2021-361-Minutes for Meeting August 30,2021 Recorded 9/9/2021Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2O21-361
Steve Dennison, County Clerk
Commissioners' Journal 09/09/2021 4:1 1:15 PM
R 6 S �C; Es co(I
7 BOARDF
COMMISSIONERS
1 00 NVV VV all Street, Bend, 01 egon
III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII III III
2021-361
(h 4_ C C M E E f, M G MINUTES
F E ID AY a,„Fg
Barnes- �—avvyei 4-Nlt)cH—iis
f
I�('1�(Ilir4'\iIlii`•,(�'t_r.1(1t ,AU'3'I„,AIliloi1\- �C�I; :ric, a��. r�`>(�prc'�c 1�b1'(,Io ")I
A Oc- �`r', �� �.nl.Al,'��.)mi:l 5ll��ioi I),IvO I�t`,:��� A � �`,'1`l ,.!.f�i ��<P��ci� ll��i h(�l)hl(�I, i`�)( �
CALL TO ORDER: Chair DeBone called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ACTION ITEMS:
1. PRESENTATION: Award from the Government Finance Officers
Association for the 2020 Distinguished Budget Award and Special Triple
Crown Recognition
County Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer Greg Munn presents awards
from Finance Officers Association to Deschutes County Finance Department.
County Finance staff were recognized.
00(' : MI r.1 iNC; /\UC)l.1s,? 'i0, "O%1 I'/;CiE 1 O{
2. County Treasurer and Finance Report as of July 31, 2021
County Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer Greg Munn presents thejuly
2021 Finance report. Commissioner Adair asks how many health positions
are unfilled and asks about the unfilled positions at Fair & Expo. Fair & Expo
position are currently being recruited.
3. Wildlife Inventory Update- Public Outreach Overview
Senior Long Range Planner Tanya Saltzman updates Commissioners on the
Wildlife Inventory report. Commissioner DeBone asks for clarification on the
update to outdated items. Planner Manager Peter Gutowsky explains the
importance of staying up to date with the wildlife inventory. Commissioner
Adair asks about natural crop outlying of juniper trees in the region.
Commissioner Chang mentions that the number of juniper trees exploded
within the last century. Commissioners ask for follow up statistics from
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
At the time of 2:19 pm, the Board went into executive session under ORS 192.660
(2) (h) Litigation and came out at 2:27 pm. Staff to proceed as discussed.
1 �l , N `r,
ANTHONY E_ ; E D O N E, c H A W
30C( M1 I r1N n(l;::.U')1 o, IO21 PACj-:3
- ---- ---- --------
PHIL CHANG,,
WOE CHAIR
8MCC NMI- ET|NG AUGUST3O.Z021 PAG[3OF]
I E S Co
S�vG
COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING
1:00 PM, MONDAY, AUGUST 30, 2021
Barnes Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Bldg - 1300 NW Wall St - Bend
(541) 388-6570 1 www.deschutes.or
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: A) In Person Attendance and B) Live Stream
Video: Members of the public may still view the BOCC meetings/hearings in real time via the
Public Meeting Portal at www.deschutes.org/meetings.
Citizen Input: Citizen Input is invited in order to provide the public with an opportunity to
comment on any meeting topic that is not on the current agenda. Citizen Input is provided by
submitting an email to: citizeninput@deschutes.org or by leaving a voice message at 541-385-
1734. Citizen input received by 8:00 a.m. before the start of the meeting will be included in the
meeting record.
Zoom Meeting Information: Staff and citizens that are presenting agenda items to the Board for
consideration or who are planning to testify in a scheduled public hearing may participate via
Zoom meeting. The Zoom meeting id and password will be included in either the public hearing
materials or through a meeting invite once your agenda item has been included on the
agenda. Upon entering the Zoom meeting, you will automatically be placed on hold and in the
waiting room. Once you are ready to 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.
For Public Hearings, the link to the Zoom meeting will be posted in the Public Hearing Notice as
well as posted on the Deschutes County website at https://www.deschutes.org/bcc/page/public-
hearing-notices.
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ACTION ITEMS
1. 1:00 PM PRESENTATION: Award from the Government Finance Officers Association for
the 2020 Distinguished Budget Award and Special Triple Crown Recognition
2. 1:15PM County Treasurer and Finance Report as of July 31, 2021.
3. 1:35 PM Wildlife Inventory Update - Public Outreach Overview
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.
4. Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (h) Litigation
ADJOURN
amDeschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs
and activities. This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities. If you need
onaccommodations to make participation possible, please call (541) 617-4747.
August 30, 2021 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 2 of 2
vT F S
COMMISSIONERS
MEETING DATE: August 30, 2021
SUBJECT: Presentation of Award from the Government Finance Officers Association for the
2020 Distinguished Budget Award and special Triple Crown recognition.
RECOMMENDATION AND ACTION REQUESTED:
Recognition of Dan Emerson and Whitney Hale for their efforts in producing the County's
award winning FY 2020-21 Adopted Budget Document and recognition of the team effort to
earn the Triple Crown designation including James Wood, Cam Sparks, Casey Harden, Dan
Emerson and Whitney Hale.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) established the Distinguished Budget
Presentation Awards Program in 1984 to encourage and assist state and local governments
to prepare budget documents of the very highest quality that reflect both the guidelines
established by the National Advisory Council on State and Local Budgeting and the GFOA's
best practices on budgeting and then to recognize individual governments that succeed in
achieving that goal. Over 1,600 governments, including states, cities, counties, special
districts, school districts, and more have been recognized for transparency in budgeting. To
earn recognition, budget documents must meet program criteria and excel as a policy
document, financial plan, operations guide, and communication tool.
The County has earned the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award every year since FY
2008-09 and was recently notified of the award for the FY 2020-21 budget document.
Additionally, the County participates in two other programs sponsored by the GFOA. One
is the Certificate of Excellence in Financial Report which evaluates our audited financial
report, known as the Annual Consolidated Financial Report (ACFR), against a set of national
criteria for government financial reporting. The other is the Popular Annual Financial
Report which recognizes local governments for using information from their ACFR to
produce a high quality financial report specifically designed to be readily accessible and
easily understandable to the general public and other interested parties without a
background in public finance.
As a result of receiving awards in each of the programs, the County has received a special
"Triple Crown" medallion to signify excellence in all three programs.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
Continued participation in these programs enhances our financial reporting and budgeting
practices and aids in the maintenance of the County's bond ratings.
ATTENDANCE:
Greg Munn, County Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
Dan Emerson, Budget Manager
Whitney Hale, Communications Director
James Wood, Management Analyst
Cam Sparks, Management Analyst
Casey Harden, Accountant
March 22, 2021
Greg Munn
Chief Financial Officer
Deschutes County
1300 Northwest Wall St. Ste. 200
Bend, OR 97701
Dear Mr. Munn:
We are pleased to inform you, based on the examination of your budget by a panel of independent reviewers,
that your budget document has been awarded the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award from
Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for the current fiscal period. This award is the highest
form of recognition in governmental budgeting. Its attainment represents a significant achievement by your
organization.
The Distinguished Budget Presentation Award is valid for one year. To continue your participation in the
program, it will be necessary to submit your next annual budget document to GFOA within 90 days of the
proposed budget's submission to the legislature or within 90 days of the budget's final adoption.
Information about how to submit an application for the Distinguished Budget Program application is posted
on GFOA's website.
Each program participant is provided with confidential comments and suggestions for possible
improvements to the budget document. Your comments are enclosed. We urge you to carefully consider
the suggestions offered by our reviewers as you prepare your next budget.
When a Distinguished Budget Presentation Award is granted to an entity, a Certificate of Recognition for
Budget Presentation is also presented to the individual(s) or department designated as being primarily
responsible for its having achieved the award. Enclosed is a Certificate of Recognition for Budget
Preparation for:
Finance Department
Continuing participants will receive a brass medallion that will be mailed separately. First-time recipients
will receive an award plaque within eight to ten weeks. Enclosed is a camera-ready reproduction of the
award for inclusion in your next budget. If you reproduce the camera-ready image in your next budget, it
should be accompanied by a statement indicating continued compliance with program criteria. The
following standardized text should be used:
Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) presented a
Distinguished Budget Presentation Award to Deschutes County, Oregon, for its Annual Budget
for the fiscal year beginning July 01, 2020. In order to receive this award, a governmental unit
must publish a budget document that meets program criteria as a policy document, as a financial
plan, as an operations guide, and as a communications device.
This award is valid for a period of one year only. We believe our current budget continues to
conform to program requirements, and we are submitting it to GFOA to determine its eligibility for
another award.
A press release is enclosed.
Upon request, GFOA can provide a video from its Executive Director congratulating your specific entity
for winning the Budget Award.
We appreciate your participation in this program, and we sincerely hope that your example will encourage
others in their efforts to achieve and maintain excellence in governmental budgeting. The most current list
of award recipients can be found on GFOA's website at www.gfoa.org. If we can be of further assistance,
please contact the Technical Services Center at (312) 977-9700.
Sincerely,
Michele Mark Levine
Director, Technical Services Center
Enclosure
GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
Distinguished
Budget Presentation
Award
PRESENTED TO
Deschutes County
Oregon
For the Fiscal Year Beginning
July 01, 2020
Fill
0 14 2 p I
Executive Director
Government Finance Officers Association
203 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2700
Chicago, Illinois 60601-1210
312,977.9700 fax: 312.977.4806
May 28, 2021
Greg Munn
Deschutes County
1300 Northwest Wall St. Ste. 200
Bend, OR 97701
Dear Greg Munn:
Your government should have recently received electronic correspondence that your 2020 budget
qualifies for GFOA's Distinguished Budget Presentation Award. To commemorate that achievement,
enclosed is a medallion which can be added to your existing plaque as a testament to the
government's commitment to producing annual reports that evidence the spirit of full disclosure and
transparency.
This special Triple Crown medallion recognizes that your government received all three GFOA
awards: the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting Award, Distinguished
Budget Presentation Award, and the Popular Annual Financial Reporting Award.
Congratulations again.
Sincerely,
Michele Mark Levine
Director, Technical Services Center
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
MEETING DATE: August 30, 2021
SUBJECT: County Treasurer and Finance Report as of July 31, 2021.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
N/A.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
See attached Treasury and Finance Report.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
N/A.
ATTENDANCE:
Greg Munn, County Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
DATE: August 26, 2021
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Greg Munn, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT: Treasury and Finance Report - July 2021
Following is the unaudited monthly finance report for fiscal year to date July 31, 2021.
Treasury and Investments
• The portfolio balance at the end of July was $236 million, a decrease of $7 million from June but an increase of
$39 million from last year (July 2020).
• Net investment income for the month is $143,773, approximately $4,000 less than last month and $146,000 less
than last July. YTD earnings are the same.
• All portfolio category balances are within policy limits with the exception of the LGIP which includes the ARPA
funds received in May. The pool balance is expected to be under the limit by the end of August.
• The LGIP interest rate was reduced 5 basis points to 0.55% on July 29, 2021. Benchmark rates for 24 and 36
month treasuries are down 6 and 12 basis points, respectively.
• Average portfolio yield is 0.71% down from 0.75% last month.
• The portfolio's weighted average time to maturity is at 1.86 years (up from 1.74 last month).
Portfolio Breakdown: Par Value by Investment Type
Municipal Debt
$ 42.545,000
18.0%
Corporate Notes
49,293,000
20.9%
Time Certificates
747,000
0.3%
U.S. Treasuries
-
0.0%
Federal Agencies
78,385,000
33.2%
LGIP
56, 897, 223
24.1
First Interstate Bank
8,346,385
3.5
Total Investments
$ 236,213,608
100.0%
LGIP
24.1 %
Total Portfolio: By Investment Types
Bank I �-i Municipal Debt
/' 18.0%
Corporate Notes
20.9%
Time
Federal Certificates
Agencies U. S. Treasuries 0.3%
33.2% 0.0%
Portfolio by Broker
$100
N
$90.4
o $so
g $60
$40
$19.8 $22.6
$24.2
$20
$3.9 $10.2
N
$-
- f A
DA Moreton Robert W Great
Piper Castle
Davidson Capital Baird & Pacific
Sandler Oak
Markets Co Securities
Investment Income
Jul-21
Y-T-D
Total Investment Income
148,773
148,773
Less Fee:$5,000 per month
(5000)
5,000
Investment Income - Net
143:773
143,773
Prior Year Comparison
Jul-20 290,215
290,215
Cateqory Maximums:
U.S. Treasuries
100%
LGIP($51,177,000)
100%
Federal Agencies
100%
Banker's Acceptances
25%
Time Certificates
50 %
Municipal Debt
25%
Corporate Debt
25%
Matur' Years
Max
4.874
Weighted Average
1.86
Yield Percentages
Current Month
Prior Month
FIB/ LGIP
0.55%
0.60%
Investments
1.07%
1.30%
Average
0.71 %
0.75%
Benchmarks
24 Month Treasury
0.19%
LGIP Rate
0.55%
36 Month Treasury
0.35%
Term
Minimum
Actual
0 to 30 Days
Under 1 Year
Under 5 Years
10 %
25%
100%
28.5 %
41.5%
100.0%
Other
Policy
Actual
Corp Issuer
Callable
Credit W/A
5%
25%
AA2
3.4%
22.4%
AA1
Investment Activity
Purchases in Month $
Sales/Redemptions in Month $
6652,000
8:000,000
3.50%
3.00%
2.50%
2.00%
1.50%
1.00%
0.50%
0.00%
00, Wr-" 00
-,)'0 U,)w
50,0f)o,()Oc)
24 Month Historic Investment Returns
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJune July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJune July
Three 'Nlewr Porfll"Wio Baiiarwe
M Co Co M IT, M 0) 0) G) M 0) IT, M M Ul IT, 0 0 0 CD In 0 0 C) 0 C) 0 C)
U0 0- > U C: Ip
0
Five Year Maturity Distribution Schedule
20,000,000
18,000,000
16,000,000
14,000,000
12,000,000
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
Deschutes County Investments Purchases mad. in July 2020
POMolio Management Purchases made in July 2021
POMolio Details - Investments
July 31, 2021
Purchase
Maturity
Days To
Ratings
Coupon
Par
Market
Book
I,- Inv
T1 -
CuSIP
S.... ity
Broke -
Data
Date -
Maturi, -
Mood'
- g&P/Fi
Rate -
M
Yl361 -
Value
Value -
Value
I By.5
MUN
797398DK7
SAN DIEGO CNTY CALIF PENSIOICASTLE
7/1/2019
8/15/2021
14
Aa2
AAA
5.8350
2.0005
2,000,000
2,003,980
2.002.905
10696
AFD
88059E4M3
Tennessee Valley Authority
CASTLE
4/18/2019
9/15/2021
45
Aaa
AA-
2.3733
2.5355
1,020,000
1.019,908
1,016.974
10648
MCI
45905UC36
International Bonds for Recons
CASTLE
7/16/2018
9/28/2021
58
Aaa
AAA
2.0000
2.9669
2,000,000
2,005,786
1.997,101
10731
MC1
94988J5T0
Wells Fargo Corporate Note
CASTLE
12/5/2019
10/22/2021
82
Aa2
A+
3.6250
1.9498
2,000,000
2.009,100
2.007.363
10724
FAC
3131 AKJYO
Federal Home Loan Bank
CASTLE
11/8/2019
11/19/2021
110
Aaa
AA-
1,6250
1.7109
3,000.000
3,013,875
2.999,242
10744
FAC
3130AHSR5
Federal Home Loan Bank
CASTLE
12/20/2019
12/20/2021
141
Aaa
AA,
1.6250
1.6801
3,000,000
3,017,807
2,999,375
10732
MCI
46625HJD3
JPMorgan Chase - Corporate N
PJ
12/6/2019
1/24/2022
176
A2
A-
4,5000
2.0101
2.000.000
2,040.949
2,023,301
10654
MCI
695114CP1
Pacific Corp
CASTLE
9/25/2018
2/l/2022
184
Al
A+
2.9500
3.3202
700,000
704,723
698781
10730
FAC
3133EKCYO
Federal Farm Credit Bank
CASTLE
11/29/2019
3/14/2022
225
Aaa
AA+
0.4500
0.6595
5,000,000
5,011:313
5,003:364
10726
FAG
3133EKCYO
Federal Farm Credit Bank
CASTLE
11/21/2019
3/14/2022
225
Aaa
AA+
0.4500
0.6684
5,000,000
5,O11313
5,003 039
10750
MCI
90520EAH4
MUFG Union Bank
CASTLE
2/5/2020
4/1/2022
243
A3
A
3.1500
1.8114
1,000,000
1,017,244
1,008,708
10720
MCI
90520EAH4
MUFG Union Bank
CASTLE
10/25/2019
4/1/2022
243
A3
A
3.1500
2.0375
2,000,000
2,034487
2,014,395
10759
MCI
037833CP3
Apple Inc
CASTLE
3/27/2020
5/11/2022
283
Aal
AA +
0.5099
1.7452
1000,000
1,003:147
99I,923
10733
MCI
084664BT7
Berkshire Hathaway Inc
MORETN
12/6/2019
5/15/2022
287
Aa2
AA
3.0000
1.7400
2:000,000
2,043.731
2,019,377
10652
MUN
686053BQ1
Oregon School Boards Assoc
MORETN
9/14/2018
6/30/2022
333
Aa2
AA
5,4800
3.1200
925.000
968.336
943665
10833
MUN
757889BRO
REDWOOD CITY CA SCH DIST
DA DAV
2/24/2021
8/1/2022
365
AA
5.0000
0.8062
125.000
131,168
130:922
10748
FAC
3133EKJ56
Federal Farm Credit Bank
CASTLE
1/31/2020
8/30/2022
394
Aaa
AA+
0.4000
0.3783
3,000,000
3,010,035
3,005,441
10790
MUN
014365DQO
ALDERWOOD WA WTR & WSTWIR
W B
11/12/2020
12/1/2022
487
Aa2
AA+
1.0000
0.5004
200,000
201,698
201,324
10727
M01
06051GEU9
Bank of America Corp
CASTLE
11/25/2019
1/11/2023
528
A2
A-
3.3000
2.1201
2, 000,000
2.087,424
2,032,798
10813
MCI
740189AG0
Precision Castparts Corp
CASTLE
12/17/2020
1/15/2023
532
A2
AA-
2.5000
0.5548
2,772,000
2,848283
2,849,924
10838
MUN
73473RDW2
MORROW PORT TRANS FAC
R W B
4/1/2021
6/1/2023
669
A-
0.7000
0.7001
215,000
215:144
215,000
10835
MUN
010831DQ5
ALAMEDA CNTY CA JT PWRS AU-
CASTLE
2/24/2021
6/1/2023
669
Aal
AA+
3.0950
0.3959
3,080,000
3,233'138
3,236,752
10839
MUN
984674JZ5
MCMINNVILLE SCHOOL DIST YAk
PS
6/15/2021
6/15/2023
683
Aal
0.2800
0.2800
170.000
170,005
170,000
10760
MEN
736746XU7
PORTLAND OR URBAN RENEWAL
PS
7/14/2020
6/15/2023
683
Aal
4.0230
2.8950
830,000
831,411
846.676
10709
MUN
2927OCNU5
Bonneville Power Administratio
CASTLE
7/30/2019
7/1/2023
699
Aa2
AA-
5,8030
2.1249
1,000,000
1.103,680
1,067.288
10713
MCI
361582AD1
Berkshire Hathaway Inc
CASTLE
9/9/2019
7/15/2023
713
Aa3
AA
7.3500
2,0306
500,000
567,839
549,778
10832
MCl
06053FAA7
Bank of America Corp
DA DAV
2/23/2021
7/24/2023
722
A2
A-
4.1000
0,2303
1,000,000
1.072552
1, 076,384
10769
FAC
3137EAEV7
Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp
CASTLE
8/21/2020
8/24/2023
753
Aaa
AA-
0.2500
0.2841
5,000,000
5,004:643
4,996,501
10768
MUN
67232TBM6
OAKLAND CA REDEV SUCCESSO
PS
8/21/2020
9/1/2023
761
AA-
3. 1250
0.6015
2,500,000
2.623,775
2.630.046
10843
MUN
098419MM3
BONNEVILLE & BINGHAM CNTYS
PS
7/28/2021
9/15/2023
775
Aaa
4.0000
0.4308
1,000,000
1,076.760
1,075,324
10780
MUN
476453GRO
JEROME IDAHO SCHOOL DISTRI(PS
10/13/2020
9/15/2023
775
Aaa
5,0000
0.4794
200,000
219,252
219.032
10819
MCI
3133EMLEO
Federal Farm Credit Bank
PS
12/30/2020
9/22/2023
782
Aaa
AA +
0,1900
0,1900
2,000,000
1.997,924
2,000.000
10794
FAC
3137EAEZ8
Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp
CASTLE
11/5/2020
11/6/2023
827
AA-
0.2500
0.2801
5,000.000
5,000,467
4,996607
10802
MCI
459058JM6
International Bond. for Recons
CASTLE
11/24/2020
1,/24/2023
845
Aaa
AAA
0.2500
0.3204
2,000,000
1,997:961
1,996:683
10837
MUN
73473RDH5
MORROW PORT TRANS FAC
R W B
4/1/2021
12/l/2023
852
A-
0.7000
0.7001
1,000,000
999040
1, 000.000
10789
MUN
014365DRS
ALDERWOOD WA WTR & WSTWI
R W B
l l/12/2020
1211 /2023
852
Aa2
AA-
1.0000
0.5501
270000
273, 173
272.807
10836
MCI
31422XBV3
Federal Agriculture Mtg Corp
GPAC
3/15/2021
12/15/2023
866
0.2200
0.2149
2'000,000
1997.425
2'000,000
10923
MCI
0605lGFB0
Bank of America Corp
CASTLE
1/12/2021
1/22/2024
904
A2
A-
4.1250
0.5217
2,000.000
2:173'873
2,176,729
10834
MCI
3133EMRZ7
Federal Farm Credit Bank
CASTLE
2/26/2021
2/26/2024
939
Aaa
AA-
0.2500
0.2621
2,000.000
1, 998,363
1, 999.383
10829
MUN
68607VZ73
Oregon State Lottery
PS
1/26/2021
4/1/2024
974
Aa2
AAA
2.5050
0.3902
2,350,000
2:473:610
2,481, 577
10761
FAC
3134GV6P8
Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp
CASTLE
7/30/2020
4/15/2024
988
Aaa
0.5000
0.5000
2:465,000
2,466,023
2, 465,000
10646
MCI
06051GJY6
Bank of America Corp
CASTLE
7/27/2021
6/14/2024
1048
A2
A-
0.5230
0.5211
1,000,000
1:006:215
1,000,055
10815
MUN
625517MG9
MULTNOMAH COUNTY OR SCHOI
R W B
12/30/2020
6/15/2024
1049
Aal
AA+
2.0000
0.4053
2,750:000
2,873,613
2, 875,365
10809
MUN
736688MD1
Portland Community College
PS
12/17/2020
6/15/2024
1049
As
0.5720
0.5720
1,000,000
1,004,590
1,000,000
10807
MUN
179198JF4
CLACKAMAS SCHOOL DISTRICT
DA DAV
12/3/2020
6/15/2024
1049
Aal
0.8300
0.4802
300,000
303.666
302,985
10785
MUN
939307KV5
Washington County SD Municipal
PS
10/28/2020
6/15/2024
1049
As
0.5900
0.5841
1,500.000
1,501.245
1,500,000
10779
MUN
906429EEI
UNION CTY OR SCHOOL DISTRIC
PS
10/8/2020
6/15/2024
1049
Aa1
0.6750
0.6750
490,000
492, 984
490,000
10777
MUN
179093KQ1
CLACKAMAS SCHOOL DISTRICT
PS
1 0/11/2020
6/15/2024
1049
A.1
0.6130
0.6130
500,000
502,450
500,000
10776
MUN
568571CZ4
SILVER FALLS SO
PS
9/17/2020
6/15/2024
1049
A
0.5500
0.5500
1,900,000
1,899,411
I,900,000
10771
MCI
68583RCT7
OR ST COMMUNITY COLLEGE DI
R W B
8/27/2020
6/30/2024
1064
Aal
AA+
5.6600
0.6000
90,000
102,973
103,098
10782
MUN
584288ER1
MEDFORD OR REVENUE
R W B
10/14/2020
7/15/2024
1079
AA-
2.0000
0.6504
815,000
846,956
847,068
10842
FAC
3133EMT51
Federal Farm Credit Bank
CASTLE
7/19/2021
7/19/2024
1083
Aaa
AA-
0.4200
0.4284
1,000,000
999,551
999,753
10848
BCD
795451AAl
SALLIE MAE
GPAC
7/21/2021
7/22/2024
1086
0.5500
0.5500
249,000
248,174
249,000
10828
MCI
3133EMNK4
Federal Farm Credit Bank
DA DAV
1/22/2021
7/22/2024
1086
Aaa
AA+
0.3100
0.3100
2,000,000
1,995,795
2,g00,000
10847
BCD
38149MXG3
GOLDMAN SACHS
GPAC
7/28/2021
7/29/2024
1093
0.5500
0,5500
249,000
248, 909
249,000
10844
BCD
05580AB78
BMW
GPAC
7/30/2021
7/30/2024
1094
0.5500
0,5500
249:000
248:903
249,000
10811
MUN
68608USW7
Oregon State Lottery
R W B
12/17/2020
8/1/2024
1096
Aal
AA+
2.6770
0,9387
755,000
791,678
793,619
10812
MUN
68608USD9
Oregon State Lottery
R W B
12/17/2020
8/1/2024
1096
Aal
AA
2.6770
0.9387
500,000
524,160
525,575
10805
MUN
68609TZR2
Oregon State Lottery
R W B
12/1/2020
8/1/2024
1096
Aal
AA+
0.6380
0.4149
50''000
508,207
508,351
10786
MUN
835569GR9
SONOMA CCD
PS
10/21/2020
8/1,2024
1096
Aa2
AA
2.0610
0.6002
1,200,000
1,256, 184
1,251,916
10784
MUN
732098PE2
POMONA CALI UNI SCH DIST TAX PS
10/20/2020
8/1/2024
1096
Aa3
0.7700
0.6002
1,200.000
1205.532
1206037
10816
MCI
30231GBC5
XTO Energy Inc
GPAC
12/21/2020
8/16/2024
1111
Aal
AA
2.0190
0.5432
2,000.000
2:088,274
2:088:766
10810
MUN
73474TAB6
MORROW PORT TRANS FAC
R W B
12/14/2020
9/1/2024
1127
Aa2
3.2210
0.4202
1:750,000
1,898,610
1,899,792
10830
MCI
225460AP2
CREDIT SUISSE NY
CASTLE
2/1/2021
9/9/2024
1135
Aaa
3.6250
0.5718
2950,000
3,205,712
3,226,451
10775
FAC
3134GWF84
Fed eral Home Loan Mtg Corp
CASTLE
9/9/2020
9/9/2024
I135
Aaa
0.4800
0.4800
1,000.000
999.622
1,000,000
10781
MUN
476453GSB
JEROME IDAHO SCHOOL DISTRIIPS
10/13/2020
9/15/2024
1141
Aaa
5.0000
0.7253
220,000
249,130
248,898
10778
MUN
4511527CO
IDAHO ST BOND BANKAUTH REV
PS
10/8/2020
9/15/2024
1141
Aal
5.0000
0.6103
1,000,000
1,141,080
1,135,221
10808
MUN
13034AL57
CALIFORNIA INFRASTRUCTURE 8GPAC
12/17/2020
10/1/2024
1157
AAA
0.6450
0.6450
1,000,000
1,002,820
1:000,000
10783
FAC
3133EMCN0
Federal Farm Credit Bank
CASTLE
10/16/2020
10/15/2024
1171
Aaa
AA+
0.4000
0.4402
2,000,000
1,996, 307
1,997,450
10791
FAC
3134GW3W4
Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp
CASTLE
10/30/2020
10/28/2024
1184
Aaa
0.4100
0.4163
2,000,000
2,001,573
1,999,594
10823
MCI
822582CC4
ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC
CASTLE
1/7/2021
11/7/2024
1194
Aa2
AA-
2.0000
0.5429
1:708:000
1:779,368
1.788,344
10797
MCI
822582CC4
ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC
GPAC
11/13/2020
1
1194
Aa2
AA-
2.0000
0.7055
3,000,000
3,125,354
3,124,872
10799
FAC
3134GW7F7
Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp
CASTLE
11"8/2020
17/2024
11/18/2024
1205
Aaa
0.3750
0.3750
2,000,000
2,000.685
2,000.000
10788
MUN
014365DS6
ALDERWOOD WA WTR & WSTWI
R W B
11/12/2020
12/1/2024
1218
Aa2
AA-
1.0000
0.6502
935:000
946.519
945.743
10814
MCI
931142DV2
WALMART
GPAC
12/17/2020
12/15/2024
1232
Aa2
AA
2,6500
0.5705
2,000.000
2, 136.899
2,138,470
10820
MCI
3133EMLP5
Federal Farm Credit Bank
PS
12/30/2020
12/23/2024
1240
Aaa
AA+
0.3200
0.3200
2,000,000
1,992,254
2,000,000
10806
MCI
037833OF4
Apple Inc
GPAC
12/3/2020
1/13/2025
1261
Aal
AA+
2.7500
0,6389
2,000,000
2,136.485
2:143.535
10821
MCI
3134GXKK9
Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp
R W B
1/15/2021
1/15/2025
1263
Aaa
0.3500
-
2:000:000
1,993.395
2'000.000
10826
MCI
46625HKC3
JPMorgan Chase -Corporate N
CASTLE
1/11/2021
1/23/2025
1271
A2
A-
3,1250
0.8272
2,000,000
2,149.135
2,156,862
10817
MCI
46625HKC3
JPMorgan Chase -Cori, ateN
CASTLE
l2/2212020
1/23/2025
1271
A2
A-
3.1250
0.8061
2,000:000
2, 149,135
2,158:343
10792
FAC
3134GW5Q5
Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp -
CASTLE
10/30/2020
1/29/2025
1277
Aaa
0.4500
0.4524
2,500,000
2:495:210
2:499,794
10762
FAC
3136G4E74
Federal National Mtg Assn
CASTLE
7/31/2020
1/29/2025
1277
Aaa
AA.
0.5700
0.5700
1,400,000
1,399,266
1,400,000
10822
MCI
12572QAGO
CME GROUP
GPAC
1/4/2021
3/15/2025
1322
Aa3
AA-
3.0000
0.6491
2,000:000
2,153,140
2.167,734
10801
MCI
30231GBH4
XTO Energy Inc
GPAC
11/19/2020
3/19/2025
1326
Aal
AA
2.9920
0.8138
2,000,000
2,146,915
2, 155:204
10800
MUN
98459LAAI
YALE UNIVERSITY
GPAC
11/18/2020
4/15/2025
1353
Aaa
AAA
0.8730
0.5784
2,000,000
2,012,249
2,021,522
10824
MCI
166764BW9
Chevron Corp
CASTLE
1/7/2021
5/11/2025
1379
Aa2
AA
1.5540
0.6175
2,000,000
2,055.246
2,069,704
10818
MCI
166764BW9
Chevron Corp
GPAC
12/28/2020
5/11/2025
1379
Aa2
AA
1.5540
0.6470
1:663,000
1,708.937
1, 719.089
10825
MUN
625506PX2
MULTNOMAH CO-REF-TXBL
GPAC
1/21/2021
6/1/2025
1400
Aaa
AAA
1.0000
0.5001
2, 165,000
2:198.276
2:205,990
10840
MUN
498368EB1
KLAMATIT CNTY OR SCH DIST
PS
7/1/2021
6/15/2025
1414
AA,
0.8600
0.8600
400,000
402,280
400,000
10798
MUN
938429V61
Washington County SD Municipal
PS
11/17/2020
6/15/2025
1414
Aal
0.9120
0.6449
350:000
353.493
353:562
10841
MUN
625517NE3
MULTNOMAH COUNTY OR SCHOCCASTLE
7/15/2021
6/30/2025
1429
Aa2
AA
0.9500
0,6871
1,255,000
1,270,600
1,267,719
10831
MUN
799055QU5
SAN MATEO CA FOSTER CITY SC
DA DAV
2/16/2021
8/1/2025
1461
Aaa
AA-
1.5970
0.4701
500,000
515.595
522:277
10787
MUN
88675ABS4
TIGARD OR WTR SYS REVENUE
PS
11/3/2020
8/l/2025
1461
Aa3
AA
2.0000
0.8504
350,000
366,167
365,743
10766
FAC
3134GWND4
Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp
CASTLE
8/14/2020
8/12/2025
1472
Aaa
0,6000
0.6102
2.000,000
1,997.713
1,999, 193
10763
FAC
3133EL3P7
Federal Farm Credit Bank
R W B
8/12/2020
8/12/2025
1472
Aaa
AA,
0.5300
0.5300
3.000,000
2,994, 192
3,000,000
10764
FAC
3133EL3H5
Federal Farm Credit Bank
MORETN
8/12/2020
8/12/2025
1472
Aaa
AA+
0.5700
0.5700
3,000,000
2:993:063
3,000,000
10767
FAC
3136G4184
Federal National Mtg Assn
CASTLE
8/18/2020
8/18/2025
1478
Aaa
AA+
0.5700
0.5901
2:000:000
1,998,238
1,998,397
10774
FAC
3136G4N74
Federal National Mtg Assn
R W B
9/3/2020
8/21/2025
1481
Aaa
AA+
0.5600
0.5600
2,000,000
2,000,626
2,000,000
10772
FAC
3136G4N74
Federal National Mtg Assn
R W B
8/27/2020
8/21/2025
1481
Aaa
AA+
0.5600
0.565I
1,000,000
1,000,313
999,797
10765
FAC
3136G4N74
Federal National Mtg Assn
MORETN
8/21/2020
8/21/2025
1481
Aaa
AA
0.5600
0.5600
3.000,000
3.000.939
3,000,000
10770
FAC
3136G4X24
Federal National Mtg Assn
PS
8/28/2020
8/29/2025
1489
Aaa
AA,
0.6000
0.6000
1, 000,000
1:000.134
I,000,000
10773
FAC
3136G4X24
Fetleral National Mtg Assn
CASTLE
8/28/2020
8/29/2025
1489
Aaa
AA+
0-6000
0.6000
1,000,000
1, 000,134
1,000,000
10793
FAC
3135GA2NO
Federal National Mtg Assn
R W B
11/4/2020
11/4/2025
1556
Aaa
AA,
0.5500
0.5500
2.000,000
1, 996,312
2,000,000
10796
FAC
3135G06G3
Federal National Mtg Assn
CASTLE
11/12/2020
11/7/2025
1559
Aaa
AA,
0.5000
0.5729
2,000, 000
1,990,447
1,993,873
10845
MUN
736688MF6
Portland Community College
MORETN
7/23/2021
6/15/2026
1779
Aal
0.8990
0.8000
1.250,000
1.257,063
1:255:898
10078
RRP
SYS10078
Local Govt Investment Pool
7/1/2006
- -
1
0.5500
0.5500
56,897,223
56, 897,223
56,897,223
10084
RR2
SYS10084
First Interstate
7/1/2006
- -
1
0.5500
0.5500
8 346 385
8 346 385
8 346 385
236,213,608
239,778,071
239,663,754
Position Control Summary
July - June
Percent
Org
Jul
Unfilled
Assessor
Filled
33.26
Unfilled
2.00
5.675
Clerk
Filled
8.58
Unfilled
0.90
9.49%
BOPTA
Filled
0.42
Unfilled
0.10
19.23%
DA
Filled
51.70
Unfilled
6.30
10.865
Tax
Filled
5.50
Unfilled
-
0.00%
Veterans'
Filled
5.00
Unfilled
-
0.00%
Property Mngt
Filled
2.00
Unfilled
-
0.00%
Total General Fund
Filled
106.46
Unfilled
9.30
8.03%
Justice Court
Filled
4.60
Unfilled
-
0.00%
Community Justice
Filled
45.90
Unfilled
2.00
4.18%
Sheriff
Filled
229.75
Unfilled
27.25
10.601
Health Srvcs
Filled
320.33
Unfilled
55.47
14.76%
CDD
Filled
61.00
Unfilled
4.00
6.15%
Road
Filled
57.00
Unfilled
-
0.00%
Adult P&P
Filled
37.60
Unfilled
3.25
7.965
Solid Waste
Filled
23.00
Unfilled
2.00
8.00%
9-1-1
Filled
57.00
Unfilled
3.00
5.00.
