Loading...
2022-52-Minutes for Meeting January 26,2022 Recorded 2/18/2022�01 E S CO C, G Q 2{ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon (541) 388-6570 Recorded in Deschutes County C J2022-52 Steve Dennison, County Clerk Commissioners' Journal 02/18/2022 3:14:48 PM ��>v�FS CpG II I I I II II IIII II II I I I II II I III a 2022-52 FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY 9:00 AM WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 26, 2022 Barnes Sawyer & VIRTUAL MEETING PLATFORM Present were Commissioners Patti Adair, Anthony DeBone, and Phil Chang. Also present were Nick Lelack, County Administrator; Dave Doyle, County Legal Counsel (via Zoom conference call); and Sharon Keith, Board Executive Assistant (via Zoom conference call) This meeting was audio and video recorded and can be accessed at the Deschutes County Meeting Portal website www.deschutes.org/meetings CALL TO ORDER: Chair Adair called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. CITIZEN INPUT: Commissioner Adair acknowledged emails received through the Citizen Input email regarding support of keeping Worrell Park as is, and increasing safety measures on Horse Ridge Road. Donna Owens presented comment on her opposition to the plan to demolish Worrell Park into a parking lot. BOCC MEETING JANUARY 26, 2022 PAGE 1 OF 10 CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was consideration of the Consent Agenda. DEBONE: Move approval of Consent Agenda CHANG: Second VOTE: DEBONE: Yes CHANG: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 1. Consideration of Resolution No. 2022-002, Increasing 1.0 Regular FTE within the Clerk's Office and the 2021-2022 Deschutes County Budget and backfilling a current FTE for approximately six (6) months. 2. Consideration of Resolution No. 2022-007, Correcting a Scrivener's Error and Replacing Resolution No. 2021-078 and Resolution No. 2022-003 3. Approval of Minutes of the January 5, 2022 Meeting 4. Consideration of Board Signature on Letters of Appointment forJen Laurence and Kyle Shortsleeve to the Deschutes River Recreation Homesites Special Road District #6 Board 5. Consideration of Board Signature on Letters of Thanks for Linda Brolin and Diana Leith fvr seYvi`e vn the neschultnc Piwar. RG`YGatinn Special Road District #6 Board. ACTION ITEMS: 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) Plan Amendment and Zone Change. Community Development Department Planner Tarik Rawlings presented the public hearing procedure. Hearing no conflicts of interest and challenges presented, Commissioner Adair opened the public hearing. Commissioner DeBone acknowledged the technology changes in the world of public hearings. Mr. Rawlings presented the staff report. Tia Lewis, attorney representing applicant COID (through Craig Horrell), who was present via Zoom conference call, noting agreement with the Hearings BOCC MEETING JANUARY 26, 2022 PAGE 2 OF 10 Officer decision. Mr. Horrell commented on the land management through COI D. Commissioner Adair called for public testimony. JoshuaJanes, resident in the Larkspur neighborhood, provided testimony commenting on his opposition to the application noting concern for traffic and safety as a result of the development. Mr. Janes provided a petition. Oakley Taylor, resident near the subject property, provided testimony on her concerns with the application and proposed development. Brent Wilkins (via Zoom conference call) resident of Bend presented testimony in opposition and noted he submitted written comments and photographs for the record depicting the subdivision in process. Mr. Wilkins commented on his concerns for traffic safety with the development plan and current problems being seen. Tia Lewis, applicant's attorney, presented rebuttal addressing concerns on traffic studies done to determine the effect on transportation, and sewer rnnrornc nnrl imnnrtc to cantir cvctamc Mr. Rawlings commented on the notifications to the public. The standard 7- 7-7 record period was reviewed. Discussion held on the vision of growth in Deschutes County. DEBONE: Made motion to close the oral record and leave the written record open for the standard three week period. CHANG: Second VOTE: DEBONE: Yes CHANG: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried Mr. Rawlings clarified the dates and times of the three week record period noting deadlines of 4:00 p.m. BOCC MEETING JANUARY 26, 2022 PAGE 3 OF 10 OTHER ITEMS: • Commissioner Chang commented on a virtual town hall event that he held last evening regarding County related topics. Commissioner Chang reported on the Cannabis Advisory Committee meeting on Monday and the next meeting will be held in April. 7. Consideration of Board Approval and Chair signature of Document No. 2022-077, Amendment #8 to OHA #166040 Janice Garceau, Director of Behavioral Health, and Cheryl Smallman, Business Officer, presented the item via Zoom conference call. CHANG: Move approval of Document No. 2022-077 DEBONE: Second VOTE: CHANG: Yes ncRnniG• voc ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 8. Approval to Accept Oregon Health Authority (OHA) Crisis Workforce Funding Janice Garceau, Director of Behavioral Health, presented the item via Zoom conference call. The deadline for submission was December 16 and the department was not able to present the application to the Commissioners due to the short turn -around time. DEBONE: Move acceptance and gratitude of $46,000 of funding from OHA CHANG: Second VOTE: DEBONE: Yes CHANG: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried BOCC MEETING JANUARY 26, 2022 PAGE 4 OF 10 9. American Rescue Plan Funding Update Chief Financial Officer Greg Munn presented the update and introduced the presentations for today's consideration. • COCC representatives Sarah Baron and Julie Downing presented via Zoom conference call regarding expansion of the local public health workforce development and reviewed their request of ARPA funds from Deschutes County in the amount of $191,548 (to be matched by the Central Oregon Health Council). DEBONE: Move approval of allocation of $191,548 of ARPA funds to COCC CHANG: Second VOTE: DEBONE: Yes CHANG: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried Scott Ayrork and Jared Purkett of rnlr (,iia 7Oom conferenre rail) Anri (fan Emerson Budget Manager (via Zoom conference call) spoke regarding the small business recovery grant program. 291 applications were received by businesses that have been impacted by the COVID19 pandemic. A final report of qualified applicants will be presented to the Commissioners by the end of February. • Bob Bohac and James Cook (via Zoom conference call) presented regarding Oasis Village. They are estimating a 3,000 square foot unit for a shelter village with an approximate cost of $300,000. The request of Deschutes County was for a memorandum of understanding for a parcel of land. Commissioner DeBone noted support of the project. Rogue Retreat is partnering with Oasis Village in the proposal. Commissioner Chang supported a financial commitment. Commissioner DeBone envisions this development with an undetermined location and letter of intent. The City of Redmond will be asked for financial support as well. Commissioner Adair expressed support and is appreciative of the work being done. A conceptual master plan is within the next steps and Property Manager Kristie Bollinger BOCC MEETING JANUARY 26, 2022 PAGE 5 OF 10 reported on work being done with consulting firms. Commissioner DeBone stressed the importance of not promoting a tent area due to issues of extreme weather. Commissioner Chang noted it should be accounted for that there are people that cannot afford shelters with a roof and four walls. Commissioner Adair reminded the community that we have a work force in Central Oregon that is in need of employees. A letter of intent will be drafted and presented at a later meeting in order for the group to proceed with their fund raising efforts. Commissioner Adair noted a 501 c3 would need to be submitted prior to funds being allocated. Commissioner DeBone supports the vision. CHANG: Move approval to reserve $367,500 of APRA funds for the development of the Redmond Oasis Village Project until the 501 c3 is in place. DEBONE: Second VOTE: CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried CCO Greg ,VAIunn v'ill report tO the COmmlSslOnerS fOr Clarity Once tho 5Q1 C3 status is obtained. Mr. Bohac spoke on campgrounds with pallet shelters and stick built structures and invited the Commissioners to tour the site in Medford. • Public Health Director Nahad Sadr-Azodi and Business Officer Cheryl Smallman presented via Zoom conference call regarding the COVID Unit Update and their request. Mr. Sadr-Azodi reported on the COVID vaccines available for children. The department requests the addition of three limited duration staff through June 2024 to address on -going needs. The request is $840,260 of ARPA funds to support COVID services. With the unknown of the length of the pandemic, Commissioners Adair and DeBone were not supportive of funding through 2024. Commissioner Chang commented on case scenarios and inquired on flexibility of changing the limited duration positions to other work responsibilities besides COVID. DEBONE: Made motion to support the funding requests as presented through the line items requested during fiscal years 2022, 2023, and 2024. BOCC MEETING JANUARY 26, 2022 PAGE 6 OF 10 Commissioner Chang would prefer to approve the 2024 requests at this time and not wait until the fiscal year. Commissioner DeBone does not support that at this time. DEBONE: Move approval of ARPA funds allocation of $300,228 requested For fiscal years of 2022, 2023, and place $540,032 in reserve for the 2024 request ADAIR: Second VOTE: DEBONE: Yes CHANG: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried • Charla DeHate and Courtney Ignazzitto of La Pine Community Health Center presented their ARPA request funding for $5 million to develop a Health Care Hub in South County to expand services for the whole community. The request is for funding to construct the new building. COHC has been approached for partnership for funding and the request doesn't qualify for funding through COHC. [At this point, the Deschutes County unallocated APDA fund balance is $2.Q millivn.I COmmiS�inner DPBOne s IggPCtP(i a $500,000 commitment. Commissioner Chang noted the needs of the Deschutes County's health services department and the first commitment should be to them. Commissioner Adair offered to speak with the Central Oregon Health Council regarding the request. RECESS: At the time of 1:06 p.m. the Board went into recess and reconvened the meeting at 1:37 p.m. • Continued Discussion on ARPA Funding Update: CFO Greg Munn presented the additional requests from the Council of Aging and the Sisters Winter Warming Shelter. The Council on Aging request was for $300,000. Commissioner Adair requested a presentation. Mr. Munn is researching the ARPA eligibility for the Sisters Winter Warming Shelter. BOCC MEETING JANUARY 26, 2022 PAGE 7 OF 10 10.County Treasurer and Finance Report as of December 31, 2021 CFO Greg Munn provided the finance report and treasury activity. Presentation is attached to the record. 11.Consideration of temporary double -fill Admin Support Technician FTE in preparation for retirement and to fulfill a succession planning opportunity within the Clerk's Office County Clerk Steve Dennison presented via Zoom conference call and asked for a point of clarification that the Consent Agenda #1 should have been included with Items #11 and #12. This item reflects the request in Consent Agenda #1 which was already approved by the Commissioners. Mr. Dennison reported on the volumes of activity growth in the Clerk's Office and the need for additional staffing with an employee retiring this August which will allow for the best possible orientation. 12.Consideration of an additional Elections Admin Support Technician 1.0 FTE in order to meet increased demand within the Clerk's Office Mr. Dennison reported on the volumes of activity growth in the Clerk's Office and the need for additional staffing. This item reflects the request in Consent Agenda #1 which was already approved by the Commissioners. 13.Preparation for Public Hearing: Dave Swisher Plan Amendment and Zone Change Community Development Department Planner Kyle Collins presented the preparations for an upcoming public hearing during the Wednesday February 2 BOCC meeting. BOCC MEETING JANUARY 26, 2022 PAGE 8 OF 10 14.Consideration of County Administrator Signature on Remote Work Policy Deputy County Administrator Erik Kropp presented the draft policy for consideration. One purpose of the policy is to reduce impact on County infrastructure. The policy outlines criteria for eligibility for remote work. Human Resources Director Kathleen Hinman presented clarification of employee working outside of Oregon that will be included in the policy. Commissioner Chang commented on face-to-face benefits of building relationships. Revisions will be made to the policy. Training for supervisors managing remote workers is being developed. The language on the issues of child care will be clarified in the policy. CHANG: Move approval of County Administrator's signature on policy DEBONE: Second XIOTC• ruANlr-: V ( L. \.I Ir-%1 V V. DEBONE: ADAI R: OTHER ITEMS: vec Yes Chair votes yes. Motion Carried Commissioner DeBone toured the warming shelter in the City of La Pine as well as the shelter in Bend. Commissioner Adair announced the owner of Green Acres RV Park requested a meeting with her and Peter Gutowsky. Commissioner Adair reported on the COVA meeting yesterday. Deputy County Administrator Whitney Hale presented a draft letter of support as a request from the Central Oregon Disability Support Network's application for an emergency preparedness grant application. Commissioner DeBone requested a meeting with the organization. The letter will come back to the Commissioners for consideration on the Monday, January 315t BOCC meeting. BOCC MEETING JANUARY 26, 2022 PAGE 9 OF 10 EXECUTIVE SESSION: At the time of 3:10 p.m. the Board went into Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (b) Personnel Complaint. At the time of 3:26 p.m. the Board came out of Executive Session to direct staff to proceed as discussed. Being no business brought before the Commissioners, the meeting was adjourned at 3:27 p.m. DATED this Day of 2022 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. 9 PA TI A®AIR, CHAIR ANTHONY ! ONE, F F w BOCC MEETING JANUARY 26, 2022 PAGE 10 OF 10 �\)I E S CO C. G BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING 9:00 AM, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 26, 2022 Barnes Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Bldg - 1300 NW Wall St - Bend (541) 388-6570 1 www.deschutes.org AGENDA MEETING FORMAT: The Oregon legislature passed House Bill (HB) 2560, which requires that public meetings be accessible remotely, effective on January 1, 2022, with the exception of executive sessions. Public bodies must provide the public an opportunity to access and attend public meetings by phone, video, or other virtual means. Additionally, when in -person testimony, either oral or written is allowed at the meeting, then testimony must also be allowed electronically via, phone, video, email, or other electronic/virtual means. Attendance/Participation options are described above. 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 noon on Tuesday will be included in the Citizen Input meeting record for topics that are not included on the Wednesday agenda. 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 CITIZEN INPUT: Citizen Input may be provided as comment on any topic that is not on the agenda. Note: In addition to the option of providing in -person comments at the meeting, citizen input comments may be emailed to citizeninput@deschutes.org or you may leave a brief voicemail at 541.385.1734. To be timely, citizen input must be received by noon on Tuesday in order to be included in the meeting record. CONSENT AGENDA Consideration of Resolution No. 2022-002 Increasing 1.0 Regular FTE within the Clerk's Office and the 2021-2022 Deschutes County Budget and backfilling a current FTE for approximately six (6) months. 2. Consideration of Resolution No. 2022-007 Correcting a Scrivener's Error and Replacing Resolution No. 2021-078 and Resolution No. 2022-003 3. Approval of Minutes of the January 5 2022 Meeting 4. Consideration of Board Signature on Letters of Appointment for Jen Laurence and Kyle Shortsleeve to the Deschutes River Recreation Homesites Special Road District #6 Board. 5. Consideration of Board Signature on Letters of Thanks for Linda Brolin and Diana Leith for service on the Deschutes River Recreation Homesites Special Road District #6 Board. ACTION ITEMS 6. 9:05 AM Public Hearing: Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) Plan Amendment and Zone Change 7. 10:40 AM Consideration of Board approval and Chair signature of Document No. 2022- 077, Amendment 8 to OHA #166040 8. 10:50 AM Approval to Accept Oregon Health Authority (OHA) Crisis Workforce Funding 9. 11:00 AM American Rescue Plan Funding Update LUNCH RECESS 10. 1:00 PM County Treasurer and Finance Report as of December 31, 2021. 11. 1:20 PM Consideration of temporary double -fill Admin Support Technician FTE in preparation for retirement and to fulfill a succession planning opportunity within the Clerk's Office. January 26, 2022 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 2 of 3 12. 1:25 PM Consideration of an additional Elections Admin Support Technician 1.0 FTE in order to meet increased demand within the Clerk's Office. 13. 1:30 PM Preparation for Public Hearing: Dave Swisher Plan Amendment and Zone Change 14. 2:15 PM Consideration of County Administrator Signature on Remote Work Policy 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. 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. ADJOURN Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities. If you need accommodations to make participation possible, please call (541) 617-4747. January 26, 2022 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 3 of 3 1 1 I I ry�C'- MEETING DATE: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) Plan Amendment and Zone Change RECOMMENDED MOTION: Hearings Officer recommends approval of file no. 247-21-000400-PA, 401-ZC pursuant to DCC 22.28.030. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Board will rnnduct a public hearing on lanuary 26. 2022 to consider a request for a Plan Amendment and Zone Change (file no. 247-21-000400-PA, 401-ZQ for a 36.65-acre property to the East of the City of Bend, submitted by CO/D. The address associated with the subject property is 61781 Ward Rd, Bend, OR 97702. BUDGET IMPACTS: None ATTENDANCE: Tarik Rawlings, Associate Planner � 4 COMMUNITY t f MEMORANDUM TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (Board) FROM: Tarik Rawlings, Associate Planner DATE: January 19, 2022 SUBJECT: Public Hearing - Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) Plan Amendment and Zone Change The Board of County Commissioners (Board) is conducting a public hearing on January 26, 2022 to consider a request for a Plan Amendment and Zone Change (file nos. 247-21-000400-PA, 401-ZC) for a 36.65-acre property to the east of the City of Bend. This will be the second of two required public hearings. I. BACKGROUND The applicant, COID, is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to redesignate the subject property from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area and a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the property from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10). The applicant's reasoning for the request is that the property was mistakenly identified as farmland, does not contain high -value soils or other characteristics of high value farmland, and therefore should be redesignated and rezoned for residential use. The applicant has provided a soil study that identifies non -high value soils on a majority (-64%) of the subject property. Additionally, the applicant has provided findings within the burden of proof that demonstrate compliance with state and local requirements and policies. II. PUBLIC COMMENT AND HEARINGS OFFICER RECOMMENDATION Staff received twelve (12) public comment letters from neighboring property owners and residents located within the surrounding area of the subject property in connection with the initial Hearings Officer public hearing. A thirteenth (13t") written public comment was received on January 18, 2022 and is provided to the Board in the agenda packet for the subject public hearing. These comments expressed concern and opposition related to growth impacts, wildlife concerns, open space values, recreational access, ability to farm, traffic impacts along 27t" Street, driveway access to the subject property, property addressing, property value impacts, impacts to irrigation water sources and availability, and the potential of marijuana production on the property. The initial public hearing was held on August 31, 2021. On October 13, 2021, the Deschutes County Hearings Officer issued a decision evaluating compliance with all applicable review criteria and recommending approval of the proposed Plan Amendment and Zone Change. III. BOARD CONSIDERATION As the property includes lands designated for agricultural use, Deschutes County Code 22.28.030(C) requires the application to be heard de novo before the Board, regardless of the determination of the Hearings Officer. Per DCC Section 22.20.040(D), the review of the proposed quasi-judicial Plan Amendment and Zone Change is not subject to the 150-day review period typically associated with land use decisions. The record is available for inspection at the Planning Division and at the following link: 247-21-000400-PA 401-ZC Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) Plan Amendment and Zone Change I Deschutes County Oregon. Moreover, the complete record will be available at the public hearing. IV. NEXT STEPS At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Board can choose one of the following options: • Continue the hearing to a date and time certain; • Close the oral portion of the hearing and leave the written record open to a date and time certain; • Close the hearing and commence deliberations. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Area Map 2. Public Comment(s) 3. Draft Ordinance 2022-001 and Exhibits Exhibit A: Legal Description Exhibit B: Proposed Plan Amendment Map Exhibit C: Comprehensive Plan Section 23.01.010, Introduction Exhibit D: Comprehensive Plan Section 5.12, Legislative History Exhibit E: Hearings Officer Recommendation/Decision 4. Draft Ordinance 2022-002 and Exhibits Exhibit A: Legal Description Exhibit B: Proposed Zone Change Map Exhibit C: Hearings Officer Recommendation/Decision Page 2 of 2 247-21-000400-PA, 401-ZC Tarik Rawlings From: Joshua Janes <tullynationl @icloud.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 11:44 AM To: Tarik Rawlings Subject: Public Comment (File Number 247-21-000400-PA, 401-ZC) Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged You don't often get email from tullynationl@icloud.com. Learn why this is important [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Tarik, Thanks for your time on the phone today. What follows is a statement for the upcoming public hearing. I hope to attend in person but want to make sure my voice is heard regardless: I would like to express my concerns about the rezoning of the land east of the Larkspur neighborhood. This rezoning, taken to its logical conclusion: That the land will be developed into housing and thus effectively double the size of the Larkspur neighborhood, is a negative thing for residents such as myself. Therefore, I strongly oppose this rezoning for the following reasons: l . Rezoning will likely lead to a loss of the undeveloped open space to the east. This is a beautiful resource for residents that offers a sense of connection to the environment and habitat for wildlife. 2. Rezoning will likely increase traffic throughout our neighborhood thus reducing quality of life and safety. All traffic accessing this area will have to pass through the existing neighborhood. This is especially relevant when considering turning onto and off of 27th street which is already problematic: There are no turn lanes or traffic lights on this two lane country road and any vehicle turning into Larkspur must slow down and hold up lots of traffic risking rear -end collisions. Exiting the neighborhood can be similarly problematic. Rezoning could effectively double the number of vehicles coming and going from Larkspur. 3. Rezoning will likely result in increased noise. Heavy construction in this area could continue for years. 4. All of these issues will ultimately lead to a reduced quality of life. My partner and I chose to call Larkspur home because it is a quiet, safe, and semi -rural neighborhood with a high quality of life and easy access to the rest of Bend. These reasons are well -stated in the 2030 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan for Rural Growth Management and I would like to remind the Board of Commissioners that it is their responsibility to: "find the balance between protecting rural values and protecting property rights... people [have] expressed concern of the level of new development that has been allowed... Too much development can lead to the destruction of the qualities of life that bring people to Deschutes County." And that: "Generally counties are directed to protect farms, forests, and other rural resources like wildlife while limiting new rural development." Thank you for your time and consideration, Sincerely, Joshua Janes REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL For Recording Stamp Only BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Ordinance Amending Deschutes County Code Title 23, the Deschutes County Comprehensive * ORDINANCE NO. 2022-001 Plan, to Change the Comprehensive Plan Map Designation for Certain Property From Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area. WHEREAS, Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) applied for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (247-21-000400-PA) to Deschutes County Code ("DCC") Title 23, to change the Comprehensive Plan Map Designation for the subject property from an Agricultural (AG) designation to a Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA) designation; and WHEREAS, after a duly noticed hearing, on October 12, 2021 the Deschutes County Hearings Officer recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan Map change; and WHEREAS, because the decision concerns lands designated for forest or agricultural use, pursuant to DCC 22.28.030(C), the Board shall hear the application for comprehensive plan designation change from Agriculture (AG) to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA) de novo; and WHEREAS, Deschutes County Ordinance 2000-017 ordained the Plan Map to be a component of Title 23 and, therefore, any amendment to the Plan Map is an amendment to Title 23; NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. AMENDMENT. DCC Title 23, Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map is amended to change the plan designation for certain property described in Exhibit "F" and depicted on the snap set forth as Exhibit "A", with both exhibits attached and incorporated by reference herein, from Agriculture (AG) to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA). Section 2. AMENDMENT. DCC Section 23.01.010, Introduction, is amended to read as described in Exhibit "C" attached and incorporated by reference herein, with new language underlined. Section 3. FINDINGS. The Board adopts as its findings in support of this decision, the Decision of the Hearings Officer, attached as Exhibit "E" and incorporated by reference herein. Section 4. AMENDMENT. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Section 5.12, Legislative History, is amended to read as described in Exhibit "D" attached and incorporated by reference herein, with new language underlined. PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO.2022-001 Dated this of , 2022 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ATTEST: Recording Secretary Date of 1" Reading: Date of 2nd Reading: Commissioner Patti Adair Anthony DeBone Phil Chang Effective date PATTI ADAIR, Chair ANTHONY DeBONE, Vice Chair PHIL CHANG, Commissioner day of 2022. day of , 2022. Record of Adoption Vote: Yes No Abstained Excused day of 12022. PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO.2022-001 Exhibit "A" Legal Description A parcel of land situated in the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section Two (2), Township Eighteen (18) South, Range Twelve (12) East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County Oregon, more particularly described as follows: All of that portion of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 2 lying north of the centerline of the Central Oregon Canal. EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE 2022-001 'SKYLINE VIEW DR O G (n CHILLIWACK WAY ityrof Bend DARNELAVE 'E IGHT DR HURITA PL 0 W W co GOLDEN MARKETLN Legend Proposed Plan Amendment Boundary Comprehensive Plan Designation AG -Agriculture RREA - Rural Residential Exception Area URA - Urban Reserve Area '® ®p Bend Urban Growth Boundary Plan Amendment from Agriculture (AG) to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA) Taxlot 18-12-02-00-01000 PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP Exhibit "Brr to Ordinance 2022-001 0 250 500 1,000 Feet December 17, 2021 IN0=F-11 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OFDESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON Patti Adair, Chair Tony DeBone, Vice Chair Phil Chang, Commissioner ATTEST: Recording Secretary Dated this day of 2022 Effective Date: 2022 Chapter 23.01 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Chapter 23.01 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 23.01.010. Introduction. A. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2011-003 and found on the Deschutes County Community Development Department website, is incorporated by reference herein. B. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2011-027, are incorporated by reference herein. C. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2012-005, are incorporated by reference herein. D. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2012-012, are incorporated by reference herein. E. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2012-016, are incorporated by reference herein. F. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2013-002, are incorporated by reference herein. G. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2013-009, are incorporated by reference herein. H. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2013-012, are incorporated by reference herein. I. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2013-007, are incorporated by reference herein. T, n_ County r > Pl. a t� by the "—'--aid in Ordinance J. llle 1JCSCL1lAteS I.UUllt-y �.GL"npr etleitSiV% Plan ariieiiuiiieiiw, adopted vy � .. a�v 2014-005, are incorporated by reference herein. K. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2014-006, are incorporated by reference herein. L. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2014-012, are incorporated by reference herein. M. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2014-021, are incorporated by reference herein. N. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2014-027, are incorporated by reference herein. O. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2015-021, are incorporated by reference herein. P. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2015-029, are incorporated by reference herein. Q. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2015-018, are incorporated by reference herein. R. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2015-010, are incorporated by reference herein. S. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2016-001, are incorporated by reference herein. T. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2016-022, are incorporated by reference herein. U. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2016-005, are incorporated by reference herein. Exhibit C, Ord. 2022-001 Chapter 23.01 5/26/21 V. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2016-027, are incorporated by reference herein. W. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2016-029, are incorporated by reference herein. X. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2017-007, are incorporated by reference herein. Y. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2018-002, are incorporated by reference herein. Z. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2018-006, are incorporated by reference herein. AA. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2018-011, are incorporated by reference herein. BB. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2018-005, are incorporated by reference herein. CC. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2018-008, are incorporated by reference herein. DD. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2019-002, are incorporated by reference herein. EE. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2019-001, are incorporated by reference herein. FF. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2019-003, are incorporated by reference herein. GG. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2019-004, are incorporated by reference herein. HH. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2019-01 i, are incorporated by reference herein. Il. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2019-006, are incorporated by reference herein. JJ. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2019-016, are incorporated by reference herein. KK. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2019-019, are incorporated by reference herein. LL. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2020-001, are incorporated by reference herein. MM. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2020-002, are incorporated by reference herein. NN. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2020-003, are incorporated by reference herein. 00. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2020-008, are incorporated by reference herein. PP. 'The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2020-007, are incorporated by reference herein. QQ. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2020-006, are incorporated by reference herein. RR. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2020-009, are incorporated by reference herein. SS. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2020-013, are incorporated by reference herein. Exhibit C, Ord. 2022-001 Chapter 23.01 5/26/21 TT. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2020-02, are incorporated by reference herein. UU. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2021-005, are incorporated by reference herein. VV. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments, adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2021-008, are incorporated by reference herein. WW The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan amendments adopted by the Board in Ordinance 2022-001 are incorporated by reference herein. (Ord. 2022-001 1, 2022; Ord. 2021-008 §1; Ord. 2021-005 §1, 2021; Ord. 2021-002§3, 2020; Ord. 2020-013§ 1, 2020; Ord. 2020-009§ 1, 2020; Ord. 2020-006§ 1, 2020; Ord. 2020-007§ 1, 2020; Ord. 2020-008§ 1, 2020; Ord. 2020-003 § 1, 2020; Ord. 2020-002 § 1, 2020; Ord. 2020-001 §26, 2020; Ord. 2019-019 §2, 2019; Ord. 2019-016 §3, 2019; Ord. 2019-006 § 1, 2019; Ord. 2019-011 § 1, 2019; Ord. 2019-004 § 1, 2019; Ord. 2019-003 § 1, 2019; Ord. 2019-001 § 1, 2019; Ord. 2019-002 § 1, 2019; Ord. 2018-008 § 1, 2018; Ord. 2018-005 §2, 2018; Ord. 2018-011 § 1, 2018; Ord. 2018-006 § 1, 2018; Ord. 2018-002 § 1, 2018; Ord. 2017-007 § 1, 2017; Ord. 2016-029 § 1, 2016; Ord. 2016-027 § 1, 2016; Ord. 2016-005 § 1, 2016; Ord. 2016-022 § 1, 2016; Ord. 2016-001 § 1, 2016; Ord. 2015-010 § 1, 2015; Ord. 2015-018 § 1, 2015; Ord. 2015-029 § 1, 2015; Ord. 2015-021 § 1, 2015; Ord. 2014-027 § 1, 2014; Ord. 2014-021 §1, 2014; Ord. 2014-12 §1, 2014; Ord. 2014-006 §2, 2014; Ord. 2014-005 §2, 2014; Ord. 2013-012 §2, 2013; Ord. 2013-009 §2, 2013; Ord. 2013-007 § 1, 2013; Ord. 2013-002 § 1, 2013; Ord. 2013-001 § 1, 2013; Ord. 2012-016 § 1, 2012; Ord. 2012-013 § 1, 2012; Ord. 2012-005 § 1, 2012; Ord. 2011-027 § 1 through 12, 2011; Ord. 2011-017 repealed; Ord.2011-003 § 3, 2011) Click here to be directed to the Comprehensive Plan (http://www.deschutes.org/compplan) Exhibit C, Ord. 2022-001 Chapter 23.01 5/26/21 Exhibit "D" to Ord. 2022-001 Sect" ow 5.22 Leg%sLatWe H-%stort� Background This section contains the legislative history of this Comprehensive Plan. Table S.12.1 Comprehensive Plan Ordinance History Ordinance Date Adopted/ Chapter/Section Amendment Effective All, except Transportation, Tumalo and Terrebonne 201 1-003 8-10-1 1/ 1 1-9-1 1 Community Plans, Deschutes Junction, Comprehensive Plan update Destination Resorts and ordinances adopted in 2011 2.5, 2.6, 3.4, 3.10, 3.5, Housekeeping amendments to 201 1-027 10-31-1 1 / 1 1-9-1 1 4.6, 5.3, 5.8, 5.1 1, 23.40A, 23.40B, ensure a smooth transition to 23.40.065, 23.01.010 the updated Plan 23.60, 23.64 (repealed), Updated Transportation 2012-005 8-20-12/ 1 1-19-12 3.7 (revised), Appendix C System Plan (added) 2012-012 8-20-12/8-20-12 4. I, 4.2 La Pine Urban Growth Boundary Housekeeping amendments to 2012-016 12-3-12/3-4-13 3.9 Destination Resort Chapter Central Oregon Regional 2013-002 1-7-13/ 1-7-13 4.2 Large -lot Employment Land Need Analysis Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain 2013-009 2-6-13/5-8-13 1.3 property from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area Comprehensive Plan Map 2013-012 5-8-13/8-6-13 23.01.010 Amendment, including certain property within City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary Newberry Country: A Plan 2013-007 5-29-13/8-27-13 3.10, 3.11 for Southern Deschutes County DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION S. 12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY Comprehensive Plan Map 2013-016 10-21-13/ 10-21-13 23.01.010 Amendment, including certain property within City of Sisters Urban Growth Boundary Comprehensive Plan Map 2014-005 2-26-14/2-26-14 23.01.010 Amendment, including certain property within City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary 2014-012 4-2-14/7-1-14 3.10, 3.1 1 Housekeeping amendments to Title 23. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain 2014-021 8-27-14/ 1 1-25-14 23.01.010, 5.10 property from Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Forest to Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Utility Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing designation of certain 2014-021 8-27-14/ 1 1-25-14 23.01.010, 5.10 property from Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Forest to Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Utility Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing 2014-027 12-15-14/3-31-15 23.01.010, 5.10 designation of certain property from Agriculture to Rural Industrial Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing 2015-021 1 1-9-15/2-22-16 23.01.010 designation of certain property from Agriculture to Surface Mining. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing 2015-029 1 1-23-15/ 1 1-30-15 23.01.010 designation of certain property from Tumalo Residential 5-Acre Minimum to Tumalo Industrial 2015-018 12-9-15/3-27-16 23.01.010, 2.2, 4.3 Housekeeping Amendments to Title 23. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 201 CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY Comprehensive Plan Text and 2015-010 12-2-15/ 12-2-15 2.6 Map Amendment recognizing Greater Sage -Grouse Habitat Inventories Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing 2016-001 12-21-15/04-5-16 23.01.010; 5.10 designation of certain property from, Agriculture to Rural Industrial (exception area) Comprehensive Plan Amendment to add an exception to Statewide 2016-007 2-10-16/5-10-16 23.01.010; 5.10 Planning Goal I I to allow sewers in unincorporated lands in Southern Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Amendment recognizing non- 2016-005 1 1-28-16/2-16-17 23.01.010, 2.2, 3.3 resource lands process allowed under State law to change EFU zoning Comprehensive plan Ann 201 6-VI-1- 0 20 I L I I 1 c 7- O- I V/ I 1 - 1 - 6 n i n n i Q Ld.0 1 .V / 0, I ..0, r.� Amendment, including certain property within City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing 2016-029 12-14-16/ 12/28/ 16 23.01.010 designation of certain property from, Agriculture to Rural Industrial Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing 2017-007 10-30-17/ 10-30-17 23.01.010 designation of certain property from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area Comprehensive Plan 2018-002 1-3-18/ 1-25-18 23.01, 2.6 Amendment permitting churches in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — 2011 CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY Housekeeping Amendments correcting tax lot numbers in Non -Significant Mining Mineral 2018-006 8-22-18/ 1 1-20-18 23.01.010, 5.8, 5.9 and Aggregate Inventory; modifying Goal 5 Inventory of Cultural and Historic Resources Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing 2018-01 1 9-12-18/ 12-1 1-18 23.01.010 designation of certain property from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, removing Flood 23.01.010, 2.5, Tumalo Plain Comprehensive Plan 2018-005 9-19-18/ 10-10-18 Community Plan, Designation; Comprehensive Newberry Country Plan Plan Amendment adding Flood Plain Combining Zone purpose statement. Comprehensive Plan Amendment allowing for the 2018-008 9-26-18/ 10-26-18 23.01.010, 3.4 potential of new properties to be designated as Rural Commercial or Rural Industrial Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment changing designation of certain property from Surface Mining 2019-002 1-2-19/4-2-19 23.01.010, 5.8 to Rural Residential Exception Area; Modifying Goal 5 Mineral and Aggregate Inventory; Modifying Non - Significant Mining Mineral and Aggregate Inventory Comprehensive Plan and Text 2019-001 1-16-19/4-16-19 1.3, 3.3, 4.2, 5.10, 23.01 Amendment to add a new zone to Title 19: Westside Transect Zone. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment changing designation of certain 2019-003 02-12-19/03-12-19 23.01.010, 4.2 property from Agriculture to Redmond Urban Growth Area for the Large Lot Industrial, Program Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment changing designation of certain property from Agriculture to 2019-004 02-12-19/03-12-19 23.01.010, 4.2 Redmond Urban Growth Area for the expansion of the Deschutes County Fairgrounds and relocation of Oregon Military Department National Guard Armory. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to adjust the Bend Urban Growth Boundary to accommodate the refinement of the Skyline Ranch Road alignment and the 2019-01 1 05-01-19/05-16/ 19 23.01.010, 4.2 refinement of the West Area Master Plan Area I boundary. The ordinance also amends the Comprehensive Plan designation of Urban Area Reserve for those lands leaving the UGB. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, changing 2019-006 03-13-19/06-1 1-19 23.01.010, designation of certain property from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area Comprehensive Plan and Text amendments incorporating language from DLCD's 2014 2019-016 1 1-25-19/02-24-20 23.01.01, 2.5 Model Flood Ordinance and Establishing a purpose statement for the Flood Plain Zone. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY Comprehensive Plan and Text amendments to provide procedures related to the 2019-019 12-1 1-19/ 12-1 1-19 23.01.01, 2.5 division of certain split zoned properties containing Flood Plain zoning and involving a former or piped irrigation canal. Comprehensive Plan and Text amendments to provide procedures related to the 2020-001 12-1 1-19/ 12-1 1-19 23.01.01, 2.5 division of certain split zoned properties containing Flood Plain zoning and involving a former or piped irrigation canal. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to adjust the Redmond Urban Growth Boundary through an equal exchange of land to/from the Redmond UGB. The exchange property is being offered to better achieve land needs that 2020-002 2-26-20/5-26-20 23.01.01, 4.2, 5.2 were detailed in the 2012 SB 1544 by providing more development ready land within the Redmond UGB. The ordinance also amends the Comprehensive Plan designation of Urban Area Reserve for those lands leaving the UGB. Comprehensive Plan Amendment with exception to Statewide Planning Goal 11 2020-003 02-26-20/05-26-20 23.01.01, 5.10 (Public Facilities and Services) to allow sewer on rural lands to serve the City of Bend Outback Water Facility. DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY Comprehensive Plan Transportation System Plan Amendment to add roundabouts at US 20/Cook- 2020-008 06-24-20/09-22-20 23.01.010, Appendix C O.B. Riley and US 20/Old Bend -Redmond Hwy intersections; amend Tables 5.33 1 and 5.332 and amend TSP text. Housekeeping Amendments 2020-007 07-29-20/ 10-27-20 23.01.010, 2.6 correcting references to two Sage Grouse ordinances. Comprehensive Plan and Text amendments to update the County's Resource List and 2020-006 08-12-20/ 1 1-10-20 23.01.01, 2.1 1, 5.9 Historic Preservation Ordinance to comply with the State Historic Preservation Rule. Comprehensive Plan Transportation System Plan Amendment to add reference 2020-009 08-19-20/ 1 1-17-20 23.01.010, Appendix C to J turns on US 97 raised median between Bend and Redmond; delete language about disconnecting Vandevert Road from US 97. Comprehensive Plan Text And Map Designation for Certain Properties from Surface Mine (SM) and Agriculture (AG) To Rural 2020-013 08-26-20/ 1 1 /24/20 23.01.01, 5.8 Residential Exception Area (RREA) and Remove Surface Mining Site 461 from the County's Goal 5 Inventory of Significant Mineral and Aggregate Resource Sites. Comprehensive Plan Map 2021-002 01-27-21 /04-27-21 23.01.01 Designation for Certain Property from Agriculture (AG) To Rural Industrial (RI) DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION 5.12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Designation for Certain Property from 2021-005 06-16-21 /06-16-21 23.01.01, 4.2 Agriculture (AG) To Redmond Urban Growth Area (RUGA) and text amendment Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Designation for Certain Property Adding 2021-008 06-30-21 /09-28-21 23.01.01 Redmond Urban Growth Area (RUGA) and Fixing Scrivener's Error in Ord. 2020-022 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, chan�in� designation of certain 2022-001 TBD/TBD 23.01.010 property from Agriculture (AG) to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA) DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 2011 CHAPTER 5 SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS SECTION S. 12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY Exhibit "E" to Ord. 2022-001 Mailing Date: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 DECISION OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER FILE NUMBERS: 247-21-0000400-PA, 401 -ZC HEARING: August 31, 2021, 6:00 p.m. Barnes & Sawyer Rooms Deschutes Services Center 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97708 APPLICANT/ OWNER: CENTRAL OREGON IRRIGATION DISTRICT LOCATION: Map and Taxlot: 1812020001000 61781 WARD RD, BEND, OR 97702 ATTORNEY FOR APPLICANT: Tia M. Lewis Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C. 360 SW Bond Street, Suite 500 Bend, OR 97702 TRANSPORTATION joe Bessmian ENGINEER: Transight Consulting, LLC REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the designation of the property from Agricultural (AG) to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA). The applicant also requests approval of a corresponding Zone Change to rezone the property from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10). HEARINGS OFFICER: Stephanie Marshall STAFF CONTACT: Tarik Rawlings, Associate Planner' Phone: 541-317-3148 Email: Tarik.Rawlings@deschutes.or RECORD CLOSED: September 23, 2021 1 This matter was originally assigned to Brandon Herman, Assistant Planner. It was re -assigned to Mr. Rawlings prior to the public hearing. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 1 of 57 1. STANDARDS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the County Zoning Ordinance: Chapter 18.04, Title, Purpose, and Definitions Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones (EFU) Chapter 18.32, Multiple Use Agricultural Zone (MUA10) Chapter 18.136, Amendments Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 2, Resource Management Chapter 3, Rural Growth Management Appendix C, Transportation System Plan Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), Chapter 660 Division 6, Forest Lands Division 12, Transportation Planning Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines Division 33, Agricultural Land Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 215.211, Agricultural Land, Detailed Soils Assessment II. FINDINGS OF FACT A. LOCATION: The subject property has a situs address of 61781 Ward Road, Bend, and is further identified as Tax Lot 1000 on Assessor's Map 18-12-02.2 B. LOT OF RECORD: Tax Lot 1000 is 36.65 acres in size and has not previously been verified as a legal lot of record. Per DCC 22.04.040 Verifying Lots of Record, lot of record verification is required for certain permits: B. Permits requiring verification 1. Unless an exception applies pursuant to subsection (B)(2) below, 2 Several commentators expressed concern regarding the address of the subject property, particularly related to future access if and when the property is developed in the future. Staff stated at the public hearing that an address coordinator will be assigned with respect to future development permit application(s) and the address(es) will be vetted through emergency services. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 2 of 57 verifying a lot parcel pursuant to subsection (C) shall be required to the issuance of the following permits: a. Any land use permit for a unit of land in the Exclusive Farm Use Zones (DCC Chapter 18.16), Forest Use Zone - F1 (DCC Chapter 18 36), or Forest Use Zone - F2 (DCC Chapter 18.40); b. Any permit for a lot or parcel that includes wetlands as show on the Statewide Wetlands Inventory; C. Any permit for a lot or parcel subject to wildlife habitat special assessment, d. In all zones, a land use permit relocating property lines that reduces in size a lot or parcel' e. In all zones, a land use, structural, or non -emergency on -site sewage disposal system permit if the lot or parcel is smaller than the minimum area required in the applicable zone; In the Powell/Ramsey (PA-14-2, ZC-14-2) decision, the Hearings Officer held to a prior Zone Change Decision (Belveron ZC-08-04) that a property's lot of record status was not required to be verified as part of a plan amendment and zone change application. Rather, the applicant will be required to receive lot of record verification prior to any development on the subject property. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds this criterion does not apply. C. ZONING AND PLAN DESIGNATION: The subject property is zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) and is designated Agricultural (AG) in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan The property does not have any Goal 5 resource designations. D. PROPOSAL: The applicant requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to change the designation of the subject property from an Agricultural (AG) designation to a Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA) designation. The applicant also requests approval of a corresponding Zoning Map Amendment to change the zoning of the subject property from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10). The applicant asks that Deschutes County change the zoning and the plan designation because the subject property does not qualify as "agricultural land" under Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) or Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) definitions. The applicant states that no exception to Statewide Planning Goal 3, Agricultural Land, is required because the subject property is not agricultural land. The application does not include a development proposal. The applicant notes that it could subdivide the property under Title 17 or through the County's cluster subdivision rules in Title 18, or could hold the property for future urbanization consistent with the development pattern of the surrounding lands. The applicant's attorney stated at the public hearing that the proposed re -designation and rezoning would allow the property to be considered in the next UGB expansion by the City of Bend. She stated there were no immediate plans to develop the property in the near future. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 3 of 57 Submitted with the application is an Order 1 Soil Survey of the subject property, titled "Soil Assessment for 37.7-Acre Parcel Lot 1000, Bend, Oregon" (hereafter referred to as the "soil study") prepared by soil scientist Andy Gallagher, CPSSc/SC 03114 of Red Hill Soils. The applicant also submitted a traffic analysis prepared by Transight Consulting, LLC titled "61781 Ward Road Rezone" hereby referred to as "traffic study." Additionally, the applicant submitted an application form, a burden of proof statement, and other supplemental materials, all of which are included in the record for the subject applications. E. SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject property is approximately 36.65 acres in size and is adjacent to both Bend's city limits and Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to the west. The property is relatively level with mild undulating topography and collapsed lava tube features. Vegetation consists of juniper, sage brush, and grasses. A portion of the site was historically mined for dirt and fill for maintenance purposes of Central Oregon Irrigation District's (COID) delivery systems. The site is undeveloped except for COID's main canal located along the southern border and offshoot irrigation ditches in the southwestern and southeastern portions of the subject property. Access to the site is provided by stubbed local street connections including Darnel Avenue and Daylily Avenue, located in residential subdivisions in the City of Bend to the west. The subject property does not have water rights, and has not been farmed or used in conjunction with any farming operation in the past. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) map shown on the County's GIS mapping program identifies two soil complex units on the property: 36A, Deskamp loamy sand and 58C, Gosney-Rock outcrop-Deskamp complex. The predominant soil complex on the subject property is 58C, which is not a high - value soil as defined by DCC 18.04; 36A is not considered a high -value soil when irrigated. The subject property has no irrigation, no historical use of being farmed, and is overgrown with western juniper, sagebrush, rabbit brush and bunch grasses. COID has intermittedly used the property over the years to mine for dirt that was used for maintenance and repairs of the District's delivery systems. As discussed in detail below in the Soils section, an Agricultural Soils Capability Assessment (Order 1 soil survey) was conducted on the property by Certified Professional Soil Scientist Andy Gallagher which determined that the property is not agricultural land; Class 3 irrigated and Class 6 non -irrigated soils exist in small pockets interspersed with lava tubes and rocky, shallow soils, creating severe limitations for any agricultural use on the property or in conjunction with other neighboring lands. There is a private easement along the COID canal. In addition, as noted in the Bend Park and Recreation District's public comment, BMPRD has a planned trail, the Central Oregon Historic Canal Trail, identified in its comprehensive plan that runs through the subject property. F. SOILS: According to Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) maps of the area, 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 4 of 57 the subject property contains two different soil types as described below. The subject property contains 58C - Gosney-Rock Outcrop-Deskamp complex and 36A - Deskamp loamy sand. The applicant submitted a soil study report (applicant's Exhibit 5, Soil Assessment for 37.7- Acre Parcel Lot 1000, Bend, Oregon, dated December 2, 2020), which was prepared by a qualified soils professional approved by the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), which can be used by property owners to determine the extent of agricultural land as defined in Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-033 Agricultural Land, The certified soils scientist and soil classifier conducted field work which included 41 test pits and observations of surface rock outcrops and determined the subject property is comprised of soils that do not qualify as Agricultural Lando. The purpose of this soil study was to inventory and assess the soils on the subject property' and to provide more detailed data on soil classifications and ratings than is contained in the NRCS soils maps. The NRCS soil map units identified on the property are described below. 36A. Deskamp loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes: This soil complex is composed of 85 percent Deskamp soil and similar inclusions, and 15 percent contrasting inclusions. The Deskamp soils are somewhat excessively drained with a rapid over moderate permeability, and about 5 inches of available water capacity. Major uses of this soil type are irrigated cropland and livestock grazing. The agricultural capability rating for 36A soils are 3S when irrigated, and 6S when not irrigated. This soil is high -value when irrigated. Approximately 33.7 percent of the subject parcel is made up of this soil type. 58C Gosney-Rock Outcrop-Deskamp complex 0 to 15 percent slopes: This soil type is comprised of 50 percent Gosney soil and similar inclusions, 25 percent rock outcrop, 20 percent Deskamp soil and similar inclusions, and 5 percent contrasting inclusions. Gosney soils are somewhat excessively drained with rapid permeability. The available water capacity is about 1 inch. Deskamp soils are somewhat excessively drained with rapid permeability. Available water capacity is about 3 inches. The major use for this soil type is livestock grazing. The Gosney soils have ratings of 7e when unirrigated, and 7e when irrigated. The rock outcrop has a rating of 8, with or without irrigation. The Deskamp soils have ratings of 6e when unirrigated, and 4e when irrigated. Approximately 66.3 percent of the subject parcel is made up of this soil type.. 58C is not a high value soil as defined by DCC 18.04 ("High Value Farmland"). 36A is considered a high value soil when irrigated. There is no irrigation on the property. 3 As defined in OAR 660-033-0020, 660-033-0030 4 As defined in OAR 660-033-0020, 660-033-0030. 5 The canals were not rated for capability class, but for purposes of the assessment were included with the acreage that is not suited to agricultural production. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 5 of 57 Through numerous soil test pits and observations on the property Soil Scientist Andy Gallagher remapped the soils using a high intensity Order 1 soil survey and concluded that the subject property is comprised predominantly of Class 7 and 8 soils (nearly 64%) and is not agricultural land. The Class 3 irrigated and 6 non irrigated soils exist in small pockets interspersed with lava tubes, rocky, shallow soils creating severe limitations for any agricultural use on the property or in conjunction with other neighboring lands. An excerpt of Mr. Gallagher's summary and conclusions of his findings follows: In the revised Order-1 soil mapping, the Deskamp (Class 3 irrigated and 6 nonirrigated) are mapped as a consociation and only make up 29 percent of the parcel. The Gosney soils along with very shallow soils and rock outcrops are mapped as the Gosney-Rock Outcrop Complex because all three components of the complex are capability Class 7 or 8. This complex makes up 63.7 percent of the parcel. The irrigation canals make up 7.4 percent of the area. Based upon the findings of this Order-1 soil survey, the subject parcel is predominantly Class 7 and 8 soils and therefore is not "agricultural land" within the meaning of OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(A). The soil mapping and on -site studies also show the subject property is not agricultural land within the meaning of OAR 660-033-0020(1)(b) as it is not adjacent to or intermingled with land in capability classes 1-6 within a farm unit. The class 3 irrigated and 6 non irrigated soils on the subject property have not been farmed or utilized in conjunction with any farming operation in the past. These soil units exist in small pockets interspersed with lava tubes, rocky, shallow soils creating severe limitations for any agricultural' use either alone or in conjunction with other lands. No rebuttal evidence was presented to refute the applicant's evidence regarding soils. The applicant's soils study has been verified by DLCD. G. SURROUNDING LAND USES: The subject property is surrounded by urban development to the west within the Bend city limits; to the east and south are County exception lands zoned MUA10 developed with homes and small -acreage irrigation for pasture and hobby farm uses; and irrigated farmland zoned EFUTRB to the north and northeast. The adjacent properties are outlined below in further detail: North: North and northeast of the subject property is an area of EFU-zoned property. The adjacent property to the north, Tax Lot 1001 (Assessor's Map 18-12-02) is a 12.45-acre EFU- zoned property that is partially irrigated and developed with a nonfarm dwelling (approved under County file CU-01-75). Northeast is Tax Lot 201 (Assessor's Map 18-12-02), a 53.30- acre farm parcel that is irrigated, receiving farm tax deferral, and developed with a single- family dwelling and accessory structures. East. East of the subject property are two parcels zoned MUA10. Tax Lot 1102 (Assessor's Map 18-12-02) is a 5.55-acre parcel developed with a single-family dwelling, accessory 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 6 of 57 structures, and is partially irrigated. Tax Lot 1001 (Assessor's Map 18-12-02) is a 2.5-acre parcel developed with a single-family dwelling, accessory structures, and is partially irrigated. West. West of the subject property are residential subdivisions located in the City of Bend and developed to urban standards. These include Rosengarth Estates and Gardenside PUD in the RS Zone. Northwest is a 2-acre parcel zoned RL and developed with a residence. South: The abutting parcel southeast of COID's main canal is a 3.34-acre lot zoned EFUTRB and developed with a single-family dwelling and is partially irrigated. Southwest is Hansen Park (Tax Lot 1404 of Assessor's Map 18-12-02), a 5-acre undeveloped park zoned MUA10 and owned by Bend Metro Parks and Recreation District. East of Hansen Park is a 5-acre parcel zoned M UA10 and developed with a residence (Tax Lot 1407 of Assessor's Map 18-12- 02). H. PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice of the applications on June 11, 2021 to several public agencies and received the following comments: Deschutes County Senior Transportation Planner, Peter Russell I have reviewed the Transight April 13, 2021, traffic study to change the comp plan designation from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA) and the zoning from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (iVIUA-10) for 36.65 acres at 61781 Ward Rd, aka 18-12-02, TL 1000. Staff finds the study needs to be modified to comply with the Transportation Planning Rule and Deschutes County's accepted practices to analyze plan amendments and zone changes. For "reasonable worst -case scenario" the County compares and contrasts the highest trip generator permitted outright in both the current zone and the requested zone. DCC 18.16.020 lists those uses permitted outright in EFU. DCC 18.16.025 lists other outright permitted uses that meet applicable criteria in either DCC 18.16.038, 18.16.042, and review under DCC 18.124. The TIA cites to marijuana production facility, which the County has analyzed under the Warehouse category of the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. However, the County has opted out of the state's marijuana processing program and thus this use and its analog of Warehouse should not be used. Instead, staff would utilize Winery (DCC 18.16.025(F)) as a reasonable worst case scenario. DCC 18.32.020 lists outright permitted uses for MUA-10. The highest trip generator is a cluster development of single-family homes within one -mile of a UGB, per DCC 18.32.040(A), as the traffic study correctly notes. The study needs to be redone to show the difference between winery and a cluster development to determine if there is a significant effect and any difference in the number of p.m. peak hour trips. This would also require the volumes for the trip distribution figures to be redone as well. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 7 of 57 Upon receipt of the County Senior Transportation Planner's initial comment, above, the applicant submitted a revised traffic study, dated June 8, 2021. No further comments were offered by the County's Senior Transportation Planner. Bend Park and Recreation District, Henry Stroud, AICP, Planner The Bend Park and Recreation District has a planned trail, the Central Oregon Historic Canal Trail, identified in our comprehensive plan that runs through the subject property. While we understand that this application is just for a zoning change, the District would like to work with the applicant to acquire a trail easement for the COHCT prior to any future development of the property. The following agencies did not respond to the notice: Deschutes County Assessor, Bend Fire Department, City of Bend Planning Department, City of Bend Public Works Department, ODOT Region 4, and City of Bend Growth Management Department. 1. PUBLIC COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice of the conditional use application to all property owners within 750 feet of the subject property on June 11, 2021. The applicant also complied with the posted notice requirements of Section 22.24.030(B) of Title 22. The applicant submitted a Land Use Action Sign Affidavit indicating the applicant posted notice of the land use action on June 25, 2021. Public comments were received from neighboring property owners. Public comments are summarized as follows: The first comment was received from Jeff Sundberg, a resident and owner of property located at 61710 Gibson Drive, Bend, OR 97702 on June 15, 2021: Hi Brandon, I received a letter from Deschutes County regarding COID applying for new permits. I live at 61710 Gibson Drive, Bend, Or, 97702. 1 live next to the property in question, 61781 Ward Road. It looks like COID is requesting to go from agricultural and farm use zoning to rural residential exception area and multiple use agricultural zoning. Does this mean they want to put in a housing development? I was wondering if this response by email will suffice if I want to be notified of public hearings related to this application or if I still have to write a letter requesting to be notified of any decision or public hearing. Does any of this change my easement with COID or should I contact them directly? Thanks and let me know anything you can about this land change please. Staff responded to Mr. Sundberg's email on June 16, 2021 as follows: 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 8 of 57 Hi Jeff, Thanks for reaching out. As you noted, this is an application for a Comprehensive Plan/Zoning change so I am unaware of what COID intends to do with the property in the future. If they were to take the residential route, a minimum subdivision lot size of 10 acres still applies to the property. Because you received the Notice of Application, you are also on the list to receive the Notice of Public Hearing, which is tentatively set for ju/y 27th With regards to your easement agreement, I am not inclined to think this will change anything but contacting CO/D directly is a good idea. Let me know if you have any other questions. Take care, Brandon The second comment was received from Keda Weaver, a resident of 21435 Modoc Lane, Bend, OR 97702 on June 18, 2021: "My name is Kecia Weaver l live at 21435 Modoc Lane Bend, OR 97702 with my spouse who is listed property owner, Patrick McCoy. On 6117121 l read the notice of application for the above listed property. i would like to formally dispute the requested zoning changes. I have several concerns, to include the following: 1) irrigation/Water Rights - As a small farm operator with seasonal livestock I am concerned that the proposed changes may further draw from my water access which has been limited and may be further limited due to drought conditions. More users in the proposed Multiple Use Agriculture may further draw down water allocations. 2) Wildlife Habitat - Having lived here for over 6 years. I know the proposed area to be home to deer, rabbits, birds and other wildlife which will be disturbed. 