2018-361-Minutes for Meeting May 16,2018 Recorded 8/31/2018•4.0BOARD OFCOMMISSIONERS
1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon
(5 41 ) 388-6570
1:30 PM
Pecorded ;n Deschi.,tes (-,o"nty CJ2018-361
Nancy Blankenship County Clerk
Commissioners' Journal 08/31112018 3:13:10 F'M
��;:� li I I I II I IIIII II I II I II i i II I II SII
/ ,� 2018-361
1
FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY
WEDNESDAY, May 16, 2018 ALLEN CONFERENCE ROOM
Present were Commissioners Tarnmy Baney, Phil Henderson and Anthony DeBone. Also present were
Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; David Doyle, County
Counsel; and Tamijo George, Administrative Support. Specialist. No identified representatives of the
rnedia were in attendance.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair DeBone called the meeting to order at 1:33 p.m.
This portion of the agenda was video and audio recorded.
ACTION ITEMS
1. Potential Revisions to Marijuana Regulations/Programmatic Changes - Nick
Lelack, Community Development Director
Before discussing Action Item 1, Commissioner Henderson requested to respond to
a recent editorial in The Bulletin regarding the Board's efforts to review the
marijuana regulations and how the Commissioners would better serve their
constituents by growing some backbone. For the record, Commissioner Henderson
disagreed with the editorial and stated the Commissioners are serving our
constituents in several ways.
PAGE 1 OF 9
First, when regulations were passed, it was understood that the regulations would
be reviewed after a period of time which is now being done.
Second, when our regulations were under attack in the legislature, the
Commissioners committed to the legislature we would review the regulations which
we are. These both show backbone. It is clear that a number of constituents are
concerned we have the right regulations and that we are being fair throughout the
county.
Third, the editorial criticized our staff for looking at California on density issues. The
Commissioners asked the staff to check density and California was the first density
check completed with others to follow.
Finally, per the editorial, we are undercutting the will of the Oregon voters.
Commissioner Henderson pointed out a number of voters did not want recreational
marijuana. The measure barely passed in our County but was passed throughout
the State. It is reasonable for County Commissioners to determine where marijuana
is grown, who is impacted by the growths, and how we can control the impact of the
growths. Commissioner Baney agreed it was an interesting editorial. Commissioner
DeBone thanked Commissioner Henderson for his comments.
Mr. Nick Lelack, Community Development Director, and Mr. Peter Gutowsky,
Community Development Manager presented a memorandum to the Board with
updates and a matrix developed by the staff identifying development standards,
conceptual agreement to confirm, areas requiring additional refinement, and staff
comments. The Board agreed with reviewing the matrix item by item. Below is a
summary of those discussed.
Zoning. The Board agreed to leave this topic on the list to hear public comments
after discussions following Measure 56 Notice and subsequent proceedings.
Question whether HOAs may override zoning to density issues. Deschutes County
land use pattern does not follow traditional MUA-10 or EFU as we do have small
acreage EFU. Marijuana is considered agriculture as defined by the State. Mr. Lelack
explained MUA-10 is a transitional zone from any type of residential use to EFU.
Minimum lot area. Again, the Board agreed to leave this topic on the list to hear
public comments on the current 5 acre minimum. Discussion included the possible
impact if medical and non-medical marijuana are merged under OLCC, set -backs,
and hemp grows not under the same regulations.
Indoor Production and Processing. The Board was in agreement to continue the
mandate of only indoor production and processing.
PAGE 2OF9
Maximum Mature Canopy. With an earlier decision to eliminate the mature
canopy provisions and rely on buildable floor area space, now the Board must
discuss how best to determine converting canopy size to simple tape measuring of
the building. Discussion involved defining zoning code of inside or exterior,
including the various areas required from growing to preparation to loading plus
OLCC Measure 91 terminology. The Board agreed CDD will research and bring back
concepts based on square footage.
Setbacks. Exceptions have been eliminated due to conflicts with neighboring
properties. Discussion considered expanding setbacks to at least 200 feet from lot
lines and at least 500 feet from dwellings. Commissioner DeBone did point out the
100/300 are current setbacks in place. It was agreed to increase the setbacks to be
discussed at the public hearing and then make a reasonable judgment as the Board.
Separation distances. Discussion ranged from public to private to urban reserve
area with separation distance from one mile to three miles to density -based. It was
agreed this information is another progress meeting. CDD staff will do additional
research including reaching out to the City of Redmond regarding sensitivity with
the Redmond Urban Reserve Area. They will also look at other states such as
Washington and Colorado regarding separation distance between grows and bring
information back to the Commissioners.
Lighting. Mr. Lelack explained the proposed times were derived from researching
sunsets based on seasons (winter versus summer). Dusk to dawn did not seem
specific enough nor did 7 am to 7 pm for the entire year seem practical. It was
agreed to obtain opinions from the public.
Odor. Commissioner Henderson submitted a handout with additional wording for
more specificity to the last bullet regarding the order control system. Discussion
included proof of odor control be an objective scientific report versus a promotional
brochure and not be a complaint driven process. Commissioners DeBone and
Baney were in agreement with Commissioner Henderson on adding the additional
wording to the proposed text especially the last two bullets regarding inspection
prior to use and periodic inspections when production facility is in operation.
Noise. Discussed definition of sustained noise from not exceeding two minutes per
hour at night to shall not exceed 30 decibels between 10 pm and 7 am above the
ambient noise. Also discussed the challenge of enforcement of a time limit but
agreed to two -minutes as a starting point for further discussion in defining
sustained noise.
PAGE 3OF9
Annual reporting. Discussion included adding that SDC fees must be timely paid
and an expectation of inspections up to four times a year depending on results of
previous inspections.
Other: Site plan review for Marijuana Processing. There was an agreement to
include the Board's interpretation. Mr. Lelack further explained any processing,
marijuana or lavender, is a Sub 1 use in EFU zone with standards under State law
requiring any land -use decision have a minimum 14 -day notification. There is also a
12 -day appeal period.
Other: Transportation Impacts. Marijuana production is under right -to -farm but
the Board is mindful of the traffic impact in rural areas versus manufacturing areas
with warehouses. Mr. Gutowsky recommended bringing in the Road Department
and Transportation to address impacts to the County transportation system and
appropriate ITE category. Mr. Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner,
suggested traffic rate /volume can be observed in a local trip generation with the
Road Department.
Other: Cannabis Cultivation Cap / Density Limit. There is a question if a
cultivation cap is needed if there is a density limit or vice versa and what either or
both would look like. Mr. Lelack is also awaiting a response to a letter to the Oregon
Water Resources Department if there is a demonstrated water use impact in the
Tumalo and Alfalfa Water District to assist with the determination. In addition, there
has been some discussion with Legal Counsel regarding overproduction; OLCC has
not made such a determination yet. Some examples from California and
Washington. CDD will research examples from an Eastern Washington county given
at WIR to bring back to the Board.
Other: DCC 9.12: Deschutes County Right -to -Farm Ordinance. Legal Counsel
Doyle noted that direct application of ORS -authorized exception to right to farm to
allow for reasonable TPM regulations is implied in DCC 9.12 but some clean-up of
the code would be appropriate.
CDD will present to the Board on June 6, 2018.
RECESS: A recess was taken at 3:33 pm and the meeting reconvened at 3:41 pm with video
and audio recording.
PAGE 4OF9
2. Consideration of Order 2018-037; KCDG/Tanager Record Objection - Anthony
Raguine, Senior Planner
Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner, Community Development Department, and Adam
Smith, Assistant Legal Counsel, presented an order for consideration to resume
written record time limits and deadlines on the proposed KCDG/Tanager projects.
Commissioner Baney understands the applicant has the final rebuttal. Mr. Smith
confirmed the applicant does have the final rebuttal. There are no statutes nor case
laws where the appellant rebuts new evidence submitted in the second round as
rebuttal to new evidence submitted in the first round.
A request for a guarantee this will not be appealed to LUBA was made by
Commissioner Henderson. Neither Mr. Doyle nor Mr. Smith could guarantee there
will not be an appeal to LUBA.
BANEY: Moved approval of Order 2018-037 as presented.
HENDERSON: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
HENDERSON: Yes.
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion carried.
This portion of the agenda was audio recorded only.
3. April 2018 Treasurers Report and Financial Reports - Wayne Lowry, Finance
Director/Treasurer
Wayne Lowry, Finance Director/Treasurer presented the April 2018 Treasurers and
Financial Reports. The Board had no comments on Treasurer's Report.
While reviewing the Financial Report, Commissioner Henderson questioned how
often departments are requested to review their staffing throughout the year.
Mr. Lowry gave assurances departments are requested to review staffing and
budget every month. When departments are fully staffed, though, there are not any
anticipated changes in expenditures or revenues.
Room Taxes were budgeted for $6.7 million but are doing better than projected. At
2.5% ahead, Mr. Lowry anticipates $6.9 million. Commissioner Baney mentioned the
City of Bend is currently being challenged in the usage of Room Tax for roads.
PAGE 5OF9
Commissioner Henderson asked for clarification on the location of funds for the
temporary 9-1-1 tower. Mr. Lowry noted Fund 710 is the reserve fund and monies
are transferred to Fund 705 and Fund 707 to fund projects. Mr. Anderson also
pointed out there are several projects included in Fund 710.
Mr. Lowry also answered Commissioner Henderson's query regarding the status of
the Health Benefits Fund. Claims experience changes every month but they have
been muted in that they have not been increasing. We do have more employees but
we are at break even with revenues pretty steady. The administration fee has gone
up almost 100% over what was projected due to the runout of the EBMS contract
and the new contract with PacificSource.
4. Potential Marijuana Production Appeal, 64575 Mock Rd, Order 2018 -034 -
William Groves, Senior Planner
William Groves, Senior Planner, presented a potential production appeal of a
request to relocate one greenhouse.
BANEY: Moved approval of Order 2018-034 as presented.
HENDERSON: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
HENDERSON: Yes.
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion carried.
OTHER ITEMS:
James Lewis, County Property Manager, followed up on information given
last week after phone conference with the State and City of Redmond. The
intent is to send a letter to Vicki Walker with history of land exchange to aid
her in conversation with the Land Board. A draft was sent to the Board on
Monday. Mr. Lewis will obtain signatures from each Commissioner in the
next couple of days.
PAGE 6OF9
• Judith Ure, Management Analyst, followed up on the Board's expression of
support in a previous meeting with this request for a motion to authorize the
Historical Landmarks Commission to write a letter of support for the Central
Oregon Irrigation District's (COID) application for funding to construct the
Cline Falls Historic Plant interpretive exhibit / kiosk.
BANEY: Move to authorize.
HENDERSON: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
HENDERSON: Yes.
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion carried.
As part of the kiosk project above, Ms. Ure shared Chris Doty, Public Works
Director, will be facilitating a request from COID for a right-of-way license to
realign an old County road for parking.
• Ms. Ure also mentioned CDD will be following-up with the Board on Monday,
May 21St, with a high-level overview of the Central Oregon Canal nomination
the Historical Landmarks Commission now supports and recommends the
Board support. Mr. Lelack explained CDD will be asking the Board if they
would like to make comments on the nominations which are not required. If
yes, the Board would need to choose what process they prefer: review the
nominations on record at a Work Session or conduct a public hearing prior to
the Oregon SHPO (State Historic Preservation Office) meeting in Redmond,
on Friday June 22nd
Commissioner Henderson signed a letter of intent yesterday to meet the
deadline. Ms. Ure explained the letter to Oregon Association of Relief
Nurseries was in support of MountainStar Relief Nursery to apply for a
significant amount of funding to develop Relief Nursery services in the
Redmond area.
PAGE 7OF9
At the time of 4:25p, Commissioner DeBone had to leave for another scheduled meeting.
Commissioner Henderson assumed position of chair.
ACTION ITEMS continued
5. Potential Marijuana Production Appeal, 23450 Walker Road, Order 2018-036 -
Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner
Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner, presented a potential production appeal. The
applicant has requested an exception to the 100 -foot setback for the existing
building to a 90 -foot setback existing building. Commissioner Baney suggested a lot
line adjustment. Mr. Raguine agreed the applicant could and has been advised by
the staff to do a lot line adjustment but will relay the option again to the applicant.
BANEY: Moved approval of Order 2018-036 as presented.
HENDERSON: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
HENDERSON: Vice Chair votes yes. Motion carried.
DEBONE: Absent.
COMMISSIONERS UPDATES: None given
This portion of the meeting was neither video-taped nor audio -recorded.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
At the time of 4:34 pm the Board went into Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (d)
Labor Negotiations. The Board came out of Executive Session at 5:15 pm.
PAGE 8OF9
OTHER ITEMS: continued
• Whitney Hale, PIO, asked the Board to support the Fair & Rodeo program with an ad
for $175. This will come out of the discretionary grant.
BANEY: Move approval.
HENDERSON: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes
HENDERSON: Vice Chair, votes yes
DEBONE: Absent excused.
The County Administrator, Tom Anderson, reported on a request by the District
Attorney for a minor amendment to the Deputy DA contract to allow part-time / job
share.
Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:20 pm.
DATED this --;90 Day of l �_ 2018 for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners. U
PAGE 9 OF 9
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703
(541) 388-6570 - www.deschutes.org
WORK SESSION AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
1:30 PM, WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 2018
Barnes and Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Center - 1300 NW Wall Street - Bend
Work Session, which are open to the public, allow the Board to gather information and give direction to staff.
Public comment is not normally accepted. Written minutes are taken for the record
Pursuant to ORS 192.640, this agenda includes a list of the main topics that are anticipated to be considered or
discussed. This notice does not limit the Board's ability to address other topics.
Meetings are subject to cancellation without notice.
CALL TO ORDER
ACTION ITEMS
1. Potential Revisions to Marijuana Regulations / Programmatic Changes - Nick Lelack,
Community Development Director
2. Consideration of Order 2018-037; KCDG/Tanager Record Objection - Anthony Raguine,
Senior Planner
3. April 2018 Treasurers Report and Financial Reports - Wayne Lowry, Finance
Director/Treasurer
4. Potential Marijuana Production Appeal, 64575 Mock Rd, Order 2018-034 - William
Groves, Senior Planner
5. Potential Marijuana Production Appeal, 23450 Walker Road, Order 2018-036 -Anthony
Raguine, Senior Planner
COMMISSIONER'S UPDATES
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (d) Labor Negotiations
Board of Commissioners Work Session Agenda Wednesday, May 16, 2018 Page 1 of 2
Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (i) Performance Evaluation
At any time during the meeting an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS
192.5660(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 public.
OTHER ITEMS
These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners with to discuss as part of the
meeting pursuant to ORS 192.640.
ADJOURN
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.org/meetingcalendar
Meeting dates and times are subject to change. All meetings take place in the Allen Room at 1300 NW Wall St.
Bend unless otherwise indicated. If you have question, please call (541) 388-6572.
Board of Commissioners Work Session Agenda Wednesday, May 16, 2018 Page 2 of 2
m
0
ca
0
LU
W)
z
Lu
in
CL
ui
LU
0
Ln
<
Wuj
LLA
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 Work Session of May 16, 2018
DATE: May 10, 2018
FROM: Nick Lelack, Community Development, 541-385-1708
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Potential Revisions to Marijuana Regulations / Programmatic Changes
The Board directed staff to schedule a follow-up work session to continue discussing potential revisions to
Deschutes County's marijuana regulations.
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Nick Lelack, AICP, Director
Peter Gutowsky, AICP, Planning Manager
DATE: May 10, 2018
SUBJECT: Marijuana Regulatory Assessment / Work Session / Programmatic Options
BACKGROUND
The Board of County Commissioners (Board) conducted a work session on May 7, 2018, to discuss:
• Letters to the Oregon Water Resources Department and Oregon Health Authority addressing
groundwater impacts in greater Alfalfa and Tumalo and medical marijuana inspections; and,
• A conceptual review of marijuana regulations to identify which standards and criteria should be
amended, as well as potentially new regulatory concepts relating to capping the number of
marijuana permits and/or density limits in geographic areas such as Alfalfa and Tumalo.
The Board directed staff to schedule a follow-up work session to continue discussing potential revisions
to Deschutes County's marijuana regulations.
II. Matrix
Staff prepared a matrix as a tool for identifying potential code amendments to Deschutes County's marijuana
production and processing standards. Columns in the matrix identify criteria where there may be conceptual
agreement, areas requiring additional refinement, and staff comments.
III. Next Steps
Based on Board direction at this work session, staff will begin to draft text amendments and schedule a follow-
up work session to discuss:
1. Reviewing and finalizing the text amendments;
2. Timing to initiate the draft text amendments; and
3. Public hearing and adoption processes.
-1-
«
a
z
o c y
0
o v m v o
m
m
¢ N m = o
o
c m
o c
y
o z
o 1.
o a a
v
D Q
c v w
w a °' o o c c c y c a c
Y a
N
m o
c
v�
o o o N o w
.. ..
o o
v°
v o v«°�
d o 0 3 v n -o o
° a
a w
o °D- "
aai aai ° v° v °•
O v m o Y m a°
N Q E E p
3Ej 0
o .-
E E V u o
'a
Y
Y E a 6 N a v a m a m a
E_ a
m
r
a a
u
w
w
-
v
o£
Q
`m '" u a
s o 0 o
s v `-' a
N •o v
.vc q u a
•
0 0
w j o
a o o N
o
r o o
L
E a o
£ o o y
E o -o' o
` w
E •0 0
c a
o a o a
w a o E
0 0
o n a
a
o O m
v
y ¢ a
m
n
O
n
a
�' v •o m
U
_
a
m
o c
a v
c o a
p c
E E
o a
3 c
O L
u
O "
v
a`� d
V a
� T
v v
y a
a u0 d a +-
=O
a
O n
o
o a
d W
Q n
° r+
0 0• y o
o:4'a
o�
E� .-
=a m �• °
OO
a .Lc. °
a
m
o
u a
z o v Q
c vi
o.
v
o N n
z w 3
E v v
ao
o o
v a c
n m
v
N - Fo c a°
«> a
- «•
`w
E a
O
v
in o
`
Q E m
o
a s o
E
o
o o y t
°' fa
y E a
c E-
¢
v
Q
c c
o
">o
w
w
J
,F c W°
a L
O C L
m .n
E
° c E a c 00 c
E
" u
a s
N
�
C • • •
� •
3
� m
%
� m
— a
v
a
0 oa
O
ry
� ° o
°1 E
w
a s v
c
w
a E
v
a
o
a
o
o N
o
c
o
�
o .o
v a '
v
a
m
a o
- o Z
v
'E
a
co
= m
o
`o c
=
0
v a
« a
u o�
o
u a
C
d
d
C
C
T
T
C
p
y
c
o
a
Q
a
o•
v
o
a
v
a
a
v
c
o v
° Q
m
E
c a
v
N
A L
L
V
N
L w
a
Z
c o
t
0
u
-
- o
a
m
c
o
ao
`o v
o.
a io
c j m y
o .a c c
oo
V
lw
v
a
o
s
o
o°`° 3
o v° a a
a
a o E
o
on 0E
> a 2 0 o
N a$
« $
o
s o
°
.'� c a«
—
2
Q
- N C
—•�
u
O aL+ �„ O
O m
a
a y
a Q
— 00
-o
a daa
0 0
ao
2 Y m o u n
> a
�'
N 9
o m
n �° n
- o u w a
w y +,
c
o= EL.
�a
.w
o o '� m r
o
,
E
dE
u
t"
a
Moo
E
o.
LLL. E
o o a v
°
v E 'o^ v
z c
u o
3 t
A o av n a
a o u°
a o v o=
o a m o L
r
.c°c
d
T °
oO= o a o
°, w'---
° O
_ �+ °
o
Q
V
H
A o
W N
_ a m w E
m 'c o v o E m o Y a
o
�" .o v m$ c
m
v a c od
>
0 3 o o
u a
0
m o o °' c° a 3 a
° a m ;; _
c u"
a"= m
r
,� a m .
72 to `o_
w Z' m
.-
E
o u
N .: «. E o
a u o u '- o a
o. o o o �, o
ti m 'o
a E o v c
3 a No
0 o 'o
o a'�Ev
c= U .. Y n v — c .o
u
c° N o t 1°
oo
m
a-
a m. no
E E
w m
'a
0
on u u .° c o', •,. a s
°¢za'sao
` Y w m n-
u
on
w a
9'=o
V o
i,z osE
�i
no
o o o o o o
°
V E
=
v
G o
c
E
C � N p ° V u>
c a1 ° ° C v O a 0 '� ' 0
v
a E°
9 oo
w'c «w a o r o « ry
a N
m
aa>i
E .° m o .« m o s a n o o
.°
Q
o om c v o v«
m E a s o o t E a o. E v a
0
c.
.o �v a m L v Y o v ., a` o
m m v a °' —> m. E a
« E m E a o v
o o
\
a a o v c y > y> 3 c a«
y
E« r« 0 o 3« a a
a m 3 r o 3;90o
£
o u oo c
�avoccs•'c"oo oE�
' o
« o c v v
o d d d—° N
aE « s
o fO c
_ > « a
0 Q tlL0 `
Oa N¢ =� 2
C .3
F- .'_. O
° Q O O
o a =
a v
° E
�
a
v
c>
a o
^'
v c
0 0
x
°1 °
a
E
m 'o
o a
a ov
m a
o
o
° co
c
L:«
? o m
N ?
o
Y .E
c £
c
ao v >
E —
v '°o E >
a
c
o
$ v
c oa
cu o y c
- « 0
0
v
a a n
E'c
d v a
E'
'm
w
a v
c a c
°
Yo
w w > u
°' `O —
vai a m
= —
o
c
E
v
m
Q
A
n
v
c
0
V
E
�O
t E m o
o«
=oN
a
m¢ECYaoE —
mo
Es
o >
Oi
ow
me u aEy v
m > a
o>ba
— cm
o,.
3 a '^ Y o n
v v
c m
c
—=
o
r Hca
n
« v
EL o
- 75
« a
o v um
o m
v
mm
°1
o
E m
10
u a m t os. s
a
f E'� 3
o 9 N
a_ v
3 s°
I c o«
o a
v' o v
o w
a
3
E a° E
a c
A
o 9= .c
a vE
o, '^ y u
m
Eo o m
m m
— y
o
oo
9 E w I .«a. w 3 a y
« a
� E 'E ° y`o
o --
D
a v m o. w 'C « c
a ._
o a -a c
o E E °
mQ
0
o .vi Y m v s c `o "
r=
F ._s. `o "O
`o. E ,o
0
o
mu
I °
- °' c^
_ E
o s EE
V=
c
Q c w
a E v>>
s
v v
a°
'° E
E E
a v
a o 3 o
v
01 c= c«„
.E m c o 'eno a n
o
v v N N
E�� >
o o=
m a E
°'
o `o a—
o
c
m
a
Oct cm s o c o c m
cm
o$ o i p+ m v
=_
o °c
a a c
a uf0.
v'o N
0
a o
v S a` E o a c. O
.«
E 0 0 o
c 'n =O o
ui '3 N
m
c
» o
0
w
a
a
E
`o
a
«
«
a
E
v
a
O
°
^
—9
0
n
0
n
c
a
E
¢
n
p
o
m
m
�
E o
0
a
m
0
n
m
c
ao
c
z
c
c
\
v
E
m° 1
a s
v
E
a
E
a
a
E
v
v
E
E
N
p O
^
E
m
E
m
O
a
u
mn
o
x
0;
a
>
m
—
o
>
v E
° E
O p
uO
n
v °u
u °
u
= o
a
c
m
u c o a
0
c
o L o c '%
% 0
`m
o
_
a >•E vi°mo
c o
v
` r0
m_ m a 3
�
Q
m o f O a r
`w °
o o m
o
u
u
`o
« o u E
c
aoo
E
m N E
c m N v
a v c
d
u
E o '_ .�
a
m
F3
a
u o
O
u > o. ° u o
o
u 3
6
v
> V a
2
_ O m _
Z
m
c
u
E v v
>, 4 v m
o
v a
9
V
U�2 �
V 0 �
m
O
v
3
« L
a
a
'� ¢I
a
3 u
V
L
H
a
l7
uw
o
Im
a v
0 o
= .- s o `- o o a
N uo m '� - 4 �'
a
o o v
"' o
;o m
o L
Ln v
'^
o o
u
o.
a s
L a
c,O m
? c r ti m v
o u
o
c ..
';
oO
`oO
v
ie
e a nF -m 'o
N L L '� c
,o a
"-' o
v
-lw
'o
>�aE
o
mai E o aa0
`a 3
0 $
" v
9a
momEa3
m�
y
= G m
U o v s m o a
b.
fq
v a
E .E a N E o E .o a
es c
3 0. w
oc
vi
-oc m
a s m o a X o
u<
L
o
E
c E
H o u
r
� `� o E¢ E ,. E 'o �
o
o o. ° v
x
o
9 0 2
.2
mwE
Eaw
a w L Z'v°_-' m« m m
ai m y
c
a
y o
=
>
c o y
u Et m a y v o '^ -
� o -a
v
•o n
a
s
3
G
v y
v m a ¢0 3
3
w
o
q
'o•
"'
E " 0i 'u" c m .p
«0000
a a n
u v `a
c
°
= z
m m
v o m >'° °° O
m Y
u
`a
u c
o-
o'o a u o v .Y n
my �v u
.. .: m
v'E 3 °' m
" 3
c9
m
m
toes
.2
y c
o
a!"
E om c ;; = p A v a v
av 00.c= _ m
•> `w � 01
°
o a
g
a
u v
>u
e a u
_
A`o
o r —
o o
o. c ,.,lo
cw
y
>
2
v
�= a
`a
'° m
3 o w
u v
o
0 w
o
c
°c Q �_
- a o
0
e
�,
m
o
LL v
;m ?
v u s a v c o. E
�, o .3 0.^ •-' m Y
p. ,� p a c E a
o• p o E '� w
c c
4
m °'
O
d o
E
o —
L
N v
c t
' o
a u
y 0 o
o
p v
> v
m
c
a
3 9 v
c
6
«
u
�•
`•
.n .
• •
3 • • •
a
LL a
= °
�
—
vai m
m
a
s m
0
a o c
>
o c
c
�
m o
y
o aE
o.v ay.3
aE o
L m_
o
v
_c > E o a
° E
0 a E
0 v
E -
-
°a'
u o o o
o
c
v E>
'O m m c_
4°
0
asvEE;,
c
om'cw
N0
,•
w m o o
u° m Y a w
0
E u o L
c
E
O
N
« E w o u E
o w o
m 0
a o ° f0 m E
`
m E
«
u
w
o a' '«
c
0 0
u c
0
a m
w
E
ow
n
o > 3 c o
o
a
c
n Y 9
o
=
y
a c m `o 0
v
o - m
r
w
oo n m
v
a
o m
> 4
c
oo n
C U£ L C
f
w 0
o,1pn
- j w
o v m3
o
c w�
E 10 E a
a
a E y
-
a o o
o a a
u
c
E
v
m
Q
m
a
w
c
0
V
w
o
- w
w m LL r° s m
E
r3 oa
o
c va EL-"' v >
o o o o 0 0 .f�vc E -
V E w o c
_ m a
w
p O w u On
w 0 E _
v D o
y m v y a > E
c a
p V
o. O u
cw
c m
w °
o w
o r E c 'a L Y r
v E'
'- c a u o
o
c a w c E �_ o E a
S n m - a 0 a o w
Y o' o
c= a = w° co m o -
w o °
a c
v
3 ma
0 o
uE
v
m
a
o a
¢ m o
w
v o a m
0o E c
c
o
oa � N w o .o ^; oo wa= c LO1i
v
`o
a
o°
a
j _ w .1 s w .yc lo _. v y
m
v
Eo
m E a o'o m w a
c N a v
c
p
..
E m.°
- - w r°
- o f a`a =-u a v c o o=
o O'>
n 2 o
"y`01c E 3� EL Eve a E o
O
i
w
o un « v
=" > w '" E 3 0 !" w w v 3 E> o a E
m
c
u
9� �s
c O'OS' Eov�a'aa oc E a ori
a'
E
m
A
0
u
Q N J° �) a
`a w X a .�n m O v°i E j C cp V O n _
d
c
C u
Q 3 w> o v v w c m v .- Q
`o
m
D
w m '� c
o °
.mc
eo °«- - O E w v o E o '^
y y ,.- ' ,gym, ? m 3 a s m u
o o o c o u m E o
¢
r
c acv ° 'E
o
a o ^�'� d v r '' ami o w 0 0 0°
d
c
c
u
oLnw
0-wv� m o oOt«'° ` w o
in
r
u
D
a y a a '°" G a
ani o
v a 9 0 0 0 0" a n u o 0 3 E o u o c
d
d
`w
�. N• • •
Q y p �• • • • • F,
O
O
O
O
Recommended changes to odor control text:
An odor control system is deemed permitted only after ..........
