The URL can be used to link to this page

2017-383-Minutes for Meeting June 14,2017 Recorded 7/14/2017Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2017-383 Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk Commissioners'Journal 07/14/2017 4:20:08 PM .;..u.,... ...i 121011110NH 1111111111 1 111 III ...., ..,.. --, ...;iiUW• Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St,, Bend, OR 97703-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF BUSINESS MEETING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 2017 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Phil Henderson and Anthony DeBone. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Adam Smith, Assistant County Counsel; and Sharon Ross, Board Executive Secretary. No representatives of the media were in attendance. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Baney called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZEN INPUT: None was offered CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda. HENDERSON: Move approval, pulling Item #2 for discussion and pulling Item #6 for further review. DEBONE: Second. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting June 14, 2017 Page 1 of 10 VOTE: HENDERSON: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried Consent Agenda Items: 1. Consideration of Board Signature of Order No. 2017-011, Directing Irrigation District to Reimburse Deschutes County for the Cost of Abating a Road Hazard 2. Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2017-015, Confirming and Approving Sale of Real Property 3. Consideration of Board Signature of Order No. 2017-016, Declaring Certain Deschutes County Personal Property Surplus and Authorizing Sale 4. Consideration of Approval of Oregon Community Dispute Resolution Grantee Selection 5. Approval of Minutes of the April 26, 2017 Business Meeting 6. Approval of Minutes of the April 26, 2017 Work Session 7. Approval of Minutes of the May 3, 2017 Business Meeting 8. Approval of Minutes of the May 3, 2017 Work Session ACTION ITEMS Consent Agenda Item #2 as pulled for discussion: Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2017-015, Confirming and Approving Sale of Real Property. James Lewis Property Management Specialist presented the order relative to surplus property auction held on May 19, 2017 where 20 properties sold. Post auction requirement are to present an Order for Board consideration. HENDERSON: Move adoption. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: HENDERSON: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 9. THE READING OF A PROCLAMATION, Declaring June 15, 2017 as Elder Abuse Awareness Day: Adult Protective Services Investigators presented the proclamation for Board consideration. Investigations are made on allegations of abuse and exploitation through team efforts with the Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting June 14, 2017 Page 2 of 10 district attorney's office and law enforcement. Commissioner Baney read the proclamation into the record. DEBONE: Move approval HENDERSON: Second VOTE: DEBONE: Yes HENDERSON: Yes BANEY: Chair votes yes. Motion carried 10. THE READING OF A PROCLAMATION Recognizing June 19 — 25, 2017 as Amateur Radio Week: Nathan Garibay Emergency Manager presented the proclamation for consideration. Commissioner DeBone read the proclamation into the record. DEBONE: Move approval HENDERSON: Second VOTE: DEBONE: Yes HENDERSON: Yes BANEY: Chair votes yes. Motion carried 11. Consideration of Document No. 2017-178, a Notice of Intent to Award Contract for the Grind and Overlay of Baker Road, Lakeview Drive and River Woods Drive. Cody Smith and George Kolb, Road Department presented the document for consideration. The apparent low bidder was High Desert Aggregate and Paving at $694,095. The Engineers estimate was $760,811. DEBONE: Move approval HENDERSON: Second VOTE: DEBONE: Yes HENDERSON: Yes BANEY: Chair votes yes. Motion carried Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting June 14, 2017 Page 3 of 10 12. Consideration of Document No. 2017-393, Notice of Intent to Award for Inmate Food and Commissary Services. Captain Deron McMaster presented the document for consideration. The Sheriff's Office current vendor is Aramark. With their services contract expiring the department went out for requests for proposals and received three proposals. Aramark was the low bidder. HENDERSON: Move approval DEBONE: Second. VOTE: HENDERSON: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 13. PUBLIC HEARING: Before the Board was Consideration of Resolution No. 2017-019, Adopting the Fiscal Year Fee Schedule for Deschutes County. Christina Partain, Finance Office presented the resolution for consideration noting the updated inclusion of fees assessed by Bend Park and Recreation and La Pine sewer district which are pass through funds and not part of our fees assessed. Nick LeLack, Community Development Director presented information on Lot of Record fees. Commissioner Henderson noted concern of financial burden and is inclined to reduce these fees. At this time, Chair Baney opened the hearing for public testimony. • Nunzie Gould lives in Deschutes County and is glad to hear the average cost is $948.25 and feels the proposed fee of $512 does not cover the average cost of service. Ms. Gould commented since department is fee based, it troubles her the fees do not cover the cost of service and not collecting the fees is not appropriate. • Ms. Leeann Rowley owns a house and had no idea it was on a non -legal lot of record. She was not aware this was an issue until she was preparing to sell her property. Ms. Rowley stated it would be nice if the County would send out notifications to property owners. • Carol McBeth spoke on behalf of Central Oregon Landwatch. Ms. McBeth compared the costs of appeals between other Oregon counties and Deschutes County stating the Deschutes County appeals fees are out of line. Ms. McBeth urges the County to reject that portion of the appeals fee. • Bill Kuhn approached the Board stating he cares about wildlife protection. Mr. Kuhn noted if there are fewer fees collected there is not enough funds to pay for wildlife protection. In his opinion, the lot of record fees are necessary. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting June 14, 2017 Page 4 of 10 • Tony Aceti commented on the extreme amount of money it cost him to go through the hearing's process and believes the average cost should be applied to both sides of the fence. Commissioner Henderson requests additional time to further review and find clarification on lot of record. Chair Baney proposes continuing the public hearing to the date certain of June 21, 2017. 14. PUBLIC HEARING: Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2017-020, Black Butte Ranch County Service District Fee Schedule. Chair Baney opened the hearing for public comment and hearing none closed the public hearing. HENDERSON: Move approval DEBONE: Second VOTE: HENDERSON: Yes DEBONE: Yes BANEY: Chair votes yes. Motion carried 15. PUBLIC HEARING: Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2017-021, Deschutes County 9-1-1 County Service District Fee Schedule. Chair Baney opened the hearing for public comment and hearing none closed the public hearing. DEBONE: Move approval HENDERSON: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes HENDERSON: Yes BANEY: Chair votes yes. Motion carried 16. PUBLIC HEARING: Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2017-022, Extension/4H County Service District Fee Schedule. Chair Baney opened the hearing for public comment and hearing none closed the public hearing. HENDERSON: Move approval DEBONE: Second Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting June 14, 2017 Page 5 of 10 VOTE: HENDERSON: Yes DEBONE: Yes BANEY: Chair votes yes. Motion carried 17. PUBLIC HEARING: Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2017-023, Sunriver Service District Fee Schedule. Chair Baney opened the hearing for public comment and hearing none closed the public hearing. DEBONE: Move approval HENDERSON: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes HENDERSON: Yes BANEY: Chair votes yes. Motion carried 18. PUBLIC IIEARING, Consideration of Adoption, Community Development Department Annual Report and Work Plan Nick Lelack, Community Development Director provided a summary of the work plan. Chair Baney opened the hearing for public comment. Dr. Charlie Brown spoke on effects and impacts of marijuana. Dr. Brown is in favor of freedom of use and yet keeps in mind we do not know much of the impact of marijuana in many areas such as ground water contatnination and would encourage the commissioners to move cautiously. • Tim McGinnis and his wife own 80 acres in Tumalo. Mr. McGinnis spoke on the need to regulate the set -back requirements. He believes the community is not being served and there is a criminal element associated with drugs and those breaking the law are not being enforced and feels there is a need for additional deputies to enforce the law. • Diana Wills spoke on an illegal grow operation in her community. A complaint was given to Dcschutes County Community Development Department. She stated the property line was not measured and there is a bus stop right in front of this property. Ms. Wills feels our law enforcement needs to address the illegal grows. Gretchen Pederson and read into the record a letter to the commissioners. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting June 14, 2017 Page 6 of 10 • Karen and Keith Mitchell appreciates the enforcement of disregard for the law. They ask what is the incentive for people to follow the regulations of the county? Safety factor is a concern for neighboring properties and the entire community. • Andrew Anderson is a member of the Deschutes County Farm Bureau board and was on the marijuana advisory board and is a licensed grow business and would like to see the work plan revisited. Mr. Anderson stated enforcement on grows would be difficult because of the demand for marijuana. He spoke on the his concern of the neighbor notification process and that publishing of floor plans is a public safety concern. He recently had the tax assessor come to his farm and because of their parcel size they can't use the greenhouses built prior to the established regulations. • Lindsey Pate lives on her farmland between Redmond and Terrebone and agrees with Andrew Anderson that they want to have regulated grows and do not want to compete with illegal grows. Ms. Pate commented on the long opt out and now they have a lengthy application process. She encourages the Board to revisit the work plan as this process is causing operations to go out of business. • Tyler Neice of the Central Oregon Realtors Association recommended a revisit of the legal lot of record verification process. With the concerns in the real estate community disclaimers have been included on sale and purchase forms. • Candy Calahan has lived in Bend for the past 13 years and understands and appreciates the growth of the community and asks for thought and regulations on grading ordinances to ensure adequate design. • Julie Kisic supports the evaluation of a grading ordinance. • Bob Stilson lives in Deschutes River Woods and believes a grading ordinance is needed to protect our community. • Nunzie Gould recommends the review of land use rules and code enforcement should rank high on the work plan. Ms. Gould stated code enforcement fees should be charged for the service needed. She feels the community is placed in an interesting situation with marijuana production and encourages the Board to move slowly. • Bill Kuhn commented on code enforcement and the need for a text amendment that is sufficient to stop grow situations. • Ken Katsarat requested the record stay open on the CDD work plan Chair Baney closed the oral portion of the hearing. The record will remain open for one week until 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 20. The hearing will be continued on Wednesday, June 21St Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting June 14, 2017 Page 7 of 10 At this time of 12:46 p.m., a short recess was taken and the meeting reconvened at 12:55 p.m. 19. PUBLIC HEARING: Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document 2017- 337 Outdoor Mass Gathering Permit for Newberry Event Chair Baney opened the public hearing for the Newberry event and read the hearing procedures into the record. Cynthia Smidt, Community Development Department presented the document for consideration. Ms. Smidt gave a code overview on outdoor mass gathering permits and requirements. Ms. Smidt reviewed the event permit of the Newberry event stating there are many homes within 1000 feet and the event organizer did not supply written consent from neighboring properties. The applicant is aware of the noise complaints of years past and ware willing to comply with the County Code. The event planners have planned for a medical team on site and is requesting a waiver to require an ambulance on site. The closest fire station is six miles south of the location of the event. Traffic control plan and parking were reviewed. The event organizer reviewed the plan for traffic control and parking. Discussion held on safety and the need to organize plans with the Road Department. Discussion held on the concerns for noise control. The event organizer stated there will be no amplified music after 10:00 p.m. Event organizers stated letters were sent to neighboring properties to inform them of the event. Chair Baney closed hearing. DEBONE: Move approval of Document No. 2017-337 with conditions outlined. HENDERSON: Second VOTE: DEBONE: Yes HENDERSON: Yes BANEY: Chair votes yes. Motion carried 20. PUBLIC HEARING: Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document 2017- 338 Outdoor Mass Gathering Permit for OAS Bigstock Chair Baney opened the public hearing for Oregon Adaptive Sports permit. The event is being held outside of the city limits and anticipates attendance of 750 people. Ms. Smidt stated there are homes within 300 feet of the site and the event organizers are planning to stop amplified music by 10:00 p.m. with most people exiting by 11:00 p.m. St. Charles is 1.5 miles away and the plan includes a medical team on site and a request for ambulance waiver. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting June 14, 2017 Page 8 of 10 The event organizers noted their request of the ambulance waiver due to the proximity to the medical facilities. The Board suggested an agreement for medical response as well as an outline of the medical equipment available. Chair Baney closed the hearing. HENDERSON: Move approval of Document No. 2017-338 DEBONE: Second VOTE: HENDERSON: Yes DEBONE: Yes BANEY: Chair votes yes. Motion carried CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 12. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District, in the Amount of $17,738.63 DEBONE: Move approval, subject to review HENDERSON: Second VOTE: DEBONE: Yes HENDERSON: Yes BANEY: Chair votes yes. Motion carried CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 13. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-H County Service District, in the Amount of $705.86 DEBONE: Move approval, subject to review HENDERSON: Second VOTE: DEBONE: Yes HENDERSON: Yes BANEY: Chair votes yes. Motion carried Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting June 14, 2017 Page 9 of 10 RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 14. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County, in the Amount of $840,902.23 DEBONE: Move approval, subject to review HENDERSON: Second VOTE: DEBONE: Yes HENDERSON: Yes BANEY: Chair votes yes. Motion carried OTHER ITEMS: None were offered. ADJOURN: Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 1:49 p.m. DATED this /:=02 Day of J f County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST• Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 2017 for the Deschutes (11:::1" Tammy Baney, Chai Anthony DeBone, Vice t, Philip G. enderson, Commissioner June 14, 2017 Page 10 of 10 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 — Fax (541) 385-3202 — https://www.deschutes.org/ BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10:00 AM, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 2017 Barnes and Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Center — 1300 NW Wall Street — Bend Pursuant to ORS 192.640, this agenda includes a list of the principal subjects anticipated to be considered or discussed 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. Business Meetings are usually recorded on video and audio, and can be viewed by the public live or at a later date; and written minutes are taken for the record. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZEN INPUT This is the time provided for individuals wishing to address the Board, at the Board's discretion, regarding issues that are not already on the agenda. Please complete a sign-up card (provided), and give the card to the Recording Secretary. Use the microphone and clearly state your name when the Board Chair calls on you to speak. PLEASE NOTE: Citizen input regarding matters that are or have been the subject of a public hearing not being conducted as a part of this meeting will NOT be included in the official record of that hearing. If you offer or display to the Board any written documents, photographs or other printed matter as part of your testimony during a public hearing, please be advised that staff is required to retain those documents as part of the permanent record of that hearing. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Consideration of Board Signature Order No. 2017-011, Directing Irrigation District to Reimburse Deschutes County for the Cost of Abating a Road Hazard 2. Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2017-015, Confirming and Approving Sale of Real Property 3. Consideration of Board Signature Order No. 2017-016, Declaring Certain Deschutes County Personal Property Surplus and Authorizing Sale Board of Commissioners Business Meeting Agenda of 4 Wednesday, June 14, 2017 Page 1 4. Consideration of Approval of Oregon Community Dispute Resolution Grantee Selection 5. Approval of Minutes of the April 26, 2017 Business Meeting 6. Approval of Minutes of the April 26, 2017 Work Session 7. Approval of Minutes of the May 3, 2017 Business Meeting 8. Approval of Minutes of the May 3, 2017 Work Session ACTION ITEMS 9. THE READING OF a PROCLAMATION: Declaring June 15, 2017 as Elder Abuse Awareness Day — Heather Horlacher and Danny Cupp, Adult Protective Services Investigators 10.THE READING OF a PROCLAMATION: Recognizing June 19 - 25, 2017 as Amatuer Radio Week - Nathan Garibay, Emergency Manager 11. Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2017-178, a Notice of Intent to Award Contract for the Grind and Overlay of Baker Road, Lakeview Drive, and River Woods Drive - Cody Smith, County Engineer 12. Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2017-393, Notice of Intent to Award for Inmate Food & Commissary Services - Julie Lovrien, Administrative Assistant 13. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution 2017-019, Adopting the Fiscal Year Fee Schedule for Deschutes County - Christina Partain, Accounting Technician 14. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2017-020, Black Butte Ranch County Service District Fee Schedule - Christina Partain, Accounting Technician 15. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2017-021, Deschutes County 9-1-1 County Service Districe Fee Schedule - Christina Partain, Accounting Technician 16. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2017-022, Extension / 4-H County Service District Fee Schedule - Christina Partain, Accounting Technician 17. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2017-023, Sunriver Service District Fee Schedule - Christina Partain, Accounting Technician Board of Commissioners Business Meeting Agenda of 4 Wednesday, June 14, 2017 Page 2 18. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Adoption, Community Development Department Annual Report and Work Plan - Nick Lelack, Community Development Director 19. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Signature Document No. 2017-337, Outdoor Mass Gathering Permit for Newberry Event - Cynthia Smidt, Associate Planner 20. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2017-338, Outdoor Mass Gathering Permit for OAS Bigstock - Cynthia Smidt, Associate Planner CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 21. Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 22. Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers RECONVENE AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 23. Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers 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. Board of Commissioners Business Meeting Agenda of 4 Wednesday, June 14, 2017 Page 3 ADJOURN To watch this meeting on line, go to: www.deschutes.ora/meetings Please note that the video will not show up until recording begins. You can also view past meetings on video by selecting the date shown on the website calendar. 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. FUTURE MEETINGS: Additional meeting dates available at www.deschutes.orq/meetincicalendar (Please note: Meeting dates and times are subject to change. All meetings take place in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572.) Board of Commissioners Business Meeting Agenda of 4 Wednesday, June 14, 2017 Page 4 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 — Fax (541) 385-3202 — https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners Business Meeting of June 14, 2017 DATE: June 7, 2017 FROM: Judith Ure, Administrative Services, 541-330-4627 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Approval of Oregon Community Dispute Resolution Grantee Selection PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE?: No CONTRACTOR: N/A AGREEMENT TIMEFRAME: N/A INSURANCE: Insurance Certificate Required: No Insurance Review Required by Risk Management: No BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Every two years, the University of Oregon's Office for Community Dispute Resolution (OOCDR) makes funds available through the Community Dispute Resolution Grant Program. These funds are disbursed to eligible local community dispute resolution programs through a publicly advertised application process coordinated by the affected counties in partnership with OOCDR. On March 27, 2017, the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners adopted a resolution to participate in the program and to engage in a selection process to award grant funds. That process has now been completed and OOCDR has identified Community Solutions of Central Oregon as the agency eligible to receive grant funds for the purpose of providing dispute resolution services in Deschutes County. The attached letter from OOCDR documents the results of the application process and requests that the Board take action to select Community Solutions of Central Oregon as grantee within Deschutes County on or before June 16, 2017. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. Funds in the amount of approximately $38,500 will be disbursed by OOCDR directly to the grantee. ATTENDANCE: Judith Ure, Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Select Community Solutions of Central Oregon as grantee to receive Oregon Community Dispute Resolution funds for services provided in Deschutes County. 0 UNIVERSITY OF OREGON School of Law May 9, 2017 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall Street Suite 200 Bend, OR 97701 Attention: Judith Ure RE: 2017-2019 Community Dispute Resolution Grant Dear Board of Commissioners: I am pleased to inform you that the Oregon Office for Community Dispute Resolution (OOCD.R) has completed its review of applications for grant funding under the Oregon Conrsnunity Dispute Resolution statute and University of Oregon Policy. The eligible program in your County is: * Community Solutions of Central Oregon At this point we ask that the County Board of Commissioners take action on or before June 16, 2017 to officially select the eligible grantee to receive OOCDR funds and that you notify me once that action has been taken. After I receive notice of your selection, I will work directly with the eligible applicant to sign a grant agreement and award the grant. A copy of the grant agreement will be provided to you. Please note that the final grant award will be subject to authorization of ongoing funding by the Oregon Legislative Assembly for the 2017-2019 biennium. These grants help make it possible to educate the citizens of Oregon about mediation and assist them in finding effective ways to resolve their disputes peacefully. Thank you for the ways in which you support these important community engagements. Sincerely, Charles F. Ikard, Acting Administrator Oregon Office for Community Dispute Resolution cc: Gary Winterstein, Community Solutions of Central Oregon OREGON OFFICE FOR COMMUNITY DISPUTE RESOLUTION 1515 Agate Street, 1221 1Jxtiverr;ity of Oregon, Eugene OR 97403-1221 r 591-346-1(123 http://oocdr.uoregon.edu/ An equal nplrorturii!)t offiruwhIn'o oution inslilulimr committer) to ro!tarnl diversity mrd compliance with the Awry icons with Disabilities Acl -[E -< Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 — Fax (541) 385-3202 — https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners Business Meeting of June 14. 2017 DATE: May 11, 2017 FROM: Christina Partain, Finance, 541-385-1412 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution 2017-019, Adopting the Fiscal Year Fee Schedule for Deschutes County PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE?: Yes BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Adoption of the FY 2018 Fee Schedule for Deschutes County. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: As budgeted in the FY 2018 budget. ATTENDANCE: Christina Partain RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Public Hearing regarding proposed changes for the FY 2018 Deschutes County Fee Schedule and Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2017-019, adopting the FY 2018 Fee Schedule for Deschutes County. LEGAL COUNSEL For Recording Stamp Only BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON A Resolution Adopting and Continuing Fees And Charges for Services and Providing an Effective Date. * * * RESOLUTION NO. 2017-019 WHEREAS, various departments of Deschutes County charge fees for services and permits; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to adopt and amend the fee schedules of Deschutes County annually each July 1 in accordance with Chapter 4.12 of the Deschutes County Code, as amended; and WHEREAS, various Deschutes County departinents have proposed fees and charges for services and permits; and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on June 14111, 2017, on the proposed fees and charges for services and permits and finds that the fees and charges for services and permits as set forth in Exhibit "A" reflect the actual cost of providing services and permits; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, as follows: Section 1. That the fees set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and, by this reference, incorporated herein, is hereby adopted as the fees and charges of Deschutes County, Oregon. Section 2. The fees and charges for services and permits adopted in Section 1 of this Resolution are effective July 1, 2017. Section 3. All fees and charges for services and permits in effect prior to July 1, 2017, are hereby continued or superseded as provided herein. PAGE 1 OF 2 — RESOLUTION NO. 2017-019 Dated this of , 20 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ATTEST: Recording Secretary PAGE 2 OF 2 — RESOLUTION NO. 2017-019 Tammy Baney, Chair Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair Philip G. Henderson, Commissioner 0 3 -0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 73 co a) <- 3 0 0- a) >••. 3 0 0 Cr) 0) 3 _c (1) 0 0 . o I • , ; , I ; I . .--• 1 i , i • ' : o ! 1 a) 0 61) I . .. . . z = ' 0_, : _. :, 1 0) 176. 61 ; , a.,, t1.1 .-- E 1 I • (-1) . • : a) . + : : : . , ...„ • ,s_. . .-,; ;;•01.;;;; c Cl. , CL ‘,., ' (13 , co 1 Ca. 0. ..= 1 (1) 6) , 0., 6) . I 0 , • 1.•', , ..• • E : a, . : 0_ s- ; ;,- 0_ . a5 Icr1io;tr):01 ,c)• DO O c)• 0c,u):.:(1) Lc,' 1c)(I) ' sr) ' c:i • c3 : Lci . (..) ' : ° • ' ci ci . 0 . ai ; ,__Hr:' : ' . : ; 1 < , "-- ; < • y- ; • cy, ; < ; - ; ; • . ,_ I a) : • FY 2017 Fee ($) DESCRIPTION , (--s!ia, -0 Cll 0 • ' • - 1 • a) „ T,,, 1_ • as > 0 , >, 0- 03' CO ! • C ' 73 ,_ ! 1 t3c :: •' 'L)ca c4) ''' : I I -o o 0 • ; o • : : a3 0 o a) . : ,.... ,., 0 ; • o o >, . o ' • • ' • • 1 . Ts , 1 ' • . ' s ; ' ;, 1:1 Eacl - a) ;o -0<vo .•,'. o • a , , - 0: , , : wi c'TJE to (1)1 1 ' 5 : , . , -ro• ! (1) ' 2 4_, ,. , 0.) • >., - >,1 -0 ! 0 C) • , • .0 , JD • c ' T. _..-., c , 0 , .....„. ', , , — V.J 0 - CO 3 3 .53, ;".,, aDci!I, ac= .. [1 11) (o(‘1n) -! -cic 2 0000 =- o: •-cu o c 5 DSa 010' ; cr a_ ' . ,.....,: ::, . : -0 .2 • (/) ; to ' : ca :c o 1 ; ,-,= o • **Z1) : E E_, 7,, ; .&-.,. 0 2, '0' ct5 f.) -.8. 01 : 0,:.-5, I = -.7-'17- i cif! rn. 0 1 < 0 : . w 0 : -- -2: . 0 C . C , "0 , 1:3 - cy). -0 r, , 1 06 I °65 1 c 1 17.'1_ , -- 1 - , 0,1 0) c 1-A ••-• : (/) 1 al ; 1 o 1.9 0 ! 6' 813: c i c V); 6 ;1• ; ; .." ; sa.. ; c c ; , : , -; •,._ ; 00 : ,2.., , LE 6 na) 1 ' -, 1 -17) '1) 1 E ° ° ° ° 1 ° 1 P..) a) 1 : .0 15 31 CI 3116-'-'1.17--- :---1:1"-': 8: e L. : El..1:, _. , . <DI., :P : co 0 15121:-C)-- 'c -•:--E a tu ' -a- • ..- __-_,, o ; IF, E _gi._...., 0.,,T.!,,, ,,,,...,21 , co 5 3 ----,‘-cp, 0) 00 0, ,,,Lo ,.... , 0 !oi 01 := '1,0••0c C, C (L) 0. a) ; - 1.. : a) 2 2 , 2 I E .c ' 0 , •••..- '. 0 ; ,..,>,, ..c 08 -; 3 : ,-,-.,1 1 : o'ola, l'..,!-5, ,,cD >,.., >, >, •.,-- (7, 7, st2st,0 ,,c1a3 It51_0: i . 2 01. . _:.->: 0 :c) 0.i al CL; a) 0 0 , 0 ' `-' , w 1 0 o • 0 < 0.- 10.0 0;0,0•0_,u_ 1.1_ L.1...O-.1-1-1.); ,Z , d 1 ,-Hic-011-,0,i,..0 r-- co i (7) 1--- pt-- ; c-- pr. - Z [Z.Z1Z1Z[±1Z1Z ZIZ'ZIZ:Z.Z 2 1W w'WILLW:WIW W1W W;wiww w , ,a0,0i0010!000-0 0 (.9;o . , , , , [ i I i *ACS=Acutal Cost of Services N a E lLw r- • 4- r O z N N LL O u- O � I H z w H- z w h z FY 2017 Fee ($) DESCRIPTION O z w h CL) n �. � I (6' N. O .O L Q) 0! N' , a) 1O I a) a' O 4 a) , a) a'a%5 1 0 O) 0) 0) 0. 0) 0) 0 7O Np co CO O CO CO O O Q O O' O.O '5 Q' n n n' 0. u) Na;L N 0 ' aaa) ' aaQ = 1 O p N , ao L 5' Q n Q.QQ n'n Q Q n co_ 1 I — ,O co1co co '',(O c) Ho OI'' O', O, OI!(O 'O co O,O'1 .o N NCV N'�O:O O. o.0 0;N 'O 0,0 01 ' CO, (O, X10 : C=) oI 6 10M' IM''. c O O O O'(O'(n!(O 10 (O (O O '1 (0' (n'O' CO >, Q O U L E; 45!!.0 O QI 1 �I I� E O N O 7: 7 O ! I O.', N U E E c dvX' N O c�� 1 iii ' b ' On _ a �wCO CC a) 0 1 p lO c N ;c,UO IC, 8! O o Va v I O . co m C U 'F- !,. w c o,_n' t. Ia) I N (0 Q O- 0 ! 0) 1— E :O�= O O :a) 1 0 c¢N -o'U1xp !a) o U) c a. ' n d c ` O, ' —.Ca. o , w E E ri Q Nn I �onNa'cn1 o 0al Q,aia) lo-;.°- U L co i �� w¢ ; OO m m N •= @O =-@L. a1aU a� a� @ no .g2°'o' cOn co. NO ,N0a) o ° Nlcac j2 a Ch>,a cocD N �'°m i c g CO O n' c E! E 8( , O 1 N a) : aX X c=foan XoN)E oQomm 'Co co (o a a) m a) o o ao❑oa ;o CO (0 c CCcn❑colm-Umw❑0_U 'm 0_0�¢ (L CZIUUU2''��¢ < 1O 1M V O r (0 0) OI 'N,M A- l — N co V 1 (O 1 co r--- 00 o) 1 e- — _v- N N ; N N ¢ a ¢ ¢ ¢ ; U) U) U) U) U) U) U) Cn (n U) U) U) U), co U) (n U) U) �¢a¢ ¢¢aa <<<1< ¢a�a¢' a¢a. 1 1 I o co co co ✓ v co co ✓ ':v • ,v 00 0 O 0 (i) N ' 0) 0) .a n Q (n 0 I 0 a) n,Q n CD CD O'O O 0,1.0;(0 (O (O O O O ,O O N 0 0 _c 0 0 U_ 10 0 tl) CO - 7 0 Cr (NI 7 0 0 0)05 0 w E CI) 4.. 0 c- c° >- Z 'NI 0 Ct LL FY 2017 Fee ($) DESCRIPTION 0, 8 1 To co = l as ,-z a - m r_ 2 0 ,C ° E ° E (-,- -.-, 0 I 1 0 ,c <- To To `;:r ; c\1 0 'Fa a •D b.- .0) 1 1 . 1 a) .7?• .E .,. \I .5 l 0)0 0 5 5 (a o . a-- ;. 000 , 0.-Ecc -) 2>0o_ 7: 1 .oi a, .- (/) ..00 0 l-c a LT) ' „.., .,...• c.= ,- o co:4=C'i ED 6 0.). in''L) -EL6' 41)5 1(2) #'°•-9 ! l , . • x. 1 c 0 ic) 0 ,c2 l a> c , . , -0 o " -o 4" a'S 0 I 1 El 0 , a) ---f6 C I ..c11) z , v, a) . E I a) E as ("_„) g E>, 1 a •E- ] (I) -g) -5 ' < ›,-- 0 C ° 0) C.) ! V) -.' -C 1 : c I ... ..., jaas) , I 0, s 05, «l E -o CE(1) 0E—(Tc0 '!1.oI) E T o >o.u. 1 : I=I , . 0. . ca 1, ci, tn . IS 0) 'E (,) 1 .- ct-. ,.... 0 w c /) , 0 -F,5 i o T.: °•.-a' 00 1 0-- c 0. ;,,, c . -0 ....• - a_ . 0 ..-, 5 s' Lo, . cm c . .._ : coo*. o0c0 c co "CS -,-, ! CO 0 ! 0.) ci!.. C .5 ' CL! ., E I 2 (I) 0 , I, E'l E 0 ca 0 , , >, ....• E - a ' C.) ; 0- ,- 0 : V) 37' (../3 43 . RI < U) 0 ; -2 ! ! 1 C : ' . , , r Y Y 1 I Y . . y ; : LU : . To . . E 1 0,5 ..—. l 2) g . - -c 0 o 1 co E ej 1 1 . •- R 0 .- ..... ,4 -- co and 006,._ Eo>. (13° cru) _a>, 10 ,•! is,:. (2 -, :. -0 '6 _c, Er) a) C 0 1 7 : [ I. Cii v .42 -5 -0 cc' 72 -6 0 . 9; c a) - izr 0 12 LC) 0 a) . 0 l - a 0 X Zs a_,) 0 03 0 E 0 i U_ ; 0 E co a) . u.) s (,) .cn (-,1 -o ..snw ,1 (n 0) .0 • . , 0 •,:r to = 4- ' p 0 . 0 0 c ..-. (c) ..--• , E 4- TO E - E C ' 0 ' _ , D 0 = 7 (1) C 0I'' ‘° ' C E 1 0' a — : 0: .0 E 5. ,,.5 F) (0 -. a.('73 Pi D - = co C To 0 CD E r•-2 - ....._,.c 0- I c.c) co 0 -8 0) (0 v - 0 . 2 t• 5 .CT1 cR L° T-) 0 1. <aD) . a - 0 < u_ 2 .E- 0 7, 73 -8 Lu- a -5 0. (1) CO ' r - i -- Y ' ! I 0- I Z--)-1 1 *ACS=Acutal Cost of Services co -o 0) 0) 0) 0 -0 0) (0 0 0 a) c) $2 "-L- 0 0 w o ,22 0.) all c .0 c c -30 cC co FY 2018 Fee E o J O z O ENACTMENT AUTHORITY z 0 0 U @co Uc co N @ FY 2017 ORS 205.320 (12) DESCRIPTION O z w 1- ORS 205.234 & 205.237 Lien Records 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 6 O d ,- N O M + t + + t + 11 ocs U V O O O co co CO CO0.1 M I,: ICS 1.6 0 0 0 Lo in tb N N O O to 0 0 0 o 0 _ O N E 0 0 @ o p 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 V a' O Q Q O Q'O Q tri a) u -i OO OO t9 M @ To N t0 c o N @ t + + '+ + '4- 11 @ O E -0 co V 8 0.-o coco o 0 4) 0 { 8 N O. >o o_ a. - O O O O co co co O O O O t0 to t0 co O@ O O O O O co O O (- N N- N o -O ccd (xi co h Et CO El- Et V M O M O M O 0 O pO 00 00 0 00 00 t0 O O a- M M co O + + + + N + 11 Q. @ U❑ x 0) L.___--- 0 3 a) EFT • 0 oE o O) N •N O O LL °0 _ (6 O .�. to @ , b- o n N > C O @ 'O Q O 0 o_ O @ a) @ to c N (o OcC @' O @ ' . c c 0 aa) vai n @ 0 E a) -a 0 4- a.,) ON U O Z @ .. a,p @ 0 to 0 ' (p '' U'2 a E 0 U ❑ O w tll @ E -' ` c 0 .N w �''a ''E $ E cN 'a°ot > 2' oN o o 0o E@ v c, c .1) C N 'NO, U @coQ O a >, _@ @ N 'O C LL, -8, O Q Q@ O 2 2 0 O C -20 0 -0',, U c _C a c -r3 c CO -c o 0.) �c E tv @ ta,.- @ o c 2. 2 a .0 s�� c 0. 0 .0 o 5 ', C' E, o ❑. c ', 8 'a r m a@i co �''in Z Q U, A m o Z' O U U co o o a H cn c I'I z ��000C9� � o 0 ) O U 0 0 N,M V t0 ',(D ,Y Y YIY' J J J J J 0 0 0 0', N- CO O)' O N N,N N Ji J J J J J 0 0 0 0 0 0 FY 2018 Fee a) D a) 0 U a) a) -o 0) go a) O O C N i LL C O U U N 7 U a) 0 E O >- Z a) 0 N } LL o I N -Cr) F - Z o o J J U U CO CO 0 ' 0) 0) (0 (t) (n N (1) O O aim aa,aQ-a. Cl. oa oo'O; 000l001 :O O O 0 0 0. 0 O I O O 101 '0 (0 0 1(10', 'er(0cIl i in 10 co col 0 - J U M J U 0) 0 O DESCRIPTION a) a) (0 C N C o O o -2 'O 0 m• ' Y .— N L @ U o' C • 0) a) 1 G!Y 3 j N O : 11 LL Ola) a;0 0 0) 2,a :I N �iQ Q X a d v N,O O' 1 'm m m11 oi, , 0 0'1 0 0' O I >. >.I C 'a Q' 0. 0_ 0 E u N ` a) O O' 0 0 U U U 0.0 0 1 N o.,; U µ? -, @ 0 o 0 a) : •U N 1a) a) @ co 7,10 co n ! 0 0)1 O ... ... CN CN CV CN NIN; NSM Z Y Y'Y Y'Y Y Y;Y • J J J J J J J J H 0) IO 0 N N: : CO I In I O I 1i N - O'0 O1 N I 0 U). (A; N 0 O �m 0 m ca U + a �I a) + o''o 1010 0,o O O'o'o OIO 'o,O o co Ln;p .O O O 6''CO1 :O t0:10 O'M: • .10 10110 N- I 7r,1 ;10 N10 +- ',i 1, 'O O! U) a) . 1 ) a a) i :O fI @ 0 o U N a) . : ''', C �, 0) > U(13 n O) ILL to In 1w U : . C 0 0 1 0 (0 (p . 0 � "C as 2 o @ N ▪ �I�' L N n `oo oo �I1d • O C. O' E O t u.: N ~ (0 .00)1 -Co) s''Ir O' L o co ' a0) a0i •(.7) o mo 0 °n 0'0 rn,m w', n) 0;LL. 0 E E @ @ '.0 O @'1 @: o' m' U. o. o E. 0)_c) 3 0 Z Q J, 011 0 01 O O� d', N,(L' 3.J' 0' 0 'O' C: 0).L] 0 a m T O L L, 4C I c I C @. C O Od W. C .N C O • d 0 1'Q 2 to l' a r N M V 1_ --__.__ T 10 . (0 N. 00 1 0) ; 0 1 c- N CO V ! (0 CO h co 'M MIM M.M M'',, M' M:V''V 'Cl" 7t r)' ',7 V N- Y rY Y Y'i J J Y Y Y Y Y Y 1 Y Y YY' Y�,Y'Y J 'J;J J J J J 0 00000 0'0 0'0'0,000 UUU O E LL w oN 00 J C O O Z 0 N >- O LL ENACTMENT AUTHORIT 1- Z FY 2017 Fee a) a) &I } 0 0 03 ; co U 0) n, a, 0.I 0. 'O n. O_a� a i o I • : 0I00oN OMoIOO I (yO O�N; co L 0 N C c (v I o • E j0 IO a) c, 0 EI 0) I(4 't N 0_ Z O ,( n .E T > - 0 N `° v a_~. 0 : w `) ', 0 > ©' m °)2' (0 C W c as i CO c L 3' o a. © E ,-i IU) 1 E '2 aI o 0)1 O ^0 ; -0 -0 ' UI ) 0 Nj 1 (/) "0 0- a) >I 0 0 fi _ ! a O: 0 0. 01 C -0, c a) 0 'I ' wrj'Zi 00.c10 -c 0 u-[0 }, 0 0 0 2 3 3: I >,,, EI m 0 o'0,0 0 0,r- .0 T o a. 0lis Z --cll.-8 3 0I,0 0c Crv :0.Z n00'0 Q N _ CO : ''S (f) (0 (— O ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ U 010 0;0 U N' � ! I C c' 0 0 • (0 0 } > 0) 0), 1 7. -0 -0 L , E' ;E O 0 C) 0 O; 0i 4- 0 a 0, 0.1 • N : r-- o O• (O N! 151.?,cc �''rW Q' N r- . - : M 0` c `O -0 CO c .0 O C 0) E 1; ' c o • 0 o 0) C O 0) ., co CO3 U o a;go N a .E;' 'P47) U � , 2 0 0 1 C 0) c 0 ' 0: N C 0 a n, a) ❑ c� c o0. * .E 0 0 m n (0 (o IE' p :rn E:c '8' } 0 )0);co E cc c, z) 0 a ''o ' cn • u) N O,_ 0 0. .O T O C v) O 0 E, N 0(0IO C u) .2 C >,0/0- � 0 o l 0 3 0 w,;tz .N. o c=.)-, c 0'o a', 0.),0 o c c 0) 0.i 0 0 : N'',Q ]I Q_. 0' 0_i 0 ,= ) .> _ a) (.912,8!.--Y2 (3) plc 0.ro 0 c!O'. d, Q;�IT!•C o!0 0,�- o Ei(0 ( 8! E t co co o 0. 0 N I'- E= a) ' o i N! -0 i _p5p 0' 9 00 0) T N E;> 0.C)-0 O'OIZT; V)' OI O. N C!— (0 •- n. 0< 0a_C o00U Biu)1-00-ei 0 a O - NI.M 07''1(!(0 h^.' 00 0) ❑ oi ❑ 0'0,0,❑'❑ ❑ ❑II ❑ 0 0 0' U 0,0.0 0 U 0,C0> U1 0 O 0): - Qc F atop 0 CL' U N v E o m a °) ,n 0 a) N o (.2 V) _c C O 0 C C 0 n 0 y .O T _ a)o(0c G _ra cu .3 W 0 0.o o 0 1. a C C W w c .0 a m -o C (0 c a) 3 5 N 0.0) v .3- ' 0 (0 .0 'a .. 0 N N O O7 m 3 a) m a 0 0. '6 C N "*- •7 v) as (0 -5a) 0" O 5 . L am.. C O 0 'j -O O N a m ` c _oa > _• > r E O 3 E ▪ E'- 0 3 0 a) -o (n c .f] 12 a 0) .� C M w T a).0 .0V) w(/a- co 3 0> C C N 0 0) E 8 0 8 o 'O U N 01-4 c a) 0.0.0.0 u, 8 m 0 '3 o)CO , c` N r c 0 • amu\) o -3o a`) a,)m o Q N N (0 n n_ 0 FY 2018 Fee ENACTMENT AUTHORITY 010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 aQICC5 71: 1 coo' o co c 'CA'(A O'M N- o i N 'I (O ('J N- LO • FY 2017 Fee ($) DESCRIPTION 10 a) I O '15, 01 1Q.'I t Q E'er a', '�- U Ci) O O)'', o!IU s C', U1❑. m ❑ (0 , Q 3 N 'L o 17;1 2,01 i CO FY 2018 Fee ENACTMENT AUTHORITY .0 c 0C o C as c 0 C U O @ O co O O O E N O a) w O O i w p (0 �0�� O� 0j - M O� d- O h-' a) O O C 71. O C 4 O C V O c O Z '�' Ns. M p. gyp. �p + 0 0 a) d0a e»oa + 0a + oa O >>>> E E E E cn o �v o 00 @ o p m o o m o 0 0 m a`.) 4, f6 o c- c -o (ri c -o o c -o c:368° c Q d d O_ C (O O o 0 N O o 0 N O o 0 (O O o 0 0 o (i (i (i (i E o e» ;_. N 00 e» :7 a) o <» :_. N o ER a) o Ea :.. o Q' Cr Q 6 -� 'a 'p -O N 'O O N tri a N N ( U O' ,_ a a) O � a) U) co (0 co - 2 Q .Q .0 O_ a :�- as EA u= a) .'C-. 64 :� a) >C-. (fl a- CO -. -, (A w CO w o 0co 1.0 co co co _ (no o'0 000 0 0 ��Q o 0 0 (n (n aa) ,- N M M O 4 in LO M N OM d- CO(Op O O M CO O N .0 m CS) N y .- CO , (f) U N a)s- >, o C N 0 w a) .c U N a) 0 DESCRIPTION .5: 0 R N 0) c,- a a 9 a) m E d m_ O O U C a) a a) O_ E y ii o) m .0 E 3 -C C O a) �, C' U 0 c O C @ N O c�a 0 m ° v a) a) (co a _ d' C c CO .0 N ''' T ""' Q p a) C N-' co a C Y f6 N a) ) .0 5 .c O d N 7 @ C ,f/) a)• (� a3 0, 0 a) 0 N O> a .0 C (3 O a) 0) T' ' O) U co a - a) N yd. 6 6,; cj -0 Q 0)0) 7 a) E a) `' (6 (6 1 0 O' O N E O O N N o o c m 3 m, a U >' 3= �' CO N O ' — C a C_ O M I� Q N -0 C O_. (4 0' w a C = N,O O,O O O .O 0,,, g C' CO d ., 0 (O'N� V7 0 U ta01 ` Q1 = U 2 0o p'N M'h. rnU E0 (n N N li (� 3 O N ( 0 a) N a) a) ¢ •-•-=> c a) C a) D_ N C C O 0 Y',Y Y'', y O O ..-E. c G)'' O', 0;.S' S C' S 8 .O p o O O O, E w• •p, (n' cnL. m cn W_ o c ._ as '' U C C '''o Y Y 'Y Y Y' C N @@ a3 W 1 N O O C N N (A N a) a) a) O o a) a) a)' N - nom. •- - j a) a) -oL U a) a) LL D 0 co � O N ›- >, T C 7 O U 0 c1 721 o1 o, 5 0 0 1 m to 0) c v 3 00 FY 2018 Fee ENACTMENT AUTHORITY 1- z FY 2017 Fee ($) DESCRIPTION O,O O'O OIOI O O O cloak(); ,, Lci 1 Ln 1 it O • 10 1, Ln . co 'KY L0 L01� '0I O 0'0'0'0 O,O.O 0,0:010 O 0, ',L0 1.0 1 0 0 010 (:)0i0 0 0:0,0; O 0 0: ': (— (n : r «) 001 co cd,WIW'OJ'00;W M W', c0 W', W'co W' i� �', in V 1101 N N',N!N,N',N'N N,N N',N:N N N !0),LO O) 10 111 '' 01 1, m: W: 0' 1.o,1 i ago) C 00 c 3 1 a t _c _c 'ffs' of 4 _' 4, I 0 ..0, a), MH-, � E 1 17 El O 1 C n; 3 E'. D EI E E E m o Dl c 1Y V LL,LL LL LL 'C "o l� c 3 3 3': 3' �c °'o . c v) I- i- I- 'I- (o (a m 0 o c o: -o -o -o a) o E •- 0 C C C: c O) C N a) m. m o m (n O a Y 3 a),a) 01 a) -c c'' c c: c c a) :1').1'1 aO000m 0 Iii; (0 Z J'J J'!J J J • 0_,0_ ala n_ n_ I 0'00'0 0 0 01010:0 U,U 0 , 0 0). 0 C > O N. 0 0 p.w O c 9,, a). 01 -or -O, m1 w 0 .1.) al o 01 �I�': 0'' 0;. c 0 > oo HIw•0 -J;O;u mp •• J !J JJ;J,J J;JJ J1JJ'J'J (f)' m m m:m m m.m'm'0'm m!mm ml Ira 0'0!0'10) m,m''m 0'0''010'0) DI0 0'010 0 0,0:0,0,00100 01 U 01010:0,010.0 010 0100 10 0,71- M,10 ',VO'0) o O N' U I C O 2 1 c N , p; N 0 n 10 ED- E !a`)1, to m 0 0..0 n .� c ''' ; cn ,'.0----1,:s,---0,4' , N �'11'U �'', 0 .0 1 00 0,0! 1 0,6 - ''.7 �:'lo' �I� o js C `o s o c!o'c U 0 E ' :in , O � ( (0 , C C u,---- ^ N mjo ': `p O c !!''..(K)) 08o .o c -o' o O -0 0 O :L 50; O (0 � Q, N U 0 O 7 c c. c a) ( m c 3 0 1 N 0 rawly` N'(, m d N 0 o 0 o o EIS m p o U U U 2 ?, O.0 O E'= N .u) E N N (n 0 0] n (0 D N • z (0 U) (n 0) 0)' 0' 0 N E d m a) N =p =p 1 =73. E ill n z'11:: R =•!-.---5- =15; =I5 � �s, c Im' m to < 3 c 2 E (7, N M t0 'I �N N N C N, J J J J J EL' In- dad' (. 1W 0 0 0)I CCU !m m mime, 01 :0 0 00: U1 U 0I010' N 'N J J n_ a 0)0) 01;0 0'10 CO, O N, N J J a1 0 - WI I0) CO CO 0 '0 0,' U "ACS=Acutal Cost of Services 0) a) a) N a 0 a) 0) C (0 i U a) N a 0 o 'er O` O 0 N C6 � U V P � O FY 2018 Fee E • o R. C Z d N O ti ENACTMENT AUTHORITY I— Z FY 2017 Fee ($) DESCRIPTION (n o (o 0 0 0 0 c)c)o O o 0c) 0 0 0,0 0 0 0 o O o co0 0 0 0 coo r� o r - o coco0 0 0 0 0c) 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (o co0 o O r- ui «i 0:C6 ao ao co cci co co ao cOco cci co aD co co c ao co cci (DO of 00 ui v O co rh N N'N N N NN N N N N N N N N NN N N N'N 10 N 0) N 0.1 (o 0 C a) E Q O T) a) 0) a) 'O 3 a) C w N •C N O a) 0 - 7 C U O c .U) L7. - 5 v5 co a) C3 0 3 o ZO E CO w a> (n C N CO 0 °a co uN c, 5 C- E" c Q o a5 o 0. o �' m m m v O o E •— o CO 0 a� , 0)13 ,- c co .@ a', o o c) c o c a�'c c m o'm . o 2 QIc c E° o m m Q'c 6- 5 TZ U -o 4- N O y O OU >� L-' 30 w U y C N 1' N p .O' 1 8 a) o Q CL a) a) C 9 L a) ' m, C 7 n c C C fl U C U) LL O Q1 a) ' a`) co co a) E m N o ` C m.1'2:E: CP. 6 .� c -0 E 3 m o m' 0).01 m,w ..a. 12' m' 3, m c�, c o a� .n °>> m o °J o c m o m 0 S -c m' m' Q, aa)) -o -co co -o •E m • c!a°i E X''�I� >',n CIL' � L'n'�Iro cm �'L9 c 8 �!,8 3 c.): E,E m,E,a? Q m.._ m. 7 a) m N 02 1 m O'er m 8 O a) Q o o •3 O O', CO a 8'cn o' .iLm(n'Ji—u)300 3-im00 .E ELcncnc)lcncn'coE:3 U' !tI' O''� r 011010' 1- CO CA O NLO (O,� CO CA O. N ' LO CO, r- CO CA O N- 0 co co co con to (n'(n (O , (17 (n'O m m'__ _. m m m CD m. m' m m U) c0 00.00 U) m U) U) (n (n (n , d d d d' m m m 0) 4 J coM coM M coM '�, coM rY � LLI Z J J _J _.1 JI, J J J J J J aCt.da da m M'M m COM 03'00 MC m M - 0.0 00 0,0 0',0 0'0'0'0 010 0'0 0'0.0'0 0'0 0 0 0'':0 0,0 0'0 0 0'0' 0'',00'0 00 0''0 0 0 00 0'0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 0,0 010 0 a) Water service (each additional 100 ft) O 7 0 Lc U 0 O O N co N O Q N c O U a) 0) 7 U N N 0 FY 2017 Fee ($) 6J; N_ Q.; 0. 0 O 0,,O 0.0 �'0:0', N. 1.0:0'0 O 0,, 0'0: to.� rr c- 0)'O ''0 O 0 01011 'o' . , c.•y o • N N: N' 0 0. 0 UI O, 0' N.oi o, O 0) ciLri u;' o' o o vi L c ° a pc 0) 0 Q0 ;°o o o a. .O : 0 C O 0 o OU '81 to 0'E O. E c coO ' to0 .> IU co o. N m :a. c) %> E 'a) OU U Qu a c m z g o 47 > >'�I0 A mt°�.0m ;5- -2 '-‘C: c6 0 122 Q. > O O 0 9 N ci 0 g w 4: SS a N: ,C O 0 N 0 Fe ) Oto o u) .+ N w 0 E c a N C). 0 ' 'O'',.° T 4•' t6i.o "O �' O t 'C Q U p `6 O "p U w O 0 : , to U w- : ` N 01,2 U t6 O tt) t6 0) W — N til O O ' m 0' a O U 0< Q Lfii o N fl- to•c c O O O {0 N O'O!> .tp I,0 co , _ iSSo L6 '0 Q p' c, o o N'to o; ,: : aas 10 -a ani'', ° 7,-3 0 c c c', c a cosi N '.-9 ! `_ c C ': C C O: , .0 =t N • U 0 .�.� 0 o N, o' q : c c t6 0 0 a',.� °''! ° U: a).7,,-..L75',.±.1. o' tca asI c°)i fl' aci o a > a ._, _ o o c CO c1. m� � ', 9 0 0 0 p�p @ t6 . , W� fl.., v � ' O ,.>„4) Q b p 0' O 0) o Q CC v 0 U ' 0 ' c c: 0 U, 6 =) C,Ai ,_ U N -::/) Q)80' 0 .c ', 0 (6 _ L ° '' c c' c c _ p to- 61 ‘-a) -° w e m .0 0 O Q'o °,o`:o'oa c ° v,s c{ m u) V o CO U U,UU', o c',} �'�i 3' m: J! o =, o o, o �', ns ° p -,'S coin 0),,0 o .� iiln; .o °'�C'�° onp;o o �'',Qlo �I,p o '-,-- c , ,(7;(,9p —„.—,, ` 0 o :n, a c.a , o o c 2 m c o m c o l@ (0 E to 0 a o �', U, U -U 0_'•- c > -i N''. NI E'—'5O f,L,_,y4 ,o (00. 0 �: N N'- lV .9 'T_,R Vi O.>,, .x 31=10;},0 00:.6 O ,..?,v):(1") N °'U U N9 >. U �i 3 3,� '5:t -if) = �_'2,� oEi�,cn H;VI,Ec co c,cm:c!c °:c c cam N ;fn (n lcG 2''2'' (nQ N�1 CMI �'� cCj -- - --- - _ .... .,-_. - to N 2 c a7 U Z ''J J _11_1 J JIJI - 1:4.0. d': �`; (n; '!/3,tJ' 00 00 [0['m,mm'm'[n com m: QQ'Q:Q co U U W [mmm U: O ':00',00'010 Q'Q Q,QI Q'Q;p: U' U UiU,U'Y m U0 0!0'011,0 0U 0 0, ACS=Acutal Cost of Services N FY 2018 Fee a) N r, L. r T O C N U (1) U U PO _c co N c p U .p. O O C co) a 0) a p _c _c n O 3 m o 5 o • "� C a) O .0 ?. O U O n 0 3 0 > v "O 3 C U @ N p m 0 0 °)n n• � ° U - C@ FT ❑ • L o o > E .5 U U o U o P r N C •N O O C o C O 0> • p N E @ p N .0 C U me a) E 15 0 • 0 E • n ,U x 0 0 ° E E n U a o p) > N > E) 0 m m C 3 • a) 5 C O >, 0 0 a) N 0 O aU-. C 5 p > • a• Q :C O a 0 N O j, O N 0 0 U .LCco E N U co O cNn N o C tD O >, U O -O 1 in C C C O_ Q ...-z L O u) .Q U I� U @ a) U @ Op o r 0 .0 .0 o O @ o ,r, O o n N t 0 0 0 a) 0 O T ! U @ 2 @ N U p' U @ U y E .0 > 0 -O O d C .0 D) U t� O E° O L O N . 0 @ m o o O • 0 Z", o a) 5 -5O •,-,-, C N U N ",_ a) 0 0 000 N 0 O) Q. O), n u) C U E N = 7 'if)>0 3m'o " a) oO'o n a E C'� @`_ m 0 a> E • N o p 0 9 a) o 0>.•!-° @ o o E y 5 p U 8 n O 0 0 0 D o m n° 3 to o c c o a 0 0. r °a Q o '3 O Q' o o 0 0 °,-,c)1°0Q r p a,'C 0 O' L 0'.-p as.. ,'-,5 O c 0 0 o �!I c c �p C O' p U > ' C C co .., 0 U L0 0 8 o O: O(0 C 3 O 0 0 O C �� 0 ' 0 N (6 0 U' ' O ❑ ° ° c° o °C ° ° °' E o o vo • a) Cl @ C CO r O O C `) @ C U C' p N .N O O (6 d U (n ,� C.i ° U O) O), N '- ° O@ p' U .�@- T O 'c p d o C T C C 0 C c o C C c - rna c 43.(0 w c> 0 c w C -C 0 c m C o@ c o O 3 0 C) a o.c-9 o C-0 m 03-- a o o@ .o 0 o a o .8_2 Q'','o_ 0. m a 0@ m m o m n m :a m 0 m o E is ° ''io @ @ a L u N @� a s I C .,E .@ N L 7 .0 N CIC .' U C .(�6• N 0) p_ U° n 0 C C °' C O "_' C C C c --- +�.. @ 0< C > U U >, c-21. ) C U C@ C °-L @ 5 O U ENACTMENT AUTHORITY E - z FY 2017 Fee ($) O O 29.00 each c 0 L .0 L _C .0 .0 .0 _C L .0 _C _C .0 L _C O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 @ (0 @ @ @ @ @, @ @ @ @ CO @ a) @ a) a) a) a) 0 0 0 a) (1) a) a) a) a) n a) O 10 O O O O 10 10 10 L 10 O 10 10 O O O N (O V (O 'Cr. N I� N- N N O n N- O O C)) O (V r O r 0) O O M N V t- r N r r r CO. CO r r 0) DESCRIPTION 44.50 per hour a) 05 @ U E • E E 0) 8 T 8 a) d 0) @ 0) 0 U 3 O 0 j O d L N COV 4) (0 ' N- CO0) O N CO ch (f) (0 r �� 2' N N'N N N, N Ni, 0 w: (n'(n 0 CO () (./) CO' CO (n'(n (I) Ci) M mi m,m'm mi m' m' M. m CO' m',m on m m ❑, ❑'', ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑❑' 0, 0, 0 0 ❑ ❑, ❑ ❑ 0 0, 0 UUUU', 0 U, 0 0 U' 00' UU 0 ENACTMENT AUTHORITY LLN. DESCRIPTION *ACS=Acutal Cost of Services [ ' , I , . . . a) o 1 o 1 (3) cS o) ; ,t, .:,- , o .;.,; ,...," 0" . E ,.., 0 u., - 00) . 4-„, , i-5 -1 u., i "Ts . 1.- 0 ,: (13 1 : : 6 ,..., ._ 6 ,12... .c . c) 2 n 1,-,-. g , 4 c,a. o o ' 0 ' 0) 0— c ' 0)0 .E 10 a3 1 u) c) 'c' ' (1) o v : = Zi; : o. o 0) -- , = c.) 0 '75 . s...... . 0) . P • - [ c 0 -0 1" a 0, -0 ' Ti c).. ils 1 0 R i [ 6 0 0 -11 [0. 0) T, .2 ,0) -Fa .9 Tti c..)co '8 -c ' a o c.0160„0.60_cp.0-0 0%0 13 ° oc 8 , , ,, FoLo , ,,a,.., ,g' ' tri I co : 6 0), , - 6 co , 0) . . , CD j Ll-) IC) : C): C : r".: - , , r•-• ' N CO c- . 1 0) : I -c o o . . i : ! -,:, •-• , c 2 : o :To 0) ca [ ' 0 1 . . a) —i _c c.) a) a o . C - .2 0, 0 . _c .., -0 -0 0 - — ,.- , (1) 0 ' . Ll'i 0 '. a) 1.0 ..- O ' u> H.- 0 : c 0 , :-.= ,F) - a) 0 o 0 _ 1.c 8 .> .1 ,r, .c ..--,. ' >., 0 - 0 0 ....., I 0 -c12'''' (V E. 1,,0 ( / ) *-' E..'''' -.s.5 0): : c.)' •cx.:'t- o o i 0 :..,.• ...1-:. a) , (.4 Ca rsg sr' -, 8..25 ,E.8.:10 .,HE(.)cl ,,lc izcl,pal i 0 I i CA'c (1),22 "5 2.)., L.1 co j „..,•- j s- s- -0 j i , 8 170,.2 aNi.210) 75-010'2 cai:t:'-:0, i'.60 0'c"R\1 _0)_•. - , c , Tin co : , . ,..... u, >e/ 0 >[,' 0 .n•-!(.0[cl : 0 1 t : E : E u) (I) co 0 '''-' 0.,-.-'; i e-'0 0 O ::C?t a ...E q.) , ,g,o< ,,„ ,...)•, , , . •. : • ,,,,, „,.., Lo, (0 d 1....,00; m!cv-1 , NjN. N!OICOI , , . I CO 1 CO 1 : CO 1 CO Z ' • , WI u): u); • u) cn i (i) u) u) r LU CO CO, CO:CO;03, i i 1 0 0 0 0 - 0!0, 0 C:3.01 i i ! 0 0 ' 0 1 0 010- 0i001 i . r . . , . , 1 o 0 0 .1. a) 0 9 20c 1 ...7• :a 3 ' :va 0 )( ) 1 - (1 u) .. . 0 ▪ o 0 'as- -0 O 4)0. -0 o a) ra : .....; .....: (0 -...= - a-) a) 8 a) -C) c . E Lo = j C Ca3 = 2 0 IC TA -C () 0 ..,-. -o 0) . -5 ILO "5 n•sa) s.,.; 0 2 c CO 0 CD 1 0 0 ; 0 -C 0 ! 6 I o_ : , 4-'-'• 1 0 0 0) c) n . , : 2 1 5 0, 0 31)01c,0 6 ' c) ' Lo ' ,- -0 . .. - 0 CO V.,. ' -?' 0 sC .t..--- C a) (1) 0 -a NI 4,A.1 is9- C ....1 . a) -0 . = ! ..0*"-- .' '2 ,..., """ CO al a) 9-; o o CO 4:r . I = Cr vo CZ .9) „ 9 0 ,_ . — — u ,, T.") ca 1 co ' ,T a. = 0 _ )..'' (3) 5 CD cW8t*2r!- 0 0 0 0 ! LO ! 6 o 0 -.0 •_:---. ' — 1 iii . a -.4.- 0 0 , W o ..._ te ; 69 , ,...1 0> CD . I : : 0) 33) 2i u_t i LI -1 ' III co I co U) COu) CO [ 0 ' . 00:0 0 ' . 00 ' 0 -6 6 cl) ; N v a) E Io 10 0!0 ' L.0!10 0 ._ 0:LO N- Ln :L0 N j N. W .i N .N O M;CO 6)'O co i' „.•1-N- 6). O W.N O Z a) N N M CO O ->- >--.-u- •0 ENACTMENT AUTHORITY H z FY 2017 Fee ($) DESCRIPTION O Z 2 W H Ln N O O 10 N CV 10N 001 NI d "' 0 '"' 0 V O c Tu L .N O 5 '0 O r R L) N m 0 m 17) 0 0 U 0 a) 0) a) 4- N V U '',0111 CV!(V 1, N'iN N ,CV N TO 0 CDI0� '' :0 0 O O 0 N 001010 O O LO O LO I-- 6) ;Co W c) N C6 d-;,- CO E CON.r Cfl' CV , COCO:r - r N a) O � Q 0 0 0 0 O N C1 m O O w (1) C1 O eL E m > O 0 0 0 0 0. 0 o c(v c y O cam 0 a v c(0.0 >, 0 U a) 0 c O a) O_ 10 I0 C7 r E 0 a 0 N c 0 U a) 0. 3l c o 0 NEN X$ To N O N 00 10 '0:0 N LO O 6) N 4 dr I IY a CV CV CV 04 N N 0' L0'0!011.0 O O N 6) 1 Lo O O .3 .0 (0 U c 0 1 T1, -.