The URL can be used to link to this page

2020-315-Minutes for Meeting July 27,2020 Recorded 8/28/2020�G�ilT ES c�G� BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon (541) 388-6570 Recorded in Deschutes County C J2020-315 Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk Commissioners' Journal 08/28/2020 4:18:37 PM zj'�\1TFSCo�� IIIIIIII'I'IIIIIIIIIIIIII II I III 2020-315 FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY . ' L v Barnes Sawyer Rooms Live Streamed Video Present were Commissioners Patti Adair and Anthony DeBone, and Phil Henderson (via Zoom conference call). Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; David Doyle, County Counsel (via Zoom conference call); and Sharon Keith, BOCC Executive Assistant (via Zoom conference call). Attendance was limited in response to Governor's Virus orders. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Adair called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ACTION ITEMS: 1. Consideration of Board Signature of Order No. 2020-035, No Parking Order for Various Public Roads in the Vicinity of Smith Rock State Park Road Department Director Chris Doty presented the Order for consideration and reviewed maps of the streets of the area and locations of the signs to be posted. Commissioner DeBone noted his support of the Order not only for residents in the community but for visitors to the park. Commissioner Henderson thanked the residents of the area for bringing concerns to the BOCC MEETING JULY 27, 2020 PAGE 1 OF 5 Commissioners. Commissioner Adair spoke on safety and the pleasure it has been working with State Park officials. DEBONE: Move approval of Order No. 2020-035 HENDERSON: Second VOTE: DEBONE: Yes HENDERSON: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 2. Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual Community Development Department Director Nick Lelack presented the revised proposed manual. Planning Manager Peter Gutowsky (via Zoom conference call) explained the process of the latest revisions of the manual. The Planning Commission has requested Board of Commissioner acknowledgement. DEBONE: Move acknowledgement of the Policy and Procedure Manual for the Planning Commission HENDERSON: Second VOTE: DEBONE: Yes HENDERSON: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 3. Housing Strategies Project Community Development Department Associate Planner Tanya Saltzman (via Zoom conference call) presented the item for discussion. Presentation attached to the record. The project will address housing needs in Deschutes County. Staff will return with potential project scope for further discussion. BOCC MEETING JULY 27, 2020 PAGE 2 OF 5 4. Adult Parole & Probation Space Needs Consideration Community Justice Director Ken Hales (via Zoom conference call) presented discussion for next steps for the space needs of the department. County Administrator Anderson explained this discussion is in response to a prior discussion with the Commissioners to develop a list of possibilities. Staff is now inviting one Commissioner to participate in a smaller exploratory committee with the charge of presenting identified options to the Commissioners. Commissioner Adair inquired whether the newly formed facility advisory committee could assist this exploratory committee. Commissioner DeBone commented on the current temporary space option in consideration of department staffing. Commissioner Henderson spoke on the challenges of remodel and feels reviewing other possible facilities sites may be an option. Commissioner Henderson inquired if staff are able to continue to work remotely. Mr. Hales answered in the affirmative. Commissioner DeBone expressed support. Commissioner Henderson offered to participate on the exploratory committee. Commissioner DeBone commented on the department needs analysis inquiring on the flow of the department. 5. June 2020 Treasurer and Finance Report Chief Financial Officer Greg Munn (via Zoom conference call) presented the treasurer and finance report as of June 30, 2020. Presentation attached to the record. A presentation was given on the CARES Relief Fund. James Wood, Accounting Manager (via Zoom conference call) presented the CARES Reimbursement Request was received Thursday, July 23, 2020. The total amount of CARES funds allocated to Deschutes County (based on population metrics) is $6,405,575.21. So far the County has only submitted reimbursement BOCC MEETING JULY 27, 2020 PAGE 3 OF 5 requests for about $1.5 million. Administrator Anderson commented on allowed and eligible expenses in this program. Commissioners Henderson and Adair suggested using some of the funding for hiring a private firm for additional testing for COVID19. County Administrator Anderson will get clarification from the Secretary of State's pending audit review and then further advise on eligible expenses. OTHER ITEMS: • County Administrator Anderson reported on a request for a virtual discussion for this Thursday on homeless issues. The group has asked for one Commissioner and one staff person to participate on the panel. Commissioner Adair offered to participate. COMMISSIONER UPDATES: Commissioner DeBone traveled to Jackson County and visited with Commissioners to connect the two counties. • Commissioner DeBone reported on the EOCA conference call this morning and the Blue Mountain Forest project. Commissioner Adair noted she is responsible for a letter to OSHA. • A virtual auction for FFA/4H will be held at the fairgrounds this weekend at 10:00 a.m. • Commissioner Henderson traveled to Hood River and Eugene this past week and was quite impressed with the new track facility at the U of O. RECESS: At the time of 3:40 p.m. the Board took a Recess and reconvened the meeting at 3:47 p.m. BOCC MEETING JULY 27, 2020 PAGE 4 OF 5 EXECUTIVE SESSION: At the time of 3:47 p.m., The Board went into Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Real Property Negotiations. The Board came out of Executive session at 4:00 p.m. �I Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m. DATED this Day of 2020 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. } A TI A AI , CHAIR BOCC MEETING JULY 27, 2020 PAGE 5 OF 5 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - www.deschutes.org BOCC MEETING AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:00 P M, M O N DAY, J U LY 27, 2020 Barnes Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Center - 1300 NW Wall Street - Bend This meeting is open to the public, usually streamed live online and video recorded. To watch it online, visit www. deschutes. org/meetings. 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. Item start times are estimated and subject to change without notice. CALL TO ORDER MEETING FORMAT In response to the COVID-19 public health emergency, Oregon Governor Kate Brown issued Executive Order 20-16 directing government entities to utilize virtual meetings whenever possible and to take necessary measures to facilitate public participation in these virtual meetings. Beginning on May 4, 2020, meetings and hearings of the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners will be conducted in a virtual format. Attendance/Participation options include: Live Stream Video: Members of the public may still view the BOCC meetings/hearings in real time via the Public Meeting Portal at www.deschutes.org/meetings. Citizen Input: Citizen Input is invited in order to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on any meeting topic that is not on the current agenda. Citizen Input is provided by submitting an email to: citizen in putPdeschutes.org or by leaving a voice message at 541-385-1734. Citizen input received before the start of the meeting will be included in the meeting record. Zoom Meeting Information: Staff and citizens that are presenting agenda items to the Board for consideration or who are planning to testify in a scheduled public hearing may participate via Zoom meeting. The Zoom meeting id and password will be included in either the public hearing materials or through a meeting invite once your agenda item has been included on the agenda. Upon entering the Zoom meeting, you will automatically be placed on hold and in the waiting room. Once you are ready to Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Monday, July 27, 2020 Pagel of 3 present your agenda item, you will be unmuted and placed in the spotlight for your presentation. If you are providing testimony during a hearing, you will be placed in the waiting room until the time of testimony, staff will announce your name and unmute your connection to be invited for testimony. Detailed instructions will be included in the public hearing materials and will be announced at the outset of the public hearing. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ACTION ITEMS 1. 1:00 PM Consideration of Board Signature of Order No. 2020-035, No Parking Order for Various Public Roads in the Vicinity of Smith Rock State Park - Chris Doty, Road Department Director 2. 1:20 PM Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual - Nick Lelack, Community Development Director 3. 1:35 PM Housing Strategies Project - Tanya Saltzman, Associate Planner 4. 2:15 PM Adult Parole & Probation Space Needs Consideration - Ken Hales, Comm unity Justice Director 5. 2:35 PM June 2020 Treasurer and Finance Report - Greg Munn, Chief Financial Officer OTHER ITEMS These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners wish to discuss as part of the meeting, pursuant to ORS 192.640. EXECUTIVE SESSION At any time during the meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations, ORS 192.660(2)(h), litigation, ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations, ORS 192.660(2)(b), personnel issues, or other executive session categories. Executive sessions are closed to the public, however, with few exceptions and under specific guidelines, are open to the media. Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Real Property Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Monday, July 27, 2020 Page 2 of 3 ADJOURN To watch this meeting on line, go to: www.deschutes.org/meeting Please note that the video will not show up until recording begins. You can also view past meetings on video by selecting the date shown on the website calendar. Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities. If you need accommodations to make participation possible, please call (541) 617-4747. FUTURE MEETINGS: Additional meeting dates available at www.deschutes.or2/meetingcalendar (Please note: Meeting dates and times are subject to change. All meetings take place in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572.) Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Monday, July 27, 2020 Page 3 of 3 AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners BOCC Monday Meeting of July 27, 2020 DATE: July 21, 2020 FROM: Nick Lelack, Community Development, 541-385-1708 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Discussion item. MEMORANDUM TO: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners FROM: Nick Lelack, AICP, Director Peter Gutowsky, AICP, Planning Manager DATE: July 22, 2020 SUBJECT: Deschutes County Planning Commission Policies and Procedures Manual I. Background Staff prepared a draft Planning Commission Policies and Procedures Manual for the Planning Commission's consideration on January 23, 2020.1 It is a reference guide describing the Planning Commission's purpose, authorities, roles, decision making processes, applicable laws/regulations and public meeting requirements. The following resource documents provided a framework for developing and formatting the manual: • Oregon Planning Commission Handbook, Department of Land Conservation and Development, Oregon Chapter of the American Planning Association, Planners Training Team. April 2015 • City of Pendleton, Oregon Planning Commission Training Manual, Planners Training Team, 2006 • Planning Basics, Legal Requirements of the Planning Office, Lane Council of Governments, 2006 • City of Madison, Wisconsin, Plan Commission Policies and Procedures Manual, Department of Planning & Community & Economic Development, 2014 • Planning Commissioners Handbook, Michigan Municipal League, 2006 The Planning Commission evaluated the manual on February 27, March 12, April 23, and May 28. On May 28, Commissioners unanimously recommended approval subject to the Board of County Commissioners' (Board) input. The Board began reviewing the manual on July 6. Staff asked for a follow-up meeting to incorporate and summarize revisions recommended by County Legal Counsel. II. Manual Format The manual contains 36 pages and 11 sections: This project is listed in the Community Development Department's FY 2019-2020 Work Plan. 11 7 NIVV 1. Vay ette Avenue, Bend, 97703 ( P.O. Box 6005, Be nd, OP 97708-6005 Q� (5/11) ':3386575 @ cdckwdeschw s .org; gkd • Introduction • Oregon's Open Meeting Law • Standard Operating Procedures • Public Involvement • Making Land use Decisions • Resources • Roots of Land Use Planning in Oregon • Index • Relationship to Staff • Appendices: • Ethics o A —Frequently Asked Questions o B — Quick Reference Guide III. Revisions Legal Counsel provided a comprehensive review since the Community Development Department is recommending the Board "acknowledge" the manual. The latest revisions provide citations to case law, clarify conflict of interest and offer other general edits for better readability. IV. Board Direction Attached are redline and clean versions of the manual (Attachments 1 and 2). Staff recommends the Board "acknowledge" the manual. It will then serve as a template to develop a similar version for the Deschutes County Historic Landmarks Commission. Attachments: 1. Deschutes County Planning Commission Policies and Procedures Manual — Redline 2. Deschutes County Planning Commission Policies and Procedures Manual —Clean Planning Commission Policies and Procedures Manual Photo: Broken Top (Peter Gutowsky) Prepared by: Deschutes County Community Development Department www.deschutes.org/cd Planning Commission Jim Beeger - Bend Area Dale Crawford - At Large Les Hudson - At Large Jessica Kieras - Redmond Area Maggie Kirby - Bend Area Hugh Palcic - South County Steve Swisher - Sisters Area Community Development Department Nick Lelack, AICP, Community Development Director Peter Gutowsky, AICP, Planning Manager Deschutes County, consistent with Oregon's Statewide Planning Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, recognizes the Planning Commission as its citizen involvement committee. The Planning Commission, with assistance from the Community Development Department, insures there are ample opportunities for citizens to be involved in the land use planning process. The Planning Commission advises the Board of County Commissioners on a wide variety of rural land use subjects by making recommendations on important planning policy and code matters. This manual was developed by the Community Development Department, with significant input from the Planning Commission to provide guidance and helpful references, especially for newly appointed commissioners. It is intended to be an active document that is regularly revisited and updated. -1- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual Table of Contents INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 4 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES.................................................................................. 5 Jurisdiction............................................................................................................................... 5 Membership............................................................................................................................ 5 Removalfrom Office................................................................................................................ 6 VacancyFilling......................................................................................................................... 6 Chair and Vice Chair Responsibilities....................................................................................... 7 MeetingSchedule and Logistics.............................................................................................. 7 Annual Statement of Economic Interest................................................................................. 8 Quorum, Rules, and Procedures.............................................................................................. 9 Conflictof Interest................................................................................................................... 9 Powersand Duties................................................................................................................... 9 AdvisoryDuties........................................................................................................................ 9 StaffServices......................................................................................................................... 10 MAKINGLAND USE DECISIONS............................................................................................ 10 The Rele -of the CempFehensive Plan ........................ Typesof Land Use Decisions................................................................................................ 140 Quasi-judicial Versus Legislative Land Use Decisions............................................................ 11 Legislative Land Use Decisions............................................................................................ 11-2 Noticeof Legislative Decisions............................................................................................ 1-21 LegislativeHearings.........:..................................................................................................... 12 Applicable Standards and Criteria......................................................................................... 14 Findings................................................................................................................................ 15,6 Evidence............................................................................................................................... 169 Decision............................................................................................................................... 197 Appealsand Timing............................................................................................................. 189 ROOTS OF LAND USE PLANNING IN OREGON .................................................................. 1820 TheOregon Land Use Act of 1973....................................................................................... 204 Developing the Statewide Planning Goals........................................................................... 204 LCDC's Responsibilities........................................................................................................ 204 Purpose of the Goals: Development and Preservation....................................................... 2-21 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan.............................................................................. 21-2 Typesof Regulations............................................................................................................ 234 Post -Acknowledgment Review............................................................................................ 245 LandUse Board of Appeals.................................................................................................. 25b RELATIONSHIPTO STAFF................................................................................................... 256 ETHICS.............................................................................................................................. 26. OREGON'S OPEN MEETING LAW....................................................................................... 26. MeetingRequirements........................................................................................................ 279 SiteVisits.............................................................................................................................. 279 -2- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual ResolvingLand Use Conflicts............................................................................................... 289 Potential Conflicts in Legislative Decisions.......................................................................... 28. PUBLICINVOVLEMENT...................................................................................................... 281 Encouraging Effective Citizen Involvement......................................................................... 289 Howto Get Feedback........................................................................................................ 2938 HelpCitizens Help You....................................................................................................... 2938 Explainthe System............................................................................................................... 34:0 Stress Criteria for Decisions................................................................................................ 304 RESOURCES...................................................................................................................... 321 INDEX............................................................................................................................... 324 APPENDICES Appendix A — Frequently Asked Questions....................................................................... 334 Appendix B — Quick Reference Guide................................................................................ 35b -3- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual INTRODUCTION The purpose of this policy and procedures manual is to put into one document a list of the current activities, procedures and basic policies of the Deschutes County Planning Commission. Below are excerpts from Deschutes County Code and the Comprehensive Plan that expressly describe the Planning Commission's priorities. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Section 1.2 Community Involvement establishes the legal basis for the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission, along with other advisory committees, provide a vital link between County government and its citizenry. The Planning Commission operates as the County's Goal 1 committee for community involvement, and is established pursuant to ORS 215.020 and 215.030 and governed by Deschutes County Code 2.52 (DCC Chapter 2.52). Deschutes County Code The Planning Commission represents the unincorporated area of the county outside of the Bend, La Pine, Redmond and Sisters Urban Growth Boundaries, but within Urban Reserve Areas. Per DCC Chapter 2.52, the Planning Commission has the following duties: 1. To carry out a comprehensive planning program, using citizen input and public hearings when appropriate, within its area of jurisdiction and to coordinate its activities with other jurisdictions, planning bodies and districts. 2. To review at its discretion land use decisions of the Hearings Officer within its jurisdiction under Deschutes County ordinances. 3. To act as the citizen involvement committee under the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and advise the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") on citizen involvement programs; to study and propose such measures as are advisable for promotion of the public interest, health, safety, comfort, convenience and welfare within the geographic area of the Ccommission's' jurisdiction. The three duties mentioned above enable the Planning Commission to concentrate on land use policy. A summary of recent Planning Commission accomplishments can be found in the annual Community Development Department (CDD) Citizen Involvement Report. Hearings Officer decisions can be made available at the Planning Commission's request. These updates describe how Deschutes County Code is being applied and contested. They also provide context for future Comprehensive Plan and/or zoning code amendments. Comprehensive Plan Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Section 1.2 Community Involvement recognizes the Planning Commission: -4- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual Goal and Policies Goal 1 Maintain an active and open community involvement program that is accessible to all members of the community and engages the community during development and implementation of land use policies and codes. Policy 1.2.1 This section serves as the Community Involvement Program. Policy 1.2.2 The Planning Commission will be the Committee for Community Involvement, with County support. a. Maintain funding and staffing. b. Provide regular updates, speakers, panel discussions and handouts on land use law and policy. c. Appoint members through an open and public process to reflect the geographic areas and diverse values of Deschutes County residents. d. Meet with the Board of County Commissioners at least once a year to coordinate planning policies and activities. e. Complete an annual report on community involvement implementation for the State Citizen Involvement Advisory Committee, the Board of County Commissioners and the public. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES The following Standard Operating Procedures both reference Deschutes County Code (DCC) Chapter 2.52, Deschutes County Planning Commission and supplemental best practices adopted by the Planning Commission to guide its meeting management and decision making processes. Frequently Asked Questions and a Reference Guide are provided in Appendices A and B respectively. Jurisdiction The Deschutes County Planning Commission is the Planning Commission for the unincorporated area of the County outside of the Urban Growth Boundaries of Bend, La Pine, Redmond, and Sisters, but within Urban Reserve Areas. Nlembership The Planning Commission is composed of seven members, appointed by the Board ef Geunty r„w,w1;SsieHeFs (149aFE . No more than two members may be engaged in the same kind of occupation, business, trade or profession or be members, officers or employees of any partnership or corporation that engages principally in the buying, selling or developing of real estate for profit. No Planning Commission member can serve more than two full terms or 10 years, whichever is greater, except that the Board may extend the term of a Planning Commission member to complete a project which commenced prior to expiration of the term. In no case can such extension exceed six months. Membership shall, to the extent possible, be -5- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual representative of the various geographic areas of the County and generally consist of the following: • One member from the South County area of La Pine and Sunriver; • Two members from the Bend area; • One member from the Tumalo area; • One member from the Sisters area; • One member from the Redmond area; and • One member at large. Figure 1 shows these areas spatially in Deschutes County. Bend Area Sisters Area Tumalo Area Redmond Area South County Area - La Pine & Sunriver It is important to acknowledge that failure to achieve such geographic representation does not affect the validity of any action taken by the Planning Commission. The County strives to stagger Planning Commissioner terms with not more than three commissioner terms expiring in any one year. Removal from Office A member of the Planning Commission may be removed by the Board for findings of misconduct, nonperformance of duty, or three consecutive unexcused absences from regular meetings. Vacancy Filing Vacancies on the Planning Commission are filled by the Board for the unexpired term of the predecessor in office. Vacancies created by the expiration of a member's term are filled by the Board for a term of four years. The terms of office start on July 1. -6- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual Chair and ice chair Responsibilities At its first meeting in January of each year, the Planning Commission elects from among its membership a chair and a vice -chair. No Planning Commissioner can be chair for more than two consecutive years. The Code does not address vice -chair term limits. Most recently, the 2020 Planning Commission, in consultation with the Planning Director and County Legal Counsel, elected a two -term vice -chair to a third term. The chair or vice -chair when the chair is absent, is responsible for facilitating public meetings and discussions among Planning Commissioners and staff. If the chair and vice -chair are both absent, the attending members shall select a chair for the meeting. Chair responsibilities include: • Conducts meetings per the current edition of Roberts Rules of Order. • Encourages relevant testimony by making the criteria for decisions clear. • Ensures that time limits are met. • Keeps Commission discussion on track and germane to the subject. • Summarizes as needed. • Diffuses hostility. • Asks for ideas and opinions from each Planning Commissioner. • Check -in with staff to ensure minutes are being properly recorded, speakers have identified themselves and can be heard. Meeting Sched fle and Logistics The Planning Commission can hold between one to three regular meetings each month. Two are typical. Most meetings are held the second and fourth Thursdays at 5:30 p.m. at the Deschutes Services Center, 1300 Wall Street, Barnes and Sawyer rooms, Bend. The Planning Commission also conducts additional meetings across the county throughout the year to: Engage citizens in their communities; Increase the Planning Commission's knowledge and understanding of issues in different communities and regions; and Provide convenient locations for public hearings and work sessions on matters specific to geographic areas or populations. The Planning Commission may also conduct joint meetings with the Board to expedite legislative processes, such as an urban growth boundary amendment. Both may also consider a liaison to better connect the two bodies. Examples of other purposes to conduct a joint meeting include, but are not limited to: 1. Facilitate an understanding of the responsibilities and authority of the Planning Commission and Board. 2. Clarify the Board's policies, actions, or legislative proposals. 3. Information sharing and/or educational opportunities. -7- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual 4. Coordinate on future or pending legislative proposals to establish a mutual understanding. 5. Discussing the scope of a strategic project (i.e. water panel discussion). 6. Identify and discuss what is working and what needs improvement in the relationship, processes and procedures, resources, staffing, etc. Planning Commission subcommittees may be established for special projects. Noteworthy CDD documents of interest to the Planning Commission are available at: https://www.deschutgs.orE/cd. They include but are not limited to: panel discussions, legislative amendments, Citizen Involvement Report, and annual work plan. Planning Commission meeting packets are made available at least six (6) days prior to each meeting on the County's website (https://www.deschutes.org/bcc/page/meetings-and- hearings-information). Commissioners may request a hard copy of the meeting packet, which will be available for pick-up at the Community Development Department in Bend. Occasionally supplemental materials are submitted after the meeting packet is published. Commissioners generally will not be expected to make decisions at the meeting when new materials submitted after the meeting packet are published or new materials are submitted at the meeting. Meeting preparation requires approximately to 1-3 hours, depending on the agenda, meeting materials, and the complexity of issues. Commissioners are encouraged to contact staff with questions or concerns about the meeting agenda, meeting materials, or request additional information prior to the meeting to maximize productivity. Staff fulfills additional information requests based on available resources, direct relevance to the meeting agenda item, and applicability to the entire Planning Commission, at the discretion of the Planning Director. The County provides mileage reimbursements to Planning Commissioners traveling from outside of the Bend area to the Deschutes Services Building subject to Deschutes County Policies and Procedures (Deschutes County Finance Policy No. F-1). Planning Commissioners are required to provide current automobile insurance to be eligible to receive mileage reimbursements. Commissioners driving to meetings beyond the Bend area are reimbursed from their home address to the meeting location(s). Ann a i Statement of Economic Interest State law, ORS 244.050 requires each Planning Commissioner as a public official to submit an annual Statement of Economic Interest in order to serve on the commission by April 15. More information is available at the Oregon Government Ethics Commission website. -8- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual Quorum, Rules and Procedures A majority of the members of the Planning Commission constitutes a quorum. The Planning Commission may establish rules, regulations and procedures for its operation consistent with applicable laws of the State and the County. While not specified in County Code, the current edition of Roberts Rules of Order govern parliamentary procedure in Planning Commission meetings. Conflicts of Interest A member of the Planning Commission is a public official pursuant to ORS 244.020(15), and thereby must be mindful of actual and potential conflicts of interest. Generally, a member of the Planning Commission should not eaRRet participate in any DlanRing ''^miss^^ proceeding or action in which any of the following have a direst, substaRtial fiRaReia' " teFe-Apecuniary benefit or detriment: the member, the member's ^F his eF "^Fspouse, parent, stepparent, child sibling stepsibling son-in-law, or daughter-in-law; the member's spouse's parent, stepparent child sibling stepsibling son-in-law or daughter-in-law; any individual for whom the member has a legal support obligation or otherwise receives benefits arising from the member's employmany business which the member or the aforementioned -listed relatives p Ar rhp is associated. empleymeRt. Questions about eenfliets of interest ean be Faissed tee Any aet-ual-9F potential conflict of interest must be disclosed at the meeting of the Planning Commission where the matter is being considered. The rules governing conflicts of interest are at times complicated, and any questions should be raised prior to any proceeding with staff or directly with County Legal• Powers and Defies The Planning Commission primarily handles legislative land use matters (discussed on Page 11). According to County Code, the Planning Commission has the following duties: 1. To carry out a comprehensive planning program, using citizen input and public hearings when appropriate, within its area of jurisdiction and to coordinate its activities with other jurisdictions, planning bodies and districts. 2. To review at its discretion land use decisions of the Hearings Officer within its jurisdiction under Deschutes County ordinances. 3. To act as the citizen involvement committee under the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and advise the Board on citizen involvement programs; to study and propose such measures as are advisable for promotion of the public interest, health, safety, comfort, convenience and welfare within the geographic area of the commissions' jurisdiction. -9- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual Advisory Defies The Planning Commission has other advisory responsibilities, allowing the body to recommend and make suggestions to the Board and other public authorities concerning: • Laying out, widening, extending and locating of public thoroughfares, parking of vehicles, relief of traffic congestion, betterment of housing and sanitation conditions, and establishment of districts for limiting the use, height, area, bulk and other characteristics of buildings and structures related to land development within the County. Plans for regulating the future growth, development and beautification of the County, and development within the County of proper sanitation, public utilities, transportation facilities and appropriate incentives for overall energy conservation. Plans for the promotion, development and regulation of the economic needs of the community. • Regulation, conservation and use of natural resources. Recently, the Planning Commission participated in discussions involving wildfire hazards, water resources, transportation improvements on Highways 20 and 97, grading, agricultural lands, and child care. More information is available at: https://www,deschutes.org/cd. Staff Services County planning staff is responsible for setting agendas, preparing reports and submitting them to the Planning Commission. Other duties include preparing public notices and agendas and maintaining minutes, findings and reports as public records. The County Planning Director and Legal Counsel or their respective designees may serve as ex officio, nonvoting members of the Planning Commission. Staff has not served in this capacity since at least the 1990s. This provision will only be employed if directed by the Board. MAKING LAND USE. RECOMMENDATIONS This section outlines the rele of the GepApFeheRs`ve D aR, the classification of land use decisions, how to make a decision correctly, and the essential steps in conducting a public hearing. -10- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual —ZeRi g gannet allew mere intense use of the site than the Gem pF heRsive Plan aIle s but it ean limit the use te less intense use. This is eften dene wheFe the seFv.ees aFe Ret Types of Land Use Decisions The first step in making a decision is determining what type of decision the request involves. The statutory definition of a "land use decision" is long, detailed, and legalistic (see ORS 197.015(10)). To summarize, a land use decision is a final decision that concerns the adoption, amendment or application of Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals, a Comprehensive Plan provision, a land use regulation, or a new land use regulation that requires the use of discretion. Land use decisions are either "legislative" or "quasi-judicial." Approval of a use based on clear and objective standards (i.e., one that does not require discretion) is "ministerial" and is not a land use decision. Quasi-judicial', Versus Legislative Land Use Decisions The Deschutes County Planning Commission focuses on legislative land use matters. It has not made quasi-judicial land use decisions since the early 1990s, with only few exceptions in the Bend Urban Area Reserve as required by County Code. What are the differences between a quasi-judicial and a legislative decision? The Oregon Supreme Court in Strawberry Hill Wheelers v. Board of Comm'rs, 287 Or 591,_601P2d 769 (1979) established set -this -three factors generally distinguishing pa e,= a quasi-judicial decision: 1. Is tThe process +,-bound to result in a decision?- 2. Is Tthe decision +s-bound to apply pre-existing criteria to concrete facts?.. 3. Is Tthe action +s-directed at a closely circumscribed factual situation involving a relatively small number of persons? - Following Strawberry Hill Wheelers the Land Use Board of Appeals ("LUBA") further opined that Tthe more definitively the above factors are answered in the negative, the more likely the -11- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual decision is legislative. Valerio v. Union County, 33 Or LUBA 604 (1997). Otherwise, the decision is more likely to be quasi-judicial. No single answer controls. The second factor — whether the decision is bound to apply pre-existing criteria — is present to some extent in most land use decisions and is thereby often; _given less weight by the ea rt- . Andrews v. City of Brookings, 27 Or LUBA 39 (1994). Generally, if the first and third factors are answered negatively, it is a legislative decision. Legislative Land Use Decisions Legislative proceedings relate to policy issues or matters that affect a broad area, or both. An amendment to the text of the Comprehensive Plan or Zoning code is nearly always a legislative matter. A Plan or Zoning map amendment may be legislative depending on its scope and whether it is initiated by an applicant or the local government. The procedures for hearing a legislative matter are different from those for a quasi-judicial proceedingL-.-Tthe laws are less detailed and the hearings less structured. Notice of Legislative Decisions Individual mailed notices must be sent to all property owners whose property would be rezoned by a legislative action. This includes a change to the base zoning designation and a change to text "in a manner that limits or prohibits land uses previously allowed in the affected zone." This is commonly referred to as "Measure 56 notice." According to State law, the individual notice specifically must inform the owner that a rezoning, "may reduce the value of your property." If no property is to be rezoned, local legislative hearing notice requirements need to be followed. Counties may exceed state notice requirements. Deschutes County is increasingly exceeding state notice requirements in land use processes to maximize public involvement in their local government's decisions. HeweveF ^ eeedi^R Retie ^ ~^ . .