The URL can be used to link to this page

2018-459-Minutes for Meeting October 22,2018 Recorded 11/2/2018UT E SBOARD C�G� Q "< Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2018-459 COMMISSIONERS Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk Commissioners' .journal 11/02/2018 9:58:19 AM 10 388 65i0 w�`4 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon *�s 541Co� I'�IIIII'�'I�III'II�I� 2� II�II�III 2018-459 x FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY 1:30 PM MONDAY, October 22, 2018 ALLEN CONFERENCE ROOM Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Phil Henderson and Anthony DeBone. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; David Doyle, County Counsel; and Sharon Keith, Board Executive Assistant, Several citizens and no identified representatives of the media were in attendance. CALL TO ORDER: Chair DeBone called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. ACTION ITEMS 1. Light Fleet Policy Review and Approval Request Road Department Director Chris Doty and Fleet and Equipment Manager Randy McCulley presented. The draft light fleet policy would apply for all Deschutes County departments. Light fleet is anything less than a 3/4 ton pickup. Mr. Doty explained the intention of the light fleet policy. There are approximately 165 pieces of light fleet which does not include the Deschutes County Sheriff's Office. A presentation was given showing data including maintenance and replacement funds. There will be a formal process completed when a vehicle replacement request is submitted. Commissioner Henderson requested a list of each department with their inventory and BOCC WORK SESSION OCTOBER 22, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 4 replacement fund. The policy will cover practice for department's annual maintenance, replacement, and replacement reserve. The request is for the Board to consider authorizing the County Administrator to sign the light fleet policy. Commissioner Baney and DeBone are supportive of the policy and would be supportive of proceeding today. Commissioner Henderson expressed his request to see what other government entities are doing in comparison and is not ready to adopt the policy at this time. Commissioner DeBone supports approving the policy and reviewing further information. Commissioner Baney recalled the draft policy and fleet management was piloted for a year. Commissioner DeBone recalled this has been part of discussions over the past few years and discussed at both the audit and budget committee. Mr. Doty will bring back total cost spent on replacement. 2. September 2018 Treasurer's Report and Financial Reports Finance Director Wayne Lowry presented the September reports. Mr. Lowry explained Munis users are able to review weekly invoice reports. County Administrator Anderson will forward the weekly email with the links to the Board. Mr. Lowry reviewed the highlights of the financial reports. The reports for the Health Services department were expanded. Mr. Lowry reported on the PERS rates. duly 2019 rates will be in place for two years. 3. Preparations for Deliberations: TID Plan Amendment & Zone Change Appeals Community Development Department staff Cynthia Smidt and Peter Russell presented the preparations for the public hearing that is scheduled for Wednesday, October 24. This portion of the agenda was audio recorded. A public hearing was held on duly 25, 2018 and the record closed on August 15, 2018. Deliberations are scheduled on two appeals of a comprehensive plan BOCC WORK SESSION OCTOBER 22, 2018 PAGE 2 OF 4 amendment and zone change for property at 19300 Tumalo Reservoir Road. Adam Smith, Assistant Legal Counsel spoke on the Deschutes County Code. A decision matrix was compiled by Ms. Smidt for the Board to use during deliberations. OTHER ITEMS: • Commissioner Baney reported on the contract negotiations with PacificSource. She highlighted the changes of the contract. The history starts back with ABHA and then creating WEBCO for community mental health programs. Commissioner Baney explained the funding concerns for Crook, Jefferson, and Deschutes County. Commissioner Baney had to leave the meeting at 4:43 p.m. for another meeting. EXECUTIVE SESSION: At the time of 4:45 p.m., the Board went into Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (h) Litigation. The Board came out of Executive Session at 5:00 p.m. COMMISSIONER UPDATES: None reported BOCC WORK SESSION OCTOBER 22, 2018 PAGE 3 OF 4 MW W "'IliW 3 4'_i 11 Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:02 p.m. DATED this —Day of 2018 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners TAMMY BANEY(_�OMMISSIONER BOCC WORK SESSION OCTOBER 22, 2018 PAGE 4 OF 4 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - www.deschutes.or� WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 PM, MONDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2018 Allen Conference Room - Deschutes Services Building, 2ND Floor - 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. Light Fleet Policy Review and Approval Request - Chris Doty, Road Department Director 2. September 2018 Treasurer's Report and Financial Reports - Wayne Lowry, Finance Director/Treasurer 3. Preparations for Deliberations: TID Plan Amendment & Zone Change Appeals - Cynthia Smidt, Associate Planner COMMISSIONER'S UPDATES EXECUTIVE SESSION 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 Board of Commissioners Work Session Agenda Monday, October 22, 2018 Page 1 of 2 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 wm&/.deschutes.org/meetingcalendar Meeting dates and times are subject to change. If you have question, please call (541) 388-6572. Board of Commissioners Work Session Agenda Monday, October 22, 2018 Page 2 of 2 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 October 22 2018 DATE: October 10, 2018 FROM: Chris Doty, Road Department, 541-322-7105 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Light Fleet Policy Review and Approval Request RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Approval with suggested motion: "I move to authorize County Administrator's approval of the Road Department's Light Fleet Policy" ATTENDANCE: Chris Doty, Road Department Director and Randy McCulley, Fleet Manager SUMMARY: Deschutes County owns 150+ pieces of light fleet (excluding DCSO) which are maintained by the Road Department's Fleet/Equipment Division. Since 1984 the Road Department has operated a Maintenance and Replacement Fund to provide a mechanism to allow departments to budget for vehicle maintenance and eventual replacement of fleet. However, until recently the County has lacked a Fleet Policy to not only assist with budgeting, but also drive efficiency within the fleet by establishing standards for utilization, replacement, life -cycle cost considerations, etc. The attached draft Light Fleet Policy was prepared with the following goals: 1. Utilize the most efficient and effective vehicle available for every task. 2. Use every vehicle to the maximum extent possible while maintaining a low vehicle life cycle cost. 3. Create transitions in the fleet using methods that minimize negative impact on the taxpayers, operating departments and budget. Staff will present the policy to the BOCC at the workshop and request approval. Deschutes County Policy No. R -2018-x v Effective Date: 10/22/2018 o DESCHUTES COUNTY LIGHT FLEET POLICY STATEMENT OF POLICY It is the policy of Deschutes County to establish guidelines for the acquisition, retention, and replacement of light vehicles owned by the County. The intention of this policy is to: (1) clarify replacement schedules, (2) reduce the practice of retaining vehicles that have completed their capitalized life cycles, and (3) provide vehicle replacement fund direction. APPLICABILITY This policy applies to all County departments that utilize light vehicles, with exception of the Sheriff's Office. "Department," as referenced in this document, is considered to be the 'owning" department of a vehicle and is responsible for supplying adequate funding for the replacement and maintenance of that vehicle. The Department is the current user of the vehicle and acquired the vehicle as either new or from another department within the County. DEFINITIONS "Fleet Services" Services by the Road Department including: fleet management, vehicle and equipment purchasing, maintenance and repair, bulk fuel, car wash, and surplus auction. "Upfit" is the cost of the body, equipment, lighting, signage, etc. that are installed into a vehicle after it is purchased to prepare it for service. "E -plate" is a permanent Government Exempt plate issued to any vehicle owned or leased by the State of Oregon, or the government of a county, city, political subdivision or federally recognized Indian tribe. E -plates do not require registration renewal and associated costs. "Budgeted Vehicle Replacements" are vehicles that were identified as a capital expense and approved during the Department's budget process for the current fiscal year. "Unbudgeted Vehicle Replacements" are vehicles that were not included in the budget process for the current fiscal year. POLICY AND PROCEDURE 1. Light Vehicle Acquisition Retention Replacement and Use Goals Utilize the most efficient and effective vehicle available for every task. Use every vehicle to the maximum extent possible while maintaining a low vehicle life cycle cost. Create transitions in the fleet using methods that minimize any negative impact on Deschutes County taxpayers, operating departments and the budget. 2. New Vehicle Acquisitions 2.1. All new vehicle acquisitions must be completed by Fleet Services unless authorized by the County Administrator. Notification must be provided to Fleet Services prior to acquisition. Departments must submit a Vehicle Purchase Approval Request to the Fleet Services Manager with all requirements for the vehicle. New acquisitions will meet the following guidelines: Light Vehicle Fleet Policy- rev 10/10/18 • Vehicle class recommendations as defined in Attachment B. • Lowest life cost and miles per gallon in application as defined in Attachment B. • Justification in writing and approval through the budget process for any vehicles that need to be larger in class size. • Vehicles will be equipped with standard accessories. Optional accessories or equipment will need to be justified and approved by Fleet Services. • Standard exterior colors will be white with gray (or similar) interior, unless authorized by Department Head in the Vehicle Purchase Approval Request. • All vehicles will display the County logo, unless authorized by Department Head in the Vehicle Purchase Approval Request. • All vehicles will have E -plates, unless authorized by Department Head in the Vehicle Purchase Approval Request. • Fleet Services will be contacted prior to making a decision to purchase a new vehicle to ensure that the addition can meet the desired application and can be serviced by Fleet Services technicians. • All additions must be incorporated into the Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance Fund to ensure adequate maintenance and replacement accruals. • All title and registration will be completed by Fleet Services. 2.2. Upon request by Department Head or authorized agent, and budget verification, Fleet Services will procure new vehicles as follows: Procurement shall follow Deschutes County Code and Oregon State Law. New additions will be assigned a capital replacement rate and an estimated annual maintenance rate to fund repair costs (labor, overhead, parts). 3. Justification and Approval for Vehicle Replacement 3.1. Vehicles will be considered for replacement based on meeting the following criteria: • Vehicle is identified as Condition III or IV as indicated in Attachment A: Light Vehicle Replacement Guidelines; and/or • Based on assessment of age, mileage and operating costs by Fleet Manager. 3.2. When a vehicle is replaced: • Its use will be evaluated to see if a more efficient or effective vehicle is available. If not, it will be replaced with a like vehicle. • Upgrades must be justified by the Department Head, approved through the budget process, and charged to that Department. • Vehicle and accessory equipment selection for replaced vehicle shall follow the same criteria as new vehicle acquisition as noted in Section 2. 3.3. The Fleet Manager will use a decision tree (Attachment C) to evaluate the type, size and configuration of replacements. 4. Replacements 4.1. Budgeted Vehicle Replacement Fleet Services staff will develop an annual replacement plan for each Department. Departments may include funding for this replacement plan in their annual budget. Quarterly transfers from the Department to the Road Department Vehicle Maintenance and Replacement Fund will be made by Finance Light Vehicle Fleet Policy- rev 10/10/18 4.2. Un -budgeted Vehicle Replacements Un -budgeted vehicle replacements will not be funded by the Road Department Vehicle Maintenance and Replacement Fund. Un -budgeted vehicle replacement purchases will be funded directly by the Department, and will follow the County's policy (No. F-6 Capital Outlay Expenditures) for unbudgeted capital expenses. • Any additions to the fleet requested shall be approved by the requesting Department Head and reviewed by the Fleet Manager for utilization best practices. • The Department will provide a Purchase Order number to Fleet Services. • Acquisition of the vehicle will be facilitated by Fleet Services as described in Item 2 above. 4.3. Any costs beyond the cost of the vehicle such as prep, related upfit, and prorated maintenance costs, will be billed directly to the department through our interfund billing process. 4.4. Vehicles must be returned for transfer/disposal to Fleet Services at or before pick up of new replacement vehicle, unless otherwise authorized. 5. Vehicle Utilization 5.1. Fleet Services will coordinate the vehicle utilization review process and collection of data for the review. The Fleet Manager will provide utilization reports to each Department Head or designee by October 1st of each year. 5.2. Each Department Head shall have the responsibility for determining the number and nature of vehicles required to meet the business needs of the Department. 5.3. Department Heads or designees shall review the vehicle utilization data and research the business needs for vehicles that fall below the utilization standard. Departments may retain vehicles that appear to be underutilized if retaining them can be justified through explanation of non -mileage based business requirements. If the retention of a vehicle cannot be justified in its current use, it must be reassigned within the Department, reassigned to a different Department, or disposed of as surplus by the County. 5.4. Retaining vehicles not meeting the minimum utilization targets below must be justified in writing by the Department Head. Vehicle Category Description Utilization Standard Light Fleet Sedans, minivans, SUVs and Pickup trucks (1/4 ton and 1/2 ton) 5,000 miles per year or used on 60% of working days 5.5. When vehicles are taken out of service due to being underutilized or are no longer needed, the Department will be refunded the amount that they have contributed into the Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance Fund (680 Fund) for that vehicle plus the proceeds from the transfer or surplus auction. 5.6. To help Departments eliminate underutilized vehicles due to oversized fleet or short seasonal need, the following options are available: 1. Use motor pool vehicles, if available. 2. Use employee mileage reimbursement for the use of personal vehicles for County business. 3. Rent vehicles from our preferred commercial rental car provider. 