2020-357-Minutes for Meeting September 28,2020 Recorded 10/19/2020Recorded in Deschutes County
Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk
Commissioners' Journal
��1ES CO
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon
(541) 388-6570
1:00 PM MO DAY September 2 g 2020
2020-357
CJ2020-357
10/19/2020 3:06:34 PM
FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY
Barnes Sawyer Rooms
Live Streamed Video
Present were Commissioners Patti Adair, 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 Samantha Pepper, BOCC Administrative 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.
Commissioner Henderson had technical difficulties and was unable to join the
meeting until 1:08 pm.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ACTION ITEMS:
1. La Pine Transportation System Development Charge Program
Discussion
Tom Anderson introduces the topic. Commissioner Adair mentioned that CDD
has not received any building permits for development in La Pine since this SDC
was put into place. Commissioner DeBone mentioned that this proposal had no
BOCC MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 2020 PAGE 1 OF 5
county partnership as the process was taking place. La Pine Mayor Daniel Richer
states that the SDC was published and asked for public comment. He adds that
he would speak to city staff for complete process clarity. Commissioner DeBone
suggests that the City and County have a joint meeting so the community is
more involved in this process. Commissioner Adair agrees. Mayor Richer adds
that builders in the city have absorbed this information.
2. Preparation for Public Hearing Regarding St. Charles Health System, Inc.
Proposed Issuance of Hospital Revenue Bonds by the Hospital Facility
Authority of Deschutes County
County Chief Financial Officer Greg Munn introduces St. Charles staff and
attorneys. St. Charles CFO, Jenn Welander, states per statue there is to be a
public hearing for this proposed debt issuance. St. Charles five year capital plan
total is $315 million- $215M through operating cash flow and $120M from this
debt issuance. It would be fixed rate, have a 30 year maturity, funds would be
used in Bend and Redmond. The larger cost is for the construction of an
integrated cancer center. The remaining funds would be used in the Bend
Hospital for renovations. Commissioner Adair asks if there are hospital bed
additions planned for the future. The bottom floor addition will have more beds
but it has not yet been determined what department will use it. Commissioner
DeBone asked if these are all 20 or 30 year maturities. Ms. Welander states that
most are 25-30 year bonds. All issuances have been to keep pace with growth.
Commissioner Henderson asked for clarification on the public hearing process
for this certain matter. Deschutes County is the local authority to access tax
exempt debt issuance.
3. August 2020 Treasurer and Finance Report
County CFO Greg Munn explains the current state of the county financials.
Corporate notes are over category maximums of 24%. Investment income is
down $38,000 from last month. Interest income is down from this time last year.
Yield percentages pool have seen no changes. All investments are under 2.9%.
Mr. Munn has been trying to make investments further out to 5 years. Mr. Munn
BOCC MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 2020 PAGE 2 OF 5
mentions that he is trying to get ahead of tax receipts to reinvest. Tom Anderson
asked what the PERS earning rates are. Mr. Munn replies that the rates took a
strong decrease since the pandemic but are slowly increasing. He recalls close to
2%. Mr. Munn mentions that tax statements will go out in a couple weeks. The
county fair fund is now included in the packet. The general fund is about 5%
revenue compared to 4% last year. There has been a decrease in unfilled county
positions. Tom Anderson asked why Cares Act funding would go into the TRT
fund. Mr. Munn states that the funds weren't in the current adopted budget and
were transferred to the appropriate fund. Commissioner Adair asked if the
legislation was passed specific to driver license suspensions. Mr. Munn is going
to follow-up. Commissioner Henderson suggests comparing prior months on
the department fund statements. Commissioner Henderson noticed that patient
fees in Behavioral health had decreased but OHP fees for service had increased.
Cheryl Smallman explained that unemployment is up so there are fewer
payments on insurance payments and higher payments through Medicaid. She
adds that local grants have increased. GWIM metrics are being provided to
public health because of the COVID pandemic. These funds will come monthly
until the end of the calendar year. Commissioner Henderson mentions that
resources are way below budget. Geoff Hinds states that the fair board has been
working on the fund. Tom Anderson states that projections can be revised. He
suggests that staff react and readjust the revenues and budget. Commissioner
DeBone suggests projection reviews every three months. He also asked if fair
sponsorships were refunded. Geoff Hinds responds yes, but some asked to
carry over into next year.
4. Legislative Update
Communications Director Whitney Hale introduces members for the
conversation. Paul Phillips introduces his team of Ryan Tribbett, Paul Scheuers
and Anne Johnson of PacWest. Ryan Tribbett mentions the key points of the
2020 February Session. Commissioner Adair mentions that the State Courts
have noticed that Deschutes County has not had a newjudge position since
2003. Commissioner Henderson asked if meetings should be set up now for the
key committees. He would like to get out ahead of the session. Mr. Phillips
states that he at his team have started a plan for that. Four things effect the
state currently when it comes to legislative affairs- COVID Pandemic, Oregon
BOCC MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 2020 PAGE 3 OF 5
Wildfires, Portland Riots and Oregon Employment Department. Mr. Scheuers
suggests waiting to talk to key committees until after the election. Commissioner
Adair feels the sooner the better. There is great concern on the wildfire costs
recently at the state level going into the session. Anne Johnson mentions that
temporary rules through state agencies such as Oregon OSHA have been
circumventing legislation and traditional rule making. Mr. Scheuers presents the
legislative timeline. He explains Deschutes County's priorities which included:
Circuit Court Judges, Courthouse Construction and Behavioral Health funding.
Commissioner DeBone mentions Urban Renewal District in Bend and Redmond
and Non -Prime Resource Land planning issues. He ask for possible help from
PacWest. Whitney Hale suggests a follow up meeting with PacWest.
Commissioners will ask county departments to contribute any legislative issues.
OTHER ITEMS:
None.
RECESS: At the time of 3:20 p.m., the Board took a recess and reconvened the
meeting at 3:29 p.m.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
At the time of 3:29 p.m., the Board went into Executive Session under ORS 192.660
(2) (h) Litigation. The Board came out of Executive Session at 4:03 p.m. to direct
staff to proceed as discussed.
BOCC MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 2020 PAGE 4 OF 5
j2�
Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:04 pm.
DATED this Day of On� 2020 for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners.
PHILIP G. HENDERSON, COMMISSIONER
BOCC MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 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 PM, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 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 (later enacted as part of HB 4212) directing government entities to utilize virtual meetings whenever
possible and to take necessary measures to facilitate public participation in these virtual meetings.
Since May 4, 2020, meetings and hearings of the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners have been
conducted primarily 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.
In Person Attendance: Limited due to Virus restrictions. Please contact Sharon Keith at
sharon.keith@deschutes.org prior to the meeting to request in person attendance.
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:
citizeninputC@deschutes.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
Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Monday, September 28, 2020 Page 1
of 3
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
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 Discussion of La Pine Transportation System Development Charge
Program - Tom Anderson, County Administrator
2. 1:30 PM Preparation for Public Hearing Regarding St. Charles Health System,
Inc. Proposed Issuance of Hospital Revenue Bonds by the Hospital
Facility Authority of Deschutes County. - Greg Munn, Chief Financial
Officer
3. 1:50 PM Legislative Update - Whitney Hale, Communications Director
4. 2:35 PM Deschutes County Treasurer and Finance Report for August 2020 -
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) (h) Litigation
Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Monday, September 28, 2020 Page 2
of 3
To watch this meeting on line, go to: www.deschutes.org/meetings
Please note that the video will not show up until recording begins. You can also view past
meetings on video by selecting the date shown on the website calendar.
®®Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs
and activities. This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities. If you need
MOaccommodations to make participation possible, please call (541) 617-4747.
FUTURE MEETINGS:
Additional meeting dates available at www.deschutes.org/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, September 28, 2020 Page 3
of 3
ES CC&
� Z
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 September 28, 2020
DATE: September 22, 2020
FROM: Tom Anderson, Administrative Services, 541-388-6565
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Discussion of La Pine Transportation System Development Charge Program
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The City of La Pine has recently adopted a transportation SDC program (attached). Staff have reached
out to the City on a number of levels to try to coordinate on the building permitting process, as the City
intends that the SDCs be paid prior to the issuance of building permits in the City, which as you know is
a County function. The process will work similar to Sisters, where a permit applicant will show proof of
payment to CDD before a permit is issued. More on permit history and potential impacts on developers
below. The ordinance became effective on 8-27-20.
Within the list of transportation projects to be funded in part with SDC revenue, the City has projected
that $23M in funding will come from Deschutes County. As you know, since the City lacks adequate
funding, the County still retains jurisdiction and maintenance of a good portion of the roads in the City
pending an agreed upon transition plan.
The SDC for each single family home is $4,453. To provide a sense of the potential impacts, since
January 1, 2020, the County has issued 29 new single family home permits in the City through August
26. CDD has not received any applications for new single family dwellings in the City since August 27.
Prior to the SDC Resolution, CDD issued 8 new single family dwelling permits in August. Of the 29 new
single family home permits issued this year, 16 are in the New Neighborhood.
ATTENDANCE: Melissa Bethel, City Manager
CITY OF LA PINE
STAFF REPORT
DATE SUBMITTED:
TO: La Pine City Councilors
FROM: Jake Obrist, La Pine Public Works Manager
SUBJECT: Adopting Transportation SDC Methodology and Fees
MEETING DATE: August 26, 2020
TYPE OF ACTION REQUESTED (Check one):
[X] Resolution [ ] Ordinance
[ ] No Action — Report Only [X] Public Hearing
[X] Formal Motion [ ] Other/Direction:
Background
The City of La Pine's Street fund has continued to be supported by large transfers from the General
Fund. With more duties associated with streets being imminent in our future, the demands on our
budget have been extremely noticeable. After many discussions during council work sessions to create
the needed funding for our future, it has been determined to pursue a Transportation System
Development Charge (SDC). A system development charge is a one-time fee imposed on new
development at the time of development. The charge is intended to recover a fair share of the cost of
system capacity needed to serve growth. System development charges provide a means for "growth to
pay for growth." SDCs are only acquired through new development or a significant change in
development.
State law (ORS 223.304) requires local governments to hold a public hearing prior to the establishment
or modification of SDC methodologies. This law also requires local governments to adopt SDC
methodologies by ordinance or resolution. Staff have prepared a transportation SDC methodology
adoption resolution for the Council's consideration at tonight's City Council meeting.
Proiect Milestones
Itemized below is a listing of the key project milestones and action items that have occurred bringing us
to tonight's request for Council action:
City of La Pine Staff Report Page 1
Transportation SDC Methodology and Schedule of Fees
• May 20, 2020 — City Staff in consultation with the City Engineer and transportation engineering
consultants finalized an updated transportation Capital Improvement Plan that took into
account current City transportation needs and updated population and employment forecasts
from Portland State University's Oregon Population Forecast Program (OPFP).
• May 27, 2020 — The City Council unanimously passed Resolution No. 2020-05 adopting the
updated transportation Capital Improvement Plan as proposed by City Staff.
• May 28, 2020—A public notice was published in the Bend Bulletin notifying all interested parties
of the City's intent to create a methodology for calculating System Development Charges for
transportation services. As of this date, City Staff have not received any correspondence or
inquiries from the public concerning this public notice.
« May 28, 2020 — The Public Works Director sent a letter to Ms. Karna Gustafson at the Central
Oregon Builders Association (COBA) stating the following: "Pursuant to ORS 223.304 (6) & (7),
public notice is hereby given of the City of La Pine's intent to create a methodology for
calculating System Development Charges (SDCs) for transportation services. A public hearing on
the new methodology is scheduled before the La Pine City Council on August 26, 2020. The
proposed methodology will be available for public review at the City's web site and at La Pine
city hall no later than June 27, 2020. The city hall street address is 16345 Sixth Street, La Pine
Oregon 97739. As of this date, City Staff have not received any correspondence or inquiries
from COBA concerning this matter.
• June 16, 2020 — City Staff and the project Consultant held a briefing for the City of La Pine Public
Works Committee on the status of the transportation SDC methodology and proposed fees. Six
(6) Committee members attended the meeting at La Pine city hall. The presentation along with
questions from the Commissioners lased over an hour. Upon completion of the presentation a
straw poll was taken. Five (5) Commissions recommended moving the draft methodology and
proposed fees to the City Council for approval and adoption. One (1) Commissioner
recommended the City Council not act on the draft methodology and proposed fees.
• June 26, 2020 — the proposed transportation SDC methodology report was posted to the City's
web site complying with the ORS 223.304 (6) & (7) requirement of having the proposed
methodology available for inspection at least 60 days prior to the first reading of a resolution or
ordinance to adopt said methodology.
July 22, 2020 —the City Council was briefed by City Staff and the project Consultant on the status
of the transportation SDC methodology and proposed fees via video work session. The
presentation and Q&A lasted 45 minutes with solid engagement by the Council members and
City Staff. Upon completion, the Council was advised that a transportation SDC methodology
adoption resolution would be on the agenda for their consideration at the August 26, 2020
regular business meeting.
City of La Pine Staff Report Page 2
Transportation SDC Methodology and Schedule of Fees
Staff Findings
The 2020 transportation SDC methodology update was done in accordance with ORS 223.297-314, and with
the benefit of adopted master plans and plan updates for transportation services. Staff recommends the
City Council implement the SDC charge and methodology to reflect the current capital improvement
program and to incorporate the reimbursement and administration fee components. This will provide
additional revenues to help fund the utility's future capital needs. Our analysis indicates the City can charge
a maximum of $4,453 per PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip (PMPHVT) for transportation. The components of this
fee are as follows:
Reimbursementfee.........................................................................................................$ 380
Improvementfee............................................................................................................... 3,861
Administrationfee............................................................................................................. 212
TotalSDC per PMPHVT......................................................................................
Recommended Action
I move to adopt Resolution No. 2020-08 a resolution adopting a System Development Charge
methodology and schedule of fees for the City of La Pine's transportation system
City of La Pine Staff Report Page 3
Transportation SDC Methodology and Schedule of Fees
RESOLUTION NO.2020-08
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY AND SCHEDULE OF
FEES FOR THE CITY OF LA PINE'S TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
WHEREAS, the La Pine City Council adopted a Transportation System Plan via Ordinance No. 2013-
04 on October 9, 2013 that included a transportation capital improvement plan and recommended
transportation Systems Development Charges (SDC) as a funding source for future transportation system
improvements; and,
WHEREAS, Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 223.304 and 223.309 provides for the establishing of
transportation SDCs upon completion of an analysis of capital improvements already constructed and
projected capital improvements to be constructed and adoption of a methodology explaining how the
transportation SDCs are calculated; and,
WHEREAS, the La Pine City Council has adopted an updated Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for
transportation services via Resolution No. 2020-05 on May 27, 2020 which includes a list of proposed
capital improvements which affect SDCs; and,
WHEREAS, ORS 223.304 specifies that such charges shall be revised by separate ordinance or
resolution of the La Pine City Council following a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the La Pine City Council concludes it is appropriate to implement the City's schedule
of SDCs for transportation services, consistent with the methodology requirements established in ORS
223.297 through 223.314; and,
WHEREAS, the City has prepared the methodology and schedule of transportation SDCs
(Transportation System Development Charge Update, June 2020, Donovan Enterprises, Inc.); and,
WHEREAS, the City provided 90 days' written notice to interested persons of the proposed
transportation SDC methodology and made the methodology available at least 60 days prior to the public
hearing, as required by ORS 223.304(7): and,
WHEREAS, the La Pine City Council has determined the methodology and rates hereinafter
specified and established are just, reasonable, and necessary.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA PINE HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Amendment and updating of SDCs. In accordance with ORS 223.304, this resolution
establishes the methodology and provides the basis for transportation SDCs that consists of a
reimbursement, improvement, and administration fee.
Section 2: Scope of amendment and update of SDCs. The transportation SDCs established by
this resolution are separate from, and in addition to, any other applicable taxes, fees, assessments, or
charges, including but not limited to SDCs, which are required by the City of La Pine or represent a
condition of a land use or development approval.
Resolution No. 2020-08
Section 3: Methodology. The methodology for the transportation SDCs described in the June
2020 Transportation System Development Update report are hereby made a part of this resolution. The
City amends and updates its SDCs as described in the attached Exhibit "A," hereby made a part of this
Resolution.
Section 4: Effective Date. This resolution shall become effective upon its adoption by the La Pine
City Council.
Section 5: Review. This resolution may be reviewed at the pleasure of the City Council, and the
rates may be amended as appropriate.
Section 6: Repeal. All City of La Pine resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict herewith are
hereby repealed.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council this 26th day of August 2020 and signed by the Mayor
and City Recorder in authentication of its passage.
Daniel Richer, Mayor
ATTEST:
Robin Neace, City Recorder
Resolution No. 2020-08
EXHIBIT "A"
Transportation System Development Charge Update
By
Donovan Enterprises, Inc.
June, 2020
Resolution No. 2020-08
Presented by:
June
� 1 1
D 0 N O V A N
enterprises, inc.
Transportation System
Development Charge
Update
Prepared for:
L A P 1 N
O R E G O N
Final Report
Donovan Enterprises, Inc.
9600 SW Oak Street, Suite 335
Tigard, Oregon 97223-6596
9 503.517.0671
www.donovan-enter,orises.com
City of la Pine
2020 Transportation SDC Methodology Update
Table of Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................................................1
SDCLegal Authorization................................................................................................................................................2
SDCMethodology..........................................................................................................................................................3
ReimbursementFee Methodology..............................................................................................................................................4
ImprovementFee Methodology..................................................................................................................................................4
Methodology for the Granting of Credits, Exemptions, and Discounts.......................................................................................
7
SDCCredits Policy.................................................................................................................................
7
Partial and Full SDC Exemptions Policy.................................................................................................8
SDCDiscount Policy...............................................................................................................................8
Conclusionsand Recommendations..............................................................................................................................9
FeeRecommendation..................................................................................................................................................................9
Policy for Granting Transportation SDC Credits in La Pine...........................................................................................................9
Indexing Transportation SDCs for Inflation................................................................................................................................
it
TransportationSDC Calculations.................................................................................................................................13
Existing and Future Transportation Demands in PMPHVTs.......................................................................................................13
Transportation Reimbursement Fee Calculations......................................................................................................................15
2020 Transportation Capital Improvement Plan Project Costs and Funding Sources................................................................17
Transportation Improvement Fee Calculations.........................................................................................................................19
TransportationSDC Model Summary........................................................................................................................................
21
NeighboringCommunities' SDCs.................................................................................................................................26
TotalSingle Family Residential SDCs by Component.................................................................................................................
26
SingleFamily Residential SDCs for Streets .................................... ...................................................................... I .......... I ...... .....
27
2020 Transight Engineering, LLC PMPHVT Forecasting Methodology........................................................................29
GrowthTrips..............................................................................................................................................................................
29
TimePeriod................................................................................................................................................................................
29
HorizonYear...............................................................................................................................................................................
30
Populationand Households Forecast........................................................................................................................................
31
EmploymentForecast.........................-.....................................................................................................................................
32
Population and Employment to Weekday PM Peak Hour Trips.................................................................................................
33
Summary....................................................................................................................................................................................
34
City of La Pine — 2020 Transportation SDC Update Table of Contents
Introduction
The City of La Pine conducts periodic updates to its Comprehensive Plan and its various Public Facility
Plans to provide orderly and sustainable growth of local roads, water, sewer, and parks. A key component
to funding these public facilities is the system development charge (SDC) program. SDCs are one-time
charges for new development —designed to recover the costs of infrastructure capacity needed to serve
new development. This section describes the policy context and project scope upon which the body of
this report is based. It concludes with a non -numeric overview of the calculations presented in
subsequent sections of this report.
The city does not currently have a transportation SDC methodology and does not charge new
development a transportation SDC fee. The purpose of this study is to formulate a transportation SDC
methodology for the City and prepare a transportation capital improvement plan (CIP) that can be
incorporated into the new methodology to calculate a defensible SDC. The City's current Transportation
System Plan was adopted by the City Council in October of 2013 (via Ordinance No. 2013-04). That Plan
contained a recommended CIP and was used as a starting point for the CIP update and refinement. The
City Council has reviewed and adopted the updated CIP via Resolution No. 2020-05 (May 27, 2020). With
this review and update, the City has stated several objectives:
• Review the basis for transportation charges to ensure a consistent methodology.
Address specific policy, administrative, and technical issues relative to the implementation of a
new transportation SDC.
• Determine the most appropriate and defensible fees, ensuring that development is paying its way.
• Consider possible revisions to the structure or basis of the charges which might improve equity or
proportionality to demand.
• Provide clear, orderly documentation of the assumptions, methodology, and results, so that City
staff could, by reference, respond to questions or concerns from the public.
This report provides the documentation of that effort and was done in close coordination with City staff
and available facilities planning documents. The transportation SDC update complies Oregon Revised
Statues (ORS) Chapter 223.297-314.
Table 1 gives a component breakdown for the current and proposed single family residential equivalent
SDCs for transportation. Appendix A to this report shows the detailed calculations that were used to
arrive at the proposed SDCs for transportation services.
City of La Pine — 2020 Transportation SDC Update Page 1
Table 1 - Component Breakdown of the Proposed Single Family Residential Equivalent Transportation SDC
Transportation SDC Components Proposed Current Difference
Reimbursement fee $ 376
Improvement fee 3,822
Administration fee @ 5% 210
Total transportation SDC $ 4,409 $ - $ 4,409
The framework for SDC calculation is established by Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 223.297-314 which is
the basis for this review. Under ORS 223.299, SDC's are defined as one-time fees imposed on new
development and have two components: reimbursement and improvement.
The reimbursement fee considers the cost of existing facilities, prior contributions by existing users of
those facilities, the value of the unused/available capacity, and generally accepted ratemaking principles.
The objective is future system users contribute no more than an equitable share to the cost of existing
facilities. The reimbursement fee can be spent on capital costs or debt service related to the systems for
which the SDC is applied.
The improvement fee portion of the SDC is based on the cost of planned future facilities that expand the
system» s capacity to accommodate growth or increase its level of performance. In developing an analysis
of the improvement portion of the fee for transportation, each project in the respective service's capital
improvement plan is evaluated to exclude costs related to correcting existing system deficiencies or
upgrading for historical lack of capacity. An example is a facility which improves system capacity to better
serve current customers. The costs for this type of project must be eliminated from the improvement fee
calculation. Only capacity increasing/level of performance costs provide the basis for the SDC calculation.
The improvement SDC is calculated as a function of the estimated number of PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips
(PMPHVT's) to be served by the City's facilities over the planning period. Such a fee represents the
greatest potential for future SDC changes.
SDC Legal Authorization
The SDC statute is specific in its definition of system development charges, their application, and their
accounting. In general, an SDC is a one-time fee imposed on new development or expansion of existing
development and assessed at the time of development approval or increased usage of the system.
Overall, the statute is intended to promote equity between new and existing customers by recovering a
proportionate share of the cost of existing and planned/future capital facilities that serve the developing
property. Statute further provides the framework for the development and imposition of SDCs and
establishes that SDC receipts may only be used for capital improvements and/or related debt service.
The methodology used to determine the improvement fee portion of the SDC must consider the cost of
projected capital improvements needed to increase system capacity or level of performance. In other
words, the cost of planned projects that correct existing deficiencies or do not otherwise increase capacity
City of La Pine - 2020 Transportation SDC Update Page 2
would not be SDC eligible. The improvement fee must also provide a credit for construction of a qualified
public improvement.
Finally, two cost basis adjustments are potentially applicable to both reimbursement and improvement
fees: fund balance and compliance costs.
Fund Balance - To the extent that SDC revenue is currently available in fund balance, that revenue should
be deducted from its corresponding cost basis. For example, if the city has transportation improvement
fees that it has collected but not spent, then those unspent improvement fees should be deducted from
the transportation system's improvement fee cost basis to prevent charging twice for the same capacity.
Compliance Costs - ORS 223.307(5) authorizes the expenditure of SDCs on "the costs of complying with
the provisions of ORS 223.297 to 223.314, including the costs of developing system development charge
methodologies and providing an annual accounting of system development charge expenditures." To
avoid spending monies for compliance that might otherwise have been spent on growth -related projects,
this report includes an estimate of compliance costs in its SDCs.
SDC Methodology
The essential ingredient in the development of an SDC methodology for transportation services is valid
sources of data. For this project, the consultant team has relied on a number of data sources. The primary
sources have been the adopted 2013 TSP for these municipal facilities. We have supplemented these
data sources with City utility billing records, certified census data, and other documents that we deemed
helpful, accurate, and relevant to this study. Table 2 contains a bibliography of the key
documents/sources that we relied upon to facilitate our analysis and hence the resulting SDCs.
Table 2 - Data Sources for the Calculation of Transportation SDC
Transportation • La Pine Transportation System Plan; October 2013; Kittelson & Associates.
• 2020 La Pine Transportation Facilities Plan Amendment and Capital Improvement
Plan Update; May, 2020; La Pine City Staff.
• 2020 updated forecast of PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips; Transight Consulting, LLC,
April 28, 2020
• La Pine transportation system fixed asset schedule; June 30, 2019; City records.
• City of La Pine Utility Billing System —active utility accounts and Equivalent Dwelling
Units in service report; June 30, 2019.
• Portland State University, College of Urban Affairs, Population Research Center;
Certified census for La Pine, Oregon; June 2018
• U.S. Bureau of the Census; American Community Survey; multiple data sets.
