Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2023-340-Minutes for Meeting September 27,2023 Recorded 10/24/2023
Ov1 ES CO G2� BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon (541) 388-6570 Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2023-340 Steve Dennison, County Clerk Commissioners' .journal 10/24/2023 11:26:45 AM (✓ ` �S `o��' II' I I ��III'I� II I I� I I �I �I � I II �I� a ` 2023-340 BOCC MEETING MINUTES 9:00 AM WEDNESDAY September 27, 2023 Barnes Sawyer Rooms Live Streamed Video Present were Commissioners Tony DeBone, Patti Adair and Phil Chang. Also present were County Administrator Nick Lelack; Assistant County Counsel Kim Riley; and BOCC Executive Assistant Brenda Fritsvold. 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 DeBone called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZEN INPUT: • Tony Aceti objected to receiving notices of Code violations which he believed were based on complaints from someone at the County, not any of his neighbors. Saying that others also have unsafe access off of Highway 97, he stated his belief that the way he is using his land is allowed. He offered to meet with Code enforcement staff and asked that these two notices of violation be rescinded. CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was Consideration of the Consent Agenda. 1. Approval of a lease with Saving Grace to operate the Marys Place supervised visitation program and the Saving Grace courthouse advocacy project BOCC MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2023 PAGE 1 OF 10 2. Approval of Revocable License with Trenton Wayne LLC dba 97 Cafe to operate 97 Cafe located in the Deschutes Services Building 3. Resolution No. 2023-056, increasing 0.2 regular duration FTE within the Health Services Department prescribing an affective ,late (see below and page 8) 5. Approval of Order 2023-040 concerning appointments to the 2023 Board of Property Tax Appeals 6. Consideration of Board Signature on letters reappointing Jo Ellen Zucker, Michael Simpson and Michael Walker, and appointing Frances Harder, Matthew Latimer, Brian Ricker, Peggy O'Donnell and Robert James Horvat, Jr., to the Deschutes County Board of Property Tax Appeals 7. Consideration of Board Signature on letters thanking James Sinasek and Mara Stein, for their service on the Deschutes County Board of Property Tax Appeals 8. Approval of minutes of the BOCC August 23 and 28, 2023 meetings ADAIR: Move approval of the Consent Agenda with the exception of item #4, which will be taken up later in conjunction with related agenda item #18 CHANG: Second VOTE: ADAI R: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried ACTION ITEMS: 9. Presentation of 25-year service award to Kevin Furlong, IT Operations Manager Tania Mahood, IT Director, presented a 25-year service award to Kevin Furlong, IT Operations Manager, describing him as a dedicated and extremely hard worker who leads his team by example. BOCC MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2023 PAGE 2 OF 10 10. Public Hearing and Resolution amending the Deschutes County 2023-2024 Fee Schedule to add new fees in the Community Development Department Sherri Pinner, Senior Management Analyst, reviewed four new fees proposed to be collected by the Community Development Department (CDD), as follows: ■ Petition to incorporate $13,802 ■ Recreational Vehicle/RV used for residential purposes $730 ■ Road vacation without public hearing $1,500 ■ Road vacation with public hearing $3,000 Pinner said if approved, management of the road vacation process would transfer from the Road Department to CDD simultaneously with these fee adoptions. Responding to Commissioner Adair, Will Groves, Planning Manager, said CDD does not currently assess a fee to process an incorporation petition, which requires a significant amount of staff time. Assistant County Counsel Kim Riley confirmed that this fee would apply only to future petitions and not to the request for reconsideration of the Mountain View incorporation petition. In response to Commissioner Chang, Groves said the current fees for road vacations do not cover the staff time it takes to process these. The public hearing was opened at 9:21 am. Cody Smith, County Engineer/Assistant Road Director, said the Road Department will remain involved in assessing requests for road vacations, while CDD will issue the public notices and assume responsibility for other necessary procedures. There being no one who wished to testify, the public hearing was closed at 9:24 am. Commissioner DeBone noted that all of the proposed fees include indirect payments to the Legal Department to cover review and guidance costs. CHANG: Move approval of Resolution 2023-052 amending the Deschutes County 2023-2024 Fee Schedule to adopt new fees and revise fee descriptions in the Community Development Department ADAIR: Second VOTE: ADAIR: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried BOCC MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2023 PAGE 3 OF 10 11. Consideration of Approval for Road Department Submittal of ODOT Local Bridge Program Cody Smith, County Engineer/Assistant Road Director, said applications for bridge project funding under ODOT's Local Bridge Program are due on October 16th. Staff recommends submitting four applications for the following bridge rehabilitation projects: 1. Spring River Road (Harpers) Bridge -estimated total cost $1,131,000 2. South Century Road Bridge - estimated total cost $2,533,000 3. Sisemore Road Bridge -estimated total cost $818,000 4. Cottonwood Road Bridge -estimated total cost $2,400,000 Smith said at least 10% of the available funding must be assigned to Region 4 which includes other counties in addition to Deschutes County. ADAIR: Move approval of the submittal of ODOT Local Bridge Program applications for four bridge rehabilitation projects as described CHANG: Second VOTE: ADAI R: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 12. Request for approval of two grant proposals for the Central Oregon Landscape Resiliency Project and a Community Wildfire Defense Grant Kevin Moriarty, County Forester, sought authorization to submit for a Central Oregon Landscape Resiliency Project grant and a Community Wildfire Defense grant. For the Landscape Resiliency Project, which is administered by the Oregon Department of Forestry, the County would request $1.25 million in funding for two private landowners, one community (Squaw Creek Estates) and 1,639 acres owned by Deschutes County for a total of 2,274 acres of treatment. The required 25% match would come from US Forest Service Wildfire Crisis Strategy funding and, if needed, up to $960,000 from the Bureau of Land Management. Commissioner DeBone asked who will do the work under this grant. Moriarty said the County will solicit for contractors and manage the contracts. Commissioner Chang asked for a map of all of the project sites as well as a map showing completed projects from the most recent grant cycle. Continuing, Moriarty said for the Community Wildfire Defense grant, the County would request $348,000 to increase the pace and scale of vegetation management on rights of way along County roads, especially in the La Pine area. BOCC MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2023 PAGE 4 OF 10 Funding would be used for contractual services and a new masticator head for brush removal. The Road Department would provide in -kind matching funds of $100,000 per year over five years by conducting brush mowing and herbicide treatments in conjunction with fuels removal along roads identified by the project. At Commissioner DeBone's request, Chris Doty, Road Director, reviewed the map showing areas to be treated. Doty noted that every road to be treated is a potential wildfire evacuation route. Moriarty said follow-up treatments would include the application of herbicide to control future vegetation growth. Commissioner Chang asked if the rights of way are of sufficient width to serve as fuel breaks. Moriarty said they likely are not, but the intention is to ensure that the roads can be utilized for emergency response and evacuation. CHANG: Move approval of the submittal of proposals for a Central Oregon Landscape Resiliency Project Grant and a Community Wildfire Defense Grant ADAIR: Second VOTE: ADAI R: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried Commissioner DeBone referred to a request seeking a letter of support to establish a biomass facility in Prineville. Commissioner Adair supported issuing the letter as requested. Commissioner Chang was hesitant to provide broad -blanket support, explaining his concern that it could render the County less able to conduct wildfire risk resilience work on as many acres as it otherwise could. Saying that biomass facilities are low in efficiency, he supported considering the amount of carbon emissions created per energy unit produced and favored limiting any letters of support to case -by -case funding opportunities. Commissioner DeBone asked County Forester Moriarty to look into this proposal and bring it back for further discussion and consideration by the Board. 13. Consideration to hear an appeal of the Hearings Officer's decision approving land use applications for the Redmond Water Pollution Control Facility Effluent and Biosolids Disposal Complex BOCC MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2023 PAGE 5 OF 10 Haleigh King, Associate Planner, stated that as this appeal has been withdrawn, the Hearings Officer's decision will stand and constitute the County's final decision on this matter. 14. Consideration of Document No. 2023-880 rendering a final County decision approving a Conditional Use Permit to establish a manufactured home as a secondary accessory farm dwelling at 19825 Connarn Road Haleigh King, Associate Planner, reviewed that following the public hearing on August 91", the Board reversed the Hearings Officer's decision in this matter and approved the application for a conditional use permit for this use. Commissioner Chang recalled discussion regarding the possibility of setting a precedent with this decision. King replied that the County does not receive these applications with regularity, the most recent before this one having been submitted in the early 1990s. She noted staffs belief that the intent of the Code is to allow Class A and Class B mobile homes as secondary accessory farm dwellings and not limit these to Class C mobile homes. ADAIR: Move approval of Board Signature of Document No. 2023-880 rendering a final County decision on File Nos. 247-23-000162-CU, 516-A approving a Conditional Use Permit to establish a manufactured home as a secondary accessory farm dwelling at 19825 Connarn Road, Bend CHANG: Second VOTE: ADAI R: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 15. Deschutes County Adult Parole and Probation Community Corrections Plan and receipt of Grant in Aid funding from the Department of Corrections Deevy Holcomb, Community Justice Director, presented the 2023-2025 Community Corrections Plan prepared by the Adult Parole & Probation Division to identify services provided and resources used, including funding from the Oregon Department of Corrections. Holcomb answered questions from the Commissioners and said the County will ask the State Legislature for $16 million to avoid cuts in crucial staffing and programming and to build back needed services to achieve behavioral change in clientele. BOCC MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2023 PAGE 6 OF 10 Discussion ensued that Community Justice does not receive Behavioral Health Resource Network (BHRN) funding from Measure 110 revenues, and how that might be facilitated. ADAI R: Move approval of the 2023-2025 Deschutes County Community Corrections Plan CHANG: Second VOTE: ADAI R: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried CHANG: Move approval of Chair Signature of Document No. 2023-888, an intergovernmental agreement with the Department of Corrections to receive Grant in Aid funding ADAI R: Second VOTE: ADAI R: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 16. Treasury Report for August 2023 Bill Kuhn, County Treasurer, presented the Treasury Report for August 2023, noting current economic indicators and projected impacts of continued inflation and high interest rates. 17. Finance Report for August 2023 Robert Tintle, Chief Financial Officer, presented the Finance Report for August 2023. Commissioner Adair inquired about the dramatic change in the "Resources over Requirements" line of the fund balance section of Health Services Fund 274 between May 2023 and June 2023. In May, this amount was $3,110,517 and in June, it jumped to $8,110,517. Commissioner Adair noted this $5,000,000 change was not explained in a footnote. Tintle said higher expenditures resulted in the need to use reserves, which were allocated from the fund balance. He said this particular $5,000,000 adjustment went through the public budget process earlier this year and was referenced in a budget resolution. BOCC MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2023 PAGE 7 OF 10 4. Approval of Order No. 2023-037 denying the petition for incorporation of the proposed City of Mountain View and adopting findings and conclusions and prescribing an effective date ADAI R: Move approval of Order No. 2023-037 denying the petition for incorporation of the proposed City of Mountain View and adopting findings and conclusions and prescribing an effective date CHANG: Second VOTE: ADAI R: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 18. Request for reconsideration of Mountain View petition to incorporate Stephanie Marshall, Assistant Legal Counsel, spoke to the request for reconsideration of the Mountain View petition to incorporate which was received subsequent to the Board's action last week to deny the petition. Marshall said although there is no provision in County Code which allows the Board to reconsider its denial of the petition, any party can appeal the Board's decision to LU BA. Noting that no name was associated with the request for reconsideration, Commissioner DeBone expressed appreciation for the great deal of work and research evident in the request, which includes information on the history and timeline of La Pine's incorporation. Commissioner Chang acknowledged that the request for reconsideration asked that the Board initiate a special district process for this area. County Counsel Dave Doyle said standalone districts such as the Terrebonne Sanitary District operate independently and autonomously of the Board and County. CHANG: Move approval of Order No. 2023-041, denying a request for reconsideration of the petition for incorporation of the proposed City of Mountain View ADAI R: Second VOTE: ADAI R: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried BOCC MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2023 PAGE 8 OF 10 Commissioner Chang supported exploring opportunities to improve service delivery to residents of this area. OTHER ITEMS: • Commissioner Chang reported on the meeting of the Wolf Depredation Compensation and Financial Assistance Committee the previous evening which included discussion of applying for state funding for compensation requests and prevention projects. • Commissioner Chang helped organize a tour for Representative Khanh Pham, who serves on the State Legislature's joint Ways & Means Committee, to view forest restoration activities. • Commissioner DeBone said the draft Wildfire Hazard maps were discussed at last week's AOC District 2 meeting in Klamath Falls. • Commissioner Adair noted the Board will not meet on October 2na • Commissioner Adair reported efforts to gather names of those who have experienced property damage from elk activities. • Commissioner DeBone relayed a request from the Eastern Oregon Counties Association (EOCA) that Deschutes County renew its membership in this organization and stated his support for this request at the general membership level of $12,500. Commissioner Chang said he did not understand the value of this investment, especially as the Association of Oregon Counties represents state counties collectively and AOC's board includes persons who represent eastern counties. ADAIR: Move to approve the payment of Eastern Oregon Counties Association dues at the general annual membership level of $12,500 DEBONE: Second VOTE: ADAIR: Yes CHANG: No DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 2 - 1 • Commissioner DeBone reported forwarding an email to County Administrator Lelack from Representative Mannix seeking the completion of a survey on museums and historical societies. • Commissioner DeBone stated his inability to attend the Oasis Village groundbreaking event on October 3rd as he had previously committed to a tour in Madras associated with the Oregon Business and Industry Manufacturing Road Show. BOCC MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2023 PAGE 9 OF 10 County Administrator Nick Lelack presented a draft letter of support to the Department of Land Conservation and Development on behalf of the City of La Pine's application for a technical assistance grant. ADAIR: Move approval of a letter supporting La Pine's application for a technical assistance grant from the Department of Land Conservation and Development CHANG: Second VOTE: ADAI R: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried County Administrator Lelack reported the initiation of a recruitment for a Budget Committee member to replace Bruce Barrett, who has resigned. The goal is for the Board to appoint a replacement in time for the mid -year Budget Committee meeting in December. Deputy County Administrator Erik Kropp presented a request from Partners in Care for a proclamation declaring November as National Hospice & Palliative Care Month. The Board was in consensus to issue the proclamation as requested. EXECUTIVE SESSION: None ADJOURN: Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:04 pm. DATED this day of 2023 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: 9 RECORDING SECRETARY L ANTHONY DEBONE, CHAIR PATTI ADAIR, VICE CHAIR JILICK 6z� PHIL CHANG, COMMISSIONER BOCC MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2023 PAGE 10 OF 10 T ES COG2-A BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING 9:00 AM, WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2023 Barnes Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Building - 1300 NW Wall Street - Bend (541) 388-6570 1 www.deschutes.org MEETING FORMAT: In accordance with Oregon state law, this meeting is open to the public and can be accessed and attended in person or remotely, with the exception of any executive session. Members of the public may view the meeting in real time via YouTube using this link: http://bit.ly/3mminzy. To view the meeting via Zoom, see below. Citizen Input: The public may comment on any topic that is not on the current agenda. Alternatively, comments may be submitted on any topic at any time by emailing citizeninput@deschutes.org or leaving a voice message at 541-385-1734. When in -person comment from the public is allowed at the meeting, public comment will also be allowed via computer, phone or other virtual means. Zoom Meeting Information: This meeting may be accessed via Zoom using a phone or computer. • To join the meeting via Zoom from a computer, use this link: http://bit.ly/3h3ogdD. • To join by phone, call 253-215-8782 and enter webinar ID # 899 4635 9970 followed by the passcode 013510. • If joining by a browser, use the raise hand icon to indicate you would like to provide public comment, if and when allowed. If using a phone, press *6 to indicate you would like to speak and *9 to unmute yourself when you are called on. 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, call (541) 388-6572 or email brenda.fritsvold@deschutes.org. Time estimates: The times listed on agenda items are estimates only. Generally, items will be heard in sequential order and items, including public hearings, may be heard before or after their listed times. 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 voicemoil at 541.385.1734. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of a lease with Saving Grace to operate the Mary's Place supervised visitation program and the Saving Grace courthouse advocacy project 2. Approval of Revocable License with Trenton Wayne LLC dba 97 Cafe to operate 97 Cafe located in the Deschutes Services Building 3. Resolution No. 2023-056, increasing 0.2 regular duration FTE within the Health Services Department 4. Approval of Order No. 2023-037 denying the petition for incorporation of the proposed City of Mountain View and adopting findings and conclusions and prescribing an effective date 5. Approval of Order 2023-040 concerning appointments to the 2023 Board of Property Tax Appeals 6. Consideration of Board Signature on letters reappointing Jo Ellen Zucker, Michael Simpson and Michael Walker, and appointing Frances Harder, Matthew Latimer, Brian Ricker, Peggy O'Donnell and Robert James Horvat, Jr., to the Deschutes County Board of Property Tax Appeals 7. Consideration of Board Signature on letters thanking James Sinasek and Mara Stein, for their service on the Deschutes County Board of Property Tax Appeals 8. Approval of minutes of the BOCC August 23 and 28, 2023 meetings ACTION ITEMS 9. 9:10 AM Presentation of 25-year service award to Kevin Furlong, IT Operations Manager September 27, 2023 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 2 of 3 10. 9:20 AM Public Hearing and Resolution amending the Deschutes County 2023-2024 Fee Schedule to add new fees in the Community Development Department 11. 9:40 AM Consideration of Approval for Road Department Submittal of ODOT Local Bridge Program Applications 12. 9:50 AM Request for approval of two grant proposals for the Central Oregon Landscape Resiliency Project and a Community Wildfire Defense Grant 13. 10:10 AM Consideration to hear an appeal of the Hearings Officer's decision approving land use applications for the Redmond Water Pollution Control Facility Effluent and Biosolids Disposal Complex 14. 10:25 AM Consideration of Document No. 2023-880 rendering a final County decision approving a Conditional Use Permit to establish a manufactured home as a secondary accessory farm dwelling at 19825 Connarn Road 15. 10:40 AM Deschutes County Adult Parole and Probation Community Corrections Plan and receipt of Grant in Aid funding from the Department of Corrections 16. 11:10 AM Treasury Report for August 2023 17. 11:30 AM Finance Report for August 2023 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. 18. Request for reconsideration of Mountain View petition to incorporate 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. uprellug, September 27, 2023 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 3 of 3 SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS 247-23-000294-CE Date: 9/20/2023 ACETI, ANTHONY J Case #: 247-23-000294-CE 21235 TUMALO RD Case Specialist: Dan Smith EMEND, OR 97703 phone #: 541-385-1710 Email: Daniel.Smith@deschutes.org Location of Violation: 21225 TUMALO PL, BEND, OR 97703 ("The Property") Dear ACETI, ANTHONY J, You are receiving this notice because Deschutes County's Code Compliance Program has determined that one or more violations of Deschutes County Code (DCC) exist on your Property identified above. You are required to take corrective action(s) in order to cure the violation(s) and bring the Property into compliance with DCC. r, i11111 • +, : You must complete all necessary corrections listed below within 30 days with a date certain of 10/20/2023. The specific violation(s) existing on the Property, and the actions you must take to correct them, are set out below. Your code compliance case specialist is available to answer any questions you may have regarding the violations or the required corrections. Please note that your failure to make all necessary corrections within the time frame will result in the County's initiation of formal legal and/or administrative code compliance proceedings. Corrections: There are uses on your property that do not fall within the uses permitted outright in the rural industrial zone, have not received site plan review approval, or have not received approval through a conditional use permit for outside storage. Please contact planning at 541-388-6560, to apply for a conditional use permit and site plan review for the uses existing on the property, or discontinue the uses on the property until approval is received. The current identified uses are: e Storage, sales, rental of equipment and materials associated with farm and forest uses, logging, road maintenance, mineral extraction, construction, or similar rural activities • Storage, stockpiling of aggregate materials • Storage, sales, rental of mobile storage boxes, shipping containers Deschutes County Code: 247-23-G00294-rE 18.100.010 a In an R-I Zone, the following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright except as limited by DCC 18.100.040, and unless located within 600 feet from a residential dwelling, a lot within a platted subdivision or a residential zone. A. Farming or forest use. B. Primary processing, packaging, treatment, bulk storage and distribution of the following products: 1. Agricultural products, including foodstuffs, animal and fish products, and animal feeds. 2.Ornamental horticultural products and nurseries. 3. softwood and hardwood products excluding pulp and paper manufacturing. 4. Sand, gravel, clay and other mineral products. C. Residence for caretaker or night watchman on property. D. Freight Depot, including the loading, unloading, storage and distribution of goods and materials by railcar or truck. E. Contractor's or building materials business and other construction -related business including plumbing, electrical, roof, siding, etc., provided such use is wholly enclosed within a building or no outside storage is permitted unless enclosed by sight -obscuring fencing. F. Ice or cold storage plant. G. Wholesale distribution outlet including warehousing, but excluding open outside storage. h is wholly enclosed within a building or all outside storage is enclosed by H. Welding, sheet metal or machine shop provided suc sight-obscuring fencing. I. Kennel or a Veterinary clinic. J. Lumber manufacturing and wood processing except pulp and paper manufacturing. K. Class I and II road or street project subject to approval as part of a land partition, subdivision or subject to the standards and criteria established by DCC 18.116.230. L. Class III road or street project. igation systems operated by an Irrigation District except as provided in DCC M. Operation, maintenance, and piping of existing irr 18.120.050. 77UT e uses on youT ave not received conditional use approval in the rural industrialanning at 54ply for a conditional use permit and site plan review for the uses ty, or discontinuses on the property until approval is received. The current identified uses are: • Storage, sales, rental of equipment and materials associated with farm and forest uses, logging, road maintenance, mineral extraction, construction, or similar rural activities • Storage, stockpiling of aggregate materials • Storage, sales, rental of mobile storage boxes, shipping containers Deschutes County Code: 18.100.020 - The following uses may be allowed subject to DCC 18,128: A. Any use permitted by DCC 18.100.010, which is located within 600 feet of a residential dwelling, a lot within a platted subdivision or a residential zone. B. Any use permitted by DCC 18.10o.010, which involves open storage. C. Concrete or ready -mix plant. D. Petroleum products storage and distribution. E. Storage, crushing and processing of minerals, including the processing of aggregate into asphaltic concrete or Portland Cement Concrete. F. Commercial feedlot, stockyard, sales yard, slaughterhouse and rendering plant. G. Railroad trackage and related facilities. H. Pulp and paper manufacturing. I. Any use permitted by DCC 18.100.010, which is expected to exceed the following standards: 1. Lot coverage in excess of 70 percent. ing lights or noise that is perceptible without instruments 500 feet from the 2. Generation of any odor, dust, fumes, glare, flash property line of the subject use. f article J. Manufacture, repair or storage os manufactured from bone, cellophane, cloth, cork, feathers, felt, fiber, glass, stone, paper, plastic, precious or semiprecious stones or metal, wax, wire, wood, rubber, yarn or similar materials, provided such uses do not create a disturbance because of odor, noise, dust, smoke, gas, traffic or other factors. K. Processing, packaging and storage of food and beverages including those requiring distillation and fermentation. L. Public Landfill Transfer Station, including recycling and other related activities. M. Mini -storage facility. N. Automotive wrecking yard totally enclosed by a sight -obscuring fence. 0. Wireless telecommunications facilities, except those facilities meeting the requirements of DCC 18.116.250(A) or (B). P. Utility facility. ental, repair and servicing of equipment and materials associated with farm and forest uses, Q. Manufacturing, storage, sales, r 247-23-000294-CE logging, road maintenance, mineral extraction, construction or similar rural activities. R. Electrical substations. S. Marijuana retailing, subject to the provisions of DCC 18.116.330. Photo Evidence The photos below are not necessarily inclusive of all violations on this property. Page 3 of 4 247-23-00012194-CE What is Code Compliance? Deschutes Countys Code Compliance program is responsible for protecting the health and safety of county residents, visitors, and communities by ensuring compliance with county code (DCC chapter 1.16). Code compliance specialists investigate code violation complaints associated with building, land use, onsite wastewater disposal and solid waste. Voluntary compliance is the Code Compliance program's core objective. When voluntary compliance is not achieved, the County will pursue legal and/or administrative remedies. What if I decide to do nothing? In the event you do not voluntarily take necessary corrective action, Deschutes County may initiate formal legal and/or administrative code enforcement proceedings against you. Such proceedings may result in the imposition of a fine of up to $2,000.00 per violation, and/or imposition of a daily fine for each day the violation(s) is allowed to remain on the Property. In addition, the County may pursue injunctive relief and/or an order permitting the County to abate the violation(s) at your expense, as well as other remedies. Any monetary judgment the County obtains, including any judgment for the costs of abating a violation, shall become a lien against the Property and any other property you own in Deschutes County. 247-23-000293-CE ACETI,ANTHONY J 21235 TUMALO PL BEND, OR 97703 t- • ••- • • 1 t • Location of Violation: 21235 TUMALO PL BEND, OR 97703 ("The Property") Dear ACETI,ANTHONY J, Date: 9/20/2023 Case #: 247-23-000293-CE Case Specialist: Dan Smith Phone #: 541-385-1710 Email: Daniel.Smith@deschutes.org You are receiving this notice because Deschutes County's Code Compliance Program has determined that one or more violations of Deschutes County Code (DCC) exist on your Property identified above. You are required to take corrective action(s) in order to cure the violation(s) and bring the Property into compliance with DCC. • r • • - • . • You must complete all necessary correctionsbelow within 30 days with a date certain 10/20/2023. The specific violation(s) existing on the Property, and the actions you must take to correct them, are set out below. Your code compliance case specialist is available to answer any questions you may have regarding the violations or the required corrections. Please note that your failure to make all necessary corrections within the time frame will result in the County's initiation of formal legal and/or administrative code compliance proceedings. Corrections: There are uses on your property that do not fall within the uses permitted outright in the rural industrial zone, have not received site plan review approval, or have not received approval through a conditional use permit for outside storage. Please contact planning at 541-388-6560, to apply for a conditional use permit and site plan review for the uses existing on the property, or discontinue the uses on the property until approval is received. The current identified uses are: • Manufactured home storage ® Semi-truck/trailer and vehicle storage • Storage, sales, rental of equipment and materials associated with farm and forest uses, logging, road maintenance, mineral extraction, construction, or similar rural activities • Storage, stockpiling of aggregate materials • Storage, sales, rental of mobile storage boxes, shipping containers Page 1 of 4 247-23-000253=CE • Wholesale distribution outlet including warehousing, and including open outside storage. • Contractor's or building materials business or other construction -related business, including open outside storage Deschutes County Code: 18.100.o i 0 - In an R-I zone, the following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright except as limited by DCC 18.100.040, and unless located within 600 feet from a residential dwelling, a lot within a platted subdivision or a residential zone. A. Farming or forest use. B. Primary processing, packaging, treatment, bulk storage and distribution of the following products: 1. Agricultural products, including foodstuffs, animal and fish products, and animal feeds. 2. Ornamental horticultural products and nurseries. 3. Softwood and hardwood products excluding pulp and paper manufacturing. 4. Sand, gravel, clay and other mineral products. C. Residence for caretaker or night watchman on property. D. Freight Depot, including the loading, unloading, storage and distribution of goods and materials by railcar or truck. E. Contractor's or building materials business and other construction -related business including plumbing, electrical, roof, siding, etc., provided such use is wholly enclosed within a building or no outside storage is permitted unless enclosed by sight -obscuring fencing. F. Ice or cold storage plant. G. Wholesale distribution outlet including warehousing, but excluding open outside storage. H. Welding, sheet metal or machine shop provided such is wholly enclosed within a building or all outside storage is enclosec by sight -obscuring fencing. i. Kennel or a Veterinary clinic. J. Lumber manufacturing and wood processing except pulp and paper manufacturing. K. Class I and II road or street project subject to approval as part of a land partition, subdivision or subject to the standards and criteria established by DCC 18.116.230, L. Class III road or street project. M. Operation, maintenance, and piping of existing irrigation systems operated by an Irrigation District except as provided in DCC 18.120.050. Corrections: There are uses on your property that have not received conditional use approval in the rural industrial zone. Please contact planning at 541-388-6560, to apply for a conditional use permit and site plan review for the uses existing on the property, or discontinue the uses on the property until approval is received. The current identified uses a re: • Manufactured home storage • Semi-truck/trailer and vehicle storage • Storage, sales, rental of equipment and materials associated with farm and forest uses, logging, road maintenance, mineral extraction, construction, or similar rural activities • Storage, stockpiling of aggregate materials • Storage, sales, rental of mobile storage boxes, shipping containers • Wholesale distribution outlet including warehousing, and including open outside storage. • Contractor's or building materials business or other construction -related business, including open outside storage Deschutes County Code: 18.100.020 - The following uses may be allowed subject to DCC 18.128: A. Any use permitted by DCC 18.100.010, which is located within 600 feet of a residential dwelling, a lot within a platted subdivision or a residential zone. B. Any use permitted by DCC 18.100.010, which involves open storage. C. Concrete or ready -mix plant. D. Petroleum products storage and distribution. E. Storage, crushing and processing of minerals, including the processing of aggregate into asphaltic concrete or Portland Cement Concrete. F. Commercial feedlot, stockyard, sales yard, slaughterhouse and rendering plant. G. Railroad trackage and related facilities. H. Pulp and paper manufacturing. I. Any use permitted by DCC 18.100.010, which is expected to exceed the following standards: 1. Lot coverage in excess of 70 percent. 2. Generation of any odor, dust, fumes, glare, flashing lights or noise that is perceptible without instruments 500 feet fromthe property line of the subject use. J. Manufacture, repair or storage of articles manufactured from bone, cellophane, cloth, cork, feathers, felt, fiber, glass, stone, paper, Page 2 of 4 247-23-000293-CE plastic, precious or semiprecious stones or metal, wax, wire, wood, rubber, yarn or similar materials, provided such uses do not create a disturbance because of odor, noise, dust, smoke, gas, traffic or other factors. K. Processing, packaging and storage of food and beverages including those requiring distillation and fermentation. L. Public Landfill Transfer Station, including recycling and other related activities. M. Mini -storage facility. N. Automotive wrecking yard totally enclosed by a sight -obscuring fence. 0. Wireless telecommunications facilities, except those facilities meeting the requirements of DCC 18.116.250(A) or (B). P. Utility facility. ` Q. Manufacturing, storage, sales, rental, repair and servicing of equipment and materials associated with farm and forest uses, logging, road maintenance, mineral extraction, construction or similar rural activities. R. Electrical substations. S. Marijuana retailing, subject to the provisions of DCC 18.116.330. UTM S 247-23-0002933-�-iL'E Q: Regarding Code compliance What is Code compliance? Deschutes County's Code compliance program is responsible fohPounty code (DCCtecting the lchap er 1.16). Code my residents, visitors, and communities by ensuring compliance witty compliance specialists investigate code violation complaints associated is Code Compliance building, programs, oorete wastewater disposal and solid s not achieved, tary lthe County will pursue legal and/or administrative objective. When voluntary compliance remedies. What if I decide to do nothing? In the event you do not voluntarily take necessary corrective action, o. Such Deschutes rooceedings unty may result the legal and/or administrative code enforcement proceedings against you p y the imposition of a fine of up to $2,000.00 per violation, and/or imposition County may pursue f a daily fine injunctive or each relief and/or violation(s) is allowed to remain on the Property. In addition, the ty Y pies. Any an order permitting the County to abate the violation(s) at your expense, for the costs of abating awell as other ry olation, shall monetary judgment the County obtains, including any judgment become a lien against the Property and any other property you own in Deschutes County. PATRICIA A. KLIEWER, MPA 60465 Sunridge Drive, Bend, OR 97702 Home (541) 617-0805 pkliewer@hotmail.com August 10, 2023 Stephanie Marshall, County Counsel and Anthony Debone, Chair of the Board of County Commissioners Deschutes County 1300 NW Wall Street, 2°d Floor Bend, OR 97703 Re: Anthony Aceti's land on County Assessor's Map 161226C, Tax Lot 201 and County Assessor's Map 161227D, Tax Lot 104. Dear Chairman DeBone and Ms. Marshall, I am asking you to address a serious matter that I know you can resolve in a mutually acceptable manner. To begin, here is a condensed background. In 2014, 1 submitted an application for Tony Aceti to rezone his two parcel.srconsisting of 21.54 acres at the southwest corner of Deschutes Junction from EFU-TRB to RI. That application was heard by Hearings Officer Stephanie Marshall, approved by the BOCC and met a long series of appeals from COLW. In 2018 Aceti's legal team and I helped the county to amend DCCP Section 3.4, to give the BOCC the authority to rezone property to RC and RI when strict conditions are met. That County ordinance was unsuccessfully appealed by COLW and was defended by Aceti's attorney, Bill Kloos. In 2020 1 applied again for the Aceti zone change and plan amendment, which was again heard by Hearings Officer Stephanie Marshall, approved by the BOCC and appealed by COLW. Just this past May 8, 2023, the Court judged the appeals were completed and Aceti won. The rezone took ten years. Tortious Business Interference Last week a County sheriff took several copies of a full -color, three -page flyer entitled a "Pre - Enforcement Notice" onto Anthony Aceti's property at Deschutes Junction and handed them to at least two people that she encountered on the private property. They in turn showed them to their employers who in turn called Aceti. The sheriff never provided a copy of the flyer to Mr. Aceti. The CDD has not sent Aceti a code enforcement letter. The tenants' comments were, "I guess I have to look for a new place." The County flyer appears to be intended to intimidate Mr. Aceti's tenants into leaving. In consultation with an attorney, it is called Tortious Business Interference. We want the County to inform those people who were "served" that they should not have received the flyer and they do not have to leave. It is assumed that the sheriff kept a list of whom she served. The scans of the three pages are attached to this email. The County's action may result in Aceti's loss of income from tenant rents. Harassment Although Aceti is appreciative of the BOCC's approval of his application to rezone his land from EFU-TRB to RI with a corresponding plan amendment, after the ten-year saga since he began his application, the County CDD seems to be harassing Mr. Aceti. The harassment began on March 15, 2023, 54 days before his two tax lots were rezoned from EFU-TRB to RI. We want to be assured that the harassment has stopped. Senior Planner Nicole Mardell telephoned Mr. Aceti on March 15, 2023, to tell him that he needed to apply for a site plan review for his property due to the rezone. That was the same day that the decision in Aceti's favor was issued from the Oregon Court of Appeals. He informed her that COLW's appeal was not completed, the land was not rezoned, and he was not ready to apply for a site plan review. The County code does not say that a rezone requires an immediate site plan review application. On April 26, 2023, Ms. Mardell emailed the following to Mr. Aceti, his attorney Bill Kloos, Haleigh King, Daniel Smith, Angela Havniear, Peter Gutowsky, and William Groves. Note that the email refers to the phone call she made in March. "Good morning, Tony," "I hope you're doing well, I'm following up on my call from last month. "At that time, we discussed that you had approval of your rezoning from LUBA and the Court of Appeals but you were waiting to see if the decision would be appealed to the Supreme Court. We've heard back from our legal department that the decision has not been appealed further and is now final. "Now that the decision is final, we need to move forward on condition #3: 3. The Applicant shall enter into a Voluntary Compliance Agreement ("VCA") with the Deschutes County Code Enforcement division of the Community Development Department to resolve alleged code violations in file no. 247-19-00064-CE "We'd like to schedule a meeting with you and any other members of your team to discuss next steps on correcting the code enforcement violations on the property. Although the property has been rezoned, uses on the property require land use review, typically in the form of site plan review. As part of our conversation we'd like to discuss all of the current uses on the property, any uses that will be removed (such as the manufactured homes you mentioned), and your timeline for either submitting land use applications or entering into the VCA. "Here are a few dates/times that work for our staff, please send over your availability and preference on a virtual or in person meeting. "Thurs 514: 8:30-9:30 am, 4-5 pm Mon 5/8: 2-3 pm, 3-4 pm Thurs 5111: 8-9 am, 9-10 am Mon 5115: 11-12 pm Tues 5116: 8-9 am "Best, "Nicole" The County's information was in error. The appeal was not complete. Aceti's attorney Bill Kloos forwarded Mardell's email to me and asked me to handle it. I advised Mr. Aceti to let Ms. Mardell know that the appeal was not complete. He did that. On May 8, 2023, the Court issued its judgement. It follows. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON CENTRAL OREGON LANDWATCH, Petitioner, V. DESCHUTES COUNTY and ANTHONY J. ACETI, Respondents - Land Use Board of Appeals 2022076 A180310 APPELLATE JUDGMENT AND SUPPLEMENTAL JUDGMENT Argued and submitted on February 21, 2021 Before Tookey, Presiding Judge-, Egan, Judge-, and Kamins, Judge - Attorney for Petitioner: Carol Macbeth. Attorney for Respondent, Anthony J. Aceti: Bill Kloos. No appearance for Respondent, Deschutes County. AFFIRMED WITHOUT OPINION DESIGNATION OF PREVAILING PARTY AND AWARD OF COSTS Prevailing party: Respondents. [X] No costs allowed as to Respondent, Deschutes County- [X] Costs allowed, payable by. Petitioner as to Respondent, Anthony J- Aceti. MONEY AWARD Creditor. Anthony J. Aceti Attorney_ Bill Kloos, 375 W 4th Ave., Ste 204, Eugene, OR 97401 Debtor. Central Oregon Landwatch Attorney: Carol E. Macbeth Costs: $491.00 Total Amount: $491.00 Interest: Simple, 9% per annum, from the date of this appellate judgment. Appellate Judgment CouRT or APPEALS E ective Date: May 8, 2023 (seal) lmr APPELLATE JUDGMENT AND SUPPLEMENTAL JUDGMENT REPLIES SHOULD RE DIRECTED TO: State Court Administrator, Records Section. Supreme Court BuRding, 11B3 State Street, Saien; OR B73DI-2563 Page 1 or 1 As you can see from the above document, the appeal was finalized on May 8, 2023, after Ms. Mardell's urgent phone calls and emails. During the period of March 15-June 15, 2023, Ms. Mardell telephoned Mr. Aceti and she and Lead Code Enforcement Technician Dan Smith emailed Mr. Aceti at least seven times. Ms. Mardell was referring to the five-year old code enforcement case from 2019, 247-19-00064-CE, that was issued when the land was zoned EFU-TRB. We expected that issue. We were prepared to talk to County Counsel Stephanie Marshall about removing the condition if or when the appeals ended. 4 Resolving the legitimate 2019 code enforcement case was listed in the Conditions of Approval in the BOCC's Decision to rezone the land to RI. The code enforcement case should have been closed years ago when the uses in question were removed. It was not. However, the demand for a new application for a site plan review was not expected. On May 8, 2023, the Court judgement ended the appeals. On June 21, 2023, County Counsel Stephanie Marshall at my request said she would issue a document officially indicating the 2019 Code Enforcement Case was settled due to the uses in question being no longer on site, and the condition of approval was fulfilled. We have not been issued a copy of that signed form. We need a copy of it. A New Code Enforcement Case and a Site Plan? Mr. Aceti has not been issued a Code Enforcement Violation notice since 2019. The flyer taken to the site and served on at least two tenants by a sheriff says that there is a new 2023 code enforcement case, 247-23-000294-CE. Proper procedures have not been followed, if there is a new code enforcement complaint. Aceti has never been notified of it. He knows nothing about it. He cannot respond or refute It. He does not know the nature of it or who complained. Both of us have asked to see the code enforcement file and to learn about the nature of the complaint but were not given any information. At our June 21, 2023, meeting with staff at the CDD, we asked to see the file. We asked, "Is there a new code enforcement case?" We were told that there is NONE! Yet, the flyer lists a 2023 code enforcement case number. The BOCC previously has told Mr. Aceti and myself that the County does not participate in witch hunts, with County staff driving around looking for code violations. In carefully reading the three -page flyer many times, no one can determine what the code violation might be. The only clue is the color photo of the assembled Blue Boxes. COLW initiated a complaint that the Blue Boxes were on EFU-TRB land. They wrote erroneously that Aceti was the proprietor and erroneously that customers came to his property. The COLW complaint about the Blue Boxes was the subject of opposing briefs from attorneys Carol MacBeth for COLW and Bill Kloos for Tony Aceti before the Oregon Court of Appeals earlier this year. The real owner of the Blue Box business is a tenant and his company assembles and stores some boxes in the northwest corner of Aceti's land. The parts arrive flat and are assembled into storage boxes. No customers ever go on the Aceti property. Under no circumstances is the public on his land. They would be trespassing. The legal arguments before the Oregon Court of Appeals on this code enforcement "complaint" pointed out all the wrong assumptions and errors in the complaint and determined that the RI zone would remedy any code violation of having the tenant. COLW argued that the plan amendment and zone change case should not be heard by the court because COLW itself had filed a code enforcement complaint with Deschutes County about Blue Boxes being on EFU-TRB land. That specious, self-serving allegation did not work. Therefore, if this flyer is about that COLW complaint, Aceti has not been notified of it, nor given any opportunity to refute it and it should be filed at Knott Landfill recycling center. Every tenant at the property is temporary and moveable. All vehicles are on wheels. The public never goes to the property. All of the vehicles parked on the property are for supplies, equipment and storage for contractors. Ms. Mardell harangued Mr. Aceti into meeting with her asap to discuss his applying for a site plan review on his newly rezoned land. Since he has just been rezoned, and has no development plan, that seemed inappropriate. The pressure was perplexing. The following information is on the CDD web site: "SITE PLAN REVIEW FACTS TO KNOW: 1. Purpose: Review of a site plan is done to promote functional, safe, innovative and attractive site development compatible with the natural and manmade environments. 2. A site plan application must be filed for development in a commercial, industrial, landscape management, open space and conservation zone, or any other zone where it is required. Site plan review is also required for some conditional use permits, all multi family dwellings and community service uses in any zone. 3. A site plan application can be reviewed administratively by planning staff or be referred to a public hearing. 4. The site plan review process can generally be processed within 6-8 weeks if reviewed administratively, and in 12-16 weeks if referred to a public hearing. A mandatory 12-day appeal period follows both types of decisions. 5. Notice of a site plan application is mailed to owners of property within a specified distance from the property, a land use sign is posted on the subject property and if a hearing is proposed, notice is published in a local newspaper. 6. A site plan is valid for a period of two (2) years after the date of approval. Permits may be extended under certain circumstances. Z A bond for necessary public improvements. landscaping, access and parking may be required. 8. A pre -application meeting with the Planning Division staff is recommended." After reading this description and reading the code, everyone involved with the Aceti case determined that a site plan application, costing $4,893.00, plus a cost per square foot of any new structure proposed in a new development, plus a cost for any acres involved in new development is inappropriate. No development and no new structure are proposed. Ms. Mardell and Lead Code Compliance Specialist Dan Smith insisted on meeting as soon as is possible with Mr. Aceti about the site plan application. She also talked to him about some mobile homes on site, which he said he was trying to remove but were tied up with the Sheriff's Department's action with their supposed owner. When he wrote that I could not meet on a meeting date she provided, she asked if they could meet without me, speeding things up. The County emails that seem to refer to an unknown new code enforcement case follow. On April 26, 2023, Lead Code Enforcement Technician Daniel Smith emailed Aceti: Daniel Smith <Daniel. Smith@ desch utes. orp You; Tony Aceti .V N. Wed 4/26/2023 11:47 AM Good afternoon Pat, I am the code enforcement specialist that has been assigned this case and am happy to work with you on questions related to the timefrome and correction of the code violations specifically. Nicole will still be point person for the land use requirements for the newly rezoned property. Essentially what the County is hoping to achieve is to establish a list of uses on the property and to determine what land use approvals may be required to continue their use, if allowed in code. After we are able to discuss the extent of the requirements to bring these uses into compliance with the code, and comparing how the list provided compares to observed uses on the property, we can determine the length of time required for a voluntary compliance agreement to allow the resolution of the remaining violations. An in person meeting may be best to be able to discuss the various operations on the property and get a clear understanding of the plan for everyone involved. Nicole has proposed some times that work for the County, which are listed below: Thurs 514: 8:30-9:30 am, 4-5 pm Mon 518: 2-3 pm, 3-4 pm Thurs 5111: 8-9 am, 9-10 am Mon 5115: 11-12 pm Tues 5116: 8-9 am If any of these times work, please reach out to either Nicole or 1, and we can get it scheduled. Thank you, Dan Smith I Lead Code Compliance Specialist I:,<; €"(11 U N,IY C0i; klil iNF,1"1Y Ci",` F L 0 P [iiFNI 0 177 NW Lafayette Ave I Bend, Oregon 97701 Tel: (541) 385-1710 006 Enhancing the lives of citizens by delivering quality services in a cost-effective manner. The above email did not refer to the 2019 case that was mentioned in the BOCC's RI Decision. It is referring to a new case that Aceti has never been issued. The email also was written before the Court's judgement on May 8, 2023. Trying to keep the staff on track, to the task I thought was at hand, my reply was: I 0 Daniel Smith Mon 5/1/2023 10:53 AM Hello, Daniel. This code enforcement case is old. Please see the conditions of approval of the BOCC decision regarding the zone change and plan amendment. That is what we need to work on and what Nicole needs to finish. Tony already talked to Nicole via phone a month ago. He told her that he is out of the Country until about May 20. So, the dates will not work. 1 will contact you as soon as he arrives home. We will not need a meeting. We both know what has to be done. We are looking forward to finishing out the conditions of approval asap. Pat Kliewer, MPA After several more nudges against my email, from County staff, Aceti wrote the following: Tony Aceti taceti2229(�.gmail.com Wed 61712023 8:16 AM Hi Nicole, Could you please, give us other dates option to reschedule our meeting? School will be out soon, and things will open up more for Pat. Afternoons are best for us. Also, both Pat and I have plans on the 27th, 28th and 29th of June. Thank you ! Tony P.S. I did text the guy with the Mobile homes, that he had 30 days to remove them... but no response yet. On Tue, Jun 6, 2023, 10:22 AM Nicole Mardell<Nicole.Mardell(o)-deschutes.orq> wrote: Hi Tony, It looks like Pat is unavailable on the 151. Would you like to proceed with this meeting with just you or reschedule to include Pat? Best, Nicole Both Mr. Smith and Ms. Mardell kept emailing Mr. Aceti to meet with them. To get them off his back, on June 21, 2023, 1 accompanied Aceti to meet with Ms. Mardell and Mr. Smith. Except, we had been tricked and walked into a full-blown, unpleasant code enforcement case meeting with Ms. Mardell, Dan Smith, Jacob Ripper, Ms. Marshall on speaker phone and another planner we think was Haleigh King. Ms. King recorded the meeting. I was most disappointed that staff had deliberately mischaracterized the meeting. We would not have agreed to a vague meeting with so many staff. I asked what case they planned to talk about. Mr. Smith was not prepared. He ran downstairs to look at his file. He came back and said the only active code enforcement case was filed in 2019 and it H.' was for tow trucks and porta-potties. Counsel Marshall agreed that the items mentioned in the 2019 code enforcement case had been removed and that case should have years ago been closed. She said there was a form that she would fill out for Ms. Mardell to that effect to finalize the RI zone change and plan amendment approval. The meeting topic turned to the three empty mobile homes parked side by side near the middle of the site. The doublewide is in two pieces that are set up for transport, including orange flags at each corner and wheels under them. Mr. Aceti described the owner and his need to pull off the highway and his agreement to keep it on Aceti's property for about a week to fix something, the "owner's" arrest, the question about the legal owner, an attempt to have them removed by a mobile home moving company and the sheriff's arrival to stop it, and the Sheriff's Department telling Aceti to keep them there until further notice. Aceti has notified the supposed owner in writing several times to remove them. His hands are tied right now. The meeting then turned to Senior Planner Jacob Ripper who wanted Aceti to apply for a site plan review. I told him that the plan will be filed in the future when any development is planned. He said that simply parking a truck on site requires a site plan review and changing trucks would continually require new site plans. Aceti may have to apply every month! He said that was necessary to ensure the driveways and roads can handle them. However, we said that the RI application in detail covers the transportation system in Section 17, and thoroughly addresses the applicable transportation codes, and includes a Traffic Impact Analysis that was researched and written by a registered traffic engineer. Transportation Planner Peter Russell, the Hearings Officer Stephanie Marshall, and the BOCC concurred with the TIA. Additionally, the application included Exhibit 6 on pages 219-225 that is the scan of the six -page BOCC's Settlement Agreement of May 8, 1997. The County BOCC signed a Settlement Agreement that granted three 90-foot turn lanes for trucks entering and exiting Aceti's property through wide paved driveways to and from Tumalo Place and Tumalo Road as partial trade for the three acres that were needed to construct the new approach across his property to the new Deschutes Junction overpass. The project was designed by a registered engineer by the County. Aceti and I described the basics of the Deschutes Junction Overpass Project and the Settlement Agreement to Ripper who had not read the application, the Traffic Impact Analysis, the BOCC's decision, or the property file. We left the June 21, 2023, meeting with no resolution of any issues other than the 2019 case and no notice nor description of any current code enforcement. Smith's uniformed information about the 2019 code enforcement case and Ripper's uninformed comment about traffic brought back bad memories of uninformed County staff playing dirty pool with Aceti and costing him hundreds of thousands of dollars hiring attorneys and consultants to make things right since 1996. There are many examples, but I was involved in one, myself. Senior Planner Paul Blikstad and I had a pre -application meeting for the subsequent Aceti application for the zone change and plan amendment in 2014 when the first application was submitted. Blickstad insisted that I apply for an Exception to Goal 14. I told him that that was not necessary. Aceti had no desire to put any urban use on the land. Blickstad told me that all RI uses are urban uses and that he would send me an incomplete letter if I did not include the Exception in the application. I said that an option on the incomplete letter would be to have the County go ahead and process it without the Exception. He told {:7 me the staff report and hearings officer's decision would recommend denial. I gave in and put the Goal 14 Exception in the application. The BOCC approved the application. It was appealed to LUBA. LUBA said to take out the Goal 14 Exception. LUBA's opinion said that the only time that one would need a Goal 14 Exception is when one wants to put urban uses on rural land. Uses in the RI zoning code are all rural uses. Therefore, I took the request for an Exception out and reapplied. The County addressed the fact that the Applicant did not need to apply for an exception to Goal 14, because only rural uses are allowed in the RI zoning code, not urban uses, and the Applicant was applying for a zone change for uses that are permitted under the RI code. (He would have to apply for an exception to Goal 14 only if he was applying for an urban use. He was not.) Aceti had to pay for a new application, attorney's fees, and planning consultant fees for that County mistake. The County had no repercussions. Conclusion This letter identifies many staff members by name. That was done to be clear and specific about Aceti's complaints. We do not think that any one person is singularly harassing Aceti nor that a sheriff made the decision to serve his tenants the Pre -Enforcement Notice. We see all of this as County actions, not individual's actions. The staff seem to be working in concert. Whose orders are they following? Why is staff demanding, pushing, and rushing for a Site Plan Review? There are two objectional County actions: the Tortious Business Interference and the harassment of Mr. Aceti. Aceti is likely to lose tenants from the sheriff's giving them the 3-page Pre -Enforcement Notice/Flyer and the tenants talking among themselves and to others. That loss will lead to a loss in income. We are concerned about the vague references to a 2023 code enforcement case and the listing of the fictitious case on the Pre -Enforcement Notice. There have been no specifics. Proper procedures have not been followed, if there is a complaint. We were told that there is no new code enforcement case at the June 21, 2023, meeting. Continuing to allude to a fictitious case is harassment. Seeing a fictitious Code Enforcement Case Number on the Pre -Enforcement Notice is harassment. The multitude of phone calls and emails since March 15, 2023, is harassment. We want you to direct the CDD department to leave Mr. Aceti alone. We want assurance from you that Mr. Aceti and I have heard the last of these issues. Sincerely, a Pat Kliewer Cc: Phil Chang Patti Adair Greg Lynch, Lynch Murphy McLane LLP Anthony Aceti 10 �` • A ttorneys at Law Michael B. McCord & Brian T. Heinphill, Attorneys Patricia Oliver and Jevie Kardos, Legal Assistants 65 NW Greeley Avenue Email: mccord@ourbendlaner.com Bend, Oregon 97703 Email: brian@ourbendlaMer.com ourbendlawyer.com Telephone: 541-388-4434 Email: staffnourbendlawyer.com June 12, 2023 Toni Aceti Via email: taceti2229gpiail.com Re: Mobile homes abandoned by Gabriel Campesi Dear Toni: In accordance with our teleconference last week, this letter confirms that I am willing to represent you in connection with the above -referenced matter. Disposal of personal property abandoned by renters is governed by ORS 90.425. I have attached a copy at the end of this letter. As you can see, the procedure is long, and complicated, giving plenty of right to notice to both owners and lien holders. Typically a lien holder is a lender, and would have a lien based on holding the title to the mobile home, or a registration of some sort. To provide notice and conduct the sale, we would need all the information on the mobile home, and work with the existing lien data bases to determine if there is a traditional lien against the mobile home. Further, given the apparent lawless lifestyle of Mr. Campesi, there may be other individuals who he had defrauded, or claim to have been defrauded, and may enter the picture and make some claim against the mobile homes. If we can ultimately get notice to all the right parties, and conduct the sale, your lien for storage of the mobile home should have superiority to the other liens against the mobile home. This means that when the mobile home is sold, the first money goes to you to pay the debt owed you, and additional sales proceeds would go to those with subsequent liens, and if sufficient proceeds exist, to Mr. Campesi. Further, if you are the only buyer at the sale, you can bid the amount of your claim, in essence pay yourself (although you will have to pay the attorney fees and costs to get to that point in the process) , and receive the mobile home for cancelation of the debt for storage of the mobile home. The problem is that taking all these steps promises to be expensive, and finding Mr. Campesi may be difficult, particularly if he doesn't want to be found. The rest of this letter is my standard fee agreement. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF DESCHUTES STATE OF OREGON ( Case No.: 22CR27999 Plaintiff, VS. CAMPISI, GABE ALLEN JOSEPH, Defendant. DCSO / 2022-00027184 IN THE NAME OF THE STATE OF OREGON: TO: Anthony Joseph Aceti DOB: 04/12/1956 (541) 419-0858 21235 TUMALO PL BEND, OR 97703 YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED TO APPEAR before the Circuit Court for the County of Deschutes, at the Justice Building, 1100 NW Bond Street, City of Bend, Oregon, on 07/18/2023 @ 9:00 am for 3 days as a witness in a criminal action prosecuted by the State of Oregon against Gabe Allen Joseph Campisi for Jury Trial - 12 Person. NOTE: Please call (541) 388-6520 after 5:30 pm the evening before the hearing date for the latest information concerning your appearance. Please bring this subpoena to the District Attorney's Office, First Floor, Deschutes County Courthouse, 1164 NW Bond Street, Bend, Oregon, 30 minutes prior to the above time of hearing, and you will be directed to the proper Courtroom. DATED this 5th day of July, 2023 KYLE PEARSON, OSB#164571 Deputy District Attorney STATE OF OREGON, County of Deschutes I certify that on , 20 , I personally served a true copy of this subpoena on the above -named witness in the County and State named immediately above. Date: Name Title 0238105 Aa Ara -AWLSA SrvL0-1A r t � 1;A r � { _ t t c�S , AMt d'- RIM WO 4 � 'u y Pfir a ----------------- C C hP _ 3 ' AM 3 U j i � 7 43 :b M1fY � �F,j yay �q� a -A n 1A I 6 l -e Fit, r � F g 3 j `. � FAM 2� E (! 4 -V } ky,.5 t gaaf ^rra�.' w Y- Y, }iq tk- F i r 9 9 Y i� 'S t �tC fw v t L� E 55� S� 40 VANl'aa.N allk- J 1 � e� dr �(r b. iur � s E.,r,_ �., �,F•�`` pd �`'.�.� ,., .. e.,. .._,��....R.. <'t,_"n`�..`^�,r a...:x ,.e ,.. "C .t c ��` P.n ;8fc ww"t �s c WN e e miss tops , v ESHOWS {ss sa. P, v 6 E $' 4t Wp hw- Od z''`',st sir �1 t;Y li i k,'4 i L2 t *4te - s IR� MEIN '�C�� s F_.��;ii J f ♦ t +. r t4e4iC�at� $ AI, e�l4 eE7 t a MEIN tikt�sktii y > a F a —a—,"Blow t ?f e t pgYFc <� tihX� 24 F ss, t.ix v5 i �.3�� 's 4 ki +a w e d5a ac i:.�`i�c !i`Lc� :y 4 i E w a S's5 � Z 3 Sl � t J C � f �3 t 1 s 3 g 7 p" C "100444 � F�fi � .. ��Z � -. � �� "i Y �'�i� (w� "?� � 2i e=� j�yF � � \ y��Ri �� '��" j � .. �� �� ��`{g \ f rn f e � 5' ��9'�� �� 1 14i cm 0 4 :r 'i< El f g t t -YI mv fi My. 4 a x g ��f ,uffi son i„ ., clogs x' hJ. 'i W op! d i 5, ,h J > 4I c f g§tkv s �r r si. t aIgo k �+s ja r`' d.kR e�a#;; IT Agy MR w NO t ra � €� .J c `4' 'fb 4 b 'b'ye del. ty„ f 1 i yr� 5 ! i ff *p z x*t ° J1 E S Co BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING DATE: September 27, 2023 SUBJECT: Approval of a lease with Saving Grace to operate the Mary's Place supervised visitation program and the Saving Grace courthouse advocacy project RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move approval of Board signature of Document No. 2023-719, a lease with Saving Grace for use of certain office and other spaces as identified. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: In 2016, Deschutes County originally entered into a lease with Saving Grace to operate the Mary's Place supervised visitation program and the Saving Grace courthouse advocacy project (Program). The Courthouse provides +/-152 square feet of office space, and the Mike Maier Services Building provides +/- 387 square feet of dedicated office and storage space, 243 square feet of shared space with Deschutes County Health Services Department, use of conference room and breakroom space, and use of the Munchkin Manor Preschool and Daycare for supervised visitation. The current lease expires September 30, 2023, and the new lease is effective October 1, 2023 through September 30, 2026, which coincides with the expiration date of the existing Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that was executed earlier this year between the County and multiple state and local agencies that support these programs. Due to the community benefit of the Program, the lease is provided for zero consideration, and utility charges are currently $257.93/quarter with 3% annual increase. The lease includes two 2- year auto -renewal periods that are contingent on a current MOU as described. BUDGET IMPACTS: Zero consideration lease; $1,031.72/annual utility payments with 3% annual increases thereafter ATTENDANCE: Kristie Bollinger, Property Manager REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL LEASE THIS LEASE AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made as of the date of the last signature affixed hereto ("Commencement Date") by and between DESCHUTES COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon ("Lessor"), and SAVING GRACE IMAGINE LIFE WITHOUT VIOLCENCE, an Oregon nonprofit corporation, hereinafter referred to as ("Lessee"). Lessor and Lessee are referred to herein as "Party" or "Parties." Lessor hereby leases to Lessee and Lessee takes from Lessor the "Premises" described as follows: Deschutes County Main Courthouse located at 1100 NW Bond Street, Bend, outlined as follows and as show and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, Rooms 250 and 251, +/- 152 square feet; and Mike Maier Services Building located at 1130 NW Harriman Street, Bend, outlined as follows and as show and incorporated herein as Exhibit B, Room 216, +/- 184 square feet Room 205b, +/- 88 square feet First floor storage space, +/- 115 square feet; and Room 204, +/- 243 square feet shared with Deschutes County Health Services; and Use of the daycare known as Munchkin Manor as arranged with the owner and operator; and Use of conference rooms and breakroom space. The parties agree that the terms of this Lease are as follows: 1. Term. The effective date of this Lease shall be October 1, 2023, or the date on which each party has signed this Lease, whichever is later, and shall continue through September 30, 2026. This agreement and all automatic renewals as defined below, are contingent on a Memorandum of Understanding currently known as Deschutes County Document Number 2023-093 and like subsequent agreements. a. Lessor and Lessee each reserve the right to terminate this Lease prior to its expiration with sixty (60) days written notice, given to the other Party. b. Automatic Renewal. If the Lessee is not then in default and the Agreement has not been terminated in accordance hereof, this Agreement shall automatically renewal for additional two (2) year terms under the same terms and conditions set forth herein except for any modifications agreed to in writing by amendment. The Auto Renewal terms will be memorialized by a letter signed by the Lessor (Deschutes County Property Manager or County Administrator), and Lessee. Page 1 of 11 — Lease: Saving Grace (Mary's Place) Deschutes County Document No. 2023-719 2. Rent. Lessor is providing the Premises for zero consideration for the operation of Lessee's program known as Mary's Place. Lessee is responsible for a proportionate share of utilities as outlined in Section 8 Utilities and Services. 3. Use of Premises. The Premises shall be used by Lessee for the purpose of operating Lessee's program, Mary's Place. Lessee, its principals or agents shall not use the Premises to operate a business other than that specified in this Lease and shall not use the Premises address as the business or mailing address for any other business than that specified in this Lease without obtaining the Lessor's written consent in advance. Mary's Place provides supervised visitation and safe exchanges to families where domestic violence, stalking, sexual assault or child abuse in the context of domestic violence has occurred. Mary's Place operates after 6:00 pm Monday, Thursday and Friday evenings, Saturday from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm, and Sunday from noon to 8:00 pm. Hours are subject to change as provided by Section 15. 4. Parking. Lessee, its employees, and clientele shall have a nonexclusive right to access and utilize vehicle parking spaces in County parking lots. Lessee's employees will be required to adhere to the County Parking Policy and Regulations, which County in its sole discretion may amend from time to time. 5. Restrictions on Use. In connection with the use of the Premises, Lessee shall: a. Conform to all applicable laws and regulations affecting the Premises and correct at Lessee's own expense any failure of compliance created through Lessee's fault or by reason of Lessee's use of the Premises. Lessee shall not be required to make any structural changes to affect such compliance, unless such changes are required because of Lessee's specific use. b. Refrain from any use which would be reasonably offensive to the Lessor, other tenants, or owners or users of adjoining property or unoccupied portions of the real property, or which would tend to create a nuisance or damage the reputation of the real property. C. Refrain from making any unlawful or offensive use of said property or to suffer or permit any waste or strip thereof. d. Exercise diligence in protecting from damage the real property and common area of Lessor covered by and used in connection with this Lease. e. Be responsible for removing any liens placed on said property as a result of Lessee's use of leased premises. f. Comply with Lessor's policies, as periodically amended, regarding smoking, parking, fragrances, facilities maintenance, facilities use and violence in the workplace. Those polices are incorporated by reference herein and are available from Lessor upon request. 6. Lessee's Obligations. The following shall be the responsibility of the Lessee: a. Lessee shall not be required to make structural repairs that would place the Premises in a better condition than at the commencement of this lease. Lessee may place fixtures, partitions, personal property, and the like in the Premises and may make Page 2 of 11 — Lease: Saving Grace (Mary's Place) Deschutes County Document No. 2023-719 nonstructural improvements and alterations to the Premises at its own expense. Lessee may be required to remove such items at the end of the Lease term. b. Any repairs necessitated by the negligence of Lessee, its agents, employees or invitees. C. Any repairs or alterations required under Lessee's obligation to comply with laws and regulations as set forth in "Restrictions on Use" above. 7. Maintenance and Repair of Premises. a. Lessor shall perform all necessary maintenance and repairs to the structure, foundation, exterior walls, roof, doors and windows, elevators, emergency lighting, and Lessor -provided fire extinguishers, sidewalks, and parking area which are located on or serve the Premises. Lessor shall maintain the premises in a hazard free condition and shall repair or replace, if necessary and at Lessor's sole expense, the heating, air conditioning, plumbing, electrical, and lighting systems in the Premises, obtaining required permits and inspections from Code enforcement authorities, and shall keep the Premises, improvements, grounds and landscaping in good repair and appearance replacing dead, damaged or diseased plant materials when necessary. b. Should Lessor fail to maintain the Premises in accordance with above requirements, and after at least fourteen (14) days prior written notification to Lessor, Lessee may contract for necessary labor equipment and material to bring Premises within those requirements and invoice Lessor for reimbursement. C. Lessee shall take good care of the interior of the Premises and at the expiration of the term surrender the Premises in as good condition as at the commencement of this Lease, excepting only reasonable wear, permitted alterations, and damage by fire or other casualty. 8. Utilities and Services. a. Lessor shall provide adequate heat, electricity, water, air conditioning, trash removal service, and sewage disposal service for the Premises and janitorial services for the common areas of the building. Lessee shall provide its own telephone, internet and janitorial services for the Premises. Utilities or services provided to the Premises are not separately metered, but shall be the responsibility of Lessor and shall pay the amount due and separately invoice Lessee on a quarterly basis. Rate shall increase three (3) percent per year effective October 1 of each year until this Agreement Is terminated as provided herein. Courthouse, 152 square feet: Year 1 $24.23 per month or $72.86 per quarter with 3% annual increases. Mike Maier Services Building, 387 square feet: Year 1 $61.69 per month or $185.07 per quarter with 3% annual increases. b. Unless it is an exempt entity, Lessee agrees to pay property taxes and assessments applicable to the Premises which are due and payable during the term of this Lease or any extension hereof. If exempt, it is the responsibility of Lessee to file for such exemption with the Deschutes County Tax Assessor's office. Page 3 of 11 — Lease: Saving Grace (Mary's Place) Deschutes County Document No. 2023-719 C. Security equipment (cameras, recording devices, wiring, and like instruments), including the installation and maintenance thereof, shall be the sole responsibility of Lessee. Prior to the placement and/or attachment of such equipment to the internal or external portions of the Premises or common areas, Lessee shall notify Lessor and obtain Lessors consent. 9. Liens. a. Except with respect to activities for which the Lessor is responsible, the Lessee shall pay as due all claims for work done on and for services rendered or material furnished to the leased real property and shall keep the real property free from any liens. If Lessee fails to pay any such claims or to discharge any lien, Lessor may do so and collect the cost from Lessee. Any amount so expended shall bear interest at the rate of nine percent (9%) per annum from the date expended by Lessor and shall be payable on demand. Such action by Lessor shall not constitute a waiver of any right or remedy which Lessor may have on account of Lessee's default. b. Lessee may withhold payment of any claim in connection with a good faith dispute over the obligation to pay, so long as Lessor's property interests are not jeopardized. If a lien is filed as a result of nonpayment, Lessee shall, within thirty (30) days after knowledge of the filing, secure the discharge of the lien or deposit with Lessor cash or a sufficient corporate surety bond or other surety satisfactory to Lessor in an amount sufficient to discharge the lien plus any costs, attorney fees and other charges that could accrue as a result of a foreclosure or sale under a lien. 10. Insurance. a. Lessee shall keep the Site improvements and personal property of the Lessee insured at its own expense against fire and other risks covered by a standard fire insurance policy with an endorsement for extended coverage. The Lessor shall not be responsible for and shall not provide fire or extended coverage on the Site improvements or personal property of the Lessee. All insurance policies shall be written on an occurrence basis and be in effect for the term of this Agreement. Policies written on a "claims made" basis must be approved and authorized by Deschutes County Risk Management. Claims Made Policy: Risk Management Initials: (check only if applicable) ❑ Approved by County ❑ Not Approved by County b. It is expressly understood that Lessor shall not be responsible for carrying insurance on any property owned by Lessee. C. Lessee will be required to carry fire and casualty insurance on Lessee's personal property on the Premises. d. Lessor will carry fire and casualty insurance only on the structure where Premises are located. e. Lessee shall carry commercial general liability insurance, on an occurrence basis; with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000 each occurrence, with an annual Page 4 of 11 — Lease: Saving Grace (Mary's Place) Deschutes County Document No. 2023-719 aggregate limit of $2,000,000. Lessee shall provide Lessor with a certificate of insurance, as well as an endorsement, naming Deschutes County, its officers, agents, and employees and volunteers as an additional insured. There shall be no cancellation, termination, material change, or reduction of limits of the insurance coverage during the term of this lease. Lessee shall provide to Lessor proof of workers compensation insurance. g. Indemnification: Lessor and Lessee shall each be responsible for the negligent and wrongful acts of their officer, agents, employees and invitees. Lessor's liability exposure is restricted by the Oregon State Constitution, Article XI, and Oregon Revised Statutes 30.260 through 30.300, the Oregon Tort Claims Act. 11. Casualty Damage. If the Premises or improvements thereon are damaged or destroyed by fire or other casualty to such a degree that the Premises are unusable for the purpose leased, and if repairs cannot reasonably by made within ninety (90) days, Lessee may elect to cancel this Lease. Lessor shall in all cases promptly repair the damage or ascertain whether repairs can be made within ninety (90) days, and shall promptly notify Lessee of the time required to complete the necessary repairs or reconstruction. If Lessor's estimate for repair is greater than ninety (90) days, then Lessee, upon receiving said estimate will have twenty (20) days after such notice in which to cancel this Lease. Following damage, and including any period of repair, Lessee's rental obligation shall be reduced to the extent the Premises cannot reasonably be used by Lessee. 