The URL can be used to link to this page

2023-359-Minutes for Meeting October 23,2023 Recorded 11/14/2023vT E S BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon (541) 388-6570 Recorded in Deschutes County Steve Dennison, County Clerk CJ2023-359 Commissioners, Journal 11 /14/2023 9:46:59 AM 2023-359 FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY BOCC MEETING MINUTES MONDAY October 23, 2023 Allen Room Live Streamed Video Present were Commissioners Anthony DeBone, Patti Adair and Phil Chang. Also present were County Administrator Nick Lelack; Deputy County Administrator Whitney Hale; 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 1:00 p.m. CITIZEN INPUT: None AGENDA ITEMS: 1. Order No. 2023-048 approving land use applications of 2T Sustainable Land &z Cattle Holdings LLC Stephanie Marshall, Assistant Legal Counsel, explained that the order would formalize the County's actions to approve land use applications for a conditional use permit, site plan approval and lot line adjustments. In response to Commissioner DeBone, Marshall confirmed that the order is in compliance with the directive of the Court. CHANG Move approval of Board Order No. 2023-048 approving applications of 2T Sustainable Land & Cattle, LLC in compliance with Stipulated BOCC MEETING OCTOBER 23, 2023 PAGE 1 OF 4 PA 3. Peremptory Writ of Mandamus ADAIR: Second VOTE: ADAI R: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried Update on the proposal for roundabout art at US 20/OB Riley -Cook Avenue in Tumalo Lauren Cramer, representing the Tumalo Community Foundation, said four concepts for an art display in the new roundabout at US 20 and Riley -Cook Avenue were presented to the community, which selected the one submitted by Nathan Wismer. Cramer described the selection process and said over 200 votes were received from persons confirmed to be residents of Tumalo. Nathan Wismer said the art will be fabricated from steel. He shared the plans for connection points, hardware and footings and said the plans will be sent to ODOT for final approval of the design, materials and placement. The hope is to install the art next spring. Commissioners expressed support for the design and its suitability for this purpose. Chris Doty, Road Director, reminded that ODOT owns the roundabout, which will receive minimal landscape treatment prior to the art installation. Because Deschutes County will hold the permit for the artwork, he reviewed the three things required of the proponents: obtain community agreement, and fund and maintain the art. Cramer shared plans to establish an annual fundraiser to ensure the necessary revenue is collected for ongoing maintenance of the art into the future. Commissioner DeBone asked if the County would need to maintain the art if it was installed and the community foundation dissolved. Doty verified this and said the County will depend on Tumalo community to continue to maintain this amenity. Treasury Report for September 2023 Bill Kuhn, County Treasurer, presented the Treasurer's Report for September 2023. Commissioner Chang asked what kind of investment income assumptions are used for budgeting purposes. Kuhn said evaluating the expected treasury yield curve for BOCC MEETING OCTOBER 23, 2023 PAGE 2 OF 4 the next 18 months is useful in projecting rates. He added that rates are forecasted to remain elevated for the next three years. On another subject, Kuhn said the Board's consent agenda on Wednesday will include a request to establish a new sweep account. He explained the benefits that would result, including higher interest income, and said another advantage is that the account would not have a maximum balance limit. --4.---- Finance Report for September 2023 Robert Tintle, Chief Financial Officer, presented the Finance Report for September 2023. In addition, Tintle reported that the County will receive an updated rating from Moody's Investor Services on November 3rd. He also explained the process to recruit for and interview applicants for a Budget Committee member to replace Bruce Barrett. Commissioner Adair was concerned that the balance of the Health Benefits Fund, formerly $16 million, is expected to be about $6 million at the end of 2023 and further reduce to $4 million at the end of the fiscal year. OTHER ITEMS: Dave Doyle, County Attorney, said the changes to Deschutes County Code which prohibit camping in non -designated public areas are due to take effect in November. Doyle suggested delaying the effective date of these provisions since the County has not yet identified alternate sites where campers could relocate to if displaced, which potentially subjects the County to legal challenge. Following discussion, the Board was in consensus to delay the effective date of this Code section to March 31 St. Legal will submit an ordinance for the Board's formal enactment of this change. The Board discussed a draft letter to Governor Kotek regarding Measure 110 and directed staff to incorporate changes in a new draft for the Board's review and consideration. The Board reviewed an updated draft of a letter regarding the State's rulemaking process for groundwater allocations. Following discussion, it was decided that the Board will not issue a joint letter on this subject. The Board discussed a request from the City of Prineville for a letter supporting the proposed Prineville Renewable Energy Project. Commissioner Chang said he would need to know specifics before signing on to a letter of support. He was particularly interested to know if the project BOCC MEETING OCTOBER 23, 2023 PAGE 3 OF 4 will be economically viable, generate power at a reasonable price, and be subsidized by taxpayers. Further questioning if the facility's carbon emissions will be justified, he asked how the project will be paid for and if the revenue used will impact other needs. • Commissioner Adair said this project is supported by Governor Kotek. ADAIR: Move approval of a letter of support to Prineville MayorJason Beebe Supporting the Prineville Renewable Energy Project DEBONE: Second VOTE: ADAI R: Yes CHANG: (abstained) DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 2 - 0 (Chang abstaining) • Commissioner DeBone announced he will attend next Monday's Eastern Oregon Counties Association meeting. • It was decided that the graduation for the current session of County College will occur next Monday evening at 6 pm. • Commissioner Chang reported that next Thursday and Friday, the EPA will hold a roundtable with DEQ, ODF and USFS regarding the Clean Air Act and prescribed fires. EXECUTIVE SESSION: None ADJOURN: Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:21 p.m. DATED this 0 Day of Commissioners. ATTEST: RECORDING SECRETARY 2023 for the Deschutes County Board of ANTHONY DEBONE, CHAIR PATTI ADAIR, VICE CHAIR PHIL CHANG, COM ISSIONER BOCC MEETING OCTOBER 23, 2023 PAGE 4 OF 4 �w'( E S C-0G 2� BOARD OF € COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING 1:00 PM, MONDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2023 Allen Room - 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 citizen in put@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 CITIZEN INPUT: Citizen Input may be provided as comment on any topic that is not on the agenda. Note: In addition to the option of providing in -person comments at the meeting, citizen input comments may be emailed to citizeninput@deschutes.org or you may leave a brief voicemail at 541.385.1734. CONSENT AGENDA AGENDA ITEMS 1. 1:00 PM Order No. 2023-048 approving land use applications of 2T Sustainable Land & Cattle Holdings LLC 2. 1:05 PM Update on the proposal for roundabout art at US 20/O13 Riley -Cook Avenue In Tumalo 3. 1:20 PM Treasury Report for September 2023 4. 1:40 PM Finance Report for September 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. 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. ADJOURN October 23, 2023 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 2 of 2 vT E S coG2� BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING DATE: October 23, 2023 SUBJECT: Order No. 2023-048 approving land use applications of 2T Sustainable Land & Cattle Holdings LLC RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move approval of Board signature of Order No. 2023-048 approving land use applications of 2T Sustainable Land & Cattle Holdings LLC in compliance with the Stipulated Peremptory Writ of Mandamus and Order of Dismissal. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: In order to comply with the writ of mandamus issued by the court in Case No. 23CV38008 - 2T Sustainable Land & Cattle Holdings LLC v. Deschutes County, the Board will consider an order accepting the Hearings Officer's decision which approved the submitted land use applications as the final decision of the County. BUDGET IMPACTS: None ATTENDANCE: Stephanie Marshall, Assistant Legal Counsel REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Order Approving Applications of 2T Sustainable Land & Cattle, LLC in * ORDER NO. 2023-048 Compliance with Stipulated Peremptory Writ of Mandamus WHEREAS, 2T Sustainable Land & Cattle, LLC (the "Applicant") filed a Petition for Alternative Writ of Mandamus Pursuant to ORS 34.130 in Deschutes County Circuit Court, Cause No. 23CV38008 on or about September 18, 2023 concerning the Applicant's land use applications for conditional use permit, site plan approval and lot line adjustments, Deschutes County File Nos. 247-22-000883-CU; 247-22-000884-SP; 5 247-22-000885-LL; and 247-22-000886-LL (collectively, the "application"); and WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Circuit Court administrator issued an Alternative Writ of Mandamus Pursuant to ORS 34.130 on September 22, 2023, attached hereto as Exhibit A, commanding Deschutes County to return that Writ with its certificate annex approving the Applicant's application or showing cause why it has not done so on or before October 19, 2023; and WHEREAS, the Applicant and Deschutes County agreed to a Stipulated Peremptory Writ of Mandamus and General Judgment of Dismissal ("Stipulated Peremptory Writ"), attached hereto as Exhibit B, which compels Deschutes County to approve the Applicant's application by adopting the Hearings Officer's September 5, 2023 decision, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Stipulated Peremptory Writ, as the County's _final decision made in response to the peremptory writ of mandamus; and WHEREAS, the Stipulated Peremptory Writ was entered in the Deschutes County Circuit Court registry on October 18, 2023. now therefore, Page 1 - ORDER NO. 2023-048 THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, hereby ORDERS as follows: Section 1. The Hearings Officer's September 5, 2023 decision, attached hereto as Exhibit C, shall be Deschutes County's final decision on the application and is made in response to the Stipulated Peremptory Writ. Section 2. This Order is effective upon signing. Dated this day of , 2023. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ANTHONY DEBONE, Chair PATTI ADAIR, Vice -Chair ATTEST: Recording Secretary Page 2 - ORDER NO. 2023-048 PHIL CHANG, Commissioner 23CV38008 1 2 3 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON 4 FOR THE COUNTY OF DESCHUTES 2T SUSTAINABLE LAND & CATTLE HOLDINGS LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, Relator, V. DESCHUTES COUNTY, an Oregon municipal corporation, Defendant. Case No. ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDAMUS PURSUANT TO ORS 34.130 5 6 To: Deschutes County and David Doyle, Deschutes County Attorney 7 8 From the petition of the State of Oregon on the relation of 2T Sustainable Land & Cattle 9 Holdings LLC ("Relator"), the following facts appear: 10 1. 11 Relator is a limited liability company located in Sisters, Oregon with the address 71285 12 Holmes Road, Sisters, Oregon 97759. 13 2. 14 Pursuant to ORS 203.010, Defendant, Deschutes County (the "County"), is a body politic 15 and corporate that can sue and be sued. Its principal offices are located at 117 NW Lafayette 16 Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703. 17 3. 18 ORS 197.825(3) provides that notwithstanding LUBA's jurisdiction to review final land 19 use decisions, the circuit court retains jurisdiction to grant injunctive and mandatory relief to Page 1 - ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDAMUS PURSUANT HATHAWAY LARSON LLP TO ORS 34.130 1125 NW Couch Street, Suite 550 Portland, OR 97209 Telephone: 503-303-3101 (Main) I enforce final land use decisions. ORS 215.429 authorizes the circuit court to hear mandamus 2 actions on a petition establishing that a county has not taken final action on an application for a 3 land use permit on land not within an urban area within 150 days of the application being 4 deemed complete. 5 4. 6 On November 9, 2022, Relator applied to the County for a Conditional Use Permit and 7 Site Plan Review, with two lot line adjustments. The County assigned file numbers 247-22- 8 000883-CU; 247-22-000884-SP; 247-22-000885-LL; and 247-22-000886-LL to Relator's 9 application. 10 5. 11 Pursuant to ORS 215.427(l), the County was required to take final action on the 12 application within 150 days after the application was deemed complete. The application was 13 deemed complete on March 28, 2022, making the City's final action due on or before August 25, 14 2023. Pursuant to ORS 215.427(5), the 150-day period in which the City was required to take 15 final action can only be extended at the request of the applicant. Pursuant to ORS 197.797(6), if 16 an applicant requests or agrees to an open record period for the submission of new and rebuttal 17 evidence, the extended period for such submissions is not subject to the 150-day period. On July 18 25, 2023, the applicant agreed to keep the local record open for 14 days for new and rebuttal 19 evidence extending the date that County was required to take final action to September 15, 2023. 20 The applicant was -also allowed seven days after therecordclosed to otherpartiestosubmitfinal - - - 21 written argument and this period is not subject to the 150-day limit. ORS 197.797(6)(e). 22 6. 23 On September 5, 2023, the County land use hearings officer issued a decision approving Page 2 - ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDAMUS PURSUANT HATHAWAY LARSON LLP TO ORS 34.130 1125 NW couch Street, suite 550 Portland, OR 97209 Telephone: 503-303-3101 (Main) I the application with conditions ("Hearings Officer's Decision"). The Hearings Officer's 2 Decision recited that it became final unless it was appealed within 12 days of the mailing of the 3 decision. Notice of the Hearings Officer's Decision was mailed September 5, 2023. 4 7. 5 On September 14, 2023, Central Oregon Landwatch appealed the Hearings Officer's 6 Decision to the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners by submitting a written notice of 7 appeal with the required fee. As a result, the Hearings Officer's Decision did not become a final 8 action within the 150-day period provided for in ORS 215.427(1). M Q 10 As of the date of filing this petition, which is after the period the County had to take final 11 action on the application under ORS 215.427(1), the County had not taken final action to resolve 12 Central Oregon Land Watch's appeal. 13 a 14 On the date of filing this action, written notice of this petition was sent to all persons 15 entitled to notice under ORS 215.429(3). See Declaration of Christopher P. Koback attached as 16 Exhibit 1. Service is not required on an adverse party before the court issues the alternative writ 17 of mandamus. ORS 34.130(2). 10. 19 Pursuant to ORS 215.429(5), Relator is entitled to a peremptory writ commanding the 20 -County to approve the -application, as submitted, -unless it is shown that -approval violates - - - 21 substantive provisions of the County's comprehensive plan or other land use regulation. Relator 22 is entitled to a writ approving the application because approval will not violate any provisions in 23 the County's comprehensive plan or land use regulations. Page 3 - ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDAMUS PURSUANT HATHAWAY LARSON LLP TO ORS 34.130 1125 NW couch Street, Suite 550 Portland, OR 97209 Telephone: 503-303-3101 (Main) I 11. 2 The County is required to refund to Relator the greater of either the unexpended portion 3 of any application fees or deposits previously paid, or 50% of the total amount of such fees or 4 deposits paid by Relator. ORS 215.429(8). 5 12. 6 Relator has no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. 7 13. 8 Pursuant to ORS 34.210, the court should exercise discretion to award Relator its 9 reasonable attorney fees incurred in this action. 10 WHEREFORE, you are commanded, immediately after your receipt of this Writ, to 11 approve Relator's application; or to appear before this Court or a Judge hereof, on the 19th day 12 of October , 2023, at 11 am a.m./p.m. in Room of the Deschutes 13 County Courthouse, Bend, Oregon, to show cause why you have not approved Relator's 14 application. You are further commanded then and there to return this Writ with its Certificate 15 Annex, showing that you have approved the application or showing cause for your omission to 16 do so. 17 18 19 9/22/2023 1:15:23 PM 21 22 AA,as U stto-r, Circuit Court Judge Aiycia N. Sykora Page 4 - ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDAMUS PURSUANT HATHAWAY LARSON LLP TO ORS 34.130 1125 NW Couch Street, suite 550 Portland, OR 97209 Telephone: 503-303-3101 (Main) 1 2 3 4 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON 5 FOR THE COUNTY OF DESCHUTES 2T SUSTAINABLE LAND & CATTLE Case No. 23CV38008 HOLDINGS LLC, an Oregon limited liability company; STIPULATED PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND GENERAL Relator, JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL V. DESCHUTES COUNTY, an Oregon municipal corporation, Defendant. 6 This matter comes before the court on the parties' stipulation, the court being advised that 7 (1) on September 21, 2023, the court entered an order allowing Petitioner's Alternative Writ of 8 Mandamus and the court administrator issued an Alternative Writ of Mandamus commanding 9 Deschutes County to return that Writ with its certificate annex approving Relator's application or 10 showing cause why it has not done so; (2) the original return date for the County's certificate 11 annex was October 19, 2023; (3) on October 11, 2023, the County Board of Commissioners 12 decided to resolve the writ of mandamus proceeding and eliminate the County's exposure to 13 attorney fees by stipulating to a peremptory writ of mandamus and general judgment that (a) 14 compels the County to approve Relator's applications by adopting the Hearings Officer's 15 decision as the County's final decision made in response to the peremptory writ of mandamus 16 and (b) dismisses Relator's action without an award of attorney fees against the County. Page I - STIPULATED PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDAMUS HATHAWAY LARSON LLP 1125 NW Couch Street, Suite 550 AND GENERAL JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL Portland, OR 97209 Telephone: 503-303-3101 (Main) I NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows: 2 1. Based upon the stipulation of the parties, the Defendant, Deschutes County, is 3 commanded to approve Relator's Application for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan 4 Review, with two lot line adjustments files numbered 247-22-000883-CU; 247-22-000884-SP; 5 247-22-000885-LL; and 247-22-000886-LL by adopting the decision attached to this Peremptory 6 Writ as Exhibit 1. 7 2. This matter is dismissed with prejudice and without costs or attorney fees to either 8 party. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 IT IS SO STIPULATED: HATHAWAY LARSON LLP DESCHUTES COUNTY LEGAL COUNSEL By: s/ Christopher P. Koback By: s/ David Doyle Christopher P. Koback, OSB No. 913408 David Doyle, OSB No. 901477 Of Attorneys for Relator Of Attorneys for Defendant 19 Page 2 - STIPULATED PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDAMUS HATHAWAY LARSON LLP 1125 NW Couch Street, Suite 550 AND GENERAL JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL Portland, OR 97209 Telephone: 503-303-3101 (Main) Mailing Date: Tuesday, September 5, 2023 DECISION AND FINDINGS OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER FILE NUMBER(S): SUBJECT PROPERTY/ OWNER: APPLICANT: AGENT FOR APPLICANT: ATTORNEY FOR APPLICANT: 247-22-000883-CU, 247-22-000884-SP, 247-22-000885-LL, 247- 22-000886-LL Mailing Name: 2T SUSTAINABLE LAND & CATTLE HOLDINGS LL Map and Taxlot: 1412060000400 Account: 124840 Situs Address: 71275 HOLMES RD, SISTERS, OR 97759 Mailing Name: 2T SUSTAINABLE LAND & CATTLE HOLDINGS LL Map and Taxlot: 1412070000100 Account: 271598 Situs Address: 71275 HOLMES RD, SISTERS, OR 97759 Mailing Name: 2T SUSTAINABLE LAND & CATTLE HOLDINGS LL Map and Taxlot: 1412070000200 Account: 264846 Situs Address: 71285 HOLMES RD, SISTERS, OR 97759 Mailing Name: 2T SUSTAINABLE LAND & CATTLE HOLDINGS LL Map and Taxlot: 1412070000300 Account: 150338 Situs Address: 71295 HOLMES RD, SISTERS, OR 97759 Sarahlee Lawrence, 2T Sustainable Land and Cattle Holdings LLC Greg Blackmore, Blackmore Planning and Development Services, LLC Liz Fancher REQUEST: Review of Conditional Use and Site Plan Review to establish a guest ranch in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zone. The Applicant also requested two property line adjustments. STAFF CONTACT: Audrey Stuart, Associate Planner 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 1 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 1 of 84 Phone: 541-388-6679 Email: Audrey.Stuart@deschutes.org RECORD: Record items can be viewed and downloaded from: https://www. deschutes. org/cd/page/247-22-000883-cu-884-sp-885- 11-886-11-conditional-use-permit-and-site-plan-review-guest I. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Deschutes County Code ("DCC") Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance: Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones (EFU) Chapter 18.88, Wildlife Area Combining Zone (WA) Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions Chapter 18.124, Site Plan Review Chapter 18.128, Conditional Use Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 92, Subdivisions and Partitions II. BASIC FINDINGS LOT OF RECORD: Tax Lot 200 is a legal lot of record because it was created as Parcel 2 of Minor Partition MP-07-32, and subsequently adjusted through file LL-09-138. Tax Lots 100 and 400 together constitute one legal lot of record because they were together created as Parcel 1 of Minor Partition MP- 07-32, and subsequently adjusted through files 247-14-000323-LL and 247-14-000324-LL. Tax Lot 300 was determined to be a legal lot of record through file LR-93-50. SITE DESCRIPTION: The Subject Property is located at the intersection of NW Lower Bridge Way and Holmes Road, and consists of Tax Lots 100, 200, 300 and 400. The Applicant proposed one consolidation and one property line adjustment, which will create one 186.26-acre property, where the proposed guest ranch (the "Guest Ranch") will be located, and one five -acre property. Tax Lot 300 is part of one of the proposed property line adjustments. However, the Guest Ranch will not be located on Tax Lot 300. Therefore, for the purposes of the Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review, the Subject Property refers to Tax Lots 100, 200, and 400. The submitted Burden of Proof included the following description of the adjusted parcel where the Guest Ranch is proposed: "The majority Hof the] property (approximately 155 acres, the northern portion of the site) is used for agricultural purposes, including hay production and cattle grazing. The southwestern area (approximately 15 acres) is used for farm related purposes. It includes various, farm buildings, a dwelling for the farm manager, a pond, a well and a septic system. The southcentral area (current tax lot 200) is 6.5 acres in size and developed with a non farm dwelling, a well, a septic system, and non -irrigated land that is established with Juniper Trees. 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 2 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 2 of 84 Lastly, there is a non -irrigated area of juniper trees to the southeast which is approximately 9 acres in size. The site overall has 133.5 acres of water rights which are primarily on the northern and southwestern portions of the site. " REVIEW PERIOD: The subject application(s) were submitted on November 9, 2022. Ultimately the application was deemed complete on March 28, 2023 and the initial 1501h day was August 25, 2023. At the July 25, 2023 public hearing the Applicant agreed to a 21-day open record period (7 days for new evidence, 7 days for rebuttal evidence and 7 days for Applicant final argument). The Applicant - submitted documents during each of the 7-day open record periods. The Applicant's agreement to the 21-day open -record period extends the 150-day final decision date. The 150-day deadline that the County must take final action is September 15, 2023. PROPOSAL: The Applicant proposed to establish a guest ranch, which will consist of ten, 1,200-square foot cabins. A portion of an existing nonfarm dwelling will be converted into a lodge with common area for visitors of the guest ranch. This building will continue to contain a dwelling unit as well as a lodge for the guest ranch. The Applicant also proposed one property line consolidation and one subsequent property line adjustment. The proposed adjustments will result in one 186.26-acre parcel and one five - acre parcel. McGe SURROUNDING LAND USES: Immediately surrounding properties on all sides of the Subject Property are zoned EFU, which range in size from 834 to 6.5 acres. The surrounding area includes a mix of medium -to -large scale farms with large, irrigated fields. The surrounding area includes several commercial activities operating alongside farm uses, such as Long Hollow Guest Ranch and Rainshadow Organics, which hosts farm -to -table dinners. The surrounding area also includes nonfarm dwellings, as well as undeveloped land with native vegetation. LAND USE HISTORY: • 247-23-000324-LL: A property line adjustment between Tax Lot 100 and 400 of the Subject Property (which together constitute one legal lot of record), and Tract B (which is now identified as Tax Lot 201 and Tax Lot 200). • 247-14-000323-LL: Property line adjustment between current Tax Lot 300 and the Subject Property. Staff notes that due to subsequent property line adjustments, Tax Lot 300 is no longer adjacent to the Subject Property. • MP-07-32, CU-07-90, CU-07-96: Minor Partition to divide a 221-acre property into three parcels, and Condition Use Permits to establish a nonfarm dwelling on two of those parcels. • D-93-62: Nonfarm dwelling deposit packet for Tax Lot 300. Records indicate a Conditional Use Permit for a nonfarm dwelling on this parcel was never submitted. • LR-93-50: Lot of Record Verification for Tax Lot 300 (identified as Tax Lot 998 at the time). PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice on November 16, 2022, to several public agencies and Planning Staff received a number of responses. Staff, in the Staff Decision, included public agency comments. The Hearings Officer incorporates those comments into this decision. 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 3 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 3 of 84 PUBLIC COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice of the subject application(s) to all property owners within 750 feet of the Subject Property on November 16, 2022. The Applicant also complied with the posted notice requirements of Section 22.24.030(B) of Title 22. The Applicant submitted a Land Use Action Sign Affidavit indicating the Applicant posted notice of the land use action on November 16, 2022. A total of eight public comments were received prior to the public hearing. COLW provided record comments stating concerns regarding whether applicable criteria were met. Additional submissions were submitted into the record in close proximity to the Hearing and during the open -record period. The Hearings Officer addresses the relevant evidence, arguments and issues raised by timely and accepted record submissions in the findings below. III. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS A. Preliminary Findings. Appellant, Central Oregon LandWatch ("COLW") appealed the Staff Decision approving Applicant's proposed guest ranch. COLW raised numerous appeal issues. Many of COLW's appeal issues are set forth in its July 25, 2023 record submission. COLW either added to the issues or expanded upon the appeal issues in its July 31, 2023 record submission. The Hearings Officer addresses COLW's appeal issues directly in these Preliminary Findings and where appropriate in findings for relevant approval criteria. The Hearings Officer also addresses two procedural issues in the Preliminary Findings. 1. Procedural Issues a. COLW 8/8/23 Open -Record Submission Applicant objected (Faucher, August 15, 2023, 2T Sustainable's Final Argument and Objection to COLW Rebuttal, pages 2 & 3) to the Hearings Officer's consideration of the COLW August 8, 2023 open -record submission. Appellant's argument, in part, is summarized as follows: "On August 8, 2023, just prior to the close of the rebuttal period, COLW filed new evidence and argument that does not rebut evidence filed in the record by any participant during the post -hearing comment period that closed on August], 2023. This violates DCC 22.24.130(2) and DCC 22.24.140(D). " As background, the Hearings Officer notes that at the July 25, 2023 public hearing (the "Hearing") COLW, through its legal representative Rory Isbell ("Isbell"), requested that the record remain open following the close of oral testimony,_ Applicant agreed to a 7/7/7 open -record period. Consistent with ORS 197.797(6)(a) & (c) and DCC 22.24.140(D) the Hearings Officer granted COLW's open -record request and established the following 7/7/7 schedule: Open -record for the submission of new evidence: Open -record for the submission of responsive/rebuttal evidence Open -record for Applicant's submission of final argument: August 1, 2023 (4:00 pm) August 8, 2023 (4:00 pm) August 15, 2023 (4:00 pm) 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 4 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 4 of 84 The Hearings Officer, at the close of the Hearing, during the discussion of the open -record schedule, provided his interpretation of what evidence/argument could be submitted during each open -record period. The Hearings Officer stated that during the first open -record period (ending August 1, 2023) any interested person/entity could submit new evidence into the record. The Hearings Officer stated that during the second open -record period (ending August 8, 2023) submissions of evidence/argument must be in response to evidence/argument received during the first open -record period. Finally, the Hearings Officer stated that the third open -record period was limited to a final argument submission from the Applicant. The Hearings Officer, at the Hearing, indicated that if anyone disagreed with his interpretation of the open -record laws/rules such disagreement should be raised at the Hearing or in an open -record submission. The Hearings Officer notes that no person/entity formally objected/disagreed with the Hearings Officer's above -stated interpretation as to what evidence/argument could be submitted during each open -record period. The Hearings Officer finds that his above -stated interpretation of what evidence/argument is permitted during each open -record period is supported by language contained in ORS 197.797(6)(c) and DCC 22.24.140(D). ORS 197.797(6)(c) states in part: `7f the hearings authority leaves the record open for additional written evidence, arguments or testimony, the record shall be left open for at least seven days. Any participant may file a written request with the local government for an opportunity to respond to new evidence submitted during the period the record was left open. " DCC 22.24.140(D) states, in part, the following: "If at the conclusion of the initial hearing the Hearings Body leaves the record open for additional written evidence or testimony, the record shall be left open for at least 14 additional days, allowing at least the first seven days for submittal of new written evidence or testimony and at least seven additional days for response to the evidence received while the record was held open. Written evidence or testimony submitted during the period the record is held open shall be limited to evidence or testimony that rebuts previously submitted evidence or testimony. " The Hearings Officer finds that any person/entity may submit new/additional evidence during the first open -record period. The Hearings Officer finds ORS 197.797(6)(c) and DCC 22.24.140(D) limit what evidence/argument can be submitted during the second open -record period. The limitation is that evidence/argument submitted during the second open -record period must be in "response to the evidence received while the record was left open," per DCC 22.24.140(D). The Hearings Officer shall now address the specific objections raised by Applicant to COLW's August 8, 2023-open-record submission. -- - -- -- - -- -- - - There is no dispute that the COLW August 8, 2023 open -record submission was made during the second open -record period; the responsive or rebuttal evidentiary open -record period. Therefore, the COLW August 8, 2023 open -record submission must meet the ORS 197.797(6)(c) and DCC 22.24.140(D) responsive evidence standard. COLW, in its August 8, 2023, open -record submission stated the following: 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 5 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 5 of 84 "Central Oregon LandWatch ("LandWatch') submits these additional comments during the seven-day rebuttal period.following the July 25,2023 public hearing and August 1, 2023 initial 7-day open record period. These comments respond to the additional information and testimony submitted by the applicant during the initial open record period. In our August 1, 2023 submittal, we explained how the subject property is part of a tract with the property neighboring to the south. The applicant's August 1, 2023 submittal discusses the property neighboring to the west owned by LHR, Ltd. in its discussion of the `incidental and accessory' criteria at DCC 18.16.037(B). Applicant August 1, 2023 submittal at page 2. The applicant describes how this property "is operated as a County -approved guest ranch. " Id., Exhibit 7 (Deschutes County decision in File No. CU-99-71). As explained below, the applicant here owns the LHR, Ltd. property, making that property and its existing guest ranch part of a tract that includes the subject property. " The balance of COLW's August 8, 2023 submission addresses the ownership of the LHR, Ltd property and the implications or consequences of its argument that the LHR, Ltd property is owned by the Applicant (same persons owning the Subject Property). The Hearings Officer finds COLW's reference to its August 1, 2023 submittal to be irrelevant to the Hearings Officer's decision as to whether its August 8, 2023 submittal is proper responsive/rebuttal evidence. The second open -record period is not intended for a person/entity to add to or supplement its own prior testimony. The Hearings Officer finds that COLW's comment below is determinative of whether the COLW August 8, 2023 submission is proper responsive or rebuttal evidence: "The applicant's August 1, 2023 submittal discusses the property neighboring to the west owned by LHR, Ltd. in its discussion of the `incidental and accessory' criteria at DCC 18.16.037(8). Applicant August 1, 2023 submittal at page 2. The applicant describes how this property "is operated as a County -approved guest ranch. " Id., Exhibit 7 (Deschutes County decision in File No. CU-99-71). " The Hearings Officer agrees with COLW that Applicant's August 1, 2023 open -record submission "discusses the property neighboring to the west owned by LHR, Ltd." Applicant, in its August 1, 2023 open -record submission, does state that an approved guest ranch is located on the neighboring LHR, Ltd. property. Applicant, in the August 1, 2023 open -record submission does state that an approved guest ranch is located on the LHR, Ltd. property. Applicant, in the August 1, 2023 open -record submission discusses the LHR, Ltd. property and the approved guest ranch use in the context of the `incidental and accessory' criteria at DCC 18.16.037(B). The Hearings Officer finds that Appellant's August 8, 2023 open -record submission does not dispute that the property to the west of the Subject Property is owned by LHR, Ltd. The Hearings Officer finds that Appellant's August 8, 2023 open record submission does not dispute that the LHR, Ltd. property has received guest ranch approval. At this point in the analysis Appellant has not disagreed with anything that was contained in Applicant's August 1, 2023 open -record submission. The Hearings Officer finds that what COLW does attempt to establish, in its August 8, 2023 open -record submission, is that the Subject Property is under the same ownership as the LHR, Ltd. property. 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 6 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 6 of 84 At this point the Hearings Officer finds it necessary to review the context of Applicant's August 1, 2023 LHR, Ltd. comments. Applicant, in its August 1, 2023 open -record submission, references LHR, Ltd. in a section titled DCC 18.16.037(B), Incidental and Accessory. DCC 18.16.037 (B) states the following: "Guest ranch " means a facility.for overnight guest lodging units, including passive recreational activities and food services, as set forth in ORS 215 that are incidental and accessory to an existing livestock operation that qualifies as a farm use under DCC 18.04.030. (bolding added by the Hearings Officer) The Hearings Officer finds that Applicant's DCC 18.16.037(B), Incidental and Accessory evidence/argument contained in its August 1, 2023 open -record submission is directed and limited to demonstrating whether the proposed guest ranch use at the Subject Property should be considered "incidental and accessory." The Hearings Officer finds that Applicant, in its August 1, 2023 open -record submission, references a prior Hearings Officer decision and three nearby properties as examples of uses (wedding/event venue, guest ranch and vineyard hosting events) that have been determined by the County to be incidental and accessory. The Hearings Officer finds that Applicant's incidental and accessory evidence is not directed in any way to the ownership of the properties referenced by Applicant in the August 1, 2023 open -record submission. The Hearings Officer finds that Applicant's incidental and accessory evidence is not directed to proving or disproving the inclusion of one or more parcel (term used generically and not intended to relate to a "legal parcel" as defined in law) of real property not described as the Subject Property as being part of a "tract." The Hearings Officer finds it is unnecessary to address "ownership" in DCC 18.16.037(B). The Hearings Officer finds that Appellant had ample opportunity to provide the evidence/argument presented in its August 8, 2023 open -record submission before the Hearing, during the Hearing and during the first open -record period. The Hearings Officer finds that Appellant's August 8, 2023 open - record period is not responsive and does not rebut anything in Applicant's August 1, 2023 open -record submission. The Hearings Officer finds that other first open -record submissions were filed but COLW does not claim to be rebutting any evidence or argument in those submissions. The Hearings Officer shall not consider the COLW August 8, 2023 open -record submission in making this decision. b. Galloway 8/8/23 Open -Record Submission Mike and Robin Galloway, on August 8, 2023, submitted a letter into the evidentiary record. The Hearings Officer, as noted in the preceding findings (COLW Rebuttal submission), established an open - record time schedule. New evidence from any person/entity would be accepted prior to 4:00 pm on August 1, 2023, responsive/rebuttal evidence from any person/entity would be accepted prior to 4:00 pm on August 8, 2023 and final argument from the Applicant would be accepted prior to 4:00 pm on August 15 2023. _ The Hearings Officer reviewed the Galloway August 8 2023 submission in the context of the established open -record schedule. The Hearings Officer finds that Galloway's references to water, environment, noise and light pollution and traffic concerns do not respond or rebut any evidence submitted during the first open -record period (running from the Hearing until 4:00 pm on August 1, 2023). The Hearings Officer considers Galloway's references to water and traffic to be "new evidence" which would have been appropriately submitted during the first open -record period. 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 7 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 7 of 84 The Hearings Officer finds the Galloway August 8, 2023 reference to two existing guest accommodations is consistent with Applicant's representations and therefore does not disagree, dispute or rebut any evidence submitted during the first open -record period. While the Hearing Officer appreciates the Galloway's effort in submitting the August 8, 2023 letter, the Hearings Officer finds that procedurally the August 8, 2023 letter is not responsive or rebuttal evidence/argument and therefore not properly submitted during the second open -record period. The Hearings Officer shall not consider the Galloway August 8, 2023 open -record submission in making this - decision. 2. Short -Term Rental Use (Alleged Violation) COLW (Isbell, July 25, 2023, page 5) provided the following comments: "We note that it appears this nonfarm dwelling is currently being used as a short-term rental or vacation rental for up to 12 guests, in the absence of any land use permits, and counter to the recent Court of Appeals decision in 1000 Friends of Ot:egon a Clackamas County, 320 OrApp 444 (2022). Exhibit 2 (AirBnB.com listing for nonfarm dwelling on subject property, accessed July 21, 2023). The current unauthorized short-term rental use of this EFU-zoned property triggers a code violation under DCC 18.08.010(A) and prevents the County from approving "any application for land use development. " DCC 22.20.015(A) (1) " Staff provided a comprehensive response to COLW's violation issue set forth in the preceding paragraph (Audrey Stuart, July 27, 2023). The Staff response is set forth in full below: "Materials submitted by Central Oregon LandWatch. (COLW) at the July 25, 2023, hearing (Exhibit A) raise the question of whether the subject property is in violation of applicable land use regulations, and therefore is precluded from receiving new land use permits pursuant to Deschutes County Code ("DCC') 22.20.015. The appellant submitted a copy of an AirBnB.com posting for the nonfarm dwelling on the subject property. As noted on page 59 of the staff report, a recent Court of Appeals decision (1000 Friends of Oregon v Clackamas County) has, found that using an existing dwelling as a short term rental is not permitted outright in resource zones. DCC 22.20.015 describes the limited situations in which the County may approve a new land use permit when a property is found to be in violation of applicable land use regulations. COLW asserts the County may not approve a land use permit for the subject property due to evidence of a land use violation, consisting of an unpermitted short term- rental in a resource zone. - The Board of County Commissioners (`Board') provided guidance on how to interpret DCC 22.20.015 in the decision for land use files 247-17-000775-ZC, 247-17-000776-PA. This Board interpretation differentiates between `adjudicated violations, 'and allegations raised during a land use application process. Adjudicated violations are those that have been conclusively determined through a prior land use decision or through a code complaint pursuant to the County adopted Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual. 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 8 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 8 of 84 The alleged land use violation on the subject property is an un-adjudicated violation. Based on the Board's interpretation in files 247-17-000775-ZC, 247-17-000776-PA, a determination on unadjudicated violations should only be made in instances when there is enough time for a sufficient investigation, and the current land use application is the appropriate forum to address the violation. A code complaint and subsequent investigation is the customary forum for determining whether there is a violation on a property, and staff notes that no code complaint has been filed for the subject property. For these reasons, staffs opinion was that the current land use application was not the appropriate forum, and nor did it afford sufficient time to conduct an investigation and make a Page 2 of 2 conclusive determination on whether the subject property was in violation of applicable land use regulations. (Hearings Officer Note: attachments included in Staff's submission not included in the quoted statements above) The Hearings Officer reviewed the July 27, 2023 attachment (Board of Commissioners decision on land use file no. 247-17-00075ZC, 247-17-000776-PA). The Hearings Officer finds the analysis by Staff in the July 27, 2027 submission quoted above is consistent with the referenced Board of Commissioners decision. The Hearings Officer concurs with Staff's analysis and conclusions stated in the July 27, 2023 submission. The Hearings Officer finds that the application that is subject to this decision is not the proper forum, does not afford sufficient time to conduct an investigation, and make a conclusive determination whether the Subject Property was or is in violation of applicable County land use regulations. The Hearings Officer shall not consider any alleged code violations related to the Subject Property in this decision. 3. Location of Forest Service Leases COLW (Isbell, July 25, 2023, page 2) argued that DCC 18.16.037(A) requires the Applicant to identify the location of United States Forest Service leases used by Applicant to seasonally graze cattle. COLW described this argument as follows: "DCC 18.16.037(a) allows a guest ranch that "shall not be located within the boundaries of or surrounded by"four classes offederal land described in DCC 18.16.037(a)(1)-(4). The decision quotes the application which states "[t]he ranch cattle are rotated to several Forest Service leases between April and October[.] " Decision at 17. The decision does not identify where those Forest Service leases are located and thus it is unclear whether the criteria at DCC 18.16.037(a)(1)-(4) are satisfied. " Applicant responded (Fancher, August 15, 2023, 2T Sustainable's Final Argument and Objection to COLW Rebuttal, page 1) to COLW's Forest Service argument as follows: "None of the lands leased by 2T Sustainable are within the boundaries of or surrounded by: (a) A federally designated wilderness area or a wilderness study area; (b) A federally designated wildlife refuge; (c) A federally designated area of critical environmental concern; or 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 9 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 9 of 84 (d) An area established by an Act of Congress for the protection of scenic or ecological resources. This statement is based on 2Ts understanding of the status of the lands they lease confirmed by a review of publicly available listings of the areas identified above including, but not limited to Attachments A and B. " The Hearings Officer finds that COLW did not provide any meaningful legal analysis or argument demonstrating that the Hearings Officer is required to consider "leased lands" utilized by Applicant. While a plausible argument could be made that a "livestock operation," as described in DCC 18.16.037 (A), must include "leased lands" the Hearings Officer finds that COLW did not provide the Hearings Officer with sufficiently specific legal support for such argument. The Hearings Officer finds, based upon the evidence in the record that the Subject Property, where the "guest ranch" facility will be located, is not within the four areas described in DCC 18.16.037(A). 4. Person Conducting Farm Operation COLW asserted that the Staff Decision failed to adequately address DCC 18.128.360(B)(2). COLW's argument is set forth below: "DCC 18.128.360(B)(2) requires that "the guest ranch shall be located on a lawfully established unit of land that" `[c]ontains the dwelling of the person conducting the livestock operation.[]" The decision errs by failing to identify the person conducting the livestock operation. Decision at 60. Without knowing who that person is, it is impossible to find that the person lives in a dwelling on the same unit of land where the proposed guest ranch will be located. The decision finds that "ftjhe submitted site plan indicates the existing dwelling for the farm/ranch manager is located to the southwest of the proposed guest ranch. " Id. It is unclear whether this dwelling is even currently on the same lawfully established unit of land as the proposed guest ranch. Adding to the confusion, the decision describes the site plan as indicating the "existing dwelling for the farm/ranch manager " The `farm/ranch manager" is not necessarily the person "conducting the livestock operation" as described in DCC 18.128.360(B)(2). Without clarity in the decision on these issues of who is the person conducting the livestock operation and where that person s dwelling is located, the decision fails to find whether, and to what extent, the requisite "livestock operation" occurs on the subject property. The code and statute require_a particular 160-acre unit of land, outside certain federal land designations, to be the site of a ranch or livestock operation, where the person conducting the livestock operation lives. ORS 215.461 (3), (5)." Applicant responded (Fancher, Applicant's Initial Response To COLW's Listed Issues, July 24, 2023, page 6) to the COLW DCC 18.128.360 (13)(2) argument as follows: 2Ts ranch manager resides in the 1910 farm dwelling that is located on the subject property. The manager is "the person conducting the livestock operation. " A finding to that effect satisfies the 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 10 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 10 of 84 requirements of DCC 18.128.360(B)(2). As the ranch manager is a person hired by the property owner to conduct the livestock operation and employees may quit their job and be replaced by a new ranch manager who will live in the same residence, naming the current ranch manager only creates the possibility of confusion in enforcement of permit conditions. Regardless of who is the ranch manager now, when the ranch manager changes the new ranch manager must reside in a residence on the subject property. Applicant provided further evidentiary and/or legal analysis in 2T Sustainable's Rebuttal Evidence (Fancher, August 8, 2023, pages 1 & 2) and 2T Sustainable's Final Argument and Objection to COLW Rebuttal (Fancher, August 15, 2023, pages 22 & 23). The Hearings Officer finds the Applicant's above -quoted statement and the additional evidence contained in 2T Sustainable's Rebuttal Evidence and Final Argument to be credible and persuasive. The Hearings Officer adopts the 2T Sustainable's Final Argument Objection to COLW Rebuttal (pages 22 & 23) related to the "Dwelling Of The Person Conducting The Livestock Operation" as additional findings for this issue. The Hearings Officer finds that a "ranch manager" will reside on the Subject Property. 5. Food Service Appellant COLW argued that the Staff Decision was in error because the Applicant's proposed guest ranch does not include food services. Specifically, COLW (Isbell, July 25, 2023, page 2; also see page 7), stated the following: `Provision of food service for guests of the guest ranch is part of the definition of "guest ranch, " which is "a facility for overnight guest lodging units, including passive recreational activities and food services[]"DCC 18.16.037(b) (emphasis added). The decision errs in approving a guest ranch that does not provide food services. Decision at 19-20. More practically, where will guests of the guest ranch eat? If food services will be provided, they "shall be incidental to the operation of the guest ranch and shall be provided only for the guests of the guest ranch, individuals accompanying the guests, and individuals attending a special event at the guest ranch. " DCC 18.128.360(E). Further, "[t]he sale of individual meals to persons who are not guests of the guest ranch, an individual accompanying a guest, or an individual attending a special event at the guest ranch shall not be allowed. " DCC 18.128.360(E)(2). See the discussion ofDCC 18.128.360(E) in section IV(d) below. " The Hearings Officer characterizes Appellant's food service argument set forth in the quoted section above as contending that food service is required if an application for a guest ranch application is to be approved. Applicant (Fancher 8, 2023, 2T Sustainable's Final Argument and Objection to COLW Rebuttal, page 20) responded to Appellant's-DCC 18.26.037(b) food service argument as follows: "In relevant part, DCC 18.16. 037(B) says that a guest ranch is `a facility for overnight guest lodging units, including passive recreational activities and food services, as set forth in ORS 215... [emphasis added]. ORS Chapter 215 makes it clear that food services are optional. ORS 215.461 (b), in relevant part, defines a `Guest ranch ' as `a facility for guest lodging units, passive recreational activities described in subsection (6) of this section and food services described in subsection (7) of this section ... ' ORS 215.46] (7) makes it clear that food service is optional using the words `may' and `if any' as,follows: 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 11 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 11 of 84 `(7) A guest ranch may provide food services only for guests of the guest ranch, individuals accompanying the guests and individuals attending a special event at the guest ranch. The cost of meals, if any, may be included in the fee to visit or stay at the guest ranch. A guest ranch may not .sell individual meals to an individual who is not a guest of the guest ranch, an individual accompanying a guest or an individual attending a special event at the guest ranch. '[emphasis added by Applicant]'. " The Hearings Officer agrees with Applicant's response quoted immediately above. The Hearings Officer finds that ORS 215.461(1)(b) and DCC 18.16.037(B) describe the scope or limits of what may be part of a guest ranch. The Hearings Officer agrees with COLW that a guest ranch may include food services (with limitations). The Hearings Officer also finds that a guest ranch may include passive recreational activities. The Hearings Officer finds that ORS 215.461 and DCC 18.16.037(A) use the same language to define guest ranch. The Hearings Officer finds that ORS 215.461(6) states that passive recreational uses may be part of a guest ranch. ORS 215.461(7) states that "a guest ranch may provide food services..." Similar language can be found in DCC 18.128.360(D) and (E). The use of the word "may" is interpreted to mean "permissive." The Hearings Officer finds that ORS 215.461 and DCC 18.16.037 "permit" or "allow" food services and/or passive recreational activities but do not "require" food services and/or passive recreational activities to be part of a guest ranch approval. The Hearings Officer finds that the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners, had it intended food service and/or recreational activities to be required to approve a "Guest Ranch" application, could have easily included such mandatory language. The Hearings Officer finds that Appellant's DCC 18.16.037(B) argument is not persuasive. The Hearings Officer finds that food service is a permissive, not a required use under DCC 18.16.037(B). 