- c., 91'. n -- 0 .801 ° ` m U C 0)'Oli yO'(0 O V!4 0,', CI C U 0 n N 0_,,)! C2, O O - ' V IL6 (L 0 @ 'a0 L''' E I E' v co w;�_ � .13 .O � m N (a: N 5 : L t LO c),,-4) > `It :g,-5 0 U (6 @ G ICV'00"�'Ic y W 'u. W E IL°u.: ti 1-: I CO Ct'I 10 co N 00 O) O riN M' r.rl,r W W W W W W WIW[W Wi 0 u) U) U) U) 0 (/)'IM v) (0- 404040404040 MIM m m MI 100000 01 ❑I❑',❑ 01 10 U 010 0 01 01010 0 i I I I I co (I) m ❑ 0 r 10 W CO m ❑ ❑ 0!0 -c 0 W V .ca , 2 U CE O) W U) 0 co E 0 W > Y >, Y In 2) LO N 0 LW0 Y N >'O a) a) Y o in > N LO Ln 0 CC CO N- CO 6) O N CO N N N N W W W W W W W W CO U) U) U) U) CO CO U) COM (0(0(0(0(0(0 ❑h 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0j0 000000 I D 0 0) s U 0) N LL 0 0) co 0- N r FY 2018 Fee E .. O J C Z O v N. -IN- N N N N • I., CO Co CO W LL H Z DESCRIPTION o ' o tri ILO CO10 N N I N I 0 O d - L0 N- 0 1 0 (0 c t0 o t0,1 to i o'I t0 t0 o I- O N ; C` ;t0 1 , N- 10 0;0 M NO O, I O, N M�,1O: N,Oi N N i'157) c, IN: 3 I0 1 ' IQ �n c C E - N U m. E O O to O' O' I O: O'' "= wC L -C .0 0 L 0) O 0) 0) O Q QQt Q' O O'', O; Oo 0 0'O , 0 10 0 O OO o'• o O 01010 t0 10I 10'0 O.N O O O O: O, o W LO L0 10) N ' W N M 0) 00O, O) 0; 0 ', O KIWI, 10 O N - M:LO -'f) 0 r N U 0 0 ' (0 : 0 I (I) I (0 Q, 0) Q; 0.; O a', C C 0 C o. .N j. 0 c' 3 d ❑0) O.c U''0 CO d 0 0 0 •>: -D (0 U 0, TI C .a 6; 0 To -c N, > CI .0; 01 0 .0: C , (I O',i a, as UI' ' t0' (O n N N'N (1) ( WW! ! M! :M C0,00i 0 0 0101 0', U 0101 E O E c E 0 O C 7,5 ToO O Q O T O Q O 0 c (0 a N 0 C (0 O o_ N C .0 0. (0 Y'. co O m,� 00 0l0 N N'',M W w w CO CO CO O 0 0 O 0:0 4 O -c O N'1 O) (0 ' U' E. O N 11) N 3 (0 E C O' U 4) (0 zC O O O • 0 U N !T. ' M W W (0 (n 0,0' O 0' 4) O 'N , O 0 05 o as U'2 0 O E N 0 (0 0',(0 U ay 5'0 0 • T U .co c (D- O 2 O!2 U O C (0 0 • t6 O (DTI! (0,," C' Q', C pig -010 Q,r �' Q 0 -0 Q. N C Q Q, c .> 0- 0) M d t0 CO M '' CO WI WI W 0', (', m! m: 0) O 0 0 U 0 0 *ACS=Acutal Cost of Services co E ENACTMENT AUTHORITY DESCRIPTION o a g 6 c •- a) -0 5 ro a 2. i5 ru i.) ' U u) T (/) ?' a) a) 4- 01 01 11. 0 CD • RI: SC co[. - E3): ,5 3 C ▪ • C I E = , c cc . • ! o 0 LU ' 6 ' m . . c, 0 ce , -c) -c) , - •O (r) : = : -o -o 1-- 2 2 41' *-t-.•.- 0 ' < .• [ ..,,--' c ' o ' k-, , = , z , < ! 2 . . , o 7 7. - [T) : : o � Z E ! 2 2 [ 1.1.1 0)0), I- 0 0 00 I M 0 o _c _a .= 0 C I.) c 0 c C -C a 0 c _C c CsI 0 4. 0 a5 o a) = Ca CI) -,,,,, (3) 0 0 0 Eft a3 ,.=-• 0) -(5 ° 0) 0 a) 0 0 : fl C) f) • V) 0 (- 4j._ 0 :6 , L_ - CV 7 1-. 8 7 Lo o = Lc? o o c•-) 0 = N 0 7 (.9 O 0 Lo -(.3 42 0 T.) (1:3 p c.) •ct p r) ea c) 0 L9 .0 0 + 0 +0 .a 0 0 ‘-- 0 -0 E9 al -0 1- 0 " - 17 1- 0 -0 o CI 69 ,- c + ,- c 0 - -0 0 • 0 " C + (ft CO Q69 CO (b Eft: 0 c) 69 CO cp Eft (p ?CZ)) 6';-. 771 0 Ocp 0(7)0°T(30 CDT:o0 0 To 0 0 c5 To o o ci To 0 ° ° 0 C ,L. C) C '-' 0 LC) o '-' c :::, 0 c co o, c '-' 0 co c ,-'-' •--::. c) 2 y_ ' Eft 4= co 69 4= 0 0 co --a 0 0 (r,s, 2 (5 E9 ',E 2 8 Eft 4= 2 4. co --F, Eft L. CD -+, Eft ‘C-- CO IF, 69 IA--- CO --F-/ Eft 2;-,-- CO -C Eft 4= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lo Lc, in Lc) () Lci csi 71'0) a) ai •-• -cr LI-) co co co N (0 0 I/1 C",/ C•5 S501.00 to $2,000.00 $2,001.00 to $25,000.00 $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 o [ 61 o [ 0 0 0 10 6,3,1 c.) - co .zr ir) El EL : (1); co , (1) 0), 0), co m 0)! o 0 ' 0- 0 O 0 , 0 U ! 0 c) 0 0 0 : 10 $1,000,001.00 and up N -o co U 0 0 0 0 COo 0 CT N Q1 } C 0 0 U 0 0 L U N ENACTMENT AUTHORITY N t0 O U h • :0 CD N 4 (3) j ,t (01C0 L [10,0 N- -''dr 0') ',CV 103 N- ' N- C0 i I- V1 O. 0':V Z CO OL0 N FY 2017 Fee DESCRIPTION CO CO 03 cC •1- 00 0) c0 0 I 0 N O 0' 0)' 0) V s- M,M'IM L7, t 0)10) (0:0',M • 0 0 C O .V..' C O N o E N Cl O , i) N C N p o. co 7' N N 0:0 U'',H • 0 • N • O W co r- w 0. I p: >' CC 0' c; O'1 O O 43 0.1 , I; E 1 0Q I O-; a' -- - -0; c I co o.a a'. N'' O' a 0. ..c. )d)[0), ❑ I o1 0); co C p 0 O' 0 p N 80 N '0 ' 'O' 0' 01. 0, 0 1.101)), 1 - Q I, p ., N O 0 0 YI pI pp >pON' : NC O '. 'o '6 0', 0u), 0> > r'a'm: _c' 0NI3a! N OE'p 'O O , O ' p. ='N(n' c'N w ) 0I QU'ay:�, 6 ' I.a, Ne'O, ' E i 2 �: U o . -o cc, Im, 1c: (0 co I @ I O'1 ::: . NIp; ) p Q' O C � : N . C ; 0 '. a ! t6n;m p ,0 m',m'0I ' .n�'0 -0' 0) 0 N cp CL, N , 7 0 € O.' g1 C ) O} 0 ) E: c; ci o, -c'...10- c C I'I ..-. 0 1 0 1 c 0,-," �) i C E 10 C O O l 0:010 C "- , C. : �''10 j(1)�y'I�Ia>i •E: p, (nal 0 ' ()) . 4-- co o O cn p p 1010-:Ql1 allalc cco ci`.- °)i o' c m' m p.;It :0 U a a 2 , li . F� g c.) , :8 ,.) T>o Cl: C , ..cot] ',,i a 0-1 O Z' f N (*• i'' (0 10 °'.Q (0 0 0) I , 0CO 0 0;0 p' E c n' ca c p E .� 0. _oO "Cu O,>p 23 LO N 0) Y CZ 0 N 0. U Q) p c 0 c, :0 -O 0 0 Q (1.)'.N 8 N c. c i) c C t6 O 0 ECE O N O O.. O O p- 0 N 0) _c p 0' U (4 C c N . O oz ao`82 N 0 2 m 0 U *ACS=Acutal Cost of Servic FY 2018 Fee ENACTMENT AUTHORITY 0 0 _c L U -c O c U C U C @ c -C c U c C N 0 N.O M .O 0 O U O N .O V U U U O D U U @ • @� ro O� o0 o �� o� a °" -p N @ • O 0 3 0 3 O 7 N O O 69 0 F- O O U '_ 0 0 C6 O U ch O UEA. p ) (A 0 U + 0 Z 0 6) O .0 03 0 .0 �3 0 .0 + O .0 i O .70 p 0 N O 'O 'O + O a + O a 0 "O O a p 0 + �3 0 • 0 da @ O 03 0 0 3@ 0 3@ � @ 0 0� p �p O 0@ O O (D o 0 o o O (0 0 0 O (6 0 0 O@ O c c O 10 cO o c O O c 0 0 c c 10 O 0 N O o0 N 0'.60) 11) O o0 O 00Y) LC) O p o O O 49 :L= 0 EA -E N O ER :.-. N O ER :0 4) O EA '+. 0 O EH -__ 0 co K3 :.. 0 '6 @ 'O 10 ,a3 N L_ 'O 4-5 LO C -O ,a,-; O� i -O @ O� i "O O O - N 4= @ ..-c.. 4= @ 'c-. ff3 4= @ 03 := @Lr 07 4= 0 .L.. (f3 w @ w EA w (0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 LO 10 O 0 `O O 0 Lo 10 10 6 N vi. 6) 6) 6) co N d' (0 O 10 N M FY 2017 Fee ($) DESCRIPTION $501.00 to $2,000.00 o(.1 z n. a � (, L11 mm ' 1- ❑ ❑ o U CDBSRP 3 $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 o' o. O 0 CD' 0'� of �'' $100,001.00 to $500,000.00 Vt. - - 10. _ - O ' a a.. a (/) (i) (1)' m' m m ❑, 0 0 U' 0, 0 $500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00 m 0 $1,000,001.00 and up CDBSRP 8 0 7 O Cr N LY u_ ENACTMENT AUTHORITY z FY 2017 Fee co hI�,COI aN 1 t- co W M'!h N`:2 t;- � O'c'10'. O) NNi N�NN"r-�c-':•--jam DESCRIPTION 0; O w ul w O a : qEj! CO gQ101N iQ O; �, :-C kip, O) =.--e-c;', ,1 1 >. cl E c i4) w'' Oi i 1' CZ N E U O 1O i w; E 1a '_ w, 65 .c,0 U C -0, O. , CO; b-. mi U I N' f,, 7 i 0) . :w rn. 'o` L11 @!U!0-HVIN-0UI� I ' C4'4), ; -o,o�'N sQ:jwi �,w Q, co ; ; ''xil c ,:w cIN ,ro. 1aa' zi�-,N M in C O: NCO ' ACS=Acutal Cost of Services FY 2018 Fee 0 -a cD (/) a) N. u_ >, o 'E. 0 0 cl) _c a) 0 ENACTMENT AUTHORITY OAR 340-071-0140 .00 0 ! 0 1.4. 0) N-: LC) 0 1`.- () . l'4. ON t: c •-c ,•-c 10 5 o 0 : 0 u) 5 0 1= 1 0 . ' a) _o , ! 1 0 : 0 5 CD CD CD '0 , 0 , (11 6 : 6 :dl 61 a) 5 o • co o. c) o , a) N- 0,) r- (v •= u. 5 • , -0 r-4 co *-- , • . 1 ,7•)' 0 1 0 N:I 1 >- u_ . . , 5 . L. • a) 5 . . . • ! , 0 I 2) I 1 i ' • L 5 as 5 , e , . - :•_• ' ,0 0_ m 0) 0... u, 1 . . , 1 o ca ' o : . o 5 •,- H 1 L.) E co 0 -0 0"a) c- c co s) _c) 5 e' , ._ : E co 0 co >, -6-. 00o 0z 5 o (2) 0 a) 1 a) 0 7° 15) ' _c 0 c ,,, ,,,) _c cn .c (i) 0) .0 >, Tc) = 1 c ! -,--' C @ (r) u. (7) -t a) co -o 5a a) • ° 0_ - s- (,) 1 0 >, '-. o o >..,• 0 5 75 >, 5 0 < 0 E 6 co •- , a) ..;.; 3 u) >, o a) o al E 1 T) a 5 0 .0 0 ...... 0 2)). ,Cij cl) .0c (n ! >,0)E Eti cno z @ 1 0 .7÷, CD 0 -(53 ' (1) 5 (n c,>a. 7 0 7fo 7:aT01 0 7o --0 0 0 .m2 5 u) 0s,,. 0 (0 ! 1 4.; To • To iii To '5 0 .`cq __, 5 0 (0 f) 1 01 0) -a 0 0 el.08., C ov"r240,-00 0100 a>, 50 TTD V 3C E E 6 0 = ,,20 o . 00 $ T " >,C c c 4.• ,- >, k CO c a ,_ cs) .,._ -0 0 LL, w it u) (f) a) 0 o 0 1 0 , g 00 0 : 0 (I) ! ' : < : ! , . , I I, , . CD <-• N CO 7I- I.0 1 (.0 I,- . 1 -d I - 0) c_,-. 1- e- ‘-_, N- N Z (1) , (I) U)! U) ' U) U) U) U) u) w w u) 0 1 (/) w w w w! w W ' W w w W LI W W W W.I.LHW W LLI 00 '0! 0 0:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01010 0 0,0 '01 0 010 1 0 0 0,0 010 0 0 0,0 0 i 11 1 i 1 i 1 1 , DESCRIPTION CDD - Environmental Soils Division o if) I o : ca tr) ' CD I 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 NH 0 CD h -10'N- 0 0 0 LO 1 ca cci '4) 0) co I I-- N-. co 0 co N- ('4 'cl- CO CO ..o- 1 0 7r ,o- ('4 CV CO ! 0 ,- N.: 0 S- I 1 x. - ! , , 00 , 1 0 ! 0 1 CO , (f) ca. 1 ; I : ca 1 o : o 010 c) • o ca 5 o cc 1 0 , 0 ca o 5 ca co o o 0 ! 0 CD 1 CD 0 : < : < Lri 1 (r) : O 0 CD Lo tr) , o uo , uo , o 5 . . a), 71-• ca o c•,),r--- ca5c) coic0ca' 0)I •,--• • -1-,1 71-, <I' N (-- CO 0): 0): r•-- 1 C \I i . 1 ' 1 . i . , cn c 1 0 a) 0 ! 0 Ti5 To 1 , 1 a) ..C• C • 0) 7° ! C V) 0 -0 C ti a•-, o 5 0 0 c o 0 o us) wo. _as tr) 0 (c,)- 0 to a - a >, • ,- 0 •- o ...,,-- „., 0 4— .0 > = ! >I 8 1 . -,,," 8 - 'e• ' FD 0 , , ? 11-)„,_ El g tEaa, a) o_ rta C CD- (I) 0 ......„- 1 ,--• a eL - E4., ..e _c o - - H e = 0 -cocEoc EN 0 --.,-; 0 ta . t -6 CO 6 C E -0 -0 a t:, 0- 0- 0 0 0 c o_ 0x co _c a) o) 0 0 2 a) .5 0 o . E -0 -cr • - 0 > O 6 c 2 r) c o 0 0 0 cdo2 o.>2) o o ,- . 0 as 0_ E.= 4- -r, . ..c _ 0 -,-, co 5 .L3 o c a.) _c v) ...,. ca) - -- :a. 0 0 . 0 . 0 0)0- ,_ „_ - 0 0_ 0 a> .a) 4=5 0 -,1 ...,... a a) 0 co -a E co 0 C co w0 ENACTMENT AUTHORITY N Z LO O O 0 I 0 'I LO , LO , LO , O Nip LC) LO 'O � N;N! LO (Oi co in (0 co l- N- (O ' N- d' N LO N ! N ' Ct iii W -o U + ' o', 0 0 0j 0!0 o0 0 0 Oi0:0,0 O V) O O O OI O O; O,0 0 O O'0,o!0 O Q) O Lri O co ' O , O O I O ' O O O '' LO 0' 0 4'i Q) w d (o d' N O co to • 00 d' CO 03 IN- I N- I LO Ln L_ co co. (N , 0)I d': d', N LO N; I N�� Ic-IV' 00 -o LL 0) cu N- D O Q N N } W 0 ID 0 'O n O o rn co 00 O a) 3 N U0. cri. , 0 o co =I o N c o o :c,I m c', m O > T V . O la C: O N I 'y: O,0) Lo ' (6'� 0 O N N 000) Hld �3,C d a5,,�co Qo re . ccm' 1.5 Ui 116 co _T' 0 00 p 0) . ' ,- 76 a ›,'co N Ln c'' 3 C c - -o 0 d ! -0 0 • o'!w o °I, Ic >i CO 0 .o: to 00 CI ,-0 ' d -o 0', i 0 .O a o'c °I't6 w!.-. ° o' co O d, -O i.5; c' V -o .o Li_� o CL c' c 0) o): o 5 a 0- col ' '5 Q UW 3 ma 0i N o dl c'� " �.o Y CD l (_o Eo.0 c' N a E o' •• (7, N U'Ni N o't E �'�> c', II) a''v 0 E> 2 �i E 0 c O X ''-0 w1 co' o'i o` o: o p'a_!L� o c>, N c E o' o co' 'i m Oj d' m cQ m.c r'' o O a Ln O E .N I o u_ W EI i), LL Z _'2',�', d 2I Slit Z d m Z= R U a. ¢! re ¢ ruin, a w iN' . M.d'', :LO CO: I- W O) 0 N 03 _.! ,N'N: ,(V, N. N! N1 !CVN NIM CO CO CO 03 03 03 (I) CO 0 0 0 0 0 0;0 0 0 0 FY 21 DESCRIPTION Holding Tanks W; - -uJwJ 'WSWLU ;W W W 0 0 0!0 0;0 0'0 0 0 0I 0 1 0 0,U U 0 I i *ACS=Acutal Cost of Services N CN FY 2018 Fee E O Z a) 0d 1- z D FY 2017 Fee ($) DESCRIPTION O z 2 W F_ Ct):O O ti LID LC) CV:M 6). IM'10II"--1 .0 O N 3 0 N tri ' O'O O'> O O OLri m r- 2 to 0 0 C L • m 0) a N sT' • U O U: 71, • To 0 1 > 0. o, a a c 3 m 0 0 IN O > 0 E E U N a) ' a) C Oi O UE a a co 0 ,� a c, o I 0) -c OI a • 0 o w I 0 ` I m • '> ' p N: 0 0 .0 y I C a .p 'a Op. C fn I c (p E x', c api� o m, N' o', E °� N o �'' v) o,ol `o' o. C (C .0 N O N o; I EI CI N 0 c 501 c 0 0) o''.9: •g 0 m 0, N' o o''Io o (o c >.; E $ 0i c,- olo c >1:3 a) o'mo v= o > ' 0); p Y@ m rn t o:o,o (� N i N N i @ 0: N 0 l@ ° �[ U 6 O ,_' 0 a) LL �Q -o m 0 N Q'm i 1 I • • 0.0 O-O'O;O 0;0'0,0 0'O O', OO'O 0!010,0 o''O 010.0''0 0 0 0',0 o'o 0,0.0.0 0:0 010 0 0 a c .. 000'c o O 0 O' O co V' ''�� U 00 W N! C C a) = O a) 0 O U u) 1 0 I W U 0 v Q cv) co_N M Ln N M O) M COMIW I N C'') 0 0 0 0 O o rn o M co co CO CO CO Wlw w 0:0 0 U;0 0 - CO 0) h') , C) M �'(0 (n W.w w 10 0 0 10'0 0 0 a 0 O cci U > E c E o c 2 a O N O No t O) 02 o C (I). N Q Q W O : CO 0 LID C0 •:h ch V V V V wWlwWWww 0 010 0 0i0 0 001000!00 0) ! C 0 al 10 0 o c 0 0'', C pla) E p1,p C "6,15 0 C C D a:�_ u_'I '0 ,3 WI! 0 C1 C C O o o mO a) V CC C;> EI E E; �1a.) Vii( a)I0 N a a a 5 a) . m wE •>: �>> Q0 mm N N E N ZI,Z d 11O- 010 V) 0 0 m O) C C 0 0 ca 0 N a) E E C 0 0• (o E 0 -2 Q cam m m 0 (0 0 0 N (0 (0 N CCIS CO CO ! a) a) m E!aaaa a l a a a a QIQQQQ co V (I) EL 0_ a U 0 0 CO N Z z 0 0 0 FY 2018 Fee 4- 2 >-• -J c Z 0 t LO 0 1010 LO N LO N c) (,1 cs) cc co LO CO N.- CI, CO, N- •cf- (<1 LL. 2 0 M 1 w w0 < 0110 CD 10!CD,LOO'CDIL.0 (C\O! ' CD ! LO : 0 CD , 0 CD , 1616 cclo,o, 10 10 , 0 , 10 O0 0.0 01 :(NIC\10,0:CDN-- 6,N L , CO 6 616 6! I6ININ-!'616: <Li cei c \ i I ai 1,-.- , 110cm co . CD CD CO CO CO 7f C\I , : N LO.,' LO , LO , OD..., CD (4 ! I , i ' ! I- E •.- ! c.i) 1 : -o 0 0 0: 0 C•I: 0 1 I . . i < < 1 :,..... , o : 1" : : : : • ' 1 • , ' I 1 : , c5 8 I , ,r, • 1 o +0, . 1 so o c):oro c), cp c),c). - o c),c) olo cc): :cc:cc:cc:cc oIc), :(--D : 10.0•c) o:o!c) , o . , ...t4... cc o o'c):o cc: ccIoIo: 0:o o:o o,o .:c): iccIo c)c) o o• :QIF):8,c):c):c) 000 ....- .6 6 6,Ici:O 6 0001 <I6 6 6 6.6 2,6: I66:6I6 6 6: IP,I6666,6 61616 a) :m m .-:r--- 1--- ce: m 6:0: N'-- c).00 6:(o10' :o:,:rolccio c): I•e\l'0):oo:t.eic),(c) 6 o:(\I a) 1 t--- ce co.,H co: co co: co co . a) 1 ••,:t• o ; m co: <- `'- : o co.,: co co.; co •,r , 1 . 1 N, co: to : 6: co o) L.L. , Ni •s-- IN: 6 c,i, 71-T61 c,i:, - 10:71- I(1) 1.6: • : . . . N • . . . . : . : >•• LL i . I - . , . >, _o , • : . 1 ,... 8 : : . 1 ' "0 1 : . . a .— , : : _ • • ' -0 1 1k11 , c : , e : „, I : 5 as m i : . 0 N ' !o . ,--- (D 1:e • 1 .._:c cD, wi 5 c , 1 , , c (...7) : o , N a): • -o 1 ,: (5= 1 1-2,, ,: .: . E . 0 > 1 ( N (77," : •e . : ; 15 as ; ; 0 " ' '.:, ; ..., : , , w : 1 E I '6 ._o : ci Lil 1 1 c , co C3 -c ' co E 1 o , : " , 1 0 -Eo.-,-:: co _. ......, 4_ : . , i 0 m , a) i ,cc ›..., o 1 , (7.) : I ..c ,, 0 ' 0 -0 01 to 1.0 ° E. .ce:`-lc > : • 1 -c , :0 C : 1,- N m. ,, E ! u), (T) , O 181 1 :11.9.10 c. . . , o : :, 0, -0 c., 1 1 01 g !".(72 0) , •;_. , >. >. r >,... ..-, . T.) 7, - S 1....] -0 cr) ,: I .2 .2 i .2 : I c ' 0 c:' : ‘.-• 1 0 „ o I a) 1.E -6)1 E) e . : 0_, 02 czt." •-•".• E : tu __I, ti) , 0 co; D1=HU >1(i) 7 .0 ,-E 0 -2E — , 0 0,01C -17:c CL ; , 0 0 : 0 .4r, , 05 I' ,0 010' Cii El-, , 0 1- 1 W co 0U) I-° ms: ::7-.. :-,,,,o,.0 E;c4(D...,,_10 8: ; ,E.- 0 1 ' a) a)! a) -o I ,.f.:2 4-, • T)1 ' 1.2, ,-.1 c z_ „a-': 0 ' IE E1E:3!,3 q 0 g 1 10_, 1.0 0 • • - :,_ . - • 0 • - ,_ • o , 0 0 : 0 ! 0 0 1 0 ? -,52 (1) C;,.(7 = c)-Iu): ' 0 -- -i.ei'''' " E:c, c E' E E 5 ..., ,.'.13., a):-Nelo.E:c•-:,-," 'c II III. 0- (4'0 :0) -CA col 01,-0,oIC'0 : .--, ---, , ---- : ...--.: .---,,,,.--, •._-- , 4- , ....... : 0 0 .4. .'- , .- u) : co 0 i u) (i) I co! u) ; =-- u) : - c : , 0 ',13 I P' u) C I Cu .- •-• •-• e : E 0 ; 0 0 0.) , 0 I 0 I 0 0 0, ,,, co cni .., 1 _.› cp, ,- 0-1._ - „ - : m , ,... ,.., u) .-:-0 : 1- ,..-, > ,,,,-0:0 ,a) ,..,: --,c _,..1 :D;D DID:D,D!D D Di_st! 11"-trtY co 0,-5 0 :C,•,_- -1:-.- 0:0 M,,-..--4-: :-.-• -•-•:-C, ti 2 2 2 . 1 , , col co co:co: co: asrco - - -.- c, -I 0• 0: ° "5178 --c co: --r13"6-'3" T.° cl a.):> 0 0 0 0,0 01010! 00 1 0= oc,!a9 -;:JI--c) •=2I-8 g1"C) "8 u''''-'011:6: '73'8 I:'' -u"' c'''-..*() TuH't5 8' EolE a) CI CL CI CI C. C'C' C' C,C i 4'1' I ',--• ...= ' ... : ,r-, Hr--,- hi-, ,P .--, ' - 8:2 w:.- v.), as 8: C3) • - ' -C : ol'c f)::.-6'515:::61'51'5 '8' '5'!') s_... Ica ,c1,13, cic _.., E 8 1,9 ,9-' 4,1), . g, 8 a_ : „.,...,0 t..0 8 0 D y2 ...-'02 .y2 c, c cic cl c:c (i) c cic - — x - r - - ' ."' al ^ •-• '-- : '- : 73 u ' ."''' u :0 o 0,0:oio!oz. o o.o 0_,as 0,x "T'<:- c as .0'<<ILLI a'a 2'12 <Ifil w Cid Cd.. C C l' C C 001 00I0000 0_ 0 C.) 0 as.0 'LLI us•Li: ir. 2 i : - I IM: I , ,c)1,--:c\ilm: 71- tx),<.c: N-Ico cmc) - CV C'D •[1-' LCD CD N- CO : OD 0 t N- N CO LO CO -- CO OD d (0 0) 7,-.,.....!7h ,- .,-,-- .,-.17.- ..-IN ('4 '4 N N, IN N!N ('4 (‚4 ME M'M MiC0iMM (1) (1) z ,Z,Z'Z1Z:ZZ Z Z1Z Z1Z Z'Z Z!Z Z ZI EZ Z1Z Z:Z Z1 Z Z Z'Zzz M :0L!0_ 0CIL:CL.:0_, a o_lti_ o_ a_ o_ o_ a. la. o_ o_ 1 : o_ a: a. o_ o_ o_ . o_a_z riz o_z o coc):0:0 0 0 0 O UL0,00 0,0 0 DESCRIPTION oio:o!01 0 olo: o:o o;o o ol ,0:o:o 0:oIo o 00 00001 000 00 00 00 0 0, 000000:: 0 ! 1 1 i *ACS=Acutal Cost of Services FY 2018 Fee i ! DESCRIPTION O w2 ca cin5 o o_ 0 a) 0 2 0 c.5 2 .2 .- o > b 2 -0 > o. c C0)Q) C .> 5 1 03 a) 0) 0. CC 8)0:: 0 F.) „E E 0 E 0 0 0 cm 0 cm' (0 0(0 c (00(0 2 S o co_ 0_ 8 -8 0 c2\ io,1l,.i 9 S I S 14 `cc4 :0 04m,-oo-o (00 o (0 N 0) D 10 0 0 00 ' 1:,0 ..: 4 I 0 5 0 \i 00 Da01. Dr3 0 NDN -0 N- C\I cd CJ 0)MM0)N0 i 4 , , .:. .:.:I1' ; [I1 0 ' . . '':,,:, ...:.:..,,.•; ,:•.,.• .... _ 1i . 1 ,'1 I ..4,11 : 10 :1I[ 1, 0 0. = a 0 0 10 10 Z ' 10 LO N COM (O 0 0 - H 0 0 04040I0:0'0 0 0'0,00'00:040:0[0 0 DZD D 0 D:D 0D;C(Cf6 6 6 6 6,6.6:6 0.6'0:L0'010 o,o0:10inin In.ol 3 L51Z m c0 o o o 0,10iN 0!0)'O'N0,(0:10'0,00.10.0;10 - W 0 M M110:0 NC .0 0)0- `,oc=6E0-=ab_) (0 0 10x -c.1 CsI c.i16co7C\ 0 'D'_•<'0D.-'c'acm'=c0u_io„_i_.,) .*T1`,1Yo00-C-- !-.2r0(2g0C. i . :.-2acoc2r.. •1...0 4.Zc,`2cE8=c, , =2Ts.4 )i1!. 0 LN 0: 00 010 N- O 0 0) •4(6(- c) co co o o cc\cy <o N 100D0)O S66 !c ll .-,-oL.a3000rt.D0W,o ,,1•, c oCNC •:1N ,.'1. . ) , -E4k.CWs.,'1-22(.,0O0011C,Z.RtocE.E-7:.*ll 4.. c ---o 2 0 00) * N _0. 0 0Zl .- l:f0' c 0 ,0,._ c 2- (0 c T.o0c0 c 0 v T> 0L01 cll45 c v m 7:E c o .- Mo T-rmm N 0=0 1 E0 0 E- 5 0 'g° 0. 0 c .0 a) 0 a 0 >.TI) CC0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 - o 0 .$9 os ooo)-1>w ()Go 8 a0c_o -:.l - -T2)0=ca - -r cc,9,- no.-.'.• :i.. o0(7, _u l , 1 11 E00 0 ' )_ ). x0(002t 0)0)0 (1 S= 8 w16.2 t " .5 80 EE 8l> mmE0 ,g.D6 r74OTcaCuC)0008b m 90(1 0 > >'› 0 wc o0,0 g,0EE 00)0 0lC00 EE88,0 0 0y0 8 0 bo,c;0 <<(a'vaa)'a).C'6 24PE2._5) >>>,ezt005Ci5. C 0- Z R 1- - -4co co,c D00D ) 0 _I __CC aCEE __a_J:: 0 - N M 4 0 (0 I,- 0010)'0Ic-iNM 41MiCID'h- CO 0) 01N- N M 4 0 CO 1,- 00 [ 4- sr) Lo ! co , ..o so 1 co ! co : co so crs co . co (0 CO W W CO W W ZZ ZZZz ZZZrZZZIZIZ Z!ZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZ Q.0_ , 0_ 0_ CL ct. CL CL. 0_ CL 0_ 0_ 1 CL CL 0_ i 0_ , Cl. ' 0_ 0_ CL 0_. CL CL a. 0_ 0_ 0_ 0._ 0_ 00! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0100 0100,0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0100 0,010;0 0 0 00 0 0 1 , 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 , : . . , FY 2018 Fee LL ENACTMENT AUTHORITY z (0 :LO 0 10 '1010,01L0 0 0 CDj ICJ OILO CD: CD, CDI C3 0I r N- CD ' LO 1 N- 1010 : CD 0 i N.- 0 CDI to 1 to co c\I 1 1 (N.! c). Lod, cc> 4.6,6 c\i 4 , c\i : loci cp: 4 10 4: c\i, 0) 4 N' v -,CO CO CO M COIv- N (0 ('4 IN 1.00 M 00, to LO M W 10(\I r-- to a) : 7r- : (‚4 cs) co , coo , LO ‘-' : CO ,t 0) , CO ' ('-1 I 0) N- :v- : (\1 COI C,-; I , , . : ! 1 1 : lo',,u) co, ,colcololo,o: 'co o,cc,o — 1 cc s,-, co ' co cc cc 16 <:6! '6161616:6: .tri 1016,6: a) 1L• r-r? 10 ,4:0)19-igWg '...7-, 1° '11'-.;q: '" ' " ... -. LL: .,...:,.. r-- , , . 4 ' , co N ›- . . LI - z : o 0 0 . . , ' it .• , . -O-- .- ;0-c 0 0,I a)2. M E' ' -(21:0 4-5' c 8: : 8-- To 1,0 a) . -1--, (0 i ! 4r) ; 0";.' MI .4.• ! -50 (i.i- -0: 0' : N -Ci(.0 > ,u)-0 0 0! :0 .§ C\j.. :0- :- B oi , ,,,, 4..., : ....... : •_ : - , . , Q.: a) p Tm.10 0,: 0 TF c a) . cE a) 0 • Tr 0 I.1_ ,!--,'E E1E =12 : 1 o a) ' 0)5 ' s- 0) 0 o '''ic) 17i,ltii >,lin o , cc m co 0 ig. co o g., := > 0 E 0 „ E Li -7, `" 01010-C, ,. ..- a c), 0 0 1 0 =14:3i "f, 01 ! ...,:...) 3 ct . o 1 i_o_ o w ',.,•:0 00 2108,0: :41A-2 :-.=. 01 al' E 1 1 E ' E , E 0 : E .2 (Dr) . '•r...- '3 3 .2 'Eir3 & E 0:210 ,- 0,w w--- n•,-,-)ai-c, . ib.. its — a -c 0 CT) i.7) OE cl - a < i° ° m 2.2 2'2 0i-=10'0' 'cm cn•tm . ! ' . ! . ' " . • ' m c-.).- :CV C-11.010, N -1M:0,0' v -i N CO: d' LO d m ,......:1,-- ...,1- .1-A-11,....,1, ,t—r-lr-lm m. co co, co, m Z z zz ,z z[z z,lz ,z1z1z1z Z! Z z! Z Z 2 a_ ct..10.. 'cl.. (1.1f1 11.1(1. . CI. ! 0_ : Ci_ 0_ ! 0_ ! 0_ 0_ El! a_ w !to olo !O 0,0 010 00010 01 0 0 0' 0 I-- :0!U0 !U.O10 OIU pp,01U C.) 0 0! Ui O 1 , : co ol cc' co. o: cc o! o' o. o! 6 tri: 6' 6: col co a) OD LOI 0); . 0) N .‘-' LI, 1 VD C\ 1 ! cri: co' . , . 1 ' . . . , . , 1 . , . I : , -c) :-0 : ' ! I - :.!) fci) ---!....., 0 0- 0 I a) ' cr . 0) To e o:- '0 .--, > .(12 0) c 1,- 0 I c2 si. ' co 1m ' 0 : as a,to E M. , co ' 0 : CO 0- : CD '0- C:!= i 2 :a , co 0 ,,, 0 ! (3) 7, 'To _ :. a. to 0 ! 7 0- -, o ' , I ' . : ,...j ,C) I -R i 2 •F., 1.,„.,-. , I oo • • , a), :10 ;-,'N 0 OH"' , DO lc (.,,C ! (,,,'S 57i) ! .2' .0..) ,,,,.: 0..,._ • tc, lc (0.-., 0) , , :To o .:- . c 1.4_0 ," . . o:71), E i E: c :E :::. :0 :: :oci: ::: :: z........:: 21E 2„, "E ' "8 81 co , . 2 O • c __:,-• -6:0 :•1•-E 0,E as 2 1.0 .. ' L- : o 0.1 zit to : 3 : ,_ > :13 s- ; > (Dr): 0) s'-' , •-• r 2 -0 = : :.c, 0:2:m , E: c, ErE a , am! , E :(-) oP-5--t1 8 cn ci a , c :•-(7) 8].'4-!c ..c to 6- a) co . co! ,L0,- IA �t C•I ,- LJJ :'"' 0 a: a' 2 : - (J) s7, .= o —..9-J as C 8: a) o -I CD CO! CO '.E.H•E" I (t) T° m s 0: > ---e'ssaH0,mi— :„„ „ e ! in:ii) ! , , . . . CO , .. ,.. ,., — .. . ,CO Mr M ZrZ Z 1Z,iZr Z a_0_0_ :C01 0_ O 00 :0r0r 0 O 00 0r0r 0 . r . , 0 0 0 to, o• o 14) N: 1010 N MI :WIN 6 444) !(N'C\I 41 Lola) ca. 000: :o 0: o cco o: lo:o. o 6 6 sri: 14)0 0 1001 01 0! 4'- -cO: ,1.00)! . , , . ! : , O , : ! 0 e./5 0 "ACS=Acutal Cost of Services TD -0 0 0) oo _c 41) .0 >44 41) a) co a) Blue: Indicates new text or fee ENACTMENT AUTHORITY z FY 2017 Fee ($) DESCRIPTION z w2 , 0 ' o 1 co Lo ' 0 CO 0 10 LO ' 10 0 0 10 ' 10 10 LO LO CD CDiN N.0 LO. 0 N NN Qr...'1"-- 1".... 4 Lc; ! 10 0) ' 4 .c- 4 ! c.ri cci ! •c-- 4 4 (0 0) .--- CO c.i Co CN!N 003 c-- (00 0' cs) CO ' 00 LO CO CD LO ,-- 0) CI: 00 (0.. ; Ca 0') cs) LO LO ! N.- 0) 0) CO LO CO CO , ..--- .,.- • .,.- C \I CV' C \I i L6 • ' I : 0 0• 0 10 431 r- 14) co 4 ! , 0 0 0.0'0 0 0 0 0 CD! 0 CD CD • CD CD CD CD 0 CD 0 ! . . . . . . . . 0 co 1)) 0: 0 LO 0 C) 0 0; CO CD : 0 ! (.0 `cr. CO LO C3) CD CO LO N 'cr LO CO ' C LO : ! co 0 I c\! 0J 0)161 c): a 14) 0000 co co 0! 0000 0 0 ! cD co rso a) 00_ c .4-, 10 ' a) 0 0 L 0 ' IN :a) i 0 tci o . o o : 1 1 ! ! . ; Z o . . . ! ! -.....1 ci, co , , ! 0 ! ! 0.000 010 0 0, O'CD 0,0100 010 0 Cs, 0.0 •. • .. . . , . 00000000 1 00 co!co'co'co 1--- co C0! N. : C, CU ! CU ! 0, , 1.10 00 0, ,- N. ; 1.0 : 00 N , s- ! L6 ID E ▪ 0000 co!.) 00)0)0)0), 01CD ° ! ! 10 0.) co 0 0 La ' , I ID ! -0 C ' , u) ! ; U) : : -0 : • a) :W , Q) ; ....., ! • • a) IOC _0 . lin cI 'N 7: , c 8. !_c .0 0 10 0ro-_, E -i- !..-• ID! ! ! ! A- ,,c "E" ! i a) .'" ,' in Ito ) i 4c ; a.) z,! 1= v,• ' 2ti2 --a (I c O "5 a) ! a) 0 I EE ! o_ o: cs , 12 M' (DLL 2 ..,,,m co ! T. 'LI ... -0 ; • • .. L.. -i-:' , 0 0 ' C ,10 0: C I 0 c, < 0!) .2 D: c-) LT_ .0 ..5.rvci) cr), - ' g .E.- c.2c L., .;) I a) ! LL ' E : I -LI imic..: ....70. = w •c: ""0" & 0 ..-.., :::),: 4;1 -E cs)Hu 7). ir) ro; {:Y) E EITDIrc -5 ; ta_ x r . cor a) •-• -0 -0 -; cu, cr, r I_ 0. - ,- 0 4,),7) = !c-- 1 E co co w 03 0 .c.). = _. w:o --, - < *-1' :2(D 0 c i E 0 < ---- -E u -0 0 2 z ci 1:K I- °- P5) c'T3 co 3L'"' E 2 a) a.) co (7) ,._(,) _ _ cr, 1-. ---, m ,o _!ct ••2 I- -.--1 m 2 w •-•0- 0 0 010:m o D co co co 0 a) a) a)...c -c N. 0 ono coi o _c (s.) ,__,...: ..._•_•_:- - -0 _ :4.-4 ii- @ c , s2 1 .... t u. . - - c', 6 0 > >pcur-, ,..srE ,c! ,_ ,-;,-6- ,E,-;,8 i5 -0.E = m 2 2 2 fr cK,c-c 610 r 6 0 > > . co 1 co 7,-; I 7a2 (L) isi co .H ,HE1 as '-'' ---.• I cal -6- --cfi , "6 o_ = r = = = 1 i., -r -r r I i>3;1>3 it' N 2_414 (-)1.010_1(r) COICr) WIC/31(f) cf) WI » coN :Z I co v.... N M .4' 1.0 (.0 N- COIM 0,..-- (\rtnt.l' (0 (0 1, -;CO M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01010, r --;T-, _•1_,I[1 If0!'.., O o1,cc0 0 com[m 0) 0) 0) 0) M mm m , ZZZ2ZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZ ZZ ZZZIZ ZZZ 000a00_000a. as MMMM ,-- M M 0,010 0 0 00 0 0 0 000000,010 OLO 10000 0 0 0 01010 010 000 0 0 00000010,0 00 10 0 0 0 000 _N -0 N U 0 0 LL D in w D N ›- L1 LL C 0 0 CD .0 � I U V) 0 ti O N LL LL ENACTMENT AUTHORITY H z FY 2017 Fee ($) 0 DESCRIPTION LL 0 Q N C 14 (0 N- (0 1 0) ; c- 2 a s o_ o_ a s dIa!,a'a to Q',Q QQ Q Q QIQ Q,Q 1- *ACS=Acutal Cost of Services CO Cs) Li) E o.— u. r - co >- C Z (1) Csi 'CB LL ENACTMENT AUTHORITY >. co -o 0 0. a) 0 0000 -5 o v000 -cs O 0 xi O d a) Lo -1 cv Lo o o 2 (r) LIco ai C N 0 :3>- . Z , 0 U_ 0 cr) a) 4-5 _c o cn 0 a) E > . n — , Z,' c c . o = a) . _? . --• a) b ( I ) ' ( i ) o a) T) a c E > . c o -.- • 0 tO 3 't uc'72 c c -2 , u) C ' :a ), (>) - = a) a) E (1) ' u_ co ! co o) . o ...cn 0 . c L E' n — > ' > . 0-,..... 1 -o = : D C —) —7 DESCRIPTION z N CO •)1' > > w E a) V- o O Z ac) N ' >- >- 0 0 H H z w 2 z w H z FY 2017 Fee ($) DESCRIPTION a) . a) a) �I a) a) 01 O 0 o cCZl 0 E -D 0', a Per Murder o'o of O o!o O O C C 0 a. -r.)! c n'''; E E'1 E U 0''0';010 0 0'Oi 0 o;o'Ojo'loiol C) C)II C) C)I m m I O 0 I NII a) 0 0 d) 0 a) ;0 !:o 0 a) 'E la) O) 0 0a 0 • aa)) 6 ': 6S a) ! i a) o: a) a ! a 0;0''o Ojo O',O O,; 0'10 O Lc) (0 O 1 N'',1-' oI C)1 ;co!0 0' aa O . CO O m! N! 0 !; E ' EI Ps a) ; 0) O)' c: �i :i a': a• >,: Y J ,Ii C1 ! o U. O'Q 1 1i 0 O0 'lE !N ,O OdEl O U O. >:oa`oa OEC.) N EYN! -L, o! (2:1)1m o o co a O >;! U C 0 Ic ) �Io (1!0'0 0 0!P- a) ,_„ C!Io v _N 8 E (06 °' o o'. aci' a0) B-1 490 k!Q L.'Q N 0 o, >. >, • -o' a Q> Y'Z''1 0•0'Etl=o• E.'":1(1)i-- c 0 U; 0 0 2111 ci rn0mv20;>'Q vo,°10Et!mi `_°;¢Q i O 1I CV 111 'mIV;LO (.411,- CO CD O N Q.Q Q!Q Q 0;0'0! '0!0 i 10:0 0 U U c c as N N "E U > (V CO V (O (O i� co O) <'«Q',Q 1 Q Q1<;«HCC 0 0 00 0i0 0 010'0 0 0 *ACS=Acutal Cost of Services 0 CO FY 2018 Fee ENACTMENT AUTHORITY I— Z FY 2017 Fee ($) DESCRIPTION 0 0 L() (n 0 0 v o'o (.6 U'U U U 0 0 0 O 0 O O O O o CO,O co 1.34 month m01m 0 -o O a O O O o' O 0 0 0 E o_ o_ 0_ o. o O O O O N O O O L N V C O •0 x 0 N 0. .fl N (6 U c 3 3 I 0,U = I O -o O = C O 0 • . C 0 N 00 o cn cu U NLN0'�i IP O C. E Cr):0 O O ' E 0 ' 'w v0-,: O �''O O •- _1 (• >6' ro 0; a' (v ro, (<-13 .1):s' S D', dl 6 0 cry no' o_ N o'oIo'', ml O to C 6 re o cn'IE .N o. o.! o it,Lu! ❑ 0_ ,E E E d ' 0 Z OOOO 00',000 I 00 E 0 0 0 0 .00000 100 W F- FY 2018 Fee _0 7 0 17) 0 0 U i1) 0 LL 0 a0 7 O O' N LL C 7 O U 0 0 U v7 0 O E J C Z 0 '0- IJ- > - 0 IJ - H Z FY 2017 Fee ($) DESCRIPTION O Z 2 W 1- O'1 10 LriI ti L L L ..0 _ L 0 0 0 01 0; 0 O O, O 010 Oi I-0 -0 _O1 -Q Imo; a; O O O''010; OI O O 0:010; O' N- N L.0 (O'V iCOILO 0 0 Q. 0' OO l,o23 X x: �, 0•�IQ Q' 0' C 0 -O 0 0 0 o 'o U', °o, o.Q';m �'U. `0w ax'o '`c u' 0 > ��: �! m 0, o.', - O 0; ) II, N I 'Z - OE O: o: �' U; o. o. 0, 0 0 (6 ; 6) 0 � , , m a: a, a: 0 0. Cr) (1) m': �u; �v o '-1T6'7° 2I2!U:2 x', O'U 0' 0; a) 0 W'a`)!0))'E EIE;E 1-E';E E E;E;E 0 81 `o `o 0 -SOD 0-00 � a X 7'''7;70 000;0 rt 1 N'M V' (O I (0 '' L Q <1 < LL IlI LL OI O O' N t�0-3 N I *ACS=Acutal Cost of Services M N a) 0 0 N 0: 0) c c; (6 pi U 0 0 N' O 0 c 0 X 2 a 0 3 s: 0 0 a) (6 0 U U -o C C (15 a) CL m M FY 2018 Fee ENACTMENT AUTHORITY H z FY 2017 Fee ($) DESCRIPTION Deschutes County - Fair & Expo -E 0 a) co m .2 E 0 @ 6 a23 a) a) ' t o 0 N C a) U) -0 -0 -0 a -0 -0 a a a 'n -o a -o 'o -o -0 'a -o 70 '0 -0 -0 -0 a -O -0 -0 ',-o -o '0 -0 -0 'O -0 -0 -o '6 aa a a a a a a a' a a 0. a a 0. a 0. a a a a a a a a 0. o.' a a a 0. a a a a a .. 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0'0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0'o O O O O o 0 0 0 m O O o 0 o O o o O o O O o 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O a) 000tri 0000000000 6000000'0 00100 0000000000 c o ' O 0) C0 00 CO O 0) 1C) CO CO 00 0 0) (0 CO W CO co V t CO CO 00 CO CO N CO 00 C0 C0 C0 N CO CO O 60 f� r - N- N 10 c- T- CO CO N- N V ,- 10 .i' CO 10 CO t0 CO •6' (.0 (.0 CO C N-7 .- N �, CO ,- O .0 C a) E a a) 0 c 0 0 a) 0) O) 0. >C c cA 6 ' Y cA a) C �i U' c a) m 0' O rn'CL X, n @ W O' N O)' N c 0)', _— a) @ i 0 : 0 Q C fNA C NI.0 -Y 'O o o C'�, N a) -0 C'Q O J J J co '-, ' M @ mY o v o'Ys c't s r i CD ' N ' ' E co.Q ° N , ' �@'m, oou)N E.'O cam com,.n m,m mmm COm p i if)@'__MJ'N'N,@ .r. 0 Nma3 nNEl@ : W W 0> co 7 �w La> 0) Q cm co 0 w a N a) a)�-F@' O' @ a �@ O L'O@� @'a@O L C O O O' O'E @@ o .__ D -I F- H M Lti WW mO.2 2 0IOrn E.co '2w Y,J'U'__I J'9'_IUm co 1.0 O --. -- __� N co ,i- LO, CO n W 0)''. co -,-- T- ,-- CO c--', W,',O) ON N N' :N N'N N: 'N'�,N N OM'M�M_ C C') M 0) Z W W W' W W W W W W I W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W I W W W W W 2023 1 US 023 Hxs 025 0:5 02S 023 023 US US l US 05 025 02S US 025 23 US 06 025 0 02$ 023 025 023 023 023 023 025 025 023 I 025 025 025 025 025 WLL1LL LL, LL'LL'LL LL LL LL',LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL', LL 1.1_ LL LL LL LL LL LL LL'' 'LLJILL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL ',LL H , ' ENACTMENT AUTHORITY H Z FY 2017 Fee ($) cl c1 c 00100 1 c' c' c, T, > T' T; TI 0 N! 4) 0 @: N U, I N' 0 N CO @ CO @ I @: > 1 >, > > > >: >, 1 >' >, > a n ala'1a' 1 1a'a,a a 0-1a,a: .a'a,a o 0 o',OIo', I '0,o'0 0 0'0 0' o o 0.0o o1O' 1 ''O,O O O'O:O O; co O L O o'O N- r', M M DESCRIPTION , 0 1 c O ccc'0,> > 0: 0 0 N,0 0 0: c! c 0c 0C0C0 c!,c0 N >! >>> > > > >,> > > >> > > > > > > mI�'ma): iO a) U'� � 0:0,0 a)a)O'0 V a)-0 Olo'o o' !o oIo 0 00 o,oio'o oto'o'olo,� '0'0 O O' co o''O O 010 0010 NNco0, 0'!010'O'0,� o:o o�' O V''1MIM N M M'6 IO6'O', OO c NiN Nl'-', OO r 'M:T,N!Ni0''Y 13 1 0 C3 I O! U' NI a'U m' w: U'.' o2j' , m' > E, N c v c N iI! E, °o a c c U o g I = 11 p',> O 'O O U m 0 11 I N V _' c @'� O U �' O. N. 11 wI$3'LL i1 YO NNI l CI m CCD 'Op1 U E: V C' ; �@♦-'a C C , C. ! OO:',l ' • N 3 1N'O O). O' Tc' LL O ( 3' a al C c O' 3: p I- N p O. • CO0'C, WO', pN ! J CO CC 0 im 1 com N 0 M 0 WNOLL LL LO NI - 'U '@ @ O Ljc,L Oz .. .t. @.- U .= L- X, X X _X , co N ICd dLL;oo ,-N 0NI N J J.JJ d`L,LLL WWX 'W V 0 @ W VX ipX 1'CX U' ' Y: ' 21 ! ! 1 I l Q IJ @ c% 1 CC -O_� .Y o O ` NC - O•-OOO ii' c X N@ i0 @ COm M @ > N N1, = @,1 @> a 0 ir2O O of X, X @ m'. m 0 w •7 ,p �', co 1 co co W'',W U` 1 W CO C LL 'a- lL LY > L•-- ooO O M,M M d' Z WW W'W o5 025 05 ro2j LL LL LULL 71. W 025 LL O E C CO 0 O) N c N .0 T E y E 0 a d CO :00( N Q wNO5NOO Oc-6C:))L2 7 CNc'CO wd E E V' ai O 71 N `',9„" E O; 6IS 7i p O) 0_ 42a:as V (00)0''' C0 M N- W W W 025 o5 025 LL L.L. LL N 1 CO 1 V LO c0 'i h co ' 0)' 0 ',NIM ', a' LO 1 1CO r` W O). O N; CO V 'LC) Cfl N- V;V'V V,V.V d', V; L0 LO LO I LO . LL LL W' LL LL LL ot5 ' 025025 025 ' w 0 0 0 W W O O O LO Ln W W W W'W;W'W:, 'W W.W, WSW W�I,W! ,WILL W1W,W W W,W W W W;W 01010 o25 : 0 i o2f 061 i o2f o2f 025 025 025 02$ ! 025 o2$ 025 o25 025 025 025 ' 025 LL LL . LL LL LL LL LL ILL LL LL LL I LL LL LL LL ' LL LL LL LL : LL Hy=Hcutai uost or Jervices co co 0 0 0 O 0 a 0 La L 0 N N _o 0 O i O O � 'SC 4) c w N N 5 @ 0 U -O i N 2 Ct w E ✓ o LL r Z d N '1 o LL LL :p ENACTMENT AUTHORITY r Z FY 2017 Fee ($) DESCRIPTION a) w 0 c 0 w m 4 0 G.) a) a) N_ N a) a) d N N a) a) D. a o co o ca co o a)O O c M M Y O O 0 O a) E a) a a a) m 0 a) a) "o c a) a) 7 .0 cT C N o E U C a) O 'E x 0. x W c °a N R c LL c6 U' N T d cr 7 u a) u (... o iS w N' c .6- a) - a) ca ira c' -0 _' LL _c E , u d m L' NN O V) N 'O o' U' ' a) • = O c'' w'U1�a)' O 7 m -O._ 4 0, a) c, 3 N 8-o do ad;',1 a) , N O) co t o1 U 0 , _, a) -o N Z WW'W�. W W W H i i i O 0 N c•-0 '7 irt O O 0 N E o u- • >- g Z Wc4 • o LL ENACTMENT AUTHOR a 0: -, 0) 5 co -0 0 co co c0 c, cDcoc0c -Z CL -C 0 CD ,-..,i u•-; 00 CL O. O.) #13- ▪ 69 b9 69 a) -5 o o c o c) o o c 0 0 CD 0 -0 Lri csi a) co _c u) 2 LL csi >-, o C M 0 u_ a) _c co a) co 35.00 $25.00 35.00 $25.00 40.00 $30.00 160.00 single copy DESCRIPTION 0 --et:L b o b CNI •q• C.0 X -X X X X X '60 N ▪ C CO 0, 0 : ‘-' N . 00 ,:;1" i LO CO I,. . 0) (7) Z (0 (0 . ' (0 , (0 C0 (0 (.0 (0 1 CO E O' (.791 ' 0 0. 0 00010 w 1- > 0) c _c . o ‘... • a E a >-. o co co 0 _c 0 COCO _O O • 0 . CO F- u) z. 0 ' 8 • 0 0- a). N R _c 0 : < a . a : CI) fu(.1) 8 " IP E (. — .... Q_ : U) O 1:1 ..-' 0 • (1) u) ai o ,,,:i 4.., 0 ,.5 c6) , c ; (1).- ; 0 ...- 75, a -0 co a) -- o._.. o ; o) : co E a) c c(6:: p -0 (r) •- 0 : -' "E ` (t) '-',5.,' 8 : _c , -- z (0 0. , c..), 0' 0.- E.:' 0 : I— D n:5 -.--, CO 06 1 , N — " 0 cn co (,) c•-) Zs -r,. -r-, z, I -eo <.:,' 1-...,'7- ---'„ ,c, = a u):0i0.--.> o 1 - .,, - v• o ; • co aT ec 00 EE 0' - e5 H co; (T, , 1 0 ; 0 o 0 FY 2018 Fee 0 7 D 0 L 0 0 0 LL ) • W 7 O N N LL• } C 7 O U CD CD L U 0 on i- Z 0 LLa >- 1- 0 0 s h o o 0 io o;o . W (0 0) I N Q I I1 1- Z + + « w anal Iaa 1- • 2 2',2 2 0 0;0'0 0 0j Q w 1• S S S 'S!S, 0 0'0 I0..0' z FY 2017 Fee ($) DESCRIPTION o0, o 000' 0 O o 000; M a0 O r �'' 0011 N d' •- d'1 Y -C: 7 1 7 7 7! 7. 7 0)' 0 0., 0: 0 0: 0; 0 01 (6,L 01 . L, L L! L. L, L, 0_. 0 1 0 0 0; . 0; 01 0: , 0 0 0- ! 0_, a 0. , 0_' 0. 0.• 10_: 0. 0.. 0,0 010:0,.0'0 0' (n '0 0' 01 0' O O O O'010'0L01 NiO ol O. O O;O 00, Lo o .OI d'I ol,o (0I (o M I ---.i (0 (0.v- MI 0)' O, (0NCO M! N: f,-: iI COM I r: NII u)' ( ) 0 : 0 0 : •U ' !I ! 0, I 11 1 0, 0: s C' • NI 0)1 7'I ',' EE: Ei N o £I, p)1 E N:0 O C ! X u) O (co •' •�' a: E1 @', (0 o O E t -c o' ^' U ', E. ° cn ', N U E 0 o • co 'c11 E x' c: 0! E'' co. 2 LE U 0�1_:c • °)1 E o 7E'cp10 .-o-a-.),... c ;0. Io'. E, co; -R .a'E.p c <. .� 0 I L U: 05' 7! LL', 63' v', R o co1'E 1 Z o E O >.E,E � E'c� 6s, in L'.0 ;rno Q a � 0; 0) o' w, N' a): a) o' o-, o! o (on 0 c) > cn a .- E'0 0 cn L o1 co C N' o 'O : � - ' U -2 '1 .E , 7 7 . 0 0) 'C 11 7 (6 N 7D-, 0 ' C' (n ' o' 0' c C O m'' C °10-a u) p' C .u) I 1 C 8 1 o = u) 1 0 E • 'a oI 0I, E o E o o; 0 0 m •Z c, o E coi n) 10 @ o- o • E o C L I 0 !i O c - 11E c a r 0) CL o o E '< rn F- i6 (6 E .cu = 2 1( Eo 1E 7 Io) O a OI IL __ _ __ + I 0 0 0I , 0 E. -o U p1 : 01 ) E 00 a) .•CI •N • y; T,, o a: L 1 .0 a a Z', 6); 0) 0 I ~ I C1u)! u), -o ! c '' : 7 '1 co , 0) U'1U C, O N'' 0'' TI • .0! L .,-�, EId,E'1 10 71 O) 7 C E c E 0 X 0 -X 7 I (6,7;(6; u)' E'U'E1 C; c'1 c o; c N'� E11Elo1 7 X17 EI °, 1 A ,.X ''�:5' of 0 CO I1 Q 2' 0 7' O a • L; 0! E 0f Eo 0 -C 01 p, 3: C 0. O, C, O E u) >; 0''' @' : E'ap''1 c.0 m 0 a) : O)! 0 0 1� . ° i'1 0 ; 0 d ''-' p O; (6 Q -:LL'', 0 O . T'1 i O), U; 0- t C C! >, . O p I (a;a' p1 "D 0: ' (6!O (a6. 0' ' E;c 0 0''1(n; ' (0 O 0 En' o', O)' a -0 . 0 C : 0 7 N 1 U,1 -6. I 0-: • 0 LI : CI u): 0; N. 1--(1 pl (; N - N I N'11m,7 �,OI Q'1 co''o, > •�, �; 8U' -' o,, a; 0'', '1) `o 0 m I 0 0: 7, -FD @', of =�,7 EE''1 >,4 p 2, C: 0j c, E I-. 0 L .:o � ZI< O co C:_o (Ol=,aci a)''`;� - -SIN n;-- aa)'O o Z,a) 0 7 Z• '5 ol, - E u) _ m as co o + • - 7 U vo) a E (DA)=, 01 a s cnn o C3 L''L Q. t) c� a E or -o0 (0i o o_ i cS (6 50 cu18.�:cn T T Q, co•c1.5 E o N,,.2'-,- a) o co c01 '6i 2 u) 0 0 L u), u)! o; c- -0 0 0:0 N O CI C10.<.x2a.1da'U, 'i.t0S°O.Qu)u)< C(oz1 U' 'O ,- N M d- (0 0 r'N 0,-, ..,1- (0 (0Ih WI 0)'r r c- r r z 'S;S.S,S,S:S!SlIi 'S'S SI S S S S 2 03,m 03;m 03:03'00:03 m!m 031 CO m 03:0 O S 00 `ACS=Acutal Cost of Services 0 0 a) 0 U 0 0 h LL A O N U L, 5 L U N o o LL } O O Z O N LL LL ENACTMENT AUTHORITY DESCRIPTION =0= 00) 0)'' 0) :0 0I0I 0 0'0; 0 0 0! I co coU1 ! O 0', o 0; 0); a3 0 0! 0! 0'', 01 �. (1)I 0 0I CO' I 10, - o). 011 l.0 I 0 :0'I 0 0 0 'O @ 1 0 1 ''1 0 = 0 . o $_ 0 C2 i a 10 @ a) @ 0 0 0- a) 0- 0 o_' O Oi0 0' 01 (6I O,O o, O• , O IN N N' 0 AIN Si 0), •y E I 0 [S,.1 I 0 'o 0! 4-1 0 0 'O O O I O 81 0 0' y1i @ 0 ZI2 E'' R a 8 5I ate) :U U'.0 slm w m 0) 0 0 0 0 Oal O_ 0 0.0 IU 0,0 _0 0, N z~ '' (0 I 'C 0 0,0 10'0 0 CD ' °) O CO U o O, 0T 0_ 0 0 Jo10) < 0 ,:_c O10 0!5 0Io UIn 0,_ o !!-E O'U co 0 -0!00 0!0 �) CO ` 010 w oIo,010i 01 :0101010''01 10101101 O;C) Olo:0,, .0,010:010; lolo,o, IM1�I C"): -o ICO Nib ;4'0 ''(C>IMU): N,L' 0;(0'00' u'), N; O'0'r CX}; . c): 1 C C . 0- 1 • 1 0o IN -j0 (.(0 C0'(0 .0) 0. 10;0 0[0[0: 0[[0 010'[0' 0'010' [0,0 0 0,0 O,O 0. 10;0 0:0,0.1 O O:O O O O 0;(0 w;41 ;6,6; .-.1--:;(01 N- 't 0I N'i0)''I0 N'O 0)'(0,h ').0!‘ -!CD 0)'01 -1,-,COIN, IN,N,(C) rI N.NII 0- (0 ,, it NiN 0- CO Mil 'd-, CO• M,M IC! a a �g', I ij;-EI • a v c 1i I moviv I ! = _,@'-a '1 tmi a @ Oo1 >.c1 o m N- 0:210f SIrnI U, ltq, 2I� !°I C 1 ! 22.@ _El '...01.s. Hi., l 0 E as ah NIyI(@ 3 p;s! :�:,1 0O17,'@'t,421-0'...117,N 'a(u:0 0! la -1 E! - '0 2p01 'Ll0I'EI laEsn.`Q3:.) 0 0-.w. ICjgy El 16:1,111'818 Z ZL Ic.. 'I m 1,T,?; E �'1 001 °IEl.1 0 0' , I vel ,ILE' 0i-8' j m ?' T1 1 O' 0 411 10' 0,-o J q Ui, NI co;I �. EI N; NI 5 �: t E I -o0 v 2 } T; T T; .- T T. T V)' C: OIC 0 `�h:0); h10)'V O-I`;'O _I •Cpl C11 Q 1 1.-ICOI 01� 07.,0 E' -Q @ , 'JO: o' @' 0 0I >< 0: EO =I 1 ;=. , I , UI.. C LLI,W 0U 0,,--;,-1.1- „N'Ni01--'�'W'IO wl- i a+I'”" �Iv w r -iv IwI sI 1 I- I-1 J Ji -1,--1•-.1--1212 rlr i-1rl� IT -1F r r!r rIr1N = 2i J, J J J J .E .J-J.J J J J 2 2 22,MI2 2. 1212 2 2',21 12211 2'212 1 1 I I li 1 I 1 FY 2018 Fee ENACTMENT AUTHORITY H Z 0 O, O lolo o'',O 0'0 0'10!0 0 ',o o 0 0 oio 010 0!0 00 0 0 0 0!0 0 CO '[f' ; O) O7 N Ch W ! W O r tT d• 10 0 '(0 (0 (0 0(0 00 0)', r O .CO 00 ',(O N MIMir M.0-) N,N M;M!!(O CO CO is -,1 m 8 O N O O I (p •O I 'I' 0) O moo' .5 , > > "5 ' N!' > '-- -_ ' c I , O.0 o 01,0.0;0 0l (OI . = O 0!0,,010'0 o, C 4V "- ; 71- 1O ''� 00 N ! N 00 ! 1, p O C N, h'NirtIN ,r = 1 ;•D a) V)O co (0 r --a) ,- ,- U co O : a) N 0- I ! U >- I ,.L LL C 0 ._- i 'C : O. N O O CO Ta , 0 O. 0 c 0: J 1 0) ; (6 ! 6 N' C CO ''1 O i , O' a) O O U :° m O O I 7 C O; a C 'a , 0 C N 0) O • c1 N , O 0 3; -5 , O', O' 1 c! a a ! -o @ a) > no,L' @'' 0) O' C.' ° '> C o_: 0 m. m,._ o' m .o'' co o'! a)' o' o — o c : E''!,, 0, 0) 3 O` o,� c E .._. Q' - C c, O c : (n, (0 a a �, a) : o) .- c,U) O @!.N 0) o rn 'E' y ❑, N 0) p 0 03 0) a,a,'00 0, 0)I O !0 1 8: T N O. o O S m as aE) a) E o aa)) 0,Z.-- W o); (oi •� ! o f m •°) ; >,' ,- . = ' i ,-,-,=.= ii U o C I0)N! Ii N �4-I s 0 0 �_c O:a0_O'i 0 FY 2018 Fee FY 2017 Fee ($) DESCRIPTION 2 2 W H o o 010!0 0 01,010 O O OIC O'O;OII O, O!0 �- .- (0 N : 0) ' CO I r• N NM;N 10 N,,- CO M d• 10IV'IN. C'( N - Ni 00',00'V 0);(O'V'I N O 11) N- 0 (O . V V Cn O M 0 (0 co ri, 0 N N d' 0 CO VIM d' N1NV':0) 1 >' O IO 0 o C @ c 0 > > ala @ ala 0) 7 7 1 O) 0) U 0 0 0 N Ii=oa '=o O .0 a 0. 0 L6 0 X 0 ro 7 1 7 : 0 .O ) 0 L6 (06 cic 3 3 > a) > > '- U 0 >> a) V O O O O O j, oaQ;'3 8 Q OT. oao 8d0. 0; (0 N N 0)00000 0l0 0 0 0 N0:0 0 0 0 2i2 J J S',S O > a a 0 0 m CO N- 00 O) 0 V' V V d CO 5 2 S 2 S H H H I- _1 2 2 2 2 0 )'u)WW (!)u) Iro 2 2 2 2 2 '- 0 0 1, 0 '', 0 0 N. 1 N'' a 0I CO 1 (0 us' a) I I Ho! N N 7 to N E I a O L 1 la O'_- ;, . 00 00 : 0) 13 I � CLO i � N. I--, co N• 0 • ,- N (O N',N, O'.0 �.: ONS MN CO N, N'', 0)I L H o 0 , I ' 0 (0as N 6 N- M OI co 0'N' d• co CO O) M M 0 ICO (N (0 W u) u) (', W W Cn W u) W (n u)l u) S 2'2 M,M 2 2 22 2 S 2;2 0 0'0 0'0 0 0010 0 0 0,0 NI O ! %n, 10 i E O E: i0 10 7 HE. c O 0 >' ' O 1 @I as a; I0 CO u).0 mI LI_ u) C (6 L > 0 CON ' (1) a 3'co; o) -0 E t° 1 ro o L o - d. o . o °' 0) I': c "4-,;• o U .' O N "' 2 2 ro . --P) > 0 ,C N c @' '0 0 U,7 E o N 0_a oE '' E E @ o EDW N' - ro 3 .N W 0 1. _ `o O 1; O J 0:17; a a L m T x .8!--'=-8.-6!) U:- @ c 'rn 1 (a6 @''0 0 t6 0, I L- > ''' O O w_ i 0) O `o 4-4- 0) �' w w V1 c a. >. c>6 o c ro' c c uJ 1 co U c o ' o 0 0 a O Z �p O O)'' t6 (6 O > >, U U (6 N X 1 O O , ----- d >. T ,- o•00 Z c; E c c L O QI ro o'er CIr EwU0 E a0) E E E 0H1Hm o22laa 'a a s ro OID S d� �:H H U'IQQQ2 , N M V 1 10 CO N- _.-. co 1 6) O ,- N CO cof LO (O (00 N- coM0) CO 2 X 2 2 1M 2 1212,2 SS S S 2 S S S H H H H H I- f- H I- I- I- H H H I- H I- I- I- H J J J J J J J 1J!J[J J'J J J J J J J J 2 2 1 2 2 22 1212,2 2 2 2 2 S 1111 <nlNl� co W N -O M N- 0 M N (O 6) COI N o •5 O c N- r` r- J J J 2 2 FY 2018 Fee ENACTMENT AUTHORITY N z FY 2017 Fee ($) DESCRIPTION W N I 01 0co11' CO ! CO CO O 0 0 6J ON N- - CO'MM 00 I0) co co (ci) 0) 0) 2'2 ;0,0 0 0,0 0 0010 i 11 O O O O; 0 M '..0 -C U C> CCI i (OI d1 M M; CO ,V.N CO 1 O CO',- CO O O 01 04:N CO N- �N-1O M:Mi, I� ..--; N I -c I U 03 N: I,O 010 0 0 O, 0'0' to l(J Ln ; lf) O N 'N N10 N v- ; N'. N N' 0, a) C > O_ m 0 I o N' C O, - 3 'I N : n — U' i jE C ns 0 O O 0 0 0 0:0:0 O cNi �. ' 0I a O �I j (0 3,m N'! j C a). '>; U C, ,� Up' OX >.' I O ! i 4O (D Iain tl o O E=Q' ` o C oC f0 a' — c C'o n 4i !EIS 05, 1 21 I- 12'212 2'I21 III III *ACS=Acutal Cost of Services ENACTMENT AUTHOR FY 2017 Fee To 0 0 0 0 7 a) C 4) c w • o a m o ate) aw❑w•5 a�(o awN y o$ cn_o o U 7 L a Z p C U O U -a) za, NOC OI U "O - UU tt1 oa C N N �O aco C O c _c c a) .a 0) N -O ca a) o p j O N O L -O a) E- D N a Z •� Q 0 12 c0 w .c O > O a co 0-6 a) O 0 ' 0 E -O a0. O .._ Y a. O` I t t (nas 0 12 acid 3� c w U U a) U O "O O (0 "o U qp c a) L = �. 0 (n -a a) _T a) o c C N p • ml U O y a-0 y a) yr o 0 aa)(° o= a) ic! to rn - .c y u)(1.)N (a0 %C - C> N> f6 E In C 0 c w 3 0 0 o n3 c d i N I ! a > 1 (4 N O o E .o a) 2 C-0 17 1 k. l 1 IV) o — �- tuai 3o ur; 0 ' 1 C .c 1-1- aL a_ _,, c N c 4_ di O -�i O W0Ic CI m , = `n N ai a) a) N a)1'0 'n 111 s7 ca Z' o I 'c , .-, a a) ; fn u) 0) O 'c > m O u) . V V i - N u ! N i a) C LI �I(n Q cN O c a X U 7 _O X10 1'ui I N Li -a c.=I u) y .o!w :: c' a'@ c_ o °) a E �I•lj ol'0: m m .iU o coi . (o o W P. _c , o mi _E. of o UIU OC MV N' i�t0Ca h CYJ d 0 :,--1,-1,-:: (O O P-'00 O OIO', I 100 O:O I 0' 01 "I-- -- ..._ .__ -.. a) 01 a) �- _ : Z 2 2!2 2 z'212 212 2 2f = 2 M i F- h h h 1 -i1 -11-- _i Ih•h hh h h ill J J J J J JI IJJ J J, J J; F. 1M 22 2 212,2 12;2 x121 2;2j I 0 4 4 N'O t6 '�,LU'1N�N'. -06 4;06 to ca 4'ta a7'Coi-- t- c 'N to to' Co I` --Ca o) N,N'tn- 0, N,N'M MI OI : 1 I cul N) CD 0;0,0 0,01, con: o'ao o' Z c c c a) I a) 0 a) N 0 01 0: 4.. a C. a: 0. 0 0 O O O' 0 o,o, 0 0 0 : o N! Cvi 1 1.61(<1 (`7 V N 'o c C 1 3, 1 o I� a) ' a) 1�IN ILLI N >C�C L �'U i" -i O f0 LLI �1>I> u) i • in '11 8 1 a (O ; W I Ls.: > ! 't_' I Z' O L'r Z ? -o sz m @ T. -a N m i T. N (0:(0! .CC0 !E',, E V E,EIE 0 _ �! a a:4'1H] - 20 - ;- FS a) O Oj EE (0i va)c, F- F- a• 1 ' O) O , - N J J J J 2 2'1 2 Deschutes County Requested Fee Schedule CO } Lj ENACTMENT AUTHORITY FY 2017 Fee ($) DESCRIPTION Q E X o',o o'; cc ol, (O' M 0 (0 co 0 0'0; Io 0',010,0 0'01 0Co: oolo`7r'7 CD. (p N Cn'CO 1 O'N V CO - Lf) LI) O)N- Lt) 0) 1 NI'- M: 1a) c Q a) co 0 c III (. O_ !I a) I11' o Ia 1X I� N .V.. I co a) I � , 00 V- . I > W L a te± -0 t 3 NO ;O' ' 00,0 a s J ! 1'aw co so 0 1rN IcwU w'J 7 N 2HiT; IC ! ' N' 0 x E c > a.) as > a) 2 ' 0 I -c >''' .� 3 m a) w:3 0�' ,'' Io f6 co o 2 o 2 1 2 i o c ' ani I a, a� .3,' o Q'I c o a)IU cn o:o o a',�' �' Q c O' E c • m p a) N o o Z m° as m °) c E c m a3La i d o a) 'Q N. o S In co O N L' QI V) w. O; O R O >+ m N >" a) N >' C w v 1 v Q''1 U Q'', !1 a o a) ' N O e () co p c l c p µ. �_ co Z' O 'p 0' .. `p 'p a) Q Y .O O p O a3 .�. ' .0 cz ID 1 c0 > p a) E cI c E c 3 01: c..0 u!I•S-2w?IIl c E,ml wl a 0 - >'' `0 o o > o m caI00 2,,,!.2) . �, o a) 01 11 E 6,, 0 N o > V) N > •> z.', `O ` o N' p @',, o(� d is, a) E a) >'. a) a) w a) I c C Y s''1 i N a) U — N a) O 0 c E c cp ; c Q' cr O .+ @ U 0 0 0 1 0 U N 'O ��pp � ' ,_ I— 'O a) ' a) a) 'O a3 Q. j w '; O p 0.0:a, ; N M ' .,1-'4.-) O C i ' O O U � I .`<!-.)2 : y 4-, c 0' c w E- m c m m m o o n 'I, E ms. a g .- E s > T1 E p �' _: aNi; c �I �, api D;cj cn a1 .9. j, - N'M'�t r', c� 'Z:� (/J.m10.C�11 C CO JI'',N N._ in J cO:N .0 -c O, a3i �; � w �, '° y a) a7 c6 f0 N N E U ,c 11 a O 'C > d C Cco!� (',(4 (n cni,� CO O;O Oc 1� fAI N _ N__ m_ I�I N:N N',, N, N M'''M �', MI CO COomM CO CO 1 01 O __ ____ �I ___i GAJ J J J JI - r Z J J JI J J J J: JI__I ' J J J J,J J 112 2 = 2 2 2, =,2 = =.2 S S S S',2 2= 2= 2= 2 2 21111 H H R H J J J J) W 2'. S S S S'. ~1 I 1 o''o', oo 010 0',0 O 1,, c0 O (V cO:M', tn!N *ACS=Acutal Cost of Services ENACTMENT RUTHO U 0 8' CO CO CO D. a a, N co co L L t' 0' CO @ CO Q) N CU ,O O U COJ O 0 .0 @ a a 4) 0 co a cn N N a a a a a a 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W CO c0 V Cf7M N_ N_ LM N s- 04 W 0) N CO C e) N N CO) et N N N Ci") v CV >, O C N ci ( _ _ m o a — '° c 0 L 3 om s p Cn p• .�' y E co N @ p @ •C @ N@ O N LL 00000 a) 0) O N W O @ 0) CO 0) CO CO LO CO N 'Cl." V © .O C T a CO C) -O d U 0 m O @— •D0no-wC w C V O t -O O@ CO .C.. 0 2 M > 0V C' ,N O L .Vh co 0 pC, N to 7 cr 63C O C "O M OC V•O.„ ,40O O-� wO. T L _ RI M CO Q 6)L UaN -13 34 CI QC O N C L o n d O ;L' C' U 0 0 i 0 N "ON CU N=N - :0' 7,C, @ N 0. • ° °>Eam To -o 4-.W ° a 8 '00 ' O> OC E C 00, 1 . to .7 C' O O C Q CaN > ij 0OOWOC� NC N' O.. @ -O , a = O w C) Nd • L N := CT O 1 C O O N m>.. @-0 w•Q E fpQN N Oc � °@ pN U __ O 00uw 23_lo .0i . U y— O •,R oa °; o7 AC WCN w O 0N N' c a 0 a C2@ c o 0 0mu)( o @. c ca 00 3-' w U) o0- 0. c- o a)v' O' o 0 0 Co) c u) '' _0 ay' e — _ _ >I • -'.>0 _0>,,m 'ip• {i 2,N'ov)n cp N a) 0 >, ,?'aco: 3 0 00 c C N V _�.. n n n N ' = O ' a u w v a a E, Q'N c°'` L - ..' m' u� w h' 4 -@cli,cn,N aC Cr d O) C ° 4•C I co CD @@ 0 D. 0 )> U X Uc.o acO 1.0 cc0.n. �nyUUUU o a, '@Z <4"=!4.- 0,I-CL!iLZwQ 6 Cr CD m0O v 'tn Q cc' d, 0a ai ) i ;cptn`o0N _. o o CO 0 a) cn C:CO • 2 c a)!dd n Z Ca =O N Cr) n i )-- • l - ,I- H F - w J J J J J J _) J J J,J J. J J J -J F ',,2 2:2 2 2 2,2.2.2 1 1, ' I2 2 2 2:2 DESCRIPTION 7 D 4) .c U N 0 LL 0 N N- 7 p C N CC LLL T C D O O 0 O m' as O >, c m m a, v) 12 a. s a) c', = c — U c . 0 I a� -o ani 5 .0 U o c s C,) No C 0.. a! ›:,1 ; O N : oU O O' I 'Ci I: C O N c - O: a) to O o. io 1 O O' E gI v' CI W. ILL; >... c' 'NyaU, 'Q O N. ,' i �= 1 I o ! a) c I ate. c', a), aci! a o U= '0 2 �' ) c o cE c0 .H�c N,ac, W "5 _c -7 _ =c s' 2 Ei mIOi N 0coE l C. 0woc 0;O'°'c!g; `; o!oLLot c! LL s ,.�,�!cc1 _c;lc Lu. O. 2,_-) v O c2,.. ss c cco 1 6' Ia'yIcl ; i ' c;1U ai iii I c -c_'aO, 'To o o • r. cti ( a)c0 O, O.Lc -O . . - v°x vc ,is a s oao Qoa1Yy. NaI o E jOioN l> NiUS M; '0 u J'O'{.) Z = 0 O v v Lt) (.0.i,- corn a 11) L() ' V) L)(o OI d E LL = 0 a- J C Z cv } LL O N LL LL FY 2017 Fee 0 IO I Itn N' a!o co';' u''o Ni rn NO a)', N,, I>i I J JIJJ!_.1 IIIECI "ACS=Acutal Cost of Services (o FY 2018 Fee E ,_O— J C Z y N u. ENACTMENT AUTHORITY 1- z FY 2017 Fee ($) DESCRIPTION O M O N - Y Q• (-3 @ ^ O O O O O O O co M M M M LOC, -).00 N (0 07 LO 0) 10 (0 O U U) (J) in CC CC CY CC CC CZY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0: -o @' U @ o ' (1) 0 CD O .- 0 90.00 each answer 5.00 per document, plus postage O O O N c _ 0 ^ E^ O) a a) O U U U •<-r t°O N O x- N LOO _O O O O O _O O _O 0, (°) 0 0 O(0 O N- C? M M M M M M CO O U d. Lc.;(,•j M O Cl O cri ' N co (n (0(0(010 (O to to (n (n c- .c 00 (CJ (n to (0 (1) Et Et Et cr CY CC CC CC CC a) cy9 CC CC CC iY CC CC CC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O N O N c @ + O = a@) U C c @ O) O O C C C C C .- N U E E N co 4- Y@@ C = O o0 N o o mQE 4- NN . '0 0 N UU?U °U O U .2,o a pwU 3 U U a .c .0 o - - -c .0 o L 0 -c .0 - - - - C .0 7 >, U U U U U U U U Q U U U U U U U U 0 Q a) CO @ @ CO @ @ @ @ O. CO @ @ @ @ @ @L- . UUUO Q 0 a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) @ a) a) a) a) 0 a) 0 N 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (/) O O O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U C) LciO O 0) 6) O) M O N M M OM M co 10 < CO r- N 3 To a) 0 O aC) o O O c O EC -O y, m ° @ z,---). - c - c -o2 0 0 T o a c v a @ N a) O . X m ' N O O O a) N N (4 ' O) @ 7 O ` a) E E N C O Q U . E°)@ 'N ' m@ -O C N CO a (0 ) C °O . 0°t E dO= r ,u o )vcCO 3 ° E -C 0) a' m e , E a) o 0o 0 , 0 °C @of m Q D. n' @ a`>' Et Et E c' .-s° a) @ „0 @ E > a S rn O 7 aa) ° E c c NN@ `): o ooo 0cm :@ mN col O) O c U U' 3 c T, c 5- oco f m o c c' ro a o 77, 9 8' o gl, o -@O , 1' 1,�a g o@ 2 O ° V' . T• '. .o"= a a) 0.0'D'a• E t0 f H ° c' al ' 'c`nfoNo' 0' o CO . c6 Ci), 3 VE E E' E o'°.rnrn m o ° (n m' , on a'6 U a -O'Caco m. UI O)o L L _ j U aaO O p) y a) NN @ m �_'"O7o,`°UUUU@m, o w NINN ..@ @ @ @Y U_-5. C a a aY col a O'er C' c ' L °UnI-0 U U U U U U U H U N U 1` , 1- L --1 -)) u- � ( I (n_ (n U) O 0 -__ In C.0 I,- CO O 0 'NM, d' 10 CO hI CO 0) 0 'N C\I N (V N Ni U'U UU U U U'U U UU'U U 0 U00U U U U U 0.0'0'0 U' Z '�'� -)'� OOO, O MIS M O O-1 1 H ENACTMENT AUTHORITY • : , c , 1T-) 0) ,._ 0) : C ' Z : , 4....7. 1 D 1 ; 45 ,.. I- ; : n , ,,,,t_-: • o 0 • o • co ' a) , a) ,c)co. 1<r)(1) P.., E0) ...... .0 6.) !Qi ': .ci c.(t.) 11 0 0 ! 0 , ,,.., , 0 , , ---. (./) , , . 0) : a C' : ; '>7 c) : x c) c\I ',- I 0 : Cs11 ' ',- : a:1, - 1 a 1 : -c) a) co (i) . • , • , -u-') co • , : 0 0 a) •,- . , < < . , . . CC ›- >. 0 >, 0 ' -0 U) C , a.) (/) o-0 0 a) To o •-• . , , E , 7- , co a) - ..._ ' Et) • ,:-' >9, a) ' u.) CO , D 1 0 cc cr.) • : : -0 a) . 73 E "c) = a) 1 0 E • _c ''-' _o —co_ co ; .,..; CO 77., E . 1 0 r) .E, ai 0— • g a)- E ..-(13 1 , , , mm co aCO — .c_ r0a),. 0c—) 2 1 .,. :I , 7 ,6 f o :,. 0 , : . HtS : t-. °) 7,9,, E 115 C..) , : , RS i To' • c) , -0 _ c ,,,, t 0. (I) I [ 0-' as . '•,; w . a ...ii , ( I . 1 ',15 l 0 ' . ]: ' >:',' C 0 ' ; 0 i a, 0 . 0 .,,,,, — .- . = ; ] . 1:3 : - -J ' = I c '0 ; CO 4-• To' 0 a 1 1 co -2 , a5);i c _0 x(1, • - ( I; 7, IT ) 0_-(5 ., 8 8 -EF -c.„11 — 1 — . . , Ip...c- ,,.,a, 8 , ,.., ., F ,,.., , ,..,. 1, c -45 a) H.:-. ..., 2t1 000.._, Q00 ca) & 0 e —0 .3 -th '13 1/4-'1. a) 0 1 ...,,, .01,_,c():•-•,...., 4- in' • E 1*--, v -0 • ,- 'E' vn _ , 0 (f) : • co ,..5. s-,.., , o a) a) ' o -c) - v) ›-, ca : t E .5 , , a) , a) , 0) .., : E , • I a) To --, I +di c '3 ' a) t,_ —* o E. • °I 0 , '21'5 43 V o_ § Ili g on - I <(1) d — l N ' 1 ! ' ' ' . _i.i101i(0.. jil l_11'",,:CC:r Z I --1 --I ; 0 0 0 ! ' L, `-', (.9 (9 LU i-- 1 , •. I I ' i , DESCRIPTION *ACS=Acutal Cost of Services c • 0 E 0 ,_ 0 a co w J C O ▪ Z 0 O LL 1- 0 N } ENACTMENT AUTHORITY 0 _ 0 a), a -0 H 0 0 Z m m a) a) Dfl' co ca ▪ co ca a a a c c c. c 0'. 0 a 2 m a) �' c c c c 0 0 0 0' c c c c N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O - (0 0 0 0 �) (° LOr) 0 L 0 N O O (0 N 0 0) N ti LL T O C N 0 cn o cD o o U iri N co 0) `0 a) a — a -o a) 0 m a c CO FY 2017 Fe DESCRIPTION cr c a) E a) a) a) ca a) a) c a) (a 0_ a — m a 0 o u) Z co 0 a' �o a- ,— v) a) a 0 • �I 0 o a) c 0 it .c' 0 0 0 Q 0'� (' 0 0- o o c a) 0 0: 0 0 p,, a) cq : 0 O ca Q', a) X X 0 01 0' ' 0 U d a -0 N I N a) .N-. 1 (a X T O E c c .c _ E 0 0 c: -, 0c as 0 a',, 4_, Q Q 0 0 '', o' -' 0- m.0 X12 o co p.4. L O ti 00 Z a a' a a a a a.' a • 0 D ctCCo,, CC's w Cla0a0 as H FY 2018 Fee N D LC U 0) N 0 LL 0 N co 7 (U 0 O co a) L N E • o � w C Z d O LrL ENACTMENT AUTHORITY FY 2017 Fee ($) Z !d! O E; 1„. d tl co;, a c! Ni U -t° c: N M a -I ! .O�OIp' O, if> t3 O O - N Mill Z 2;2 2,2' W H *ACS=Acutal Cost of Services O 10 d N >- LL ENACTMENT AUTHORITY FY 2017 Fee DESCRIPTION m p U L 0 a) rn Cn n n (1) N LL LL N ‘E) 7 O. n - n J J N 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r O O N N N �' N r� L) 'a' 0 - R) 0) d) a) N n 0. 0. 0 0 0 O ri(p88 a) 0 0' a) O. n a) .c N 8 O 0 0 s O Lti N CO O. O O O O o co co co 4) d a) -oo rn-o -0 a) ▪ O 2 c c c a) © • O q? * p "O n 7 C a 1111 c o p 0 X v- mam7o axN E 3 @.o o _ n O ( -a✓ U o n ' C n p ON> -@U (b U2) a, 7 L to N 'p O n,- d� 4) N c HN p n 2 'O ." °, nO"O`2'c O' dN R) 7 �� O sl o o o Ca `(UE7n.4-- O N .a7 7c0 o '6 ,:r6 (o 2VdO I� ' O '> OaoO (a0CL ' �'O mN _17' N„. c. ) ) O' N :Caa aCLVc0- m a n 8, c t' c c yE's L> . t CO LLc o w m o V-0', (1)0W n 0 0 JSO ' Q,O N- O 0) O. CV'N Z '0 ❑' 0'© a 0 0 a'0 0 x 0 0: CC 0 0 0 r • CC CC CC LC LC CL N [C C] C] L] C] � O a C] 2 0 0 O CD OD 0) W r a) E u_= O` ti a0 J c o Z ar N Csi O LI- > - 0 -0 H Q 1- 0 0 Q z w FY 2017 Fee DESCRIPTION 0 0; o a) Q 0;0; O v; a); E -o, t-73 moi Q 0 o m' 0.); Q_ �- 2 ' r)rr'totor-cc Q - N N N;N,N,N' w 1- a) 0 O N "} (6 - *ACS=Acutal Cost of Services 0 LL ENACTMENT AUTHORITY c) r • 09 co cc▪ i cO 0 0 0 "• sf a) kr) ^‹, Lf") -a DESCRIPTION N 1-1--I- • 1 I , : 1 I , I I I : I I 1 (') 0 , I , 1 0 -o..-..-. .... ,i 0 ce) i , N , CV N 0 0 CD CD N N : (1) , (f) cr- ) I (.0 (,): (010,0).(0 (f) 'CO (I) (1) I 9 cc •: :cc icc,cc Ice w,ccicc .C4 ,`"'•• : 0 !Or : Io •,'•:, 0000 c)c)c),() r • , . , • • •ir. ,,, :: i 1 . , T, -c-. 1 : . 2 2 2 2 I : >a TIO 2, , 0 a) ; 0 0 . : . . . . 1 0 1-0 E c t-_-- ., • . 1 D o , , ,,,.... „ -.=.7 c cf) . . 000 1 E-) .c (0) ''-3 '-e) o 1 • , . , "2 ; ' 0 I : -0 .• i , • . : , ....._.... • 1 : , . : : : , . Q., a, :,,.-• ci, 4-, 0 15. l I ' E . . 9 co I a o 0 .'-• 2 c _'..11 I 2 c' tii I • ; • 0 : ' : ; E 0 l, 1.6 I E •E g. Lp.. a , , , ,_ : ,_ . ...„, 5)) E, E ,, 0: 51 a Lae_ : 0_ i 0 - E '" 0 a a . 0 : o la : 0 olo-P co 0 a:al a;coalo 1 , co, a : a : co : co 1 a , a : a , o a c> co c> ' a ; 0000 c, I 16 6 : co : a : a , oci : Lci ci : ui ; 6 6 : ri ; 6 6 . 14 : 6 1 c.6 , : 0 l 0 .- : co co i N •,,;r : e- I s- LS) : 0) , 0 : . , FY 2017 Fe DESCRIPTION CD LO 2 0 ' 1 2 v) ; - o "E5 : 1 0 -c . - o : -ccia> 1 : v 0 I 20 . . cn l'a .2 6. : -,,,7., 1 .0 -.= .•-• : = , CA C! :t....' : 0 O , -t) co . o o 0_ .0 , , : 0 .., 0 . . 0 0 . ' -= Z't.,) : C , 0_ S : 2 '...7.. . , 000 1 , .2 , I .g. -2 02 ,; -SI 2 ! i : . 4- = , 0 co oI 'IL) F--: ,...c 1., ! m 1 , 0 . -.:(,) i a, r . .-s. 0 0 , 1 a '5, 1 r:!.Sga • T2 ,tr). , . , 6 .