• The mechanical engineer is an expert with qualifications and experience for designing and
recommending effective odor control and mitigation systems.
• (same second bullet)
• objective scientific proof that the planned system will eliminate all marijuana odors from air
exhausting the production facility
• The system shall be installed and in working order and inspected by Deschutes County prior to
the applicants useAf the production facility
• Deschutes County shall be allowed to periodically inspect the premises for odor control when
the production facility is in operation.
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 Work Session of May 16, 2018
DATE: May 9, 2018
FROM: Wayne Lowry, Finance, 541-388-6559
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
April 2018 Treasurers Report and Financial Reports
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:
Discussion of April 2018 Treasurers report and Financial Reports
ATTENDANCE: Wayne Lowry, Treasurer/Finance Director
SUMMARY: Monthly Report
LO
C
C v
O N
V
C
O ca
~ W N ONE
COOco O
O pVp� N
O Of
A -IMILn
N N Ln
N
n
4V y
U
Ez
o c
C C H
E
E
-
o e o o e o o
Co ,a)
so
O m
O O ti N tIn N N
D w
M
Q
tU C CL
Eo- E
a�
L 0 l-
c
Y t Y O
.�+ dNbj U
it
W
'..`
CLL a
(i)N
y
N
N
� to
N >
a n d a
d O C
M 'C CMl) C
�U (h
d
v N
=
G D r
� r
rn )� mY ;ao G1N
C6
0
? Ego
H
» co
e•�NeCO0
0,�0 aa'0f 0 ea'
N VWN 1O
ctrNt!hOOO
r
CD0 0p0O0)Nto
et N to
�� O w LO M M w
COONONCO -.
-
N dM' (6 (6 co m
l"
ca Im
C Y
Co ,a)
ca
m d
Z y O
E
D w
M
Q
(�� y
L
a�
L 0 l-
c
c EL ID d CL �a
� O E -j
2 1- ti u- I-
N
�
N
d e
� �
Q0Z
O
1-
(i)N
T
H
N
C
�U (h
d
v N
=
G D r
� r
C6
H
d
�
H
C
A
m
O
p
CL
` Y\
�indo
o Pp
d0
LL <-
Y
mM(� ti
J
NLL
Deschutes County Investments
Portfolio Mpnspamsnl
Portfolio Details - Investments
April 30, 2018
CUSIP Security
Broker
_
Purche-
Data
Mplurity
Data
-
Days To Ratings Coupon
Maturity SBP Moody's Rate
YTM 365
Par
Value
Market
Value
Book Call
Vaiva Data
912828XA3
U.S. Treasury
PJ
11/3012018
5/15/2018
14_AA+
'.Aaa
1,000
1,000
2,000,000
1,999,500
2,000,000 -
084664BEO
Berkshire Hathaway Inc
CASTLE
1!12/2018
5115/2018
14 AA
Aa2
5.400
1.801
2,229,000
2,231,675,
2,232,088_ - -
913366HS2
'University ofCalifornia
.CASTLE
3121/2017,
5/15/2016
14,AA-
;Aa3
0.936
1.351
3,000,000
2,998,830'
2.999.521 -
3135GOXD0
Federal National Mig Assn
CASTLE
114/2017
512112.018.
20,AA+
Asa
1.000,
1.250,
500,000,
499,785,
500,000, - -
313OA87B3
Federal Home Loan Bank
VINISP
12/6/2016
5/30/2018
29 M+
Asa
1.000
1,141
1,500,000,
1,499,100
1,500,000 -
06050TMC3
Bank ofAmerica- CorporateN
CASTLE
51912017,
615/2018,
35A+
,At
, 1150
1.540
t,000,00D
999,570•
1,000.196'
3132XOLRO
Federal Agriculture Mtg Corp
PJ
12/812016_
618/2018
38,
1,.100
1.100.
2,000,000
1,998,900
2,000,00 -
96385XAP1
XTOEnergy Inc
CASTLE,
8/4/2015
6/15/2018
45, AAA
,Asa
5.500
1.500
1,006,000
1,003,180
1,004,767 -
004121 NCO
Umatilla School District
PJ
5!712015
6/15/2018
45AA+
1,430
1,430
750,000
749,505
750,00D - -
10592
Washington Federal CD
5/2MO17,
612 212 0 7 8,
52,
0960,
0.913,
243,643,
243,643,
243,643. -
67
1664AEO
Chevron Corp
CASTLE
4/15/2016
6/24/2018_
54 AA-
Aa2
1.718
1 191
2,000,000
1,998,360.
2,001,526 512.42018
166764AEO
Chevron Corp
CASTLE
10111120166/24/2018
54 AA-
Aa2
'Aa3
1.718
1.259
1,000,000
999,180
1.000,304 -
939307HF4
Hillsboro SO Pension Bonds
PJ
3/30/2015.
6/30/2018
' 60
1.732
1.650
985,000
984,606
985,128 -
938429M46
Washington County SO Municipal
PJ
9/8!2016
6!302018
60
,Aa3
1.585
0.998
250,000
249,840
250,237 -
84247PHT1
Southern CA Public Power Autho
CASTLE
12/19/2017
7/1/2018
61'AA•
1.728
1,779
2,510,000
2,508,419
2„509,788 -
3135GOL43
Federal National Mfg Assn
CASTLE
12/132016
7/132018
73 AA+
Aaa
0.850
1.221
1,000,000
997,430
1,000,000_ - -
88059EMT8
Tennessee Valley Authority
DA DAV
2/22/2016
7/15/2018
75
1 021
1.065
500,000
497,665
498,936 -
3133EGNU5
Federal Farm Credit Bank
CASTLE
8/1/2016
7/27/2018
87 AA+
Aaa
0.960
0.960
1,000.000
997,810_
1,000,000_ -
3134G9067
Federal Home Loan Mtq Corp
CASTLE
7/27/2016,
7272018
87 AA+
Aaa
1050
1.050
3,000.000
2,994,600
3.000000 - -
934876AGO
Part of Newport OR Lease
DA DAV
3/27/2017
8/1/2018
92 AA
4.500
1.450
610,000
613,422
614,587 - -
842400FJ7
Southern Cal Edison
CASTLE
5/26/2017
8/15/2018
106 A
Aa3
5.500
1.520
2,000,000
2,016,320
2,022,086 - -
65371AU2
Oceanside California Pension
CASTLE
1/27/2017
8/15/2018
106,AA
2.298
1.551
1,850,0001,851,258
1.853,931 -
544351KMO
Los Angeles Cald Go Ref Bds
1212112,016,
9/12018;
123
AA2
1,210
1209
1,000,000'
996,780
1.000,000 -
3134GAKFO
Federal Homo loan Mlg Corp
,PJ
10/18/2018
9/1212018.
134,AA+
Aaa
1 110
1 110.
3.000,006
2,990,730
3,000,000 6/122018
3134GBUN7
Federal Home Loan Mtq Corp
.CASTLE
CASTLE
31302016
920/2018
150 AA-
Aaa
1.200
1.200
2.000,000 �
1,993.360.
2,000.000 6/28/2018
3134G9YA9
Federal Home Loan Mlg Corp
CASTLE
6/28/2016
9/2812018
150 AA-
Aaa
1.010
1.000
2,520,000
2,509,693
2,520.000 6/28/2018
3134GAND3
Federal Home Loan Mtq Corp
CASTLE
91282,016
9/2 8/2018
150 AA,
Aaa
1.050
1.050
00
4,0,000
3,984,280
4,000,000 - -
3133EFJP3
Federal Farm Credit Bank
CASTLE
11/4/2018 10/15/2018
167'AA+
Aaa
1,100
1,100
5,000,000
4,978,950
5,000.000 -
313002974
Federal National Mtg Assn
'CASTLE
5/22/2017'
10/29/2018
181'AA+
Aaa
1.190
1,340
5,000,060
4,979,200
5,000.000 72912018
912828WDB
U.S. Treasury
CASTLE
12/1/2015
10/31/2018
183 AAA
Aaa
1150
1.223
1,000,000
996,020
1,000,134,
g12828T83
U.S. Treasury
CASTLE '
12/142016
10/31/2018
163 AAA
,Aaa
0.750
1.155
3,000,000
2,980,560
2.993,998 - -
31771KAJ6
FICO Strip
CASTLE
9/28/2017
11/2/2018
185_
1,460
1.520
5.000,600.,
4,942,750
4,962,484 - -
427542KX2
Hermiston OR
DADAV
921/2016
121112016,
214 AA-
3.000
1,001
605,000
608.678,
611,962 - -
06050TME9
Bank ofAmerica-Corporate
CASTLE
5/16/2017
12/7/2018
220 A+
At
2.650'
1.700
3,180,000,
3,173,131
3,186,550 - -
31ZZ
34A40
Federal Home Loan MlgCorp
CASTLE
311912.018,
12/1412018
227 AA•
,Aa2
5.000
2.287
1,000,000
1,016,210
1,016,544 - -
31771EAN1
FICO Strip
CASTLE
1113!2016
12/27/2018
240
0984
1.025
1,000,000,
984.430,
993,440 - -
912828A75
U.S. Treasury
CASTLE
6/8/2015
12/31/2018
244 AAA
,Aaa
1.500
1.324
1,000,000,
995,660
1,001,142 -
3132XONJ6
Federal Agricullure M19 Corp
CASTLE
5/1/2017
1123/2019
267
1.270
1.400
3,000,000
2,978.430
2,997,195 - -
912833KU3
U.S. Treasury
CASTLE
1/29/2018
2/15/2019
290
1.913
1.997
2,000,000
1,965.960
1,969.178 - -
912828SH4
U.S. Treasury
CASTLE
2/22/2018
2/26/2019
303
1.375
2060,.
3,000,000
2,978,430
2,983,192,. - -
20271RAF7
Commonwealth BKAustr NY
CASTLE
9/18/2017
3/13/2019
316 AA-
Aa3
2.250
1.720
2,600,000'
2,591,550
2,611,736 - -
88059E4G6
Tennessee Valley Authority
CASTLE
2/7/2018
3/152019
318
2.002
2,90
1,020,000,
997,325
1,001,962 - -
68607VS71
Oregon State Lottery
CASTLE
4/5/2017
4/12019
335
Aa2
1.602
1.581
1,000,000.993.010
1,000,194 -
459058FC2
International Bonds for Recons
CASTLE
12/15/2016
4/26/2019
360 AAA
Aaa
1.250
1.500
2,000,000.
1,978,200
2,000,000 -
90331HMY6
US Bancorp
CASTLE
12/2212017
426/2019
360 AA.
At
1.400.
2.000
1.000.000,
988,300,
994,184, 3262019
90520EAFS
MUFG Union Bank
CASTLE
12/6/2017
5/6/2019
370 A
A2
2.250.
2.185
1,352,000.
1,343.834
1.352,849 4162019
084061-IBMO
Bank of New York Mellon Carp
CASTLE
11/15/2017
5/15/2019
379 A
Al
5.450
1.950
1,00,000
1,028,870
1,035,662 - -
3133EGAV7
Federal Farm Credit Bank
CASTLE
3/10018
511712019.
381,AA+
Aaa
1.170'
2.210,
2,000,000
1,973.380,
1,978,665 -
62889KA03
National Credit Union Assoc
CASTLE
3292018
6/12/2019
407 AA+
Aaa
3.000
2.301
1,240,000,
1,247,874
1,249,451
250351FJ7
Deschutes County Ore Sch Dist
PJ
8/16/2016
6/15/2019
410
AA1
1.360
1360
245,000,
241,950
245,000 - -
938429R66
Washington County SO Municipal
PJ
5/11/2017.
0/15/2019
410 AA-
Aal
1,488
1.488,
400000
396,146
400,000_ -
3137EAB1
_Federal Home Loan Mlg Corp
CASTLE
7/20/2016
7/19/2019
444 AA-
Aaa
6.875
0.957
1,000,000
982,110
999,018 -
13034PZ02
CALIFORNIA ST HOUSINGFINANICASTLE
112/2017
8/112019
457,AA•
Al
1.952,.
1.850
1.070,000,
1,060.616
1,071,324 - -
3135GON33
Federal National MlgAssn
CASTLE
8/182018,
8212019
458'AA+
Aaa
'As2
0.875
1.000,
1,000,000
981,160
998,457
89114013,16
Toronto Dominion Bank
CASTLE
2152018
8/132019
469,AA.
1,450
2.360
5,000,000'
4,915,800
4,942,967 -
912828LJ7
U.S. Treasury.
:CASTLE
32112018,
8115/2019,
471.
3,625,
2.250_
2.,000,000,
2,031,100
2034,785' -
06406HCW7
Bank of Now York Mellon Corp
CASTLE
IIKW..016;
9111/2019
498,A
Al
2.300'
1.532
1,675,000,
1,665,084
1,691;191 8/112019
48125Lf2J3
JPMorgan Chase -Corporate N
CASTLE
4/102017
9/23/2019
510 A+
Aa3
2.861'
2.236,
3,000,000,
3.018,570
3,01'2.32.7 823/2019
48125LRG9
JPMorganChase- CorporateN
CASTLE
6/28/2017
9/23/2019
510 A+
,Aa3
65
10
1.840
1,300,000
1,280,071
1,296,706 8/2312019
313586RC5
- FederalNationalMtgAssn
CASTLE
12/4/2015
10/912019
526 AA-
1.891
2.0311
1,400,000
1,349.082
1,361.319 - -
313586RC5Federal
National Mtg Assn
CASTLE
3/17/2016
10/9/2019
526 AA.
1.665
1.774
600,000
578,178'
585,404
313586RC5
Federal National Mlg Assn
CASTLE
81812016
10/9/2019
526 SAA-
1,252
1.318.
400,000
385:152
392,682 -
313586RC5
Federal National MID Assn
CASTLE
11/22/2017
1019/2019
526 AA-
1.928
2030.
3,600,000
3 469,068
3,498,585 -
76116FAA5
RFSCP STRIP PRIN
CASTLE
921/2017
101152019
532
1.499
1,572.
1,000,000
962,170
977,852 -
3135GOR39
Federal National Mtq Assn
CASTLE
11/10/2016'
10/24/2019
541'AA+
Aaa
1,000
1.173
2,000,000
1.957,660
1.994,991 -
912628F62
U.S. Treasury
CASTLE
10/1112616
10/312019
548 AAA
Aaa
1.500`
1,008
2,000,000,
1,977.,900
2,014,514
961214BK8
Wostpac
CASTLE ,
8130/2017
11/19/2019
567'AA-
,Aa3
4,875,
1.826
2,000.000'
2,057,640
2,092,185 - -
912828G95
U.S. Treasury
'PJ
111612018
12/31/2019
669
1,625,
2.000
2,000,000
1,973,360
1,987.784, -
94988351-.1
Wails Fargo Corporate Note
CASTLE
112312018
111512020
624
Aa2
2.400,
2,444
3,000,000
2,971,860,
2,997,827_ - -
594918AYO
Microsoft Corp
CASTLE
8/8/2016'
2/12/2020
652 AAA
_Aaa
1.850
1.298_
1,009,585
1,000,00
986,620
1/1212020
3133EJDCO
Federal Farm Credit Bank
CASTLE '
3/12/2018 '
22012020
660 AA+
Aaa
2.150
2.360
925,000,
916,573
921,860 2120/2019
13063CSQ4
California St
'VINISP
9/21/2017
4/1/2020
701 AA-
Aa3
1,800'
1.800-
780,000
768,596
780,000 - -
3137EAEM7
Federal Home Loan Mfg Corp
CASTLE
4/19/2018
4/23/2020
723
2;500
2.511
2,000,000
1,998,040
1,999,567 - -
3134GBNK4
Federal Home Loan Mtq Corp
CASTLE
7/1312017
5ag2020
759
Aaa
1.625,
1,671
3,000,000,
2,945,370,
2,997,762, 512912019
686053CK3
iOregon School Boards Assoc
CASTLE'
3/1512017
3/15/2017
613012020
6/30/2020
Aa2_
2063
2.149'
1,000,000
935,260
955,302 -.
569203MA7
Salem-Ket'GarSchool District
CASTLE
7/2612017
6130/2020_
791,
Aa2
'Aa2
2.107
1.778,
2,310,000
2,276,574,.
2,325,844 - -
686053DH9
Oregon School Boards Assoc
-DADAV
11212015!
6/30/2020
791.AA
, 5.373
2.050•
875.000'
921,655
934,701 -
686053DH9
Oregon School Boards Assoc
CASTLE
6/24/2016
6/30/2020
791 AA
Aa2
5 373
1.570
500,000
526,600
539,723 -
949748GM6
Wells Fargo Corporate Note
PJ
1/192017
712212020'
813A
HA2
2.600
2.350
1,000,000.
989,550
1.005,308 -
053015AD5
AUTOMATIC DATA
CASTLE
2/26/2018
9/15/2020
868 AA
Aa3
2.250
2.570
2,710,000'.
2,680,163,
2,690,181 8/152020
940093R25
Washington Univ Higher Ed
'PJ
1119/2017
10/1/2020
884
Aa2
5.930
1.970
400,000
428,064
436,733 -
45905U7J7
Intomalional Bonds for Recons
CASTLE'
2/9/2018..
10/51202.0
888 AAA
Asa
1,625
2.474
2,000,000
1,950,800_
1,970,013 4/512019
492244DV7
Kern Community College
'CASTLE
11/15/2016,.
11/1/2020
915 AA-
2.893
1.800'.
500.000
499,685
513,128 - -
3134GBX56
Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp
_'
CASTLE
12/13/2017
11/24/2020
938'00+
Aaa
2.250'
2.172
3,000.000
2,968,320 _
_ 3,000,943_ 5/242.018
3134G8JH3
Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp
CASTLE
12/27/2017
2/17/2021
1023!.
2000..'.
1.715.
2,000,000,
1,988,540;
1,998,736 2/17/2019
3136G4NN9
Federal National Mig Assn
CASTLE
1011812017,
524/2021
i119,AA+
Aaa
2.000 ,
2.000'
1,080,000,
1,054.426
1,080,000 512.42018
Local Govt Investment Pool
2.100
2.100,
18,838.596 ,
16,838,596
16,838,598 - -
Bank of the Cascades
,
2.100,
2.100
6,132,926
6 132 926
8 132926 - -
173,188165 172.184,791! 173,153.9821
General Fund
Schedule of Financial Operating Data
Year to Date July 1, 20171 1
FY 2017 through April 30, 2018 FY 2018
(83% of the near)
Beginning Net Working Capital per FY 2019 Proposed Budget $10,890,000
a) Based on prior years' collection patterns, 97% of Property Taxes - Current have been received through April. Taxes
received in May and June projected to be $800,000
b) Includes $500,000 Federal PILT. HB 3400 not incuded in budget: October $365,655, December $76,991,
April $76,949. Estimate for June - $76,900. Other revenues in excess of budget are: MH tax $70,000;
interest $45,000; tax on electrical co-ops $34,000; and property tax PILT $14,000.
c) A & T Grant received quarterly. Q1 - July; Q2 - October; Q3 - January; Q4 - April.
d) Projected to be less than budgeted due to YTD unfilled positions.
Page 1
Actual
Actual
Budget
Budget
Projected
I Variance
Revenues
Property Taxes - Current
$ 25,816,331
$ 26,017,325
99%
a)
$ 26,296,000
$ 26,817,325
$ 521,325
Property Taxes - Prior
465,085
456,271
130%
350,000
480,000
130,000
Other General Revenues
2,499,968
2,678,730
114%
b)
2,345,822
3,105,317
759,495
Assessor
860,861
840,315
99%
c)
848,867
848,867
-
County Clerk
1,952,209
1,382,575
73%
1,896,945
1,776,945
(120,000)
BOPTA
12,546
12,468
100%
c)
12,480
12,468
(12)
District Attorney
253,480
115,226
61%
187,400
187,400
-
Tax Office
196,203
192,937
98%
c)
196,200
196,200
-
Veterans
96,889
121,667
75%
162,223
162,223
-
Property Management
94,500
14,000
14%
97,000
97,000
-
Total Revenues
32,248,072
31,831,515
98%
32,392,937
33,683,745
1,290,808
Expenditures
Assessor
3,993,958
3,498,962
82%
4,291,041
4,291,041
-
County Clerk
1,684,783
1,231,657
68%
d)
1,820,344
1,670,344
150,000
BOPTA
65,175
55,587
82%
68,138
68,138
-
District Attorney
6,095,393
5,446,331
81%
d)
6,701,724
6,651,724
50,000
Medical Examiner
146,817
108,333
63%
172,184
172,184
-
Tax Office
785,346
667,045
79%
849,312
849,312
-
Veterans
403,775
392,716
80%
492,630
492,630
-
Property Management
247,568
210,241
76%
276,097
276,097
-
Non -Departmental
1,268,363
1,039,220
78%
1,328,089
1,328,089
-
Total Expenditures
14,691,178
12,650,091
79%
15,999,559
15,799,559
200,000
Transfers Out
17,856,310
13,767,615
79%
17,445,890
17,445,890
-
Total Exp & Transfers
32,547,489
26,417,706
79%
33,445,449
33,245,449
200,000
Change in Fund Balance
(299,416)
5,413,809
(1,052,512)
438,296
1,490,808
Beginning Fund Balance
11,217,374
10,917,957
109%
10,000,000
10,917,957
917,957
Ending Fund Balance
$ 10,917,957
$ 16,331,766
$ 8,947,488
$ 11,356,253
$ 2,408,765
Personnel
9,965,553
7,824,907
72%
10,841,612
Material & Services
4,544,700
3,268,041
65%
5,030,152
Capital Outlay
180,925
9,609
96%
10,000
Total by Category
$ 14,691,178
$ 11,102,557
70%
$ 15,881,764
Beginning Net Working Capital per FY 2019 Proposed Budget $10,890,000
a) Based on prior years' collection patterns, 97% of Property Taxes - Current have been received through April. Taxes
received in May and June projected to be $800,000
b) Includes $500,000 Federal PILT. HB 3400 not incuded in budget: October $365,655, December $76,991,
April $76,949. Estimate for June - $76,900. Other revenues in excess of budget are: MH tax $70,000;
interest $45,000; tax on electrical co-ops $34,000; and property tax PILT $14,000.
c) A & T Grant received quarterly. Q1 - July; Q2 - October; Q3 - January; Q4 - April.
d) Projected to be less than budgeted due to YTD unfilled positions.
Page 1
Revenues
OYA Basic & Diversion
ODE Juvenile Crime Prev
Leases
Inmate/Prisoner Housing
DOC Unif Crime Fee/HB2712
Food Subsidy
Gen Fund -Crime Prevention
Interest on Investments
OJD Court Fac/Sec SB 1065
Contract Payments
Case Supervision Fee
Miscellaneous
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Personnel Services
Materials and Services
Total Expenditures
Transfers
Transfers In -General Fund
Transfers Out-Veh Reserve
Total Transfers
Change in Fund Balance
Beginning Fund Balance
Ending Fund Balance
Community Justice- Juvenile
Schedule of Financial Operating Data
FY 2018
Projected I Variance
$ 355,586
Year to Date July 1,
85% a)
2017 through April
FY 2017
30, 2018 (83% of the
86,497
year)
59% a)
% Of
91,379
Actual
Actual
Budget
FY 2018
Projected I Variance
$ 355,586
$ 295,129
85% a)
$ 346,046
$ 407,113
$ 61,067
86,497
42,274
59% a)
71,982
91,379
19,397
84,121
71,909
85% b)
85,000
80,000
(5,000)
74,700
103,350
188% c)
55,000
120,000
65,000
36,045
26,483
72%
36,658
36,658
-
18,744
15,619
78%
20,000
20,000
-
20,000
15,000
75% d)
20,000
20,000
-
17,512
17,225
115% h)
15,000
22,000
7,000
18,438
14,847
87% c)
17,000
24,000
7,000
10,920
6,310
79%
8,000
8,000
-
5,964
4,968
83% c)
6,000
6,000
-
3,170
3,091
167% g)
1,850
3,500
1,650
731,697
616,204
90%
682,536
838,650
156,114
5,005,247
4,301,537
82% e)
5,242,613
5,180,000
62,613
1,204,317
981,645
77%
1,270,246
1,230,000
40,246
6,209,564
5,283,182
81%
6,512,859
6,410,000
102,859
5,464,591
4,664,703
83%
5,597,643
5,597,643
-
44,000
51,750
75% f)
69,000
69,000
-
5,420,591
4,612,953
83%
5,528,643
5,528,643
-
(57,276)
(54,025)
(301,680)
(42,707)
258,973
1,415,374
1,358,098
113%
1,200,000
1,358,098
158,098
$ 1,358,098
$ 1,304,073
$ 898,320
$ 1,315,391
$ 417,071
Beginning Net Working Capital per FY 2019 Proposed Budget $ 1,200,000
a) Grant was increased by legislature subsequent to budget adoption.
b) Rimrock Trails no longer leasing space.
c) Inmate housing trending at greater than budgeted. Other counties opting to use DC facility, more than anticipated,
when another regional facility became focus of a negative investigation.
d) Internal grant funded quarterly
e) Projection decreased due to staff vacancies in Q1 and new hires who started at a lower salary
step range in beginning of fiscal year. Includes expected Class/ Comp increase and a retirement leave payout
f) Transfer to Reserve includes $25,000 to cover estimated costs of vehicle repair and maintenance.
g) Projection based on YTD Actual.
h) Projection based on annualizing year to date.
Page 2
Sheriff's Office and LEDs
Schedule of Financial Operating Data
(Beginning Net working Capital per FY 2019 Proposed Budget T� 131037'au7
a) Based on prior years' collection patterns, 97% of Property Taxes - Current have been received through April. Taxes
received in May and June projected to be $670,000 for LED #1 and $300,000 for LED #2.
b) $25,000 contribution to suicide/substance abuse hotline. Open Civil Tech position in
Civil/Special Units division reclassified as HR Analyst in Sheriff Services division
c) Unfilled FTE. Overtime is expected to exceed budget.
d) Open Records Admin Supervisor position will be converted to a Sergeant position.
e) Projection includes $8,000 reimbursement for Solar Eclipse expenditures.
f) Grant of $50,000 for purchase of $67,500 boat.
g) Projection increased due to an unbudgeted rifle purchase.
h) Projection based on YTD actual adjusted for one-time transactions
I) Projection includes ISF and interfund contract payments only.