City of La Pine— 2020 Transportation SDC Update Page
Reimbursement Fee Methodology
The reimbursement fee represents a buy -in to the cost, or value, of infrastructure capacity within the
existing system. Generally, if a system were adequately sized for future growth, the reimbursement fee
might be the only charge imposed, since the new customer would be buying existing capacity. However,
staged system expansion is needed, and an improvement fee is imposed to allocate those growth -related
costs. Even in those cases, the new customer also relies on capacity within the existing system, and a
reimbursement component is warranted.
To determine an equitable reimbursement fee to be used in conjunction with an improvement fee, two
points should be highlighted. First, the cost of the system to the City's customers may be far less than the
total plant -in-service value. This is because elements of the existing system may have been contributed,
whether from developers, governmental grants, and other sources. Therefore, the net investment by the
customer/owners is less. Second, the value of the existing system to a new customer is less than the value
to an existing customer, since the new customer must also pay, through an improvement fee, for
expansion of some portions of the system.
The method used for determining the reimbursement fee accounts for both points. First, the charge is
based on the net investment in the system, rather than the gross cost. Therefore, donated facilities,
typically including local collector streets, minor arterials, and grant -funded facilities, would be excluded
from the cost basis. Also, the charge should be based on investments clearly made by the current users
of the system, and not already supported by new customers. Tax supported activities fail this test since
funding sources have historically been from general revenues, or from revenues which emanate, at least
in part, from the properties now developing. Second, the cost basis is allocated between used and unused
capacity, and, capacity available to serve growth. This approach reflects the philosophy, consistent with
the City's TSP, that facilities have been sized to meet the demands of the customer base within the
established planning period.
Improvement Fee Methodology
There are three basic approaches used to develop improvement fee SDCs: "standards driven",
"improvements -driven", and "combination/hybrid" approaches. The "standards -driven" approach is
based on the application of Level of Service (LOS) standards for facilities. Facility needs are determined by
applying the LOS standards to projected future demand, as applicable. SDC-eligible amounts are
calculated based on the costs of facilities needed to serve growth. This approach works best where level
of service standards has been adopted but no specific list of projects is available. The "improvements -
driven" approach is based on a specific list of planned capacity increasing capital improvements. The
portion of each project that is attributable to growth is determined, and the SDC-eligible costs are
calculated by dividing the total costs of growth -required projects by the projected increase in projected
future demand, as applicable. This approach works best where a detailed master plan or project list is
available, and the benefits of projects can be readily apportioned between growth and current users.
Finally, the combination/hybrid-approach includes elements of both the "improvements driven" and
"standards -driven" approaches. Level of Service standards may be used to create a list of planned
City of La Pine — 2020 Transportation SDC Update Page 4
capacity -increasing projects, and the growth required portions of projects are then used as the basis for
determining SDC eligible costs. This approach works best where levels of service have been identified and
the benefits of individual projects are not easily apportioned between growth and current users.
This study is using the "improvements -driven" method and has relied on the capital improvement plans
that are incorporated in the 2020 plan updates for transportation services and adopted bythe City Council
via Resolution No. 2020-05 on May 27, 2020.
For this SDC methodology update, the improvement fee represents a proportionate share of the cost to
expand the systems to accommodate growth. This charge is based on the capital improvement plans
established by the City in the master plans for transportation services. The costs that can be applied to
the improvement fees are those that can reasonably be allocable to growth. Statute requires that the
capital improvements used as a basis for the charge be part of an adopted capital improvement schedule,
whether as part of a system plan or independently developed, and that the improvements included for
SDC eligibility be capacity or level of service expanding. The improvement fee is intended to protect
existing customers from the cost burden and impact of expanding a system that is already adequate for
their own needs in the absence of growth.
The key step in determining the improvement fee is identifying capital improvement projects that expand
the system and the share of those projects attributable to growth. Some projects may be entirely
attributable to growth, such as a new street to serve a developing area. Other projects, however, are of
mixed purpose, in that they may expand capacity, but they also improve service or correct a deficiency
for existing customers. An example might be an intersection that both expands transportation collection
system capacity and corrects a chronic capacity issue for existing users. In this case, a rational allocation
basis must be defined.
The improvement portion of the SDC is based on the proportional approach toward capacity and cost
allocation in that only those facilities (or portions of facilities) that either expand the transportation
system capacity to accommodate growth or increase its respective level of performance have been
included in the cost basis of the fee. As part of this SDC update, City Staff and their engineering consultants
were asked to review the planned capital improvement lists to assess SDC eligibility. The criteria in Figure
1 were developed to guide the City's evaluation:
City of La Pine —2020 Transportation SDC Update Page 5
Figure 1 - SDC Eligibility Criteria
City of La Pine
Steps Toward Evaluating
Capital Improvement Lists for SDC Eligibility
ORS 223
1. Capital improvements mean the facilities or assets used for:
a. Transit, intersections, driving, walking, biking, and shared use/path projects
This definition DOES NOT ALLOW costs for operation or routine maintenance of the
improvements.
2. The SDC improvement base shall consider the cost of projected capital improvements
needed to increase the capacity of the systems to which the fee is related.
3. An increase in system capacity is established if a capital improvement increases the
"level of performance or service" provided by existing facilities or provides new
facilities.
Under the City' approach. the following rules will be followed
1. Repair costs are not to be included.
2. Replacement costs will not be included unless the replacement includes an upsizing of
system capacity and/or the level of performance of the facility is increased.
3. New regulatory compliance facility requirements fall under the level of performance
definition and should be proportionately included;
In developing the improvement fee, the project team in consultation with City staff evaluated each of its
high priority CIP projects to exclude costs related to correcting existing system deficiencies or upgrading
for historical lack of capacity. Only capacity increasing/level of performance costs were used as the basis
for the SDC calculation, as reflected in the capital improvement schedules developed by the City. The
improvement fee is calculated as a function of the estimated number of projected additional PMPHVTs
for transportation to be served by the City's facilities over the planning horizon.
Once the future costs to serve growth have been segregated (i.e., the numerator), they can be divided into
the total number of new PMPHVTs that will use the capacity derived from those investments (i.e., the
denominator).
City of La Pine — 2020 Transportation SDC Update Page 6
Methodology for the Granting of Credits, Exemptions, and Discounts
SDC Credits Policy
ORS 223,304 requires that credit be allowed for the construction of a "qualified public improvement"
which is required as a condition of development approval, is identified in the Capital Improvement Plan,
and either is not located on or contiguous to property that is the subject of development approval or is
located on or contiguous to such property and is required to be built larger or with greater capacity than
is necessary for the development project. The credit for a qualified public improvement may only be
applied against an SDC for the same type of improvement and may be granted only for the cost of that
portion of an improvement which exceeds the minimum standard facility size or capacity needed to serve
the project. For multi -phase projects, any excess credit may be applied against SDCs that accrue in
subsequent phases of the original development project. In addition to these required credits, the City
may, if it so chooses, provide a greater credit, establish a system providing for the transferability of credits,
provide a credit for a capital improvement not identified in the Capital Improvement Plan, or provide a
share of the cost of an improvement by other means.
We recommend the City adopt a policy for granting SDC credits and codify this policy through ordinance
or resolution. We recommend the SDC credit policy consist of eight (8) items as follows:
1. A permittee is eligible for credit against the system development charge constructing a
qualified public improvement. This credit shall be only for the improvement fee charged for
the type of improvement being constructed. Credit under this section may be granted only
for the cost of that portion of the improvement that exceeds the facility size or capacity
needed to serve the development project.
2. Applying the adopted methodology, the city may grant a credit against the improvement
charge for capital facilities provided as part of the development that reduces the
development's demand upon existing capital improvements or the need for further capital
improvements or that would otherwise have to be constructed at city expense under the
then -existing council policies.
3. When the construction of a qualified public improvement gives rise to a credit amount greater
than the improvement fee that would otherwise be levied against the project receiving
development approval, the excess credit may be applied against improvement fees that
accrue in subsequent phases of the original development project.
4. All credit requests must be in writing and filed with the city before the issuance of a building
permit. Improvement acceptance shall be in accordance with the usual and customary
practices, procedures, and standards of the city of La Pine. The amount of any credit shall be
determined by the city and based upon the subject improvement construction contract
documents, or other appropriate information, provided by the applicant for the credit. Upon
a finding by the city that the contract amounts exceed prevailing market rate for a similar
project, the credit shall be based upon market rates. The city shall provide the applicant with
a credit on a form provided by the city. The credit shall state the actual dollar amount that
may be applied against any system development charge imposed against the subject
property. The applicant has the burden of demonstrating qualification for a credit.
City of La Pine — 2020 Transportation SDC Update Page 7
5. Credits shall be apportioned against the property which was subject to the requirements to
construct an improvement eligible for credit. Unless otherwise requested, apportionment
against lots or parcels constituting the property shall be proportionate to the anticipated
public facility service requirements generated by the respective lots or parcels. Upon written
application to the city, however, credits shall be reapportioned from any lot or parcel to any
other lot or parcel within the confines of the property originally eligible for the credit.
Reapportionment shall be noted on the original credit form retained by the city.
6. Any credits are assignable; however, they shall apply only to that property subject to the
original condition for land use approval upon which the credit is based or any partitioned or
subdivided parcel or lots of such property to which the credit has been apportioned. Credits
shall only apply against system development charges, are limited to the amount of the fee
attributable to the development of the specific lot or parcel for which the credit is sought and
shall not be a basis for any refund.
7. Any credit request must be submitted before the issuance of a building permit.
8. The applicant is responsible for presentation of any credit and no credit shall be considered
after issuance of a building permit. Credits shall be used by the applicant within 10 years of
their issuance by the city.
Partial and Full SDC Exemptions Policy
The City may exempt certain types of development, from the requirement to pay SDCs. Exemptions
reduce SDC revenues and, therefore, increase the amounts that must come from other sources, such as
user fees and property taxes. As in the case of SDC credits, it is recommended the City have a policy
relative to partial and full SDC exemption. Our recommended SDC exemption policy is as follows:
1. Structures and uses established and existing on or before the effective date of the resolution
establishing the transportation SDC.
2. Additions to single-family dwellings that do not constitute the addition of a dwelling unit, as
defined by the city's building code, are exempt from all portions of the system development
charge.
I An alteration, addition, replacement or change in use that does not increase the parcel's or
structure's use of a capital improvement is exempt from all portions of the system
development charge.
SDC Discount Policy
The City, at its sole discretion may discount the SDC rates by choosing not to charge a reimbursement fee
for excess capacity, or by reducing the portion of growth -required improvements to be funded with SDCs.
A discount in the SDC rates may also be applied on a pro-rata basis to any identified deficiencies, which
must be funded from sources other than improvement fee SDCs. The portion of growth -required costs to
be funded with SDCs must be identified in the CIP. Because discounts reduce SDC revenues, they increase
the amounts that must come from other sources, such as user fees or general fund contributions, in order
to acquire the facilities identified in the Updated Master Plan
City of La Pine — 2020 Transportation SDC Update Page 8
Conclusions and Recommendations
Fee Recommendation
The 2020 transportation SDC methodology update was done in accordance with ORS 223.297-314, and with
the benefit of adopted master plans and plan updates for transportation services. We recommend the City
implement the SDC charge and methodology to reflect the current capital improvement program and to
incorporate the reimbursement fee component. This will provide additional revenues to help fund the
utility's future capital needs. Our analysis indicates the City can charge a maximum of $4,453 per PMPHVT
for transportation. The components of this fee areas follows:
Reimbursementfee.........................................................................................................$ 380
Improvementfee............................................................................................................... 3,861
Administrationfee............................................................................................................. 212
TotalSDC per PMPHVT...................................................................................... 44
Policy for Granting Transportation SDC Credits in La Pine
As part of this engagement, the project team was asked to craft a policy for City Staff to use when
transportation SDC credit applications are submitted by developers. Itemized below is our policy guidance
for Staff to use for granting such SDC credits.
The City may grant a credit against the transportation SDC, which is otherwise assessed for a new
development, for eligible capital improvements constructed or dedicated as part of the new development.
State stature clearly states this credit shall be only for the improvement fee charged for the type of
improvement being constructed. In all cases, the applicant bears the burden of evidence and persuasion
in establishing entitlement to a transportation SDC credit and to a particular value of SDC credit.
Any credits are assignable; however, they shall apply only to that property subject to the original condition
for land use approval upon which the credit is based or any partitioned or subdivided parcel or lots of such
property to which the credit has been apportioned. Credits shall only apply against system development
charges, are limited to the amount of the fee attributable to the development of the specific lot or parcel
for which the credit is sought and shall not be a basis for any refund.
To obtain an SDC credit, the applicant must specifically request a credit within 180 days after building
permit issuance for the new development. In the request, the applicant must identify the improvement(s)
for which credit is sought and explain how the improvement(s) meet the requirements for a qualified
City of la Pine — 2020 Transportation SDC Update Page 9
public improvement or other eligible improvement pursuant to ORS 223.304. The applicant shall also
document, with credible evidence, the value of the improvement(s) for which credit is sought, as follows:
1. For dedicated lands, value shall be based upon a written appraisal of fair market value by a
qualified, professional appraiser based upon comparable sales of similar property between
unrelated parties in an arms -length transaction.
2. For improvements yet to be constructed, value shall be based upon the anticipated cost of
construction. Any such cost estimates shall be certified by a professional architect or engineer or
based on a fixed price bid from a contractor ready and able to construct the improvement(s) for
which SDC credit is sought.
3. For improvements already constructed, value shall be based on the actual cost of construction as
verified by receipts submitted by the applicant.
If, in the Public Works Director's opinion, the improvement(s) are qualified public improvements, and the
Public Works Director concurs with the proposed value of the improvement(s), an SDC credit shall be
determined by the Public Works Director as follows:
1. For improvements on or contiguous to the new development site, only the costs for the over-
capacity portion of the improvement as described in the definition of qualified public
improvement are eligible for SDC credit. There is an inherent presumption that improvements
built to the City's minimum standards are required to serve the applicant's new development and
to mitigate for transportation system impacts attributable to the applicant's new development.
2. For qualified public improvements not located on or contiguous to the new development site, the
full cost of the improvement may be eligible for SDC credit.
The Public Works Director may grant credit for all or a portion of the costs of capital improvements
constructed or dedicated as part of the new development that do not meet the requirements of qualified
public improvements, provided that the improvements are listed on the City's transportation SDC project
list. In such case, the Public Works Director may determine what portion of the costs are eligible for SDC
credit.
Granting SDC credits to new development prior to commencing construction of new development. When
an eligible improvement is built by a developer prior to an applicant applying for building permits for the
new development, the City may grant a credit for any eligible improvement(s). Credits issued are pursuant
to the following requirements and conditions:
1. The developer must specifically request a credit prior to the first application for a building permit,
but after the issuance of the public works/land use order or permit for the eligible improvement.
2. For improvements yet to be constructed, the developer shall provide the City with an enforceable
mechanism to guarantee completion of the eligible improvement, either in the form of a
performance bond or other financial guarantee acceptable to the Public Works Director; and
3. The developer shall submit written confirmation to the Public Works Director on the form
provided acknowledging: (1) That SDC credits issued pursuant to this policy are in lieu of any
other credits that could be claimed by the developer or other applicants on account of the eligible
improvement; and (2) that it is the developer's obligation to advise subsequent applicants of the
City of La Pine — 2020 Transportation SDC Update Page 10
new development that SDC credits associated with the eligible improvement have already been
issued and that no further credits are available.
Indexing Transportation SDCs for Inflation
Finally, we recommend the City adopt a policy of reviewing its suite of SDCs every five years. Between the
review dates, the city should apply a cost adjustment index to the SDC rates annually to reflect changes in
costs for land and construction. This policy should be codified in the La Pine Municipal Code. We suggest the
City consider the following language for that code change:
1. Notwithstanding any other provision, the dollar amounts of the SDC set forth in the SDC
methodology report shall on January 1" of each year be adjusted to account for changes in the
costs of acquiring and constructing facilities. The adjustment factor shall be based on:
a. The change in construction costs according to the Engineering News Record (ENR) 20-City
Average Construction Cost Index (CCI).
b. The system development charges adjustment factor shall be used to adjust the system
development charges, unless they are otherwise adjusted by the city based on a change in
the costs of materials, labor, or real property, or adoption of an updated methodology.
City of La Pine — 2020 Transportation SDC Update Page 11
Appendix A
SDC Calculations
City of La Pine — 2020 Transportation SDC Update Page 12
Transportation SDC Calculations
Existing and Future Transportation Demands in PMPHVTs
Demand for transportation facilities is measured in PMPHVTs. One PMPHVT represents one person
beginning or ending a vehicular trip at a certain property during the afternoon rush hour. Based on data
from the 2020 TSP refinement, and from the additional work done by Transight Engineering on behalf of
the City, we estimate the transportation system is currently serving 2,867 PMPHVTs. The statistical
process that was used to arrive at the current and 2040 demand is attached in Appendix B. We are
estimating the City's transportation system will serve 5,015 PMPHVTs in 2040. These estimates imply
growth of 2,148 PMPHVTs over the planning period, as shown in Table 3. A graphic rendering of existing
and growth PMPHVTs is shown below in Figure 2.
Figure 2
City of La Pine —2020 Transportation SDC Update Page 13
N v1 Ln M tw
to
N a
OO
O a
a
a
tA
C
M
C
f0
E
N
rq gr M g
1N Lnj
M
o G r4 c .; .4 r4
O^1 ^Lroq (n LSD CLn 00
W-4 Ln cn
1 fy
fM N MI N
fV
p ry
Er
rl
9-
S
a
a
c
S
r
�
3
v
N
c
o
m
o
°1
a
t
o.
fi
M
N
F
d
W
N
7
+•
0
c
c
_
`�
y
'o
a
on
d a�i a
c
a�i
a
Q
h w
C9
O
S
a x
�d
E
i
LU
u°
Transportation Reimbursement Fee Calculations
Derivation of the transportation reimbursement fee methodology is a six (6) step process. The
methodological steps in its construction are restated here.
Step 1: Calculate the original cost of transportation fixed assets in service. From this starting point,
eliminate any assets that do not conform to the ORS 223.299 definition of a capital
improvement. This results in the adjusted original cost of transportation fixed assets.
Step 2: Subtract from the adjusted original cost of transportation fixed assets in service the
accumulated depreciation of those fixed assets. This arrives at the modified book value of
transportation fixed assets in service.
Step 3: Subtract from the modified book value of transportation assets in service any grant funding
or contributed capital. This arrives at the modified book value of transportation fixed assets
in service net of grants and contributed capital.
Step 4: Subtract from the modified book value of transportation fixed assets in service net of grants
and contributed capital any principal outstanding on long term debt used to finance those
assets. This arrives a gross transportation reimbursement fee basis.
Step 5: Subtract from the gross transportation reimbursement fee basis the fund balance held in the
Transportation Reimbursement SDC fund (if available). This arrives at the net transportation
reimbursement fee basis.
Step 6: Divide the net transportation reimbursement fee basis by the sum of existing and future
PMPHVTs to arrive at the unit net reimbursement fee.
The actual data that was used to calculate the total transportation reimbursement fee is shown below in
Table 4.
City of La Pine — 2020 Transportation SDC Update Page 15
Table 4 - Transportation Reimbursement Fee Calculations
Transportation Utility Plant -in -Service (original cost):'
Land, Easements & Right of Way $
Land improvements
Street improvements and Construction 6,617,873
Tools and Equipment eliminated
Construction Work -in -Progress -
Total Utility Plant -in -Service $ 6,617,873
Accumulated depreciation'
Land, Easements & Right of Way -
Land improvements -
Street improvements and Construction 4,711,000
Tools and Equipment eliminated
Construction Work -in -Progress -
Total accumulated depreciation 4,711,000
Book value of transportation utility plant -in-service @ June 30, 2018 $ 1,906,873
Eliminating entries:
Principal outstanding on bonds, notes, and loans payable
Contributed Capital:
Urban renewal TIF net of depreciation and amortization -
Grants net of depreciation and amortization -
Developer contributions net of depreciation and amortization -
Total eliminating entries -
Net basis in transportation utility plant -in-service available to serve future customers $ 1,906,873
Estimated existing and future pm peak hourvehicle trips: 5,015
Transportation reimbursement fee per PM peak hourvehicle trip $380
1 Source: La Pine Accounting Summary Report - Capitalized Assets as of June 30, 2019
City of La Pine —2020 Transportation SDC Update Page 16
E
N O
N U
N v
T a
m
L
O `
® m
Li
N
O
N D
F-
O
Z C
c a
O Q7
+� N
E
v a
m
"> a
c c
v
c° aEi
� O
U p•
a E
r -
a
0
tko
0)
u
v
N
0
u
n S2 Q k° 86
fl �
o a
ih N
Tts �Ln
8g77p�p��pp lo�o��o �p�p� 06ffi
C a n f 1 06
u U) IT N r! In ," 11 H N
N
LO
LO
ONO m 1A M LT IJ1 N m .�-1 Ih O M M lm to pp M
V of I� M .-1 f� M ttDD V N fV 1!1 O N V1 m
Vl L '-1 N N to rl rl ,-1" .ti N' m
t4 pq �01 8 S pp pq 8 8 oq 8 AA.
M in �j N N r M
C N •-� N � � N
m O tD l q ari tD D O m h O N c~1 M O N t9f m tD lND 8 .�- M
t� N
m 01 01
E C m �-i eM pp �tpp
N N d to w M 00 �n lfl rl N Q n lA ei 00 . l w rl N M N
w U -O �-1 N N N N' ei N
ro ,�
c
a a
a FT� F- t- r r f- r F� E E E E E E E F. i- r. r r rF-
`m m `m A `m `m c `m `m `m 3 0 022 2 o c c c c c c m c c c
a a a a a a a a a O a a a a v v 'O '13 '0 � 0 Q O O O O JO Z- S
O z z z z z z z z J z z z z C p� C c C C J J J J
CL C LC 66 CC CC CC
7
O
m
m
9
C
7
O
E9
a
Z w E c a
c
;a3 i m cco
oC O N m u
a m a
z 3 �, N a oac E v'
z
3 €€ ro ii a
m In
o a s c o a ro c
a a N
74
m' oe °�o m aai E aai °� m ro �° v N c° c° c �°' LL S d ° v ° °�' +M
E c c3
m y aTi f6 c"n y m CA
n`o c c_ m a H
a Y c H c Y _.. 'O 13 La to N C 7 7 a u D ._
iz to 2 .-+ iL a 3 M` An
N m 2 2 ii 3 an N 2 2 S oc c`� a oc
O
z t!1 ryry
t H N M iF u1 t0 f- 00 01 N eN-I M-i N .-i .�-1 .ri ,�-I ti N N N N N N N N N N M
Au
.o
a
a
u
.0
r
Yl
W
r
C
W
E
4)
O
a
E
N
N
O
V
L
41
m
N
G/
`m
_N
r
vi
m
d
67
aci
E
d
0
a
E
c
.2
y
L
O
Q
N
G
m
C
4!
N
r
;4 N to
O. Q. O.
(v +(+ +O+
V) N N
ai
a�
V
c
d
E
a
O
V
a
E
c
O
C.
C
m
m+`
O
0J
t
N
m
7,
a
(U
r
V) B
Z. m
U w O
O U U
27 �
.O
c
LL
41
m
E
o
W U
75
H
ui
N
Ne4 N
00
z.
n
M
in
N' f4
d'
FP
7i;
to T
cd
� N
�p
i Ll1
rn
M
in
00
Ln
N
N
g
I
{ 00
MAI
rn
N
Do 1 00
W
c
as
E
>
O
a a+
E o
.- N
O M
a v
N c
O 0
y, O
4 y
O u
m
s0
.a
c
my
d Ln
G1 N
c
O
C f�0
E 0
O
y a
O m
a
E
y
m aJ
H
S
a
2
o.
N
a
v
aj
c
d
E
w
O
O.
E
c
O
t
O
Q.
c
H
Transportation SDC Model Summary
The 2020 transportation SDC methodology update was done in accordance with State law and with the
benefit of adopted capital improvement plans and plan updates for transportation services. We recommend
the City update the SDC charge and methodology to reflect the current capital improvement program. Our
analysis indicates the City can charge a maximum of $4,453 per PMPHVT. To charge the appropriate SDC,
the City must estimate how many PMPHVTs will be generated by the development in question. That
number can then be multiplied by $4,453 to determine the amount of SDC owed by new development
projects.
The number of PMPHVTs that a property will generate is a function of the increase in scope and scale of
activities that will occur on that property. By "scope of activities," we mean land use. For example, a new
single-family residence will generate trip -ends differently from a new retail store of the same size. By
"scale of activities," we mean some measure of quantity. For residential land uses, the number of dwelling
units is an appropriate measure of scale. For many commercial and industrial land uses, building floor
area is the best measure. For example, a 20,000-square-foot store is likely to generate twice the number
of trip -ends as a 10,000-square-foot store of the same type. Table 7 presents proposed transportation
SDCs per unit of scale for several land uses in the 9th edition of Trip Generation Manual, published by the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (iTE):
City of La Pine — 2020 Transportation SDC Update Page Zl
Table 7 - Transportation SDCs by Sample ITE Code
Primary
ITE Code
Land Use
Trip Ends
Improve.