-E:.(5 '"'I:-. :<•<,' 0 a 0 ' E 1212ILL,_ 8_ [,,,..,., al • I ''' .,.....) I 2 %_- (1.) • 0 : a> o : -c 00w,ccio'm . . d IN- ' N 1 CO I ..:1* I LO ; (0 I N. CO Z 'T ,X M:M ,T.,M IS IS • I(1) cp (0 (1) ,(0Icnicniu) w 1— ' I 1 • ' 1 I I , I . . : I - 0 (0 o (0, . ; o 0 ; 0 : 0 8 0 ; a . . : -o (1) ' . 2 . 0 : : • ; I E It) . c . • ; : o „6 c% oc al > 0 : : . 4) la EIE,El 1 0 b ; 0) 41) ; c 1---2 rs 1 0E, , t ' ari ; 0 , ."),c 0 1 fco ma& 0 ; 0 0 : (/) . 1 ca 1 (a as . (0t off '.._0 r=',1) 1-- u) , > 1 C !oo 1 0 .0 • ,.0 f,,no 0 ,U0 :: ,4-•-_-.r.... 00 • , I I , 0 i0 I u_ 11..) -• CO ..(73 .0 01>I0 010,)0 , a5 , lolo 0-0 a 000i(I) -0 0 > IC.5 '51<iz cv , CO CO 0) le- ,rrrrr vI ,1M 111 (0(0(0(0(00)0)0) c0 cr) W,W (/) (./) *ACS=Acutal Cost of Services FY 2018 Fee ENACTMENT AUTHORITY CD I : N ! N N- 0 : co CO (/) (/) 0 FY 2017 Fee ($) DESCRIPTION a) a , l [ 0 0E 0 w U) [ 0 [ 0 CD CD CD 10 1- CD 0 CD CD CD r CD C. CD '0 :0 0 0 [CD 10 10 coc, : co co 10 o ' a : 5 . 1cu , -- 1 : : (r) . ! 0 (1) : T) ' 1 , : 0 C : , C (i) ' ! 8 45 0 i , w > ' ' [ ' 0 .'2' ') 0) C 'C'I.5.r- , •$_):u) ,-.= i -5 i 0' — ; Q) r.,-,: -.- ' 0) ' a , • a) 0 0' (n [ 2 ; 1 :C2 .7)0 O 0 : 7 ..- > ,-.. _C 0 _c 0 C2 0 O — ° E > 0 o 0 t -0 1.0- 730 ..---. E , , _ n 6 .- LLco ' t o TILE 1_E o o E -0 1_C 0. 0-C 0 10,0 W 0 0 -1 0- :>1> ILL 5 < IN co :> - : T,113 0 432 [ (i)i .0010 0) 01c!arz- 2 0- :EE.0 > : > o 0 Q) .0 .0 0 a- N CO HI- i u-) 1 CO 1,-. : CO I Cr) 0 cj Z IIIIX1I1 ! II�II ! ' • U) U) CO CO :CO U) 1 ! U) U) V) Cf) , CO 111 ! 1 . • 1- . . , , • 1 . I ! : . i . 1 i 0 < 1 I E 1 1 0 C : 1 43 ! 1 I ci 1 . , 0 ro 1 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD CD 0 CD CD CD Q[ . , . . . 0 a- Lr) .- Asi 10 1(3 6 O ca 0 N c- : ! ! 1 , I (1.) o 0 E c c.) (13 0 E j3 (0 I LL >00C00 o :0 a) -5 7! 0 • ' 0 T'a co c 0 w 0 -c I 0 a) : (D- [ - cp-: P..!(% .6 < 0.! i ▪ ‘46 o_a) 0° c)- -tI _21.3-' k.,-'7 cLcD 4, '"-b' oc° oLF6 -0 o •- -_, ..a›..,1 --. D.., •••• _, •- 0 a) : a) , .._, .Scji , •t- a P- ki 4 ▪ 8 8 °J 0E ' .07° 8.0a .0a .oa: LL , o 0 Li w . w 3 8 0 > -, 0 0 0 0 0 01 co c," 1 r') et ' 10 CO N- a) a) ca •L- c.1 cocoa)a)a)c[ola),:r- ,r 1 I 1 I'M 1 1 III III 1 0)0) U) U) U) (0 U) U) !U) U) ! U) U) C'') 10(0 let el- et ! (i) U) (f) ENACTMENT AUTHORITY 0 cn, u) 0' IU Qi 1 !Q C_ I 3 0. .0 0 v a = > Q' 7 0 0 0 - a; a. a; , O O' 0, o'o',O� O'O 0 1.0 Li) o' of -- 0 0 0 O'O'�O' '!o co O DESCRIPTION Qi U; 18 0 1. 0) (0 N I 0 c0 ii) -1j ','7'I I E >,'1-0 ! l a:-0' I 0) ' 0 (0 N �, : W U:L o I'', p p p ',, U to ��,as U 0' NI N, "C ' 13, '', 0,' 0 C' a: a.a :0 0)^^ '� oE N> 0 cp -alp t 0: 0,O O, , :0 (0 O. EI E E 0 , N iC' C 1-e T OcaN !0 O I „.)S C' 1 , W C C i C : y1 7 : 0 'C .CO) O)' 1 _ U' (j',a)la) a) ,0 0,� @ -o a' 0 n y, NI N, N' I� ''C0 3 O Oi '(0 a) 0:-'C;C'C C,�',.N a) o_010UP .. _ 0. a, a a! a a) : O ' a) ' a) 2 C fY 12 . a) E C E10 aN o >,' o~ (6 F. 0 `1 1= OO iO Q N LN arY:fY NE O) a O. c0a aO O �CO a N: -.(,(-.(,(7.) E'E EEd o'.0 U,E )>>'� � 0,w Lii m0, `m c ei-a ° C iU0 015_7a7`a'= d ;Q:Q!Q ,0a)'Ncaim a) com.u.)rnnclma is 1,40 'O 0',(1) 0l�'1mi�0 a m!�''.—'O 0:0 2 ol0 010 p',- 0 E'IE 01u):0 U. u_: u_ < a u= it :in 0:0 d 0 10 1'-' Q;1r" S aO IO :O c -'N M' V :coN-(00)0-co-' 'N,co,•!1- 41- 1 V L() L() LO L()U) in L() co co LO (0 i (O (0 ; OO 2 2S S 2 2; !S'2 2',21512 2;51 1 i SI S (/) u) !(.0 CO (/) 0) ' CO01)0)0)01)0)01):CO I Cr) (/) CO *ACS=Acutal Cost of Services U', 0 N' a , m' a • E1 E' I a) Z'I 1 O c 1 O pp I U a) C ,0:01,-.0) a, '�.j: N',.N CO a)'' 7: a,"5 L '-10''0' U (0 C -i'olB m a) a) U; o.� Jo a U, -I a, a_ a) NlIa) 5)15 O 3 _ _'__ N c co 0 coin (O ;M =12'= U U U) U) co -3 '0 C ---- -6 -6 a) CK CO o E 4_ o LL. •- co >- c z w" "0 'cri LL LL >- 1 0 1— z w z Lu FY 2017 Fee DESCRIPTION :.-- :,--- > > a> a.) a> as 0 0 c c c as a> as ..a2 0 u) 45 45 v) to v) () u) (,) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO CO CO CIU o u) ...:-.: 0 0 0 0 0 0_ 0 P -0 -0 P -0 0 CD 0 V 0 77 .0 17 0000)000000 000000000000000 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g000csooc>p000.000 . . --- c\i CCN- A - if as c c c 0 0 "5 0 E .... 0 , rt> c . '5 o. o . -c> '. O u> — , 47, ' 0 0 0_ — ,- -,_ _c -- 0_ 4- •.... 0 ......... ..c.) ic.1 o vo 2. ti c 1 E S! .x- , 0 . . ' . 0-? 0 co - . 0 : o ci5 • 73 -... o E 2 'w cc ,c 'f, c --a .1-75 , V? 7 7i) . 0 1 -6. . ma) coc . x : : 0 SP , 0_ : - - • - 0) - 0, o' m'-'-' 2 c, _ 3W m c ' E. 0 2 t., 0 , (i) 0 0 . ,,, -.-' as E E 0 sg!.., cx.142. 0••_ -6. z ro ct .> c . E . o E 5- i a.) •-• . as - , : ,._CP- To 7 co al 0, , c . o c ' z,u_ . . , 0 co ci) c) A- '0.1 CO .cs- ' Lo co : r-. [ . oo co o -<-- C\I MHz!' Lo ' co r-- 1 oo co hcss ,-• C\I: co ' co ' co oo , co co : c0 co : 0) 0) : 0) Z = 1 = i I i M1I'M i 'I =II Tli = X = I:i,I:=,i I I. 2 co .(i) (1)1o) cn (./).c.O Jo) (0 cf) 14.1 . 1 , I— : , a) (1) a) a) LI -o a) to co c.) 0 N LL. 0 0 0 _c 0 0 FY 2018 Fee ENACTMENT AUTHORITY z FY 2017 Fe DESCRIPTION ! 0 '00 C, o0, Crj : , .4• N : ; I Lc) i 000 ". •' N ' N . , 10, 0q C) C7 I N'-'- 0 0 6: , • 1 : 1 I 1 . . , 1 : , I : " : 1 . , . I i ko.L.01.15 000 ,:o. : " N : N i N ' 000 : 0 0,0 0`, 6 0 0 : 1,—:.-1‘—; . . • . . 0 ZI 1 . , • 1 I , i , I . . . . . I . • , co 1 1 : 1 >--o C - S I I „_...., 0" 1 : I 0 c I c g...I ci" I I 0 ! 5, >s! ' 0 I 0- --25., >s, 01 - 0.. a 0 ; 0 0_. - -0 al 1 .10, 1.221 : I c,.. a! 4-3: ,..-!..91-21 : ..0 : ..ze ' (1) ' ,..... - [ 1 a- : • ' a ' >': ' ' CD; I a ' Y5 I I .ti ' I Li). 45' a °, - 7 " -0 0 : ° (I) Tts: 1 o ' : ' -ca 0 ' :s5; a : 7 B: ; (1) ; a, :::! CL, o ! -cs CD >, V V c 0 0 : = : CO " ` I 0 ' -o : : ' ,... 1 1:',,,, -5 cLall: 01_,--1.0 01,,, -0 i 1 -010".,,,,,10-....„0: c.!Tts- .=.. _15'4-, ,,,, „0-0 4-74 6,31.,..,001,, ....00-.1,(0-.-9 r::, ''''ox 2 ! $26, 50., -,.., 1 .0., E„,,,‘ _com ..-.--. co: ---,..,.— t. or -° ' CO 1 E -0 I " Hill I c. '. , °• Li...". ' E o 0_ -0.0, 01 0. I 0 ' 0 ... " -ao.IIg ifi cv! .! ,,..,7" 01=.4121c :-.CI 0,)' GLI 0'4-'1 0' .-i':"0' CI 0-0.0,-0:U). C.' 1>IICO:.1--11,•011=1.t./31(-):21C) clIt.)'.°I C, ; a . ...0 10: ' E-- 0; 0: 01.5; 0; E c..6; 0-.1 c, colif.411..(...3 C.)-III'I 21<• 1-5'1.5 Z.8.1DI.E;t;IimIcTIliIITJ8loigIcIH'I—ILTI I; ' ,Tai-5'1-1,,9;2.w.m0.c 01WIlt; : ,_, 0, ,,,...; - — 1 )_ ; (,.) Y 1— .,. _ 'CN , c,,,, : ,t, in , , (c) N. , 1 CO 0 ,-:* I "`"- I II C‘:1,- III ....V? I, .1:- ."-) (''.2 r::. C°`--1 '92 1 '773' 0 , ",--- ' o1 ! z 2 I i (.) ir () :: () c) cf) . , (00) . (.0)10)1() ,()110)1'0.)1' ,:./.)0)-;1,, Hnl,u) w 1 [ 1— , '1 , • . . . a 1 in 0 c5 *ACS=Acutal Cost of Services 0)i) a, E I,al a, ,._ o Itis LL w io r O co J � CV O o Z a, }• 0=u - LL :5 O OI 1 1 I to ol, NI1-, al ni FY 2017 Fee 0 c1 C▪ j a C/) ttS O �J'' I 0 ti c EZ: E' c CU I C , d z w -I 0 O 2! a N T N' � a! E a, •' m0 0 c - 0 N J a a J N M V' V) CO N N! N,N N �I SIC) W I ; , I ENACTMENT AUTHORITY ! co 10 : FY 2017 Fe DESCRIPTION v- X,X !XX 1—'1— i 1 "ACS=Acutal Cost of Services 0) co a, E 1.7 °ti o z wo N >- LI - LL LL :0 ENACTMENT AUTHORITY FY 2017 Fee DESCRIPTION O Z 2 W d N tod I— investment Service Fee Memo John Hummel District Attorney 1164 NW Bond Street • Bend, Oregon 97703 (541) 388-6520 • Fax: (541) 330-4691 Grand Jury Fax: (541) 330-4698 www.dcda.us To: Deschutes County Commissioners From: John Hummel District Attorney Date: April 27, 2017 Re: District Attorney Fee Schedule The District Attorney's office is proposing several changes to our fee schedule for the 2017- 2018 fiscal year. The majority of the changes are reflective of our move to electronic discovery - we now provide copies of evidence to defense counsel via a secure web portal. The additional fees that are changed include slight increasing to reflect our rising costs, and deleted fees that are obsolete. DESCHUTES COUNTY HEALTH SERVICES MEMORANDUM To: Board of County Commissioners Christina Partain From: James Wood Fiscal Services Supervisor CC: David Inbody Date: 6/12/2017 Re: FY 2018 Health Services Fee Changes Public Health Fees for Vital Records are mandated by the State of Oregon. The Oregon Health Authority issued a new fee schedule effective January 1, 2016 and those changes were incorporated into the FY 2017 Public Health Fee Schedule Vital Records section last year. Since last year's fee schedule update, there have been no changes by the Oregon Health Authority that would go into effect for FY 2018. Public Health fees for New Patient Office Visits and Well Service Visits are calculated based on an actual cost analysis of FY 2016 services performed. The formula for calculating the fees is dictated by the Oregon Health Authority and the calculations are reviewed during the triennial review, performed by OHA. The majority of the FY 2018 fees for Office Visits and Well Services have been increased by 2-3%. The two main variables for this calculation are actual expenditures and service utilizations. The Maternal Child Health program fees are mandated by the Department of Human Services and will remain unchanged until mandated. Fees for the Immunizations program are mandated by the Department of Human Services and typically adjust on a semi-annual basis. The most recent mandated fee increase is reflected in schedule. Due to increases in costs of supplies, procedure time, and personnel labor, In -House Testing fees are increased by 2-3%. The Environmental Health program had a fee increase effective 1/1/2016. There are no fee increases proposed for FY 2018. Government entities will no longer receive a 50% • Page 1 break on full service restaurant inspection fees, they will be charged at the same rates as non-governmental entities. Behavioral Health Health Services utilizes a "unit cost calculator" financial tool to set the annual behavioral health service fees. Historically, this tool was created to provide Oregon Community Mental Health Programs with a reliable and standard methodology for calculating unit costs for the services provided. The primary inputs to the fee setting formula are budgeted expenditures, FTE count of direct service personnel, type of direct service personnel, and number of hours available for services. Budgeted expenditures, FTE count, and type of direct service personnel are consistent with the FY 2018 Requested Budget. Using the inputs, the model calculates a billable rate for each service provided, by each type of direct service personnel. Billable rates are summarized on the County's fee schedule by either service provided, or type of direct service personnel. The update to the unit cost calculator for FY 2018 resulted in an overall net increase to billable rates of 4%. The actual range of change experienced amongst the different service types and direct service personnel types ranged from a 7% decrease to an 11% increase. The FY 2018 results include staff and costs related to the Certified Community Behavioral Health Center (CCBHC) pilot program. A fee for Crisis Services has been identified for FY 2018. This is not a new charge, as Crisis Services have been billed during prior years using alternate fee codes associated with the staff performing the services. A new "non -cancelled appointment" fee has been proposed for FY 2018 to encourage clients to notify behavioral health staff of any appointment cancellations due to client circumstances. In summary, Health Services fees for FY 2018 do not vary significantly from the FY 2017 fees. • Page 2 To: Christina Partain From: Timm Schimke Date: April 28, 2017 Re: Fee Schedule The fee schedule for the Department of Solid Waste has been adjusted to incorporate a proposed tip fee increase which has been discussed with the BOCC and the Budget Committee. The increase is $5 dollars per ton for waste disposed by franchised collectors, and a$1 increase in the minimum charge for waste disposed by self— haul customers. The fee increase is estimated to produce about $650,000 per year in revenue to the Department. These funds are needed to fund capital needs such as landfill cell construction, closure, post -closure care, and to prepare for replacement of Knott Landfill when it reaches capacity. Other changes in the fee schedule are corrections, or clarifications of existing fees Proposed Fee Increase Fee Survey FY 2017-18 E E cn du 'to en at g t -0 a e• o —0_ („, CR 1-0 a ea g a (f) tat .at c 63 E 0 2. a, ....., w c a. E a' =u cto c u. 1§ *4g c to 0 u 'Ll +,4 'Et. C 0) C CO 0 ..., a) .5 1-...' 0) ..,1 C C 0 $ a. ii. C c 11, C (1) , .0 cr. (0 (11 IL, 130 l>. a) Tx"' 8 -E to c, Ta 6 ' co t c-' t 03 , ...-• atn t 4--: -ci eto 0 W'43 :g P o La 0.) .V.1 a) c at a) z Z >- >- >-• S2 >,- tit >- at > >- Request support 1 0 ) (1) in ,^,e, to tO •,•-t: to < ::',,,:•: 0 , 10 0 Cs 0 0 ° 0 Z Z 2 . v,..! w 6 W 1.1,1 0 W o o o 6 > (t) C al Yes - planning an 0 0 d ,"6e 'i`tg t(5-42 to 0 6 6 Deschutes County Unknown at this time Unknown at this time Unde Zg a) 0) 4.), s,-- 9 P. ..a at 0 0 0 o co 0 a Z tc: ., Under discussion 6 000 Marion County Changed 3 fees Unknown at this time Unknown at this time Multnomah County • Ig9 0, (.;030 z g 34 3331 03 t2 03 (4 3.38 32 32 t fl: ef03 g . . 43 I 03(4 03(4 3, 03 0, t‘i t 12 t3F 12 3333 333 32. 23 to co r- co r- no nsi en 0) uo, 0) 0) LO "le (0'- . cn CO 69 69 ,4 ca 69 69 i69 69 cn OD ti CO ol (0 (0 4- CD h- 0) 4) 41 0 4) v.- 41 .1." CO tO h. N 61 ui 6A O co co co co e... c..1 cn (4) h....F. O 0: tt VD N.- 03 tr. ,- CD CD 0 0 04 CS 6 (0 (0 6 uo si 6 C (0 CD 49 (0 CO (0 N P, V) 4- (0 (0 co -0 C co. 4D 69 v- 0 th 69 1,.. a 0 69 69 00 69 69 0 , IT, C9 Mi 0 0 , 0 Hz CS u) 0 61 4) 0) C) '0 CD CO' CU CS oi co no n- no a) co CD 40 6 e4 ‘t -6 F, ' 0 69 0 69 69 (0 V> • c0 0 .76 Z ... --:- — — —.- 0 o 03 (0 CD CI CD GQ 61 V) 0 O (0 41 0 CD CD 0) CS 49 1,... 1.- PO CP CD C9 N 0 01 0 c 69 0 co 01 a) s- .!.t 69 ,- 03 02 69 41 O 4 69 69 (0(0 03 CA ,4 64 ',4 0 Z co 4) 4'- (0'no 4'- 0 100 C4 04 u) cn. co .t co co no 6 51 g (RI d g (0(0 N co ,- th N 0 N 09 el 0) • 0 (0 69 69 69 co_J• t) 64 p. N- • >. .2 u. 3 0 5 44 — en" —(t m 44 44 • g > C CL 6 0 .5d 69 • C 0i5 • ig = („, CO ea CP CR • 0 ,a 4X40 o 0 0 CS CD CS CP 41 41 C4 0 fq U) CR CO CD C., CD GO 0 CD . . . C) C4 <- 0) CD C4 CD 4- (.0 (00) 69 ‘t 0 Ct V) 404- (‚4 0) VI "1 NI CP - th V> 0% CA V> co V) 69 69 69 69 49 cs 0)4'- (0(00)CD GO U9 (00) • 0 0 tr, c0 lf) N. re, co.? 6 ni 6 uS (00) 6 4'6 co (00 ,t (04'. (00 N 4- 4_0)—'4_4/)4/3 0) 09 el 69 69 69 69 Z:9 l'0(0 P. qCP h- 4, (0 0) 03 4., CI 4)4) • 0, CO ., 0)4/) 0 0) Ca 030) CD 0) (0 (0 0 c.0 t... 0) Nt 1.,.. ((T-' 0 Ca CS 0) tD CD VI 0 6 c- Ni ni 4 6 ci ei to od ,- u, ts, 0.1 r- 41 4'0 .* 0) 6; " 4/) " N (4 0) 5 O 01 I,- (4)0 CI 0 CS CD CD 0 c 0 0 VI CD 0 f,- C> (D 0 N to ,0 ..ac ..... co 6 6 r- ui s:i ui 6 ui c‘i mt 0 o 0 (0 4'. (0 An cn ,c- LO r- tO (0- . c, .,- 0) ,- s- U) 64 CO, 69 60 0 69 69 1.1) it 4- 0 (0 0 C CO O 0 o 44, kI-. 0) 0 0 t CD C) 0 CD CO Lo co Tr cr) 'no F-- COCDOCOONCO CO 0 cpc3.a) 66 r; oco N.° cogo) cocoa. co 6 0 ai 0 40 07 (00) th co 04 ul ul 0 co 03 69 00 IT N 0 a 2 u, bq v, V9 69 th 0 CO 4- 4) 64 69 V) 61 ch CO 4- (0 69 40,- 0 (04/4' 69 (0 (0 (J9 — _ _-- --- ---- — — — —„— .— ---„ — — t..-, 0 4 CS (1) 0 . . ,L, 0 , CS (0 (0.. 2'— El..; 0 w Em 2 — 0) E' (4 c • 0 co .0 al co — (4 0) ‘.. 0 o .c:) CP 8 a, _ (4 (4 It' 0- F 2 '-' 2 „,c 2 •,_`-' 2 it 0, • u a a) 0 2 z 1g = 0)0 32 .50-0moo --wE_T.0.0 0005-jaE '5 0- 1'6E18 2 It' LU .,q0:.12= CI-Mg.42N NW Ca (4a) 0) 4'. o 0 0 0 "' '- II. '- FY 18 increase Parameters: CD c.0 N 04 UD 07 T- 00 00 00 41 49 CD 0.1 47 cc c) tO (19 41. CI CO CD 01 01 V.1 U7 01 C1 (- C) Ci V4 4/ U7 V) 40 ‘6, (00 C4 04 (0(0 (0(0 a uj 69 69 0) 0) 0) V) 69 ft 6; 63 6; to pa (3(3! (0 CD CD CD CD 47 CD CD CICD, VA (3) CD (3) 0 P.. CD U) c, LD r- CD (3) N (D UD 6t Fd m t.) 60 69 69 69 69 Ca (0(0 c 0 z c 0 2co tu > ' x c ol O p." 0 .c 0 al (3Q (1)0 LI .0 ....1 . ` : Z 15u>- ......_ (/) -, .. — 0,1 co ro -a- N (.0 LO ICI ' CO 0 47 1.0 CD C63 6- 4, .81). CD U7 CD CD C) CD CD C7 OD 41 49 U7 CD v.) , Nt CD CD CD CD CD CD 47 6C T- VA PI 07 ...:- cy ,- ,- . .-1 • ›.., . . . . l' 10U Z > C fa 0Ia tri 00 0) ffi 00 CO w ce 69 69 0) 69 67 69 69 69 0) 6) 01 0) 03 69 CO 69 • () Z O w w It" 5 z w U7 CD CD CD CD CD CD U7 CM! 04 CD V) CD CD CD C, h- 0 Up OD CV_ CI U) ,P 66' 69 69 64 69 <A EA (/3 (3(3 LIZ CD 0 (00 CD a ca cR ca (3) r- 0 ca to co co CD CD 01 CD `CC CO 69 60 6) 0) 69 f9 0) VD CD CD P- P- UD V6 07 CO ((3 69 (0(0 69 (0/'? Cf) V/ r < > . 5 .0v .'2. < ✓ g , . v o . . . f (3a) F- i-• I -- Li. a CD6) 0, CD 6.) a) E .... o E -vs o °3 E •-• a E .1: 1>- m o 112. hl'. „ li •,..`= ; L:'.) 0 Z c .a,.. 6 a M 0 z sc 0., '; '' CO' . "r; Er' Et :' X ' rj , 61 ).. = CP, = Z -t x , N CO c. 7.= 07 = z•c- cc ,N WDC 0 > co co c u_ '1,3 .,:, " ..- 0 W -,Z) . or, .,„ ,--- 8 tu -0 - E a -0 - 8 . c- 00, . c, 2... .. c22 0 a) a) ga a .------, c) 0) 2 2 < ci. co co 4t (.) OD 2 2 ,t 0) 0) ‹t o 0) 2 2 <:c. >- 0 LL CD u. a) ELI. E 0 u) ..... .13 6-, ea 61 tO 0 >,U, (1) 0 en u- 4' 0 (1)1 CO O (0 0 O '— 0 FY iti increase £§/ 0£ / / °° °° 0 u. oPI csie n 0 $ / § o o & a % $ N. 0 U t 0 0 0 0 u SSS 000 00 / § �o0 °° 6 0 Q{¢ 0 0 0 0 t ° a 0 ° o a a %E® 00 § % & 0 % g 0 \ //C' /\ / u. a00 «w 0 4 N. $a* 0c 4 § 0 a s 6 o 0. )m � o /kg ° \\\ \\ k \ n■E - 0o 0 A' LL..,, ko .- E 0\/ 00 \ o , § ® o % © o a ° 3X wwa° * a \ 00 \) / { 0 /\K -0 7 c.,4 ,-1 w¥ >- o 0 ~ k N. \$$ 0\ \ ° L °§\ ®- o ~ k 0 2 ae* «$ « # 20 Roe =e , » ] s - ° 06 a� A w / / f\ k ° )E )�f §2 ƒ 19 m 2$E k/ 2 ek �/ kk� %k �E '3 ° )u. $v °_ #�� °° LL /ƒ)2 a, f% fa kk gr J5 `/ §? ©§ •9aE �, eo «_ k « 5 ±I £ CO 0 3 ,: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 — Fax (541) 385-3202 — https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners Business Meeting of June 14, 2017 DATE: June 8, 2017 FROM: Nick Lelack, Community Development, 541-385-1708 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Adoption, Community Development Department Annual Report and Work Plan PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE?: Yes BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The purpose of this agenda item is to conduct a public hearing and consider adopting the Community Development Department (CDD) Annual Report and Work Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-18. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None ATTENDANCE: Nick Lelack, AICP, Director Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Nick Lelack, AICP, Director DATE: June 14, 2017 SUBJECT: Community Development Department Annual Report and Work Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-18 / Public Hearing SUMMARY The purpose of this agenda item is to conduct a public hearing and consider adopting the Community Development Department (CDD) Annual Report and Work Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-18. BOARD DECISION OPTIONS After accepting and considering public input, consider: 1. Adopting the Annual Report and Work Plan as proposed, including: a. The Planning Commission's recommendations to add the following projects: i. Consider and evaluate whether to develop a grading ordinance. ii. Add Sisters Country to the list of community plans to be initiated or updated.' iii. Convene a panel of water experts to discuss water resource and conservation issues with an emphasis on the relationship between land use, population growth, and development. b. Staff's recommendation to include a project to: i. Revisit the Lot of Record Verification policy and process. c. Other Board of County Commissioners and/or public recommended projects or revisions. 2. Adopting the Annual Report and Work Plan at: a. This meeting (June 14) or b. A future meeting in June. 1 The list already includes Tumalo, Terrebonne, Newberry Country, and Deschutes Junction. The City of Sisters will initiate a community visioning project in the fall, and is seeking County participation in the effort to include unincorporated Sisters Country. The area is to be determined, and may include the school district boundaries or Sisters zip code. Qttitltti/ Services Pet forttterl 7vith Pride BACKGROUND Each spring, CDD prepares an Annual Report and Work Plan describing annual accomplishments and a proposed work plan for the coming fiscal year. The work plan describes the most important objectives and projects in each CDD division based on: 1. Board annual goals and policies; 2. Carry-over projects from the current or prior years; 3. Changes in state law; 4. Public comments; and 5. Grants/funding sources. The work plan is presented in draft form to major customer groups, including the Central Oregon Builders Association (COBA) and the Central Oregon Association of Realtors (COAR), the Planning Commission, the Historic Landmarks Commission, interest groups, and is distributed with a request for comments to cities and the general public. Each year the department improves the Annual Report and Work Plan content and format. Notable improvements this year's document includes the following: • Executive Summary and Population Growth. • Each CDD Performance Measure references the applicable Board of County Commission goal and objective it implements. • Performance Measure results for 2016 are reported graphically, including whether the measure was met, not met, or within the range. • The department's administrative and information technology functions and services are combined into one section to reflect CDD's organizational chart. • The Work Plan now focuses on new projects and services to be initiated rather than the ongoing services. The overview of each division and performance measures provide information on ongoing services. • Additional photographs of staff, meetings and events, and from the field have been included. PLANNING COMMISSION / HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Commission and Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC) recommended approval of the Annual Report and Work Plan. The Planning Commission's additional recommendations are summarized on the first page of this memorandum. The HLC specifically supported the Planning Commission's recommendation to add Sisters Country to the list of community plans to be initiated or updated. -2- Community Development Department Annual Report and Work Plan BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT WORK SESSION: MAY 31, 2017, 1:30 PM PUBLIC HEARING: JUNE 14, 2017, 10:00 AM Main Line: 541-388-6575 Fax: 541-385-1764 Website: www.deschutes.org/cd 117 NW Lafayette Avenue P.O. Box 6005 Bend, Oregon TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Commissions, Committees and Hearings Officers 3 Introduction 5 Executive Summary / Population Growth 7 Overview 8 Executive Summary 9 Deschutes County Mission Statement 10 Performance Measures 2017-18 11 COORDINATED SERVICES Accomplishments 13 Work Plan 14 CODE ENFORCEMENT Accomplishments 15 Work Plan 16 ADMINISTRATION AND Accomplishments 18 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Work Plan 18 BUILDING SAFETY Accomplishments 20 Work Plan 20 ENVIRONMENTAL SOILS Accomplishments 23 Work Plan 23 PLANNING Accomplishments 27 Work Plan 31 Staff Directory 36 CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES AND HEARINGS OFFICERS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Tammy Baney, Chair Tony DeBone, Vice Chair Phil Henderson, Commissioner ADMINISTRATION Tom Anderson, County Administrator Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Nick Lelack, AICP, Director DEPARTMENT STAFF Sherri Pinner, Management Analyst Kim Adamson, Administrative Secretary Tim Berg, GIS Analyst/Programmer BUILDING SAFETY Randy Scheid, Building Safety Director Chris Gracia, Assistant Building Safety Official Krista Appleby, Building Inspector I Rainer Doerge, Building Inspector III Scott Farm, Building Inspector III Owen Gilstrap, Electrical Inspector Steve Jensen, Plumbing Inspector Brandon Jolley, Building Inspector I Brian Moore, Building Inspector I Dan Swarthout, Building Inspector III Steve Wills, Building Inspector III Laurie Worley, Building Inspector I Richard Wright, Building Inspector III COORDINATED SERVICES Lori Furlong, Administrative Manager Judy Hackett, Permit Technician Angie Havniear, Permit Technician Rodney Hines, Permit Technician Jennifer Lawrence, Permit Technician Lisa Petersen, Permit Technician Martha Shields, Permit Technician John Griley, Code Enforcement Technician Tony Laemmle, Code Enforcement Technician Chris Tiboni, Code Enforcement Technician ENVIRONMENTAL SOILS Todd Cleveland, Environmental Health Supervisor Larry Howard, Environmental Health Specialist II Kiley Rucker Clamons, Environmental Health Specialist I Tracy Griffin, Permit Technician PLANNING Peter Gutowsky, AICP, Planning Manager Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary Will Groves, Senior Planner Zech Heck, Assistant Planner Caroline House, Assistant Planner Izze Liu, Assistant Planner Matt Martin, Associate Planner Nicole Mardell, Assistant Planner Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner Jacob Ripper, Associate Planner Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner Chris Schmoyer, Associate Planner Cynthia Smidt, Associate Planner CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017 3 COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES AND HEARINGS OFFICERS DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS DESCHUTES COUNTY HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSIONERS Steve Swisher - Sisters (Chair) Dale Crawford - Redmond (Vice Chair) Maggie Kirby - Bend Hugh Palcic - South County Jim Beeger - Bend Susan Tunno - Redmond Les Hudson - At Large Chris Horting-Jones, Chair - Unincorporated Sharon Leighty, Vice Chair - Unincorporated Kelly Madden - Ex -Officio Bill Olsen - Pioneer Association Dennis Schmidling, Secretary - City of Sisters Rachel Stemach - Ex -Officio Broc Stenman - Unincorporated DESCHUTES COUNTY Liz Fancher HEARINGS OFFICERS Stephanie Hicks Dan Olsen DESCHUTES COUNTY BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Cheryl Howard - Chair Bill Braly - Vice Chair Greg Svelund - Secretary Mary Barron Chris Cassard Michelle DeSilva Scott Ferguson Wendy Holzman Scott Morgan David Olsen Rick Root Mark Smith CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 INTRODUCTION CDD Mission Statement The Community Development Department facilitates orderly growth and development in Deschutes County through coordinated programs of Planning, Environmental Soils, Building Safety, Code Enforcement education and services to the public. This Annual Report highlights the Community Development Department's 2016-17 accomplishments, the Work Plan for Fiscal Year 2017-18, and implements the Board's goals and objectives. CDD provides satellite office coverage in Redmond, La Pine and Sisters, as well as services at the main office in Bend. The Department consists of divisions and programs as listed below, which provide coordinated planning and development services. Coordinated Services Building Safety Environmental Soils Planning Division Code Enforcement Information Services Main Office 117 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend, OR 97703 Mon., Tues., Thurs., Fri. 8:00-5:00 Wed. 9:00-5:00 Redmond City Hall 437 SW 9th St., Suite 202 Redmond, OR 97756 Tuesday 8:00-4:30 111iuWLLYuJu�d0i1W'dJWwLluiW'WWSILJUJJJ4iuu4J.utldLW.4uJ��uaa4uuuJl.WdGW'JIW�uYe'.WUW�w1.1:uW�IwLIYWLWuiWwYu�1WYWLLLLJ�JWllJu.uuWc4e:..iW: W�IIu W Wu'� CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 La Pine City Hall 16345 Sixth Street La Pine, OR 97739 Tuesday 8:00-4:00 Sisters City Hall 520 East Cascade Ave. Sisters, OR 97759 8:30-4:30 IJY 5 OVERVIEW The Community Development Department (CDD) oversees building safety and electrical services, planning and zoning, environmental review, code enforcement and administrative services for Deschutes County. CDD consists of five divisions which provide coordinated 1 planning and development services. The divisions include the following: 6 • Administrative Services establishes the integration of technology across all CDD divisions and coordinates with the cities as well as providing direct service to the public via application training and support, web -based mapping, reporting services and data distribution. • Coordinated Services Division provides coordination of permitting and "front line" direct services to customers at the main office in Bend and at the Redmond, Sisters and La Pine city halls. • Code Enforcement, within the Coordinated Services Division, is responsible for investigating code violation complaints to ensure compliance with each of the codes and statutes administered by CDD, and provides direct service on contract to the City of La Pine for solid waste violations. • Building Safety Division provides construction plan reviews, consultation and inspections to assure compliance with federal and state building codes in the rural County and cities of Sisters and La Pine. • Environmental Soils Division regulates on-site wastewater treatment systems (septic) and monitors environmental factors for public health and resource protection. • Planning Division is separated into two operational areas, Current Planning and Long Range Planning. Current Planning processes individual land use applications and provides information to the public on all land use related issues. Long Range Planning addresses the future needs of the community through updates to the comprehensive plan, changes to County Code and other special projects. CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 HEARINGS E -'fliStoillt.tAiSit+IAiiit,-, . . . „ ... ..„.. ... .. ... „.. . „ _ . ...„ . . ... . . . _ . . . „ . .„ . . . .. „. „ . „ . . ... . ... ,......... ... .., .,......, „ . ..._::, : ... , „ .. -:-OFFiceRS. --,:::',--,'. --. ,-,-,,:- '''.COMMISSION.' --, OVERVIEW I 1 i.. 1 : PiANisnivd, , - COMMISSION DESCHUTES RIVER MmciATIoN ANDENHANCEMENT COMMnTEE BIcvcLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADvIsoRv COMMITTEE Budget Summary FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2018 FY 2016 FY 2017 (requested) Resources Requirements 1 FY 16 Reserves: 2 FY 17 Reserves: 3 FY 18 Reserves: $1,037,652 $1,375,000 $ 823,610 6,695,706 7,833,348 7,213,683 8,420,357 6605,706 7833,348 - 7,213,683 8420,357 - 6,9701.0 Full Time Equivalents FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 COnaniunity.,DeVelopthent .111:111[,l1h110,101.111i 1111101,111 1,11.,1,10111,1,A.411116 11111,1,111111„1160.1RialliBil,lillat111110101110,,l4101,111liaaa,1IAJI1111812.11s, 1111 1,11111110 011..16111.0 CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 45.00 -:-- ,.......ohLumukium,11/111106161LW,11A.L111,1„1,,Walo111116k.11111,111101.1,11,1,1,..41111.. 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND & FY 2017-18 WORK PLAN EMERGING ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED IN THIS & FUTURE WORK PLANS • Managing Population Growth & Demographic Changes • Addressing Affordable Housing • Preserving & Protecting Natural Resources, Water Quality & Quantity • Improving Transportation Systems • Anticipating New Economic & Agricultural Opportunities • Maintaining & Enhancing High Quality of Life • Reducing Natural Hazard Risks, Preparing for Disaster Resilience • Planning for Healthy & Safe Communities • Regional Planning, Coordination, Partnerships • Expanding Recreational Opportunities • Facilitating Access to Health Care & Higher Education The Annual Report and Work Plan is developed to: • ♦ Implement the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) goals and objectives (page 9); Implement the Deschutes County Customer Service "Every Time" Standards; • Effectively and efficiently manage organizational assets, capabilities, and finances; • Fulfil the department's regulatory compliance requirements; 11 • Enhance the County as a safe, sustainable, and highly desirable place to live, work, learn, recreate, visit, and more; and ▪ • Address changes in state law. The BOCC adopts the Work Plan after considering public, stakeholder and partner organization input, and Planning Commission and Historic • Landmarks Commission recommendations. The Work Plan includes more projects than there are resources available. CDD staff coordinates with the BOCC throughout the year to prioritize and initiate projects I listed in this Plan. Projects not initiated are carried over to future years. i Key CDD fiscal issues and operational challenges in FY 2017-18 are summarized below. Fiscal Issues j• Ensure costs are fully accounted for and recovered through fees and other revenue sources. Ensure financial stability and ongoing operations through establishing a long term financial plan. • 8 Explore future funding options to pay debt service on the bond funding the expansion of the La Pine sewer system. Operational Challenges & Opportunities • Maintaining high customer service levels with appropriate staffing levels. • Responding to new regulations and laws as outcome of 2017/18 legislative sessions. • Processing complex and controversial land use applications and decisions and code enforcement cases. • Preparing for work force turnover through succession planning and staff retention strategies. • Addressing affordable housing. • Improving website, development statistics, and other reports. CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 Central Oregon is a dynamic region and an extraordinary place to live, work, learn, recreate, visit and so much more, as is clearly demonstrated by the sustained population growth over the past six decades. This page provides a snapshot of the County's growth since 1960, the 2015 Portland State University Population Forecast through 2065, and the most recent PSU Population estimate. POPULATION GROWTH Deschutes County 50 -Year Forecast: 2015-2065 2015 2035 2065 Bend 85,737 132,206 194,793 Unincorporated 53,151 69,627 84,719 Redmond 27,715 39,812 64,784 Sisters 2,315 4,375 7,212 La Pine 1,687 3,014 5,836 Total 170,606 249,037 357,345 Total Deschutes County Population & Forecast Portland State University Population Estimate 2016 Geographic Area 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 Deschutes County 176,635 170,740 166,400 162,525 160,140 158,875 Bend 83,500 81,310 79,985 78,280 77,455 76,925 Redmond 27,595 27,050 26,770 26,590 26,345 26,305 Sisters 2,390 2,280 2,190 2,115 2,080 2,055 La Pine 1,675 1,670 1,670 1,670 1,670 1,670 Unincorporated 61,475 58,430 55,785 53,870 52,590 51,920 CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 9 10 DESCHUTES COUNTY MISSION STATEMENT Enhancing the lives of citizens by delivering quality services in a cost-effective manner BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' 2017-2018 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Safe Communities Protect the community through planning, preparedness and delivery of coordinated services 1. Provide safe and secure communities through coordinated public safety services. 2. Reduce crime and recidivism through prevention, intervention, supervision and enforcement. 3. Collaborate with partners to prepare for and respond to emergencies and disasters Healthy People Enhance and protect the health and well being of communities and their residents 1. Support and advance the health and safety of Deschutes County's diverse populations. 2. Promote well-being through behavioral health and community support programs. 3. Help to sustain natural resources in balance with other community needs. Economic Vitality Promote policies and actions that sustain and simulate economic vitality 1. Support affordable housing options through availability of lands and appropriate regulation. 2. Administer land use programs that promote livability, and sustainability. 3. Maintain a safe, efficient and sustainable transportation system. 4. Partner with organizations and manage County assets to attract business development, tourism, and recreation. Service Delivery Provide solution -oriented service that is cost effective and efficient. 1. Ensure quality service delivery through the use of innovative technology and systems. 2. Support and promote Deschutes County Customer Service "Every Time" standards. 3. Promote community participation and engagement with County government. 4. Preserve and enhance capital assets and strengthen fiscal security. 5. Provide collaborative internal support for County operations. CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 PERFORMANCE MEASURES 2017-18 CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 The Community Development Department's 2017-18 goals are reflected in the performance measures below. These performance measures strategically and comprehensively align all of CDD's operations with the Board of County Commissioners' (Board) 2017-18 Goals and Objectives and the County's Customer Service Standards. The performance measures address service delivery expectations from the perspective of CDD's customers; ensure the department fulfils its regulatory compliance requirements; effectively manage the organization's assets, capacities, and finances; and preserve and enhance the County as a safe, sustainable, and desirable place to live, visit, work, learn, recreate and more. CDD performance measures implement the Board's FY 2018 goals and objectives. Each performance measure references the applicable Board goal and objective. For example, CDD performance measure 4 which is to achieve 85% voluntary compliance in Code Enforcement cases implements the Board's Safe Communities objective 1 to provide safe and secure communities through coordinated public safety and services will include the reference "SC -1" in bold type. Safe Communities (SC) Healthy People (HP) Economic Vitality (EV) Service Delivery (SD) All CDD 1. Complete single family dwelling permit process from Application Acceptance to Ready to Issue in 30 days. SD -1 2 Complete commercial structural permit process from Application Acceptance to Ready to Issue in 35 days. SD -1 3 Achieve a customer feedback rating of 2.9 (out of 3.0) or better. SD -2 Coordinated Services & Code Enforcement 4. Achieve 85% voluntary compliance in Code Enforcement cases. SC -1 5 Resolve 75% of Code Enforcement cases within 12 months. SC -1 6 Complete structural permit Ready -to -Issue turnaround time of 4 days. SD -1 11 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PERFORMANCE MEASURES, CONTINUED Building Safety 7. Achieve an average of 6-10 stops at different construction job sites per day for each Building Inspector. Each stop may consist of multiple inspections. SD -1 8 Achieve an average turnaround time on building plan reviews of 8-10 days. SD -1 Environmental Soils 9. Issue new onsite septic system permits within 15 days of receiving a complete application. SD -1 10. Achieve compliance with the ATT operation and maintenance reporting requirements of 95%. HP -3 Planning 11. Issue all planning administrative (staff) decisions for land use actions requiring prior notice within 45 days of determination of complete application. SD -1 12. Issue all planning administrative (staff) decisions for land use actions that do not require prior notice within 21 days of determination of complete application. SD -1 13. Coordinate with cities regarding growth management. EV -1, EV -2, EV -3, EV -4, HP -1 14. Coordinate with the City of Bend to implement the Bend Airport Master Plan. EV -2, EV -4 15. Coordinate with the City of Redmond to entitle a large lot industrial site. EV -4 16. Re-evaluate agricultural land designations. EV -2, SD -3 12 CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 ADMINISTRATION AND INFORMATION SERVICES OVERVIEW 1 Administration provides oversight for all departmental operations and facilities, human resources, budget, customer services, and performance measures. Information Services (IS) is responsible for the development and 1 maintenance of digital spatial databases and for providing state-of-the- 1 art mapping and data services to local governments, citizens, and 1 businesses. In addition, IS staff supports customer service applications, reporting services, technical support and application development. IS 1 establishes methods for deriving statistics, evaluating efficiency, and 1 assisting in measuring departmental performance. IS is staffed by one GIS analyst/programmer. ACCOMPLISHMENTS • Worked with the County's database administrator to implement the use of genealogy within Accela and DIAL, allowing reverse chronological research of parcel changes. • Established meaningful performance measures using database programming and custom report writing to measure volume and capacity of department. • Developed departmental policies pertaining to: 0 Reserve funds 0 Fee setting 0 Records retention 0 Mileage reimbursement 0 Collection procedures 0 Payment card 0 Cash handling • Established and monitored new performance measures to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of departmental operations and processes. • Completed departmental Business Processes Audit and implemented 90% of recommendations. WORK PLAN i • Complete implementation of Business Processes Audit recommendations. Implement new accounting, human resources, and timekeeping software. • Remodel CDD lobby to improve safety, customer services, and efficiency. CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 13 ADMINISTRATION AND INFORMATION SERVICES WORK PLAN, CONTINUED i • 14 Establish performance measure reports for distribution to internal and external customers. Establish and monitor a new performance measure to target the number of days from building permit acceptance to ready to issue of 32 days. • Create a CDD information technology strategic plan. • Create a new web -based CDD newsletter to report department news, development statistics, performance measure results, and hearings officer, Board, and LUBA/court quasi-judicial land use decisions. CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 COORDINATED SERVICES OVERVIEW ACCOMPLISHMENTS CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 The Coordinated Services Division provides service to customers at the main office in Bend, as well as in City Halls in Redmond, La Pine and Sisters. The Division consists of eight permit technicians and three code enforcement technicians. The goals of the Division are to ensure minimal wait times, provide accurate information to the public, and ensure the efficient operation of the front counter and coordination among all divisions. Staff also performs basic building plan reviews and addressing in the rural County and City of Redmond, under contract. G Customer service is the top priority for Coordinated Services staff and they have maintained that high level of service during the increase in activity and while training new staff. • Coordinated Services relocated the Redmond satellite office to Redmond City Hall last spring. The office is staffed one day per week in this location. Responsibility for the Sisters building program was given back to the County last summer. Services are provided at Sisters City Hall with staffing one day per week. • In coordination with Information Services (IS) and Information Technology (IT), Coordinated Services continued to assess equipment used by all CDD staff to ensure that operational needs were met. The team developed project lists that will enhance service, staff efficiency and communications. Projects included: 0 Providing smart phones to building and environmental health inspectors and code enforcement technicians in the field to provide real-time inspection results; making data available to inspectors in the field; and improving communication, photography and printing tools; 0 Providing linkages to historical documents where parcel numbers have changed; 0 Creating new types of online permit applications; and 0 Reviewing business processes and procedures and making several adjustments to accommodate and fully utilize Accela. • Accela 0 Continued to create efficiencies using the Accela permitting software. As the software evolves and new tools become available, Deschutes County continues to be a statewide leader in offering training opportunities to our customers and regional agency partners using the software. 0 Deschutes County has created an Accela ePermitting Advisory Group that will be looking at the future of State ePermitting systems and how it can best fit the needs of the jurisdictions statewide. This is both an opportunity to discuss system issues and to offer suggestions for improvements to meet Deschutes County's needs. The state has been supportive of this group and its suggestions. 15 COORDINATED SERVICES, CONTINUED WORK PLAN 1 1 ) 0 During the transition to Accela, it was discovered that a custom program used by Coordinated Services for operation and maintenance of septic systems did not fit under the umbrella of the new system. IT has created a new custom program for staff to use. This will enable staff to send out timely monthly billing statements to maintenance providers, track reports that have been submitted and keep better track of those septic systems that are out of compliance. 0 Deschutes County was the first statewide jurisdiction to adopt the new Accela user interface that was introduced in the fall of 2016. This new interface has been a significant change from the current interface. Staff led several training sessions in preparation for this new interface. 0 As part of the continued improvements to the ePermitting software by the state, an onsite module was implemented to better address onsite sewage disposal systems. Deschutes County staff helped to design and test this new module and implemented it in the fall of 2016. • Continue to coordinate and conduct public outreach and education on Accela and all related elements to increase customer use of ePermitting, and encourage submittal of applicafions for all participating jurisdictions at any participating Community Development Department. A class was held for contractors this past winter to help educate them on the use of the online services . • Serve on statewide ePermitting committee, participate in national Accela conference, and pursue other actions to ensure Accela meets Deschutes County's needs. • Continue to cross train permit technicians to perform simple plan reviews, and participate in statewide permit technician training programs and Central Oregon Planners Network Training. • Achieve 25% of all permits being submitted electronically, with the exception of planning applications (the capability does not yet exist). 1 ♦ Establish and monitor a new performance measure—the target number of days for structural permit ready to issue turnaround time for Coordinated Services of four days. Performance Measures Percentage of permits applied for at counter 16 Coordinated Services Lower Upper Limit Target Limit 60% 40% 20% Meeting Target Within Range X Not Meeting Target Average 73.7° Sore X CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 CODE ENFORCEMENT OVERVIEW The Code Enforcement program consists of three Code Enforcement technicians (3 FTE in 2017-2018) plus volunteers, supported by a law enforcement technician from the Sheriff's Department, management and the operating divisions. Code Enforcement is responsible for investigating code violation complaints associated with building, land use, onsite wastewater disposal and solid waste codes, with the overriding goal of achieving voluntary compliance. If necessary, Code Enforcement may issue citations for prosecution in circuit court or before a Code Enforcement hearings officer. ACCOMPLISHMENTS Code Enforcement staff successfully resolved 340 cases in 2016. 500 400 300 200 100 6> 0 100% New Complaint Cases 2012 2013 2014 2015 Compliance 2016 Voluntary D Warning Cl Citati on td......_._.�a El Injunction 6�%p%z/ 3%4%1% 2013 2014 2015 2016 • Staff continued to achieve an 85% voluntary compliance rate with the additional case load. • Utilization of volunteers in the proactive code enforcement program was very successful. Work performed by volunteers directly enhanced productivity and efficiency. Volunteers review Temporary Use Permits for compliance with conditional use decisions, including the annual update of doctors' letters for medical hardships, removal of man- ufactured homes for storage permits and for living in RVs. • Code Enforcement staff has successfully coordinated with the inmate work crew on a few cases in order to resolve some solid waste enforcement issues. This has been a great partnership between two County departments to CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 17 CODE ENFORCEMENT, CONTINUED resolve some difficult cases and help the homeowners to come into compliance. The County Road Department was also involved in helping to abate a property with a hazardous structure. • Staff participated in a panel discussion on 'Living on Small Acreages.' • Staff met with local jurisdictions and WEBCO on dealing with seniors with hoarding disorders and resources available. • Staff participated in the Marijuana Advisory Committee meetings in order to address concerns on the enforceability of the proposed and adopted ordinances. • In order to have cases heard by a hearings body in a more timely manner, staff have been issuing a Notice of Civil Penalty that are heard by a Hearings Officer instead of Circuit Court. This has allowed staff to schedule multiple hearings per day as needed, have a Tien placed on the property if the property owner has not complied with County Code and pursue further action as needed. 100% 90% 80% 70% ,......: y:.,_. 60% 50% -- 40% 30% 796 -$29; 20% ,...a..:.1 6ii WORK PLAN Case Turnaround 29.4 ::990 a2ii 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Closed within 30 Days ©Closed within 60 Days ❑Closed within 180 Days L] Closed within 1 Year • Continue to utilize the inmate work crew to resolve solid waste cases where the property's owner is unable to comply with County Code due to medical issues. • Continue working with planning staff on marijuana related complaints in order to process these complex situations in a timely and consistent manner. • Continue proactive efforts in investigation of illegal second dwellings, review temporary use permits, and follow up on replacement dwellings. • Continue to establish a relationship between CDD Code Enforcement and rural subdivision homeowners' associations. Code Enforcement technicians make themselves available to speak at stakeholder meetings to share Deschutes County Code Enforcement information and operating procedures. 