I) Includes the $50,000 transferred from Fund 701/702 to Fund 256 Communication Reserve
Page 3
Year to Date July 1, 2017
FY 2017
through April
30, 2018
FY 2018
(83% of the year)
oP
Actual
Actual
Budget
Budget I
Projected
Variance
Revenues
LED #1 Countywide
Property Taxes
Current Year
$ 21,137,803
$ 21,802,225
99% a)
$ 22,045,228
$ 22,472,225
$ 426,997
Prior Year
308,837
318,303
80%
400,000
350,000
(50,000)
Interest
110,368
127,940
160%
80,000
150,000
70,000
Total LED #1 Countywide
21,557,009
22,248,468
99%
22,525,228
22,972,225
446,997
LED #2 Rural
Property Taxes
Current Year
9,474,144
9,777,396
99% a)
9,916,642
10,077,396
160,754
Prior Year
141,704
144,087
78%
185,000
161,000
(24,000)
Interest
90,261
102,525
167%
61,300
120,000
56,700
Total LED #2 Rural
9,706,109
10,024,008
99%
10,162,942
10,358,396
195,454
Sheriffs Office Revenues
8,249,855
3,658.183
50% e) f)
7,386,585
7,212,477
(174,108)
Total Revenues
39,512,973
35,930,858
90%
40,074,755
40,543,098
468,343
Expenditures
Sheriffs Services
2,386,420
2,054,789
76% b)
2,689,023
2,445,290
243,733
Civil/Special Units
1,117,489
1,103,614
82% b) h)
1,352,686
1,360,714
(7,628)
Automotive/Communications
2,601,537
1,702,042
69% h)
2,481,701
2,044,902
436,799
Detective
1,796,143
1,579,260
79%
1,995,351
1,893,323
102,028
Patrol
8,822,794
7,812,709
80% h)
9,724,673
9,628,758
95,915
Records
695,956
593,934
78% d)
761,258
725,969
35,289
Adult Jail
16,236,326
13,781,170
79% h)
17,488,887
16,762,250
726,637
Court Security
270,173
406,040
99% c) h)
410,659
497,620
(86,961)
Emergency Services
284,009
302,989
80% e)
379,092
362,106
16,986
Special Services
1,500,791
1,319,778
85% f)
1,543,848
1,516,281
27,567
Training
590,962
586,463
90% g)
654,646
706,860
(52,214)
Other Law Enforcement Services
904,547
696,993
75% c)
935,144
840,290
94,854
Crisis Stabilization Center
51,420
9% 1)
558,424
61,704
496,720
Non -Departmental
112,846
1,731
3% j)
52,077
52,076.84
0
Total Expenditures
37,319,993
31,992,952
78%
41,027,669
38,898,145
2,129,524
Revenue less Expenditures
2,192,980
3,937,706
(952,914)
1,644,953
2,597,867
Beginning Balance
11,225.692
13,418,672
121%
11,113,000
13,418,672
2,305,672
Ending Balance
$ 13,418,672
$ 17,356,378
$ 10,160,086
$ 16,063,625
$ 4,903,539
(Beginning Net working Capital per FY 2019 Proposed Budget T� 131037'au7
a) Based on prior years' collection patterns, 97% of Property Taxes - Current have been received through April. Taxes
received in May and June projected to be $670,000 for LED #1 and $300,000 for LED #2.
b) $25,000 contribution to suicide/substance abuse hotline. Open Civil Tech position in
Civil/Special Units division reclassified as HR Analyst in Sheriff Services division
c) Unfilled FTE. Overtime is expected to exceed budget.
d) Open Records Admin Supervisor position will be converted to a Sergeant position.
e) Projection includes $8,000 reimbursement for Solar Eclipse expenditures.
f) Grant of $50,000 for purchase of $67,500 boat.
g) Projection increased due to an unbudgeted rifle purchase.
h) Projection based on YTD actual adjusted for one-time transactions
I) Projection includes ISF and interfund contract payments only.
I) Includes the $50,000 transferred from Fund 701/702 to Fund 256 Communication Reserve
Page 3
Revenues
State Grants
CCBHC Grants
OHP Capitation
Administrative Fee
Environmental Health Fees
State - OMAP
Federal Grants
Patient Fees
Local Grants
Local Government payments
Title 19
State Shared -Family Planning
State Miscellaneous
Liquor Revenue
Divorce Filing Fees
Interfund Contract -Gen Fund
Vital Records
Interest on Investments
Other
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Personnel Services
Materials and Services
Capital Outlay
Total Expenditures
Transfers
Transfers In -General Fund
Transfers Out
Total Transfers
Change in Fund Balance
Beginning Fund Balance
Ending Fund Balance
Health Services
Schedule of Financial Operations Data
FY 2018
Budget Projected Variance
$ 12,512,572
$ 9,884,648
79% e) f)
Year to Date July 1,
FY 2017
2017 through April 30,
673,598
2018 (83% of the year)
124% a)
2,856,216
0o
Actual
Actual
Budget
FY 2018
Budget Projected Variance
$ 12,512,572
$ 9,884,648
79% e) f)
$ 12,563,521
$12,694,668
131,147
673,598
3,535,690
124% a)
2,856,216
5,750,000
2,893,784
9,950,347
7,467,800
68% b)
11,044,000
8,834,900
(2,209,100)
1,143,411
1,077,700
83%
1,293,910
1,293,910
-
909,870
888,465
92%
964,397
965,296
899
938,760
939,157
91%
1,037,735
1,066,003
28,268
574,848
186,322
29%
650,866
548,134
(102,732)
335,616
473,920
130%
364,370
509,675
145,305
1,846,627
682,865
71% f)
957,457
1,435,356
477,899
510,428
-
N/A
-
-
-
602,998
1,153,034
382% c)
302,170
1,397,200
1,095,030
166,903
122,601
61%
200,000
202,500
2,500
206,999
351,441
31% e)
1,147,193
770,287
(376,906)
156,399
528,163
350% g)
151,000
593,000
442,000
157,603
131,745
84%
157,603
131,745
(25,858)
127,000
127,000
100%
127,000
127,000
-
260,545
179,945
91%
198,000
215,000
17,000
99,844
90,371
62%
145,000
108,500
(36,500)
386,400
384,465
93%
413,083
429,387
16,304
31,560,767
28,205,334
82%
34,573,521
37,072,561
2,499,040
24,133,045
22,826,887
79% d)
28,922,478
27,570,916
1,351,562
10,989,018
8,531,461
64%
13,270,073
12,957,690
312,383
135,653
160,185
15%
1,100,000
1,232,000
(132,000)
35,257,716
31,518,532
73%
43,292,551
41,760,606
1,531,945
4,684,193
3,820,161
83%
4,584,193
4,584,193
-
445,740
367,740
75%
490,320
490,320
4,238,453
3,452,421
84%
4,093,873
4,093,873
-
541,504
139,222
(4,625,157)
(594,172)
4,030,985
7,688,209
8,229,714
98%
8,434,473
8,229,714
(204,759)
$ 8,229,713
$ 8,368,936
$ 3,809,316
$ 7,635,542
$ 3,826,226
Beginning Net Working Capital per FY 2019 Proposed Budget $ 7,202,714
a) Collections from CCBHC have exceeded the amount forecasted for FY 18. Remaining months of FY 18
have been adjusted to reflect this trend.
b) Projection based on FY 2017 collections and anticipated withholdings for panel providers.
c) Title 19 revenue during the CCBHC demonstration project will be reimbursed at a higher rate than in prior years.
d) Projections based on YTD unfilled positions and forecasted unfilled positions during the remainder of the year.
e) State Grants reclassed to State Misc for presentation purposes.
f) Reclassification from State Grants to Local Grants for presentation purposes of approximately $412k.
g) State remitted the substance -abuse component of marijuana tax to Health Departments in accordance with Measure 91.
The substance -abuse component is 20% of the Measure 91 overall tax. Amounts received were for the taxing period of 07/112017-03/31/2018.
NOTE: Year-end projections for Health Service Programs are updated monthly. Projection amounts will fluctuate from month to month.
Page 4
Revenues
Admin- Operations
Admin- GIS
Admin- Code Enforcement
Building Safety
Electrical
Env Health- On Site Prog
Planning- Current
Planning- Long Range
Total Revenues
Expenditures (by division)
Admin -Operations
Admin -GIS
Admin -Code Enforcement
Building Safety
Electrical
Env Health -On Site Pgm
Planning -Current
Planning -Long Range
Total Expenditures
Net from Operations
Transfers Out
To CDD Reserve Funds
Change in Fund Balance
Beginning Fund Balance
Ending Fund Balance
Community Development
Schedule of Financial Operating Data
Year to Date July 1,
FY 2017 2017 through April
30, 2018 (83% of the
Actual 0 Actual I Budget
FY 2018
Revised
Budget I Projected Variance
$ 110,639
$ 109,702
108% $
102,042 $
126,190
$ 24,148
230
-
0%
150
150
-
451,837
481,630
85%
565,544
571,544
6,000
2,903,075
2,542,064
86% a)
2,948,636
3,007,413
58,777
745,810
596,955
80%
743,927
730,618
(13,309)
678,469
660,397
97% a)
680,460
731,266
50,806
1,530,513
1,517,967
94% a)
1,614,855
1,697,710
82,855
577,420
490,142
6,398,857
72%
87%
682,919
7,338,533
581,052
7,445,943
(101,867)
107,410
6,997,993
1,750,586
1,576,617
74% b)
2,117,813
2,017,144
100,669
136,312
161,087
114%
141,439
201,548
(60,109)
357,992
337,637
75% b)
448,238
443,983
4,255
1,249,842
1,108,666
73% b)
1,524,982
1,393,285
131,697
320,568
275,934
69% b)
398,758
359,341
39,417
399,914
386,053
85%
456,234
461,894
(5,660)
1,179,944
1,063,451
72% b)
1,479,295
1,335,095
144,200
390,649
287,552
5,196,997
1,201,860
617,658
584,202
51% b)
73%
593%
76%
569,088
7,135,847
202,686
813,610
(610,924)
374,011
6,586,301
859,642
823,610
36,032
195,077
549,546
656,956
10,000
646,956
5,785,807
1,212,186
1,375,000
(162,814)
2,330,492
2,167,678
$ 2,751,880
132%
$
1,640,386
1,029,462 $
2,167,678
2,203,710
527,292
$ 1,174,248
$ 2,167,678
Beginning Net Working Capital per FY 2019 Proposed Budget $ 2,203,711
a) Projection increased due to higher than expected permit application volume
b) Projection decreased due to year to date unfilled positions.
Page 5
Revenues
Motor Vehicle Revenue
Federal - PILT Payment
Other Inter -fund Services
Federal Reimbursements
Cities-Bend/Red/Sis/La Pine
State Miscellaneous
Forest Receipts
Sale of Equip & Material
Mineral Lease Royalties
Assessment Payments (P&I)
Interest on Investments
Miscellaneous
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Personnel Services
Materials and Services
Capital Outlay
Total Expenditures
Transfers
Payment from Solid Waste
Transfers Out
Total Transfers
Change in Fund Balance
Beginning Fund Balance
Ending Fund Balance
Road
Schedule of Financial Operating Data
362,453 -
9,067,643 6,000,000
(8,705,190) (6,000,000)
(6,064,098) (269,231)
14,840,939 1 8,776,841
$ 8,776,841 $ 8,507,610
100% 6,000,000 6,000,000 -
100% (6,000,000) (6,000,000)
4% (6,228,568) 385,178 6,613,746
101% 8,684,589 8,776,841 92,252
$ 2,456,021 $ 9,162,019 $ 6,705,998
Beginning Net Working Capital per FY 2019 Proposed Budget $ 8,693,653
a) HB 2017 increase for FY 18: $1.04M.
b) PILT payment received in July was less than budgeted.
c) Weed spraying and vehicles repairs anticipated to be less than budgeted.
d) FLAP reimbursement based on projected completed projects.
e) Contracted work is anticipated to be less than budgeted.
f) ODOT allocation work more than budgeted. $20k revenue from State TSAP grant was not budgeted.
g) Receipts are anticipated to be less than budgeted.
h) Sale of weed spray anticipated to be less than budgeted.
i) Assessment payments are trending less than budgeted.
k) $8,000 for Nash fire sign rental and $3,800 electric rebate not included in FY 2018 budgeted resources
1) Projections based on YTD actual unfilled positions and remaining months are projected to be the same as March.
m) $4.8 million, appropriated in FY 2018 for cost of overlays, will be expended in future years. Road Striping Materials
and Aggregate anticipated to be $365K less than budgeted. Engineering, Contract Road Services and Temp Labor
anticipated to be $374K less than budgeted.
n) Right of way acquisition and traffic safety budgeted in Fund 325 will be expended from Fund 465.
Page 6
Year to Date July 1,
FY 2017
2017 through April 30,
FY 2018
2018 (83% of the
year)
% of
Actual
Actual
Budget
Budget
Projected
Variance
$ 12,930,670
$ 11,283,618
85% a)
$ 13,260,000
$ 14,300,000
$ 1,040,000
1,323,365
1,574,248
97% b)
1,623,000
1,574,248
(48,752)
1,065,930
507,842
34% c)
1,501,525
1,474,525
(27,000)
-
-
0% d)
955,549
591,549
(364,000)
488,114
108,304
15% e)
710,000
534,837
(175,163)
593,969
719,328
110% f)
651,213
728,482
77,269
381,533
384,807
96% g)
400,000
384,807
(15,193)
273,353
262,612
69% h)
381,900
332,272
(49,628)
183,312
57,100
33%
175,000
175,000
-
87,079
89,153
101% i)
88,000
93,000
5,000
112,444
90,753
101% j)
90,000
107,281
17,281
50,391
56,670
138% k)
41,092
64,100
23,008
17,490,159
15,134,435
76%
19,877,279
20,360,101
462,822
5,877,065
4,857,349
79% 1)
6,161,974
5,837,101
324,873
8,903,281
4,515,164
33% n)
13,715,873
8,091,822
5,624,051
68,721
31,153
14% m)
228,000
46,000
182,000
14,849,067
9,403,666
47%
20,105,847
13,974,923
6,130,924
362,453 -
9,067,643 6,000,000
(8,705,190) (6,000,000)
(6,064,098) (269,231)
14,840,939 1 8,776,841
$ 8,776,841 $ 8,507,610
100% 6,000,000 6,000,000 -
100% (6,000,000) (6,000,000)
4% (6,228,568) 385,178 6,613,746
101% 8,684,589 8,776,841 92,252
$ 2,456,021 $ 9,162,019 $ 6,705,998
Beginning Net Working Capital per FY 2019 Proposed Budget $ 8,693,653
a) HB 2017 increase for FY 18: $1.04M.
b) PILT payment received in July was less than budgeted.
c) Weed spraying and vehicles repairs anticipated to be less than budgeted.
d) FLAP reimbursement based on projected completed projects.
e) Contracted work is anticipated to be less than budgeted.
f) ODOT allocation work more than budgeted. $20k revenue from State TSAP grant was not budgeted.
g) Receipts are anticipated to be less than budgeted.
h) Sale of weed spray anticipated to be less than budgeted.
i) Assessment payments are trending less than budgeted.
k) $8,000 for Nash fire sign rental and $3,800 electric rebate not included in FY 2018 budgeted resources
1) Projections based on YTD actual unfilled positions and remaining months are projected to be the same as March.
m) $4.8 million, appropriated in FY 2018 for cost of overlays, will be expended in future years. Road Striping Materials
and Aggregate anticipated to be $365K less than budgeted. Engineering, Contract Road Services and Temp Labor
anticipated to be $374K less than budgeted.
n) Right of way acquisition and traffic safety budgeted in Fund 325 will be expended from Fund 465.
Page 6
Adult Parole Probation
Schedule of Financial Operating Data
Year to Date July 1,
FY 2017 2017 through April
30, 2018 (83% of the
year)
% of
Actual I Actual Budget
FY 2018
Variance
Revenues
DOC Grant in Aid SB 1145
$ 3,650,168
$ 4,333,329
110%
a)
$ 3,940,708
$ 4,333,329
$ 392,621
CJC Justice Reinvestment
845,836
844,831
121%
b)
699,506
844,831
145,325
DOC Measure 57
240,315
233,900
100%
c)
234,315
233,900
(415)
Electronic Monitoring Fee
133,292
118,522
70%
d)
170,000
140,000
(30,000)
Probation Superv. Fees
209,708
157,022
75%
d)
210,000
190,000
(20,000)
DOC -Family Sentence Alt
110,797
114,683
-
a)
-
114,683
114,683
Interfund - Sheriff
50,000
41,667
83%
50,000
50,000
-
Gen Fund/Crime Prevention
50,000
37,500
75%
j)
50,000
50,000
-
DOJ/Arrest Grant
46,736
11,684
106%
11,000
11,684
684
Alternate Incarceration
29,985
6,908
34%
i)
20,035
6,908
(13,127)
State Subsidy
16,367
16,336
105%
a)
15,610
17,000
1,390
Interest on Investments
28,990
28,924
289%
f)
10,000
33,000
23,000
Probation Work Crew Fees
5,958
1,366
23%
d)
6,000
1,500
(4,500)
State Miscellaneous
-
-
0%
k)
4,300
-
(4,300)
Miscellaneous
1,256
497
99%
f)
500
600
100
Total Revenues
5,419,408
5,947,169
110%
5,421,974
6,027,435
605,461
Expenditures
Personnel Services
4,097,354
3,498,780
79%
e)
4,455,860
4,250,000
205,860
Materials and Services
1,509,684
1,220,437
68%
h)
1,805,865
1,500,000
305,865
Capital Outlay
15,986
31,960
-
g)
38,000
28,434
9,566
Total Expenditures
5,623,023
4,751,176
75%
6,299,725
5,778,434
521,291
Transfers
Transfers In -General Fund
451,189
375,991
83%
451,189
451,189
-
Transfer to Vehicle Repl/Maint
22,000
33,000
75%
44,000
44,000
-
Total Transfers
429,189
342,991
84%
407,189
407,189
-
Change in Fund Balance
225,574
1,538,983
(470,562)
656,190
1,126,752
Beginning Fund Balance
1,465,370
11690,943
123%
1,375,000
1,690,943
315,943
Ending Fund Balance
$ 1,690,943
$ 3,229,926
Budget
$ 904,438
$ 2,347,133
$ 2,200,000
$ 1,442,695
Beginning Net Working Capital per FY 2019 Proposed
a) Projection increased due to additional revenue being granted by legislature after budget adoption.
b) Legislature increased grant subsequent to adoption of FY 2018 budget.
c) Annual payment received in January 2018. Projection decreased due to less than anticipated revenue
granted by legislature after budget adoption.
d) Projected to be less than anticipated revenue related to electronic monitoring, supervision, and work crew fees
e) Projected to be less than appropriated due to vacancies. Includes expected Class/Comp increase.
f) Projection based on trending.
g) Projection increased due to unanticipated purchases related to security.
h) Projected to be less than anticipated expenditure related to offender treatment contract payments
and data dashboard.
i) State prison transition program elimated.
j) General Fund grant received quarterly
k) Reimbursement for offender services not expected to be utilized this fiscal year.
Page 7
Solid Waste
Schedule of Financial Operation Data
Year to Date July 1,
FY 2017 2017 through April
30, 2018 (83% of the
year)
Actual § Actual I Budget
Operating Revenues
Franchise Disposal Fees
5,459,396
5,031,041
79%
6,391,644
6,188,263
(203,381)
Private Disposal Fees
2,095,262
2,034,196
101%
2,012,522
2,532,121
519,599
Commercial Disp. Fees
1,729,096
1,577,534
91%
1,742,832
1,908,459
165,627
Franchise 3% Fees
254,304
269,352
112% a)
240,000
277,500
37,500
Yard Debris
171,470
155,361
92%
168,000
206,439
38,439
Recyclables
13,467
13,766
115%
12,000
17,887
5,887
Sale of Equip & Material
18,590
-
-
-
-
-
Special Waste
28,812
8,952
36% b)
25,000
13,433
(11,567)
Interest
31,959
17,229
86%
20,000
20,000
-
Leases
10,801
8,101
75%
10,801
10,801
-
Miscellaneous
59,241
48,044
137%
35,000
56,264
21,264
Total Operating Revenues
9,872,398
9,163,576
86%
10,657,799
11,231,167
573,368
Operating Expenditures
Personnel Services
2,049,320
1,797,623
79%
2,278,466
2,154,396
124,070
Materials and Services
4,334,705
3,370,956
69% d)
4,859,217
5,034,585
(175,368)
Capital Outlay
127,449
80,298
64%
125,000
108,631
16,369
Debt Service
858,512
310,982
36% c)
861,102
861,102
-
Totai Operating Expenditures
7,369,985
5,559,858
68%
8,123,785
8,158,714
(34,929)
Transfers Out
SW Capital & Equipment Reserve
3,075,000
2,572,500
100%
2,580,000
2,580,000
-
Total Transfers Out
3,075,000
2,572,500
100%
2,580,000
2,580,000
-
Change in Fund Balance
(572,588)
1,031,218
(45,986)
492,453
538,439
Beginning Fund Balance
1,810,265
1,237,677
201%
615,872
1,237,677
621,805
$
1,237,677
$ 2,268,895
Budget
$ 569,886
$ 1,730,130
$ 1,730,130
$ 1,160,244
Beginning Net Working Capital per FY 2019 Proposed
a) Franchise fee payment is due on May 15, 2018.
b) Special Waste revenues are received for special clean-up projects and are difficult to budget and project
c) Debt Service payments are made in November and May.
d) Projection includes a contract for solid waste management plan. Appropriation in other Solid Waste
funds is available for the authority to expend.
Page 8
Risk Management
Schedule of Financial Operating Data
Revenues
327,505
Year to Date July 1,
87%
345,627
FY 2017
2017 through April
30, 2018 (83% of the
FY 2018
146,503
157,899.08
year)
226,699
226,699
General Liability
ao
$ 876,069
83%
Actual
Actual
I Budget
Bud et Projected I Variance
Revenues
327,505
300,883
87%
345,627
355,000
(9,373)
Inter -fund Charges:
146,503
157,899.08
70%
226,699
226,699
General Liability
$ 931,319
$ 876,069
83%
$ 1,051,283
$ 1,051,283
$
Property Damage
389,101
326,285
83%
391,542
391,542
(24,373)
Vehicle
197,155
162,571
83%
195,085
195,085
Workers' Compensation
1,228,053
1,034,765
83%
1,241,718
1,241,718
109%
Unemployment
280,921
296,273
84%
354,609
354,609
Claims Reimb-Gen Liab/Property,
33,863
335,517
1118% a)
30,000
340,000
310,000
Process Fee-Events/Parades
1,980
1,440
80%
1,800
1,800
-
Miscellaneous
30
1,548
5160%
30
1,600
1,570
Skid Car Training
43,853
38,932
122%
32,000
40,000
8,000
Interest on Investments
58,644
68,195
93%
73,464
73,464
TOTAL REVENUES
3,164,919
3,141,596
93%
3,371,531
3,691,101
319,570
Direct Insurance Costs:
GENERAL LIABILITY
Settlement / Benefit
711,705
68,246
Defense
27,039
25,008
Professional Service
6,250
12,440
Insurance
339,723
212,032
Loss Prevention
1,347
Miscellaneous
171
-
Repair / Replacement
33,673
1,166
Total General Liability
1,119,908
318,892.33
40%
800,000
450,000
350,000
PROPERTY DAMAGE
Property Damage Charges
196
Insurance
5,101
173,873
Loss Prevention
12.000
-
Repair /Replacement
122.074
14,779
Total Property Damage
139,175
188,848.26
88% b)
215,000
350,000
(135,000)
VEHICLE
Professional Service
781
Insurance
5101
Loss Prevention
25,397
1,317
Miscellaneous
6,985
-
Repair / Replacement
102,994
86,226
Total Vehicle
136,157
92,643.82
93%
100,000
130,000
(30,000)
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
Settlement / Benefit
539,792
619,564
Professional Service
6,250
34,429
Insurance
159,212
129,493
Loss Prevention
49,683
55,507
Miscellaneous
52,937
25,254
Total Workers' Compensation
807,875
864,247.13
96%
900,000
1,200,000
(300,000)
UNEMPLOYMENT - SettiementlBenefits
56,497
30,959.79
21%
150,000
50,000
100,000
Total Direct insurance Costs
2,_259,612
1,495,591
69%
2,165,000
2,180,000
(15,000)
Insurance Administration:
Personnel Services
327,505
300,883
87%
345,627
355,000
(9,373)
Materials & Srvc, Capital Out. & Tranfs.
146,503
157,899.08
70%
226,699
226,699
Total Insurance Administration
474,008
458,782
80%
572,326
581,699
(9,373)
Total Expenditures
2,733,620
1,954,373
71% c)
2,737,326
2,761,699
(24,373)
Change in Fund Balance
431,299
1,187,223
634,205
636,576
2,371
Beginning Fund Balance
4,928,271
5,359,570
109%
4,897,636
5,359,570
461,934
Ending Fund Balance
$ 5,359,570
$ 6,546,793
$ 5,531,841
$ 5,996,146.
$ 464,305
Beginning Net Working Capital per FY 2019 Proposed Budget
$ 5,600,000
a) Claims reimbursement includes insurance payment of $254,199 for Fair/Expo roof damage.
b) Projection includes expenditure for the Fair/Expo roof replacement.
c) Apprropriaton will be transferred from Contingency to the Program Budget.
Page 9
Revenues
Property Taxes - Current
Property Taxes - Prior
Property Taxes - Jefferson County
State Reimbursement
State Grant
Telephone User Tax
Data Network Reimb.
User Fee
Police RMS User Fees
Contract Payments
Miscellaneous
Interest
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Personnel Services
Material and Services
Capital Outlay
Total Expenditures
Transfers
Transfers In
Transfers Out
Total Transfers
Change in Fund Balance
Beginning Fund Balance
Ending Fund 705 & 707 Balance
Ending Bal. DC Reserve (710)
Total of Funds 705, 707 and 710
DC 9-1-1 (Funds 705 and 707)
Schedule of Financial Operating Data
FY 2018
Projected ( Variance
$ 7,496,065
$ 7,728,528
97% a)
Year to Date July 1,
FY 2017
2017 through April 30,
109,702
2018 (83% of the year)
131%
85,000
a0
Actual
Actual
Budget
FY 2018
Projected ( Variance
$ 7,496,065
$ 7,728,528
97% a)
$ 7,926,725 $
7,958,528
$ 31,803
109,702
111,703
131%
85,000
120,900
35,900
32,518
31,026
94% a)
33,000
33,000
-
869,734
30,000
27% b)
110,000
30,000
(80,000)
276,510
-
NIA
-
-
-
865,111
445,421
51% c)
880,000
880,000
-
86,263
-
0%
55,000
68,638
13,638
58,981
59,099
66%
90,000
59,280
(30,720)
326,030
68,552
27% d)
250,119
259,496
9,377
130,756
-
0%
193,000
-
(193,000)
3,562
15,093
56%
27,000
20,000
(7,000)
105,258
80,923
126%
64,000
89,500
25,500
10,360,491
8,570,345
88%
9,713,844
9,519,342
(194,502)
5,867,156
5,628,770
80%
7,070,919
6,770,919
300,000
3,254,372
2,585,344
85% b)
3,047,724
2,937,724
110,000
4,941,447
1,604,310
73%
2,210,000
2,210,000
-
14,062,974
9,818,423
80%
12,328,643
11,918,643
410,000
400,000
1,300,000
100%
1,300,000
1,300,000
-
-
493,863
N/A
493,863
493,863
-
400,000
806,137
100%
806,137
806,137
-
(3,302,483)
(441,941)
(1,808,662)
(1,593,164)
(604,502)
10,563,485
7,261,002
110%
6,600,000
7,261,001
661,001
$ 7,261,002
$ 6,819,061
$ 4,791,338
5,667,837
$ 876,499
3,394,078
2,622,583
2,433,863
2,634,583
200,720
$
8,302,420
=und 705 & 707 Beginning Net Working Capital per FY 2019 Proposed Budget $ 6,000,000
=und 710 Beginning Net Working Capital per FY 2019 Proposed Budget 2,625,000
$ 8,625,000
a) Based on prior years' collection patterns, 97% of Property Taxes - Current have been received through April. Taxes
received in May and June projected to be $230,000
b) Four workstations will not be purchased as the State will not be providing the resources.
c) Q3 payment expected by the end of May.