Reimb. Compliance
TotaISDC Basis for Calculating a Customer'sSDC
Port and Terminal (Land Uses 000-099)
O10
Waterport/Marine Terminal*
17.15
66,224
6,522
3,637
76,383 Berth
021
Commercial Airport
5.75
22,201
2,186
1,219
25,606 Average flights per day
022
General Aviation Airport
1.57
6,062
597
333
6,992 Employee
030
Intermodal Truck Terminal
1.87
7,220
711
397
8,328 1,000square feet ofgross floor area
090
Park -an -Ride Lot with Bus Service
0.43
1,660
163
91
1,915 Parkingspace
093
Light Rail Transit Station with Parking
1.24
4,788
471
263
5,522 Parking space
Industrial
(Land Uses 100.199)
110
General light industrial
0.63
2,432
240
134
2,806 1,000square feet ofgross floor area
120
General heavy industrial
0.68
2,625
259
144
3,028 1,000 square feet ofgross floor area
130
Industrial park
0.40
1,544
152
85
1,781 1,OOOsquarefeet ofgross floor area
140
Manufacturing
0.67
2,587
255
142
2,984 1,000square feet of gross floor area
150
Warehousing
0.19
734
72
40
846 1,000square feetofgross floorarea
151
Mini -warehouse
0.17
656
65
36
757 1,000squarefeetofgrossfloorarea
154
High -Cube transload &short-term warehouse
0.10
386
38
21
445 1,000squarefeet ofgrossfloorarea
155
High -Cube fulfillment centerwarehouse
1.37
5,290
521
291
6,101 1,OOOsquarefeet ofgrossfloor area
156
High -Cube Parcel hub warehouse
0.64
2,471
243
136
2,850 1,000square feet ofgross floor area
157
High -Cube cold storage warehouse
0.12
463
46
25
534 1,000square feet of gross floor area
160
Data center
0.09
347
34
19
401 1,000squarefeet ofgrossfloor area
170
Utilities
2.27
8,764
863
481
10,109 1,000squarefeet ofgrossfloorarea
180
Specialty trade contractor
1.97
7,606
749
418
8,773 1,000square feet ofgross floor area
Residential (Land Uses 200.299)
210
Single family detached housing
0.99
3,822
376
210
4,409 Dwelling unit
220
Apartment
0.56
2,162
213
119
2,494 Dwelling unit
221
Low -Rise Apartment
0.44
1,699
167
93
1,959 Dwelling unit
222
High -Rise Apartment
0.36
1,390
137
76
1,603 Dwelling unit
225
Off -Campus studen apartment
0.25
965
95
53
1,113 Dwelling unit
231
Mid -Rise residential w/15t-floor commercial
0.36
1,390
137
76
1,603 Dwelling unit
232
High -Rise Residentialw/1st-floor commercial
0.21
811
80
45
935 Dwelling unit
240
Mobile home park
0.46
1,776
175
98
2,049 Dwelling unit
251
Senior Adult Housing - Detatched
0.30
1,158
114
64
1,336 Dwelling unit
252
Senior Adult Housing - Attached
0.26
1,004
99
55
1,158 Dwelling unit
253
Congregate Care Facility
0.18
695
68
38
802 Dwelling unit
254
Assisted living
0.26
1,004
99
55
1,158 Bed
255
Continuing Care Retirement Community
0.16
618
61
34
713 Unit
260
Recreational Homes
0.29
1,081
106
59
1,247 Dwelling unit
265
Timeshare
0.63
2,432
240
134
2,806 Dwelling unit
270
Residential Planned Unit Development
0.69
2,664
262
146
3,073 Dwelling unit
Lodging (Land Uses 300-399)
310
Hotel
0.60
2,317
228
127
2,672 Room
311
All Suites Hotel
0.36
1,390
137
76
1,603 Room
312
Business Hotel
0.32
1,236
122
68
1,425 Occupied Room
320
Motel
0.38
1,467
144
81
1,692 Room
330
Resort Hotel
0.41
1,583
156
87
1,826 Room
City of La Pine - 2020 Transportation SDC Update Page 22
Table 7 Continued - Transportation SDCs by Sample ITE Code
Primary
ITE Code
Land Use
Trip Ends
Improve.
Reimb. Compliance
TotaISDC Basis for Calculating a Customer'sSDC
Recreational (Land Uses 400-499)
411
Public park
0.12
425
42
23
490 Acre
416
Campground/Recreational Vehicle Park
0.98
3,784
373
208
4,364 Acre
420
Marina
0.21
811
80
45
935 Berth
430
Golfcourse
2.91
11,236
1,106
617
12,959 Hole
431
Miniature Golf Course
0.33
1,274
125
70
1,470 Hole
432
Golf Driving Range
1.25
4,826
475
265
5,567 Tees/Driving Position
433
Batting Cages
2.22
8,571
844
471
9,886 Cage
434
Rock climbing gym
1.64
6,332
624
348
7,303 1,000squarefeet ofgross floor area
435
Multipurpose Recreational Facility
3.58
13,822
1,361
759
15,943 1,000square feet of gross floor area
436
Trampoline park
1.50
5,792
570
318
6,680 1,000square feetof gross floor area
437
Bowling Ailey
1.30
5,019
494
276
5,789 Bowling lane
440
Adult Cabaret
2.93
11,313
1,114
621
13,048 1,000 square feet of gross floor area
444
Movie Theaterwith Matinee - Friday pm peak hou
6.17
23,822
2,346
1,308
27,477 1,000 square feet of gross floor area
445
Multiplex Movie Theater- Friday pm peak hour
4.91
18,958
1,867
1,041
21,866 1,000square feet of gross floor area
452
Horse Racetrack
0.06
232
23
13
267 Seat
453
Automobile Racetrack - Saturday peak hour
0.28
1,081
106
59
1,247 Attendee
454
Dog Racetrack
0.15
579
57
32
668 Attendee
460
Arena'
0.47
1,815
179
LOD
2,093 1,000square feet of gross floor area
462
Professional baseball stadium
0.15
579
57
32
668 Attendee
465
Ice Skating Rink
1.33
5,135
506
282
5,923 1,000square feet of gross floorarea
466
Snow Ski Area
26.00
100,386
9,886
5,514
115,785 Slopes
470
Bingo hall
0.82
3,166
312
174
3,652 Attendee
473
Casino/Video Lottery Establishment
13.49
52,085
5,129
2,861
60,075 1,ODDsquare feet of gross floor area
480
Amusement Park
3.95
15,251
1,502
838
17,590 Acre
482
Waterslidepark Saturday peak hourgenerator
22.92
88,494
8,715
4,860
102,069 Acre
488
SoccerComplex
16.43
63,436
6,247
3,484
73,167 Field
490
Tennis Courts
4.21
16,255
1,601
893
18,748 Court
491
Racquet/Tennis Club
3.82
14,749
1,452
810
17,012 Court
492
Health/Fitness Club
3.45
13,320
1,312
732
15,364 1,ODDsquare feet of gross floor area
493
Athletic Club
6.29
24,286
2,392
1,334
28,011 1,000square feet of gross floor area
495
Recreational Community Center
2.31
8,919
878
490
10,287 1,000square feet of gross floor area
Institutional (Land Uses 500.599)
501
Military Base
0.39
1,5D6
148
83
1,737 Employee
520
Elementary School
1.37
5,290
521
291
6,101 1,000square feet of gross floor area
522
Middle5chool/Junior High School
1.19
4,595
452
252
5,299 1,000 square feet of gross floor area
530
High School
0.97
3,745
369
206
4,320 1,000square feet of gross floor area
534
Private School (K-8)-pmpeak hour generator
6.53
25,212
2,483
1,385
29,080 1,000square feet of gross floor area
536
Private School (K-12)-pmpeak hour generator
5.50
21,236
2,091
1,166
24,493 S,ODOsquarefeet ofgross floor area
537
Charter elementary school
4.96
19,151
1,886
1,052
22,088 1,ODO square feet of gross floor area
537
School district office
2.04
7,876
776
433
9,085 1,ODO square feet of gross floor area
540
Junior/Community College
1,86
7,181
707
394
8,283 1,000 square feet of gross floor area
550
University/College
1.17
4,517
445
248
5,210 1,000 square feet of gross floor area
560
Church
0.49
1,892
186
104
2,182 1,000 square feet of gross floor area
561
Synagogue - Friday
2.92
11,274
1,110
619
13,004 1,000 square feet of gross floor area
562
Mosque - Friday
4.22
16,293
1,605
895
18,793 1,ODO square feet of gross floor area
565
Day Care Center
4.89
18,891
1,860
1,038
21,789 1,000 square feet of gross floor area
566
Cemetary
0.46
1,776
175
98
2,D49 Acres
571
Prison
2.91
11,236
1,106
617
12,959 1,000 square feet of gross floor area
575
Fire and rescue station
0.48
1,853
183
102
2,138 1,000 square feet of gross floor area
580
Museum
0.18
695
68
38
802 1,000 square feet of gross floor area
590
Library
8.16
31,506
3,103
1,730
36,339 1,000 square feet of gross floor area
City of La Pine - 2020 Transportation SDC Update Page 23
Table 7 Continued - Transportation SDCs by Sample ITE Code
Primary
ITE Code
Land Use .-.
Trip Ends
Improve.
Reimb. Compliance
TotaISDC Basis for Calculating a Customer'sSDC
Medical (Land
Uses 604699)
610
Hospital
0.97
3,745
369
206
4,320 1,000square feet ofgross floor area
620
Nursing Home
0.59
2,278
224
125
2,627 1,000square feet ofgross floorarea
630
Clinic
3.28
12,664
1,247
696
14,607 1,000square feet ofgross floor area
640
Animal Hospital/Veterinary Clinic
3.53
13,629
1,342
749
15,720 1,000square feetofgrossfloorarea
650
Free -Standing emergency room
1.52
5,869
578
322
6,769 1,000 square feet ofgross floorarea
Office (Land Uses700.799)
710
General office building
115
4,440
437
244
5,121 1,000square feet ofgrossfloor area
712
Small office building
2.45
9,459
932
520 F
10,911 1,000 square feet ofgross floor area
714
Corporate Headquarters Building
0.60
2,317
228
127
2,672 1, 000 squ are feet of gross floor a rea
715
Single Tenant Office Building
171
6,602
650
363
7,615 1, 000 squ are feet of gros s floor a rea
720
Medical -dental office building
3.46
13,359
1,316
734
15,408 1,ODO square feet ofgross floorarea
730
Government Office Building
1.71
6,602
650
363
7,615 1,000squarefeet ofgrossfioorarea
731
State Motor Vehicles Department
5.20
20,077
1,977
1,103
23,157 1,ODOsquare feet ofgross floorarea
732
United States Post Office
11.21
43,282
4,262
2,377
49,921 1,000square feet ofgross floorarea
733
Government Office Complex
2.82
10,888
1,072
598
12,558 1,000square feet ofgross floorarea
750
Office park
1.07
4,131
407
227
4,765 S,ODOsquare feet ofgross floor area
760
Research and development center
0.49
2,892
186
104
2,182 1,0DDsquare feet of gross floor area
770
Business park
0.42
1,622
160
89
1,870 1,000 square feet ofgross floorarea
Retail (Land Uses 800.999)
810
Tractor5upplyStore
1.40
5,405
532
297
6,235 1,0D0 square feet ofgross floor area
811
Construction Equipment Rental Store
0.99
3,822
376
210
4,409 1,000square feet ofgrossfloorarea
812
Building Materials and Lumber Store
2.06
7,954
783
437
9,174 1,000 square feet of gross floorarea
813
Free Standing Discount5uper5tore
3.07
11,870
1,169
652
13,691 1,ODOsquare feet ofgrossfloorarea
814
Variety Stoe
4.51
17,430
1,716
957
20,104 1,000 square feet of gross floor area
815
Free Standing Discount Store
2.31
8,905
877-
489
10,271 1,000 square feet of gross floor area
816
Hardware/Paint Store
1.19
4,605
453
253
5,311 1,000 square feet of gross floor area
817
Nursery (Garden Center)
6.94
26,795
2,639
1,472
30,906 1,000 square feet of gross floor area
818
Nursery(Wholesale)
5.18
20,000
1,970
1,098
23,068 1,000square feet ofgross floorarea
820
Shopping Center
1.91
7,376
726
405
8,507 1,0D0 square feet of gross leasable area
823
Factory Outlet Center
2.29
8,842
871
486
10,198 1,0D0 square feet of gross floor area
840
Automobile Sales (New)
2.43
9,382
924
515
10,821 1,ODosquarefeet ofgrossfloor area
841
Automobile Sales (Used)
3.75
14,479
1,426
795
16,700 1,0D0 square feet ofgross floor area
942
Recreational Vehicle Sales
0.77
2,973
293
163
3,429 1,000 square feet of gross floor area
943
Automobile Parts Sales
7.16
8,341
821
458
9,621 1,000 square feet of gross floor area
848
Tire Store
2.73
10,552
1,039
580
12,171 1,000 square feet ofgross floor area
849
Tire Superstore
2.11
8,147
802
447
9,396 1,000 square feet of gross floor area
850
Supermarket
3.58
13,824
1,361
759
15,945 1,000 square feet ofgross floor area
851
Convenience Market
20.88
80,636
7,941
4,429
93,005 S,ODOsquarefeet ofgrossfloorarea
853
Convenience Market with Gasoline Pumps
7.98
30,830
3,036
1,693
35,559 S,000squarefeet ofgrossfloorarea
854
Discount Supermarket
4.68
18,054
1,778
992
20,824 1,000 square feet of gross floor area
857
Discount Club
2.63
10,168
1,001
558
11,727 1,000square feet ofgross floor area
858
Farmers market - weekday pm peak hour
179.84
694,362
68,379
38,137 f
800,878 Acres
860
Wholesale Market
1.76
6,795
669
373
7,838 5,000squarefeet ofgrossfloorarea
861
Sporting Goods Superstore
2.02
7,799
768
428
8,996 1,000square feet ofgross floorarea
862
Home Improvement Superstore
111
4,679
461
257
5,396 1,000square feet of gross floorarea
863
Electronics Superstore
1.15
4,441
437
244
5,122 1,OODsquarefeet ofgross floor area
864
Toy/Children'sSuperstore
5.00
19,305
1,901
1,060
22,266 S,OODsquarefeet ofgrossfloor area
865
Baby Superstore
1.82
7,027
692
386
8,105 1,000 square feet of gross floor area
866
Pet Supply Superstore
3.55
13,707
1,350
753
15,809 1,ODOsquare feet ofgross floor area
857
Office Supply Superstore
2.77
10,695
1,053
587
12,336 1,0D0 square feet of gross floor area
868
Book Superstore
15.83
61,120
6,019
3,357
70,495 1,000 square feet of gross floor area
869
Discount Home Furnishing Superstore
1.57
6,062
597
333
6,992 1,000 square feet of gross floor area
872
Bed'and Linen Superstore
2.22
8,571
844
471
9,886 1,OOosquarefeet ofgrossfloorarea
875
Department Store
1.95
7,529
741
414
8,684 1,0D0square feet ofgrossfloor area
876
Apparel Store
4.12
15,907
1,567
874
18,348 1,OM square feet of gross floor area
879
Arts and Crafts Store
6.21
23,977
2,361
1,317
27,655 1,000square feet of gross floor area
990
Pharmacy/Drugstore without Drive -Through
3.60
13,910
1,370
764
16,043 1,000 square feet ofgross floor area
981
Pharmacy/Drugstore with Drive -Through
3.91
15,097
1,487
829
17,413 1,000square feet ofgross floor area
882
Marijuana Dispensary
21.83
84,286
8,300
4,629
97,215 1,000square feet ofgross floor area
890
Furniture Store
0.19
736
72
40
849 1,ODO square feet of gross floor area
895
Beverage container recycling depot -PM peakhr
10.10
38,996
3,840
2,142
44,978 1,000 square feet of gross floor area
897
Medical Equipment Store
1.24
4,788
471
263
5,522 1,OOpsquare feet ofgross floor area
899
Liquor store
16.37
63,205
6,224
3,471
72,900 1,000 square feet of gross floor area
City of La Pine - 2020 Transportation SDC Update Page 24
Table 7 Continued - Transportation SDCs by Sample ITE Code
Primary
ITE Code
Land Use
Trip Ends
Improve.
Reimb. Compliance
Total$DC Basis for Calculating a Customer'sSDC
Services (Land
Uses9OD-999)
911
Walk -In Bank
12.13
46,834
4,612
2,572
54,018 1,000square feet of gross floor area
912
Drive-in Bank
11.40
44,028
4,336
2,418
50,782 1,000squarefeet ofgrossfloorarea
918
Hair Salon
1.45
5,598
551
307
6,457 S,000squarefeet ofgrossfloor area
920
Copy, Print and Express Ship Store
7.42
28,649
2,821
1,573
33,043 1,000square feet of gross floor area
925
Drinking Place
11,36
43,861
4,319
2,409
50,589 1,000square feet of gross floorarea
926
Food Cart Pod
3.08
11,892
1,171
653
13,716 Food Cart
930
Fast Casual Restaurant
14.13
54,556
5,373
2,996
62,925 S,OODsquare feet ofgross floor area
931
Quality Restaurant
3.32
12,799
1,260
703
14,763 1,000square feet of gross floor area
932
High -Turnover (Sit Down) Restaurant
3.88
14,994
1,477
824
17,295 1,000 square feet of gross floor area
933
Fast-food restaurant without drive -through
11.27
43,495
4,283
2,389
50,167 1,000 square feet of gross floor area
934
Fast-food restaurant with drive -through
13.38
51,647
5,086
2,837
59,570 1,000square feet of gross floor area
935
Fast-food restaurant with drive -through and no in(
4.69
18,114
1,784
995
20,893 1,000square feet of gross floor area
936
Coffee/donut shop without drive -through
14.43
55,727
5,488
3,061
64,275 5,000squarefeet ofgross floor area
937
Coffee/donut shop with drive -through
4.77
18,424
1,814
1,012
21,250 1,000squarefeet ofgrossfioorarea
938
Coffee/donutkiosk
9.17
35,391
3,485
1,944
40,820 1,000square feet ofgross floor area
939
Bread/Donut/Bagel Shop without Drive-ThroughU
28.00
108,108
10,646
5,938
124,692 1,000square feet of gross floor area
940
Bread/Donut/Bagel Shop with Drive -Through Win(
19.02
73,436
7,232
4,033
84,701 1,000square feet of gross floor area
941
Quick Lubrication Vehicle Shop
8.70
33,591
3,308
1,845
38,744 Servicing Position
942
Automobile Care Center
3,11
12,008
1,182
660
13,850 1,000sq, ft. of occupied gross leasable area
943
Automobile Parts and Service Center
2,26
8,726
859
479
10,064 S,ODDsquarefeet ofgross floor area
944
Gasoline/service station
38.24
147,662
14,541
8,110
170,314 1,000 square feet of gross floor area
945
Gasoline/service station with convenience market
11.29
43,587
4,292
2,394
50,274 1,000 square feet ofgross floor area
947
Self -Service Car Wash
5.54
21,390
2,106
1,175
24,671 Wash stall
948
Automated Car Wash
13.60
52,510
5,171
2,884
60,565 Wash stall
949
Car Wash and Detail Center
14.20
54,826
5,399
3,011
63,237 1,000square feet of gross floor area
950
Truck Stop
22.73
87,761
8,642
4,820
101,223 1,000square feet of gross floor area
960
Super Convenience Market/Gas Station
69.28
267,490
26,342
14,692
308,523 1,000square feet of gross floor area
970
Winery
7.31
28,224
2,779
1,550
32,553 1,000square feet ofgross floor area
No ITE PM peak hourtrip generation for this code/category, the trip generation shown is ITE weekday average divided by ten.
Source: ITE, Trip Generation Manual, 10th edition
PM peak vehicle trips expressed in trip ends on a weekday, peak hour ofodjacentstreet traffic, one hour, between 4:00 pm and 6:00 pm unless otherwise noted
City of La Pine - 2020 Transportation SDC Update Page 25
A®A
E
0
u
A
IA
u
C
N
fC
i
N
a,
�c
a
.E
m
LL
G
Vf
t0
O
-a 'O d% i N 41
_ f6 C
N O > N O o
m M c in
G1
t10
m
C
L
0
E
L
0
.6.1
tn
0
0
0
O
O
a-i
a
3
a
O
O
O
Lri
-Ln
G!
o
In
m
o.
U
0
tA
0
t
0
a
N
O
N
w
a
m
0
u
N
4
4J
aJ
v
L
0
V
Q
H
I
d
.E
m
W6
10
ba
c
N
O
O
00
i^
"o
G
a
m
a
L
a
H
O
a
0
a
v
C
a
J
r
O
C
a
c
E
J
O
O
O
110
in
O
O
O
qct
V1.
T
PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip
Forecasting Methodology
City of La Pine — 2020 Transportation SDC Update Page 28
2020 Transight Engineering, LLC PMPHVT Forecasting Methodology
Ab
TRAN SIGHT
>C�NSULTING,LLO
I,un �F>nrtnhon hngu-61,0 and H! nmq Fo,WV,;n
Date: April 28, 2020
To: Melissa Bethel, La Pine City Manager
Steve Donovan, Donovan Enterprises r ON- f
From: Joe Bessman, PE �or°a�GOt�f'f
Project Reference No.: 1402 v
Project Name: City of La Pine TSDC Methodology
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide information on the future weekday p.m. trips for use in
the City of La Pine's calculations of Transportation System Development Charges (TSDC). Prior to the
City's 2005 inception, development within the unincorporated La Pine Community was subject to
Deschutes County's TSDC. However, once La Pine incorporated the County determined that it could not
continue to assess these fees within City limits despite many of the paved roads remaining under
Deschutes County jurisdiction.
Typically, a City's TSDC is developed from a listing of capacity -improving transportation projects that are
necessary to support 20 years of population and employment growth. The cost of these projects is
proportioned based on anticipated State, County, and federal funding. This remaining cost is then
divided by the total number of additional trips that are anticipated to be generated within this
timeframe, so that growth pays for the needed system capacity improvements. By statute, these costs
or associated funds cannot be applied to other system needs, such as existing deficiencies, safety
improvements, sidewalk infill, or roadway maintenance. The idea is that projects are already needed by
current residents orthat benefit the entire community should not be solely borne by development but
shared more broadly through other forms of revenue.
This memorandum describes the proposed methodology to identify "growth trips" within the City of La
Pine through the planning horizon.
Growth Trips
The primary factors that need to be accounted for in determining the number of growth trips are the
questions of what is being measured and when is it being measured to.
Time Period
An agency has discretion to adopt various trip metrics to apply in their SDC calculations. Throughout the
State these are most commonly based on the number of weekday daily trips or the number of weekday
City of La Pine — 2020 Transportation SDC Update Page 29
p.m. peak hour trips. Throughout Central Oregon all of the agencies consistently assess impacts based
on the number of weekday p.m. peak hour trips. The advantages of this methodology are as follows:
• Throughout Central Oregon the weekday p.m. peak hour (single hour with the highest total
entering traffic between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.) is the time period that the area experiences
peak travel volumes on the transportation system. Accordingly, the sizing of transportation
facilities within Transportation System Plans, Corridor Plans, and Refinement Plans typically assess
conditions during this peak travel period. Use of weekday p.m. peak hour data maintains an
alignment between planning efforts and project needs.
• The regional travel demand models for Central Oregon contain the most complete data around
the evening commute period and are the most calibrated for this time period. These models are
used to assess growth on major City, County, and State corridors.
• The selection of the weekday p.m. peak hour allows agencies to leverage a more complete dataset
of development trip rates. The ITE Trip Generation Manual, which is applied to identify the
number of trips for a given development type and scale, includes more data across the most
available land uses for the weekday p.m. peak hour.
• In addition to a more complete set of trip rates, the weekday p.m. peak hour also contains
substantially more data on other types of trip characteristics such as pass -by and diverted trips.
These are trips that are already on the system that may only have an impact at driveways or within
the immediate project area.
• While some agencies within Oregon have elected to assess SDC fees based on weekday daily trips,
the extended data collection requirements incur much higher costs to appeal standard ITE-based
fees for unique land uses. Data collection for a more limited time period is easier to assemble.
The primary disadvantage of the use of weekday p.m. peak hour data is off-peak uses, such as movie
theaters, breakfast and lunch -oriented cafes, churches, and schools operate at a significantly reduced
capacity during the evening commute period. Prior studies within La Pine have identified late afternoon
and even lunch hour peaks in parts of the City. While City planning efforts and projects could still be
conducted for these off-peak periods, assessment of SDC fees may not be perfectly aligned in those
Instances. The disadvantages of this approach are considered to be outweighed by the benefits.
Horizon Year
The horizon year is the other metric that should be considered, as the farther out the horizon year is the
more growth will occur and the more projects that will be needed to support this growth. Ideally, there
would be alignment between the planning horizon of the City's Transportation System Plan, regional
travel demand modeling, census data and projections, and project lists. However, each of these are
independent and "living" documents that are subjected to periodic and continuous refinements and
updates.
La Pine's US 97 Corridor Plan was prepared in July 2011 and assessed year 2032 conditions along
US 97 within the downtown core area. This plan did not consider the Wickiup Junction as the area
was being separately planned by ODOT's Transportation Planning and Analysis Unit.
The City's Transportation System Plan was prepared in 2013 and also considered a horizon year
of 2032.
The Wickiup Refinement Plan is currently being finalized and is assessing year 2040 conditions to
provide a 20-year planning horizon.
City of La Pine —2020 Transportation SDC Update Page 30
• ODOT's regional travel demand modeling is premised on future year 2040 conditions but is
calibrated with 2010 census data. The travel demand models will be updated when the 2020
census data is released.