18 CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 CODE ENFORCEMENT, CONTINUED • Survey other code enforcement jurisdictions and incorporate innovative practices where appropriate. This effort includes direct involvement with the Oregon Code Enforcement Association (OCEA) conference participation and networking. • Administer the Code Enforcement Volunteer Program, focusing on proactive, non -threatening case review. • In cooperation with the Building Safety Division, participate in the development of a text amendment on the County Outdoor Lighting Ordinance. The amendment will update tables to include compact florescent lighting and LED options. • Explore the feasibility of conducting proactive enforcement of certain types of land use permits which have conditions of approval associated with them. • Evaluate updated Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual, and initiate amendments per direction from the Board. • Achieve 85% voluntary compliance in Code Enforcement cases. • Resolve 75% of cases within 12 months. Performance Measures Achieving voluntary compliance Resolving cases within 12 months Meeting Target 1 Within Range X Not Meeting Target Code Enforcement Lower Upper Compliance Limit Target Limit Rate 75% 85% 100% 91.60% 75% 85% 100% 84.90% CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 Score f 19 BUILDING SAFETY OVERVIEW The Building Safety Division provides construction plan reviews, consultation and inspections to assure compliance with state statutes, state building codes and national standards. The Building Safety Division interprets and enforces the state -mandated building codes through a process of education and a clear and fair application of the specialty codes. The Division provides all of these services throughout the rural county, the Cities of La Pine and Sisters, and various services to Lake, Jefferson, Klamath and Crook counties, the Cities of Bend, Redmond and the State of Oregon Building Codes Division on an as -needed basis. The Division consists of the Building Safety Director, Assistant Building Safety Director, and 11 Building Inspectors. ACCOMPLISHMENTS • Issued 523 single-family dwelling permits in 2016 for Deschutes County. Includes Sisters. • Increased building inspections by 13% from 30,040 in CY 2015 to 34,426 in CY 2016 • Continued to enhance Accela's capabilities through identifying issues, articulating business needs, and finding solutions and opportunities with this emerging building inspection software. • Continued the process of cross -training all staff members. Two more Inspectors have received their "specialized" inspector certifications, allowing them to conduct limited commercial inspections, as well as all four residential certifications. • Gained diversification in the division with the hiring of a former Permit Technician as the newest Plans Examiner after obtaining certifications. • Continued the transition to a more fuel efficient inspection fleet. The vast majority of the daily field inspection fleet is now made up of small AWD vehicles. • Completed a remodel of the Division's work area to accommodate our consolidated staff. • Reviewed and approved the first proposed marijuana extraction facility. • Assisted in the snow Toad evaluations of county buildings, essential facilities, and schools in the rural area during the recent inclement weather event. • Presented a well -attended educational offering that included all local building jurisdictions and the local design professional community through a partnership with our chapter of the International Code Council. • Presented to the local chapter of International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials. • Presented to a Redmond Proficiency Academy Tiny House class. 20 WORK PLAN • Manage staffing resources to reduce any negative results due to the loss of two FTE's until replacements can be hired and trained. • Achieve an average of six to ten stops at different construction job sites per day for each building inspector. • Achieve an average turnaround time on building plan reviews of eight to ten days. CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 600 500 - 400 300 200 100 1600 1200 1000 800 BUILDING SAFETY Numbers of New Homes +38% ----,.._ . , ., -.1 : . 4 . r. . : • 441 4 i 320 ..i :157 +19% 524 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 400 - 694 200 - 0 2012 Numbers of Permits Issued +9% +35% 934 +23% +12% 1390 2013 2014 2015 2016 L. CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 21 BUILDING SAFETY Performance Measures Meeting Target Within Range X Not Meeting Target Building Safety Lower Upper Limit Target Limit Average Score Residential building inspections - number of stops per day 6 8 10 10.64 X Residential plan review - number per examiner per day 2 3 4 2.5 / Percentage of permits applied for electronically 20% 40% 60% 263% 1 Percentage of inspections scheduled electronically 50% 65% 80% 61.2% Residential plan review turnaround time in days 2 5 8 12.78 X Inspections completed same day as requests 90 95 100 98.4 I 22 CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 ENVIRONMENTAL SOILS OVERVIEW 1 ACCOMPLISHMENTS i In 2016, the Division: The Environmental Soils Division provides site evaluations, design review and inspection of on-site wastewater treatment and dispersal systems as an agent of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Staff inspects sewage pumper trucks, reports on condition of existing wastewater systems, maintains an operations and maintenance tracking system, provides the public with information on wastewater treatment systems and regulations, and investigates sewage hazards. Staff are also engaged in the proactive pursuit of protection of the groundwater in southern Deschutes County and other sensitive areas. The Environmental Soils Division is staffed by one Environmental Health Supervisor, one Environmental Health Specialist, one Environmental Health Specialist Trainee and one on-call inspector who provide site evaluations, design review, permitting, inspection, education and coordination with DEQ for onsite wastewater treatment and dispersal systems. Additional support staff include 0.5FTE permit technician. • Assessed 276 sites for onsite wastewater treatment and dispersal systems, up approximately 60% from 2015, and issued 1373 permits and authorizations for new and existing onsite treatment and dispersal systems, up 9.7% from 2015. Applications included more complex and technical procedures compared to recent previous years. • Provided two property owners in South County with rebates of ▪ $3,750 per property for upgrading conventional onsite systems to nitrogen reducing pollution reduction systems. • Hired and trained a new Environmental Health Specialist Trainee working the onsite program and helping with Operation and Maintenance reporting and tracking database. 1 ♦ Supported Craft3 in starting its clean water loan program in Deschutes County. Craft3 now provides clean water loans throughout Oregon. WORK PLAN 1 • Achieve a goal of a 10 -day turnaround for new construction permits. • Prioritize addressing sewage health hazards and protecting public health and the environment. CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 • Participate with DEQ in the pursuit of groundwater protection solutions and possible implementation of the South Deschutes/ Northern Klamath groundwater protection steering committee recommendations. • Provide financial assistance opportunities to assist property owners who do not qualify for conventional loans to upgrade conventional onsite systems to nitrogen reducing pollution reduction systems 23 ENVIRONMENTAL SOILS, CONTINUED WORK PLAN, CONTINUED '-__ Performance Measures (Nitrogen Reducing System Rebates and the Neighborlmpact Non -conforming Loan partnership). • Participate on the City of Bend stormwater public advisory group. • Continue coordination with the City of Bend and DEQ regarding the southeast sewer interceptor and sewer expansion, and the impact on homeowners with onsite wastewater systems. • Maintain and update the South Deschutes County Groundwater Protection Annual Report. • Complete updates of the Operation and Maintenance reporting, tracking, and electronic invoicing system as required by DEQ. Diversify and train additional staff to work the operation and maintenance program. • Issue new onsite septic system permits within 15 days of receiving a complete application. • Achieve voluntary compliance with the ATT operation and maintenance reporting requirements of 95%. Long -Term Projects • Update the DEQ contract for the Onsite Wastewater Treatment System Program to be more consistent with current rules and requirements (current contract dates from 1981). Environmental Soils Lower Upper Limit Target Limit Average 5 10 15 10.30 15% 35% 50% 5.5% New system permit process control, turn -around time Percentage of permits applied for electronically Percentage of inspections scheduled electronically Pre -cover inspections completed same day as request 24 Meeting Target Within Range XNot Meeting Target 35% 50% 65% 39.8% 90% 95% 100% 95.6% Score 1 CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 ENVIRONMENTAL SOILS, CONTINUED CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 1600 1200 1000 800 600 ir 400 200 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 69 Site Evaluations +21 +62 +23 , t +65s , :1 276 !----170 --: ';'", --H i--- -1 .• 140 ., ,,. 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Septic Permits Issued —13% +15% 935 810 . , .., : . . : . . ., . . . . .•• : .., —:, 2012 2013 2014 ..... +27% +16% : 1373 1188h' 2015 2016 25 OVERVIEW 11W6C.1141A/11111111ai.I.YMA1111,1.1.i1,1141,1W.1.1,1,laliL.4k1 26 PLANNING The Planning Division consists of two operational areas: Current Planning and Long Range Planning. The Division consists of 12 employees: a Community Development/Planning Director, one Planning Manager, two Senior Planners, one Senior Transportation Planner, an Information Systems programmer/analyst, three Associate Planners, three Assistant Planners, and an Administrative Secretary. Development Services is responsible for reviewing land use applications for compliance with Deschutes County Code (DCC) and state law, including zoning, subdivision and development regulations, and facilitating public hearings with hearings officers and the BOCC. Staff is also responsible for verifying compliance with land use rules for building permit applications and septic permits; coordinating with Code Enforcement to respond to complaints and monitor conditions of approval for land use permits; performing road naming duties and assisting with addressing; and providing assistance at the public information counter, over the telephone and via email. Long -Range Planning is responsible for planning for the future of Deschutes County, including developing and implementing land use policy with the BOCC, Planning Commission, community and partner organizations. It is in charge of updating the County Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations, coordinating with cities and agencies on various planning projects taking place in the region, including population forecasts with Portland State University and cities. Staff also monitors and participates in annual legislative sessions, and serves on numerous local, regional and statewide committees primarily focusing on transportation, natural resources, growth management and economic development. Three specific disciplines support both Current and Long -Range planning, including transportation, wetlands/floodplains, and Information Systems, covered separately in this Work Plan. Transportation Planning provides comments and expertise on land use applications, calculates System Development Charges (SDC's) as part of land use application review process or upon request; provides comments to the County's Risk Management Department regarding traffic issues for permitted events; participates in the annual County Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) process with the Road Department; applies for grants for enhanced bicycle and pedestrian facilities in coordination with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC); participates in Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) funded refinement planning; coordinates road issues with Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the United States Forest Service (USFS) for urban interface plans; and serves on several local and regional transportation committees, most notably BPAC, the Bend Metropolitan Planning Organization Technical Advisory Committee, and Central Oregon Area Commission on Transportation (COACT) Technical Advisory Committee. CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 PLANNING, CONTINUED Floodplain and Wetlands Planning is responsible for providing comments and expertise on land use applications, code enforcement, and general property inquiries that require development, fill, or removal in mapped floodplain and wetlands. Staff maintains certification as an Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) Certified Floodplain Manager to provide customers with up-to-date and accurate information regarding FEMA regulations, surveying requirements, and construction requirements. Coordination is frequently required with external agencies including FEMA, US Army Corps of Engineers, Oregon Department of State Lands, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the US Forest Service. ACCOMPLISHMENTS Applications The Planning Division continues to experience an increase in land use applications. In 2016, the division received 809 land use applications, compared with 663 for 2015. The following table conveys the application trends over the last five years: CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 900 800 - 700 �a 600 500 400 300 200 100 Land Use Applications 2012 2013 2014 _-._....._ -__- 2015 2016 Eleven applications were reviewed by hearings officers in 2016. The highest volume were landscape management reviews (123), permit sign -offs (120), administrative determinations (83), property line adjustments (77), conditional use permits (73), lot of record verifications (63), and site plan reviews (41). Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Text Amendments The Planning Division processed: • A plan amendment relating to a Goal 11 exception for Southern Deschutes County 27 PLANNING, CONTINUED ACCOMPLISHMENTS, CONTINUED 28 • Plan amendment to rescind the 2002 Bend Airport Master Plan and adopt the 2013 Bend Air Master Plan into the Transportation System Plan • Zoning text amendments for marijuana regulations • Plan amendment relating to Bend's Urban Growth Boundary Amendment • Zoning text amendment to expand the definition of a lot of record • Plan and zoning text amendment recognizing non -resource lands process allowed under state law to change EDU zoning; a definition of ag-exempt buildings; and, reducing setbacks in the F2 Zone, for Haner Park Subdivision and an adjoining three -acre tax lot • LUBA remand to initiate a plan amendment, zone change, changing Exclusive Farm Use zoning to Rural Industrial for property at Deschutes Junction Land Use Board of Appeals There were 8 appeals filed with the Land Use Board of Appeals in 2016, the same number as in 2015. 1 Marijuana Businesses The Planning Division approved five marijuana production applications and one marijuana processing application in 2016. Non -Farm Dwellings The Planning Division received 39 nonfarm dwelling applications in 2016, compared with 28 for 2015, equating to a 39 % increase. • Partition and Subdivision Plats Thirteen final plats were recorded in 2016 or are in the process of being recorded, creating a total of 163 residential Tots. 1 Prominent Applications Noteworthy land use applications in 2016 included two solar photovoltaic system modification of approvals, Bend Airport Master Plan amendment, dude ranch, Buddhist church, Bend Urban Growth Boundary amendment, and marijuana production and processing. Grants Certified Local Government Grant 1 Planning Staff completed an eighteen month $13,000 Certified Local Government (CLG) Grant from the State Historic Preservation Office to I assist Deschutes County with its historic preservation programs. CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 PLANNING, CONTINUED ACCOMPLISHMENTS, CONTINUED U.S. EPA Brownfield Community -Wide Assessment Grant 3 The Planning Division completed a three-year $400,000 U.S. y Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Community -Wide Brownfield Assessment Grant in September. Proceeds from the grant enabled the County to establish Brownfield inventories for Deschutes County and the Cities of Bend and Redmond and nine Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs). The Brownfield grant also dedicated $90,000 for Area Wide Planning (AWP) for the City of Redmond's Mid -Town area. The timing and readiness to utilize AWP funding offered extraordinary advantages in Redmond. It dovetailed with the City's existing efforts to revitalize the area, including an urban renewal district, market analysis, and recently completed housing study. The City of Redmond contributed an in-kind match of $44,700 to maximize the opportunity. Projects Statewide Planning Goal 11 Exception The Planning Division, in coordination with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) initiated a Goal 11 Exception in June 2015 that would allow sewers in rural Southern Deschutes County to address nitrates in shallow groundwater. The Board adopted the Goal 11 exception in February 2016. Recreational Marijuana Convened a Marijuana Advisory Committee and held seven meetings in early 2016. Staff revised marijuana regulations and held work sessions and public hearings with the Board of County Commissioners to regulate marijuana businesses in the unincorporated areas of Deschutes County. Ordinances were adopted in June 2016. Agricultural Lands The Board adopted a plan and zoning text amendment in November recognizing non -resource lands process allowed under State law to change EDU zoning; a definition of ag-exempt buildings; and, reducing setbacks in F2 Zone, for Haner Park Subdivision and an adjoining three - acre tax lot. Lot of Record Definition The Board adopted a zoning text amendment in November, expanding the definition of a lot of record in response to a recent LUBA remand. CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 29 PLANNING, CONTINUED ACCOMPLISHMENTS, CONTINUED r Coordination with Other Jurisdictions and Agencies City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary Expansion The Board of County Commissioners conducted a public hearing in the fall and adopted the Bend UGB amendment in September 2016. 30 Performance Measures Central Oregon Large -Lot Industrial Land Need Planning staff coordinated with the City of Redmond regarding a site owned by the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) adjoining its Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) as a plausible location for a regional Targe -lot industrial campus. DSL is expected to initiate a City/County UGB plan amendment in 2017. City of Bend Airport Master Plan Planning staff coordinated with the City regarding a land use application to amend the County's Comprehensive Plan, Transportation System Plan, and Title 18 of the Airport Development Zone to implement the Bend Airport Master Plan. The City of Bend is expected to initiate an amendment in 2017. City of Sisters Airport Planning staff coordinated with the City of Sisters, Oregon Department of Aviation, Sisters Airport and Eagle Air Estates regarding the taxiway and the process related to a state "recognized" airport. Planning Lower Upper Limit Target Limit Days to process admin. determinaton apps w/o prior notice 14 21 35 Days to process admin. determinaton apps with prior notice 30 45 60 i Meeting Target Within Range X Not Meeting Target Average 26.6 68.9 Score 4, x CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 PLANNING, CONTINUED WORK PLAN Floodplain Complete the process to amend County Code to change the floodplain base zone into a combining (overlay) zone. CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 Evaluate Marijuana Regulations During the adoption of the marijuana land use regulations, the Board recognized this new program should be reviewed and evaluated to determine if it is working as intended—to support this emerging industry, protect the high quality of life for rural residents—and to address changing circumstances, interpretive matters, and amendments to state law. This evaluation would perform the analysis described above based the decisions issued and public comments from all sides of this issue. Agricultural Lands Re -Evaluation & Potential Re -Designation Participate in the Land Conservation and Development Commission's Non -Resource Lands Rulemaking process, if initiated. Coordinate with the Department of Land Conservation and Development to initiate a process to re-evaluate agricultural lands. Community & Area Plans Engage Sisters Country, Tumalo, Terrebonne, Newberry Country, and/or Deschutes Junction residents to determine if community plans, goals, and policies meet the current and future needs of the area. Only one or two such planning efforts may be initiated each fiscal year. South County Groundwater Protection Develop a template for property owners or organizations to apply for Goal 11 Exceptions. Consider amending the Newberry Country Plan to replace the existing Goal 11 Exception policy with a new Goal 11 Exception policy framework for future policies. Affordable Housing Explore affordable housing options for the rural county. Grading Ordinance Consider and evaluate whether to develop a grading ordinance. Historic Preservation—Certified Local Government (CLG) Grant Administer the CLG Grant from the State Historic Preservation Office. 1 Natural Resources / Water I Convene a panel of regional water experts to discuss water resource and conservation issues with a particularly emphasis on the relationship 1 to land use and population growth and development. Initiate a review of County Goal 5 inventories and protection programs. 31 PLANNING, CONTINUED WORK PLAN, CONTINUED Growth Management Coordination Coordinate with cities, County departments, state agencies and organizations to develop and implement growth management plans. Central Oregon Large -Lot Industrial Land Need Continue to coordinate with the City of Redmond to initiate a UGB amendment for a regional large lot industrial campus. City of Bend Airport Master Plan Continue to coordinate with the City of Bend to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code to allow new airport- _ related businesses at the Bend Airport through a streamlined permitting process. 4ee 32 Natural Hazards Consider implementing the recommendations from the University of Oregon's Community Service Center's review of County Codes and polices regarding wildfire mitigation. Outdoor Mass Gathering Permit Amendments Amend Deschutes County Code 8.16 pertaining to Outdoor Mass Gatherings in coordination with County Legal Counsel. Ongoing Annual Projects • Consider implementing legislative amendments stemming from laws enacted by the 2017 and 2018 Oregon Legislative Sessions • Population Forecast: Coordinate with the County Assessor and Administration Office to complete the Portland State University, Population Research Center, 2017 Housing Unit and Population Questionnaire. • Tracking Systems: Develop, maintain, and improve tracking systems for: 0 Comprehensive Plan and Community/Area Plan implementation activities, updates, necessary revisions, and potential areas for new plans. 0 Destination Resort overnight lodging units. 0 Limited Use Permits (agri-tourism and other commercial events and activities. 0 Marijuana Annual Reports. 0 Non-farm dwellings. 0 Medical Hardships. CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 2016 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT REPORT BACKGROUND ` Statewide Planning Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, requires cities and counties to create a citizen involvement program that provides opportunities for community participation in land use planning processes and decisions. Land use legislation, policies and implementation measures made by Oregonians over 40 years ago helped shape Oregon's urban and rural environments. Likewise, choices made today will ultimately shape these areas in the future. Successful land use planning occurs through an open and public process that provides room for information gathering, analysis and vigorous debate. Deschutes County's Community Involvement program is defined in Section 1.2 of the Comprehensive Plan. This chapter identifies the County Planning Commission as the committee for citizen involvement. It also contains the County's Community Involvement goal and corresponding five policies that comply with Goal 1. This report briefly discusses the noteworthy community involvement actions undertaken by the Planning Division in 2015. The report is intended to provide county residents and stakeholders with a tool to assess its effectiveness and offer additional suggestions the County can utilize to ensure that its diverse communities remain actively involved in land use planning discussions. 2016 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT 1 Current Planning ACCOMPLISHMENTS j Administering the zoning code requires the Current Planning Division to processes individual land use applications, zoning review and sign -off for building and septic permits. Current planners maintain legally prescribed turnaround times on land use applications (150 -days) and I provide customer service through assistance at the front counter, phone conversations, and appointments. Phone messages are returned 1 within 24 hours. 3 Website, Facebook and DIAL 2 a CDD utilized the County's website as a primary tool of public I communication and information for public meetings; pending land use applications; Tong -range planning projects; posting the CDD Update; and 1 providing links to current and past BOCC and Planning Commission 1 meetings. In addition, CDD coordinated with the County's i Communications Director to publish press releases and announce new 1 documents, etc. on the County's Facebook page. CDD also coordinates ) with the Information Technology Department to create a one-stop shop j in DIAL 2 for all County property, development/permits, assessor records, and interactive mapping. DIAL 2 increases access, simplifies, and 3 consolidates information in one place for the benefit of the general 1 public. CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 33 2016 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT REPORT, CONTINUED Marijuana Regulations CDD convened a Marijuana Advisory Committee and held seven meetings in early 2016. Based on the MAC's recommendation, staff revised marijuana regulations and held work sessions and public hearings with iJ the Board of County Commissioners to regulate marijuana businesses in the unincorporated areas of Deschutes County. Ordinances were adopted in June 2016. U.S. EPA Brownfield Community -Wide Assessment Grant The Planning Division completed a 3 -year $400,000 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Community -Wide Brownfield Assessment : Grant in September. Deschutes County convened a Brownfield Advisory ri Committee (BAC) throughout the project to provide input on grant 3 administration and to assist staff in making allocation decisions. The BAC convened for the final time to receive the project report as well as presentations by APEX Companies, LLC, Deschutes County, and the City of Redmond in September 2016. Planning Commission The Deschutes County Planning Commission held 13 meetings in 2016 discussing an assortment of issues, including: • Marijuana Regulations • Agricultural Lands • Setbacks in Forest Use 2 zones • Agricultural Exempt Buildings • Destination Resort Tracking • Planning Division Work Plan • Bend Urban Growth Boundary • Medical Hardship Dwelling • Lot of Record Verification • U.S. EPA Brownfield Grant • Performance Measures • LUBA Decisions / Appeals 34 47111,11f R,11"N,,(1,f4€' 4:Ai1i111111'M Historic Landmarks Commission The Historic Landmarks Commission held 4 meetings in 2016 discussing: • Paulina Lake Cabins • Pilot Butte Canal Historic District / National Register Nomination • Deschutes County Centennial • May Preservation Month • LCDC Rulemaking • Cline Falls Power Plant Demolition Permit • Regional HLC Summit Concept CDD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN 2017-18 NAME Nick Lelack, AICP Kim Adamson I Krista Appleby Tim Berg Sher Buckner Todd Cleveland Rainer Doerge Scott Farm Lori Furlong Owen Gilstrap Chris Gracia Tracy Griffin John Griley William Groves Peter Gutowsky Judy Hackett Angie Havniear Zech Heck Rodney Hines Caroline House Larry Howard Steven Jensen Brandon Jolley Anthony Laemmle Jennifer Lawrence Izze Liu Nicole Mardell Matt Martin Brian Moore Lisa Petersen Sherri Pinner Anthony Raguine Kiley Rucker Clamons Peter Russell Randy Scheid Martha Shields Chris Schmoyer Cynthia Smidt Dan Swarthout Chris Tiboni Steve Wills Laurie Worley i Richard Wright STAFF DIRECTORY TITLE Community Development Director Administrative Secretary Building Inspector I GIS Analyst/Programmer Administrative Secretary Environmental Health Supervisor Building Inspector III Building Inspector III Administrative Manager Building Inspector III—Electrical Assistant Building Official Permit Technician Code Enforcement Technician Senior Planner Planning Manager Lead Permit Technician Permit Technician Assistant Planner Permit Technician Assistant Planner Environmental Health Specialist II Building Inspector III—Plumbing Building lnspector 1 Code Enforcement Technician Permit Technician Assistant Planner Assistant Planner Associate Planner Building Inspector I Permit Technician Management Analyst Senior Planner Environmental Health Specialist I Senior Transportation Planner Building Safety Director Permit Technician Associate Planner Associate Planner Building Inspector III Code Enforcement Technician Building Inspector III Building Inspector 1 Building Inspector III PHONE (541) 385-1708 (541) 317-3193 (541) 385-1701 (541) 330-4648 (541) 617-4736 (541) 617-4714 (541) 385-1702 (541) 385-1402 (541) 317-3122 (541) 388-6614 (541) 388-6578 (541) 388-6573 (541) 617-4708 (541) 388-6518 (541) 385-1709 (541) 385-1713 (541) 330-4611 (541) 385-1704 (541) 383-6710 (541) 317-3148 (541) 330-4666 (541) 385-1700 (541) 322-7182 (541) 385-1707 (541) 385-1405 (541) 388-6554 (541) 317-3157 (541) 330-4620 (541) 323-5221 (541) 317-3188 (541) 385-1712 (541) 617-4739 (541) 383-6709 (541) 383-6718 (541) 317-3137 (541) 385-1706 (541) 317-3164 (541) 317-3150 (541) 385-1745 (541) 383-4397 (541) 322-7181 (541) 383-6711 (541) 617-4746 EMAIL Nick.Lelack@deschutes.org Kim.Adamson@deschutes.org Krista.Appleby@deschutes.org Tim.Berg@deschutes.org Sher.Buckner@deschutes.org Todd.Cleveland@deschutes.org Rainer.Doerge@deschutes.org Scott.Farm@deschutes.org Lori.Furlong@deschutes.org Owen.Gilstrap@deschutes.org Chris.Gracia@deschutes.org Tracy.Griffin@deschutes.org John.Griley@deschutes.org William.Groves@deschutes.org Peter.Gutowsky@deschutes.org Judy.Hackett@deschutes.org Angela.Havniear@deschutes.org Zechariah.Heck@deschutes.org Rodney.Hines@deschutes.org Caroline.House@deschutes.org Larry.Howard@deschutes.org Steven.Jensen@deschutes.org Brandon.Jolley@deschutes.org Anthony.Laemmle@deschutes.org Jennifer.L.Lawrence@deschutes.org Isabellaliu@deschutes.org Nicole.Mardell@deschutes.org Matt.Martin@deschutes.org Brian.Moore@deschutes.org Lisa.Petersen@deschutes.org Sherri.Pinner@deschutes.org Anthony.Raguine@deschutes.org Kiley Rucker-Clamons@deschutes.org Peter.Russell@deschutes.org Randy.Scheid@deschutes.org Martha.Shields@deschutes.org Chris.Schmoyer@deschutes.org Cynthia.Smidt@deschutes.org Dan.Swarthout@deschutes.org Christopher.Tiboni@deschutes.org Steve.Wills@deschutes.org Laurie.Worley@deschutes.org Richard.Wright@deschutes.org Board of County Commissioners June 14, 2017 4J C 0) E t a. a) O C) C M. it: 0 ..r to O > Cl. 0 43 0 U W T.4 O E 00 1 L._ 0 co N 12 i .N CO - 0 >- U 00 U CD o?S tiO4--+ C l_1_ i .� Q C6 0 Q} 0 cu c - 0 Q U Q D L -0 0 = Z ro Q Brief Background N 4-0t t tiA VI C G1 E N .— o. E 0 Q • • W V O a4 C14 cD z M�11 •t W = V c co:171.1 ! Z.CO CTS A ni • )resent the proposed Board questions Board discussion & decision to BACKGROUND <f) U Q) . - N O 40 U o :N N O ca Q O c on c6 co Q. c r 0 v) N > c O O_ .N i V) Ca U O E °� O (T3 c6 O CO -- CO° 2 Changes in state N NJ 0 0 Cli ro +-' L7' E 0 4-0 V) U v) 4-+ N E E O 0 a_ Grants / Funding Sources • v) C 0 "-Ft5 (/) (D N E E 2 EJC6 � V U L._ L 0 +-) (n v) bp 02J ct c N O _c .71) U E Q 0 c U O op,(;), ca O [_ U hearing & adoption -o o_ C 0 V) a) (/1 0 coO m 0 0 U 0 C O 7: U • 0 .i Q - c (1) O ' a) > (n O _a Q N CO O VI, IA MINIM rcumstances RFORMANCE MEASURES 201 triAT?ON GROW F O t a _• Kr X ro n fn rn �v n 0 hl qj hi i EV VD N 0 .... .,-.... .... _ . , . . .. .. .... ... .„. , .......,...,...,.........„.. ..... , .. _ . . ..„ , ....., ..„ ....., .....„- ...., ............ ..., ... , - . ....... - „ ..., .. ...... .. , ... ......, ..... _ . .... .......... .. „ ..., . , , ...... , .„....., ........., , .. , - .., , .. . . , -.... , ...., ... ...... .., .....„ .., - _ , ... -..... _ . .....„., ......„ ... . , „ ......., .....,,,,,.., . ., ._ „. ..... _ , ..., , _„,„ ..., , . , ........... .....„„„„ , ...,...., . - „.. .., .........., .„.., .„, .... , ..„ .............---, .. _ .. ... . .......,,, .,„....„ ........ , . __ ,„ ......... . -. ...„,„ ........ ...., - - „, .... , „, ........, .. , .., ........., - .., . . ......., - _ , -_, , ... , .... , . ... .„ ... - . - - _ ....„.. , „.. ....„ .„ ,.... . . - .- ....', - .. " ' ',", ...... - ' ' ' ' ' • ' .. ..„ ......, , .... ..., . , . - , , ...... ...„ .... ........, „, .... , ... , . .. _ .. . .,. . , „.. , . - . ... „„..,., ,,,...„,,,..- .... „...",,,,......"......... • ',..:••••• ..... „, ., „. , ......, . ' ,.•. .., - • ....',.. f..1, to v 6 rsi > X c'g ri Wt 47) Sustain high customer service =::•=:•••• Single family home permits up 19% • Site Evaluations up 62% • Land use planning permits up 22% • Code enforcement cases up 25% • t) T—I a)m 2 co E 9— a)" rmance Measures E 50 5- 1 c. 0 4, c c 0 u 0 +.1 c 1.7 4t c 4) 123 8) • ,k4 Cl 0 4'4 0 Rescienta pan rev;evi - number per examiner per day c 0 0 0 4J ittb50 4) u 4) 50 V c 0 u Percentage of 4nspectons sched 50 c 50 >. '2 50 4) C E 0 5,5 50 C c > ea .zu -a x 1C) 0 c 0 c 0 4) +,. a * • 0 47/ A,* VI 4) 03 0 0 4) ,. ro _ c tit 0 Q Al c 4..., ai • -0 ,..., .14. -0• E 4: a) =43 L. 0 •:,) 4.. .10 7-;.... V V •t) V tt 0 , Ill • '., ...* i....1. LA et, C 0 0 0 :*".. 4.3 4.1 '14 E c 4) 0 11 ✓ vi • a C +Ws 4... 44,.. 1,Y O 0 `,.... 1,,a., 60 tl t, ro t) C 4) C t.= 'V ....0 V , ,...- k../ t.. ,•J 'V i../ CI (1, V ,... 1 ft) 2 • * 1 • 4 43.1 0 trl a • a. ro O • <1 4* a* E E LJ • A O 0 CI LI. O 0 • ;=-•• rt) c') 0 <;) r 4.1 c 0 OJ aJ 2 OJ 0 t OJ 0. thinRange OJ 0 • el 0 0 0 0 1-1 -1 t c 10 l/1 c 0 E :15 co (/) 4—, >-. m .C3 U 0 a) 4-- CO (/) L— C tIO f. 2 a_ Co -Located with Redmond Customer service surveys 2016-17 0 4J Q) c = i Li (U 0 1- 't tan 4J co U Lfl s— CU N > (co --o (0 ".--- CU (r) 1 4;1. co Lf) CD 2 0 0, 01 ed 0 (Ni (Ni NJ -0 bp CQ) 11 .-- a) (I) c = a) ._ >-CO E 0 cus_ ,— c --, L. a) > 1-- D = 0 Cl cv tn ---• 00 cn in (Ni (Ni N o 4:t 00 CN • 2016 Overall = 2.95 4— V) CC la CD al la) CN1 —CU ,t• CY) al (Ni • ACCOMPLISHMENTS - HIGHLIGHTS " • Local Government Grant Facilitated adoption of Bend UGB Expansion • E E on C Q) a) cu *E c E 2 c E 0 4-, • • 0 C:1"4 c p S 4 d etio,,i ¢ co C..ci,.:c3c. N 0 it.,°)ot V1p O"Lod G) ot .�Ccs 3 E. c til CO C. - c. E. .d a� 4 4- O O – V pLn co co � c.V CE N� O "isC:: a) yP. 1 4a us .: oj ,, sa.– C. .a T. a ¢,, ll O c. OZS a) cU 'Cll 0c,v-"-- lop c a i•-4 u 4.-- 0, O • 1111°4 c • -- v C. 0 to C. ►-�-1 C p Cl- -•s e .E co • 0) t1') N U O •� Co '4-- 3O . O 0 - O c 0- 0 (1 um_ v Q. cin co 0 C Q- 0) 0 co ? CO p Q- 0 o � 0 n `n O -05 4 p 0- . . P•A c:e4P -0 C. co tp 0 C- ., O Ln c) �e.f 013 o co 0 o) 0 cb o 0 s-- .O N ( O0 to -0 'ty 0 0 co 0 s,,,. Nco 0- Rs of 0 0� , 70 0 N °' o c. • .9 s o) o -6 °J, 0 U c6 y „• 3 s--, CO 0 C- -0 0 R5 0- o a' J' ¢O a' O O 0- c6 `o ' c.o43 \-1:- CD ICS Jr) (1) 0 o ca o Q-, .� �'' ccs Q,. ,�, 0 • 0 c • 0 0 ¢ C. a) 7 l.,) P • • • • • • L• t3. (83 ccs cc. on co o , W 4J P.4 ato btA 10-04 cl- Gz•st (gn cc. taA c. CO 4- p 4- o tt -3 o CO 0 CUk °- cu N ot 0 E E ' tis 0 C. 0 co 713"' co E N V c a a E 4-, a o T. CO aA q) 4., CU 0 — N J o co 48,-1.71c. s- � 0 ._ y o o 0 4; 0 0 0 l t9 Er -t o6 E u"ros- N ccs 0 `) 0 0 o 1 0 Q) 4- ..o aA 0 .F-� c. cv o o •� •o Q- 1 1.-7° o COL) to U176 to • x 0v c) o • aA0 Q ate'' E ria • -CA m 4:1 v' • • 0 a) co 0- t1 4) 0 o - o o.. c o c0 O 0- 0. o- 0 a„ O o o c0 0)11.1 E E cc. cts Q; co J0^' �� i co 0 o.. o v c.o 0 0 Yds of s.. 0- %- 0 0 ca •.,., o W • 0 .0) N • • • • on C U N o p 0 a co 0 4J 0 Z. C CL 0 L fB >' co C +-a (0 +-, C c > N 0 __C1J - L .i > tto 0 CU Y p x 0 s o _c _c . a L +-, -I-) .0 O 0 0 0 v � p -o O a) s•2•ci, o CO E a) rt3 a-+ c N .4-' ro +—.1 , 0 CI) .� w"' p p 5 ca s .0 S Q cu .5 (13 *:r ca o +-a C V '-' >sN U O C v .1.1 ro N cn p N •— L Q, 8 = u a CI CU 0Cll p 0 CU C 0 4-• © V 4.I • `*' -� COC14 0 0 V) N L 0 co0 0 v 4-0 c6 E U ca v CO r. 0 >- LJ CU 0 2 0. 00 -10 rsj>- -0 0 00 co %-1 rJ cTi L_ a) 4-2 Cu (J0 4.-' L._ 0 0 Ln N Ln tn. 0 cC 4- c . - V) 0) 0 rt) 4-, (f) c . _ E 0 Lot of Recor 0 Ln 4— cc 0 0 •a) 0 co 'L- a) 0 '5 0 CD LU • Ln 0 Each additional Lfl LO Ln use permit / decision. ro 0 4_, 41) > EL! 70 E 0 4-, Ln od 7J- 0) Lot of Recor c 0 41, Q.) rO E Applies to federal conveyances or land Post-Grimstad (after September 29, 2017) Ln CT) Lot of Recor conveyances prio v; E cu tn 03 0 7-5 c . _ E Each additional lot $250 • Accounting Partners, LLC October 2015 (Te,.ti.oL r 201S CONTENTS Introduction And Scope 3 Summary of Costing Methodologies 3 Driver Based Costing Models 3 Summary Results for Community Development — Current Cost Structure 7 Analysis of the Planning Division 8 Current Planning 8 Advanced Planning 8 Analysis of the Building Division 8 Analysis of the Environmental Soils Division 9 Coordinated Services Division 9 Five Year Financial Plan 9 Reserves 9 Why Reserves? 10 Balanced Scorecard — Managing Long -Term Performance 10 Managing Organizational Performance 14 Comparison Review 17 Selecting benchmark counties and cities 17 The following table summarizes Comparison findings 18 Observations and Recommendations 19 General Observations 19 Adjusting the Fee Schedule 19 Reserves 19 Definition 19 Managing Reserves 19 Managing and Reporting on the Balanced Scorecard 20 Ongoing Scorecard Development 21 Appendices 21 Building Fee Table 21 Planning Fee Table 21 Environment Soils Fee Table 21 Balance Scorecard Detail & Sample Reports 21 Capital Accounting Partners 2 r),c'. .•= f.c.2 Co a ia,ty 0)(•f'c. f5a. r INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE As part of its effort to manage its financial resources wisely, the Deschutes County engaged Capital Accounting Partners to prepare a detailed cost analysis of its Community Development Department fees. There were three primary objectives for the study: 1) Ensure that the County is fully accounting for all of its costs and recovering adequate revenues to reimburse the County for its expenses. Specific fees included planning, building, and environmental soils: 2) Develop a long term financial plan that will allow Departmental leadership the ability to project staffing needs, impact on costs, and plan for future programs and services; 3) Create a Balanced Scorecard that will assist the Department in two areas: a. Managing daily operations; and b. Communicating to the public the performance of the Department. The process used for collecting and analyzing the data required active participation by the County's management and staff. We want to take this opportunity to recognize their participation, time, and effort to collect the data and discuss the analysis, results, and recommendations. SUMMARY OF COSTING METHODOLOGIES DRIVER BASED COSTING MODELS Developing driver based costing models is a detailed and robust method of calculating the cost of a specific service. It is based on the principles of activity based costing so it seeks to understand cost at an operational level. The value of this approach means that we calculate cost as each staff position contributes time, effort, and energy toward the service. Graphically, the following figure illustrates this methodology. Capital Accounting Partners 3 P:. Ocst:r,,t,.E: 2g 1 b Hypothetical Illustration of a Driver Based Costing Model Contributing Staff Planning Tech Process Steps K4?2` Planner t1 Planning Director Fee Site Plan Review Step 1: Collect Data —This first step involves discussions with staff to identify those positions within each department that provide and support direct services. It also involves collecting departmental budget and expenditure data, identifying the salary and benefits for each position, and identifying non - personnel expenditures, as well as any departmental and Countywide overhead. Specifically, the steps involve the following: • Identifying staff positions — This includes identifying both position titles and names. • Calculating the number of productive hours — For each position, vacation time, sick leave, paid holidays, professional development (training), routine staff meetings, and daily work breaks are deducted from the standard 2,080 annual hours. The result is a range of hours available for each position on an annual basis. This range is typically 1,250 to 1,600 hours. Factors that influence this range are length of service with the jurisdiction and local policies for holiday and personal leave time. • Identifying and allocating non -personnel costs — Costs for materials and supplies are allocated to the salary and benefits for each position. • Assigning any other expenses that are budgeted in other areas —There are often expenses that should be included with the total cost of services. Examples of such costs might include amortized capital expenses for vehicles and technology. • Identifying core business processes or activities —This step also involves discussions with staff to understand, at an operational level, the work of the operating unit. Core business processes used to provide services are identified and then defined by the tasks that are involved. Processes are also organized by direct and indirect categories: Capital Accounting Partners 4 ELit GO.rr,,.t.t s CYcfc r R" CI • Direct processes and activities — Those processes that directly contribute to the processing of an application or permit are first identified. Examples of a direct activity are electrical building inspection, application intake, and pre -application review. • Indirect processes and activities — Those processes that support, but do not directly apply to the processing of a specific application or permit. An example of an indirect activity is customer service or staff training to maintain certifications. Most jurisdictions highly value customer service, but it is difficult to assign a specific cost or unit of time to an individual service. Step 2: Building cost structures — This second step involves significant interaction with staff and the development of time estimates for both direct and indirect processes in each department. Specifically, this step is at the core of the analysis. There are three processes that comprise this step: • Gathering time estimates for direct processes — By interviewing staff in individual and group meetings, an estimate of time was assigned to each service by the process that is indicated. For example, in processing planning fees the following specific steps are involved in the processing of these fees: • Application intake; • Application review for completeness; • Review application for conformance with approval criteria; • Prepare administrative decision on application or staff report for hearings body. In this analysis, staff time is estimated and assigned to each step. The sum of all the process steps is the total time that is required to provide that specific service. • Assigning indirect and annual process time —An annual time estimate is gathered from staff for those indirect or support processes in which they are involved. Some of these costs are assigned to the direct cost of a service on an allocated basis. Some might not be assigned at all. For example, in the case of planning fees, the costs associated with advanced planning have been identified but not allocated to the fees. Advanced planning has its own fee category, consistent with the current fee structure. • Calculating fully loaded hourly rates and the cost of service — Once the total time for each direct and indirect service is estimated, the cost of service is calculated by using the fully loaded hourly rates for each staff member or position that is involved with the service. The fully loaded hourly rate for each employee is based on the employee's salary and benefit costs plus a share of non - personnel and County overhead costs divided by the employee's available work hours (i.e. 2,080 hours minus all leave hours). Thus, the direct and indirect cost by activity also includes departmental and county -wide overhead as well as non -labor costs. For this study, fiscal 2014-2015 budget expenses were used in all of the calculations. • Gathering activity or volume data — A critical element in the analysis is the number of times a given service is provided on an annual basis. This is critical data for three reasons: • It allows a calculated projection of current revenue based on current prices. This is compared with actual revenue to see if there is a close match as the data should match. • It allows for a calculated projection of revenue at full cost. This is compared to actual expenditures to see if there is a close match as the data should match. • It allows for a calculation of total hours consumed. Hours consumed must closely match actual hours available. Capital Accounting Partners 5 I,. rat; eit.(Kf,w,,, ;,%}uf:` ty •'i0' If any of the three calculations do not approximate actual numbers, then time estimates and/or volume data need to be re-evaluated. These are critical quality checks for costing accuracy. Step 3: Calculating the full cost of services — This third step calculates the full cost of service for each direct service in a department. In the previous step, the cost of service was calculated for each direct and indirect service. In this step, the cost layers are brought together to establish the full cost of service for a specific direct service, program, or activity. As previously mentioned the cost of each direct service is calculated. To determine the full cost of service, the cost of indirect services is allocated to each direct service. The indirect services costs are allocated to each direct service based on each direct services proportion of labor spent processing each permit and application. By summing the direct and allocated indirect costs and multiplying that by the activity data, a total cost of service is calculated for both an individual service and the operating unit as a whole. The following chart illustrates an example of these calculations. This same process was used for planning fees, land development/environmental soils fees, and building fees. Hypothetical Illustration of Calculating the Cost of a Single Fee (service) Application or Fee Title Assignir g Staff Cost and Time Community Planning Associate Executive Development Totals Manager Planner Assistant Director Signing Programs (Five or More Signs) Pre -submittal meeting Land Use Application Intake_ Application Review Development Review Committee (DRC) Prepare for decision Public hearing Plan Check of accepted plans — post entitlement (Total Time by Position Calculated Full Loaded Hourly Rate Total Direct Cost by Position Total support or indirect costs assigned Total Cost Assigned 0.5 0.5 1 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.75 1 6.5 7.5 0.5 2 2.5 0.5 1.25 5 1 7.75 0.33 0.33 2 0.33 2.99 1.25 0.5 1.75 0.83 3.83 17.50 2.08 24.24 203.67 183.96 152.38 128.66 169 705 2,667 268 3,808 $ 574 $ 4,382 Step 4: Set cost recovery policy — Once the full cost of service is calculated for each direct service in a department, the cost of service for that direct service is then compared to the revenue generated by the fee charged for the service. This cost recovery analysis identifies the cost recovery level for that direct service. Depending on County policies and other considerations, the level of cost recovery is a decision that should be made for each type or group of direct services. For example, the County might want to recover the full cost for building related permits, but might only want to recover 80% for planning permits. Step 5: Set fees Based on any new, existing, or revised cost recovery policies, the recommended fees can be established. Capital Accounting Partners 6 C; �r.n,€fFr,Sy SUMMARY RESULTS FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - CURRENT COST STRUCTURE We observe that as the County recovers from the recent recession cost structures are changing. In fact, we see this trend from all of our clients. Most municipal agencies cut their budgets "to the bone" during the recession and now costs are moderating upward. This means reserves are being rebuilt, staffing additions are being considered, and administrative support is increasing. We also observe that the County has done a very good job maintaining the appropriate balance between costs and revenues. The following graphic illustrates our findings that while fees need to increase to match expenses, however, we normally see much more dramatic requirements for fee increases. Division Planning Building Environmental Soils $ Advanced planning fee $ Code compliance fee $ 1 Totals $ Revenue at Full Cost of Services 1,026,200 3,442,886 561,077 621,953 320,729 $ 5,972,844 1$ Projection of Revenues at Current Fees 757,550 3,274,157 481,541 410,000 255,000 5,178, 248 Annual Surplus (subsidy) ($268,650) ($175,593) ($79,536) ($211,953) ($65,729) ($801,460) This graphic illustrates our analysis that the Department is under recovering its costs. The two largest sources of under recovering costs is in the Planning program. Both current and Advanced Planning are not fully recovering costs. From our perspective, this is rather normal. We observe several reasons for this: 1. As our economy is recovering from the recent recession Cities and Counties both avoided any increase in fees. Now these programs are under recovering costs. 2. Recovering the cost of Advanced Planning is something most cities and counties struggle with. While many will have some kind of administrative fee for Advanced Planning that is added to Current and/or Building fees, many do not calculate the long term costs. 