Victims Assistance
Filled
8.00
Unfilled
-
0.005
GIS Dedicated
Filled
2.30
Unfilled
-
0.00%
Fair & Expo
Filled
9.00
Unfilled
3.50
28.00%
Natural Resource
Filled
2.00
Unfilled
-
0.00%
ISF - Facilities
Filled
21.60
Unfilled
2.40
10.00%
ISF -Admin
Filled
7.75
Unfilled
1.00
11.43%
ISF - BOCC
Filled
3.00
Unfilled
-
0.005
ISF - Finance
Filled
9.00
Unfilled
2.00
18.185
ISF - Legal
Filled
7.00
Unfilled
-
0.005
ISF - HR
Filled
8.00
Unfilled
1.00
11.11%
ISF - IT
Filled
15.70
Unfilled
-
0.00%
ISF - Risk
Filled
2.25
Unfilled
-
0.00%
Total:
Filled
1,038.24
Unfilled
116.17
5 Unfilled
10.06%
10.065
Budget to Actuals Report
General Fund:
Revenue YTD in the General Fund is $1.4 million or 3.5% of budget, consistent with last year's numbers at the same
time period.
Expenses YTD are $3.3 million and 7.6% of budget compared to $2.6 million and 6.7% of budget last year.
$1'rOM
(B)ank)
001 General Fund 8.3%
... c f ,h ;, e + iaeE,.._ .... , .,�.
95 ur "t v-, 6ueae'
4A, q,51 7 )F1 z. r
. „SIA.9F7 -f
All Major Funds:
On the attached pages you will find the Budget to Actuals Report for the County's major funds with actual revenue
and expense data compared to budget through July 31, 2021.
Budget to Actuals - Countywide Summary
All Departments $ 3%
FY21 YTD July 31, 2021 (unaudited)
Year Complete
Fi<rcaf Year 2021
Rscal
You 2022
RESOURCES
Budget,
Actuals
%
Bu.dget
Actuafs
%
Proje,cUon
%
001 - General Fund
; 45,149,632
47,054,027
104% ;
40,404,160
1,394,093
3% ;
40,404,160
100%:
030 - Juvenile
975,090
962,975
99%
901,143
(26,747)
-3%
901,143
100%
1601170 - TRT
10,669,865
11,229,510
105% ;
11,659,435
1,427,006
12% ;
11,659,435
100%:
200 -American Rescue
-
19,213,813
19,000,000
11,356
0% ;
19,140,000
101%
Fund
220 - Justice Court
489,850
501,563
102% ;
550,832
45,290
8% ;
550,832
100%
255 - Sheriff's Office
; 43,449,298
44,947,753
103% ;
44,724,355
4637076
1%
44,724,355
100% ;
274 - Health Services
43,207,563
43,146,168
100%:
45,456,746
5,414,140
12% ;
47,530,745
105%
295 - CDD
8,251,726
9,687,451
117% ;
9,580,316
930,132
10%
9,592,316
100%:
325 - Road
20,681,110
23,538,925
114%
22,629,649
3,801,410
17%
22,728,816
100%,
355 - Adult P&P
5,995,287
6,040,170
101% ;
5,840,250
1,165,822
20% ;
6,284,282
108%
465 - Road CIP
2,467,800
1,699,724
69% ;
2,471,190
1,257,012
51% ;
2,471,190
100%
610 - Solid Waste
12,077,592
13,463,285
111% ;
13,350,600
1,267,848
9% ;
13,375,600
100%
615 - Fair & Expo
1,466,050
1,817,979
124% ;
1,395,724
57,157
4%
1,4035250
101% ;
616 - Annual County Fair
52,000
145,566
280% ;
1,560,500
689,395
44% ;
1,568,500
101% ;
617 - Fair & Expo Capital
14,000
8,532
61%
8,544
609
7%
8,544
100%:
Reserve
618 - RV Park
436,050
607,303
139% ;
497,524
68,488
14%
504,524
101%:
619 - RV Park Reserve
1,100
7,787
708%
7,546
596
8%
7,546
100%
670 - Risk Management
3,263,646
3,239,580
99% ;
3,146,973
321,877
10% ;
3,146,973
100% ;
675 - Health Benefits
; 21,884,538
22,574,156
103% ;
23,027,177
1,852,950
8% ; ;
23,027,177
100%
705 - 911
11,064,698
12,080,426
109% ;
12,019,306
59,288
0%
12,019,306
100%
999 -Other
34,434,902
35,564,423
103%
50,071,852
3,279,010
7%
50,071,852
100%
TOTAL RESOURCES
266,031,797
297,531,117
112% ;
308,303,822
23,479,809
8%
3117120,545
101% ;
F[scal Year 2021
4 P scat Year 24122
REQUIREMENTS
Budget
A,ctuat
%
Budget
Ac-,.tu rls
`%,
F"rojecUo'n
%
001 - General Fund
; 27,262,513
26,148,657
96% ;
20,994,801
1,472,741
7% ;
20,994,801
100%:
030 - Juvenile
7,390,349
7,036,754
95%
7,522,365
535,999
7% ;
7,522,365
100%
160/170 - TRT
3,619,872
3,566,960
99% ;
3,358,388
43,000
1%
3,359,888
100%
200 - American Rescue
32,136
0%
38,000,000
189,878
0%
38,000,000
100%
Fund
220 - Justice Court
683,508
650,428
95% ;
701,142
67,588
10%
701,142
100% ;
Budget to
Actuals
- Countywide
Summary
All Departments
8.3%
FY21 YTD July 31,
2021 (unaudited)
Year Complete
Rweal Year 2021
T
F Fscrrkl ` ea.r 2f=22
255 - Sheriff's Office
51,263,220
49,482,354
97%
54,162,360
3,850,169
7%
54,162,360
100% ;
274 - Health Services ;
52,285,174
49,611,462
95% ;
55,965,360
3,745,024
7%
57,621,158
103% ;
295 - CDD
8,474,142
8,084,183
95%
9,652,389
765,902
8% ;
9,671,379
100% ;
325 - Road
14,513,205
12,504,150
86% ;
15,024,128
1,290,429
9% ;
15,024,128
100% ;
355 - Adult P&P
7,081,268
6,362,977
90%
7,079,915
482,153
7%
7,079,915
100%:
465 - Road CIP
20,036,050
11,800,304
59%
29,722,691
134,489
0% ;
29,664,409
100%
610 - Solid Waste
8,853,213
8,080,412
91%
9,709,991
300,424
3%
9,709,991
100%:
615 - Fair & Expo
2,070,371
2,005,230
97%
23504,877
144,125
6%
2,504,877
100% ;
616 -Annual County Fair
127,000
188,423
148%
1,468,131
498,076
34%
1,468,131
100%,
617 - Fair & Expo Capital
401,940
90,523
23%
568,000
-
0%
568,000
100%:
Reserve
618 - RV Park
543,902
511,614
94%
496,188
14,461
3%
496,188
100%
619 - RV Park Reserve
100,000
-
0%
100,000
-
0%
100,000
100%
670 - Risk Management
3,794,344
2,386,754
63%
4,027,292
393,558
10% ;
4,027,292
100%:
675 - Health Benefits
23,620,173
23,167,889
98%
23,924,393
202,125
1%
23,924,393
100%
705 - 911
; 12,576,839
10,5305764
84%
14,563,007
832,353
6%
14,563,007
100% ;
999 - Other
; 59,118,720
32,031,176
54%
86,294,153
3,941,117
5%
86,294,153
100% ;
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS
5%
387,457,578
100%:
303,815,803
254,273,149
84% ;
385,839,571
18,903,612
Budget to
Actuals
- Countywide
Summary
All Departments
8 3%
FY21 YTD July 31,
2021 (unaudited)
Year Complete
€ isc ak Year 2021
F i sc .1 Yc r 2022
TRANSFERS
Budgec t
A tuals
%,
Budget
Ac uats
%r
F rojeeflo€t
001 - General Fund
; (20,308,890)
(20,040,181)
99%
(21,927,604)
(1,782,454)
8%
(21,927,604)
100% ;
030 - Juvenile
5,957,854
5,957,854
100%
6,249,397
520,782
8%
6,249,397
100%:
160/170 - TRT
(5,278,036)
(4,963,905)
94% ;
(5,757,574)
(479,794)
8%
(5,757,574)
100%:
220 - Justice Court
107,235
110,986
103% ;
205,956
17,163
8%
205,956
100% ;
255 - Sheriff's Office
3,119,077
3,119,949
100% ;
3,500,737
314,477
9%
3,500,737
100%:
274 - Health Services
8,026,313
6,945,413
87%
6,122,830
510,230
8% ;
6,122,830
100%:
295 - CDD
(55,480)
(1,104,998)
999% ;
(270,622)
(25,881)
10% ;
(270,622)
100%:
325 - Road
(6,683,218)
(6,683,218)
100%
(11,757,547)
(2,213,525)
19% ;
(11,757,547)
100%
355 - Adult P&P
187,496
187,496
100% ;
652,046
49,397
8% ;
592,546
91% ;
465 - Road CIP
7,517,657
6,819,612
91% ;
12,193,917
-
0%
12,193,917
100%:
610 - Solid Waste
; (3,684,280)
(3,684,280)
100% ;
(6,029,323)
(1,163)
0% ;
(6,029,323)
100%;
615 - Fair & Expo
894,967
1,144,277
128% ;
800,736
54,227
7%
800,736
100%'
616 - Annual County Fair
75,000
75,000
100%
(75,000)
6,250
-8%
(75,000)
100%:
617 - Fair & Expo Capital
453,158
385,418
85% ;
728,901
60,741
8%
728,901
100%
Reserve
f
=
<
618 - RV Park
(436,628)
(323,626)
74%
47,958
(9,337) -19%
47,958
100%
619 - RV Park Reserve
621,628
503,626
81% ;
132,042
11,003
8%
132,042
100%
670 - Risk Management
(3,500)
(3,500)
100% ;
(3,500)
(291)
8%
(3,500)
100%:
705 - 911
-
-
0%
-
100%,
999 - Other
9,078,924
11,437,677
126% ;
15,272,030
2,968,175
19%
15,246,151
100%
TOTAL TRANSFERS
(410,723)
(116,400)
85,379
-
0%
-
0% ;
o U��3TFS` Budget to Actuals - Countywide Summary
�3 0
All Departments 8 3%
FY21 YTD July 31, 2021 (unaudited)
Year Complete
ENDING FUND BALANCE
001 - General Fund
030 - Juvenile
160/170 - TRT
200 - American Rescue
Fund
220 - Justice Court
255 - Sheriff's Office
274 - Health Services
295 - CDD
325 - Road
355 - Adult P&P
465 - Road CIP
610 - Solid Waste
615 - Fair & Expo
616 - Annual County Fair
617 - Fair & Expo Capital
Reserve
618 - RV Park
619 - RV Park Reserve
670 - Risk Management
675 - Health Benefits
705 - 911
Rscaf Year 2020
Nscat Year 2021
Budg(at Actt als
%
Bk.4ry`get
ACC'wMs
Projection
%
9,678,629 14,394,702
149% ;
10,952,375
12,510,036
11,852,893
108% ;
616,595 953,794
155% ;
596,681
712,076
592,071
99% ;
5,484,351 6,189,395
113% ;
8,433,816
7,046,552
8,684,313
103% ;
- 19,181,677
999% ;
-
19,035,291
353,813
999% ;
57,804 (36) 0% 55,646 (5,134)
13,981,322 17,418,315 125% 11,937,243 14,265,331
5,727,266 8,297,285 145% ; 5,833,206 9,387,196
734,798 1,751,627 238% ; 1,089,672 1,889,976
2,180,473 8,568,628 393% 2,231,806 8,884,536
1,816,329 2,984,679 164% 2,152,156 3,698,026
13,103,814 22,231,618 170% ; 5,316,460 23,354,141
719,918 3,984,159 553% ; 583,520 4,950,432
655,550 955,827 146% ; 442,256 910,419
- (15,317) 17,369 182,252
1,208,442 1,029,596 85% ; 1,271,108 1,090,946
43,512 - 0% 49,294 44,690
1,012,728 1,008,878 100% ; 824,054 1,020,478
6,465,802 9,526,076 147% ; 7,445,296 9,454,260
13,588,094 15,508,100 114% ; 13,875,402 17,518,890
6,829,277 10,712,557 157% 9,307,082 9,509,436
999 -Other
50,123,088
84,183,471
168%
55,725,866
87,984,795
TOTAL FUND BALANCE
; 134,027,792
228,865,032
171% ;
138,140,308
232,844,624
t
55,646
100%i ;
11,402,716
96% ;
7,252,580
124%
1,401,942
129%
4,534,221
203%
2,761,873
128%
7,232,316
136%
1,620,457
278% ;
642,269
145% ;
10,052
58% '
1,199,041
94% ;
56,294
114% ;
1,048,466
127% ;
8,642,413
116% ;
14,970,849
108% ;
7,738,800
83% ;
55,698,903
100% ;
147,751,929 107% ;
Budget to Actuals Report
General Fund - Fund 001
FY21 YTD July 31, 2021 (unaudited)
8.3%
Year Complete
Fiseal Year 2021
Ffeca( Year 2022
RESOURCES
Budget
Ac tual.s %
Budget
Actuals
%
Projection %
w Varlanice
Property Taxes - Current
30,105,307
30,896,789 103% =
32,410,716
42,332
0%
32,410,716 100%
= A
Property Taxes - Prior
358,000
683,563 191% z
460,000
45,649
10%
460,000 100%
Other General Revenues
10,450,871
10,238,561 98% f
2,689,926
642,072
24% t
2,6899926 100%
B
Assessor
i
836,713
1,013,826 121% ,
987,411
280,898
28%
987,411 100%
Clerk
2,153,741
3,046,380 141% >
2,741,215
301,319
11%
2,741,215 100%
a
BOPTA
12,220
14,768 121%
14,588
4,468
31%
14,588 100%
District Attorney
467,138
426,613 91%
434,221
1,535
0%
434,221 100%
Tax Office
419,927
452,793 108%
341,004
71,653
21%
341,004 100%
Veterans
223,715
158,931 71%
173,079
-
0%
173,079 100%,
C
Property Management
122,000
121,804 100%
152,000
4,167
3% E
152,000 100%
E D
TOTAL RESOURCES
45,149,632
47,054,027 104% ;
40,404,160
1,394,093
3%
40,404,160 100% ;
REQUIREMENTS Budget, Acvtuals `%, Bue=;get. F c.'iva!�; % ProiectiC)n % r ` Ni €-e>
Assessor
5,237,507
4,874,117
93%
5,454,784
389,459
7%
5,454,784 100%
Clerk
2,051,015
1,882,503
92%
2,080,739
116,399
6%
2,080,739 100%
t
BOPTA
79,945
76,037
95%
82,911
11,157
13%
82,911 100%
District Attorney
8,234,075
8,144,937
99%
9,701,727
675,523
7%
9,701,727 100%
i
Medical Examiner
236,358
194,368
82%
242,652
13,693
6% ;
242,652 100%
Tax Office
1,016,608
983,586
97%
932,570
59,544
6% l {
932,570 100%:
Veterans
687,678
600,665
87%
709,161
46,036
6% k
709,161 100%
Property Management
332,533
312,595
94%
376,061
28,359
8%
376,061 100% f
Non -Departmental
9,386,794
9,079,849
97% !
1,414,196
132,570
9% - i
1,414,196 100%
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS
27,262,513
26,148,657
96% ;
20,994,801
1,472,741
7% '. ,
20,994,801 100%
TRANSFERS
d.et
Ac.tueds
%
wd"g;et
A(;tu.ad,,
%
Projection l/,
varianco
Transfers In
260,000
260,000
100%
260,000
21,666
8%
260,000 100%
- E
i
Transfers Out
(20,568,890)
(20,300,181)
99%
(22,187,604)
(1,804,120)
8%
(22,187,604) 100%
TOTAL TRANSFERS
(20,308,890)
(20,040,181)
99%
(21,927,604)
(1,782,454)
8%
(21,927,604) 100%
FUND BALANCE
r3 u. ceu t
Actuals
°/,
b„r:;i.E .<ks:
°/%
Projection
r V ,amco
Beginning Fund Balance
12,100,400
13,529,514
112%
13,470,620
14,371,138 107%
14,371,138 107% ;
900,518, F
Resources over Requirements
17,887,119
20,905,370
19,409,359
(78,648)
19,409,359
0:
Net Transfers - In (Out)
(
(20,308,890)
(20,040,181)
t
(21,927,604)
(1,782,454)
E
(21,927,604)
TOTAL FUND BALANCE
$ g 678,629
$ 14,394,702
149% ; $ 1Q952,375
$ 12,510,036 114%
$ 11,852,893 108%
$900,518:
A Current year taxes received primarily in November, February and May
B PILT payment of $500,000 received in July 2021
C Oregon Dept. of Veteran's Affairs grant reimbursed quarterly
D Interfund land -sale management revenue recorded at year-end
E Repayment to General Fund from Finance Reserves for ERP Implementation
F Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY21
\)I E S` Budget to Actuals Report
Juvenile - Fund 030
FY21 YTD July 31, 2021 (unaudited)
RESOURCES
OYA Basic & Diversion
ODE Juvenile Crime Prev
Gen Fund -Crime Prevention
Leases
Inmate/Prisoner Housing
DOC Unif Crime Fee/HB2712
OJD Court Fac/Sec SB 1065
Interest on Investments
Food Subsidy
Contract Payments
Miscellaneous
Case Supervision Fee
TOTALRESOURCES
8.3 %
Year Complete
Fiscal
Year 2021 1
iVi ral Ycae 2022
Budget
Actuals %is#€tdaet
Actuals
%
I' ro,iection % c% Variance
472,401
497,387 105%
432,044
-
0%
432,044 100% A
109,000
118,909 109% !
100,517
(37,515)
.37% = f
100,517 100% B
89,500
89,500 100%!
89,500
-
0% 3
89,500 100%
88,000
82,522 94%
88,000
7,801
9%
88,000 100%
90,000
64,350 72%
80,000
-
0%
3
80,000 100%
49,339
37,004 75%
49,339
-
i
0%
49,339 100% ! A
26,000
13,503 52% t
20,000
1,085
5% i
20,000 100%,
17,300
13,796 80%
14,243
192
1% _
i
14,243 100%
12,000
12,470 104%
12,000
558
5%
12,000 100%
8,000
2,795 35%
8,000
819
10%
8,000 100%,
7,550
28,312 375%
7,500
314
4%
7,500 100% >
6,000
2,427 40% _
-
975,090
962,975 99%
901,143
(26,747)
-3%
901,143 100% ;
REQUIREMENTS 7ct A tual€ `%, 13,udget 'b, c,t.uaF S %
Personnel Services
5,970,797
5,762,141
97%
6,108,905
451,901 7%
Materials and Services
1,372,016
1,232,621
90%
1,363,409
84,097 6%
Capital Outlay
47,536
41,992
88%
50,051
0%
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS `.
7,390,349
7,036,754
95%
7,522,365
535,999 7%
TRANSFERS
anti t °/< is iryec
6,108,905 100%
1,363,409 100%
50,051 100%
7,522,365 100% ;
Transfers In- General Funds 6,034,966 6,034,966 100% 6,304,397 525,365 8% 6,304,397 100%,
Transfers Out-Veh Reserve (77,112) (77,112) 100% (55,000) (4,583) 8% _ (55,000) 100%
TOTAL TRANSFERS 5,957,854 5,957,854 100% ; 6,249,397 520,782 8% 6,249,397 100%
FUND BALANCE
Y
Actuals, %
t+tiez`get
A rta: tI ; %
rz ojcc.tion %
variasfce
Beginning Fund Balance
1,074,000
1,069,720 100%
968,506
754,040 78%
963,896 100% ;
(4,610): C
Resources over Requirements !
(6,415,259)
(6,073,779)
(6,621,222)
(562,745)
r (6,621,222)
0;
;
Net Transfers - In (Out)
5,957,854
5,957,854
6,249,397
520,782
�3
6,249,397
�
TOTAL FUND BALANCE
$ 616,595
$ 953,794 155% ;
$ 596,681
$ 712,076 119% ;
; $ 592,071 99%
($4,610);
A Quarterly reimbursement of biennial award based on actuals
B $37K was accrued back to FY21 in July with payments received in August
C Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY21; projection includes revenue received in FY22 that will be
accrued back to FY21
Budget to Actuals Report
TRT -Fund 160/170
FY21 YTD July 31, 2021 (unaudited)
8.3%
Year Complete
Fiscal Year 2021
Fiscal Year 2022
RESOURCES
Budget
Actuals %
Budget et
Actualrs
%
Projection %
$ Variance
Room Taxes
10,615,965
11,068,364 104%
11,600,987
1,422,567
12%
11,600,987 100%
Interest
53,900
61,146 113%
58,448
4,439
8% i
58,448 100% t
State Miscellaneous
-
100,000
-
-
TOTAL RESOURCES
10,669,865
11,229,510 105% ;
11,659,435
1,427,006
12%
11,659,435 100% ;
REQUIREMENTS
Budget
Ac;tur Is %
Budpet
lkc;t€ al.
`/,
€ rojection `%=
$ V a, rianco
COVA
3,038,805
2,998,091 99%
3,136,659
-
0%
3,136,659 100%;
- A
Interfund Contract
114,481
114,481 100% E
121,817
10,151
8%
121,817 100%
B
Software
11,500
- 0%
45,000
27,758
62%
45,000 100%
Interfund Charges
35,861
35,861 100%
39,709
3,309
8%
39,709 100%
Auditing Services
11,500
0%
11,500
0%
11,500 100%
F
Public Notices
1,600
1,848 116% !
1,600
154
10%
1,600 100% >
Office Supplies
1,275
52 4%
1,275
1,513
119% ,
2,275 178% _
(1,000)>
Printing
850
- 0%
828
-
0%
828 100%'
Miscellaneous
-
2,626 999% ,
115
999% ,
500 999%
(50q
Grants & Contributions
404,000
414,000 102%
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS
3,619,872
3,566,960 99% ;
3,358,388
43,000
1%
3,359,888 100% ;
(1,500);
TRANSFERS
B&1 is Cs: r,
<xi
%
Le%
is€t :.! 3
%
Transfer Out - RV Park
(20,000)
(20,000)
100%
(20,000)
(1,666)
8%
(20,000)
100% i
Transfer Out - F&E (as needed)
(275,744)
(25,744)
9%
(25,744)
(2,145)
8%
(25,744)
100%
Transfer Out - Annual Fair
(75,000)
(75,000)
100%,
(75,000)
(6,250)
8%
(75,000)
100%
Transfers Out
(205,956)
(17,163)
8%
(205,956)
100%
Transfer Out - F&E Reserve
(453,158)
(385,418)
85%
(428,901)
(35,741)
8%
(428,901)
100% t C
Transfer Out - Health
(406,646)
(406,646)
100%
(444,417)
(37,034)
8%
t (444,417)
100%
Transfer Out - F&E
(895,701)
(899,310)
100%
(905,769)
(75,480)
8%
(905,769)
100%
Transfer Out - Sheriff
(3,151,787)
(3,151,787)
100%,
(3,651,787)
(304,315)
8%
i (3,651,787)
100%
TOTAL TRANSFERS
(5,278,036)
(4,963,905)
94%
(5,757,574)
(479,794)
8%
(5,757,574)
100% ;
FUND BALANCE t-wdpefi i.c;;€1«I % I oe,r-wt f, . u€;s: % project c', % $, VaEiasr,cc.
Beginning Fund Balance 3,712,394 3,490,749 94% 5,890,343
6,142,340 104% _
6,142,340 104% =
(
251,997, D
4
Resources over Requirements 7,049,993 7,662,551 8,301,047
1,384,006
8,299,547
(1,500)=
Net Transfers - In (Out) (5,278,036) (4,963,905) (5,757,574)
(479,794)
(5,757,574)
TOTAL FUND BALANCE _ $ 5,484,351 $ 6,189,395 113% ; $ 8,433,816
$ 7,046,552 84%
$ 8,684,313 103% ;
$250,497
A Payments to COVA based on a percent of TRT collections
8 Contracted services with the Finance Department for operating TRT program
C The balance of the 1 % F&E TRT is transferred to F&E reserves
D Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY21
\31 E S Budget to Actuals Report
ARPA — Fund 200
FY22 YTD July 31, 2021 (unaudited)
8.3%
Year Complete
'Fi<sc&I Year 2021
Fiscal Year 2022
RESOURCES
Budget f-GWal %,
Budge!
Actuala % Projection ecticn % S6Variance
State & Local Coranavirus Fiscal,
19,199,677
19,000,000
- 0% 19,000,000 100% ;
Recovery Funds
Interest
14,137
-
11,356 140,000 140,000:
TOTAL RESOURCES
19,213,813
19,000,000
11,356 0% ; 19,140,000 101% 140,000;
REQUIREMENTS
Administrative
Services to Disproportionately
Impacted Communities
Infrastructure
Public Health
Negative Economic Impacts
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS
[=""udgot Actuads % B ud'g'OIL Actuals %
33,426,816
0%
2,300,000
0%
1,450,000
0%
32,136 999% 723,184
189,878 26%
100,000
0%
32,136 999% ; 38,000,000
189,878 0%
k ojec'(Jor % E t zrianc`,c
33,426,816
100%
A
2,300,000
100%
B
1,450,000
100%
- C
723,184
100%
D
100,000
100%
E
38,000,000
100% ;
FUND BALANCE is EEz c:t !<< r.a•c l % :t Actuals /o :>jcc:;ti.:z4 % 4: ' tF ..tire,
Beginning Fund Balance 19,000,000 19,213,813 101% 19,213,813 101% = 213,813 F
Resources over Requirements 19,181,677 (19,000,000) (178,522) (18,860,000) 140,000
Net Transfers - In (Out) -
TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 19,181,677 999% ; $ 19,035,291 999% ; $ 353,813 999% ; $353,813;
A Administration holds the balance of the ARPA funds, as well as an approved budget analyst for ARPA reporting and administration
B Includes funding for phase 1 of the Little Kits Early Learning & Child Care Center, Bend Heroes Vets Village, The Bethlehem Inn Expansion in
Redmond and a Managed City Camp through the City of Bend.
C Consists of upgrading and modernizing irrigation systems throughout the region.
D Public Health approved ARPA funding consists of Isolation Motel Liability Insurance, COVID-19 testing done by Dr. Young, UV sanitizer for the jail
to prevent COVID-19 in congregate settings, and various Health Services expenses such as temporary staffing costs to support the COVID-19
response.
E Includes funding for the Ronald McDonald House
F Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY21
�'O
FINANCE
p`w'(ESCpG�< Budget to Actuals Report
Justice Court - Fund 220
FY21 YTD July 31, 2021 (unaudited)
8.3%
Year Complete
Fiseal Year 2021 1
(lsc,al Year 2022
RESOURCES
Budget f: A t vE;.i %
l:scaet;et
1e;fr al;r Y.
Projection % 4 Variance
Court Fines & Fees
488,750 500,818 102%
550,000
45,300 8% _
550,000 100%
Miscellaneous
- 736
737
- 0% s
737 100% f
Interest on Investments
1,100 9 1%
95
(10) .11%
95 100%! i
TOTAL RESOURCES
489,850 501,563 102% ;
550,832
45,290 8%
550,832 100% ;
REQUIREMENTS
13u6, t:
Actu xis
%
BLj.d.ge1,
Act€aaIs,
°/;
Projection % $ Variance
Personnel Services
531,006
519,650
98%
542,209
44,832
8%
542,209 100%,
Materials and Services
152,502
130,777
86%
158,933
22,756
14%
158,933 100% A
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS
683,508
650,428
95%
701,142
67,588
10%
701,142 100% ;
TRANSFERS
Budget
A ..t als %
Bu,dejr, t
Act f als °l, Pre iecticn %, :ji Variance
Transfers In -Justice Court
-
205,956
17,163 8% 205,956 100%
Transfers In- General Fund
107,235
110,986 103% F
`
TOTAL TRANSFERS
107,235
110,986 103% ;
205,956
17,163 8% ; 205,956 100%
FUND BALANCE
B dg("t:
Ac.tu is `%,
rye,€ et
Act as
°/> 1ro11e,CI:i€art °/) S> Vri,nc:e
Beginning Fund Balance
144,227
37,842 26%
_ 0: B
Resources over Requirements
(193,658)
(148,865)
(150,310)
(22,297)
(150,310) 0
Net Transfers - In (Out)
107,235
110,986
205,956
17,163
205,956
TOTAL FUND BALANCE -
$ 57,804
($ 36) 0%
$ 55,646
($ 5,134)
-9% :. $ 55,646 100%: $0;
A One time yearly software maintenance fee paid in July for entire fiscal year
B Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY21
,31 S Budget to Actuals Report
Sheriff's Office - Fund 255
FY21 YTD July 31, 2021 (unaudited)
8.3%
Year Complete
Fiscal Year 2021
Fiscal Year 2022
RESOURCES
Budget
Actuals %
Budgct
ACU IS
%
projection % Variance
LED #1 Property Tax Current
27,476,763
27,912,029 102%
28,448,529
37,718
0%
28,448,529 100%
LED #2 Property Tax Current
11,092,307
11,269,119 102%
11,813,562
15,228
0%
11,813,562 100%
Sheriff's Office Revenues
4,259,128
4,702,756 110%
3,770,574
344,918
9% f E
3,770,574 100%
LED #1 Property Tax Prior
280,000
579,513 207%
330,000
38,808
12%
330,000 100%
LED #1 Interest
101,100
170,066 168% >
147,416
7,985
5%
147,416 100%
LED #2 Property Tax Prior
120,000
194,726 162%
145,000
16,093
11%
145,000 100%
LED #2 Interest
120,000
72,488 60%
69,274
2,325
3%
69,274 100% i
LED #1 Foreclosed Properties
33,522
E
�
LED #2 Foreclosed Properties
r
-
13,534
-
TOTAL RESOURCES
43,449,298
44,947,753 103% ;
44,724,355
463,076
1%
44,724,355 100%
REQUIREMENTS Bu "pet l e:tu l:s % Budget Actuals % t .ject.iorl %, variance
iance
Sheriff's Services
3,864,843
4,293,148
111%
4,002,499
266,676
7%
4,002,499 100%
Civil/Special Units
1,232,618
1,083,411
88%
1,154,204
83,906
7%
1,154,204 100%
Automotive/Communications
3,312,477
3,184,547
96%
3,576,342
192,944
5%
3,576,342 100%
Detective
2,515,536
2,546,350
101% 3
3,029,130
254,374
8%
3,029,130 100%
Patrol
13,284,465
13,388,793
101% ,
14,015,461
935,243
7%
14,015,461 100%
Records
1,038,130
954,506
92%
1,025,023
70,135
7%
1,025,023 100%
Adult Jail
20,347,342
18,424,269
91%
21,033,697
1,449,017
7%
21,033,697 100% 4
Court Security
490,401
413,143
84%
444,617
28,425
6%
444,617 100%
Emergency Services
543,565
886,331
163% ,
789,912
61,196
8%
789,912 100%
Special Services
2,052,586
1,787,984
87%
1,775,588
165,312
9%
1,775,588 100%
Training
1,156,993
1,186,921
103%
1,626,207
179,290
11% F
1,626,207 100%
Other Law Enforcement
1,328,675
1,331,363
100%
1,389,684
163,651
12%
1,389,684 100%:
Non - Departmental
95,589
1,589
2%
299,998
-
0% t
299,998 100%
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS
51,263,220
49,482,354
97%
54,162,360
3,850,169
7%
54,162,360 100%
TRANSFERS In t lget Ace ,uals % Budget ACWu lS `%<I Projection odection % varia (c e
Transfer In - TRT
3,151,787
3,151,787 100%
3,651,787
304,315
8% - -
3,651,787 100%;
Transfer In - General Fund
240,290
240,290 100%
121,950
10,162
8%
121,950 100%,
Transfers Out - Debt Service
(273,000)
(272,128) 100%
(273,000)
-
0%
(273,000) 100%
TOTAL TRANSFERS
3,119,077
3,119,949 100%
3,500,737
314,477
9%
3,500,737 100%
FUND BALANCE
B€c xeY
/f€,..,c.i<< 0/o
Inudgei
f°ac,tU,,1S
`%,
1 o, ec'tro r., /<, t `t,<`<.n aw...e
Beginning Fund Balance
18,676,167
18,832,967 101%
17,874,511
17,337,947
97%
17,339,984 97% (534,527)' A
Resources over Requirements
(7,813,922)
(4,534,601)
(9,438,005)
(3,387,093)
t
(9,438,005) 0;
Net Transfers - In (Out)
3,119,077
3,119,949
3,500,737
314,477
3,500,737
TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 13,981,322
$ 17,418,315 125% ; $ 11,937,243
$ 14,265,331
120%
$ 11,402,716 96% ($534,527);
A Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY21
I E S, Budget to Actuals Report
Health Services - Fund 274
FY21 YTD July 31, 2021 (unaudited)
8.3%
Year Complete
Fiscal Year 2021 1
Fiscal Year 2022
RESOURCES
Budget
Ac teals %
Budget
/;•r'I:uals
%
Projection %
$ Variance
State Grant
15,156,802
14,843,825 98%
15,976,925
1,956,487
12%
16,438,297 103%
461,37Z
OHP Capitation
8,279,406
8,403,083 101%
8,947,837
931,153
10%
8,947,837 100%
Federal Grants
4,833,096
3,715,397 77% f
3,633,483
-
0%
3,732,873 103%
99,390!