6. Definition of Guest Lodging Unit The Hearings Officer incorporates as additional findings for this section the Preliminary Findings section II.A.5 (Food Services). COLW raised an issue related to the definition of Guest Lodging Units. COLW (Isbell, July 25, 2023, pages 4 & 5) stated the following: "DCC 18.16.037(c) defines a "guest lodging unit" as "a guest room in a lodge, bunkhouse, cottage or cabin used only for transient overnight lodging and not for permanent residence accommodations. " The decision here errs in approving ten "cabins, " 1, 200 square feet each, decision at 3, but without finding how many "guest lodging units " are within each cabin. If these "cabins " include more than ten rooms used, for transient overnight lodging, then the decision will violate the DCC 18.128.360(A)(1) limitation of "not less than four nor more than 10 overnight guest lodging units[] " COLW provided additional discussion of the definition of guest lodging unit issue ("Guest Lodging Unit Issue") in its DCC 18.128.360(A) section of its July 25, 2023 submission (pages 5 & 6) and in its July 31, 2023 submission (page 1). COLW stated that "lodging units at a guest ranch may be `used only,for transient overnight lodging'and not for `cooking by guests'as proposed by the applicant here. " 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 12 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 12 of 84 Applicant addressed the COLW Guest Lodging Unit issue in its July 24, 2023 (Applicant's Initial Response to COLW's Listed Appeal Issues, page 6) and August 15, 2023 (2T Sustainable's Final Argument and Objection to COLW Rebuttal, page 20 & 21) open -record submissions. The Hearings Officer includes the following comments by Applicant as representative of its Guest Lodging Unit Issue argument: "The guest lodging unit in this case is the guest room in each of the cabins. All guest rooms will be used only.for transient overnight lodging. None will be used as a permanent residence. The definition of a guest lodging unit clearly allows cabins and cottages. Cabins and cottages typically include kitchens or kitchenettes for use by transient guests. The transient overnight lodging requirement is a restriction on the duration of use of the cottages; not a prohibition against cooking by ranch guests. Compliance with this rule has been achieved by the County imposition of a condition of approval limiting guest occupancy of the cabins to thirty days. We recommend that this restriction be clarified to state that the occupancy is limited to thirty days in any calendar year. " The Hearings Officer concurs with Applicant's Guest Lodging Unit arguments set forth above and also in its other above -referenced open -record submissions. The Hearings Officer agrees with Applicant that guest lodging units, as described in DCC 18.16.037(C), are not required to be located in a single building. The Hearings Officer finds DCC 18.16.037(C) clearly includes guest rooms in a lodge, bunkhouse, cottage or cabin. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds that guest lodging units may be in a single building such as a lodge or bunkhouse. However, by including "cottages" and "cabins" the Hearings Officer finds that Guest Lodging Units may be located in separate, free standing and/or individual buildings. The Applicant is proposing ten "cabins." Cabin is defined (Dictionary.com) as a "small house or cottage, usually of simple design." The Hearings Officer finds that a "cabin" necessarily includes a sleeping area, a bathroom and possibly a food preparation/processing area (I.e., small kitchen or kitchenette). The Hearings Officer interprets "guest room in a lodge, bunkhouse, cottage or cabin" includes sleeping, bathing and possibly other associated rooms that are frequently found in a transient overnight lodging unit. As noted by the Applicant, even a simple hotel room has a bathroom and that bathroom is included within that transient overnight lodging unit. The Hearings Officer finds that COLW's blanket conclusion that DCC 18.16.037 (C) does not allow "cooking by guests" is simply not supported by a plain reading of the text of DCC 18.16.037(C). DCC 18.16.037(C) does not contain any reference to "cooking by guests." Further, the Hearings Officer finds that the language contained in ORS 215.461 is consistent with DCC 18.16.037 (C) and supports the Hearings Officer's interpretation set forth above. 7. Farm Impact Test COLW argued that the Staff Decision failed to adequately address the "farm impacts test" as required by ORS 215.296 and DCC 18.16.040. COLW summarized (Isbell, July 25, 2023, page 8) the "Farm Impact Test issue" as follows: 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 13 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 13 of 84 "The setting of the subject property in the Lower Bridge valley is one of the most productive agricultural communities in the region. The decision fails to describe with adequate specificity the actual farm uses occurring on nearby properties, which results in a failure to satisfy the farm impacts test" at ORS 215.296 and DCC 18.16.040. The farm impacts test applies on a farm-by,farm and farm practice -by -farm practice basis. Stop the Dump Coalition v Yamhill County 364 Or 432, 435 P3d 698 (2019). The decision quotes language from the application about providing buffers and makes assumptions about the types of impacts the proposed guest ranch might have on neighboring properties. Decision at 21-22. It also acknowledges that "the additional vehicle traffic generated by the proposed guest ranch will generate noise and be visible from surrounding properties " and finds that "the increased vehicle traffic will not prevent or otherwise significantly impact nearby farm practices[] " Id. Without more detailed information about the farms and farm practices in the area that the proposed commercial activities could impact, there is no evidence to substantiate this finding, and it is impossible to determine the significance of the proposed guest ranch's impacts on those farm practices on surrounding lands. Those impacts are likely to include increased traffic on area roads and increased human presence that would conflict with the odors, dust, chemicals, and noise of accepted farm practices occurring in the area. " The Hearings Officer takes note of Staff's findings in the Staff Decision (pages 21 & 22) and Applicant's Final Argument (Fancher, August 15, 2023, 2T Sustainable's Final Argument and Objection to COLW Rebuttal, pages 16 & 17, See also Fancher, July 24, 2023, Applicant's Initial Response to COLW's Listed Appeal Issues, page 6). The Hearings Officer finds it unnecessary to repeat the Staff and Applicant comments again in this decision. The Hearings Officer finds Staff's "farm impact test" discussion is thorough and correct. The Hearings Officer finds Applicant, prior to the Staff Decision (Burden of Proof, see quoted section in Staff Decision page 21), provided sufficient credible evidence to satisfy the "Farm Impact Test." Further, the Hearings Officer finds that Applicant, in its final argument (Fancher, August 15, 2023, 2T Sustainable's Final Argument and Objection to COLW Rebuttal, pages 16 & 17) provided a summary of the evidence in the record related to the Farm Impact Test Issue. The Hearings Officer incorporates the Applicant's final argument (pages 16 & 17) as additional findings for this Farm Impact Test Issue. The Hearings Officer finds substantial credible evidence in the record that the Staff Decision findings related to DCC 18.16.040 are correct. 8. Tract COLW (Isbell, July 25, 2023, page 7) submitted the following comments related what the Hearings Officer refers to as the "Tract Issue." The Hearings Officer notes that COLW's Tract Issue is intertwined with its "High Value Farmland Issue." The Hearings Officer addresses the Tract Issue in this section of findings and the High Value Farmland Issue in subsequent findings. COLW's July 25, 2023 Tract Issue comments follow: "DCC 18.128.360(B)(3) requires that a guest ranch `be located on a lawfully established unit of land that'[ijs not classified as high value farmland as defined in DCC 18.04.030. 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 14 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 14 of 84 `High -value farmland' is defined as `land in a tract composed predominantly of the following soils when they are irrigated'and includes Deschutes sandy loam (31A, 31B and 32A)[]' The decision acknowledges that the subject property includes Class 31B Deschutes sandy loam soils, which are `high -value farmland' under DCC 18.04.030. Decision at 60. It is unclear what boundaries are being used to identify the `lawfully established unit of land' for purposes of DCC 18.128.360(B)(3). Further, to determine whether this criterion is met, the decision must determine the bounds of the `tract'at issue and as used in DCC 18.04.030. `Tract' is defined at DCC 18.04.030: 'Tract' as used in DCC 18.16, 18.36 and 18.40, means one or more contiguous lots or parcels in the same ownership. A tract shall not be considered to consist of less than the required acreage because it is crossed by a public road or waterway. ' `Owner'is also defined in DCC 18.04.030: `Owner'means the owner of real property or the authorized agent thereof'or the contract purchaser of real property of'record as shown on the last available complete tax assessment roll or County Recorder's records. ' The `tract'at issue likely includes adjacent property owned by the applicant, including the property at 71290 Holmes Road, and that adjacent property is likely `high -value farmland'under DCC 18.04.030 because it grows `specified perennials. 'The County interpreted the meaning of "tract" in file no. 247-18-000381-AD,.finding that "ownership" as used in the definition of "tract" is not determined simply by identifying the record owner, but rather includes other entities affiliated with the record owner Exhibit 3 at pages 6-9 (Hearings Officer decision in file no. 247-18-000381-AD). The decision errs in not considering the bounds of "tract" at issue to determine whether the subject property is `high -value farmland' under DCC 18.128.360(B)(3). " COLW (Isbell, July 31, 2023, pages 2-4) expanded upon its "Tract Issue" argument in the following comments: "The subject property is part of a larger `tract, 'as defined at DCC 18.16.030, that extends beyond the bounds of the tax lots on the subject property and includes other properties under the same ownership. `Tract' is defined at DCC 18.04.030: ... [omitted definition] ... [omitted definition] Further, a farm or ranch operation' is defined at OAR 660-033-0135(8)(b) as `al_i lots or parcels of land in the same ownership that are used by the farm or ranch operator for farm use as defined in ORS 215.203.'The Hearings Officer in file no. 247-18-000381-AD (Exhibit 3 in LandWatch's July 25, 2023 submittal) found this definition of 'farm or ranch operation " relevant to interpreting the - - definition of `ownership'and `tract'in DCC 18.04.030, finding that `ownership'is not determined simply by identifying the record owner. If that were the case, then a farm operator could convey separate lots to different trusts or business entities[.]'Decision in file no. 247-18-000381-AD at page 8. A `member'of a limited liability company is defined as `a person with both an ownership interest in a limited liability company and all the rights and obligations of a member specified under this 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 15 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 15 of 84 chapter. ' ORS 63.001(21) (a). `The persons who own an LLC are its `members. 'Cortez v. Nacco Material Handling Group, Inc., 356 Or 254, 257 (2014). In the context of dwelling applications cinder ORS 215.705, LUBA has differentiated between trusts and business entities when discussing ownerships of EFUproperty, finding that a trust and its trustees may not be the same `owner'under the definition of `tract'at ORS 215.010 in the same way that a "business entity" and its members are the same `owner 'Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County, 81 Or LUBA 75, 83 (2020). In other words, a trust and trustee owning adjacent properties may not create a 'tract,' but two business entities with the same member do. Here, as discussed below, the same farm or ranch operator, 'OAR 660-033-0135(8)(b), is the same member and the same "owner" of the business entities that own adjacent properties, creating a `tract. ' The owner of the subject property is 2T Sustainable Land and Cattle Holdings LLC ("2T Sustainable'). In its business registration with the Oregon Secretary of State, 2T Sustainable lists as a member Ashanti Samuels Enterprises LLC. Exhibit 1. In its business registration with the Oregon Secretary of State, Ashanti Samuels Enterprises LLC lists as a member Sarah Lawrence. Exhibit 2. The owner of the property immediately adjacent to the south of the subject property, with address 71290 Holmes Rd and taxlot number 1412070000600, is Lawrence Farm, LLC. In its business registration with the Oregon Secretary of State, Lawrence Farm, LLC lists as a member Sarah Lawrence. Exhibit 3. Thus, a common `member'among all three of these LLCs, which means an owner under ORS 63.001(21)(a), is Sarah Lawrence. They have an ownership interest in the subject property as a member of Ashanti Samuels Enterprises LLC and as a member of Lawrence Farm, LLC. The two properties are in the same ownership and are part of the same `tract. 'DCC 18.04.030. Further support for the conclusion that the subject property is part of a tract is found in condition of approval L in file no. 247-21-000268-CU (Exhibit 1 in Landwatch s July 25, 2023 submittal), which for purposes of that decisions conditions to ensure that nonfarm uses would remain incidental and subordinate to farm uses, describes `farm products grown and livestock raised by Rainshadow Organics, LLC, or an affiliated entity. Affiliated entities are those in which Sarahlee Lawrence, Ashanti Samuels, Chris Lawrence or David Lawrence are actively involved as members or officers. These affiliated entities are currently Lawrence Farm, LLC and 2T Sustainable Land & Cattle Holdings, LLC (including its member Ashanti Samuels Enterprises, LLC). " (emphasis added by COLW) The applicant's website discusses its livestock operation as being `vertically integrated'with Rainshadow Organics, LLC as part of the same farm operation. Exhibit 5 (Pitchfork T website at page 2)• That the subject property is part of a tract with other properties is relevant to two criteria applicable to the current application: whether the tract is high -value farmland under DCC 18.128.360(B)(3), and the "incidental and accessory" element of the definition of a `guest ranch'at DCC 18.16.037(B). " 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 16 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 16 of 84 Applicant responded to the COLW arguments in a number of its open -record submissions (Fancher, August 1, 2023, 2T Sustainable's Post Hearing Evidence, pages 2-5, Fancher, August 8, 2023, 2T Sustainable's Rebuttal Evidence, page 3 [attached copy of Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes County, LUBA No. 2019-105 (2020)], Fancher, August 15, 2023, 2T Sustainable's Final Argument and Objection to COLW Rebuttal, pages 7-9). Applicant, in its final argument (Fancher, August 15, 2023, 2T Sustainable's Final Argument and Objection to COLW Rebuttal, pages 7-9) stated the following: "COLWArgument: Property owned by Lawrence Farm, LLC and 2T Sustainable are a tract because Sarahlee Lawrence is a member of Lawrence Farm, LLC and a member of'an LLC that is a member of 2T Sustainable. Response: The Lawrence Farm LLC property and the 2T Sustainable property are not a tract. Each has different owners —Lawrence Farm LLC and 2T Sustainable. While Sarahlee Lawrence is a member of Lawrence Farm, LLC and a member of an LLC that is a member of the 2T Sustainable LLC, she is not an owner of either property According to ORS 63.239: A membership interest is personal property. A member is not a co-owner of and has no interest in specific limited liability company property. ' Consequently, it cannot be found that the Lawrence Farm LLC property and the 2T Sustainable properties are in the same ownership and, therefore, they are not a `tract. ' The applicable definition of a `tract' is provided by ORS 215.010(2) which defines the terms.for purposes of ORS Chapter 215, including ORS 215. 461 and 215. 462, the States guest ranch law that has also been adopted by the Deschutes County Code. ORS 215.461(3)(c) and the County code prohibit the siting of guest ranches on high -value farmland as defined by ORS 215.270. [footnote 4: DCC 18.04.030, High -value farmland lists the soil mapping units in Deschutes County that, when they are irrigated and the predominant soil type, meet the ORS 215.710 definition of `high -value farmland. '] A `tract' is: `One or more contiguous lots or parcels in the same ownership.' DCC 18.04.030 defines `tract' in the same way. COLW repeats the same argument it lost in Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes County (Vargas Trust), 81 Or LUBA 75 (2020)(hereinafter `Vargas Trust ) [footnote 5 — In Vargas Trust, LUBA held that parcels owned by an individual and controlled by the same person as trustee of a -trust are not - `under the same ownership'and, therefore, are not a `tract'as defined by ORS 215.010(2) or the County code] — the argument that the term `in the same ownership ' used to define a `tract' is defined by DCC 18.04.030, `Owner'LUBA determined in Vargas Trust, that DCC 18.04.030, `Owner'is `not relevant to determining the meaning of the phrase `under the same ownership. 'The term, therefore, is not relevant in determining whether the subject property and Lawrence Farms, LLC properties are a `tract. ' 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 17 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 17 of 84 LUBA made it clear in Vargas Trust that the issue whether properties are a tract is determined by whether they are "in the same ownership " and that this means identical ownership. It cited Friends ofLinn County v. Linn County, 37 Or LUBA 280, 288 (1999)(`Friends ofLinn County) which holds that adjoining parcels are not under the same ownership where one person owns one parcel individually and owns the other jointly with a former spouse. Thus, even where two adjoining parcels of land are owned by the same person, if one is jointly owned with another person, the two parcels are not in the same ownership for purposes of the tract rule. In the current case, all parcels that COLW argues are a part of a tract are owned by separate LLCs — each separate legal entities and not the same owner Furthermore, even if COLW s argument that a member of an LLC is an owner of land owned by the LLC, which ORS 63.239 say they are not, records of the Corporation Division of the Oregon Secretary of State records show that Lawrence Farm LLC's members are different than the members of 2T Sustainable. Lawrence Farm LLCs members are David Lawrence, Christine Lawrence and Sarahlee Lawrence. The members of'2T Sustainable are Ashanti Samuels Enterprises LLC and RH Land Company LLC. The only fact COLW claims supports its argument that parcels owned by Lawrence Farm LLC and 2T Sustainable are `in the same ownership'is that Sarahlee Lawrence is a member of Ashanti Samuels LLC with her husband, Ashanti Samuels. Under the holding ofLUBA's Friends of Linn County case, however, even if the Sarahlee Lawrence as a member of two of the LLCs was a co- owner of each of the two adjoining parcels, the parcels would not be `in the same ownership'and, therefore, would not be a part of a `tract. ' COLWArgument: The County interpreted the meaning of "tract" in file no. 247-18-000381-AD to include entities aff liated with the record owner. COLW letter, July 25, 2023, p. 7. Response: COLW presented this argument and filed a copy of the decision made in file no. 247- 18- 000381-AD (`Singhouse ) in its July 25, 2023 letter without disclosing that it made and lost the same tract argument at LUBA in Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes County (Vargas Trust), Or LUBA _ (2020)(hereinafter `Vargas Trust ) after the Singhouse decision was issued. Instead, it filed the hearings officers Singhouse decision that conflicts with LUBA's ruling in Vargas Trust. LUBA's resolution of this issue is controlling. LUBAs determination that land owned by a trust is not apart of a tract with adjoining land owned by its trustees is the controlling law on this topic. COLWArgument: LUBA s decision in `Vargas Trust' means that adjacent properties owned by `two business entities with the same member'create a `tract. 'COLW letter, July 31, 2023, p. 3. Response: LUBA said nothing of the sort. Instead, LUBA said that COLW had argued that a trustee who held legal title to the trust property is the owner of the trust property because a trust is not a `business entity'— a fact that allowed the trust to obtain approval of a lot of record dwelling based on its connection to a prior owner. 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 18 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 18 of 84 COLW argues that the County should use the definition of a :farm or ranch operation'provided by OAR 660-033-0135(8)(b) to define a `tract'and `high -value farmland. 'The term farm or ranch operation'is not, however, apart of the defined and controlling definition of the terms `tract'or `high -value farmland. 'The definition of a `tract' looks only to whether farm or ranch parcels are `in the same ownership. 'It does not consider whether land is a part of a farm or ranch operation when determining whether or not it is a tract. LUBAs Vargas Trust and Friends of Linn County case law, hold that this issue is determined by looking at the actual ownership of the land. If any owner of land is different, adjoining properties are not in the same ownership. COLW's reliance on OAR 660-033-0135(8)(b) is also legally erroneous. The definition provided by this OAR, by its own terms, is applicable only to uses regulated by OAR Division 660-033. LCDC does not regulate guest ranches under the provisions of OAR Division 660-033. COL Ws reliance on the hearings officer's decision.for 247-18-000734-A (Singhouse) which held that land held individually by a husband and wife and land held by their trust were part of a tract is clearly wrong given the fact that LUBA address the same argument in Vargas Trust and ruled against COLW. Finally, COLW's arguments that that certain entities including 2T Sustainable are affiliated with Rainshadow Organics, LLC does not mean that parcels owned by 2T Sustainable and Lawrence Farm, LLC are in the same ownership. Rainshadow Organics, LLC is not the owner- of either property and is not a member of either LLC property owner The only common thread is that Sarahlee Lawrence is a member in all three entities and that, as a matter of law, does not make her an owner of either of the properties that COLW claims is a `tract. 'ORS 63.239. The only relevance of the `traet'argurnent is that the guest ranch law requires that the guest ranch not be located on a tract of land that is "high -value "farmland. All other provisions of the law are keyed to the subject property, a lawfully established unit of land. Contrary to COLW's assertion, it does not apply to a determination of compliance with the "incidental and accessory" test. " The Hearings Officer characterizes COLW's Tract Issue arguments in the following COLW statements: • "DCC 18.128.360(B)(3) requires that a guest ranch `be located on a lawfully established unit of land that'[i]s not classified as high value farmland as defined in DCC 18.04.030. " [COLW July, 24, 2023, page 6] • " `High -value farmland' is defined as 'land in a tract composed predominantly of the following soils when they are irrigated'and includes Deschutes sandy loam (31A, 31B and 32A)[.] [COLW July, 24, 2023, page 6] • "It is unclear what boundaries are being used to identify the `lawfully established unit of land' for purposes of DCC 18.128.360(B)(3). Further, to determine whether this criterion is met, the decision must determine the bounds of the `tract'at issue and as used in DCC 18.04.030. " [COLW July, 24, 2023, pages 6 & 7] • "The decision errs in not considering the bounds of "tract" at issue to determine whether the subject property is `high -value farmland'under DCC 18.128.360(B)(3). " [COLW July, 24, 2023, page 7] 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 19 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 19 of 84 The Hearings Officer agrees with COLW that DCC 18.128.360(B)(3) requires that a guest ranch be located on a lawfully established unit of land that is not classified as high value farmland as defined in DCC 18.04.030. The Hearings Officer agrees with COLW that high -value farmland' is defined as `land in a tract...' The Hearings Officer agrees with COLW that the DCC 18.04.030 definitions of "tract" and "owner" are relevant to this case. The Hearings Officer agrees with COLW that the boundaries of the relevant "tract" must be determined to assess whether the High Value Farmland Test can be satisfied. Therefore, the remaining question to be answered is: What are the applicable boundaries of the "tract" in this case? COLW asserts that additional properties must be included in the "tract" in this case because one or more properties adjacent to the Subject Property have persons or entities involved in the ownership entity that overlap with the ownership entity of the Subject Property. For example, COLW argues that the appropriate boundaries of the "tract" should include a property adjacent property to the Subject Property because the adjacent property is owned by a limited liability company that has a member that is also a member of the Subject Property ownership entity. The Hearings Officer finds COLW's "ownership" arguments made in this case is similar to arguments COLW made in prior land use application cases. COLW was the petitioner in Central Oregon Land Watch v. Deschutes County LUBA No. 2019-105 (2020) (hereafter, referred to as the "Vargas Trust Decision"). In the Vargas Trust Decision LUBA stated the following: "The hearings officer concluded that (1) Tax Lots 1000 and 1100 are not `under the same ownership' because Tax Lot 1000 is titled in Duncan's individual name, while Tax Lot 1100 is titled in Duncan name as successor trustee of the Vargas Family Trust, and (2) therefore Tax Lots 1000 and 11 are not a tract. We agree with the hearings officer's conclusion. Tax Lot 1000 and Tax Lot 11 are not `under the same ownership'when one tax lot is owned by Duncan individually and the other tax lot is owned by the trust, with Duncan serving as trustee. See Friends of Linn County v. Linn County, 37 Or LUBA 280, 288 (1999) (two parcels not `under the same ownership' where the applicant owned one parcel individually, and jointly owned the second parcel with ex-wife. " The Hearings Officer finds that Applicant's following argument is persuasive (Fancher, August 15, 2023, 2T Sustainable's Final Argument and Objection to COLW Rebuttal, page 8): "The only fact COLW claims supports its argument that parcels owned by Lawrence Farm LLC and 2T Sustainable are `in the same ownership' is that Sarahlee Lawrence is a member of Ashanti Samuels LLC with her husband, Ashanti Samuels. Under the holding of L UBAs Friends of Linn County case, however; even if the Sarahlee Lawrence as a member of two of the LLCs was a co- owner of each of the two adjoining parcels, the parcels would not be `in the same ownership'and, therefore, would not be a part of a `tract. "' The Hearings Officer finds (based upon Applicant's final argument, Vargas Trust LUBA Decision and, the Friends of Linn County Decision) the fact that ownership entities of the Subject Property and adjacent properties may include common "members" is not determinative of the ownership of a "tract." In the current case the ownership entities (I.e., corporation, trust, LLC, etc.) of the Subject Property and adjacent properties are different; not under the same ownership. The Hearings Officer, in addition to the findings above, finds that the following documents contain credible and substantial evidence and persuasive legal arguments as related to the Tract Issue: • Fancher, August 1, 2023, 2T Sustainable's Post Hearing Evidence, pages 2-5; and 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 20 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 20 of 84 • Fancher, August 8, 2023, 2T Sustainable's Rebuttal Evidence, page 3 [attached copy of Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes County, LUBA No. 2019-105 (2020)]; and Fancher, August 15, 2023, 2T Sustainable's Final Argument and Objection to COLW Rebuttal, pages 7-9. The Hearings Officer incorporates the above -referenced Faucher documents as additional findings for the Tract Issue. In conclusion, the Hearings Officer finds that COLW's Tract Issue argument is essentially the same argument that COLW made in prior decided cases. The Hearings Officer finds that COLW Tract Issue argument was found not be valid by various hearings officers and LUBA. The Hearings Officer found no new arguments were made by COLW, in this case, that were not previously made and rejected in prior authoritative decisions. The Hearings Officer finds the Subject Property is the "tract" and "lawfully established unit of land" for the purpose of determining, in this case, if the requirements of DCC 18.128.360(B)(3) are met/satisfied. 