�^�^^6 Legislative Hearings In a quasi-judicial setting, there are always proponents and often opponents to the proposal. In a policy matter, an individual may support part of the proposal and object to others. Parties may support the objective but disagree with some of the wording. Therefore, testimony at a legislative hearing is more open. Th^"^ 65 me "Faise it eF waive it" FequiFePAeRt. Segmenting testimony into "proponents" and "opponents" is inappropriate. Since legislative matters affect policy or a broad area, an individual's rights are handled differently from a quasi-judicial process. There are no limits on ex parte contact so there is no time set aside for ex parte declarations at the commencement of the hearing. While the Statewide Planning Goals and perhaps statutes apply to many legislative matters, criteria are not as central to these hearings as they are in quasi-judicial matters. SiRee the Dla �^ The correct policy is what matters, not whether a criterion is satisfied. Decision -maker opinions -12- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual in this arena are acceptable — even expected. Formal statutes governing Cconflicts of interest as well as general principles discouraging members of the Planning Commission to be influence by biases, still matter, however. A Planning Commission does not decide a legislative matter, but rather makes a recommendation to the Board. However, as a dedicated planning body for Deschutes County, the elected County Commissioners depend on the Planning Commission to fully consider land use matters, listen to and evaluate public testimony or the topic under consideration and forward thoroughly evaluated, reasoned recommendations. Planning Commissioners actively listen and read all public testimony related to the topic being discussed. Figure 2 illustrates the legislative land use amendment process. Legislative Land Use Amendments Application DLCD 35-day Public Notice Planning Commission Public Deliberation & (applicant or staff initiated) Notice (Bend Bulletin) Work Session Hearing Recommendation Average 6 to 8 week process Board Work Session Public Notice Board Public Deliberation and (Bend Bulletin) Hearing Consideration of Adoption I > Average 6 to 8 week process outline for Conducting a Legislative Public Hearing The following is an outline for conducting a public hearing. It is important to acknowledge that the Planning Commission ensures a civil proceeding by directing all public questions to the chair. The chair for vice -chair when the chair is absent;l facilitates the public meeting and interactions among Planning Commissioners and staff. Even in contested land use proceedings, the Planning Commission's recommendation reflects the advisory body as a whole. Members of the Planning Commission in their individual capacity and not as a representative of the Planning Commission, maintain their r-��+"^ ability to testify at subsequent Board proceedings as a private eitizeR. 1. Chair opens hearing. 2. Chair describes procedures for testimony and outcome of the hearing. -13- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual 3. Staff report is summarized. 4. Planning Commission asks technical or clarifying questions to staff of the proposal. S. Testimony from citizens, interest groups, state agencies, and other units of government are entered into the record. Requests to continue the hearing do not need to be observed, but the Planning Commission may continue a legislative hearing as needed. If the continuance is to a date, time, and place certain, no new notice is required. 6. Close the hearing. 7. Discussion. Note: Questions to staff may be asked during discussion (or all through the process) even after the close of the hearing. 8. Motion and second. 9. Deliberation, amendments to motion (if any). 10. Vote on a recommendation. Work Sessions: Purpose and Conduct The Planning Director may schedule a work session to prepare the Planning Commission for an upcoming public hearing or following a hearing and prior to deliberations,; for informational or educational purposes,; or to address other relevant topics applicable to rural land use planning. Work session conduct is generally informal: 1. Chair opens the work session. 2. Staff presents or introduces an issue, topic, invited speakers (if any), etc. 3. Chair facilitates the discussion among the work session participants. 4. Staff presents next steps pertaining the topic (if any). Public comments sad -are generally not be permitted at any work session which pertains to a pending application before the Planning Commission to avoid due process issues since the public hearing either usually hasl not have been opened or has been closed as the Planning Commission prepares for deliberations, or has not otherwise been noticed as a public hearing on a pending application. Public comments on other matters is at the discretion of the chair. However, work sessions are generally understood to be discussions between the Planning Commission and staff and/or other specifically invited persons. Please note, cif the chair permits public comments on non- public hearing agenda items, then other people who do not attend may legitimately raise concerns regarding the adequacy of the notice. -14- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual Applicable Standards and Criteria Statutes require a land use decision to be based on approval criteria. The decision must apply the approval criteria to the facts. The decision -maker must apply the adopted criteria for approval that are contained in the zoning code. If the applicant demonstrates compliance with these criteria, the application must be approved even if the decision -maker disagrees with the criteria, or believes that additional, un-adopted criteria should be applied. Conversely, if the applicant fails to demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria, the decision -maker must deny the application even if it believes that the applicable criteria are unreasonable. Regarding interpretation of criteria, if the wording is clear and unambiguous, it must be followed regaFdless of legislative irtt. A hearing body may not insert what has been omitted or omit what has been inserted. if two provisions conflict, the more specific provision usual) controls. For example, if a property is located in a zone that allows certain uses, but is subject to an overlay zone that restricts several of those uses, the overlay zone restrictions will control. Planning Commission Review without Public Hearings The Planning Commission will occasionally review legislative changes to the Comprehensive Plan or zoning code without conducting a public hearing. AecerdingtaUnless otherwise required by state law, DCC 22.12.010 establishes the minimum procedural requirements for -,-PG legislative changes as "review by the Planning Commission followed by GaR be adopted without Feview by the olanniRg G Y, missi„") and a public hearing before the Board. Public hearings before the Planning Commission are set at the discretion of the Planning Director,e&s etheFwise r gwiFed by State law. Examples of reasons the Planning Director may not schedule a public hearing on legislative proposals include: 1. Adopt changes incorporating new State law into County Code on which Deschutes County does not have discretion. 2. Expedite a Board of County Commission project or proposal. 3. Expedite an emergency ordinance to address changed circumstances, such as a State agency repealing a State law the County wishes to continue to require. The 2020 changes to the Oregon Building Code peFtaiRing t fences is a specific example. 4. Expedite an emergency ordinance to address a natural or man-made hazard. The Planning Director generally consults with the Board and/or County Administrator on such decisions. Items scheduled for review without a public hearing will be scheduled as work sessions, and the procedure will follow the same aforementioned procedures. 1. Chair opens the work session. -15- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual 2. Chair describes procedures for the review and potential outcome(s) of the review: a. Recommendation for approval, approval with modifications, or denial of the proposal; or b. No recommendation. 3. Staff report. 4. Planning Commission technical or clarifying questions to staff of the proposal. 5. Discussion. 6. Decision on whether to forward the proposal with or without a recommendation. If a recommendation, then motion and second: a. Deliberation, amendments to motion (if any). b. Vote on a recommendation. Defer a decision by first checking -in with the Board for further guidance. Findings Findings are statements of the relevant facts as understood by the decision -maker and a statement of how each approval criterion is satisfied by the facts. A brief statement that explains the criteria accompanies approval or denial and standards considered relevant to the decision, states the facts relied upon and explains the justification for the decision. The purposes of findings are to: • Ensure that the hearings body applied the criteria prescribed by statute, administrative rule, and its own regulations and did not act arbitrarily or on an ad hoc basis. • Establish what evidence the reviewing body relied on in making the decision to inform the parties why the hearings body acted as it did and explain how the conclusions are supported by substantial evidence. • Demonstrate that the reviewing body followed proper procedures. • Aid careful consideration of criteria by the reviewing body. • Keep agencies within their jurisdictions. Statutes require: • An explanation of the standards considered relevant to the decision. • A statement of the facts supporting the decision. • An explanation of how the standards and the facts dictate the decision. Findings need not be exhaustive, but rather that itshould contain a summary of the relevant facts. No particular form is required, and no magic words need to be employed. jud'eial Feview will leek #ems -16- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual deGiSiE)R it baSedj d aR Generally, Tthe best way to prepare findings is to: 1. Identify all of the applicable criteria. 2. Start with the first criterion and deal with each element separately; for example, "The criterion is that the property is not subject to landslides, floods, or erosion." 3. State the criterion as a conclusion; e.g., "The property is not subject to landslides because..." 4. State the fact that leads to the conclusion the property is not subject to landslides; e.g., "...because the topography on the property has a 0% grade and the property is located on a lava bed." 5. Repeat the process for each element of every applicable criterion. 6. Where there is a criterion or element of a criterion that is not applicable, state why it is not applicable. 7. Where there is conflicting evidence, the safest course is to state there was conflicting evidence, but the hearings body believed certain evidence for certain reasons. This however, is not required. Common problems with findings include: • Failure to identify all applicable standards and criteria. • Failure to address each standard and criterion. • Deferring a necessary finding to a condition of approval. -17- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual • Generalizing or making a conclusion without sufficient facts. • A mere statement that the criteria have been met. • Simple restatement of the criterion. • Failure to establish a causal relationship (direct observation, reports from other people), between facts and ultimate conclusions. • State all PAPti rS • if the pFejeet is edified add r •i fiR dipg-s Evidence The applicant has the burden of proof to introduce evidence that shows that all of the approval criteria are satisfied. Opponents, on the other hand, have the duty to show that the applicant's facts are incorrect or that the applicant has not introduced all of the facts necessary to satisfy the burden of proof. The questions that arise are: • What is relevant evidence in the record? • How much evidence is required to support a finding; that is, what does substantial evidence mean? • How does the reviewing body address conflicting evidence in the findings? The decision must be based on relevant evidence in the record. Evidence in the record is evidence submitted to the reviewing body. The reason for limiting the basis for the decision to evidence in the record is to assure that all interested persons have an opportunity to review the evidence and to rebut it. A reviewing body may support an application in concept or members may have personal knowledge of facts that would satisfy the approval criteria, but it cannot approve the application on that alone. There must be substantial evidence in the record. Personal knowledge is not evidence in the record. In reality, such applications are approved but they will be remanded if appealed to LUBA. It is also important to note that an application cannot be denied on the basis of facts not in the record. Relevant evidence is evidence in the record that shows an approval criterion is or is not satisfied. Testimony about effects on real estate values is not relevant unless the approval criteria require a finding on the effect on real estate values. -18- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual A statute provides that LUBA may reverse or remand a local government decision when the local government has "made a decision not supported by substantial evidence in the records as whole." The term "substantial evidence" does not go to the volume of evidence. Substantial evidence consists of evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate to support the conclusion. Where the evidence is such that reasonable persons may fairly differ as to whether it establishes a fact, there is substantial evidence to support the decision. In other words, what is required is enough evidence to show that an approval criterion is satisfied. If two people agree that there is not substantial evidence, there is not enough evidence. When the applicant's evidence is countered by the opponents, there is conflicting evidence. Where there is conflicting testimony based on different data, but any of the data is such that a reasonable person might accept it, a conclusion based on any of the data is supported by reasonable evidence. That is, the hearings body may select any of the information for its decision provided it is reasonable that a person would accept the data as correct. The best course of action is for the hearings body to state what evidence it believes and why when it prepares its findings of fact. Deco sk,n The job of the reviewing body is to ascertain the facts and apply the approval criteria to the facts. A quasi-judicial decision will take one of three forms: 1. Approval. The reviewing body found that the facts in evidence indicate the criteria are satisfied. 2. Approval with conditions. The reviewing body has found that the facts in evidence to not demonstrate the criteria are fully satisfied, but, through the application of conditions, the criteria can be satisfied. This assumes the ordinance authorizes the application of conditions for approval. 3. Denial. The reviewing body has found that the facts in evidence have not demonstrated that the criteria are satisfied and the application cannot be made to comply with conditions attached to it. While a legislative amendment does not have a State mandated timeline for issuing a decision, the Planning Commission nonetheless needs to be cognizant of making timely recommendations. The "150-Day Rule" -19- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual A county's final quasi-judicial land use decision must be made within 150 days from acceptance of a complete application including time needed for appeal. Legislative proposals are not subject to this requirement. Deschutes County procedures allow staff 30 days to determine if the submittal is complete and then to send written notice to the applicant. Date of that notice starts the 150-day clock. If a decision cannot be made within the time limits, the local government can ask the applicant if they will extend the rule. Often that is agreeable since the alternative may be denial of the application. If the clock runs out and the deadline has not been extended, the applicant may ask the court to grant a writ of mandamus. If granted, the writ allows the application to proceed without local government approval. Appeals The final consideration in a legislative or quasi-judicial decision is the potential of an appeal — from a staff decision to the Planning Commission or hearings officer, from the Planning Commission to the Board or from the Board to LUBA. Timeframes for these actions are set out in State law and local ordinances. '� ? a l c e` �' } ` r �` (� Land use planning in Oregon began in the cities. Urban settings created urban needs for coordinated approaches to particular uses of the land. Recognizing this, the 1919 Oregon Legislature passed enabling legislation allowing cities in Oregon to plan in an orderly way for the challenges that resulted from steady growth. This legislation enabled cities to establish Planning Commissions and required Planning Commission approval for subdivision plats. After World War II, Oregon counties were similarly authorized to establish Planning Commissions, at a time when rapid growth created increasing urban problems in many unincorporated areas. Through most of the 20th century, Oregon state government's role in planning was limited. The state legislature authorized local planning to occur and provided for coordination with the federal government when the need arose (during depression -era dam building projects, for example), but did not preempt or control local guidance of development and growth. However, as Oregon grew dramatically in population and income during and after World War II, it became increasingly evident that the system of permissive, local -option planning was not adequate to accommodate complex regional and statewide pressures and trends that crossed many jurisdictional boundaries. State government during this period began slowly, but with growing speed spurred by popular concern, to respond to the challenges resulting from rapid growth and development. A Department of Environmental Quality was established, backed by clean air and water laws as well as pollution bonds; landmark Oregon legislation created significant laws on beaches, bottle deposits, bike paths, and billboard removal. It was apparent that land use difficulties were at -20- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual the root of many of the problems resulting from growth. Oregon's most productive farmland, the 100-mile-long Willamette Valley, was also home to 80 percent of the state's population. Oregon's population increased by nearly 40 percent between 1950 and 1970, and 80 percent of that occurred in the Willamette Valley. The result was significant growth in cities of the Valley, with the subsequent loss of prime farmland. Spurred by the losses of farmland and prodded by first -term Governor Tom McCall, the 1969 Oregon Legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 10, which required all cities and counties to adopt comprehensive land use plans and zoning regulations. SB 10 ended the view that selective local option planning alone would suffice to meet regional and area -wide land use challenges, which could significantly affect the economic and environmental bases of this state. Not only were zoning and subdivision regulations required of every jurisdiction in the state, but statewide goals were set out which addressed conservation of prime farm and forest lands and other vital state concerns, including air and water quality, open space, natural scenic resources, timely development of public facilities, well -considered transportation systems and orderly transition from rural to urban uses with a careful view to protecting the basic character of Oregon. Unfortunately, the 1969 legislation contained no assistance to meet the cost of compliance, and its enforcement provisions proved inappropriate. This led to a strong effort on the part of Governor McCall and key state legislators to work together to develop an acceptable proposal that would make statewide land use planning a reality, rather than a platitude, in every jurisdiction in the state. I iEP( 0i`F gl.yrif1,.a ni,! UF,: At l ta:f 19 7 1- The 1973 Legislature convened with bipartisan support for strengthening state oversight of local planning. The result of its effort, the Oregon Land Use Act of 1973 (Senate Bill 100), established the framework that in major part governs and guides land use planning in Oregon today. The Act was passed by substantial margins in both chambers of the legislature. It remains a controversial piece of legislation but has withstood numerous challenges in the legislature, in courts, and at the polls. It also represents the concerns, and has received the support of various groups representing agriculture, business, homebuilders, local governments, and environmental organizations. De1.'(r 1.o1 pii g t hl`.. S,t c.s't e. xv.,,, ii, f. e P1, ani;i irtg G0AliS Once the Land Use Act was on the books, the work of implementation began. The first task for the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) was creation of the Statewide Planning Goals against which each local comprehensive plan would be measured. After more than a year of public workshops and hearings in 20 locations around the state involving over 3,000 Oregonians, LCDC adopted 14 statewide land use -planning goals in 1974. Later, coastal goals and a Willamette River Greenway goal were added to bring the total to 19 goals. -21- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual LCDC'S Re spols sibirlhfdes LCDC itself acts mainly through the acknowledgement (initial approval), periodic review, and post -acknowledgement review processes. It may issue enforcement orders, which specify areas of noncompliance in local planning decisions, and specific corrective actions required. LCDC conducts studies through its staff (the Department of Land Conservation and Development, or DLCD) and writes administrative rules refining the provisions of the goals. Often it is in this forum where discussion and consensus building can take place that best works to define Oregon's planning program. All city and county comprehensive plans and implementing regulations were "acknowledged" by LCDC as complying with the Statewide Planning Goals. Acknowledgment was needed before the local government could rely on its plan for making land use decisions without showing goal compliance for every land use decision. Once a comprehensive plan (including the implementing ordinances and regulations) gains acknowledgment, the plan — not the statewide goals —controls land use decision -making for the local government. Any amendment to an acknowledged plan must be shown to comply with the goals so that the whole plan maintains acknowledgment. It is important to note that LCDC's enforcement powers relate primarily to city and county compliance with the land use statutes and the goals. Cities and counties themselves remain responsible for assuring that individual land use actions comply with their local comprehensive plan. Local government is the primary enforcement entity, and appeals of final local decisions go to LUBA, not LCDC. Purrpos(,,,�., of the .,<C k r vd IL1ifi}e nt F,,,,,i.nd Prese v C;luoni Taken as a whole, the goals are best understood as devoted to creating and maintaining sustainable, livable, and equitable communities. First, they seek to protect the natural resources on which much of Oregon's economy depends (in particular, farm and forest land) and our environmental quality. Second, the goals promote efficient urban development and an orderly transition from rural to urban use. Implicit in both purposes of the goals is the encouragement of economic development through orderly growth. That change must occur in a manner that does not threaten the long-term economic foundations of Oregon. The twin concerns — development and preservation — meet in Goal 14. This urbanization goal requires that a city, in consultation with the county, local special districts, and neighboring jurisdictions, draw a boundary around itself to establish the projected limits of urban growth for 20 years. Data to support the boundary is required, including 20-year growth forecasts. All land within the boundary —called an urban growth boundary (or UGB) —will be considered either urban or potentially urban, while land outside the UGB must remain predominantly rural in character. The 19 Statewide Planning Goals can be generally grouped into three categories: 1. Process Goals, which ensure citizen participation and set forth basic requirements and procedures for local planning and development regulations (Goals 1 and 2). -22- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual 2. Development Goals, which address the interrelated factors of economy, housing, public facilities, transportation, energy, and urbanization (Goals 9-14). 3. Conservation Goals, which address the preservation of natural resources of various types: • Land resources — agricultural and forest (Goals 2 and 4). • Coastal resources — estuaries, shorelines and dunes, and the ocean (Goals 16-19). • Managing resources — environmental quality; recreational and resort areas; scenic, historic, and natural resource areas; and natural hazards (Goals 5-8). • Willamette River — special regulations relating to particular concerns and values of this major waterway (Goal 15). Des chuute°s Count, i,ompreh si",te I .z,r, The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan provides a blueprint for land use conservation and development. This is accomplished through goals and policies that tell a cohesive story of where and how development should occur and what places should remain undeveloped. The Plan provides a legal framework for establishing more specific land use actions and regulations such as zoning. The goal's and policies are based on existing conditions and trends, community values and the statewide planning system. The Plan covers a 20-year period from 2010-2030. To remain useful over that time, the Plan must provide clear policy direction yet remain flexible. As Deschutes County conditions change, legislative amendments will ensure the Plan remains relevant and timely. The unincorporated areas of the County are covered by this Plan. The cities of Bend, La Pine, Redmond and Sisters each maintain their own comprehensive plans within their respective UGBs. The cities and County use intergovernmental agreements to coordinate land use within UGBs. The Plan complies with the statewide planning system, which was adopted in 1973 to ensure consistent land use policies across the state. While compliance with the statewide system is required, it is also important for a comprehensive plan to reflect local needs and interests. This Plan balances statewide requirements and local land use values. Deschutes County encompasses a total of 3,054 square miles. The County was created in 1916 from a portion of Crook County and was named after the Deschutes River. Approximately 80 percent of the land in the County is publicly owned by the federal, state or local governments. Deschutes County's first Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan to 1990, was adopted in 1970. To comply with newly adopted statewide planning regulations a new plan was adopted in 1979, Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan (1979 Plan). In 1981, the 1979 Plan was acknowledged as being in compliance with the Statewide Goals. Along with the 1979 Plan, the County adopted a background document and map. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Resource Element (Resource Element) contained valuable information pertaining to resources and demographics. The map depicted the long-term general land use categories for all lands in -23- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual the County. Over time, the County amended the 1979 Plan to comply with changes initiated by the State, the Board or property owners. Periodic Review, a plan update process once required by the state, started in 1988 and was completed in 2003. Periodic Review included major additions and amendments to the 1979 Plan to keep the Plan and its policies consistent with evolving State planning regulations and local conditions. The 1979 Plan was codified as Title 23 in the Deschutes County Code. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan 2030 is organized into five chapters: • Chapter 1 Comprehensive Planning • Chapter 2 Resource Management • Chapter 3 Rural Growth Management • Chapter 4 Urban Growth Management • Chapter 5 Supplemental Sections Chapters 1-4 contain the following: • Background: Information providing context for the reason and process for including the goals and policies. • Goals: A general description of what Deschutes County wants to achieve. The County will direct resources and/or support partner agencies and organizations to implement the goals over the 20-year Plan timeframe. Policies: Statements of principles and guidelines to aid decision making by clarifying and providing direction on meeting the Goals. • References: A list of resources used in the preparation of each chapter is included at the end of each chapter. The Plan's land use goals and policies are anticipated to be completed over a 20 year period. Type,, ofif As noted above, the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan contains a map and general policy statements. Implementing ordinances establish particular criteria, standards, and procedures through which the Plan will be carried out. These ordinances prescribe laws governing the way in which rural land may be used and divided. The most common types of regulation are subdivision and zoning regulations. Subdivision regulations control the particular ways in which parcels of land are divided. Provisions address design and layout of sites, roads, utility easements, public areas, etc. Zoning is the placement of various land use "labels" (such as residential, commercial, or exclusive farm use) on a particular geographic. Zoning describes the uses permitted and generally establishes criteria and standards for each use (such as lot size, setbacks, and -24- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual parking). In designating these areas and establishing the conditions, the zoning ordinance will usually allow for flexibility and accommodation of special concerns. Provisions for variances, nonconforming uses, conditional uses, and other special provisions are incorporated into the zoning ordinances. Table 1 lists existing Comprehensive Plan designations and related Zoning districts. Some Plan designations apply County -wide and while others apply to designated areas of existing development. The Destination Resort designation recognizes a combining zone that supplements the underlying zoning. Most of the area -specific designations fall under the State rules for Unincorporated Communities. Table 1- Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Designations Comprehensive Plan Designation I Associated Deschutes County Zoning Code County -wide designations Agriculture Title 18 - All EFU subzones Airport Development Title 18 - AD, AS Destination Resort Combining Zone Title 18 - DR Forest Title 18 - F-1, F-2 Open Space and Conservation Title 18 - OS&C Rural Residential Exception Area Title 18 - RR-10 and MUA-10 Surface Mining Title 18 - SM Area specific designations Resort Community Title 18 - All Black Butte Ranch and Inn of the 7th Mountain/Widgi Creek subzones Rural Community Title 18 - All Tumalo and Terrebonne subzones Rural Service Center Title 18 - All RSC zones Urban Unincorporated Community Title 18 - All Sunriver subzones Rural Commercial Title 18 - Rural Commercial Rural Industrial Title 18 - Rural Industrial Bend Urban Growth Area Title 19 - UAR-10, SM, SR 2 %:, RS, IL, FP, WTZ Redmond Urban Growth Area Title 20 - UH-10 Sisters Urban Growth Area Title 21- UAR-10, OA, FP Redmond Urban Reserve Area Title 18 - RURA Source: County Geographical Information system and Deschutes County Code Deschutes County also recognizes the importance of working closely and cooperatively with the cities of Bend, La Pine, Redmond and Sisters, as well as special districts and state and federal agencies, to ensure a coordinated approach to future growth and conservation. Deschutes County has the responsibility for negotiating urban service agreements with representatives of all cities and special districts that provide, or declare an interest in providing, urban services inside a UGB. Urban service means: • Sanitary sewers • Parks • Water • Open space • Fire protection • Recreation -25- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual • Streets, roads and mass transit • Special Districts Deschutes County is responsible for coordinating other planning activities affecting land uses within the County. This includes: • Coordinating with special districts, including irrigation districts, park districts, school districts, sewer districts, and water districts. • Establishing Cooperation Agreements with special districts that provide an urban service in a UGB. • Coordinating with the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. • Joint Management Agreements with municipalities for managing urban growth areas (areas outside city limits, but inside a UGB). • Establishing Urban Reserve Areas. <e� t [!edge c ° t a' \IiF �'C�� r, C ��I ;te\�fIt , 11�'G � .�.t.`EC ��, Post -acknowledgement review allows Deschutes County (and other cities and counties) to prepare amendments to comprehensive plans and associated inventories, studies, and implementing codes (i.e., zoning, subdivision, etc.) and then consider the amendment in a public process. Adoption of a post -acknowledgment plan amendment can be completed only by the Board at a public hearing. Deschutes County is required to submit changes to plans and codes to DLCD 35-days prior to the first evidentiary hearing. DLCD provides notice of all plan amendments throughout the state and publishes them on its web site. DLCD may review and evaluate the amendment for compliance with the goals. Changes not involving the topics within the Statewide Planning Goals do not have to be submitted to DLCD. If a party (such as a citizen, an advocacy group, or DLCD) believes the plan amendment does not comply with applicable goals, administrative rules, or land use statutes, the recourse is to appeal the amendment to LUBA. LUBA, is a panel of administrative hearings officers appointed by the governor charged with deciding appeals of local government land use decisions, including plan amendments and zone changes. LUBA was created to simplify the appeal process, speed resolution of land use disputes, and provide consistent interpretation of state and local land use laws. Prior to LUBA's creation, land use appeals were heard by LCDC and the circuit courts. The tribunal is the first of its kind in the United States. The governor appoints the three -member board to serve four-year terms. The appointments are confirmed by the Oregon Senate. The board members must be members of the Oregon State Bar. -26- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual The Community Development Department consists of Administrative Services and five divisions which provide coordinated planning and development. The five divisions are: • Building and Safety — provides construction plan reviews, consultation and inspections to assure compliance with federal and state building codes in the rural County and cities of La Pine and Sisters. • Code Enforcement — investigates investigating code violation complaints to ensure compliance with each of the codes and statutes administered by CDD, and provides direct service on contract to the City of La Pine for solid waste violations. • Coordinated Services — provides coordination of permitting and "front line" direct services to customers at the main office in Bend and at the La Pine and Sisters city halls. • Environmental Soils — regulates on -site wastewater treatments systems (septic) and monitors environmental factors for public health and resource protection. • Planning — consists of two operational areas, Current and Long Range Planning. Current Planning is responsible for reviewing land use applications for compliance with Deschutes County Code and State law, including zoning, subdivision and development regulations, and facilitating public hearings with Hearings Officers and the Board. Staff is also responsible for verifying compliance with land use rules for building permit applications and septic permits; coordinating with Code Enforcement to respond to complaints and monitor conditions of approval for land use permits; and providing assistance at the public information counter, over the telephone and via email. Long Range Planning is responsible for planning for the future of Deschutes County, including developing and implementing land use policy with the Board, Planning Commission, community and partner organizations. It is in charge of updating the Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations, and coordinating with cities and agencies on various planning projects taking place in the region. Staff also monitors and participates in annual legislative sessions, and serves on numerous local, regional and statewide committees primarily focusing on transportation, natural resources, growth management and economic development. To understand the roles and responsibilities of staff, the Planning Commission, and Board of County Commissioners, please see the Resources section of this document with a web link to the Oregon Planning Commission Handbook, April 2015, Chapter 3. -27- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual According to the Oregon Ethics Guide for Public Officials, "a public office is a public trust." Planning issues commonly involve a conflict of values, and often there are significant private interests at stake. These accentuate the necessity for the highest standards of fairness and honesty among all participants. See Oregon Government Ethics Law: A Guide for Public Officials. Planning Commission members are required to attend an in -person training conducted by Deschutes County Legal Counsel. As questions arise, Commissioners can contact County Legal Counsel. Additionally, as mentioned earlier, Planning Commissioners must complete an Annual Statement of Economic Interest. OREGON"S OPEN MEETING LAW Oregon's open meeting law (ORS 192.610-192.690) requires that decisions of any "governing body" be arrived at openly so that the public can be aware and informed of the body's deliberations and decisions. A governing body is one with two or more members that decides for or recommends to a public body. The law applies to the state, cities and counties, and advisory bodies to those jurisdictions. Not only must meetings of city councils and boards of county commissioners be "open" — the meetings of Planning Commissions, design review boards and other appointed boards or commissions with the authority to make decisions or recommendations are also subject to the requirements. With a few exceptions, a meeting exists any time a quorum of the body's membership is present. "Closed meetings" (or executive sessions) are allowed to discuss, for example employment, discipline or labor relations but decisions on these issues must be made at a public (open) meeting. Planning Commissions will rarely conduct business in an executive session. Notice of public meetings is required, and the notice must include the time and place and principle subject to be discussed. Notice should be timed to give "reasonable" advance notice to the public. For "emergency" or special meetings, the law calls for 24 hours advance notice. Emails Planning Commissioners need to be cognizant that sending emails to fellow Commissioners constitutes a public meeting when it is sent to a majority of members. When staff coordinates with the Planning Commission electronically, the email often reminds Planning Commissioners to respond to staff individually to ensure an accidental public meeting does not take place. Meeting Requirements Any public body must provide for the sound, video or digital recording or the taking of written minutes of all its meetings. Neither a full transcript nor a full recording of the meeting is required, but the written minutes or recording must give a true reflection of the matters -28- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual discussed at the meeting and the views of the participants. All minutes or recordings must be available to the public within a reasonable time after the meeting, and shall include at least the following information: • All members of the body present; • All motions, proposals, resolutions, orders, ordinances, and measures proposed and their disposition; • The results of all votes and the vote of each member by name; • The substance of any discussion on any matter; and • A reference to any document discussed at the meeting. Because a meeting is open to the public, it means that anyone can attend. But "open" does not mean that anyone has the right to speak. Planning Commissions and governing bodies may hold work sessions and other meetings without allowing public comment. Site Visits Oregon's open meeting law exempts "site inspections" from the meeting requirements. That means that technically the Planning Commission or governing body could go as a group, as a quorum, to visit a site. However, site visits often introduce numerous other considerations. Notably, site visits are considered ex parte contact and should be disclosed at the first public hearing. A second consideration is the assumptions, which may be made by the public when they realize that a majority of the decision -making body visited the site without everyone else who might be interested in having an opportunity to be there. What did they see? What was discussed? What did they decide? As such site visits rarely occur. When needed, it is usually best for the members of the Planning Commission to refrain from discussing the proposal with one another or, for example a property owner conducting the tour. Those conversations are best held during the public hearing with the public being able to fully participate. Resolving Land Use flicts Land use issues can generate conflicts. It is important to recognize issues that may produce conflicts, anticipate opportunities to deal with the problems and use techniques that encourage "win -win" solutions. Elements in Every Conflict Issues. The "what" of a dispute (e.g. the wetland impact of proposed development). Positions. The "how" — a specific proposal about how to solve the dispute ("This wetland permit cannot be issued"). • Interests. The "why" — the expression of needs that drive a person's behavior (Why do you want...? Why is that important?). -29- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual Interests may be: • Procedural. Do people feel they