12. Surrender of Leased Premises. Upon abandonment, termination, revocation or cancellation of this Lease or the surrender of occupancy of any portion of or structure on the leased premises, the Lessee shall surrender the real property or portion thereof to Lessor in the same condition as the real property was on the date of possession, fair wear and tear excepted, except, that nothing in this lease shall be construed as to relieve Lessee of Lessee's affirmative obligation to surrender said premises in a condition which complies with all local, state or federal environmental laws, regulations and orders applicable at the time of surrender that was caused by Lessee or occurred during the term of this lease. Upon Lessor's written approval, Lessee may leave site improvements authorized by any land use or building permit. Lessee's obligation to observe and perform this covenant shall survive the expiration or the termination of the Lease. 13. Nonwaiver. Waiver by either party of strict performance of any provision of this Lease shall not be a waiver of or prejudice of the party's right to require strict performance of the same provision in the future or of any other provision. 14. Default. Neither party shall be in default under this Lease until written notice of its unperformed obligation has been given and that obligation remains unperformed after notice for fifteen (15) days in the case of the payment or for thirty (30) days in the case of other obligations. If the obligation cannot be performed within the thirty -day period, there shall be no default if the responsible party commences a good faith effort to perform the obligation within such period and continues diligently to complete performance. In case of default the non -defaulting party may terminate this Lease with thirty (30) days' notice in writing to the defaulting party, shall be entitled to recover damages or any other remedy provided by applicable law, or may elect to perform the defaulting party's obligation. The cost of such performance shall be immediately recoverable from the defaulting party plus interest at the legal rate forjudgment. If Lessee makes any such expenditures as the non -defaulting party, those expenditures may be applied to monthly rent payments(s). Page 5 of 11 — Lease: Saving Grace (Mary's Place) Deschutes County Document No. 2023-719 15. Notices. Notices between the parties shall be in writing, effective when personally delivered to the address specified herein, or if mailed, effective 48 hours following mailing to the address for such party specified below or such other address as either party may specify by notice to the other: Lessor: Deschutes County Property Management Attn: Property Manager 14 NW Kearney Avenue Bend, Oregon 97701 Phone: 541-385-1414 Kristie.Bollinger@deschutes.org Or, mail to: Deschutes County Property Management Attn: Property Manager P.O. Box 6005 Bend, OR 97708 Lessee: Saving Grace Attn: Cassi MacQueen, Executive Director 1425 NW Kingston, Suite 100 Bend, Oregon 97703 Phone: 541- 382-9227 x5 Email: Cassi.M@saving-grace.org 16. Assignment. Lessee shall not assign or sub -rent the premises without the prior written consent of the Lessor. 17. Attorneys' Fees. In the event a suitor action of any kind is instituted on behalf of either party to obtain performance under this Lease or to enforce any rights or obligations arising from this Lease, each party will be responsible for paying its own attorney fees. 18. Authority. The signatories to this agreement covenant that they possess the legal authority to bind their respective principals to the terms, provisions and obligations contained within this agreement. 19. MERGER. THIS LEASE CONSTITUTES THE ENTIRE LEASE BETWEEN THE PARTIES. NO WAIVER, CONSENT, MODIFICATION OR CHANGE OF TERMS OF THIS LEASE SHALL BIND EITHER PARTY UNLESS IN WRITING AND SIGNED BY BOTH PARTIES. SUCH WAIVER, CONSENT, MODIFICATION OR CHANGE, IF MADE, SHALL BE EFFECTIVE ONLY IN THE SPECIFIC INSTANCE AND FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE GIVEN. THERE ARE NO UNDERSTANDINGS, AGREEMENTS, OR REPRESENTATIONS, ORAL OR WRITTEN, NOT SPECIFIED HEREIN REGARDING THIS LEASE. LESSOR, BY THE SIGNATURE BELOW OF ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT LESSOR HAS READ THIS LEASE, UNDERSTANDS IT, AND AGREES TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS. [SIGNATURE PAGES FOLLOW] Page 6 of 11 — Lease: Saving Grace (Mary's Place) Deschutes County Document No. 2023-719 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be effective for all purposes as of the Effective Date. LESSOR: Dated this of , 2023 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ANTHONY DEBONE, Chair PATTI ADAIR, Vice Chair ATTEST: Recording Secretary PHIL CHANG, Commissioner [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] Page 7 of 11 — Lease: Saving Grace (Mary's Place) Deschutes County Document No. 2023-719 LESSEE: 14th September Dated this of 12023 SAVING GRACE IMAGINE LIFE WITHOUT VIOLENCE C" 1$4� CASSI MACQUEEN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Page 8 of 11 — Lease: Saving Grace (Mary's Place) Deschutes County Document No. 2023-719 Exhibit A ,Justice Building Second Floor ,,N Page 9 of 11 — Lease: Saving Grace (Mary's Place) Deschutes County Document No. 2023-719 6LZ-6ZOZ ON juownoop R{unoo sajnyosa4 (90eld s,fJLVM) a0WE) 6uines :aseal — L L 10 Ot 06ed e 4!4!Nxa 6�L-£ZOZ 'ON luewnooa Alunoa selnyosea (90e1d s,tieW) aoeaE) buineS :aseaj — 6 L Jo L L abed v"(E S COG2� BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING DATE: September 27, 2023 SUBJECT: Approval of Revocable License with Trenton Wayne LLC dba 97 Cafe to operate 97 Cafe located in the Deschutes Services Building RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move approval of Board Signature of Document No. 2023-838, a Revocable License with Trenton Wayne LLC to operate 97 Cafe located in the Deschutes Services Building. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: In March 2020, Deschutes County entered into a Revocable License (License) with the owners/operator of 97 Cafe, Tim and Summer Schultz. The Schultz's have opted to sell the cafe and have identified new buyers, Corina and David Burger and Chloe Marshall, who will operate as Trenton Wayne LLC, dba 97 Cafe. The 97 Cafe will continue to operate in the main lobby of the Deschutes Services Building (DSB) located at 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, and the buyers will also have continued access to the secure kitchen located in the south hallway on the first floor of the DSB. The term of the License begins October 1, 2023, or upon execution, through September 30, 2026. The License includes a 3-year extension upon mutual agreement in writing. The License is provided for zero consideration in exchange for the benefit and service the cafe provides to the public visiting the DSB and downtown campus, and to County and State staff. BUDGET IMPACTS: Zero consideration Revocable License ATTENDANCE: Kristie Bollinger, Property Manager REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL REVOCABLE LICENSE DESCHUTES COUNTY a political subdivision of the State of Oregon ("Licensor") hereby grants to TRENTON WAYNE LLC, DBA 97 Cafe ("Licensee"), a non-exclusive revocable license to use County real property, described as approximately Five Hundred (500) square feet of space and use of the kitchen designated by Licensor on the first floor of the Deschutes Services Building located at 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon 97703, together with necessary ingress and egress for such space, referred to herein as "the Premises." RECITALS Deschutes County is granting Licensee a non-exclusive, revocable license ("License") for that Licensee to use the Premises to operate a mobile food unit, as defined in Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 333-150-0000, 1-201.10(B)(48.1). NOW THEREFORE, this nonexclusive, revocable license is granted upon the following terms and conditions: 1. Term. The effective date of this License shall be October 1, 2023, or the date on which the last party has signed this License, whichever is later, and shall continue through September 30, 2026 ("initial term"). Licensor and Licensee each reserve the right to terminate this License prior to its expiration with thirty (30) days written notice, given to the other party. Except as otherwise provided in this License, if the Licensee is not then in default and with Licensor's approval, Licensee has the option to renew this License for three (3) years by giving at least thirty (30) days written notice to Licensor prior to the expiration of the initial term. The additional term will be memorialized by a letter signed by the Licensor (Deschutes County Property Manager or County Administrator), and Licensee. 2. Rent. In exchange for the benefit the Licensee's service provides to the general public and public employees, this License is provided for zero cost during the initial and subsequent terms of this License. 3. Use of Premises. The Premises shall be used by Licensee for operation of a Class III mobile food unit, as defined in OAR 333-162-0020(2)(c). Licensee shall offer for sale to the general public food and beverages, including, but not limited to, sandwiches, soup, pastries, and fruit, as well as coffee, tea, soft drinks and juice. Licensee shall furnish customer seating and tables. Licensee shall provide all necessary materials and supplies for food and beverage preparation, service, and sanitation. The Premises shall be used by Licensee for the purpose of operating Licensee's primary business, 97 Cafe. Licensee, its principals or agents shall not use the Premises to operate a business other than that specified in this License and shall not use the Premises address as the business or mailing address for any other business than that specified in this License without obtaining the Licensor's written consent in advance. Page 1 of 8 — REVOCABLE LICENSE: TRENTON WAYNE LLC DBA 97 CAFE Deschutes County Document No. 2023-838 4. Parking. Licensee, its employees, and clientele shall have a nonexclusive right to access and utilize vehicle unassigned public parking spaces in County parking lots. Licensee's employees will be required to adhere to the County Parking Policy and Regulations, which County in its sole discretion may amend from time to time. 5. Restrictions on Use. In connection with the use of the Premises, Licensee shall: a. Conform to all applicable laws and regulations affecting the Premises and correct at Licensee's own expense any failure of compliance created through Licensee's fault or by reason of Licensee's use of the Premises. Licensee shall not be required to make any structural changes to affect such compliance, unless such changes are required because of Licensee's specific use. b. Refrain from any use which would be reasonably offensive to the Licensor, other licensees, tenants, or owners or users of adjoining premises or unoccupied portions of the premises, or which would tend to create a nuisance or damage the reputation of the real property. c. Refrain from making any unlawful or offensive use of said property or to suffer or permit any waste or strip thereof. d. Exercise diligence in protecting the premises and adjoining common area from damage. e. Be responsible for removing any liens placed on said property as a result of Licensee's use of licensed premises. f. Comply with Lessor's policies, as periodically amended, regarding smoking, parking, fragrances, facilities maintenance, facilities use and violence in the workplace. Those polices are incorporated by reference herein and are available from Lessor upon request (copies of referenced policies were provided to Lessee prior to execution of this License). g. Minimum hours of operation shall be Monday through Friday, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., excluding county holidays or other approved closures. If any exceptions to the above hours of operation are necessary, notice with brief explanation shall be given to Deschutes County Property Management. 6. Licensee's Obligations. The following shall be the responsibility of the Licensee: a. Licensee shall not be required to make structural repairs that would place the Premises in a better condition than at the commencement of this License. Licensee may place partitions, personal property, and the like in the Premises and may make nonstructural improvements and alterations to the Premises at its own expense. Licensee may be required to remove such items at the end of the License term if required by Licensor. Licensee must obtain Licensor's express authorization prior to placing a fixture on the Premises. b. Licensee, at its expense, shall keep Licensee's equipment and facilities in a first- class repair, operating condition, working order and appearance. Licensee shall also be responsible for any repairs to other property necessitated by its negligence or the negligence or wrongful acts of its agents, employees and invitees. Page 2 of 8 — REVOCABLE LICENSE: TRENTON WAYNE LLC DBA 97 CAFE Deschutes County Document No. 2023-838 c. Any repairs or alterations required under Licensee's obligation to comply with laws and regulations as set forth in "Restrictions on Use" above. d. Licensee warrants the honesty and integrity of all personnel Licensee employs or authorizes to operate Licensees business on the Premises. Licensee shall notify Licensor in writing in advance of any changes in personnel having access to the Premises, including without limitation suspension, termination or resignation. Subject to security policies, practices and procedures, Licensee shall be granted access to and through Licensor's security access system in order to access the Premises in accordance with this License and shall be responsible for retrieving access keys or badges from Licensee's personnel who are no longer Licensee's authorized employees or representatives on the Premises. e. Licensee's signage and decorative accessories may be provided but must be approved by the Licensor prior to installation. Interior wall -mounted or free- standing signs and decorative accessories may also be allowed, but must not interfere with public traffic flow or County and State message boards. Placement of exterior signs, whether wall -mounted or free-standing, will be subject to the prior approval of the County's Facilities Department. Building exterior signs, if allowed, must also comply with the City of Bend sign code and be installed in accordance with all related City of Bend permit regulations. Printed flyers, menus, notices, announcements, and other promotional materials may be distributed among the neighboring buildings of the County's complex for the purposes of increasing customer traffic with prior approval of the Licensor. 7. Maintenance and Repair of Premises. a. Licensor shall perform all necessary maintenance and repairs to the structure, foundation, exterior walls, roof, doors and windows, elevators, emergency lighting, and Licensor -provided fire extinguishers, sidewalks, and parking area which are located on or serve the Premises. Licensor shall maintain the premises in a hazard free condition and shall repair or replace, if necessary and at Licensor's sole expense, the heating, air conditioning, plumbing, electrical, and lighting systems in the Premises, obtaining required permits and inspections from Code enforcement authorities, and shall keep the Premises, improvements, grounds and landscaping in good repair and appearance replacing dead, damaged or diseased plant materials when necessary. b. Should Licensor fail to maintain the Premises in accordance with above requirements, and after at least fourteen (14) days prior written notification to Licensor, Licensee may terminate the license. c. Licensee shall maintain its facilities and equipment on the Premises so as to impact in the least possible way Licensor's equipment, facilities and personnel. d. Licensee shall also secure its personal property on the Premises in a clean, safe and sanitary condition when not in use and at the close of daily business. e. Licensee shall take good care and keep clean the interior of the Premises, and at the expiration of the term surrender the Premises in as good condition as at the Page 3 of 8 — REVOCABLE LICENSE: TRENTON WAYNE LLC DBA 97 CAFE Deschutes County Document No. 2023-838 commencement of this License, excepting only reasonable wear, permitted alterations, and damage by fire or other casualty. 8. Utilities and Services. Licensor shall provide adequate heat, electricity, water, air conditioning, trash removal service, and sewage disposal service for the Premises and janitorial services for the common areas of the building. Licensee shall provide its own janitorial services for the Premises. 9. Liens. a. Except with respect to activities for which the Licensor is responsible, the Licensee shall pay as due, and as may be applicable, all property taxes, all claims for work done on and for services rendered or material furnished to the licensed premises and shall keep the property free from any liens. If Licensee fails to pay any such claims or to discharge any lien, Licensor may do so and collect the cost from Licensee. Any amount so expended shall bear interest at the rate of nine percent (9%) per annum from the date expended by Licensor and shall be payable on demand. Such action by Licensor shall not constitute a waiver of any right or remedy which Licensor may have on account of Licensee's default. b. Licensee may withhold payment of any claim in connection with a good faith dispute over the obligation to pay, so long as Licensor's property interests are not jeopardized. If a lien is filed as a result of nonpayment, Licensee shall, within thirty (30) days after knowledge of the filing, secure the discharge of the lien or deposit with Licensor cash or a sufficient corporate surety bond or other surety satisfactory to Licensor in an amount sufficient to discharge the lien plus any costs, attorney fees and other charges that could accrue as a result of a foreclosure or sale under a lien. 10. Insurance. a. It is expressly understood that Licensor shall not be responsible for carrying insurance on any property owned by Licensee. Licensee will be required to carry fire and casualty insurance on Licensee's personal property on the Premises. c. Licensor will carry fire and casualty insurance only on the structure where Premises are located. d. Subject to the limitations and conditions of the Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS 30.260 through 30.300, and the Oregon Constitution, Article XI, Section 7, Licensee shall carry commercial general liability insurance, on an occurrence basis with a combined single limit of not less than limitations set forth in ORS 30.272. Licensee may fulfill its obligations through a program of self-insurance pursuant to applicable law. Licensee shall provide Licensor with a certificate of insurance, as well as an endorsement, naming Deschutes County, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers as an additional insured. There shall be no cancellation, termination, material change, or reduction of limits of the insurance coverage during the term of this License. Page 4 of 8 — REVOCABLE LICENSE: TRENTON WAYNE LLC DBA 97 CAFE Deschutes County Document No. 2023-838 e. As applicable, Licensee shall provide to Licensor proof of workers compensation insurance or a legally established program of self-insurance for workers compensation claims, or certify exemption from the requirement under ORS 656. f. Indemnification: Licensor and Licensee shall each be responsible for and defend, indemnify and hold the other harmless for losses, costs or claims due to the negligent and wrongful acts of their employees, agents and invitees. Licensor's liability exposure is limited by the Oregon Constitution, Article XI, and Oregon Revised Statutes 30.260 through 30.300. 11. Casualty Damage. If the Premises or improvements thereon are damaged or destroyed by fire or other casualty to such a degree that the Premises are unusable for the purpose Licensed, and if repairs cannot reasonably by made within ninety (90) days, Licensee may elect to cancel this License. Licensor shall in all cases promptly repair the damage or ascertain whether repairs can be made within ninety (90) days, and shall promptly notify Licensee of the time required to complete the necessary repairs or reconstruction. If Licensor's estimate for repair is greater than ninety (90) days, then Licensee, upon receiving said estimate will have twenty (20) days after such notice in which to cancel this License. Following damage, and including any period of repair, Licensee's rental obligation shall be reduced to the extent the Premises cannot reasonably be used by Licensee. 12. Surrender of Licensed Premises. Upon abandonment, termination, revocation or cancellation of this License or the surrender of occupancy of any portion of or structure on the Licensed premises, the Licensee shall surrender the real property or portion thereof to Licensor in the same condition as the real property was on the date of possession, fair wear and tear excepted, except, that nothing in this License shall be construed as to relieve Licensee of Licensee's affirmative obligation to surrender said premises in a condition which complies with all local, state or federal environmental laws, regulations and orders applicable at the time of surrender that was caused by Licensee or occurred during the term of this License. Upon Licensor's written approval, Licensee may leave site improvements authorized by any land use or building permit. Licensee's obligation to observe and perform this covenant shall survive the expiration or the termination of the License. 13. Nonwaiver. Waiver by either party of strict performance of any provision of this License shall not be a waiver of or prejudice of the party's right to require strict performance of the same provision in the future or of any other provision. 14. Default. Neither party shall be in default under this License until written notice of its unperformed obligation has been given and that obligation remains unperformed after notice for fifteen (15) days in the case of the payment or for thirty (30) days in the case of other obligations. If the obligation (other than payment) cannot be performed within the thirty -day period, there shall be no default if the responsible party commences a good faith effort to perform the obligation within such period and continues diligently to complete performance. In case of default the non -defaulting party may terminate this License with thirty (30) days' notice in writing to the defaulting party, shall be entitled to recover damages or any other remedy provided by applicable law, or may elect to perform the defaulting party's obligation. The cost of such performance shall be immediately recoverable from the defaulting party plus interest at the legal rate for judgment. Page 5 of 8 — REVOCABLE LICENSE: TRENTON WAYNE LLC DBA 97 CAFE Deschutes County Document No. 2023-838 15. Notices. Notices between the parties shall be in writing, effective when personally delivered to the address specified herein, or if mailed, effective 48 hours following mailing to the address for such party specified below or such other address as either party may specify by notice to the other: Licensor: Deschutes County Property Management Property Manager 14 NW Kearney Avenue Mail to: P.O. Box 6005 Bend, Oregon 97701 Bend, OR 97708 Phone: 541-385-1414 Email: Kristie.Bollinger(a-)deschutes.org Licensee: Trenton Way LLC, dba 97 Cafe Corina Burger and Chloe Marshall 2974 NE Dogwood Drive Bend, OR 97701 Phone: Corina @ 541-408-3653, Chloe @ 541-213-4029 Email: corina75(a)-live.com and chloervibe(@-icloud.com 16. Assignment. Licensee shall not assign or sub -rent the premises without the prior written consent of the Licensor. 17. Attorneys' Fees. In the event a suit or action of any kind is instituted on behalf of either party to obtain performance under this License or to enforce any rights or obligations arising from this License, each party will be responsible for paying its own attorney fees. 18. Authority. The signatories to this agreement covenant that they possess the legal authority to bind their respective principals to the terms, provisions and obligations contained within this agreement. 19. MERGER. THIS LICENSE CONSTITUTES THE ENTIRE LICENSE BETWEEN THE PARTIES. NO WAIVER, CONSENT, MODIFICATION OR CHANGE OF TERMS OF THIS LICENSE SHALL BIND EITHER PARTY UNLESS IN WRITING AND SIGNED BY BOTH PARTIES. SUCH WAIVER, CONSENT, MODIFICATION OR CHANGE, IF MADE, SHALL BE EFFECTIVE ONLY IN THE SPECIFIC INSTANCE AND FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE GIVEN. THERE ARE NO UNDERSTANDINGS, AGREEMENTS, OR REPRESENTATIONS, ORAL OR WRITTEN, NOT SPECIFIED HEREIN REGARDING THIS LICENSE. LICENSOR, BY THE SIGNATURE BELOW OF ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT LICENSOR HAS READ THIS LICENSE, UNDERSTANDS IT, AND AGREES TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS. [SIGNATURE PAGES FOLLOW] Page 6 of 8 — REVOCABLE LICENSE: TRENTON WAYNE LLC DBA 97 CAFE Deschutes County Document No. 2023-838 LICENSOR: DATED this day of 2023 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ANTHONY DEBONE , Chair PATTI ADAIR, Vice -Chair Recording Secretary PHIL CHANG, Commissioner [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] Page 7 of 8 — REVOCABLE LICENSE: TRENTON WAYNE LLC DBA 97 CAFE Deschutes County Document No. 2023-838 LICENSEE: DATED thisa�ay of Qom- A-f C ; 2023 TRENTON WAYNE LLC, DBA 97 CAFI= CORINA BURGER, Member CHLOE MARSHAL, N4hmber DAAI—BURGER, Member Page 8 of 8 — REVOCABLE LICENSE: TRENTON WAYNE LLC DBA 97 CAFt Deschutes County Document No. 2023-838 A �® CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE (MM/DD/YYYY) 09/13/2023 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). PRODUCER CONTACT Lucinda Floyd NAME: Century Insurance Group, LLC PAHicNN Ext : (541) 382-4211 (A No : (541) 382-7468 E-MAIL s: Lucinda@centuryins.com ADDRE 320 SW Upper Terrace Dr. INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC # Suite 104 INSURERA: Hartford Underwriters Ins Co Bend OR 97702 INSURED INSURER B : INSURER C : Trenton Wayne LLC, DBA: 97 Cafe INSURER D : 2974 NE Dogwood Dr INSURER E : INSURER F : Bend OR 97701 COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: Master 23-24 REVISION NUMBER: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACTOR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. INSR LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE AUUL1bUt5K INSD WVD POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFF MM/DD/YYYY POLICY EXP MM/DD/YYYY LIMITS X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ 1,000,000 CLAIMS -MADE X OCCUR DAMAGE To RENTED PREMISES Ea occurrence 50,000 $ MED EXP (Any one person) $ 10,000 PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $ 1,000,000 A 52SBABAlNPC 09/13/2023 09/13/2024 GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 2,000,000 X POLICY PEt° LOC PRODUCTS - COMP/OPAGG $ 2,000,000 EPLI $ 25.000 OTHER: AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT Ea accident $ BODILY INJURY (Per person) $ ANY AUTO OWNED SCHEDULED AUTOS ONLY AUTOS BODILY INJURY (Per accident) $ PROPERTY DAMAGE Per accident $ HIRED NON -OWNED AUTOS ONLY AUTOS ONLY UMBRELLALIAB OCCUR EACH OCCURRENCE $ HCLAIMS-MADE AGGREGATE $ EXCESS LIAR DED I I RETENTION $ $ WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY y I N I PER I I OTH- STATUTE I ER ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE E.L. EACH ACCIDENT $ OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? El (Mandatory in NH) E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE $ E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT $ If yes, describe under DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required) Deschutes County Property Management is additional insured with respects to General Liability. Refer to policy endorsements, forms and exclusions. SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN Deschutes County Property Management ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. 14 NW Kearny Ave AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Bend OR 97701(�GvN�a @ 1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. ACORD 25 (2016103) The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING DATE: September 27, 2023 SUBJECT: Consideration of Approval for Road Department Submittal of ODOT Local Bridge Program Applications RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move approval of Road Department submittal of ODOT Local Bridge Program applications. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) is currently soliciting for applications by local agencies for bridge project funding under the Local Bridge Program (LBP) for the 2027-2030 ODOT Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) cycle. The call for projects issued by ODOT includes a list of the local agency bridges eligible for the program based on current bridge condition ratings. No Deschutes County -owned bridges are eligible for replacement funding at this time, but several Deschutes County -owned bridges were identified as being eligible for rehabilitation funding. Road Department staff have prioritized the eligible County -owned bridges and are preparing LBP applications for the following bridge rehabilitation projects: 1. Spring River Road (Harpers) Bridge - Work would include concrete repair of superstructure elements, strengthening of steel foundation elements, bridge rail repairs, and approach rail replacement. Estimated total cost = $1,131,000 2. S Century Road (BNSF Railroad) Bridge - Work would include concrete repair of superstructure and foundation elements, bridge rail replacement, deckjoint replacement, deck sealing, and other work. Estimated total cost = $2,533,000 3. Sisemore Road (Tumalo Reservoir Feed Canal) Bridge -Work would include deck and superstructure replacement and improvements to existing foundation elements. Estimated total cost = $818,000 4. Cottonwood Road ((BNSF Railroad) Bridge - Work would include concrete repair of superstructure and foundation elements, bridge rail repairs, deckjoint replacement, deck sealing, and other work. Estimated total cost = $2,400,000 LBP applications for the 2027-2030 ODOT STIP cycle will be selected for scoping by the Local Agency Bridge Selection Committee (LABSC), which is composed of local agency public works staff from around the state, in early 2024. Funding selections will be made in early 2025. Applications are due on Monday, October 16, 2023. BUDGET IMPACTS: None at this time. Projects selected for funding will require a 10.27 percent local match. If any of the County's applications are successful, the Road Department will propose budgeting for the required matching funds beginning in the Department's Fiscal Year 2026 Road Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) fund. Projects selected for funding will be subject to an ODOT/County intergovernmental agreement. The Spring River Road (Harpers) Bridge and S Century Drive (BNSF Railroad) Bridge projects are identified in the 5-Year Road CIP for Fiscal Years 2024 through 2028 as fully County -funded projects. ATTENDANCE: Cody Smith, County Engineer/Assistant Director v'(E S COG2A O -G BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING DATE: September 27, 2023 SUBJECT: Request for approval of two grant proposals for the Central Oregon Landscape Resiliency Project and a Community Wildfire Defense Grant RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move approval of the submittal of proposals for a Central Oregon Landscape Resiliency Project Grant and a Community Wildfire Defense Grant. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Grant for the Central Oregon Landscape Resiliency Project The Landscape Resiliency grant program is funded from Senate Bill 762 and administered by the Oregon Department of Forestry. In 2022, the Central Oregon Landscape Resiliency Project (COLRP) was awarded $5.8 million which was distributed to 16 partner organizations throughout Central Oregon. That agreement ended in June 2023. A new proposal for the second round of LRP funding closed on September 1, 2023. COLRP requested $7.2 million for distribution to 19 partners involving a total of 20,888 acres. The Deschutes County Natural Resource Department is requesting $1.25 million in funding for two private landowners, one community (Squaw Creek Estates) and 1,639 acres of land owned by Deschutes County for a total of 2,274 acres of treatment. Although the COLRP funding request would be the lion's share of the available funding, we want to show that the Central Oregon Landscape Resiliency Project has the capacity to get the work done and our request is scalable based on funding and priorities. The Central Oregon Shared Stewardship Alliance has applied for this grant on behalf on the 19 partners. Community Wildfire Defense Grant Roads maintained by Deschutes County are used for hundreds of thousands of vehicle trips throughout the year. During wildfire season, County -owned and -maintained roads serve as critical evacuation and transportation routes. Reducing fire risk along these routes will greatly improve evacuation procedures and first responder needs. Using the "Wildfire Crisis Strategy," the USDA Forest Service has identified Central Oregon as one of ten landscapes in the West to invest funding with partner organizations to reduce wildfire risk. Underserved communities such as La Pine have been identified as areas of high fire risk. The Deschutes County Road Department in conjunction with the Natural Resource Department is requesting $348,000 to increase the pace and scale of vegetation management on rights of way. Funding would be used for contractual services and a new masticator head for brush removal. The Community Wildfire Defense grant will be applied for by the Oregon Department of Forestry on behalf of various Central Oregon counties, including Deschutes County. BUDGET IMPACTS: These proposals have been not been budgeted because they have not been awarded. If awarded, they will result in revenue to the Road and Natural Resource Departments. For the Central Oregon Landscape Resiliency grant, the required 25% match would come from US Forest Service Wildfire Crisis Strategy funding and, if needed, up to $960,000 from the Bureau of Land Management. For the Community Wildfire Defense grant, the Road Department would provide in -kind matching funds of $100,000 per year over five years by conducting brush mowing and herbicide treatments in conjunction with fuel removal treatments along roads identified by the project. ATTENDANCE: Chris Doty Kevin Moriarty 2023 LRP - All Lands Central Oregon (SCALABLE Proposal) Community Name(s): Jefferson County, Warm Springs, Greater La Pine, Crescent/Gilchrist, Greater Sisters, Greater Bend, Sunriver Budget and Match Narrative The full funding request includes 18 partners working across 3 counties, treating 20,888 acres on a footprint of 8,016 acres. Our total request is $7,428,541. This work is scalable, and we present 3 options for selecting priority work: • Option 1: Bundles 9 partners with projects in underserved areas, treating 11,968 acres on a 4,259 acre footprint. Cost: $4,272,948 • Option 2: Bundles 13 partners with self -identified high -priority projects, treating 7,096 acres on a 2,581 acre footprint. Cost: $3,302,500 • Option 3: Bundles 3 new partners treating 3,033 acres on a 444 acre footprint. Cost: $1,361,115 Projects could also be prioritized by geography: Greater Bend, Greater Sisters, South Deschutes County, Jefferson County/Warm Springs The proposed 20,888 treatment acres is matched by 25,698 treatment acres on BLM and USFS, with more than 70% of matched treatment acres located in the wildland urban interface (WUI). Partners include State, County, Municipal, Tribal, non-profit, and private landowners. Deschutes SWCD, Upper Deschutes Watershed Council, Walker Range, request personnel funds to oversee projects in cooperation with private landowners. Jefferson County will use a portion of their budget to train volunteers and students to complete on -the -ground fuels reduction work. The High Desert Museum requests funds to hire a forest manager to plan and continue fuels reduction work around museum buildings and on adjacent private property previously supported by the ODF Small Forestland Grant Program. Our full budget request also includes small equipment purchases such as chainsaws to implement on -the -ground work. Supplies include native seed for reseeding following invasive species and fuels reduction treatments as well as outreach materials to help recruit landowners for current and future fuels reduction work. COFSF will administer contracts, collect and validate implementation data, and collect spatial data for partners, streamlining ODF's efforts. COFSF will engage in targeted outreach to underserved communities, to identify and reduce their barriers to participation. Real-time problem solving is supported through peer -to -peer communication via the network and 2 field trips. A detailed budget spreadsheet displaying $ budgeted by category (requested and match) and a breakdown by each project partner was emailed to the State Grant Initiatives Coordinator The 1.65 million acre project area includes an extensive WUI surrounding the cities of Bend, Sisters, La Pine, unincorporated areas of Crescent, Gilchrist, Cloverdale, and Sunriver. The project area provides countless benefits to area residents, including clean air, water, recreational opportunities, and a robust economy based on forest products, agriculture, and tourism. Numerous high -use recreation areas are located across the landscape and the area is bisected by three primary state highways (97, 58, 20), and two scenic byways, Hwy 242 and the Cascade Lakes Scenic Byway. The project area has a history of large wildfires that prompt multiple evacuations, costly suppression, cause health complications due to heavy smoke, and have resulted in structural losses. The project area averages 179 fires a year, 71 % human -caused, and 18 large fires in the past 10 years, emphasizing the risk to people and property from high fire hazard. Current conditions of the area's ponderosa, lodgepole and juniper forests present a high fire risk for communities. Forest health issues, a lack of fire resilience, and a growing population present significant challenges for agencies responsible for wildfire suppression and evacuation. The landscape contains Oregon's #1 and #6 fireshed for cross -boundary community exposure to wildfire. Many communities within the top 50 at risk for housing exposure (Quantitative Wildfire Risk Assessment) are within the project area: Bend #4, Sisters #20, Tumalo #21, La Pine #34. The project area is in a crucial time for partnering to scale up resilience by expanding treated landscapes. Project Area Description and Challenges The project area intersects with 8 current CWPPs all with goals of resilient landscapes, fire adapted communities and safe & effective wildfire response. The proposal aligns with CWPP goals by reducing fuel hazards on public & private lands, reducing structural vulnerability, increasing education & awareness of the threat of wildfire, & improving and protecting evacuation routes. This project is directly tied to reducing fuel hazards on public & private lands with the intent as described in the CWPPs of reducing overall fire behavior so suppression resources are successful while providing increased safety for first responders & residents. Through matching efforts with Firewise sites, structural vulnerability is also being addressed. Most areas within the proposed work areas are rated as very high or high risk of impacts to people and property. Success will be shared with the public to tell the story of the region's current conditions & the cross -boundary work being done to support wildfire resiliency. Outreach materials & events match CWPP goals to increase education & awareness. FAP goals accomplished: 1) leveraging partnerships to build landscape scale, cross -boundary projects, to conserve forest landscapes (shared stewardship); 2) restore disturbance resilient forests, manage ecosystem health toward fire adapted landscapes, & protect life & property while increasing pace, scale & quality of management on federal lands to protect forests from harm; 3) reduce negative post disturbance impact & reduce impacts of smoke on air quality through forest management. Proposed treatments address FAP priority issues of Climate Change, DEI, Forest Health, Water Quality & Quantity. Proposed Activities The goal of this work is to reduce wildfire risk, lower the expected severity of fire behavior, enhance public safety, and increase communities' fire resilience. The project will treat an estimated 46,586 acres with small tree thinning, pruning, brush mowing, mastication and prescribed burning. Fuel reduction projects are located near homes and critical infrastructure that is in and adjacent to communities. The majority of the project's boundary falls within the Central Oregon Focal Landscape as identified in the USFS Wildfire Crisis Strategy, which calls for treating 20 million acres of USFS land and an additional 30 million acres of private land over the next 10 years. The projects also fall in Class 1 on the eNVC risk map, with small portions in Class 2. While the 1.65 million acre geography is quite large, the proposed work is part of a larger landscape resiliency and fuels reduction effort that has been in process over 17+ years, and includes Project Wildfire, Deschutes Collaborative Forest Project, two Joint Chief's projects, and over 62 official Firewise USA TM sites across the region. It also includes over $170,000 of defensible space fuel reduction projects across 38 Firewise USA TM communities since 2022. Work on non-federal lands can be broken down into three general focal areas: Greater Sisters area, Jefferson Co. & Warm Springs to the north, and south Deschutes County. A mix of tribal, local government, non-profit, industrial and non -industrial private, and HOA landowners will engage in thinning and fuel reduction on more than 8000 acres. This work will deepen and expand the COSSA network of relationships, increasing central Oregon's capacity to coordinate and implement cross -boundary fuels reduction work. As COSSA continues to stitch together the patchwork of fuels reduction projects across Central Oregon, funding will increase the pace and scale of current Firewise USA TM defensible space projects and future Firewise USA TM sites. Inclusion of underserved communities in fuels reduction projects will be increased in this project. In addition to working with Jefferson County and the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, COFSF and OSU Extension will conduct targeted outreach to underserved communities, leveraging demonstration projects slated for implementation in Jefferson & Deschutes Counties and sharing success stories to increase awareness and support of cross -boundary landscape work. These efforts may include pub talks in favorite watering holes near at -risk communities. Where possible, LRP participants will serve as the program voice, putting a local face on the state's program. Efforts will also include field trips, videos, and print collateral designed to increase awareness, connect people to peers who have completed work on the ground, and develop a list of those interested in fuels reduction projects in underserved communities. Building on lessons learned during LRP1, partners will learn from each other via quarterly peer -to -peer learning sessions, enhancing real-time problem solving. COFSF will update and enhance a list of qualified contractors, increasing its accuracy and utility to partners. The ability to identify and secure a contractor capable of completing the work -at -had was a significant barrier to efficient implementation. An accurate, sortable, and detailed list will save time and money. Project work will be administered under the umbrella of COFSF, which will draft and oversee agreements, collect and validate monitoring data, manage invoicing, and gather and update spatial data to meet reporting needs. This streamlines ODF's workload and provides needed services to partners in support of accurate reporting and project completion. Cross -Boundary Opportunities The proposed project boundary lies within the USFS Wildfire Crisis Strategy Central Oregon Focal Landscape, one of ten high -risk landscapes in the U.S. chosen for immediate investment to reduce overall fire risk. The project overlays with 8 CWPP's, and the Deschutes Collaborative CFLRP boundary to weave together current and ongoing efforts to improve landscape resiliency and reduce the risk of wildfire. This project adds the element of Shared Stewardship into these other existing initiatives which serves to broaden project partners to the fullest extent to insure an all lands cross boundary approach. All project partners will either work on their own lands or will work with multiple private landowners to accomplish the overall objective of reduction of wildfire risk on public and private lands, in and adjacent to communities, near homes and critical infrastructure while restoring landscape resiliency. Additionally, over 50% of the proposed projects are immediately adjacent to public land, and 42% are privately owned, non -industrial lands. COSSA has also built new partnerships in Jefferson County and Warm Springs in order to protect cultural resources, critical infrastructure and smaller lot owners who are in high wildfire risk areas and also represent underserved populations. To bring all these organizations together under an overall Shared Stewardship approach, COFSF will convene partners for an effort focused on supportive grant administration and coordination, while providing as -needed local support for state -level effectiveness monitoring, and creating stories of success highlighting cross boundary collaboration coming out of this proposed project. Project Collaboration Jefferson Co. Fire & EMS will treat heavy fuel loads on private, school district, & public land, to include two demonstration sites Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs will reduce fire risk adjacent to the museum, which is of cultural importance to the tribe BPRD is plans a 200 ft fuel break, weed control, native reseeding, and fuels reduction work on municipal land Deschutes Land Trust is working on 2 properties in Sisters treating noxious weeds and conducting pile burning, and 1 thinning project in La Pine Deschutes SWCD is developing a Forest Health and Wildfire Risk Reduction Program & will identify 10, 30-acre projects to implement forest health projects UDWC will utilize trees removed from thinning projects for a stream habitat improvement project in cooperation with OWEB Deschutes County will be working with private landowners in Sisters and La Pine, as well as conducting a prescribed burn High Desert Museum will hire a forest manager to oversee 165 acres of fuels reduction on museum property and the adjacent private land Shanda Assets will create a continuous line of fuels reduction work with the Melvin Butte USFS and SAFR projects Walker Range & Shanda will reduce fuels in Mahn Acres Subdivision Sunriver Owners will thin, chip, and brush common areas Peaks 360 will create a fuel break to help protect areas near Lower Bridge Caldera Springs will create fuel breaks to help protect residential infrastructure OPRD will reduce fire risk in La Pine State Park OSU Extension will assist with sharing success stories through outreach materials/events COFSF will hold and manage agreements with project partners to streamline administration through the life of the grant Project Timeline Fall 2023-Sp 2024: COFSF finalizes agreement with ODF and agreements with partners, final project layout, bidding and contract execution. Contractors and landowners begin on the ground work. Admin/planning: COFSF draws up agreements for each project partner & develops invoicing processes, works with partners to develop protocols for collecting spatial data, required reports, & demographic data. Hold quarterly partner meetings. Contractor List: Use partner meetings to refine & update content of list. Outreach: Schedule field trips, develop outreach plan & timeline, develop outreach materials, update project webpage. Summer- Fall 24: Continue fuel reduction work, some possible delays for fire season restrictions. Admin: Execute work as agreed to and described under winter/spring, partner meetings, support partners' mid-term reporting and data validation, hold mid -project field trip. Contractor List: Expand content, format & distribute. Outreach (continues through Spring 2025): Field trip, develop & distribute print collateral, host pub talk, update project webpage. Winter 2024/5: Mid -project check in COFSF and partners, make adjustments or amendments as needed, continue on the ground work. Admin: update implementation timelines, continue partner meetings, complete interim reports. Spring 25: Finalize work, ensure completed work aligns with scope of work. Admin: Final partner field trip, prepare for final reporting and wrap-up. June 15 25: COFSF support partners to complete end -of project reporting and close out agreements, submit final report to ODF Admin: Complete contractor directory, collect final reports, invoices, & spatial data from partners, submit final report. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion This project expands the LRP program's reach into underserved communities in Jefferson County, Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, and the La Pine area, which have high rates of poverty (15.9%, 27.8%, and 9.7% respectively in 2022). Underserved and poor communities traditionally have less access to the resources needed to create defensible space, and are thus more vulnerable to loss of property from wildfire & less able to recover afterwards. In addition to including multiple underserved communities in our proposal, this project seeks to overcome the barriers these communities have to participating in the first place. Lack of awareness, inability to provide in -kind or cash match, challenges completing paperwork & reporting, cultural barriers, and a lack of trust for the government are just a few reasons for lack of participation. COFSF and OSU Extension will partner to engage in targeted outreach, to increase our ability to serve these communities. Because people respond best to trusted peers, this project will engage community members who have completed fuels reduction work to serve as a key contact and bridge to the program. We will host field trips, pub talks, and engage in targeted outreach to connect underserved communities to others doing fuels reduction work, build relationships and add them to our network so we can enroll them in future programs. Additionally, COFSF will collect demographic data on contractors and program participants. This information will paint a picture of the degree to which the program currently serves communities of color and poverty. We also plan to work in partnership with Heart of Oregon to broaden the population that is reached. Deschutes County Right of Way Fuel Reduction Project — Community Wildfire Defense Grant Proposal —Key Points • Deschutes County roads service hundreds of thousands of county residents and non-residents throughout the year. During wildfire season, County owned and maintained roads serve as evacuation and transportation routes. • Reducing fire risk along these routes will greatly improve evacuation procedures and first responder needs. • Using the "Wildfire Crisis Strategy", the USDA Forest Service has identified Central Oregon as one of 10 landscapes in the West to invest funding with partner organizations to reduce wildfire risk. • Underserved communities such as La Pine have been identified as areas of high fire risk. Treatment: Tree removal and limbing of remaining trees for 31 miles of right of way along Deschutes County maintained roads. The project would focus in the La Pine area which has been identifies as an underserved community. • La Pine-30.82 miles (La Pine CWPP) Requests for Funding: 1.) Tree Removal Funding Category -Contractor Services Scope of work: Remove suppressed and understory trees 15 ft. from the fog line on Deschutes County maintained roads. Trees to be removed will be 10 inch DBH or less. Tree species and location will determine maximum DBH trees to be removed. Maximum DBH to be removed would vary between 6-10 inches depending on treatment. Limb remaining trees up 8 feet high to reduce potential wildfire ignition. Stumps to be cut to 4 inches high or less. Maps are provided for La Pine. Cost: Cost in this area is higher than average because of the high tree density. We estimate the cost to be $10,000 per mile. One mile of treatment includes both sides of the road. 30.82 x 10,000= $308,000 2.) Masticator head for Skid Steer Cat 299 Funding Category- Equipment The Road department would like to purchase a masticator head for their Skid Steer to improve mowing operations. Blade mower are sometime inadequate for mowing heavy brush with a large wood component. Masticator heads are more efficient for woody vegetation. Cost=$40,000 Match The Deschutes County Road Department would conduct brush mowing and herbicide treatments in conjunction with fuel removal treatments along the Project identified roads. The Road Department estimates spending $100,000 per year on brush removal and herbicide treatments for the identified roads. $100,000 per year x 5 years= $500,000 CAA?INO DE'ORO AVE AMBER IN^y � Deschutes County Roads and Social Vulnerability Index _� ii � -1-F 15 xt Classification, Jurisdiction m o Rural Arterial, Deschutes County �o �BVvd r z Rural Collector, Deschutes County dI t caoowOR oh5"� Rural Local, Deschutes County DY Eo LocacEo�NRl, Local Access Road \�Py OEEDONRO lNORTHDR F d" y1�`, IS'Y 05�\ 11-( �! OiCK Ro Rurald oval Private 043 o �� Cq Treatment Complete paNf WAv 'ate > a Q 90 1 LEtS�LIE Ok u 4 D 'a Wait HTAVF`w. 8.. /'� r > u. �',��r �, Boundaries ov"`2 SITXA z ,;$ K z �. �'' 4.r 1F^r :�d1 2z' °''Y,, �' Desha. Pover q ` �o�xG¢ J y ,�ar,�g c. Green space _ate PmeatyUmit I a��n. BOX WAY �5-'F SVI 2020 US TRACT E fiTH ST fl a °.;.b41iH ST 7NLEtiTTE3$'S'=�,'.`4 Overall perccntilc ranking 0. not - I.a/rou e120/2023 ti r� y �Fq Mies o� 0 0.75 1.5 3 q I t: �v1 E S CO C. G BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING DATE: September 27, 2023 SUBJECT: Consideration to hear an appeal of the Hearings Officer's decision approving land use applications for the Redmond Water Pollution Control Facility Effluent and Biosolids Disposal Complex RECOMMENDED MOTION: Consider whether to hear an appeal of a Hearings Officer's decision on a Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan Review, Lot of Record, and Administrative Determination approving a series of land use applications to facilitate the establishment of the Redmond Water Pollution Control Facility Effluent and Biosolids Disposal Complex ("Redmond Wetlands Complex"). BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Staff referred the applications to a public hearing, which was held on June 20, 2023 before a Hearings Officer. On August 8, 2023, the Hearings Officer issued a decision which approved the applications. Ms. Braedi Kolberg ("Appellant") filed a timely appeal of the Hearings Officer's decision on August 21, 2023 (reference appeal No. 247-23-000632-A). BUDGET IMPACTS: None ATTENDANCE: Haleigh King, Associate Planner �v� ES MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Haleigh King, Associate Planner DATE: September 20, 2023 RE: Consideration to Hear on Appeal - Deschutes County Land Use File Nos. 247-23- 000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD, 634-RC; Redmond Wetlands and Sanitation Complex On September 27, 2023, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) will consider whether to hear an appeal of a Hearings Officer's decision (ref. File Nos. 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-1-R, 23-152-AD, 634-RC) approving a series of land use applications to facilitate the establishment of the Redmond Water Pollution Control Facility Effluent and Biosolids Disposal Complex ("Redmond Wetlands Complex"). I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On August 8, 2023, the Hearings Officer issued a tentative approval for the subject applications. Braedi Kolberg, the appellant, filed a timely appeal of the Hearings Officer's approval on August 21, 2023. The applicant, City of Redmond, also filed a Reconsideration on August 21, 2023. Pursuant to Deschutes County Code Chapter 22.30, the Reconsideration process must occur first and the appeal is stayed pending outcome of the Reconsideration. The Hearing's Officer found the Reconsideration application had merit and issued a modified Findings and Decision on September 13, 2023. The modified decision eliminates Condition Q from the original Hearing Officer's decision. A 12-day appeal period follows ending on September 23, 2023. As of the date of this memo, an appeal of the Reconsideration decision has not been received. The appeal originally filed by Ms. Kolberg remains pending and is before the Board for its consideration of whether to hear that appeal. 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 AZI (541) 388-6575 @cdd@deschutes.org @www.deschutes.org/cd II. PROPOSAL The subject applications will allow for the establishment of an Effluent and Biosolids Disposal Complex ("utility facility necessary for public service") to serve land inside the Redmond urban growth boundary to accommodate wastewater and sewage treatment, storage, and disposal for its growing population. State statute also allows the system to serve land inside a nearby unincorporated community. The scope also includes the replacement of an existing 24-inch diameter interceptor pipeline with a 48-inch diameter pipeline that will be below grade and within established utility easements and/or public rights -of -way on an approximately two (2) mile route to the City of Redmond to connect to existing facilities treatment facility at the north end of Dry Canyon. III. KOLBERG APPEAL Ms. Kolberg, represented by Steven G. Liday, requests the Board review the Hearing Officer's decision on appeal to address the following summarized issues: Size and impact of development • Important policy concerns including preemption of local code, preferential treatment for projects by municipal bodies, applicable standards for protection of county farmland. Potential reversal by Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). The appellant did not specify whether de novo, limited de novo, or an on -the -record appeal was sought. The appellant requests the Board waive the transcript requirements outlined in DCC 22.32.024(D). V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff notes the Board has contributed $1 million dollars in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds to the sanitary complex expansion. Therefore, based on these financial contributions, the Board cannot sit as a neutral decision -making body on the appeal and should decline review. Furthermore, staff notes the Hearings Officer's Decision could be supported, as the record exists today, on appeal to LUBA. Both parties were well represented by land use consultants and/or attorneys. Lastly, the issues are a matter of statewide importance since they are regulated under State law; the Board may not be granted deference if appealed to LUBA. For these reasons, Staff, in coordination with Legal Counsel, recommends the Board decline to hear the appeal. 247-23-000632-A Page 2 of 3 IV. BOARD OPTIONS There is one version of Order No. 2023-038 attached to this memo; to decline to hear the appeal. In determining whether to hear the appeal, the Board may consider only: 1. The record developed before the Hearings Officer; 2. The notices of appeal; and 3. Recommendation of staff' If the Board decides that the Hearings Officer's Decision shall be the final decision of the County, then the Board shall not hear the appeal and the party appealing may continue the appeal as provided by law. The decision on the land use application and associated appeals becomes final upon the mailing of the Board's order to decline review. VI. 150-DAY LAND USE CLOCK The 150t" day on which the County must take final action on this application is November 11, 2023. VII. RECORD The record for File Nos. 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-1-R, 23-152-AD, 23-634-RC and the Notices of Appeal for Appeal No. 247-23-000632-A are as presented at the following Deschutes County Community Development Department website: www.deschutes.org/redmondwetlandscomplex Attachments: 1. DRAFT Board Order 2023-038 Declining Review of the Hearings Officer's Decision 2. Notice of Appeal (Appeal No. 247-23-000632-A) 3. Hearing's Officer Decision (File No. 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-I-R, 23-152-AD) 4. Hearing's Officer Reconsideration Decision (File No. 247-23-000634-RC) ' Deschutes County Code 22.32.035(D) 247-23-000632-A Page 3 of 3 REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Order Denying Review of Hearings Officer's Decision in File Nos. 247-23- * ORDER NO. 2023-038 000149-CU, 150-SP, 151-1-R, 152-AD, 634-RC WHEREAS, on August 8, 2023, the Hearings Officer approved File Nos. 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD; and WHEREAS, on August 21, 2023, Braedi Kolberg, the Appellant, appealed (Appeal No. 247- 23-000632-A) the Deschutes County Hearings Officer's Decision on File Nos. 247-23-000149-CU, 150-SP, 151-1-R, 152-AD; and WHEREAS, on August 21, 2023, the City of Redmond filed a Reconsideration (File No. 247- 23-000634-RC) application of the Deschutes County Hearings Officer's Decision on File Nos. 247- 23-000149-CU, 1 SO-SP, 151-LR, 152-AD; and WHEREAS, on September 13, 2023, the Hearings Officer issued a Reconsideration decision on File No. 247-23-000634-RC; and WHEREAS, Sections 22.32.027 and 22.32.035 of the Deschutes County Code ("DCC") allow the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners ("Board") discretion on whether to hear appeals of Hearings Officers' decisions; and WHEREAS, the Board has given due consideration as to whether to review this application on appeal; now, therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, HEREBY ORDERS as follows: Section 1. That it will not hear on appeal Appeal No. 247-23-000632-A pursuant to Title 22 of the DCC and/or other applicable provisions of the County land use ordinances. Section 2. Pursuant to DCC 22.32.015, the County shall refund any portion of the appeal fee not yet spent processing the subject application. If the matter is further appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals and the County is required to prepare a transcript of the hearing before the ORDER NO. 2023-038 Hearings Officer, the refund shall be further reduced by an amount equal to the cost incurred by the County to prepare such a transcript. Section 3. Pursuant to DCC 22.32.035(D), the only documents placed before and considered by the Board are the notice of appeal, recommendations of staff, and the record developed before the lower hearing body for File Nos. 247-23-000149-CU, 150-SP, 151-LR, 152-AD, 634-RC, 632-A as presented at the following website: www.deschutes.org/redmondwetlandscomplex DATED this day of , 2023. ATTEST: Recording Secretary BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ANTHONY DEBONE, Chair PATTI ADAIR, Vice Chair PHIL CHANG, Commissioner ORDER NO. 2023-038 APPEAL APPLICATION - BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FEE: $5,482.60 EVERY NOTICE OF APPEAL SHALL INCLUDE: 1. A statement describing the specific reasons for the appeal. 2. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body, a request for review by the Board stating the reasons the Board should review the lower decision. 3. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body and de novo review is desired, a request for de novo review by the Board, stating the reasons the Board should provide the de novo review as provided in Section 22.32.027 of Title 22. 4. If color exhibits are submitted, black and white copies with captions or shading delineating the color areas shall also be provided. It is the responsibility of the appellant to complete a Notice of Appeal as set forth in Chapter 22.32 of the County Code. The Notice of Appeal on the reverse side of this form must include the items listed above. Failure to complete all of the above may render an appeal invalid. Any additional comments should be included on the Notice of Appeal. Staff cannot advise a potential appellant as to whether the appellant is eligible to file an appeal (DCC Section 22.32.010) or whether an appeal is valid. Appellants should seek their own legal advice concerning those issues. Appellant's Name (print): Steven Liday on behalf of Doug and Braedi Kolberg Mailing Address: Email Address: 111 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 3400 steven.liday@millernash.com Land Use Application Being Appealed: 23-152-AD Property Description: Township 14S Range 13E Section 30 Appellant's Signature: Phone: ( 503 ) 205-2362 City/State/Zip: Portland, OR 97204 Tax Lot 101; others listed in appeal statement Date: August 18, 2023 By signing this application and paying the appeal deposit, the appellant understands and agrees that Deschutes County is collecting a deposit for hearing services, including "whether to hear" proceedings. The appellant will be responsible for the actual costs of these services. The amount of any refund or additional payment will depend upon the actual costs incurred by the county in reviewing the appeal. Except as provided in section 22.32.024, appellant shall provide a complete transcript of any hearing appealed, from recordings provided by the Planning Division upon request (there is a $5.00 fee for each recording copy). Appellant shall submit the transcript to the planning division no later than the close of 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 Q, (541) 388-6575 @ cdd@deschutes.org @ www.deschutes.org/cd the day five (5) days prior to the date set for the de novo hearing or, for on -the -record appeals, the date set for receipt of written records. NOTICE OF APPEAL See Appeal Statement below. Pursuant to DCC 22.32.024(D), appellants request that the County waive the requirement that they provide a transcript for the June 20, 2023, hearing on the application. Request for Review by Board of County Commissioners Appeal of hearings officer's approval of Application for Major Administrative Determination, File No. 23-152-AD 5801 NW Way, Redmond, Oregon 97756 Tax Lots: 1413300000101, 1413000002604, 1413290000201 I. Overview of Application and Decision The City of Redmond (the "City") has decided to close its wastewater treatment facilities within its city limits and pump the raw sewage produced by its citizens to a new complex located outside its urban growth boundary (UGB) on exclusive farm use (EFU) land, which will also require the expansion of a conveyance pipe between the city and EFU property. The City proposes to relocate all of its wastewater division operations to this EFU site, including administrative offices, vehicle/equipment parking, and maintenance shops, which it claims are utility facilities that can be sited on EFU land. The City has also repeatedly stated that it will open this site as a public park. On February 28, 2023, the City submitted applications for a conditional use permit, site review, lot of record verification, and major administrative determination. Remarkably, the new $60- million-plus wastewater treatment and operations complex was only addressed in the request for an administrative decision. On August 8, 2023, all applications were approved in a decision by the Deschutes County Hearings Officer (the "Decision"). This appeal concerns only the approval of the application for an administrative determination for the new wastewater treatment and operations facility at 5801 NW Way, Redmond, Oregon 97756 ("Application"). II. Reasons the Board of County Commissioners Should Review the Decision There are several reasons for the Board of County Commissioners (the "Board") to review the Decision: Size and impact of development. The Application proposes a new wastewater treatment system covering more than 1,000 acres, as well as the relocation of all operations of the City's wastewater division to EFU land outside the City's UGB. This development will have a significant impact on the surrounding rural community. - 1 - MILLER NASH"` Important policy concerns. The appeal raises several important policy questions that should be answered by the County's governing body, including: o Preemption of local code: The Decision states that the County's site plan review code is preempted by ORS 215.283, even though that statute concerns only the uses allowed on EFU land, not the design of the development. This conclusion turns ORS 215.283 on its head: instead of a list of limited exceptions to the strict protection of farm use land, the statute is converted into a preference for development on EFU land. The County's governing body should decide if its code is preempted in this manner. o Preferential treatment for projects by municipal bodies: Throughout the Decision, the hearings officer expressly defers to representations by the City, repeatedly stating that it is not the job of a hearings officer to "second guess" the statements of City staff. There is no discussion of the burden of proof that applies to all other applicants. The Board should decide if this preferential treatment for a municipal body is consistent with the County's code. o The applicable standards for protection of countyfarmland: The Decision adopts a low standard for siting utility facilities on EFU land, finding that the requirement of infeasibility is satisfied by showing that it is more convenient or efficient to site the facility on EFU land. This application of the standard will encourage additional proposals for utility facilities on farm use land. The Decision will almost certainly be reversed by the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). As a result of the inappropriate deference to the City representations, the Decision contains multiple errors that are independent grounds for reversal by LUBA on appeal, including: o Most of the components of the proposed wastewater treatment and operations complex cannot be sited on the City's property under state -law restrictions because their construction on EFU land is not necessary for provision of the services. This fact is unequivocally set out in the City's own project feasibility report and 2020 wastewater facility plan amendment. o The proposed "future disposal wetlands" are not only unnecessary —as clearly stated in the City's 2020 reports, and thus ineligible for construction on EFU land —but also not a legitimate part of the application at issue. o The County's site plan review code is not preempted by state law, and the proposed utility facilities can be allowed without site plan approval. -2- MILLER NASH LIP o The planned recreational facilities that are clearly shown in the Application site plans should not have been approved without approval of a conditional use permit. Foregoing local review —thus, sending the appeal directly to LUBA—will harm all parties involved. Not only will the City, County, and appellants be forced to expend significant financial resources on legal fees, but review of the Decision by LUBA will take significantly longer than a decision by the Board. The City has stated that expansion of its wastewater treatment facilities is time sensitive. Correcting the Decision to approve only the necessary lagoons and treatment wetlands would avoid a delay in the City's expansion of its wastewater treatment capacity. For all the reasons above, appellants respectfully request that the Board elect to review the Decision. 4870-3576-5625.2 -3- MILLER NASH LLP Appeal Statement Appeal by Doug and Braedi Kolberg of Approval of Application for Major Administrative Determination, File No. 23-152-AD 5801 NW Way, Redmond, Oregon 97756 Tax Lots: 1413300000101, 1413000002604, 1413290000201 I. Introduction The City of Redmond (the "City") has decided to close its wastewater treatment facilities within its city limits and pump the raw sewage produced by its citizens to a new complex located outside its urban growth boundary (UGB) on exclusive farm use (EFU) land. The City also proposes to relocate all of its wastewater division operations to this EFU site, including administrative offices, vehicle/equipment parking, and maintenance shops, which it claims are utility facilities that can be sited on EFU land. The City has also repeatedly stated that it will open this site as a public park, and even obtained a $750,000 grant from the state to do so. Despite the obvious impacts of this expansive development on nearby residents —including appellants —the City proposed no design features, mitigation measures, or even advance planning to ameliorate the harm to the surrounding community. Moreover, the City claims that Deschutes County (the "County") has no authority to review the design of this wastewater treatment, operations, and public park complex, even though the County code states that these facilities are subject to site plan review and conditional use approval. The City argues that site plan review is preempted by state law and that it can build the park facilities without conditional use review so long as it seeks that permit before opening the site to the public. The City is wrong, both in its lack of consideration of surrounding residents and in its arguments concerning the applicable code and state law. As set out below: • Most of the components of the proposed wastewater treatment and operations complex cannot be sited on the City's property under state -law restrictions because their construction on EFU land is not necessary for provision of the sewer services. This fact is unequivocally set out in the City's own project feasibility report and 2020 wastewater facility plan amendment. The proposed "future disposal wetlands" are not only unnecessary —as clearly stated in the City's 2020 reports, and thus ineligible for construction on EFU land —but also not a legitimate part of the application at issue. -1- � C • • The County's site plan review code is not preempted by state law and the proposed utility facilities can be allowed without site plan approval. • The planned recreational facilities —clearly shown in the site plans —should not have been approved without approval of a conditional use permit. The August 8, 2023, decision approving the proposed wastewater treatment and operations complex (the "Decision") did not critically examine any of the above issues, but instead repeatedly deferred to the City as though it is the decision -maker for this land use application finding criteria met because the City had provided some form of explanation, which it found to be not patently unreasonable. That, however, is not the applicable standard. As set out below, the City does not come close to proving compliance with applicable code criteria and state -law standards. Accordingly, the Decision should be reversed and the City's application denied. II. Overview of Project and Application The City seeks to shut down its wastewater treatment facilities within city limits and relocate all of its wastewater division operations —including treatment facilities, offices/administrative buildings, maintenance buildings, etc. —to the City's property at 5801 Northwest Way (the "Property"). The City intends to replace its existing mechanical treatment plant with lagoons and wastewater treatment wetlands, and thus refers to the major development as the "Redmond Wetlands Project."' The Property is outside the City's UGB and is zoned EFU, Terrebonne (EFUTE). Contrary to the repeated claims by the City, the site is not currently used for treatment of wastewater, but for the storage, application, and disposal of already -treated wastewater and biosolids.2 The site primarily consists of hay fields used for repurposing of treated water, an irrigation pond, and a few structures for biosolid drying and disposal. Nearby, on land owned by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), is an infiltration gallery that the City uses to dispose of treated wastewater. Burden of Proof Statement ("Statement"), submitted with the City's applications on February 28, 2023, at 2. z City's website states that the property is currently "used to repurpose and discharge all of Redmond's treated wastewater effluent, and biosolids." https://www.redmondoregon og v/govemment/departments/ up blic_ works/wastewater-division. This snatches the description in the City's wastewater facility plan. -2- M M I LLER `-/NASH UP Satellite Image from Deschutes County Property Information (DIAL) The City outlines the long list of improvements for the Property in its application materials as: "New primary treatment facilities with headworks screening; New aerated lagoon system for secondary treatment; New lined treatment wetlands for effluent polishing; New and expanded unlined wetlands for effluent disposal (on adjacent BLM property; Tax Lot 2600, 14-13-00 and Tax Lot 200, 14-12-00); Maintain existing infiltration gallery; Sloped concrete slab vector dump station; Headworks structure (three -sided structure covering equipment); New operational buildings: Electrical Building, Disinfection Building, Maintenance Building, Division Building."3 3 Statement at 16. linage from Preliminary Overall Site Plan (Sheet G-G07) -3- MILLER NASH LLP Because the sewer system requires the City to pump raw sewage instead of treated wastewater to the Property, the City also proposes to replace a 24-inch-diameter conveyance pipe between the existing facilities and the Property with a pipe twice that size.4 From the very outset, the City has also stated that the complex is designed and will be used as a public park with walking paths, trails, bird -viewing areas, and other recreational facilities. These facilities are prominently featured on the official Project website, including photo renderings and maps and of the paths and recreation areas.' In fact, the City obtained a $750,000 grant from the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD) to help pay for the construction of these recreational facilities.' On February 28, 2023, the City submitted applications for the new treatment and operations complex and the conveyance pipe replacement. Remarkably, the City submitted applications for a conditional use permit, site review, and lot of record verification for the replacement pipe, but only a request for administrative determination for the new $60-million-plus wastewater treatment and operations complex.' Despite clear requirements under the County's zoning code, the City did not submit site plan review or conditional use applications for the complex because it claims that the site plan review code is preempted by state law and that it can obtain approval of the park use after the recreational facilities are built. This appeal challenges only the approval of the wastewater treatment and operations complex on the Property (the "Project"), including approval of the City's application for a Major Administrative Determination (File No. 23-152-AD) (the "Application" ).g III. Grounds for Reversal of Decision A. The proposed disposal wetlands, administrative buildings, and treatment headworks cannot be sited on EFU land under state law and local code standards. Oregon has an "overriding policy of preventing agricultural land from being diverted to nonagricultural use." Warburton v. Harney Cty., 174 Or App 322, 328-29, 25 P3d 978 (2001). Accordingly, utility facilities are only allowed in EFU zones if they are "necessary for public 4 Statement at 15. 5 https://redmondwettandscomplex.coin/expansion-site-design/. 6 Attachment 3. Statement at 15-16. It does not challenge the approval of the three applications for the conveyance pipe (File Nos. 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, and 23-151-1,R). service." ORS 215.283(1)(c). This means that a utility facility addresses an "identified need"9 and the facility "must be sited in an exclusive farm use zone in order to provide the service." ORS 215.275(1)." Under Deschutes County Code (DCC) 22.24.050, the City has the burden to prove that all improvements in the Project satisfy these standards. Except for the lagoons and treatment wetlands, the City did not and cannot do so. The City's own feasibility study and official wastewater facility plan amendment state that the administrative buildings, headworks, and disposal wetlands do not need to be included as part of the Project. As set out below, the City's post hoc, contradictory justifications for siting these facilities on EFU land are patently untenable. The hearings officer adopted these justifications, however, stating that it was not the job of a hearings officer to "second guess" the explanations provided by City staff." With all due respect, that is exactly the job of the hearings officer,12 and had he critically evaluated the City's attempts to undermine its own feasibility report and official wastewater treatment plan, he would have found them lacking. Further, the Decision fails to analyze and make findings on the feasibility of siting the various improvements on non-EFU land, i.e., their current location. Instead, the Decision states "I also will defer to the Cities' elected officials on this matter and their determination that other sites were infeasible."13 As set out below, the City's justifications are untenable and the hearings officer erred by adopting them without critical examination. 9 "[O]nce the decision is made to construct a particular kind of utility facility to respond to an identified need, that facility may only be located on EFU-zoned lands if there are no feasible sites for the proposed facility that are not zoned EFU." Dayton Prairie Water Ass'n v. Yanihill Cty., 38 Or LUBA 14, 20 (2000). to Proposed sewer systems in rural land are subject to further state -law restrictions. "Components of a sewer system that serve lands inside an urban growth boundary (UGB) [are allowed to be built outside that boundary if] [s]uch placement is necessary to serve [those] lands inside the UGB." OAR 660-011-0060(3) (emphasis added). Further exceptions are provided for components that are necessary to serve unincorporated communities or Goal 14 exception areas, as well as for components that more efficiently transport wastewater or connect other components. The state -law standards for siting utility facilities and sewer systems within EFU land are set out in sections 18.16.025(E) and 18.16.038 of the Deschutes County Code. 1 Decision at 9, 10, and 34. Oregon Shores Conservation Coal. v. City of North Bend, 2020 WL 4814312, at * 15 (general comments by geotechnical engineers were not substantial evidence sufficient to demonstrate compliance with approval standards); Palmer v. Lane Cty., 1995 WL 1773127, at *5 (same); Phillips v. Lane Cty., 62 Or LUBA 92, 114, 2010 WL 3925421, at * 14 (comments by county sanitarian were not sufficient to rebut detailed concerns raised by opponents); Lenox v. Jackson Cty., 54 Or LUBA 272, 280, 2007 WL 1661237, at *5 (letter from expert that did not support conclusions was insufficient to demonstrate compliance with standards). 