For consistency with current planning and modeling data (future population and employment values) it
is recommended that a consistent year 2040 horizon period be applied within the City's TSDC
methodology. The inclusion of projects from the La Pine Transportation System Plan, US 97 Corridor
Plan, and Wickiup Refinement Plan will all contribute toward this project list.
Population and Households Forecast
A review of the most recent coordinated population forecasts prepared in 2018 by Portland State
University (PSU) Population Forecast Program indicates a continued projection of growth in La Pine
through this planning horizon. Figure 1 illustrates the projected growth in the City that is expected to
remain elevated but slower than the current period after 2020, with projected population growth in the
City of approximately 2.5 percent. Historical data between 2010 and 2020 shows annual growth of
approximately 1.4 percent.
4,000
3,500
3,000
c
0 2,500
a�
a
C 2,000
O
.y
ru
Q 1,500
O
a.
1,000
500
0
2010 2015
E
n
M
Z
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Population 0 PSU
Figure 1. Population Forecast Comparison for the City of La Pine showing historical and projected
population growth.
To convert population to the number of households, the PSU growth projections reflect continued
application of the 2010 census data showing an average of 2.3 persons per household. Between current
year 2020 conditions and the projected 2040 horizon year this shows 1,305 additional persons within
567 added households, or approximately 28.3 new households per year.
City of La Pine - 2020 Transportation 5DC Update Page 31
Employment Forecast
Information on future employment of often obtained through the Buildable Lands Inventory and the
Economic chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan. As these were drafted shortly after incorporation of
the City this information is limited and dated. The best information available through the 2010 census as
compiled by the Oregon Employment Department's Employment and Wages by Industry (QCEW) data.
This information identifies employment throughout the City by industry classification:
• Natural resources/mining
• Construction
• Manufacturing
• Trade, Transportation, and Utilities
• Information
• Financial Activities
• Professional/Business Services
• Education and Health Services
• Leisure and Hospitality
• Other services
• Unclassified
Based on discussions with ODOT's long range travel demand modeling group there are no coordinated
employment forecasts for the City of La Pine that could be directly applied. Instead, it was suggested
that the employment forecasts maintain the same proportion as the 2010 census and the same ratio of
employees per person within the population. However, as it was noted that there was a high rate of
unemployment throughout Deschutes County in 2010 (approximately 13.8 percent, see Figure 2) versus
the current (historically low) level of 4.1 percent. While the area is subject to high seasonal variation, the
persons per job ratio was adjusted to reflect a more typical 7.0 percent unemployment rate.
FREN — Unemployment Rate in Deschutes County, OR
ISO
Q 5
100
a
75
50
zs
1992 1994 1996 19% 2000 202 ZOOd 2006 2008 1010 2072 7014 z016 2055
Shaded areas indicate U.S recessions Source u S Bureau o` L.aWr Slahs!ics fired st ouisied org
Figure 2. Deschutes County Annual Unemployment Data. Source: Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED)
Accordingly, the number of employees within La Pine in 2010 was adjusted resulting in 1,405
employees, or approximately 1.18 persons per job. Assuming that this same employment ratio is
maintained through the year 2040, with projections for 3,386 total persons this results in 3,982 total
jobs, broken into the categories as shown in Figure 3.
City of La Pine — 2020 Transportation sDC Update Page 32
14% it
0 Agriculture
24%
>�
W Industrial
Retail
Service
M Education
Government
Other
43%
Figure 3. Summary of 2040 La Pine Employment by Category
Population and Employment to Weekday PM Peak Hour Trips
The household and employment growth in the City of La Pine was converted to weekday p.m. peak hour
trips by application of the City of Prineville's calibrated travel demand model outputs. The City of
Prineville established an SDC methodology using the travel demand model to convert the number of
households and employment types to weekday p.m. peak hour trips. As a similar travel demand model is
not available for the City of La Pine, these calibrated small -City Central Oregon datasets were considered
a relevant surrogate. Table 1 provides a summary of the City of Prineville's equivalent "trip per unit" for
each employee type or household would generate.
Table 1. Summary of City of Prineville Weekday PM Peak Hour Growth Trips
i i
Projected Prineville
Weekday PM
j Growth Type
Growth
Peak Hour Trips
Aggregated Employment
1,747
1,141
Agriculture
0
0
Industrial
955
401
Retail
317
353
Service
299
138
Education
71
138
Government
0
0
Other
105
111
Housing 1,647 i
1,647 1.00/Household
(+4,000 Persons) 2.43 persons/HH i
Applying the same general trip rates that were prepared as part of ODOT's forecast for the City of
Prineville updated with the projected change in population and employment for the City of La Pine
provides the revised total weekday p.m. peak hour trip estimates shown in Table 2.
City of La Pine — 2020 Transportation SDC Update Page 33
Table 2. City of La Pine Weekday PM Peak Hour Growth Trips
P
Weekday
Added
I
Existing
Projected 1
2020 to 2040
PM Trips
Weekday PM
Growth Type
Year 2020
Year 2040
Growth
per Unit
_-
Peak Hour Trips
- _
_ _ _ _._
Aggregated Employment
2,205 Emp
3,982 Emp
+1,777 Emp
-
h1,580 Trips
• Agricultural
54 Emp I
97 Emp
+43 Emp
0.42/Emp
18 Trips
• Industrial
40 Emp
73 Emp
+33 Emp
0 42/Emp
14 Trips
• Retail
533 Emp t
962 Emp
+429 Emp
1.11/Emp
477 Trips
• Service
937 Emp
1,692 Emp
+755 Emp
0.46/Emp
347 Trips
• Education/Heath
248 Emp
448 Emp
+200 Emp
1.94/Emp
388 Trips
• Government
84 Emp
151 Emp
+67 Emp
1.06/Emp
72 Trips
___-- _— ...
• Other
310 Emp
560 Emp
+250 Emp
1.06/Emp
265 Trips
_.
Housing
2,081
3,386
+567 Households
1.00/Household
567 Trips
(+1,305 persons)
Persons f
Persons
(2.3 persons/HHI)
Additional Weekday PM Trips in La Pine
2,148 PM Trips
RED values reflect an assigned estimate as calibrated data was not available in the Prineville Travel Demand Model.
'PSU Coordinated Population Forecasts
This forecast shows that by 2040 there will be an additional 2,148 weekday p.m. peak hour trips (total
trip ends) on the transportation system associated with new growth.
Summary
Adopted transportation plans within the City of La Pine include an assessment the system with a horizon
year ranging between 2032 and 2040. For purposes of planning for the City's 20-year infrastructure
needs it is recommended that the City consider a consistent year 2040 listing of projects and growth
trips for its SDC methodology. With the location of the City on the edge of the regional travel demand
model and serving a substantial number of regional "through" trips, an alternative forecasting method
was applied that is similar to recent efforts within the Cities of Sisters and Prineville. This follows a four -
step process as shown below:
City of La Pine — 2020 Transportation SDC Update Page 34
Year 2010 and 2040 population forecasts and household size were obtained
from the coordinated population forecasts prepared by Portland State
University. This assumes a population growth of 1,300 persons with an
average household size of 2.3 persons, or about 30 new units per year.
Employment growth in La Pine was estimated by maintaining the same ratio of
persons per job and job types. This shows the highest growth in Retail,
Service, Education, and "Other" jobs. Shifting of Service jobs to Industrial
growth would have little impact on estimated trips.
The growth in 2010 to 2040 population and employment was linearly scaled to
reflect growth from a current 2020 baseline condition so that the overall SDC
methodology would only reflect the 20-year planning horizon and current
project needs to support planned growth.
Trip rates for households and employment types was obtained from review of
Prineville's Travel Demand Model as a representative small City model that
has been calibrated for Central Oregon travel conditions. This follows the
same approach as the City of Sisters.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this information in support of La Pine's TSDC methodology.
Please let me know if you have any questions or comments on this memorandum at (503) 997-4473 or
via email at ]oe(«7transightconsultini;.com.
City of La Pine —2020 Transportation SDC Update Page 35
��i E S CO
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 September 28, 2020
DATE: September 22, 2020
FROM: Greg Munn, Finance, 541-388-6559
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Preparation for Public Hearing Regarding St. Charles Health System, Inc.'S Proposed
Issuance of Hospital Revenue Bonds by the Hospital Facility Authority of Deschutes
County.
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:
After public hearing of September 30, staff support the request for approval of Resolution
No. 2020-061 to authorize the bond issue.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
St. Charles Health System (SCHS) utilizes The Hospital Facility Authority of Deschutes County
(The Authority), established in 1988 (Resolution 88-059), as mechanism to allow the issuance
of debt to fund SCHS hospital and clinic improvements in Deschutes County. All obligations,
covenants, compliance and repayment are the sole responsibility of SCHS. Debt has been
issued through The Authority multiple times, most recently in 2002, 2005, 2008, 2014 and
2016. SCHS' current five year capital plans total $315 million of which SCHS intends to fund
$215 million through operating cash flows and $100 million of new debt, the Series 2020
Bonds, issued through The Authority. The proceeds from the debt are specifically earmarked
to provide a portion of the funding for: (a) expansion of ambulatory care in Redmond including
development of a comprehensive cancer center on the St. Charles -Redmond campus; (b)
investments in St. Charles -Redmond hospital to optimize use of the facility; (c) improvements
to modernize procedural areas at St. Charles -Bend and address other master planning needs;
(d) a long-term purchase of 23 acres of bare land adjacent to the St. Charles -Bend campus;
and (e) to consolidate certain support and administrative functions in Bend. The proceeds from
the debt are expected to be expended over the next one to five years. The board of The
Authority, chaired by Commissioner Adair, has approved the issuance of hospital revenue
bonds not to exceed $120 million. A hearing is required before the Board of County
Commissioners giving the public the opportunity to comment on the use of the bond proceeds.
Once the hearing is complete, The Authority will request that the Board of County
Commissioners approve Resolution No. 2020-061 approving the issuance of the bonds.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
No fiscal implications. The Bonds will not be obligations of Deschutes County or The Authority
but will be solely payable from revenues of SCHS.
ATTENDANCE: Via Zoom
Jenn Welander, Chief Financial Officer, St. Charles Health System
Matt Swafford, Managing Director, Melio & Company
Greg Blonde, Partner, Orrick
I
R
0
L-
0-
CLco
m
>
V)
0
0
CL
u
CL
m
V)
V)
0
CL)
c
>-
-a
4-
0
--Fa
.2
4-
0
0
0
0
0-
E
_0
M
E
>-
o
U
Ln
CL
06
0
0
4-4
0
-C
u
:L-
0
co
-0
E
4c
z
—aj
m
0
u
0
Q)
U
bn
0-
w
w
CL
0
c
Ul
UO
aiN
u
E
c�
i
o
u
I--
N
buo
00
T-1
N
0
u
`C E S CMG
Z
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 September 28, 2020
DATE: September 23, 2020
FROM: Whitney Hale, Administrative Services, 541-330-4640
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Legislative Update
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Pac/West Communications, the County's lobbyist, will discuss the upcoming legislative
session, the September revenue forecast and the State budget.
ATTENDANCE. Phil Scheuers, Account Manager, Pac/West Communications; Whitney Hale,
Communications Director.
'I. ..... .... ... ..
Prepared for Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
September 2020
1 1 1
Oversight
Strategic Planning
I Iff .2
Phil Scheuers Phil Scheuers Lorne B`
State Budget Agriculture Constru,
State Revenue Land Use
What is on the minds of policy
What will be driving politics min
What opportunities are availabi
1. 2020 February Session.
2. Governor's Handling of Crises.
3. Political Drivers for the 2021 Session.
o Supermajorities in both chambers; but not qi
o Controversial legislation and process leads t
o Executive Branch and Legislative Branch fru
o Republican walkout ends the session.
o Democrats want to revisit legislation that fail
o Deschutes County Judges.
o Funding for two Deschutes County Circuit Court
reconciliation bill. Dill died when session failed.
o Deschutes County Courthouse.
o The legislature funded big dollar courthouse proje
top three projects for funding in 2021 Session. RE
removed funding for two of those courthouse proj
1
o Response has delegated significant power b
o Control of federal resources were used to ce
o Local governments were not treated like par
o Lost opportunities for better forest managen
preparedness.
o Handling of Portland riots emboldened polil
Eno
•Balance of
power
Legi,
o House: 38 Democrats, 22 Republicans
o Senate: 18 Democrats, 12 Republicans
M to
o "Walkout -proof majority"
o Less reliance on interest groups versus plea;
o No more supermaiorities.
o More moderation and compromise.
o Balance in redistricting year.
Secretary
Educ
Rain
Res
Endi
Tota
% O'
o BM 108 (Tobacco tax) - Funds healthcare buf
o New Federal Package - Biden vs Trump aid I:
o COVID-19 Impacts - Unemployment impacts
O wildfires Costs - State only has $25M second
o County/State Timber Lawsuit.
o Tensions between both chambers and the Exi
Branches have only increased since February
o Legislators in both chambers and parties are
their frustration about the Executive Branch's
o Sept 25: Pre -session Filing Deadline
o Nov 3: General Election
o Dec 1-4: Governor's Request Budget (GRB) R4
o Dec 7-10: Legislative Days. LC Delivers Drafts
o Dec 15: Deadline for Executive, Judiciary, and
o Dan 14-18: Deschutes Board of Commissione
o Jan 11: Organizational Session Days
Jan 19: Session Begins
o Jun 27: Constitutional Sine Die
o If revenue stabilizes, the Legislature is lookini,
investments they made in prior sessions. Des
made it into the budget reconciliation before.
o Direct allocation of capital construction dolls
1 00 Th, Tol 71ZIT 1, Me
0 OHA has proposed an aggressive investmer
o Deschutes should engage now to help stir ti
Paul Phillips
President/co-Owner Execi
phillips@tacwestcom.com tribbe
Phil Scheuers
Account Manager Ai
scheuers@pacwestcom.com
v1 ES C
L� c
4.Q
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 September 28, 2020
DATE: September 23, 2020
FROM: Greg Munn, Finance, 541-388-6559
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Deschutes County Treasurer and Finance Report for August 2020
DATE: September 22, 2020
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Greg Munn, Acting County Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT: Treasury and Finance Report — August 2020
Following is the unaudited monthly finance report for fiscal year to date August 31, 2020.
Treasury and Investments
• The portfolio balance at the end of August was $191.1M, a decrease of $5.5 million from last month but an
increase of $9.5 million (5%) from a year ago.
• Net investment income for the month is $251,711, approximately $38,000 less than last month. Net earnings in
August are approximately $107,000 less that August 2019.
• All portfolio category balances are within limits including corporate notes. Corporate debt was reduced from
$52.1 million in July to $46.5 million in August, bringing the total under the 25% cap. The reduction in the overall
portfolio balance has caused the total investments with one corporate issuers to slightly exceed policy (5.2% vs
policy of 5%). One of the issuer's securities matures in October which will bring the overall percentage under the
policy limit.
• The LGIP pool limit is adjusted annually. The revised limit was increased to $51,177,000 on August 31, 2020.
• Average portfolio yield is 1.53% down from 1.67% last month.
• The portfolio's weighted average time to maturity is at 1.12 years (vs 0.80 last month) as we are buying more
investments with maturities in the 3-4 year maturity range.
Portfolio Breakdown: Par Value by Investment
t
Investment Income
Municipal Debt
S 13,030.000
6.81
Aug•20
Y_ •T-D
Corporate Notes
46,470.090
24.37.
Total Investment Income
256,711
580.911
Time Certificates
-
0.0 %k
Less Fee: S5.000 per month
_-- {5 OOOy
S 10 OOO,p
U. S. Treasuries
12.000,000
6.3% [
Investment Income - Net
251,711
570,911
Federal Agenc€es
65,330.000
34121,:
LGIP
50.030.210
26.2%.
Prior Year Comparison
Aug-19 358,368
738,320
First Interstate Sank
4.231,648
2.2 %
7otailnvestments _______
S 191,091,858-,,,,,,
190.0%
___
otal Portfolio: By Investment Types
-ni
,r z°..
rr-drra-
U S Ti asane5
Portfolio by Broker
S120
Stt148
2 StOo
seo
S60
$40
$20
$2 0 $4 1 $4 5 $7 7
S8 9
DA Robun W Piper Piper
t1lorolon Cantle
Davidson Baud & Sandler Jalhay
Capital Oak
Co
Nlafkets
Category Maximums: i
Yield Percentages
7 S Ttea to c s
100 % r
Current Month
--
Prior Month
IP iS 1 1770001
100%;
FIB/ LGIP
1100 %
9 00 %
Au :w
1001
Investments
1.98 %
2 12%
Ranker s Acref+lances
25%
Avera a
--- g ---.
1.53%
�— --.
167'%
�_. _....
Tinge Cerlificrleh
50%
?. w,of,at Debt
25%i
BenChmdfl(5
Corporate Debt
25%
24 Month Treas.
LGIP Rate
1.00
Wei hted Ave Maturi
36 Month Treasury__0.15
Max 3.54 Years
1.12
Tetra Minimum Actual
Y
0 to 30 Days
10 %
29A %
Under 1 Year
25%
65.7%
Under 5 Years
100%
100.0 %
— Other ---- - Polr fc _
Actual
Corp Issuer 5%,
5.2 %
Callable 25%
16.5%
Credit WfA AA2
W
lnvesent Activity
Purchases in Month $
23,590,000
Sales[Redemptions in Month $
21,710 000
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
Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJune July Aug
—County Rate 2 Year Treasury Rate — =-Corporate Bond Rate � -,„, LGIP Rate
Three Year Portfolio Balance
I� n r f, W W W OJ W W W W W W OJ W Ql Ol Ol Ql 01 Ol Ol Ol Ol 01 Ol Ol O O O O O O O O
� j ') r= n i- i- ,'>, � — bD O_ > u G .LT `- '- >G — t10 fl. > U C _O '-`. >C � bD
Deschutes County Investments Purchases made in July & September 2019 (there were no purchases in August)
Portfolio Management Purchases made in August 2020
Portfolio Details - Investments
August 31, 2020
Purchase Maturity )ays Ti Ratings Coupon Par Market Book
Inv # ' Inv Typ CUSIP Security Broke, ' Date . Date I loth . doo, &PII Rate' YTM 31' Value Value Value '
10653 TRC 9128281-65 U.S. Treasury CASTLE 9/17/2018 9/30/2020 29 Aaa AA+ 1.3750 2.7513 2.000.000 2,002,004 1,997,891
10573 MUN 940093R25 Washington Univ Hgher Ed Pi 1/19/2017 10/1/2020 30 Aa3 A+ 5.9300 1.9702 400,000 401,732 401,267
10629 MCI 45905U7J7 International Bonds for Recons CASTLE 2/9/2018 10/5/2020 34 Aaa AAA 2.0000 2.4708 2.000,000 2,003,477 1,998,833
10659 MCI 459051,17J7 International Bonds for Recons CASTLE 10/26/2018 10/5I2020 34 Aaa AAA 2.0000 3.0715 820,000 821,425 819,136
10703 MCI 45905U7J7 International Bonds for Recons CASTLE 6/26/2019 10/5/2020 34 Aaa AAA 2.0000 1,9999 750,000 751,304 750,000
10657 AFD 76116FAE7 RFSCP STRIP PRIN CASTLE 1014/2018 10/15/2020 44 Aaa 2.7640 2,9508 2,445,000 2,444,443 2,436,740
10714 MCI 46625HHU7 JPMorgan Chase- Corporate N CASTLE 9/20/2019 10/15/2020 '44 A2 A- 4.2500 2,0595 3,000,0D0 3,014,4D0 3,007,699
10747 AFD 76116FAE7 RFSCP STRIP PRIN CASTLE 1/29/2020 10/15/2020 44 Aaa 1.6269 1.6881 5,000,000 4,998,861 4,990,058
10548 MUN 492244DV7 Kern Community College CASTLE 11/15/2016 11/1/2020 61 AA- 2.8930 1.8001 500,000 501,910 500,875
10689 MUN 544587C30 LOS ANGELES MUNI IMP CASTLE 2/11/2019 11/1/2020 61 AA- 3.1460 2.8723 2,310,000 2,320,511 2,311,015
10617 FAC 3134GBX56 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE 12/13/2017 11/24/2020 84 Aaa AA+ 2.2500 2.1723 3,000,000 3,014,433 3,000,000
10719 MCI 06051GEE5 Bank of America Corp CASTLE 10/22/2019 115/2021 126 A2 A- 5.8750 1.8832 2,000,000 2,038,322 2,027,045
10758 MCI 89233134S2 Toyota Mir Cred - Corp N Pi 3/25/2020 1/11/2021 132 As AA 4.2500 2.7960 2,000,000 2,028,525 2,010,282
10745 MCI 94988J5M5 Wells Fargo Corporate Note CASTLE 1/9/2020 1115/2021 136 Aa2 A+ 1.5289 1,4668 3,000,000 3,003,155 3.002,742
10725 MUN 73209MAC1 POMONA CALIF REDEV AGY Pi 11/2212019 2/1/2021 153 A+ 3.4060 1.8002 1,300,000 1,313,611 1,308,559
10735 MCI 90331HPA5 US Bancorp Pi 12/6/2019 2/4/2021 156 Al AA- 3.0000 1.8505 2,D00,000 2,018,485 2,009,612
10722 FAC 880591EL2 Tennessee Valley Authority CASTLE 11/5/2019 2/15/2021 167 Aaa AA+ 3.8750 1.6499 2,000,000 2,033,271 2,019,965
10739 TRC 912833LC2 U.S. Treasury CASTLE 12/11/2019 2/15/2021 167 Aaa AA+ - 1.7239 3,000,000 2,998,941 2.977,072
10740 TRC 912833LC2 U.S. Treasury CASTLE 12/13/2019 2115/2021 167 Aaa AA+ 1,7240 2,000,000 1,999,294 1,984,714
10687 VR2 89236TEV3 Toyota Mtr Cred - Corp N CASTLE 1/9/2019 4/13/2021 224 Aa3 AA- 0.5463 2.2253 2,000,000 2,002,568 1.996,653
10702 VR2 06051GFV6 Bank of America Corp CASTLE 5/31/2019 4/19/2021 230 Aaa A- 4.0115 3,5855 1,050,000 1,059,152 1.057,336
'10706 MUN 801577NR4 SANTACLARACNTYCALIF FING.CASTLE 7/212019 5/1/2021 242 AA+ 2.0500 2.2634 1,095,000 1,105,501 1,094,880
10700 MCI 06051GEFO Bank of America Corp CASTLE 5/9/2019 5/13/2021 254 A2 A- 5.0000 2.7003 1,560,000 1,611,170 1.5134,282
10757 MCI 09247XAH4 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE 3/25/2020 5/24/2021 265 Aa3 AA- 4.2500 2.6577 2,000,000 2,060,126 2.022,722
10741 TRC 9128286V7 U.S. Treasury CASTLE 12113/2019 5/31/2021 272 Aaa AA+ 2.1250 1.7017 5,000,000 5,073,240 5.015,491
10728 MCI 46625HRT9 JPMorgan Chase - Corporate N CASTLE 11/29/2019 6/7/2021 279 A2 A- 2.4000 1.9204 3,000,000 3.044,408 3.010,244
10738 MCI 46625HRT9 JPMorgan Chase - Corporate N DA DAV 12/10/2019 6/7/2021 279 A2 A- 2.4000 1.9557 2,000,000 2.029,605 2.006,682
10667 MCI 695114CM8 Pacific Corp CASTLE 11/29/2018 6115/2021 287 Al A+ 3.8500 3.3502 1,170,000 1,192,600 1,174,382
10672 MCI 695114CM8 Pacific Corp CASTLE 12/6/2018 6115/2021 287 Al A+ 3.8500 3.3509 830,000 846,033 833,107
10692 MCI 695114CM8 Pacific Corp CASTLE 2/22/2019 6/15/2021 287 At A+ 3.8500 2.8503 2,000,D00 2.038,633 2.013,569
10708 FAC 3133EKVC7 Federal Farm Credit Bank CASTLE 7/29/2019 7/19/2021 321 Aaa AA+ 1.8750 1.8749 3,000,000 3,044,948 3,000,000
10721 TRC 91282871`1 U.S. Treasury CASTLE 10/31/2019 7/31/2021 333 Aaa AA+ 1.7500 1.6313 5,000,000 5,072,070 5.005,293
'10705 MUN 797398DK7 SAN DIEGO CNTY CALIF PENSIOtCASTLE 7/1/2019 8/15/2021 348 AA2 AAA 5.8350 2.0005 2,000,0D0 2,102,040 2.071,376
'10696 AFD 88059E4M3 Tennessee Valley Authority CASTLE 4/18/2019 9/15/2021 379 Aaa AA+ 2.3733 2.5355 1.020.000 1,013.399 994,514
10648 MCI 45905UC36 International Bonds for Recons CASTLE 7/16/2018 9/28/2021 392 Aaa AAA 2.0D00 2.9669 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.980,314
10731 MCI 94988J5T0 Wells Fargo Corporate Note CASTLE 12/5/2019 10/2212021 416 Aa2 A+ 3.6250 1.9498 2,000,000 2,071.879 2,037,360
10724 FAC 3130AFUYO Federal Home Loan Bank CASTLE 11/8/2019 11/19/2021 444 Aaa AA+ 1.6250 1.7109 3,000,000 3,054.251 2.996,926
10744 FAC 3130AHSR5 Federal Home Loan Bank CASTLE 12/20/2019 12/20/2021 475 Aaa AA+ 1.6250 1.6801 3,000,000 3,058.449 2,997,890
10732 MCI 46625HJD3 JPMorgan Chase - Corporate N Pi 12/6/2019 1/24/2022 510 A2 A- 4.5000 2.0101 2,000,0D0 2,115.470 2,067,748
10654 MCI 695114CP1 Pacific Corp CASTLE 9/25/2018 2/1/2022 518 Al A+ 2.9500 3.3202 700,000 721,676 696,545
10726 FAC 3133EKCYO Federal Farm Credit Bank CASTLE 11/21/2019 3/14/2022 559 Aaa AA+ 1.9500 1.8490 5,000,000 5,020.064 5,006,336
10730 FAC 3133EKCYO Federal Farm Credit Bank CASTLE 11/29/2019 3/14/2022 559 Aaa AA+ 1.9500 1.8383 5,000,0D0 5,020.064 5,007,015
10720 MCI 90520EAH4 MUFG Lhon Bank CASTLE 10/25/2019 4l1/2022 577 Aaa A 3.1500 2.0375 2,000,000 2,085.929 2,034,187
10750 MCI 90520EAF14 MUFG Union Bank CASTLE 2/5/2020 411/2022 577 Aaa A 3.1500 1.8114 1,000,000 1,042.964 1,020,682
10759 MCI 037833CP3 Apple Inc CASTLE 3/27/2020 5/11/2022 617 Aal AA+ 0.6025 1.7772 1,000,000 1,004,500 982,339
10733 MCI 084664BT7 Berkshire Hathaway Inc MORETN 12/6/2019 5/15/2022 621 Aa2 AA 3.0000 1.7400 2,000,000 2,094,486 2,041,892
10652 MUN 686053BQ1 Oregon School Boards Assoc MORETN 9/14/2018 6/30/2022 667Aa2 AA 5,4800 3.1200 925,000 1,006,807 962,387
10748 FAC 3133EKJ56 Federal Farm Credit Bank CASTLE 1/31/2020 8/30/2022 728 Aaa AA+ 0.4000 0.3731 3,000,000 3,008,483 3,010,057
10727 MCI 06051GEU9 Bank of America Corp CASTLE 11/25/2019 1/11/2023 862 A2 A-1 3.3000 2,1201 2,000,000 2,133,768 2,053,612
10760 MUN 736746XU7 PORTLAND OR URBAN RENEWAL PS 7/14/2020 6/15/2023 1017 Aal 4.0230 2.6950 1,000,000 1,027,470 1,029,929
'10709 MUN 29270CNU5 Bonneville PowerAdminlstratl0 CASTLE 7/30/2019 7/1/2023 1033Aal AA- 5.8030 2.1249 1,000,000 1,143,750 1,099,470
'10713 MCI 361582AD1 Berkshire Hathaway Inc CASTLE 9/9/2019 7/15/2023 1047 Aa3 AA 7.3500 2.0306 500,000 593,083 573,111
'10769 FAC 3137EAEV7 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE 8/21/2020 8/24/2023 1087 Aaa 0,2500 0.2841 5,000,000 4,999,022 4,994,947
'10768 MUN 67232TBM6 OAKLAND CA REDEV SUCCESSO PS 8/21/2020 9/1/2023 1095 AA- 3.1250 0.6015 2,500,000 2,674,650 2,687,266
10761 FAC 3134GV6P8 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE 7/30/2020 4/15/2024 1322 Aaa 0,5000 0.5000 2,465,000 2.463,399 2,465,000
10771 MCI 68583RCT7 OR ST COMMUNITY COLLEGE DI R W B 8/27/2020 6/30/2024 1398 Aal AA+ 5.6600 0.6000 90,000 106.351 107,218
'10762 FAC 3136G4E74 Federal National Mtg Assn CASTLE 7/31/2020 1/29/2025 1611 Aaa AA+ 0.5700 0.5700 1,400,000 1,396,902 1,400,000
10763 FAC 3133EL3P7 Federal Farm Credit Bank R W B 8/12/2020 8/1212025 1806 Aaa AA+ 0,5300 0.5300 3,000,000 2,995,688 3,000,000
'10764 FAC 3133EL31-15 Federal Farm Credit Bark MORETN 8/12/2020 8/12/2025 1806 Aaa AA+ 0.5700 0.5700 3,0D0,000 2,996,782 3,0D0,000
'10766 FAC 3134GWND4 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE 8/14/2020 8/1212025 1806 Aaa 0.6000 0.6102 2,000,000 1,998,440 1,999,0D9
'10767 FAC 3136G41-84 Federal National Mtg Assn CASTLE 8/18/2020 8/18/2025 1812 Aaa AA+ 0.5700 0,5901 2,000,000 1,998,749 1,998,034
10765 FAC 3136G4N74 Federal National Mtg Assn MORETN 8/21/2020 8/21/2025 1815 Aaa AA+ 0.5600 0.5600 3,000,000 2,996,083 3,0D0,0D0
'10772 FAC 3136G41474 Federal National Mtg Assn R W B 8/27/2020 8/21/2025 1815 Aaa AA+ 0.5600 0.5651 1,000,000 998,694 999,751
10770 FAC 3136G4X24 Federal National Mtg Assn PS 8/28/2020 8/29/2025 1823 Aaa AA+ 0.6D00 0.6000 1,000,000 1,0D0,478 1,000,0D0
'10773 FAC 3136G4X24 Federal National Mtg Assn CASTLE 8/28/2020 8/29/2025 1823 Aaa AA+ 0.6000 0.6000 1,000,000 1,000,478 1,000,000
10078 RRP SYS10078 Local Govt Investment Pool 7/1/2006 - - 1 1.0000 1.0000 50,030,210 50.030,210 50,030,210
10084 RR2 SYS10084 First Interstate 7l1/2006 - - 1 1,0000 1.0000 4,231,648 4,231,648 4,231,648
191,091,858 193,094,265 191,945,121
PERS Rates
The PERS Board will meet on October 2"d. One of the items on their agenda is to review the 2019 valuation results and
adopt employer rates for the 2021-23 biennium. These will be the rates included in our next two budget years starting
July 1, 2021. The proposed rates for Deschutes County are very close to the projected rates shared with the Board in
prior sessions and overall will slightly reduce PERS costs from earlier projections.
