.40.100, Yards and Setbacks, is amended to read as described in
Exhibit "B," attached hereto and by this referenced incorporated herein, with new language underlined and
language to be deleted in Gtrikethrough.
///
PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2016-006
Section 3. FINDINGS. The Board adopts as its findings Exhibit "C", attached and incorporated by
reference herein.
Dated this of , 2016 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
ALAN UNGER, Chair
TAMMY BANEY, Vice Chair
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary ANTHONY DEBONE, Commissioner
Date of 1st Reading: day of , 2016.
Date of 2°a Reading: day of . 2016.
Record of Adoption Vote:
Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused
Anthony DeBone _
Alan Unger
Tammy Baney
Effective date: day of , 2016.
PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2016-006
"****" Denotes portions of this Section not amended by Ordinance 2016-006.
Section 18.04.030. Definitions.
****
"Agricultural building or equine facility" means buildings and structures that are exempt from the State of
Oregon Structural Specialty Code as agricultural buildings and equine facilities. A structural building
permit is not required for agricultural buildings or equine facilities receiving special assessment for farm
use.
(Ord. 2016-006 .S1. 2016; Ord. 2015-004 §1, 2015;_Ord. 2014-009 §1, 20141 Ord. 2013-008 §1, 2013;
Ord. 2012-007 §1, 2012; Ord. 2012-004 §1, 2012; Ord. 2011-009 §1, 2011; Ord. 2010-022 §1, 2010; Ord.
2010-018 §3, 2010, Ord. 2008-007 §1, 2008; Ord. 2008-015 §1, 2008; Ord. 2007-005 §1, 2007; Ord.
2007-020 §1, 2007; Ord. 2007-019 §1, 2007; Ord. 2006-008 §1, 2006; Ord. 2005-041 §1, 2005; Ord.
2004-024 §1, 2004; Ord. 2004-001 §1, 2004; Ord. 2003-028 §1, 2003; Ord. 2001-048 §1, 2001; Ord.
2001-044 §2, 2001; Ord. 2001-037 §1, 2001; Ord. 2001-033 §2, 2001; Ord. 97-078 §5, 1997; Ord. 97-017
§1, 1997; Ord. 97-003 §1, 1997; Ord. 96-082 §1, 1996; Ord. 96-003 §2, 1996; Ord. 95-077 §2, 1995; Ord.
95-075 §1, 1975; Ord. 95-007 §1, 1995; Ord. 95-001 §1, 1995; Ord. 94-053 §1, 1994; Ord. 94-041 §§2
and 3, 1994; Ord. 94-038 §3, 1994; Ord. 94-008 §§1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, 1994; Ord. 94-001 §§1, 2, and
3, 1994; Ord. 93-043 §§1, 1A and 1B, 1993; Ord. 93-038 §1, 1993; Ord. 93-005 §§1 and 2, 1993; Ord.
93-002 §§1, 2 and 3, 1993; Ord. 92-066 §1, 1992; Ord. 92-065 §§1 and 2, 1992; Ord. 92-034 §1, 1992;
Ord. 92-025 §1, 1992; Ord. 92-004 §§1 and 2, 1992; Ord. 91-038 §§3 and 4, 1991; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991;
Ord. 91-005 §1, 1991; Ord. 91-002 §11, 1991; Ord. 90-014 §2, 1990; Ord. 89-009 §2, 1989; Ord. 89-004
§1, 1989; Ord. 88-050 §3, 1988; Ord. 88-030 §3, 1988; Ord. 88-009 §1, 1988; Ord. 87-015 §1, 1987; Ord.
86-056 §2, 1986; Ord. 86-054 §1, 1986; Ord. 86-032 §1, 1986; Ord. 86-018 §1, 1986; Ord. 85-002 §2,
1985; Ord. 84-023 §1, 1984; Ord. 83-037 §2, 1983; Ord. 83-033 §1, 1983; Ord. 82-013 §1, 1982)
Page 1 of 1- EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE NO. 2016-006
18.40.100. Yards and Setbacks.
A. The front yard setback shall be 40 feet from a property line fronting on a local street, 60 feet from a
property line fronting on a collector and 100 feet from a property line fronting on an arterial.
B. Each side yard setback shall be a minimum of 25 feet except:
1. All parcels or lots with a side yard adjacent to zoned forest land shall have a minimum side yard of
100 feet; and
2. Tracts 1-58 -located in Haner Park, located in Township 22, Range 09. Section 09BB and Section
04CC. and Tax Lot 2209000000600 shall have a minimum side yard of 25 feet as long as the side
yard abuts the Forest Use 2 zone.
C. Rear yards shall be a minimum of 25 feete, xcept:
1. All parcels or lots with rear yards adjacent to zoned forest land shall have a minimum rear yard of
100 feet; and
2. Tracts 1-58 located in Haner Park. located in Township 22, Range 09, Section 09BB and Section
04CC, and Tax Lot 2209000000600 shall have a minimum rear yard of 25 feet as lone as the rear
yard abuts the Forest Use 2 zone.
D. The setback from the north lot line shall meet the solar setback requirements in DCC 18.116.180.
E. In addition to the setbacks set forth herein, any greater setbacks required by applicable building or
structural codes adopted by the State of Oregon and/or the County under DCC 15.04 shall be met.
(Ord. 2016-006 &2.2016; Ord. 95-075 §1, 1995; Ord. 94-008 §19, 1994; Ord. 92-025 §3, 1992; Ord. 91-020
§1, 1991; Ord. 83-037 §11, 1983)
Page 1 of 1- EXHIBIT B TO ORDINANCE NO. 2016-006
FINDINGS
The Deschutes County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Month Day, 2015
to consider legislative plan amendments to Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and
legislative amendments to Deschutes County Code (DCC) Title 18.1
The Planning Commission closed the hearing on Month Day, 2015 and forwarded a
recommendation of adoption to the Board of County Commissioners (Board). The Board
held hearings on Month Day, 2015. The written record was left open until 5:00 p.m. on
Month Day.
1. BACKGROUND
In 2014, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) directed the Community
Development Department (CDD) to conduct a public outreach campaign to understand
community, stakeholder, and landowner opinions about Deschutes County farm
designations and land uses. In May 2014, the Planning Division conducted community
conversations in locations throughout the county. Meetings were held in Alfalfa, Bend,
Brothers, La Pine, Sisters, and Terrebonne; each one provided an overview of
Deschutes County's agricultural lands program with details focusing on its history,
relevant Comprehensive Plan policies, and recent land use trends. A variety of public
engagement techniques were utilized to generate public comments including facilitated
exercises, and questionnaires.
The Board held two joint work sessions with the Planning Commission on June 26, 2014
and September 25 respectively, to discuss the results of the agricultural lands program
public outreach campaign. Following those discussions, both commissions requested
additional information. Specifically, they asked about opportunities to expand housing
options in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zone. Staff evaluated HB 2229 and
coordinated with former Planning Director John Anderson and the Oregon Department of
Land Conservation and Development in Winter 2015. Based on their input, it was
determined HB 2229 in its present form prevented Deschutes County from initiating
legislative amendments to change EFU zoning.
As a result, staff focused on minor modifications relating to resource zoned lands. During
the development of the Planning Division's FY 2015-2016 work program, the Planning
Commission and the Board supported initiating the following amendments:
• Comprehensive Plan amendment recognizing non -resource lands process
allowed under State law to change EFU zoning;
• Zoning code amendment providing a definition of agricultural and equine exempt
buildings; and,
• Zoning code amendment, reducing setbacks in Forest 2 (F2) zone, for Haner
Park Subdivision and an adjoining three acre tax lot.
1A public notice was published in the Bulletin on Month Day, 2015.
PAGE 1 OF 5 — EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE 2016-006
Ordinance 2015-016 formally adopts amendments in DCC Title 18 to provide a definition
of agricultural and equine exempt buildings and a setback reduction in the Forest Use
Zone (F-2) for Haner Park Subdivision and an adjoining three acre tax lot.
• The definition of the agricultural and equine exempt building is located in DCC
18.04.030, Definitions (Exhibit A of Ordinance 2015-006)
• The setback reduction is located in DCC 18.40.100, Yards and Setbacks (Exhibit
B of Ordinance 2015-006)
II. REVIEW CRITERIA
Deschutes County lacks specific criteria in DCC Titles 18, 22, or 23 for reviewing
legislative text amendments. Nonetheless, since Deschutes County is the applicant, it
bears the responsibility for justifying that the Title 18 text amendment amendments in
Ordinance 2015-006, are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
III. FINDINGS
The parameters for evaluating these specific amendments are based on an adequate
factual base and supportive evidence demonstrating consistency with Statewide
Planning Goals. The following findings demonstrate that Ordinance 2015-005, Exhibits A
and B comply with applicable statewide planning goals and the Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan.
Proposed Text Amendments / Ordinance 2015-006
The proposed text amendments are detailed in Ordinance 2015-006 and Exhibits A and
B, with additional text identified by underline and deleted text by strikethrough. The
following chapters in the Comprehensive Plan contain goals and/or policies that require
findings demonstrating that the text amendments remain consistent with them.