OHP Fee for Service
3,265,627
3,877,425 119% =
3,627,151
257,327
7%
3,764,827 104%
137,676
State Miscellaneous
2,850,731
2,725,478 96%
3,193,188
552,725
17%
4,731,399 148%
1,538,211;
CCBHC Grant
2,627,291
0%
2,627,291 100%
Local Grants
3,639,059
3,829,781 105%
1,936,838
1,435,822
74%
2,1395500 110%
202,662!
Environmental Health Fees
1,091,652
1,106,707 101%
1,086,019
15,817
1%
1,096,411 101%
10,392,
State - OMAP
1,162,507
1,057,773 91% E
1,015,250
85,689
8%
1,008,652 99%
(6,598)
Title 19
350,491
922,854 263% ?
1,014,100
53,286
5%
639,429 63%
(374,671)�
Other
965,971
1,106,718 115%
884,036
70,882
8%
887,521 100%
3,485
Patient Fees
672,995
481,431 72%
468,415
41,461
9%
459,611 98%
(8,804),
Vital Records
237,296
317,189 134%
280,000
6,032
2% t
290,884 104%
10,884
Divorce Filing Fees
173,030
173,030 100%
173,030
0%
173,030 100%
Liquor Revenue
99,500
158,977 160%
157,000
0% t
157,000 100%
Interest on Investments
147,400
153,426 104%
156,549
7,459
5%
156,549 100%
State Shared- Family Planning
155,000
146,074 94%
152,634
-
0%
152,634 100%
Interfund Contract- Gen Fund
127,000
127,000 100%
127,000
-
0%
127,000 100%
TOTAL RESOURCES
43,207,563
43,146,168 100% ;
45,456,746
5,414,140
12%
47,530,745 105% ;
2,073,999;
REQUIREMENTS
;w. c
fl .F.a <; %
I< •,,.. E a
%
e+> e r,
4: Var!;a-1;c
Administration Allocation
999% ,
Personnel Services
37,622,192
35,975,598 96%
42,721,955
3,094,360
7%
43,227,858 101%
(505,903)�
Materials and Services
14,523,515
13,504,200 93%
13,163,405
650,665
5%
14,263,300 108%
(1,099,895)
Capital Outlay
139,467
131,664 94%
80,000
0%
130,000 163%
(50,000)E
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS
52,285,174
49,611,462 95%
55,965,360
3,745,024
7%
57,621,158 103% ;
(1,655,798);
TRANSFERS BUd,?e As.Wals % I_Ua9eF Ac-,'IuFIs. % ! ojectiVn % 4,Va ance
Transfers In- General Fund
5,472,710
5,472,710 100%
5,909,168
492,425
8%
5,909,168 100%
Transfers In - TRT
406,646
406,646 100%
444,417
37,034
8%
444,417 100%
Transfers In- OHP Mental Health
2,379,865
1,298,965 55%
Transfers Out
(232,908)
(232,908) 100%
(230,755)
(19,229)
8%
(230,755) 100%
TOTAL TRANSFERS
8,026,313
6,945,413 87%
6,122,830
510,230
8%
6,122,830 100%
FUND BALANCE
Flhi l eQ
A, eu<`fl °/
s( €i ge
k"Ctuals %
P r 4f:`U'.ic.,r n %
S V €;ari :e:
Beginning Fund Balance
6,778,564
7,817,166 115% F
10,218,990
7,207,850 71%
11,220,163 110% ,
1,001,173
Resources over Requirements
(9,077,611)
(6,465,294)
(10,508,614)
1,669,116 t
(10,090,413)
418,201
Net Transfers - In (Out)
8,026,313
65945,413
6,122,830
510,230
6,122,830
TOTAL FUND BALANCE
$ 5,727,266
$ 8,297,285 145% ;
$ 5,833,206
$ 9,387,196 161% ;
$ 7,252,580 124%
$1,419,374:
�€es ` Budget to Actuals Report
h(•� GG
Health Services - Admin - Fund 274
FY21 YTD July 31, 2021 (unaudited)
8.3%
Year Complete
FisscFl Year 2021
1
Fiscal Year 2022
RESOURCES
lvu d get
Act€gals
%
Budget
/t=€,teals %
Projection %
S V dance
Federal Grants
1,237,245
710,164
57%
768,843
0%
826,019 107%
57,176 A
State Grant
-
-
{
637,740
0% !
637,740 100%
CCBHC Grant
-
-
486,804
0% ? ?
472,404 97%
(14,400)t
Interest on Investments
147,400
153,426
104% =
156,549
7,459 5%
156,549 100% I
Other
14,391
12,622
88%
9,200
4,506 49%
i E
9,200 100%
i
I
State Miscellaneous
I
347,105
S
-
TOTAL RESOURCES
1,399,036
1,223,317
87%
2,059,136
11,965 1% ; ;
2,101,912 102% ;
42,776:
REQUIREMENTS E;3<<E e3 t fsc trt :l a % Budget d,€;tGexl€; °/< ojec tica€7 `Yo $ Va €a€r a
Personnel Services
5,914,729
5,679,486 96%
6,810,635
503,867 7%
6,826,547 100% _ (15,912)=
Materials and Services
4,991,353
6,339,050 127%
5,905,826
419,093 7%
5,966,526 101% _ (60,700), B
Administration Allocation
(9,645,743)
(9,645,743) 100%!
(10,233,030)
- 0%
(10,233,030) `
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS ;
1,260,339
2,372,793 188% ;
2,483,431
922,959 37%
2,560,043 103% ; (76,612);
TRANSFERS
;fu cca
Ac laxe i,
`%)
B u 6.gef
Act=.:a_ , %,
r oir..c'1ica1) `V"
$ variance
lance
Transfers Out
(232,908)
(232,908) 100%
(230,755)
(19,229) 8%
(230,755) 100%
TOTAL TRANSFERS
(232,908)
(232,908)
100% ;
(230,755)
(19,229) 8% '.
(230,755) 100%
FUND BALANCE
i tit rc 't
«!,•:
%
F3, u6,;e1.
A to l `%:
P ,. <.c i ca t ;
Beginning Fund Balance
2,772,840
3,322,793
120%
3,552,000
(628,553) -18%
3,825,163 108%
273,163: C
Resources over Requirements
138,696
(1,149,475)
(424,295)
(910,994) k 3
(458,131)
(33,836),
Net Transfers - In (Out)
(232,908)
(232,908)
F
(230,755)
(19,229)
(230,755)
TOTAL FUND BALANCE _
$ 2,678,628
$ 1,940,410
72%
$ 2,896,950
($ 1,558,777) -54% ; ;
$ 3,136,277 108%
$239,327
A Federal grants are reimbursed on a quarterly basis. Revenue over budget related to OHA/FEMA reimbursement for COVID-19 vaccine distribution.
B Expenditures over budget related to expenses supporting COVID-19 vaccine distribution
C Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY21
Uts `� 0
Budget to Actuals Report
Health Services - Behavioral Health - Fund 274 8.3%
FY21 YTD July 31, 2021 (unaudited)
Year Complete
Fiscal
Year 2021 1
Fiscal Year 2022
RESOURCES
BUdgei
Actuals %
Budget
Acetuals
%
Projection %
S Ffariarwe
State Grant
10,348,047
9,917,254 96%
10,914,239
1,903,508
17%
11,063,467 101% =
1499228� A
OHP Capitation
8,279,406
8,403,083 101%
8,947,837
931,153
10%
8,947,837 100%,
OHP Fee for Service
3,265,627
3,877,425 119% %
3,627,151
257,327
7%
3,764,827 104%
137,676�
Federal Grants
3,298,243
2,715,411 82%
2,725,623
0%
2,725,623 100%
State Miscellaneous
1,544,455
524,065 34%
2,181,992
442,725
20%
2,548,494 117%
366,502! B
CCBHC Grant
2,140,487
0% r
2,154,887 101%
14,400;
Local Grants
1,897,762
1,717,173 90%
1,093,055
829,762
76%
1,256,039 115%
162,984; C
Title 19
350,491
922,854 263%
1,014,100
53,286
5%
639,429 63%
(374,671)� D
Other
927,605
1,076,144 116%
682,180
55,713
8%
685,365 100%,
3,185!
Patient Fees
522,300
380,798 73%
372,115
36,246
10%
395,122 106% :
23,007
Divorce Filing Fees
173,030
173,030 100%
173,030
-
0% _
E
173,030 100%'
State - OMAP
210,287
212,197 101%
172,200
28,958
17%
303,137 176%
130,937; E
Liquor Revenue
99,500
158,977 160%
157,000
-
0% 3
157,000 100%,
Interfund Contract- Gen Fund
127,000
127,000 100%
127,000
-
0%
127,000 100%
TOTAL RESOURCES
31,043,753
30,205,411 97%
34,328,009
4,538,678
13%
34,941,257 102%
613,248:
REQUIREMENTS al Ac,t.uR.ds % [ ctic,€€IX, $ varlarlcxs
Administration Allocation
7,434,938
7,434,938
100%
7,619,040
-
0%
7,619,040 100%
Personnel Services
23,060,066
22,131,010
96%
25,927,326
1,871,065
7%
26,197,531 101% '
(270,205)1 F
Materials and Services
5,998,817
3,828,336
64%
4,849,788
88,593
2%
4,990,536 103%
(140,748), G
!
Capital Outlay
125,267
106,122
85%
54,000
0%
54,000 100%
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS
36,619,088
33,500,406
91%
38,450,154
1,959,658
5%
38,861,107 101% :.
(410,953),
TRANSFERS
B,ud,cE>t
Actualr
ud0',et
Ac:t .als
1%)
rejec..4:ion %
1,; Variance
iance
Transfers In- General Fund
2,036,117
2,036,117
100%
2,278,087
189,837
8% _
2,278,087 100%
!
!
Transfers Out
-
0%
Transfers In- OHP Mental Health
2,298,179
1,217,279
53%
TOTAL TRANSFERS
4,334,296
3,253,396
75%
2,278,087
189,837
8%
2,278,087 100%
FUND BALANCE
'€ er:
lxc.c:uads %„
t',c,dget:
h„c-.Cel,zi'a %
P rojeuflun /
a Val aV1C-,f
Beginning Fund Balance
3,008,705
3,397,853 113%
3,703,750
41946,057 134% _
4,374,243 118%
670,493- H
Resources over Requirements
(5,575,335)
(3,294,995)
(4,122,145)
2,579,020
(3,919,850)
202,295
Net Transfers - In (Out)
43334,296
3,253,396
2,278,087
189,837
2,278,087
TOTAL FUND BALANCE
$ 1,767,666
$ 3,356,254 190% ;
$ 1,859,692
$ 7,714,913 415% ;
$ 2,732,480 147%
$872,788:
A Approximately $117K additional received for Aid & Assist. Budget adjustment forthcoming.
B Additional funds anticipated for Measure 110 Harm Reduction Grant ($148K) and Rental Assistance ($176K)
C Carryforward of unspent FY21 COHC Crisis Services Grant and Choice Model funds
D Medicaid services tracking lower than budget
E Medicare services tracking higher than budgeted
F Additional expenditures projected for Crisis Services signing bonus and shift differential
G Additional expenditures over budget related to footnote B
H Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY21; higher than anticipated primarily due to payment of
2020 PacificSource withhold and carryforward from various unspent grant funds.
Q UTS`� Budget to Actuals Report
Health Services - Public Health - Fund 274
FY21 YTD July 31, 2021 (unaudited)
8.3%
Year Complete
r'isca.1 Year 2021
1
I i, c.al Ycar 2022
RESOURCES
Budget,
Actuais
%
Budget
Actuals
%
Projection %
Variance
State Grant
4,808,755
4,926,571
102%
4,424,946
52,980
1%
4,737,090 107%
312,144= A
Environmental Health Fees
1,091,652
1,106,707
101%
1,086,019
15,817
1%
1,096,411 101% .
10,392!
State Miscellaneous
1,306,276
1,854,308
142% ,
1,011,196
110,000
11%
2,182,905 216%
1,171,709! B
Local Grants
1,741,297
2,112,608
121%
843,783
606,060
72%
883,461 105%
39,678�
State - OMAP
952,220
845,576
89%
843,050
56,731
7%
705,515 84%
(137,535)� C
Vital Records
237,296
317,189
134%
280,000
6,032
2%
290,884 104%
10,884
Other
23,975
17,952
75%
192,656
10,663
6% t
192,956 100%!
300!
State Shared- Family Planning
155,000
146,074
94%
152,634
-
0%
152,634 100%
Federal Grants
i
297,609
289,822
97%
139,017
-
0% _
181,231 130% !
42,214t
Patient Fees
150,695
100,632
67%
96,300
5,215
5%
64,489 67%
(31,811)z
TOTAL RESOURCES
10,764,775
11,717,440
109%
9,069,601
863,497
10%
10,487,576 116%
1,417,975
REQUIREMENTS
F t.fc Ct-t:
!,. ;t.f.f<:!
'X�
Budget .'t
Ac. tuad€W
%
Pf'€ je:c'4: on /C
S, V ar ianc o
Administration Allocation
2,210,805
2,210,805
100%
2,613,990
-
0%
2,613,990 100%
Personnel Services
8,647,397
8,165,103
94%
9,983,994
719,427
7%
10,203,780 102%
(219,786) D
Materials and Services
3,533,345
3,336,814
94%
2,407,791
1429979
6%
3,306,238 137%
(898,447), D
Capital Outlay
14,200
25,542 180% G
26,000
-
0% ?
76,000 292%
(50,000) E
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS `.
14,405,747
13,738,263
95%
15,031,775
862,407
6% ",
16,200,008 108%
(1,168,233)
TRANSFERS >� .ctc.t f.;�td u�e °% c=�, F::t,�'..., %;:.f7 / efa
Transfers In- General Fund
3,436,593
3,436,593 100% 3,631,081 302,588 8%
3,631,081 100%
f
Transfers In - TRT
406,646
406,646 100% 444,417 37,034 8%
444,417 100%
Transfers In- OHP Mental Health
81,686
81,686 100% - -
TOTAL TRANSFERS
3,924,925
3,924,925 100% ; 4,075,498 339,622 8%
4,075,498 100%
FUND BALANCE
Buidcet
Actuals is '%
Bu tgel,
Ac,t:ual; %
(*j tion %,
Vaf1ancc
Beginning Fund Balance
997,019
1,096,520 110%
2,963,240
2,890,347 98%
3,020,757 102%
57,51TF
Resources over Requirements !
(3,640,972)
(2,020,823)
(5,962,174)
1,090
(5,712,432)
249,74Z
r
Net Transfers - In (Out) -
E
3,924,925
3,924,925
1
4,075,498
339,622
3 §
4,075,498
7
TOTAL FUND BALANCE
$ 1,280,972
$ 3,000,621 234%
$ 1,076,564
$ 3,231,059 300% ';
$ 1,383,823 129%
$307,259'
A Revenue over budget primarily due to additional state funds in Tobacco Prevention ($117K). Oregon Mothers Care ($86K) and WIC ($63K), as well
as carryfonaard of unspent funds from Emergency Preparedness ($36K)
B Includes -$1 M from Equity and Incentives Grant funds (budget adjustment forthcoming) and $150K Measure 110 Harm Reduction grant
C Medicare services tracking lower than budgeted
D Expenditures over budget related to footnote B
E Van for Measure 110 Harm Reduction grant; budget adjustment forthcoming
F Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY21
01ES Budget to Actuals Report
Community Development - Fund 295
FY21 YTD July 31, 2021 (unaudited)
8.3%
Year Complete
I iscaI Y € a 2G2't
Fiscal Yoar 2022
RESOURCES
(budget.
Ac:tuals %
iwdgct
Acctuals
%
projection %
$ Variance
Admin - Operations
137,450
152,710 111%
138,716
13,388
10%
149,716 108% -
11,0m
Code Compliance
722,028
783,094 108%
842,906
86,264
10%
842,906 100%
Building Safety
3,362,450
3,921,591 117%
3,819,940
376,293
10%
3,820,940 100%!
1,000!
Electrical
720,600
915,357 127% i
914,750
93,840
10%
914,750 100%
Environmental On -Site
867,700
1,118,994 129% =
1,056,678
80,028
8%
1,056,678 100%,
4
Current Planning
1,738,304
2,054,192 118%
1,980,521
186,521
9% i r
1,980,521 100%
Long Range Planning
703,194
741,514 105%
826,806
93,797
11%
826,806 100%!
f
TOTAL RESOURCES
8,251,726
9,687,451 117% ;
9,580,316
930,132
10%
9,592,316 100%:
12,000:
REQUIREMENTS c? ,.t roc t€.<als °/, Budget ACtuals `%" ee.tic n % $ Variance
Code Compliance
568,320
539,504
95%
617,012
47,447
8% _
617,012 100% >
Admin - Operations
2,818,748
2,738,873
97%
3,137,795
270,636
9%
3,156,785 101% ;
(18,990)�
f
Building Safety
1,867,662
1,768,376
95%
2,175,544
182,483
8%
k
29175,544 100%
Electrical
524,979
487,155
93%
544,431
47,047
9%
544,431 100%
E
Environmental On -Site
634,452
638,613
101% E
677,435
50,647
7% l
677,435 100%;
Current Planning
1,479,294
1,465,613
99%
1,769,333
132,283
7%
1,769,333 100%
Long Range Planning
580,687
446,049
77%
730,839
35,359
5%
730,839 100%
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS
8,474,142
8,084,183
95%
9,652,389
765,902
8%
9,671,379 100% ;
(18,990)
TRANSFERS
ait ,ut
s ac
°�o
Budge,
f<c:,i,1s
%
�eci,ion %
V r C,e
Transfers In - General Fund
100,000
0%
290,000
20,833
7% _
290,000 100%
Transfers In - CDD Electrical
93,264
0%
-
Reserve
;
Transfers Out
(100,518)
(100,518)
100%
(99,360)
(8,277)
8%
(99,360) 100%
Transfers Out - CDD Reserve
(148,226)
(1,004,480) 678% ,
(461,262)
(38,437)
8%
(461,262) 100%
TOTAL TRANSFERS
(55,480)
(1,104,998)
999% ;
(270,622)
(25,881)
10% :,
(270,622) 100%
FUND BALANCE
r,; ,,.
%
i + d'g(-,6t
Acctuads, %
c e€c ion /,
Va-lance
Beginning Fund Balance
1,012,694
1,253,356 124%
1,432,367
1,751,627 122%
1,751,627 122%
319,260� A
Resources over Requirements
(222,416)
1,603,269
(72,073)
164,230
(79,063)
(6,990),
Net Transfers - In (Out)
(55,480)
(1,104,998)
(270,622)
(25,881)
(270,622)
TOTAL FUND BALANCE
$ 734,798
$ 1,751,627 238% `;
$ 1,089,672
$ 1,889,976 173% ;
$ 1,401,942 129%
$312,270
A Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY21
�I ES ` Budget to Actuals Report
Road - Fund 325
FY21 YTD July 31, 2021 (unaudited)
RESOURCES
Motor Vehicle Revenue
Federal - PILT Payment
Other Inter -fund Services
Forest Receipts
Cities-Bend/Red/Sis/La Pine
Sale of Equip & Material
Miscellaneous
Mineral Lease Royalties
Interest on Investments
Assessment Payments (P&I)
Federal Reimbursements
State Miscellaneous
TOTALRESOURCES
REQUIREMENTS
8.3 %
Year Complete
t=iFc,a..I
Yea r 2 0 21
i= iscri Yc.,ar 2022
Budgel,l,
Actuals
%
Budget
Ac uals
%
F'roj c.tiW1
% = Variance
14,810,507
17,342,054
117%
17,485,000
19578,590
9%
t 17,485,000
100%
1,690,574
2,061,977
122%
2,096,751
2,195,918
105%
2,195,918
105% : 99,16T A
1,114,070
1,198,004
108%
1,221,632
15,357
1%
1,221,632
100%
723,085
660,298
91%
627,207
0% $
627,207
100%'
385,000
627,694
163%
560,000
0%
560,000
100%
396,000
333,109
84%
449,150
50
0% _
449,150
100%
54,000
73,562
136%
67,340
5,698
8%
67,340
100%
60,000
51,642
86%
60,000
-
0%
60,000
100%
114,000
65,094
57% {
59,109
5,172
9%
59,109
100%, {
8,000
24,578
307%
3,460
625
18%
3,460
100%
1,325,874
1,093,866
83%
-
7,048
20,681,110
23,538,925
114% ;
22,629,649
3,801,410
17%
22,728,816
100% 99,167;
Budget Aduals, % Ewd'get Actue:(fs: `% c:tic>r1 % v a isncce
Personnel Services
6,709,180
6,422,847
96%
6,916,229
557,658
8% -
6,916,229 100%
Materials and Services
7,753,525
6,063,359
78%
7,843,400
732,771
9%
7,843,400 100%
Capital Outlay
50,500
17,944
36%
264,500
0%
264,500 100%,
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS
14,513,205
12,504,150
86%
15,024,128
1,290,429
9%
15,024,128 100%.
TRANSFERS
B a.et
A ch"' l's
%,
,et
fi.c' Ua,1c.
%,
c: E'scE / u c c
Transfers Out
(6,683,218)
(6,683,218)
100%
(11,757,547)
(2,213,525)
19%
(11,757,547) 100%;
TOTAL TRANSFERS
(6,683,218)
(6,683,218)
100% ;
(11,757,547)
(2,213,525)
19%
(11,757,547) 100%
FUND BALANCE ,U,dgei' /actuals % I> dqe%
Beginning Fund Balance 2,695,786 4,217,071 156% 6,383,832
Resources over Requirements } 6,167,905 11,034,775 7,605,521
Net Transfers - In (Out) (6,683,218) (6,683,218) (11,757,547)
TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 2,180,473 $ 8,568,628 393% $ 2,231,806
A Actual payment higher than budget
B Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY21
8,587,080 135% 8,587,080 135% 2,203,248zB
2,510,981 7,704,688 99,16T
1,
(2,213,525) € (11,757,547)
$ 8,884,536 398% ; $ 4,534,221 203% ; $2,302,415;
IEs `°G� Budget to Actuals Report
a ` Adult P&P - Fund 355
FY21 YTD July 31, 2021 (unaudited)
8.3%
Year Complete
Fiscal
Year 2021
Fiscal al Yeai 2022
RESOURCES
Budget
factual,
%
Budget:
AGtue"iS
%
Projection %
w t/uriance
DOC Grant in Aid SB 1145
4,621,780
4,621,782
100%
4,202,885
1,155,445
27%
4,734,453 113%
531,56& A
CJC Justice Reinvestment
797,504
793,044
99%
781,597
0%
871,753 112%
90,156! A
DOC Measure 57
239,005
264,005
110%
255,545
0%
244,606 96%
(10,939)t B
Probation Supervision Fees
170,000
189,458
111%
170,000
3,606
2%
5,000 3%
(165,000)! C
State Miscellaneous
! -
17,988
!
138,000
0% ! !
138,000 100%
DOC-Family Sentence Alt
!
!
118,250
0% ! !
117,996 100%!
(254)! B
Interfund- Sheriff
! 50,000
55,000
110%
50,000
4,583
9% ! !
50,000 100% f
Gen Fund/Crime Prevention
50,000
50,000
100% !
50,000
-
0% !
50,000 100%
Interest on Investments
37,700
43,276
115% !
45,193
2,187
5% _
45,193 100% E
Oregon BOPPPS
!
24,281
-
0% ! !
24,281 100%
Electronic Monitoring Fee
! 10,000
3,973
40% !
2,500
0% ! !
2,500 100%
Probation Work Crew Fees
2,000
600
30%
1,500
0% !
- 0% _
(1,500), C
Miscellaneous
! 1,000
1,044
104% E
500
0% ! !
500 100%,
State Subsidy
16,298
-
0%
TOTAL RESOURCES
5,995,287
6,040,170
101% ;
5,840,250
1,165,822
20%
6,284,282 108% ;
444,031;
REQUIREMENTS
iota dge;t:
6.eft al<, `Yo
r udgct
AC;ttua,IS
%
C",;e,";I 0 - `/o
`r var,« rce
Personnel Services
5,157,473
4,950,715 96%
5,379,503
410,634
8%
5,379,503 100%
Materials and Services !
1,923,795
1,412,262 73%
1,700,412
71,520
4%
1,700,412 100%,
{
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS
7,081,268
6,362,977 90%
7,079,915
482,153
7%
7,079,915 100%
TRANSFERS
E,ek
Acluals
13,udge 4;
Ac.,tu 3!cr
%
I nj(...;,i0"n, %:
\.fui :mice
Transfers In- General Funds
285,189
285,189 100%
662,046
55,170
8%
662,046 100%,
Transfer to Vehicle Maint !
(97,693)
(97,693) 100%
(10,000)
(5,773)
58% !
(69,500) 695%
(59,500)F D
TOTAL TRANSFERS
187,496
187,496 100% ;
652,046
49,397
8%
592,546 91 %
(59,500);
FUND BALANCE
BUdrgral
A,,,,W ls `%
I udeget Actuels %
i r, iecflon %
$ Variance
Beginning Fund Balance
2,714,814
3,119,990 115%
2,739,775 2,964,960 108% <
2,964,960 108%
225,185, E
Resources over Requirements !
(1,085,981)
(322,807)
(1,239,665) 683,668 !
(795,633)
444,031,
Net Transfers - In (Out)
187,496
187,496
652,046 49,397 {
592,546
(59,500)!
TOTAL FUND BALANCE
$ 1,816,329
$ 2,984,679 164% ;
$ 2,152,156 $ 3,698,026 172% :
$ 2,761,873 128% ;
$609,717"
A State Dept. of Corrections and
related allocations
were approved at higher
levels than budgeted
B State Dept. of Corrections and
related allocations
were approved at lower levels than budgeted
C State law terminates probation supervision related fees as of 1/1/22. The department ceased collection on 7/1/21.
D Division under -budgeted vehicle replacement fund expenses and will be requesting an increase in appropriations to meet fund policy requirements
E Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY21; FY21 had greater ending working capital than anticipated.
C-�� Budget to Actuals Report
Road CIP - Fund 465 g 3%
FY21 YTD July 31, 2021 (unaudited)
Year Complete
Fiscal Year 2021 Fiscal Year 2022
RESOURCES Bu.dt ,i: Actuals % budget Actuals % Prcjectlon % a Variance
State Miscellaneous 2,258,100 1,427,893 63% 2,191,461 1,243,104 57% _ 2,191,461 100%
Interest on Investments 209,700 271,831 130% 279,729 13,909 5% 279,729 100%
TOTAL RESOURCES 2,467,800 1,699,724 69% 2,471,190 1,257,012 51% 2,471,190 100% ;
REQUIREMENTS
l "'i'd. et
AGtuals %
Budget
Ac.tual4
%
Projection % $ \fare nce
Materials and Services
158,465
158,465 100%
109,870
9,156
8%
109,870 100%;
3
Capital Outlay
19,877,585
11,641,839 59%
29,612,821
125,333
0%
29,554,539 100% 58,282- A
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS
20,036,050
11,800,304 59%
29,722,691
134,489
0%
29,664,409 100% ; 58,282:
TRANSFERS
Transfers In
TOTAL TRANSFERS
FUND BALANCE
Bu€.4cei ActuafW % Budget Actuals % Projection % Var;arxe
7,517,657 6,819,612 91% 12,193,917 0% 12,193,917 100%
7,517,657 6,819,612 91% 12,193,917 0% 12,193,917 100%;
r €t cqet Actuals % Budget A(ctu is %
Beginning Fund Balance
i
23,154,407
25,512,586 110% =
20,374,044 22,231,618 109%
3 t
Resources over Requirements
t
(17,568,250)
(10,100,580)
(27,251,501) 1,122,523
tt
Net Transfers - In (Out)
t
7,517,657
6,819,612
f
12,193,917
TOTAL FUND BALANCE
$ 13,103,814
$ 22,231,618 170% ;
$ 5,316,460 $ 23,354,141 439% ;
A Updated to reflect refund to Skyliners Road project for prior year activity Final
B Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY21
22,231,618 109% , 1,857,574, B
� (27,193,219) 58,282!t
a t
12,193,917
$ 7,232,316 136% : $1,915,85&1
01 ES C -�{ 0
Budget to Actuals Report
C�
Solid Waste - Fund 610
FY21 YTD July 31, 2021 (unaudited)
8.3%
Year Complete
Fiscal Year
2021 1
Fiscal Year 2022
RESOURCES
Budget.
Actual ' %
Budig t
Ac'ruals
%,
Projection %
$ Varianco
Franchise Disposal Fees
6,630,625
6,764,888 102%
7,124,000
610,811
9%
7,124,000 100%
- A
Private Disposal Fees
2,491,617
2,985,124 120% =
2,827,000
304,776
11%
2,827,000 100%
A
Commercial Disp. Fee
2,319,792
2,830,984 122% !
2,686,000
261,726
10% #
2,686,000 100%!
f
! A
Yard Debris
216,761
301,824 139%
300,000
29,814
10%
300,000 100%
Franchise 3% Fees
280,000
389,402 139%
290,000
22,342
8% t
290,000 100%
Miscellaneous
88,096
102,595 116%
55,000
6,277
11% f
3
55,000 100%
Interest
23,700
42,794 181%
41,599
3,146
8%
41,599 100%
Special Waste
15,000
34,292 229%
15,000
27,560
184%
40,000 267%
25,000 B
Recyclables
12,000
11,180 93%
12,000
1,396
12% !
12,000 100%
Leases
1
1 100%
1
-
0%
1 100%
Equip & Material
200
-
TOTAL RESOURCES
12,077,592
13,463,285 111% `.
13,350,600
1,267,848
9% ;
13,375,600 100%
25,000
REQUIREMENTS is cic, t: /act€ ai,,c % u U;rt: f,c::4+j,,fls %, Projection %, ti v n , c(-
Personnel Services
2,518,594
2,511,183 100%
2,754,132
203,938
7%
2,754,132 100%
Materials and Services
5,227,119
4,678,352 90%
5,651,103
96,486
2%
5,651,103 100%
Capital Outlay
162,500
29,523 18%
53,141
0%
53,141 100%
Debt Service
945,000
861,354 91%
1,251,615
0%
1,251,615 100%
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS
8,853,213
8,080,412 91%
9,709,991
300,424
3%
; 9,709,991 100%
TRANSFERS
[,3ud€et
Ac„ a,,Is %
13be4ge4
/k ct ua Is
%
( €. ject:ic=€ %
SW Capital & Equipment
(3,684,280)
(3,684,280) 100%
(6,029,323)
(1,163)
0%
(6,029,323) 100%
Reserve
TOTAL TRANSFERS
(3,684,280)
(3,684,280) 100%
(6,029,323)
(1,163)
0%
(6,029,323) 100%
FUND BALANCE
c e cs .t
` duals '%o
Budget
Act€ ais `%;
projoc,'ion
% $ ` aris .,rwe
Beginning Fund Balance
1,179,819
2,285,566 194%
2,972,234
3,984,171 134%
3,984,171
134% : 1,011,937 C
Resources over Requirements
3,224,379
5,382,873
3,640,609
967,424
3,665,609
25,000
Net Transfers - In (Out)
(3,684,280)
(3,684,280)
(6,029,323)
(1,163) r
(6,029,323)
TOTAL FUND BALANCE
$ 719,918
$ 3,984,159 553% ;
$ 583,520
$ 4,950,432 848%
$ 1,620,457
278% ; $1,036,937:
A Budgeted a 10% increase in total disposal fees; actual volumes for the month are 12% greater than July last year
B Revenue source is unpredictable and dependent on special clean-up projects; recent large contaminated soil projects from remediation of a gas
station and illegal dumping site
C Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY21; an influx of disposal volume and postponement of costs in FY21
positively impacted the beginning fund balance
a 01 Es� Budget to Actuals Report
Fair & Expo - Fund 615
FY21 YTD July 31, 2021 (unaudited)
8.3%
Year Complete
Fiscal Year 2(12 t
Fi oalFear 202.2
RESOURCES
Budoe2
Acctuals %
Budget
Actuad s
%
i rojere:UM'I %
$ V .tian ce
Events Revenue
625,000
1,220,845 195%
578,000
30,747
5%
578,000 100%
Food & Beverage
548,500
209,297 38%
513,500
22,507
4%
513,500 100%
i
Rights & Signage
125,000
62,500 50%
t
105,000
-
0%
105,000 100%
Storage
75,000
77,897 104%
77,500
-
0%
77,500 100%
Horse Stall Rental
52,000
11,378 22%
71,500
50
0%
71,500 100%
Interfund Payment
30,000
226,786 756%
30,000
2,500
8%
30,000 100%,
Camping Fee
12,500
5,630 45%
19,500
-
0% i
19,500 100%
Interest
(2,200)
1,051 -48%
474
505
107% !