Page 10
Revenues:
Internal Premium Charges
Part -Time Employee Premium
Employee Monthly Co -Pay
COIC
Retiree / COBRA Co -Pay
Prescription Rebates
Claims Reimbursements & Misc
Interest
Total Revenues
Expenditures:
Materials & Services
Admin & Wellness
Claims Paid -Medical
Claims Paid -Prescription
Claims Paid-DentalNision
Stop Loss Insurance Premium
State Assessments
Administration Fee (TPA)
Preferred Provider Fee
Other - Administration
Other - Wellness
Admin & Wellness
Deschutes On-site Clinic
Contracted Services
Medical Supplies
Other
Total DOC
Deschutes On-site Pharmacy
Contracted Services
Prescriptions
Other
Total Pharmacy
Total Expenditures
Change in Fund Balance
Beginning Fund Balance
Ending Fund Balance
Health Benefits Fund
Statement of Financial Operating Data
FY 2018 July 1, 2017 through April 30, 2018
FY 2017 1 FY 2018
Actual Actual % of Budget Projection I $ Variance
$ 16,955,229
2,585
923,805
2,165,312
1,202,895
52,995
82,361
168,140
21,553,322
$ 14,648,742
1,980
793,035
1,516,669
1,044,189
48,655
116,243
177,684
18,347,198
87%
a)
16,865,000
17,578,490
713,490
NIA
a)
-
2,376
2,376
86%
a)
925,000
960,035
35,035
68%
a)
2,224,000
1,820,003
(403,997)
86%
8)
1,211,803
1,253,027
41,224
N/A
446,950
-
48,655
48,655
77%
d)
150,000
116,243
(33,757)
85%
0)
210,000
213,221
3,221
85%
(450,566)
21,585,803
21,992,051
406,248
13,016,901
11,408,283
81%
b)
14,125,000
13,496,639
628,361
977,260
1,032,877
97%
b)
1,060,000
1,239,679
(179,679)
2,141,054
1,660,501
72%
b)
2,315,000
1,999,234
315,766
366,633
402,557
95%
c)
425,000
446,950
(21,950)
6,269
-
0%
6,600
6,600
461,375
503,989
108%
c)
465,000
915,566
(450,566)
91,904
74,143
114%
c)
65,000
83,017
(18,017)
221,307
136,029
63%
214,431
214,431
174,028
132,856
74%
178,900
178,900
-
17,456,731
15,351,236
81%
18,854,931
18,581,016
273,915
953,281
709,389
73%
c)
975,000
992,229
(17,229)
72,219
50,134
59%
c)
85,000
96,400
(11,400)
45,308
24,915
54%
45,943
45,943
1,070,808
784,438
71%
1,105,943
1,134,572
(28,629)
382,900
206,916
66%
c)
312,000
268,186
43,814
1,728,845
1,175,869
69%
C)
1,700,000
1,618,086
81,914
34,083
72,749
111%
65,418
107,447
(42,029)
2,145,828
1,455,533
70%
2,077,418
1,993,719
83,699
20,673,366
17,591,208
80%
22,038,292
21,709,307
328,985
879,955
755,990
(452,489)
282,743
735,232
14,502,622
15,382,578
103%
15,000,000
15,382,578
382,578
15,382,578
$ 16,138,567
$ 14,547,511
$ 15,665,321
$ 1,117,810
% of Exp covered by Revenues 1 104.26%11 104.30% 87.95io 1u-I.Ju%
Beginnin Net Working Capital per FY 2019 Proposed Budget 16,051,586
a) Year to Date Annualized
b) Year to Date Actual. May and June estimated at 8% increase over prior year May and June.
c) Projection: Year to Date actual plus encumbrances.
d) $20,000 Pacific Source for "Wellness/Implement Grant", $22,792 Aetna PPO Rebate, $130 EBMS
Rebate, $73,321 Stop Loss Refund
Page 11
FAIR AND EXPO CENTER
Schedule of Financial Operating Data
Year to Date July 1, 2017 through April 30, 2018 (83% of the year)
Operating Revenues
FY 2018
Budget
General F & E Activities
FY 2017
[FY018 Year to Date Actual
$
370,512
68%
Storage
66,879
TRT Grant
81,588
% of
Camping at F & E
ActualActual
812,908
Budget
38%
Operating Revenues
FY 2018
Budget
General F & E Activities
Events Revenues
$ 538,512
$
370,512
68%
Storage
66,879
TRT Grant
81,588
126%
Camping at F & E
21,148
812,908
7,600
38%
Horse Stall Rental
34,953
1
11,757
29%
Food &Beverage Activities, net
119,129
0%
75,587
63% a)
Annual County Fair (net)
440,000
i
Other:
287,452
67% b)
Interfund Contract
30,000
30,000
25,000
83% c)
Miscellaneous
14,198
91,899
4,292
57%
Total Operating Revenues
1,264,818
1
863,788
69%
Operating Expenditures, net of TRT:
FY 2018
Budget
General F & E Activities
Transfer In -General Fund
250,000
$ 505,775
Personnel Services
940,667
848,774
81% d)
TRT Grant
(188,255)
(178,079)
89%
Materials and Services
812,908
802,607
66%
TRT Grant
(167,827)
(200,778)
32%
Capital Outlay
-
1
0%
Total Operating Exp, net of TRT
i
1,397,493
1,272,524
88%
i
Other:
56,660
56%
Total Non -Operating Expenditures
Park Acq/Dev (Fund 130)
30,000
22,500
75%
Rights & Signage
116,130
91,899
78%
Interest
1,789
459
46%
Total Other
147,919 1
114,858
77%
Transfers In / Out
FY 2018
Budget
Projected
Transfer In -General Fund
250,000
$ 505,775
166,667
83%
Transfer In -Room Tax - (Fund 160)
25,744
20,000
21,453
83%
Trans In(Out)-Fair & Expo Reserve
55,000
1,757
-
0%
Total Transfers In
220,744
287,452
188,120
30,000
Non -Operating Rev & Exp
-
7,500
9,792
2,292
Debt Service
102,536
(167,454)
56,660
56%
Total Non -Operating Expenditures
102,536
(231,179)
56,660
56%
Change in Fund Balance 133,452
Beginning Fund Balance 47,283
Ending Fund Balance 180,735
FY 2018
Budget
Projected
Variance
544,000
$ 505,775
$ (38,225)
65,000
81,588
16,588
20,000
24,600
4,600
41,000
42,757
1,757
120,695
109,403
(11,292)
430,626
287,452
(143,174)
30,000
30,000
-
7,500
9,792
2,292
1,258,821
1,091,367
(167,454)
1,050,695
1,020,135
30,560
(200,000)
(231,179)
31,179
1,223,563
977,607
245,956
(635,070)
(226,828)
(408,242)
15,000
-
15,000
1,454,188
1,539,735
(85,547)
30,000
30,000
-
118,000
110,199
(7,801)
1,000
459
541
149,000
140,658
(8,342)
(46,367)
(307,709)
(261,342)
200,000
200,000
25,744
25,744
-
105,452
-
105,452
120,292
225,744
105,452
101,824
101,824
101,824
101,824
(27,899)
(183,789)
(155,890)
225,000
180,735
44,265
$ 197,101
$ 3,054
$ 200,155
Change in Fund Balance 133,452
Beginning Fund Balance 47,283
Ending Fund Balance 180,735
(162,417)
180,735 80%
$ 18,319
Beginning et Working Capitalper _ _ _Proposed Budget -
a) See "Food & Beverage Activities Schedule"
b) Revenues and Expenses for the annual County Fair are recorded in a separate fund and the available
net income is transferred to the Fair & Expo Center Fund
c) Reimbursement from RV Park for personnel expenditures recorded in F&E
d) Personnel projection based on February actual
Page 12
M
0)
'O
O
Ca
00
e0+
o
O
O
N
r
fif�
O
O
' O '
N
O
o
O
O
N
O
o
(o
h
N
O O
O O
O Cn
CO h
(o
O
O
CO
V)
CO
r
d
O
N
w
N
o
co
aj
CO
0 0
O O
0 0
O 'r
r
0
O
O
d'
N
"' O
to U)
h h
(C) M
r
us
O
N
O
�-
to
O)
(o
O
N
r
Qw
r M CD o O �- P- h 0 O) M N N
O) h 0) h ( ao h
h
co
O
oo
a)
M LLi N
0) — D) �
h
O)
(O m O
� O (n M
nj
O N M
M h
r
N
oo
V) O M N
•f
0) N M (O
a
CO h (O
Ld d
M
N
O
N�(� O
N
N O N h
r N
N
h
0O
r
M
O N
iO
a
N V CO h
o
0) U) v
(O c)
'V'
Sf
h
to
=
(o
h
N h «7
Q) O m O
(O
r
O h W h
M V o0 O
N
r
w 0) (D
N 0) N
M
ocN
h
O
O
LO
M
N
r N as
a
co V'
47 �-
(O
.Q
d'
M �
It,
O) 0)
o
M O M M
o
N h
h O
(O
In
N N N
(O h CO O)
O O
O
M M
O
h
(o
of
O
r
M O) (n M
N
O) N O P
M
ti
op
11a
M dam" M CO
N
M NO
r
lL'
Ln
to ODM
a
O m to O
e
"T O
h (n
N
N
(0
Ln
(o
to It N 00
M oc M W
r
to N (D O)
N N M N
h
to
LO O
ccN
m
(h N
r
(o
M
0
h
N
Moo O) w
a
rr M
N
to
M
NNC'N7
r r
r
r
(
IL
V),
Hba
N
h to
o
M
0) O) co
0
ci
c0 co
h CC)
U)N
�
0 to 0
O (O O
O
N m M O
N
' M M
Q) CO
M CO
V'
O
O
at
co
N
(h r M
N
ti h
7
to
CO f� N('')
M
N
a
d
C
N
�
N r N •-
N
N r
`-
r
r
Qtn
00 co tl' N
o
N CO O)
a
CT CD
co 0)
(n
el'
d'
N
CO 9
d'
co O to
N
w 00 a) -q
O M
cf
r h
(n Ln
Ct
O M
O
�l
Cn
E
40
0) ' m d"
NNN CO
N
R r
N (n O r
r
in
r r
r
y
NE
0
N
r r
r
a)
C Q
r
(o 0) I-
o
to CO r- d'
o
M M
Cn OD
co 0)
(o O
N
N
M
(o
O N
O U O)
•0
N
t0
d' (n .- c0
N d_
of
O)
h N CO M
CO c0 "
O O
O W
CA
to
O h
N r LO T
M
(O
N N
;:M
N N
N
X
>
rim
z
(n
a►
N 'OO
to
(n co tD
o
0) CO CD O
a
(O
t0
to
N
0o
Oo N Vt O
d'
CO co 0 h
h
d' d)
ml
Oil
❑ (0P
M (b N a)
r
CO M 00
N
M
('C- O
O
In
N O) (D
w
N r- O r
r
M
O
U
M N
r
r
LL
,9
n
M C
O c0 M V
co
0
V' V M h
O O N d
r
0)
co OD
O
h
h
E
(U
aj
M N M V
N
�- M O O)
op
r
CL
eA l
UD
h
O) co
M�t
o
CO w
cod"
M
Co
�1
r
1� V)
O
(O
N O) M oo
d
M CD
O) i,-
LQ -'rO
h
O
N
O
r
M
h O co
W) 0) tO O)
(D
M
r O) r
(+1
7
M
N M
N
N r
Q
�
N9
c0
M c0 0) N
o
CO CO t to
o
M M
c0 -t
N
IA
O
M V I.- O
N
c0 O LO (f)
(o
co 0o
O CO
N
CA
to
m00 (� O
M
r (D Co
_T
7
to tO r
r
CM �
iV
O
r
r
-)
N N
N
r
r
H
�
O M h
o
N (O to V)
o
CO h
m v
M
O)
j
co
N M O
LO
O N M M
I
O M Cn
O d'
O
LO N
N
h
N
r
U
Q
co
M
Q) O W O
V' tf) O
M
t0
CC) M r M
M to 0) -
h
V
O O O
tO O
(O
O)
r-
NNN N
N
NON N
M
N—
M
r
h
r
�-N
r
r
}
O
W
cm
P
N
N
>+
C
(D
•�
QI
N
CID
0
N
N
N
o -0
a
N
m
-0Q,
d
c °o
d
aNi
.�
0>)rn
LL
w
c o
a
m
N>
— S o
U, a
w
H
H
(n
n
M o ,.
m
y
v o
Li
�>
JE;o)
dd
vm
aicm
KO
UUYa.
W
c
c Oyn
w-Cw
a
o
>m
w� a
Ua
aCL
o
o
o
5
p
C7
0
0 l'-
w
r
Revenues
Court Fines & Fees
Interest on Investments
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Personnel Services
Materials and Services
Total Expenditures
Net from Operations
Transfers
Transfers In- General Fund
Total Transfers
Change in Fund Balance
Beginning Fund Balance
Ending Fund Balance
Justice Court
Schedule of Financial Operating Data
Year to Date July
1, 2017 through
FY2017 April 30, 2018 (83%
of the year)
% of
Actual I Actual I Budget
$ 545,628 $ 487,820 92% a) $ 530,000 $ 585,384 $ 55,384
1,348 1,099 73% 1,500 1,300 (200)
546,976 1 488,919 92% 531,500 586,684 55,184
467,419 383,352 79% b) 486,471 465,000 21,471
153,817 118,192 83% c) 142,392 141,827 565
621,236 501,545 80% 628,863 606,827 22,036
(97,363) (20,143) 77,220
25,000 58,333 83%
70,000
70,000 -
25,000
58,333 83%
70,000
70,000 -
(49,260)
1
45,708
(27,363)
49,857 77,220
161,702
112,442 132%
85,000
112,442 27,442
$ 112,442
$ 158,150
$ 57,637
$ 162,299 $ 104,662
Beginning Net Working Capital per FY 2019 Proposed Budget $ 144,000
a) Year to date annualized.
b) Based on projected payroll in budget central
c) Projected based on outstanding obligations related to rent, utilities, and internal services.
Page 14
Deschutes County
Room Taxes (Funds 160 and 170)
Budget and Actual - FY 2018
YTD April 2018
EXPENDITURES
Combined
FY 2017
Fund 160 - 7% of TRT
Fund 170
- 1%
Combined - 8% TRT
Budget Actual Budget Budget Actual
% of Budget
REVENUESRoom
Taxes
$ 6,456,242
$ 5,880,000 $
5,493,181
$ 840,000
jActual
$
$ 6,720,000
$ 6,277,926
93.4%
Interest
16,338
10,000
18,993
7,000
960
17,000
25,949
152.6%
Total Revenues
6,472,579
5,890,000
5,512,174
847,000
ISF
6,737,000
6,303,875
93.6%
EXPENDITURES
Administrative
Auditing Services
10,000
10,937
-
1,563
-
12,500
Temporary Help
2,457
7,064
847
113
7,064
960
Interfund Contract
80,275
48,238
40,198
9,048
6,699
57,286
46,898
ISF
49,223
32,287
26,906
15,305
12,754
47,592
39,660
Public Notices
1,680
2,669
1,225
381
175
3,050
1,400
Printing
994
1,881
1,212
269
173
2,150
1,385
Office Supplies
171
897
128
-
1,025
-
Postage
835
2,647
852
378
122
3,025
974
Total Administrative
145,635
106,620
71,241
27,072
20,036
133,692
91,277
Current Distributions
Sheriff's Office
3,151,787
3,151,787
2,626,489
-
3,151,787
2,626,489
Sunriver Service Dist
44,500
200,000
200,000
-
COVA (20% of the 6%)
899,886
982,256
864,205
982,256
864,205
COVA (100% of the 1%)
791,247
820,164
724,217
-
820,164
724,217
Grants
Third Party Grants
-
-
8,000
8,000
Inter -fund Grants
F&E Center
356,082
839,242
378,857
839,242
378,857
Annual County Fair
107,718
70,000
113,391
70,000
113,391
RV Park
37,871
-
-
70,000
31,938
70,000
31,938
Inter -fund Transfers
General Capital Reserve
489,049
ME Center
25,744
25,744
21,453
-
25,744
21,453
F&E Reserve Fund
224,703
-
245,978
184,484
245,978
184,484
Total Distributions
6,128,586
5,179,951
4,236,365
1,225,220
716,669
6,405,171
4,953,033
Total Expenditures
6,274,221
5,286,571
4,307,606
1,252,292
736,705
6,538,863
5,044,310
Change in Balance
198,358
603,429
1,204,569
(405,292)
54,995
198,137
1,259,564
Beginning Balance
718,698
407,000
449,923
405,292
467,133
812,292
917,056
Ending Balance
$ 917,056
$ 1,010,429 $
1,654,491
$ - $
522,129
$ 1,010,429
$ 2,176,620
Page 15
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 Work Session of May 16, 2018
DATE: May 10, 2018
FROM: Anthony Raguine, Community Development, 541-617-4739
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Potential Marijuana Production Appeal, 23450 Walker Road, Order 2018-036
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:
On May 9, 2018, planning staff issued an approval to allow Briteside Oregon, LLC to establish
a marijuana production facility at 23450 Walker Road. The 12 -day appeal period ends on May
21, 2018. Attached is an order which would allow the Board to review any timely filed appeal of
247 -17 -000833 -AD.
ATTENDANCE: Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner
STAFF MEMO
Date: May 10, 2018
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner
Re: Administrative Decision (File No. 247 -17 -000833 -AD) to Hear Potential Appeal
The Board of County Commissioners (Board) will conduct a work session on May 16, 2018, at 1:30 PM and
will consider hearing a potential appeal of an administrative decision (File No. 247 -17 -000833 -AD) approving
a marijuana production application.
I. Application
On October 11, 2017, an application was filed for an Administrative Determination (AD) to establish a marijuana
production facility in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zone at 23450 Walker Road, Bend. The proposal includes
use of an existing structure and the establishment of a new structure for marijuana production. In total, the
applicant proposes a maximum mature plant canopy size of 20,000 square feet. The application also requests
an exception to the 100 -foot setback standard, to allow a 90 -foot setback for the existing structure. The
proposed structure will observe setbacks of at least 200 feet from all property lines.
II. Decision
On January 26, 2018, the application was deemed complete after the applicant submitted additional
information. The Planning Division issued an administrative decision without a public hearing for marijuana
production on May 9, 2018, determining the applicant met the applicable criteria (Attachment 1). Notice of the
decision was sent to neighboring property owners and those that provided comments. The decision becomes
final if not appealed by 5:00 PM on May 21, 2018.
III. Appeal
Although no appeal has been filed yet, staff considers an appeal is likely based on public comments.
IV. 150 -day Issuance of a Final Local Decision
The 150 -day period for issuance of a final local decision is June 25, 2018.
V. Board Options
Section 22.28.050 of the Deschutes County Code authorizes the Board of County Commissioners to initiate
review of any administrative action or a Hearings Body's decision within 12 days of the date of mailing of the
final written decision of the Planning Director or lower Hearings Body. The 12th day following the mailing date
of this decision falls on a Saturday, therefore, in accordance with DCC 22.08.070 an appeal must be filed no
later than 5:00 PM on Monday, May 21, 2018.
Attachment 2 is a Board Order (2018-036) to initiate a de novo review of this file, should a timely appeal be
filed.
Attachments:
1. Administrative Decision for File No. 247 -17 -000833 -AD
2. Site Plan
3. Board Order to Initiate Review
Mailing Date:
, Wednesday, May 09, 2018
Community Development Department
v Planning Division wDi
ilding Safety vision Environmental Soils division
Z!!! rt` P.O. Box 6005 117 PVA": Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005
Phone: (541) 338-6575 Fax: (541) 335-1764
http://%", ,,a;.deschutes.org/cd
FINDINGS AND DECISION
FILE NUMBER: 247 -17 -000833 -AD
APPLICANT/OWNER: Briteside Oregon LLC
PROPOSAL: A request to establish a marijuana production facility in the
Exclusive Farm Use Zone.
STAFF REVIEWER: Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner
1. APPLICABLE CRITERIA:
Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code (DCC), County Zoning
Chapter 18.04, Title, Purpose and Definitions
Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zone — EFU
Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions
Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance
II. BASIC FINDINGS:
A. LOCATION: The subject property has an assigned address of 23450 Walker Road, Bend.
It is identified as tax lot 3400 on County Assessor's map 17-13-00.
B. ZONING: The property is zoned Exclusive Farm Use.
C. LOT OF RECORD: The subject property is a legal lot of record pursuant to lot of record
determination 24 -17 -000210 -LR.
D. PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to establish up to 20,000 square feet of mature
canopy area within a new building which will include internal modular structures ranging in
size from 4,000 to 18,000 square feet, and within an existing agricultural building. The
proposed building will be sited within the building envelope' identified on the plan titled "Site
Plan Addendum", dated January 18, 2018. The applicant specifically requests approval to
site the proposed new building anywhere within the building envelope.
1 The western building is the existing agricultural building. The eastern building is a representation of the
potential location of the proposed building.
Quality Services Pe forincrl with Pride
E. SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject property is 40 acres in size, and is developed with a
dwelling and two accessory buildings. Vegetation on-site consists of irrigated fields and
juniper trees.
F. PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice to several public
agencies and received the following comments:
Deschutes County Assessor
The subject property is receiving farm deferral.
Deschutes County Building Division
NOTICE: The Deschutes County Building Safety Divisions code mandates that Access,
Egress, Setbacks, Fire & Life Safety, Fire Fighting Water Supplies, etc. must be
specifically addressed during the appropriate plan review process with regard to any
proposed structures and occupancies.
Accordingly, all Building Code required items will be addressed, when a specific structure,
occupancy, and type of construction is proposed and submitted for plan review.
Deschutes County Road Department
I have reviewed the application materials for the above -referenced file number, proposing
marijuana production with mature canopy up to 20,000 square feet at 23450 Walker Road,
Bend (Tax Lot 1713000003400). The subject property is accessed by a private access
road which serves and crosses TL 1500 and which connects to Alfalfa Market Rd
approximately 2,360 feet west of the subject property. While applicant has provided
written consent and a legal description for use of a 40' easement across the southern
portion of TL 1500 from the owner of that property (who is also owner of subject property),
it is unclear to Road Department staff whether or not the existing road is solely contained
within that described easement. Review of the vicinity of the subject property on
Deschutes County's Dial website indicates that portions of the existing road may cross
south of the southern section line of 17-13-27, which is the southern boundary of TLs 1500
and 3400. If this road does cross south of the section line, then the access requirements
of DCC 18.116.330(B)(8)(c) have not been met, as portions of the road would exist on
land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management rather than inside of the
described easement on TL 1500 or on TL 3400.
Deschutes County Road Department requests that this application be considered
incomplete until the applicant submits information prepared by a licensed surveyor
demonstrating that the existing road is located completely within the described easement
on TL 1500 or on TL 3400.
[STAFF COMMENT: Staff has added a condition of approval requiring the applicant to
submit a survey of the access easement and relocate all portions of the road within the
easement, and off of any adjacent BLM lands.]
File No. 247 -17 -000833 -AD 2
Deschutes Countv Transportation Planner
I have reviewed the transmittal materials for 247 -17 -000833 -AD for a marijuana production
(growing) operation in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zone at 23450 Walker Road, aka
17-13-00, Tax Lot 3400.
Deschutes County Code (DCC) at 18.116.330(B)(8) only requires proof of legal direct
access to the property or access from a private easement for a grow of more than 5,000
square feet of mature canopy. The proposal is for 20,000 square feet of mature canopy,
so the access requirement does apply. The applicant should provide a copy of an
approved driveway permit from the Road Department. If the applicant does not have one,
then acquiring one should be made a condition of approval. The traffic study requirements
of DCC 18.116.310 are not applicable for a marijuana production application, unless the
application is also under going site plan review and must show compliance with DCC
18.124.080(J). As this land use not being reviewed against the criteria of DCC 18.124, no
traffic study can be required.
Board Resolution 2013-020 sets an SDC rate of $3,937 per p.m. peak hour trip. The
County uses the most recent edition of the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip
generation manual to assess SDCs. The ITE manual does not contain a category for
marijuana production. In consultation with the Road Department Director and Planning
staff, the County has determined the best analog use is Warehouse (Land Use 150) based
on the storage requirements and employees of this activity. The ITE indicates Warehouse
generates 0.32 p.m. peak hour trips per 1,000 square feet. The applicant proposes 20,000
square feet of mature canopy spread across several buildings, but does not provide the
total square footage of those buildings. The County's SDC is based on the buildings' total
square footage related to cannabis production and support and not the square footage of
the mature canopy. For discussion purposes only, 20,000 square feet of mature canopy
would produce 6.4 p.m. peak hour trips (20 X 0.32). The resulting SDC is $25,197 (6.4 X
$3,937). The actual SDC will be higher as it will be based on building square footage and
not mature canopy size. Regardless of the final amount, the SDC is due prior to issuance
of certificate of occupancy; if a certificate of occupancy is not applicable, then the SDC is
due within 60 days of the land use decision becoming final.
Deschutes County Sheriff's Office
Our concern lies in the odor, sights, sounds and setbacks of the property in this type of
request and how it affects the livability of our community members; in conjunction with the
issue that marijuana is illegal on a federal level.
In addition, we are finding the calls for service related to marijuana grow operations are
increasing.
Bureau of Land Management
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Prineville District Office provides the below
comments regarding a marijuana production proposal off Walker Road near the Juniper
Woodlands Recreation Area application file number 247 -17 -000833-AD.
Upon recent review of the project area BLM does have concern on a number of issues
regarding this proposal. In response to question 8.c of the application, the applicant
File No. 247 -17 -000833 -AD
indicates that the access is via a private road across private property. A recent review of
the property boundaries along Walker Road, as depicted in the Deschutes county property
information website (haps://dial.deschutes.org/Real/interactiveMap/106922), indicates
that the road may dip south off of the applicants parcel onto public lands. The applicant
has not requested or received consent from the BLM to use this access route. BLM
requests that a survey be completed to establish that the access road is not on public
land.
Second, the location of the project area is very close to the Juniper Woodlands Recreation
Area boundary. BLM recommends that the applicant have a boundary survey of the parcel
conducted to ensure no unintentional future trespass onto public lands occurs.
Additionally, the BLM has concerns over the use of pesticides and herbicides and
chemical residue migration onto public lands. It is requested that if chemicals are used in
the operation, that protocols are required to ensure that chemical residue is contained and
does not migrate onto public lands.
If you have any questions on these information requests, please contact April Rabuck,
Acting Assistant Field Manager Lands and Minerals at (541) 416-6853.
[STAFF COMMENT: As noted above, staff has added a condition of approval to ensure
that the access road is entirely within the easement, with no portion of the road on BLM
lands.]
Alfalfa Fire District
The following is input from the Alfalfa Fire District,
Address should be clearly visible from the primary access road.
Access gate should be at least 20 feet wide to provide access to fire apparatus.
Access roads and driveways should be all weather and able to support at least
60,000 GVW
Exit doors should be clearly marked and unobstructed.
Onsite firefighting water supply should be clearly marked and be accessible to
firefighters at all times.
Portable fire extinguishers should be located throughout the building with a travel
distance of no more than 75 feet.
Fire extinguisher locations should be clearly marked.
Facility should have a fire safety plan including exit plan and employee
accountability system. This plan should be practiced by all employees on a regular
basis.
Material Safety Data Sheets for all onsite hazardous materials should be keep on
site and be accessible to fire department personnel at all times.
• All hazardous material storage areas, tanks and containers should be clearly
marked.
• Firefighters should be able to coordinate with facility managers a building walk
through for the purpose of training and emergency planning.
File No. 247 -17 -000833 -AD
Central Oregon Irrigation District
COID FACILITIES
COID has its D-1-8 delivery ditch on a portion of the subject's property
➢ It has a 20' canal right of way
COID WATER RIGHTS
Subject's property has 31.25 acres of COID water rights
COID request a copy of the site plan
Please contact COID concerning water rights
COID GUIDELINE STATEMENT
COID response to Community Development Notice for Proposed Marijuana Production:
Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) serves this property with 31.25 acres of irrigation
water during the irrigation season of April 1st through October 31st at a rate of up to 6
gallons per minute per acre. This water cannot be used for irrigation during the winter
months. An additional source (not COID) of water is necessary to irrigate between
November 1st and March 31st. If the recreational marijuana production facility is a
greenhouse or other structure proposed to be built on top of the COID water right, land -
user must allow COID annual access to the structure to document beneficial use of the
water right. Structures on top of a water right for any purpose other than growing plants
is not allowed.
Applicant should contact COID to determine status of water rights prior to construction of
production facility.
Plot Plan is required to assist COID in determining if the proposed structure will be located
on the water right or if a water transfer application is needed to transfer water to it.
The following agencies were provided notice but did not submit comments:
Deschutes County Environmental Soils Division and Watermaster — District 11.
G. PUBLIC COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice of the administrative
determination application to all property owners within 750 feet of the subject property.
Additionally, the applicant submitted a land use sign affidavit indicating the sign was
posted on the property on. A number of opposition comments were submitted in response
to the mailed and posted notices, along with one support comment. These comments and
concerns are summarized below.
OPPOSITION
1. Odor impacts.
2. Noise impacts.
3. Improper use of well water for the production operation.
4. Legal sources of water.
5. Improper waste disposal.
File No. 247 -17 -000833 -AD
6. County code should be interpreted to limit production to a single building for the
single license allowed for the property.
7. Light pollution.
8. Improper access on BLM land.
9. Potential impacts to wetlands.
10. Excessive consumption of electricity.
11. Workers should be subject to a background check.
12. Need for inspections.
13. Negative impact on ground water and water within the COID canal from fertilizer
use.
14. Increase in black market sales.
15. COID received federal grant money and should not be used to irrigate marijuana.
16. Discharge of industrial wastewater into the on-site septic system is prohibited.
17. Proposed water usage far exceeds household usage and will negatively impact
water availability for surrounding residents, particularly from wells.