13 Decision at 9. -5- s 1. Each of the components of the proposed wastewater treatment and operations complex must be evaluated independently for siting on EFU land. Throughout its application materials, the City treats the entire wastewater treatment and operations complex as an inseparable utility facility, which it argues can be approved for siting on EFU land as a whole. 14 This characterization of the Project and related legal argument are contradicted by the City's own materials and clear state law. In determining whether utility -related facilities satisfy the above standards for siting utility facilities on EFU land, the local government must evaluate the individual component separately. As LUBA stated in City of Albany v. Linn Cty., 40 Or LUBA 38, 47-48 (2001): It is worth noting that the `utility facility' permitted under ORS 215.213(1)(d) and 215.283(l)(d) may have multiple components that require separate analysis and justification. In Dayton Prairie [Water Ass'n v. Yamhill Cty., 38 Or LUBA 14, aff'd, 170 Or App 6, 11 Pad 671 (2000)], * * * [w]e held that the county had justified the necessity, i.e., lack of feasible alternatives on non-EFU land, for locating the wells on EFU land, but that the county had not justified the necessity of locating the treatment facility and reservoir on EFU land. * * * In other words, justification for siting one component of a utility facility in an EFU zone does not necessarily justify siting other components in that zone. The City's own materials unequivocally show that the proposed wastewater treatment and operations complex is composed of distinct and separable improvements. The Project was initiated in 2020 when the City engaged Anderson Perry & Associates, Inc. (APAI), to evaluate options for expanding the City's wastewater treatment capacity. APAI provided its analysis in the 2020 Lagoon and Wetland Treatment and Disposal Feasibility Evaluation (the "Feasibility Report").15 In this report, APAI studied three feasible options: • Expanding the existing mechanical treatment plant; • Constructing new lagoons and treatment wetlands at the Property while continuing to use the headworks and other supporting facilities at the existing site; and 14 E.g., Statement at 31 ("The proposal is for major structures that are * * * for the transmission and processing of wastewater. All facilities proposed are interconnected components that are designed to serve this end and only this end. All buildings are devoted exclusively to enable the transmission and processing of wastewater. Accordingly, the proposed Redmond Wetlands Complex is a "utility facility" both within the meaning of the statutory term as interpreted by Cox and the County code's definition of the same.") 15 Lagoon and Wetland Treatment and Disposal Feasibility Evaluation (July 8, 2020); originally attached to Letter from Steven Liday to Haleigh King (June 12, 2023) as Attachment 2. Enclosed with this letter as Attachment 1. mom t ,a.. • Constructing new lagoons, treatment wetlands, headworks, offices, and all other facilities at the Property.16 APAI expounded on its analysis of these options in the 2020 Wastewater Facility Plan Amendment (the "2020 WFP Amendment")17 that it prepared for the City later that year. Based on this "extensive alternatives analysis," 18 APAI founds that constructing only the lagoons and wetlands at the Property, while continuing to use the existing headworks, offices, and other support facilities at the current plant, was the least expensive option, both in initial capital costs and total costs over a 20-year life cycle.19 Moreover, the estimated capital costs for the proposed Project, i.e., relocating all of the wastewater division's operations to the Property, has nearly doubled from $41.6 million in 2020 to $69.7 million in 2023.20 Thus, not only is it feasible to separate the headworks and other improvements from the lagoons and wetlands, but it is much less expensive to do so. 2. Office space is not a utility facility that can be sited on EFU land and even if it was, the City has not shown that its administrative buildings must be sited on EFU land. Despite the clear analysis in the Feasibility Report and 2020 WFP Amendment, the City claims that it must site its administrative building near the treatment wetlands for three reasons: (i) efficiency, (ii) need for monitoring of the treatment facilities, and (iii) wastewater testing logistics. Each fail to rebut the unequivocal findings in the Feasibility Report and wastewater treatment plan. a. Efficiency. During the June 20, 2023, hearing and in a letter submitted the same day, City staff argued that the office and administrative buildings proposed in the Project must be sited on EFU land for efficiency purposes. This purported efficiency, however, is irrelevant. Rather, the City must demonstrate that it is "infeasible" to site the proposed facilities in non-EFU land. Harshman v. Jackson Cty., 41 Or LUBA 330, 335 (2002) (holding that "an applicant who wishes to site a utility facility on EFU-zoned land must show that it is infeasible to locate the facility on land that 16 Feasibility Report at 8. 2020 Wastewater Facility Plan Amendment for City of Redmond, Oregon (Dec. 17, 2020); originally attached to Letter from Steven Liday to Haleigh King (June 12, 2023) as Attachment 3. Enclosed with this letter as Attachment 2. 112020 WFP Amendment at 4. 19 Feasibility Report at 8. 20 City Budget for fiscal year 2022-2023 at 50; available at: https•//www redmondoregon.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/23849/637986674979200000. -7- is not zoned EFU[,] * * * [and] it is quite clear that a finding that the proposed site is the best of the available sites is inadequate."). As described, the City's comprehensive expert analysis concluded that it is not only feasible to provide the wastewater treatment services at issue with only the lagoon and treatment wetlands located at the Property, but that such an arrangement would be less expensive. b. Facility Monitoring. The City also claims that it must site its administrative buildings at the Property to monitor the wastewater treatment facilities.21 The wastewater division manager argued that "without staff on site to monitor the supervisory control systems and respond with corrective action in real time, operations of the facility would suffer." Id. The City also raised concerns with emergency response times. There are multiple flaws with these claims. First, these justifications presuppose that the headworks and other primary treatment facilities will be located on the Property, which the Feasibility Report and 2020 WFP Amendment state is not necessary. The City does not claim that passive lagoons and treatment wetlands present a need for "real time" maintenance and responses. Second, the City only provides generic, high-level representations without detailed explanations or specific examples —which, at a minimum, is necessary to refute two comprehensive, official reports prepared by the City's own experts.22 Finally, the general references to emergency responses are unpersuasive, considering that outside normal working hours no one is required to be at the treatment facilities anyway. As explained in APAI's post -hearing memo, the City's emergency response plan involves "a variety of alarms telemetered, 24-hours/day, to the wastewater treatment plant personnel via a priority call sequence.23 Further, the City fails to even identify the types of emergencies at issue or the consequences that would occur if a division manager needed to drive 2.5 miles (approximately a four -minute drive24) from the existing facilities to the Property. 21 Letter from Ryan Kirchner to Haleigh King (June 20, 2023) at 1. 22 Oregon Shores Conservation Coal. v. City of North Bend, 2020 WL 4814312, at * 15 (general comments by geotechnical engineers were not substantial evidence sufficient to demonstrate compliance with approval standards); Palmer v. Lane Cty., 1995 WL 1773127, at *5 (same). " Memo from APAI to Ryan Kirchner (June 26, 2023) at 2 (emphasis added). 21 According to Google Maps. t f� Most importantly, the City never claims that it is not feasible to monitor the new facilities on the Property from the existing administrative offices —only that it would be better to have them together. That is not the applicable standard. C. Time -Sensitive Wastewater Testing. The City also claims that it is not possible to maintain its current division offices at the existing site because of the need for "time -sensitive analyses for wastewater testing[,]" specifically, "items like pH and Chlorine testing."25 The wastewater division manager claimed that this challenge is "insurmountable due to wastewater testing protocols — lab testing must be conducted within 15 minutes of taking the sample in the wastewater facilities..."26 The City fails to explain, however, how it is has managed to overcome this insurmountable challenge of time -sensitive water testing for the last several decades. Under the City's existing Water Pollution Control Facilities Permit from DEQ, the City is already required to conduct 15-minute testing of pH, chlorine, and coliform for the infiltration basin and irrigation water disposed of at the Property.27 Moreover, this justification asks the County to believe that it is impossible, in 2023, to conduct pH and chlorine testing of water without a laboratory on the same site. That is not the case, as demonstrated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guide, "Water Sensors Toolbox," which outlines in detail how remote sensors can be used for "[m]easuring the use and effectiveness of wastewater and drinking water treatment," including testing for pH and chlorine, among many other pollutants.28 Finally, even if a testing laboratory needed to be located on the Property, that does not explain why all the wastewater division buildings also need to located on the site. 3. The City did not and cannot show that it is necessary to relocate the primary wastewater treatment facilities to the Property. As stated above, APAI concluded, in both the Feasibility Report and 2020 WFP Amendment, that it was not only feasible to continue to use the existing headworks and primary treatment facilities at the existing location, but that it would be less expensive than moving them to the 25 Letter from Ryan Kirchner to Haleigh King (June 20, 2023) at 1-2. 26 Letter from Ryan Kirchner to Haleigh King (July 5, 2023) at 2. 212007 Water Pollution Control Facilities Permit at 4-5, attached to APAI June 27, 2023, memo. 26 Available at https://www.epa.gov/water-research/water-sensors-toolbox; Although not submitted into the record, government reports and publications are subject to judicial notice. See, e.g., Oregon Dep't of Fish and Wildlife v. Lake Cty., 2020 WL 2306258, at *3 (LUBA Nos 2019-084/085/093 (Apr. 29, 2020) (taking notice of an Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife publication on big -game habitat); Shaff v. City of Medford, 79 Or LUBA 317, 321 (2019) (taking official notice of a United States Centers for Disease Control publication regarding bicyclist deaths). Property. In fact, in the City's 2018 Wastewater Facility Plan update, the engineering firm Stantec found that the headworks are in "good condition" and "expected to meet the hydraulic capacity of the plant through 2045 for both average annual and peak hour flows."29 Nevertheless, the City claims that it needs to move the headworks facilities to the Property because otherwise dried waste will still need to be trucked off site and the headworks facility will "need to be rebuilt before 20 years."30 It is unclear how the need to rebuild within 20 years justifies rebuilding right now on EFU land. Regardless, neither the continuation of trucking biosolids or the need to rebuild the headworks in 20 years addresses the feasibility standard that applies. The only other justification the City could provide is a general claim that it is "industry practice" to site all treatment facilities together. Again, industry practice is not the standard —only feasibility matters. As detailed in the City's Feasibility Report, it is entirely feasible to pump treated wastewater to wetlands at another site for further polishing. In fact, the Roseburg Urban Sanitary Authority (RUSA) operates its facilities in this manner. The City of Roseburg's wastewater is first treated at RUSA's main facility —located within Roseburg city limits —and then pumped to wetlands located on nearby EFU land. 31 4. The City's own analysis concludes that the disposal wetlands are unnecessary. Finally, the City cannot justify the construction of disposal wetlands at or near the Property because they are not needed at all. As background, the Project proposes the construction of treatment wetlands (wetlands where wastewater is actively polished and not allowed to seep into the ground) and the "future" construction of disposal wetlands (wetlands that allow treated wastewater to slowly filter into the ground). The City's 2020 WFP Amendment states, however, that the existing infiltration galleries are already sufficient to handle disposal of the expected increase in wastewater volume through at least 2045: The existing seepage area has four cells with only one or two cells operated at a time. Based on current operation, the seepage area appears to have sufficient capacity to serve the City in the future. The capacity of the existing seepage area 29 Update of 2018 Wastewater Facility Plan at 2.20; letter from Ryan Kirchner to Haleigh King (July 5, 2023), Ex. B. 31 Letter from Ryan Kirchner to Haleigh King (July 5, 2023) at 2-3. 31 See RUSA summary of natural treatment facilities; letter from Steven Liday to hearings officer Alan Rappleyea (June 27, 2023), Ex. 1. -10- is currently adequate to dispose of the design rate of 4.34 MGD, so improvements to the infiltration gallery are not proposed[ .]31 The only justification for construction of the disposal wetlands provided in the WFP Amendment is to create a "natural wildlife and park area," stating: Based on current operation, the seepage area appears to have sufficient capacity to serve the City in the future. For this reason, the disposal wetlands are not necessarily needed, but there is an opportunity to beneficially use the effluent in a wetland environment that could be accessible to the public. This would provide a natural wildlife and park area. It is suggested to set aside approximately $4,000,000 for construction of publicly accessible wetland and wildlife park features as disposal wetlands between the treatment wetlands and the existing seepage area.33 Building unnecessary disposal wetlands in order to create a larger "natural wildlife and park area" cannot, however, justify the construction of a utility facility on EFU land. Sprint PCs v. Washington Cty., 186 Or App 470, 481, 63 P3d 1261 (2003) (holding that proposed improvement must "advance[] the statutory goal of providing the utility service."). Appellants raised this issue on June 12, 2023, and the City has been unable to provide a substantive rebuttal since that time. B. The disposal wetlands cannot be approved through the Application. The lack of need for new disposal wetlands explains why they are not actually a part of the Application. The City does not provide construction plans, design details, grading plans, geometric data, utility plans, pipe and access road details, or other basic information about the disposal wetlands. Rather, it seeks generic approval of "future disposal wetlands" that the City will construct at some unspecified time in the future. This is not a valid method for obtaining land use approval of development. At a minimum, the applicant must show what it proposes to build and state the intent to build the improvements within the permit validity period. Moreover, the "future disposal wetlands" are not even proposed to be located on the Property at issue, but instead on BLM land to the north, which the City has no current right to use. Thus, even if the disposal wetlands were necessary, their unspecified future construction cannot be approved through the Application. 112020 WFP Amendment at 12; update of 2018 Wastewater Facility Plan at 2.21 (stating "it is very likely that all four infiltration basins can meet the average annual flow rates through 2045"). 112020 WFP Amendment at 8. - 11 - MILLER NASH LIP C. The Project cannot be approved without site plan review. The County's development code states that utility facilities cannot be established, enlarged, or changed until a final site plan is approved. DCC 18.124.030(B)(5). The criteria for the site plan review are set out in DCC 18.124.060. The City did not address these criteria or submit final site plans but instead argued that the County's site plan review code is preempted by ORS 215.283 for proposals to construct utility facilities on EFU land. The City is mistaken. Oregon courts "begin with a presumption against preemption of local regulation." Ashland Drilling, Inc. v. Jackson Cty., 168 Or App 624, 635, 4 P3d 748 (2000). Only where the legislature "unambiguously expresses an intention" of preemption can that presumption be overcome. Rogue Valley Sewer Servs. v. City of Phoenix, 357 Or 437, 454, 353 P3d 581 (2015). Accordingly, Oregon courts "will not determine a local ordinance to be preempted by implication —the legislative preemptive intent must be apparent —that is, "clear and unequivocal" —or the concurrent operation of the local and state law must be impossible." Rogue Valley Sewer Servs. v. City of Phoenix, 262 Or App 183, 192, 329 P3d 1 (2014), aff'd, 357 Or 437, 353 P3d 581 (2015). And even where there is a clear intent by the legislature to preempt local law, Oregon courts will construe the scope of that preemption narrowly based on the exact terms used in the law. Rogue Valley, 262 Or App at 194 (describing the decision in US West, 336 Or at 187-88, 81 P3d 702 as "reading statutory limits on city's taxing and fee -setting authority narrowly as constrained to the precise words used."). ORS 215.283(1) states that utility facilities necessary for public service "may be established in any area zoned for exclusive farm use[.]" The statute is silent on the design of such utility facilities. There is nothing to suggest that the Oregon legislature intended to excuse utility facilities on EFU land from site plan review —let alone an "unambiguous intention" to do so. Such a conclusion is patently untenable in light of Oregon's "overriding policy of preventing agricultural land from being diverted to nonagricultural use." Warburton v. Harney Cty., 174 Or App 322, 328-29, 25 P3d 978 (2001). Reading such preemption into ORS 215.283 turns the statute on its head: instead of a list of limited exceptions to this general policy and Statewide Planning Goal 3, that statute is converted into a preference for development on EFU land. That is certainly not the point of the statute. The City's sole reliance on Brentmar v. Jackson Cty., 321 Or 481, 496, 900 P2d 1030 (1995) is misplaced. The case concerned a county's treatment of a use expressly allowed in ORS 215.283(1) as a conditional use under county code. This local code was found to be preempted because it directly contradicted state law. There is no similar contradiction with site plan review, which only concerns the design of physical development. Living Strong, LLC v. City of Eugene, LUBA Nos. 2021-005/006, 2021 WL 1861208, at *4 (Or LUBA Apr. 30, 2021), -12- 4 aff'd, 313 Or App 739, 491 P3d 810 (2021) (holding that site review standards have no impact on the nature of the use of the site); McPhillips Farm v. Yamhill Cty., 66 Or LUBA 355, 2012 WL 10816576 (Or LUBA Oct. 30, 2012) (holding that landfill's failure to obtain site design review had no impact on the status of the landfill as an allowed use). Nevertheless, the Decision adopted the City's analysis because it found that the site plan review process could be used to deny a utility facility use on EFU land.34 The Decision does not explain how the code could operate in this manner, and a facial review of the code shows that it cannot. DCC 18.124.010 states that the site plan review process "provides for administrative review of the design of certain developments and improvements in order to promote functional, safe, innovative and attractive site development compatible with the natural and man-made environment." (Emphasis added.) Thus, the code allows for the denial of a site plan, not a development or use in general. DCC 18.124.050-.060. Accordingly, the County's site plan review code is not preempted and the City is required to obtain site plan review for the proposed wastewater treatment and operations complex in accordance with DCC 18.124.030(B)(5). D. The Project cannot be approved without conditional use approval. From its first public announcement of the Project, the City has highlighted the public recreation amenities that would be part of the treatment wetlands site. Staff has repeatedly promoted these extensive walking paths, public trails, and other recreation facilities in press interviews'35 "open house" and neighborhood association meetings, workshop discussions with nature/wildlife organizations, direct mailers, the city newsletter, and other communications. These facilities are prominently featured on the official Project website, including photo renderings and maps and of the paths and recreation areas. 36 In fact, in March 2022, the City applied to OPRD for a recreational facilities development grant. In its application, the City set out in detail the specific recreational amenities it would construct as part of the Project: Incorporated in the new wastewater treatment system, the Redmond Wetlands Complex (RWC), will be a new trail system, the Redmond Wetlands Complex 34 Decision at 23. 31 Nicole Bales, Redmond to relocate and expand its wastewater treatment facility, The Bulletin, Jul. 21, 2021 ("[the city's wastewater manager] said the plan will reduce costs and increase public green space because the complex will be accessible to the public for hiking trails and other recreational activities. The city envisions connected trails into a citywide trails system. Kirchner said that once the project is complete, it will be like having an oasis in the desert." https •//www bendbulletin.com/localstatelredmond/redmond-to-relocate-and-expand-its-wastewater-treatment- facility/article 7ee8 448-e7 e-Ileb-b6fZ-5b744ad7683b.htnzl. 36 https•//redmondwetlandscomplex.coin/expansion-site-design/. -13- n �i Trail System (RWC Trail System), offering over 6 miles of new Americans with Disability Act (ADA) asphalt paved trail loops and compacted gravel trail loops[,] [a] series of educational trail signage[,] * * * informational kiosks and covered seating areas for wildlife viewing[;] * * * The [primary] trailhead will include paved parking, restroom facilities, a large shade structure, a picnic area, a demonstration garden, way finding signage, and an overlook. * * * The secondary trailhead will include a gravel parking area, sized to accommodate horse trailers, and will provide amenities including a vault toilet and staging area for equestrian and mountain bike users.37 The City also explained in the grant application how the construction of the RWC Trail System would be part of the construction of the treatment wetlands: The trail system, trailheads, and all amenities will be procured in the same construction contract as the RWC lagoons and ponds scheduled to begin construction February 2023. As an important part of the lagoon grading plans, the series of trails will be constructed simultaneously to the RWC ponds. Id. The OPRD application was approved on November 27, 2022, and the City was awarded $750,000 toward the construction of the recreational facilities included in the constructed wetlands complex.38 Obviously, hiking paths, covered picnic areas, gardens, and the other public recreational facilities listed above are not components of a sewer system or utility facility. Thus, as the County stated in the March 2022, land use compatibility statement for the OPRD grant application,39 the trail system constitutes a public park40 that requires site plan review and a conditional use permit to be sited on EFU Land. In a transparent attempt to avoid this review process, the City claimed in its application materials that constructing the trails and recreational facilities was not part of the Project. The only reference to the trail system and other recreational facilities in the Application appears on page 18 of the Statement, where the City writes: Compared to conventional treatment plants, constructed wetlands are cost- effective and easily operated and maintained while supporting wetland habitat for birds and other wildlife and offering recreational and educational opportunities, 31 Page 6; Attachment 2 to letter from Steven Liday to Haleigh King (April 26, 2023). 38 Attachment 3 to letter from Steven Liday to Haleigh King (April 26, 2023). 39 Attachment 4 to letter from Steven Liday to Haleigh King (April 26, 2023). 40 "`Public park' means an area of natural or ornamental quality for outdoor recreation that provides the resource base for the following activities: picnicking, boating, fishing, swimming, camping and hiking or nature oriented recreation such as viewing and studying nature and wildlife habitat, and may include play areas and accessory facilities that support the activities listed above." DCC 18.04.030. -14- should the City choose to pursue that in the future. (Statement at 18) (emphasis added). With a $750,000 OPRD grant in hand, this statement was misleading. In its OPRD grant application, the City explained that the trail system, trailheads, and all amenities would be part of the construction contract for the lagoons and ponds and that the trails will be constructed as part of the lagoon grading.41 It also represented to OPRD that it would obtain the necessary site review and conditional use permits "in tangent to the permitting process to construct [the] engineered wetlands."4' The City stated that the applications for these permits were "in -progress and will be included in the wetland's construction submission." Id. After appellants raised the contradicting statements in a public comment letter, the City backtracked and stated that it did have plans to construct recreational facilities and open the site as a park, but that it would move forward with that aspect of the Project at a later time.43 It argued that that the City was not required to obtain approval of a public park, even though the proposed improvements would be used for that purpose. Staff claimed that the design and scope of the proposed improvements would be the same, regardless of the planned recreational uses. This claim is belied, however, by the site plans submitted by the City. These plans show multiple facilities that relate only to public use of the site, such as parking lots, public restrooms, etc. Simply removing some of the labels from the plans does not change the nature of the facilities. l m a; , y S wY.. A 611J, 9fSheet G-G08, Building Setback Sheet G-G07, Overall Site Plan 41 Attachment 2 to letter from Steven Liday to Haleigh King (April 26, 2023) at 6. Due to their inseparable nature, the City included $626,430 for the "Main Entry Roadway" and $771,810 for "Earthwork and Underground Utilities" as part of the cost schedule for the recreational facilities that it submitted to OPRD. Attachment 3 to letter from Steven Liday to Haleigh King (April 26, 2023) at 3. 42 Attachment 2 to letter from Steven Liday to Haleigh King (April 26, 2023) at 16. 43 Waffling on the issue, however, City staff submitted a subsequent letter that again characterized the construction of the recreational facilities as only a possibility. "If the City chooses to open the site for public park purposes, the City will submit the required land use applications to jointly use the property for public park purposes." Letter from Ryan Kirchner to Haleigh King (July 5, 2023) at 5. -15- u,M 1 I Nevertheless, the hearings officer agreed that the City was not proposing any recreational facilities in the Application.44 The Decision does not address those facilities clearly shown in the plans above. This finding is a clear error and the this development should not have been approved without requiring the City to obtain conditional use approval. Accordingly, the Decision should be reversed. IV. Conclusion It is unclear why the City has taken such a hardline approach to the County's review of the Project —refusing to submit for site plan review, flatly opposing the application of any mitigation requirements, and attempting to elude review of the park facilities until after the development is finished. Any potential "gains" by the City in avoiding some application review procedures or mitigation requirements is more than offset by the costs it has and will continue to incur in adversarial local proceedings and a potential future appeal to LUBA. Regardless of the wisdom of the City's strategy, the Application and supporting materials do not come close to demonstrating compliance with the statutory restrictions and local code requirements. Accordingly, the Decision should be reversed and the Application denied. as Decision at 4. -16- LAGOON AND WETLAND TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL FEASIBILITY EVALUATION FOR CITY OF REDMOND, OREGON 2020 PROS\ E'6�f32P_F. „ OREGON _-/- �T T Mp0 RENEWS 12-31-20 ANDERSON PERRY & ASSOCIATES, INC. La Grande. Redmond, and Hermiston, Oregon Walla Walla, Washington Copyright 2020 by Anderson Perry & Associates, Inc. Job No. 59-00 Attachment 1 Page 2 of 23 Table of Contents Background.......................................................................................................................................... 1 DesignCriteria.....................................................................................................................................1 LagoonTreatment................................................................................................................................ 2 Facultative.............................................................................................................................................. 2 PartiallyAerated..................................................................................................................................... 2 Aerated................................................................................................................................................... 3 Aerated Lagoon with Orbal Pre-Aeration............................................................................................... 3 TreatmentWetlands............................................................................................................................ 4 DisposalWetlands............................................................................................................................... 4 OtherBeneficial Uses........................................................................................................................... 4 PermitLimits....................................................................................................................................... 4 Biochemical Oxygen Demand and Total Suspended Solids.................................................................... 5 Nitrogen.................................................................................................................................................. 5 TotalDissolved Solids............................................................................................................................. 5 ProjectConsideration.......................................................................................................................... 5 Expand Existing Mechanical Treatment Plant at Existing Site................................................................ 5 New Lagoons and Wetlands with Existing Facilities............................................................................... 6 New Lagoon and Wetland Treatment Plant with Support Facilities at New Site ................................... 7 Summary............................................................................................................................................. 8 TABLES Table 1 Facultative Lagoon Preliminary Cost Estimate Table 2 Partially Aerated Lagoon Preliminary Cost Estimate Table 3 Aerated Lagoon Preliminary Cost Estimate Table 4 Orbal Plus Aerated Lagoon Preliminary Cost Estimate Table 5 Treatment Wetlands Preliminary Cost Estimate Table 6 Disinfection System Preliminary Cost Estimate Table 7 Support Facilities Preliminary Cost Estimate FIGURES Figure 1 Treatment Process Flow Schematic Figure 2 Improvements Plan Figure 3 Improvements Detail Plan 7/8/2020 Anderson Perry & Associates, Inc. G:\Clients\Redmond\59-00 Reclaimed Water Wetland Reuse Feasibility Analysis\Reports\Feasibility Evaluation\Feasibility Evaluation.docx Page i Attachment 1 Page 3 of 23 City of Redmond, Oregon Lagoon and Wetland Treatment and Disposal Feasibility Evaluation Background The City of Redmond, Oregon, recently completed a Wastewater Facilities Plan (WWFP) and a WWFP Update in November 2019. These planning documents recommended improvements totaling $44.6 million in 2018 dollars ($47.7 million in 2020 dollars) but did not consider improvement alternatives other than mechanical treatment. The WWFP and WWFP Update did not include other locations for the proposed improvements. The City believes it may be prudent to consider other improvement alternatives that could reduce the total life cycle costs to City residents and relocate the existing facilities out of the residential area. As an example of other possible improvements to consider, the City of Prineville, Oregon, has successfully implemented the use of lagoon technology with constructed wetland treatment and disposal, while substantially reducing the overall total cost to the City and providing public access to wetland/wildlife areas. The purpose of this feasibility evaluation is to evaluate the potential of using a lagoon treatment system with a constructed wetland treatment and disposal system as an alternative to meet the City's wastewater treatment and disposal needs. Design Criteria The design criteria used for this evaluation are taken from the WWFP Update. The design year 2045 was used with the following wastewater influent parameters: • Population - 53,800 • Average Annual Flow - 3.49 million gallons per day (MGD) • Maximum Month Flow - 3.76 MGD • Average Annual Five-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODs) - 14,500 pounds per day (ppd) • Maximum Month BOD5 - 19,000 ppd • Average Annual Total Suspended Solids (TSS) - 9,600 ppd • Maximum Month TSS - 14,400 ppd • Average Annual Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) - 1,900 ppd • Maximum Month TKN - 2,400 ppd • Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) - Approximately 320 milligrams per liter (mg/L) The City's current Water Pollution Control Facilities (WPCF) Permit has wastewater effluent limits established for discharge into existing infiltration basins. These are as follows: • BODs and TSS - 20 mg/L • Nitrate + Nitrite as Nitrogen - 6 mg/L • Total Nitrogen - 9 mg/L • pH-6.0to9.0 • E. coli - 126 most probable number The following monthly average groundwater limits apply to the down -gradient groundwater monitoring wells: • Nitrate - 9 mg/L • TDS - 500 mg/L 7/8/2020 Anderson Perry & Associates, Inc. G:\Clients\Redmond\59-00 Reclaimed Water Wetland Reuse Feasibility Ana lysis\Reports\Feasibility Evaluation\Feasibility Evaluation.docx Page 1 Attachment 1 Page 4 of 23 City of Redmond, Oregon Lagoon and Wetland Treatment and Disposal Feasibility Evaluation Although these design criteria considered only flows from the City of Redmond, they could be modified to include the community of Terrebonne. The following sizes and costs would be anticipated to be modified only slightly to include the expanded service area. Lagoon Treatment Lagoon treatment can be provided with a facultative lagoon, partially aerated lagoon, or aerated lagoon. Cost consideration is also given to an option that utilizes the existing capital investment in the treatment plant's Orbal oxidation ditches to reduce BOD5 and, thus, lagoon size and aeration requirements. The purpose of the lagoon treatment is to provide for reduction in BOD5 to the permit limits. Some total nitrogen reduction would also be realized for systems with front -loaded oxygen additions and facultative or anoxic zones at the end of the processes. Facultative A facultative lagoon provides oxygen for waste decomposition from an air/water interface area and algae photosynthesis. This system would be a minimum two -stage system operating between 3 and 7 feet in depth, with a minimum detention time of approximately 100 days. For this evaluation, an operating depth between 4 and 5 feet was assumed, and the detention time would be well in excess of 100 days due to the area needed for oxygen transfer. The first stage would need to be 290 acres and the second stage would be 190 acres, for a total lagoon size of 480 acres. For construction purposes, it is suggested to divide these lagoon cells into maximum 40-acre units. There would then be approximately 12 40-acre lagoons. Solids handling would not be required for this option. Lagoon solids would be anticipated to be removed approximately once every 40 years, once the lagoons reach their design BOD5 loading. A multi -cell lagoon system would allow a lagoon cell to be taken off line and solids to dry in the bottom of the lagoon for easy and cost-effective removal. This lagoon type can reduce total nitrogen 40 to 95 percent. A removal efficiency of approximately 85 percent is needed to meet existing WPCF Permit limits. For this reason, adding a treatment wetland for effluent polishing would be recommended. The estimated capital and 20-year lifecycle costs for this option are $43.4 million and $46.4 million, respectively (see Table 1). Partially Aerated A partially aerated lagoon would provide some of the oxygen requirements through an aeration system. For purposes of this evaluation, we would assume that the oxygen for the first stage of the facultative lagoon system would be provided through mechanical aeration. Approximately 2 pounds of oxygen per pound of BOD5 removed is used in this evaluation to include both BOD5 and nitrogen reduction, and approximately 2 pounds of oxygen per horsepower (Hp) per hour can be assumed for an aeration system. The first -stage aeration system would mainly be used to increase the dissolved oxygen in the wastewater so it is available for microbial use and provide oxygen that would be consumed during the time water is in this cell. The detention time in this lagoon would be approximately three days. This first stage of the lagoon would then be approximately 10 feet deep to provide for aeration. Approximately 360 Hp of aeration would be needed. This would require a first -stage lagoon of approximately 3.5 acres. The second stage would then be approximately 190 acres and 7/8/2020 Anderson Perry & Associates, Inc. G:\Clients\Redmond\59-00 Reclaimed Water Wetland Reuse Fe asibiI ity Ana lysis\Reports\Feasibility Eva luation\Feasibility Eva Iuation. docx Page 2 Attachment 1 Page 5 of 23 City of Redmond, Oregon Lagoon and Wetland Treatment and Disposal Feasibility Evaluation constructed mainly as a facultative system to provide both aerobic and anoxic microbial colonies, but this area would not provide enough oxygen for the BOD5 loading, so approximately 240 Hp of additional aeration would still be needed in the second stage. As with the facultative lagoons, solids handling would not be proposed for this system. Solids reduction would occur naturally in the second -stage lagoons, but solids removal from the lagoons may still be needed approximately every 30 years. This lagoon type can reduce total nitrogen 40 to 95 percent. A removal efficiency of approximately 85 percent is needed to meet the existing WPCF Permit limits. For this reason, a treatment wetland would be recommended to be added for effluent polishing. The estimated capital and 20-year lifecycle costs for this option are $23.9 million and $31.9 million, respectively (see Table 2). Aerated An aerated lagoon would provide sufficient oxygen through aeration systems. A partially mixed, aerated lagoon would consist of five cells with a total detention time of 20 days. The 20-day detention time is on the longer end of what would normally be anticipated, but it provides a factor of safety and capacity to realize increased reduction in total nitrogen. A total requirement of approximately 800 Hp is needed to provide the required oxygen. The depth of the lagoon cells would be approximately 10 feet. The total wet area needed would be approximately 23 acres. Solids handling would not be anticipated for this option, as solids reduction occurs in the lagoon cells. It is still anticipated that solids removal would be needed approximately once every 20 years, once the flows and loadings reach design levels. This lagoon type can reduce total nitrogen 60 to 95 percent. A removal efficiency of approximately 85 percent is needed to meet the existing WPCF Permit limits. For this reason, a treatment wetland would be recommended to be added for effluent polishing. The estimated capital and 20-year lifecycle costs for this option are $10.6 million and $19.5 million, respectively (see Table 3). Aerated Lagoon with Orbal Pre -Aeration This alternative utilizes the existing capital investment in the Orbal aeration system to provide pre - aeration and reduce the total capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) requirements at the new lagoon site. The Orbal aeration system capacity provides enough oxygen to reduce the anticipated BOD5 loads on the proposed lagoon treatment system to approximately 9,000 ppd. This alternative would abandon the existing treatment plant facilities except for the headworks, two Orbal units, and one clarifier and associated sludge pump. The clarifier would harvest biosolids (microorganisms) from the ditch effluent and send them back to the ditch. The effluent from the ditches and clarifier would then be combined with any raw wastewater not sent to the ditch. The combined flows would then be sent to the aerated lagoons. This would reduce the total required at the aerated lagoon to approximately 375 Hp, the required detention time to 15 days, and the lagoon size from 23 acres to 17 acres. 7/8/2020 Anderson Perry & Associates, Inc. G:\Clients\Redmond\59-00 Reclaimed Water Wetland Reuse Feasibility Analysis\Reports\Feasibility Evaluation\Feasibility Evaluation.docx Page 3 Attachment 1 Page 6 of 23 City of Redmond, Oregon Lagoon and Wetland Treatment and Disposal Feasibility Evaluation Solids handling and nitrogen reduction would be similar to the aerated lagoon option. The estimated capital and 20-year lifecycle costs for this option are $6.3 million and $14.7 million, respectively (see Table 4). Treatment Wetlands After biologic stabilization of the waste is provided in the lagoon system, the lagoon effluent should be further "polished" in treatment wetlands to provide a more natural environment to further reduce pathogens and nutrients. The wetlands would provide a shallow surface flow system for increased exposure to light and encourage vegetation growth. The vegetation in the wetlands provides a substrate for attached growth microbial colonies that would provide for nitrification of any remaining ammonia. Denitrification would then be provided in the bottom anoxic layers of the wetlands and in deeper sections built into the environment. The treatment wetlands would be sized for a six -day detention time at an average depth of 12 inches. The treatment wetland would have a liner installed under 12 inches of native material in which vegetation would grow. The wetland would be seeded and planted. This would require a wetland complex with approximately 70 wet acres. Additional nitrogen reduction is provided in the wetlands, but nitrogen reduction is improved when multiple wetland cells constructed in series are provided. The estimated capital and 20-year lifecycle costs for this option are $9.8 million and $10.4 million, respectively (see Table 5). Disposal Wetlands The existing disposal system utilized by the City is through irrigation and seepage. The area proposed for facility construction contains a concrete sealed irrigation storage pond that holds water and a seepage area that leaks at a high rate. The size of disposal wetlands would depend on the seepage rate of the wetlands. Due to the function of the seepage area, it is assumed that the natural ground would provide very high infiltration rates. The existing seepage area has multiple cells with only one cell operated at a time. Based on current operation, the seepage area appears to have sufficient capacity to serve the City in the future. The City could construct new disposal wetlands for wildlife and public use using the water reclaimed from the wetland treatment process. These would need to have more controlled seepage by removing the topsoil, treating the fractured rock with bentonite, and replacing the topsoil. The disposal wetlands would be of varying depths and configurations that would more closely follow the natural terrain and provide wildlife habitat and an aesthetically pleasing area that the public may enjoy. For reasons of realizing a beneficial use for the reclaimed water, a capital cost of $4 million is added for disposal wetlands and trails. Other Beneficial Uses The City could also utilize the treated effluent for additional beneficial uses such as irrigating turf grass for new sports fields in the area. Some added effluent polishing may be needed, depending on the proposed beneficial use. Permit Limits The effluent permit limits that merit further discussion in this evaluation are the BOD5 and TSS limit of 20 mg/L, total nitrogen limit of 9 mg/L entering the infiltration basins, and TDS limit of 500 mg/L in the 7/8/2020 Anderson Perry & Associates, Inc. G:\Clients\Redmond\59-00 Reclaimed Water Wetland Reuse Feasibility Analysis\Reports\Feasibility Evaluation\Feasibility Evaluation.docx Page 4 Attachment 1 City of Redmond, Oregon Lagoon and Wetland Treatment and Disposal Feasibility Evaluation monitoring wells. The limits entering the infiltration basins appear to have been established as technology -based effluent limits based on the activated sludge process employed in the existing treatment plant. Biochemical Oxygen Demand and Total Suspended Solids The treatment wetland would be susceptible to extensive algae growth that may limit the ability to consistently meet the 20 mg/L limit. This limit may be attainable with the aerated lagoon option prior to entering the treatment wetland. A discussion with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality would need to occur to determine if the permit limit and/or monitoring location can be changed. Nitrogen The total nitrogen limit is achievable through a lagoon and wetland system, as the City of Prineville averaged a total nitrogen concentration of 7.0 mg/L from the lagoons throughout the 2019 season with nitrates in the monitoring wells being approximately 1 mg/L. The design of wetlands for nitrogen reduction has a large range of constants that could be used to achieve reduction efficiencies over a large range (i.e., 45 to 95 percent). This is due to the variability in plant and microbial colonies that can occur in different climatic regions and the type of waste entering the system. For this installation, data from the Cities of Prineville and La Grande; Oregon, lagoon and wetland treatment systems could be used to verify the design parameters. Some of the data that could be useful to verify the facility sizing are not currently being collected by the Cities. If this option is pursued further, additional testing from the Prineville facility would prove beneficial to confirm design parameters to reduce the risk associated with potential unknown design "constants. Total Dissolved Solids TDS data were collected for the existing treatment plant effluent. This TDS is also anticipated to be in the range of what would be expected for lagoon effluent. A mass balance was completed to estimate the TDS seeping into the groundwater by reducing the total seepage volume and increasing the total TDS due to evaporation. The amount of evaporation in the system would directly affect the difference in TDS between the influent and effluent, but this amount is small. TDS is expected to increase by less than 10 percent through the lagoon and wetland system. Project Consideration The City could consider three different alternatives to meet their future needs. These include expanding the existing mechanical treatment plant; using lagoons and wetlands to provide the treatment capacity needed for the future and continue using the headworks and office space at the existing facility; or moving the entire treatment system, offices, and shops to a new location. The decision -making process should consider Capital Cost, Life Cycle Cost, Land and Future Expandability, and Community Benefits. Expand Existing Mechanical Treatment Plant at Existing Site Capital Cost - This alternative was evaluated in the 2019 WWFP Update of the 2018 WWFP. The total capital cost for this alternative is $44.6 million (2018 dollars), which has been updated to $47.7 million (2020 dollars at 3.5 percent inflation). 7/8/2020 Anderson Perry & Associates, Inc. G:\Clients\Redmond\59-00 Reclaimed Water Wetland Reuse Feasibility Analysis\Reports\Feasibility Evaluation\Feasibility Evaluation.docx Page 5 Attachment 1 Page 8 of 23 City of Redmond, Oregon Lagoon and Wetland Treatment and Disposal Feasibility Evaluation Life Cycle Cost - This alternative has an estimated 20-year life cycle cost of approximately $62.0 million. Land and Future Expandability - This alternative utilizes the existing site located in an area surrounded by residential housing. The options for future expandability are limited. Also, there is concern over having this industrial wastewater facility in the middle of a residential area with a public pathway through the area. Community Benefits - This alternative will provide wastewater treatment for the City. The water is used for irrigating crops in the summertime but is disposed of in the wintertime through ground percolation. There may be opportunities for further reuse of the reclaimed water. New Lagoons and Wetlands with Existing Facilities This project alternative is shown on Figure 1. This alternative includes utilizing the existing headworks facility to provide screening of the influent. Raw wastewater would then flow down the existing pipelines to the proposed lagoon site at and/or adjacent to the existing irrigation area. Wastewater would then be treated in a five -cell, aerated lagoon system with chlorine disinfection. The disinfected lagoon effluent would then flow to the existing irrigation storage pond or into a 70-acre treatment wetland complex before entering a disposal wetland and infiltration basin area for evaporation and seepage into the groundwater. The total project cost for this system is summarized on the following table. The disinfection system evaluation was not part of this evaluation, but a cost estimate is included, assuming a chlorination system is used (see Table 6). Capital Cost - The total estimated capital and associated life cycle cost is shown on the following table. NEW LAGOON AND WETLANDS WITH EXISTING FACILITIES Item Estimated Capital Cost Estimated 20-year Life Cycle Cost Aerated Lagoon $10.6 million $19.5 million Disinfection System $1.7 million $2.4 million Treatment Wetlands $9.8 million $10.4 million Disposal Wetlands $4.0 million $4.1 million Support Facilities $12.4 million $16.4 million Total $38.5 million $52.8 million Note: Capital costs for Support Facilities taken from 2019 WWFP Update. Life Cycle Cost - The 20-year life cycle cost shown above needs to be augmented to include the existing facilities that will be used as part of this alternative, and also includes the headworks and lift station. The revised total estimated life cycle cost assumes these facilities are new and is estimated at $37.0 million. Also, this alternative will split the treatment plant staff between two sites. This can provide O&M challenges. Land and Future Expandability - The existing facilities would still be located in an area surrounded by residential homes with a walking path near the treatment plant. The lagoons and wetland areas are surrounded by undeveloped lands where future expansion could easily occur. 7/8/2020 Anderson Perry & Associates, Inc. G:\Clients\Redmond\59-00 Reclaimed Water Wetland Reuse Feasibility Ana lysis\Reports\Feasibility Eva luation\Feasibility Eva Iu ation.docx Page 6 Attachment 1 City of Redmond, Oregon Lagoon and Wetland Treatment and Disposal Feasibility Evaluation Community Benefits producing systemsin the middle of the residential and pathway area. This alternative would provide a minimum of 70 acres of wetland environment that could provide plant and wildlife habitat. The City of Prineville uses its wetland area as part of their parks and trails and the City of Redmond could implement a similar community enhancement. New Lagoon and Wetland Treatment Plant with Support Facilities at New Site The development of new treatment facilities will provide the opportunity to move all of the treatment facilities to a new less populated area north of the City. Figures 2 and 3 show an initial potential lavout for moving all of the treatment works. The additional facilities needed would parking areas.'; The inclusion of sludge drying beds will allow lagoon sludge removal to be done by City staff using the drying beds and floating dredge. The drying beds can be completed as a second phase of the project, as lagoon sludge will not need to be removed for many years. The estimated cost for the headworks and support facilities, including the drying beds, is shown on Table 7. Capital Cost and Life Cycle Cost - The total estimated capital and life cycle cost for moving the treatment plant is summarized on the following table. NEW LAGOON AND WETLAND TREATMENT PLANT WITH SUPPORT FACILITIES AT NEW SITE Item Estimated Capital Cost Estimated 20-year Life Cycle Cost Aerated Lagoon $10.6 million $19.5 million Disinfection System $1.7 million $2.4 million Treatment Wetlands $9.8 million $10.4 million Disposal Wetlands $4.0 million $4.1 million Headworks and Support Facilities $15.5 million $17.5 million Total $41.6 million $53.9 million Community Benefits - This alternative would provide a wetland environment that could be made accessible to the public for bird watching, hiking, and cycling. It could also be tied into a City-wide trails system as an extension to Dry Canyon. The reuse of the reclaimed water in this manner provides an ancillary benefit to the City that is otherwise not realized. 7/8/2020 Anderson Perry & Associates, Inc. G:\Clients\Redmond\59.00 Reclaimed Water Wetland Reuse Feasibility Analysis\Reports\Feasibility Evaluation\Feasibility Evaluation.docx Page 7 Attachment 1 Page 10 of 23 City of Redmond, Oregon Lagoon and Wetland Treatment and Disposal Feasibility Evaluation Summary The following table summarizes the project alternatives: Summary of Project Alternatives Capital 20-Year Life Alternative Advantages Disadvantages Cost Cycle Cost Life Expectancy Expand Use existing Odors, limited $47.7 $62.0 million Reused Mechanical headworks and expandability, million mechanical Treatment treatment systems. older systems, components will Plant at treatment plant have shorter life. Existing Site in residential New mechanical area, higher components will costs. need replaced approximately every 10 years. New Lagoons Use existing Odors, older $38.5 $52.8 million Unknown life for and Wetlands headworks. systems, two million existing lift with Existing sites, treatment station and Facilities plant in headworks but residential area. will most likely need to be rebuilt before 20 years. New Lagoon Move out of $41.6 $53.9 million Lagoons and and Wetland residential and Dry million wetlands have a Treatment Canyon Park area. life expectancy in Plant with Expandable. excess of Support All new systems. 50 years. Facilities at Added wildlife habitat. New Site Added trails system. Reduced biosolids handling. Increased tourism possibilities. 7/8/2020 Anderson Perry & Associates, Inc. G:\Clients\Redmond\59-00 Reclaimed Water Wetland Reuse Feasibility Analysis\Reports\Feasibility Evaluation\Feasibility Evaluation.docx Page 8 Attachment 1 Page 11 of 23 TABLES Attachment 1 Page 12 of 23 CITY OF REDMOND, OREGON LAGOON AND WETLAND TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL FEASIBILITY EVALUATION FACULTATIVE LAGOON PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE (YEAR 2020 COSTS) NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT PRICE ESTIMATED PRICE QUANTITY 1 Mobilization/Demobilization (3% of LS $ 1,020,000 All Req'd $ 1,020,000 Construction Cost) 2 Earthwork CY 5 350,000 1,750,000 3 Rock Removal CY 60 161,333 9,680,000 4 Liner SF 1 21,000,000 21,000,000 5 Control Structures EA 15,000 12 180,000 6 Piping LF 60 5,600 336,000 7 Gravel CY 20 8,100 162,000 8 Fencing LF 6 21,000 126,000 9 Site Work LS 50,000 All Req'd 50,000 Sum of Estimated Construction Cost $ 34,304,000 Construction Contingency (15%) 5,146,000 Subtotal Estimated Construction Cost $ 39,450,000 Administration, Legal, and Engineering (10%) 3,945,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST (2020 DOLLARS) $ 43,395,000 PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS (2020 DOLLARS Item Description Annual Cost ADDITIONAL ANNUAL OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPLACEMENT (OM&R) 1 Labor $ 41,000 2 Supplies, Parts, Maintenance, and Repairs 1,000 3 Replacement 1,000 4 Lagoon Solids Removal 200,000 Total OM&R $ 243,000 Present Worth Operation and Maintenance Cost (5%, 20 years) 3,029,000 Total Present Worth (2020 Dollars) $ 46,424,000 CITY OF REDMOND, OREGON a dderson[LAGOON AND WETLAND TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL TABLE d 0 terryFEASIBILITY EVALUATION asso otes, Inc. FACULTATIVE LAGOON PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE Page 13 of 23 CITY OF REDMOND, OREGON LAGOON AND WETLAND TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL FEASIBILITY EVALUATION PARTIALLY AERATED LAGOON PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE (YEAR 2020 COSTS) NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT PRICE ESTIMATED QUANTITY PRICE 1 Mobilization/Demobilization (4% of LS $ 800,000 All Req'd $ 800,000 Construction Cost) 2 Earthwork CY 5 172,000 860,000 3 Rock Removal CY 60 64,600 3,876,000 4 Liner SF 1 8,712,000 8,712,000 5 Control Structures EA 15,000 5 75,000 6 Piping LF 60 3,600 216,000 7 Gravel CY 20 3,800 76,000 8 Diffusers LS 1,200,000 All Req'd 1,200,000 9 Blowers LS 650,000 All Req'd 650,000 10 Blower Building SF 200 1,200 240,000 11 Electrical and Controls LS 500,000 All Req'd 500,000 12 Fencing LF 6 10,000 60,000 13 Site Work LS 50,000 All Req'd 50,000 Sum of Estimated Construction Cost $ 17,315,000 Construction Contingency (15%) 2,597,000 Subtotal Estimated Construction Cost $ 19,912,000 Administration, Legal, and Engineering (20%) 3,982,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST (2020 DOLLARS) $ 23,894,000 PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS (2020 DOLLARS Item Description Annual Cost ADDITIONAL ANNUAL OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPLACEMENT (OM&R) 1 Labor $ 82,000 2 Supplies, Parts, Maintenance, and Repairs 2,000 3 Power (600 horsepower, $0.08 per kilowatt hour) 314,000 4 Replacement 62,000 5 Lagoon Solids Removal 180,000 Total OM&R $ 640,000 Present Worth Operation and Maintenance Cost (5%, 20 years) 7,976,000 Total Present Worth (2020 Dollars) $ 31,870,000 Lssffr CITY OF OREGON I..REDMOND, ON AND WETLAND TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL TABLE FEASIBILITY EVALUATION 2 ARTIALLY AERATED LAGOON RELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE Page 14 of 23 CITY OF REDMOND, OREGON LAGOON AND WETLAND TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL FEASIBILITY EVALUATION AERATED LAGOON PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE (YEAR 2020 COSTS) NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT PRICE ESTIMATED QUANTITY PRICE 1 Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of LS $ 430,000 All Req'd $ 430,000 Construction Cost) 2 Earthwork CY 6 113,000 678,000 3 Rock Removal CY 60 32,000 1,920,000 4 Liner SF 1 1,089,000 1,089,000 5 Control Structures EA 15,000 4 60,000 6 Piping LF 60 2,000 120,000 7 Gravel CY 20 1,400 28,000 8 Diffusers LS 1,500,000 All Req'd 1,500,000 9 Blowers LS 800,000 All Req'd 800,000 10 Blower Building SF 200 1,800 360,000 11 Electrical and Controls LS 600,000 All Req'd 600,000 12 Fencing LF 6 5,000 30,000 13 Site Work LS 50,000 All Req'd 50,000 Sum of Estimated Construction Cost $ 7,665,000 Construction Contingency (15%) 1,150,000 Subtotal Estimated Construction Cost $ 8,815,000 Administration, Legal, and Engineering (20%) 1,763,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST (2020 DOLLARS) $ 10,578,000 PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS (2020 DOLLARS Item Description Annual Cost ADDITIONAL ANNUAL OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPLACEMENT (OM&R) 1 Labor $ 164,000 2 Supplies, Parts, Maintenance, and Repairs 10,000 3 Power (800 horsepower, $0.08 per kilowatt hour) 418,000 4 Replacement 82,000 5 Lagoon Solids Removal 42,000 TotalOM&R $ 716,000 Present Worth Operation and Maintenance Cost (5%, 20 years) 8,923,000 Total Present Worth (2020 Dollars) $ 19,501,000 CITY OF REDMOND, OREGON lassocitates, nd SOtI LAGOON AND WETLAND TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL TABLE QerFEASIBILITY EVALUATION 3 inc. AERATED LAGOON PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE Page 15 of 23 CITY OF REDMOND, OREGON LAGOON AND WETLAND TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL FEASIBILITY EVALUATION ORBAL PLUS AERATED LAGOON PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE (YEAR 2020 COSTS) NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT ESTIMATED PRICE PRICE QUANTITY 1 Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of LS $ 250,000 All Req'd $ 250,000 Construction Cost) 2 Earthwork CY 6 94,000 564,000 3 Rock Removal CY 60 8,100 486,000 4 Liner SF 1 828,000 828,000 5 Control Structures EA 15,000 4 60,000 6 Piping LF 60 2,000 120,000 7 Gravel CY 20 1,100 22,000 8 Diffusers LS 900,000 All Req'd 900,000 9 Blowers LS 480,000 All Req'd 480,000 10 Blower Building SF 200 1,200 240,000 11 Electrical and Controls LS 500,000 All Req'd 500,000 12 Fencing LF 6 5,000 30,000 13 Site Work LS 50,000 All Req'd 50,000 Sum of Estimated Construction Cost $ 4,530,000 Construction Contingency (15%) 680,000 Subtotal Estimated Construction Cost $ 5,210,000 Administration, Legal, and Engineering (20%) 1,042,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST (2020 DOLLARS) $ 6,252,000 PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS (2020 DOLLARS Item Description Annual Cost ADDITIONAL ANNUAL OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPLACEMENT (OM&R) 1 Labor $ 165,000 2 Supplies, Parts, Maintenance, and Repairs 10,000 3 Power (800 horsepower, $0.08 per kilowatt hour) 418,000 4 Replacement 44,000 5 Lagoon Solids Removal 42,000 Total OM&R $ 679,000 Present Worth Operation and Maintenance Cost (5%, 20 years) 8,462,000 Total Present Worth (2020 Dollars) $ 14,714,000 CITY OF REDMOND, OREGON Lagnderson LAGOON AND WETLAND TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL TABLE FEASIBILITY EVALUATION 4 ORBAL PLUS AERATED LAGOON PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE Page 16 of 23 CITY OF REDMOND, OREGON LAGOON AND WETLAND TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL FEASIBILITY EVALUATION TREATMENT WETLANDS PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE (YEAR 2020 COSTS) NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT ESTIMATED PRICE PRICE QUANTITY 1 Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of LS $ 400,000 All Req'd $ 400,000 Construction Cost) 2 Earthwork CY 6 67,000 402,000 3 Rock Removal CY 60 32,400 1,944,000 4 Liner SF 1 3,050,000 3,050,000 5 Control Structures EA 15,000 6 90,000 6 Piping LF 60 4,000 240,000 7 Gravel CY 20 2,100 42,000 8 Top Soil Removal and Replacement CY 8 113,000 904,000 9 Seeding and Planting LS 20,000 All Req'd 20,000 10 Fencing LF 6 7,000 42,000 Sum of Estimated Construction Cost $ 7,134,000 Construction Contingency (15%) 1,070,000 Subtotal Estimated Construction Cost $ 8,204,000 Administration, Legal, and Engineering (20%) 1,640,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST (2020 DOLLARS) $ 9,844,000 PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS (2020 DOLLARS Item Description Annual Cost ADDITIONAL ANNUAL OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPLACEMENT (OM&R) 1 Labor $ 41,000 2 Supplies, Parts, Maintenance, and Repairs 1,000 3 Replacement 1,000 4 Vegetation Removal 2,000 TotalOM&R $ 45,000 Present Worth Operation and Maintenance Cost (5%, 20 years) 561,000 Total Present Worth (2020 Dollars) $ 10,405,000 CITY OF REDMOND, OREGON and son LAGOON AND WETLAND TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL TABLE Tof, r _r FEASIBILITY EVALUATION 5 assoc, tes, inc. TREATMENT WETLANDS PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE Page 17 of 23 CITY OF REDMOND, OREGON LAGOON AND WETLAND TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL FEASIBILITY EVALUATION DISINFECTION SYSTEM PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE (YEAR 2020 COSTS) NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT ESTIMATED PRICE PRICE QUANTITY 1 Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of LS $ 66,000 All Req'd $ 66,000 Construction Cost) 2 Building SF 200 1,000 200,000 3 Chlorination Equipment LS 40,000 All Req'd 40,000 4 Chlorine Contact Basin LS 280,000 All Req'd 280,000 5 Electrical and Controls LS 100,000 All Req'd 100,000 6 Piping LF 60 200 12,000 7 Rock Removal CY 60 1,000 60,000 8 Gravel CY 20 100 2,000 9 Steel Building Over Basin LS 500,000 All Req'd 500,000 Sum of Estimated Construction Cost $ 1,260,000 Construction Contingency (15%) 189,000 Subtotal Estimated Construction Cost $ 1,449,000 Administration, Legal, and Engineering (20%) 290,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST (2020 DOLLARS) $ 1,739,000 PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS (2020 DOLLARS Item Description Annual Cost ADDITIONAL ANNUAL OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPLACEMENT (OM&R) 1 Labor $ 20,000 2 Supplies, Parts, Maintenance, and Repairs 30,000 3 Replacement 2,000 TotalOM&R $ 52,000 Present Worth Operation and Maintenance Cost (5%, 20 years) 649,000 Total Present Worth (2020 Dollars) $ 2,388,000 CITY OF REDMOND, OREGON $on LAGOON AND WETLAND TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL TABLE C� O Ind `r FEASIBILITY EVALUATION 6 ,Sssod tes, inc. DISINFECTION SYSTEM PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE Page 18 of 23 CITY OF REDMOND, OREGON LAGOON AND WETLAND TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL FEASIBILITY EVALUATION SUPPORT FACILITIES PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE (YEAR 2020 COSTS) NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT PRICE ESTIMATED PRICE QUANTITY 1 Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of LS $ 600,500 All Req'd $ 600,500 Construction Cost) 2 Main Division Building SF 250 8,750 2,187,500 3 Maintenance Building SF 175 12,000 2,100,000 4 Generator Building SF 200 320 64,000 5 Roads and Parking SY 22 16,000 352,000 6 Operations Building (Motor Control SF 250 3,000 750,000 Center, Control Room, Lab) 7 Lift Station LS 400,000 All Req'd 400,000 8 Vacuum Truck/Septage Dump LS 90,000 All Req'd 90,000 9 Sludge Drying Beds Acre 750,000 3 2,250,000 10 Domestic Water LF 40 10,000 400,000 11 Fencing/Site Work LS 100,000 All Req'd 100,000 12 Headworks LS 400,000 All Req'd 400,000 13 Rock Removal CY 60 200 12,000 14 Electrical and Controls LS 700,000 All Req'd 700,000 15 Site Piping LF 60 4,000 240,000 16 Grit Chamber LS 300,000 All Req'd 300,000 17 Rock Processing LS 250,000 All Req'd 250,000 Sum of Estimated Improvements Construction Cost $ 11,196,000 Construction Contingency (15%) 1,679,000 Subtotal Estimated Improvements Construction Cost $ 12,875,000 Administration, Legal, and Engineering (20%) 2,575,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST (2020 DOLLARS) $ 15,450,000 PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS (2020 DOLLARS Item Description Annual Cost ADDITIONAL ANNUAL OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPLACEMENT (OM&R) 1 Labor (Headworks and Lift Station Only) $ 126,000 2 Supplies, Parts, Maintenance, and Repairs 10,000 3 Replacement 30,000 Total OM&R $ 166,000 Present Worth Operation and Maintenance Cost (5%, 20 years) 2,069,000 Total Present Worth (2020 Dollars) $ 17,519,000 / CITY OF REDMOND, OREGON and SOn LAGOON AND WETLAND TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL TABLE C� 0 perm FEASIBILITY EVALUATION 7 C assoaates, inc. SUPPORT FACILITIES PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE , Page 19 of 23 FIGURES Attachment 1 • - 20 of 23 _ /Z k \\ 10 ■K - Z k \ z§ w� ( �� k§ k 4 - )) w� ■ ■ \\� bow aW § Z k \ FL �k �§ WLL ! � § E§ \�a § ( � - 2� §� ) / � \ \ 0 \ § | k \ ! 2 k : \ ! �I \k k\ § k\ §, § |§§! __3p+_ozo2:aa#_««a9-OO_ __ejes __»,8109�f-0-_ Q % C4 a WASTEWATER FACILITY PLAN AMENDMENT FOR CITY OF REDMOND, OREGON 2020 12 -/'7- ad RENEWS 12-31-20 ANDERSON PERRY & ASSOCIATES, INC. La Grande, Redmond, and Hermiston, Oregon Walla Walla, Washington Copyright 2020 by Anderson Perry & Associates, Inc. Job No. 59-00 Attachment 2 Page 2 of 48 Table of Contents Preface..............................................................................................................................................1 A1.0 Basis of Planning........................................................................................................................1 A1.1 Introduction and Need for the Project...........................................................................................1 A1.5 Existing and Future Population, Flows, and Loads......................................................................... 1 A1.6 Summary........................................................................................................................................2 A3.0 Regulatory Requirements...........................................................................................................3 A4.0 Alternatives Analysis..................................................................................................................4 A4.1 Lagoon Treatment.......................................................................................................................... 4 A4.1.1 Facultative............................................................................................................................ 4 A4.1.2 Partially Aerated................................................................................................................... 4 A4.1.3 Aerated................................................................................................................................. 5 A4.1.4 Aerated Lagoon with Orbal Aeration.................................................................................... 5 A4.2 Wetlands........................................................................................................................................ 6 A4.2.1 Treatment Wetlands............................................................................................................. 7 A4.2.2 Disposal Wetlands................................................................................................................ 7 A4.3 Disinfection.................................................................................................................................... 8 A4.4 Support Facilities............................................................................................................................ 8 A4.5 Ranking...........................................................................................................................................9 AS.0 Recommended Improvements..................................................................................................10 A5.1 Headworks (Primary Treatment).................................................................................................11 A5.2 Aerated Lagoon (Secondary Treatment)......................................................................................11 A5.3 Treatment Wetlands.................................................................................................................... 12 ASA Disposal Wetlands and Infiltration Gallery.................................................................................. 12 A5.5 Capital Cost and Life Cycle Cost................................................................................................... 12 A5.6 Other Beneficial Uses................................................................................................................... 12 A6.0 Project Funding........................................................................................................................13 TABLES Table 1-1 Project Flows and Loads from the Wastewater Facility Plan ...................................................... 2 Table 1-2 Updated Project Flows and Loads............................................................................................... 3 Table 4-1 Summary of Lagoon Alternatives................................................................................................ 6 Table 4-2 Treatment Wetland Cost Estimate.............................................................................................. 7 Table 4-3 Disinfection System Estimated Project Cost............................................................................... 8 Table 4-4 Support Facilities Cost Estimate.................................................................................................. 