I'll share more detail with the Board after the rates are officially adopted and distributed to PERS employers.
Tax Statements
Tax statements are planned to be mailed on October 19th. New this year is a contract with a third party vendor to
print and mail out tax statements. We expect this change to save over $10,000 in printing and mailing costs and a
week's worth of staff time. Additionally, this will give us the opportunity to provide electronic tax statements in the
future.
County Fair Calendar Year Report
You will notice the addition of a calendar year report for the County Fair Fund 616 included adjacent to the normal
fiscal year statement. This will be a regular addition to the monthly financials and will make it easier to monitor fiscal
activities for the Fair as it operates on a calendar year basis rather than a fiscal year basis.
Budget to Actuals Report
General Fund:
Revenue YTD in the General Fund is $1.9 million or 5% of budget, an increase of $437,000 (30%) from last year which
was at 4% of budget for the same time period.
Expenses YTD are $5.2 million and 13.3% of budget compared to $5.0 million last year.
(Four
ity Wide Financial Dashboard
$5.2M ` 1 9M
1 3.3 % g U/
001 - General Fund
Budget to Actuals
1 , .J
r•.
,., m m�r,.ror auuce�
S13.3M
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 August 31, 2020.
Position Control Summary
July -June
Percent
Org
Jul
Aug
Unfilled
Assessor
Filled
33.26
33.26
Unfilled
2.00
2.00
5.67%
Clerk
Filled
8.48
8.48
Unfilled
1.00
1.00
10.55%
BOPTA
Filled
0.52
0.52
Unfilled
-
-
0.00%
DA
Filled
53.10
53.80
Unfilled
1.00
0.40
1.29%
Tax
Filled
5.50
5.50
Unfilled
-
-
0.00%
Veterans'
Filled
4.00
4.00
Unfilled
-
-
0.00%
Property Mngt
Filled
2.00
2.00
Unfilled
-
-
0.00%
Total General Fund
Filled
106.86
107.56
Unfilled
4.00
3.40
3.34%
Justice Court
Filled
4.60
4.60
Unfilled
-
0.00%
Community Justice
Filled
46.90
46.90
Unfilled
1.00
1.00
2.09%
Sheriff
Filled
224.75
234.75
Unfilled
22.75
15.25
7.64%
Health Srvcs .
Filled
304.55
312.25
Unfilled
38.25
31.55
10.17%
CDD
Filled
54.00
53.00
Unfilled
2.00
3.00
4.46%
Road
Filled
53.00
53.00
Unfilled
4.00
3.00
6.19%
Adult P&P
Filled
39.60
39.60
Unfilled
2.25
1.25
4.23%
Solid Waste
Filled
22.00
23.00
Unfilled
2.00
-
4.26%
9-1-1
Filled
54.00
54.00
Unfilled
6.00
5.00
9.24%
Victims Assistance
Filled
8.00
8.00
Unfilled
-
-
0.00%
GIS Dedicated
Filled
2.30
2.30
Unfilled
-
-
0.00%
Fair & Expo
Filled
10.91
10.91
Unfilled
0.09
0.09
0.82%
Natural Resource
Filled
2.00
2.00
Unfilled
-
-
0.00%
ISF - Facilities
Filled
19.60
19.60
Unfilled
3.40
2.40
12.89%
ISF -Admin
Filled
7.75
7.75
Unfilled
-
-
0.00%
ISF - BOCC
Filled
3.00
3.00
Unfilled
-
-
0.00%
ISF - Finance
Filled
8.00
8.00
Unfilled
1.00
1.00
11.11%
ISF - Legal
Filled
7.00
7.00
Unfilled
-
-
0.00%
ISF - HR
Filled
8.00
8.00
Unfilled
-
-
0.00%
ISF - IT
Filled
15.70
15.70
Unfilled
-
-
ISF - Risk
Filled
2.25
2.25
Unfilled
-
-
0.00%
Total:
Filled
1,004.77
1,023.17
Unfilled
86.74
66.94
Unfilled
7.95%
6.14%
7.04%
\3�E�`�� °�
Budget to Actuals - Countywide Summary
(�' <
All Departments 6 7%
FY21 YTD August 31, 2020 (unaudited)
Year Complete
Fiscal Year 2020
Fiscal Year 2021
RESOURCES
Budget
Actuals
%
Budget
Actuals
%
Projection
%
001 - General Fund
35,797,833
37,514,589
105% ;
37,121,855
1,873,614
5%
37,263,129
100% ;
030 - Juvenile
856,930
826,150
96% ;
975,090
22,405
2%
975,090
100% ;
160/170 - TRT
7,732,000
7,616,246
99%
6,916,358
2,810,311
41%
7,045,538
102% ;
220 - Justice Court
578,000
561,613
97% ;
489,850
71,197
15% ;
489,050
100% ;
255 - Sheriffs Office
41,581,807
43,676,825
105% ;
43,449,298
857,474
2% ;
43,557,198
100% ;
274 - Health Services
36,132,298
32,887,647
91%
38,093,023
7,258,994
19% ;
40,278,209
106% ;
295 - CDD
8,468,820
8,043,542
95%
8,251,726
1,398,729
17% ;
8,257,726
100% ;
325 - Road
22,785,827
22,602,427
99%
20,681,110
4,115,160
20% ;
21,022,013
102% ;
355 - Adult P&P
5,775,278
6,570,946
114% ;
5,995,287
1,446,599
24%
5,978,989
100% ;
465 - Road CIP
2,142,893
1,535,756
72%
2,467,800
81,687
3%
2,628,100
106% ;
610 - Solid Waste
11,724,869
12,300,751
105%
12,077,592
2,346,734
19% ;
12,120,592
100%:
615 - Fair & Expo
1,561,500
990,522
63%
1,466,050
183,225
12% ;
1,534,939
105%:
616 - Annual County Fair
1,649,700
1,469,198
89%
52,000
52,116
100%
51,617
99%
617 - Fair & Expo Capital
16,000
21,189
132% ;
14,000
2,465
18%
15,000
107% ;
Reserve
618 - RV Park
437,700
445,454
102% ;
436,050
141,044
32%
432,600
99% ;
619 - RV Park Reserve
12,550
3,801
30%
1,100
1,634
149% ;
9,800
891% ;
670 - Risk Management
3,495,039
3,930,523
112% ;
3,263,646
653,751
20%
3,358,441
103% ;
675 - Health Benefits
22,318,433
22,490,985
101% ;
21,884,538
3,511,238
16%
22,087,354
101% ;
705 - 911
10,563,350
11,280,682
107% ;
11,064,698
107,089
1% ;
11,336,298
102% ;
999 - Other
29,544,540
35,485,737
120% '
34,108,295
5,079,182
15% ;
34,173,836
100% ;
TOTAL RESOURCES
243,175,367
250,254,583
103% ;
248,809,366
32,014,646
13% ;
252,615,519
102% ;
Fiscal Year 2020
1Fiscal
Year 2021
REQUIREMENTS
Budget
Actuals
%
Budget
Actuals
%
Projection
001 - General Fund
18,517,987
17,416,559
94% ;
19,030,596
3,037,129
16% ;
18,664,058
98% ;
030 - Juvenile
7,127,337
6,927,186
97%
7,390,349
1,135,712
15% ;
7,315,984
99% ;
160/170 - TRT
2,274,140
2,265,620
100% ;
2,419,872
533,699
22% ;
2,419,872
100%:
220 - Justice Court
678,141
665,374
98% ;
683,508
114,276
17% ;
662,979
97% ;
255 - Sheriff's Office
44,685,809
44,783,071
100% ;
49,022,494
7,558,308
15% ;
49,022,494
100%:
274 - Health Services
47,589,309
42,273,065
89% ;
48,626,485
6,957,325
14% ; ;
49,069,514
101% ;
295 - CDD
7,905,639
7,462,091
94%
8,264,742
1,303,112
16% ;
8,250,196
100%:
o \31E5` 2� Budget to
Actuals
-Countywide
Summary
All Departments
16.7%
FY21 YTD August
31, 2020 (unaudited)
Year Complete
325 - Road
14,573,336
13,094,479
90% ;
14,513,205
2,604,608
18%
14,399,247
99% ;
355 - Adult P&P
6,669,491
6,427,582
96% ;
7,081,268
996,058
14%
7,060,811
100%:
465 - Road CIP
13,835,913
5,824,653
42%
20,036,050
638,242
3%
20,006,140
100% ;
610 - Solid Waste
8,384,039
7,518,318
90%
8,853,213
706,919
8% ;
8,828,005
100% ;
615 - Fair & Expo
2,464,787
2,372,501
96%
2,070,371
275,840
13% ;
2,040,370
99% ;
616 - Annual County Fair
1,504,700
1,615,288
107% ;
127,000
44,203
35%
128,000
101% ;
617 - Fair & Expo Capital
1,362,775
424,931
31% ;
335,000
67,765
20%
401,940
120% ;
Reserve
618 - RV Park
540,373
503,375
93%
543,902
49,639
9%
543,902
100% ;
619 - RV Park Reserve
100,000
8,335
8%
100,000
-
0%
100,000
100%
670 - Risk Management
4,132,295
2,440,213
59%
3,794,344
749,440
20%
3,944,104
104% ;
675 - Health Benefits
24,115,011
22,953,057
95%
23,620,173
1,609,461
7%
23,620,173
100% ;
705 - 911
12,250,336
10,709,491
87% ;
12,576,839
2,010,706
16%
12,054,493
96% ;
999 - Other
70,540,907
52,840,297
75%
58,399,018
3,031,657
5% ;
58,492,644
100% ;
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS
289,252,325
248,525,486
86%
287,488,429
33,424,099
12% ;
287,024,927
100% ;
�IEs`0
c�
Budget to
Actuals
Countywide
Summary
o�
All Departments
16 7%
FY21 YTD August 31, 2020 (unaudited)
Year Complete
Fiscal Year 2020
Fiscal Year 2021
TRANSFERS
Budget
Actuals
%
Budget
Actuals
%
Projection
%
001 - General Fund
(19,023,310)
(18,917,801)
99% ;
(20,039,890)
(2,182,802)
11%
(20,039,890)
100% ;
030 - Juvenile
5,874,465
5,874,465
100% ;
5,957,854
1,005,826
17%
5,957,854
100% ;
160/170 - TRT
(4,433,128)
(4,430,732)
100% ;
(4,963,759)
(529,608)
11%
(4,963,759)
100% ;
220 - Justice Court
-
-
107,235
-
0%
107,235
100% ;
255 - Sheriffs Office
3,119,936
3,120,245
100% ;
33119,077
565,366
18%
3,119,077
100%
274 - Health Services
6,102,365
6,552,032
107% ;
83043,036
867,284
11% ;
8,026,313
100% ;
295 - CDD
(1,448,081)
(1,111,631)
77%
(55,480)
-
0%
(55,480)
100%:
325 - Road
(11,910,575)
(11,910,575)
100% ;
(6,683,218)
(1,418,945)
21% ;
(6,683,218)
100% ;
355 - Adult P&P
223,189
223,189
100% ;
187,496
47,530
25%
187,496
100% ;
465 - Road CIP
12,014,914
11,431,979
95%
7,517,657
-
0% ;
7,517,657
100%:
610 - Solid Waste
(3,296,192)
(3,296,192)
100% ;
(3,684,280)
-
0%
(3,684,280)
100% ;
615 - Fair & Expo
1,022,863
1,475,467
144% ;
494,967
37,622
8% ;
494,967
100% ;
616 - Annual County Fair
(145,000)
-
0%
75,000
-
0%
130,000
173% ;
617 - Fair & Expo Capital
(13,313)
(13,313)
100% ;
253,158
-
0%
253,158
100%:
Reserve
618 - RV Park
(307,000)
(307,000)
100% ;
(436,628)
-
0%
(436,628)
100% ;
619 - RV Park Reserve
502,000
502,000
100% ;
621,628
-
0%
621,628
100%
670 - Risk Management
(6,918)
(6,918)
100% ;
(3,500)
-
0% ;
(3,500)
100% ;
705 - 911
-
-
-
-
999 - Other
11,123,785
10,814,785
97%
9,078,924
1,607,727
18% ;
9,078,924
100% ;
TOTAL TRANSFERS
(600,000)
-
0
(410,723)
-
0
(372,446)
91% ;
0'�FsC-
\, o
c� Budget to
Actuals
- Countywide
Summary
p�
All Departments
16 7%
FY21 YTD August
31, 2020 (unaudited)
Year Complete
Fiscal Year 2020
Fiscal Year 2021
ENDING FUND BALANCE
Budget
Actuals
%
Budget
Actuals
Projection
%
001 - General Fund
9,346,536
13,529,609
145% ;
10,151,769
9,960,420
11,865,919
117% ;
030 - Juvenile
694,058
1,069,918
154% ;
616,595
869,820
594,260
96% ;
160/170 - TRT
3,324,732
3,485,149
105% ;
3,245,121
5,229,757
3,144,660
97% ;
220 - Justice Court
64,859
40,466
62%
57,804
(2,613)
(26,228)
-45% ;
255 - Sheriffs Office
14,732,933
18,832,659
128% ;
163222,048
12,557,244
16,346,494
101% ;
274 - Health Services
4,766,157
7,804,719
164% ;
4,240,592
8,593,865
6,659,921
157% ;
295 - CDD
13097,104
1,253,356
114% ;
944,198
1,400,508 ;
1,256,941
133% ;
325 - Road
2,303,905
4,324,212
188% ;
2,180,473
4,294,354 ;
4,142,295
190% ;
355 - Adult P&P
1,918,976
3,120,558
163% ;
1,816,329
3,616,929 ;
2,224,532
122% ;
465 - Road CIP
15,938,430
24,902,636
156% ;
13,103,814
24,346,080
15,042,253
115% ;
610 - Solid Waste
644,638
2,285,811
355% ;
719,918
3,925,992
1,894,484
263% ;
615 - Fair & Expo
199,576
(1,077)
-1%
255,550
(69,847)
(25,317)
-10% ;
616 - Annual County Fair
-
(47,461)
-
(40,498)
5,206
999% ;
617 - Fair & Expo Capital
-
726,169
999%
1,075,382
742,981 ;
674,499
63% ;
Reserve
618 - RV Park
150,327
228,071
152% ;
43,512
319,477
(319,859)
-735% ;
619 - RV Park Reserve
414,550
497,466
120%
1,012,728
499,100 ;
1,028,894
102% ;
670 - Risk Management
5,455,826
8,676,800
159%
6,465,802
8,595,845
8,1025371
125% ;
675 - Health Benefits
14,309,716
16,101,833
113%
13,588,094
18,180,149
14,745,553
109% ;
705 - 911
6,066,720
9,176,007
151%
6,829,277
6,932,371
85117,794
119% ;
999 - Other
41,618,580
67,441,561
162% ;
50,516,183
71,381,789 ;
50,632,465
100% ;
TOTAL FUND BALANCE
123,047,623
183,448,465
149% ;
133,085,189
181,333,723 ;
146,107,137
110% ;
oy UTES` Budget to Actuals Report
General Fund - Fund 001
FY21 YTD August 31, 2020 (unaudited)
RESOURCES
Property Taxes - Current
Revenue Not Assigned
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
16.7%
Year Complete
Fiscal Year 2020
Fiscal Year 2021
Budget
Actuals %
Budget
Actuals
%
Projection %
$ Variance
29,046,840
29,310,769 101%
30,105,307
0%
30,105,307 100%
A
-
51,121
-
-
E 391,000
976,355 250%
358,000
168,411
47%
358,000 100%
E 3,020,400
3,085,523 102%
2,471,201
754,404
31%
2,612,475 106% !
141,274 B
E 837,283
942,562 113% =
836,713
289,169
35%
836,713 100%
1,615,280
2,242,070 139%
2,153,741
481,058
22% E
2,153,741 100%
E 12,220
13,659 112%
12,220
4,529
37%
12,220 100%
383,806
333,772 87%
467,138
5,674
1%
467,138 100%!
2
f 195,390
257,219 132%
419,927
166,785
40%
419,927 100%!
-
! 175,614
175,614 100%
175,608
-
0%
175,608 100%!
C
120,000
125,925 105%
122,000
3,583
3%
122,000 100%:
- D
35,797,833
37,514,589 105% ;
37,121,855
1,873,614
5% ;
37,263,129 100% ;
141,274:
Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals %
4,993,290
4,699,054
94%
5,237,507
835,493
16%
2,049,501
1,640,595
80%
2,051,015
223,159
11%
77,950
72,369
93%
79,945
11,138
14%
7,873,159
7,606,643
97%
8,234,075
1,349,049
16%
f 235,542
197,772
84%
236,358
24,652
10%
865,307
860,973
99%
970,608
177,186
18%
589,551
525,906
89%
639,571
90,392
14%
f
306,985
301,829
98% i
317,533
51,128
16%
1,526,702
1,511,418
99%
1,263,984
274,933
22%
18,517,987
17,416,559
94%
19,030,596
3,037,129
16% ;
Projection % $ Variance
5,027,147 96% 210,360: E
i a f
�
2,003,242 98% 47,773! F �
79,945 100%E
8,125,670 99% ! 108,405! G
i f
�
236,358 100%fE
970,608 100%f
f i i
�
639,571 100% f
z
317,533 100%f!
1,263,984 100%f
18,664,058 98% 366,538:
Budget
Actuals %
Budget
Actuals % Projection % $ Variance
260,000
260,000 100%
260,000
- 0% 260,000 100% H
(19,283,310)
(19,177,801) 99%
(20,299,890)
(2,182,802) 11% (20,299,890) 100%
(19,023,310)
(18,917,801) 99% ;
(20,039,890)
(2,182,802) 11% ; (20,039,890) 100% ;
FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance
Beginning Fund Balance 11,090,000 12,349,379 111% 12,100,400 13,306,738 110% 13,306,738 110% ; 1,206,338,1
Resources over Requirements 17,279,846 20,098,030 18,091,259 (1,163,516) 18,599,071 507,81Z
Net Transfers - In (Out) (19,023,310) (18,917,801) (20,039,890) (2,182,802) (20,039,890)
!
TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 9,346,536 $ 13,529,609 145% ; $ 10,151,769 $ 9,960,420 98% ; ; $ 11,865,919 117% ; $1,714,15 ,'
A Current year taxes received primarily in November, February and May
B PILT payment of $500,000 received in July 2020
C Oregon Dept. of Veteran's Affairs grant reimbursed quarterly
D Interfund land -sale management revenue recorded at year-end
E Projected Personnel savings based on FY20 average vacancy rate of 4.0%
F Projected Personnel savings based on FY20 average vacancy rate of 2.9%
G Projected Personnel savings based on FY20 average vacancy rate of 2.8%
H Repayment to General Fund from Finance Reserves for ERP Implementation
I Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY20 and will be reflected on September financials
oy Jos`0
{ Budget to Actuals Report
C�
Juvenile - Fund 030
FY21 YTD August 31, 2020 (unaudited)
16.7%
Year Complete
Fiscal Year 2020
1
Fiscal Year 2021
RESOURCES
Budget
Actuals
%
Budget
Actuals
%
Projection % $ Variance
OYA Basic & Diversion
442,601
387,814
88%
472,401
0%
472,401 100% ; A
ODE Juvenile Crime Prev
91,379
82,125
90%
109,000
-
0%
109,000 100%! A
Inmate/Prisoner Housing
80,000
96,600
121%
90,000
4,050
5% _
90,000 100%
Gen Fund -Crime Prevention
! 20,000
20,000
100%
89,500
-
0%
89,500 100%
Leases
86,400
97,061
112%
88,000
7,502
9%
88,000 100%
DOC Unif Crime Fee/HB2712
35,000
49,339
141%
49,339
-
0%
49,339 100%! -
OJD Court Fac/Sec SB 1065
26,000
20,404
78%
26,000
13370
5%
26,000 100%,
Interest on Investments
31,000
26,491
85%
17,300
3,935
23% _
17,300 100% - B
Food Subsidy
16,000
13,448
84% ?