6,000 999% !
5,526
Miscellaneous
250
2,596 999%
250
848 339%
2,250 900% :
2,000!
TOTAL RESOURCES
1,466,050
1,817,979 124% ;
1,395,724
57,157
4%
1,403,250 101%
7,526;
REQUIREMENTS [3,,u ges. Ac.tuals % Budget Ac„:u Is % Projection % $ V F ancc
Personnel Services
840,704
1,031,160 123%
1,118,980
88,865
8%
1,118,980 100%
Personnel Services - F&B
165,518
165,801 100%
181,593
13,606
7%
181,593 100%
Materials and Services
702,149
577,303 82%
818,804
35,503
4%
818,804 100%! {
Materials and Services - F&B
257,600
127,447 49%
282,500
6,151
2%
282,500 100%
Debt Service
104,400
103,519 99%
103,000
0%
103,000 100%
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS
2,070,371
2,005,230 97%
2,504,877
144,125
6%
2,504,877 100%.
TRANSFERS
;ahci `%
Bud, et
f• <., s,
%
N, •,:c',lon % Vari..n C
.
Transfers In - Room Tax
650,000
899,310 138%
905,769
75,480
8%
905,769 100%
Transfers In - County Fair
150,000
0%
150,000 100%: - A
Transfers In - Park Fund
30,000
30,000 100%
30,000
2,500
8%
30,000 100%
Transfers In - Room Tax (as
25,744
25,744 100%
25,744
2,145
8%
25,744 100%
needed)
Transfers In - General Fund
200,000
200,000 100%
Transfers Out
(10,777)
(10,777) 100% i
(310,777)
(25,898)
8% i
(310,777) 100%
TOTAL TRANSFERS
894,967
1,144,277 128% ;
800,736
54,227
7%
800,736 100% ;
FUND BALANCE
rge:.t
f c;tuals %
"Budget
!auras %>
je;cciior-, %
; v „ancc',
Beginning Fund Balance
364,904
(1,199) 0%
750,673
943,160 126% -
943,160 126%
192,487: B
Resources over Requirements
(604,321)
(187,251)
(1,109,153)
(86,968) _
(1,101,627)
7,52&
Net Transfers - In (Out)
k
894,967
1,144,277
t
800,736
54,227 !
7 E
800,736
TOTAL FUND BALANCE
$ 655,550
$ 955,827 146% `.
$ 442,256
$ 910,419 206% ;
$ 642,269 145%
$200,013
A Up to $150K will be transferred from Fair in September
B Final Beginning Fund Balance
will be determined after the final close
of FY21
E S C,'T ` �� Budget to Actuals Report
> OG
Annual County Fair - Fund 616
FY21 YTD July 31, 2021 (unaudited)
8.3%
Year Complete
Fiscal Year 2021
Fisc;'al Year 2022
RESOURCES
Budget Actuals %
Budget
Actuals
%
Projection %
S Variance
Gate Receipts
-
550,000
458,384
83%
550,000 100%,
Concessions and Catering
10,350
385,000
67,654
18% r
385,000 100%!
Carnival
3309000
92,512
28% i
330,000 100%,
Commercial Exhibitors
- 52,725
110,000
31,000
28%
110,000 100%
State Grant
52,000 53,167 102%
52,000
0% _
52,000 100%
Concert
48,000
17,000
35% {
48,000 100%
Fair Sponsorship
2,750
35,500
9,350
26%
35,500 100%
R/V Camping/Horse Stall Rental
16,054
25,500
3,890
15%
25,500 100%'
4
Rodeo
10,650
20,000
4,200
21%
20,000 100%
Livestock Entry Fees
4,500
-
0% 4
4,500 100%
Merchandise Sales
5,239
6,000
6,000
Interest on Investments
(129) 999%
167
2,000
2,000
TOTAL RESOURCES
52,000 145,566 280%
1,560,500
689,395
44%
1,568,500 101%
8,000;
REQUIREMENTS
F7 c et
Actuals
'%,
Budget
ActLwds
%
( rc<jeotir.n %, S v lance
Personnel Services
110,000
163,282
148%
155,959
2,227
1%
155,959 100%
E
Materials and Services
17,000
25,141
148%
1,312,172
495,849
38%
1,312,172 100%
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS
127,000
188,423
148%
1,468,131
498,076
34%
1,468,131 100% ;
TRANSFERS
u d,,;e;t
/.(IbuaSs
W�
°;. . e a,�...w
Transfer In - TRT 1%
75,000
75,000
100%
75,000
6,250
8%
75,000 100%
Transfer Out - Fair & Expo
-
-
(150,000)
0%
(150,000) 100%! A
TOTAL TRANSFERS
75,000
75,000
100% ;
(75,000)
6,250
-8% ;
(75,000) 100%
FUND BALANCE Est Actual,,, />
Budget
A o t u, ad s %,
Projection kection
% SS `,.-. 'anc.c
Beginning Fund Balance (47,461) 999%
(15,317)
(15,317)
(15,317)t B
Resources over Requirements (75,000) (42,857)
92,369
191,319
100,369
8,000
Net Transfers - In (Out) 75,000 75,000 E
(75,000)
6,250
r
(75,000)
TOTAL FUND BALANCE ($ 15,317)
$ 17,369
$ 182,252 999% ;
$ 10,052
58% ($7,317);
A Up to $150K will be transferred to Fair & Expo in September
B Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY21
Budget to Actuals Report
Annual County Fair - Fund 616
CY21 YTD July 31, 2021 (unaudited)
RESOURCES
Gate Receipts
Carnival
Commercial Exhibitors
Livestock Entry Fees
RN Camping/Horse Stall Rental
Merchandise Sales
Concessions and Catering
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
TOTALTRANSFERS
Net Fair
Beginning Fund Balance on Jan 1
Ending Balance
Fair 2021
Actuals to
2021
Fair 2020
Date
Projection
$ -
$ 458,384
$ 704,835
-
92,512
415,716
(5,800);
94,042
314,333
-
-
4,500
-
19,944
19,944
-
5,239
5,239
-
66,662
281,094
(22,250)
43,950
62,450
$ (28,050) ,
, $ 780,732
$ 1,808,110
53,167
-
53,167
11
119
238
$ 25,127 $ 780,851 $ 1,861,515
154,640
92,045
139,064
85,216
499,917
1,243,954
$ 239,856
$
591,963
$ 1,383,018
162,750
43,500
75,000
-
-
(75,000)
$ 162,750
$
43,500
$ -
$ (51,979)
$
232,389
$ 478,497
$ 3,285
$
(48,694)
$ (48,694)
$ (48,694)
$
183,695
$ 429,804
A Personnel reflects furlough plan that was in place in Jan 2021
p 01ES`{ Budget to Actuals Report
Fair & Expo Capital Reserve - Fund 617 8 3%
FY21 YTD July 31, 2021 (unaudited)
Year Complete
Fiscal Year 2021 I lsual l-ea.r° 2022
RESOURCES Budget Actuals % r uc qcA Actuals % Projection % $ Varianoc,'
Interest on Investments 14,000 8,532 61% 8,544 609 7% 8,544 100%
TOTAL RESOURCES 14,000 8,532 61% 8,544 609 7% 8,544 100%
REQUIREMENTS
Mt dget
Accuads
%
Ixudget.
Actuals
%
Projection % < Variance
Materials and Services
235,000
16,910
7%
180,000
0%
180,000 100%
Capital Outlay
166,940
73,613
44%
388,000
0%
388,000 100%
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS
401,940
90,523
23%
568,000
0%
568,000 100% ;
TRANSFERS
I wdpe t
Actuals
%
13("I cte"t
Ac,tu ::€s
%
E rojecti:,�€,� °/, 4 V rianec
Transfers In -TRT 1%
453,158
385,418
85%
428,901
35,741
8%
428,901 100%
Transfers In - Fair & Expo
300,000
25,000
8%
? 300,000 100%
TOTAL TRANSFERS
453,158
385,418
85% ;
728,901
60,741
8%
; 728,901 100% ;
FUND BALANCE
Suu,c t.
Actua; w, 1/1,
Budget
Ar,,,',ual.
%: j€rc::i.leFrr % <
Beginning Fund Balance
1,143,224
726,169 64%
1,101,663
1,029,596
93% 1,029,596 93% (72,067)� A
Resources over Requirements
(387,940)
(81,991)
(559,456)
609
(559,456) 0:
Net Transfers - In (Out)
453,158
385,418
728,901
60,741
728,901
TOTAL FUND BALANCE
$ 1,208,442
$ 1,029,596 85%
$ 1,271,108
$ 1,090,946
86% $ 1,199,041 94% ($72,067);
A Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY21
���5` o
Budget to Actuals Report
� �
RV Park - Fund 618
FY21 YTD July 31, 2021 (unaudited)
8.3%
Year Complete
Fiscal Year 2021
Fiscal al Year 2022
RESOURCES
Budget
Actuals %
Budget
Actuals
%
Projection % Van ncc
RV Park Fees < 31 Days
400,200
576,889 144%
475,000
63,220
13% f
475,000 100%,
RV Park Fees > 30 Days
12,000
13,886 116%
10,500
7
0% t
10,500 100%
Washer / Dryer
! 4,000
5,295 132% €
5,000
338
7% r
5,000 100%
Vending Machines
3,000
1,187 40%
2,500
241
10% _
2,500 100%
Miscellaneous
2,250
2,679 119%
2,500
-
0%
2,500 100%
Interest on Investments
7,600
1,636 22% E
2,024
39
2% _
2,024 100%
Cancellation Fees
5,500
5,731 104%
4,643
r t
7,000 ? 7,00&
Good Sam Membership Fee
1,500
0%
TOTAL RESOURCES
436,050
607,303 139% ;
497,524
68,488
14%
504,524 101% ; 7,000;
REQUIREMENTS
D tget
Actuals `/,
f u6get
Actual€,
%
Projection % \/a r ."rice
Personnel Services
113,956
8
0%
113,956 100%
Materials and Services
321,402
289,740
90%
216,305
14,453
7%
216,305 100%
Debt Service
222,500
221,874 100%
165,927
0%
165,927 100% i
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS
543,902
511,614
94%
496,188
14,461
3%
496,188 100% ;
TRANSFERS
l3udget:
I .F<<,. i<:
%,
ctGct
Actuals
°/_
roj ction % ;'t, riar ,
Transfers In - Park Fund
160,000
160,000
100%
160,000
0%
160,000 100%
Transfers In -TRT Fund
25,000
20,000
80%
20,000
1,666
8% _
20,000 100% t
Transfer Out - RV Reserve
(621,628)
(503,626)
81%
(132,042)
(11,003)
8%
(132,042) 100%,
TOTAL TRANSFERS
(436,628)
(323,626)
74%
47,958
(9,337) -19%
;
47,958 100%
FUND BALANCE r.,u.dP,et; Ar-t talc, % Bud.pet ActuLls % roje€,flog % $ \% i iance
Beginning Fund Balance 587,992 227,936 39% _ OF F
Resources over Requirements (107,852) 95,689 1,336 54,027 8,336 7,000
Net Transfers - In (Out) (436,628) (323,626) 47,958 (9,337) 47,958
r =
TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 43,512 0% $ 49,294 $ 44,690 91% $ 56,294 114% ; $7,000:
F Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY21
JTs Budget to Actuals Report
L� �G
RV Park Reserve - Fund 619 8 3%
FY21 YTD July 31, 2021 (unaudited)
Year Complete
Fiscal Year 2021 Fiscal Year 2022
RESOURCES Biu€ get Ar-tuals, % Budget Actuals % Projection :tion % Variance
Interest on Investments 1,100 7,787 708% 7,546 596 8% 7,546 100%
TOTAL RESOURCES 1,100 7,787 708% ; 7,546 596 8% 7,546 100% ;
REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals %, lWdpet Actuals % Pr €ertion % $ Variance
Capital Outlay
100,000
0%
100,000
0%
100,000 100%
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS
100,000
- 0%
100,000
0%
100,000 100% ;
TRANSFERS
Ez Jud stet
Actuals %
13ud g of
l u=t€ =i,,, %
e
prof ectloi,i % Variance
Transfer In - RV Park Ops
621,628
503,626 81%
132,042
11,003 8%
132,042 100% -
TOTAL TRANSFERS
621,628
503,626 81%
132,042
11,003 8%
132,042 100%
FUND BALANCE Budget Acf t€ �#I� / c,9
Beginning Fund Balance
490,000
497,466 102%
784,466
Resources over Requirements
(98,900)
7,787
(92,454)
Net Transfers - In (Out)
621,628
503,626
132,042
TOTAL FUND BALANCE
$ 1,012,728
$ 1,008,878 100%:
$ 824,054
A Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY21
,4e;f r,? ,,1s % c i€ C,t10n % F ,r ianc'e
1,008,878 129% 1,008,878 129% 224,412 A
596 (92,454) 01
11,003 132,042
$ 1,020,478 124% ; ; $ 1,048,466 127% $224,412;
01ES`{ Budget to Actuals Report
Risk Management - Fund 670
FY21 YTD July 31, 2021 (unaudited)
8.3 %
Year Complete
Fiscal Year 2021
1
Fi'I cal Year 2022
RESOURCES
Fudge'
Actual&
%
B I i d,get
Actuals
%
Projection %I $ Variance
Workers' Compensation
1,188,848
1,224,408
103%
1,120,766
101,829
9%
1,120,766 100%,
General Liability
990,628
963,201
97%
944,278
78,398
8%
944,278 100%'
Property Damage
373,698
373,548
100%
393,546
34,133
9% t
393,546 100%
Unemployment
323,572
315,619
98%
323,572
80,323
25%
323,572 100%, A
Vehicle
218,185
222,266
102% 1
227,700
18,975
8%
227,700 100%
Interest on Investments
87,200
100,030
115%
101,111
5,458
5%
101,111 100%
Claims Reimbursement
50,000
39,428
79%
25,000
2,536
10% !
25,000 100%
Skid Car Training
30,000
270
1%
10,000
-
0%
10,000 100%
Process Fee- Events/ Parades
1,500
810
54%
1,000
225
23% € F
1,000 100%
Loss Prevention
10
-
0%
S i
I
Miscellaneous
i
5
-
0%
TOTAL RESOURCES
3,263,646
3,239,580
99%
3,146,973
321,877
10%
3,146,973 100% ;
REQUIREMENTS u.dge.t. Acei gals `%, t dge't lkotuais c, last %t, $ Va i rE ce
Workers' Compensation
1,560,000
912,395
58%
1,580,000
38,217
2%
1,580,000 100%,
General Liability
1,100,000
462,099
42%
1,200,000
51,085
4%
1,200,000 100% B
Insurance Administration
584,104
408,487
70%
547,047
39,244
7%
547,047 100%
Property Damage
200,240
330,869
165%
300,245
262,767
88% t
300,245 100%
Unemployment
200,000
98,978
49%
200,000
-
0%
200,000 100%
Vehicle
150,000
173,925
116%
200,000
2,245
1%
200,000 100%
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS
3,794,344
2,386,754
63%
4,027,292
393,558
10%
4,027,292 100%
TRANSFERS
Bt E7cgc>t;
t.'tuaEs, `%.
/�
%:
1
Transfers Out - Vehicle Replace
(3,500)
(3,500) 100%
(3,500)
(291)
8%
(3,500) 100%
TOTAL TRANSFERS
(3,500)
(3,500) 100% ;
(3,500)
(291)
8%
; (3,500) 100% ;
FUND BALANCE
alSc
%;'c
BU6`gei
Actuals °/1�
i 4o,jec:ti Ca;lt % $ ° r1 fF,<
Beginning Fund Balance
7,000,000
8,676,750 124%
8,329,115
9,526,232 114%
9,526,232 114% 1,197,117. C
Resources over Requirements
(530,698)
852,827
(880,319)
(71,681)
(880,319) &
Net Transfers - In (Out)
(3,500)
(3,500)
(3,500)
(291)
(3,500) z
TOTAL FUND BALANCE
$ 6,465,802
$ 9,526,076 147% ;
$ 7,445,296
$ 9,454,260 127% ;
$ 8,642,413 116% ; $1,197,117'
A Unemployment collected on first $25K of employee's salary in fiscal year
B General Liability claims are difficult to budget and predict
C Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY21
�`ES `0
{ Budget to Actuals Report
`1 t
Health Benefits - Fund 675
FY21 YTD July 31, 2021 (unaudited)
8.3%
Year Complete
Fiscal Year 2021 1
1"isc&I Ycar 21J22:
RESOURCES
Budget
Actuals %
Budget
Actuals
%
Projection % u variance
Internal Premium Charges
17,831,938
18,580,799 104%
18,767,900
1,546,812
8%
18,767,900 100% t
COIC Premiums
1,600,000
1,499,360 94%
1,589,000
143,429
9%
_ 1,589,000 100%
Employee Co -Pay
1,031,400
1,205,713 117% =
1,200,000
104,194
9%
1,200,000 100%
Retiree / COBRA Premiums
1,035,000
958,664 93%
1,060,000
47,654
4%
1,060,000 100%
Interest
216,200
193,598 90%
200,277
10,860
5%
200,277 100%
Prescription Rebates
90,000
134,950 150%
128,000
0%
i 128,000 100%:
Claims Reimbursement & Other
80,000
1,073 1%
82,000
0%
82,000 100% 1
TOTAL RESOURCES
21,884,538
22,574,156 103%
23,027,177
1,852,950
8%
23,027,177 100% ;
REQUIREMENTS G3ud6et. /' ct€tti : % c.,c i' / c:tErt Es %, I s o€fection % `, Variance
iu.nce
Health Benefits
19,937,274
18,958,177
95%
19,640,847
125,375
1%
19,640,847 100% A
Deschutes On -Site Pharmacy
2,417,092
2,972,758
123% s
2,970,575
2,936
0% !
2,970,575 100% A
E
Deschutes On -Site Clinic
1,101,467
1,087,809
99%
1,141,829
49,212
4% E
1,141,829 100% A
Wellness
164,340
149,145
91%
171,142
24,602
14%
171,142 100% - A
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS
23,620,173
23,167,889
98%
23,924,393
202,125
1%
23,924,393 100%
FUND BALANCE Budpeft t e•,.::€ais % 'a"get.
Beginning Fund Balance 15,323,729 16,101,833 105% 14,772,618
Resources over Requirements (1,735,635) (593,733) (897,216)
Net Transfers - In (Out) t - -
� E
TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 13,588,094 $ 15,508,100 114% $ 13,875,402
A Amounts are paid 1 month in arrears
B Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY21
15,868,065 107% _ 15,868,065 107% 1,095,447- B
1,650,825 (897,216) 0!
E
f t
$ 17,518,890 126% $ 14,970,849 108% $1,095,447
�I E - S ` �{ Budget to Actuals Report
911 - Fund 705 and 710
FY21 YTD July 31, 2021 (unaudited)
8.3%
Year Complete
Fiscal Year 2021 1
Flscal Year 202
RESOURCES
r c=€fvet;
Act€ ais %
Budget
Actuals
%
Fro,iecfion % $ Variance
Property Taxes - Current Yr
9,113,459
9,350,147 103% ;
9,803,579
12,444
0%
9,803,579 100% A
Telephone User Tax
1,106,750
1,441,364 130%
1,106,750
-
0%
1,106,750 100%,
Police RMS User Fees F
250,000
390,879 156%
236,576
0% t
236,576 100%
User Fee
73,000
110,978 152%
233,576
2,156
1%
233,576 100%
Data Network Reimbursement
55,000
96,896 176%
162,000
23,625
15% F
162,000 100%
Contract Payments
157,252
136,638 87%
147,956
2,000
1%
147,956 100% 1
Property Taxes - Prior Yr
90,000
152,893 170%
115,000
12,676
11 %
115,000 100%
Interest
90,400
110,233 122%
96,867
5,654
6%
96,867 100%
State Reimbursement
83,000
131,881 159%
60,000
0%
60,000 100% t - B
Property Taxes - Jefferson Co.
33,637
36,598 109%
38,344
159
0% r 3
38,344 100% _
Miscellaneous
12,200
121,920 999%
18,658
575
3%
18,658 100%
Y
TOTAL RESOURCES
11,064,698
12,080,426 109% ;
12,019,306
59,288
0%
12,019,306 100%
REQUIREMENTS ' € ge f °/1, prolecdoil `% $ V r,anc
Personnel Services
7,620,458
7,190,545
94%
8,005,795
641,343
8%
8,005,795 100%
Materials and Services
3,476,381
2,908,761
84%
3,557,212
190,452
5%
r
3,557,212 100%
Capital Outlay
1,480,000
431,457
29% t
3,000,000
558
0% k
3,000,000 100%
TOTAL REQUIREMENTS
12,576,839
10,530,764
84%
14,563,007
832,353
6% ;
14,563,007 100%
FUND BALANCE B u 0",goi lkc;tu'afs 411, Budge't Act,,aa1 `o rc trctK"1 % "; VaAur,cc�
Beginning Fund Balance 8,341,418 9,162,894 110% 11,850,783 10,282,501 87% 3 i 10,282,501 87% (1,568,282)� C
Resources over Requirements (1,512,141) 1,549,662 (2,543,701) (773,064) (2,543,701) 0
,
Net Transfers - In (Out)
� ( 4
TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 6 829 277 $ 10,712,557 157% $ 9,307,082 $ 9,509,436 102% $ 7,738,800 83% `: ($1,568,282
);
A Current year taxes received primarily in November, February and May
B State GIS reimbursements are received quarterly
C Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY21
�\)A ES C BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
MEETING DATE: August 30, 2021
SUBJECT: Wildlife Inventory Update - Public Outreach Overview
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
n/a
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Staff is providing the Board of County Commissioners with a summary of the public
outreach effort for one of the two tasks comprising the Department of Land Conservation
and Development (DLCD) Technical Assistance (TA) grant, the wildlife inventory update. For
this task, the County engaged the public to present updated state and federal biological
data and then gauged general interest in updating three inventories that were selected by
a team of wildlife biologists with experience in the County: mule deer winter range, elk
winter range, and sensitive birds (golden and bald eagles).
Staff will return to the Board at a later date to present a "road map" of options to move
forward.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
None
ATTENDANCE:
Tanya Saltzman, Senior Planner, Community Development
MEMORANDUM
TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
FROM: Tanya Saltzman, AICP, Senior Planner
DATE: August 26, 2021
SUBJECT: Wildlife Inventory Update - Public Outreach Overview
Staff is providing the Board of County Commissioners (Board) with a summary of the public
outreach effort for one of the two tasks comprising the Department of Land Conservation and
Development (DLCD) Technical Assistance (TA) grant, which was closed out at the end of May. Staff
will provide additional information to prepare the Board to determine its preferred approach for
the next phase of the project.
1. Wildlife Inventory Update - Initial Project Scope
For the initial phase of the project, the County engaged the public to present updated state and
federal biological data and then gauge general interest in updating three inventories into the
Comprehensive Plan that were selected by a team of wildlife biologists with experience in the
County: mule deer winter range, elk winter range, and sensitive birds (golden and bald eagles).
Deschutes County's Comprehensive Plan features extensive lists of "Goal 5 resources." Statewide
Planning Goal 5 aims to protect a variety of resources, from historic structures to surface mines.
State administrative rules govern the implementation of Goal 5 (Oregon Administrative Rules
Chapter 660, Division 23). In order to qualify for protection, a resource must first be inventoried.
Wildlife inventories rely on federal or state inventories.
The majority of the County's Goal 5 wildlife inventories were last updated in the early 1990s and
no longer reflect the best available data for wildlife habitat. As the human population grows and
with it, development pressure increases, it is important for these inventories to be based on the
best available data for avoidance and minimization to wildlife and their habitats. The efforts
summarized in this effort are intended to function as a pilot project to take the first steps towards
updating three wildlife inventories, with a goal of serving as a model for future inventory updates.
11. Data Overview and Highlights
The inventory process and data collected by the Interagency Working Group (IWG), which
consisted of technical experts from Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife (ODFW), U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the project consultant wildlife biologist, was summarized in a report
by the consultant, which is included as an appendix to the public outreach report. The IWG report
provides an overview of the inventory selection process and the methodology of the data collected
and utilized by the IWG to form new recommended inventories for deer winter range, elk winter
range, and sensitive birds. This report then formed the basis of the information presented during
the public outreach process.
As noted in the Public Outreach Report, the IWG collected raw data on the three selected
inventories using several methods explained in the report (aerial, collar data, etc.); using that data,
the IWG developed recommended new inventory areas. These proposed new inventories do not
mean that species do not exist outside of the proposed boundaries —rather, the areas within the
proposed areas are the most biologically significant with respect to critical habitat.
The proposed new inventories are viewable in the project StoryMap at the below link:
https://www.deschutes.org/WildlifeStorymap
In the StoryMap, the reader can zoom in and pan around maps for each inventory, compare the
boundaries of current and proposed inventories, and view snapshots of the raw data used to
create the proposed inventories.
As illustrated in the inventory maps in the StoryMap, all three of the proposed inventories are
larger than the current ones:
• The current Wildlife Area Combining Zone for mule deer winter range covers approximately
315,847 acres, and the proposed additional area covers 188,132 acres, resulting in a
potential total of 503,979 acres.
• For sensitive birds, the current inventory is 5 bald eagle nests a 25 golden eagle nests, and
the proposed new inventory totals 116 bald eagle nest locations and 103 golden eagle nest
locations.
• The current Wildlife Area Combining Zone for elk winter range covers approximately 51,717
acres, and the proposed additional area covers 359,473 acres, resulting in a potential total
of 411,190 acres.
The IWG noted that a larger inventory area does not mean a larger or more robust population of
the species in question; rather, in the case of mule deer and elk winter range, this larger area is
deemed necessary in order to protect the population. For example, during the open houses,
representatives from ODFW noted that the mule deer population has been declining by roughly
ten percent annually. For sensitive birds, USFWS experts noted in the StoryMap that the increased
numbers of nests "do not necessarily correspond to increased eagle success or upward population
-2-
trends. Survey methods have improved and survey efforts have greatly increased over the past
several decades, resulting in the record of several alternative nest sites per territory (e.g. the 103
golden eagle nest sites represent 41 territories)."
Based on the outreach undertaken by the county, which is described in the Public Outreach
Report, it appears that a significant majority of participants are supportive of utilizing the proposed
inventories to begin the update process to the County Comprehensive Plan and development
code.
III. Public Outreach Report
The attached Public Outreach Report provides an overview of the grant -funded phase of the
wildlife inventory update project, including summaries of the work of the Technical Advisory
Committee, IWG, and the consultant. The report outlines the extensive public outreach process,
which consisted of a public information campaign, online survey, online interactive maps and
background information about the three inventories using StoryMap technology (including
illustrations from the StoryMap), and two online open houses. Survey responses and a summary
of the open house questions and answers are provided as appendices to the report, along with
the data summary report produced by the consultant, Mason, Bruce & Girard. The Public Outreach
Report represents the culmination of the grant -funded phase of this project.
IV. Next Steps
Staff can return to the Board with a "road map" of options for proceeding with a Goal 5 inventory
update for these three inventories, including potential decision points, interagency coordination
requirements, and a general timeline.
In addition, if the Board would like more specific information regarding the inventories and
species/habitat data, staff can invite representatives from ODFW and/or USFWS to make a
presentation to the Board.
Attachment:
Public Outreach Report
-3-
Deschutes County
Wildlife Inventory Update
Public Outreach Report
1
Prepared by. -
Deschutes County
Community Development Department
www.deschutes.org/cd
x
Photo: Andrew Walch, ODFW
ArKNOWLEDGMENTS
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
Anthony DeBone, Chair
Phil Chang, Vice Chair
Patti Adair, Commissioner
Community Development Department
Nick Lelack, AICP, Community Development Director
Peter Gutowsky, AICP, Planning Manager
Tanya Saltzman, AICP, Senior Planner
Kyle Collins, Associate Planner
Brandon Herman, AICP, Associate Planner
Tim Berg, Applications/Systems Analyst
Ines Curland, Applications/Systems Analyst
Deschutes County Planning Commission
Les Hudson, Chair
Jessica Kieras, Vice Chair
Susan Altman
Dale Crawford
Maggie Kirby
Steve Swisher
This project is funded by Oregon general fund dollars through the Department of Land
Conservation and Development (DLCD). The contents of this document do not necessarily
reflect the views or policies of the State of Oregon.
Deschutes County Wildlife Inventory Update Public Outreach Report 2
Table of Contents
PURPOSE................................................................................................................... 4
EXECUTIVESUMMARY.............................................................................................. 4
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND
PROJECTOVERVIEW............................................................................................. 5
Wildlife Biologist Consultant.................................................................................. 6
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC).....................................................................6
Interagency Working Group (IWG)........................................................................ 7
IWGReport................................................................................................................7
SECTION 2: PROPOSED NEW INVENTORY DATA
PUBLICOUTREACH............................................................................................... 8
Communications Plan and StoryMap.................................................................. 8
OnlineSurvey........................................................................................................ 12
VirtualOpen Houses............................................................................................ 16
GeneralPublic Comments....................................................................................16
SECTION 3: CONCLUSION
Appendices:
• IWG Report
• Online Survey Summary
• Virtual Open House Q&A Summaries
• General Public Comments
Deschutes County Wildlife Inventory Update Public Outreach Report 3
URP
This report summarizes the public process for a Department of Land Conservation and
Development (DLCD) Technical Assistance (TA) grant -funded initial phase of an update to
three of the County's wildlife inventories. This phase of the inventory update process
encompasses the presentation and explanation of updated biological data concerning three
of the County's inventories: mule deer winter range, elk winter range, and sensitive birds
(golden and bald eagles). It does not propose any new land use regulations or
Comprehensive Plan amendments.
This report provides an overview of the project, the consultant, and committee tasks, and a
summary of the public input received concerning future potential actions on the topic.
Supporting documents, such as the Interagency Working Group report summarizing
proposed inventory updates, are included as appendices. Staff will engage the Planning
Commission and/or Board to determine next steps in an inventory update.
It s a �� ,ff
The majority of the County's Goal 5 wildlife inventories, which are listed in the County
Comprehensive Plan and form the basis for certain elements of the development code, were
last updated in the early 1990s and no longer reflect the best available data for wildlife
habitat. As the population grows and development pressure increases, it is becoming
increasingly apparent that using outdated inventories can result in more conflicts between
land use and wildlife protection.
For this project, funded by a Technical Assistance Grant from DLCD, the County engaged the
public to gauge general interest in pursuing an update of three inventories that were
selected by a team of wildlife biologists with experience in the County: mule deer winter
range, elk winter range, and sensitive birds (golden and bald eagles). Based on the outreach
undertaken by the county, which is described later in this report, it appears that a significant
majority of participants are supportive of utilizing the proposed inventories to begin the
update process to the County Comprehensive Plan and development code.
It is important to note that this presentation of new biological data is only the very first step
in what will be a thorough and complex undertaking to determine what an inventory update
would look like. Nevertheless, the responses to the initial outreach reveal that the
importance and protection of wildlife is a widely shared value in Deschutes County, and there
is conceptual support for pursuing the next steps involved in an inventory update. This
community conversation represents the culmination of the data collection stage for three
Deschutes County Wildlife Inventory Update Public Outreach Report 4
proposed inventories. Further tasks beyond this grant will use input received from this public
process to inform the Board of County Commissioners of potential next steps.
Deschutes County's Comprehensive Plan features extensive lists of "Goal 5 resources."
Statewide Planning Goal 5 aims to protect a variety of resources, from historic structures to
surface mines. State administrative rules govern the implementation of Goal 5 (Or_ egon
Administrative Rules Chapter 660, Division 23). In order to qualify for protection, a resource
must first be inventoried. Wildlife inventories rely on federal or state inventories —that's
where this project comes in.
The majority of the County's Goal 5 wildlife inventories were last updated in the early 1990s
and no longer reflect the best available data for wildlife habitat. According to Deschutes
County's Comprehensive Plan,
"It is important to note that OAR 660-016 provided direction when the County did an
extensive review of Goal 5 resources primarily in the early 1990s. In 1996 OAR 660-023
replaced OAR 660-016 for all listed resources except cultural resources. The Goal and OAR
require local governments to inventory various resources and determine which items on
the inventory are significant...