6. Retention of Vehicles Vehicle useful life cycle will be determined based on the criteria set forth in Section 3. At the end of that useful life, the vehicle will be replaced as identified in Section 4. The vehicle will be removed from service and disposed Light Vehicle Fleet Policy- rev 10/10/18 of through trade-in, auction, sale to another government fleet, or transfer to another department to offset a vehicle of lesser condition. 7. Decommission of Vehicles 7.1. A vehicle will be decommissioned when it has reached the end of its useful life, requires excessive repairs or is deemed to no longer be functional. Fleet Services will determine the appropriate method of disposal. If the vehicle is auctioned, proceeds will be issued to the Department through the 680 Fund, less decommissioning expenses. 7.2. Decommissioning expenses include the cost to prepare the vehicle for disposal and any applicable auction fees. 8. Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance Fund (Fund 680) The County maintains the 680 Fund as a reserve fund for the accumulation of resources to provide for the replacement and maintenance of County -owned fleet vehicles. This fund is used specifically for the purchase of replacement vehicles, reimbursement to the Road Department for the cost of repairs and maintenance, GPS equipment and service, and other repair costs not related to operator damage or accidents. 8.1. Resources and Expenditures Fund resources are derived from all departments that utilize County vehicles: Each vehicle shall have a calculated annual replacement rate and maintenance and repair estimate. Departments are responsible for funding the costs of the vehicles designated to their department. Departments may provide additional resources as needed and will be billed for repair costs that exceed a vehicles estimated rate. Fund expenditures include reimbursements to the Road Department (Fund 325) for the cost of labor, materials and services used for vehicle repair and maintenance on a quarterly basis. Expenditures for the purchase or decommission of vehicles are also included. Repair costs related to accidents or operator damage are paid by Risk Management. Accident reporting requirements are detailed in Policy RM -1. 8.2. Fund Interest Income Any interest income derived from the fund balance is added to the fund and will be allocated to each department based on the percentage of their annual ending fund balance in relation to the total ending fund balance at the end of each fiscal year. 8.3. Transfer of Resources Within the Fund Funds from a decommissioned vehicle may be transferred to another vehicle if sufficient funds are not available. Any additional funds held in reserve from a decommissioned vehicle will be retained for the specific purpose of replacing other vehicles operated by the Department, unless requested to be returned to the Department. Any department that transfers a vehicle to another department will be reimbursed for the current bluebook trade-in value of that vehicle. 8.4. Replacement Rates A defined replacement rate setting process shall be used to establish annual replacement rates. The rates will be used to collect the resources needed to maintain a sufficient ongoing replacement fund balance. The rates will be calculated annually and collected on a quarterly basis to provide sufficient funds for the cyclical replacement of County vehicles. A separate rate will be applied to each vehicle. The basis for establishing the rates will be documented and available for review. Light Vehicle Fleet Policy- rev 10/10/18 4 8.5. Replacement Budget Planning and Preparation Fleet Services staff shall be responsible for the planning and preparation of annual capital replacement rate recommendations for Departments for budgetary purposes. 8.6. Replacement Funding In instances where there are insufficient accumulated funds on hand to replace a vehicle, a review of the projected shortfall will occur between Fleet Services and the Department. The Department will be required to provide all additional funds necessary to replace the vehicle. 8.7. Replacement Values Replacement values may be determined either based on original acquisition cost plus inflation, or based on estimated replacement cost, based on other perceived cost volatility as determined by Fleet Services. 8.8. Original Acquisition and Upfit Expense Replacement values will be based on each vehicle's actual or projected total acquisition cost, upfit and related expenses. All additions must be incorporated into the Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance Fund to insure adequate maintenance and replacement accruals. 8.9. Cessation of Vehicle Replacement Fund Collection Departments may choose to cease replacement funding for vehicles assigned to their departments if vehicles will not be replaced. No vehicle replacement funds will be collected when the vehicle reaches the end of its functional or useful economic life, or is declared surplus and retired. Funds from decommissioned vehicles may be held in the 680 Fund for future needs or returned to Department if requested. 8.10. Fund Reporting Fund balance and financial status will be reviewed and reported at least quarterly during the fiscal year. Balances will be managed at the Department and vehicle level. Fleet Services will determine minimum and maximum fund reserve levels in order to maintain sufficient replacement and maintenance funds at all times. 8.11. Fleet Vehicle Asset Management Fleet Services will utilize a vehicle asset management system to provide for the active management of County vehicles. The asset management system will be used to maintain primary vehicle accounting records, including acquisition cost, upfit cost, life cycle targets, year/make/model information, fleet status, user department data, user department billing account codes, operating expense data and all other relevant vehicle expense data. Information that is generated by the asset management system will be made available to user departments as needed and requested. 9. Maintenance 9.1. Maintenance Rates A defined maintenance rate projection process determined by Fleet Services shall be used to establish annual maintenance rates. The rates will be used to collect the resources needed to maintain a sufficient ongoing maintenance fund balance. The rates will be collected on a quarterly basis to collect sufficient resources for the regular maintenance of County vehicles. The basis for establishing the rates will be documented and available for review. 9.2. Maintenance Funds Each user department will have an individual pool for maintenance in the 680 fund and will be responsible for maintaining sufficient funds for their department's vehicles. In instances where there are insufficient accumulated funds on hand to maintain the department's vehicles, a review of the projected shortfall will occur between Fleet Services and the user department. The department will be required to provide all additional funds necessary to maintain the vehicles. Light Vehicle Fleet Policy- rev 10/10/18 9.3. Preventative Maintenance Departments shall report mileage to Fleet Services on a quarterly basis if vehicles are not using the County fuel system due to location. Vehicles must be scheduled for service as soon as possible when preventative maintenance services are due. 10. Motor Pool Vehicles 10.1. Vehicles and Scheduling Motor pool vehicles shall be provided for shared use between departments. Use shall be managed through a centralized scheduling system. The size and location of the motor pool will be determined by Fleet Services based on vehicle utilization. 10.2. Rates A defined usage rate projection process determined by Fleet Services shall be used to establish usage rates. 11. Fuel/Car Wash 11.1. Fuel and Car Wash Purchases The Department will be direct billed for fuel and car wash costs in accordance with the rate setting methodology approved through the budget process. Fuel and car wash costs are not part of the 680 Fund estimates. Refer to Deschutes County Administrative Policy No. GA -19 for fuel purchasing policies and guidelines. If fuel is purchased not using County pumps, mileage and gallons at time of fueling must be reported to Fleet Services. 11.2. Vehicle Care and Leaning Departments are responsible for the cleaning and care of their vehicles. Vehicles that are not kept reasonably clean may be professionally cleaned by a preferred vendor at the Department's expense. 12. Qualified Non -Personal Use Departments shall establish policies addressing employee assignment of take-home vehicles. In accordance with IRS rules (IRS Reg. § 1.132-6(e)(2)), employees assigned a take-home vehicle shall incur a working condition fringe benefit for commuting to and from work, unless excludable per IRS. Reg. § 1.274-5T(k; Reg. § 1.132-5(h). 13. Performance Measures Fleet Services will review annual performance measures to ensure Department, vehicle and overall fleet targets are being met. Approved by Light Vehicle fleet Policy- rev 10/10/18 Date Attachment A Light Vehicle Replacement Guidelines* Factor Evaluation Points Age One point for each year of chronological age, based on in-service date. Miles One point for each 10,000 miles of use. 1, 3 or 5 points are assigned based on the type of service a vehicle receives. Example, Type of Service a patrol car would be assigned 5 points because it is in severe duty service. By contrast, an administrative vehicle would receive a 1. 1, 3 or 5 points are assigned depending on the frequency the vehicle is in the shop for repair. Assign a 5 to a vehicle that is in the shop on average two or more times a Reliability month. Assign a 1 if the vehicle is in the shop an average of once every three months or less. 1, 3 or 5 points are assigned based on total life M&R Costs (excluding repair of accident Maintenance and damage or damaged in operation). A 5 is assigned to a vehicle a life M&R cost equal or Repair Costs greater than the vehicle's original purchase price. A 1 is assigned to a vehicle with a life M&R costs 20% or less than the vehicle's original purchase price. This category takes into consideration body condition, accident history, anticipated Condition repairs etc. A scale of 1-5 is used with 5 being poor condition. Under 18 Points Condition I Excellent 18-22 Points Condition II Good Point Ranges 23-27 Points Condition III Qualifies for Replacement 28- points or more Condition IV Needs Immediate Consideration * Guidelines established by American Public Works Association (APWA). Light Vehicle Fleet Policy- rev 10/10/18 Attachment B Vehicle Class Recommendations Department Application Current Vehicle in Use Recommended Vehicle Administration/Transport 8 Passenger SUV Assessor Assessor AWD Small SUV AWD Small SUV Commissioner Administration/Shared AWD Medium SUV AWD Medium SUV Property Management Administration AWD Small Hybrid SUV AWD Small SUV utility Utility Van Utility Van IT 4WD 1/2 Ton Pickup 4WD 1/2 Ton Pickup Electrician HVAC 4WD Large Utility Van 4WD Larcle Utility Van Building Services Maintenance Specialist 4WD 3/4 Ton Pickup 4WD 3/4 Ton Pickup Landscaping 3/4 Ton Truck 1 Ton Truck Janitorial 4WD 3/4 Ton Pickup Medium Utility Van Administration Full Size Sedan Full Size Sedan District Attorney AWD Medium SUV AWD Medium SUV Administration/General Use AWD Medium SUV AWD Medium SUV Community Service & Transport Full Size 15 Passenger Van Juvenile Community Justice Officers Therapist Small Utility Van Small Utilityan Field Supervisor 4WD 1/2 Ton Pickup 4WD 1/2 Ton Pickup Parole Officer/ Administration Full Size Sedan Full Size Sedan Adult Parole and AWD Small SUV AWD Small SUV Probation AWD Medium SUV AWD Medium SUV Administration/General Use Full Size Sedan Full Size Sedan AWD Medium SUV/Wagon AWD Medium SUV/Wagon Client Transport AWD Medium SUV/Wagon AWD Medium SUV/Wa on General Health Wheelchair Transport Mini -van Mini -van ACT Team (DCDC) Transport & Moving 3/4 Ton 6 Passenger Pickup 3/4 Ton 6 Passenger Pickup Administration Small Hybrid 4WD Mid -Size Utilitv Vehicle Building Safety AWD Small SUV AWD Small SUV CDD Environmental AWD Small SUV 4WD Small Pickup Solid Waste Administration AWD Small/Medium SUV AWD Small/Medium SUV Field Supervisor 4WD 3/4 Ton Picku 4WD 3 4 Ton Pickup Light Vehicle Fleet Policy- rev 10/10/18 Light Vehicle Fleet Policy- rev 10/10/18 Site Attendant Compact Pickup Compact Pickup Department Application Current Vehicle in Use Recommended Vehicle Fair and Expo Administration AWD Medium SUV AWD Medium SUV Maintenance Compact Pickup Compact or 1/2 Ton Pickup Risk Manage ent Administration AWD Medium SUV AWD Small or Medium SUV Light Vehicle Fleet Policy- rev 10/10/18 Attachment C Vehicle Purchase Decision Tree The Fleet Manager will use the following decision tree to evaluate the type, size, and configuration of replacements. REPLACEMENT I I NEW VEHICLE VEHICLE Are replacement NO Does department funds available? have funds available? YES YES Does vehicle meet GUIDELINES for application? Nou� YES Is vehicle No appropriate fore County use? YES Does vehicle have Change to Lowest the lowest life cost NO Life Cost that meets available in class? availability needs in class YES Does vehicle require YES a special - Evaluate Request configuration? NO Valid PURCHASE Vehicle NO �-�1 4- 1 Do Not Buy Not Valid Re -define Request Light Vehicle Fleet Policy- rev 10/10/18 10 Attachment D Purchases Reflecting Department of Energy Rating for Miles Per Gallon New purchases in the following categories should meet or exceed the following miles per gallon, based on 85% of average combined fuel mileage by class from the US Department of Energy Fuel Economy Guide for the model year of the vehicle being purchased. Example: 2018 Model Year Vehicle Class 85% of Class Average Small Car 24.6 Midsize Car 25.5 Large Car 21.4 Light Pickup 14.7 Small SUV 20.6 Standard SUV 15.8 Station Wagon 23.9 *Sport and luxury vehicles were removed from data. Light Vehicle Fleet Policy- rev 10/10/18 11 Attachment E Light Fleet Performance Measures Targets are to be set and reported on an annual basis. Department Measures Average Fleet Age Annual maintenance cost Percentage of fleet out of life cycle Annual average fuel mileage by department Vehicle Measures Miles Per Gallon Maintenance Cost Utilization Overall Fleet Measures PM Compliance. Same as above but for the total fleet. Average fleet age Mileage b category Mechanic count by vehicle equivalent Mechanic billable hours Light Vehicle Fleet Policy- rev 10/10/18 12 t7' x y �% I r+ -41 VID. fol �I 01 (1� 3 (D e-+ .h O O Q -' (7 rt O O 3 ::3(D (DrD 3 O (D Q r+ (D _h (D N f-* N (D 0 rte+ (D E C1 (D r�-r N n Q N N (D n D� O -0 �-* -0 -n O cD HT O N rfi N i7 3. (D N ° C (D e-+ =r rt rD (D �' N (D r+� cu r+N' m �% I r+ -41 VID. fol W N N O -0 �-* -0 -n O cD HT X o 3. 0- ° 3 N. rD (D �' N + r+� r+N' Q :3C7 rD W = (D. C Q. (D ul (D ID -, O W :3 Q n *< n p -s CLN (D N' p (D (D n O p (D r+CLL p 0) N r+ O n O V)rD O m (D w cuul rt (/'f C: N n N C: -h gin' O O (D rt �% I r+ -41 VID. fol • • • • • • • • • • • • • V) to cn cn cn cn cn V) cn cn cn to cn m �D m m m m m m m cD rn m m r+ rt r -r r -f rt rt r t r+ rt + r+ r r+ r -t O O O O O O O O O O O O O F—A I—, I—, lD w �I m ul -P W N I—1 W N 1-1 O .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. c_ 10 fD O CD C _. O n _ — r+ CIL) 0r+ ' r+ �. n n :33Q 3. 0. o �+ w 0 O� a m O :3z o " � =3 : N N = m 3 U;' 6 C =3 p O CD r* < =3 C =37 (D N CD N A O C m C m Ae, rD Ln 77 0 =3- r.+ (D =17 F (D m LE 3 C: CL OQ m opq W ct < 3 _0 rD W r+ M N T. M • O -q Ln (D m < rD < (D 0 0• N 0 * r) m =5< r+ r'+ 0 =r (D r+ rD r+ 3 X N CD =3 CYQ rD N 3 r+ =T 0 CL V) r) l< f7 0 X. =5 �3 x r+ rt 0 CL (D rl+ =$7 un L11. 0) Cy- 3 (D :3 r+ 3 3. CD (D Ul N CU (D :3 CL rD Ln 77 0 =3- r.+ (D =17 F (D m LE w N O F� N 00 I 3 m m r -h (D CL a) O r+ O D� a N O N v rah O• A rte+ m CL v Q. A A E F+ m o- r+ O 0 rD 'i r+ m r -F N O m m cr A N O N Ln N rn rt h m N m A S CL 0- (D G m O (D rt O h O m O fm (D O O Ln 3 I m 0 C rD C � G) 3 m D r* C � 0- r.