9. High Value Farmland The Hearings Officer incorporates the Preliminary Findings section II.A.8 (Tract) as additional findings for this section. The primary argument made by COLW related to High Value Farmland is summarized (by COLW) as follows (Isbell, July 24, 2023, pages 6 & 7): It is unclear what boundaries are being used to identify the `lawfully established unit of'land'for purposes of DCC 18.128.360(B)(3). COLW argued that the boundaries should include more area than that described as the Subject Property (Isbell, July 24, 2023, page 7 and Isbell, July 31, 2023, pages 2-4). In the findings for the Tract Issue the Hearings Officer determined the relevant and appropriate boundaries when considering DCC 18.128.360(B)(3) are the boundaries of the Subject Property. Applicant provided the following response to COLW's High Value Farmland Issue (Fancher, August 15, 2023, 2T Sustainable's Final Argument and Objection to COLW Rebuttal, page 10): "Attachment A of the applicant's July 24, 2023 response to COLW appeal identifies the boundaries used to identify the lawfully established unit of land. Attachment A outlines the lawfully established unit of land (the subject property for approval of guest ranch) and shows the following about the soils on the lawfully established unit of land as reported by the MRCS WebSoil Survey: 31 B Deschutes sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 45% of unit 138B Stukel sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 4.6% of unit 141 C Stukel-Deschutes-Rock outcrop complex, 0 to 15 percent slopes 50.4% of unit Only the 31B soil complex is high -value when irrigated. " The Hearings Officer also takes note of the Staff Decision (pages 60 & 61), Fancher, July 24, 2023, Applicant's Initial Response to COLW's Listed Appeal Issues (page 2) and Fancher, August 8, 2023, 2T Sustainable's Rebuttal Evidence (page 3). The Hearings Officer finds the Applicant's submitted soil 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 21 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 21 of 84 information is credible and represents uncontroverted substantial evidence. The Hearings Officer concurs with Staff's analysis and conclusions set forth in the Staff Decision (pages 60 & 61) that the Subject Property does not constitute high -value farmland and that DCC 18.128.360 (A)(3) is met/satisfied. 10. Adjacent Land Use Approval COLW argued that food service is currently approved for an adjacent property and that food service somehow prohibits approval in this case. COLW stated (Isbell, July 25, 2023, pages 7 & 8): In file no. 247-21-000268-CU, the county approved a permit allowing the applicant to serve meals at its adjacent property across the street. Because that property serves meals to people who are not guests of a guest ranch, DCC 18.128.360(E)(2) prohibits the serving of meals on that property to guests of a guest ranch. If the adjacent property will serve meals to guests of a guest ranch, then DCC 18.128.360(E)(2) prohibits that property from serving meals to non -guests of a guest ranch. We again note that the County may not amend the existing permit decision in file no. 247-21-000268-CU without complying with the procedural requirements for permit applications at ORS 215.416. The Hearings Officer incorporates the findings for the Preliminary Findings section II.A.8 (Tract) and II.A.9 (High Value Fannland) as additional findings for this "Adjacent Land Use Approval" section. The Hearings Officer rejects COLW's "Adjacent Land Use Approval" argument on two grounds. First, the Hearings Officer finds there is no credible and persuasive evidence in the record that allows the Hearings Officer to conclude the Applicant in this case is the "applicant" for the application for food service on the adjacent parcel.' Second, the Hearings Officer finds that COLW is suggesting that the Hearings Officer should consider and possibly modify an existing land use approval on a property situated adjacent to the Subject Property. The Hearings Officer finds no credible evidence or argument in the record of this case supporting the proposition that the Hearings Officer has any authority to reconsider and/or modify an existing land use approval on a property not included in the description of the Subject Property. Restated, the Hearings Officer does not have the authority to reconsider or modify a prior land use approval that does not include property covered by a current application. In the alternative, the Hearings Officer finds COLW failed to present, with sufficient specificity, its "Adjacent Land Use Approval" argument. 11. Incidental and Accessory COLW argued that the Staff Decision erred in concluding that the proposed guest ranch met the "incidental and accessory" requirements of DCC 18.16.037(B). COLW's argument is summarized below (Isbell, July 25, 2023, page 3): 1 COLW, in the July 25, 2023 submission (page 7), used the following language "...approved a permit allowing the applicant to serve meals at its adjacent property across the street." (bolding added by the Hearings Officer for emphasis). The Hearings Officer draws the logical inference from this language that COLW's reference to "applicant" in the July 25, 2023 submission (page 7 and quoted above) is intended to mean the Applicant in this case. 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 22 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 22 of 84 "The decision errs in finding that the guest ranch will be "incidental and accessory" by virtue of the land area it will occupy compared to the subject property as a whole. Decision at 19. These findings are inadequate because they do not analyze the relative "nature, intensity, and economic value " of the farm use and proposed commercial use (guest ranch). Friends of Yamhill County. a Yamhill Count 301 OrApp 726, 735 (2020). In Friends of Yamhill County, the Court ofAppeals analyzed the similar language "incidental and subordinate " in the context of another nonfarm use (agritourism) compared to farm use of a property: `[Tjhe phrase `incidental and subordinate to'means more than that the accessory use occurs less ,frequently than the primary use. Although frequency is one factor in comparing the main and accessory uses, the related concepts of `incidental'and `subordinate'reflect a conclusion about predominant use in light of many relevant factors, including the nature, intensify, and economic value of the respective uses. 'Id. `The inquiry involves a consideration of any relevant circumstances, including the nature, intensity, and economic value of the respective uses, that bear on whether the existing commercial farm use remains the predominant use of the tract. 'Id. at 739. The same analysis must occur here, but the decision does not attempt to compare the nature, intensity, or economic value of the respective uses. " The Hearings Officer finds that COLW's above stated "Incidental and Accessory" argument is essentially a substantial evidence argument. Restated, the Hearings Officer finds that COLW's "Incidental and Accessory" argument is that the Staff Decision did not contain sufficient evidence relating to the "nature, intensity, or economic value of the respective uses" to allow Staff to conclude the "Incidental and Accessory" test had been met. The Hearings Officer reviewed the Staff Decision (pages 16-20) carefully and finds that Staff did undertake a meaningfiil review and analysis of the nature, intensity, and economic value of the livestock/hay operation at the Subject Property in relation to the proposed Guest Ranch use. The Applicant supplemented Staff's incidental and accessory evidence and analysis (Fancher, July 24, 2023, Applicant's Initial Response to COLW's Listed Appeal Issues, pages 2-5, Faucher, August 1, 2023, 2T Sustainable's Post -Hearing Evidence, pages 1 & 2, Faucher, August 8, 2023, 2T Sustainable's Rebuttal Evidence, pages 1 -3, Faucher, August 15, 2023, 2T Sustainable's Final Argument and Objection to COLW Rebuttal, pages 12-16). The Hearings Officer agrees with Staff, Applicant and Appellant that DCC 18.16.037(B) requires that to approve a guest ranch application the proposed guest ranch use must be "incidental and accessory to an existing livestock operation thatqualifiesa farm use under DCC 18.04.030." The Hearings- Officer finds there is substantial evidence in the record that the Subject Property is currently operated as livestock operation and is a farm use under DCC 18.04.030. The Hearings Officer finds that the application in this case proposes to continue the livestock operation on the Subject Property. The Hearings Officer finds that DCC 18.16.037(B) incorporates the ORS 215 definition of Guest Ranch and finds that it is appropriate to consider state level land use decisions to interpret the phrase "incidental and accessory." As noted by Applicant and Appellant the Oregon Court of Appeals decision 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 23 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 23 of 84 in Friends of Yamhill County v. Yamhill County, 301 Or App 726 (2020) interpreted the phrase "incidental and subordinate." The Hearings Officer finds the Friends of Yamhill County "incidental and subordinate" analysis is relevant to this decision. The Hearings Officer finds the quoted (Appellant argument above) holding in the Friends of Yamhill County is a reasonable and appropriate outline of the analysis needed to be conducted in a DCC 18.16.037(B) "incidental and accessory" inquiry. The Hearings Officer finds that to determine if the DCC 18.16.037(B) "incidental and accessory" test is met the Hearings Officer must consider the nature, intensity, and economic value of the operation of the Subject Property as a farm use (livestock operation) in relation to the proposed guest ranch use. Applicant provided evidence (Fancher, July 24, 2023, Applicant's Response to COLW's Listed Appeal Issues, pages 2 — 4) related to how the Subject Property is currently used, is proposed to be used in relation to the proposed Guest Ranch. In that document the Applicant stated the following: "The applicant agrees that the ranching and guest uses should be compared but notes that the appealed decision contained comparative findings. While economic value may be considered, it is not controlling. For instance, a home occupation use is a residence used as a dwelling and as a place of employment. In that case, the residence is the primary use and limits are placed on the business to insure it is incidental to the residential use of the property — typically by imposing limits on the size of the area of the home occupied, vehicle trips generated and types of businesses conducted. The business provides a significant financial benefit to the property owner but the residential use imposes living expenses only — no income. Furthermore, if a rancher derives the vast majority of his or her income from day trading stocks, the primary use of the ranch property remains a ranch. The nature of the cattle ranch is a high -intensity farm use that occupies a large part of the subject property and requires a great deal of labor to assure success and the guest ranch use is significantly less extensive and intensive. The cattle ranching operation occupies the vast majority of the 186.26- acre subject property and the use of the land by cattle and to grow hay is an intensive use of the land. Only a small, non -irrigated corner of the property will be occupied by guest ranch lodging facilities and an existing building will be used as the guest lodge. The cattle ranch use is far more intensive than the guest ranch use. The ranch runs 200 mother cows and 20 bulls to produce 200 calves per year (420 head of cattle in a calendar year). It keeps cattle until they reach butcher weight at just under 2 years old and sell 100% direct as local beef. It sells approximately 80, 000 pounds of beef per year. Income from these sales is currently approximately $560, 000. The ranch stables working horses on the property year-round because it does cattle work on horseback. The impact of guest use of the subject property will be far less than that of ranching operations. Theapplicantestimates that the lodging facilities will gross - approximately $219, 000 to $292, 000 in annual income. This number— necessarily —is speculative because the use has not yet been established. The entire 2T Sustainable cattle herd is kept on the subject property from October thru April. A part of the herd remains at the ranch year-round either on grass before butchering, for sorted or rotational grazing or whatever other purpose is needed. The bulk of the herd is grazed on public land allotments around Alder Springs and the White River Unit on Mount Hood between April and 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 24 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 24 of 84 October. (footnote 2: Ranch cattle have also grazed on privately -owned range land and this use may occur again in the future.) In Durdan v. Deschutes County, 43 Or LUBA 248 (2002), LUBA found that livestock rotation off the guest ranch property is permissible. In fact, it is an accepted farm practice for cattle operations. The number of guest visits will also fluctuate over the course of the year based on seasonal demand. A hay crop is grown on the subject property during the growing season. The hayfields, once harvested, are used as pasture until a new crop is planted the following year. The hay crop is used to feed ranch cattle during the winter months. Approximately 133.5 acres of the subject property are irrigated crop and pasture lands. These lands must be irrigated regularly during the growing season. They also must be tilled, fenced and fertilized to grow hay. The irrigation system includes 12 pressurized irrigation wheel lines. The system must be monitored, maintained and repaired to ensure proper operation. The cattle ranch use occurs outdoors and indoors. Ranch buildings include the ranch house, a hay barn/cover; a sizable equipment shed and a barn with shop and cattle working facilities. The ranch owns and stores numerous large trucks and farm equipment on the property, including trucks used to move cattle to and from of grazing allotments and leased rangeland and to market. Ranch fencing (perimeter and cross) must be maintained. The ranch is currently replacing existing cross fencing with invisible fencing which is more effective and wildlife friendly This fencing requires that ranch cattle be collared. Cattle ranching places a heavy demand on the land. Cattle and horses compact the soils and cause erosion unless soils are properly managed. Cattle and horses also generate a high volume of waste that must be managed. Cattle must be provided with periodic veterinary care. All cattle — particularly newborns — require protection from predators. The ranch currently employs a full-time, year-round ranch manager to operate the ranch. The ranch manager resides on the subject property in a 1910 farm house. The ranch also employs two full- time, year-round ranchers and one full-time seasonal employee. The guest lodge operations staff will be approximately the same size. Guest ranch guests will not be allowed to bring or keep livestock or other large animals on the subject property. Instead, they will be visiting to learn about and observe ranch life and environmentally -conscious agricultural practices. The existence of the ranch is essential to provide a guest ranch experience for guests. The cattle operation is frnanciallysustainable and generates net income — a rarity for Deschutes - County agricultural operations. Guest ranch lodging, however, is not expected to be profitable in the near term due to the high cost of establishing and operating the use; including but not limited to designing and constructing cabins, remodeling guest facilities, installing a septic system, water system and utilities, establishing a business computer system and obtaining needed governmental approvals. According to Commercial Loan Direct, an on-line lender, commercial loan interest rates range from 5.88% to 18.52%. The applicant believes that a rate of approximately 9% might be 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 25 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 25 of 84 available now to finance construction of the guest ranch but interest rates vary and have been increasing steadily. " The Hearings Officer finds the above -quoted statements by Applicant constitute credible, uncontradicted and substantial evidence related to the burden of demonstrating the satisfaction of DCC 18.16.037(B). The Hearings Officer also takes note of Applicant's discussion of nearby/adjacent properties (Fancher, August 1, 2023, 2T Sustainable's Post Hearing Evidence, page 2). Applicant, in this evidentiary submission, identified three specific properties located nearby the Subject Property. Each of these three properties is a farm or ranch property that includes approved commercial activities. The Hearings Officer interprets these examples as demonstrating that the nearby area has a history of considering specific commercial activities as "incidental and accessory" to the primary farm/ranch related use. The Hearings Officer finds the primary use of the Subject Property, at all times relevant to this case, is and will be a livestock operation. The livestock operation on the Subject Property consists of raising, breeding, and slaughtering of beef cattle. The Hearings Officer finds that the livestock operation will occupy a large percentage of the Subject Property acreage; the proposed guest ranch will occupy a small percentage of low -value land. The Hearings Officer finds the location and operating characteristics of the proposed guest ranch will not negatively affect or impact the livestock operation. The Hearings Officer finds, based upon representation of the Applicant and not disputed by Appellant with any credible evidence, that the income from the livestock operation will exceed the expected income from the proposed guest ranch. The Hearings Officer finds the livestock operation requires intensive year- round labor efforts.' The Hearings Officer finds that the Guest Ranch is conceptually tied to the livestock operation. The Hearings Officer finds that but -for the livestock operation the existence of a guest ranch use would not be possible. The Hearings Officer finds that the proposed guest ranch use at the Subject Property will be subordinate and accessory to the livestock operation use. The Hearings Officer finds that the proposed guest ranch use at the Subject Property will be "incidental and accessory" to the primary use (livestock operation) and therefore the evidence in the record supports the Staff Decision that the "incidental and accessory" test in DCC 18.16.037(B) is met. Appellant (Isbell, July 25, 2023, pages 2 & 3) raised another issue in the context of the DCC 18.16.037(B) "incidental and accessory" test. Appellant described this second DCC 18.16.037 (B) issue as follows: Additionally, the decision errs in errs in failing to consider how the permit approved in file no. 247- 21-000268-CU relates to the current application. In that file, the County approved a conditional use permit for commercial activities in conjunction with farm use on land across the street f om the subject property and with affiliated ownership. The decision here errs in not considering whether these properties constitute a tract. See below at section IV(b) discussing DCC 18.128.360(B)(2) and whether the subject property is part of a "tract. " The decision also errs in not considering a Z The livestock operation involves approximately 420 head of cattle in a calendar year, a one full time manager, two full-time ranch hands, one seasonal ranch hand dealing with the physical improvements related to the cattle (Le., fencing, barns, farm equipment, etc.), the production of hay, and the physical needs of the cattle. 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 26 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 26 of 84 condition of approval from that decision, which specifically refers to the current applicant as an "affiliated entity" and affects the "incidental and accessory" analysis for the current application. 'L. Income from the sales of meals and any commercial activity beyond processing and selling farm products shall not exceed 40 percent of the gross income from the sales and processing of farm products grown and livestock raised by Rainshadow Organics, LLC, or an affiliated entity. Affiliated entities are those in which Sarahlee Lawrence, Ashanti Samuels, Chris Lawrence or David Lawrence are actively involved as members or officers. These affiliated entities are currently Lawrence Farm, LLC and 2T Sustainable Land & Cattle Holdings, LLC (including its member Ashanti Samuels Enterprises, LLC). Rainshadow Organics, LLC income earned under its assumed business names of Rainshadow Organics Farm Store and Rainshadow Organics is considered income of Rainshadow Organics, LLC. '(Exhibit I at page 48, (Findings & Decision in 247-21- 000268-CU)) The income produced by the applicant here, 2T Sustainable Land & Cattle Holdings, LLC, is already being "used" as farm income that commercial income is balanced against under the commercial activity in conjunction with farm use permit issued in file no. 247-21-000268-CU. Any analysis here of whether the proposed guest ranch is incidental and accessory to the existing farm use of the subject property must subtract income from the applicant used to justify ongoing compliance with condition of approval L in 247-21-000268-CU. We also note that the County may not amend that existing permit decision without complying with the procedural requirements forpermit applications at ORS 215,416 " The Hearings Officer adopts as additional findings for this section the Preliminary Findings for sections ILA.9 (Tract) and II.A.10 (Adjacent Land Use Approval). The Hearings Office finds, based upon the findings set forth in the Staff Decision and the incorporated Preliminary Findings that COLW's second argument (adjacent land use approval) is not persuasive. In the alternative, the Hearings Officer finds that Appellant failed to describe and develop, with clarity and specificity, its argument that the Hearings Officer has authority to modify a final land use approval for a property other than the Subject Property. 12. Number of Guest Lodging Units Isbell, at the Hearing, suggested the Staff Decision was imprecise as to the number of guest units proposed at the Subject Property. Isbell referenced two possible issues relating to the number of guest units. First, Isbell indicated the Staff Decision did not clearly indicate whether the existing residence would count as a guest unit. Isbell suggested a condition clarifying the use of the existing residence; partially to be used as a "lodge" for the guest ranch and partially to house the ranch manager. Isbell also raised the issue related to the definition of "guest unit" in the context of how many guest units were being proposed by Applicant. The Hearings Officer incorporates the Preliminary Findings for section II.A.6 (Definition of Guest Lodge Unit) as additional findings for this COLW issue. Applicant (Fancher, August 15, 2023, 2T Sustainable's Final Argument and Objection to COLW Rebuttal, pages 19 & 20) provided the following comments in response to the COLW number of guest lodging units argument: 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 27 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 27 of 84 "DCC 18.128.360(A)(1) and ORS 215.461(4)(a) limit guest lodging units to a maximum of ten for a ranch the size of the 2T Sustainable ranch property. ORS 215.461(1)(a) defines the term guest lodging unit" as "a guest room in a lodge, bunkhouse, cottage or cabin used only for transient overnight lodging and not for a permanent residence " and the County code is substantially the same. There area total of 10 guest rooms —one in each cabin proposed by the site plan. Guest rooms are the rooms used, for overnight lodging — the bedrooms in each cabin. The guest ranch law specifically allows cabins and recognizes that the lodging unit is a specific room in that building. This is consistent with the well -accepted fact that a bathroom that serves a guest room is not a guest room under any circumstances. Additionally, the term "guest room " has an accepted meaning as a room intended for use by a guest for sleeping. It does not include other rooms in a cabin. Please refer to the response provided to COLWs food service argument, below, for additional comments regarding the `guest room issue. " In the event the Hearings Officer disagrees, a condition of approval may be imposed that the cabins be built as studio units. If the Hearings Officer agrees, the applicant requests that he impose the following condition. - Areas in ranch cabins that are not guest rooms shall not be used for sleeping by guests. No more than a total of 10 rooms in cabins may be used as guest rooms. Based upon the incorporated Preliminary findings and Applicant's above -quoted comments the Hearings Officer finds with a condition containing language consistent with Applicant's suggestion, the Hearings Officer finds that no more than ten guest lodging units are proposed in this case. B. Specific Approval Criteria Findings 1. Oregon Revised Statues Chapter 92. Subdivisions and Partitions Adjustment #1: 247-22-000885-LL Oregon Revised Statute 92.010 provides the following definitions. (9) "Partitioning land" means dividing land to create not more than three parcels of land within a calendar year, but does not include: (b) Adjusting a property line as property line adjustment is defined in this section; (12) "Property line adjustment" means a relocation or elintination of all or a portion of the common property line between abutting properties that does not create an additional lot or parcel. FINDINGS: COLW did not appeal the validity of the Staff Decision related to Applicant's adjustment or consolidation requests. The Applicant proposed a lot consolidation to eliminate a common boundary between a lot of record consisting of Tax Lot 100 and Tax Lot 400, and a lot of record consisting of Tax Lot 200, with no additional unit of land created. Staff, in the Staff Decision (page 11), concluded that the proposal meets the definition of property line adjustment under ORS 92.010 and DCC 17.08.030. The Hearings Officer concurs with this Staff statement and finds that these standards are met. Figure 1: Resulting Lot of Record Consisting of Tax Lots 100, 400, and 200 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 28 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 28 of 84 i S88.57'28"W 1 2649.29- z 0 0 I I® U N (O z .rn o O O Iv N �I W VV) 141206OW0400 I I 50' 50' 6 49.75. NO -- — — _.._._ _._ / >- 12 UO 7 C3 1412070000100LLJ n /, ry'j q J U Irn / I 1a O L=201.39 IU ..