A. Agricultural and Equine Exempt Buildings
State law (ORS 455.315) allows exemption from the requirement for a building permit
and inspections under Oregon State Structural Specialty Code (electrical, plumbing, and
mechanical permits are always required). Since 2001, the authority to approve an
agricultural exempt building resides with the Building Official. A formal application
requires the County Planning Division to provide input on whether the property is a farm.
Deschutes County's zoning ordinances do not define "farm" or provide a basis for
making a determination on whether a property constitutes a farm.
Until the late 1990s, the Oregon Uniform Building Code (UBC) defined farm as "farm
use" — the same as in ORS 215.203 (the EFU Zone). However, when the state changed
to the International Building Code (IBC), "farm" was not defined. "Farm use" is defined in
Deschutes County Code and ORS 215.203 as:
"Farm use" means the current employment of land for the primary purpose of
obtaining a profit in money by raising, harvesting and selling crops or by the
feeding, breeding, management and sale of, or the produce of, livestock, poultry,
PAGE 2 OF 5 - EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE 2016-006
fur -bearing animals or honeybees or for dairying and the sale of dairy products or
any other agricultural or horticultural use or animal husbandry or any combination
thereof. "Farm use" includes the preparation, storage and disposal by marketing
or otherwise of the products or by-products raised on such land for human or
animal use. "Farm Use" also includes the current employment of the land for the
primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money by stabling or training equines,
including but not limited to, providing riding lessons, training clinics and schooling
shows. "Farm use" also includes the propagation, cultivation, maintenance and
harvesting of aquatic species and bird and animal species to the extent allowed
by the rules adopted by the State Fish and Wildlife Commission. "Farm use"
includes the on-site construction and maintenance of equipment and facilities
used for the activities described above. "Farm use" does not include the use of
land subject to the provisions of ORS chapter 321, except land used exclusively
for growing cultured Christmas trees as defined in ORS 215.203(3). Current
employment of the land for farm use also includes those uses listed under ORS
215.203(2) (b).
CDD's internal policy is a property must be receiving farm deferral and zoned EFU to
qualify. Below are approaches used by other central, eastern and western Oregon
counties. Most provide clear and objective standards to determine what constitutes a
farm for the purposes of making decisions on agricultural exempt buildings.
• Crook County
Agricultural Exempt Building: Property must qualify for "farm use" (land must be
currently employed for the primary purpose of obtaining profit in money). The
property must also either be at least 80 acres in size or currently employed in a
farm use and that such use has produced at least $40,000 in gross annual
income in at least 2 of the previous 5 years.
Equine Exempt Building: Same as above but the structure must only be used for
stabling or training equines including but not limited to providing riding lessons,
training clinics and schooling shows; storage of hay; and property owners must
own at least one equine or have the applicable land use approval for an equine
facility (such as riding lessons, training, schooling, boarding) in the zone.
• Jackson County
Agricultural Exempt Building: Property must be receiving farm deferral.
Equine Exempt Building: Same as above and it must be located on a farm.
Structure must only be used for stabling or training equines including but not
limited to providing riding lessons, training clinics.
• Jefferson County
Agricultural Exempt and Eauine Building: Property automatically qualifies if it is
located in the EFU zone and in farm deferral.
• Klamath County
PAGE 3 OF 5 - EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE 2016-006
Agricultural and Eauine Exempt Building: Property automatically qualifies if it is
either located in the EFU zone or if not, in farm deferral.
• Lake County
Agricultural Exempt Building.: Property must qualify for "farm use" (land must be
currently employed for the primary purpose of obtaining profit in money).
Eauine Exempt Building: Same as above and it must be located on a farm.
Structure must only be used for stabling or training equines including but not
limited to providing riding lessons, training clinics.
Staff is proposing a definition for agricultural and equine exempt building that applies to
property receiving farm deferral, regardless of the underlying zone. According to the
Oregon Department of Revenue, if land is in an EFU zone and is used primarily to make
a profit by farming, it qualifies for special farm -use assessment. If land is not in an EFU
zone but is used as farmland, it may receive the same assessment given to all qualifying
EFU farmland.
This text amendment is consistent with Agricultural Lands, Policy 2.28, which states:
Support a variety of methods to preserve agricultural lands, such as:
a. Support the use of grant funds and other resources to assist local farmers;
b. Work cooperatively with irrigation districts, public agencies and
representatives and land owners;
c. Encourage conservation easements, or purchase or transfer of development
rights programs;
d. Control noxious weeds;
e. Encourage a food council or buy local' program.
Allowing property owners with farm deferral status to receive agricultural exempt
buildings helps preserve agricultural lands because income that would otherwise go
towards obtaining a building permit can be spent on the farm.
B. Haner Park Setback
Deschutes County is proposing text amendments reducing the setbacks in Haner Park
subdivision and an adjoining three -acre tax lot that constitute an island of Forest Use 2
(F2) zone. This F2 zone is surrounded by Deschutes National Forest lands zoned Forest
Use 1. This subdivision and the remnant parcel were platted prior to State enabling land
use legislation. The subdivision is surrounded by federal land. No other changes to the
Forest Use 2 zone are proposed.
This text amendment is consistent with Forest Lands, Section 2.3 and its goals and
policies. The emphasis of this section is on forest management and conservation. Policy
2.3.5 is the only policy remotely related to the text amendment:
Uses allowed in Forest zones shall comply with State Statute and Oregon
Administrative Rule.
PAGE 4 OF 5 — EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE 2016-006
Any proposed use must still comply with the F2 zone development standards, which are
consistent with State Statute and administrative rules.
PAGE 5 OF 5 — EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE 2016-006
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
For Recording Stamp Only
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Ordinance Amending Deschutes County Code
Title 23 and the Deschutes County Comprehensive
Plan to Recognize Non -resource Lands Process
Allowed under State law to change Exclusive Farm
Use zoning.
ORDINANCE NO. 2016-005
WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Community Development Department (CDD) initiated amendments
(Planning Division File No. TA -16 -000022 -PA) to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 2,
Resource Management, and Chapter 3, Rural Growth Management to recognize non -resource lands process
allowed under State law to change Exclusive Farm Use zoning; and
WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Planning Commission reviewed the proposed changes on month,
day, 2016 and forwarded to the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners ("Board"), a
recommendation of approval; and.
WHEREAS, the Board considered this matter after a duly noticed public hearing on month, day, 2016,
and concluded that the public will benefit from the proposed changes to the Deschutes County Comprehensive
Plan Chapters 3 and 4 and Deschutes County Code ("DCC") Title 23; now, therefore,
THE BOARD D OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS
as follows:
Section 1. AMENDMENT. DCC 23.01.010, Introduction, is amended to read as described in Exhibit
"A," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, with new language underlined and language to
be deleted in stFikethrougli.
Section 2. AMENDMENT. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 2, Resource
Management, is amended to read as described in Exhibit "B," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated
herein, with new language underlined and language to be deleted in ctrikethrough.
Section 3. AMENDMENT. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 3, Rural Growth
Management, is amended to read as described in Exhibit "C," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated
herein, with new language underlined and language to be deleted in strikethrough.
Section 4. AMENDMENT. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 5, Supplementary
Sections, is amended to read as described in Exhibit "D," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated
herein, with new language underlined and language to be deleted in strikcthrough.
7//
PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2016-005
Section 5. FINDINGS. The Board adopts as its findings Exhibit "E", attached and incorporated by
reference herein.
Dated this of , 2016 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
ALAN UNGER, Chair
TAMMY BANEY, Vice Chair
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary ANTHONY DEBONE, Commissioner
Date of 1st Reading: day of , 2016.
Date of 211d Reading: day of , 2016.
Record of Adoption Vote:
Commissioner Yes No Abstained -Excused
Anthony DeBone _
Alan Unger
Tammy Baney
Effective date: day of , 2016.
PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2016-005
Chapter 23.01 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
23.01.010. Introduction.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
O.
The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, adopted by the Board
found on the Deschutes County Community Development Departm
herein.
The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted
2011-027, are incorporated by reference herein.
The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted
2012-005, are incorporated by reference herein.
The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted
2012-012, are incorporated by reference herein.
The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted
2012-016, are incorporated by reference herein.
The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted
2013-002, are incorporated by reference herein.
The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted
2013-009, are incorporated by reference herein.
The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted
2013-012, are incorporated by reference herein.
The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted
2013-007, are incorporated by reference herein.
The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted
2014-005, are incorporated by reference herein.
The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted
2014-006, are incorporated by reference herein.
The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted
2014-012, are incorporated by reference herein.
The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted
2014-021, are incorporated by reference herein.
The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted
2014-027, are incorporated by reference herein.
The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments. adopted
2016-005, are incorporated by reference herein.
in Ordinance 2011-003 and
rtment website, is incorporated by
by the Board in Ordinance
by the Board in Ordinance
by the Board in Ordinance
by the Board in Ordinance
by the Board in Ordinance
by the Board in Ordinance
by the Board in Ordinance
by the Board in Ordinance
by the Board in Ordinance
by the Board in Ordinance
by the Board in Ordinance
by the Board in Ordinance
by the Board in Ordinance
by the Board in Ordinance
(Ord. 2016-005.$ 1, 2016: Ord. 2014-027 § 1, 2014; Ord. 2014-021 §1, 2014; Ord. 2014-012 §1, 2014;
Ord. 2014-006 §2, 2013; Ord. 2014-005 §2; Ord. 2013-012 §2, 2013; Ord. 2013-009 §2, 2013; Ord.