+ m rf N O rD :± rt rt O rD . m O rr+ O A• q G rt r'F T_ m m rt D O• D < m r* rN-t 3 3 m r -t m � CL CL rD �. m rD. N � rD -S N m CU N X 0 � CL m CL O C m r -h m m N I cO G o' rt -n 0 T D rD m N A m 0N M c - cu m O 3 v :• rt m N 0 3 m :3 r, r -h O :3 wm m cl- ;;0(D m w (D 3 -n r*3 O_ rA+cu <. C. p <, N N N O .. N Qi lIl '+' A _h x r* m = v CL m -, ray. =33 r+ Cr = Ln A 0 o O O r+ (. rD N -� m m O m OA X —• r -f m -a m rt a-3• = we-tl c m r m 3 m :3 �. �- 00 ;� .� NJ o O O p -- rDD. � 70 m Q :7 m <• Q m (D m N• -� ET =31 3 nrD m 3 m A rt :3 '� N = <• ;-+ r..,: m( D m M m M m G est �• (° . rD � M rD rD r+ N rD o cn rD n fD m `rD n rD ' (D r° o <' O <' r+ rDN r+ Q N (D =3 to -n rD rD — 3 C r+ C, r+ (� — =3 =� (�' CD t2: =3 � r+ n CD r+ r+ • �D �' O Q �^ O a- :3 :3 (D fD Ln N. o. =3 =3 fD Ln -0 O CD r+ CD �' D r e Q n -,; — 3fD r+ O c� �; rD O (D� _rD� N w• c N N CA `G n C 1 rD fi 0 rD N1. O 0q O -1 r 3 -0r+ ' O —*+ e-+ O FD O N O �• N cn — rD r+ (D O O N O -s rD n • — rD rD un c rD N a) O�N M Oro 0- rD N rD �-+ r�i• N'• N r+ rD 3' aq rD Ln Q. rD Ln o Cu m rD , N rD QC_ �. rD rD r+rDG N Q rit e --F S (• `E n O r+ =3. CL = m o m M v C m m e+ =3 �. CL -0 � A n rA N O . 3 O. rD rDCL � rD 00 N rD -r lG N V r CL .. r+rD rD X X M --S _ O n' E Q =3 (. N O_ �'. 3 m w r+ r -r fD rte+ p CL M =3 O O cn :3 rDCL rD O O < 3 3 m N 0c 3 N' -f, O r+ N O D _. v fD v < N' < rD r+ < 0 cr cu n T `< �c77 p m =3p o rD 3 v 0) rD ' rD e -r Q. n0 N r. rD C -0 N r P 70 --h 70rte+ O 3 p O HT n rD cr =3 n n rD rD r+ N rD O m rD =3 O -S :3 00 r+ Q 0 v (• `E n O r+ =3. CL rD cn -0 : :3W cA N C z rD NO p rD (A N K O O cn O Q_ -o m N r.+ m v 0 w c O fD C O O N � �" N m -O 3 :3 CL 3 �• N _h N (D O rD 3 Ln -a eft N M fD fD rte+ 3 rDn -+,r+ �' O m fD O 0 v 0- m z -1 0 Q_ -o m r.+ m rD- 0 w c fD 3 O � N � �" N m -O 0- :3 �• N _h N (D O rD 3 -a eft M fD fD rte+ 3 -+,r+ �' O m fD O 0 r..f C� < m cD 3 rD cn O v -. 0- 3 _= F, + N O N N N < -0 3 0 r _0 O O cD '�. O O O F) * cn rD' N f-+ O 3 n CD T3 � V D N <n C m c) 3 : �. N m � N ° m, N m rn < mrt O _ � o o I �° o o c o M x 3 -0 m �. (D 3 m -a N E o (DW . crQ �- � N O m =. F 3. Nm O -0 -S 3 m O m Q m cr, � m -S r* rt (/1 3 m m r -r � C'1 N m f-+ O 3 n CD T3 � V D N ;z D 7 .0. 1-4Ul 1—' W V N V O O O O rn m m —=3— p Y:, 3 3 �• � : -n + + cn 0 0 W XO 4_4 m< 0 4 o O O 0 C< Ul 00 (D< a) (.0 (D (D(D Q0 sr rD =7" DJ rD M M Ln (D (D rD < (D (D• (D (D (D Ze1, + + cn 0 0 W XO 4_4 I -A 0 0 Ul 00 (D< a) (.0 . . . .... Q0 Ze1, + + cn 0 0 W XO All I -A 0 N LVA IK --1 0 on rn AZ RIM rD 3 -a m r o 3< rD rD D 0 m co 0 RIM �w. ES CSG o-c 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 October 22, 2018 DATE: October 12, 2018 FROM: Wayne Lowry, Finance, 541-388-6559 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: September 2018 Treasurer's Report and Financial Reports RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Discussion of September 2018 Treasurer's Report and Financial Reports ATTENDANCE: Wayne Lowry, Finance Director/Treasurer SUMMARY: Monthly Report 2 E � C /C; § \kms !8 »tea f$R A LO @ C14 Go 0$2 f-$ � $ B n n \ « � � ■ % ■ / \ E k 2 -. k a ' O D D k 3 u u ��f . k�°k E 0 _ a W) L a ;SS k o a«m��«N N 2§ §a£ E ® 7 § E k _ E 0, k0w 2§\e\k�2 ■�£I - 2%\58°°3 )3 < \ \ ) g t ) b e f g j 2 / \ @@a@@a@@ § 0 CO C)0. ©�©§■®8 00 00= f\'\E\ 0 2 0 CD \w SQ< -r CN LO N a @/a £)if $ ok- 00 E R 2 q k OL � ®)a) fg 2 2 kf2�k/7� LL -j Ld �® k� ®k @aa c B }\\ 0 M � ■ % ■ / \ E k 2 -. k a ' O D D k 3 u u ��f . k�°k E 0 _ a W) L a ;SS k o a«m��«N N 2§ §a£ E ® 7 § E k _ E 0, k0w 2§\e\k�2 ■�£I - 2%\58°°3 )3 < \ \ ) g t ) b e f g j 2 / \ @@a@@a@@ § 0 CO C)0. ©�©§■®8 00 00= f\'\E\ 0 2 0 CD \w SQ< -r CN LO N a / £)if $ ok- oocna0@ Z ® (D § = k OL � ®)a) fg kf2�k/7� LL -j ka ;moo @aa E }\\ E « £Um k . m / Q)c/ _ LL a « / � {3w » � e . � §/ Deschutes County Investments Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Investments September 30, 2018 CUSIP Security Broker Purchase Date Maturity Date Days To Maturity S&P _ Ratings Moody's Coupon Rate YTM 365 Par Value Market Value Book Call Value Date 3133EFJP3 Federal Farm Credit Bank CASTLE 11!4/2016 10/15/2018 14 AA+ Asa 1.100 1_100 5.000,000 4,997,700 5,000,000 - - 3136G2PZ4 Federal National Mtg Assn CASTLE 512212017 1012912.018 28,AA+ Ana 1.190 1.340, 5,000,000 4,996,050 5,000,000- - 912828WD8 U.S. Treasury CASTLE . 12/112015. 1013112018 30.AAA Aaa 1.250 1.223 1,000.000. 999,340 1,606,022 - - 912828T83 U.S. Treasury CASTLE 1211412016 10131/2018- 30 AAA Aaa 0750 1 155 3,000,000, 2,996,820 2,999,016 - - 31771KAJ6 FICO Strip CASTLE 9/2812017 111212018 32, 1.460 1.520 5,000,000 4,990,900 4,993,511 - 427542KX2 Hermiston OR DA DAV 9/2112016 12/1/2018 61 AA- 3.000 1 001 605,000 606.035 606,969 - - 0605OTME9 Bank of America - Corporate CASTLE 5/16/2017 121712018 67 A+ Al 2.050 1.700 3,180,006 3,177,901 _ 3,182,002 - - 3134A4ZZO Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE 3119/2018 12/14/2018 74 AA- Aa2 5.000 2.287 1,000,000 1,005,560 1,005,416 - 31771EAN1 FICO Strip CASTLE 11/3/2016 12/27/2018 87 0.984 1.025 1,000,000 994,230 997,622 • - 912828A75 U.S. Treasury CASTLE 6/8/2015 12!3112018 91 AAA ,Aaa 1,500 1.324 1,000,000 998,180 1,000,426 - - 3132XONJ6 Federal Agriculture Mfg Corp CASTLE 511/2017 1/2312019 114 1.270 1.400 3,000,000 2,989,470 2,998,801 - - 912833KU3 U.S. Treasury CASTLE 1129/2018 2/15/2019 137 1.913 1.997 2,000,000 1,983,680 1,985,439, - 912828SH4 U.S. Treasury CASTLE 2/22/2018 212.812019, 150, Aaa 1.375 2.060. 3,000,000 2,967,700 2,991,679, - 20271RAF7 Commonwealth BK Austr NY CASTLE 9/1812017 3/1312019 163 AA- Aaa 2.250 1.720 2,600,000 2,596,750 2,606,094 - - 88O59E4G6 Tennessee Valley Authority CASTLE 2)7/2018 311512019 165 2.002 2.090 1,020,000 1,006,709 1,010,641 912834QD3 U,S. Treasury CASTLE 5/18/2018 311512019 165 0.000 2.538 77,000 76,177 76,142 - - 68607VS71 Oregon State Lottery CASTLE 41512017 411/2019 182 Aa2 1.602 1.581 1,00,000 995,290 1,000.106 - 317705AM3 FICO Strip CASTLE 5/1/2018 4/5/2019 186 Aaa 9.700 2344 2,050,000 2,124,087 2,125,768 - - 459058FC2 International Bonds for Recons CASTLE 12/15/2016 4/2612019 207 AAA Aaa 1.250 1.500 2,000,000 1,985,080 2,000,006 - - 90331HMY6 US Bancorp CASTLE 12/22(2017 4/26/2019 207 AA- At 1 400 2.000 1,000,000 993,140 996,641 3126/2019 90520EAF8 MUFG Union Bank CASTLE 12/6/2017 5/6/2019 217 A A2 2 250 2.185 1,352,000 1,348,255 1,352,469 4/6/2019 90520EAF8 MUFG Union Bank CASTLE 616/2018 5/6/2019 217A A2 2.250 2.650 1,648,000 1,643,435 1,644,124 4/612019 06406HBM0 Bank of New York Mellon Corp CASTLE 11!1512017 5/15/2019 226'A Al 5.450 1.950 1,000,000 1,016,770 1,021,359 - 3133EGAV7 Federal Farm Credit Bank CASTLE 3/1/2018 5/1712019 228 AA+ Aaa 1.1"70 2.210 2,000,000 1,983,580 1,987,176 - - 62889KA03 National Credit Union Assoc CASTLE 3129/2018 611212019 254 AA+ Aaa 3.000 2.301, 1,240,000, 1,243,596 1,245,916 - Y5O351FJ7 Deschutes County Ore Sch Dist PJ 8/1612016 6115/2019 257 AA1 1.360 1,360 245,000 242,753 245,000 - 938429R66 Washington County SD Municipal PJ 5/11/2017 6/1512019 257 AA+ Aal 1.488 1.488 400,000 396,548 400,000 - - 3137EAB1 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE 7/20/2016 7/1912019 291 AA+ Aaa 0.875 0,957 1,000,000 986,840 999,354 - - 13034PZD2 CALIFORNIA ST HOUSING FINAN CASTLE 111212017 8/1/2019 304 AA- Al 1.952 1.850 1,070,000 1,059,985 1,070,883 - - 3135GON33 Federal National Mtg Assn CASTLE 8118/2016 8/212019 305 AA+ Aaa 0.875 1 000 1,000,000 985,970 996,970 - - 89114QBJ6 Toronto Dominion Bank CASTLE 2/512018 8/13/2019 316 AA- ,Aa2 1,450 2.360 5,000,000 4,943,350 4,961,484 - - 912833KW9 U.S. Treasury CASTLE 5/24/2018 8/15/2019 318 0,000 2.494 2,000,000 1,956,080_ 1,957,964 - - 912828LJ7 U.S. Treasury CASTLE 3/2112018 8/15/2019 318 Aaa 3.625 2250 2,000,000 2,016,720 2,023,485 - 798189PB6 SAN JOSE EVERGREEN COMM C PJ 6/5/2018 9/112019 335 AA+ 2.657 2 659 500,000 499,670 500,000 - 06406HCW7 Bank of Naw York Mellon Corp CASTLE 11/3/2016 9111/2019 345,A Al 2,300 1.532, 1,675,000. 1,666,893 1,686,113 8/11/2019 88059E4H4 Tennessee Valley Authority CASTLE 5/212018 9/15/2019 349 2,422 2555, 1,020,000 991,358 996,048 - - 48125LRG9 JPMorgan Chase - Corporate N CASTLE 6/28/2017_ 9/23/2019 357.A+ Aaa 1.650 1 840 1,300,000 1,285,336 1,297.753 8/2312019 48125LRJ3 JPMorgan Chase - Corporate N CASTLE 4/10/2017 9/23/2019 357 A+ Aa3 2 956 2 224 3,000,000 3,013,530 3,008,869 - - 313586RC5 Federal National Mtg Assn CASTLE 12/4/2015 10/9/2019 373 AA- 1.691 2031. 1,400,OOD 1,361,416 1,372,571 - - 313586RC5 Federal National Mfg Assn CASTLE 3/17/2016 1019/2019. 373 AA- 1.665, 1174 600,000 583,464 589,649 - 313586RC5 Federal National Mtg Assn CASTLE 8/812016 10/9/2019 373 AA- 1.252 1.318 400,000 386,976 394,811 - - 313586RC5 Federal National Mtg Assn CASTLE 11/22/2017 10/9/2019 373 AA- 1928 2.030 3,600,000 3,500,784 3,528,084_ - - 76116FAA5 RFSCP STRIP PRIN CASTLE 9/21/2017 10/1512019 379 1.499, 1,572 1,000,000 972,010 984,222 - - 76116FAA6 RFSCP STRIP PRIN CASTLE 7/19/2018 10/1512019 379 2.506 2,636 1,000,000 972,010 973,614 - 76116FAA5 RFSCP STRIP PRIN CASTLE 9/1212018 10/1512019 379 21560 2688 2,000,000 1,944,020 1;946,102 - 3135GOR39 Federal National MtgAssr CASTLE 11/10/2016 10/2412019 388 AA+ ,Aaa 1 000' 1.173 2,000,000. 1,964,980 1,996,400 - - 912828F62 - _ U.S Treasury CASTLE 10/11/2016 10/3112019 395 AAA Aaa 1-500 1.008 2,000.000 1,974,760 2,010,462 - - 961214BK8 Westpac CASTLE 6/30/2017 11/19/2019 414 AA- Aa3 4.875 1.826 2,000,000 2,042,440 2,067,404 • - 912828G95 U.S. Treasury PJ 111612018 12/3112019 456 Aaa 1.62.5 2.000_ 2,000,000 1,973,280 1,990,853 - - 94988J51-7 Wells Fargo Corporate Note CASTLE 1123/2018 1/15/2020 471 Aa2 2.400 2.444 3,000,000 2,976,330 2,998,358 - - 594918AY0 Microsoft Corp CASTLE 8/612016 2/12/2020, 499 AAA Aaa 1.850 1.298 1,000,000 987,240, 1,007,342 111212.020 3133EJDCO Federal Farm Credit Bank CASTLE 3/12/2018 2/2012020 507 AA+ ;Aaa 2.150 2.360 925,000 915,103 923.490 2/2012019 912828J84 U,S:Treasury DA'OAV 9/2612016 313112020 547 Aaa,: 1,375 2460 2,000,090 (959;360 1,959,641 - 13063CSQ4 California St VINISP 9/21/2017 4/1/2020 546AA• Aa3 1-800. 1.800 780.000 768,019 780,000 - 3137EAEM7 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE 4/19/2018 4123/2020 570 AA+ Aaa 2.500 2.511 2,000,000 1,990,720 1,999,658 - - 961214CP6 Westpac CASTLE 8/2112018 5126/7.020 603 AA- Aa3 2.300 3.015, 1,000,000 987,780 988,559 • - 3134GBNK4 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE 7/1312017 5/2012020 606 Aaa 1.625 1.671 3.000,000 2,944,560 2,998,627 5/29/2019 686053CK3 Oregon School Boards Assoc CASTLE 3/15/2017 6/30/2020 638'AA- ;Aa2 2.063 2.149 1,000,000 943,070 963,947' - - 569203MA7 Salem-Keizer School District _ CASTLE 7126/2017, 613D/2020 638. Aa2 2.107, 1,778 2,316,000, 2.275,211 2,322,793 - - 686053DH9 Oregon School Boards Assoc _ DA DAV 111212015, 613012020 638,AA Aa2 5.373 2.050 875,000, 910,166 923,205 - 686053DH9 Oregon School Boards Assoc CASTLE 6/2412016 6/3012020 638 AA Aa2 5,373 1.570 500,000 520,095 532,074 - - 94974BGM6 Wells Fargo Corporate Note PJ 1/1912017 7/22/2020 660 A A2 2.600 2.350 1,000,000 990,080 1,004,314 - - 9128264Y3 U,S. Treasury MORETN 9126/2016 813112020 700 : Aaa 2.625 2,816 2,000,000 1,992;820 1,992,843 053015AD5 AUTOMATIC DATA CASTLE 2/26/2018 9115120201 715 AA Aa3 2,250 2.570 2,710,000 2,675,448 2,693,662 8/1512020 9126261_65 U.S. Treasury CASTLE 9/17/2018 9/30/2020 730 Aaa - 1,375 2,751 2,000,000 1,943;900 1,946,918 - 940093R25 Washington Univ Higher Ed PJ 1/19/2017 10/1/2020 731 Aa3 5930 1.970 400,000 421,220 430,400 - - 45905U7J7 International Bonds for Recons CASTLE 2/9/2018 10/5/2020 735 AAA Aaa 1,625 2.474 2,000,000 1,953,520 1,975,160 4/5/2019 492244DV7 Kem Community College 11/1512016, 1111/2020' 762 AA- 2.893, 1,800 500,000 498,045 510,940, 3134GBX56 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp ,CASTLE CASTLE 12/1312017, 785•AA+ Aaa 2.250 2.172 3,000,000 2,962,140. 3,000,000, - - 3134G8JH3 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE 12/27/2017 -11/2412020 2117/2021 1370, AA+ Aaa 2.000 1.715 2,000,000 1,967,260 1,998,924, 2/17/2019 3136G4NN9 Federal National Mig Assn CASTLE 1011812017 512412021 966 AA+ Aaa 2.000, 2.000 1,080,000' 1,051,564 1,080,000 11/2412018 45905UC36 International Bonds for Recons CASTLE 7/16/2018 9/2812021 1093 AAA Aaa 2.000; 2.967 2,000,000 1,941,400 1,945,215 12126/2018 695114CP1 Pacific Corp CASTLE 9/25/2018 2/1/2022 1219 A:* Al 2,950; 3.320 700,000 690,473 691,872 11/112021 686053BQ7 Oregon School Boards Assoc MORETN 9/14/2018 6/30/2022 ` 9368 AA Aa2 5.480 3.120 925;000 996,669 1;001,532 - - Local Govt Investment Pool 2250, 2.250 27,460,268 27,460,268 27,460,268 - - Bank of the Cascades 2 2501 2.250 4,924,662 4.924,662 4,924,662 - - 160,071,930 159,126.751 159,881,858 General Fund Schedule of Financial Operating Data Revenues Year to Date July 1, FY 2018 2018 through 2,751,622 September 30, 2018 $ 26,803,012 (25% of the year) 0% of Actual Actual Budget Revenues $ 27,337,385 $ - 370,000 370,000 - 2,751,622 Property Taxes - Current $ 26,803,012 $ . 5,124 0% a) Property Taxes - Prior 500,406 176,859 48% 198,950 Other General Revenues 3,190,552 1,483,560 54% b) Assessor 847,520 216,157 25% c) County Clerk 1,796,418 425,789 24% 95,996 BOPTA 12,468 3,327 26% c) District Attorney 226,561 7,256 5% Tax Office 201,617 68,847 35% c) Veterans 162,223 4,700 3% Property Management 99,502 5,000 4% Total Revenues 33,840,279 2,396,619 7% Expenditures Assessor 4,240,703 1,104,811 23% County Clerk 1,529,074 329,530 18% d) BOPTA 65,271 19,634 27% District Attorney 6,601,913 1,577,529 22% Medical Examiner 158,160 39,937 23% Tax Office 791,044 224,789 26% Veterans 492,616 133,019 23% Property Management 253,495 66,290 23% Non -Departmental 1,259,222 316,014 23% Total Expenditures 15,391,498 3,811,553 22% Transfers In - 65,000 25% e) Transfers Out 17,420,195 4,460,279 24% Total Exp & Transfers 32,811,693 8,206,832 23% Change in Fund Balance 1,028,586 (5,810,213) Beginning Fund Balance 10,917,957 11,946,543 110% Ending Fund Balance $ 11,946,543 $ 6,136,330 FY 2019 Budget Projected I Variance $ 27,337,385 $ 27,337,385 $ - 370,000 370,000 - 2,751,622 2,751,622 - 870,658 870,658 - 1,787,270 1,787,270 - 12,700 12,700 - 150,400 150,400 - 198,950 198,950 - 166,423 166,423 - 120,000 120,000 - 33,765,408 33,765,408 - 4,830,744 4,810,451 20,293 1,845,478 1,832,455 13,023 73,125 72,842 283 7,145,762 7,085,939 59,823 173,129 173,129 - 872,020 872,074 (54) 572,287 571,117 1,170 291,458 290,000 1,458 1,401,829 1,401,829 - 17,205,832 17,109,836 95,996 260,000 260,000 - 18,359,576 18,359,576 - 35,305,408 35,209,412 95,996 (1,540,000) (1,444,004) 95,996 10,890,000 11, 946, 543 1,056,543 $ 9,350,000 $ 10,502,539 $ 1,152,539 Expenditures Recap by Budget Category Personnel 10,617,385 2,780,498 23% 11,884,822 Material &Services 4,606,437 1,031,055 20% 5,253,010 Capital Outlay 167,675 - 0% 68,000 a) Current year taxes received primarily in November, February and May (includes late filing & taxes -other) b) PILT payment of $500,000 received in July. Also includes $91,104 of Marijuana tax. c) A & T Grant received quarterly. Q1 - July; Q2 - October; Q3 - January; Q4 - April. d) Expenditure budgeted for large publications have yet to be incurred. e) Repayment to General Fund from Finance for ERP Implementation. __.._...... Total by Category 1 $ 15,391,497 $ 3,811,553 22% $ 17,205,832 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 Year to Date July 1, FY 2018 2018 through September 30, 2018 (25% of the year) % of Actual Actual Budget $ 417,385 $ - 0% a) $ 407,113 $ 407,113 $ - 67,130 21% 23% 25% - 0% a) 91,379 91,379 - 86,315 21,750 22,162 26% 85,000 85,000 - 133,500 25% 20,550 29% c) 70,000 75,000 5,000 35,220 112% 8,736 25% 35,000 35,000 - 22,206 1 2,056 11% d) 18,744 18,744 - 20,000 - 0% a) 20,000 20,000 - 21,264 6,610 26% 25,000 25,000 - 17,107 6,261 37% b) 17,000 17,000 8,075 1,647 21% 8,000 8,000 - 6,087 1,705 24% 7,000 7,000 - 3,359 644 31% 2,050 2,050 - 837,648 § 70,371 9% 786,286 791,286 5,000 5,149,243 1,326,493 23% 5,705,245 5,705,245 - 1,226,264 283,851 