Deschutes County completed Goal 5 inventories and the ESEE analysis during Periodic
Review, a State process for updating comprehensive plans which lasted from 1988-2003.
The County Goal 5 inventories and programs were acknowledged by the Department of
Land Conservation and Development as being in compliance with Goal 5. Therefore, the
acknowledged Goal 5 inventories, ESEEs and programs are retained in this Plan."
As the human population grows and with it, development pressure increases, it is important
for these inventories to be based on the best available data for avoidance and minimization
to wildlife and their habitats. The efforts summarized in this document are intended to
function as a pilot project to take the first steps towards updating three wildlife inventories,
with a goal of serving as a model for future inventory updates.
DLCD's Technical Assistance (TA) grants are competitive awards to local communities that
fund projects to update a comprehensive plan, update local land use ordinances, or other
planning compliance projects.
Deschutes County Wildlife Inventory Update Public Outreach Report 5
The goals of this grant project included:
• Collection of updated data on three wildlife inventories using a wildlife biologist
consultant and technical experts from relevant state and federal agencies;
• Documentation and verification by technical experts of the methodology behind the
data;
• Presentation of these updated inventories to the public and the Planning
Commission, and later, the Board of County Commissioners for potential
incorporation into a future Goal 5 wildlife inventory update.
The following subsections provide an overview of the project structure, organization, and
process.
W kc E f ;f c C', or� ,,suttan ; i 1�a$,Cl:` B,u.c „ & Girard,
r
In order to effectively compile new inventory data pursuant to state statute, the Community
Development Department (CDD) hired a consultantwith wildlife biology expertise to function
as a liaison between CDD and relevant State and Federal agencies, such as Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), to
understand the technical aspects and methodology of new inventories, and to participate in
community outreach to convey to the public the significance of the new inventories.
After a statewide open solicitation of qualified consultants, CDD hired Mason, Bruce &
Girard, a Portland -based natural resource consulting firm, with Dr. Wendy Wente as project
manager. Dr. Wente has worked as a wildlife biologist throughout Central and Eastern
Oregon for over 20 years. Her field expertise includes wildlife surveys, habitat assessments
and field research design. She has prepared numerous Wildlife Habitat Management Plans,
Habitat Impact Assessments and Mitigation Plans, and other wildlife -related permitting and
land use code compliance documents.
F n lic a 1 A(i ,Vso 7r CC,F fn CCl flte"(a h fA
For this project, Dr. Wente guided the TAC, comprised of representatives from the County,
DLCD, ODFW, and USFWS, through the inventory selection process, facilitated the
Interagency Working Group (IWG) in its data collection and synthesis, and created a summary
report. In turn, representatives from the County and DLCD framed the project through the
state and local land use process.
Deschutes County Wildlife Inventory Update Public Outreach Report 6
linteragency Working Group (�,,WG)
Once the three inventories were identified by the TAC in the fall of 2020, MB&G convened an
Interagency Working Group (|VV6) consisting of agency species experts. This group was
tasked with reviewing existing data and developing new inventories based on the best
available science and professional opinion, The |VVG members included agency
representatives from ODFW and USFWS; discussions were facilitated by MB&G.
The |VVG representatives worked within their agencies and, where appropriate, consulted
with other biologists togather the most current data to inform the inventory updates. For
example, the USFVV5 representative coordinated with biologists at the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to gather additional information on known
bald and golden eagle nests within the County.
�W G R e,�,-)� o r t
The inventory process and data collected by the |VVG was summarized in a report by the
consultant, which is included as an appendix tothis document, The report provides an
overview of the inventory selection process and the methodology of the data collected and
utilized by the IWG to form new recommended inventories for deer winter range, elk winter
range, and sensitive birds. This report then formed the basis of the information presented
during the public outreach process.
N f������x��x��������tvv0��V It: N������
The County conducted a public outreach program to gauge support for pursuing
Comprehensive Plan and development code updates of the three inventories addressed in
this pilot project. TheprocessfOrsuchanupdateisUUt|inedin Oregon Administrative Rules
Chapter 660, Division 23 and ifundertaken, the County would initiate legislative amendment
proceedings pursuant to those regulations, including a robust public process with the
Deschutes County Planning Commission and Board nfCommissioners.
To that end, the County approached residents to:
1) Share the proposed new inventories based on the data collected by the IWG;
3) Provide opportunities to ask the IWG and County staff questions about the data, the
proposed inventories, and the process for a formal update;
Deschutes County Wildlife Inventory Update Public Outreach Report 7
3) Given the information presented, gauge general interest in the County pursuing an
inventory update process.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021, public outreach opportunities were
limited, and the County was unable to host any in -person meetings regarding wildlife
inventory updates. However, given the success of the public outreach program for the other
component of the TA Grant concerning wildfire mitigation several months earlier, the County
utilized the following outreach methods:
1) Communications Plan. Press releases, social media, and the department's electronic
newsletter to announce a project website, ArcGIS StoryMap (interactive web -based
maps with text, maps, and photos) and an online survey to understand the public's
support to pursue an inventory update.
2) Open Houses. Two virtual open houses with the Deschutes County Planning
Commission on April 15 and April 29, 2021 to discuss the project purpose, proposed
inventories, and options to move forward.
The following sections outline the results of those public outreach actions concerning wildlife
inventory updates in Deschutes County.
LP _u� � , ra 'k— IL w,
i?EE K E fti�:2 YE rt€,uk iR €` e. ttal Sto yF,Aap
As described previously, the County's communication plan involved a number of online press
releases, social media blasts prior to each virtual open house, a public -facing web page
specific to the project (httDS://www.deschutes.or./cd/page/wildlife-inventQrylUpdate), and
most significantly, an ArcGIS StoryMap containing an online survey.
The goal of the StoryMap was to communicate the information gathered and shared by the
IWG in its report, as well as provide an overview of the project, thereby educating the reader
in order to complete the survey. Screenshots of selected points in the StoryMap are provided
below. The StoryMap in its entirety can be viewed via this link:
https://www.deschute5.org/WildlifeStoryma
Deschutes County Wildlife Inventory Update Public Outreach Report 8
Deschutes County
Wildlife Inventory
Update
Besides providing general project information, the StoryMap features interactive maps that
illustrate the County's current wildlife inventory areas compared with proposed new
inventory areas for each of the three inventories. The reader can pan or zoom in on the map
and explore details of specific areas for each inventory.
Elk Winter
Range
Deschutes County's
Current Elk Winter
Range
Deschutes County Wildlife Inventory Update Public Outreach Report 9
The StoryMap also provides snapshots of the raw data that the IWG used to develop these
proposed inventories.
Maps of the proposed new inventory provide acreage summaries and other pertinent
information.
Proposed Elk Winter Range
Inventory
Deschutes County Wildlife Inventory Update Public Outreach Report 10
0.
A sliding composite map allows the reader to toggle between current and proposed
inventories for all three inventories at once.
0,
Next Steps
d 6
Deschutes County Wildlife Inventory Update Public Outreach Report 11
OnUrnSurvey
After proceeding through the StoryMap, the reader was led to a link to the online survey,
which was available for approximately one month. The questions in the survey were
intentionally broad —given that this is a relatively preliminary stage of the project rather than
a specific proposal —with opportunities to provide written comments. The questions were as
follows:
1. Do you live or own property in an area that falls within a wildlife inventory area,
either current or proposed?
2. Do you support using these new wildlife inventories to inform the process of
updating the County Comprehensive Plan and development code?
3. Please share any additional comments relating to this project in the space below.
In total, the county received 456 individual responses to the online survey, with 153 of those
responses coming from people living within a current or proposed wildlife inventory area.
Of those 153 residents of current or proposed wildlife inventory areas, 142 of them
supported using the data presented to inform the process of updating the County
Comprehensive Plan and development code.
• you live or own property in an area that falls within a wildlife
inventory area., either current or • •
M
It is important to recognize the large number of people who answered "not sure" to the
above question. Staff believes this might be due to a methodological shortfall. One of the
primary purposes of the StoryMap was to illustrate the location of the current and proposed
inventories, embedding the survey at the end so that the reader would first learn about the
Deschutes County Wildlife Inventory Update Public Outreach Report 12
project and view the maps before answering the survey. However, it came to staffs attention
that some viewers may have utilized web links provided by outside advocacy organizations
that, in their efforts to promote the project, bypassed the StoryMap entirely and brought
viewers directly to the survey link without context or background information about where
the inventories were located. While this inadvertent shortcut resulted in less -than -optimal
results for Question 1, looking at the results for Question 2 indicates that the overall purpose
of the survey was nevertheless communicated, and respondents overwhelmingly supported
the idea of moving forward with an inventory update.
Q2 Do you support using these new wildlife inventories to inform the
process of updating the County Comprehensive Plan and development
code?
Regardless of whether respondents lived in a current or proposed wildlife inventory area —
or were not sure if they do —almost 92 percent of respondents (or 413 people) supported
using the proposed new inventories to inform the process of updating the Comprehensive
Plan and development code. Two percent did not support pursuing updated wildlife
inventories, and six percent were undecided.
Question 2 provided respondents an opportunity to provide written comments as well. The
full list of comments received are provided as an appendix. Some selected highlights
include:
Because supporting wildlife is supporting all life. Healthy wildlife, healthy humans. We breathe
the same air, drink the some water. Environmental health is why I live in Bend.
These inventories represent the current best available science about three of the most important
wildlife species in our County. In order to ensure the health and survival of these species, and the
Deschutes County Wildlife Inventory Update Public Outreach Report 13
rest of the ecosystems of which these species are a vital part, we need accurate information in
order to plan for and regulate impactful human development.
l don't know enough about how the wildlife inventories would be used. If the data is thorough
and actually used, then I am in favor. If the data is justgathered and not utilized, just to check a
box, then I'm less excited about it. In general I believe wildlife inventories should be a guiding
factor in comprehensive plans.
The plan appears to take in all eagle nests, even if they are no longer active. The plan appears to
protect elk ranges, where elk never have been. We have a huge housing shortage, prices are high,
and are only higher because of how expensive it is to go through land use process. These wildlife
inventories are overreaching protecting areas that do not need to be protected, and will further
limit development only to the rich that can afford to fight the legal battles that this will inevitably
enable.
Good decisions depend upon having reliable and up-to-date information.
Too expansive and limits options for land use
The vast expansion of these areas will impose too great a cost on private property owners. The
current rules seem to be working as the areas of habitat are vastlygreoter than inventoried in
1992 (even accounting for a less rigorous inventory process). The current WA zone rules key road
requirements to 1992 -- fair for current zones but unfair for newly added properties. This will
present nonproductive farm land from being used for nonfarm dwellings - sometimes the only
way a farmer can qualify to live on his land (to be able to farm it to make farm income) without
disqualifying the entire property from farm tax deferral.
My home sits between Tumalo Reservoir Road and Pinehurst Road in Tumalo. We frequently see
a herd of 70+ elk that use the area to rest and feed during the winter and even summer months.
Under the proposed new expanded wildlife plan our area would be included, Given the deer. elk
and other wildlife we see in our neighborhood, enlarging the current wildlife maps seems very
appropriate.
Question 3 was open-ended, and 146 people provided responses, some relating specifically
to the inventory project, and others about wildlife in the County more generally. The
comments appear to make it clear that Deschutes County residents care strongly about
wildlife protection. All responses are provided in the appendix, but some are highlighted
below.
Protecting wildlife need not be difficult. Cooperation and information is essential.
Every year I obtain a Deschutes Co. permit to place 'give deer a brake" signs along Gosney and
Rickard Rds. during spring and fall migration to/from winter range. Public feedback from these
Deschutes County Wildlife Inventory Update Public Outreach Report 14
signs has been good to raise awareness that vehicle collisions are a major mortality factor, and
speed a factor in collisions. I'd like to think this appears to have reduced deer deaths in these
areas in the last 2 years. Why aren't there more public relations and efforts to reduce collisions?
Interagency partnerships, with insurance companies, road depts, ODFW, conservation nonprofits
and road frontage landowners could do more to do so, including clearing ROWS for sight
distance, encouraging removal of unnecessary fences, motion sensor warning lights, etc. ODFW
does very little stewardship to protect deer populations other than agreeing to undercrossings.
Prohibiting feeding deer in neighborhoods would be a good first step to reduce deer vulnerability
to vehicles. ODOT is the only agency being proactive in funding undercrossings and fencing.
Perhaps with updated migration data, problem areas can be targeted for multi -pronged
programs. Meanwhile deer numbers fall...
Wildlife is the reason I live here.
This is a crucial project in light of rapid population growth in the county which has led to loss of
habitat for many native species.
Adopting an updated inventory will be a great first step. Following that giving the inventory
meaningfulness by threading it through planning documents and processes will be critically
important.
Failure to have recent survey data ensures poor policy decisions.
This change will devalue land. Property owners should be notified and, in all fairness,
compensated for the loss of land value of land thev purchased at prices based on current
development expectations.
Not only do the wildlife inventories need to be updated, but Deschutes County needs a plan for
updating them on a regular bases. USFWS recommended 2 mile buffers for golden eagles should
be adopted so development within that area can be reviewed. Additionally, the county needs a
wildlife biologist on staff.
The inventories are cursory in scope. The project airns to survey 'wildlife' but it only covers deer,
elk, and eagles. If you are really concerned about conserving wildlife and habitats in the region,
you need to do more comprehensive surveys. According to ODFW's own conservation strategy,
Deschutes County comprises 4 different ecoregions, and these ecoregions support many species
that are listed as sensitive by ODFW. And yet they only want to manage for deer, elk, and eagles.
In the East Cascades ecoregion alone, there are at least 3 fish species, 4 amphibians, 3 reptiles, a
dozen bird species, and 11 mammals listed as sensitive or critical (this list includes neither deer
nor elk). I realize that not all of these species occur on lands managed by Deschutes County, but
many do. And how will you know if you don't survey for them?
Deschutes County Wildlife Inventory Update Public Outreach Report 15
Virtuall, Open Houses
Due to the public gathering restrictions in place from the COVID-19 pandemic, the County
was unable to host any in -person meetings regarding wildlife inventory updates. To account
for these challenges, County planning staff facilitated two virtual open houses in conjunction
with the Deschutes County Planning Commission, the project consultant, and
representatives from the Interagency Working Group. The open house events were held on
April 15, 2021' and April 29, 20212 and the videos —as well as Spanish translations of each
open house —remain available on the project web page.
The purpose of the open houses was to give the public and the Deschutes County Planning
Commission an opportunity to ask County staff and wildlife biologist experts questions
concerning the project process, data collection and methodology, and potential next steps.
These sessions were intended to introduce community members to the StoryMap feature
and associated survey, while also allowing for more clarification and inquiry into details
which may not have been captured by the other outreach features.
The open house sessions were conducted via Zoom, and each was simultaneously streamed
and recorded via Facebook Live through the County's social media account. Participants were
encouraged to submit written questions through either of these channels, with
corresponding answers provided in real time by facilitators and presenters. During the
second open house, participants could also ask questions live via video.
The open houses used the StoryMap as an outline, with staff and the wildlife biologist
consultant taking the audience on a guided tour of the background and maps. The Planning
Commission and the public asked questions throughout the presentation.
The full list of questions and answers during the open house meetings has been included as
an appendix to this report. In addition, these documents include several answers to
questions that were not answered live due to time constraints.
In addition to the data gathered through survey outreach and both virtual open houses, the
county received eight public comments from private citizens concerning the proposed
wildlife inventory updates, not including clarifying or logistical inquiries. These comments
unanimously supported the concept of proceeding with inventory updates.
A full copy of the public comments has been included as an appendix to this report.
1 https://deschutescountyor.igm2.com/Citizens/SplitView.aspx?Mode=Video&MeetinglD=2749&Format=Agenda
2 https://deschutescountyor.igm2.com/Citizens/SplitView.aspx?Mode=Video&MeetinglD=2751&Format=Agenda
Deschutes County Wildlife Inventory Update Public Outreach Report 16
Based on the outreach undertaken by the County described above, it appears that a
significant majority of participants are supportive of utilizing the proposed inventories to
begin the update process to the County Comprehensive Plan and development code.
It is important to note that this presentation of new biological data is only the very first step
in what will be a thorough and complex undertaking to determine what an inventory update
would look like, both in terms of process —would it be a stand-alone amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan, or incorporated into the larger, more holistic Comprehensive Plan
update? —and in terms of specific regulations to be considered —such as the determination
of conflicting uses as well as the recognition of development expectations and entitlements.
Nevertheless, the responses to the initial outreach reveal that the importance and protection
of wildlife is a widely shared value in Deschutes County, and there is conceptual support for
pursuing the next steps involved in an inventory update.
This community conversation represents the culmination of the data collection stage.
Further tasks beyond this grant will use input received from this public process to inform the
Board of County Commissioners of potential next steps.
Deschutes County Wildlife Inventory Update Public Outreach Report 17
IWG Report
Deschutes County Goal 5 Wildlife Inventory Update
Prepared for
Deschutes County Community Development Department
Insights. Ideas. Integrity.
Prepared by
Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.
707 SW Washington Street, Suite 1300
Portland, Oregon 97205
503-224-3445
xvvvvv.nnasonoruce.corn
FebruarV2G, 2021
This project is funded by Oregon general fund dollars through the Department of Land Conservation and
Development. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the State of
Oregon.
'e z' ✓ t . >s yr r ��
} „i�eschues County �oal;5 W�IdIifInue r
Table of Contents
Introduction....................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Processfor the Update...................................................................................................................................................... 1
Results................................................................................................................................................................................ 2
MuleDeer Winter Range Habitat...........................................................................................................................2
Sensitive Bird Habitat: Bald and Golden Eagle Nest Locations...............................................................................3
ElkWinter Range Habitat........................................................................................................................................3
Recommendations from the IWG to the County............................................................................................................... 4
LiteratureCited.................................................................................................................................................................. 4
MASON, _B RUCE sGIRARD
Introduction
The Deschutes County Community Development Department (County) is beginning the process of updating the County's
Comprehensive Plan, which formally records the community's development aspirations and goals and provides guidelines
for future growth. To complete one step of this multi -step process, the County applied for and received a Technical
Assistance Grant from the Department of Land Conservation and Development. The grant provides funding to begin
updating up to three of the County's Statewide Planning Goal 5 (Goal 5) wildlife inventories because the existing Goal 5
wildlife inventories are dated and no longer represent the best available scientific data for the inventoried resources. The
County engaged Mason, Bruce & Girard Inc. (MB&G) in 2020 to assist them with the implementation of the grant. This
report presents the three updated Goal 5 wildlife inventories. Figures are presented in Appendix A. Raw data snapshots
are presented in Appendix B. GIS data are delivered separately.
Process r the Update
The decision -making group for the project is the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). Initially the TAC included
representatives from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), the Land Conservation and Development
Division (LCDC), the County, and MB&G. The County and MB&G kicked off the project in August of 2020 with the first
meeting of the TAC. During this meeting, the group reviewed the existing Goal 5 inventories related to wildlife and selected
three candidates for update. These included:
1) Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus) Winter Range Habitat
2) Sensitive Bird Habitat— specifically the bald eagle (Halioeetus leucocephalus) and golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos)
nest sites
3) Elk (Cervus canadensis) Winter Range Habitat
The TAC also identified additional inventories that would benefit from an update but did not rise to the same priority level
as the three selected for this round. Those were:
1) Mule Deer Migration Corridors
2) Endangered Species Act Threatened & Endangered Species Habitat (e.g., Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa))
Mule deer migration corridors were identified as important by the TAC because more recent data gathered over the past
decade indicate the resource is likely significantly larger than the area that is currently protected. ODFW now also has a
better understanding of how mule deer use corridors in the County. Although important, corridors were still seen by the
TAC as a lower priority than updating the mule deer and elk winter ranges and the bald and golden eagle sensitive habitat
areas. The TAC also decided that while Threatened & Endangered species habitats were important, species listed under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and their habitats already receive federal protections and inventories are typically much
more up-to-date than those selected for this project.
Once the three inventories were identified by the TAC, MB&G convened an Interagency Working Group (IWG) consisting
of agency species experts. This group was tasked with reviewing existing data and developing new inventories based on
the best available science and professional opinion. The IWG members included agency representatives from ODFW and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); discussions were facilitated by MB&G. This report presents to the TAC the results
of the IWG-led updates to the three selected inventories.
MASON.BRU G E, GI R ARD .,
� > � ' ' 'Desallt��es�Coprity �o�C�5 Vi►�l�lh(Fe �pve
Results
Over the course of the project, the agency representatives developed updated versions of the three selected Goal 5
wildlife inventories. The three resulting updated datasets are described in this section, and GIS files and metadata are
delivered separately. All area estimates reported herein were made using the Deschutes County -preferred coordinate
system: Oregon State Plane South with Lambert Conformal Conic projection, North American Datum 1983 (international
feet units).
Mule Deep Winter Range Habitat
The mule deer winter range habitat inventory was selected by the TAC for update primarily because it no longer reflects
usage patterns indicated by data collected by ODFW biologists, and this habitat commonly is a source of conflict with
proposed developments in the County.
Research tools available to scientists have evolved since the original wildlife -related inventories were created back in the
1990s. For example, in the case of mule deer winter range habitat, since the last inventory was developed ODFW revised
study designs to alter winter range sampling to more effectively measure changes in the deer population. ODFW and their
research partners also completed studies that tracked deer use of the winter range habitat by collaring some individuals
with GPS location transmitters, greatly enhancing ODFW's understanding of how deer are using the winter range habitat.
Finally, ODFW applied recently developed spatial modeling tools to better predict how mule deer utilize winter range
habitat.
The revised mule deer winter range habitat was developed by ODFW based on the following data sources:
• The existing Deschutes County Wildlife Area Combining Zones (WA Zones) for mule deer winter range, including
the Deer Winter Range, Tumalo Deer Winter Range, Metolius Deer Winter Range, Grizzly Deer Winter Range, and
North Paulina Deer Winter Range
• The biological mule deer winter range (ODFW 2012) which provides a general outline of mule deer winter range
east of the crest of the Cascades in Oregon. ODFW considers the winter range to be that area normally occupied
by deer from December through April
• Aerial and ground survey observations of deer group sizes collected by ODFW biologists during each winter from
2015 through 2020 (unpublished)
• Mule deer resource selection function (RSF) model raster for probability of use in winter based on the "south
central study` (Coe et aL 2018)
• Deer density polygons from two years of collar data for an area that was left out of the "south central study"
(unpublished)
Figure 1 (Appendix A) depicts the updated inventory for mule deer winter range. Mule deer winter range areas currently
protected by the County (the WA Zones for Mule Deer Winter Range) were included in the revision as they continue to
represent key winter habitat areas for deer. The currently protected WA Zone for mule deer winter range in the County
covers approximately 315,847 acres. The blue polygons indicate additional important mule deer winter range habitat
areas covering approximately 188,132 acres. The revised mule deer winter range habitat as proposed would cover
approximately 503,979 acres. Snapshots of the raw data informing the inventory update were provided by ODFW and are
included in Appendix B. In the context of the greater mule deer winter range (ODFW 2012), these newly selected areas
combined with the existing WA Zone winter range were thought to be particularly significant portions of the winter range
MASON. BRUCE 6GIRARD
Pe �hut�sonty,�,oal� S�Wildljf,
habitat for mule deer based on the raw data inputs depicted in Appendix B, and therefore they were identified for
protection by the members of the IWG representing ODFW.
Sensitive Bird Habitat- Bald and Golden Eagle Nest Locations
Bald and golden eagle nest locations were selected by the TAC for update primarily because the datasets underlying the
current sensitive bird habitat occurrences for these two species in Deschutes County are out of date, and development
conflicts with known nests are increasing. USFWS participated in the IWG and provided the updated Goal 5 inventory for
bald and golden eagles. The updated Goal 5 inventory dataset includes known golden and bald eagle nest sites, each
buffered by a sensitive habitat area extending outward from the nest location. All known nest locations within Deschutes
County as well as any buffers that extend into Deschutes County from nest locations in adjacent counties are included.
Alternative nests with overlapping buffers are dissolved into single polygons to better capture potential use areas for
active pairs. Golden eagle nest locations are buffered by a sensitive habitat area that extends out for a radius of 2 miles
(Figure 2, Appendix A). USFWS buffered the golden eagle nest locations with the larger proposed sensitive area because
this is the awareness distance used by the agency to trigger review of potential impacts of a proposed project or land use
change on an active pair under the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). Bald eagle nests are buffered
by a %-mile -radius sensitive habitat area. The buffers applied to the updated golden eagle nest sites are larger than the
-mile sensitive habitat buffer currently applied by the County to golden eagle nest locations.
USFWS gathered the data informing the revised Goal 5 inventory from three sources:
• Oregon Eagle Foundation
• United States Forest Service Natural Resource Information System (NRIS) for terrestrial wildlife data
• Bureau of Land Management local records
The existing Deschutes County sensitive bird habitat inventory includes 5 bald eagle and 20 golden eagle nest locations.
Each nest location is currently buffered by a % mile radius sensitive habitat area. Altogether, the County currently protects
2,297 acres of sensitive bird habitat associated the 25 nest locations (603 acres for bald eagles and 1,694 acres for golden
eagles).
In total, the proposed sensitive bird habitat associated with bald and golden eagles would cover approximately 344,778
acres in the County. The much larger acreage of sensitive habitat identified in the updated inventory stems from 1) an
increase in the number of nests included in the updated inventory (116 bald eagle, and 103 golden eagle nests), and 2)
the larger radius of sensitive habitat area identified for golden eagles. It is important to note that the larger number of
nests included in the updated inventory does not correspond to increased eagle success or upward population trends,
especially for golden eagles. Survey methods have improved and survey efforts have greatly increased over the past
several decades resulting in the record of several alternative nest sites per territory (e.g. the 103 golden eagle nest sites
represent 41 territories). The revised data also include nests on all land ownerships even were buffers are fully located on
public lands.
Uk Winter Range Habitat
Similar to the mule deer winter range inventory, the elk winter range habitat was selected by the TAC for update primarily
because the existing WA Zone for Elk Range used by the County significantly differs from ODFW's survey -based
understanding of how elk currently use winter range habitat. The most heavily used winter range has expanded over time
and often conflicts with development projects.
S
MASON, BRUCE,GIRARU
l
v
�eschJates County,Goal � Wildlifq I�ue `
The revised areas were identified by ODFW based on the following data sources:
• The existing Deschutes County WA Zone for elk habitat (which focuses on winter range)
• The biological elk winter range (ODFW 2012) which provides a general outline of elk winter range east of the crest
of the Cascades in Oregon.
• Winter observation data collected by ODFW biologists from 2015 through 2020 (unpublished)
• ODFW biologists' professional knowledge of winter range habitat use patterns by local elk herds
The revised elk winter range habitat is depicted in Figure 3 (Appendix A) and it extends the existing Wildlife Area Combining
Zone, which covers approximately 51,717 acres, to include additional important portions of the biological winter range
covering approximately 359,473 acres. The entire revised elk winter range would cover approximately 411,190 acres in
the County. Snapshots of the raw data informing the inventory update were provided by ODFW and are included in
Appendix B.
Recommendationsfrom the IWG to the County
While discussing the inventory revisions, the IWG also developed some recommendations for the County to consider
during later phases of the Comprehensive Plan update. Recommendations included:
• Identify and utilize up-to-date databases to keep data layers current. For example, the Oregon Biodiversity
Information Center (ORBIC) which is part of the Institute for Natural Resources at Portland State University,
manages a comprehensive database of rare, threatened, and endangered species in Oregon. The IWG
recommends the County regularly access this database to keep the bald and golden eagle inventory current. It
could also be used as a resource for keeping other inventories associated with rare, threatened, or endangered
species in line with the best available science.
• Consider the consequences of disclosing sensitive information such as exact eagle nest locations to the public. The
sensitive habitat area buffers provide some protection, but the resource agencies urge the County to coordinate
with them prior to making the updated inventories accessible to the public to ensure proper precautions have
been taken.
Literature Cited
Coe, P. K., D. A. Clark, R. M. Nielson, S. C. Gregory, J. B. Cupples, M. J. Hendrick, B. K. Johnson, and D. H. Jackson. 2018.
Multiscale models of habitat use by mule deer in winter. Journal of Wildlife Management, 82(6):1285-1299.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2012. ODFW Deer and Elk Winter Range for Eastern Oregon. GIS
Shapefile Published 01/09/2013. Online Link: https:Hnrimp.dfw.state.or.us/DataClearinghouse/default.aspx?p=202&
XM Lname=885.xml
MASON.ANUC! at IRARU
Appendix A
Figures
MASON. BRUCE, GIRARD
Appendix
Data Snapshots
r
MASON, BRUCEr', GIRARD
033 ft
Desert
Mule Deer Winter Overlay ODFW proposed Additions (Draft i)
0) 0 0% Prineville
Red
- Deer Winter Overlay -Additions
0 d
0
0 Deer winter overlay --Current
o 01
Ii Collard Deer- Home Range
,'omen
Ru ttes 27
F__] ODFW Deer Biological Winter Range
Deer Winter Observations 2015-2019
0 0 0 TOTAL 380
a. Berl 00 0 0 <_ 6
'#0 8 II"_----- -
60 0 0 :514
0 :528
:561
0 :5139
0 Newberry
0 crater
la Plne
N
0510 20 Miles
, , ,
W, USGS, County of Crook, State of Oregon GEO, Esri,
IRIVmpren
1, Ile,
7
0 0
0
0 f
0""
0 0 .. 0
Snapshot provided by ODFW of raw data informing the mule deer winter range habitat inventory update.
i bpi
tilass
MASON, BRUCE 6 GIRARD
�1
Desch'utesCP,pintyczal,'„1Alildlfe,InveA 1 g
3� y
tower -
Mule Deer Winter Overlay"-- ODFW proposed Additions (Draft 1)
�26 Ochoco ein--
c
' Deer Winter Overlay --Additions
O o o, Prineville ® Deer Winter Overlay --Current
O Redmo p,
09� f :Collard Deer Home Range
of
i
Deer Winter Observations 2015-2019
��' Powell TOTAL
�'d0 o Burnes 2 3E o <6
O' 0
O 514
0 0 0 O 1528 380!.
o Berk o o 0 561
v 108 O <_139
c55 fr
® Q' Winter Range Probability of Use
a 0,., High T
i, t) Low
o { r ; rpra dr,ttes
o Newberry Ohn
o Crater
0 � '
1. Pine d �� o Hampton
oF�-�...H.�?
N of
0 5 10- 20 Miles ,aanrr
, 1 1 f'lass
F.uttec
Esri, CGIAR, USGS, County of Crook, State of Oregon GEO, Esri, oJereii
Snapshot provided by ODFW of raw data informing the mule deer winter range habitat inventory update.
I
MASON BRUCEaGIRARq
�} 'Des�hute�,CountyGq�l,5WtldlXfelnue
Elk Winter Overlay -- ODFW Proposed Additions (Draft 1)
kQ.,
Elk Overlay Additions
® Elk Overlay --Current
Elk Observations 2015-2020
TOTAL
<12
�<_ 30
®;0 <57
<_ 170
i` 4
", ODFW Elk
„ Winter
w Range
8 r.
N
0 5 10 20 Miles
I
Snapshot provided by ODFW of raw data informing the elk winter range habitat inventory update.
MASON,BRUCE, GIRARDI
Online Survey Summary
Wildlife Inventory Update
Q1 Do you live or own property in an area that falls within a wildlife
inventory area, either current or proposed?
Ansvvered:456 skipped:0
Yes
0
Not sure
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes 33.55% 153
No 19.52% 89
Not sure 46.93% 214
TOTAL 456
1(1
Wildlife Inventory Update
Q2 Do you support using these new wildlife inventories to inform the
process of updating the County Comprehensive Plan and development
code?
Ai,6vvered: 4d 9 skipped: 7
Yes
No
Undecided
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
91..98%
No
2.00%
Undecided
6.01%
TOTAL
#
COMMENTS? WHY OR WHY NOT?
BATE
1
Our wildlife are extremely important!!
5/7/2021 8:59 AM
2
What inventories? Maybe an explanation of how and why would he helpful
5/7/2021 7:07 AM
3
Wildlife is important to our physical and emotional wellbeing in Central Oregon.
5/6/2021 3:58 PM
4
We have to manage the winter range better. We are killing too many ungulates with our cars,
5/6/2021 1:18 PM
our development without some kind of mitigation...
5
With the rapid pace of growth, spread and construction, it is more important than ever that we
5/6/2021 12:10 PM
are thoughtful, strategic, compassionate and smart in relationship to our urban wildlife.
6
The plan appears to take in all eagle nests, even if they are no longer active. The plan appears
5/5/2021 5:39 PM
to protect elk ranges, where elk never have been. We have a huge housing shortage, prices
are high, and are only higher because of how expensive it is to go through land use process.
These wildlife inventories are overreaching protecting areas that do not need to be protected,
and will further limit development only to the rich that can afford to fight the legal battles that
this will inevitably enable.
7
When you have policies informed by science, outcomes will be relevant.
5/4/2021 3:12 PM
8
Because development frequently ignore existing ecosystems after their pursuit of greed which
5/4/2021 1:21 PM
can never satisfy itself
9
I grew up here and know what Deschutes County looked like in 1981 and it is not even
5/4/2021 12:02 PM
comparable to what it looks like now. We need new inventories to go with the new
413
9
27
449
1/12
Wildlife Inventory Update
Comprehensive plan. Otherwise we are planning without seeing the entire picture.
10 It's good to protect wintering areas so that we don't continue to build homes in these areas. We 5/4/2021 10:06 AM
must keep habitat available for the species to survive.
11 Need to build wildlife overpasses on HWY 97, not undercrossings if herds are to survive. All 5/4/2021 9:46 AM
other western states have it figured out.