� /j� • IN R=659.31 a / I ; J L-140.77 (j �n.. TL R-.195.00 200 ~ 208J2' 69.17' 584.57 _ HpLMES ROAD SMALL POR710N L-257.44 OF n 100 R-2628.03 PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENT STANDARDS FINDINGS: COLW did not appeal the validity of the Staff Decision findings related to property line adjustment standards. Staff, in the Staff Decision (page 12), concluded that ORS 92.192(2 and 3) and DCC 18.132.025(B) are not applicable to property line eliminations. The Hearings Officer concurs. ORS Section 92.190(4) requires that a property line adjustment deed shall contain the names of the parties, the description of the adjusted line, references to original recorded documents and signatures of all parties with proper acknowledgment. Staff (Staff Decision, page 12) included this requirement, specific to the proposed consolidation, as a condition of approval. The Hearings Officer concurs. Adjustment #2: 247-22-000886-LL 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 29 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 29 of 84 Oregon Revised Statute 92.010 provides the following definitions. (9) "Partitioning land" means dividing land to create not more than three parcels of land within a calendar year, but does not include: (b) Adjusting a property line as property line adjustment is defined in this section; (12) "Property line adjustment" means a relocation or elimination of all or a portion of the common property line between abutting properties that does not create an additional lot or parcel. FINDINGS: Applicant's request would adjust a common boundary between Tax Lot 300 and the consolidated parcel created through 247-22-000885-LL, with no additional unit of land created. Staff, in the Staff Decision (page 13), concluded that the proposal met the definition of property line adjustment under ORS 92.010 and Deschutes County Code 17.08.030. In the findings below, the Hearings Officer shall refer to the consolidated lot of record consisting of tax Lots 100, 400, and 200 as `Lot of Record #I,' and refers to Tax Lot 300 as `Lot of Record #2.' Oregon Revised Statute 92.192 provides additional requirements for property line adjustments and states: (2) Except as provided in this section, a lawfully established unit of land that is reduced in size by a property line adjustment approved by a city or county must comply with applicable zoning ordinances after the adjustment. FINDINGS: COLW did not appeal the validity of the Staff Decision findings related to property line adjustment standards. The original size of Lot of Record #1 is +/- 190.27 acres, and the original size of Lot of Record #2 is +/- 1.0 acres. After the adjustment Lot of Record #1 will be +/- 186.26 acres, and Lot of Record #2 will be +/- 5.0 acres. Lot of Record #1 will be reduced in size by the proposed adjustment. Lot of Record #1 is a lot of record because it was created as Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 of Minor Partition MP-07-32, and subsequently consolidated through file 247-22-000885-LL, above. The Hearings Officer finds that after the adjustment, Lot of Record #1 will be 186.26 acres, including 133.5 acres of irrigated land, and will comply with applicable zoning ordinances, as the minimum lot size in the Exclusive Farm Use Zone- Lower Bridge Subzone is 130 acres of irrigated land. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds this adjustment is subject to section (3) below. (3) Subject to subsection (4) of this section, for land located entirely outside the corporate limits of a city, a county may approve a property line adjustment in which: (a) One or both of the abutting lawfully established units of land are smaller than the minimum lot or parcel size for the applicable zone before the property line adjustment and, after the adjustment, one is as large as or larger than the minimum lot or parcel size for the applicable zone; or (b) Both abutting lawfully established units of land are smaller than the minimum lot or parcel size for the applicable zone before and after the property line adjustment. 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 30 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 30 of 84 FINDINGS: In addition to Lot of Record #1 being a lot of record, Lot of Record #2 is also a lot of record pursuant to file LR-93-50. After the adjustment, Lot of Record #2 will be 5.0 acres and will not comply with minimum lot or parcel size for the Exclusive Farm Use Zone -Lower Bridge Subzone, which is 80 acres for properties that were not created via an irrigated land division. The Hearings Officer finds the proposed adjustment complies with [(3)(a) or (3)(b)]. (4) On land zoned for exclusive farm use, forest use or mixed farm and forest use, a property line adjustment may not be used to: (a) Decrease the size of a lawfully established unit of land that, before the relocation or elimination of the common property line, is smaller than the minimum lot or parcel size for the applicable zone and contains an existing dwelling or is approved for the construction of a dwelling, if another lawfully established unit of land affected by the property line adjustment would be increased to a size as large as or larger than the minimum lot or parcel size required to qualify the other affected lawfully established unit of land for a dwelling; FINDINGS: The Subject Property is zoned Exclusive Farm Use. No lawfully established unit of land would be increased to a size as large as or larger than the minimum lot or parcel size required to qualify the unit of land for a dwelling. (b) Decrease the size of a lawfully established unit of land that contains an existing dwelling or is approved for construction of a dwelling to a size smaller than the minimum lot or parcel size, if another lawfully established unit of land affected by the property line adjustment would be increased to a size as large as or larger than the minimum lot or parcel size required to qualify the other affected lawfully established unit of land for a dwelling, FINDINGS: No lawfully established unit of land would be increased to a size as large as or larger than the minimum lot or parcel size required to qualify the unit of land for a dwelling. (c) Allow an area of land used to qualify a lawfully established unit of land for a dwelling based on an acreage standard to be used to qualify another lawfully established unit of land for a dwelling if the land use approval would be based on an acreage standard, or FINDINGS: Applicant's proposed adjustment will not allow an area of land used to qualify a lawfully established unit of land for a dwelling based on an acreage standard to be used to qualify another lawfully established unit of land for a dwelling if the land use approval would be based on an acreage standard. d) Adjust a property line that resulted from a subdivision or partition authorized by a -waiver so - - - that any lawfully established unit of land affected by the property line adjustment is larger than: (A) Two acres if the lawfully established unit of land is, before the adjustment, two acres in size or smaller and is high -value farmland, high -value forestland or within a ground water restricted area; or (B) Five acres if the lawfully established unit of land is, before the adjustment, five acres in size or smaller and is not high -value farmland, high -value forestland or within a ground water restricted area. 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 31 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 31 of 84 FINDINGS: This adjustment will not adjust a property line that resulted from a subdivision or partition authorized by a waiver. 2. Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, County Zoning Chapter 18.132, Variances Section 18.132.025, Minor Variances B. A parcel that is smaller than the minimum lot size at the time of application may not be reduced by more than 10 percent from its current size without a variance. FINDINGS: Staff, in the Staff Decision (page 15), concluded that this criterion does not apply to the requested property line adjustment 247-22-000886-LL because Lot of Record #1 is not smaller than the minimum lot size at the time of application. The Hearings Officer finds that the proposed adjustment(s) in size are within the allowable limits for the respective zoning districts. The Hearings Officer finds that this application meets the requirements as established and has been tentatively approved by the Deschutes County Planning Division. This tentative approval only confirms that the proposed adjustment meets the current zoning criteria necessary for property line adjustments. All restrictions for these zones still apply to the subject properties. Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones (EFU) Section 18.16.037. Guest Ranch. A. A guest ranch may be established in conjunction with an existing and continuing livestock operation, using accepted livestock practices that qualifies as a farm use under DCC 18.04.030, subject to the applicable provisions set forth in DCC 18.16.040(A)(1), (2) and (3), the applicable provisions of DCC 18.128, and the 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SR, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 16 of 69 provisions of the applicable Oregon Revised Statutes. A guest ranch shall not be located within the boundaries of or surrounded by: 1. A federally designated wilderness area or a wilderness study area: 2. A federally designated wildlife refuge; 3. A federally designated area of critical environmental concern; or 4. An area established by an Act of Congress for the protection of scenic or ecological resources. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer incorporates the Preliminary Findings for section ILA.3 (Location of Forest Service Leases) as additional findings for this criterion. Staff, in the Staff Decision (page 16) provided the following comments: "The subject property is not within or surrounded by a federally designated wilderness area, wilderness study area, wildlife refuge, or area of critical environmental concern. The subject 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 32 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 32 of 84 property is also not within or surrounded by an area established by an Act of Congress for the protection of scenic or ecological resources. The proposed guest ranch will be in conjunction with an existing and continuing livestock operation on the subject property. As described in detail under DCC 18.16.037(B), below, the cattle operation uses accepted livestock practices and qualifies as a farm use under DCC 18.04.030. The applicable provisions of DCC 18.16.040(A) and 18.128 are addressed in this decision. " The Hearings Officer finds concurs with Staff's above -quoted statements and conclusions. The Hearings Officer, based upon the findings in Section II.A.3 (Location of Forest Service Leases) and Staff's above -quoted statements and conclusions finds this approval criteria is met. B. "Guest ranch" paeans a facility for overnight guest lodging units, including passive recreational activities and food services, as set forth in ORS 215 that are incidental and accessory to an existing livestock operation that qualifies as a farm use under DCC 18.04.030. FINDINGS: The COLW appeal addressed specific issues within this approval criterion. COLW argued, among other things, that the Staff Decision erred in concluding that this approval criterion can be met because the application did not include food services. COLW also argued that the Staff Decision was not correct because the proposed guest ranch operation was not incidental and accessory. The Hearings Officer addressed the incidental and accessory issue in Preliminary Endings section II.A. I I (Incidental and Accessory) and the Endings for DCC 18.16.037(B). The Hearings Officer incorporates as additional findings for this approval criterion the Preliminary Findings in sections II.A.5 (Food Service) and II.A.9 (Incidental & Accessory). The Hearings Officer finds that Staff, in the Staff Decision (pages 16-20), provided a thorough analysis of the evidence and relevant law in the context of this approval criterion. The Hearings Officer believes that the Staff Decision findings related to this approval criterion are adequate, on their own, to justify this criterion is met. In the alternative to reliance upon the Staff Decision findings the Hearings Officer Ends that the Applicant has provided credible and persuasive evidence and argument in support that the application in this case meets this approval criteria (Fancher, July 24, 2023, Applicant's Initial Response to COLW's Listed Appeal Issues, pages 2-5 & 6 -7, Fancher, August 8, 2023, 2T Sustainable's Rebuttal Evidence, page 3, Fancher, August 15, 2023, 2T Sustainable's Final Argument and Objection to COLW Rebuttal, pages I1-16 & 20-21). The Hearings Officer Ends the Applicant's "food service" and "incidental and accessory" evidence and argument justify the Staff Decision conclusion that this criterion is met. The Hearings Officer finds, based upon the Staff Decision findings, Applicant's evidence and argument and the Preliminary Findings in sections II.A.5 (Food Service) and II.A. I I (Incidental & Accessory) this criterion is met. C. A guest lodging unit means a guest room in a lodge, bunkhouse, cottage or cabin used only for transient overnight lodging and not for permanent residence accommodations. 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 33 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 33 of 84 FINDINGS: Staff, in the Staff Decision (page 20) provided the following comments: "The application materials indicate the ten proposed cabins will be used exclusively as part of the guest lodge and will not be used as permanent residences. Under DCC 18.128.360(J), below, a condition of approval has been added limiting occupancies to no more than 30 days. Therefore, staff finds this criterion will be met. " COLW argued that Staff erred in concluding this approval criterion was met. The Hearings Officer incorporates the Preliminary Findings in sections II.A.6 (Definition of Guest Lodge Unit) and II.A.12 (Number of Guest Lodging Units) as additional findings for this approval criterion. The Hearings Officer concludes, based upon the incorporated Preliminary Findings for sections ILA.5 (Food Service) and ILA.9 (Incidental & Accessory) that Applicant has proposed ten (10) guest lodging units meeting the definition of DCC 18.16.037 (Q. D. For the purposes of DCC 18.16.037, "livestock" means cattle, sheep, horses, and bison. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds that the Subject Property's primary use is as a working cattle ranch. The Hearings Officer finds there is a livestock operation on the Subject Property, as defined above. E. A proposed division of land in an exclusive farm use zone for a guest ranch or a division of a lot or parcel that separates a guest ranch from the dwelling of the person conducting the livestock operation shall not be allowed. FINDINGS: No land division is proposed. To ensure future compliance Staff (Staff Decision, page 20) recommended the following condition of approval: "No land division shall separate the guest ranch from the dwelling of the person conducting the livestock operation. " The Hearings Officer concurs with Staff that with the listed condition this approval criterion can be met. F. Notwithstanding DCC 18.16.055, a proposed division of land in an exclusive farm use zone for a guest ranch shall not be allowed. FINDINGS: No land division is proposed. The Hearings Officer finds this criterion does not apply. Section 18.16.040. Limitations on Conditional Use. A. Conditional uses permitted by DCC 18.16.030, 18.16.031, and 18.16.033 may be established subject to ORS 215.296, applicable provisions in DCC 18.128, and upon a finding by the Planning Director or Hearings Body that the proposed use: 1. Will not force a significant change in accepted farm or forest practices as defined in ORS 215.203(2)(c) on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest uses; and 2. Will not significantly increase the cost of accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest use; and 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 34 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 34 of 84 FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer incorporates the Staff findings (Staff Decision, pages 21 & 22) and the Preliminary Findings for section ILA.7 (Farm Impacts Test) as additional findings for this approval criterion. The Hearings Officer finds no substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that approval of the application would force a significant change on accepted farming practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm uses. The Hearings Officer finds Applicant's summary of the evidence in the record (Fancher, August 15, 2023, 2T Sustainable's Final Argument and Objection to COLW Rebuttal, pages 16-17 & Attachment C) provides credible and substantial evidence that approval of the guest ranch application will not significantly increase the cost of accepted farm practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm use. The Hearings Officer finds, based upon the evidence and argument in the record that this approval criterion is met. 3. That the actual site on which the use is to be located is the least suitable for the production of farfn crops or livestock. FINDINGS: Staff (Staff Decision, page 22) provided the following comments related to this approval criterion: "There are three NCRS soil units mapped on the subject property: 141 C, 31B, and 138B. 31B soils have a land capability classification of 3 when irrigated and 6 when unirrigated. 138B soils have a land capability classification of 6 when unirrigated, and do not have an assigned value when irrigated. 141C soils are a soil complex, with a land capability classification of 6-8 when unirrigated. The guest ranch will be located in the southeast portion of the subject property, in an area that is mapped as 141 C soils. Pursuant to the NCRS land capability classifications, this is rated as the poorest soil on the subject property. Locating the guest ranch on 141 C soils will minimize impacts to portions of the property that contain higher -value soils for farm use. The subject property contains 133.5 acres of irrigated land, and this irrigated land is located to the north and west of the proposed guest ranch. The guest ranch will be located in a portion of the property that is already developed with a nonfarm dwelling and driveway. No irrigated land will be taken out of farm use for the guest ranch and the guest ranch will not prevent farm operations on nearby irrigated land. Staff finds the portion of the subject property that is not irrigated is less suitable for the production of crops or livestock. Therefore, siting the guest ranch in the portion of the property that is not irrigated will preserve the portions of the subject property that are more suitable for farm use. For these reasons, staff finds the guest ranch will be located on the portion of the subject property which is least suitable for the production of farm crops or livestock. " The Hearings Officer concurs with the above -quoted Staff comments and adopts them as findings for this criterion. The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is met. Section 18.16.060. Dimensional Standards. 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 35 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 35 of 84 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. FINDINGS: The Applicant has proposed structures with a height of 20 feet. Staff recommended (Staff Decision, page 22) a condition of approval stating that no building or structure shall be erected or enlarged to exceed 30 feet in height, except as allowed by DCC 18.120.040. The Hearings Officer finds that with Staff's recommended condition this criterion can be met. 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. 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 and/or the County under DCC 15.04 shall be met. FINDINGS: The proposal is not subject to 100-foot nonfarm dwelling setbacks. The proposed structure(s) comply with the setbacks under (A) to (C) above. Staff recommended (Staff Decision, pages 22 & 23) that these standards could be met with a condition of approval requiring the proposed project to meet structural setbacks from any north lot line and meet the solar setback requirements in DCC 18.116.180. Further, Staff recommended that a condition of approval that 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. The Hearings Officer finds that with the conditions recommended by Staff these standards can be met. Section 18.16.080. Stream Setbacks. 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, 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 36 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 36 of 84 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. Section18.16.090. Rimrock Setback. Notwithstanding the provisions of DCC 18.16.070, setbacks from rimrock shall be as provided in DCC 18.116.160 or 18.84.090, whichever is applicable. FINDING: There is no rimrock in the project vicinity. Chapter 18.88, Wildlife Area Combining Zone (WA) Section 18.88.040. Uses Permitted Conditionally. A. Except as provided in DCC 18.88.040(B), in a zone with which the WA Zone is combined, the conditional uses permitted shall be those permitted conditionally by the underlying zone subject to the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, DCC 18.128 and other applicable sections of this title. To minimize impacts to wildlife habitat, the County may include conditions of approval limiting the duration, frequency, seasonality, and total number of all outdoor assemblies occurring in the WA Zone, whether or not such outdoor assemblies are public or private, secular or religious. FINDINGS: COLW did not appeal the validity of the Staff Decision findings related to this approval criterion. As discussed above, the proposed use is conditionally permitted in the underlying zone. DCC 18.88.040(B) does not place any additional restrictions on a guest ranch. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds the proposed use is conditionally permitted in the WA Zone. Section 18.88.060. Siting Standards. A. Setbacks shall be those described in the underlying zone with which the WA Zone is combined. B. The footprint, including decks and porches, for new dwellings shall be located entirely within 300 feet of public roads, private roads or recorded easements for vehicular access existing as ofAugust 5, 1992 unless it can be found that: - 1. Habitat values (i.e., browse, forage, cover, access to water) and migration corridors are afforded equal or greater protection through a different development pattern; or, 2. The siting within 300 feet of such roads or easements for vehicular access would force the dwelling to be located on irrigated land, in which case, the dwelling shall be located to provide the least possible impact on wildlife habitat 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 37 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 37 of 84 considering browse, forage, cover, access to water and migration corridors, and minimizing length of new access roads and driveways; or, 3. The dwelling is set back no more than 50 feet from the edge of a driveway that existed as ofAugust 5, 1992. C. For purposes of DCC 18.88.060(B): 1. A private road, easement for vehicular access or driveway will conclusively be regarded as having existed prior to August 5, 1992 if the applicant submits any of the following: a. A copy of an easement recorded with the County Clerk prior to August 5, 1992 establishing a right of ingress and egress for vehicular use; b. An aerial photograph with proof that it was taken prior to August 5, 1992 on which the road, easement or driveway allowing vehicular access is visible; C. A map published prior to August 5, 1992 or assessor's map from prior to August 5, 1992 showing the road (but not showing a mere trail or footpath). 2. An applicant may submit any other evidence thought to establish the existence of a private road, easement for vehicular access or driveway as of August 5, 1992 which evidence need not be regarded as conclusive. FINDINGS: Setbacks are those described in the underlying zone with which the WA Zone is combined. No new dwelling is proposed. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds these criteria in subsection (B) do not apply. Section 18.88.070. Fencing Standards. The following fencing provisions shall apply as a condition of approval for any new fences constructed as apart of development of a property in conjunction with a conditional use permit or site plan review. A. New fences in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone shall be designed to permit wildlife passage. The.following standards and guidelines shall apply unless an alternative fence design which provides equivalent wildlife passage is approved by the County after consultation with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife: 1. The distance between the ground and the bottom strand or board of the fence shall be at least 15-inches. 2. The height of the fence shall not exceed 48 inches above ground level. 3. Smooth wire and wooden fences that allow passage of wildlife are preferred. Woven wire fences are discouraged. B. Exemptions: 1. Fences encompassing less than 10,000 square feet which surround or are adjacent to residences or structures are exempt from the above fencing standards. 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 38 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 38 of 84 2. Corrals used for working livestock. FINDINGS: No new fencing is included in this proposal. Staff recommended (Staff Decision, page 25) a condition of approval. The Hearings Officer concurs with Staff that with a condition of approval requiring all new fences that are in any portion of the Subject Property within the Wildlife Area Combining Zone shall comply with DCC 18.88.070, these standards can be met. 