1,610,344 1,457,754 21% 23% 25% 1,335,658 7,040,903 5,831,015 1,335,658 - 7,040,903 - 5,831,015 - 6,375,507 5,597,643 69,000 1 21,750 25% 87,000 87,000 - 5,528,643 1,436,004 (103,969) 25% 5,744,015 (510,602) 5,744,015 - (505,602) 5,000 (9,217) 1,358,098 1,348,881 $ 1,244,913 112% 1,200,000 $ 689,398 1,348,881 148,881 $ 843,279 $ 153,881 $ 1,348,881 a) Quarterly payments after reimbursement requested b) State payments monthly in advance c) Projected upward due to year to date revenue received d) Payments received after monthly reimbursement requested 2 Revenues LED #1 Countywide Property Taxes Current Year Prior Year Foreclosed Properties Interest Total LED #1 Countywide LED #2 Rural Property Taxes Current Year Prior Year Foreclosed Properties Interest Total LED #2 Rural Sheriff's Office Revenues Total Revenues Expenditures Sheriffs Services Civil/Special Units Automotive/Communication s Detective Patrol Records Adult Jail Court Security Emergency Services Special Services Training Other Law Enforcement Services Crisis Stabilization Center Non -Departmental Total Expenditures Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance Sheriff's Office and LEDs Schedule of Financial Operating Data 10,058,115 Year to Date July 1, 0% a) FY 2018 2018 through 163,202 FY 2019 41% b) September 30, 2018 150,000 15,221 514,216 (25% of the year) % of 2,644,786 - 124,758 Actual Actual Budget $ 9 0% a) Budget $ 24,792,245 Projected I Variance $ 24,792,245 $ - $ 22,428,903 360,299 136,169 45% b) 300,000 300,000 33,979 - 0% 23% - 157,047 25,256 17% 161,434 1% 145,000 25,237,245 145,000 25,237,245 22,980,228 10,058,115 4 0% a) 10,043,598 10,043,598 163,202 61,786 41% b) 150,000 150,000 15,221 514,216 0% 2,644,786 - 124,758 27,618 89,408 1,517,500 1,768,342 23% 1% 22% 4% 120,000 10,313,598 6,872,245 42,423,088 120,000 10,313,598 6,872,245 42,423,088 10,361,296 7,7461,923 41,088,446 2,604,354 662,159 22% 2,997,984 2,997,984 1,364,969 291,514 25% 1,181,695 1,181,695 2,363,693 514,216 19% c) 2,644,786 2,644,786 1,886,714 525,717 27% 1,975,377 1,975,377 9,660,880 2,407,234 24% 10,003,953 10,003,953 - 793,478 206,675 23% 881,182 881,182 - 16,858,723 4,196,743 23% 18,630,764 18,630,764 - 490,186 130,362 24% 551,494 551,494 - 388,607 74,592 23% 328,581 328,581 - 1,570,443 369,982 24% 1,520,623 1,520,623 - 693,517 215,173 32% d) 667,647 667,647 - 834,610 259,027 25% 1,017,266 1,017,266 - 71,424 2,327 0% 559,308 559,308 - 52,077 102,082 9,957,801 94% e) 23% 108,329 43,068,989 108,329 - 43,068,989 - 39,633,673 1,454,773 (8,189,458) (645,901) (645,901) - 13,418,672 14,873,445 $ 6,683,987 107% 13,837,807 $ 13,191,906 14,873,445 1,035,638 $ 14,227,544 $ 1,035,638 $ 14,873,445 a) Current year property taxes will be received beginning October 2018. b) It is estimated that 67% of prior -year property taxes will be collected by January 2019. c) New & Current Automotive supplies will catch up in Q2 and Q3. d) Firearms and Ammunition purchases occur at the beginning of the year. e) Includes annual transfers from Fund 701/702 to Fund 256 for Equipment Reserve. 3 Revenues State Grants CCBHC Grants OHP Capitation Environmental Health Fees Federal Grants Patient Fees (including State) Local Grants Title 19 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 In - PH Reserves Transfers Out Total Transfers In I Out Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance Health Services - All Divisions Schedule of Financial Operating Data FY 2019 Budget Projected Variance $ 12,496,729 Year to Date July 1, 20% 2018 through FY 2018 September 30, 2018 8,095,540 25% of the ear 1%8) 5,327,800 0o Actual Actual Budget FY 2019 Budget Projected Variance $ 12,496,729 $ 2,708,837 20% $ 13,243,852 $ 13,243,852 - 8,095,540 48,163 1%8) 5,327,800 5,327,800 - 8,835,600 2,121,400 25% b) 8,652,200 8,652,200 - 963,885 79,199 7% e) 1,169,600 1,169,600 - 477,203 - 0% c) 729,000 729,000 - 1,944,011 432,104 31% d) 1,383,668 1,497,668 114,000 888,375 269,972 22% 1,208,623 1,208,623 - 1,450,730 325,270 24% 1,345,100 1,345,100 - 1,238,534 15,279 2% 899,734 899,734 - 604,464 - 0% 151,000 151,000 131,745 157,603 100% 157,603 157,603 - 127,000 - 0% 127,000 127,000 - 240,496 44,778 21% 212,000 212,000 - 114,846 33,681 25% 135,000 134,700 (300) 754,832 161,470 38% 422,593 434,893 12,300 38,363,991 6,397,756 18% 35,164,773 35,290,773 126,000 27,547,272 7,304,652 23% f) 31,775,838 31,325,838 450,000 13,718,125 1,765,507 14% g) 12,534,845 12,534,845 - 117,629 24,780 6% h) 384,000 384,000 - 41,383,026 9,094,939 20% 44,694,683 44,244,683 450,000 4,584,193 1,519,556 25% 6,078,223 6,078,223 - - 289,669 101% i) 288,000 289,700 (1,700) 490,320 47,172 25% 188,688 188,688 - 4,093,873 1,762,053 29% 6,177,535 6,179,235 (1,700) 1,074,838 (935,130) (3,352,375) (2,774,675) 576,000 8,229,714 9,304,552 129% j) 7,202,714 9,304,551 2,101,837 $ 9,304,552 $ 8,369,421 $ 3,850,339 $ 6,529,876 $ 2,677,637 a) CCBHC wraparound payments are reimbursed on a quarterly basis, after request is made. b) Coordinated Care Organization payment received from Pacific Source. c) SAMSHA Crisis Co -responder grant; quarterly reimbursements begin in January 2019. d) There is an uptick in patient insurance fees collected relative to budgeted expectations. e) The majority of Environmental Health Fees are assessed/collected at the end of calendar year 2018. f) Savings are anticipated from a slow -down in hiring. g) Majority of invoices for services provided in September are not yet recorded. h) $350k is budgeted to be spent to furnish a Crisis Stabilization center facility. i) Amounts transferred from Public Health Reserves to Public Health Operations per budget deliberations. j) Both an increase in CCHBC clients served, and an increase to the CCBHC reimbursement rate, during the last few months of FYI contributed to larger than projected revenues for FYI 8. M Revenues State Grants CCBHC Grants OHP Capitation Federal Grants Patient Fees (including State) Local Grants Title 19 State Miscellaneous Liquor Revenue Divorce Filing Fees Interfund Contract -Gen Fund Other Total Revenues Expenditures Personnel Services Materials and Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Transfers Transfers In - General Fund Transfers Out - Dept Admin Total Transfers In I Out Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance Health Services - Behavioral Health Division Schedule of Financial Operating Data $ 9,727,563 Year to Date July 1, 23% FY 2018 2018 through FY 2019 7,422,784 September 30, 2018 1% a) 4,381,400 250 of the ear - 8,835,600 % Actual Actual Budget Budget Projected Variance $ 9,727,563 $ 2,293,498 23% $ 10,168,869 $ 10,168,869 - 7,422,784 48,163 1% a) 4,381,400 4,381,400 - 8,835,600 2,121,400 25% b) 8,652,200 8,652,200 172,019 - 0% c) 278,096 278,096 - 518,984 155,224 42% d) 368,400 482,400 114,000 11,928 - 0% e) 412,987 412,987 - 1,450,730 325,270 24% 1,345,100 1,345,100 - 731,145 2,635 1% 351,200 351,200 - 604,464 - 0% 151,000 151,000 - 131,745 157,603 100% 157,603 157,603 - 127,000 - 0% 127,000 127,000 - 359,761 66,126 20% 334,545 334,545 - 30,093,723 5,169,918 19% 26,728,400 26,842,400 114,000 16,306,247 4,373,184 23% f) 19,246,611 18,946,611 300,000 6,627,048 549,566 9% g) 6,055,277 6,055,277 - 32,579 24,780 7% h) 379,000 379,000 - 22,965,874 4,947,530 19% 25,680,888 25,380,888 300,000 1,734,107 570,645 25% 2,282,708 2,282,708 5,402,700 1,562,139 25% i) 6,248,940 6,248,940 - (3,668,593) (991,494) 25% (3,966,232) (3,966,232) - 3,459,257 (769,106) (2,918,720) (2,504,720) 414,000 2,174,468 5,633,725 142% j) 3,976,398 5,633,725 1,657,327 $ 5,633,725 $ 4,864,619 $ 1,057,678 $ 3,129,005 $ 2,071,327 a) CCBHC wraparound payments are reimbursed on a quarterly basis, after request is made. b) Coordinated Care Organization payment received from Pacific Source. c) SAMSHA Crisis Co -responder grant; quarterly reimbursements begin in January 2019. d) There is an uptick in patient insurance fees collected relative to budgeted expectations. e) This is a local grant from Pacific Source collected on a quarterly basis, after request is made. f) Savings are anticipated from a slow -down in hiring. g) Majority of invoices for services provided in September are not yet recorded. h) $350k is budgeted to be spent to furnish a Crisis Stabilization center facility. i) Amount represents the funding transferred from Behavioral Health to Department Admin for support. J) Both an increase in CCHBC clients served, and an increase to the CCBHC reimbursement rate, during the last few months of FY18 contributed to larger than projected revenues for FY18. 5 Health Services - Public Health Division Schedule of Financial Operating Data Revenues State Grants $ 2,769,165 Year to Date July 1, 14% $ 3,074,983 $ FY 2018 2018 through September 30, 2018 FY 2019 963,885 79,199 (25% of the year) 1,169,600 1,169,600 - Patient Fees (including State) 00 276,880 Actual Actual Budget I Budget Projected Variance Revenues State Grants $ 2,769,165 $ 415,339 14% $ 3,074,983 $ 3,074,983 - Environmental Health Fees 963,885 79,199 7% a) 1,169,600 1,169,600 - Patient Fees (including State) 1,425,027 276,880 27% b) 1,015,268 1,015,268 - Federal Grants 305,185 - 0% c) 382,000 382,000 - Local Grants 876,447 269,972 34% 795,636 795,636 - State Miscellaneous 507,389 12,644 2% 548,534 548,534 - Vital Records 240,496 44,778 1 21% 212,000 212,000 - Other 376,033 91,295 115% d) 79,048 91,348 12,300 Total Revenues 7,463,627 1,190,108 16% 7,277,069 7,289,369 12,300 Expenditures Personnel Services 6,512,999 1,736,274 23% e) 7,462,095 7,362,095 100,000 Materials and Services 1,833,637 196,579 10% 1,923,694 1,923,694 - Capital Outlay 74,995 - 0% - - - Total Expenditures 8,421,631 1,932,853 21% 9,385,789 9,285,789 100,000 Transfers Transfers In - General Fund 2,850,086 948,911 25% 3,795,515 3,795,515 - Transfers In - PH Reserves - 289,669 101% f) 288,000 289,700 (1,700) Transfers Out - Dept Admin 2,009,844 518,535 25% g) 2,074,366 2,074,366 - Total Transfers In ! Out 840,242 720,045 36% 2,009,149 2,010,849 (1,700) Change in Fund Balance (117,762) (22,700) (99,571) 14,429 112,300 Beginning Fund Balance 933,059 815,297 140% h) 583,802 815,297 231,495 Ending Fund Balance $ 815,297 $ 792,598 $ 484,231 $ 829,726 $ 343,795 a) The majority of Environmental Health Fees are assessed/collected at the end of calendar year 2018. b) Patient fees include fee-for-service payments from the State, Commercial Insurance, and Patients. c) Received on a quarterly basis, after request is made. d) An unanticipated donation of $11 k to maternal/child health was received during the year. e) Savings are anticipated from a slow -down in hiring. f) Amounts transferred from Public Health Reserves to Public Health Operations per budget deliberations. g) Amount represents the funding transferred from Public Health to Department Admin for support. h) Savings from a hiring slow -down around the budget development provided additional savings in FY18, over projected. C Health Services - Administration Division Schedule of Financial Operating Data a) CCBHC wraparound payments are reimbursed on a quarterly basis. Amounts received here are for CCBHC-related staff. b) Includes funding from Crisis Co -responder grant and Oregon Meaningful Use Program. c) Payments for leased space from medical professionals. d) Savings are anticipated from a slow -down in hiring. e) Amount represents the funding required from Behavioral Health & Public Health for Department Admin. VA FY 2018 Year to Date July 1, 2018 through September 30, 2018 25% of the ear) . FY 2019 00 Actual Actual Budget Budget Projected Variance Revenues CCBHC Grants 672,756 - 0% a) 946,400 946,400 - Federal Grants - - 0% b) 68,904 68,904 - Interest on Investments 114,846 33,681 25% 135,000 134,700 (300) Other 19,038 4,049 45% c) 9,000 9,000 - Total Revenues 806,640 37,729 3% 1,159,304 1,159,004 (300) Expenditures Personnel Services 4,728,025 1,195,194 1 24% d) 5,067,132 5,017,132 50,000 Materials and Services 5,257,441 1,019,362 22% 4,555,874 4,555,874 - CapitalOutlay 10,056 - 0% 5,000 5,000 - Total Expenditures 9,995,522 2,214,556 23% 9,628,006 9,578,006 50,000 Transfers Transfers In - General Fund - 0% - - - Transfers In - Dept Admin 7,412,544 2,080,674 25% e) 8,323,306 8,323,306 - Transfers Out 490,320 47,172 25% 188,688 188,686 - Total Transfers In / Out 6,922,224 2,033,502 25% 8,134,618 8,134,618 - Change in Fund Balance (2,266,657) (143,325) (334,084) (284,384) 49,700 Beginning Fund Balance 5,122,187 2,855,529 108% 2,642,514 2,855,529 213,015 Ending Fund Balance $ 2,855,529 $ 2,712,204 $ 2,308,430 $ 2,571,145 $ 262,715 a) CCBHC wraparound payments are reimbursed on a quarterly basis. Amounts received here are for CCBHC-related staff. b) Includes funding from Crisis Co -responder grant and Oregon Meaningful Use Program. c) Payments for leased space from medical professionals. d) Savings are anticipated from a slow -down in hiring. e) Amount represents the funding required from Behavioral Health & Public Health for Department Admin. VA Revenues Admin- Operations 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 Net Transfers In/ Out Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance Community Development Schedule of Financial Operating Data Year to Date July 1, FY 2018 2018 through September 30, 2018 (25% of the near) Actual ■ Actual $ 134,969 $ 40,763 581,209 191,436 3,113,439 874,641 765,399 204,639 809,187 220,006 1,813,228 514,748 559,223 220,720 7,776,653 2,266,954 1,905,335 581,967 200,208 734 412,921 106,604 1,364,198 361,380 339,953 106,772 471,314 123,394 1,301,029 367,105 360,795 125,041 6,355,753 1,792,997 1,420,900 473,957 Budget 36% 29% a) 26% a) 25% 28% a) 26% b) 27% 27% 23% c) 0% 23% c) 22% c) 23% c) 20% c) 24% b) 25% c) 23% 73% 343,080 25% 361,937 130,876 2,167,678 2,529,615 115% 2,529,615 1 $ 2,660,492 FY 2019 e799 Budget Projected I Variance $ 114,500 $ 145,815 $ 31,315 664,291 683,950 19,659 3,312,714 3,378,001 65,287 804,849 805,108 259 782,984 853,674 70,690 1,945,453 1,895,453 (50,000) 828,955 818,055 (10,900) 8,453,746 8,580,056 126,310 2,480,694 2,436,101 44,593 466,550 447,228 19,322 1,717,925 1,684,925 33,000 455,905 447,550 8,355 621,107 597,144 23,963 1,560,577 1,510,789 49,788. 503,344 491,752 11,592 7,806,102 7,615,489 190,613 647,644 964,567 316,923 1,372,679 1,372,679 (1,372,679) (1,372,679) - (725,035) (408,112) - 2,203,711 2,529,615 325,904 $ 1,478,676 $ 2,121,503 $ 325,904 a) Projection increased due to higher than expected volume b) Change in accounting procedure for hearings officer deposits (Deposits held as liability instead of passing through budget). c) Projection decreased due to year to date unfilled positions. Road Schedule of Financial Operating Data FY 2019 Variance Revenues Year to Date July 1, through FY 20182018 September 30, 2018 (25% of the year) 14,111,188 $ 4,041,337 of Actual Actual Budget FY 2019 Variance Revenues Motor Vehicle Revenue $ 14,111,188 $ 4,041,337 25% $ 16,234,849 $ 16,234,849 $ - Federal - PILT Payment 1,574,248 2,153,308 113% a) 1,900,000 2,153,308 253,308 Other Inter -fund Services 1,069,766 51,762 5% 1,044,353 1,044,353 - Federal Reimbursements 509,127 - 0% 544,000 544,000 - Cities-Bend/Red/Sis/La Pine 537,224 127,582 20% b) 635,000 635,000 - State Miscellaneous 721,797 - 0% 739,811 739,811 Forest Receipts 882,985 - 0% c) 963,410 963,410 - Sale of Equip & Material 378,623 45,803 13% 365,000 365,000 - Mineral Lease Royalties 59,341 - 0% d) 175,000 175,000 - Assessment Payments (P&I) 91,803 1,979 3% 70,000 70,000 - Interest on Investments 116,447 56,966 36% 160,000 160,000 - Miscellaneous 73,077 19,032 42% 45,000 45,000 - Total Revenues 20,125,626 6,497,769 28% 22,876,423 23,129,731 253,308 Expenditures Personnel Services 5,852,960 1,526,631 23% 6,595,561 6,595,561 - Materials and Services 6,995,505 1,466,421 18% 8,094,192 8,094,192 Capital Outlay 141,885 - 0% - - - Total Expenditures 12,990,350 2,993,053 20% 14,689,753 14,689,753 - Transfers Transfer In- Solid Waste Payment 402,725 - 0% - - - Transfers Out 6,000,000 2,000,000 14% 14,464,308 14,464,308 - Total Transfers (5,597,275) (2,000,000) 14% (14,464,308) (14,464,308) - Change in Fund Balance 1,538,001 1,504,717 (6,277,638) (6,024,330) 253,308 Beginning Fund Balance 8,776,841 10,314,842 119% 8,693,653 10,314,842 1,621,189 Ending Fund Balance $ 10,314,842 $ 11,819,559 $ 2,416,015 $ 4,290,512 $ 1,874,497 a) A reduction to timber revenue received in FYI resulted in a positive impact to the FYI PILT amounts received. b) City reimbursements for work performed by the City are received towards the end of the FY, after work is completed c) Forest receipts are anticipated to be received from the State in May 2019. d) Mineral Lease Royalties are primarily received in the last few months of the Fiscal Year. F Adult Parole Probation Schedule of Financial Operating Data Year to Date July 1, ....