9 Table4-5 Alternative Rankings.................................................................................................................10 Table 5-1 New Lagoon and Wetland Treatment Plant With Support Facilities at New Site....................12 FIGURES Figure 1 Treatment Process Flow Schematic Figure 2 Improvements Plan Figure 3 Improvements Detail Plan 12/17/2020 Anderson Perry & Associates, Inc. G:\clients\Redmond\5M0 Reclaimed Water Wetland Reuse Feasibility Analysis\Reports\W WFP Amendment\Amendment.docx Page i Attachment 2 Page 3 of 48 City of Redmond, Oregon Wastewater Facility Plan Amendment - 2020 APPENDICES Appendix A — Preliminary Calculations Appendix B - Lagoon and Wetland Treatment and Disposal Feasibility Evaluation 12/17/2020 Anderson Perry & Associates, Inc. G:\Clients\Redmond\59-00 Reclaimed Water Wetland Reuse Feasibility Analysis\Reports\W WFP Amendment\Amendment.docx Page II Attachment 2 Page 4 of 48 City of Redmond, Oregon Wastewater Facility Plan Amendment - 2020 Preface The City of Redmond, Oregon, contracted Anderson Perry & Associates, Inc., to conduct a Lagoon and Wetland Treatment and Disposal Feasibility Evaluation (Evaluation), completed in July 2020 for wastewater treatment alternatives and, subsequently, this Wastewater Facility Plan Amendment (Amendment) to their 2019 Update of the Wastewater Facility Plan (WWFP). This Amendment summarizes the results of the Evaluation and is intended to supplement and not replace the WWFP. Therefore, this Amendment will closely follow the outline of the WWFP to best synchronize the contents of each document. Detailed background on the City of Redmond's physical environment, planning and service area, and existing infrastructure can be found in the WWFP. Sections that are not addressed in this Amendment can be referred to in the original WWFP. A1.0 Basis of Planning A1.1 Introduction and Need for the Project The City recently completed a WWFP Update in November 2019. The WWFP established a basis of planning, existing facilities evaluation, regulatory requirements, alternatives analysis, and recommended improvements. Several alternatives were evaluated as seen in Section 4.0 of the WWFP; however, all considered alternatives included expanding the existing mechanical treatment plant at its current location. The City wished to also consider abandoning the constrained site of the existing mechanical treatment plant and evaluate the option of lagoon and wetland treatment and disposal. The purpose of this Amendment is to update the design criteria to the year 2045 and add an alternative for a lagoon treatment system with a constructed wetland treatment and disposal system to meet the City's needs. A1,5 Existing and Future Population, Flows, and Loads Remaining consistent with the WWFP, this Amendment uses the Portland State University: Oregon Population Forecast Program to estimate future population data. The data suggest the population in Redmond may increase to approximately 54,000 by the end of 2045. Historic flow data used for this Amendment differ from that used in the WWFP due to a correction in data collected by the City. In October 2019, the City discovered the influent flowmeter was not reading correctly. This provided flows that were less than actual; therefore, the design criteria used in the WWFP were not accurate. The flowmeter has been recalibrated, and the following corrections have been made, along with clarifications: • Population - 53,800. As used in the WWFP. Average Annual Flow - 4.34 million gallons per day (MGD). A review of the influent flows between January 2015 and October 2019 showed the average per capita flow to be 65.2 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). This flow is a little lower than what would normally be expected. After the flowmeter was reset, the flows between November 2019 and June 2020 were 80.8 gpcd, which provided an increase of 15.6 gpcd. This is in the range normally seen for communities in this region. This increase was added to the flow records before October 2019 to obtain a more accurate indication of historic influent flows. The per 12/17/2020 Anderson Perry & Associates, Inc. G:\Clients\Redmond\59-00 Reclaimed Water Wetland Reuse Feasibility Analysis\Reports\WWFP Amendment\Amendment.docx Page 1 Attachment 2 -ollage 5 of 4J City of Redmond, Oregon Wastewater Facility Plan Amendment - 2020 capita flow was then used with the design population to determine the average annual design flows. • Maximum Month Flow - 4.51 MGD. The adjusted per capita flows noted above were used for the highest flow month of each year. These were then averaged and multiplied by the design population. • Average Annual Five-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODS) - 501 milligrams per liter (mg/L), 18,134 pounds per day (ppd). The average annual concentration was used with the design flows to determine loadings. • Maximum Month BODs - A review of the historic data show the maximum flow months produce less BODs loading than the average. For this reason, the average annual loading of 18,134 ppd should be used. • Average Annual Total Suspended Solids (TSS) - 353 mg/L, 12,777 ppd. The historic average concentration was used with the design flow. • Maximum Month TSS - 357 mg/L, 13,428 ppd. The historic average concentrations from each of the annual maximum months were used with the design maximum month flow to obtain the loading. • Average Annual Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) - 65 mg/L, 2,353 ppd. The design concentration from the WWFP Update was used with the flow above. • Maximum Month TKN - 75 mg/L, 2,821 ppd. The design concentration from the WWFP Update was used with the flow above. • Peak Hour Flow - 11.63 MGD. The WWFP Update indicated the peak hour flow can be calculated using a peaking factor of 2.68 with the average annual flow. A1.6 Summary The updated projected flows and loads used in this Amendment compared to those used in the WWFP can be seen on Tables 1-1 and 1-2. The projections presented on Table 1-2 are used in the following sections. TABLE 1-1 PROJECT FLOWS AND LOADS FROM THE WASTEWATER FACILITY PLAN Year Population Average Annual Flow, MGD Maximum Month BODs Load, ppd Maximum Month TSS load, ppd Maximum Month TKN Load, ppd 2017 28,800 1.90 9,800 7,000 1,200 2020 30,700 2.00 10,800 8,200 1,400 2025 34,400 2.20 12,100 9,200 1,500 2030 38,600 2.50 13,600 10,300 1,700 2035 43,200 2.80 15,200 11,600 2,000 2040 48,400 3.10 17,100 13,000 2,200 2045 53,800 3.50 19,000 14,400 2,400 12/17/2020 Anderson Perry & Associates, Inc. G:\Clients\Redmond\59-00 Reclaimed Water Wetland Reuse Feasibility Analysis\Reports\WWFP Amendment\Amendment.docx Page 2 Attachment 2 Asm City of Redmond, Oregon Wastewater Facility Plan Amendment - 2020 TABLE 1-2 UPDATED PROJECT FLOWS AND LOADS Year Population Average Annual Flow, MGD Maximum Month BODs Load, ppd Maximum Month TSS Load, ppd Maximum Month TKN Load, ppd 2017 28,800 2.33 10,088 7,188 1,510 2020 30,700 2.48 10,753 7,662 1,610 2025 34,400 2.78 12,049 8,586 1,804 2030 38,600 3.12 13,520 9,634 2,024 2035 43,200 3.49 15,131 10,782 2,265 2040 48,400 3.91 16,953 12,080 2,538 2045 53,800 4.34 18,134 13,428 2,821 A3.0 Regulatory Requirements Section 3 of the WWFP outlines the current water quality standards under the Water Pollution Control Facilities (WPCF) Permit that the City must comply with, as well as potential future regulatory considerations. As this Amendment is focused on evaluating the alternative of lagoon and wetland treatment and disposal, regulatory considerations surrounding this alternative will be outlined. The City's current WPCF Permit for the existing mechanical treatment plant would be modified or renewed with the construction of an entirely new treatment system. The existing mechanical treatment plant provides secondary treatment through the use of an activated sludge process with discharge to groundwater via an infiltration gallery. The system proposed in this Amendment would utilize aerated lagoons for secondary treatment, lined constructed wetlands for tertiary treatment, and unlined disposal wetlands with the existing infiltration basins for effluent disposal. The added wetland treatment and disposal areas will enhance water quality using more natural processes but will be completely different than the existing facilities. The new treatment system will require that a modified or renewed WPCF Permit be obtained. For this reason, an initial meeting was held with Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) staff to discuss this treatment and disposal alternative with respect to a new permit. Generally, the DEQ is supportive of this option and feels that it can be permitted. Since a new permit will be required but not yet obtained, the existing groundwater protection (Oregon Administrative Rules [OAR] 340-040) and effluent reuse rules (OAR 340-055) will be used for guidance in the evaluation of the lagoon and wetland alternative. The contaminate of specific note for groundwater protection from the proposed facility is a Nitrate - N limit of 10 mg/L. No other contaminates shown on OAR 340-040 Tables 1, 2, and 3 are anticipated to be at levels of concern in the treated effluent. Effluent reuse is governed by OAR 340-055 and an approved Reclaimed Water Use Plan. Currently, the City irrigates crops not for human consumption using Class C effluent. This type of reuse only requires Class D or non -disinfected effluent based on the OARs. The existing WPCF Permit requires Class D effluent for discharge to the infiltration beds. The proposed treatment system would disinfect secondary effluent prior to discharging to treatment wetlands, then disposal wetlands, and ultimately an infiltration gallery. It is proposed that the wetland area be accessible to the public for non -contact use of adjacent walking paths for wildlife viewing and exercise. The area will be posted to prevent human contact with wetland water. A 10-foot setback is required by OAR 340-055. For this use, disinfecting the effluent to a Class D level prior to discharging to the treatment wetland is proposed. The natural 12/17/2020 Anderson Perry & Associates, Inc. G:\Cl1ents\Redmond\59-00 Reclaimed Water Wetland Reuse Feasibility Analysis\Reports\WWFPAmendment\Amendment.docx Page 3 Attachment 2 Page 7 of 48 City of Redmond, Oregon Wastewater Facility Plan Amendment - 2020 wetland system and wildlife use would make disinfection limits after the treatment wetland unpredictable. A4.0 Alternatives Analysis The City conducted an extensive alternatives analysis as seen in Section 4.0 of the WWFP. Along with the preferred mechanical treatment plant expansion alternative, the City can consider two additional or moving the entire treatment system, offices, and shops to a new location. These three options will be compared considering capital cost, life cycle cost, land and future expandability, and community benefits. A4.1 Lagoon Treatment Lagoon treatment can be provided with a facultative lagoon, partially aerated lagoon, or aerated lagoon. A4.1.1 Facultative A facultative lagoon provides oxygen for waste decomposition from an air/water interface area and algae photosynthesis. This system would be a minimum two -stage system operating between 3 and 7 feet in depth, with a minimum detention time of approximately 100 days. For this evaluation, an operating depth between 4 and 5 feet was assumed, and the detention time would be well in excess of 100 days due to the area needed for oxygen transfer. The first stage would need to be 360 acres and the second stage would need to be 160 acres, for a total lagoon size of 520 acres. For construction purposes, it is suggested to divide these lagoon cells into maximum 40-acre units. Then, there would be approximately 13 40-acre lagoons. See Appendix A for preliminary calculations. Solids handling would not be required for this option. Lagoon solids would be anticipated to be removed approximately once every 40 years, once the lagoons reach their design BOD5 loading. A multi -cell lagoon system would allow a lagoon cell to be taken offline and solids to dry in the bottom of the lagoon for easy and cost-effective removal. This lagoon type can reduce total nitrogen 40 to 95 percent (see Metcalf & Eddy, Wastewater Engineering, Third Edition). A removal efficiency of approximately 85 percent is needed to meet existing WPCF Permit limits. For this reason, adding a treatment wetland for effluent polishing would be recommended. A4.1.2 Partially Aerated A partially aerated lagoon would provide some of the oxygen requirements through an aeration system. For purposes of this evaluation, it was assumed that the oxygen for the first stage of the facultative lagoon system would be provided through mechanical aeration. Approximately 2 pounds of oxygen per pound of BOD5 removed is used in this evaluation to include both BOD5 and nitrogen reduction, and approximately 2 pounds of oxygen per horsepower (Hp) per hour can be assumed for an aeration system. The first -stage aeration system would mainly be used to increase the dissolved oxygen in the wastewater so it is available for microbial use and provide oxygen that would be consumed during the time water is in this cell. The detention time in 12/17/2020 Anderson Perry & Associates, Inc. G:\Clients\Redmond\59-00 Reclaimed Water Wetland Reuse Feasibility Analysis\Reports\WWFP Amendment\Amendment.docx Page 4 Attachment 2 Page 8 of 48 City of Redmond, Oregon Wastewater Facility Plan Amendment - 2020 this lagoon would be approximately three days. This first stage of the lagoon would then be approximately 10 feet deep to provide for aeration. Approximately 360 Hp of aeration would be needed. This would require a first -stage lagoon of approximately 4 acres. The second stage would then be approximately 160 acres and constructed mainly as a facultative system to provide both aerobic and anoxic microbial colonies, but this area would not provide enough oxygen for the BOD5 loading, so approximately 106 Hp of additional aeration would still be needed in the second stage. As with the facultative lagoons, solids handling would not be proposed for this system. Solids reduction would occur naturally in the second -stage lagoons, but solids removal from the lagoons may still be needed approximately every 30 years. This lagoon type can reduce total nitrogen 40 to 95 percent. A removal efficiency of approximately 85 percent is needed to meet existing WPCF Permit limits. For this reason, it is recommended a treatment wetland be added for effluent polishing. A4.1.3 Aerated An aerated lagoon would provide sufficient oxygen through aeration systems. A partially mixed, aerated lagoon would consist of five cells with a total detention time of 20 days. The 20-day detention time is on the longer end of what would normally be anticipated, but it provides a factor of safety and capacity to realize increased reduction in total nitrogen. A total requirement of approximately 755 Hp is needed to provide the required oxygen. The depth of the lagoon cells would be approximately 11 feet. The total wet area needed would be approximately 25 acres. Solids handling would not be anticipated for this option, as solids reduction would occur in the lagoon cells. Solids removal is still anticipated to be needed approximately once every 20 years, once the flows and loadings reach design levels. This lagoon type can reduce total nitrogen 60 to 95 percent. A removal efficiency of approximately 85 percent is needed to meet existing WPCF Permit limits. For this reason, a treatment wetland would be recommended to be added for effluent polishing. A4.1.4 Aerated Lagoon with Orbal Aeration This alternative utilizes the existing capital investment in the Orbal aeration system to provide pre -aeration and reduce the total capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) requirements at the new lagoon site. The Orbal aeration system capacity would provide enough oxygen to reduce the anticipated BOD5 loads on the proposed lagoon treatment system to approximately 9,000 ppd. This alternative would abandon the existing mechanical treatment plant facilities except for the headworks, two Orbal units, and one clarifier and associated sludge pump. The clarifier would harvest biosolids (microorganisms) from the ditch effluent and send it back to the ditch. The effluent from the ditches and clarifier would then be combined with any raw wastewater not sent to the ditch. The combined flows would then be sent to the aerated lagoons. This would reduce the total required at the aerated lagoon to approximately 375 Hp, the required detention time to 10 days, and the lagoon size from 25 to 13 acres. 12/17/2020 Anderson Perry & Associates, Inc. G:\Clients\Redmond\59-00 Reclaimed Water Wetland Reuse Feasibility Analysis\Reports\W W FP Amendment\Amendment.docx Page 5 Attachment 2 City of Redmond, Oregon Wastewater Facility Plan Amendment - 2020 Solids handling and nitrogen reduction would be similar to the aerated lagoon option. Table 4-1 shows a summary of costs for these treatment alternatives. TABLE 4-1 SUMMARY OF LAGOON ALTERNATIVES Facultative Lagoon Partially Aerated Lagoon Aerated Lagoon Orbal Plus Aerated Lagoon Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of Construction Cost) $1,020,000 $800,000 $430,000 $250,000 Earthwork 1,750,000 860,000 678,000 564,000 Rock Removal 9,680,000 3,876,000 1,920,000 486,000 Liner 21,000,000 8,712,000 1,089,000 828,000 Control Structures 180,000 75,000 60,000 60,000 Piping 336,000 216,000 120,000 120,000 Gravel 162,000 76,000 28,000 22,000 Diffusers 0 1,200,000 1,500,000 900,000 Blowers 0 650,000 800,000 480,000 Blower Building 0 240,000 360,000 240,000 Electrical and Controls 0 500,000 600,000 500,000 Fencing 126,000 60,000 30,000 30,000 Site Work 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Sum of Estimated Construction Cost $34,304,000 $17,315,000 $7,665,000 $4,530,000 Construction Contingency (15%) 5,146,000 2,597,000 1,150,000 680,000 Subtotal Estimated Construction Cost 39,450,000 19,912,000 8,815,000 5,210,000 Administration, Legal, and Engineering (10% to 20%) 3,945,000 3,982,000 1,763,000 1,042,000 Total Capital Costs 43,395,000 23,894,000 10,578,000 6,252,000 20-year Estimated 0&M Cost 3,029,000 7,976,000 8,923,000 8,462,000 Total Estimated 20-year Life Cycle Cost (2020 Dollars) $46,424,000 $31,870,000 $19,501,000 $14,714,000 As seen on Table 4-1, the option of using a facultative or partially aerated lagoon is cost prohibitive due to the overall size and amount of liner required. Further examination of the aerated lagoon and using the City's existing Orbal system plus an aerated lagoon is analyzed considering operational impacts, long-term maintenance, location, odor concerns, future flexibility, energy efficiency, and community benefits. This analysis indicates the aerated lagoon alternative should be pursued by the City. Results of the comparison are included in Section A4.5. A4.2 Wetlands Wetlands are a natural treatment system that provide an environment for the healthy growth of microbial colonies that decompose organic materials and return them to their basic molecular structures. For example, complex hydrocarbons found in organic materials are consumed by microbes for their stored energy and turned into carbon dioxide, water, nitrogen gas, and phosphorus. In general, wetlands provide food and shelter for a wide variety of microbes, macro- 12/17/2020 G:\Clients\Redmond\59-00 Reclaimed Water Wetland Reuse Feasibility Analysis\Reports\WWFP Amendment\Amendment.docx Anderson Perry & Associates, Inc. Page 6 Attachment 2 Page 10 of 48 City of Redmond, Oregon Wastewater Facility Plan Amendment - 2020 invertebrates, insects, amphibians, waterfowl, upland birds, mammals, and all forms of life in a complex ecosystem. A4.2.1 Treatment Wetlands After biologic stabilization of the waste is provided in the lagoon system, the lagoon effluent should be further "polished" in treatment wetlands to provide a more natural environment to further reduce pathogens and nutrients. The wetlands would provide a shallow surface flow system for increased exposure to light and encourage vegetation growth. The vegetation in the wetlands would provide a substrate for attached growth microbial colonies that would provide for nitrification of any remaining ammonia. Denitrification would then be provided in the bottom anoxic layers of the wetlands and in deeper sections built into the environment. The treatment wetlands would be sized for a six -day detention time at an average depth of 12 inches. The treatment wetland would have a liner installed under 12 inches of native material in which vegetation would grow. The wetland would be seeded and planted. This would require a wetland complex with approximately 70 wet acres. Additional nitrogen reduction would be provided in the wetlands, but nitrogen reduction would be improved when multiple wetland cells constructed in series are provided. See Table 4-2 for a preliminary estimated project cost for these improvements. TABLE 4-2 TREATMENT WETLAND COST ESTIMATE Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of Construction Cost) $400,000 Earthwork 402,000 Rock Removal 1,944,000 Liner 3,050,000 Control Structures 90,000 Piping 240,000 Gravel 42,000 Topsoil Removal and Replacement 904,000 Seeding and Planting 20,000 Fencing 42,000 Sum of Estimated Construction Cost $7,134,000 Construction Contingency (15%) 1,070,000 Subtotal Estimated Construction Cost 8,204,000 Administration, Legal, and Engineering (20%) 1,640,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST (2020 DOLLARS) $9,844,000 A4.2.2 Disposal Wetlands The existing disposal system utilized by the City is through irrigation and seepage. The area proposed for facility construction contains a concrete sealed irrigation storage pond that holds water and a seepage area that leaks at a high rate. The size of disposal wetlands would depend on their seepage rate. Due to the function of the seepage area and the standing water from the irrigation ditch return water, it is assumed that the natural ground could provide very high infiltration rates or low infiltration rates. The existing seepage area has multiple cells with only 12/17/2020 Anderson Perry & Associates, Inc. G:\Clients\Redmond\5M0 Reclaimed Water Wetland Reuse Feasibility Analysis\Reports\WWFP Amendment\Amendment.docx Page 7 Attachment 2 !"age of 48 City of Redmond, Oregon Wastewater Facility Plan Amendment - 2020 one cell operating at a time. Based on current operation, the seepage area appears to have sufficient capacity to serve the City in the future. environment that could be accessible to the public. This would provide a natural wildlife and park area. It is suggested to set aside approximately $4,000,000 for construction of publicly accessible wetland and wildlife park features as disposal wetlands between the treatment wetlands and the existing seepage area. A4.3 Disinfection After the wastewater is treated in the lagoon system, it would be disinfected. The alternatives for wastewater disinfection that would normally be considered include chlorine, ultraviolet (UV), and ozone. Using lagoon treatment prior to disinfection would make UV and ozone somewhat unreliable due to uncontrolled interferences with disinfection efficiency that come from the lagoon treatment system. For this reason, chlorine disinfection is recommended. The disinfected lagoon effluent would then flow to the existing irrigation storage pond or into a 70-acre treatment wetland complex before entering a disposal wetland and infiltration basin area for evaporation and seepage into groundwater. The total project cost for this system is summarized on Table 4-3. TABLE 4-3 DISINFECTION SYSTEM ESTIMATED PROJECT COST Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of Construction Cost) $66,000 Building 200,000 Chlorination Equipment 40,000 Chlorine Contact Basin 280,000 Electrical and Controls 100,000 Piping 12,000 Rock Removal 60,000 Gravel 2,000 Steel Building over Basin 500,000 Sum of Estimated Construction Cost $1,260,000 Construction Contingency (15%) 189,000 Subtotal Estimated Construction Cost 1,449,000 Administration, Legal, and Engineering (20%) 290,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST (2020 DOLLARS) $1,739,000 A4.4 Support Facilities Support facilities are necessary for all three alternatives. As shown in the WWFP, recommended support facilities upgrades that apply to all alternatives total $7,100,000, as similar facilities are needed for both the Orbal and lagoon systems. However, the alternatives that abandon the Orbal system will require additional support facilities that include a new headworks, grit chamber, septage dump, etc. These are shown on Table 4-4, with the support facilities identified in the WWFP. 12/17/2020 G:\C1ients\Redmond\59-00 Reclaimed Water Wetland Reuse Feasibility Analysis\Reports\WWFP Amendment\Amendment.docx Anderson Perry & Associates, Inc. Page 8 Attachment 2 Page 12 of 48 City of Redmond, Oregon Wastewater Facility Plan Amendment - 2020 Table 4-4 also shows costs for constructing sludge drying beds to provide operator flexibility in being able to continually manage biosolids accumulation by wet dredging some biosolids as an alternative to taking a lagoon cell off line. The beds could also be used to dry grit. These drying beds could be constructed as part of the initial project or could be constructed as an additional phase after a few years of biosolids accumulation. TABLE 4-4 SUPPORT FACILITIES COST ESTIMATE Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of Construction Cost) $600,500 Main Division Building 2,187,500 Maintenance Building 2,100,000 Generator Building 64,000 Roads and Parking 352,000 Operations Building (Motor Control Centers, Control Room, Lab) 750,000 Lift Station 400,000 Vacuum Truck/Septage Dump 90,000* Sludge Drying Beds 2,250,000 Domestic Water 400,000 Fencing/Site Work 100,000 Headworks 400,000* Rock Removal 12,000 Electrical and Controls 700,000 Site Piping 240,000 Grit Chamber 300,000* Rock Processing 250,000 Sum of Estimated Construction Cost $11,196,000 Construction Contingency (15%) 1,679,000 Subtotal Estimated Construction Cost 12,875,000 Administration, Legal, and Engineering (20%) 2,575,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST (2020 DOLLARS) $15,450,000 *Not included in the Orbal plus Aerated Lagoon option. A4.5 Ranking The aerated lagoon, existing Orbal aeration system plus aerated lagoon, and recommended expansion of the existing mechanical treatment plant from the WWFP are considered the viable alternatives to be ranked for comparison purposes. The selection of a preferred alternative from a variety of viable alternatives should consider several factors. The factors could include capital cost, total life cycle cost, ease of operation, maintenance, construction risk, odor concerns, future flexibility, energy efficiency, community benefits, and location. Each of these factors does not bear the same level of importance, so a weight factor is also added to assign more value to the more important factors. The factors, their ranks, and the weighted rankings are shown on Table 4-5 below. 12/17/2020 G:\Clients\Redmond\59-00 Reclaimed Water Wetland Reuse Feasibility Analysis\Reports\WWFP Amendment\Amendment.docx Anderson Perry & Associates, Inc. Page 9 Attachment 2 Page 13 of 48 City of Redmond, Oregon Wastewater Facility Plan Amendment - 2020 TABLE 4-5 ALTERNATIVE RANKINGS Ranking (Weighted Ranking) Criterion (Weight) Aerated Lagoon Orbal Plus Aerated Lagoon Expand Existing Mechanical Treatment Plant Capital Cost (2) $41.6 million 2 (4) $38.5 million 3 (6) $47.7 million 1 (2) Life Cycle Cost (3) $53.9 million 2 (6) $52.8 million 2 (6) $62.0 million 1(3) Ease of Operation (1) 3 (3) 1 (1) 2 (2) Maintenance (2) 3 (6) 2 (4) 1 (2) Construction Risk (2) 1 (2) 1 (2) 2 (4) Odors (2) 3 (6) 2 (4) 1 (2) Future Flexibility (1) 2 (2) 2 (2) 1 (1) Expandability (3) 3 (9) 3 (9) 1 (3) Energy Efficiency (1) 3 (3) 2 (2) 1 (1) Community Benefit (2) 3 (6) 2 (4) 1 (2) Regulatory Flexibility (3) 3 (9) 2 (6) 1 (3) Location (2) 3 (6) 2 (4) 1 (2) Total (Weighted Total) 31 (62) 24 (50) 1 14 (27) Notes: 1. Highest Ranking = 3, Intermediate Ranking = 2, Lowest Ranking = 1. Weighted ranking is obtained by multiplying the ranking by the weight. 2. Costs for expand mechanical treatment plant are taken from the WWFP and inflated 2 years at 3.5 percent 3. Capital and life cycle costs are taken from the Lagoon and Wetland Treatment and Disposal Feasibility Evaluation (see Appendix B). A5.0 Recommended Improvements Based on the alternative rankings on Table 4-5, the alternative to move the entire treatment system, offices, and shops to a new location is proposed. The improvements would include an aerated lagoon system for secondary treatment with a lined treatment wetland for effluent polishing. Disposal would be through irrigation reuse and reuse in an unlined wetland and the existing infiltration gallery. Primary treatment would be provided with screening and grit removal. Figure 1 shows the proposed treatment process flow schematic and the following details describe each process. Figures 2 and 3 show a conceptual layout on the proposed site. These figures show some of the improvements on property not owned by the City, yet the layout could be modified to utilize City -owned property for everything but the disposal wetlands and infiltration gallery (seepage beds). The existing WPCF Permit is established for a 2.99 MGD activated sludge mechanical treatment plant and has process limits identified for water entering the constructed disposal area wetlands (seepage beds) that are defined as moderate rate infiltration basins (Outfall 001). These limits were set for the effluent from a 2.99 MGD activated sludge mechanical treatment plant directly entering Outfall 001. In addition, the Permit has limits on downgradient groundwater monitoring wells. The Permit will need to be modified for the new treatment process and treatment plant capacity of 4.34 MGD. The new, larger capacity lagoon and wetland treatment system will protect the groundwater resources, but the change in the system will require a change in permit limits prior to water entering the groundwater. The use of the wetland system for effluent polishing will improve water quality, but the wetlands will also be 12/17/2020 G:\Clients\Redmond\59-00 Reclaimed Water Wetland Reuse Feasibility Analysis\Reports\W WFP Amendment\Amendment.docx Anderson Perry & Associates, Inc. Page 10 Attachment 2 Page 14 of 48 City of Redmond, Oregon Wastewater Facility Plan Amendment - 2020 ible to algae blooms (as the existing seepage beds a groundwater limits of 9 mg/L nitrate! and 500 mg/L total dissolved solids. In addition, it is proposed to eliminate limits for Outfall 001 but impose appropriate limits for treatment equivalent to secondary (as defined in 40 Code of Federal Regulations 133) on the aerated lagoon effluent prior to entering the polishing wetlands. A5,1 Headworks (Primary Treatment) The headworks consists of a screening system to remove rags and debris in wastewater. The headworks would have two rotary drum screens sized for the peak hour flow. Moving the existing screens to the new location is proposed. After screening, wastewater will flow through a grit chamber where grit would be settled and pumped to a grit classifier for dewatering and disposal in a landfill. An aerated grit chamber could be used since air should be available from the lagoon blowers. The aerated grit chamber would provide approximately three minutes of detention time at peak flow and be dual chambered with approximately 1,620 cubic feet in volume in each chamber. The basins would each be approximately 6 feet deep, 10 feet wide, and 30 feet long. Approximately 300 cubic feet per minute of air would be needed to run the chambers. A vortex pump would remove the settled grit from a sump in the bottom of the chamber and pump it to a dewatering system. A lift station would be added to pump the screened and de -gritted wastewater to the aerated lagoons. This lift station would meet Level 2 reliability with approximately four submersible pumps each rated at 2,020 gallons per minute. A5.2 Aerated Lagoon (Secondary Treatment) A partially mixed, aerated lagoon would consist of five cells with a total detention time of 20 days. A total requirement of approximately 750 Hp would be needed to provide the required oxygen. The operating depth of the lagoon cells would be approximately 11 feet. The total wet area needed would be approximately 25 acres. The five -cell aerated lagoon system would include a final settling cell area that is a minimum of 2 acres in size to provide adequate solids settling. To avoid needing to clean all ponds at one time, the City could install a small drying bed area with dredge piping from the lagoon cells to the drying beds. City crews could then operate a dredge to pump solids from the bottom of the lagoons to the drying beds on a regular maintenance interval. Even with these improvements, it is anticipated it will take several years before there is enough accumulated biosolids in the bottom of the lagoons to be removed with a dredge. A treatment wetland for effluent polishing would be recommended. To provide added operator flexibility, improvements could be completed that would allow for a future low head recycle pump to be easily added to recycle nitrified effluent to the first aerated lagoon for denitrification and added total nitrogen reduction. 12/17/2020 Anderson Perry & Associates, Inc. G:\Ciients\Redmond\59-00 Reclaimed Water Wetland Reuse Feasibility Analysis\Reports\W W FP Amendment\Amendment.docx Page 11 Attachment 2 Page 15 of 48 City of Redmond, Oregon Wastewater Facility Plan Amendment - 2020 A5.3 Treatment Wetlands After biologic stabilization of the waste is provided in the lagoon system, the lagoon effluent should be further "polished" in lined treatment wetlands to provide a more natural environment to further reduce pathogens and nutrients. The wetland would be seeded and planted. This would require a wetland complex with approximately 70 wet acres. A5.4 Disposal Wetlands and Infiltration Gallery The existing disposal system utilized by the City is through irrigation and seepage. The area proposed for facility construction contains a concrete sealed irrigation storage pond that holds water and an infiltration gallery that leaks at a high rate. The proposed construction site also contains two irrigation tailwater ponds that hold water. The size of disposal wetlands would depend on the seepage rate of the wetlands. Due to the function of the seepage area, it is assumed that the natural ground could provide high infiltration rates, but the tailwater ponds indicate there are areas that could hold water. The existing seepage area has four cells with only one or two cells operated at a time. Based on current operation, the seepage area appears to have sufficient capacity to serve the City in the future. The capacity of the existing seepage area is currently adequate to dispose of the design rate of 4.34 MGD, so improvements to the infiltration gallery are not proposed, and the existing irrigation system is proposed to be maintained. A5.5 Capital Cost and Life Cycle Cost The total estimated capital and life cycle cost for moving the treatment plant is summarized on Table 5-1. TABLE 5-1 NEW LAGOON AND WETLAND TREATMENT PLANT WITH SUPPORT FACILITIES AT NEW SITE Item Estimated Capital Cost Estimated 20-year Life Cycle Cost Aerated Lagoon $10.6 million $19.5 million Disinfection System 1.7 million 2.4 million Treatment Wetlands 9.8 million 10.4 million Disposal Wetlands 4.0 million 4.1 million Headworks and Support Facilities 15.5 million 17.5 million Total $41.6 million $53.9 million A5.6 Other Beneficial Uses Although these recommended improvements focus on constructing new wastewater treatment and disposal facilities, considerations could be given to developing other beneficial uses with reclaimed water from the wastewater treatment plant. The City could construct public trails, viewing areas, and parking for public access to the wetland areas that will be home to a variety of birds and other wildlife. This trail system through the wetland areas could also be tied to a City-wide trails system as an extension to Dry Canyon. The 12/17/2020 Anderson Perry & Associates, Inc. G:\Clients\Redmond\59-00 Reclaimed Water Wetland Reuse Feasibility Analysis\Reports\W WFP Amendment\Amendment.docx Page 12 Attachment 2 City of Redmond, Oregon Wastewater Facility Plan Amendment - 2020 reuse of the reclaimed water in this manner provides an ancillary benefit to the City that is otherwise not realized. The City could also utilize treated effluent for additional beneficial uses such as irrigating turf grass for new sports fields in the area. Some added effluent polishing may be needed, depending on the proposed beneficial use. At this time, the City is not planning on changing the current irrigation practices. As improvements are pursued for implementation, these other beneficial uses could be considered. A6.0 Project Funding The project will be paid for by user rates and system development charges (SDCs). The project is anticipated be financed (up to 100 percent) primarily through a DEQ loan. Up to $7.5 million of Wastewater Fund cash ($1.8 million operating/$5.7 million SDCs) will either be utilized to pay off higher interest existing debt ($850,000 of annual debt service) or support expansion project costs. The expansion debt will be paid primarily through SDCs, which equated to $2.3 million in fiscal year 2019-20. The Wastewater Fund is positioned to provide support to the expansion debt service as well. Over the past four years, the Wastewater Fund has seen surpluses, averaging approximately $400,000 per year. This surplus is expected to accelerate with the operating efficiencies (reduction in operating costs) gained from the expansion project. Current plant operating costs are approximately $2.5 million annually, which could conservatively see a 25 percent reduction, based on the new treatment concept planned in the expansion project. A five-year forecast is completed annually to evaluate operating needs and any rate increase that may be needed to support ongoing operations and debt service. Over the past five years, operating rates have, on average, increased 1.8 percent annually as part of the City's budget process. Those rate increases have received unanimous support by the Redmond City Council and remain very competitive relative to other public entities in the region. 12/17/2020 Anderson Perry & Associates, Inc. G:\Clients\Redmond\59-00 Reclaimed Water Wetland Reuse Feasibility Analysis\Reports\WWFP Amendment\Amendment.docx Page 13 Attachment 2 Page 17 of 42, FIGURES Attachment 2 Page 18 of 48 w m§ k § k« _ L i §} . § � , w z§ w@ /) p S/ ��) \ )( III LU o� a w . !#°` I zU °§§ uq § U. | � 07§ )\/ § k � - ML. 0 §� � ; \` S § - § � \ . \ § � \ § ~ . ] § y | 0 ] !] �■ ■2 ) k v w 0 0 N d lC IL co w 0 N 0 0) 0 IL APPENDIX A Preliminary Calculations Attachment 2 Page 22 ®f 48 vd anderson perryazssocl"Mes, 901c. d!:p client A No. Project Designed BY Ck. By— Date 14 Page / of-jg— F'O -a.. (4 �qi go 4e� eF %vw�yc, Ah f- KA-eL /ate Itt. rems 17 R Page 23 of 48 d 0 anderson perry a assocaates, One. Client" `�""t Job No. Project y Designed By, ' .y CL By pate ®� Page , if j F k : 30.7Gl .� r: / /.Aa wdprz i V� ark 4 ` F Y } s r i, S i n�R Attachment 2 Page 24 of 48 Lagoon and Wetland Treatment and Disposal Feasibility Evaluation Attachment 2 Page 25 of 48 LAGOON AND WETLAND TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL FEASIBILITY EVALUATION FOR CITY OF REDMOND, OREGON 2020 ����,U PRO��\ r,INE �� '�, 9 R2PR o N _ OREGON _ `/- `SOT RENEWS 12-31-20 ANDERSON PERRY & ASSOCIATES, INC. La Grande. Redmond, and Hermiston, Oregon Walla Walla, Washington Copyright 2020 by Anderson Perry & Associates, Inc. Job No. 59-00 Attachment 2 Page 27 of 48 Table of Contents Background.......................................................................................................................................... 1 DesignCriteria..................................................................................................................................... 1 LagoonTreatment................................................................................................................................ 2 Facultative.............................................................................................................................................. 2 PartiallyAerated..................................................................................................................................... 2 Aerated................................................................................................................................................... 3 Aerated Lagoon with Orbal Pre-Aeration............................................................................................... 3 TreatmentWetlands............................................................................................................................4 DisposalWetlands............................................................................................................................... 4 OtherBeneficial Uses........................................................................................................................... 4 PermitLimits.......................................................................................................................................4 Biochemical Oxygen Demand and Total Suspended Solids.................................................................... 5 Nitrogen.................................................................................................................................................. 5 TotalDissolved Solids............................................................................................................................. 5 ProjectConsideration.......................................................................................................................... 5 Expand Existing Mechanical Treatment Plant at Existing Site................................................................ 5 New Lagoons and Wetlands with Existing Facilities............................................................................... 6 New Lagoon and Wetland Treatment Plant with Support Facilities at New Site ................................... 7 Summary............................................................................................................................................. 8 TABLES Table 1 Facultative Lagoon Preliminary Cost Estimate Table 2 Partially Aerated Lagoon Preliminary Cost Estimate Table 3 Aerated Lagoon Preliminary Cost Estimate Table 4 Orbal Plus Aerated Lagoon Preliminary Cost Estimate Table 5 Treatment Wetlands Preliminary Cost Estimate Table 6 Disinfection System Preliminary Cost Estimate Table 7 Support Facilities Preliminary Cost Estimate FIGURES Figure 1 Treatment Process Flow Schematic Figure 2 Improvements Plan Figure 3 Improvements Detail Plan 7/8/2020 Anderson Perry & Associates, Inc. G:\Clients\Redmond\59-00 Reclaimed Water Wetland Reuse Feasibility Analysis\Reports\Feasibility Evaluation\feasibility Evaluation.docx Page i Attachment 2 Page 28 of 48 City of Redmond, Oregon Lagoon and Wetland Treatment and Disposal Feasibility Evaluation Background The City of Redmond, Oregon, recently completed a Wastewater Facilities Plan (WWFP) and a WWFP Update in November 2019. These planning documents recommended improvements totaling $44.6 million in 2018 dollars ($47.7 million in 2020 dollars) but did not consider improvement alternatives other than mechanical treatment. The WWFP and WWFP Update did not include other? existing;; facilities out of the residential area. As an example of other possible improvements to consider, the City of Prineville, Oregon, has successfully implemented the use of lagoon technology with constructed wetland treatment and disposal, while substantially reducing the overall total cost to the City and providing public access to wetland/wildlife areas. The purpose of this feasibility evaluation is to evaluate the potential of using a lagoon treatment system with a constructed wetland treatment and disposal system as an alternative to meet the City's wastewater treatment and disposal needs. Design Criteria The design criteria used for this evaluation are taken from the WWFP Update. The design year 2045 was used with the following wastewater influent parameters: • Population - 53,800 • Average Annual Flow - 3.49 million gallons per day (MGD) • Maximum Month Flow - 3.76 MGD • Average Annual Five-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODO - 14,500 pounds per day (ppd) • Maximum Month BODs - 19,000 ppd • Average Annual Total Suspended Solids (TSS) - 9,600 ppd • Maximum Month TSS - 14,400 ppd • Average Annual Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) - 1,900 ppd • Maximum Month TKN - 2,400 ppd • Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) - Approximately 320 milligrams per liter (mg/L) The City's current Water Pollution Control Facilities (WPCF) Permit has wastewater effluent limits established for discharge into existing infiltration basins. These are as follows: • BODs and TSS - 20 mg/L • Nitrate + Nitrite as Nitrogen - 6 mg/L • Total Nitrogen - 9 mg/L • pH-6.0to9.0 • E. coli - 126 most probable number The following monthly average groundwater limits apply to the down -gradient groundwater monitoring wells: • Nitrate - 9 mg/L • TDS - 500 mg/L 7/8/2020 Anderson Perry & Associates, Inc. G:\C1ients\Redmond\59-00 Reclaimed Water Wetland Reuse Feasibility Ana lysis\Reports\Feasibility Eva] uation\Feasibility Eva Iuation.docx Page 1 Attachment 2 Page 29 of 48 City of Redmond, Oregon Lagoon and Wetland Treatment and Disposal Feasibility Evaluation Although these design criteria considered only flows from the City of Redmond, they could be modified to include the community of Terrebonne. The following sizes and costs would be anticipated to be modified only slightly to include the expanded service area. Lagoon Treatment Lagoon treatment can be provided with a facultative lagoon, partially aerated lagoon, or aerated lagoon. Cost consideration is also given to an option that utilizes the existing capital investment in the treatment plant's Orbal oxidation ditches to reduce BOD5 and, thus, lagoon size and aeration requirements. The purpose of the lagoon treatment is to provide for reduction in BOD5 to the permit limits. Some total nitrogen reduction would also be realized for systems with front -loaded oxygen additions and facultative or anoxic zones at the end of the processes. Facultative A facultative lagoon provides oxygen for waste decomposition from an air/water interface area and algae photosynthesis. This system would be a minimum two -stage system operating between 3 and 7 feet in depth, with a minimum detention time of approximately 100 days. For this evaluation, an operating depth between 4 and 5 feet was assumed, and the detention time would be well in excess of 100 days due to the area needed for oxygen transfer. The first stage would need to be 290 acres and the second stage would be 190 acres, for a total lagoon size of 480 acres. For construction purposes, it is suggested to divide these lagoon cells into maximum 40-acre units. There would then be approximately 12 40-acre lagoons. Solids handling would not be required for this option. Lagoon solids would be anticipated to be removed approximately once every 40 years, once the lagoons reach their design BOD5 loading. A multi -cell lagoon system would allow a lagoon cell to be taken offline and solids to dry in the bottom of the lagoon for easy and cost-effective removal. This lagoon type can reduce total nitrogen 40 to 95 percent. A removal efficiency of approximately 85 percent is needed to meet existing WPCF Permit limits. For this reason, adding a treatment wetland for effluent polishing would be recommended. The estimated capital and 20-year lifecycle costs for this option are $43.4 million and $46.4 million, respectively (see Table 1). Partially Aerated A partially aerated lagoon would provide some of the oxygen requirements through an aeration system. For purposes of this evaluation, we would assume that the oxygen for the first stage of the facultative lagoon system would be provided through mechanical aeration. Approximately 2 pounds of oxygen per pound of BOD5 removed is used in this evaluation to include both BOD5 and nitrogen reduction, and approximately 2 pounds of oxygen per horsepower (Hp) per hour can be assumed for an aeration system. The first -stage aeration system would mainly be used to increase the dissolved oxygen in the wastewater so it is available for microbial use and provide oxygen that would be consumed during the time water is in this cell. The detention time in this lagoon would be approximately three days. This first stage of the lagoon would then be approximately 10 feet deep to provide for aeration. Approximately 360 Hp of aeration would be needed. This would require a first -stage lagoon of approximately 3.5 acres. The second stage would then be approximately 190 acres and 7/8/2020 Anderson Perry & Associates, Inc. G:\Clients\Redmond\59-00 Reclaimed Water Wetland Reuse Feasibility Analysis\Reports\feasibility Evaluation\Feasibility Evaluation.docx Page 2 Attachment 2 Page 30 of 48 City of Redmond, Oregon Lagoon and Wetland Treatment and Disposal Feasibility Evaluation constructed mainly as a facultative system to provide both aerobic and anoxic microbial colonies, but this area would not provide enough oxygen for the BOD5 loading, so approximately 240 Hp of additional aeration would still be needed in the second stage. As with the facultative lagoons, solids handling would not be proposed for this system. Solids reduction would occur naturally in the second -stage lagoons, but solids removal from the lagoons may still be needed approximately every 30 years. This lagoon type can reduce total nitrogen 40 to 95 percent. A removal efficiency of approximately 85 percent is needed to meet the existing WPCF Permit limits. For this reason, a treatment wetland would be recommended to be added for effluent polishing. The estimated capital and 20-year lifecycle costs for this option are $23.9 million and $31.9 million, respectively (see Table 2). Aerated An aerated lagoon would provide sufficient oxygen through aeration systems. A partially mixed, aerated lagoon would consist of five cells with a total detention time of 20 days. The 20-day detention time is on the longer end of what would normally be anticipated, but it provides a factor of safety and capacity to realize increased reduction in total nitrogen. A total requirement of approximately 800 Hp is needed to provide the required oxygen. The depth of the lagoon cells would be approximately 10 feet. The total wet area needed would be approximately 23 acres. Solids handling would not be anticipated for this option, as solids reduction occurs in the lagoon cells. It is still anticipated that solids removal would be needed approximately once every 20 years, once the flows and loadings reach design levels. This lagoon type can reduce total nitrogen 60 to 95 percent. A removal efficiency of approximately 85 percent is needed to meet the existing WPCF Permit limits. For this reason, a treatment wetland would be recommended to be added for effluent polishing. The estimated capital and 20-year lifecycle costs for this option are $10.6 million and $19.5 million, respectively (see Table 3). Aerated Lagoon with Orbal Pre -Aeration This alternative utilizes the existing capital investment in the Orbal aeration system to provide pre - aeration and reduce the total capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) requirements at the new lagoon site. The Orbal aeration system capacity provides enough oxygen to reduce the anticipated BOD5 loads on the proposed lagoon treatment system to approximately 9,000 ppd. This alternative would abandon the existing treatment plant facilities except for the headworks, two Orbal units, and one clarifier and associated sludge pump. The clarifier would harvest biosolids (microorganisms) from the ditch effluent and send them back to the ditch. The effluent from the ditches and clarifier would then be combined with any raw wastewater not sent to the ditch. The combined flows would then be sent to the aerated lagoons. This would reduce the total required at the aerated lagoon to approximately 375 Hp, the required detention time to 15 days, and the lagoon size from 23 acres to 17 acres. 7/8/2020 Anderson Perry & Associates, Inc. G:\Clients\Redmond\59-00 Reclaimed Water Wetland Reuse Fe asibiIity Ana lysis\Reports\Feasibility Eva luation\Feasibility Eva Iuation.docx Page 3 Attachment 2 Page 31 of 48 City of Redmond, Oregon Lagoon and Wetland Treatment and Disposal Feasibility Evaluation Solids handling and nitrogen reduction would be similar to the aerated lagoon option. The estimated capital and 20-year lifecycle costs for this option are $6.3 million and $14.7 million, respectively (see Table 4). Treatment Wetlands After biologic stabilization of the waste is provided in the lagoon system, the lagoon effluent should be further "polished" in treatment wetlands to provide a more natural environment to further reduce pathogens and nutrients. The wetlands would provide a shallow surface flow system for increased exposure to light and encourage vegetation growth. The vegetation in the wetlands provides a substrate for attached growth microbial colonies that would provide for nitrification of any remaining ammonia. Denitrification would then be provided in the bottom anoxic layers of the wetlands and in deeper sections built into the environment. The treatment wetlands would be sized for a six -day detention time at an average depth of 12 inches. The treatment wetland would have a liner installed under 12 inches of native material in which vegetation would grow. The wetland would be seeded and planted. This would require a wetland complex with approximately 70 wet acres. Additional nitrogen reduction is provided in the wetlands, but nitrogen reduction is improved when multiple wetland cells constructed in series are provided. The estimated capital and 20-year lifecycle costs for this option are $9.8 million and $10.4 million, respectively (see Table 5). Disposal Wetlands The existing disposal system utilized by the City is through irrigation and seepage. The area proposed for facility construction contains a concrete sealed irrigation storage pond that holds water and a seepage area that leaks at a high rate. The size of disposal wetlands would depend on the seepage rate of the wetlands. Due to the function of the seepage area, it is assumed that the natural ground would provide very high infiltration rates. The existing seepage area has multiple cells with only one cell operated at a time. Based on current operation, the seepage area appears to have sufficient capacity to serve the City in the future. The City could construct new disposal wetlands for wildlife and public use using the water reclaimed from the wetland treatment process. These would need to have more controlled seepage by removing the topsoil, treating the fractured rock with bentonite, and replacing the topsoil. The disposal wetlands would be of varying depths and configurations that would more closely follow the natural terrain and provide wildlife habitat and an aesthetically pleasing area that the public may enjoy. For reasons of realizing a beneficial use for the reclaimed water, a capital cost of $4 million is added for disposal wetlands and trails. Other Beneficial Uses The City could also utilize the treated effluent for additional beneficial uses such as irrigating turf grass for new sports fields in the area. Some added effluent polishing may be needed, depending on the proposed beneficial use. Permit Limits 7/8/2020 Anderson Perry & Associates, Inc. G:\Clients\Redmond\59-00 Reclaimed Water Wetland Reuse Feasibility Analysis\Reports\Feasibility Evaluation\Feasibility Evaluation.docx Page 4 Attachment 2 Page 32 of 48 City of Redmond, Oregon Lagoon and Wetland Treatment and disposal Feasibility Evaluation Biochemical Oxygen Demand and Total Suspended Solids consistently meet the 20 mg/L limit. This limit may be attainable with the aerated lagoon option prior to entering the treatment wetland. A discussion with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality would need to occur to determine if the permit limit and/or monitoring location can be changed. Nitrogen The total nitrogen limit is achievable through a lagoon and wetland system, as the City of Prineville averaged a total nitrogen concentration of 7.0 mg/L from the lagoons throughout the 2019 season with nitrates in the monitoring wells being approximately 1 mg/L. The design of wetlands for nitrogen reduction has a large range of constants that could be used to achieve reduction efficiencies over a large range (i.e., 45 to 95 percent). This is due to the variability in plant and microbial colonies that can occur in different climatic regions and the type of waste entering the system. For this installation, data from the Cities of Prineville and La Grande, Oregon, lagoon and wetland treatment systems could be used to verify the design parameters. Some of the data that could be useful to verify the facility sizing are not currently being collected by the Cities. If this option is pursued further, additional testing from the Prineville facility would prove beneficial to confirm design parameters to reduce the risk associated with potential unknown design "constants." Total Dissolved Solids TDS data were collected for the existing treatment plant effluent. This TDS is also anticipated to be in the range of what would be expected for lagoon effluent. A mass balance was completed to estimate the TDS seeping into the groundwater by reducing the total seepage volume and increasing the total TDS due to evaporation. The amount of evaporation in the system would directly affect the difference in TDS between the influent and effluent, but this amount is small. TDS is expected to increase by less than 10 percent through the lagoon and wetland system. Project Consideration The City could consider three different alternatives to meet their future needs. These include expanding the existing mechanical treatment plant; using lagoons and wetlands to provide the treatment capacity needed for the future and continue using the headworks and office space at the existing facility; or moving the entire treatment system, offices, and shops to a new location. The decision -making process should consider Capital Cost, Life Cycle Cost, Land and Future Expandability, and Community Benefits. Expand Existing Mechanical Treatment Plant at Existing Site Capital Cost - This alternative was evaluated in the 2019 WWFP Update of the 2018 WWFP. The total capital cost for this alternative is $44.6 million (2018 dollars), which has been updated to $47.7 million (2020 dollars at 3.5 percent inflation). 7/8/2020 Anderson Perry & Associates, Inc. G:\C1ients\Redmond\59-00 Reclaimed Water Wetland Reuse Feasibility Analysis\Reports\Feasibility Eva luation\Feasibility Eva Iuation.docx Page 5 Attachment 2 Page 33 of 48 City of Redmond, Oregon Lagoon and Wetland Treatment and Disposal Feasibility Evaluation Life Cycle Cost - This alternative has an estimated 20-year life cycle cost of approximately $62.0 million. Land and Future Expandability - This alternative utilizes the existing site located in an area surrounded by residential housing. The options for future expandability are limited. Also, there is concern over having this industrial wastewater facility in the middle of a residential area with a public pathway through the area. Community Benefits - This alternative will provide wastewater treatment for the City. The water is used for irrigating crops in the summertime but is disposed of in the wintertime through ground percolation. There may be opportunities for further reuse of the reclaimed water. New Lagoons and Wetlands with Existing Facilities This project alternative is shown on Figure 1. This alternative includes utilizing the existing headworks facility to provide screening of the influent. Raw wastewater would then flow down the existing pipelines to the proposed lagoon site at and/or adjacent to the existing irrigation area. Wastewater would then be treated in a five -cell, aerated lagoon system with chlorine disinfection. The disinfected lagoon effluent would then flow to the existing irrigation storage pond or into a 70-acre treatment wetland complex before entering a disposal wetland and infiltration basin area for evaporation and seepage into the groundwater. The total project cost for this system is summarized on the following table. The disinfection system evaluation was not part of this evaluation, but a cost estimate is included, assuming a chlorination system is used (see Table 6). Capital Cost - The total estimated capital and associated life cycle cost is shown on the following table. NEW LAGOON AND WETLANDS WITH EXISTING FACILITIES Item Estimated Capital Cost Estimated 20-year Life Cycle Cost Aerated Lagoon $10.6 million $19.5 million Disinfection System $1.7 million $2.4 million Treatment Wetlands $9.8 million $10.4 million Disposal Wetlands $4.0 million $4.1 million Support Facilities $12.4 million $16.4 million Total $38.5 million $52.8 million'! Note: Capital costs forSupport Facilities taken from 2019 WWFP Update. Life Cycle Cost - The 20-year life cycle cost shown above needs to be augmented to include the existing facilities that will be used as part of this alternative, and also includes the headworks and lift station. The revised total estimated life cycle cost assumes these facilities are new and is estimated at $37.0 million. Also, this alternative will split the treatment plant staff between two sites. This can provide O&M challenges. Land and Future Expandability - The existing facilities would still be located in an area surrounded residential homes with a walking path near the treatment plant. The lagoons and wetland areas 7/8/2020 Anderson Perry & Associates, Inc. G:\Clients\Redmond\59-00 Reclaimed Water Wetland Reuse Feasibility Analysis\Reports\Feasibility Evaluation\Feasibility Evaluation.docx Page 6 Attachment 2 Page 34 of 48 City of Redmond, Oregon Lagoon and Wetland Treatment and Disposal Feasibility Evaluation Community Benefits - Maintaining part of the existing treatment facilities will still have odor producing systems in the middle of the residential and pathway area. This alternative would provide a minimum of 70 acres of wetland environment that could provide plant and wildlife habitat. The City of Prineville uses its wetland area as part of their parks and trails and the City of Redmond could implement a similar community enhancement. New Lagoon and Wetland Treatment Plant with Support Facilities at New Site The development of new treatment facilities will provide the opportunity to move all of the treatment facilities to a new less populated area north of the City. Figures 2 and 3 show an initial potential layout for moving all of the treatment works. The additional facilities needed would include a main division building, maintenance building, generator building, operations building, vacuum truck dump, headworks screening, lift station, sludge drying beds, and associated roads and parking areas. The inclusion of sludge drying beds will allow lagoon sludge removal to be done by City staff using the drying beds and floating dredge. The drying beds can be completed as a second phase of the project, as lagoon sludge will not need to be removed for many years. The estimated cost for the headworks and support facilities, including the drying beds, is shown on Table 7. Capital Cost and Life Cycle Cost - The total estimated capital and life cycle cost for moving the treatment plant is summarized on the following table. NEW LAGOON AND WETLAND TREATMENT PLANT WITH SUPPORT FACILITIES AT NEW SITE Item Estimated Capital Cost Estimated 20-year Life Cycle Cost Aerated Lagoon $10.6 million $19.5 million Disinfection System $1.7 million $2.4 million Treatment Wetlands $9.8 million $10.4 million Disposal Wetlands $4.0 million $4.1 million Headworks and Support Facilities $15.5 million $17.5 million Total $42.6 million $53.9 million Land and Future Expandability - This alternative locates all the wastewater treatment facilities in an undeveloped area where future expandability would be easier. Community Benefits - This alternative would provide a wetland environment that could be made accessible to the public for bird watching, hiking, and cycling. It could also be tied into a City-wide trails system as an extension to Dry Canyon. The reuse of the reclaimed water in this manner provides an ancillary benefit to the City that is otherwise not realized. 7/8/2020 Anderson Perry & Associates, Inc. G:\Clients\Redmond\59-00 Reclaimed Water Wetland Reuse Feasibility Analysis\Reports\Feasibility Evaluation\feasibility Evaluation.docx Page 7 Attachment 2 Page 35 of 48 City of Redmond, Oregon Lagoon and Wetland Treatment and Disposal Feasibility Evaluation Summary The following table summarizes the project alternatives: Summary of Project Alternatives Capital 20-Year Life Alternative Advantages Disadvantages Cost Cycle Cost Life Expectancy Expand Use existing Odors, limited $47.7 $62.0 million Reused Mechanical headworks and expandability, million mechanical Treatment treatment systems. older systems, components will Plant at treatment plant have shorter life. Existing Site in residential New mechanical area, higher components will costs. need replaced approximately every 10 years. New Lagoons Use existing Odors, older $38.5 $52.8 million Unknown life for and Wetlands headworks. systems, two million existing lift with Existing sites, treatment station and Facilities plant in headworks but residential area. will most likely need to be rebuilt before 20 years. New Lagoon Move out of $41.6 $53.9 million' Lagoons and and Wetland residential and Dry million wetlands have a Treatment Canyon Park area. life expectancy in Plant with Expandable. excess of Support All new systems. 50 years. Facilities at Added wildlife habitat. New Site Added trails system. Reduced biosolids handling. Increased tourism possibilities. 7/8/2020 Anderson Perry & Associates, Inc. G:\Clients\Redmond\59-00 Reclaimed Water Wetland Reuse Feasibility Analysis\Reports\Feasibility Evaluation\Feasibility Evaluation.docx Page 8 Attachment 2 Page 36 of 48 TABLES Attachment 2 Page 37 of 48 CITY OF REDMOND, OREGON LAGOON AND WETLAND TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL FEASIBILITY EVALUATION FACULTATIVE LAGOON PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE (YEAR 2020 COSTS) NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT PRICE ESTIMATED QUANTITY PRICE 1 Mobilization/Demobilization (3% of LS $ 1,020,000 All Req'd $ 1,020,000 Construction Cost) 2 Earthwork CY 5 350,000 1,750,000 3 Rock Removal CY 60 161,333 9,680,000 4 Liner SF 1 21,000,000 21,000,000 5 Control Structures EA 15,000 12 180,000 6 Piping LF 60 5,600 336,000 7 Gravel CY 20 8,100 162,000 8 Fencing LF 6 21,000 126,000 9 Site Work LS 50,000 All Req'd 50,000 Sum of Estimated Construction Cost $ 34,304,000 Construction Contingency (15%) 5,146,000 Subtotal Estimated Construction Cost $ 39,450,000 Administration, Legal, and Engineering (10%) 3,945,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST (2020 DOLLARS) $ 43,395,000 PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS (2020 DOLLARS Item Description Annual Cost ADDITIONAL ANNUAL OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPLACEMENT (OM&R) 1 Labor $ 41,000 2 Supplies, Parts, Maintenance, and Repairs 1,000 3 Replacement 1,000 4 Lagoon Solids Removal 200,000 Total OM&R $ 243,000 Present Worth Operation and Maintenance Cost (5%, 20 years) 3,029,000 Total Present Worth (2020 Dollars) $ 46,424,000 Lka CITY OF REDMOND, OREGON son LAGOON AND WETLAND TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL TABLE FEASIBILITY EVALUATIONes, inc. FACULTATIVE LAGOON PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE Page 38 of 48 CITY OF REDMOND, OREGON LAGOON AND WETLAND TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL FEASIBILITY EVALUATION PARTIALLY AERATED LAGOON PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE (YEAR 2020 COSTS) NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT ESTIMATED PRICE PRICE QUANTITY 1 Mobilization/Demobilization (4% of LS $ 800,000 All Req'd $ 800,000 Construction Cost) 2 Earthwork CY 5 172,000 860,000 3 Rock Removal CY 60 64,600 3,876,000 4 Liner SF 1 8,712,000 8,712,000 5 Control Structures EA 15,000 5 75,000 6 Piping LF 60 3,600 216,000 7 Gravel CY 20 3,800 76,000 8 Diffusers LS 1,200,000 All Req'd 1,200,000 9 Blowers LS 650,000 All Req'd 650,000 10 Blower Building SF 200 1,200 240,000 11 Electrical and Controls LS 500,000 All Req'd 500,000 12 Fencing LF 6 10,000 60,000 13 Site Work LS 50,000 All Req'd 50,000 Sum of Estimated Construction Cost $ 17,315,000 Construction Contingency (15%) 2,597,000 Subtotal Estimated Construction Cost $ 19,912,000 Administration, Legal, and Engineering (20%) 3,982,000 TOTAL EST6RAATED PROJECT COST 12020 DOLLARS) it 23,894,000 PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS (2020 DOLLARS) Item Description Annual Cost ADDITIONAL ANNUAL OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPLACEMENT (OM&R) 1 Labor $ 82,000 2 Supplies, Parts, Maintenance, and Repairs 3 Power (600 horsepower, $0.08 per kilowatt hour) 4 Replacement 5 Lagoon Solids Removal 2,000 314,000 62,000 180,000 Total OM&R $ 640,000 Present Worth Operation and Maintenance Cost (5%, 20 years) 7,976,000 Total Present Worth (2020 Dollars) $ 31,870,000 / CITY OF REDMOND, OREGON a�npd�°son LAGOON AND WETLAND TREATMENT AND DISPOSALLTABLEr _r FEASIBILITY EVALUATION C associates, inc. PARTIALLY AERATED LAGOON PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE Page 39 of 48 CITY OF REDMOND, OREGON LAGOON AND WETLAND TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL FEASIBILITY EVALUATION AERATED LAGOON PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE (YEAR 2020 COSTS) NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT ESTIMATED PRICE PRICE QUANTITY 1 Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of LS $ 430,000 All Req'd $ 430,000 Construction Cost) 2 Earthwork CY 6 113,000 678,000 3 Rock Removal CY 60 32,000 1,920,000 4 Liner SF 1 1,089,000 1,089,000 5 Control Structures EA 15,000 4 60,000 6 Piping LF 60 2,000 120,000 7 Gravel CY 20 1,400 28,000 8 Diffusers LS 1,500,000 All Req'd 1,500,000 9 Blowers LS 800,000 All Req'd 800,000 10 Blower Building SF 200 1,800 360,000 11 Electrical and Controls LS 600,000 All Req'd 600,000 12 Fencing LF 6 5,000 30,000 13 Site Work LS 50,000 All Req'd 50,000 Sum of Estimated Construction Cost $ 7,665,000 Construction Contingency (15%) 1,150,000 Subtotal Estimated Construction Cost $ 8,815,000 Administration, Legal, and Engineering (20%) 1,763,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST (2020 DOLLARS) $ 10,578,000 PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS (2020 DOLLARS Item Description Annual Cost ADDITIONAL ANNUAL OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPLACEMENT (OM&R) 1 Labor $ 164,000 2 Supplies, Parts, Maintenance, and Repairs 10,000 3 Power (800 horsepower, $0.08 per kilowatt hour) 418,000 4 Replacement 82,000 5 Lagoon Solids Removal 42,000 TotalOM&R $ 716,000 Present Worth Operation and Maintenance Cost (5%, 20 years) 8,923,000 Total Present Worth (2020 Dollars) $ 19,501,000 CITY OF REDMOND, OREGON LNKAtes, LAGOON AND WETLAND TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL TABLE C�k FEASIBILITY EVALUATION 3 AERATED LAGOON PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE Page 40 of 48 CITY OF REDMOND, OREGON LAGOON AND WETLAND TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL FEASIBILITY EVALUATION ORBAL PLUS AERATED LAGOON PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE (YEAR 2020 COSTS) NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT ESTIMATED PRICE PRICE QUANTITY 1 Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of LS $ 250,000 All Req'd $ 250,000 Construction Cost) 2 Earthwork CY 6 94,000 564,000 3 Rock Removal CY 60 8,100 486,000 4 Liner SF 1 828,000 828,000 5 Control Structures EA 15,000 4 60,000 6 Piping LF 60 2,000 120,000 7 Gravel CY 20 1,100 22,000 8 Diffusers LS 900,000 All Req'd 900,000 9 Blowers LS 480,000 All Req'd 480,000 10 Blower Building SF 200 1,200 240,000 11 Electrical and Controls LS 500,000 All Req'd 500,000 12 Fencing LF 6 5,000 30,000 13 Site Work LS 50,000 All Req'd 50,000 Sum of Estimated Construction Cost $ 4,530,000 Construction Contingency (15%) 680,000 Subtotal Estimated Construction Cost $ 5,210,000 Administration, Legal, and Engineering (20%) 1,042,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST (2020 DOLLARS) $ 6,252,000 PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS (2020 DOLLARS Item Description Annual Cost ADDITIONAL ANNUAL OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPLACEMENT (OM&R) 1 Labor $ 165,000 2 Supplies, Parts, Maintenance, and Repairs 10,000 3 Power (800 horsepower, $0.08 per kilowatt hour) 418,000 4 Replacement 44,000 5 Lagoon Solids Removal 42,000 TotalOM&R $ 679,000 Present Worth Operation and Maintenance Cost (5%, 20 years) 8,462,000 Total Present Worth (2020 Dollars) $ 14,714,000 / CITY OF REDMOND, OREGON n djinc. 00N AND WETLAND TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL TABLE qklssoc,�aites, prFEASIBILITY EVALUATION 4 ORBAL PLUS AERATED LAGOON PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE hme Page 41 of 48 CITY OF REDMOND, OREGON LAGOON AND WETLAND TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL FEASIBILITY EVALUATION TREATMENT WETLANDS PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE (YEAR 2020 COSTS) NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT ESTIMATED PRICE PRICE QUANTITY 1 Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of LS $ 400,000 All Req'd $ 400,000 Construction Cost) 2 Earthwork CY 6 67,000 402,000 3 Rock Removal CY 60 32,400 1,944,000 4 Liner SF 1 3,050,000 3,050,000 5 Control Structures EA 15,000 6 90,000 6 Piping LF 60 4,000 240,000 7 Gravel CY 20 2,100 42,000 8 Top Soil Removal and Replacement CY 8 113,000 904,000 9 Seeding and Planting LS 20,000 All Req'd 20,000 10 Fencing LF 6 7,000 42,000 Sum of Estimated Construction Cost $ 7,134,000 Construction Contingency (15%) 1,070,000 Subtotal Estimated Construction Cost $ 8,204,000 Administration, Legal, and Engineering (20%) 1,640,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST (2020 DOLLARS) $ 9,844,000 PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS (2020 DOLL_ARS) Item Description Annual Cost ADDITIONAL ANNUAL OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPLACEMENT (OM&R) 1 Labor $ 41,000 2 Supplies, Parts, Maintenance, and Repairs 1,000 3 Replacement 1,000 4 Vegetation Removal 2,000 TotalOM&R $ 45,000 Present Worth Operation and Maintenance Cost (5%, 20 years) 561,000 Total Present Worth (2020 Dollars) $ 10,405,000 CITY OF REDMOND, OREGON and $On LAGOON AND WETLAND TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL TABLE d 0 her FEASIBILITY EVALUATION 5 1; associates, Inc. TREATMENT WETLANDS PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE Page 42 of 48 CITY OF REDMOND, OREGON LAGOON AND WETLAND TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL FEASIBILITY EVALUATION DISINFECTION SYSTEM PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE (YEAR 2020 COSTS) NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT ESTIMATED PRICE PRICE QUANTITY 1 Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of LS $ 66,000 All Req'd $ 66,000 Construction Cost) 2 Building SF 200 1,000 200,000 3 Chlorination Equipment LS 40,000 All Req'd 40,000 4 Chlorine Contact Basin LS 280,000 All Req'd 280,000 5 Electrical and Controls LS 100,000 All Req'd 100,000 6 Piping LF 60 200 12,000 7 Rock Removal CY 60 1,000 60,000 8 Gravel CY 20 100 2,000 9 Steel Building Over Basin LS 500,000 All Req'd 500,000 Sum of Estimated Construction Cost $ 1,260,000 Construction Contingency (15%) 189,000 Subtotal Estimated Construction Cost $ 1,449,000 Administration, Legal, and Engineering (20%) 290,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST (2020 DOLLARS) $ 1,739,000 PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS (2020 DOLLARS) Item Description Annual Cost ADDITIONAL ANNUAL OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPLACEMENT (OM&R) 1 Labor $ 20,000 2 Supplies, Parts, Maintenance, and Repairs 30,000 3 Replacement 2,000 TotalOM&R $ 52,000 Present Worth Operation and Maintenance Cost (5%, 20 years) 649,000 Total Present Worth (2020 Dollars) $ 2,388,000 / CITY OF REDMOND, OREGON LPasswates, LAGOON AND WETLAND TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL TABLE Q FEASIBILITY EVALUATION 6 DISINFECTION SYSTEM PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE Page 43 of 48 CITY OF REDMOND, OREGON LAGOON AND WETLAND TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL FEASIBILITY EVALUATION SUPPORT FACILITIES PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE (YEAR 2020 COSTS) NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT PRICE ESTIMATED QUANTITY PRICE 1 Mobilization/Demobilization (5% of LS $ 600,500 All Req'd $ 600,500 Construction Cost) 2 Main Division Building SF 250 8,750 2,187,500 3 Maintenance Building SF 175 12,000 2,100,000 4 Generator Building SF 200 320 64,000 5 Roads and Parking SY 22 16,000 352,000 6 Operations Building (Motor Control SF 250 3,000 750,000 Center, Control Room, Lab) 7 Lift Station LS 400,000 All Req'd 400,000 8 Vacuum Truck/Septage Dump LS 90,000 All Req'd 90,000 9 Sludge Drying Beds Acre 750,000 3 2,250,000 10 Domestic Water LF 40 10,000 400,000 11 Fencing/Site Work LS 100,000 All Req'd 100,000 12 Headworks LS 400,000 All Req'd 400,000 13 Rock Removal CY 60 200 12,000 14 Electrical and Controls LS 700,000 All Req'd 700,000 15 Site Piping LF 60 4,000 240,000 16 Grit Chamber LS 300,000 All Req'd 300,000 17 Rock Processing LS 250,000 All Req'd 250,000 Sum of Estimated Improvements Construction Cost $ 11,196,000 Construction Contingency (15%) 1,679,000 Subtotal Estimated Improvements Construction Cost $ 12,875,000 Administration, Legal, and Engineering (20%) 2,575,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST (2020 DOLLARS) $ 15,450,000 PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS (2020 DOLLARS Item Description Annual Cost ADDITIONAL ANNUAL OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPLACEMENT (OM&R) 1 Labor (Headworks and Lift Station Only) $ 126,000 2 Supplies, Parts, Maintenance, and Repairs 10,000 3 Replacement 30,000 Total OM&R $ 166,000 Present Worth Operation and Maintenance Cost (5%, 20 years) 2,069,000 Total Present Worth (2020 Dollars) $ 17,519,000 / CITY OF REDMOND, OREGON SOn LAGOON AND WETLAND TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL TABLE Q Ind FEASIBILITY EVALUATION 7 Csssoctates, inc. SUPPORT FACILITIES PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE _ Page 44 of 48 FIGURES Page 45 of 48 w � § § )i E � \k ■K E a k w@ • Z` z R% p < \ j/ 0Waw bo§ r\ }\_0 k ` k ( za wl ■ ` K) �§ LU �k �LL ! � § ow C 2 m § k T , 2 2 ; /` R ! § j\ § 2 § � » \ f § �I § \ § § \ � \ %§ \ $) ) ( § § § §§2@ __.G_ozoz,aa_x+ a .gym_+ __ezles __w»_ej3q�:FOO ___a OD v 0 co v m rn m a Mailing Date: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 DECISION AND FINDINGS OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER FILE NUMBERS: HEARING DATE: HEARING LOCATION APPLICANTS/OWNERS 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD June 20, 2023, 6:00 p.m. Videoconference and Barnes & Sawyer Rooms Deschutes Services Center 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97708 City of Redmond Attn: Ryan Kirchner, Wastewater Division Manager 411 SW 91h Street Redmond, OR 97756 SUBJECT PROPERTY: Map and Taxlot: 1413300000101 Account: 165689 Situs Address: 5801 NORTHWEST WAY, REDMOND, OR 97756 The Redmond Wetlands Complex is proposed across four (4) additional properties identified in the Staff report and are either federally owned or owned by the City of Redmond. The associated pipeline and easements cross through eight (8) private properties within Deschutes County jurisdiction as identified in the Staff report. REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan Review, Lot of Record Verification, and Major Administrative Determination for the expansion of the Redmond Water Pollution Control Facility Effluent and Biosolids Disposal Complex ("Redmond Wetlands Complex"). The project includes: Relocating sanitary sewer treatment facilities to the 608-acre City - owned property and expanding the disposal facilities to the north onto federally owned property. The relocation and expansion includes new operational buildings, new lined and unlined treatment wetlands for effluent polishing and disposal, new primary treatment 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 1 of 84 facilities with headworks screening, and new aerated lagoon system for secondary treatment. Replacing an existing 24-inch diameter interceptor pipeline with a 48-inch diameter pipeline that will be below grade and within established utility easements and/or public rights -of -way on an approximately two (2) mile route to the City of Redmond to connect to existing facilities treatment facility at the north end of Dry Canyon. HEARINGS OFFICER: Alan A. Rappleyea STAFF CONTACT: Haleigh King, Associate Planner Phone: 541-383-6710 Email: Haleigli.kinggdeschutes.org RECORD: Record items can be viewed and downloaded from: www.deschutes.org/redmondwetlandscomplex SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: The Hearings Officer finds that the Applicants have met their burden of proof with respect to the applications above. Where I agree with the staff recommendation, I am adopting their findings. I. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 660, Division 11 Oregon Revised Statutes, Section 215.296 Deschutes County Code (DCC) Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance: Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones (EFU) Chapter 18.32, Multiple Use Agricultural Zone (MUA10) Chapter 18.56, Surface Mining Impact Area Combining Zone (SMIA) Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions Chapter 18.124, Site Plan Review Chapter 18.128, Conditional Use Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance II. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL FINDINGS A. Nature of Proceeding 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 2 of 84 Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan Review, Lot of Record Verification, and Major Administrative Determination for the expansion of the Redmond Water Pollution Control Facility Effluent and Biosolids Disposal Complex ("Redmond Wetlands Complex"). B. Notices The Application was filed on February 28, 2023. The Hearing Notice announcing an evidentiary hearing ("Hearing") for the Application was provided on March 18, 20231. Notice of the hearing was published in the Bend Bulletin on March 19, 2023. The Applicants affidavit of posting was filed on June 7, 2023. Pursuant to the Hearing Notice, I presided over the as the appeal as Hearings Officer on June 20, 2023, opening the Hearing at 6:00 p.m. The Hearing was held via videoconference with Applicants and opponents showing up in person. The Hearings Officer finds that all procedural notice requirements were met. C. Hearin At the beginning of the Hearing, I provided an overview of the quasi-judicial process and instructed participants to direct comments to the approval criteria and standards, and to raise any issues a participant wanted to preserve for appeal if necessary. I stated I had no ex parte contacts to disclose or bias to declare. I asked for but received no objections to the County's jurisdiction over the matter or to my participation as the Hearings Officer. I described the time limits for the parties. Mr. Steven Liday, representing opponents requested more than the 3 minutes given to non -applicants. I addressed this later in the hearing and gave Mr. Liday approximately 4 more minutes. I also assured the parties that I had read their submittals. Next, Staff provided a summary of the Staff report. The Applicant's representatives, Mr. Ryan Kirchner and Ms. Wendie Kellington testified in supports of the application and requested that it be approved. Next the opponents testified, Ms Braedi Kohlberg; Mr. Doug Kohlberg, Mr. Liday, and Mr. Ronald Caramella. Mr. Liday testified via zoom, all others testified in person. Ms. Kellington and Mr. Josh Robinson offered rebuttal testimony. The opponents requested the record be left open. I left the record open for 7 days with the time for any new evidence submittals being 4:OOpm on June 27, 2023. Rebuttal testimony to only respond to any new evidence was due July 5, 2023, at 4:00 pm. Finally, any final arguments by applicant were due on July 12, 2023 at 4:00 pm. The Hearing concluded at approximately 7:40 p.m. D. Review Period The subject application(s) were submitted on March 2, 2023 and deemed incomplete by the Planning Division on March 27, 2023. The applicant provided a response to the incomplete letter on May 1, 2023 and the applications were subsequently deemed complete on May 1, 2023. On June 26, 2023, the applicant agreed to toll or extend the clock a total of 22 days during the open record period. The 150th day on which the County must take final action on these applications is October 20, 2023. I The Staff report inadvertently listed this date as 2022. 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 3 of 84 III. SUBSTANTIVE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS A. Adoption of Factual Findings in Staff Report The Staff report under Roman Number II contains "basic findings". The one factual issue raised by Mr. Liday is whether the applicants are also applying for a land use pen -nit to allow public recreational access to the site. Mr. Liday argues that applicants must do this as they are using the property for public recreation. Liday, June 12, 2023, submittal page 7 of 291. Applicants stated that they are not proposing any public recreational access in this application and that roads and parking will be required for the pending application. I agree with the applicant that they are not building or applying for a permit for recreational use of the site and any such use in the future will require a conditional use application for a public park. I adopt as findings the argument set forth by Ms. Kellington in her July 11, 2023, submittal pages 10-11. I adopt the Staff reports Factual Findings under Roman Number II. The findings concerning the Lot of Record (hereinafter LOR) will be discussed later in this opinion. B. Legal Findings The legal criteria applicable to the requested site plan were set forth in the Application Notice and also appear in the Staff report. No participant to this proceeding asserted that those criteria do not apply, or that other criteria are applicable. This Recommendation therefore addresses each of those criteria, as set forth below. Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660, Division 11, Public Facilities Planning Section 660-011-0060. Sewer Service to Rural Land. (1) As used in this rule, unless the context requires otherwise: (a) "Establishment of a sewer system" means the creation of a new sewage system, including systems provided by public or private entities; (b) "Extension of a Sewer System " means the extension of a pipe, conduit, pipeline, main, or other physical component from or to an existing sewer system in order to provide service to a use, regardless of whether the use is inside the service boundaries of the public or private service provider. The sewer service authorized in section (8) of this rule is not an extension of a sewer, The Staff report made the following finding: 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 4 of 84 "FINDING: The applicant provided the following statement in response to this criterion: `The City understands that these provision are inapplicable because the project is not creating a new sewage system and it is not an "extension" of a sewer system "in order to provide service to a use" because the project is improving an existing system that already provides services to a variety of uses. Applicant proposes to increase the diameter of one of the two (2) existing 24-inch diameter interceptor pipelines to a 48-inch diameter pipeline, in the MUA-10 Zone, the EFU Zone and within public rights -of -way that exist extending from the area of service at the City's existing WPCF within the Redmond UGB. Additionally, the proposal includes the expansion of the existing actual treatment facility with new buildings, wetland ponds and other amenities on the EFU-zoned land owned by the City of Redmond and BLM. Accordingly, for these reasons, the project does not involve either a new system or an extension of an existing sewer system, thus, is not seemingly at least, the "establishment" or "extension" of a sewer system as those terms are defined in OAR 660-011-0060(1) above. This provision is inapplicable.' Staff generally agrees with the applicant's response in that the proposal does not include the establishment of a new sewer system or the extension of a sewer system, as defined above. Staff also notes that Deschutes County does not have land use authority on federally owned property. However, Staff notes the public comment from Steven G. Liday raises concienis su11ounuing L110 alJF11Valll J V1lal at, LV11GaL1V11 ILIl1V IbJV allu Yiop VJV A VV111p V11e11LJ. Staff asks the Hearings Officer to make specific findings on this criterion." Finding: Mr. Liday raised concerns that addressed these criteria. "The City grossly mischaracterized the Project as an "expansion" of an existing utility facility/sewer system on the site." Liday letter, page 2 June 12, 2023. (Similar comment in April 26, 2023 letter.) Mr. Caramella raised similar concerns in his June 27, 2023, submittal. I find that the Applicant's interpretation and the Staff agreement with that interpretation reasonable. The application is not for a new treatment facility but would be accurately described as a replacement facility for existing facilities. It is also not an "extension" to "provide service to a use." The service to the use is currently ongoing so it is not "extending" service to that use but is merely continuing the service with new facilities. As further support for this finding, I adopt Ms. Kellington's reasoning found in her letter dated July 11, 2023, pages 20-21. In particular, I adopt Ms. Kellington's reasoning regarding the application or OAR 660-011- 0060(3) which will be addressed under that section below. "Even if the proposal can be described as the establishment or extension of a sewer system, as the Staff report states on p. 23, it is expressly allowed under OAR 660-011-0060(3), which provides that "[c]omponents of a sewer system that serve lands inside a [UGB] may be 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 5 of 84 placed on lands outside the boundary", provided that certain conditions are met. The applicant has demonstrated that those conditions are met, and we note that Staff agrees. See Applicant's Burden of Proof Statement, p. 21-24; Staff report, p. 22-27." (f) "Sewer system " means a system that serves more than one lot or parcel, or more than one condominium unit or more than one unit within a planned unit development, and includes pipelines or conduits, pump stations, force mains, and all other structures, devices, appurtenances and facilities used for treating or disposing of sewage or for collecting or conducting sewage to an ultimate point for treatment and disposal. The following are not considered a "sewer system " for purposes of this rule: (A) A system provided solely for the collection, transfer and/or disposal of storm water runoff,• (B) A system provided solely for the collection, transfer and/or disposal of animal waste from a farm use as defined in ORS 215.303. Finding: The applicant acknowledges that the proposal involves a sewer system and I concur. (2) Except as provided in sections (3), (4), (8), and (9) of this rule, and consistent with Goal 11, a local government shall not allow: (a) The establishment of new sewer systems outside urban growth boundaries or unincorporated community boundaries; (iJ) The extension o/ sewei' lines f / oiii rill/LL/L "r u"11 gi"o'rJtlt ut,"Istfw tra or niiiniorporabcu community boundaries in order to serve uses on land outside those boundaries; (c) The extension of sewer systems that currently serve land outside urban growth boundaries and unincorporated community boundaries in order to serve rises that are outside such boundaries and are not served by the system on July 28, 1998. The Staff report makes the following finding: "FINDING: The applicant provided the following statement in response to this criterion: The proposal does not establish a new sewer system, or newly extend sewer lines from a UGB, and is not designed to serve land outside UGBs that was not served on July 28, 1998. As noted elsewhere in this narrative, the Applicant proposes to increase capacity of one (1) of the existing interceptor pipelines and make additional improvements to the existing City of Redmond sewer system. The replacement pipeline and improvements on the subject property will be for the current service area that is within the City's urban growth boundary. This standard does not appear to apply. However, if this standard did apply, it is met because the proposal is expressly authorized by section (3), addressed below ("Except as provided in sections (3) ***"). 