2013-007 §1, 2013; Ord. 2013-002 §1, 2013; Ord. 2013-001 §1, 2013; Ord. 2012-016 §1, 2012; Ord.
2012-013 §1, 2012; Ord. 2012-005 §1, 2012; Ord. 2011-027 §1 through 12, 2011; Ord. 2011-017
repealed; Ord.2011-003 §3, 2011)
To view the Comprehensive Plan, type http://www.deschutes.org/compplan into your web browser.
[Laserfiche can't do links.]
Page 1 of 1- EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE NO. 2016-005
Secti,ow 2.2 Agricultural, t_.awots
Background
Protecting farm lands and the economic benefits of agriculture is one of the primary goals of
the Oregon land use system. Statewide Planning Goal 3 establishes farmland identification and
protection standards which must be met by local governments. The Goal requires farm lands to
be preserved for farm uses, consistent with existing and future needs for agricultural products,
forest and open space. Additional criteria for Goal 3 can be found in Oregon Revised Statute
(ORS) 215 and in Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-33. These criteria spell out in
considerable detail which lands shall be designated as farm lands and what uses are permissible.
The main concept is that local governments must inventory and protect farm lands though the
use of Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zones that provide primarily for the continuation of
commercial -scale agriculture, including farm operations, marketing outlets and the agricultural
support system. To provide a science based method of identifying farm lands, Statewide Goal 3
defines agricultural lands primarily through soil classifications. However, other lands can, and
often must, be classified for farming based on the criterion `suitable for farm use' or being near
agricultural lands.
Excerpt from Statewide Planning Goal 3
"Agricultural Land ... in eastern Oregon is land of predominantly Class I, II, III, IV, V
and VI soils as identified in the Soil Capability Classification System of the United States
Soil Conservation Service, and other lands which are suitable for farm use taking into
consideration soil fertility, suitability for grazing climatic conditions, existing and future
availability of water for farm irrigation purposes, existing land -use patterns,
technological and energy inputs required, or accepted farming practices. Lands in other
classes which are necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or
nearby lands, shall be included as agricultural land in any event.
More detailed soil data to define agricultural land may be used by local governments if
such data permits achievement of this goal.
Agricultural land does not include land within acknowledged urban growth boundaries
or land within acknowledged exceptions to Goals 3 or 4."
Besides Statewide Goal 3, farming is protected in Oregon by "right -to -farm" law (ORS 30.930-
047). This law protects commercial farms from nuisance suits brought about by generally
accepted farming practices, such as noise, dust or odors.
County Agricultural Designations
Farm land designations in Deschutes County have been and continue to be highly controversial.
In designating farm lands in the late 1970s, the County was hampered by the limited availability
of soil maps. Where soil maps existed those were consulted, but the County also included
irrigated lands and lands receiving farm deferrals for the previous five years. Ultimately, seven
separate agricultural areas were identified, each specifying minimum lot sizes. In general, non-
urban, non -forest, undeveloped and uncommitted lands were determined to be farm lands.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 201 1
CHAPTER 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SECTION 2.2 AGRICULTURAL LANDS
PAGE 1 OF 9- EXHIBIT B TO ORDINANCE NO. 2016-005
Despite designating many agricultural areas by default, the 1979 Resource Element noted that
based on agricultural determinants of soils, water, climate and economics, profitable farming in
the County remained difficult. The findings for protecting non-profitable agricultural land noted
the aesthetic value of farm land, the costs and hazards of allowing local development and the
economic importance of rural open space.
In 1992 a commercial farm study was completed as part of the State required periodic review
process. The study concluded that irrigation is the controlling variable for defining farm lands in
Deschutes County. Soil classifications improve when water is available. Seven new agricultural
subzones were identified based on the factual data provided in the 1992 study and minimum
acreages were defined based on the typical number of irrigated acres used by commercial farms
in that particular subzone (with the exception of the Horse Ridge subzone).
Like the 1979 Resource Element, the 1992 farm study noted the challenges of local commercial
farming. The high elevation (2700-3500 feet), short growing season (88-100 days), low rainfall
and distance to major markets hamper profitability. The 1992 study resulted in minimum lot
sizes that are smaller than the State requirement of 80 acres for farm land and 160 acres for
range land. These minimum lot sizes are unique in Oregon and were acknowledged as in
compliance with Goal 3 by the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission. In
general, County farm designations are effectively protecting farm lands while allowing limited
land divisions.
Deschutes County Agricultural Sub -Zones
As noted above, the County maintains a unique set of farm sub -zones based on the average
number of irrigated acres for each type of farm land as determined in the 1992 farm study.
Irrigated land divisions in each sub -zone must result in parcels that retain the acreages shown in
Table 2.2.1.
Table 2.2.1 - Exclusive Farm Use Subzones
Subzone Name
Lower Bridge
Sisters/Cloverdale
Terrebonne
Tumalo/Redmond/Bend
Alfalfa
La Pine
Horse Ridge East
Source: Deschutes County 1992 Farm Study
Minimum
Acres
130
63
35
23
36
37
320
Profile
Irrigated field crops, hay and pasture
Irrigated alfalfa, hay and pasture, wooded grazing
and some field crops
Irrigated hay and pasture
Irrigated pasture and some hay
Irrigated hay and pasture
Riparian meadows, grazing and meadow hay
Rangeland grazing
Irrigation Districts
As shown in the 1992 farm study, irrigation and irrigation districts are instrumental factors for
Deschutes County agriculture. Irrigation districts in Oregon are organized as Special Districts
under ORS Chapter 545. The districts are created for the purpose of delivering water to their
patrons. As such they are effectively non-profit water user associations. In addition to
irrigation, these districts also supply a number of other uses, including municipal, industrial, and
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — 2011
CHAPTER 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SECTION 2.2 AGRICULTURAL LANDS
PAGE 2 OF 9- EXHIBIT B TO ORDINANCE NO. 2016-005
pond maintenance. However, by and large the districts exist for
the purposes of delivering irrigation.
Seven districts, which withdraw their water supply from the
Deschutes River Basin, have formed an intergovernmental unit
called a "board of control" under ORS 190.125. This
organizational structure allows the districts to work together as
a unit in implementing water conservation projects, providing
educational resources, utilizing equipment and for other joint
purposes. A key goal for the Deschutes Basin Board of Control
is to preserve agricultural uses in those areas where irrigation
improves soils to class VI or better.
The six irrigation districts listed below serve residents or have facilities within Deschutes
County and are members of the Deschutes Basin Board of Control.
Arnold Irrigation District
The present Arnold Irrigation District was first organized as the Arnold Irrigation Company on
December 27, 1904 and became official on January 9, 1905. As of 2010 the district manages
approximately 65 miles of canals, ditches and pipes in an area of approximately 18,560 acres.
Central Oregon Irrigation District
The Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) was established in 1918. The District provides
water for approximately 45,000 acres within an 180,000 acre area in Central Oregon. More
than 700 miles of canals provide agricultural and industrial water to irrigate Terrebonne,
Redmond, Bend, Alfalfa and Powell Butte areas. In addition, COID provides water to the City
of Redmond and numerous subdivisions. In Bend, many parks and schools receive water
through the COID system. COID is also the managing partner in the operation of the 55,000
acre foot Crane Prairie Reservoir, located on the east side of the Central Cascades.
North Unit Irrigation District
The North Unit Irrigation District (NUID) was organized in 1916. As part of the Reclamation
Act of 1902, Congress approved the Deschutes Project and in 1927 began construction of the
project under the direction of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The project was completed in
1949 allowing NUID to serve nearly 50,000 acres. Today NUID is the second largest irrigation
district in Oregon, serving approximately 59,000 acres in Jefferson County. NUID maintains
facilities in Deschutes County, including Wickiup Dam, Bend Headworks and the North Unit
Irrigation Canal. NUID has a long-standing relationship with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation as a
result of the Deschutes Project.
Swalley Irrigation District
The Swalley Irrigation District was organized as the Deschutes Reclamation and Irrigation
Company (DRIC) in 1899. In 1994 the shareholders of the DRIC voted to incorporate as an
irrigation district and took the name of Swalley Irrigation District. The District has 28 miles of
canals and laterals providing water to 667 customers.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 20I I
CHAPTER 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SECTION 2.2 AGRICULTURAL LANDS
PAGE 3 OF 9- EXHIBIT B TO ORDINANCE NO. 2016-005
Three Sisters Irrigation District
The Three Sisters Irrigation District (formerly Squaw Creek Irrigation District) was founded in
1917 from the Squaw Creek Irrigation Company and the Cloverdale Irrigation Company. They
were founded in 1891 and 1903 respectively, making Three Sisters Irrigation District one of the
oldest such districts in Oregon. The District serves approximately 175 water users over
approximately 7,568 acres.
Tumalo Irrigation District
Originally known as the Tumalo Project, Tumalo Irrigation District started in 1904. In 1922 the
Project reorganized as an irrigation district under Oregon state laws. The District serves
approximately 60 square miles, irrigating approximately 8,093 acres, and has over 80 miles of
canals, laterals and ditches serving 635 landowners.