12 Because supporting wildlife is supporting all life. Healthy wildlife, healthy humans. We breathe 5/4/2021 8:20 AM
the same air, drink the same water. Environmental health is why I live in Bend.
13 We need to protect our wildlife for future generations both for viewing and harvesting. It is time 5/4/2021 8:12 AM
to update the areas and data to reflect current actuals.
14 One thing to inventory them... another thing to not enforce speed limits resulting in huge deer 5/4/2021 8:05 AM
mortality!!!!
15 We need to protect important breeding areas and habitats that sustains wildlife, while at the 5/4/2021 7:29 AM
same time planning for safe housing that plans for the co -existence of human life and wildlife.
16 The current one is from 1981. Very outdated. I have lived in Bend since the 70's and 5/4/2021 7:22 AM
everything has changed here.
17 It's important to include the most recent data when creating a new plan (or updating the current 5/4/2021 7:08 AM
one).
18 We need accurate numbers to make informed decisions. 5/3/2021 9:57 PM
19 Understanding where our wildlife live and the habitat they require is essential for management. 5/3/2021 7:23 PM
Using 40-year-old data doesn't make sense.
20 Deschutes County is not just a place for humans. What makes it special for all of us who 5/3/2021 6:27 PM
move and live here is its rural wild area. This includes the precious wildlife who call this land
home. Their protection and conservation are essential!!
21 we have invaded wildlife's habitat and we should respect their needs. 5/3/2021 5:57 PM
22 We need to be making our decisions based on the best available scientific data. 5/3/2021 5:46 PM
23 taking care of our wildlife is very important, they need the space 5/3/2021 3:03 PM
24 Wildlife is the reason that many people were brought to enjoy the Central Oregon region. As we 5/3/2021 2:04 PM
have allowed growth to go unchecked with our population and building, wildlife has suffered.
25 We need to use the most up-to-date science when planning. I definitely want to preserve 5/2/2021 8:07 PM
wildlife habitat!
26 If there is no concern on protecting the migrating herds of deer and elk, we won't have ANY! 5/2/2021 6:34 AM
Countv needs to watch wildlife corridor passages and protect them from differing developing
tracts.
27 I feel wildlife in my area (Klippel acres) is getting 'squeezed' because of traffic/people/new 5/1/2021 9:49 PM
homes and lack of understanding of wildlife here by newcomers. I live about 400 feet from the
Tanager development where there are two lakes that are beside Tumalo Creek. The wildlife
thrive this area.
28 It's important to know what's going on with wildlife and impacts that city growth has had. 4/30/2021 10:17 PM
2.9 Wildlife is important! As Deschutes County becomes ever more developed and populated 4/30/2021 5:04 PM
wildlife will lose out if there is not careful planning based on current science.
30 Would like to ensure that wildlife is protected 4/30/2021 4:43 PM
31 This shouldn't even be a question. We need to support our environment and this is one way to 4/30/2021 8:28 AM
do so. We remove our ruin valuable habitat too easily.
32 We need to make informed decisions before we build to just build. The wildlife is precious and 4/30/2021 8:04 AM
don't have a voice or money to represent themselves.
33 Yes, our county is growing fast, we need to plan for conserving the wildlife and habitat that 4/30/2021 8:03 AM
coexist with us.
2/12
Wildlife Inventory Update
34
It's important we know what is happening and protect wildlife as our population expands
4/30/2021 7:53 AM
35
1 believe the wildlife in the area will be significantly impacted by all the piping of the irrigation
4/30/2021 1:07 AM
canals. This reduction of surface water will cause there to search for it closer to people in
many instances.
36
I've not seen the wildlife surveys so unable to comment. How do I view them?
4/29/2021 10:00 PM
37
If we don't know what kind of wildlife is around us how can we help
4/29/2021 9:51 PM
38
Wildlife should be considered in coordination with city planning. This is their home too.
4/29/2021 9:25 PM
39
Our wildlife is in desperate need of inventory to best determine the best course of action to
4/29/2021 8:52 PM
preserve our wildlife community.
40
Very important since bends growth has pushed deer eagles and owls into our neighborhood.
4/29/2021 8:42 PM
We want to protect there.
41
It is critical to know where these areas are, so they can be preserved and these key species
4/29/2021 8:19 PM
can be supported.
42
Yes because the wildlife corridors and environments are important for species health,
4/29/2021 7:21 PM
43
1 don't know anything about these. I need to be educated
4/29/2021 7:19 PM
44
These inventories represent the current best available science about three of the most
4/29/2021 7:00 PM
important wildlife species in our County. In order to ensure the health and survival of these
species, and the rest of the ecosystems of which these species are a vital part, we need
accurate information in order to plan for and regulate impactful human development.
45
Hoping to STOP ALL THE DEVELOPMENT :/
4/2.9/2021 6:46 PM
46
Yes! The development in Bend does not seem to take wildlife communities into account -
4/29/2021 6:23 PM
leveling ALL of the trees in a new development ruins micro -ecosystems. I live directly across
Cline Falls Rd from a 5 acre parcel that will be developed this summer, and I'm concerned for
the large herd of deer that use that open space for winter forage.
47
Very interested in the wildlife and helping out.
4/29/2021 6:10 PM
48
Current inventory is 30 years old and with the growth in humans over that time, it is essential
4/29/2021 5:13 PM
that we have current data.
49
So much has changed in the county since the 1990's that it is imperative to understand what
4/29/2021 4:59 PM
the current wildlife situation is now to use in our planning going forward. Many people live in
Deschutes County because of the outdoor recreation, natural setting and wildlife. We should
know what we have in order to understand how to reduce or eliminate impact and protect these
resources.
50
It's important to know wildlife volume and routes in order to plan out growth and prevent wildlife
4/29/2021 4:28 PM
routes being blocked
51
Wildlife is under increasing stress from increasing human populations, pollution, pesticide use.
4/29/2021 4:07 PM
and poaching. It needs to be carefully monitored and protected to avoid extinction.
52
1 don't know enough about how the wildlife inventories would be used. If the data is thorough
4/29/2021 4:03 PM
and actually used, then I am in favor. If the data is just gathered and not utilized, just to check
a box, then I'm less excited about it. In general I believe wildlife inventories should be a
guiding factor in comprehensive plans.
53
As deschrrtes county grows we need to make sure it is sustainable with the wildlife that call
4/29/2021 3:41 PM
the area home too. This is only possible by using accurate and updated data.
54
Wildlife is a huge part of my quality of life and I believe that wildlife range and habitat should
4/29/2021 3:40 PM
be taken into consideration when proposing new county codes and changes to existing county
codes.
55
Overdevelopment of bike trails and recreation is seriously degrading wildlife habitat and
4/29/2021 3:15 PM
threatening animals. Great Gray Owls should be added to the inventory and protections as
their habitat is being seriously damaged by new trails and recreation.
56
The existing data is 30 years old. I think we need up to date information on our wildlife
4/29/2021 3:09 PM
3/12
Wildlife Inventory Update
populations to be able to make good planning decisions.
57
1 support the need for new data and updating wildlife inventories from 20 years ago.
4/29/2021 1:35 PM
58
Obviously the explosive population growth in this area has impacted the wildlife!
4/29/2021 1:35 PM
59
1 have a lot of deer that visit my property daily, on average about 10 to 15 deer a day. I live on
4/29/2021 1:33 PM
one acre of natural brush on the east side of Bend and I feel that all the new development is
pushing them out and that is not good.
60
Deschutes County's wildlife areas are essential to our reputation and quality of life.
4/29/2021 1:29 PM
61
Deschutes county is rapidly growing; we need to have a clear idea of the wildlife being
4/29/2021 1:14 PM
displaced as we work to balance growth with wildlife protection and conservation. We cannot
know what we do not measure: a wildlife inventory is very important.
62
Do not have enough information
4/29/2021 1:13 PM
63
Up to date data will assist in making informed decisions when updating the Comprehensive
4/29/2021 1:10 PM
Plan and development code. Worse is basing decisions on out of date information with
potential for creating conflict.
64
One of the reasons we love living here is because of the wildlife. Development should be
4/29/2021 1:08 PM
sensitive to these critical places our wildlife live.
65
1 am concerned that encroaching development will compromise and/or destroy our amazing
4/29/2021 1:00 PM
wildife habitats, both for today and for future generations.
66
Good decisions depend upon having reliable and up-to-date information.
4/29/2021 12:50 PM
67
We need to preserve as much wildlife as possible in these times of drought fire danger and
4/29/2021 12:44 PM
increased human usage of our forests.
68
Important to have data to measure how Deschutes County growth impacts wildlife, habitat,
4/29/2021 12:41 PM
69
It only makes sense as we develop more areas in Central Oregon which served as wildlife
4/29/2021 12:39 PM
habitat. Because of such rapid development, animals are getting killed by cars and familiar
migration routes now have obstacles that impede their movement and increase danger. It's just
the respectful "right" thing to do to consider impacts to wildlife that so many people agree is
special to enjoying life here.
70
How can we know what to include in our plan if we don't know how many of different species
4/29/2021 12:29 PM
occupy our area? It seems ridiculous to use 30-year-old data to make decisions that will affect
the outcome of the future.
71
It's appalling that the last wildlife inventory update was in 1991. Bend's population has
4/29/2021 12:25 PM
exploded since then with home building on the west side especially, (Northwest Crossing,
Tetherow and Tree Farm for example) devouring acreage that deer, quail, and small mammals
used to roam. And everywhere, off leash dogs are a menace. Ten years ago, in River West, i
would see flocks of quail in my yard and large numbers of deer. Today, no quail sightings and
fewer deer. We desperately need to update the wildlife inventory before its too late.
72
Only if the data supports protecting wildlife when needed. I would hate for County to see small
4/29/2021 12:19 PM
populations as justification for development when there can be multiple reasons as to why this
is. Now if sharing the wildlife inventories with the County are in the animals best interest I
completely support it.
73
It is essential that we know our wildlife populations, where they are strong and where they are
4/29/2021 12:13 PM
weak, so we can address any problems and promote the welfare of all wildlife.
74
We have chosen to live in this beautiful area, with wonderful wildlife. To ensure wildlife
4/29/2021 12:12 PM
continues to survive and thrive it is imperative we update our habitat conservation plans to
align with the most current data available.
75
Protecting wildlife habitat makes for good habitat for all the county's human residents, as well
4/29/2021 12:05 PM
as the animals. Deschutes County without wildlife would just be yet another place that is
devoid of all that once made it special.
76
Important to know where the wildlife in the area lives to plan accordingly
4/29/2021 11:57 AM
77
It is my opinion that we encroach on wildlife areas and need to know where wildlife is, how
4/29/2021 11:57 AM
4/12
Wildlife Inventory Update
many, and what we can do to protect this valuable resource.
78
It is important to keep track of human/wildlife interlace especially because Deschutes County
4/29/2021 11:56 AM
human population is growing so rapidly
79
I'd like to better understand human impact on my neighborhood wildlife. They are critical to a
4/29/2021 11:53 AM
healthy infrastructure, which we are responsible for maintaining.
80
1 feel that we are encroaching on too much of the land that the wildlife needs to live and
4/29/2021 11:49 AM
survive. I feel that there are way too many new houses going up everywhere and taking away
from the beauty that Bend, OR was.
81
Need to ensure we leave room for native life
4/29/2021 11:47 AM
82
1 love critters!
4/29/2021 11:46 AM
83
Updated data will show how important habitat conservation is and how much we need to
4/29/2021 11:44 AM
protect it for our mule deer, elk, bald eagles, and golden eagles to thrive.
84
YES! We need to avoid big changes in sensitive areas. So what are the sensitive areas?
4/29/2021 11:26 AM
85
It's irresponsible to claim ignorance and not update data regularly. Development will continue
4/29/2021 10:08 AM
no matter what so it needs to be done in an informed and responsible way, which includes
updates to wildlife areas.
86
Wildlife are being marginalized with significant habitat loss. The inventory needs to be updated
4/29/2021 9:45 AM
to inform planning.
87
Absolutely support including wildlife inventories into future codes and plans. As the
4/29/2021 9:22 AM
developments and fences go in, migration for wildlife is drastically affected.
88
It is critically important especially at this stage of the condition of our wildlife and environment.
4/29/2021 9:09 AM
89
You cannot possibly update plans and development code without knowing how it affects local
4/29/2021 9:08 AM
wildlife. You can't do that without knowing how our wildlife are doing. Ex: Declining populations
of Mule Deer
90
If the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan does not take in account of wildlife needs of the
4/28/2021 10:36 PM
animals for development code, it would not really be Comprehensive - Would it?
91
It is important to protect our ecosystems
4/28/2021 8:20 PM
92
There doesn't seem to be any proposed conclusion to this proposed survey. What might be the
4/28/2021 2:14 PM
resulting changes with the information gathered herein?
93
Using the best science available to make decisions can result in better outcomes for both
4/27/2021 9:21 AM
wildlife and people.
94
As our local population continues it's tremendous growth, we need to incorporate the most
4/26/2021 3:50 PM
rigorous and up-to-date scientific data for resources such as our native wildlife populations.
Ultimately, if our growth is to be managed in a way that reduces negative impacts to wildlife
populations, we will need accurate estimates for where and when animals utilize certain areas
of our County. Without these estimates and associated development review actions, we are
likely to continue seeing decreases in wildlife populations such as mule deer, which will
ultimately compromise the very values which draw people to the region in the first place.
Updates to our Comprehensive Plan which include this data represent the best chance we
have for the next 20+ years to recognize the challenges to wildlife that our region has produced
through its growth, and develop strategies to mitigate those damages.
95
Too expansive and limits options for land use
4/26/2021 12:59 PM
96
we should be paying attention to options of roads etc. when we cut down and remove different
4/26/2021 10:43 AM
wildlife habitats. If there is a way to minimize this impact we should consider it.
97
The vast expansion of these areas will impose too great a cost on private property owners.
4/26/2021 10:08 AM
The current rules seem to be working as the areas of habitat are vastly greater than inventoried
in 1992 (even accounting for a less rigorous inventory process). The current WA zone rules
key road requirements to 1992 -- fair for current zones but unfair for newly added properties.
This will present nonproductive farm land from being used for nonfarm dwellings - sometimes
the only way a farmer can qualify to live on his land (to be able to farm it to make farm income)
without disqualifying the entire property from farm tax deferral.
5/12
Wildlife Inventory Update
98
We need to do all we can to preserve wildlife habitat.
4/26/2021 9:32 AM
99
Where are the new inventories posted?
4/24/2021 3:58 PM
100
It is critical to use the best available science when assessing impacts to wildlife of current and
4/24/2021 1:32 PM
future development and management.
101
We need to know what wildlife we may be impacting. People come here for the nature of Bend.
4/24/2021 10:57 AM
Its up to us as a community to be mindful of that and protect our local wildlife.
102
1 live off O.B. Riley and on the river and and I am increasingly fearful of the proposed housing
4/24/2021 10:51 AM
developments on Glen Vista and how they will impact the mule deer and other wildlife in this
area. They are basically getting trapped and cannot access winter range land due to
developments and highways. My deer are here all year and many are injured by barbed wire
fences and other obstacles around the increasingly populated areas.
103
So many new housing developments are taking away wildlife areas. This needs to be
4/24/2021 9:20 AM
considered and taken into account prior to taking over the wildlife areas before passing new
developments in UAR/UGB areas that animals are being displaced!
104
So there can be proper protection measures included in future planning
4/24/2021 7:36 AM
105
Yes data about impacts on wildlife from conversion of natural to developed landscapes is
4/24/2021 5:58 AM
critical
106
1 have never heard a word about "inventories". I can't support an unknown. This is a stupid
4/23/2021 9:15 PM
question. Be clear, please.
107
1 did riot know about this
4/23/2021 8:57 PM
108
Our neighborhood in west Bend Oust off Century Drive) has an abundance of deer, squirrels,
4/23/2021 6:55 PM
birds etc. We have lived here 30 years and there has been no noticeable decrease in wildlife
population.
109
Need to try and strike a balance between development and wildlife needs to maintain quality of
4/23/2021 2:04 PM
life for all
110
Don't know anything about this.
4/23/2021 1:45 PM
111
Our impact is accelerating and we need to make informed choices.
4/23/2021 12:53 PM
112
1 do t understand what you mean by code or comprehensive plan. What is the purpose of the
4/23/2021 12:30 PM
plan?
113
...what are the plans and code?
4/23/2021 12:12 PM
114
Don't know what you are talking about
4/23/2021 12:00 PM
115
As the Bend population (of humans) expands we need to provide for the population of all
4/23/2021 11:35 AM
creatures that have come before us.
116
With the tremendous amount of development going on in our area in the past 15years, it is so
4/23/2021 10:45 AM
important to use this information to get a fairly accurate idea on how this effects our wildlife.
How else can you move forward with urban planning with the additional huge influx of people
expected!
117
1 don't know what the new wildlife inventories are.
4/23/2021 10:11 AM
118
So much growth ... we need to be current with data for decisionmaking.
4/23/2021 9:41 AM
119
not informed as to what the plan and development code involves
4/23/2021 9:40 AM
120
I've not heard or read anything about it.
4/23/2021 9:04 AM
121
Yes, we should always be aware of the impact our ongoing county development and growth is
4/23/2021 9:03 AM
having on the wildlife around us.
122
Development definitely impacts wild life populations with home or industry building moving into
4/23/2021 8:23 AM
former wild life habitat.
123
There has been significant development since the last inventory was completed, and wildlife
4/23/2021 8:18 AM
has needed to adapt to it.
6/12
Wildlife Inventory Update
124
30 years is a long tirne since the last one.
4/23/2021 7:05 AM
125
too much government !
4/23/2021 6:59 AM
126
It's vital that we understand and accommodate our wildlife as the county grows and changes. 1
4/23/2021 6:54 AM
live in Tumalo.
127
It's important for humans to acknowledge their negative impact on wildlife.
4/23/2021 6:03 AM
128
Don't know enough about it.
4/23/2021 3:57 AM
129
Because the Mule Deer need their habitat to thrive. Obviously if we've lost 40%, development
4/23/2021 12:12 AM
is fringing on their survival.
130
It is about time that we start considering wildlife before making decision to spread out housing
4/22/2021 10:51 PM
even further.
131
Probably but I have no info on the new wildlife inventories. So, answering these 2 questions is
4/22/2021 10:50 PM
rather meaningless
132
Our wildlife is as much a part of Deschutes County as our natural rock outcroppings and
4/22/2021 10:48 PM
junipers. As such, we should appreciate, and protect the natural world.. Subdivisions, and
inbuilding can destroy the very reason humans are here.
133
1 think they need to find out what the cause of such a decrease in the Mule Deer population. It
4/22/2021 10:45 PM
was once a major area to come to to exercise your hunting privileges in the state. I do not
think the decrease is due to the vast number of people moving to Bend. However, the deer kill
by traffic and poachers has increased and we need to address those problems.
134
More data is better than no data.
4/22/2021 10:40 PM
135
Haven't heard about it
4/22/2021 10:40 PM
136
1 believe we need to address sustainable growth that supports wildlife within our urban
4/22/2021 10:24 PM
boundaries, in order to support the livability of Bend.
137
1 believe that this land is the wildlife's as well!
4/22/2021 10:18 PM
138
More than ever we need to preserve wild lands for the wildlife. I value wildlife and support using
4/22/2021 10:01 PM
these new wildlife inventories.
139
1 support any measure that protects wildlife and the environment.
4/22/2021 9:06 PM
140
It seems that it would be most useful to have this information included in the Comprehensive
4/22/2021 7:11 PM
Plan, especially if actually used to guide and inform future development plans.
141
Wildlife habitats are destroyed regularly to build homes & infrastructure further disrupting the
4/22/2021 1:07 PM
balance nature provides to the ecosystem.
142
We need to be smart about managing the growth of Deschutes County. Wildlife is important to
4/22/2021 9:14 AM
all of the citizens of Central Oregon. It's one of the core values of our community and huge
indicator of the quality of life we want to preserve in Deschutes County for future generations.
We need to protect and conserve what we have and the only way to do that is to take stock of
what's out there so we can manage our growth responsibly.
143
This proposal is an important step towards far-reaching planning of our every expanding
4/22/2021 8:40 AM
community. The present overlay maps do not reflect the changes in wildlife habitat use or the
increase in scientific knowledge attained in the past 30 years. Central Oregon attracts people
who love nature and the outdoors, and wildlife is a big part of this appeal. Human development,
climate change, and other factors will continue to shape the future of our region, and improved
overlay maps will help in dealing with these challenges. Growth is inevitable. Planned growth is
essential.
144
Pull your head out, we need to get rid of predator's such as wolfs and cougars, migration
4/22/2021 8:34 AM
patterns need to be addressed and dip shits feeding deer need to be slapped.
145
We want to maintain the counts or restore declines of species.
4/22/2021 7:12 AM
146
Don't know about the inventories.
4/21/2021 8:50 PM
147
1 am completely in favor of this proposal. As a biologiss by training and a wildlife lover as well,
4/21/2021 5:00 PM
7/12
Wildlife Inventory Update
I think that revision of the overlay maps is quite overdue. Why wouldn't the county want the
best available science to be included in any future planning? Having current information about
the ranges of elk, deer, and eagles is paramount to maintaining healthy populations that are
such tremendous assets to Central Oregon.
148
My home sits between Tumalo Reservoir Road and Pinehurst Road in Tumalo. We frequently
4/21/2021 11:30 AM
see a herd of 70+ elk that use the area to rest and feed during the winter and even summer
months. Under the proposed new expanded wildlife plan our area would be included. Given the
deer, elk and other wildlife we see in our neighborhood, enlarging the current wildlife maps
seems very appropriate.
149
The County needs to know the impact of loss of habitat is having on wildlife and also the
4/20/2021 7:06 PM
transition from open areas to deer resistant fencing and it's related impact.
150
So Sad that you have to ask .... If we don't protect the animals we have we will all suffer. Our
4/19/2021 9:41 PM
growth affects all living things and we as humans need to live with in developed areas and
allow animals to have healthy habitat.
151
Wildlife deserves our consideration and protection. Many species, including ungulates and
4/19/2021 3:19 PM
birds of prey, are facing serious threats, and we should minimize human impacts wherever
possible. To do so, we need a good understanding of current populations/ranges.
152
Yes. Wildlife are the primary indicators for the natural resources and values that make Central
4/18/2021 3:16 PM
Oregon special, and which drive our tourism economy and the influx of people into the region.
It's imperative that the county take measures to inventory and conserve what we have moving
forward.
153
Because I have been involved with a mule deer advocacy group in Deschutes Co. , 1
4/17/2021 7:59 PM
wholeheartedly support this wildlife inventory update for multiple reasons. With mule deer
populations declining at 10% /yr., protected habitat increases will be one of the main tools in
helping their populations. These declines are not only due to habitat loss, but also due to the
1000+ deer/vehicle collisions occurring each yr. in Deschutes Co. alone, plus declines due to
residents feeding deer which causes them to lose their migratory patterns, which causes
increased diseases and parasite loads due to crowding, and causes death due to toxins from
feeding high energy feeds such as corn cobs, alfalfa, and grains, and draws in predators due to
bunching of the deer around the feeding areas. Other reasons for declines are wildlife
unfriendly fencing and yard hazards causing injuries and deaths, and increased outdoor
recreation and off leash dogs which stress deer at a distance of 200 meters. Increased stress
hormones cause adverse affects on reproduction. Poaching accounts for 22% mortality,
whereas legal harvests cause 19% mortality. I also want to finally settle the myth perpetuated
in Oregon that mule deer declines are due to the "explosion" of cougar populations. Everyone
believing this myth quotes that the Oregon cougar population in 6000+. Read carefully ODFWs
Cougar Management Plan which clearly states that there are about 3300 ADULT cougars in
Oregon. That 6000+ figure INCLUDES kittens and juveniles. High kitten mortality and juvenile
replacement of adults is why MOST state wildlife officials omit them in counts! Multiple wildlife
biologists with three decades of research show that Oregon's cougar densities are about 2.1-
2.3/100km2 which closely matches that of WA, ID, and MT. In other words one cannot blame
an "explosion" of cougars as the cause of mule deer population decline! Considering the long
list of reasons for mule deer declines, is there any wonder why we are experiencing such
losses? Habitat must be protected and increased. Deschutes Co. land decisions recently have
been skirting the Goal 5 parameters by giving development that once was prohibited in winter
deer range the go-ahead for expansion of businesses in the Tumalo and MetollUS critical winter
ranges. The law must be adhered to for protecting these vital habitats if we are to see any
improvement in numbers.
154
Deschutes County does seem able to avoid unprecedented population and housing growth;
4/16/2021 11:05 AM
evading any semblance of a sustainable ecological environment will have dire consequences.
155
With changing climates and increased development, it's important to incorporate this new
4/16/2021 10:23 AM
verified information into the County's planning efforts to preserve and restore wildlife habitat.
156
if for no better reason than to know what we are about to lose.
4/16/2021 7:47 AM
157
Because ethical land management requires taking into consideration wildlife habitat needs.
4/16/2021 7:44 AM
158
Great presentation! I am very excited about this proactive approach towards integrating wildlife
4/15/2021 7:51 PM
and land use planning. It is so important to support all efforts to preserve our natural
environment, not only for our communities' quality of life but also for future generations.
8/12
Wildlife Inventory Update
159
This hasn't been done in a long time and we need to know if and how the wildlife populations
4/15/2021 7:45 PM
have changed.
160
1 was part of the survey team for the Oregon Eagle Foundation that located and conducted
4/15/2021 4:18 PM
Golden Eagle Nest Surveys throughout Oregon for ten years ending in 2019.. The proposed
expanded area for sensitive bird habitat appears to accurately incorporate areas of known
Golden Eagle nesting and territorial activity. Allowing less territory than the proposed sensitive
bird habitat would be disingenuous.
161
Deschutes county should be using the most comprehensive, up to date data to inform it's
4/15/2021 11:48 AM
decisions.
162
1 value wildlife and support using these new wildlife inventories.
4/15/2021 7:41 AM
163
Nature and Science. Nothing but truth.
4/14/2021 8:23 PM
164
This proposal needs to be adopted into the Comprehensive Plan to protect area wildlife for the
4/14/2021 8:20 PM
next seven generations. I've been a property owner in the proposed expanded areas since
1994. 1 have seen a decline in the mule deer population, songbirds, and raptors over the these
years.
165
Relevant data are the basis of all sound management decisions. Can't manage what is not
4/14/2021 6:33 PM
known. When we know and understand the resource, then an appreciation for what we have
and how to protect it can be developed.
166
Wildlife data tracking technologies has advanced so much in 30 years. Use the new stuff.
4/14/2021 4:06 PM
167
Wildlife should have rights and should have safe, appropriate, natural places to live.
4/14/2021 1:35 PM
168
Yes! With all of the new people moving in, wildlife should be a priority.
4/14/2021 12:19 PM
169
Humans are crowding out wildlife. We need to keep open lands for them!
4/14/2021 11:48 AM
170
It is crucial to keeping a balance of wildlife and human influences in this fast growing area of
4/14/2021 10:29 AM
development and population increases.
171
Mule deer population is in decline and there is a priority to save their species. Artificial
4/14/2021 9:33 AM
waterski lakes took away their habitat.
172
Should always be conducting research to best serve the needs of wildlife in the face of
4/14/2021 8:33 AM
continual growth and development.
173
Science should dictate areas needed for protecting wildlife.
4/13/2021 6:23 PM
174
Central Oregon is constructing new homes and infrastructure at an alarming rate. We need to
4/13/2021 4:44 PM
have a solid understanding of how our wildlife is coping with that growth.
175
Even though I hate it when the deer and ground squirrels eat my newly -planted native plants, 1
4/13/2021 4:38 PM
do understand that it is THEIR habitat and we are interlopers.
176 The growth in Bend is so insane -- we are cutting out areas for wildlife so that, ironically, more 4/13/2021 4:10 PM
people can live closer to wildlife! I think such an inventory would help guide growth that
preserves what we love
177 It is extremely important to have actual date on wildlife populations and how they have been 4/13/2021 3:07 PM
and will be impacted/harmed by human developments when making the County
Comprehensive Plan.
178 Wildlife is worth protecting 4/13/2021 2:29 PM
179 Protecting wildlife habitat is also a protection for humans. 4/13/2021 12:32 PM
180 With Deschutes County's exploding population & subsequent building houses in wildlife zones, 4/13/2021 12:13 PM
increasing awareness & tolerance for wildlife is in order. The reason people want to live in
Central OR is, in part, due to wildlife accessibility. This asset will not continue without
planning.
181 Would like building in wildlife areas curtailed and use best practices for decisions. Thank you. 4/13/2021 11:11 AM
182 Building is going on at a fast rate, affecting land, water, and air, and the wildlife doesn't get to 4/13/2021 9:24 AM
fill out a survey.
9/12
Wildlife Inventory Update
183
Development and population growth impacts need to be balanced by conservation efforts for
4/13/2021 9:00 AM
wildlife survival.
184
There is a reason Oregon is a beautiful place, land use laws. Habitat for wildlife is critical in the
4/13/2021 8:50 AM
quality of life we enjoy here. Our regional identity is connected to our wildlife. They are an
important part of what makes this place exceptional and distinct. Winter habitat is very
important so I hope you do seasonal studies to show migration and we learn to work within with
migration patterns.
185
1 am an advocate for our wildlife and wilderness both, neither of whom has a voice of their own
4/13/2021 7:27 AM
with which to speak for themselves. Central Oregon wildlife was here long before people were -
let's protect them as they are part of what makes our region beautiful and helps to keep our
ecosystem in balance.
186
Proximity to wildlife and nature is why people live here. If we keep paving over lands required
4/13/2021 7:02 AM
by wildlife to flourish in the effort to provide "affordable" housing our own quality of life will
diminish in turn.
187
Wildlife has taken a backseat to development for decades. Winter ranges are critical for large
4/12/2021 10:04 PM
animal migrations and current inventories can tell a factual story about the decline of many
species in the county at least in part to development.
188
So much change means wildlife have been impacted.
4/12/2021 9:27 PM
189
Because we share living space and natural resources with other wildlife species who were here
4/12/2021 8:52 PM
long before we moved into their home ranges.
190
We need to protect vital wildlife habitat as the area boorns with development
4/12/2021 8:28 PM
191
Results of County planning decisions directly affect local wildlife populations and general
4/12/2021 8:14 PM
biodiversity. In tern, biodiveristy can have a great impact on the aesthetics and overall health
of the County.
192
For most of the earth's existence, there have been no humans. But now, humanity threatens to
4/12/2021 7:49 PM
exterminate vast numbers of species that "get in our way". If we cannot share our world with
wildlife of all kinds, whether it's serves our interest or not, we will cease to have a planet that
supports humanity as well. Knowing the status of wildlife populations is the first step in that
process.
193
It is very important to allow adequate and appropriate habitat for wildlife.
4/12/2021 5:55 PM
194
Our natural areas are obviously a necessary part of the health, welfare and beauty of our lives.
4/12/2021 2:09 PM
And what goves us the right to exterminate everything in our path for the sake of money and
selfish interests
195
We must know the data to know how better to co -exist with rich diversity of wildlife in the
4/12/2021 2:03 PM
county.
196
Deschutes County is becoming way to overpopulated. Development is occurring everywhere.
4/12/2021 1.42 PM
This has huge effects on wildlife habitat whether that be developing within city limits or
expanding the Urban Growth Boundary. With this new development and growth is putting way
to much pressure on our limited resources and wildlife habitat. More people living in Deschutes
County means more people out in our forests and rural areas and having effects on wildlife
habitat. This will also lead to increase parking areas for trailhead and snowparks, etc. New
development means more people, less open space, less wildlife habitat, more stress on
wildlife, and less available safe migration habitat.
197
We strongly support wildlife conservation and we need the best available information to be
4/12/2021 1:36 PM
effective in doing so.
198
It is essential that citizens and govt agencies protect native ecosystems and all species that
4/12/2021 1:23 PM
rely on the health and viability of these ecosystems. We must be caring and
199
This wildlife cannot necessarily recover from what we humans do to their environment, so we
4/12/2021 1:20 PM
need to understand where they are and what they need.
200
If we, Bend residents show that we are not that interested in updating the County
4/12/2021 12:56 PM
Comprehensive Plan and Development code, it sends a message that we are more interested
in development than in the wildlife who live here too.
10 / 12
Wildlife Inventory Update
201
I am adamantly in favor of the inventories in order to support wildlife habitat, wild lands, and
4/12/2021 12:56 PM
biological diversity.
202
Of course wildlife should be considered before any new development.
4/12/2021 12:11 PM
203
It seems like it should be common sense that development code & planning needs to be
4/12/2021 12:10 PM
updated to accommodate the updated and more accurate wildlife inventories
204
Making decisions based outdated information is a waste of time and a misuse of resources. If
4/12/2021 11:49 AM
the county is going to adequately plan for development in a way that is complimentary to
wildlife use then up to date information is imperative.
205
Because wildlife habitat is declining and we need to protect the most important habitat that is
4/12/2021 11:46 AM
left
206
Critical habitat and corridors need to be protected
4/12/2021 10:59 AM
207
1 feel inventories validate decisions with facts.
4/12/2021 10:50 AM
208
As stewards of this land and resources, we must know what those resources are in order to do
4/12/2021 10:41 AM
the job.
209
They appear to be well researched and needed.
4/12/2021 10:29 AM
210
We are guests in nature; not the other way around. We've been 'abusing' our 'rights' way too
4/12/2021 10:17 AM
long. Let's start respecting our surroundings & lessening our'footprints'.
211
Pail of the allure and character of Bend is it's proximity to and integration with nature. For so
4/12/2021 10:13 AM
many reasons, it's worth maintaining the balance of wild and urban rather than becoming just
another city.