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 6 of 84 Staff notes the public comment from Steven G. Liday raises concerns surrounding the applicant's characterization of the use as it relates to the above criterion. Staff notes the applicant asserts that if this standard does apply, the proposal is authorized by section (3) as discussed below. Staff requests the Hearings Officer make specific findings on this issue." Finding: Mr. Liday and Mr. Caramella raise the same objection as described above. I find that the Applicant's interpretation is reasonable that this section does not apply to the application because it is not for a new sewer system or new lines. I further find that even if this interpretation is not correct, Applicant meets the standard as discussed in (3) below. (3) Components of a sewer system that serve lands inside an urban growth boundary (UGB) may be placed on lands outside the boundary provided that the conditions in subsections (a) and (b) of this section are met, as follows: (a) Such placement is necessary to: (A) Serve lands inside the UGB more efficiently by traversing lands outside the boundary; The Staff report found: "FINDING: The applicant provided the following statement in response to this criterion: OAR 660-011-0060 is met for the reasons explained below. The proposed improvements to the City's existing sewer system serve the area within the current City limits and UGB of Redmond. The proposal improves the existing facilities to continue to serve the area within the City's UGB efficiently and effectively, in order to meet its sewerage needs over the long- term planning horizon. This is necessary because the existing system needs significant improvement upgrades to meet the City's anticipated long-term horizon needs and there is not room at the existing facilities in the City's UGB to do so. Creating an entirely new facility on a new property inside the UGB (if one could be found to do so) is inefficient because the City already maintains part of its existing system on the subject property's 608- acre site. It is more efficient to expand the existing pipeline that now conveys effluent to the existing facilities on the 608-acre site, than to abandon the existing 608-acre site, and the existing pipelines that lead to it, in favor of a wholly new system with new piping in the UGB. Therefore, the proposal includes increasing the diameter of one of the existing interceptor pipelines and the facilities on the City -owned and BLM EFU-zoned properties, which are located approximately one and one-half (L5) miles north of the City of Redmond's UGB. The project will serve lands inside Redmond's UGB more efficiently and allow for anticipated population increases and resulting capacity demands in the future. 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 7 of 84 Staff generally agrees with the applicant's response. Staff notes the public comment from Steven G. Liday raises concerns surrounding the applicant's characterization of the use as it relates to the above criterion and suggests that the applicant must demonstrate why each component of the project, including the operational buildings, must be sited on the EFU land to provide the wastewater treatment service. Staff asks the Hearings Officer to make specific findings on this criterion." Mr. Liday raised concerns over this standard. "The City cannot treat all the proposed improvements as a single utility facility/sewer complex. Each distinct component must be evaluated on its own, and the City must demonstrate that each component (for example, the office building) must be sited on the EFU land to provide the wastewater treatment service." Liday Letter, page 3 April 26, 2023 In making this determination, the local government must separately evaluate the individual components of the proposed utility improvements. City of Albany v. Linn Cty., 40 Or LUBA 38, 47-48 (2001). Moreover, the reviewing authority must look behind the stated reasons for the particular facility to determine whether that purpose "advances the statutory goal of providing the utility service." Sprint PCS v. Washington Cty., 186 Or App 470, 481, 63 P3d 1GV1 `GVVJ) L1Uay LGLtUl. 1 ar,G ., Julio ic, /-vc✓ Mr. Liday's June 27, 2023, testimony follows up on this argument adding that it must be "infeasible" to site the facility on lands that are not EFU lands. Mr. Liday argues that it is feasible to site the project or components of the project on non-EFU lands and cites several examples. "As we noted in City of Albany v. Linn County, 40 Or LUBA 38, 46 (2001), under ORS 215.275, an applicant who wishes to site a utility facility on EFU-zoned land must show that it is infeasible to locate the facility on land that is not zoned EFU. While the statute is somewhat ambiguous concerning how difficult development of a non-EFU-zoned site for the intended purpose must be before it can be found to be infeasible, it is quite clear that a finding that the proposed site is the best of the available sites is inadequate." Findings: First, I find that the applicant is correct, that this section does not apply because the proposed facility is neither an "establishment" nor an "extension" of a sewerage treatment facility for the reasons expressed above. Second, I adopt the applicants reasoning that even if it could be considered an "establishment" or and "extension" it qualifies under OAR 660-011-0060(3). I adopt Ms. Kellington's reasoning in her July 11, 2023 letter pages 20-21, regarding the application or OAR 660-011-0060(3). 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 8 of 84 "Even if the proposal can be described as the establishment or extension of a sewer system, as the Staff report states on p. 23, it is expressly allowed under OAR 660-011- 0060(3), which provides that "[c]omponents of a sewer system that serve lands inside a [UGB] may be placed on lands outside the boundary", provided that certain conditions are met. The applicant has demonstrated that those conditions are met, and we note that Staff agrees. See Applicant's Burden of Proof Statement, p. 21-24; Staff report, p. 22- 27." Third, I agree with the Staff that this application meets this criterion. Page 22, Staff report. Applying subsection (3) to the application, I find that it is not the Hearings Officers job to second guess engineering decisions recommend to and adopted by the City. At the Hearing, the Applicant provided testimony that the proposed system, where all components were placed together, was more efficient and more cost effective while creating less odor impacts than the current system. While Mr. Liday's argument that other places do it differently is helpful, it does not mean that the City of Redmond is compelled to do what others do. The testimony in the record was that it was important for efficiency and safety to have all components together and to have Staff present in facilities to address emergency situations. The facility deals with millions of gallons of effluent. The time it would take Staff to drive to the facility during an emergency could be disastrous. 1 find compelling the testimony 01 iVir. Ryan Kirchner, dated J u n c 2v, 2023, expressing tile, need to have all components together. I agree with his testimony of the need to quickly respond to emergencies associated with waste waters. Mr Kirchner summarized: "all of the components of the facility need to be located on site for efficiency and proper management of the Redmond Wetlands Complex." Based on Mr. Kirchner's experience, I find that he is an expert and there is no adequate rebuttal testimony on this point The Applicant also provided an alternatives analysis. The applicant demonstrated that the facility is locationally dependent in its May 1, 2023 Submittal starting at page 6. I hereby adopt those findings. I find sewerage facilities are locationally dependent in general. Sewer treatment facilities need gravity to operate as the old adage reminds us. The proposed site is downhill. While it may be possible to pump waste or even truck it to another site, it certainly is not feasible. It is also possible to intensively treat waste water in a smaller area. Again, based on engineering proposal and the need to efficiently treat waste with less impact and cost, the City opted for the proposed system. I also will defer to the Cities' elected officials on this matter and their determination that other sites were infeasible. (B) Serve lands inside a nearby UGB or unincorporated community, "FINDING: The applicant provided the following statement in response to this criterion: 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 9 of 84 The consolidation of all of the City's sewer system components on the land that currently serves as treatment that is currently situated outside the UGB is necessary to serve land inside the nearby Redmond UGB and its projected growth for the next 20 years and beyond. Staff agrees with the applicant's response and finds that the proposed project will serve lands inside the Redmond UGB, as allowed by this criterion." Finding: I concur with the Staff s finding. (C) Connect to components of the sewer system lawfully located on rural lands, such as outfall or treatment facilities; or The Staff report made the following finding: "FINDING: The applicant provided the following statement in response to this criterion: The proposal involves consolidating the City's sewer system on City land that currently serves City waste treatment needs. Serving the goal of consolidation, the proposal will relocate the treatment facilities from Dry Canyon, Redmond's existing WPCF, to the Northwest Way property (referred to in this narrative variously as the Redmond Wetlands Complex 608-acre property) and expand the existing disposal facilities on the subject property (owned by the City of Redmond) to adjacent BLM property zoned EFU. Tlic JyJteill is all expansion anu Improvement to an existing treatment facility in the EFU Zone, that includes increasing capacity of conveyance through expansion of one of the interceptor pipelines that is located on rural lands in a variety of zones approximately one and one-half (1.5) miles north of the area that it serves. Redmond's WPCF was lawfully established in 1976 through County Land Use File No. SR-76-40 (See Exhibit B). As the applicant notes above, the existing Redmond Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) was approved via County Land Use File No. SP-76-40. While this facility is currently within Redmond City Limits, at the time of approval, the property was within County jurisdiction and was zoned A-1, Exclusive Agricultural. The applicant indicates in their narrative that the City of Redmond will be decommissioning the existing mechanical WPCF and transitioning all operations to the subject 608-acre property. Staff finds the increased pipeline conveyance is an improvement to the existing pipeline and will continue to connect to the area of service within the City UGB as well as the treatment facility located on rural lands. Staff generally agrees with the applicant's response. However, Staff asks the Hearings Officer to make specific findings on this issue." 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 10 of 84 Finding: I find that the applicant complies with this criterion based on the quoted language above. The treatment facility was lawfully located on rural lands as the City obtained final land use approval from the County in Land Use File No. SP-76-40. I concur with Staff that the increased pipeline conveyance to existing pipelines will connect the components to a system lawfully located on rural lands. I find that the application is an expansion of existing treatment facilities and is neither an "establishment" nor an "extension" of a utility facility as defined OAR 660-011-00609(a)&(b). (D) Transport leachate from a landfill on rural land to a sewer system inside a UGB; "FINDING: The applicant provided the following statement in response to this criterion: Applicant does not propose to transport leachate from a landfill. Staff agrees and finds the applicant is not proposing to transport leachate from a landfill and thus this criterion is not applicable." Finding: I concur. (b) The local government: (A) Adopts land use regulations to ensure the sewer system shall not serve land outside urban growth boundaries or unincorporated community boundaries, except as authorized under section (4) of this rule; and "FINDING: The applicant provided the following statement in response to this criterion: Applicant does not propose to serve land outside Redmond's UGB or an unincorporated community. The City will adopt a land use regulation that states "the City of Redmond sewer system shall not serve land outside urban growth boundaries or unincorporated community boundaries except as authorized by OAR 660-0011-0060(4)" or other applicable law. This requirement can be imposed as a condition of approval. Staff agrees with the applicant's response. The proposed facility and pipeline replacement will not serve land outside Redmond's UGB or an unincorporated community. To ensure compliance, Staff includes a recommended condition of approval that the utility facility/sewer system shall not serve land outside urban growth boundaries or unincorporated community boundaries except as authorized by OAR 660-0011-0060(4) or other applicable law." Finding: I concur and will impose a condition that the facility and pipeline replacement will require the City to adopt a land use regulation to prohibit the City of Redmond from serving land outside of the UGB. With that condition, the application complies with this criterion. See "Conditions of Approval." 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 11 of 84 (B) Determines that the system satisfies ORS 215.296(1) or (2) to protect farm and forest practices, except for systems located in the subsurface of public roads and highways along the public right of way. The Staff report made the following finding. "FINDING: The applicant provided the following statement in response to this criterion: Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 215.296(1) and (2) require the following: 215.296 Standards for approval of certain uses in exclusive farm use zones; violation of standards; complaint; penalties; exceptions to standards. (1) A use allowed under ORS 215.213 (2) or (11) or 215.283 (2) or (4) may be approved only where the local governing body or its designee finds that the use will not: (a) Force a significant change in accepted.farm or forest practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest use; or (b) Significantly increase the cost of accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest use. /�� A .._ -.7t _ __1. P--- -. -.-- _It-_..--1 _.._-1..__ 11 n C, '11 C I I � /I1 — /1 I — 71 C '1O7 /II — (Z) An uppttcurtt jur� u use uttoweu urtuer Ono 2 L ✓.2 L ✓ or 6 L (2) or (L L) ✓.GO✓ (21 of (4) may demonstrate that the standards for approval set forth in subsection (1) of this section will be satisfied through the imposition of conditions. Any conditions so imposed shall be clear and objective. This standard appears to apply only to property zoned EFU and that is not situated in the subsurface of public roads and highways. To the extent relevant, no nearby lands are zoned for forest use or are in forest practices. Accordingly, the proposed use will not force a significant change in accepted forest practices on surrounding land or significantly increase the cost of accepted forest practices on surrounding lands. There are only three properties involved in the project that are zoned EFU, not including the City's 608-acre site. The expanded pipeline will traverse those three EFU-zoned properties. The three properties possess existing facility pipelines and easements that are not in road rights -of -way. They are at 3080 NW Euston Ln, Redmond; 2827 NW Coyner Ave., Redmond and 2675 NW Coyner Ave, Redmond. The latter, 2675 NW Coyner Ave., is composed of 13.67 acres according to the county assessor; has a nonfarm dwelling approval from Deschutes County that was issued on January 13, 2017 (File No. 247-16-000359-CU); and according to 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 12 of 84 Deschutes County Assessment Records, per Deschutes County DIAL, is not receiving farm deferral tax assessment. No farm uses are observed on this property. 3080 NW Euston Ln (approximately 19.81 acres) and 2827 NW Coyner Ave (approximately 19.43 acres), appear to have small-scale farm operations consisting of hay or grass. The proposed expanded pipeline will replace the existing pipeline on these properties and will be buried, and the affected ground will be restored. Any impacts will be temporary during construction and construction activity will be coordinated with the landowners. The pipeline to be upgraded already exists. Any impacts of having a subsurface pipe on the land have been accounted for in the existing farming operations. Moreover, no off -site impacts are anticipated from the upgraded pipeline, which is all underground. The proposal will not force a significant change in accepted farm practices on surrounding lands or significantly increase the cost of accepted farm practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm use. Some irrigated farm fields are located approximately one-half of a mile from the proposed expanded facilities to include the replaced pipeline as well as the relocation of facilities to the existing 608-acre wetlands complex property. However, no construction or other impacts are foreseen to these properties from any part of the proposal. Accordingly, no part of the proposal will force a significant change in accepted farm practices on surrounding lands or significantly increase the cost of accepted farm practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm use. In fact, the existing treatment facility is the reason there is productive farm use in the area. The facility provides irrigation water to the 138-acre orchard grass hay farm operation on the 608-acre main site, which produces roughly 830 tons of hay annually. Due to the fact that most of the properties near the Redmond Wetlands Complex are not within an irrigation district, there are very few farm operations nearby. Staff agrees that the standard above does not apply to the portions of the project situated in the subsurface of public roads and highways. Therefore, this analysis would not apply to the pipeline replacement located in the EFU Zone and within the subsurface of public roads. No nearby lands are zoned for forest use. Therefore, the proposed use will not force a significant change in accepted forest practices on surrounding land or significantly increase the cost of accepted forest practices on surrounding lands. Staff notes DCC 18.16.038(A)(11) requires a farm impacts analysis as it relates to the siting of a utility facility. The applicant provided a detailed response in that corresponding section. Staff incorporates that response herein by reference. 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 13 of 84 Staff generally agrees with the applicant's response contained herein as well as the response to DCC 18.16.038(A)(11). However, Staff asks that the Hearings Officer to make specific findings on this issue." The applicant submitted arguments supporting its request to provide an alternative for its pipeline on July 11, 2023. It submitted the following arguments: "The proposal also includes a request to approve two alternatives for piping effluent to the proposed facility: (1) an "original;" proposal to replace one of the two existing 24" interceptor pipes that now transmit treated effluent from the City's Dry Canyon site to the proposed area within public rights -of -way and existing easements, with a 48" pipeline in the County's EFU and MUA-10 Zones, and (2) an alternative that adds a 24" pipe and a 48" pipe to a location near where the existing piping is currently located, in a roughly 464-foot linear stretch within the existing public NW Northwest Way right-of-way and private road easement on NW Euston Lane. This approximately 464 ft. stretch of NW Northwest Rd and Easton is zoned MUA-10 (the original proposal area which will be abandoned if the alternative is utilized, is also zoned MUA-10). If the alternative is approved and if the City decides to use the alternative, the existing piping in the originally proposed approximately 464-ft stretch will be abandoned. An illustration of the two proposed pipeline alignments is below (proposed alternative is in green): 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 14 of 84 The existing rights of way and existing easements within which existing originally proposed piping runs, support the two existing City 24" inch pipes. As noted, these pipes convey treated wastewater from the Dry Canyon site to the subject property; Solids are trucked from the Dry Canyon site to the facility where they are processed on the drying beds on the south end of the site. Instead of conveying treated effluent waste from the Dry Canyon site and hauling solids from the Dry Canyon site, these pipes under either proposal, will convey untreated wastewater from the City to the proposed site in one 48" pipe, leaving one 24" pipe in place as a duplicate protective conveyance if there is ever a problem with the 48" pipe. The alternative will do the same except, as noted above, it will change the location of a modest 464-linear foot stretch of new piping that would be installed in the NW Northwest public ROW and the Euston road easement. The City recognizes that to utilize the alternative alignment, an easement from the owner of TL 800 to do so for use of the Euston private right of way, will be required. The alternative is proposed because untreated waste will be conveyed in the pipes, as opposed to now in which treated effluent is conveyed via the piping. 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 15 of 84 That means under the proposal, that the pipes will require more inspection and maintenance. The new 48-inch line that is a part of the RWC proposal will carry raw wastewater to the RWC.2. That difference means that the City will need to do more routine maintenance to the line, access it for video inspections, cleaning operations and other activities. Accessing the sewer lines on unimproved property — which is the state of the and from where the originally proposed alignment leaves NW Euston Lane and then reconnects to NW Northwest Way — will potentially be disruptive to the property owner and would make access to that gravity sewer piping easement tricky for things like vactor trucks and other large machinery. Therefore, if possible, it would be better to move the 464-linear feet of piping into Euston Ln as is proposed in the alternative scenario. However, either alternative will work for the proposal, both are technically feasible and both the original and alternative piping proposal will substantially take advantage of gravity and existing easements, ROW and piping." Finding: I find that as there is no forest use lands nearby, this application will not affect forest practices. As to the EFU zoned lands, I agree with the Staff s finding that any of the subsurface uses in the existing public roads will not force a significant change on farming practices nor increase costs of farming practices on surrounding farmlands. The pipelines mostly will be in existing ROW that are currently being used for the same purposes and they are underground. Any impacts due to their construction will be temporary and there is no evidence that they would be significant. I agree with the applicant that there will be no significant change to farming practices and it will not 4t . 4 : +110 +L ..00 L7VT T — -- -+;o +1, + will have � . ded p .,�l;,,A f Increase Lite cost 01 lailllin practices on ne three 1-1-lJ FI%JF%"Llama L11aL will an expallttVu jl ipeline 1Vl the reasons cited by the applicant above. Particularly, for the parcel located at 2675 NW Coyner Road, was recently granted a non -farm dwelling, which requires a finding that the property is not suitable for farming. There was testimony regarding potential noxious weeds on the pipeline easements. A condition requiring the applicant suppress, control, and eradicate noxious weeds on the subject property, consistent with the mission of the Deschutes County Noxious Weed Program and the Weed Control Ordinance, DCC Chapter 8.35 will mitigate these impacts. . I agree with the Applicant that alternative alignment will not force a significant change on farming practices nor increase costs of fanning practices on surrounding farmlands. The alternative alignment removes an easement across the middle of the property and relocates it to a public ROW and an easement. As such, even though the size of the pipeline is expanded, it should reduce impacts on surrounding lands. I adopt the Applicant's statement quoted above and approve of the proposed alternative alignment portrayed in the image above. I find that if Applicant is not able to obtain the required easements for the alternative alignment, then the original alignment is permitted by this application. I will impose a condition that if Applicant can reasonably obtain easements for the new alignment, applicant shall vacate easements which it no longer needs due to the realignment. 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 16 of 84 Finally, under this criterion, I agree with Staff that DCC 18.16.038(A)(11) requires a farm impacts analysis as it relates to the siting of a utility facility. I find that applicant provided a detailed response in that corresponding section. I hereby incorporate that response by reference. Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance Chapter 22.04, Introduction and Definitions Section 22.04.040 Verifying Lots of Record. Finding: Both the Staff report and applicant delve deeply into this criterion. It was also discussed at the hearing. No opponent raised it as an issue. I adopt the factual findings in the Staff report on this criterion. The applicant and County disagreed as to the applicability of the County's code in 1981. The County believed it required applicant and the federal government to file for a partition of these lands. I find that that the tax lots were lawfully created and are lots of record by the action of the federal government in providing the patent for these lands. As mentioned above and as discussed at the hearing, the County does not have land use authority over federal lands. In all my many years of land use experience, I have never seen a partition or subdivision request by the federal government on federal lands. I questioned the applicant's attorney, who also has over 30 years of experience in land use and she had never seen such a request before. I find that the federal government may sometimes tolerate local governments land use regulations, but they are not legally required to comply with County zoning and subdivision and partition laws. Staff acknowleuged this as well. rage 34, Staff report. The applicant's attorney followed up on this question in her June 27, 2023, submittal. "The federal government's authority over public lands is "without limitations." Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 US 529, 539, 96 S Ct 2285, 49 L Ed2d 34 (1976). In short, the federal government may not be subjected to state or County land division requirements prior to conveying its property. Accordingly, the County may not require the lot or record verification for federal lands or require the federal government to consent to partition of its lands (in compliance with zoning and land division laws) in order to legally separate patented land from its federal parent parcel." I agree with the above statement. I also agree with the applicant that even if somehow the federal government is required to follow local government rules, that the five tax lots are "part of a very large legal lot of record created by treaty...." for the reasons contained in the application. Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, County Zoning Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones (EFU) Section 18.16.020. Uses Permitted Outright. 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 17 of 84 F. Reconstruction or modification ofpublic roads and highways, including the placement of utility facilities overhead and in the subsurface of public roads and highways along the public right of way, but not including the addition of travel lanes, where no removal or displacement of buildings would occur, or no new land parcels result. M. Utility facility service lines. Utility facility service lines are utility lines and accessory facilities or structures that end at the point where the utility service is received by the customer and that are located on one or more of the following: 1. A public right of way; 2. Land immediately adjacent to a public right of way, provided the written consent of all adjacent property owners has been obtained, or 3. The property to be served by the utility. The Staff report made the following findings: "FINDING: The applicant provided the following statement in response to this criterion: As previously described above, the co111dVr associated with the replacement interceptor pipeline will span across privately -owned tax lots and within public road rights -of -way which are located within the MUA-10 Zone, but also the EFU Zone. The replacement interceptor pipeline of the utility facility will be located within public rights -of -way and on land adjacent to or near a public right-of-way within existing easements with adjacent property owners. Access to the project route will be limited to occasional visits from maintenance personnel. Service lines associated with the project are an outright permitted use in the EFU and MUA-10 zones as described earlier. The Redmond Wetlands Complex is a "utility facility necessary for public service" permitted "as of right" on EFU-zoned land under ORS 215.283(1)(c) and DCC 18.16.025(E). In 1999, the legislature adopted amendments to ORS 215.283(1)(c) that specifically includes "wetland waste treatment systems" as is proposed here as being within the scope of "utility facilities necessary for public service". In Cox v. Polk County, 174 Or App 332, rev. den. 332 Or 558 (2001), a case decided before the above - referenced 1999 amendments applied, the Oregon Court of Appeals interpreted the term "utility facility" as used in ORS 215.283(1)(c), based on its plain meaning, to mean "equipment or apparatus, whether standing alone or as part of a structure, that functions to perform or provide, in whole or in part, a service such as the production, transmission, delivery or furnishing of electricity or natural gas, the purification of drinking water, or the treatment of solid or liquid waste. The equipment comprising the facility need not 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 18 of 84 be extensive or complex; in addition, the facility may include ancillary or off -site equipment * * *. However, at a minimum, the facility must include some equipment or apparatus that itself performs the relevant production, transmission or similar function or service." 174 Or App 332, 343-44 (2001). DCC 18.04.030 provides the County's definition of "utility facility": "any major structures, excluding hydroelectric facilities, owned or operated by a public, private or cooperative electric, fuel, communications, sewage or water company for the generation, transmission, distribution or processing of its products or for the disposal of cooling water, waste or by-products, and including power transmission lines, major trunk pipelines, power substations, telecommunications facilities, water towers, sewage lagoons, sanitary landfills and similar facilities, but excluding local sewer, water, gas, telephone and power distribution lines, and similar minor facilities allowed in any zone. This definition shall not include wireless telecommunication facilities where such facilities are listed as a separate use in a zone." The proposal is for major structures that are both owned and operated by the City of Redmond for the transmission and processing of wastewater. All facilities proposed are interconnected components that are designed to serve this end and only this end. All buildings are devoted exclusively to enable the transmission and processing of wastewater. Accordingly, the proposed Redmond Wetlands Complex is a "utility r_ _.1 *ty" L LL WILL..« LL . Ul 111 , ,� LUUAJlY L,,111 ,.t ,WWII.. �"lu uY l',. U Li lacillly UV611 Wlllllli 611G lllea.11illg V1 L11G J6RlUlVl�' lGllll as illblJliJl�.6lJU Uy l�l/x anU Utl. County code's definition of the same. The proposed facility is also "necessary for public service". A utility facility is "necessary for public service" if the facility meets certain tests that show it must be sited on EFU zoned land in order to provide the service. DCC 18.16.038(A); ORS 215.275; OAR 660-033- 0130(16)(a); see also McCaw Communications, Inc. v. Marion County, 96 Or App 552, 555-56 (1989). To demonstrate that a utility facility is necessary for public service, the applicant must show that reasonable alternatives have been considered and that the facility must be sited on EFU due to one or more factors set forth in DCC 18.16.038(A)-(E)/OAR 660-033- 0130(16)(a)(A)/ORS 215.275. The proposal involves the creation of significant wetlands using effluent. Applying the factors of DCC 18.16.038(A)/OAR 660-033-0130(16)(a)(A)/ORS 215.275, it is necessary for the proposed facility to be located on EFU zoned land. The relevant DCC 18.16.025 provisions and relevant DCC 18.16.038(A)-(E) factors are analyzed below. Staff finds the portions of the pipeline replacement within the EFU zone will be within the subsurface of public roads and within the public right-of-way. No new land parcels will result and no removal or displacement of buildings are proposed to occur. For these reasons, Staff 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 19 of 84 finds this portion of the project is permitted outright subject to any County Road Department permits or requirements. Tax Lot 1201, 1202, and 1300 on Deschutes County Assessor's Map 14-13-29 and are private properties zoned EFU. These properties include portions of the pipeline replacement within the current easements. Staff does not consider this interceptor pipeline to be a utility service line as described above as the pipeline does not end at the point where the utility service is received by the customer. Instead, the interceptor pipeline is a major sewer line that transports flows to the wastewater treatment facility. For these reasons, Staff finds the portions of the pipeline replacement on private property zoned EFU are subject to 18.16.025(E). However, Staff asks the Hearings Officer to make specific findings on this issue." Finding: I find that the proposed Redmond Wetlands Complex is a "utility facility" both within the meaning of the statutory term as interpreted by Cox and the County code's definition of the .same as described above. I also find that the Redmond Wetlands Complex is a "utility facility necessary for public service" permitted "as of right" on EFU-zoned land under ORS 215.283(1)(c) and DCC 18.16.025(E) as described above. I agree with Staff that the for the pipeline portion of the project within public roads and ROW, this portion of the project is permitted outright subject to any County Road Department permits or requirements. I concur with Staff that for Tax Lots 1201, 1202, and 1300 the pipelines do not fall within the definition of "utility service line" in section (M) above, because it is not providing service "received by the customer." I also agree that the portions of the pipeline replacement on private property zoned EFU are subject to 18.16.025(E). Section 18.16.025. Uses Permitted Subject To The Special Provisions Under DCC Section 18 16 038 Or DCC Section 18.16.042 And A Review Under DCC Chapter 18.124 Where Applicable E. Utility facilities necessary for public service, including wetland waste treatment systems, but not including commercial facilities for the purpose of generating electrical power for public use by sale and transmission towers over 200 feet in height. A utility facility necessary for public service may be established as provided in: 1. DCC 18.16.038(A); or 2. DCC 18.16.038(E) if the utility facility is an associated transmission line, as defined in ORS 469.300. The Staff report made the following findings: "FINDING: The applicant proposes to expand and relocate the City of Redmond's sanitary sewer treatment facilities, and replace and enlarge an existing sewage interceptor pipeline. For reference, Staff includes the following definition from DCC 18.04.030: "Utility facility" means any major structures, excluding hydroelectric facilities, owned or operated by a public, private or cooperative electric, fuel, communications, sewage or water company for the generation, transmission, distribution or processing of its products or for the 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 20 of 84 disposal of cooling water, waste or by-products, and including power transmission lines, major trunk pipelines, power substations, telecommunications facilities, water towers, sewage lagoons, sanitary landfills and similar facilities, but excluding local sewer, water, gas, telephone and power distribution lines, and similar minor facilities allowed in any zone. This definition shall not include wireless telecommunication facilities where such facilities are listed as a separate use in a zone. The proposed facility is owned and operated by the City of Redmond, which is a public government entity that provides a utility to the people it serves. The facility, both the pipeline and the treatment facility, is for the transfer, treatment, and disposal of sewage and wastewater. Regarding whether the utility facility is `necessary for public service,' the applicant provided the following statement: The proposal is the expansion of the City's existing sanitary sewer treatment facilities, and the replacement and enlargement of an existing interceptor pipeline, and therefore is an expansion and improvement to an existing City of Redmond facility, thus, is a utility facility necessary_ for public service. Redmond's population is forecast to grow to roughly 58,000 people by 2045. The expansion of the treatment facility is needed to accommodate that growth. hurrently, the wastewater system can process and treat roughly 2.8 million gallons per day. This expansion will increase treatment capacity to roughly 4.6 million gallons per day to serve the projected population. Compliance with DCC 18.16.038(A) is discussed below. At the outset we note that portions of the proposed project are not required to go through Site Plan Review under the Oregon Supreme Court's holding in Brentmar v. Jackson County, 321 Or 481, 496 (1995), and County Staff have concurred in this conclusion. This is because the proposed facility is a use permitted "as of right" on EFU-zoned land under ORS 215.283(1)(c). In Brentmar, the Court decided that the uses allowed under ORS 215.281(1), to include "utility facilities necessary for public service," are uses "as of right" and local governments err if they seek to impose more stringent criteria than those in the statute. See also Save Our Rural Oregon v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 339 Or 353, 383, 121 P3d 1141 (2005) (citing Brentmar). Because the proposed facilities are not a transmission line, as defined in ORS 469.300, the applicant addresses the provisions of DCC 18.16.038(A) below. The provisions of DCC 18.16.038(E) do not apply. Staff incorporates the following background description provided by the applicant (Page 18 of Burden of Proof) as Staff finds it relevant to this criterion: 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 21 of 84 For 45 years, the City of Redmond (City) has utilized the Effluent and Biosolids Complex on an approximate 608-acre property to the northwest of the City to repurpose and discharge all of Redmond's treated wastewater effluent and biosolids, which is where the proposed main Redmond Wetlands Complex will be located. The existing Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF), where the wastewater is now initially treated, is located at the north end of the Dry Canyon. The population of Redmond and surrounding areas have significantly grown since the last major WPCF Expansion in 2000. The population of Redmond and surrounding areas is expected to increase; as such, the need for an expansion of the treatment facilities is vital to serving growth. The City plans to expand the approximately 608-acre Effluent and Biosolids Disposal Complex and transition its operation to a more sustainable and environmentally friendly treatment alternative. As early as 1984, the 608- acre Effluent and Biosolids Disposal Complex was identified as a preferred location with long-range opportunities to treat and dispose of wastewater while also offering sustainable development opportunities. The City will be decommissioning the existing mechanical WPCF in the dry canyon and transitioning all operations to 5801 Northwest Way, Redmond (the subject 608- acre properly). lll aUddit-Ion Lv he -I Ly J vAcJanir, appiuAn 1aLGly vvo-aw%, gill UG11L anu Biosolids Disposal Complex, the City now leases 35 acres on Tax Lot 200 from the Federal Bureau of Land Management, at the site where disinfected water is infiltrated into the ground. Z Due to the necessity of this waste disposal for both human and environmental health and the limited capacity of existing facilities based on anticipated demand, Staff agrees with the applicant's response and finds the proposed utility facility is necessary for public service. Staff notes the public comment from Steven G. Liday raises concerns surrounding the applicant's characterization of the use as it relates to the above criterion and suggests that the applicant must demonstrate why each component of the project, including the operational buildings, must be sited on the EFU land to provide the wastewater treatment service. Staff asks the Hearings Officer to make specific findings on this issue. Staff agrees with the applicant that the provisions of DCC 18.124 do not apply to the proposed project. The applicant proposes a utility facility, which is a use listed in ORS 215.283(1). As determined through prior rulings, including Brentmar v. Jackson County, 321 Or 481, 900 Z https://redmondwetlandscomplex.com/ 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 22 of 84 P2d 1030 (1995), the proposed use is permitted by state statue and not subject to additional local regulations. Therefore, Staff finds the provisions of Chapter 18.124 do not apply to the subject application. However, Staff notes the public comment from Steven G. Liday questions the applicability of Brentmar to the proposed project and contends that the site plan review criteria would apply to the proposed facilities pursuant to DCC 18.124.030(B)(5). Staff asks the Hearings Officer to make specific findings on this issue." Mr. Liday makes the following argument why Brentmar is not applicable. This statute and the holding in Brentmar are irrelevant to the County's site review process, which has no impact on whether a use is allowed, but only concerns the design of physical development. Nothing in ORS 215.283 or Brentmar suggests that the Oregon legislature intended to strip counties of the power to regulate the physical design of a type of development that typically has significant impacts on surrounding properties. Second, the City fails to properly distinguish between the school at issue in Brentmar and utility facilities necessary for public service. The latter are subject to a second statute, ORS 215.275, which not only permits conditions, but requires them. ORS 215.275(5).The City mischaracterizes this provision as a limitation on conditions on utility facilities, but there is no language in the subsection to support this reading (e.g., it states that the local government nail Impose ceilain LAMIU UIR), not �11 vw LLaL1 only ).ii v�iiv3 V1111 Swu] Finding: I disagree with Mr. Liday's argument above. The Court has stripped Counties of most of their ability to regulate these subcategory (1) uses, although some health and safety regulations can still apply. The County's site plan regulations can be used to deny the use. This is exactly what was prohibited in Brentmar. I also find that the Applicant does have to comply with ORS 215.275(5) which is discussed later. This statute does not mean to override the restrictions of local governments imposed by Brentmar. I agree with the applicant and Staff as described above. I find that Brentmar is controlling and DCC 18.124 does not apply to the proposed project. I adopt Ms. Kellington's argument in her July 11, 2023 submittal: "One opponent argues that the County must apply additional local criteria to the utility facility — specifically, the County's criteria for Site Plan Review in DCC 18.124. However, under Brentmar v. Jackson County, 321 Or 481, 496, 900 P2d 1030 (1995), and subsequent cases, the County may not apply additional local criteria, to include site plan review, to ORS 215.283(1) uses allowed on EFU-zoned land "as of right", like the proposed facility. See Dayton Prairie Water Assn. v. Yamhill County, 38 Or LUBA 14, 30, aff d 170 Or App 6, 11 P3d 671 (2000) (LUBA held that application of county comprehensive plan policies to an ORS 215.283(1) utility facility was barred by Brentmar and stated that that conclusion 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 23 of 84 "appl[ies] with equal force to bar application of the county's site design review criteria[.]"); T-Mobile USA v. Yamhill County, 55 Or LUBA, 83, 88 (2007) (county cannot apply local site design standards to ORS 215.283(1) utility facility). The proposed use is a "utility facility necessary for public service", a use expressly allowed to be sited on EFU-zoned land "as of right" under ORS 215.283(1)(c)." Page 10 Section 18.16.038. Special Conditions For Certain Uses Listed Under DCC 18.16.025 A. A utilityfacility necessary for public use allowed under DCC 18.16.025 shall be one that "lust be sited in an agricultural zone in order for service to be provided. To demonstrate that a utilityfacility is necessary, an applicant must show that reasonable alternatives have been considered and that the facility must be sited in an exclusive farm use zone due to one or more of the following factors: The Staff report made the following findings: "FINDING: In order to meet this standard, the applicant must demonstrate why the utility facility and pipeline replacement needs to be sited in the EFU Zone, and show that reasonable alternatives on non-EFU land were considered. The following case law provides guidance on how infeasible an alternative site must be for it to be disqualified from consideration. The Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) made the following finding in a previous application for a utility facility, consisting of a cellular tower, in the EFU Zone. Harshman v. Jackson County, Al l T TTT A ' )A ')*1c illnn11�. '+1 yr L,u13ti ).w, -33a ). "As we noted in City of Albany v. Linn County, 40 Or LUBA 38, 46 (2001), under ORS 215.275, an applicant who wishes to site a utility facility on EFU-zoned land must show that it is infeasible to locate the facility on land that is not zoned EFU. While the statute is somewhat ambiguous concerning how difficult development of a non-EFU-zoned site for the intended purpose must be before it can be found to be infeasible, it is quite clear that a finding that the proposed site is the best of the available sites is inadequate." Staff interprets this finding to mean the subject property cannot be selected solely on the basis that it ranks best in comparison to alternate sites, when evaluated based on the factors in subsections (1-7), below. Instead, the applicant must demonstrate that other sites were considered for the utility facility, and were not feasible based on the factors below. Other cases have examined the threshold for how difficult a property must be to develop, for it to be disqualified from consideration. Further guidance is provided in the LUBA opinion below, regarding an application to site a water treatment facility in the Farm/Forest Zone. City of Albany v. Linn County, 40 OR LUBA 38, 47 (2001): "The core of petitioner's arguments under both assignments of error is that Millersburg has failed to demonstrate that reasonable alternatives, which would not 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 24 of 84 require the use of EFU or F/F-zoned land, are not available. According to petitioner, the F/F-zoned land that Millersburg proposes to use for its proposed treatment facility and storage reservoir would not be needed for the proposed public service if the city instead utilized other feasible options... In petitioner's view, EFU or F/F-zoned land should be selected only if no other option is feasible... Before and after adoption of ORS 215.275, the ultimate legal standard was a requirement that the applicant demonstrate that "the facility must be sited in an EFU zone in order to provide the service." That legal standard, in turn, requires that an applicant explore non-EFU-zoned alternative sites." In this case, LUBA ruled that this criteria cannot be met without an analysis of other, non- EFU options. However, LUBA went on to find that the alternatives analysis can disqualify a non-EFU site based on any one of the factors listed in ORS 215.275(2). This LUBA decision further clarifies that the applicant is not required to consider alternate means of designing the utility facility. Staff finds this relevant to the subject application because the applicant is not required to defend their selected methods of transmission and processing of wastewater, and can narrow their alternatives analysis to properties that work best for a facility design that they have already selected. For example, the County cannot require the applicant to evaluate other methods of wastewater transmission, processing or treatment which may require less area, or are less dependent on slope and soil conditions. TL. ,. 1:.,.,.,4 included 41, following ri r, ar 4fAr�4 in rAcr�nnan to this r�ri4Prinn• l llei applicant included the following statement aaa v.�Yvaauv v .a vaaa.vaavaa. The subject utility facility that is necessary for public use is an existing facility. The proposal involves an expansion of the existing facility on property under the ownership of the City of Redmond and USA/BLM, that is already devoted to this use. Therefore, it is not logical, nor is it practical, to seek a new site for the utility facility, as the subject property is currently devoted to utility facility uses associated with wastewater treatment. Further, the component of the existing wastewater reclamation facility that is currently located within the dry canyon in the City has no room to expand nor would such an expansion be a compatible use with the growing urban community. Nearby non-EFU zoned land includes property in the Surface Mining (SM) zoned properties. Nearby Surface Mining zoned properties lack suitable soils for effluent disposal, as topsoil has been removed from the sites. Additionally, nearby SM zoned properties are currently devoted to surface mining activities. Other non-EFU zoned land in the area consists of MUA-10 and Rural Residential (RR-10) Zoning. However, these properties are too small in size and are devoted in one way or another to residential uses, many of which are on subdivision lots. Although, all nearby non- EFU zoned lands may be considered to be potential "alternatives", they are not reasonable ones. These lands have been "considered" by Applicant and found to be 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 25 of 84 not suitable for the proposed use. In large measure they are unsuited because they would require significant disruption to existing established private uses situated on them and they do not have any of the existing waste treatment infrastructure on them that is situated on the subject 608-acre City -owned property. Moreover, there is no requirement to demonstrate that among EFU-zoned lands, one set of lands is better than another. This is because in Dayton Prairie Water Ass'n v. Yamhill County, 170 Or App 6 (2000), the court explained that to show "necessity", the applicant must demonstrate that there are no other non-EFU-zoned sites that could feasibly accommodate the utility facility. The court rejected an argument that the local government must compare alternative EFU-zoned sites and choose the site that is "least disruptive" to agriculture. 170 Or App at 11. Factors 1-6 below are the "factors" that must be considered in demonstrating that the proposed Redmond Wetlands Complex is a "necessary" utility facility. These factors mirror LCDC's factors for determining necessity at OAR 660-033-0130(16)(A)(i) — (vi). See also ORS 215.275(2). Items 7-12 are not "factors", but rather are additional criteria that mirror LCDC's additional criteria at OAR 660-033-0130(16)(B) — (G) (albeit in different order). Accordingly, the application must demonstrate that the Complex is "necessary" by showing that (1) reasonable alternatives (types of facilities and locations) have been considered (see above), and (2) the Complex must be sited on EFU-zoned land due + _44 +I o 1;�+_A * , i ti to Mill o, Vlore VL the hated tactors 1-6. The applicant provided the following additional response in their incomplete response dated May 1, 2023, related to their consideration of alternative sites: Below is an alternative site analysis of non-EFU zoned properties in the area surrounding the subject property: To the East: Abutting the property to the east, across Northwest Way, is Tax Lot 200, 14-13-29, an approximate 80.95 acre MUA-10 zoned parcel that is owned by the United States and managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Tax Lot 200 is too small to serve the City's wastewater treatment needs. And it is not desirable for the proposed facility as it directly abuts a residential subdivision, Squire Ridge Phases 1 through 3, to the east and south. This subdivision is also zoned MUA-10 and contains a total of twenty-three (23) lots that are developed with single family dwellings on lots that are approximately five (5) acres in size. Any potential impacts from noise or odor would certainly be greater on these residential lots within the Squire Ridge subdivision and parcels if the proposed facility were to be developed on Tax Lot 200. Additionally, Tax Lot 200 is physically separated from the existing facility by the County Road, Northwest Way, making it highly impractical. 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 26 of 84 Also adjoining Tax Lot 200 to the west are SM zoned tax lots (Tax lots 102, 103 and 104, 14-13- 29) that are committed to surface mining usage. To the Northeast: Lots within Westwood Acres Sections 1 and 2 directly abut the subject property to the west, located on the west side of Northwest Way. This residential subdivision is zoned MUA-10, with the lots being approximately 2.5 acres in size and it is developed with single family dwellings. There is inadequate space in this residential subdivision to use to convert it to serve the City's wastewater treatment needs. All the lots in this subdivision are developed with residences in any event. To the North and Northwest: To the north and northwest of Tax Lot 200 of the subject property are two blocks of MUA-10 zoning that are committed to residential usage within Crooked River Ranch (CRR) No. 4 and No. 5, respectively. Lots within these subdivisions are committed to single-family residential uses and are too small to accommodate the use. These blocks of MUA-10 zoned subdivision lots are located approximately 2.5 miles or farther north of the nearest component of the proposed facility (future disposal wetlands on Tax Lot 2600), making them an impractical location in any event. To the West: To the west, abutting Tax Lots 101 and 200 of the subject property, proximate to Tax Lot 2604 of the subject property, are MUA-10 zoned lots within various phases of the Tetherow Crossing subdivision, which are roughly between two and five acres in size and developed with singlefamily dwellings. There is inadequate land available in this development to eStabllSh ae111ties to Jer Ve the City'S WaJLGWMUI treatillent needs. Farther to the west of Tax Lot 200 of the subject property are MUA-10 zoned lots within Mark K Falls Estates Subdivision and River Springs Estates subdivision. Lots within these subdivisions are primarily 3.5 to 12 acres in size. There are also multiple MUA-10 zoned tax lots (many of which are partition platted parcels) outside of these subdivisions to the west that are up to 21 acres in size. Lots within these subdivisions are developed with single-family dwellings and are located over one (1) mile west of the proposed facility. None of these areas have property of sufficient size to support the proposal. Also, abutting Tax Lot 200 of the subject property to the west, on the west side of the Deschutes River and its associated deep canyon, are lots within Lower Bridge Estates subdivision that is zoned Rural Residential, 10-acre Minimum (RR-10). Many of these lots are developed with single family dwellings that are between 6 and 10 acres in size. The closest of these RR-10 zoned lots are over 1.5 miles west of the proposed facility (including expansion of existing treatment wetland and future disposal wetlands). Here too, there is insufficient area to establish a facility for the City's waste treatment needs. To the South and Southwest: 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 27 of 84 Properties abutting Tax Lots 101 and 201 of the subject property are zoned EFU- TRB. The property abutting Tax Lot 101 of the subject property to the west is Tax Lot 100, 14-13-33, zoned EFU-TRB, that is owned by the United States and managed by BLM. The BLM has not offered this property to the City. West and southwest of Tax Lot 100 is a large block of MUA-10 zoning comprised of smaller subdivision lots, 2.5 to 5 acres in size, within Tetherow Crossing, Phase IV Subdivision, developed with single-family dwellings, which has inadequate land to meet the City's treatment needs. Approximately one-half mile south of Tax lots 101 and 201 of the subject property is another large block of MUA-10 zoning that consists of lots within La Casa Mia Subdivision, comprising of approximate one -acre lots that are developed with single family dwellings. This also has inadequate area to satisfy the City's wastewater treatment needs. Farther south, there are small parcels developed with single-family dwellings and many devoted to hobby farm uses. These lands are also too small to satisfy the City's wastewater treatment needs. Even farther south, within this MUA-10 zoned block is Hidden Valley Mobile Estates No. 1. Subdivision, consisting of small lots (mostly .25 of an acre in size) that are developed with single-family dwellings, that has the same is — inadequate land area for the City's waste treatment needs. Beyond the block of MUA-10 zoning is property that is within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) of Redmond. Properties within all of the subdivisions surrounding the subject property, referenced above, zoned either MUA-10 or RR-10, are too small to accommodate the proposed use (requiring approximately 600 acres). All of these sites in the MUA-10, RR-10 and SM Zones, auuresscu aUUVe, are aheauy commiLtUU auU/U1 U�veloped o G11111:1 1eJ1U%AIHai or surface mining usage, therefore, there are no non-EFU zoned properties in the vicinity of the proposed expanded facility that are feasible alternative sites for the proposed use, considering the factors under 18.16.038 (A). Staff accepts the applicant's response above and notes the applicant considered reasonable, non-EFU zoned alternatives. However, Staff asks the Hearings Officer to make specific findings on this issue." Opponent's attorney, Mr. Liday's June 27, 2023 letter responded to this argument. He concurred with Staff that the standard quoted above in City of Albany v. Linn County, 40 OR LUBA 38, 47 (2001) was appropriate but argues: "The evidence in the record is that it is not only feasible to provide the wastewater treatment services at issue with only the lagoon and treatment wetlands located in EFU land, but that such an arrangement would be cheaper. The mere convenience of Staff in avoiding driving 2.5 miles (approximately a four -minute drive 9) to the treatment wetlands is not sufficient justification to relocate all the City's office and other facilities to protected farmland. Further, the City's reference to the purported "industry practice" of siting all facilities together is irrelevant because it does not address the actual issue of feasibility. As detailed in the City's 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 28 of 84 Feasibility Report, it is entirely feasible to pump treated wastewater to wetlands at another site for further polishing. In fact, the Roseburg Urban Sanitary Authority (RUSA) operates its facilities in this manner. The City of Roseburg's wastewater is first treated at RUSA's main [footnotes omitted] facility —located within Roseburg city limits —and then pumped to wetlands located on nearby EFU land. In fact, almost all treatment wetlands in Oregon are connected to primary facilities that are located within city limits. This includes, in addition to RUSA's facilities, Prineville's Crooked River Complex, Clean Water Services' Fernhill Facility in Forest Grove, the Silverton wastewater treatment plant, Albany's Talking Water Gardens facilities, and Cannon Beach's wastewater treatment complex. The City's failure to plan for future expansion of its current treatment site —instead allowing residential development to surround the treatment plant —does not now justify relocation of all its facilities to outside the city limits." Finding: I adopt Staff and the Applicant's legal and factual analysis as laid out above. As I described at the hearing, it is not my job as the Hearings Officer to second guess the elected officials at the City as to the most cost-effective and practical way to treat city effluent. My job is to apply the criteria to the facts. The City provided a reasonable argument supported by facts and expert testimony from Mr. Kirchner as to why the proposed facility is a unified utility facility that is solely dedicated to transporting and treating water. Kirchner Letter, Pages 1-4, July 5, 2023. That letter also explains why the City decided not to split up the site and why it is more cost effective to proceed with the present application. I find this compelling expert testimony and hereby adopt it. I find Mr. Liday's argument enlightening, but it does �- rebut t1 - -----_... tIeSt-1-,._...,._. r the City, 7 „1so concur .. 4L TR., TI„11.*__+__1, — 14— ---A not rCUUL Li1G GX1JG11 LGJI1111V11y 11V111 11tG City. 1 a1�V V11�u1 w1111 1V1.7. ts� 111i1�w11 1� a�v11u1� v11 u1� 11� u to have all facilities centrally located. Page 12 July 11, 2023 Applicant addresses the locational dependency of the project as well as factors 1 through 6 of ORS 215.275(2)(a)-(f) below and the Staff made the following finding. 1. Technical and engineering feasibility; "FINDING: The applicant provided the following statement in response to this criterion: `The proposed Redmond Wetlands Complex on the subject property complies with this factor as much of the utility facility on EFU lands is already devoted to this use and engineered plans demonstrate that the proposed expansion of the facilities that are already there, is feasible and of technically sound design. The applicant provided the following additional response to this criterion in their incomplete response dated May 1, 2023: The City's existing Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) at 3100 NW 19th Street, sits on roughly 30 acres on the north end of Redmond in the dry canyon. Treated effluent from this facility is conveyed to the property at 5801 Northwest Way that the City owns, through existing piping for disposal via irrigation. This existing 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 29 of 84 City WPCF located at 3100 NW 19th Street has reached its capacity to treat effluent as is demonstrated in detail in the City 2019 Wastewater Facility Plan at p 54-62. In sum, that plan demonstrates that the existing "Orbal" treatment system is either at or over capacity in 2020; disinfection is projected to be at or over capacity in 2025 and the infiltration basins are projected to be at or over capacity in 2025. The waste activated sludge ("WAS") storage maximum per each month at the existing NW 19th Street facility was at capacity in 2020 and dewatering was at capacity by 2020. The 3100 NW 19th Street property has inadequate area for long-term expansion of this system or to accommodate the new system that the City has selected to meet its current and projected wastewater treatment needs. The existing 3100 NW 19th Street site is situated in a canyon with steep basalt rock walls and simply provides no possibility of additional space for increased capacity. To respond to City needs, the City has chosen a wetland treatment technology that will meet the City's wastewater treatment needs using created wetlands. The proposed site is large enough to provide unlimited capacity to meet the City's short and long-term waste treatment and disposal needs. Although we note that the existing disposal methodology will not change at the Northwest Way site. The only thing that is changing at the Northwest Way site under the proposal is the addition of incoming processing using a headworks (a fully enclosed) facility, lagoons, disinfection building, and created wetlands for treatment. 111G l.11.y J new Il GQL111G11L 1QGlllly anU prVgr alll 1J e11v11 o11111e1110.1ty v1.11\.11clul aLLU 1J a program requiring a large volume of land to create wetlands for tertiary treatment of the effluent. The wetland treatment area needs exceed the amount of land available at the 3100 NW 19th Street site therefore rendering it technically and spatially infeasible.' Staff finds the applicant has provided a detailed response to why the facilities must be sited on EFU-zoned land due to technical and engineering requirements. However, Staff asks the Hearings Officer to make specific findings on whether the applicant has demonstrated that the facility must be sited in an exclusive farm use zone due to this factor." Finding: I find that the Applicant meets this criterion and adopt the Staff report and applicant's statement above as findings. The applicant provided expert testimony as to why the technical and engineering feasibility factor required siting the facility on EFU lands. See expert qualifications, Kircher letter, page 5, July 5, 2023. Although there was anecdotal testimony on why it could be sited elsewhere, there was no expert rebuttal testimony. 2. The proposed facility is locationally dependent. A utility facility is locationally dependent if it must cross land in one or more areas zoned for exclusive farm use in order to achieve a reasonably direct route or to meet unique geographical needs that cannot be satisfied on other lands; 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 30 of 84 "FINDING: The applicant provided the following statement in response to this criterion: `The proposed Redmond Wetlands Complex (expansion of an existing utility facility) is locationally dependent because the subject property is owned and operated by a municipality (City of Redmond) that also manages the existing utility service (WPCF site inside the Redmond City Limits) and the water treatment facilities are existing on the EFU-zoned subject property, as well as within an existing interceptor pipeline corridor. The interceptor pipelines must cross some EFU properties in order to achieve/maintain the existing reasonably direct route between the existing WPCF inside the Redmond City Limits and the proposed expanded treatment facility. That route already exists with existing easements and any new lands would require new easements and new disruptions the proposal can avoid by being on land already devoted to these uses. Additionally, the proposed facilities are locationally dependent as the proposal takes advantage of the existing facility compound, existing City ownership of the main 608 acres of land, a lease with BLM for use of Tax Lots 200 and 2600, existing easements and the interceptor pipelines, and existing ingress/egress easements, as well as the existing road system for the access road onto the subject property. Further, the subject property is owned and operated by a municipal utility provider and already has utility facilities. Thus, the only 1reasonably direct route is the one that already 4.. a 4i. i. .4.. �� 1A 4. v...o �n N� 11nnA 'f llr lli"� Ili1Pc nl'A Yl nt ntt nllm i'�Pr a"lliilnn 1 exisLJ a.11U L11G s1LV 311VulU eolil111uV LV VV uo�u iva u1aaaaa�u uaau aava vaavuaaavva uuaaavaaa EFU lands with utilities for which they are not now devoted. Based on the above, coupled with plans submitted with the applications, the facility is locationally dependent, as the there are no suitable non-EFU zoned lands for the proposed use and especially because the proposal is to expand an existin utility facility, as described above.' The applicant provided the following additional response to this criterion in their incomplete response dated May 1, 2023: `The proposed facility is locationally dependent. The City must significantly increase its wastewater treatment capacity. It cannot do that at the existing dry canyon facility. The City's existing wastewater disposal at 5801 Northwest Way is already situated on that site that is proposed to be the sites of the City's treatment facilities. It is an efficient and prudent use of scarce public funding resources to consolidate operations at the existing 5801 Northwest Way site now used for a part of the City's wastewater processing needs, which site will be a suitable size for the City's current and long- term waste treatment and disposal needs. There is already piping that connects City sewage to the 5801 Northwest Way site. Currently, that piping connects to the dry canyon treatment facility to convey the treated effluent to the 5801 Northwest Way 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 31 of 84 site. Under the proposal, the existing conveyance system will continue to be used only under the proposal, untreated effluent will be conveyed directly from the existing piping that serves the user to the 5801 Northwest Way site for treatment as well as disposal. To reach the 5801 Northwest Way site, the effluent piping system now crosses and must continue to cross land zoned exclusive farm use. That already reasonably direct route now exists and the proposal merely increases the size of the existing conveyancing piping system (increasing the size of one of the two existing conveyance pipes) in order to maintain that reasonably direct route. The City also notes that due to the large volume of acreage needed for the proposed wetland treatment technology, the City's existing WPCF site is too small for the City's wastewater treatment needs. The proposed RWC will consolidate City operations at the City's existing wastewater disposal site and will be located adjacent to the existing City effluent disposal area (orchard grass farm) and the existing City waste solids drying beds. To meet its wastewater disposal needs, the City has leased roughly 36 acres of land from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) since 1978, for use as infiltration basins for ground water recharge. Through that relationship, the opportunity to purchase an additional 640 acres of BLM land adjacent to the existing facilities arose. Currently, the City possesses a deed allowing it exclusive use of roughly 610 acres of land which includes the existing drying beds, sewage conveyance lines, a 36-acre recycled water irrigation pond, a 146-acre orchard grass farm upon which treated effluent is sprinkled and a large buffer area. When the City obtains the allUltlonal acreage Horn uL1vl `an it necessary, l completes a partition process to separate it from the BLM's larger holdings), the entire City site will total roughly 1,250 acres. This entire 1,250-acre City property will be used in the following manner: • roughly 200 acres will contain lagoons, chlorine treatment, wetlands treatment and disposal wetlands. • 146-acre orchard grass farm on which treated wastewater will be deposited as irrigation (as is currently being performed). • 36-acre recycled water irrigation pond. • Remaining acreage to be used as buffer from surrounding properties. The current operation contains large acreages (610 acres owned by City + 35 acres owned by USA/BLM and leased by the City) that now provides a buffer from surrounding properties. The addition of the BLM property that the City plans to acquire and consolidate with its other holdings as a part of the proposal, provides room for the needed wetlands operations based on current population projections as well as provides additional space for expansions in the future that will be necessary in order to serve the fast-growing Redmond community. Further, the total 1,250 acres will provide a buffer from the proposed wetlands to the nearest residences. This facility is locationally dependent for these reasons.' 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 32 of 84 As noted throughout this Staff report, the existing interceptor pipeline utilizes non-EFU zoned lands along the project route. However, based on the zoning of the area, the pipeline crosses lands that are in one or more areas zoned EFU. As the applicant states, the interceptor pipeline route already exists within existing easements and any new lands would require new easements and new disruptions that can be avoided by utilizing the existing pipeline route. Staff notes the applicant has proposed a preferred realignment of a portion of the pipeline as discussed later in this report. However, the alternative realignment would not be located on private, EFU-zoned properties and is addressed in the responses to DCC 18.32, 18.124 and 18.128. Staff finds the proposed interceptor pipeline replacement, where located on private, EFU- zoned properties, is locationally dependent to take advantage of existing easements and minimize disruption to EFU-zoned lands. Regarding the wastewater treatment facilities, Staff generally agrees with the applicant's response regarding its locational dependence on EFU-zoned land. However, Staff asks the Hearings Officer to snake specific findings on whether the applicant has demonstrated that the facility must be sited in an exclusive farm use zone due to this factor. Post hearing, Mr. Liday submitted arguments that: "The Feasibility Report states that only the new lagoons and treatment wetlands need to be EFU i 4 bUl(L On the IJl"U site aIlU tIIill Illallltallling tllG Ut11G1 1ae1uuGs in duGu Giiiiciit ,vuauv„ wou,u save the City money, both now and in the long run. The 2020 WFP Amendment stated that the disposal wetlands are not necessary. [footnotes omitted] Liday letter, page 2, June 27, 2023." The Applicant responded: One opponent argues that it is feasible for the City to provide its wastewater treatment services with only the lagoon and treatment wetlands on the EFU site, citing a Lagoon and Wetland Treatment and Disposal Feasibility Evaluation prepared for the City from 2020 ("2020 Feasibility Study") and the City's 2020 Wastewater Facility Plan Amendment ("2020 WFPA"). However, they misinterpret those documents. The Feasibility Study was just that — a study. It presented three alternatives for City to consider — expanding the existing mechanical treatment plant at existing City site; new treatment lagoons and treatment wetlands at EFU site and utilizing the existing City site for existing headworks and other support facilities; new lagoon and wetland treatment plant with support facilities at EFU site — the Feasibility Study did not recommend one alternative over another. Rather, it left that choice to City, considering capital cost, life cycle cost, land and future expandability, and community benefits of alternatives. Similarly, the 2020 WFPA does not support opponents' claims that the entirety of the proposed facility is unnecessary either. The 2020 WFPA (as well as the 2023 WFPA) recommended moving the entire facility to the proposed EFU site, based on alternative rankings considering the City's stated objectives. The 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 33 of 84 relevant analyses acknowledged that the City has critical short- and long-term waste treatment and disposal needs that are not met at the Dry Canyon site. The Dry Canyon site cannot be expanded to meet the City's long-term treatment or disposal needs, regardless of the type of system the City employs to manage waste treatment and disposal. While at great expense the Dry Canyon site could be upgraded to provide short and perhaps medium -term capacity, it is impossible for the Dry Canyon site to be expanded enough meet the City's long-term treatment needs. There is no serious dispute on this record that no matter what, the City must look elsewhere for its long-term needs. Kellington Letter, page 13, July 11, 2023. Finding: I find that the Applicant meets this criterion based on the findings in the Staff report above. I find that the transmission line must cross EFU lands in order to take advantage of existing pipelines and easements and to access the existing treatment facility. I agree that the facility is locationally dependent because it needs to take advantage of these existing easements and ownerships. I agree the existing facility is too small to accommodate the method of waste treatment that the City has selected. Kirchner letter page 2, July 5, 2023. As stated before, it is not the role of the Hearings Officer to second guess the method of waste water treatment. I adopt Ms. Kellington's argument that the utility provider has discretion on the type of treatment to provide. Kellington letter, pages 13-14, July 11, 2023. As to the argument that the City could build just the wetlands on the EFU or make the existing facilities work, I agree with Ms. Kellington's response quoted above. This is supported by the Kirchner Letter, page 2, July 5„ 2023. In that letter, Mr. Kirchner, quotes the summary of project alternatives. One of those alternatives is for "New Lagoons and Wetlands with Existing Facilities" with a capital cost of $38.5 _rmc� o :iu a1. _ :n ia_ i_ A , t. t- :i, . 1n , rt.-. o l million and a 20-year cost o 'S52.o million utat Witt ttncly neeU w Ue rcvutiL iii zv years. 1 hat is compared to "New Lagoon and Wetland Treatment Plant with Support Facilities at New Site" with a capital cost of $41.6 million and a 20-year cost of $53.9 million but with a life expectancy of in excess of 50 years. While the former may save a few million, for a little more, the City gains 30 plus years of life expectancy among other benefits. Although beyond the scope of my authority as stated above, I find the City Council made the reasonable choice on how and where to treat its wastewater. Finally, the primary law affecting all, makes the site locationally dependent, gravity. 