3) Extensive residential development in the immediate area- Over the past few months, extensive development has been proposed both to the north and south of our neighborhood specifically several hundred acres south of Stevens Road and north of Bear Creek Road adjacent to Ward Road. 4) Traffic concerns - increased traffic will occur in the area with other proposed developments. 1 am concerned the points of entrance and egress to this proposed area will add to the impact to our neighborhood as well. 5) Overall rapid growth concerns for Deschutes County- As observed by pitfalls of the 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 9 of 57 rapid growth in the City of Bend over the past decade, I would encourage Deschutes County to adhere to a slower growth model. 6) Decrease in property value- This proposed change will drastically impact the view to the west of my property when it is developed. With respect to the natural beauty and appeal of this County we have chosen to call home and as a taxpayer and voter, I implore the Deschutes County planning department to deny this application at this time. I wish to be notified of all public hearings related to this application and any decision. My address is 21435 Modoc Lane Bend, OR 97702." The third comment was received from Patrick McCoy, a neighboring property owner and resident of 21435 Modoc Lane, Bend, OR 97702 on June 18, 2021: "My name is Patrick McCoy a home and landowner at 21435 Modoc Lane Bend, OR 97702. On 6117121 I received the notice of application for the above listed property. With little time to research to this proposal, based on the information / have obtained, I would like to formally dispute the requested zoning changes. My concerns are numerous and / will highlight the following. 1) Irrigation/Water Rights - As a small farm operator with seasonal livestock l am concerned that the proposed changes may further draw from my water access which has been limited and may be further limited due to drought conditions. More users in the proposed Multiple Use Agriculture may further draw down water allocations. 2) Wildlife Habitat - Having lived here for over 6 years. I know the proposed area to be home to deer, rabbits, birds and other wildlife which will be disturbed. 3) Extensive residential development in the immediate area- Over the past few months, extensive development has been proposed both to the north and south of our neighborhood specifically several hundred acres south of Stevens Road and north of Bear Creek Road adjacent to Ward Road. 4) Traffic concerns - increased traffic will occur in the area with other proposed developments. I am concerned the points of entrance and egress to this proposed area will add to the impact to our neighborhood as well. 5) Overall rapid growth concerns for Deschutes County- As observed by pitfalls of the rapid growth in the City of Bend over the past decade, I would encourage Deschutes County to adhere to a slower growth model. 6) Decrease in property value- This proposed change will drastically impact the view to the west of my property when it is developed. With respect to the natural beauty and appeal of this County we have chosen to call home and as a taxpayer and voter, I implore the Deschutes County planning department to deny this application at this time. l wish to be notified of all public hearings related to this application and any decision. My address is 21435 Modoc Lane Bend, OR 97702." 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 10 of 57 The fourth public comment was received from Kyle Weaver on June 18, 2021: "I am writing to express by objection to the proposed changes east of 27th in the pursuit of yet another neighborhood development The East side of Bend is the current hotspot for housing expansion but some caution must be taken and not simply rubber stamping these applications through and knocking down yet more trees and eliminating farm lands and mountain views. Neighborhoods are popping up in all directions all over town and the construction industryfrenzy is full throttle with little interest in these types of nature/aesthetic concerns. I don't begrudge people making some money and Bend is certainly a desirable place to live, but things need to be planned out in a more thoughtful and deliberate fashion. There is nothing wrong with taking a slower and more measured approach as we all consider Bend's growth in the comingyears. I have lived in Bend for just over 20 years and have family and friends in the proposed development area and it would drastically reduce their enjoyment of their property. I urge you to decline this request on behalf of many other community members who feel the same way." The fifth public comment was received from Treva Weaver on June 18, 2021: "Re. 1812020001000 Central Or. Irrigation District I am opposed to the proposed land use change by the above referenced owner..... The loss of open space in Central Oregon continues as the growth proponents seem mainly interested in jumping on the bandwagon and making as much profit as possible. The East side of Bend, where I have lived the past 21 years, has hundreds, if not thousands of housing sites already started or proposed. Until all this land is developed and houses sold, there is no need to venture east of 27th where this property is located ..... My great grandfather came to Oregon at age 9 in 1846 and our family has very deep roots in this state. I spend a large amount of time at my daughter's home which is directly east of the proposed development. We enjoy riding our horses in her arena and also enjoy family gatherings in her backyard. The view would be drastically changed if this land is developed. What is wrong with leaving some land in its natural state? It will be many many years before additional housing is needed in this area. Please decline this request change and leave some land in its more natural state." The sixth public comment was received from John Schaeffer, a neighboring property owner at 61677 Thunder Road, Bend, OR 97702 on June 19, 2021: "I am writing on behalf of myself and several neighbors in the Stevens Road - Thunder Road neighborhood. We are opposed to COID's proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning for taxlot 1812020001000. We realize this is not a request for development but know that it will lead to development in the next few years, that it is the first step in making the property more marketable, should it be brought into the UGB during the next update. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 11 of 57 Development has been increasing in this area, especially with the inclusion of the Stevens Road tract in the current UGB, and its subsequent sale by the state. We feel it is important to leave some natural open areas for people and animals near the city limits. This is especially critical now that the Stevens Road tract is being developed, along with all the other development in this area. A few years ago, it was possible to take our dogs walking in the Stevens Road tract and meet few people. The use in this area has increased remarkably over the last several years, consistent with Bend's growth. The COLD parcel is isolated and not readily accessible by cars, with varied topography, including a small canyon. It has significant native vegetation and, when I was there a couple of days ago, there were many birds, much more than in the nearby areas where there are houses and the vegetation has been cleared. Right now, the average size of the parcels between the city limits to the west and Ward Road to the east, and between Stevens Road to the south and to approximately where Skyline View Drive would be if extended into the area on the north, is 8 acres. If you consider only the MUA zoned parcels, the average size is 4.8 acres. If the COID property was developed to that level, this would mean 7- 8 houses in the area. I do not know what would be allowed under the Rural Residential Exception area but suspect it would probably be even denser housing. As Bend continues to grow at what may be an unsustainable pace the value of open space increases. We urge you to consider open space as a relevant and beneficial resource when you weigh the issues inherent in this kind of a zoning change. Sincerely, John Schaeffer and Patti Bailey James and Janet Lake Julie Naslund, Michael, and Miles Nevill Mike Quick Jill Harrell and Mike King" The seventh public comment was received from Cathy DeCourcey, a property owner and resident of 61718 Rigel Way, Bend, OR 97702 on June 21, 2021: "I am responding to a letter I received regarding COID's application to rezone the property behind me. File # 247-21-0000400-PA, 401-ZC. 36.65 Acres. My understanding is they want to change the zoning from Agriculture and Exclusive Farm Use Zone to Rural Residential Exception Area and Multiple Use Agricultural, I've read the Application prepared by Tia M. Lewis. I have 3 concerns. 1. The water supply says wells are to be drilled for household use. There are 2 very old (55yrs) Well Reports included in her submission. 1 find this very odd that 7 new homes will be drilling and using well water for approximately 5 acre mini ranches. Surely the water table has lowered over time? The depth of one shows 619 feet. One report seems to be missing 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 12 of 57 the gallons per minute amount. Would you explain where the household and irrigation water will be coming from for these 7 lots? 2. At what point can the MUA-10 Zoning be changed to create a subdivision of smaller sized lots? 3. Will there be more than 7lots created? The stubbed access roads listed are already narrow and congested with parked cars and traffic coming and going to 27th which has no turn lanes onto or off of Darnel. Thank you for your time and response." The eighth public comment was received from Jennifer Neil, a property owner and resident of 61723 Rigel Way, Bend, OR 97702 on June 21, 2021: "My name is Jennifer Neil, and I am Bend homeowner concerned about the above -mentioned proposed land use. The proposed land use will change what is a small, open space next to the Central Oregon canal from farm use to more residential use. I'm saddened to not only lose the space I walk on twice a day, but to see it turned into more overpriced homes that the city and the community is not able to support. The area of SE Bend where this property is located has already out -grown all of the infrastructure to support more housing. It has become extremely difficult to access my home because of the traffic and congestion along 27th street. This congestion will only increase with the addition of the new High School. Finally, I'm also very concerned that 4 of my neighbors, who are also homeowners and have properties directly next to this proposed land use change, did not receive any notice of this land use. i notified theml I hope that the city planners will consider the impact more houses will have in this area, and improve the infrastructure first that is already necessary before destroying more open space." The ninth public comment was received from Brent N. Wilkins, an owner and resident of property at 61764 SE Camellia Street, Bend, OR 97702, on June 21, 2021: "I am a resident of the Rosengarth Subdivision. I am submitting these written comments relating to the proposed zoning changes by the Central Oregon Irrigation District ("COID'q for the real property located at 61781 Ward Road, Bend, OR 97702 ("Property'9. For the reasons noted below, including due to the level of development in East Bend in close proximity to the Property, the Property's rural nature that serves as a place of recreation, and the high level of traffic and lack of a left-hand turn lane from the major arterial (27th Street) that will likely service the Property if/once developed, I ask that the Deschutes County Planning Division ("Planning Division'9 not approve COID's application. I request to be notified of any decision or public hearing related to this application, and this notice may be sent to: Brent N. Wilkins 61764 SE Camellia Street Bend, OR 97702 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 13 of 57 As noted on page 3 of COID's Burden of Proof Statement, COID will have the ability to attempt to develop and subdivide the Property into a subdivision if the permit is granted. This would potentially occur through Title 17 or Title 18 of Deschutes County's rules. This permit should not be granted as further development in the proximity of the Property will not serve the County or community. A. Development & Traffic Impacts The Property at issue is surrounded by areas that have been recently developed. This includes the DR Horton subdivision off of Pettigrew Drive, the Hayden Homes Subdivision off of Pettigrew Drive, as well as the Rosengarth Subdivision. 27th Street has not been able to keep up resulting increased traffic flow as a result of the development to date. Excluding this Property, there is now significant further development occurring in this immediate area that 27th Street will service. The development at this time includes a new commercial lot being developed at 27th Street and Reed Market that will consist of multiple businesses, a new subdivision between Reed Market and Starlight Drive on the east side of 27th Street, and significant development off of 27th Street on Stevens Road. The Property will also heavily utilize 27th Street through the likely extension of Darnel Avenue and/or DaylilyAvenue. The collective effect of all of this development is that the rural nature of East Bend is being lost and 27th Street is becoming unsafe. 27th Street at this time does not adequately handle the levels of traffic that occur each morning around 8:00 am, each afternoon around 3:00 pm as well as when school lets out, and during the weekends. I have routinely sat in my car for more than two minutes trying to turn left onto 27th Street. I have also waited more than a minute to even to try to turn right onto 27th Street. A photograph showing the line of traffic on 27th Street is enclosed. (See Ex. 1). Also, there is no left turn lane when turning left from 27th Street onto Darnel Avenue from 27th. This has resulted in unsafe conditions, including vehicles passing the turning vehicle on the right where there is no developed shoulder or lane. There are tracks on the ground where this happens, and it is not safe for those vehicles, the turning vehicle, or oncoming traffic. Eastside Gardens is also located at 27th Street and Darnel Avenue. Vehicles pull in and out of that parking lot at that intersection and from the parking lot itself. This cause an irregular, unsafe traffic flow that will only be exacerbated by further use. Moreover, due to Darnel Avenue serving as a primary access point for homes throughout the existing neighborhoods and Gardenside Park, there is already a high level of traffic and vehicles often driving fast. There is also significant on street parking that restricts views for drivers and pedestrians. This includes large 'sprinter' vans, large trucks, and sometimes trailers. (See Ex. 2). There are numerous young families in the neighborhoods, including along Camellia Street, Darnel Avenue and Gardenside Park. These families have children that run, play, skateboard, ride scooters, and bike throughout the neighborhood, including on the streets. The existing neighborhood traffic levels poses a danger to children. The proposed permit will likely result in increased traffic within the neighborhood and pose additional risk to these young families and 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 14 of 57 children. Any consideration of the Permit, and any possible approval, must address this dynamic. Finally, with the recent approval of the Southeast Area Plan for the 'Elbow; the level of traffic in East Bend and 27 Street will only increase. This will also result in the displacement of birds and other wildlife, which is further covered below, and will need a place to go. B. Preservation The Property at issue is an area that is highly utilized for recreation and embodies Central Oregon high desert landscape. In the winters, the area can serve as a place for cross-country skiing. (See Ex. 3). People regularly ride bikes, run, and go for walks. The aerial photo that was enclosed with the Notice of Application also shows the walking path through the middle of the Property. The wildlife that calls this place home includes ducks, jackrabbits, geese, and numerous other birds. There is also a rimrock canyon on the Property that is quite unique and should be preserved (See Ex. 4). The Property also has views of the Cascades, Powell Butte, and Newberry Caldera (See Ex. 5). It is also quite peaceful and has a gentle, rolling landscape full of trees, grasses, and sagebrush. (See Ex. 6). During the mornings and evenings one can go for walks and hear the songs of birds and enjoy an escape from the busy work day and pace of life. In other words, changing the Property's zoning classification and leading to the possibility (if not the eventual or imminent likelihood) of development that will further change the rural nature of Bend is not in the public's interest for rezoning standards or otherwise. C. Conclusion The existing development and use of 27 Street, the development already approved and under construction, and the future development of Stevens Road and the 'Elbow makes changing the Property's zoning classification to not be in the public interest. There simply is not adequate infrastructure to support all of these additions in a safe manner. Until the access to the neighborhoods from 27`h Street is improved, no further development or changes of zoning classifications should occur. Approving the permit will also likely result in the irreparable loss of rural landscape and habitat once the Property is developed, including possibly without any restrictions or preservation criteria. In sum, the proposed permit application should be denied, or at least not approved in its current form. At a minimum, a hearing should be set for in person comments and for further deliberation to occur." The public comment from Mr. Wilkins includes 10 photographs depicting the various conditions outlined in his written comment. These photographs and the full written comment are included in public record for the subject application. The tenth public comment was received from Crystal Garner on June 22, 2021: 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 15 of 57 "I would like to request a hearing for the proposed land development for 61781 Ward Rd, Bend, OR 97702. We live about 4 houses down from this property, it is a great and safe place for our family and so many others in the neighborhood to take walks, ride bikes, and walk dogs. The thought of this land being developed on and losing those opportunities, as well as possibly compromising the safety of our children in our neighborhood bring a heavy heart to so many of us. Please consider a hearing to recant this decision." The eleventh public comment was received from William Kepper on June 29, 2021: "Sorryfor the late response to the changes associated with Map and Taxlot. 1812020001000. The notification was not received timely. The notification is vague to exactly what changes will occur. If the changes have anything to do with the cultivation of marijuana or hemp we and our neighbors are against it. It would destroy ours and our neighbors quality of life. There are numerous small children and teenagers in the neighborhoods who should not be subjected to these types of grow farms. Also there is a child day care facility close by off 27`h Street. I hope I'm wrong about the 'Rural Residential Exception Area and Multiple Use Agricultural, respectively" statement. Thanks for listening to my concerns. I'd appreciate additional information on exactly what Multiple Use Agricultural Zone (MUA10) means." The twelfth public comment was received from David Morrison on August 30, 2021: Tarik, I may wish to participate in this hearing if I have questions or concerns not addressed by others. I plan to participate via Zoom. My wife is dealing with serious health issues and may require attention at any time which might cause me to miss all or some. So, I would like to go on record as 10096 against re -zoning said COLD property at this time. I feel that with the already in the works developments south of Stevens Rd and north of Bear Creek Rd, that the road system is already severely inadequate. Also, with the drought conditions and worsening water supplies in not just Bend but all of Deschutes and surrounding counties, I would like to see this request'tabled; to be revisited in no fewer than 5 years. The county needs to greatly improve roads and water supply issues before allowing more and more building and deteriorating areas that will make this area more desirable to live in. I enjoy watching all of the natural wildlife that lives in this space, they will disappear with development, as will our natural view that was the biggest reason for us purchasing our property which is immediately adjacent to said property. I am also concerned about the stated address of said property, Ward Rd is no where near the property. If it should be re -zoned, where exactly will it be accessed? I fear the continued rapid growth will quickly and severely deteriorate the quality of life for all of Bend. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 16 of 57 Thank you for considering my our [sic] concerns, David & Nancy Morrison J. LAND USE HISTORY: There is no history of prior land use permits having been granted for the subject property. K. UTILITY SERVICES: The subject property is served by Pacific Power and water will be provided by a well (see Exhibit 7 for will serve letter and well logs). L. PUBLIC SERVICES: The subject property is in the Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection District #2 (Exhibit 6). The Bend Rural Fire Protection Station 304 is located a few miles northeast of the subject property near the corner of Hamby and Neff Roads. The Pilot Butte Station on NE 15th Street and Highway 20 is also within a few miles of the subject property. The Deschutes County Sheriff provides police and public safety services. Access to the subject property is provided from the stubbed local street connections of Darnel Avenue and Daylily Avenue to the west. The Bend Municipal Airport is located several miles northeast of the property. The property is within the Bend -La Pine School District and is in the Buckingham Elementary School boundary, the Pilot Butte Middle School boundary and the Bend High School boundary. The property is outside of the Bend Parks and Recreation District boundary; however, Bend Parks and Recreation District has plans to develop Hansen Park Trailhead located south of the subject property that will serve the Central Oregon Historic Canal Trail system. M. NOTICE REQUIREMENT: On August 6, 2021, the Planning Division mailed a Notice of Public Hearing to all property owners within 750 feet of the subject property and agencies. A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Bend Bulletin on Sunday, August 8, 2021. Notice of the first evidentiary hearing was submitted to the Department of Land Conservation and Development on July 26, 2021. The applicant complied with the posted notice requirements of DCC 22.24.030(B). The applicant submitted a Land Use Action Sign Affidavit, dated June 25, 2021, indicating the applicant posted notice of the land use action on June 25, 2021. Deschutes County sent notice of the proposed change to its comprehensive plan and land use regulation to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, received by DLCD on July 26, 2021. N. REVIEW PERIOD: The subject applications were submitted on April 20, 2021, and deemed complete by the Planning Division on May 20, 2021. According to Deschutes County Code 22.20.040(D), the review of the proposed quasi-judicial plan amendment and zone change application is not subject to the 150-day review period. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 17 of 57 III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, County Zoning Chapter 18.136, Amendments Section 18.136.010, Amendments DCC Title 18 may be amended as set forth in DCC 18.136. The procedures for text or legislative map changes shall be as set forth in DCC 22.12. A request by a property owner for a quasi-judicial map amendment shall be accomplished by filing an application on forms provided by the Planning Department and shall be subject to applicable procedures of DCC Title 22. FINDING: The applicant, also the property owner, has requested a quasi-judicial plan amendment and filed the applications for a plan amendment and zone change. The applicant filed the required Planning Division's land use application forms for the proposal. The application is reviewed utilizing the applicable procedures contained in Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code. The Hearings Officer finds these criteria are met. Section 18.136.020, Rezoning Standards The applicant for a quasi-judicial rezoning must establish that the public interest is best served by rezoning the property. Factors to be demonstrated by the applicant are. A. That the change conforms with the Comprehensive Plan, and the change is consistent with the plan's introductory statement and goals. FINDING: The applicant provided the following response in its submitted burden of proof statement: Per prior Hearings Officers decisions [Powell/Ramsey (file no. PA-14-2 / ZC-14-2) and Landholdings (file no. 247-16-000317-ZC, 318-PA)] for plan amendments and zone changes on EFU-zoned property, this paragraph establishes two requirements. (1) that the zone change conforms to the Comprehensive Plan and (2) that the change is consistent with the plan's introductory statements and goals. Both requirements are addressed below. 1. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan: The applicant proposes a plan amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan designation for the subject property from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area. The proposed rezoning from EFU- TRB to MUA-10 will need to be consistent with its proposed new plan designation. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 18 of 57 2. Consistency with the Plan's Introductory Statement and Goals. In previous decisions, the Hearings Officer found the introductory statements and goals are not approval criteria for the proposed plan amendment and zone change. However, the Hearings Officer in the Landholdings decision found that depending on the language, some plan provisions may apply and found the following amended comprehensive plan goals and policies require consideration and that other provisions of the plan do not apply as stated below in the Landholdings decision: "Comprehensive plan statements, goals and policies typically are not intended to, and do not, constitute mandatory approval criteria for quasi-judicial/and use permit applications. Save Our Skyline v. City of Bend, 48 Or LUBA 192 (2004). There, LUBA held. As intervenor correctly points out, local and statutory requirements that land use decisions be consistent with the comprehensive plan do not mean that all parts of the comprehensive plan necessarily are approval standards. [Citations omitted.] Local governments and this Board have frequently considered the text and context of cited parts of the comprehensive plan and concluded that the alleged comprehensive plan standard was not an applicable approval standard. [Citations omitted.] Even if the comprehensive plan includes provisions that can operate as approval standards, those standards are not necessarily relevant to all quasi-judicial land use permit applications. [Citation omitted.] Moreover, even if a plan provision is a relevant standard that must be considered, the plan provision might not constitute a separate mandatory approval criterion, in the sense that it must be separately satisfied, along with any other mandatory approval criteria, before the application can be approved. Instead, that plan provision, even if it constitutes a relevant standard, may represent a required consideration that must be balanced with other relevant considerations. [Citations omitted.]` LUBA went on to hold in Save Our Skyline that it is appropriate to 'consider first whether the comprehensive plan itself expressly assigns particular role to some or all of the plan's goals and policies.' Section 23. 08. 020 of the county's comprehensive plan provides as follows: The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan for Deschutes County is not to -provide a site -specific identification of the appropriate land uses which may take place on a Particular piece of land but rather it is to consider the significant factors which affect or are affected by development in the County and provide a general guide to the various decision which must be made to promote the greatest efficiency and equity possible, while managing the continuinggrowth and change of the area. Part of that process is identification of an appropriate land use plan, which is then 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 19 of 57 interpreted to make decision about specific sites (most often in zoning and subdivision administration) but the plan must also consider the sociological, economic and environmental consequences of various actions and provide guidelines and policies for activities which may have effects beyond physical changes of the land (Emphases added by applicant.) The Hearings Officer previously found that the above -underscored language strongly suggests the county's plan statements, goals and policies are not intended to establish approval standards for quasi-judicial land use permit applications. In Bothman v. City of Eugene, 51 Or LUBA 426 (2006), LUBA found it appropriate also to review the language of specific plan policies to determine whether and to what extent they may in fact establish decisional standards. The policies at issue in that case included those ranging from aspirational statements to planning directives to the city to policies with language providing 'guidance for decision - making' with respect to specific rezoning proposals. In Bothman LUBA concluded the planning commission erred in not considering in a zone change proceeding a plan policy requiring the city to '(r]ecognize the existing general office and commercial uses located * * * [in the geographic area including the subject property] and discourage future rezonings of these properties.' LUBA held that. ,*** even where a plan provision might not constitute an independently applicable mandatory approval' criterion, it may nonetheless represent a relevant and necessary consideration that must be reviewed and balanced with other relevant considerations, pursuant to ordinance provisions that require *** consistency with applicable plan provision.' (Emphasis added.) The county's comprehensive plan includes a large number of goals and policies. The applicant's burden of proof addresses goals for rural development, economy, transportation, public facilities, recreation, energy, natural hazards, destination resorts, open spaces, fish and wildlife, and forest lands. The Hearings Officer finds these goals are aspirational in nature and therefore are not intended to create decision standards for the proposed zone change." Hearings Officer Karen Green adhered to these findings in the Powell/Ramsey decision (file nos. PA- 14-2/ZC-14-2), and found the above referenced introductory statements and goals are not approval criteria for the proposed plan amendment and zone change. This Hearings Officer also adheres to the above findings herein. Nevertheless, depending upon their language, some plan provisions may require "consideration" even if they are not applicable approval criteria. Save Our Skyline v. City of Bend, 48 Or LUBA 19Z 209 (2004). 1 find that the following amended comprehensive plan goals and policies require such consideration, and that other provisions of the plan do not apply.'" 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 20 of 57 The comprehensive plan goals and polices that the Landholdings Hearings Officer found to apply include the following... The applicant utilizes the analysis provided in prior Hearings Officers' decisions to determine and respond to only the Comprehensive Plan Goals and policies that apply, which are listed below in the Comprehensive Plan section of this Decision. The Hearings Officer finds the above provision is met, based on Comprehensive Plan conformance as set forth in subsequent findings. B. That the change in classification for the subject property is consistent with the purpose and intent of the proposed zone classification. FINDING: The applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: The applicant is proposing to change the zone classification from EFU to MUA-10. Approval of the application is consistent with the purpose of the MUA-10 zoning district, which stated in DCC 18.32.010 as follows: "The purposes of the Multiple Use Agricultural Zone are to preserve the rural character of various areas of the County while permitting development consistent with that character and with the capacity of the natural resources of the area, to preserve and maintain agricultural lands not suited to full-time commercial farming for diversified or part-time agricultural uses to conserve forest lands for forest uses; to conserve open spaces and protect natural and scenic resources; to maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the County, to establish standards and procedures for the use of those lands designated unsuitable for intense development by the Comprehensive Plan, and to provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use." The subject property is not suited to full-time commercial farming as discussed in the findings above. The MUA-10 zone will allow property owners to engage in hobby farming. The low -density of development allowed by the MUA-10 zone will conserve open spaces and protect natural and scenic resources. In the Landholding's case, the Hearings Officer found: I find that the proposed change in zoning classification from EFU is consistent with the purpose and intent of the MUA-10 zone. Specifically, the MUA-10 zone is intended to preserve the rural character of various areas of the County while permitting development consistent with that character and with the capacity of the natural resources of the area. Approval of the proposed rezone to MUA-10 would permit applications for low -density development, which will comprise a transition zone between EFU rural zoning, primarily to the east and City zoning to the west. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 21 of 57 The maximum density of the approximately 36.65-acre property if developed with a cluster development under Title 18 is 7 lots. This low density will preserve open space, allow owners to engage in hobby farming, if desired, and preserve natural and scenic resources and maintain or improve the quality of air, water, and land resources. The MUA-10 zoning provides a proper transition zone from City, to rural zoning to EFU zoning. The applicant's burden of proof statement also includes analysis in the Introduction section at pages 1-2. There, the applicant stated, in relevant part: For the past several years, Deschutes County has recognized the value in rezoning non -productive agricultural lands and has issued decisions in support of plan amendments and zone changes where the applicant demonstrates the property is not agricultural land and, therefore, Statewide Goal 3, Agricultural Lands, does not apply. These cases are the foundation for the subject request. Cases pertinent to the proposed request include. Kelly Porter Burns Landholdings LLC ("Landholdings")/File nos. 247-16-000317-ZC/318- PA On November 1, 2017, the Board approved Kelly Porter Burns Landholdings LLC's request to change the plan designation on certain propertyfrom Agricultural to Rural Residential Exception Area and to change the zone designation from EFU-TRB to MUA-10 zone. The property consists of about 35 acres and abuts the applicant's property to the west (Exhibit 1). Based on the Order 1 soil survey for the property and the submitted evidence, the Hearings Officer found that the Landholdings property does not constitute agricultural land and does not merit protection under Goal 3, and therefore, approved the change in Plan designation and Zoning of the propertyfrom Agriculture/EFU-TRB to RREA/MUA-10.6 Division of State Lands Decision/File Nos. PA-11-7 and ZC-11-2 The Division of State Lands case was a 2013 approval by the Board for a plan amendment from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area and a zone change from EFU-TRB to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10). Based on the Order 1 soil survey for the property and the submitted evidence, the Board found that the property was not agricultural land and therefore, Goal 3 did not apply (Exhibit 2). 6 The Board adopted as its findings the Hearings Officer's decision with one exception: that if the property is divided, it must be developed as a cluster development and the two irrigation ponds must be included in the common area. In addition, the Board required the applicant to sign a Conditions of Approval agreement to "assure that future residential development of the property will be harmonious with existing development in the area and so that a part of the property may be developed at urban densities if and when the property is annexed to the City of Bend." 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 22 of 57 Paget Decision/File Nos. PA-07-1, ZC-07-1 The Paget decision was a 2007 approval of a plan amendment from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area and a zone change from EFU to MUA-10. The Board adopted the Hearings Officer's decision, which found that the property did not constitute "agricultural land" and therefore, the plan amendment and zone change to MUA-10 was consistent with Goal 3 (Exhibit 3). The Daniels Group/File Nos. PA-08-1, ZC-08-1 The Daniels Group decision was a 2011 Board decision approving a change to the Comprehensive Plan map from Surface Mine and Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area and a zone change from EFU-LB and Surface Mining to Rural Residential (RR-10). The Board found that the property did not constitute "agricultural land" as defined in Goal 3, was not subject to protection under Goal 3, and therefore, the plan amendment and zone change did not require an exception to Goal 3. (Exhibit 4). The Hearings Officer finds the applicant has demonstrated the change in classification is consistent with the purpose and intent of the MUA-10 Zone. A change in classification will preserve the rural character of the subject property, due to the low density of development allowed in the MUA-10 zone, while permitting development consistent with that character. As set forth in the findings below, the subject property is not suited to full-time commercial farming but could be used for hobby farming. Low density development will also conserve open spaces and protect natural and scenic resources. The Hearings Officer finds that approval of the proposed rezone to MUA-10 would permit applications for low -density development, and will comprise a transition zone between the City and EFU zoning to the east. The Hearings Officer's findings regarding agricultural land and Goal 3 exception are set forth in the findings below. C. That changing the zoning will presently serve the public health, safety and welfare considering the following factors: 1. The availability and efficiency of providing necessary public services and facilities. FINDING: There is no proposal to develop the property at this time. The above criterion asks if the proposed zone change will presently serve public health, safety, and welfare. The applicant provides the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: Necessary public facilities and services are available to serve the subject property, including electrical power from Pacific Power and well logs showing water services are available to serve the property. Exhibit 7. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 23 of 57 Transportation access to the property is available from the stubbed local street connections of Darnel Avenue and Daylily Avenue to the west in the City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary. MUA- 10 zoning and a standard subdivision would allow the creation of up to 3 residential lots and a cluster development would allow up to 7 residential lots. If developed with a cluster development, the property could generate up to 49 additional daily trips, which according to the traffic report by Transight Consulting is a slight increase in trips, but the impact of these trips is negligible on the transportation system and the functional classification of all the adjacent roadways will not be affected with the proposed rezone. The existing road network is available to serve the use of the property if developed. The property receives police services from the Deschutes County Sheriff and is in Rural Fire Protection District #2 with the nearest fire station nearby. Neighboring properties contain residential uses, which have water service from a municipal source or wells, on -site sewage disposal systems, electrical service, telephone services, etc. There are no known deficiencies in public services or facilities that would negatively impact public health, safety, or welfare. Neighboring properties contain residential and commercial uses, which have water service from a quasi -municipal source or wells, on -site sewage disposal systems, electrical service, telephone services, etc. There are no known deficiencies in public services or facilities that would negatively impact public health, safety, or welfare. Public commentators expressed concern about access to the subject property. One commentator stated that Ward Road is 3/4 mile away and that the property is not accessible other than via a canal road, which is gated. Other commentators stated that access from City of Bend roads (Daylily Avenue and Darnel Avenue) that are currently stubbed at the edge of the eastern boundary of the Bend UGB, through existing subdivisions will be dangerous. The applicant's attorney stated that there are no current plans to develop the property. The applicant may offer the property for sale or develop as MUA-10 zone. Alternatively, the applicant could hold onto the property until the next Bend UGB expansion process. The Hearings Officer finds that no access to the subject property is required to be established for purposes of consideration of the re -designation and rezoning applications. Any future development will have to establish access in compliance with applicable zoning regulations and the comprehensive plan. Prior to development of the property, the applicant will be required to comply with the applicable requirements of the Deschutes County Code, including possible land use permit, building permit, and sewage disposal permit processes. Through these development review processes, assurance of adequate public services and facilities will be verified. The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is met. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 24 of 57 2. The impacts on surrounding land use will be consistent with the specific goals and policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan. FINDING: The applicant's submitted burden of proof statement addresses potential impacts on surrounding land uses as related to each individual policy and goal item within the County's Comprehensive Plan in subsequent findings. Analysis of consistency with each applicable goal and policy is set forth in the findings below. The Hearings Officer finds that the MUA-10 zoning is the same zoning of many other properties in the areas east and south of the subject property. As the Hearings Officer found above, MUA-10 zoning provides a proper transition zone from the City to EFU zoning. The requested zone change will not impose new impacts on EFU-zoned land to the north of the subject property because that property is a small parcel, approximately 12 acres in size, that is not engaged in commercial farm use and is developed with a nonfarm dwelling. Further, MUA-10 zoning will have minimal impacts on EFU-zoned land adjacent to the northeast corner of the subject property. As determined by the applicant's soil scientist, Andy Gallagher, it is not practical to farm the subject property because it is comprised primarily of Class 7 and 8 soils and is characterized by a cut-up landscape. The Hearings Officer finds the subject property is not land that could be used in conjunction with the adjacent property. Any future development of the subject property will be subject to building setbacks. The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is met. D. That there has been a change in circumstances since the property was last zoned, or a mistake was made in the zoning of the property in question. FINDING: The applicant is proposing to rezone the property from EFU to MUA10 and re- designate the property from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area. The applicant has provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: 1. Mistake. The EFU zoning designation was likely based on the best available soils data that the County had at the time in the County in the late 1970's when the comprehensive plan and map were adopted and where agricultural zoning was applied to land with no history of farming78. 7 Gallagher's soils analysis report for the subject property determined that the subject property was previously mapped by the USDA-SCS Soil Survey of the Deschutes County Area and compiled by NRCS into the Web Soil Survey. The property was previously mapped at 1:20,000 scale, which is generally too small a scale for detailed land use planning and decision making, according to Gallagher. 8 Source: Agricultural Lands Program, Community Involvement Results, Community Development, Deschutes County. June 18, 2014. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 25 of 57 2. Change in Circumstances: There clearlyhas been a change in circumstances since the property was last zoned in the 1970s. Soils. New soils data provided in the Gallagher soils report shows the property does not have agricultural soils. Farming economics and viability of farm uses in Central Oregon have significantly changed. Making a profit in farming, particularly on smaller parcels such as the subject property, is difficult as stated below in the stakeholder interview of the Deschutes County Farm Bureau in the County's 2014 agricultural Lands Program Community Involvement Results: Today's economics make it extremely dill cult for commercial farmers in Deschutes County to be profitable. Farmers have a difficult time being competitive because other regions (Columbia Basin, Willamette Valley) produce crops at higher yields, havegreater access to transportation and consumer markets, and experience more favorable growing climates and soils. Ultimately, the global economy undermines agricultural opportunities in the county because commodities derived from outside the region can be produced at a lower cost. Water limitations also play a role. Junior water right holders are constrained as the summer progresses and they lose their rights to those with higher priority dates. Decline in farm operations have steadily declined in Deschutes County between 2012 and 2017, with only a small fraction of farm operators achieving a net profit from farming in 2017. (Exhibit 8). Encroaching development east of Bend's Urban Growth Boundary has brought both traffic and higher density residential uses and congestion to the area. The applicant's attorney argued at the public hearing that it is not economical or fiscally responsible to retain the subject property as agricultural/farm land given the fact that it is non -productive land. Patrick McCoy testified at the public hearing that there are several other parcels/tracts that are "getting readyto do the same thing' as the applicant. He also stated that a 59-acre parcel was allowed to "go dead" to meet requirements for a rezone. He is concerned about slowing down growth in this area and further expressed concerns that the subject property is landlocked. Mr. McCoy stated that there is a lot of development occurring within a 2-mile radius of his property. Matt Carey testified at the public hearing that development is increasingly encroaching on green space and animals are getting pushed out. He also expressed concerns about access to the subject property. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 26 of 57 Kecia Weaver testified that high schoolers participate in 4H and FFA, raising animals and that smaller parcels of land are used for agriculture on a small scale. She values slow growth and maintaining the rural concept, to preserve open spaces. Ms. Weaver is concerned about the rapid development of large acreage and the impact on deer, rabbits, hawks, eagles and bats. She stated that Ward Road is .75 miles away from the subject property, which is not accessible other than via a gated canal road. Ms. Weaver requested that the applications be denied to slow the growth. She further stated that the applications could be considered at the time the UGB expansion is underway. The Hearings Officer makes the following findings. First, whether or not owners of other properties may, or may not, request a change of comprehensive plan designation and zoning is not relevant to the Hearings Officer's consideration of the current applications. Each application must be considered on its own merits. Second, concerns regarding development encroachment support a finding of change of circumstances. Given the evidence that shows the subject property is not comprised of agricultural soils, and is not land that could be used in conjunction with adjacent property, the requested rezone will provide an appropriate transition between urban City development and rural EFU properties. Third, the Hearings Officer does not have authority to deny the requested applications on the basis of concerns about growth. While understandable, the applications may be granted where, as here, all applicable criteria are met. Fourth, the applicant's attorney commented at the public hearing that delaying the applications until the City considers its next urban growth boundary (UGB) expansion will preclude the subject property from consideration. Fifth, with respect to 4H and FFA activities, the Hearings Officer finds that the requested rezone to MUA-10 will continue to allow for hobby farming. Sixth, concerning wildlife concerns, the Hearings Officer finds the subject property is not within a Wildlife Area combining zone; there are no specific wildlife preservation regulations applicable to the property. There is no evidence that the requested rezone, and and of itself, will impact wildlife. Finally, with respect to access, the Hearings Officer finds that no development is proposed at this time and, therefore, access need not be finally determined. If the subject property is developed in the future, the record shows that access from stubbed streets to the west may be considered. For all the foregoing reasons, and based on evidence in the record that shows declining farm operations and limited numbers of financially successful farm operations (Exhibit 8), the 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 27 of 57 Hearings Officer finds that a change of circumstances since the time the property was last zoned exists. This criterion is met. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 2, Resource Management Section 2.2 Agricultural Lands Goal 1, Preserve and maintain agricultural lands and the agricultural industry. FINDING: The applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: The applicant is pursuing a plan amendment and zone change on the basis that the subject property does not constitute "agricultural lands," and therefore, the subject lands are not necessary to preserve or maintain as such. In the Landholdings decision (and Powell/Ramsey decision) the Hearings Officer found that Goal 1 is an aspirational goal and not an approval criterion. As demonstrated in this application, the subject property does not constitute "agricultural land" and therefore, is not necessary to preserve and maintain the County's agricultural industry. The Gallagher soils report shows the subject property to consist predominantly (63.796) of Class 7 and R non-agricultural soils (Gosney-Rock Outcrop complex). According to Mn Gallagher, these soils have severe limitations for agricultural use as well as low soil fertility, shallow and very shallow soils, abundant rock outcrops and lava tubes, low available water capacity, and major management limitations for livestock grazing. In addition, the minor amount of Deskamp soils (Class 3 irrigated and 6 nonirrigated) are in small isolated pockets and severely restricted by lava tubes, shallow rocky soils, irrigation ditches and property lines that they cannot be used in farming in conjunction with the non -productive Gosney-Rock outcrop. The property also is physically remote from productive farmland as it is adjacent to the City of Bend's urban development to the west and rural residential development to the east and south. Mr. Gallagher concludes that the "landscape is so cut up it is impractical to farm". The Hearings Officer finds Mr. Gallagher's report supports a finding that the subject property does not constitute agricultural land. The subject property is not land that could be used in conjunction with the adjacent property. The requested plan amendment and rezone will not contribute to loss of agricultural land in the surrounding vicinity. The agricultural industry will not be negatively impacted by re -designation and rezoning of the subject property. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds the applications are consistent with Section 2.2, Goal 1, "preserve and maintain agricultural lands and the agricultural industry." Policy 2.2.2 Exclusive Farm Use sub -zones shall remain as described in the 1992 Farm Study and shown in the table below, unless adequate legal 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 28 of 57 findings for amending the sub -zones are adopted or an individual parcel is rezoned as allowed by Policy 2.2.3. FINDING: The applicant is not asking to amend the subzone that applies to the subject property; rather, the applicant is seeking a change under Policy 2.2.3 and has provided evidence to support rezoning the subject property to MUA10. The Hearings Officer finds this Policy is inapplicable. Policy 2.2.3 Allow comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments for individual EFU parcels as allowed by State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rules and this Comprehensive Plan. FINDING: The applicant is seeking approval of a plan amendment and zone change to re- designate and rezone the propertyfrom Agricultural to Rural Residential Exception Area. The applicant is not seeking an exception to Goal 3 - Agricultural Lands, but rather seeks to demonstrate that the subject property does not meet the state definition of "Agricultural Land" as defined in Statewide Planning Goal 3 (OAR 660-033-0020). The applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: Deschutes County has allowed this approach in previous Hearings Officer's decisions including Porter Kelly Burns Landholdings (247-16-000317-ZC/318-PA), Department of State Lands (PA-11- 7fZC-11-2), Pagel (PA-08-11ZC-08-1), and the Daniels Group (PA-08-1, ZC-08-1). Additionally, the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) allowed this approach in Wetherell v. Douglas County, 52 Or LUBA 677 (2006), where LUBA states, at pp.678-679: 'As we explained in DLCD v. Klamath County, 16 Or LUBA 817, 820 (1988), there are two ways a county can justify a decision to allow nonresource use of land previously designated and zoned for farm use or forest uses. One is to take an exception to Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands) and Goal 4 (Forest Lands). The other is to adopt findings which demonstrate the land does not qualify either as forest lands or agricultural lands under the statewide planning goals. When a county pursues the latter option, it must demonstrate that despite the prior resource plan and zoning designation, neither Goal 3 nor Goal 4 applies to the property. Caine v. Tillamook County, 25 Or LUBA 209,218 (1993), DLCD v. Josephine County, 18 Or LUBA 798, 802 (1990)." LUBA's decision in Wetherell has appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals and the Oregon Supreme Court but neither court disturbed LUBA's ruling on this point. In fact, the Oregon Supreme Court changed the test for determining whether land is agricultural land to make it less stringent. Wetherell v. Douglas County, 342 Or 666, 160 P3d 614 (2007). In that case, the Supreme Court stated that: 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 29 of 57 "Under Goal 3, land must be preserved as agricultural land if it is suitable for farm use'as defined in ORS215.203(2)(a), which means, in part, 'the current employment of land for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money'through specific farming -related endeavors." Wetherell, 342 Or at 677. The Wetherell court held that when deciding whether land is agricultural land "a local government may not be precluded from considering the costs or expenses of engaging in those activities." Wetherell, 342 Or at 680. The facts presented in the subject application are sufficiently similar to those in the Wetherell decisions and in the above -mentioned Deschutes County plan amendment and zone change applications. The subject property is primarily composed of Class 7 or 8 nonagricultural soils making farm -related endeavors not profitable. This application complies with Policy 2.2.3. The Hearings Officer finds that the facts presented by the applicant in the burden of proof for the subject applications are similar to those in the Wetherell decisions and in the aforementioned Deschutes County plan amendment and zone change applications. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant established the property is not agricultural land and does not require an exception to Goal 3 under state law. The Hearings Officer finds the applications are consistent with Policy 2.2.3. Policy 2.2.4 Develop comprehensive policy criteria and code to provide clarity on when and how EFU parcels can be converted to other designations. FINDING: This plan policy provides direction to Deschutes County to develop new policies to provide clarity when EFU parcels can be converted to other designations. The policy is not directed to an individual applicant, as the Hearings Officers found in the Landholdings decision and Powell/Ramsey decision. The Hearings Officer finds that, based on the County's previous determinations in plan amendment and zone change applications, the proposal is consistent with this Policy. Goal 3, Ensure Exclusive Farm Use policies, classifications and codes are consistent with local and emerging agricultural conditions and markets. Policy 2.2.13 Identify and retain accurately designated agricultural lands. FINDING: This plan policy requires the County to identify and retain agricultural lands that are accurately designated. The policy is not directed to an individual applicant, as the Hearings Officers found in the Landholdings decision and Powell/Ramsey decision. The Hearings Officer finds that the subject property was not accurately designated as demonstrated by the soil study, NRCS soil data, and the applicant's burden of proof. Further discussion on the soil analysis provided by the analysis is set forth in the findings under the OAR Division 33 criteria below. The Hearings Officer finds the proposal is consistent with this Policy. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 30 of 57 Section 2.5 Water Resources Policies Goal 6, Coordinate land use and water policies. Policy2.5.24 Ensure water impacts are reviewed and, if necessary, addressed for significant land uses or developments. FINDING: The applicant is not proposing a specific development application at this time. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant is not required to demonstrate water impacts associated with development. Rather, the applicant will be required to address this criterion during development of the subject property, which would be reviewed under any necessary land use process for the site (e.g. conditional use permit, tentative plat). The Hearings Officer finds this Policy does not apply to the subject applications. Chapter 3, Rural Growth Section 3.2, Rural Development Growth Potential As of 2010, the strong population growth of the last decade in Deschutes County was thought to have leveled off due to the economic recession. Besides flatter growth patterns, changes to State regulations opened up additional opportunities for new rural development The following list identifies general categories for creating new residential lots, all of which are subject to specific State regulations. • • Some farm lands with poor soils that are adjacent to rural residential uses can be rezoned as rural residential FINDING: This section of the Comprehensive Plan does not contain Goals or Policies, but does provide the guidance above. In response to this section, the applicant's burden of proof provides the following: As shown above, the County's Comprehensive Plan provisions anticipate the need for additional rural residential lots as the region continues to grow. This includes providing a mechanism to rezone farm lands with poor soils to a rural residential zoning designation. While the rezone application does not include the creation of new residential lots, the applicant has demonstrated the subject property is comprised of poor soils that are adjacent to rural residential MUA-10 zone uses to the east and south as well as urban residential zones within the Bend city limits to the west. Rezoning the subject property to MUA-10 is consistent with this criterion, as it will provide for an orderly and efficient transition from the Bend Urban Growth Boundary to rural and agricultural lands. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 31 of 57 The MUA-10 Zone is a rural residential zone and as discussed in the Findings of Fact above, there are many adjacent properties to the south and east that are zoned MUA 10. Additionally, the properties to the west are within urban residential zones within the city limits of Bend. The Hearings Officer notes this policy references the soil quality, which is discussed above. The Hearings Officer finds that rezoning the subject property to MUA-0 is consistent with Section 3.2, Chapter 3 of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan as it will provide for an orderly and efficient transition from the Bend UGB to rural and agricultural lands. Section 3.3, Rural Housing Rural Residential Exception Areas In Deschutes County most rural lands are designated for farms, forests or other resources and protected as described in the Resource Management chapter of this Plan. The majority of the land not recognized as resource lands or Unincorporated Community is designated Rural Residential Exception Area. The County had to follow a process under Statewide Goal 2 to explain why these lands did not warrant farm or forest zoning. The major determinant was that many of these lands were platted for residential use before Statewide Planning was adopted. In 1979 the County assessed that there were over 17,000 undeveloped Rural Residential Exception Area parcels, enough to meet anticipated demand for new rural housing. As of 2010 any new Rural Residential Exception Areas need to be justified through taking exceptions to farm, forest, public facilities and services and urbanization regulations, and follow guidelines set out in the OAR. FINDING: The applicant provided the following response in the burden of proof: Prior Hearings Officer's decisions have found that Section 3.3 is not a plan policy or directive9 Further, no goal exception to Statewide Planning Goal 3 is required for the rezone application because the subject property does not qualify as farm or forest zoning or agricultural lands under the statewide planninggoals. The County has interpreted the RREA plan designation as the proper "catchall" designation for non -resource land and therefore, the Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA) plan designation is the appropriate plan designation to apply to the subject propertyro 9 See PA-11-17/ZC-11-2, 247-16-000317-ZC, 318-PA, and 247-18-000485-PA, 486-ZC 10The Hearings Officer's decision for PA-11-17/ZC-11-2 concerning this language of Section 3.3 states: To the extent that the quoted language above represents a policy, it appears to be directed at a fundamentally different situation than the one presented in this application. The quoted language addresses conversions of'farm"or "forest"land to rural residential use. In those cases, the language 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 32 of 57 Based on past Deschutes County Hearings Officer interpretations, the Hearings Officer finds that the above language is not a policy and does not require an exception to the applicable Statewide Planning Goal 3. The Hearings Officer finds the proposed RREA plan designation is the appropriate plan designation to apply to the subject property. Section 3.7, Transportation Appendix C - Transportation System Plan ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR ROAD PLAN Goal4. Establish a transportation system, supportive of a geographically distributed and diversified economic base, while also providing a safe, efficient network for residential mobility and tourism. Policy 4.4 Deschutes County shall consider roadway function, classification and capacity as criteria for plan map amendments and zone changes. This shall assure that proposed land uses do not exceed the planned capacity of the transportation system. FINDING: This plan policy applies to the County and advises it to consider the roadway function, classification and capacity as criteria for plan amendments and zone changes. The County will comply with this direction by determining compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) aka OAR 660-012, as described below in subsequent findings. OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES CHAPTER 660, LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Division 6, Goal 4 - Forest Lands OAR 660-006-0005, Definitions indicates that some type of exception under state statute and DLCD rules will be required in order to support a change in Comprehensive Plan designation. See ORS 197.732 and OAR 660, Division 004. That is not what this application seeks to do. The findings below explain that the applicant has been successful in demonstrating that the subject property is composed predominantly of nonagricultural soil types. Therefore, it is permissible to conclude that the property is not'farmland" as defined under state statute, DLCD rules, and that it is not correctly zoned for exclusive farm use. As such, the application does not seek to convert "agricultural land" to rural residential use. If the land is demonstrated to not be composed of agricultural soils, then there is no "exception" to be taken. There is no reason that the applicant should be made to demonstrate a reasons, developed or committed exception under state law because the subject property is not composed of the type of preferred land which the exceptions process was designed to protect. For all these reasons, the Hearings Officer concludes that the applicant is not required to obtain an exception to Goal 3. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 33 of 57 (7) "Forest lands" as defined in Goal 4 are those lands acknowledged as forest lands, or, in the case of a plan amendment, forest lands shall include. (a) Lands that are suitable for commercial forest uses, including adjacent or nearby lands which are necessary to permit forest operations or practices, and (b) Other forested lands that maintain soil, air, water and fish and wildlife resources. FINDING: The subject property is not zoned for forest lands, nor are any of the properties within a two-mile radius. The property does not contain merchantable tree species and there is no evidence in the record that the property has been employed for forestry uses historically. None of the soil units comprising the parcel is rated for forest uses according to NRCS data. The Hearings Officer finds that the subject property does not constitute forest land. Division 33 - Agricultural Lands & Statewide Planning Goal 3 - Agricultural Lands; OAR 660-015-0000(3) To preserve and maintain agricultural lands. Agricultural lands shall be preserved and maintained for farm use, consistent with existing and future needs for agricultural products, forest and open space and with the state's agricultural land use policy expressed in ORS 215.243 and 215.700. FINDING: Goal 3 defines "Agricultural Land," which is repeated in OAR 660-033-0020(1). The Hearings Officer's findings below are incorporated herein by reference. OAR 660-033-0020, Definitions For purposes of this division, the definitions in ORS 197.015, the Statewide Planning Goals, and OAR Chapter 660 shall apply. In addition, the following definitions shall apply. (1)(a) "Agricultural land" as defined in Goal includes: (A) Lands classified by the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as predominantly Class I -IV soils in Western Oregon and I -VI soils in Eastern Oregon"; ii OAR 660-033-0020(5): "Eastern Oregon" means that portion of the state lying east of a line beginning at the intersection of the northern boundary of the State of Oregon and the western boundary of Wasco County, then south along the western boundaries of the Counties of Wasco, Jefferson, Deschutes and Klamath to the southern boundary of the State of Oregon. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 34 of 57 FINDING: The applicant's decision not to request an exception to Goal 3 is based on the premise that the subject property is not defined as "Agricultural Land." In support, the applicant offers the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: The subject property is not properly classified as Agricultural Land and does not merit protection under Goal 3. The soils are predominately Class 7 and 8 soils as shown by the more detailed soils report prepared by soils scientist Andy Gallagher, which State law, OAR 660-033-0030, allows the County to rely on for more accurate soils information. Mr. Gallagher found that approximately 64% of the soils on the subject property (about 24 acres) is Land Capability Class 7 and 8 soils that have severe limitations for farm use. He also found the site to have low soil fertility, shallow and very shallow soils, abundant rock outcrops and rock fragments in the surface, lava tubes, and irrigation ditches, low available water capacity, and limiting areas suitable for grazing and restricting livestock accessibility, all of which are considerations for the determination for suitability for farm use. Because the subject property is comprised predominantly of Class 7 and 8 soils, the property does not meet the definition of 'Agricultural Lands" under OAR 660-033- 0020(1)(a)(A) listed above, that is having predominantly Class I-Vl soils. The Hearings Officer finds that the soil study provided by Mr. Gallagher of Red Hill Soils is an accurate representation of the data for the subject property. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds, based on the submitted soil study and the above OAR definition, that the subject property is comprised predominantly of Class 7 and 8 soils and, therefore, does not constitute "Agricultural Lands" as defined in OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(A) above. (8) Land in other soil classes that is suitable for farm use as defined in ORS 215.203(2)(a), taking into consideration soil fertility; suitability for grazing; climatic conditions, existing and future availability of water for farm irrigation purposes; existing land use patterns, technological and energy inputs required, and accepted farming practices, and FINDING: The applicant's decision not to request an exception to Goal 3 is based on the premise that the subject property is not defined as "Agricultural Land." The applicant provides the following analysis of this determination in the burden of proof. This part of the definition of "Agricultural Land" requires the County to consider whether the Class 7 and 8 soils found on the subject property are suitable far farm use despite their Class 7 and 8 classification. The Oregon Supreme Court has determined that the term 'farm use" as used in this rule and Goal 3 means the current employment of land for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money through specific farming -related endeavors. The costs of engaging in farm use are relevant to determining whether farm activities are profitable and this is a factor in determining whether land is agricultural land Wetherell v. Douglas County, 342 Or 666, 160 P3d 614 (2007). 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 35 of 57 The subject property does not have water rights, has not been farmed, or used in conjunction with any farming operation in the past. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) map shown on the CounVs G/S mapping program identifies two soil complex units on the property. 36A, Deskamp loamy sand and 58C, Gosney-Rock outcrop-Deskamp complex. The predominant soil complex on the subject property is 58C 58C is not a high value soil as defined by Deschutes County Code. 36A is considered a high value soil when irrigated. However, as discussed in detail below, there is no irrigation on the property and an Agricultural Soils Capability Assessment (Order 1 soil survey) conducted on the property by soil scientist, Andy Gallagher, determined that the property is not agricultural land, that the class 3 irrigated and 6 non irrigated soils exist in small pockets interspersed with lava tubes, rocky, shallow soils creating severe limitations for any agricultural use on the property or in conjunction with other neighboring lands. (See Exhibit 5 for Mr. Gallagher's Soil Assessment Report). A review of the seven considerations listed in the administrative rule, below, shows why the poor soils found on the subject property are not suitable for farm use that can be expected to be profitable: Soil Fertility: Mr. Gallagher made the following findings regarding soil fertility on the subject property: "Important soil properties affecting the soil fertility and productivity of the soils are very limiting to crop production [emphasis added by applicant] on this parcel. The soils here are low fertility, being ashy sandy foams with a low cation exchange capacity (CEC) of 7.5 meq/100 gm and organic matter is verylow for Gosney 0.75% and low for Deskamps 1.5%. These soils do not have a large capacity to store soil nutrients especially cations, and nitrogen fertilizers readily leach in sandy soils. The soil depth is further limiting because it limits the overall volume of soil available for plant roots and limits the size the overall nutrient pool. Additionally, the soil available water holding capacity is very low for Gosney less than 1.8 inches for the whole soil profile, and for the very shallow soils it is half this much. The Deskamps soils have only about 2 to 4 inches AWHC translate into low productivity for crops. NRCS does not provide any productivity data for non -irrigated crops on these soils. The productivity of irrigated alfalfa is 4 tons per acre for Deskamps, and no rating for Gosney is same as a zero. There are perhaps 7 acres that could produce alfalfa with irrigation that could produce 28 tons alfalfa under irrigation and high fertility but after costs this would amount to no profit." The fact that these soils are low fertility unless made fertile through artificial means supports the applicant's position that the Class 7 soils and the entire property is not suitable for farm use. The costs to purchase and apply fertilizer and soil amendments and the costs to sample and test soils are a part of the reason why it is not profitable to farm the subject property. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 36 of 57 Unsuitability for Grazing: Mr. Gallagher also reviewed whether the parcel is suitable for grazing and found: 'This 37.7-acre parcel is not suited to grazing on a commercial scale [emphasis added by applicant]. The soils here have major management limitations including ashy and sandy surface texture. The majority of the area has soils that are very shallow to shallow with many rock outcrops and rock fragments in the surface. Wind erosion is a potential hazard is moderately high when applying range improvement practices. Because the soil is influenced by pumice ash, reestablishment of the native vegetation is very slow if the vegetation is removed or deteriorated. Pond development is limited by the soil depth. The restricted soil depth limits the choice of species for range seeding to drought -tolerant varieties. Further, range seeding with ground equipment is limited by the rock fragments on the surface. The areas of very shallow soils and rock outcrop limit the areas suitable for grazing and restrict livestock accessibility. Total Range Production from NRCS Websoil survey and estimate based soil percentages in revised soil map units n� Soi1. l Map Unit es Total annual range prr �uctio_n pounds er acre Unfavorable year„ _Normal year Favorable year µ 700 _. Y 900 a .. 1100 58 _ .re... 411 .� --_-_ 558 - --. 705... 11-1,0 GR' _ _ 315 _ . E4,T6l_� 55©-. ...� `.stimat8d based on waighted average of soils Total range production is the amount of vegetation that can be expected to grow annually in a well -managed area that is supporting the potential natural plant community. It includes all vegetation, whether or not it is palatable to grazing animals. It includes the current year's growth of leaves, twigs, and fruits of woody plants. It does not include the increase in stem diameter of trees and shrubs. It is expressed in pounds per acre of air-dry vegetation. in a normal year, growing conditions are about average. Yields are adjusted to a common percent of air-dry moisture content. The productivity provided for Dk map unit is from Websoil survey for the Deskamp soil and that provided for the GR map unit is based on 40% very shallow soils, 35% Gosney and 2596 rock outcrop. Based on previous NRCS map has a weighted average annual productivity of 669 pounds per acre in a normal year. Based on the revised Order-1 map the annual productivity is even lower, 540 pounds per acre. The animal use months (AUMs) for this 37.7 acre parcel is 5.5 based on the revised soil map and a monthly value of 910 pounds forage per 1 AUM equivalent to pounds per cow calf pair. This model assumes the cow's take to be 25% of annual productivity in order to maintain site productivity and soil health (NRCS 2009). This 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 37 of 57 limits the grazing to one cow calf pair roughly 5 to 6 months annually. This is not an economical model for livestock production [emphasis added by applicant]. Inappropriate grazing causes a reduction in desirable grasses and where present cheatgrass will increase and granite pricklygilia increases and grasses decline. Cheatgrass becomes dominate along with grey rabbitbrush. Ground fire potential increases with increasing cheatgrass. Cutting of juniper leads to an increase in grey rabbitbrush and an increase in cheatgrass with or without grazing. Idaho fescue is eliminated from areas where trees are removed due to harsh microclimate and cheatgrass replaces it. The addition of inappropriate grazing would lead to a decline in the other deep-rooted perennial bunchgrasses and an increase in annuals and granite pricklygilia." Climatic Conditions According to Mr. Gallagher, climatic conditions of this area make is [sic] difficult for production of most crops, as stated below. 'The low annual precipitation, high summer temperature and evapotranspiration rates, and shortened frost free growing season make this a difficult climate for production of most crops [emphasis added by applicant]. Irrigation is needed on area farms to meet crop needs given only 8 to 90 inches precipitation that falls mainly between November and June, with a long summer drought. The soil temperature regime is mesic. The average annual air temperature is 46 degrees F with extreme temperatures ranging from -26 to 104 degrees F. The frost free period is 50 to 90 days. The optimum period for plant growth is from late March through June. Freeze free period (average) 140 days. (NRCS 2020) These harsh climatic conditions coupled with very low soil available water holding capacity limits the potential of irrigated crop production to the Deskamps soils." Existing and Future Availability of Water for Farm Irrigation Purposes: No new irrigation water rights are expected to be available to the Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) in the foreseeable future. In order to obtain water rights, the applicant would need to convince another COID customer to remove water rights from their property and sell them to the applicant and obtain State and COID approval to apply the water rights to the subject property. in such a transaction, water rights would be taken off productive farm ground and applied to the nonagricultural soils found on the subject property. Such a transaction runs counter to the purpose of Goal 3 to maintain productive Agricultural Land in farm use. Given the poor quality of these soils, it is highly unlikely that Central Oregon Irrigation District would approve a transfer of water rights to this property. In addition, no person intending to make a profit in farming would go to the expense of purchasing water rights, mapping the water rights and establishing an irrigation system to irrigate the lands on the subject property. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 38 of 57 Given the dry climate, it is necessary to irrigate the subject property to grow an alfalfa crop and to maintain a pasture. A farmer would need to spend significant sums of money to purchase water rights, irrigation systems, maintain the systems, pay laborers to move and monitor equipment, obtain electricity, pay irrigation district assessments and pay increased liability insurance premiums for the risks involved with farming operations. Irrigating the soils found on the subject property as described by Mr. Gallagher, that have low fertility, low capacity to store nutrients, and very low available water holding capacity translates into low productivity for crops that would amount to no profit. Existing Land Use Patterns Existing land use patterns in the area are primarily non-agricultural related land uses including urban development to the west within the Bend City limits, County exception lands zoned MUA-10 developed with homes and small acres of irrigation for pasture and other hobby farm uses to the east and south, and irrigated farmland zoned EFU-TRB to the north and northeast. The EFU-zoned properties to the north and northeast include: North and northeast of the subject property is a pocket of EFU-zoned property. The adjacent property to the north, tax lot 18-12-02-1001, is a 12.45-acre EFU-zoned property that is partially irrigated and developed with a nonfarm dwelling ale no. CU-01-75). Northeast is tax lot 18-12-02-201, a 53.30-acre farm parcel that is irrigated and engaged in hay production, receiving farm tax deferral, and developed with a dwelling and outbuildings. The close proximity to the City of Bend and residential areas limit the types of agricultural activities that could reasonably be conducted for profit on the subject property. The subject property would not be suitable for raising animals that are disturbed by noise. Additionally, the property owner would bear the burden of paying for harm that might be caused by livestock escape, in particular livestock and vehicle collisions. Any agricultural use that requires the application of pesticides and herbicides would be very difficult to conduct on the property given the numerous homes located in close proximity to the property. In addition, the creation of dust which accompanies the harvesting of crops is a major concern on this property due to the close proximity residential use. Technological and Energy Inputs Required: According to Mr. Gallagher. 'The veryshallow and shallow soils and abundant rock outcrops limit practical agricultural crop production on all but about 7 acres out of the 10 acres of Deskamps soils. The Deskamps soils are into four separate delineations that are separated by rocky and shallow soils and rock outcrops and lava tubes as well as irrigation ditches. The landscape 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 39 of 57 is so cut up it is impractical to farm [emphasis added by applicant]. The best case scenario for crop production is for an area approximately seven acres along the north edge of the parcel that is spotted with rock outcrops and is of a very irregular shape. This area could at most produce about 28 tons of alfalfa under high fertilizer inputs and high irrigation water inputs. Current hay prices are from $200.00 to $250.00 per ton which would give an annual gross of about $5,600.00 to $7,000.00, before expenses. After expenses are deducted for land costs, site preparation, planting, costs of production like irrigation, fertilizer, weed control, costs of harvest including swath, rake, and bale, stack, and costs of handling, storage and marketing there would be no profit associated with producing hay crops on such a small area [emphasis added by applicant]." Accepted Farming Practices Farming lands comprised of soils that are predominately Class 7 and 8 is not an accepted farm practice in Central Oregon. Dryland grazing, the farm use that can be conducted on the poorest soils in the County, typically occurs on Class 6 non -irrigated soils that have a higher soils class if irrigated. The applicant would have to go above and beyond accepted farming practices to even attempt to farm the property for dryland grazing. Crops are typicallygrown on soils in soil class 3 and 4 that have irrigation, which this property has neither. The Hearings Officer finds that many of the factors surrounding the subject property, such as the proximity to the Bend city limits, current residential and non-agricultural related land uses in the area, soil fertility, spotty/small areas of Class 3 (irrigated) and Class 6 (non - irrigated) soils, and lack of availability of water rights, result in an extremely low possibility of successful farming on the subject property. The Hearings Officer finds that the subject property, primarily comprised of Class 7 and 8 soils, is not suitable for farm use as defined in ORS 215.203(2)(a), taking into consideration the soil fertility, suitability for grazing, climactic conditions, existing and future availability of water for farm irrigation purposes, existing land use patterns, technological and energy outputs required and accepted farming practices. Substantial evidence in the record supports a determination that the subject property cannot be employed for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money through farming -related endeavors, considering the costs of engaging in farm use. Wetherell v. Douglas County, 342 Or 666,160 P3d 614 (2007). Soils on the subject property can only be made fertile through artificial means, which is cost prohibitive from a profitability standpoint. The subject property is not suitable to grazing on a commercial scale given management limitations and expected low production of suitable vegetation. Climactic conditions result in difficulty for production of most crops. Given the fact that no new irrigation water rights are expected to be available to the COID in the foreseeable future and the poor quality of soils on the subject property, it is unlikely COID would approve a transfer of water rights to the property. Existing land use patterns also limit the suitability of grazing animals on the subject property which is in close proximity to the 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 40 of 57 City of Bend. A limited, approximately 7-acre portion of the subject property that could, at most, produce 28 tons of alfalfa with high fertilizer and water inputs, would not generate any profit after expenses are deducted for land costs, site preparation, planting and costs of production (irrigation, fertilizer, weed control, cost of harvest and cost of handling storage and marketing). Accepted farm practices in Central Oregon do not include farming lands comprised of soils that are predominantly Class 7 and 8. In order to conduct dryland grazing on the subject property, the applicant would have to take measures beyond accepted farming practices, including attempting to obtain a water rights transfer. (C) Land that is necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby agricultural lands. FINDING: The applicant offers the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: The subject property is not land necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands. The nearest agriculturally zoned land engaged in farm use to the subject property is located northeast on tax lot 18-12-02-201. This property is a 53.30-acre farm parcel that is irrigated and engaged in hay production, receiving farm tax deferral, and developed with a dwelling and outbuildings. The farm operations on tax Lot 201 operate independently and are not dependent upon the subject property to conduct its farm practices. This is evidenced by the subject property being owned by the applicant since 1930 and has never been farmed, much less combined with tax lot 201 in any way for agricultural purposes. Farming operations on tax lot 201 will be able to continue to occur if the subject property is rezoned to MUA-10. Further, the poor quality soils and lack of irrigation are not suited to agricultural production and make the subject property unsuitable for farm practices on the nearby agricultural land. The Hearings Officer finds the subject property is not necessary for the purposes of permitting farm practices on the nearby Tax Lot 201 (Assessor's Map 18-12-02) based on the factors discussed in the previous finding. (b) Land in capability classes other than I-1V/I-VI that is adjacent to or intermingled with lands in capability classes 1-IV/141 within a farm unit, shall be inventoried as agricultural lands even though this land may not be cropped or grazed, FINDING: The applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: The subject property is not and has not been a part of a farm unit that includes other lands not currently owned by the applicant. The property has no history of farm use and contains soils that make it unsuitable for farm use and therefore, no basis to inventory the subject property as agricultural land. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 41 of 57 Goal 3 applies a predominant soil type test to determine if a property is "agricultural land". If a majority of the soils is Class 1-6 in in Central or Eastern Oregon, it must be classified "agricultural land." 1000 Friends position is that this is a 100% Class 7 -8 soils test rather than a 51% Class 7 and 8 soils test because the presence of any Class 1-6 soil requires the County to identify the entire property "agricultural land." Case law indicates that the Class 1 -6 soil test applies to a subject property proposed for a non-agricultural plan designation while the farm unit rule looks out beyond the boundaries of the subject property to consider how the subject property relates to lands in active farming in the area that were once a part of the area proposed for rezoning. It is not a test that requires that 100% of soils on a subject property be Class 1-6. The farm unit rule is written to preserve large farming operations in a block. It does this by preventing property owners from dividing farmland into smaller properties that, alone, do not meet the definition of "agricultural land." The subject property is not formerly part of a larger area of land that is or was used for farming operations and was then divided to isolate poor soils so that land could be removed from EFU zoning. As demonstrated by the historic use patterns and soils reports, it does not have poor soils adjacent to or intermingled with good soils within a farm unit. The subject property is not in farm use and has not been in farm use of any kind. It has no history of commercial farm use and contains soils that make the property generally unsuitable for farm use as the term is defined by State law. It is not a part of a farm unit with other land. The subject property is predominately Class 7 and 8 soils and would not be considered a farm unit itself nor part of a larger farm unit based on the poor soils and the fact that none of the adjacent property is farmed. As shown by the soils capability study by Mr. Gallagher, the predominant soil type found on the subject property is Class 7 and 8, nonagricultural land (63.7%). The predominance test says that the subject property is not agricultural soil and the farm unit rule does not require that the Class 7-8 soils that comprise the majority of the subject property be classified as agricultural land due to the presence of a small amount of Class 1-6 soils on the subject property that are not employed in farm use and are not part of a farm unit. As a result, this rule does not require the Class 7 and 8 soils on the subject property to be classified agricultural land because a minority of the property contains soils rated Class 6. The Hearings Officer finds that there are no bases on which to find that the subject property shall be inventoried as agricultural lands under this criterion. The property does not relate to land in active farming, and there are no parcels in the area that were once part of the subject property. A majority of the soils (63.7%) are not Class 1-6. Therefore, under the predominance test, the subject property is not agricultural. The farm unit rule does not mandate a different result. The subject property is not employed in farm use and is not now, nor in the past, part of a farm unit. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 42 of 57 (c) "Agricultural Land" does not include land within acknowledged urban growth boundaries or land within acknowledged exception areas for Goal 3 or 4. FINDING: The subject property is not within an acknowledged urban growth boundary or land within acknowledged exception areas for Goals 3 or 4. The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is inapplicable. OAR 660-033-0030, Identifying Agricultural Land (1) All land defined as "agricultural land" in OAR 660-033-0020(1) shall be inventoried as agricultural land. (2) When a jurisdiction determines the predominant soil capability classification of a lot or parcel it need only look to the land within the lot or parcel being inventoried. However, whether land is "suitable for farm use" requires an inquiry into factors beyond the mere identification of scientific soil classifications. The factors are listed in the definition of agricultural land set forth at OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(B). This inquiry requires the consideration of conditions existing outside the lot or parcel being inventoried. Even if a lot or parcel is not predominantly Class I -IV soils or suitable for farm use, Goal 3 nonetheless defines as agricultural "lands in other classes which are necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands". A determination that a lot or parcel is not agricultural land requires findings supported by substantial evidence that addresses each of the factors set forth in 660-033-0020(1). FINDING: The applicant addressed the factors in OAR 660-033-0020(1) above. As the Hearings Officer has found herein, the property is not "agricultural land," as referenced in OAR 660-033-0030(1), and contains barriers for farm use including poor quality soils and lack of irrigation. The Hearings Officer finds that substantial evidence in the record shows the subject property is not "agricultural land" because the property is predominantly Class 7 and 8 soils. As the Hearings Officer found above, the subject property is not necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands. (3) Goal 3 attaches no significance to the ownership of a lot or parcel when determining whether it is agricultural land. Nearby or adjacent land, regardless of ownership, shall be examined to the extent that a lot or parcel is either "suitable for farm use" or "necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands" outside the lot or parcel. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 43 of 57 FINDING: The Hearings Officer finds that evidence in the record, including examination of lands outside the boundaries of the subject property, shows the subject property is not "agricultural land." Substantial evidence shows that the subject property is not suitable for farm use and is not necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands. (5)(a) More detailed data on soil capability than is contained in the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil maps and soil surveys may be used to define agricultural land. However, the more detailed soils data shall be related to the NRCS land capability classification system. (b) if a person concludes that more detailed soils information than that contained in the Web Soil Survey operated by the NRCS as of january2, 2012, would assist a county to make a better determination of whether land qualifies as agricultural land, the person must request that the department arrange for an assessment of the capability of the land by a professional soil classifier who is chosen by the person, using the process described in OAR 660-033-0045. FINDING: The soil study prepared by Mr. Gallagher (Exhibit 5) provides more detailed soils information than contained in the NRCS Web Soil Survey. Exhibit 5 includes the Soil Assessment Completeness Review conducted by DLCD pursuant to OAR 660-033-0045(6)(a), dated February 12, 2021, confirming the report prepared by Mr. Gallagher meets the requirements for agricultural soils capability reporting. Mr. Gallagher's soils assessment report provides a high intensity Order-1 soil survey and soil assessment - a detailed and accurate soils assessment on the subject property based on numerous soil samples - to determine if the subject property is "agricultural land" within the meaning of OAR 660-033-0020. As explained in Mr. Gallagher's report, the NRCS soil map of the subject property shows two general soil mapping units, 58C and 36A. The more detailed Order-1 survey conducted by Mr. Gallagher included 41 soil test pits, in addition to observations of surface rock on the parcel. The results of the previous and revised soils mapping units with land capability class are provided in Table 1 below. The soils report is related to the NCRS Land Capability Classification (LLC) system that classifies soils class 1 through 8. An LCC rating is assigned to each soil type based on rules provided by the NRCS. The soils report provides more detailed soils information than contained on the Web Soil Survey operated by the NRCS, which provides general soils data at a scale generally too small for detailed land use planning and decision making. The NRCS mapping for the subject property is shown below in Figure 1. According to the NRCS Web Soil Survey tool, the property contains approximately 33.7% 36A soil and contains 66.3% 58C soil. The soils study conducted by Mr. Gallagher finds the soil types on the subject 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 44 of 57 property vary from the NRCS identified soil types. The soil types described by Mr. Gallagher (as quoted from Exhibit 5) and the characteristics and LCC rating are shown in Table 1 below. GR Gosney-Rock Outcrop Complex Capability Class: 7 and 8 mapped as complex These soils are mapped together in a complex because both components are Capability Class 7 or greater, and it was not practical to map them separately. These soils are estimated to be about 25 percent Rock Outcrop and 75 percent Gosney. They have lower productivity than NRCS map unit 38B because they do not contain a mappable area of Deskamp soils that were mapped separately. The productivity reported in Table 2 for Gosney-Rock Outcrop are 20 percent less than the 58C map unit to account for more shallow and very shallow soils in the GR map unit in the revised map unit. Based on the observations here, the map unit is about 40 percent very shallow soils, 35 percent Gosney soils, and 25 percent rock outcrops. Gosney loamy sand and stony loamy sand (0 to 15 percent slopes) Description: Gosney series consists of shallow (10 to 20 inches) to hard basalt bedrock, somewhat excessively drained soils on lava plains. These soils have rapid permeability. They formed in volcanic ash over hard basalt bedrock. Slopes are 0 to 15 percent. The mean annual precipitation is less than 12 inches, and the mean annual temperature is about 45 degrees F. Capability Class: 7 Soil Variability. Depth to bedrock is from surface exposures of bedrock to 20 inches depth. There may be small inclusions of soils like Deskamp that are moderately deep (>20 inches to 40 inches). Many of the pedons are very stony. This unit includes very shallow soils <10 inches. Very shallow phase 0-15 percent slopes Description: This component of the complex is less than 10 inches to basalt. Capability Class: 7 Soil Variability: Depth to bedrock is from 1 to 10 inches. These soils are very shallow and of similar parent material to Gosney. These soils have lower available water holding capacity and an estimated 40 percent lower productivity. Rock Outcrop (0 to 15 percent slopes) Description: This part of the map unit is areas where bedrock is at the surface. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 45 of 57 Capability Cuss: 8 Soil Variability: In places, rocks are right at the surface and often times bedrock is standing several feet above the surface of the adjacent soils. In some areas (borings 39-41) there is rimrock, large boulders and other surface stone where suspected lava tubes collapsed. Dk Deskamp loamy sand Description: This map unit is mainly moderately deep, somewhat excessively drained soils with rapid permeability on lava plains. These soils formed in ash and have hard basalt at 20 to 40 inches. Slopes are 1 to 15 percent. The A and AB horizon are loamy sand. The 2B is loamy sand and gravelly loamy sand. The NRCS soils survey mapped Deskamp and Gosney in a complex described as 50% Deskamp and 35% Gosney. In this Dk unit I delineated the Deskamp component of the former complex and mapped it as a consociation based on more detailed soil sampling than the NRCS soil survey. This soil covers approximately 11 acres of the parcel and is broken up into several small delineations two of which are less than an acre. These small and isolated areas are impractical to farm. The largest delineation is 8.5 acres and has at least three areas of rock outcrop that were delineated within. Capability Class: 3-irrigated and 6 non -irrigated Soil Variability: There are small inclusions of rock outcrop and of deep soils with sandy skeletal family. Any rock outcrop I observed in the field was delineated from the Deskamp unit, but because not all rock outcrops could be resolved at the one boring per acre average sampling intensity, given the brushy conditions. CN irrigation Canals Description: These canals are non -soil areas that consist of water and steep banks. When canals are dry they are hard rock bottom. Capability Class: Not Rated Based on Mr. Gallagher's qualifications as a certified Soil Scientist and Soil Classifier, the Hearings Officer finds the submitted soil study to be definitive and accurate in terms of site - specific soil information for the subject property. The state's agricultural land rules, OAR 660-033-0030, allow the County to rely on the soil capability analysis prepared by Mr. Gallagher, which is more detailed than the NRCS soil maps and soil surveys and the Web Soil Survey operated bythe NRCS as oflanuary 2, 2012. The Hearings Officerfinds thatthe Order- 1 soil survey is related to the NRCS land capability classification system. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 46 of 57 The Hearings Officer finds that the more detailed soils information in the report prepared by Mr. Gallagher assists the County to make a better determination of whether the subject property qualifies as agricultural land. As set forth above, DLCD completed a Soil Assessment Completeness Review pursuant to OAR 660-033-0045(6)(a), confirming the report prepared by Mr. Gallagher meets the requirements for agricultural soils capability reporting. For all the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the subject property is not "agricultural land," Table 1- Summary of Order I Soil Survey Previous Revised Capability Class Previous Revised Map Map Map Soil Series Name Ma " Ac "%. Ac -%- Symbol Symbol 36A Dk Deskamp loamy sand0 to 3 irrigated 12.2 32.3 10.9 28.90 3 percent slopes 6 non -irrigated 58C -- Gosney-Rock outcrop- 6, 7 and 8 Deskamp complex, 0 to 15 25.5 67.7 0 0 percent slopes -- GR Gosney-Rock Outcrop 7 and 8 0 0 Com lex 24 63.7 CN irrigation Canal not rated 0 0 2.8 7.4 Total 37.7 100 37.7 100 *Soils that Were previously mapped as components Ora complex Tnat are mapped IRS QuAZiVk V%#VIIo ui revised map. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 47 of 57 (c) This section and OAR 660-033-0045 apply to: (A) A change to the designation of land planned and zoned for exclusive farm use, forest use or mixed farm forest use to a non -resource plan designation and zone on the basis that such land is not agricultural land, and FINDING: The applicant is seeking approval of a non -resource plan designation on the basis that the subject property is not defined as agricultural land. (d) This section and OAR 660-033-0045 implement ORS 215.211, effective on October 1, 2011. After this date, only those soils assessments certified by the department under section (9) of this rule may be considered by local governments in land use proceedings described in subsection (c) of this section. However, a local government may consider soils assessments that have been completed and submitted prior to October 1, 2011. FINDING: The applicant submitted a soils study by Mr. Gallagher of Red Hill Soils dated December 2, 2020. The soils study was submitted following the ORS 215.211 effective date. Staff received acknowledgement via email on February 16, 2021, from Hilary Foote, Farm/Forest Specialist with the DLCD that the soils study is complete and consistent with DLCD's reporting requirements. The Hearings Officer finds this criterion to be met based on the submitted soils study and confirmation of completeness and consistency from DLCD. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 48 of 57 (e) This section and OAR 660-033-0045 authorize a person to obtain additional information for use in the determination of whether land qualifies as agricultural land, but do not otherwise affect the process by which a county determines whether land qualifies as agricultural land as defined by Goal 3 and OAR 660-033-0020. FINDING: The applicant has provided a DLCD certified soils study as well as NRCS soils data. The Hearings Officer finds that the applicant has complied with the soils analysis requirements of OAR 660-033-0045 in order to obtain DLCD certification. DLCD's certification establishes compliance with OAR 660-033-0045. The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is met. DIVISION 12, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING OAR 660-012-0060 Plan and Land use Regulation Amendments (1) if an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation (including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, then the local government must put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule, unless the amendment is allowed under section (3), (9) or (10) of this rule. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would. (a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan); (b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system, or (c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection based on projected conditions measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP. As part of evaluating projected conditions, the amount of traffic projected to be generated within the area of the amendment may be reduced if the amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement that would demonstrably limit traffic generation, including, but not limited to, transportation demand management. This reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the significant effect of the amendment. (A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility, (B) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that it would not meet the 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 49 of 57 performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or (C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise projected to not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan. FINDING: As referenced in the agency comments section in the Findings of Fact above, the Senior Transportation Plannerfor Deschutes County initially requested a revised traffic study for the applications. The applicant submitted an updated report from Transight Consulting LLC dated June 8, 2021, to address identified concerns and no further comments were received from the County's Senior Transportation Planner. The update includes adjustments to the review of potential high impact land use scenarios to include comparisons between a winery and a cluster development, deemed the "worst case scenario" outright uses allowed in EFU and MUA10 Zones, respectively. In response to these criteria, the applicant's burden of proof provides the following statement: Attached as Exhibit 9 is a transportation impact analysis memorandum prepared by tragic engineer, Joe Bessman, PE. Mr. Bessman made the following key findings with regard to the proposed zone change and concluded that a significant affect does not occur with the proposed rezone: • Rezoning of the 36.65-acre CO/D property from EFU-TRB to MUA could generate up to 49 additional weekday daily trips, including only five additional trips during the weekday p.m. peak hour. • The change in trips does not meet Deschutes County, ODOT, or City of Bend thresholds of significance at any nearby locations. • The site will be served with stubbed local street connections west through the Marketplace Subdivision that connect to the SE 27th Street corridor. This access configuration does not impact Deschutes Countystreets. • The nearest classified intersection of SE 27th Street/SE Reed Market Road has a very low crash rate. There are no documented safety needs within the project vicinity. Based on this review a significant affect does not occur with the proposed rezone given the minor potential impacts in transitioning from EFU to MUA zoning. Based on the traffic analysis and findings by Mr. Bessman, the application complies with the TPR. Updated findings below, submitted by Transight Consulting on June 8, 2021, are set forth in the revised traffic study: 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 50 of 57 • Rezoning of the 36.65-acre CO/D property from EFU-TRB to MUA provides similar potential impacts to the existing zoning, with the potential for a trip reduction within a "worse case" trip generation scenario. • The reduction in trips does not meet Deschutes County, ODOT, or City of Bend thresholds of significance at any nearby locations. • The site will be served with stubbed local street connections west through the adjacent Marketplace Subdivision that connect to the SE 271h Street corridor. This access configuration does not impact Deschutes County streets. • The nearest classified intersection of SE 27th StreetlSE Reed Market Road has a very low crash rate. There are no documented safety needs within the project vicinity. Based on this review a significant affect does not occur with rezoning from EFU to MUA zoning. With the range of outright allowable uses identified within ORS 215.213(1) and 215.283(1) as a "property right" additional trip generation scenarios could be shown resulting in a trip reduction. Regardless of the scenario, the overall impact of the rezone is negligible on the transportation system and the rezone reflects the more appropriate use of the propertygiven its unsuitability for farming. Public comments received by the County indicate concerns with potential traffic impacts as a result of the proposed plan amendment and zone change. These comments are non- specific in nature, do not include any findings contrary to the findings set forth in the Transight Consulting, LLC analyses, and do not include any information that is inconsistent with the Transight Consulting, LLC°s reports. Public comments express a generalized concern about traffic impacts associated with additional growth if the subject property is developed. The Hearings Officer notes that additional transportation/traffic review will be required at the time of any future development application(s). The Hearings Officer finds that the proposed rezone will not significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility for the following reasons: (1) it will not change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; (2) it will not change standards implementing a functional classification system; and (3) it will not result in any of the following effects - types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility, degradation of the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that it would not meet performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan, or degradation of the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise projected not to meet performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan. The Hearings Officer finds that, based on OAR 660-012-0600 ), the County is not required to put in place measures as provided in Section (2) of this rule. The applicant has demonstrated compliance with the TPR. These criteria are met. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 51 of 57 DIVISION 15, STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND GUIDELINES OAR 660-015 Division 15 Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines FINDING: The Statewide Planning Goals are addressed below, as set forth in the applicant's burden of proof: Goal 1, Citizen Involvement. Deschutes County will provide notice of the application to the public through mailed notice to affected property owners and by requiring the applicant to post a "proposed land use action sign" on the subject property. Notice of the public hearings held regarding this application will be placed in the Bend Bulletin. A minimum of two public hearings will be held to consider the application. Goal 2, Land Use Planning. Goals, policies, and processes related to zone change applications are included in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and Titles 18 and 23 of the Deschutes County Code. The outcome of the application will be based on findings of fact and conclusions of law related to the applicable provisions of those laws as required by Goal 2. Goal 3, Agricultural Lands. The applicant has shown that the subject property is not agricultural land because it is comprised predominantly of Class 7 and 8 soils that are not suitable for farm use. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with Goal 3. Goal 4, Forest Lands. Goal 4 is not applicable because the subject property does not include any lands that are zoned for, or that support, forest uses. Goal 5, Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces. Deschutes County DIAL property information and Interactive Map show the subject property has 'Wetlands" that correspond with CO/D's irrigation distribution system within the property including the developed canals and ditches. According to the Comprehensive Plan (Chapters 2, Resource Management and 5, Supplemental Sections), in 1992 Deschutes County Ordinance 92-045 adopted all wetlands identified on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Maps as the Deschutes County wetland inventory. In addition, as described in the Comprehensive Plan, the NWI Map "shows an inventory of wetlands based on high -altitude aerial photos and limited field work. While the NWI can be useful for many resource management and planning purposes, its small scale, accuracy limitations, errors of omission that range up to 55 percent (existing wetlands not shown on NWI), age (1980s), and absence of property boundaries make it unsuitable for parcel -based decision making." The Comprehensive Plan has no specific protections for wetlands, protections are provided by ordinances that implement Goal 5 protections (for example, fill and removal zoning code regulations). In the case of Irrigation Districts performing work within wetlands, DCC 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 52 of 57 18.120.050(C) regarding Fill and Removal Exceptions allows fill and removal activities as a use permitted outright as stated below: C. Fill and removal activities conducted by an Irrigation District involving piping work in existing canals and ditches within wetlands are permitted outright. Because the proposed plan amendment and zone change are not development, there is no impact to any Goal 5 resource. Any potential future development of a wetland - no matter what zone the wetland is in - will be subject to review by the County's fill and removal regulations. Goal 6, Air, Water and Land Resources Quality. The approval of this application will not impact the quality of the air, water, and land resources of the County. Any future development of the property would be subject to local, state and federal regulations that protect these resources. Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards. According to the Deschutes County DIAL property information and Interactive Map the entire Deschutes County, including the subject property, is located in a Wildfire Hazard Area. The subject property is also located in Rural Fire Protection District #2. Rezoning the property to MUA-10 does not change the Wildfire Hazard Area designation. Any future development of the property would need to demonstrate compliance with any fire protection regulations and requirements of Deschutes County. Goal 8, Recreational Needs. This goal is not applicable because no development is proposed and the property is not planned to meet the recreational needs of Deschutes County. The Bend Parks and Recreation District has an undeveloped park site, Hansen Park, located to the south of the property with plans to develop the park trailhead that would serve the Central Oregon Historic Canal Trail System. The proposed rezone does not impact the recreational needs of Deschutes County as no development is proposed. Goal 9, Economy of the State. This goal does not apply to this application because the subject property is not designated as Goal 9 economic development land. In addition, the approval of this application will not adversely affect economic activities of the state or area. Goal 10, Housing. The CounVs Comprehensive Plan Goal 10 analysis anticipates that farm properties with poor soils, like the subject property, will be converted from EFU to MUA-10 or RR-10 zoning and that these lands will help meet the need for rural housing. Approval of this application, therefore, is consistent with Goal 10 as implemented by the acknowledged Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 53 of 57 Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services. The approval of this application will have no adverse impact on the provision of public facilities and services to the subject site. Pacific Power has confirmed that it has the capacity to serve the subject property and the proposal will not result in the extension of urban services to rural areas. Goal 12, Transportation. The application complies with the Transportation System Planning Rule, OAR 660-012-0060, the rule that implements Goal 12. Compliance with that rule also demonstrates compliance with Goal 12. Goal 13, Energy Conservation. The approval of this application does not impede energy conservation. The subject property is located adjacent to the city limits for the City of Bend. If the property is developed with residential dwellings in the future, providing homes in this location as opposed to more remote rural locations will conserve energy needed for residents to travel to work, shopping and other essential services provided in the City of Bend. Goal 14, Urbanization. This goal is not applicable because the applicant's proposal does not involve property within an urban growth boundary and does not involve the urbanization of rural land. The MUA-10 Zone is an acknowledged rural residential zoning district that limits the intensity and density of developments to rural levels. The compliance of this zone with Goal 14 was recently acknowledged when the County amended its comprehensive plan. The plan recognizes the fact that the MUA-10 and RR zones are the zones that will be applied to lands designated Rural Residential Exception Areas. Goals 15 through 19. These goals do not apply to land in Central Oregon. The Hearings Officer finds consistency with Goal 1 (Citizen Involvement) has been established with the public notice requirements required by the County for these applications (mailed notice, posted notice and two public hearings). Similarly, the Hearings Officer finds consistency with Goal 2 (Land Use Planning) based on the applications' consistency with goals, policies and processes related to zone change applications as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and Titles 18 and 23 of the Deschutes County Code. Based on the findings above, the Hearings Officer finds consistency with Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands) has been demonstrated because the subject property is not Agricultural Land. The property is not comprised of Forest Lands; Goal 4 is inapplicable. With respect to Goal 5 (Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces), the Hearings Officer finds that the property does not include any scenic and historic areas. Moreover, while the property is currently open and undeveloped, the County Goal 5 inventory does not include the subject property as an "open space" area protected by Goal 5. Members of the public expressed concern regarding potential impact on wildlife. However, the Hearings Officer notes that the property does not include a wildlife overlay (WA) 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 54 of 57 designation and, more importantly, no development is proposed at this time. Rezoning the subject property will not, in and of itself, impact wildlife on the subject property. The property does include areas mapped as wetlands by the NWI, which constitute Goal 5 natural resources. Fill and removal activities conducted by an irrigation district are allowed outright under DCC 18.120.050(C). The Hearings Officer again notes that no specific development activities, including fill and removal, is proposed at this time. Because the proposed plan amendment and zone change do not constitute development, there is no impact to any Goal 5 resource. The Hearings Officer finds that future development activities will be subject to local, state and federal regulations that protect delineated wetlands. For these reasons, the Hearings Officer finds consistency with Goal 5. The Hearings Officer finds consistency with Goal 6 (Air, Water and Land Resources Quality) because there is no demonstrable impact of approval of the application to rezone the subject property from EFU to MUA-10. Future development activities will be subject to local, state and federal regulations that protect these resources. With respect to Goal 7 (Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards), the Hearings Officer finds consistency with this Goal based on the fact that rezoning the property to MUA-10 does not change the Wildfire Hazard Area designation that is applicable to the entirety of Deschutes County. The subject property is within the Rural Fire Protection District #2. Any application(s) for future development activities will be required to demonstrate compliance with fire protection regulations. The Hearings Officer finds consistency with Goal 8 (Recreational Needs) given the fact that no development is currently proposed and that rezoning, in and of itself, will not impact recreational needs of Deschutes County. Members of the public testified regarding concerns of loss of the currently vacant property as open space and for recreational uses. The Hearings Officer notes that the record includes evidence regarding an undeveloped Bend Park and Recreation District park site, Hansen Park, located to the south of the property. There are plans to develop a park trailhead that would serve the Central Oregon Historic Canal Trail System. The Hearings Officer finds that the proposed rezone does not impact these recreational amenity plans. The Hearings Officer finds Goal 9 (Economy of the State) is inapplicable because the subject property is not designated as Goal 9 economic development land. The Hearings Officer finds the applications are consistent with Goal 10 (Housing) because the Comprehensive Plan Goal 10 chapter anticipates that farm properties with poor soils will be converted from EFU to MUA-10 or RR-10 zoning, making such properties available to meet the need for rural housing. Although no development of the subject property is proposed at this time, rezoning the subject property from EFU to MUA-10 will enable consideration of the property for potential rural housing development in the future. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 55 of 57 The Hearings Officer finds the applications are consistent with Goal 11 (Public Facilities and Services). The record establishes that Pacific Power has capacity to serve the subject property and the proposal will not result in the extension of urban services to rural areas. Based on the findings above regarding the Transportation System Planning Rule, OAR 660- 012-0060, the Hearings Officer finds the applications are consistent with Goal 12 (Transportation). The Hearings Officerfinds the applications are consistentwith Goal 13 (Energy Conservation) because there is no evidence approval of the applications will impede energy conservation. Rather, if the property is developed with residential dwellings in the future, energy conservation will be increased - not impeded - as residents will not be required to travel as far to work, shopping and other essential services provided in the City of Bend. The Hearings Officer finds the applications are consistent with Goal 14 (Urbanization). The subject property is not within an urban growth boundary and does not involve urbanization of rural land because the MUA-10 zone does not include urban uses as permitted outright or conditionally. The MUA-10 zone is an acknowledged rural residential zoning district that limits the intensity and density of developments to rural levels. The state acknowledged compliance of the MUA-10 zone with Goal 14 when the County amended its comprehensive plan. The Hearings Officer finds that Goals 15-19 do not apply to land in Central Oregon. For all the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds compliance with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals has been demonstrated. IV. DECISION & RECOMMENDATION Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant has met the burden of proof necessary to justify the request for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendmentto re -designate the subject propertyfrom Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area and a corresponding request for a Zone Map Amendment (Zone Change) to reassign the zoning of the subject property from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10). The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners is the final local review body for the applications before the County. DCC 18.126.030. The Hearings Officer recommends approval of the applications based on this Decision of the Deschutes County Hearings Officer. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 56 of 57 4 Stephanie Marshall, Deschutes County Hearings Officer Dated this _12th_ day of October, 2021 Mailed this 13th day of October, 2021 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 57 of 57 owner Central Oregon Irrigation District Tia M. Lewis Joe Bessman agent Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C. Transight Consulting inCareOf address citystZip type cdd id 1055 SW Lake Ct Redmond, OR 97756 HO Decision 21-400-PA, 401-ZC 360 SW Bond Street, Suite 500 Bend, OR 97702 HO Decision 21-400-PA, 401-ZC Via Email HO Decision 21-400-PA, 401-ZC Mailing Date: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 NOTICE OF HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION The Deschutes County Hearings Officer has approved the land use application(s) described below: FILE NUMBERS: 247-21-000400-PA, 401-ZC LOCATION: The subject property has an assigned address of 61781 Ward Rd, Bend, OR 97702; and is identified on the County Assessor's Map No. 18-12- 02, as Tax Lot 1000. OWNER/ APPLICANT: Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) ATTO RN EY FOR APPLICANT: Tia M. Lewis Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C. 360 SW Bond Street, Suite 500 Bend, OR 97702 SUBJECT: The applicant requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the designation of the property from Agricultural (AG) to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA). The applicant also requests approval of a corresponding Zone Change to rezone the property from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10). STAFF CONTACT: Tarik Rawlings, (541) 317-3148, tarik.rawling_s@deschutes.org RECORD: Record items can be viewed and downloaded from: www.buildingpermits.oregon.gov APPLICABLE CRITERIA: The Hearings Officer reviewed this application for compliance against criteria contained in Chapters 18.04, 18.16, 18.32 and 18.136 in Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code (DCC), the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, the procedural requirements of Title 22 of the DCC, Chapters 2, 3 and Appendix C of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, Divisions 6, 12, 15, and 33 of the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 660, and Chapter 215.211 of the Oregon Revised Statutes. 1 1 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 la�(541) 388-6575 @ cdd@deschutes.org @ www.deschutes.org/cd DECISION: The Hearings Officer finds that the application meets applicable criteria, and recommends approval of the applications. As a procedural note, the hearing on August 31, 2021, was the first of two required de novo hearings per DCC 22.28.030(c). The second de novo hearing will be heard in front of the Board of County Commissioners at a date to be determined. This decision becomes final twelve (12) days after the date mailed, unless appealed by a party of interest. To appeal, it is necessary to submit a Notice of Appeal, the base appeal deposit plus 20% of the original application fee(s), and a statement raising any issue relied upon for appeal with sufficient specificity to afford the Board of County Commissioners an adequate opportunity to respond to and resolve each issue. Copies of the decision, application, all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost. Copies can be purchased for 25 cents per page. NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIEN HOLDER, VENDOR OR SELLER: ORS CHAPTER 215 REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT MUST BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. 247-21-000400-PA, 401-ZC Page 2 of 2 owner agent InCareOf address cltyStZiP type cdd id Central Oregon Irrigation District 1055 SW lake Ct Redmond, OR 97756 HO NOD 71400-PA, 401-7C Tia M. Lewis Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C. 360SW Bond Street, Suite 500 Bend, OR 97702 HO NOD 21 400-PA, 401.ZC Joe Bessman Transight Consulting Via Email HONDO 21.400-PA, 401-ZC 21435 Modoc lane Bend,OR977B2 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC Kecla Weaver 21435 Modoc Lane Be nd,OR97702 HONOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC Patrick McCoy 61765 Gibson Drive Bend, OR97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC Matt Carey 61710 Gibson Drive Bend, OR 97702 NONo21.400-PA, 401-ZC Jeff Sundberg 61375 Kobe St Bend, OR97702 HO NOD 21400-PA, 401-ZC Kyle Weaver 1020 SE Teakwood Dr Bend, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC Treva Weaver John Schaeffer 61677 Thunder Road Bend, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400 401-ZC Cathy DeCourcey 61718 Rigel Way Bend, OR 97702 LION 21-400-PA, 401-ZC Jennifer Neil 61723 Rigel Way Bend, OR 97702 HONDO 21-400-PA, 401-11 Brent N. Wilkins 61764 SE Camellia Street Bend, Oft 97702 HO NOD 21 400-PA, 401-ZC Crystal Garner 21262 Capella PI Bend, OR 97702 NO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC William Kepper 21267 Dayllly Ave Bend, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400PA, 401-ZC BEND FIRE DEPT. LARRY MEDINA 1212 SW SIMPSON, SUITE O Bend,OR97702 HONDO 7.1-400-PA, 401-ZC B E NO GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPT. 709 NW WALL. ST., STE. 102 Bend, OR 97701 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-Z-C Be NO PLANNI NG DEPT. P.O. BOX 431 Bend, OR 97709 110 NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC BEND PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. 