12,000
446
4%
12,000 100%
Contract Payments
8,000
5,459
68%
8,000
396
5% f
8,000 100%, -
Miscellaneous
14,050
22,672
161%
7,550
3,855
51%
7,550 100%
Case Supervision Fee
6,500
4,736
73%
6,000
852
14%
6,000 100%
TOTAL RESOURCES
856,930
826,150
96% ;
975,090
22,405
2% ;
975,090 100% ;
REQUIREMENTS
Budget
Actuals
%
Budget
Actuals
%
Projection %
$ Variance
Personnel Services
5,797,927
5,650,045
97%
5,970,797
959,356
16%
5,896,432 99%
74,365: C
Materials and Services
1,329,410
1,277,141
96% i
1,397,552
176,355
13%
1,397,552 100%
Capital Outlay
22,000
0%
22,000 100%
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS
7,127,337
6,927,186
97% ;
7,390,349
1,135,712
15% ;
7,315,984 99% ;
74,365:
TRANSFERS
Budget
Actuals
%
Budget
Actuals
%
Projection %
$ Variance
Transfers In- General Funds
5,961,465
5,961,465
100%
6,034,966
1,005,826
17% _
6,034,966 100%
Transfers Out-Veh Reserve
(87,000)
(87,000)
100%
(77,112)
0%
(77,112) 100%
TOTAL TRANSFERS
5,874,465
5,874,465 100% ;
5,957,854
1,005,826
17%
5,957,854 100% ;
FUND BALANCE
Budget
Actuals %
Budget
Actuals %
Projection
% $ Variance
Beginning Fund Balance
1,090,000
1,296,490 119%
1,074,000
977,300 91%
977,300
91% _ (96,700)'
Resources over Requirements
(6,270,407)
(6,101,036)
(6,415,259)
(1,113,306) i
(6,340,894)
74,365;
Net Transfers - In (Out)
�
5,874,465
5,874,465
5,957,854
1,005,826
5,957,854
TOTAL FUND BALANCE
$ 694,058
$ 1,069,918 154% ;
$ 616,595
$ 869,820 141% ;
$ 594,260
96% ; ($22,335);
A Quarterly reimbursement based on actual expenses
B Interest projection based on current investment rate and anticipated cash balances
C Projected Personnel savings based on FY20 average vacancy rate of 0.8%
D Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY20 and will be reflected on September financials
p �-TES Budget to Actuals Report
L� �G
TRT - Fund 160/170
FY21 YTD August 31, 2020 (unaudited)
16.7%
Year Complete
Fiscal Year 2020 1
Fiscal Year 2021
RESOURCES
Budget
Actuals %
Budget
Actuals
%
Projection %
$ Variance
Room Taxes
7,670,000
7,527,492 98%
6,862,458
2,696,299
39%
6,862,458 100%
A
Interest
62,000
88,754 143%
53,900
14,012
26%
83,080 154%
29,180; B
State Miscellaneous
i
100,000
100,000
100,000, C
TOTAL RESOURCES
7,732,000
7,616,246 99%
6,916,358
2,810,311
41% ;
7,045,538 102% ;
129,180:
REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance
COVA
2,064,221
2,050,618
99%
1,838,805
274,668
15%
1,838,805
100%,
-
Grants & Contributions
62,000
62,000
100%
404,000
233,666
58%
404,000
100%
Interfund Contract
79,160
79,160
100%
114,481
19,080
17%
114,481
100%
D
Interfund Charges
37,309
37,309
100%
35,861
5,977
17%
35,861
100%
Auditing Services
14,500
19,200
132%
11,500
0%
11,500
100%
Software
10,350
5,600
54%
11,500
0%
11,500
100%
Public Notices
1,600
1,694
106%
1,600
308
19%
1,600
100%
Office Supplies
3,000
741
25%
1,275
-
0%
1,275
100%
Printing
2,000
642
32%
850
0%
850
100%
Refunds & Adjustments
-
8,657
999%
-
-
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS
2,274,140
2,265,620
100% ;
2,419,872
533,699
22% ;
2,419,872
100% ;
TRANSFERS
Budget
Actuals
%
Budget
Actuals
%
Projection
%
$ Variance
Transfer Out - RV Park
(35,000)
(35,000)
100%
(25,000)
0%
(25,000)
100%
Transfer Out - Annual Fair
(250,000)
(250,000)
100%
(130,000)
0%
(130,000)
100%
Transfer Out - F&E Reserve
(286,687)
(286,687)
100%
(253,158)
0%
(253,158)
100%
Transfers Out - Health
(692,369)
0%
(692,369)
100%
E
Transfer Out - F&E
(709,654)
(707,258)
100%
(711,445)
(4,290)
1% }
(711,445)
100% ;
F
Transfer Out - Sheriff
(3,151,787)
(3,151,787)
100%
(3,151,787)
(525,318)
17%
(3,151,787)
100%;
TOTAL TRANSFERS ;
(4,433,128)
(4,430,732)
100% ;
(4,963,759)
(529,608)
11% ;
(4,963,759)
100% ;
FUND BALANCE
Budget
Actuals
%
Budget
Actuals
%
Projection
%
$ Variance
Beginning Fund Balance
2,300,000
2,565,255
112%
3,712,394
3,482,753
94%
3,482,753
94%
(229,641); G
Resources over Requirements
5,457,860
5,350,626
4,496,486
2,276,612
4,625,666
129,18&
Net Transfers - In (Out)
t (4,433,128)
(4,430,732)
(4,963,759)
(529,608)
(4,963,759)
-"
TOTAL FUND BALANCE
$ 3,324,732
$ 3,485,149
105% ;
$ 3,245,121
$ 5,229,757
161% ;
$ 3,144,660
97%
($100,461);
A Prior year collections YTD was 35% of budget, compared to
current year collections
YTD of 39%
8 Interest projection based on current investment rate and anticipated cash balances
C Includes CARES Fund reimbursements
D Contracted services with the
Finance Department for operating TRT program
E Transfer to Health Services is to fund COVID
re -opening positions
F $250K of budgeted transfers
are to be transferred
on an as
needed basis
G Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final
close
of FY20 and will
be reflected
on September financials
�ES
Budget to Actuals Report
Justice Court - Fund 220
FY21 YTD August 31, 2020 (unaudited)
16.7%
Year Complete
Fiscal Year 2020
1
Fiscal Year 2021 Ll
RESOURCES
Budget
Actuals
%
Budget
Actuals % Projection % $ Variance
Court Fines & Fees
575,000
556,877
97%
488,750
71,148 15% 488,750 100%
Interest on Investments
3,000
1,706
57%
1,100
49 4% 300 27% (800), A
Miscellaneous
-
3,030
-
-
TOTAL RESOURCES
578,000
561,613
97%
489,850
71,197 15% 489,050 100%: (800)
REQUIREMENTS
Budget
Actuals %
Budget
Actuals
%
Projection % $ Variance
Personnel Services
516,868
522,054 101%
531,006
85,771
16%
510,477 96% 20,529:13
Materials and Services k
161,273
143,320 89%
152,502
28,504
19%
152,502 100% C
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS
678,141
665,374 98%
683,508
114,276
17%
662,979 97% 20,529:
TRANSFERS
Budget
Actuals
%
Budget
Actuals
%
Projection %
$ Variance
Transfers In- General Fund
107,235
0%
107,235 100%
TOTAL TRANSFERS
107,235
0%
107,235 100%
FUND BALANCE
Budget
Actuals
%
Budget
Actuals
%
Projection %
$ Variance
Beginning Fund Balance
165,000
144,227
87%
144,227
40,466
28%
40,466 28%
(103,761): D
Resources over Requirements
(100,141)
(103,761)
(193,658)
(43,079)
E
(173,929)
19,729,
Net Transfers - In (Out)
107,235
107,235
TOTAL FUND BALANCE
$64,859
$40,466
62%
$57,804
($2,613)
-5%
($26,228) -45%
($84,032):
A Interest projection based on current investment rate and anticipated cash balances
B Projected Personnel savings based on FY20 average vacancy rate of 4.0%
C One time yearly software maintenance fee of $9,169 paid in July for entire fiscal year
D Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY20 and will be reflected on September financials
gy �1Es`� 1G
Budget to Actuals Report
L�
Sheriffs Office - Fund 255
FY21 YTD August 31, 2020 (unaudited)
16.7%
Year Complete
Fiscal Year 2020 1
Fiscal Year 2021
RESOURCES
Budget
Actuals %
Budget
Actuals
%
Projection %
$ variance
LED #1 Property Tax Current
26,293,470
26,496,529 101%
27,476,763
0%
27,476,763 100%
LED #2 Property Tax Current
10,632,014
10,696,589 101%
11,092,307
-
0%
11,092,307 100%
Sheriff's Office Revenues
i 3,922,323
4,913,406 125%
4,259,128
605,813
14%
4,271,028 100%!
11,900!
LED #1 Property Tax Prior
! 312,000
761,642 244% !
280,000
140,204
50% ! !
280,000 100% !
LED #2 Interest
! 136,000
160,208 118% !
120,000
18,849
16% ! !
112,800 94% !
(7,200); A
LED #2 Property Tax Prior
! 148,000
331,165 224% !
120,000
58,452
49% ! !
120,000 100% !
LED #1 Interest
! 138,000
287,276 208% !
101,100
34,157
34% ! !
204,300 202% !
103,200! A
LED #1 Foreclosed Properties
21,380
-
-
LED #2 Foreclosed Properties
! -
8,631 !
-
-
TOTAL RESOURCES
41,581,807
43,676,825 105% ;
43,449,298
857,474
2% ;
43,557,198 100%
107,900:
REQUIREMENTS
Sheriff's Services
Civil/Special Units
Automotive/Communication s
Detective
Patrol
Records
Adult Jail
Court Security
Emergency Services
Special Services
Training
Crisis Stabilization Center
Other Law Enforcement
Non - Departmental
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS
Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals %
3,105,057
3,091,479
100%
3,864,843
587,414
15%
1,232,158
1,171,260
95% !
1,232,618
180,682
15% !
2,858,337
2,915,540
102% !
3,312,477
421,824
13%
2,303,072
2,217,577
96% !
2,515,536
358,723
14% !
! 10,592,002
11,446,211
108% !
12,336,227
2,137,038
17% !
1,004,600
833,934
83% !
1,038,130
128,979
12% !
! 18,379,998
17,929,047
98% !
19,897,342
2,881,011
14% !
556,740
458,541
82% !
490,401
79,395
16% !
i 402,734
603,381
150% !
543,565
92,229
17% !
i 11601,871
1,747,792
109% !
2,052,586
317,968
15% !
743,334
916,411
123% !
1,156,993
130,948
11% !
571,267
84,267
15% !
-
-
1,330,214
1,261,716
95%
1,328,675
241,833
18%
4,425
105,917
999% !
(746,899)
265
0% !
44,685,809
44,783,071
100% ;
49,022,494
7,558,308
15% ;
Projection % $ Variance
G
3,864,843 100% !
i
1,232,618 100%ir i
3,312,477 100%
i ! i
2,515,536 100%,
P I !
�
12,336,227 100% ^ !
1,038,130 100%i
E i
19,897,342 100%i
i !
490,401 100%!
543,565 100%
2,052,586 100%
�
1,156,993 100% ! i
1,328,675 100%
(746,899) 100%! B
49,022,494 100% ;
TRANSFERS
Budget
Actuals %
Budget
Actuals
%
Projection % $ Variance
Transfer In - TRT
3,151,787
3,151,787 100%
3,151,787
525,318
17%
3,151,787 100%
Transfer In - General Fund
i 240,249
240,249 100% !
240,290
40,048
17% ! !
240,290 100%
Transfers Out - Debt Service
(272,100)
(271,791) 100% !
(273,000)
-
0% ! !
(273,000) 100%
TOTAL TRANSFERS
3,119,936
3,120,245 100% ;
3,119,077
565,366
18%
3,119,077 100% ;
FUND BALANCE
Budget
Actuals %
Budget
Actuals
%
Projection % $ Variance
Beginning Fund Balance 14,716,999 16,818,660 114% 18,676,167 18,692,712 100% 18,692,713 100% 16,546, C
Resources over Requirements (3,104,002) (1,106,246) ! (5,573,196) (6,700,834) ! ! (5,465,296) ! 107,900!
Net Transfers - In (Out) ! 3,119,936 3,120,245 ! 3,119,077 565,366 ! ! 3,119,077 !
€
TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 14,732,933 $ 18,832,659 128% ; $ 16,222,048 $ 12,557,244 77% $ 16,346,494 101% ; $124,446:
A Interest projection based on current investment rate and anticipated cash balances
B Budgeted funds includes transfers from Funds 701 and 702
C Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY20 and will be reflected on September financials
E I S Budget to Actuals Report
Health Services - Fund 274
FY21 YTD August 31, 2020 (unaudited)
RESOURCES
State Grant
OHP Capitation
Federal Grants
OHP Fee for Service
State Miscellaneous
Local Grants
State - OMAP
Environmental Health Fees
Other
Patient Fees
Title 19
Vital Records
Divorce Filing Fees
State Shared- Family Planning
Interest on Investments
Interfund Contract- Gen Fund
Liquor Revenue
CCBHC Grant
TOTALRESOURCES
16.7%
Year Complete
Fiscal Year 2020 1
Fiscal Year 2021
Budget
Actuals %
Budget
Actuals
%
Projection %
$ Variance
14,080,644
11,211,991 80%
14,228,003
2,768,530
19%
14,200,180 100%:
(27,824)'
7,242,430
8,094,701 112%
8,279,406
1,633,953
20%
8,279,406 100%
3,277,616
i
2,798,690 85%
3,835,203
35,497
1%
3,822,203 100%!
(13,000)
-
- �
3,265,627
600,424
18%
3,885,776 119%
620,149�
1,040,153
1,387,132 133%
2,131,388
82,675
4%
2,212,679 104%
81,291�
11567,331
1,129,737 72%
1,183,777
1,208,365
102%
2,726,470 230%
1,542,693!
991,900
879,037 89%
1,162,507
173,765
15%
1,124,147 97%
(38,360)l
1,058,206
1,104,825 104%
1,078,429
49,607
5%
1,092,357 101%
13,928
484,712
476,047 98%
965,971
153,602
16%
965,971 100%
564,750
600,412 106%
672,995
72,061
11%
459,003 68%
(213,992)!
4,862,726
4,071,759 84% E
350,491
188,795
54%
471,988 135%
121,497
220,000
259,029 118%
237,296
44,619
19%
277,344 117%
40,048
173,030
173,030 100%
173,030
173,030
100%
173,030 100%
-
120,000
191,912 160%
155,000
32,436
21%
194,616 126% ,
39,61&
171,000
233,116 136%
147,400
41,635
28%
166,539 113%
19,139!
127,000
127,000 100%
1279000
0%
127,000 100%
150,800
162,122 108% 4
99,500
0%
99,500 100%:-
(12,894) 999%
36,132,298
32,887,647 91%
38,093,023
7,258,994
19% ;
40,278,209 106% ;
2,185,186;
REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance
Administration Allocation
-
-
-
-
Personnel Services
33,186,830
32,041,791 97%
36,300,214
5,708,865 16%
36,140,813 100%
159,401=
Materials and Services
13,707,479
10,231,274 75%
12,226,604
1,248,460 10%
12,829,034 105%
(602,430)
Capital Outlay
695,000
- 0%
99,667
- 0%
99,667 100%
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS ;
47,589,309
42,273,065 89%
48,626,485
6,957,325 14%
49,069,514 101% ;
(443,029);
TRANSFERS
Budget
Actuals %
Budget
Actuals %
Projection %
$ Variance
Transfers In- General Fund
5,747,090
5,747,090 100% =
5,203,710
867,284 17%
5,472,710 105%
269,000;
Transfers In- OHP Mental Health
548,601
998,268 182% =
2,379,865
- 0%
2,379,865 100%
Transfers In - TRT
692,369
0%
406,646 59%
(285,723)=
Transfers Out
(193,326)
(193,326) 100% _
(232,908)
0%
(232,908) 100%
TOTAL TRANSFERS
6,102,365
6,552,032 107% ;
8,043,036
867,284 11% ; ;
8,026,313 100% ;
(16,723);
FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance
Beginning Fund Balance
10,120,803
10,638,105 105%
6,731,018
7,424,913 110%
7,424,913 110% 693,895;
Resources over Requirements
(11,457,011)
(9,385,418)
(10,533,462)
301,668
(8,791,305) 1,742,157
Net Transfers - In (Out)
�
6,102,365
6,552,032
p
8,043,036
867,284
f k
8,026,313 (16,723)
t I
TOTAL FUND BALANCE
$ 4,766,157
$ 7,804,719 164% ;
$ 4,240,592
$ 8,593,865 203% ;
$ 6,659,921 157% ; $2,419,329:
"(ESC�G2j Budget to Actuals Report
Health Services - Admin - Fund 274
FY21 YTD August 31, 2020 (unaudited)
16.7%
Year Complete
Fiscal Year 2020 1
Fiscal Year 2021
RESOURCES
Budget
Actuals %
Budget
Actuals
%
Projection %
$ Variance
Federal Grants
726,655
565,906 78%
520,561
-
0%
520,561 100%
.,A
Interest on Investments
171,000
233,116 136%
147,400
41,635
28%
166,539 113%
19,139, B
Other
k 9,000
8,718 97%
14,391
4,010
28%
14,391 100%
State Miscellaneous
-
171,881
-
5,166
5,166
5,166! C
CCBHC Grant
-
-
-
TOTAL RESOURCES
906,655
979,620 108% ;
682,352
50,811
7% ;
706,657 104% ;
24,305:
REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance
Personnel Services
5,241,264
4,870,386 93%
5,129,977
807,664
16%
5,123,070 100% 6,907; D
Materials and Services
4,971,179
4,676,782 94%
4,891,620
728,262
15%
5,067,719 104% (176,099), E
Capital Outlay
5,000
- 0%
-
Administration Allocation
(9,308,295)
(9,306,000) 100%
(9,584,402)
(1,573,453)
16%
(9,584,402) 100%
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS
909,148
241,168 27% ;
437,195
(37,527)
-9% ;
606,387 139% ; (169,192);
TRANSFERS
Transfers In- General Fund
Transfers Out
TOTAL TRANSFERS
FUND BALANCE
Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance
40,000 39,997 100%
(193,326) (193,326) 100% (232,908) - 0% (232,908) 100%
(153,326) (153,329) 100% ; (232,908) 0% (232,908) 100% ;
Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals %
Beginning Fund Balance
2,660,832
2,748,263 103%
2,772,840 3,364,356 121%
Resources over Requirements
(2,493)
738,452
245,156 88,338
Net Transfers - In (Out) 4
(153,326)
(153,329) }
(232,908) -
TOTAL FUND BALANCE
$ 2,505,013
$ 3,333,387 133% ;
$ 2,785,088 $ 3,452,694 124%
A Federal grants are reimbursed on a quarterly basis
B Interest projection based on current investment rate and anticipated cash balances
C Includes CARES Fund reimbursements
Projection % $ Variance
3,364,356 121%
�
591,516, F
t
t
100,269
� k
(144,887)!
k
(232,908)
4 !
k
$ 3,231,717 116% ;
$446,629:
D Projected Personnel savings based on experienced vacancy rate in FY20
E Budget adjustment to increase M&S will be presented to the Board in September
F Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY20 and will be reflected on September financials
ES `°��� Budget to Actuals Report
Health Services - Behavioral Health - Fund 274 16 7%
FY21 YTD August 31, 2020 (unaudited)
Year Complete
Fiscal Year 2020
1
Fiscal Year 2021
RESOURCES
Budget
Actuals
%
Budget
Actuals
%
Projection %
$ Variance
State Grant
11203,914
8,188,902
73%
10,348,047
1,762,609
17%
10,277,367 99%
(70,680);
OHP Capitation
7:242,430
8,094,701
112% ,
8,279,406
1,633,953
20%
8,279,406 100%
OHP Fee for Service
3,265,627
600,424
18%
3,885,776 119% ,
620,149, A
Federal Grants
2,168,961
i
1,823,950
84%
3,017,034
0%
3,017,034 100%
State Miscellaneous
437,100
326,534
75%
1,361,455
4,483
0%
1,365,937 100%,
4,482 B
Local Grants
994,331
482,819
49%
1,067,377
577,456
54% E
1,397,860 131% !
330,483! C
Other
395,352
360,920
91%
927,605
149,592
16% t
927,605 100%
Patient Fees
443,450
465,851
105%
522,300
55,110
11%
344,800 66%
(177,500)'
Title 19
4,862,726
4,071,759
84%
350,491
188,795
54%
471,988 135%
121,497, D
State - OMAP
131,900
174,354
132%
210,287
22,195
11%
210,287 100% i
Divorce Filing Fees
173,030
173,030
100%
173,030
173,030
100%
173,030 100%
-
Interfund Contract- Gen Fund
127,000
127,000
100%
127,000
0%
127,000 100%
Liquor Revenue
150,800
162,122
108%
99,500
0%
99,500 100%
CCBHC Grant
�
-
12,894
( )
999%
'
TOTAL RESOURCES
28,330,994
24,439,049
86% ;
29,749,159
5,167,647
17%
30,577,590 103% ;
828,431:
REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance
Administration Allocation
6,978,412
6,963,580 100% =
7,383,758
1,206,679
16%
7,383,758 100%
-
Personnel Services
20,174,804
19,576,382
97%
23,039,443
3,515,086
15% t
22,867,784 99%
171,659! E
Materials and Services
6,889,404
3,816,899
55%
4,974,344
263,134
5%
5,345,377 107%
(371,033)! F
Capital Outlay
690,000
-
0%
99,667
-
0%
99,667 100%
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS ;
34,732,620
30,356,860
87% ;
35,497,212
4,984,899
14% ;
35,696,586 101% ;
(199,374);
TRANSFERS
Budget
Actuals
%
Budget
Actuals
%
Projection %
$ Variance
Transfers In- OHP Mental Health
548,601
998,268
182%
2,298,179
0%
2,298,179 100%
-
Transfers In- General Fund
i
1,734,107
1,734,100
100%
2,036,117
339,352
17%
2,036,117 100%
-
Transfers Out
-
-
-
-
0%
- 100%
-
TOTAL TRANSFERS
2,282,708
2,732,368
120% ;
4,334,296
339,352
8% ;
4,334,296 100% ;
FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection %
$ Variance
Beginning Fund Balance 6,122,347 6,673,256 109% 2,664,846 3,024,053 113% 3,024,053 113%
359,207, G
Resources over Requirements (6,401,626) (5,917,811) (5,748,053) 182,747 ! (5,118,996)
629,057�
Net Transfers - In (Out) 2,282,708 2,732,368 4,334,296 339,352 ? 4,334,296
G y F F t
t
TOTAL FUND BALANCE - $ 2,003,429 $ 3,487,814 174% ; $ 1,251,089 $ 3,546,152 283% ; ; $ 2,239,353 179% ;
$988,264;
A Oregon Health Authority reports OHP membership increase for Deschutes County, which may result in additional services
B Includes CARES Fund reimbursements
C Projections include an early release of quality improvement metric (QIM) funds for COVID-19 efforts from Central Oregon Health Council (COHC) as
well as a COHC mini -grant for telehealth capabilities
D CCBHC enhanced rate for Title 19 approved through November 2020
E Projected Personnel savings based on experienced vacancy rate in FY20
F Budget adjustment to increase M&S will be presented to the Board in September
G Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY20 and will be reflected on September financials
o� �I ES` 1 Budget to Actuals Report
Health Services - Public Health - Fund 274
FY21 YTD August 31, 2020 (unaudited)
16.7%
Year Complete
Fiscal Year 2020 1
Fiscal Year 2021
RESOURCES
Budget
Actuals %
Budget
Actuals
%
Projection %
$ Variance
State Grant
2,876,730
3,023,090 105%
3,879,956
1,005,921
26%
3,922,813 101%
42,857;
Environmental Health Fees
1,058,206
1,104,825 104% ,
1,078,429
49,607
5%
1,092,357 101%
13,928
State - OMAP
860,000
704,683 82% 3
952,220
151,570
16%
913,860 96%
(38,360)-
State Miscellaneous i
603,053
888,717 147%
769,933
73,026
9%
841,576 109%
71,643: A
Federal Grants i
382,000
408,834 107%
2972609
35,497
12%
284,609 96%
(13,000)!
Vital Records i
220,000
2593029 118%
237,296
44,619
19% €
277,344 117%
40,048
State Shared- Family Planning
120,000
191,912 160%
155,000
32,436
21%
194,616 126%
39,616
Patient Fees i
121,300
134,562 111%
150,695
16,951
11%
114,203 76%
(36,492)
Local Grants
573,000
646,917 113%
116,400
630,909
542%
1,328,610 999%
1,212,210, B
Other i
80,360
106,409 132%
23,975
0%
23,975 100%!