3. Lack of available urban and nonresource lauds; "FINDING: The applicant provided the following statement in response to this criterion: `There no nearby urban and nonresource lands that are suitable for the proposed use. The existing WPCF in the City of Redmond is not capable of handling the anticipated capacity resulting from expected population growth of Redmond. It is an aged system that is too small for the benign environmentally pleasing, responsible and efficient proposal here for a wetlands complex to treat City effluent. There is insufficient room on the existing parcel in the UGB to create wetlands for a complex as is proposed here. Moreover, expansion of a wastewater treatment facility is not compatible with a rapidly growing surrounding urban environment, nor an efficient 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 34 of 84 use of urban lands, as here. The interceptor pipelines exist within the established corridor that traverses multiple public road rights -of -way, eight (8) privately owned tax lots outside of the UGB and the subject property. Thus, it is most efficient, least disruptive and best for the fulfillment of the public's interests to continue using the existing 608-acre treatment facility site and existing pipeline corridors for the sewerage facilities to which they are already devoted rather than to encumber additional EFU lands with new utilities. The existing facility on the subject 608-acre property, existing rights -of -way and existing easements, is owned and operated by a municipal utility provider and already has utility facilities. The facility must be sited in an exclusive farm use zone because in part that is where these facilities already are. This factor is met.' The applicant provided the following additional response to this criterion in their incomplete response dated May 1, 2023: `As explained above, the RWC requires roughly 1,250 acres of land for effective wastewater treatment, providing adequate room for long-term expansion and appropriate buffer area. This technology, while environmentally beneficial, is land intensive. Urban land acreage of this size is not available at all and there is no other non -resource land in the vicinity of where the City's existing sewage conveyance lines already deliver wastewater.' c _rr ��_ �1 al 1: ��� L7 C� 4f �L� +l,- Llo,r:,, .� n4frl Stall generally agrees with the applicant s response. 'However, Slaii asks Lill, Ixv"Iiii E,J Vince. to make specific findings on whether the applicant has demonstrated that the facility must be sited in an exclusive farm use zone due to this factor." Finding: I find that the Application meets this criterion. I adopt the findings above and additionally adopt as findings the Alternative Analysis in Ms. Kellington's letter, pages 14-16, July 11, 2023, and her finding on page 19 on this criterion in the same letter. 4. Availability of existing rights of way; "FINDING: The applicant provided the following statement in response to this criterion: `The interceptor pipelines are within an existing and available corridor that traverses public road rights -of -way as well as private easements and will continue to be utilized. No expansion into additional rights -of -way is proposed. Therefore, this factor is met. The applicant provided the following additional response to this criterion in their incomplete response dated May 1, 2023: Existing rights of way are proposed to continue to be used for the conveyance of wastewater to the proposed site. The RWC will benefit from existing rights -of -way and existing sewer line easements that already provide the necessary alignment for 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 35 of 84 the existing pipelines that convey wastewater to the RWC. These existing rights of way and easements will be relied on as the City replaces one of the existing 24-inch conveyance lines with a 48-inch line.' Staff generally agrees with the applicant's response. A portion of the proposed project, the interceptor pipeline replacement, will include the use of existing rights -of -way. Northwest Way, NW Coyner and NW Pershall are zoned EFU. However, there are no nearby non-EFU zoned rights -of -way to be utilized. Finding: I agree and adopt as findings the Staff report above. Additionally, the Applicant's proposed alternative will move more of the pipeline into existing ROWs. 5. Public health and safety; and "FINDING: The applicant provided the following statement in response to this criterion: `The project is proposed as an expansion of the City's existing sanitary sewer treatment and disposal facilities necessary to meet the City's growing needs and address aging infrastructure concerns. Redmond has grown significantly since its first wastewater treatment facility was installed in 1978. It is projected that by 2045, Redmond's population will be 58,000, a 60% increase in the city's population today. Redmond's current wastewater system can process and treat just 2.8 million gallons a__. ._a . t a a a a +..--+ +J A K «�:t1: . 11,...., --- per day and must a expanded In older tv FroCeSS arru LivaL L11e -r.v 11u1rrvrr 6arrvr13 F%" day required to serve the projected 2045 population. Neglecting to expand the facility, as proposed, in its existing location could potentially lead to public health and safety concerns. This factor is met.' The applicant provided the following additional response to this criterion in their incomplete response dated May 1, 2023: `Public health and safety requires that the City establish a wastewater treatment facility with adequate capacity for the City's current and long-term needs. Many of the existing treatment components are already over -capacity. Establishing new wastewater conveyance routes and negotiating new easements for a new route would cause significant delay in the City's ability to provide the needed treatment capacity. Public health and safety is not served by delaying the proposal simply for the sake of establishing new conveyance locations, when there are perfectly good existing locations and existing easements that can be used and that enable efficient establishment of needed service capacity.' Staff generally agrees with the applicant that public health and safety is a limiting factor with respect to where this type of utility facility can be sited. However, Staff asks the Hearings 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 36 of 84 Officer to make specific findings on whether the applicant has demonstrated that the facility must be sited in an exclusive farm use zone due to this factor. Finding: I agree with Staff and adopt as findings the Staff report quoted above. There was no factual dispute in the record of the need to update the City's wastewater treatment. The rapid growth of the City is uncontroversial and the health and safety of the residents and nearby communities requires an expansion of the system. 6. Other requirements of state and federal agencies "FINDING: The applicant provided the following statement in response to this criterion: `At present, there are no state or federal requirements that the expanded utility facility must be sited in any particular zone including not in any exclusive farm use zone. This factor does not apply.' The applicant provided the following additional response to this criterion in their incomplete response dated May 1, 2023: `At this time the only required permit will be a 1200-C (construction stormwater general permit) from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.' c'��_rt` finds ..1__ applicant ,....,.a .T: ,7 not assert aL -, AL, ,. F ,.:1:4., ..... „� 1-„-.*4-,l *- 4L - UUT T 7,.... ,, ,T,— +- Staf fnds he applicanll UlU not assert LilaL Lllk. 1ae111Ly 111UJL lJl, .J1LGU 111 Lill, "I U Done LLLLG IV this factor. Staff finds this criterion does not apply. Finding: I agree with Staff that this criterion does not apply. There was no additional testimony addressing it. Next the Staff report addresses ORS 215.275(3)(4)(5) and (6) . 7. Costs associated with any of the factors listed in 1-6 above may be considered, but cost alone may not be the only consideration in determining that a utility facility is necessary for public service. Land costs shall not be included when considering alternative locations for substantially similar utility facilities that are not substantially similar. "FINDING: The applicant provided the following statement in response to this criterion: `Applicant does not contend that the facility must be sited in an exclusive farm use zone due to cost alone under this factor. However, the cost of purchasing new land can and should be considered, particularly, because the facility exists and approximately 608 acres of the facility's land is already owned by the City of Redmond and the interceptor pipeline exists within a corridor that possesses 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 37 of 84 easements and right-of-way permits. A copy of the existing easements are attached as Exhibit D to this application.' The applicant provided the following additional response to this criterion in their incomplete response dated May 1, 2023: `There is no suitable urban land for the project. The costs of acquiring new non - resource land for the project and of abandoning the existing conveyance system, establishing a conveyance system to a new site and then to the existing City drying and disposal facilities situated at the subject property is cost prohibitive, not to mention wasteful. Moreover, there are no suitable alternative non -resource lands for the proposed consolidated wastewater treatment operations, in any event. The City reviewed County records in scanned documents and permits in Deschutes County DIAL, and did not find any complaints on record regarding the City's existing farm uses irrigated with treated effluent and or the City's existing biosolid drying or any other part of the existing facility on Northwest Way. The proposal will add treatment facilities and expanded wetlands disposal facilities to the existing disposal facilities on the Northwest Way site. Any non -resource zoned property must not only be large enough to accommodate the proposed expansion of the facility, but must also be in reasonable proximity to the existing conveyance lines and have adequate distance from residential uses (as is proposed) to provide a buffer. Below,.._, 1�,.«...,f. ,., 40 1. f _RRT T nnn ed prop—ti— in the area Below is an alItIC1T1aLlvC STw analysis v. iivii-,..,, v v.iv�x Y Y surrounding the subject property: To the East: Abutting the property to the east, across Northwest Way, is Tax Lot 200, 14-13-29, an approximate 80.95 acre MUA-10 zoned parcel that is owned by the United States and managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Tax Lot 200 is too small to serve the City's wastewater treatment needs. And it is not desirable for the proposed facility as it directly abuts a residential subdivision, Squire Ridge Phases 1 through 3, to the east and south. This subdivision is also zoned MUA-10 and contains a total of twenty-three (23) Lots that are developed with single family dwellings on lots that are approximately five (5) acres in size. Any potential impacts from noise or odor would certainly be greater on these residential lots within the Squire Ridge subdivision and parcels if the proposed facility were to be developed on Tax Lot 200. Additionally, Tax Lot 200 is physically separated from the existing facility by the County Road, Northwest Way, making it highly impractical. Also adjoining Tax Lot 200 to the west are SM zoned tax lots (Tax lots 102, 103 and 104, 14-13- 29) that are committed to surface mining usage. To the Northeast: Lots within Westwood Acres Sections 1 and 2 directly abut the subject property to the west, located on the west side of Northwest Way. This residential subdivision is zoned MUA-10, with the lots being approximately 2.5 acres in size and it is 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 38 of 84 developed with single family dwellings. There is inadequate space in this residential subdivision to use to convert it to serve the City's wastewater treatment needs. All the lots in this subdivision are developed with residences in any event. To the North and Northwest: To the north and northwest of Tax Lot 200 of the subject property are two blocks of MUA-10 zoning that are committed to residential usage within Crooked River Ranch (CRR) No. 4 and No. 5, respectively. Lots within these subdivisions are committed to single-family residential uses and are too small to accommodate the use. These blocks of MUA-10 zoned subdivision lots are located approximately 2.5 miles or farther north of the nearest component of the proposed facility (future disposal wetlands on Tax Lot 2600), making them an impractical location in any event. To the West: To the west, abutting Tax Lots 101 and 200 of the subject property, proximate to Tax Lot 2604 of the subject property, are MUA-10 zoned lots within various phases of the Tetherow Crossing subdivision, which are roughly between two and five acres in size and developed with singlefamily dwellings. There is inadequate land available in this development to establish facilities to serve the City's wastewater treatment needs. Farther to the west of Tax Lot 200 of the subject property are MUA-10 zoned lots within Mark K Falls Estates Subdivision and River Springs Estates subdivision. Lots within these subdivisions are primarily 3.5 to 12 acres in size. There are also multiple MUA-10 zoned tax lots (many of which are partition platted parcels) outside of these _/_ _1, al_ ,.4 4T. ,.4 4.. 'l i T ..4.. *4T.. 41, .1. �. subdivls l ons to the west ul-t are up to 21 acres In size. LVW Wltl l In t11G se sUVU1v1J1ol1J are developed with single-family dwellings and are located over one (1) mile west of the proposed facility. None of these areas have property of sufficient size to support the proposal. Also, abutting Tax Lot 200 of the subject property to the west, on the west side of the Deschutes River and its associated deep canyon, are lots within Lower Bridge Estates subdivision that is zoned Rural Residential, 10-acre Minimum (RR-10). Many of these lots are developed with single family dwellings that are between 6 and 10 acres in size. The closest of these RR-10 zoned lots are over 1.5 miles west of the proposed facility (including expansion of existing treatment wetland and future disposal wetlands). Here too, there is insufficient area to establish a facility for the City's waste treatment needs. To the South and Southwest: Properties abutting Tax Lots 101 and 201 of the subject property are zoned EFU- TRB. The property abutting Tax Lot 101 of the subject property to the west is Tax Lot 100, 14-13-33, zoned EFU-TRB, that is owned by the United States and managed by BLM. The BLM has not offered this property to the City. West and southwest of Tax Lot 100 is a large block of MUA-10 zoning comprised of smaller subdivision lots, 2.5 to 5 acres in size, within Tetherow Crossing, Phase IV Subdivision, developed with single-family dwellings, which has inadequate land to meet the City's treatment needs. Approximately one-half mile south of Tax lots 101 and 201 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 39 of 84 of the subject property is another large block of MUA-10 zoning that consists of lots within La Casa Mia Subdivision, comprising of approximate one -acre lots that are developed with single family dwellings. This also has inadequate area to satisfy the City's wastewater treatment needs. Farther south, there are small parcels developed with single-family dwellings and many devoted to hobby farm uses. These lands are also too small to satisfy the City's wastewater treatment needs. Even farther south, within this MUA-10 zoned block is Hidden Valley Mobile Estates No. 1. Subdivision, consisting of small lots (mostly .25 of an acre in size) that are developed with single-family dwellings, that has the same is — inadequate land area for the City's waste treatment needs. Beyond the block of MUA-10 zoning is property that is within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) of Redmond. Properties within all of the subdivisions surrounding the subject property, referenced above, zoned either MUA-10 or RR-10, are too small to accommodate the proposed use (requiring approximately 600 acres). All of these sites in the MUA-10, RR-10 and SM Zones, addressed above, are already committed and/or developed to either residential or surface mining usage, therefore, there are no non-EFU zoned properties in the vicinity of the proposed expanded facility that are feasible alternative sites for the proposed use, considering the factors under 18.16.038 (A).' Staff finds the analysis provided under subsections (1-6), above, do not rely on cost alone to demonstrate the utility facility is necessary for public service." Finding: I find that the Application meets this criterion and adopt as findings the Staff report quoted above. Additionally, I will add that the Applicant stated: "[w] e note than none of the evaluated alternatives could even accommodate the 610-acre site (without room for expansion and additional buffer)." Kellington letter, page 14, fn 3, July 11, 2023. 1 have found nothing in the record contrary to this statement. 8. The owner of a utility facility approved under this section shall be responsible for restoring, as nearly as possible, to its former condition any agricultural land and associated improvements that are damaged or otherwise disturbed by the siting, maintenance, repair or reconstruction of the facility. Nothing in this subsection shall prevent the owner of the utility facility front requiring a bond or other security from a contractor or otherwise imposing on a contractor the responsibility for restoration. "FINDING: The applicant provided the following statement in response to this criterion: `This factor provides that the owner of the utility facility shall be responsible for restoring, as nearly as possible, to its former condition any land and associated 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 40 of 84 improvements that may be damaged or otherwise disturbed by the siting, maintenance, repair or reconstruction of the facility. Applicant proposes to employ standard Erosion and Sedimentation Control Measures and Best Management Practices (BMP's) consistent with construction work in this region, which will be outlined in the contractor's Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan, compliance with which can be made a condition of approval. Additionally, Applicant proposes to restore disturbed work areas with native seeding at a minimum and will adhere to warranted conditions of the land use approval and easement terms. This provision is met.' Staff finds construction, and associated ground disturbances will be limited to within the subject properties. Due to the large size of the subject property for the wastewater treatment facilities and the amount of undeveloped land that will remain as a buffer, Staff believes it is unlikely the proposed use will damage agricultural land. As it pertains to the pipeline replacement within EFU-zoned land, the applicant proposes to restore disturbed work areas with native seeding and adhere to any conditions of approval or easement agreement terms. However, to ensure compliance, Staff recommends the following conditions of approval: Land Restoration: The owner of the utility facility shall be responsible for restoring, as nearly as possible, to its former condition any lands zoned EFU and associated improvements that damaged ,.4I-,. A. -a -1-,.A 1-4L.- n.+;_ .-,1� c.4rt n4, `. -ff— are damaged or VUlOrVvrse U1J1Utueu uy 111G 151U11g, rr1ar11wnance, repair or `ieconst,t �,uvi. of ulw facility. Erosion Control Plan: Prior to the start of construction activities, the applicant shall provide an Erosion Control Plan to the Planning Division prepared by a licensed, professional engineer. Staff recommends that a licensed, professional engineer use the Central Oregon Stormwater Manual as the basis for the plan. As conditioned, Staff finds this criterion will be met." Finding: I find that the based on the Staff report quoted above and as conditioned above, the Application meets this criterion. As to land condition, testimony in the record is that the disturbed soils on the easements, have created persistent weeds. As such, a condition will be imposed to help remedy that problem. See below. 9. In addition to the provisions of 1-6 above, the establishment or extension of a sewer system as defined by OAR 660-011-0060(1)(f) in an exclusive farm use zone shall be subject to the provisions of OAR 660-011-0060. FINDING: The applicant provided the following statement in response to this criterion: 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 41 of 84 The Complex is not the "establishment" or "extension" of a sewer system as those terms are defined in OAR 660-011-0060(1). This factor is inapplicable. Staff agrees and finds the proposed project is not the establishment or extension of a sewer system. However, Staff asks the Hearings Officer to make a specific finding on this issue. Finding: I agree 10. The provisions above do not apply to interstate gas pipelines and associated facilities authorized by and subject to regulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. FINDING: The applicant provided the following statement in response to this criterion: No interstate gas pipelines, and associated facilities are proposed. This criterion is inapplicable. Staff agrees and finds this criterion does not apply. Finding: I agree. 11. The County shall impose clear and objective conditions on an application for utility facility siting to mitigate and minimize the impacts of the proposed facility, if any, on surrounding lands devoted to farm use, in order to prevent a significant change in accepted farm practices or a significant increase in the cost of farm practices on surrounding farmlands. "FINDING: The applicant provided the following statement in response to this criterion: `Factor 11 provides that the County may impose only clear and objective conditions to mitigate and minimize impacts to farm practices on surrounding farmlands to prevent either a significant change in accepted farming practices or a significant increase in their costs. No significant adverse impacts to surrounding lands devoted to farm use will occur as a result of this project. Other than the irrigated center -pivot hay fields on the City - owned portion of the subject property, the EFU-zoned land being utilized for this project is primarily undeveloped, non -irrigated land not in intensive farm use. The facility itself on the 608-acre parcel will have no impact on farming on surrounding lands. Similarly, other than temporary construction impacts, the enlargement of the City's existing pipelines will not cause significant adverse impacts to accepted farming practices or their costs because all work will be temporary and will be coordinated with the underlying landowners. Moreover, at the completion of the project, the interceptor pipeline will be below grade and disturbance to any impacted land will be negligible. Thus, no significant change to accepted farm practices or change in fanning costs are anticipated. Therefore, no mitigation is required.' 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 42 of 84 The applicant provided the following additional response to this criterion in their incomplete response dated May 1, 2023: `Regarding factor 11, the applicant has established that the proposed use would not have any negative impacts on farm uses in the area that would either cause a significant increase in the cost of accepted farming practices or a significant change in accepted farming practices. There are a very limited number of surrounding properties that are devoted to farm use — especially in the direct vicinity of where the RWC facility will be located. The wetlands will be constructed west of the City's existing pivot systems. There are no lands devoted to farm use adjacent to this area or within a distance of approximately 1,000 feet. In review of aerial photographs, the nearest agricultural operation to the west is located approximately 1.5 miles. The nearest agricultural operation to the southwest is located approximately one-half mile. Most of the lands to the west and south are dry, high desert, undulating landscape not devoted to farm use. There is also a rural residential subdivision zoned MUA-10 west and south of the property with little acreage devoted to farm use except for the noted pivot system. There are no roads that will lead to the west from the RWC further limiting any impact from vehicular traffic. The lands to the east-northeast, contain lands devoted to farm use. A review of aerial photographs shows that there are a variety of irrigated properties located between T II ,,.i__--"-- 11'7 ,-.,. .1 4L. ,_ _ ...: �.. _V NT117 TAT,. «til...,,.,,ti 117....7T.T\77 21 _, C�+..,. ,.F _. _I.. FlIgh ay 97 anU the vicinity V1 IV VV 1VVI L1IW%,M VV ay/IN VV J1JL JLI"L, apprvx1111aLGIy one -quarter mile from the subject property boundary and over one mile from the any of the proposed facilities. Of particular note is that the existing operation which now occurs onsite does not introduce adverse impacts to the farm uses in the area. In fact, the existing operation provides irrigation water to four pivot systems and roughly 146 acres of orchard grass hay farming which produces 830 tons annually - allowing farm use in the vicinity to occur versus disrupting such uses. The expanded operations of the RWC does not introduce activities that are disruptive to accepted farming practices or increase the costs of such practices. Operations of the head works, treatment lagoons and wetland ponds requires use of some heavy machinery but is mostly controlled through operational control devices with occasional manual maintenance. The County specifically requested information related to odor and noise. The facility relies on aeration systems and lagoons for treatment. Proper operation of the system assures that the aeration systems are working properly which manages odor. Further, the lagoons have a water cap which also contains odors. See the detailed explanation for more information on this issue. Odor from this facility will be much lower in comparison to odors emitted from allowed farm uses such as livestock operations and hemp production. The evidence 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 43 of 84 is that the proposal will not negatively impact accepted farm practices or increase the cost of allowed farming practices, significantly or otherwise. Specific Response to Odor Concerns: To begin with, it must be noted that the proposed RWC uses a treatment process that generates far less odors than the City's existing treatment plan. Thus, odor concerns based upon the City's existing dry canyon treatment facility are inapplicable to the proposal. Detectable off -site odors from the City's current operation originate from the biosolids operation at the Dry Canyon site. Currently, these odorous biosolids are conveyed on an open belt into trucks at the plant and then driven to and dumped on a paved drying pad at the Northwest Way site. As the concentration of biosolids moves through the current system, from aeration basins to the dump trucks, odors are generated that people off -site may note. The proposed RWC will not have any external biosolids operations as the biosolids will be contained and treated in lagoons as detailed below. Not only will the new operation eliminate external biosolids handling, it will also eliminate the current odorous activity at the existing drying pad and land application located at the Northwest Way site. The proposed facility consists of the following treatment processes where potential for odor generation exists: Headworks: The headworks describes the part of the proposed facility that will receive raw wastewater from the City conveyance pipes, and will screen it to remove debris. The debris that is removed is washed with equipment before it is transported into dumpsters and hauled to the landfill for disposal. The screen, washing system, transport system, and dumpsters are enclosed in the "headworks" building in order to contain possible odors Lagoons: Lagoon technology is one of the most popular methods for wastewater treatment around the world and they have been in use for hundreds of years. Lagoons are relatively inexpensive in terms of equipment, maintenance, operating cost, energy cost and labor. When wastewater enters a lagoon that has a large volumetric capacity, it stays in the lagoon for an extended period of time. This allows bacteria to grow and remove many of the components of the wastewater. The current treatment plant in the Dry Canyon is a compact mechanical activated sludge treatment facility, which differs greatly in operation and design than the proposed Redmond Wetlands Complex lagoon natural treatment system. Lagoon treatment systems have less 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 44 of 84 concentrated odors than mechanical treatment systems and when operated within design parameters produce nominal odors. The proposed lagoon cell treatment system will have 96% more water and 97% less solids concentration than the current treatment plant aeration basins in the Dry Canyon. As a result, off -site odors are not expected. By way of comparison, consider the below: Current Mechanical Treatment System: Total Aeration Basins (*2) Volume — 3.8 million gallons Aeration Basins Concentration — 2,500 parts per million Proposed Lagoon Treatment System: Total Lagoon Cells (5) Volume — 93.6 million gallons Lagoon Average Cells Concentration — 67 parts per million This treatment approach creates a situation where the wastewater to be treated is diluted significantly and treated over a larger area which reduces associated odors. Treatment Wetlands: The treatment wetlands will receive oxygenated and disinfected water into a shallow wetland system. These wetlands will have a mild, moist, earthy smell, similar to the existing irrigation pond at the site. Disposal Wetlands: The Disposal Wetlands will have similar odor to the treatment wetlands except that they will at times be dry, based on City operations. During times when they are dry, they will have no odor. The reality is that generation of odor is significantly reduced compared to the City's existing treatment facility due to the dispersed nature of the treatment processes, the diluted nature of the wastewater to be treated and the lack of solids handling. No off - site odors are anticipated from the disposal wetlands. Because offsite odors are not anticipated, there is no reasonable possibility that there will be any offsite odors that could significantly increase the cost of accepted farming practices or significantly change accepted farming practices. Finally, we note that the land application of biosolids is permitted by right in the Exclusive Farm Use Zone, which can and does produce odors. Deschutes County Code (DCC) Section 18.16.020 provides the following (excerpted): 18.16.020 Uses Permitted Outright The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright: 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 45 of 84 1) Farm use as defined in DCC Title 18. 14) The land application of reclaimed water, agricultural process or industrial process water or biosolids, or the onsite treatment of septage prior to the land application of biosolids, for agricultural, horticultural or silvicultural production, or.for irrigation in connection with a use allowed in an exclusive farm use zone, subject to the issuance of a license, permit or other approval by the Department of Environmental Quality under ORS 454.695, 459.205, 468B.053 or 468B.055, or in compliance with rules adopted under ORS 468B.095, and with the requirements of ORS 215.246 to 215.251. For the purposes of this section, onsite treatment of septage prior to the land application of biosolids is limited to treatment using treatment facilities that are portable, temporary and transportable by truck trailer, as defined in ORS 801.580, during a period of time within which land application of biosolids is authorized under the license, permit or other approval. Specific Response to ground water concerns: Some commentators have expressed concerns about the proposal on groundwater. Since the late 1970's the City has discharged all of its treated wastewater and biosolids at the proposed project site located at Northwest Way. To protect groundwater and all waters of the State, Oregon Department of EiiViroiiiiieiitai Quality (DEQ) stringently regulates the City's operations. City Staff analyze and report to DEQ over a thousand water quality tests a year. Staff monitor and perform monthly water quality analysis at seven (7) different ground water monitoring locations at the proposed site on Northwest Way. In over forty years of discharging treated wastewater at this site the City has never had a groundwater permit violation with DEQ. While the proposed project is moving the treatment process to a new location, the discharge of the treated wastewater is largely unchanged and will continue with additional monitoring. There is no new possible groundwater impact anticipated from the proposal because the only connection between the groundwater is a connection that now exists and will continue to exist and will not change under the proposal. There has never been an issue with ground water, and none is expected. Therefore, the proposal cannot and will not have any impact on groundwater, let alone a significant one on the cost of accepted farming practices and will not cause any significant change to accepted farming practices. Specific Response to mosquito concerns: Some commentators expressed concern that the proposal will cause mosquito infestations. The proposal will create wetlands and wetland areas which are natural 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 46 of 84 habitat for a variety of insects, macro invertebrates, amphibians, waterfowl, and other animal life. We note at the outset that there has not been a mosquito problem under the existing Northwest Way operations. The City has contracted mosquito monitoring for the past two years and is committed to continuing this monitoring to ensure a mosquito nuisance is not introduced in the area. If a mosquito problem occurs, the City will implement control measures. However, many created wetland systems that treat waste similarly to what is being proposed in this instance have been analyzed to determine whether they cause an increase in mosquito populations. The conclusion of those analyses is that once a mature ecosystem has been established, mosquito predators become present and consume the mosquito population. If there is a problem in the interim, the City will address it using best practices. However, the wetland systems receiving wastewater that have been studied, have recorded lower numbers of mosquitos than that of the surrounding agricultural areas receiving irrigation, and lower than residential areas with open water ditches and irrigated lawns. Accordingly, the proposal will not have any impact on accepted farm practices or their costs regarding mosquitoes, and in the unlikely event that any problem should arise, the City will mitigate it with mosquito control measures. Specific Response to Access Concerns There nave been c;onc;enns expressed regarding access to ui� PI VPV6�U ia',iiiLy auu IDS associated traffic. At the outset we note that the truck traffic that currently trucks biosolids from the existing dry canyon site to the Norwest Way site, will stop. Therefore, the proposal results in a significant decrease in truck traffic on the surrounding road network. Access proposed for the RWC will rely on the same access that is already in place. Additional circulation will be constructed within the site but will not extend beyond the facility. In other words, no new road connections from the site to surrounding existing roads will be constructed. This reality limits the traffic to and from the site to relying on the access that already exists. This also limits impact on surrounding lands generally and imposes no significant changes or significant increased costs in accepted farm practices on surrounding lands. Specific Response to Noise Concerns The source of noise from this facility consists of operations of farm machinery for the 146-acre orchard grass farm and vehicles driving to and from the site. These operations occur now with no noise complaints and detectable off -site noise is not expected. Regardless, these operations will overwhelmingly be conducted during regular business hours (however, occasionally an emergency may present itself outside those hours requiring that people drive around the site causing automobile noise). Noise from the irrigation machinery and trucks does not significantly adversely impact farm operations or increase the cost of such operations. These are 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 47 of 84 the same types of machines and vehicles used as part of accepted farm practices, including the farm activities occurring onsite. The proposed RWC does not introduce urban -level uses that can significantly adversely impact farm uses or increase their costs; rather, the RWC is a use that is more rural in nature than urban based on number of operators, types of operations and equipment. The RWC will continue to provide irrigation for the orchard grass farm operations contributing to farm use in the area, not detracting from it. Potential noise impacts from the proposed use will be most prominent during the construction phase of the buildings and facilities, which would include truck traffic, excavation activities, pouring of cement and asphalt for foundations, pads and internal roads, as well as usage of contractor's tools such as saws, nail guns, impact wrenches, etc. Following completion of the proposed facility, primary noise associated with the facility would be equipment and machinery associated with the use on the EFU-zoned portion of the property as described above. Based on the above, it is not necessary for the County to impose conditions on the applications for the proposed use in regard to mitigation or minimization of noise or odor impacts, as the use will not cause a significant change in, or cause a significant increase to, the cost of farm practices on surrounding farmlands. 215.296 Standards for approval of certain uses in exclusive farm use zones; violation of standards; coinplaini; peiiaiiies; exceptiviis tG siaiidai"u�. (])A use allowed under ORS 215.213 (2) or (11) or 215.283 (2) or (4) may be approved only where the local governing body or its designee finds that the use will not: (a) Force a significant change in accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest use; or (b) Significantly increase the cost of accepted farm or, forest practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest use. (2)An applicant for a use allowed under ORS 215.213 (2) or (11) or 215.283 (2) or (4) may demonstrate that the standards for approval set forth in subsection (1) of this section will be satisfied through the imposition of conditions. Any conditions so imposed shall be clear and objective. As discussed above, based on the nature of the operations for the RWC, its presence and operation will not force a significant change in nor significantly increase the costs of accepted farm practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm use. In fact, its operation will allow the continued operations of a productive orchard grass farming operation. 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 48 of 84 To the extent that any condition of approval contained in this decision require the property owner to mitigate impacts to surrounding lands devoted to farm use, Staff finds such conditions are authorized by this section. Staff notes a number of public comments identified concerns with potential odors, vector control, site security, and view impacts associated with the expanded facility. However, is not clear to Staff that these comments directly relate to impacts on accepted farm practices or would result in a significant increase in the cost of farm practices on surrounding farmlands as the comments did not include enough specificity as it relates to the criterion above. Staff notes the public comment from Steven G. Liday proposes a variety of conditions of approval related to a number of concerns raised. Staff defers to the Hearings Officer on the appropriateness of those conditions proposed and whether those specific conditions of approval or any additional conditions not already recommended are warranted under this criterion. Finding: I adopt the findings laid out in the Staff report above. I agree with Staff that the comments received are not directly related to impacts on accepted farming practices. I agree with the Applicant that it is the largest farming operation in the area and its own actions will not adversely affect its farm operation. I have reviewed Mr. Liday's requested conditions of approval. Most of those proposed conditions apply to the use of the facility for recreation and are not appropriate for this application. Several are also not clear and objective. However, conditions relating to vector control and voluntary well monitoring plans may help protect farming practices and can be imposed in a clear and objective manner. Although, _ _,_ r ._.c a�._4 4L� _1,.., -A ,.1.._. _ 4L... A......1:,..,«4 , .:11 „a,. ,.,.,,«,.1., _,1 ,7«___ tl, ,.., ,. L Although, 1 aill confident L1lat, a6 VAplallIGU aUtiVG, L11G tApplltallL will aUG,4ULILUly aUul GJJ L1lese issues, 1 find that the imposition of conditions aids the application in meeting this criterion. Please review the "Conditions of Approval" section. 12. Utility facilities necessary for public service may include on -site and off -site facilities for temporary workforce housing for workers constructing a utility facility. Such facilities must be removed or converted to an allowed use under OAR 660-033-0130(19) or other statute or rule when project construction is complete. Off -site facilities allowed under this provision are subject to OAR 660- 033-0130(5). Temporary workforce housing facilities not included in the initial approval may be considered through a minor amendment request. A minor amendment request shall have no effect on the original approval. "FINDING: The applicant provided the following statement in response to this criterion: No workforce housing is proposed. This criterion is inapplicable. Staff agrees and finds this criterion does not apply." Finding: I agree, the criterion does not apply as no workforce housing is proposed. Next, the Staff report addresses the Oregon Administrative Rules 660-011. 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 49 of 84 In addition to the provisions of 1-6 above, the establishment or extension of a sewer system as defined by OAR 660-011-0060(1)(a )and (b) in an exclusive farm use zone shall be subject to the provisions of OAR 660-011-0060. "FINDING: The applicant provided the following statement in response to this criterion: The Complex is not the "establishment" or "extension" of a sewer system as those terms are defined in OAR 660-011-0060(1). This factor is inapplicable. Staff agrees and finds the proposed project is not the establishment or extension of a sewer system. However, Staff asks the Hearings Officer to make a specific finding on this issue." Finding: I agree and for the reasons expressed above on page 4, the application is not for the `establishment" nor and "extension" of sewer system as defined in OAR 660-011-0060(a) and (b). Next, the Staff report turns to the County standards. DCC Section 18.16.060. Dimensional Standards. E. Building height. No building or structure shall be erected or enlarged to exceed 30 feet in height, except as allowed under DCC 18.120.040. -FUNDING. 1he applicant provided Lite lvllvwing statement 1I1 reJilollJlJ LV L1113 lil1LV11V 11. `All proposed structures will be less than 30 feet in height from finished grade.' The applicant provided elevation drawings for proposed buildings including the headworks building, maintenance building, division building, disinfection building, electrical building, and utility cart building. Based on these elevations, Staff finds all buildings will be 30 feet or less in height. As a recommended condition of approval, no building or structure shall be erected or enlarged to exceed 30 feet in height, except as allowed by DCC 18.120.040." Finding: I agree with Staff and impose the suggested condition. Section 18.16.070. Yards. A. The front yard shall be a minimum of 40 feet from a property line fronting on a local street, 60 feet from a property line fronting on a collector street, and 100 feet from a property line fronting on an arterial street. B. Each side yard shall be a minimum of 25 feet, except that for a nonfarm dwelling proposed on property with side yards adjacent to property currently employed in farm use, and receiving special assessment for farm use, the side yard shall be a minimum of 100 feet. 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 50 of 84 C. Rear yards shall be a minimum of 25 feet, except that for a nonfarm dwelling proposed on property with a rear yard adjacent to property currently employed in farm use, and receiving special assessment for farm use, the rear yard shall be a minimum of 100 feet. D. The setback from the north lot line shall meet the solar setback requirements in Section 18.116.180. E. In addition to the setbacks set forth herein, any greater setbacks required by applicable building or structural codes adopted by the State of Oregon andlor the County under DCC 15.04 shall be met. "FINDING: The applicant provided the following statement in response to this criterion: `Yard" and "setback" both mean "an open space on a lot which is unobstructed from the ground upward". DCC 18.04.030 (Definitions, "Yard" and "Setback"). "Setbacks" are measured throughout the DCC in terms of distance from a building. See, e.g., "Setback, side" means "a setback between the front and rear yard measured horizontally at right angles from the side lot line to the nearest point of a building." DCC 18.04.030 (Definition, "Setback, side"). The proposal is not subject to 100-foot nonfarm dwelling setbacks for side and rear yards because no nonfarm dwellings are proposed. The proposed buildings comply with the applicable setback criteria. The proposed interceptor pipeline will remain underground, thus, is not a building and therefore not subject to yard setback requirements. The interceptor pipeline includes manholes with the top of the manhole ring and cover matching finished grade, thus, are not subject to yard setbacks. The manhole standard detail drawlilgS are i-Dv 1 aiid i-Dv2. T 1ie proposed site plan (60% Plans, Sheet S-CO 1) shows that all new structures will meet these required setbacks including solar setback requirements in DCC 18.116.180. The proposal is not subject to 100-foot nonfarm dwelling setbacks. The required setbacks for the buildings on the wastewater treatment property are 60 feet from Northwest Way and 25 feet from all other lot lines. The proposed site plan shows that all new structures will meet required setbacks under (A) to (D) above. Staff recommends the following condition of approval, structural setbacks from any north lot line shall meet the solar setback requirements in DCC 18.116.180 and in addition to the setbacks set forth herein, any greater setbacks required by applicable building or structural codes adopted by the State of Oregon and/or the County under DCC 15.04 shall be met.' Staff agrees with the applicant that the below -grade pipeline and manholes are not subject to yard and setback requirements. " Finding: I agree with Staff. Section 18.16.080. Stream Setbacks. 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 51 of 84 To permit better light, air, vision, stream pollution control, protection offish and wildlife areas and preservation of natural scenic amenities and vistas along streams and lakes, the following setbacks shall apply: A. All sewage disposal installations, such as septic tanks and septic drainfields, shall be set back from the ordinary high water mark along all streams or lakes a minimum of 100 feet, measured at right angles to the ordinary high water mark. In those cases where practical difficulties preclude the location of the facilities at a distance of 100 feet and the County Sanitarian finds that a closer location will not endanger health, the Planning Director or Hearings Body may permit the location of these facilities closer to the stream or lake, but in no case closer than 25 feet. B. All structures, buildings or similar permanent fixtures shall be set back from the ordinary high water mark along all streams or lakes a minimum of 100 feet measured at right angles to the ordinary high water mark. "FINDING: There are no streams or lakes in the project vicinity." Finding: I agree with Staff. Section 18.16.090. Rimrock Setback. Notwithstanding the provisions of DCC 18.16.070, setbacks from rimrock shall be as provided in DCC to n/ nnn whichever 18.116.160 or 18.a4.090, whichever is appllcuble. "FINDING: There is no rimrock in the project vicinity." Finding: I agree with Staff. Chapter 18.32, Multiple Use Agricultural Zone (MUA-10) The proposed interceptor pipeline will span across a total of nine (9) private properties, five (5) of which are located in the MUA-10 Zone and within portions of existing rights -of -way. The private properties are identified below. Map and Tax Lot Situs Address Property Owner Zone Combining Zone 2667 NW EUSTON RANDALL S 1413290000601 LN, REDMOND, MUA10 SMIA SCHONING TRUST OR 97756 2571 NW EUSTON CARAMELLA,RONAL 1413290000600 LN, REDMOND, MUA10 SMIA D E & CARYN B OR 97756 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 52 of 84 1413290000700 3085 NW EUSTON LN, REDMOND, OR 97756 PETERSON,CARINA A MUA10 SMIA 5350 NORTHWEST WEST 1413290000800 LUNA, HELIBERTO MUA10 SMIA WAY, D, REDMOR 97756 3000 NW WILLIAMS WAY, MEDLOCK, BRIAN & 1413290000900 MUA10 SMIA REDMOND, OR LAVON 97756 Section 18.32.030 Conditional Uses Permitted. The following uses may be allowed subject to DCC 18.128: Y. Utility facility necessary to serve the area subject to the provisions of DCC 18.124. "FINDING: The applicant provided the following statement in response to this criterion: `The area of the proposed interceptor pipeline replacement includes properties and road rights -of -way in the MUA-10 Zone as identified in Figure 1 above. The proposed expansion of the City s existing utility lac1111y, 111cluunig 1cp1accllle111 01 an existing 24-inch diameter underground pipeline with a 48-inch diameter pipeline in the MUA-10 Zone, is an improvement to an existing water reclamation facility, therefore, is a utility facility necessary to serve the area within the Redmond UGB. The proposed use is permitted conditionally in the MUA-10 Zone and thus can be allowed pursuant to applicable approval criteria. Compliance with DCC 18.124, Site Plan Review, and DCC 18.128, Conditional Uses, is addressed below.' The applicant has proposed two options for a portion of the pipeline replacement alignment in the MUA-10 Zone. Option 1 would replace the 24-inch pipeline with a 48-inch pipeline in its current alignment which runs within NW Euston Way to the point where it crosses private property (Tax Lot 700 and 800) in a northerly direction and bisects the northeast corner of Tax Lot 800. The alternative, and preferred alignment would continue west within NW Euston Lane to the connection with NW Northwest Way. The preferred alternative alignment consists of a roughly 464-foot stretch within the existing road segment on NW Euston Lane. The applicant indicates the change would require a new easement with the property owner of Tax Lot 800 (5350 Northwest Way). The applicant has addressed the criteria below as it pertains to both Option 1 and Option 2. Except for the alternative route discussed above, the applicant 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 53 of 84 proposes to replace the pipeline in its current alignment along the rest of the project route. The applicant's description and discussion of the alternative alignment is included in its entirety in the application record3. The proposed pipeline replacement is an improvement to an existing facility and is a utility facility necessary to serve the area within the Redmond UGB but is located on lands outside the UGB. The proposed use is permitted conditionally and thus can be allowed pursuant to applicable approval criteria. The applicant has provided written documentation of access agreements with property owners in the MUA-10 Zone (and EFU Zone) as noted in Figure IA and 1B included in their May 1, 2023 incomplete response. However, to ensure compliance, Staff recommends a condition of approval that the applicant shall provide to the Community Development Department written documentation of easement agreements for the sewer line construction and access, where applicable. Compliance with DCC 18.124, Site Plan Review, and DCC 18.128, Conditional Uses, is addressed below. Finding: I agree with Staff and adopt the analysis above and adopted a condition as described by the described above. As discussed earlier in this opinion, I approve the Application for the pipeline as described in Option 1. If Applicant, is unable to obtain easements for Option 1 through reasonable diligence, then I approve the Application for Option 2 to place the pipelines in the existing easements. Section 18.32.040. Dimensional Standards v _ �_n__..___� r_ - s __�r .�.. r .. r -1 rr r_.. In an 1✓l Ufi Gone, Ere fo[rowin utrr�ensiu-na srurruuru5 5rrutr appty. D. Building height. No building or structure shall be erected or enlarged to exceed 30 feet in height, except as allowed by DCC 18.120.040. "FINDING: The applicant provided the following statement in response to this criterion: The proposed facility elements in the MUA-10 Zone are underground interceptor pipelines, thus, will be well below the 30-foot height maximum. This provision is either inapplicable or is met. Staff agrees and finds the criterion will be met." Finding: I agree. Section 18.32.050. Yards A. The front yard setback from the property line shall be a minirnuln of 20 feet for property fronting on a local street right of way, 30 feet front a property line fronting on a collector right of way, 3 Reference May 25, 2023, R. Kircher Supplemental App Mtrls 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 54 of 84 and 80 feet from an arterial right of way unless other provisions for combining accesses are provided and approved by the County. B. Each side yard shall be a minimum of 20 feet. For parcels or lots created before November 1, 1979, which are one-half acre or less in size, the side yard setback may be reduced to a minimum of 10 feet. For parcels or lots adjacent to property receiving special assessment for farm use, the adjacent side yard for a dwelling shall be a minimum of 100 feet. C. Rear yards shall be a minimum of 25 feet. Parcels or lots with rear yards adjacent to property receiving special assessment for farm use, the rear yards for a dwelling shall be a minimum of 100 feet. D. The setback from the north lot line shall meet the solar setback requirements in DCC 18.116.180. E. In addition to the setbacks set forth herein, any greater setbacks required by applicable building or structural codes adopted by the State of Oregon and/or the County under DCC 15.04 shall be met. "FINDING: The applicant provided the following statement in response to this criterion: As explained above, "yard" and "setback" both mean "an open space on a lot which is unobstructed from the ground upward". DCC 18.04.030 (Definitions, "Yard" and "Setback"). "Setbacks" are measured throughout the DCC in terms of distance from a building. See, e.g., "Setback, side" means "a setback between the front and rear yard measured horizontally at right angles from the side lot line to the nearest point of a i____7 �'._,_» Tl!'+!-+ 10 AA A 11 m,.r«:4: ..« C4L, I.,,-1. .A_15\ Ill, A �.,«,..,,motor ouilding. LJ% I I0.vt.V3V llJellmLlon, oewaea, side ). iue proposcu inwiwYwi pipeline will remain underground, thus, is not a building, as explained above, and therefore, is not subject to yard setback requirements. As previously explained above, manholes associated with the pipeline would at or below grade, thus, are not subject to yard setbacks. This section is not applicable to the proposed replacement pipeline.' Staff agrees and finds the standards above do not apply." Finding: I agree. Section 18.32.060. Stream Setbacks To permit better light, air, vision, stream pollution control, fish and wildlife areas and to preserve the natural scenic amenities and vistas along the streams and lakes, the following setbacks shall apply: A. All sewage disposal installations, such as septic tanks and septic drainfields, shall be set back front the ordinary high water mark along all streams or lakes a minimum of 100 feet, measured at right angles to the ordinary high water mark. In those cases where practical difficulties preclude the location of the facilities at a distance of 100 feet and the County Sanitarian finds that a closer location will not endanger health, the Planning Director or Hearings Body may permit the location of these facilities closer to the stream or lake, but in no case closer than 25 feet. 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 55 of 84 B. All structures, buildings or similar permanent fixtures shall be set back front the ordinary high water mark along all streams or lakes a minimum of 100 feet measured at right angles to the ordinary high water mark. "FINDING: There are no streams or lakes in the project vicinity. Finding: I agree. Section 18.32.070. Rmmrock Setback Setbacks from rimrock shall be as provided in DCC 18.116.160. "FINDING: There is no rimrock in the project vicinity. Finding: I agree. Chapter 18.56, Surface Mining Impact Area Combining Zone (SMIA) "FINDING: Multiple tax lots included in the project proposal are located in the Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) Combining Zone in association with mine site 331 and 332. However, the applicant does not propose a noise or dust sensitive use, as defined in DCC 18.04, within the SMIA Zone, therefore, Staff finds the provisions of this chapter do not apply." Finding: I agree. Section 18.56.030, Application of Provisions. The standards set forth in DCC 18.56 shall apply in addition to those specified in DCC Title 18 for the underlying zone. If a conflict in regulations or standards occurs, the provisions of DCC 18.56 shall govern. "FINDING: The standards under DCC 18.56, to the extent they apply, are addressed in the following findings." Finding: I agree. Section 18.56.040. Uses Permitted Outright. Uses permitted outright shall be those identified in the underlying zone(s) with which the SMIA Zone is combined. "FINDING: The applicant provided the following statement in response to this criterion: 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 56 of 84 The proposed project is allowed in the underlying zone, the EFU-TE subzone, of which the SMIA Combining Zone is partially applied to. As explained above, the EFU zones allow "utility facilities necessary for public service" as uses pennitted, subject to DCC 18.16.038. This criterion is met. Staff agrees and finds the proposed use is allowed outright in the underlying zone and therefore permitted outright in the SMIA Zone." Finding: I agree. The Staff report then addressed the permitted conditional uses. Section 18.56.050 Conditional Uses Permitted Uses permitted conditionally shall be those identified as conditional uses in the underlying zone(s) with which the SMIA Zone is combined and shall be subject to all conditions of the underlying zone(s) as well as the conditions of the SMIA Zone. FINDING: Staff finds the portion of the pipeline replacement within the MUA10 Zone is a conditional use and is therefore conditionally allowed within the SMIA Zone. However, as Staff noted above, the proposed use is not a noise or dust sensitive use and is therefore not subject to the conditions of the SMIA Zone." Finding: I agree that the proposed use is a conditional use and that it is not a noise or dust sensitive use. Section 18.56.070. Setbacks. The setbacks shall be the same as those prescribed in the underlying zone, except as follows: A. No noise sensitive or dust sensitive use or structure established or constructed after the designation of the SMIA Zone shall be located within 250 feet of any surface mining zone, except as provided in DCC 18.56.140; and B. No noise sensitive or dust sensitive use or structure established or constructed after the designation of the SMIA Zone shall be located within one quarter mile of any existing or proposed surface mining processing or storage site, unless the applicant demonstrates that the proposed use will not prevent the adjacent surface mining operation from meeting the setbacks, standards and conditions set forth in DCC 18.52.090, 18.52.110 and 18.52.140, respectively. C. Additional setbacks in the SMIA Zone may be required as part of the site plan review under DCC 18.56.100. D. An exception to the 250 foot setback in DCC 18.56.070(A), shall be allowed pursuant to a written agreement for a lesser setback made between the owner of the noise sensitive or dust sensitive use or structure located within 250 feet of the proposed surface mining activity and the owner or operator of the proposed surface mine. Such agreement shall be notarized and recorded in 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 57 of 84 the Deschutes County Book of Records and shall run with the land. Such agreement shall be submitted and considered at the time of site plan review or site plan modification. "FINDING: No noise sensitive or dust sensitive use or structure is proposed within one quarter mile of any surface mining zone." Finding: I agree. Section 18.56.080. Use Limitations. No dwellings or additions to dwellings or other noise sensitive or dust sensitive uses or structures shall be erected in any SMIA Zone without first obtaining site plan approval under the standards and criteria set forth in DCC 18.56.090 through 18.56.120. "FINDING: As noted above, the project does not involve the construction of noise or dust sensitive uses. Therefore, the standards do not apply." Finding: I agree. Section 18.56.090. Specific Use Standards. The following standards shall apply in the SMIA Zone: tvery urvelllregs, iiew noise" seiiScic Ve aicu uuJi Jeiisiii Je iiJes or J6/ iil LLires, uiali u uHuccovros cv urvcaccicgi noise and dust sensitive uses or structures in existence on the effective date of Ordinance No. 90 014 which exceed 10 percent of the size of the existing dwelling or use, shall be subject to the criteria established in DCC 18.56.100. "FINDING: This criterion does not apply to the present application." Finding: I agree. Next the Staff report address Supplementary Provisions. Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions Section 18.116.020, Clear Vision Areas. A. In all zones, a clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all property at the intersection of two streets or a street and a railroad. A clear vision area shall contain no planting, fence, wall, structure, or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three and one-half feet in height, measured from the top of the curb or, where no curb exists, from the established street centerline grade, except that trees exceeding this height may be located in this area provided all branches and foliage are removed to a height of eight feet above the grade. 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 58 of 84 "FINDING: The applicant provided the following statement in response to this criterion: Applicant does not propose new intersections from or to public roads along the project route. No planting, fence, wall, structure, or temporary or permanent obstruction will be constructed within a clear vision area along the project route as well. As evident from the submitted plans, no clear vision area will be obstructed by this proposal. This criterion will be met. Staff agrees with this statement and finds the criterion will be met." Finding: I agree. Section 18.116.030 Off street Parking and Loading. A. Compliance. No building or other permit shall be issued until plans and evidence are presented to show how the off street parking and loading requirements are to be met and that property is and will be available for exclusive use as off-street parking and loading The subsequent use of the property for which the permit is issued shall be conditional upon the unqualified continuance and availability of the amount ofparking and loading space required by DCC Title 18. "FINDING: The off-street parking requirements, to the extent they apply, for the proposed use are addressed below." B. Off -Street Loading. Every use for which a building is erected or structurally altered to the extent of increasing the floor area to equal a minimum floor area required to provide loading space and which will require the receipt or distribution of materials or merchandise by truck or similar vehicle, shall provide off-street loading space on the basis of minimum requirements as follows: 1. Commercial, industrial and public utility uses which have a gross floor area of 5,000 square feet or more shall provide truck loading or unloading berths subject to the following table: Sq. Ft. of Floor Area No. of Berths Required Less than 5,000 0 5, 000-30, 000 1 30,000-100,000 2 100,000 and Over 3 "FINDING: For the properties in the MUA-10 Zone, the applicant is not proposing any buildings and all improvements will be below grade. Therefore, no loading berth is required." Finding: I agree. 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 59 of 84 C. Off -Street Parking. Off-street parking spaces shall be provided and maintained as set forth in DCC 18.116.030 for all uses in all zoning districts. Such off-street parking spaces shall be provided at the time a new building is hereafter erected or enlarged or the use of a building existing on the effective date of DCC Title 18 is changed. D. Number of Spaces Required. Off-street parking shall be provided as follows: 9. Other uses not specifically listed above shall be provided with adequate parking as required by the Planning Director or Hearings Body. The above list shall be used as a guide for determining requirements for said other uses. "FINDING: As described above, the portion of the project within the MUA-10 Zone is a below grade pipeline. The applicant states, "The interceptor pipeline will only be visited sporadically by maintenance personnel. The unmanned facility will not require any dedicated parking spaces." Based on this information, Staff finds the unmanned facility will not require any dedicated parking spaces." Finding: I agree. E. General Provisions. Off -Street Parking. 1. More Than One Use on One or More Parcels. In the event several uses occupy a single structure or parcel of land, the total requirement for off-street parking shall be the sum of requirements of the several uses computed separate'- 2. Joint Use of Facilities. The off-street parking requirements of two or more uses, structures or parcels of land may be satisfied by the same parking or loading space used jointly to the extent that it can be shown by the owners or operators of the uses, structures or parcels that their operations and parking needs do not overlap at any point of time. If the uses, structures or parcels are under separate ownership, the right to joint use of the parking space must be evidence by a deed, lease, contract or other appropriate written document to establish the joint use. 3. Location of Parking Facilities. Off-street parking spaces for dwellings shall be located on the same lot with the dwelling. Other required parking spaces shall be located on the same parcel or another parcel not farther than 500 feet from the building or use they are intended to serve, measured in a straight line from the building in a commercial or industrial zone. Such parking shall be located in a safe and functional manner as determined during site plan approval. The burden of proving the existence of such off -premise parking arrangements rests upon the applicant. 4. Use of Parking Facilities. Required parking space shall be available for the parking of operable passenger automobiles of residents, customers, patrons and employees only and shall not be used for the storage of vehicles or materials or for the parking of trucks used in conducting the business or used in conducting the business or use. S. Parking, Front Yard. Required parking and loading spaces for multi family dwellings or commercial and industrial uses shall not be located in a required front yard, except in the 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 60 of 84 Sunriver UUC Business Park (BP) District, Airport Development (AD) Zone, and properties fronting Spring River Road in the Spring River Rural Commercial Zone, but such space may be located within a required side or rear yard. "FINDING: Staff finds the occasional maintenance visits to the sewer line route does not require defined parking spaces; therefore, these criteria are not applicable." Finding: I agree. 6. On -Street Parking Credit. Notwithstanding DCC 18.116.030(G)(2), within commercial zones in the La Pine Planning Area and the Terrebonne and Tumalo unincorporated communities, the amount of required off-street parking can be reduced by one off-street parking space for every allowed on -street parking space adjacent to a property up to 30% of the required off-street parking. On -street parking shall follow the established configurations in the parking design standards under DCC 18.116.030 Table 1. To be considered for the parking credit, the proposed parking surface, along the street frontage under review, must have a defined curb line and improved as required under DCC 17.48, with existing pavement, or an engineered gravel surface. For purposes of establishing credit, the following constitutes an on -street parking space: a. Parallel parking (0 degree), each 20 feet of uninterrupted curb; b. Diagonal parking (60 degree), each with I feet of curb; C. Perpendicular parking (90 degree), each with 10 feet of curb; a. i.ura space must be connected to the to, that coiilullls the use, e. Parking spaces that would not obstruct a required clear vision area, nor any other parking that violates any law or street standard, and f. On -street parking spaces credited for a specific use may not be used exclusively by that use, but shall be available for general public use at all times. No signs or actions limiting general public use of on -street spaces are permitted. "FINDING: No on -street parking is proposed." Finding: I agree. F. Development and Maintenance Standards for Off -Street Parking Areas. Every parcel of land hereafter used as a public or private parking area, including commercial parking lots, shall be developed as follows... G. Off -Street Parking Lot Design. All off-street parking lots shall be designed subject to County standards for stalls and aisles as set forth in the following drawings and table... "FINDING: Staff finds that the occasional maintenance visits to the proposed sewer line route does not require defined parking spaces; therefore, these criteria are not applicable." Finding: I agree. 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 61 of 84 Section 18.116.031, Bicycle Parking. New development and any construction, renovation or alteration of an existing use requiring a site plan review under DCC Title 18 for which planning approval is applied for after the effective date of Ordinance 93-005 shall comply with the provisions of DCC 18.116.031. "FINDING: Staff finds that the occasional maintenance visits to the proposed sewer line route does not require defined parking spaces; therefore, bicycle parking spaces are not required. These criteria do not apply." Finding: I agree. Next the Staff report addresses Site Plan Review. Chapter 18.124, Site Plan Review "FINDING: "As noted above, the provisions of DCC Chapters 18.124 and 18.116 of the County Zoning Ordinance, Title 18, are applicable only to the properties that fall within the MUA-10 Zone, as identified above. The pipeline replacement and improvement crosses five (5) properties in the MUA10 Zone. The applicant has proposed two options for a portion of the pipeline replacement alignment the l_ _ A ,TT T A 1 A 7„,_„ In 1V1 U A_ I ki /-One. Option 1 would replace the 24-inch pipeline with a 48-inch pipeline in its current alignment which runs within NW Euston Way to the point where it crosses private property (Tax Lot 700 and 800) in a northerly direction and bisects the northeast corner of Tax Lot 800. The alternative, and preferred alignment would continue west within NW Euston Lane to the connection with NW Northwest Way. The preferred alternative alignment consists of a roughly 464-foot stretch within the existing road segment on NW Euston Lane. The applicant indicates the change would require a new easement with the property owner of Tax Lot 800 (5350 Northwest Way). The applicant has addressed the criteria below as it pertains to both Option 1 and Option 2. Except for the alternative route discussed above, the applicant proposes to replace the pipeline in its current alignment along the rest of the project route. The applicant's description and discussion of the alternative alignment is included in its entirety in the application record4. The other components of this project, located in the EFU Zone, are a utility facility, which is a use listed in ORS 215.283(1). The proposed use is not subject to additional requirements of Deschutes County Code, such as the provisions of DCC 18.124. Therefore, a separate application for Site Plan review for the portion of the project in the EFU Zone is not required." 4 Reference May 25, 2023, R. Kircher Supplemental App Mtrls 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 62 of 84 Finding: I agree with Staff that the requirements of this Chapter are only applicable to the portion of the Application for the pipelines that are in the MUA-10 zone. This Chapter does not apply to the components of the project located in the EFU Zone. Section 18.124.030. Approval Required. A. No building, grading, parking, land use, sign or other required permit shall be issued for a use subject to DCC 18.124.030, nor shall such a use be commenced, enlarged, altered or changed until a final site plan is approved according to DCC Title 22, the Uniform Development Procedures Ordinance. B. The provisions of DCC 18.124.030 shall apply to the following: 1. All conditional use permits where a site plan is a condition of approval, 2. Multiple family dwellings with more than three units; 3. All commercial uses that require parking facilities; 4. All industrial uses; 5. All other uses that serve the general public or that otherwise require parking facilities, including, but not limited to, landfills, schools, utility.facilities, churches, community buildings, cemeteries, mausoleums, crematories, airports, parks and recreation facilities and livestock sales yards; and 6. As specified for Flood Plain Zones (FP) and Surface Mining Impact Area Combining Zones (SRIA). 7 Nnn-cnmmercial wind energv system generating greater than 15 to 100 kW of electricity. C. The provisions of DCC 18.124.030 shall not apply to uses involving the stabling and training of equine in the EFU zone, noncommercial stables and horse events not requiring a conditional use permit. D. Noncompliance with a final approved site plan shall be a zoning ordinance violation. E. As a condition of approval of any action not included in DCC 18.124.030(B), the Planning Director or Hearings Body may require site plan approval prior to the issuance of any permits. "FINDING: The proposed improvements to the existing interceptor pipeline is a utility facility that serves the general public. Therefore, the provisions of this chapter apply. " Finding: I agree. Section 18.124.060. Approval Criteria. Approval of a site plan shall be based on the following criteria: A. The proposed development shall relate harmoniously to the natural environment and existing development, minimizing visual impacts and preserving natural features including views and topographical features. 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 63 of 84 FINDING: In Father's House, files 247-18-000061-CU, 247-18-000062-SP, 247-18-000624-A, and 247-18-000643-A, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) made the following finding regarding this standard. `The Board agrees that DCC 18.124.060(A) is subjective and, at times, difficult to apply as the Hearings Officer observed. However, as the Board interprets the provision, DCC 18.124.060(A) does not require a particularly onerous exercise. It requires an applicant to show that its proposed site plan relates "harmoniously" to the natural environment and existing development. Unlike the conditional use standards of DCC 18.128.015(B), this standard does not indicate harmony achieved with "surrounding properties." However, the Board understands that the standard implies that the proposed development shall relate harmoniously on and off the subject property and generally speaking, in the vicinity, by "minimizing visual impacts and preserving natural features including views and topographical features." The code does not define what it means to "relate harmoniously." The Hearings Officer reported that the online Oxford Living Dictionary defines "harmoniously" to mean arranging something "in a way that forms a pleasing or consistent whole." Both parties in this case, provided various interpretations of the term "harmonious." The Board is not adopting one interpretation of the term over another as each contributes equally to this evaluation. The Board concurs with the Hearings Officer that there is no "particularly useful case law defining or applying this term." In addition, the Board agrees, that the Hearings Officer is correct that a site plan should be approved in light of this meaning of "harmonious," so long as the proposed site plan does not create "snore disharmony than other uses allowed by right or conditionally in the MUA-10 zone." in this regard, the Board finds that this standard presumes the use is approved and evaluates only whether the site plan for the use "relates harmoniously." The Board finds that the proposed church site plan meets the standard set forth in DCC 18.124.060(A). Specifically, the Board interprets DCC 18.124.060(A) to mean that an applicant must demonstrate that the site plan has arranged the development in a way that evaluates the natural environment and existing development in the area and in the process has minimized visual impacts and reasonably preserved natural features including views and topographic features. Minimizing visual impact, as with this case, may include introduced landscaping, design layout, and specific design elements such as siding and roofing color and material. In doing so, this enables the County decision maker to find that the site plan's impacts create no more disharmony than other uses allowed by right or conditionally in the MUA Zone. The Board agrees, in part, with the Hearings Officer that this standard is considered differently when compared to the term "compatibility" and its associated standard of DCC 18.128.015(B). The chief differences between the two standards is that the DCC 18.128.015(B) compatibility standard evaluates the compatibility of the proposed use on existing and projected uses of surrounding properties and does so in light of specific factors that are not reproduced in DCC 18.124.060(A). The DCC 18.124.060(A) "harmonious" standard evaluates whether a proposed site plan "relates harmoniously to existing development and the natural environment" considering whether the site plan shows that the applicant has reasonably mitigated its impacts 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 64 of 84 and reasonably preserved views. The Board observes that not every use that requires site plan approval also requires a conditional use permit. However, the Board finds that it is possible that a permitted or approved use is arranged so poorly on a site, that a proposed site plan must be denied under this standard. That is not the case here'. Staff understands the Board's findings, cited above, to make clear the use itself is not the subject of review under this criterion. Rather, this criterion only evaluates whether the site plan for the use "relates harmoniously." Staff reads Father's House to require a demonstration, "...the site plan has arranged the development in a way that evaluates the natural environment and existing development in the area and in the process has minimized visual impacts and reasonably preserved natural features including views and topographic features." The applicant provided the following statement in response to this criterion: `The area of the project that falls within the MUA-10 zone consists of paved, public road rights - of -way and five (5) residentially -developed properties that have mostly level, but some areas of mild sloping, with areas of scattered rock outcrops, small areas of farmed or cleared land and driveways. In addition to small areas of pasture or lawn, vegetation is primarily native with juniper trees, shrubs, and native grasses. The project area will be largely unaffected with the completion of the project and will be restored to blend harmoniously with the natural environment surrounding it. The visual impacts will not change as a result of this proposed site plan. Visual impacts will be avoided, and preservation of natural features will be exercised for site plan approval. The proposed development, including the measures proposed above, will relate harmoniously to the natural environment and existing development, minimizing visual impacts and preserving natural features including views and topographical features.' The applicant provided the following statement in response to this criterion as it pertains to the alternative alignment discussed above and noted in the record: `The preferred alignment would be located within an existing road/access easement along the southside of 14-13-29, tax lot 800. The City will work with the property owner to discuss an easement for extension of the interceptor line within that existing easement — which is the western- most section of "NW Euston Lane." Once constructed, the road along the new easement area would be improved to a higher standard than the existing road. This improvement will relate harmoniously with the existing development, the subsurface pipe will have no visual impacts and no natural features in the vicinity will be disrupted.' Staff agrees with the applicant's response. Staff suggests the following conditions of approval be added to ensure compliance with this criterion. Land Restoration: The owner of the utility facility shall be responsible for restoring, as nearly as possible, to its fornier condition any lands zoned MUA-10 and associated improvements that are damaged or otherwise disturbed by the siting, maintenance, repair or reconstruction of the facility. 