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. FINDINGS: Staff (Staff Decision, page 25), provided the following comments related to this criterion: "The subject property has a required clear vision area located at the intersection of the driveway and Holmes Road. As proposed this area will contain no planting, fence, wall, structure, or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three and one-half feet in height. As a condition of approval, the clear vision area shall be maintained in accordance with DCC 18.116.020(A). Staff notes the intersection of Holmes Road and Lower Bridge Way is also adjacent to Tax Lot 300. However, while Tax Lot 300 is involved in the proposed property line adjustment, the guest ranch will not be located on this parcel and it is therefore not subject to Site Plan Review. " The Hearings Officer concurs with the Staff comments above and finds this criterion can be met by imposing the Staff required condition of approval. B. A clear vision area shall consist of a triangular area on the corner of a lot at the intersection of two streets or a street and a railroad. Two sides of the triangle are sections of the lot lines adjoining the street or railroad measured from the corner to a distance specified in DCC 18.116.020(B)(1) and (2). Where lot lines have rounded corners, the specified distance is measured from a point determined by the extension of - the lot lines to a point of intersection. The third side of the triangle is the line - - connecting the ends of the measured sections of the street lot lines. The following measurements shall establish clear vision areas within the County: 1. In an agricultural, forestry or industrial zone, the minimum distance shall be 30 feet or at intersections including an alley, 10 feet. 2. In all other zones, the minimum distance shall be in relationship to street and road right of way widths as follows: 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 39 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 39 of 84 Right of way Width Clear vision 80 eet or more 20 eet 60 feet 30 feet 50 eet and less 40feet FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds that the Subject Property has a required clear vision area located at the intersection of the driveway and Holmes Road. Holmes Road has a right-of-way width of 60 feet and therefore requires a clear vision area consisting of a triangle with 30-foot sides. 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 of parking and loading space required by DCC Title 18. FINDINGS: As described elsewhere in this decision, the off street parking and loading requirements are met and, as conditioned, the Subject Property is and will be available for exclusive use as off-street parking and loading. Staff (Staff Decision, page 27) recommended a condition of approval related to subsequent use of the Subject Property. The recommended condition requires an application, for any subsequent use of the Subject Property for which the permit is issued, should be conditional upon the unqualified continuance and availability of the amount of parking and loading space required by DCC Title 18. The Hearings Officer concurs with Staff conclusion that with Staff's recommended condition of approval this standard can be met. 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 FINDINGS: No loading berth is required. 2. Restaurants, office buildings, hotels, motels, hospitals and institutions, schools and colleges, public buildings, recreation or entertainment facilities and any 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 40 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 40 of 84 similar use which has a gross floor area of 30,000 square feet or more shall provide off street truck loading or unloading berths subject to the following table: S . Ft. of Floor Area No. of Berths Required Less than 30,000 0 30, 000-100, 000 1 100,000 and Over 2 FINDINGS: No loading berth is required. 3. A loading berth shall contain space 10 feet wide, 35 feet long and have a height clearance of 14 feet. Where the vehicles generally used for loading exceed these dimensions, the required length of these berths shall be increased FINDINGS: No loading berth is required. 4. If loading space has been provided in connection with an existing use or is added to an existing use, the loading space shall not be eliminated if elimination would result in less space than is required to adequately handle the needs of the particular use. FINDINGS: No elimination of a loading space is proposed. 5. Off-street parking areas used to fulfill the requirements of DCC Title 18 shall not be used for loading and unloading operations except during periods of the day when not required to take care of parking needs. FINDINGS: Staff (Staff Decision, page 28) recommended a condition of approval. Staff's recommended condition related to off-street parking areas used to fulfill the requirements of DCC Title 18 shall not be used for loading and unloading operations except during periods of the day when not required to take care of parking needs. The Hearings Officer finds with Staff's recommended condition this standard can be met. 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 FINDINGS: This criterion requires parking be provided and maintained for all uses. Staff recommended (Staff Decision, page 28) a condition of approval. Staff's recommended condition states that required parking facilities shall be provided prior to or concurrently with construction and/or initiation of the proposed use. The Hearings Officer finds that with Staff's recommended condition this standard can be met. D. Number of Spaces Required Of parking shall be provided as follows: 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 41 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 41 of 84 1. Residential. One, two and threefiamily dwellings 2 spaces per dwelling unit 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. FINDINGS: DCC 18.116.030(D) does not provide a parking standard for a guest ranch. Nonetheless, DCC 18.128.360(L) does provide parking requirements for a guest ranch. DCC 18.128.360(L) requires one parking space for every guest room in addition to parking to serve the residents. The Applicant proposed ten cabins, each of which will contain one guest room. The Applicant proposed ten parking spaces for the cabins and one ADA-accessible space next to the lodge. There are also three spaces available within the lodge garage which will be used by employees and residents of the dwelling. Pursuant to DCC 18.116.030(D)(1), a single-family dwelling requires two off-street parking spaces. Three parking spaces are provided within the garage, which is enough to accommodate the parking for the dwelling as well as an employee of the guest ranch. The Hearings Officer finds adequate parking will be provided for the guest ranch. 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 suin of requirements of the several uses computed separately. FINDINGS: The total requirement for off-street parking is calculated as the sum of requirements of all on -site uses computed separately. 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. FINDINGS: The Applicant proposed joint use of parking facilities within the garage of the lodge/nonfarm dwelling. Two parking spaces will be available for residents of the nonfarm dwelling, and at least one parking space will be available for employees of the guest ranch who live off -site. Because parking spaces are provided for the two uses, Staff concluded (Staff Decision, page 29) that the parking needs will not overlap at any point in time. Staff opined that the uses, structures, or parcels are not under separate ownership. The Hearings Officer concurs with Staff's analysis and conclusion. For these reasons, the Hearings Officer finds that this criterion will be met. 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 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 42 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 42 of 84 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. FINDINGS: The proposed required parking spaces are be located on the same parcel. 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. FINDINGS: Staff (Staff Decision, page 29) stated the following: "As a condition of approval, 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. " The Hearings Officer concurs with the above -quoted Staff comments. The Hearings Officer finds that with Staff's recommended condition, this standard can be met. 5. 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 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. FINDINGS: The Applicant proposed a commercial use consisting of a guest ranch. The proposed parking spaces will be located over 400 feet from the front property line along Holmes Road. The Hearings Officer finds no required parking and loading spaces will be located within a required front yard. This criterion will be met. 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 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 43 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 43 of 84 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 ]]feet of curb; C. Perpendicular parking (90 degree), each with 10 feet of curb; d. Curb space must be connected to the lot that contains 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. FINDINGS: No on -street parking is proposed. 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: 1. Except for parking to serve residential uses, an off-street parking area for more than five vehicles shall be effectively screened by a sight obscuring fence when adjacent to residential uses, unless effectively screened or buffered by landscaping or structures. FINDINGS: No parking areas for more than five vehicles are proposed. This criterion does not apply. 2. Any lighting used to illuminate off-street parking areas shall be so arranged that it will not protect light rays directly upon any adjoining property in a residential zone. FINDINGS: There are no adjoining properties in a residential zone. 3. Groups of more than two parking spaces shall be located and designed to prevent the need to back vehicles into a street or right of way other than an alley. FINDINGS: Parking spaces are located and designed to prevent the need to back vehicles into a street or right of way other than an alley. The closest parking space will be located over 800 feet from Holmes Road. The Applicant proposed a two-way driveway with a width of 24 feet, which terminates in a circle near the cabins. Staff concluded (Staff Decision, page 31) that Applicant's proposed design would provide vehicles ample room to turn around within the Subject Property. The Hearings Officer concurs with Staff's analysis and conclusion. The Hearings Officer finds that this criterion will be met. 4. Areas used for standing and maneuvering of vehicles shall be paved surfaces adequately inaintained for all weather use and so drained as to contain any flow 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 44 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 44 of 84 of water on the site. An exception may be made to the paving requirements by the Planning Director or Hearings Body upon finding that. - FINDINGS: The Applicant proposed a gravel surface for the service drive and parking spaces. One ADA-accessible parking spot is proposed next to the lodge building and this parking spot will be paved to comply with accessibility requirements. However, the parking spaces adjacent to the guest cabins will not be paved. The Subject Property is 186.26 acres in size, and predominantly consists of irrigated pasture and hay fields. While the Subject Property does contain two dwellings and several agricultural buildings, the majority of the surface area consists of undeveloped land that will contain runoff. Staff (Staff Decision, page 31) concluded that the gravel parking and vehicular maneuvering areas will be permeable surfaces which will allow runoff to be contained onsite. The Applicant proposed a five -foot -wide pedestrian pathway connecting the cabins to the lodge building. This pedestrian pathway will be paved and will therefore generate runoff. However, Staff (Staff Decision, page 31) concluded that even with this proposed impervious surface, the vast majority of the Subject Property will remain undeveloped and allow for water infiltration. The Hearings Officer concurs with Staff's above stated analysis and conclusions. As described below, the Applicant requested an exception to the paving standards. a. A high water table in the area necessitates a permeable surface to reduce surface water runoff problems; or b. The subject use is located outside of an unincorporated community and the proposed surfacing will be maintained in a manner which will not create dust problems for neighboring properties; or C. The subject use will be in a Rural Industrial Zone or an Industrial District in an unincorporated community and dust control measures will occur on a continuous basis which will mitigate any adverse impacts on surrounding properties. FINDINGS: The Applicant requested an exception to the paving standards pursuant to DCC 18.116.030(F)(4)(b). The Subject Property is not located within an unincorporated community and the Applicant indicated that gravel surfaces will be maintained in a manner which will not create dust problems for neighboring properties. To ensure compliance, Staff (Staff Decision, page 32) recommended a condition requiring that all vehicle standing and maneuvering areas for the guest ranch will have a gravel surface that is adequately maintained for all weather use and maintained in a manner that will not create dust problems for neighboring properties. The Hearings Officer finds that with Staff's recommended condition these standards can be met. - 5. Access aisles shall be of sufficient width for all vehicular turning and maneuvering. FINDINGS: The Applicant proposed two-way access aisles, which requires a minimum width of 24 feet. As illustrated on the site plan, the access aisles will be 24 feet in width. The proposed access aisles are of sufficient width for all vehicular turning and maneuvering and comply with standards for parking 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 45 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 45 of 84 lot design under sub -section (G), below. 6. Service drives to off-street parking areas shall be designed and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic, provide maximum safety of traffic access and egress and maximum safety ofpedestrians and vehicular traffic on the site. The number of service drives shall be limited to the minimum that will accommodate and serve the traffic anticipated. Service drives shall be clearly and permanently marked and defined through the use of rails, fences, walls or other barriers or markers. Service drives to drive in establishments shall be designed to avoid backing movements or other maneuvering within a street other than an alley. FINDINGS: Staff (Staff Decision, pages 32 & 33) included the following comments related to this standard: "For the purposes of this decision, staff finds a "service drive" includes any vehicle maneuvering surface that connects to a road or street, but is not immediately adjacent to a parking space. The guest ranch will be served by an existing driveway off of Holmes Road, which currently provides access to the nonfarm dwelling. The driveway (service drive) will be extended towards the northeast, where the cabins will be constructed. This service drive will provide direct, convenient access to the lodge and cabins. The proposed service drive will be 24 feet wide and will terminate in a circle at the,farthest cabins. This design will allow for a two-way flow of traffic, and will provide for maximum vehicle safety by providing a safe place for vehicles to turn around on the subject property. The existing farm manager residence and agricultural buildings are served by a separate driveway of of Holmes Road. Staff finds this design will reduce conflicts between guest vehicles and farm vehicles and equipment. The separate driveways will also help reduce any adverse impacts the guest ranch may generate on farm operations. A pedestrian walkway will connect all of the cabins to the lodge building. No driveway crossings are proposed, so pedestrians will never be within the path of vehicle traffic. This pedestrian path runs approximately parallel to the proposed service drive, and provides direct, convenient access between different portions of the guest ranch. The proposed service drives are clearly marked through wood posts with copper top. The submitted site plan proposes to space these markers out every 200 feet on both sides of the service drive. Staff finds a smaller distance between markers is required to clearly delineate the service drive, and prevent vehicles from driving or parking on adjacent land. Staff therefore adds the following condition of approval requiring markers spaced no more than 100 feet apart. Prior to issuance of building or septic permits for the guest ranch, the owner shall submit a revised site plan showing markers or barriers spaced no more than 100 feet apart along the service drive. No "drive-in" establishment is proposed." The Hearings Officer concurs with the above -quoted Staff comments and incorporates them as findings for this standard. The Hearings Officer finds this criterion can be met. 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 46 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 46 of 84 7. Service drives shall have a minimum vision clearance area formed by the intersection of the driveway centerline, the street right of way line and a straight line joining said lines through points 30 feet from their intersection. FINDINGS: Staff (Staff Decision, page 33) included the following comments related to this standard: "For the purposes of this decision, staff finds a "service drive" includes any vehicle maneuvering surface that connects to a road or street, but is not immediately adjacent to a parking space. Staff finds "vision clearance area " became "clear vision area " in 1991 (Ord 91-038) but that this reference was not updated. For the purposes of this decision staff, uses "vision clearance area "and "clear vision area " as the equivalent. The subject property has a required service drive clear vision area located at the intersection of the service drive and Holmes Road. As proposed, this area will contain no planting, fence, wall, structure, or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three and one-half feet in height. As a condition of approval, the service drive clear vision area shall be maintained in accordance with DCC 18.116.020(A) ". The Hearings Officer concurs with the above -quoted Staff comments and incorporates them as findings for this standard. The Hearings Officer finds this standard can be met. 0. Parking spaces along the outer boundaries of a parking area shall be contained by a curb or bumper rail placed to prevent a motor vehicle from extending over an adjacent property line or a street right of way. FINDINGS: Staff (Staff Decision, page 33) included the following comments related to this standard: "Staff finds a curb or bumper rail are only needed under this criterion where needed to prevent a motor vehicle from extending over an adjacent property line or a street right of way. No parking area is immediately adjacent to a property line or a street right of way. " The Hearings Officer concurs with the above -quoted Staff comments and incorporates them as findings for this standard. The Hearings Officer finds this standard can be met. 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: (SEE TABLE I AT END OF CHAPTER 18.116) 1. For one row of stalls use "C" + ==D" as minimum bay width. 2. Public alley width may be included as part of dimension "D, " but all parking stalls must be on private property, off the public right of way. 3. For estimating available parking area, use 300-325 square feet per vehicle for stall, aisle and access areas. 4. For large parking lots exceeding 20 stalls, alternate rows may be designed for compact cars provided that the compact stalls do not exceed 30 percent of the 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 47 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 47 of 84 total required stalls. A compact stall shall be eight feet in width and 17 feet in length with appropriate aisle width. FINDINGS: The proposed parking lot has been designed subject to County standards. The Applicant proposed parking spaces with dimensions of nine feet by 20 feet. The Applicant also proposed a two- way access aisle that is 24 feet wide. 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. A. Number and Type of Bicycle Parking Spaces Required. 1. General Minimum Standard. a. All uses that require off-street motor vehicle parking shall, except as specifically noted, provide one bicycle parking space for every five required motor vehicle parking spaces. b. Except as specifically set forth herein, all such parking facilities shall include at least two sheltered parking spaces or, where more than 10 bicycle spaces are required, at least 50 percent of the bicycle parking spaces shall be sheltered. FINDINGS: As noted above, the proposed use requires ten vehicular parking spaces. Therefore, two bicycle parking spaces are required, of which two spaces must be sheltered. The submitted proposal includes three sheltered spaces, which the Hearings Officer finds is compliant with this criterion. C. When the proposed use is located outside of an unincorporated community, a destination resort, and a rural commercial zone, exceptions to the bicycle parking standards may be authorized by the Planning Director or Hearings Body if the applicant demonstrates one or more of the following: i The proposed use is in a location accessed by roads with no bikeways and bicycle use by customers or employees is unlikely. ii. The proposed use generates less than 50 vehicle trips per day. iii. No existing buildings on the site will accommodate bicycle parking and no new buildings are proposed. iv. The size, weight, or dimensions of the goods sold at the site makes transporting them by bicycle impractical or unlikely. V. The use of the site requires equipment that makes it unlikely that a bicycle would be used to access the site. Representative examples would include, but not be limited to, paintball parks, golf courses, shooting ranges, etc. FINDINGS: The Applicant has not requested exceptions to the bicycle parking standards. 2. Special Minimum Standards. 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 48 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 48 of 84 a. Multi -Family Residences. Every residential use of four or more dwelling units shall provide at least one bicycle parking space for each unit. In those instances in which the residential complex has no garage, required spaces shall be sheltered. b. Parking Lots. All public and commercial parking lots and parking structures shall provide a minimum of one bicycle parking space for every 10 motor vehicle parking spaces. C. Schools. Schools, both public and private, shall provide one bicycle parking space for every 25 students, half of which shall be sheltered. d. Colleges. One-half of the bicycle parking spaces at colleges, universities and trade schools shall be sheltered facilities. FINDINGS: The proposed use is not subject to any of these special minimum standards. 3. Trade Off with Motor Vehicle Parking Spaces. a. One motor vehicle parking space may be deleted from the required number of spaces in exchange for providing required bicycle parking. i. Any deleted motor vehicle space beyond the one allowed above shall be replaced with at least one bicycle spaces. ii. If such additional parking is to be located in the area of the deleted automobile parking space, it must meet all other bicycle parking standards. FINDINGS: No trade off with motor vehicle parking is proposed. This criterion does not apply. b. The Hearings Body or Planning Director may authorize additional bicycle parking in exchange for required motor vehicle parking in areas of demonstrated, anticipated, or desired high bicycle use. 4. Calculating number of bicycle spaces. a. Fractional spaces shall be rounded up to the next whole space. b. For facilities with multiple uses (such as a commercial center) bicycle - parking requirements shall be calculated by using the total number of motor vehicle spaces required for the entire development. FINDINGS: Bicycle parking has been calculated by the rounding up of fractional spaces and accounting for the total number of motor vehicle spaces required for the entire development. B. Bicycle Parking Design. 1. General Description. a. Sheltered Parking. Sheltered parking may be provided within a bicycle storage room, bicycle locker, or racks inside a building; in bicycle lockers or racks in an accessory parking structure; underneath an awning, eave, or other overhang, or by other facility as determined by the Hearings Body or Planning Director that protects the bicycle from direct exposure to the elements. b. Unsheltered parking may be provided by bicycle racks. 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 49 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 49 of 84 FINDINGS: Required sheltered bicycle parking will be provided under a covered concrete patio, adjacent to the lodge building. 2. Location. a. Required bicycle parking that is located outdoors shall be located on -site within 50 feet of main entrances and not farther from the entrance than the closest motor vehicle parking space. FINDINGS: As shown on the site plan, bicycle parking facilities are will be located approximately 20 feet from the main entrance of the lodge building. The closest vehicular parking will be approximately 50 feet from the main entrance. This criterion will be met. Bicycle parking shall be located in areas of greatest use and convenience to bicyclist. FINDINGS: Bicycle parking facilities are located in areas of greatest use and convenience to bicyclist. The covered bicycle parking will be provided on a covered patio at the lodge building, which is where visitors will likely come to check in. This is the first building that visitors reach when entering the Subject Property via the driveway off Holmes Road. The covered patio is adjacent to a building entrance and is a logical, convenient location for bicycle parking. The Applicant also noted that one bicycle parking space can be accommodated within each of the cabins. The Hearings Officer finds that visitors will have the option to store their bicycles on the covered patio or within their cabin, depending on which location they find more convenient. ii. Such bicycle parking shall have direct access to both the public right of way and to the main entrance of the principal use. FINDINGS: The proposed bicycle parking area(s) have direct access to both the public right of way and to the main entrance of the principal use. iii. Bicycle parking shall not impede or create a hazard to pedestrians. FINDINGS: The proposed bicycle parking area(s) will not impede or create a hazard to pedestrians. The Applicant proposed bicycle parking on an existing covered patio. This bicycle parking is within close proximity to one of the building entrances, but it will not block the building entrance or impede pedestrians. The Hearings Officer finds that this building has multiple entrances that pedestrians can use and none of these entrances will be blocked by the bicycle parking. There is a direct pedestrian route from the paved ADA parking space to a building entrance and this route will not be obstructed by the bicycle parking. For these reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the bicycle parking will not create a hazard for pedestrians. iv. Parking areas shall be located so as not to conflict with clear vision areas as prescribed in DCC 18.116.020. 