212
Wildlife is a central component of the natural environment that I enjoy.
4/12/2021 10:12 AM
213
With the loss of habitat there is a dramatic decrease in ungulate populations, especially our
4/12/2021 9:56 AM
deer and elk. We must revise and expand current wildlife inventories in order to protect habitat
which might disappear under proposed development. Not doing this will potentially exacerbate
loss of populations such as bald and golden eagles, and deer and elk.
214
We are building at a rate that is going to impact not only human quality of life, but all the
4/12/2021 9:45 AM
wildlife that also live here. We need to decide how enormous a city we want to become.
215
YES! Our natural wildlife and scenic beauty are defining characteristics of Bend which profit
4/12/2021 9:29 AM
all, including our industries.
216
not sure of the inventory process
4/12/2.021 9:25 AM
217
The densities in the 1991 report are woefully inadequate to gauge the impact of development
4/12/2021 9:22 AM
and recreation on 2021 habitat. The declining populations of mule deer attest to the lack of
county planning to factor wildlife into conversations about land use.
218
Too little into provided to respond. I support not allowing VRBO, Airbnb, and Bed and
4/12/2021 9:18 AM
Breakfasts on property zoned F2 with Wildlife overlay. County code allows the BnBs, as I
understand it, but was written prior to Airbnb, so there is no ordinance forbidding this business
from taking root.
219
Watching our wildlife is one of the joys of living in central Oregon.
4/12/2021 9:16 AM
220
1 see so much development around the entire perimeter of Bend, and am especially worried
4/12/2021 9:05 AM
about the west side that abuts NF lands. So much of the natural range of elk and deer is being
developed.
221
Never heard of a wildlife inventory area...
4/12/2021 9:04 AM
222
Wildlife habitat protection is critical.
4/12/2021 8:55 AM
223
As a long time resident, wildlife is one of the reasons which Deschutes County separates itself
4/12/2021 8:46 AM
from the endless sprawl happening in other urban areas.
224
We have an important opportunity to evaluate wildlife habitat and wildlife corridors and protect
4/12/2021 8:44 AM
an important part of our natural heritage, part of what makes our region special.
225
So hard to watch their habitat disappearing over the last 35 years. It is a dramatic change.
4/12/2021 8:42 AM
Wildlife Inventory Update
226
More care needs to be taken to protect these endangered species,
4/12/2021 8:33 AM
227
The wildlife was here first. We have a duty to restore as much of their habitat as we can.
4/12/2021 8:28 AM
228
We need to protect large blocks of un- fragmented habitat. With no mountain biking or
4/12/2021 8:26 AM
motorized recreation
229
Wildlife need protection from all the development.
4/12/2021 8:26 AM
230
Because habitat destruction/alteration is one of the biggest threats to biodiversity. It's high
4/12/2021 8:23 AM
time we develop responsibly.
231
Wildlife protections are so few, that any little bit will help. Central OR looks a lot different now
4/12/2021 8:18 AM
than it did when the wildlife protections were initially written and adopted in the mid-90's.
232
Wildlife needs to be protected and we cannot do so if we don't update the inventories. The
4/10/2021 5:04 PM
comprehensive plan will be the framework for protecting wildlife in the county as the county
continues to grow, which I think most people would support. I certainly do!
233
We need accurate data to help make decisions as to how to best preserve our wildife
4/9/2021 1:08 PM
234
Absolutely. We need data that is more relevant than the previous 1991 information.
4/9/2021 10:56 AM
235
An up-to-date wildlife inventory is an important planning tool, a leading edge indicator for the
4/9/2021 10:54 AM
heath of our environment and the right thing to do. If successful - to some extent - this project
will rebalance the widespread belief that these wildlife spp. in particular always loose out to
development.
12 / 12
Wildlife Inventory Update
Q3 Please share any additional comments relating to this project in the
space below.
Answered: 1/16 Skipped: 31.0
#
RESPONSES
DATE
1
Deer populations have declined because of mountain lion predation ....
5/7/2021 7:07 AM
2
We need better signage for wildlife migration corridors (E.G., Tumalo area crossings, such as
5/6/2021 1:18 PM
the few flagged Deer Crossing signs), and utilize seasonal reader boards!
3
This is very important and needs to happen.
5/5/2021 10:28 PM
4
Comments sent separately.
5/4/2021 7:50 PM
5
I'm more concerned with the declining numbers of mule deer as a result of predators and
5/4/2021 10:06 AM
poaching. We currently have a means of catching predators (law enforcement and citizens),
but due to the laws on the books we can't keep predators under control. I'm specifically talking
about cougars, and bears. Cougars are the greatest threat to our mule deer populations that we
should be able to control but we can't because of the laws on the books which do not allow the
use of hounds to hunt these animals. It is common sense that predators keep other predators
in control, Unfortunately the only predator that cougars have is man, and man has effectively
been taken out of the equation by the banning of hounds in the hunting of these predators.
Setting aside winter habitat is fine, but it doesn't solve the major problem of of an ever
expanding cougar population which decimates the deer population. With 6,400 cougars in our
state (ODFW), each killing one deer per week, the deer loss due to these cougars is 332,800
deer per year! That is a major problem that no winter habitat can effect in a positive way.
6
Need to build wildlife overpasses on HWY 97, not undercrossings if herds are to survive. All
5/4/2021 9:46 AM
other western states have it figured out.
7
Thank you for this information. It is great to see these beautiful animals ranges have grown.
5/4/2021 8:12 AM
Let's do what we can to keep them thriving.
8
If not based on current information, the project is useless. "garbage in, garbage out"
5/4/2021 7:22 AM
9
The county is not doing enough to protect our wildlife. If they have more accurate data and
5/3/2021 9:47 PM
knowledge more can be done to maintain and restore habitat.
10
i have noticed over the last 10 years around our place much more Deer and Elk moving around
5/3/2029. 3:03 PM
, we are close to LaPine state park area. 2 years ago we had a doe have a pair of fawns in our
back area. they hung around about 3 weeks and then were gone.
11
We need to protect our wildlife all over the state, but especially here in Central Oregon as this
5/3/2021 2:04 PM
is one of the greatest areas for Mule Deer and Elk in the country.
12
Protecting wildlife need not be difficult. Cooperation and information is essential.
5/2/2021 6:34 AM
13
1 was wondering when you update, if you could write how the inventory is done. I did not see
5/1/2021 9:49 PM
the zoom presentation.
14
1 see eagles and know they are nesting in the area. We need to protect these nesting areas
4/30/2021 4:43 PM
and make sure we are not taking the hunting areas away. We need to share this space we
inhabit and not destroy that which makes it special.
15
Every year I obtain a Deschutes Co. permit to place "give deer a brake" signs along Gosney
4/30/2021 3:01 PM
and Rickard Rds. during spring and fall migration to/from winter range. Public feedback from
these signs has been good to raise awareness that vehicle collisions are a major mortality
factor, and speed a factor in collisions. I'd like to think this appears to have reduced deer
deaths in these areas in the last 2 years. Why aren't there more public relations and efforts to
reduce collisions? Interagency partnerships, with insurance companies, road depts, ODFW,
conservation nonprofits and road frontage landowners could do more to do so, including
clearing ROWS for sight distance, encouraging removal of unnecessary fences, motion sensor
1/8
Wildlife Inventory Update
warning lights, etc. ODFW does very little stewardship to protect deer populations other than
agreeing to undercrossings. Prohibiting feeding deer in neighborhoods would be a good first
step to reduce deer vulnerability to vehicles. ODOT is the only agency being proactive in
funding undercrossings and fencing. Perhaps with updated migration data, problem areas can
be targeted for multi -pronged programs. Meanwhile deer numbers fall...
16
Think Wild should be relied in to help represent the wildlife, they have the knowledge and
4/30/2021 8:04 AM
foresight. Thank you for the opportunity to share our thoughts,
17
Wildlife is the reason I live here
4/29/2021 9:51 PM
18
I live next to a wildlife corridor east of pilot Butte and can help with counts.
4/29/2021 9:19 PM
19
While very limited in scope, it is more current and better than guessing.
4/29/2021 8:50 PM
20
Thank you for doing this.
4/29/2021 8:42 PM
21
Keep Deschutes wild. Please dont loose this natural resource to housing developments.
4/29/2021 7:21 PM
22
1 support wildlife habitat preservation. What can we do to help?
4/29/2021 7:19 PM
23
The County should prioritize additional funding or resources to update habitat information for
4/29/2021 7:00 PM
more species and habitat types, including T&E species, migration corridors, riparian species,
other furbearers, reptiles and amphibians, other bird species, and sensitive plant species.
24
Deschutes County needs infrastructure update ... increase in population is out of control.
4/29/2021 6:46 PM
25
Deschutes County as a whole should be WAY more conservative about development. Not only
4/29/2021 6:23 PM
are we eliminating wildlife diversity, we're also contributing to the warming local climate by
eliminating trees.
26
Just do it!
4/29/2021 4:59 PM
27
We are not isolated from the stressors that affect other species. Their extinction will affect our
4/29/2021 4:07 PM
own lives. Fish, bird, deer and elk populations have been severely reduced because of our
actions. Imagine a world in which they no longer exist. It would have a severe impact on the
businesses in this area.
28
How can we do effective wildlife management if the data isn't accurate? This is a necessity
4/29/2021 3:41 PM
29
The last inventory was taken in 1991; 30 years is a ridiculous amount of time to have passed
4/29/2021 3:40 PM
with no updated information on our important and revered wildlife populations.
30
This is a crucial project in light of rapid population growth in the county which has led to loss of
4/29/2021 1:55 PM
habitat for many native species.
31
1 think it's very important to preserve our wildlife and wildlife areas
4/29/2021 1:44 PM
32
It is Iona past time to do an update!
4/29/2021 1:35 PM
33
1 have a lot of deer that visit my property daily, on average about 10 to 15 deer a day. I live on
4/29/2021 1:33 PM
one acre of natural brush on the east side of Bend and I feel that all the new development is
pushing them out and that is not good.
34
Human population continues to stress wildlife habitat. We must have accurate information in
4/29/2021 1:10 PM
order to protect wildlife when making decisions for development.
35
We need to protect the ranges of these important species. Once they're gone, they're never
4/29/2021 1:08 PM
coming back. Zone accordingly.
36
It seems as through rapid development of new homes and industry is occuring without any
4/29/2021 1:00 PM
convicern for our linited water supply. Alos, I understand the benefits of convering the irrigation
canaas to pipe, but there seems to be little concern for the plants, trese, and animals that
depend/depended on the canals for water.
37
Failure to have recent survey data ensures poor policy decisions.
4/29/2021 12:50 PM
38
As a 30 year resident of Deschutes County, I have seen both the positive and negative effects
4/29/2021 12:16 PM
of the growth we have experienced. I believe it is vital that we have updated and accurate data
to factor in the impact our growth may be having on wildlife populations.
39
Please do everything you can to protect wildlife and it habitat. All over the country animals and
4/29/2021 12:13 PM
NM
Wildlife Inventory Update
birds are being driven out of their habitat --they have no place to live.
40
Wasn't the last update 30 years ago? It's critical to me and my family that we conduct an
4/29/2021 12:09 PM
inventory update so we can wisely preserve remaining wildlife habitat. That's part of why I live
and spend money in Central Oregon!
41
As a Deschutes County resident, I implore you to inventory and then protect wildlife habitat.
4/29/2021 12:05 PM
42
it is important to consider wildlife as our human population continues to grow.
4/29/2021 12:04 PM
43
We own our house and property near the current UGB on the south east side of the city of
4/29/2021 12:02 PM
Bend. We regularly see mule deer, bald and golden eagles in the area! It is crucial to maintain
trees (including mature pines and junipers) and to maintain intact habitat. All urban and rural
planning should mai rain and even bolster usable corridors and islands of habitat as the city of
Bend is planning new density housing. STOP allowing contractors to cut down every tree and
bulldoze current corridors for deer and other wildlife movement and migration inside the city's
UGB.
44
Central Oregon is becoming more developed, and we need to protect the wildlife that exist and
4/29/2021 12:00 PM
to help it populate as well. This project will keep the public informed.
45
We live in an agricultural area with a variety of wildlife. An inventory would help to inform how
4/29/2021 11:57 AM
people and wildlife can share the space in a positive way.
46
Adopting an updated inventory will be a great first step. Following that, giving the inventory
4/29/2021 11:42 AM
meaningfulness by threading it through planning documents and processes will be critically
important.
47
Can you just survey the public on what they see out their windows? In Tumalo I see deer not
4/29/2021 11:26 AM
on the current range map, and Elk also. And Eagles hunt in my field each spring.
48
It is important to know what the population levels and habitat usage of specific species are so
4/29/2021 10:25 AM
that we can prevent destruction of habitat while still allowing expansion for our own growing
population.
49
Our wildlife is retreating & has been reduced in multiple areas in & around Bend & Deschutes
4/29/2021 10:04 AM
County. New trails/new housing developments/increased traffic through & surrounding sensitive
elk, mule deer, songbird/migratory bird, birds of prey habitat is having a major negative impact.
We must do better!!!
50
There has been so much growth in Deschutes county over the last 30 years. This is greatly
4/29i2021 9:33 AM
needed for conservation purposes.
51
It's important that we embrace and protect the natural and wild parts of this region. This is
4/29/2021 9:22 AM
where the true beauty of central Oregon lies. The spaces 'between' aren't enough.
52
It is imperative that we understand that the wellbeing of our wild neighbors is in our best
4/29/2021 9:20 AM
interest.
53
1 strongly support using wildlife inventories to update the comprehensive plan and development
4/27/2021 9:21 AM
code. We've lived in Bend since 1984 and have owned our house and property in Deschutes
County (in deer winter range) since 1993. Living with wildlife enriches our lives daily. Using the
best available science to make planning decisions not only allows wildlife to continue to exist,
but it improves the lives of the people who share this landscape.
54
This change will devalue land. Property owners should be notified and, in all fairness,
4/26/2021 10:08 AM
compensated for the loss of land value of land they purchased at prices based on current
development expectations.
55
Please make the inventories available to the general public.
4/24/2021 3:58 PM
56
The story board was well done, although the final graphic with sliders did not render any maps
4/24/2021 1:32 PM
on my browser while the others worked fine. Regarding the inventories, this effort essentially
inventories habitat, which is of course extremely important. However, assessing the health,
trends, and impacts to wildlife populations also requires estimating abundance or at a
minimum, indices of abundance, for key species. Also, while the ungulates and raptors are
most iconic, I think that other species might provide better representation of different trends in
the County's ecosystems. These might include amphibians, small mammals, resident birds,
etc.
3/8
Wildlife Inventory Update
57
Although you don't address the water levels in the Deschutes, I watch my area of the river
4/24/2021 10:51 AM
fluctuate tremendously in spring, summer and fall. It is a disgrace and it happens in hours with
no warnings or ability for wildlife to adapt to such drastic changes. It almost seems criminal.
58
Don't know anything about this and what it implies.
4/24/2021 9:56 AM
59
Stop the unbridled so called Smart code development that interfaces with designated areas.
4/24/2021 6:25 AM
Use buffers of low density rural zoning . New housing developments are not needed for vrbo
and bankers.
60
1 would rather develop density in the existing city, and near city limits buildable lands. Make
4/23/2021 6:55 PM
full use of all properties in and near the city boundary.
61
Let's keep our wildlife safe while we continue to expand as a city. The animals were here first
4/23/2021 12:59 PM
and deserve respect, and safety.
62
We have lived in the same house on the west side of Bend for 24 years, and would say that
4/23/2021 12:55 PM
the deer population has never been healthier! There are herds of deer feeding on everything
and VERY healthy! We have recently experienced wild turkeys and bobcats. (This is new for
us,) The wild life is VERY plentiful and very well fed on Awbrey Butte!
63
Wildlife is impacted in so many way, not the least of which is road kill. Great swaths of
4/23/2021 12:53 PM
watering is lost to irrigation piping. The public needs specific information in order to have
informed perspective.
64
Are you interested in protecting wildlife or do you have other reasons for this. Please clarify
4/23/2021 12:30 PM
65
1 would like more information about this.
4/23/2021 9:20 AM
66
Don't know anything about the project but have seen a great decline in deer the past 20 years
4/23/2021 9:13 AM
especially.
67
it will be interesting to see the results, I have MORE deer, rabbits and a lot less predators to
4/23/2021 8:27 AM
keep the populations down (coyotes, etc.)
68
1 would hope that botanical surveys are also included so that rare plants are not wiped out for
4/23/2021 8:23 AM
development
69
See above.
4/23/2021 8:18 AM
70
We have small herds of Deer out here year round. We enjoy seeing them and don't want to
4/23/2021 12:12 AM
lose that enjoyment.
71
We have taken so much of wildlife's resources away, if we don't change our ways we won't
4/22/2021 10:51 PM
have any wildlife left.
72
Would appreciate info about this project. Send to Awerkma@gmail.com
4/22/2021 10:50 PM
73
We have to "connect the dots" so the natural wildlife - and its habitat should be taken into
4/22/2021 10:48 PM
consideration, and have equality with the development of human habitat and the supporting
infrastructure. The habitat that's destroyed for man once belonged to wildlife. ..and it's often
the very reason man wants to share the unique country. We need to be more sensitive with
laws to protect it.
74
Don't trust blue politics wildlife management practices
4/22/2021 10:40 PM
75
Please see above. I believe we need to have a better understanding and accurate picture of
4/22/2021 10:24 PM
wildlife populations in order to better support and enhance native wildlife habitat.
76
Human beings have been taking away land from wildlife. That isn't fair but it is happening.
4/22/2021 10:18 PM
77
1 strongly support the proposed Wildlife Inventory Update. I support land use planning and
4/22/2021 10:01 PM
decision -making based on the best available science and most up-to-date research regarding
our region's wildlife populations.
78
When I hike, I often hear the sound of people shooting. Do the sounds of guns negatively
4/22/2021 9:06 PM
affect wildlife, whether or not the shots are from poachers or people shooting at targets? How
can I help make the shooter dissapear?
79
The health of our wildlife populations is a good indicator of the general health of the local
4/22/2021 7:11 PM
ecosystems that have a direct bearing on the health and well-being of the people who live here.
I
Wildlife Inventory Update
Too much competition from burgeoning human populations usually is to the detriment of the
local flora and fauna....sornething we should certainly keep in mind, as it is the health and
beauty of the natural environment which serves as a powerful magnet attracting those people
here. We live in a fragile high desert ecosytem, which is already suffering from the impacts of
climate change and environmental degradation..., there are limits to growth!
80
It breaks my heart to see so many deer roarning the streets, and backyards in Bend. I wish
4/22/2021 1:51 PM
something could be done to limit the number.
81
Understanding the wildlife populations and planning appropriately is imperative to undo darnage
4/22/2021 1:07 PM
and begin healing the Central Oregon ecosystem that so many people... and animals rely on.
82
We need greater protection against dogs within the WA overlay zones which disturb wildlife
4/22/2021 9:11 AM
migration. Evidence is clear that both the smell of dogs and the barking of dogs decrease the
numbers of all wildlife.
83
Consider migrating birds.
4/22/2021 7:12 AM
84
1 believe this type of information should be updated more frequently in the rapidly changing
4/20/2021 7:06 PM
environment.
85
The inventory update should include much more than elk and deer winter ranges and eagle
4/20/2021 1:49 PM
nesting areas. The Greater Sage Grouse is nearing state and federal listing status. Leks both
present and historic should be mapped and protected. Inventories should include, birds,
mammals, plants, reptiles and any rare insects.
86
These surveys need to be updated and given to the public for planning and advising about
4/19/2021 9:41 PM
future growth in CO.
87
1 have no idea what these inventories are
4/19/2021 1:53 PM
88
Not only do the wildlife inventories need to be updated, but Deschutes County needs a plan for
4/18/2021 3:16 PM
updating them on a regular bases. USFWS recommended 2 mile buffers for golden eagles
should be adopted so development within that area can be reviewed. Additionally, the county
needs a wildlife biologist on staff.
89
1 am pleased to see such increases in acres protected for mule deer, elk, and our bald and
4/17/2021 7:59 PM
golden eagles. Now if only the county will allow for restraint on expansion of development in all
these critical areas, it will make a tremendous difference in the survivability of our wildlife that
we all cherish.
90
We should update as the area has changed a lot over last 30 years. I care about wildlife
4/16/2021 9:09 PM
91
Deschutes County's current and future growth trends are the primary driver of ecological
4/16/2021 11:05 AM
unraveling across micro- to regional scales. in the proverbial sense, the species we identify
remain "canaries of warning" but too often ignore other "keystone" species also requires
broader understanding of the fundamental complexities removed by human activities.
Moreover, the interactions of human activities are exponentially compounded by human
behavior. This requires clear, dedicated, purposeful, and logical and seamless strategies
among Federal, State, County and local agencies that is currently missing. An example
involving our local situation is the unintelligent -able ability to provide species and safety
decisions. For example, how are the Deschutes important comprehensive plan for wildlife
going to avoid the traps of USFS, ODFS, OSP, Sheriff Department constrained by CFRs,
Dingell Act, State laws, county statute, not to mention the memorandums, agencies' law
enforcement handbooks, ... when each of these have overlapping jurisdictions regarding the
location of a bald eagle successfully reproducing nest. Which is within (less than 150-yds) a
USFS waterfowl hunting/shooting area and with the established Upper Deschutes River Wild
and Scenic River? Not to mention hunting shot impacting and endangering campgrounds,
resident homes, and a wide range of recreating land users? Yes, the plan is a good beginning
but will remain moot if population, human unsafe behavior, the complex "string ball" of
agencies are not unwound. Best of luck!!!
92
Outside the urban boundaries, we need wildlife corridors to give them some chance of survival
4/16/2021 7:47 AM
in an ever increasing populace.
93
This proposal fails to include other sensitive birds in this region. We need to include
4/16/2021 7:44 AM
endangered and sensitive birds and other animal species in our inventories and our
management plans and zoning.
5/8
Wildlife Inventory Update
94
1 understand this is a pilot project and the reasons behind selecting the wildlife inventory that
4/15/2021 7:51 PM
you did. That said, I would like to see other wildlife incorporated into this process. Perhaps
there are organizations that could help support this endeavor. It would be phenomenal if
Deschutes County could be an example of how this should be done. Great job and kudos to
your panel of experts.
95
I'm glad to see the county is attempting to update guidance (rules and regs) about
4/15/2021 7:24 PM
development/zoning and building issues as part of the comprehensive plan.
96
1 would like to see this project promoted more. I believe many Deschutes County residents
4/15/2021 11:48 AM
would be interested in supporting this update if they knew about it.
97
1 am a 5th generation Oregonian and have lived in Bend for over 32 years. I have been
4/14/2021 8:23 PM
devastated to see the destruction of habitat for animals, insects, plants that have evolved here
since the beginning of time. Development for one species: Humans, is crime to this planet and
all of her inhabitants. We need to think beyond ourselves or there will be nothing left to love
and enjoy. I remember when Elk Meadows was just that. Now it is that in name only. Even the
slash burns that are done each year destroy hundreds of species: squirrels, rock chucks,
badger, porcupines, spiders, ants, desert toads. The list goes on and on. Please, save this
part of earth for the animals, insects, plants. We are nothing without them....
98
Please keep me posted on these proceedings: Marguerite Saslow
4/14/2021 8:20 PM
canyonwren2646@gmai I. corn
99
To get "buy -in" from people living in the urban wildland interface, the knowledge of what is
4/14/2021 6:33 PM
there is necessary. Only then can a program based on "watchable wildlife" be developed, and
such a program is necessary to get taxpayer support.
100
How does someone help with this project?
4/14/2021 4:06 PM
101
Thanks for looking at this issue and asking for public input. Also, I moved away from Bend 6
4/14/2021 1:35 PM
months ago because development is out of control there and it was horrifying to see deer
feeding habitats destroyed as well as seeing deer migrating in Spring and Winter and having to
cross high speed roadways as well as city streets with moderate traffic.
102
Local wildlife populations should take precedence over tourists and transplants. Development
4/14/2021 12:19 PM
can be done intelligently, not just for the sake of growth and money.
103
There is a limit to human development in order to keep the wildlife. Deschutes County needs to
4/14/2021 11:48 AM
recognize and act onthis i!r.mediate!y.
104
It's also crucial to our future well being on the planet in general. The decrease in biodiversity in
4/14/2021 10:29 AM
general is already having a deleterious effect on the planet.
105
Why in the world are trails being widened & more bikes being encouraged to come through, in
4/14/2021 10:08 AM
one of the few places on the Deschutes Wilderness River Trail, where the elk still exist? !? It's
only a matter of short time, before they stop coming here as well. But hey more people & more
bikes, screw the migratory birds & elk...
106
Loss of habit is irreversible. It would decry to future generations of humans and animals the
4/14/2021 9:33 AM
right to a healthy, sustainable, natural ecology.
107
Need to close more areas to motorized vehicles west of the river off highway 126 and lower
4/14/2021 9:17 AM
speed limits in rural neighborhood neighborhoods.
108
It would seem that past efforts to protect winter ranges from human encroachment has failed,
4/13/2021 8:11 PM
and now the species have moved, no gained in population size as clearly stated in the report,
so why should adding even more bureaucracy, more reports, more committees, more working
groups achieve anything more than the previous failed system did. The only thing this will
achieve is a good paying government jobs for a few people who like to push paper around and
do absolutely nothing to help the situation with diminishing winter ranges for these species.
109
Curious why you are not considering within a city UGb (ie Bend) along canyon and bordering
4/13/2021 4:57 PM
NF
110
1 was astounded (and thrilled) to have a bald eagle fly down the street right in front of me.
4/13/2021 4:38 PM
Things like this make this place special.
111
Wildlife corridors, winter range, historical migration pathways need to be protected for one of
4/13/2021 12:13 PM
Central OR/Deschutes County's desirable assets --wildlife & their specific required habitat.
•
Wildlife Inventory Update
Wildlife without habitat will not be successful.
112
I'm glad this is being looked at snd hope that development planning looks at the big picture so
4/13/2021 8:50 AM
wildlife and humans can live together. Nature and wild places are what make this area a
destination. Smart development plans that include wildlife and their migration patterns are key
to our future.
113
The US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management should be full partners in the process
4/13/2021 7:33 AM
given the extent of Federal lands in the county and in the survey areas. Access of NRIS data
alone is insufficient as a tool. Federal biologists and land managers often have knowledge of
habitat conditions and species occurrence not captured in NRIS. They also have important
management responsibilities and abilities to direct management for the species of concern.
Additionally, this survey should also consider other important and limited habitats such as
riparian corridors and ephemeral wetlands.
114
1 am concerned that mule deer elk and eagles are suffering from increased development in
4/13/2021 7:27 AM
Deschutes County. Please update wildlife inventories as ranges have changed in the thirty
years since the 1991 assessment.
115
We live out in McKenzie canyon which is already in a wildlife combining zone . This winter we
4/13/2021 7:26 AM
have seen far fewer deer than in past winters and the last time elk came through was in
November. Apparently there are two confirmed Golden eagle nests up in the rim rock behind
our farm. The county needs to rethink all the rampant development that is happening now .
Loss of habitat is the greatest cause of wildlife decline. Thank you , Tim and Wendy DiPaolo
116
We have a home in Sunriver and delight every year in seeing the deer and elk move through
4/13/2021 6:16 AM
our area. It was worrisome to learn the deer are in decline.
117
Wildlife and climate change go hand in hand when considering new development codes.
4/12/2021 10:04 PM
Particularly where water is concerned and how droughts have affected wildlife species. Codes
should consider impacts to wildlife habitats and populations as a very high priority. Incentives
or requirements for solar should be part of any new codes for large developments and or large
homes over an determined square footage. No more golf courses should be allowed until water
sustainability is determined.
118
Thanks I support wildlife inventories
4/12/2021 8:28 PM
119
Hopefully the Biden administration will continue to take a forceful role in enforcing policies on
4/12/2021 7:49 PM
BLM and Forest Service land that support wildlife, rather than people.
120
The inventories are cursory in scope. The project aims to survey 'wildlife' but it only covers
4/12/2021 7:42 PM
deer, elk, and eagles. If you are really concerned about conserving wildlife and habitats in the
region, you need to do more comprehensive surveys. According to ODFW's own conservation
strategy, Deschutes County comprises 4 different ecoregions, and these ecoregions support
many species that are listed as senstive by ODFW. And yet they only want to manage for
deer, elk, and eagles. In the East Cascades ecoregion alone, there are at least 3 fish species,
4 amphibians, 3 reptiles, a dozen bird species, and 11 mammals listed as sensitive or critical
(this list includes neither deer nor elk). I realize that not all of these species occur on lands
managed by Deschutes County, but many do. And how will you know if you don't survey for
them?
121
Wildfires will be even more inevitable because of the ever increasing population and growth in
4/12/2021 2:09 PM
Central Oregon.
122
We should commit resources for law enforcement to stop poaching and to create safe passage
4/12/2021 2:03 PM
ways to stop the killing of animals on roads.
123
To reiterate we strongly support adopting new wildlife inventories.
4/12/2021 1:36 PM
124
A Wildlife Inventory is long overdue in Deschutes County
4/12/2021 1:20 PM
125
Residents and visitors love wildlife, but more importantly, wildlife lives here and deserves the
4/12/2021 12:56 PM
support and protection of Deschutes County.
126
This is important work. Thank you for the time you are putting into the process.
4/12/2021 11:49 AM
127
Wildlife is an important aspect of this ecosystem we call home. We enjoy sharing with our
4/12/2021 10:41 AM
animal neighbors and should consider them in any plans.
128
Wildlife is extremely important and habitat and wildlife corridors should take precedence over
4/12/2021 10:26 AM
UFAIJ
Wildlife Inventory Update
expanded development and sprawl. As should farm land versus housing.
129
There is a lot of economic temptation and pressure to build and grow quickly, but there's value
4/12/2021 10:13 AM
in taking a moment to plan WITH nature, to get creative, and to consider the long term
consequences and benefits of development.
130
Within the 30 years since the last inventories of wildlife , there has been dramatic residential
4/12/2021 9:56 AM
development of habitat that once was used by wildlife . We must reassess habitat loss and
project forward more protections to avoid what already is happening, such as elk being forced
to use golf courses and neighborhoods for foraging and deer overwintering within Bend city
limits, which puts both species at great risk from crossing roads, gathering at neighborhood
feeding spots which risks spread of disease and parasites, threats from dogs, overgrazing
native plant food sources, loss of migration incentives, and increased stress levels from
recreationists.
131
Does anyone at the County Development Dept, actually care about the impact all this growth is
4/12/2021 9:45 AM
having on our wildlife, or is it just MONEY MONEY MONEY?? I'd like a response. Tracy Boyer
btracy@bendbroadband.com
132
Thank You!
4/12/2021 9:29 AM
133
See above
4/12/2021 9:18 AM
134
The old maps are well out of date. We need updated information on our wildlife's needs.
4/12/2021 9:16 AM
135
You should include a link to more info on wildlife inventory areas. Where are they? What
4/12/2021 9:04 AM
restrictions would they impose, etc?
136
We must protect both base habitat and migration corridors in Central Oregon!
4/12/2021 8:55 AM
137
Wildlife is disappearing. They need our help.
4/12/2021 8:47 AM
138
it is sad that deer have to move into urban areas to survive.
4/12/2021 8:46 AM
139
This information is important for making sound land use decisions that will stand the test of
4/12/2021 8:44 AM
time and allow us to grow economically and develop in an orderly, rather than a haphazard,
fashion.
140
Thank you for protecting wildlife habitat through land use.
4/12/2021 8:28 AM
141
We need to designate large blocks of land that is not disturbed by human activity
4/12/2021 8:26 AM
142
Going forward, all biodiversity must be considered, not just the charismatic megafauna.
4/12/2021 8:23 AM
143
Fun and exciting!
4/10/2021 5:04 PM
144
Open spaces is important as well as stopping the use of things like wedding venues in wildlife
4/9/2021 1:08 PM
areas
145
These maps are awesome! They give us up to date information on our wildlife's behavior and
4/9/2021 10:56 AM
patterns so we can make smart and informed decisions for our future!
146
If this project were a genie, these open houses will start with the first toe out of the bottle. The
4/9/2021 10:54 AM
County should give equal regard to the opinions expressed on the limited data update, future
expectations and what impact this might have on future building in wildlife areas. The County
is to be congratulated for approaching this topic head on.
:
Virtual Open House Q&A
Summaries
WILDLIFE OPEN HOUSE Q&A SUMMARY - APRIL 15, 2021
Questions answered during the open house event (please note that some questions were edited
for clarity):
1. How did the TAC pick these three inventories?
With Dr. Wente facilitating, the TAC reviewed the 12 inventories that currently are associated with
wildlife in Deschutes County; at the end of the meeting they ended up with a selection with the
inventories that are in most need of being updated, that have changed the most, and that
commonly come into conflict with land use/development. These are inventories where the best
supporting data was available, since best science practices has changed significantly since they
were originally set up.
2. The expanded deer winter range looks justified. The report should also note that urban
areas such as Bend and Redmond are also historic deer winter habitat and are presently
used by deer as the observations show, and observed by many residents. This comes
into play with analyses pertaining to urban growth expansion.
We do understand that mule deer have a very wide range, including the City of Bend. They use
quite a range of habitat. The idea here, however, is to choose habitat areas that are particularly
important to that species and to the long-term maintenance and management. Mule deer are a
great example of this, because you have a lot of anecdotal evidence of mule deer sightings. But
just because you see the animals there does not mean that it's the key habitat. The idea is to
protect and manage these areas that are important to the long-term maintenance of the mule
deer population in the County.