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 65 of 84 Erosion Control Plan: Prior to the start of construction activities, the applicant shall provide an Erosion Control Plan to the Planning Division prepared by a licensed, professional engineer. Staff recommends that a licensed, professional engineer use the Central Oregon Stormwater Manual as the basis for the plan." Finding: I agree with Staff and adopt as finding the quoted language above. The Board of Commissioners has reasonably interpreted this criterion to mean that use itself is not the subject of review and the County only evaluates whether the site plan for the use "relates harmoniously." I also adopt the conditions of approval as proposed by Staff. Certainly, there will be impacts during the construction of the pipelines. Nothing about a rock hammer is "harmonious". However, I interpret this criterion and all the other criteria under this code section to address the ultimate site plan for the use and not the construction of the use. I expect the City to use its best efforts and industry standards to limit impacts during the construction of the pipeline. B. The landscape and existing topography shall be preserved to the greatest extent possible, considering development constraints and suitability of the landscape and topography. Preserved trees and shrubs shall be protected. FINDING: The applicant provided the following statement in response to this criterion: `The project area for the interceptor pipeline replacement in the MUA-10 zone consists of mostly level terrain. No major alterations to the existing topography are proposed or would occur as a result of the construction and completion of the pipeline replacement. All vegetation and existing topography lllroug11UlAt the projecl rolAlc will be rGl0.incu ucyv11u w110.t is required ivi wiiiporary construction and then, even after construction, the ground will be restored to its condition with equivalent vegetation in disturbed areas as existed before construction. Any preserved trees or shrubs will be protected to the extent possible. No landscaping changes are proposed beyond what is required for the project footprint within the pipeline corridor. No other impacts to landscape and existing topography are proposed. This criterion will be met.' Staff finds the landscape and existing topography will be preserved to the greatest extent possible, considering development constraints and suitability of the landscape and topography. No significant changes to topography are proposed. Staff finds all trees and shrubs existing on -site, not removed by necessity of the proposed development, are "preserved trees and shrubs." As a condition of approval, all trees and shrubs existing on -site, not removed by necessity of the proposed development, shall be protected, unless lawfully changed/removed by outright uses (such as farm use) or such change/removal is approved by future land use approvals. " Finding: I agree and adopt the condition as proposed by Staff. C. The site plan shall be designed to provide a safe environment, while offering appropriate opportunities for privacy and transition from public to private spaces. FINDING: The applicant provided the following statement in response to this criterion: 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 66 of 84 `The proposed development within the MUA-10 Zone will be below grade and within established easements or within public road right-of-way. Because the construction will be below grade, trenches will be backfilled, and the ground restored with native vegetation where applicable. Additionally, manholes as they are now, will be located at intervals along the main line. The manholes will be secured so not to allow easy access by public. The proposed development is designed to provide a safe environment. Further, the project does not include any public spaces which would impact any adjoining private spaces. This criterion is met.' Staff finds this criterion requires demonstration the site is designed to address common safety hazards, including fire safety, and to address any site -specific natural hazards. Staff finds pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle safety is addressed under sub -sections (E) and (K) of this section. With regard to fire safety, Redmond Fire & Rescue was sent a request for comment on this application. Redmond Fire & Rescue provided comments and conditions as discussed in the Public Agency Comments section. Redmond Fire & Rescue's comments and conditions have been incorporated as recommended conditions of approval. With regard to other natural hazards, none have been identified on the site. Finding: I agree and adopt the Staff proposed conditions. D. When appropriate, the site plan shall provide for the special needs of disabled persons, such as ramps for wheelchairs and Braille signs. FINDING: The Deschutes County Building Division was sent a request for comment on this application. In the State of Oregon, ORS 455.720 and 447.210 through 447.992 are administered by the Deschutes County Building Safety Division. Deschutes County Building Safety Division is required to determine if a structure is an Affected Building and if so, apply the appropriate sections of Chapter 11 and the American National Standards Institute code A117.1-2009. Consequently, the structures will comply with state and federal ADA requirements. If an Affected Building is approved, inspected and finaled by the Deschutes County Building Safety Division, it meets all code requirements as an accessible structure. Staff finds that such a review is required prior to the issuance of building permits. However, Staff notes the pipeline replacement will be located underground, does not include the construction of public buildings, and are to be accessed only by designated persons. Therefore, it is not anticipated accessibility standards will be required for the pipeline replacement. Based on the nature of the proposed utility, together with the fact that the pipelines will not be open or otherwise serviced by the general public, Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. Finding: I agree. E. The location and number of points of access to the site, interior circulation patterns, separations between pedestrians and moving and parked vehicles, and the arrangement of parking areas in relation to buildings and structures shall be harmonious with proposed and neighboring buildings and structures. 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 67 of 84 FINDING: The applicant provided the following statement in response to this criterion: `The proposed development within the MUA-10 Zone will be pipeline that is below grade and within established easements or within public road rights -of- way. The portion of the project in the MUA-10 Zone presents no access, circulation, or parking conflicts as there are no existing or proposed buildings affected by the MUA- 10 segment of the proposal, and construction activities simply consist of replacement of a below grade pipeline in the approximate same location. This criterion is met.' Staff agrees with the applicant's response and notes that no access to the pipeline is required by the public and no parking is proposed or required. Further, the project does not include the construction of public buildings or parking areas. For these reasons, Staff finds this criterion does not apply. Finding: I agree. F. Surface drainage systems shall be designed to prevent adverse impacts on neighboring properties, streets, or surface and subsurface water quality. "FINDING: The applicant provided the following statement in response to this criterion: 'The proposed development within the N11UA-10 Zone cues not prupusc airy sunaec drainage systems. This criterion is inapplicable.' Staff agrees with the applicant's response and further notes the proposed pipeline replacement will be below grade and within established or proposed easements. As noted above, the applicant plans to restore disturbed areas. For these reasons, Staff finds a surface drainage system is not required and this criterion does not apply." Finding: I agree. G. Areas, structures and facilities for storage, machinery and equipment, services (mail, refuse, utility wires, and the like), loading and parking and similar accessory areas and structures shall be designed, located and buffered or screened to minimize adverse impacts on the site and neighboring properties. "FINDING: The applicant provided the following statement in response to this criterion: `The proposed development within the MUA-10 Zone will be below grade and within established easements or public road rights -of -way. There are no areas, structures and facilities for storage, machinery and equipment, services, loading and parking or similar accessory areas or structures proposed. This criterion is inapplicable. Regardless, the construction will be below grade and trenches will be backfrlled to match existing grade and, thus, will adequately screen the 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 68 of 84 development from public view, therefore, effectively minimizing adverse visual impacts on the site and neighboring properties. Furthermore, the proposal will include all County required erosion control measures and restoration and reseeding of disturbed areas and compliance may be imposed as a condition of approval.' Staff agrees with the applicant. The proposed pipeline replacement, when completed, will not be visible from public view. For these reasons, Staff finds the criterion does not apply." Finding: I agree. H. All above ground utility installations shall be located to minimize adverse visual impacts on the site and neighboring properties. "FINDING: The applicant provided the following statement in response to this criterion: `New above -ground utilities are not proposed in the MUA-10 Zone. This criterion does not apply.' Staff agrees and finds the criterion does not apply." Finding: I agree. L Specific criteria are outlined for each zone and shall be a required part of the site plan (e.g. lot setbacks, etc.). "FINDING: The applicant provided the following statement in response to this criterion: `As explained above, site design review is only required for the portions of the project located in the MUA-10 Zone. The site plan includes specific criteria for the MUA-10 Zone where applicable.' Each zone affecting the subject property is identified in this decision. The applicable criteria for each "zone are addressed in the findings above. This requirement is met." Finding: I agree J. All exterior lighting shall be shielded so that direct light does not project off site. "FINDING: The applicant has not proposed exterior lighting for the portion of the project within the MUA-10 Zone. This criterion does not apply." Finding: I agree K. Transportation access to the site shall be adequate for the use. 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 69 of 84 1. Where applicable, issues including, but not limited to, sight distance, turn and acceleration/deceleration lanes, right-of-way, roadway surfacing and widening, and bicycle and pedestrian connections, shall be identified. 2. Mitigation for transportation -related impacts shall be required. 3. Mitigation shall meet applicable County standards in DCC 18.116.310, applicable Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) mobility and access standards, and applicable American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards. "FINDING: The applicant provided the following statement in response to this criterion: `The proposed development within the WA-10 Zone involves replacement of a 24-inch diameter pipeline with a 48-inch diameter pipeline and will be below grade and within established easements or public road rights -of -way. Access to the pipeline will be minimal as it will occur only during construction (replacement of one of the pipelines) and during maintenance or repair. The existing surrounding roadway network provides adequate transportation access to the pipeline corridor when necessary.' The Deschutes County Road Department and Deschutes County Transportation Planner were sent a request for comment on this application. No infrastructure concerns and no required improvements are identified in the record. Portions of the project in the MUA-10 Zone will be located within the road rights -of -way of Northwest Way, NW Coyner Avenue, NW Euston Lane, and NW Pershall Way. As noted by the Deschutes County Transportation Planner, the applicant will be re ulred to com 1 with an C ount Road De artmenl ernlittin re ulrenlentS for work q PY Y Y p__�___-,_P g q within the rights -of -way. Staff has included a recommended condition of approval to this effect. As conditioned, Staff finds the criterion will be met." Finding: There was considerable testimony from the public that there would be dust and noise and traffic impacts during the construction of the project. As discussed above, I find that this criterion only applies to the use as permitted. I agree with Staff and adopt the Staff recommended condition. I also adopt conditions addressing noise and dust. Section 18.124.070. Required Minimum Standards. A. Private or shared outdoor recreation areas in residential developments. B. Required Landscaped Areas. 1. The following landscape requirements are established for multi family, commercial and industrial developments, subject to site plan approval: a. A rninimuna of 15 percent of the lot area shall be landscaper. b. All areas subject to the final site plan and not otherwise improved shall be landscaped. "FINDING: This project is not a residential, multi -family, commercial, or industrial development. These criteria do not apply. " 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 70 of 84 Finding: I agree. 2. In addition to the requirement of DCC 18.124.070(B)(1)(a), the following landscape requirements shall apply to parking and loading areas... "FINDING: As discussed below, the proposal does not include required parking or loading areas. This criterion does not apply." Finding: I agree C. Non -motorized Access. 1. Bicycle Parking. The development shall provide the number and type of bicycle parking facilities as required in DCC 18.116.031 and 18.116.035. The location and design of bicycle parking facilities shall be indicated on the site plan. "FINDING: Bicycle parking standards are addressed below in DCC 18.116.031." Finding: I agree 2. Pedestrian Access and Circulation: a. Internal pedestrian circulation shall be provided in new commercial, office and multifamily residential developments through the clustering of buildings, construction of hard surface pedestrian walkways, and similar techniques. "FINDING: The proposal does not include new commercial, office and multi -family residential developments. This criterion does not apply." Finding: I agree. b. Pedestrian walkways shall connect building entrances to one another and from building entrances to public streets and existing or planned transit facilities. On site walkways shall connect with walkways, sidewalks, bikeways, and other pedestrian or bicycle connections on adjacent properties planned or used for commercial, multifamily, public or park use. C. Walkways shall be at least five feet in paved unobstructed width. Walkways which border parking spaces shall be at least seven feet wide unless concrete bumpers or curbing and landscaping or other similar improvements are provided which prevent parked vehicles from obstructing the walkway. Walkways shall be as direct as possible. d. Driveway crossings by walkways shall be minimized. Where the walkway system crosses driveways, parking areas and loading areas, the walkway must be clearly identifiable through the use of elevation changes, speed bumps, a different paving material or other similar method. 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 71 of 84 e. To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the primary building entrance and any walkway that connects a transit stop to building entrances shall have a maximum slope of five percent. Walkways up to eight percent slope are permitted, but are treated as ramps with special standards for railings and landings. "FINDING: Staff finds that these criteria do not apply to an unoccupied utility facility, since pedestrian use of the site will be limited to occasional visits from maintenance personnel." Finding: I agree. D. Commercial Development Standards... "FINDING: The applicant is not proposing new commercial buildings. Therefore, Staff finds this criterion is not applicable." Finding: I agree. Section 18.124.090. Right of Way Improvement Standards Any dedications or improvements to the road right of way required under DCC 18.124 shall meet the standards for road right of way improvements set forth in DCC Title 17 and any standards for right-of-way improvements set forth in DCC Title 18 for the particular zone in question. "FINDING: Portions of the project in the MUA-10 Zone will be located within the road rights - of -way of Northwest Way, NW Coyner Avenue, NW Euston Lane, and NW Pershall Way. Neither the Deschutes County Road Department, nor the Deschutes County Transportation Planner, identified transportation infrastructure deficiencies or dedication requirements. As indicated in a foregoing finding, the Road Department may require permitting for the construction within County rights -of -way (see DCC 18.124.060(K)). Staff finds this criterion is met as conditioned." Finding: There was testimony at the hearing and in written testimony that NW Euston Lane is not adequate. Ron Caramella, Page 3-4, June 16, 2023. Euston Lane appears to be a private road easement. As such, there are restrictions on spending public funds on such a road. Adjacent owners can seek to convert it to a public road and seek improvements to it. As to other roads in the MUA, the experts at the County Road Department and Transportation Planners have not found issues with the road condition, and they have a vested interest in having the City rather than the County pay for any road improvements, I find this criterion met. The Applicant did state: "The City will work with the property owner to discuss an easement for extension of the interceptor line within that existing easement — which is the western -most section of "NW Euston Lane." Once constructed the road along the new easement area would be improved to a higher standard than the existingroad. oad. This improvement will relate harmoniously with the 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 72 of 84 existing development, the subsurface pipe will have no visual impacts and no natural features in the vicinity will be disrupted." [Emphasis Added]. As Applicant is willing to improve Euston Lane, this seems like a reasonable condition. Finally, if and when the property is opened up for recreational uses, I expect the County to condition road improvements accessing the site. Section 18.124.080, Other Conditions. The Planning Director or Hearings Body may require the following in addition to the minimum standards of DCC Title 18 as a condition for site plan approval. A. An increase in the required yards. B. Additional off street parking. C. Screening of the proposed use by a fence or landscaping or combination thereof. D. Limitations on the size, type, location, orientation and number of lights. E. Limitations on the number and location of curb cuts. F. Dedication of land for the creation or enlargement of streets where the existing street system will be impacted by or is inadequate to handle the additional burden caused by the proposed use. G. Improvement, including but not limited to paving, curbing, installation of traffic signals and constructing sidewalks or the street system that serves the proposed use where the existing street system will be burdened by the proposed use. H. Improvement or enlargement of utilities serving the proposed use where the existing utilities system will be burdened by the proposed use. Improvements may include, but shall not be limited to, extension of utility facilities to serve the proposed use and installation of fire hydrants. L Landscaping of the site. J. Traffic Impact Study as identified in Title 18.116.310. K. Any other limitations or conditions that are considered necessary to achieve the purposes of DCC Title 18. "FINDING: To the extent that any conditions of approval contained in this decision require improvement to the site beyond the minimum standards of DCC Title 18, Staff finds such conditions are authorized by this section." Finding: I agree. Chapter 18.128, Conditional Use The pipeline replacement and improvement crosses five (5) properties in the MUA-10 Zone. The provisions of DCC 18.128 of the County Zoning Ordinance, Title 18, are applicable only to the property 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 73 of 84 that falls within the MUA-10 Zone. As discussed above, the applicant proposes two options' for a portion of the pipeline replacement. Both options are discussed in the findings below. Section 18.128.010, Operation. A. A conditional use listed in DCC Title 18 shall be permitted, altered or denied in accordance with the standards and procedures of this title; DCC Title 22, the Uniform Development Procedures Ordinance; and the Comprehensive Plan. B. In the case of a use existing prior to the effective date of DCC Title 18 and classified in DCC Title 18 as a conditional use, any change in use or lot area or an alteration of structure shall conform with the requirements for a conditional use. "FINDING: The proposed conditional use is reviewed in accordance with the standards and procedures of this title; DCC Title 22, the Uniform Development Procedures Ordinance; and the Comprehensive Plan." Finding: I agree. Section 18.128.015 General Standards Governing Conditional Uses. Except for those conditional uses permitting individual single family dwellings, conditional uses shall comply with the following standards in addition to the standards of the zone in which the conditional use is located and any other applicable standards of the chapter: A. The site under consideration shall be determined to be suitable for the proposed use based on the following factors: 1. Site, design and operating characteristics of the use, "FINDING: The applicant is proposing an alteration to the existing City of Redmond interceptor pipeline. The project spans five properties which are within the MUA-10 Zone. The provisions of DCC 18.128 are applicable only to the five properties that fall within the MUA-10 Zone, which includes Tax Lots 600, 601, 700, 800, 900. The following analysis considers the site, design, and operating characteristics of the use." Finding: I agree that the provisions of DCC 18.128 (listed below) are only applicable to the five properties in the MUA-10 Zone. Site and Design The applicant provided the following statement in response to this criterion: Applicant does not propose any buildings for this portion of the development and all improvements S Reference May 25, 2023, R. Kircher Supplemental App Mtrls 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 74 of 84 will be below grade. The proposed development within the MUA-10 Zone involves replacement of a 24-inch diameter pipeline with a 48-inch diameter pipeline and will be below grade and within established easements and public road rights -of -way. The proposed replacement of the interceptor pipeline constitutes an improvement to an existing sewer system, a utility facility, in MUA-10 Zone, which is a component of a utility facility, that serves the general public. The area of the project that falls within the MUA-10 zone consists of paved, public road right-of-way and easements on five (5) residentially -developed, privately -owned, properties that have mostly level, but some areas of mild sloping, topography, with scattered rock outcrops, small areas of farmed or cleared land and driveways. The project route, consisting of the easements on these five (5) properties, and multiple road rights -of- way, will continue to be below grade. There are no significant natural site features which would preclude siting of the replacement pipelines on these properties and roadways. In addition, those areas disturbed by the project will be restored to a condition defined by the project plans and easement agreements. Staff agrees with the applicant's characterization of the site and design characteristics of the use. Finding: I agree. Operating Characteristics The applicant provided the following statement in response to this criterion: The operating characteristics include the initial construction activity for replacement of one of the 24-inch diameter pipelines with a 48-inch diameter pipeline, and after completion, periodic inspection of the site, with maintenance and repair as necessary. Trips for maintenance of the enlarged pipe will be the same as for the existing pipe — maintenance trips will not change under the proposal. Otherwise, operating characteristics are self-contained within the pipe. The completed project will be as it is now — below grade, and neither visible nor iinpactf it to the public. The pipe enlargement areas under consideration are existing, and the proposal does not include new or extended pipelines, rather simply the replacement of underground pipelines with larger pipe. Thus, the proposed use under consideration is suitable considering the site, design and operating characteristics of the use. The applicant provided the following statement in response to this criterion as it pertains to the alternative alignment discussed above and noted in the record: The preferred alignment will provide the easement area needed for the 48-inch pipeline. The preferred alignment would follow an existing roadway easement west along NW Euston Way and connect to the NW Northwest Way right of way where the pipeline would be constructed north towards the RWC. The reason this preferred alignment was chosen was due to the operating characteristics and needed maintenance activities associated with the gravity pipeline. The site of the preferred alignment is already used as a gravel access road. The site is suitable for the construction of the interceptor. The proposed use and preferred alignment under consideration is suitable considering the site, design and operating characteristics of the use. 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 75 of 84 Staff generally agrees with the applicant's response on the operating characteristics of the proposed use. Further, Staff did not receive comments from any property owner on which the pipeline and associated easement currently exists that documents any issues with the siting, design or operating characteristics of the existing pipeline. Based on the applicant's description of the facility's site, design and operating characteristics, Staff finds the proposal demonstrates that the site under consideration is suitable for the proposed utility facility alteration. Finding: I agree and adopt the Staff s findings above. I note that Mr. Caramella testified that the easements along his property have created issues with noxious weeds. This is often the case with disturbed soils. Although, it is difficult to characterize this as an "operating characteristic," I find it appropriate to impose a condition requiring the applicant to coordinate with the Deschutes County Weed Control District to control weeds on its easements for 10 years after construction. 2. Adequacy of transportation access to the site; and "FINDING: The applicant provided the following statement in response to this criterion: The proposed use in the MUA-10 Zone is simple as it involves the replacement of a 24-inch diameter pipeline with a 48-inch diameter pipeline and will be below grade and within easements and public road rights -of -way. Other than initial activities associated with construction for replacement of the pipeline and occasional required maintenance or repair, there will be no traffic impacts associated with the ongoing use. The same number and type of maintenance trips as now occur, will occur in the future — no change to maintenance needs is expected from the larger pipe. Existing access onto private property is allowed through easements with property owners. Transportation access to the site is provided by the existing roadway network and easements and has been and will continue to be adequate to access the site for the initial construction and future intermittent maintenance of the pipeline under this proposal. The applicant provided the following statement in response to this criterion as it pertains to the alternative alignment discussed above and noted in the record: Due to the different type of wastewater that will flow through the preferred alignment, access will be needed for routine maintenance. The existing transportation system in the area provides access to the easement. The preferred alignment provides needed access for the City's wastewater operations Staff and others as needed to provide routine maintenance activities. Further the easement will be improved to a higher standard than what exists making access along that stretch adequate for maintenance as well as property access for those property owners who use that easement. Comments from the Deschutes County Road Department and Deschutes County Transportation Planner did not identify any transportation infrastructure deficiencies. The Deschutes County Transportation Planner did note that the applicant will need to work with the County Road Department to determine which, if any permits are required to perform work in the County rights of way. Staff includes a suggested 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 76 of 84 condition of approval to this effect. Comments from other agencies and the general public did not identify any transportation infrastructure deficiencies related to the pipeline replacement. Staff finds, as conditioned, the site is suitable for the proposed use based on adequacy of transportation access to the site." Finding: I agree. 3. The natural and physical features of the site, including, but not limited to, general topography, natural hazards and natural resource values. "FINDING: The applicant provided the following statement in response to this criterion: The proposed pipeline replacement for the utility facility will be located in the same location within the five (5) private properties and public rights- of -way as what exists. The area of the project that falls within the MUA-10 Zone consists of paved, public road right-of-way and five (5) residentially developed properties that have mostly level, but some areas of mild sloping, with areas of scattered rock outcrops, small areas of farmed or cleared land and driveways. In addition to small areas of pasture or lawn, vegetation is primarily native with juniper trees, shrubs, and grasses. The project area will be largely unaffected with the completion of the project, and will be restored to blend harmoniously with the natural environment surrounding it. There are no known natural hazards or distinguishing natural resource values on the properties that merit protection (e.g. Goal 5 inventoried natural resources) that are any different than those experienced by other properties in Central Oregon. There are no natural or physical features on the MUA-10-zoned portion of the project that would prevent the proposed utility facility use. For these reasons, the site is suitable considering natural and physical features. The applicant provided the following statement in response to this criterion as it pertains to the alternative alignment discussed above and noted in the record: The preferred alignment is located along an existing access easement. Constructing a sewer line in an existing easement and improving the roadway that sits atop the proposed sewer line will not impact natural or physical features of the site. Once construction is complete and the roadway is improved to a higher standard than its current state, the project area will be largely unaffected. There are no known natural hazards or distinguishing natural resource values on the preferred alignment property that merit protection. There are no natural or physical features on the MUA- 10- zoned portion of the project that would prevent the proposed pipeline. For these reasons, the site is suitable considering natural and physical features. The Deschutes County Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (2015) identifies drought, earthquake, flood, landslide, volcanic, wildfire, windstorm, and winter storm hazards in the County. Of these, wildfire is of special concern regarding the suitability of the use. Natural resource values typically include agricultural soils, forest lands, wildlife and their habitats, wetlands, and natural water features. 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 77 of 84 Comments from agencies and the general public did not identify any site unsuitability due to general topography, natural hazards, or natural resource values as it relate to the pipeline replacement. Staff finds there are no natural or physical features on the site that will prevent the proposed utility facility use." Finding: I agree. B. The proposed use shall be compatible with existing and projected uses on surrounding properties based on the factors listed in DCC 18.128.015(A). "FINDING: The applicant provided the following statement in response to this criterion: The areas surrounding the pipeline corridor in the MUA-10 Zone consists of a mix of farm and rural residential properties with some properties exhibiting some level of farm or agricultural use. Projected uses on surrounding properties are limited by the zoning restrictions in the area, which are MUA-10, RR-10, Surface Mining (SM), Floodplain (FP) and EFU zoning. The projected pipeline replacement will have the same compatibility with existing and projected uses on surrounding properties as with the existing pipeline it will replace. The proposed pipeline replacement in the MUA-10 zoned areas of the project will be below grade and not visible to the public after construction is completed. After construction, the area will be restored to a condition defined by the project plans and easement agreements. A majority of the route will be located outside or any area used for farm use, close to property boundaries, and/or within road right- of -way and thus will retain the existing uses, treed areas, and irrigated lands. Trips for maintenance will be the same as now and so impacts to neighboring roadways will be minimal. The proposal does not include adverse noise or glare impacts. Adverse odor conditions are not anticipated. The pipeline will be below grade and will not interfere with the potential development of other surrounding properties with dwellings and/or farm uses. Based on the above, coupled with the project being below grade, the proposed pipeline replacement in the MUA-10 Zone will be suitable with surrounding properties considering the siting, design, operating characteristics of the project. Following the construction phase for the pipeline replacement, the proposal will not impact any off -site transportation access. Similarly, the project will not impact any off -site natural or physical features. For these reasons, this criterion is satisfied. The applicant provided the following statement in response to this criterion as it pertains to the alternative alignment discussed above and noted in the record: The proposed pipeline replacement in the preferred alignment will be below grade and not visible to the public after construction is completed. A pipeline replacement in the preferred alignment location will have the same compatibility with existing and projected uses on surrounding properties as with the existing pipeline it will replace. 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 78 of 84 After construction, the preferred alignment area will be restored to a condition defined by the project plans and easement agreements. The proposal does not include adverse noise or glare impacts. Adverse odor conditions are not anticipated. The pipeline will be below grade and will not interfere with the potential development of other surrounding properties. Based on the above, coupled with the project being below grade, the proposed pipeline replacement in the MUA-10 Zone in the preferred alignment will be suitable with surrounding properties considering the siting, design, and operating characteristics of the project. Following the construction phase for the pipeline replacement, the proposal will not impact any off -site transportation access. Similarly, the project will not impact any off -site natural or physical features. Staff finds this this criterion requires that the proposed use must be compatible with existing and projected uses on surrounding properties. Staff finds "surrounding properties" are those that might be significantly adversely impacted by their proximity to the proposed use. Existing on surrounding properties include a mix of farm and rural residential properties with most exhibiting some level of agricultural use. Projected uses on surrounding properties are those that have received approvals or are allowed outright and are typical of development of the areas. These projected uses include residential uses and farm uses and those limited by the zoning restrictions in the area, which are EFU, RR-10, and MUA-10. The applicant mentions the Flood Plain Zone but the pipeline replacement is not located on or adjacent to any areas zoned Flood Plain. For these reasons, Staff finds the project uses are likely to be similar to existing uses." Finding: I agree. These findings are duplicative of the findings above, regarding farm impacts, those are readopted here. (A)(1). Site, design and operating characteristics of the use, "FINDING: Staff finds the proposed use would be unsuitable if the siting, design and operating characteristics of the use significantly adversely impacted existing and projected uses on surrounding properties. Typically, potential adverse impacts could include visual, noise, dust, and odor impacts. Staff finds the proposed project could cause temporary noise and dust impacts during installation and construction. Staff includes the following recommended conditions of approval to mitigate those impacts: 1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered, up to two times per day, if airborne dust is visible. 2. The beds of all haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off -site shall be covered. 3. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes. 4. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 79 of 84 5. Use of equipment and machinery to install any trenching for utilities shall only be conducted between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m." Finding: I agree and adopt the above conditions. (A)(2). Adequacy of transportation access to the site; and "FINDING: Staff finds the proposed use would be unsuitable if access to the site would significantly adversely impact existing and projected uses on surrounding properties. No such impacts are anticipated or identified in the record." Finding: I agree. (A)(3). The natural and physical features of the site, including, but not limited to, general topography, natural hazards and natural resource values. "FINDING: Staff finds the proposed use would be unsuitable if it significantly adversely impacted off -site topography, natural hazards, or natural resource values. Natural hazards on surrounding properties include wildfire. There are no significant natural resources values identified in the record on surrounding properties. As the applicant notes, a majority of the route will be located outside of any area used for farm use, close to property boundaries, and/or within road right- of - way and thus will retain the existing uses, treed areas, and irrigated lands. No offsite impacts to wildfire hazard are anticipated or identified in the record. As discussed, the project, upon completion, will be entirely below grade and does not include the construction of structures or buildings. Staff finds this criterion is satisfied." Finding: I agree. C These standards and any other standards of DCC 18.128 may be met by the imposition of conditions calculated to insure that the standard will be met. "FINDING: To the extent this decision is conditioned under DCC 18.128 criterion, Staff notes such conditions are authorized by this criterion. The applicant suggested a condition of approval relating to the "either/or" nature of the preferred alignment. Staff has incorporated this condition into the recommended conditions of approval: Prior to construction of the 48-inch sewer system pipeline, the applicant shall provide to the Community Development Department written documentation of easement agreements for the sewer line construction and access." Finding: I agree. 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 80 of 84 Section 18.128.020, Conditions. In addition to the standards and conditions set forth in a specific zone or in DCC 18.124, the Planning Director or the Hearings Body may impose the following conditions upon a finding that additional restrictions are warranted. A. Require a limitation on manner in which the use is conducted, including restriction of hours of operation and restraints to minimize environmental effects such as noise, vibrations, air pollution, glare or odor. B. Require a special yard or other open space or a change in lot area or lot dimension. C. Require a limitation on the height, size or location of a structure. D. Specify the size, number, location and nature of vehicle access points. E. Increase the required street dedication, roadway width or require additional improvements within the street right of way. E Designate the size, location, screening, drainage, surfacing or other improvement of a parking or loading area. G. Limit or specify the number, size, location, height and lighting of signs. H. Limit the location and intensity of outdoor lighting and require shielding. L Specify requirements for diking, screening, landscaping or other methods to protect adjacent or nearby property and specify standards for installation and maintenance. J. Specify the size, height and location of any materials to be used for fencing. K. Require protection and preservation of existing trees, vegetation, water resources, wildlife habitat or other significant natural resources. L. Require that a site plan be prepared in conformance with DCC 18.124. "FINDING: To the extent that any conditions of approval contained in this decision require improvement to the site beyond the minimum standards of DCC Title 18, Staff finds such conditions are authorized by this section." Finding: I agree. I modify the condition of approval above for the alternative alignment as follows: Prior to construction of the 48-inch sewer system pipeline, the applicant shall provide to the Community Development Department written documentation of easement agreements for the sewer line construction and access. If easements for the proposed alternative alignment are obtained, then Applicant shall record a vacation of the easements no longer necessary. I also will impose the following conditions: 1. Applicant will suppress, control, and eradicate noxious weeds on the subject property, consistent with the mission of the Deschutes County Noxious Weed Program and the Weed Control Ordinance, DCC Chapter 8.35 2. For work in Euston Lane, the road along the new easement area will be improved to a higher standard than the existing road. Any manholes shall be at grade. 3. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the Applicant shall provide Staff with a well 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 81 of 84 monitoring plan for its wells on the Wetlands Complex Site. The plan shall provide for voluntary free well testing for property owners annually within a one -mile radius of the site. Section 18.128.040, Specific Use Standards. A conditional use shall comply with the standards of the zone in which it is located and with the standards and conditions set forth in DCC 18.128.045 through DCC 18.128.370. "FINDING: As described herein, the proposed conditional use complies with the standards of the zone in which it is located and with the standards and conditions set forth in DCC 18.128.045 through DCC 18.128.370, as applicable." Finding: I agree. SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE Board Resolution 2013-020 sets a transportation system development charge (SDC) rate of $5,080 per p.m. hour trip. As the proposed used will not consume additional roadway capacity as that term is commonly understood, no SDCs are triggered. The burden of proof does mention potential future public access as wetland areas can also function as quasi -parks for nature hikes, bird watching, and similar recreational activities. If the public is allowed access, then the County reserves the right to revisit the issue of SDCs. Finding: I agree IV. CONCLUSION I find that the Applicant, with the attached conditions, has met the burden of proof necessary to justify approval of a Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan Review, LOR Verification, and Major Administrative Determination to establish the Redmond Wetlands Complex on land zoned EFU as well as the replacement of an existing interceptor pipeline along a two-mile route on lands zoned EFU and MUA-10 through effectively demonstrating compliance with the applicable criteria of DCC Title 18 (the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance) and applicable sections of OAR and ORS. V. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. This approval is based upon the application, site plan, specifications, and supporting documentation submitted by the applicant. Any substantial change in this approved use will require review through a new land use application. B. The property owner shall obtain any necessary permits from the Deschutes County Building Division and Onsite Wastewater Division. 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 82 of 84 C. No building or structure shall be erected or enlarged to exceed 30 feet in height, except as allowed by DCC 18.120.040 D. Structural setbacks from any north lot line shall meet the solar setback requirements in DCC 18.116.180. E. In addition to the setbacks set forth herein, any greater setbacks required by applicable building or structural codes adopted by the State of Oregon and/or the County under DCC 15.04 shall be met. F. The utility facility/sewer system shall not serve land outside urban growth boundaries or unincorporated community boundaries. If the Applicant City has not already done so, adopt a land use regulation to prohibit the City of Redmond from providing sewer service to land outside of the UGB except as authorized by OAR 660-0011-0060(4) or other applicable law. G. Prior to initiation of use and/or issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Division correspondence from Redmond Fire & Rescue indicating all relevant access, fire and water requirements, as detailed in Section II of this decision, have been addressed or met. H. Prior to project construction, the applicant shall meet County Road Department permitting requirements and conditions regarding the work conducted with road right -of way. I. To mitigate noise and dust impacts during project installation: 1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and ---- ''�'-- -- - - A--- 'r airborne '�---� ----]_I1-1_ unpaved access roads) shall be watered, up to two times per uay, 11 ai borne uUJI is visible. 2. The beds of all haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off -site shall be covered. 3. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes. 4. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. 5. Use of equipment and machinery to install any trenching for utilities shall only be conducted between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. J. Prior to construction of the 48-inch sewer system pipeline, the applicant shall provide to the Community Development Department written documentation of easement agreements for the sewer line construction and access. If easements for the proposed alternative alignment are obtained, then Applicant shall record a vacation of the easements that are no longer necessary. K. Land Restoration: The owner of the utility facility shall be responsible for restoring, as nearly as possible, to its former condition any lands zoned MUA-10 or EFU and associated improvements that are damaged or otherwise disturbed by the siting, maintenance, repair or reconstruction of the facility. L. Erosion Control Plan: Prior to the start of construction activities, the applicant shall provide an Erosion Control Plan to the Planning Division prepared by a licensed, professional engineer. Staff 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 83 of 84 recommends that a licensed, professional engineer use the Central Oregon Stormwater Manual as the basis for the plan. M. Prior to initiation of use and/or issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Division correspondence from Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) indicating all relevant comments or conditions, as detailed in Section II of this decision, have been addressed or met. N. Applicant will suppress, control, and eradicate noxious weeds on the subject property, consistent with the mission of the Deschutes County Noxious Weed Program and the Weed Control Ordinance, DCC Chapter 8.35. O. For work in Euston Lane, the road along the new easement area would be improved to a higher standard than the existing road. Any manholes shall be at grade. P. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the Applicant shall provide Staff with a vector control plan for the Wetlands Complex consistent with wastewater disposal industry standards. Q. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the Applicant shall provide Staff with a well monitoring plan for its wells on the property for the Wetlands Complex Site. The plan shall provide for voluntary free well testing for property owners annually within a one -mile radius of the site. VI. DURATION OF APPROVAL, NOTICE, AND APPEALS The applicant shall initiate the use for the proposed development within two (2) years of the date this decision becomes final, or obtain approval of an extension under Title 22 of the County Code, or this approval shall be void. 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 appeal fee, and a statement raising any issue relied upon for appeal with sufficient specificity to afford the Hearings Body an adequate opportunity to respond to and resolve each issue. Copies of the 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. Dated this 8th Day of August, 2023 "� '4 RS04 ,ea Alan A. Rappleyea 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 84 of 84 I Es coG Mailing Date: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 NOTICE OF HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION The Deschutes County Hearings Officer has approved the land use application(s) described below: FILE NUMBER: 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD SUBJECT PROPERTY /OWNER: Mailing Name: CITY OF REDMOND Map and Taxlot: 1413300000101 Account: 165689 Situs Address: 5801 NORTHWEST WAY, REDMOND, OR 97756 ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES: The Redmond Wetlands Complex is proposed across four (4) additional properties identified in this staff report, and are either federally owned or owned by the City of Redmond. The associated pipeline and easements cross through eight (8) private properties within Deschutes County jurisdiction as identified at the bottom of this notice. APPLICANT: City of Redmond Attn: Ryan Kirchner, Wastewater Division Manager 411 SW 91" Street Redmond, OR 97756 APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Wendie L. Kellington Kellington Law Group, PC PO Box 2209 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Chris Schmoyer Schmoyer Land Use Consulting, LLC 60939 Zircon Drive Bend, OR 97702 SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan Review, Lot of Record Verification, and Major Administrative Determination for the expansion of the Redmond 1 1 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 Q, (541) 388-6575 @ cddgdeschutes.org ® www.deschutes.org/cd Water Pollution Control Facility Effluent and Biosolids Disposal Complex ("Redmond Wetlands Complex"). The project includes: ■ Relocating sanitary sewer treatment facilities to the 608-acre City -owned property and expanding the disposal facilities to the north onto federally owned property. The relocation and expansion includes new operational buildings, new lined and unlined treatment wetlands for effluent polishing and disposal, new primary treatment facilities with headworks screening, and new aerated lagoon system for secondary treatment. ■ Replacing an existing 24-inch diameter interceptor pipeline with a 48-inch diameter pipeline that will be below grade and within established utility easements and/or public rights -of -way on an approximately two (2) mile route to the City of Redmond to connect to existing facilities treatment facility at the north end of Dry Canyon. STAFF PLANNER: Haleigh King, Associate Planner 541-383-6710 / Haleigh.king@deschutes.org RECORD: Record items can be viewed and downloaded from: https://www.deschutes.org/RedmondWetlandsComplex APPLICABLE CRITERIA: Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 660, Division 11 nraann Ravicari Ctati rtac rartinn 91 S 996 Deschutes County Code (DCC) Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance: Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones (EFU) Chapter 18.32, Multiple Use Agricultural Zone (MUA10) Chapter 18.56, Surface Mining Impact Area Combining Zone (SMIA) Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions Chapter 18.124, Site Plan Review Chapter 18.128, Conditional Use Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance DECISION: The Hearings Officer finds that the application(s) meet applicable criteria, and approval is being granted subject to the following conditions: I. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: A. This approval is based upon the application, site plan, specifications, and supporting documentation submitted by the applicant. Any substantial change in this approved use will require review through a new land use application. 247-23-000149-CU, 150-SP, 151-LR, 152-AD Page 2 of 5 B. The property owner shall obtain any necessary permits from the Deschutes County Building Division and Onsite Wastewater Division. C. No building or structure shall be erected or enlarged to exceed 30 feet in height, except as allowed by DCC 18.120.040 D. Structural setbacks from any north lot line shall meet the solar setback requirements in DCC 18.116.180. E. In addition to the setbacks set forth herein, any greater setbacks required by applicable building or structural codes adopted by the State of Oregon and/or the County under DCC 15.04 shall be met. F. The utility facility/sewer system shall not serve land outside urban growth boundaries or unincorporated community boundaries. If the Applicant City has not already done so, adopt a land use regulation to prohibit the City of Redmond from providing sewer service to land outside of the UGB except as authorized by OAR 660-0011-0060(4) or other applicable law. G. Prior to initiation of use and/or issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Division correspondence from Redmond Fire & Rescue indicating all relevant access, fire and water requirements, as detailed in Section II of this decision, have been addressed or met. H. Prior to project construction, the applicant shaIII meet County Road Depar talent per ITIILLiiig requirements and conditions regarding the work conducted with road right -of way. I. To mitigate noise and dust impacts during project installation: 1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered, up to two times per day, if airborne dust is visible. 2. The beds of all haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off -site shall be covered. 3. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes. 4. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. 5. Use of equipment and machinery to install any trenching for utilities shall only be conducted between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. �. Prior to construction of the 48-inch sewer system pipeline, the applicant shall provide to the Community Development Department written documentation of easement agreements for the sewer line construction and access. If easements for the proposed alternative alignment are obtained, then Applicant shall record a vacation of the easements that are no longer necessary. 247-23-000149-CU, 150-SP, 151-LR, 152-AD Page 3 of 5 K. Land Restoration: The owner of the utility facility shall be responsible for restoring, as nearly as possible, to its former condition any lands zoned MUA-10 or EFU and associated improvements that are damaged or otherwise disturbed by the siting, maintenance, repair or reconstruction of the facility. L. Erosion Control Plan: Prior to the start of construction activities, the applicant shall provide an Erosion Control Plan to the Planning Division prepared by a licensed, professional engineer. Staff recommends that a licensed, professional engineer use the Central Oregon Stormwater Manual as the basis for the plan. M. Prior to initiation of use and/or issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Division correspondence from Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) indicating all relevant comments or conditions, as detailed in Section II of this decision, have been addressed or met. N. Applicant will suppress, control, and eradicate noxious weeds on the subject property, consistent with the mission of the Deschutes County Noxious Weed Program and the Weed Control Ordinance, DCC Chapter 8.35. O. For work in Euston Lane, the road along the new easement area would be improved to a higher standard than the existing road. Any manholes shall be at grade. P. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the Applicant shall provide Staff with a vector control plan for the Wetlands Complex consistent with wastewater disposal industry standards. Q. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the Applicant shall provide Staff with a well monitoring plan for its wells on the property for the Wetlands Complex Site. The plan shall provide for voluntary free well testing for property owners annually within a one -mile radius of the site. 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. 247-23-000149-CU, 150-SP, 151-LR, 152-AD Page 4 of 5 ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES Map and Tax Lot Situs Address Property Owner 1412000000200 8300 NW LOWER BRIDGE WAY, TERREBONNE, OR 97760 USA 1413000002600 4250 NW LOWER BRIDGE WAY, TERREBONNE, OR 97760 USA 1413000002604 NONE CITY OF REDMOND 1413290000201 NONE CITY OF REDMOND 1413290001201 3080 NW EUSTON LN, REDMOND, OR 97756 RANDY KEMNITZ LIVING REVOCABLE TRUST 1413290001202 2827 NW COYNER AVE, REDMOND, OR 97756 DONLAN,DAVID J & CHERYL L 1413290001300 2675 NW COYNER AVE, REDMOND, OR 97756 HASTI N GS, ZACHARY J & TAMMYJ 1413290000601 2667 NW EUSTON LN, REDMOND, OR 97756 RANDALLS SCHONING TRUST 1413290000600 2571 NW EUSTON LN, REDMOND, OR 97756 CARAMELLA,RONALD E & CARYN B 1413290000700 3085 NW EUSTON LN, REDMOND, OR 97756 PETERSON,CARINA A 1413290000800 5350 NORTHWEST WAY, REDMOND, OR 97756 LUNA, HELIBERTO 1413290000900 3000 NW WILLIAMS WAY, REDMOND, OR 97756 IVIEDLUC.K, MAN & LAVUIN 247-23-000149-CU, 150-SP, 151-LR, 152-AD Page 5 of 5 aai nno odno nnn onno ado annnnnnnnnn ono y vy'.'�.'. �y oV.Am m � d m V.Am Lz z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z d m so so e ePPF�� ese a�$o x� "axe o oorc - so - �p�wo3omh 0cex��xxxepSasrc xo m�osoo 000 000000goo 00000o o000; ° z„0z- oozz� am .. .. .. u... HHHUM-H.'.- � w�wEEw aka $$ moomsHEIT111gwzm � = a rc o o m 3_ ___ a 3 i i r z o o x i x rc" a ;= w o a m o 3 o 3 3 3 m o; 3 w rydddd3> >i T'> wawa 'a a� EEE E]3�Sy _ _ waw_ u3 iaidi3>o3�r�£i ;o- o£`��'zz o tl' o 0 0 0 0 0 o a o Gi d u'' . m '.~> >>>>> a=?? r r= o o o 0 3 3 3 3 z 3 3 i Z y w x a a 'zzzzzz�z$zzzzzzzzzzzz'zzzzzzzzzzzzzzizzzz zzzzzzzzzzzz �i ¢ia 99N oz° °z 'izozzzzzzzozzz zzzI: zzzz ___ -- g- ___ -R - oxe �e a gin$-___ r ads n & g'mmxmM mm $m m� _ K s w s o q o 33Ea - u 's - � o z F - Y 3 _ rc w _ a LL'a 5 3 = w w F 'a a 0 3 s u m o ~ m o w a W V n u o adz E�is3� map„ 3zwwa_ Teagr =>o�sws�aow m� oa bsi�w h y3rcs�p�w asw wW°�w ys� wz�sapzp ��'�a8os>wkwg.�$m -�rco €Sao �i �p ss'wn�Q g �34 -w 8 �g$�_ p w �w- - --osao sad as a.g oo rcLL� oo zgh �.� z4 _ wdi �o �gw mg osp - zm - gg w-g'm- °.a'4� m'a�i�wdx°w - >� - -rcHs� z'oz y§mow -m�-ov is -qq -ms n $ 3 0 r 3 u E o f > E p ry m x. E o o x>.¢ r 8 m' 3 i a m. a i o a. w s w 3 ? a z S m 3 x E x m m z o 3 z m 3 ii a odo d o ao a d o o d o d o a d d o do odo y ya'• yy`�' y'y .'� y y y y y �'! y y y w d.m mAm m� xxx gees xxxx �mx mx x .P e e pN3e e x x„ eP�e ^P mod oP -0Zz odo i z o;as° OO 0o0o 0o 0o0oOo rc z 42SEE rc y rcp F£o ES£w°g¢ �2 Q2 E E �3p F£FE w°2042 EiOOOO OO o OrcOOFE °'OOit¢OOFSOOEEOO °o om 6o° 8 6 o a t T x��.���"rr�. 33 3 3y o 3 ° ��� 80 0 3 0 3 3 3 0 3 3 y£ _ 3_= F ul F i r y i z E 3 z r o �i g o o o zo ~ zzzzzz$'"zzizzsz"'iyzzo wzz zzzz''-Ozzzz°zS°z°zzi5zzzzzzzbzm??z�zzizzzzz'zz''zzzi'°zz�z��zz'z zzzzz3zzzzzzazz '��°mmmrmmmn^����Rmoaa�?..o&oM9���r�������SA��������������gee�ege�e$g�e��eeeeffieeee��ed�e��3eo8o������„������$ C a G w t xSo o" Sk poz i�� �g a z rW� up�p Z. row > wwwE� o,$Q a x° a x 3 u z - a 3 0 m z o x?lo - g W_ 'o o C �i� w� _�Sok xs��xa wzi8i ? u z m 3 rc o 3 rc 3 z 3 u i za o° x u z o u `�', E a" w °� r x 3 a m 3 i x " 3 w z� -pw oa� So. omaay�'8 w_� yi°p30§ a".� wSoo_�LLap�3 Qa$o "aO�3o w wk = rcg° p�8 yxg ��m°°o o�z,ax �8x° 3oE°amp"az E .q 55 E E J � 5 ada aaada aada a a a a a aaaaaaaaaoad as aad� aaaaaada n v y y v v', Y Y 2. Y y '.Yi u y yu mAm mdmmddm moma$'°o$P^mmS S S oao o wwo om^ o ^�` �dm��w� x-wwwPwwm"m° w°awo rc 3 o 0 3 p n ow omogom woo a� Kip �4�-g pw �F4g p „gam �t1m.1 11 zI 3 3 0 3 3 2 3 a P. w Q> z¢ H w r o w aI lwo a & i Nzz°iw mszzi z i°zz?xsz' w E o omo o o00 000.0 . ........m.mm m m m.... .��S�mmm�mmmm�mPmm�maaan aad aaaddaaaaooavaasaasva E � mw r 3o o o o o o rm rc w� z r �Q ¢ u�a�3Q k $��Wmap - m om oV�£arc �� w - 1.a b � O��z _a ti„a s 'm p `p ��g o o z E o 5 z Y a z m o y E m m > z, E¢ w o �a o° m4' o rc Q o ya z z 5 z 3 m > w. o rc 5 3` o rc 'z °°°i3 rc i 4 m o i? rc x 3 o E o i tt o w cTi m¢ w ma u 3 r C 3 3m �3 0 3 0 o BEd - 8 � _ m vow A`oa 3�z i���i&zzN o �A��morrr�rm.. Mailing Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION AND FINDINGS OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER FILE NUMBERS: Reconsideration File No. 247-23-000634-RC for File Numbers 247-23-000149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD APPLICANTS/OWNERS: City of Redmond Attn: Ryan Kirchner, Wastewater Division Manager 411 SW 91h Street Redmond, OR 97756 SUBJECT PROPERTY: Map and Taxlot: 1413300000101 Account: 165689 Situs Address: 5801 NORTHWEST WAY, REDMOND, OR 97756 The Redmond Wetlands Complex is proposed across four (4) additional properties identified in the Staff report and are either federally owned or owned by the City of Redmond. The associated pipeline and easements cross through eight (8) private properties within Deschutes County jurisdiction as identified in the Staff report. REQUEST: Applicant seeks review of a condition placed on the Conditional Use Permit for the expansion of the Redmond Water Pollution Control Facility Effluent and Biosolids Disposal Complex ("Redmond Wetlands Complex"). The project includes: Relocating sanitary sewer treatment facilities to the 608-acre City - owned property and expanding the disposal facilities to the north onto federally owned property. The relocation and expansion includes new operational buildings, new lined and unlined treatment wetlands for effluent polishing and disposal, new primary treatment facilities with headworks screening, and new aerated lagoon system for secondary treatment. Replacing an existing 24-inch diameter interceptor pipeline with a 48-inch diameter pipeline that will be below grade and within established utility easements and/or public rights -of -way on an approximately two (2) mile route to the City of Redmond to connect to existing facilities treatment facility at the north end of Dry Canyon. 247-23-000634-RC, 23-149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 1 of 4 I. II. HEARINGS OFFICER: Alan A. Rappleyea STAFF CONTACT: Haleigh King, Associate Planner Phone: 541-383-6710 Email: Haleigh.king(a,deschutes.org RECORD: Record items can be viewed and downloaded from: www.deschutes.ortz/redmondwetlandscomplex REVIEW PERIOD: The subject application was submitted on August 21, 2023, the 12th day from the date the original Decision was mailed. The 150-day clock is stayed during the period of reconsideration pursuant to Deschutes County Code 22.30.0210 (August 21, 2023, through and including September 12, 2023). Therefore, the 1501h day on which the County must take final action on the original Decision is November 11, 2023. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: The Hearings Officer finds that the Applicants have met their burden of proof on the Request for Reconsideration and the Condition will be modified. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA DCC 22.30.010. Reconsideration. A. An applicant may request that the Hearing Officer's decision be reconsidered as set forth herein. A request for reconsideration shall be accompanied by a fee established by the County and by applicant's written consent that the 150-day time clock will not run during the period of the reconsideration. B. Grounds for reconsideration are limited to the following instances where an alleged error substantially affects the rights of the applicant: 1. Correction of an error in a condition established by the Hearing Officer where the condition is not supported by the record or is not supported by law; 2. Correction of errors that are technical or clerical in nature. CONDITION OBJECTED TO: "Q. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the Applicant shall provide Staff with a well monitoring plan for its wells on the property for the Wetlands Complex Site. The plan shall provide for voluntary free well testing for property owners annually within a one -mile radius of the site." ARGUMENTS City of Redmond: 247-23-000634-RC, 23-149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 2 of 4 "The City of Redmond is requesting that this condition of approval be removed from the decision. As a practical matter it is oppressive, there are some 500 domestic and agricultural wells in this vicinity depending upon where the one mile is measured from. As a legal matter it is respectfully submitted that the condition imposed is not required by any relevant approval standard and there is no evidence in the record that there are or will be groundwater issues for anyone. The findings discuss the condition as a way to avoid adverse impacts to farm uses from the proposed RWC. However, there is no evidence that there will be any adverse impacts to groundwater reasonably expected from the proposal. As is explained in detail in this request, DEQ has an extensive groundwater monitoring program that the proposal will be required to comply with. There is no way for anyone who requests sampling under the condition to know if any detected problems have anything to do with the proposal. There is no baseline from which to measure impacts and no way to know what other uses may be affecting any such results." Page 2 Burden of Proof Statement "Please note, the City of Redmond understands the need to protect groundwater quality. The groundwater testing protocols required by DEQ as part of the Water Pollution Control Facility permitting process are strict, based on science and assure that water from the city's disposal wetlands meet the standards to protect public health. The city's wastewater treatment practices, which are highly regulated by DEQ, discharge water that meets very high public health standards. Such water (toes not adversely impact farm practices." Page 3 Burden of Proof Statement Opponent Argument: Carrie Caramella and Don Caramella provided comments but did not address the condition at issue. Mr. Liday's letter dated September 1, 2023, provided the argument below. He also argues that this is a common condition for water treatment plants and if it is changed it should be modified but not removed. "The City argues in its application that there is no need for this condition because the Project will not have an adverse impact on groundwater. This, of course, assumes that the Project is designed correctly, built as designed, and operates in optimal fashion. This is often not the case, as exemplified by the leak/unauthorized discharge at the City of Albany's wastewater wetlands facility in 2019.2.[fn omitted] Moreover, the fact that this leak was not discovered for six years illustrates the limitations of DEQ's monitoring capabilities." IV. HEARINGS OFFICER FINDINGS I find that the condition should be removed, although I agree with Mr. Liday that this is a common land use condition that is imposed on water treatment plants. As originally proposed, I conditioned 247-23-000634-RC, 23-149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 3 of 4 the Applicant to come up with a plan to provide well testing. I improperly assumed that the Applicant could create a plan that would provide reasonable limits on well tests, such as twenty tests per year and rotate notices to well owners within the area covered. Such a reasonable plan would not be too burdensome. Perhaps I should have been more specific in my condition. I disagree with Applicant that there is no legal authority to impose this requirement as I can impose restrictions to limit impact to agriculture. I also disagree that there are only three wells in this area that can affect agriculture. I am certain there are domestic wells that farmers use and if those are tainted, then that certainly would affect agriculture. I am also aware of the special groundwater rules that the Oregon Water Resources Department has for central Oregon due to its uniquely porous lava geography, as I participated in that rule making. Regardless, I am convinced by the Applicants' arguments of the extensive well testing that it currently does, the technical groundwater analysis in its request for reconsideration, and the fact that there have been many years of operation without groundwater issues, that this condition is not supported by the record; therefore, condition Q is not necessary and is removed on reconsideration. The Decision findings, conclusions and conditions shall remain in full force and effect except as modified by this Reconsideration Decision. Dated this 13h Day of September, 2023 Alan A. Rappleyea 247-23-000634-RC, 23-149-CU, 23-150-SP, 23-151-LR, 23-152-AD Page 4 of 4 § f! { ; �)! ) \\(�\\ ) I M W., m NJ O NJ Ul m rD �• rD �. rD D �' m ..s (n' rF N 3 0 :5 C: -0 O N ID :3 rD 3 rD Q (D rD N N rD N rD Ln (� Q e-h rD rD 3 � rD co < ®. O O aq rD t-h _0 <' rD co = E — - 0-Ln 3 o- _0 cu (n fD M Q � (n (n' 3 w • r A•0 —� --I M 0 T� -v 0 to C/) M a o -� o .O O cn c 3 O c CD cu D 0� cn � s �- n M n (D 00 (n < N CD . = O � O � O cu -� can o < 0) CD cR M. c-�' O CD , CD W 3 CD —� cu iu MM2 3 CD CD imago W RA s tn.. in- tom : 4un. t/.)- v-P.' , rn W W N N P N u, MIMI , O -P:b l0 N V1 O V, O 01 O O O 00 l0 ? p l0 O O 00 O P O O P 00 ! N � 00 0 U.)O O CDU., 1-1 W CY) 0 0 0 N ..: O O O U'l p) v; A M { S m JU -s u n N t' 0Q 3 N N O CJ7 V l0 O N O O W W N o 110o 0 0 'Y o 0 0 -.0, -.-0, ,,, • N — r) C- I� -p 01 < O �' • f-t n cn m — o -aO -8,0, ( 3 c nu m O � w e -r CL w Orq 3 o — O �: �' Un iD CD p • m r+ fD � fD c CD cy- � Q n cD �. to 0� Orq O MI • • • • • TI rD C < -0 — _ O :3 rD rD rD m rD O' n n ell Q cn O -D' O 0'Q CD 3 3 rD rD _3 D. On O� c� 0� 0� rD n O n � O 0 et O n � O � � O n � N O N W �s N V ((D ^V l l c r+ (D (A ' 0 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING DATE: September 27, 2023 SUBJECT: Treasury Report for August 2023 ATTENDANCE: Bill Kuhn, County Treasurer DATE: September 25, 2023 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Bill Kuhn, Treasurer SUBJECT: Treasury Report for August 2023 Following is the unaudited monthly treasury report for fiscal year to date (YTD) as of August 31, 2023. Treasury and Investments • The portfolio balance at the end of August was $256.2 million, a decrease of $2.2 million from July and a decrease of $15.0 million from last year (Aug 2022). • Net investment income for August was $491,809 approximately $25K less than last month and $282K greater than August 2022. YTD earnings of $1,008,240 are $600,989 more than the YTD earnings last year. • All portfolio category balances are within policy limits. • The LGIP interest rate increased to 4.50% during the month of August. Benchmark returns for 24-month and 36- month treasuries are down from the prior month by 3 basis points and up by 3 basis points respectively. • Average portfolio yield is 2.484% which is higher than the prior month's average of 2.38%. • The portfolio weighted average time to maturity is 1.06 years, down slightly from 1.12 years in July. Deschutes ��� 1 � s coG County�� 2� o < e '• . e e 1 Portfolio Breakdown: Par Value by !investment T e Investment Income': Municipal Debt $ 42,175,000 16.5% Aug-23 Y-T-D Corporate Notes 37,821,000 14.8 % Total Investment Income $ 496,809 $ 1,018,240 Time Certificates 1,245,000 0.5 % Less Fee: $5,000 per month (5,000) 10,000 U.S. Treasuries 57,000,000 22.2% Investment Income - Net $ 491,809 1 00 2240 Federal Agencies 87,295,000 34.1 LGIP 23,989,271 9.4% Prior Year Comparison Aug-22 209,987 $ 407251 First Interstate (Book Balance) 6,762,467 2.6 % Total Investments $ 256,287,737 100.0 Total Portfolio: By Investment Type First Interstate I Municipal Debt Bank 2.6% 16.5% LGIP 9.4 % Corporate Notes 14.8% Federal Agencies Time Certificates 34.1 % ®® 0.5% U. S. Treasuries 22.2% Portfolio; by Broker $80 a � o $60 $59.3 $46.0 $39.7 $42.2 2 $40 $20 $31.7 $6.7 $- DA Davidson Robert W Great Pacific Piper Moreton Castle Oak Baird & Co Securities Sandler Capital Markets Category Maximums: Yield Percentages U.S. Treasuries 100 % LGIP($56,763,000) 100% Federal Agencies 100 % Banker's Acceptances 25 % Time Certificates 50 % Municipal Debt 25% Corporate Debt 25 % FIB/LGIP Investments Average Current Month 4.50% 2.21 % 2,48 % Prior Month 4.30% 2.17 % 2.38 _ Benchmarks 24 Month Treasury LGIP Rate 36 Month Treasury 4.85 4.50 4.54 Maturity Years Max 3.21 I Weighted Average 1.06 Term Minimum Actual 0 to 30 Days 10 % 18.5 % Under 1 Year 25 % 48.4 % Under 5 Years 100 % 100.0 % Other Policy Actual Corp Issuer 5% 2.5% Callable 25 % 17.7 % Weighted Ave. AA2 AA1 Investment Activity PurchasesinMonth $ 5,000,000 Sales/Redem tions in Month $ 12,000,000 400,000,000 350,000,000 300,000,000 250,000,000 200,000,000 150,000,000 100,000,000 50,000,000 24 Month Historic Investment Returns ® County Rate ® 2 Year Treasury Rate Corporate Bond Rate — LGIP Rate Three Year Portfolio Balance Aug-20 Oct-20 Dec-20 Feb-21 Apr-21 Jun-21 Aug-21 Oct-21 Dec-21 Feb-22 Apr-22 Jun-22 Aug-22 Oct-22 Dec-22 Feb-23 Apr-23 Jun-23 Aug-23 Five Year Maturity Distribution Schedule Sep-23 Feb-24 Jul-24 Dec-24 May-25 Oct-25 Mar-26 Aug-26 Jan-27 Jun-27 M M M M Cl) M M M 'IM .M M M V M'I<t M M N N N N N N N N N 'N IN N N N N N N O 'a 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 N N N N N p O W O d' W N M M O :.O O V c-.f0 N 0 O M n M O O W 0 n �- O O N O �-.0 O O M n M W N n r N M ,W O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O .N O M M n M U 0 M N M O V ' 0 (O N O O M IO M M O O N O O .O O O W O n N N N W N (O O O O 0 C o 0 0 0 �- O O O M o M O f` O (O 0? O O (M N V W M (O O W M 1` 0 0 0 O N O O O N O O O O O a0 O (O n v (O M r a O n Y d M'�Oj a7 Oj T O O O.M O O O.M O M W V (O O M 0 0 7 7 07 0) M M O O] M ,M O G r'.O O 0 0 M O 01.0 O O (O M M N M n W O M O O �',,� V �I� O O O'.M O O OIM U M M:M n 0 M;o O M M:N n M,M O M M'.M O O (M O M (O ',0 O M O M'0 O O M:W M W �M M W W'M W..(O O jp N:.N N N.N 0 0 OIM O O o:M O M Mi(C � o M.O O W W:(O M.M O M d',� O O W IO W WIV O M O M;O O O M.W M M,M M M c'.M W:W m> N M M N N NN .- N N N N .- N C' N N -' I,., N- M N N— W M W W M M n N W M 10 O W V n M N O W W (O W O a W N V V M W M M M n M M M W :M M W M M 7 M W N V M M M W V'''.,W O M W N O M W �O W W M W O N W-W d (O M:M W (M N d' W <t N N n;n M -IT M M W W MIW M M n:N N O N V' M O W n M,M 0 n,v_ r V W M W M V',M M O M:M N V CO N n M M':n N O Oct� W W W W M M 'C' O M O (O (q M W'.M n 0 W IL W M d_ W M.n M M N d ih j n W n- n W M n M N O (O W co M M M W M r` W M M M M N O W M [t (!1 N N 7 W W d' O V' V V M W N M M n 'cY M N (V N Y M'M M M":M W V' 7':M M n IM M n n. M n M'.M M M N:N M M:M M W M'..(O W to!"'.W N M,O'I M N N'IW 01 W:W M N W:� M d' jp N ',N N N N M n n W M W m M a M M (O M M M 0 M W W W M M W M W M M W W W I,M W W M n W M M M W W W W M M M M M M M W W > .- N N — —,..,N - .- N V .- N .- '.. no O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 an 0 08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O I,o O O .O O O O o 0 0 C o O O O O O O O O O O no O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 10 O O '.O 0 0 0 O O O O I.O O O O '.0 O O O O O O O ':O O O 'O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O ! O O O O '.O O O O O O O O O O d M IM M M '.M O O O O 0 0 O O O O O :O O O O O O M O O O O :O O O O ':O O O O :O O O !O O O O O 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O V '.7 O O O N O, o 0 o 0 0 0 O O O O .O O O in O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 jp N N N N IN 0 0 O 'O O O O O O O O n O O O :O O W c W c O O O O L 0 C C O ,O O o [t O O O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O :O > N M M,N N N N,� N N N,.,.� N N N.,...N N .- N N N N ",—,N N....(O N N N:N N N,- M N N N N N N N....N N N N.,,N N,N M � a M n � M W �- M W M N M r N W TM M M M W M n W W n M M (O O n M M MGM (0 W N W M W M W n n W W (O N W M M M M M M M M M M W M M N M W M M W d' n 0 0 n M n 0 M M N O W V W M M n W M V M M M N O N 0 M M m W V M W N n O M 7 N n n O M -M M M. M W N W W M M N M n M .- M O W W M M N O M O M M M O M 0 V M M W N (O O O O O W W 0 0 O M O M n N W ,N W M n 'n N M n- O M M O N N M M O O o M M M d' O M M 0 W N M M W N V N O d' O n 'V W M .n M n '.O W N O O O O M W O O M .O M N M M O M O O M W n N M '.W M 0410 WIM — M': M'.W 010 n :M M O W;0 M n'.N M N'.It W W N:N ':M N n M (O M WW O N n (n n W V 7 N N M N M 6 M W M (O M M [r Cl' O...O O O Nq 0 Min N,.(V V"..V 7 0 0 n':O O O V n m m M m V V'.a MGM M M M N Min d' M N N M M N M M M M M M M tO �M "I-M W W M M M M M M M M n W n (p W W W M M':M M MMM M M M MGM M.:O M MIa N N W,n �.j V N':0 n n t-: V V' d' N n M IC! in n n M M M ll .6 M M D:N N n N N N n N n.N Oa d 0 0 0 0'0 O n o O O O:.0 d' V M W d' V M'M 7 O O O n M 0 0 M M 0 0 0 O O O 'W O W:<V W M O M:O Cn O:M O 0 0 O O N O O O LL + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + <e c N "M m m mlm m m m''.m m m m m m m m'.m m m m m m m';m m m ml. m m m m m m'.m m m m mlm m m m'.m m m..m m m m m m:m O m m mm m m m:m m m m,m m m mm m mm m m mm m m m m m m.m m mm m m m m.m m m m'm m mm m m m:m m m O Q Q Q 4 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q ',Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q a Q Q M N M M W M �_� O —'M M N W �- NMM M W W n't W M M 7 M W WV'�N Nn M M W O n W O W O M W M M N N M N O�W n W O M M N M a O N n N N M M V O 'N M W M M N N W V O W M W N N N N N M M M N f .`MMMMM�nn'V d'MM M�MMN n..,n We-nMVM 7M n,.,W n(DMn nnnnnnnM �-NNM 7 M d' a M <1' C M M M M M M M V M d' V' M M [t M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M IT It It M V M M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N :N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N -N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O o 0 0 0 o 0 :O o 0 0 :O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O O :O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d N ',N N N ':N N N N N N N N :N N N '.N N N N N N N N N N N :N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O N Z?3 N M N N'0 N N M N:M n W n:a n <D M W W �:N M W M:(O W In N.W M W M 6, Cl, N N N �- �- N M N N N M N �-- M M N N Q 'N M o r n r '.., W N W W -. O M N i- n 66 M 0 N W M M O O i0 W O: O M n �- W W W W W W v M a- M i0 V O M 7 In O O O :� N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O O O O O N N N N O O O O O :O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 'N N N N N N N N N N O O O O :O O O O O 0 o 0 :O O O O O o 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 M d N N N N I.N N N '.N N N N ':N N N :N N N N N N N N .N N N N IN N .N .N N N N N N N N :N N N O lU 0 W in (n N N:W O O N.M O W O.M O l0 M:M O �.d' M O O'':(f W M 00.0 W O W co n;W M a N O W W W 00 M M (M M M M:� ^,M M"M N N N:N M NN N n 666 ':O M t` Ih Fz W M W W'.O NIL N LLJ UUU UUUm W� Qa7�Hm WHIJ-HFJ- a[a al W FFJ-NH��m� W W�J.,�W� m.�00m HmWU-UUWf- °°aada:aa�o¢nna�¢¢�:Lu oaa¢a na���n¢¢¢caa�a,00Q,¢�an3,Q��,Q�oa;aa0 nU:rn 0 C7 C9.0 0 0 LY 2IU a a_.0,K U U i'I2 U U U..0 a_.0 1X 2 LL_U U U U',U U U2 2,0,U :E: U a �'IU U �,O 0 0 2 U a a.,a_ z m e. a a aI. `0 0 `0 `0 0 0 `0 0` 0 0 0` �' 0 Y Y :Y Y Y Y'IY Y1 `1 '.Y Y Y Y Y Y Y DIY Y Y Y".0 U U U -U U U U'.0 U U N N N N a+ (� U '' Q Q Q Q Q'I.Q Q Q 'Q lbmb ab m m m m M Q �c m M m m m�2 2 2 2 22� 2 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JJ m m m(0 m m m 0 Q0z U) U UUU U J JJ 0QOU d Wd dWa)WCCCC0000 N ZN` n W z.s E E EIE EddE dE EddE EddE dE WE:WE WE WE WE E E EE,E E E,•O__ 0 0 000 . N0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Q a Q Q LL LLILL LLLL iZ LL LL LL LL LL LL 2 .2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 S S 2 ,Z Z Z Z Z 'Z Z Z Z Z N MI, d m M M.,: N N: M W 0 M m m m:m m w':m �'Im m',,m m 2 m-.2 m m N:.m m m m:m m m m:io m m:m m m m m;(` �I:m m F- F'�1- F [- 1-- 1- F-"-H N N d" d d d d 0 d d dl d d 0: 0 d d d d 0 N N N d d d N N N N: d d UI, d N N 0 d d d d d d J -! i (n 'O 'O -0 "O V 'O 'O'. a "0 'O 'O 'i,'O 'O UJ N . (n (n - (n ` d d d d d d d d d d d d: d d d d d O Q O'ID d d d, d d d dl. d d d d1, d d d d d d LLLL LL LL LLLL LL LL LL IILLLLLLU- LLL LL LL ILL LL LL LL',LL LL LLILL LL 2 S 2 S S 2;2 2 2 d' d d d d d d d d Q LL LL M LL LL LL LL ZIZ z (O n.•r ~ N 10 O W _ __. _... .-__. CD U` O H LL LL LL _ . W M W M M n M Z W LL Y M (MO 01 (WO U` N W .- n M N N 0 C7 O N LL 1' d X r n a r N r Z M M W O N W O O « dnx W> LLS Lun ZLLMM n N W((yy C72Q>C7�20� Jfo-. aj :LL'0] M MUJJ ZF-Za. (n D_U Jm O Z Z'IMLL S W Y V W W W Z JXZ X Z((Y W m00 W W W 0 N N d c Q gj-, x J J 2 2 Z Z F- H IY o U) F Q X �i,Y a Q v v v v v v v Q-O o U U U UUU U W W E E U pop <t V M V N M M M M M M M M M M',M M O'O O O O I,10 0 0 0 V V d 7 n 7 a V V W n W W D W 0 10 ID, M w WN w M W IW w'W N M M M M M M M M (O C2 M M M M M M M M M M_ M N N N N N N N N N d G 7 M W M M m m:M M M M :M M M M ',,M M M M M M M M M M M -�. M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M •" M N M 7 M M M M M M M M M a—T+ M M M M M M M M d M M M M M O M m o > 0 0 0 040 U U U''._ U I'. w d aim n N UUUUUUUUCiUCiUUUU,UUUCJUUUUUCiCi UCiUUUUUUUUUUUUUU(iUCiUU, V m y N S U U U U,.0 Q Q ¢'IQ a¢ a.a ¢ Q Q.a ¢ a Q Q a Q a Q a Q Q Q a a.a ¢ a a.