Deschutes County Agriculture 2007 - 2009
The following statistics provide a snapshot of farming in Deschutes County.
Source: County GIS data
• Approximately 36% of the County or more than 700,000 acres are designated as
Agriculture on the Comprehensive Plan map. Of that acreage, 69% is public, primarily
Federal ownership leaving approximately 224,000 acres privately held.
• 160,078 acres of privately owned farm lands in the County receive special tax assessment
for farm use.
• Of the acres receiving farm tax assessments, 44,221 are irrigated.
• In 2008 there were 3,725 agricultural parcels less than five acres.
Source: Oregon State University Extension Oregon Agricultural Information Network, Deschutes County
Agricultural Commodity Sales for 2009 (preliminary estimate)
• $19,792,000 in agricultural sales, a drop from the 2008 preliminary estimate of
$25,991,000. This follows slight upturns in sales between 2006-2008.
• 62% of agriculture sales are in crops and 38% in livestock. The primary crops are hay and
alfalfa hay while the primary livestock is cattle. The biggest downturns for 2009 are non -
alfalfa hay and cattle.
Source: United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service 2007 Census
of Agriculture
• There are 1,405 farms in Deschutes County residing on 129,369 acres
• Average farm size 92 acres
• Approximately 24% of farms are under 10 acres and 78% are under 50 acres
• Total net cash farm income is negative
• 59% of farmers list their primary occupation as `Other' rather than farming
The above data highlights the fact that farming in Deschutes
County is generally not commercially profitable. For a majority
of farmers, farming is not a sustaining economic activity, but
rather a lifestyle choice. Living on a farm and farming as a
secondary economic activity acknowledge a shift from
commercial farming towards the benefits of a rural lifestyle.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SECTION 2.2 AGRICULTURAL LANDS
PAGE 4 OF 9- EXHIBIT B TO ORDINANCE NO. 20I 6-005
Farm Trends 2010
Whatever the challenges, agriculture is part of Deschutes County's culture and rural lifestyle.
During the public input process, various ideas were discussed on how to preserve agricultural
lands, open spaces and rural character of the County, while enabling landowners to make a
living. The following ideas identify current trends that could be promoted by the County in
conjunction with the local extension service and other agencies and organizations. It is
important to emphasize that new uses must conform to State regulations.
Alternative energy: Development of small alternative energy projects would promote local
energy self-sufficiency, using Central Oregon's sun, wind, thermal, hydropower and biomass
resources. Larger agricultural parcels could be used as commercial wind or solar farms to
provide renewable energy as well as income to landowners.
Alternative uses: There is interest in allowing non-farm uses on farm lands to take advantage of
agrarian lifestyles and Central Oregon's setting. Ideas being discussed include agri-tourism or
hosting weddings. Nonetheless, new non-farm uses must be evaluated to ensure they are
compatible with ORS and OARs as well as existing land uses and zoning.
Local markets: Products from small farms are often sold to local markets. Additionally local
consumption saves on transportation and energy, allowing better tracking of food sources
thereby increasing food safety and improving freshness and quality. Buying local is a current
trend that could benefit the County's many small farmers. Community Supported Agriculture is
one popular method, where farmers obtain paid subscriptions from customers, who then
receive fresh produce every week for the season. Farmers markets and farm stands are another
aspect of the local food movement.
Conservation easements: Many states are using programs to put permanent conservation
easements on farm lands. As an example of a program that is not yet available in Oregon is the
Purchase of Agricultural Conservation Easements (PACE). Funded by the federal government
and a combination of other sources, PACE purchases development rights from farmers.
Niche markets: Small quantities or specialized products can be raised to meet particular markets,
like organic products or peppermint oil.
Value-added products: Processing crops can increase profitability. An example would be making
jam or jelly out of locally grown berries.
Farm Councils: Farm councils are being initiated around the country to promote local sustainable
food. The Central Oregon Food Policy Council (COFPC) formed in 2010 to lead the effort to a
sustainable and just food system. The COFPC is made up of 12-15 volunteers including
representatives from agricultural production, public health, government and others interested
in the local food system. Identified strategies include supporting access to local healthy food,
advocating for public policies that increase sustainablefood production and connecting
stakeholders in the food systems field.
Big Look
In 2005 a task force was appointed by the Oregon Governor, Speaker of the House and Senate
President to review the current land use system. The Oregon Task Force on Land Use Planning
was a 10 -member group representing various perspectives, charged with conducting a
comprehensive review of the Oregon Statewide Planning Program. Called the Big Look Task
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 20I I
CHAPTER 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SECTION 2.2 AGRICULTURAL LANDS
PAGE 5 OF 9- EXHIBIT B TO ORDINANCE NO. 2016-005
Force, this group was asked to make recommendations for any needed changes to land -use
policy to the 2009 Legislature.
After three years of extensive input from experts and citizens throughout the State, the task
force developed its findings and recommendations. One of the primary conclusions reached
was that Oregon needs a more flexible land use system that responds to regional variations.
Two of the primary recommendations from the Task Force addressed agricultural and forest
lands, recommending:
• Counties be allowed to develop regional criteria for designating farm and forest lands, if
they also protect important natural areas and assure that development is sustainable.
• Counties be allowed to propose specialized rules to decide what lands are designated as
farm or forest land.
2009 Legislature / House Bill 2229
House Bill (HB) 2229 began as the vehicle for legislative recommendations for the Big Look
Task Force. However, by the time the Legislature adjourned, very little of the Task Force's
recommendations remained. HB 2229 does authorize counties to reevaluate resource lands
and amend their comprehensive plan designations for such lands consistent with definitions of
"agricultural land" and "forest land." For example, the County could add irrigated lands to the
regional definition of farm lands to acknowledge the results of the 1992 farm study. Anything
that does not qualify as farmland or forestland may be rezoned for non -resource use, subject
to conditions that development in the non -resource zones be rural in character, not
significantly conflict with surrounding farm and forest practices, and not have adverse affects on
such things as water quality, wildlife habitat, and fire safety. County rezoning activities must be
pursuant to a work plan approved by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and
Development. This effectively means the work will be done similar to periodic review with the
Land Conservation and Development Commission expressly given exclusive jurisdiction to
review a county decision.
Future of Deschutes County Farm Designations and Uses
Statewide Planning Goal 3 requires counties to preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
However, in discussions on the future of agriculture in Deschutes County, there are still
differences of opinion over which lands should be designated farm lands and what uses should
be allowed. Farm lands contribute to the County in a number of ways. Agriculture is part of the
ongoing local economy. Wide-open farm lands offer a secondary benefit by providing scenic
open spaces that help attract tourist dollars. Farm lands also contribute to the rural character
that is often mentioned as important to residents. Finally, it should be noted that agricultural
lands are preserved through State policy and land use law because it is difficult to predict what
agricultural opportunities might arise, and once fragmented the opportunity to farm may be
lost.
On the other hand, there seems to be widespread agreement that much of the local farm land
is marginal, particularly without irrigation. The climate, especially the short growing season,
makes commercial farming challenging. Statewide Planning Goal 3 does not really account for
the conditions in Deschutes County, resulting in agricultural zoning being applied to land with
no history of farming and limited potential for profitable farming. The small size of agricultural
parcels adds to the challenges. It has been argued that preserving farm lands benefits the wider
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SECTION 2.2 AGRICULTURAL LANDS
PAGE 6 OF 9- EXHIBIT B TO ORDINANCE NO. 2016-005
public at the expense of agricultural landowners. There is considerable pressure to convert
agricultural land to residential or other uses.
The debate is complicated because there are impacts to the farming community from
converting agricultural lands to other uses. It can be challenging for a farmer who has
residential neighbors because farming activities can have noise, odor or dust impacts.
The right -to -farm law discussed earlier offers some protection to farmers, but as
residential uses grow there is pressure to convert, leading to a greater Toss of
agricultural lands.
The goals and policies in this Section are intended to provide the basis for evaluating the
future of agriculture in the County over the next twenty years. They are intended to
provide, within State guidelines, flexibility to the farming community. County farm lands
will be preserved by ensuring a variety of alternative paths to profitability.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 201 I
CHAPTER 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SECTION 2.2 AGRICULTURAL LANDS
PAGE 7 OF 9- EXHIBIT B TO ORDINANCE NO. 2016-005
Secti-ow 2.2 Agrizu,ltu.raL i_.& v c s PoL%Gies
Goals and Policies
Goal 1 Preserve and maintain agricultural lands and the agricultural industry.
Policy 2.2.1 Retain agricultural lands through Exclusive Farm Use zoning.
Policy 2.2.2 Exclusive Farm Use sub -zones shall remain as described in the 1992 Farm Study
and shown in the table below, unless adequate legal findings for amending the
sub -zones are adopted or an individual parcel is rezoned as allowed by Policy
2.2.3.