18. Negative impact on property values.
19. Negative impact on quality of life for surrounding residents, particularly children.
20. Production of marijuana is morally wrong.
21. Negative impact on community safety.
22. Will increase crime and drug use.
23. Increase in traffic and potential transportation safety issues.
24. Livestock may consume marijuana.
25. Cross contamination of marijuana with other nearby crops.
[STAFF COMMENT: Issues 1 through 8 are addressed below. With respect to issue 9,
the proposed building envelope will be located at least 700 feet from the mapped wetland
onsite. Staff finds no impacts to wetlands will result from the proposal. Issues 10 through
25 are not associated with any applicable approval criteria. For this reason, staff does not
address issues 9 through 25 in this decision.]
SUPPORT
1. Deschutes County Code 9.12.080 prohibits any new restrictions to farming
practices.
2. Current county code violates the reasonable time, place and manner provisions of
state statute.
H. REVIEW PERIOD: The application was submitted on October 11, 2017. The application
was deemed incomplete and a letter summarizing the additional information needed to
review the applications was mailed on November 9, 2017. The applicant submitted
additional information in response to the incomplete letter on January 26, 2018, and the
application was deemed complete on that day. The 150th day on which the County must
take final action on this application is June 25, 2018.
III. FINDINGS:
TITLE 18 OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE, COUNTY ZONING.
A. CHAPTER 18.16, EXCLUSIVE FARM ZONE
File No. 247 -17 -000833 -AD 6
Section 18.16.020. Uses Permitted Outright.
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright.-
S.
utright.
S. Marijuana production, subject to the provisions of DCC 18.116.330.
FINDING: The applicant is proposing marijuana production on the subject property, a use
permitted outright subject to compliance with the applicable provisions of DCC 18.116.330,
addressed below.
2. Section 18.16.060. Dimensional Standards.
E. Building height. No building or structure shall be erected or enlarged
to exceed 30 feet in height, except as allowed under DCC 18.120.040.
FINDING: The applicant proposes to use both an existing structure that is less than 30 feet in
height, along with a new structure that will be approximately 14 feet in height. This criterion will
be met.
3. Section 18.16.070. Yards.
A. The front yard shall be a minimum of. 40 feet from a property line
fronting on a local street, 60 feet from a property line fronting on a
collector street, and 100 feet from a property line fronting on an
arterial street.
B. Each side yard shall be a minimum of 25 feet, except that for a
nonfarm dwelling proposed on property with side yards adjacent to
property currently employed in farm use, and receiving special
assessment for farm use, the side yard shall be a minimum of 100
feet.
C. Rear yards shall be a minimum of 25 feet, except that for a nonfarm
dwelling proposed on property with a rear yard adjacent to property
currently employed in farm use, and receiving special assessment for
farm use, the rear yard shall be a minimum of 100 feet.
FINDING: The property has frontage on Walker Road, classified as a local road requiring a 40 -
foot front yard setback. Because the proposed structure is not a nonfarm dwelling, the required
side and rear yard setbacks are 25 feet.
The applicant's Site Plan Addendum dated January 18, 2018 shows the location of the existing
structure to be used as part of the operation and a building envelope intended to represent the
possible location of the proposed new building. The existing building observes a south front yard
setback of 483 feet, an east side yard setback of 924 feet, a west side yard setback of 90 feet,
and a north rear yard setback of 781 feet. The proposed building envelope will observe a south
front yard setback of 200 feet2, an east side yard setback of approximately 900 feet, a west side
yard setback of 200 feet, and a north rear yard setback of 880 feet. Both the existing building and
the building envelope comply with the required setbacks.
2 Although the building envelope illustrates a front yard setback of 120 feet and a west side yard setback
of zero feet, the acoustical barrier limit sets effective front and west side yard setbacks of 200 feet.
File No. 247 -17 -000833 -AD 7
D. In addition to the setbacks set forth herein, any greater setbacks
required by applicable building or structural codes adopted by the
State of Oregon and/or the County under DCC 15.04 shall be met.
FINDING: Any greater setbacks required by applicable building or structural codes will be
addressed during building permit review.
4. Section 18.16.080. Stream Setbacks.
To permit better light, air, vision, stream pollution control, protection
of fish and wildlife areas and preservation of natural scenic amenities
and vistas along streams and lakes, the following setbacks shall
apply.
A. All sewage disposal installations, such as septic tanks and
septic drainfields, shall be set back from the ordinary high
water mark along all streams or lakes a minimum of 100 feet,
measured at right angles to the ordinary high water mark. In
those cases where practical difficulties preclude the location
of the facilities at a distance of 100 feet and the County
Sanitarian finds that a closer location will not endanger health,
the Planning Director or Hearings Body may permit the
location of these facilities closer to the stream or lake, but in
no case closer than 25 feet.
B. All structures, buildings or similar permanent fixtures shall be
set back from the ordinary high water mark along all streams
or lakes a minimum of 100 feet measured at right angles to the
ordinary high watermark.
FINDING: Although a COID canal traverses the property, no streams or lakes exist on-site.
Therefore, these criteria do not apply.
B. CHAPTER 18.116, SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
Section 18.116.330. Marijuana Production, Processing, and Retailing.
A. Applicability. Section 18.116.330 applies to:
1. Marijuana Production in the EFU, MUA-10, and RI zones.
FINDING: The applicant proposes a marijuana production (grow) facility in the EFU Zone. This
section applies.
B. Marijuana production and marijuana processing. Marijuana production and
marijuana processing shall be subject to the following standards and
criteria:
1. Minimum Lot Area.
a. In the EFU and MUA-10 zones, the subject legal lot of record
shall have a minimum lot area of five (5) acres.
FINDING: The subject property is 40 acres in size. This standard is met.
File No. 247 -17 -000833 -AD
2. Indoor Production and Processing.
b. In the EFU zone, marijuana production and processing shall
only be located in buildings, including greenhouses, hoop
houses, and similar structures.
FINDING: A comment was received from Laurie Craghead' arguing that only one building is
allowed for each production license. Specifically, Ms. Craghead provides the following,
The county code allows only one marijuana production license per property but does allow
production within a building. Thus, the code should be interpreted that only one building
is allowed for each production license. Thus, each separate container onsite is a separate
production site. Since each one is a separate production site, each one needs to be
licensed by the OLCC separately. The county code, however, allows only one licensed
marijuana production site per parcel. Thus, no more than one container can be used for a
licensed marijuana production. Nothing in the statutes or the OARs precludes such an
interpretation of the county code.
Staff finds that the specific language in this criterion contemplates the potential use of multiple
buildings and similar structures for production. Additionally, the Board of County Commissioners
approved two buildings for marijuana production use in the Eakin application (247-17-000520-A)
in which only one OLCC licensed was proposed to be used. For these reasons, staff finds the
applicant's use of an existing building with a proposed new building for the production operation
meets this criterion. No outdoor production is proposed.
3. Maximum Mature Plant Canopy Size. In the EFU zone, the maximum
canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall apply as follows:
a. Parcels from 5 acres to less than 10 acres in lot area: 2,500
square feet.
b. Parcels equal to or greater than 10 acres to less than 20 acres
in lot area: 5,000 square feet. The maximum canopy area for
mature marijuana plants may be increased to 10,000 square
feet upon demonstration by the applicant to the County that.
L The marijuana production operation was lawfully
established prior to January 1, 2015; and
ii. The increased mature marijuana plant canopy area will
not generate adverse impact of visual, odor, noise,
lighting, privacy or access greater than the impacts
associated with a 5,000 square foot canopy area
operation.
C. Parcels equal to or greater than 20 acres to less than 40 acres
in lot area: 10,000 square feet.
d. Parcels equal to or greater than 40 acres to less than 60 acres
in lot area: 20,000 square feet.
e. Parcels equal to or greater than 60 acres in lot area: 40,000
square feet.
3 Reference Laurie Craghead email dated March 9, 2018.
File No. 247 -17 -000833 -AD
FINDING: Based on the property's 40 -acre size, the applicant can be approved for up to 20,000
square feet of mature canopy area. The applicant proposes a maximum of 20,000 square feet of
production area. This criterion will be met.
4. Maximum Building Floor Area. In the MUA-10 zone, the maximum
building floor area used for all activities associated with marijuana
production and processing on the subject property shall be:
a. Parcels from 5 acres to less than 10 acres in lot area: 2,500
square feet.
b. Parcels equal to or greater than 10 acres: 5,000 square feet.
FINDING: The subject property is zoned EFU. Therefore, this standard does not apply.
5. Limitation on License/Grow Site per Parcel. No more than one (1)
Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) licensed marijuana
production or Oregon Health Authority (OHA) registered medical
marijuana grow site shall be allowed per legal parcel or lot.
FINDING: The applicant states the intention to complete and finalize the OLCC license upon
approval of the subject application. A condition of approval will ensure that only one OLCC or
OHA site is registered to the subject property.
6. Setbacks. The following setbacks shall apply to all marijuana
production and processing areas and buildings:
a. Minimum Yard Setback/Distance from Lot Lines: 100 feet.
FINDING: The existing structure will exceed the 100 -foot setback from all property lines except
for the west property line. As noted above, the existing structure observes a 90 -foot setback from
the west property line. Consequently, the applicant requests an exception to the setback standard
as discussed under subsection (c) below.
b. Setback from an off-site dwelling: 300 feet
For the purposes of this criterion, an off-site dwelling includes
those proposed off-site dwellings with a building permit
application submitted to Deschutes County prior to
submission of the marijuana production or processing
application to Deschutes County.
FINDING: Staff reviewed permit records for all adjacent properties and found the closest dwelling
to the marijuana production building envelope is located approximately 325 feet to the west on
tax lot 1500, Assessor map 17-13-27C (23250 Walker Road). This standard will be met.
C. Exception: Any reduction to these setback requirements may
be granted by the Planning Director or Hearings Body provided
the applicant demonstrates the reduced setbacks afford equal
or greater mitigation of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy,
and access impacts.
FINDING: The existing building observes a 90 -foot setback from the west property line.
Therefore, the applicant is requesting a ten -foot exception to the 100 -foot setback standard under
File No. 247 -17 -000833 -AD 10
subsection (a). Each of the required issue areas associated with the exception criteria is
addressed below.
Visual
The applicant proposes to use an existing structure for a portion of the marijuana production
operation. This structure is located 90 feet from the west property line. The property to the west
(23250 Walker Road) is also owned by the applicant. Given the small, ten -foot exception
requested, the proposed trees4 between the existing building and the west property line, and the
fact that the applicant also owns the property to the west, staff finds the use of the existing building
affords equal mitigation of visual impacts to the adjacent property to the west.
Odor
As noted in the findings under DCC 18.116.330(B)(10) below, the existing building will include
fan/filter combinations that will meet the approval criteria. Additionally, the existing building is a
pre -fabricated structure that is sealed such that no air is exhausted to the outside. For these
reasons, staff finds the existing building will afford equal mitigation of odor impacts to the adjacent
property to the west.
Noise
As noted in the findings under DCC 18.116.330(B)(10) below, the engineer's letter indicates that
no sound dampening is necessary to meet the 30 dB limit at the west property line. For this
reason, staff finds the existing building will afford equal mitigation of noise impacts to the adjacent
property to the west.
Li htin
Per the applicant, the existing building does not have any windows, or similar, which will allow
light to escape the structure. For this reason, staff finds the existing building will afford equal
mitigation of lighting impacts to the adjacent property to the west.
Privacy
Existing and proposed trees provide additional buffering from the existing building to west property
line. The requested exception is for only ten feet and the adjacent property to the west is also
owned by the applicant. For these reasons, staff finds the existing building will afford equal
mitigation of privacy impacts to the adjacent property to the west.
Access
The production operation will utilize a proposed access easement across the property to the west,
which is also owned by the applicant. Staff finds the proposed access easement along the south
property line will eliminate any access impacts to the adjacent property to the west.
For the reasons detailed above, staff finds use of the existing building will afford equal mitigation
of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy and access impacts. As a result, staff grants an exception
to the 100 -foot setback to the west property line.
4 Reference applicant's email dated April 27, 2018 and the Site Plan Addendum.
File No. 247 -17 -000833 -AD 11
7. Separation Distances. Minimum separation distances shall apply as
follows:
a. The use shall be located a minimum of 1000 feet from:
i. A public elementary or secondary school for which
attendance is compulsory under Oregon Revised
Statutes 339.010, et seq., including any parking lot
appurtenant thereto and any property used by the
school;
ii. A private or parochial elementary or secondary school,
teaching children as described in ORS 339.030(1)(a),
including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any
property used by the school;
iii. A licensed child care center or licensed preschool,
including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any
property used by the child care center or preschool.
This does not include licensed or unlicensed child care
which occurs at or in residential structures;
iv. A youth activity center; and
V. National monuments and state parks.
b. For purposes of DCC 18.116.330(B)(7), all distances shall be
measured from the lot line of the affected properties listed in
DCC 18.116.330(B)(7)(a) to the closest point of the buildings
and land area occupied by the marijuana producer or
marijuana processor.
C. A change in use of another property to those identified in DCC
18.116.330(B)(7) shall not result in the marijuana producer or
marijuana processor being in violation of DCC 18.116.330(B)(7)
if the use is:
i. Pending a local land use decision;
ii. Licensed or registered by the State of Oregon; or
iii. Lawfully established.
FINDING: Four (4) tax lots are wholly or partially within 1,000 feet of the subject property. Staff
reviewed land use records for these properties and found none of these properties are engaged
in or approved for a use described in this section, or are subject to subsection (c). This criterion
will be met.
8. Access. Marijuana production over 5,000 square feet of canopy area
for mature marijuana plants shall comply with the following
standards.
a. Have frontage on and legal direct access from a constructed
public, county, or state road; or
b. Have access from a private road or easement serving only the
subject property.
C. If the property takes access via a private road or easement
which also serves other properties, the applicant shall obtain
written consent to utilize the easement or private road for
marijuana production access from all owners who have access
rights to the private road or easement. The written consent
shall:
File No. 247 -17 -000833 -AD 12
i. Be on a form provided by the County and shall contain
the following information;
ii. Include notarized signatures of all owners, persons and
properties holding a recorded interest in the private
road or easement;
iii. Include a description of the proposed marijuana
production or marijuana processing operation; and
iv. Include a legal description of the private road or
easement.
FINDING: The proposed production operation will include mature canopy of up to 20,000 square
feet. For this reason, these criteria apply.
Comments were received by the Deschutes County Road Department and the BLM indicating a
concern regarding the location of the existing road that will provide access. The application
materials include a shared access consent agreement signed by the parties. The agreement
includes a description of the proposed marijuana production operation and a legal description of
the easement. Staff has added conditions of approval to ensure adequate and legal access. The
applicant shall record the shared access consent agreement with the County Clerk prior to
initiation of use or issuance of any building permit, whichever comes first. Prior to initiation of use
or issuance of any building permit, whichever comes first, the applicant shall survey the proposed
easement, and for any portion of the road that is not within the easement, to relocate the road
within the easement. With the imposition of these conditions of approval, this criterion will be met.
9. Lighting. Lighting shall be regulated as follows:
a. Inside building lighting, including greenhouses, hoop houses,
and similar structures, used for marijuana production shall not
be visible outside the building from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on
the following day.
b. Lighting fixtures shall be fully shielded in such a manner that
all light emitted directly by the lamp or a diffusing element, or
indirectly by reflection or refraction, is projected below the
horizontal plane through the lowest light -emitting part.
FINDING: Neither the existing building nor the proposed building have any windows, or similar,
which would allow light to escape. These criteria will be met.
C. Light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana grow
lights shall comply with DCC 15. 10, Outdoor Lighting Control.
FINDING: The applicant agrees to ensure that all exterior light fixtures will comply with the
Outdoor Lighting Control ordinance. A condition of approval has been added to ensure
compliance.
10. Odor. As used in DCC 1& 116.330(B)(10), building means the building,
including greenhouses, hoop houses, and other similar structures,
used for marijuana production or marijuana processing.
a. The building shall be equipped with an effective odor control
system which must at all times prevent unreasonable
interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property.
File No. 247 -17 -000833 -AD 13
b. An odor control system is deemed permitted only after the
applicant submits a report by a mechanical engineer licensed
in the State of Oregon demonstrating that the system will
control odor so as not to unreasonably interfere with
neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property.
C. Private actions alleging nuisance or trespass associated with
odor impacts are authorized, if at all, as provided in applicable
state statute.
d. The odor control system shall.
i. Consist of one or more fans. The fan(s) shall be sized
for cubic feet per minute (CFM) equivalent to the volume
of the building (length multiplied by width multiplied by
height) divided by three. The filter(s) shall be rated for
the required CFM; or
ii. Utilize an alternative method or technology to achieve
equal to or greater odor mitigation than provided by (i)
above.
e. The system shall be maintained in working order and shall be
in use.
FINDING: The applicant submitted a revised engineer's letter dated April 20, 2018 prepared by
Rob James, a mechanical engineer registered in the state of Oregon (Certificate Number 65108
PE), to address both odor and noise for the existing and proposed buildings.
Existing Building
The revised engineer's report provides the following details for the odor control system within the
existing building.
The existing building contains 2 grow rooms, a veg/clone room and some ancillary non -
grow spaces.
1. The 2 grow rooms each have a volume of 15,880 CF [cubic feet], which will require
a carbon -filtered air flow of 5,294 CFM [cubic feet per minute]. Each grow room
will have 3 air handlers that each move 1,471 CFM through carbon filters, plus one
Can -Fan 12" HO (925 CFM @ 0.5') with an attached Can -Filter 150, 12" flange.
The total carbon -filtered air flow will be 5,338 CFM, thus meeting the code
requirement.
2. The veg/clone room has a volume of 6,815 CF, which will require a carbon -filtered
air flow of 2,272 CFM. This room will have 2 air handlers that each move 1,471.
CFM through carbon filters. The total carbon -filtered air flow will be 2,942 CFM,
thus meeting the code requirement.
3. During normal operations of the facility the Opticlimate System is designed to
condition and recirculate the air within the building. No air is exhausted from the
building as there is not an Economizer Mode on the HVAC System.
4. The prefabricated structures are sealed operationally, not to pose any potential for
odor to neighboring properties.
Based on the above, staff finds the proposed odor control system for the existing building will
comply with the approval criteria. Staff has included a condition of approval to ensure proper
maintenance and use.
File No. 247 -17 -000833 -AD 14
Proposed Building
The revised engineer's report provides the following details for the odor control system within the
proposed new building.
The new building consists of 28 modules of flower and vegetation rooms. Each module
has a volume of 7,500 CF, which will require a carbon -filtered air flow of 2,500 CFM. Each
module will have three Can -Fan 12" HO (925 CFM @ 0.5') with an attached Can -Filter
150, 12" flange. The total carbon filtered air flow will be 2,775 CFM, thus meeting the code
requirement.
Based on the above, staff finds the proposed odor control system for the new building will comply
with the approval criteria. Staff has included a condition of approval to ensure proper maintenance
and use.
11. Noise. Noise produced by marijuana production and marijuana
processing shall comply with the following:
a. Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating,
ventilation, air condition, odor control, fans and similar
functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property
line between 10:00 p.m. and 7.00 a.m. the following day.
b. Sustained noise from marijuana production is exempt from
protections of DCC 9.12 and ORS 30.395, Right to Farm.
Intermittent noise for accepted farming practices is permitted.
FINDING: The revised engineer's report provides the following details for the noise control
system within the existing building and proposed new building.
The HVAC configuration associated with the Lectrus pre -fabricated structures was
designed by Opticlimate. The interior air handlers were provided by Briteside Holdings,
and installed by Lectrus Corporation. The wall mounted HVAC units were purchased and
installed by Lectrus. Final configuration of each unit will include:
• The new building will have 22 wall -mounted HVAC units on each side that are
rated at 73 dB noise level at the units. There will be a total of 44 HVAC Units for
the entire building.
• The existing building will have 2 condensing units on the west side, 6 condensing
units on the east side, and 1 Bard unit on the north side.
Regarding noise control, (DCC 18.116.330(B)(11)(a) the following factors assist in
mitigating the sustained noise from the mechanical equipment used for HVAC, odor
control, fans and similar functions to not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line
between L0:00 p.m. and 7.00 a.m. the following day.
DCC 18.116.330(B)(6)(a) Marijuana production facilities shall have a minimum
setback of 100 ft from the nearest property line. The new building is a minimum
200' from the south property line, 880' from the north property line, 924' from the
east property line, and 200' from the west property line. The existing building is
approximately 483' from the south property line, 781' from the north property line,
924' from the east property line, and 90' from the west property line.
File No. 247 -17 -000833 -AD 15
2. Security fencing and plantings around the perimeter of the property line will be
installed that will further dampen sound transmission.
3. Sound pressure is reduced by 6 dba each time the distance from the noise source
is doubled, per the inverse square law.
4. For the new building: On the south and west sides, the outdoor units will need a
6'-7' high concrete sound wall between them and the their respective property
lines, with a 200' minimum distance to keep the sound below 30 dBA. On the north
and east sides, the outdoor units need no special treatment because they are far
enough away from the property line to keep the sound below 30 dBA.
5. For the existing building: No special sound treatment is required to keep sound
levels below 30 dBA at any property line.
6. The calculated sound pressure levels from the mechanical equipment at property
line are:
West property line: 29.9 dBA
South property line: 29.6 dBA
North property line: 27.2 dBA
East property line: 23.7 dBA
Staff has added a condition of approval requiring the applicant to construct a six- to seven -foot -
tall concrete sound wall between the proposed new building and the west and south property
lines. The proposed new building shall be sited within the building envelope and no closer than
200 feet from the west and south property lines. With the imposition of these conditions of
approval, staff finds this criterion will be met.
12. Screening and Fencing. The following screening standards shall
apply to greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar non -rigid structures
and land areas used for marijuana production and processing:
a. Subject to DCC 18.84, Landscape Management Combining
Zone approval, if applicable.
b. Fencing shall be finished in a muted earth tone that blends
with the surrounding natural landscape and shall not be
constructed of temporary materials such as plastic sheeting,
hay bales, tarps, etc., and shall be subject to DCC 18.88,
Wildlife Area Combining Zone, if applicable.
C. Razor wire, or similar, shall be obscured from view or colored
a muted earth tone that blends with the surrounding natural
landscape.
d. The existing tree and shrub cover screening the development
from the public right-of-way or adjacent properties shall be
retained to the maximum extent possible. This provision does
not prohibit maintenance of existing lawns, removal of dead,
diseased or hazardous vegetation; the commercial harvest of
forest products in accordance with the Oregon Forest
Practices Act; or agricultural use of the land.
FINDING: The subject property is not in a Landscape Management or Wildlife Area Combining
Zone. Per the applicant's response to the Incomplete Letter, seven -foot -tall black chain-link
fencing with one -inch barbed wire along the top will be installed. The applicant's response does
not specify the color of the barbed wire. Staff has added a condition of approval requiring the
barbed wire to also be painted black.
File No. 247 -17 -000833 -AD 16
The applicant does not propose to remove any vegetation on-site. A condition of approval has
been added to ensure compliance with subsection (d) above.
These criteria will be met.
13. Water. The applicant shall provide:
a. A copy of a water right permit, certificate, or other water use
authorization from the Oregon Water Resource Department; or
b. A statement that water is supplied from a public or private
water provider, along with the name and contact information
of the water provider; or
C. Proof from the Oregon Water Resources Department that the
water to be used is from a source that does not require a water
right.
FINDING: The applicant proposes multiple water sources to serve the production operation.
Three (3) mitigation credits from Legacy Ranches LLC — reference Oregon Water
Resources Department Assignment Record submitted with the applicant's response to the
Incomplete Letter
Forty-three (43) acres of irrigation water from COID for use from April 1 st through October
31St (irrigation season) — reference COID's letter submitted with the original application
materials
Bend Water Hauling5 — reference the Bend Water Hauling `will -serve' letter submitted with
the original application materials
Staff finds this criterion will be met.
14. Fire protection for processing of cannabinoid extracts. Processing
of cannabinoid extracts shall only be permitted on properties located
within the boundaries of or under contract with a fire protection
district.
FINDING: The applicant is not proposing processing of cannabinoid extracts. Therefore, this
standard does not apply.
15. Utility Verification. A statement from each utility company proposed
to serve the operation, stating that each such company is able and
willing to serve the operation, shall be provided.
FINDING: The record includes a letter from CEC dated June 9, 2017 indicating CEC has
reviewed the load information (4,000 amp three phase service) associated with the cannabis
production facility and that system upgrades will be necessary. The letter goes on to state that
CEC is willing and able to serve the proposed marijuana production use at the subject property.
No other utilities have been proposed to serve the operation. This criterion is met.
16. Security Cameras. If security cameras are used, they shall be
directed to record only the subject property and public rights-of-way,
5 It is staff's understanding that Bend Water Hauling sources their water from Avion Water Company and
City of Redmond, quasi -municipal and municipal water sources.
File No. 247 -17 -000833 -AD 17
except as required to comply with requirements of the OLCC or the
OHA.
FINDING: The applicant states security cameras will be used. Compliance with this standard
shall be a condition of approval.
17. Secure Waste Disposal. Marijuana waste shall be stored in a secured
waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the
OLCC licensee or OHA Person Responsible for the Grow Site (PRMG).
FINDING: The applicant proposes secure waste receptacles within both the existing and
proposed buildings. Compliance with this standard shall be a condition of approval.
18. Residency. In the MUA-10 zone, a minimum of one of the following
shall reside in a dwelling unit on the subject property:
a. An owner of the subject property;
b. A holder of an OLCC license for marijuana production, provided
that the license applies to the subject property; or
C. A person registered with the OHA as a person designated to
produce marijuana by a registry identification cardholder,
provided that the registration applies to the subject property.
FINDING: The subject property is zoned EFU, therefore this standard does not apply.
19. Nonconformance. All medical marijuana grow sites lawfully
established prior to June 8, 2016 by the Oregon Health Authority shall
comply with the provisions of DCC 18.116.330(6)(9) by September 8,
2016 and with the provisions of DCC 18.116.330(6)(10-12, 16, 17) by
December 8, 2016.
FINDING: The subject property does not include a medical marijuana grow facility. This criterion
does not apply.
20. Prohibited Uses.
a. In the EFU zone, the following uses are prohibited.
i. A new dwelling used in conjunction with a marijuana
crop;
ii. A farm stand, as described in ORS 215.213(1)(r) or
215.283(1)(0), used in conjunction with a marijuana crop;
iii. A commercial activity, as described in ORS 215.213(2)(c)
or 215.283(2)(a), carried on in conjunction a marijuana
crop; and
iv. Agri -tourism and other commercial events and activities
in conjunction with a marijuana crop.
b. In the MUA-10 Zone, the following uses are prohibited.
L Commercial activities in conjunction with farm use when
carried on in conjunction with a marijuana crop.
C. In the EFU, MUA-10, and Rural Industrial zones, the following
uses are prohibited on the same property as marijuana
production:
L Guest Lodge.
File No. 247 -17 -000833 -AD 18
ii. Guest Ranch.
iii. Dude Ranch.
iv. Destination Resort.
V. Public Parks.
Vi. Private Parks.
vii. Events, Mass Gatherings and Outdoor Mass Gatherings.
viii. Bed and Breakfast.
ix. Room and Board Arrangements.
FINDING: The applicant is not proposing any of the prohibited uses listed above. As a condition
of approval, the uses listed in DCC 18.116.330(20) shall be prohibited on the subject property so
long as marijuana production is conducted on the site.
D. Annual Reporting
1. An annual report shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department by the real property owner or
licensee, if different, each February 1, documenting all of the
following as of December 31 of the previous year, including the
applicable fee as adopted in the current County Fee Schedule
and a fully executed Consent to Inspect Premises form:
a. Documentation demonstrating compliance with the:
i. Land use decision and permits.
ii. Fire, health, safety, waste water, and building
codes and laws.
iii. State of Oregon licensing requirements.
b. Failure to timely submit the annual report, fee, and
Consent to Inspect Premises form or to demonstrate
compliance with DCC 18.116.330(C)(1)(a) shall serve as
acknowledgement by the real property owner and
licensee that the otherwise allowed use is not in
compliance with Deschutes County Code; authorizes
permit revocation under DCC Title 22, and may be relied
upon by the State of Oregon to deny new or license
renewals) for the subject use.
C. Other information as may be reasonably required by the
Planning Director to ensure compliance with Deschutes
County Code, applicable State regulations, and to
protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
d. Marijuana Control Plan to be established and
maintained by the Community Development
Department.
e. Conditions of Approval Agreement to be established
and maintained by the Community Development
Department.
f. This information shall be public record subject to ORS
192.502(17).