are being treated fairly? • Psychological. Do people feel they are listened to and their ideas respected? • Substantive. Do people feel they will benefit from the result? Only by identifying the interest(s) underlying the issues and positions and recognizing the different levels of importance each party gives to these interests can the disputing parties create mutually satisfying, durable solutions to conflicts. Local jurisdictions generally set the schedule for legislative land use decisions. There is no 150- day rule. By identifying stakeholders, clearly presenting facts and alternatives, and really listening and responding to the ideas and suggestions from all of the interested parties, decisions will be made that people see as fair. Even when people disagree with the results, it is difficult to generate a conflict over a "fair" decision. ni c oi,ll How, and if, citizens become involved in your land use decisions can significantly affect results. The best road to success is to provide opportunities for meaningful public involvement throughout the process. Recognition of that fact may be the reason that the people of Oregon decided to make citizen involvement the first of the statewide land use planning goals. Effective citizen involvement requires public awareness of: • What is proposed? • Who will be affected and how? • Criteria for decisions. • Who makes decisions, when and where, and with what time line? r; �'iG2��ef t 4 e-t, I f l {d bctcs The type of land use decision influences the approach to public participation. For legislative decisions, be creative! Get outside the box. Choices are available when considering an amendment to the comprehensive plan or zoning code, adoption of a sign ordinance, and the like. The local elected and appointed officials need a broad range of ideas. There are no questions of ex parte contacts and there is no requirement that a decision be reached. (For example, if people don't like the idea of a new or revised ordinance, the idea can be dropped). Questionnaires, surveys, or focus groups can help identify the level of interest in an issue of proposal. Town hall meetings, forums, and open houses (with staff available to answer -30- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual questions), as well as printed material, can attract interest prior to a public hearing. Feedback will let citizens know that their opinions were heard and considered. Provide a summary or "feedback report" that lists major comments and impact, if any, on decisions. People need to know what is proposed, why, and what alternatives exist. Describe how a decision may be reached and list timeframes. Provide this information several times in several ways. Notice of legislative hearings should be provided to those who have an interest, including residents, businesses, interest groups, neighborhood associations, state and federal agencies, and other local governments. Since passage of Ballot Measure 56, property owners who may be affected receive direct, mailed notice. For quasi-judicial decisions, follow the rules! Procedures for making these decisions are proscribed by law and local ordinances and limit involvement choices. For example, when an applicant requests approval for a permit or a zone change for a specific area, criteria dictate the basis for a decision and a decision — approve, deny, or approve with condition — must be made. Minimum hearing opportunities must be offered, but these are minimums, not maximums! A local government can encourage or even require an applicant to provide public -involvement opportunities in the form of neighborhood meetings or open pre -application conferences, or through social media or direct mail. Public involvement in quasi-judicial decisions is ultimately at the public hearing(s). Goal 1 requires opportunities for public involvement in land use planning. There are benefits beyond complying with that legal requirement: • Citizens know their neighborhoods and community best. • Residents and property owners can offer ideas on what is needed, what works and what doesn't. • Members of the public who participate in development of a plan or ordinance take pride in their work and support the results • Public involvement increases understanding of, and potentially support for, local government. Citizens can make their greatest contributions to the planning process when they understand the system. How staff handles questions at the planning department and how Planning Commissioners conduct meetings can contribute to public understanding. Several local jurisdictions go beyond that and make special efforts to educate people on planning. -31- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual Stress Criteria for Decisions A citizen whose testimony does not connect to the applicable criteria then sees the testimony dismissed and becomes frustrated, angry and distrustful of both local officials and local land use planning. The public needs to know that decisions are based on criteria in local ordinances. Make criteria stand out in the staff written report, the oral presentation and in comments by the chair. Additionally it is important to note that staff are trained "experts." The Planni E Commission can engage staff for additional feedback recognizing for example, that they can provide context on procedural issues criteria, floodplains, transportation, etc. -32- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual RESOURCES The following resources can assist the Planning Commission: • Deschutes County Code https•//www deschutes.org/administration/page/deschutes-county-code • Deschutes County Community Development Department https://www.deschutes.org/cd • Deschutes County Meetings and Hearings Information https•//www deschutes.org/bcc/page/meetings-and-hearings-information • Deschutes County Planning Commission https://www.deschutes.org/cd/page/planning-commission • Deschutes County Property Information https://dial.deschutes.org/ • Oregon Administrative Rules ,https:/Zsos..oregon.gov/`archives/Pages/oregon administrative rules.aspx • Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development https://www.oregon.Rov/Icd/Pages/index.aspx • Oregon Ethics Guide for Public Officials https•//www oregon gov/OGEC/docs/Public Official Guide/2010%20Guide%20for%20P ub1ic%200fficia1s.pdf • Oregon Government Ethics Commission https•//www.oregon.gov/ogec/Pages/index.aspx • Oregon Planning Commission Handbook https://www.oreRon.gov/lcd/Publications/OR Planning Comm Handbook April 2015. pdf • Oregon Revised Statutes https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills laws/pages/ors.aspx -33- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual E4 A Advisory Duties, 9 Agenda, 8 Annual Statement of Economic Interest, 8 Appeals and Timing, 19 B Board of County Commissioners, 5 C Chair and Vice Chair Responsibilities, 7 Commission Packets, 8 Community Development Department, 26 Conflict of Interest, 9 D Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, 22 E Ethics, 27 F Frequently Asked Questions, Appendix A Financial Reimbursements, 8 J Joint Meetings of Planning Commission/Board, 7 Jurisdiction, 5 L LCDC, 21 Legislative Hearings, 12 Legislative Land Use Decisions, 11 M Meeting Location, 7 Meeting Schedule and Logistics, 7 Membership, 5 N Notice of Legislative Decisions, 12 P Public Hearing, 13 Q Quasi-judicial Versus Legislative Land Use Decisions, 11 Quorum, Rules and Procedures, 9 R Roberts Rules of Order, 7 T Types of Land Use Decisions, 11 W Work Sessions, Purpose and Conduct, 14 -34- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual APPENDIX A FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 1. How much time will I need to spend doing Planning Commission business? The Planning Commission can hold between one to three regular meetings each month. Two are typical. Most meetings are held the second and fourth Thursdays at 5:30 p.m. at the Deschutes Services Center, 1300 Wall Street, Barnes and Sawyer rooms, Bend. Meeting preparation requires upwards to 1-3 hours, depending on the agenda, meeting materials, and the complexity of issues. Commissioners are encouraged to contact staff with questions or concerns about the meeting agenda or meeting materials, or request additional information prior to the meeting to maximize productivity. Staff fulfills additional information requests based on available resources, direct relevance to the meeting agenda item, and applicability to the entire Planning Commission, at the discretion of the Planning Director. 2. How do the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners interface? A Planning Commission does not decide a legislative matter, but rather makes a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. However, as a dedicated planning body for Deschutes County, the elected County Commissioners depend on the Planning Commission to fully consider land use matters and forward thoroughly evaluated, reasoned recommendations. Occasionally, the Planning Commission conducts joint meetings with the Board to expedite legislative processes, such as an urban growth boundary amendment. 3. Who runs Planning Commission meetings? The chair for vice -chair when the chair is absentJ, is responsible for facilitating public meetings and discussions among Planning Commissioners and staff. Chair responsibilities include: • Conducts meetings and maintains order. • Encourages relevant testimony by making the criteria for decisions clear. • Ensures that time limits are met. • Keeps Commission discussion on track and germane to the subject. • Summarizes as needed. • Diffuses hostility. • Asks for ideas and opinions from each Planning Commissioner. -35- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual APPENDIX A 4. Who establishes the Commission's agenda? County planning staff is responsible for setting agendas, preparing staff reports and submitting them to the Planning Commission. Other duties include preparing public notices and agendas and maintaining minutes, findings and reports as public records. 5. Can you provide an example of conflict of interest? In Oregon conflict of interest involve pecuniary matters. Nonetheless, :the American Planning Association offers the following circumstances that may involve a conflict of Interest (Source: PAC QuickNotes4. January 1, 2006): A conflict of interest is a contradiction between an individual's personal interest and his or her public duty. Such conflicts can exist whether or not money is involved, and whether the conflict is actual or only perceived. Questions about conflicts of interest are part of larger due process considerations concerning the impartiality of the planning board or commission. Such conflicts threaten the right of applicants to receive a fair hearing and decision. To avoid conflicts, a planning commissioner must maintain independence, neutrality, and objectivity in an environment of often competing interests. Scenarios. Circumstances that may involve a conflict of interest include: • A personal bias or prejudice concerning any interested party or representative of a party in a matter before the commission; • A personal or financial relationship with any party or party representative; or • An action on a matter that may substantially affect the personal or financial interests (either directly or indirectly) of the Planning Commissioner or the Commissioner's family, such as owning nearby property. Familial Contacts. What is reasonable in terms of familial contacts may varyfrom community to community; for example, in some small jurisdictions, extended families have been around for generations and interrelationships between applicants and commission members are common. Such contacts may be so pervasive that a commission member could not regularly be excused from participation; if that were the case, the commission might not ever achieve a quorum. However, a commission member can publicly declare the relationship and make an affirmative statement that the relationship, although it exists, will not impair his or her judgment. Again, if the conflict of interest is financial, even if it might be common practice to vote on matters of direct financial gain, the ethical planning commissioner should not do so. -36- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual APPENDIX B QUICK REFERENCE GUIDE: MEETINGS 1. Prior to each Planning Commission Meeting: a. Contact staff if you are not able to access the information online at least six (6) days prior to the meeting date. b. Prepare for the meeting by reading the meeting agenda and packet. Good preparation results in a good meeting. Based on the agenda and topics: i. Determine whether you have a conflict of interest or need to disclose any information pertaining to the proposal. ii. Identify the different types of agenda items (i.e., public hearing, work session), the requested actions or recommendations for each agenda item, time of the actions or recommendations, and options (i.e., recommend approval, recommend approval with amendments/revisions/conditions, recommend denial, or no recommendation). iii. Contact staff with questions or information requests regarding the proposed application or supporting documents, staff report, findings, and other applicable information necessary to prepare for the meeting. c. Refer to this Manual regarding the outline for conducting a Legislative Public Hearing, Work Session, and Planning Commission Review without Public Hearings to understand the appropriate process for each agenda item. In addition, review Roberts Rules of Order if necessary to participate effectively in the meeting. d. Conduct site visit(s) individually or with staff, if applicable. e. Inform staff if you will not attend or arrive late to the meeting. 2. At the Planning Commission Meeting: a. Keep an open mind. Always be respectful of fellow Commissioners, the public and staff. Act in a fair, ethical, and consistent manner. b. Be patient with public comments. Listen and do not pre -judge before testimony is taken. Avoid jargon and explain terms. Be mindful of body language. c. Participate and ask questions. d. Follow the applicable meeting procedures based on the type of agenda time (i.e., public hearing, work session), and Roberts of Rules of Order. e. Consider proposals to amend the Comprehensive Plan or Deschutes County Code based on: i. Consistency with federal law, the Oregon Planning Program, and the Comprehensive Plan. -37- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual APPENDIX B ii. The application and evidence submitted supporting the proposal. iii. All public, expert, applicant, and agency testimony, as well as staff comments. f. Ask questions to gain a thorough understanding of the proposal; the reasons, basis, legal foundation for the proposal; and all perspectives of the proposal and potential impacts. g. State the reasons of your recommendation so the actions are clear to the Planning Commission, the applicant, the public, and staff. h. The Chair's primary responsibilities are to: i. Conduct and run an orderly meeting in a fair and timely manner, per the agenda, and in compliance with Roberts Rules of Order. ii. Maintain order and facilitate a civil, safe, and respectful meeting, dialogue and behavior by all parties. Diffuse hostility. Intervene when: 1. Speakers are interrupting one another. 2. Speakers make personal attacks or ask personal questions. 3. Speakers ramble or get away from the issue. 4. Testimony, discussion, clapping, or cheering is out of order (intimidates people not sharing the same views and discourages public participation). iii. Keep the Commission on track by managing the discussion or deliberations: 1. Ensure participation among all Commissioners, especially newer members; 2. Elicit relevant testimony, meaning that testimony should pertain to the matter under consideration. Refocus the discussion that has wandered off the point; 3. Highlight or summarizes important points; 4. Clarify misunderstanding; 5. Enforce time limits equally, if applicable; 6. Keep the evidence phase separate from the deliberation phase; 7. Deliberate the proposal's facts and standards. 8. Ensure motions are clearly stated before a vote is taken. 9. Verify the administrative assistant has accurately recorded the vote and the reasons for the recommendation. iv. Seek guidance or advice from staff when necessary. -38- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual Planning Commission Policies and Procedures Manual Photo: Broken Top (Peter Gutowsky) Prepared by: Deschutes County Community Development Department www.deschutes.org/cd IrK Planning Commission Jim Beeger - Bend Area Dale Crawford - At Large Les Hudson - At Large Jessica Kieras - Redmond Area Maggie Kirby - Bend Area Hugh Palcic - South County Steve Swisher - Sisters Area Community Development Department Nick Lelack, AICP, Community Development Director Peter Gutowsky, AICP, Planning Manager Deschutes County, consistent with Oregon's Statewide Planning Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, recognizes the Planning Commission as its citizen involvement committee. The Planning Commission, with assistance from the Community Development Department, insures there are ample opportunities for citizens to be involved in the land use planning process. The Planning Commission advises the Board of County Commissioners on a wide variety of rural land use subjects by making recommendations on important planning policy and code matters. This manual was developed by the Community Development Department, with significant input from the Planning Commission to provide guidance and helpful references, especially for newly appointed commissioners. It is intended to be an active document that is regularly revisited and updated. -1- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual Table of Contents INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 4 STANDARDOPERATING PROCEDURES.................................................................................. 5 Jurisdiction............................................................................................................................... 5 Membership............................................................................................................................ 5 Removalfrom Office................................................................................................................ 6 VacancyFilling......................................................................................................................... 6 Chair and Vice Chair Responsibilities....................................................................................... 7 MeetingSchedule and Logistics.............................................................................................. 7 Annual Statement of Economic Interest................................................................................. 8 Quorum, Rules, and Procedures.............................................................................................. 9 Conflictof Interest................................................................................................................... 9 Powersand Duties................................................................................................................... 9 AdvisoryDuties....................................................................................................................... 9 StaffServices......................................................................................................................... 10 MAKINGLAND USE DECISIONS............................................................................................ 10 Typesof Land Use Decisions.................................................................................................. 10 Quasi-judicial Versus Legislative Land Use Decisions............................................................ 11 Legislative Land Use Decisions.............................................................................................. 11 Notice of Legislative Decisions.............................................................................................. 11 LegislativeHearings............................................................................................................... 12 Applicable Standards and Criteria......................................................................................... 14 Findings.................................................................................................................................. 15 Evidence................................................................................................................................. 16 Decision................................................................................................................................. 17 Appealsand Timing............................................................................................................... 18 ROOTS OF LAND USE PLANNING IN OREGON...................................................................... 18 TheOregon Land Use Act of 1973......................................................................................... 20 Developing the Statewide Planning Goals............................................................................. 20 LCDC's Responsibilities.......................................................................................................... 20 Purpose of the Goals: Development and Preservation......................................................... 21 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan................................................................................ 21 Typesof Regulations.............................................................................................................. 23 Post -Acknowledgment Review.............................................................................................. 24 LandUse Board of Appeals.................................................................................................... 25 RELATIONSHIPTO STAFF..................................................................................................... 25 ETHICS................................................................................................................................ 26 OREGON'S OPEN MEETING LAW......................................................................................... 26 MeetingRequirements.......................................................................................................... 27 SiteVisits................................................................................................................................ 27 ResolvingLand Use Conflicts................................................................................................. 28 -2- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual Potential Conflicts in Legislative Decisions............................................................................ 28 PUBLICINVOVLEMENT........................................................................................................ 28 Encouraging Effective Citizen Involvement........................................................................... 28 Howto Get Feedback............................................................................................................ 29 HelpCitizens Help You........................................................................................................... 29 Explainthe System................................................................................................................. 30 Stress Criteria for Decisions.................................................................................................. 30 RESOURCES........................................................................................................................ 31 INDEX................................................................................................................................. 32 APPENDICES Appendix A — Frequently Asked Questions......................................................................... 33 Appendix B — Quick Reference Guide.................................................................................. 35 -3- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual INTRODUCTION The purpose of this policy and procedures manual is to put into one document a list of the current activities, procedures and basic policies of the Deschutes County Planning Commission. Below are excerpts from Deschutes County Code and the Comprehensive Plan that expressly describe the Planning Commission's priorities. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Section 1.2 Community Involvement establishes the legal basis for the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission, along with other advisory committees, provide a vital link between County government and its citizenry. The Planning Commission operates as the County's Goal 1 committee for community involvement, and is established pursuant to ORS 215.020 and 215.030 and governed by Deschutes County Code 2.52 (DCC Chapter 2.52). Deschutes County Code The Planning Commission represents the unincorporated area of the county outside of the Bend, La Pine, Redmond and Sisters Urban Growth Boundaries, but within Urban Reserve Areas. Per DCC Chapter 2.52, the Planning Commission has the following duties: 1. To carry out a comprehensive planning program, using citizen input and public hearings when appropriate, within its area of jurisdiction and to coordinate its activities with other jurisdictions, planning bodies and districts. 2. To review at its discretion land use decisions of the Hearings Officer within its jurisdiction under Deschutes County ordinances. To act as the citizen involvement committee under the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and advise the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") on citizen involvement programs; to study and propose such measures as are advisable for promotion of the public interest, health, safety, comfort, convenience and welfare within the geographic area of the Commission's jurisdiction. The three duties mentioned above enable the Planning Commission to concentrate on land use policy. A summary of recent Planning Commission accomplishments can be found in the annual Community Development Department (CDD) Citizen Involvement Report. Hearings Officer decisions can be made available at the Planning Commission's request. These updates describe how Deschutes County Code is being applied and contested. They also provide context for future Comprehensive Plan and/or zoning code amendments. Comprehensive Plon Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Section 1.2 Community Involvement recognizes the Planning Commission: -4- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual Goal and Policies Goal 1 Maintain an active and open community involvement program that is accessible to all members of the community and engages the community during development and implementation of land use policies and codes. Policy 1.2.1 This section serves as the Community Involvement Program. Policy 1.2.2 The Planning Commission will be the Committee for Community Involvement, with County support. a. Maintain funding and staffing. b. Provide regular updates, speakers, panel discussions and handouts on land use law and policy. c. Appoint members through an open and public process to reflect the geographic areas and diverse values of Deschutes County residents. d. Meet with the Board of County Commissioners at least once a year to coordinate planning policies and activities. e. Complete an annual report on community involvement implementation for the State Citizen Involvement Advisory Committee, the Board of County Commissioners and the public. �3 y,,1, t��},t F� (J,�� =�'3 �� '`P ((� �� C'"�' jj7X' �`v� �s I ((C� fk; (Y �� g � k � `ryr 7(p�' � (X '4 (� �.'" �" " . ti \: v?:: s�Gk' W'„ �,'. ".� P � �+mP, t; 1 �` C� :a fi� ttt = U'".,. r Ea..'?� x1P` k 4.ss £ : The following Standard Operating Procedures both reference Deschutes County Code (DCC) Chapter 2.52, Deschutes County Planning Commission and supplemental best practices adopted by the Planning Commission to guide its meeting management and decision making processes. Frequently Asked Questions and a Reference Guide are provided in Appendices A and B respectively. The Deschutes County Planning Commission is the Planning Commission for the unincorporated area of the County outside of the Urban Growth Boundaries of Bend, La Pine, Redmond, and Sisters, but within Urban Reserve Areas. IliC fnnf Vr e r s. 1h ip The Planning Commission is composed of seven members, appointed by the Board. No more than two members may be engaged in the same kind of occupation, business, trade or profession or be members, officers or employees of any partnership or corporation that engages principally in the buying, selling or developing of real estate for profit. No Planning Commission member can serve more than two full terms or 10 years, whichever is greater, except that the Board may extend the term of a Planning Commission member to complete a project which commenced prior to expiration of the term. In no case can such extension exceed -5- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual six months. Membership shall, to the extent possible, be representative of the various geographic areas of the County and generally consist of the following: • One member from the South County area of La Pine and Sunriver; • Two members from the Bend area; • One member from the Tumalo area; • One member from the Sisters area; • One member from the Redmond area; and • One member at large. Figure 1 shows these areas spatially in Deschutes County. Bend Area Sisters Area Tumalo Area Redmond Area South County Area - La Pine & Sunriver It is important to acknowledge that failure to achieve such geographic representation does not affect the validity of any action taken by the Planning Commission. The County strives to stagger Planning Commissioner terms with not more than three commissioner terms expiring in any one year. RemovA fr m Office A member of the Planning Commission may be removed by the Board for findings of misconduct, nonperformance of duty, or three consecutive unexcused absences from regular meetings. Vacancy Hing Vacancies on the Planning Commission are filled by the Board for the unexpired term of the predecessor in office. Vacancies created by the expiration of a member's term are filled by the Board for a term of four years. The terms of office start on July 1. -6- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual Chas e,nd Viic ch`iiai Responsibfliflies, At its first meeting in January of each year, the Planning Commission elects from among its membership a chair and a vice -chair. No Planning Commissioner can be chair for more than two consecutive years. The Code does not address vice -chair term limits. Most recently, the 2020 Planning Commission, in consultation with the Planning Director and County Legal Counsel, elected a two -term vice -chair to a third term. The chair or vice -chair when the chair is absent, is responsible for facilitating public meetings and discussions among Planning Commissioners and staff. If the chair and vice -chair are both absent, the attending members shall select a chair for the meeting. Chair responsibilities include: • Conducts meetings per the current edition of Roberts Rules of Order. • Encourages relevant testimony by making the criteria for decisions clear. • Ensures that time limits are met. • Keeps Commission discussion on track and germane to the subject. • Summarizes as needed. • Diffuses hostility. • Asks for ideas and opinions from each Planning Commissioner. • Check -in with staff to ensure minutes are being properly recorded, speakers have identified themselves and can be heard. The Planning Commission can hold between one to three regular meetings each month. Two are typical. Most meetings are held the second and fourth Thursdays at 5:30 p.m. at the Deschutes Services Center, 1300 Wall Street, Barnes and Sawyer rooms, Bend. The Planning Commission also conducts additional meetings across the county throughout the year to: Engage citizens in their communities; Increase the Planning Commission's knowledge and understanding of issues in different communities and regions; and Provide convenient locations for public hearings and work sessions on matters specific to geographic areas or populations. The Planning Commission may also conduct joint meetings with the Board to expedite legislative processes, such as an urban growth boundary amendment. Both may also consider a liaison to better connect the two bodies. Examples of other purposes to conduct a joint meeting include, but are not limited to: 1. Facilitate an understanding of the responsibilities and authority of the Planning Commission and Board. 2. Clarify the Board's policies, actions, or legislative proposals. 3. Information sharing and/or educational opportunities. -7- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual 4. Coordinate on future or pending legislative proposals to establish a mutual understanding. 5. Discussing the scope of a strategic project (i.e. water panel discussion). 6. Identify and discuss what is working and what needs improvement in the relationship, processes and procedures, resources, staffing, etc. Planning Commission subcommittees may be established for special projects. Noteworthy CDD documents of interest to the Planning Commission are available at: https://www.deschutes.org/cd. They include but are not limited to: panel discussions, legislative amendments, Citizen Involvement Report, and annual work plan. Planning Commission meeting packets are made available at least six (6) days prior to each meeting on the County's website (https://www.deschutes.org/bcc/page/meetings-and- hearings-information). Commissioners may request a hard copy of the meeting packet, which will be available for pick-up at the Community Development Department in Bend. Occasionally supplemental materials are submitted after the meeting packet is published. Commissioners generally will not be expected to make decisions at the meeting when new materials submitted after the meeting packet are published or new materials are submitted at the meeting. Meeting preparation requires approximately to 1-3 hours, depending on the agenda, meeting materials, and the complexity of issues. Commissioners are encouraged to contact staff with questions or concerns about the meeting agenda, meeting materials, or request additional information prior to the meeting to maximize productivity. Staff fulfills additional information requests based on available resources, direct relevance to the meeting agenda item, and applicability to the entire Planning Commission, at the discretion of the Planning Director. The County provides mileage reimbursements to Planning Commissioners traveling from outside of the Bend area to the Deschutes Services Building subject to Deschutes County Policies and Procedures (Deschutes County Finance Policy No. F-1). Planning Commissioners are required to provide current automobile insurance to be eligible to receive mileage reimbursements. Commissioners driving to meetings beyond the Bend area are reimbursed from their home address to the meeting location(s). Annual Statement of Economic Interest State law, ORS 244.050 requires each Planning Commissioner as a public official to submit an annual Statement of Economic Interest in order to serve on the commission by April 15. More information is available at the Oregon Government Ethics Commission website. -8- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual A majority of the members of the Planning Commission constitutes a quorum. The Planning Commission may establish rules, regulations and procedures for its operation consistent with applicable laws of the State and the County. While not specified in County Code, the current edition of Roberts Rules of Order govern parliamentary procedure in Planning Commission meetings. A member of the Planning Commission is a public official pursuant to ORS 244.020(15), and thereby must be mindful of actual and potential conflicts of interest. Generally, a member of the Planning Commission should not participate in any proceeding or action in which any of the following have a pecuniary benefit or detriment: the member, the member's spouse, parent, stepparent, child, sibling, stepsibling, son-in-law, or daughter-in-law; the member's spouse's parent, stepparent, child, sibling, stepsibling, son-in-law or daughter-in-law; any individual for whom the member has a legal support obligation or otherwise receives benefits arising from the member's employment; any business which the member or the aforementioned -listed relatives is associated. Any potential conflict of interest must be disclosed at the meeting of the Planning Commission where the matter is being considered. The rules governing conflicts of interest are at times complicated, and any questions should be raised prior to any proceeding with staff or directly with County Legal. c w r: r s n cdr D ut ii es The Planning Commission primarily handles legislative land use matters (discussed on Page 11). According to County Code, the Planning Commission has the following duties: 1. To carry out a comprehensive planning program, using citizen input and public hearings when appropriate, within its area of jurisdiction and to coordinate its activities with other jurisdictions, planning bodies and districts. 2. To review at its discretion land use decisions of the Hearings Officer within its jurisdiction under Deschutes County ordinances. 3. To act as the citizen involvement committee under the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and advise the Board on citizen involvement programs; to study and propose such measures as are advisable for promotion of the public interest, health, safety, comfort, convenience and welfare within the geographic area of the commissions' jurisdiction. Duties ,.,ss The Planning Commission has other advisory responsibilities, allowing the body to recommend and make suggestions to the Board and other public authorities concerning: -9- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual • Laying out, widening, extending and locating of public thoroughfares, parking of vehicles, relief of traffic congestion, betterment of housing and sanitation conditions, and establishment of districts for limiting the use, height, area, bulk and other characteristics of buildings and structures related to land development within the County. • Plans for regulating the future growth, development and beautification of the County, and development within the County of proper sanitation, public utilities, transportation facilities and appropriate incentives for overall energy conservation. • Plans for the promotion, development and regulation of the economic needs of the community. • Regulation, conservation and use of natural resources. Recently, the Planning Commission participated in discussions involving wildfire hazards, water resources, transportation improvements on Highways 20 and 97, grading, agricultural lands, and child care. More information is available at: https://www.deschutes.org/cd. Staff rvic s County planning staff is responsible for setting agendas, preparing reports and submitting them to the Planning Commission. Other duties include preparing public notices and agendas and maintaining minutes, findings and reports as public records. The County Planning Director and Legal Counsel or their respective designees may serve as ex officio, nonvoting members of the Planning Commission. Staff has not served in this capacity since at least the 1990s. This provision will only be employed if directed by the Board. MAKING"" LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS This section outlines the classification of land use decisions, how to make a decision correctly, and the essential steps in conducting a public hearing. Types of Land Use D cislons The first step in making a decision is determining what type of decision the request involves. The statutory definition of a "land use decision" is long, detailed, and legalistic (see ORS 197.015(10)). To summarize, a land use decision is a final decision that concerns the adoption, amendment or application of Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals, a Comprehensive Plan provision, a land use regulation, or a new land use regulation that requires the use of discretion. Land use decisions are either "legislative" or "quasi-judicial." Approval of a use based on clear and objective standards (i.e., one that does not require discretion) is "ministerial" and is not a land use decision. -10- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual QuaChk,jdddicii l Ver u,,s :n, e gilisIl afi\ e [..CCnd Use l.(ec eI.\,%ns The Deschutes County Planning Commission focuses on legislative land use matters. It has not made quasi-judicial land use decisions since the early 1990s, with only few exceptions in the Bend Urban Area Reserve as required by County Code. What are the differences between a quasi-judicial and a legislative decision? The Oregon Supreme Court in Strawberry Hill Wheelers v. Board of Commis, 287 Or 591, 601 P2d 769 (1979) established three factors generally distinguishing a quasi-judicial decision: 1. Is the process bound to result in a decision? 2. Is the decision bound to apply pre-existing criteria to concrete facts? 