Exclusive Farm Use Subzones
Subzone Name
Lower Bridge
Sisters/Cloverdale
Terrebonne
Tumalo/Redmond/Bend
Alfalfa
La Pine
Horse Ridge East
Policy 2.2.3
Policy 2.2.4
Policy 2.2.5
Policy 2.2.6
Policy 2.2.7
Policy 2.2.8
Minimum
Acres
130
63
35
23
36
37
320
Profile
Irrigated field crops, hay and pasture
Irrigated alfalfa, hay and pasture, wooded grazing
and some field crops
Irrigated hay and pasture
Irrigated pasture and some hay
Irrigated hay and pasture
Riparian meadows, grazing and meadow hay
Rangeland grazing
Allow comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments, including for those that
qualify as non -resource land, for individual EFU parcels as allowed by State
Statute, Oregon Administrative Rules and this Comprehensive Plan.
Develop comprehensive policy criteria and code to provide clarity on when and
how EFU parcels can be converted to other designations.
Uses allowed in Exclusive Farm Use zones shall comply with State Statute and
Oregon Administrative Rule.
Regularly review farm regulations to ensure compliance with changes to State
Statute, Oregon Administrative Rules and case law.
Encourage water projects that benefit agriculture.
Support a variety of methods to preserve agricultural lands, such as:
a. Support the use of grant funds and other resources to assist local farmers;
b. Work cooperatively with irrigation districts, public agencies and
representatives and land owners;
c. Encourage conservation easements, or purchase or transfer of development
rights programs;
d. Control noxious weeds;
e. Encourage a food council or 'buy local' program.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SECTION 2.2 AGRICULTURAL LANDS
PAGE 8 OF 9- EXHIBIT B TO ORDINANCE NO. 2016-005
Goal 2 Promote a diverse, sustainable, revenue -generating agricultural
sector.
Policy 2.2.9 Encourage farming by promoting the raising and selling of crops, livestock and/or
poultry.
Policy 2.2.10 Support stakeholders in studying and promoting economically viable agricultural
opportunities and practices.
Policy 2.2.1 1 Encourage small farming enterprises, including, but not limited to, niche markets,
organic farming, farm stands or value added products.
Policy 2.2.12 Review County Code and revise as needed to permit alternative and
supplemental farm activities that are compatible with farming, such as agri-
tourism or commercial renewable energy projects. When a preferred alternative
or supplemental use identified through a public process is not permitted by State
regulations work with the State to review and revise their regulations.
Goal 3 Ensure Exclusive Farm Use policies, classifications and codes are
consistent with local and emerging agricultural conditions and
markets.
Policy 2.2.13 Identify and retain accurately designated agricultural lands.
Policy 2.2.14 Explore new methods of identifying and classifying agricultural lands.
a. Apply for grants to review and, if needed, update farmland designations.
b. Study County agricultural designations considering elements such as water
availability, farm viability and economics, climatic conditions, land use patterns,
accepted farm practices, and impacts on public services.
c. Lobby for changes to State Statute regarding agricultural definitions specific to
Deschutes County that would allow some reclassification of agricultural lands.
Policy 2.2.15 Address land use challenges in the Horse Ridge subzone, specifically:
a. The Targe number of platted lots not meeting the minimum acreage;
b. The need for non-farm dwellings and location requirements for farm
dwellings;
c. Concerns over the impact on private property from off-road vehicles,
facilities, and trails located on adjacent public lands.
Policy 2.2.16 Work with the State to review and revise accessory farm dwelling requirements
to address the needs of local farmers.
Policy 2.2.17 Encourage coordination between fish/wildlife management organizations and
agricultural interests.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 201 I
CHAPTER 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SECTION 2.2 AGRICULTURAL LANDS
PAGE 9 OF 9- EXHIBIT B TO ORDINANCE NO. 2016-005
Sect% ow 3.3 Ru.raL H-ou.si,w0
Background
Housing is a basic need that provides not just shelter, but connection to a wider community. A
variety of housing types and price points ensures options for people at different life stages and
needs. Oregon's statewide planning program directs cities to retain an adequate amount of land
to accommodate residential growth. Generally counties are directed to protect farms, forests
and other rural resources like wildlife while limiting new rural development. This section of the
Plan looks specifically at housing on existing and potential new parcels and how the County can
support a diverse and affordable housing supply.
Housing inside urban growth boundaries is addressed in Statewide Planning Goal 10, Housing
and OAR 660-008. Statewide Goal 2, Land Use and Goal 14, Urbanization both have sections
that address rural housing, supplemented by OAR 660-004 and 660-014. These rules refine
how new rural residential Tots can be created. The Deschutes County housing policies provide
the framework for residential development. The policies further delineate the role of the
County in facilitating the availability of an affordable and quality housing stock within both urban
and rural communities.
Rural Residential Exception Areas
In Deschutes County most rural lands are designated for farms, forests or other resources and
protected as described in the Resource Management chapter of this Plan. The majority of the
land not recognized as resource lands or Unincorporated Community is designated Rural
Residential Exception Area. The County had to follow a process under Statewide Goal 2 to
explain why these lands did not warrant farm or forest zoning. The major determinant was that
many of these lands were platted for residential use before Statewide Planning was adopted.
In 1979 the County assessed that there were over 17,000 undeveloped Rural Residential
Exception Area parcels, enough to meet anticipated demand for new rural housing. As of 2010
any new Rural Residential Exception Areas need to be justified through initiating a non -
resource plan amendment and zone change by demonstrating the property does not meet the
definition of aericultural or forest land, or taking exceptions to farm, forest, public facilities and
services and urbanization regulations, and follow guidelines set out in the OAR.
Rural Residential Exception Areas 2009
Source: County GIS data
• 71,000 acres of Rural Residential Exception Area (including right-of-way)
• 64,000 acres of Rural Residential Exception Area (excluding right-of-way)
• 24,750 Rural Residential Exception Area lots
• 18,100 Rural Residential Exception Area lots that are developed
Future of Rural Housing in Deschutes County
In looking at rural housing growth, it is important to find the balance between protecting rural
values and protecting property rights. In community meetings some people expressed concern
over the level of new development that has been allowed while others highlighted the
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 201 I
CHAPTER 3 RURAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT REFERENCES
PAGE 1 OF 3 - EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE NO. 2016-005
restrictions on their property that do not permit it. Too much development can lead to the
destruction of the qualities that bring people to Deschutes County, while too many restrictions
keep out people who would choose a rural lifestyle.
Housing Legality, Public Health and Safety
One issue meriting attention is the need to be sure housing is legally developed. A house built
without proper land use permits may not meet required setbacks or other regulations, causing
legal disputes between neighbors. A house built without proper building permits could be
constructed shoddily, causing safety issues. Land use and building permit requirements
therefore are intended to safeguard the rights of property owners and neighbors. Historically,
there have been problems in the County with substandard housing. Over the years substandard
housing has become less of an issue. However, there are still areas where development has
occurred without land use or building permits, leading to numerous code complaints. An area
of south County, known as Section 36, has been identified as one place that the County could
work closely with local residents to address health and safety issues. Another health and safety
issue that came up in public meetings is the need to regulate large animals on residential lots.
The idea is to control odors and flies that can accumulate and impact neighbors. Research on
how large animals are regulated in other counties would provide some direction on this issue.
Housing Diversity
A challenge for the County given rural housing restrictions is how to support a diversity of
housing to meet the needs of the community, while retaining the rural character important to
residents. Deschutes County requires a 10 acre minimum lot size for new rural residential lots
in order to protect the rural quality of life and its resources. Yet, the 10 acre minimum raises
the cost of rural housing and may limit the rural lifestyle to households at the upper end of the
income spectrum. Additionally much of the new rural housing being built is located in high-end
destination resorts. This slant towards high priced rural housing is mitigated somewhat by the
thousands of small lots that were platted before land use laws were enacted. These smaller lots
provide an opportunity for less expensive housing.
One way the County can address the need for housing options is to promote the idea of
housing alternatives such as co -housing or accessory dwelling units. Currently these alternatives
are not permitted by State regulations that protect rural lands. Co -housing involves creating a
community through clustered housing. Accessory dwelling units, sometimes known as granny
flats, are small units accessory to the main housing. Regulated correctly, housing alternatives
could provide flexibility in rural housing. The first step in permitting housing variety is to initiate
a discussion with the State on how and where these types of housing would be appropriate.
Another way to support a diversity of housing is to work closely with agencies and jurisdictions
that promote it. The public corporation responsible for promoting affordable housing initiatives
in Deschutes, Jefferson and Crook Counties is the Central Oregon Regional Housing Authority,
also known as Housing Works. Organized under the Oregon Housing Authority Law (ORS
456), this agency provides affordable housing services to low income households. They also
engage in public/private partnerships to provide and manage affordable housing. Cities are also
involved in providing a diversity of housing. Promoting a variety of housing choices and mix of
price points can be achieved through cooperating with Housing Works and local cities, the
donation of County property, or other means.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011
CHAPTER 3 RURAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT REFERENCES
PAGE 2 OF 3 - EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE NO. 2016-005
sect .ov', 3.3 Rutral, f-tou.sfA,0 PoLicies
Goals and Policies
Goal I Maintain the rural character and safety of housing in unincorporated
Deschutes County.
Policy 3.3.1 The minimum parcel size for new rural residential parcels shall be 10 acres.
Policy 3.3.2 Incorporate annual farm and forest housing reports into a wider system for
tracking the cumulative impacts of rural housing development.