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 50 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 50 of 84 FINDINGS: The proposed bicycle parking area(s) are located so as not to conflict with clear vision areas as prescribed in DCC 18.116.020. b. Bicycle parking facilities shall be separated from motor vehicle parking and drive areas by a barrier or sufficient distance to prevent damage to the parked bicycle. FINDINGS: Bicycle parking facilities will be separated from motor vehicle parking and drive areas by an elevated, paved patio. Vehicles will not drive onto the patio and staff finds the bicycle parking is separated from motor vehicle parking by a barrier. This criterion will be met. C. Where bicycle parking facilities are not directly visible and obvious from the public right(s) of way, entry and directional signs shall be provided to direct bicyclists for the public right of way to the bicycle parking facility. Directions to sheltered facilities inside a structure may be signed, or supplied by the employer, as appropriate. FINDINGS: One driveway will provide access to the guest ranch from Holmes Road, and the lodge building is the first building that visitors reach when they enter the property through this driveway. The bicycle parking is located on the exterior of this lodge building, and is adjacent to the vehicle parking spaces, so it will be readily visible to anyone entering the Subject Property. However, the bicycle parking will not be directly visible and obvious from Holmes Road, and signage is therefore required. Staff (Staff Decision, page 37) recommended adding the following condition to ensure compliance with this criterion: Prior to the issuance of building or septic permits for the guest ranch, the owner shall submit a revised site plan showing the location of signage for the bicycle parking. The Hearings Officer finds that with Staff's recommended condition this criterion can be met. 3. Dimensional Standards. a. Each bicycle parking space shall be at least two by six feet with a vertical clearance of seven feet. b. An access aisle of at least five feet wide shall be provided and maintained beside or between each row of bicycle parking. C. Each required bicycle parking space shall be accessible without moving another bicycle. FINDINGS: The submitted site plan indicates bicycle parking will be provided through two U-shape bicycle racks. However, the submitted application materials do not specify the dimensions of the bicycle parking spaces and access aisles. Staff (Staff Decision, pages 37 & 38) recommended the following condition of approval to ensure compliance with these criteria: Prior to the issuance of building or septic permits for the guest ranch, the owner shall submit a revised site plan showing that bicycle parking complies with the following: • Each bicycle parking space shall be at least two by six feet with a vertical clearance of 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 51 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 51 of 84 seven feet. An access aisle of at least five feet wide shall be provided and maintained beside or between each row of bicycle parking. The Hearings Officer finds that with Staff's recommended condition these criteria can be met. 4. Surface. The surface of an outdoor parking facility shall be surfaced in the same manner as the motor vehicle parking area or with a minimum of one -inch thickness of aggregate material. This surface will be maintained in a smooth, durable, and well -drained condition. FINDINGS: The bicycle parking area will be paved with concrete. Staff recommended, the Staff Decision (page 38) that a condition of approval be included requiring that the bicycle parking surface shall be maintained in a smooth, durable, and well -drained condition. The Hearings Officer finds that this criterion can be met if a condition reflecting Staff's recommendation is included in an approval of the application. 5. Security. a. Bicycle parking facilities shall offer security in the form of either a lockable enclosure in which the bicycle can be stored or a stationary object (i.e., a "rack") upon which the bicycle can be locked! Structures that require a user -supplied lock shall accommodate both cables and U- shaped locks and shall permit the frame and both wheels to be secured (removing the front wheel may be necessary). All bicycle racks, lockers, or other facilities shall be permanently anchored to the surface of the ground or to a structure. FINDINGS: The bicycle parking area offers security in the form of a stationary U-shape rack upon which the bicycle can be locked. The rack will accommodate both cables and U-shaped locks, and will be permanently anchored to the ground. b. Lighting shall be provided in a bicycle parking area so that all facilities are thoroughly illuminated and visible from adjacent sidewalks or motor vehicle parking. FINDINGS: The bicycle parking area will be illuminated by existing exterior lighting on the building. 6. Other means that provide the above level of bicycle parking may be approved by the Hearings Body or the Planning Director. - FINDINGS: No alternative means of providing bicycle parking have been proposed or approved in this decision. Section 18.116.035, Bicycle Commuter Facilities. 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 52 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 52 of 84 A. Each commercial or public building having a workforce of at least 25 people shall have bicycle commuter facilities consisting of shower(s) and changing rooms(s). For facilities with more than one building (such as a college), bicycle commuter facilities may be located in a central location. B. This provision shall apply to (1) new development requiring off-street parking and (2) 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. FINDINGS: No commercial or public building having a work force of at least 25 people exists or is proposed for this site. Chapter 18.124, Site Plan Review 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 ImpactArea Combining Zones (SMIA). 7. Non-commercial wind energy 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. FINDINGS: The proposed use requires actions described in section (A), above, and falls within a use category described in section (B). Site plan review is required. Section 18.124.060. Approval Criteria. 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 53 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 53 of 84 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. FINDINGS: COLW, in its appeal, did not provide any meaningful evidence or argument that this approval criteria had not been adequately addressed in the Staff Decision. Staff, in the Staff Decision, provided an extensive analysis of this criterion and concluded that the application in this case met this approval criterion. The Hearings Officer includes below, in its entirety, the Staff Decision analysis (Staff Decision, pages 40-42): "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 Of 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 "more 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 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 54 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 54 of 84 doing so, this enables the County decision maker to find that the site plans 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 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. " Stczff 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 general surrounding area contains natural.features consisting of scenic views of mountains and buttes. However, due to the gently -sloped topography of the subject property and existing development, stafffr-nds the proposed cabins will not have a significant impact on scenic views. Staff finds minimization of visual impacts requires clustering new structures, minimizing vegetation removal, and selecting building designs that do not have an outward appearance of a commercial use. The submitted burden of proof included the following statement regarding vegetation: Regarding vegetation, the area of the proposed guest ranch is planned in on unirrigated land, in an area that is populated with Juniper trees and scrub brush. The only vegetation that will be removed for the new use is that which is necessary to accommodate the new buildings, the drive aisle, the parking spaces and the pedestrian path. A buffer of trees will remain on the site and around the perimeter of the guest ranch use area. Staff concurs with this analysis and notes the area where the cabins will be located currently contains scattered trees. The applicant proposes to retain existing trees which are located between - - the cabins and Tax Lot 300, and between the cabins and Lower Bridge Way. Tax Lot 300 is the neighboring property closest to the guest ranch, and staff finds retention of the intervening vegetation is necessary to minimize visual impacts on this neighboring property. The submitted application materials include drawings of the proposed cabin design. These drawings indicate the cabins will have a height of 20 feet and will have the appearance of a typical private residence. Existing buildings on the subject properly are 20 feet or greater in height, so the proposed 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 55 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 55 of 84 cabins will not protrude taller than existing structures and block views. The submitted drawings indicate the cabins will have a brown finish and the design will incorporate lots of wood. The proposed earth tone colors will minimize visual impacts by reducing contrast with the surrounding natural environment. Existing development in the surrounding area includes single-family residences on EFUproperties. Stafffinds the proposed cabin design will blend harmoniously with existing development by matching the general appearance of residential development. The applicant proposes to convert a portion of an existing dwelling into shared space for cabin guests. Converting a portion of an existing building into lodge space will minimize the amount of new construction required and reduce the amount of disturbance to the subject property. The existing nonfarm dwelling was designed and built as a single-family dwelling, and therefore has the appearance of a typical residence. This existing building is brown with stone and wood accents. Staff finds the design of the proposed cabins will blend harmoniously with the existing nonfarm dwelling. The ten new cabins will be located adjacent to the new service drive, in the southwest corner of *the subject property. The guest ranch buildings will be clustered in one portion of the subject property, near the existing nonfarm dwelling. Siting the cabins near this existing development will retain an undeveloped, agricultural appearance on the remainder of the property. The applicant proposes to utilize an existing driveway and extend it towards the northeast. Taking advantage of an existing driveway minimizes the extent of new construction and reduces the amount of vegetation that will need to be removed. The subject property has a gentle slope in elevation, and some grading may be required for the cabins, service drive, and pedestrian pathway. However, staff finds any grading required for construction will not significantly impact the overall topography of the property. No topographical features will be impacted by the proposed guest ranch. For these reasons, stafffinds the guest ranch will relate harmoniously to the natural environment and existing development, and is designed to minimize visual impacts. " The Hearings Officer concurs with the above -quoted Staff analysis and incorporates it as the Hearings Officer's findings for this criterion. The Hearings Officer finds that this criterion is met. 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. FINDINGS: Staff (Staff Decision, page 42), provided the following comments related to this criterion: "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. " 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 56 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 56 of 84 The Hearings Officer finds Staff's above -quoted comments to be credible. The Hearings Officer concurs with the above -quoted Staff analysis and incorporates it as the Hearings Officer's findings for this criterion. The Hearings Officer finds that with Staff's recommended condition this criterion can be met. 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. FINDINGS: Staff (Staff Decision, pages 42 & 43), provided the following comments related to this criterion: "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, comments provided by the Office of the State Fire Marshal identified access and water supply requirements for the subject property. In addition, the cabins will be reviewed by the Deschutes County Building Division to ensure fire safety is addressed through building design. Comments submitted May 5, 2023, by Deschutes County Building Division indicate a residential structural permit will be required to make required accessibility improvements to the nonfarm dwelling, in order to convert a portion of it to a lodge. Stafffinds the required accessibility upgrades will provide a safe environment by, allowing safe access if afire were to occur: To ensure all Building Division requirements are inet far this conversion, staff adds a condition of approval requiring documentation that all necessary permits have been received for the lodge space within the dwelling. Staff notes the ten new cabins may increase the amount of available fuels on the property if afire were to occur: However, the subject property primarily consists of irrigated fields and does not have a significant amount of tree cover In addition, the guest ranch will be located near an existing irrigation pond, which will provide a water source if afire were to occur. The applicant proposes to widen and extend an existing driveway, which will improve emergency access to the site if afire were to occur With regard to other natural hazards, none have been identified on the site. The applicant proposes a public use consisting of a guest ranch, and a transition is therefore required from this public use to nearby private spaces. The applicant does not propose any designated outdoor recreation area.for guests. However, guests will likely walk between cabins, and use outdoor space near the cabins for games and to sit outside. The cabins and pedestrian path are all located on the north side of the service drive, so guests will likely stay in that general area for any outdoor recreation. Staff finds the service drive provides a buffer between the cabins and the neighboring property to the southeast. A portion of the existing nonfarm dwelling will be converted into indoor gathering space for cabin guests. This building will continue to house a private residence, so these public and private uses will be in very close proximity to each other. The applicant submitted a floor plan designating which areas in the building will be used for the guest ranch, and this floor plan indicates the majority of the structure will remain as a private residence. Staff notes the property owner has requested both uses be within the same building, and any impacts to the existing dwelling are therefore anticipated. For these reasons, staff finds the site plan is 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 57 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 57 of 84 designed to provide opportunities for privacy, and a transition from the guest ranch to private spaces. The Hearings Officer finds Staff's above -quoted comments to be credible and persuasive. The Hearings Officer concurs with the above -quoted Staff analysis and incorporates the comments as the Hearings Officer's findings for this criterion. The Hearings Officer finds that with Staff's recommended condition this criterion can be met. D. When appropriate, the site plan shall provide for the special needs of disabled persons, such as ramps for wheelchairs and Braille signs. FINDINGS: 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. 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. FINDINGS: Staff (Staff Decision, page 44), provided the following comments related to this criterion: "Staff finds this criterion is met where the described facilities provide for a safe and eff cient flow of vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic. In addition, such facilities must be "harmonious with proposed and neighboring buildings and structures ". Staff finds this means that such facilities must not significantly adversely impact on -site and/or neighboring proposed and existing buildings and structures. Neighboring buildings and structures include single-family dwellings and farm buildings on the subject property and neighboring properties. The subject property is bordered to the east by Lower Bridge Way and to the south by Holmes Road. Available records do not indicate there are any additional buildings and structures proposed on neighboring parcels. A two-way driveway off Holmes Road will provide for interior vehicle circulation. This driveway terminates in a circle, so vehicles do not have to back out onto Holmes Road or turn around on neighboring properties. The flow of traffic will provide convenient access to the guest ranch while minimizing impacts to nearby farming. This interior circulation will be harmonious with neighboring buildings and structures because visitors will park directly in front of their cabins and stay in one portion of the subject property. The applicant proposes to utilize an existing driveway access point for the guest ranch. The farm manager dwelling and farm buildings are accessed by a different driveway access point off of Holmes Road. Staff finds the separated driveway will provide separation 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 58 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 58 of 84 between existing farm uses and the proposed guest ranch. Therefore, staff finds the number and location of access points will be harmonious with existing development on the subject property. The applicant proposes a separate, paved path for pedestrians. This walkway will allow pedestrians to move between the cabins and the lodge building without crossing through the path of vehicle traffic. Staff f nds this separation between pedestrians and moving and parked vehicles will provide for an efficient flow of vehicles and pedestrians within the subject property. " The Hearings Officer finds Staff's above -quoted comments to be credible and persuasive. The Hearings Officer concurs with the above -quoted Staff analysis and incorporates it as the Hearings Officer's findings for this criterion. The Hearings Officer finds this criterion can be met. F. Surface drainage systems shall be designed to prevent adverse impacts on neighboring properties, streets, or surface and subsurface water quality. FINDINGS: The Applicant proposed to utilize a portion of an existing dwelling for lodge space and to construct ten 1,200-square-foot cabins. The Subject Property is 186.26 acres in size and predominantly consists of pasture, irrigated hay fields. Existing development on the Subject Property consists of two dwellings, several farm buildings, and associated driveways, but the vast majority of the property is undeveloped. The topography of the Subject Property has gentle slopes, but there are large flat areas where runoff will be contained. The agricultural fields also provide large areas where infiltration can occur. Due to the size and amount of undeveloped, pervious surface on the Subject Property, the Hearings Officer finds approval of the application in this case will not create adverse impacts on neighboring surface drainage or water quality. This Hearings Officer finds that this criterion will be met. 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. FINDINGS: Staff (Staff Decision, page 45), provided the following comments related to this criterion: "Staff finds the trash enclosure and parking areas are subject to this criterion. The trash enclosure has been designed to minimize adverse impacts on the site and neighboring properties by providing a wood fence for visual screening. The trash enclosure will have dimensions of eight feet by twelve feet, and stafffinds the relatively small size will also minimize any adverse impacts to the site and neighboring properties. The parking areas have been designed to minimize adverse impacts on the site and neighboring properties because they will consist of a gravel surface, which will generate minimal visual impacts. These facilities have been located to minimize adverse impacts on the site and neighboring properties by siting the trash enclosure adjacent to the service drive, across from the lodge building. No trees will need to be removed to place the trash enclosure in this location, which will preserve available screening. The trash is conveniently located next to the main lodge building in an area of existing development. The parking areas have been located next to each of the cabins, which will minimize noise and visual impacts generated as guests move from their vehicles to their cabin. 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 59 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 59 of 84 These facilities have been buffered or screened to minimize adverse impacts on the site and neighboring properties by preserving existing vegetation on the subject property. The application materials indicate trees and shrubs will be preserved to the extent possible, besides those required to remove to construct the cabins and service drive. Staff finds the scattered juniper trees in this portion of the subject property will provide screening, from neighboring properties and Lower Bridge Way. " The Hearings Officer finds Staff's above -quoted comments to be credible and persuasive. The Hearings Officer concurs with the above -quoted Staff analysis and incorporates it as the Hearings Officer's findings for this criterion. The Hearings Officer finds this criterion can be met. H. All above ground utility installations shall be located to minimize adverse visual impacts on the site and neighboring properties. FINDINGS: The Applicant has not proposed above ground utility installations as a part of this project. L Specific criteria are outlined for each zone and shall be a required part of the site plan (e.g. lot setbacks, etc.). FINDINGS: Specific criteria for each zone mapped on the Subject Property have been addressed above. J. All exterior lighting shall be shielded so that direct light does not project off site. FINDINGS: The Applicant has proposed exterior lighting as a part of this project. Staff (Staff Decision, page recommended a condition of approval requiring all exterior lighting shall be shielded so that direct light does not project off site. The Hearings Officer finds that with Staff's recommended condition (Staff Decision, page 45) this criterion can be met. K. Transportation access to the site shall be adequate for the use. L 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. FINDINGS: 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. Section 18.124.070. Required Minimum Standards. A. Private or shared outdoor recreation areas in residential developments. 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 60 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 60 of 84 1. Private Areas. Other than a development in the Sunriver UUC Town Center District, each ground level living unit in a residential development subject to site plan approval shall have an accessible outdoor private space of not less than 48 square feet in area. The area shall be enclosed, screened or otherwise designed to provide privacy for unit residents and their guests. FINDINGS: No residential development subject to site plan approval is proposed. - 2. Shared Areas. Usable outdoor recreation space shall be provided for the shared use of residents and their guests in any apartment residential development, as follows: a. Units with one or two bedrooms: 200 square feet per unit. b. Units with three or more bedrooms: 300 square feet per unit. FINDINGS: No apartment residential development is proposed. 3. Usable outdoor recreation space shall be provided in the Sunriver UUC Town Center District on a district -wide basis as follows: a. A minimum of one hundred square feet of outdoor recreation space per Multi family Dwelling unit or Townhome that is accessible to residents or guests staying in Multi family Dwelling or Townhome units. b. Outdoor recreation spaces ➢nay include bicycle paths, plazas, play areas, water features, ice rinks, pools and sim➢lar amenities that are located outdoors. C. Outdoor recreation space must include recreation for children who are district residents, such as a ➢naintained playground area with approved equipment such as swings or slides. FINDINGS: The proposal is not located in the Sunriver UUC Town Center District. 4. Storage. In residential developments, convenient areas shall be provided for the storage of articles such as bicycles, barbecues, luggage, outdoor furniture, etc. These areas shall be entirely enclosed. FINDINGS: No residential development is proposed. B. Required Landscaped Areas. 1. The following landscape requirements are established for multifamily, commercial and industrial developments, subject to site plan approval: a. A minimum of 15 percent of the lot area shall be landscaped. FINDINGS: As described below, the lot area subject to site plan review is 326,700 square feet. 15 percent of this area is 49,005 square feet. The submitted landscaping plan illustrates 15 percent of the lot area as landscaped. Staff (Staff Decision, page 47) noted this 15 percent landscaped area does not include landscaping required under (B)(2) to meet this area requirement. The Hearings Officer concurs. 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 61 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 61 of 84 b. All areas subject to the final site plan and not otherwise improved shall be landscaped. FINDINGS: The area subject to the final site plan is the southeast portion of the Subject Property, where the guest ranch will be located. This portion of the property is approximately 7.5 acres in size. The portions of the Subject Property in farm use are not subject to Site Plan Review. The submitted landscaping plan shows all areas subject to the final site plan and not otherwise improved as landscaped. The Hearings Officer notes such areas are "required landscaping" for the purposes of the DCC. 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: a. A parking or loading area shall be required to be improved with defined landscaped areas totaling no less than 25 square feet per parking space. FINDINGS: Staff (Staff Decision, page 47) included the following comments related to this criterion: "Staff finds that, unlike section (B)(1), this criterion requires "defined landscaping". Staff finds that "defined landscaping" does not have a definition in the code. Merriam— Webster 's dictionary definition of "defined" [footnote: https:llwww.merriam-webstercorn/dictionary/defined) is "to show the shape, outline, or edge of (something) very clearly ". Thus this criterion cannot be met by un- differentiated natural landscaping. 1n addition to the 15 percent standard of DCC 18.124.070(B)(1)(a), the submitted application materials include landscaping area(s) of 450 square feet as required.for the 11 proposed parking spaces. " The Hearings Officer finds Staff's above -quoted comments to be credible and persuasive. The Hearings Officer concurs with the above -quoted Staff analysis and incorporates it as the Hearings Officer's findings for this criterion. The Hearings Officer finds this criterion can be met. b. In addition to the landscaping required by DCC 18.124.0 70(B) (2) (a), a parking or loading area shall be separated from any lot line adjacent to a roadway by a landscaped strip at least 10 feet in width, and from any other lot line by a landscaped strip at least five feet in width. FINDINGS: The submitted application materials include landscaping strip(s) separating parking/loading area(s) from the common property line with Tax Lot 300. The landscaped strip(s) adjacent to the southeast property line will be at least 5 feet in width. The Hearings Officer finds this criterion will be met. C. A landscaped strip separating a parking or loading area from a street shall contain: 1) Trees spaced as appropriate to the species, not to exceed 35 feet apart on the average. 