3. Is the action directed at a closely circumscribed factual situation involving a relatively small number of persons? Following Strawberry Hill Wheelers, the Land Use Board of Appeals ("LUBA") further opined that the more definitively the above factors are answered in the negative, the more likely the decision is legislative. Valerio v. Union County, 33 Or LUBA 604 (1997). Otherwise, the decision is more likely to be quasi-judicial. No single answer controls. The second factor — whether the decision is bound to apply pre-existing criteria — is present to some extent in most land use decisions and is thereby often given less weight. Andrews v. City of Brookings, 27 Or LUBA 39 (1994). Generally, if the first and third factors are answered negatively, it is a legislative decision. Legislative proceedings relate to policy issues or matters that affect a broad area, or both. An amendment to the text of the Comprehensive Plan or Zoning code is nearly always a legislative matter. A Plan or Zoning map amendment may be legislative depending on its scope and whether it is initiated by an applicant or the local government. The procedures for hearing a legislative matter are different from those for a quasi-judicial proceeding; the laws are less detailed and the hearings less structured. cs4 L c.,ghe lativE2 11,)et,f,4foi>i,F Individual mailed notices must be sent to all property owners whose property would be rezoned by a legislative action. This includes a change to the base zoning designation and a change to text "in a manner that limits or prohibits land uses previously allowed in the affected zone." This is commonly referred to as "Measure 56 notice." According to State law, the individual notice specifically must inform the owner that a rezoning, "may reduce the value of your property." If no property is to be rezoned, local legislative hearing notice requirements need to be followed. Counties may exceed state notice requirements. Deschutes County is increasingly exceeding state notice requirements in land use processes to maximize public involvement in their local government's decisions. -11- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual Legislative Hearings In a quasi-judicial setting, there are always proponents and often opponents to the proposal. In a policy matter, an individual may support part of the proposal and object to others. Parties may support the objective but disagree with some of the wording. Therefore, testimony at a legislative hearing is more open. Segmenting testimony into "proponents" and "opponents" is inappropriate. Since legislative matters affect policy or a broad area, an individual's rights are handled differently from a quasi-judicial process. There are no limits on ex parte contact so there is no time set aside for ex parte declarations at the commencement of the hearing. While the Statewide Planning Goals and perhaps statutes apply to many legislative matters, criteria are not as central to these hearings as they are in quasi-judicial matters. The correct policy is what matters, not whether a criterion is satisfied. Decision -maker opinions in this arena are acceptable — even expected. Formal statutes governing conflicts of interest as well as general principles discouraging members of the Planning Commission to be influence by biases, still matter, however. A Planning Commission does not decide a legislative matter, but rather makes a recommendation to the Board. However, as a dedicated planning body for Deschutes County, the elected County Commissioners depend on the Planning Commission to fully consider land use matters, listen to and evaluate public testimony or the topic under consideration and forward thoroughly evaluated, reasoned recommendations. Planning Commissioners actively listen and read all public testimony related to the topic being discussed. Figure 2 illustrates the legislative land use amendment process. Legislative Land Use Amendments Application DLCD 35-day Public Notice Planning Commission Public Deliberation & (applicant or staff initiated) Notice (Bend Bulletin) Work session Hearing Recommendation Average 6 to 8 week process Board Work Session Public Notice Board Public Deliberation and (Bend Bulletin) Hearing Consideration of Adoption Average 6 to 8 week process -12- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual outline for Conducting a Legislative Public Hearing The following is an outline for conducting a public hearing. It is important to acknowledge that the Planning Commission ensures a civil proceeding by directing all public questions to the chair. The chair (or vice -chair when the chair is absent) facilitates the public meeting and interactions among Planning Commissioners and staff. Even in contested land use proceedings, the Planning Commission's recommendation reflects the advisory body as a whole. Members of the Planning Commission, in their individual capacity and not as a representative of the Planning Commission, maintain their ability to testify at subsequent Board proceedings. 1. Chair opens hearing. 2. Chair describes procedures for testimony and outcome of the hearing. 3. Staff report is summarized. 4. Planning Commission asks technical or clarifying questions to staff of the proposal. S. Testimony from citizens, interest groups, state agencies, and other units of government are entered into the record. Requests to continue the hearing do not need to be observed, but the Planning Commission may continue a legislative hearing as needed. If the continuance is to a date, time, and place certain, no new notice is required. 6. Close the hearing. 7. Discussion. Note: Questions to staff may be asked during discussion (or all through the process) even after the close of the hearing. 8. Motion and second. 9. Deliberation, amendments to motion (if any). 10. Vote on a recommendation. Work Sessions: Purpose and Conduct The Planning Director may schedule a work session to prepare the Planning Commission for an upcoming public hearing or following a hearing and prior to deliberations, for informational or educational purposes, or to address other relevant topics applicable to rural land use planning. Work session conduct is generally informal: 1. Chair opens the work session. 2. Staff presents or introduces an issue, topic, invited speakers (if any), etc. 3. Chair facilitates the discussion among the work session participants. 4. Staff presents next steps pertaining the topic (if any). Public comments are generally not be permitted at any work session which pertains to a pending application before the Planning Commission to avoid due process issues since the public hearing either usually has not have been opened or has been closed as the Planning -13- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual Commission prepares for deliberations, or has not otherwise been noticed as a public hearing on a pending application. Public comments on other matters is at the discretion of the chair. However, work sessions are generally understood to be discussions between the Planning Commission and staff and/or other specifically invited persons. Please note, if the chair permits public comments on non- public hearing agenda items, then other people who do not attend may legitimately raise concerns regarding the adequacy of the notice. + S Standards t Statutes require a land use decision to be based on approval criteria. The decision must apply the approval criteria to the facts. The decision -maker must apply the adopted criteria for approval that are contained in the zoning code. If the applicant demonstrates compliance with these criteria, the application must be approved even if the decision -maker disagrees with the criteria, or believes that additional, un-adopted criteria should be applied. Conversely, if the applicant fails to demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria, the decision -maker must deny the application even if it believes that the applicable criteria are unreasonable. Regarding interpretation of criteria, if the wording is clear and unambiguous, it must be followed. A hearing body may not insert what has been omitted or omit what has been inserted. If two provisions conflict, the more specific provision usually controls. For example, if a property is located in a zone that allows certain uses, but is subject to an overlay zone that restricts several of those uses, the overlay zone restrictions will control. Planning Commission Review without Public Hearings The Planning Commission will occasionally review legislative changes to the Comprehensive Plan or zoning code without conducting a public hearing. Unless otherwise required by state law, DCC 22.12.010 establishes the minimum procedural requirements for legislative changes as "review by the Planning Commission followed by a public hearing before the Board. Public hearings before the Planning Commission are set at the discretion of the Planning Director. Examples of reasons the Planning Director may not schedule a public hearing on legislative proposals include: 1. Adopt changes incorporating new State law into County Code on which Deschutes County does not have discretion. 2. Expedite a Board of County Commission project or proposal. 3. Expedite an emergency ordinance to address changed circumstances, such as a State agency repealing a State law the County wishes to continue to require. The 2020 changes to the Oregon Building Code is a specific example. 4. Expedite an emergency ordinance to address a natural or man-made hazard. -14- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual The Planning Director generally consults with the Board and/or County Administrator on such decisions. Items scheduled for review without a public hearing will be scheduled as work sessions, and the procedure will follow the same aforementioned procedure. 1. Chair opens the work session. 2. Chair describes procedures for the review and potential outcome(s) of the review: a. Recommendation for approval, approval with modifications, or denial of the proposal; or b. No recommendation. 3. Staff report. 4. Planning Commission technical or clarifying questions to staff of the proposal. 5. Discussion. 6. Decision on whether to forward the proposal with or without a recommendation. If a recommendation, then motion and second: a. Deliberation, amendments to motion (if any). b. Vote on a recommendation. c. Defer a decision by first checking -in with the Board for further guidance. Findings are statements of the relevant facts as understood by the decision -maker and a statement of how each approval criterion is satisfied by the facts. A brief statement that explains the criteria accompanies approval or denial and standards considered relevant to the decision, states the facts relied upon and explains the justification for the decision. The purposes of findings are to: • Ensure that the hearings body applied the criteria prescribed by statute, administrative rule, and its own regulations and did not act arbitrarily or on an ad hoc basis. • Establish what evidence the reviewing body relied on in making the decision to inform the parties why the hearings body acted as it did and explain how the conclusions are supported by substantial evidence. • Demonstrate that the reviewing body followed proper procedures. • Aid careful consideration of criteria by the reviewing body. • Keep agencies within their jurisdictions. Statutes require: • An explanation of the standards considered relevant to the decision. • A statement of the facts supporting the decision. -15- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual • An explanation of how the standards and the facts dictate the decision. Findings need not be exhaustive, but rather should contain a summary of the relevant facts. No particular form is required, and no magic words need to be employed. Generally, the best way to prepare findings is to: 1. Identify all of the applicable criteria. 2. Start with the first criterion and deal with each element separately; for example, "The criterion is that the property is not subject to landslides, floods, or erosion." 3. State the criterion as a conclusion; e.g., "The property is not subject to landslides because..." 4. State the fact that leads to the conclusion the property is not subject to landslides; e.g., "...because the topography on the property has a 0% grade and the property is located on a lava bed." 5. Repeat the process for each element of every applicable criterion. 6. Where there is a criterion or element of a criterion that is not applicable, state why it is not applicable. 7. Where there is conflicting evidence, the safest course is to state there was conflicting evidence, but the hearings body believed certain evidence for certain reasons. This however, is not required. Common problems with findings include: • Failure to identify all applicable standards and criteria. • Failure to address each standard and criterion. • Deferring a necessary finding to a condition of approval. • Generalizing or making a conclusion without sufficient facts. • A mere statement that the criteria have been met. • Simple restatement of the criterion. • Failure to establish a causal relationship (direct observation, reports from other people), between facts and ultimate conclusions. j; vi("'e"I cG The applicant has the burden of proof to introduce evidence that shows that all of the approval criteria are satisfied. Opponents, on the other hand, have the duty to show that the applicant's facts are incorrect or that the applicant has not introduced all of the facts necessary to satisfy the burden of proof. The questions that arise are: -16- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual • What is relevant evidence in the record? • How much evidence is required to support a finding; that is, what does substantial evidence mean? • How does the reviewing body address conflicting evidence in the findings? The decision must be based on relevant evidence in the record. Evidence in the record is evidence submitted to the reviewing body. The reason for limiting the basis for the decision to evidence in the record is to assure that all interested persons have an opportunity to review the evidence and to rebut it. A reviewing body may support an application in concept or members may have personal knowledge of facts that would satisfy the approval criteria, but it cannot approve the application on that alone. There must be substantial evidence in the record. Personal knowledge is not evidence in the record. In reality, such applications are approved but they will be remanded if appealed to LUBA. It is also important to note that an application cannot be denied on the basis of facts not in the record. Relevant evidence is evidence in the record that shows an approval criterion is or is not satisfied. Testimony about effects on real estate values is not relevant unless the approval criteria require a finding on the effect on real estate values. A statute provides that LUBA may reverse or remand a local government decision when the local government has "made a decision not supported by substantial evidence in the records as whole." The term "substantial evidence" does not go to the volume of evidence. Substantial evidence consists of evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate to support the conclusion. Where the evidence is such that reasonable persons may fairly differ as to whether it establishes a fact, there is substantial evidence to support the decision. In other words, what is required is enough evidence to show that an approval criterion is satisfied. If two people agree that there is not substantial evidence, there is not enough evidence. When the applicant's evidence is countered by the opponents, there is conflicting evidence. Where there is conflicting testimony based on different data, but any of the data is such that a reasonable person might accept it, a conclusion based on any of the data is supported by reasonable evidence. That is, the hearings body may select any of the information for its decision provided it is reasonable that a person would accept the data as correct. The best course of action is for the hearings body to state what evidence it believes and why when it prepares its findings of fact. The job of the reviewing body is to ascertain the facts and apply the approval criteria to the facts. A quasi-judicial decision will take one of three forms: -17- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual 1. Approval. The reviewing body found that the facts in evidence indicate the criteria are satisfied. Approval with conditions. The reviewing body has found that the facts in evidence to not demonstrate the criteria are fully satisfied, but, through the application of conditions, the criteria can be satisfied. This assumes the ordinance authorizes the application of conditions for approval. 3. Denial. The reviewing body has found that the facts in evidence have not demonstrated that the criteria are satisfied and the application cannot be made to comply with conditions attached to it. While a legislative amendment does not have a State mandated timeline for issuing a decision, the Planning Commission nonetheless needs to be cognizant of making timely recommendations. A in,, rri, e ais a,n d Tiiii mit;€ The "150-Day Rule" A county's final quasi-judicial land use decision must be made within 150 days from acceptance of a complete application including time needed for appeal. Legislative proposals are not subject to this requirement. Deschutes County procedures allow staff 30 days to determine if the submittal is complete and then to send written notice to the applicant. Date of that notice starts the 150-day clock. If a decision cannot be made within the time limits, the local government can ask the applicant if they will extend the rule. Often that is agreeable since the alternative may be denial of the application. If the clock runs out and the deadline has not been extended, the applicant may ask the court to grant a writ of mandamus. If granted, the writ allows the application to proceed without local government approval. Appeals The final consideration in a legislative or quasi-judicial decision is the potential of an appeal — from a staff decision to the Planning Commission or hearings officer, from the Planning Commission to the Board or from the Board to LUBA. Timeframes for these actions are set out in State law and local ordinances. Land use planning in Oregon began in the cities. Urban settings created urban needs for coordinated approaches to particular uses of the land. Recognizing this, the 1919 Oregon Legislature passed enabling legislation allowing cities in Oregon to plan in an orderly way for the challenges that resulted from steady growth. This legislation enabled cities to establish Planning Commissions and required Planning Commission approval for subdivision plats. After -18- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual World War II, Oregon counties were similarly authorized to establish Planning Commissions, at a time when rapid growth created increasing urban problems in many unincorporated areas. Through most of the 20th century, Oregon state government's role in planning was limited. The state legislature authorized local planning to occur and provided for coordination with the federal government when the need arose (during depression -era dam building projects, for example), but did not preempt or control local guidance of development and growth. However, as Oregon grew dramatically in population and income during and after World War II, it became increasingly evident that the system of permissive, local -option planning was not adequate to accommodate complex regional and statewide pressures and trends that crossed many jurisdictional boundaries. State government during this period began slowly, but with growing speed spurred by popular concern, to respond to the challenges resulting from rapid growth and development. A Department of Environmental Quality was established, backed by clean air and water laws as well as pollution bonds; landmark Oregon legislation created significant laws on beaches, bottle deposits, bike paths, and billboard removal. It was apparent that land use difficulties were at the root of many of the problems resulting from growth. Oregon's most productive farmland, the 100-mile-long Willamette Valley, was also home to 80 percent of the state's population. Oregon's population increased by nearly 40 percent between 1950 and 1970, and 80 percent of that occurred in the Willamette Valley. The result was significant growth in cities of the Valley, with the subsequent loss of prime farmland. Spurred by the losses of farmland and prodded by first -term Governor Tom McCall, the 1969 Oregon Legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 10, which required all cities and counties to adopt comprehensive land use plans and zoning regulations. SB 10 ended the view that selective local option planning alone would suffice to meet regional and area -wide land use challenges, which could significantly affect the economic and environmental bases of this state. Not only were zoning and subdivision regulations required of every jurisdiction in the state, but statewide goals were set out which addressed conservation of prime farm and forest lands and other vital state concerns, including air and water quality, open space, natural scenic resources, timely development of public facilities, well -considered transportation systems and orderly transition from rural to urban uses with a careful view to protecting the basic character of Oregon. Unfortunately, the 1969 legislation contained no assistance to meet the cost of compliance, and its enforcement provisions proved inappropriate. This led to a strong effort on the part of Governor McCall and key state legislators to work together to develop an acceptable proposal that would make statewide land use planning a reality, rather than a platitude, in every jurisdiction in the state. -19- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual The Oregon Laind U,,se Act of 3,973 The 1973 Legislature convened with bipartisan support for strengthening state oversight of local planning. The result of its effort, the Oregon Land Use Act of 1973 (Senate Bill 100), established the framework that in major part governs and guides land use planning in Oregon today. The Act was passed by substantial margins in both chambers of the legislature. It remains a controversial piece of legislation but has withstood numerous challenges in the legislature, in courts, and at the polls. It also represents the concerns, and has received the support of various groups representing agriculture, business, homebuilders, local governments, and environmental organizations. (, \be Lpi Gig F,e SC.. C,'a, t e C vi d e Pt,a Ili Fn,g G oa 11 t Once the Land Use Act was on the books, the work of implementation began. The first task for the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) was creation of the Statewide Planning Goals against which each local comprehensive plan would be measured. After more than a year of public workshops and hearings in 20 locations around the state involving over 3,000 Oregonians, LCDC adopted 14 statewide land use -planning goals in 1974. Later, coastal goals and a Willamette River Greenway goal were added to bring the total to 19 goals. C.CDC S RC:%po trlfll s 1111 b iii Efir, LCDC itself acts mainly through the acknowledgement (initial approval), periodic review, and post -acknowledgement review processes. It may issue enforcement orders, which specify areas of noncompliance in local planning decisions, and specific corrective actions required. LCDC conducts studies through its staff (the Department of Land Conservation and Development, or DLCD) and writes administrative rules refining the provisions of the goals. Often it is in this forum where discussion and consensus building can take place that best works to define Oregon's planning program. All city and county comprehensive plans and implementing regulations were "acknowledged" by LCDC as complying with the Statewide Planning Goals. Acknowledgment was needed before the local government could rely on its plan for making land use decisions without showing goal compliance for every land use decision. Once a comprehensive plan (including the implementing ordinances and regulations) gains acknowledgment, the plan — not the statewide goals —controls land use decision -making for the local government. Any amendment to an acknowledged plan must be shown to comply with the goals so that the whole plan maintains acknowledgment. It is important to note that LCDC's enforcement powers relate primarily to city and county compliance with the land use statutes and the goals. Cities and counties themselves remain responsible for assuring that individual land use actions comply with their local comprehensive plan. Local government is the primary enforcement entity, and appeals of final local decisions go to LUBA, not LCDC. -20- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual Purpose, of the Goalis:,, DevOlok,a,ment V-�r eSery a,[of,` Taken as a whole, the goals are best understood as devoted to creating and maintaining sustainable, livable, and equitable communities. First, they seek to protect the natural resources on which much of Oregon's economy depends (in particular, farm and forest land) and our environmental quality. Second, the goals promote efficient urban development and an orderly transition from rural to urban use. Implicit in both purposes of the goals is the encouragement of economic development through orderly growth. That change must occur in a manner that does not threaten the long-term economic foundations of Oregon. The twin concerns — development and preservation — meet in Goal 14. This urbanization goal requires that a city, in consultation with the county, local special districts, and neighboring jurisdictions, draw a boundary around itself to establish the projected limits of urban growth for 20 years. Data to support the boundary is required, including 20-year growth forecasts. All land within the boundary — called an urban growth boundary (or UGB) — will be considered either urban or potentially urban, while land outside the UGB must remain predominantly rural in character. The 19 Statewide Planning Goals can be generally grouped into three categories: 1. Process Goals, which ensure citizen participation and set forth basic requirements and procedures for local planning and development regulations (Goals 1 and 2). 2. Development Goals, which address the interrelated factors of economy, housing, public facilities, transportation, energy, and urbanization (Goals 9-14). 3. Conservation Goals, which address the preservation of natural resources of various types: • Land resources — agricultural and forest (Goals 2 and 4). • Coastal resources —estuaries, shorelines and dunes, and the ocean (Goals 16-19). • Managing resources — environmental quality; recreational and resort areas; scenic, historic, and natural resource areas; and natural hazards (Goals 5-8). • Willamette River — special regulations relating to particular concerns and values of this major waterway (Goal 15). cowrri":Y carnpireh Fisive Nl`g}rGc The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan provides a blueprint for land use conservation and development. This is accomplished through goals and policies that tell a cohesive story of where and how development should occur and what places should remain undeveloped. The Plan provides a legal framework for establishing more specific land use actions and regulations such as zoning. The goals and policies are based on existing conditions and trends, community values and the statewide planning system. -21- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual The Plan covers a 20-year period from 2010-2030. To remain useful over that time, the Plan must provide clear policy direction yet remain flexible. As Deschutes County conditions change, legislative amendments will ensure the Plan remains relevant and timely. The unincorporated areas of the County are covered by this Plan. The cities of Bend, La Pine, Redmond and Sisters each maintain their own comprehensive plans within their respective UGBs. The cities and County use intergovernmental agreements to coordinate land use within UGBs. The Plan complies with the statewide planning system, which was adopted in 1973 to ensure consistent land use policies across the state. While compliance with the statewide system is required, it is also important for a comprehensive plan to reflect local needs and interests. This Plan balances statewide requirements and local land use values. Deschutes County encompasses a total of 3,054 square miles. The County was created in 1916 from a portion of Crook County and was named after the Deschutes River. Approximately 80 percent of the land in the County is publicly owned by the federal, state or local governments. Deschutes County's first Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan to 1990, was adopted in 1970. To comply with newly adopted statewide planning regulations a new plan was adopted in 1979, Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan (1979 Plan). In 1981, the 1979 Plan was acknowledged as being in compliance with the Statewide Goals. Along with the 1979 Plan, the County adopted a background document and map. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Resource Element (Resource Element) contained valuable information pertaining to resources and demographics. The map depicted the long-term general land use categories for all lands in the County. Over time, the County amended the 1979 Plan to comply with changes initiated by the State, the Board or property owners. Periodic Review, a plan update process once required by the state, started in 1988 and was completed in 2003. Periodic Review included major additions and amendments to the 1979 Plan to keep the Plan and its policies consistent with evolving State planning regulations and local conditions. The 1979 Plan was codified as Title 23 in the Deschutes County Code. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan 2030 is organized into five chapters: • Chapter 1 Comprehensive Planning • Chapter 2 Resource Management • Chapter 3 Rural Growth Management • Chapter 4 Urban Growth Management • Chapter 5 Supplemental Sections Chapters 1-4 contain the following: • Background: Information providing context for the reason and process for including the goals and policies. • Goals: A general description of what Deschutes County wants to achieve. The County will direct resources and/or support partner agencies and organizations to implement the goals over the 20-year Plan timeframe. -22- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual • Policies: Statements of principles and guidelines to aid decision making by clarifying and providing direction on meeting the Goals. • References: A list of resources used in the preparation of each chapter is included at the end of each chapter. The Plan's land use goals and policies are anticipated to be completed over a 20 year period. Types of Regulations As noted above, the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan contains a map and general policy statements. Implementing ordinances establish particular criteria, standards, and procedures through which the Plan will be carried out. These ordinances prescribe laws governing the way in which rural land may be used and divided. The most common types of regulation are subdivision and zoning regulations. Subdivision regulations control the particular ways in which parcels of land are divided. Provisions address design and layout of sites, roads, utility easements, public areas, etc. Zoning is the placement of various land use "labels" (such as residential, commercial, or exclusive farm use) on a particular geographic. Zoning describes the uses permitted and generally establishes criteria and standards for each use (such as lot size, setbacks, and parking). In designating these areas and establishing the conditions, the zoning ordinance will usually allow for flexibility and accommodation of special concerns. Provisions for variances, nonconforming uses, conditional uses, and other special provisions are incorporated into the zoning ordinances. Table 1 lists existing Comprehensive Plan designations and related Zoning districts. Some Plan designations apply County -wide and while others apply to designated areas of existing development. The Destination Resort designation recognizes a combining zone that supplements the underlying zoning. Most of the area -specific designations fall under the State rules for Unincorporated Communities. Table 1- Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Designations Comprehensive Plan Designation IAssociated Deschutes County Zoning Code County -wide designations Agriculture Title 18 - All EFU subzones Airport Development Title 18 - AD, AS Destination Resort Combining Zone Title 18 - DR Forest Title 18 - F-1, F-2 Open Space and Conservation Title 18 - OS&C Rural Residential Exception Area Title 18 - RR-10 and MUA-10 Surface Mining Title 18 - SM Area specific designations Resort Community Title 18 - All Black Butte Ranch and Inn of the 7 Mountain/Widgi Creek subzones -23- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual Rural Community Title 18 - All Tumalo and Terrebonne subzones Rural Service Center Title 18 - All RSC zones Urban Unincorporated Community Title 18 -All Sunriver subzones Rural Commercial Title 18 - Rural Commercial Rural Industrial Title 18 - Rural Industrial Bend Urban Growth Area Title 19 - UAR-10, SM, SR 2 %, IRS, IL, FP, WTZ Redmond Urban Growth Area Title 20 - UH-10 Sisters Urban Growth Area Title 21- UAR-10, CIA, FP Redmond Urban Reserve Area Title 18 - RURA Source: County Geographical Information System and Deschutes County Code Deschutes County also recognizes the importance of working closely and cooperatively with the cities of Bend, La Pine, Redmond and Sisters, as well as special districts and state and federal agencies, to ensure a coordinated approach to future growth and conservation. Deschutes County has the responsibility for negotiating urban service agreements with representatives of all cities and special districts that provide, or declare an interest in providing, urban services inside a UGB. Urban service means: • Sanitary sewers • Open space • Water • Recreation • Fire protection • Streets, roads and mass transit • Parks • Special Districts Deschutes County is responsible for coordinating other planning activities affecting land uses within the County. This includes: • Coordinating with special districts, including irrigation districts, park districts, school districts, sewer districts, and water districts. • Establishing Cooperation Agreements with special districts that provide an urban service in a UGB. • Coordinating with the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. • Joint Management Agreements with municipalities for managing urban growth areas (areas outside city limits, but inside a UGB). • Establishing Urban Reserve Areas. Post -acknowledgement review allows Deschutes County (and other cities and counties) to prepare amendments to comprehensive plans and associated inventories, studies, and implementing codes (i.e., zoning, subdivision, etc.) and then consider the amendment in a public process. Adoption of a post -acknowledgment plan amendment can be completed only by the Board at a public hearing. Deschutes County is required to submit changes to plans and codes to DLCD 35-days prior to the first evidentiary hearing. DLCD provides notice of all plan amendments throughout the state and publishes them on its web site. DLCD may review and -24- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual evaluate the amendment for compliance with the goals. Changes not involving the topics within the Statewide Planning Goals do not have to be submitted to DLCD. If a party (such as a citizen, an advocacy group, or DLCD) believes the plan amendment does not comply with applicable goals, administrative rules, or land use statutes, the recourse is to appeal the amendment to LUBA. Land Use Board of Appew',,s LUBA, is a panel of administrative hearings officers appointed by the governor charged with deciding appeals of local government land use decisions, including plan amendments and zone changes. LUBA was created to simplify the appeal process, speed resolution of land use disputes, and provide consistent interpretation of state and local land use laws. Prior to LUBA's creation, land use appeals were heard by LCDC and the circuit courts. The tribunal is the first of its kind in the United States. The governor appoints the three -member board to serve four-year terms. The appointments are confirmed by the Oregon Senate. The board members must be members of the Oregon State Bar. D'NAp11 a'`�1111, gyp? F. The Community Development Department consists of Administrative Services and five divisions which provide coordinated planning and development. The five divisions are: • Building and Safety — provides construction plan reviews, consultation and inspections to assure compliance with federal and state building codes in the rural County and cities of La Pine and Sisters. • Code Enforcement — investigates investigating code violation complaints to ensure compliance with each of the codes and statutes administered by CDD, and provides direct service on contract to the City of La Pine for solid waste violations. • Coordinated Services — provides coordination of permitting and "front line" direct services to customers at the main office in Bend and at the La Pine and Sisters city halls. • Environmental Soils — regulates on -site wastewater treatments systems (septic) and monitors environmental factors for public health and resource protection. • Planning — consists of two operational areas, Current and Long Range Planning. Current Planning is responsible for reviewing land use applications for compliance with Deschutes County Code and State law, including zoning, subdivision and development regulations, and facilitating public hearings with Hearings Officers and the Board. Staff is also responsible for verifying compliance with land use rules for building permit applications and -25- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual septic permits; coordinating with Code Enforcement to respond to complaints and monitor conditions of approval for land use permits; and providing assistance at the public information counter, over the telephone and via email. Long Range Planning is responsible for planning for the future of Deschutes County, including developing and implementing land use policy with the Board, Planning Commission, community and partner organizations. It is in charge of updating the Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations, and coordinating with cities and agencies on various planning projects taking place in the region. Staff also monitors and participates in annual legislative sessions, and serves on numerous local, regional and statewide committees primarily focusing on transportation, natural resources, growth management and economic development. To understand the roles and responsibilities of staff, the Planning Commission, and Board of County Commissioners, please see the Resources section of this document with a web link to the Oregon Planning Commission Handbook, April 2015, Chapter 3. According to the Oregon Ethics Guide for Public Officials, "a public office is a public trust." Planning issues commonly involve a conflict of values, and often there are significant private interests at stake. These accentuate the necessity for the highest standards of fairness and honesty among all participants. See Oregon Government Ethics Law: A Guide for Public Officials. Planning Commission members are required to attend an in -person training conducted by Deschutes County Legal Counsel. As questions arise, Commissioners can contact County Legal Counsel. Additionally, as mentioned earlier, Planning Commissioners must complete an Annual Statement of Economic Interest. OREGON'S OPEN MEETING LAW Oregon's open meeting law (ORS 192.610-192.690) requires that decisions of any "governing body" be arrived at openly so that the public can be aware and informed of the body's deliberations and decisions. A governing body is one with two or more members that decides for or recommends to a public body. The law applies to the state, cities and counties, and advisory bodies to those jurisdictions. Not only must meetings of city councils and boards of county commissioners be "open" —the meetings of Planning Commissions, design review boards and other appointed boards or commissions with the authority to make decisions or recommendations are also subject to the requirements. With a few exceptions, a meeting exists any time a quorum of the body's membership is present. "Closed meetings" (or executive sessions) are allowed to discuss, for example employment, discipline or labor relations but decisions on these issues must be made at a public (open) meeting. Planning Commissions will rarely conduct business in an executive -26- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual session. Notice of public meetings is required, and the notice must include the time and place and principle subject to be discussed. Notice should be timed to give "reasonable" advance notice to the public. For "emergency" or special meetings, the law calls for 24 hours advance notice. Emails Planning Commissioners need to be cognizant that sending emails to fellow Commissioners constitutes a public meeting when it is sent to a majority of members. When staff coordinates with the Planning Commission electronically, the email often reminds Planning Commissioners to respond to staff individually to ensure an accidental public meeting does not take place. h(reetting Requirements Any public body must provide for the sound, video or digital recording or the taking of written minutes of all its meetings. Neither a full transcript nor a full recording of the meeting is required, but the written minutes or recording must give a true reflection of the matters discussed at the meeting and the views of the participants. All minutes or recordings must be available to the public within a reasonable time after the meeting, and shall include at least the following information: • All members of the body present; • All motions, proposals, resolutions, orders, ordinances, and measures proposed and their disposition; • The results of all votes and the vote of each member by name; • The substance of any discussion on any matter; and • A reference to any document discussed at the meeting. Because a meeting is open to the public, it means that anyone can attend. But "open" does not mean that anyone has the right to speak. Planning Commissions and governing bodies may hold work sessions and other meetings without allowing public comment. S i, t e V i,,s,}1. Oregon's open meeting law exempts "site inspections" from the meeting requirements. That means that technically the Planning Commission or governing body could go as a group, as a quorum, to