� FY 2018 2018 through FY 2019 September 30, 2018 (25% of the year) ao Actual I Actual Budget Budget Projected Variance Revenues DOC Grant in Aid SB 1145 $ 4,333,329 $ 1,195,401 25% a) $ 4,781,604 $ 4,781,604 $ CJC Justice Reinvestment 844,831 844,831 100% b) 844,831 844,831 DOC Measure 57 233,900 233,900 100% b) 233,900 233,900 Electronic Monitoring Fee 149,997 32,610 326% c) 10,000 35,000 25,000 Probation Superv. Fees 191,722 43,157 21% e) 210,000 200,000 (10,000) DOC -Family Sentence Alt 114,683 114,683 100% b) 114,683 114,683 - interfund - Sheriff 50,000 12,500 25% d) 50,000 50,000 Gen Fund/Crime Prevention 50,000 - 0% d) 50,000 50,000 DOJ/Arrest Grant 11,684 - 0% - Alternate Incarceration 6,908 - 0% - - - State Subsidy 16,336 4,084 24% a) 17,000 17,000 - Interest on Investments 36,963 15,182 38% c) 40,000 55,000 15,000 Probation Work Crew Fees 1,966 600 15% e) 4,000 3,500 (500) State Miscellaneous - - 0% 4,300 4,300 - Miscellaneous 503 1,125 225% c) 500 1,500 1,000 Total Revenues 6,042,821 2,498,072 39% 6,360,818 6,391,318 30,500 Expenditures Personnel Services 4,226,603 1,120,988 24% 4,656,363 4,656,363 Materials and Services 1,548,670 401,564 22% 1,828,765 1,828,765 Capital Outlay 31,960 - 0% 20,000 20,000 Total Expenditures 5,807,233 1,522,552 23% 6,505,128 6,505,128 - Transfers Transfers In -General Fund 451,189 71,297 25% 285,189 285,189 - Transfer Out - Vehicle Repl/Maint 44,000 30,000 25% 120,000 120,000 - Total Transfers 407,189 41,297 25% 165,189 165,189 - Change in Fund Balance 642,777 1,016,818 20,879 51,379 30,500 Beginning Fund Balance 1,690,943 2,333,720 106% 2,200,000 2,333,720 133,720 Ending Fund Balance $ 2,333,720 $ 3,350,538 $ 2,220,879 $ 2,385,099 $ 164,220 a) Quarterly payment in advance b) One-time/annual payment c) Projected upward due to unanticipated revenue d) Quarterly payment received after request is made. e) Projected downward due to less than anticipated revenue Solid Waste Schedule of Financial Operating Data FY 2019 Budget Projected Variance Operating Revenues Year to Date July 1, 2018 through FY 2018 September 30, 2018 Franchise Disposal Fees (25% of the year) $ 1,738,580 % Actual Actual Budget FY 2019 Budget Projected Variance Operating Revenues Franchise Disposal Fees $ 6,091,577 $ 1,738,580 27% $ 6,497,675 $ 6,497,675 $ - Private Disposal Fees 2,502,365 729,423 27% 2,709,370 2,709,370 - Commercial Disp. Fees 1,905,165 672,383 33% 2,042,050 2,042,050 - Franchise 3% Fees 273,532 18,251 7% a) 265,000 265,000 - Yard Debris 203,247 71,844 33% 216,761 216,761 - Recyclables 15,833 3,733 21% 18,000 18,000 - Sale of Equip & Material - - - - - ' Special Waste 8,952 8,359 56% b) 15,000 15,000 - Interest 23,143 11,920 27% 44,000 44,000 - Leases 8,101 - 0% 10,801 10,801 - Miscellaneous 57,217 14,076 28% 49,955 49,955 - Total Operating Revenues 11,089,132 3,268,568 28% 11,868,612 11,868,612 - Operating Expenditures Personnel Services 2,173,108 562,363 22% 2,504,623 2,504,623 - Materials and Services 4,684,108 780,829 16% 4,822,187 4,822,187 - Capital Outlay 89,501 22,000 13% c) 173,000 173,000 - Debt Service 861,102 - 0% d) 860,938 860,938 - Total Operating Expenditures 7,807,819 1,365,192 16% 8,360,748 8,360,748 - Transfers Out SW Capital & Equip. Reserve 2,580,000 1,062,507 23% 4,637,994 4,637,994 - Total Transfers Out 2,580,000 1,062,507 23% 4,637,994 4,637,994 - Change in Fund Balance 701,313 840,868 (1,130,130) (1,130,130) - Beginning Fund Balance 1,237,677 1,938,991 112% 1,730,130 1,938,991 208,861 Ending Fund Balance $ 1,938,991 $ 2,779,859 $ 500,000 $ 808,861 $ 208,861 a) Due April 15, 2019. b) Revenue source is unpredictable; dependent on special clean-up projects. c) Vehicle purchases are in process. d) Principal and interest payments due in Nov and May. 11 Risk Management Schedule of Financial Operating Data Revenues Year to Date July 1, FY 2018 2018 through September 30, 2018 FY 2019 (25% of the year) General Liability $ 1,051,283 $ 265,919 25% $ 00 1,063,675 $ Actual Actual Budget Budget Projected Variance Revenues Inter -fund Charges: General Liability $ 1,051,283 $ 265,919 25% $ 1,063,675 $ 1,063,675 $ Property Damage 391,542 98,573 25% 394,291 394,291 Vehicle 195,085 48,813 25% 195,250 195,250 Workers' Compensation 1,242,317 311,620 25% 1,247,279 1,247,279 Unemployment 356,545 73,886 26% 280,921 280,921 Claims Reimb-Gen Liab/Property 336,022 6,343 2% 269,198 269,198 Process Fee-Events/Parades 1,800 315 18% 1,800 1,800 Miscellaneous 1,548 0% 530 530 - Skid Car Training 39,382 6,660 21% 32,000 32,000 Interest on Investments 86,122 28,741 34% 85,000 85,000 TOTAL REVENUES 3,701,647 841,069 24% 3,569,944 3,569,944 - Direct Insurance Costs: GENERAL LIABILITY Settlement / Benefit 69,537 27,000 Defense 78,349 43,870 Professional Service 12,545 - Insurance 212,132 388,242 a) Repair / Replacement 20,247 1,107 Total General Liability 392,809 460,219 51% 900,000 900,000 - PROPERTY DAMAGE Property Damage Charges 235 60 Insurance 173,873 - b) Repair / Replacement 30,900 20,412 Total Property Damage 205,008 20,472 3% 728,398 728,398 - VEHICLE Insurance 5,101 5,206 Loss Prevention 1,717 349 Repair / Replacement 109,130 26,097 Total Vehicle 115,948 32,528 27% 120,000 120,000 - WORKERS' COMPENSATION Settlement / Benefit 860,322 109,738 Professional Service 40,999 - Insurance 168,955 111,378 Loss Prevention 57,266 13,949 Miscellaneous 51,236 - Total Workers' Compensation 1,178,778 235,064 18% 1,300,000 1,300,000 - UNEMPLOYMENT - Settlement/Benefits 30,960 0% 150,000 150,000 Total Direct Insurance Costs 1,923,503 748,283 23% 3,198,398 3,198,398 - Insurance Administration: Personnel Services 360,138 92,335 24% 387,349 387,349 - Materials & Srvc, Capital Out. & Tranfs. 195,293 37,353 14% 275,518 275,518 - Total Insurance Administration 555,431 129,689 20% 662,867 662,867 Total Expenditures 2,478,933 877,972 23% 3,861,265 3,861,265 Change in Fund Balance 1,222,713 (36,903) (291,321) (291,321) Beginning Fund Balance 5,359,570 6,582,283 118% 5,600,000 6,582,283 982,283 Ending Fund Balance $ 6,582,283 $ 6,545,381 $ 5,308,679 $ 6,290,962 $ 982,283 a) Annual insurance premiums are paid at the beginning of the fiscal year. b) Annual insurance premiums are paid later in the fiscal year. 12 Revenues Property Taxes - Current Property Taxes - Prior Property Taxes - Jefferson County State Reimbursement 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 DC 9-1-1 (Funds 705 and 707) Schedule of Financial Operating Data FY 2019 Budget Projected I Variance 7,950,397 Year to Date July 1, - 2018 through FY 2018 September 30, 2018 126,401 (25% of the year) 47,598 43% a0 Actual Actual Budget FY 2019 Budget Projected I Variance 7,950,397 $ - 0% $ 8,316,033 $ 8,316,033 $ - 126,401 3,390,757 47,598 43% 110,000 110,000 32,003 22% 367 1% 30,000 30,000 162,900 - 0% 125,000 125,000 - 911,753 - 0% a) 890,000 890,000 67,875 - 0% b) 50,000 50,000 104,939 15,836 9% 180,000 180,000 - 351,987 18,743 6% c) 300,680 300,680 - 0% 51,300 51,300 18,647 2,461 35% 7,000 7,000 98,838 20,994 106,000 15% 1% 138,000 10,198,013 138,000 10,198,013 - 9,825,738 6,766,806 3,301,199 1,797,372 11,865,377 1,300,000 806,137 (1,233,502) 7,261,002 $ 6,027,500 1,629,659 21% 7,646,307 7,646,307 - 1,153,817 34% d) 3,390,757 3,390,757 109,829 5% e) 2,342,000 2,342,000 - 2,893,305 22% 13,379,064 13,379,064 - 0% 0% 0% (2,787,305) 6,027,500 100% $ 3,240,195 Ending Bal. DC Reserve (710) 2,633,115 2,644,827 Total of Funds 705,707 and 710 $ 8,660,615 $ 5,885,022 (3,181,051) (3,181,051) - 6,000,000 6,027,500 27,500 $ 2,818,949 2,846,449 $ 27,500 2,687,000 2,640,684 (46,316) $ 5,505,949 $ 5,487,133 $ (18,816) a) The State distributes payments quarterly, after the month ends. First payment is anticipated October/November. b) This is for billing to user agencies, billed out January 1 st. c) Reimbursements from user agencies, billed out January 1st. d) Annual maintenance agreements paid towards the beginning of the fiscal year. e) Capital budget available for Technology Improvements expenditures. 13 Health Benefits Fund Statement of Financial Operating Data Year to Date July 1, 2018 FY 2018 through September 30, FY 2019 2018 (25% of the year) Actual Actual % of Budget Projection $Variance Budget Revenues: Internal Premium Charges $ 17,573,923 $ 4,378,810 25.7% a) 17,052,000 17,515,238 463,238 Part -Time Employee Premium 2,303 485 N/A a) 2,563 1,938 (625) Employee Monthly Co -Pay 960,340 251,365 26.1% a) 963,000 1,005,460 42,460 COIC 1,823,503 446,456 24.3% a) 1,834,000 1,785,824 (48,176) Retiree / COBRA Co -Pay 1,255,725 301,399 23.5% a) 1,280,000 1,205,597 (74,403) Prescription Rebates 64,110 18,802 N/A 60,000 60,000 - Claims Reimbursements & Misc 116,243 721 N/A - 721 721 Interest 219 B09 72,589 33.0% a) 220,000 290,000 70,000 Total Revenues 22,015,966 6,470,627 25.5% 21,411,563 21,864,779 463,216 Expenditures: Materials & Services Admin & Wellness Claims Paid -Medical 14,108,678 1,684,742 11.3% 14,900,000 14,900,000 - Claims Paid -Prescription 1,304,662 199,448 14.5% 1,375,000 1,375,000 - Claims Paid -Dental 1,722,019 253,222 15.5% 1,632,000 1,632,000 - Claims Paid -Vision 426,862 49,565 10.8% 458,000 458,000 - Stop Loss Insurance Premium 440,144 149,369 33,2% b) 450,000 460,000 (10,000) State Assessments 10,585 - 0.0% - - - Administration Fee (TPA) 681,958 142,877 32.8% b) 435,000 435,000 - Preferred Provider Fee 80,523 25,371 33.4% b) 76,000 80,000 (4,000) Other - Administration 177,758 51,773 22.1% 233,777 233,777 - Other - Wellness 156,884 35,067 19.0% 184,870 184,870 Admin & Wellness 19,110,074 2,591,434 13.1% 19,744,647 19,758,647 (14,000) Deschutes On-site Clinic Contracted Services 928,621 176,484 18.1% 975,000 975,000 - Medical Supplies 88,436 - 0.0% 80,000 80,000 - Other 34,416 7,538 12.6% 59,864 59,864 - Total DOC 1,051,474 184,022 16.5% 1,114,664 1,114,864 - Deschutes On-site Pharmacy Contracted Services 308,693 50,009 14.9% 336,000 336,000 - Prescriptions 1,750,513 290,035 15.7% 1,850,000 1,850,000 - Other 102,463 17,549 17.8% 98,744 98,744 - Total Pharmacy 2,161,669 367,593 15.7% 2,284,744 21284144 - Total Expenditures 22,323,217 3,133 049 13.5% 23,144,255 23,158,265 (14,000) Change in Fund Balance (307,262) 2,337,578 (1,732,692) (1,293,476) 439,216 Beginning Fund Balance 15,382,578 15,075,316 93.9% 16,051,586 15,075,316 (976,270) Ending Fund Balance $ 15 075 316 1 $ 17,412 894 $ 14,318,894 $ 13,781,839 $ (637,055) a) Year to date annualized b) Year to date actual plus encumbrances 14 Justice Court Schedule of Financial Operating Data Revenues Year to Date July 1, 2018 FY2018 through September 30, 2018 (25% of the year) o Actual Actual Budget Revenues Court Fines & Fees $ 574,364 $ 147,942 27% a) $ 550,000 $ 591,770 $ 41,770 Interest on Investments 1,518 645 32% 2,000 2,581 581 Total Revenues 575,882 148,588 27% 552,000 594,350 42,350 Expenditures Personnel Services 462,655 124,566 24% 508,650 508,650 Materials and Services 137,679 41,622 28% b) 149,431 149,431 - Total Expenditures 600,334 166,188 25% 658,081 658,081 Net from Operations (24,452) (17,600) (106,081) (63,731) 42,350 Transfers Transfers In- General Fund 70,000 7,500 25% 30,000 30,000 - Total Transfers 70,000 7,500 25% 30,000 30,000 - Change in Fund Balance 45,548 (10,100) (76,081) (33,731) 42,350 Beginning Fund Balance 112,442 157,990 110% 144,000 157,990 13,990 Ending Fund Balance $ 157,990 $ 147,890 $ 67,919 $ 124,260 $ 56,341 a) Year to date annualized for projected amounts. b) One-time software maintenance fee of $8,680 paid in July for entire year. 15 Fair Expo Center Schedule of Financial Operating Data Operating Revenues Year to Date July 1, 2018 FY 2018 through September 30, 2018 FY 2019 455,732 $ (25% of the year) 18% Actual Actual % of Budget Storage 81,588 Budget I Projected Variance Operating Revenues Events Revenues $ 455,732 $ 108,852 18% 602,000 $ 610,347 $ 8,347 Storage 81,588 8,578 13% 68,000 68,000 - Camping at F & E 15,325 225 1 % 18,200 18,425 225 Horse Stall Rental 23,541 38,243 101% 38,000 57,643 19,643 Food & Beverage:Activllles, net 670964. (24,330);115% a)" 1,64,204 1411,374 Annual County Fair (net) 287,452 300,000 63% b) 472,998 387,000 (85,998) Interfund Contract 30,000 8,000 27% c) 30,000 32,000 2,000 Miscellaneous 4,822 1,757 21% 8,400 8,057 (343)_ Total Operating Revenues 966,424 441,325 31% 1,401,802 1,322,846 (78,956) Operating Expenditures, net of TRT: General F & E Activities Personnel Services 1,028,508 289,037 25% 1,161,582 1,160,223 1,359 Materials and Services 978,354 218,645 26% 833,771 878,713 (44,942) Total Operating Exp, net of TRT 2,006,862 507,681 25% 1,995,353 2,038,936 (43,583) Other: Park Acq/Dev (Fund 130) 30,000 7,500 25% 30,000 30,000 - Rights & Signage 111,499 12,485 12% 105,000 116,885 11,885 Interest 486 476 -20% 2,400 1,324 (1,076) Total Other 141,985 19,509 14% 137,400 148,209 10,809 Results of Operations (898,453) (46,848) (456,151) (567,882) (111,731) Transfers In I Out Transfer In -General Fund 200,000 50,000 25% 200,000 200,000 Transfers In - TRT -1 % 533,514 123,063 25% d) 492,252 492,252 Transfer In -Room Tax - (Fund 160) 25,744 6,436 25% 25,744 25,744 Total Transfers In 759,258 179,499 717,996 717,996 - Non -Operating Rev & Exp Debt Service 101,824 - 0% 1101J36 101,136 - Total Non -Operating Expenditures 101,824 0% 101,136 101,136 - Change in Fund Balance (241,020) 132,651 160,709 48,978 (111,731) Beginning Fund Balance 180,735 (60,285) NIA - (60,285) (60,285) Ending Fund Balance 60,285 $ 72 367 $ 160,709 $ (11,307) $ (172,016) 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) FY 2018 includes $100,000 originally planned to be received in FY 2019 16 REVENUES Room Taxes Interest Total Revenues EXPENDITURES Administrative Auditing Services Temporary Help Interfund Contract ISF Public Notices Printing Office Supplies Postage Software Total Administrative Current Distributions Sheriff's Office Sunriver Service Dist COVA (20% of the 6%) COVA (100% of the 1%) Grants Third Party Grants Inter -fund Transfers Fair & Expo Center ME Reserve Fund Total Distributions Total Expenditures Change in Balance Beginning Balance Ending Balance Room Taxes (Funds 160 and 170) Schedule of Financial Operating Data July 1, 2018 thru September 30, 2018 Fund 160 - 7% of TRT Fund 170 - 1% of TRT Combined - 8% TRT 50,675 Budget Actual Budget Actual Budget I Actual % of Budget 875 - 2,625 509 52,500 56 168,611 $ 6,352,500 $ 3,362,964 $ 907,500 $ 480,425 $ 7,260,000 $ 3,843,389 52.9% 14,000 9,571 8,600 2,301 22,600 11,872 52.5% 6,366,500 3,372,535 916,100 482,726 7,282,600 3,855,261 52.9% 10,938 3,151,787 787,947 7,875 - 50,675 12,669 38,485 9,621 2,713 392 1,925 - 875 - 2,625 509 52,500 56 168,611 23,191 1,563 3,151,787 787,947 12,501 200,000 1,125 - 9,000 - 8,446 2,111 59,121 14,780 602 151 39,087 9,772 388 56 3,101 448 275 - 2,200 1,851,416 125 1,000 - 375 73 3,000 581 7,500 112,252 356,451 2,003,845 20,399 2,391 129,010 25,581 3,151,787 787,947 3,151,787 787,947 200,000 - 200,000 1,063,256 361,100 1,063,256 361,100 884,017 302,268 884,017 302,268 25,744 6,436 642,252 160,563 667,996 166,999 - 830,083 207,521 830,083 207,521 5,324,804 1,457,751 1,472,335 368,084 6,797,139 1,825,835 5,493,415 1,480,941 1,492,734 370,474 6,926,149 1,851,416 873,085 1,891,593 (576,634) 112,252 356,451 2,003,845 1,387,711 1,204,818 576,634 361,634 1,964,345 1,566,452 $ 2,260,796 $ 3,096,411 $ - $ 473,886 $ 2,320,796 $ 3,570,297 NVA HEI v CD o a o 00 0 0 0 00 o coo to Cl 0 0 rn o0 0 0 It) 00 0 0) o m o "p O ' O O 1� 0 0 0 0 r O O O N (n ti N m N C6 00 M O M O N to O �t d' CY) LO qT r m O O N N r O r r- N Q' to 00 VM N N r r O t}i Q9. eA c- t`- o (D O M to o O (D to N to O IN N (D 00 O to O CT In r Q) 00 N O (D (3) W M to Cfl to (A to O> (D d' u) It LO WIt OD M M C) C\i C6 (D r N L6 MCA - O tNp M- M CN') to r M M N N to C+) to (D r C7 o s- {-- CO (() o co w N N r M 'ITN 00 M w 0) r-- C» M to N ' N tf) ' In O) (a E r cc d 0A 00 O Com- 00 d' tD M t() W) �- r CD .N N (D Cl) ej Cl) N r- 'IT CD r r- C N CA U r M M Q m w U) tfi +-' O N t-. Cl) It to a a h- to M a o O O to (O r M W Cf) 0)114- C) r Ca C' LO r M 00 ' co to (D N N ` tC cD M 00 N a- h- cO t^-- CA V-: tD u i ti M M r _= Q :3M cN- Cl) 04 N (N7 r U O two to U) K> N 00 M (D o` CO 0) N O a to I- N N W ti N In d O i O M to to N 00 r �+ Of r (A — (D It to r I,- M r � i t (D M Cl t" N to OD N M ' N M CO V_ 'p R Cl) M NCD r r M C3 A V� W C U. M (D OD (D N O to tq d O M O N 00 M m e w W) M 00 (D qt tD r C (n (A Ci fes- N O C N O N -- (A r to U Q V V) Il- — tO v 0) (D N d co O co 00 CA O h N N M N N M N 00 N N M sT to Cb r w r r U- V). 