ODFW is very concerned about mule deer; in Central OR the population is declining at a rate of
about 10 percent a year. We are trying to look at the areas where we think we have a chance to
improve the populations; for better or worse, our urban areas are not those areas. ODFW refers
to those areas as "sinks," where they're not able to sustain themselves as they were evolved to do.
3. Would there be plans or a need to collar more mule deer to study their winter range
more on the east side? I saw a lot more mapped on the west side. When expanding the
mule deer range, such as in the southeast, how you determine the boundaries of where
that area is? Is it individual deer, or the number who pass through, or some other
metric?
Collar data: for the green polygons that are labeled "collared deer," that is just a subset of the
animals that were collared. It was meant to fill in a gap for animals that had been collared to cover
other parts of the county within the context of the study Dr. Wente cited. So the collared animals
have a much wider coverage than just the green shapes in the snapshot in the StoryMap. There
are no plans for an additional collar study for some time; that was a huge undertaking, and collar
studies are currently being conducted/planned in other areas throughout Eastern Oregon.
Defining the boundaries of the inventory: in some cases those boundaries follow the biological
winter range, and also natural geographic breaks, such as the Deschutes River. This isn't to say
that deer don't occur out of those areas, but these have been determined to be the most
important.
4. Do you have any observations comparing natural resource management in Washington
versus Oregon?
It's difficult to compare the two states; land use law is quite different, as is population density.
They have a different set of issues so it's difficult to compare.
S. Regarding the proposed eagle inventory, there weren't any nests identified south of the
Bend urban area —why is that? Also, is the'/4 mile radius sufficient?
The reason we don't see many golden eagle nests immediately south of Bend is because there 1)
aren't many nest/eyrie locations in that area and 2) finding eagle nests in trees is quite difficult so
there may be nests in that area of which we are unaware. Golden eagles are usually seen more in
open country and will nest on cliff faces and rocky outcroppings, but they can and do nest in trees.
With respect to buffers, bald eagles have a 660-foot nest buffer, which is based on the 2007
National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. No such national guideline exists for golden eagles,
but protection measures are much more conservative since their populations are generally
declining. USFWS applies a 2-mile buffer to golden eagles which essentially serves as a screening
distance, or an awareness distance. For these larger buffers, USFWS's recommendations will be
very project dependent, depending on what rises to the level of disturbance.
6. It is important to recognize migratory corridors, and that there are more species that
need to be inventoried and evaluated. How is the County addressing other inventories
beyond these three?
When the TAC originally met to discuss inventories, they also discussed selecting alternatives. The
grant funding was awarded to select three inventories, so this project must work within those
bounds —it is not that these others do not deserve to be addressed. The alternatives selected
were the mule deer migration corridor, which has new data and a large change, and threatened
and endangered (T&E) species, the Oregon spotted frog. In the latter case, it was determined that
because it's federally listed under the Endangered Species Act, it already benefits from a layer of
protection; in addition, it is a smaller geographic portion of the County.
The Community Development Department is treating this as a pilot project; there isn't normally a
mechanism for counties to regularly update these inventories. This grant is allowing us to chip
away at the start of this process. We hope to be able to address other species potentially in the
future.
7. our community needs to think beyond just the species, but also recognize that demands
and challenges these species experience is ever -changing, and new species are traveling
through the area. Monitoring is so important to ensure that these species remain viable
and plentiful and productive. Any thoughts on monitoring?
Speaking for ODFW, the primary species of focus in this district currently is mule deer; monitoring
is a priority for all wildlife management units in the area because of the population decline. For
mule deer, ODFW conducts twice yearly surveys: December herd composition (does, bucks,
fawns); and spring/late winter they fly the area to observe survival through winter and gather data
for population estimates, and that's how ODFW can determine the decline in population. Every
three years, each part of the mule deer winter range in Central Oregon is getting flown intensively
via helicopter surveys; wintering deer are counted and the numbers are run through a scientific
model. Elk are the same: annual aerial monitoring of all known herds every February/March. It's a
core part of ODFW's operations statewide. For eagles, federal partners and many nonprofits
monitor populations regularly. Oregon has an excellent dataset for golden eagles, thanks in no
small part to the Oregon Eagle Foundation.
8. As the use of drones increases by recreationists, are there any plans to protect eagles
and mule deer from the impacts of drones on these populations?
Drones, electric mountain bikes —there are lots of 'new'technologies that impact these species.
ODFW has rules against using drones for hunting purposes, and there are also state laws (ORS
498.128) against the harassment of wildlife. ODFW tries to adapt regulations to new technology
impacts, but it's a constant issue.
For bald and golden eagles, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act, and the Airborne Hunting Act outline what activities are prohibited and impose punishments
for a person found in violation of those acts; USFWS has legal jurisdiction to address them. These
penalties are not inconsequential and USFWS has educational materials discussing how to avoid
disturbing eagles and nests, and what to do if you see someone in violation. In addition, the
Airborne Hunting Act has a provision about disturbing or harassing wildlife with any airborne
device. There are legal penalties for flying drones for flying around nests or following in-flight
eagles. These are real issues beyond just drones —it's recreation in general: biking, hiking, dogs,
etc.
9. For elk and mule deer, what is the relationship between historic range and populations
to what is found today? Are elk expanding? If yes, is that desirable?
Elk populations in Central Oregon have grown slightly the last 10-20 years. Some people may be
aware of the herd near Cloverdale, between Redmond and Sisters. That herd historically was
south of Bend, but they were displaced by residential development and eventually landed where
they are now. Desirability of elk, however, is in the eye of the beholder; they live in large groups,
and can be destructive to crops, but also some people want to view them. This is part of the
reason why ODFW is advocating for the expansion of the inventory into the historic biological
winter range.
The current inventory is still valuable elk habitat; most of this is in southern Deschutes County and
it continues to be the area with the most density. New polygons represent where ODFW is seeing
additional elk in the winter surveys, and clip them to the statewide ODFW elk winter range.
Similarly, for mule deer, the existing inventory remains important.
10. Are these inventories final? If not, can people provide additional information or data to
inform the inventories?
There is a process prescribed by state law
(https•//secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/displayDivisionRules.action?selectedDivision=3073) on how
an inventory update occurs, including how the inventories are determined and finalized. These
largely come from ODFW and federal agencies but there are opportunities for the public to weigh
in and those agencies can evaluate that information as they see fit. This information can be
relayed to Tanya Saltzman (Tanya.saltzman@deschutes.org), who will forward them to the
relevant agency partner with the appropriate level of privacy. The County will look to the agencies
to vet that information and provide appropriate recommendations.
11. Can you give some examples of changes to the Comprehensive Plan that could evolve
from the updated inventories?
The last time the county updated its inventories was 2014/2015, when sage grouse inventories
produced by ODFW that affected Central and Eastern Oregon. These inventories were adopted
into the Comprehensive Plan, as well as specific rules adopted by Oregon Land Conservation and
Development Commission (LCDC) that were required to evaluate large-scale development in sage
grouse habitat. This was a statewide effort to preempt a listing of sage grouse on the Federal
Endangered Species Act.
12. What does this mean today if I am a landowner and I own property in one of these new
inventory areas? How will this affect the development code? How will this affect our
Wildlife Area Combining Zone and Sensitive Bird and Mammal Combining Zones?
At this moment, nothing specific is being proposed. In the next phase of the process, there will be
a robust public process to propose and evaluate potential actions to the development code,
combining zones, and the Comprehensive Plan. Under the current phase of this project, County
staff goals are to provide the education about the biological inventories, and obtain public —and
Planning Commission —input to hear opinions and perspectives on a possible update, which will
then be relayed to the Board of County Commissioners. Specific changes to the Comprehensive
Plan or development code would come as part of the next part of the process, aiming to achieve a
balance between conservation goals and development expectations.
13. What are the deliverables of the grant? What are the expectations for the next phase?
In terms of the grant and its deliverables, we will have a second open house on April 29, gather all
public input, compile that input into a report for the Board of County Commissioners, and present
potential options to move forward (For instance, would an inventory update be a process of its
own, or integrated into the larger Comprehensive Plan update?). We hope to have a direction later
this summer. The grant itself ends on May 31 and the initial public engagement summary report
will be complete by that date.
14. How much money was the grant? And are there any benchmarks for how much a
complete inventory would cost?
The DLCD grant covered two different projects: this ($15,000), and another project concerning
wildfire ($10,000), with a match from the County. The total for the two was $25,000, which was
eventually reduced by $5,000 due to COVID-related state budget issues.
Regarding a larger inventory update undertaking, with this project, one of the reasons these
species were selected was because the data were available. But what does that mean for us as a
County, or for state agencies, or for the community, for other inventories to invest in collecting
other data and evaluating them as well? This isn't necessarily something we can address now but
is extremely important to consider as we move forward, perhaps beyond the pilot project.
Additional questions submitted that were not addressed during the live event.
Why not call the bald and golden eagle inventories eagle inventory?
These two datasets are actually subsets of a larger inventory called Habitat Areas for Sensitive
Birds. These areas are identified for several species in addition to bald and golden eagles,
including osprey, prairie falcon, great grey owl, and great blue heron.
believe it is very important to incorporate these updated inventories. If we fail to
adequately protect wildlife and the natural environment Deschutes County's appeal
and quality of life will likely suffer. Are there any estimates of the costs of not using
these updated inventories?
Currently there is not such an estimate, which would require an economic model that is
beyond the scope of this project. However, part of the state requirements for adopting a new
inventory will involve an ESEE (Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy) analysis, which
examines such consequences that could result from a decision to allow, limit, or prohibit a
conflicting use.
For more information about ESEE analyses, please see
https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=175713
Do any of your alternatives reflect climate change?
While there is little doubt that climate change affects wildlife habitat, this project is taking into
account the current available data (rather than projections, which potentially could account for
future variations attributable to climate change), based on observations, collaring, etc. Any
updates to the development code or Comprehensive Plan would reflect that data. It is also
important to note that the very act of updating and expanding habitat protections of existing
wildlife habitat makes for a more resilient landscape in the face of many potential changes,
including climate change, wildfires, continued increases in development and recreation.
How would the County propose to improve the actual protections for these wildlife
in the WA overlay zones? Recently, here on Sisemore Road in the middle of the
Tumalo Winter Deer Range there were 50 elk within 3 miles of us, along with the
daily migration of deer across my property. Yet, a neighbor, who has been in
California for the past three months was allowing'guests' come to his property who
allowed their multiple dogs run loose on both BLM property and my property. While
smiling as best as possible, I tried to talk with these dog owners about the dogs
potentially interfering with the deer and elk. As a result of my efforts to protect the
wildlife, the vacationing neighbor is now threatening me with a lawsuit.
The issues in question are already illegal under Oregon state statutes, (ORS 498.102, ORS
498.006, ORS 609.095), even without a change in the actual protections. The proper law
enforcement should be contacted in these situations. Oregon State Police Fish & Wildlife
Troopers handle fish & wildlife related violations, and have officers locally.
Related comment:
Since there are multiple agencies here tonight, I might mention the need for
coordinated law enforcement for the protections for wildlife that have been discussed.
Speaking for USFWS, we work hard to coordinate with as many agencies as possible; that
includes BLM, USFS, and USFWS law enforcement as well as OSP. Most federal law
enforcement agents operate with few individuals on a large scale, and I suspect OSP is in a
similar boat. Additionally, I rely heavily on ODFW, Oregon State Parks, various federal agencies,
and the public to keep me apprised of any situation that might warrant involving our law
enforcement.
WILDLIFE OPEN HOUSE Q&A SUMMARY - APRIL 29, 2021
Questions answered during the open house event (please note that some questions were edited
for clarity):
In the Lower Bridge area, there are areas that are currently identified as part of wildlife
inventories, but also some areas that are not included. There's a recognition of the
importance of population counts, in relationship to acreage, and how to reconcile the two
of those.
These observations are spot-on: the Lower Bridge area is crucial to wildlife, and particularly mule
deer, which is why the ODFW team used different forms of data (helicopter surveys, habitat
model, collar data) to inform that recommendation to increase those critical protection areas that
aren't currently protected. This was the task of the group to come with data to inform the County
of these potential additional areas.
What about the impacts that wildlife have on private property, such as commercial
farmers? Is ODFW aware of programs that help offset those impacts? What type of
resources are available?
ODFW is mandated in statute to address wildlife damage and this is a large part of what they do.
It's also important to note that the majority of habitat is on private lands. ODFW has a budget to
supply fencing and other protective measures, including damage tags and special hunting
opportunities to keep the animals moving around a bit more. ODFW has a lot of tools to help
private landowners manage that relationship between private landowners and wildlife.
How did the TAC select these three inventories?
The Technical Advisory Committee reviewed the existing significant Goal 5 inventories
(approximately 12 of them) and considered things like how outdated the data are —for instance,
are there more scientific resources available today? —which inventories are known to have lots of
conflicts, and species that are known to be not doing so well, such as mule deer. The TAC also
selected two alternates —the mule deer migration corridor, and threatened and endangered
species, specifically the Oregon spotted frog. This pilot program ultimately chose the three top -tier
inventories that would most benefit from an update.
General comments from members of the IWG team:
Sara Gregory: We all keep saying that these inventories are old but the landscape is ultimately the
same. The technology to track movements and interact with the species has improved, which has
given us fine -scale data sets. These animals need these landscapes to move around; there are so
many obstacles to the migration and movement, particularly of mule deer; data show that those
mule deer that can migrate have a higher survival rate. This is likely similar with elk, but we do not
have that same fine -scale data.
Andrew Walch: An additional note is the general state of the mule deer population in Central
Oregon: In the last decade, mule deer across the West have been having a particularly difficult
time; in Central Oregon we are averaging about a ten percent decline per year. The ODFW units in
Central Oregon that make up portions of Deschutes County average from a quarter to half of what
their population management objectives should be. We aren't close to those targets anymore, and
that gap is getting wider. This is due to a myriad of factors, and therefore this is a good
conversation to have right now and to bring this data forward to the public and to the County.
Wendy Wente: It's very encouraging to see the County reconsidering these data sets,
understanding that the data were old and that things are changing on the landscape. The County
is responding to where they see areas of conflict. I was happy to be involved in a project that pays
attention to the best available science for these inventories.
Would Deschutes County be interested in applying to the Department of Land Conservation
and Development for more grant money to expand the scope of the inventory updates for
more species or habitats?
While the prospect of additional funding is always appealing, in this case it may be better to see
this pilot project through first to refine our processes and public input. Since this is a pilot project,
this is new territory for the County, which is not technically required to update these inventories.
Because of this, we are determining the ideal process as we go; as such, it might be a better use of
resources to hone in on the best practices for performing this update and then consider
additional species/inventories/habitats.
Mule deer populations in the Metolius unit have been on the decline since 2016; in 2015 the
populations were 129% of the management objective, and in 2016 it dropped to 93 percent.
Is it true that the mule deer populations are now at 55 percent? What's the basis for that
decline, especially in a rural county with statewide planning objectives and rules pertaining
to farm and forest lands?
Those numbers are indeed correct and reflective of the rapid decline throughout Central Oregon.
It's notjust land use that drives down mule deer population; it's development dividing up habitats
with fences and roads, it's dogs, it's the constant use of summer and winter range for recreation;
it's disease outbreaks; it's bad winters (such as the late snow at the end of February a couple of
years ago). There's only so many things wildlife managers can do —fight for habitat, improve
habitat, or create more hunting tags. Lastly, they continue to work with local partners —federal,
local, and private landowners.
Please discuss this project's timeline with respect to the grant and afterwards.
In terms of the grant and its deliverables, the goals of the current phase of this project are to
provide the education about the biological inventories, and obtain public —and Planning
Commission —input to hear opinions and perspectives on a possible update, which will then be
relayed to the Board of County Commissioners. Once the survey closes on May 6, staff will gather
all public input, compile that input into a report for the Board of County Commissioners, and
present potential options to move forward (for instance, would an inventory update be a process
of its own, or integrated into the larger Comprehensive Plan update?). We hope to have a direction
later this summer. In the next phase of the process, if directed by the Board, there will be a robust
public process to propose and evaluate potential actions to the development code, combining
zones, and the Comprehensive Plan, aiming to achieve a balance between conservation goals and
development expectations, and following a very detailed process prescribed by state statute for a
potential inventory update.
That state process is outlined here:
httDS://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/disiDlavDivisionRuies.action?selectedDivision=3073
In Tumalo and throughout the less dense areas of the county, 1 see problematic fencing -
nonporous to wildlife - being installed through large property areas confining wildlife
(especially young elk and deer) often into roadways along long stretches of county
roads. Are County planners able to address and perhaps impose limitations on the types of
fencing homeowners can utilize?
We have numerous inventories that are identified in the County's Wildlife Area Combining Zone.
For any development that is proposed in those areas, there are siting standards that come into
play for fencing. To the extent that someone is building a dwelling or accessory structure, fencing
is required to accommodate wildlife passage.
These new inventories extend into areas where existing zones do not. As this update process
matures, siting standards for fencing (among other elements) will likely be recommended to
continue into those new areas, if we have public support, Planning Commission support, and
Board support.
Wolves are now dispersing through Central Oregon - from the Blue Mountains, through the
Ochocos, to the Cascades. In addition to direct population management asserted by federal
and state wildlife management agencies, does the County [or State] have any plans for
protective designations/overlays for broader corridors accommodating landscape -scale
wildlife dispersal of this type?
This issue has not elevated in the county as have the three habitats this project addresses. Wolf
populations are indeed increasing statewide and do disperse through Central Oregon. Currently
there is no resident wolf pack that has been identified in Deschutes County, only those who
migrate to the south. Wolves are protected by the Oregon Wolf Plan, which was updated a year
ago and ratified by the ODFW Commission. As far as habitat protections, while this project might
not be studying wolves specifically, it is important to note that updating protections and corridors
for one species often helps those for other species as well.
Was the initial inventory compiled as part of the Comprehensive Plan?
Yes, and it becomes a part of the Goal 5 section of the Plan. An update could be a stand-alone
amendment, or it could be rolled into the larger Comprehensive Plan update process.
General Public Comments
Tanya Saltzman
From: Cynthia Smidt
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2021 4:38 PM
To: Nick Lelack; Peter Gutowsky
Cc: Audrey Stuart; Tanya Saltzman
Subject: FW: DCPC Meeting 3/25 @ 5:30pm - re: Public Comments
Attachments: County Planning Commission.pdf, ATT00001.htm
Nick,
I don't know if Audrey sent this along yet but here's something for tonight's meeting.
Cynthia Smidt ( Associate Planner
Disdoirmer: Please note that the information in this email is an informal statement mode in accordance with DCC 22.20.005 and shall not be deemed to
constitute final County action effecting a change in the status of a person's property or conferring orgy rights, including any reliance rights, on any person.
From: Greg & Joyce <bendbakers @gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 2S, 20213:21 PM
To: CDD Planning <planning@deschutes.org>
Subject: DCPC Meeting 3/25 @ 5:30pm - re: Public Comments
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Hello, I've attached my comments here and attached as a pdf as well.
Thanks for all your work!
Greg Baker
Testimony to the Deschutes County Planning Commission
For Hearing on March 25, 2021 at 5:30 PM
My name is Greg Baker, my wife and I live at 65580 Sisemore Road in Deschutes County. I may not able to
attend your online hearing this evening but would like to thank the CDD for the (draft) FY 2021-22 Work Plan
regarding future development in Deschutes County and provide a couple of comments for entry into the public
record.
i
The 2021-22 Work Plan includes a Mission Statement and Purpose. The mission statement speaks of orderly
growth and development but doesn't reflect what values might drive this growth and development. I would be
interested in seeing what core values will drive future Deschutes County growth and development.
I appreciate your Attachment 3 which includes goals and projects organized by Value, one of which is Land
Stewardship & Thriving Ecosystem, with an explanation that "Many people have moved to or chosen to stay in
Deschutes County because of a deep interest and respect for wildlife, the outdoors and the natural
ecosystem." To me, this is a foundational aspect of living, visiting and recreating in Bend, protection of which
could and maybe should be stated as a core value, especially with current impacts of higher rates of population
growth and development in the County.
An explanation of core values to guide future development may help residents and visitors alike understand
what the County is about as well as future direction and could help in mitigating some of the issues resulting
from various types of recreation occurring in areas of multi -use recreation vs. more sensitive wildlife overlays.
Protection of wildlife and ecosystem is core to sustainable development (mentioned as one of CDD's Purposes),
one cannot really happen without the other.
To that end I'm happy to see the Deschutes County Goal 5 Wildlife Inventory Update, thank you for this
activity. If I might add a couple of comments:
I would second IWG's comment regarding the disclosure of eagle nesting locations to the public and for
that matter, areas of mule deer and elk overwintering (poaching).
Has the County considered adding wildlife underpasses on highways north of town as has already been
done on Hwy 97 south of Bend? There are too many dead deer on the side of the highways, and we
don't see the ones that are injured and wander away to die. I hope this is a future consideration.
I appreciate your time and work.
With best regards,
Greg Baker
Tanya Saltzman
From: Peter Fullenwider <peter.fullenwider@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2021 9:26 AM
To: les.hudson.new@gmail.com
Cc: Tanya Saltzman; Nick Lelack; Peter Gutowsky;jessica kieras
Subject: Re: Deschutes County Goal S Wildlife Inventory Update
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Hi Tanya: Thanks Les for the introduction. I know Les through the Friends of the Tumalo Wildlife
Corridor where I am the current Sec/Treasurer. I live on Snow Creek Road off of Sisemore Road
within BLM's "Tumalo Natural Area". My wife and I have been at this location for around 15 years
now. Of possible interest to you is our recent purchase and deployment of vehicle counters
(https://www.trafx.net) along Bull Flat Road and Snow Creek Road to document objectively the
vehicle violations of the Winter Deer Cooperative Closure. Although this effort is in support of
identifying an anecdotally obvious fact (I watch folks bypass the ODFW signs all the time), it
represents our effort to support/promote the long promised BLM "Travel Plan" to further implement
the Upper Deschutes Resource Management Plan for the Tumalo Block. We will take our last reading
for the WDCC timeframe on 3/31, verify and reify the data in preparation for further discussion with
the BLM and if appropriate, brief input to one of your April meetings.
The relevance to Deschutes County is indirect but i believe germane to your long term planning.
Understanding travel dynamics to better post educational information (not just regulations), especially
in regards to conservation (wildlife and habitat) seems to us to be an essential task.
The primary motivation to the creation of fTWC was the chaos of use (automatic gunfire/shooting,
hazardous material dumping, indiscriminate off -road vehicle use etc.) within the greater Bull Flat area.
In the greater Bull Flat area, we have multiple public agencies (BLM, DSL, TID, Deschutes Nat'l
Forest) with differing terms of use without (except for the three kiosks our organization put up)
adequate educational information posted for the public.
To the extent the TAC interacts with these agencies regarding wildlife management
information, it would be an extraordinary benefit for postings of basic information to be consonant
with each other. We are aware that each agency has their own formats and specifications.
To the extent that TAC needs to document vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian traffic, fTWC may
be of value in deploying Trafx technology.
To the extent that your initiative interacts with the above agencies, we hope you will
encourage them to move forward with travel management generally and educational postings
regarding wildlife and use.
Thanks for your work, time and attention. Cheers: Peter
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 3:31 PM <les.hudson.new@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Tanya,
I think you and your Technical Advisory Committee will probably want to be aware of the work being done by
Peter Fullenwider and his group on the quantitative assessment of human incursion into County Protected wild
life zones. To date the TAC report has referenced housing development and these zones. Motorized vehicle
incursion might have an equal impact and a greater footprint.
This mail is to introduce the two of you. I shall leave Peter reach out to you in due course and independently
of me.
Regards,
Les.
Dr. Leslie Hudson
Mobile: 561 789 1620
les.hudsonkg.com
Copyright protection is hereby asserted on this personal e-mail. Please do not copy or forward this
copyrighted material without express permission of the copyright owner.
Tanya Saltzman
From: Merry Ann Moore <merryannmoore@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 8:51 PM
To: Tanya Saltzman
Subject: Updating maps of winter range for wildlife
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Ms. Saltzman, your survey on the storymap is not working so I am writing you directly. I lived for close to 15 years in
Sisters, Oregon and participated in many, many Deschutes County planning initiatives, more than a few related to
wildlife. I also surveyed water temperatures on Whychus Creek as part of a salmon study. I have more than passing
knowledge of how badly outdated the county's wildlife maps are.
I applaud the effort to have winter range maps actually reflect scientific reality. I note that the proposed new range
would connect what is currently extremely fragmented habitat for deer and elk. This is essential for the long-term health
of these populations. Further, it is now finally possible, through the Oregon Eagle foundation's groundbreaking ten-year
study, to see exactly where golden eagles are nesting. These magnificent apex predators must be protected adequately.
Continuing to base development decisions on a wildlife inventory from 1981 will result in the collapse of these
important natural resources sooner rather than later. The only winners will be those who seek to skirt scientific reality in
the name of profit. While hunters, wildlife enthusiasts, ecosystems and the animals themselves lose. Please do the right
thing and update the County comprehensive plan with accurate and current wildlife maps!
Sincerely,
Merry Ann Moore
Portland, OR
Tanva Saltzman
From: veronica newton hudson <vnewtonhudson@q.com>
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 2:19 PM
To: Tanya Saltzman
Subject: Meeting yesterday evening.
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Tanya,
Thank you for laying out the proposed wildlife inventory updates succinctly and clearly ( not an easy subject!)
at the meeting yesterday evening.
Your IT lady whose name I didn't catch fully did, as you mentioned, an excellent job with the mapping.
Hopefully people are a bit clearer on at least some of the issues wildlife is facing. I hope this project can be
brought to fruition with some better prospects for wildlife!
Veronica
Veronica Newton Hudson
Cellphone: 215 275 0091
i
Tanya Saltzman
Subject: RE: Form submission from: Contact Deschutes County
From: Deschutes County Oregon <donotreply@deschutes.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 11:23 AM
To: cdd-webmaster <cdd-webmaster@co.deschutes.or.us>
Subject: Form submission from: Contact Deschutes County
****AUTOMATED EMAIL - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY**** You have an incoming Comment or Question from the County's Website (Desch utes.org). Submitted
on: Wednesday, April 21, 2021-11:22am The following was submitted:
Department to Contact Community Development
Subject Wildlife inventory project
Your Message
Hi i live in tumalo we infrequently have two heards of elk, one in our front pasture and one in our
back pasture each heard 45 to 75 in number. They are coming almost weekly. They are wonderful
and so majestic.
I'm close to highway 20 and frequently have to call 911 when the elk get close to the highway. If
there is anyway I can be of assistance in this project I'm happy to help.
Name Patricia devol nadon
Email Address maRRie.nadon25@gmail.com
Phone Number 2066787411
****AUTOMATED EMAIL - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY****
To the Board of County Commissioners,
We have reviewed the Wildlife Inventory Update Storymap and Survey and would like to
add a few comments.
Aldo Leopold once said, "Conservation, viewed in its entirety, is the slow and laborious
unfolding of a new relationship between people and land."
Indeed, the process of updating its wildlife inventory in which the county is currently
engaged is "slow and laborious," however, it is totally worthwhile in maintaining our
respect for the beautiful place where we live. Other counties across the nation
have not looked very far ahead in their planning and as a result have
degenerated to a tax revenue mindset only, spawning growth that is devoid of
beauty and wildlife, a cancer upon the landscape. Leopold also said, "We abuse
land because we see it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a
community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect."
We applaud the current county effort to extend thoughtful courtesy to the values
many of us hold dear, such as maintaining safe havens and corridors for wildlife,
protecting plant species, and keeping our spectacular skyline free from visual
impairments.
Having studied Golden Eagles for more than 70 years in the Central Oregon area and
beyond, as well as participating in the recently concluded 10 year survey of our local
eagles, we were pleased to see that the findings of The Oregon Eagle Foundation were
incorporated into the part of the Wildlife Inventory Update that covered Bald and
Golden Eagles. With increased recreational and developmental pressures
mounting near these nesting territories, it is paramount that breeding areas be
provided with strict regulatory protections to avoid further disturbance to their
long established presence.
The 2 mile buffer zone around the known nest areas for Golden Eagles look good to us.
However, if the areas outside that zone are densely developed, the Goldens will have
insufficient places to hunt their prey, which is mostly jackrabbits. Cooperative
arrangements with BLM and USFS can help mitigate this issue.
In addition, the buffer zones need to be free of recreationists or other activity during
nesting season, whether the birds are using their nest or not. Goldens can, for a variety
of reasons, not use their nest in a given year but will often return in subsequent years.
Even if they don't produce young in some years, they often remain in the territory to
keep an eye on it.
Regarding Bald Eagles, a 1/4 mi buffer around the nest is not sufficient. It should be at
least 1/2 mile. Although there is documentation of Bald Eagles nesting close to human
activity, with the growth that the county is experiencing, further development close to the
1/4 mi border could easily be the tipping point to cause the eagles to abandon their
nest. Bald Eagles are far more tolerant of human activity but rather than asking the
eagles to be accepting of the 1/4 mile rule, it would be wise to allow them a decent
space to nest to begin with. It is far better to err on the side of too much rather than too
little.
Both Bald and Golden Eagles are protected under a series of Federal Acts. The Acts
are specific about molesting or disturbing any eagle and warn of stiff violation penalties.
By not giving both Bald and Golden Eagles sufficient protection in the planning process,
the county could become complicit in any activity proved to be disturbing. We are eager
to see the county become heroes and examples of wildlife protection, not partners in
crime trading values for dollars from pressuring developers.
The number of Deschutes County citizens engaged in land ethics associated groups
alone (Deschutes Land Trust, High Desert Museum, East Cascades Audubon Society,
Central Oregon Landwatch, Central Oregon Flyfishers, Coalition for the Deschutes,
Deschutes River Conservancy, Oregon Natural Desert Assoc., Oregon Wild, Juniper
Group of the Sierra Club, Sunriver Nature Center, Upper Deschutes Watershed Council,
Trout Unlimited, and many others), should express to the county the importance its
residents place on the values the planners are reviewing.
Our children and grandchildren will look back on these decisions as being either
regretful or respectful. Let us choose the latter.
Jim and Sue Anderson
Naturalists
Tanya Saltzman
From: Jim Henson <jim@hensonbiz.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 4:58 PM
To: Tanya Saltzman
Subject: County Wildlife Habitat Update
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Hi Tanya,
I entered a survey, but I felt it was kind of short.
I would argue in favor of accurate wildlife counts in the County.
1 would suggest that part of the survey could be public observations. I can look out my windows and count Deer, or
Eagles. If there was a rigorous web entry method, you could enlist thousands of people in the project.
Some other concerns --
Eagle range: I am over a mile, maybe 2 miles from the known golden eagle nest, but I see golden eagles hunting sage
rats on my property. Same for Bald eagles. So a nest needs a buffer, but maybe the hunting range needs some
protections also. It would be nice to notify the public in a sensitive area what the dos and don'ts are.
Coyote — are you counting predators also? ,4 sudden change in population would be a concern.
Owl — I think the Owls are being challenged and the public could be notified how to help out. Owls control the mice and
too many mice damage the corps ... So it would be good to count Owls.
Thanks,
Jim Henson
66255 White Rock Loop
Bend, OR 97703
Tanya Saltzman
From: Jon Nelson <jdnelson995@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 9:35 PM
To: Tanya Saltzman
Subject: Wildlife Inventory Update
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Jon David Nelson
2312 NW 12"
Redmond, Oregon 97756
541-233-8405
May 4, 2021
Dear Deschutes County Planners, Planning Commission, and Board of Commissioners,
was pleased to learn about the grant -funded effort to gather data on habitat use by mule deer, elk, and eagles on
county lands. Thank you for your efforts to provide a transparent and accessible public process that offers citizens ample
opportunity for involvement. I am writing this letter to express my strong support and recommendation that the county
pursue a full update to the inventories based on this new data, and the input of our wildlife managers.
Although I am writing as a private citizen of Deschutes County, I would like to mention my professional background as a
matter of providing context to my comments. I work as the Curator of Wildlife at the High Desert Museum. For more
than a decade I have developed and delivered content and programming about wildlife that reaches more than 185,000
visitors a year. Those people can be divided into two groups, those who live and work in Deschutes County, and those
who are visiting, driving the tourism economy we all depend on for our prosperity.
Thanks to my work I have the pleasure of having conversations with many people every day about wildlife and how they
value wildlife populations on the landscape. The majority are largely unaware of the needs of wild animals, or the
myriad issues affecting the sustainability of those populations over time. However, not once have I spoken with
someone after a talk about mule deer, or with a golden eagle on my glove, and had them tell me they did not value
wildlife in highest possible terms. We are all aware, the forests, mountains, and wildlands surrounding Bend, Redmond,
and Sisters are largely what attract people to visit and move to Deschutes County to live. Wildlife is inextricably linked to
those places and to the high quality of life that drives the booming economy and unprecedented growth of our county.
However, wildlife require more than just the public lands adjacent to our growing cities. To persist they need functional,
well-connected landscapes, with the ability to migrate, overwinter, and reproduce. We are privileged to live in a region
with so many nesting eagles, and where iconic species like elk and mule deer are part of our everyday lives. I believe not
only do we have an obligation to conserve these species and others, but that doing so protects the values of our people
and helps safeguard the current and future health and prosperity of our community.
I urge you to proceed with a full inventory update, and to carefully consider the needs of wildlife in planning decisions
moving forward. Furthermore, I recommend you explore the idea of creating a full-time wildlife biologist position to
advise on these matters, liaison with wildlife management agencies, engage with the public, and to develop more
routine revision of these inventories through an adaptive management process. Please think about what we want our
part of Central Oregon to look like 50 years from now. I know the people of Deschutes County expect healthy and
sustainable wildlife populations to be part of that vision.
Thank you again for your efforts on this matter, and for all that you do.
-Jon Nelson