Policy 3.3.3 Address housing health and safety issues raised by the public, such as:
a. The number of Targe animals that should be permitted on rural residential
parcels; or
b. The properties south of La Pine, in Township 22S, Range IOE, Section 36,
many of which are not in compliance with planning and building codes.
Policy 3.3.4 Encourage new subdivisions to incorporate alternative development patterns,
such as cluster development, that mitigate community and environmental
impacts.
Policy 3.3.5 Maintain the rural character of the County while ensuring a diversity of housing
opportunities, including initiating discussions to amend State Statute and/or
Oregon Administrative Rules to permit accessory dwelling units in Exclusive
Farm Use, Forest and Rural Residential zones.
Goal 2 Support agencies and non -profits that provide affordable housing.
Policy 3.3.6
Policy 3.3.7
Support Central Oregon Regional Housing Authority and other stakeholders to
meet the housing needs of all Deschutes County residents.
a. Assist as needed in coordinating and implementing housing assistance
programs.
b. Support efforts to provide affordable and workforce housing in urban growth
boundaries and unincorporated communities.
Utilize block grants and other funding to assist in providing and maintaining low
and moderate income housing.
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 201
CHAPTER 3 RURAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT REFERENCES
PAGE 3 OF 3 - EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE NO. 2016-005
.secti,ows22 LegisLatf,ve ft%storu
Background
This section contains the legislative history of this Comprehensive Plan.
Table 5.1 1.1 Comprehensive Plan Ordinance History
Date Adopted/
Effective
Ordinance
2011-003 8-10-1 1/ 1 1-9-1 1
201 I -027
10-31-11/11-9-11
Chapter/Section Amendment
All, except
Transportation, Tumalo
and Terrebonne
Community Plans,
Deschutes Junction,
Destination Resorts and
ordinances adopted in
2011
2.5, 2.6, 3.4, 3.10, 3.5,
4.6, 5.3, 5.8, 5.1 1,
23.40A, 23.40B,
23.40.065, 23.01.010
23.60, 23.64 (repealed),
2012-005 8-20-12/11-19-12 3.7 (revised), Appendix C
(added)
2012-012 8-20-12/8-20-12 4.1, 4.2
2012-016 12-3-12/3-4-13
2013-002 1-7-13/1-7-13
2013-009 2-6-13/5-8-13
2013-012 5-8-13/8-6-13
2013-007 5-29-13/8-27-13
3.9
4.2
1.3
23.01.010
3.10,3.11
Page 1 of 2 - EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE NO. 2016-005
Comprehensive Plan update
Housekeeping amendments to
ensure a smooth transition to
the updated Plan
Updated Transportation
System Plan
La Pine Urban Growth
Boundary
Housekeeping amendments to
Destination Resort Chapter
Central Oregon Regional
Large -lot Employment Land
Need Analysis
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
designation of certain
property from Agriculture to
Rural Residential Exception
Area
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, including certain
property within City of Bend
Urban Growth Boundary
Newberry Country: A Plan
for Southern Deschutes
County
2013-016 10-21-13/10-21-13 23.01.010
2014-005 2-26-14/2-26-14 23.01.010
2014-012 4-2-14/7-1-14 3.10, 3.11
2014-021 8-27-14/11-25-14 23.01.010, 5.10
2016-005 TBD
23.01.010. 2.2, 3.3
Page 2 of 2 -EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE NO. 2016-005
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, including certain
property within City of Sisters
Urban Growth Boundary
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, including certain
property within City of Bend
Urban Growth Boundary
Housekeeping amendments to
Title 23.
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, changing
designation of certain
property from Sunriver Urban
Unincorporated Community
Forest to Sunriver Urban
Unincorporated Community
Utility
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment recognizing non -
resource lands process
allowed under State law to
change EFU zoning
FINDINGS
The Deschutes County Panning Commission held a public Day,
tocon�darkyoim�Uveo�nornandnlentotoDeschutes County CVrn Planand
IegsIative amendments to Deschutes County Code (DCC) T|e 18.1
The Planning Commission closed the hearing on Month Day, 2015 and forwarded a
recommendation ofadoption 0othe Board ofCounty Commissioners /BooFd\.The Board
held heahngoonyWonthDay, 2O15.The vvr�enrecord was left open
'unU| 5:00
Month Day.
L BACKGROUND
In 2014, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) directed the Communityx
Development Department (CDD) to conduct a public o / hnonnpaign to understand
oonnrnundy, stakeholder, and landowner opinions about Deschutes County farm
designations and land uses. In May 2014, the Planning Division conducted community
conversations in Iocations throughout the county. Meetings were held in Alfalfa, Bend,
Bndhero, La Pine, Sisters, and Terrebonne; each one provided an overview of
Deschutes County's agricultural lands program with details focusing on its history,
relevant Comprehensive Plan po|icies, and recent land use trends. A variety of public
engagement techniques were utilized to generate public comments including facilitated
exercises, and questionnaires.
The Board held two joint work sessions with the Planning Commission on June 26, 2014
and September 25 respectively, to discuss the results of the agricultural lands program
public outreach campaign. Following those digcuaaiona, both commissions requested
additional information. Spec|fioa||y, they asked about opportunities to expand housing
options in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zone. Staff evaluated HB 2229 and
coordinated with former Planning Director John Anderson and the Oregon Department of
Land Conservation and Development in Winter 3018. Based on their |nput, it was
determined HB 2229 in its present form prevented Deschutes County from initiating
amendments to change EFU zoning.
As a result, staff focused on minor modifications relating to resource zoned lands. During
the development of the Planning Division's FY 2015-3010 work program, the Planning
Commissiori and the Board supported initiating the foUowing amendments:
�
Comprehensive Plan amendment recognizing non -resource lands process
a!Iowed under State Iaw 10 change EFU zoning;
• Zoning code amendment providing a definition of agricultural and equine exempt
buildings; and,
• Zoning code amendment, reducing setbacks in Forest 2 (F2) zone, for Haner
Park Subdivision and an adjoining three acre tax lot.
`Apublic notice was published in the Bulietin on Month Day,2015.
PAGE 1 OF 4 — EXHIBIT E TO ORDINANCE 2016-005
Ordinance 2015-006 formally adopts amendments in DCC Title 18 to provide a definition
of agricultural and equine exempt buildings and a setback reduction in the Forest Use
Zone (F-2) for Haner Park Subdivision and an adjoining three acre tax lot.
• The definition of the agricultural and equine exempt building is located in DCC
18.04.030, Definitions (Exhibit A of Ordinance 2015-006)
• The setback reduction is located in DCC 18.40.100, Yards and Setbacks (Exhibit
B of Ordinance 2015-006)
II. REVIEW CRITERIA
Deschutes County lacks specific criteria in DCC Titles 18, 22, or 23 for reviewing
legislative plan and text amendments. Nonetheless, since Deschutes County is the
applicant, it bears the responsibility for justifying that the plan amendment, Ordinance
2015-005 is consistent with Statewide Planning Goals and its existing Comprehensive
Plan.
III. FINDINGS
The parameters for evaluating these specific amendments are based on an adequate
factual base and supportive evidence demonstrating consistency with Statewide
Planning Goals. The following findings demonstrate that Ordinance 2015-005, Exhibits A
and B comply with applicable statewide planning goals and the Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan.
A. Statewide Planning Goals Pertaining to Ordinance 2015-005
• Goal 1, Citizen Involvement is met through this adoption process because these
amendments will receive at a minimum of two public hearings, one before the
Planning Commission (County's citizen review board for land use matters) and at
least one before the Board.
• Goal 2, Land Use Planning is met because ORS 197.610 allows local governments
to initiate post acknowledgments amendments. An Oregon Land Conservation and
Development Department 35 -day notice was initiated in mid-September.2 No
exceptions are included with these text amendments. Additionally, these
Comprehensive Plan text amendments are minor because they merely codify what
county hearings officers and the Board have already determined is allowed in the
County's Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, this FINDINGS document provides the
adequate factual basis and documented analysis for this plan update.
• Goal 3, Agricultural Lands is met because the County is proposing Comprehensive
Plan text and policy amendments that allow a property owner to demonstrate in a
quasi-judicial process, with evidence supporting findings that a subject property does
not constitute "agricultural lands" as defined in Goal 3.
• Goal 4, Forest Lands is not applicable because no plan amendment changes are
being proposed on Goal 4 resource lands.
2 Deschutes County completed periodic review on January 23, 2003.
PAGE 2 OF 4 — EXHIBIT E TO ORDINANCE 2016-005
• Goal 5, Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces, is not
applicable because no land use changes are being proposed on or near inventoried
Goal 5 resource lands.
• Goal 6, Air, Water and Land Resources Quality, is no land use changes are being
proposed that impact air, water and land resource qualities. Property owners
wishing to change EFU zoning by demonstrating they do not meet the definition of
"agricultural lands" as defined in Goal 3 will need to demonstrate they also comply
with Goal 6.
• Goal 7, Natural Hazards, is not applicable because no land use changes are being
proposed that become impacted by natural hazards. Property owners wishing to
change EFU zoning by demonstrating they do not meet the definition of "agricultural
lands" as defined in Goal 3 will need to demonstrate they also comply with Goal 7.
• Goal 8, Recreational Needs, is not applicable because no land use changes are
being proposed on recreational resources.