44 Q) � m N N = U 01 °' m a m a a ` Z off a = d � � m o �, c M 1L > (D O LL to U) o a d CL d N > LLr_ En Lo w tU d d �� x .� �°� o e LL' �' a` a` �._'a) C r a O to w U a. c Q U)p c N d) W dmaW W i 0 0 o .��. UU c X°o0 _ oC i- 0 C9 0 w �- _ HEI \yE S CSG o c 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 October 22, 2018 DATE: October 15, 2018 FROM: Cynthia Smidt, Community Development, 541-317-3150 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Preparations for Deliberations: TID Plan Amendment & Zone Change Appeals ATTENDANCE: Cynthia Smidt, Associate Planner SUMMARY: As requested by the Board at the public hearing, staff scheduled a work session in preparation for Board deliberations on the subject applications. Deliberations are scheduled October 24, 2018 on two appeals of a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change for property at 19300 Tumalo Reservoir Road. A public hearing was held on July 25, 2018. The Board established an open record period of 21 days. The record closed on August 15, 2018. The Board is tasked with determining if the proposal complies with the applicable sections of Deschutes County Code and Oregon Administrative Rules. See attached staff memo for additional information. ES ,d C W9WWN11YkJtVtL VIVMNO MEMORANDUM DATE: October 15, 2018 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Cynthia Smidt, Associate Planner RE: Deliberations; Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change for Tumalo Irrigation District (File Nos. 247-17-000775-ZC, 247 -17 -000776 -PA, 247-18-000241-A, and 247-18-000247-A) The Board of County Commissioners (Board) held a public hearing on July 25, 2018 to consider two appeals, one filed by the applicant, Tumalo Irrigation District (TID) and the other by Central Oregon LandWatch (LandWatch). This memo and the attached decision matrix are intended to identify issue areas, summarize relevant findings and testimony, and provide a framework for a decision. These documents do not replace the information contained in the record. For the Board's review is the open record period since the public hearing. At various points in this memo, staff highlights Board decision points. Written evidence and testimony was submitted into the record at the hearing and during the post - hearing open written record period. Said evidence and testimony is detailed in the Exhibit list at the end of this memo. L BACKGROUND The applicant, TID, submitted a request for a quasi-judicial Comprehensive Plan Amendment (file no. 247 -17 -000776 -PA) to change the designation of the 541 -acre subject property from Surface Mine (SM) to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA). The request includes removing Surface Mining Site No. 357 from the County's Surface Mining Mineral and Aggregate Inventory and adding it to the Non -Significant Mining and Aggregate Inventory. The applicant also requests approval of a Zone Change (file no. 247-17-000775-ZC) from Surface Mining to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA). The removal of the SM zoning would remove the existing Surface Mining Impact Area Combining Zone (SMIA) zoning on surrounding properties located within one-half mile of the SM Zone. The Hearings Officer (H.O.) decision denied the applicant's request for a plan amendment and zone change (referred to as "plan amendment/zone change" request). The decision was based on the 11 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Lox 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 Q, (541 ) 388-6575 �7a cddCdesdmtes .org @ www.deschutes.org/cd applicant's failure to demonstrate that the proposed change would not have a significant impact on transportation facilities. Specifically, the H.O. was concerned about traffic impacts from potential conditional uses following the plan/zone change, such as a cluster development. The H.O. issued a decision on February 23, 2018, which was subsequently appealed. The Board accepted review of the Hearings Officer's decision on April 18, 2018 via Order No. 2018-024. II. RECORD At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Board established the following deadlines for the open record period to allow submittal of evidence, testimony and final legal argument. Also identified below is the evidence and testimony submitted at the public hearing.' • Evidence and testimony submitted at the public hearing on July 25, 2018 Jim and Bradaigh Holt Letter dated July 19, 2018; Exhibit A Jennifer Bragar (Bishop) Letter dated July 24, 2018; Exhibit B Jim and Bradaigh Holt Testimony dated July 25, 2018; Exhibit C LanclWatch Testimony dated July 25, 2018; Exhibit D New evidence and testimony ("First Round"): August 1, 2018 at 5:00 p.m. During this time, the following documents were submitted: Jim and Bradaigh Holt Testimony July 30, 2018; Exhibit E Applicant's Testimony dated August 1, 2018; Exhibit F LandWatch Testimony dated August 1, 2018; Exhibit G Rebuttal evidence and testimony ("Second Round"): August 8, 2018 at 5:00 p.m. During this time, the following documents were submitted: Applicant's Rebuttal dated August 8, 2018; Exhibit H LanclWatch Rebuttal dated August 8, 2018; Exhibit I • Applicant's final legal argument ("Final Legal Argument"): August 15, 2018 at 5:00 p.m. During this time, the following documents were submitted: Applicant's Final Arguments dated August 15, 2018; Exhibit) III. PRELIMINARY MATTERS Procedural Requirements 22.28.030. Decision on Plan Amendments and Zone Changes. B. in considering all quasi judicial zone changes and those quasi judicial plan amendments on which the Hearings Officer has authority to make a decision, the Board of County ' Staff understands the Board may not have received a copy of all evidence and testimonyfrom the public hearing. 247-17-000775-ZC, 247 -17 -000776 -PA, 247-18-000241-A, and 247-18-000247-A Page 2 of 11 Commissioners shall, in the absence of an appeal or review initiated by the Board, adopt the Hearings Officer's decision. No argument or further testimony will be taken by the Board. C. Plan amendments and zone changes requiring an exception to the goals or concerning lands designated for forest or agricultural use shall be heard de novo before the Board of County Commissioners without the necessity of filing an appeal, regardless of the determination of the Hearings Officer or Planning Commission. Such hearing before the Board shall otherwise be subject to the same procedures as an appeal to the Board under DCC Title 22. The Deschutes County Code (DCC), Chapter 22.28.030(C) of the Procedures Ordinance requires the Board to hear plan amendments and zone changes that require an exception to the statewide planning goals or concerning lands designated agricultural use without the necessity of filing an appeal of the H.O. decision. According to LandWatch, the application requires a goal exception, primarily an exception to Goal 3, and thus the appeal by the applicant and LanclWatch should not have been necessary.z Staff understands LanclWatch to be seeking a refund of appeal fees under this argument. The H.O. found that an exception to Goal 3 was not required. The applicant agrees with the H.O. decision. However, if the Board finds an exception is required, the applicant requests the hearing be reopened to allow for further evidence to be submitted, as the applicant has not received any direction to provide such information from staff or the H.O.' Board Decision - As it relates to DCC 22.28, does the Board believe a goal exception is required to accompany the proposed plan amendment/zone change request? If so, is the Board interested in reopening the hearing? Code Violations and Ability to Process Applications 22.20.015 Code Enforcement and Land Use A. Except as described in (D) below, if any property is in violation of applicable land use regulations, and/or the conditions of approval of any previous land use decisions or building permits previously issued by the County, the County shall not: 1. Approve any application for land use development, 2. Make any other land use decision, including land divisions and/or property line adjustments, 3. Issue a building permit. C. A violation means the property has been determined to not be in compliance either through a prior decision by the County or other tribunal, or through the review process of the current application... I LanclWatch also argues that because a Goal 3 exception is required, notice of the December 12, 2017 hearing was inadequate. 3 Nonetheless, the applicant did provide a response to the goal exception standards, indicating that if an exception was required, the proposal satisfies the "committed" exception. 247-17-000775-ZC, 247 -17 -000776 -PA, 247-18-000241-A, and 247-18-000247-A Page 3 of 11 As noted above, DCC 22.20.015 may prevent approval of the present application if the property is in violation of other land use regulations. LanclWatch and others argue that a denial of the plan amendment/zone change request is warranted because the subject property is in violation of applicable land use regulations.' The applicant states that there are no code violations associated with the subject property or Bill Martin Road. The complaints are "unsubstantiated from both an evidentiary and substantive perspective." Board Decision - Is the subject property in violation of applicable land use regulations? IV. PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE Transportation Planning OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING (OAR 660-012) This section is applicable to the proposal because it involves an amendment to an acknowledged comprehensive plan. The transportation analysis for a plan amendment/zone change request is different than when analyzing physical development. This analysis considers generally whether the proposed zoning allows for more vehicle trips than what is permitted under the current zoning. It looks at impacts at intersections if the analysis identifies that the proposed zoning will increase trips to the system. The H.O. denied the proposal here, making a finding regarding the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) is based on something other than mobility standards. The applicant appeals this decision arguing that the H.O. erroneously concluded that the applicant failed to satisfy OAR 660-012-0060. The applicant states that OAR 660-012-0060 requires the County to estimate traffic impacts under a reasonable "worst-case" scenario. The applicant continues that the H.O. erroneously concluded that 74 dwelling units on the subject property, which is only achievable if TID seeks and obtains nine separate conditional use approvals and nine separate subdivision approvals, is a reasonable worst-case scenari0.5 Nonetheless, the applicant provided a supplemental traffic analysis from Kittelson & Associates that "confirms that surface mining operations have a higher trip generation potential than even the 72 dwellings theoretically possible." The opponents support the H.O. decision.6 They argue that the transportation facilities serving the property will not be consistent with their functional classification and thus, resulting in deterioration 4 LanclWatch not only argues violation of the DCC but also a violation of ORS 368.256 regarding water traveling across Bill Martin Road and, as in the record below, ongoing litigation - Blischke et al. vTumalo Irrigation District, Deschutes County District Court Case No. 16CV21940 - that involves Bill Martin Road as the violation of applicable land use regulations. Finally, during this plan amendment/zone change request process, a code complaint (case no. 247 -18 -000509 -CE) was filed against the subject property. This case has been closed. 5 The general understanding among parties is that multiple cluster developments would create approximately 72 to 74 dwelling units (no exact number). The argument is not regarding the number of dwelling units but what the TPR evaluates in a plan amendment/zone change request. 6 At the lower hearing, LandWatch presented the original argument regarding TPR. 247-17-000775-ZC, 247 -17 -000776 -PA, 247-18-000241-A, and 247-18-000247-A Page 4 of 11 of facility performance.' In addition, opposition (Holt) questions the validity of the traffic analysis and argues that the County should have contacted ODOT pursuant to Comprehensive Plan's Transportation System Plan (TSP) policy 3.1.a.$ As noted previously by staff, the H.O. decision makes an unusual finding regarding the TPR. This could then set precedent regarding required traffic analyses for plan amendment/zone changes. In the decision, the H.O. sites two cases, Jaqua v City of Springfield and Willamette Oaks, LLC, v City of Eugene. In Jaqua v City of Springfield, 193 Or App 573, 593, 91 P3d 817 (2004) the court held that the TPR does not permit deferral of a determination of whether the proposal would significantly impact transportation facilities. This was reaffirmed and perhaps extended in Willamette Oaks, LLC, vCity of Eugene, 232 Or App 29, 220 P.3d 445 (2009). This effectively overruled a line of LUBA cases holding that it was permissible in some instances to condition a plan amendment or zone change to prohibit development that could significantly impact a transportation facility. The court made it clear that there must be a finding on this issue at the plan amendment/zone change stage. Board Decision - Has the applicant demonstrated that the proposed plan amendment/zone change request will satisfy OAR 660-012-0060? Transportation Planning and Natural Hazards DCC 18.136.020. Rezoning Standards. The applicant for a quasi judicial rezoning must establish that the public interest is best served by rezoning the property. Factors to be demonstrated by the applicant are: C. That changing the zoning will presently serve the public health, safety and welfare considering the following factors: 1. The availability and efficiency of providing necessary public services and facilities. 