-
TOTAL RESOURCES ;
6,894,649
7,468,978 108% ;
7,661,513
2,040,536
27% ;
8,993,962 117% ;
1,332,450;
REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance
Administration Allocation
2,329,883
2,342,420
101%
2,200,644
366,774
17%
2,200,644 100%
Personnel Services
7,770,762
7,595,023
98%
8,130,794
1,386,115
17%
8,149,959 100%
(19,165); C
Materials and Services
1,846,896
1,737,594
94%
2,360,640
257,064
11%
2,415,938 102%
(55,298)� D
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS
11,947,541
11,675,037
98%
12,692,078
2,009,953
16%
12,766,541 101% ;
(74,463);
TRANSFERS
Budget
Actuals
%
Budget
Actuals
%
Projection %
$ Variance
Transfers In- General Fund
3,972,983
3,972,993
100%
3,167,593
527,932
17%
3,436,593 108%
269,000;
Transfers In - TRT
-
-
692,369
0%
406,646 59%
(285,723)�
Transfers In- OHP Mental Health
-
81,686
0%
81,686 100%
TOTAL TRANSFERS
3,972,983
3,972,993
100% ;
3,941,648
527,932
13% ;
3,924,925 100% ;
(16,723);
FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance
Beginning Fund Balance 1,337,624 1,216,586 91% 1,293,332 1,036,504 80% 1,036,504 80%
(256,828); E
Resources over Requirements (5,052,892) (4,206,059) (5,030,565) 30,583 (3,772,578)
1,257,987
Net Transfers - In (Out) 3,972,983 3,972,993 3,941,648 5279932 3,924,925
i � ii �
(162723);
i
TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 257,715 $ 983,519 382% $ 204,415 $ 1,595,019 780% ; $ 1,188,851 582% ;
$984,436:
A Payments are reimbursed on a quarterly basis, and include the Medicaid Administrative Claims payment as well as CARES Fund reimbursements
B Projections include $913K from Central Oregon Health Council (COHC) for COVID-19 efforts
C Projected Personnel savings based on experienced vacancy rate in FY20
D Budget adjustment to increase M&S will be presented to the Board in September
E Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY20 and will be reflected on September financials
Q �zEs` Budget to Actuals Report
Community Development - Fund 295
FY21 YTD August 31, 2020 (unaudited)
16.7%
Year Complete
Fiscal Year 2020
1
Fiscal Year 2021
RESOURCES
Budget
Actuals
%
Budget
Actuals
%
Projection % $ Variance
Admin - Operations
162,000
156,476
97%
137,450
18,983
14%
143,450 104% 6,000, A
Code Enforcement
693,960
664,545
96%
722,028
112,797
16%
722,028 100%, -
Building Safety
3,433,780
3,179,771
93%
3,362,450
561,286
17% t
3,362,450 100%
Electrical
809,500
797,458
99%
720,600
138,152
19%
720,600 100%
Environmental On -Site
877,400
905,165
103%
867,700
160,918
19%
867,700 100% -
Current Planning
11807,176
1,696,355
94% !
1,738,304
284,929
16%
1,738,304 100%
Long Range Planning
685,004
643,772
94%
703,194
121,663
17%
703,194 100%
TOTAL RESOURCES
8,468,820
8,043,542
95%
8,251,726
1,398,729
17%
8,257,726 100%: 6,000;
REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance
Admin - Operations
2,492,316
2,527,439
101%
2,818,748
491,852
17%
2,818,748 100%
Code Enforcement
535,590
458,293
86%
568,320
72,586
13%
548,217 96%
20,103, B
Building Safety
1,743,298
1,584,784
91%
1,867,662
268,102
14%
1,867,662 100%
Electrical
462,183
452,842
98%
524,979
77,538
15%
524,979 100%
Environmental On -Site
616,279
566,975
92%
634,452
98,022
15%
634,452 100%
Current Planning
1,501,588
1,415,434
94%
1,382,661
216,912
16%
1,370,918 99%
11,743! B
Long Range Planning
554,385
456,323
82% f
467,920
78,100
17% ±
485,220 104%
(17,300)� C
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS
7,905,639
7,462,091
94%
8,264,742
1,303,112
16% ;
8,250,196 100% ;
14,546:
TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance
Transfers In - General Fund
100,000
100,000
100%
100,000
0%
100,000
100%
Transfers In - CDD Electrical
-
-
93,264
0%
93,264
100%
Reserve
Transfers Out
(85,695)
(85,695)
100%:
(100,518)
0%
(100,518)
100%
Transfers Out - CDD Reserve
(1,462,386)
(1,125,936)
77%
(148,226)
0%
(148,226)
100%
TOTAL TRANSFERS
; (1,448,081)
(1,111,631)
77%
(55,480)
0%
(55,480)
100% ;
FUND BALANCE
Budget
Actuals %
Budget
Actuals %
Projection
% $ Variance
Beginning Fund Balance
1,982,004
1,783,536 90%
1,012,694
1,304,891 129%
1,304,891
129% 292,197� D
Resources over Requirements
563,181
581,451
(13,016)
95,617
7,530
20,546'
Net Transfers - In (Out)
t
(1,448,081)
(1,111,631)
k
(55,480)
-
k F
(55,480)
i k
TOTAL FUND BALANCE
$ 1,097,104
$ 1,253,356 114% ;
$ 944,198
$ 1,400,508 148% ;
$ 1,256,941
133% ; $312,743:
A Interest projection based on current investment rate and anticipated cash balances
8 Projection reflects unfilled FTE
C Projection increased due to unbudgeted time management payout
D Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY20 and will be reflected on September financials
ES� Budget to Actuals Report
Road - Fund 325
FY21 YTD August 31, 2020 (unaudited)
RESOURCES
Motor Vehicle Revenue
Federal - PILT Payment
Federal Reimbursements
Other Inter -fund Services
Forest Receipts
Sale of Equip & Material
Cities-Bend/Red/Sis/La Pine
Interest on Investments
Mineral Lease Royalties
Miscellaneous
Assessment Payments (P&I)
State Miscellaneous
TOTAL RESOURCES
16.7%
Year Complete
Fiscal Year 2020
1
Fiscal Year 2021
Budget
Actuals
%
Budget
Actuals
%
Projection %
$ Variance
17,609,539
16,795,577
95%
14,810,507
1,955,309
13%
14,810,507 100%,
1,510,450
2,310,002
153%
1,690,574
2,061,977
122%
2,061,977 122% !
371,403; A
181,757
479,479
264%
1,325,874
-
0%
1,325,874 100%
1,156,581
1,070,000
93%
1,114,070
65,557
6%
1,114,070 100%
915,000
709,742
78%
723,085
-
0%
723,085 100%
358,000
465,999
130%
396,000
0%
396,000 100%
660,000
421,344
64%
385,000
-
0%
385,000 100%
246,000
174,141
71%
114,000
13,910
12%
83,500 73% ±
(30,500); B
60,000
54,184
90%
60,000
-
0%
60,000 100%
57,500
76,388
133%
54,000
17,247
32%
54,000 100%,
11,000
19,766
180%
8,000
1,160
15% _
8,000 100%
20,000
25,805
129%
-
-
22,785,827
22,602,427
99% ;
20,681,110
4,115,160
20% ;
21,022,013 102% ;
340,903'
REQUIREMENTS
Budget
Actuals
%
Budget
Actuals
%
Projection % $ Variance
Personnel Services
6,447,671
6,284,546
97%
6,709,180
1,062,116
16% t
6,595,222 98% 113,9% C
Materials and Services
8,092,165
6,782,228
84%
7,753,525
1,542,491
20%
7,753,525 100%
Capital Outlay
33,500
27,706
83%
50,500
-
0%
50,500 100% -
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS
14,573,336
13,094,479
90%
14,513,205
2,604,608
18% ;
14,399,247 99% 113,95&
TRANSFERS
Budget
Actuals
%
Budget
Actuals
%
Projection
% $ Variance
Transfers Out
(11,910,575)
(11,910,575)
100%
(6,683,218)
(1,418,945)
21%
(6,683,218)
100%
TOTAL TRANSFERS
(11,910,575)
(11,910,575)
100% ;
(6,683,218)
(1,418,945)
21% ;
(6,683,218)
100%
FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance
Beginning Fund Balance 6,001,989 6,726,840 112% 2,695,786
4,202,747 156%
4,202,747 156% 1,506,961, D
Resources over Requirements 8,212,491 9,507,947 6,167,905
1,510,552
6,622,766 454,861!
Net Transfers - In (Out) (11,910,575) (11,910,575) (6,683,218)
(19418,945)
(6,683,218) -'
TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 2,303,905 $ 4,324,212 188% ' $ 2,180,473
$ 4,294,354 197% ". `.
$ 4,142,295 190% ' $1,961,822'
A Updated based on most recent information from the State
B Interest projection based on current investment rate and anticipated cash balances
C Projected Personnel savings based on FY20 average vacancy rate of 2.2%
D Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY20 and will
be reflected on September financials
ES`� Budget to Actuals Report
Adult P&P - Fund 355
FY21 YTD August 31, 2020 (unaudited)
16.7%
Year Complete
Fiscal Year 2020 1
Fiscal Year 2021
RESOURCES
Budget
Actuals %
Budget
Actuals
%
Projection %
$ Variance
DOC Grant in Aid SB 1145
4,353,626
4,621,782 106% ,
4,621,780
1,155,445
25%
4,621,780 100%,
- A
CJC Justice Reinvestment
712,530
1,014,690 142%
797,504
-
0%
797,504 100%
DOC Measure 57
t 236,142
239,005 101%
239,005
239,005
100%
239,005 100%,
B
Probation Supervision Fees
160,000
183,688 115%
170,000
28,866
17%
170,000 100%
Interfund- Sheriff
50,000
55,000 110%
50,000
9,167
18%
50,000 100%
Gen Fund/Crime Prevention
50,000
50,000 100%
50,000
-
0%
50,000 100%
Interest on Investments
d 77,500
64,896 84%
37,700
13,196
35%
37,700 100%
- C
State Subsidy
16,298
16,703 102%
16,298
-
0%
0%
(16,298); D
Electronic Monitoring Fee
2,000
20,182 999%
10,000
790
8%
10,000 100%
-
Probation Work Crew Fees
t 2,000
1,923 96% E
2,000
40
2%
2,000 100%
Miscellaneous
500
15,412 999%
1,000
91
9%
1,000 100%
DOC-Family Sentence Alt
114,682
223,746 195%
Oregon BOPPPS
-
40,933
-
State Miscellaneous
-
22,986
-
TOTAL RESOURCES
; 5,775,278
6,570,946 114% ;
5,995,287
1,446,599
24%
5,978,989 100% ;
(16,298);
REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance
Personnel Services
4,809,644
4,753,486
99%
5,157,473
820,071
16% _
5,137,016 100% 20,457; E
Materials and Services
1,844,847
1,664,096
90%
1,923,795
175,988
9%
1,923,795 100%
Capital Outlay
15,000
10,000
67%
-
-
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS
6,669,491
6,427,582
96% ;
7,081,268
996,058
14%
7,060,811 100% ; 20,457;
TRANSFERS
Budget
Actuals
%
Budget
Actuals
%
Projection % $ Variance
Transfers In- General Funds
285,189
285,189
100%
285,189
47,530
17%
285,189 100%
Transfer to Vehicle Maint
(62,000)
(62,000)
100%
(97,693)
-
0%
(97,693) 100%
TOTAL TRANSFERS
223,189
223,189
100% ;
187,496
47,530
25% ;
187,496 100%
FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance
Beginning Fund Balance
21590,000
2,754,005 106%
2,714,814
3,118,858 115% ,
3,118,858 115% , 404,044 F
Resources over Requirements
(894,213)
143,364
(1,085,981)
450,541 _
(1,081,822) 4,159,
Net Transfers - In (Out)
k
223,189
223,189
E
187,496
47,530
t i
187,496
d t
TOTAL FUND BALANCE
$ 1,918,976
$ 3,120,558 163% ;
$ 1,816,329
$ 3,616,929 199% ;
$ 2,224,532 122% ; $408,203:
A State Dept. of Corrections Grant in Aid received quarterly
B State Measure 57 received in one annual payment
C Interest projection based on current investment rate and anticipated cash balances
D State Dept of Corrections gave notice that these funds have been eliminated for FY21
E Projected Personnel savings based on FY20 average vacancy rate of 1.4%
F Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY20 and will be reflected on September financials
S C-
IE Budget to Actuals Report
Road CIP - Fund 465
FY21 YTD August 31, 2020 (unaudited)
16.7%
Year Complete
Fiscal Year 2020
1
Fiscal Year 2021
RESOURCES
Budget
Actuals
%
Budget
Actuals %
Projection % $ Variance
State Miscellaneous
1,944,893
1,058,217
54%
2,258,100
- 0%
2,258,100 100%
Interest on Investments
198,000
366,198
185%
209,700
81,687 39%
370,000 176% 160,300! A
Interfund Payment
-
111,340
-
-
-
TOTAL RESOURCES
2,142,893
1,535,756
72%
2,467,800
81,687 3%
2,628,100 106% ; 160,300:
REQUIREMENTS
Budget
Actuals
%
Budget
Actuals
%
Projection %
$ Variance
Materials and Services
71,748
71,748
100%
158,465
26,411
17%
158,465 100%
Capital Outlay
13,764,165
5,752,905
42%
19,877,585
611,831
3%
19,847,675 100%
29,9%
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS
13,835,913
5,824,653
42%
20,036,050
638,242
3%
20,006,140 100% ;
29,910:
TRANSFERS
Budget
Actuals
%
Budget
Actuals
%
Projection %
$ Variance
Transfers In
12,014,914
11,431,979
95%
7,517,657
-
0%
7,517,657 100%
-
TOTAL TRANSFERS
12,014,914
11,431,979
95% ;
7,517,657
0% ;
7,517,657 100% ;
FUND BALANCE
Budget
Actuals
%
Budget
Actuals
%
Projection %
$ Variance
Beginning Fund Balance
15,616,536
17,759,555
114%
23,154,407
24,902,636
108%
24,902,636 108%
1,748,229:
Resources over Requirements
(11,693,020)
(4,288,898)
(17,568,250)
(556,556)
(17,378,040)
190,210!
Net Transfers - In (Out) s
12,014,914
11,431,979
7,517,657
7,517,657
TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 15,938,430
$ 24,902,636
156% ;
$ 13,103,814
$ 24,346,080 186% ; ;
$ 15,042,253 115% $1,938,439:
A Interest projection based on current investment rate and anticipated cash balances
B Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined
after the final
close of FY20 and will be reflected on September financials
>0' Budget to Actuals Report
Road CIP (Fund 465) - Capital Outlay Summary by Project 16.7%
FY21 YTD August 31, 2020 (unaudited) Year Completed
Fiscal Year 2020 Fiscal Year 2021
Budaet Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance
Tumalo Res Rd: OB Riley to Bailey Rd
247,342
- 0%
-
-
-
Sisemore Bridge
= 632,174
181,118 29% _
f
404,245
15,233
4%
404,245 100%
ARTS Project
€ 180,746
- 0%
Terrebonne Refinement Plan
-
5,000,000
-
0%
€ 5,000,000 100% E
US 20 at Tumalo
300,000
- 0%
S. Canal - "Six" Corners
900,000
1,008,108 112%€
C Avenue: Hwy 97 to 6th St Impry
300,000
369,705 123%
Paving Ward Road
598,269
715,504 120%:
-
-
-
S. Canal / Helmholtz Way
800,000
852,853 107%-
-
-
-
Tumalo Road Tumalo Place
769,521
245,995 32%
1,517,345
-
0%
1 1,517,345 100%
Old Bend Rdm/Tumalo Rd Inter
625,642
344,429 55% =
1,350,782
53,298
4%
1,350,782 100%:
Spring River Bridge Parking Imp
=
12,122
NE Negus and 17TH
: 1,025,472
109,111 11%
788,684
-
0% =
788,684 100%
Hunnel Rd: Loco Rd to Tumalo Rd
275,000
193,732 70% `
794,229
31,676
4% :
794,229 100% :
Cascade Lakes Hwy Bike Facilities
39,856
11,856 30%
Transportation System Plan Update
250,000
253 0% €
170,000
-
0%
170,000 100% E
Slurry Seal 2020
284,432
US 20 Ward Rd to Hamby
500,000
500,000 100%
-
-
-
US 97 Bend North Corridor
5,000,000
- 0%
5,000,000
-
0% _
5,000,000 100%
Gribbling Rd Bridge
60,000
- 0% :
222,000
0% _
222,000 100%
Alfalfa Mkt Rd: Powell Butte Hwy
300,000
940 307% 19,9'
-
-
-
=
Paving Fyrear Rd
300,000
- 0% _
1,564,000
-
0% €
1,564,000 100%
Paving of S. Century Dr
= -
2,673
100,000
417,507
418%:
100,000 100%
Terrebonne Wastewater Feasibility St.
_ -
858
50,000
8,684
17% :
? 50,000 100%
Rickard Rd: Groff Rd to US 20
= -
217
605,300
15,344
3% =
605,300 100%
Paving Powell Butte Hwy
-
-
651,000
-
0% €
651,000 100%
Smith Rock Way Bridge Replace
-
- _
85,000
-
0% _
85,000 100%
t
Deschutes Mkt Rd/Hamehook Round
-
150,000
0% =
150,000 100%
US 97: S. Century Dr to USFS Boundry
: -
- !
-
70,090
_
70,090 _ (70,091
Guardrail improvements
100,000
- 0%
100,000
-
0%
100,000 100%
Bend District Local Roads
500,000
-
0%
500,000 100%:
City of LaPine Local Roads
500,000
- 0% :
500,000
-
0% :
500,000 100%
Sidewalk Ramp Improvements
-
-
75,000
0% =
75,000 100%
Signage Improvements
60,144
- 0%
250,000
-
0% _
_ 150,000 60% 100,00
TOTAL
€ $ 13,764,165 $ 5,752,905 42%: $ 19,877,585
611,831
3%
$ 19,847,675 100%2 $ 29,91
\31ES` �{ Budget to Actuals Report
yL� OG
Solid Waste - Fund 610
FY21 YTD August 31, 2020 (unaudited)
16.7%
Year Complete
Fiscal Year 2020
Fiscal Year 2021
RESOURCES
Budget
Actuals %
Budget
Actuals
%
Projection %
$ Variance
Franchise Disposal Fees
6,437,500
6,444,136 100%
6,630,625
1,190,422
18%
6,630,625 100%:
Private Disposal Fees
2,419,046
2,556,619 106%
2,491,617
553,114
22%
2,491,617 100%
Commercial Disp. Fee
2,252,225
2,429,879 108%
2,319,792
488,059
21%
2,319,792 100%
Franchise 3% Fees
265,000
297,352 112%
280,000
10,381
4%
280,000 100%!
A
Yard Debris
216,761
290,794 134%
216,761
62,379
29%
216,761 100%!
B
Miscellaneous
48,336
191,720 397%
88,096
14,404
16%
88,096 100%!
- C
Interest
59,000
49,256 83%
23,700
11,124
47%
66,700 281% !
43,000!
Special Waste
15,000
28,830 192%
15,000
13,866
92%
15,000 100%!
- D
Recyclables
12,000
12,163 101%
12,000
2,985
25%
12,000 100%
Leases
1
1 100%!
1
-
0%
1 100%!
-
TOTAL RESOURCES
11,724,869
12,300,751 105% ;
12,077,592
2,346,734
19% ;
12,120,592 100% ;
43,000:
REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance
Personnel Services
2,538,776
2,393,257
94%
2,518,594
401,890
16%
2,493,386 99% 25,208 E
Materials and Services
4,927,163
4,251,692
86%
5,227,119
305,029
6%
5,227,119 100%! F
Capital Outlay
56,000
11,724
21%
162,500
0%
162,500 100%
Debt Service
862,100
861,644 100%!
945,000
0%
945,000 100%
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS
8,384,039
7,518,318
90% ;
8,853,213
706,919
8%
8,828,005 100% ; 25,208:
TRANSFERS
Budget
Actuals
%
Budget
Actuals
%
Projection % $ Variance
SW Capital & Equipment
(3,296,192)
(3,296,192)
100% ±
(3,684,280)
0%
(3,684,280) 100%
Reserve
TOTAL TRANSFERS
(3,296,192)
(3,296,192)
100% ;
(3,684,280)
0% ;
(3,684,280) 100% ;
FUND BALANCE
Budget
Actuals %
Budget
Actuals % Projection % $ Variance
Beginning Fund Balance
600,000
799,570 133%
1,179,819
2,286,177 194% < 2,286,177 194% 1,106,358, G
Resources over Requirements
3,340,830
4,782,433
3,224,379
1,639,815 3,292,587 68,208�
Net Transfers - In (Out)
(3,296,192)
(3,296,192)
(3,684,280)
- (3,684,280)
TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 644,638 $ 2,285,811 355% ; $ 719,918 $ 3,925,992 545% ; ; $ 1,894,484 263% ; $1,174,566:
A Annual fees due April 15, 2021; received the Wilderness Garbage monthly installments
B Revenue is seasonal with higher utilization in the summer months
C FY20 includes the unbudgeted sale of a loader and 2 trailers, LED light incentives and royalty payments. The $13.7K for the 2 trailers was budgeted
in FY21, but sold in late June.
D Revenue source is unpredictable and dependent on special clean-up projects; recent large contaminated soil projects from cleaning up a power
substation and routine cleaning of a decant facility
E Personnel savings based on FY21 YTD average vacancy rate of 4.26% with factors for the recently filled open position (timing and rate)
F M&S activities are expected to meet budget with pending services and repairs and delayed invoices
G An influx of disposal volume and postponement of costs in FY20, such as the waste characterization study, positively impacted the beginning fund
balance. Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY20 and will be reflected on September financials.
C.
I ES Budget to Actuals Report
Fair & Expo - Fund 615
FY21 YTD August 31, 2020 (unaudited)
16.7%
Year Complete
Fiscal Year 2020
1
Fiscal Year 2021
RESOURCES
Budget
Actuals
%
Budget
Actuals
%
Projection %
$ Variance
Events Revenue
687,000
328,219
48%
625,000
90,299
14%
625,000 100%
A
Food & Beverage
568,000
280,874
49%
548,500
13,345
2%
548,500 100%!
B
Rights & Signage
120,000
114,100
95%
125,000
7,000
6%
125,000 100%
Storage
71,000
83,158
117%
75,000
800
1%
75,000 100%
Horse Stall Rental
62,000
37,386
60%
52,000
60
0%
52,000 100%
Interfund Payment
30,000
143,956
480%
30,000
64,746
216%
89,489 298%
59,489! C
Camping Fee
18,000
5,600
31%
12,500
-
0% E
12,500 100%
Miscellaneous
3,500
2,236
64%
250
6,930
999% <
7,250 999% -
7,000
Interest
2,000
(59006) -250%
i
(2,200)
44
.2%
200 -9%
2,400! D
TOTAL RESOURCES
1,561,500
990,522
63% ;
1,466,050
183,225
12%
1,534,939 105% ;
68,889;
REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance
Personnel Services
1,176,169
1,108,608 94%
840,704
172,155
20%
810,703 96% ,
30,001; E
Personnel Services - F&B
157,430
158,556 101%
165,518
26,893
16%
165,518 100%!
B
Materials and Services
795,788
787,764 99%
702,149
70,907
10% 4
702,149 100%
Materials and Services - F&B
234,600
217,422 93%
257,600
5,884
2%
257,600 100%
B
Debt Service
100,800
100,151 99%
104,400
-
0%
104,400 100%
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS ;
2,464,787
2,372,501 96%
2,070,371
275,840
13%
2,040,370 99%
30,001:
TRANSFERS
Budget
Actuals %
Budget
Actuals
%
Projection %
$ Variance
Transfers In - Room Tax
409,654
707,258 173%
275,744
4,290
2%
275,744 100%:
F
Transfers In - General Fund
200,000
200,000 100%
200,000
33,332
17%
200,000 100%
Transfers In - Park Fund
30,000
30,000 100%
30,000
0%
30,000 100%
Transfers In - County Fair
395,000
250,000 63%
Transfers In - F&E Capital
-
300,000
;
Reserve
Transfers Out
(11,791)
(11,791) 100%
(10,777)
0%
(10,777) 100%
TOTAL TRANSFERS
1,022,863
1,475,467 144% ;
494,967
37,622
8% ;
494,967 100% ;
FUND BALANCE
Budget
Actuals %
Budget
Actuals %
Projection %
$ Variance
Beginning Fund Balance
80,000
(94,564) -118%;
364,904
(14,854) -4% _
(14,854) -4%
(379,758): G
Resources over Requirements c
(903,287)
(1,381,979)
(604,321)
(92,615)
(505,431) f
98,890!
Net Transfers - In (Out)
E
1,022,863
1,475,467
4
494,967
37,622
k F
494,967 f
E
S
TOTAL FUND BALANCE
$ 199,576
($ 1,077) -1%
$ 255,550
($ 69,847) -27% ;
($ 25,317) -10%
($280,867);
A Current year receipts are 14%
of budget YTD;
prior year receipts were 16% of budget at this point last year.
B Net earnings from F&B activities YTD are $(18,617). Monthly fixed costs have a greater impact on earnings during off-season months.
C Reimbursement from RV Park for personnel expenditures recorded in F&E. Includes interfund payment for 3.0 FTE whose cost is being absorbed
by Roads with a tentative transfer back to F&E on October 1, 2020.