visit a site. However, site visits often introduce numerous other considerations. Notably, site visits are considered ex parte contact and should be disclosed at the first public hearing. A second consideration is the assumptions, which may be made by the public when they realize that a majority of the decision -making body visited the site without everyone else who might be interested in having an opportunity to be there. What did they see? What was discussed? What did they decide? As such, site visits rarely occur. When needed, it is usually best for the members of the Planning Commission to refrain from discussing the proposal with one another or, for example, a property owner conducting the tour. Those conversations are best held during the public hearing with the public being able to fully participate. -27- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual Land use issues can generate conflicts. It is important to recognize issues that may produce conflicts, anticipate opportunities to deal with the problems and use techniques that encourage "win -win" solutions. Elements in Every Conflict • Issues. The "what" of a dispute (e.g. the wetland impact of proposed development). • Positions. The "how" — a specific proposal about how to solve the dispute ("This wetland permit cannot be issued"). • Interests. The "why" — the expression of needs that drive a person's behavior (Why do you want...? Why is that important?). Interests may be: Procedural. Do people feel they are being treated fairly? Psychological. Do people feel they are listened to and their ideas respected? Substantive. Do people feel they will benefit from the result? Only by identifying the interest(s) underlying the issues and positions and recognizing the different levels of importance each party gives to these interests can the disputing parties create mutually satisfying, durable solutions to conflicts. P(j e, n 11,r<„[ C o n f1`111ict irk IL e g ris i a tLiv.. Declisiion?s Local jurisdictions generally set the schedule for legislative land use decisions. There is no 150- day rule. By identifying stakeholders, clearly presenting facts and alternatives, and really listening and responding to the ideas and suggestions from all of the interested parties, decisions will be made that people see as fair. Even when people disagree with the results, it is difficult to generate a conflict over a "fair" decision. How, and if, citizens become involved in your land use decisions can significantly affect results. The best road to success is to provide opportunities for meaningful public involvement throughout the process. Recognition of that fact may be the reason that the people of Oregon decided to make citizen involvement the first of the statewide land use planning goals. Effective citizen involvement requires public awareness of: -28- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual • What is proposed? • Who will be affected and how? • Criteria for decisions. • Who makes decisions, when and where, and with what time line? The type of land use decision influences the approach to public participation. For legislative decisions, be creative! Get outside the box. Choices are available when considering an amendment to the comprehensive plan or zoning code, adoption of a sign ordinance, and the like. The local elected and appointed officials need a broad range of ideas. There are no questions of ex parte contacts and there is no requirement that a decision be reached. (For example, if people don't like the idea of a new or revised ordinance, the idea can be dropped). Questionnaires, surveys, or focus groups can help identify the level of interest in an issue of proposal. Town hall meetings, forums, and open houses (with staff available to answer questions), as well as printed material, can attract interest prior to a public hearing. Feedback will let citizens know that their opinions were heard and considered. Provide a summary or "feedback report" that lists major comments and impact, if any, on decisions. People need to know what is proposed, why, and what alternatives exist. Describe how a decision may be reached and list timeframes. Provide this information several times in several ways. Notice of legislative hearings should be provided to those who have an interest, including residents, businesses, interest groups, neighborhood associations, state and federal agencies, and other local governments. Since passage of Ballot Measure 56, property owners who may be affected receive direct, mailed notice. For quasi-judicial decisions, follow the rules! Procedures for making these decisions are proscribed by law and local ordinances and limit involvement choices. For example, when an applicant requests approval for a permit or a zone change for a specific area, criteria dictate the basis for a decision and a decision — approve, deny, or approve with condition — must be made. Minimum hearing opportunities must be offered, but these are minimums, not maximums! A local government can encourage or even require an applicant to provide public -involvement opportunities in the form of neighborhood meetings or open pre -application conferences, or through social media or direct mail. Public involvement in quasi-judicial decisions is ultimately at the public hearing(s). Goal 1 requires opportunities for public involvement in land use planning. There are benefits beyond complying with that legal requirement: • Citizens know their neighborhoods and community best. • Residents and property owners can offer ideas on what is needed, what works and what doesn't. -29- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual • Members of the public who participate in development of a plan or ordinance take pride in their work and support the results • Public involvement increases understanding of, and potentially support for, local government. Citizens can make their greatest contributions to the planning process when they understand the system. How staff handles questions at the planning department and how Planning Commissioners conduct meetings can contribute to public understanding. Several local jurisdictions go beyond that and make special efforts to educate people on planning. A citizen whose testimony does not connect to the applicable criteria then sees the testimony dismissed and becomes frustrated, angry and distrustful of both local officials and local land use planning. The public needs to know that decisions are based on criteria in local ordinances. Make criteria stand out in the staff written report, the oral presentation and in comments by the chair. Additionally, it is important to note that staff are trained "experts." The Planning Commission can engage staff for additional feedback recognizing for example, that they can provide context on procedural issues, criteria, floodplains, transportation, etc. -30- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual RESOURCES The following resources can assist the Planning Commission: • Deschutes County Code https•Z/www deschutes org/administration/page/deschutes-county-code • Deschutes County Community Development Department https://www.deschutes.org/cd • Deschutes County Meetings and Hearings Information https://www.deschutes.o -hearinRs-information • Deschutes County Planning Commission https:Z/www.deschutes.orgZcd/page/`planni.ng-commi,ssion • Deschutes County Property Information hops://dial.deschutes.org/ • Oregon Administrative Rules https•//sos oregon gov/archives/Pages/oregon administrative rules.aspx • Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development hops //www oregon.gov/Icd/Pales/index.aspx • Oregon Ethics Guide for Public Officials https://www.oregon.govZOG %20P ublic%20Officials.pdf • Oregon Government Ethics Commission https•//www oregon. ov/ogee/Pages/index.aspx • Oregon Planning Commission Handbook https //www oregon goy/Icd/Publications/OR Planning Comm Handbook April 2015. • Oregon Revised Statutes https://www.oregon.legislature.gov/bills laws/pages/ors.aspx -31- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual A Advisory Duties, 9 Agenda, 8 Annual Statement of Economic Interest, 8 Appeals and Timing, 19 B Board of County Commissioners, 5 C Chair and Vice Chair Responsibilities, 7 Commission Packets, 8 Community Development Department, 26 Conflict of Interest, 9 D Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, 22 E Ethics, 27 F Frequently Asked Questions, Appendix A Financial Reimbursements, 8 J Joint Meetings of Planning Commission/Board, 7 Jurisdiction, 5 L LCDC, 21 Legislative Hearings, 12 Legislative Land Use Decisions, 11 M Meeting Location, 7 Meeting Schedule and Logistics, 7 Membership, 5 N Notice of Legislative Decisions, 12 P Public Hearing, 13 Q Quasi-judicial Versus Legislative Land Use Decisions, 11 Quorum, Rules and Procedures, 9 R Roberts Rules of Order, 7 T Types of Land Use Decisions, 11 W Work Sessions, Purpose and Conduct, 14 -32- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual APPENDIX A FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 1. How much time will I need to spend doing Planning Commission business? The Planning Commission can hold between one to three regular meetings each month. Two are typical. Most meetings are held the second and fourth Thursdays at 5:30 p.m. at the Deschutes Services Center, 1300 Wall Street, Barnes and Sawyer rooms, Bend. Meeting preparation requires upwards to 1-3 hours, depending on the agenda, meeting materials, and the complexity of issues. Commissioners are encouraged to contact staff with questions or concerns about the meeting agenda or meeting materials, or request additional information prior to the meeting to maximize productivity. Staff fulfills additional information requests based on available resources, direct relevance to the meeting agenda item, and applicability to the entire Planning Commission, at the discretion of the Planning Director. 2. How do the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners interface? A Planning Commission does not decide a legislative matter, but rather makes a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. However, as a dedicated planning body for Deschutes County, the elected County Commissioners depend on the Planning Commission to fully consider land use matters and forward thoroughly evaluated, reasoned recommendations. Occasionally, the Planning Commission conducts joint meetings with the Board to expedite legislative processes, such as an urban growth boundary amendment. 3. Who runs Planning Commission meetings? The chair (or vice -chair when the chair is absent) is responsible for facilitating public meetings and discussions among Planning Commissioners and staff. Chair responsibilities include: • Conducts meetings and maintains order. • Encourages relevant testimony by making the criteria for decisions clear. • Ensures that time limits are met. • Keeps Commission discussion on track and germane to the subject. • Summarizes as needed. • Diffuses hostility. • Asks for ideas and opinions from each Planning Commissioner. -33- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual APPENDIX A 4. Who establishes the Commission's agenda? County planning staff is responsible for setting agendas, preparing staff reports and submitting them to the Planning Commission. Other duties include preparing public notices and agendas and maintaining minutes, findings and reports as public records. 5. Can you provide an example of conflict of interest? In Oregon, conflict of interest involve pecuniary matters. Nonetheless, the American Planning Association offers the following circumstances that may involve a conflict of Interest (Source: PAC QuickNotes4. January 1, 2006): A conflict of interest is a contradiction between an individual's personal interest and his or her public duty. Such conflicts can exist whether or not money is involved, and whether the conflict is actual or only perceived. Questions about conflicts of interest are part of larger due process considerations concerning the impartiality of the planning board or commission. Such conflicts threaten the right of applicants to receive a fair hearing and decision. To avoid conflicts, a planning commissioner must maintain independence, neutrality, and objectivity in an environment of often competing interests. Scenarios. Circumstances that may involve a conflict of interest include: • A personal bias or prejudice concerning any interested party or representative of a party in a matter before the commission; • A personal or financial relationship with any party or party representative; or • An action on a matter that may substantially affect the personal or financial interests (either directly or indirectly) of the Planning Commissioner or the Commissioner's family, such as owning nearby property. Familial Contacts. What is reasonable in terms of familial contacts may vary from community to community; for example, in some small jurisdictions, extended families have been around for generations and interrelationships between applicants and commission members are common. Such contacts may be so pervasive that a commission member could not regularly be excused from participation; if that were the case, the commission might not ever achieve a quorum. However, a commission member can publicly declare the relationship and make an affirmative statement that the relationship, although it exists, will not impair his or her judgment. Again, if the conflict of interest is financial, even if it might be common practice to vote on matters of direct financial gain, the ethical planning commissioner should not do so. -34- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual APPENDIX B QUICK REFERENCE GUIDE(:., MEETINGS 1. Prior to each Planning Commission Meeting: a. Contact staff if you are not able to access the information online at least six (6) days prior to the meeting date. b. Prepare for the meeting by reading the meeting agenda and packet. Good preparation results in a good meeting. Based on the agenda and topics: i. Determine whether you have a conflict of interest or need to disclose any information pertaining to the proposal. ii. Identify the different types of agenda items (i.e., public hearing, work session), the requested actions or recommendations for each agenda item, time of the actions or recommendations, and options (i.e., recommend approval, recommend approval with amendments/revisions/conditions, recommend denial, or no recommendation). iii. Contact staff with questions or information requests regarding the proposed application or supporting documents, staff report, findings, and other applicable information necessary to prepare for the meeting. c. Refer to this Manual regarding the outline for conducting a Legislative Public Hearing, Work Session, and Planning Commission Review without Public Hearings to understand the appropriate process for each agenda item. In addition, review Roberts Rules of Order if necessary to participate effectively in the meeting. d. Conduct site visit(s) individually or with staff, if applicable. e. Inform staff if you will not attend or arrive late to the meeting. 2. At the Planning Commission Meeting: a. Keep an open mind. Always be respectful of fellow Commissioners, the public and staff. Act in a fair, ethical, and consistent manner. b. Be patient with public comments. Listen and do not pre -judge before testimony is taken. Avoid jargon and explain terms. Be mindful of body language. c. Participate and ask questions. d. Follow the applicable meeting procedures based on the type of agenda time (i.e., public hearing, work session), and Roberts of Rules of Order. e. Consider proposals to amend the Comprehensive Plan or Deschutes County Code based on: L Consistency with federal law, the Oregon Planning Program, and the Comprehensive Plan. -35- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual r ' ii. The application and evidence submitted supporting the proposal. iii. All public, expert, applicant, and agency testimony, as well as staff comments. f. Ask questions to gain a thorough understanding of the proposal; the reasons, basis, legal foundation for the proposal; and all perspectives of the proposal and potential impacts. g. State the reasons of your recommendation so the actions are clear to the Planning Commission, the applicant, the public, and staff. h. The Chair's primary responsibilities are to: i. Conduct and run an orderly meeting in a fair and timely manner, per the agenda, and in compliance with Roberts Rules of Order. ii. Maintain order and facilitate a civil, safe, and respectful meeting, dialogue and behavior by all parties. Diffuse hostility. Intervene when: 1. Speakers are interrupting one another. 2. Speakers make personal attacks or ask personal questions. 3. Speakers ramble or getaway from the issue. 4. Testimony, discussion, clapping, or cheering is out of order (intimidates people not sharing the same views and discourages public participation). iii. Keep the Commission on track by managing the discussion or deliberations: 1. Ensure participation among all Commissioners, especially newer members; 2. Elicit relevant testimony, meaning that testimony should pertain to the matter under consideration. Refocus the discussion that has wandered off the point; 3. Highlight or summarizes important points; 4. Clarify misunderstanding; 5. Enforce time limits equally, if applicable; 6. Keep the evidence phase separate from the deliberation phase; 7. Deliberate the proposal's facts and standards. 8. Ensure motions are clearly stated before a vote is taken. 9. Verify the administrative assistant has accurately recorded the vote and the reasons for the recommendation. iv. Seek guidance or advice from staff when necessary. -36- Planning Commission Policy and Procedures Manual �6 E S COG2 o 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 BOCC Monday Meeting of July 27, 2020 DATE: July 22, 2020 FROM: Tanya Saltzman, Community Development, TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Housing Strategies Project Staff is providing the Board with a draft housing profile and potential options for further defining a housing strategies project. Staff intends to return in several weeks once the Board reviews the information provided to discuss the Board's preferred direction. MEMORANDUM TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Nick Lelack, AICP, Community Development Director Peter Gutowsky, AICP, Planning Manager Tanya Saltzman, AICP, Associate Planner DATE: July 22, 2020 SUBJECT: Housing Strategies Project The Board of County Commissioners (Board) has continually expressed interest in examining housing issues in Deschutes County. Here, staff is providing the Board with a draft housing profile and potential options for further defining a housing strategies project. Staff intends to return in several weeks once the Board reviews the information provided to discuss the Board's preferred direction. 1. BACKGROUND Several factors have led to the need to study housing in Deschutes County at this time: Several Oregon counties, including Clatsop, Tillamook, Morrow and Coos have recently completed housing studies that include analyses of existing and potential programs in those counties and, in some cases, their respective cities. While the prominent housing issues in those counties might differ than those of Deschutes County, these studies nevertheless provide the County with examples of current practices used throughout the state to examine housing. Copies of these studies were provided to members of the Board last fall. The 2020 United States Census, which is currently underway, will release new datasets next year. This updated data is critical in providing the County with an accurate snapshot of Deschutes County's existing conditions. Population and other demographic data will provide the foundation for developing approaches to successfully manage growth in the County, and will help inform the next update to the Comprehensive Plan. • As the Board is aware, the Comprehensive Plan is in need of an update to more accurately reflect existing conditions and future projections, and set goals and strategies accordingly. Ultimately, the Comprehensive Plan update will address a multitude of opportunities and constraints surrounding land use —and, by extension, housing —in the county. By evaluating these land use interrelationships, Deschutes County will be able to examine growth and development through a multi -faceted lens, taking into consideration its effect on resource lands, wildlife, natural hazards, economic development, housing, transportation, public facilities, and rural communities. Developing options to potentially increase the region's rural housing supply is one facet of this comprehensive approach. Two of the elements mentioned above —wildlife and natural hazards —will be studied further in the next year utilizing funding from a Department of Land Conservation and Development Technical Assistance grant. While grant funding is currently not available to study housing, it is a high -priority project in order to complete an additional element of the eventual Comprehensive Plan update. • The cities of Deschutes County are poised to begin looking at various planning issues that will affect area -wide growth and housing patterns -namely, urban growth boundary expansions and Neighborhood Planning Areas. Given the timely confluence of the above factors, staff recognizes that this is an opportune time to place a housing strategies project in the Planning Division work plan and to seek Board direction concerning the scope. II. DRAFT HOUSING PROFILE REPORT It is readily apparent that Deschutes County is growing. Over the last several months, staff has begun collecting preliminary data and conducting spatial analyses to illustrate this. The attached draft housing profile and maps provide a broad -brush survey of existing conditions within the rural county, with respect to population, income, housing value and vacant parcels. They are intended to provide context for initial discussion, while recognizing that new census data will provide the best opportunity to determine how the County's growth might be shaped in the future. Depending on the direction the Board chooses to pursue, this draft report could become a starting point for deeper analyses and form one portion of a larger final report containing additional data and potentially, goals and strategies to address housing. III. PROJECT GOALS AND METHODOLOGIES After the Board reviews the draft report, staff will schedule a follow-up discussion concerning the potential project scope. It will be important to consider both project goals and the methodologies required to achieve them. It is also important to note that any policies contemplated by Deschutes County will primarily address rural unincorporated areas; the Cities of Bend, La Pine, Redmond and Sisters are responsible for complying with Statewide Planning Goal 10 - Housing to maintain a 20- year supply of housing within their respective Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs), which includes Page 2 of 5 implementing urban efficiency measures. Deschutes County is not legally able to fulfill such requirements due to Oregon's Statewide Land Use System. Items to be considered by the Board include, but are not limited to: A. Project Goals Geography What geographic areas should housing strategies address? 1. Only rural lands. This would only include land under County land use jurisdiction. 2. Rural lands plus County -owned lands. For instance, the County owns 340 acres in the City of La Pine's Newberry Neighborhood that is designated for housing to benefit the groundwater protection program. The Redmond Eastside Framework Plan in the Urban Reserve Area and land north of juniper Ridge are other areas that fall into this category. 3. Urban, rural, and County -owned lands. While the County does not have jurisdiction over urban lands, considering urban areas —which have their own housing plans —can help provide a more holistic sense of the issues and potential solutions. Scope • Will the Housing Strategies just address housing supply in general or housing supply by type, size, price range or region - or some combination thereof? • Will it address any other housing strategies, such as funding sources or other issues (similar to the other County housing studies)? B. Project Methodology The Board could consider the following options to execute the desired project scope: Option 1: Establish a Rural Housing Advisory Committee This committee could evaluate the causes and drivers of the region's housing shortage and recommend rural housing strategies that the County can pursue to help alleviate it in partnership with other organizations. Committee members could include representatives from the following: • Central Oregon Builders Association • Central Oregon Association of Realtors • Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council • City of Bend • City of La Pine • City of Redmond • City of Sisters • Economic Development for Central Oregon • Housing Works • Neighborlmpact • Central Oregon Homeless Leadership Coalition • Planning Commission (1-2 members) • Others Page 3 of 5 Option 2: Establish a Board - Planning Commission Housing Committee The Committee could be comprised of one County Commissioner and up to the three Planning Commissioners. This Committee could establish a series of panel discussions with invited guests from public, private, and non-profit sector organizations to: 1. Evaluate the draft profile presented in this packet. 2. Provide insights into the causes and drivers of the housing need and housing shortage. 3. Propose conceptual strategies and recommendations to address the County's housing need. 4. Other. This Committee could then to determine next steps, including whether to create a Rural Housing Advisory Committee such as that proposed in Option 1 above or other courses of action. Option 3: Hire a consultant to conduct a housing study similar to Tillamook, Coos, Clatsop, and Morrow Counties The consultant could conduct a similar study of Deschutes County's housing, which could include elements such as: • Existing conditions • Market analysis • Land supply strategies • Policy and development code strategies • Development incentives • Funding sources Based on the option(s) the Board selects from the above or another option, the Community Development Department could staff the committee(s) and/or manage a consultant (overseen by a Committee) and based on their input, develop a rural housing study and action plan for the Board's consideration. The study's contents could include: • Key drivers of the housing affordability crisis in Deschutes County, including analysis of changes in regional housing patterns, trends in rents and home sale prices, and growth in short term rentals and second home ownership; • The impact of COVID-19 on Deschutes County housing supply, demand, population, wages and income, and housing affordability; • Assessment of the distribution and diversity of housing affordability challenges across the county, including municipal -level data on the housing affordability gap and the share of households that are cost burdened; and • Recommendations for rural housing strategies taking into account the impacts of COVID-19. Page 4 of 5 The above options are a starting point for the project; staff encourages exploration of other options as well and looks forward to further discussion with the Board in several weeks. Attachment Draft Housing Profile Page 5 of 5 Draft Deschutes County Rural Housing Profile Photo: Hawks View Estates / La Pine Affordable Housing Prepared by: Deschutes County Community Development Department www.deschutes.org/cd Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Patti Adair, Chair Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair Philip G. Henderson, Commissioner Community Development Department Nick Lelack, AICP, Community Development Director Peter Gutowsky, AICP, Planning Manager Tanya Saltzman, AICP, Associate Planner -1- Deschutes County Rural Housing Profile Table of Contents PURPOSE................................................................................................................................ 3 EXISTING POPULATION / HOUSING PROFILE........................................................................... 3 Population............................................................................................................................... 3 MedianHousehold Income...................................................................................................... 4 Median Value of Owner -Occupied Housing Units................................................................... 4 Owner and Renter Occupied Housing Units............................................................................ 5 POPULATIONPROJECTIONS.................................................................................................... 6 HOUSINGNEED....................................................................................................................... 7 Average Number of Persons Per Household........................................................................... 7 EstimatedHousing Need.......................................................................................................... 7 BuildingPermits Issued........................................................................................................... 7 VACANT RURAL RESIDENTIAL LAND SUPPLY........................................................................... 8 Methodology........................................................................................................................... 9 MapOverview....................................................................................................................... 10 DataSummary....................................................................................................................... 11 AnticipatedResidential Lots.................................................................................................. 12 Conclusion............................................................................................................................ 13 CURRENTINITIATIVES............................................................................................................ 13 Cities of Bend / Redmond Affordable Housing Projects........................................................ 13 Rural Accessory Dwelling Units.............................................................................................. 13 Non -Resource Lands.............................................................................................................. 14 Housing Consortium Partnerships......................................................................................... 14 2020 Census........................................................................................................................... 14 APPENDICES (under separate cover) Appendix A — Vacant Rural Residential Land Maps -2- Deschutes County Rural Housing Profile Housing is consistently identified by Deschutes County residents as an issue of concern. What does this actually mean, however? Is it the cost, availability, quality, location, or some combination of these factors? This report provides and presents background and existing conditions in unincorporated Deschutes County as they relate to population, demographics, and vacant residential lands. It is intended to provide context for further discussion of the scope of a housing strategies project. EXISTING POPULATION / HOUISSING PROFILE The following sections provide an overview of the population of Deschutes County with respect to the number of residents, household income, and housing units. In some cases, information is provided for the incorporated cities separately as well as the unincorporated rural county; unless otherwise noted, however, data is for the entirety of Deschutes County, including its cities. Full methodology and explanations of source data are found in the footnoted links provided. Much of the data comes from the American Community Survey (ACS), which is a yearly survey produced by the U.S. Census that is sent to a subset of approximately 3.5 million people in the United States. It is important to reiterate that the statistics included in this profile are intended to provide context for initial discussion, while recognizing that new 2020 census data offers the best opportunity to determine how the County's growth might be shaped in the future. Population Table 1 below illustrates Deschutes County's total population estimates for 2019 for its cities and the unincorporated area. The population of the unincorporated area represents approximately 30 percent of Deschutes County. Table 1, Deschutes County Population Estimate (2019) Deschutes County (including cities)' 197,692 City of Bend 100,421 City of Redmond' 32,421 City of La Pine 1,929 City of Sisters5 2,78.1 Unincorporated County 60,140 I https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/deschutescountyoregon z https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/bendcityoregon 3 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/redmondcityoregon,US/PST045219 4 https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/tables/2010-2019/cities/totals/SUB-IP-EST2019-ANNRES- 41.xlsx 5 Ibid. -3- Deschutes County Rural Housing Profile Median Household Income Table 2 illustrates the median household income for the same geographies, with the exception of the unincorporated county, for which data is not provided by the American Community Survey. Table 2, Deschutes County Median Household Income (2018) Deschutes County (including cities)6 $63,680 City of Bend' $63,468 City of Redmond' $55,679 City of La Pine9 $37,760 City of Sisters10 $56,429 The median household income for Deschutes County (including cities), is only marginally higher than that of the State of Oregon ($63,426). Income is a critical factor when examining the potential affordability of housing. A commonly -used metric by financial and housing analysts is that the cost burden of housing (whether rent or mortgage) should be no more than approximately one-third of household income. Median Value of Owner- ccu pied Housing Units As shown in Table 3, the median value of owner -occupied housing units in Deschutes County (including cities), is significantly higher than that of the State of Oregon ($287,300). Given that median income is on par with the state yet housing value is not could be an indicator of a potential imbalance. It is also important to note that second and vacation homes are not included in this figure, which is intended to capture the value of housing units used as primary residences. Table 3, Median value of owner -occupied housing units (2014-2018) Deschutes County (including cities)11 $336,400 City of Bend12 $363,200 City of Redmond" $242,200 City of La Pine14 $180,600 6 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/deschutescountyoregon https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/bendcityoregon s https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/redmondcityoregon,US/PST045219 1 https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=La%20Pine%20city,%200regon%201ncome%2Oand%2OPoverty&tid= ACSST 5Y2018.S1901&vintage=2018 10 https:Hdata.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=Sisters%20city,%200regon&g=1600000US4167950&tid=ACSST5Y2018. S1901&layer=VT_2018_160_00_PY_D1&vintage=2018 11 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/deschutescountyoregon 12 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/bendcityoregon 13 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/redmondcityoregon,US/PST045219 14 https:Hdata.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=La%20Pine%20city,%200regon%2OHousing&g=160000OUS4141050&tid =ACSDP5Y2018.DP04&t=Housing&layer=VT_2018_160_00_PY_D1 -4- Deschutes County Rural Housing Profile City of Sisters15 f $300,400 Owner and Renter Occupied Housing mite The data in Table 4 below illustrates the breakdown of owner -occupied versus renter -occupied homes in Deschutes County as a whole as well as its incorporated cities and the unincorporated county. The U.S. Census defines "owner occupied" as: "... the owner or co-owner lives in the unit, even if it is mortgaged or not fully paid for. The owner or co-owner must live in the unit and usually is Person 1 on the [Census] questionnaire." Table 4, Housing Deschutes City of City of City of City of Unincorporated Tenure County16 Bend" Redmond's La Pine19 Sisters20 County Total Housing Units 86,875 40,686 11,639 990 1,214 32,346 Owner Occupied 47,606 21,953 6,454 392 519 18,288 Owner Occupied (Percent of Total 54.8% 54.0% 55.5% 39.6% 42.8% 56.5% Housing Units) Renter Occupied 24,864 15,386 4,838 462 461 3,717 Renter Occupied (Percent of Total 28.6% 37.8% 41.6% 46.7% 38.0% 11.5% Housing Units) While the owner- and renter -occupancy rate varies significantly among the cities, it is worth noting that in all jurisdictions, the sum of owner -occupied and renter -occupied housing units does not add up to the total number of housing units. This is likely primarily attributable to second homes, vacation homes, or homes used for short-term rentals —all of which are common in tourism -oriented areas. In the unincorporated county, which is home to a significant number of destination resorts and resort communities, a full 32 percent of homes are neither owner- or renter -occupied. 15 https:Hdata.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=Sisters%20city,%200regon%2OHousing&g=1600000US4167950&tid= ACSDP5Y2018.DP04&t=Housing&layer=VT_2018_160_00_PY_D1 16 https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?d=ACS%205- Yea r%20Esti mates%2OData%2OProfi I es&tab1e=DP04&tid=ACSD P5Y2018. DP04&g=0400000US41 050000OUS41017 17 https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?d=ACS%205- Year%20Esti mates%20Data%20Prof i Ies&tabl e=DP04&tid=ACSDP5Y2018. D PO4&g=0400000US41 160000OUS41058 00 i8 https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?d=ACS%205- Year%2Ustimates%2OData%20Profi Ies&tabl e=DP04&tid=ACSDP5Y2018. D PO4&g=0400000US41 160000OUS41612 00 11 https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?d=ACS%205- Year_%20Esti mates%20Data%20Prof i Ies&ta bl e=DP04&tid=ACSDP5Y2018. D PO4&g=0400000US41 160000OUS41410 50 — 20 https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?d=ACS%205- Yea r%20Esti mates%20Data%20Prof i Ies&ta bl e=DP04&tid=ACSDP5Y2018. D PO4&g=0400000US41 160000OUS41679 50 -5- Deschutes County Rural Housing Profile POPULATION PROJECTIONS Understanding the future population of Deschutes County can inform rural housing strategy goals. Since the enactment of state legislation in 2013 to centralize population forecasts with consistent methodology across Oregon, population forecasts have been conducted by the Population Research Center (PRC) at Portland State University. Population forecasts are performed on a four-year cycle by region; the most recent forecast for Deschutes County was published in 2018.21 It is important to note that these population figures for 2018 and beyond may differ slightly from estimates provided by the United States Census due to different base year estimates and forecast methodology; for cities' geography, PRC uses Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs) rather than city limits, which can differ slightly. The PRC 2018 Final Forecast Report notes that the total population of Deschutes County will likely grow at a faster pace in the near -term (2018-2043) compared to the long-term (2043-2068). This is largely due to an eventual decrease in birth rates versus death rates —owing to an aging population as well as a smaller population of women in their childbearing years —despite increases from in -migration. As shown in Tables 4 and 5, Deschutes County's total population (including cities) is forecast to increase by more than 114,000 over the next 25 years (2018-2043) and by more than 245,000 over the entire 50 year forecast period (2018-2068). Average Average Annual Annual Table 5, Deschutes County and 2018 2043 2068 Growth Growth Sub -Area Population Forecasts22 Rate 2018 - Rate 2043 - 2043 2068 Deschutes County 187,621 301,999 432,930 1.9% 1.5% Bend UGB 91,373 162,362 255,291 2.3% 1.8% Redmond UGB 29,364 51,625 82,575 2.3% 1.9% Sisters UGB 2,691 5,169 8,431 2.6% 2.0% La Pine UGB 1,833 3,594 5,894 2.7% 2.0% Outside UGB 62,360 79,248 80,739 1.0% 0.1% (Unincorporated County) The growth rate for unincorporated Deschutes County, however, does not directly mirror that of the county as a whole or its cities. While the growth rates for the county as well as its cities are all projected to slow down between 2043 and 2068, the growth rate slows more dramatically for the unincorporated county as shown in Table 6. As a result, the population of the unincorporated county becomes a smaller proportion of the county as a whole by 2043 and 2068. 11 https://www.pdx.edu/prc/current-documents-and-presentations 21 https://www.pdx.edu/prc/sites/www.pdx.edu.prc/files/Deschutes_Report_Final.pdf -6- Deschutes County Rural Housing Profile Table 6, Deschutes County and Sub -Areas Share of County Forecasts23 Share of County 2018 Share of County 2043 Share of County 2068 Deschutes County n/a n/a n/a Bend UGB 48.7% 53.8% 59.0% Redmond UGB 15.7% 17.1% 19.1% Sisters UGB 1.4% 1.7% 1.9% La Pine UGB 1.0% 1 1.2% 1.4% Outside UGB (Unincorporated County) 33.2% 1 26.2% 18.6% HOUSING NEED While not intended to replace an in-depth housing needs analysis that takes into account elements such as geography, income, and price point, some basic calculations can give a general feel for housing needs in the County with respect to population growth. Average Number of Persons Per HouseWd The average number of persons per household in Deschutes County, including its cities, is 2.47.24 Estimated Housing Need Utilizing the population projections provided in Table 5 above, Deschutes County outside of its UGBs is expected to grow from 62,360 people in 2018 to 79,248 in 2043—an addition of 16,888 residents. Dividing this number by average household size indicates that approximately 6,837 housing units would be required to accommodate this growth. It is important to note that this number does not take into account mortality rates, out -migration and related factors that could make existing housing available. Table 7 below illustrates the number of new and replacement single-family building permits issued each year by the Deschutes County Community Development Department. The most recent five years of data show an average yearly total of 326 new dwelling building permits issued. This annual addition to the housing stock is the first step towards meeting the County's housing needs, but does not take into account factors such as price, type of home, or whether the homes are primary residences or second homes. 