2. The impacts on surrounding land use will be consistent with the specific goals and policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan. Together with OAR 660-012-0060, the H.O. denied the plan amendment/zone change based on the applicant's failure to meet this standard. The H.O. states the following: Regarding Bill Martin Rd., and perhaps others, 1 have found that the applicant failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that there is no potential significant detrimental impact on transportation facilities. l think this criterion has a somewhat different focus. Adopting a zone that permits some level of development likely promotes the provision of adequate facilities because it can be conditioned to make improvements and it likely would be financially feasible to make those improvements. Nevertheless, I find this criterion is not met regarding transportation because, as stated above, there is insufficient information about the impacts of potential development, the ' LandWatch focuses specifically on the expected impact to Bill Martin Road, in addition to the intersection of Highway 20 and Bailey Road. 8 The applicant argues that no new highway access is proposed and no actual trips are being generated by this proposal. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this policy. 247-17-000775-ZC, 247 -17 -000776 -PA, 247-18-000241-A, and 247-18-000247-A Page 5 of 11 carrying capacity and condition of existing roads and what, if anything, can be done to mitigate such impacts. LanclWatch and others agree with the H.O. decision here.9 They argue that this standard is not met because the site, with a history of erosion (e.g. sinkholes), is unsafe, and Bill Martin Rd. is in poor condition. LandWatch indicates that the unsafe conditions are "likely due to insufficient reclamation of the former mining site." The applicant appeals this decision arguing that the H.O. misapplied and erroneously concluded that the applicant failed to satisfy DCC 18.136.020(C). The applicant argues that this provision looks at whether public services are provided. Bill Martin Road is not the only road that serves the property; Mock Road and Tumalo Reservoir Road also serve the property and help distribute traffic throughout the area.10 Board Decision - Has the applicant demonstrated that changing the zoning will presently serve the public health, safety as identified in DCC 18.136.020(C)? Goal 3: Agricultural Lands To preserve and maintain agricultural lands. The subject property is identified as Surface Mine under the County Comprehensive Plan. It is not identified as agricultural lands. The applicant did not request an exception to Goal 3 based on this information. The H.O. found that an exception to Goal 3 was not required. LanclWatch appeals the H.O. decision arguing that the subject property is agricultural land for which no goal exception has been taken in the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the argument is made that lands can only be designated as RREA if an exception is taken. LandWatch continues by stating the subject property is agricultural land based on the soil classification of the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and therefore, the property is agricultural land by definition.11 LanclWatch refers to previous County comprehensive plans and processes but argues the State acknowledged many exceptions to Goal 3 but did not acknowledge the SM Zone as an exception to Goal 3. Moreover, even if there was an 9 Jim and Bradaigh Holt reference ORS 517.760(1)(b) and (2)(b), which state, respectively: (1) The Legislative Assembly finds and declares that. (b) Proper reclamation of surface -mined lands is necessary to prevent undesirable land and water conditions that would be detrimental to the general welfare, health, safety and property rights of the citizens of this state. (2) The Legislative Assembly, therefore, declares that the purposes of ORS 517.702 to 517.951 are: (b) To provide for cooperation between private and governmental entities in carrying out the purposes of ORS 517.702 to 517.951 and reclamation of abandoned mined lands that may pose a hazard to public health, safety or the environment. 10 The applicant also argues that there is nothing wrong with Bill Martin Road, having been repaired and improved, including installation of culverts, following the sink hole events, 11 LandWatch provides a definition that is similar or the same as the one in OAR 660-033-0020. 247-17-000775-ZC, 247 -17 -000776 -PA, 247-18-000241-A, and 247-18-000247-A Page 6 of 11 acknowledgement, the exception allowed for surface mining but not rural residential. Lastly, since surface mining is considered a temporary and transitional use, once the significant mineral resources is deleted, Goal 5 no longer applies which warrants the re -designation and rezoning based on the agricultural soils of the property. Other opposition (Holt) argues that zoning should be EFU and not residential. The applicant supports the H.O. decision regarding Goal 3. The applicant argues the NRCS identifies the soils at the landscape level and are not site specific and thus not reliable. Furthermore, the NRCS data is irrelevant because the County's agricultural land inventories and zoning have long been acknowledged by the State. The applicant, also referring to previous comprehensive plans and processes, argues that Deschutes County inventoried all agricultural (resource) lands in the county. The lands found to be resource lands - agricultural or forest - by definition, were then assigned their associated zones - Exclusive Farm Use or Forest zoning (or their predecessor). For the lands not identified as agricultural or forestry land, the County took the approach of establishing completely separate zones, which included the SM Zone. These separate zones were then assigned to the properties not identified as agricultural or forestry land. They continue by indicating that the RREA plan designation is a misleading term carried over since the initial Comprehensive Plan. They state, "As discussed in prior decisions, the term is simply a 'catchall designation for land types that are authorized as rural residential zoning."' The applicant states that the County recognized that mining operations were distinctly not agricultural or forest resources unless specifically identified in the Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy (ESEE) analysis associated with the site.1z The applicant states that the subject property was not inventoried as agricultural resource land, and subsequently acknowledged by the State, in the 1979 comprehensive plan and the 1992 periodic review of the comprehensive plan. The site has never been suitable for farm use, according to the applicant, and was never subject to Goal 3. Here and at the lower hearing, the applicant cites Caldwell v Klamath County, 45 LUBA 548 (No. 2003-115, 2003), which the H.O. concurred. In conclusion, the applicant argues that an exception is not required because the site is not agricultural land. However, if an exception is required, the applicant requests the hearing be reopened to allow for further evidence be submitted, as the applicant has not received any direction to provide such information from staff or the H.O. (see footnote 3). Board Decision - Does the proposed plan amendment/zone change request require an exception to Goal 3, Agricultural Lands? 12 The surface mining element and the ESEE analysis for Site No. 357 do not identify a subsequent use zone for the property. 247-17-000775-ZC, 247 -17 -000776 -PA, 247-18-000241-A, and 247-18-000247-A Page 7 of 11 Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Hazards13 To protect people and property from natural hazards. The H.O. found that the site does not include areas subject to natural hazards. Moreover, the H.O. found that environmental concerns "can be addressed through compliance with applicable state health and environmental quality regulations, or through compliance with the county's development standards."14 LandWatch appeals this decision, arguing that an exception to Goal 7 is required. They state that the "evidence in the record indicates the applicant did not fill mined areas on the property in a manner that permits subsequent use of the property for housing development." They argue that if the County does not respond to new hazard inventory information submitted by a state agency, DOGAMI in this case, then an exception to Goal 7 is required.15 Now that the County is aware of potentially hazardous conditions on the property, the H.O. erred in "not recommending that the County conduct an evaluation of the risk of sinkholes from improper fill." The applicant supports the H.O. decision here. They argue that the County's existing development regulations, as required by the Goal 7 policies, are designed to screen for these issues as part of the physical development review process. The sinkholes that occurred at Summit High School were used as an example among parties. The applicant argues that this is an example that reclaimed mines can be reasonably utilized and that "this was a result of selected treatment and not an incurable defect of the property." Lastly, the applicant states, "DOGAMI has confirmed, nothing precludes a property owner from pursuing additional reclamation" to support some alternative post -mining use. Board Decision - Does the plan amendment/zone change request require an exception to Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Hazards? 13 LandWatch argues that several policies related to natural hazards in the Comprehensive Plan have not been met and are summarized in their notice of appeal. As noted by LandWatch, the Comprehensive Plan Section 3.5, Natural Hazards, only identifies wildland fire, severe winter storms, flooding, volcanic eruption, and earthquake. Other hazards such as sinkholes are not identified since they are not a typical hazard for the county. The County Zoning Ordinance implements those policies of the acknowledged Comprehensive Plan. 14 The H.O. quoted the Hearings Officer from another plan amendment/zone change request, file nos. PA -08-1 and ZC-08-1. 15 LanclWatch indicates that Goal 7 requires that the County respond to new natural hazard inventory information submitted by a state agency. They reference the following Goal 7, part B section: B. RESPONSE TO NEW HAZARD INFORMATION 1. New hazard inventory information provided by federal and state agencies shall be reviewed by the Department in consultation with affected state and local government representatives. 2. After such consultation, the Department shall notify local governments if the new hazard information requires a local response. 3. Local governments shall respond to new inventory information on natural hazards within 36 months after being notified by the Department of Land Conservation and Development, unless extended by the Department. 247-17-000775-ZC, 247 -17 -000776 -PA, 247-18-000241-A, and 247-18-000247-A' Page 8 of 11 Comprehensive Plan - Resource Management Section 2.10 Surface Mining Background Surface mining provides non-renewable resources, such as pumice, cinders, building stone, sand, gravel and crushed rock. The extraction of these materials provides employment as well as products important to local economic development. Yet mining of mineral and aggregate resources creates noise, dust and traffic and potential pollution that can conflict with neighboring land uses, particularly residential uses. This conflict can be aggravated by delayed or incomplete reclamation of the land. Surface mining is protected through Statewide Planning Goal 5, Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas and Open Spaces and the associated Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-023 (this rule replaced 660-016 in 1996). Mineral and aggregate resources are included on the list of Statewide Goals resources that the County must inventory and protect... Goals and Policies Goal 1 Protect and utilize mineral and aggregate resources while minimizing adverse impacts of extraction, processing and transporting the resource. Policy 2.10.1 Goal 5 mining inventories, ESEEs and programs are retained and not repealed. Policy 2.10.2 Cooperate and coordinate mining regulations with the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. Policy 2.10.3 Balance protection of mineral and aggregate resources with conflicting resources and uses. Policy 2.10.5 Review surface mining site inventories as described in Section 2.4, including the associated Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy (ESEE) analyses. Policy 2.10.6 Support efforts by private property owners and appropriate regulatory agencies to address reclamation of Goal 5 mine sites approved under 660-016 following mineral extraction. The request includes removing Surface Mining Site No. 357 from the Countys Surface Mining Mineral and Aggregate Inventory and adding it to the Non -Significant Mining and Aggregate Inventory. The H.O. found these comprehensive plan policies were met and concluded the following: There do not appear to be any express criteria for inclusion on the Non-significant inventory. As discussed above, the applicant has met its burden of demonstrating that the Significant designation should be terminated. Any future proposal for a reservoir will at a minimum require development review. I do not have a proposal for such excavation before me and the issue of whether a new reservoir may be excavated on a property not listed as a Significant Resource will be addressed if such development is sought. LandWatch appeals this decision, indicating that the H.O. erred in deciding to amend Table 5.8.2 to include the subject property. LanclWatch and others argue the property should not be placed on the non-significant mining and aggregate inventory. LandWatch states that the existence of such 247-17-000775-ZC, 247 -17 -000776 -PA, 247-18-000241-A, and 247-18-000247-A Page 9 of 11 an inventory is an error and has no legal value in the County's program. They reference Beaver State Sand & Gravel v. Douglas Countywas made, indicating this issue was settled with the Court of Appeals. The applicant supports the H.O. decision regarding the Non -Significant Mining and Aggregate Inventory listing. The applicant states Deschutes County adopted DCC 18.128.280, which provides mining on non -Goal 5 resources, regardless of the zone, if the site is listed on the Non -Significant Mining and Aggregate Inventory. They contend that although the Court of Appeals ruling in Beaver State Sand and Gravel, Inc. v. Douglas County may have rendered DCC 18.128.280 and the Non - Significant Mining and Aggregate Inventory "obsolete and unnecessary" it remains in the DCC. Therefore, based on the DCC, it requires non -Goal 5 resources be included on the Non -Significant Mining and Aggregate Inventory in order to be eligible for mining via conditional use approval. Board Decision - Does the proposed plan amendment/zone change request meet the Resource Management policies of the Comprehensive Plan? Should the Non -Significant Mining and Aggregate Inventory be amended to include the subject property? Comprehensive Plan - Post -Mining Uses Section 18.52.200 of the DCC governs post -mining uses of surface mining sites. That section states, "...the property shall be rezoned to the subsequent use zone identified in the surface mining element of the Comprehensive Plan." In this case, however, the Comprehensive Plan does not identify a subsequent use zone for the subject property (see footnote 12). For reference, the site's reclamation report by DOGAMI designated post -mining use as Open Space/Range compared to the other choices such as agriculture, recreation, wildlife/wetlands, or housing/construction. LanclWatch and others argue that the H.O. erred in "ignoring DOGAMI's reclamation certification." They state that a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change to something other than open space or range would be inconsistent with that determination. LandWatch states that if the applicant is responsible for identifying the post -mining designation with the DOGAMI, "then the applicant cannot seek to use the subject property for any other use." The applicant supports the H.O. decision here. They argue that the post -mining uses identified in DOGAMI paperwork is not binding on actual future uses of that property.16 They state, "Actual post - mining uses are squarely the province of local governments." Furthermore, the applicant argues, "There is no indication or analysis from DOGAMI that the reclamation actually performed on the subject property is not suitable for some alternative use." In the MUA-10 Zone, the applicant points out, talks to the preservation of open spaces. Board Decision - Does the proposed zone change request to rezone the property from SM to MUA- 10 meet DCC 18.52.200 regarding post -mining uses? 16 The applicant indicates that while a DOGAMI permit is active, if there is an alternative post -mining use, then the reclamation standard must also change. However, once the DOGAMI permit is closed, DOGAMI loses jurisdiction. 