FINDING: Compliance with the annual reporting requirements of this section shall be a condition
of approval.
File No. 247 -17 -000833 -AD 19
IV. SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE (SDC)
Board Resolution 2013-020 sets an SDC rate of $3,937 per p.m. peak hour trip. The County uses
the most recent edition of the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation manual to assess
SDCs. The ITE manual does not contain a category for marijuana production. In consultation with
the Road Department Director and Planning staff, the County has determined the best analog use is
Warehouse (Land Use 150) based on the storage requirements and employees of this activity. The
ITE indicates Warehouse generates 0.32 p.m. peak hour trips per 1,000 square feet. The applicant
proposes 20,000 square feet of mature canopy spread across several buildings, but does not provide
the total square footage of those buildings. The County's SDC is based on the buildings' total square
footage related to cannabis production and support and not the square footage of the mature canopy.
For discussion purposes only, 20,000 square feet of mature canopy would produce 6.4 p.m. peak
hour trips (20 X 0.32). The resulting SDC is $25,197 (6.4 X $3,937). The actual SDC will be higher
as it will be based on building square footage and not mature canopy size. Regardless of the final
amount, the SDC is due prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy; if a certificate of occupancy is
not applicable, then the SDC is due within 60 days of the land use decision becoming final.
V. CONCLUSIONS:
Based on the application materials submitted by the applicant and the above analysis, staff
concludes this application for a marijuana production facility in the EFU Zone can conform to the
standards for approval.
Other permits may be required. The applicant is responsible for obtaining any necessary permits
and meeting the requirements of the Deschutes County Building Safety Division, the Deschutes
County Environmental Soils Division and the Deschutes County Road Department, as well as
obtaining any required state and federal permits.
VI. DECISION:
APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions of approval.
VII. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
A. Approval is based upon the submitted application materials and record developed for this land
use action. Any substantial change to the approved use will require a new application.
B. All necessary Building Division and Environmental Soils Division permits shall be secured by
the applicant prior to initiating the use.
C. Inside building lighting, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar structures, used for
production shall not be visible outside the building from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the following
day.
D. Lighting fixtures shall be fully shielded in such a manner that all light emitted directly by the
lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction, is projected below the
horizontal plane through the lowest light -emitting part.
E. Light cast by exterior light fixtures associated with the production buildings, other than
marijuana grow lights, shall comply with DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control.
File No. 247 -17 -000833 -AD 20
F. The proposed odor control systems for the production buildings must at all times prevent
unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property.
G. The proposed odor control systems for the production buildings shall be maintained in working
order and shall be in use.
H. Sustained noise from mechanical equipment associated with the production buildings and used
for heating, ventilation, air condition, odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed
30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day.
1. The existing tree and shrub cover screening the production buildings from the public right-of-
way or adjacent properties shall be retained to the maximum extent possible. This provision
does not prohibit maintenance of existing lawns, removal of dead, diseased or hazardous
vegetation; the commercial harvest of forest products in accordance with the Oregon Forest
Practices Act; or agricultural use of the land.
I Security cameras shall be directed to record only the subject property and shall comply with
the requirements of the OLCC.
K. Marijuana waste shall be stored in a secure waste receptacle in the possession of and under
the control of the OHA licensee.
L. The uses listed under DCC 18.116.330(8)(20) are prohibited on-site if marijuana production
exists on-site.
M. The applicant or property owner shall comply with the annual reporting requirements of DCC
18.116.330(D).
N. Prior to initiation of production use within the existing building or issuance of any building permit
for the proposed new production building, whichever comes first, the applicant shall record the
shared access consent agreement with the County Clerk. The applicant shall submit a copy
of the recorded agreement to the Planning Division.
O. Prior to initiation of production use within the existing building or issuance of any building permit
for the proposed new production building, whichever comes first, the applicant shall survey the
proposed easement and, for any portion of the road that is not within the easement, relocate
the road within the easement. The applicant shall schedule a site visit with Planning staff to
demonstrate compliance with this condition.
P. Prior to initiation of production use within the new building, the applicant shall install a six- to
seven -foot -tall concrete sound wall between the proposed new production building and the
west and south property lines. The proposed new production building shall be sited within the
Building Envelope identified on the applicant's Site Plan Addendum dated January 18, 2018,
and sited no closer than 200 feet from the west and south property lines.
Q. Prior to initiation of production use within the existing building, the applicant shall plant at least
six (6) trees between the existing building and the west property line. Said trees shall be at
least eight (8) feet tall at time of planting and shall be maintained for as long as the production
use within the existing building continues on-site. The applicant shall replace any dead trees
installed as part of this condition.
File No. 247 -17 -000833 -AD 21
R. Any barbed wire installed as part of the proposed fencing shall be painted black.
VII. DURATION OF APPROVAL:
The applicant shall initiate the use within two (2) years of the date this decision becomes final, or
obtain approval of an extension under Title 22 of the County Code, or this approval shall be void.
This decision becomes final twelve (12) days after the date of mailing, unless appealed by
a party of interest.
DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION
AVWVZ 1 iK-Q-
Written by: Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Peter Gutowsky, Planning Manager
File No. 247 -17 -000833 -AD 22
ij
BRITESIDE FACILITY
SITE PLAN ADDENDUM
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 Work Session of May 16, 2018
DATE: May 8, 2018
FROM: William Groves, Community Development, 541-388-6518
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Potential Marijuana Production Appeal, 64575 Mock Rd, Order 2018-034
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:
Consider whether to Hear Potential Appeal of Administrative Decision (File No. 247 -18-
000053 -AD)
ATTENDANCE: CDD, Will Groves
SUMMARY: On January 18, 2018 an application was filed for an Administrative Determination
(AD) to modify a prior approval (247 -16 -000709 -AD) to relocate the new greenhouse Building
Envelope area, structure type, and odor control method. The proposal does not modify the
processing approval (247 -16 -000710 -SP / 728 -AD) or production within the previously approved
existing building and greenhouse. The Planning Division issued an administrative approval on
May 8, 2018. The decision becomes final on May 21s' if not appealed. Section 22.28.050 of the
Deschutes County Code authorizes the BOCC to initiate review of any administrative action within
12 days of the date of mailing of the final written decision.
STAFF MEMO
Date: May 8, 2018
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Will Groves, Senior Planner
Re: To Hear Potential Appeal of Administrative Decision (File No. 247 -18 -000053 -AD)
The Board of County Commissioners (Board) will conduct a work session on May 16, 2018 at 1:30 PM
and will consider hearing a potential appeal of an administrative decision (File No. 247 -18 -000053 -
AD) approving a marijuana production application.
I. Application
On January 18, 2018 an application was filed for an Administrative Determination (AD) to modify a
prior approval (247 -16 -000709 -AD) to relocate the new greenhouse Building Envelope area, structure
type, and odor control method. The request is intended to improve building design and location, and
allow for a state-of-the-art odor control method. The proposal does not modify the processing
approval (247 -16 -000710 -SP / 728 -AD) or production within the previously approved existing building
and greenhouse.
II. Decision
On February 17, 2018, the application was deemed complete and accepted for review after the
applicant submitted additional information. The Planning Division issued an administrative decision
for modified marijuana production without a public hearing on May 8, 2018, determining the
applicant met the applicable criteria (Attachment 1). Notice of the decision was mailed to neighboring
property owners. The decision becomes final on May 21 st if not appealed.
III. Appeal
Although no appeal has been filed yet, staff considers the potential of an appeal.
IV. 150 -day Issuance of a Final Local Decision
11 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 ( P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005
%2(54-1) 388-6575 @cdd@deschutes .org www.deschutes.org/cd
The 1501h and final day for the County to issue a final local land use decision is August 3, 2018.
V. Board Options
Section 22.28.050 of the Deschutes County Code authorizes the Board of County Commissioners to
initiate review of any administrative action or a Hearings Body's decision within 12 days of the date
of mailing of the final written decision of the Planning Director or lower Hearings Body. The 12th day
following the mailing date of this decision falls on a Saturday, therefore, in accordance with DCC
22.08.070 an appeal must be filed no later than 5:00 PM on Monday, May 21St
Staff has included a site plan of the operation as Attachment 2. Attachment 3 is a Board Order to
initiate a de novo review of this file, should a timely appeal be filed.
Attachments:
1. Administrative Decision for File No. 247 -18 -000053 -AD
2. Site Plan
3. Board Order to Initiate Review
Page 2 of 2
APPENDIX A
Requirements of an Acceptable Driving Record
A -- ,.v ('—,;..r;...,
Violation
Class
Year 1
Point
Value
Year 2
Point Value
Year 3
Point Value
Year 4
Point Value
Year 5
Point Value
Year 6 Point
Value
Year 7+ Point
Value
A (VA)
10
9
8
7
6
5
0
B (VB)
7
6
5
4
3
2
0
C (VC)
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
D (VD)
4
3
2
1
0
0
0
Misdemeanor
Class
Year 1
Point Value
Year 2
Point Value
Year 3
Point Value
Year 4
Point Value
Year 5
Point Value
Year 6
Point
Value
Year 7+
Point
Value
A (MA)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
B (MB)
30
25
20
15
12
6
0
C (MC)
25
20
15
12
10
0
0
Felony
Class
Year 1-5
Point Value
Years 6 - 8
Point Value
Year 8 – 10 Point
Value
Year 10+ Point Value
A (FA)
Unacceptable
20
10
5
B (FB)
Unacceptable
18
9
0
C (FC)
Unacceptable
16
8
0
Suspensions and Revocations
Driving is prohibited under a current suspension or revocation
of driving privileges. Two or more suspensions within a five
year period will be reviewed by Risk Management and
supervising department. See Policy No. RM -1 for more
information.
Accidents
Two or more accidents within a five year period will be
reviewed by Risk Management, supervising department and/or
an Accident Review Committee. See Policy No. RM -1 for
more information.
RATING:
0-15 = ACCEPTABLE
16-20 = PROBATION
21+ = UNACCEPTABLE
Risk Management representatives are available to assist departments in evaluating driving records.
Policy # RM -1, Driving on County BusinessNehicle Operator Standards Page 7
FILE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
OWNER:
PLANNER:
Community Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division
P,O, Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005
Phone: (541) 388-6575 Fax: (541) 385-1764
http://w%.w�k. d e s ch ute s, o rg/cd
FINDINGS & DECISION
247 -18 -000053 -AD
Oregrown Industries, Inc.
K & P Enterprises 2 LLC
Blackmore Planning and Development Services, LLC
REQUEST: Modification of the approved Administrative Determination
247-16-000709 - AD to relocate the new greenhouse Building
Envelope area, structure type, and odor control method. The
request is intended to improve building design and location, and
allow for a state-of-the-art odor control method. The proposal
does not modify the processing approval (247 -16 -000710 -SP /
728 -AD) or production within the previously approved existing
building and greenhouse.
LOCATION: The subject property is located at 64575 Mock Road, Bend and
is identified on Deschutes County Assessor's Map No. 16-11-35
as tax lot 2000.
STAFF CONTACT: Will Groves, Senior Planner, (541) 388-6518,
willg@deschutes.org
I. APPLICABLE CRITERIA
Deschutes County Code (DCC):
Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones
Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions
Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance
Quality Services 13er vwm ed with Pride
II. BASIC FINDINGS
A. Location: The subject property is located at 64575 Mock Road, Bend and is identified on
Deschutes County Assessor's Map No. 16-11-35 as tax lot 2000.
B. Lot of Record: The subject property is Parcel 1 or Partition Plat PP2004-8; through
past Deschutes County Land Use Decisions has been determined to be a Lot of
Record.
C. Zoning: The property is zoned Exclusive Farm Use - TRB subzone (EFU-TRB) and
Surface Mining Impact Area Combining Zone (SMIA).
D. Proposal: The applicant requests Modification of the approved Administrative
Determination 247-16-000709 - AD to relocate the new greenhouse Building
Envelope area, structure type, and odor control method. The request is intended to
improve building design and location, and allow for a state-of-the-art odor control
method. The proposal does not modify the processing approval (247 -16 -000710 -SP 1
728 -AD) or production within the previously approved existing building and
greenhouse.
Staff notes that this application is not a Modification of Approval under DCC 22.36.040
and is not subject to those criteria. Staff also notes that this proposal supersedes the
prior approval with regard to new greenhouse location and odor control method.
E. Site Description: The subject property is approximately 83.79 acres in size, with an
irrigation ditch running through the northwest quadrant. The property is developed
with a number of agricultural buildings, a green house, accessory buildings, and
sheds. The majority of the existing 11,822 square foot building and existing
greenhouse are used for marijuana production, authorized by the Deschutes County
approval issued on February 16, 2017. A 900 square foot area of the 11,822 square
foot building and the 1,000 square foot building in the southeast quadrant have been
approved for marijuana processing, by the February 16, 2017 Deschutes County
decision. The adjacent machine shed supports the site activities. The other buildings
and structures on the site have previously been used in support of goat farming
activities, and are currently unused.
247 -18 -000053 -AD Page 2 of 22
F. Public Agency Comments: The Planning Division mailed a Notice of Application and
received comments from the following agencies:
Bend Fire Department:
FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS:
• Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building
or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The
fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this section and shall
extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and al/ portions of the exterior walls
of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of
the building or facility. 2014 OFC 503.1.1
• Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the
imposed loads of fire apparatus (60,000 pounds GVW) and shall be surfaced (asphalt,
concrete or other approved driving surface) as to provide all weather driving capabilities.
Inside and outside turning radius shall be approved by the fire department. All dead-end
turnarounds shall be of an approved design. Bridges and elevated surfaces shall be
constructed in accordance with AASHTO HB -17. The maximum grade of fire apparatus
access roads shall not exceed 10 percent. Fire apparatus access road gates with electric
gate operators shall be listed in accordance with UL325. Gates intended for automatic
operation shall be designed, constructed and installed to comply with the requirements of
ASTM F 2200. A Knox® Key Switch shall be installed at all electronic gates. 2014 OFC
D102.1, 503.2.4,
FIRE PROTECTION WATER SUPPLIES:
247 -18 -000053 -AD Page 3 of 22
• An approved water supply capable of supplying the required fire flow for fire
protection shall be provided to premises upon which facilities, buildings or portions of
buildings are hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction.
Tumalo Irrigation District:
This letter is to confirm that there are 10.00 total acres of water rights appurtenant to the
above referenced property, delivered by Tumalo Irrigation District. Please see the enclosed
aerial map that shows the footprint of where these water rights are mapped. The water
right footprint cannot cover any building or other areas that you cannot water, such as a
driveway or marijuana processing facility. The only buildings that can be covered with the
irrigation water right footprints are buildings that will be used for growing crops. Land -
user must allow TID annual access to the structure to document beneficial use of the water
right. Structures on top of a water right for any purpose other than growing plants is not
allowed. If a water transfer is needed to correct this, the cost is $1,406.00, and the new
location must be beneficially used in the year in which the transfer takes place. In the State
of Oregon the irrigation of marijuana is considered a beneficial use for the Districts water
rights. Water rights may only be used during the official irrigation season as documented
in certificates 74L46 and 74'1.47, issued by the State of Oregon. Tumalo Irrigation District
s water right certificates, 74146 artd74'1-47, allow use from April L to Nov L. Outside of this
time frame, Tumalo Irrigation District water rights cannot be used for irrigation. Those
wishing to grow outside of the specified irrigation season must find alternate sources, such
as water hauling or a well water right issued by the State. This property is encumbered with
an easement operated by Tumalo Irrigation District, for the Tumalo Irrigation Districts
Tellin Lateral Canal. This easement includes the width of the canal and 50' in all directions,
from the marginal edge of the canal. For more information please call our District office.
Deschutes County Building Division:
The Deschutes County Building Safety Divisions code required Access, Egress, Setback, Fire
& Life Safety Fire Fighting Water Supplies, etc. will be specifically addressed during the plan
review process for any proposed structures and occupancies. All Building Code required
items will be addressed, when a specific structure, occupancy, and type of construction is
proposed and submitted for plan review.
Deschutes County Senior Transportation Planner Peter Russell:
I have reviewed the transmittal materials for 247 -18 -000053 -AD to modify a marijuana
production (growing) operation approved under 247-16-000709-AD/710-SP/728AD in the
Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zone at 64575 Mock Road, aka 16-11-35, Tax Lot 2000. The
modification would relocate the building envelope for a new greenhouse(s) and well as
change the structure type and odor control method.
Deschutes County Code (DCC) at 18.116.330(B)(8) only requires proof of legal direct access
to the property or access from a private easement for a grow of more than 5,000 square
247 -18 -000053 -AD Page 4 of 22
feet of mature canopy. The access was dealt with in the previously approved proposal.
Staff understands the modification only changes the location of the envelope for future
buildings for marijuana production, but does not change the total square footage of those
buildings. The applicant should submit additional information on this topic, either
confirming staffs understanding of the issue or providing the new total square footage of
the buildings used in production if there is a change. If there is a change in the square
footage related to marijuana production, the SDC amount described below will need to be
modified.
Board Resolution 2013-020 sets an SDC rate of $3,937 per p.m. peak hour trip. The
Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation manual indicates Warehouse generates
0.32 p.m. peak hour trips per 1,000 square feet. The Board in a policy decision in early
2017 agreed to use Warehouse for marijuana production. The previously approved
application (247-16-000709-AD/710-SP/728-AD) had an SDC of $37,778. County records
indicate this amount has not been paid and is past due. Payment of the SDC (the full
amount or a signed and recorded agreement for a 10 year payment plan as permitted
under Board Resolution 2013-020, Section 5 and DCC 15.12.060) should be made a
condition of approval of this application. As this land use does not alter the square footage
used in marijuana production, there is no SDC for this application. The overdue SDC is due
prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy; if a certificate of occupancy is not applicable,
then the SDC is due within 60 days of the land use decision becoming final.
The following agencies either had no comment or did not respond to the notice:
Central Electric Co-op, Oregon Liquor Control Commission, and Watermaster -
District 11.
G. Public Comments: The Planning Division mailed a written notice of this action to
property owners within 750 feet of the subject property on January 29, 2018. Only
requests for additional information without comment were received.
H. Review Period: This application was submitted on January 18, 2018. The application
was accepted and deemed complete on February 17, 2018. The applicant tolled the
clock for 17 days. Therefore, the 150th day on which the County must take final action
on this application is August 3, 2018. The applicant has also complied with the posted
notice requirements of Section 22.23.030(B) of Title 22. The applicant has submitted
photo evidence that the applicant posted notice of the land use action on April 3,
2018.
J. LAND USE HISTORY: The subject property was created as Parcel 1 of Minor Land
Partition No. 2004-8. Prior to farm use and/or medical marijuana production and
processing use of the property, site plan review SP -93-127 approved the expansion
of surface mining onto the property. In 2002, Zone Change file no. ZC-02-4 was
approved, which changed the zoning from surface mining to Exclusive Farm Use
247 -18 -000053 -AD Page 5 of 22
(EFU). Since that time, the property has been used as a goat farm, a medical
marijuana production and processing facility, and on February 16, 2017 the County
approved recreational marijuana production and processing uses on the site, Files
247 -16 -000709 -AD / 710 -SP / 728 -AD.
The current proposal is not for a new use, but rather only to relocate the Building
Envelope area and improve the building design, along with an enhancement to the
odor control plan for the relocated Building Envelope area. The request is intended
to enhance building design and location, and allow for a state-of-the-art odor control
method. The proposal does not modify the processing approval (247-16-000710 - SP
/ 728 - AD) on the site or production within the existing building and greenhouse.
111. FINDINGS
A. Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones
Section 18 16 020. Use Permitted Outright.
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright.
S. Marijuana production, subject to the provisions of DCC 18.116.330.
FINDING: The proposal modifies the location of the new greenhouse Building Envelope and
odor control method, but does not modify the approved marijuana production use of the
property, which is subject to the provisions of DCC 18.116.330. A complete review of the
applicable provisions of DCC 18.116.330 is included below.
2. 18.16.060. Dimensional Standards.
E. Building height. No building or structure shall be erected or enlarged to
exceed 30 feet in height, except as allowed under DCC 18.120.040.
FINDING: The applicant proposes to use greenhouses for marijuana production. The
proposed greenhouse are less than 30 feet in height; the exact design of the new
greenhouses will be determined in association with subsequent building permit review(s).
All greenhouses will be located within the identified Building Envelope area and no new
greenhouse will be erected or enlarged to exceed 30 feet.
Building Height: No building or structure shall be erected or enlarged to exceed 30 feet in
height, except as allowed under DCC 18.120.040.
247 -18 -000053 -AD Page 6 of 22
3. Section 18.16.070. Yards.
A. The front yard shall be a minimum of.• 40 feet from a property line fronting on a
local street, 60 feet from a property line fronting on a collector street, and 900
feet from a property line fronting on an arterial street.
FINDING: The property abuts Mock Road, a local street. As shown on the Site Plan, the
revised Building Envelope area will be located over 40 feet from the front property line, which
conforms to this standard.
B. Each side yard shall be a minimum of 25 feet, except that for a nonfarm
dwelling proposed on property with side yards adjacent to property currently
employed in farm use, and receiving special assessment for farm use, the
side yard shall be a minimum of 100 feet.
FINDING: The proposal is not for a non-farm dwelling, therefore this section establishes a
25 -foot side yard setback requirement. As shown on the Site Plan, the revised Building
Envelope area will be located over 25 feet from the side property lines, thus in conformance
with this standard.
C. Rear yards shall be a minimum of 25 feet, except that for a nonfarm dwelling
proposed on property with a rear yard adjacent to property currently
employed in farm use, and receiving special assessment for farm use, the
rear yard shall be a minimum of 100 feet.
FINDING: The proposal is not for a non-farm dwelling, therefore this section establishes a
25 -foot rear yard setback requirement. As shown on the Site Plan, the revised Building
Envelope area will be located over 25 feet from the rear property line, thus in conformance
with this standard.
D. In addition to the setbacks set forth herein, any greater setbacks required by
applicable building or structural codes adopted by the State of Oregon
and/or the County under DCC 15.04 shall be met.
FINDING: No additional required setbacks have been identified in the record.
B. Chapter 18.56 Surface Mining Impact Area Combining Zone - SMIA
Section 18.56.020. Location.
The SMIA zone shall apply to all property located within one-half mile of the
boundary of a surface mining zone. However, the SMIA zone shall not apply to any
247 -18 -000053 -AD Page 7 of 22
property located within an urban growth boundary, city or other county. The extent
and location of the SMIA Zone shall be designated at the time the adjacent surface
mining zone is designated.
FINDING: Surface mine site no. 357, the surface mine associated with the SMIA zone in this
area, has been reclaimed. Therefore, the provisions of this chapter are not applicable.
C. Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions
Section 18.116.330, Marijuana Production Processing, and Retailing.
A. Applicability. Section 18.116.330 applies to:
1. Marijuana Production in the EFU, MUA-10, and RI zones.
2. Marijuana Processing in the EFU, MUA-10, TeC, TeCR, TuC, Tul, Rl, and
SUBP zones
3. Marijuana Retailing in the RSC, TeC, TeCR, TuC, Tut, RC, Rl, SUC, SUTC,
and SUBP zones.
4. Marijuana Wholesaling in the RSC, TeC, TeCR, TuC, RC, SUC, and SUBP
zones.
FINDING: The applicant has proposed Marijuana Production in the EFU zone. This section
applies.
B. Marijuana production and marijuana processing. Marijuana production and
marijuana processing shall be subject to the following standards and criteria:
1. Minimum Lot Area.
a. In the EFU and MUA-10 zones, the subject legal lot of record
shall have a minimum lot area of five (5) acres.
FINDING: The subject property is located within the EFU zone and it is a legal lot of record.
According to this section the minimum lot area is required to be at least 5 acres. The subject
property is 83.79 acres in size, well in excess of 5 acres and in conformance with this
requirement.
2. Indoor Production and Processing.
b. In the EFU zone, marijuana production and processing shall
only be located in buildings, including greenhouses, hoop
houses, and similar structures.
C. In all zones, marijuana production and processing are
prohibited in any outdoor area.
247 -18 -000053 -AD Page 8 of 22
FINDING: The subject property is located within the EFU zone. With the revised Building
Envelope location, production will still be located within greenhouses. Outdoor production
and/or processing is not proposed; therefore the proposal conforms to this section.
No Outdoor Production: Marijuana production is prohibited in any outdoor area.
3. Maximum Mature Plant Canopy Size. In the EFU zone, the maximum
canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall apply as follows:
a. Parcels from 5 acres to less than 10 acres in lot area: 2,500
square feet.
b. Parcels equal to or greater than 10 acres to less than 20 acres
in lot area: 5,000 square feet. The maximum canopy area for
mature marijuana plants may be increased to 10,000 square
feet upon demonstration by the applicant to the County that:
L The marijuana production operation was lawfully
established prior to January 1, 2015; and
ii. The increased mature marijuana plant canopy area will
not generate adverse impact of visual, odor, noise,
lighting, privacy or access greater than the impacts
associated with a 5,000 square foot canopy area
operation.
C. Parcels equal to or greater than 20 acres to less than 40 acres
in lot area: 10,000 square feet.
d. Parcels equal to or greater than 40 acres to less than 60 acres
in lot area: 20,000 square feet.
e. Parcels equal to or greater than 60 acres in lot area: 40,000
square feet.
FINDING: The subject property, located within the EFU zone, is 83.79 acres in size, thus this
standard allows a maximum mature plan canopy size of 40,000 square feet. While the
location of the new greenhouse building envelope is proposed to be relocated, overall the
site will continue to accommodate no more than 40,000 square feet of mature canopy area,
in accordance with this section.
Maximum Mature Plant Canopy Size: The maximum canopy area for mature marijuana
plants shall not exceed 40,000 square feet at any time.
4. Maximum Building Floor Area. in the MUA-10 zone, the maximum
building floor area used for all activities associated with marijuana
production and processing on the subject property shall be:
a. Parcels from 5 acres to less than 10 acres in lot area: 2,500
square feet.
b. Parcels equal to or greater than 10 acres: 5,000 square feet.
247 -18 -000053 -AD Page 9 of 22
FINDING: The subject property is not located in the MUA-10 Zone. This criterion does not
apply.
5. Limitation on License/Grow Site per Parcel. No more than one (1)
Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) licensed marijuana
production or Oregon Health Authority (OHA) registered medical
marijuana grow site shall be allowed per legal parcel or lot.
FINDING: The applicant will have no more than one OLCC or OHA marijuana grow site
license at any one time, which conforms to this standard.
6. Setbacks. The following setbacks shall apply to all marijuana
production and processing areas and buildings:
a. Minimum Yard Setback/Distance from Lot Lines: 100 feet.
FINDING: The revised Building Envelope area is shown on the submitted Plot Plan. The
revised new greenhouse Building Envelope area is over 100 feet from any property line,
which conforms to this standard.
b. Setback from an off-site dwelling. 300 feet.
For the purposes of this criterion, an off-site dwelling includes
those proposed off-site dwellings with a building permit
application submitted to Deschutes County prior to submission
of the marijuana production or processing application to
Deschutes County.
C. Exception: Any reduction to these setback requirements may
be granted by the Planning Director or Hearings Body provided
the applicant demonstrates the reduced setbacks afford equal
or greater mitigation of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy,
and access impacts.
FINDING: The Site Plan documents that the distance to the nearest offsite dwelling is 840
feet, which is in excess of 300 feet and in conformance with this standard. No exceptions
are proposed.
7. Separation Distances. Minimum separation distances shall apply as
follows:
a. The use shall be located a minimum of 1000 feet from:
i. A public elementary or secondary school for which
attendance is compulsory under Oregon Revised
Statutes 339.010, et seq., including any parking lot
247 -18 -000053 -AD Page 10 of 22
appurtenant thereto and any property used by the
school,
ii. A private or parochial elementary or secondary school,
teaching children as described in ORS 339.030(1)(a),
including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any
property used by the school,
iii. A licensed child care center or licensed preschool,
including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any
property used by the child care center or preschool. This
does not include licensed or unlicensed child care which
occurs at or in residential structures,
iv. A youth activity center, and
V. National monuments and state parks.
b. For purposes of DCC 18.116.330(8)(7), all distances shall be
measured from the lot line of the affected properties listed in
DCC 18.116.330(B)(7)(a) to the closest point of the buildings and
land area occupied by the marijuana producer or marijuana
processor.