23 Ibid. 24 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/deschutescountyoregon -7- Deschutes County Rural Housing Profile Table 7, Single Family Dwelling Permits Issued Single Family Dwelling Permits issued - New Dwellings j Replacement Dwellings Includes Rural Deschutes. County Only S�+E. h M:_ S .. IN 1i S EtN �S i� E , t W :4b l P Mli Cn� I t F EKE £ A 3 e £v fi E y A s, C 5 s a RURALVACANT RESIDENTIAL LAND SUPPLY What does the housing landscape in Deschutes County look like right now? Often, housing affordability is affected by housing availability; that is, if availability of a resource (in this case, homes for sale or buildable land) is low, and desire for that resource is high, that pressure generally causes the price of that resource to rise. Low housing inventory is not the only factor that affects affordability, particularly in a location like Deschutes County, with its high draws from tourism, its second homes, Goal 8 resorts and resort communities. The following maps illustrate the location and number of vacant residential lands throughout the county. First, it is important to distinguish between vacant residential lands and a buildable lands analysis. Vacant residential land is a general summary of parcels or lots in areas zoned for rural residential use that are designated in the county database as vacant; that is, no existing structure currently exists on the lot or parcel, and therefore a single-family home could theoretically be built there as an outright permitted use. A buildable lands analysis takes this several steps further, utilizing a more complex and labor-intensive analysis, taking into account site -specific data such as setbacks, flood plains, steep slopes, environmental soils, existing structures, and other constraints that could render a lot or parcel undevelopable. In addition, a buildable lands -8- Deschutes County Rural Housing Profile analysis could incorporate non -farm dwellings on land zoned for Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) and template dwellings on land zoned Forest Use (F1 / F2), which require a conditional use permit. For the purposes of this report, which examines general patterns and trends, just a vacant residential land analysis was conducted. ft e,Cfi: .olt,g y The following methodology was utilized to create the vacant residential lands maps using Geographic Information System (GIS). As outlined below, the analysis began with all properties in zoning districts that allow single-family dwellings outright. Tax lots were subsequently reduced by several factors to thereby be categorized as "vacant," outlined below. 1. All tax lots were selected that fell within the following zoning districts: a. RR10 —Rural Residential b. MUA10 — Multiple Use Agricultural c. TER—Terrebonne Residential d. TERS— Terrebonne Residential 5-Acre e. TUR—Tumalo Residential f. TURS— Tumalo Residential 5-Acre g. SR 2 %2 - Suburban Low Density Residential h. LIAR 10 — Urban Area Reserve i. Resort Communities and Destination Resorts — Black Butte Ranch, Caldera Springs, Eagle Crest, Pronghorn, Inn of the Seventh Mountain/Widgi Creek, Tetherow j. Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community 2. From those selected tax lots, any tax lot that had the following structures already present using the Assessor Data - Stat Class Codes were removed: a. 1 & 2 family home b. Tri-/du-/fourplex c. Condominiums d. MAHO/mobile ADU e. Nursing homes f. RV park g. Mobile home park Note: Specific Stat Class Codes used to exclude tax lots in analysis: 110 — 254, 13A, 14A, 441— 472, and 511— 873 3. From -the previous list, any tax lot that fell within designated High Ground Water was removed from the list. 4. From the previous results, any tax lot that had the following constraints rendering them unfit for single-family residential homes using the Assessor Data - Property Class Codes were removed: -9- Deschutes County Rural Housing Profile PROPERTY CLASS DESCRIPTION 000 UNBUILDABLE 003 CENTRALLY ASSESSED 030 INDUSTRIAL UNBUILDABLE 831 RESORT COMMERCIAL IMPROVED 416 TRACT LAND IMPROVED - WATERFRONT 300 INDUSTRIAL VACANT LAND 921 SCHOOL - IMPROVED 821 IMPROVED GOLF COURSE 820 VACANT GOLF COURSE 26 WATER COMPANY 712 CONDOMINIUMS - LEASED LAND 549 IMPROVED WITH MANF. HOME RECEIVING FUV, NON EFU 191 IMPROVED POTENTIAL DIVIDABLE 991 OTHER MUNICIPAL PROPERTIES - IMPROVED 818 RESORT IMPROVED - GOLF COURSE FRONTAGE 80 RECREATIONAL UNBUILDABLE 5. Finally, staff planners and Geographical Information Systems (GIS) analysts reviewed the maps to remove any known anomalies in the data, such as known undevelopable lots that weren't captured by the assessor data. The final results are captured in the maps in Appendix A, organized by sub -area (Bend/Alfalfa, Redmond, Sisters, Sunriver, La Pine, and destination resorts/resort communities). fr,..,.p 0 vervil" e w The Index Map provides a general location guide. Sub -area maps are separated into three subsets; • Vacant lots in Destination Resorts, Resort Communities, and Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community • Vacant lots in sub -areas and underlying zoning ("A" maps) — these maps illustrate the boundaries of zoning districts, which is useful when examining neighboring development constraints, such as land zoned for EFU Vacant lots in sub -areas and public land ownership ("B" maps) —these maps illustrate lands that are publicly owned, which is useful when examining neighboring development constraints and opportunities, particularly considering that the land in Deschutes County is 80 percent publicly owned. -10- Deschutes County Rural Housing Profile Taken together, these maps are intended to provide a general snapshot of where vacancies exist today and how they are distributed across the county. Data Summary A summary of the number of vacant parcels is provided in Tables 8 and 9 below. Number of Table 8, Resort Areas Vacant Lots Destination Resorts Caldera Springs 101 Eagle Crest 139 Pronghorn 285 Tetherow 200 Resort Communities Black Butte I 27 Inn of the 7th Mountain/Widgi Creek 12 Urban Unincorporated Area Sunriver 118 Total Vacancies, Resort Areas 882 Table 9, Rural Residential Areas I Number of Vacant Lots Rural Residential Zones Rural Residential 2439 Multiple Use Agriculture 518 Suburban Low Density Rural Residential 32 Urban Area Reserve 292 Rural Communities Tumalo (TUR/TUR5) 32 Terrebonne (TER/TER5) 134 Total Vacancies, Rural Residential Areas 3447 Looking at the maps, it appears that the amount of vacant residential land varies greatly among destination resorts and resort communities. For instance, Pronghorn has approximately 285 vacant lots out of 464 total, whereas Black Butte Ranch has 27 vacant lots of its 1,346 total. Vacant residential lots in destination resorts can potentially be attributed to a number of factors, including price point, target demographic, amenities, and location. Despite the complexity of these factors, each vacant lot nevertheless represents a potential unit of housing. -11- Deschutes County Rural Housing Profile Looking at residential subdivisions in the Bend and Alfalfa area, it appears that vacant residential lots are fairly evenly distributed around the periphery of the City of Bend's UGB, with opportunities slightly concentrated to the north and east. Map 3b, which shows public land ownership in the area, illustrates the development constraints to the south and southwest (Forest Service ownership) and further east (BLM ownership). La Pine's vacant residential lands are fairly evenly distributed in one large general area to the north and west of the city, even when accounting for high ground water lots that are undevelopable; development constraints due to Forest Service and BLM land lie to the south and east. In Redmond, residential development is constrained in the southeast by BLM land and to the east, adjacent to their UGB by Deschutes County -owned land; vacant parcels of varying sizes are scattered around the remaining periphery, with a cluster of vacancies in Terrebonne to the north. There are few vacant parcels adjacent or nearly adjacent to the Redmond UGB. Vacant residential lands in the Sisters area are largely found to the northeast in areas zoned Rural Residential (111110). While Forest Service land restricts development to the west, south, and northwest, there is also a loose cluster of vacant parcels along U.S. 20 between Tumalo and the City of Sisters. In the residential subdivision areas south of Sunriver, development areas, which are zoned RR- 10, are largely surrounded by public lands owned by the Forest Service and BLM, but areas of vacant residential land extend in clusters down to La Pine. Anticipated Residential lots Table 10 lists potential opportunities for future residential development; that is, areas not yet platted but slated for applications or approval in the future. Table 10, Future Opportunities for Rural Residential Lots Count Thornburgh Destination Resort 950 Caldera Springs Destination Resort Phase 2 340 West Side Transect 187 Tumalo Irrigation District Rezoned Parcel 72 Gopher Gulch (North of Bend) 10 Future Opportunities, Rural Residential Lots 1,559 -12- Deschutes County Rural Housing Profile The number of vacant residential tax lots provides one aspect of the housing picture in rural Deschutes County, indicating simply that currently it is possible to locate a property on which a single family home might be built. A more in-depth buildable lands analysis would likely remove some of the mapped vacancies from the list due to individual site constraints, but the potential for nonfarm and template dwellings could provide a counterbalance to this reduction. t. CL N! `2< C, 3� ! r� 1. ;.,,", Below is a sampling of recent initiatives/programs of Deschutes County's commitment to address housing. A k,It ,`d C, We i or,, 6sring ! Foje ,s The Board currently supports the Cities of Bend and Redmond with their affordable housing pilot projects. In 2016, the Oregon Legislature passed House Bill 4079 (HB 4079) which formed a pilot program aimed to help cities build affordable housing. The program allows two cities to add new housing units on lands currently outside their UGBs without going through the normal UGB expansion process. The law directed the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) to set up a process to select two pilot projects: one for a city with a population up to 25,000, and one for a city with a population greater than 25,000. The selected cities can use an expedited UGB process if at least 30 percent of the newly built housing is affordable and the newly added land is protected for this use for at least 50 years. LCDC adopted rules, OAR 660- 039 that provided the details on the pilot program process and project requirements. In November 2018, the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) selected the City of Bend over the City of Redmond for the state's pilot program. On April 16, 2019, the Governor signed House Bill 2336, amending HB 4079 to allow the City of Redmond to take advantage of the second pilot program since no other jurisdictions up to 25,000 submitted proposals. The City of Bend continues to explore annexing 35 acres on the east side of Bend. The City of Redmond recently submitting a UGB amendment application for 40 acres east of Redmond. This land was donated by Deschutes County last November. The project, Skyline Village, anticipates having 485 housing units, along with parks, trails, and a day care facility. Half of those units are anticipated for affordable housing, intended for families who earn 80% of Redmond's average median income or less. State law does not currently allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on rural properties. The Board continues to support legislation that would allow them. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan -13- Deschutes County Rural Housing Profile Policy 3.3.5 (Rural Housing) supports initiating discussions with the State to permit ADUs in the Exclusive Farm Use, Forest and Rural Residential Zones. In 2019, Senate Bill 88 would have allowed an ADU on parcels of two acres or larger in Rural Residential Zones. The bill was not adopted. According to a DLCD Rural Resource Lands Report, from 2008 to 2018, 24 zone changes to non - resource designations occurred in Oregon. More than 25% took place in Deschutes County. The Board is currently focusing on legislative policy amendments that address six rural residential areas platted or conveyed prior to State enabling planning legislation taking effect in Deschutes County. These areas are subject to strict EFU or Forest Use zoning requirements dictated by State law that affect the siting of new dwellings, remodels, additions and accessory structures. Upon acknowledgment of the NPR Lands policies, Deschutes County will propose a new zone that allows rural residential uses to be permitted outright. tf, t istr s _.,r, I Deschutes County partners with Neighborlmpact, Housing Works, Veterans Village, and other organizations to address affordable housing. In 2018, Habitat for Humanity completed 19-units of multi -family townhomes called Putney Place in La Pine. The Board donated the land consisting of 1.85 acres. One year later, Housing Works announced the opening of Hawks View Estates, 42 affordable apartments with a mix of one-, two- and three bedroom units in La Pine. The affordable property is income -restricted to households making at or below 60% of the area median income with rents starting at $596. Deschutes County donated 2.5 acres for the affordable housing development. The Census Bureau is expected to announce new population counts by December 31, 2020.Other census data is expected beginning in spring 2021 for Deschutes County, Cities of Bend, La Pine, Redmond and Sisters, and census tracts and block groups. The Community Development Department will analyze and summarize the data for the Planning Commission and the Board. Noteworthy statistics worth revisiting include but are not limited to: • Sex and age o Total population o Male / Female • Race • Total housing units o Occupied housing units o Vacant housing units -14- Deschutes County Rural Housing Profile o Homeowner vacancy rate o Rental vacancy rate • Selected monthly owner costs as a percentage of household income • Gross rent o Gross rent as a percentage of household income • Household income o Monthly household costs as a percentage household income over the last 12 months • Total households o Average household size • Housing tenure o Owner occupied housing units o Rental occupied housing units -15- Deschutes County Rural Housing Profile APPENDIX A RURAL Index Map for Vacant* Residential county Lanas Ilk I. ' - Redmond - Seemap '41.,. • .... °Sisters < 2a & 2b Area - See map 1a&-1li a� � /1 sw �o� .i' •ter-�°�� e �1 gig, 9 9 Bend/Alfalfa ., Bend/Alfalfa Area - Seed, Area; - See' map 3a & 3b.,, map 3a�& 3b y. D 'mo�oo® 10 Sunriver Area .� See map 4a fC44 .'Tyy ti F, n La P n' ' Area IiI, Ir.' SeeMap r' }: 5aI& 5b ri 7 z� Vacant Lots in EJ ® Vacant Lots in WTZ "�V'(ES C MUA10 Vacant Lots in �� 2 Vacant Lots in RR10 SR2-1/2 0 Vacant Lots in Vacant Lots in ❑ UAR10 TER;TER5 Vacant Lots in TUR;TUR5 *Vacant: Please refer to methodology in report for definition of'vacant". 7/15/2020 4:58 PM \)I ES CO w� Vacant* Residential County Lands Black Butte Ranch Destination Resorts and Resort Communities Pronghorn Resort PRONGHORN N 0 0.1 s A Mtn ............. Total Taxlots 464 Pronghorn Taxlots 285 *Vacant: Please refer to methodology in report for definition of "vacant 6 E S C Vacant* Residential County Lands Eagle crest Resort Destination Resorts and Resort Communities l S 0 u L v_ V_ ® Z *Vacant: Please refer to methodology in report for definition of "vacant'. 7/15/2020 5:51 PM Total Taxlots 2975 Eagle Crest Taxlots 139 �vTES CO �` Vacant* Residential County hands TetheroW o ` n Inn of the 7th Destination Resorts and Resort Communities Mountain\Widgi Creek .-r 12 ........ ... 725�Y ., _. ■ TETHEROW N 0 0.4 A MMOSER== Total Taxlots 18058 I Tetherovd Taxlots—{I-200—� *Vacant: Please refer to methodology in report for definition of "vacant". 0-� E S C- 0 Vacant Residential County Lands Caldera Springs Destination Resorts and Resort Communities Sunriver III L�,I?2'�27CiS317 IIBI + 1 -01 i t rYTtt'+'17i'�iATI't'111`i7lC rTtTrt'rs`Ti�TnTi n� rf Total Taxlots 4918 Sunriver Taxlots 121 Total Taxlots 3029 CalderaSprings Taxlots 101 Vacant* Residential County Lands - Sisters Area Vacant* Taxlots with County Zoning No.. i } sZVI RR10 f G,.. F1/F2�� Ej ❑ i r p 5 MUZo � �laiDView o 1 1-1/F2 � aJ i ZONE MUA30 Ta:dots on map: 7,020 RR30 Vacant Lots in MUA30 on map: 91`? *Vacant: Please refer to . : TUR;TUR5 Vacant Lots in RR30 on map: 289 N methodology in report for definition ofvacant". EFU Vacant Lots in TUR;TUR5 on map: 1 F1;F2 7/15/2020 12:40 PM UARSO Miles Vacant* Residential County Lands - Sisters Area Vacant* Taxlots with Public Lands Ownership Map No.: lb El U. o Public Lands Ownership Vacant Lots in MUA10 on wi L S c ® BLM map: 90 W1 3 DESCHUTES COUNTY Vacant Lots in RR10 on " STATE OF OREGON map: 289 N USA Vacant Lots in TUR;TUR5 140 1 E USFS on map: 1 Miles ®� !' oil f in *Vacant: Please refer to methodology in report for definition of"vacant". 7/15/2020 12:40 PM Q Vacant* Residential County Lands - Redmond Area ZONE MUA10 !J Taxbts on map: 21,053 yL Z RRIO Vacant Lots in MUAIO on map: 247 n *Vacant: Please refer to N methodology in report in TER;TERS Vacant Lots in RR10 on map: 102 for definition of'vacant". EFU Vacant Lots in TER;TERS on map: 134 0 0.85 7/15/2020 12:13 PM Miles Vacant* Residential County Lands - Redmond Area Public Lands Ownership Vacant Lots in MUA10 on BLM map: 247 �� 2 �V DESCHUTES COUNTY Vacant Lots in RR10 on a ® STATE OF OREGON map: 102 N ® USA Vacant Lots in TER;TER5 A 0 0.85 USFS on map: 134 Miles *Vacant: Please refer to methodology in report for definition ofvacant". 7/15/2020 12:13 PM vacant* Residential Countv Land - Bend and Alfalfa Area R Fl/F2 ZONE EFU Ta)dots on map: Vacant Lots in TUR;TURS 38 53,687 MUA30 F1;F2 on map: Vacant Lots In MUA10 Vacant Lots in RR10 SR2-1/2E] on map: 242 �' SR2-1/2 on map: 27 TUR;TURS UAR10 11 Vacant Lots in RR10 -,, Vacant Lots in UAR10 N 291 on map:393 on map: 0 1 Miles �5 a *Vacant: Please refer to the methodology in report for definition of "vacant". 7/15/2020 4:58 PM vacant* Residential Countv Land - Bend and Alfalfa Area No.. 12, LJ o p o � i 1� 1J': Qia o � � .�� o � �� ❑r � F' 11rYebingad But�erplarl%� a ° n o p 1LP o ©- � Q crt C Fear Creek �/ice // L� � �.�� 1..:.,��a ❑ S� t J - /�i � 1 �✓ � � � tT Poi Q � �- �-r. � �` i v}1 �� 7 Dodds F-7 IN 0 fjf�/1 i/j 1 r� '��%f1 • �/ /% p PPic // oU �%f Zia 11 IL G 4 �*�oMarket gg o :.. i s y f BLM y, V Y Vacant Lots inMUA30 on map: 243 DESCHUTES COUNTY Vacant Lots in RRSO on map: 393 U] STATE OF OREGON Vacant Lots in TUR;TUR5 on map: 38 (} Vacant Lots in SR2-1/2 on map: 27 ® USA �i, Vacant Lots in UAR10 on map: 291 1� USFS o *Vacant: Please refer to the methodology in report for definition of "vacant". 0 t 7/I5/2020 5:54 PM varant* Residential County Lands - Sunriver Area ZONE L.1 Ta)dots on map: 6,500 RR10 EFU Vacant Lots in RR10 on map: 550 F1;F2 Taxlots with Cc z �vYLS t0 a? *Vacant: Please refer to methodology in report " for definition of "vacant". A 0 0.4 7/15/2020 12:40 PM t� Miles Vacant* Residential Countv Lands - Sunriver Area Public Lands Ownership Vacant Lots in RR10 �✓� aLuVI on map: 550 DESCHUTES COUNTY ® STATE OF OREGON ® USA USFS j4bNo.: 116 s , tp �VYCS CU a�'? *Vacant: Please refer to methodology in report N for definition of "vacant". 11 0 0.4 7/15/2020 12:40 PM Milese var;;nt* RPridential Countv Lands - La Pine Area ZONE MUA10 a Ta:dotr on map: 8,063 *Vacant: Please refer to RR10 Vacant Lotsin RR30 on map: 1031 Q methodology in report EFU " for definition of "vacant'. F1;F2 A 0 0.6 7/15/2020 12:13 PM �e Miles variant* Residential Countv Lands - La Pine Area Public Lands Ownership n Taxlots on map: 8119 ELM Vacant Lots in RR10 on w ? *Vacant: Please refer to DESCHUTES COUNTY map: 1044 methodology in report STATE OF OREGON N for definition of "vacant". USA 14 ' 0.6 7/15/2020 11:15 AM USFS Miles C cry w 1, l 0 MIKE, 8 I 4,100 4—J w C— ro X 4—J L 0 00 el I 4--J rl C:L > 4—J Z3 m -0 V) -0 0 q-- E z 0 o 4—J E v) ro Ln D-Mld r 0 44-- c) -0 &TIT ® S— u u " Q- ns A- y 03a A- y 03a a OEM ru ro CL o ro W HE M.� NIY �F JrQ n v E a) Ln E C: E V) E 0 .0 E u E o un 0 4-JO E.0 0 0:7 o-, _0 Ln a) W 0 o C_ u V) a__j T E b.O n u C: DU _ ® _ � I r\. It, AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners BOCC Monday Meeting of July 27, 2020 DATE: J u ly 22, 2020 FROM: Ken Hales, Juvenile Community Justice, 541-317-3115 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Adult Parole & Probation Space Needs Consideration RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Recommend Board identify a county commissioner to participate in facility development exploratory and planning meeting/s. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: See attached memo to the Board of County Commissioners dated July 1, 2020. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: See attached memo to the Board of County Commissioners dated July 1, 2020. ATTENDANCE: Director J. Kenneth Hales Deschutes County Community Justice Department J. Kenneth Hales, Director July 1, 2020 To: Deschutes Count Board of County Commissioners From: J. Kenneth l Iale. Re: Considerations tc dress Adult Parole and Probation Space Needs The purpose of this memo is to identify possible next steps and considerations toward examining options to remedy the space needs for the Deschutes County Community Justice Department Adult Parole and Probation Division (Division) operations in Bend. Problem Statement: There is insufficient/inadequate space for division operations in Bend and currently no plans arc underway to remedy the space needs. Objective: To identify a preferred outcome or course of action or to identify a small set of viable outcomes to study further. Background: Since 1998 the Division's main office has been on the second floor of the Adult Community Justice Building on the public safety campus. In addition to the main office from 2008 through 2019 the Division occupied, vacated, remodeled, and then reoccupied the building on the corner of Poe Sholes and Jameson, commonly referred to as the "program's building". Since 2015 the Division operated a full service satellite office and maintained the Department's community service shop in the program's building until it was repurposed for use as a stabilization center in 2019. In 2008, 2013, and 2015 Ballot Measure 57, the Justice Reinvestment Initiative (HB 3194), and the Family Sentencing Alternative Program (HB 3505) were passed resulting in three different new grant programs. In one way or another each was intended to increase services to a subset of offenders under supervision and to improve overall effectiveness of local community corrections departments through evidence based practices all with the intention to reduce prison utilization. In addition to additional programming and expanded access to community services for persons under supervision the new grants had different and additional new reporting and financial management requirements. To implement the provisions and comply with the requirements of the new grant programs the Division added five new positions through FY 2016 and FY 2017. Therefore, by 2017 the Division had outgrown the space available in the main office and the programs building. Additionally, it became apparent prior to 2017 that operating two offices resulted in inefficiencies and redundant expenses, and that neither the main office nor the satellite office had sufficient space and properly configured spaces to meet the Division's operational needs. In 2017 Facilities Director Lee Randall formed a committee of representatives from Deschutes County Facilities Department, Sheriff's Office, Health Department, 911 Service District, Oregon State Police, and Community Justice Department to develop a plan for the near term and long term space needs of the public safety campus agencies. In 2018 Facilities Director Lee Randall presented a public safety campus masterplan to the Board. The plan identified near and long term objectives. The near term objectives were to address immediate needs and were proposed to be accomplished within live years. The long term objectives are identified long term needs for which campus real estate needs to be set aside for Suture development. There were four near term objectives: 1. Make minor modifications to the Sheriff's Office work center; 2. Expand the current parole and probation main office to meet current and near term needs of the Division, 3. Relocate Division staff and the community service shop from the programs building; and 4. Remodel the programs building and repurpose it for use by the Deschutes County Health Department as a stabilization center. The plan's longterm objectives included: 1. Eventually have all parole and probation operations in Bend to be located on the first and second floors of the adult community justice building; 2. Relocate the work center from the adult community justice building to newly constructed space adjacent to the jail complex; 3. Make modifications to the jail to address visitation, intake, and public access needs; 4. Construct a multipurpose complex to address several anticipated needs that may include secure parking, maintenance bays and shop, and to provide large and moderate size spaces for public safety campus agencies for training and meeting needs; and 5. Designate space for expanding the jail and constructing a new larger stabilization center and sober station. In 2018 the board approved a conceptual plan to proceed with the near term objectives. This included developing plans to remodel and expand the division's main office to approximately 13,500 square feet. Estimated construction and soft costs were approximately $4,500,000; relocating Division staff and the community service shop from the programs building; and remodeling and repurposing the programs building for use as a stabilization center. In 2019 a thorough space needs assessment was completed and two design plans were prepared to expand the main office. The Option A design concept provided a total of 15,000 square feet with a cost estimate at the current design stage of $6,300,000. The Option B design concept provided a total of 15,950 square feet with a cost estimate at the current design stage of $5,100,000. By May 2020 Division staff and the community service shop were removed from the programs building and the building was remodeled and made ready for use as a stabilization center. In April 2020 Facilities Department Director Lee Randall and Community Justice Department Director Ken Hales sought board permission to execute one of the near term objectives of the public safety masterplan to proceed with project design and development for the Option B concept for expanding the division's main office. Permission was not granted. 2 Current Status: As of this writing the "programs" building has been remodeled and repurposed for use by the Deschutes County Health Department. The division continues to occupy the second floor of the Adult Community Justice Building for its main office. Seven staff work in the leased temporary modular structure on the public safety campus. The modular structure's temporary building permit expires in September of 2020, an extension has been requested. The modular structure's lease is $5,340 per month. As shown in the accompanying Deschutes County Parole and Probation Option B Minor Renovation and Building Addition report dated May 13, 2020 the Option B design concept cost estimates have been updated and four value engineering option not previously discussed are identified. Plans are prepared to construct a new community service shop. The community service crew program is temporarily suspended due to the pandemic. Exploratory Committee: Following discussions with the County Administrator and others, I believe the most propitious next step is to form an exploratory committee to identify all the possible outcomes, assess the benefits, costs and challenges of each and then identify the most preferred and or viable outcome(s) for further study. I envision exploratory committee meeting twice. The initial meeting to brainstorm all possible outcomes and to identify the information we have to assess each possible outcome. Allow a week or two for staff to gather requested information then hold a second and final meeting. I suggest the exploratory committee consist of County Administrator Tom Anderson, Assistant Administrator Erik Kropp, Director Lee Randall, Project Manager Dan Hopper, Property Manager Kristie Bollinger, Deputy Director Tanner Wark, and myself. Additionally, if willing and available, to include a county commissioner chosen by the Board. A preliminary list of the currently identified possible outcomes for the exploratory committee to consider accompanies this memo. It is acknowledged there may be more. Thank you for your consideration. cc Tom Anderson, County Administrator 3 Possible Outcomes Regarding Adult Parole and Probation Division Space Needs Considerations June 30, 2020 Regarding next steps to resolving the Division's space needs below are all the possible outcome identified to date. Recognizing some of the outcomes listed below have obvious advantages or disadvantages they are identified without assigning value in order to ensure all possible outcomes are listed. The possible outcomes listed below are of two types. The first half dozen outcomes all address current needs and to varying degree future needs, and result in locating all division operations at a single site. The last half dozen outcomes listed pursue a second satellite facility of some type. 1. 2019 Option A: The previously proposed Option A design involved adding an additional 7,500 square feet to the main office by expanding over the existing work center. It also involved major renovation of the existing 7,500 square feet on the second floor and required substantial structural enhancements on the first floor. It allowed for consolidating all Division operations in Bend, provided space for training and program activities and improved safety. The Option A design concept provided a total of 15,000 square feet with a cost estimate at the current design stage of $6,300,000 and designed to meet current and future needs through perhaps 2027. 2. 2019 Option B: The previously proposed Option B design involves constructing a two story addition of approximately 8,000 square adjacent to and integrated with the Division's current main office and minor renovation of approximately 3,000 square feet within the current main office. It provides training, meeting, and program space on the first level and staff offices and support functions on the second level. The Option B design concept provides a total of 15,950 square feet with a cost estimate at the current design stage of $5,100,000 and provides sufficient space to meet current and future needs through 2036. 3. 2020 Option B: In response to your request for information at the April 6, 2020 Board meeting, Facilities Director Lee Randall is providing an updated report on Option B separately. This report identifies four value engineering options not identified when the Option B design was previously considered. The value engineering options include changes to materials and finishes, finishing out shells space, and substantial changes to overall size and functionality of the design. 4. Purchase or Lease Main Office: One possible outcome is to purchase or lease a 15,000 to 20,000 square feet building as the Division's main office. 5. Construct a Division Main Office: Another possible outcome is to construct a 15,000 to 20,000 square feet building as the Division's main office. 6. Work Center: Ultimately the public safety campus planning team envisioned the Sheriff's Office work center adjacent to the jail. Doing so provides significant operational advantages and economies to operating the work center. However relocating the work 4 center was not an immediate need. Therefore the public safety masterplan identified relocating the work center to new space adjacent to the jail as a long term consideration. Likewise public safety campus planning team envisioned the Division occupying both the first and second floor of the Adult Community Justice Building as the long term, twenty years plus, solution to the Division space needs. One option is to advance to the long term solutions. Repurpose the work center for Division use to address immediate and long term needs and temporarily operate jail work crew from the jail or a temporary facility. 7. Partial Work Center: Another possibility so far unexamined is to repurpose a portion of the work center initially then over time relocate the work center and repurpose the remainder of the work center. 8. No Change to Current Status: One option is to do nothing. Continue leasing the modular facility and make no plans to address the division's space needs until some unspecified future time. 9. Purchase, or Lease Satellite Office: Another option. is to purchase, or lease an 8,000 to 10,000 square feet building and relocate partial operations to a satellite office. 10. Construct a Satellite Office: Likewise other option is to build an 8,000 to 10,000 square feet building and relocate partial operations to that space. 11. Satellite Office with Courthouse: Difficult to envision at this point but one possible outcome may be to add space for the Division when expanding the courthouse. 12. Satellite Office with Juvenile Building: Also difficult to envision at this point but is to retrofit or retrofit and expand to Juvenile Community Justice Building to provide a satellite space for the division. 13.Other? 5 �\-\0T E S COG o� 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 BOCC Monday Meeting of July 27, 2020 DATE: July 23, 2020 FROM: Greg Munn, Finance, 541-388-6559 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: June 2020 Treasurer and Finance Report DATE: July 14, 2020 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Greg Munn, Acting County Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Treasury and Finance Report Following is the unaudited monthly finance report for fiscal year to date June 30, 2020. Treasury and Investments • The portfolio balance at the end of June was $200M, a decrease of $10 million from last month but an increase of $7.51VI (3.9%) from a year ago. • Net investment income for the month is $220,067, $92,432 less than last month (due to a reduction in the portfolio balance from the PERS payment and from declining rates on floating rate bonds) and $171,979 less than June 2019. Year to date interest is $4,227,974 which is about $60,000 less than last year's earnings. • All portfolio category balances are within limits with the exception of corporate notes. Corporates are at 27.1% of the portfolio compared to the 25% policy. While the total value of corporates dropped by $1.5 million from last month, the percent of the portfolio increased as a result of the overall reduction in the size of the portfolio. As corporate notes are redeemed, the funds will be reinvested in other categories to bring the value within the category max. • Average portfolio yield continues to decline. Yield average for the month is 1:89% which is down from last month's 1.91% reflecting lower return opportunities in the securities market. • The Local Government Investment Pool rate remained at 1.3% during the month. • The weighted average time to maturity is at 0.75 years (vs 0.83 last month) which reflects redemption of longer term investments and/or continued investments in short-term options due to the lack of longer term yield opportunities. Portfolio Breakdown: Par Value by Investment Type Municipal Debt $ 9,530,000 4.8% Corporate Notes 54,090,000 27.1% Time Certificates - 0.0 % U. S. Treasuries 14,000,000 7.0% Federal Agencies 59,465,000 29.8 % LGIP 49,688,898 24.9% First Interstate Bank 12,798,529 6.4% Total Investments $ 199,572,427 100.0% Investment Income Jun-20 Y-T-D Total Investment Income 231,649 4,450,499 Less Fee: 5% of Invest. Income (11,582) 222,525 Investment Income - Net 220,067 4,227,974 Prior Year Comparison Jun-19 392,046 4,285,832 Category Maximums: Yield Percentages Total Portfolio: By Investment Types U.S. Treasuries 100% Current Month Prior Month LGIP ($50,400,000) 100% FIB/ LGIP 1.30% FirsBank ersfate Federal Agencies 100% Investments 2.15% 2.15% Municipal Debt 6.4% 4.6% Bankers Acceptances 25% Average 1.89% Time Certificates 50 % W Corporate Notes Municipal Debt 25% Benchmarks fj 27.1% Corporate Debt 25% 24 Month Treas. 