3. From our experience, Current Planning is a function where costs are consistently under recovered. In our view, the regulatory requirements often outpace any adjustments to fee pricing. These applications are increasing more complex and controversial. This results in more staff time to evaluate and respond to concerns of the public. As complexity goes up, so does staff workloads and fees are slow to catch up. 4. We find that in a tight budget environment, Advanced Planning is a function that is often delayed. Unfortunately, the result is often an uncertain development environment. Capital Accounting Partners 7 c u..E.es ANALYSIS OF THE PLANNING DIVISION CURRENT PLANNING Current Planning is responsible for reviewing land use applications for compliance with Deschutes County Code (DCC) and State law, including zoning, subdivision and development regulations, and facilitating public hearings with hearings officers and the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). Based on our analysis, fees charged to Current Planning customers are insufficient to recover the cost of processing applications. For the reasons detailed above, we generally find that Planning operations generally show the greatest opportunity for cost recovery. This appears to be true with the County. ADVANCED PLANNING Advanced Planning is responsible for planning for the future of Deschutes County, including developing and implementing land use policy with the Board of County Commissioners, Planning Commission, community and partner organizations. It is in charge of updating the County Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations, coordinating with cities and agencies on various planning projects taking place in the region, and coordinating population forecasts with Portland State University and cities. Recovering the costs associated with long range planning is often a challenge. Some agencies prefer for this to be a general fund obligation. Some prefer to make it an obligation tied to current planning fees while some spread it across all development services — planning, building and development engineering. OCA 201 municipal According to our analysis Advanced Planning cost $621,953 (fiscal 14-15). The revenues to pay for Advanced Planning are derived from administrative fees added to Building permits. This revenue was projected to be $410,000, which means that the Department is under recovering its costs for Long Range Planning. ANALYSIS OF THE BUILDING DIVISION Deschutes County's Building Safety Division interprets and enforces the State -mandated Building Codes for the people of the community through a process of education and a clear and fair application of the Specialty Codes. There are two basic types of Building fees: 1. Fees that are calculated based on project valuation; and 2. Flat fees that are calculations of how much time effort and energy is required to provide the service. Typically these are inspections of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing projects. Valuation based fees tend to maintain revenues because of the automatic inflationary adjustments inherent with development activity. Flat fees are often updated infrequently and therefore more prone to under recovery. From our analysis we see opportunities to adjust flat fees. However, we would not recommend any adjustment to those fees that are calculated based on the value of the project. These appear to be recovering an appropriate level of cost. Capital Accounting Partners 8 et 1. C'4 E:.ft l.$rr.'t: ANALYSIS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL SOILS DIVISION The purpose of the Onsite Program is to provide the homeowner with a sewage treatment and dispersal system that is as trouble free as possible and that protects residents from health problems relating to exposure to surfacing sewage and prevent contamination of the water supply. As such, this division plays an important environmental role within the County. Cost recovery for this program is currently recovering less than its total cost. COORDINATED SERVICES DIVISION Coordinated Services Division is the main contact for customers visiting or contacting Deschutes County Community Development. Within the division, Permit Technicians serve customers, take phone calls and process related paperwork in support of all the department divisions. In our analysis, we allocated the cost of permit technicians and the "front counter" to Building, Planning, and Environmental Soils on an allocated basis. The majority of this cost was allocated to Building based on the work load demands from processing Building applications. In addition, it overseas the Code Enforcement function for the Department. Code Enforcement is a subset of Coordinated Services. Within the County, Code Enforcement is paid for by an administrative fee attached to Building permits. Based on our analysis, projected fiscal 14-15 revenues were $255,000 while actual costs for Code Enforcement were $320,729. In addition, the Department and the Coordinated Services Division supports an intentional high level of services. This includes satellite offices and partnering with smaller communities such as Sisters and the City of Redmond. While this is not unusual, our observation is that the Department proactivity creates opportunities to service the broader community. FIVE YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN From our perspective, the Department is financially on fairly solid ground and improving. There are no major expenses looming on the horizon that will cause fees to go up dramatically. After several years of revenues dropping revenues seem to be rising. In addition, management is taking a very conservative approach to adding expenses such as additional staff. From our observation, they are waiting to add staff and additional cost until it is absolutely mandatory. Furthermore, they are waiting to add additional administrative staff until the final payment on the building has been made in fiscal 2016. RESERVES Building reserves is the one area of long-term concern. During the recent recession reserves were depleted and the Department was dependent upon infusions from the County's general fund. While reserves are gradually being rebuilt, it is our view that this is happening because budgeted positions are being delayed until absolutely necessary. Capital Accounting Partners 9 r 20 18, 8k Furthermore, we see an opportunity to establish meaningful policy regarding reserves. This would include several components: 1. A target such as 9 or 12 months of operating expenses; 2. An upper limit such as 16 months; 3. A lower limit such as 6 months; and 4. Management polices when the upper and lower control limits are exceeded. In our analysis, and in discussion with Department leadership we concluded that a reasonable target for reserves would be 9-12 months of operating expenses to be held in reserves. Furthermore, to target five years as a build up for this amount. WHY RESERVES? Holding financial reserves for a commercial firm allows the firm to weather volatility in their market while maintaining a stable workforce. Furthermore, without adequate reserves the firm cannot invest in new technologies that will allow them to provide higher value products and services to their customers. Readers may ask, why should the Community Development Department target reserves and why 9-12 months of operating expenses? 1) In the same way reserves help commercial firms provide a consistency of service during normal swings in their markets, so reserves for the Department will allow them to provide a consistency of service. 2) There is no general fund support. We find that frequently citizens and development associations feel that the general fund does or should support development services. However, the direction of the Deschutes County Community Development Department is to be fully self -supported. Outside an emergency, the County does not provide general fund support with the exception of Long Range Planning. Revenues from development fees must fully reimburse the Department for its expenses. 3) Technology enhancements. We frequently find municipal clients with no ability to fund technology upgrades. When the department has to go to the County Board of Commissioners for funding a new permitting system or an upgrade to the system, they need to get in line with every other funding request. However, when reserves are present, funding for these upgrades are available. 4) Maintaining institutional knowledge of regulations. Development related services are driven by regulations at the regional, state and even federal levels. Keeping a workforce that knows these regulations is critical for long-term sustainability. BALANCED SCORECARD ® MANAGING LONG-TERM PERFORMANCE We are pleased to report that leadership within the Deschutes County Community Development Department has demonstrated a clear intent to being a high performing organization. We have seldom seen this kind of commitment to high performance in the complex world of public service and the Capital Accounting Partners 10 C;.e:S uL'ty E;i:e.t(.1 ,:rr O. tensions of engaging customers with competing demands. Furthermore, we have seldom observed the desire to adopt management tools that are common place in the private sector and apply them in the public sector. While many public agencies are adopting measures as a way of reporting on their performance, few are using these measures either strategically or operationally. From our observation, few agencies use their performance measures to improve their operations or the value of their services to the public. One tool that has enjoyed wide spread application in the private sector is a Balanced Scorecard (BSC). This BSC concept was first developed by Drs. Robert Kaplan and David Norton of the Harvard Business School. The concept is a method of aligning mission critical business process in cause and effect relationships that are aligned with both mission and vision. The result is an organization that understands what is critical to customers and a structure of performance measures that recognizes the complexities of a public agency. A well -crafted Balanced Scored has four "perspectives". In total, these perspectives provides a method of structuring performance reporting that comprehensively assesses total organizational performance. To customize the four perspectives and make them applicable to the Department, we made the following modifications Traditional "Perspective" Title Customer Modified Title Providing Quality Customer Service Internal Process 1 Organizational assets 1 Financial Managing Regulatory Processes Organizational Assets and Capabilities Building Financial Sustainability In the process of creating a Balanced Scorecard for the Department we spent considerable time with staff in interactive group engagements. One of the most important changes to a traditional BSC is the realization that there are two, often opposing, perspectives inherent with the Department. However, both perspectives are valid and need to be recognized. We identified the potential for inherent conflict within the customer perspective and the regulatory perspective. While customers want fast, efficient, and expected outcomes, the regulatory process often requires something different and not always what the customer wants to hear. However, both perspectives need to be addressed and respected. We feel this scorecard does exactly this. These engagements resulted in two broad outcomes: 1) Specific objectives for each of the perspectives above; and 2) Decision points to manage critical business processes. Capital Accounting Partners 11 % 0 CONSISTENT COUNTER SERVICE CO NS BSTE NT I NSI* ECTION RESPONSE round time for planning, Consistentturnaround tir for building plan review 2 2§g it 2 CONTROLLING! tUJ. Of \( CC CC j) 17.1 r \\ §! eq a /2 § § 2 2 COURTEOUS AND PROFESS IONAL COUNTER STMF Permits subrniticd cIcctrc-rnicelly L.3 Soft AUL:, for counter Marr PI ans submitt ed dectroni [ally Inspect' ons scheduled electronically PA ON ITORING REVENUES VS. EXPENSES V. en § 2 ),IA Z _ 7 $ n 5 2 k c } 4 \ ; BOJ Aware leadership g ] F.2 Arinuel fund balances i.1 Moirtdn stable 41. ) $ toS \ 7ƒ \ § @ 0 cd6 \ Capital Accounting Partners MANAGING ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE The beauty of this Balanced Scorecard is that it provides a clear structure for developing performance measures that are comprehensive — every vital function of the organization is measured. Furthermore, each objective referenced above comes with three measures: 1. Target measure; 2. Upper control limit; and 3. Lower control limit. This structure takes the unusual approach to performance measures and turns data into management tools that can be utilized to affect performance improvement. For example, organizations will often publish performance measures. However, they often lack structure or alignment with mission critical business processes or customer requirements. In addition, they often fail to provide any value to the management of the agency. The structure that the Department has adopted goes significantly further, in three ways: Target Measures — Performance measures without a target is a random number that lacks relevance. For example, when the Building division sets a target of building plan review of 5 days it automatically has established a level of performance that is measurable. Upper Control Limits — Provides a management tool that has value in two ways: 1) If the actual number of five days moves higher than its upper limit of eight days it suggests new staffing or resources (i.e. on-call personnel, partner organizations) are required to meet the demand; and 2) It tells staff that this number is important to the customer. Lower Control Limits — Provides another management tool that has value in two ways: 1) When the actual number goes below the lower limit of 2 days it means that staffing levels are too high relative to demand and adjustments may need to be made to staffing levels or staff need to be resigned; and/or 2) The data can also be a barometer of plan review quality. If plans are being pushed through the system too fast it may indicate review of insufficient detail. The following chart details the objectives established for each perspective within the Balanced Scorecard, the target measure of performance as well as the upper and lower control limits. Capital Accounting Partners 14 CUSTOMER PERSPECTIVE C.1(a) C.1(b) C.2 C.3 (a) C.3 (b) C.4 C.5 C.6 Objective INTEGRATED PERFORMANCE MEASURES Consistent turn around for planning applications Consistent turn around for planning applications Consistent turn around for residential plan review Consistent inspection response - residential (non- electrical) Consistent inspection response -electrical Consistent Soils inspection response Timely customer service Professional customer service Internal Processes Perspective - Meeting Reg Objective Residential building inspections Residential building plan review R.1 R.2 R.3 Soils process control R.4 Code Enforcement Code Enforcement R.5 R.6 Consistent Accella updates R.7 Consistent planning processes Measures Turnaround time for processing administrative determinations (no prior notice) planning applications Turnaround time for processing administrative determinations (with prior notice) planning applications Turnaround time for Building plan review _% of building inspections done within 1 day _% of building inspections done within 72 hours % Of Pre -Cover inspections done when requested Average wait Permit Tech services Survey - Department customer service ulatory Requirements Measures Average # stops/day Average # plan review / examiner Turn around for new construction permits Achieving voluntary compliance Resolving cases within 12 months Total days to completeness determination (method of Accella updates) Turnaround time for processing administrative determinations (no prior notice) planning applications Targets L. Limit Primary U. Limit 14 Days 21 Days 35 Days 30 days 45 Days 60 Day 2 Days 5 Days 8 Days 90% 95% 100% 90% 95% 100% 1 Day 3 Days 5 Days 3 Min 5 Min 15 Min Targets L. Limit Primary U. Limit 6 Day 2 / Day 5 Days 75% 75% 8 Day 10 Day 3/Day 4 Day 10 Days 15 Day 85% 85% 20 Days 25 days 14 Days 100% 100% 30 Days 35 21 Days Days Capital Accounting Partners 15 R.8 Organizational Assets L.1 L.2 L.3 L4 Consistent planning processes Objective Fact based management Aware leadership Soft skills for counter staff Appropriately staffed for workload L.5 Technical innovation L.6 Technical innovation L.7 Technical innovation Financial Perspective F.1 F.2 F.3 F.4 Objective Reserves Revenues Appropriately staffed for workload Appropriately staffed for workload Objectives: Action statements that clarify how we will implement the strategy. Measures: Track progress toward achieving the objective against expected performance. &' 2015 Turnaround time for processing administrative determinations (with prior 30 days 45 Days 60 Day notice) or hearings schedule Measures Quarterly review of Balanced Scorecard data 361 Degree annual staff reviews Counter survey tool # Permits issued per tech (counter) Of permits submitted electronically Of plan reviews submitted electronically Of inspections scheduled electronically Measures 942 Months operating expenses Revenues exceed expenses # Planning applications per planner # Building stops per inspector per day Glossary of Terms Targets: Set and communicate the expected performance level for the organization. Initiatives: Articulate the key project or programs that are resourced and managed in order to accomplish the strategy. Targets L. Limit Primary U. Limit 75% 50% 25% 25% 50% 75% 25% 50% 75% 90% 100% 100% Targets L. Limit Primary U. Limit 6 9 12 1% 5% 7% 28 36 48 Month Month Month 6 Day 8 Day 10 Day Capital Accounting Partners 16 c.N(itt.:-S F=C COMPARISON REVIEW tol. 21.Chitz As part of this analysis, a survey was conducted of similar Counties as well as the City of Bend. The analysis compared similar fees and projects in an effort to determine trends in cost recovery. To increase value staff identified individual services (fees) that provide a reasonable basis of comparison. We caution the reader about these comparisons. Many communities do not routinely update their fees, and when they do, it might not be based on a thorough analysis of cost. This means the data that follows is the County's cost compared to another County's price. In addition, communities have different policies regarding user fees. Some desire to subsidize their fees while others want to charge full cost. Additional factors that make comparing fees difficult: 1. Comparing cost with price. What we have prepared for Deschutes County is an analysis of cost. This is compared with a price the benchmark agencies are charging which may or may not have a direct relationship to cost. 2. Differences in fee structure. Individual agencies will use different methods for pricing user fees. For example, some cities and counties base building fees on an independent formula for determining value, while others base the fees on construction cost. While the actual fee might be identically the same, how the final fee is calculated can be very different. 3. Differences in funding, and recovery. Some counties and cities will intentionally subsidize development services as a way of encouraging economic development. Others will subsidize it unintentionally because their financial systems are not adequate enough. 4. Service levels can vary. Some counties and cities will adopt the State of Oregon's requirement for processing applications and permits while other want to do better. These will create processes and procedures to meet local demand and expectations. This all impacts cost. SELECTING BENCHMARK COUNTIES AND CITIES In selecting benchmark counties and cities we worked with Departmental leadership to select those communities that have some similarity to Deschutes County. Consequently we chose the City of Bend because of its geographical proximity to the County. We also chose Jackson, Land and Clackamas Counties because of similar size. To create a broad spectrum we also benchmarked two Washington State counties — Whatcom and Clark Counties. We felt that these Counties are somewhat similar but also different enough that they would provide a broader perspective than just Oregon Counties alone. Capital Accounting Partners 17 fic;;,te.,,c„er 2( THE FOLLOWING TABLE SUMMARIZES COMPARISON FINDINGS uilding Fees Calculated Cost / Deposit Current Fee/Deposit levels Jackson County ackamas County Lane County hatcom County, lark County, W City of Bend Average New Single -Family Home: 2745SF, 500 SF garage, value = $328434 Electrical SF Single-FamiN Addition: (635 SF) value = 988,256 2,331 $ 2,331 $ 1,658 $ 1,451 $ 2,688 $ 4,194 $ 2,939 $ 405 9 405 $ $ 505 $ 215 $ 462 $ 286 $ 666 $ 1,149 $ 981 $ 1,106 $ 959 $ 1,601 $ 2,804 $ 2,580.75 425 $ 35133 665 $ 923.06 New Multi -Family: (10 -units, 8,000 Sq. Ft.) value = 9813,760 $ 7,440 $ 7,440 $ 5,182 $ 5,484 $ 5,790 $ 6,254 5 11,028 $ 3,753 $ 6,418.64 New Commercial Office: (30,000 Sq Ft. Office) value = $3,546,000 $ 32,406 $ 32,406 $ 26,268 $ 22,390 $ Commercial Alteration: $75,000 valuation $ 685 $ 685 $ 872 $ 883 $ Mechanical BAppliances; Furnace up to 100,000btu 9 49 9 23 9 7 9 18 $ Outdoor condenser (heat pump) $ 49 $ 19 $ 12 00 $ 18 $ 3 Bath fans $ 61 $ 26 9 38.40 $ 27 $ 1 Range hood $ 49 $ 11 9 5.50 9 12 $ I Gas dryer vent $ 49 9 15 9 3.70 $ 9 $ It Gas fire place $ 61 $ 27 $ 7.30 $ 18 9 IPlumbing4 WC $ 62 $ 26 $ 1863 $ 31 $ Planning Fees Conditional Use permit Final Plat- 10 lots Property Line Adjustment Sde Plan Review Subdivision Tentative Plat - 25 lots Calculated Cost / Deposit Current Fee/Deposit Jackson County lackamas Coun. Lane County levels 22,148 $ 14,716 $ 30,904 $ 15,310 $ 23,448.87 1,009 $ 958 $ 2,586 $ 601 $ 1,084.74 66 $ 22 $ 32.01 66 $ 74 $ 41.66 66 9 25 $ 37 61 66 $ 12 $ 27 80 66 $ 12 $ 26.44 66 $ 22 $ 39.38 122 $ 41 62 46 $ 16 $ 61 $ 12 $ 36 $ 10 $ 40 9 10 $ 36 $ 10 $ 92 $ 10 $ 48 $ 10 $ $ 3,025 $ 2,365 $ $ 1,891 $ 670 $ $ 732 $ 485 $ 6,070 $ 3,200 $ $ 7,801 $ 5,895 atcom County, lark County, W City of Bend Average 1,700 $ 3,945 $ 2,600 $ 2,300 $ 5,678 $ 2,895 $ 3,163 620 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 $ 500 5 2,627 $ 1,228 $ 1,724 $ 315 $ 390 $ 1,050 $ 408 $ 1,024 $ 560 1,193 $ 510 9 2,600 $ 3,453 $ 10,125 $ 3,422 $ 6,215 $ 9,000 $ 5,250 $ 7,773 $ 9,996 $ 6,576 After reviewing the comparative data, our conclusions are that the County's fees, at full cost compare reasonably well with the benchmark communities. We would expect to see valuation based building fees to be pretty consistent with other Oregon Counties. We would also expect to see the flat fees to need upward adjustments. In addition, we observe that planning fees at full cost are still within a reasonable range of the benchmark communities and well within a reasonable range when comparing against the average. Capital Accounting Partners 18 Ety e t Fr':,;e'r.CS, CYr.<- c; c:, C>:c;t«G_fc.=rr E 'P. OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL OBSERVATIONS We observe that the management of the Community Development Department has a clear understanding of its role and mission within the community. We also observe that they see this role as more than just enforcing regulatory mandates. They understand their role as providing an important service to the development community including partner organizations, stakeholder groups, and individual citizens. These see each of these groups as their customers. After working with several dozen Community Development Departments, we find this a refreshing and unique set of perspectives. ADJUSTING THE FEE SCHEDULE As a matter of practice we recommend annual adjustments to fees wherever possible. We also recommend a complete review of costs for fee services every three to five years. With the annual update of fees we recommend using a simple CPI type increase that is attached to the County's labor cost. For example, if the labor cost for the County goes up by 2% then adjust each fee by 2%. This is the simplest and most common method of adjusting fees annually. RESERVES Reserves are an important function for the financial sustainability of any organization. The Deschutes County's Community Development Department is no different. In our view, it is important to clearly define reserves and how to manage them. DEFINITION It is common for cities and counties to look at budget surpluses and consider them as reserves. For development related organizations, this might not be true. In our view, a reserve fund is a separate line item marked as reserve for the specific purpose of closing gaps between revenues and expenses during economic contractions. This is different than budget surpluses that are usually pre -funded plan review and inspection work that is going to take place over the next 6-18 months. MANAGING RESERVES It is important to have a policy or at least a plan on managing reserves. Reserves that are too high and the County runs the risk of being out of compliance with the State of Oregon. Too few reserves and it may impact the County's ability to maintain consistent service levels. Therefore, our first recommendation is to publish regular reports on reserve levels. These reports should show both the target and upper and lower control limits. These control limits are decision points. If the target is 12 months of operating expenses, then an upper limit might be 15 months and a lower limit might be 9 months. As long as the actual amount is within these limits then no further action is required. But if the actual amount goes either above or lower than the control limits then a decision needs to be made. It is also our recommendation that once the target has been reached, then managing revenues so they do not continue to escalate is critical. In our view, the easiest way to do this is by annual adjustments to 19 fees. If the target has been reached, then skip an annual fee adjustment so the rate of increase will slow down. If the actual level of reserves falls below the target, then maybe it is time to lower expenditures. The following graph illustrates a sample reserve fund report with a hypothetical target of $1,000,000. $1,400,000 $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 $- Reserve Fund Report 1 Decision Pointit Decision Point 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ---1)--Upper Control Limit =Actual Reserves ----S—Lower� Control Limit In addition, we find that those cities and counties that create organizations for long term sustainability do so by setting policies or practices that will provide for a continuity of services through economic contractions. For example, in our view, setting a policy for how Long Range or Advance Planning is funded is one of the most important deliverables for a fee study. Funding Advanced Planning during economic growth might be relatively easy. However, economic contraction does not mean that Advanced Planning activities can be ignored. So policies or practices to fund this activity is critical to the long-term health and sustainability of the County. MANAGING AND REPORTING ON THE BALANCED SCORECARD The Balanced Scorecard will provide leadership the ability to manage its organization with data and facts. Managing by fact is one of the key elements to high performing organizations. As outlined in the body of the report, there are four perspectives to the Scorecard: 1. Providing Quality Customer Service: 2. Managing Regulatory Processes: 3. Organizational Assets and Capabilities: and 4. Building Financial Sustainability. Performance objectives for each of these perspectives have been identified, (please see the detail in the appendix). Automated reports have been created for customer service and managing regulatory processes. Reports for measuring organizational assets & capabilities as well as financial sustainability Capital Accounting Partners, LLC 20 (..:„11; LI. :, Elf"t:f:h .:'..f's have yet to be created. We understand that data to monitor these objectives come from different data sources. ONGOING SCORECARD DEVELOPMENT No scorecard is set "in stone". It is a dynamic element that is an integral part of a high performing organization. Therefore, we would expect to see this change over time. Objectives that have been identified will be modified. Measures will be modified to reflect data that matures over time. We strongly recommend this understanding would hope that as the Department matures so would its scorecard. APPENDICES BUILDING FEE TABLE PLANNING FEE TABLE ENVIRONMENT SOILS FEE TABLE BALANCE SCORECARD DETAIL & SAMPLE REPORTS Capital Accounting Partners, LLC 21 BUILDING FEE TABLE BldgUnitCosts m. 0 m m 0 . . Capital Accounting Partners 0 N N 0) N a Capital Accounting Partners :•zr: • Capital Accounting Partners 0 0 0 0 3 g BldgUnitCosts ig. gi 'irl.L.n`kn't.n tn.ul I : I , ,a! ai 21,21212:21 ,1! . I , i 1 rn4', oo 6 ni tn. In An ' I [ Al VA , . .„, , Lz,ir • •cO0 t; E a. a. Cl. II- 2 - :, ; 8 O 4,1 1 T'a" .5,- '''' 8 m 0 i gocs E EEEE.15 DE 4'',Itt, P222 41 41 4,1 41 i c1-6 IE -t",, f;;B„; 2 2 22 ti,2iig :A 52 1'--n1 5 D ! Eg. .! ."5?,76o.g 1 ,sEsilE II glii,...-34" t1.75. RAI i ii E 2 .8g•—c.g. 2 lirg.,7° 0 -2- tnD 6,D0 0 0 D 0 co — 0, 2.; .1.' G -, tTE5Z59' 4rj 2)'aFi'1:1111:5_ E r ng -G2,-- gt7202m2L7,°°2.L.S. o -0-"-0 =:,,, ,,..>, 0( 0( 0 cn > ,,, 0. CO a. w CI. I— O. I— Q. ..i.i 0, w m . 2.. o6-...,,,. s -,e, 5 .- ... „ , .22 - 7 2 2 To -92,.... . — > ” .. 2.'8. -= ._..!2288 888R8R882'5'88T..rga.S.-.,.9_2%...t;t2=. .,,,-,-_-,- .. c . 92 6 2 . 2 d ' .2 6 2- . 5 0 E E 0 8 o r 8 Tu 431 E • E 0 . - 2 0 2 0 . . o .. 5 5 - a a 2 . - .,C.0 <2,“, co.-:oS2c2:Rco,:iiriztfLf.gl'I'L.f.8.succnE>'>'2;..-12 o. Capital Accounting Partners BldgUnitCosts 0 ananCT Capital Accounting Partners 0 0 0 m 07 0 0 0 a rn 0 0 0 U tV 0 v '.4ID1.2. I , I t i c..214Igi'cl,' rtn.- lin 'tn., an ."' 0 0 :2 2 g a a ›.. >. = :....) 5 '3 2 RE 5 g E a u3 4/3 c • c E ! 'g,f..': g = ts, at . — 5 2 .?..2 ,„`-' 07 01 04, t '1-.. a lit" -:1-: .... „. .-.1 0 — C3 -.., — = O. LL 0 .7. —, LL ,,,—' 6-:. .... ... 0. c .., -.V i IJE 3 . •-• . a — "' 1 4 . k ' ' :6E . " g - - --' • . -,2- ', .'' ti. , 5, a c f Z7. 0 c, ,- a c T. — ,,,'- Z13 ,72 IT::,. c F, c c .g. ',,, a. el a , a, a ..;,... a ,- -2 ..., ,E., :-E.:!- g .....,. a = , a 3 75 '13 n r„ _ 1 -6. ..g -b - t. 1-' - .. 0 E , ,_ - .0 -2 'E' ....it'; : I.! 2igliggt6 L'''. a E . .„ ,_ ' 'I., -'7, -13 .1 76 re 32 1E 1' 12 0 E .-...'.3 .g « 5 g 2 'i?::':' 00-0.....t cS2-..2 !.-0! 2 T4 8 l' r 71 2 it T3'..-4 , -: ,,, . O. ... • 0 '' s,.1 -2 t ; gll 2,!1; 7',.!,, E E 7 !!!ii: ''''' ' g 2 21' 11 E `-1 11 Vi' '02,117, 2 •S 2 0 2 'i'"' =filin fiAt20;3:17,g-gt-7,.g L% WiiEEmmtt21.2T-E1.72ig.5Mg7-47r 2 2 2cLk2-2'22'“22'21 ct '1 co co co > 4, g_ I . I BldgUnitCosts Page 11 of 14 N 0O 0 0 rn 0] 0 N 0 0 N a C0) C (0 0) 0 O U f0 a l0 U Capital Accounting Partners PLANNING FEE TABLE .i a cDw OLZ (J r c L E O • U � � a E = E o r w ma 3 9ca vm o.�admmd>m m g 7 g g> ed under Chap. m u= .00 da' 0.o O a J N C C E — --vavac aEaNaa =n ft t En o c o c W c c c c wwc ''''°°°°' s,aQ¢ a¢a000000 0�00000U000Nww urism & other events in i4 z22 �' ;a a a 0 0 0 N m m m zzzzzz z zz a 00000 aaa 000000000 000000000 M v ...-- Z mrz z 22'2 a a a a a O 0 000 O 0 000 m 0 m :::•:: N 0 N 0000 00 NN zZ a 0- 0 0 00 P.,7.1,9 N m z z z z z z aaaaaa0. 0000000 0000.000 MON M Z Z z Z a as 0 0 0 0 0 UUU U Z Z22 a aaa O 000 0 000 • N N CO ZZZZZ Z Z a 0.0.0.0.0. O 00000 O 00009, PlanningUnitCosts O a Capital Accounting Partners 74d ,an ic,I0I08818 8 ] d d kr,. V, VI 111. ] 10, .,r41 I I ; i I • -HHHH1H I . • , ; : 1 v+] oo ,sIsl AA. 88gs, rnj,rjr. ] , • 1 1 FLW ant will be billed for M56 It a It .e-412.9 m2t52.g22 2.g22zzg, I 1 1 co co 218. 2, .1 L283.sRg4 ! I -I H E . a il :0 1 1 i a 1 f5 :SE, t, ... t I.: -.,- ,-L 2, t ?- _2-k 0 --. :4 -E g . 7t ::".i ";:. t:!E !! E %;! ! E=2 g2 .0 0,Tg agg = . 22;20 g I. 8 E"22 .2ta 1., E'2=-8 r= ; L'“sgrl,-gEEE-e. S 2, -'2 li 2 I. .E,..—..6..,..2 ,4g,2,7-fdg :“.4t3T,ST..,EEs..?li 12796.15,7513 0-moil..z.gp,i,g„:zg2., T,,22,..tc=,%EusgEr,A8Emle.-Itr3i E >E22.,.E=g'21.2="2-D.F.,12 6600 ...._, -ww(66-0-Ito(80,11,m's07, .At 4 °4-T,SG22,7,I z zzzzzzz fl ma.mma.cLm O 0000000 O _00(?1PY0 0 0 0 W,W ZZZ MMM 000 000 MO ZZ 00 00 G G zz m m O 0 O 0 c0 CO ZZ MO - 00 00 0 00 NW,COMOHNC, . CO CO 00 CO AA A ZZZZZZZ1ZZ 000000000 0000000!00 A 0 0 A 00 - 0 0 0 COMM.—NM,. W,WM ,,WWWWWW WWWW ZZZZZZZZ ZZZZ 3-3-3-0- 00000000 0000 00000000 0000. MMMM ZZZZ 0- 0000 0000 PlanningUnitCosts Capital Accounting Partners t.' , I , cn co ol o o o o o o o o o o o Z Z Z Z ZZZZZZzzz 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 tar 0 0 0 0 Q_ 0_ a a. a. a. a. O. O. O. Q. O. CI- O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . - PlanningUnitCosts 0 Capital Accounting Partners cr, j i t I tr. 1 tn 41. to, 4/1- V., to, ar,an. rin'tnj. lan;an •tn. an. an an I f- I E 1 .i. 81 t; 6 .6:;: 0 2- m 3 f "F. = g &' g 'l t0 of i il '''gt.) 22 1 1 Val! IP gh,gt-r, Ail IL9gt" iq !MIA -2-a- - 0,-= °A g; 4- e- c0.,c Dpj DDEV'_ 03 ',MDDDDDD to v,,,,. “0000 EPWilit%E 2 . ' .m7 s' 2222 S_ Rai22-2-22'2 l'IgMEM 00---E-2 0 .-00 00 80000000 zzz zzzzzzzzz 000 mmm00mmmm m 000 000000000 0 0[010_000000.000_0 , 1 , , . . E I a 74 3 g g. .E 2 -.E 2" 2 ''',,;T 'IT, ' 5 e s,1 2 1 2 EL2 2'2'g 'Pi g' 41,7,.ma,ca'0ig40(gmFx-?,,,:i-Vim2,Eg .!tEE a 12... - 50.t . 2 8 F00 21U g . i t aq2 !!!!I!!!1!III!!!!.!! n!! !!▪ 41 --=¢=!' ,mM .c:iT:;,, 2E1,61 -i'8-52 2,Sa 9595'22.222,7,1 2E !i2.2 2(!)'1-.72 wa— ci,-.2"-.... 2 --- zzz 2 Z NNNN N Z Z Z Z Z 0.6.11M O. M M110.11 11 o 000 0 0 0000 0 O 000 0 0 0000 0 N NNNNWMM MMMM M MM..4- .4- - "t,4-.4-.4. Z ZZZZZZZ ZZZZ Z ZZZ Z ZZZZZ M a. 0.0. MCLM. 0- a. a. 11. a. O. la 0. a. a. a. a. a. 0- a. O 0000000 0000 0 000 0 00000 O 0000,000 0 00000 PlanningUnitCosts 0 40 a 0) 40 0. 0 < Tg a 0 di L' m 0 EE -cg" (7 0 - N m v v t y 21 a' 0 3 0 o m u — _ E y 't1 a a _ �` a 2 — c K 5 w5 K v t o V m u E c -; w= >,2 00 u 0 - 0 j '3 :T.,23 - � v Lam E E Qa'� I' c9 `v �.6%..:o`v"_ a, E occ E;�,E Em mw av = W ay E0'm' 0v�o- s�0 v o 02$2 ¢ _ >+x� - w �v3=mE`v mcs� 4°' c cm - >`o mm .ccm�v� o 'E oan'c `v c �w ..m�o a=v d=�_? g m_a �� pv dv �co ..w c > v a, " w i - o in Z 1 m in 3 c �n o' _ m m- m wE E ^� m 0.a `% 0 o cw�:�i' Eowv m .c_.6 m=,a.`°„«` aQaa'wc u, .-.N`oo`m.E2V a UD .0.2toa n EE om amU >�m :-°-; wsv _00 0 va,S4zEEc.z Nwv- cavo �c; LLa+o vy nw_rnm as o� ama E'EE.2"....-`o o'°`m v coyn ccvvL' U10c a26Uav oc0900000` o"ooyQE " oOzaa 0100aErn¢_¢ "omommEEoo ¢L^_ -'-vo`voc0EEU'EU mQ cmoo, a rnmo ora aaaagro Naa m c o o ��oz c� o� __ -- m ,,^ t0 v d m o ,mKKmin..._.._.N N. N.N _.. _.._.._....__._. inw lj m ,M m O ,- N M V N W r W m Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 22 Z a 0.0.0.0.0.0.6. a 000 6. a a 0 0000000 0 000 0 0 0 U U U U U U U 0 0 000 0 0 0 N M V W .- N M V N t0 M T O N M V 23.'322 (O t D ... N .. z r n r r M ZZZZ Z Z ZZ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ZZZZZZZZ Z Z Z Z ZZZ Z MEL 0000000000 a a a a 006.0.0.000 M 0000 0000 0 0 0000000000 0 0 0 0 00000000 0000 0000 00 U U U U U U 0 U U U U 0 0 U 090.9990_0 U U U,U PlanningUnitCosts 0 N a0 N Capital Accounting Partners t 1 03, .4 •-• at. an' an ar,,v, 1 1 1 ' 1ii i 1 1 F. , 1 I ! i ''''°31'2.3,Ti.`glruliZr'ILTI ! i ''',-J ' • , ' ' ' i Ze.,,T, Fii . ._ ... .:4 =g,. .. 2 Fi' cr, 11-17 =2: 0101 D 695 01c2 • 2 ct [- ;i,- f[ 3 0 0 . .._. ..., .?.. ..? 0- '' >' 9:. mVowiww.0=Ec • ! .0 z[1.....,accelbbm_gi. _2 ,f-2,7-%,„(;),-21".:33>?,,Z..s- 69_ .‹• • .. i -:.i.::_-‘(' 03—N0st. .,t0,0 , 003000000 ZZZZ ZZZZZZZZ 000- 0-0. CLM M MD_ 0_ CI. 01:30 o 1,-00 o o o ,- Z ZZ co • 0_0_ 0 00 0 00 0 ouowp000ic PlanningUnitCosts Capital Accounting Partners ENVIRONMENT SOILS FEE TABLE W W ❑ ❑ U U c.a 0 N o a E- oE E 4! s o ° rEm voiE��a`-�.ti a '.rE3om a°'Q£ 0a2 t u 5 a. Em n 4 E W K° S O o x- N M V h f0 r M M N 222222222222 0000000100000 000000 UJ U U U U U to 0 N 22 U U R12,7 222 IUUU wwww 0000 0000 222 U U 000 Evi ronmentalUnitCosts Capital Accounting Partners 0 c CD E 0 LTI 0 d at6 "t. 0 U a a m 0 0 'ajs.. O. a C E C l0 O C O c v u u m 03 "O c c ar m o c ai f0 f0 O (13 E > E a, U "- 7 N !6 O .E LC N O 1- '( 0 41 2 0 Quality Service CONSISTENT COUNTER SERVICE CONSISTENT INSPECTION RESPONSE CONSISTENT PLAN REVIEW C 0 0. 0 0 E E -0 -0 0 0 0 o a-) ai a /o O C 0 4+ N a+ C C 0 C Q a tto Ln U 1 • N -0 C C vo co v° o 0 N 0 N 0 N 2u CC v W 5 W _ Y 92 h W Q OL fl. '^ u c c E 0 voo W W u p W 0 u. LL 0 W 2 J CC 0 2 0 U CONTROLLING No. OF CONTROLLING No. OF BUILDING PLAN REVIEWS INSPECTIONS ENFORCEMENT LA > ce PER EXAMINER PER INSPECTOR U 0 0 0 U N U = ❑ N 0 E O U � N > C D N >cc cc a) d � Turn round time for construction permits m 0 0. 0 v 0 2. a! o E o `0 z aa) N CC i �0) nslO s 15.0 t i 0 05 1.d TECHNICAL INNOVATION COURTEOUS AND PROFESSIONAL COUNTER STAFF FACT BASED AND AWARE MANAGEMENT Permits submitted electronically Plans submitted electronically Inspections scheduled electronically N J YI Soft skills for counter staff CUN 0 C O O_ E o a! Q. .0 0. -0 O 0 ill Y c 0 3 0 U a a1 V nn 0 0 0 0 0 0 v N 0 d -0 J L2 Aware leadership MONITORING REVENUES VS. EXPENSES F.2 Annual fund balances Maintain stable reserves ti 0 C. 15 P 15 0 r �.y .. 1) ) C. 0og. co O A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO MANAGING PERFORMANCE -0 41) 00. 41) 0 41) 0) 0) CU 0) 0. cll cf.) 0 0) 01 L-4-1 0.) 0.. tfl 0. 0 0 (41 (.7 0) :3° 2 ...c 0 0, '5 -o 0 133 0) (41 0) 4-) 1"."J In 0) 0)•.[:-.; > 1G 0) o 0. v, '0 Q1 0 a. 01 0) C. E: 0 0 0.. • E.5 0 0 0 0) 0.) 433 (0 3 43 OJ :3- +4. '0 o -0 n:$ CO _C. s . 0 -- V3 {0 -0 C. co .(1? cLI Creating Strategic Alignment 0 C.: 0 '- 0 0 Q.) •+1 0 Q., (1) -(3 _ (4) .0 0 03 0 • -. 4.7 V) Q. (41 0.1 52.2 -- C3 (41 Q.) '.0 0 0, 0 • .2 0_ ‘;)- • - E2 QJ • 0 '9-) c:5 :3.29323 0 +93 E 6 Q; 1 (4) Q. ,n E, E E cs) E 6 0, .H 0 • 6 4.41 Qj 0 L. ••-.; C.3 Ft... 0 ii15 CI Four Perspectives that Comprehensively Align Operations with Mission and Vision Customer Perspective Q., :25 0 0,)T 0. CI") 0. 0) (4) 93 443 31 444 0 0 Regulatory Compliance Perspective 03 9303 0., 0 0 0 • - :5 0 Q 0 00 0 Q., 0 ° ".'o 0,1 0J 03 0". 0) )) 4:3< Qi to :34'- 03-0 E E -0 (330 43:4: Q., 93 .933 0 -4;3. 0 9,4 (1) LES,' .; ;7' 0 . Q.,/ 4-) 93 .93 is-; (31 -- Cu 0 -6 .'.7.%) LiZ., Cy. 0) ""--' (I) • 421 VI C.14!5' O.) 0 4-, _s2 ‘Q`''., 93093 ou (4) ,n 0. 0 0 Ln. E 0 0 0 6 0 (4) ust wo!k o Organizational Assets and Capacities Perspective V) .93 -0 0 • 113 411 0 0 0 0 0 G) -0 4- c.2 - -0 63, „CI) 0 ,„ c:; :El EL!. ,... ,•- .E 4:0. E 4.3 , 0 Ca. ':..-5 -93 93 03 • L., 42493 12) 423 411)0) 0 6 • 0.,/ Q.-1 93 Financial Perspective -0 -0 5 433 (1) t.) 01, 0 0. (0 42,3 (0 0) 0) co 0.7 (1) 0 0) 43.0 ((.5 ,C (.) 43) 4-- Q) _C 0) 4.1 41) o_ (1) a) gt- S, 23 9342 63 C: (44 01 > 0.. 465 0 C 0.) n3 0.3 Measurements 0 T JN L 63 0 Q m tO D m E O 0 .L N V O. Lower Limit Why This Measure? Objective to Measure 0 Ln L Ln Cr) rn >. C o 2 M M O 0 0 0 0 0 ,1"-i N ti vs C = C Q1 U w c -O • 'O aJ v v O co • o E • tn o ° N D.o vs 4- '.G c +- 6.101-1C COc v _� o v • m 22 n o ° • 0 3 0 c u 6 .�-, _ v a3i m = v a• c o o v JCL) C. `J O - 0 In N o ++ oo o E > E -O 7 v +' VI • s 'n ++ N :.-:, {A Y o .a ▪ VI o aJ CO v v N = +' C :G ca v N i O (6 to • y N a1 -0 +' u a9 L1 17 �n -, a eta `w N uO o a0 o c 7 c 7 c v° o c c o v E `° o E ti c co U • = E o n H '� a c ,� v a v a. o E u o .� v a v o v • `o co r L v co v v c° a"i v ca c 7 v a 7 c. v u o u O• ° '3 u vE a`i + d ✓ aC 0 i_ u ou y v@ G v v o s+ v c • ° a c • zs o. v n a M °D o .1 oD coo w . Q. c CU o v v n a1 E- c a• vi aci fl. ro C13 c y r al y v v • v o CI) M M v c, c co v O c E o E o _ 5 a E ,� c E u N ti n v a1 E N a/ i= ._ v _ v �l N ti (o 0 '�6 C -° co N N .0 '.oG t6 C 4! :' N • °' C 4! N ~F, E v iv £ E 73 o a u_ . E o c ca v u o n o E ,n u ,n . C. E v N E sil N uo Fo v c °J ^ a avi a n aui v^ d fl +' _▪ ^ 6 a° Q _n •� n v_, a" o o IL- = Q- v co u 1-- 0. �' m o F- . c tom- c tG 7 H c v • c 11-- 0 u OU C H aa) • u v 1L- u 0 a N H C C 0 O .t., r+ U 61 u Q • n a. 0 a. . ca 63 113 O _C _N C _C C _C C f6 E co E o. .O O. M co 61 b0 oA Uu cN u c o . :G .N C CU o N U C U O 0 0 o •C n_ •r_- "a eL O 0. 0 O t CU d 3 E c E c a✓ o 'P o 23 c ccoo c ro 7 C_ 0 c `m E CO E C G ` 1 C 61 Ly L }t 7 v 7 61 F- 'a 1- 'o Turnaround time for residential Building plan review Customer Perspective Percent of building inspections done within 1 day Percent of building inspections done within 72 hours Percent of pre -cover inspections done when requested Average wait for Permit Tech services Survey - department customer service U U U in in O m 0 0 000 p 0 0 00 0 0 >. >, > > > > CO 0 0 0 if) i v CO 0 00 re 0 00 CO )--1 N N T CO0 ›.-us (0 ? O 0 N 1.11 Ln in ul (0 ((00 (00 1.11 0 0 -a n O O N ci M Y 3(0 CO by 0 (0 "O _O v 'a 'O L C 1G 0 (0 v) 0 O L -a v O. v •F+ u >. — , , -0 ▪ c am,,, ``(0 a-+ y C '�°, �- c v > w- .0 C .0 4-0 .. c > ++ Q_ N `�' N v d0 ❑. N (p >, u o L o 01 ° m axi N v E v° `o °> E E +4 -a O CL +• T, +� ° u c: ,v,) c S U E c v (6 ,n u •) H L • CO °> E in — c u=0 a) o. f0 Y +_' _p u a) 7 •t, • i 3 • v `% 3 N O 'F+ .O N ,Yv., a ,n .O C9 'vB '� v `° N '" E '-°a O a 73 °- N U C o 3 C a m v -• 4c-' c c W L> p C v L v _E N Y H N X ate-. n 4- E 'rli !6 N N a .0 CU E ° v- ° u _m 0(0 E L - 0 s o v E Y s o v O 3 0 0 E O v (0 c 0 •5 Y m c O L d O Y 3 ,n a) E -O s 0 �- v Y c E 'a L v N i O(0 V v H Y (0 E a. v O (0 C m N a+ Y b0 ++ • O N -. E Q L E- i v 0 v 2 n@ nra ° a o c c E n° a° (0 a°> m (° 2 v h m ▪ v. s E$ ,,, m N o � ,n t 0 L af0i c° N 'n Y o° i E n Al v v 73 5 E 3 t -as `• a va v a a> m▪ s o .� -c ° C a)) a) O .G O y= / %j/k @! 22 22 ccu co CO 0 k$§)\E$ Ln ®9&§\/�Q\:5 ) 513 ƒ\ a/`2 E®\ m5 :;a�3, s \o `E2ca \\��Tok§ a ®/ 't 0 &I$&%\&% \ 0 Quarterly review of Balanced Scorecard data 361 -degree annual staff reviews -j 4-5 \ cr\ / This is a measure of the total E E 00.1 E \ ( \0ro \ ra 0. \ CO � 2 \ 112 -0co3 0.0 \ \ Counter survey tool } co /» \ / This is a workload measure for the \ / § Lel \CU Number of permits issued per tech (counter) } Percent of permits submitted electronically \ 0 Lri _C VI 0 cu EcEs If ap�a 0. a§§{ �° 0C)— Ea (c):). 1.-.5„, $ �J�» /§#E�\§ > E — _ c ` { ;0) co ±/ _ate ®` \ f t W § / 0 1— — = Percent of plan reviews submitted electronically j j S - .L. / \ 0 / / Percent of inspections scheduled electronically / } \ 0.14-5\ / n m ±�� !/// To. o m a o c _ CU (04— t _ ;10 j \}/_ EotE - c 5${\k\ \)\A§2 6-9 months' operating expenses @ / ( \ /• • ,11 7/ Revenues exceed expenses ra DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SCORECARD y v) T E m m 0 0 0 0 m O N O O N C 0 O O 0 2 L1 00 .'r to W 41 m T A v) 40 E 0 0 co CO F- a (NI v YIn kr,_ £ co m J 0 -a J ch 0 a -r Cr) (1) GJ) Z. rc"a nn L L C tvD• .4'v)._ O lam/),_ am/) C 'c c c E coo E n n -0 ro co N tiA N OAU + tel C U C ILS 0 Vim) 0 V) C L In 0 L 0 O Q O O OL .L W Q .r -O. O.. E. L 0. L L E 0 OO .., c 4•- 3 a) -- a -- q. -o "4".-.; c -0 o c V1 C co c co C 0 = c O a, 4- +- Ce =LO E co OL .E co wWw H c0 L 0 co L 0 ice L ++ a_ ++ Q. F-- -a rt, H -O0 m CUSTOMER PERSPECTIVE O L ro Consistent turn around for planning 0 N Turnaround time for Building plan review U rn rn 00 0 0 of building inspections done within 1 day co ci c-1 U U T m C 0 m �-i N N C C a) C (1) 0 C -O 0 v) -0 C v) p C O U U 0- N v) 0. c v) C L a) 410 > 0 v v _O a +.. N 46 O O O 0 O 1 .c 1 Consistent inspection response -electrical Consistent Soils inspection response Average wait Permit Tech services Timely customer service Survey - deptment customer service Professional customer service coo .0 N M M lD U U U U U U DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SCORECARD a) >. > ¢ @ § ° » » }- ° / m \ $ b •:.,- >- 0 / 0 0 a f LD NI m N N Turn around for new construction permits Soils process control 20 Days 25 days 30 Days 14 Days 21 Days 35 Days > $ \ E \ ' S \ O. u/ / ms 30 days 45 Days 60 Day / & 1 f 7 2 _ = \ G o 2 § $ ®•§ \ 0 E0. / \ \ \ C 2 0 % 0 S g { \ k CL L CL c / o / t n \ E \ a) \ 2 00 E @ E / ƒ \ 2 / 47, @ / / < < > § @ 0 § CO \ ƒ 2 / ( 0 ( \ / / o 2 4-, E �- _ e < ƒ 0 E / / $ / / \ Code Enforcement Code Enforcement 9 L cc cc cc Consistent Accella updates Consistent planning processes CC Consistent planning processes CC \ cu CO Quarterly review of Balanced Scorecard data Fact based management DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SCORECARD 1/1 tu. CO i) 4= w (o 2 W O 7 c Q a) v 1.14 0 lD CC z Aware leadership Counter survey tool Soft skills for counter staff L N b b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,n Ln 0 I� N N 01 # Permits issued per tech (counter) Appropriately staffed for workload % Of permits submitted electronically Technical innovation Technical innovation N M IJ D Technical innovation Financial Perspective Primary U.Limit 4- E N L `-) 0 '‘Zr co ' c 0 N 0 0 2 Ol L 4-+T C (o O 0 m 2 co 1D z s 4-, T c (o 0 0 co (-.4 2 l0 a) c a) 0. N X c a a) 051 Q. X ++ a) ((0 -0 cv Q. a) O a) N L C O f6 2cc LL u # Planning applications per planner Appropriately staffed for workload M LL # Building stops per inspector per day Appropriately staffed for workload C -0 .— a) - 4-, a) U dA a)L Q@ O 0 C i-+ (o 4) }, U aJ co a) i .^' 0 -0 +-, E L C a, (0 o Q. ( T ca _U 0 Y 0) C a) i CU y = ate+ -C= L ++ 0 0 N E O @ v o - N U (o c — • - +., 1 co Q ca co a c 4- V) V) le, N O iiiE > E — 4...)L 4= (o C7 0) o (o tiro z. 1- 4 0 CO CD H Q C 0. dA O C U `� > C c C L U j, u O L co -C 46 �6 0. a) .a) 3N 0.0 4-, ^ N +. a) XCc CD (moo C 00 a) ++ co to C a) 0. .0 CO O Q YOA u E (uo (a CD 3 a) L a) v 3 a a) 3 m o :o O O v t s BALANCE SCORECARD DETAIL & SAMPLE REPORTS N V E _0 L CL ^ , W L _ O Y/ •E EU M E(cc') O U L 0 U N 4-1 ca V a) 4O 0 10 a Close To Meeting Target ,�) Meeting Target 0 0 0 O N 00 0 0 0 0 N nE Eiz a r -N 0 a h O c Q 0 O E 151 Z ~ o V N n 0 0 aE t() O J G) F- M c0 COmo co N N QE E~ U c 0 r CO CO 0- 0 0.'E O �J O =;j O 00 N N N 0 10 p) N C o Lo o 012 rn N ..i- 0 T T N m dr o 0 O of p o .51 _) - 0 J N J c) Planning Division Days To Process Administrative Determination Applications Without Prior Notice Days To Process Administrative Determination Applications With Prior Notice Building Division Residential Plan Review Turnaround Time - Number of Days Building Division O d1 Inspection Request Fullfilled by Inspector On Time / When Requested 0) H 3E J Environmental Soils Division 0) d) 0) Pre -Cover Inspection Request Fullfilled On Time / When Requested 7/17/2015 8:38:36 AM C. @« \tet 15- 2\3 kn @ ¥a� 6 %� l °2 1/41.1 �° r �_� ® 2±0 Qt «%� \ k%/ »® - ° To' Is O aa, N 0 ° o-E%/, 00) a� \\ �� \%a 0 ° °°0 ' ®® §/c 6 � Q a �. \ .--6 ' � a \ 0 &% \t c �� 0 E « t ¥ \ f— �k# L) 0- •5 o k ) a±® % 0-® 7t#9� L 0 ' 60\3 a 99«#r k »/ t0 # .- o o5 c »0s coRof. 0X707 � kk- s '\/^ aQ0 0 cci ca) co .0 e G C6 P •: g N vp G tll . s o ^) -t&'. NQ Z N pQ ^, N N N /W in o- 0 N !.p., d %--*G - Q. C1) �s N 0. to Y V 7 , 6 0 6 0�- o '" 11 S N N '.'0- 0 '�' N 7 U 4' O O v �^ to p 0 t6)c NN ' �No C4 Np O ID U`s f GN NY Q7 , Ca 1 is ' N N N D G CO NU "') 0 0- • O 1.0 1 N-'0 l N T �?-? 0) (1) Ge N O "�,% 1:1- T ep N O O ,rT :i1).7. - d •a 'p'Y z3 U! 7to.0tt) l� a�0) o- S. c t^o' S. Y p 0 o N '- 0 Ad)cb .rt Q p� 7 N N , V N0v N 0 o N '',n N N N 112 1; 2 N 4.] n� -0 N • U C. Z, a .5..) �A) 3a y��Y 'U0. pa N n Q 0 G a t.0 � ▪ 0 . o) U -,-- 7G r N 00 c - 0 a� �� ao tc v„..„-000) 0 e ...s -.?„,j, Is. %)?.. . .0 ..... (1) N--- 'N� canoe N 0 �, a a SG.v^ a) v p eo 3 NN N N G 0- to V N0 r O 1 V �� co 91 12) C9 Z ao�m3 N N N (�iY�t t`6 '7 to O V` C. W 1r. V) N C N @� N Q -r3 0 c 0 > or m N °� m o0- cn 0 N O• o 0 „ V N @ N 0 O 03 0 0. 0, O c. 0 4. • 0 173 4) ‘' 0 0 0 a) .4•••) (1.) 0 ..,,5 ,- 0 .... 0., cx. *.,, % Z. 't •ti-') r -L o % _. .0 • 0 0 0- .... 0 c. 0 0 0 . 0 0 -0 ts) .c-- ...-- 0 0 „, 0 in 0 0 0 0 0 cr) 7 o P C) L) 00 O 0 o 0 .-- ..-. C. Tll 0 o 0 -.- -0 0 0 0 '7 05 5. _ 0 \ .O 7 ,Ct -- 0 . -0 % •S" .S ,...... -0 ...c., LO .r.-* 0 C4 e .S.- .,, 0 "O % -I' e (ni-ca -0 .z. 0) 0 - PA C. 0 0 ii) •-,15 0 :,-- .- 3 4) C;"4. '' t 0 S l'Al 15 0 (9 tri c5 Is S ,12' O... e 0 0 a) 0u) 0- 0 •n a) 0 0- . ,„ .I) cs S. 't ?-• v i $-- a) u- al ..-.. ...%,.• el) ▪ 0 ?Po) % ss CD ty) .0, 0 03 0 0 Aen 0 k.)_ ,. 2- '7 '7^ "" (0 0 ✓ L C _C1-) o C co O a, 03- 3aC) (1) u)o QE C caXio .1 1 Q) -a o cn '> C 47, •` C a) w CS z . 0 o a) c E L=a [� ��` O U 6 "�"• W o O O(0 .0 O 0 U1 -,S "t3 • O "C CO off' `. - O L• I N E o N m fiE.c E 2 c L- a) N C C C �� oo�°o c o CW .o a) m //�� C — U ^^,, 6) O N O a) O W o •` ) O U 2 ea R = C � > o U 1 3 'F0- • (13 � y U N �ua a?o > 2s N to� cn U y_ c0 C V (Q�N Q (6 v E c (/i•3o QUOwE Q) cr >•(1) ximO - CL y„ . C i C U o O to N L O � O a) -a +_T V QJ m U 6, � a)5 u) 4) 2 O 7 9) 'z' (1) Q '5" C U O U- O > *-5' O a C a U sa O- V o} w Q o C C w•- O a) c > — o .N O p a) ., .> (�c U "d 00-0 .s co 01, 2015 To June 30, 2015 0 Cover Inspection Request F 7/17/2015 8:03:29 AM 1/1/2015 To 6/30/2015 Not Meeting Target Close To Meeting Target Meeting Target 0 0 � d va co U R l0 Ec4 U us O 0 0 cc' N a) co CI I c0 co r-- ¢ a 4) l6 1- Code Enforcement I 0 Achieving Voluntary Compliance Resolving Cases within 12 Months aE o. as Q E 0 0 co E • p E p 0) (6 co ~ o E o Building Division N 0 co Residential Building Inspections - Number of Stops Per Day o Building Division C CO 0 N Residential Plan Review - Average Number of Plan Reviews Per Examiner Per Day U) E m O G) N h oJ Environmental Soils Division 0 O T 0 0 New System Permit Process Control - Turn Around Time in Days 7/16/2015 9:08:50 AM k o ?o o7 tt k®& & »oy di e c 0 0. t oto 4 0eS I «. $ t \ S. /3\ ) t3 0- 0 :: O Aet CO � . 03 .- to °2 0®c. c '� 9 t c N \e -- -Tor(),) / \� 7 6 11 3 *1 �$ 7, 11 0 13) 6� U\0 .13 � �a� to »® «4° c e 16 \\% N ° ` \ % $ $ A 4 e 5...) *-4-; L � &ks 0)c. a a0 C4 wO Ul \$ a = %c.k ��k ems& ¥ftk V R %\ . ® ° #' � « fes° 7 ¢°©$ °ƒ#� 0 ° 13 0�00 2 ��©� ' y3a$ \ o�tt 6 ' �\% • �Ill � O 3 e , 0 -0 0 o a k�� 3 C• 1 aam 0.k WA \ T CO 10t c4. ? BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK . , /1 / Subject: kL(')64 ii) - , V Name ` cd -t -e. I, / i 5; i - /6/ 4-11(> eovwa ACk2 (1 . i c Address jo \fl I 0 14 9`47:1-0 Phone #s 17,17-6`,) 0 (7,() E-mail address 'I V- .ct 01.61 I •J In Favor Date: Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING 0 REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: ((inc/1 ( ) LWI c )616 Date: l(i{K) Name /1 A (A'I') Address ci,'/ ( (111/1 !.(‘/\(\( ',iv-) 09 9 02:2 Phone #s (4-0 . `6-1 '6(W E-mail address nIn Favor ( Al\ ‘,/ ( \ Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. No Opposed BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK `-{ A ,o Name Address Phone #s E-mail address ( In Favor Neutral/Undecided Date: Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Subject: Name Address Phone #s E-mail address In Favor BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Neutral/Undecided Date: Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Opposed No Opposed No - Subject: Name Address Phone #s E-mail address BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK In Favor Neutral/Undecided Date: Submitting written documents as part of testimony? L Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Subject: Name Address Phone #s E-mail address In Favor BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Opposed No vEE c_f Date: CE L z_47tid 1_, 7-c 1-71 Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. No BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REOUEST TO SPEAK Subject: 1/1 Name Address Phone #s E-mail address In Favor Date: Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Subject: Name Address Phone #s BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK E-mail address 4..4544.4 / I t!sz- Date: In Favor Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. No Opposed No r). kt.40,4 Subjec Name BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK v 4 - Address Phone #s L. N E-mail address n Favor Date: 4 Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Subject: Name Address Phone #s E-mail address BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed No Da e: Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Opposed No Subject: (00 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK fn 3 . 