C. A change in use of another property to those identified in DCC
18.116.330(8)(7) shall not result in the marijuana producer or
marijuana processor being in violation of DCC 18.116.330(8)(7)
if the use is:
i. Pending a local land use decision;
ii. Licensed or registered by the State of Oregon; or
iii. Lawfully established.
FINDING: The Site Plan includes 1,000 -foot buffer from the corners of each of the revised
new greenhouse Building Envelope area, documenting the extent of the area that could be
used for marijuana production as part of this proposal. As documented on the Site Plan, this
buffer area extends into 6 tax lots (2 to the north, 3 to the south, and 1 to the east). None of
these properties have received approval for any of the uses that require 1,000 -foot
separation. Therefore, the proposal complies with this section.
8. Access. Marijuana production over 5,000 square feet of canopy area
for mature marijuana plants shall comply with the following
standards.
a. Have frontage on and legal direct access from a constructed
public, county, or state road; or
b. Have access from a private road or easement serving only the
subject property.
C. If the property takes access via a private road or easement
which also serves other properties, the applicant shall obtain
written consent to utilize the easement or private road for
247 -18 -000053 -AD Page 11 of 22
marijuana production access from all owners who have access
rights to the private road or easement. The written consent
shall.-
i.
hall.i. Be on a form provided by the County and shall contain
the following information;
ii. Include notarized signatures of all owners, persons and
properties holding a recorded interest in the private
road or easement,
iii. Include a description of the proposed marijuana
production or marijuana processing operation; and
iv. Include a legal description of the private road or
easement.
FINDING: The marijuana production use is planned to have over 5,000 square feet of canopy
area; therefore these standards apply. The property has frontage and direct access onto
Mock Road, a constructed County road. Therefore the proposal conforms to these
standards.
9. Lighting. Lighting shall be regulated as follows:
a. Inside building lighting, including greenhouses, hoop houses,
and similar structures, used for marijuana production shall not
be visible outside the building from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on
the following day.
b. Lighting fixtures shall be fully shielded in such a manner that
all light emitted directly by the lamp or a diffusing element, or
indirectly by reflection or refraction, is projected below the
horizontal plane through the lowest light -emitting part.
C. Light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana grow
lights shall comply with DCC 15. 10, Outdoor Lighting Control.
FINDING: While the proposal modifies the location of the "Building Envelope" for the new
greenhouses, it does not alter the approved lighting method, which is natural lighting for
growing operations, and will also include grow lighting. Grow lighting in the greenhouses is
proposed to be limited to the hours of 7:00 am - 7:00 p.m., in accordance with this section.
The grow lighting will be shielded and only project below the horizontal plane of the lowest
light emitting part, in accordance with this section.
Staff finds these criteria will be met and adds the following condition to ensure compliance
with the requirements of this section.
Lighting: The following lighting standards shall be met: (a) Inside building lighting, including
greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar structures, used for marijuana production shall not
be visible outside the building from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the following day; (b) Lighting
247 -18 -000053 -AD Page 12 of 22
fixtures shall be fully shielded in such a manner that all light emitted directly by the lamp or
a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction, is projected below the horizontal
plane through the lowest light -emitting part; and (c) The light cast by exterior light fixtures
other than marijuana growing lights shall comply with DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control.
10. Odor. As used in DCC 18.116.330(8)(10), building means the building,
including greenhouses, hoop houses, and other similar structures,
used for marijuana production or marijuana processing.
a. The building shall be equipped with an effective odor control
system which must at all times prevent unreasonable
interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property.
b. An odor control system is deemed permitted only after the
applicant submits a report by a mechanical engineer licensed
in the State of Oregon demonstrating that the system will
control odor so as not to unreasonably interfere with
neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property.
C. Private actions alleging nuisance or trespass associated with
odor impacts are authorized, if at all, as provided in applicable
state statute.
d. The odor control system shall.
L Consist of one or more fans. The fan(s) shall be sized for
cubic feet per minute (CFM) equivalent to the volume of
the building (length multiplied by width multiplied by
height) divided by three. The filter(s) shall be rated for
the required CFM; or
ii. Utilize an alternative method or technology to achieve
equal to or greater odor mitigation than provided by (i)
above.
e. The system shall be maintained in working order and
shall be in use.
FINDING: The applicant submitted a site-specific report prepared by Oregon -licensed
Mechanical Engineer Rob James, PE of ColeBreit Engineering. The report states:
For odor control at the greenhouse farm, NCM Environmental Solutions will
provide a perimeter odor neutralization system, as described in the attached
proposal letter. Briefly, the system detects wind direction and applies the odor
neutralizer where and when needed. This type of odor control technology has
been effectively applied in many project for both cannabis and other types of
projects around the country (such as garbage dumps/landfills). Please refer to
the NCM proposal for more details,
NCM Environmental Solutions proposal states:
247 -18 -000053 -AD Page 13 of 22
Client contacted NCM Environmental Solutions to design an odor
management plan detailing steps that will be taken to ensure that the odor of
marijuana (cannabis) will not emanate beyond the property line of the facility,
including as necessary the installation and use of an odor control dispersion
system. NCM specializes in odor control. Our parent company has over 25
years' experience in designing and manufacturing odor control neutralizers at
our manufacturing plant. Our neutralizer has two active parts of the product
that play key roles in the neutralization of the malodors, fragrance and
Metazene®. Metazene® is an odor neutralizing compound that directly
interacts with malodors. Typical malodors, such as 'cannabis', 'fishy', 'putrid',
or'rancid', are made up of highly volatile aromatic compounds, meaning they
tend to be the first aromas that you smell. Metazene® reacts with these
compounds to form a complex ion that acts like a net to surround and
envelopes the malodor. This complex ion becomes 'heavy' and less volatile
resulting in the neutralization of the malodor. The fragrance is an odor
masker. It is made up of various essential oils and nature identical aroma
chemicals as well as some solvents to increase tenacity and longevity. NCM
also custom designs, installs and services odor control dispersion systems
designed to disperse our neutralizer & neutralize odors before they become a
nuisance. In addition to manufacturing neutralizers and delivery systems NCM
offers modeling & consulting services to evaluate the localized impacts of
odors generated at cannabis growing operations as well as dispensaries and
facilities handling cannabis.
By implanting the proposed modeling services, odor control system and
neutralizer regrown will ensure that it is taking state of the art measures once
only available in the waste industry to identify the dispersion of odors and
implement the best practices to neutralize them.
Staff notes that the NCM Environmental Solutions proposal includes site-specific figures.
Staff finds these criteria will be met when the applicants install the odor control systems as
specified in the mechanical engineer's report, and adds the following condition to ensure
ongoing compliance with the requirements of this section.
Odor: The proposed odor control system must at all times prevent unreasonable
interference with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. The odor control system
shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use.
11. Noise. Noise produced by marijuana production and marijuana
processing shall comply with the following.
247 -18 -000053 -AD Page 14 of 22
a. Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating,
ventilation, air condition, odor control, fans and similar
functions shall not exceed 30 d8(A) measured at any property
line between 10:00 p.m. and 7.00 a.m. the following day.
b. Sustained noise from marijuana production is exempt from
protections of DCC 9.12 and ORS 30.395, Right to Farm.
Intermittent noise for accepted farming practices is permitted.
FINDING: The applicant submitted a site-specific report prepared by Oregon -licensed
Mechanical Engineer Rob James, PE of ColeBreit Engineering. The report states the applicants
will use interior propane -fired heater units that will not be audible from outside the building.
The applicant will use an in-line fan that will be located inside the greenhouse and will not
generate noise outside the building. The odor control system will also not generate any off-
site noise.
Staff finds these criteria will be met when the applicants install the mechanical equipment
as specified in the mechanical engineer's report, and adds the following condition to ensure
ongoing compliance with the noise requirements of this section.
Noise: Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air
conditioning, odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at
any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day.
12. Screening and Fencing. The following screening standards shall
apply to greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar non -rigid
structures and land areas used for marijuana production and
processing.
a. Subject to DCC 18.84, Landscape Management
Combining Zone approval, if applicable.
b. Fencing shall be finished in a muted earth tone that
blends with the surrounding natural landscape and
shall not be constructed of temporary materials such as
plastic sheeting, hay bales, tarps, etc., and shall be
subject to DCC 18.88, Wildlife Area Combining Zone, if
applicable.
C. Razor wire, or similar, shall be obscured from view or
colored a muted earth tone that blends with the
surrounding natural landscape.
d. The existing tree and shrub cover screening the
development from the public right-of-way or adjacent
properties shall be retained to the maximum extent
possible. This provision does not prohibit maintenance
of existing lawns, removal of dead, diseased or
247 -18 -000053 -AD Page 15 of 22
hazardous vegetation; the commercial harvest of forest
products in accordance with the Oregon Forest
Practices Act, or agricultural use of the land.
FINDING: The subject property is not located within a Landscape Management Combining
Zone. No new fencing is proposed. No razor wire or similar fencing is proposed. The revised
new greenhouse Building Envelope area is in an area that does not have any trees, and very
limited shrub cover. As proposed, the tree and shrub covering will be retained on the site,
in conformance with this standard.
Staff finds these standards can be met and adds the following condition to ensure
compliance with the requirements of this section.
Fencing: Fencing shall be finished in a muted earth tone that blends with the surrounding
natural landscape and shall not be constructed of temporary materials such as plastic
sheeting, hay bales, tarps, etc.
13. Water. The applicant shall provide:
a. A copy of a water right permit, certificate, or other
water use authorization from the Oregon Water
Resource Department; or
b. A statement that water is supplied from a public or
private water provider, along with the name and
contact information of the water provider, or
C. Proof from the Oregon Water Resources Department
that the water to be used is from a source that does not
require a water right.
FINDING: Submitted as an exhibit to the application materials is proof of water rights that
document conformance with this section.
Water: The use of water from any source for marijuana production shall comply with all
applicable state statutes and regulations including ORS 537.545 and OAR 690-340-0010.
14. Fire protection for processing of cannabinoid extracts.
Processing of cannabinoid extracts shall only be permitted on
properties located within the boundaries of or under contract
with afire protection district.
FINDING: No new processing is proposed. This section does not apply. However, the
property is within the boundaries of the Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection District #2,
thus in accordance with this standard.
247 -18 -000053 -AD Page 16 of 22
15. Utility Verification. A statement from each utility company
proposed to serve the operation, stating that each such
company is able and willing to serve the operation, shall be
provided.
FINDING: The applicant submitted a "will serve" letter from the Central Electric Cooperative
(CEC) datedJune 14, 2017, including information identifying the use as marijuana production
and that the electrical load can be provided for. The letter from CEC states:
In response to your Inquiry, please be advised that property located In T. 165., R.1 1E., W.M.,
Section 35, Tax Lot 2000, Deschutes County, Oregon, is within the service area of Central
Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Central Electric Cooperative has reviewed the provided load information (Existing 1,200
amp Three phase 480 volt service) associated with the submitted Cannabis Grow
Facility and is willing and able to serve this location in accordance with the rates and
policies of Central Electric Cooperative
This is the only utility the proposal will utilize besides water, which is addressed above. This
criterion is met.
16. Security Cameras. if security cameras are used, they shall be
directed to record only the subject property and public rights-
of-way, except as required to comply with requirements of the
OLCC or the OHA.
FINDING: The site will use security cameras. The site will have an OLCC compliant security
system, which will only record activity on the subject property as required by OLCC, and in
accordance with this section.
Security Cameras: Security cameras shall be directed to record only the subject property and
public rights-of-way, except as required to comply with requirements of the OLCC.
17. Secure Waste Disposal. Marijuana waste shall be stored in a
secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the
control of the OLCC licensee or OHA Person Responsible for the
Grow Site (PRMG).
FINDING: As originally approved, a secure waste receptacle will is located at the northwest
corner of the existing production building. The secure waste receptacle will be maintained
under control of Oregrown Industries, Inc. in accordance with this requirement. No changes
are proposed at this time.
247 -18 -000053 -AD Page 17 of 22
Waste: The marijuana waste receptacle shall be stored within the limited access areas within
the production buildings, and shall be in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC
licensee.
18. Residency. In the MUA-10 zone, a minimum of one of the
following shall reside in a dwelling unit on the subject property:
a. An owner of the subject property;
b. A holder of an OLCC license for marijuana production,
provided that the license applies to the subject
property, or
C. A person registered with the OHA as a person
designated to produce marijuana by a registry
identification cardholder, provided that the registration
applies to the subject property.
FINDING: The subject property is not in the MUM 0 zone. This section does not apply.
19. Nonconformance. All medical marijuana grow sites lawfully
established prior to June 8, 2016 by the Oregon Health
Authority shall comply with the provisions of DCC
18.116.330(8)(9) by September 8, 2016 and with the provisions
of DCC 18.116.330(B)(10-12, 16, 17) by December 8, 2016.
FINDING: A medical marijuana grow site was lawfully established on the property prior to
June 8, 2016 by the Oregon Health Authority. However, this proposal does not rely on or
continue the non -conforming medical marijuana use.
20. Prohibited Uses.
a. In the EFU zone, the following uses are prohibited:
i. A new dwelling used in conjunction with a
marijuana crop;
ii. A farm stand, as described in ORS 215.213(1)(r) or
215.283(1)(0), used in conjunction with a
marijuana crop,
iii. A commercial activity, as described in ORS
215.213(2)(c) or 215.283(2)(a), carried on in
conjunction a marijuana crop; and
iv. Agri -tourism and other commercial events and
activities in conjunction with a marijuana crop.
C. In the EFU, MUA-10, and Rural Industrial zones, the
following uses are prohibited on the same property as
marijuana production:
247 -18 -000053 -AD Page 18 of 22
i. Guest Lodge.
ii. Guest Ranch.
iii. Dude Ranch.
iv. Destination Resort.
V. Public Parks.
vi. Private Parks.
vii. Events, Mass Gatherings and Outdoor Mass
Gatherings.
viii. Bed and Breakfast.
ix. Room and Board Arrangements.
FINDING: None of the prohibited uses have been proposed by the applicant. Staff adds the
following condition to ensure ongoing compliance with the requirements of this section.
Prohibited Uses: The uses listed in DCC 18.116.330(B)(20) shall be prohibited on the subject
property so long as marijuana production is conducted on the site.
D. Annual Reporting
1. An annual report shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department by the real property owner or licensee, if different, each
February 1, documenting all of the following as of December 31 of the
previous year, including the applicable fee as adopted in the current
County Fee Schedule and a fully executed Consent to Inspect Premises
form:
a. Documentation demonstrating compliance with the:
i. Land use decision and permits.
ii. Fire, health, safety, waste water, and building codes and
laws.
iii. State of Oregon licensing requirements.
b. Failure to timely submit the annual report, fee, and Consent to
Inspect Premises form or to demonstrate compliance with DCC
18.116.330(C)(1)(a) shall serve as acknowledgement by the real
property owner and licensee that the otherwise allowed use is
not in compliance with Deschutes County Code, authorizes
permit revocation under DCC Title 22, and may be relied upon
by the State of Oregon to deny new or license renewal(s) for
the subject use.
C. Other information as may be reasonably required by the
Planning Director to ensure compliance with Deschutes County
Code, applicable State regulations, and to protect the public
health, safety, and welfare.
d. Marijuana Control Plan to be established and maintained by
the Community Development Department.
247 -18 -000053 -AD Page 19 of 22
e. Conditions of Approval Agreement to be established and
maintained by the Community Development Department.
f. This information shall be public record subject to ORS
192.502(17).
FINDING: Compliance with the annual reporting obligation of this section is required. The
applicant has agreed to file the annual report each year in a timely manner. Staff adds the
following condition to ensure compliance with the requirements of this section.
Annual Reporting: The annual reporting requirements of DCC 18.116.330(D) shall be met.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing Findings, staff finds that the proposed marijuana production facility
can comply with the applicable standards and criteria of the Deschutes County zoning
ordinance if conditions of approval are met.
V. DECISION
APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions of approval.
VI. ONGOING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Use & Location: Marijuana production is conditionally approved inside the two
approved structures. This approval is based upon the application, site plan,
specifications, and supporting documentation submitted by the applicant. Any
substantial change in this approved use will require review through a new land use
application.
2. Building Height: No building or structure, including greenhouses, shall be erected or
enlarged to exceed 30 feet in height, except as allowed under DCC 18.120.040.
3. No Outdoor Production: Marijuana production is prohibited in any outdoor area.
4. Maximum Mature Plant Canopy Size: The maximum canopy area for mature
marijuana plants shall not exceed 40,000 square feet at any time.
247 -18 -000053 -AD Page 20 of 22
S. Lighting: The following lighting standards shall be met.
a. Inside building lighting used for marijuana production shall not be visible outside
the building from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the following day.
b. Lighting fixtures shall be fully shielded in such a manner that all light emitted
directly by the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction,
is projected below the horizontal plane through the lowest light -emitting part.
c. The light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana growing lights shall
comply with DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control.
6. Odor: The proposed odor control system must at all times prevent unreasonable
interference with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. The odor control
system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use.
7. Noise: Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air
conditioning, odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A)
measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day.
8. Fencing: Fencing shall be finished in a muted earth tone that blends with the
surrounding natural landscape and shall not be constructed of temporary materials
such as plastic sheeting, hay bales, tarps, etc.
9. Water: The use of water from any source for marijuana production shall comply with
all applicable state statutes and regulations including ORS 537.545 and OAR 690-340-
0010.
10. Security Cameras: Security cameras shall be directed to record only the subject
property and public rights-of-way, except as required to comply with requirements of
the OLCC.
11. Waste: The marijuana waste receptacle shall be stored within the limited access areas
within the production buildings, and shall be in the possession of and under the
control of the OLCC licensee.
12. Prohibited Uses: The uses listed in DCC 18.116.330(B)(20) shall be prohibited on the
subject property so long as marijuana production is conducted on the site.
13. Annual Reporting: The annual reporting requirements of DCC 18.116.330(D) shall be
met.
An annual report shall be submitted to the Community Development Department by
the real property owner or licensee, if different, each February 1, documenting all of
the following as of December 31 of the previous year, including the applicable fee as
adopted in the current County Fee Schedule and a fully executed Consent to Inspect
Premises form:
247 -18 -000053 -AD Page 21 of 22
a. Documentation demonstrating compliance with the:
i. Land use decision and permits.
ii. Fire, health, safety, waste water, and building codes and laws.
iii. State of Oregon licensing requirements.
b. Failure to timely submit the annual report, fee, and Consent to Inspect
Premises form or to demonstrate compliance with DCC 18.116.330(C)(1)(a)
shall serve as acknowledgement by the real property owner and licensee that
the otherwise allowed use is not in compliance with Deschutes County Code;
authorizes permit revocation under DCC Title 22, and may be relied upon by
the State of Oregon to deny new or license renewal(s) for the subject use.
C. Other information as may be reasonably required by the Planning Director to
ensure compliance with Deschutes County Code, applicable State regulations,
and to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
VII. DURATION OF APPROVAL:
The applicant shall complete all conditions of approval and obtain building permits for the
proposed use within two (2) years of the date this decision becomes final, or obtain an
extension of time pursuant to Section 22.36.010 of the County Code, or this approval shall
be void.
This decision becomes final twelve (12) days after the date of mailing, unless appealed
by a party of interest.
DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION
f�A�y
Written by: Will Groves, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Peter Gutowsky, Planning Manager
247 -18 -000053 -AD Page 22 of 22
0
Cr
64575 MOCK RD, BEND, OR 97701
24718000053AD
PINE I A URST RE,
0
Er
TUMLO RESERVOIR RD
2
Deschutes County GIS, Sources. Esd, USGS, NOAA
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 Work Session of May 16, 2018
DATE: May 10, 2018
FROM: Anthony Raguine, Community Development, 541-617-4739
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Consideration of Order 2018-037; KCDG/Tanager Record Objection
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:
On April 12, 2018, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) conducted a public hearing on
the proposed KCDG/Tanager projects. On May 2, 2018, the Trustees of the Bishop Family
Trust (Bishops) filed an objection to the record. A response by KCDG/Tanager was filed the
same day. On May 3, 2018, County Legal Counsel notified the parties that the Board was
suspending all time limits and deadlines associated with the written record period pending a
resolution of the Bishops' record objection. Attached is an order to not reject evidence and
testimony as requested by the Bishops and to resume the written record time limits and
deadlines. Additionally, staff attaches the Bishops' record objection request and
KCDG/Tanager's response.
ATTENDANCE: Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner; Adam Smith, Assistant Legal Counsel
From: Jennifer Braaar
To: Tony DeBone; Tammy Baney; Phil Henderson; Anthony Raguine
Cc: David Doyle
Subject: Bishop Request to Reject New Evidence - File Numbers 247 -17 -000627 -CU, -629-PA, -636-CU, -637-TP, -639-CU,
-640-SP, and -641-LM
Date: Wednesday, May 2, 2018 12:28:17 PM
Attachments: image005.ono
image006.ono
Bishop 5-2-18 Reauest to Reject New Evidence Letter PDF
Dear Chair DeBone, Commissioners, and Anthony,
Please find attached the Bishops' request to reject new evidence improperly submitted by the
applicants during the rebuttal period.
Anthony, please confirm your receipt and include this letter in all the record for all of the
applications referenced above. A hard copy will follow by overnight delivery.
Thank you for your prompt attention this matter.
Jennifer Bragar I ibragar(@tomasilegal.com
Tomasi Salyer Martin 1 121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 1850 1 Portland, Oregon 97204
Tel: 503-894-9900 1 Fax: 971-544-7236 1 gip_//www tomasile ag I com
certified
I'()MASISiNlYlI2NviARFI_N WBENC
e
. - ...,. .
.i
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential or privileged information. If you have received this
message by mistake, please do not review, disclose, copy, or distribute the e-mail. Instead, please notify us immediately by
replying to this message or telephoning us.
Tax Advice Notice: IRS Circular 230 requires us to advise you that, if this communication or any attachment contains any tax
advice, the advice is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax penalties. A taxpayer
may rely on professional advice to avoid federal tax penalties only if the advice is reflected in a comprehensive tax opinion that
conforms to stringent requirements.
Jennifer M. Bragar
Attorney
Admitted in Oregon, Washington,
and California
jbragar@tomasilegal.com
T(7MASI SALYCRMARTIN
May 2, 2018
DELIVERED BY EMAIL (with hard copy to follow by Overnight Mail)
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
117 NW Lafayette Avenue
Bend, OR 97708-6005
121 SW Morrison St, Suite 1850
Portland, Oregon 97204
Tel 503-894-9900
Fax 971-544-7236
www.tomasilegal.com
RE: Request to Reject Applicants' New Evidence on File Numbers 247 -17 -000627 -
CU, -629-PA, -636-CU, -637-TP, -639-CU, -640-SP, and -641-LM
Dear Chair DeBone and Commissioners,
As you know, this office represents Thomas and Dorbina Bishop, Trustees of the Bishop
Family Trust who reside at 63382 Fawn Lane adjacent to the subject properties. This letter is
submitted as a request to reject new evidence improperly submitted by the Applicants during the
rebuttal period. Please include this letter in the record, as the Bishops are required to raise
procedural issues to preserve the issue for appeal. Brown v. City of Portland, 33 Or LUBA 700,
704 (1997), and Frewing v. City of' Tigard, 47 Or LUBA 331 (2004) (citing the due process
protections under Fasano).
The structure of ORS 197.763(6) is to provide the opponents the last word on evidence,
while applicants are provided the last word on argument. The following new evidence submitted
by the Applicants' counsel and individual members of the LLC's on April 27, 2018 should be
rejected because the Bishops and other opponents are not provided the opportunity to respond
and all of the new evidence should have and could have been submitted during the open record
period:
April 27, 2018 Letter,froni Ken Katzaroff and Liz Fanch.er.
• Exhibit A should have and could have been submitted in the open record period;
• Exhibit D is new evidence that is irrelevant to the land use approval criteria for these
applications;
• Exhibit F, as well as factual testimony from Patrick Cole, should have and could been
submitted in the open record period;
• Exhibit G should have and could have been submitted in the open record period;
• Exhibit H should have and could have been submitted during the open record period;
• Exhibit I, pages 75-79 (referred to as Exhibit A to that letter) and the portion of the cover
letter in Exhibit I that relies on that deposition testimony should be rejected because it
should have and could have been submitted during the open record period; and
• Exhibit J should have and could have been submitted during the open record period.
TOMASI SALYER MARTIN
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
Page 2
April 27, 2018 Addendum to Rebuttal Comments from Ken Katzaroff:
• The letter and its Exhibit should have and could have been submitted in the open record
period.
Email from Eric Cadwell to the Board of County Coninissioners sent at Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at
4:55 PM:
On its face, this email states it is not addressing land use approval criteria and it should be
rejected or ignored for that reason. However, the Bishops deserve the due process right
to respond to these character assassinations and wholly unsubstantiated claims of
trespass, particularly to establish that they were out of the country when photographs that
are referred to in Mr. Cadwell's emails were taken and they did not take such
photographs.
Attached as Exhibit I is a redacted version of the April 27, 2018 Letter from Ken
Katzaroff and Liz Fancher with improper argument and reference to evidence that was
improperly submitted redacted. The original letter should be rejected, and this redacted version
accepted instead. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a redacted version of page 2 of Applicants' Exhibit I
redacting improper reference to deposition testimony. The original page 2 of Exhibit I should be
rejected and replaced with this redacted version.
Alternately, the Bishops request that the Board reopen the record to allow them to
respond to new evidence submitted.
in the absence of either of these remedies the Bishops' substantial rights will be
prejudiced because they will not have the opportunity to respond to all of the Applicants' new
evidence used to justify their proposal. Thank you for your prompt consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Jennifer M. Bragar
cc: clients
Anthony Raguine (by e-mail)
Ken Katzaroff (by e-mail)
Liz Fancher (by e-mail)
Carol Macbeth (by e-mail)
Dave Doyle (by e-mail)
B ISH OP -LU 7\0040 6474.000
.I n�1neF �
April 27, 2018
Via Nand Delivery to CDI)
Deschutes County
Board of County Commissioners
c/o Anthony Raguine
Deschutes County
Community Development: Department
117 NW Lafayette Ave.
Bend. OR 97701
Re: Applicants' Comments on Application.File Nos. 247 -17 -000636 -CU; -000639-
CU, -0006.37-TP; -000640-SP; -641-1,M; -000627-CU; -000629-PA
Dear Commissioners:
We represent Tanager Development, LLC (""Fanager") and KC Development Group LI_,C
("KCDG") in Mlle above referenced applications. The two applicants represent two, separately
approvable projects. I lowever, we provide this single letter in rebuttal to all Tiles because
opponents claim that many of the issues raised by thea apply to all applications. "They also claim
these issues merit denial of our land use applications. This is simply ,not the case. All
applications submitted by both applicants meet the relevant and applicable criteria under the
Deschutes County Code (the "Code" or "DCC "), and should, therefore, be approved.
1. Applicants' Nar-rative Has Karver Changed and is Irrelevant
In her submittal on behalf of the Bishop Family Trust ("Bishops"), Ms. Brat ar argues that the
"Developers" (presumably, KCDG), have flipped their story and so they should not get an
approval. This argument is merely noise that has no bearing oil whether the applications meet. file
relevant approval criteria. It also ignores the actual history, facts, and circumstances that
surround the current applications.
In 2014, 711) (not KCDG or Tanager) submitted a land use compatibility statement ("LUCS") to
Deschutes County which precipitated Bishops' vigorous opposition to the ponds. 'Throughout that
proceeding; it was argued that TID's primary purpose for use of the ponds was for storage and
reregula.tion. 11 was also argued that KCDG planned an ancillary use of the ponds as a recreation -
oriented facility ("ROP). The ROF use represented the primary use for KCDG, and now,
Tanager. "This remains our position. "There is nothing wrong with two different parties having two
different, primary purposes Ii>r the same ponds. This happens all of the time.
Page 1 of
EXHIBIT 1
Page 1 of 9
0
I"ANAGE1=i
A reasonable example may be the Boys & Girls Club building in downtown Bend that is also
used as a church. The primary use of the building for the Boys & Girds Club is as an after school
programs building. The primary use of the building for Compass Church is as a place of worship.
Same facility, two completely different uses and primary purposes.
In this case, TID's primary purpose (anal in fact only purpose for the ponds), if allowed and
approved, is to use the ponds as a reregulation and storage reservoir.