0.16% LGIP Rate 1.30% Weighted Ave Maturity 36 Month Treasury 0.18 % Max 3.54 Years 0.75 Term Minimum Actual Time 0 to 30 Days 10 % 34.8% Certificates Under 1 Year 25% 71.4% 0.0 % Under 5 Years 100% 100.0% Other Policy Actual Federal U. S. Treasuries Corp Issuer 5% 5.0% Agencies 7.0% Callable 25% 12.2 % 29 8% Credit W/A AA2 AA4 4.50% 4.00% 3.50% 3.00% 2.50% 2.00% 1.50% 1.00% 0.50% 0.00% 300, 000, 000 250, 000, 000 200, 000, 000 150, 000, 000 100, 000, 000 50, 000, 000 24 Month Historic Investment Returns Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May.lune County Rate 2 Year Treasury Rate Corporate Bond Rate - LGIP Rate m w 00 cm m w m m M M M rn m M M M M M 0 0 0 0 0 `-I Deschutes County Investments Purchases made in June 2019 Portfolio Managemard Purchases made In June 2020 Portfolio Details - Investments June 30, 2020 Purchase Maturity Days To Ratings Coupon Par Market Book Inv s Inv Typ_ CUSIP Security Broke Date - Data .r Matud - Mood SSPIFO Rat[ ' YTM 0 ' Value - Value ,_, Value _ 10715 _ AFD _ , 76116FAD9 RFSCP STRIP PRIN MORETN 10/312019 7/15/2020 14 Aaa 1.8011 1.85283 3,000,000 2.999,732 2,957,075 10572 MCI 94974BGM6 Wells Fargo Corporate Note PJ 1/19/2017 7/22/2020 21 A2 A- 2.6 2.35002 1,000,000 1,001.220 1,000,139 10691 MCI 94974BGM6 Wells Fargo Corporate Note CASTLE 2/22/2019 7/22/2020 21 A2 A- 2.6 2.94020 1,000,000 1,001,220 999.806 10680 FAC 313OA5Z77 Federal Home Loan Bank MORETN 12/21/2018 7129/2020 28 Aaa AA+ 1.83 2.69091 2,000,000 2,002,562 1,998,697 10717 TRC 912803AU7 U.S. Treasury CASTLE 10/1812019 8/15/2020 45 Aaa AA+ 1.6379 1.68377 4,000,000 3,999,208 3,945,040 10742 MCI 89236TFK6 Toyota Mtr Cred - Corp N CASTLE 12/17/2019 8/21/2020 51 Aa3 AA- 0.5241 1.28862 3,000,000 2.999,591 3,000,504 10656 TRC 9128284Y3 U.S. Treasury MORETN 9/28/2018 8/31/2020 61 Aaa AA+ 2.625 2.81769 2,000,000 2,008.098 1,999,376 10633 MCI 053015AD5 AUTOMATIC DATA CASTLE 2/26/2018 911512020 76 Aa3 AA 2.25 2.57022 2,710,000 2,715.980 2,708,283 10653 TRC 9128281-65 U.S. Treasury CASTLE 9/1712018 9/30/2020 91 Aaa AA+ 1.375 2.75127 2,000,000 2,005,936 1,993.383 10573 MUN 940093R25 Washington Univ Higher Ed PJ 1/19/2017 10/1/2020 92 Aa3 A+ 5.93 1.97016 400,000 404,680 403,800 10629 MCI 459051.17J7 International Bonds for Recons CASTLE 2/912018 10/5/2020 96 Aaa AAA 2 2.47077 2.000,000 2,009,920 1.996,775 10659 MCI 45905U7J7 International Bonds for Recons CASTLE 10/26/2018 10/5/2020 96 Aaa AAA 2 3.07153 820,000 824,067 817,613 10703 MCI 45905U7J7 international Bonds for Recons CASTLE 6/26/2019 ` 1015/2020 96 Aaa AAA 2 1.99991 - 750,ODO ` 753,720 750,000 ID657 AFD 76116FAE7 RFSCP STRIP PRIN CASTLE 10/4/2018 10/15/2020 106 Aaa 2.764 2,95083 2,445,000 2,442,817 2,425,101 10714 MCI 46625HHU7 JPMorgan Chase - Corporate N CASTLE 9/20/2019 10/1512020 106 A2 A- 4.25 2.05949 3,000,000 3,033,963 3,018,671 10747 AFD 76116FAE7 RFSCP STRIP PRIN CASTLE 1/29/2020 10/15/2020 106 Aaa 1.6269 1.68812 5,000,000 4,995,537 4,976,048 10548 MUN 492244DV7 Kern Community College CASTLE 11/15/2016 11/1/2020 123 AA- 2,893 1.80006 500,000 502,900 501,750 10689 MUN 544587C30 LOS ANGELES MUNI IMP CASTLE 2/11/2019 11/1/2020 123 AA- 3.146 2.87227 2,310,000 2,321,157 2.312,030 1D617 FAC 3134GBX56 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE 12/1312017 11124/2020 146 Aaa AA+ 2,25 2.17233 3,000.000 3.024.013 3,000,000 10719 MCI 06051GEE5 Bank of America Corp CASTLE 10/2212019 1/5/2021 188 A2 A- 5.875 1.88320 2,000,000 2,053.455 2,040,132 10758 MCI 89233P4S2 Toyota Mtr Cred - Corp N PJ 3/25/2020 1/11/2021 194 Aa AA 4.250 2.79599 2,000,000 2,039,791 2,015,027 10745 MCI 94988J5M5 Wells Fargo Corporate Note CASTLE 1/9/2020 1/15/2021 198 Aa2 A+ 1.5289 1.46677 3,000,000 3,002,890 3,003,992 10725 MUN 73209MAC1 POMONA CALIF REDEV AGY PJ 11/22/2019 2/1/2021 215 A+ 3.406 1.80021 1,300,000 1,314,677 1.311,983 10735 MCI 90331HPA5 US Bancorp PJ 12/6/2019 2/4/2021 218 Al AA- 3 1.85045 2,000,000 2,026,739 2,013,381 10722 FAC 880591EL2 Tennessee Valley Authority CASTLE 11/5/2019 2/1512021 229 Aaa AA+ 3.875 1.64993 2,000,000 2,045.325 2,027,270 10739 TRC 9128331-C2 U.S. Treasury CASTLE 12/1112019 2/1512021 229 Aaa AA+ 1.6475 1.69748 3,000.000 2.997,444 2,940.690 10740 TRC 912833LC2 U.S. Treasury CASTLE 12/13/2019 2/15/2021 229 Aaa AA+ 1.6476 1.69757 2,000,000 1,998,296 1,960.640 10687 VR2 89236TEV3 Toyota Mtr Cred - Corp N CASTLE 119/2019 4/13/2021 286 Aa3 AA- 1.5914 2.51526 2,000,000 1,999,961 1.995,727 10702 VR2 06051GFV6 Bank of America Corp CASTLE 5/31/2019 4119/2021 292 Aaa A- 2.5553 3.19016 1,050,000 1,061,027 1,059,314 10706 MUN 801577NR4 SANTA CLARA CNTY CALIF FING .CASTLE 7/212019 5/112021 304 AA+ 2.05 2.26338 1,095,000 1.102.128 1,094,850 10700 MCI 06051GEH8 Bank of America Corp CASTLE 5/9/2019 5/13/2021 316 A2 A- 5 2.70027 1,560,000 1.621.579 1,590.064 10757 MCI 09247XAH4 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE 3/25/2020 5/24/2021 327 Aa3 AA- 4.25 2.65767 2,000,000 2,D66,901 2,027,906 10741 TRC 9128286V7 U.S. Treasury CASTLE 12/13/2019 5/31/2021 334 Aaa AA+ 2.125 1.70172 5,000,000 5,089,060 5.019,022 10728 MCI 46625HRT9 JPMorgan Chase - Corporate N CASTLE 11/29/2019 6/7/2021 341 A2 A- 2.4 1.92038 3,000,000 3,051,155 3,012,471 10738 MCI 46625HRT9 JPMorgan Chase - Corporate N DA DAV 12110/2019 6/712021 341 A2 A- 2.4 1.95567 2.000,000 2,034,103 2,008,134 10667 MCI 695114CM8 Pacific Corp CASTLE 11/29/2018 6/15/2021 349At A+ 3.85 3.35022 1,170,000 1.198,720 1,175,308 10672 MCI 695114CM8 Pacific Corp CASTLE 1216/2018 6/15/2021 349Al A+ 3.85 3.35091 830,000 850,374 833,763 10692 MCI 695114CM8 Pacific Corp CASTLE 2/22/2019 6/15/2021 349 Al A+ 3.85 2.85033 2,000,000 2,049,094 2,016,436 10708 FAC 3133EKVC7 Federal Farm Credit Bank CASTLE 7/29/2019 7/19/2021 383 Aaa AA+ 1.875 1.87488 3,000,000 3,051,721 3,000,000 10721 TRC 9128287F1 U.S. Treasury CASTLE 10131/2019 7/3112021 395 Aaa AA+ 1.75 1,63127 5,000,000 5,085,155 5,006,278 10705 MUN 797398DK7 SAN DIEGO CNTY CALIF PENSIOI CASTLE 7/1/2019 8/1512021 410 AA2 AAA 5.835 2,00045 2,000,000 2.104.680 2,083,825 10696 AFD 88059E4M3 Tennessee Valley Authority CASTLE 4/18/2019 9/15/2021 441 Aaa AA+ 2.3733 2.53553 1.020,000 1,012,291 990.345 10648 MCI 45905LIC36 International Bonds for Recons CASTLE 7/16/2018 9/28/2021 454 Aaa AAA 2 2.96688 2,000,000 2.000,000 1,977.262 10731 MCI 94988J5TO Wells Fargo Corporate Note CASTLE 12/5/2019 10/22/2021 478 Aa2 A+ 3.625 1.94977 2,000,000 2,075,671 2.042,814 10724 FAC 3130AFUYO Federal Home Loan Bank CASTLE 11/812019 11/19/2021 506 Aaa AA+ 1.625 1.71093 3,000,000 3,059,127 2,996,505 10744 FAC 3130AHSR5 Federal Home Loan Bank CASTLE 12/20/2019 12/2012021 537 Aaa AA+ 1.625 1.68014 3,000,000 3,060,781 2,997,620 10732 MCI 46625HUD3 JPMorgan Chase - Corporate N PJ 1216/2019 1/24/2022 572 A2 A- 4.5 2.01005 2.000,000 2,122.565 2,075.829 10654 MCI 695114CP1 Pacific Corp CASTLE 9/2512018 2/1/2022 580 Al A+ 2.95 3.32016 700,000 724,288 696,139 10726 FAC 3133EKCYO Federal Farm Credit Bank CASTLE 11/21/2019 3/14/2022 621 Aaa AA+ 1.95 1.84902 5,000,000 5.005,132 5,007,158 10730 FAC 3133EKCYO Federal Farm Credit Bank CASTLE 11129/2019 3114/2022 621 Aaa AA+ 1.95 1.83828 5,000,000 5,005,132 5.007,924 10720 MCI 90520EAH4 MUFG Union Bank CASTLE 10125/2019 41112022 639 Aaa A 3.15 2.03755 2,000.000 2,084,040 2,037,786 '10750 MCI 90520FAH4 MUFG Union Bank CASTLE 215/2020 4/1/2022 639 Aaa A 3.15 1.81145 1,000,000 1,042,020 1,022,859 `10759 MCI 037833CP3 Apple Inc CASTLE 3/27/2020 5/11/2022 679 Aal AA+ 0.7976 1.94035 1,000,000 1,004.500 980.602 10733 MCI 084664BT7 Berkshire Hathaway Inc MORETN 1216/2019 5/15/2022 683 Aa2 AA 3 1.74000 2.000,000 2.097,864 2,045,986 10652 MUN 686053BQ1 Oregon School Boards Assoc MORETN 911412018 6130/2022 729 Aa2 AA 5.48 3.12000 925,000 1.004,236 965,791 10748 FAC 3133EKJ56 Federal Farm Credit Bank CASTLE 1/3112020 813012022 790 Aaa AA+ 0.4 0.37314 3,000,000 3,009,211 3,010,896 10727 MCI 06051GEU9 Bank of America Corp CASTLE 11/25/2019 1/1112023 924 A2 A-1 3.3 2.12008 2,000.000 2,134,553 2,057,396 10753 FAC 3135GOX99 Federal National Mtg Assn CASTLE 2/24/2020 2/14/2023 958 Aaa AA+ 1.7 1.69993 4,000,000 4,006,084 4,000.000 10709 MUN 2927OCNU5 Bonneville Power Administratio CASTLE 7/30/2019 7/1/2023 1095Aal AA- 5.803 2.12492 1,000,000 1,148,200 1,105.321 10713 MCI 361582AD1 Berkshire Hathaway Inc CASTLE 9/9/2019 7/15/2023 1109 Aa3 AA 7.35 2.03D65 500,000 596.913 577,354 10754 FAC 3134GVEG9 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp R W B 212812020 2/2812024 1337 Aaa AA+ 1,625 1.62500 4,000,000 4.004,354 4.000,000 10752 FAC 3135GOY23 Federal National Mtg Assn CASTLE 2/18/2020 2/1812025 1693 Aaa AA+ 1.9 1.90000 2,000,000 2,002,872 2,000,000 10078 RRP SYS10078 Local Govt Investment Pool 711/2006 - - 1 1.3 1.30000 49,688,898 49,688,898 49,688,898 10084 RR2 SYS10084 First Interstate 7/1/2006 - - 1 1.3 1.30000 12,798,529 12,798,529 12,798,529 199,572,427 201577,862 200,123,317 Budget to Actuals Report General Fund: Revenue YTD in the General Fund is $37.1 million or 104% of budget (up from 102% last month), an increase of $2.2 million (6%) from last year which was at 103% of budget for the same time period. Expenses YTD are $36.2 million and 96.5% of budget compared to $34.5 million and 97% of budget last year. Expenses YTD are $0.9 million (2.5%) more than the same time period last year. All Major Funds: On the attached pages you will find the Budget to Actuals Report for the County's major funds with actual revenue and expense data compared to budget through June 30, 2020. Position Control Summary July - June Org Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April May June Percent Assessor Filled 34.26 34.26 34.26 34.26 34.26 34.26 34.26 33.26 33.26 33.26 33.26 33.26 Unfilled 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 4.02% Clerk Filled 8.48 8.48 8.48 8.48 8.48 8.48 8.48 8.48 8.48 8.48 8.48 8.48 Unfilled - - - - - - - - 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.86% BOPTA Filled 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 Unfilled - - - - - - - 0.00% DA Filled 49.95 49.95 49.95 51.95 50.95 51.75 51.75 50.60 51.60 51.60 52.10 53.10 Unfilled 2.00 2.00 2.00 - 1.00 1.00 1.45 2.50 1.50 1.50 2.00 1.00 2.83% Tax Filled 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 Unfilled - - - - - - - - 0.00% Veterans' Filled 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Unfilled - - - - - - - 0.00% PropertyMngt Filled 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 0.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 Unfilled - - - - 1.00 - - - - 4.63% Total General Fund Filled 103.51 103.51 103.51 105.51 104.51 105.31 105.31 102.16 104.16 104.16 104.66 105.66 Unfilled 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.45 5.50 3.50 4.50 5.00 4.00 3.02% Justice Court Filled 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 3.60 3.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.50 4.50 Unfilled 1.00 1.00 0.10 0.10 3.99% Community Justice Filled 46.90 47.20 47.20 47.90 47.90 47.90 47.90 47.90 46.90 47.90 47.90 46.90 Unfilled 1.00 0.70 0.70 - - - - - 1.00 - - 1.00 0.77% Sheriff Filled 221.75 221.75 224.75 220.75 223.75 224.75 223.75 218.75 226.75 225.75 228.75 226.75 Unfilled 18.75 18.75 15.75 19.75 16.75 15.75 16.75 21.75 13.75 14.75 11.75 13.75 6.86% Health Srvcs Filled 284.55 286.65 291.20 293.95 291.95 293.30 294.10 293.35 293.35 294.45 286.95 287.95 Unfilled 20.35 18.25 18.70 16.95 18.75 17.40 17.05 17.80 17.80 16.70 31.70 30.70 6.49% CDD Filled 53.00 54.00 54.00 56.00 55.00 55.00 56.00 55.00 55.00 55.00 55.00 54.00 Unfilled 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.78% Road Filled 55.00 55.00 56.00 55.00 54.00 55.00 55.00 54.00 55.00 55.00 54.00 54.00 Unfilled 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.23% Adult P&P Filled 37.85 38.55 39.55 38.85 38.85 39.85 39.85 39.60 39.60 39.60 39.60 39.60 Unfilled 2.00 1.30 0.30 1.00 1.00 - - 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 1.43% Solid Waste Filled 24.00 24.00 24.00 23.00 23.00 23.00 23.00 23.00 23.00 23.00 23.00 22.00 Unfilled 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 2.50 5.44% 9-1-1 Filled 55.52 53.53 56.53 56.53 56.53 55.53 53.00 53.00 53.00 53.00 54.00 54.00 Unfilled 4.48 6.48 3.48 3.48 3.48 4.48 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 6.00 6.00 9.15% Victims Assistance Filled 7.00 7.00 7.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 Unfilled 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - - - - - - - - 3.13% GIS Dedicated Filled 1.30 1.30 1.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 Unfilled 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - - - - - - 10.87% Fair & Expo Filled 12.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 12.00 11.00 11.00 10.91 10.92 Unfilled - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 1.09 1.08 7.06% Natural Resource Filled 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Unfilled - - - 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - - - - 14.29% ISF - Facilities Filled 19.00 19.00 19.00 19.00 19.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 19.60 18.60 Unfilled 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.40 6.40 22.27% ISF - Admin Filled 5.75 5.75 5.75 6.75 6.75 6.75 7.75 7.75 7.75 7.75 7.75 7.75 Unfilled 1.00 1.00 ' 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - - - - 7.69% ISF - SOCC Filled 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Unfilled - - - - - - - - - - - - 0'00% ISF - Finance Filled 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 9.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 Unfilled - - - - - 1.00 - - - - - 0.93% ISF - Legal Filled 6.00 6.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 Unfilled 1.00 1.00 - - - - - - - - - - 2.38% ISF - HR Filled 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 Unfilled - - - - - - - - - - - 0'00% ISF - IT Filled 14.70 14.70 14.70 14.70 15.70 15.70 15.70 15.70 15.70 15.70 15.70 15.70 Unfilled 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - - - - - 2.12% ISF - Risk Filled 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 Unfilled 1.00 1.00 - - - - - - - - 6.90% Filled 976.68 977.79 991.34 995.09 993.09 998.24 998.51 989.36 998.36 999.46 994.87 990.88 Unfilled 66.08 64.98 56.43 56.68 58.48 54.13 54.75 63.80 54.80 54.70 67.79 71.78 %Unfilled 6.3491. 6.23% 5.39% 5.39% 5.56% 5.14% 5.20% 6.06% 5.20 6 5.19% 6.38% 6.75% 5.74% \)I Es` Budget to Actuals - Countywide Summary All Departments 100.0% FY20 YTD June 30, 2020 (unaudited) Year Complete Fiscal Year 2019 Fiscal Year 2020 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % 001 - General Fund 33,938,668 34,900,450 103% ; 35,797,833 37,079,840 104% ; 37,537,084 105% ; 030 - Juvenile 786,286 842,485 107% ; 856,930 689,759 80% 810,143 95% ; 160/170 - TRT 7,282,600 7,682,623 105% ; 7,732,000 7,616,246 99% ; 7,616,246 99% ; 220 - Justice Court 552,000 608,275 110% ; 578,000 558,582 97% ; 558,582 97% ; 255 - Sheriff's Office 39,225,869 40,517,859 103% ; 41,581,807 43,018,922 103% ; 43,030,762 103%: 274 - Health Services 35,444,454 37,595,739 106% ; 36,132,298 31,793,784 88% 35,569,349 98% ; 295 - CDD 8,153,746 7,755,886 95% 8,468,820 8,022,611 95% 8,044,951 95% ; 325 - Road 22,876,423 23,035,209 101% ; 22,785,827 21,420,446 94% 22,454,486 99% ; 355 - Adult P&P 6,360,818 6,463,769 1021% ; 5,775,278 6,533,707 113% ; 6,553,208 113% ; 465 - Road CIP 959,104 261,131 27% 2,142,893 1,535,756 72% ; 2,254,590 105%: 610 - Solid Waste 11,868,613 11,504,244 97% 11,724,869 12,279,809 105% ; 12,279,798 105% ; 615 - Fair & Expo 1,499,100 1,589,820 106% ; 1,561,500 1,016,922 65% 1,016,922 65% ; 616 - Annual County Fair 1,595,400 1,624,840 102% ; 1,649,700 1,468,248 89% 1,468,248 89% ; 617 - Fair & Expo Capital 7,800 20,791 267% ; 16,000 21,189 132% ; ; 21,190 132% ; Reserve 618 - RV Park 358,600 488,620 136% ; 437,700 445,454 102% ; 445,454 102% ; 619 - RV Park Reserve - - ; 12,550 3,801 30% 3,801 30% 670 - Risk Management 3,569,944 3,477,056 97% ; 3,495,039 3,917,561 112% ; 3,934,417 113% ; 675 - Health Benefits 21,411,563 22,699,675 106% ; 22,318,433 22,405,553 100% ; 22,490,554 101% ; 705 - 911 10,260,013 10,514,313 102% ; 10,563,350 10,903,017 103% ; 10,906,094 103% ; 999 - Other 34,727,441 37,041,417 107% ; 29,544,540 34,153,356 116% ; 29,743,400 101% ; TOTAL RESOURCES 240,878,442 248,624,202 103% ; 243,175,367 244,884,564 101% ; 246,739,281 101% ; Fiscal Year 2019 Fiscal Year 2020 REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % 001 - General Fund 17,486,029 16,406,076 94% 18,517,987 17,324,361 94% ; 17,475,313 94% ; 030 - Juvenile 7,040,903 6,638,892 94% ; 73127,337 6,909,785 97% 6,935,455 97% ; 160/170 - TRT 2,335,678 2,233,953 96% ; 2,274,140 2,255,756 99% ; 2,265,622 100% ; 220 - Justice Court 658,081 652,039 99% ; 678,141 665,348 98% 667,073 98% ; 255 - Sheriff's Office 42,853,022 41,553,897 97% ; 44,685,809 44,634,548 100% 45,002,557 101% ; 274 - Health Services ; 44,974,364 42,441,390 94% ; 47,589,309 41,626,126 87% ; ; 43,188,735 91% ; 295 - CDD 7,726,157 7,331,793 95% 7,905,639 7,455,699 94% ; 7,464,812 94% � ',? . O C Es`� Budget to Actuals - Countywide Summary All Departments 100.0% FY20 YTD June 30, 2020 (unaudited) Year Complete 325 - Road 14,689,753 12,158,904 83% ; 14,573,336 12,720,237 87% 13,824,649 95% ; 355 - Adult P&P 6,505,128 6,208,673 95% 6,669,491 6,396,556 96% ; 6,454,728 97% ; 465 - Road CIP 8,309,501 5,484,366 66% ; 13,835,913 5,348,277 39% 6,023,045 44% ; 610 - Solid Waste 8,310,720 7,643,635 92% ; 8,384,039 7,177,654 86% ; 7,500,992 89% ; 615 - Fair & Expo 2,688,885 2,789,095 104% ; 2,464,787 2,348,002 95% 2,357,315 96% ; 616 - Annual County Fair 1,352,402 1,362,448 101% ; 1,504,700 1,615,288 107% ; 1,615,348 107% ; 617 - Fair & Expo Capital 450,000 298,175 66% 1,362,775 339,537 25% 502,278 37% ; Reserve 618 - RV Park 521,971 499,108 96% 540,373 491,995 91% 491,996 91% ; 619 - RV Park Reserve - - 100,000 8,335 8% 24,641 25% 670 - Risk Management 3,858,097 2,862,764 74% 4,132,295 2,371,241 57% 2,379,000 58% ; 675 - Health Benefits 23,144,255 21,211,086 92% ; 24,115,011 21,386,163 89% ; 22,491,823 93% ; 705 - 911 13,379,064 10,570,113 79% ; 12,250,336 10,700,350 87% ; 11,367,490 93% ; 999 - Other 44,989,660 33,602,228 75% ; 57,540,907 37,864,263 66% ; 57,300,610 100% ; TOTAL REQUIREMENTS ; 251,273,671 221,948,635 88% 276,252,325 229,639,520 83% 255,333,482 92% ; o C� �lEs`0 { Countywide Summary Budget to Actuals � All Departments 100.0% FY20 YTD June 30, 2020 (unaudited) Year Complete TRANSFERS 001 - General Fund 030 - Juvenile 160/170 - TRT 220 - Justice Court 255 - Sheriffs Office 274 - Health Services 295 - CDD 325 - Road 355 - Adult P&P 465 - Road CIP 610 - Solid Waste 615 - Fair & Expo 616 - Annual County Fair 617 - Fair & Expo Capital Reserve 618 - RV Park 619 - RV Park Reserve 670 - Risk Management 705 - 911 999 - Other TOTAL TRANSFERS Fiscal Year 2019 1Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % (18,077,559) (18,091,539) 100% ; (19,023,310) (18,918,110) 99% ; (19,023,310) 100% ; 5,744,015 5,744,015 100% ; 5,874,465 5,874,465 100% ; 5,874,465 100% ; (4,649,866) (4,449,866) 96% ; (4,433,128) (4,133,128) 93% ; (4,390,193) 99% ; 30,000 30,000 100% - - 2981253 2 981 254 100% ' 3 119 936 3,119,936 100% ' 3.119.936 100% ' 6,177,535 6,179,204 100% ; 6,102,365 5,553,764 91% ; (1,152,624) (1,170,172) 102% ; (1,448,081) (1,060,096) 73% ; (14,464,308) (14,464,308) 100% ; (11,910,575) (11,910,575) 100% ; 165,189 165,189 100% ; 223,189 223,189 100% 13,811,725 13,393,963 97% ; 12,014,914 11,409,679 95% ; (4,688,023) (5,000,029) 107% ; (3,296,192) (3,296,192) 100% ; 1,220,994 1,164,996 95% ; 1,022,863 877,863 86% ; (322,998) (267,000) 83% ; 830,083 630,083 76% ; 160,000 160,000 100% ; (3,168) (3,168) 100% ; (145,000) - 0% ; (13,313) 286,687 - 2153%; (307,000) (307,000) 100% ; 502,000 502,000 100% ; (6,918) (6,918) 100% ; - - 999% ; 12,237,752 12,997,378 106% ; 11,123,785 11,784,436 106% ; - - ; (600,000) 6,285,930 103% ; (1,102,697) 76% ; (11,910,575) 100%: 223,189 100% ; 11,893,453 99% ` (3,296,192) 100% ; 1,434,958 140% ; - 0% ; (13,313) 100%: (307,000) r 100% ; 502,000 100% ; (6,918) 100%: 10,716,267 96% ; - 0% ' * Resolution 2020-032 added $600K in Transfers Out from the Transient Room Tax Fund ($300K) and the Fair & Expo Reserve Fund ($300K), but the Transfer In was not recognized in the Fair & Expo Fund causing Internal Transfers to be out of balance. Budget to Actuals - Countywide Summary All Departments 100.0% FY20 YTD June 30, 2020 (unaudited) Year Complete Fiscal Year 2019 Fiscal Year 2020 ENDING FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals Projection % 001 - General Fund 9,265,080 12,349,379 133% ; 9,346,536 13,186,748 ; 13,387,841 143% ; 030 - Juvenile 689,399 1,296,490 188% ; 694,058 950,929 1,045,643 151% ; 160/170 - TRT 2,261,401 2,565,255 113% ; 3,324,732 3,792,618 3,525,687 106% ; 220 - Justice Court 67,919 144,227 212% ; 64,859 37,461 35,736 55% ; 255 - Sheriffs Office 13,191,907 16,818,660 127% ; 14,732,933 18,322,970 17,966,801 122% ; 274 - Health Services 3,850,339 10,638,105 276% ; 4,766,157 6,359,527 93304,649 195% ; 295 - CDD 1,478,676 1,783,536 121% ; 1,097,104 1,290,352 1,260,978 115% ; 325 - Road 2,416,014 6,726,840 278% ; 2,303,905 3,516,474 3,446,101 150% ; 355 - Adult P&P 2,220,879 2,754,005 124% ; 1,918,976 3,114,346 3,075,675 160% ; 465 - Road CIP 14,148,365 17,759,555 126% ; 15,938,430 25,356,712 25,884,553 162% ; 610 - Solid Waste 600,000 799,570 133% ; 644,638 2,605,533 2,282,185 354% ; 615 - Fair & Expo 31,209 (94,564) -303% ; 199,576 (547,781) - 0% ; 616 - Annual County Fair (80,000) 98,629 -123% ; - (48,411) (48,470) 617 - Fair & Expo Capital 1,145,883 1,143,224 100% ; - 1,111,563 648,823 999% ; Reserve 618 - RV Park 315,629 592,992 188% ; 150,327 239,451 239,451 159% ; 619 - RV Park Reserve - - 414,550 497,466 ; 481,160 116% ; 670 - Risk Management 5,308,679 7,193,407 136% ; 5,455,826 8,732,809 8,741,906 160% ; 675 - Health Benefits 14,318,894 16,563,905 116% ; 14,309,716 17,583,296 16,562,636 116% ; 705 - 911 5,505,949 8,604,816 156% ; 6,066,720 8,807,483 8,143,420 134% ; 999 - Other ; 57,804,050 73,981,336 128% ; 41,618,580 69,054,866 ; 57,140,392 137% ; TOTAL FUND BALANCE 183,964,411 173,125,165 141% ; 134,540,271 181,719,367 135% ; 123,047,623 Note: Not all accrued transactions have been recorded in FY20 o� Budget to Actuals Report General Fund - Fund 001 FY20 YTD June 30, 2020 (unaudited) RESOURCES Property Taxes - Current Property Taxes - Prior Other General Revenues Assessor Clerk BOPTA District Attorney Tax Office Veterans Property Management TOTAL RESOURCES REQUIREMENTS Assessor Clerk BOPTA District Attorney Medical Examiner Tax Office Veterans Property Management Non -Departmental TOTAL REQUIREMENTS TRANSFERS Transfers In Transfers Out TOTAL TRANSFERS 100.0% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2019 1 Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance 27,318,385 27,774,133 102% 29,046,840 29,310,769 101% 29,310,769 101% 263,929 A '389,000 433,798 112% _ 391,000 976,355 250% 976,355 250% 585,355, B 2,685,500 3,272,354 122% 3,020,400 2,839,890 94% 3,106,724 103% 86,324 C 870,658 823,127 95% 837,283 924,123 110% 925,000 110% 87,717� i 1,787,270 1,702,762 95% � 1,615,280 2,221,959 138% � � 2,248,211 139% � 632,931= D , i 12,700 12,119 95% 12,220 13,659 112% 13,659 112% 1,439= 389,782 386,919 99% 383,806 280,100 73% 399,228 104% 15,422 E 198,950 206,292 104% 195,390 257,219 132% 257,219 132% = 61,829! 166,423 168,945 102% = 175,614 132,461 75% _ 176,614 101% = 1,000 F i 120,000 120,000 100% 120,000 123,305 103% 123,305 103% 3,305= G 33,938,668 34,900,450 103% ; 35,797,833 37,079,840 104% ; ; 37,537,084 105% ; 1,739,251; Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % 4,802,452 4,530,558 94% 4,993,290 4,684,584 94% 1,854,397 1,598,764 86% 2,049,501 1,638,330 80% 73,125 69,565 95% 77,950 72,360 93% 7,372,932 6,993,244 95% 7,873,159 7,591,067 96% 173,129 160,296 93% 235,542 183,517 78% 872,020 779,330 89% 865,307 858,087 99% 572,287 539,026 94% 589,551 524,717 89% 287,858 278,966 97% 306,985 301,743 98% 1,477,829 1,456,326 99% 1,526,702 1,469,955 96% 17,486,029 16,406,076 94% 18,517,987 17,324,361 94% ; Projection % $ Variance 4,690,000 94% 303,290: H 1,645,009 80% 404,492! H 72,360 93% 5,590! 7,600,000 97% 273,159! H 211,017 90% 24,525! 861,587 100% 3,720! 525,000 89% 64,551= 301,744 98% 5,241= 1 E 1,568,596 103% (41,894) J 17,475,313 94% 1,042,674: Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance 326,122 289,065 89% 260,000 260,000 100% 260,000 100% K (18,403,681) (18,380,604) 100% (19,283,310) (19,178,110) 99% (19,283,310) 100% _ J (18,077,559) (18,091,539) 100% ; (19,023,310) (18,918,110) 99% (19,023,310) 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Protection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 10,890,000 11,946,544 110% 11,090,000 12,349,379 111% 12,349,379 111% 1,259,379; Resources over Requirements 16,452,639 18,494,374 17,279,846 19,755,479 20,061,771 2,781,925= Net Transfers - In (Out) (18,077,559) (18,091,539) f (19,023,310) (18,918,110) i t (19,023,310) ! TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 9,265,080 $ 12,349,379 133% ; $ 9,346,536 $ 13,186,748 141% ; $ 13,387,841 143% ; $4,041,305: A Actual 19-20 TAV is a 5.36% increase compared to FY 18-19 vs. 5.5% budgeted. Collection rate is projected to be 95.8% versus 95% budgeted B TDS Baja deferred billing credits per ORS 305.286 in addition to settlement payment C PILT payment of $500,000 received in July 2019. Includes $112,566 of Marijuana tax YTD. D Recording fees are up 51.6% YTD compared to the prior year E Discovery Fee revenues expected to be collected in full by the end of the fiscal year F Oregon Dept. of Veteran's Affairs grant reimbursed quarterly. G Interfund land -sale management revenue recorded at year-end. H Savings related to FTE vacancies t Retirement payout not anticipated when the budget was developed; budget adjusted in June 2020 j Deschutes County's contribution to small business loan program K Repayment to General Fund from Finance Reserves for ERP Implementation 3 -�Es ` Budget to Actuals Report Juvenile - Fund 030 FY20 YTD June 30, 2020 (unaudited) 100.0% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2019 1 Fiscal Year 2020 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance OYA Basic & Diversion 407,113 413,320 102% 442,601 295,641 67% 387,813 88% (54,788): A ODE Juvenile Crime Prev 91,379 i 92,492 101% 91,379 62,455 68% 82,125 90% (9,254),'A Leases 853000 87,311 103% 86,400 97,061 112% 97,061 112% 10,661 B Inmate/Prisoner Housing 70,000 97,200 139% 80,000 96,600 121% 98,100 123% 18,100! C DOC Unif Crime Fee/HB2712 35,000 43,681 125% 35,000 49,339 141% 49,339 141% , 14,33% D Interest on Investments 25,000 31,318 125% 31,000 26,491 85% 26,491 85% (4,509) OJD Court Fac/Sec SB 1065 17,000 27,158 160% 26,000 20,404 78% 22,000 85% (4,000) Gen Fund -Crime Prevention � 20,000 20,000 4 100% 20,000 15,000 75% 20,000 100% E Food Subsidy 18,744 12,052 64% 16,000 13,003 81% 13,449 84% (2,551) F Miscellaneous 2,050 4,603 225% 14,050 3,569 25% 3,569 25% (10,481)! G Contract Payments 8,000 7,269 91% 8,000 5,459 68% 5,459 68% (2,541)� H Case Supervision Fee 7,000 6,081 87% 63500 4,736 73% 4,736 73% (1,764)! 1 TOTAL RESOURCES 786,286 842,485 107% ; 856,930 689,759 80% 810,143 95% (46,787); REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Personnel Services 5,705,245 5,412,349 95% 5,797,927 5,650,045 97% 5,650,045 97% 147,882: Materials and Services 1,327,658 1,218,976 92% 1,329,410 1,259,740 95% 1,285,410 97% 44,000! J Capital Outlay 8,000 7,566 95% - - TOTAL REQUIREMENTS ; 7,040,903 6,638,892 94% 7,127,337 6,909,785 97% 6,935,455 97% 191,882: TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In- General Funds i 5,831,015 5,831,015 100% 5,961,465 5,961,465 100% 5,961,465 100% a - Transfers Out-Veh Reserve (87,000) (87,000) r 100% (87,000) (87,000) 100% (87,000) 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS 5,744,015 5,744,015 100% ; 5,874,465 5,874,465 100% ; 5,874,465 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 1,200,000 1,348,881 112% 1,090,000 1,296,490 119% 1,296,490 119% 206,490: Resources over Requirements (6,254,617) (5,796,407) (6,270,407) (6,220,026) (6,125,312) 145,095! Net Transfers - In (Out) 5,744,015 5,744,015 5,874,465 5,874,465 5,874,465 TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 689,399 $ 1,296,490 188% ; $ 694,058 $ 950,929 137% ; ; $ 1,045,643 151% ; $351,585: A Quarterly Reimbursement based on actual expenses; actuals lower than budget because of COVID impact B Leased a second office to J Bar J Youth Service. C Out of county juvenile detention housing. Fluctuates in accordance with other county policy/usage. D Annual payment received from State Dept. of Corrections based on new state formula higher than budgeted E Quarterly Reimbursement based on actual expenses F Less than anticipated qualifying juvenile detention meals. G Anticipated grant revenue from youth substance abuse research study lower than budgeted due to project start-up delays. Fluctuates depending on community need/request. Actuals lower than budget because of COVID H Payments for community service crew projects. impact. I Actuals lower than budget because of COVID impact j COVID impact lowered many staff and youth expenditures JTES ` Budget to Actuals Report TRT -Fund 160/170 100.0% FY20 YTD June 30, 2020 (unaudited) Year Complete Fiscal Year 2019 Fiscal Year 2020 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Room Taxes 7,260,000 7,618,179 105% 7,670,000 7,527,492 98% 7,527,492 98% : (142,508): A Interest 22,600 64,444 285% i 62,000 88,754 143% 88,754 , 143% 26,754� B TOTAL RESOURCES 7,282,600 7,682,623 105% ; 7,732,000 7,616,246 99% 7,616,246 99% (115,754); REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % COVA 1,946,668 2,067,761 106% s 2,064,221 2,050,618 99% ' � Interfund Contract 59,121 59,121 100% ' 79,160 79,160 100% ' Grants & Contributions 200,000 - 0% ' 62,000 62,000 100% ' Interfund Charges 39,087 39,087 100% ' � 37,309 37,309 100% � f Auditing Services 12,501 10,800 86% 14,500 9,336 64% Software 60,000 51,533 86% 10,350 5,600 54% ' Office Supplies 4,000 1,589 40% 3,000 741 25% i Printing 2,200 209 9% , 2,000 642 32% ' , , Public Notices 3,101 1,834 59% 1,600 1,694 106%; Refunds & Adjustments 8,657 999% Temporary Help 9,000 2,020 22% - TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 2,335,678 2,233,953 96% ; 2,274,140 2,255,756 99% ; TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Transfer Out - RV Park - (35,000) (35,000) 100% Transfer Out -Annual Fair 150,000 ( ) 150,000 ( ) 100% , 250,000 ( ) 250,000 100% ' ( ) � f Transfer Out - F&E Reserve (830,083) (630,083) 76% (286,687) (286,687) 100% Transfer Out - F&E (517,996) (517,996) 100% ' (709,654) (409,654) 58% Transfer Out - Sheriff (3,151,787) (3,151,787) 100% (3,151,787) (3,151,787) 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS (4,649,866) (4,449,866) 96% (4,433,128) (4,133,128) 93% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Beginning Fund Balance 1,964,345 1,566,452 80% 2,300,000 2,565,255 112% f Resources over Requirements 4,946,922 5,448,669 5,457,860 5,360,490 Net Transfers - In (Out) i (4,649,866) (4,449,866) (4,433,128) (4,133,128) TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 2,261,401 $ 2,565,255 113% ; $ 3,324,732 $ 3,792,618 114% ; A Prior year collections YTD was 105% of budget, compared to current year collections YTD of 98% B Includes interest payments from delinquent tax collections. C COVA received less TRT revenue than budgeted due to COVID D Contracted services with the Finance Department for operating TRT program Projection % $ Variance 2,050,618 99% 13,603, C 79,160 100%, - D 62,000 100%! E 37,309 100% 19,201 132% , (4,701), F 5,600 54% 4,750! 741 25% 2,259! 642 32% 1,358- 1,694 106% (94), 8,657 999% , � f (8,657)� , 2,265,622 100% ; 8,518; Projection % $ Variance (35,000) 100% ' (250,000) 100% (286,687) 100% (666,719) 94% 42,935! G (3,151,787) 100% (4,390,193) 99% 42,935: Projection % $ Variance 2,565,255 112% ' 265,25S 5,350,624 (107,236); (4,390,193) f � 42,935 i $ 3,525,687 106% ; $200,955: E The BOCC approved EDCO's Q4 payment to be paid with TRT funds instead of Video Lottery Funds F Expecting to accrue an additional $9,865 in FY20 G An additional $300K will be transferred during FY20 year-end to cover the estimated unfunded loss of $600K per Resolution 2020-032; final transfer amount to be determined after year-end close. \31 E S C- Budget to Actuals Report o Justice Court - Fund 220 100.0% FY20 YTD June 30, 2020 (unaudited) Year Complete Fiscal Year 2019 J Fiscal Year 2020 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Court Fines & Fees 550,000 605,344 110% 575,000 556,877 97% 556,877 97% (18,123) A Interest on Investments 2,000 2,931 147% 3,000 1,706 57% 1,706 57% (1,294), TOTAL RESOURCES 552,000 608,275 1110% 578,000 558,582 97% 558,582 97% (19,418): REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Personnel Services 508,650 508,098 100% 516,868 522,054 101% < 522,073 101% (5,205)� B ! Materials and Services 149,431 143,941 96% 161,273 143,294 89% 145,000 90% 16,273C TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 658,081 652,039 99% 678,141 665,348 98% 667,073 98% 11,068: TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In- General Fund 30,000 30,000 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS 30,000 30,000 100% FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 144,000 157,990 110% 165,000 144,227 87% 144,227 87% (20,774): ' Resources over Requirements (106,081) (43,764) (100,141) (106,766) t (108,491) (8,350); Net Transfers - In (Out) 30,000 30,000 TOTAL FUND BALANCE $67,919 $144,226 212%: $64,859 $37,461 58% : , $35,736 55% ($29,123) A Loss of revenue is a result of not accepting small claims filings in March, April & May due to COVID 19 B Personnel overage attributed to payout for terminated employee C Projection based on actuals to date and estimated spending through June 30, 2020 VI E S C Budget to Actuals Report Sheriffs Office - Fund 255 FY20 YTD June 30, 2020 (unaudited) 100.0% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2019 Fiscal Year 2020 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance LED #1 Property Tax Current 24,780,245 25,153,487 102% 26,293,470 26,496,529 101% € 26,496,529 101% 203,059 A LED #2 Property Tax Current 10027,098 10,171,051 101% < 10,632,014 10,696,589 101% 10,696,589 101% 64,575' A Sheriff's Office Revenues 3:675,026 4,153,450 113% 3,922,323 4,255,502 108% 4,267,341 109% ! 345,018! B LED #1 Property Tax Prior 312,000 326,275 105% i 312,000 761,642 244% 761,642 244% 4499642, C LED #2 Property Tax Prior 166,500 157,143 94% 148,000 331,165 224% 331,165 224% 183,165! C LED #1 Interest ` � 145,000 288,269 199% 138,000 287,276 208% 287,276 208% 149,276! LED #2 Interest i 120,000 � 193,301 161% 136,000 160,208 118% 160,208 118% 24,208! LED #2 Foreclosed Properties - 21,561 8631 , 8,631 8,631 , LED #1 Foreclosed Properties 53,322 - 21,380 21,380 21,380 TOTAL RESOURCES 39,225,869 40,517,859 103% ; 41,581,807 43,018,922 103% ; ; 43,030,762 103% ; 1,448,955: REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Sheriffs Services 2,997,984 3,068,683 102% 3,105,057 3,087,524 99% 3,107,350 100% (2,293). Civil/Special Units 1,181,695 1,149,677 97% 1,232,158 1,171,119 95% 1,172,993 95% 59,165� Automotive/Communications 2,644,785 i 2,532,545 96% 2,858,337 2,878,803 101% 3,029,174 106% (170,837), Detective 2,033,077 2,044,686 101% 2,303,072 2,216,693 96% 2,233,818 97% 69,254 Patrol i 10,003,952 10,040,921 100% 10,592,002 11,431,011 108% < 11,441,837 108% (849,835)i D Records 881,182 892,837 101% 1,004,600 ° 830,846 83/0 831,741 83% 172,859! Adult Jail 18,357,098 17,364,464 95% 18,379,998 17,849,159 97% 17,949,555 98% 430,4431 Court Security 551,494 531,409 96% 556,740 458,541 82% ` ` 458,541 82% 98,1991 Emergency Services � 328,581 341,586 104% � 402,734 ° 595,878 148/0 � � 616,311 153% (213,577)� ' Special Services i 1,520,623 1,451,124 95% f 1,601,871 1,746,765 109% 1,765,075 110% (163,204)� 1 Training � 667,647 874,923 131% 743,334 916,411 123% s 942,306 127% (198,972); Crisis Stabilization Center 559,308 82,308 15% 571,267 84,267 15% 84,267 15% 487,000� Other Law Enforcement 1,017,266 1,070,404 105% ! 1,330,214 1,261,613 95% t 1,263,671 95% 66,543! Non -Departmental 108,329 108,329 100% 4,425 105,917 999% 105,918 999% (101,493) TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 42,853,022 41,553,897 97% 44,685,809 44,634,548 100% ; ; 45,002,557 101% ; (316,748); TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfer In - TRT 3,151,787 3,151,787 100% 3,151,787 3,151,787 100% 3,151,787 100% Transfer In - General Fund 103,132 103,132 100% 240,249 240,249 100% 240,249 100% e Transfers Out -Debt Service ` 273,666 ( ) 273,666 100% ( ) 272,100 ( ) 272,100 100% ( ) 272,100 100% ( ) TOTAL TRANSFERS 2,981,253 29981,254 100% ; 3,119,936 3,119,936 100% ; 3,119,936 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 13,837,807 14,873,445 107% 14,716,999 16,818,660 114% 16,818,660 114% 2,101,661; Resources over Requirements � (3,627,153) (1,036,039) � (3,104,002) 1 (1,615,626) � E 1,971,795 l ) 1,132,207; Net Transfers - In (Out) 2,981,253 2,981,254 ; 3,119,936 3,119,936 d 3,119,936 - TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 13,191,907 $ 16,818,660 127% ; $ 14,732,933 $ 18,322,970 124% ; $ 17,966,801 122% ; $3,233,868; A While 19-20 TAV was 0.14% lower vs budget, the collection rate is estimated at 95.8% vs. 95.0% in the budget B Exceeded budget primarily due to additional SB 395 Prisoner Housing funds in Adult Jail C TDS Baja deferred billing credits per ORS 305.286 in addition to settlement payment to hiring for open and soon -to -be open positions; up to 18-months of lead time is necessary for background and training D Variance due over �I ES ` Budget to Actuals Report Health Services - Fund 274 100.0% FY20 YTD June 30, 2020 (unaudited) Year Complete Fiscal Year 2019 Fiscal Year 2020 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance State Grant 13,262,344 13,053,849 98% 14,080,644 11,364,027 81% 12,533,579 89% (1,547,065)' OHP Capitation 8,652,200 8,142,094 94% 7,242,430 k 8,094,701 112% � � 8,179,581 ° 1 4 113% 937,151 4°/ am 362 Title 19 1,345,100 3,069,162 228% 4,862,726 4,049,720 83 /0 4,06 ,36 8 0 , Federal Grants k 990,189 1,311,567 132% 3,277,616 2,044,367 62% 3,111,215 95% (166,401)! Local Grants ! 1,208,623 1,025,508 85% 1,567,331 1,472,187 94% 1,574,508 100% 7,177! Environmental Health Fees 1,169,600 1,076,036 92% 1,058,206 1,088,102 103% 1,088,102 103% 29,896 State Miscellaneous k 899,734 1,808,299 201% 1,040,153 609,518 59% 1,424,390 137% 384,237! State - OMAP 1,147,168 1,108,622 97% 991,900 877,299 88% 881,263 89% (110,637)! Patient Fees k 236,500 637,910 270% 564,750 599,903 106% 610,416 108% 45,666! ! Other 422,593 477,834 113% 484,712 474,367 98% f 529,357 109% 44,645! Vital Records i 212,000 241,727 114% 220,000 259,029 118% 711,029 323% 491,029 Divorce Filing Fees 157,603 157,603 100% 173,030 173,030 100% 173,030 100% Interest on Investments 135,000 218,767 162% 171,000 233,116 136% 233,116 136% , 62,116 Liquor Revenue 151,000 166,372 110% 150,800 135,506 90% 139,356 92% (11,444) Interfund Contract- Gen Fund � 127,000 ° 127,000 100% � 127,000 127,000 100% 127,000 100% -' State Shared- Family Planning 168,007 120,000 191,912 160% 192,043 160% 72,043 CCBHC Grant 5,327,800 4,805,382 90% - - TOTAL RESOURCES 35,444,454 37,595,739 106% ; 36,132,298 31,793,784 88% 35,569,349 98% (562,949); REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Administration Allocation I - ' ` Personnel Services 31,702,065 29,780,257 94% 33,186,830 31,999,362 96% 31,999,363 96% 1,187,467! Materials and Services 13,033,299 12,455,102 96% 13,707,479 9,626,764 70% 10,946,506 80% 2,760,971 Capital Outlay 239,000 206,031 ° 86/0 695,000 - 0% 242,866 35% 452,134 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 44,974,364 42,441,390 94% 47,589,309 41,626,126 87% 43,188,735 91% 4,400,574 TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In- General Fund 6,366,223 6,367,892 100% 5,747,090 5,747,090 100% 5,747,100 100% 10. Transfers In- OHP Mental Health - -' 548,601 - 0% 732,156 133% , 183,555� Transfers Out (188,688) (188,688) 100% (193,326) (193,326) 100% (193,326) 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS 6,177,535 6,179,204 100% ; 6,102,365 5,553,764 91% 6,285,930 103% ; 183,565; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 7,202,714 9,304,552 129% 10,120,803 10,638,105 105% 10,638,105 105% : 517,302: k Resources over Requirements (9,529,910) (4,845,651) (11,457,011) (9,832,342) (7,619,386) 3,837,62& Net Transfers - In (Out) t 6,177,535 6,179,204 k 6,102,365 5,553,764 ! k 6,285,930 k 183,565! t TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 3,850,339 $ 10,638,105 276% ; $ 4,766,157 $ 6,359,527 133% ; ; $ 9,304,649 195% ; $4,538,492: p �I E ` Budget to Actuals Report Health Services - Admin - Fund 274 FY20 YTD June 30, 2020 (unaudited) 100.0% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2019 1 Fiscal Year 2020 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Federal Grants 108,940 303,065 278% : 726,655 586,374 81% 710,824 98% (15,831). A Interest on Investments 135,000 218,767 162% 171,000 233,116 136% 233,116 136% 62,116! Other f 9,000 16,192 180% 9,000 8,688 97% k 9,472 105% 472= State Miscellaneous - - - - 194,541 194,541! B CCBHC Grant f 946,400 876,190 93% - - TOTAL RESOURCES 1,199,340 1,414,215 118% ; 906,655 828,178 91% 1,147,953 127% ; 241,298: REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Personnel Services 5,067,132 4,946,052 98% 5,241,264 4,835,873 92% 4,835,873 92% 405,391; Materials and Services f 4,600,091 4,688,516 102% 4,971,179 4,691,627 94% 4,942,280 99% 28,899- C Capital Outlay 5,000 - 0% 5,000 0% t - 0% 5,000! Administration Allocation (8,327,487) (8,295,196) 100% (9,308,295) (9,306,000) 100% (9,306,000) 100% (2,295) TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 1,344,736 1,339,372 100% ; 909,148 221,500 24% ; 472,153 52% 436,995: TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In- General Fund - 40,000 39,997 100% 40,000 100% - Transfers Out (188,688) (188,688) 100% (193,326) (193,326) 100% < (193,326) 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS (188,688) (188,688) 100% ; (153,326) (153,329) 100% ; (153,326) 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 2,642,514 2,862,108 108% 2,660,832 2,748,263 103% 2,748,263 103% 87,431: Resources over Requirements (145,396) 74,843 (2,493) 606,678 675,800 678,293� Net Transfers - In (Out) (188,688) (188,688) ; (153,326) (153,329) i (153,326) TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 2,308,430 $ 2,748,263 119% ; $ 2,505,013 $ 3,201,612 128% ; ; $ 3,270,738 131% ; $765,725; A Federal grants are reimbursed on a quarterly basis. Note: Projections include $194,541 expected reimbursement from Cares Relief Funds for activities March 1 - May 15, 2020 The Crisis Stabilization Center construction bids came in $135,000 higher than original cost estimates, which was approved by the Board in September 2019. Health Services agreed to fund up to $90K from Fund 274 to assist in covering the cost differential, and that $90K is reflected in projected expenses. JI Es `° Budget to Actuals Report C� G < Health Services - Behavioral Health - Fund 274 FY20 YTD June 30, 2020 (unaudited) RESOURCES State Grant OHP Capitation Title 19 Federal Grants Local Grants Patient Fees State Miscellaneous Other Divorce Filing Fees Liquor Revenue State - OMAP Interfund Contract- Gen Fund CCBHC Grant TOTALRESOURCES REQUIREMENTS Administration Allocation Personnel Services Materials and Services Capital Outlay TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 100.0% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2019 1 Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance 10,187,361 9,796,391 96% 11,203,914 8,406,975 75% 9,274,443 83% (1,929,471)' A 8,652,200 8,142,094 94% 7,242,430 8,094,701 112% 8,179,581 113% 937,151, B 1,345,100 3,069,162 228% 4,862,726 4,049,720 83% 4,061,364 84% (8011362): C 499,249 639,680 128% 2,168,961 1,159,354 53% 1,948,442 90% (220,519)! D 412,987 424,012 103% 994,331 750,583 75% 757,449 76% (236,882)1, G 236,500 515,196 218% 443,450 465,341 105% 475,854 107% 32,404! E 351,200 995,622 283% 437,100 198,643 45% 337,739 77% (99,361)! F 334,545 346,812 104% i 395,352 360,920 91% 414,840 105% ' 19,488' 157,603 i 157,603 100% 173,030 173,030 100% < 173,030 100% 151,000 166,372 110% 150,800 135,506 90% 139,356 92% (11,444)� 131,900 270,591 205% 131,900 174,014 132% 177,978 135% 46,07& 127,000 127,000 100% 127,000 127,000 100% 127,000 100% � - 4,381,400 3,929,191 90% - - - 26,968,045 28,579,727 106% ; 28,330,994 24,095,787 85% ; 26,067,076 92% (2,263,918); Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance 6,253,121 6,248,556 100% 6,978,412 6,976,920 100% 6,976,920 100% 1,492: E 19,172,838 17,819,840 93% 20,174,804 19,575,776 97% 19,575,776 97% 599,028� 6,509,514 5,549,421 85% 6,889,404 3,389,269 49% 4,030,365 59% 2,859,039, H 234,000 199,979 85% 690,000 0% ' 242,866 35% 447,134,1 32,169,473 29,817,796 93% 34,732,620 29,941,965 86% 30,825,927 89% ; 3,906,693: TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Transfers In- General Fund 2,282,708 2,282,580 100% 1,734,107 1,734,100 100% Transfers In- OHP Mental Health ! - 548,601 - 0% ' TOTAL TRANSFERS 2,282,708 2,282,580 100% ; 2,282,708 1,734,100 76% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Beginning Fund Balance 3,976,398 5,628,746 142% 6,122,347 6,673,256 109% Resources over Requirements (5,201,428) (1,238,069) (6,401,626) (5,846,178) Net Transfers - In (Out) � 2,282,708 2,282,580 , 2,282,708 1,734,100 t TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 1,057,678 $ 6,673,256 631% ; $ 2,003,429 $ 2,561,178 128% ; Projection % $ Variance 1,734,107 100% 732,156 133% 183,555� J i 2,466,263 108% ; 183,555: Projection % $ Variance 6,673,256 109% ' 550,909, (4,758,851) 1,642,775 2,466,263 183,555; E i i $ 4,380,668 219% ; $2,377,239: A Budgeted funds was a pass -through from the Behavioral Health State IGA for residential treatment provides, which will be paid directly during an 18 -month contract. B The calendar year 2020 PacificSource contract went into effect February 1, 2020, and an estimated additional $255,000 is expected to be received during FY20 C There is less in Title 19 fees collected relative to budgeted expectations. D CCBHC Expansion was originally budgeted in the "CCBHC" funding line; however, the grant through the US Department of Health and Human Services is a traditional grant and more appropriately placed in the "Federal Grants" line. A revised budget corrects this amount. Any continuation of CCBHC through the state will come through as a "CCBHC Grant' line item. E There is an uptick in patient insurance fees collected relative to budgeted expectations. F Previous months included estimated resources from I/DD participating in the Local Match Program. It is not expected for I/DD to expend resources related to a proportional share of a North County facility purchase in FY20. As a result, I/DD will not need to participate in the Local Match Program. State Miscellaneous is reduced to reflect this change. Projections also include $125,885 expected reimbursement in Cares Relief Funds for activities March 1 - May 15, 2020. G Central Oregon Health Council awarded DCHS $581,431 in one-time funds to expand hours at the Stabilization Center. The Stabilization Center has experienced a delay in opening due to COVID-19, and the funds will be awarded as of July 1, 2020. Funds are budgeted in FY20, yet have been removed from the projections. Local Grants also includes an early release of quality improvement measure funds through COHC. H Reduction in Materials and Services primarily related to footnote A I Projected expenditures include estimated expenses for the Deschutes County Stabilization Center; transfer to be made before FY20 year end close j Transfer of Mental Health Reserve funds include transfer to offset service element funds as part of participation in CCBHC Continuation through the State. VIES C Budget to Actuals Report Health Services - Public Health - Fund 274 FY20 YTD June 30, 2020 (unaudited) RESOURCES State Grant Environmental Health Fees State - OMAP State Miscellaneous Local Grants Federal Grants Vital Records Patient Fees State Shared- Family Planning Other TOTAL RESOURCES 100.0% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2019 1 Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance 3,074,983 3,257,457 106% 2,876,730 2,957,052 103%: 3,259,136 113% , 382,406: A 1,169,600 1,076,036 92% � 1,058,206 1,088,102 103% � � 1,088,102 103% � 29,896! B E 1,015,268 838,031 83% � 860,000 703,285 82% � � 703,285 82% � (156,715)� 548,534 812,677 148% 603,053 410,876 68% 892,110 148% 289,057! C 795,636 601,497 76% � 573,000 721,605 126% � � 817,059 143% , 244,059, D 382,000 368,821 97% � 382,000 298,638 78% � � 451,949 118% � 69,949! E 212,000 241,727 114/0 ° E 220,000 259,029 118% c 711,029 323% 491,029! - 122,714 121,300 134,562 111% 134,562 111% 13,262! - 168,007 120,000 191,912 160% 192,043 160% 72,043! 