1. y ..;" = A „, Name I t AJ'"• / ( Address 3 c; -7 Li , 1) LA) k - 1 , k Phone #s E-mail address In Favor ir Neutral/Undecided Date: Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. (f•,. ,„4,) , v),S t`,- -••• w BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING a REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: 0. \'', '''i'.\\....N.)-i-, 7: '1'; r(1 \„'A 1 \„ \ ' I (,)';:.) Date: , . Name /.-, \,Y Address /(r /. `;,...: c :: \\V\ »C2" ( :5\(' (i( Phone I/ / / ' ''') Phone #s E-mail address Cc • 1'1 (''') ".) k I) • (74 ) Opposed No In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed No Submitting written documents as part of testimony? (v,-) Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. / BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: �. ; il.'Il'l ri 1 .- `'j F / ( (J (L "i ;r Name Address .•r (_ Date: (4I Li 117 Phone #s I E-mail address In Favor Neutral/Undecided (7' /( Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Subject: /'J; Name Address BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Phone #s G//.- c) E-mail address In Favor Neutral/Undecided Tate: Opposed No Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the recon, Subject: Name Address BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING /%�'/ / /,/ f.,. ��.lee`„" 1. Phone #s "'° E-mail address In Favor REQUEST TO SPEAK Neutral/Undecided r Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK r , Subject: ,1 (I.Jt:LJ 67.� Name _�. Ci Aiet a Leff' of f ,. f' ry Address r.'. e 44. Phone #s 5-4/ w E-mail address In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed No Date: 6 Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Opposed No BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING Subject: M &o. Name ( r „e, ' 4,4° Address ce —7 c( 7Z, tr/fx Phone #s E-mail address In Favor REQUEST TO SPEAK j 17N. V't .T!!` 14 LA eu rwl al/Undecided po, Date: Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST Subject: Name Address / MJ TO SPEAK 4.45 Phone #s E-mail address In Favor Neutral/Undecided Date: Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Opposed No Opposed No Subj ect: Name j,72, Address PC 17- *"2-1 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Phone #s - E-mail address In Favor /57'. <7 :3- re -2 (-4 .6-r" •, Neutral/Undecided Date: f,;; :/ ' *-1 f Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Subject: \ - Name Address Phone #s E-mail address BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING kr) REQUEST TO SPEAK 6 Opposed No In Favor Neutral/Undecided Date: Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Opposed No Subj ect: Name Address Phone #s E-mail address In Favor BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK ( (.0 Neutral/Undecided Date: Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Opposed No LAN DWATC H June 14, 2017 Via hand delivery Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97702 Re: Deschutes County land use appeal fees 50 SW Bond Si., Sie. 4 1 Bend, 09 97702 Phone: (541) 647-2930 www.centraloregonlandwatch.org Dear Commissioners : On behalf of Central Oregon LandWatch ("LandWatch"), thank you for the opportunity to comment on Deschutes County's proposed land use appeal fees for 2018. Local appeal fees implicate core land use concerns regarding access to and citizen participation in land use reviews. Friends of Linn County v. City of Lebanon, 45 Or LUBA 408, 414-16 (2003). LandWatch respectfully urges the County to reject the proposed land use appeal fees and instead to adopt land use appeal fees that reflect the cost of the benefit local appellants request, that of conducting a quasi- judicial proceeding. Extensive evidence indicates the cost to conduct a quasi-judicial review of the lawfulness of a hearing officer's decision in Deschutes County should be approximately $250. LandWatch also urges the County to abolish any fee in instances when the County declines to conduct requested quasi-judicial proceedings. The County is not authorized to charge costs incurred in not acting upon local appeals. The exorbitant filing fees the County imposes on appellants, which in one recent case were as high as $11,276, are so onerous as to unreasonably limit access to the courts in violation of the Justice Without Purchase Clause of the Oregon constitution. See e.g. Bradley v. State, 262 Or App 78, 106, 324 P.3d 504, 521 2014. As explained below, appellants may only be charged a fee for services requested by the appellants that are not shared equally by all citizens. An applicant who requests a permit for a certain land use may be charged a fee for the entire cost 2 of processing that application. By contrast local appellants request only a quasi- judicial proceeding, and may only be charged for the bestowal of that service. Relevant law "LUBA's jurisdiction "[i]s limited to those cases in which the petitioner has exhausted all remedies available by right before petitioning the board for review." ORS 197.825(2)(a). "Exhaustion concerns procedures by which a person obtains review of the lawfulness of an adverse decision." Nelson v. City of Lake Oswego, 126 Or App 416, 428, 869 P.2d 350 (1994) (Landau, J. concurring, citing Williamson County Reg'l Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 193 (1985)). "[F]or an administrative remedy to be 'exhaustible' it must be available." Ayres v. Bd. of Parole & Post -Prison Supervision, 194 Or App 429, 435-436, 97 P.3d 1 (2004). "A fee, however, is incident to a voluntary act, e.g., a request that a public agency permit him to practice law or medicine or construct a house or run a broadcast station. The public agency performing those services normally may exact a fee for a grant which, presumably, bestows a benefit on the applicant, not shared by other members of society. It would be such a sharp break with our traditions to conclude that Congress had bestowed on a federal agency the taxing power that we read 31 USCA § 438a narrowly as authorizing not a 'tax' but a 'fee.' A 'fee' connotes a 'benefit' and the act by its use of the standard 'value to the recipient' carries that connotation. The addition of 'public policy or interest served and other pertinent facts,' if read literally, carries an agency far from its customary orbit and puts it in search of revenue in the manner of an appropriation committee of the House." National Cable Television Ass'n v. U.S, 415 U.S. 336, 340, 94 S. Ct. 1146 (1974). "The governing body may prescribe, by ordinance or regulation, fees to defray the costs incurred in acting upon an appeal from a hearing officer, planning commission or other designated person. The amount of the fee shall be reasonable and shall be no more than the average cost of such appeals or the actual cost of the appeal, excluding the cost of preparation of a written transcript.... " ORS 215.422(1)(c). "The maximum fee for an initial hearing shall be the cost to the local government of preparing for and conducting the appeal, or $250, whichever is less." ORS 215. 416(11)(b). "A party aggrieved by the action of a hearings officer or other decision-making authority may appeal the action to the planning commission or county governing body, or both, however the governing body prescribes." ORS 215.422(1)(a). I'roler_lin9 Central Oregon's Noiurc:rl Environinc�r,t And Working For Sustoinoble Communities 3 "The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard 'at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.' " Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333, 96 S. Ct. 893 (1976). "Oregon Constitution: Administration of justice. No court shall be secret, but justice shall be administered, openly and without purchase, completely and without delay, and every man shall have remedy by due course of law for injury done him in his person, property, or reputation." Or Const, Art I, § 10. "[I]t was stipulated in the Great Charter that "to none will we sell, to none will we deny or delay right or justice": Harrison v. Willis, 7 Heisk. 35 (19 Am. Rep. 604). The long -fixed meaning of these words is that the right attainment of justice -the end of the law - must be administered without sale. Original process must issue without price, except what the law fixes, and without denial, though the defendant be a favorite of the king, or the government who interferes in his behalf, and must be proceeded with by the judges after suit instituted, without delay by themselves, or by order of the king, and that proper judicial process must issue by the judges without fee or reward, except that fixed by the law: Townsend v. Townsend, Peck. (Tenn.) 15 (14 Am. Dec. 722). This court has already construed the clause in question in Bailey v. Frush, 5 Ore. 136, Bonham J., speaking for the court, says: 'We hold that the language of our constitution ... means simply that justice shall not be bought with bribes, nor shall the attendant or incidental expenses of litigation, in the nature of costs and disbursements, be so exorbitant and onerous as to virtually close the doors of courts of justice to those who may have occasion to enter there. In other words, that the rights of the poor man to a redress of his grievances shall be equally respected with those of the rich, and that equal and exact justice shall be dealt out alike to all.' " N. Counties Trust v. Sears, 30 Or 388, 404-405, 41 P. 931 (1895). "The guarantee in article I, section 10, of a 'remedy by due course of law for injury done [one] in his person, property, or reputation' is part of a section dealing with the administration of justice. It is a plaintiffs' clause, addressed to securing the right to set the machinery of the law in motion to recover for harm already done to one of the stated kinds of interest, a guarantee that dates by way of the original state constitutions of 1776 back to King John's promise in Magna Carta chapter 40: 'To no one will We sell, to no one will We deny or delay, right or justice.' It is concerned with securing a remedy from those who administer the law, through courts or otherwise." Davidson v. Rogers, 281 Ore. 219, 222-23 (1978) (Linde J., concurring). "Considering the wording of Article I, section 10, together with case law interpreting it and the historical circumstances surrounding its adoption, Protecting Cenlrol Oregon's Milt/red E viron,neol And Working For Sustainable Cominuniiios 4 we conclude that the Justice Without Purchase Clause was meant to prohibit 1) the procurement of legal redress through bribery and other fornis of improper influence; and 2) the judicial imposition of fees and costs in amounts so onerous as to unreasonably limit access to the courts." Allen v. Empl. Dep't, 184 Or App 681, 688, 57 P.3d 903 (2002). "Nor can we say that, in all circumstances, an award of attorney fees and costs is 'so onerous as to unreasonably limit access to the courts.' Unlike exorbitant filing fees, the amount of an attorney -fee award varies depending on the nature of the parties' disputes and is not determined until the end of the proceeding. For that reason, the attorney -fee provision cannot, in all cases, constitute an unreasonable bar to access the court." Bradley v. State, 262 Or App 78, 106, 324 P.3d 504, 521, 2014. The County's past practice of charging thousands of dollars, (in one documented instance, $11,276) to land use appellants who are seeking a review they are required by law to request, acts as a "snare of forfeiture." ORS 197.825(2)(a); See Ayres v. Bd. of Parole & Post -Prison Supervision, 194 Or App 429, 441, 97 P.3d 1 (2004). ("The board's requirement of actual receipt must give way when it serves more as a 'snare of forfeiture for a prisoner seeking redress' than as a mechanism to ensure a full opportunity for the board's review, as the exhaustion principle is designed to do.") Few can pay such fees, and therefore land use decision after land use decision may go unchallenged in Deschutes County for no other reason than because there is no-one who can afford to gain access to the courts to have the decision reviewed. The County cannot use the requirement to pay exorbitant fees for the local appeal process as a mechanism for avoiding judicial review of its hearing officers' decisions. Oregon state law provides the right to appeal a hearing officer's decision. ORS 215.422(1)(a) ("A party aggrieved by the action of a hearings officer or other decision-making authority may appeal the action to the planning commission or county governing body, or both, however the governing body prescribes.") Once such right of review is granted, the Fourteenth Amendment requires land use appellants to be given an opportunity to be heard in a hearing appropriate to the nature of the case, 1 In 2015, Deschutes County staff infonned a would-be appellant of a hearing officer's decision approving two large solar farms across the road from her rural home. County staff infonned the would-be appellant that the cost of appealing the hearing officer would be $11,276. Exhibit 1. Proles ling Control Oregon's Nalurul E=nvironment And Working For S(rstainuble Conununiiies 5 at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. ORS 215.422(1); DCC 22.32; Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333, 96 S Ct 893 (1976); State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Geist, 310 Or 176, 189-90, 796 P2d 1193 (1990). By adopting again, as it has in the past, appeal fees that prohibit all but the wealthiest citizens of Deschutes County from appealing a hearing officer's land use decision, the County would be continuing a procedure that effectively destroys the right to be heard in a local land use appeal. The proposed fees would foreclose the opportunity for land use appellants to be heard in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. Land use appellants are required to file local appeals before they can obtain review from LUBA. ORS 197.825(2)(a). "LUBA's jurisdiction "[i]s limited to those cases in which the petitioner has exhausted all remedies available by right before petitioning the board for review." Deschutes County's imposition of local land use appeal fees costing thousands or tens of thousands of dollars on non -applicant appellants is inconsistent with the legislature's exhaustion requirement. The practice of charging as much as $11,726 or more for a local appeal cannot be what the legislature intended in establishing LUBA and in requiring appellants to exhaust local remedies. To mandate local appeal on the one hand and to impose exorbitant fees for that use on the other amounts to extortion from those who seek only proper application of the laws. To point to county boards of commissioners as a forum for relief while allowing counties to deny access to those fora through excessive charges would be the height of hypocrisy. If appellants could seek redress in Deschutes County Circuit Court, the filing fee would be $252 (see infra) instead of the thousands of dollars proposed for the future, and imposed in the past, by Deschutes County. Because appellants in Deschutes County must exhaust local remedies by requesting County review, the County's exorbitant appeal fees appear to violate the Justice Without Purchase Clause of the Oregon constitution. See supra. The Justice Without Purchase Clause prohibits the judicial imposition of fees and costs in amounts so onerous as to unreasonably limit access to the courts. Allen v. Empl. Dep't, 184 Or App 681, 688, 57 P.3d 903 (2002). F'rofec`ing Centro! Oregon's NoIurot Environment And Working Fur Suslaincrblc Communities 6 As the Court of Appeals explained in Ayres, it "goes without saying that for an administrative remedy to be 'exhaustible' it must be available." Ayres v. Bd. of Parole & Post -Prison Supervision, 194 Ore. App. 429, 435-436 (2004) (quoting Marbet v. Portland Gen. Elect., 277 Ore. 447, 456, 561 P.2d 154 (1977)). The County's exorbitant appeal fees mean legal review of the lawfulness of a hearing officer's decision is not available to any but the County's wealthiest citizens, even though land use appellants are required by law to obtain such review to exhaust administrative remedies. The proposed land use appeal fees are unreasonably high for non -applicant appellants The appropriate fee the County should charge for a local appeal appears to be approximately $250. This is based on the cost of reviewing administrative land use decisions as set by the Oregon legislature ($250), on the cost of providing legal review of other legal matters in the Deschutes County Courthouse across the street from the County's hearing room ($252), on the cost of providing quasi-judicial review of land use decisions in other Oregon counties ($250), and at LUBA ($400), and the cost of providing appellate review of decisions, including land use decisions, in the Oregon Courts of Appeal ($373). The cost of an appeal from an administrative decision by county staff to a local decision maker in any Oregon county is limited by statute to the lesser of $250 or "the cost to the local government of preparing for and conducting the appeal." ORS 215.416(11)(b). The last time the legislature considered "the cost to the local government of preparing for and conducting [an] appeal" to a hearings officer, the legislature considered $250 to be a reasonable approximate cost for such appeals, and allowed for the possibility that it might cost a county less than $250. Even considering monetary inflation since the time the $250 fee was adopted by the legislature, actual appeal fee costs should not be more than a few hundred dollars. For example, if the legislature adopted the $250 fee in 2000, with inflation that cost would today be approximately $350. An appeal fee from a hearings officer in the range of $250 to $350 dollars would be comparable to the Oregon legislature statutory maximum fee of $250 for land use appeals to a hearings officer. Protcc: ling Cenirgl Oregon's Noiur<7I Environment And Working For Sustainable Common lies 7 Such a fee will also be comparable to fees for appeals in the Deschutes County Circuit Court, located across the street from the County Board of Commissioners' hearing room in Bend. There is no reason why the County's administration of quasi-judicial appeals should cost any more than the $252 it costs the Deschutes County Circuit Court to conduct hearings in the courthouse a few hundred yards away from the County's buildings. Typical Deschutes County Circuit Court fees include the $252 appeal fee to appeal from municipal court for commission of a state or local violation;2 the $252 appeal fee to appeal from an administrative action regarding child support; and the $252 appeal fee for an appeal from a license suspension for refusal of a breath test. Such a fee will also be comparable to appellant fees to the Oregon Court of Appeals and the Oregon Supreme Court, which are $373.3 A fee of no more than a few hundred dollars will also be comparable to the fees charged for local appeals in Harney County, Wallowa County, and Clackamas County. All three counties, Harney, Wallowa, and Clackamas, charge $250 to .conduct a local appeal. 4 If these three counties, two rural and one urban, can conduct local appeals for $250, then there is nothing inherent in the provision of local appeals in Oregon counties that requires charging any more than that amount. There is no reason Deschutes County cannot do the same. Most importantly, a fee of a few hundred dollars is directly comparable to the Land Use Board of Appeal's charge of $400 to conduct "quasi-judicial proceedings." Wright v. KECH-TV, 300 Or 139, 146, 707 P.2d 1232, 1235-1236, (1985) ("[LUBA] is empowered to conduct review of land use decisions through quasi-judicial proceedings.") When appellants file a local appeal to the County, they are requesting the County to conduct a quasi-judicial proceeding to review the lawfulness of its 2 Oregon Department of Justice Circuit Court Fee Schedule, www. Courts/oregon. gov/OJD/courts. circuit/2016. C ircuitF ee S chedule. pdf 3 Oregon Courts of Appeal appellate fees http://www. courts. oregon. gov/OJD/OSCA/acs/records/pages/filingfees. aspx 4https://www.co.harney.or.us/PDF Files/Planning/2015/Notice%20of%20Appeal%20Form%20v ersion%202015.pdf; http://co.wallowa.or.us/community-development/land-use- planning/applications-and-fees/; http://www.clackamas.us/planning/feeschedule.html Prolccling Control Orcdon's Nolural Irnvironmcni And Working For Susiainublc Comn'runiiins 8 hearing officer's decision. If LUBA can conduct a quasi-judicial proceeding for $400, there is no reason the County cannot do likewise. Apparent source of fees The costs the County has incorrectly charged to land use appellants in the past and proposes to charge to land use appellants in the future appear to be the costs of services from the Community Development Department. Attached please find a copy of "The Deschutes County Community Development User Fee and Operating Plan," Capital Accounting Partners, October, 2015. Exhibit 2. It is a "detailed cost analysis" of the costs incurred in the Community Development Department, to "ensure that the County is fully accounting for all of its costs and recovering adequate revenues to reimburse the County for its expenses." Id. The fee the County may charge appellants must be incident to a benefit bestowed. LandWatch and other appellants request the benefit of a quasi-judicial proceeding. It is this benefit for which appellants may be charged. See supra, National Cable Television Ass'n v. US, 415 U.S. 336, 340, 94 S. Ct. 1146 (1974). According to the Ninth Circuit, charges are fees, and not taxes, when the source of the obligation is an entity's decision to acquire a permit and engage in certain uses. hi re Lorber Industries of California, Inc., 675 F.2d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. Cal. 1982). In a circular issued in 1993, the federal Office of Management and Budget provided three examples of when user charges may be imposed. Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-25, "User Charges," July 8, 1993, at 6. Fees may be imposed when the charge: (a) enables the beneficiary to obtain more immediate or substantial gains or values (which may or may not be measurable in monetary terms) than those that accrue to the general public (e.g., receiving a patent, insurance, or guarantee provision, or a license to carry on a specific activity or business or various kinds of public land use); or (b) provides business stability or contributes to public confidence in the business activity of the beneficiary (e.g., insuring deposits in commercial banks); or (c) is performed at the request of or for the convenience of the recipient, and is beyond the services regularly received by other members of the same industry or group or by the general public (e.g., receiving a passport, visa, airman's certificate, or a Custom's inspection after regular duty hours). Prolec:l.ng Control CAegon's Nolurc.il ruwironmeni And Working For Susioinoblc Conununiiies 9 The special service LandWatch is requesting is a quasi-judicial hearing, which does not require any services from planning staff. It is not clear where the proposed base fee of $2,665 for Appeals to the County Board of Commissioners comes from, (see Exhibit 3), probably the user fee report in Exhibit 2. However it is clear from the evidence presented above that such a base fee is an order of magnitude higher than fees for the identical service charged in three Oregon counties, and for a similar service charged at LUBA, the Oregon circuit courts, and the Oregon Courts of Appeal. Moreover there is no link between an appellant's request for a quasi-judicial proceeding and the type of land use benefit sought by an applicant. Filing fees should be fixed, not variable. Since the service appellants seek is unrelated to the nature of the land use sought by applicants, appellants may not be charged any amount that is based on the cost of requesting a given land use. Exhibit 3, "Appeals to Board of Commissioners, $2665+ 20%"; See Bradley v. State, 262 Ore. App. 78, 107 (2014). The County should abolish any fee for not acting upon an appeal ORS 215.422(1)(c) authorizes the County to prescribe fees to defray costs incurred in acting upon an appeal. There is no authorization to prescribe fees when the County chooses not to act on an appeal. Appellants do not request the County to decide whether or not to take the appeal, but only request the benefit of a quasi- judicial hearing. As explained above, the fee must be related to a benefit bestowed. If an appeal is not granted, then the requested benefit is not bestowed. Therefore no fee may be charged for it. Specifically, LandWatch urges the County to abolish the proposed fee for "Appeals to County Commissioners -Not Accepted, 85% Refund." See Exhibit 3. In the case of the solar farms approved by a hearing officer in 2015, the cost to an appellant for the County's not acting on an appeal would have been $1,759 (i.e. 15% of $11,726.) This is unconscionable, and contrary to applicable law regulating the fees the County may charge for bestowing special benefits, as explained above. Conclusion The harm that results from denying poor people the opportunity to correct error is not merely that abstract legal error will remain on the record. More Protoctinq Control Oregon's Natural Environment And Working For $ustcrinc,blc Comnrunitics 10 fundamentally, it undermines the moral legitimacy of the state's land use system and Oregon courts in the hearts and minds of all but the very wealthiest citizens. It is contrary to state policy for Deschutes County to insulate the County's land use decisions from public scrutiny by pricing appellate remedies beyond the reach of interested members of the community. The County's proposed, and past, land use appeal fees manifestly discriminate against participants on the basis of wealth and are inconsistent with state policy encouraging wide public participation by anyone aggrieved by a local government's incorrect interpretation of applicable land use regulations. The first goal of the Oregon land use program is "To develop a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process." We urge you to deny the proposed land use appeal fees for the reasons outlined above. Thank you for your attention to these views. Please consider this a formal request for written notification of any decision in this matter. Best regards, I /• 7/ Carol Macbeth Staff Attorney Central Oregon LandWatch Pro cling Ccnircil Oiegon', Naiural Enviionmunl And Working For Su5lo,n le Conununiiics Chris Schmoyer From: Chris Schmoyer Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 9:48 AM To: cathysjensen@gmail.com Subject: Hearings Officer Decisions for NorWest Engergy 2, LLC and Oregon Solar Land Holdings, LLC Attachments: HO NorWest Decision 15-168-CU_169-SP.pdf; HO Decision OR SOLAR 15-170-CU_171- SP_172-LM.pdf Hi Cathy, The Hearings Officer's Decisions are attached. The decisions were mailed out to parties of interest on Friday, September 18, 2015, but since USPS mail is so slow, I thought I would email them to you. Please feel free to forward to any parties you have email addresses for. The appeal period expires Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 5:00 pm. I calculated the appeal fee for the NorWest decision to be $5,463 and Oregon Solar Land Holdings to be $5,633. Regards, Chris Chris Schmoyer Associate Planner Certified Associate in Project Management (CAPM) Deschutes County Community Development Department Ph# (541) 317-3164 Fax# (541) 385-1764 Web: http://www.deschutes,ora/cd 1 ce) p2 Capital Accounting Partners, LLC October 2015 October 2015 CONTENTS Introduction And Scope 3 Summary of Costing Methodologies 3 Driver Based Costing Models 3 Summary Results for Community Devetopment — Current Cost Structure 7 Analysis of the Planning Division 8 Current Planning 8 Advanced Planning 8 Analysis of the Building Division 8 Analysis of the Environmental Soils Division 9 Coordinated Services Division 9 Five Year Financial Plan 9 Reserves 9 Why Reserves? 10 Balanced Scorecard — Managing Long -Term Performance 10 Managirig Organizational Performance 14 Comparison Review 17 Selecting benchmark counties and cities 17 The foliowing tabe summarizes Comparison findings 18 Observations and Recommendations 19 General Observations 19 Adjusting the Fee Schedule 19 Reserves 19 Definition 19 Managing Reserves 19 Managing and Reporting on the Balanced Scorecard 20 Ongoing Scorecard Development 21 Appendices 21 Building Fee Table 21 Planning Fee Table 21 Environment Soils Fee Table 21 Balance Scorecard DetaU & Sample Reports 21 Capital Accounting Partners 2 Fetes CotuotyCoity October 2015 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE As part of its effort to manage its financial resources wisely, the Deschutes County engaged Capital Accounting Partners to prepare a detailed cost analysis of its Community Development Department fees. There were three primary objectives for the study: 1) Ensure that the County is fully accounting for all of its costs and recovering adequate revenues to reimburse the County for its expenses. Specific fees included planning, building, and environmental soils: 2) Develop a long term financial plan that will allow Departmental leadership the ability to project staffing needs, impact on costs, and plan for future programs and services; 3) Create a Balanced Scorecard that will assist the Department in two areas: a. Managing daily operations; and b. Communicating to the public the performance of the Department. The process used for collecting and analyzing the data required active participation by the County's management and staff. We want to take this opportunity to recognize their participation, time, and effort to collect the data and discuss the analysis, results, and recommendations. SUMMARY OF COSTING METHODOLOGIES DRIVER BASED COSTING MODELS Developing driver based costing models is a detailed and robust method of calculating the cost of a specific service. It is based on the principles of activity based costing so it seeks to understand cost at an operational level. The value of this approach means that we calculate cost as each staff position contributes time, effort, and energy toward the service. Graphically, the following figure illustrates this methodology. Capital Accounting Partners 3 Deschutes County October 2015 Hypothetical Illustration of a Driver Based Costing Model Planning Tech Planning Director Site Plan Review Step 1: Collect Data — This first step involves discussions with staff to identify those positions within each department that provide and support direct services. It also involves collecting departmental budget and expenditure data, identifying the salary and benefits for each position, and identifying non - personnel expenditures, as well as any departmental and Countywide overhead. Specifically, the steps involve the following: • Identifying staff positions — This includes identifying both position titles and names. • Calculating the number of productive hours — For each position, vacation time, sick leave, paid holidays, professional development (training), routine staff meetings, and daily work breaks are deducted from the standard 2,080 annual hours. The result is a range of hours available for each position on an annual basis. This range is typically 1,250 to 1,600 hours. Factors that influence this range are length of service with the jurisdiction and local policies for holiday and personal leave time. • Identifying and allocating non -personnel costs — Costs for materials and supplies are allocated to the salary and benefits for each position. • Assigning any other expenses that are budgeted in other areas — There are often expenses that should be included with the total cost of services. Examples of such costs might include amortized capital expenses for vehicles and technology. • Identifying core business processes or activities — This step also involves discussions with staff to understand, at an operational level, the work of the operating unit. Core business processes used to provide services are identified and then defined by the tasks that are involved. Processes are also organized by direct and indirect categories: Capital Accounting Partners 4 J Deschutes County October 2015 • Direct processes and activities — Those processes that directly contribute to the processing of an application or permit are first identified. Examples of a direct activity are electrical building inspection, application intake, and pre -application review. • Indirect processes and activities — Those processes that support, but do not directly apply to the processing of a specific application or permit. An example of an indirect activity is customer service or staff training to maintain certifications. Most jurisdictions highly value customer service, but it is difficult to assign a specific cost or unit of time to an individual service. Step 2: Building cost structures — This second step involves significant interaction with staff and the development of time estimates for both direct and indirect processes in each department. Specifically, this step is at the core of the analysis. There are three processes that comprise this step: • Gathering time estimates for direct processes — By interviewing staff in individual and group meetings, an estimate of time was assigned to each service by the process that is indicated. For example, in processing planning fees the following specific steps are involved in the processing of these fees: • Application intake; • Application review for completeness; • Review application for conformance with approval criteria; • Prepare administrative decision on application or staff report for hearings body. In this analysis, staff time is estimated and assigned to each step. The sum of all the process steps is the total time that is required to provide that specific service. • Assigning indirect and annual process time — An annual time estimate is gathered from staff for those indirect or support processes in which they are involved. Some of these costs are assigned to the direct cost of a service on an allocated basis. Some might not be assigned at all. For example, in the case of planning fees, the costs associated with advanced planning have been identified but not allocated to the fees. Advanced planning has its own fee category, consistent with the current fee structure. • Calculating fully loaded hourly rates and the cost of service — Once the total time for each direct and indirect service is estimated, the cost of service is calculated by using the fully loaded hourly rates for each staff member or position that is involved with the service. The fully loaded hourly rate for each employee is based on the employee's salary and benefit costs plus a share of non - personnel and County overhead costs divided by the employee's available work hours (i.e. 2,080 hours minus all leave hours). Thus, the direct and indirect cost by activity also includes departmental and county -wide overhead as well as non -labor costs. For this study, fiscal 2014-2015 budget expenses were used in all of the calculations. • Gathering activity or volume data — A critical element in the analysis is the number of times a given service is provided on an annual basis. This is critical data for three reasons: • It allows a calculated projection of current revenue based on current prices. This is compared with actual revenue to see if there is a close match as the data should match. • It allows for a calculated projection of revenue at full cost. This is compared to actual expenditures to see if there is a close match as the data should match. • It allows for a calculation of total hours consumed. Hours consumed must closely match actual hours available. Capital Accounting Partners 5 Deschutes County October If any of the three calculations do not approximate actual numbers, then time estimates and/or volume data need to be re-evaluated. These are critical quality checks for costing accuracy. Step 3: Calculating the full cost of services — This third step calculates the full cost of service for each direct service in a department. In the previous step, the cost of service was calculated for each direct and indirect service. In this step, the cost layers are brought together to establish the full cost of service for a specific direct service, program, or activity. As previously mentioned the cost of each direct service is calculated. To determine the full cost of service, the cost of indirect services is allocated to each direct service. The indirect services costs are allocated to each direct service based on each direct services proportion of labor spent processing each permit and application. By summing the direct and allocated indirect costs and multiplying that by the activity data, a total cost of service is calculated for both an individual service and the operating unit as a whole. The following chart illustrates an example of these calculations. This same process was used for planning fees, land development/environmental soils fees, and building fees. Hypothetical Illustration of Calculating the Cost of a Single Fee (service) Application or Fee Title Assigning Staff Cost and Time Community Planning Associate Executive Signing Programs (Five or More Signs) Development Totals Manager Planner Assistant Director Pre -submittal meeting 0.5 0.5 1 Land Use Application Intake 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.75 Application Review 1 6.5 7.5 Development Review Committee (DRC) 0.5 2 2.5 Prepare for decision 0.5 1.25 5 1 7.75 Public hearing 0.33 0.33 2 0.33 2.99 Plan Check of accepted plans — post entitlement 1.25 0.5 1.75 (Total Time by Position 0.83 3.83 17.50 2.08 24.24 Calculated Full Loaded Hourly Rate 203.67 183.96 152.38 128.66 Total Direct Cost by Position 169 705 2,667 268 3,808 Total support or indirect costs assigned $ 574 Total Cost Assigned $ 4,382 Step 4: Set cost recovery policy — Once the full cost of service is calculated for each direct service in a department, the cost of service for that direct service is then compared to the revenue generated by the fee charged for the service. This cost recovery analysis identifies the cost recovery level for that direct service. Depending on County policies and other considerations, the level of cost recovery is a decision that should be made for each type or group of direct services. For example, the County might want to recover the full cost for building related permits, but might only want to recover 80% for planning permits. Step 5: Set fees Based on any new, existing, or revised cost recovery policies, the recommended fees can be established. Capital Accounting Partners 6 butes. Cour ty October 2015' SUMMARY RESULTS FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT -° CURRENT COST STRUCTURE We observe that as the County recovers from the recent recession cost structures are changing. In fact, we see this trend from all of our clients. Most municipal agencies cut their budgets "to the bone" during the recession and now costs are moderating upward. This means reserves are being rebuilt, staffing additions are being considered, and administrative support is increasing. We also observe that the County has done a very good job maintaining the appropriate balance between costs and revenues. The following graphic illustrates our findings that while fees need to increase to match expenses, however, we normally see much more dramatic requirements for fee increases. Revenue at Full Cost of Services .1 - ' 1. Revenues at Current Fees Annual Surplus (subsidy) Planning $ Building $ Environmental Soils $ Advanced planning fee $ Code compliance fee $ Totals $ 1,026,200 $ 757,550 ($268,650) 3,442,886 $ 3,274,157 ($175,593) 561,077 $ 481,541 ($79,536) 621,953 $ 410,000 ($211,953) 320,729 1 $ 255,000 ($65,729) 5,972,844 $ 5,178,248 ($801,460) This graphic illustrates our analysis that the Department is under recovering its costs. The two largest sources of under recovering costs is in the Planning program. Both current and Advanced Planning are not fully recovering costs. From our perspective, this is rather normal. We observe several reasons for this: 1. As our economy is recovering from the recent recession Cities and Counties both avoided any increase in fees. Now these programs are under recovering costs. 2. Recovering the cost of Advanced Planning is something most cities and counties struggle with. While many will have some kind of administrative fee for Advanced Planning that is added to Current and/or Building fees, many do not calculate the long term costs. 3. From our experience, Current Planning is a function where costs are consistently under recovered. In our view, the regulatory requirements often outpace any adjustments to fee pricing. These applications are increasing more complex and controversial. This results in more staff time to evaluate and respond to concerns of the public. As complexity goes up, so does staff workloads and fees are slow to catch up. 4. We find that in a tight budget environment, Advanced Planning is a function that is often delayed. Unfortunately, the result is often an uncertain development environment. Capital Accounting Partners 7 Desch rtes County ANALYSIS OF THE PLANNING DIVISION CURRENT PLANNING Current Planning is responsible for reviewing land use applications for compliance with Deschutes County Code (DCC) and State law, including zoning, subdivision and development regulations, and facilitating public hearings with hearings officers and the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). Based on our analysis, fees charged to Current Planning customers are insufficient to recover the cost of processing applications. For the reasons detailed above, we generally find that Planning operations generally show the greatest opportunity for cost recovery. This appears to be true with the County. ADVANCED PLANNING Advanced Planning is responsible for planning for the future of Deschutes County, including developing and implementing land use policy with the Board of County Commissioners, Planning Commission, community and partner organizations. It is in charge of updating the County Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations, coordinating with cities and agencies on various planning projects taking place in the region, and coordinating population forecasts with Portland State University and cities. Recovering the costs associated with long range planning is often a challenge. Some municipal agencies prefer for this to be a general fund obligation. Some prefer to make it an obligation tied to current planning fees while some spread it across all development services — planning, building and development engineering. October 2015 According to our analysis Advanced Planning cost $621,953 (fiscal 14-15). The revenues to pay for Advanced Planning are derived from administrative fees added to Building permits. This revenue was projected to be $410,000, which means that the Department is under recovering its costs for Long Range Planning. ANALYSIS OF THE BUILDING DIVISION Deschutes County's Building Safety Division interprets and enforces the State -mandated Building Codes for the people of the community through a process of education and a clear and fair application of the Specialty Codes. There are two basic types of Building fees: 1. Fees that are calculated based on project valuation; and 2. Flat fees that are calculations of how much time effort and energy is required to provide the service. Typically these are inspections of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing projects. Valuation based fees tend to maintain revenues because of the automatic inflationary adjustments inherent with development activity. Flat fees are often updated infrequently and therefore more prone to under recovery. From our analysis we see opportunities to adjust flat fees. However, we would not recommend any adjustment to those fees that are calculated based on the value of the project. These appear to be recovering an appropriate level of cost. Capital Accounting Partners 8 Deschutes County ANALYSIS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL SOILS DIVISION The purpose of the Onsite Program is to provide the homeowner with a sewage treatment and dispersal system that is as trouble free as possible and that protects residents from health problems relating to exposure to surfacing sewage and prevent contamination of the water supply. As such, this division plays an important environmental role within the County. October 2015 Cost recovery for this program is currently recovering less than its total cost. COORDINATED SERVICES DIVISION Coordinated Services Division is the main contact for customers visiting or contacting Deschutes County Community Development. Within the division, Permit Technicians serve customers, take phone calls and process related paperwork in support of all the department divisions. In our analysis, we allocated the cost of permit technicians and the "front counter" to Building, Planning, and Environmental Soils on an allocated basis. The majority of this cost was allocated to Building based on the work load demands from processing Building applications. In addition, it overseas the Code Enforcement function for the Department. Code Enforcement is a subset of Coordinated Services. Within the County, Code Enforcement is paid for by an administrative fee attached to Building permits. Based on our analysis, projected fiscal 14-15 revenues were $255,000 while actual costs for Code Enforcement were $320,729. In addition, the Department and the Coordinated Services Division supports an intentional high level of services. This includes satellite offices and partnering with smaller communities such as Sisters and the City of Redmond. While this is not unusual, our observation is that the Department proactivity creates opportunities to service the broader community. FIVE YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN From our perspective, the Department is financially on fairly solid ground and improving. There are no major expenses looming on the horizon that will cause fees to go up dramatically. After several years of revenues dropping revenues seem to be rising. In addition, management is taking a very conservative approach to adding expenses such as additional staff. From our observation, they are waiting to add staff and additional cost until it is absolutely mandatory. Furthermore, they are waiting to add additional administrative staff until the final payment on the building has been made in fiscal 2016. RESERVES Building reserves is the one area of long-term concern. During the recent recession reserves were depleted and the Department was dependent upon infusions from the County's general fund. While reserves are gradually being rebuilt, it is our view that this is happening because budgeted positions are being delayed until absolutely necessary. Capital Accounting Partners 9 chutes County Oct€bek• 2015 Furthermore, we see an opportunity to establish meaningful policy regarding reserves. This would include several components: 1. A target such as 9 or 12 months of operating expenses; 2. An upper limit such as 16 months; 3. A lower limit such as 6 months; and 4. Management polices when the upper and lower control limits are exceeded. In our analysis, and in discussion with Department leadership we concluded that a reasonable target for reserves would be 9-12 months of operating expenses to be held in reserves. Furthermore, to target five years as a build up for this amount. WHY RESERVES? Holding financial reserves for a commercial firm allows the firm to weather volatility in their market while maintaining a stable workforce. Furthermore, without adequate reserves the firm cannot invest in new technologies that will allow them to provide higher value products and services to their customers. Readers may ask, why should the Community Development Department target reserves and why 9-12 months of operating expenses? 1) In the same way reserves help commercial firms provide a consistency of service during normal swings in their markets, so reserves for the Department will allow them to provide a consistency of service. 2) There is no general fund support. We find that frequently citizens and development associations feel that the general fund does or should support development services. However, the direction of the Deschutes County Community Development Department is to be fully self -supported. Outside an emergency, the County does not provide general fund support with the exception of Long Range Planning. Revenues from development fees must fully reimburse the Department for its expenses. 3) Technology enhancements. We frequently find municipal clients with no ability to fund technology upgrades. When the department has to go to the County Board of Commissioners for funding a new permitting system or an upgrade to the system, they need to get in line with every other funding request. However, when reserves are present, funding for these upgrades are available. 