575 NE 15TH ST. Bend, OR 97701 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401 ZC DESCHUTC: S CO. ASSESSOR ELECTRQNIC NO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC DESCHUTES CO. SR. TRANS. PLANNER PETER RUSSELL ELECiftONIC HO NOD 21-400PA, 401-ZC ODOT REGION 4 PLANNING 63055 N. HWY. 97, BUILDING M BEND, OR 97703 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC HAROLD K MARKEN REV TRUST ETAL MARKEN,HAROLD K CO.TTEE ETAL 21495 BEARCREEKRD BE ND, OR 97701 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401.ZC WEST, KEVIN&JENNIFER PO BOX 1923 BEND, OR 97709 LION DO 21.400-PA, 401-ZCQUICK,MICHAEL HAROLD & DELORES MARIE 21374 STEVENS RD BEND, ORB 7702 HONOD 21.400-PA, 401-Z-C OCCUPANT 61710 GIBSON DR BEND, OR97702 HO NOD 21A00-PA, 401 -ZC MORRISON, DAVID I & NANCV L 21415 MODOC LN BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21 400-PA, 401-ZC FERNS,TIMOTHYJ & RONDA L HALVORSE.N. 61730 GIBSON DR BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC CAREY, MATTHEW A & SHARI A 61765 GIBSON DR BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC MCCOV, PATRICK E 21435 MODOC LN BEND, OR 17702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC WARRENBURG FAMILY LIVING TRUST WARRENBURG, ROBERTJR & LAURA TTEES 6174061BSON DR REND ,OR 97702 HONDO 21.400-PA, 401-ZC 21485-A MODOC LN BEND, OR 97702 HONOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC NELSON,HARRYR 61676THUNDER RD BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC HARRE.LL,JILL KINGHAM LAKE,JAMES E &JANET M 61661 THUNDER RD BEND, Oft 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC BAILEY-SCHAEFFER TRUST BAILEY,PATTI L&SCHAEFFERJOHN M TTEES 61677 TH UNDER RD BEND, OR 97702 NO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC NASLUND, JULIE & NEVILL, MICHAEL 61645 THUNDER RD BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC PETERS, ROBERT W & USA M 21360 STEVENS RD BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC LUCAS FAMILY REV LIVING TRUST LUCAS,GERALD&MARGARET TTEES 21390 STEVENS RD BEND,OR977G2 HONOD 21.400-PA,401-ZC PASIAY,BRIAN&NANCV 21370 STEVENS RD BEND, OR 97702 HONDO 21-400-PA, 401-ZC BEND METRO PARKS& RECREATION DIST 799 SW COLUMBIA ST BEND,OR97702-3218 HO NOD 21 400-PA, 401-ZC LARSEN, MICHAEL ETAL 10927 SW MATZEN OR WI LSONVILLE, OR 97070 HO NOD 21-400 PA, 401-ZC SOCKEYE E LLC [T AL 61165 RIVER BLUFF TRAIL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC RASMUSSEN, MON IQUE & RICHARD 61195 BONNY BRIDGE BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-1A, 401-ZC WOLF,DAVIDG PO BOX 5907 BEND, OR 97708 HO NDO 21-400-PA, 401-ZC CARR, BRUCE 21265 SE DOVE. LN BEND, OR 97702 LION OD 21-400-PA, 401.ZC LOUIS G ROGERSON & JANICE M EDGE... ETAL ROGERSON,JANICE M TRUSTEE ETAL 21280 DOVE LN BEND, OR 97702 LION OD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC GROVE,HILARV VERONICA 21273 DAYLILY AVE BEND, OR 97101 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC KEEPER, WILLIAM EDSON & KAREN GRACE 21267 DAYLILY AVE BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC TILTON, PATRICIAJ & CHRISTOPHER L 21261 DAYLILY AVE BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC NORMAN,IENNIFER&PAUL 2125 S DAYLILY AVE BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA,401-ZC TUTTLE/GALOTTI REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST TUTTLE, CRAIG H TTEE ETAL 61757 CAMELLIA ST BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC SWAP FORD FAMILY TRUST SWAFFORD,MATTHEWJ&JEEANETTEETTEES 61753CAMELLIAST BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC FEUERMAN, JACOB& MATHENV, ELISSA 21257 BELLFLOWER PL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21 400-PA, 401-ZC ARBAUGH, KYLE. 21261 BELLFLOWER PL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-4GO PA, 401-ZC MCQUISTON, ROBIN SUE&KEVIN LAMES 19882 PORCUPINE DR BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21400-PA, 401-ZC LEONG, KIRBV C W & LYNN Y 1044 KAMEHAME DR HONOLULU, HI 96825 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401 ZC VON ZANGE, SCOTTA 21297 BELLFLOWER PL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401ZC BODI, AMY&DAVID 21250WOODRUFF PL BEND, OR 97702 NON 21-400-PA, 401-ZC LOPEZ, RONALD L & LAURA MARIE C/O LAURA LOPEZ PO BOX 1492 GRANTS PASS, OR 97528 NO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC BETTENCOURT LIVING TRUST BETTENCOURT,JOHN&SANDRAJTTEES 587 STONECORRALCT ANGELS CAMP, CA 95222 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC OLSON,TIMOTHYJ 21262 WOODRUFF PL BEND,OR 97702-3601 HONDO 21400-PA, 401-ZC PEPPER, CLIVE & SUSAN 21266 WOODRUFF PL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21400PA, 401ZC JOHNSON, ALLEN H 21270 WOODRUFF PL BEND, OR 977C2 HO NOD 21.400 PA, 401-ZC KATHERINE JAMPOL CROWE REV ENTRUST CROWE, KATHERINE JAMPOLTTEE 21274 WOOD RUFF PL BEND,OR97702 NO NOD 71.400-PA, 401,11 EAST BEND PLAZA LLC 3188 N HIGHWAY 97 #101 BEND, OR 97703 NO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-1C SUE, MARK & KARI 21298 SE WOODRUFF PL BEND, OR97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC VREM FAMI LY TRUST VREM, RICHARD C&SANDRA J TTEES 1310 DIAMOND DR ARCATA, CA 95521 NO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC PATTf.RSON, NICOLAS F & MEHTA, SMITAR 61710 CAMELLIA ST BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC K ENNELI.EY, KEVIN S&TRACYL 61706 CAMELLIAST BEND, OR 97702 HONDO 21.400 PA, 401-ZC PREWITT, KURTUSS 61702 CAMELLIAST BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401 ZC GARDENSI DE HOME OWNERSASSOC C/O NORTHWEST COM MU NITY MGMTCO(A) PO BOX 23099 TIGARD, OR 97281-3099 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401 ZC BURKE, BRENDA N ETAL 4931 DELOS WAY OCEANSIDE, CA 92056 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC DISPENZA JUDITH ANN 322 BUCHANON HOLLYWOOD, FL 33019 NO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC STAVRO, CRISTINA NICOLE 61708 S[ MARIGOLD LN BEND, OR 97702 NO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC BLAIR, COURTNEY L 61712 MARIGOLD LN BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401 ZC PHYLLIS H MEDNICK TRUST MEDNICK, PHYLLIS H TTEE 61705 RIGEL WAY BEND, OR 97702 NO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC 1DD PROPERTIES LLC 2463 NW MORNINGWOOD WAY BEND, OR 97703-7022 NO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC C HARLES P IARSON SOLE PROP 401K PLAN LARSON, CHARLES P & LAU FIE PTTEES 270 VISTA RIM DR RE DMOND, OR 97756 HO NOD 21 400 PA, 401 ZC 61723 RIGEL WAY BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC NEIL, JENNIFER BOATWRIGHT, STEVEN F & PAMELA F 61706 RIGEL WAY BEND, OR 977112 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-7C C H ERKOSS, ARNE I&LAUREL A 61712 RIGEL WAY BEND,OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC CATHY DECOURCEVTRUST DECOURCEV, GATT I ERINE L TRUSTEE 61718 RIG EL WAY SEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-Z-C JOHNSON- GOODMAN REVOCABLE FAM TR JOHNSON, G EORG E H TRUSTEE ET AL 61724RIGCL WAY SEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-Z-C LF.AGIELD, DAVIDS&RUTHM 61730RIGEL WAY BEND,OR 97702 NO No 21.400-PA, 401-ZC ROGERS, LANI GAYIA L SCHAMBURG TRUST SCHAMBURG, GAYLA L TTEE 61742 RIGEL WAY 61748 RIG EL WAY BEND, OR 97702 BEND, OR 97702 NONOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC NO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC 61754 RIGEL WAY REND, OR 97702 HONDO 21-400-PA, 401-ZC GIBSON, SALLYJ 6176D RIGEL WAY BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC DICKINSON, SANDRA 3311 NW MORNINGWOOD CT BEND, OR 97783 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC MOTT, BRIAN H ETAL BEND PARKS& RECREATION DIST 7995W COLUMBIA ST BEND, OR 97702-3218 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC OCCUPANT C/I DESCHUTES COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE 11111 1WY20W BEND, OR 97703 NO NOD 21-4 PA 401-ZC BERMUDEZ, GUILLERMOJ &ALICIA F 9855 NW SKYLINE HEIGHTS DR PORTLAND, OR 97229 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC MCCLUNG, DONNAS 21254 LILY WAY BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 2-1-400-PA, 401 IC CARROLL, DAVID L& SPONGBERG, CAROL A 61707 CAMELLIA ST BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400_PA, 401-ZC SLATER, BARBARA E & SLATER, DEBRA M 61703 CAMELIA ST BEND, OR 97702 HONDO 21-400-PA, 401-ZC GARDENSIDE HOME OWNERS ASSOC C/O NORTHWESTCOMM MGMT CO LI.C(A) PO BOX 23099 TIGARD, OR 972-81-3099 HD NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC JUDITH K WHITEHEAD REVOCABLE TRUST WHITEHEAD, JUDITH K TTEE 61703 TULIPWAY BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC HE6REWS 135 LLC 21810 PALOMA DR BEND, OR 97701 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC CRAP ER,ALYSSA 14936 SE GLADSTON E ST PORTLAN D, OR 97236.2441 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC HANSEN, KAREN 61715 TULIP WAY BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC BOBBY& LISA BYRD REVOCABLE TRUST BYRD, BOBBY R&LISA N TTEES 21253 VIOLET LN BEND, OR 97702 NON OD 21400-PA, 401-7C ORANGE CAT PROPERTIES LLC C/OJAMES P OLMSTED, MEMBER (A) 61535S HI GHWAY 97 JISTE 5-604 BEND, OR 97702 HONDO 21:4002,401-ZC SCHRON, JACQUELINE S&CAMERON 21245VIOLETLN BE ND,OR97702 HONDO 21400-PA, 401-ZC SHOOP, DANIEL It & KIMBERLY L 21241 VIOLET LN BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC BROUGH,THOMASI 21237 VI OLET11 BEND, OR 97702 ILO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC WELLS, TODD W & EMILY W 51754 DARLA PL BEND, OR 97702 hl0 NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC ANTONSEN, CHET&SKAAR, THOMASC 612 NE SAVANNAH DR 03 BEND, OR 97701 HONOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC TODD, VICKI & KEVIN 61694 RIGEL WAY BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC TODD, VICTORIA & KEVIN 61694 RIGEL WAY BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC SEBRING, MILDRED I 20709 TANGO CREEK AVE BEND, OR 97701 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC PARKS, JOHN B & MARLENE A 21285 STARLIGHT DR BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC BEVERLY E GORDON REVTRUST GORDON, BEVERLY E TTEE 21281 STARLIGHT DR BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC PROSSER FAMI LY REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST PROSSE.R, STEVE JAMESTTE.E ETAL 212775TARLIGHT DR SEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC COWAN, PAUL VERNON 21211 STARLIGHTDR REND, OR 97102 HO NOD ?I PA 401-ZC WEBB, DARRELL D&LINDAI 471 SW SCHAEFFER RD WEST LINN, OR 97068 HO NOD 21400-PA,401-ZC ROBE.RT&JOAN FAIRBANKSTRUST FAIRBANKS, JOAN L TTEE 21268 HURITA PL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC GRACIA, CH R ISTOPHER E&ALL M 21272 HURITA PI. BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC MOORE, BRIANA 21276HURITAPL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400PA, 401-ZC MARGARETANN MOORE IRREVOCABLE TRUST MOORE, BRIAN TTEE 21276 HURITA PL BEND, OR 97702 HONOD 21-400 PA, 401-ZC VANBUREN, C LANCE & LORENA KAY 21284 HURITA PL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21 PA 401ZC ENGLUND ESTATES LLC 83W SW PETERS RD PORTLAND, OR 97224 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC MARSH TRUST MARSH, WALLACE A JR&ELSIE A TTEES 21261 STARLIGHT DR BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC WEYBRIGI IT FAMILYTRUST WEYBRIGHT, DANIEL R&BARBARA TTEES 21217 STARLIGHT OR BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401ZC PENDERGAST, TYLER M&AMYM 21253 STARLIGHT DR BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21400-PA, 401-7.0 BO URDAGE,JOSHUA K&MARISAK 21252 HURITA PL REND, OR 97702 HO NOD J7 400-PA, 401-ZC TELLER, STEVEN D & CYNTHIA C 21256 HURITA PL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC HAWKINS, LYBEL 21260 HURITA PL BEND, OR 97702 HONOD 21.400 PA, 401-ZC FERNANDEZ, XIMENA C 1059 NE PARKVIEW CT BEND, OR 97'01.6940 HO NOD 21-4DO-PA, 401-ZC BOATMAN, SARAH & SCOTT 5170 APELILA 5T KAPAA, HI 96746 HO NOD 21-400,PA, 401-ZC STOCKLAND, ADAM T & SARAH J 21279 HURITA PL BEND, OR 977112 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC SCHAAB, PHOEBE A 21271 HURITA PL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401ZC THOMAS, DAVID J & COLLEEN A 21271 HURITA PL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC HERZOG, MICHAEL E 21267 HURITA PL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC DRYHOLLER LLC 2021 NE BTH ST BEND, OR 97701 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC GUTIERREZ, TREDE&DYLAN 21259 HURITA PL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC BILYEU, JEFFERY DEAN & KAREN 21255 HURITA PL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC SMITH, KYLE S ET AL 21251 HURITA PL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401ZC CATAPANO, ERICA 21250 CAPELLA PL BEND, OR 97702 HONOD 21-400 PA, 401-ZC TRAM, QUANGP 21254CAPELLAPL BEND, OR 97702 HONOD 21-400:PA, 401-ZC HANSEN, DALE A & PAMELA R 21258 CAPELLA PL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400 PA, 401-ZC GARNER,JASON&CRYSTAL 21262 CA'ELLA PL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC HALE, KRISTAN N&ALEXIS GRACE 212. CAPEL LA PL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401ZC SIEVERSON, PENNYJO 7. 1270 CAPELLA P L BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC WHITE, SARA M 11225 SW CYNTHIA CT BEAVERTON, OR 97008 HO NOD 21 400-PA, 401-ZC ZI NNER, JOSHUA P&HILIARYL 21278 CAPELLA PL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC BAERT, CHRISTOPHER&JESSICAL 21282 CAPELLA PL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC BIEL, JESSICA & HOOVER, JEVIN TYLER 61664 RIGEL WAY BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC CARMACK, CYNTHIA A 61660 KACI LN BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400PPA, 401-7C RIDER, GR EGORY E&SUZANNE M 21281 CAPELLA PI. BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400�PA, 401-ZC WE L LEN, ROB ERT&KATHERINE 202 STERUNGTOWN LN UNION, ME 04862 HONOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC CANQ, FRANCISCO&MELISSA 21273 CAPELLA PL BEND, OR 97702 HONOD 21-400PA, 40]-ZC BJORK, CHARLES&PAMELA 21269 CAPELLA PL BEND, OR 97702 HONOD 21-400 PA, 401-ZC CERRUTI, BLAKE C & HEATHER E 616" GEMINI WAY BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401ZC S&H ANDERSON 1.03 LLC 32M NE42NDSTHSTEC VANCOUVER, WA 98663 -4 HO NOD 2100-PA, 401ZC TEH, RONNIE W & CAPECE, SONIA 61656 KACI LN BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21 00-PA, 401-ZC L EAHY, BRIAN & KIM K 2949 NW BORDEAUX LN BEND, OR 97703 HO NOD 2l-400-PA, 401-ZC DOUGHMAN, ROBERTJ & KATHRYN M 61648 KACI LN BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC DOWNEY, SCOTT&DIXIE PO 80X 782 WILSONVILLE, OR 97070 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401 ZC PLIED, LUCAS K ET AL 61637 KACI LN BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC J KC HOMES LLC PD BOX 25822 EUGENE, OR 97402 [ION OD 21-400PA, 401-7C VANBIARICOM, JEROME BRADLEY ETAL 21285 DAYLILY AVE BEND, OR 97702 HONOD 21-400 PA, 401-ZC COLE, PATRICIA RENEE QUINLAN 21279 DAYLILY AVE REND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400 PA, 401-ZC CAFFEE, ALEXANDER H ET AI 135847TIl AVE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94122 HO NOD 21.400�PA,401-ZC ROSENGARTH FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST ROSENGARTH, SHARRON G TTEE 21279 DOVE LN BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400.PA, 401-ZC CROSSE,STEVEN E & DIMITRIA 21283 DOVE: LN BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC ROSENGARTH FAMILY TRUST ROSENGARTH, TONYJ&NANCY A TTEES 21259 CHI LLIWACK WAY BEND, OR 97701 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC ANTONSEN, CHET&SKAAR, THOMASC 62765 POWELL BUTTE. HWY BEND, OR 97701 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC S LOG U M, WILLIAM TJR&MECHELLEM 21281 BELLFLOWER PI. BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC SPATES, DEMETRIUS C 21211 BELLFLOWER PI. BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21400-PA, 401-ZC WIG GINS, BRITTNEYD 21285 BELLFLOWER PL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401ZC LEAH SULLIVAN LIVING TRUST ETAL SULLIVAN, LEAH TTEE. 8412SWEETWATERCIR HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HO NOD 21:400-PA, 401 ZC WEAVER, SANDRA 21278 WOODRUFF PL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21 400-PA, 401-ZC RADKEY, BOBERT&HEDDY PO BOX 1869 BANDON, OR 97411 HO NOD 21400:PA , 401,ZC B ETTY LOU BI CRIER TRUST BIEBER, BETTY LOU TTEE 617275E YARROW LN BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21400 PA, 401-ZC CHARLES&IEANNE CLAWSON FAMILYTRUST CLAWSON, CHARLES R&JEANNE A TTEES 61719 YARROW LN BEND, OR97702 HO NOD 21-400 PA, 401-ZC 6RANDENHORST, JOHN D III 61724 MARIGOLD LN BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400.PA, 401-ZC STCLAIR, JULIE 61716 MARIGOLD LN BEND, OR 17702 HONOD 21.4DD-PA, 401-ZC SARDONG, IRIS 61703 YARROW LN BEND, OR 97702 HONOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC PATTO N, SYDNEY JOAN 61715 YARROW LN BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC COCCO FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST COCCO, CHESTER R & VIRGINIA 5TTEES 60350 WINDSONG I.N BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401ZC WILLIAMS, TROY& VANHORN, CAITLYN 61776 DARLA PL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21 400-PA, 401-ZC GAROUTTE, MICHAEL S & FRAZIER, LINDA 61772 DARLA PL BEND, OR 97702 HONOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC WAYBRIGHT, TREVOR A & JOY A 61768 DARLA PL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC KOCH, DANIEL & LETA 61764 DARLA PL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC ROSENGARTH DEVELOPMENT LI.0 21259 CHILLIWACK WAY BEND, OR 97702.7717 110 NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC FLINT, MARIE KAY 617605E CAMELLIA ST BEND, OR 97702 110 NOD 21 400-PA, 401 ZC ALEXA DELLINGER TRUST DELLINGER, ALEXA B TTEE 21286 DARNEL AVE BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21 400-PA, 401-ZC ZHU, XIAOGANG&I.I, MINGWEI 62977 MARSH ORCHID DR BEND, OR 97701 HO NOD 21 400-PA, 401-ZC F BEDEICKSON, KATIE 21278 DARNELAVE BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400 PA, 401-ZC GREENWALD,JAYA&MARYF 21272 DARNELAVE BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400 PA, 401-ZC SIGNATURE HOMEBUILDERS LLC PO BOX 1886 BEND, OR 97709 HO NOD 21400-PA, 401 ZC GERALDSALVES& EILEEN BALVES REVTR ALVES, GERAIDS&EILEEN BTTEES 21262 DARNEL AVE BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21 400 PA,401-7C ZRNADO, BRANDON&SHELLEY O 21258 DAR N EL AVE BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400�PA, 401-Z C BEN NETT, BRIAN ETAL 1381 NW TRENTON AVE BEND, OR 97703 HO NOD 21.400PA, 401-ZC ROBERTE SAUTER REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST SAUTER, ROBERT E TTEE PO 80X 8644 BEN D, OR 97708 HONOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC GEORGETON, LEE C & KRISTIN J 61793 SE CAMEI.L. A ST BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC MILLS, ROBERT B & GRIFFIN, EMDEN R 61789 SE CAMELLIA ST BEND, OR 11101 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC ROSS FAMILYTRUST ROSS, PAUL E& EMILY KATHLEEN TEETS 61781 SE CAMELLIA ST BEND,OR97702 HONOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC RILEY, ANTON&GINA 108 MOFFETT BLVD lIC113 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 94043 HO NOD 21-400-PA,401-ZC SHAHVAR, RACHEL NATALIE 617735E CAMELLIA ST BEND, OR 97702 HONOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC CHOPRA, PANKAI&ANITA 61769 SE CAMELLIA ST REND, OR 97702 HONDO 21-400-PA401-ZC HAUCK, RANDYJ & MICHELLE L 5 101BOULDER WAY YAKIMA, WA 98901 HO NOD 21-400-PA,, 401 ZC LEASE, ARIANNA& BRIAN ETAL 617615E CAMELLIA ST BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC WILKINS, BRENTN 617645ECAMELLIAST BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21 4B0-PA, 401-ZC LEE, ROBERT ALLAN 617685E CAMELLIA ST BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC TED& SUE MIGDAL 2003 REVOCABLE TRUST MIGDAL, THEODORE N&SUSAN ATTEES 1053 LA GRANDE AVE NAPA, CA 94558 HO NOD 21.400�PA, 401-ZC KRUKEMEYER, MARY 617765E CAMELLIAST BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC MCCULLOUGH, KATHRINE ANNE 617805E CAMELLIA ST BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC LL 6ARDNER LLC 61333 KING IEHU WAY BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC PHARAOH, NATHANAEL SR & LEAH 21261 DARNELAVE BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC CRIMMINS, JOANNA MARIE TEES LEE. AVE SAN LEANDRO, CA 94577 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC HAWK, DEBRA IO 8402 SLEEPY HOLLOW RD NE WOODBURN, OR97071-9571 HONOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC CROGHAN, RYLEYG & HALLEYT 2 1273DARNELAVE BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC WINDELL, CALEB&JOHNS, MICHELLE 11277 DARNEL AVE BEND, O197702 HO NOD 21-400 PA, 401-ZC PRUMENTO, AMANDA C 21281DARNEL AVE BE ND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400_PA, 401-ZC VINOVICH, SEURINAA&MICHAEL 21285 DARNELAVE BEND, OR 97702 HONOD 21 400-PA, 401-ZC HESTERBERG, MARISSA D&MARK A 21289 DARNEL AVE BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-4 PA 401-ZC BLVTHE, IESSEJ&CASSIEJ 21314 SE DAYLILVAVE BEND,OR97702 HO NOD 21400-PA, 401-ZC JOHANSEN, DAVID L&PATRICIA I 4069 CRESSIDA PL WOODBRIDGE, VA 22192 HO NOD 21�400-PA, 401:ZC CVPCAR NIPPERT LIVING TRUST NIPPERT,JAMESETTEE ET AL 213025E DAYLII.V AVE BEND, OR97702 HO NOD 21 400-PA, 401ZC FLANNERY,JULIE LINCOLN 212965E DAYLILYAVE BEND,OR97702 HO NOD 21.4G0-PA, 401-ZC B RADS HAWTRUST BRADSHAW, SCOTT HASTINGS TTEE ETAL 2500 SUNNYGROVEAVE MCKINLEYVILLE, CA 95519 HO NOD 21-400. PA, 401-ZC SWEET, JUSTIN LEE &KELSEE ANN 7- 1284 SE DAVLI LY AVE BEND, 0R 97702 HO NOD 21-400PA, 401ZC UPTAIN, KYLESTEVEN&KIMBERLVANN 21278 SE DAVLI LY AVE BEND, OR 97702 HO No 21-400PA, 401-ZC BROOKFIELD, MARGARET 1414 NW BALTIMORE AVE BEND, OR 97703 HO NOD 21 400-PA, 401-ZC WOOD, JUSTIN&AMBER 21266 SE DAYLI LY AVE BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401 ZC SPRINGER FAMILY TRUST SPRINGER,RICHARDL&GEORGIA ATTEES 3450 SHALLOW SPRINGS TERR CHICO, CA 95928 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC SPRING ER FAMILY TRUST SPRING ER, RI CHARD L&GEORGIA A TTEES C/O GEORGIA A SPRINGER TTE 3450 SHALLOW SPRINGS TF:RR CH CO, CA 95928 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-7C REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Ordinance Amending Deschutes County Code Title 18, the Deschutes County Zoning Map, to * ORDINANCE NO. 2022-002 Change the Zone Designation for Certain Property From Exclusive Farm Use to Multiple Use Agricultural. WHEREAS, Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) applied for a Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map and Deschutes County Zoning Map change, to rezone certain property from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA10); and WHEREAS, after notice was give in accordance with applicable law, a public hearing was held on August 31, 2021 before the Deschutes County Hearings Officer and, on October 12, 2021 the Hearings Officer recommended approval of the comprehensive plan map and zone change; and WHEREAS, on this same date, the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") adopted Ordinance 2022-001 amending DCC Title 23, changing the plan designation of the property from Agriculture (AG) to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA); and WHEREAS, a change to the Deschutes County Zoning Map is necessary to implement the amendment adopted in Ordinance WHEREAS, because the decision concerns lands designated for forest or agricultural use, pursuant to DCC 22.28.030(C), the Board shall hear de novo the application for zone change from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA10) to conform to the newly adopted plan amendment; NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. AMENDMENT. DCC Title 18, Zoning Map, is amended to change the zone designation from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA) for certain property described in Exhibit "A" and depicted on the map set forth as Exhibit `B", with both exhibits attached and incorporated by reference herein. Section 2. FINDINGS. The Board adopts as its findings in support of this decision, the Decision of the Hearings Officer, attached as Exhibit "C", and incorporated by reference herein. PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO.2022-002 Dated this of , 2022 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ATTEST: Recording Secretary Date of I" Reading: Date of 2°a Reading Commissioner Patti Adair Anthony DeBone Phil Chang Effective date PATTI ADAIR, Chair ANTHONY DeBONE, Vice Chair PHIL CHANG, Commissioner day of , 2022. day of , 2022. Record of Adoption Vote: Yes No Abstained Excused day of , 2022. PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO.2022-002 Exhibit "A" Legal Description A parcel of land situated in the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section Two (2), Township Eighteen (18) South, Range Twelve (12) East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County Oregon, more particularly described as follows: All of that portion of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 2 lying north of the centerline of the Central Oregon Canal. EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE 2022-002 � H ) SKYLINE VIEW DR O _,,...�CHILLIWACK WAY DARNELAVE 1EE- J J W DARBY CT � ¢ U DAYLILY AVE BELL'FLOWER:PL a a WOODRUFFPL g n}'. LILY WAY } o a TTTl STARLIGHT DR O HURITA PL -CAPELLA PL ¢ w ¢ w >U) 3 > z O FP GOLDEN MARKET Legend Proposed Zone Change Boundary Zoning EFUTRB - Tumalo/Redmond/Bend Subzone MUA10 - Multiple Use Agricultural UAR10 - Urban Area Reserve �® ®' Bend Urban Growth Boundary Zone Change from EFU Tumalo/Redmond/Bend (EFUTRB) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA10) PROPOSED ZONING MAP Exhibit "B" to Ordinance 2022-002 EN 0 250 500 1,000 MMOOMMI Feet December 17, 2021 MUA10 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON Patti Adair, Chair Tony DeBone, Vice Chair Phil Chang, Commissioner ATTEST: Recording Secretary Dated this day of , 2022 Effective Date: 1 2022 Exhibit "C" to Ord. 2022-002 Mailing Date: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 DECISION OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER FILE NUMBERS: 247-21-0000400-PA, 401-ZC HEARING: August 31, 2021, 6:00 p.m. Barnes & Sawyer Rooms Deschutes Services Center 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97708 APPLICANT/ OWNER: CENTRAL OREGON IRRIGATION DISTRICT LOCATION: Map and Taxlot: 1812020001000 61781 WARD RD, BEND, OR 97702 ATTORNEY FOR APPLICANT: Tia M. Lewis Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C. 360 SW Bond Street, Suite 500 Bend, OR 97702 TRANSPORTATION Joe Bessman ENGINEER: Transight Consulting, LLC REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the designation of the property from Agricultural (AG) to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA). The applicant also requests approval of a corresponding Zone Change to rezone the property from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10). HEARINGS OFFICER: Stephanie Marshall STAFF CONTACT: Tarik Rawlings, Associate Planner' Phone: 541-317-3148 Email: Tarik.Rawlings@deschutes.org RECORD CLOSED: September 23, 2021 ' This matter was originally assigned to Brandon Herman, Assistant Planner. It was re -assigned to Mr. Rawlings prior to the public hearing. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 1 of 57 I. STANDARDS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the County Zoning Ordinance: Chapter 18.04, Title, Purpose, and Definitions Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones (EFU) Chapter 18.32, Multiple Use Agricultural Zone (MUA10) Chapter 18.136, Amendments Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 2, Resource Management Chapter 3, Rural Growth Management Appendix C, Transportation System Plan Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), Chapter 660 Division 6, Forest Lands Division 12, Transportation Planning Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines Division 33, Agricultural Land Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 215.211, Agricultural Land, Detailed Soils Assessment 11. FINDINGS OF FACT A. LOCATION: The subject property has a situs address of 61781 Ward Road, Bend, and is further identified as Tax Lot 1000 on Assessor's Map 18-12-02.2 B. LOT OF RECORD: Tax Lot 1000 is 36.65 acres in size and has not previously been verified as a legal lot of record. Per DCC 22.04.040 Verifying Lots of Record, lot of record verification is required for certain permits: B. Permits requiring verification 1. Unless an exception applies pursuant to subsection (B)(2) below, Z Several commentators expressed concern regarding the address of the subject property, particularly related to future access if and when the property is developed in the future. Staff stated at the public hearing that an address coordinator will be assigned with respect to future development permit application(s) and the address(es) will be vetted through emergency services. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 2 of 57 verifying a lot parcel pursuant to subsection (C) shall be required to the issuance of the following permits: a. Any land use permit for a unit of land in the Exclusive Farm Use Zones (DCC Chapter 1&16), Forest Use Zone - F1 (DCC Chapter 1&36), or Forest Use Zone - F2 (DCC Chapter 1&40), b. Any permit for a lot or parcel that includes wetlands as show on the Statewide Wetlands Inventory; c. Any permit for a lot or parcel subject to wildlife habitat special assessment; d. In all zones, a land use permit relocating property lines that reduces in size a lot or parcel' e. In all zones, a land use, structural, or non -emergency on -site sewage disposal system permit if the lot or parcel is smaller than the minimum area required in the applicable zone, In the Powell/Ramsey (PA-14-2, ZC-14-2) decision, the Hearings Officer held to a prior Zone Change Decision (Belveron ZC-08-04) that a property's lot of record status was not required to be verified as part of a plan amendment and zone change application. Rather, the applicant will be required to receive lot of record verification prior to any development on the subject property. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds this criterion does not apply. C. ZONING AND PLAN DESIGNATION: The subject property is zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) and is designated Agricultural (AG) in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. The property does not have any Goal 5 resource designations. D. PROPOSAL: The applicant requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to change the designation of the subject property from an Agricultural (AG) designation to a Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA) designation. The applicant also requests approval of a corresponding Zoning Map Amendment to change the zoning of the subject property from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10). The applicant asks that Deschutes County change the zoning and the plan designation because the subject property does not qualify as "agricultural land" under Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) or Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) definitions. The applicant states that no exception to Statewide Planning Goal 3, Agricultural Land, is required because the subject property is not agricultural land. The application does not include a development proposal. The applicant notes that it could subdivide the property under Title 17 or through the County's cluster subdivision rules in Title 18, or could hold the property for future urbanization consistent with the development pattern of the surrounding lands. The applicant's attorney stated at the public hearing that the proposed re -designation and rezoning would allow the property to be considered in the next UGB expansion by the City of Bend. She stated there were no immediate plans to develop the property in the near future. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 3 of 57 Submitted with the application is an Order 1 Soil Survey of the subject property, titled "Soil Assessment for 37.7-Acre Parcel Lot 1000, Bend, Oregon" (hereafter referred to as the "soil study') prepared by soil scientist Andy Gallagher, CPSSc/SC 03114 of Red Hill Soils. The applicant also submitted a traffic analysis prepared by Transight Consulting, LLC titled "61781 Ward Road Rezone" hereby referred to as "traffic study." Additionally, the applicant submitted an application form, a burden of proof statement, and other supplemental materials, all of which are included in the record for the subject applications. E. SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject property is approximately 36.65 acres in size and is adjacent to both Bend's city limits and Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to the west. The property is relatively level with mild undulating topography and collapsed lava tube features. Vegetation consists of juniper, sage brush, and grasses. A portion of the site was historically mined for dirt and fill for maintenance purposes of Central Oregon Irrigation District's (COID) delivery systems. The site is undeveloped except for COID's main canal located along the southern border and offshoot irrigation ditches in the southwestern and southeastern portions of the subject property. Access to the site is provided by stubbed local street connections including Darnel Avenue and Daylily Avenue, located in residential subdivisions in the City of Bend to the west. The subject property does not have water rights, and has not been farmed or used in conjunction with any farming operation in the past. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) map shown on the County's GIS mapping program identifies two soil complex units on the property: 36A, Deskamp loamy sand and 58C, Gosney-Rock outcrop-Deskamp complex. The predominant soil complex on the subject property is 58C, which is not a high - value soil as defined by DCC 18.04; 36A is not considered a high -value soil when irrigated. The subject property has no irrigation, no historical use of being farmed, and is overgrown with western juniper, sagebrush, rabbit brush and bunch grasses. COID has intermittedly used the property over the years to mine for dirt that was used for maintenance and repairs of the District's delivery systems. As discussed in detail below in the Soils section, an Agricultural Soils Capability Assessment (Order 1 soil survey) was conducted on the property by Certified Professional Soil Scientist Andy Gallagher which determined that the property is not agricultural land; Class 3 irrigated and Class 6 non -irrigated soils exist in small pockets interspersed with lava tubes and rocky, shallow soils, creating severe limitations for any agricultural use on the property or in conjunction with other neighboring lands. There is a private easement along the COID canal. In addition, as noted in the Bend Park and Recreation District's public comment, BMPRD has a planned trail, the Central Oregon Historic Canal Trail, identified in its comprehensive plan that runs through the subject property. F. SOILS: According to Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) maps of the area, 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 4 of 57 the subject property contains two different soil types as described below. The subject property contains 58C - Gosney-Rock Outcrop-Deskamp complex and 36A- Deskamp loamy sand. The applicant submitted a soil study report (applicant's Exhibit 5, Soil Assessment for 37.7- Acre Parcel Lot 1000, Bend, Oregon, dated December 2, 2020), which was prepared by a qualified soils professional approved by the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), which can be used by property owners to determine the extent of agricultural land as defined in Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-033 Agricultural Land, The certified soils scientist and soil classifier conducted field work which included 41 test pits and observations of surface rock outcrops and determined the subject property is comprised of soils that do not qualify as Agricultural Lando. The purpose of this soil study was to inventory and assess the soils on the subject property5 and to provide more detailed data on soil classifications and ratings than is contained in the NRCS soils maps. The NRCS soil map units identified on the property are described below. 36A Deskamp loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes: This soil complex is composed of 85 percent Deskamp soil and similar inclusions, and 15 percent contrasting inclusions. The Deskamp soils are somewhat excessively drained with a rapid over moderate permeability, and about 5 inches of available water capacity. Major uses of this soil type are irrigated cropland and livestock grazing. The agricultural capability rating for 36A soils are 3S when irrigated, and 6S when not irrigated. This soil is high -value when irrigated. Approximately 33.7 percent of the subject parcel is made up of this soil type. 58C Gosney-Rock Outcrop-Deskamp complex, 0 to 15 percent slopes: This soil type is comprised of 50 percent Gosney soil and similar inclusions, 25 percent rock outcrop, 20 percent Deskamp soil and similar inclusions, and 5 percent contrasting inclusions. Gosney soils are somewhat excessively drained with rapid permeability. The available water capacity is about 1 inch. Deskamp soils are somewhat excessively drained with rapid permeability. Available water capacity is about 3 inches. The major use for this soil type is livestock grazing. The Gosney soils have ratings of 7e when unirrigated, and 7e when irrigated. The rock outcrop has a rating of 8, with or without irrigation. The Deskamp soils have ratings of 6e when unirrigated, and 4e when irrigated. Approximately 66.3 percent of the subject parcel is made up of this soil type.. 58C is not a high value soil as defined by DCC 18.04 ("High Value Farmland"). 36A is considered a high value soil when irrigated. There is no irrigation on the property. 3 As defined in OAR 660-033-0020, 660-033-0030 'As defined in OAR 660-033-0020, 660-033-0030. 5 The canals were not rated for capability class, but for purposes of the assessment were included with the acreage that is not suited to agricultural production. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 5 of 57 Through numerous soil test pits and observations on the property Soil Scientist Andy Gallagher remapped the soils using a high intensity Order 1 soil survey and concluded that the subject property is comprised predominantly of Class 7 and 8 soils (nearly 64%) and is not agricultural land. The Class 3 irrigated and 6 non irrigated soils exist in small pockets interspersed with lava tubes, rocky, shallow soils creating severe limitations for any agricultural use on the property or in conjunction with other neighboring lands. An excerpt of Mr. Gallagher's summary and conclusions of his findings follows: In the revised Order-1 soil mapping, the Deskamp (Class 3 irrigated and 6 nonirrigated) are mapped as a consociation and only make up 29 percent of the parcel. The Gosney soils along with very shallow soils and rock outcrops are mapped as the Gosney-Rock Outcrop Complex because all three components of the complex are capability Class 7 or 8. This complex makes up 63.7 percent of the parcel. The irrigation canals make up 7.4 percent of the area. Based upon the findings of this Order-1 soil survey, the subject parcel is predominantly Class 7 and 8 soils and therefore is not "agricultural land" within the meaning of OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(A). The soil mapping and on -site studies also show the subject property is not agricultural land within the meaning of OAR 660-033-0020(1)(b) as it is not adjacent to or intermingled with land in capability classes 1-6 within a farm unit. The class 3 irrigated and 6 non irrigated soils on the subject property have not been farmed or utilized in conjunction with any farming operation in the past. These soil units exist in small pockets interspersed with lava tubes, rocky, shallow soils creating severe limitations for any agricultural use either alone or in conjunction with other lands. No rebuttal evidence was presented to refute the applicant's evidence regarding soils. The applicant's soils study has been verified by DLCD. G. SURROUNDING LAND USES: The subject property is surrounded by urban development to the west within the Bend city limits; to the east and south are County exception lands zoned MUA10 developed with homes and small -acreage irrigation for pasture and hobby farm uses; and irrigated farmland zoned EFUTRB to the north and northeast. The adjacent properties are outlined below in further detail: North: North and northeast of the subject property is an area of EFU-zoned property. The adjacent property to the north, Tax Lot 1001 (Assessor's Map 18-12-02) is a 12.45-acre EFU- zoned property that is partially irrigated and developed with a nonfarm dwelling (approved under County file CU-01-75). Northeast is Tax Lot 201 (Assessor's Map 18-12-02), a 53.30- acre farm parcel that is irrigated, receiving farm tax deferral, and developed with a single- family dwelling and accessory structures. East. East of the subject property are two parcels zoned MUA10. Tax Lot 1102 (Assessor's Map 18-12-02) is a 5.55-acre parcel developed with a single-family dwelling, accessory 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 6 of 57 structures, and is partially irrigated. Tax Lot 1001 (Assessor's Map 18-12-02) is a 2.5-acre parcel developed with a single-family dwelling, accessory structures, and is partially irrigated. West. West of the subject property are residential subdivisions located in the City of Bend and developed to urban standards. These include Rosengarth Estates and Gardenside PUD in the RS Zone. Northwest is a 2-acre parcel zoned RL and developed with a residence. South: The abutting parcel southeast of COID's main canal is a 3.34-acre lot zoned EFUTRB and developed with a single-family dwelling and is partially irrigated. Southwest is Hansen Park (Tax Lot 1404 of Assessor's Map 18-12-02), a 5-acre undeveloped park zoned MUA10 and owned by Bend Metro Parks and Recreation District. East of Hansen Park is a 5-acre parcel zoned MUA10 and developed with a residence (Tax Lot 1407 of Assessor's Map 18-12- 02). H. PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice of the applications on June 11, 2021 to several public agencies and received the following comments: Deschutes County Senior Transportation Planner, Peter Russell I have reviewed the Transight April 13, 2021, traffic study to change the comp plan designation from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA) and the zoning from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10) for 36.65 acres at 61781 Ward Rd, aka 18-12-02, TL 1000. Staff finds the study needs to be modified to comply with the Transportation Planning Rule and Deschutes County's accepted practices to analyze plan amendments and zone changes. For "reasonable worst -case scenario" the County compares and contrasts the highest trip generator permitted outright in both the current zone and the requested zone. DCC 18.16.020 lists those uses permitted outright in EFU. DCC 18.16.025 lists other outright permitted uses that meet applicable criteria in either DCC 18.16.038, 18.16.042, and review under DCC 18.124. The TIA cites to marijuana production facility, which the County has analyzed under the Warehouse category of the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. However, the County has opted out of the state's marijuana processing program and thus this use and its analog of Warehouse should not be used. Instead, staff would utilize Winery (DCC 18.16.025(F)) as a reasonable worst case scenario. DCC 18.32.020 lists outright permitted uses for MUA-10. The highest trip generator is a cluster development of single-family homes within one -mile of a UGB, per DCC 18.32.040(A), as the traffic study correctly notes. The study needs to be redone to show the difference between winery and a cluster development to determine if there is a significant effect and any difference in the number of p.m. peak hour trips. This would also require the volumes for the trip distribution figures to be redone as well. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 7 of 57 Upon receipt of the County Senior Transportation Planner's initial comment, above, the applicant submitted a revised traffic study, dated June 8, 2021. No further comments were offered by the County's Senior Transportation Planner. Bend Park and Recreation District, Henry Stroud, AICP, Planner The Bend Park and Recreation District has a planned trail, the Central Oregon Historic Canal Trail, identified in our comprehensive plan that runs through the subject property. While we understand that this application is just for a zoning change, the District would like to work with the applicant to acquire a trail easement for the COHCT prior to any future development of the property. The following agencies did not respond to the notice: Deschutes County Assessor, Bend Fire Department, City of Bend Planning Department, City of Bend Public Works Department, ODOT Region 4, and City of Bend Growth Management Department. I. PUBLIC COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice of the conditional use application to all property owners within 750 feet of the subject property on June 11, 2021. The applicant also complied with the posted notice requirements of Section 22.24.030(B) of Title 22. The applicant submitted a Land Use Action Sign Affidavit indicating the applicant posted notice of the land use action on June 25, 2021. Public comments were received from neighboring property owners. Public comments are summarized as follows: The first comment was received from Jeff Sundberg, a resident and owner of property located at 61710 Gibson Drive, Bend, OR 97702 on June 15, 2021: Hi Brandon, I received a letter from Deschutes County regarding COID applying for new permits. I live at 61710 Gibson Drive, Bend, Or, 97702. 1 live next to the property in question, 61781 Ward Road. It looks like COID is requesting to go from agricultural and farm use zoning to rural residential exception area and multiple use agricultural zoning. Does this mean they want to put in a housing development? I was wondering if this response by email will suffice if I want to be notified of public hearings related to this application or if I still have to write a letter requesting to be notified of any decision or public hearing. Does any of this change my easement with COID or should 1 contact them directly? Thanks and let me know anything you can about this land change please. Staff responded to Mr. Sundberg's email on June 16, 2021 as follows: 247-21 -000400- PA1401 -ZC Page 8 of 57 Hi jell, Thanks for reaching out. As you noted, this is an application for a Comprehensive Plan/Zoning change so / am unaware of what CO/D intends to do with the property in the future. If they were to take the residential route, a minimum subdivision lot size of 10 acres still applies to the property. Because you received the Notice of Application, you are also on the list to receive the Notice of Public Hearing, which is tentatively set for july 27rn With regards to your easement agreement, I am not inclined to think this will change anything but contacting CO/D directly is a good idea. Let me know if you have any other questions. Take care, Brandon The second comment was received from Kecia Weaver, a resident of 21435 Modoc Lane, Bend, OR 97702 on June 18, 2021: "My name is Kecia Weaver l live at 21435 Modoc Lane Bend, OR 97702 with my spouse who is listed property owner, Patrick McCoy. On 6117121 l read the notice of application for the above listed property. l would like to formally dispute the requested zoning changes. I have several concerns, to include the following: 1) Irrigation/Water Rights - As a small farm operator with seasonal livestock / am concerned that the proposed changes may further draw from my water access which has been limited and may be further limited due to drought conditions. More users in the proposed Multiple Use Agriculture may further draw down water allocations. 2) Wildlife Habitat - Having lived here for over 6 years. I know the proposed area to be home to deer, rabbits, birds and other wildlife which will be disturbed. 3) Extensive residential development in the immediate area- Over the past few months, extensive development has been proposed both to the north and south of our neighborhood specifically several hundred acres south of Stevens Road and north of Bear Creek Road adjacent to Ward Road. 4) Traffic concerns - increased traffic will occur in the area with other proposed developments. l am concerned the points of entrance and egress to this proposed area will add to the impact to our neighborhood as well. 5) Overall rapid growth concerns for Deschutes County- As observed by pitfalls of the 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 9 of 57 rapid growth in the City of Bend over the past decade, l would encourage Deschutes County to adhere to a slower growth model. 6) Decrease in property value- This proposed change will drastically impact the view to the west of my property when it is developed. With respect to the natural beauty and appeal of this County we have chosen to call home and as a taxpayer and voter, I implore the Deschutes County planning department to deny this application at this time. I wish to be notified of all public hearings related to this application and any decision. My address is 21435 Modoc Lane Bend, OR 97702." The third comment was received from Patrick McCoy, a neighboring property owner and resident of 21435 Modoc Lane, Bend, OR 97702 on June 18, 2021: "My name is Patrick McCoy a home and landowner at 21435 Modoc Lane Bend, OR 97702. On 6117121 / received the notice of application for the above listed property. With little time to research to this proposal, based on the information / have obtained; I would like to formally dispute the requested zoning changes. My concerns are numerous and l will highlight the following. 1) Irrigation/Water Rights - As a small farm operator with seasonal livestock / am concerned that the proposed changes may further draw from my water access which has been limited and may be further limited due to drought conditions. More users in the proposed Multiple Use Agriculture may further draw down water allocations. 2) Wildlife Habitat - Having lived here for over 6 years. I know the proposed area to be home to deer, rabbits, birds and other wildlife which will be disturbed. 3) Extensive residential development in the immediate area- Over the past few months, extensive development has been proposed both to the north and south of our neighborhood specifically several hundred acres south of Stevens Road and north of Bear Creek Road adjacent to Ward Road. 4) Traffic concerns - increased traffic will occur in the area with other proposed developments. I am concerned the points of entrance and egress to this proposed area will add to the impact to our neighborhood as well. 5) Overall rapid growth concerns for Deschutes County- As observed by pitfalls of the rapid growth in the City of Bend over the past decade, I would encourage Deschutes County to adhere to a slower growth model. 6) Decrease in property value- This proposed change will drastically impact the view to the west of my property when it is developed. With respect to the natural beauty and appeal of this County we have chosen to call home and as a taxpayer and voter, l implore the Deschutes County planning department to deny this application at this time. I wish to be notified of all public hearings related to this application and any decision. My address is 21435 Modoc Lane Bend, OR 97702." 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 10 of 57 The fourth public comment was received from Kyle Weaver on June 18, 2021: "1 am writing to express by objection to the proposed changes east of 27t` in the pursuit of yet another neighborhood development. The East side of Bend is the current hotspot for housing expansion but some caution must be taken and not simply rubber stamping these applications through and knocking down yet more trees and eliminating farm lands and mountain views. Neighborhoods are popping up in all directions all over town and the construction industryfrenzy is full throttle with little interest in these types of nature/aesthetic concerns. I don't begrudge people making some money and Bend is certainly a desirable place to live, but things need to be planned out in a more thoughtful and deliberate fashion. There is nothing wrong with taking a slower and more measured approach as we all consider Bend's growth in the comingyears. I have lived in Bend for just over 20 years and have family and friends in the proposed development area and it would drastically reduce their enjoyment of their property. I urge you to decline this request on behalf of many other community members who feel the same way." The fifth public comment was received from Treva Weaver on June 18, 2021: "Re: 1812020001000 Central Or. Irrigation District I am opposed to the proposed land use change by the above referenced owner..... The loss of open space in Central Oregon continues as the growth proponents seem mainly interested in jumping on the bandwagon and making as much profit as possible. The East side of Bend, where I have lived the past 21 years, has hundreds, if not thousands of housing sites already started or proposed. Until all this land is developed and houses sold, there is no need to venture east of 271h where this property is located ..... My great grandfather came to Oregon at age 9 in 1846 and our family has very deep roots in this state. I spend a large amount of time at my daughter's home which is directly east of the proposed development We enjoy riding our horses in her arena and also enjoy family gatherings in her backyard. The view would be drastically changed if this land is developed. What is wrong with leaving some land in its natural state? It will be many many years before additional housing is needed in this area. Please decline this request change and leave some land in its more natural state." The sixth public comment was received from John Schaeffer, a neighboring property owner at 61677 Thunder Road, Bend, OR 97702 on June 19, 2021: "I am writing on behalf of myself and several neighbors in the Stevens Road - Thunder Road neighborhood. We are opposed to COID's proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning for taxlot 1812020001000. We realize this is not a request for development but know that it will lead to development in the next few years, that it is the first step in making the property more marketable, should it be brought into the UGB during the next update. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 11 of 57 Development has been increasing in this area, especially with the inclusion of the Stevens Road tract in the current UGB, and its subsequent sale by the state. We feel it is important to leave some natural open areas for people and animals near the city limits. This is especially critical now that the Stevens Road tract is being developed, along with all the other development in this area. A few years ago, it was possible to take our dogs walking in the Stevens Road tract and meet few people. The use in this area has increased remarkably over the last several years, consistent with Bend's growth. The COID parcel is isolated and not readily accessible by cars, with varied topography, including a small canyon. It has significant native vegetation and, when I was there a couple of days ago, there were many birds, much more than in the nearby areas where there are houses and the vegetation has been cleared. Right now, the average size of the parcels between the city limits to the west and Ward Road to the east, and between Stevens Road to the south and to approximately where Skyline View Drive would be if extended into the area on the north, is 8 acres. If you consider only the MUA zoned parcels, the average size is 4.8 acres. If the COID property was developed to that level, this would mean 7- 8 houses in the area. I do not know what would be allowed under the Rural Residential Exception area but suspect it would probably be even denser housing. As Bend continues to grow at what may be an unsustainable pace the value of open space increases. We urge you to consider open space as a relevant and beneficial resource when you weigh the issues inherent in this kind of a zoning change. Sincerely, John Schaeffer and Patti Bailey James and Janet Lake Julie Naslund, Michael, and Miles Nevill Mike Quick Jill Harrell and Mike King" The seventh public comment was received from Cathy DeCourcey, a property owner and resident of 61718 Rigel Way, Bend, OR 97702 on June 21, 2021: "1 am responding to a letter / received regarding COID's application to rezone the property behind me. File # 247-21-0000400-PA, 401-ZC. 36.65 Acres. My understanding is they want to change the zoning from Agriculture and Exclusive Farm Use Zone to Rural Residential Exception Area and Multiple Use Agricultural. I've read the Application prepared by Tia M. Lewis. I have 3 concerns. 1. The water supply says wells are to be drilled for household use. There are 2 very old (55yrs) Well Reports included in her submission. I find this very odd that 7 new homes will be drilling and using well water for approximately 5 acre mini ranches. Surely the water table has lowered over time? The depth of one shows 619 feet. One report seems to be missing 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 12 of 57 the gallons per minute amount. Would you explain where the household and irrigation water will be coming from for these 7 lots? 2. At what point can the MUA-10 Zoning be changed to create a subdivision of smaller sized lots? 3. Will there be more than 7 lots created? The stubbed access roads listed are already narrow and congested with parked cars and traffic coming and going to 27th which has no turn lanes onto or off of Darne/. Thank you for your time and response." The eighth public comment was received from Jennifer Neil, a property owner and resident of 61723 Rigel Way, Bend, OR 97702 on June 21, 2021: "My name is Jennifer Neil, and / am Bend homeowner concerned about the above -mentioned proposed land use. The proposed land use will change what is a small, open space next to the Central Oregon canal from farm use to more residential use. I'm saddened to not only lose the space / walk on twice a day, but to see it turned into more overpriced homes that the city and the community is not able to support. The area of SE Bend where this property is located has already out -grown all of the infrastructure to support more housing. It has become extremely difficult to access my home because of the traffic and congestion along 27th street. This congestion will only increase with the addition of the new High School. Finally, I'm also very concerned that 4 of my neighbors, who are also homeowners and have properties directly next to this proposed land use change, did not receive any notice of this land use. I notified them! I hope that the city planners will consider the impact more houses will have in this area, and improve the infrastructure first that is already necessary before destroying more open space." The ninth public comment was received from Brent N. Wilkins, an owner and resident of property at 61764 SE Camellia Street, Bend, OR 97702, on June 21, 2021: "I am a resident of the Rosengarth Subdivision. I am submitting these written comments relating to the proposed zoning changes by the Central Oregon Irrigation District ("CO/D'7 for the real property located at 61781 Ward Road, Bend, OR 97702 ("Property'9. For the reasons noted below, including due to the level of development in East Bend in close proximity to the Property, the Property's rural nature that serves as a place of recreation, and the high level of traffic and lack of a left-hand turn lane from the major arterial (27th Street) that will likely service the Property if/once developed, I ask that the Deschutes County Planning Division ("Planning Division'9 not approve CO/D's application. i request to be notified of any decision or public hearing related to this application, and this notice may be sent to: Brent N. Wilkins 61764 SE Camellia Street Bend, OR 97702 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 13 of 57 As noted on page 3 of COID's Burden of Proof Statement, COID will have the ability to attempt to develop and subdivide the Property into a subdivision if the permit is granted. This would potentially occur through Title 17 or Title 18 of Deschutes County's rules. This permit should not be granted as further development in the proximity of the Property will not serve the County or community. A. Development & Traffic Impacts The Property at issue is surrounded by areas that have been recently developed. This includes the DR Horton subdivision off of Pettigrew Drive, the Hayden Homes Subdivision off of Pettigrew Drive, as well as the Rosengarth Subdivision. 27rh Street has not been able to keep up resulting increased traffic flow as a result of the development to date. Excluding this Property, there is now significant further development occurring in this immediate area that 27rh Street will service. The development at this time includes a new commercial lot being developed at 27rh Street and Reed Market that will consist of multiple businesses, a new subdivision between Reed Market and Starlight Drive on the east side of 27rh Street, and significant development off of 271 Street on Stevens Road. The Property will also heavily utilize 27rh Street through the likely extension of Darnel Avenue and/or DaylilyAvenue. The collective effect of all of this development is that the rural nature of East Bend is being lost and 27rh Street is becoming unsafe. 21h Street at this time does not adequately handle the levels of traffic that occur each morning around 8:00 am, each afternoon around 5:00 pm as well as when school lets out, and during the weekends. I have routinely sat in my car for more than two minutes trying to turn left onto 27rh Street. I have also waited more than a minute to even to try to turn right onto 27rh Street. A photograph showing the line of traffic on 27rh Street is enclosed. (See Ex. 1). Also, there is no left turn lane when turning left from 27rh Street onto Darnel Avenue from 27rh. This has resulted in unsafe conditions, including vehicles passing the turning vehicle on the right where there is no developed shoulder or lane. There are tracks on the ground where this happens, and it is not safe for those vehicles, the turning vehicle, or oncoming traffic. Eastside Gardens is also located at 27rh Street and Darnel Avenue. Vehicles pull in and out of that parking lot at that intersection and from the parking lot itself. This cause an irregular, unsafe traffic flow that will only be exacerbated by further use. Moreover, due to Darnel Avenue serving as a primary access point for homes throughout the existing neighborhoods and Gardenside Park, there is already a high level of traffic and vehicles often driving fast. There is also significant on street parking that restricts views for drivers and pedestrians. This includes large 'sprinter' vans, large trucks, and sometimes trailers. (See Ex. 2). There are numerous young families in the neighborhoods, including along Camellia Street, Darnel Avenue and Gardenside Park. These families have children that run, play, skateboard, ride scooters, and bike throughout the neighborhood, including on the streets. The existing neighborhood traffic levels poses a danger to children. The proposed permit will likely result in increased traffic within the neighborhood and pose additional risk to these young families and 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 14 of 57 children. Any consideration of the Permit, and any possible approval, must address this dynamic. Finally, with the recent approval of the Southeast Area Plan for the 'Elbow; the level of traffic in East Bend and 27 Street will only increase. This will also result in the displacement of birds and other wildlife, which is further covered below, and will need a place to go. B. Preservation The Property at issue is an area that is highly utilized for recreation and embodies Central Oregon high desert landscape. In the winters, the area can serve as a place for cross-country skiing. (See Ex. 3). People regularly ride bikes, run, and go for walks. The aerial photo that was enclosed with the Notice of Application also shows the walking path through the middle of the Property. The wildlife that calls this place home includes ducks, jackrabbits, geese, and numerous other birds. There is also a rimrock canyon on the Property that is quite unique and should be preserved (See Ex. 4). The Property also has views of the Cascades, Powell Butte, and Newberry Caldera (See Ex. 5). It is also quite peaceful and has a gentle, rolling landscape full of trees, grasses, and sagebrush. (See Ex. 6). During the mornings and evenings one can go for walks and hear the songs of birds and enjoy an escape from the busy work day and pace of life. In other words, changing the Property's zoning classification and leading to the possibility (if not the eventual or imminent likelihood) of development that will further change the rural nature of Bend is not in the public's interest for rezoning standards or otherwise. C. Conclusion The existing development and use of 27 Street, the development already approved and under construction, and the future development of Stevens Road and the 'Elbow' makes changing the Property's zoning classification to not be in the public interest. There simply is not adequate infrastructure to support all of these additions in a safe manner. Until the access to the neighborhoods from 271 Street is improved, no further development or changes of zoning classifications should occur. Approving the permit will also likely result in the irreparable loss of rural landscape and habitat once the Property is developed, including possibly without any restrictions or preservation criteria. In sum, the proposed permit application should be denied, or at least not approved in its current form. At a minimum, a hearing should be set for in person comments and for further deliberation to occur." The public comment from Mr. Wilkins includes 10 photographs depicting the various conditions outlined in his written comment. These photographs and the full written comment are included in public record for the subject application. The tenth public comment was received from Crystal Garner on June 22, 2021: 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 15 of 57 "I would like to request a hearing for the proposed land development for 61781 Ward Rd, Bend, OR 97702. We live about 4 houses down from this property, it is a great and safe place for our family and so many others in the neighborhood to take walks, ride bikes, and walk dogs. The thought of this land being developed on and losing those opportunities, as well as possibly compromising the safety of our children in our neighborhood bring a heavy heart to so many of us. Please consider a hearing to recant this decision." The eleventh public comment was received from William Kepper on June 29, 2021: "Sorryfor the late response to the changes associated with Map and Taxiot. 1812020001000. The notification was not received timely. The notification is vague to exactly what changes will occur. If the changes have anything to do with the cultivation of marijuana or hemp we and our neighbors are against it. it would destroy ours and our neighbors quality of life. There are numerous small children and teenagers in the neighborhoods who should not be subjected to these types of grow farms. Also there is a child day care facility close by off 27th Street. 1 hope I'm wrong about the "Rural Residential Exception Area and Multiple Use Agricultural, respectively" statement. Thanks for listening to my concerns. I'd appreciate additional information on exactly what Multiple Use Agricultural Zone (MUA10) means." The twelfth public comment was received from David Morrison on August 30, 2021: Tarik, I may wish to participate in this hearing if I have questions or concerns not addressed by others. I plan to participate via Zoom. My wife is dealing with serious health issues and may require attention at any time which might cause me to miss all or some. So, i would like to go on record as 10096 against re -zoning said CO/D property at this time. I feel that with the already in the works developments south of Stevens Rd and north of Bear Creek Rd, that the road system is already severely inadequate. Also, with the drought conditions and worsening water supplies in not just Bend but all of Deschutes and surrounding counties, I would like to see this request 'tabled'. to be revisited in no fewer than 5 years. The county needs to greatly improve roads and water supply issues before allowing more and more building and deteriorating areas that will make this area more desirable to live in. I enjoy watching all of the natural wildlife that lives in this space, they will disappear with development, as will our natural view that was the biggest reason for us purchasing our property which is immediately adjacent to said property. I am also concerned about the stated address of said property, Ward Rd is no where near the property. If it should be re -zoned, where exactly will it be accessed? I fear the continued rapid growth will quickly and severely deteriorate the quality of life for all of Bend. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 16 of 57 Thank you for considering my our [sic] concerns, David & Nancy Morrison J. LAND USE HISTORY: There is no history of prior land use permits having been granted for the subject property. K. UTILITY SERVICES: The subject property is served by Pacific Power and water will be provided by a well (see Exhibit 7 for will serve letter and well logs). L. PUBLIC SERVICES: The subject property is in the Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection District #2 (Exhibit 6). The Bend Rural Fire Protection Station 304 is located a few miles northeast of the subject property near the corner of Hamby and Neff Roads. The Pilot Butte Station on NE 151" Street and Highway 20 is also within a few miles of the subject property. The Deschutes County Sheriff provides police and public safety services. Access to the subject property is provided from the stubbed local street connections of Darnel Avenue and Daylily Avenue to the west. The Bend Municipal Airport is located several miles northeast of the property. The property is within the Bend -La Pine School District and is in the Buckingham Elementary School boundary, the Pilot Butte Middle School boundary and the Bend High School boundary. The property is outside of the Bend Parks and Recreation District boundary; however, Bend Parks and Recreation District has plans to develop Hansen Park Trailhead located south of the subject property that will serve the Central Oregon Historic Canal Trail system. M. NOTICE REQUIREMENT: On August 6, 2021, the Planning Division mailed a Notice of Public Hearing to all property owners within 750 feet of the subject property and agencies. A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Bend Bulletin on Sunday, August 8, 2021. Notice of the first evidentiary hearing was submitted to the Department of Land Conservation and Development on July 26, 2021. The applicant complied with the posted notice requirements of DCC 22.24.030(B). The applicant submitted a Land Use Action Sign Affidavit, dated June 25, 2021, indicating the applicant posted notice of the land use action on June 25, 2021. Deschutes County sent notice of the proposed change to its comprehensive plan and land use regulation to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, received by DLCD on July 26, 2021. N. REVIEW PERIOD: The subject applications were submitted on April 20, 2021, and deemed complete by the Planning Division on May 20, 2021. According to Deschutes County Code 22.20.040(D), the review of the proposed quasi-judicial plan amendment and zone change application is not subject to the 150-day review period. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 17 of 57 I11. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, County Zoning Chapter 18.136, Amendments Section 18.136.010, Amendments DCC Title 18 may be amended as set forth in DCC 18.136. The procedures for text or legislative map changes shall be as set forth in DCC 22.12. A request by a property owner for a quasi-judicial map amendment shall be accomplished by filing an application on forms provided by the Planning Department and shall be subject to applicable procedures of DCC Title 22. FINDING: The applicant, also the property owner, has requested a quasi-judicial plan amendment and filed the applications for a plan amendment and zone change. The applicant filed the required Planning Division's land use application forms for the proposal. The application is reviewed utilizing the applicable procedures contained in Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code. The Hearings Officer finds these criteria are met. Section 18.136.020, Rezoning Standards The applicant for a quasi-judicial rezoning must establish that the public interest is best served by rezoning the property. Factors to be demonstrated by the applicant are. A. That the change conforms with the Comprehensive Plan, and the change is consistent with the plan's introductory statement and goals. FINDING: The applicant provided the following response in its submitted burden of proof statement: Per prior Hearings Officers decisions [Powell/Ramsey (file no. PA-14-2 / ZC-14-2) and Landholdings (file no. 247-16-000317-ZC, 318-PA)] for plan amendments and zone changes on EFU-zoned property, this paragraph establishes two requirements. (1) that the zone change conforms to the Comprehensive Plan and (2) that the change is consistent with the plan's introductory statements and goals. Both requirements are addressed below. 1. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan: The applicant proposes a plan amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan designation for the subject property from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area. The proposed rezoning from EFU- TRB to MUM will need to be consistent with its proposed new plan designation. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 18 of 57 2. Consistency with the Plan's Introductory Statement and Goals. In previous decisions, the Hearings Officer found the introductory statements and goals are not approval criteria for the proposed plan amendment and zone change. However, the Hearings Officer in the Landholdings decision found that depending on the language, some plan provisions may apply and found the following amended comprehensive plan goals and policies require consideration and that other provisions of the plan do not apply as stated below in the Landholdings decision: "Comprehensive plan statements, goals and policies typically are not intended to, and do not, constitute mandatory approval criteria for quasi-judicial/and use permit applications. Save Our Skyline v. City of Bend, 48 Or LUBA 192 (2004). There, LUBA held. 'As intervenor correctly points out, local and statutory requirements that land use decisions be consistent with the comprehensive plan do not mean that all parts of the comprehensive plan necessarily are approval standards. [Citations omitted.] Local governments and this Board have frequently considered the text and context of cited parts of the comprehensive plan and concluded that the alleged comprehensive plan standard was not an applicable approval standard. [Citations omitted.] Even if the comprehensive plan includes provisions that can operate as approval standards, those standards are not necessarily relevant to all quasi-judicial land use permit applications. [Citation omitted.] Moreover, even if a plan provision is a relevant standard that must be considered, the plan provision might not constitute a separate mandatory approval criterion, in the sense that it must be separately satisfied, along with any other mandatory approval criteria, before the application can be approved. Instead, that plan provision, even if it constitutes a relevant standard, may represent a required consideration that must be balanced with other relevant considerations. (Citations omitted.]' LUBA went on to hold in Save Our Skyline that it is appropriate to 'consider first whether the comprehensive plan itself expressly assigns particular role to some or all of the plan's goals and policies.' Section 23. 08. 020 of the county's comprehensive plan provides as follows: The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan for Deschutes County is not to provide a site -specific identification of the appropriate land uses which may take place on a Particular piece of land but rather it is to consider the significant factors which affect or are affected by development in the County and provide ageneral guide to the various decision which must be made to promote the greatest efficiency and equity possible, while managing the continuinggrowth and change of the area. Part of that process is identification of an appropriate land use plan, which is then 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 19 of 57 intereted to make decision about specific sites (most often in zoning and subdivision administration) but the plan must also consider the sociological, economic and environmental consequences of various actions and provide guidelines and policies for activities which may have effects beyond physical changes of the land (Emphases added by applicant.) The Hearings Officer previously found that the above -underscored language strongly suggests the county's plan statements, goals and policies are not intended to establish approval standards for quasi-judicial land use permit applications. In Bothman v. City of Eugene, 51 Or LUBA 426 (2006), LUBA found it appropriate also to review the language of specific plan policies to determine whether and to what extent they may in fact establish decisional standards. The policies at issue in that case included those ranging from aspirational statements to planning directives to the city to policies with language providing 'guidance for decision - making' with respect to specific rezoning proposals. In Bothman LUBA concluded the planning commission erred in not considering in a zone change proceeding a plan policy requiring the city to '[r]ecognize the existing general office and commercial uses located * * * [in the geographic area including the subject property] and discourage future rezonings of these properties.' LUBA held that. '*** even where a plan provision might not constitute an independently applicable mandatory approval criterion, it may nonetheless represent a relevant and necessary consideration that must be reviewed and balanced with other relevant considerations, pursuant to ordinance provisions that require *** consistency with applicable plan provision.' (Emphasis added.) The county's comprehensive plan includes a large number of goals and policies. The applicant's burden of proof addresses goals for rural development, economy, transportation, public facilities, recreation, energy, natural hazards, destination resorts, open spaces, fish and wildlife, and forest lands. The Hearings Officer finds these goals are aspirational in nature and therefore are not intended to create decision standards for the proposed zone change." Hearings Officer Karen Green adhered to these findings in the Powell/Ramsey decision (file nos. PA- 14-2/ZC-14-2), and found the above referenced introductory statements andgoals are not approval criteria for the proposed plan amendment and zone change. This Hearings Officer also adheres to the above findings herein. Nevertheless, depending upon their language, some plan provisions may require "consideration" even if they are not applicable approval criteria. Save Our Skyline v. City of Bend, 48 Or LUBA 192, 209 (2004). I find that the following amended comprehensive plan goals and policies require such consideration, and that other provisions of the plan do not apply.'" 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 20 of 57 The comprehensive plan goals and polices that the Landholdings Hearings Officer found to apply include the following... The applicant utilizes the analysis provided in prior Hearings Officers' decisions to determine and respond to only the Comprehensive Plan Goals and policies that apply, which are listed below in the Comprehensive Plan section of this Decision. The Hearings Officer finds the above provision is met, based on Comprehensive Plan conformance as set forth in subsequent findings. B. That the change in classification for the subject property is consistent with the purpose and intent of the proposed zone classification. FINDING: The applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: The applicant is proposing to change the zone classification from EFU to MUA-10. Approval of the application is consistent with the purpose of the MUA-10 zoning district, which stated in DCC 18.32.010 as follows: "The purposes of the Multiple Use Agricultural Zone are to preserve the rural character of various areas of the County while permitting development consistent with that character and with the capacity of the natural resources of the area, to preserve and maintain agricultural lands not suited to full-time commercial farming for diversified or part-time agricultural uses, to conserve forest lands for forest uses, to conserve open spaces and protect natural and scenic resources; to maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the County; to establish standards and procedures for the use of those lands designated unsuitable for intense development by the Comprehensive Plan, and to provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use." The subject property is not suited to full-time commercial farming as discussed in the findings above. The MUA-10 zone will allow property owners to engage in hobby farming. The low -density of development allowed by the MUA-10 zone will conserve open spaces and protect natural and scenic resources. In the Landholding's case, the Hearings Officer found: I find that the proposed change in zoning classification from EFU is consistent with the purpose and intent of the MUA-10 zone. Specifically, the MUA-10 zone is intended to preserve the rural character of various areas of the County while permitting development consistent with that character and with the capacity of the natural resources of the area. Approval of the proposed rezone to MUA-10 would permit applications for low -density development, which will comprise a transition zone between EFU rural zoning, primarily to the east and City zoning to the west. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 21 of 57 The maximum density of the approximately 36.65-acre property if developed with a cluster development under Title 18 is 7 lots. This low density will preserve open space, allow owners to engage in hobby farming, if desired, and preserve natural and scenic resources and maintain or improve the quality of air, water, and land resources. The MUA-10 zoning provides a proper transition zone from City, to rural zoning to EFU zoning. The applicant's burden of proof statement also includes analysis in the Introduction section at pages 1-2. There, the applicant stated, in relevant part: For the past several years, Deschutes County has recognized the value in rezoning non -productive agricultural lands and has issued decisions in support of plan amendments and zone changes where the applicant demonstrates the property is not agricultural land and, therefore, Statewide Goal 3, Agricultural Lands, does not apply. These cases are the foundation for the subject request. Cases pertinent to the proposed request include. Kelly Porter Burns Landholdings LLC (" Landholdings'I/File nos. 247-16-000317-ZC/318- PA On November 1, 2017, the Board approved Kelly Porter Burns Landholdings LLC's request to change the plan designation on certain property from Agricultural to Rural Residential Exception Area and to change the zone designation from EFU-TRB to MUA-10 zone. The property consists of about 35 acres and abuts the applicant's property to the west (Exhibit 1). Based on the Order 1 soil survey for the property and the submitted evidence, the Hearings Officer found that the Landholdings property does not constitute agricultural land and does not merit protection under Goal 3, and therefore, approved the change in Plan designation and Zoning of the property from Agriculture/EFU-TRB to RREA/MUA-10.6 Division of State Lands Decision/File Nos. PA-11-7 and ZC-11-2 The Division of State Lands case was a 2013 approval by the Board for a plan amendment from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area and a zone change from EFU-TRB to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10). Based on the Order 1 soil survey for the property and the submitted evidence, the Board found that the property was not agricultural land and therefore, Goal 3 did not apply (Exhibit 2). 6 The Board adopted as its findings the Hearings Officer's decision with one exception: that if the property is divided, it must be developed as a cluster development and the two irrigation ponds must be included in the common area. In addition, the Board required the applicant to sign a Conditions of Approval agreement to "assure that future residential development of the property will be harmonious with existing development in the area and so that a part of the property may be developed at urban densities if and when the property is annexed to the City of Bend." 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 22 of 57 Paget Decision/File Nos. PA-07-1, ZC-07-1 The Paget decision was a 2007 approval of a plan amendment from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area and a zone change from EFU to MUA-10. The Board adopted the Hearings Officer's decision, which found that the property did not constitute "agricultural land" and therefore, the plan amendment and zone change to MUA-10 was consistent with Goal 3 (Exhibit 3). The Daniels Group/File Nos. PA-08-1, ZC-08-1 The Daniels Group decision was a 2011 Board decision approving a change to the Comprehensive Plan map from Surface Mine and Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area and a zone change from EFU-LB and Surface Mining to Rural Residential (RR-10). The Board found that the property did not constitute "agricultural land" as defined in Goal 3, was not subject to protection under Goal 3, and therefore, the plan amendment and zone change did not require an exception to Goal 3. (Exhibit 4). The Hearings Officer finds the applicant has demonstrated the change in classification is consistent with the purpose and intent of the MUA-10 Zone. A change in classification will preserve the rural character of the subject property, due to the low density of development allowed in the MUA-10 zone, while permitting development consistent with that character. As set forth in the findings below, the subject property is not suited to full-time commercial farming but could be used for hobby farming. Low density development will also conserve open spaces and protect natural and scenic resources. The Hearings Officer finds that approval of the proposed rezone to MUA-10 would permit applications for low -density development, and will comprise a transition zone between the City and EFU zoning to the east. The Hearings Officer's findings regarding agricultural land and Goal 3 exception are set forth in the findings below. C. That changing the zoning will presently serve the public health, safety and welfare considering the following factors: 1. The availability and efficiency of providing necessary public services and facilities. FINDING: There is no proposal to develop the property at this time. The above criterion asks if the proposed zone change will presently serve public health, safety, and welfare. The applicant provides the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: Necessary public facilities and services are available to serve the subject property, including electrical power from Pacific Power and well logs showing water services are available to serve the property. Exhibit 7. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 23 of 57 Transportation access to the property is available from the stubbed local street connections of Darnel Avenue and Daylily Avenue to the west in the City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary. MUA- 10 zoning and a standard subdivision would allow the creation of up to 3 residential lots and a cluster development would allow up to 7 residential lots. If developed with a cluster development, the property could generate up to 49 additional daily trips, which according to the traffic report by Transight Consulting is a slight increase in trips, but the impact of these trips is negligible on the transportation system and the functional classification of all the adjacent roadways will not be affected with the proposed rezone. The existing road network is available to serve the use of the property if developed. The property receives police services from the Deschutes County Sheriff and is in Rural Fire Protection District #2 with the nearest fire station nearby. Neighboring properties contain residential uses, which have water service from a municipal source or wells, on -site sewage disposal systems, electrical service, telephone services, etc There are no known deficiencies in public services or facilities that would negatively impact public health, safety, or welfare. Neighboring properties contain residential and commercial uses, which have water service from a quasi -municipal source or wells, on -site sewage disposal systems, electrical service, telephone services, etc. There are no known deficiencies in public services or facilities that would negatively impact public health, safety, or welfare. Public commentators expressed concern about access to the subject property. One commentator stated that Ward Road is 3/4 mile away and that the property is not accessible other than via a canal road, which is gated. Other commentators stated that access from City of Bend roads (Daylily Avenue and Darnel Avenue) that are currently stubbed at the edge of the eastern boundary of the Bend UGB, through existing subdivisions will be dangerous. The applicant's attorney stated that there are no current plans to develop the property. The applicant may offer the property for sale or develop as MUA-10 zone. Alternatively, the applicant could hold onto the property until the next Bend UGB expansion process. The Hearings Officer finds that no access to the subject property is required to be established for purposes of consideration of the re -designation and rezoning applications. Any future development will have to establish access in compliance with applicable zoning regulations and the comprehensive plan. Prior to development of the property, the applicant will be required to comply with the applicable requirements of the Deschutes County Code, including possible land use permit, building permit, and sewage disposal permit processes. Through these development review processes, assurance of adequate public services and facilities will be verified. The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is met. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 24 of 57 2. The impacts on surrounding land use will be consistent with the specific goals and policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan. FINDING: The applicant's submitted burden of proof statement addresses potential impacts on surrounding land uses as related to each individual policy and goal item within the County's Comprehensive Plan in subsequent findings. Analysis of consistency with each applicable goal and policy is set forth in the findings below. The Hearings Officer finds that the MUA-10 zoning is the same zoning of many other properties in the areas east and south of the subject property. As the Hearings Officer found above, MUA 10 zoning provides a proper transition zone from the City to EFU zoning. The requested zone change will not impose new impacts on EFU-zoned land to the north of the subject property because that property is a small parcel, approximately 12 acres in size, that is not engaged in commercial farm use and is developed with a nonfarm dwelling. Further, MUA-10 zoning will have minimal impacts on EFU-zoned land adjacent to the northeast corner of the subject property. As determined by the applicant's soil scientist, Andy Gallagher, it is not practical to farm the subject property because it is comprised primarily of Class 7 and 8 soils and is characterized by a cut-up landscape. The Hearings Officer finds the subject property is not land that could be used in conjunction with the adjacent property. Any future development of the subject property will be subject to building setbacks. The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is met. D. That there has been a change in circumstances since the property was last zoned, or a mistake was made in the zoning of the property in question. FINDING: The applicant is proposing to rezone the property from EFU to MUA10 and re- designate the property from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area. The applicant has provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: 1. Mistake: The EFU zoning designation was likely based on the best available soils data that the County had at the time in the County in the late 1970`s when the comprehensive plan and map were adopted and where agricultural zoning was applied to land with no history of farming78. 7 Gallagher's soils analysis report for the subject property determined that the subject property was previously mapped by the USDA-SCS Soil Survey of the Deschutes County Area and compiled by NRCS into the Web Soil Survey. The property was previously mapped at 1:20,000 scale, which is generally too small a scale for detailed land use planning and decision making, according to Gallagher. 8 Source: Agricultural Lands Program, Community Involvement Results, Community Development, Deschutes County. June 18, 2014. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 25 of 57 2. Change in Circumstances: There clearly has been a change in circumstances since the property was last zoned in the 1970s. Soils. New soils data provided in the Gallagher soils report shows the property does not have agricultural soils. Farming economics and viability of farm uses in Central Oregon have significantly changed. Making a profit in farming, particularly on smaller parcels such as the subject property, is difficult as stated below in the stakeholder interview of the Deschutes County Farm Bureau in the County's 2014 ggricultural Lands Program Community Involvement Results: Today's economics make it extremely difficult for commercial farmers in Deschutes County to be profitable. Farmers have a difficult time being competitive because other regions (Columbia Basin, Willamette Valley) produce crops at higher yields, havegreater access to transportation and consumer markets, and experience more favorable growing climates and soils. Ultimately, the global economy undermines agricultural opportunities in the county because commodities derived from outside the region can be produced at a lower cost. Water limitations also play a role. Junior water right holders are constrained as the summer progresses and they lose their rights to those with higher priority dates. Decline in farm operations have steadily declined in Deschutes County between 2012 and 2017, with only a small fraction of farm operators achieving a net profit from farming in 2017. (Exhibit 8). Encroaching development east of Bend's Urban Growth Boundary has brought both traffic and higher density residential uses and congestion to the area. The applicant's attorney argued at the public hearing that it is not economical or fiscally responsible to retain the subject property as agricultural/farm land given the fact that it is non -productive land. Patrick McCoy testified at the public hearing that there are several other parcels/tracts that are "getting readyto do the same thing' as the applicant. He also stated that a 59-acre parcel was allowed to "go dead" to meet requirements for a rezone. He is concerned about slowing down growth in this area and further expressed concerns that the subject property is landlocked. Mr. McCoy stated that there is a lot of development occurring within a 2-mile radius of his property. Matt Carey testified at the public hearing that development is increasingly encroaching on green space and animals are getting pushed out. He also expressed concerns about access to the subject property. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 26 of 57 Kecia Weaver testified that high schoolers participate in 4H and FFA, raising animals and that smaller parcels of land are used for agriculture on a small scale. She values slow growth and maintaining the rural concept, to preserve open spaces. Ms. Weaver is concerned about the rapid development of large acreage and the impact on deer, rabbits, hawks, eagles and bats. She stated that Ward Road is .75 miles away from the subject property, which is not accessible other than via a gated canal road. Ms. Weaver requested that the applications be denied to slow the growth. She further stated that the applications could be considered at the time the UGB expansion is underway. The Hearings Officer makes the following findings. First, whether or not owners of other properties may, or may not, request a change of comprehensive plan designation and zoning is not relevant to the Hearings Officer's consideration of the current applications. Each application must be considered on its own merits. Second, concerns regarding development encroachment support a finding of change of circumstances. Given the evidence that shows the subject property is not comprised of agricultural soils, and is not land that could be used in conjunction with adjacent property, the requested rezone will provide an appropriate transition between urban City development and rural EFU properties. Third, the Hearings Officer does not have authority to deny the requested applications on the basis of concerns about growth. While understandable, the applications may be granted where, as here, all applicable criteria are met. Fourth, the applicant's attorney commented at the public hearing that delaying the applications until the City considers its next urban growth boundary (UGB) expansion will preclude the subject property from consideration. Fifth, with respect to 4H and FFA activities, the Hearings Officer finds that the requested rezone to MUA-10 will continue to allow for hobby farming. Sixth, concerning wildlife concerns, the Hearings Officer finds the subject property is not within a Wildlife Area combining zone; there are no specific wildlife preservation regulations applicable to the property. There is no evidence that the requested rezone, and and of itself, will impact wildlife. Finally, with respect to access, the Hearings Officer finds that no development is proposed at this time and, therefore, access need not be finally determined. If the subject property is developed in the future, the record shows that access from stubbed streets to the west may be considered. For all the foregoing reasons, and based on evidence in the record that shows declining farm operations and limited numbers of financially successful farm operations (Exhibit 8), the 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 27 of 57 Hearings Officer finds that a change of circumstances since the time the property was last zoned exists. This criterion is met. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 2, Resource Management Section 2.2 Agricultural Lands Goal 1, Preserve and maintain agricultural lands and the agricultural industry. FINDING: The applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: The applicant is pursuing a plan amendment and zone change on the basis that the subject property does not constitute "agricultural lands," and therefore, the subject lands are not necessary to preserve or maintain as such. In the Landholdings decision (and Powell/Ramsey decision) the Hearings Officer found that Goal 1 is an aspirational goal and not an approval criterion. As demonstrated in this application, the subject property does not constitute "agricultural land" and therefore, is not necessary to preserve and maintain the County's agricultural industry. The Gallagher soils report shows the subject property to consist predominantly (63.7%) of Class 7 and 8 non-agricultural soils (Gosney-Rock Outcrop complex). According to Mr. Gallagher, these soils have severe limitations for agricultural use as well as low soil fertility, shallow and very shallow soils, abundant rock outcrops and lava tubes, low available water capacity, and major management limitations for livestock grazing. In addition, the minor amount of Deskamp soils (Class 3 irrigated and 6 nonirrigated) are in small isolated pockets and severely restricted by lava tubes, shallow rocky soils, irrigation ditches and property lines that they cannot be used in farming in conjunction with the non -productive Gosney-Rock outcrop. The property also is physically remote from productive farmland as it is adjacent to the City of Bend's urban development to the west and rural residential development to the east and south. Mr. Gallagher concludes that the "landscape is so cut up it is impractical to farm". The Hearings Officer finds Mr. Gallagher's report supports a finding that the subject property does not constitute agricultural land. The subject property is not land that could be used in conjunction with the adjacent property. The requested plan amendment and rezone will not contribute to loss of agricultural land in the surrounding vicinity. The agricultural industry will not be negatively impacted by re -designation and rezoning of the subject property. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds the applications are consistent with Section 2.2, Goal 1, "preserve and maintain agricultural lands and the agricultural industry." Policy 2.2.2 Exclusive Farm Use sub -zones shall remain as described in the 1992 Farm Study and shown in the table below, unless adequate legal 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 28 of 57 findings for amending the sub -zones are adopted or an individual parcel is rezoned as allowed by Policy 2.2.3. FINDING: The applicant is not asking to amend the subzone that applies to the subject property; rather, the applicant is seeking a change under Policy 2.2.3 and has provided evidence to support rezoning the subject property to MUA10. The Hearings Officer finds this Policy is inapplicable. Policy 2.2.3 Allow comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments for individual EFU parcels as allowed by State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rules and this Comprehensive Plan. FINDING: The applicant is seeking approval of a plan amendment and zone change to re- designate and rezone the property from Agricultural to Rural Residential Exception Area. The applicant is not seeking an exception to Goal 3 - Agricultural Lands, but rather seeks to demonstrate that the subject property does not meet the state definition of "Agricultural Land" as defined in Statewide Planning Goal 3 (OAR 660-033-0020). The applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: Deschutes County has allowed this approach in previous Hearings Officer's decisions including Porter Kelly Burns Landholdings (247-16-000317-ZC/318-PA), Department of State Lands (PA-11- 7/ZG-11-2), Pagel (PA-08-1/ZC-08-1), and the Daniels Group (PA-08-1, ZC-08-1). Additionally, the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) allowed this approach in Wetherell v. Douglas County, 52 Or LUBA 677 (2006), where LUBA states, at pp.678-679: 'As we explained in DLCD v. Klamath County, 16 Or LUBA 817, 820 (1988), there are two ways a county can justify a decision to allow nonresource use of land previously designated and zoned for farm use or forest uses. One is to take an exception to Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands) and Goal 4 (Forest Lands). The other is to adopt findings which demonstrate the land does not qualify either as forest lands or agricultural lands under the statewide planning goals. When a county pursues the latter option, it must demonstrate that despite the prior resource plan and zoning designation, neither Goal 3 nor Goal 4 applies to the property. Caine v. Tillamook County, 25 Or LUBA 209,218 (1993), DLCD v. Josephine County, 18 Or LUBA 798, 802 (1990)." LUBA's decision in Wetherell has appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals and the Oregon Supreme Court but neither court disturbed LUBA's ruling on this point. In fact, the Oregon Supreme Court changed the test for determining whether land is agricultural land to make it less stringent. Wetherell v. Douglas County, 342 Or 666, 160 P3d 614 (2007). In that case, the Supreme Court stated that: 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 29 of 57 "Under Goal 3, land must be preserved as agricultural land if it is suitable for farm use' as defined in ORS 215.203(2)(a), which means, in part, 'the current employment of land for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money' through specific farming -related endeavors." Wetherell, 342 Or at 677. The Wetherell court held that when deciding whether land is agricultural land "a local government may not be precluded from considering the costs or expenses of engaging in those activities." Wetherell, 342 Or at 680. The facts presented in the subject application are sufficiently similar to those in the Wetherell decisions and in the above -mentioned Deschutes County plan amendment and zone change applications. The subject property is primarily composed of Class 7 or 8 nonagricultural soils making farm -related endeavors not profitable. This application complies with Policy 2.2.3. The Hearings Officer finds that the facts presented by the applicant in the burden of proof for the subject applications are similar to those in the Wetherell decisions and in the aforementioned Deschutes County plan amendment and zone change applications. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant established the property is not agricultural land and does not require an exception to Goal 3 under state law. The Hearings Officer finds the applications are consistent with Policy 2.2.3. Policy2.2.4 Develop comprehensive policy criteria and code to provide clarity on when and how EFU parcels can be converted to other designations. FINDING: This plan policy provides direction to Deschutes County to develop new policies to provide clarity when EFU parcels can be converted to other designations. The policy is not directed to an individual applicant, as the Hearings Officers found in the Landholdings decision and Powell/Ramsey decision. The Hearings Officer finds that, based on the County's previous determinations in plan amendment and zone change applications, the proposal is consistent with this Policy. Goal 3, Ensure Exclusive Farm Use policies, classifications and codes are consistent with local and emerging agricultural conditions and markets. Policy 2.2.13 Identify and retain accurately designated agricultural lands. FINDING: This plan policy requires the County to identify and retain agricultural lands that are accurately designated. The policy is not directed to an individual applicant, as the Hearings Officers found in the Landholdings decision and Powell/Ramsey decision. The Hearings Officer finds that the subject property was not accurately designated as demonstrated by the soil study, NRCS soil data, and the applicant's burden of proof. Further discussion on the soil analysis provided by the analysis is set forth in the findings under the OAR Division 33 criteria below. The Hearings Officer finds the proposal is consistent with this Policy. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 30 of 57 Section 2 5 Water Resources Policies Goal 6, Coordinate land use and water policies. Policy2.5.24 Ensure water impacts are reviewed and, if necessary, addressed for significant land uses or developments. FINDING: The applicant is not proposing a specific development application at this time. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant is not required to demonstrate water impacts associated with development. Rather, the applicant will be required to address this criterion during development of the subject property, which would be reviewed under any necessary land use process for the site (e.g. conditional use permit, tentative plat). The Hearings Officer finds this Policy does not apply to the subject applications. Chapter 3, Rural Growth Section 3.2, Rural Development Growth Potential As of 2010, the strong population growth of the last decade in Deschutes County was thought to have leveled off due to the economic recession. Besides flatter growth patterns, changes to State regulations opened up additional opportunities for new rural development. The following list identifies general categories for creating new residential lots, all of which are subject to specific State regulations. Some farm lands with poor soils that are adjacent to rural residential uses can be rezoned as rural residential FINDING: This section of the Comprehensive Plan does not contain Goals or Policies, but does provide the guidance above. In response to this section, the applicant's burden of proof provides the following: As shown above, the CounVs Comprehensive Plan provisions anticipate the need for additional rural residential lots as the region continues to grow. This includes providing a mechanism to rezone farm lands with poor soils to a rural residential zoning designation. While the rezone application does not include the creation of new residential lots, the applicant has demonstrated the subject property is comprised of poor soils that are adjacent to rural residential MUA-10 zone uses to the east and south as well as urban residential zones within the Bend citylimits to the west. Rezoning the subject property to MUA-10 is consistent with this criterion, as it will provide for an orderly and efficient transition from the Bend Urban Growth Boundary to rural and agricultural lands. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 31 of 57 The MUA-10 Zone is a rural residential zone and as discussed in the Findings of Fact above, there are many adjacent properties to the south and east that are zoned MUA 10. Additionally, the properties to the west are within urban residential zones within the city limits of Bend. The Hearings Officer notes this policy references the soil quality, which is discussed above. The Hearings Officer finds that rezoning the subject property to MUA-0 is consistent with Section 3.2, Chapter 3 of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan as it will provide for an orderly and efficient transition from the Bend UGB to rural and agricultural lands. Section 3.3, Rural Housing Rural Residential Exception Areas In Deschutes County most rural lands are designated for farms, forests or other resources and protected as described in the Resource Management chapter of this Plan. The majority of the land not recognized as resource lands or Unincorporated Community is designated Rural Residential Exception Area. The County had to follow a process under Statewide Goal 2 to explain why these lands did not warrant farm or forest zoning. The major determinant was that many of these lands were platted for residential use before Statewide Planning was adopted. in 1979 the County assessed that there were over 17,000 undeveloped Rural Residential Exception Area parcels, enough to meet anticipated demand for new rural housing. As of 2010 any new Rural Residential Exception Areas need to be justified through taking exceptions to farm, forest, public facilities and services and urbanization regulations, and follow guidelines set out in the OAR. FINDING: The applicant provided the following response in the burden of proof: Prior Hearings Officer's decisions have found that Section 3.3 is not a plan policy or directive9 Further, no goal exception to Statewide Planning Goal 3 is required for the rezone application because the subject property does not qualify as farm or forest zoning or agricultural lands under the statewide planning goals. The County has interpreted the RREA plan designation as the proper "catchall" designation for non -resource land and therefore, the Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA) plan designation is the appropriate plan designation to apply to the subject property10. 9 See PA-1 1-1 7/ZC-1 1-2, 247-16-000317-ZC, 318-PA, and 247-18-000485-PA, 486-ZC 10The Hearings Officer's decision for PA-1 1-1 7/ZC-1 1-2 concerning this language of Section 3.3 states: To the extent that the quoted language above represents a policy, it appears to be directed at a fundamentally different situation than the one presented in this application. The quoted language addresses conversions of'form"or " forest"land to rural residential use. In those cases, the language 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 32 of 57 Based on past Deschutes County Hearings Officer interpretations, the Hearings Officer finds that the above language is not a policy and does not require an exception to the applicable Statewide Planning Goal 3. The Hearings Officer finds the proposed RREA plan designation is the appropriate plan designation to apply to the subject property. Section 3.7, Transportation Appendix C - Transportation System Plan ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR ROAD PLAN Goal4. Establish a transportation system, supportive of a geographically distributed and diversified economic base, while also providing a safe, efficient network for residential mobility and tourism. Policy 4.4 Deschutes County shall consider roadway function, classification and capacity as criteria for plan map amendments and zone changes. This shall assure that proposed land uses do not exceed the planned capacity of the transportation system. FINDING: This plan policy applies to the County and advises it to consider the roadway function, classification and capacity as criteria for plan amendments and zone changes. The County will comply with this direction by determining compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) aka OAR 660-012, as described below in subsequent findings. OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES CHAPTER 660, LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Division 6, Goal 4 - Forest Lands OAR 660-006-0005, Definitions indicates that some type of exception under state statute and DLCD rules will be required in order to support a change in Comprehensive Plan designation. See ORS 197.732 and OAR 660, Division 004. That is not what this application seeks to do. The findings below explain that the applicant has been successful in demonstrating that the subject property is composed predominantly of nonagricultural soil types. Therefore, it is permissible to conclude that the property is not'farmland" as defined under state statute, DLCD rules, and that it is not correctly zoned for exclusive farm use. As such, the application does not seek to convert "agricultural land" to rural residential use. If the land is demonstrated to not be composed of agricultural soils, then there is no "exception" to be taken. There is no reason that the applicant should be made to demonstrate a reasons, developed or committed exception under state law because the subject property is not composed of the type of preferred land which the exceptions process was designed to protect. For all these reasons, the Hearings Officer concludes that the applicant is not required to obtain an exception to Goal 3. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 33 of 57 (7) "Forest lands" as defined in Goal 4 are those lands acknowledged as forest lands, or, in the case of a plan amendment, forest lands shall include. (a) Lands that are suitable for commercial forest uses, including adjacent or nearby lands which are necessary to permit forest operations or practices, and (b) Other forested lands that maintain soil, air, water and fish and wildlife resources. FINDING: The subject property is not zoned for forest lands, nor are any of the properties within a two-mile radius. The property does not contain merchantable tree species and there is no evidence in the record that the property has been employed for forestry uses historically. None of the soil units comprising the parcel is rated for forest uses according to NRCS data. The Hearings Officer finds that the subject property does not constitute forest land. Division 33 - Agricultural Lands & Statewide Planning Goal 3 - Agricultural Lands; OAR 660-015-0000(3) To preserve and maintain agricultural lands. Agricultural lands shall be preserved and maintained for farm use, consistent with existing and future needs for agricultural products, forest and open space and with the state's agricultural land use policy expressed in ORS 215.243 and 215.700. FINDING: Goal 3 defines "Agricultural Land;' which is repeated in OAR 660-033-0020(1). The Hearings Officer's findings below are incorporated herein by reference. OAR 660-033-0020, Definitions For purposes of this division, the definitions in ORS 197.015, the Statewide Planning Goals, and OAR Chapter 660 shall apply. In addition, the following definitions shall apply. (1)(a) "Agricultural Land" as defined in Goal includes: (A) Lands classified by the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as predominantly Class I -IV soils in Western Oregon and I -VI soils in Eastern Oregon"; 11 OAR 660-033-0020(5): "Eastern Oregon" means that portion of the state lying east of a line beginning at the intersection of the northern boundary of the State of Oregon and the western boundary of Wasco County, then south along the western boundaries of the Counties of Wasco, Jefferson, Deschutes and Klamath to the southern boundary of the State of Oregon. 247-21-000400-PAJ401-ZC Page 34 of 57 FINDING: The applicant's decision not to request an exception to Goal 3 is based on the premise that the subject property is not defined as "Agricultural Land." In support, the applicant offers the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: The subject property is not properly classified as Agricultural Land and does not merit protection under Goal 3. The soils are predominately Class 7 and 8 soils as shown by the more detailed soils report prepared by soils scientist Andy Gallagher, which State law, OAR 660-033-0030, allows the County to rely on for more accurate soils information. Mr. Gallagher found that approximately 64% of the soils on the subject property (about 24 acres) is Land Capability Class 7 and 8 soils that have severe limitations for farm use. He also found the site to have low soil fertility, shallow and very shallow soils, abundant rock outcrops and rock fragments in the surface, lava tubes, and irrigation ditches, low available water capacity, and limiting areas suitable for grazing and restricting livestock accessibility, all of which are considerations for the determination for suitability for farm use. Because the subject property is comprised predominantly of Class 7 and 8 soils, the property does not meet the definition of 'Agricultural Lands" under OAR 660-033- 0020(1)(a)(A) listed above, that is having predominantly Class I -VI soils. The Hearings Officer finds that the soil study provided by Mr. Gallagher of Red Hill Soils is an accurate representation of the data for the subject property. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds, based on the submitted soil study and the above OAR definition, that the subject property is comprised predominantly of Class 7 and 8 soils and, therefore, does not constitute "Agricultural Lands" as defined in OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(A) above. (B) Land in other soil classes that is suitable for farm use as defined in ORS 215.203(2)(a), taking into consideration soil fertility; suitability for grazing; climatic conditions; existing and future availability of water for farm irrigation purposes, existing land use patterns, technological and energy inputs required, and accepted farming practices; and FINDING: The applicant's decision not to request an exception to Goal 3 is based on the premise that the subject property is not defined as "Agricultural Land." The applicant provides the following analysis of this determination in the burden of proof. This part of the definition of "Agricultural Land" requires the County to consider whether the Class 7 and 8 soils found on the subject property are suitable for farm use despite their Class 7 and 8 classification. The Oregon Supreme Court has determined that the term 'farm use" as used in this rule and Goal 3 means the current employment of land for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money through specific farming -related endeavors. The costs of engaging in farm use are relevant to determining whether farm activities are profitable and this is a factor in determining whether land is agricultural land. Wetherell v. Douglas County, 342 Or 666, 160 P3d 614 (2007). 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 35 of 57 The subject property does not have water rights, has not been farmed, or used in conjunction with any farming operation in the past. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) map shown on the County's GIS mapping program identifies two soil complex units on the property. 36A, Deskamp loamy sand and 58C, Gosney-Rock outcrop-Deskamp complex. The predominant soil complex on the subject property is 58C. 58C is not a high value soil as defined by Deschutes County Code. 36A is considered a high value soil when irrigated. However, as discussed in detail below, there is no irrigation on the property and an Agricultural Soils Capability Assessment (Order 1 soil survey) conducted on the property by soil scientist, Andy Gallagher, determined that the property is not agricultural land; that the class 3 irrigated and 6 non irrigated soils exist in small pockets interspersed with lava tubes, rocky, shallow soils creating severe limitations for any agricultural use on the property or in conjunction with other neighboring lands. (See Exhibit 5 for Mr. Gallagher's Soil Assessment Report). A review of the seven considerations listed in the administrative rule, below, shows why the poor soils found on the subject property are not suitable for farm use that can be expected to be profitable: Soil Fertility: Mr. Gallagher made the following findings regarding soil fertility on the subject property. "Important soil properties affecting the soil fertility and productivity of the soils are very limitingto crop production [emphasis added by applicant] on this parcel. Thesoils here are low fertility, being ashy sandy foams with a low cation exchange capacity (CEC) of 7.5 meq/100 gm and organic matter is very low for Gosney 0.75% and low for Deskamps 1.5%. These soils do not have a large capacity to store soil nutrients especially cations, and nitrogen fertilizers readily leach in sandy soils. The soil depth is further limiting because it limits the overall volume of soil available for plant roots and limits the size the overall nutrient pool. Additionally, the soil available water holding capacity is very low for Gosney less than 1.8 inches for the whole soil profile, and for the very shallow soils it is half this much. The Deskamps soils have only about 2 to 4 inches AWHC translate into low productivity for crops. NRCS does not provide any productivity data for non -irrigated crops on these soils. The productivity of irrigated alfalfa is 4 tons per acre for Deskamps, and no rating for Gosney is same as a zero. There are perhaps 7 acres that could produce alfalfa with irrigation that could produce 28 tons alfalfa under irrigation and high fertility but after costs this would amount to no profit" The fact that these soils are low fertility unless made fertile through artificial means supports the applicant's position that the Class 7 soils and the entire property is not suitable for farm use. The costs to purchase and apply fertilizer and soil amendments and the costs to sample and test soils are a part of the reason why it is not profitable to farm the subject property. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 36 of 57 Unsuitability for Grazing: Mr. Gallagher also reviewed whether the parcel is suitable for grazing and found: 'This 37.7-acre parcel is not suited to grazing on a commercial scale [emphasis added by applicant]. The soils here have major management limitations including ashy and sandy surface texture. The majority of the area has soils that are very shallow to shallow with many rock outcrops and rock fragments in the surface. Wind erosion is a potential hazard is moderately high when applying range improvement practices. Because the soil is influenced by pumice ash, reestablishment of the native vegetation is very slow if the vegetation is removed or deteriorated. Pond development is limited by the soil depth. The restricted soil depth limits the choice of species for range seeding to drought -tolerant varieties. Further, range seeding with ground equipment is limited by the rock fragments on the surface. The areas of very shallow soils and rock outcrop limit the areas suitable for grazing and restrict livestock accessibility. Total Range Production from NRCS Websoil survey and estimate based soil percentages in revised soil map units Soil Map Unit _ a Total annual ra Unfavorabley Qk __700 ' Estimabd based onFweightid average of soils duction po ndsper acre e _ Normalyear Favorable 900 558 900 T..M.... 1100 _ 441 - 567 Total range production is the amount of vegetation that can be expected to grow annually in a well -managed area that is supporting the potential natural plant community. It includes all vegetation, whether or not it is palatable to grazing animals. It includes the current year's growth of leaves, twigs, and fruits of woody plants. It does not include the increase in stem diameter of trees and shrubs. It is expressed in pounds per acre of air-dry vegetation. In a normal year, growing conditions are about average. Yields are adjusted to a common percent of air-dry moisture content. The productivity provided for Dk map unit is from Websoil survey far the Deskamp soil and that provided for the GR map unit is based on 40% very shallow soils, 35% Gosney and 25% rock outcrop. Based on previous NRCS map has a weighted average annual productivity of 669 pounds per acre in a normal year. Based on the revised Order-1 map the annual productivity is even lower, 540 pounds per acre. The animal use months (AUMs) for this 37.7 acre parcel is 5.5 based on the revised soil map and a monthly value of 910 pounds forage per 1 AUM equivalent to pounds per cow calf pair. This model assumes the cow's take to be 25% of annual productivity in order to maintain site productivity and soil health (NRCS 2009). This 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 37 of 57 limits the grazing to one cow calf pair roughly 5 to 6 months annually. This is not an economical model for livestock production [emphasis added by applicant]. Inappropriate grazing causes a reduction in desirable grasses and where present cheatgrass will increase and granite pricklygilia increases and grasses decline. Cheatgrass becomes dominate along with grey rabbitbrush. Ground fire potential increases with increasing cheatgrass. Cutting of juniper leads to an increase in grey rabbitbrush and an increase in cheatgrass with or without grazing. Idaho fescue is eliminated from areas where trees are removed due to harsh microclimate and cheatgrass replaces it. The addition of inappropriate grazing would lead to a decline in the other deep-rooted perennial bunchgrasses and an increase in annuals and granite pricklygilia." Climatic Conditions According to Mr. Gallagher, climatic conditions of this area make is [sic] difficult for production of most crops, as stated below. 'The low annual precipitation, high summer temperature and evapotranspiration rates, and shortened frost free growing season make this a difficult climate for production of most crops [emphasis added by applicant]. Irrigation is needed on area farms to meet crop needs given only 8 to 10 inches precipitation that falls mainly between November and ,June, with a long summer drought. The soil temperature regime is mesic. The average annual air temperature is 46 degrees F with extreme temperatures ranging from -26 to 104 degrees F. The frost free period is 50 to 90 days. The optimum period for plant growth is from late March through June. Freeze free period (average) 140 days. (NRCS 2020) These harsh climatic conditions coupled with very low soil available water holding capacity limits the potential of irrigated crop production to the Deskamps soils." Existing and Future Availability of Water for Farm Irrigation Purposes No new irrigation water rights are expected to be available to the Central Oregon Irrigation District (COLD) in the foreseeable future. In order to obtain water rights, the applicant would need to convince another COID customer to remove water rights from their property and sell them to the applicant and obtain State and COID approval to apply the water rights to the subject property. in such a transaction, water rights would be taken off productive farm ground and applied to the nonagricultural soils found on the subject property. Such a transaction runs counter to the purpose of Goal 3 to maintain productive Agricultural Land in farm use. Given the poor quality of these soils, it is highly unlikely that Central Oregon Irrigation District would approve a transfer of water rights to this property. In addition, no person intending to make a profit in farming would go to the expense of purchasing water rights, mapping the water rights and establishing an irrigation system to irrigate the lands on the subject property. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 38 of 57 Given the dry climate, it is necessary to irrigate the subject property to grow an alfalfa crop and to maintain a pasture. A farmer would need to spend significant sums of money to purchase water rights, irrigation systems, maintain the systems, pay laborers to move and monitor equipment, obtain electricity, pay irrigation district assessments and pay increased liability insurance premiums for the risks involved with farming operations. Irrigating the soils found on the subject property as described by Mr. Gallagher, that have low fertility, low capacity to store nutrients, and very low available water holding capacity translates into low productivity for crops that would amount to no profit. Existing Land Use Patterns Existing land use patterns in the area are primarily non-agricultural related land uses including urban development to the west within the Bend City limits, County exception lands zoned MUA-10 developed with homes and small acres of irrigation for pasture and other hobby farm uses to the east and south, and irrigated farmland zoned EFU-TRB to the north and northeast. The EFU-zoned properties to the north and northeast include: North and northeast of the subject property is a pocket of EFU-zoned property. The adjacent property to the north, tax lot 18-12-02-1001, is a 12.45-acre EFU-zoned property that is partially irrigated and developed with a nonfarm dwelling ale no. CU-01-75). Northeast is tax lot 18-12-02-201, a 53.30-acre farm parcel that is irrigated and engaged in hay production, receiving farm tax deferral, and developed with a dwelling and outbuildings. The close proximity to the City of Bend and residential areas limit the types of agricultural activities that could reasonably be conducted for profit on the subject property. The subject property would not be suitable for raising animals that are disturbed by noise. Additionally, the property owner would bear the burden of paying for harm that might be caused by livestock escape, in particular livestock and vehicle collisions. Any agricultural use that requires the application of pesticides and herbicides would be very difficult to conduct on the property given the numerous homes located in close proximity to the property. In addition, the creation of dust which accompanies the harvesting of crops is a major concern on this property due to the close proximity residential use. Technological and Energy inputs Required: According to Mr. Gallagher. `The veryshallow and shallow soils and abundant rock outcrops limit practical agricultural crop production on all but about 7 acres out of the 10 acres of Deskamps soils. The Deskamps soils are into four separate delineations that are separated by rocky and shallow soils and rock outcrops and lava tubes as well as irrigation ditches. The landscape 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 39 of 57 is so cut up it is impractical to farm [emphasis added by applicant]. The best case scenario for crop production is for an area approximately seven acres along the north edge of the parcel that is spotted with rock outcrops and is of a very irregular shape. This area could at most produce about 28 tons of alfalfa under high fertilizer inputs and high irrigation water inputs. Current hay prices are from $200.00 to $250.00 per ton which would give an annual gross of about $5,600.00 to $7,000.00, before expenses. After expenses are deducted for land costs, site preparation, planting, costs of production like irrigation, fertilizer, weed control, costs of harvest including swath, rake, and bale, stack, and costs of handling, storage and marketing there would be no profit associated with producing hay crops on such a small area [emphasis added by applicant]." Accepted Farming Practices: Farming lands comprised of soils that are predominately Class 7 and 8 is not an accepted farm practice in Central Oregon. Dryland grazing, the farm use that can be conducted on the poorest soils in the County, typically occurs on Class 6 non -irrigated soils that have a higher soils class if irrigated. The applicant would have to go above and beyond accepted farming practices to even attempt to farm the property for dryland grazing. Crops are typicallygrown on soils in soil class 3 and 4 that have irrigation, which this property has neither. The Hearings Officer finds that many of the factors surrounding the subject property, such as the proximity to the Bend city limits, current residential and non-agricultural related land uses in the area, soil fertility, spotty/small areas of Class 3 (irrigated) and Class 6 (non - irrigated) soils, and lack of availability of water rights, result in an extremely low possibility of successful farming on the subject property. The Hearings Officer finds that the subject property, primarily comprised of Class 7 and 8 soils, is not suitable for farm use as defined in ORS 215.203(2)(a), taking into consideration the soil fertility, suitability for grazing, climactic conditions, existing and future availability of water for farm irrigation purposes, existing land use patterns, technological and energy outputs required and accepted farming practices. Substantial evidence in the record supports a determination that the subject property cannot be employed for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money through farming -related endeavors, considering the costs of engaging in farm use. Wetherell v. Douglas County, 342 Or 666,160 P3d 614 (2007). Soils on the subject property can only be made fertile through artificial means, which is cost prohibitive from a profitability standpoint. The subject property is not suitable to grazing on a commercial scale given management limitations and expected low production of suitable vegetation. Climactic conditions result in difficulty for production of most crops. Given the fact that no new irrigation water rights are expected to be available to the COID in the foreseeable future and the poor quality of soils on the subject property, it is unlikely COID would approve a transfer of water rights to the property. Existing land use patterns also limit the suitability of grazing animals on the subject property which is in close proximity to the 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 40 of 57 City of Bend. A limited, approximately 7-acre portion of the subject property that could, at most, produce 28 tons of alfalfa with high fertilizer and water inputs, would not generate any profit after expenses are deducted for land costs, site preparation, planting and costs of production (irrigation, fertilizer, weed control, cost of harvest and cost of handling storage and marketing). Accepted farm practices in Central Oregon do not include farming lands comprised of soils that are predominantly Class 7 and 8. In order to conduct dryland grazing on the subject property, the applicant would have to take measures beyond accepted farming practices, including attempting to obtain a water rights transfer. (C) Land that is necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby agricultural lands. FINDING: The applicant offers the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: The subject property is not land necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands. The nearest agriculturally zoned land engaged in farm use to the subject property is located northeast on tax lot 18-12-02-201. This property is a 53.30-acre farm parcel that is irrigated and engaged in hay production, receiving farm tax deferral, and developed with a dwelling and outbuildings. The farm operations on tax Lot 201 operate independently and are not dependent upon the subject property to conduct its farm practices. This is evidenced by the subject property being owned by the applicant since 1930 and has never been farmed, much less combined with tax lot 201 in any way for agricultural purposes. Farming operations on tax lot 201 will be able to continue to occur if the subject property is rezoned to MUA-10. Further, the poor quality soils and lack of irrigation are not suited to agricultural production and make the subject property unsuitable for farm practices on the nearby agricultural land. The Hearings Officer finds the subject property is not necessary for the purposes of permitting farm practices on the nearby Tax Lot 201 (Assessor's Map 18-12-02) based on the factors discussed in the previous finding. (b) Land in capability classes other than I-IV/I-V/ that is adjacent to or intermingled with lands in capability classes I-IV/I-VI within a farm unit, shall be inventoried as agricultural lands even though this land may not be cropped or grazed; FINDING: The applicant provided the following response in the submitted burden of proof statement: The subject property is not and has not been a part of a farm unit that includes other lands not currently owned by the applicant. The property has no history of farm use and contains soils that make it unsuitable for farm use and therefore, no basis to inventory the subject property as agricultural land. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 41 of 57 Goal 3 applies a predominant soil type test to determine if a property is "agricultural land" If a majority of the soils is Class 1-6 in in Central or Eastern Oregon, it must be classified "agricultural land." 1000 Friends position is that this is a 100% Class 7 -8 soils test rather than a 51% Class 7 and 8 soils test because the presence of any Class 1-6 soil requires the County to identify the entire property "agricultural land." Case law indicates that the Class 1 -6 soil test applies to a subject property proposed for a non-agricultural plan designation while the farm unit rule looks out beyond the boundaries of the subject property to consider how the subject property relates to lands in active farming in the area that were once a part of the area proposed for rezoning. It is not a test that requires that 100% of soils on a subject property be Class 1-6. The farm unit rule is written to preserve large farming operations in a block. It does this by preventing property owners from dividing farmland into smaller properties that, alone, do not meet the definition of "agricultural land." The subject property is not formerly part of a larger area of land that is or was used for farming operations and was then divided to isolate poor soils so that land could be removed from EFU zoning. As demonstrated by the historic use patterns and soils reports, it does not have poor soils adjacent to or intermingled with good soils within a farm unit. The subject property is not in farm use and has not been in farm use of any kind. It has no history of commercial farm use and contains soils that make the property generally unsuitable for farm use as the term is defined by State law. It is not a part of a farm unit with other land. The subject property is predominately Class 7 and 8 soils and would not be considered a farm unit itself nor part of a larger farm unit based on the poor soils and the fact that none of the adjacent property is farmed. As shown by the soils capability study by Mr. Gallagher, the predominant soil type found on the subject property is Class 7 and 8, nonagricultural land (63.7%). The predominance test says that the subject property is not agricultural soil and the farm unit rule does not require that the Class 7-8 soils that comprise the majority of the subject property be classified as agricultural land due to the presence of a small amount of Class 1-6 soils on the subject property that are not employed in farm use and are not part of a farm unit. As a result, this rule does not require the Class 7 and 8 soils on the subject property to be classified agricultural land because a minority of the property contains soils rated Class 6. The Hearings Officer finds that there are no bases on which to find that the subject property shall be inventoried as agricultural lands under this criterion. The property does not relate to land in active farming, and there are no parcels in the area that were once part of the subject property. A majority of the soils (63.7%) are not Class 1-6. Therefore, under the predominance test, the subject property is not agricultural. The farm unit rule does not mandate a different result. The subject properly is not employed in farm use and is not now, nor in the past, part of a farm unit. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 42 of 57 (c) "Agricultural Land" does not include land within acknowledged urban growth boundaries or land within acknowledged exception areas for Goal 3 or 4. FINDING: The subject property is not within an acknowledged urban growth boundary or land within acknowledged exception areas for Goals 3 or 4. The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is inapplicable. OAR 660-033-0030, Identifying Agricultural Land (1) All land defined as "agricultural land" I OAR 660-033-0020(1) shall be inventoried as agricultural land. (2) When a jurisdiction determines the predominant soil capability classification of a lot or parcel it need only look to the land within the lot or parcel being inventoried. However, whether land is "suitable for farm use" requires an inquiry into factors beyond the mere identification of scientific soil classifications. The factors are listed in the definition of agricultural land set forth at OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(B). This inquiry requires the consideration of conditions existing outside the lot or parcel being inventoried. Even if a lot or parcel is not predominantly Class I -IV soils or suitable for farm use, Goal 3 nonetheless defines as agricultural "lands in other classes which are necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands': A determination that a lot or parcel is not agricultural land requires findings supported by substantial evidence that addresses each of the factors set forth in 660-033-0020(1). FINDING: The applicant addressed the factors in OAR 660-033-0020(1) above. As the Hearings Officer has found herein, the property is not "agricultural land," as referenced in OAR 660-033-0030(1), and contains barriers for farm use including poor quality soils and lack of irrigation. The Hearings Officer finds that substantial evidence in the record shows the subject property is not "agricultural land" because the property is predominantly Class 7 and 8 soils. As the Hearings Officer found above, the subject property is not necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands. (3) Goal 3 attaches no significance to the ownership of a lot or parcel when determining whether it is agricultural land. Nearby or adjacent land, regardless of ownership, shall be examined to the extent that a lot or parcel is either "suitable for farm use" or "necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands" outside the lot or parcel. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 43 of 57 FINDING: The Hearings Officer finds that evidence in the record, including examination of lands outside the boundaries of the subject property, shows the subject property is not "agricultural land." Substantial evidence shows that the subject property is not suitable for farm use and is not necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands. (5)(a) More detailed data on soil capability than is contained in the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil maps and soil surveys may be used to define agricultural land. However, the more detailed soils data shall be related to the NRCS land capability classification system. (b) if a person concludes that more detailed soils information than that contained in the Web Soil Survey operated by the NRCS as ofJanuary2, 201Z would assist a county to make a better determination of whether land qualifies as agricultural land, the person must request that the department arrange for an assessment of the capability of the land by a professional soil classifier who is chosen by the person, using the process described in OAR 660-033-0045. FINDING: The soil study prepared by Mr. Gallagher (Exhibit 5) provides more detailed soils information than contained in the NRCS Web Soil Survey. Exhibit 5 includes the Soil Assessment Completeness Review conducted by DLCD pursuant to OAR 660-033-0045(6)(a), dated February 12, 2021, confirming the report prepared by Mr. Gallagher meets the requirements for agricultural soils capability reporting. Mr. Gallagher's soils assessment report provides a high intensity Order-1 soil survey and soil assessment - a detailed and accurate soils assessment on the subject property based on numerous soil samples - to determine if the subject property is "agricultural land" within the meaning of OAR 660-033-0020. As explained in Mr. Gallagher's report, the NRCS soil map of the subject property shows two general soil mapping units, 58C and 36A. The more detailed Order-1 survey conducted by Mr. Gallagher included 41 soil test pits, in addition to observations of surface rock on the parcel. The results of the previous and revised soils mapping units with land capability class are provided in Table 1 below. The soils report is related to the NCRS Land Capability Classification (LLC) system that classifies soils class 1 through 8. An LCC rating is assigned to each soil type based on rules provided by the NRCS. The soils report provides more detailed soils information than contained on the Web Soil Survey operated by the NRCS, which provides general soils data at a scale generally too small for detailed land use planning and decision making. The NRCS mapping for the subject property is shown below in Figure 1. According to the NRCS Web Soil Survey tool, the property contains approximately 33.7% 36A soil and contains 66.3% 58C soil. The soils study conducted by Mr. Gallagher finds the soil types on the subject 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 44 of 57 property vary from the NRCS identified soil types. The soil types described by Mr. Gallagher (as quoted from Exhibit 5) and the characteristics and LCC rating are shown in Table 1 below. GR Gosney-Rock Outcrop Complex Capability Class: 7 and 8 mapped as complex These soils are mapped together in a complex because both components are Capability Class 7 or greater, and it was not practical to map them separately. These soils are estimated to be about 25 percent Rock Outcrop and 75 percent Gosney. They have lower productivity than NRCS map unit 38B because they do not contain a mappable area of Deskamp soils that were mapped separately. The productivity reported in Table 2 for Gosney-Rock Outcrop are 20 percent less than the 58C map unit to account for more shallow and very shallow soils in the GR map unit in the revised map unit. Based on the observations here, the map unit is about 40 percent very shallow soils, 35 percent Gosney soils, and 25 percent rock outcrops. Gosney loamy sand and stony loamy sand (0 to 15 percent slopes) Description: Gosney series consists of shallow (10 to 20 inches) to hard basalt bedrock, somewhat excessively drained soils on lava plains. These soils have rapid permeability. They formed in volcanic ash over hard basalt bedrock. Slopes are 0 to 15 percent. The mean annual precipitation is less than 12 inches, and the mean annual temperature is about 45 degrees F. Capability Class: 7 Soil Variability: Depth to bedrock is from surface exposures of bedrock to 20 inches depth. There may be small inclusions of soils like Deskamp that are moderately deep (>20 inches to 40 inches). Many of the pedons are very stony. This unit includes very shallow soils <10 inches. Very shallow phase 0-15 percent slopes Description: This component of the complex is less than 10 inches to basalt. Capability Class: 7 Soil Variability: Depth to bedrock is from 1 to 10 inches. These soils are very shallow and of similar parent material to Gosney. These soils have lower available water holding capacity and an estimated 40 percent lower productivity. Rock Outcrop (0 to 15 percent slopes) Description: This part of the map unit is areas where bedrock is at the surface. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 45 of 57 Capability Class: 8 Soil Variability: In places, rocks are right at the surface and often times bedrock is standing several feet above the surface of the adjacent soils. In some areas (borings 39-41) there is rimrock, large boulders and other surface stone where suspected lava tubes collapsed. Dk Deskamp loamy sand Description: This map unit is mainly moderately deep, somewhat excessively drained soils with rapid permeability on lava plains. These soils formed in ash and have hard basalt at 20 to 40 inches. Slopes are 1 to 15 percent. The A and AB horizon are loamy sand. The 2B is loamy sand and gravelly loamy sand. The NRCS soils survey mapped Deskamp and Gosney in a complex described as 50% Deskamp and 35% Gosney. In this Dk unit I delineated the Deskamp component of the former complex and mapped it as a consociation based on more detailed soil sampling than the NRCS soil survey. This soil covers approximately 11 acres of the parcel and is broken up into several small delineations two of which are less than an acre. These small and isolated areas are impractical to farm. The largest delineation is 8.5 acres and has at least three areas of rock outcrop that were delineated within. Capability Class: 3-irrigated and 6 non -irrigated Soil Variability: There are small inclusions of rock outcrop and of deep soils with sandy skeletal family. Any rock outcrop I observed in the field was delineated from the Deskamp unit, but because not all rock outcrops could be resolved at the one boring per acre average sampling intensity, given the brushy conditions. CN Irrigation Canals Description: These canals are non -soil areas that consist of water and steep banks. When canals are dry they are hard rock bottom. Capability Class: Not Rated Based on Mr. Gallagher's qualifications as a certified Soil Scientist and Soil Classifier, the Hearings Officer finds the submitted soil study to be definitive and accurate in terms of site - specific soil information for the subject property. The state's agricultural land rules, OAR 660-033-0030, allow the County to rely on the soil capability analysis prepared by Mr. Gallagher, which is more detailed than the NRCS soil maps and soil surveys and the Web Soil Survey operated bythe NRCS as of January 2, 2012. The Hearings Officer finds thatthe Order- 1 soil survey is related to the NRCS land capability classification system. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 46 of 57 The Hearings Officer finds that the more detailed soils information in the report prepared by Mr. Gallagher assists the County to make a better determination of whether the subject property qualifies as agricultural land. As set forth above, DLCD completed a Soil Assessment Completeness Review pursuant to OAR 660-033-0045(6)(a), confirming the report prepared by Mr. Gallagher meets the requirements for agricultural soils capability reporting. For all the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the subject property is not "agricultural land," Table 1- Summary of Order I Soil Survey Previous Revised Capability Class Previous Revised Map Map Map Soil Series !dame MaIr Ac "k- Ac -9e- Symbol Symbol 36A ._.__-.. Dk Deskamp loamy sand0 to 3 irrigated 122 32.3 10.9 28.90 3 percent slopes 6 non -irrigated 58C - dosney-Rock outcrop- 6, 7 and 8 Deskamp complex, 0 to 15 25.5 67.7 0 0 percent slopes - GR Gosney-Rock Outcrop 7 and 8 0 0 Complex 24 63.7 CN Irrigation Canal not rated 0 0 2.8 7.4 Total 37.7 100 37.7 100 "Soils that were previously mapped as components ar a complex that are mapped as cdnsvciauvn5 Ill revised map. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 47 of 57 (c) This section and OAR 660-033-0045 apply to: (A) A change to the designation of land planned and zoned for exclusive farm use, forest use or mixed farm forest use to a non -resource plan designation and zone on the basis that such land is not agricultural land; and FINDING: The applicant is seeking approval of a non -resource plan designation on the basis that the subject property is not defined as agricultural land. (d) This section and OAR 660-033-0045 implement ORS 215.211, effective on October 1, 2011. After this date, only those soils assessments certified by the department under section (9) of this rule may be considered by local governments in land use proceedings described in subsection (c) of this section. However, a local government may consider soils assessments that have been completed and submitted prior to October 1, 2011. FINDING: The applicant submitted a soils study by Mr. Gallagher of Red Hill Soils dated December 2, 2020. The soils study was submitted following the ORS 215.211 effective date. Staff received acknowledgement via email on February 16, 2021, from Hilary Foote, Farm/Forest Specialist with the DLCD that the soils study is complete and consistent with DLCD's reporting requirements. The Hearings Officer finds this criterion to be met based on the submitted soils study and confirmation of completeness and consistency from DLCD. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 48 of 57 (e) This section and OAR 660-033-0045 authorize a person to obtain additional information for use in the determination of whether land qualifies as agricultural land, but do not otherwise affect the process by which a county determines whether land qualifies as agricultural land as defined by Goal 3 and OAR 660-033-0020. FINDING: The applicant has provided a DLCD certified soils study as well as NRCS soils data. The Hearings Officer finds that the applicant has complied with the soils analysis requirements of OAR 660-033-0045 in order to obtain DLCD certification. DLCD's certification establishes compliance with OAR 660-033-0045. The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is met. DIVISION 12, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING OAR 660-012-0060 Plan and Land use Regulation Amendments (1) if an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation (including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, then the local government must put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule, unless the amendment is allowed under section (3), (9) or (10) of this rule. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would. (a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan), (b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or (c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection based on projected conditions measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP. As part of evaluating projected conditions, the amount of traffic projected to be generated within the area of the amendment may be reduced if the amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement that would demonstrably limit traffic generation, including, but not limited to, transportation demand management. This reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the significant effect of the amendment. (A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility, (e) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that it would not meet the 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 49 of 57 performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or (C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise projected to not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan. FINDING: As referenced in the agency comments section in the Findings of Fact above, the Senior Transportation Plannerfor Deschutes County initially requested a revised traffic study for the applications. The applicant submitted an updated report from Transight Consulting LLC dated June 8, 2021, to address identified concerns and no further comments were received from the County's Senior Transportation Planner. The update includes adjustments to the review of potential high impact land use scenarios to include comparisons between a winery and a cluster development, deemed the "worst case scenario" outright uses allowed in EFU and MUA10 Zones, respectively. In response to these criteria, the applicant's burden of proof provides the following statement: Attached as Exhibit 9 is a transportation impact analysis memorandum prepared by tragic engineer, Joe Bessman, PE, Mr. Bessman made the following key findings with regard to the proposed zone change and concluded that a significant affect does not occur with the proposed rezone: • Rezoning of the 36.65-acre CO/D property from EFU-TRB to MUA could generate up to 49 additional weekday daily trips, including only five additional trips during the weekday p.m. peak hour. • The change in trips does not meet Deschutes County, ODOT, or City of Bend thresholds of significance at any nearby locations. • The site will be served with stubbed local street connections west through the Marketplace Subdivision that connect to the SE 27`h Street corridor. This access configuration does not impact Deschutes County streets. • The nearest classified intersection of SE 27rh Street/SE Reed Market Road has a very low crash rate. There are no documented safety needs within the project vicinity. Based on this review a significant affect does not occur with the proposed rezone given the minor potential impacts in transitioning from EFU to MUA zoning. Based on the traffic analysis and findings by Mr. Bessman, the application complies with the TPR. Updated findings below, submitted by Transight Consulting on June 8, 2021, are set forth in the revised traffic study: 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 50 of 57 • Rezoning of the 36.65-acre COID property from EFU-TRB to MUA provides similar potential impacts to the existing zoning, with the potential for a trip reduction within a "worse case" trip generation scenario. • The reduction in trips does not meet Deschutes County, ODOT, or City of Bend thresholds of significance at any nearby locations. • The site will be served with stubbed local street connections west through the adjacent Marketplace Subdivision that connect to the SE 27th Street corridor. This access configuration does not impact Deschutes County streets. • The nearest classified intersection of SE 27th StreetYSE Reed Market Road has a very low crash rate. There are no documented safety needs within the project vicinity. Based on this review a significant affect does not occur with rezoning from EFU to MUA zoning. With the range of outright allowable uses identified within ORS 215.213(1) and 215.283(1) as a "property right" additional trip generation scenarios could be shown resulting in a trip reduction. Regardless of the scenario, the overall impact of the rezone is negligible on the transportation system and the rezone reflects the more appropriate use of the propertygiven its unsuitabilityfor farming. Public comments received by the County indicate concerns with potential traffic impacts as a result of the proposed plan amendment and zone change. These comments are non- specific in nature, do not include any findings contrary to the findings set forth in the Transight Consulting, LLC analyses, and do not include any information that is inconsistent with the Transight Consulting, LLC's reports. Public comments express a generalized concern about traffic impacts associated with additional growth if the subject property is developed. The Hearings Officer notes that additional transportation/traffic review will be required at the time of any future development application(s). The Hearings Officer finds that the proposed rezone will not significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility for the following reasons: (1) it will not change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; (2) it will not change standards implementing a functional classification system; and (3) it will not result in any of the following effects - types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility, degradation of the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that it would not meet performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan, or degradation of the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise projected not to meet performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan. The Hearings Officer finds that, based on OAR 660-012-060(1), the County is not required to put in place measures as provided in Section (2) of this rule. The applicant has demonstrated compliance with the TPR. These criteria are met. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 51 of 57 DIVISION 15, STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND GUIDELINES OAR 660-015 Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines FINDING: The Statewide Planning Goals are addressed below, as set forth in the applicant's burden of proof. Goal 1, Citizen Involvement. Deschutes County will provide notice of the application to the public through mailed notice to affected property owners and by requiring the applicant to post a "proposed land use action sign" on the subject property. Notice of the public hearings held regarding this application will be placed in the Bend Bulletin. A minimum of two public hearings will be held to consider the application. Goal 2, Land Use Planning. Goals, policies, and processes related to zone change applications are included in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and Titles 18 and 23 of the Deschutes County Code. The outcome of the application will be based on findings of fact and conclusions of law related to the applicable provisions of those laws as required by Goal 2. Goal 3, Agricultural Lands. The applicant has shown that the subject property is not agricultural land because it is comprised predominantly of Class 7 and 8 soils that are not suitable for farm use. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with Goal 3. Goal 4, Forest Lands. Goal 4 is not applicable because the subject property does not include any lands that are zoned for, or that support, forest uses. Goal 5, Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces. Deschutes County DIAL property information and Interactive Map show the subject property has 'Wetlands" that correspond with COID's irrigation distribution system within the property including the developed canals and ditches. According to the Comprehensive Plan (Chapters 2, Resource Management and 5, Supplemental Sections), in 1992 Deschutes County Ordinance 92-045 adopted all wetlands identified on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Maps as the Deschutes County wetland inventory. In addition, as described in the Comprehensive Plan, the NWI Map "shows an inventory of wetlands based on high -altitude aerial photos and limited field work. While the NWI can be useful for many resource management and planning purposes, its small scale, accuracy limitations, errors of omission that range up to 55 percent (existing wetlands not shown on NWI), age (1980s), and absence of property boundaries make it unsuitable for parcel -based decision making." The Comprehensive Plan has no specific protections for wetlands; protections are provided by ordinances that implement Goal 5 protections (for example, fill and removal zoning code regulations). In the case of Irrigation Districts performing work within wetlands, DCC 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 52 of 57 18.120.050(C) regarding Fill and Removal Exceptions allows fill and removal activities as a use permitted outright as stated below. C. Fill and removal activities conducted by an Irrigation District involving piping work in existing canals and ditches within wetlands are permitted outright. Because the proposed plan amendment and zone change are not development, there is no impact to any Goal 5 resource. Any potential future development of a wetland - no matter what zone the wetland is in - will be subject to review by the CounVs fill and removal regulations. Goal 6, Air, Water and Land Resources Quality. The approval of this application will not impact the quality of the air, water, and land resources of the County. Any future development of the property would be subject to local, state and federal regulations that protect these resources. Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards. According to the Deschutes County DIAL property information and Interactive Map the entire Deschutes County, including the subject property, is located in a Wildfire Hazard Area. The subject property is also located in Rural Fire Protection District #2. Rezoning the property to MUA-10 does not change the Wildfire Hazard Area designation. Any future development of the property would need to demonstrate compliance with any fire protection regulations and requirements of Deschutes County. Goal 8, Recreational Needs. This goal is not applicable because no development is proposed and the property is not planned to meet the recreational needs of Deschutes County. The Bend Parks and Recreation District has an undeveloped park site, Hansen Park, located to the south of the property with plans to develop the park trailhead that would serve the Central Oregon Historic Canal Trail System. The proposed rezone does not impact the recreational needs of Deschutes County as no development is proposed. Goal 9, Economy of the State. This goal does not apply to this application because the subject property is not designated as Goal 9 economic development land. In addition, the approval of this application will not adversely affect economic activities of the state or area. Goal 10, Housing. The County's Comprehensive Plan Goal 10 analysis anticipates that farm properties with poor soils, like the subject property, will be converted from EFU to MUA-10 or RR-10 zoning and that these lands will help meet the need for rural housing. Approval of this application, therefore, is consistent with Goal 10 as implemented by the acknowledged Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 53 of 57 Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services. The approval of this application will have no adverse impact on the provision of public facilities and services to the subject site. Pacific Power has confirmed that it has the capacity to serve the subject property and the proposal will not result in the extension of urban services to rural areas. Goal 12, Transportation. The application complies with the Transportation System Planning Rule, OAR 660-012-0060, the rule that implements Goal 12. Compliance with that rule also demonstrates compliance with Goal 12. Goal 13, Energy Conservation. The approval of this application does not impede energy conservation. The subject property is located adjacent to the city limits for the City of Bend. If the property is developed with residential dwellings in the future, providing homes in this location as opposed to more remote rural locations will conserve energy needed for residents to travel to work, shopping and other essential services provided in the City of Bend. Goal 14, Urbanization. This goal is not applicable because the applicant's proposal does not involve property within an urban growth boundary and does not involve the urbanization of rural land. The MUA-10 Zone is an acknowledged rural residential zoning district that limits the intensity and density of developments to rural levels. The compliance of this zone with Goal 14 was recently acknowledged when the County amended its comprehensive plan. The plan recognizes the fact that the MUA-10 and RR zones are the zones that will be applied to lands designated Rural Residential Exception Areas. Goals 15 through 19. These goals do not apply to land in Central Oregon. The Hearings Officer finds consistency with Goal 1 (Citizen Involvement) has been established with the public notice requirements required by the County for these applications (mailed notice, posted notice and two public hearings). Similarly, the Hearings Officer finds consistency with Goal 2 (Land Use Planning) based on the applications' consistency with goals, policies and processes related to zone change applications as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and Titles 18 and 23 of the Deschutes County Code. Based on the findings above, the Hearings Officer finds consistency with Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands) has been demonstrated because the subject property is not Agricultural Land. The property is not comprised of Forest Lands; Goal 4 is inapplicable. With respect to Goal 5 (Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces), the Hearings Officer finds that the property does not include any scenic and historic areas. Moreover, while the property is currently open and undeveloped, the County Goal 5 inventory does not include the subject property as an "open space" area protected by Goal 5. Members of the public expressed concern regarding potential impact on wildlife. However, the Hearings Officer notes that the property does not include a wildlife overlay (WA) 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 54 of 57 designation and, more importantly, no development is proposed at this time. Rezoning the subject property will not, in and of itself, impact wildlife on the subject property. The property does include areas mapped as wetlands by the NWI, which constitute Goal 5 natural resources. Fill and removal activities conducted by an irrigation district are allowed outright under DCC 18.120.050(C). The Hearings Officer again notes that no specific development activities, including fill and removal, is proposed at this time. Because the proposed plan amendment and zone change do not constitute development, there is no impact to any Goal 5 resource. The Hearings Officer finds that future development activities will be subject to local, state and federal regulations that protect delineated wetlands. For these reasons, the Hearings Officer finds consistency with Goal 5. The Hearings Officer finds consistency with Goal 6 (Air, Water and Land Resources Quality) because there is no demonstrable impact of approval of the application to rezone the subject property from EFU to MUA-10. Future development activities will be subject to local, state and federal regulations that protect these resources. With respect to Goal 7 (Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards), the Hearings Officer finds consistency with this Goal based on the fact that rezoning the property to MUA-10 does not change the Wildfire Hazard Area designation that is applicable to the entirety of Deschutes County. The subject property is within the Rural Fire Protection District #2. Any application(s) for future development activities will be required to demonstrate compliance with fire protection regulations. The Hearings Officer finds consistency with Goal 8 (Recreational Needs) given the fact that no development is currently proposed and that rezoning, in and of itself, will not impact recreational needs of Deschutes County. Members of the public testified regarding concerns of loss of the currently vacant property as open space and for recreational uses. The Hearings Officer notes that the record includes evidence regarding an undeveloped Bend Park and Recreation District park site, Hansen Park, located to the south of the property. There are plans to develop a park trailhead that would serve the Central Oregon Historic Canal Trail System. The Hearings Officer finds that the proposed rezone does not impact these recreational amenity plans. The Hearings Officer finds Goal 9 (Economy of the State) is inapplicable because the subject property is not designated as Goal 9 economic development land. The Hearings Officer finds the applications are consistent with Goal 10 (Housing) because the Comprehensive Plan Goal 10 chapter anticipates that farm properties with poor soils will be converted from EFU to MUA-10 or RR-10 zoning, making such properties available to meet the need for rural housing. Although no development of the subject property is proposed at this time, rezoning the subject property from EFU to MUA 10 will enable consideration of the property for potential rural housing development in the future. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 55 of 57 The Hearings Officer finds the applications are consistent with Goal 11 (Public Facilities and Services). The record establishes that Pacific Power has capacityto serve the subject property and the proposal will not result in the extension of urban services to rural areas. Based on the findings above regarding the Transportation System Planning Rule, OAR 660- 012-0060, the Hearings Officer finds the applications are consistent with Goal 12 (Transportation). The Hearings Officerfinds the applications are consistentwith Goal 13 (Energy Conservation) because there is no evidence approval of the applications will impede energy conservation. Rather, if the property is developed with residential dwellings in the future, energy conservation will be increased - not impeded - as residents will not be required to travel as far to work, shopping and other essential services provided in the City of Bend. The Hearings Officer finds the applications are consistent with Goal 14 (Urbanization). The subject property is not within an urban growth boundary and does not involve urbanization of rural land because the MUA-10 zone does not include urban uses as permitted outright or conditionally. The MUA-10 zone is an acknowledged rural residential zoning district that limits the intensity and density of developments to rural levels. The state acknowledged compliance of the MUA 10 zone with Goal 14 when the County amended its comprehensive plan. The Hearings Officer finds that Goals 15-19 do not apply to land in Central Oregon. For all the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds compliance with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals has been demonstrated. IV. DECISION & RECOMMENDATION Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant has met the burden of proof necessary to justify the request for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendmentto re -designate the subject propertyfrom Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area and a corresponding request for a Zone Map Amendment (Zone Change) to reassign the zoning of the subject property from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10). The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners is the final local review body for the applications before the County. DCC 18.126.030. The Hearings Officer recommends approval of the applications based on this Decision of the Deschutes County Hearings Officer. 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 56 of 57 4" Stephanie Marshall, Deschutes County Hearings Officer Dated this _12th_ day of October, 2021 Mailed this 13th day of October, 2021 247-21-000400-PA/401-ZC Page 57 of 57 owner Central Oregon Irrigation District Tia M. Lewis Joe Bessman agent Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C. Transight Consulting inCareOf address cityStZip type cdd id 1055 SW Lake Ct Redmond, OR 97756 HO Decision 21-400-PA, 401-ZC 360 SW Bond Street, Suite 500 Bend, OR 97702 HO Decision 21-400-PA, 401-ZC Via Email HO Decision 21-400-PA, 401-ZC Mailing Date: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 NOTICE OF HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION The Deschutes County Hearings Officer has approved the land use application(s) described below: FILE NUMBERS: 247-21-000400-PA, 401-ZC LOCATION: The subject property has an assigned address of 61781 Ward Rd, Bend, OR 97702; and is identified on the County Assessor's Map No. 18-12- 02, as Tax Lot 1000. OWNER/ APPLICANT: Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) ATTORNEY FOR APPLICANT: Tia M. Lewis Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C. 360 SW Bond Street, Suite 500 Bend, OR 97702 SUBJECT: The applicant requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the designation of the property from Agricultural (AG) to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA). The applicant also requests approval of a corresponding Zone Change to rezone the property from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10). STAFF CONTACT: Tarik Rawlings, (541) 317-3148, tarik.rawlings@deschutes.org RECORD: Record items can be viewed and downloaded from: www.buildingpermits.oregon.gov APPLICABLE CRITERIA: The Hearings Officer reviewed this application for compliance against criteria contained in Chapters 18.04, 18.16, 18.32 and 18.136 in Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code (DCC), the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, the procedural requirements of Title 22 of the DCC, Chapters 2, 3 and Appendix C of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, Divisions 6, 12, 15, and 33 of the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 660, and Chapter 215.211 of the Oregon Revised Statutes. 1 1 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 �7(541)388-6575 @cdd@deschutes.org @www.deschutes.org/cd DECISION: The Hearings Officer finds that the application meets applicable criteria, and recommends approval of the applications. As a procedural note, the hearing on August 31, 2021, was the first of two required de novo hearings per DCC 22.28.030(c). The second de novo hearing will be heard in front of the Board of County Commissioners at a date to be determined. This decision becomes final twelve (12) days after the date mailed, unless appealed by a party of interest. To appeal, it is necessary to submit a Notice of Appeal, the base appeal deposit plus 20% of the original application fee(s), and a statement raising any issue relied upon for appeal with sufficient specificity to afford the Board of County Commissioners an adequate opportunity to respond to and resolve each issue. Copies of the decision, application, all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost. Copies can be purchased for 25 cents per page. NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIEN HOLDER, VENDOR OR SELLER: ORS CHAPTER 215 REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT MUST BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. 247-21-000400-PA, 401-ZC Page 2 of 2 caner agent mCareOf address citystZlp type cddld Central Oregon Irrigation District 1055 SW Lake Ct Redmond, OR 97756 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401ZC Tla M. Lewis Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C. 360 SW Bond Street, Suite 500 Bend, OR 97702 HONOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC Joe Bessman Transight Consulting Via Email HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC Kecia Weaver 21435 Modoc Lane Bend, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC Patrick McCoy 21435 Modoc Lane Fend, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.40E-PA, 401-ZC Matt Carey 61765 Gibson Drive Bend, 0R 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC Jeff Sundberg 61710 Gibson Drive Bend, 0R 97702 HO NOD 21.40E-PA, 401-ZC Kyle Weaver 61375 Kobe St Bend, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC Treva Weaver 1020 SE Teakwood Dr Bend, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC John Schaeffer 61677 Thunder Road Bend, 0R 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC Cathy DeCourcey 61718 RIgeI Way Bend, 0R97702 HONOD 21-400 PA, 401-1C Jennifer Neil 61723 RIgeI Way Bend, 0R 97702 HO NDD 21-400 PA, 401-ZC Fire nt N. Wilkins 61764 SE Came lli a Street Bend, 0R 97702 HONOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC Crystal Garner 21262 Capella PI Bend, OR 97702 HO NOD 21 400-PA, 401-ZC William Kepper 21267 Daylily Ave Bend, 0R 97702 HO NOD 2140E-PA, A01-ZC BEND FIRE DEPT. LARRY MEDINA 1212 SW SIMPS0N, SUITE B Bend, 0R 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA,401-7c FEND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPT. 709 NW WALL ST., STE, 102 Bend, 0R 97701 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC BEND PLANNING DE PT. P.0. 60X 431 Bend, 0R 97709 HO NOD 21�4E0-PA, 401-ZC BEND PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. 575 NF. 15TH ST. Bend, OR 97701 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC DESCHUTES CO. ASSESSOR ELECTRONIC HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC DESCHUTES CO. SR. TRANS. PLANNER PETER RUSSELL ELECTRONIC HO NOD 21-400 PA, 401.ZC ODOT REGION 4 PLANNING 63055 N. HWY. 97, BUILDING M BEND, OR 97703 HO NOD 21 GO PA, 411,11 HAROLD K MARKEN REV TRUST ETAL MARKEN,HAROLD K CO-TTEE ETAL 21495 BEAR CREEK RD BEND, 0R 97701 HONOD 21-400-PA, 401-Z.0 WEST, KEVIN&JENNIFER FOR X1923 BEND, 0R 97709 HONOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC QUICK,MICIIAEL HAROLD & DELORES MARIE 71374 STEVENS RD BEND, 0R 97702 HONOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC OCCUPANT 61710 GIBSON DR BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC MORRISON, DAVID I&NANCYL 21415 M0D0C LN BEND, 0R 97702 HONOD 21 400-PA, 401-ZC FERNS,TIMOTHYJ & RONDA L HALVORSEN. 61730 GIBSON DR BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC CAREY, MATTH EW A & SHARI A 61765 GIBSON DR BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21 Go401-ZC MCCOY, PATRICK E 21435 MODOC LN BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 7.1.400-PA, 401 ZC WARRENBURG FAMILY LIVING TRUST WARRENBURG, ROBERTIR&LAURA TTEES 6174061BS0N DR BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC NELSON, 14ARRYR 21485 AM DOC LN BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-7C HARRELL,JILL KINGHAM 61676TH UNDER RD BEND, 0R 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC LAKE,JAMES E &JANET M 61661 TH UNDER RD BEND, 0R 97702 HO NOD 21-400.PA, 401-ZC BAILEY-SCHAEFFER TRUST BAILEY,PATTI I.&SCHAEFFER,JOHN M TTEES 61677 THUNDER RD BEND, 0R 97702 HONOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC NASLUND, JUL E & NEVILL, MICHAEL 61645 THUNDERED BEND, 0R 97702 HO NOD 21:400�PA, 401-ZC PETERS, ROBERT W&LISA M 21360 STEVENS RD BEND, 0R 97702 HONOD 21400-PA, 401-ZC LUCAS FAMI LY REV LIVING TRUST LUCAS,GERALD & MARGARET TTEES 21390 STEVENSRD BEND, 0R 97702 HONOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC PAS LAY, BRIAN&NANCY 2137E STEVENS RD BEND, 0R 97702 HO NOD 21400-PA, 401-ZC BEND METRO PARKS & RECREATION DIST 799 SW COLUMBIA ST BEND, OR 97702.3218 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC LARSEN, MICHAELETAL 10927 SW MATZEN DR WILS0NVILLE, 0R 97070 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC SOCKEYE E LLC ETAL 61165 RIVER BLUFF TRAIL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC RASMUSSEN, MONIQUE & RICHARD 61195 BONNY BRIDGE BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC WOLF,DAVIDG PO B0X 5907 BEND, 0R 97708 HO NOD 21.40E-PA, 401-ZC CARR, BRUCE 21265 SE DOVE LN BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.40E-PA, 4C1-`E LOU IS G ROGERSON &JANICE M EDGE... ETAL ROGERSON,JANICE M TRUSTEE ETAL 2128E DOVE LN BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC GROVE, HILARY VERONICA 2.1273 DAYLILY AVE BEND, 0R 97702 HO NOD 21-4GO-PA, 401-ZC KEPPER, WILLIAM EDSON & KAREN GRACE 21267 DAYLILY AVE BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC TILTON, PATRICIA I&CHRISTOPHERL 21261 DAYLILY AVE BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC NORMAN, JENNIFER & PAUL 21255 DAYLILY AVE BE ND, 0R 97702 HO NOD 21400-PA, 401.ZC TUTTLE/GALOTTI REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST TUTTLE, CRAIG H TTEE ETAL 61757 CAMELLIA ST BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21 400-PA, 401.ZC SWAFFORD FAMILY TRUST SWAFFORD, MATTHEWJ& JEANETTE E TTEES 61753 CAMELLIA ST BEND, 0R 97702 HO NOD 21400-PA, 401-ZC F EUERMAN, JACOB & MATHENY, ELISSA 21257 BELLFLOWER PL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21 400-PA, 401.ZC ARBAUGH, KYLE 21261 FELLFI.OWER PL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC MCQUISTON, ROBIN SUE & KEVIN JAMES 19882 PORCUPINE DR BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC LEONG, KIRBV C W & LYNN Y 1044 KAMEHAME DR HONOLULU, HI 96825 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC VON ZANGE, SCOTTA 212.97 BELLFLOWER PL BEND, OR 97702 ILO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC ROD), AMY & DAVID 2150 WOODRUFF PL 2 BEND, OR 977C2 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC LOPEZ, RONALD L & LAURA MARIE C/O LAURA LOPEZ PO BOX 1492 GRANTS PASS, OR 97528 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401.ZC BETTENCOURT LIVING TRUST BETTENCOURT, JOHN&SANDRA J TTEES 587 STONE CORRAL CT ANGELS CAMP, CA 95222 HO NOD 21-400 PA, 401-ZC OLSON, TIMOTHY) 21262 WOODRUFF PL BEND, 0R 97702.3601 HO NOD 21-400 PA, 401-7C PEPP ER, CLIVE&SUSAN 21266 WOODRUFF PL BEND, 0R 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC JOHSON, ALLEN H N 21270 WOODRUFF PL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400 PA, 401-ZC KATHERINE JAMPOL CROWE REV LIV TRUST CROWE, KATHERINE JAMPOL TTEE 21274 WOODRUFF PL BEND, 0R97702 HONOD 2.1.400-PA, 401-ZC EAST BEND PLAZA LLC 3188 N HIGHWAY 97 1I101 BEND, 0R 97703 HONOD 21r400�PA, 401-ZC SUE, MARK & KARI 21298 SE WOODRUFF PL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21 400-PA, 401-ZC VREM FAM I LY TRUST VREM, RICHARD C&SANDRA I TTEES 1310 DIAMOND DR ARCATA, CA 95521 HONOD 21 400-PA, 401-ZC PATTERSON, NICO LAS F & MEHTA, SMITA R 6171E CAMELLIA ST FEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21�400AA, 401-ZC KENNELLEY, KEVIN S &TRACY L 61706 CAMELLIA ST BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401 ZC PREWITT, KURTUS S 61702 CAMELIA ST BEND, 0R 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC GARDENSIDE HOME OWNERS ASSOC C/O NORTHWEST COMMUNITY MGMT CO (A) PO B0X 23099 TIGARD, 0R 97281.3099 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC BURKE, BRENDA N ET AL 4931 DELOS WAY OCEANSIDE, CA 92056 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4011C DISPENZA JUDITH ANN 322 BUCHANON HOLLYWOOD, FL 33019 HO NOD 21.40E-PA, 401-ZC STAVED, CRISTINA NICOLE 61708 SE MARIGOLD LN BEND, 0R 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 4014C BLAIR, COURTNEY L 61712 MARIGOLD LN BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC PHYLLIS H MEDNICK TRUST MEDNICK, PHYLLIS H WEE 61705 RIGEL WAY BEND, OR 97702 110 NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC JDD PROPERTIES LLC 2463 NW MORNINGWOOD WAY BEND, OR 97703 7022 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC CHARLES P LARSON SOLE PROP 401K PLAN LARSON, CHARLES P & LAURIE P TTEES 270 VISTA RIM DR REDMON D, OR 97756 HO NOD 21-40O-PA, 401-ZC NEIL, JENNIFER 61723 RIGEL WAY BEND,0R 97702 HO NOD 21-40O PA, 401-ZC BOATWRIGHT, STEVEN F & PAMELA F 61706 RIGEL WAY BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC CHERKOSS, ARNE I&LAUREL A 61712 RI GEL WAY BEND, 0R 97702 HO NOD 21 400-PA, 401-ZC CATHY DECOURCEYTRUST DECOURCEY, CATHERINE L TRUSTEE 61713 RI GEL WAY BEND,0R 97702 HONOD 21�400-PA, 401-1C JOHNSON-GOODMAN REVOCABLE FAM TR JOHNSON, GEORGE H TRUSTEE ETAL 61724 RIGEL WAY BEND, OR 97702 HONOD 21400-PA, 401-ZC LEAGIELD, DAVID S & RUTH M 61730 RIGEL WAY BEND, OR 97702 HONOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC ROGERS, LAN 61742 RIGEL WAY BEND, OR 97702 HONOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC GAYLA L SCHAMBURG TRUST SCHAMBURG, GAYiA LTTEE 61748 RIGEL. WAY BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401ZC G IFSON, SALLY) 61754 RIGEL WAY BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC DIGKINSDN, SANDRA 6176E RIGEL WAY BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-T.0 MOTT, BRIAN H ETAL 3311 NW MORNINGWOODCT BEND, OR 97703 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-7C BEND PARKS& RECREATION DIST 799 SW C0LUMBIA ST BEND, 0R 97702.32.18 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401.ZC OCCUPANT 3 C/I DESCHUTES COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE 6333HWY20W BEND, 0R 97703 HO NOD 21-400-PA,401-11 BERMUDEZ, GUILLERM01&ALICIAF 9855 NW SKYLINE HEIGHTS DR P0RTLAND, 0R 97229 HO NOD 21.40E-PA, 401-7C MCCLUN G, DONNA S 21254 LILY WAY BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.40E-PA, 401-ZC CARROLL, DAVID L & SPONGBERG, CAROL A 61707 CAMELLIA ST BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC SLATER, BARBARA E & SLATER, DEBRA M 61703 CAMELIA ST BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.40E-PA, 401-ZC GARDENSIDE HOME OWNF.RSASSOC C/O NORTHWEST COMM MGMT CO LLC(A) PO B0X 23099 TIGARD, 0R 97281.3099 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC JUDITH K WHITEHEAD REVOCABLE TRUST WHITEHEAD, JUDITH K TTEE 61703TULIPWAY BEND, 0R 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC HE REWS 135 LLC 21810 PALOMA DR BEND, OR 97701 HO NOD 21AGO PA, 401-ZC GRAEBER, ALYSSA 149365E GLADST0NE ST PORTLAND, 0R 97236-2441 HO NOD 21-4GD-PA,401-ZC HANSEN, KAREN 61715 TULIP WAY BEND, OR 97702 HONOD 21 400-PA, 401-ZC BOB By& LISA BYRD REVOCABLE TRUST BYRD, BOBBY R & LISA N TTEES 21253 VIOLET LN BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC ORANGE CAT PROPERTIES LLC C/O LAMES P OLMSTED, MEMBER (A) 61535 S HIGHWAY 97#STE 5-604 BEND, 0R 97702 HO NOD 21�400-PA, 401-11 SC RON, JACQUELINE S&CAMERON 21245VI0LETLN BEND, 0R 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA,401-ZC S HOOP, DANIEL H & KIMBERLY L 21241 VIOLET LN BEND, OR 97702 HD NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC BROUGH,THOMASJ 21237 VI0L ET LN BEND, 0R 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC WELLS, TODD W & EMILY W 61754 DARLA PL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC ANTONSEN, CHET&SKAAR, THOMASC 612 NESAVANNAH DRH3 BEND, OR 97701 NO NOD 21.400 PA, 401-ZC TODD, VICKI & KEVIN 61694 RIGEL WAY BEND, OR 97702 NO NOD 21.400 PA, 401-ZC TODD, VICTORIA & KEVIN 61694 RIGEL WAY BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC SEBRING, MILDRED I 20709 TANGO CREEK AVE BEND, OR 97701 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-7C PARKS, JOI IN B&MARLENEA 21285 STARLIGHT DR BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC BEVERLY E GORDON REV TRUST GORDON, BEVERLY E TTEE 21281 STARLIGHT DR BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC PROSSER FAMILY REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST PROSSER, STEVE JAMESTTEE ETAL 212775TARLIGHT DR BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC COWAN, PAUL VERNON 212735TARLIGHT DR BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC WEBB, DARRELL D&LINDAJ 471 SW SCHAEFFER RD WEST LINN, 0R 97068 HONOD 21 400-PA, 401-7C ROBERT& JOAN FAIRBANKS TRUST FAIRBANKS, LOAN L TTEE 21268 HURITA PL BEND, OR 97702 HONOD 21-400-PA, 401-7C G RACIA, CHRISTOPHER E&JILLM 21272 HURITA PL BEND, OR 97702 HONOD 21 400-PA, 401-7C MOORE, BRIANA 21276 HURITA PL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC MARGARETANN MOORE IRREVOCABLE TRUST MOORE, BRIAN TTEE 21276 HURITA PL BEND, 0R 97702 HO NOD 21.400 PA, 401-ZC VANBUREN, C LANCE & LORENA KAY 21284 HURITA PL BEND, OR 97702 NO NOD 21.400 PA, 401-ZC ENGLUN D ESTATES LLC 8300 SW PETERS RD PORTLAND, OR 97224 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC MARSH TRUST MARSH, WALLACE A IR&ELSIE A TTEES 21261 STARLIGHT DR BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC WEYBRIGHT FAMILY TRUST WEYBRIGHT, DANIEL R&BARBARA TTEES 21257 STARLIGHT DR BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC PENDERGAST, TYLER M&AMYM 21253 STARLIGHT DR BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC BOURDAGE, JOSHUA K & MARISA K 21252 HURITA PL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC TELLER, STEVEN D & CYNTHIA C 21256 HURITA PL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC HAWKINS, LYBEL 21260 HURITA PL BEND, OR 97702 HONOD 21 400-PA, 401-ZC FERNANDEZ, XIMENA C 1059 NE PARKVIEWCT BEND, OR 97701-6940 HONOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC BOATMAN, SARAH&SCOTT 5170 APELI LA ST KAPAA, HI 96746 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC STOCKLAND, ADAM T&SARAHJ 21279 HURITA PL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC SCHAAB, PHOEBE A 21275 HURITA PL BEND, OR 97702 NO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC THOMAS, DAVIDI&COLLEEN A 21271 HURITA PL BEND, 0R 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC HERZOG, MICHAEL E 21267 HURITA PI. BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC DRYHOLLER LLC 2021 NE 8TH ST BEND, OR 97701 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC GUTIERREZ, TREDE & DYLAN 21259 HURITA PL BEND, OR 97702 NO NOD 21-400-PA, 401 ZC BILYELI, JEFFERY DEAN & KAREN 21255 HURITA PL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC SMITH, KYLE S ET AL 21251 HURITA PL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC CATAPANO, ERICA 21250 CAPELLA PL BEND, OR 97702 HONOD 21AGO-PA, 401-ZC TRAN, QUANGP 21254 CAPELLA PL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21400-PA, 401-ZC HANSEN, DALE A&PAMELAR 21258 CA [A PL BEND,OR97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA,401ZC GARNER, JASON&CRYSTAL 21262 CAPELLA PL BEND, OR 97702 HONGO 21-400-PA, 401ZC HALE, KRI STAN N&ALEXIS GRACE 21266 CAPELLA PL BEND, OR 97702 HONOD 21-000 PA, 401 -ZC SIEVERSON, PENNYJO 21270 CAPELLA PL BEND, OR 97702 HONDO 21.400�PA, 401-ZC WHITE, SABA M 11225 SW CYNTHIA CT BEAVERTON, OR 97008 HONDO 21-400 PA, 401 -ZC ZI INNER, JOSHUA P & HILLARY L 21271 CAPELLA PL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400�PA, 401-ZC BAERT, CHRISTOPHER & JESSICA L 21282 CAPELLA PL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400 PA,401-ZC BIEL, JESSICA& HOOVER, LEVIN TYLER 61664 RIGELWAY BEND, 0R 97702 HO NOD 21-400�PA, 401-1C CARMACK, CYNTHIA A 61660 KACI LN BEND, OR 97702 NO NOD 21-400-PA, 401 -ZC RIDER, GREGORY E & SUZANNE M 21281 CAPELLA PL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC WEL LEN, ROBERT&KATHERINE 202 STERUNGTOWN LN UNION, ME 04862 HO NOD 21-400-PA,401-ZC CANO, FRANCISCO & MELISSA 21273 CAPELLA PL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC WORK, CHARLES & PAMELA 21269 CAPELLA PL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401 -ZC CERRUTI, BLAKE C & HEATHER E 61655 GEMINI WAY BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 2J�400-PA, 401-ZC S&H AN DESIGN 1.03 LLC 3214 NE 42ND ST JJSTE C VANCOUVER, WA 98663 HO NOD 21�400-PA, 401-ZC TEH, RONNIE W&CAPECE, SONIA 61656 KACI LN BEND, OR 97702- HONOD 21-400-PA, 401ZC LEAHY, BRIAN &KIMK 2949 NW BORDEAUX I.N BEND, OR 97703 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401ZC DOUGHMAN, ROBERTJ & KATHRYN M 61648 KACI LN BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400 PA, 401-Z.0 DOWNEY, SCOTT&DIXIE PO B0X 782 WILSONVILLE, OR 97070 HO NOD 21-400.PA, -ZC PUPO, LUCAS K ET AL 61637 KACI LN BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC 1KC HOMES LLC PO BOX 25822 EUGENE, OR 97402 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-2C VANBLARICOM, JEROME BRADLEY ET AL - 21285 DAYLILY AVE BEND, 0R 97702 NO NOD 2J-100-PA, 401-ZC COLE, PATRICIA RENEE QUINLAN 21279 DAYLILY AVE BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC CAFFEE, ALEXANDER H ET AL 135847TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94122 NO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-11 ROSENGARTH FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST ROSENGARTH, SHARRON G TTEE 21279 DOVE LN BEND, 0R 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC C ROSSE,STEVEN E & DIMITRIA 21283 DOVE LN BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC ROSENGARTH FAMILY TRUST ROSENGARTH, TONYJ&NANCY A TTEES 212S9 CHILLIWACK WAY BEND, OR 97701 HO NOD 21 400-PA, 401 -ZC ANTONSEN, CH ET&SKAAR, THOMASC 62765 PO WELL BUTTE HWY BEND, OR 97701 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC SLOCUM, WILLIAM TIR&MECHELLF.M 21281 BELL FLOWER PL BEND, OR17702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC SPATES, DEMETRIUS C 2-1173 BELLFLOWER PL BE ND, OR 97702 HONOD 21.400 PA, 401-ZC WIGGINS, BRITTNEY D 21285 BELLFLOWER PL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21 400-PA,401-ZC LEAH SULLIVAN LIVING TRUST ET AL SULLIVAN, LEAH TTEE 84121 EETWATER CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HONDO 21-400:PA, 401-ZC WEAVER, SANDRA 21278 WOODRUFF PL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21 400PA, 401-ZC RADKEY, ROBERT&HEDDY PO BOX 1869 BANDON, OR 97411 HONOD 21.400,PA, 401-ZC B ETTYLOU BIEBERTRUST BIEBER, BETTY LOU TTEE 61727 SE YARROW LN BEND, OR 97702 HONDO 21-4001401�ZC CHARLES &JEANNE CLAWSON FAMILY TRUST CLAWSON, CHARLES R&JEANNE A TTEES 61719 YARROW I.N BEND, OR 97702 HONDO 21-400 PA, 401-ZC BRANDENHORST, JOHN D III 61724 MARIGOLD I.N BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC STCLAIR,JUHE 61716 MARIGOLD LN BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC SARDONIC, IRIS 61703 YARROW IN BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-7C PATTON, SYDNEY LOAN 61711 YARROW US BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC COCCO FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST COCCO, CHESTER R& VIRGINIA S TTEES 60350 WINDS0NG LN BEND,0'97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC WILLIAMS, TROY& VANHORN, CAITLYN 61776 DARLA PL BEND, OR 97702 NONOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC GAROUTTE, MICHAEL S&FRAZIER, LINDA 61772 DARLA PL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC WAYBRIGHT, TREVOR A & JOY A 61768 DARLA PL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21 400-PA, 401-ZC KOCH, DANIEL & LETA 61764 DARLA PL BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC ROSENGARTH DEVELOPMENT LLC 21259 CHILLIWACK WAY BEND, 0R 97702-7717 HO NOD 21400-PA, 401-ZC FLINT, MARIE KAY 61760 SE CAMELLIA ST BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21A00-PA, 401-ZC ALEXA DELLINGER TRUST DELLINGER, ALEXA B TTEE 21286 DARNEL AVE BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21�400,PA, 401-ZC ZHU, XIAOGANG & 1.1, MINGWEI 62977 MARSH ORCHID DR BEND, OR 97701 HO NOD 21.400PA, 401-ZC F REDS ICKSON, KATIE 21278 DARNELAVE BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400:PA, 401-ZC GREENWALD,JAYA&MARYF 21272 DARN EL AVE BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400PA, 401-ZC SIGNATURE HOMEBUILDERS LLC PO BOX 1886 BEND, OR 97709 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401ZC G ERALD SALVES& EILEEN SALVES REVTR ALVES, GERALD S&EILEEN BTTEES 21262 DARNEL AVE BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 214001401-ZC ZORNADO, BRANDON & SHELLEY 21258DARNELAVE BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400:PA, 401 ZC BEN N ETT, BRIAN ETAL 1381 NW TRENTON AVE BEND, OR 97703 HONOD 21-400 PA, 401 ZC ROBERT E SAUTER REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST SAUTER,ftOBERTETTEE PO BOX 8644 BEND, OR 97708 HONDO 21-400-PA, 401-ZC GEORGETON, LEE C&KRISTINJ 61793SE CAMELLIAST BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC MILLS, ROBERT B& GRIFFIN, EMDEN R - 617895E CAMELLIA ST BEND, OR 97702 HONDO 21.400-PA, 401-ZC ROSS FAMILY TRUST ROSS, PAUL E & EMILY KATHLEEN TTEES 61781 SE CAMELLIA ST BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC RILEY, ANTON&GINA 10F MOFFETT BLVD UC113 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 94043 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC SHAHVAR, RACHEL NATALIE 61773 SE CAMELLIAST BEND, OR 177112 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC CHGERA, PANKAI & ANITA 61769 SE CAMELLIA ST BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC HAUCK, RANDYJ & MICHELLE L 5101 BOULDER WAY YAKIMA, WA 98901 NO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC LEASE, ARIANNA & BRIAN ETAL 6 176 1SE CAMELLIA ST BEND, OR 97702 NO NOD 21.400-PA, 401-ZC WILKINS, BRENT N 61764 SE CAMELLIA ST BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21 400-PA, 401-ZC LEE, ROBERT ALLAN 61768 SE CAMELLIA ST BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21:400-PA, 401-ZC TED& SUE MIGDAL 2003 REVOCABLE TRUST MIGDAL, THEODORE N&SUSAN ATTEES ID53LA GRANDE AVE NAPA, CA 94558 HO NOD 21 400 PA, 401-ZC KRUKEMEYER, MA 61776SECAMELLIAST BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400:PA, 401-ZC MCCULLOUGH, KATHRINE ANNE 61780 SE CAMELLIA ST BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400 PA, 401 -ZC LL GARDNER LLC 61333 KING JEHU WAY BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401ZC PHARAOH, NATHANAEL SR & LEAH 21261 DARNEL AVE BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400 PA, 401-Z-C C RIMMINS, JOAN NA MARIE 1005 LEE AVE SAN LEANDROCA 94577 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC HAWK, DEBRA IO 8402 SLEEPY HOLLOW RD NE WOODBURN, OR97071.9571 HONDO 21-400-PA, 401-ZC CROGHAN,RYLEYG&HALLEYT 21273DARNELAVE BEND, OR 97702 HONDO 21-400-PA, 401-ZC WIN DELL, CALEB&JOHNS, MICHELLE 21277 DARNEL AVE BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC F RU MENTO, AVIAN DA C 21281 DARNEL AVE BEND, Oft 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401 ZC VINOVICH, SEURINA A&MICHAEL 21285DARNEI. AVE BEND, Oft 97702 HO NOD 21400�PA, 401-ZC HESTERBERG, MARISSA D & MARK 21289 DARNEL AVE BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21 400 PA, 401-ZC BLYTHE, JESSE1&CASSIE1 21314 SE DAYLILY AVE BEND, OR 97702 110 NOD 21400-PA, 401-ZC JOHANSEN, DAVID L&PATRICIAJ 4069 CRESSIDA PL WOODBRIDGE, VA 22192 110 NOD 21�400 PA, 401-ZC CV PC ARNIPPERTLIVING TRUST NIPPERT,JAMES ETTEE. ETAL 21302 SE DAYLILYAVE BEND, OR 97702 HONOD 21400 PA, 401-ZC FLANNERY, JULIE LINCOLN 2129fi SE DAYLILY AVE BEND, OR 97702 HO NOD 21400 PA, 401ZC BBADSHAWTRUST ORADSHAW, SCOTT HASTINGS TTEE ET AL 2500SUNNY GROVE AVE MCKINLEYVILLE, CA 95519 HO NOD 21-400-PA,401 ZC SWEET,JUSTI NLEE&KELSEEANN 21284 SE DAYLILY AVE BEND,OR97702- HO NOD 21:4G0-PA, 401 ZC UPTAIN, KY LE STEVEN & KIMBERLY ANN 21278 SE DAYLILYAVE BEND,OR 97702 HO NOD 21400-PA, 401-ZC BROOKFI ELD, MARGARET 1414 NW BALTIMORE AVE BEND, OR 97703 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC WOOD,JUSTIN&AMBER 21266SE. DAYLILYAVE BE ND,OR 97702 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 401-7C SPRING E R FAMILY TRUST SPRINGER, RICHARDL&GEORGIA ATTEES 3450 SHALLOW SPRINGS TERR CHICO,CA 95928 HONOD 21-400-PA, 401-ZC SPRI NGER fAM I LY TRUST SPRINGS R, RICHARD L&GEORGIAA TTEES C/O GEORGIA A SPRINGER TTE 3450 SHALLOW SPRINGS TERR CHICO, CA 95928 HO NOD 21-400-PA, 4011C N N O N N ry z Q z oc Q W U J m D m • oa a3UN(1H1 s a n > ASVI11317 YJ � > P � x C36 y a id v118va .: x 1S V03M1 ;x a K ld AddU3 - _ NO 3JA3 3S NI 13N6VYi N3UlO'1 3F : v i Id NNIJ 36 NI SlIV38O6 ,� ,¢ J a WONLEA 0 e J771 ATA a 6 as a3aNN4 UO w r JS3 0 WD Gomm MM a bO @own E >1 Ln u C! r. ommm0 • .® 000 CD- U W d--J d--J .� • • (VI) P7 1 4—j 4—J ® ^� W �y� W • s W W 4-J vi d-j V) V) o. ro ro V) L/) �� ro ';OR rn fR t Od `J301WHi r �Ik1 �AW:ll3 Y cc: IL cc a AWAI NIIl39 rs 15711114JViLU & Id V18VO is FS VUJA spa Id Addo 4 ?sS 3L!3 35 w� N1 t;17#Hvyjgiclo e 1 sa Id "1N13 95 Ni 511V3k OS n tL WONB.EALU 01 E S C-0 ay 2� BOARD OF f COMMISSIONERS MEETING DATE: January 26, 2022 SUBJECT: Approval to Accept Oregon Health Authority (OHA) Crisis Workforce Funding RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move approval to accept OHA Crisis Retention and Hiring Bonus Program Funds. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: On December 13, 2021, Oregon Health Authority (OHA) informed Deschutes County Health Services (DCHS) of the opportunity to request reimbursement for paid Crisis signing and retention payments through OHA's Behavioral Health Residential Workforce Stability Funding. The application, due on December 16t", was approved by OHA and awarded Deschutes County $46,000 for funds distributed to its Crisis workforce. Health Services requests approval to accept these funds. DCHS will provide approximately $140,000 in retention and hiring bonuses for critical Crisis Program staff as approved by the Board. DCHS applied dollars provided by the Central Oregon Health Council and made available through suspension of 2020 Quality Incentive Metric withholds in order to help communities respond to the impact of the COVID 19 pandemic. The OHA distribution will reimburse that fund, which will continue to ensure DCHS - Behavioral Health capacity to recover from pandemic impacts. BUDGET IMPACTS: $46,000 OHA Funds Distribution ATTENDANCE: Janice Garceau, Behavioral Health Director vlES C BOARD F a �< COMMISSIONERS MEETING DATE: January 26, 2022 SUBIECT: American Rescue Plan Funding Update RECOMMENDED MOTION: A to -be -determined motion will be required if the Board choses to fund additional projects from ARPA funds. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: This is a recurring agenda item to provide the Board of County Commissioners updates on the status of ARPA funds and the opportunity to review eligible project requests for funding consideration. Discussion items for today's update: 1. Specific items for discussion will be presented prior to or at the time of the meeting. 2. Review other ARPA funding requests. BUDGET IMPACTS: None. Budget appropriations for the entire $38 million ARPA funding award are included in the FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget. ATTENDANCE: Greg Munn, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer Dan Emerson, Budget Manager 1/24/2022 American Rescue Plan Expanding the Local Public Health Workforce in Deschutes County Sarah Baron, MPH, Ed.D Assistant Professor, Public Flealth Julie Downing, PhD, FACSM Instructional Dean (Allied Flealth, Disability Services, Nursing, & Public Service Education) CENTRAL ^ONE GO 1 COVID-19 has impacted the public health system. This project will strengthen the workforce pipeline: • build into and expand pandemic relief efforts — (e.g., testing, outreach, vaccinations, connection to resources from health care to basic needs) • increase # and retention of workforce • OHA training-, and course work that is efficient and responsive to local needs • build capacity and highlight best practices on use of Medicaid to sustain project long term 7 1 1/24/2022 • Recruitment for Public Health Careers — .50 FTE public health careers outreach staff $130,000 — Marketing $30,000 • Provide Oregon Health Authority (OHA) Trainings and college courses required for public health careers — Scholarships for 100 students $70,000 • Internships in public health areas — Workforce stipends enrolled in 45 internships $54,000 — Course scholarships for workforce development $33,953 — Faculty oversight and project management $35,143 • Workforce Development — Medicaid workshops and technical support $30,000 3 Leveraging best practices and partnerships — COCC proven track record in health career outreach — OHA trainings and course work support pandemic efforts — efficient and responsive with college credit — COCC student population — Working closely with • PacificSource • East Cascades Works • Central Oregon Health Council • Partners to leverage collaboratives • Oregon public health undergraduate and graduate programs across the state (for example OSU, OHSU) 4 2 1/24/2022 • Deschutes County Request - $191,548 • Central Oregon Health Council match.,ingfundis at $191,548 Total Project Cost - $383,095 5 Thank you and questions Sarah Baron, MPH, EcID Assistant Professor, Public Health Julie Downing, PhD, FACSM Instructional Dean Allied Health, Disability Services, Nursing, & Public Service Education 0 3 1/24/2022 Strengthen the public health workforce pipeline Short term: • Recruit and increase students entering public health professions (outreach campaign) • Train and support public health workforce —, 140 trained and supported Long term : • Build capacity and sustain efforts by tapping into Medicaid payment and best practices 7 S CC% tral Oregon Intergovernmental Council ".%­ n, A COIC 12:50 NC. Beer Cree* Rr!. Bend, OR 97/0' 54 i..5d8-81 3 www. cc . ic.c ,r,, Memorandum To: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners From: COIC Staff Date: January 24, 2022 Re: Small Business Recovery Grant Program Update The Program The purpose of this grant program is to help Deschutes County small businesses and non -profits recover from the negative economic impacts from the Covid-19 Pandemic. For this program, we are monetizing the economic impact of the pandemic, and comparing that to any Covid-19 related relief funding awards that businesses may have already received to determine if the business is still affected by long term economic impacts. The Process In the application we asked for each business' 2019 and 2020 tax returns, and a financial statement from 2021. From those documents we took their revenue and expense amounts and used them to populate the below sheet, which shows sample applications. After we find the business' annual net profit, we compare that year over year. If a business was negatively financially affected by the pandemic, it appears in their net change. After finding the net change from 2019 to 2020 and 2021, we take into account any Covid-19 related relief funding awards the businesses may have already received and find a net effect with awards. That is the maximum amount business can be eligible for. if a business has already had their losses covered by other award programs, then they are deemed not eligible for this award. 1 Example Business 2019 202019.20 Change 202119-21 Change Net Effect PPP EIDL Grants Unemployment Net Effect w/awards Determination Revenue $ 187438 $ 201,328 $ 13,890 $ SA6306-,'. $ 58,868 (8,678) EI'gihle Eapenses k $ 166,745 $ 20 ,676�$ 39971 $ 215170! $ 48,465 COIL Grant Net 5 20,733 5 (5,348) 5 (26,081) $ 31,136 $ 10,403 i $ (35,678)1 .._...._.___..____...... Communicated with? Notes Yes 2 Example Business _2019 202019.20Change 202119-23Change Net Effect pPP EIDL Gents Unemployment Net Effect w/awads Determination Revenue `$ 607,74J& j $ 457640ti $ (150058) $ _ 261,611 $ (346,737) , S' I70,640 $ SO,000 ; $ $6147 i $ �. - $ 26,505 ineligible Eapenses )$' 6418I I$ 646,879j$ 35,698 $ 18,930 _j$ (292,251) Forgiven Loan Advance Grant RRF Grant Net $ (3,433) $ (189,189)r$ (185,756) $ (57,919) 5 (54,486), $(240,242)I Communicated with? Notes Yes The Preliminary Findings This program received a total of 291 submissions. As of Friday, January 21, COIC had reviewed 100 of these submissions (with oversight from County staff). Of these, only 37 of these have been eligible for an award. The most common reason that applications have been found to be ineligible is that their revenue losses or cost increases have already been addressed by other award programs, such as example business 2.Of the 37 eligible applications, the total amount that they would qualify for as a whole is $3,665,000 —with only 1/3 of the total submissions reviewed. If the same trends continue, then the estimated qualifying amount would be approximately $10,000,000. Eligible award amounts per application range from $3,000 to just under $1,000,000. 