¢ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q'..Q Q a'Ia ¢ z K K N P m m m m Z LL LL u-ILL LLLL LL'ILL LL! LL LL:.LL LLLL LLLL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LLLL LLILL LL LL LL LL h « O O _ V' V' 7 M M (O W W .- N N a NIN M O M M M M (! --. _.. M W M 0 (O M d' M M O W N M W W n 1 M M d' W M N V M M M V M N M n O > W n M M M M N O M V M W W W n n n n M M M W O O O O N "N N L L O) c W W W W W W n n ;n W W W W M M M IM M M M M M M .M d) M M n n n n n n W M M M M n n n n n n n n n M W M M M M M M d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0:0 0 0 0',0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o'io 0 0 0 0 0 0:0 0 0 0',0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0'0 o O;o 0 0 018 l0 0 0'0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a(L(L4 N N N N N N d N N N N N N N m U G N G c- r W W M V O W N N O) M W N O N � m f� m � 10 V O m (O N M A V W V � t` N m O O M O O O) M MA OM V M M'm O N �V O N �".M O r M 00 ''.a O m m f` N O N m N m O V r N m (0 W-m W W f"m m O N M O W N - W N N W m V O,m W M V O N N O m -M O t0 M m r n W .- N (� n �- W O �- O W 10 f� G O W N al � N W V m V N- a m N m V O M M O �' O W �� M c0 O 01 a r� m O O W O W n N f"i O C N W O N O M W O O m:V V (V (O of V :O m m M N r (V-ln n Op I,N (O r 0) m O ( t- O O m V O m O r V M V,O O W (O (O (O N. O O O V t� m, V':V N l0 ',W n N W'.N N N m'.W M Isla W M m�,W co N V M N,W W N O.M �- O O'.v O O O.V O N O,O N W W,m O V I�.a (O r O m O m m m m m rn m m m m m�"1 m m o� cl� O O O c ,C (O O m..0 a (0 O O h O O O O O:.m N O O m rC M O:..O N N V O of - f- N N N V (0 � M l0 'O N N N N.M t- N N N (V (V N N .- N N NN N V O.m m W N_ � m V' N V N .-... �.-._ _ _ o��� O W O n m .V c m (o ui m W m O M m M O O N m W O f• u'1 co M M W M m O M m N O M V t0 M O OD m f• (O N h N 00W O N N a r (0 V V m W W M W W O O f'- W 0 a 0 o (O N W W W N m N N O N N (0 (O M N O W N (O m m W m W N O m N c r O m M N N W W V W N M m 0 W N V O n O m m W m (O �- r N W W W O m m N 0 0 M m W m �- N O N r O V O m - V m O r N M m W (f� O (0 O m m m m V m 0 � N d m m V.m W W m f�. m N M N W m f• O;m V V 'V m M V N .W W (0 m W f� m O m N O W O N (n '',,M (O O V O O Y oNo m m N'':M (0 M W',.V M N m:M r V M„m m W f�,M M r m.W V V;M M M W W W m (O,M m W :m m m m N f":m O N (O W M W..m (0 R R m m m m m m m m W m m m m m m m m m m m m m m O W m m m V m W (O m m m m m m N m m m V N W m N M m n Cl m N N a iV f� M V m > V N - : N N N .- N N 0 0 01.0 0 0,0 0 0 0�,0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0',,0 0 0 0,0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C'c c 0 C C 0 C 0 0 0 a C C c c,a 0 0 0',0 a 0 a a a 0 0�0 a s 0',.0 C d 0 0 O':O O O%,O 0 0 OO O O O':O O O O.O O O O:O M O O.O O (p ... O.O O O O O O O c O O O.O O O O.(0 m 0 a O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M f- O O m 0 0 O.O O N O O m (O Ln O W O O m N a a d m O O a O aO O O:O O O OLIO O O O O O O O,m <O O O O O N O O r O O O O O m N 0 0 0 W M O,O N N V O W f�.N m N (O LL) r M Ln, O > N N N N N N N N N N N N N N,N N N m N N N N'.N "'N N N M N N N N N N N.� N .- l0 M N- W W M ;D V m m (0 V M N (0 V N m m m m W V r m N t` : n r N N V m m N V N N �- m mom .- m �- l0 W W m m t� m V (0 W (0 V H r M O m M N V M W 10,m f� t`, 4 r O V m N r m W m M m 0 0-(0 O m m m m M M [t M M V W W m m M (0 m W N I� O l0 O I� M (0 W 1- N N m I O O- O t r Ln N'N V W N O N m N N M a- V N W� M N V r V V (O l0 M M N O:V m V O (0 m f� W (n I� m I� m M M M N W coN (0 O O m N O.V W r N.^ M M r m N O t� O (O V N O m m O.O M N V. O f� O.M O O �-M M M O.O M O N!O m N m W O,O O O V O m N O m M M m V m f` m O m N r 00 a N N � M m O N 0 N O M m O O m N O O O O (O r W m V W O O O M N M N:O V (O W m m m',(n n f�;0 m m m:M (O V,.,� V N,O N r N.O V V m m V I m M V:O V M. f� N m m N O O.m O m (0 M m M.O W, 10 W m,Ln W m:.,4 M (0 7 N W W .a,f� N N m m 7 W W W M m m m m'� (O m..0 6 m N W � V W O m 0 N-(O V; f` W N W (0 V m m M r-- . m M f` m (O t V V V V V ''..,.. V V V V V V V a V' N 0 a �- O' O O O'.O a c) O 0 a 0 a O O a 0 ,..:. (A O -,a 0 0 a :.,- a O a :O o V":.O a O C O O'.. (O N W 4'1 W LnM in'm M l0 t0 W:N M (O O M M (h M.. N (V O. O N O m m W m N �- N N M W M m V' M M V C f� N N.� r t� N r r N t` V f� O N (0 t(1 N N N N f� N m m h d' V W W M m N O m M f O m'(0 m O (+� m m.O mON N m rAN r' W m NmOm W W D 6 V a �-m W W (O r. 6 W. O. -, p N. N: O', (V O M M .- O'',O N N O O o U ((i L + + + r + + + + + + + + + a��aa aQ m y m m m m m m'm m m m'm m m m m m m m m m m N m Q Q Q N N Q N m m N N m m m m 6 m m m 0@ @ 0 O N oo aa,aQaa,aa¢Q,aaaa,aaaa,aaaa aaa as aaaa,aaa aaaaQa a aaaaaQaaa. n r N M M M M O M r V N W M M l0 a�; W V m m V O O Ln M M M M r l0 O 04 V W W m W O 't' O M m m m m m O M W to W M M M M O N L N M W m W r M W W W M (0 m m N N O m 0 W.r W... Ln m M M M;t` W W m N m �- m W m W W m W M W m M O M M 7 a a h N.N,� (0 l0 W W V t0 I"-W N M m W W W'..,M m W ''....t0 (f) N �- V V M V Lo M W,V M,..f� N N O:M M m'.0 M m N,,.,m O W':M M N N,,..m M M:m V W m V W W M (0 N "t V V V V V N V (0 a M M V m V V Wr M V (0 m V m v.N M m (0 V v. V V.V•-V. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 'N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N T a 0 0 0 a a a 0 0 a a a 0 0 a a 0 a ',a a 0 a a a a a 'O a a 0 a a a 0 a a 0 a 0 0 a 0 a a a a 0 0 0 0 a a a 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O "= o N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NNQ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Q N N N z N W ln,ln In to l0.(n to a- 1n,0 O �'I, �Q M O M .- .- .- M .- M M' a- c- N "� N .- a- m N N N •-- (� .- M .. N N m �O a- .- a- .-- .- m M m M (n W W V n M N M (O fZ N N m.� (f I� .-:M 1� m m..- m M.,., to to N r N m V ;.- m (O c0 w m m m (0 m r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N a �- O O O � c- N N N N N 0 N N N N N O N O O N N 0 O O O N O O N O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 6 0 a 0 6 0 a a 0 0 o a 0 a 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 a 0 0 a a 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ''.O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N '.N N N N N N L (� O O'.N (O ❑ N NIN N i... M M M',M M'.M N N.N �- N.� N - - ` N �.N N M.� N r' N IN M N �-'., N N O N N O o `- I� N N N '', N N d 0 0 0 O'. N N .- .- I� N! O .- 0 0 N'': W W a r Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z W Z W W W W W W W W > w F_ F- owwwww wwwww,wQUtJ- wUUUUF_C)0-NNIJ-HFJ-UIJ- UUUUmm UU am mUm� mUmm mm m000000'0000':0aasl(n0m0'nQaaa',¢a¢`nQaa¢:aa¢(n;aaaa,'>� na,a nab n n n n n3a�,¢ n�a,��0�,� n c�o(9 D(Dp �UU;UUUU�Ua�c�c�c���ac�,oao_�WaWaamc�m,UW.�c�r�zam,c�_a KWUW z F, F- J.J J F F-F-�0 j UU OO�m (n(n K ,:z Ld U U .w 000,0 u) w❑ o,z m �UU �3cziDwvm�u��i��oolot mc'WUo ww .= m o 0 0 oo_ ;jX W=�=oooej p"-Ypp�QZFx-00�Lu o0 W aaan }}}} o:-ww� () (/7 I-000Z OO ww Z Z W U d } UUUUwW z noo�ac)U�o> w L'L'L N Z N 2= } m �SpLL w c m m co m >� m z U U� o n n O- wm 0 0 o w W w z= z zo z z N O N N w. N 22 U U (O Qi Z- co UU Z 00 (/� UUU W( 0 0 0 0� W(n aam me me c �(�U �wooLU<- )u)U)mQQU `m0QQ¢U� - d mw N N N N N N N N N N N N N U3i (ll N N N S S o o c U U U U H "> O O J Z Z Q Q F,� ❑- 2 N p 2 p o W m 56 m 4° O O m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m 0 0 0! 0 (O U U o'c c c coo K S an d an d m m m o m m c c c W F- c c m m m m Y m 0 Z 2�> �.w w w� '5 0 0 0 0 z o p c c c c U U LLj (nvi:(riui(nai;v�ui(�(�..(nui(nui.(nvivi(n �.ao.ww a'i a'i ,'g�gg}cl }mwOO�oozLu OOQQ(/�'wlo �-F,LuD5 m� ac'i a��i a��i -- ''.,.a ara� t t c_:d,d-W a 0 O.tn.. .~ H a O Q,Q W o w wse (n �,� O O 0..:0 O O.O'.,0 O »>»>,�»»»>',»»aaa0000 �xx}aamUUUVo N 0 O _ ._ IN z) M W NO M WLLMM(f<mm WYYx.-~i U U=>m m Q.�w YO-LLi ":nWC7 W,W wd 0 Mm ON M?~} E.N olS}ZNU1) r->�}SSwU' ZC� W �i��UU X SUS W-3mW3rm y m 2� > p W W W 0 o A W�>- O m W W O p U 0 a a m m U U o p p J.� Y Z m a N (n N U U � U m W U U U U U U m U W W U U U U n M M V 1 V m S 2 2 2 N N S N U U , (O (O M a> M W (O N I M M W O W 0 I� I� H j LL 1- S> � of N N N N N N N N N NNN N N N N N m M M M N W W m'(0 W Ln W l0 m m m V m,W W V m m m N W Ln to m m m 0 N r m m W f� m.M M ON m W W m m m W W m co;W W m W m m t m W W r V n� O N N N N W N m M M W M M V M V co)) M V 7 M N N (O (O m M m O O O O O m m N N:N N N N!N N N N.N N N N.N N N N.f� r r W'�m m W:m m m W W N N N N dt V V m O.O m m 0 W W m m V (0 m t0 N to m W W W W:,(O W �- O NmW-NWmm WNN mMMrtitoWntimmm NNNrW WW WWW'.WW m m m'. m W m m_rn m m m'.m rm mrm..m rn rn m:rn rn rn m'. � � v_v v v a W W m rn � m,,...---. :. ._... E- >UOV000ODUUODUO.UUUo-�zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz".zzzzzz W K,W W W w W K K W:K W WiW',W K K F U U U U'U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U S S S S:S S S S,S S S S S S S S:S S S S S S S S S-5 H f-F h H '. V (0 W m V L W N M (0 W W m M W m m W N (O N O W V N r W V. M n M m V m O m m M m 0 r r W O O O N l0 LO m N O m : m V M > N NN N M M.M V 'ct V.V V V (0 W W (0 m O m m NM N,O N W m N W O O,m m V O M r O r,� W m V.f� W N V m r W O N r m m m m m:m m m m:m m m m',.W m m m!m W W',W m m m':m t` m m.w W W W t n W W m n m W':i� r r m m r m m W r W m;W m W m:l�'m OIO 0 0 O'':O O O O' O O O,O'i0 O O',O O O 0.0 O O O':O O O O'':O O O O',O O O O O OHO O O O':O O O O':O:O Qo Y d m (p -, p Cj o, n o 0 N n 0 0 Oi N Oi O M M O':O In m,0 (n O N O O:N of (o:N N :O N I� O r- m (o N M V' ((? M m I� O m M (o 1N O O O O M 0 7 0 (o O N 't O I- O N(O -It N't nn Npnm On(oN n n N:' O (D.(O O v m N (n (c -I r,- 7 M N W Y Mld' (o N Oo a N p':O N n V IN Nmn(O ''.O � jpNN�m�-mm� o07�Md' V,M� p o o 0 0 0 (IO :O 0 0 o :O O O o O O O o .O n (o M O.O':O O o.0'.O O O -L O O O':O N 7':1; d 0 0 .O O O O O (O 0 0.O O O O O O) N n (p O. ry N N N O N n 0 00 a) to N M V N M m n N 7 (D V1 N 7 (o (o N V m (O m d' oo (n n•... (O (o N o V (f1 N o 7 (O M O 0 0 I� O N Oo M N m N M W n tOo 00 om000voom M O (o O N 7 M c0 u.) c0 d' n (D In 6 O O O M p M C O.T n (n M N:O n �..0 cli V N N M N N (0 N M p m m..m m m m m m m m m m m m aQaaa aQQaaa a,a.Ta O M to w W (O a- OD O In O W OO�M r- M (o V M (A a In :7 co N N:N N N NN N N NN N N N.N la N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 '.O O O O O O O t «N.N:N N N.N'.N N N NN N N N'i,N.N N V N W W-o 6 I� M a':� N N N N •- a N IL Y H > mam Lu ammo o F m (DO U U uJ U >� _ al a :F : I -I Z coU (DUU Z W _ 'U W>� mQ a� U >� cc_ �i, ,£ E p 0 z� U � O cj ci;> m OIO FD ti U =,Z c co0=waMU QZ rn'o�� c �0O o oUU¢�Q.O(�Z 0 y U >',LL g g Q 0 2 U C7 C9 m w � LL' im W H K n m!m Q m n:rn o.o M n m W CO V M U pp O O (o (o , r N O co n 7 M, V In (O'.N T (o a.'t N W m( p 'Da, co O co M M M M:M (o mIM o O M',M co i W,co !,r n n n':n n N n':oo M m m',m co M.. N C 7 :D.z) 7 D D:z) D A D!z) D :D::D m ':K * M c0 �'.,, �' m (o O'.n (O (o n m t(i':.W oo V' n m m n 00 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING DATE: September 27, 2023 SUBJECT: Finance Report for August 2023 ATTENDANCE: Robert Tintle, Chief Financial Officer E S c,G w� 2� DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM September 25, 2023 Board of County Commissioners Robert Tintle, Chief Financial Officer Finance Report for August 2023 Following is the unaudited monthly finance report for fiscal year to date (YTD) as of August 31, 2023. Budget to Actuals Report General Fund • Revenue YTD in the General Fund is $1.61VI or 3.6% of budget. By comparison, last year revenue YTD was $1.6M and 3.8% of budget. • Expenses YTD are $7.21VI and 15.7% of budget. By comparison, last year expenses YTD were $7.31VI and 16.5% of budget. • Beginning Fund Balance is $14.01VI or 101.2% of the budgeted $13.8M beginning fund balance. ................................................................ ............ ................ ................. ........................................................................................................................... autEs ", GF County Wide Financial Dashboard 001 - General Fund 16.7% =,�, 2 Year Complete Fund Select all Budget to Actuals (Blank) i ■ 001 - General Fund Requirements Resources Beginning Working Capital Budget to Actuals by Category 010 - Assmt-Clerk... - iActuals *Budget Wrcjertion 020 - Code Abate... 030 - Community ... 040 - Court Techn._ 050 - Economic D... $20Y 060 - General Co... 00 - General Co 090 -Project Devson$7.2 M $1.6 M f$14.01VI ... 120-Law Library i—, S,— 4a SIIIII s-st 9,i I ME X 130-Park Acquisi... 15.7% 3.6% 101.2% sa.+ 132 - Park Develo... T—f,1 as Pe . oei M-6111 S, [,pawl - rr,z collect'd 0f uciye2 se,i— sen-ices o+niwy Monthly GL Peri... 0 2 $12.2M �,1l tingency (Blank) Reserves All Maior Funds Monthly Expenditures 16.096 Sam % of last vear budaet s2M sort 0 2 S b 8 10 32 0 Last Year Actuals *Current Year Actuals Monthly Revenues 3.1% % of last vear budget 51M soli 0 2 4 6 a 10 2 • Last Year Actuals *Current Year Actuals sm On the attached pages you will find the Budget to Actuals Report for the County's major funds with actual revenue and expense data compared to budget through August 31, 2023. Position Control Summary Position Control Summary FY24 July - June Percent Org Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April May June Unfilled Assessor t Filled 31,63 31,63 Unfilled 3.63 3.63 10.29% Clerk Filled 9.48 10.48 Unfilled 1.00 - 4.77% BOPTA Filled 0.52 0,52 Unfilled - 0.00% DA Filled S7.90 58.90 Unfilled 3.20 2.20 4.42% Tax Filled 6.50 6.50 Unfilled 0.00% Veterans'. Filled 5.00 5.00 Unfilled 0,00% Property Mgmt Filled 2.00 2,00 `. Unfilled 1.00 1.00 33.33% Total General Fund Filled 113.03 115.03 - - - - - Unfilled 8.83 6.83 - - - - : 6.43% Justice Court filled 4.60 ', 4.60 Unfilled - - 0.00% Community Justice Filled 45.00 43.00 Unfilled 4.00 6.00 10.20% Sheriff rFilled -' 233.75 232,75 Unfilled 37.25 38.25 13.93% Houseless Effort Filled 1.00 1.00 Unfilled 1.00 1.00 50.00% Health Srvcs :Filled ': 381.55 -: 376.95 F: Unfilled 33.25 37.85 8.57% CDD Filled 54.80 54.80 Unfilled 3.20 3.20 5.52% Road Filled 57.00 57.00 Unfilled 5,00 5.00 8.06% Adult DAD Filled 33.75 33,7S Unfilled 6.00 6.00 15.09% Solid Waste Filled 29.00 31.00 Unfilled 12.00 10.00 s 26.83% _ Victims Assistance Filled 6.50 7.50 Unfilled 3.00 2.00 26.32% GIS Dedicated .Filled 2.00 2.00 Unfilled - 0.00% Fair & Expo Filled 11.75 11.75 Unfilled 5.75 5.75 32.86% Natural Resource 'filled 2.00 : 2.00 Unfilled 0.00% ISF - Facilities Filled 23.75 22.75 Unfilled 3.00 4.00 13.08% ISF -Admin Filled 9.75 '. 9.75 Unfilled - 0.00% ISF - BOCC Filled 3.00 3.00 Unfilled - - 0.00% ISF -Finance Filled 12,00 :'. 12.00 '. .Unfilled 1.00 1,00 7.69% ISF - legal Filled 7.00 7.00 Unfilled - - 0.00% ISF -HR Filled 8.80 i. 8.80 Unfilled 1.20 < 1.20 12.00% ISF - IT Filled 17.00 17.00 Unfilled - - 0.00% ISF -Risk Filled 3.25 3.25 '. Unfilled - - 0.00% 911 Filled 53.00 55.00 Unfilled 7.00 5.00 10.00% Total., Filled 1,113.28 1,111.68 - - - - - - - - - - Unfilled 131.48 133.08 - - - - - - - - - - Total 1,244.76 1,244.76 A - - - - - - - - - - Unfilled 10.56% 10.69% 10.63% A No FTE changes 'TES C0G2< Budget to Actuals - Countywide Summary -,� All Departments FY24 YTD August 31, 2023 (unaudited) RESOURCES 001 - General Fund 030 - Juvenile 160/170 - TRT 200 - ARPA 220 - Justice Court 255 - Sheriff's Office 274 - Health Services 295 - CDD 325 - Road 355 - Adult P&P 465 - Road CIP 610 - Solid Waste 615 - Fair & Expo 616 - Annual County Fair 617 - Fair & Expo Capital Reserve 618 - RV Park 619 - RV Park Reserve 670 - Risk Management 675 - Health Benefits 705 - 911 999 - Other TOTALRESOURCES 16.7% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % 43,472,708 42,924,412 99% 44,408,216 1,564,913 4% ; 44,408,216 100% ; 1,010,203 1,050,931 104% ; 1,014,168 42,514 4% 1,014,168 100% ; 13,631,282 12,748,688 94% 12,751,790 4,045,408 32% ; ; 12,752,090 100% ; 105,186 26,783,955 999% ; 2,630,533 39,657 2% 2,630,533 100% ; 525,032 518,001 99% 525,540 92,746 18% 525,540 100% ; 49,577,055 50,672,726 102% ; 58,332,752 1,118,978 2% 58,476,752 100% ; 57,787,985 55,638,108 96% 59,708,169 13,195,041 22% ; 11,675,519 9,455,886 81% ; 10,460,840 1,386,584 13% ; 24,889,063 25,698,009 103% ; 26,673,711 5,619,398 21% ; 6,134,018 6,295,372 103% ; 5,535,606 1,206,718 22% ; 1,943,063 782,549 40% 2,179,426 117,580 5% ; 14,503,499 13,899,874 96% ; 15,995,411 3,294,552 21% ; 1,738,534 2,260,708 130% ; 2,343,500 301,383 13% ; 1,969,380 2,359,790 120% ; 2,324,117 2,364,048 102% ; 7,414 317,269 999% ; 64,800 11,474 18% ; , 9 642,252 579,826 90% 530,800 105,633 20% ; 6,298 21,589 343% ; 34,300 5,827 17% ; 3,311,477 3,297,596 100% ; 3,364,344 686,781 20% ; 23,658,700 25,492,341 108% ; 30,654,045 4,193,589 14% ; 13,744,678 14,120,971 103% ; 14,034,323 89,024 1% ; 62,651,873 65,587,640 105% ; 81,637,214 11,449,343 14% ; 332,985,219 360,506,240 108% ; 375,203,605 50,931,190 14% ; Fiscal Year 2023 REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % - (30,065) 001 - General Fund 24,337,373 23,055,955 95% 030 - Juvenile 7,928,538 7,497,148 95% 160/170 - TRT 13,123,218 11,822,231 90% 200 - ARPA 23,129,361 14,392,370 62% 220 - Justice Court 766,183 742,670 97% 59,476,858 100% ; 9,445,030 90% ; 26,865,648 101 % ; 5,535,606 100% ; 2,198,667 101% ; 15,995,411 100% ; 2,343,500 100% 2,656,486 114% ; 64,800 100% ; 530,800 100% 34,300 100% ; 3,364,344 100% ; 30,654,045 100% ; 14,034,323 100% ; 81,437,214 100% ; 374,444,331 100% ; Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Actuals % Projection % 25,183,057 3,843,833 15% 25,183,057 100% ; 8,481,279 1,131,333 13% 8,481,279 100% ; 6,902,223 3,474,939 50% 6,902,223 100% ; 12,326,272 517,602 4% ; ; 12,326,272 100% ; 822,370 129,037 16% ; 822,370 100% ; o`,�v(ESC0G2� Budget to Actuals - Countywide Summary All Departments FY24 YTD August 31, 2023 (unaudited) 255 - Sheriffs Office 274 - Health Services 295 - CDD 325 - Road 355 - Adult P&P 465 - Road CIP 610 - Solid Waste 615 - Fair & Expo 616 - Annual County Fair 617 - Fair & Expo Capital Reserve 618 - RV Park 619 - RV Park Reserve 670 - Risk Management 675 - Health Benefits 705 - 911 999 - Other 60,415,533 70,979,127 11,233,304 58,370,902 97% 62,910,082 89% 9,466,620 84% 65,642,097 71,184,189 10,269,561 16,188,996 13,821,920 85% ; 17,124,761 7,575,910 6,790,874 90% ; 7,526,032 28,387,166 16,897,136 60% ; 23,772,827 11,754,672 10,769,061 92% ; 14,355,234 3,098,054 3,330,117 107% ; 3,734,327 1,972,030 2,067,450 105% ; 2,582,856 870,000 483,310 56% ; 1,090,000 I I 594,181 498,137 84% ; 617,131 100,000 5,532 6% ; 174,000 5,887,806 2,915,705 50% ; 4,744,447 31,769,217 30,625,451 96% ; 32,587,213 17,709,497 13,389,893 76% 15,113,760 108,884,843 63,575,584 58% ; 93,357,006 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 446,705,009 353,398,083 79% ; 417,590,642 9,610,061 15% ; 9,001,260 13% 1,387,749 14% ; 2,686,698 16% ; 1,015,095 13% ; 1,214,893 5% ; 1,338,116 9% ; 492,986 13% ; 1,650,556 64% ; 32,056 3% ; 53,833 9% ; 0% 1,126,761 24% ; 2,408,665 7% ; 2,099,618 14% ; 6,181,495 7% ; 49,396,584 12% ; 16.7% Year Complete 64,193,549 98% ; 61,213,163 86% ; 9,590,745 93% ; 17,124,761 100% ; 7,526,032 100% ; 23,765,779 100% ; 14,355,234 100% ; 3,734,327 100% ; 2,582,856 100% ; 11090,000 100% ; I 617,131 I 100% ; 174,000 100%: 4,764,197 100% ; 32,587,213 100% ; 15,113,760 100% ; 93,157,006 100% ; 405,304,954 97% ; ,��3TES`oG2� Budget to Actuals - Countywide Summary All Departments 16.7% FY24 YTD August 31, 2023 (unaudited) Year Complete I Fiscal Year 2023 Fiscal Year 2024 — 1 TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % 001 - General Fund 030 - Juvenile 160/170 - TRT 200 - ARPA 220 - Justice Court 255 -Sheriff's Office 274 - Health Services 295 - CDD 325 - Road 355 - Adult P&P 465 - Road CIP 610 - Solid Waste 615 - Fair & Expo 616 - Annual County Fair 617 - Fair & Expo Capital Reserve 618 - RV Park 619 - RV Park Reserve 670 - Risk Management 705 - 911 999 - Other (20,871,416) (19,780,691) 95% ; 6,452,997 6,452,997 100% ; (6,021,446) (5,913,148) 98% ; 263,217 263,217 100% ; 3,448,587 3,449,109 100% ; 8,007,942 5,850,465 73% ; (911,585) (835,505) 92% ; (12,330,136) (12,330,136) 100% ; 267,532 267,532 100% ; 14,230,313 12,238,662 86% ; (5,299,665) (3,453,962) 65% ; 704,127 621,827 88% ; (156,706) (156,706) 100% ; 1,149,827 1,113,829 97% ; (81,566) (81,566) 100% ; 261,750 261,566 100% ; (3,500) (3,500) 100% ; (59,900) (59,900) 100% ; 10,959,373 12,205,258 111% ; TOTAL TRANSFERS 9,745 109,347 999% ; (20,896,159) 6,678,013 (8,575,254) (5,022,145) 364,688 3,378,587 7,796,456 466,530 (12,700,000) 460,950 12,500,000 (2,613,962) 875,681 (34,503) 824,187 128,436 51,564 (3,500) 16,320,431 (3,383,292) 16% ; 1,120,500 17% ; (1,112,450) 13% ; (2,677,740) 53% ; 60,780 17% ; 608,630 18% 1,141,378 15% ; (104,433) -22% ; (7,700,000) 61% ; 76,826 17% ; 5,000,000 40% ; (2,326) 0% ; 145,946 17% ; (5,750) 17% ; 220,694 27% ; (5,262) 4% ; 8,594 17% ; (582) 17% ; 6,608,487 40% ; (20,896,159) 100% ; 6,678,013 100% ; (8,575,254) 100% ; (5,022,145) 100% ; 364,688 100% ; 3,378,587 100% ; 7,796,456 100% ; 89,180 19% ; (12,700,000) 100% ; 460,950 100% ; 12,500,000 100% ; (2,613,962) 100% ; 875,681 100% ; (34,503) 100% ; 824,187 100% ; a 128,436 a 100% ; 51,564 100% ; (3,500) 100% ; 16,697,781 102% ; u1ESC 2� Budget to Actuals - Countywide Summaryeparm�� -�,% All Departments 16.7% FY24 YTD August 31, 2023 (unaudited) Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 Fiscal Year 2024 ENDING FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals Projection % 001 - General Fund 030 - Juvenile 1601170 - TRT 200 - ARPA 220 - Justice Court 255 -Sheriff's Office 274 - Health Services 295 - CDD 325 - Road 355 - Adult P&P 465 - Road CIP 610 - Solid Waste 615 - Fair & Expo 616 - Annual County Fair 617 - Fair & Expo Capital Reserve - 30,065 999% 11,239,637 13,984,901 124% 634,663 1,528,906 241% 4,000,000 4,488,842 112% - 12,499,682 999% 22,066 38,548 175% 7,024,650 11, 004, 027 157 % 6,045,519 12,521,139 207% 1,627,134 1,322,717 81% 2,262,898 7,352,309 325% 1,925,640 3,010,934 156% 12,334,484 23,347,907 189% 556,359 2,743,514 493% 315,960 547,938 173% 225,358 521,488 231% 1,587, 183 2,757,229 174% 12,155,000 710,902 1,999,500 67,858 9,254,393 7,737,952 1,975,730 2,370,201 1,470,524 9,918,979 1,442,600 238,854 245,910 2,391,825 8,325,008 1,560,600 3,946,117 9,343,998 24,489 5,300,445 17,856,674 1,217,120 2,585,010 3,279,436 27,250,593 4,712,298 517,769 1,229,280 2,95 ,341 , 618 - RV Park 82,920 166,660 1 201% ; 135,220 1 213,197 619 - RV Park Reserve 1,340,766 1,469,559 110% ; 1,284,317 1,483,980 670 - Risk Management 5,107,351 9,323,329 183% ; 6,616,397 8,882,767 675 - Health Benefits 3,815,139 6,171,080 162% ; 3,809,575 8,230,504 705 - 911 8,926,080 13,394,068 150% ; 12,122,906 11,319,837 999 - Other 56,596,539 109,316,114 193% ; 105,557,249 121,015,162 TOTAL FUND BALANCE ; 125,670,346 237,540,954 189% ; 181,505,892 241,251,625 12,316,222 101% 739,822 104% 1,999,800 100% 67,858 100% ; 10,846,941 117% ; 18,568,765 240% ; 1,266,183 64% ; 4,492,857 190% ; 1,481,512 101% ; 14,280,794 144% ; 1,885,430 131% ; 48,280 20% ; 560,666 228% ; 17 _ A 4,556,2 .10V 70/ m 208,766 154% ; 1,381,424 108% ; 7,919,977 120% ; 4,512,413 118% ; 12,250,388 101% ; 107,885,284 102% ; 205,269,598 113% ; Jli, sco62' Budrget to Actuals Report General Fund - Fund 001 16 7% FY24 YT'D August 31, 2023 (unaudited) Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 t Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Property Taxes - Current 34,467,173 34,606,785 100% 37,400,000 (1,091) 0% 37,400,000 100% _ A Property Taxes - Prior 301,000 334,760 111% ; 318,000 110,250 35% ' 318,000 100% e Other General Revenues 3,591,874 4,310,996 120% 3,480,844 874,793 25% a 3,480,844 100% Assessor 964,246 713,692 74% 775,350 4,921 1% 775,350 100% Clerk 2,298,566 1,451,801 63% 1,259,595 209,104 17% 1,259,595 100% BOPTA 14,588 9,434 65% 10,200 - 0% 10,200 100% ; District Attorney 1,183,942 979,152 83% 552,048 339,089 61% 552,048 100% Tax Office 221,483 120,714 55% 136,000 16,180 12% 136,000 100% Veterans 214,836 182,018 85% a 261,179 - 0% 261,179 100% B Property Management 215,000 215,058 100% a 215,000 11,667 5% 215,000 100% C TOTAL RESOURCES 43,472,708 42,924,412 99% ; 44,408,216 1,564,913 4% ; 44,408,216 100% ; REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Assessor 5,910,478 5,399,847 91% 6,189,597 922,263 15% 6,189,597 100% Clerk 2,432,710 2,097,784 86% 2,351,515 291,623 12% a 2,351,515 100% BOPTA 92,177 82,482 89% s 97,522 17,620 18% a 97,522 100% District Attorney 10,979,839 10,906,005 99% 11,630,172 1,647,062 14% 11,630,172 100% Medical Examiner 438,702 320,660 73% 461,224 32,253 7% 461,224 100% Tax Office 905,262 834,177 92% 940,770 192,253 20% 940,770 100% Veterans 809,390 758,852 94% 919,283 114,817 12% 919,283 100% Property Management 508,359 418,403 82% 539,558 64,623 12% 539,558 100% Non -Departmental 2,260,456 2,237,744 99% 2,053,416 561,319 27% 2,053,416 100% TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 24,337,373 23,055,955 95% ; 25,183,057 3,843,833 15% 25,183,057 100% ; TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In 260,000 260,439 100% ; 97,290 16,214 17% _ 97,290 100% D Transfers Out (21,131,416) (20,041,130) 95% (20,993,449) (3,399,506) 16% a (20,993,449) 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS ; (20,871,416) (19,780,691) 95% ; (20,896,159) (3,383,292) 16% ; (20,896,159) 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 12,975,718 13,897,135 107% 13,826,000 13,987,221 101% 13,987,222 101% 161,222, E Resources over Requirements 19,135,335 19,868,457 19,225,159 (2,278,921) 19,225,159 0! Net Transfers - In (Out) (20,871,416) (19,780,691) (20,896,159) (3,383,292) (20,896,159) TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 11,239,637 $ 13,984,901 124% ; $ 12,155,000 $ 8,325,008 68% ; $ 12,316,222 101% ; $161,222; A Current year taxes received primarily in November, February and May B Oregon Dept. of Veteran's Affairs grant reimbursed quarterly C Interfund land -sale management revenue recorded at year-end D Final payment to the General Fund from Finance Reserves for ERP Implementation E Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY23 o V'IES C 0G Budget to Actuals Report Juvenile - Fund 030 FY24 YTD August 31, 2023 (unaudited) 16.7% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance OYA Basic & Diversion 525,049 459,333 87% 476,611 0% 476,611 100% ODE Juvenile Crime Prev 123,000 107,720 88% 106,829 - 0% 106,829 100% Leases 86,000 90,228 105% 90,228 15,640 17% 90,228 100% Gen Fund -Crime Prevention 89,500 89,500 100% 89,500 - 0% a 89,500 100% Inmate/Prisoner Housing 55,000 127,050 231% 75,000 9,360 12% 75,000 100% Miscellaneous 42,500 66,375 156% 56,500 7,092 13% 56,500 100% DOC Unif Crime Fee/HB2712 49,339 50,462 102% 52,000 - 0% 52,000 100% Interest on Investments 6,815 29,441 432% 37,500 7,008 19% a 37,500 100% OJD Court Fac/Sec SB 1065 15,000 12,420 83% 15,000 2,740 18% 15,000 100% Food Subsidy 10,000 13,116 131% 10,000 - 0% 10,000 100% Contract Payments 8,000 5,285 66% 5,000 674 13% 5,000 100% TOTAL RESOURCES 1,010,203 1,050,931 104% ; 1,014,168 42,514 4% 1,014,168 100% ; REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Personnel Services 6,292,271 5,995,923 95% 6,872,231 896,279 13% 6,872,231 100% Materials and Services 1,527,992 1,394,738 91% 1,599,048 235,053 15% 1,599,048 100% Capital Outlay 108,275 106,487 98% 10,000 - 0% 10,000 100% TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 7,928,538 7,497,148 95% 8,481,279 1,131,333 13% 8,481,279 100% ; TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In- General Funds 6,529,064 6,529,064 100% 6,798,630 1,133,102 17% 6,798,630 100% Transfers Out - - (45,000) - 0% (45,000) 100% ; Transfers Out-Veh Reserve (76,067) (76,067) 100% E (75,617) (12,602) 17% ' (75,617) 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS 6,452,997 6,452,997 100% ; 6,678,013 1,120,500 17% ; 6,678,013 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 1,100,001 1,522,125 138% 1,500,000 1,528,919 102% 1,528,920 102% 28,920< A Resources over Requirements (6,918,335) (6,446,217) (7,467,111) (1,088,818) (7,467,111) 0! Net Transfers - In (Out) ! 6,452,997 6,452,997 6,678,013 1,120,500 6,678,013 TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 634,663 $ 1,528,906 241% ; $ 710,902 $ 1,560,600 220% ; $ 739,822 104% ; $28,920: A Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY23 IES C,0 Budget to Actuals Report TRT - Fund 160/170 FY24 YTD August 31, 2023 (unaudited) 16.7% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 1 Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Room Taxes 13,580,874 12,652,871 93% 12,630,000 4,031,036 32% 12,630,000 100% = A Interest on Investments ° 50,408 95,656 190% 121,790 14,192 12% _ 121,790 100% Miscellaneous ° - 161 ° - 181 @ a 300 ° 300! TOTAL RESOURCES 13,631,282 12,748,688 94% 12,751,790 4,045,408 32% ; 12,752,090 100% ; 300; REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance COVA 3,675,886 3,417,576 93% 3,378,641 398,282 12% 3,378,641 100% B Grants & Contributions ° 5,600,000 4,600,000 82% 3,000,000 3,000,000 100% 3,000,000 100% ° ' C Administrative ° 225,508 183,956 82% ! 262,395 33,560 13% a 262,395 100% Interfund Charges 3,574,573 3,574,573 100% = 213,587 35,598 17% ! ° 213,587 100% ° Software ° 47,251 46,125 98% 47,600 7,500 16% 47,600 100% TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 13,123,218 11,822,231 90% ; 6,902,223 3,474,939 50% 6,902,223 100% ; TRANSFERS Transfer Out - RV Park Transfer Out - Annual Fair Transfer Out - Justice Court Transfer Out - Health Transfer Out - F&E Reserve Transfer Out - General County Reserve Transfer Out - F&E Transfer Out - Courthouse Debt Service Transfer Out - Sheriff TOTAL TRANSFERS FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance (20,000) (20,000) 100% o (20,000) (3,332) 17% B F (20,000) 100% (75,000) (75,000) 100% (75,000) (12,500) 17% (75,000) 100% - ° (263,217) (263,217) 100% (364,688) (60,780) 17% ! _ (364,688) 100% ° (418,417) (418,417) 100% (368,417) (61,402) 17% ! (368,417) 100% ° (501,683) (465,685) 93% (462,119) (77,018) 17% ! (462,119) 100% D (723,720) (120,620) 17% (723,720) 100% (1,091,342) (1,019,042) 93% (1,009,023) (168,168) 17% _ _ (1,009,023) ° 100% (1,900,500) - 0% _ (1,900,500) 100% (3,651,787) (3,651,787) 100% (3,651,787) (608,630) 17% a (3,651,787) 100% (6,021,446) (5,913,148) 98% (8,575,254) (1,112,450) 13% ; ; (8,575,254) 100% ; Budget Actuals % Budget Beginning Fund Balance 9,513,382 9,475,532 100% 4,725,187 Resources over Requirements 508,064 926,457 5,849,567 Net Transfers - In (Out) ° (6,021,446) (5,913,148) ° (8,575,254) TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 4,000,000 $ 4,488,842 112% ; $ 1,999,500 A Trending lower than last year B Payments to COVA based on a percent of TRT collections C Includes contributions of $2M to Sunriver Service District and $1 M to Mt. Bachelor D The balance of the 1 % F&E TRT is transferred to F&E reserves E Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY23 Actuals % Projection % $ Variance 4,488,098 95% 4,725,187 100% 0: E 570,469 5,849,867 300- (1,112,450) (8,575,254) $ 3,946,117 197% ; $ 1,999,800 100% ; $300; o�wTESCOG�< Budget to Actuals Report . ��. ARPA •- Fund 200 FY24 YTD August 31, 2023 (unaudited) 16.7% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 v� Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Local Assistance & Tribal - 2,311,073 2,311,073 - 0% a 2,311,073 100% Consistency Interest on Investments i 105,186 293,106 279% 319,460 39,657 12% 319,460 100% - State & Local Coronavirus Fiscal = - 24,179,776 - - - Recovery Funds TOTAL RESOURCES 105,186 26,783,955 999% ; 2,630,533 39,657 2% 2,630,533 100% ; REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Services to Disproportionately 15,394,824 11,535,828 75% 6,538,263 336,653 5% 6,538,263 100% Impacted Communities Administrative 4,317,328 144,531 3% 4,208,310 20,137 0% 4,208,310 100% I 1 Infrastructure 1,634,710 I 775,262 47% 766,410 83,256 I I 11% I 766,410 100% Public Health I � 882,922 997,337 113% 560,926 77,556 14% I 560,926 100% Negative Economic Impacts I 899,577 927,155 103% = 252,363 - 0% _ I I 252,363 100% Expenditures - 12,257 999% - - - TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 23,129,361 14,392,370 62% 12,326,272 517,602 4% 12,326,272 100% ; TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers Out - - (5,022,145) (2,677,740) 53% (5,022,145) 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS - (5,022,145) (2,677,740) 53% ; ; (5,022,145) 100% ; FUND BALANCE Beginning Fund Balance Resources over Requirements Net Transfers - In (Out) TOTAL FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % 23,024,175 108,098 0% (23,024,175) 12,391,584 - $ 12,499,682 999% Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance 14,717,884 12,499,682 85% _ 14,717,884 100% = 0= (9,695,739) (477,945) (9,695,739) 0 0! (5,022,145) (2,677,740) (5,022,145) 1 I f 1 - $ 9,343,998 999% ; ; - $0; ES coG2< Budget to Actuals Report Justice Court -Fund 220 FY24 YTD August 31, 2023 (unaudited) 16.7% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 1 Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Court Fines & Fees 525;000 517,489 99% 525,000 92,552 18% 525,000 100% Interest on Investments 32 513 999% 540 194 36% 540 100% a TOTAL RESOURCES 525,032 518,001 99% 525,540 92,746 18% ; 525,540 100% ; REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Personnel Services 604,648 592,149 98% 651,767 90,239 14% 651,767 100% Materials and Services 161,535 150,522 93% 170,603 38,798 23% ' 170,603 100% A TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 766,183 742,670 97% ; 822,370 129,037 16% ; 822,370 100% ; TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In - TRT 263,217 263,217 100% 364,688 60,780 17% 364,688 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS 263,217 263,217 100% ; 364,688 60,780 17% 364,688 100% ; Resources over Requirements i (241,151) (224,669) (296,830) (36,291) a (296,830) 0: Net Transfers - In (Out) 263,217 263,217 364,688 60,780 364,688 TOTAL ', $ 22,066 $ 38,548 175% ; $ 67,858 $ 24,489 36% ; ; $ 67,858 100% ; $0; A One time yearly software maintenance fee paid in July for entire fiscal year B Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY23 Q`1 V'IES C,0&2' Budget to Actuals Report Sheriff's Office - Fund 255 FY24 YTD August 31, 2023 (unaudited) 16.7% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 1 Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance LED #1 Property Tax Current 30,282,049 30,424,303 100% 37,860,124 - 0% 37,860,124 100% A LED #2 Property Tax Current 13,400,541 13,405,210 100% ; 15,110,056 - 0% 15,110,056 100% B Sheriffs Office Revenues 1 5,307,630 6,093,977 115% 4,583,572 949,802 21% 4,727,572 103% 144,000! LED #1 Property Tax Prior 330,000 277,442 84% 330,000 93,517 28% _ 330,000 100% LED #1 Interest 1 89,119 283,971 319% ; 264,000 32,047 12% 264,000 100% LED #2 Property Tax Prior 145,000 114,469 79% I 120,000 40,109 33% 120,000 100% LED #2 Interest 1 22,716 73,353 323% ' 65,000 3,503 5% ' 65,000 100% 1 1 i t 1 1 Revenue Not Assigned - - - - - TOTAL RESOURCES 49,577,055 50,672,726 102% ; 58,332,752 1,118,978 2% ; 58,476,752 100% ; 144,000: REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Digital Forensics 808,610 856,836 106% 1,221,145 252,688 21% 1,337,763 110% (116,618); Concealed Handgun Licenses 335,044 345,454 103% 624,277 60,943 10% a 443,303 71% 180,974 Rickard Ranch 1 264,871 278,671 105% 334,232 85,213 25% 335,799 100% (1,567) Sheriffs Services 1 5,863,885 5,196,628 89% 5,771,949 904,550 16% 6,024,633 104% (252,684) Civil/Special Units 1,168,300 1,102,770 94% 1,019,021 141,606 14% 1,104,690 108% (85,669) Automotive/Communications 1 3,765,888 3,635,006 97% 4,574,918 618,964 14% 4,483,541 98% 91,377 Detective 1 3,583,825 4,105,601 115% 4,774,538 734,565 15% _ 4,499,286 94% 275,25Z Patrol 1 14,880,315 14,859,060 100% 16,270,641 2,682,164 16% 17,112,021 105% (841,380)! Records 1 904,493 687,442 76% 855,590 92,501 11% 697,640 82% 157,950! Adult Jail 1 22,809,320 20,840,030 91% 23,784,474 2,875,762 12% 1 21,615,842 91% 2,168,632! Court Security 1 424,769 598,098 141% 600,590 84,201 14% 579,354 96% 21,236! 1 Emergency Services 829,997 545,417 66% 808,931 88,338 11% E 549,521 68% 259,410; Special Services 2,047,792 2,374,489 116% 2,779,458 425,715 15% 2,933,704 106% (154,246) Training 1,907,588 1,987,087 104% B 1,537,498 282,244 18% _ 1,506,617 98% 30,881 Other Law Enforcement 1 820,836 958,312 117% 634,835 280,609 44% 1 919,835 145% (285,000); Non - Departmental 1 - - 0% 1 50,000 - 0% 50,000 100% TOTAL REQUIREMENTS ; 60,415,533 58,370,902 97% ; 65,642,097 9,610,061 15% 64,193,549 98% ; 1,448,548: TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfer In -TRT 3,651,787 3,651,787 100% 3,651,787 608,630 17% 3,651,787 100% Transfer In - General Fund 1 70,000 70,000 100% a - - Transfers Out - Debt Service 1 (273,200) (272,678) 100% (273,200) - 0% (273,200) 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS 3,448,587 3,449,109 100% ; 3,378,587 608,630 18% 3,378,587 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 14,414,541 15,253,094 106% 13,185,151 13,182,898 100% 13,185,151 100% 0. C Resources over Requirements (10,838,478) (7,698,176) (7,309,345) (8,491,083) (5,716,797) a 1,592,548! Net Transfers - In (Out) 3,448,587 3,449,109 3,378,587 608,630 3,378,587 TOTAL FUND BALANCE ; $ 7,024,650 $ 11,004,027 157% ; $ 9,254,393 $ 5,300,445 57% ; $ 10,846,941 117% ; $1,592,548. A Current year taxes received primarily in November, February and May B Current year taxes received primarily in November, February and May C Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY23 uTES C0G�{ Budget to Actuals Deport .. Health Services - Fund 274 16.7% FY24 YTD August 31, 2023 (unaudited) Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance State Grant OHP Capitation State Miscellaneous OHP Fee for Service Local Grants Environmental Health Fees Federal Grants Patient Fees Other State - Medicaid/Medicare Medicaid Vital Records Interest on Investments State - Medicare Liquor Revenue State Shared- Family Planning Interfund Contract- Gen Fund Divorce Filing Fees TOTAL RESOURCES 22,223,536 18,578,578 84% 22,647,996 4,904,018 22% w 12,882,624 12,088,181 94% 16,494,114 3,028,902 18% e 8,901,719 7,751,386 87% 6,267,385 2,281,257 36% o 0 3,232,620 5,287,409 164% 4,947,581 481,295 10% d 2,332,031 2,054,936 88% 1,567,894 1,292,475 82% 1,238,499 1,335,280 108% 1,478,906 50,920 3% a 2,615,634 2,390,105 91% 1,440,560 295,928 21% Q 615,644 748,534 122% 1,087,790 98,971 9% 1,169,317 1,976,339 169% 1,061,371 390,629 37% 807,530 1,197,300 148% 1,034,491 98,277 10% 430,863 746,146 173% 431,000 89,042 21% 300,000 354,158 118% 315,000 38,595 12% 97,750 390,781 400% 262,007 93,291 36% 337,614 234,401 69% 209,500 29,382 14% 177,574 161,412 91% 177,574 - 0% 125,000 152,985 122% 158,000 22,060 14% a 127,000 127,000 100% 127,000 - 0% d d 173,030 d 63,178 37% - - d 57,787,985 55,638,108 96% ; 59,708,169 13,195,041 22% , 22,151,705 98% i (496,291): 16,494,114 100% , d 6,430,292 103% 162,907a1 d 4,957,331 100% 9,750!I 1,491,751 95% (76,143)! 1,478,906 100% 1,331,317 92% o (109,243);' 1,087,790 100% @ -� 1,339,080 126% 277,709! 1,034,491 100% 431,000 100% 315,000 100% 262,007 100% 209,500 100% 177,574 100% 158,000 100% 127,000 100% i d 59,476,858 100% ; (231,311); REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Administration Allocation - Expenditures 92,830 999% Personnel Services 50,658,752 48,187,764 95% 50,019,129 7,092,462 14% 48,911,113 98% 1,108,016! Materials and Services 19,393,800 14,218,182 73% 20,817,560 1,876,512 9% a 21,386,852 103% (569,292); Capital Outlay 926,575 411,307 44% 347,500 32,286 9% 401,500 116% (54,000) TOTAL REQUIREMENTS ; 70,979,127 62,910,082 89% 71,184,189 9,001,260 13% ; 70,699,465 99% ; 484,724: TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In- General Fund 6,608,245 5,648,912 85% 6,780,140 1,130,004 17% 6,780,140 100% Transfers In- OHP Mental Health 1,473,586 345,442 23% 1,930,573 - 0% 1,930,573 100% Transfers In -TRT 418,417 418,417 100% 368,417 61,402 17% 368,417 100% Transfers Out (492,306) (562,306) 114% (1,282,674) (50,028) 4% d (1,282,674) 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS 8,007,942 5,850,465 73% 7,796,456 1,141,378 15% 7,796,456 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 11,228,719 13,942,649 124% ; 11,417,516 12,521,515 110% ; 12,508,614 110% ; 1,091,098, Resources over Requirements (13,191,142) (7,271,974) (11,476,020) 4,193,782 (11,222,607) 253,413; Net Transfers - In (Out) 8,007,942 5,850,465 7,796,456 1,141,378 7,796,456 d d d d d TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 6,045,519 $ 12,521,139 207% ; $ 7,737,952 $ 17,856,674 231% ; $ 9,082,463 117% ; $1,344,511. ESCpG�' Budget to Actuals Deport Health Services - A,c�rni�n - Fund 274 FY24 YFD August 31, 2023 (unaudited) 16.7% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 1 Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance OHP Capitation 367,074 367,074 100% = 435,349 79,808 18% 435,349 100% ; Interest on Investments € 97,750 390,781 400% : 262,007 93,291 36% 262,007 100% State Grant 379,180 142,133 37% 160,000 - 0% e € 160,000 100% Other € 160,495 33,725 21% 9,000 132,385 999% ° 134,649 999% - 125,649,A Federal Grants 1 454,405 592,179 130% TOTAL RESOURCES 1,458,904 1,525,892 105% ; 866,356 305,485 35% 992,005 115% ; 125,649: REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Personnel Services 6,738,820 6,093,176 90% t 6,519,513 950,654 15% s 7,020,346 108% _ (500,833): Materials and Services € 6,998,683 6,730,295 96% 7,527,129 1,218,131 16% 7,696,191 102% (169,062)a Capital Outlay 12,000 - 0% 43,750 - 0% 43,750 100% Administration Allocation (11,228,846) (11,228,846) 100% (12,589,086) - 0% a (12,589,086) 100% TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 2,520,656 1,594,625 63% 1,501,306 2,168,786 144% ; ; 2,171,201 145% ; (669,895); TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In- OHP Mental Health 80,771 80,771 100% 81,250 - 0% 81,250 100% Transfers Out 1 (230,635) (230,635) 100% (300,174) (50,028) 17% € (300,174) 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS (149,864) (149,864) 100% ; (218,924) (50,028) 23% ; ; (218,924) 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 3,884,332 4,007,465 103% 3,665,544 3,788,869 103% _ 3,786,844 103% 121,300, B Resources over Requirements (1,061,752) (68,732) (634,950) (1,863,301) a (1,179,196) (544,246); 1 Net Transfers - In (Out) (149,864) (149,864) (218,924) (50,028) ` (218,924) TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 2,672,716 $ 3,788,869 142% ; $ 2,811,670 $ 1,875,540 67% ; $ 2,388,724 85% ($422,946); Projections include estimated adjustments for anticipated unearned revenue. Exact amounts will be finalized at fiscal year-end. A Includes carryforward of $125k in unspent FY23 PacificSource Behavioral Health Workforce Diversity Grant. B Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY23 ESC0& Budget to Actuals Report Health Services - Behavioral Health - Fund 274 FY24 YTD August 31, 2023 (unaudited) RESOURCES State Grant OHP Capitation State Miscellaneous OHP Fee for Service Local Grants Federal Grants Other Patient Fees Medicaid State - Medicare Liquor Revenue Interfund Contract- Gen Fund Divorce Filing Fees TOTAL RESOURCES REQUIREMENTS 16.7% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance 15,718,843 12,660,784 81% 17,043,491 4,847,165 28% a 16,647,068 98% (396,423)A B i 12,515,550 11,721,107 94% 16,058,765 2,949,094 18% a 16,058,765 100% 1 8,027,373 7,063,393 88% 5,398,674 2,280,621 42% 5,585,633 103% 186,959! 1 3,214,360 5,256,164 164% 4,927,331 477,369 10% 4,927,331 100% 1 1,475,139 1,262,473 86% 1,348,943 793,104 59% 1,118,641 83% _ (230,302); i 2,017,169 1,636,693 81% 1,285,560 259,047 20% B 1,165,581 91% (119,979) 1 719,670 730,175 101% 631,245 105,334 17% 631,245 100% a 1 519,344 607,872 117% 448,500 75,815 17% 1 1 448,500 100% 1 430,863 746,146 173% 431,000 89,042 21% 431,000 100% i 337,614 234,401 69% 209,500 29,382 14% a 1 209,500 100% 1 177,574 161,412 91% ! 177,574 - 0% 177,574 100% i 127,000 i 127,000 100% 127,000 - 0% 1 I f 127,000 100% i o 173,030 63,178 1 37% o - - - 45,453,529 42,270,797 93% 48,087,583 11,905,973 25% 47,527,838 99% ; (559,745); Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Administration Allocation 8,265,132 8,265,132 100% 9,521,531 - 0% i 8 9,521,531 100% 1 1 1 Expenditures 1 - 92,830 I 999% Personnel Services 32,453,031 31,307,705 96% 31,872,043 4,540,484 14% ' 29,695,916 93% 2,176,127! Materials and Services i 9,948,652 5,531,099 56% 11,084,085 498,032 4% 11,322,503 102% (238,418); Capital Outlay i 497,443 219,861 44% 160,250 26,398 16% ' 225,250 141% (65,000) TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 51,164,258 45,416,627 89% 52,637,909 5,064,914 10% 50,765,200 96% 1,872,709: TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In -General Fund 2,231,439 1,440,767 65% 2,231,439 371,896 17% 2,231,439 100% Transfers In- OHP Mental Health 1,392,815 264,671 19% 1,529,358 - 0% 1,529,358 100% Transfers Out 1 (152,921) (196,921) 129% (481,000) - 0% 1 (481,000) 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS 3,471,333 1,508,517 43% 3,279,797 371,896 11% 3,279,797 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 4,788,795 6,317,144 132% 3,989,589 4,680,206 117% 4,670,902 117% 681,313, B Resources over Requirements (5,710,729) (3,145,830) (4,550,326) 6,841,060 (3,237,362) 1,312,964 I 1 I! Net Transfers - In (Out) 3,471,333 1,508,517 3,279,797 371,896 I 1 1 1 I 1 3,279,797 1 1 TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 2,549,399 $ 4,679,830 184% ; $ 2,719,060 $ 11,893,162 437% ; $ 4,713,337 173% ; $1,9949277: Projections include estimated adjustments for anticipated unearned revenue. Exact amounts will be finalized at fiscal year-end. A Projections less than budgeted primarily related to Aid & Assist funding compared to previous year ($215K) and OHA contracting directly with provider for Crook and Jefferson counties for MCAT services rather than being a pass-thru entity ($72K). 8 Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY23 o 12 �VIES C Budget to Actuals Report LG .., Health Services - Public Health - Fund 274 16.7% FY24 YTD August 31, 2023 (unaudited) Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 -� Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance State Grant 6,125,513 5,775,661 94% 5,444,505 56,853 1% a 5,344,637 98% _ (99,868): A Environmental Health Fees 1,238,499 1,335,280 108% 1,478,906 50,920 3% ' 1,478,906 100% State - Medicaid/Medicare 807,530 1,197,300 148% 1,034,491 98,277 10% 1,034,491 100% State Miscellaneous 874,346 687,993 79% 868,711 636 0% 844,659 97% (24,052)a Patient Fees 96,300 140,662 146% 639,290 23,157 4% 639,290 100% Other 289,152 1,212,439 419% 421,126 152,909 36% 573,186 136% 152,060! Vital Records 300,000 354,158 118% 315,000 38,595 12% 315,000 100% Local Grants 856,892 792,463 92% 218,951 499,371 228% 373,110 170% 154,159! State Shared- Family Planning 125,000 152,985 122% ^ 158,000 22,060 14% 158,000 100% Federal Grants 144,060 161,233 112% 155,000 36,881 24% € 165,736 107% 10,736- OHP Fee for Service 18,260 31,245 171% - 20,250 3,926 19% 30,000 148% 9,750 TOTAL RESOURCES 10,875,552 11,841,419 109% ; 10,754,230 983,584 9% ; 10,957,015 102% ; 202,785; REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Administration Allocation 2,963,714 2,963,714 100% 3,067,555 - 0% 3,067,555 100% Personnel Services 11,466,901 10,786,883 94% 11,627,573 1,601,324 14% 12,194,851 105% (567,278)! Materials and Services 2,446,466 1,956,788 80% 2,206,346 160,349 7% 2,368,158 107% (161,812)! B Capital Outlay 417,132 191,446 46% 143,500 5,888 4% 132,500 92% 11,000, TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 17,294,213 15,898,830 92% ; 17,044,974 1,767,561 10% 17,763,064 104% ; (718,090). TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In- General Fund 4,376,806 4,208,145 96% 4,548,701 758,108 17% 4,548,701 100% Transfers In -TRT 418,417 418,417 100% 368,417 61,402 17% 368,417 100% Transfers In- OHP Mental Health - - ! 319,965 - 0% a 319,965 100% Transfers Out (108,750) (134,750) 124% a (501,500) - 0% (501,500) 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS 4,686,473 4,491,812 96% ; 4,735,583 819,510 17% ; 4,735,583 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 2,555,592 3,618,039 142% 3,762,383 4,052,440 108% 4,050,868 108% 288,485, C Resources over Requirements (6,418,661) (4,057,412) _ (6,290,744) (783,977) (6,806,049) (515,305); Net Transfers - In (Out) 4,686,473 4,491,812 4,735,583 819,510 4,735,583 TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ $23,404 $ 4,052,440 492% ; $ 2,207,222 $ 4,087,973 185% ; ; $ 1,980,402 90% ($226,820); Projections include estimated adjustments for anticipated unearned revenue. Exact amounts will be finalized at fiscal year-end. A Projections over budget primarily related to carryforward of OHA COVID funds to be expended by June 2024. B Expenditures above budget related to delayed renovations at the North County Campus ($374K). C Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY23 oy=MMY" uS C Budget to Actuals Report Community Development - Fund 295 FY24 YTD August 31, 2023 (unaudited) 16.7% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Admin - Operations 153,445 154,886 101% 157,300 22,982 15% a 157,300 100% Code Compliance 1,171,592 915,867 78% 1,124,181 131,154 12% 895,181 80% (229,000); A Building Safety 4,821,160 4,118,192 85% 3,991,388 554,188 14% E 4,010,538 100% 19,150- Electrical 1,022,005 769,054 75% 902,175 139,997 16% 902,175 100% Onsite Wastewater 1,017,678 718,263 71% 923,880 149,080 16% 867,420 94% (56,460) Current Planning 2,425,334 1,966,872 81% 2,304,562 250,880 11% a 1,771,562 77% (533,000); A Long Range Planning 1,064,305 812,752 76% 1,057,354 138,304 13% 840,854 80% (216,500), A TOTAL RESOURCES 11,675,519 9,455,886 81% ; 10,460,840 1,386,584 13% 9,445,030 90% (1,015,810); REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Admin - Operations 3,432,980 3,085,363 90% a 3,241,288 481,311 15% 3,102,216 96% 139,072- B Code Compliance 805,614 714,049 89% 743,931 98,499 13% 666,791 90% 77,140! B Building Safety 2,538,721 1,866,742 74% 2,088,542 253,646 12% 2,090,805 100% (2,263); C Electrical 641,837 538,383 84% 583,718 76,634 13% 589,077 101% (5,359); C Onsite Wastewater 753,369 754,829 100% - 865,670 112,844 13% 755,315 87% 110,355� B Current Planning 2,062,044 1,613,571 78% 1,857,735 238,671 13% 1,659,686 89% 198,049! B Long Range Planning 998,739 893,682 89% 888,677 126,143 14% 726,855 82% 161,822! B TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 11,233,304 9,466,620 84% 10,269,561 1,387,749 14% ; 9,590,745 93% 678,816: TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In - CDD Operating - - 510,105 - 0% 510,105 100% Fund Transfers in - General Fund 160,000 139,916 87% 100,000 - 0% , 100,000 100% D Transfers In - CDD Electrical - 108,670 86,721 - 0% 22,712 26% (64,009)! E Reserve Transfers Out (112,619) (112,619) 100% (1075544) (17,918) 17% (107,544) 100% Transfers Out -CDD Reserve (958,966) (971,472) 101% (122,752) (86,515) 70% a (436,093) 355% (3135341) F TOTAL TRANSFERS (911,585) (835,505) 92% 466,530 (104,433) -22% ; 89,180 19% (377,350); FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 2,096,504 2,168,956 103% 1,3175921 1,322,717 100% 1,322,718 100% 4,797- G Resources over Requirements 442,215 (10,734) 191,279 (1,165) (145,715) (336,994) Net Transfers - In (Out) (911,585) (835,505) 466,530 (104,433) 89,180 (3775350) TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 1,627,134 $ 1,322,717 81% $ 1,975,730 $ 1,217,120 62% $ 1,266,183 64% ($709,547); A YTD revenue collection is lower than anticipated due to reduced permitting volumes resulting in reduced building valuations B Projections reflect unfilled positions and increased health benefits costs C Projections reflect increased health benefits costs D Quarterly transfer for hearings officer actual cost of service E Transfer in from reserves anticipated to balance the division F Transfer out projection increased due to reduced expenditures related to unfilled FTE G Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY23 Q`��tEs `oG1' Budget to Actuals Report .�/. Road -Fund 325 16 7% FY24 YTD August 31, 2023 (unaudited) Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Motor Vehicle Revenue 19,483,147 20,563,619 106% 20,648,483 3,091,908 15% a 20,648,483 100% ; Federal - PILT Payment 2,200,000 2,239,616 102% 2,240,000 2,394,054 107% 2,394,054 107% 154,054! Other Inter -fund Services 1,311,901 1,232,001 94% 1,450,015 44,085 3% 1,450,015 100% Cities-Bend/Red/Sis/La Pine 403,731 969,028 240% 763,171 - 0% 763,171 100% Federal Reimbursements - 7,641 689,703 0% ; 689,703 100% Sale of Equip & Material 426,000 385,036 90% 614,500 64,942 11% 614,500 100% Interest on Investments 54,172 105,203 194% 138,031 19,540 14% 138,031 100% Miscellaneous 77,610 65,385 84% 73,808 3,289 4% a 73,808 100% Mineral Lease Royalties 50,000 105,306 211% = 50,000 - 0% 87,883 176% 37,881 A Assessment Payments (P&I) - 5,175 6,000 1,580 26% _ 6,000 100% Forest Receipts 882,502 - 0% - - ! - State Miscellaneous - 20,000 - - - TOTAL RESOURCES 24,889,063 25,698,009 103% ; 26,673,711 5,619,398 21% ; 26,865,648 101% ; 191,937; REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Personnel Services 7,802,271 7,346,958 94% 8,406,468 1,153,130 14% _ 8,406,468 100% -1 Materials and Services 8,246,700 6,384,958 77% 8,600,033 1,531,093 18% 8,612,188 100% (125155) Capital Outlay 140,025 90,004 64% 118,260 2,475 2% 0 106,105 90% 12,155: TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 16,188,996 13,821,920 85% 17,124,761 2,686,698 16% 17,124,761 100% ; TRANSFERS Transfers Out TOTALTRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance (12,330,136) (12,330,136) 100% (12,700,000) (7,700,000) 61% _ (12,700,000) 100% (12,330,136) (12,330,136) 100% ; (12,700,000) (7,700,000) 61% ; ; (12,700,000) 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % 8 Beginning Fund Balance 5,892,967 7,806,356 132% 5,521,251 7,352,309 133% Resources over Requirements 8,700,067 11,876,089 9,548,950 2,932,700 Net Transfers - In (Out) (12,330,136) (12,330,136) (12,700,000) (7,700,000) TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 2,262,898 $ 7,352,309 325% ; $ 2,370,201 $ 2,585,010 109% A Actual payment higher than budget B Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY23 Projection % $ Variance 7,451,969 135% 1,930,718, B 1 9,740,887 191,937i (12,700,000) $ 4,492,857 190% ; $2,122,656, oy`�uSES COG2< Budget to Actuals Report Adult P&P - Fund 355 FY24 YTD August 31, 2023 (unaudited) 16.7% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance DOC Grant in Aid SB 1145 4,734,453 4,734,453 100% ^ 4,116,464 1,183,613 29% 4,116,464 100% CJC Justice Reinvestment 892,038 943,172 106% 943,172 - 0% ! 943,172 100% a DOC Measure 57 244,606 271,606 111% = 256,815 - 0% 256,815 100% Interest on Investments 18,151 63,625 351% 75,230 14,514 19% 75,230 100% Interfund- Sheriff 50,000 50,000 100% ' 50,000 8,333 17% 50,000 100% Gen Fund/Crime Prevention 50,000 50,000 100% 50,000 - 0% 50,000 100% State Miscellaneous 123,453 179,530 145% 22,607 - 0% 22,607 100% Oregon BOPPPS 20,318 - 0% 20,318 - 0% 20,318 100% Electronic Monitoring Fee 500 889 178% 500 258 52% s 500 100% Miscellaneous 500 2,099 420% e 500 - 0% 500 100% TOTAL RESOURCES 6,134,018 6,295,372 103% ; 5,535,606 1,206,718 22% 5,535,606 100% ; REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Personnel Services 5,683,822 5,042,967 89% 5,907,511 751,287 13% 5,907,511 100% Materials and Services 1,883,614 1,739,432 92% 1,618,521 263,808 16% 1,618,521 100% Capital Outlay 8,475 8,475 100% - - - TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 7,575,910 6,790,874 90% ; 7,526,032 1,015,095 13% 7,526,032 100% ; TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In- General Funds 536,369 536,369 100% = 536,369 89,394 17% 536,369 100% Transfers Out (199,560) (199,560) 100% ! - - - Transfer to Vehicle Maint (69,277) (69,277) 100% (75,419) (12,568) 17% (75,419) 100% - TOTAL TRANSFERS 267,532 267,532 100% ; 460,950 76,826 17% ; 460,950 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 3,100,000 3,238,905 104% 3,000,000 3,010,987 100% 3,010,988 100% 10,98& A Resources over Requirements (1,441,892) (495,502) (1,990,426) 191,623 (1,990,426) 0! Net Transfers - In (Out) 267,532 267,532 p 460,950 76,826 ! 460,950 i TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 1,925,640 $ 3,010,934 156% ; $ 1,470,524 $ 3,279,436 223% ; $ 1,481,512 101% ; $10,988: A Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY23 O1E5` 2� 0 Budget to Actuals Deport C� Plead CIP - Fund 465 FY24 YTD August 31, 2023 (unaudited) 16.7% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 1 Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance State Miscellaneous 1,818,500 127,458 7% 1,704,116 - 0% 1,704,116 100% Interest on Investments P 124,563 337,583 271% 475,310 98,339 21% 475,310 100% Miscellaneous fi - 317,508 ' - 19,241 P fi 19,241 f 19,241, A TOTAL RESOURCES 1,943,063 782,549 40% ; 2,179,426 117,580 5% ; 2,198,667 101% ; 19,241: REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Materials and Services 127,640 127,640 100% 132,770 22,128 17% 132,770 100% Capital Outlay P 28,259,526 16,769,496 59% 23,640,057 1,192,765 5% 23,633,009 100% 7,048 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS ; 28,387,166 16,897,136 60% 23,772,827 1,214,893 5% ; 23,765,779 100% ; 7,048, TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In 14,230,313 12,238,662 86% 12,500,000 5,000,000 40% 12,500,000 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS 14,230,313 12,238,662 86% 12,500,000 5,000,000 40% 12,500,000 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 24,548,274 27,223,832 111% 0 19,012,380 23,347,907 123% 23,347,907 123% 4,335,527, B Resources over Requirements (26,444,103) (16,114,587) (21,593,401) (1,097,313) (21,567,113) 26,288- Net Transfers - In (Out) 14,230,313 P 12,238,662 fi 12,500,000 5,000,000 P fi 12,500,000 P 1 TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 12,334,484 $ 23,347,907 189% ; $ 9,918,979 $ 27,250,593 275% ; ; $ 14,280,794 144% ; $4,361,815: A Actual payment higher than budget B Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY23 VIES c Budget to Actuals Report ZA,,k 2.� Road CIP (Fund 465) - Capital Outlay Summary by Project 16.67% FY24 YTD August 31, 2023 (unaudited) Year Completed Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Terrebonne Refinement Plan ': $ 5,119,310 $ - 0% $ 5,119,310 100% $ Hunnel Rd: Loco Rd to Tumalo Rd 1,569,800 170,286.72 11% 2,518,373 160% (948,573) Transportation System Plan Update 3,443.66 27,256 (27,256) Gribbling Rd Bridge 704,116 - 0% E 692,000 98% E 12,116€ Smith Rock Way Bridge Replace 1,417,429 - 0% E 1,417,429 100% Deschutes Mkt Rd/Hamehook Round 250,000 246,876.85 99% 250,000 100% E Powell Butte Hwy/Butler Market RB 2,642,402 24,800.75 1% € 2,642,402 100% Wilcox Ave Bridge #2171-03 Replacement 160,000 - 0% '- 160,000 100% Paving of Rosland Rd: US 20 to Draf 386,479.98 386,480 (386,480): Hamehook Rd Bridge #16181 Rehabilitation 595,000 - 0% 350,000 59% 245,000: NW Lower Bridge Way: 43rd St to Holmes Rd 1,290,000 0%s 320,000 25% ? 970,000 Northwest Way: NW Coyner Ave to NW Altmeter Wy : 556,000 - 0% F 556,000 100% 6 Slurry Seal 2023 357,325.00 357,325 (357,325); Terrebonne Wastewater System Phase 1 1,000,000 0% 1,000,000 100% Tumalo Reservoir Rd: OB Riley to Sisemore Rd 300,000 0% `- 300,000 100% E Local Road Pavement Preservation 200,000 0% = 200,000 100% US20: Locust St 1,000,000 - 0% 1,000,000 100% Paving Butler Market - Hamehook to Powell Butte 320,000 1,494.88 0% `: 1,494,879 467% `: (1,174,879): Old Bend Rdm Hwy - US 20 to Tumalo 1,210,000 2,057.25 0% 1,295,556 107% (85,556): Paving Of Horse Butte Rd 460,000 - 0% E 460,000 100% E Paving Of Obr Hwy: Tumalo To Helmho 3,000,000 0% 1,800,000 60% 3 1,200,000 Paving Of Spring River Rd: S Centur 510,000 0% 280,000 55% E 230,000: Slurry Seal2024 300,000 - 0% 120,000 40% 180,000E La Pine Uic Stormwater Improvements 240,000 - 0% 240,000 100% S Century Dr / Spring River Rd Roun 177,000 0% 177,000 100% S Century Dr / Huntington Rd Rounda 169,000 - 0% = 169,000 100% E Local Access Road Bridges 150,000 - 0% E 150,000 100% E FY 23 Guardrail Improvements 150,000 - 0% E - 0% E 150,000: Signage Improvements 150,000 0% 150,000 100% € TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $ 23,640,057: 1,192,765 5%: $ 23,633,009 100%: $ 7,048 oy`wiESCOG�< Budget to Actuals Report . Solid Waste -Fund 610 FY24 YTD August 31, 2023 (unaudited) 16.7% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 1 Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Franchise Disposal Fees 7,210,000 7,006,324 97% a 8,000,000 1,389,362 17% 8,000,000 100% A Private Disposal Fees 3,337,000 2,944,356 88% ! 3,450,000 665,814 19% 3,450,000 100% A Commercial Disp. Fee 3,234,000 3,026,577 94% 3,310,000 982,927 30% s 3,310,000 100% Franchise 3% Fees 305,000 363,105 119% 565,000 68,159 12% 565,000 100% B Yard Debris 290,000 305,516 105% 400,000 106,079 27% 400,000 100% Miscellaneous 70,000 140,837 201% 173,000 53,253 31% 173,000 100% Interest on Investments 30,498 43,342 142% 60,410 15,621 26% 60,410 100% Special Waste 15,000 62,756 418% 30,000 11,876 40% 30,000 100% C Recyclables 12,000 7,060 59% 7,000 1,462 21% ' 7,000 100% Leases 1 1 100% 1 - 0% 1 100% TOTAL RESOURCES 14,503,499 13,899,874 96% 15,995,411 3,294,552 21% 15,995,411 100% ; REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Personnel Services 3,277,684 3,139,678 96% 4,108,983 491,780 12% 4,108,983 100% Materials and Services 6,473,358 5,716,762 88% 7,683,911 654,147 9% 7,683,911 100% Capital Outlay 264,000 181,603 69% 260,000 192,190 74% a 260,000 100% Debt Service 1,739,630 1,731,017 100% 2,302,340 - 0% 2,302,340 100% TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 11,754,672 10,769,061 92% 14,355,234 1,338,116 9% 14,355,234 100% ; TRANSFERS SW Capital & Equipment Reserve TOTAL TRANSFERS FUND BALANCE Beginning Fund Balance Resources over Requirements Net Transfers - In (Out) TOTAL FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget (5,299,665) (3,453,962) 65% (2,613,962) (5,299,665) (3,453,962) 65% ; (2,613,962) Budget Actuals % Budget 3,107,198 3,066,662 99% 2,416,385 2,748,827 s 3,130,814 � 1,640,177 (5,299,665) (3,453,962) (2,613,962) $ 556,359 $ 2,743,514 493% ; $ 1,442,600 Actuals % (2,326) 0% (2,326) 0% Actuals % Projection % $ Variance (2,613,962) 100% (2,613,962) 100% ; Projection % $ Variance 2,758,187 114% 2,859,215 118% 442,830, D 1,956,436 1,640,177 0. (2,326) (2,613,962) $ 4,712,298 327% ; ; $ 1,885,430 131% ; $442,830: A Total disposal fee projections reflect management's best estimate of revenues to be collected; disposal tons are typically higher in the summer with reductions in winter. July Commercial revenue includes payment for the prior Hwy 97 bypass disposal charges. B Annual fees due April 15, 2024; received year-to-date monthly installments from Republic C Revenue source is unpredictable and dependent on special clean-up projects of contaminated soil and asbestos (i.e. stormwater control sediment and debris) D Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY23 �tES ` 2� 0 Budget to Actuals Deport C� .. ,� Fair & Expo -Fund 61 FY24 YTD August 31, 2023 (unaudited) 16.7% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 Fiscal Year 2024 -771 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Events Revenue 745,759 948,145 127% 1,050,000 117,051 11% 1,050,000 100% Food & Beverage 745,000 1,048,507 141% = 991,000 116,203 12% 991,000 100% Rights & Signage 105,000 I 97,159 93% 105,000 62,616 60% 1 105,000 100% 1 Horse Stall Rental 49,000 78,825 161% 100,000 - 0% 100,000 100% Storage 65,000 45,551 70% 50,000 - 0% 50,000 100% Camping Fee 20,000 1 23,500 118% a 22,500 737 3% 1 22,500 100% Interest on Investments 5,221 i 15,485 297% 22,000 3,095 14% i 22,000 100% o Miscellaneous 3,554 I 3,536 99% 3,000 1,682 I 56% I 3,000 100% TOTAL RESOURCES 1,738,534 2,260,708 130% ; 2,343,500 301,383 13% 2,343,500 100% ; REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Expenditures - I - 1,000 - 0% 1 1,000 100% Personnel Services 1,256,902 1,313,682 105% 1,748,441 232,836 13% 1,748,441 100% Personnel Services - F&B I 170,247 I 85,623 50% 148,510 2,573 I I 2% E 1 148,510 100% Materials and Services 965,684 1,168,230 121% = 1,221,986 202,332 17% 1,221,986 100% - Materials and Services - F&B 1 603,950 I 661,314 109% 514,200 55,246 1 1 11% I 1 514,200 100% Debt Service 101,270 101,267 100% 100,190 - 0% 100,190 100% TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 3,098,054 3,330,117 107% ; 3,734,327 492,986 13% 3,734,327 100% ; TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In - Room Tax 1,101,342 1,019,042 93% 1,009,023 168,168 17% 1,009,023 100% Transfers In - Park Fund 30,000 30,000 100% 30,000 5,000 17% 30,000 100% Transfers Out (427,215) (427,215) 100% (163,342) (27,222) 17% (163,342) 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS 704,127 621,827 88% 875,681 145,946 17% 875,681 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 971,352 995,519 102% 754,000 563,425 75% 563,426 75% (190,574); A Resources over Requirements (1,359,520) (1,069,409) (1,390,827) (191,603) (1,390,827) 0 Net Transfers - In (Out) 1 704,127 621,827 I 875,681 145,946 I I 875,681 1 1 TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 315,960 $ 547,938 173% ; $ 238,854 $ 517,769 217% ; $ 48,280 20% ($190,574); A Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY23 VIES ` 0G %{ Budget to Actuals Report L� Annual County Fair - Fund 616 FY24 YTD August 31, 2023 (unaudited) 16.7% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Concessions and Catering 625,000 815,458 130% 790,000 834,867 106% 834,870 106% 44,870, Gate Receipts 710,000 782,364 110% 775,000 1,036,218 134% 1,036,219 134% 261,219, Carnival 385,000 433,682 113% 430,000 245,809 57% f 430,000 100% Commercial Exhibitors 80,000 117,100 146% , 118,200 114,091 97% 118,200 100% Fair Sponsorship 61,000 99,655 163% 92,500 54,861 59% s 92,500 100% State Grant 53,167 53,167 100% 53,167 - 0% a 53,167 100% Rodeo Sponsorship 24,000 22,430 93% 30,000 40,351 135% 42,000 140% 12,000- RN Camping/Horse Stall Rental 20,000 17,520 88% a 17,250 31,495 183% 31,496 183% = 14,246! Interest on Investments 2,713 13,169 485% 13,500 3,314 25% e 13,500 100% Merchandise Sales 3,500 3,245 93% a 2,500 1,070 43% 2,500 100% Livestock Entry Fees 5,000 1,925 39% 2,000 1,940 97% 2,000 100% Miscellaneous - 75 - 33 34 34! TOTAL RESOURCES 1,969,380 2,359,790 120% ; 2,324,117 2,364,048 102% ; ; 2,656,486 114% ; 332,369: REQUIREMENTS Personnel Services Materials and Services TOTAL REQUIREMENTS TRANSFERS Transfer In -TRT 1% Transfers Out TOTALTRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % 169,445 185,165 109% ; 276,531 28,574 10% 1,802,585 1,882,285 104% 2,306,325 1,621,982 70% 1,972,030 2,067,450 105% ; 2,582,856 1,650,556 64% ; Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % 75,000 75,000 100% 75,000 12,500 17% (231,706) (231,706) 100% (109,503) (18,250) 17% (156,706) (156,706) 100% ; (34,503) (5,750) 17% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Beginning Fund Balance s 384,715 385,854 100% � 539,152 521,538 97% � Resources over Requirements (2,650) 292,340 (258,739) 713,492 Net Transfers - In (Out) e (156,706) (156,706) a � (34,503) (5,750) � TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 225,358 $ 521,488 231% ; $ 245,910 $ 1,229,280 500% ; A Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY23 Projection % $ Variance 276,531 100% 2,306,325 100% 2,582,856 100% Projection % $ Variance 75,000 100% (109,503) 100% - (34,503) 100% ; Projection % $ Variance 521,539 97% (17,613); A 73,630 332,369- (34,503) $ 560,666 228% ; $314,756; ��V'fESC,0 Budget t© ACtuais Report Annual County Fair - Fund 616 CY23 YTD August 31, 2023 (unaudited) Fair 2023 < Actuals to 2023 Fair 2022 Date Projection RESOURCES Gate Receipts $ 782,364 r, $ 11036,218 $ 1,036,218 Carnival 433,682 245,809 245,809 Commercial Exhibitors 436,292 436,160 436,160 Livestock Entry Fees 1,925 1,940 1,940 R/V Camping/Horse Stall Rental 17,392 ' 31,495 31,495 Merchandise Sales 3,245 ; 1,070 1,070 Concessions and Catering 497,366 ,, 512,798 512,798 Fair Sponsorship 126,300 ",$ 84,957 84,957 TOTAL FAIR REVENUES $ 2,298,566 '; $ 2,350,446 $ 2,350,446 OTHER RESOURCES State Grant 53,167 - - ME Interest 5,794 10,449 14,449 z Miscellaneous 108 108 e e� r� c e �c� nn� Q 1) 12ce nn,2 TOTALRESOURCES .v L,3J1,JL6 P L,JV I,VVJ w L,JV J,V VJ Personnel 102,763 119,892 173,408 Materials & Services 1,722,703 0 1,781,044 2,155,168 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS $ 1,825,466 $ 1,900,936 $ 2,328,577 TRANSFERS Transfer In - TRT 1 % Transfer Out - F&E Reserve Transfer Out - Fair & Expo TOTAL TRANSFERS Net Fair Beginning Fund Balance on Jan 1 68,750 50,000 75,000 (96,540)4,r (134,108) (170,608) $ (27,790) $ (84,108) $ (95,608) $ 504,270 a $ 375,959 $ (59,182) $ 448,151 `r $ 952,421 $ 952,421 Ending Balance $ 952,421 i, $ 1,328,381 $ 893,240 Z\3-(c0&' Budget to Actuals report Fait- & Expo capital Reserve - Fund 617 FY24 YTD August 31, 2023 (unaudited) 16.7% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 1 Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Interest on Investments 7,414 39,492 533% 64,800 11,474 18% 64,800 100% 1 I 1 1 0 I Local Government Payments - 277,777 - - - TOTAL RESOURCES 7,414 317,269 999% ; 64,800 11,474 18% 64,800 100% , REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Materials and Services 495,000 100,309 20% 343,555 32,056 9% 343,555 100% a Capital Outlay 1 375,000 383,000 102% 746,445 - 0% a 746,445 100% ; a A TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 870,000 483,310 56% ; 1,090,000 32,056 3% 1,090,000 100% ; TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In -TRT 1% 501,683 465,685 93% 462,119 77,018 17% 462,119 100% Transfers In - Fair & Expo 416,437 416,438 100% 152,565 25,426 17% 152,565 100% e Transfers In -Annual County Fair ! 231,706 231,706 100% I 109,503 18,250 17% 109,503 100% Transfers In - Fund 165 - - 100,000 100,000 100% ! 100,000 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS 1,149,827 1,113,829 97% 824,187 220,694 27% 824,187 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 1,299,942 1,809,440 139% 2,592,838 2,757,229 106% E 2,757,230 106% 164,392. B Resources over Requirements (862,586) (166,040) (1,025,200) (20,581) _ (1,025,200) 0 Net Transfers - in (Out) ! 1;149;827 1,113,829 I 824,187 220,694 I E 824,187 I ! TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 1,587,183 $ 2,757,229 174% ; $ 2,391,825 $ 2,957,341 124% ; ; $ 2,556,217 107% ; $164,392: A Capital Outlay appropriations are a placeholder should viable projects be recommended and approved for construction B Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY23 01ES c0Gz Budget to Actuals Report RV Park Fund 618 FY24 YTD August 31, 2023 (unaudited) 16.7% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance RV Park Fees < 31 Days 605,000 548,219 91% 500,000 102,474 20% 500,000 100% RV Park Fees > 30 Days 13,000 10,249 79% 12,500 - 0% 12,500 100% Cancellation Fees 14,000 8,636 62% 7,000 102 1% a 7,000 100% a Washer / Dryer 4,200 5,560 132% 5,000 1,306 26% 5,000 100% Miscellaneous 3,750 2,907 78% 2,500 227 9% 2,500 100% Interest on Investments 552 2,764 501% 2,300 782 34% E 2,300 100% Vending Machines 1,750 1,492 85% 1,500 742 49% f 1,500 100% TOTAL RESOURCES 642,252 579,826 90% 530,800 105,633 20% 530,800 100% ; REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Personnel Services 111,153 82,265 74% 91,328 16,222 18% 91,328 100% Materials and Services 259,755 192,600 74% 303,173 37,611 12% ' 303,173 100% Debt Service 223,273 223,272 100% 222,630 - 0% 222,630 100% TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 594,181 498,137 84% ; 617,131 53,833 9% ; 617,131 100% ; TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In - Park Fund 160,000 160,000 100% 160,000 - 0% 160,000 100% - Transfers In - TRT Fund 20,000 20,000 100% = 20,000 3,332 17% 20,000 100% s Transfer Out - RV Reserve (261,566) (261,566) 100% ! (51,564) (8,594) 17% (51,564) 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS (81,566) (81,566) 100% ; 128,436 (5,262) 4% ; 128,436 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 116,415 166,536 143% = 93,115 166,660 179% 166,661 179% 73,546, A Resources over Requirements a 48,071 81,689 � (86,331) 51,800 a (86,331) 0! 6 s Net Transfers - In (Out) (81,566) (81,566) 0 128,436 (5,262) 128,436 TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 82,920 $ 166,660 201% ; $ 135,220 $ 213,197 158% ; $ 208,766 154% ; $73,546; A Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY23 ,�VTES C-0 Budget to Actuals Report RV Park Reserve - Fund 619 16.7% FY24 YTD August 31, 2023 (unaudited) Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 --�� Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Interest on Investments 6,298 21,589 343% 34,300 5,827 17% 34,300 100% TOTAL RESOURCES 6,298 21,589 343% ; 34,300 5,827 17% ; 34,300 100% ; REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Materials and Services - - 100,000 - 0% 100,000 100% Capital Outlay 100,000 5,532 6% 74,000 - 0% 74,000 100% ` A TOTAL REQUIREMENTS ; 100,000 5,532 6% 174,000 - 0% 174,000 100% ; TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfer In - RV Park Ops 261,750 261,566 100% 51,564 8,594 17% 51,564 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS 261,750 261,566 100% ; 51,564 8,594 17% 51,564 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 1,172,718 1,191,937 102% 1,372,453 1,469,559 107% 1,469,560 107% 97,107, B Resources over Requirements (93,702) 16,056 (139,700) 5,827 (139,700) 01 Net Transfers - In (Out) 261,750 261,566 51,564 8,594 51,564 TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 1,340,766 $ 1,469,559 110% ; $ 1,284,317 $ 1,483,980 116% ; ; $ 1,381,424 108% ; $97,107, A Capital Outlay appropriations are a placeholder B Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY23 OTESC0" Budget to .Actuals Report Risk Management - Fund 670 FY24 YTD August 31, 2023 (unaudited) 16.7% Year Complete Fisca! Year 2023 Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Workers' Compensation 1,234,761 1,226,486 99% 1,111,585 192,978 17% _ 1,111,585 100% General Liability 892,681 892,681 100% a 935,832 155,972 17% 935,832 100% Unemployment 430,179 344,950 80% 439,989 189,918 43% 439,989 100% A Property Damage 419,566 419,566 100% = 418,028 69,671 17% _ 418,028 100% Vehicle I 248,764 248,764 100% 226,710 37,785 17% I 226,710 100% Interest on Investments 49,346 148,514 1 301% = 200,000 35,701 18% I f 200,000 I I 100% 1 Claims Reimbursement 25,000 6,476 1 26% 20,000 - 0% I m 20,000 1 1 100% I Skid Car Training 10,000 8,899 1 89% 10,000 4,260 43% I! 10,000 I 1 100% Process Fee- Events/ Parades I 1,000 1,260 126% 2,000 495 25% I 2,000 100% I Miscellaneous 180 - 1 0% 200 - 0% P i 200 1 I 100% TOTAL RESOURCES 3,311,477 3,297,596 100% ; 3,364,344 686,781 20% ; 3,364,344 100% ; REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Workers' Compensation 1,580,000 1,493,702 95% 1,880,000 179,442 10% 1,880,000 100% General Liability 3,000,000 470,875 16% 1,200,000 333,821 28% 1,100,000 92% 100,000! Insurance Administration 1 607,558 602,653 99% ! 714,197 242,258 34% I 714,197 100% Vehicle 200,000 194,089 97% 400,000 58,071 15% 400,000 100% Property Damage I 300,248 99,913 33% 300,250 313,169 104% 1 420,000 140% _ (119,750); Unemployment 200,000 54,473 27% 250,000 - 0% 250,000 100% TOTAL REQUIREMENTS ; 5,887,806 2,915,705 50% 4,744,447 1,126,761 24% 4,764,197 100% ; (19,750); TRANSFERS yam., Budget Actuals % 9a...4-f uy... Actuals .......... °/ ®r^Iia^fion % $ Variance Transfers Out - Vehicle (3,500) (3,500) 100% (3,500) (582) 17% (3,500) 100% Replacement TOTAL TRANSFERS (3,500) (3,500) 100% ; (3,500) (582) 17% ; ; (3,500) 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 7,687,180 8,944,938 116% 8,000,000 9,323,329 117% 9,323,330 117% 1,323,330: B Resources over Requirements (2,576,329) 381,891 (1,380,103) (439,980) (1,399,853) (19,750) Net Transfers - In (Out) (3,500) (3,500) (3,500) (582) ! (3,500) I I I I I I TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 5,107,351 $ 9,323,329 183% ; $ 6,616,397 $ 8,882,767 134% ; $ 7,919,977 120% ; $1,303,580; A Unemployment collected on first $25K of employee's salary in fiscal year B Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY23 o(�u1ESC0G2- Budget to Actuals Report Health Benefits - Fund 675 FY24 YTD August 31, 2023 (unaudited] 16.7% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Internal Premium Charges 19,908,221 20,496,601 103% 25,899,034 3,684,087 14% a 25,899,034 100% COIC Premiums 1 1,547,778 1,951,365 126% 1,963,363 155,262 8% 1,963,363 100% Employee Co -Pay 1,282,015 1,247,607 97% 1,247,416 202,148 16% 1,247,416 100% Retiree / COBRA Premiums 1 595,000 982,424 165% 1,019,288 90,015 9% 1 1,019,288 100% Prescription Rebates 175,000 528,990 302% 280,000 0% I 280,000 100% A Claims Reimbursement & Other 55,000 109,282 199% 124,944 32,766 26% 124,944 100% Interest on Investments 1 95,686 176,071 184% 120,000 29,311 24% I 120,000 100% TOTAL RESOURCES 23,658,700 25,492,341 108% ; 30,654,045 4,193,589 14% 30,654,045 100% ; REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Health Benefits 26,597,563 25,451,039 96% 26,697,663 1,912,186 7% 26,697,663 100% B Deschutes On -Site Pharmacy 1 3,779,608 3,807,986 101% 4,287,997 383,173 9% 4,287,997 100% B 1 Deschutes On -Site Clinic 1,212,497 1,205,226 I 99% 1,415,279 99,431 I 7% P 1,415,279 1 100% 1 - B Wellness 179,549 161,200 90% 186,274 13,875 7% 186,274 100% B TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 31,769,217 30,625,451 96% ; 32,587,213 2,408,665 7% ; , 32,587,213 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 11,925,656 11,304,191 95% i I 5,742,743 6,445,580 112% I f 6,445,581 112% - 1 702,838- C 1 ResaUl{eDVYeIRG^yu'remc^'it$ (8,110,517) (5,'33,'11) 1 i (1,933,468) 1,78^,924 l i (1,933,'68) 1 0' I Net Transfers - In (Out) - - 1 I - - 1 8 1 1 TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 3,815,139 $ 6,171,080 162% ; $ 3,809,575 $ 8,230,504 216% ; ; $ 4,512,413 118% ; $702,838; A Budget estimate is based on claims which are difficult to predict B Amounts are paid 1 month in arrears C Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY23 o� OjEs` z{ Budget to Actuals Report Le 'G -�, 911 - Fund 705 and 710 16.7% FY24 YTD August 31, 2023 (unaudited) Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Property Taxes - Current Yr Telephone User Tax Interest on Investments Police RMS User Fees Contract Payments User Fee Data Network Reimbursement State Reimbursement Property Taxes - Prior Yr Property Taxes - Jefferson Co. Miscellaneous TOTAL RESOURCES 10,402,834 10,493,701 101% 10,932,000 - 0% 1,668,000 1,881,374 113% f 1,827,530 - 0% 67,515 237,842 352% 312,321 48,684 16% 237,221 244,437 103% 244,435 - 0% is 153,292 167,764 109% 167,765 4,000 2% 140,445 146,863 105% a 148,820 2,200 1% 120,874 158,228 131% 145,852 449 0% 810,000 622,177 77% 93,000 - 0% 80,000 90,291 113 /° ° � 90,000 30,812 34% s� 39,497 38,104 96% 40,500 452 1% 25,000 40,191 161% 32,100 2,428 8% 13,744,678 14,120,971 103% ; 14,034,323 89,024 1% ; 10,932,000 100% E A 1,827,530 100% _ B 312,321 100% 244,435 100% C 167,765 100% 148,820 100% 145,852 100% e 93,000 i 100% - D 90,000 100% 40,500 100% 32,100 100% 14,034,323 100% ; REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Personnel Services 8,606,196 7,891,350 92% 9,032,045 1,195,842 13% _ 9,032,045 100% Materials and Services 4,088,201 3,151,021 77% 6 4,250,715 567,796 13% 4,230,715 100% 20,000! Capital Outlay 5,015,100 2,347,522 47% 1,831,000 335,980 18% 1,851,000 101% (20,000); TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 17,709,497 13,389,893 76% 15,113,760 2,099,618 14% ; 15,113,760 100% ; TRANSFERS Transfers In Transfers Out TOTAL TRANSFERS FUND BALANCE Beginning Fund Balance Resources over Requirements Net Transfers - In (Out) TOTAL FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance 1,750,000 1,750,000 100% 1,950,000 0% 1,950,000 100% (1,809,900) (1,809,900) 100% (1,950,000) - 0% (1,950,000) 100% (59,900) (59,900) 100% Budget Actuals % Budget 12,950,799 12,722,890 98% 13,202,343 e (3,964,819) 731,078 (1,079,437) (59,900) (59,900) o - $ 8,926,080 $ 13,394,068 150% ; $ 12,122,906 A Current year taxes received primarily in November, February and May B Telephone tax payments are received quarterly C Invoices are mailed in the Spring D State GIS reimbursements are received quarterly E Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY23 Actuals % Projection % $ Variance 13,330,430 101% 13,329,825 101% - 127,482- I 1 (2,010,594) (1,079,437) 01 $ 11,319,837 93% ; $ 12,250,388 101% ; $127,482: BOAR1 OF COUNTY Mivir September 25, 2023 Department of Land Conservation and Development 635 Capitol Street NE, Suite 150 Salem, OR 97301 RE: Support for City of La Pine Technical Assistance Grant Dear Angie Brewer: We are writing to strongly support the City of La Pine's application for the Technical Assistance Grant offered by the Department of Land Conservation and Development for $60,000. The efforts that La Pine is initiating to update the comprehensive plan, and analyzation of housing and economic needs for the community, are of high priority as Central Oregon continues to grow. La Pine is the youngest city in the state, with an incorporation date of 2006. The city's comprehensive plan was originally adopted in 2010, with minor updates in 2018. In the last 13 years, La Pine has experienced pronounced growth and development. in 2022, the population was calculated by the Portland State University Population Research Center (PRC) at 2,736. According to the PRC, La Pine experienced 52% growth from 2010 to 2022, ranking 7t" in the state for growth. PRC conservatively forecasts the population to increase in La Pine by 87% in the next 25 years. It is of note that within the Newberry Neighborhood master planned development, approximately 367 acres of residentially zoned land remains undivided, and could be developed at any time. In light of these facts and forecasts, it is of utmost importance that the city ensures its comprehensive plan and development code are primed and ready for the development challenges that lie ahead. Accomplishing this will not only ensure the community's vision is carried into the future to shape the City of La Pine, but also ensure that the integrity of the community is maintained. We support La Pine's grant application and strongly encourage your funding support of this important work. Thank you for your consideration, The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Anthony DeBone Patti Adair Phil Chang Chair Vice Chair Commissioner 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, Oregon 97703 Q~ (541) 388-6572 board@deschutes.org 6www.deschr.rtes.org