This
use is being proposed by and through KCDG's application for such use.
Tanager is proposing its own primary use of the ponds as a recreation -oriented f=acility requiring
large acreage ("ROF"). This is different and separate use from the use intended by TID. The
work to build the ponds for the ROF occurred in 2014 under the belief that. t:he work was exempt
from land use review. The applicant, therefore, seeks retroactive approval of the work and the
right to use the ponds for reereational activities. ']'his is not an uncommon occurrence in land use
cases. If an applicant can meet the code, the County may approve an application after a structure
has been built or a use has been established.
Ms. Bragar is trying to contuse the issue and paint the current applications into a corner vvilh no
way out, by presenting inconsistent arguments. In one paragraph she argues we are bound to
TID's statements and 'FI.D's use of the reservoir as the primary purpose, and in the next she
argues that our relationship with'I'll) is completely "void" and there is no involvement.' The
current applicants have always been clear that we intend to use the ponds for recreation, and to
allow them to be used by TID as a storage and reregulation reservoir. T'hat has never changed.
Tanager's application presents to the County, and the greater public, the full and mature plan Im
use and management of the Subject Property. "tanager's planned development and recreational
facilities applications provide a complete, standalone plan for the property. Recreational use is
Tanager's primary purpose for the ponds and the reason for why they were established. KCDG's
application asks for the approval ol'TID's additional use of the recreational reservoirs to store
water. Approval o1'TID's use was determined to be required by the Board in 2015 in order for
'I'll) to use the reservoirs for storage. The Board is free, however. to determine that such a
permit is not required. F;ach set of applications is separate and represents two distinct purposes
and uses ofthe ponds. We ask that the Board approve Tanager's applications so they may be
Bishops have argued that the irrigation contract between KCDG and TID may be void because the original water
transfer contemplated was not approved by OWRD. As we explained at the hearing, we believe provisions of that
contact may continue to bind KCDG. In any event, it is irrelevant to the applicable criteria. Bottom line is that
KCDG seeks approval for TID to be able to use the ponds as a reservoir, and I'll) has submitted substantial evidence
that it would like permission to use the ponds fa' benefit of its patrons. The Board previously determined that permit
which KCDG is applying for is necessary to permit TID's use. We are simply asking that Board gives us the
opportunity to keep our promises to T1D and to benefit the districts patrons.
Page 2 of 9
EXHIBIT 1
Page 2 of 9
f
MAGER
used for recreational activities. W also ask that the Board approve KCDG's applications so that
the ponds m.ay also serve as a reregulation and storage reservoir for `IID.
U. No Existing Violations of the band Use Code Exist on the Subject Property
Bishops argue that KCMG received a "Notice of Violation" on October 10, 2014 and that it
proceeded "in disregard of that notice." I irst, it is interesting that Bishops decided not to include
that Notice as part of their submittal. We've attached it here as Exhibit 13. As is apparent on its
face, the'Notice is only "to inform you of an alleged violation" (emphasis added). It is not a
determination that a violation had occurred. Furthermorc, all code enforcement files have been
closed. There are .no pending; code enforcement riles for the Subject Property, as confirmed by
code enforcement officials in this record.
Additionally, although not generally relevant to the current applications and applicable criteria,
Mr. Timothy Grundernan, the former County code enforcement officer who sent the Notice,
testified at the October 2017 hearings officer hearing regarding the code enforcement process
with regards to the Subject Property. A copy transcript of his testimony is attached as Exhibit C.
We will more; specifically address opponents' arguments regarding, DCC; 22.2.0.015 in our linal
legal argument.
I-Ii.Aphlicants do not Rely on planning Staff
Bragar accuses us of "constantly blaming local government and shite agency staff for their own
missteps, misrepresentations, manipulations and incorrect analysis of how to obtain approval..."
That is complete hogwash. We do not blame or claim to rely upon or bind any regulatory
authority by staff advice. We have , however, been forced to work tirelessly to disprove Bishops'
repeated claiins that we "dug first and asked questions later" or that we attempted to "skirt the
law" -- that at every step of the way we spat in the face of staff and decided to do things however
we wanted. That narrative is as untrue as it is irrelevant to the applicable approval criteria.
Applicants consulted with all appropriate governing agencies and attempted to proceed within
the confines of the law when planning the ponds. We are not claiming that any governmental
authority is now "estopped" from changing interpretations or from requiring additional review.
Opponents' false narrative can be properly rejected as irrelevant and factually incorrect.
IV. Surface Mining Regulatory `system
Bishops continue to argue that the County's definition of "surface mining" is preempted by state
law. We will address these arguments fully in or.n• final submittal.
Page 3 of 9
EXHIBIT 1
Page 3 of 9
-
TANAGER
However, as is relevant now, opponents still have not addressed the clear text of the state law,
ORS 517.780 and ORS .517.750; which state that those definitions only apply to ORS 517.702 to
516.989. This is a clear statement that the definitions are written for DOGAMI's surface mining
operating permit and reclamation plan program only and that there is no intent to preempt the
County's authority to adopt a different definition for other aspects of surface mining not
regulated by DOGAMI. The statutes simply have no bearing on Deschutes County's land use
code.
Our legal position makes sense. As Ms. Bragar points out on page 5 of her April 20, 2018 letter,
DOGAMI has its own permitting requirements, which require a land use decision from a local
government before a DOGAMI permit will be issued. Thus, it is clear that DOGAMI does not
preempt County .land use regulations. Ms. Bragar has made our point for us.
Applicants would also point out that Deschutes County does not have a grading ordinance. It
generally relies upon the on-site construction exemption from the Code.
V. Off -Site Use of Gravel
Bishops continue to argue that KCDG removed "significant aggregate offsite" to improve a road
across the Klippel Water property and a driveway on the MacDowall property. Bishops claim
that this extremely minor activity, if proven, would mean that the Code's on-site construction and
on-site road construction exemptions from "surface mining" would not apply to the on-site
construction of the ponds and to KCDG's road work... Respectfully, we disagree. The gravel
operations did not violate the County Code and did not convert raining for the primary purpose
of ort -site construction to a different use. 1"he primary purpose of the gravel stockpiles was
determined by the T[J-14-8 permit, on-site road construction and maintenance and landscaping.
That work has not been completed because Bishops' have been successful in primarily stopping
KCDG from completing the project to date. 'I"he primary purpose of the excavation and grading
of the ponds was on-site construction for the recreation -oriented facility. That is all that is
required by the Code.
Importantly, opponents have not addressed the fact that the construction and maintenance of
access roads is a permitted outright activity. Further, they ignore the fact that rock crushing to
create materials for use on roads and driveway was expressly permitted work.
Page 4 of 9
EXHIBIT 1
Page 4 of 9
0
TANAC��E11
Pursuant t:o TU -14-8, KCDG had authority to rock crush and to use such material for road
construction and landscaping purposes. Opponent Bishops argue Applicants cannot rely on the
on-site construction mining exception because crushed material was moved off of the Suilject
Property and that "1'U-14-8 only allowed activity to occur on one tax lot, tax lot 824. This
argument. misinterprets TU -14-8 and ignores the true facts and cireninstances.
The purpose of the TU -14-8 permit was to crush rock into gravel on a particular property in
order to preserve, maintain and repair roads and streets. The permit does not restrict the use of
the gravel to the parcel where it was crushed. A stockpile of material exists today because the
Applicants plan to use the materials to complete their development. project. Under the terms of
T1W4-8, materials may be stored on site until the project is completed. Opponents try to
conflate the permit's listing of the tax lot where the rock crushing activity occurred into a
requirement that crushed material cannot be applied to any road unless it was on the same tax lot.
That interpretation is not supportable. The correct interpretation is that of county staff, the past
hearings officer, and the BOCC. All have determined that the activity of rock crushing must take
place on the tax lot in question and that no material from outside the property may be brought to
the site to be crushed. it wasn't. That is all thatis required. See TU -14-8 Decision, see also,
BOCC Decision, Exhibit F (adopts the hearings officer interpretation that rock crushing was
restricted to the Subject. Property; finds that that work done with the crushed rock, including road
maintenance, is a different activity than the grading to re -shape the mining pits into ponds),
As noted in both the decision of TU -14-8 and in the BOCC Decision, road maintenance is
permitted outright in the RR- l 0 Zone. That includes re-laying gravel, regardless of the source of
the gravel.
Bishops now assert that the existing stock pile of gravel on the Sub b'ject Property should be
considered a "violation" which bars the processing of the present applications. They argue that
the gravel should have been removed within 30 days of the rock crushing activity that was
authorized. Respectfully, that is not what the permit required, Under TU -14-8, only rock
crushing equipment was to be removed rvithin 30 days, but material not used was to be removed
within "60 days of comlaleting the project." KCDG has not yet finished the project. As discussed
at the Hearing, all work was stopped in 2014. lapon approval of the pending applications, the
stock pile shall be used to facilitate the establishment of required infrastructure related to the
planned development and ROF. A condition of approval may ensure compliance.
' Further, this interpretation makes sense. Rock crushing activity requires a permit and review period. Such activity
was not a prerequisite to the grading activity to re -contour the pits to enable the placement of the liners and
establishment of the reservoirs. "Chat activity is under review now as on-site construction for the recreation -oriented
facility. The creation of gravel occurred as a result of a County permitted use from "fl1-14-8 which was not appealed
by Bishops. 'Che use of the gravel is not restricted to the lot where it was crushed and this issue has no relation to the
on-site construction of the recreation oriented facility. Bishops appear to be making this argument as a collateral
attack on W-14-8 and to distract from the actual issues and applicable criteria for these applications.
Page 5 of.' 9
EXHIBIT 1
Page 5 of 9
Bishops also now argue, in an attempt to "box us in," that the stock pile could never be moved
off site because that would violate the "on-site construction" exemption from the definition of
surface mining. They also argue that any gravel that may have beet., applied to the Klippel Water
property or to the MacDowell property Nvould prevent use of the "on-site construction"
exemption. Respectfully, those arguments bail for two reasons.
First, the creation of the gravel stock pile is not reliant on the "on-site construction" exemption, it
was done so pursuant to TU -14-8, which is a. final land use decision of the County that was not
appealed and may not now be collaterally attacked.
Second, the "on-site construction" exemption, if applicable, includes a de rninimis exception and
only requires that the "primary purpose" be on-site construction or road construction.
Lastly, even if material was moved "off-site," it is not plausible to find the amount of material to
be "significant" given the context and the Bishops' arguments about hOW much material was
moved for the primary purpose of excavating the ponds and the size of the stockpiles for future
roads and landscaping work.
At the hearing before the Board, Mr. Kimble testified he
believed no material went onto the MacDowall property; that it was only applied oil the road
casement through the K_CDG property to the MacDowall property..
So, Bishops' alleged use of gravel cannot be called
"significant." It clearly tweets the Code's de MirriMis e:xceptiora. It is clear that the "surface
mining" work to create the ponds and to crush rock for on-site road construction and
maintenance, and landscaping' were the primary purpose of mining. No reasonable
interpretation can be made that this shifts the primary purpose of the activity from
"on-site construction" and "on-site road construction" to off' -site road building.
'ill. `><')1D's Continued Involvement & Rere.guuhrtion
While TIl) has no involvement in Tanager's applications, it would like to use the ponds as a
reservoir to improve water delivery to its patrons. This will require approval of'K(",DG's
applications unless the Board determines that "111) can store water in the ponds without County
approval. Bishops have argued that *111) is not involved and has no real plans to use the ponds
and that TID has never contemplated re -regulation use. They cite the District's "System
KCMG continues to use the stockpiled gavel to set additional underground irrigation piping throughout the
Subject 1'roperC} .
Page 6 of 9
EXHIBIT 1
Page 6 of 9
TANAC21-_f 3
Improvement flan." first, Bishops take this document: out of context. According to our water law
attorneys, that document is meant, to be a tool to help the District secure grant funding to improve
(pipe) its current canal system. Second, the District cannot generally rely on or plan for
additional reregulation and storage reservoirs because they are wholly dependent upon private
land_ owners allowing the District to site such reservoirs on private property - and more
importantly — to pay to create the reservoirs. finis is consistent with Mr. Varco's testimony at the
Hearing.
Vll. Matters Not Generally Relevant to Land Use Review and Applicable Criteria of the
Present .Applications
a. Water Use and OWIU) Stipulated Judgment
Bishops' water lawyer, .lan Neuman, submitted a letter as part of Ms. Bragar's open record
submittal re -interpreting much of applicants' testimony at the .hearing and stating her view of the
OWRD settlement. Our water law experts clearly do not agree with Ms. Neuman's opinion and
have provided an additional response we include as lilxhibit l..
b. Sire of the Pohds is Not relevant
Opponent LandWatch now argues that approval for the ponds should not be allowed because
they are larger than typical "farm ponds." Respectfully, Deschutes County simply does not
regulate the size (or the look) of a pond, whether it is used for farming practices or otherwise.
Further, it makes sense that the ponds in this case are large, they serve multiple purposes.
Primarily, 'hana.ger seeks approval of a "rccreation-oriented facility requiring large acreage... "
Emphasis added. `l'he same facility also serves as the delivery point Im KCDG's and Cadwell's
legally entitled irrigation water. Frothing in Deschutes County's code says a pond cannot be
large, small, clover -shaped, shallow or deep, lined or not, or even have a fountain or an island.
Page 7 of 9
EXHIBIT 1
Page 7of9
ED
"1ANAGER
Applicants' proposal meets the applicable criteria of the code, including for its proposed use of a
recreation -oriented :facility requiring large acreage.
c. KG Ranch - "iilfsalfa water ski lake"
Opponents continue to assert that our applications should meet the same fate as those in the ICU
Ranch decision, otherwise referred to by opponents as the "Alfalfa water ski lake," That case was
different for many reasons; the most significant being that. the property owner destroyed a
mapped and protected wetland to create the pond, in violation of state law. The ease is simply
not the same. Additionally, it is worth noting that the hearings officer in the ICU Ranch decision
determined that work to create the pond would be permitted as "on-site construction" based on
the Board's reasoning in the KCMG LUCs decision in 2015. sec:, beton:
".Surface mining" means
A, includes:
9. All or any part of tho process of mining by removal of the
overburden and extraction of natural mineral deposits thereby
exposed by any method including, open pit mining operations,
auger mining operations, processing, surface impacts of
underground mining, production of surface mining refuse and the
construction of adjacent or offsite borrow pits, except those
constructed for access roads; and
2. Mining which involves more than 1,000 cubic yards of material or
excavation prior to ruining of a surface area of mora than one
acre.
f3. Does nor include;
1. The construction of adjacent or off-site borrow pits which are
used for access roads to the surface mine;
2. Excavation and crushing of sand, gravel, clay, rock or other
similar materials conducted by a landowner, contractor or tenant
on the landowner's property for the primary purpose of
construction, reconstruction or maintenance of access roads and
excavation or grading operations conducted in the process of
farming or cemetery operations, on -situ road construction and
other onsite construction, or nonsurface impacts of undorground
urines; and
3. Batching and blending of mineral and aggregate into asphaltic
concrete or Portland cement concrete.
FINDING: The Hearings Officer finds that, although the project 111elUdes "removal of tfue
overburden and extraction of natural mineral deposits", it falls under the exceptions for
excavation or grading operations conducted in the process of "other on site construction." 'this
finding is consistent with the Hearings Officer's decision in 247 -14 -000 -238 -PS, as ndoptr.ci by
the Board of County Commissioners. These criteria are inapplicable.
Page 8 of 9
EXHIBIT 1
Page 8 of 9
0
TANAGER
Vile. Conclusion
Applicants will provide additional legal argument, and reser to the conclusive evidence already
present in the record, that all applications meet the applicable and should be approved in our
final argument submittal.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Katzaroff Liz Panc ler
OSIS 143550 OSB 812202
Attorney for Applicants Attorney Ior Applicants
Page 9 of 9
EXHIBIT 1
Page 9 of 9
Exhibit 1
J. Kenneth Katzaroff, JD
April 26, 2018
Page 2
not involved in that case and therefore are ill-equipped to interpret it. As we noted above and in
my April 20 letter, the Stipulated Judgment resolved all outstanding alleged water right
violations and enforcement proceedings with regards to the ponds, Specifically, through the
judgment, the Department withdrew its earlier "finding" that'Twnalo Irrigation District had
knowingly violated the law when it filled the two ponds under the terms of the irrigation district
water rights transfer statute. The Department also agreed to refrain from issuing any orders to
drain the ponds until the land use and water rights application processes are complete. See
Stipulated Judgment, lis 6, 8. And, once the land use proceedings are complete, the Department
has specifically committed to timely processing any storage water right that. is submitted for the
ponds (by either'Tumalo or KCDG). Id., 1( 8.For the interim, the judgment confirms that water
may remain in the ponds at designated levels and Tumalo may re-initiate delivery of irrigation
and stock water into and through the ponds for use by KCDO. Id., lis 8-9. Therefore, neither
Tumalo nor KCDG are in violation of law for retaining water in the ponds or for using the ponds
for delivery of irrigation and stock water. The testimony presented by KCDG with which Ms.
Neuman's letter takes issue, is actually quite consistent with the terms of the Stipulated
Judgment and our understanding of its intent and purposes.
Ms. Neuman also attempts to characterize selected excerpts of depositions which our firm
participated in as well ----either to defend or examine witnesses. She attempts to undermine
information about those depositions conveyed by Mr. Katzaroff. However, it is important to
know that Mr, Katzaroff is aware of the information conveyed both on and off the record during
each of the depositions taken in that ease due to the fact that K.CDG was directly affected by the
outcome of that case and is in a Joint Defense Agreement with Tumalo hrrigation District related
to the ponds and this project. Therefore, his comments about the depositions account for more
than just the information that is on Che deposition transcript. Neither Ms. Neuman, nor her co-
counsel, nor their clients were involved in or present for the depositions at issue, They cannot
offer the same perspective.
Therefore, though she attempts to
characterize `1'umalo's involvement and interest in the ponds for re -regulation purposes as a
sham,
Further, as Ms. Neuman's letter concedes, 'Tumalo entered into a contract and amended contract
with KCDG for the very purpose of using the ponds. As a water lawyer, Ms, Neuman should
understand that in order for the ponds to work as re -regulation facilities, water will need to be
stored in the ponds throughout the year. That is exactly what those contracts provide for, Re -
regulation within the ponds will operate largely as a bulge -in -system use, which according to the
Oregon Water Resources Department's Technical Operations Manual (Dec. 29, 2008) (attached)
does not require a permit from the Water Resources Department. However, a bulge -in -system
use cannot result in long-term storage, therefore, stored water obtained under a water right will
need to be present during other times of the year. The stored water will protect the pond liners
that facilitate efficiencies in the district's and KCDG's system and will provide the baseline
water levels that allow the ponds to operate as re -regulation facilities. The fact that 'Finnalo did
schwabe.com
Exhibit 1
2 of 79
EXHIBIT 2
Page 1 of 1
In wAa I rikle V, I
� mvej 2
From: Ken Katzaroff
To: Tony DeBone; Tammy Bane v; Phil Henderson
Cc: Anthony Raouine; Liz Fancher; David Doyle; Adam Smith
Subject: Tanager/Cadwell Response to Bishops Record Objection and Request o Reject Evidence
Date: Wednesday, May 2, 2018 4:49:31 PM
Attachments: AoDlicants" Response to Record Objection.pdf
Commissioners,
Please find our response to Bishops' request to reject new evidence.
Thank you and have a terrific afternoon.
Ken
J. Kenneth Katzaroff, JD
General Counsel & Special Projects
KC Development Group, LLC
Three Rivers Advisors
Ken&threeriversadvisors com
503-453-0873
May 2, 2018
Via Electronic Mail
Deschutes County
Board of County Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., 2nd Floor
Bend, OR 97701
Re: Response to Bishops' Record Objections
Dear Chair DeBone and Commissioners:
TANAGER
I am writing to respond to Bishops' "Request to Reject Applicant's New Evidence" dated May 2,
2018. Bishops' attorney, again, makes a legal claim that is clearly at odds with settled law. Ms.
Bragar claims that ORS 197.763(6) gives opponents "the last word on evidence" during post -
hearing comment periods. The law, however, says nothing of the sort. Instead, it gives "any
participant" the right to respond to new evidence submitted during the first post -hearing
comment period. ORS 197.763(6)(c). The law does not prohibit the filing of new evidence as a
response.
All documents Bishops claim should be excluded respond to new evidence filed during the first
post -hearing open record period or are not new evidence. Therefore, the documents are properly
included in the record. Specifically:
April 27 Leiter, f •om Ken Katzaroff and Liz Faucher
Exhibit A, Letter from Ken Rieck of Tumalo Irrigation District
• This letter does not present new evidence on any relevant issue. It restates evidence in
the existing record.
• The letter responds to Item 2, "TID has no plans for regulation," pages 8-9 of Janet
Neuman's April 20, 2018 memorandum to Jennifer Bragar, filed with the county by
Bragar. It also responds to Ms. Newnan's claim, on page 2 of her memorandum, that
KCDG is trying to use the District to legitimize it private development activities.
Exhibit D, includes the County's draft 2018-2019 Community Development Department Work
Plan. Ms. Bragar admits that this is "irrelevant to the land use approval criteria..." Pursuant to
ORS 197.763(9)(b) evidence only includes information that is relevant to the decision.
Therefore, it cannot be considered new evidence and is not properly excluded or objected to.
However, as the County's proposed consideration of a grading ordinance has little bearing in this
case, Applicant will not object to this exhibit's removal from consideration in the record.
Exhibit F, photographs from DIAL marked to illustrate sections of roads referred to by Bragar in
her post -hearing comments and information from Patrick Cole regarding the length of roads on
the subject property determined from documents in the record.
0
TANAGER
• This information was provided to respond to Bishop's and Bragar's new evidence, fled
April 20, 2018, that claims "significant excavated material" was removed from the
KCDG property. See, page 7, Bragar letter of April 20, 2018.
• The photograph is essentially the same as the aerial photograph submitted by Ms. Bragar
as Exhibit 8 (page 1) of her letter of April 20, 2017. The only new evidence, provided to
rebut the "significant excavated material" claim is the scaled distance of what the Bragar
exhibit refers to as "outline of driveway as it traverse MacDowell property."
• Mr. Cole's information about the length of roads is not new evidence as it is provided by
scaled plans in the record.
Exhibit G & H, Transcript and recording of testimony by Ken Rieck regarding TID's need for
reregulation facilities.
• This information responds to Item 2, "TID has no plans for regulation," pages 8-9
of Janet Neuman's April 20, 2018 memorandum to Jennifer Bragar, filed with the
county by Bragar. This memorandum also includes claims that "TID is not
involved in these proceedings" and that KCDG "hopef s] to pull TID back into its
private project." The transcript shows that TID does have plans for reregulation.
Exhibit I, part of letter from legal counsel Elizabeth I loward that responds to Neuman
memorandum of April 20, 2018 that characterized TID's involvement in the KCDG
ponds for the purpose of regulation as a sham and deposition transcript of Ken Rieck,
TID Manager that shows that the KCDG ponds were used for reregulation.
• The letter responds to and disproves new evidence provided by Neuman in her
April 20, 2018 memorandum
Exhibit J, aerial photographs of area
• These aerial photographs were submitted to respond to new evidence
(photographs and written testimony) filed by Central Oregon LandWatch on April
20, 2018 about the typical size of ponds
April 27, 2018 Addendum to Rebuttal Comments, Applicant is unsure how this addendum
"prejudices" opponents, or how it constitutes new evidence on the applicable criteria. Therefore,
Applicant will not object to this exhibit's removal from consideration in the record.
Email from Eric Cadwell to Board of County Commissioners, is submitted in direct rebuttal
and response to the April 20, 2018 letter filed by Ms. Bragar with the County. That letter, at page
12, discusses the Bishops' defense of a "SLAPP" suit brought by KCDG and the Cadwells, the
Bishops' rights to public participation in land use review, and asserts that the "Bishops should be
considered the heroes that they are..."
• The email responds directly to the Bishops' assertions and that they should be
"considered heroes" or were merely participating in the public process, as well as why
that suit was filed in the first place
More importantly, the contents of the email are not new evidence. We've already submitted
evidence of the claims presented in the email by Mr. Cadwell. We could clearly make the same
TANAGER
;GER
statements in our final argument, it really is of no consequence that the email came from Mr.
Cadwell directly as opposed to counsel or in our final argument. Specifically, Ms. Brianna
Cadwell has submitted similar testimony below, which we include as an attachment here for your
review.
We also do not know why Ms. Bragar chose to submit such argument about the suit, except in an
attempt to assassinate the character of the applicants. The email clearly speaks to this point. It's
only reasonable that applicants would respond to such allegations in the following record period
to it being raised.
Lastly, as addressed above, pursuant to ORS 197.763(9)(b) evidence only includes information
that is relevant to the decision. Bishops' have made no claim that the suit is relevant to the
applicable criteria or how it would prejudice them. Therefore, the email is properly included for
consideration.
Applicants shall include a hard copy of this response with its final argument which shall be filed
with the Board on May 4th, 2018.
Sincerely,
l
J. Kenfic,th Katzarotf�`
OSS 143550
November 1.7, 2017
hear Hearings Officer Hicks,
While the Bishops and their attorney have the right to research me (or anyone they'd like), I continue to
feel uncomfortable and concerned at the levels with which they intrude in my personal life and the
personal life of my family. This latest submittal about a Facebook post I rnade 2.5 years ago is just one
example. There are several things that I would like to address with ret gards to their accusations of our
intentions of what we would like to do on our property (Exhibit 1.0: hosting a movie night on the water).
4=or the past three years, the Bishops and their attorney have been taking things and twisting them to
serve their personal agenda against lts— anything that will make us look like awful people, if they really
pt esented the facts, they would find that my Facebook posts relate to pictures of my children and
family, community events we attend or host, and things that look fun or interesting to ale —things to
nriake others smile. Would it be ridiculously fun to sit in an innertube in some water and watch "Jaws"?
You bet it would! Who wouldn't think it would be fun to do that in their own swimming pool in their
backyard, or in our case, a lake? Sure, but the reality of living in Central Oregon makes doing this neat
thing a bit more difficult to do. The sun sets late in the sununer time, and by the time it sets, I want to
be sitting around a campfire in my sweatpants and sweatshirt -- not in cold water when the air
temperature has dropped. Let's be realistic.
Vvhe.re would this type of activity be ideal? Most likely somewhere the: evenings stay warm, like Austin,
+exas. if the Bishops and their attorneys were also truthful with their "research," instead of twisting
something to meet their apparent vendetta against us, they would discover that my brother and his wife
reside in Austin, Texas — where this f=acebook post originated front. It is an event called "Jaws on the
Water" — put on by Alamo DrafthoUse, a company that does these events or public waters. My brother
;las attended the. event, and we. hope that next summer we could join them in Austin to participate in it.
Over a year ago, I discovered that Petr. Bishop had been looking at my Facebook page and had actually
"friend requested" me. While, again, he has the right to research me, it was a little unsettling to say the
least. That same day, I changed every setting or. my Facebook page to "private." I didn't (arid still don't)
feel as though i have anything to hide from anyone. What I present to people in person, or on social
media, is who the same as I am in f ront of my coworkers and family members. Since I made the settings
"private" over a year ago, this makes me believe that Mr. Bishop and likely his attorney have been
holding onto this "post" for quite some tirne. it is personally harassing that not only does this man
trespass on my property and take pictures of me and my kids to submit to public agencies, he is
continuously attempting to infiltrate and shadow our life.
The fact of the matter is this: in May of 2014, Mr. Bishop sat in my living room for almost 2 hours,
playing with my then year and a half year old son. He told me and my husband that he was looking
forward to our development. Apparently, that was all a ruse. Since then, we have requested to meet
with the Bishops on any number of occasion, but they and their lawyers either refuse to respond or they
Exhibit J
Page 1 of 2
decline to meet to discuss any actual concerns they have. It's hard to address concerns, or to make any
reasonable compromise, when they won't even engage in ,a discussion.
wanted to write you a letter to address ihe Bishops use of this frustrating exhibit, which was really just
r.n event in another state that looked like fun to me I apologize if my frustration level is showing, but this
is beyond just a battle over the community we want to build. The Bishops have chosen to make this
personal to me and my family. 1 appreciate you taking the time to read this and for taking my honest
thoughts into any kind of consideration.
Hurnbly Yours,
Ej ianria Cadwell
Exhibit 1
Page 2 of 2