• Goal 9, Economic Development is met because no land use changes are being
proposed that impact economic development. Property owners wishing to change
EFU zoning by demonstrating they do not meet the definition of "agricultural lands"
as defined in Goal 3 will need to demonstrate they also comply with Goal 9.
• Goal 10, Housing is not applicable because, unlike municipalities, unincorporated
areas are not obligated to fulfill certain housing requirements.
• Goal 11, Public Facilities is met because no development or land use changes are
being proposed that impact public facilities.
• Goal 12, Transportation is met because no development or land use changes are
being proposed that impact transportation facilities. Property owners wishing to
change EFU zoning by demonstrating they do not meet the definition of "agricultural
lands" as defined in Goal 3 will need to demonstrate they also comply with Goal 12
and the transportation planning rule.
• Goal 13, Energy Conservation is met because the plan amendment does not affect
this goal. Property owners wishing to change EFU zoning by demonstrating they do
not meet the definition of "agricultural lands" as defined in Goal 3 will need to
demonstrate they also comply with Goal 13.
• Goal 14, Urbanization is not applicable because no land use changes are being
proposed that apply to urbanized uses or Urban Growth Boundaries. Property
owners wishing to change EFU zoning by demonstrating they do not meet the
definition of "agricultural lands" as defined in Goal 3 will need to demonstrate they
also comply with Goal 14 by showing zone changes would not allow changes to
urban size lots.
• Goals 15 through 19 are not applicable to any amendments to the County's
comprehensive plan because the county has none of those types of lands.
PAGE 3 OF 4 - EXHIBIT E TO ORDINANCE 2016-005
B. Ordinance 2015-005 Consistency with Deschutes County Comprehensive
Plan
Deschutes County adopted an updated Comprehensive Plan on August 10, 2011. It
contains Agricultural Lands (Chapter 2.2).
Finding: As stated above, county hearings officers and the Board have previously
determined that land use planning, implemented through Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan policies and zoning, already enables rural property owners with
EFU zoning to demonstrate in a quasi-judicial process, with evidence supporting findings
that a subject property does not constitute "agricultural lands" as defined in Goal 3.
Policy 2.2.3 directs Deschutes County to:
Allow comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment for individual EFU
parcels as allowed by State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rules and this
Comprehensive plan.
A Hearings Officer in a decision in NNP (PA -13-1, ZC-13-1) held any failure on the
county's part to adopt comprehensive plan policies and code provisions describing the
circumstances under which EFU-zone land may be converted to a non -resource
designation and zoning codes does not preclude the county from considering quasi-
judicial plan amendment and zone change applications to remove EFU zoning. This plan
amendment further clarifies that the County intends to allow the non -resource lands
process allowed under State law to change EFU zoning.
PAGE 4 OF 4 — EXHIBIT E TO ORDINANCE 2016-005
10/14/2016 Deschutes County Public Safety Survey
Is Deschutes County your primary residence?
(Your primary residence is the dwelling where you spend the most time)
O No
O Yes
« Back » Next
Powered by Qualtrics
https://portlandstate.qualtrics.com, fe3/form/SV bHn3he10EUe4pdH 1/1
10/14/2016 Deschutes County Public Safety Survey
How many years have you lived in Deschutes County as your primary residence?
O Less than 3 years
O 3 to 5 years
O 6 to 9 years
O 10 or more years
What is the Zip Code and nearest community for your physical address in Deschutes
County?
(Your physical address is where your residence is located and may or may not be where your mail is
delivered)
O 97701 (Bend)
O 97702 (Bend)
O 97703 (Bend)
O 97707 (Bend)
O 97707 (Sunriver)
O 97712 (Brothers)
O 97739 (La Pine)
O 97756 (Redmond)
O 97759 (Black Butte Ranch)
O 97759 (Sisters)
O 97760 (Terrebonne)
O Other (provide Zip Code)
« Back
» Next
https://portlandstate.qualtrics.comfjfe3/form/SV bHn3hel0EUe4pdH 1/2
10/14/2016 Deschutes County Public Safety Survey
How often did you visit or spend time in the following areas over the past 12 months?
Bend
Redmond
Sisters
La Pine
Daily
0
O
O
O
Several Times a
Week
Several Times a Once a Month or
Month Less
O O O
O O O
O O O
O O O
Other areas in County
(outside of Bend, Redmond, Sisters, O 0 0 0
La Pine)
« Back » Next
Powered by Qualtrics
https://portlandstate.qualtrics.comfjfe3/form/SV bHn3helOEUe4pdH 1/1
10/14/2016 Deschutes County Public Safety Survey
The next ten questions address public safety problems that may (or may not) be present in the
areas you visited "several times a month" or more in the prior question.
Are ILLEGAL DRUGS currently a problem (people using, people selling, driving under the
influence, etc.)?
Moderate
Major Problem Problem Minor Problem Not a Problem Don't Know
Bend 0 0 0 0 0
Redmond 0 0 0 0 0
Other areas in County
(outside of Bend, Redmond, Sisters, 0 0 0 0 0
La Pine)
Is TRAFFIC SAFETY currently a problem (aggressive driving, speeding, running red lights,
etc.)?
Moderate
Major Problem Problem Minor Problem Not a Problem Don't Know
Bend 0 0 0 0 0
Redmond 0 0 0 0 0
Other areas in County
(outside of Bend, Redmond, Sisters, 0 0 0 0 0
La Pine)
Are PROPERTY CRIMES currently a problem (theft, burglary, car break-ins, etc.)?
Moderate
Major Problem Problem Minor Problem Not a Problem Don't Know
Bend 0 0 0 0 0
Redmond 0 0 0 0 0
Other areas in County
(outside of Bend, Redmond, Sisters, 0 0 0 0 0
La Pine)
Are VIOLENT CRIMES currently a problem (assault, robbery, rape, etc.)?
https://portlandstate.qualtrics.comfjfe3/form/SV bHn3hel0EUe4pdH 1/3
10/14/2016 Deschutes County Public Safety Survey
Moderate
Major Problem itaattkitb Minor Problem Not a Problem Don't Know
Bend Major Droblem Proem Minor rioblem Not a P.coblem Don'tynow
Redmond 0 0 0 0 0
Other areas in County
(outside of Bend, Redmond, Sisters, 0 0 0 0 0
La Pine)
Is CHILD ABUSE currently a problem (physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, etc.)?
Moderate
Major Problem Problem Minor Problem Not a Problem Don't Know
Bend 0 0 0 0 0
Redmond 0 0 0 0 0
Other areas in County
(outside of Bend, Redmond, Sisters, 0 0 0 0 0
La Pine)
Are PUBLIC DISORDER OFFENSES currently a problem (noise, squatters, trespassing,
panhandling, prostitution, etc.)?
Moderate
Major Problem Problem Minor Problem Not a Problem Don't Know
Bend 0 0 0 0 0
Redmond 0 0 0 0 0
Other areas in County
(outside of Bend, Redmond, Sisters, 0 0 0 0 0
La Pine)
Is ALCOHOL currently a problem (use by minors, public drunkenness, driving under the
influence, etc.)?
Moderate
Major Problem Problem Minor Problem Not a Problem Don't Know
Bend 0 0 0 0 0
Redmond 0 0 0 0 0
Other areas in County
(outside of Bend, Redmond, Sisters, 0 0 0 0 0
La Pine)
Is DOMESTIC VIOLENCE currently a problem (physical abuse, harassment or stalking of a
current/former intimate partner)?
https://portlandstate.qualtrics.comffe3/form/SV bHn3helOEUe4pdH 2/3
10/14/2016 Deschutes County Public Safety Survey
Meg@FM
MOO PF8131@fli PF814111 MIHBF PF8131811i Net I PF86I@Hi BEM KIM
Bend 0 0 0 0 0
Redmond 0 0 0 0 0
Other areas in County
(outside of Bend, Redmond, Sisters, 0 0 0 0 0
La Pine)
« Back » Next
Powered by Qualtrics
https://portlandstate.qualtrics.comffe3/form/SV bHn3hel0EUe4pdH 3/3
10/14/2016 Deschutes County Public Safety Survey
Which of the following do you think currently represents the biaaest threat to public safety in
Deschutes County?
(select one item from the list below)
O Public Disorder Offenses
O Traffic Safety
O Property Crime
O Violent Crime
O Child Maltreatment
O Alcohol
O Domestic Violence
O Drugs
O Other (describe):
What happened to aublic safety in Deschutes County over the past 12 months?
(By "public safety" we mean things like property crime, violent crime, domestic violence, child
maltreatment, public disorder, and traffic safety)
More Safe Stayed the Same Less Safe Don't Know
Bend 0 0 0 0
Redmond 0 0 0 0
Other areas in County
(outside of Bend, Redmond, Sisters, 0 0 0 0
La Pine)
« Back » Next
Powered by Qualtrics
https://portlandstate.qualtrics.comfjfe3/form/SV bHn3helOEUe4pdH 1/2
10/14/2016 Deschutes County Public Safety Survey
Please use the space below to provide additional information about your primary public
safety concern for Deschutes County.
(Remember, this survey is asking for feedback about broad public safety issues. If you have an
emergency or information about a specific crime, please call 911)
How should the County respond to the problem you identified in the prior question? What
strategies do you favor for reducing this threat to public safety?