D Interest projection based on current investment rate and anticipated cash balances
E Projected Personnel savings based on FY20 average vacancy rate of 7.6%
F $250K of budgeted transfers are to be transferred on an as needed basis
G Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY20 and will be reflected on September financials
I ES C-
Budget to Actuals Report
< Annual County Fair - Fund 616
FY21 YTD August 31, 2020 (unaudited)
RESOURCES
State Grant
Commercial Exhibitors
Interest on Investments
Fair Sponsorship
Merchandise Sales
Concessions and Catering
Gate Receipts
Carnival
Livestock Entry Fees
RN Camping/Horse Stall Rental
Concert
Rodeo
TOTALRESOURCES
16.7%
Year Complete
Fiscal Year 2020
Fiscal Year 2021
1
Budget
Actuals % Budget
Actuals %
Projection
%
$ Variance
52,000
53,167 102% 52,000
53,167 102%
53,167
102%
1, 167;
122,000
12,600 10% -
(950) 999%
(950)
999%
(950),
200
(166) -83%
(101) 999%
(600)
999%
(600)! A
37,500
19,108 51%
-
5,000
5,246 105%
425,000
466,503 110%
560,000
561,460 100%
340,000
328,274 97%
7,000
4,731 68%
26,000
625 2%
50,000
12,000 24%
25,000
5,650 23%
1,649,700
1,469,198 89% 52,000
52,116 100%
51,617
99%
(383):
REQUIREMENTS
Budget
Actuals %
Budget
Actuals
% Projection % $ Variance
Personnel Services
164,638
157,448 96%
110,000
26,674
24% 110,000 100%
Materials and Services
1,340,062
1,457,840 109%
17,000
.17,529
103% 18,000 106% (1,000)�
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS
1,504,700
1,615,288 107%
127,000
44,203
35% 128,000 101% (1,000):
TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance
Transfer In - TRT 1% 250,000 250,000 100% 75,000 0% 130,000 173% 55,000 B
Transfer Out - Fair & Expo (395,000) (250,000) 63%
-
TOTAL TRANSFERS (145,000) 0% 75,000 0% 130,000 173%: 55,000:
FUND BALANCE
Budget Actuals %
Budget Actuals
% Projection %
$ Variance
Beginning Fund Balance
- 98,629
(48,411)
(48,411)
(48,411)' C
Resources over Requirements
145,000 (146,090)
(75,000) 7,913
(76,383) t
(1,383);
Net Transfers - In (Out)
(145,000) f
75,000
130,000
55,0W
TOTAL FUND BALANCE
($47,461)
($40,498)
$5,206 999%
$5,206:
A Interest projection based on current investment rate and anticipated cash balances
$130K budgeted to transfer from TRT Fund
Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY20 and will be reflected on September financials
Budget to Actuals Report
Annual County Fair - Fund 616
CY21 YTD August 31, 2020 (unaudited)
RESOURCES
Gate Receipts
Carnival
Commercial Exhibitors
Livestock Entry Fees
R/V Camping/Horse Stall Rental
Merchandise Sales
Concessions and Catering
Group Sales
DCFE - Food
DCFE - Alcohol
Fair Sponsorship
TOTAL FAIR REVENUES
OTHER RESOURCES
State Grant
Interest
Miscellaneous
TOTAL RESOURCES
REQUIREMENTS
Personnel
Materials & Services
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS
TRANSFERS
Transfer In - TRT 1 %
Transfer Out - Fair & Expo
TOTAL TRANSFERS
Net Fair
Beginning Fund Balance on Jan 1
2020
Fair 2019
Fair 2020
Projection
$ 562,065 __.
$ -
$ -
328,274
-
-
312,402
(5,800)
(5,800)
4,731
-
-
29,250
-
-
5,246
-
-
293,076
-
-
17,706
-
-
50,535
-
-
224,836
-
-
148,943
(22,250)
(22,250)
$ 1,683,988
$ (28,050)
$ (28,050)
53,167
53,167
53,167
204
(9)
131
$ 1,737,358
$ 25,108
$ 25,248
155,215
107,934
161,282
1,509,039
85,006
85,006
$ 1,664,255
$ 192,940
$ 246,288
200,000 125,000 190,000
(250,000) - -
$ 50,000 $ 125,000 $ 190,000
$ 23,104 $ (42,833) $ (31,040)
$ 19,819 $ 3,285 $ 3,285
Ending Balance $ 3,285
\)I E S ` Budget to Actuals Report
L� �G
Fair & Expo Capital Reserve - Fund 617 16.7%
FY21 YTD August 31, 2020 (unaudited)
Year Complete
Fiscal Year 2020 Fiscal Year 2021
RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance
Interest on Investments 16,000 21,189 132% = 14,000 2,465 18% 15,000 107% 1,000; A
TOTAL RESOURCES 16,000 21,189 132% ; 14,000 2,465 18% 15,000 107% ; 1,000;
REQUIREMENTS
Budget
Actuals
%
Budget
Actuals %
Projection % $ Variance
Materials and Services
345,000
243,985
71%
235,000
825 0%
235,000 100%
Capital Outlay
1,017,775
180,946
18%
100,000
66,940 67%
166,940 167% (66,940)� B
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS
1,362,775
424,931
31%
335,000
67,765 20%
401,940 120% ; (66,940);
TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance
Transfers In - TRT 1% 286,687 286,687 100% 253,158 0% 253,158 100%
Transfers Out (300,000) (300,000) 100%
TOTAL TRANSFERS (13,313) (13,313) 100% ; 253,158 0% ; 253,158 100% ;
FUND BALANCE
Budget
Actuals %
Budget
Actuals
% Projection
% $ Variance
Beginning Fund Balance
1,360,088
1,143,224 84%
1,143,224
808,281
71% 808,281
71% (334,943); C
Resources over Requirements
(1,346,775)
(403,742)
(321,000)
(65,301)
(386,940)
(65,940)
Net Transfers - In (Out)
E
(13,313)
(13,313)
t
253,158
-
253,158
i f
F i
TOTAL FUND BALANCE
$ 726,169 999% ;
$ 1,075,382
$ 742,981
69% $ 674,499
63% ($400,883);
A Interest projection based on current investment rate and anticipated cash balances
B $66,940 is for a LED lighting project not included in the budget. A budget adjustment will be presented to BOCC in September
C Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY20 and will be reflected on September financials
o�'IES`� Budget to Actuals Report
RV Park - Fund 618
FY21 YTD August 31, 2020 (unaudited)
16.7%
Year Complete
Fiscal Year 2020
Fiscal Year 2021
RESOURCES
Budget
Actuals %
Budget
Actuals
%
Projection %
$ Variance
RV Park Fees < 31 Days
405,200
412,954 102%
400,200
137,771
34%
400,200 100%
A
RV Park Fees > 30 Days
5,000
13,050 261%
12,000
-
0%
12,000 100%
-
Interest on Investments
12,000
10,746 90%
7,600
941
12%
5,650 74% _
(1,950)! B
Cancellation Fees
5,000
5,271 105%
5,500
155
3%
5,500 100%!
-
Washer / Dryer
4,000
5,913 148%
4,000
1,151
29%
4,000 100%,
-
Vending Machines
3,000
1,821 61%
3,000
406
14%
3,000 100%
Miscellaneous
2,000
2,332 117%
2,250
620
28% ?
2,250 100%
Good Sam Membership Fee
1,500
476 32%
1,500
-
0%
- 0%
(1,500); C
Good Sam Discounts
-
(7,109) 999%
-
-
-
- C
TOTAL RESOURCES
437,700
445,454 102% ;
436,050
141,044
32%
432,600 99%
(3,450);
REQUIREMENTS
Budget
Actuals %
Budget
Actuals %
Projection % $ Variance
Materials and Services
318,273
281,565 88%
321,402
49,639 15%
321,402 100%
Debt Service
222,100
221,810 100%
222,500
- 0%
222,500 100%
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS ;
540,373
503,375 93% ;
543,902
49,639 9%
543,902 100% ;
TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance
Transfers In - Park Fund
160,000
160,000 100%
160,000
- 0%
160,000 100%
Transfers In - TRT Fund
35,000
35,000 100%
25,000
- 0%
25,000 100%
Transfer Out - RV Reserve
(502,000)
(502,000) 100%
(621,628)
0%
(621,628) 100%
TOTAL TRANSFERS
(307,000)
(307,000) 100%
(436,628)
0%
(436,628) 100% ;
FUND BALANCE
Budget
Actuals %
Budget
Actuals %
Projection %
$ Variance
Beginning Fund Balance
560,000
592,992 106%
587,992
228,071 39%
228,071 39%
(359,921)' D
Resources over Requirements
(102,673)
(57,921) _
(107,852)
91,405
(111,302)
(3,450);
Net Transfers - In (Out)
(307,000)
(307,000)
(436,628)
(436,628)
TOTAL FUND BALANCE
$ 150,327
$ 228,071 152% ;
$ 43,512
$ 319,477 734%
($ 319,859) -735%;
($363,371);
A 3,936 RV spaces, 59.90% utilization YTD. Prior year comparable was 4,720 RV spaces, 71.82% utilization YTD
B Interest projection based on current investment rate and anticipated cash balances
C The Good Sam incentive program was discontinued during Fall 2019.
D Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY20 and will be reflected on September financials
oy �IEs ` Budget to Actuals Report
RV Park Reserve - Fund 619 76.7%
FY21 YTD August 31, 2020 (unaudited)
Year Complete
Fiscal Year 2020 Fiscal Year 2021
RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance
Interest on Investments 12,550 3,801 30% 1,100 1,634 149% 9,800 891% 8,700� A
TOTAL RESOURCES ; 12,550 3,801 30% 1,100 1,634 149% ; 9,800 891% ; 8,700;
REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance
Materials and Services 6,641 999% -
Capital Outlay 100,000 1,694 2% 100,000 0% 100,000 100%
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 100,000 8,335 8% 100,000 0% 100,000 100% ;
TRANSFERS
Budget
Actuals %
Budget Actuals
%
Projection % $ Variance
Transfer In - RV Park Ops
502,000
502,000 100%
621,628
0%
621,628 100% -
TOTAL TRANSFERS
502,000
502,000 100% ;
621,628
0%
621,628 100% ;
FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget
Actuals %
Projection %
$ Variance
Beginning Fund Balance 490,000
497,466 102% <
497,466 102%
7,46& B
Resources over Requirements t (87,450) (4,534) _ (98,900)
1,634
(90,200)
8,700
Net Transfers - In (Out) 502,000 502,000 621,628
,
- !
621,628
-
TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 414,550 $ 497,466 120% ; $ 1,012,728
$ 499,100 49% ;
$ 1,028,894 102% ;
$16,166:
A Interest projection based on current investment rate and anticipated cash balances
B Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY20 and will
be reflected on September
financials
01E'S C, Budget to Actuals Report
Risk Management - Fund 670
FY21 YTD August 31, 2020 (unaudited)
RESOURCES
Workers' Compensation
General Liability
Property Damage
Unemployment
Vehicle
Interest on Investments
Claims Reimbursement
Skid Car Training
Process Fee- Events/ Parades
Loss Prevention
Miscellaneous
TOTALRESOURCES
REQUIREMENTS
Workers' Compensation
General Liability
Insurance Administration
Property Damage
Unemployment
Vehicle
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS
16.7%
Year Complete
Fiscal Year 2020 1
Fiscal Year 2021
Budget
Actuals %
Budget
Actuals
%
Projection %
$ Variance
1255,108
1,311,863 105%
1,188,848
203,677
17%
1,188,848 100%
-'
1:072,326
i
1,055,486 98%
990,628
160,533
16%
990,628 100%
-
392,923
395,921 101%
373,698
62,258
17%
373,698 100%
323,572
304,607 94%
323,572
153,055
47%
323,572 100%
-' A
195,580
203,005 104%
218,185
37,044
17%
218,185 100%
137,000
i
150,197 110%
87,200
28,022
32%
168,000 193%
80,800! B
82,000
460,881 562%
509000
9,208
18%
50,000 100% t
-
34,000
34,830 102% <
30,000
-
0%
15,000 50%
(15,000)
2,000
765 38%
1,500
(45)
-3%
500 33%
(1,000y
30
- 0%
10
-
0%
10 100%
500
12,967 999%
5
-
0% � �
30,000 999%
29,995, C
3,495,039
3,930,523 112% ;
3,263,646
653,751
20% ;
3,358,441 103% ;
94,795;
Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance
1,460,000
713,047
49%
1,560,000
227,804
15%
1,260,000
81%
300,000�
1,400,000
311,666
22%
1,100,000
166,825
15%
1,400,000
127%
(300,000)! D
592,059
470,922
80%
584,104
72,941
12%
584,104
100%
400,236
701,454
175%
200,240
264,645
132%
350,000
175%
(149,760); E
130,000
63,289
49%
200,000
-
0%
200,000
100%,
-�
150,000
179,835
120%
150,000
17,226
11%
150,000
100%
-
4,132,295
2,440,213
59%
3,794,344
749,440
20%
3,944,104
104%
(149,760);
TRANSFERS
Budget
Actuals
%
Budget Actuals
%
Projection % $ Variance
Transfers Out - Vehicle Replace
(6,918)
(6,918)
100%
(3,500)
0%
(3,500) 100%
TOTAL TRANSFERS ;
(6,918)
(6,918)
100% ;
(3,500)
0%
(3,500) 100%
FUND BALANCE
Budget
Actuals %
Budget
Actuals %
Projection %
$ Variance
Beginning Fund Balance
6,100,000
7,193,407 118%
7,000,000
8,691,534 124%
8,691,534 124%
1,691,534: F
Resources over Requirements
(637,256)
1,490,310
(530,698)
(95,689)
(585,663)
(54,965);
Net Transfers - In (Out)
�
(6,918)
(6,918)
!
(3,500)
Z I
(3,500)
k
-
TOTAL FUND BALANCE
$ 5,455,826
$ 8,676,800 159% ;
$ 6,465,802
$ 8,595,845 133% ;
$ 8,102,371 125% ;
$1,636,569:
A Unemployment collected on first $25K of employee's salary in fiscal year
B Interest projection based on current investment rate and anticipated cash balances
C FY20 includes $12,962 in State reimbursements for COVID related costs.
D General Liability claims are difficult to budget and predict
E YTD actuals includes Property Insurance Premium, which is an annual expenditure
F Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY20 and will be reflected on September financials
\�IES` Budget to Actuals Report
Health Benefits - Fund 675
FY21 YTD August 31, 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
16.7%
Year Complete
Fiscal Year 2020
Fiscal Year 2021
Budget
Actuals
%
Budget
Actuals
%
Projection %
$ Variance
17,411,292
17,841,713
102%
17,831,938
3,038,598
17%
17,831,938 100%
{ 1,967,021
1,670,202
85%
1,600,000
132,612
8%
1,600,000 100%
i 19433,000
1,023,556
71%
1,035,000
97,845
9%
1,035,000 100%
{ 1,041,120
1,060,127
102%
1,031,400
185,069
18%
1,110,416 108% ,
79,01&
346,000
334,654
97%
216,200
57,114
26%
340,000 157%
123,800, A
75,000
174,148
232%
90,000
0%
90,000 100%!
-
45,000
386,585 859%
80,000
0%
80,000 100%
22,318,433
22,490,985
101% ;
21,884,538
3,511,238
16%
22,087,354 101% ;
202,816:
Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance
20,550,836
18,763,095
91%
19,937,274
1,263,114
6%
19,937,274 100% B
2,242,104
2,952,787
132%
2,417,092
236,823
10%
2,417,092 100% B
1,141,691
1,084,574
95%
1,101,467
73,515
7% ?
1,101,467 100% B
180,380
152,600
85%
164,340
36,009
22%
164,340 100% B
24,115,011
22,953,057
95%
23,620,173
1,609,461
7%
23,620,173 100% ;
FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance
Beginning Fund Balance 16,106,294 16,563,905 103% 15,323,729 16,278,372 106% 16,278,372 106% 954,641
Resources over Requirements (1,796,578) (462,072) (1,735,635) 1,901,777 (1,532,819) 2023816
Net Transfers - In (Out) - -
{ { f S I 4
TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 14,309,716 $ 16,101,833 113% $ 13,588,094 $ 18,180,149 134% ; ; $ 14,745,553 109% ; $1,157,459:
A Interest projection based on current investment rate and anticipated cash balances
Amounts are paid 1 month in arrears; projection compared to historical costs for reasonableness
C Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY20 and will be reflected on September financials
E` ��{ Budget to Actuals Report
hC� OG
911 - Fund 705 and 710
FY21 YTD August 31, 2020 (unaudited)
RESOURCES
Property Taxes - Current Yr
Telephone User Tax
Police RMS User Fees
Contract Payments
Interest
Property Taxes - Prior Yr
State Reimbursement
User Fee
Data Network Reimbursement
Property Taxes - Jefferson Co.
Miscellaneous
TOTALRESOURCES
16.7%
Year Complete
Fiscal Year 2020
Fiscal Year 2021
Budget
Actuals %
Budget
Actuals
%
Projection %
$ Variance
8,809,419
8,876,513 101%
9,113,459
-
0%
9,113,459 100%
900,000
1,053,847 117%
1,106,750
0%
1,306,750 118%
200,000! A
250,000
386,751 155%
250,000
25,697
10%
250,000 100%
51,300
71,929 140%
157,252
4,000
3%
157,252 100%!
-
i
157,000
E
184,668 118%
90,400
27,182
I E
30%
162,000 179% 1 !
71,600!I B
100,000
262,105 262%
90,000
46,238
51%
90,000 100%!
-
! 125,000
107,881 86% E
83,000
0%
83,000 100%
C
73,680
135,243 184%
73,000
0%
73,000 100%,
55,000
96,232 175%
55,000
0%
55,000 100%
30,000
34,547 115%
33,637
308
1%
33,637 100%
-
11,951
70,966 594%
12,200
3,664
30%
12,200 100%,
10,563,350
11,280,682 107% ;
11,064,698
107,089
1%
11,336,298 102% ;
271,600;
REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance
Personnel Services
7,462,575
6,980,012
94%
7,620,458
1,213,498
16%
7,098,112 93% 522,346, D
Materials and Services �
3,387,761
3,072,779
91%
3,476,381
726,388
21%
3,476,381 100% -
Capital Outlay
1,400,000
656,700
1
47%
1,480,000
70,820
Ei
5%
! !
1,480,000 100% -
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS
12,250,336
10,709,491
87% ;
12,576,839
2,010,706
16% ;
12,054,493 96% 522,346:
FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance
Beginning Fund Balance 7,753,706 8,604,816 111% 8,341,418 8,835,989 106% 8,835,989 106% 494,571,
Resources over Requirements t (1,686,986) 571,191 ! (1,512,141) (1,903,618) F (718,195) 793,946-
Net Transfers - In (Out)
€ d ( k d M
TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 6,066,720 $ 9,176,007 151% ; $ 6,829,277 $ 6,932,371 102% ; ; $ 8,117,794 119% $1,288,517:
A Telephone maintenance reimbursements are received in a lump sum by early spring; anticipating an increase in telephone tax from the State that
was not budgeted
B Interest projection based on current investment rate and anticipated cash balances
C State GIS reimbursements are received quarterly
D Personnel savings based on FY20 YTD average vacancy rate of 9.2%
E Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY20 and will be reflected on September financials
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
For Board of Commissioners BOCC Wednesday Meeting of September 30, 2020
DATE: September 24, 2020
FROM: Todd Cleveland, Community Development,
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Rural County Groundwater Update
ATTENDANCE:
Todd Cleveland, Environmental Health Supervisor;
Sean Rochette, DEQ Onsite Wastewater Specialist
Eric Nigg,DEQ Eastern Region Water Quality Manager
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Todd Cleveland, Environmental Health Supervisor
DATE: September 24, 2020
SUBJECT: Groundwater Protection Update / South County 2020
The Board of County Commissioners (Board) will conduct a work session on September 30, 2020 at 10:00
a.m. to discuss groundwater protection efforts in Southern Deschutes County (South County). The Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) will be participating in the discussion as well.
Background
Most development in rural Deschutes County is served by onsite wastewater treatment systems (septic
systems). In South County water quality and septic systems have been a concern beginning in the 1980s due
to thousands of pre -platted lots and rural residential development relying predominantly on a sole source
aquifer.
Staff will discuss the following in a PowerPoint presentation made available on Wednesday:
• Rural wastewater treatment
• South County groundwater concerns
o History
o Science (Deschutes County, Oregon DEQ and USGS)
o Proposals/DEQ Steering Committee (2013)
o Current status
• New Neighborhood in the City of La Pine
o Divert rural development to La Pine
o Generate funds to aid groundwater protection efforts
• Future
o Water monitoring plan (DEQ)
o Rebates for system upgrades
o Community infrastructure (sewer, water)
No action is requested by the Board. This is intended as an informational discussion.
11 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 I P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005
Q� (541)388-6575 @ cdd@deschutes.org @ www.deschutes.org/cd
?�
¥
,m
Gr,�, g
.
!
;
.
)
�
\
]
0
0
0
C
0
0-0
3
-0 C:)
(D
x
:T
0
m
rD 3
rD
3
aj
Ln
-0 ai
L/I
0-1
ET
M
rD
rj
U=l
FrD
rD
:3
'
CD
3 C)
Ln C)
I
�cS���
i;�`l }
r.�?i�_.:e..
%�FLi-=''n,��.
!� �-qy
t �t'� y
;t✓^� r:
��k
���;x
L�:a Y-p.��;
��
��t�
� C�`,y<
`���
���
f� e�e'.=°3�^
2 �
����
�kM
�,
a� �°�
f�JY;
��� .�
:���
�,=, �" �;
���:��
�u
�'
^��:�,
�„
��
��.
�<
t
�„ :�
�'
ti,
fix, 5
����,
,.;3vL.'m'�';�,..
i:�b
F� 4'
iu�
z ��: �;
��
��
e
w� �,�.
� 3
� �aC
���� y
i�
r
go
cn
CD t
w
Co O
'-.
¢�
C)
�O (D
00
6'
O
CD
N
O
O
l
7
tra
z
�
i
d
z �'
�.
QO
cr
o
o
N d
p
n d (T1
O
rA
CD
Q—
UQ
C4
71
O
n �
C
N �
O CD
O rd
N O
O N
O (�
00
ID
'CD
o CD
C
a ;
CD
ry
Off. A?
WOK
. < m
� ten-. � �,
�
�.
00 -
5'
�
N
�
CU
M
(D
LA
=r
a
M
0
C
h
x
=r
0
3
a
0
m
m
CD
cu
M
CA
Q
=r
n
=r
C)
V)
0
tA
r-
0
tA
tA
0
(A
m
cu
0
r+
=r
=r
tA
(A
a)
tA
0
el+
=r
0
N +
VI
Ln
cu
CD
co
m
rD
tA
LA
lh:i
.... ......
... . . . . . . .
........ ..
f2
g
XNN�
s
0
F-I
N)
CD CD CD
pi
I
im
T 6q
s
-� .
CAM
►,
0.
e
die
E
15-0
LM,
D6,
an
0
e-t
rD
n
rl,
Oil
R, N
DO.
CR
M..."
0
Ln
un
o
rn
1 7fts
02,
ISM
e
®
®
W
C
V)
L/)
C
U)
®
G
CU
Zr
(D
®
(D
crQ
_0
®
a'Q
r)
®
®
®
r)
:3
�
CD
:0
(D
®
aj
0
:
0
(D
V)
e+
W
(D
LA
cu
®
_
r+
<
2
0
cu
Qj
o;n°
=3
zr
m
N
Qj
CD
3
QJco
®
Di
F°
e�
0
fly
rD
0
LA
a
zy
LA
LA
®CD
C:
ai
®
((V-0�aWp
V
®
p�
� y9
ppy�y
cu
OL
ai
CT
CDQj
P�
yG
(D
QJ
m
CA
LA
WN
eD
0
46
v Do
v
00 Go
�� aa
`'4
N
o.
�v
I
September 28, 2020
To: Board of Commissioners
From: Whitney Hale, Communications Director
Re: Upcoming State of the County Presentations
Upcoming State of the County Presentations:
• The BOCC has an upcoming, virtual, State of the County presentation with the Bend Chamber on
Tuesday, Oct. 27.
• The Redmond and Sisters chambers are interested in holding a joint, virtual, State of the County
presentation for their members on Friday, Oct. 23.
• The La Pine Chamber is interested in having the Board provide an in person update to their membership
on Friday, Jan. 15, at Thousand Trails as part of the joint La Pine / Sunriver Chamber breakfast.
In preparation for the upcoming State of the County events, staff has prepared the following draft content outline
for BOCC consideration. Once approved, this outline will serve as the basis for the first draft of the BOCC's State of
the County presentation:
Draft Content Outline:
• COVID-19
o Current data and a look back at:
■ Local Health Response
• Public Health Response
o Staff Spotlight, Contact Tracing Video
• Environmental Health: Support for Local Business
• Behavioral Health
■ Reopening Plans / Applications
• Support for local business
• Partnerships with Chambers and others
■ CRF Investments
o Looking forward:
■ Continued support for business
• Public health response / monitoring
• Road Improvements
o Old Bend Redmond Hwy and others as geographically relevant to audience
• Wildfire Mitigation
o Interactive Survey with Audience
o FireFree - Expanded Spring Event, chance to highlight fall event
o New grants / fuel reduction programs
• Election Security
Marijuana?
Veterans' Village
Legislative Priorities
Volunteer Opportunities