247-17-000775-ZC, 247 -17 -000776 -PA, 247-18-000241-A, and 247-18-000247-A Page 10 of 11 V. 150 -DAY Clock According to DCC 22.20.040, quasi-judicial plan amendment and zone change requests are exempt from the 150 -day time limit. EXHIBITS Evidence and testimony submitted at the public hearing A. Jim and Bradaigh Holt Letter dated July 19, 2018 B. Jennifer Bragar (Bishop) Letter dated July 24, 2018 C. Jim and Bradaigh Holt Testimony dated July 25, 2018 D. LanclWatch Testimony dated July 25, 2018 Post -hearing new evidence and testimony E. Jim and Bradaigh Holt Testimony July 30, 2018 F. Applicant's Testimony dated August 1, 2018 G. LandWatch Testimony dated August 1, 2018 Post -hearing rebuttal evidence and testimony H. Applicant's Rebuttal dated August 8, 2018 I. LandWatch Rebuttal dated August 8, 2018 Post -hearing Applicant final legal argument J. Applicant's Final Arguments dated August 15, 2018 Staff submittal K. Decision Matrix 247-17-000775-ZC, 247 -17 -000776 -PA, 247-18-000241-A, and 247-18-000247-A Page 11 of 11 TID Plan Amendment and Zone Change - MATRIX Issue Area Applicant Opposition F Staff Comments Board Decision Procedural - Goal Exception DCC 22.28.030(C) states that plan The applicant agrees with the amendments and zone changes Hearings Officer and does not Does the Board believe a goal exception is requiring an exception to the goals or believe a goal exception is The application requires a goal exception, required, as it relates to DCC 22.28.030(C)? concerninglands designated for g forest or agricultural use shall be required. q primarily an exception to Goal 3, and thus 1. If yes, then the Board can either heard de novo before the Board of If an exception is required, the the appeal by the applicant and LanclWatch a. Reopen the hearing to allow the County Commissioners without the applicant requests the hearing should not have been necessary. None. applicant to provide additional evidence; necessity of filing an appeal, be reopened to allow for further or regardless of the determination of the evidence be submitted, as the Because a Goal 3 exception is required, b. Review the supplemental information Hearings Officer or Planning applicant has not received any notice the December 12, 2017 hearing regarding "committed" exception and Commission. direction to provide such was inadd equate. proceed with the decision matrix. The Hearings Officer found that an information from staff or the 2. If no, proceed with the decision matrix. exception was not required. Hearings Officer. Code Violations and Ability to Process Applications There are no code violations Does the Board find the subject property in DCC 22.20.015 may prevent approval associated with the subject Opponents argue that a denial of the plan violation of applicable land use regulations? of the present application if the property or Bill Martin Road. p y amendment and zone change request is property is in violation of other land warranted because the subject property is None. 1. If yes, then the Board can deny the plan use regulations. The complaints are "unsubstantiated in violation of applicable land use amendment and zone change request from both an regulations, state law, and pending before them. evidentiary and substantive litigation. 2. If no, proceed with the decision matrix. perspective." 247-17-000775-ZC, 247 -17 -000776 -PA, 247-18-00241-A, and 247-18-000247-A Board Deliberations MATRIX Page 1 of 5 Issue Area Applicant Opposition Staff Comments Board Decision Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) The Hearings Officer makes an unusual finding regarding the TPR. This could then set precedent regarding required traffic analyses for plan amendment and zone changes. In the decision, the Hearings OAR 660-012-0060. Officer sites two cases, Jaqua v City of Springfield and Has the applicant demonstrated The transportation analysis for a plan Support the Hearings Officer's decision Willamette Oaks, LLC, v Ci o � f that the proposed plan amendment amendment and zone change request The Hearings Officer erroneously concluded that and argue that transportation facilities Eugene. InJaqua vCityof and zone change will satisfy OAR considers generally whether the the applicant failed to satisfy OAR 660-012-0060. serving the property will not be p �rin S ield, the court held 660-012-0060? proposed zoning allows for more OAR 660-012-0060 requires the County to consistent with their functional that the TPR does not permit 1. If yes, proceed with the decision vehicle trips than what is permitted p p estimate traffic impacts under a reasonable classification and thus, resulting in deferral of a determination matrix. under the current zoning. It looks at "worst-case" scenario (concluding that 74 deterioration of facility performance. Y p of whether the proposal 2. If no, then the Board can either impacts at intersections if the analysis dwelling units on the subject property, which is would significantly impact identifies that the proposed zoning only achievable if the applicant seeks and Other opposition question the validity transportation facilities. This a. Reopen the hearing to allow will increase trips to the system. obtains nine separate conditional use approvals of the traffic analysis and argues that was reaffirmed and perhaps the applicant to provide The Hearings Officer denied the and nine separate subdivision approvals, is a the County should have contacted extended in Willamette Oaks, additional evidence; or proposal here, making a finding reasonable worst-case scenario).Pp ODOT pursuant to Comprehensive Plans Transportation System Plan LLC , v City of Eugene. This effectively overruled a line of b. Review the supplemental traffic analysis provided by regarding the TPR that is based on (TSP) policy 3.1.a. LUBA cases holding that it the applicant and proceed somethingother than mobility Y was permissible in some with the decision matrix. standards. instances to condition a plan amendment or zone change to prohibit development that could significantly impact a transportation facility. The court made it clear that there must be a finding on this issue at the plan amendment and zone change stage. 247-17-000775-ZC, 247 -17 -000776 -PA, 247-18-00241-A, and 247-18-000247-A Board Deliberations MATRIX Page 2 of 5 Issue Area Applicant Opposition Staff Comments Board Decision Rezoning Standards - Natural Hazards Has the applicant demonstrated that changing the zoning will DCC 18.136.020(C) requires a quasi- presently serve the public health, judicial rezoning establish that the The Hearings Officer misapplied and safety as identified in DCC public interest is best served by erroneously concluded that the applicant failed 18.136.020(C)? rezoning the property and that to satisfy DCC 18.136.020(C). Supports the Hearings Officers changing the zoning will presently decision here. 1. If yes, then the Board can either serve the public health, safety and This provision looks at whether public services This standard is not met because the None. a. Reopen the hearing to allow welfare considering several factors. are provided. Bill Martin Road is not the only site, with a history of erosion (e.g. the applicant to provide Together with OAR 660-012-0060, the road that serves theproperty;Mock Road and sinkholes), is unsafe, and Bill Martin additional evidence; or Hearings Officer denied the plan Tumalo Reservoir Road also serve the property and help distribute traffic throughout the area. Rd. is in poor condition. b. Review the record and amendment and zone change based proceed with the decision on the applicant's failure to meet this matrix. standard. 2. If no, proceed with the decision matrix. Goal 3: Agricultural Lands Supports the Hearings Officer regarding Goal 3 Subject property is agricultural land decision. for which no goal exception has been taken in the Comprehensive Plan. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Therefore, the site can only be Does the Board believe a Goal 3 To preserve and maintain agricultural identifies the soils at the landscape level and is designated as RREA if an exception is exception is required? lands. not site specific nor reliable. NRCS data is taken. 1. If yes, then the Board can either irrelevant because the County's agricultural land The subject property is identified as inventories and zoning have been acknowledged Subject property is agricultural land a. Reopen the hearing allow Surface Mine under the County by the State. based on the soil classification of the the applicant provide Comprehensive Plan. It is not NRCS and therefore, the property is ence; or additional evidence; identified as agricultural lands. The Deschutes County inventoried all resource lands agricultural land by definition. None b. Review the supplemental applicant did not request an in the county. The lands found to be resource information regarding exception to Goal 3 based on this lands by definition, were then assigned their State acknowledged many exceptions "committed" exception and information. associated zones - Exclusive Farm Use or Forest to Goal 3 but did not acknowledge the proceed with the decision zoning (or their predecessor). Lands not SM Zone as an exception to Goal 3. matrix. The Hearings Officer found that an identified as agricultural or forestry land, the exception to Goal 3 was not required. County established completely separate zones, Even if there was state 2. If no, proceed with the decision included the SM Zone. The separate zones were acknowledgement, the exception matrix. assigned to the properties not identified as allowed for surface mining but not agricultural or forestry. rural residential. 247-17-000775-ZC, 247 -17 -000776 -PA, 247-18-00241-A, and 247-18-000247-A Board Deliberations MATRIX Page 3 of 5 Issue Area I Applicant Opposition Staff Comments Board Decision Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Hazards An exception to Goal 7 is required. Supports the Hearings Officer regarding Goal 7 decision. "Evidence in the record indicates the To protect people and property from applicant did not fill mined areas on Does the Board believe a Goal 7 natural hazards. The County's existing development regulations, the property in a manner that permits exception is required? as required by the Goal 7 policies, are designed subsequent use of the property for 1. If yes, then the Board can either The Hearings Officer found that the to screen for these issues as part of the physical housing development./ site does not include areas subject to development review process. a. Reopen the hearing to allow natural hazards. In addition, it was If County does not respond to new the applicant to provide found that environmental concerns Summit High School is an example that hazard inventory information None. additional evidence; or "can be addressed through reclaimed mines can be reasonably utilized and submitted by DOGAMI, then an b. Review the record and compliance with applicable state that "this was a result of selected treatment and exception to Goal 7 is required. Now proceed with the decision health and environmental quality not an incurable defect of the property." that the County is aware of potentially matrix. regulations, or through compliance hazardous conditions on the property, with the county's development "DOGAMI has confirmed, nothing precludes a the Hearings Officer erred in "not 2. If no, proceed with the decision standards." property owner from pursuing additional recommending that the County matrix. reclamation" to support some alternative post- conduct an evaluation of the risk of mining use. sinkholes from improper fill." Comprehensive Plan —Resource Management Supports the Hearings Officer decision. Section 2.10 Surface Mining Deschutes County adopted DCC 18.128.280, Hearings Officer erred in deciding to The request includes removing which provides mining on non -Goal 5 resources, amend Table 5.8.2 to include the Should the Non -Significant Mining g g Surface Mining Site No. 357 from theInventory regardless of the zone, if the site is listed on the subject property. j p p y and Aggregate Invento be County's Surface Mining Mineral and Non -Significant Mining and Aggregate Inventory. Opponents argue the property should amended to include the subject Aggregate Inventory and adding it to Although the Court of Appeals ruling in Beaver not be laced on this inventory. p ry property? the Non -Significant Mining and State Sand and Gravel, Inc. v. Douglas County may None. , 1. If esproceed with the decision y p Aggregate Inventory. have rendered DCC 18.128.280 and the Non- The existence of such an inventory is matrix. s Officer found that the The Hearings Significant Mining and Aggregate Inventory an error and has no legal value in the County's program. 2. If no, y listing the site on then den comprehensive plan policies of "obsolete and unnecessary" it remains in the the Non -Significant Mining and Section 2.10 were met and approved DCC. Based on the DCC, it requires non -Goal 5 Court of A eats settled this issue in pp Aggregate Inventory and proceed listing the site on the Non -Significant resources be included on the Non -Significant Beaver State Sand &Gravel v. Douglas with the decision matrix. Mining and Aggregate Inventory. Mining and Aggregate Inventory in order to be County eligible for mining via conditional use approval. 247-17-000775-ZC, 247 -17 -000776 -PA, 247-18-00241-A, and 247-18-000247-A Board Deliberations MATRIX Page 4 of 5 Issue Area Applicant Opposition Staff Comments Board Decision Comprehensive Plan - Post -Mining Use DCC 18.52.200 governs post -mining uses of surface mining sites. DCC 18.52.200 states, "...the property Supports the Hearings Officer's decision. shall be rezoned to the subsequent Hearings Officer erred in "ignoring use zone identified in the surface DOGAMI identified post -mining uses is not DOGAMI's reclamation certification." Does the proposed rezone request mining element of the binding on actual future uses of that property. meet DCC 18.52.200? Comprehensive Plan." Comprehensive plan amendment and 1. If yes, proceed with the decision "Actual post -mining uses are squarely the zone change to something other than matrix. The Comprehensive Plan, surface province of local governments." open space or range would be mining element, and the ESEE analysis inconsistent with that determination. None. 2. If no, the Board can either for Site No. 357 do not identify a "There is no indication or analysis from DOGAMI a. Reopen the hearing to allow subsequent use zone for the that the reclamation actually performed on the If the applicant is responsible for the applicant to provide property. subject property is not suitable for some identifying the DOGAMI post -mining additional evidence; or alternative use." designation, "then the applicant b. Review the record and proceed DOGAMI's reclamation certificate cannot seek to use the subject with the decision matrix. designated post -mining use as Open MUA-10 Zone purpose includes preservation of property for any other use." Space/Range (other choices include open spaces. agriculture, recreation, wildlife/wetlands, or housing/construction). 247-17-000775-ZC, 247 -17 -000776 -PA, 247-18-00241-A, and 247-18-000247-A Board Deliberations MATRIX Page 5 of 5