.41
« Back » Next
Powered by Qualtrics
https://portlandstate.qualtrics.com/jfe3/form/SV bHn3hel0EUe4pdH 1/1
10/14/2016 Deschutes County Public Safety Survey
The next two questions address your overall feelings about safety in different areas of Deschutes
County.
How safe would you feel walking alone at niaht?
Neither Safe
Very Safe Safe nor Unsafe Unsafe Very Unsafe Don't Know
Bend 0 0 0 0 0 0
Redmond 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sisters 0 0 0 0 0 0
La Pine 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other areas in County
(outside of Bend, Redmond, Sisters, 0 0 0 0 0 0
La Pine)
How safe would you feel walking alone during the daytime?
Neither Safe
Very Safe Safe nor Unsafe Unsafe Very Unsafe Don't Know
Bend 0 0 0 0 0 0
Redmond 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sisters 0 0 0 0 0 0
La Pine 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other areas in County
(outside of Bend, Redmond, Sisters, 0 0 0 0 0 0
La Pine)
« Back » Next
Powered by Qualtrics
https://portlandstate.qualtrics.comlfe3/form/SV_bHn3helOEUe4pdH 1/1
10/14/2016 Deschutes County Public Safety Survey
We are interested in your opinions about general strategies that might be used in Deschutes County
to reduce or prevent crime. Please read each question below and indicate whether you support or
oppose the strategy.
Do you support the County putting more resources into punishment?
This includes efforts to prevent crime by increasing the severity of punishments administered
through the criminal justice system (higher fines, longer prison sentences, etc.).
O Strongly Oppose
0 Oppose
O Neutral/No Opinion
O Support
O Strongly Support
Do you support the County putting more resources into delinouency Prevention?
This includes efforts to prevent crime by targeting known risk factors for early delinquency
(parenting classes, social skills training, family counseling, etc.),
O Strongly Oppose
0 Oppose
O Neutral/No Opinion
o Support
O Strongly Support
Do you support the County putting more resources into community crime prevention?
This includes efforts to prevent crime by reducing opportunities, increasing the chance of getting
caught, or by making crime more difficult (warning people to remove valuables from their vehicle,
installation of security/CCTV cameras, stronger door locks, etc.).
O Strongly Oppose
O Oppose
https://portiandstate.qualtrics.com/jfe3/form/SV bHn3hel0EUe4pdH 1/2
10/14/2016
O Neutral/No Opinion
O Support
O Strongly Support
Deschutes County Public Safety Survey
Do you support the County putting more resources into rehabilitation?
This includes efforts to prevent crime by providing offenders with counseling, treatment, or related
services (substance abuse treatment, mental health treatment, job skills training, etc.).
O Strongly Oppose
O Oppose
O Neutral/No Opinion
O Support
O Strongly Support
Which of the following crime prevention strategies should be the hiahest priority, for
Deschutes County over the next 12 months?
(Select one item from the list below)
O Rehabilitation
O Punishment
O Delinquency Prevention
O Community Crime Prevention
O Other (describe):
« Back » Next
Powered by Qualtrics
https://portlandstate.qualtrics.comTfe3/form/SV_bHn3helOEUe4pdH 2/2
10/14/2016 Deschutes County Public Safety Survey
The next few questions address different substances and their potential impact on public safety in
Deschutes County. By "public safety" we mean things like property crime, violent crime, domestic
violence, child maltreatment, public disorder, and traffic safety.
Do you think public safety in the County is being negatively impacted by the use of street
drugs (drugs like cocaine, methamphetamines, heroin)?
O No
O Yes - Minor Impact
O Yes - Major Impact
Do you think public safety in the County is being negatively impacted by the use of
mariivana?
O No
O Yes - Minor Impact
O Yes - Major Impact
Do you think public safety in the County is being negatively impacted by the use of alcohol?
O No
O Yes - Minor Impact
O Yes - Major Impact
Do you think public safety in the County is being negatively impacted by the use of illeaally_
obtained prescription drugs (drugs like Vicodin, OxyContin, Valium, Xanax, Ritalin)?
O No
O Yes - Minor Impact
O Yes - Major Impact
https://portlandstate.qualtrics.comfjfe3/Form/SV bHn3hel0EUe4pdH 1/2
10/14/2016
Deschutes County Public Safety Survey
Please give one or two examples of how public safety in Deschutes County is being
negatively impacted by use of the above substances.
(Skip this question if you think these substances have no negative impact on public safety)
« Back » Next
Powered by Qualtrics
httpsJ/portlandstate.qualtrics.comfjfe3/form/SV bHn3hel0EUe4pdH 2/2
10/14/2016 Deschutes County Public Safety Survey
The DeschutesSafe team is exploring different options for dealing with substance -related crimes. By
substance -related crimes we mean things like illegally distributing a substance (manufacturing,
transporting, selling, etc), illegally possessing a substance, driving under the influence of a
substance, and committing a property crime to obtain money for a substance.
Three of the options,being considered are:
1) Diversion - People who have committed a substance -related crime would not be arrested if they
agree to complete a substance abuse assessment. Participation in subsequent treatment would be
voluntary.
2) Drug Court — People arrested/cited for a substance -related crime would have their criminal
charges dropped if they participate in treatment and drug testing in the community. Those failing to
participate in treatment would be prosecuted.
3) Prosecution — People arrested/cited for a substance -related crime would be aggressively
prosecuted with the goal of obtaining maximum criminal penalties.
We would like to know your preference for these three options when applied to different substance
and crime combinations in Deschutes County.
What is your preferred strategy for dealing with crimes related to STREET DRUGS (drugs
like cocaine, methamphetamines, and heroin)?
Diversion
Drug Court Prosecution
Distributing street drugs 0 0 0
Possession of street drugs 0 0 0
Driving under the influence of a street drug 0 . 0 0
Property crime to obtain money for street drugs 0 0 0
What is your preferred strategy for dealing with crimes related to MARIJUANA?
Diversion
Drug Court Prosecution
Distributing marijuana to a minor 0 0 0
Minor in possession of marijuana 0 0 0
Driving under the influence of marijuana 0 0 0
Property crime to obtain money for marijuana 0 0 0
https://portlandstate.qualtrics.com/jfe3/form/SV bHn3hel0EUe4pdH 1/2
10/14/2016 Deschutes County Public Safety Survey
What is your preferred strategy for dealing with crimes related to ILLEGAL PRESCRIPTION
DRUGS (drugs like Vicodin, OxyContin, Valium, Xanax, and Ritalin)?
Distributing illegal prescription drugs
Possession of illegal prescription drugs
Driving under the influence of illegal prescription
drugs
Property crime to obtain money for illegal
prescription drugs
Diversion Drug Court Prosecution
O 0 0
O 0 0
O 0 0
O 0 0
What is your preferred strategy for dealing with crimes related to ALCOHOL?
Diversion
Drug Court Prosecution
Distributing alcohol to a minor 0 0 0
Minor in possession of alcohol 0 0 0
Driving under the influence of alcohol 0 0 0
Property crime to obtain money for alcohol 0 0 0
Please share suggestions for dealing with substance -related crime in Deschutes County.
« Back
Powered by Qualtrics
» Next
httpsJ/portlandstate.qualtrics.comlfe3/form/SV_bHn3hel0EUe4pdH 2/2
10/14/2016 Deschutes County Public Safety Survey
We end with a few demographic questions to describe the people who participated in the survey.
What is your sender?
O Male
O Female
What is your age?
O 18to24
O 25 to 34
O 35 to 44
O 45 to 54
O 55 to 64
O 65 or older
What is your race?
(check one or more boxes)
❑ Caucasian/White
❑ African-American/Black
❑ American Indian/Alaska Native
❑ Asian
❑ Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander
❑ Some Other Race (describe below if you like)
Do you describe yourself as Hispanic, Spanish, or Latino/a?
O No
O Yes
https://portlandstate.qualtrics.com/jfeNform/SV_bHn3helOEUe4pdH 1/2
10/14/2016 Deschutes County Public Safety Survey
How many people live in your Deschutes County household?
(Type numbers into the boxes provided and include yourself in the count. Please enter a "0" if there
are no children living with you.)
# of Adults (age 18+)
# of Children (under age 18)
Do you rent or own your residence in Deschutes County?
O Rent
O Own
O Other (describe)
What was your approximate household income in 2015?
O Less than $25,000
O $25,000 to $49,999
O $50,000 to $99,999
O $100,000 or more
O Prefer to not answer
Opinions about substance related criminal activity may vary based on your own experiences. Our
final two questions ask whether you know anyone who has had a substance abuse problem.
Do you know anyone who has been addicted to a substance like alcohol, marijuana, street
drug, or prescription drug?
O No
O Yes
O Prefer to not answer
https://portlandstate.qualtrics.com/jjfe3/form/SV bHn3hel0EUe4pdH 1/2
10/14/2016 Deschutes County Public Safety Survey
Do you know anyone who has been arrested for a substance related crime?
O No
O Yes
O Prefer to not answer
« Back » Next
Powered by Qualtrics
https://portlandstate.qualtrics.comlfe3/form/SV blin3helOEUe4pdH 2/2