23 of the eligible companies are under $100,000, and 6 are over $100,000 with two companies coming in at $600,000 and just under $1,000,000. Timeline This grant program opened on December 101h and ended on January 71h. We have been the review stage for a little over three weeks now, and have reviewed 100 businesses thus far. To review the remaining 191, if we continue at the same pace, we will have our review completed in late February. That is the soonest we could product a final report to the Board of County Commissioners. At that point is when we could inform each application that they have been selected for an award or not and begin processing awards. � snr��c�anttas�a+��r � �QnrA �pRwn�o American Recovery Plan Act Funding Request Oasis Village requests the Board of Commissioners reserve the $367,500 originally requested for its shelter village project subject to acquisition of or approval of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for suitable property. The original request assumed the use of mobile structures, shelters and amenities. An updated list of those expenditures, accounting for recent cost increases, is provided below. Recent discussions with the county have raised the possibility of a longer -term MOU. As a result, we are also exploring the option of housing camp amenities (in gray below) in a more permanent structure like those being used at Veteran's Village and St. Vincent's Village. The expense for both options, when maintenance is considered, is similar. We project an approximately 3,000 square foot unit at approximately $300,000. Costs for site prep, fencing, entry gate and lighting remain as outlined below. Initial Capital Expenses Site Prep and fencing $60,000 10 Shelter Units $110,000 Entry Gate $4,000 Lighting and security $7,000 TOTAL Initial Capital Expense $424,000 Oasis Village Updates: We have begun the work with Rogue Retreat, which you recently funded. As part of the process, we will be hosting site visits to their shelter facilities in and around Medford in the coming months. We invite the Commissioners to participate in these visits and will be happy to work with you to accommodate your schedules. With input from County staff, we are forming an advisory committee of community leaders and stakeholders to advise Oasis Village and the County on development of the village and the East Redmond project. • A large concern with the East Redmond site is bringing utilities across Highway 126. We have rough estimates of the cost from $150k (if trenching is allowed or the process occurs during planned resurfacing) to $350k plus (if tunnelling is required). We plan to ask the City of Redmond to bring utilities to the site with ARPA or Federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act funding. The utilities would also serve the planned Central Oregon Regional Emergency Services Training and Coordination Center, as well as adjacent COID land. We ask that you support that request. Thank you for this opportunity and your service to our community, For Oasis Village: Robert Bohac Chair Oasis Village MEETING DATE: January 26, 2022 SUBJECT: Discussion of Additional Funding and Staffing for Public Health COVID Unit Team RECOMENDED MOTION: No motion at this time. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: COVID-19 has proven to be both prolonged and unpredictable since declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organization in March 2020. Health Services has proven itself flexible, adaptable, resourceful, and resilient. In fact, in recent days, Oregon Health Authority announced a significant shift from a strategy of containment towards those aimed at reducing severe illness and hospitalization, such as testing, vaccination, public education, treatment and outbreak control in congregate settings. To meet this, as well as support the ongoing nature and community demand for continued response and predictable recovery support, Health Services proposes establishing a standalone COVID-19 Response and Recovery Unit through June 2024. A draft of that future -state structure is as follows: fY£fS5'iup ( Maragement vn„x: n:a pf�ie llm ill euP_ ', AnoNst-1FFE IDlGIN; ("A/ 6—V 'IMP- 1—s kod------------ I loBlatl 1 FTE PuWI I ( t n� I IP leer �I Y � .. 5-1.1 M.di Gana tE tluy by W f-- Admin Svppart 1347E A:bL'/Ptlncx-.I FTE 1 Krivtr+� M.v:,li 9 FTC i Mara Mt'e IFTE Or M grr-.S FTC FTCt Emergency/ COVID49 Response & CNnkal Servocc. Supervisor- 7 HE crystal Sully (HS Sup) rmr»r :✓._' �V c4w Odkeryt I � k SAnnnan W'I'l f IRE [Ytl vd SIiG tAS V1CNT I Outbreak unity Outrencb Sapnrvl 3 i,E 1 CommSoarrvi" o KS sup 1fTE f ixr 3ocn col Frc�. nC II IS SVPI cross o�xu'iu_,i Red text indicates FTE's we are lacking Blue text indicates existing but vacant positions Temps are indicated in specific boxes The previous Public Health structure reflected the focus of containing transmission in our communities. The proposed structure does not obviate the need for ensuring elasticity in our response through recruitment of temporary staff and contractors, and the department is evaluating where it has identified gaps in support and services, and areas where it needs to continue to operate in a flexible manner. Health Services is gathering information on the requirement of temporary staff and contractors in expanding vaccination, testing, public education/ call center and wrap around services. We anticipate a financial ask in this regard in coming weeks. Moreover, we have compared our proposed structure with several counties, namely Benton, Umatilla, Clackamas and Lincoln and we are confident this core structure is benchmarked efficiently against others in Oregon. REQUEST APPROVAL OF 3.0 FTE AND ADDITIONAL FUNDING: To fulfill the proposed structure, Health Services requests 3.0 full-time equivalent (FTE) limited duration positions through June 30, 2024 to support the areas Public Health has identified as critical and ongoing needs. Those are: 1.0 FTE Public Health Manager (start date: 2.1.21 to 6.30.24) - to provide managerial oversight to the COVID-19 response and recovery efforts • 1.0 FTE Health Services Supervisor (3.1.21 - 6.30.24) - to lead the mandated outbreak response for consequential congregate settings and businesses • 1.0 FTE Project Coordinator (3.1.21 - 6.30.24) - to provide logistical support for testing and vaccine clinics and related vendors. • Reclassify Public Health Nurse II (Position #2811) to Health Services Supervisor and extend limited duration status from 6.30.23 to 6.30.24 - to lead the public information, customer support line and data management efforts The additional cost of the proposed positions is $1,055,559 as shown in the table below. 1.0 FTE Manager, Public Health (start 2.1.22) 59,859 150,520 161,471 371,850 1.0 FTE Supervisor, Health Services (start 3.1.22) 1.0 FTE Project Coordinator (start 3.1.22) Reclassify Public Health Nurse II to HS Supervisor TOTALEXPENSE Funding: OHA PE01-09 COVID Funds Funding: COHC COVID Funds TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE ADDITIONAL FUNDS REQUESTED 40,551 127,280 136,466 304,297 29,468 92,431 98,969 220,868 - 15,418 143,126 158,544 129,878 385,649 540,032 1,055,559 182,467 32,832 215.299 840,260 Of the $1,055,559 expense, the department has approximately $215,000 in unallocated COVID funds anticipated through vacancy savings. The department proposes to allocate these funds for this purpose. The remaining unfunded request is for $840,260 in American Rescue Plan Act funds or other identified resources to cover the positions. BUDGET IMPACTS: $1,055,559 of additional expense; request of $840,260 in funding, the addition of 3.0 FTE limited duration and reclassification Public Health Nurse II to Health Services Supervisor, extending its end date to June 30, 2024. ATTENDANCE: Erik Kropp, Interim Health Services Director Nahad, Sadr-Azodi, Public Health Director Cheryl Smallman, Health Services Business Officer Ln0Ln00000CD00000 M O m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 O 0000000O00000 O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 m o rn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0' 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 o 0 0 I� N O V1 O O O O O O ". 0 0: 0 O O O U1 O O 0 0 0 0 tl1 lCi O O 9.. Uu 0 L m m: Ch N m 0 0 0: 0 0 Ln 0 O; 0 O a'. m w Ln Ln m. q a W W C O O O M m :: N 0 00 O to O N O' w W Ln O! t0: O Ln O l0 m 0 N mN O r\ .0.. Oa. c-i e-I'mo O O O O O O O: O O O - O! 0 C O O O O O'. O O O O O O O 0:. C O O 0 0 O. O O' O m a) O O O d O' O: a) a) tG L6 6 d cn ari cc : O 0 O O (n Ql .-1 H m O !n N 4.0 � 6A Ln S a O! O as m 0 : r+ C U �, 3 C. 7 'cO a. ar U ' n Dr u L 'O Q 3 N C E a.dO c \ > E L tw O ~ O m v U CL DC u .. 12 bA a a v a to a v0E v � u g O _° > 3 G1 u _ N a/ (b ' - a) C O m Y bD c �� N '.c v -H a o 'o ® Y c i .- y .0 On o v v a w a 3 `o a p, 0 2 _ Y Yo O y'-,, U 4- - C J Ln c N Y O Y O u in OU '6 C O L d C O N N m C N c Y c ro t N' m y o c Q v > E] u �' a a. m mYmc �vv S i 9 w E � W X u Ln a, O "ci C� N Y O v 0 uY-6 E=) [ O Y�Y -o E C7 iy C bD C 3 O C m a c� m Q L Y C Y A O U C O Y 3 5 I_ O O N N u V1 c 6J. .` to a) N wo N m W W fa i CM a w ii U i N J -O Y N U (O Y Wn .� bD i n Y v ai ti oo ^ o v: C =.E Q : r- a, ar v Y u O o u LL 3 y�i, m L O.0 -O -O Y �.� N m m m...'-N Qj C -O Co CO N "M6 > �. O Z O Y Y �e Y @ U N w w w w 'O N W m o_ 0- n. n n O OC o v c cu O ar c 'c 'c c 'c v v c %' o v % Z C cu .Q rb m ns ro ro Q: oG cu0 auj +' J S J 2 cc N: O O O O O :: O Q� �O S S S S S E CL i1 �l �1 v v v w w w a/ w 0 0 -. 0 0 0 M .0 = 0; O L ". O Q 3 3 7 O Y Y 3 d L -0 Q N Q) Q o 0 0 o S L L Q m y c u u u U U V H¢ U m N '�6 a a7 ca i Y i i i i O O: O O O •C_ Q �..i aYm+ aYO. aY�+ .c 0 'LS N Y VI -� C" •R O d O N N M Y L ` Y Ci ao _U E O O 4 X m cLo cLb O a+' SCUM v Q= U M M M �` w= 4= u= u= O O O O O c,?� v O Q LY Q¢ u U Q Q W 2 2 2 S S S 2 Q m m oc m O u c C C c c �;� 3 ! O N M c} Vl l0 0 N N ® N N N N .N-I �m-1 . i ��-I N N N N N c0+'I M M M M M M (fin M M CF V Z Z 2 2 2 X o n n D D 0 0 , 6 o m m o o a s S S F, N — f� S: ri S 7 O. - O! O 9 3_':, Q -" to c g 0 3 m° vOi Da = O-- '. m < O,' 3 O !D ID O v v M — n' m d D m 6 -: • v < -:: =r S C w — -� n N Q, •C .O m m v �.� O n v .v i3i, rD ID m rr• Dl •T G; ID �n �' p C C m O (D' (D rr to N n � -ti v v x ::v X, n ,= N CL CL *,:3 = a a o o ! o0 !fD v 3 O j' m O CL CL N O E, m irD 3 (D w O O tD Ui ' A Q) JIO 01 OI-`I O '. lD'W 000 0000 0 C)0 L, N N 00 O Ul lD V1 N N V1 ip "-0 Z �.2 2 fl W"W m a "`, a° N 3 3 D ID s o < 3 Soo 3 d m m m •;m n v O O n: =017 n aq - �.� H to nm rr ai : 0 2. y n O rp n a v° O d � n'� h m v n G n O ID ID °Im CL °' rD D:a'o rD cm 3 un m T rD o n w CD < 3 O N m '•r rD ID � 0 3 CD< CL ( D o 0 rD � W m r v 3'0 =r CL Ln S 5' m rD �•r CD CL 3I o n NO N O OWi In 00 cc 0` O O 00 0 0 N O: W'O N m O V, 0i0 O O O 0 0 000000 -I -i Z Z 2 r3D m C o . °=r <_. N o - m cm -Q t ET N T v N v o ° C. v O rD rp CL 7' O'm c 3 N m m D x �rD ci O rD O' U, v 0 0 0 m m m a m m K -I- — m ao m O � � n O r' m m n (A m O C `C H 3 yr M fD "'S .L A� O Q) F+ � A � nN+ n O m V O � D I -I ; K " Aet O O d W O O N D W Oo0 f' 0' n o0 0 m 000a0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 c lD lD lD 'D 00 00 001001 o0 0o 00 0o 00 0o v A W N N O w co V Ol (n A W N I.-O w Oo e! m (n A w N w O lD Oovi N N : in Lq VI N " -V m : X .'i7 :.'O :O �- W W : C -I : --I L ' fD"....y"'r �c,•o G�:< 0'.:Q.;c o�..."� Q:n OA CD �',.n c�niCD � p_ r �' A rD fl. H !ni On 0Oq rt D D ,. 7 N " m 7J r7 n N uDi �+% f3D O' •� 3 ": N ": < (D r� 3 5 N �• m .ro 0 � N H O rD w 3 D 3 Q ": v d <'� �':� of N �' N Q. n 03i O ;3 a C Z:: o`i p ,.� `� n n m co C7 m w N a o 0, N .. v m c o c w o r0 ti, 3 eo Q o o m m° fD ID :eorD < " ° 0 >' ° o'fD <0 �'O a m in O o c m H O 3 n 3 �+ o m rD a T. D 3 N coo - O ID 3�, N (D - l0 N'.. 3 N' rD N _� N FF O = n ! �, m o� r7 d is ^ v :� on 3 or c rD o 3 n rD CL r° 3 rD n 'o m rD cD 7 3 .. O : (D �n O_ CL O 'O rn - O- N :3n DU n CL CD ID rl+ ID rD 7 3 n 0 �. 3' (D < v n : Q. O_ ®CC A o ID On �i i5 v K o) O w 3 3 cu I Q e n 3 n o �°: I I 3� n n, S o o K m 6 3 o _ d O cn, -� 2 0 m ® m v 3 D or fD v A n m ".. oa o:^ O O rF y _ : n 61 m rD 3 (D < s .. o f 3 O c N aQ cu (D 7 Ol : C (D D " rNY Q W : V N : V O V W W In Q) N " N In 0 Ln In F-� In O A N LD " A 00 N !-� A : 0 QD W O 0 O O lD : O O O A to lD 01 O to C: o o C o w o o 0 0 0 0 o w r. co o o �fD, a 00 O ". O O O ul O O O N O O w O A O O : O OV V In W w O N, cn m InW O O V VI 0 O A '0 W N 00O O oO.N COO n 1p 0 o 0 O 0 O OOO O : 0OO 0OOOOCLA O 00 O . MEETING DATE: January 246, 2022 SUBJECT: County Treasurer and Finance Report as of December 31, 2021. RECOMMENDED MOTION: N/A. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: See attached Treasury and Finance Report. BUDGET IMPACTS: N/A. ATTENDANCE: Greg Munn, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer 0-TES TE S C ,.. MEMORANDUM DATE: January 24, 2022 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Greg Munn, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Treasury and Finance Report for December 2021 Following is the unaudited monthly finance report for fiscal year to date December 31, 2021. Treasury and Investments • The portfolio balance at the end of December was $289 million, a decrease of $10 million from November but an increase of $37 million from last year (December 2020) — most of the increase due to the receipt of $19 million in ARPA funds in May. For comparison purposes, the December 2020 balance is $11 million more than the December 2019 balance. • Net investment income for the month is $111,956, approximately $30,000 less than last month and $90,000 less than December 2020. YTD earnings of $764,741 are $570,000 less than the YTD earnings last year. • All portfolio category balances are within policy limits. • No change in the LGIP interest rate. Benchmark returns for 24 and 36 month treasuries are up again from the prior month by 21 and 16 basis points, respectively. • Average portfolio yield is 0.61% down from 0.62% last month. • The portfolio's weighted average time to maturity is at 1.61 years (compared to 1.46 last month). Portfolio WeAdciwrt: Par Value b Investment T e '' Municipal Debt $ 49,590,000 17.2% Corporate Notes 66,102,000 22.9% Time Certificates 1.245,000 0.4% U.S. Treasuries 13,000,000 4.5% Federal Agencies 85,490,000 29.6% LGIP 52,591,659 18.2% First Interstate Bank 20,655,088 7.2% Total Investments $ 288,673,747 100.0% Total Portfolio: By investmentTypes First hlerstate Municipal Debt Bank 17 2 % 7.2% LGIP 18.2 % Corporate Notes 22.9 % Time Certfficatesl 0.4 % U. S. Trew 4.5 % iciwolio by Sraker $100 $86.8 o $80 2 $60 $47.6 $40 $24.8 $32.0 $20 $7.9 $14.2 $ DA Moreton Robert W Piper Great Castle Oak Davidson Capital Baird & Co Sandler Pacific Markets Securities Total Investment Income Less Fee: $5,000 per month Investment Income - Net Prior Year Comparison U.S. Treasuries 100% LGIP ($52,713,000) 100% Federal Agencies 100% Banker's Acceptances 25% Time Certificates 50% Municipal Debt 25% Cor orate Debt 25% Maturt Years)" , Max 4.874 Weighted Average 1.61 Dec-21 Y-T-D 116,956 794,741 (5,000) (30,000) 111,956 764,741 Dec-20 202,304 1,334,756 Yleld Percentages Current Month Prior Month FIB/ LGIP 0.45% 0.45% Investments ® 0.47% 0.58% Average 0.61% 0.62% enchnj r 24 Month Treasury 0.73% LGIP Rate 0.45% 36 Month Treasury 0.97% ..Term Mininym. Actual 0 to 30 Days 10% 26.1% Under 1 Year 25% 40.4% Under 5 Years 100% 100.0% Other. i?olicy Actual Corp Issuer 5% 3.6% Callable 25% 17.7% Credit W/A AA2 AA1 inuestinent Activi.' Purchases in Month $ 34,439,000 Sales/Redem tions in Month $ 4,188,000 3.50% 3.00% 2.50% 2.00% 1.50% 1.00% 0.50% 0.00% 350,000,000 300,000,000 250,000,000 200,000,000 150,000,000 100,000,000 50,000,000 24 Month Historic Investment Returns Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJune July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec County Rate 2 Year Treasury Rate - Corporate Bond Rate LGIP Rate Three Year Portfolio Balance m rn m m o, rn m m m m o, m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C 9 > C h0 d > U C Q �. > U G 4 T C bp f2 u > U g a < C, z o ° a a o z o g- 2 Q a 0 z o .Deschutes County Inve stmants PorHolio Management Portfolio Datalis - Invastrne nts December 31. 2021 Purchase M turiry D ys To R In9s Coupon Par M rket Book I T CUSIP S iry �� 6 k"-� D t '�) D t -1M t-�M ri F8P/F R to "�! YiM 36--�� Value e V lue�) Value 8� 10]32 MC1 46625HJD3 JPMOr9an Chase Corporate N PJ 12/6/2019 1/24/2022 23 A2 A- 4.5 2.0100534 2,000,000 2, 004, 650 2,003,098 10856 MUN 558'770DS9 CITY OF MADRAS OR DA DAV 10/t 2/202t 3/l/2022 59 AA 0.321 0.3209934 115,000 114:998 115.000 t 0]30 FAC 3133EKCYO Federal Farm Cradit Bank CASTLE 11/29/2019 3/14/2022 72 All AA, 0.45 0,65949447 5,000,000 5.0%694 5.001.077 10726 PAC 3133EKCYO Fetleral Farm Credit Bank CASTLE 11/21/2019 3/14/2022 72 All AA0,45 0,66843231 5,o00,000 5,003,694 5,000.973 10750 MCI 90520EAH4 MUFG Union Bank CASTLE 2/5/2020 4/1/2022 90 A3 A 3.15 t.8114496 I,000,000 1,004, 329 1,003.266 I0720 MC1 90520EAH4 MUFG Union Bank CASTLE 10/25/2019 4/1/2022 90 A3 A 3,15 2.0375478 2,000,000 2,008,65, 2.005.398 I ", MC1 n37833CP3 Aonle Inc CASTLE 3/27/2020 5/11/2022 130 All AA, 0.4995 1.72452016 1.000,000 t.001,043 996.290 10857 MUN 10880 MCI 55877013 J CITY OF MADRAS OR �78015K7G3 ': Royal Bank of Canada # DA DAV PS 10/12/2021 12/10/2621 3/1/2023 ; 411712023 is 424 471 A2- AA A o 45 .45I0338 I's 0,640546 21u.uuu 2.000,000 <ua.<av 2 022,602 r < a eev 2,024. 87 '. 10859 MCI 46625HRL6 JPMorgan Chase -Corporate N CASTLE 10/29/2021 5/18/2023 502 A2 A- 2.7 0.7306116 2,000:000 2,045,532 2,053,968 10867 FAC 3133ENEW6 Federal Fart, Credit Bank GPAC 11/23/2021 5/23/2023 507 0, 3]5 0.3708179 2,000,000 1,994,687 2.000.000 10866 TRC 91282CCOI U.S. Treasury MORETN 11/17/2021 5/31/2023 515 0.125 0.3701352 2,000:000 1,987,656 1,993.103 10838 MUN 734]3RDW2 MORROW PORT TRANS FAC R W B 4/I/2021 6/1/2023 516 A- 0.7 0.7000625 215, 000 213,959 215.000 10835 MUN 010831DQ5 ALAMEDA ON- CA JT PWRS At CASTLE 2/24/2021 6/1/2023 516 Aa1 AA, 3.095 0.3969011 3,080,000 3.18t,t 16 3, 201,127 I0839 MUN 984674JZ5 MCMINNVILLE SCHOOL DIST YA PS 6/15/2021 6/15/2023 530 Aat 0.28 0.28 t70,000 1. 3t2 I70,000 10760 MUN 736746XU7 PORTLAND OR URBAN RENEWF PS 7/14/2020 6/15/2023 530 All 4.023 2.895 830.000 .31,253 842.965 10709 MUN 2927OCNU5 B--villa Power Administratio CASTLE 7/30/2019 7/1/2023 546 Aa2 AA- 5,803 2.1249156 1,000,000 1,075,340 1,052.661 10713 MCI 361682ADI Berkshire Hathaway Inc CASTLE 9/9/2019 7/15/2023 660 Aa3 AA 1.35 2.03,6495 500,000 547.820 539.172 10868 FAC 3133ENEY2 Federal Farm Credit Bank GPAC 11/24/2021 7/24/2023 569 OAS 0.4499324 2.000,000 1,995,377 2,000,000 10832 MCI 06053FAA7 Bank of Amenca GOr DA DAV 2/23/2021 7/24/2023 569 A2 A- 4.1 0.2302892 11000,000 1.05 269 1,060.314 t 0769 FAC 3137EAEV7 Fetleral Home Loan M[g Corp CASTLE 8/21/2020 8/24/2023 600 Aaa AA 0.25 0.2840745 5,000,000 4,968.OI8 4,997,207 10768 MUN 67232TBM6 OAKLAND CA REDEV SUCCESS PS 8/21/2020 9/1/2023 608 AA- 3.125 0.6015189 2.500,000 2.560:660 2.604.037 10843 MUN 098419MM3 BONNEVILLE & BINGHAM CNTY'PS 7/28/2021 9/15/2023 622 Aaa 4 0.4307642 1.000,000 I.053, 860 1,060.535 10]80 MUN 476453GRO JEROME IDAHO SCHOOL DISTRI PS 10/13/2020 9/15/2023 622 All 5 O 4793681 200 OOO 213 924 215,295 10619 MCI 3133EMLE0) Fetleral Fa Credit Bank PS IW30/2020 0/2W2023 :.' 629 Aaa AA. I.: 0;19 o,1900035 2,OOO,Q00 '' 1,049,659 i 2,OQ0 0QO 10860 TRC 91282CDA6 U.S. Treasury MORETN 11/1/2021 9/30/2023 637 0.25 0.4554048 2,000,000 1.986:094 1,992.870 10794 FAC 3137EAEZ8 Federal Home loan Mtg Corp CASTLE It/512020 It/6/2023 674 AA+ 0.25 0.2801193 5,000.000 4,956,277 4.997,232 10802 MCI 4590581.E International Bonds for Recons CASTLE 11/24/2020 11/24/2023 692 Aaa AAA 0.25 0.3204397 2.000,000 1,981.912 81 1,997,281 10837 MUN 73473RDH5 MORROW PORT TRANS FAC R W B 4/1/2021 12/l/2023 699 A- 0.7 0,7000516 1.000,000 990.490 1,000.000 10789 MUN 014365DRB ALDERWOOD WA WTR & WSTW R W B It/12/2020 12/1/2023 699 Aa2 AA+ 1 0.550114 270.000 270.532 272.305 10836 MCI 31422X 3 Fetleral Agriculture Mt9 Corp GPAC 3/15/2021 12/15/2023 713 0.22 0.2148764 2,000,000 I, 980.510 2.000.000 10923 MCI 06051GFBO Bank MAmerce Corp CASTLE 1/12/2021 1/22/2024 751 A2 A 4.125 O 5217482 2,000 000 2 125 246 2 146.976 10873 MCI 46625HJT6 JPMorgan Chase, - CorporateN CASTLE 12/2/2021 2/1/2024 761 A2 A- 3,875 0,9289607 I,000,0o0 =. I,058,797 :- 1.060.614 10572 FAC 3135GOV3 Federal National'mtg A.s, GPAC 12/I/2021 2/5/2024 765 All AA+ : 2,5 0,59Q2165 2.000,ODO 2.071:161 2,079,'.62,� 10862 MCI 037833GG3 Apple Inc GPAC 11/17/2021 19/2024 769 All AA+ 3 0.9, 22019 2:000:000 2.083,956 2,086,820 10861 FAC 3130APUV5 Fetleral Home Loan Bank DA DAV 11/23/2021 2/23/2024 783 Aaa AA+ 0.65 0.6500583 1,670,000 1,667,190 1,670,000 t 0834 MCI 3133EMR27 Fetleral Farm Credit Bank CASTLE 2/26/2021 2/26 2024 786 Aaa AA+ 0.25 0.2620551 2.000,000 1.979, 506 I.999,483 10851 MCI 06051GFFI Bank of America Corp CASTLE 8/12/2021 4/1/2024 821 A2 A- 4 0.6052599 2,000,000 2.126:461 2,151,314 10829 MUN 68607VZ 3 Oregon State Lottery PS 1/26/2021 4/l/2024 821 Aa2 AAA 2.505 0.3901753 2,350,000 2,429, 219 2,461,018 10874 MUN 68609'fWC8 Oregon State Lottery R W B l2/2/2021 511/2024 '. 851 All AA, 0.�95 0.73o050G soo.000 498,65E { 500,749 10864 MCI 46625HJX9 JPMorgan Chase - Corporate N CASTLE 11/18/2021 5/13/2024 863 A2 A 3625 0, 9770205 1,500,000 1.5.7473 t, 692.646 10846 MCI 06051GJY6 Bank of America Corp CASTLE 7/27/2021 6/14/2024 895 A2 A- O.523 0:5210523 1,000,000 993,452 1,000.047 1081S MUN i;825517M49COUNT' PR SCHC IOW B 1,�./^/30/2020 ;. §(16/2024 898 All AA- 8 2 0.40527111 2,71$0,000 2.St4,763 - 2.657 179 j 10609 MUN -[v}ULTNPATAH 7736888MD1 ; I,6dland QoMmI.lnity Collage FS I2117/2D20 6/15/2024 - 896 Aat 0,67.2 0,5720P12 1,Q00,Q00 , 992,000 1,00o.000 i 10807 MUN C4ACK,AIMA3 SCHOOL DISTFtIC'1-DA DAV 12/1/2020 6116/2024 i 896A. 0.83 0.480219 3AO,000 29i;I.Wr 302,552 10785 MUN ,.:179198JF4. 939307KV5 Washington County SO MuniCIPal PS 10/28/2020 6/15/2024 896 All 0.59 0.5840838 1,500.000 1,482.540 1,500.000 10779 MUN 906429EE1 UNION CTY OR SCHOOL OISTRIC PS 10/8/2020 6/15/2024 896 All 0.675 0,6750364 490,000 486,007 490.000 10777 MUN 179093KQ1 CLACKAMAS SCHOOL DISTRICT PS 10/1/2020 6/15/2024 896 Aat 0.613 0.6130311 500,000 495,895 500,000 1077E MUN 568571 CZ4 SILVER FALLS SO PS 9/17/2020 6/16/2024 896 All 0.- 0.5500254 1,900,000 1.876,060 I, 10853 MUN 68583RCY6 OR ST COMMUNITY COLLEGE D PS 8/31/202t 6/30/2024 911 AA 0.583 0.5830334 1.000.000 990.430 000.000 1,000,000 t 0771 MCI 68583RCT7 OR ST COMMUNITY COLLEGE D R W B 8/27/2020 6/30/2024 911 All AA- 5.66 0,6000375 90.000 100.324 101,225 10782 MUN 584288ER1 MEDFORD OR REVENUE R W B 10/14/2020 7/15/2024 926 AA- 2 0,6503538 815,000 831.765 842,547 10842 FAC 3133EMT51 Fetleral Fart, Clod" Bank R W B 7/19/2021 7/19/2024 930 All AA, 0.42 0.4283959 1,000,000 989,069 999,788 10848 BCD 795451AA1 SALLIE MAE GPAC 7/21/2021 7/22/2024 933 0.55 0.55 249.000 246,834 249,000 10828 MCI 3133EMNK4 Federal Farm Credit Bank DA DAV 1/22/2021 7/22/2024 933 All AA- 0.31 0.31 2.000,000 1,972,166 2.000,000 10847 BCD 38149MXG3 GOLDMAN SACHS GPAC 7/28/2021 7/29/2024 940 0.55 0,55 249.000 247.450 249:000 10858 MCI 91159HHX1 US Bank PS 10/29/2021 7/30/2024 941 A2 A+ 2.4 0.8420282 2.000,000 2,066, 751 2, 079, 307 I0844 BCD 05580AB78 BMW GPAC 7/30/2021 7/30/2024 941 0.55 0.55 249.000 247 444 249,000 Hall MUN 686O8USW 7 Oregon State Lottery R W B 12717/2020,, .' 81142024 . 943 Aqt AA. 2,e77 0.9386691 `755,0Q01 777.703 798.265 i '1,0812 MUN' %60,608UBD9; O(e13an Side l,oltery ':. R yy B /17/20�0 t 3/1/2Q24 ! 943 Aa,1 AA+ 2.677 0.93§6585 $OO,OOQ, ; 61S.73A 'GC ' 522,p23 10805 MUN 681i09TZR2 Oregon State Lottery, ; R W ,B 3i2J1/202,Q 6/112024 943 Aa1 AA. II.638 0-4149774 005,000 o,2Q3 607 688 10786 MUN 835569GR9 SONOMA CCD PS 10/21/2020 8/1/2024 943 Aa2 AA 2.061 0.600206 1.200.000 1,232,196 1,244.70E 10784 MUN 732098PE2 POMONA CALI UNI SGH DIST TAPS 10/20/2020 8/1/2024 943 Aaa 0,77 0.6001765 1,200,000 1, 188,984 1,205.199 10849 BCD 89235MLF6 TOYOTA FINANCIAL SGS BANK GPAC 8/5/2021 8/5/2024 947 0.55 0.55 249,000 247,408 249,000 10850 BCD 90348JR85 UBS BANK USA GPAC 8/11/2021 8/12/2024 954 0.55 O 536214 249,000 247,365 249,000 40816 Mel 30231GBCs; XI'O Energy InD ' ' QPAC -IW2112020 ; 8/t "?-024 968 Aa1 AA 2.L119 0.6432498 2,000,OW � 2,049,100 2,076 60E '73474TAB6 MORROW PORT TRANS.FAG� I.W$ 1?J14/2t" 9/112024' 974 Aa2 3.221 0.4201$86 1,%50,000 �. I,848,40$; 1,67966P; "Id 10830 MCI 22546QAP2 CREDIT SUISSE NY CASTLE 2/1/2021 9/9/2024 982 Aa3 3.625 0.57179 2,950,000 3.128,878 3,189.360 10775 FAC 3134GW F84 Federal Home, Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE 9/9/2020 9/9/2024 982 All 0.48 0.48 11000.000 989,974 1,000.000 10]81 MUN 476453GS8 JEROME IDAHO SCHOOL DISTRI PS 10/13/2020 9/15/2024 988 All 5 0.7253469 220,000 242, 051 245.041 10778 MUN 451152700 IDAHO ST BOND BANK AUTH RE PS 10/8/2020 9/15/2024 988 Aai 5 0 6103486 1,000,000 t 1 01360 1 117,176 10808 MUN 131)34AL57 :: CALIFORNIA INFRASTRUCTURE,GPAC 12/17/2020 l0/1/2424; 1004 AAA 0.845 0:8460337 1.000,000 987,460 11000.000 10783 FAC 3133EMCNO Federal Farts Credit Bank CASTLE 10/16/2020 10/15/2024 1018 Aaa AA+ 0.4 0,4401721 2.000,000 1,968.818 1.997,781 10791 FAC 3134GW3W4 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE 10/30/2020 10/28/2024 1031 A­0.41 0,4163167 2,000,000 1,970.532 1,99%6,16 10823 MCI 822582CC4 ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC CASTLE 1/7/2021 11/7/2024 1041 Aa2 AA- 2 0.5429301 1,708,000 1,750.860 1,778.096 10797 MCI 822582CC4 ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC GPAC 11/13/2020 11/7/2024 1041 Aa2 AA- 2 0.7055457 3,000,000 3.075,232 3,108,946 10799 FAC 3134GW7F7 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE Iill 8/2020 11/18/2024 1052 All 0.375 0.375 2.000,000 1,968.4.7 2.000.000 10788 MUN 014365DS6 ALDERWOOD WA WTR & WSTW R W B 11/12/2020 12/1/2024 1065 Aa2 AA, 1 0.6601532 935,000 930.877 944,400 1,0514 MC1 ;931'142DV2z',WA(-MART' S�PAO ,� ;2/t7/2030 ,:'12/15/2024' 1079 A62 AA 2.55 . 0,570485 2.6Do,, 00' 2.093.277 ''124 (�1 1 40820 MP1 3133EMLP5 ;Fsdarel Farm Cradlt Batlk ,$S 42/30/2020 A2/23A2024 : 10,87 Ala, AA- 032 0,3199988 2,QOO,O00 = 1,9Fib 958 .2,000hOQO 'C.QBP6 MCt !037833DF4, APPIe Inc g"vPAQ +1273/2420 :, 1/1'3/2026 1108. All AA- ,'2,75 0.6389292 2,001),O00 2,P90,161 ' 2,126,200 10821 MCI 10826 M01 3134GXKK9 Federal Homo Loan Mtg Corp 46625HKC3 JPMorgan Chase - Corporate N R W B .CASTLE 1/151 021 1/11/2021 1/15/2025 1/23/2025 1110 Aaa 1118 A2 A- 0.35 O 3.125 O 8272497 2,000.000 2.000 000 I,969.696 2,100 798 2,000,000 2.138.069 i olt'17 MC1 46625HKC3. JPMo Sn Chase - COr°pprate I4 'CASTLE p2122/2020 'i 1/23/2025s 1118 A'2 A- %1-25 0,8061136 2,000,000 �� 2.100,798+. 2,139372 s 10792 FAC 3134GW5Q5 Fetleral Home, Loan MI, Corp CASTLE 10/30/2020 1/29/2025 1124 All 0.45 0.4523943 2,500,000 2,456,292 2,499,87 t 0762 PAC 3136G4E74 Federal National Mtg Assn CASTLE 7/31/2020 1/29/2025 tt24 All AA. 0.- 0.569.99 1.400,000 1,377,t 17 1,4D0,000 10822 MCI 12572QAGO CME GROUP GPAC 1/4/2021 3/15/2025 1169 Aa3 AA- 3 0,6490818 2,000.000 2.100.279 2.148,439 10801 MCI 30231GBH4 X O Energy Inc GPAC 11/19/2020 3/19/2025 1173 All AA 2.992 0.813784 2,000,000 2,102.666 2,137.405 10800 MUN 98459LAA1 YALE UNIVERSITY GPAC 11/18/2020 4/15/2025 1200 Aaa AAA 0.873 0.5784435 2,000,000 1,980,441 2,019102 10824 MCI 166764BW9 Chevron Corp CASTLE 1/7/2021 5/11/2025 122E Aa2 AA 1.554 0.6175284 2,000 000 2.017.800 2 062:016 10 18 MC1 166764IS 9 011t-on C1orp GOAD 1'2/2819020 ': 5/11/2025 I226 Aa2 AA 1.554 0.6470298 1'663,000 :- 1,6778OA = 1.712 903 =. 10825 MUN 625506PX2 MULTNOMAH CO-REF-TXBL GPAC 1/21/2021 6/1/2026 t247 Aaa AAA 1 0.5000954 2,165.000 2, 152:183 2,201,535 10840 MUN 498368EBI KLAMATH CNTY OR SOH DIST PS 7/1/2021 6/15/2025 1261 AA, 0.86 0.8600191 400,000 3.4.824 400.000 10798 MUN 938429V61 Washington County SO Municipal PS 11/17/2020 6/16/2025 1261 All 0.912 0.6448704 350,000 347,022 363,178 10841 MUN 625517NE3 MULTNOMAH COUNTY OR SCHC CASTLE 7/15/2021 6/30/2025 1276 Aa2 AA 0.95 0.6870868 1,255,000 1,241.697 1,266,365 10831 MUN 799055QU5 SAN MATEO CA FOSTER CITY S DA DAV 2/16/2021 8/l/2025 1308 All AA+ 1.597 0,4700929 500,000 504,895 519,957 10787 MUN 88675ABS4 TIGARO OR WTR SYS REVENUE PS 11/3/2020 8/1/2025 1308 ­3 AA 2 0.8504149 350.000 358,460 364,103 t 0766 FAC 3134GWND4 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE 8/14/2020 8/12/2025 1319 Aaa 0.6 0.6101786 2,000,000 1.968,804 1,999.276 10763 FAC 3133EL3P7 Federal Farm Credit Bank R W B 8/12/2020 8/12/2025 1319 All AA, 0.53 0.53 3.000,000 2,928.895 3:000,000 10764 FAC 3133EL3H5 Foderal Farm Credit Bank MORETN 8/12/2020 8/12/2025 13I9 All AA+ 0.57 0.57 3.000,000 2,934.368 3.000.000 10767 FAC 3136G4L84 Federal National Mtg Assn CASTLE 8/18/2020 8/18/2025 1325 All AA, 0.57 0.5901227 2.000.000 1,969,396 1, 998,562 t 07]4 FAC 3136G4N74 Federal National Mtg Assn R W B 9/3/2020 8/21/2025 1— All AA- 0.56 0.5599951 2.000.000 1,957,122 2:000.000 10772 FAC 3136G4N74 Federal National Mtg Assn R W B 8/27/2020 8/21/2025 1328 All AA, 0.56 0.5650922 1, 000.000 918.5.1 999,817 10765 FAC 3136G4N74 Federal National Mtg Assn MORE, 8/21/2020 8/21/2025 1328 Ann A 0.56 0.56 3,000,000 2.935,683 3,000,000 10770 FAC 3136G4 4 Federal National Mtg Assn PS 8/28/2020 8/29/2025 1336 All A 0.6 0.6000006 1,000,000 979,I90 11000,000 107'73 FAG 3136G4 4 Federal National Mt9 Assn CASTLE 8/28/2020 8/21J2025 1336 All AA+ 0.6 0.6000006 1,000,000 979,190 11000.000 10793 FAC 3135GA2NO Foderal National Mlg Assn R W B I t/4/2020 11/4/2025 1403 All A- 0.- 0.55 2.000.000 1,955,263 2,000,000 10796 FAC 3135G06G3 Federal National Mlg Assn CASTLE 11/I2/2020 11/7/2025 1406 All AA- O 5 O 5729346 2,000 000 1,951 832 1,994,471 1087I MUN ', 250325UL9S OESCHUTES CTY SCH DIST#1 R W B .12/7/2021 a 6/IS/2026 162E All 1 1.4 12391048 2,000,OQo 2,010.160 �. 2.01!4 680 t'0570 MUN i 669280E)ol Salem Ke,A'Yer Se fool Distd.t FS !12/7/2021 6/16/1026' 1626 All 1.43E 1:29QO015 2,QOD,000 �� 2.005.660 < 2Pi2 789 10845 MUN 736688MF6 Portland Commun ty College MORETN 7/23/2021 6/15/2026 1626 All 0.890 O 8000224 1250 000 1,227 763 1:25.394 -_.10875 MUN 6658715'AW4 OR EOU 3,ISTS FF$,C PrNSION C'IR W B +12/4/202I �6136/2026 1641 Aaa AA 1.A04 1,3861y{17 250, 0.00 247.143 246y936 `- 10863 MUN 68583RCV2 OR ST COMMUNITY COLLEGE D GPAC 11/18/2021 6/30/2026 1641 All AA+ 5.68 1 4000014 210.000 248.296 249:007 10865 MCI 037833DN7 Apple Inc GPAC: 11/18/2021 9/11/2026 1714 Aa1 AA+ 2.05 1.4551529 2,000 000 2,055,687 2.053.733 1.0876 MUN :. 686Q7OVC6 COOT HV4%Y USERTA,XREV R W B :.12/8/2021 ' 111/5/2026 1779 All AAA a 0,984 1-366106E 260.ODO 253.079? 2541.724 10078 RRP SYS10078 Local G Imaslment Pool 7/1/2006 - - 1 0.55 0.55 52,591.659 52,591,659 52.591,659 10084 RR2 SYS10084 First Interstate 7/1/2006 - - 1 0.55 0.- 20,655.088 20.655,088 20,655,088 288,673,747 290,592,054 292,515,550 Position Control Summary July - June Percent Org Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Unfilled Assessor Filled 33.26 3326 33.26 33.26 33.26 33.26' Unfilled 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 MO 2.00 5.67% Clerk Filled 8.58 8.48 8,48 9.48 9.48 9.48 Unfilled 0,90 1.00 1.00 - - - 5.10% BOPTA Filled 0.42 0.52 0.52 0.52 0,52 ` 0.52 Unfilled 0.10 - - - - - 3.21% DA Filled 51.70 54.50 56.50 55.50 55.60 54.60 Unfilled 6.30 3.50 1.50 2.50 1.50 2.50' 5.14% Tax Filled 5.50 550 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 Unfilled - - 0.00% Veterans' ` Filled 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 ` 5.00` Unfilled - 0.00% Property Mngt Filled 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00' Unfilled - 0.00% Total General Fund Filled 106.46 109.26 111.26 111.26 111,36 i' 110.36 Unfilled 9.30 6.50 4.50 4.50 3,50 4.50 4.73% Justice Court Filled 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 Unfilled - - - - - - 0.00% Community Justice Filled 45.90 45.90 45.90 44.90 44.90 44.90 Unfilled 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 5.22% Sheriff Filled 229.75 235.75 232.75 238.75 235.25 234.25 Unfilled 27.25 21.25 24.25 18.25 21.75 24.75 8.91% Health Srvcs Filled 320.33 319.85 320.40 331.20 331.50 339.50 Unfilled 55.47 57.95 64.90 54.50 ` ` 55.20 50.30 14.70% CDD Filled 61.00 61.00 56.80 56.80 58.80 58.80 Unfilled 4.00 6.00 11.20 11.20 9.20 9.20 12.57% Road Filled 57.00 57.00 57.00 56,00 56.00 56,00 Unfilled - 1.00 1.00 ` 1.00 0.88% Adult P&P Filled 37.60 37.60 37.60 36.85 36.85 35.85 Unfilled 3.25 3.25 3.25 4.00 4.00 5.00 9.28% Solid Waste Filled 23.00 24.00 24,00 27.00 26.00 26.00 Unfilled 2.00 4.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 9.09% Victims Assistance Filled 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 7.00 Unfilled - - - - - 1.00 2.08% GIS Dedicated filled 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 Unfilled ' - _ - - 0.00% Fair & Expo Filled 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 8.00 Unfilled 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 4.50 29.33% Natural Resource Filled 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Unfilled - 0.00% ISF - Facilities Filled 21.60 19.60 21.60 21.60 20.60 21.60 Unfilled 2.40 3.40 2.40 2.40 3.40 2.40 11.47% ISF -Admin Filled 7.75 7.75 6.75 8.75 7.75 7.75 Unfilled 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 " 2.00 16.22% ISF - BOCC Filled 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Unfilled - - - - - - 0.00% ISF - Finance Filled 9.00 9.00 9.00 8.00 10,00 11.00 Unfilled 2.00 2.00 2,00 3.00 1.00 - 15.15% ISF - Legal Filled 7.00 7.00 7.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 Unfilled - - - 1.00 1.00 1.00 7.14% ISF - HR Filled 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 Unfilled 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 11,11% ISF - IT Filled 15.70 15.70 15.70 15.70 15.70 15.70 Unfilled - - - - - - 0.00% ISF - Risk filled 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2,25 Unfilled - - 0.00% Total: Filled 981.24 988.56 984.91 1,001.96 999.86 1,004.86 Unfilled 113.17 111.85 125.00 109.35 111.55 111.65 %Unfilled 10.34% 10.16% 11.26% 9.84% 10.04% 10.00% 10.27% Budget to Actuals Report General Fund Revenue YTD in the General Fund is $34.9 million or 86% of budget, a $700,000 increase from the prior month (versus a $27 million increase from October to November due to property tax collections). By comparison, last year revenue YTD was $34.4 million and 92% of budget. The difference between the YTD revenue collections would be greater except for one-time, unbudgeted CARES Act funds received last year. Expenses YTD are $20.4 million and 47% of budget compared to $19.3 million and 49% of budget last year. Overall expenses are lower this year and represent a smaller portion of the budget this year due to unbudgeted CARES Act expenditures last year offset by an increase in the approved budget transfers this year which are made on a regular monthly basis. Beginning Fund Balance is $15M or 111.3% of the budgeted $13.51VI beginning fund balance. Fund Select all (Blank) 001 - General Fund 010 - Assmt-Clerk... 020 - Code Abate... 030 - Community _. 040 - Court Techn.- 050 - Economic D... 060 - General Cou... 070 - General Cu... 090 - Project Dev... 1 20- Law Library 130 - Park Acyuisi... 132 - Park Develo... Monthly GL P... 0 ►ty Wide Financial Dashboard 001 - General Fund 6 50.0° Year Complete Budget to Actuals Requirements Resources Beginning Working Capital Budget to Actuals by Category SA,tuals Budget Profeclion ,i $20.4M t$349M $15.0M SO.I?1 1113. 300`1 911 47.0% 85.7% 111.3% _._... Monthly Expenditures �64.3% � Plojected Ending Wolkuly Capital Approved HE % of last vear budoet 6 $11.0M (Blank) All Maior Funds Stn h, .. 4 e e. to iz *L t1 A<tr I • r- t le rActuah Monthly Revenues106.2% % of last vear budoet 1zor.+ —'-' EMU 0 _ a 6 8 lri 12 M last Year Actuals el-urrent Year )actual, E11.11M ge. 114.86 VACANT 306% ():ILLED 96.94% 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 December 31, 2021. ,��ZtsC'0 Budget to Actuals - Countywide Summary All Departments 50.0% FY22 YTD December 31, 2021 (unaudited) Year Complete Fiscal Year 2021 Fiscal Year 2022 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % 001 - General Fund 45,149,632 47,633,001 106% ; 40,504,168 34,811,819 86% 40,447,171 100% ; 030 - Juvenile 975,090 975,868 100% ; 901,143 220,938 25% ; 829,610 92% ; 160/170 - TRT 10,669,865 11,229,510 105% ; 11,659,435 8,015,423 69% ; ; 14,440,248 124% ; 200 - American Rescue 19,000,000 46,273 0% ; 19,000,000 19,222,129 101% ; ; 38,109,180 201% ; Fund o 220 - Justice Court 489,850 501,563 102% ; 550,832 248,550 45% ; 550,767 100% ; 255 - Sheriffs Office 43,449,298 44,938,851 103% ; 44,947,745 39,942,051 89% ; 44,617,693 99% ; 274 - Health Services 43,207,563 45,921,554 106% ; 47,513,115 24,969,393 53% 48,445,111 102% ; 295 - CDD 8,251,726 9,687,451 117% ; 9,580,316 5,274,101 55% 10,607,325 111% ; 325 - Road 20,681,110 23,538,925 114% ; 22,629,649 12,379,790 55% ; ; 22,726,223 100% ; 355 - Adult P&P 5,995,287 6,040,170 101% ; 5,840,250 1,268,815 22% 6,179,212 106% ; 465 - Road CIP 2,467,800 2,942,827 119% ; 2,471,190 61,725 2% 2,314,911 94% ; 610 - Solid Waste 12,077,592 13,463,285 111% ; 13,350,600 6,698,968 50% 13,383,461 100% ; 615 - Fair & Expo 1,466,050 1,791,835 122% ; 1,395,724 577,823 41% 1,265,565 91% ; 616 - Annual County Fair 52,000 53,038 102% ; 1,560,500 1,910,458 122% ; 1,912,039 123% ; 617 - Fair & Expo Capital 14,000 8,532 61% 8,544 3,545 41% 7,090 83% ; Reserve e s 618 - RV Park 436,050 654,204 150% ; 497,524 278,665 56% 643,149 129% ; 619 - RV Park Reserve 1,100 7,787 708% ; 7,546 3,126 41% 6,250 83% ; 670 - Risk Management 3,263,646 3,239,580 99% 3,146,973 1,738,099 55% 4,263,512 135% ; 675 - Health Benefits 21,884,538 22,761,820 104% ; 23,027,177 11,929,097 52% 23,289,230 101% ; 705 - 911 11,064,698 12,080,426 109% ; 12,019,306 10,056,944 84% 12,060,300 100% ; 999 -Other 34,434,902 36,750,860 107% ; 50,071,869 16,513,142 33% 48,267,389 96% ; TOTAL RESOURCES 285,031,797 284,267,359 100% ; 310,683,606 196,124,601 63% 334,365,436 108% ; Fiscal Year 2021 Fiscal Year 2022 REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % 001 - General Fund 27,262,513 26,227,705 96% 215094,809 9,435,867 45% 20,275,909 96% ; 030 - Juvenile 7,390,349 7,038,218 95% 7,522,365 3,3119006 44% ; 6,933,423 92% ; 160/170 - TRT 3,619,872 3,5669960 99% 3,358,388 2,157,207 64% ; 4,127,858 123% ; 200 - American Rescue 19,000,000 32,136 0% 38,0005000 1,482,064 4% 385000,000 100% ; Fund 220 - Justice Court 683,508 650,926 95% ; 701,142 348,041 50% 701,142 100% ; °°G2� Budget to Actuals - Countywide Summary All Departments FY22 YTD December 31, 2021 (unaudited) Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % 255 - Sheriffs Office 51,263,220 49,625,248 97% ; 54,162,360 25,109,750 46% ; 274 - Health Services 52,285,174 49,994,157 96% ; 57,785,284 24,529,927 42% ; 295 - CDD 8,474,142 8,086,137 95% 9,978,889 4,372,793 44% ; 325 - Road 14,513,205 12,506,257 86% 15,024,128 6,555,110 44% ; 355 - Adult P&P 7,081,268 6,365,601 90% ; 7,079,915 3,042,951 43% ; 465 - Road CIP 20,036,050 11,742,022 59% 29,722,691 5,650,305 19% ; 610 - Solid Waste 8,853,213 8,107,298 92% ; 9,709,991 3,726,305 38% ; 615 - Fair & Expo 2,070,371 2,011,440 97% ; 2,504,877 1,186,724 47% ; 616 - Annual County Fair 127,000 189,611 149% ; 1,468,131 1,255,315 86% ; 617 - Fair & Expo Capital 401,940 90,523 23% ; 568,000 188 0% ; Reserve 618 - RV Park 543,902 512,967 94% 496,188 312,352 63% ; 619 - RV Park Reserve 100,000 - 0% 100,000 - 0% 670 - Risk Management 3,794,344 2,391,380 63% ; 4,027,292 3,151,322 78% ; 675 - Health Benefits 23,620,173 23,336,074 99% 23,924,393 11,007,011 46% ; 705 - 911 12,576,839 10,534,248 84% 14,563,007 5,597,302 38% ; 999 -Other 59,118,720 32,830,422 56% 86,322,366 19,627,786 23% ; TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 322,815,803 255,839,328 79% ; 388,114,216 131,859,324 34% ; 50.0% Year Complete Projection % 53,025,228 98% ; 53,639,123 93% ; 9,380,898 94% ; 14,810,547 99% ; 6,520,660 92% ; 28,081,483 94% ; 9,748,155 100% ; 2,328,089 93% ; 1,381,875 94% ; 568,000 100% ; 483,308 97% ; 20,000 20% 5,997,047 149% ; 23,924,393 100% ; 13,814,168 95% ; 86,294,153 100% ; 380,055,459 98% ; oy���1EsC,°G�{ Budget to Actuals - Countywide Summary All Departments 50.0% FY22 YTD December 31, 2021 (unaudited) Year Complete Fiscal Year 2021 Fiscal Year 2022 TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % 001 - General Fund (20,308,890) (19,944,234) 98% (21,927,604) (10,798,144) 49% (21,927,604) 100% ; 030 - Juvenile 5,957,854 5,957,854 100% ; 6,249,397 3,124,692 50% ; 6,249,397 100% ; 160/170 - TRT (5,278,036) (4,963,905) 94% (5,757,574) (2,878,764) 50% (6,098,758) 106% ; 220 - Justice Court 107,235 111,521 104% ; 205,956 102,978 50% ; 205,956 100% ; 255 - Sheriffs Office 3,119,077 3,119,949 100% ; 3,500,737 1,819,367 52% ; 3,500,737 100% ; 274 - Health Services 8,026,313 6,945,413 87% ; 6,122,830 3,061,407 50% 6,122,830 100% ; 295 - CDD (55,480) (1,104,998) 999% ; (270,622) (496,486) 183% ; ; (1,026,399) 379% ; 325 - Road ; (6,683,218) (6,683,218) 100% ; (11,757,547) (6,985,536) 59% ; (11,757,547) 100% ; 355 - Adult P&P 187,496 187,496 100% ; 471,072 235,533 50% ; 471,072 100% ; 465 - Road CIP 7,517,657 6,819,612 91% ; 12,193,917 4,772,011 39% 12,193,917 100% ; 610 - Solid Waste (3,684,280) (3,684,280) 100% ; (6,029,323) (3,012,978) 50% (6,029,323) 100% ; 615 - Fair & Expo 894,967 1,144,277 128% ; 800,736 475,362 59% 1,039,565 130% ; 616 - Annual County Fair 75,000 75,000 100% ; (75,000) (112,500) 150% ; (75,000) 100% ; 617 - Fair & Expo Capital 453,158 385,418 85% 728,901 364,446 50% 831,256 114% ; Reserve 618 - RV Park (436,628) (369,173) 85% 47,958 103,978 217% ; 47,958 100% ; 619 - RV Park Reserve 621,628 549,173 88% 132,042 66,018 50% 132,042 100% ; 670 - Risk Management (3,500) (3,500) 100%: (3,500) (1,746) 50% ; (3,500) 100% ; 705 - 911 - - - - 0% - 100% 999 - Other 9,078,924 11,341,195 125% ; 15,393,726 10,160,363 66% ; 16,123,402 105% ; TOTAL TRANSFERS (410,723) (116,400) 26,101 - 0% ; XOI E S (:- 0 & Budget to Actuals - Countywide Summary All Departments 50.0% FY22 YTD December 31, 2021 (unaudited) Year Complete Fiscal Year 2021 1 Fiscal Year 2022 ENDING FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals Projection % 001 - General Fund 9,678,629 14,990,575 155% 10,952,375 29,568,383 13,234,233 121% 030 - Juvenile 616,595 965,223 157% 596,681 999,847 1,110,807 186% 160/170 - TRT 5,484,351 6,189,395 113% 8,433,816 9,168,846 10,403,028 123% 200 - American Rescue 14,137 999% 17,754,202 123,317 999% Fund 220 - Justice Court 57,804 - 0% 55,646 3,488 55,581 100% 255 - Sheriffs Office 13,981,322 17,266,520 123% 12,160,633 33,918,187 12,359,722 102% 274 - Health Services 5,727,266 10,689,975 187% 5,884,607 14,190,847 11,618,794 197% 295 - CDD 734,798 1,749,673 238% 763,172 2,154,495 1,949,701 255% 325 - Road 2,180,473 8,566,521 393% 2,231,806 7,405,666 4,724,650 212% 355 - Adult P&P 1,816,329 2,982,055 164% 1,971,182 1,443,452 3,111,679 158% 465 - Road CIP 13,103,814 23,533,004 180% 5,316,460 22,716,436 9,960,349 187% 610 - Solid Waste 719,918 3,957,273 550% 583,520 3,916,958 1,563,256 268% 615 - Fair & Expo 655,550 923,473 141% 442,256 789,934 900,514 204% 616 - Annual County Fair - (109,033) 17,369 433,610 346,131 999% 617 - Fair & Expo Capital 1,208,442 1,029,596 85% 1,271,108 1,397,400 1,299,942 102% Reserve 618 - RV Park 43,512 0% 49,294 70,291 F 207,799 422% 619 - RV Park Reserve 1,012,728 1,054,426 104% 824,054 1,123,570 1,172,718 142% 670 - Risk Management 6,465,802 9,521,450 147% 7,445,296 8,106,480 7,784,415 105% 675 - Health Benefits 13,588,094 15,527,580 114% 13,875,402 16,449,666 14,892,417 107% 705-911 6,829,277 10,709,072 157% 9,3075082 15,168,714 8,955,204 96% 999 -Other 50,123,088 84,474,181 169% 55,847,562 91,542,400 55,3635255 99% TOTAL FUND BALANCE 134,027,792 214,035,094 160% 138,029,321 278,322,872 161,137,511 117% \\uTEs COGZ< Budget to Actuals Report General Fund - Fund 001 FY22 YTD December 31, 2021 (unaudited) 50.0% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2021 Fiscal Year 2022 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Property Taxes - Current 30,105,307 30,896,789 103% 32,410,716 30,853,641 95% 32,464,815 100% 54,099. A Property Taxes - Prior 358,000 683,563 191 % 460,000 196,785 43% 460,000 100% Other General Revenues 10,450,871 10,355,769 99% a 2,689,926 1,971,461 73% 2,592,810 96% (97,116)! B Assessor 836,713 1,291,220 154% ; 987,411 263,916 27% 987,411 100% Clerk 2,153,741 3,168,198 147% 2,741,215 1,264,150 46% 2,741,215 100% BOPTA 12,220 19,236 157% 14,588 3,888 27% 14,588 100% District Attorney 467,138 426,613 91% 448,201 52,046 12% 434,221 97% (13,980)e Tax Office 419,927 510,878 122% 341,004 135,428 40% 341,004 100% Veterans 223,715 158,931 71% 259,107 45,505 18% 259,107 100% C Property Management 122,000 121,804 100% 152,000 25,000 16% 152,000 100% D TOTAL RESOURCES 45,149,632 47,633,001 106% ; 40,504,168 34,811,819 86% 40,447,171 100% ; (56,997); REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Assessor 5,237,507 4,897,531 94% 5,454,784 2,584,215 47% 5,454,784 100% E Clerk 2,051,015 1,882,622 92% 2,080,739 749,383 36% 1,988,817 96% 91,922! F BOPTA 79,945 76,042 95% 82,911 41,101 50% 82,911 100% District Attorney 8,234,075 8,157,354 99% 9,715,707 4,205,198 43% 9,003,574 93% 712,133: G Medical Examiner 236,358 220,618 93% 242,652 81,239 33% 242,652 100% Tax Office 1,016,608 989,386 97% 932,570 496,061 53% 917,725 98% 14,845, H Veterans 687,678 610,692 89% 795,189 352,680 44% 795,189 100% Property Management 332,533 312,615 94% 376,061 183,248 49% 376,061 100%! o Non -Departmental 9,386,794 9,080,846 97% 1,414,196 742,740 53% 1,414,196 100% ; TOTAL REQUIREMENTS ; 27,262,513 26,227,705 96% ; 21,094,809 9,435,867 45% 20,275,909 96% 818,900: TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In 260,000 260,000 100% 260,000 129,996 50% 260,000 100% I 20,204,234 98% 22,187,604 10,928,140 49% 22,187 604 100% Transfers Out � (20,568,890) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( � ) - TOTAL TRANSFERS (20,308,890) (19,944,234) 98% (21,927,604) (10,798,144) 49% (21,927,604) 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 12,100,400 13,529,514 112% 13,470,620 14,990,575 111% 14,990,575 111% 1,519,955- oe i Resources over Requirements 17,887,119 21,405,296 19,409,359 25,375,952 20,171,262 i 761,903a Net Transfers - In (Out) (20,308,890) (19,944,234) (21,927,604) (10,798,144) (21,927,604) TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 9,678,629 $ 14,990,575 155% ; $ 10,952,375 $ 29,568,383 270% ; $ 13,234,233 121% ; $2,281,858; A Current year taxes received primarily in November, February and May; actual FY21-22 TAV is 5.58% over FY20-21 vs. 5.40% budgeted B PILT payment of $500,000 received in July 2021; Interest earnings expected to lower than budget C Oregon Dept. of Veteran's Affairs grant reimbursed quarterly D Interfund land -sale management revenue recorded at year-end E FY22 average vacancy rate is 5.7%; however, savings are not expected at this time due to several retirements and overfills F Projected Personnel savings based on FY22 average vacancy rate of 5.1 % G Projected Personnel savings based on FY22 average vacancy rate of 5.1 % H Projected Personnel savings based on FY22 savings to date I Repayment to General Fund from Finance Reserves for ERP Implementation o<�VTESC0G2< Budget to Actuals Report Juvenile - Fund 030 50.0% FY22 YTD December 31, 2021 (unaudited) Year Complete Fiscal Year 2021 Fiscal Year 2022 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance OYA Basic & Diversion 472,401 497,387 105% 432,044 - 0% 402,044 93% (30,000): A ODE Juvenile Crime Prev 109,000 118,909 109% 100,517 31,184 31% 100,517 100% Gen Fund -Crime Prevention 89,500 89,500 100% 0 89,500 89,500 100% a a 89,500 100% Leases 88,000 82,522 94% 88,000 45,144 51% 88,000 100% Inmate/Prisoner Housing 90,000 64,350 72% 80,000 20,850 26% 50,000 63% (30,000): B DOC Unif Crime Fee/HB2712 49,339 49,339 100% 49,339 12,616 26% 49,339 100% C OJD Court Fac/Sec SB 1065 26,000 13,503 52% 20,000 5,540 28% 20,000 100% Interest on Investments 17,300 13,796 80% 14,243 3,104 22% 6,210 44% (8,033) Food Subsidy 12,000 13,028 109% 12,000 3,555 30% 8,500 71% o (3,500); D Contract Payments 8,000 2,795 35% 8,000 6,572 82% 8,000 100% Miscellaneous 7,550 28,312 375% 7,500 2,875 38% 7,500 100% Case Supervision Fee 6,000 2,427 40% - - - •� TOTAL RESOURCES 975,090 975,868 100% ; 901,143 220,938 25% 829,610 92% (71,533); REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Personnel Services 5,970,797 5,762,391 97% 6,108,905 2,712,788 44% 5,589,963 92% 518,942- E Materials and Services 1,372,016 1,233,835 90% 1,363,409 586,976 43% 1,293,409 95% 70,000: F Capital Outlay 47,536 41,992 88% 50,051 11,242 22% 50,051 100% TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 7,390,349 7,038,218 95% 7,522,365 3,311,006 44% 6,933,423 92% 588,942, TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In- General Funds 6,034,966 6,034,966 100% 6,304,397 3,152,190 50% 6,304,397 100% Transfers Out-Veh Reserve (77,112) (77,112) 100% (55,000) (27,498) 50% (55,000) 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS 5,957,854 5,957,854 100% ; 6,249,397 3,124,692 50% 6,249,397 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 1,074,000 1,069,720 100% 968,506 965,223 100% 965,223 100% (3,283); Resources over Requirements (6,415,259) (6,062,350) (6,621,222) (3,090,069) (6,103,813) 517,409a Net Transfers - In (Out) 5,957,854 5,957,854 6,249,397 3,124,692 6,249,397 TOTAL FUND BALANCE 1 $ 616,595 $ 965,223 157% ; $ 596,681 $ 999,847 168% ; ; $ 1,110,807 186% ; $514,126; A Quarterly reimbursement of biennial award based on actuals B Out of County Juvenile department usage of detention facility trending lower than projected at time of budgeting C Quarterly payment from Department of Corrections D Dept. of Education subsidies for detention meals lower due to smaller population than projected at time of budgeting E Projected Personnel savings based on FY22 average vacancy rate of 5.2% F Projected underspending based on FY22 trends �1Es ` oG �< Budget to Actuals Report TRT - Fund 160/170 FY22 YTD December 31, 2021 (unaudited) 50.0% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2021 Fiscal Year 2022 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Room Taxes 10,615,965 11,068,364 104% 11,600,987 7,990,034 69% 14,390,068 124% 2,789,081- A Interest 53,900 61,146 113% 58,448 25,388 43% 50,180 86% a (8,268) State Miscellaneous - 100,000 - - - TOTAL RESOURCES 10,669,865 11,229,510 105% ; 11,659,435 8,015,423 69% ; 14,440,248 124% ; 2,780,813; REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance COVA 3,038,805 2,998,091 99% 3,136,659 2,023,813 65% a 3,903,621 124% (766,962); B Interfund Contract 114,481 114,481 100% 121,817 60,909 50% 121,817 100% . C Software 11,500 - 0% 45,000 46,008 102% 46,008 102% (1,008) Interfund Charges 35,861 35,861 100% 39,709 19,855 50% 39,709 100% Administrative 15,225 4,526 30% 15,203 6,624 44% 16,703 110% (1,500); Grants & Contributions 404,000 414,000 102% TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 3,619,872 3,566,960 99% 3,358,388 2,157,207 64% 4,127,858 123% ; (769,470); TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfer Out - RV Park (20,000) (20,000) 100% (20,000) (9,996) 50% _ (20,000) 100% - Transfer Out - Annual Fair (75,000) (75,000) 100% (75,000) (37,500) 50% (75,000) 100% Transfers Out - - (205,956) (102,978) 50% a (205,956) 100% Transfer Out - F&E Reserve (453,158) (385,418) 85% (428,901) (214,446) 50% (531,256) 124% (102,355); D Transfer Out - Health (406,646) (406,646) 100% (444,417) (222,204) 50% _ (444,417) 100% Transfer Out - F&E (1,171,445) (925,054) 79% (931,513) (465,750) 50% (1,170,342) 126% (238,829) Transfer Out - Sheriff (3,151,787) (3,151,787) 100% (3,651,787) (1,825,890) 50% ! (3,651,787) 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS ; (5,278,036) (4,963,905) 94% (5,757,574) (2,878,764) 50% (6,098,758) 106% ; (341,184); FUND BALANCE Beginning Fund Balance Resources over Requirements Net Transfers - In (Out) TOTAL FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % 3,712,394 3,490,749 94% 7,049,993 7,662,551 (5,278,036) (4,963,905) $ 5,484,351 $ 6,189,395 113% ; Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance 5,890,343 6,189,395 105% 6,189,395 105% 299,052; 8,301,047 5,858,215 10,312,391 2,011,344 (5,757,574) (2,878,764) : : (6,098,758) ; (341,184); $ 8,433,816 $ 9,168,846 109% ; ; $ 10,403,028 123% ; $1,969,212: A Collections coming in higher than budgeted B Payments to COVA based on a percent of TRT collections C Contracted services with the Finance Department for operating TRT program D The balance of the 1 % F&E TRT is transferred to F&E reserves Q`, OTES°°G2< Budget to Actuals Report ARPA — Fund 200 FY22 YTD December 31, 2021 (unaudited) 50.0% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2021 Fiscal Year 2022 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Interest - 14,137 - 54,588 109,180 109,180- State & Local Coronavirus Fiscal 19,000,000 32,136 0% 19,000,000 19,167,541 101% - 38,000,000 200% ; 19,000,000- A Recovery Funds TOTAL RESOURCES 19,000,000 46,273 0% 19,000,000 19,222,129 101% ; 38,109,180 201% ; 19>109,180: REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Services to Disproportionately - - 19,444,050 100,000 1% 19,444,050 100% B Impacted Communities Administrative 19,000,000 - 0% a 11,290,766 26,798 0% 11,290,766 100% C Negative Economic Impacts - - 3,050,000 - 0% 3,050,000 100% D Public Health - 32,136 999% ° 2,165,184 1,355,265 63% 2,165,184 100% ; E Infrastructure - - 2,050,000 - 0% 2,050,000 100% < F TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 19,000,000 32,136 0% 38,000,000 1,482,064 4% 38,000,000 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance - - 19,000,000 14,137 0% 14,137 0% :(18,985,863): Resources over Requirements - 14,137 (19,000,000) 17,740,065 109,180 19,109,180, � s o f e i Net Transfers - In (Out) - - - - - TOTAL FUND BALANCE _ $ 14,137 999% ; - $ 17,754,202 999% ; ; $ 123,317 999%. $123,317; A The revenue received in FY21, but unspent at 06.30.21, was recorded as Deferred Revenue and recognized in FY22 B Includes $7.675M in childcare/early education funding, $3.75M in housing support for unhoused persons and over $8M in affordable housing projects C Administration holds the balance of the ARPA funds, as well as an approved budget analyst for ARPA reporting and administration D Majority of funding is for food programs and $100K in support of the Ronald McDonald House E 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, a mobile morgue and various Health Services expenses such as temporary staffing costs to support the COVID- 19 response F Consists of modernization of irrigation systems, Terrebonne wastewater system, and a regional broadband infrastructure needs and assessment ESCoG�{ Budget to Actuals Report Justice Court - Fund 220 FY22 YTD December 31, 2021 (unaudited) 50.0% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2021 Fiscal Year 2022 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Court Fines & Fees 488,750 500,818 102% 550,000 248,534 45% 550,000 100% ; A Miscellaneous - 736 ' 737 - 0% 737 100% Interest on Investments 1,100 9 1% 95 17 18% 30 32% (65) TOTAL RESOURCES 489,850 501,563 102% ; 550,832 248,550 45% 550,767 100% ; (65); REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Personnel Services 531,006 519,650 98% 542,209 271,573 50% 542,209 100% Materials and Services 152,502 131,276 86% a 158,933 76,467 48% 158,933 100% B TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 683,508 650,926 95% ; 701,142 348,041 50% 701,142 100% ; TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In - TRT - - 205,956 102,978 50% 205,956 100% Transfers In- General Fund 107,235 111,521 104% - TOTAL TRANSFERS 107,235 111,521 104% ; 205,956 102,978 50% ; 205,956 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 144,227 37,842 26% - - - 0' Resources over Requirements (193,658) (149,363) (150,310) (99,490) (150,375) (65) Net Transfers - In (Out) � 107,235 111,521 ' 205,956 102,978 is 2059956 TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 57,804 - 0% ; $ 55,646 $ 3,488 6% $ 55,581 100% ; ($65); A Due to unavailable staff, approximately $10K of November revenue will post in December B One time yearly software maintenance fee paid in July for entire fiscal year o 1� uTESC 0 Budget to Actuals Report C Sheriff's Office -Fund 255 FY22 YTD December 31, 2021 (unaudited) RESOURCES LED #1 Property Tax Current LED #2 Property Tax Current Sheriff's Office Revenues LED #1 Property Tax Prior LED #1 Interest LED #2 Property Tax Prior LED #2 Interest LED #2 Foreclosed Properties LED #1 Foreclosed Properties TOTAL RESOURCES REQUIREMENTS Sheriffs Services Civil/Special Units Automotive/Communications Detective Patrol Records Adult Jail Court Security Emergency Services Special Services Training Other Law Enforcement Non - Departmental TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 50.0% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2021 1 Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance 27,476,763 27,912,029 102% = 28,448,529 27,148,663 95% ; 28,467,681 100% 19,152, A 11,092,307 11,269,119 102% 11,813,562 11,265,107 95% 0 11,824,026 100% 10,464! A 4,259,128 4,693,854 110% 3,993,964 1,290,624 32% 3,760,776 94% (233,188) 280,000 579,513 207% 330,000 165,924 50% 330,000 100% 101,100 170,066 168% 147,416 39,626 27% 73,350 50% (74,066) 120,000 194,726 162% 145,000 68,275 47% 145,000 100% 120,000 72,488 60% 69,274 9,654 14% 16,860 24% (52,414); - 13,534 - - - -' - 33,522 - - - 43,449,298 44,938,851 103% ; 44,947,745 39,987,874 89% 44,617,693 99% (330,052); Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance 3,864,843 4,435,626 115% 4,002,499 2,088,040 52% 3,965,387 99% 37,112- 1,232,618 1,083,411 88% 1,154,204 548,873 48% 1,169,304 101% (15,100) 3,312,477 3,184,547 96% 3,576,342 1,415,220 40% 3,487,792 98% 88,550 2,515,536 2,546,467 101% 3,029,130 1,650,556 54% 3,271,408 108% (242,278)! 13,284,465 13,388,793 101% 14,015,461 6,453,349 46% 13,030,767 93% 984,694! 1,038,130 954,506 92% 1,025,023 402,137 39% 909,344 89% 115,679! 20,347,342 18,424,567 91% 21,033,697 9,282,262 44% 20,049,355 95% 984,342- 490,401 413,143 84% 444,617 204,670 46% 390,770 88% 53,847 543,565 886,331 163% 789,912 345,038 44% 715,549 91% 74,363! 2,052,586 1,787,984 87% 1,775,588 1,069,231 60% 2,254,225 127% (478,637) 1,156,993 1,186,921 103% < 1,626,207 849,399 52% 1,867,652 115% (241,445) 1,328,675 1,331,363 100% = 1,389,684 800,975 58% 1,613,679 116% - (223,995); 95,589 1,589 2% 299,998 - 0% 299,998 100% 51,263,220 49,625,248 97% ; 54,162,360 25,109,750 46% ; 53,025,228 98% 1,137,132; TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfer In - TRT 3,151,787 3,151,787 100% 3,651,787 1,825,890 50% 3,651,787 100% Transfer In - General Fund 240,290 240,290 100% 121,950 60,972 50% 121,950 100% Transfers Out - Debt Service (273,000) (272,128) 100% (273,000) (67,495) 25% (273,000) 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS 3,119,077 3,119,949 100% ; 3,500,737 1,819,367 52% 3,500,737 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Beginning Fund Balance 18,676,167 i Resources over Requirements (7,813,922) 0 Net Transfers - In (Out) 3,119,077 Actuals % 18,832,967 101% (4,686,396) a 3,119,949 Budget 17,874,511 (9,214,615) 3,500,737 TOTAL FUND BALANCE : $ 13,981,322 $ 17,266,520 123% ; $ 12,160,633 Actuals % Projection % $ Variance 17,266,520 97% 17,266,520 97% (607,991)a 14,878,124 (8,407,535) 807,080, 1,819,367 � 3,500,737 o $ 33,964,010 279% ; ; $ 12,359,722 102% ; $199,089: Note: Vacant positions are driving projected department savings, with OT and other fluctuations causing projected budget overages A Current year taxes received primarily in November, February and May; actual FY21-22 TAV is 5.58% over FY20-21 vs. 5.40% budgeted o`�vTES C-0' Budget to Actuals Report Health Services - Fund 274 FY22 YTD December 31, 2021 (unaudited) RESOURCES State Grant OHP Capitation State Miscellaneous Federal Grants OHP Fee for Service CCBHC Grant Local Grants Environmental Health Fees Medicaid Other Patient Fees Vital Records Divorce Filing Fees State - Medicare Liquor Revenue Interest on Investments State Shared- Family Planning Interfund Contract- Gen Fund State - Medicaid/Medicare TOTAL RESOURCES 50.0% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2021 1 Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance 15,156,802 14,869,697 98% 17,097,017 10,186,521 60% _ 18,507,222 108% 1,410,205- 8,279,406 8,403,083 101% - 8,947,837 5,884,869 66% 11,375,128 127% ! 2,427,291! 2,850,731 3,493,477 123% 4,129,465 2,271,738 55% 4,062,459 98% (67,006); 4,833,096 5,641,391 117% 3,633,483 989,329 27% 0 3,632,441 100% (1,042) 3,265,627 3,877,425 119% 3,627,151 1,151,031 32% 2,820,343 78% (806,808) - 2,627,291 . 0% 0 200,000 8% a (2,427,291) 3,639,059 3,829,781 105% 1,936,838 1,963,478 101% 2,536,868 131% 600,030- 1,091,652 1,106,707 101% 1,086,019 522,321 48% 1,171,820 108% 85,801! 350,491 933,393 266% 1,014,100 391,673 39% 783,346 77% (230,754) 965,971 1,106,718 115% 884,036 367,644 42% 836,227 95% (47,809) 672,995 483,754 72% 468,415 277,180 59% 546,447 117% 78,032, 237,296 317,189 134% = 280,000 152,884 55% 393,261 140% 113,261! 173,030 173,030 100% 173,030 178,331 103% 178,331 103% 5,301 210,287 217,833 104% 172,200 113,108 66% 233,571 136% 61,371 99,500 158,977 160% 157,000 84,988 54% 199,656 127% 42,656! 147,400 153,426 104% 156,549 46,727 30% 93,450 60% (63,099)! 155,000 146,074 94% 152,634 63,294 41% 99,852 65% (52,782) 127,000 127,000 100% 127,000 - 0% 127,000 100% 952,220 882,600 93% 843,050 324,279 38% ! 647,689 77% (195,361) 43,207,563 45,921,554 106% ; 47,513,115 24,969,393 53% ; 48,445,111 102% ; 931,996: REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Administration Allocation - - 999% - - 999% - Personnel Services 37,622,192 35,975,598 96% 43,690,850 19,099,436 44% 40,230,416 92% 3,460,434, Materials and Services 14,523,515 13,886,895 96% 13,964,434 5,403,116 39% B 13,277,331 95% 0 687,103! Capital Outlay 139,467 131,664 94% 130,000 27,376 21% ` 131,376 101% (1,376)- TOTAL REQUIREMENTS ; 52,285,174 49,994,157 96% 57,785,284 24,529,927 42% 53,639,123 93% ; 4,146,161: TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In- General Fund 5,472,710 5,472,710 100% 5,909,168 2,991,584 51% 5,909,168 100% Transfers In -TRT 406,646 406,646 100% 444,417 185,170 42% 444,417 100% Transfers In- OHP Mental Health 2,379,865 1,298,965 55% Transfers Out (232,908) (232,908) 100% (230,755) (115,348) 50% (230,755) 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS 8,026,313 6,945,413 87% 6,122,830 3,061,407 50% 6,122,830 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Beginning Fund Balance 6,778,564 7,817,166 115% 10,033,946 Resources over Requirements (9,077,611) (4,072,603) (10,272,169) Net Transfers - In (Out) 8,026,313 6,945,413 6,122,830 TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 5,727,266 $ 10,689,975 187% ; $ 5,884,607 Actuals % Projection % $ Variance 10,689,975 107% 10,689,976 107% 656,030� 439,466 (5,194,012) 5,078,157, 3,061,407 6,122,830 $ 14,190,847 241% ; ; $ 11,618,794 197% ; $5,734,187: IES C,0 Budget to Actuals Report Health Services - Admin - Fund 274 50.0% FY22 YTD December 31, 2021 (unaudited) Year Complete Fiscal Year 2021 Fiscal Year 2022 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Federal Grants State Grant CCBHC Grant Interest on Investments Other OHP Capitation State Miscellaneous TOTAL RESOURCES 1,237,245 2,636,157 213% I 768,843 - - e 637,740 - 486,804 147,400 153,426 104% 156,549 14,391 12,622 88% 9,200 - 347,105 I a - 1,399,036 3,149,311 225% ; 2,059,136 260,015 34% o a 623,601 81% _ (145,242): A 637,740 100%! 668,659 105% 30,919! - 0% o E 35,961 7% (450,843); B 46,727 30% I 93,450 60% _ (63,099)- 8,701 95% I 12,768 139% 3,568! 37,216 I I e a 436,443 ' � 436,443! B 990,399 48% ; , 1,870,882 91% ; (188,254); REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Personnel Services 5,914,729 5,679,486 96% 6,784,607 2,802,308 41% 5,646,335 83% 1,138,272, C Materials and Services I 4,991,353 6,435,511 129% 0 5,872,706 2,806,280 48% 6,056,215 103% ; (183,509): D Administration Allocation I (9,645,743) (9,645,743) 100% (10,162,921) (2,492,616) 25% (10,162,921) 100% TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 1,260,339 2,469,254 196% ; 2,494,392 3,115,972 125% ; 1,539,629 62% 954,763: TRANSFERS Transfers Out TOTAL TRANSFERS FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance (232,908) (232,908) 100% (219,794) (109,867) 50% (219,794) 100% (232,908) (232,908) 100% ; (219,794) (109,867) 50% ; ; (219,794) 100% ; Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 2,772,840 3,322,793 120% 3,552,000 3,769,942 106% 3,769,942 106% 217,942: Resources over Requirements 138,696 680,056 (435,256) (2,125,573) 331,253 766,509 Net Transfers - In (Out) (232,908) (232,908) (219,794) (109,867) _ (219,794) I I E I i TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 2,678,628 $ 3,769,942 141% ; $ 2,896,950 $ 1,534,502 53% ; ; $ 3,881,401 134% ; $984,451: A Federal grants are reimbursed on a quarterly bases. Reimbursement is less than budgeted due to vacancies B Increased OHP enrollment is resulting in higher than budgeted OHP Capitation payments and less than budgeted CCBHC State Grant revenues C Personnel projections based on year to date vacancy savings and assume 3% moving forward D Expenditures projected over budget due are related to contracts for vaccine rollout under FEMA funds, which were budgeted in Personnel 0TESC0G�� Budget to Actuals Report Health Services - Behavioral Health - Fund 274 50.0% FY22 YTD December 31, 2021 (unaudited) Year Complete Fiscal Year 2021 Fiscal Year 2022 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance State Grant 10,348,047 9,920,554 96% 11,907,014 6,843,638 57% 12,402,987 104% a 495,973: A OHP Capitation 8,279,406 8,403,083 101% 8,947,837 5,847,653 65% 10,938,685 122% 1,990,848: B OHP Fee for Service 3,265,627 3,877,425 119% 3,627,151 1,145,603 32% 2,810,051 77% (817,100): C Federal Grants 3,298,243 2,715,411 82% 2,725,623 687,754 25% 2,870,033 105% 144,410! D CCBHC Grant - - 2,140,487 - 0% 164,039 8% _ (1,976,448)a B State Miscellaneous 1,544,455 1,285,829 83% 1,934,643 833,744 43% 1,856,068 96% (78,575); Local Grants 1,897,762 1,717,173 90% 1,093,055 1,093,663 100% 1,416,302 130% 323,247, E Medicaid 350,491 933,393 266% 1,014,100 391,673 39% 783,346 77% (230,754); F Other 927,605 1,076,144 116% 682,180 337,094 49% 668,984 98% (13,196) Patient Fees 522,300 382,906 73% 372,115 225,456 61% 444,538 119% 72,423- Divorce Filing Fees 173,030 173,030 100% ° 173,030 178,331 103% a 178,331 103% = 5,301 State - Medicare 210,287 217,833 104% - 172,200 113,108 66% 233,571 136% - 61,371, Liquor Revenue 99,500 158,977 160% 157,000 84,988 54% 199,656 127% 42,656! Interfund Contract- Gen Fund 127,000 127,000 100% 127,000 - 0% 127,000 100% TOTAL RESOURCES 31,043,753 30,988,758 100% ; 35,073,435 17,782,705 51% 35,093,591 100% ; 20,1561, REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Administration Allocation 7,434,938 7,434,938 100% 7,523,855 1,892,181 25% 7,523,855 100% - Personnel Services 23,060,066 22,131,010 96% 26,632,065 11,751,798 44% 24,613,210 92% 2,018,855a G Materials and Services 5,998,817 4,097,273 68% 4,882,963 1,382,677 28% ' 4,469,534 92% 413,429! Capital Outlay 125,267 106,122 85% 54,000 27,376 51% 55,376 103% (1,376). TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 36,619,088 33,769,343 92% ; 39,092,883 15,054,033 39% 36,661,975 94% ; 2,430,908; TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In- General Fund 2,036,117 2,036,117 100% 2,278,087 1,139,022 50% 2,278,087 100% Transfers In- OHP Mental Health 2,298,179 1,217,279 53% - - - Transfers Out - - 0% (10,961) (5,481) 50% (10,961) 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS 4,334,296 3,253,396 75% 2,267,126 1,133,542 50% ; 2,267,126 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Beginning Fund Balance 3,008,705 3,397,853 113% 3,612,014 Resources over Requirements (5,575,335) (2,780,585) i (4,019,448) o Net Transfers - In (Out) 4,334,296 3,253,396 2,267,126 1 � TOTAL FUND BALANCE ; $ 1,767,666 $ 3,870,664 219% ; $ 1,859,692 Actuals % Projection % $ Variance 3,870,664 107% 3,870,664 107% 258,6% 2,728,672 (1,568,384) 2,451,064! 