4) Maintaining institutional knowledge of regulations. Development related services are driven by regulations at the regional, state and even federal levels. Keeping a workforce that knows these regulations is critical for long-term sustainability. BALANCED SCORECARD - MANAGING LONG-TERM PERFORMANCE We are pleased to report that leadership within the Deschutes County Community Development Department has demonstrated a clear intent to being a high performing organization. We have seldom seen this kind of commitment to high performance in the complex world of public service and the Capital Accounting Partners 10 Deschutes County Octhbev 201 tensions of engaging customers with competing demands. Furthermore, we have seldom observed the desire to adopt management tools that are common place in the private sector and apply them in the public sector. While many public agencies are adopting measures as a way of reporting on their performance, few are using these measures either strategically or operationally. From our observation, few agencies use their performance measures to improve their operations or the value of their services to the public. One tool that has enjoyed wide spread application in the private sector is a Balanced Scorecard (BSC). This BSC concept was first developed by Drs. Robert Kaplan and David Norton of the Harvard Business School. The concept is a method of aligning mission critical business process in cause and effect relationships that are aligned with both mission and vision. The result is an organization that understands what is critical to customers and a structure of performance measures that recognizes the complexities of a public agency. A well -crafted Balanced Scored has four "perspectives". In total, these perspectives provides a method of structuring performance reporting that comprehensively assesses total organizational performance. To customize the four perspectives and make them applicable to the Department, we made the following modifications Customer Internal Process Organizational assets Financial o. u le' i e Providing Quality Customer Service Managing Regulatory Processes Organizational Assets and Capabilities Building Financial Sustainability In the process of creating a Balanced Scorecard for the Department we spent considerable time with staff in interactive group engagements. One of the most important changes to a traditional BSC is the realization that there are two, often opposing, perspectives inherent with the Department. However, both perspectives are valid and need to be recognized. We identified the potential for inherent conflict within the customer perspective and the regulatory perspective. While customers want fast, efficient, and expected outcomes, the regulatory process often requires something different and not always what the customer wants to hear. However, both perspectives need to be addressed and respected. We feel this scorecard does exactly this. These engagements resulted in two broad outcomes: 1) Specific objectives for each of the perspectives above; and 2) Decision points to manage critical business processes. Capital Accounting Partners 11 Deschutes Cott nnty October 2015 Capital Accounting Partners 12 Deschutes County CONSISTENT COUNTER SERVICE CONSISTENT INSPECTION RESPONSE CONSISTENT PLAN REVIEW 0"c 0L 01 • II/ ✓ V .Cti 171 cc 00 cc E E r o c u 'ai a t 3M5 ,T, •••••; z fe z 2 .c. t E 5 r" ra. 2 t •E 5 ci fe z 0 a Z iii 0 .1) E w 0 cl •,P 0 5 ▪ c = m., ge 222 4 COURTEOUS AND PROFESSIONAL COUNTER STAFF . t t g t 'ts to 5 ZZ, 5 9 2 . • "E p, o a o .1 b ik ci ro u ...a r, 2 23 x 2 gg t "ci 6 z = 0 41 -.1 {11 (..J ,-1 u F -c Permits submitted electronically Soft skillsfor counter staff Plans submitted electronically Annual fund balances .Rt• _1 __I es of Banced Scorecard Aware F.1 Maintain stable reserves Capital Accounting Partners Deschutes County October 2015 MANAGING ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE The beauty of this Balanced Scorecard is that it provides a clear structure for developing performance measures that are comprehensive — every vital function of the organization is measured. Furthermore, each objective referenced above comes with three measures: 1. Target measure; 2. Upper control limit; and 3. Lower control limit. This structure takes the unusual approach to performance measures and turns data into management tools that can be utilized to affect performance improvement. For example, organizations will often publish performance measures. However, they often lack structure or alignment with mission critical business processes or customer requirements. In addition, they often fail to provide any value to the management of the agency. The structure that the Department has adopted goes significantly further, in three ways: Target Measures — Performance measures without a target is a random number that lacks relevance. For example, when the Building division sets a target of building plan review of 5 days it automatically has established a level of performance that is measurable. Upper Control Limits — Provides a management tool that has value in two ways: 1) If the actual number of five days moves higher than its upper limit of eight days it suggests new staffing or resources (i.e. on-call personnel, partner organizations) are required to meet the demand; and 2) It tells staff that this number is important to the customer. Lower Control Limits — Provides another management tool that has value in two ways: 1) When the actual number goes below the lower limit of 2 days it means that staffing levels are too high relative to demand and adjustments may need to be made to staffing levels or staff need to be resigned; and/or 2) The data can also be a barometer of plan review quality. If plans are being pushed through the system too fast it may indicate review of insufficient detail. The following chart details the objectives established for each perspective within the Balanced Scorecard, the target measure of performance as well as the upper and lower control limits. Capital Accounting Partners 14 Deschutes County CUSTOMER PERSPECTIVE Objective C.1(a) C.1(b) C.2 C.3 (a) C.3 (b) C.4 C.5 C.6 Consistent turn around for planning applications Consistent turn around for planning applications Consistent turn around for residential plan review Consistent inspection response - residential (non- electrical) Consistent inspection response -electrical Consistent Soils inspection response Timely customer service Professional customer service Internal Processes Perspective - Meeting Reg Objective Residential building inspections Residential building plan review R.1 R.2 R.3 Soils process control R.4 Code Enforcement R.5 Code Enforcement R.6 Consistent Accella updates R.7 Consistent planning processes October 2015 Measures Turnaround time for processing administrative determinations (no prior notice) planning applications Turnaround time for processing administrative determinations (with prior notice) planning applications Turnaround time for Building plan review _% of building inspections done within 1 day _% of building inspections done within 72 hours _% Of Pre -Cover inspections done when requested Average wait Permit Tech services Survey - Department customer service ulatory Requirements Measures Average # stops/day Average # plan review / examiner Turn around for new construction permits Achieving voluntary compliance Resolving cases within 12 months Total days to completeness determination (method of Accella updates) Turnaround time for processing administrative determinations (no prior notice) planning applications Targets L. Limit Primary U. Limit 14 Days 21 Days 35 Days 30 days 2 Days 90% 90% 1 Day 3 Min 45 Days 60 Day 5 Days 8 Days 95% 95% 3 Days 100% 100% 5 Days 5 Min 15 Min Targets L. Limit Primary U. Limit 6 Day 2 / Day 5 Days 8 Day 10 Day 3/Day 4 Day 10 Days 15 Day 75% 85% 100% 75% 85% 100% 20 Days 25 days 14 Days 30 Days 21 Days 35 Days Capital Accounting Partners 15 ieschaAtes County R.8 Organizational Assets L.1 L.2 L.3 L.4 Consistent planning processes Objective Fact based management Aware leadership Soft skills for counter staff Appropriately staffed for workload L.5 Technical innovation L.6 Technical innovation L.7 Technical innovation Financial Perspective F.1 F.2 F.3 F.4 Objective Reserves Revenues Appropriately staffed for workload Appropriately staffed for workload Objectives: Action statements that clarify how we will implement the strategy. Measures: Track progress toward achieving the objective against expected performance. October 2015 Turnaround time for processing administrative determinations (with prior 30 days 45 Days 60 Day notice) or hearings schedule Measures Quarterly review of Balanced Scorecard data 361 Degree annual staff reviews Counter survey tool # Permits issued per tech (counter) Of permits submitted electronically Of plan reviews submitted electronically Of inspections scheduled electronically Measures 9-12 Months operating expenses Revenues exceed expenses # Planning applications per planner # Building stops per inspector per day Glossary of Terms Targets: Set and communicate the expected performance level for the organization. Initiatives: Articulate the key project or programs that are resourced and managed in order to accomplish the strategy. L. Limit Targets Primary U. Limit 75% 50% 25% 25% 50% 75% 25% 50% 75% 90% 100% 100% Targets L. Limit Primary U. Limit 6 9 12 1% 5% 7% 28 36 48 Month Month Month 6 Day 8 Day 10 Day Capital Accounting Partners 16 Gee&-ehuttes County October 2015 COMPARISON REVIEW As part of this analysis, a survey was conducted of similar Counties as well as the City of Bend. The analysis compared similar fees and projects in an effort to determine trends in cost recovery. To increase value staff identified individual services (fees) that provide a reasonable basis of comparison. We caution the reader about these comparisons. Many communities do not routinely update their fees, and when they do, it might not be based on a thorough analysis of cost. This means the data that follows is the County's cost compared to another County's price. In addition, communities have different policies regarding user fees. Some desire to subsidize their fees while others want to charge full cost. Additional factors that make comparing fees difficult: 1. Comparing cost with price. What we have prepared for Deschutes County is an analysis of cost. This is compared with a price the benchmark agencies are charging which may or may not have a direct relationship to cost. 2. Differences in fee structure. Individual agencies will use different methods for pricing user fees. For example, some cities and counties base building fees on an independent formula for determining value, while others base the fees on construction cost. While the actual fee might be identically the same, how the final fee is calculated can be very different. 3. Differences in funding, and recovery. Some counties and cities will intentionally subsidize development services as a way of encouraging economic development. Others will subsidize it unintentionally because their financial systems are not adequate enough. 4. Service levels can vary. Some counties and cities will adopt the State of Oregon's requirement for processing applications and permits while other want to do better. These will create processes and procedures to meet local demand and expectations. This all impacts cost. SELECTING BENCHMARK COUNTIES AND CITIES In selecting benchmark counties and cities we worked with Departmental leadership to select those communities that have some similarity to Deschutes County. Consequently we chose the City of Bend because of its geographical proximity to the County. We also chose Jackson, Land and Clackamas Counties because of similar size. To create a broad spectrum we also benchmarked two Washington State counties — Whatcom and Clark Counties. We felt that these Counties are somewhat similar but also different enough that they would provide a broader perspective than just Oregon Counties alone. Capital Accounting Partners 17 Deschutes County October 2015 THE FOLLOWING TABLE SUMMARIZES COMPARISON FINDINGS Building Fees / Deposit Single -Family Home: 2745SF, S00 SF garage, value = $328434 $ 1 Electrical SF 1 $ Single -Family Addition: (635 SF) value = $88,256 1 New Multi -Family: (10 -units, 8,000 Sq. Ft.) value = 5813,760 $ New Commercial Officer (30,000 Sq. R. Office) value _ 53,546,000 $ 'Commercial Alteration: 575,000 valuation 1 $ 'Mechanical 8Appliances; 1 Furnace up to 100,000btu Outdoor condenser (heat pump) 3 Bath fans Range hood $ 49 1 $ 1 Gas dryer vent 1 $ 49 1 $ 1 Gas fire place 1 $ 61 $ 'Plumbings WC 1 $ 62 $ Fee/Deposit levels hatcom County, lark County, W ' City of Bend 2,331 $ 2,331 $ 1,658 $ 1,451 $ 2,688 $ 4,194 $ 2,939 $ 405 $ 405 $ 215 1 $ 462 $ 286 $ 666 1 $ $ 505 $ 1,149 1 $ 981 $ 1,106 $ 959 $ 1,601 1 $ 7,440 $ 7,440 $ 5,182 $ 5,484 1$ 5,790 $ 6,254 $ 11,028 I $ 32,406 1$ 32,406 $ 26,268 $ 22,390 1$ 685 1 $ 685 1 $ 872 1 $ 1 1 1 1 22,148 $ 14,716 I $ 30,904 I $ 2,804 $ 425 $ 665 1 $ 3,753 I $ 2,580.75 351.33 1 923.06 1 6,418.64 15,310 1 $ 23,448 87 1 883 1 $ 1,009 1 $ 958 1 $ 2,586 1 $ 601 1 $ 1,084.74 1 1$ - 1 7 $ 181$ 46 $ 161$ 661$ 22 $ 32.011 12.00 $ 18 $ 61 $ 12 $ 66 $ 74 $ 41.66 38.40 $ 27 $ 36 $ 10 $ 66 $ 25 $ 37.61 5.50 1 $ 12 1 $ 40 $ 10 1 $ 66 $ 12 1 $ 27.801 3.70 $ 9 1 $ 36 $ 10 1 $ 66 $ 12 1 $ 26.44 1 7.30 $ 18 1 $ 92 $ 10 1 $ 66 $ 22 $ 39.38 1 18.63 $ 31 1 $ 48 $ 10 1 $ 122 $ 41.62 $ 491$ 2315 $ 49 I$ 19 $ 61 $ 26 $ Conditional Use permit 'Final Plat- 10 lots 'Property Line Adjustment 'Site Plan Review 'Subdivision Tentative Plat - 25 lots Fee/Deposlt 'I levels Cou Lane County Itatcom County, t%lark County, W $ 3,025 $ 2,365 $ 1,700 $ 3,945 $ 2,600 $ 2,300 $ 5,678 $ 2,895 $ 3,163 $ 1,891 1 $ 670 $ 620 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 $ 500 $ 2,627 $ 1,228 $ 1,724 1 $ 732 1 $ 485 $ 315 $ 390 $ 1,050 $ 408 $ 1,024 $ 5601 $ 6,070 1$ 3,200 $ 1,193 $ 510 $ 2,600 $ 3,453 $ 10,125 $ 3,422 1 $ 7,801 1$ 5,895 $ 6,215 $ 9,000 1 $ 5,250 $ 7,773 $ 9,996 $ 6,576 1 After reviewing the comparative data, our conclusions are that the County's fees, at full cost compare reasonably well with the benchmark communities. We would expect to see valuation based building fees to be pretty consistent with other Oregon Counties. We would also expect to see the flat fees to need upward adjustments. In addition, we observe that planning fees at full cost are still within a reasonable range of the benchmark communities and well within a reasonable range when comparing against the average. Capital Accounting Partners 18 City of Lend, Oregon October 2015 OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL OBSERVATIONS We observe that the management of the Community Development Department has a clear understanding of its role and mission within the community. We also observe that they see this role as more than just enforcing regulatory mandates. They understand their role as providing an important service to the development community including partner organizations, stakeholder groups, and individual citizens. These see each of these groups as their customers. After working with several dozen Community Development Departments, we find this a refreshing and unique set of perspectives. ADJUSTING THE FEE SCHEDULE As a matter of practice we recommend annual adjustments to fees wherever possible. We also recommend a complete review of costs for fee services every three to five years. With the annual update of fees we recommend using a simple CPI type increase that is attached to the County's labor cost. For example, if the labor cost for the County goes up by 2% then adjust each fee by 2%. This is the simplest and most common method of adjusting fees annually. RESERVES Reserves are an important function for the financial sustainability of any organization. The Deschutes County's Community Development Department is no different. In our view, it is important to clearly define reserves and how to manage them. DEFINITION It is common for cities and counties to look at budget surpluses and consider them as reserves. For development related organizations, this might not be true. In our view, a reserve fund is a separate line item marked as reserve for the specific purpose of closing gaps between revenues and expenses during economic contractions. This is different than budget surpluses that are usually pre -funded plan review and inspection work that is going to take place over the next 6-18 months. MANAGING RESERVES It is important to have a policy or at least a plan on managing reserves. Reserves that are too high and the County runs the risk of being out of compliance with the State of Oregon. Too few reserves and it may impact the County's ability to maintain consistent service levels. Therefore, our first recommendation is to publish regular reports on reserve levels. These reports should show both the target and upper and lower control limits. These control limits are decision points. If the target is 12 months of operating expenses, then an upper limit might be 15 months and a lower limit might be 9 months. As long as the actual amount is within these limits then no further action is required. But if the actual amount goes either above or lower than the control limits then a decision needs to be made. It is also our recommendation that once the target has been reached, then managing revenues so they do not continue to escalate is critical. In our view, the easiest way to do this is by annual adjustments to 19 Deschutes County, Oregon October 2015 fees. If the target has been reached, then skip an annual fee adjustment so the rate of increase will slow down. If the actual level of reserves falls below the target, then maybe it is time to lower expenditures. The following graph illustrates a sample reserve fund report with a hypothetical target of $1,000,000. $1,400,000 $1,200,000 $1.,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 $- Reserve Fund Report 1 Decision Point Decision Point 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Upper Control Limit Actual Reserves Lower Control Limit In addition, we find that those cities and counties that create organizations for long term sustainability do so by setting policies or practices that will provide for a continuity of services through economic contractions. For example, in our view, setting a policy for how Long Range or Advance Planning is funded is one of the most important deliverables for a fee study. Funding Advanced Planning during economic growth might be relatively easy. However, economic contraction does not mean that Advanced Planning activities can be ignored. So policies or practices to fund this activity is critical to the long-term health and sustainability of the County. MANAGING AND REPORTING ON THE BALANCED SCORECARD The Balanced Scorecard will provide leadership the ability to manage its organization with data and facts. Managing by fact is one of the key elements to high performing organizations. As outlined in the body of the report, there are four perspectives to the Scorecard: 1. Providing Quality Customer Service: 2. Managing Regulatory Processes: 3. Organizational Assets and Capabilities: and 4. Building Financial Sustainability. Performance objectives for each of these perspectives have been identified, (please see the detail in the appendix). Automated reports have been created for customer service and managing regulatory processes. Reports for measuring organizational assets & capabilities as well as financial sustainability Capital Accounting Partners, LLC 20 Deschutes County, Oregon October 2015 have yet to be created. We understand that data to monitor these objectives come from different data sources. ONGOING SCORECARD DEVELOPMENT No scorecard is set "in stone". It is a dynamic element that is an integral part of a high performing organization. Therefore, we would expect to see this change over time. Objectives that have been identified will be modified. Measures will be modified to reflect data that matures over time. We strongly recommend this understanding would hope that as the Department matures so would its scorecard. APPENDICES BUILDING FEE TABLE PLANNING FEE TABLE ENVIRONMENT SOILS FEE TABLE BALANCE SCORECARD DETAIL & SAMPLE REPORTS Capital Accounting Partners, LLC 21 BUILDING FEE TABLE LZOI N N o n N o a m n o n o a'o mN w H N� m n voi :9'74.1 �o n N o N 03 vii +ry _,... �`ri. N N N N N N . am"EH no nm m o wn aoo o d m M N N N N N N N „„„N N N „N„ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N W V O P N O ',.AP a N W cl' O N O N N NrN O O O n O n NN N OO O ON n p O 88888 00 Oy ~ N ^ ry .^ i b `?;74°); .7i N N .mi N N W N M .a N PP C .NI.ON1 rv0 /� H N! v/' N N N NNNN N N N N NNNN N N iA NN N NNNNN h N M 666666666666)8 6 NN 6 N N N ''I H Nv N m m m m N^ 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 h N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Vin N N N H N Vii N N Vii VOi N ti N VMi p .i .-I .i .i .Pi .Pi P 10000)0000000010;1 N N N O V m N V W M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NN „N„ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N o O o ✓ E a a a ° a o 808 III U aNJ M'Of0 a p qOy O= 00UOO O n aM N N O ii.;� c 6 ' En a � >L m ° J E E E _C lit! !EyN N 0 m OO E N a O 00 aa • ey eN LN aN od ;m ti °n E mNE-'v @ w=0 =�o i t oLOOFa mmm �mv 111 O U02 O O C c N N 0 N ' 2o=5 E m50'� O°j O 6 E E ` TN _w nncaC d 2. Eod " r"cs °, �p =Nmoo coo: >andodEE MM oy>9a03 aural-al-amaUav 15_ w, o -o E o E o E mo E mo E o s? U n E .° v o f m o a a o o c d d o ° � -o a J J� o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0" smm OP �o°oo`oo �o o"°'mmw °'°po air=°mEn''coddm MoD .9 mmnvv �u LL 5000 o�0000 ril m o'ca` a>a�°,G.aai �"'o aci aci o fil a� slh r' o r '- n o m m o o �;QQ_Q aQcm.= m. -min m.-m.-WLLLLLLU'2�a L-USK.=_mE»JOg_-2m a) U m w m a v M o o v Kg Mechanical -additional plan review per hour Seismic review - essential facilities Reinspection fee - mechanical Bldg UnitCosts Capital Accounting Partners BldgUnitCosts 0 N U) M 0 d Capital Accounting Partners iI Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated (min 1/2 hr) Electrical master permit (one time fee) 15 }\ \ t ) \ )+-12-58 Tgi LIC - : §§ ====k` ®2\ - &$222n\ \-- / / 222!7! ) /[ \ /ƒ \�\\ / \fƒff.= - \��- f)±I - /z::2y,»..zz z ,, :3337 ƒ#( ;«««$?_«; tUt ` \QQQQ;f#2; !;(; #7§37 &§7 !, 22{;00:4_>m,: „), pmmBB.;l:,= �fyEerr:k>)\§ ;a{ 9::!g!££ \22!!:Rƒ+± /fƒ/)$6f$/yam ._ BldgUnitCosts Capital Accounting Partners o ico 00 0 �r m N ro�o�o nv,'a v N o ry w 000 00 0 0 0 . a N N N M~ tD N M aR UT VA t/, iR Na/, tR tRN tR tp iR LTN LrNN� mmm m`n ori Om v ry m m . 88 88 8 8 8ai 8.o8 O00`,c`RAaRNoNa ry 8o min �LNl��a?NN eNi an 0000«0000000000 N N+/i N,+A an aRN N VNi t�/!iA mo`"o00a om ' N N .-1 Obi V n N ti O d N O Rra N^ TV -4',1'4V,44 .- ,74 00 00 0 , m M UTahvRLiahtRaA I,VHail a/I . V! Nirn O O 9 r N O C E E m c E c E d r9, a3i 'm c y y u m t C N G N� n o. o 0 o ,,L- ' 11 o n ww(C, LS s� c d d '20 N N d d C d c Q N LL LL O �:� � N a N E «', ��, y m 0 5_ 2 N LL m .... Cawr� C f, J LL J LT: - d C « 6' d m N A - ._ .� .. f., LL 1 O 1 .� a. N N -> € E m m m 1111 !t1' Lm « d�N o: ae oF_2e�com Ld m ?"N- No:a ,:t. add c8d1 O 1' �o m d N d dS ._,. o.o 'oEo c 4`m, do pac c ct_ o:go: ;E a. c c 8-20`3 3a ,,,.-E E? �:iE�,w+, coi e'p a' 3'033 o i��3EE E:' -- 3dNdN =u 8 0 °'« o y° n y.w '? w y LL y o@ 2*. w ° P E o. n' q�;v 3 3 3 > '0, v E 3 3 3 n '202 �.m-_ u°1i w a m ^° « N c! m ._ �;Y; `m d T N N uN`-- v> Z. e m 3 v m d c 5 , 'Do v« o 15.-0 m E p o 3 N pa E w)' 3 3 `m `m m d o N a> m E N N N ;ia d d E c- o E o N,b:2 -c c 3 O N O «.p52°.2 N O: O'. C C O E N N N N N C C« C Qi C N S V O G P Q O w w w f�f"E ..�. r i d O. N C '� G 2.:t2 m� a-` is 1 N c E to a m 1 8 g g m w y 1' fli g g ql g d � m a a s E E E4 � -u t f- `m v O0055'0)0000L«CO.>> J,J.,E EEEE.4], CN3�=d�Op>>�CGE mEE»>NEN,�aE00> c7 2 00 K F- O a O 3 a e a N m l�dew ( 00 0 C2LL c0 (n a a N,a a a m i i i 1� } � g g E K 5 5 5 a= 5 5 9V. BldgUnitCosts "6 - a a Capital Accounting Partners BldgUnitCosts 0 N 0 a Capital Accounting Partners r co v p a o ^ N N N 01 Fri 00 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O) r eNr m T W '%11' mm M roma e N H N N N N N N N N N N N N D,�0 V V t0 N N � y v N N N T V N 00 op Vhf N O O a t N Omi O W n m 8 ro 'cn?, T 0~i ti N N at, N N NNNif! NN N N N N ~ N N 01:1 41. p e e°\° h N 6 O N N .moi cA aa h N N N N N N N M D N O v m� W W i N m N NNNNNN VT, V/ 000000010000010000000100000 N N N NNNNN N N NNV)NNNN NNNNV)V) E E v � 9 E Quick start (stamped plans not required) Structual -additional plan review 0 installations - minimum fee BldgUnitCosts Capital Accounting Partners U 2 k ,%-[;[; ij 33}&3 } 33 &&i/\\ign VI, VI \\\\\)VV:Mr1 8 / \ \ \ - { e\ ! { / / / ! \ \\ /) \ :\f 2 ) f { { ,,,,8E8_, ; !! Q! £ i.'.:5.,; ! i a 7 t «2 e!!; ;® ! { { f )_ eo \�\/ k- Z- \)f/± \ & «Ze:! -.2522»;k f ! X000.0 Q Vail § Ib'tm §\\l\/;[2«:«igfr )R) ) )a\6)kr ± ■,;`§![])/«£&>sf`*... g (/( ( (%{§\/\r\j{f\)f§+«7f\.2 75.H)(\)f® - ® ® °° ' .ANV._ZZE,2 2. 9(S&gg;;§ _ (\§ES\=/#%t«m.o o50ly: —5.52500.2 o>§o tr 8I+±2z�=a!ƒ!\Q6>>8 5i'In2.6 ra Reinspection fee - mechanical BldgUnitCosts co Capital Accounting Partners ( w s E 8s aa aapaH HIflaUIRR ggaggDUR ,,, ® , , ,=a Z, , 5a5 ® E §\ V, Halq ) RRR P, Mal 3. aaaaaaaagi Each manufactured home or modular dwelling \Ot 4 \\\\\$0 12 \\2\ 2; /[//ƒ)c24 {{\\\\\}\j} 010 22 tf);: }010 00 })}}k)kt 0. 0 tn 0 arm 0 Capital Accounting Partners O 233! mm N 2 E • dMP'" _ . .c.c L L U 3 U O N O J S J 1'32 Z > � 00 0 0 0 O tLL.. L.. O Q a s E n n 00 00 00 p_.,% °' E E O E >. N N M ,o h o > m ,=2.2'', T T T T 0 O o� O C U U P. O U a O V 00 ai00 N O.� 00 N C 0 W d N gilt 0-. � E 00 0 mw 00000 nc a°i E o od Y E 6 2 2 5 2 2 m m-� 'm > c c > o -2F.1&'&53'§7_, O D U U U U V T d m m d m n U U U U 22 o. 0 UJ N 0 0 !VO -3 0 0 0 0 0 5 v C m m d 0 0 n m o m f°nmin.. in°w 0.mmmmm vvv°°' a E E E E E E c d aananclo E E c c w c c c 'O 0 0 0 0 0 0 �' o f O N N 0 N N N N 0 0 ari-t-rgge,505OJ ac2��o wwwLD L p ro CO o m 2121 afral M O O O O 88`8 O O O O O O O O n N ,"40;0 N 0,`°P. N O r n BldgUnitCosts O 0 ry N �N +min vai v�iv�iN vaiN N vi vi a vj +n +n an of m n. O o N 0y d 3 u bO d r O o C L w N � LL C it O U J O C J N 8 J O C p 'm' J O Si O U LL O '6g, IL O O 00—flo 3 C w N LL J m y 1 0 2822- J o^ a .. N M V N= O G 2` J O N N o V K K m 00 cHcm E�w w Cv dZ�ZZZ mp 3 N 1lllwa 3NO:,;,9 F3himNN 3333 d 0n0� dcccZ,HN1 Za.,55500„-0040400` g9 ,mmmmm-0mm 45252m2Omm m pBOOOli--i X00 R0000mooymm mo,:commmw mum Capital Accounting Partners O' m W W m m W n m g muivrnam O O O O O i'.1 vMi O M -t N n n n N r r tO r r V d » » » » » » I! » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » ma » ti » » » » » ry N 0 M " O t0 8 6 N O V V M M •'I a � � m M [O W• moi. vni i N itti t° M q's m M m N H 1 d rn c 0 O c d o E • o E ✓ 2« V 6 (d N d w C O C « • C w _ t 3 0 E._ W O C (0 U JF - n «; Q 3 U l ag 2.82W 3 �-' �•m ? § E g'77,12 8 0 0,.E.---, N 7, L 'R @ d N U'c w c k. w` 5 m E o o > m '''..E 0,.2.29-5 rsn«,acc.�gm2 n-.2Et0«5E_ ,0cE r O `m o 'm m� c m � 3m ET. r �;c c7 = m K K t- ,=.11_201.a..2 4 0 `3 a a a ,?)-1‘ t- a E m g « C E c E C n .O h N N mcoVd-i iOon3o3�LLCc �c • -'CNJOLLo� c 2 mann dN .c, ..2'0c5y Oioc0 JO 10 N37n0o30.aa� «tOoo`oo.o nw3 ? cQ>>nnyw yuo`ayiaEdmwMm33 y u w?tno. EN33 Cc .an E O«« mNm.,`d ammaau3>nO • �r.7tc: Ac>NNC 'a Dn �nnuaaCN 1 u . v yQ 'tim-54: caE gEEm EFm«o 0 ,-Rcd.3m `oa.❑ mmm>>>.m= wm=C>UUwUryN > vm<nE02cnaMvaunaam22M,MZE0.5Ecz d, BldgUnitCosts Capital Accounting Partners BldgUnitCosts ,I- "6 0 N U1 cr., to a Capital Accounting Partners iI r,°° ..Rg; rl Li Li rol pag N U1N 0 epi eNi M ti .Ni. ^ N N N N '4 ti a° v1 N `g a N ti i�A N Commercial Mec E o _ v t EE m Structual - additional plan re Commercial Structural Fees BldgUnitCosts O .n L4 to N VA'N L1 LT in vR .N tR Vf 00 c v v 8 n +ci,S".:1 CDVf U! V4 VI 04 N N N a Capital Accounting Partners PLANNING FEE TABLE d W P-88 0 0 iAXA 3 § E o 0 m a m N N N N N N N N N N N N NNAll N N N N N N N N N N N NNNNN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 888Sf08S S O O O vi O� O N S M ONl vmi O m N M N m a N N NNNNNNN N N N NNN m n a o NN AO, NNN or or Ng, i 2'2 lil v nN N li mCc ,m m m ,66 orororor orar moa • i'Oaclan m -AM S S S S S O e S O m S o M S S Hgq o m U m �rvo°i 0 0 0 M S 0 O O S O O O O O O O S O O O 0 0 0 'n vi rc0'' SS 00 ,1 vi n N V V V V N NNNNNNN NNNNNN N NNN N N NN +/� NN NNNNN _ 4 0 0 0 `0 0 0 6- ` o dE v t 00 13 c° >e o0m. i `U Oc E N _N _ (_a fo'@ 0o'ro c2J oc00 2-2 Z�0moE €oi3U'mom y ymOoo2y E>2 aUcN c ›O8,ilygn3(-?.E'1 8i3 JO -'a l''gE'om �4 '4''oa !Ail' c,JOcg nt —°" Z``o5uy00r- oa `'EQ mmw m m dmdd° cQ--yvg mvm777»D >oj DDEEiaK �Lgga my2m.a0-(00 g cccOZa'mm00 omoovy's00a6ccoc EE0 Ea NOc0 c 02 .' 0^mEmm v'Es y K o o�aQnQoUUUU 08800 00UUUOWiiLLSKWDuQ N M 00 0) (D n W m Z Z Z 222222222 2 2 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ZZZ Z aaa aaaaaaaaa a a aaa a a aaaa as aaaaaaa aaaa a aaa a aaaaa 000 000000000 0 0 000 0 0 0000 0 0 0000000 0000 0 000 0 00000 000 000000000 0 0 000 0 0 0000 0 0 0000000 0,0 0.0 0 000 0 0000,0 w v N N [IV, m N n o N N m is v°'i vni vtOi111, � � m m onm .n mN a �'o 'o o Nminmm iO dm.+ ry v^iti a N E K K K co co g aEimaEi wd¢ .EE m ovrn �� d� y y c c c c x N ✓o' E �v��Eccy as o`cc no.c vcaccc`..'E'E �7F- nn J W - 0 0 M 00 (0 W n W O) Oe -NM W IN W °) OA - N N W r W 47 O N M N W N N N N NN N N N N M M M 0000 M V 4 4 L4 V PlanningUnitCosts Capital Accounting Partners Ea000 co o v m m N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 8888888 o000000 0 dm o vi o m no 00 rm 888888888 o Naow mv°im 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w o 0 0 mmo 0 0 o 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N art REM m N v1pi oco�o o, w o v � m m m �n voice � 0 EERLIEEHk1 a, m a g o r rvoN +ten N N 0,0 .-t'o^qr4 'n^N If! Ha' o m om omE n7 moa'+ Em v n 'oe m.m+o viOi soma r N o N � o'om v+ao PlanningUnitCosts N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N CJ N ant will be billed for M56 v v mo - 0- 0 ry N A p N J J J m E Q E • v n p c Ei aE0)ail0ll w x3 w c o E m a N a o s W i i U _ E o 8 p 1 N o u ro d m n .E d L > C9 m m c m w rt m m$ Q c ,_ m `p p h c o. o f> E _ow °' ,Eo cm o 0 n o o on v mtri N a o ^ o N.n+n+nNv,.n.N.n.nv.NNN +nNinNN.nv.NNNNN NNNNN NNNNNNN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ui oo ;o� 00 aaoo m.+mw , rsi oa mvv nImmo CO CO I m12a � a a m m �t u�m n mm00000 mm 00 m m m m m Z Z Z z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z zz man_ a aaaaaamaa as o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 uuu0__ 000000000 00 0 ry ry ti ti ti PlanningUnitCosts Capital Accounting Partners a N m aZ 4.4 N N tn. NN N 4, art N N N NNNN N N NN+/INtn. N NNNNNN a m a ov°ii ^� ry a �e o m n•o N rt. V.NN N NN N NN N NNNN ZZN Z N N N N N N N N N N M M M M • UM,.. N M 00 onMC>O•-N M M(D aaa ZZZZZZZZZ ▪ _ Z Z Z ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZ Z Z ZZ ZZZZ Z UUU 000000000 000000000 0 0 U U U0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0aaa a0 aaaaa 0 0 0 0 0 D OOaaaaaaaaa ▪ a aaaaU a a a a as aaaa a U UUUU!UU U U U U U UU U U U U 0 U U U U U U U U PlanningUnitCosts 0 m a FAHE No w y ro v v ddddd HAVE N N VA N a ddd V �D W N N ✓� N .-� N ry N L7, ggg c ° d 3 3 ro m E Q o rn m 2 D `6 0oQLt°▪ n c 3 s `c c . m y v E or, Et Et _. E ▪ NoU ,d0 3aa omdo v >>> ao c 3 t >-.2 u E° E El tm c"''�m c ¢ia xnt N a w yt ggt wc yp t.ovt.T-co'c— ow c m Ot c EaNj U o t 22 mpiZo`m IwuN P c,2v,m 'mc9,2,'wo-Ecw652 �.Itc 0.KcttEEM mW—g Z 'oooo wnxm. jutpU UU« LLrnean8" tyyEmaU >� o`ym.zooyo't-9 murot oc —°'°ta Ito vv o2aUmo, ` ooHU oo o0oU afUamZao> mcm am mEE 6 m o awoam o Z2z`0x-at0�00��,�iv,mvo ,:":1:!'1"81 oo z�2Z0waaaD0,oma ill t N- ..0‘-,1.-.4. V M.,1-..... Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0000000 O 0000000 WN. OlO NM �N(pM W O�-NM �p (O n M W O�NMd' In MnMa7 O NM M Z Z N N z Z Z Z Z N Z Z Z Z Z n n n n Z Z n Z Z M M M M M M M M M M Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ZZZZ Z Z Z Z 000 00 0 0 00 0000000000 0 0 0 0 00000000 ns -s- 8 0000 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O D 0 0 0 000 00 0 v 0o0000000000 o o o oc�o0ou0u 0000 0000 PlanningUnitCosts 0 t a Capital Accounting Partners FY 2018 Fee E c z i O m ENACTMENT AUTHORITY 1- z FY 2017 Fee ($) DESCRIPTION O z ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O' 000000000 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 •a a) U a) •o 0. as c O as O N LL o E O aai N C crs .5 as c0 »- 'Fs > E ca) c u) a) '0.-) Oo w vi o 0 0 v - • °) (0 E o 0 O co O C O O 06 °) o _° o o 0 0 0 0 la) O cc 0 cS v — c o c a 0 0 0 6 E E co O O O N d iii ai= O N O 0 O .0 a C f>0 O N C) �' ` CO O co - a) N aa) 0 :> a) Q m d d LLI c c 0 to Q c!) U (Y Q Authorization notice Existing system evaluation report I� c0 6) 0 N C) 10 CO CO CO CO 'Cr '<- 'Cr V 'Cr LU• LULULULLIUJUILULU LU "" - ti r" L: l; CO CO CO c;, ( ) r- 0) N ., ('.I . CV ORS 215.416(11) a) 0 c .0) 0 0 O t 0 0 O O 0 O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 O co 0 10 0 Lt) 6) LO N CO N 85% refund o O O O cs 0 0 O co O cco � P m r- rn CO., CO Cr; N c- N c' 0: o 0' y •0 3 m' o p ,`o 0 0 0 C.o co 'C , , N O co • •U U a) C i a o o al w 0 c c D co - y 0) 0 o c p 3 §'m 'rn c`0 ✓ c c c': N 0 a) O 0 0 E E_ 74: .6 .c o E E c O t 0 • E a) Q) a) -- O O ) a) a) m - : -o a •n -o .S Q a) a) 0' E) O 0 m > > >:"l3d cto m p .r . f6 .N Q O O J yin in m u) a) u)C 'C 'C , t0 W f0 tE a) a) a) a) X 10 17 at 0 0. 0. < < <'..5./< Q Q Conditional Use m 0 LL O LL w O N a 0. 0. H H H c c c 00 0 CD al CD Q. .7:.a .a > > > O • O 0 E E E 2 • S 2 N N N To To To O 0 0 U • U 0 N CO C0 CO h CO 0) O v - Z Z Z z Z ZZ ZZZZ a. n. a er a s a n. 0_ fl ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ o(bo 3 L, LANDWATCH June 14, 2017 Via hand delivery Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97702 Re: Deschutes County land use appeal fees Ste.! Y t','!! a' `,.. `,i(_, - 1 f:.:.!!(i. U(c 9/i, www.centraloregonlandwatch.org Dear Commissioners : On behalf of Central Oregon LandWatch ("LandWatch"), thank you for the opportunity to comment on Deschutes County's proposed land use appeal fees for 2018. Local appeal fees implicate core land use concerns regarding access to and citizen participation in land use reviews. Friends of Linn County v. City of Lebanon, 45 Or LUBA 408, 414-16 (2003). LandWatch respectfully urges the County to reject the proposed land use appeal fees and instead to adopt land use appeal fees that reflect the cost of the benefit local appellants request, that of conducting a quasi- judicial proceeding. Extensive evidence indicates the cost to conduct a quasi-judicial review of the lawfulness of a hearing officer's decision in Deschutes County should be approximately $250. LandWatch also urges the County to abolish any fee in instances when the County declines to conduct requested quasi-judicial proceedings. The County is not authorized to charge costs incurred in not acting upon local appeals. The exorbitant filing fees the County imposes on appellants, which in one recent case were as high as $11,276, are so onerous as to unreasonably limit access to the courts in violation of the Justice Without Purchase Clause of the Oregon constitution. See e.g. Bradley v. State, 262 Or App 78, 106, 324 P.3d 504, 521 2014. As explained below, appellants may only be charged a fee for services requested by the appellants that are not shared equally by all citizens. An applicant who requests a permit for a certain land use may be charged a fee for the entire cost 2 of processing that application. By contrast local appellants request only a quasi- judicial proceeding, and may only be charged for the bestowal of that service. Relevant law "LUBA's jurisdiction "[i]s limited to those cases in which the petitioner has exhausted all remedies available by right before petitioning the board for review." ORS 197.825(2)(a). "Exhaustion concerns procedures by which a person obtains review of the lawfulness of an adverse decision." Nelson v. City of Lake Oswego, 126 Or App 416, 428, 869 P.2d 350 (1994) (Landau, J. concurring, citing Williamson County Reg'l Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 193 (1985)). "[F]or an administrative remedy to be 'exhaustible' it must be available." Ayres v. Bd. of Parole & Post -Prison Supervision, 194 Or App 429, 435-436, 97 P.3d 1 (2004). "A fee, however, is incident to a voluntary act, e.g., a request that a public agency permit him to practice law or medicine or construct a house or run a broadcast station. The public agency performing those services normally may exact a fee for a grant which, presumably, bestows a benefit on the applicant, not shared by other members of society. It would be such a sharp break with our traditions to conclude that Congress had bestowed on a federal agency the taxing power that we read 31 USCA § 438a narrowly as authorizing not a 'tax' but a 'fee.' A 'fee' connotes a 'benefit' and the act by its use of the standard 'value to the recipient' carries that connotation. The addition of 'public policy or interest served and other pertinent facts,' if read literally, carries an agency far from its customary orbit and puts it in search of revenue in the manner of an appropriation committee of the House." National Cable Television Assn v. U.S, 415 U.S. 336, 340, 94 S. Ct. 1146 (1974). "The governing body may prescribe, by ordinance or regulation, fees to defray the costs incurred in acting upon an appeal from a hearing officer, planning commission or other designated person. The amount of the fee shall be reasonable and shall be no more than the average cost of such appeals or the actual cost of the appeal, excluding the cost of preparation of a written transcript.... " ORS 215.422(1)(c). "The maximum fee for an initial hearing shall be the cost to the local government of preparing for and conducting the appeal, or $250, whichever is less." ORS 215. 416(11)(b). "A party aggrieved by the action of a hearings officer or other decision-making authority may appeal the action to the planning commission or county governing body, or both, however the governing body prescribes." ORS 215.422(1)(a). f'r;>;cc inuc,.r.,r,'s Nr.ru!o1 Envrrcnrnc r,l An<, Working Fnr S(Th Cr;rr,,,.-rn "The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard 'at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.' " Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333, 96 S. Ct. 893 (1976). "Oregon Constitution: Administration of justice. No court shall be secret, but justice shall be administered, openly and without purchase, completely and without delay, and every man shall have remedy by due course of law for injury done him in his person, property, or reputation." Or Const, Art I, § 10. "[I]t was stipulated in the Great Charter that "to none will we sell, to none will we deny or delay right or justice": Harrison v. Willis, 7 Heisk. 35 (19 Am. Rep. 604). The long -fixed meaning of these words is that the right attainment of justice -the end of the law - must be administered without sale. Original process must issue without price, except what the law fixes, and without denial, though the defendant be a favorite of the king, or the government who interferes in his behalf, and must be proceeded with by the judges after suit instituted, without delay by themselves, or by order of the king, and that proper judicial process must issue by the judges without fee or reward, except that fixed by the law: Townsend v. Townsend, Peck. (Tenn.) 15 (14 Am. Dec. 722). This court has already construed the clause in question in Bailey v. Frush, 5 Ore. 136, Bonham J., speaking for the court, says: 'We hold that the language of our constitution ... means simply that justice shall not be bought with bribes, nor shall the attendant or incidental expenses of litigation, in the nature of costs and disbursements, be so exorbitant and onerous as to virtually close the doors of courts of justice to those who may have occasion to enter there. In other words, that the rights of the poor man to a redress of his grievances shall be equally respected with those of the rich, and that equal and exact justice shall be dealt out alike to all.' " N. Counties Trust v. Sears, 30 Or 388, 404-405, 41 P. 931 (1895). "The guarantee in article I, section 10, of a 'remedy by due course of law for injury done [one] in his person, property, or reputation' is part of a section dealing with the administration of justice. It is a plaintiffs' clause, addressed to securing the right to set the machinery of the law in motion to recover for harm already done to one of the stated kinds of interest, a guarantee that dates by way of the original state constitutions of 1776 back to King John's promise in Magna Carta chapter 40: 'To no one will We sell, to no one will We deny or delay, right or justice.' It is concerned with securing a remedy from those who administer the law, through courts or otherwise." Davidson v. Rogers, 281 Ore. 219, 222-23 (1978) (Linde J., concurring). "Considering the wording of Article I, section 10, together with case law interpreting it and the historical circumstances surrounding its adoption, Pro c,c linc, C,mi i Orc (aldol Fr?v ronriicr!i And 'Vc' h;ic; F. ci ., . uc,i...!e_ Cnn ,II, 3 4 we conclude that the Justice Without Purchase Clause was meant to prohibit 1) the procurement of legal redress through bribery and other forms of improper influence; and 2) the judicial imposition of fees and costs in amounts so onerous as to unreasonably limit access to the courts." Allen v. Empl. Dep't, 184 Or App 681, 688, 57 P.3d 903 (2002). "Nor can we say that, in all circumstances, an award of attorney fees and costs is 'so onerous as to unreasonably limit access to the courts.' Unlike exorbitant filing fees, the amount of an attorney -fee award varies depending on the nature of the parties' disputes and is not determined until the end of the proceeding. For that reason, the attorney -fee provision cannot, in all cases, constitute an unreasonable bar to access the court." Bradley v. State, 262 Or App 78, 106, 324 P.3d 504, 521, 2014. The County's past practice of charging thousands of dollars, (in one documented instance, $11,2761) to land use appellants who are seeking a review they are required by law to request, acts as a "snare of forfeiture." ORS 197.825(2)(a); See Ayres v. Bd. of Parole & Post -Prison Supervision, 194 Or App 429, 441, 97 P.3d 1 (2004). ("The board's requirement of actual receipt must give way when it serves more as a 'snare of forfeiture for a prisoner seeking redress' than as a mechanism to ensure a full opportunity for the board's review, as the exhaustion principle is designed to do.") Few can pay such fees, and therefore land use decision after land use decision may go unchallenged in Deschutes County for no other reason than because there is no-one who can afford to gain access to the courts to have the decision reviewed. The County cannot use the requirement to pay exorbitant fees for the local appeal process as a mechanism for avoiding judicial review of its hearing officers' decisions. Oregon state law provides the right to appeal a hearing officer's decision. ORS 215.422(1)(a) ("A party aggrieved by the action of a hearings officer or other decision-making authority may appeal the action to the planning commission or county governing body, or both, however the governing body prescribes.") Once such right of review is granted, the Fourteenth Amendment requires land use appellants to be given an opportunity to be heard in a hearing appropriate to the nature of the case, 1 In 2015, Deschutes County staff informed a would-be appellant of a hearing officer's decision approving two large solar farms across the road from her rural home. County staff informed the would-be appellant that the cost of appealing the hearing officer would be $11,276. Exhibit 1. Prot <'c.ling Cc nn?rcu` Qrc:run's No'uraf cnvrron.„c;1 And !Norkinc; For Su>(r7rnoble CdfnolUririi 5 at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. ORS 215.422(1); DCC 22.32; Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333, 96 S Ct 893 (1976); State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Geist, 310 Or 176, 189-90, 796 P2d 1193 (1990). By adopting again, as it has in the past, appeal fees that prohibit all but the wealthiest citizens of Deschutes County from appealing a hearing officer's land use decision, the County would be continuing a procedure that effectively destroys the right to be heard in a local land use appeal. The proposed fees would foreclose the opportunity for land use appellants to be heard in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. Land use appellants are required to file local appeals before they can obtain review from LUBA. ORS 197.825(2)(a). "LUBA's jurisdiction "[i]s limited to those cases in which the petitioner has exhausted all remedies available by right before petitioning the board for review." Deschutes County's imposition of local land use appeal fees costing thousands or tens of thousands of dollars on non -applicant appellants is inconsistent with the legislature's exhaustion requirement. The practice of charging as much as $11,726 or more for a local appeal cannot be what the legislature intended in establishing LUBA and in requiring appellants to exhaust local remedies. To mandate local appeal on the one hand and to impose exorbitant fees for that use on the other amounts to extortion from those who seek only proper application of the laws. To point to county boards of commissioners as a forum for relief while allowing counties to deny access to those fora through excessive charges would be the height of hypocrisy. If appellants could seek redress in Deschutes County Circuit Court, the filing fee would be $252 (see infra) instead of the thousands of dollars proposed for the future, and imposed in the past, by Deschutes County. Because appellants in Deschutes County must exhaust local remedies by requesting County review, the County's exorbitant appeal fees appear to violate the Justice Without Purchase Clause of the Oregon constitution. See supra. The Justice Without Purchase Clause prohibits the judicial imposition of fees and costs in amounts so onerous as to unreasonably limit access to the courts. Allen v. Empl. Dep't, 184 Or App 681, 688, 57 P.3d 903 (2002). P;( I\fcit,:O 1-nvl!C,;Hi1F:li 6 As the Court of Appeals explained in Ayres, it "goes without saying that for an administrative remedy to be 'exhaustible' it must be available." Ayres v. Bd. of Parole & Post -Prison Supervision, 194 Ore. App. 429, 435-436 (2004) (quoting Marbet v. Portland Gen. Elect., 277 Ore. 447, 456, 561 P.2d 154 (1977)). The County's exorbitant appeal fees mean legal review of the lawfulness of a hearing officer's decision is not available to any but the County's wealthiest citizens, even though land use appellants are required by law to obtain such review to exhaust administrative remedies. The proposed land use appeal fees are unreasonably high for non -applicant appellants The appropriate fee the County should charge for a local appeal appears to be approximately $250. This is based on the cost of reviewing administrative land use decisions as set by the Oregon legislature ($250), on the cost of providing legal review of other legal matters in the Deschutes County Courthouse across the street from the County's hearing room ($252), on the cost of providing quasi-judicial review of land use decisions in other Oregon counties ($250), and at LUBA ($400), and the cost of providing appellate review of decisions, including land use decisions, in the Oregon Courts of Appeal ($373). The cost of an appeal from an administrative decision by county staff to a local decision maker in any Oregon county is limited by statute to the lesser of $250 or "the cost to the local government of preparing for and conducting the appeal." ORS 215.416(11)(b). The last time the legislature considered "the cost to the local government of preparing for and conducting [an] appeal" to a hearings officer, the legislature considered $250 to be a reasonable approximate cost for such appeals, and allowed for the possibility that it might cost a county less than $250. Even considering monetary inflation since the time the $250 fee was adopted by the legislature, actual appeal fee costs should not be more than a few hundred dollars. For example, if the legislature adopted the $250 fee in 2000, with inflation that cost would today be approximately $350. An appeal fee from a hearings officer in the range of $250 to $350 dollars would be comparable to the Oregon legislature statutory maximum fee of $250 for land use appeals to a hearings officer. "rnirc ;r; l C: viral Qrcgon'; i'o'v;r. i Fr,'/irc.,uru(2n; F.!, V‘,'crkir1c; Fcr ..,1j 011101 -qt Corn r,t;nilit: , 7 Such a fee will also be comparable to fees for appeals in the Deschutes County Circuit Court, located across the street from the County Board of Commissioners' hearing room in Bend. There is no reason why the County's administration of quasi-judicial appeals should cost any more than the $252 it costs the Deschutes County Circuit Court to conduct hearings in the courthouse a few hundred yards away from the County's buildings. Typical Deschutes County Circuit Court fees include the $252 appeal fee to appeal from municipal court for commission of a state or local violation;2 the $252 appeal fee to appeal from an administrative action regarding child support; and the $252 appeal fee for an appeal from a license suspension for refusal of a breath test. Such a fee will also be comparable to appellant fees to the Oregon Court of Appeals and the Oregon Supreme Court, which are $373.3 A fee of no more than a few hundred dollars will also be comparable to the fees charged for local appeals in Harney County, Wallowa County, and Clackamas County. All three counties, Harney, Wallowa, and Clackamas, charge $250 to conduct a local appeal. 4 If these three counties, two rural and one urban, can conduct local appeals for $250, then there is nothing inherent in the provision of local appeals in Oregon counties that requires charging any more than that amount. There is no reason Deschutes County cannot do the same. Most importantly, a fee of a few hundred dollars is directly comparable to the Land Use Board of Appeal's charge of $400 to conduct "quasi-judicial proceedings." Wright v. KECH-TV, 300 Or 139, 146, 707 P.2d 1232, 1235-1236, (1985) ("[LUBA] is empowered to conduct review of land use decisions through quasi-judicial proceedings.") When appellants file a local appeal to the County, they are requesting the County to conduct a quasi-judicial proceeding to review the lawfulness of its 2 Oregon Department of Justice Circuit Court Fee Schedule, www. Courts/oregon.gov/OJD/courts. circuit/2016. CircuitFeeSchedule.pdf 3 Oregon Courts of Appeal appellate fees http://www.courts.oregon.gov/OJD/OSCA/acs/records/pages/filingfees.aspx 4https: //www. co.harney. or.us/PDF_Files/Planning/2015/Notice%20of%20Appeal%20Form%20v ersion%202015.pdf; http://co.wallowa.or.us/community-development/land-use- planning/applications-and-fees/; http://www.clackaras.us/planning/feeschedule.htinl PrC)c-c oras E,-;\ And 4V'. ir.I;l> IO! 8 hearing officer's decision. If LUBA can conduct a quasi-judicial proceeding for $400, there is no reason the County cannot do likewise. Apparent source of fees The costs the County has incorrectly charged to land use appellants in the past and proposes to charge to land use appellants in the future appear to be the costs of services from the Community Development Department. Attached please find a copy of "The Deschutes County Community Development User Fee and Operating Plan," Capital Accounting Partners, October, 2015. Exhibit 2. It is a "detailed cost analysis" of the costs incurred in the Community Development Department, to "ensure that the County is fully accounting for all of its costs and recovering adequate revenues to reimburse the County for its expenses." Id. The fee the County may charge appellants must be incident to a benefit bestowed. LandWatch and other appellants request the benefit of a quasi-judicial proceeding. It is this benefit for which appellants may be charged. See supra, National Cable Television Ass'n v. U.S, 415 U.S. 336, 340, 94 S. Ct. 1146 (1974). According to the Ninth Circuit, charges are fees, and not taxes, when the source of the obligation is an entity's decision to acquire a permit and engage in certain uses. In re Lorber Industries of California, Inc., 675 F.2d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. Cal. 1982). In a circular issued in 1993, the federal Office of Management and Budget provided three examples of when user charges may be imposed. Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-25, "User Charges," July 8, 1993, at 6. Fees may be imposed when the charge: (a) enables the beneficiary to obtain more immediate or substantial gains or values (which may or may not be measurable in monetary terms) than those that accrue to the general public (e.g., receiving a patent, insurance, or guarantee provision, or a license to carry on a specific activity or business or various kinds of public land use); or (b) provides business stability or contributes to public confidence in the business activity of the beneficiary (e.g., insuring deposits in commercial banks); or (c) is performed at the request of or for the convenience of the recipient, and is beyond the services regularly received by other members of the same industry or group or by the general public (e.g., receiving a passport, visa, airman's certificate, or a Custom's inspection after regular duty hours). Protcr;;no Cc nirol C r: con's N iurul EnvRori!n ni Ar,d Working rer 5i_-sre,inehle C:,r rn _,nrtr 9 The special service LandWatch is requesting is a quasi-judicial hearing, which does not require any services from planning staff. It is not clear where the proposed base fee of $2,665 for Appeals to the County Board of Commissioners comes from, (see Exhibit 3), probably the user fee report in Exhibit 2. However it is clear from the evidence presented above that such a base fee is an order of magnitude higher than fees for the identical service charged in three Oregon counties, and for a similar service charged at LUBA, the Oregon circuit courts, and the Oregon Courts of Appeal. Moreover there is no link between an appellant's request for a quasi-judicial proceeding and the type of land use benefit sought by an applicant. Filing fees should be fixed, not variable. Since the service appellants seek is unrelated to the nature of the land use sought by applicants, appellants may not be charged any amount that is based on the cost of requesting a given land use. Exhibit 3, "Appeals to Board of Commissioners, $2665+ 20%"; See Bradley v. State, 262 Ore. App. 78, 107 (2014). The County should abolish any fee for not acting upon an appeal ORS 215.422(1)(c) authorizes the County to prescribe fees to defray costs incurred in acting upon an appeal. There is no authorization to prescribe fees when the County chooses not to act on an appeal. Appellants do not request the County to decide whether or not to take the appeal, but only request the benefit of a quasi- judicial hearing. As explained above, the fee must be related to a benefit bestowed. If an appeal is not granted, then the requested benefit is not bestowed. Therefore no fee may be charged for it. Specifically, LandWatch urges the County to abolish the proposed fee for "Appeals to County Commissioners -Not Accepted, 85% Refund." See Exhibit 3. In the case of the solar farms approved by a hearing officer in 2015, the cost to an appellant for the County's not acting on an appeal would have been $1,759 (i.e. 15% of $11,726.) This is unconscionable, and contrary to applicable law regulating the fees the County may charge for bestowing special benefits, as explained above. Conclusion The harm that results from denying poor people the opportunity to correct error is not merely that abstract legal error will remain on the record. More Protcclinq Crnirc i °lc=grin's ivo'. rui E,...,,;r;; ,e);,=,r,q v%v', r rot Jt:fuinonie Cc,f-rww!u1!c: fundamentally, it undermines the moral legitimacy of the state's land use system and Oregon courts in the hearts and minds of all but the very wealthiest citizens. It is contrary to state policy for Deschutes County to insulate the County's land use decisions from public scrutiny by pricing appellate remedies beyond the reach of interested members of the community. The County's proposed, and past, land use appeal fees manifestly discriminate against participants on the basis of wealth and are inconsistent with state policy encouraging wide public participation by anyone aggrieved by a local government's incorrect interpretation of applicable land use regulations. The first goal of the Oregon land use program is "To develop a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process." We urge you to deny the proposed land use appeal fees for the reasons outlined above. Thank you for your attention to these views. Please consider this a formal request for written notification of any decision in this matter. Best regards, Carol Macbeth Staff Attorney Central Oregon LandWatch Prot ci1n C1 C,H! roJ O;c:IOr1's I'y C) Ti<.,FnViroimc ri; And Vv nrl.inc,: Fm Sii,in ncn ie C:nn;rni_,,;! 10 6.14.17 Dear Chair Baney, Commissioner Debone and Commissioner Henderson, As craft cannabis producer, an advocate for cannabis reform, and a member from the the Deschutes County Marijuana Advisory Committee it was my goal to be apart of a process that would result in developing regulations that would be workable for farmers and for the rural residents. In regards to cannabis agriculture, I really wanted to see reform created that would retain diversity among farmers and be an inclusive process that allowed transparent law abiding business owners to have a chance to participate. I currently feel that there some issues to work out in our application process and the criteria. We had a long opt out and now we have followed it up with a lengthy application process. The time burden is inappropriate for farming and its disastrous to cannabis farmers when you consider the end of early sales in 2016 and the shift in our market place that immediately followed. The public nature of the application process is concerning especially when floor plans are made accessible. I understand that we now may ask to have these removed, however I think it is the County's responsibility to not upload them in the first place as a default. How we currently define neighbor notifications is inappropriate, raises safety concerns and should be re -defined, especially in the case of large parcels where large setbacks can be achieved for mitigation of perceived nuisances. When I research other LUCS processes and their associated applications in the state I find them to have black and white criteria that either is or is not met and I do not find this to be the case in our county, for example the recent conversations around electic will serve letters and load calculation requirements. I have kept my eyes on the applications coming into the county and I do not find this process to be entirely equitable and I believe that we need find methods to approach this with more analytical determination. Specifically on how comments on the application are reviewed, validated to the case, and what triggers a public hearing. I had hoped to communicate my concerns long ago and unfortunately those efforts went unheard. This is why I started communicating with legislators in Salem, because they understand what the implications are when we couple this lengthy application process Integrity www.GlassHouseGrown.com Service Excellence Transparency with the end of early sales. For transparent cannabis businesses that rely solely on farming to bring bread to the table it is a sure way to go out of business and it is unfortunate that transparent cannabis business owners are suffering from this process. When we create reform that is overly burdensome, lengthy, and prohibitive we are setting up many original producers to fail. When we loose original producers not only do we loose their valuable knowledge base, but we set a precedence that attempting to follow transparent reform is likely to result in failure. By allowing cannabis production to be mainstreamed, we break down the barriers that once existed between producers, professionals, law officers etc. In doing so we start to collaborate and create a knowledge base. With an inclusive reform process we have to ability to retain valuable cannabis cultivation knowledge but perhaps more importantly we retain irreplaceable cannabis genetics which directly translates to increasing our understanding of cannabis as a medicine. When we adopt policy that is unworkable we lose diversity in the businesses that succeed; we will inherently lose valuable cannabis knowledge, genetics and producers along the way. Deschutes County has become a home to acclaimed craft beer and micro distillery businesses. Had regulations been overly prohibitive we would not have the craft brew/distill knowledge, diversity or success we see today. Those business producing craft products have a synergistic effect on our local economy; increasing business at retail stores and restaurants, creating jobs and increasing tourism. All I ask is that our diverse cannabis community be given equal opportunity to move forward into transparency. Sincerely, Lindsey Pate CEO and Co -Founder Glass House Grown Mailing Address: 2660 NE HWY 20 STE 610-443 Bend OR 97701 Integrity www.GlassHouseGrown.com Service Excellence Transparency LEGAL, LOT OF RECORD ADVISORY NOTICE (SELLER'S NOTICE) Seller: Property Address: Sub -Division (if applicable): NOTICE TO SELLER: A legal lot of record is a lot or parcel that was lawfully created through compliance with any land use laws and regulations in effect at the time of creation. Examples include lots created through subdivision plats or as part of a partition or lots or parcels that were created prior to the enactment of land use laws. Not all tax lots are legal lots of record. Even though a property may have structures already on it, that does not make it a legal lot of record. If you sell a piece of property and it is determined following the sale that the property is not a legal lot of record, the Buyer can seek monetary damages or rescind the sale and recover attorney fees. SELLER ACKNOWLEDGMENT: Each Seller acknowledges and understands that the notice set forth herein does not create a representation or warranty by the Seller's Agent or Managing Principal Broker. Each Seller acknowledges that the Seller's Agent and Managing Principal Broker cannot confirm whether the property is a legal lot of record. This notice is purely informational in nature. If the Seller has any questions as to whether the property is a legal lot of record the Seller should consult an attorney or the appropriate County Planning Department. SELLER: SELLER'S AGENT: MANAGING PRINCIPAL BROKER: Date: Date: Date: Date: LEGAL LOT OF RECORD ADVISORY NOTICE (BUYER'S DISCLOSURE) Seller: Buyer: Property Address: Sub -Division (if applicable): Sale Agreement No.: NOTICE TO BUYER: A legal lot of record is a lot or parcel that was lawfully created through compliance with any land use laws and regulations in effect at the time of creation. Examples include lots created through subdivision plats or as part of a partition or lots or parcels that were created prior to the enactment of land use laws. Not all tax lots are legal lots of record. Even though a property may have structures already on it, that does not make it a legal lot of record. Oregon Counties will not issue permits until it is determined that a parcel is a legal lot of record. A legal lot of record verification from Deschutes County can take up to 10 weeks and costs over $900, the time frame and cost vary between counties. Therefore Buyer is advised to investigate whether such property is a legal lot of record before the closing of the Sale. If the Buyer has any questions as to whether the property is a legal lot of record the Buyer should consult an attorney or the appropriate County Planning Department. BUYER ACKNOWLEDGMENT: Each buyer acknowledges and understands that the notice set forth herein does not create a representation or warranty by Seller or Seller's agent. This notice is purely informational in nature. Buyer is advised to investigate the legal lot of record issue themselves. SELLER: BUYER: Date: Date: Date: Date: IORS_105.464 Sellers Property Disclosure Form - 4 pages see #9 .pdf I SELLER'S PROPERTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT IORS 105.4641 IProperty Address NSTRUCTIONS TO THE SELLER 1 Please complete the following form. Do not leave any spaces blank. Please refer to the tine number(s) of the question(s) when you provide your 2 explanation(s). If you are not claiming an exclusion or refusing to provide the form under ORS 105.475 (4), you should date and sign each page of this 3 disclosure statement and each attachment. 4 Each seller of residential property described in ORS 105.465 must deliver this form to each buyer who makes a written offer to purchase. Under ORS 105.475 5 (4), refusal to provide this form gives the buyer the right to revoke their offer at any time prior to closing the transaction. Use only the sections) of the form that 6 apply to the transaction for which the form is used. If you are claiming an exclusion under ORS 105.470, fill out only Section 1. 7 An exclusion may be claimed only if the seller qualifies for the exclusion under the law. If not excluded, the seller must disclose the condition of the property or 8 the buyer may revoke their offer to purchase anytime prior to closing the transaction. Questions regarding the legal consequences of the sellers choice should 9 be directed to a qualified attorney. 10 DO NOT FILL OUT THIS SECTION UNLESS YOU ARE CLAIMING AN EXCLUSION UNDER ORS 405.470 11 Section 1. EXCLUSION FROM ORS 105.465 TO 105.490: 12 You may claim an exclusion under ORS 105.470 only if you qualify under the statute. If you are not claiming an exclusion, you must fill out Section 2 of this 13 form completely. 14 Initial only the exclusion you wish to claim. 15 This Is the first sale of a dwelling never occupied. The dwelling is constructed or installed under building or installation permit(s) # 16 issued by 17 This sale is by a financial institution that acquired the property as custodian, agent or trustee, or by foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure. 18 The seller is a court appointed receiver, personal representative, trustee, conservator or guardian. 19 This sale or transfer is by a governmental agency. 20 Signature(s) of Seller(s) Claiming Exclusion 21 Seller Date E Seiler Date 22 Signature(s) of Buyer(s) Acknowledging Setter's Claim 23 Buyer Date F Buyer Date 24 IF YOU DMD NOT CLAIM AN EXCLUSION IN SECTION 1, YOU MUST FILL OUT THIS SECTION. 25 Section 2. SELLER'S PROPERTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 26 (NOT A WARRANTY) (ORS 105.465) 27 NOTICE TO THE BUYER: THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTATIONS ARE MADE BY THE SELLER(S) CONCERNING THE CONDITION OF THE 28 PROPERTY LOCATED AT "THE PROPERTY." 29 DISCLOSURES CONTAINED IN THIS FORM ARE PROVIDED BY THE SELLER ON THE BASIS OF SELLER'S ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE 30 PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF DISCLOSURE. BUYER HAS FIVE BUSINESS DAYS FROM THE SELLER'S DELIVERY OF THIS SELLERS 31 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT TO REVOKE BUYER'S OFFER BY DELIVERING BUYER'S SEPARATE SIGNED WRITTEN STATEMENT OF 32 REVOCATION TO THE SELLER DISAPPROVING THE SELLER'S DISCLOSURE STATEMENT, UNLESS BUYER WAIVES THIS RIGHT AT OR PRIOR 33 TO ENTERING INTO A SALE AGREEMENT. 34 FOR A MORE COMPREHENSIVE EXAMINATION OF THE SPECIFIC CONDITION OF THIS PROPERTY, BUYER IS ADVISED TO OBTAIN AND PAY 35 FOR THE SERVICES OF A QUALIFIED SPECIALIST TO INSPECT THE PROPERTY ON BUYER'S BEHALF INCLUDING, FOR EXAMPLE, ONE OR 36 MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS, PLUMBERS, ELECTRICIANS, ROOFERS, ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTORS, BUILDING 37 INSPECTORS, CERTIFIED HOME INSPECTORS, OR PESTAND DRY ROT INSPECTORS. 38 Seller ® is 0 is not occupying the property. SELLER Date 4- SELLER Date Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC Rev 01/10 No portion may be reproduced without express permission of Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC This form has been licensed for use by Norm Brock solely in accordance with the Terms of Service per OREF Online Forms. OREF 020-1 Buyer Initials I Date LINES WITH THIS SYMBOL 4- REQUIRE A SIGNATURE AND DATE IProperty Address SELLER'S PROPERTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT SELLER'S REPRESENTATIONS; 39 The following are representations made by the seller and are not the representations of any financial institution that may have made or may make a loan 40 pertaining to the property, or that may have or take a security interest in the property, or any real estate licensee engaged by the seller or the buyer. 41 If you mark yes on items with ", attach a copy or explain on an attached sheet. 42 1. TITLE 43 A. Do you have legal authority to sell the property? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 44 "B. Is title to the property subject to any of the following: 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 45 0 First right of refusal 0 Option 0 Lease or rental agreement 0 Other listing 0 Life estate 46 *0 Is the property being transferred an unlawfully established unti of land? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 47 `D. Are there any encroachments, boundary agreements, boundary disputes or 48 recent boundary changes? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 49 E. Are there any rights of way, easements, licenses, access limitations or 50 claims that may affect your interest in the property? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 51 *F. Are there any agreements for joint maintenance of an easement or right of way? 0 Yes 0 No ❑ Unknown 52 `G. Are there any governmental studies, designations, zoning overlays, surveys 53 or notices that would affect the property? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 54 H. Are there any pending or existing governmental assessments against the property? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 55 I. Are there any zoning violations or nonconforming uses? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 56 J. Is there a boundary survey for the property? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 57 K. Are there any covenants, conditions, restrictions or private assessments that affect the property? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 58 L. Is the property subject to any special tax assessment or tax treatment that may 59 result in levy of additional taxes it the property is sold? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 60 2. WATER 61 A. Household water 62 (1) The source of the water is (check ALL that apply): 0 Public 0 Community 0 Private 0 Other 63 (2) Water source information: 64 "a) Does the water source require a water permit? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 65 If yes, do you have a permit? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 0 NA 66 "b) Is the water source located on the property? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 0 NA 67 If not, are there any written agreements for a shared water source? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 0 NA 68 "c) Is there an easement (recorded or unrecorded) for your access to or 69 maintenance of the water source? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 70 d) If the source of water is from a well or spring, have you had any of 71 the following in the past 12 months? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 0 NA 72 0 Flow test 0 Bacteria test ❑ Chemical contents test 73 "e) Are there any water source plumbing problems or needed repairs? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 74 (3) Are there any water treatment systems for the property? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 75 0 Leased 0 Owned 76 B. Irrigation 77 (1) Are there any 0 water rights or ❑ other rights for the property? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 78 * (2) If any exist, has the irrigation water been used during the last five-year period? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 0 NA 79 ' (3) Is there a water rights certificate or other written evidence available? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 0 NA 80 C. Outdoor sprinkler system 81 (1) Is there an outdoor sprinkler system for the property? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 82 (2) Has a back flow valve been installed? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 0 NA 83 (3) Is the outdoor sprinkler system operable? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 0 NA 84 3. SEWAGE SYSTEM 85 A Is the property connected to a public or communrly sewage system? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 86 B. Are there any new public or community sewage systems proposed for the property? 0 Yes 0 No ❑ Unknown 87 C. Is the property connected to an on-site septic system? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 88 If yes, was it installed by permit? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 0 NA 89 *Has the system been repaired or altered? 0 Yes 0 No ❑ Unknown 0 NA 90 Has the condition of the system been evaluated and a report issued? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 0 NA 91 Has it ever been pumped? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 0 NA 92 If yes, when? 93 `D, Are there any sewage system problems or needed repairs? 0 Yes 0 No ❑ Unknown 94 E. Does your sewage system require on-site pumping to another level? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown SELLER Date 4- SELLER Date 4- O Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC Rev 01/10 No portion may be reproduced without express permission of Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC This form has been licensed for use by Norm Brock solely in accordance with the Tenns of Service per OREF Online Forms. OREF 020-2 LINES WITH THIS SYMBOL 4- REQUIRE A SIGNATURE AND DATE I Buyer Initials / Date I SELLER'S PROPERTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT IProperty Address 95 4. DWELLING INSULATION 96 A. Is there insulation in the: 97 (1) Ceiling? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 98 (2) Exterior walls? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 99 (3) Floors? ❑ Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 100 B. Are there any defective insulated doors or windows? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 101 6. DWELLING STRUCTURE 102 'A. Has the roof leaked? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 103 If yes, has it been repaired? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 0 NA 104 B. Are there any additions, conversions or remodeling? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 105 If yes, was a building permit required? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 0 NA 106 If yes, was a building permit obtained? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 0 NA 107 If yes, was final inspection obtained? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 0 NA 108 C. Are there smoke alarms or detectors? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 109 D. Is there a woodstove or fireplace insert included in the sale? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 110 "if yes, what is the make? 111 if yes, was it installed with a permit? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 0 NA 112 "If yes, is a certification label issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the 113 Department of Environmental Quality (DEC) affixed to it? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 0 NA 114 E. Has pest and dry rot, structural or "whole house' inspection been done within the last three years? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 115 F. Are there any moisture problems, areas of water penetration, mildew odors 116 or other moisture conditions (especially in the basement)? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 117 if yes, explain on attached sheet the frequency and extent of problem and any insurance claims, repairs or remediation done. 118 G. Is there a sump pump on the property? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 119 H. Are there any materials used in the construction of the structure that are or 120 have been the subject of a recall, class action suit, settlement or litigation? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 121 If yes, what are the materials? 122 (1) Are there problems with the materials? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 0 NA 123 (2) Are the materials covered by a warranty? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 0 NA 124 (3) Have the materials been inspected? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 0 NA 125 (4) Have there ever been claims filed for these materials by you or by previous owners? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 0 NA 126 If yes, when? 0 NA 127 (5) Was money received? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 0 NA 128 (6) Were any of the materials repaired or replaced? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 0 NA 129 6. DWELLING SYSTEMS AND FIXTURES 130 If the following systems or fixtures are included in the purchase price, are they in good working order on the date this form is signed? 131 A. Electrical system, including wiring, switches, outlets and service 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 132 B. Plumbing system, including pipes, faucets, fixtures and toilets 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 133 C. Water heater tank 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 134 D. Garbage disposal 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 0 NA 135 E. Built-in range and oven ❑ Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 0 NA 136 F. Built-in dishwasher 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 0 NA 137 G. Sump pump 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 0 NA 138 H. Heating and cooling systems 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 0 NA 139 I. Security system 0 Owned 0 Leased 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 0 NA 140 J. Are there any materials or products used in the systems and fixtures 141 that are or have been the subject of a recall, class action settlement or other litigations? 0 Yes 0 No ❑ Unknown 142 If yes, what product? 143 (1) Are there problems with the product? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 0 NA 144 (2) Is the product covered by a warranty? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 0 NA 145 (3) Has the product been inspected? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 0 NA 146 (4) Have claims been filed for this product by you or by previous owners? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 0 NA 147 If yes, when? 148 (5) Was money received? 0 Yes ❑ No 0 Unknown 0 NA 149 (6) Were any of the materials or products repaired or replaced? 0 Yes 0 No ❑ Unknown 0 NA 150 7. COMMON INTEREST 151 A. Is there a Home Owners' Association or other goveming entity? 0 Yes 0 No ❑ Unknown 152 Name of Association or Other Goveming Entity 153 Contact Person 154 Address . Phone Number SELLER Date 4 - SELLER Date 4- O Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC Rev 01/10 No portion may be reproduced without express permission of Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC This form has been licensed for use by Norm Brock solely in accordance with the Terms of Service per OREF Online Forms. OREF 020-3 I Buyer initials LINES WITH THIS SYMBOL 4- REQUIRE A SIGNATURE AND DATE 1 Date IORS_105.464 Sellers Property Disclosure Form - 4 pages see #9 .pdf 1 SELLER'S PROPERTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Property Address 155 B. Regular periodic assessments: $ per 0 Month 0 Year 0 Other 156 'C. Are there any pending or proposed special assessments? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 157 D. Are there shared "common areas" or joint maintenance agreement for facilities like walls, fences, 158 pools, tennis courts, walkways or other areas co -owned in undivided interest with others? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 159 E. Is the Home Owners' Association or other governing entity a party to 160 pending litigation or subject to an unsatisfied judgment? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 0 NA 161 F. Is the property in violation of recorded covenants, conditions and 162 restrictions or in violation of other bylaws or governing rules, whether recorded or TWO 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 0 NA 163 8. GENERAL 164 A. Are there problems with settling, soil, standing water or drainage on 165 the property or in the immediate area? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 166 B. Does the property contain fill? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 167 C. Is there any material damage to the property or any of the structure(s) 168 from fire, wind, floods, beach movements, earthquake, expansive soils or landslides? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 169 D. Is the property in a designated floodplain? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 170 E. Is the property in a designated slide or other geologic hazard zone? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 171 "F. Has any portion of the property been tested or treated for asbestos, formaldehyde, radon, gas, 172 lead-based paint, mold, fuel or chemical storage tanks or contaminated soil or water? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 173 G. Are there any tanks or underground storage tanks (e.g., septic, chemical, fuel, etc.) on the property?D Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 174 H. Has the property ever been used as an illegal drag manufacturing or distribution site? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 175 if yes, was a Certificate of Fitness issued? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 0 NA 176 I. Has the property been classified as forestland -urban interface? 0 Yes D No 0 Unknown 177 9. FULL DISCLOSURE BY SELLER(S) 178 *A. Are there any other material defects affecting this property or its vatue that 179 a prospective buyer should know about? 0 Yes 0 No 180 if yes, describe the defect on attached sheet and explain the frequency and extent of the problem and any insurance claims, repairs or remediation? 181 The foregoing answers and attached explanations (rf any) are complete and correct to the best of my/our knowledge and !Ave have received a copy of this disclosure 182 statement I/we authorize my/our agents to deliver a copy of this disclosure statement to all prospective buyers of the property or their agents. 183 Seller Date - Seller Date 184 185 186 B. 187 188 189 190 191 C. 192 A. BUYER'S`, ACKNOWLEDGMENT: As buyer(s), 1/we acknowledge the duty to pay diligent attention to any material defects that are known to me/us or can be known by me/us by utilizing diligent attention and observation. Each buyer acknowledges and understands that the disclosures set forth in this statement and in any amendments to this statement are made only by the seller and are not the representations of any financial institution that may have made or may make a loan pertaining to the property, or that may have or take a security interest in the property, or of any real estate licensee engaged by the seller or buyer. A financial institution or real estate licensee is not bound by and has no liability with respect to any representation, misrepresentation, omission, error or inaccuracy contained in another party's disclosure statement required by this section or any amendment to the disclosure statement. Buyer (which term includes all persons signing the "Buyer's Acknowledgment" portion of this disclosure statement below) hereby acknowledges receipt of a copy of this disclosure statement (including attachments, if any) bearing seller's signature(s). 193 DISCLOSURES, IF ANY, CONTAINED IN THIS FORM ARE PROVIDED BY THE SELLER ON THE BASIS OF SELLER'S ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF 194 THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF DISCLOSURE. IF THE SELLER HAS FILLED OUT SECTION 2 OF THIS FORM, YOU, THE BUYER, HAVE FIVE 195 BUSINESS DAYS FROM THE SELLER'S DELIVERY OF THIS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT TO REVOKE YOUR OFFER BY DELIVERING YOUR 196 SEPARATE SIGNED WRITTEN STATEMENT OF REVOCATION TO THE SELLER DISAPPROVING THE SELLER'S DISCLOSURE UNLESS YOU 197 WAIVE THIS RIGHT AT OR PRIOR TO ENTERING INTO A SALE AGREEMENT, 198 BUYER HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGES RECEIPT OF A COPY OF THIS SELLER'S PROPERTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. 199 Buyer Date E Buyer Date 200 Agent receiving disclosure statement on buyer's behalf to sign and date: 201 Real Estate Licensee Date received by agent 202 Real Estate Firm © Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC Rev 01/10 No portion may be reproduced without express permission of Oregon Real Estate Forms, LLC This form has been Licensed for use by Norm Brock solely in accordance with the Terms of Service per OREF Online Forms. LINES WITH THIS SYMBOL E- REQUIRE A SIGNATURE AND DATE Buyer Initials / Date OREF 0204 Chris Schmoyer From: Laura Craska Cooper <lcooper@brixlaw.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 7:50 PM To: Peter Gutowsky; Chris Schmoyer Subject: FW: Appeal Fees Adjusted for Solar Farms Peter and Chris, Damien and I are continuing to act as co -counsel on this, and if there is an appeal, I will be handling it. Please make sure to copy me on all correspondence related to both applications. Thanks, Laura From: Hall, Damien fmailto:dhallPballianik.comj Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 5:48 PM To: Laura Craska Cooper <Icooper@brixlaw.com> Subject: FW: Appeal Fees Adjusted for Solar Farms From: Peter Gutowsky fmailto:Peter.Gutowskv@deschutes.oral Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 5:28 PM To: Hall, Damien Cc: Chris Schmoyer Subject: RE: Appeal Fees Adjusted for Solar Farms Damien, Just to clarify. The BOCC is not lowering fees. Rather Nick Lelack (CDD Director) gained confirmation this afternoon from County Administration and the BOCC that only the CUP application and appeal fee can be relied upon to calculate the appeal fees per Chris' email below. Just to be clear, if one of the applications is appealed, the fee calculation is: $2,600 base fee for the appeal plus 20% of the Conditional Use Permit application fee amount of $2,365 which equates to $473 for a total of $3,073. If both applications are appealed, then the amount is $6,146. Peter Gutowsky, AICP Planning Manager Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 ph# (541)385-1709 fax# (541)385-1764 Web: www.deschutes.org/cdd From: Chris Schmoyer Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 4:29 PM To: Hall, Damien (dhalkaballianik.com) Cc: Peter Gutowsky Subject: Appeal Fees Adusted for Solar Farms 1 Damien, The Board of County Commissioners informed us today that they would lower the appeal fee for the Solar Farms (NorWest Energy 2, LLC and Oregon Solar Land Holdings, LLC). There was no determination by the Board whether they would hear the matters. The appea fee for each of the Solar Farrn applications is now $3,073. The fee arnount is based on the $2,600 base fee for the appea plus 20% of the Conditional Use Permit application fee amount of $2,365 which equates to $473 for a total of $3,073, If an appeal is filed on one or both matters, please be aware that if the Board decides not to hear the appeal(s) that the appellant is entitled to an 85% refund of the appeal fee, Also, see the requirements of 22.32024 regarding transcript requirements. The code is available on line, but let me know if you have questions. http://mwvvdeschutes.onx/administedon/uaKe/deohutex-counW-code Regards, Chris Chris Schmoyer Associate Planner Certified Associate in Project Management (CAPM) Deschutes County Community Developrnent Department Ph#(G41)317-3154 Fax#(541)3B5-17O4 Web; http://www.deschutes.orc/cd 2 Chris Schmoyer From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hall, Damien <dhall@balljanik,com> Wednesday, September 23, 2015 5:30 PM Peter Gutowsky Chris Schmoyer RE: Appeal Fees Adjusted for Solar Farms Thanks for the update, gentlemen. Damien rf. H U t 50:3.94 . 6 ":, 38 r 503.295.1058 We advise you Hiai_ any di'3cussion el federal tax rnatte;r:, in this email is not intended or written to be used, and may not he used by you or any taxpayer, to (a) ovoid penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (13) prOrnote, mai ket or recommend to an other tarty any t=ransaction or matter addressed herein. All taxpayers should seek independent tax advice. From: Peter Gutowsky fmailto:Peter.Gutowskv@deschutes.orcil Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 5:28 PM To: Hall, Damien Cc: Chris Schmoyer Subject: RE: Appeal Fees Adjusted for Solar Farms Damien, Just to clarify. The BOCC is not lowering fees, Rather Nick Lelack (CDD Director) gained confirmation this afternoon from County Administration and the BOCC that only the CUP application and appeal fee can be relied upon to calculate the appeal fees per Chris' email below. Just to be clear, if one of the applications is appealed, the fee calculation is: $2,600 base fee for the appeal plus 20% of the Conditional Use Permit application fee amount of $2,365 which equates to $473 for a total of $3,073. If both applications are appealed, then the amount is $6,146. Peter Gutowsky, AICP Planning Manager Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 ph# (541)385-1709 fax# (541)385-1764 Web: www.deschutes.org/cdd 1 From: Chris Schmoyer Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 4:29 PM To: Hall, Damian(dhaU(DbaU1anik.com) Cc: Peter Gutowsky Subject: Appeal Fees Adusted for Solar Farms Damien, The Board of County Commissioners inforrned us today that they would lower the appeal fee for the Solar Farms (NorWest Energy 2, LLC arid Oregon Soar Land Holdings, LLC). There was no determination by the Board whether they would hear the matters. The appeaJ fee for each of the Solar Farm applications is now $3,073. The fee amount is based on the $2,600 base fee for the appeal plus 20% of the Conditional Use Permit application fee amount of $2,365 which equates to $473 for a total of $3,073. If an appeal is filed on one or both matters, please be aware that if the Board decides not to hear the appeal(s) that the appellant is entited to an 85% refund of the appeal fee, Also see the requirements of 22.32.024 regarding transcript requirements. The code is avaiIabe on ine, but et me know ifyou have questions Regards, Chris Chris Schmoyer Associate Planner Certified Associate in Pject Management (CAPM) Deschutes County Community Development Department Ph# (541) 317-3164 Fax# (541) 385-1764 Web: htto://vvww.deschutes.ord/cd 2 From: Chris Schmoyer Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 4:26 PM To:cathvsienson(aomai|.com Cc: Peter Gutowsky; Nick Lelack Subject: Appeal Fees for Solar Farms Cathy, The Board of County Commissioners informed us today that they would lower the appeal fee. There was no determination by the Board whether they would hear the matters. The appeal fee for each ofthe Soar Farm appIicatons s now $3,073. The fee amount s based on the $2,600 base fee for the appeal plus 20% of the Conditional Use Permit application fee amount of $2,365 which equates to $473 for a total of $3,073. If an appeal is filed on one or both matters, please be aware that if the Board decides not to hear the appeal(s) that the appellant is entited to an 85% refund ofthe appea! fee. Also, see the requirements of 22.32.024 regarding transcript requirements. The code is avaUable on inc1 but et me know ifyou have questions, httlj/wwvv.decdhu1es.orgiadministmdon/oaAe/dexchotes'countv'code Regards, Chris Chris Schmoyer Associate Planner Certified Associate in Pject Management (CAPM) Deschutes County Gommunity Development Department Ph# (541) 317-3164 Fax# (541) 385-1764 Web: http://www.deschutes.orci/cd 2 Chris Schmo er From: Peter Gutowsky Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 5:26 PM To: 'cathysjensen@gmail.com' Cc: Nick Lelack; Chris Schmoyer Subject: RE: Appeal Fees for Solar Farms Cathy, Just to clarify. The BOCC is not lowering fees. Rather Nick Lelack (CDD Director) gained confirmation this afternoon from County Administration and the BOCC that only the CUP application and appeal fee can be relied upon to calculate the appeal fees per Chris' email below. Just to be clear, if one of the applications is appealed, the fee calculation is: $2,600 base fee for the appeal plus 20% of the Conditional Use Permit application fee amount of $2,365 which equates to $473 for a total of $3,073. If both applications are appealed, then the amount is $6,146. Peter Gutowsky, AICP Planning Manager Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 ph# (541)385-1709 fax# (541)385-1764 Web: www.deschutes,org/cdd From: Nick Lelack Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 5:10 PM To: Chris Schmoyer Cc: Peter Gutowsky Subject: RE: Appeal Fees for Solar Farms Importance: High Thanks Chris. The Board did not lower the appeal fee, but rather stated that they may appeal one of the applications rather than the entire application. The other info is correct. Please revise the message for Carol, etc. — and possibly let Cathy know as well. I am concerned if the wrong message gets out that the Board will then call on me to correct it. Thanks again. Nick Lelack, AICP, Director Deschutes County Community Development Department PO Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97708-6005 Office: 541.385.1708 / Cell: 541.639.5585 / Fax: 541.385.1764 www.deschutes.org/cdd Chris Schnmx»er From: Sent: To: Subject: Thanks for the update Jason Carr Community Relations Manager (541) 233-9692 CYPRESSCREEK Jason Carr <carr@ccrnewzom' Monday, September 21, 2015 11:30 AM Chris Schmoyer; Hall, Damien (dhall@balljanik.com) RE: Appeal Fees for Solar Farms From: Chris Schmoye/hnaibo:Chris.SchmoverPdeschutes.orx7 Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 10:08 AM To: Hall, Damien (dhaU@baUianikzom)<dhaUPhaUianik.com> Cc: Jason Carr <carrccrenewcom> Subject: Appeal Fees for Solar Farms Damien and Jason, forgot to include this in the previous email to Damien. The appeal periods expire on Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 5:00 pm. I calculated the appeal fee for the NorWest decision to be $5,463 and Oregon Solar Land Holdings to be $5,633. Regards, Chris Chris Schmoyer Associate Planner Certified Assaciate in Project Management (CAPM) Deschutes County Comrnunity Development Department Ph# (541) 317-3164 Fax# (541) 385-1764 Chris Schmo er From: Steve Jorgensen <Steve@bendparksandrec.org> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 10:08 AM To: Chris Schmoyer Subject: Automatic reply: Hearings Officer Decision for Oregon Solar Land Holdings, LLC Hello, I am currently out of the office unitl Thursday September 24th. Please leave a message regarding any planning and design issues. I'll be checking my email while I'm out of the office for time -sensitive issues. Thank you. Steve Jorgensen 1 Chris Schmoyer From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Hi Cathy, Chris Schmoyer Monday, September 21, 2015 9:48 AM cathvsjenoen@gmaU.com Hearings Officer Decisions for NorWest Engergy 2, LLC and Dregon Soiar Land Holdings, LLC HONohNestDecision lE'16D-CU_l69'SP.pdf;HODecision URSOLAR IS-170'CU_I7l- SP_I72'LW.pdf The Hearings Officer's Decisions are attached. The decisions were mailed out to parties of interest on Friday, September 18, 3015, but since USPS mail is so slow, | thought 1 wouid emali them to you. Piease feei free to forward to any parties you have email addresses for. The appeal period expires Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 5:00 pm. I calculated the appeal fee for the NorWest decision to be $5,463 and Oregon Solar Land Holdings to be $5,633. Regards, Chris Chris Schmoyer Associate Planner Certified Assocte in Project Management (CAPM) Deschutes County Cornmunity Development Department Ph#(541)817'31U4 Fax#(541)385-1784 Web: http://wwvv.deschutes.orp/cd 1 Chris Schmoyer From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Thank you Chris, Hall, Damien <dhaU0)ba|Uanikzom^ Monday, September 21, 2015 9:42 AM Chris Schmoyer Cooper, Laura Craska RE: Hearings Officer Decisions for NorWest Engergy 2, LLC and Oregon Solar Land Holdings, LLC Damien Katt tma,ow.s'3u ua.,?ns, 1058 �'ax�ua�kax/:om We advise you that any discussion of federal tax matters in this email is not intended or written to be used, and may not be used by you or any taxpayer, to (a) avoid penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (b) prornote, market or recommend to ariy other party any transaction or matter addressed herein. All taxpayers should seek independent tax advice, From: Chris SchmoyerTmailto:0ris.SchmoyerCadeschutes.mql Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 9:41 AM To: Hall, Damien Cc: Cooper, Laura Craska Subject: Hearings Officer Decisions for NorWest Engergy 2, LLC and Oregon Solar Land Holdings, LLC Hi Damien, The Hearings Officer's Decisions are attached. These were maiied out on Friday, September 18, 2015, The appeal period expires Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 5:00 pm. Regans, Chris Chris Schmoyer Associate Planner Certified Associate in Project Management (CAPM) Deschutes County Community Development Department Ph# (541) 317-3164 Fax# (541) 385-1764 Chris Schmo er From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Ball Janik LLP <noreply@balljanik.com> Monday, September 21, 2015 9:41 AM Chris Schmoyer Icooper@brixlaw.com Laura Craska Cooper is no longer at Ball Janik LLP RE:Hearings Officer Decisions for NorWest Erigergy 2, LLC and Oregon Soar Land Hodings, LLC Hearings Officer Decisions for NorWest Engergy 2, LLC and Oregon Solar Land Holdings, LLC Effective August 26, 2015/ Laura Cooper is no longer at Ball Janik LLP. Please contact Laura at Icooper@brixlaw.com or by phone at 541-693-0061. If you would like to reach someone at Ball Janik LLP, please contact Heather Oden at 503.228.2525 or hC)r1eD@haU'aOik.COOO. Thank you. � Chris Schmoyer From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Hi Damien, Chris Schmoyer Monday, September 2l,2OIS9:41AK4 Hall, Damien (dhall@balljanik.com) |cooper@ba|Uanikcom Hearings Officer Decisions for NorWest Engergy 2, LLC and Oregon Solar Land Holdings, LLC HO NorWest Decision I5-I68-[U_169-SP.pdt HO Decision OR SOLAR 15-170-CU_171- SP_172'LK4pdf The Hearings Officer's Decisions are attached. These were mailed out on Friday, September 18, 2015. The appeal period expires Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 5:00 pm. Regards, Chris Chhs8chmoycr Associate Planner Certified Associate inProject Management (CAPK8) Deschutes County Community Development Departrnent Ph#(541)317-31G4 Fax#(541)385-17O4 Web: htto://vvww.deschutes.ord/cd 1 TODD SICKLES PGA PROFESSIONAL Quatl un � GOLF COURSE 1 6725 NORTHRIDGE DR. • LA PINE, OREGON 97739 From: Todd Sickles General Manager & PGA Professional Quail Run Golf Course 16275 Northridge Dr. La Pine, OR 97739 541-536-1303 800-895-4653 Re: 2017 Newberry Event Festival to Defeat MS (Doug & Gloria Watt) To whom it may concern, I am writing to show my support for the 2017 Newberry Event Festival to Defeat MS at Diamondstone Guest Lodges, organized by Doug and Gloria Watt. The business operations at Quail Run Golf Course and Diamondstone Guest Lodges have worked together in an equally cooperative and beneficial relationship in this small community for many years. During this time the annual Newberry Event has been a pleasant and respectful festival, and a great charity benefit. Each year it is great to see so many people come together for a worthy cause in this community. 1 am delighted to see this event continue to be successful as the proprietors at Diamondstone, Doug & Gloria Watt, put so much effort and resources into raising money to support research to treat and defeat multiple sclerosis. I fully support the organizers of this event and hope nothing but continued success for them for years to come. Please feel free to contact me if you would like any further information regarding this matter. Sincerely, Todd Sickles General Manager & PGA Professional Quail Run Golf Course 541-536-1303 x3 tsickles@golfquailrun.com SNACK BAR • DRIVING RANGE • GOLF SHOP Cynthia Smidt From: BILL AMY CORDINER <abcordiner@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 9:50 AM To: Cynthia Smidt Subject: July 2017 Newberry Event June 13, 2017 To Whom It May Concern: I am writing to you in regards to the July 2017 Newberry Event file #247-17-000311-OMG. I live next door the the Newberry Event Festival and have concerns about a mass gathering permit. We have endured 3 years of the music festival and it has gotten progressively worse each year. The number of people attending has caused traffic congestion in the area. They park along the road in front of our house, we have had to ask people to move their cars so they don't block our driveway or gates onto our property. They also have people stopping all traffic on the road to find out if they are camping, parking, etc. I can't even drive to my house and park without being stopped on the roadway. The stoppage of traffic can be frustrating. They also camp right next to my property line, we have seen people urinating, undressing and smoking pot from our back yard. Other neighbors have reported in years past that people wondered onto their property and have had lawn chairs broken and trash left behind. The biggest complaint we have is the loud music way beyond the 10pm time frame. We can hear the thumps of music each night sometimes until 2:30 in the morning even with the windows closed. I am all for supporting our community, but most us the people that live in Lazy River South moved here for the peace and quite of the area. Not the increased traffic, strange people walking through our neighborhood and the music playing until 2:30 am. Thank you for taking the time to hear my concerns, Amy Cordiner 16677 Sprague Loop La Pine, Oregon 1