79,048 114,830 145% 80,360 104,759 130% 105,045 131% , 24,685, 7,277,069 7,601,797 104% ; 6,894,649 6,869,820 100% ; ; 8,354,320 121% ; 1,459,671: REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Administration Allocation 2,074,366 2,046,640 99% 2,329,883 2,329,080 100% 2,329,080 100% 803: Personnel Services 7,462,095 7,014,365 94% 7,770,762 7,587,714 98% 7,587,714 98% 183,048! Materials and Services 1,923,694 2,217,165 115% 1,846,896 1,545,868 84% 1,973,861 107% (126,965)! E E Capital Outlay - 6,051 999% - TOTAL REQUIREMENTS ; 11,460,155 11,284,222 98% 11,947,541 11,462,661 96% 11,890,655 100% ; 56,886; TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In- General Fund 4,083,515 4,085,312 100% 3,972,983 3,972,993 100% 3,972,993 100% 10, TOTAL TRANSFERS 4,083,515 4,085,312 100% ; 3,972,983 3,972,993 100% ; 3,972,993 100% 10; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 583,802 813,698 139% 1,337,624 1,216,586 91% 1,216,586 91% (121,038); Resources over Requirements (4,183,086) (3,682,425) (5,052,892) (4,592,842) (3,536,335) 1,516,557� Net Transfers - In (Out) t 4,083,515 4,085,312 t 3,972,983 3,972,993 E I 3,972,993 f 10, 7 TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 484,231 $ 1,216,586 251% ; $ 257,715 $ 596,737 232% ; ; $ 1,653,244 642% ; $1,395,529: A Public Health State IGA increased funds for Regional and Local Public Health Modernization, as well as increased funds in Communicable Disease and Emergency Preparedness to assist with COVID-19 community response. B Fees were budgeted at an increase of 3% although underlying costs of service supported an 8.5% rate increase C Payments are reimbursed on a quarterly basis, and include the Medicaid Administrative Claims payment. Projections also include $149,843 expected reimbursement in Cares Relief Funds for activities March 1 - May 15, 2020. D Funds include the Diabetes Prevention Program, which was awarded for the calendar year 2020 as well as an early release of quality improvement measure funds through COHC for COVID-19 activities. These funds will be utilized during FY 2021 and show in the ending fund balance. E Additional expenditures are related to notes A and D. o� �1 E `�� Budget to Actuals Report L'., Community Development - Fund 295 FY20 YTD June 30, 2020 (unaudited) RESOURCES Admin - Operations Code Enforcement Building Safety Electrical Environmental On -Site Current Planning Long Range Planning TOTALRESOURCES REQUIREMENTS Admin - Operations Code Enforcement Building Safety Electrical Environmental On -Site Current Planning Long Range Planning TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 100.0% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2019 1 Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance 114,500 152,827 133% 162,000 135,618 84% 144,654 89% (17,346), A 664,291 635,453 96% 693,960 664,545 96% 664,545 96% (29,415)! 3,312,714 3,075,409 93% 3,433,780 3,179,496 93% � � 3,179,496 93% (254,284)! 8043849 738,580 92% 809,500 782,939 97% 794,520 98% (14,980)! i 782,984 819,608 105% 877,400 905,165 103% 905,165 103% , 27,765, 1,795,453 1,701,840 95% 1,807,176 1,690,262 94% 1,690,262 94% (116,914), B 678,955 632,170 93% 685,004 664,587 97% 666,309 97% (18,695)! C 8,153,746 7,755,886 95% 8,468,820 8,022,611 95% 8,044,951 95% (423,869); Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % 2,477,738 2,386,276 96% 2,492,316 2,526,730 101% 456,162 i 445,254 98% 535,590 456,265 85% 1,676,037 1,565,140 93% 1,743,298 1,582,004 91% 445,433 439,104 99% 462,183 451,608 98% 612,596 547,203 89/o ° 616,279 566,488 92% 1,554,847 1,456,128 94% 1,501,588 1,415,321 94% 503,344 492,687 98% 554,385 457,284 82% t 7,726,157 7,331,793 95% 7,905,639 7,455,699 94% ; TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Transfers In - General Fund 300,000 289,193 96% 100,000 100,000 100% Transfers Out 79,945 � ( ) 79,945 ( ) 100% 85,695 ( ) 85,695 ( ) 100% Transfers Out - CDD Reserve (1,372,679) (1,379,420) 100% (1,462,386) (1,074,401) 73% TOTAL TRANSFERS (1,152,624) (1,170,172) 102% ; (1,448,081) (1,060,096) 73% ; Projection % $ Variance 2,531,308 102% , (38,992); 458,100 86% 77,490, 1,582,050 91% 161,249! D E 452,082 98% 10,101 � D 567,674 92% 48,605! D 1,415,787 94% 85,801, D 457,812 83% 96,573- E 7,464,812 94% 440,827: Projection % $ Variance 100,000 100% (85,695) 100% t (1,117,002) 76% i 345,384, F 11 (1,102,697) 76% 345,384: FUND BALANCE Budget - Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 2,203,711 2,529,615 115% 1,982,004 1,783,536 90% 1,783,536 90% (198,468); Resources over Requirements 427,589 424,093 563,181 566,912 t 580,139 16,958; Net Transfers - In (Out) (1,152,624) (1,170,172) E (1,448,081) (1,060,096) E (1,102,697) 345,384; TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 1,478,676 $ 1,783,536 121% ; $ 1,097,104 $ 1,290,352 118% ; ; $ 1,260,978 115% ; $163,874: Note: Requirements projection decreased across divisions to reflect credits from the PERS Reserve Fund A Interest projection based on current investment rate and anticipated cash balances B Change in accounting procedure for hearing officer deposits, which are held as a liability instead of recognized as revenue. C Projection revised to reflect 10% reduction in building valuation April - June 2020 due to COVID D Projection reflects unfilled FTEs and reduced Materials and Services E Projection increased due to time management leave payout; also reflects unfilled FTEs and reduced Materials and Services F Projection revised to reflect decrease in transfers to CDD Reserve Funds o � �l5 `O� < Budget to Actuals Report �L Road - Fund 325 FY20 YTD June 30, 2020 (unaudited) 100.0% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2019 Fiscal Year 2020 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Motor Vehicle Revenue 16,234,849 16,726,428 103% : 17,609,539 16,795,577 95% 16,795,577 95% (813,962)' A Federal - PILT Payment 1,900,000 2,153,308 113% 1,510,450 2,310,002 153% 2,310,002 153% 799,552! B Other Inter -fund Services i 1,044,353 1,096,023 105% 1,156,581 446,655 39% 1,095,581 95% (61,000) C Forest Receipts 963,410 801,125 83% 915,000 709,742 78% 768,191 84% (146,809); D Cities-Bend/Red/Sis/La Pine 635,000 400,849 63% 660,000 170,337 26% 404,553 61% (255,447)< E Sale of Equip & Material 365,000 327,920 90% 358,000 290,296 81% 349,835 98% (8,165) Interest on Investments 150,000 220,062 147% 246,000 174,141 71% 174,141 71% (71,859) Federal Reimbursements 544,000 363,910 67% 181,757 363,514 200% 363,514 200% , 181,757� F Mineral Lease Royalties 175,000 69,422 40% 60,000 54,184 90% 60,000 100% - Miscellaneous 45,000 118,699 264% 57,500 76,388 133% 79,000 137% 21,500! G State Miscellaneous 739,811 735,114 99% 20,000 9,844 49% 34,325 172% 14,325! A Assessment Payments (P&I) 80,000 22,350 28% 11,000 19,766 180% 19,766 180% 8,76& A TOTAL RESOURCES 22,876,423 23,035,209 101% ; 22,785,827 21,420,446 94% ; 22,454,486 99% (331,341); REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Personnel Services 6,595,561 6,246,351 95% 6,447,671 6,274,303 97% 6,274,303 97% 173,368, Materials and Services 8,094,192 5,912,553 73% 8,092,165 6,418,228 79% 7,517,930 93% 574,235! H Capital Outlay 33,500 27,706 83% 32,416 97% 1,084� 1 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS ; 14,689,753 12,158,904 83% 14,573,336 12,720,237 87% 13,824,649 95% 748,687: TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers Out (14,464,308) (14,464,308) 100% (11,910,575) (11,910,575) 100% (11,910,575) 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS (14,464,308) (14,464,308) 100% ; (11,910,575) (11,910,575) 100% ; (11,910,575) 100% FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 8,693,653 10,314,842 119% 6,001,989 6,726,840 112% 6,726,840 112% 724,851; Resources over Requirements 8,186,670 10,876,306 8,212,491 8,700,209 8,629,836 417,345; Net Transfers - In (Out) } (14,464,308) (14,464,308) (11,910,575) (11,910,575) ! s (11,910,575) -E TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 2,416,014 $ 6,726,840 278% ; $ 2,303,905 $ 3,516,474 153% ; $ 3,446,101 150% '. $1,142,196: A Updated based on actual receipts B PILT payment received in July. Exceeded amounts as budgeted due to a decrease in Timber revenue (offset by increase in PILT) C Decrease in vehicle repair revenue due to new vehicles in the fleet D Revised projection based on federal legislation and projections from AOC E Contracted work for City of Redmond will be completed in FY 21 instead of FY 20 F Full amount of George Millican Road FLAP chip seal project reimbursed to Deschutes County per IGA with Crook County G Restitution receipts are higher than anticipated H Contracted road services and on -call engineering anticipated to be less than budgeted due to lack of snow and emergency work. Aggregate & Asphalt anticipated to be less than budgeted due to City of Redmond work being pushed to FY 21. Includes interfund payments to Fair & Expo for 5.0 FTE for May and June. I Updated based on revised estimate '31 E`�� Budget to Actuals Report L�G Adult P&P - Fund 355 FY20 YTD June 30, 2020 (unaudited) RESOURCES DOC Grant in Aid SB 1145 CJC Justice Reinvestment DOC Measure 57 Probation Supervision Fees DOC-Family Sentence Alt Interest on Investments Interfund- Sheriff Gen Fund/Crime Prevention State Subsidy Probation Work Crew Fees Electronic Monitoring Fee Miscellaneous Oregon BOPPPS State Miscellaneous TOTAL RESOURCES 100.0% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2019 1 Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance 4,781,604 4,781,604 100%: 4,353,626 4,621,782 106%, 4,621,782 106% 268,156: A i 844,831 853,831 101% 712,530 1,014,690 142% 1,021,690 143% 309,160� B '233,900 233,900 100%; 236,142 239,005 101% 239,005 101% 2,863! A 210,000 191,536 91% 160,000 183,688 115% 183,688 115% - 23,688 114,683 114,683 100% 114,682 223,746 195% - 223,746 195% , 109,064, C 40,000 77,778 194% 77,500 64,896 84% 64,896 84% (12,604), 50,000 51,034 102% 50,000 55,000 110% 55,000 110% 5,000! D 50,000 50,000 100% 50,000 37,500 75% 50,000 100% 17,000 16,337 96% 16,298 16,703 102% 16,703 102% 405! 4,000 2,800 70% 2,000 1,923 96% 1,923 96% (77); 10,000 84,165 842% , 2,000 20,182 999% 20,182 999% 18,182, E i 500 6,102 999% 500 13,660 999% 13,660 999% 13,161, F - 40,933 40,934 40,934! G 4,300 - 0% 6,360,818 6,463,769 102% ; 5,775,278 6,533,707 113% ; ; 6,553,208 113% ; 777,930: REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Personnel Services 4,656,363 4,522,266 97% 4,809,644 4,749,881 99% 4,749,881 99% 59,763: Materials and Services 1,828,765 1,686,408 92% 1,844,847 1,636,675 89% 1,694,847 92% 150,000 H Capital Outlay 20,000 0% 15,000 10,000 67% 10,000 67% 5,000� 1 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 6,505,128 6,208,673 95% 6,669,491 6,396,556 96% ; 6,454,728 97% 214,763: TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In- General Funds 285,189 285,189 100% 285,189 285,189 100% 285,189 100% Transfer to Vehicle Maint (120,000) (120,000) 100% (62,000) (62,000) 100% (62,000) 100% ; TOTAL TRANSFERS 165,189 165,189 100% ; 223,189 223,189 100% ; ; 223,189 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 2,200,000 2,333,720 106% 2,590,000 2,754,005 106% t 2,754,005 106% 164,005: ! Resources over Requirements (144,310) 255,096 (894,213) 137,152 98,480 992,693; Net Transfers - In (Out) 165,189 165,189 223,189 223,189 223,189 TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 2,220,879 $ 29754,005 124% ; $ 1,918,976 $ 3,114,346 162% ; $ 3,075,675 160% ; $1,156,699: A State Dept. of Corrections and Criminal Justice Commission received more funding for dispersal than anticipated at time of budgeting B State Criminal Justice Commission received more funding for dispersal than anticipated at time of budgeting incl. supplemental grant funding C State Dept. of Corrections under allocated resources at the time of budgeting D Projection based on YTD actuals. Includes additional DCSO support for Family Drug Court electronic monitoring services. E Revenue from prior pretrial EM clients more than anticipated at time of budgeting due to account close-out offer in June -Aug 2019 and Dept. Revenue fees from closed/previous accounts. F Revenue includes miscellaneous refunds, staff uniform overage fees and payment from participants attending a Nov 2019/March 2020 training event hosted by Adult P&P G State makes one payment per biennium to conduct hearings for sanctioned offenders. Received both FY19 and FY21 biennial payments in FY20. H Electronic monitoring expenses less than budgeted due to new fee structure with contractor; some COVID-impacted reduction in operating expenses. DCSO auction vehicle was less expensive than budgeted. ,?�IES C-0 Budget to Actuals Report Road CIP - Fund 465 FY20 YTD June 30, 2020 (unaudited) 100.0% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2019 1 Fiscal Year 2020 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance State Miscellaneous 853,104 - 0% 1,944,893 1,058,217 54% : ; 1,777,052 91% (167,841) A Interest on Investments 106,000 261,11311 246% 198,000 366,198 185% 366,198 185% 168,19& Interfund Payment - 111,340 111,340 111,340! B TOTAL RESOURCES 959,104 261,131 27% 2,142,893 1,535,756 72% 2,254,590 105%: 111,697: REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Materials and Services 73,153 73,153 100% 71,748 71,748 100% 71,748 100% Capital Outlay 8,236,348 5,411,213 66% 13,764,165 5,276,529 38% 5,951,297 43% 7,812,868! C TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 8,309,501 5,484,366 66% 13,835,913 5,348,277 39% 6,023,045 44% 7,812,868: TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In 13,811,725 13,393,963 97% 12,014,914 11,409,679 95% 11,893,453 99% (1121,4611)� D TOTAL TRANSFERS 13,811,725 13,393,963 97% 12,014,914 11,409,679 95% 11,893,453 99% (121,461): FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 7,687,037 9,588,827 125% 15,616,536 17,759,555 114% 17,759,555 114% 2,143,019, Resources over Requirements (7,350,397) (5,2221,236) (11,693,020) (3,812,521) (3,768,455) 7,924,565; 1 Net Transfers - In (Out) 13,811,725 13,393,963 12,014,914 11,409,679 11,893,453 121,461 (); TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 14,148,365 $ 17,759,555 126% $ 15,938,430 $ 25,356,712 159% $ 25,884,553 162% $9,946,123: A Updated based on reimbursable projects planned to be completed this fiscal year B Unbudgeted revenue to offset expenses for Spring River Road Improvements C Variance due to unanticipated project delays projected to advance FY 20 budgeted CIP project costs into FY 21, including $5M for US 97 Bend North Corridor project D Revised estimate based on SDC eligible projects anticipated to be completed in fiscal year Ls (- P& Budget to Actuals, Report - Road CIP (Fund 465) - Capital Outlay Summary by Project 100.0% FY20 YTD June 30, 2020 (unaudited) Year Completed Fiscal Year 2019 1 Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Burgess Road I Day Road Inter. 900,106 658,203 73% Deschutes Market Dale Road Inter. 1 1,500,000 1,285,822 86% Erickson Road Paving 468,544 Old Bend Redmond Highway Phase 11 3rd Street Drainage Extension 300,000 112,655 38% US 20 at Tumalo 300,000 1,100,000 367% 300,000 0% 0 0% 1 300,000- Paving Knott Rd 1 850,286 495,978 58% S. Canal Helmholtz Way 714,937 141,751 20% 800,000 850,079 106% 863,879 108% (63,879)- S. Canal - "Six" Corners 798,699 537,724 67% - 900,000 1,008,108 112%: 1,008,108 112% (108,108)- Six Corners Irrigation 406,879 49,123 12% 769,521 222,564 29% 290,059 38% it 479,462- - Tumalo Road Tumalo Place Quail Road Improvements s 100,000 100,000 100% La Pine Guardrail Repair 40,099 ry C Avenue: Hwy 97 to 6th St Imp 18U,14b 35,351 20% 300,000 369,705 123%1 369,705 123% (69,705) Solar Drive Bridge 160,000 70,334 44% Old Bend RdmfTumalo Rd Inter 346,426 50,355 15% 1� 625,642 341,062 55% 361,062 58% 1 264,580- Sisemore Bridge 220,000 100,596 46% 632,174 108,092 17% 308,092 49% 324,082 Spring River Bridge Parking Imp 163,776 12,122 1 2,122 (112,122)i NE Negus and 17TH 360,000 221 0% 1,025,472 65,285 6% 100,285 10% 925,187 Paving Ward Road 339,810 681 0% 598,269 715,504 12 0%: 715,504 120%' (117,235) - Hunnel Rd: Loco Rd to Tumalo Rd 275,000 147,252 54% 1 1 182,252 66% 92,748 - Cascade Lakes Hwy Bike Facilities 39,856 11,856 30% 11,856 30% 28,000 300,000 )% 0% 300,000- Paving Fyrear Rd Alfalfa Mkt Rd: Powell Butte Hwy 300,000 919,940 307%. 919,940 307% (619,940), Bend District Local Roads 1 558,459 0% City of LaPine Local Roads 500,000 0 % 0% 500,000; US 97 Bend North Corridor 5,000,000 0% 0% 5,000,000' Tumalo Res Rd: OB Riley to Bailey Rd 247,342 0% 0% 247,342, US 20 Ward Rd to Hamby 500,000 500,000 100%. i 500,000 100%: Transportation System Plan Update 250,000 253 0% = 253 0% 249,747 60,000 0% 0% 60,000 Gribbling Rd Bridge 959 284,432 (284,432), Slurry Seal 2020 2,673 2,673 (2,673), Paving of S. Century Dr Sisemore Rd Canal Piping Terrebonne Wastewater Feasibility St. 858 20,858 (20,858), Signage Improvements 100,000 0% 60,144 0 % 0% 60,44' 11 Guardrail Improvements 100,000 0% 100,000 0% 0% 1 1 00,000, 180,746 0% 0% 180,746 ARTS Project Rickard Rd: Groff Rd to US 20 217 217 (217)z TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $8,236,348 5,4115213 66%; 13,764,165 5,276,529 38%: $ 5,951,297 43% $ 7,813,085,. Budget to Actuals Report Solid Waste - Fund 610 FY20 YTD June 30, 2020 (unaudited) 100.0% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2019 1 Fiscal Year 2020 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Franchise Disposal Fees 6,497,676 6,356,636 98% 6,437,500 6,444,136 100%, 6,444,136 100% 6,636; A Private Disposal Fees 2,709,370 2,379,061 88% 2,419,046 2,556,619 106% 2,556,619 106% , 137,571 A Commercial Disp. Fee 2,042,050 2,060,523 101% 2,252,225 2,429,879 108% 2,429,867 108% 177,642, A Franchise 3% Fees ! 265,000 291,340 110% 265,000 297,352 112%, 297,352 112% 32,352; B Yard Debris 216,761 268,830 124% 216,761 290,794 134% 290,794 134% , 74,033, C Interest 44,000 58,235 132% 59,000 49,256 83% t 49,257 83% (9,743)l Miscellaneous 49,955 57,067 114% 48,336 170,778 353% 170,778 353% , 122,442, D Special Waste 15,000 21,487 143% 15,000 28,830 192% 28,830 192% 13,830! E Recyclables 18,000 11,063 61% 12,000 12,163 101% 12,163 101% 163! Leases ! 10,801 1 0% 1 1 100% 1 100%, TOTAL RESOURCES 11,868,613 11,504,244 97% 11,724,869 12,279,809 105% ; ; 12,279,798 105% ; 554,929: REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Personnel Services 2,504,623 2,331,135 93% 2,538,776 2,392,374 94% 2,392,974 94% 145,802; Materials and Services ! 4,772,159 4,341,881 91% 4,927,163 3,911,913 79% 4,234,650 86% 692,513; F Capital Outlay 173,000 109,681 63% 56,000 11,724 21% 11,724 21% 44,276 G Debt Service 860,938 860,937 100% i 862,100 861,644 100% 861,644 100%! 456! TOTAL REQUIREMENTS ; 8,310,720 7,643,635 92% ; 8,384,039 7,177,654 86% 7,500,992 89% 883,047: TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance SW Capital & Equipment (4,688,023) (5,000,029) 107% ; (3,296,192) (3,296,192) 100% ; (3,296,192) 100% Reserve TOTAL TRANSFERS (4,688,023) (5,000,029) 107% ; (3,296,192) (3,296,192) 100% (3,296,192) 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 1,730,130 1,938,991 112% 600,000 799,570 133% 799,570 133% 199,570� Resources over Requirements 3,557,893 3,860,608 3,340,830 5,102,155 4,778,807 1,437,977' Net Transfers - In (Out) I (4,688,023) (5,000,029) ( (3,296,192) (3,296,192) 4 ! (3,296,192) E I TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 600,000 $ 799,570 133% ; $ 644,638 $ 2,605,533 404% ; ; $ 2,282,185 354% ; $1,637,547; A Even with COVID activities, there was an annual increase of -6% in disposal tons resulting in total disposal revenues exceeding budget by 3% or $322K e Received the annual fees due April 15, 2020 C Revenue is seasonal with higher utilization in the summer months; historically high month in April and June was partially offset by extended Fire Free event in May D Includes an unbudgeted sale of loader 7-279 for $95K, CEC LED light incentive and Taylor NW royalty payments E Revenue source is unpredictable and dependent on special clean-up projects; April had large contaminated soil and asbestos projects F Did not spend as much as anticipated with the postponement of the waste characterization study G FY19 extended the life of an existing vehicle and did not purchase a second pick-up; FY20 purchased the budgeted gas monitoring equipment and moved the fencing project to FY21 q �-�Es �� ` - Budget to Actuals Report Fair & Expo - Fund 615 FY20 YTD June 30, 2020 (unaudited) RESOURCES Events Revenue Food & Beverage Rights & Signage Storage Horse Stall Rental Interfund Payment Camping Fee Miscellaneous Interest TOTALRESOURCES REQUIREMENTS Personnel Services Personnel Services - F&B Materials and Services Materials and Services - F&B Debt Service TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 100.0% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2019 1 Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance 655,000 615,300 94% 687,000 370,052 54% 370,052 54% (316,948)� A F 540,000 629,875 117% 568,000 307,709 54% 307,709 54% (260,291)! B i 105,000 115,650 110% 120,000 97,100 81% 97,100 81% (22,900) 83,100 76,735 92% 71,000 84,724 119% 84,724 119% 13,724� C F 57,000 71,855 126% 62,000 37,386 60% 37,386 60% (24,614); E 30,000 54,573 182% 30,000 117,121 390% 117,121 390% 87,121� D 18,200 19,975 110% 18,000 5,600 31% 5,600 31% (12,400)! E 8,400 6,374 76% 3,500 2,236 64% 2,236 64% (1,264) 2,400 (518) -22% F 2,000 (5,006) -250% ! (5,006) -250% (7,006)� F 1,499,100 1,589,820 106% ; 1,561,500 1,016,922 65% ; 1,016,922 65% (544,578); Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % 11248,512 1,259,337 101% 1,176,169 1,108,608 94% F 149,296 149,947 100% 157,430 158,556 101% F 967,441 912,724 94% 795,788 763,766 96% 222,500 365,951 164% 234,600 216,921 92% 101,136 101,136 100%! 100,800 100,151 99% 2,688,885 2,789,095 104% ; 2,464,787 2,348,002 95% ; TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Transfers In - Room Tax 517,996 517,996 100% 409,654 409,654 100% Transfers In - County Fair 472,998 417,000 88% 395,000 250,000 63% Transfers In - General Fund 200,000 200,000 100% 200,000 200,000 100% Transfers In - Park Fund F 30,000 30,000 100% 30,000 30,000 100% E Transfers In - F&E Capital - - ; Reserve Transfers Out (11,791) (11,791) 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS 1,220,994 1,164,996 95% 1,022,863 877,863 86% ; Projection % $ Variance 1,108,608 94% 67,561: 158,557 101% (1,127)' F 770,000 97% 25,788, G 220,000 94% 14,600! B 100,151 99% 649! 2,357,315 96% 107,472: Projection % $ Variance 666,749 163% 257,09& H 250,000 63% i (145,000)! 1 t 260,000 100%!� � 30,000 100%F 300,000 300,000! J (11,791) 100% 1,434,958 140% ; 412,095: FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance (60,285) 999% 80,000 (94,564) -118%; (94,564) -118%: (174,564): K Resources over Requirements (1,189,785) (1,199,275) (903,287) (1,331,080) (1,340,394) (437,107)! Net Transfers - In (Out) 1,220,994 1,164,996 1,022,863 877,863 1,434,958 412,095' � I E 1 ( t TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 31,209 ($ 94,564) -303%; $ 199,576 ($ 547,781) -274%; ; 0% ($199,576); A Current year receipts are 54% of budget YTD; prior year receipts were 94% of budget at this point last year. All March, April, May & June events cancelled due to COVID. B Net earnings from F&B activities YTD are $(67,769). Monthly fixed costs have a greater impact on earnings during off-season months. All March, April, May and June events cancelled due to COVID. C Allowing storage to continue additional months due to event cancellations. D Reimbursement from RV Park for personnel expenditures recorded in F&E. Includes interfund payment for 7.0 FTE whose cost is being absorbed by Roads (5.0 FTE), Sheriffs Office (1.0 FTE) and BOCC (1.00 FTE). E Reduced due to loss of OHSET and COHSET F Net earnings from F&B activities YTD are $(67,769). Monthly fixed costs have a greater impact on earnings during off-season months. G Lower than budget because of April -June event cancellations. H An additional $300K will be transferred during FY20 year-end to cover the unfunded loss of $600K per Resolution 2020-032; final transfer amount to be determined after year-end close. I Net proceeds from the County Fair are recorded in a separate fund and transferred in at year-end (Final estimate of $250k) j $300K will be transferred during FY20 year-end close to cover the estimated unfunded loss of $600K per Resolution 2020-032 K Prior year losses, relative to budget, are compounded into the beginning working capital to start the fiscal year. ��E S `OG � Budget to Actuals Report C� Annual County Fair - Fund 616 FY20 YTD June 30, 2020 (unaudited) 100.0% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2019 Fiscal Year 2020 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Gate Receipts 550,400 551,012 100% 560,000 561,460 100% 561,460 100%, 1,460� Concessions and Catering 412,000 424,225 103% 425,000 466,503 110% 466,503 110% 41,501 Carnival 327,000 326,650 100% 340,000 328,274 97% 328,274 97% (11,726)! Commercial Exhibitors 117,000 114,125 98% 122,000 11,650 10% 11,650 10% (110,350) State Grant 52,000 53,167 102% 52,000 53,167 102% 53,167 102% 1,167 Concert 50,000 54,000 108% 50,000 12,000 24% 12,000 24% (38,000)! Fair Sponsorship 36,000 41,125 114% 37,500 19,108 51% 19,108 51% (18,392) R/V Camping/Horse Stall Rental 25,000 28,625 115% 26,000 625 2% 625 2% (25,375) Rodeo 20,000 26,485 132% 25,000 5,650 23% 5,650 23% (19,350) Livestock Entry Fees 6,000 4,819 80% 7,000 4,731 68% 4,731 68% (2,269), Merchandise Sales 5,000 5,246 105% 5,246 105% 246: Interest on Investments - 607 200 (166) -83% (166) -83% (366) TOTAL RESOURCES 1,595,400 1,624,840 102% ; 1,649,700 1,468,248 89% 1,468,248 89% (181,452); REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Personnel Services 160,733 158,121 98% 164,638 157,448 96% 157,448 96% 7,190; Materials and Services 1,191,669 1,204,327 101% 1,340,062 1,457,840 109% 1,457,900 109% (117,838) TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 1,352,402 1,362,448 101% ; 1,504,700 1,615,288 107% ; ; 1,615,348 107% ; (110,648); TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfer In - TRT 1% 150,000 150,000 100% 250,000 250,000 100% 250,000 100% Transfer Out - Fair & Expo (472,998) (417,000) 88% t (395,000) (250,000) 63% (250,000) 63% 1 145,000, A TOTAL TRANSFERS (322,998) (267,000) 83% ; (145,000) 0% - 0% 145,000, FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance - 103,237 - 98,629 999% 98,629 999% , 98,629, Resources over Requirements 242,998 262,393 145,000 (147,040) (147,100) (292,100) Net Transfers - In (Out) (322,998) (267,000) (145,000) 145,000; � TOTAL FUND BALANCE ($ 80,000) $ 98,629 -123%; - ($ 48,411) ($ 48,470) ; ($48,470); Note: The majority of the revenues and expenditures are from the 2019 Fair. Expenses incurred for the 2020 Fair include Personnel Services and Interfund Charges. A Final transfer amount will be determined during Year -End close �1Es`� Budget to Actuals Report -� , �G Fair & Expo Capital Reserve - Fund 617 100.0% FY20 YTD June 30, 2020 (unaudited) Year Complete Fiscal Year 2019 Fiscal Year 2020 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Interest on Investments 7,800 20,791 267% 16,000 21,189 132% 21,190 132% 5,190� TOTAL RESOURCES 7,800 20,791 267% ; 16,000 21,189 132% ; ; 21,190 132% ; 5,190; REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Materials and Services 370,000 228,803 62% 345,000 239,590 69% 240,090 70% 104,910: Capital Outlay 80,000 69,372 87% 1,017,775 99,947 1, 0% 262,188 26% 755,587 A TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 450,000 298,175 66% ; 1,362,775 339,537 25% 502,278 37% ; 860,497: TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In - TRT 1% 830,083 630,083 76% 286,687 286,687 100% 286,687 100% Transfers Out (300,000) - 0% (300,000) 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS 830,083 630,083 76% (13,313) 286,687 2153%: (13,313) 100% FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 758,000 790,525 104% 1,360,088 1,143,224 84% 1,143,224 84% : (216,864): Resources over Requirements (442,200) (277,384) (1,346,775) (318,348) (481,088) 865,687, Net Transfers - In (Out) ! 830,083 630,083 i (13,313) 286,687 (13,313) TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 1,145,883 $ 1,143,224 100% ; - $ 1,111,563 999% ; $ 648,823 999% ; $648,823: A The full expansion and remodel of the Sisters Conference Center has been placed on hold due to the impacts of COVID. The focus has shifted to deferred maintenance, including flooring in South Sister and painting in South, North and Middle Sister conference rooms. Also included in the projected expense is an LED lighting renovation in the Event Center. B Transfer of $300K to Fair and Expo for estimated unfunded loss of $600K will be made before year-end close per Resolution 2020-032 o� \31ES ` Budget to Actuals Report L� . % RV Park - Fund 618 FY20 YTD June 30, 2020 (unaudited) RESOURCES RV Park Fees < 31 Days Interest on Investments RV Park Fees > 30 Days Cancellation Fees Washer / Dryer Vending Machines Miscellaneous Good Sam Membership Fee Good Sam Discounts TOTALRESOURCES 100.0% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2019 Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance 340,200 458,331 135% : 405,200 412,954 102% 412,954 102% 7,754: A i 4,400 12,255 279% 12,000 10,746 90% 10,746 90% (1,254), i 5,000 11,600 232% 5,000 13,050 261% ; 13,050 261% 8,050! 4,000 12,497 312% ! 5,000 5,271 105% 5,271 105% 271 3,500 i 4,650 133% 4,000 5,913 148% 5,913 148% 1,913, 1,500 1,716 114% 3,000 1,821 61% 1,821 61% (1,179)! - 2,231 2,000 2,332 117% 2,332 117% 332! - 2,561 1,500 476 32% t 476 32% (1,024)! B - (17,220) 999% (7,109) 999% (7,109) 999% (7,109)� B 358,600 488,620 136% ; 437,700 445,454 102% ; 445,454 102% 7,754; REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Materials and Services 298,870 276,007 92% 318,273 270,185 85% 270,185 85% 48,088: Debt Service 223,101 223,101 100% 222,100 221,810 100% 221,810 100% 290! TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 521,971 499,108 96% ; 540,373 491,995 91% 491,996 91% ; 48,377: TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In - Park Fund 160,000 160,000 100% 160,000 160,000 100% 160,000 100% Transfers In - TRT Fund 35,000 35,000 100% 35,000 100% Transfer Out - RV Reserve - (502,000) (502,000) 100% (502,000) 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS 160,000 160,000 100% ; (307,000) (307,000) 100% ; ; (307,000) 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 319,000 443,480 139% 560,000 592,992 106% < 592,992 106% 32,992: Resources over Requirements (163,371) (10,488) (102,673) (46,541) (46,541) 56,132, Net Transfers - In (Out) 160,000 160,000 (307,000) (307,000) (307,000) TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 315,629 $ 592,992 188% ; $ 150,327 $ 239,451 159% ; ; $ 239,451 159% ; $89,124: A 11,974 RV spaces, 30.95% utilization YTD. Prior year comparable was 13,427 RV spaces, 34.70% utilization YTD; projection decreased due to COVID. R The Good Sam incentive program was discontinued during Fall 2019. Budget to Actuals Report 4 RV Park Reserve - Fund 619 100.0% FY20 YTD June 30, 2020 (unaudited) Year Complete Fiscal Year 2019 Fiscal Year 2020 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Interest on Investments - 12,550 3,801 30% 3,801 30% (8,749) TOTAL RESOURCES - 12,550 3,801 30% 3,801 30% (8,749); REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Materials and Services 6,641 999% 6,641 999% (6,641); A Capital Outlay 100,000 1,694 2% 18,000 18% 82,000: A TOTAL REQUIREMENTS - 100,000 8,335 8% 24,641 25% 75,359: TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfer In - RV Park Ops - 502,000 502,000 100% 502,000 100% - TOTAL TRANSFERS 502,000 502,000 100% ; 502,000 100% ; Resources over Requirements (87,450) (4,534) (20,840) 66,610; Net Transfers - In (Out) - k 502,000 502,000 k 502,000 TOTAL " $ 414,550 $ 497,466 120% ; ; $ 481,160 116% ; $66,610: A Repairs/replacement of parts on the well/pump to be able to provide enough water pressure and flow to meet the current and future needs of the park. o �'�Es ` 2� Budget to Actuals Report Risk Management - Fund 670 FY20 YTD June 30, 2020 (unaudited) RESOURCES Workers' Compensation General Liability Property Damage Unemployment Vehicle Interest on Investments Claims Reimbursement Skid Car Training Process Fee- Events/ Parades Miscellaneous Loss Prevention TOTALRESOURCES REQUIREMENTS Workers' Compensation General Liability Insurance Administration Property Damage Vehicle Unemployment TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 100.0% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2019 1 Fiscal Year 2020 Ll Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance 1,247,279 1,273,816 102% 1,255,108 1,311,863 105% 1,311,863 105% ; 56,755: 1,063,675 i 1,063,675 100% 1,072,326 1,055,486 98% 1,072,326 100% 394,291 394,291 100% i 392,923 395,921 101% 395,921 101% 2,998! 280,921 297,540 106% 323,572 304,607 94% 304,607 94% (18,965)� A E 195,250 i 195,250 100% 195,580 203,005 104% 203,005 104% 1 1 7,425, 85,000 148,890 175% � 137,000 150,197 110% � � 150,197 110% 13,197� 269,198 57,073 21% 82,000 460,881 562% 460,881 562% 378,881! B 32,000 44,910 140% 34,000 34,830 102% 34,830 102% 83& 1,800 i 1,575 88% 2,000 765 38% 765 38% (1,235)! 500 5 1 % 500 5 1 % 20 4% (480), 30 30 100%! 30 - 0% E - 0% _ 3,569,944 3,477,056 97% ; 3,495,039 3,917,561 112% ; ; 3,934,417 113% ; 439,378: Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance 1,360,000 1,013,256 75% 1,460,000 685,478 47% 686,000 47% 774,000: i 900,000 633,248 70% 1,400,000 311,506 22% 312,000 22% 1,088,000! C 599,459 529,833 88% 592,059 467,358 79% 470,000 79% 122,059, D E 728,638 548,796 75% 400,236 701,454 175% 705,000 176% (304,764)! E 120,000 100,150 83% 150,000 179,835 120% 180,000 120% (30,000)' 150,000 37,481 25% 130,000 25,612 20% 26,000 20% 104,000. F 3,858,097 2,862,764 74% 4,132,295 2,371,241 57% 2,379,000 58% 1,753,295: TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers Out - Vehicle Replace (3,168) (3,168) 100% (6,918) (6,918) 100% (6,918) 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS ; (3,168) (3,168) 100% ; (6,918) (6,918) 100% ; (6,918) 100% FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 5,600,000 6,582,283 118% E 6,100,000 7,193,407 118% 7,193,407 118% 1,093,401 i Resources over Requirements (288,153) 614,292 E (637,256) 1,546,319 1,555,417 2,192,673; E Net Transfers - In (Out) E (3,168) (3,168) E (6,918) (6,918) 4 E (6,918) TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 5,308,679 $ 7,193,407 136% ; $ 5,455,826 $ 8,732,809 160% ; $ 8,741,906 160% ; $3,286,080: A Unemployment collected on first $25K of employee's salary in fiscal year B Payment associated to repair of the Fair and Expo roof. Payment was expected last fiscal year, but received in this fiscal year. C General Liability claims are difficult to budget, but came in lower than anticipated D Personnel savings based on 1.00 vacant FTE in July and August, which has been transferred to Administrative Services E Majority of Fair/Expo roof replacement costs were expected in FY19, but significant portion incurred in FY20. F Fewer unemployment claims than anticipated. Budget to Actuals Report Health Benefits - Fund 675 FY20 YTD June 30, 2020 (unaudited) RESOURCES Internal Premium Charges COIC Premiums Retiree / COBRA Premiums Employee Co -Pay Interest Prescription Rebates Claims Reimbursement & Other TOTAL RESOURCES REQUIREMENTS Health Benefits Deschutes On -Site Pharmacy Deschutes On -Site Clinic Wellness TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 100.0% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2019 1 Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance 17,054,563 18,051,440 106% 17,411,292 17,841,713 102%, 17,841,713 102%: 430,421 F 1,834,000 1,794,789 98% 1,967,021 1,670,202 85% 1,670,202 85% (296,819): A F 1,280,000 1,144,088 89% 1,433,000 980,878 68% 1,020,878 71% (412,122)! B i 963,000 1,016,748 106% 1,041,120 1,060,127 102% 1,060,127 102% 19,007! i 220,000 366,207 166% 346,000 334,654 97% 334,654 97% (11,346)� 60,000 148,847 248% 75,000 131,394 175% 176,394 235% 101,394. 177,557 45,000 386,585 859% 386,585 859% 341,585! C 21,411,563 22,699,675 106% ; 22,318,433 22,405,553 100% ; 22,490,554 101% ; 172,121: Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % 19,559,777 17,493,075 89% 20,550,836 17,730,360 86% t 2,284,744 2,514,038 � 110% 2,242,104 2,492,628 111% i 1,114,864 1,045,588 94% 1,141,691 1,012,786 89% 184,870 158,384 86% 180,380 150,388 83% 23,144,255 21,211,086 92% ; 24,115,011 21,386,163 89% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Beginning Fund Balance 16,051,586 15,075,316 94% 16,106,294 16,563,905 103% i Resources over Requirements (1,732,692) 1,488,590 i (1,796,578) 1,019,391 Net Transfers - In (Out) - � E F TOTAL FUND BALANCE , $ 14,318,894 $ 16,563,905 116% ; $ 14,309,716 $ 17,583,296 123% ; Projection % $ Variance 18,631,151 91% 1,919,685, D 2,503292 112% (261,188)� D 1,177:000 103% (35,309)! D 180,380 100% D 22,491,823 93% ; 1,623,188, Projection % $ Variance 16,563,905 103% 457,611, (1,269) 1,795,309 { k i $ 16,562,636 116% ; $2,252,920: A Prior year monthly average was $149K, whereas YTD monthly average is-$139K; COIC rates reduced by 5% at start of fiscal year B Prior year monthly average was $95K, whereas YTD monthly average is $82K C The County has several employees and dependents with very high claims which has triggered stop loss insurance payments. Additional revenue is expected for FY20, but it is unknown what the dollar amount will be. D Amounts are paid 1 month in arrears; projection compared to historical costs for reasonableness `o �{ Budget to Actuals Report 911 - Fund 705 and 710 FY20 YTD June 30, 2020 (unaudited) RESOURCES Property Taxes - Current Yr Telephone User Tax Police RMS User Fees Interest State Reimbursement Property Taxes - Prior Yr Data Network Reimbursement Contract Payments User Fee Property Taxes - Jefferson Co. Miscellaneous TOTALRESOURCES 100.0% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2019 Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance 8,311,833 8,426,089 101% 8,809,419 8,876,513 101% � 8,876,513 101% 67,094: A = 890,000 955,187 107% 900,000 717,021 80% E 717,021 80% � (182,979)! B 300,680 335,192 111% 250,000 386,751 155% 386,751 155% 136,751= 200,000 205,570 103% � 157,000 184,668 118% � � 184,668 118% � 27,668, 125,000 162,900 130% = 125,000 104,881 84% _ 104,881 84% (20,119)" C 110,000 108,419 99% 100,000 262,105 262% 262,111 262% 162,111 D 50,000 106,592 213% 55,000 96,232 175% 96,232 175% 41,232 51,300 175 0% 51,300 71,929 140% 75,000 146% 23,700= ' 180,000 141,980 79% � 73,680 ° 133,087 181 /° � � 133,087 181% 59,407! � 30,000 33,453 112% 30,000 34,547 115% 34,547 115% 4,547� 11,200 38,757 346% 11,951 35,282 295% 35,282 295% ! 23,332! 10,260,013 10,514,313 102% ; 10,563,350 10,903,017 103% ; 109906,094 103% ; 342,745; REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Personnel Services 7,646,307 6,743,116 88% 7,462,575 6,979,729 94% f Materials and Services 3,370,357 3,297,619 98% 3,387,761 3,065,459 90% Capital Outlay 2,362,400 529,377 22% 1,400,000 655,162 47% TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 13,379,064 10,570,113 79% 12,250,336 10,700,350 87% ; Projection % $ Variance 6,979,729 94% 482,846, i 3,387,761 100% E 1,000,000 71% 400,000! F 11,367,490 93% ; 882,846: FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 8,625,000 8,660,615 100% 7,753,706 8,604,816 111% 8,604,816 111% 851,109: Resources over Requirements (3,119,051) (55,800) (1,686,986) 202,667 (461,396) 1,225,590; Net Transfers - In (Out) TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 5,505,949 $ 8,604,816 156% ; $ 6,066,720 $ 8,807,483 145% ; ; $ 8,143,420 134% ; $2,076,700: A Actual 19-20 TAV is a 5.36% increase compared to FY 18-19 vs. 5.5% budgeted. Collection rate is projected to be 95.8% versus 95% budgeted B Telephone maintenance reimbursements are received in a lump sum by early spring C State GIS reimbursements are received quarterly D TDS Baja deferred billing credits per ORS 305.286 in addition to settlement payment E It is anticipated that M&S will come in close to budget after FY20 year-end accruals are posted F Capital Outlay is anticipated to be less because the Tyler CAD sign -off will be completed in FY21 and no other radio improvements aside from Overturf were initiated m N 3� cr ;a m fD 3 `m M a rF 00 N N 00 N N O IV O r"i 4�N m 00 > (D (D < S2. jY C)7 C: Ln 3 3 m m D r-t rb rD o r) 1'.)) C/o ho rD > rD V). rt �u rn r) rD C) Cu Ul Ul NJ o CD M m ® rb m M LA un ob m Ln or zT aj D G n 0 � E-1 ate'. 19 Wo .t cr 55i�iff o s l r-1) 5 CL CD CD r) 0 ":., ell lip wy, I mu:z ell �• Cv .:r ram;' �., t/, + ✓�: � + (IQ w CD CTi r w-^y N CG CU ^a --f J CD- ' rD .r., `�•,�^�' CD Cr ell ef, CD CD ri..+ r`l ►..4 , ;% wr '*+• "`► r-• • CU t4 �-°t �.y+1 fly r. r _ n CD v" CD tA 0.3 P-dCD . "� r ' V CU v •w, O