1,133,542 2,267,126 $ 7,732,877 416% ; $ 4,569,406 246% ; $2,709,714: A Additional funds received for Aid & Assist ($334K). Other small fluctuations in service element dollars B Increased OHP enrollment is resulting in higher than budgeted OHP Capitation payments and less than budgeted CCBHC State Grant revenues. CCBHC Grant is reimbursed on a quarterly basis. C A high vacancy rate and reduction in services is leading to less than budgeted fee for services D Projections include an extension of unspent funds for the Crisis Program's Bureau of Justice Assistance and SAMHSA CCBHC Expansion grants E Carryforward of unspent FY21 COHC Crisis Services Grant and Choice Model funds. Also includes unbudgeted 2020 Q1 COHC Covid QIM funds. F Medicaid services tracking lower than budget G Personnel projections based on year to date vacancy savings and assume 6% moving forward oy JZESC 2{ Budget to Actuals Report .1,W Health Services - Public Health - Fund 274 FY22 YTD December 31, 2021 (unaudited) 17 **ililt�y State Grant State Miscellaneous Environmental Health Fees Local Grants Vital Records Other State Shared- Family Planning Federal Grants Patient Fees OHP Fee for Service State - Medicaid/Medicare TOTAL RESOURCES 50.0% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2021 Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance 4,808,755 4,949,143 103% ; 4,552,263 2,705,142 59% 5,435,576 119% = 883,313. A 1,306,276 1,860,543 142% 2,194,822 1,437,994 66% 2,206,391 101% 11,569 1,091,652 1,106,707 101% ; 1,086,019 522,321 48% 1,171,820 108% a 85,801, B 1,741,297 2,112,608 121% a 843,783 869,815 103% 1,120,566 133% 276,783 C 237,296 317,189 134% 280,000 152,884 55% 393,261 140% = 113,261 e 23,975 17,952 75% 192,656 21,849 11% 154,475 80% (38,181)a 155,000 146,074 94% 152,634 63,294 41% 99,852 65% (52,782); 297,609 289,822 97% 139,017 41,560 30% 138,807 100% (210) 150,695 100,848 67% 96,300 51,723 54% 101,909 106% 5,609 5,428 10,292 10,292a 952,220 882,600 93% a 843,050 324,279 38% 647,689 77% (195,361) D 10,764,775 11,783,485 109% ; 10,380,544 6,196,289 60% ; 11,480,638 111% ; 1,100,094: REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Administration Allocation 2,210,805 2,210,805 100% 2,639,066 600,435 23% ; 2,639,066 100% Personnel Services 8,647,397 8,165,103 94% 10,274,178 4,545,329 44% 9,970,871 97% 303,307! E Materials and Services 3,533,345 3,354,111 95% 3,208,765 1,214,158 38% 2,751,582 86% 457,183! Capital Outlay 14,200 25,542 180% 76,000 - 0% 76,000 100% TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 14,405,747 13,755,560 95% ; 16,198,009 6,359,923 39% 15,437,519 95% ; 760,490: TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In- General Fund 3,436,593 3,436,593 100% 3,631,081 1,852,562 51% 3,631,081 100% Transfers In -TRT 406,646 406,646 100% 0 444,417 185,170 42% 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 2,037,732 50% ; 4,075,498 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 997,019 1,096,520 110% = 2,869,932 3,049,370 106% 3,049,370 106% 179,438: Resources over Requirements (3,640,972) (1,972,075) m (5,817,465) (163,633) (3,956,881) 1,860,584- Net Transfers - In (Out) 3,924,925 3,924,925 4,075,498 2,037,732 4,075,498 TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 1,280,972 $ 3,049,370 238% ; $ 1,127,965 $ 4,923,468 436% ; ; $ 3,167,987 281% ; $2,040,022: Revenue over budget primarily due to additional state funds in Tobacco Prevention ($117K), Oregon Mothers Care ($25K) and WIC ($90K), Public A Health Modernization ($507K), Problem Gambling ($25k), COVID Vaccine Delivery ($80k), as well as carryforward of unspent funds from Emergency Preparedness ($36K) B Environmental Health Fee projections updated based on 2022 prepared billing statements C Includes unbudgeted 2020 Q1 COHC Covid QIM funds ($210K) D Medicaid/Medicare services tracking lower than budgeted E Personnel projections based on year to date vacancy savings and assume 3% moving forward v1ES CpG2< Budget to Actuals Report Community Development - Fund 295 FY22 YTD December 31, 2021 (unaudited) 50.0% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2021 Fiscal Year 2022 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Admin - Operations 137,450 152,710 111% 138,716 67,578 49% 144,716 104% 6,000, Code Compliance 722,028 783,094 108% 842,906 532,293 63% a 1,038,906 123% 196,000! A Building Safety 3,362,450 3,921,591 117% 3,819,940 2,193,520 57% 4,266,940 112% 447,000, B Electrical 720,600 915,357 127% 914,750 503,658 55% 987,600 108% 72,850! B Environmental On -Site 867,700 1,118,994 129% ° 1,056,678 436,598 41% 1,057,678 100% 1,000 Current Planning 1,738,304 2,054,192 118% ; 1,980,521 1,042,297 53% e 2,144,811 108% 164,290! B Long Range Planning 703,194 741,514 105% 826,806 498,157 60% ' 966,675 117% 139,869: A TOTAL RESOURCES 8,251,726 9,687,451 117% ; 9,580,316 5,274,101 55% ; 10,607,325 111% ; 1,027,009: REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Admin - Operations 2,818,748 2,740,077 97% 3,137,795 1,486,636 47% 3,005,254 96% 132,541 C Code Compliance 568,320 539,584 95% 617,012 276,829 45% 669,218 108% (52,206); Building Safety 1,867,662 1,768,376 95% 2,284,444 1,013,515 44% 2,120,437 93% 164,007. C Electrical 524,979 487,253 93% 556,531 273,664 49% _ 549,631 99% 6,900: C Environmental On -Site 634,452 639,025 101% 765,935 289,925 38% 659,343 86% 106,592! C Current Planning 1,479,294 1,465,772 99% 1,769,333 778,147 44% 1,659,876 94% 109,457! C Long Range Planning 580,687 446,049 77% 847,839 254,077 30% 717,139 85% 130,700! C TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 8,474,142 8,086,137 95% 9,978,889 4,372,793 44% : 9,380,898 94% 597,991: TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In - General Fund 100,000 - 0% 290,000 128,798 44% 290,000 100% Transfers In - CDD Electrical ! 93,264 - 0% - Reserve ; Transfers Out (100,518) (100,518) 100% (99,360) (49,662) 50% (99,360) 100% Transfers Out - CDD Reserve (148,226) (1,004,480) 678% (461,262) (575,622) 125% (1,217,039) 264% (755,777) D TOTAL TRANSFERS (55,480) (1,104,998) 999% ; (270,622) (496,486) 183% ; ; (1,026,399) 379% ; (755,777); FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 1,012,694 1,253,356 124% 1,432,367 1,749,673 122% 1,749,673 122% 317,306: Resources over Requirements (222,416) 1,601,315 (398,573) 901,308 1,226,427 1,625,000- Net Transfers - In (Out) (55,480) (1,104,998) (270,622) (496,486) (1,026,399) (755,777) TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 734,798 $ 1,749,673 238% ; $ 763,172 $ 2,154,495 282% ; $ 1,949,701 255% ; $1,186,529: A YTD revenue collection is higher than anticipated due to increased building valuations B YTD revenue collection is higher than anticipated due to permitting volume and increased building valuations C Projections reflect unfilled FTE D Transfer out projection increased as Building Safety and Electrical revenues are anticipated to be higher than budget as well as underspending due to unfilled positions Oiv1ES C-0 Budget to Actuals Report Road - Fund 325 FY22 YTD December 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 TOTAL RESOURCES REQUIREMENTS 50.0% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2021 1 Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance 14,810,507 17,342,054 117% 17,485,000 9,551,286 55% 17,485,000 100% 1,690,574 2,061,977 122% 2,096,751 2,195,918 105% 2,195,918 105% 99,167. A 1,114,070 1,198,004 108% 1,221,632 150,323 12% 1,221,632 100% 723,085 660,298 91% 627,207 - 0% 627,207 100% 385,000 627,694 163% 560,000 170,789 30% 560,000 100% 396,000 333,109 84% 449,150 241,108 54% 0 449,150 100% 54,000 73,562 136% 67,340 38,250 57% 67,546 100% a 206e 60,000 51,642 86% 60,000 1,427 2% 0 60,000 100% 114,000 65,094 57% 59,109 28,156 48% 56,310 95% s (2,799); 8,000 24,578 307% 3,460 2,542 73% 3,460 100% � 1,325,874 1,093,866 83% - - 7,048 - - - 20,681,110 23,538,925 114% ; 22,629,649 12,379,800 55% 22,726,223 100% ; 96,574: Budget Actuals % Personnel Services 6,709,180 Materials and Services 7,753,525 Capital Outlay 50,500 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 14,513,205 6,422,847 96% 6,065,466 78% 17,944 36% 12,506,257 86% ; Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance 6,916,229 3,310,832 48% 6,737,220 97% 179,009, B 7,843,400 3,176,107 40% 7,816,213 100% 27,187! C 264,500 67,481 26% 257,115 97% 7,386 15,024,128 6,554,420 44% 14,810,547 99% 213,581: TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers Out (6,683,218) (6,683,218) 100% (11,757,547) (6,985,536) 59% (11,757,547) 100% - TOTAL TRANSFERS ; (6,683,218) (6,683,218) 100% ; (11,757,547) (6,985,536) 59% ; ; (11,757,547) 100% , FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 2,695,786 4,217,071 156% 6,383,832 8,566,521 134% 8,566,521 134% 2,182,690- Resources over Requirements 6,167,905 11,032,669 7,605,521 5,825,380 7,915,676 310,155! Net Transfers - In (Out) (6,683,218) (6,683,218) (11,757,547) (6,985,536) (11,757,547) TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 2,180,473 $ 8,566,521 393% ; $ 2,231,806 $ 7,406,365 332% ; $ 4,724,650 212% ; $2,492,844: A Actual payment higher than budget B Projected Personnel savings based on FY22 savings to date C Savings in seasonal employees due to fewer workers available 01Es`0G�� Budget to Actuals Report Adult P&P - Fund 355 FY22 YTD December 31, 2021 (unaudited) 50.0% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2021 1 Fiscal Year 2022 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance 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% a 871,753 112% 90,156! A DOC Measure 57 239,005 264,005 110% 255,545 . 0% 244,606 96% (10,939) B Probation Supervision Fees 170,000 189,458 111% 170,000 3,606 2% 3,607 2% (166,393)o C State Miscellaneous - 18,453 138,000 23,218 17% 123,453 89% (14,547)a D DOC-Family Sentence Alt - - 118,250 - 0% 59,250 50% (59,000); B Interfund- Sheriff 50,000 55,000 110% 50,000 27,500 55% 50,000 100% Gen Fund/Crime Prevention 50,000 50,000 100% 50,000 50,000 100% 50,000 100% Interest on Investments 37,700 43,276 115% 45,193 8,505 19% 17,010 38% (28,183) Oregon BOPPPS - - a 24,281 - 0% 24,281 100% Electronic Monitoring Fee 10,000 3,973 40% 2,500 236 9% 300 12% (2,200) E Probation Work Crew Fees 2,000 600 30% 1,500 - 0% a - 0% (1,500) C Miscellaneous 1,000 579 58% 500 305 61% 500 100% State Subsidy 16,298 - 0% o - - - - TOTAL RESOURCES 5,995,287 6,040,170 101% ; 5,840,250 1,268,815 22% 6,179,212 106% ; 338,962: REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Personnel Services 5,157,473 4,950,715 96% 5,379,503 2,420,348 45% 4,835,489 90% 544,014. F Materials and Services 1,923,795 1,414,886 74% 1,700,412 622,603 37% 1,685,171 99% 15,241, G TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 7,081,268 6,365,601 90% ; 7,079,915 3,042,951 43% 6,520,660 92% 559,255: TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In- General Funds 285,189 285,189 100% 662,046 331,020 50% 662,046 100% e Transfer to Vehicle Maint (97,693) (97,693) 100% (190,974) (95,487) 50% (190,974) 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS 187,496 187,496 100% ; 471,072 235,533 50% 471,072 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 2,714,814 3,119,990 115% 2,739,775 2,982,055 109% 2,982,055 109% 242,280a Resources over Requirements (1,085,981) (325,431) (1,239,665) (1,774,136) (341,448) 898,217! Net Transfers - In (Out) 187,496 187,496 471,072 235,533 471,072 TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 1,816,329 $ 2,982,055 164% ; $ 1,971,182 $ 1,443,452 73% $ 3,111,679 158% ; $1,140,497: 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 and Dept of Revenue has closed any preexisting garnished accounts. D Criminal Justice Commission Adult Treatment Court final grant award was less than budgeted E Final payments from electronic monitoring clients prior to when the division shifted to a contract program received and Dept of Revenue has closed any garnished accounts F Projected Personnel savings based on FY22 average vacancy rate of 9.3% G Projected underspending based on FY22 trends ESC-0 Budget to Actuals Report Road CIP - Fund 465 OW FY22 YTD December 31, 2021 (unaudited) 50.0% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2021 Fiscal Year 2022 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance State Miscellaneous 2,258,100 2,670,996 118% 2,191,461 - 0% 2,191,461 100% Interest on Investments 209,700 271,831 130% 279,729 61,726 22% ' 123,450 44% (156,279) TOTAL RESOURCES 2,467,800 2,942,827 119% ; 2,471,190 61,725 2% 2,314,911 94% ; (156,279); REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Materials and Services 158,465 158,465 100% 109,870 54,935 50% _ 109,870 100% Capital Outlay 19,877,585 11,583,557 58% a 29,612,821 5,595,370 19% : 27,971,613 94% 1,641,20& A TOTAL REQUIREMENTS ; 20,036,050 11,742,022 59% ; 29,722,691 5,650,305 19% 28,081,483 94% 1,641,208: TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In 7,517,657 6,819,612 91% 12,193,917 4,772,011 39% 12,193,917 100% - TOTAL TRANSFERS 7,517,657 6,819,612 91% 12,193,917 4,772,011 39% ; 12,193,917 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 23,154,407 25,512,586 110% 20,374,044 23,533,004 116% 23,533,004 116% 3,158,960; Resources over Requirements (17,568,250) (8,799,195) (27,251,501) (5,588,579) (25,766,572) 1,484,929- Net Transfers - In (Out) 7,517,657 6,819,612 12,193,917 4,772,011 12,193,917 TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 13,103,814 $ 23,533,004 180% ; $ 5,316,460 $ 22,716,436 427% ; $ 9,960,349 187% ; $4,643,889: A Updated based on anticipated completion of projects in FY22 coming in under budget or delayed to FY23 U�UD������� �� ���8���U9� ������m� �~~~~~mm~~~ ~~~ ~ -~~~~-~---- Report - o � Road CKP (Fund 465) - Capital Outlay Summary by Project 50^0% -"� Completed FY22YTDDecember 31.2021 (unaudited) Year Fiscal Year 2022 TerremmnoRefinement Plan TumamRoad /TVmaloPlace Old Bend Fdm/TumamFdInter NENogusand 1rrn ~~~~~~~ 2,134,966 —~ Hunne|Rd: Loco Rdk,Tume|oRd 1,204,230 Transportation System Plan Update '""^'~ 62954 ^~~ 159,515 '-'~ G,ibb|ingRdBridge Tenobnnnovvaomwato,Foavibi|nym. ' ~' '-~ Rickard Rd: Groff RdtoUS2O Paving Powell Butte Hwy 931,140 1,319,374 1-- Smith Rock Way Bridge Replace Deschutes Mkt nd/HamehookRound Paving Cottonwood: UonrT000NFRn Paving Desch M�Rd: Yeoman Hamohoo "'"""" - ^'^ Paving Alfalfa Mkt Rd: Mp4Dodds Paving OfHamby Rd: UuxUToButler 200,000 Powell BuooHw�Budv,Market no '^"""" ~~ '~~~^~ '``~ Wilcox Ave Bridge #o171-O3Rop|auem '""""" ~'^ 100000 '`~~ USoO:Cook AvoOaRiley nd<Tvma|o "'""""" ' ^~ ~'^~^^~ '^^'` US2o:Tvma|oMulti-Use Path Crossing 1,250,000 Highway Warning Systems 2021 Tuma|oWastewater Feasibility Study Guardrail Improvements Redmond District Local Roads ^^^^^^ -~--`` ''''` Bend Dipt,imLocal Roads ~~~^^` ^~ Sidewalk Ramp Improvements a|gnage|m»mvom*^to TOTAL CAPITAL TES C0&' Budget to Actuals Report Solid Waste - Fund 610 FY22 YTD December 31, 2021 (unaudited) RESOURCES Franchise Disposal Fees Private Disposal Fees Commercial Disp. Fee Yard Debris Franchise 3% Fees Miscellaneous Interest Special Waste Recyclables Leases Equip & Material TOTAL RESOURCES 50.0% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2021 1 Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance 6,630,625 6,764,888 102% 0 7,124,000 3,128,717 44% 7,124,000 100% A 2,491,617 2,985,124 120% 2,827,000 1,680,969 59% 2,827,000 100% A 2,319,792 2,830,984 122% : 2,686,000 1,511,757 56% 2,686,000 100% A 216,761 301,824 139% a 300,000 153,323 51% 300,000 100% 280,000 389,402 139% 290,000 128,312 44% 290,000 100% B 88,096 102,595 116% 55,000 39,672 72% _ 73,000 133% 18,000- C 23,700 42,794 181% : 41,599 15,732 38% 31,460 76% (10,139); 15,000 34,292 229% 15,000 32,285 215% 40,000 267% 25,000� D 12,000 11,180 93% 12,000 8,201 68% 12,000 100% a 1 1 100% 1 - 0% a 1 100% - 200 - - 12,077,592 13,463,285 111% ; 13,350,600 6,698,968 50% ; 13,383,461 100% ; 32,861: REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Personnel Services 2,518,594 2,510,986 100% 2,754,132 1,273,314 46% 2,754,132 100% Materials and Services 5,227,119 4,705,435 90% 5,651,103 2,116,014 37% 5,651,103 100% Capital Outlay 162,500 29,523 18% 53,141 65,708 124% 91,305 172% _ (38,164) E Debt Service 945,000 861,354 91% 1,251,615 271,269 22% 1,251,615 100% _ F TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 8,853,213 8,107,298 92% ; 9,709,991 3,726,305 38% ; 9,748,155 100% ; (38,164); TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance SW Capital & Equipment (3,684,280) (3,684,280) 100% (6,029,323) (3,012,978) 50% o (6,029,323) 100% - Reserve TOTAL TRANSFERS ; (3,684,280) (3,684,280) 100% ; (6,029,323) (3,012,978) 50% (6,029,323) 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 1,179,819 2,285,566 194% 2,972,234 3,957,273 133% 3,957,273 133% 985,039� Resources over Requirements 3,224,379 5,355,987 3,640,609 2,972,663 3,635,306 (5,303) Net Transfers - In (Out) (3,684,280) (3,684,280) (6,029,323) (3,012,978) (6,029,323) TOTAL FUND BALANCE ; $ 719,918 $ 3,957,273 550% ; $ 583,520 $ 3,916,958 671% ; $ 1,563,256 268% ; $979,736: A Fiscal year-to-date actual volumes are 11 % greater than prior -year-to-date, slightly exceeding the budgeted 10% increase in total disposal fees. Franchise disposal fee payments of $405K were not received from Republic Services (Bend Garbage, High Country & Wilderness) by closing. B Annual fees due April 15, 2022; received year-to-date monthly installments from Republic C FY22 projection includes the unbudgeted sale of a utility terrain vehicle and electricity capital credits; miscellaneous tire and appliance revenue is slightly exceeding budget D 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 E The new 1 ton service truck and service box ordered in FY21 was rolled into FY22 due to delayed availability F Principal and interest payments due in Nov and May for existing debt; budget includes an interest estimate for funding the Negus Transfer Station �1ES` �< Budget to Actuals Report `Z 0 Fair & Expo -Fund 615 FY22 YTD December 31, 2021 (unaudited) 50.0% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2021 1 Fiscal Year 2022 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Events Revenue 625,000 1,194,701 191% 578,000 289,138 50% 533,000 92% _ (45,000) A Food & Beverage 548,500 209,297 38% 513,500 198,513 39% _ 479,000 93% (34,500); A Rights & Signage 125,000 62,500 50% 105,000 - 0% 65,000 62% (40,000); Storage 75,000 77,897 104% 77,500 21,410 28% _ 84,000 108% 6,5W Horse Stall Rental 52,000 11,378 22% 71,500 48,827 68% 60,000 84% (11,500) Interfund Payment 30,000 226,786 756% a 30,000 15,000 50% 30,000 100% - Camping Fee 12,500 5,630 45% 19,500 575 3% 6,000 31% (13,500); Interest (2,200) 1,051 -48% = 474 2,670 563% ; 5,340 999% 4,866 Miscellaneous 250 2,596 999% 250 1,690 676% ; 3,225 999% 2,975! TOTAL RESOURCES 1,466,050 1,791,835 122% ; 1,395,724 577,823 41% 1,265,565 91% (130,159); REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Personnel Services 840,704 1,031,160 123% 1,118,980 566,158 51% Personnel Services - F&B 165,518 165,801 100% a 181,593 81,313 45% Materials and Services 702,149 576,528 82% 818,804 381,834 47% Materials and Services - F&B 257,600 134,431 52% 282,500 100,496 36% o 0 Debt Service 104,400 103,519 99% 103,000 56,923 55% TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 2,070,371 2,011,440 97% ; 2,504,877 1,186,724 47% 1,118,980 100% -: B 172,109 95% 9,484! C 751,000 92% 67,804! 183,000 65% 99,500! 103,000 100% 2,328,089 93% ; 176,788: TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In - Room Tax 650,000 899,310 138% a 905,769 452,880 50% 1,144,598 126% 238,829a D Transfers In - County Fair - - 150,000 150,000 100% ; 150,000 100% a Transfers In - Park Fund 30,000 30,000 100% 30,000 15,000 50% _ 30,000 100% Transfers In - Room Tax (as 25,744 25,744 100% ; 25,744 12,870 50% 25,744 100% needed) Transfers In - General Fund 200,000 200,000 100% - - - -° Transfers Out (10,777) (10,777) 100% ; (310,777) (155,388) 50% _ (310,777) 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS 894,967 1,144,277 128% ; 800,736 475,362 59% 1,039,565 130% ; 238,829: FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 364,904 (1,199) 0% 750,673 923,473 123% 923,473 123% 172,800- Resources over Requirements (604,321) (219,605) (1,109,153) (608,900) (1,062,524) 46,629 Net Transfers - In (Out) 894,967 1,144,277 800,736 475,362 1,039,565 238,829- TOTAL FUND BALANCE ; $ 655,550 $ 923,473 141% ; $ 442,256 $ 789,934 179% ; $ 900,514 204% ; $458,258; A Events continue to be impacted by Covidl9, and is currently experiencing abnormal revenue fluctuations. F&E continues to be fluid in adapting to changing event requirements and concerns to maximize revenue opportunities safely and responsibly. B Projection reflects vacancy savings C Projected Personnel based on savings to date D Room tax revenue projected to be higher than budget Qp�vTES CpG�< Budget to Actuals Report Annual County Fair - Fund 616 FY22 YTD December 31, 2021 (unaudited) 50.0% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2021 Fiscal Year 2022 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Gate Receipts - - 550,000 738,029 134% : 738,029 134% 188,0290 Concessions and Catering - - I 385,000 526,737 137% 526,919 137% 141,919- Carnival 330,000 415,716 126% - 415,717 126% - 85,717- Commercial Exhibitors - - 110,000 85,100 77% 85,100 77% (24,900) Fair Sponsorship - - 83,500 40,525 49% 40,525 49% (42,975); State Grant 52,000 53,167 102% 52,000 53,167 102% 53,167 102% 1,167- RN Camping/Horse Stall Rental - - 25,500 19,944 78% 19,944 78% (5,556) Rodeo - - 20,000 24,600 123% ; 24,600 123% 4,600- Livestock Entry Fees � - - � 4,500 - 0% ' � - , 0% (4,500)� Merchandise Sales - - ' - 5,239 5,239 5,239- Interest on Investments - (129) 999% - 1,401 2,800 2,800: TOTAL RESOURCES 52,000 53,038 102% ; 1,560,500 1,910,458 122% ; 1,912,039 123% ; 351,539; REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Personnel Services 110,000 163,282 148% 155,959 13,297 9% 69,703 45% 86,256, A Materials and Services 17,000 26,328 155% 1,312,172 1,242,018 95% 1,312,172 100% TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 127,000 189,611 149% ; 1,468,131 1,255,315 86% 1,381,875 94% 86,256: TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfer In - TRT 1% 75,000 75,000 100% 75,000 37,500 50% 75,000 100% a Transfer Out - Fair & Expo - - (150,000) (150,000) 100% (150,000) 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS 75,000 75,000 100% ; (75,000) (112,500) 150% ; ; (75,000) 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance - (47,461) 999% - (109,033) o (109,033) (109,033); Resources over Requirements (75,000) (136,573) 92,369 655,143 530,164 437,795; Net Transfers - In (Out) � 75,000 75,000 o (75,000) (112,500) i i (75,000) e e TOTAL FUND BALANCE _ ($ 109,033) $ 17,369 $ 433,610 999% ; $ 346,131 999% ; $328,762: A Projection reflects vacancy savings \)TES Budget to Actuals Report ` Annual County Fair - Fund 616 CY21 YTD December 31, 2021 (unaudited) Fair 2021 r Actuals to 2021 Fair 2020 Date Projection RESOURCES Gate Receipts $ - $ 738029 $ 738,029 Carnival - 415:716 415,716 Commercial Exhibitors (5,800) ' 315,719 315,719 Livestock Entry Fees - - - R/V Camping/Horse Stall Rental 19,944 19,944 Merchandise Sales 51239 5,239 Concessions and Catering U X$ a - 295,093 295,093 Fair Sponsorship _ (22,250) 65,125 65,125 TOTAL FAIR REVENUES $ (28,050) $ 1,854,865 $ 1,854,865 OTHER RESOURCES State Grant 53,167 53,167 53,167 Interest 11 1,194 1,194 Miscellaneous - - - TOTAL RESOURCES $ 25,127 $ 1,909,226 $ 1,909,226 REQUIREMENTS Personnel 154,640 103,199 103,199 Materials & Services 85,216 ��, 1,249,932 1,249,932 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS $ 239,856 ,2� $ 1,353,131 $ 1,353,131 4, TRANSFERS Transfer In - TRT 1 % 162,750 tars 74,750 74,750 Transfer Out - Fair & Expo - 11(150,000) (150,000) TOTAL TRANSFERS $ Xr� 162,750 ? $ (75,250) $ (75,250) Net Fair $ �l (51,979) $ 480,845 $ 480,845 wa Beginning Fund Balance on Jan 1 $ 3,285 (48,694) $ (48,694) Ending Balance $ (48,694) $ 432,151 $ 432,151 01ES`0G�' Budget to Actuals Report Fair & Expo Capital Reserve -Fund 617 50.0% FY22 YTD December 31, 2021 (unaudited) Year Complete Fiscal Year 2021 Fiscal Year 2022 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Interest on Investments 14,000 8,532 61% 8,544 3,545 41% 7,090 83% (1,454), TOTAL RESOURCES 14,000 8,532 61% 8,544 3,545 41% ; 7,090 83% (1,454); REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Materials and Services 235,000 16,910 7% 180,000 188 0% 180,000 100% Capital Outlay 166,940 73,613 44% 388,000 - 0% 388,000 100% - A TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 401,940 90,523 23% ; 568,000 188 0% ; 568,000 100% ; TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In -TRT 1% 453,158 385,418 85% 428,901 214,446 50% 531,256 124% 102,355, Transfers In - Fair & Expo - - 300,000 150,000 50% 300,000 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS 453,158 385,418 85% ; 728,901 364,446 50% ; 831,256 114% ; 102,355: FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 1,143,224 726,169 64% 1,101,663 1,029,596 93% 1,029,596 93% (72,067); Resources over Requirements (387,940) (81,991) (559,456) 3,358 (560,910) (1,454) Net Transfers - In (Out) 453,158 385,418 728,901 364,446 831,256 102,355 TOTAL FUND BALANCE a $ 1,208,442 $ 1,029,596 85% ; $ 1,271,108 $ 1,397,400 110% ; ; $ 1,299,942 102% ; $28,834. A Capital Outlay appropriations are a placeholder should viable projects be recommended and approved for construction Qy��01ES °°G�{ Budget to Actuals Report RV Park - Fund 618 50.0% FY22 YTD December 31, 2021 (unaudited) Year Complete Fiscal Year 2021 Fiscal Year 2022 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance RV Park Fees < 31 Days RV Park Fees > 30 Days Washer / Dryer Miscellaneous Vending Machines Interest on Investments Cancellation Fees Good Sam Membership Fee TOTAL RESOURCES 400,200 620,655 155% 475,000 260,553 55% 12,000 13,886 116% 10,500 4,531 43% 4,000 5,295 132% ; 5,000 2,167 43% 2,250 2,679 119% 2,500 2,157 86% 3,000 1,229 41% ! 2,500 861 34% 7,600 1,636 22% 2,024 306 15% 5,500 8,825 160% - 8,089 1,500 - 0% - - 436,050 654,204 150% ; 497,524 278,665 56% , 603,950 127% 128,950: 15,260 145% 4,760! 4,488 90% ; (512) 3,626 145% 1,126, 1,507 60% ; (993) 610 30% o (1,414); 13,708 13,708, 643,149 129% ; 145,625: REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Personnel Services - - 113,956 50 0% 38,051 33% 75,905: A Materials and Services 321,402 291,093 91% 216,305 149,729 69% 279,330 129% (63,025): B Debt Service 222,500 221,874 100% 165,927 162,573 98% 165,927 100% TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 543,902 512,967 94% ; 496,188 312,352 63% 483,308 97% ; 12,880; TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In - Park Fund 160,000 160,000 100% 0 160,000 160,000 100% 160,000 100% - Transfers In - TRT Fund 25,000 20,000 80% 20,000 9,996 50% 20,000 100% Transfer Out - RV Reserve (621,628) (549,173) 88% (132,042) (66,018) 50% (132,042) 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS (436,628) (369,173) 85% ; 47,958 103,978 217% ; 47,958 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 587,992 227,936 39% - - - 0' Resources over Requirements (107,852) 141,237 1,336 (33,687) 159,841 158,505- Net Transfers - In (Out) (436,628) (369,173) 47,958 103,978 47,958 TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 43,512 - 0% $ 49,294 $ 70,291 143% ; ; $ 207,799 422% ; $158,505: A New FTE added to the FY22 budget, which has not been filled; projection assumes position is filled in March B M&S projected to exceed budget because of the temporary help needed until FTE is filled TEs`°G�� Budget to Actuals Report RV Park Reserve - Fund 619 FY22 YTD December 31, 2021 (unaudited) 50.0% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2021 1 Fiscal Year 2022 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Interest on Investments 1,100 7,787 708% ; 7,546 3,126 41% ; 6,250 83% (1,296): TOTAL RESOURCES 1,100 7,787 708% ; 7,546 3,126 41% ; 6,250 83% ; (1,296); REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Capital Outlay 100,000 - 0% 100,000 - 0% 20,000 20% 80,000- A TOTAL REQUIREMENTS ; 100,000 - 0% 100,000 - 0% ; 20,000 20% 80,000: TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfer In - RV Park Ops 621,628 549,173 88% 132,042 66,018 50% ; 132,042 100% - - TOTAL TRANSFERS 621,628 549,173 88% 132,042 66,018 50% ; 132,042 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 490,000 497,466 102% 784,466 1,054,426 134% ; 1,054,426 134% 269,960, Resources over Requirements (98,900) 7,787 (92,454) 3,126 (13,750) 78,704 Net Transfers - In (Out) r 621,628 549,173 r 132,042 66,018 r r 132,042 r r TOTAL FUND BALANCE a 1 n12 72R $ 1_n54.426 104% $ 824.054 $ 1.123.570 136% $ 1.172.718 142% : $348,664; A Capital Outlay appropriations are a placeholder and the full budgeted amount is not expected to be spent this year TES c0Gz` Budget to Actuals Report Risk Management - Fund 670 FY22 YTD December 31, 2021 (unaudited) RESOURCES Workers' Compensation General Liability Property Damage Unemployment Vehicle Interest on Investments Claims Reimbursement Skid Car Training Process Fee- Events/ Parades Miscellaneous Loss Prevention 50.0% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2021 1 Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance 1,188,848 1,224,408 103% 1,120,766 611,537 55% 1,120,766 100% 990,628 963,201 97% 944,278 470,387 50% 944,278 100% 373,698 373,548 100% 0 393,546 204,796 52% 393,546 100% 323,572 315,619 98% 323,572 301,971 93% 323,572 100% A 218,185 222,266 102% 227,700 113,850 50% 227,700 100% 87,200 100,030 115% 101,111 25,223 25% 50,450 50% (50,661) 50,000 39,428 79% 25,000 9,661 39% 1,200,000 999% 1,175,000< B 30,000 270 1% 10,000 - 0% f 2,000 20% (8,000) 1,500 810 54% 1,000 495 50% 1,000 100% - 5 - 0% - 180 a 200 ' 200 10 - 0% - - - TOTAL RESOURCES 3,263,646 3,239,580 99% ; 3,146,973 1,738,099 55% ; , 4,263,512 135% ; 1,116,539: REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Workers' Compensation 1,560,000 912,395 58% 1,580,000 308,975 20% 1,400,000 89% 180,000: General Liability 1,100,000 466,547 42% 1,200,000 2,186,457 182% 3,200,000 267% (2,000,000); C Insurance Administration 584,104 408,666 70% 547,047 248,082 45% 547,047 100% Property Damage 200,240 330,869 165% 300,245 285,844 95% 450,000 150% (149,755) D Unemployment 200,000 98,978 49% 200,000 41,379 21% 200,000 100% - Vehicle 150,000 173,925 116% 200,000 80,585 40% 200,000 100% TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 3,794,344 2,391,380 63% 4,027,292 3,151,322 78% 5,997,047 149% ; (1,969,755); TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers Out - Vehicle Replace (3,500) (3,500) 100% (3,500) (1,746) 50% (3,500) 100% o TOTAL TRANSFERS (3,500) (3,500) 100% ; (3,500) (1,746) 50% ; ; (3,500) 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 7,000,000 8,676,750 124% 8,329,115 9,521,450 114% ; 9,521,450 114% ; 1,192,335, Resources over Requirements (530,698) 848,200 (880,319) (1,413,223) (1,733,535) (853,216); Net Transfers - In (Out) (3,500) (3,500) (3,500) (1,746) (3,500) TOTAL FUND BALANCE . $ 6,465,802 $ 9,521,450 147% ; $ 7,445,296 $ 8,106,480 109% ; ; $ 7,784,415 105% ; $339,119, A Unemployment collected on first $25K of employee's salary in fiscal year B Reimbursement from excess carrier for Kozoswki lawsuit payout C General Liability claims paid includes the Kozoswki lawsuit payout -- part will be reimbursed by excess carrier D Projection is based on YTD actuals which are high due to several vehicle crashes '��31ES c0G�< Budget to Actuals Report Health Benefits - Fund 675 50.0% FY22 YTD December 31, 2021 (unaudited) Year Complete Fiscal Year 2021 Fiscal Year 2022 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Internal Premium Charges 17,831,938 18,580,799 104% 18,767,900 9,409,215 50% COIC Premiums 1,600,000 1,642,789 103% 1,589,000 843,466 53% Employee Co -Pay 1,031,400 1,205,713 117% ; 1,200,000 616,298 51% Retiree I COBRA Premiums 1,035,000 958,664 93% 1,060,000 302,966 29% Interest 216,200 193,598 90% 200,277 49,217 25% Prescription Rebates 90,000 179,184 199% = 128,000 - 0% Claims Reimbursement & Other 80,000 1,073 1% 82,000 707,935 863% r TOTAL RESOURCES 21,884,538 22,761,820 104% ; 23,027,177 11,929,097 52% 18,767,900 100% 1,589,000 100% a 1,200,000 100% 605,900 � 57% s (454,100): A 98,430 49% s (101,847); 128,000 100% - 900,000 999% c 818,000, B 23,289,230 101% ; 262,053: REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Health Benefits 19,937,274 19,126,362 96% 19,640,847 9,340,891 48% 19,640,847 100% C Deschutes On -Site Pharmacy 2,417,092 2,972,758 123% 2,970,575 1,142,168 38% 2,970,575 100% C Deschutes On -Site Clinic 1,101,467 1,087,809 99% 1,141,829 448,403 39% 1,141,829 100% ° C Wellness 164,340 149,145 91% 171,142 75,548 44% 171,142 100% C TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 23,620,173 23,336,074 99% 23,924,393 11,007,011 46% 23,924,393 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 15,323,729 16,101,833 105% 14,772,618 15,527,580 105% 0 15,527,580 105% a 754,96Z Resources over Requirements (1,735,635) (574,254) _ (897,216) 922,087 (635,163) 262,053 e e of A � Net Transfers - In (Out) - - - - - -' TOTAL FUND BALANCE . $ 13,588,094 $ 15,527,580 114% ; $ 13,875,402 $ 16,449,666 119% ; ; $ 14,892,417 107% ; $1,017,015: A Experiencing a lower collection rate as some retirees have continued on the active plan as they are working in an on -call status B Stop Loss insurance reimbursements for high dollar claims; invoices are trending up due to high dollar claims, but the expected amount is unknown C Amounts are paid 1 month in arrears TES C%2� Budget to Actuals Report 911 - Fund 705 and 710 FY22 YTD December 31, 2021 (unaudited) 50.0% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2021 1 Fiscal Year 2022 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Property Taxes - Current Yr 9,113,459 9,350,147 103% 9,803,579 9,354,134 95% 9,809,150 100% 5,571 A Telephone User Tax 1,106,750 1,441,364 130% ; 1,106,750 454,281 41% 1,106,750 100% B Police RMS User Fees ! 250,000 390,879 156% ' 236,576 - 0% 236,576 100% C User Fee ! 73,000 110,978 152% ; 233,576 4,853 2% 233,576 100% e Data Network Reimbursement ! 55,000 96,896 176% 162,000 81,428 50% 162,000 100% - Contract Payments 157,252 136,638 87% a 147,956 18,250 12% 147,956 100% o Property Taxes - Prior Yr 90,000 152,893 170% = 115,000 53,692 47% 115,000 100% e Interest ! 90,400 110,233 122% 96,867 31,161 32% 60,290 62% (36,577); State Reimbursement ! 83,000 131,881 159% 60,000 15,000 25% 132,000 220% 72,000. D Property Taxes - Jefferson Co. 33,637 36,598 109% 38,344 34,760 91 % 38,344 100% Miscellaneous ! 12,200 121,920 999% 18,658 9,387 50% ! 18,658 100% TOTAL RESOURCES 11,064,698 12,080,426 109% ; 12,019,306 10,056,944 84% 12,060,300 100% ; 40,994: REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Personnel Services 7,620,458 7,190,545 94% 8,005,795 3,697,002 46% 7,256,956 91% 748,839a E Materials and Services ! 3,476,381 2,912,246 84% 3,557,212 1,808,473 51% ! 3,557,212 100% i Capital Outlay ! 11480,000 431,457 29% 3,000,000 91,827 3% 3,000,000 100% TOTAL REQUIREMENTS ; 12,576,839 10,534,248 84% 14,563,007 5,597,302 38% 13,814,168 95% 748,839: FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Beginning Fund Balance 8,341,418 9,162,894 110% 11,850,783 10,709,072 90% Resources over Requirements (1,512,141) 1,546,177 (2,543,701) 4,459,642 Net Transfers - In (Out) - - - r TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 6,$29,277 $ 10,709,072 157% ; $ 9,307,082 $ 15,168,714 163% Projection % $ Variance 10,709,072 90% 0,141,710 (1,753,868) ; 789,833! $ 8,955,204 96% ($351,878); A Current year taxes received primarily in November, February and May; actual FY21-22 TAV is 5.58% over FY20-21 vs. 5.40% budgeted B Telephone maintenance reimbursements are received in a lump sum by early spring C Invoices are mailed in the Spring D State GIS reimbursements are received quarterly; additionally the State approved a final reimbursement for the 9-1-1 phone system E Projected Personnel savings based on FY22 average vacancy rate of 10.3% `�vT E s coG 0 �� BOAR® OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING DATE: January 2, 2022 SUBJECT: Consideration of temporary double -fill Admin Support Technician FTE in preparation for retirement and to fulfill a succession planning opportunity within the Clerk's Office. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Consideration of upcoming Resolution temporary double fill Admin Support Technician 1.0 FTE. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The new hire would be an early replacement for a long-time employee (19+ years). Melodie Kirk will be retiring at the end of August 2022. The double -fill duration is expected to be approximately four months and will expire when Melodie retires. The new hire will receive critical training opportunities if recruited immediately, with the most valuable training occurring during the May primary election cycle. Learning the intricacies of our processes takes some time. Each election cycle provides critical training opportunities that cannot be replicated during non -election time. After the May election, late June, the new employee will benefit from learning the processes that occur outside of an election cycle. The Secretary of State's (SOS) office is working with a vendor to replace its current voter registration system. This system is the backbone of each county's election operations. SOS and vendor training will occur in early 2022 and continue until the system goes live in February 2023. Having the new employee onsite during this transition will allow them to learn the current software and the processes and procedures we have in place before the transition. They will also benefit from attending the State -sponsored training firsthand. The elevated level of work presents an opportunity to hire an employee to learn election best practices from current, experienced employees. As identified in previous budgets, succession planning is a high priority as senior staff prepares for their retirement. Creating this double -fill position captures the experience and knowledge of senior staff while preserving the continuity of business services and workload. BUDGET IMPACTS: This temporary double -fill position will cost approximately $26,000 in salary and benefits for FY2022, funded by expected payroll savings in the Clerk's office. This temporary position will be eliminated in August 2022 when Melodie Kirk retires, and the department will not see any increase in expected payroll costs. ATTENDANCE: Steve Dennison, County Clerk Michael Lui, Clerk/Elections Supervisor 01 E S coG 2� BARD OF now COMMISSIONERS awtv MEETING DATE: January 26, 2022 SUBJECT: Consideration of an additional Elections Admin Support Technician 1.0 FTE in order to meet increased demand within the Clerk's Office. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Consideration of upcoming Resolution adding Admin Support Technician 1.0 FTE. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: This new Administrative Support Technician position would primarily support Elections. It would add critical continuity that does not currently exist with our Elections team. If recruited immediately, the new hire will receive approximately four months of training before a long-time employee (of 19+ years) retires. The most valuable training will occur during the May primary election cycle. Learning the intricacies of our processes takes some time. Each election cycle provides critical training opportunities that cannot be replicated during non -election time. The Secretary of State's (SOS) office is working with a vendor to replace its current voter registration system. This system is the backbone of each county's election operations. SOS and vendor training will occur in early 2022 and continue until the system goes live in February 2023. Having the new employee onsite during this transition will allow them to learn the current software and the processes and procedures we have in place before the transition. They will also benefit from attending the State -sponsored training firsthand. Clerk's Office Staffing Levels IIJLUI IL. JLdI l 1119 ICVCIJ IICIVI= I clllanlcll %.VI IJIJLC_" uI Iu Irry .w�..a.�an....+. Historic Staffing Levels (23 Year Average = 9.3) Elections The Clerk's Office has experienced a 50% increase in voter registration in the last six years. Fifty thousand additional voters translate to added work keeping the voter rolls up to date. Over the past five years, Deschutes County Clerk's Office — Elections have managed more registered voters with fewer full-time employees than other comparably sized Counties throughout the state. While this displays a great deal of efficiency in the operations of elections within our office, it also represents a great deal of risk as there is not much back-up or contingency with regular staff. The table below shows the number of registered voters per FTE in Deschutes County and comparable Oregon counties. County FY 2016/17 Reg Voters/FTE FY 2017/18 Reg Voters/FTE FY 2018/19 Reg Voters/FTE FY 2019/20 Reg Voters/FTE FY 2020/21 Reg Voters/FTE Deschutes 63,137 66,031 69,002 71,645 75,530 Clackamas 54,815 56,796 58,360 59,753 61,266 Jackson 48,103 59,642 63,635 64,879 69,173 Lane 49,433 50,234 43,224 43,779 36,039 Marion 37,606 39,386 40,525 41,781 43,098 Our voter registration numbers translate to a higher volume of work for our regular election staff. We expect the current volume of work to continue to grow. The elevated level of work presents an opportunity to hire an employee to learn election best practices from current, experienced employees. As identified in previous budgets, succession planning is a high priority as senior staff prepares for their retirement. Adding this position captures the experience and knowledge of senior staff while preserving the continuity of business services and workload. BUDGET IMPACTS: This new position will cost approximately $26,000 in salary and benefits for FY2022, funded by expected payroll savings in the Clerk's office. The additional salary and benefits for an added position in FY2023 are expected to be approximately $80,000. ATTENDANCE: Steve Dennison, County Clerk Michael Lui, Clerk/Elections Supervisor BOARD " OF 11 'h' MEETING DATE: Wednesday, January 246 2022 SUBJECT: Preparation for Public Hearing: Dave Swisher Plan Amendment and Zone Change RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move approval of the Hearings Officer's recommendation for approval of file nos. 247-21- 000616- PA, 617-ZC pursuant to DCC 22,28.030 BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Staff will provide background and prepare the Board for a Public Hearing on February 2, 2022 to consider a request for a Plan Amendment and Zone Change (file nos. 247-21-000616-PA, 617-ZQ for two (2) 40-acre properties to the East of the City of Bend, submitted by Dave Swisher. BUDGET IMPACTS: None ATTENDANCE: Kyle Collins, Associate Planner MEMORANDUM TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (Board) FROM: Kyle Collins, Associate Planner DATE: January 18, 2022 SUBJECT: Dave Swisher Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change - Work Session The Board of County Commissioners (Board) is conducting a work session on January 24, 2022 in preparation for a public hearing on February 2, 2022, to consider a request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change (file nos. 247-21-000616-PA, 617-ZC) for two (2) 40-acre properties located on Abbey Road, approximately 1.3 miles east of the City of Bend. 1. BACKGROUND The applicant, Dave Swisher, is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to re -designate the subject properties from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area and a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the properties from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10). The applicant's reasoning for the request is that the properties were mistakenly identified as farmland, do not contain high -value soils or other characteristics of high value farmland, and therefore should be re -designated and rezoned for residential use. The applicant has provided a supplementary soil study that identifies non -high value soils on a majority (-96%) of the subject properties. Additionally, the applicant has provided findings within the burden of proof that demonstrate compliance with state and local requirements and policies. 11. PUBLIC COMMENTS Staff received two (2) public comments from neighboring property owners and residents located within the surrounding area of the subject properties. These comments expressed concern and opposition related to growth management impacts, wildlife concerns, open space values, traffic impacts along Abbey Road and Butler Market Road, property value impacts, and impacts to irrigation water sources and availability. Additionally, staff received two (2) public comments from Central Oregon LanclWatch (COLW) and 1000 Friends of Oregon. These comments expressed concern and opposition regarding growth management impacts, loss of productive farmland and wildlife habitat, and the viability/accuracy of the supplementary soils report. III. HEARINGS OFFICER RECOMMENDATION The Deschutes County Hearings Officer held a public hearing on September 21, 2021. Two (2) individuals (Sue Conrad, a neighboring property owner, and Carol Macbeth, a representative of COLW) stated their opposition to the subject application and concerns regarding growth management, the perceived loss of productive farmland, the viability/accuracy of the supplementary soils report, wildlife habitat impacts, and traffic impacts along neighboring rights of way. On November 24, 2021, the Hearings Officer issued a recommendation of approval for the proposed Plan Amendment and Zone Change. IV. BOARD CONSIDERATION As the property includes lands designated for agricultural use, Deschutes County Code 22.28.030(C) requires the application to be heard de novo before the Board, regardless of the determination of the Hearings Officer. The record is available for inspection at the Planning Division and at the following link: https•//www deschutes org/cd/page/247-21-000616-pa617-zc-applicant-initiated-plan- amendment-and-zone-change. Moreover, the complete record will be available at the public hearing. V. NEXT STEPS The Board will hold a public hearing on February 2, 2022. Additionally, staff notes that the Board is currently reviewing another Plan Amendment and Zone Change application (file nos. 247-21-000400- PA, 401-ZC). The Board's final decision on this matter may have some effect on the Ordinance exhibits attached to this memo. Staff will make any necessary corrections to these materials prior to the upcoming public hearing. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Area Map 2. Draft Ordinance 2022-003 and Exhibits Exhibit A: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Exhibit B: Comprehensive Plan Section 23.01.010, Introduction Exhibit C: Comprehensive Plan Section 5.12, Legislative History Exhibit D: Hearings Officer Decision 247-21-000616-PA, 617-ZC Exhibit E: Legal Description 3. Draft Ordinance 2022-004 and Exhibits Exhibit A: Proposed Zoning Map Exhibit B: Legal Description Page 2 of 2 247-21-000616-PA, 617-ZC IREPINE DR REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Ordinance Amending Deschutes County Code Title 18, the Deschutes County Zoning Map, to * ORDINANCE NO. 2022-004 Change the Zone Designation for Certain Property From Exclusive Farm Use to Multiple Use Agricultural. WHEREAS, Dave Swisher applied for a Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map and Deschutes County Zoning Map change, to rezone certain property from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA10); and WHEREAS, after notice was give in accordance with applicable law, a public hearing was held on September 21, 2021 before the Deschutes County Hearings Officer and, on November 24, 2021 the Hearings Officer recommended approval of the comprehensive plan map and zone change; and WHEREAS, on this same date, the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") adopted Ordinance 2022-003 amending DCC Title 23, changing the plan designation of the property from Agriculture (AG) to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA); and WHEREAS, a change to the Deschutes County Zoning Map is necessary to implement the amendment adopted in Ordinance WHEREAS, because no appeal was filed of Ordinance 2022-004 and the Board did not initiate review of the application, pursuant to DCC 22.28.030(B), the Board must approve this zone change, which changes the zone to conform to the newly adopted plan amendment; NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. AMENDMENT. DCC Title 18, Zoning Map, is amended to change the zone designation from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA) for certain property described in Exhibit "B" and depicted on the map set forth as Exhibit "A", with both exhibits attached and incorporated by reference herein. Section 2. FINDINGS. The Board adopts as its findings in support of this decision, the Decision of the Hearings Officer, attached to Ordinance 2022-003 as Exhibit "D", and incorporated by reference herein. PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO.2022-004 Dated this of , 2022 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ATTEST: Recording Secretary Date of I s` Reading: Date of 2" `' Reading: PATTI ADAIR, Chair ANTHONY DeBONE, Vice Chair PHIL CHANG, Commissioner day of , 2022. day of , 2022. Record of Adoption Vote: Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused Patti Adair Anthony DeBone Phil Chang Effective date: day of , 2022. PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO.2022-004 EFUAL EF.,UTRB Zone Change from EFU Tumalo/Redmond/Bend (EFUTRB) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA10) Taxlot 17-13-18-00-00600 0 m Taxlot 17-13-18-00-00100 Q z J PARKERLN_ .Z EFUTRB w uJ a MUA10 � MUA10 u7 J N BUTLER.MARKET_RD 7777 Lu EFUTRB ` o z KEVIN DR DOUGLAS.LN—p Legend Proposed Zone Change Boundary Zoning EFUAL -Alfalfa Subzone EFUTRB - Tumalo/Redmond/Bend Subzone PROPOSED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ZONING MAP Exhibit "A" to Ordinance 2022-004 Patti Adair, Chair Tony DeBone, Vice Chair Phil Chang, Commissioner ATTEST: Recording Secretary MUA10 - Multiple Use Agricultural 0 400 800 1,600 Feet January 12, 2022 Dated this day of , 2022 Effective Date: , 2022 Exhibit "B" Legal Description A parcel of land situated in the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NEI/4 SW1/4) and the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SEI/4 NW'/4), Section Eighteen (18), Township Seventeen (17) South, Range Thirteen (13) East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon. EXHIBIT B TO ORDINANCE 2022-004 E S rJ < MEETING DATE: January 216, 2022 SUBJECT: Consideration of County Administrator Signature on Remote Work Policy RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move approval of County Administrator Signature on Remote Work Policy BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, many County employees have been working remotely under the County's "Interim Remote Work Guidelines - COVID 19." When the pandemic subsides, County departments would like to continue the option of remote work for certain positions. Attached is a draft "Remote Work Policy" and the State of Oregon's "Compensable Travel Time While Working Remotely" guidelines which is referenced in the policy. BUDGET IMPACTS: None. ATTENDANCE: Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE DASS E R V I C E S CHIEF HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICE Compensable Travel Time while Working Remotely December 2020 Answer: "Workday" means the time worked between your scheduled start and stop times, as approved by management. Answer: Mileage reimbursement is paid according to the Oregon Accounting Manual. Answer: No, travel time that begins after your workday is not compensable. Answer: Travel time that occurs prior to the start of the workday is not compensable. If the drive back home occurs after the start time of 8:30 am, you will be compensated for your time during the drive home. Answer: Yes, travel time which occurs during the workday is compensable and considered a part of your work day. Answer: Yes, provided the drive time to the meeting occurs at 8:00 am or after. Travel time which occurs during the workday is compensable. Answer: Travel time which begins prior to the workday is not compensable. However, travel time back home after the meeting is compensable, because it occurs during the workday. Answer: Travel time which begins prior to the end of the workday is compensable. However, travel home after the end of the workday is not compensable. Updated 12/7/2020 DEPARTMENT OF Compensable Travel Time while Working ADMINISTRATIVE DASS Remotely CHIEF HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICE December 2020 Answer: Yes, time spent in the office performing work, which includes gathering of materials, is compensable. rr to gel pr�"�g +rgtta into? Answer: Yes, going into the office is at the approval of your manager. Your manager may need to adjust your work schedule or workday so no overtime is accrued. Answer: Yes, your manager can choose when to allow you to come to the office. This is especially important during the public health emergency when the number of employees in a workspace may be limited. Answer: Yes, your manager may require you to come to the office at the beginning or end of your workday in order to minimize overtime. Updated 12/7/2020 DESCHUTES TY ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY No® DRAFT EFFECTIVE DATE: TEED REMOTE WORK PROGRAM - **draft 1-19-22** A. STATEMENT OF POLICY Deschutes County is dedicated to its mission: Enhancing the lives of citizens by delivering quality services in a cost-effective manner. Deschutes County may implement its mission by allowing flexible work opportunities where appropriate. Flexible work opportunities may include a variety of options, including remote work. This policy provides departments a framework to implement remote work as a personnel management, recruitment and retention tool while ensuring employees performing remote work maintain or increase performance standards and service levels. Individual departments (upon the recommendation of the department head and the approval of the County Administrator) or offices of elected officials may opt out of this policy. B. PURPOSE This policy contains guidelines and requirements for Deschutes County's Remote Work Program. The requirements apply only to employees in departments participating in the Remote Work Program and are intended to: • Meet productivity expectations. • Reduce office space, facility, parking, and related needs and expenses. • Provide flexible work opportunities. • Decrease traffic congestion and impacts on County infrastructure. • Serve as a benefit to the department and the population served. • Not serve as an employee guaranteed benefit or right. C. DEFINITIONS 1. Remote Work -a work flexibility arrangement under which an employee performs the duties and responsibilities of their position, and other authorized activities, from an approved worksite other than the location from which the employee would otherwise work. a. Hybrid Work - when an employee is performing work from both on -site and remotely from an approved worksite other than the regular assigned work location for the position. b. Fully Remote Work - when an employee is performing more than 75% of their work from an approved (non -County) worksite other than the regularly assigned work location for the position. If working under this category, the employee's primary work location becomes a non -County location. 11Page D. RESPONSIBILITY Employees who work remotely are responsible for adhering to all expectations outlined below. Supervisors are responsible for determining whether an employee is eligible to participate based on criteria outlined in this policy. Further, supervisors are responsible for implementing this policy consistently and with robust oversight and accountability, including monitoring remote work effectiveness and measuring performance. E. LOCATION OF REMOTE WORK AND IMPACT ON COMMUTE/TRAVEL For a fully remote employee, the employee's primary work location changes (and will likely be their residence). As a result, fully remote work is only allowed if the employee's remote work location is located in Central Oregon (unless approved in advance by the County Administrator - see section 2 below). 1. Remote work options from within Central Oregon a. Hybrid remote work does not change the employee's assigned County work location. Travel time from the employee's remote work location to their assigned County location will be considered commute time and not compensated by the County. b. Fully remote work - changes the employee's assigned work location. When business needs require the employee to work from or report to another location, the employee must be compensated for travel time in accordance with FLSA - in general, this means that travel time to and from their assigned work location (which will likely be their residence) as a part of their regular work duties is considered work time unless the travel is outside the employee's regular schedule. Deschutes County will follow the State of Oregon "Compensable Travel Time While Working Remotely" guidelines. Travel time during regularly scheduled work hours is considered work time and may also include mileage reimbursement (or the use of a County vehicle). Therefore, when required to come into the County workplace to perform work, the employee shall make every effort to travel to the County workplace during non-scheduled work time. 2. Remote work from outside Central Oregon is eligible under the following conditions: a. It is temporary (a maximum of 14 days per occurrence) and approved by the Department Director. b. Special circumstances requiring a duration longer than 14 days must be approved in advance by the County Administrator. c. Remote work from outside Central Oregon shall never result in the employee's work location becoming a location outside Central Oregon unless explicitly approved in advance by the County Administrator. Establishing a work location outside Central Oregon would result in complications with paying the employee for travel time when coming to a County office/facility. 2 1 P a g e The requirements in this section are intended to prevent an employee working outside the State of Oregon becoming an employee of another state. Deschutes County is not set up to be a multi -state employer. d. The decision and approval will be based on the employee's work duties, whether they can be satisfactorily fulfilled at that distance, and any impact on clients/customers. e. In general, additional costs incurred for the employee to work remote is the responsibility of the employee. F. ELIGIBILITY Not all positions are suited for participation in the program, such as customer facing positions. If the employee is sick and unable to function at full productivity, remote work is not permissible and is not a substitute for using Time Management Leave or Sick Leave. Employees may be eligible to participate in the program based on criteria outlined below. Participation in this program is at the County's sole discretion and may be modified or revoked at any time. Employees must meet all the following to be eligible for participation in the program, unless granted an exception by the Department Director after consultation with H R: 1. Duties must be completed as efficiently, or more efficiently, than at the primary onsite location. 2. Participation must not lower the level of service delivery for the participant's work unit, including taking into account the impact on teamwork and morale. 3. The employee must have adequate job knowledge to work independently or remotely. 4. An overall rating of "Meets Expectations" or higher on most recent evaluation, if applicable. 5. No formal discipline within the last 12 months (written reprimand or higher). Potential remote work situations that require careful review: 1. If an employee has a mild illness (for example, a mild cold or mild cough) or is recovering from a short-term medical condition, and is still able to work at full capacity, remote work is an option. 2. Remote work is not a substitute for childcare or other dependent/family care. Employees shall make or maintain childcare arrangements to permit concentration on work assignments. However, in limited situations, remote work may be approved to allow the employee to be at home with a sick child or to allow for dependent/family care, such as: a. The child or dependent/family member under care needs little or no direct care. The purpose of the employee working remotely is for the employee to be able to respond to an unlikely emergency event 3 1 P a g e (examples: a dependent care arrangement where the employee works remotely to attend to an emergency situation should it arise, a child is recovering from a surgery and is sleeping most of the time, an older child is sick but does not require much direct care). b. The employee will only record and report time worked. There is another care giver at home. While performing remote work, the employee is expected to devote the same degree of time and attention to work as when the employee is at their County worksite. Meeting the above criteria does not guarantee approval for participation; final approval is subject to supervisor/manager discretion. Depending on the criteria in this policy, an employee may be determined to be: 1. Eligible for remote work on a part-time basis or intermittently. 2. Eligible for remote work on a regular schedule. 3. Not eligible for remote work. G. REMOTE WORK EXPECTATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT While performing remote work, the employee must adhere to the following expectations: 1. Continue working their regular set schedule unless the employee receives supervisory approval to change their schedule. 2. Seamlessly and completely be accessible via standard County phone and email systems during working hours. 3. The employee takes full responsibility for the technology required to complete their job remotely. If the technology does not work, the employee will be required to fix the problem without any loss of work time, or take TML or other available leave for any time loss associated with the remote technology barrier. 4. The employee will be required to use TML or other approved leave if the employee is otherwise unable to perform their job from a remote location. Participants must have an adequate work environment that: 1. is free from distractions. 2. Has adequate office furniture and office equipment provided by the employee. 3. Contains a secure, reliable internet connection with sufficient bandwidth to perform duties at the employee's cost. 4. Provides adequate auditory confidentiality if work requires it. 5. Is maintained in a safe condition, free from hazards to employee and equipment. 4 1 P a g e 6. If needed, is modified to meet work safety requirements, (i.e., if modified workstation is required at the primary worksite, remote working environment should be similarly modified). 7. Meets the ergonomic needs of the employee. In general, the participant will be responsible for most/all costs associated with meeting the above requirements, including setup of designated workspace, as well as ongoing costs related to connectivity, printing, scanning, and/or other equipment necessary. There may be special situations where a department allows the employee to use County furniture/property for remote work. If significant county -funded supplies are required to perform work duties, such as a specialized scanner, this would constitute a need for the employee to perform those duties on -site. Employee understands that all equipment, records, and materials provided by the County shall remain the property of the County. County -owned equipment and software shall be used exclusively by the employee and for the purpose of conducting County business. Software shall not be duplicated. Employee agrees to report to employee's supervisor any incidents of loss, damage, or unauthorized access as soon as possible. H. INFORMATION SECURITY Employee agrees to protect County -owned equipment, records, and materials from unauthorized or accidental access, use, modification, destruction, or disclosure. This includes protecting equipment when traveling to/from County facilities. The precautions described in this agreement apply regardless of the storage media on which information is maintained, the locations where the information is stored, the systems used to process the information, or the process by which the information is stored. Participants will be held accountable for securing information by taking measures to safeguard information in accordance with confidentiality, HIPAA and privacy rules. At all times, employees shall adhere to all provisions of Administrative Policy No. IT-1, "Computer, E-mail and Mobile Computing Device Use." I. PROCESS AND EVALUATION Supervisors are responsible to ensure that an employee performing remote work has clear and documented productivity expectations and that the employee is meeting these expectations. Supervisors may require additional actions by employee to verify work time. Here are factors a supervisor may consider to help determine appropriate amount/frequency of remote time: 1. Quantify tasks that are appropriate for remote work, and consider frequency and distribution (e.g. half a day once a week compared to a full day every other week). 5 1 P a g e 2. Impact on clients and customers. 3. Availability to attend meetings in -person (e.g. if most meetings are Tuesday/Wednesdays, schedule Thursdays as a remote day). Clearly communicate to staff that regularly scheduled remote time may be "bumped" if a need for an in -person meeting arises. 4. Impact on internal/external partners: feedback from others will inform whether the amount of time is working well (e.g., if feedback is received that the person is less available for consult or lacking timely follow up, remote time may be decreased, redistributed, or eliminated). 5. Adjustments depending on workload (e.g. a decrease in independent tasks may result in decreasing remote time; a special project with a hard deadline that necessitates independent concentration may result in approval of additional remote time). K. PROGRAM AGREEMENT Upon approval based on the criteria contained in this policy, staff will enter into a Remote Work Program Agreement (attached - HR WILL DEVELOP AFTER THE POLICY IS APPROVED). The agreement will be signed by the employee, supervisor, and department director. Remote work may be on an as -needed basis, or regularly scheduled. The agreement will include: 1. Time period approved for remote work (frequency and duration, including an end date of no more than one year, noting that it may be reviewed throughout the period and may be terminated at the County's sole discretion). 2. Type of remote work. 3. The specific site(s) approved for remote work. The standard approval process is for remote work sites within Central Oregon. 4. A statement that the duties, obligations, and responsibilities of the participant's employment with the County remain unchanged. 5. An explanation how the remote work arrangement will affect the operations and impact the employee's productivity. 6. An explanation on how productivity will be measured/reported and how the employee will be available to supervisors, co-workers and customers. 7. A statement that the participant's salary, benefits, retirement, and County - sponsored insurance remain unchanged. 8. A statement that participants remain obligated to comply with all County, State, and Federal laws and rules, and policies, including the County's Code of Ethics and the Fair Labor Standards Act. 9. A statement that the violation of any of the above or the misuse of County time, data, or equipment may result in disciplinary action. 6 1 P a g e 10. A list of County owned items (such as laptop, mouse, etc.) that will be at the remote location. 11. Signature of employee, supervisor, manager, and department head (if required per this policy). 12. A designation whether the request is for hybrid remote work or fully remote work. If fully remote work, a listing of the employee's primary work location which will not be a County location. Approved by the Board of County Commissioners [DATE]. Nick Lelack County Administrator 7 1 P a g e Commissioner Adair will begin the presentation Commissioner Adair (1 min) Patti Adair Tony DeBone Commissioner Adair (2 mins) Commissioner DeBone (2 mins) Commissioner Chang (2 mins) Phil Chang Morgan will press play for the video (3 minutes) 5 Commissioner Chang (4 minutes) Ce Boards & Commissions Commissioner Chang • Bend Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) • Deschutes County Boards & Commissions Commissioner DeBone 4 _ • 9-1-1 User. Roprd L 0son Y • Central Oregon Coering Committee • Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council (COIL) -Alternate • Deschutes County Historical Society; • Deschutes County Public Safety Coordinating Council R= • East Cascades Works d, • Sunriver - La, Pine Economic development Committee *--A dmondAirportEra mission - Redmond- omWDevelop Menl tnc_r .m L . • State Interoperability Executive Council (SEIC) - Governor's "s`> appo�ntnn nt Boards & Commissions Commissioner Adair • Association of Oregon Counties - Legislative Committee, District 2 Delegate • Central Oregon Health Council • Central Oregon Area Commission on Transportation - Chair • Central Oregon Regional Solutions Advisory Committee • Central Oregon Visitors" Association (COVA) 4, �- •Deschutes County Audit Committee • Deschutes County Behavioral Health Advisory Committee liaison • Deschutes County Fair A"g,,JatJo�n �. ~ . EconomicDevelopment Advisory -Co "ittee -Sisters'' • Hospital Facility Authority Board Project Wildfire •Sisters Vision im pIementatson Yearn` )IL •Sisters Park & ftecre'ation District -Budget Committee L� o� < -:_,.. • �5t �riy, r C,iamber of Commerce,,,,, .- Commissioner Adair (4 mins) Draft Talking Points: Area: 3,055 square miles r a �: i. ram_ _ _4__ �n snnn_ L--sta lis ICU. Deco I be 1 J, 1 y 1 U More than 75% of land is Federally owned Just over 2% of land falls into Incorporated Cities The County has jurisdiction over 21.7% of land in County ® When Oregon became a state in 1859, area that is DC was part of Wasco County Prineville was the county seat. In 1882, Central Oregon seceded from Wasco county forming Crook County. Deschutes County created from the western portion of Crook County on December 13, 1915. ® County offices were first located in two rooms of the O'Kane building (corner of Oregon and Bond Street). ® County Judge and two commissioners until 1971, replaced by a 3rd commissioner. • 4 cities • Rural Communities — comprised primarily of permanent residential dwellings and contain commercial, industrial and public land (Terrebone, Tumalo). • One urban unincorporated community, at least 150 permanent residential dwellings, have 3 or more land uses, and served by community sewer and water systems (Sunriver). • Resort Communities (generally established and used for recreation or resort purposes): Black Butte Ranch, Inn of the 7t" Mountain, Widgi Creek. • Destination Resorts: self contained developments, visitor accommodations and recreation. Caldera Springs, Eagle Crest, Pronghorn, Tetherow. • Rural Service Centers (unincorporated communities mostly commercial or industrial uses): Alfalfa, Milican, Brothers, Hampton, and Whisltestop (few miles NW of La Pine), and Wildhunt (SW of La Pine). Commissioner DeBone - Elected officials (1 min) Commissioner Adair - County Administrator departments (3 mins) Commissioner Chang - Deputy County Administrator departments (3 mins) Commissioner DeBone (1 min) 12 a � a s � Y M � �ry W Q� Not Tonics • COVID-19: Response and Recovery • Solid Waste: Planning for the future • Managing growth • Employee retention and recruitment • Wildfire Mitigation • Legislative Priorities • FY 2023 Budget Planning what is a hot topic for you? 15