2) Low shrubs not to reach a height greater than three feet zero inches, spaced no more than eight feet apart on the average. 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 62 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 62 of 84 3) Vegetative ground cover. FINDINGS: The submitted application materials do not include a parking or loading area adjacent to a street. The Hearings Officer finds these criteria do not apply. d. Landscaping in a parking or loading area shall be located in defined landscaped areas which are uniformly distributed throughout the parking or loading area. FINDINGS: The submitted plan shows landscaping in a parking/loading area(s) in defined landscaped areas which are uniformly distributed throughout the parking/loading area(s). e. The landscaping in a parking area shall have a width of not less than five feet. FINDINGS: The landscaping in the parking area will have a width of not less than five feet. f. Provision shall be made for watering planting areas where such care is required. FINDINGS: Staff (Staff Decision, page 48) recommended a condition of approval requiring the provide for watering planting areas where such care is required. The Hearings Officer finds that with Staff's recommended condition this criterion can be met. g. Required landscaping shall be continuously maintained and kept alive and attractive. FINDINGS: Staff (Staff Decision, page 48) recommended a condition of approval requiring that landscaping must be continuously maintained and kept alive and attractive. The Hearings Officer finds that with Staff's recommended condition this criterion can be met. h. Maximum height of tree species shall be considered when planting under overhead utility lines. FINDINGS: No overhead utility lines exist on -site. 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. FINDINGS: To the extent bicycle parking is required under this approval, the number and type of bicycle parking facilities are described above, under findings for DCC 18.116.031 and 18.116.035. The location and design of bicycle parking facilities are indicated on the site plan submitted with this application. 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 63 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 63 of 84 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. FINDINGS: The Applicant proposed a commercial use consisting of a guest ranch. Staff (Staff Decision, page 29), concluded that paved walkways are required to connect building entrances. The Applicant proposed a paved walkway that will connect the entrances of the ten new cabins to the entrance of the lodge building. The Hearings Office finds this criterion will be met. 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. FINDINGS: Staff (Staff Decision, page 49) included the following comments related to this criterion: "In Shepherd ale nos. 247-17-000573-AD and 574-SP, 247-18-000179-A and 182-A) the Board of County Commissioners found, "Subsections (b) through (e) apply to any use subject to site plan review. " Specifically this means that uses not listed in section (2)(A) are also subject to these criteria. As shown on the site plan, the applicant proposes paved walkways connecting buildings and other walkways to each other. Staff notes there are no walkways, sidewalks, bikeway or other pedestrian or bicycle connections on adjacent properties planned or used for commercial, multi family, public or park use. " The Hearings Officer finds Staff's above -quoted comments to be credible and persuasive. The Hearings Officer concurs with the above -quoted Staff analysis and incorporates it as the Hearings Officer's findings for this criterion. The Hearings Officer finds this criterion can be met. 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. FINDINGS: The Applicant proposed five -foot -wide paved walkways throughout. The proposed walkway is not adjacent to parking spaces. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds concrete bumpers are not required. Per the site plan, the Hearings Officer finds the walkways provide a direct route to buildings . 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 64 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 64 of 84 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. FINDINGS: No driveway crossings by walkways are proposed. 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. FINDINGS: Compliance with ADA standards for walkways will be addressed during building permit review. Staff (Staff Decision, page 50), recommended a condition of approval to ensure compliance. The Hearings Officer finds that with Staff's recommended condition this criterion can be met. D. Commercial Development Standards: 1. New commercial buildings shall be sited at the front yard setback line for lots with one frontage, and at both front yard setback lines for corner lots, and oriented to at least one of these streets, except in the Sunriver UUC Business Park (BP) District and Town Center (TC) District and properties fronting Spring River Road in the Spring River Rural Commercial Zone. The buildings) and any eaves, overhangs or awnings shall not interfere with the required clear vision area at corners or driveways. FINDINGS: The Applicant proposed ten cabins, which are new commercial buildings. As described below, the property qualified for an increased front yard setback pursuant to DCC 18.124.070(3)(a). 2. To meet the standard in paragraph (1) of this subsection, buildings developed as part of a shopping complex, as defined by this title, and planned for the interior, rear or non -street side of the complex may be located and oriented toward private interior streets within the development if consistent with all other standards of paragraph (1) above and this paragraph. Interior streets used to satisfy this standard may have on -street parking and shall have sidewalks along the street in front of the building. Stich sidewalks shall connect to existing or future sidewalks on public streets accessing the site. The master plan for the shopping complex shall demonstrate that at least one half of the exterior perimeter of the site that abuts each public street, will be developed with buildings meeting the standards of paragraphs (D)(1) or (D)(3) of this subsection. FINDINGS: No shopping complex is proposed. 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 65 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 65 of 84 3. An increase in the front yard setback may be allowed where the applicant can demonstrate that one or more of the following factors makes it desirable to site the new building beyond the minimum street setback: a. Existing development on the site; b. Lot configuration; C. Topography of the lot, d. Significant trees or other vegetative features that could be retained by allowing a greater setback; e. Location of driveway access. Such an increase in the front yard shall be the minimum necessary to accommodate the reason for the increase. f. Architectural features, driveways, landscaping areas equal to or greater than the depth of the structure, and outdoor commercial areas, when at least one half of the structure meets the minimum street setback. FINDINGS: The Applicant proposed to utilize an existing nonfarm dwelling for the lodge of the guest ranch. This existing building is set back approximately 300 feet from the front property line along Holmes Road. The Applicant proposed to cluster the new cabins near this existing building to take advantage of an existing driveway. The Hearings Officer finds the Subject Property qualifies for an increased front yard setback based on existing development on the Subject Property. 4. Off street motor vehicle parking for new commercial developments in excess of 10,000 square feet shall be located at the side or behind the building(s), except in the Sunriver UUC Business Park (BP) District and Town Center (TC) District. Off-street parking proposed with a shopping complex, as defined by this title, and intended to serve buildings located in the interior or rear of the complex may have parking in front of the building provided the overall master plan for the site satisfies paragraph (2) of this subsection. FINDINGS: No off street motor vehicle parking for new commercial developments in excess of 10,000 square feet is proposed. 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. E 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. 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 66 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 66 of 84 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 fare 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. FINDINGS: 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, the Hearings Officer finds such conditions are authorized by this section. Chapter 18.128, Conditional Use 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. FINDINGS: 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. No prior use now classified as a conditional use is being modified by this proposal. 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: FINDINGS: The use subject to conditional use review is subject to this 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; FINDINGS: Staff (Staff Decision, pages 53 & 54) provided the comments related to this criterion. This criterion was not the subject of the COLW appeal. The Hearings Officer finds the Staff comments below are credible represent substantial evidence and persuasive argument. Staff stated the following: 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 67 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 67 of 84 "Site The site is 186.26 acres in .size and contains an active cattle ranch. The subject property has 133.5 acres of irrigated land, which are located to the north and west of'the proposed guest ranch. Due to the size and existing development of the subject property, there is room to accommodate the guest ranch without impacting the irrigated portion of the property. The property is developed with two dwellings and a number of farm buildings. The four largest farm buildings are all clustered with the farm manager residence and these structures are located approximately 780 feet west of the nonfarm dwelling. The farm manager residence and agricultural buildings are accessed by a separate driveway off of Holmes Road. The access point for this driveway is located 450 feet west of the driveway access point that serves the nonfarm dwelling, which will provide separation between the guest ranch and the farm operations on the property. The site is suitable for the use because there is an existing nonfarm dwelling that can be partially converted into lodge space, which will minimize the amount of construction required. Staff finds there is nothing about the site which would preclude locating the project in this area. For this reason, staff finds the site is suitable. Design The design of the use takes advantage of existing transportation access, while providing an appropriate buffer between the guest ranch and the farm use of the property. An existing nonfarm dwelling will operate as a lodge building and contain shared space for guests to use. This building will continue to also contain the nonfarm dwelling and staff finds consolidating the two uses into one existing building will minimize disturbance to the rest of the property. The design provides maximum separation between the guest ranch and the working cattle farm, which will minimize impacts on continuing farm operations. The existing nonfarm dwelling is located approximately 780 feet from the closest agricultural building, and is separated by an irrigation pond and internal driveway. The guest ranch will be accessed by an existing gravel driveway that currently serves the nonfarm dwelling. The applicant proposes to extend this driveway to the northeast to provide direct access to each of the new cabins. This driveway will also be widened to 24 feet to accommodate two-way traffic. A paved pedestrian path will be constructed to the north of the service drive. This path will run parallel to the driveway and will connect the cabins with each other and to the lodge building. The design will provide for safe vehicle and pedestrian access to the guest ranch, while keeping guest traffic separated from farm operations. For these reasons, staff finds the design of the proposal is suitable to the site. Operating Characteristics The guest ranch will provide lodging in ten cabins and a portion of the nonfarm dwelling will be converted into common space for guests of the cabins. The guest ranch will take advantage of an existing driveway and a parking space will be provided in close proximity to each cabin. A maximum of ten rooms will be provided for guest lodging, which will effectively limit the amount of visitors to the site. Each of the proposed cabins will be 1,200 square feet in size. In addition, no developed outdoor areas are proposed. Guests will utilize outdoor space for passive recreation, which will generate minimal impacts on neighboring properties and the remainder of the site. 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 68 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 68 of 84 The applicant does not propose food service or special events, therefore visitors to the property will likely be limited to cabin guests. In addition, the application materials do not indicate that any paid recreation activities or other paid services will be offered to guests. The applicant proposes to use a portion of the nonfarm dwelling as lodge space. A floor plan dated May 1, 2023, identified the area within the dwelling that will be designated as a lodge and accessible to guests. Two covered patios, a dining area, and the great room will be used as common space for guest ranch clients, and the majority of the building will remain a private residence. The limited size of the common indoor area dedicated to the guest ranch means its use will likely generate minimal impacts on the rest of the subject property. As noted above, the applicant does not propose to rent space for private events within the shared lodge and does not propose to host events for members of the public not staying at the on -site cabins. The site is suitable for the use because of its size, existing development, transportation access, and proposed buffering between the guest ranch and farm operations. " The Hearings Officer adopts the above -quoted Staff comments as the findings for this criterion. The Hearings Officer finds that site is suitable for the proposed use. 2. Adequacy of transportation access to the site; and FINDINGS: Transportation access is provided to the Subject Property by Holmes Road, which is classified as a County -maintained Rural Collector. Comments from the Deschutes County Road Department and Deschutes County Transportation Planner did not identify any transportation infrastructure deficiencies. Comments from other agencies and the general public did not identify any transportation infrastructure deficiencies. The Hearings Officer finds, as conditioned, the site and Subject Property is suitable for the proposed use based on adequacy of transportation access to the Subject Property. 3. The natural and physical features of the site, including, but not limited to, general topography, natural hazards and natural resource values. FINDINGS: The Subject Property has a gentle slope in grade and presents no topographical constraints on the proposed use. 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. The Subject Property contains wetlands mapped on statewide and national inventories, and these mapped wetlands appear to overlap with irrigation ditches and an irrigation pond. The mapped wetland closest to the proposed guest ranch is an irrigation pond located approximately 400 feet west of the nonfarm dwelling. This pond is adjacent to existing development, including the farm manager residence and an agricultural building. Due to existing surrounding development and the intervening distance between this pond and the new cabins, the proposed guest ranch will likely have minimal impacts on this mapped wetland. 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 69 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 69 of 84 As described above, the Subject Property is in active farm use and therefore contains natural resource values consisting of agricultural soils. The Subject Property contains 133.5 acres of irrigated land, which is used for cattle grazing and hay production. The guest ranch buildings, service drives, and parking areas will all be located outside of the irrigated portion of the Subject Property. No land will be removed from agricultural use in order to construct the guest ranch, which demonstrates that an effort has been made to preserve agricultural soils. The guest ranch approval is contingent on there being a continued livestock operation on the Subject Property, therefore, the Hearings Officer finds it unlikely the guest ranch will be developed in a way that negatively impacts agricultural soils on -site. Comments from agencies and the general public did not identify any site unsuitability due to general topography, natural hazards, or natural resource values. The Hearings Officer finds criterion is met. 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). FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer incorporates the Preliminary Findings for section II.A.7 (Farm Impacts Test) as additional findings for this criterion. Further, the Hearings Officer finds that the following Staff comments (Staff Decision, page 55) are credible and based upon substantial evidence in the record. "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. Surrounding properties are all zoned EFU and neighboring properties range in size from 6.5 to 834 acres. The surrounding area includes a mix of medium -to -large scale farms with large, irrigated.fields. The general surrounding area includes nonfarm dwellings, farm dwellings, and EFU dwellings that predate County zoning. The surrounding area includes several commercial activities operating alongside farm uses, such as Long Hollow Guest Ranch and Rainshadow Organics, which hosts farm -to -table dinners. The neighboring property to the southwest does not appear to be in farm use and is developed with a church and wedding venue. The adjacent property to the southeast is under common ownership and is currently undeveloped with native vegetation. After the proposed property line adjustment, Tax Lot 300 will be five acres in size. 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 farm use, residential and agricultural accessory structures, and replacement dwellings. Stafffinds existing uses are a reasonable representation of uses allowed in the underlying zones of surrounding properties. For this reason, stafffinds projected uses are likely to be similar to existing uses. " Based upon the incorporated findings and the above -quoted Staff comments the Hearings Officer finds this criterion is met. (A)(1). Site, design and operating characteristics of the use; The Hearings Officer incorporates the Preliminary Findings for section II.A.7 (Farm Impacts Test) as additional findings for this criterion. Further, the Hearings Officer finds that the following Staff comments (Staff Decision, page 56) are credible and based upon substantial evidence in the record. 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 70 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 70 of 84 "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. Adverse impacts generated by the guest ranch will include, noise, traffic, and visual impacts. The ten new cabins will require construction and will generate visual impacts because buildings will be placed in an area that is currently undeveloped with scattered vegetation. Traffic is likely to be the primary impact generated by the guest ranch. Additionally, vehicles will create noise and dust as they utilize the gravel driveway to enter and exit the subject property. Each of the ten cabins will contain one bedroom and a second floor loft. The application materials indicate anywhere from one to four occupants can be expected within each cabin and stafffrnds this a reasonable estimate based on the proposed floor plan. Due to the lack of sidewalks and rural character of the surrounding area, guests will likely use vehicles to visit nearby attractions during their stay at the guest ranch. However, staff notes there are several approved commercial uses in the surrounding area, such as a farm stand and a wedding venue. These existing uses likely generate more vehicle traffic than the guest ranch will generate. Staff also notes the applicant does not propose special events as part of the subject guest ranch application. The noise generated by weddings and events on surrounding properties will therefore likely be greater than noise generated by cabin guests. The proposed guest ranch will be located closest to the neighboring property to the southeast, which is identified as Tax Lot 300. This property is currently undeveloped, but fitture uses may include far;n use or a dwelling pursuant to BCC 18.16.050. Because of the relatively close proximity, this neighboring property is most likely to be negatively impacted by noise, traffic, and visual impacts generated by the guest ranch. The applicant proposes to retain existing vegetation, including a number of juniper trees, between the guest ranch and this property. The proposed cabins are also oriented so that outdoor recreation will likely occur to the northwest of the cabins, in the opposite direction of this neighboring property. The guest ranch will operate on a property with an active farm use, consisting of a cattle ranch. Staff finds the coexistence of the guest ranch and cattle operation on the subject property indicates the guest ranch will not prevent neighboring faun uses. The livestock operation on the subject property utilizes heavy equipment, and cattle generate dust and odor Therefore, impacts generated by vehicle traffic to the guest ranch will be largely indistinguishable, from impacts generated by the farm use of the property. " Based upon the incorporated findings and the above -quoted Staff comments the Hearings Officer finds this criterion is met. (A)(2). Adequacy of transportation access to the site; and The Hearings Officer incorporates the Preliminary Findings for section II.A.7 (Farm Impacts Test) as additional findings for this criterion. Further, the Hearings Officer finds that the following Staff comments (Staff Decision, pages 56 & 57) are credible and based upon substantial evidence in the record. 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 71 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 71 of 84 "Staff finds the proposed use would be unsuitable if access to the site would significantly adversely impact existing and projected uses on surrounding properties. Comments from the County Transportation Planner did not identify any concerns regarding the capacity of the surrounding roadway system. Comments submitted by the County Transportation Planner indicate the guest ranch is anticipated to generate less than 50 new weekday vehicle trips. The subject property has fontage on two roads, Holmes Road and NW Lower Bridge Road. Holmes Road is classified as a Rural Collector and NW Lower Bridge Way is classified as a Local Access road. The applicant proposes to utilize an existing driveway, which currently serves the nonfarm dwelling. The neighboring property to the south operates a farm stand and farm -to -table dinners, and the driveway access point to this property is located approximately 420 feet from the driveway access point.for the guest ranch. Despite the relative proximity and the additional traffic the guest ranch will generate, staff does not anticipate it will negatively impact vehicle access to this neighboring property. " Based upon the incorporated findings and the Staff comments quoted above the Hearings Officer finds this criterion is met. (A)(3). The natural and physical features of the site, including, but not limited to, general topography, natural hazards and natural resource values. The Hearings Officer incorporates the Preliminary Findings for section II.A.7 (Farm Impacts Test) as additional findings for this criterion. Further, the Hearings Officer finds that the following Staff comments (Staff Decision, pages 57 & 58) are credible and based upon substantial evidence in the record. "Stafffinds 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 risk. The applicant proposes to construct ten new cabins, which will draw visitors to the property and may increase wildfire risk. However, the subject property has_frontage on Holmes Road, which is a County -maintained Rural Collector and provides access for fare trucks, if needed. The subject property also contains an irrigation pond and 133.5 acres of irrigated land, which may slow the speed that a wildfire would spread to neighboring properties. Due to the limited impacts of the guest ranch on fare risk, as well as the available transportation access and water sources, staff finds the guest ranch will not significantly contribute to the wildfire risk of surrounding properties. Natural resource values on surrounding properties include wildlife habitat, mapped wetlands, and agricultural soils. Due to the amount offarming in the surrounding area, stafffinds natural resource values consisting of agricultural soils are of particular concern. The proposed guest ranch will not prevent farming on neighboring properties. There is an established pattern of farm use in the general area, which includes pasture, hayfields, and various other crops. These farm uses have continued despite the approval of nearby dwellings and commercial uses, which indicate they can continue to operate once the guest ranch is established. Mapped wetlands on surrounding properties appear to be collocated with irrigation facilities, such as ditches, canals, and ponds. In some instances, it appears the irrigation channels mapped as wetlands have since been piped, because they are no longer visible in aerial images. Staff notes there do not appear to be any naturally -occurring streams or rivers in the general surrounding area. 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 72 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 72 of 84 The surrounding area is defined by a rural character and developed at relatively low density. A significant amount of land area is devoted to farm use, and but a large amount of area also remains undeveloped with native vegetation. The extensive amount of undeveloped land provides habitat for wildlife and is therefore considered a natural resource value. The guests and vehicles on the subject property may generate noise and scare off wildlife, but this will likely only impact wildlife habitat immediately adjacent to the guest ranch. Based on the amount of existing farm use and commercial uses on neighboring properties, the noise generated by the guest ranch will be consistent with existing surrounding uses. There are two federally -owned properties nearby which are undeveloped and provide wildlife habitat. One is located approximately 0.6 miles east of the guest ranch and is over 800 acres in size, and the other is located approximately 0.65 miles to the southwest of the guest ranch and is over 4, 000 acres in size. Due to the size of these properties, the intervening distance, and the intervening development, staff finds the proposed guest ranch is not likely to impact wildlife habitat on this nearby public land. " Based upon the incorporated findings and the above -quoted Staff comments the Hearings Officer finds this criterion is met. 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. FINDINGS: To the extent this decision is conditioned under DCC 18.128 criterion, the Hearings Officer finds that such conditions are authorized by this criterion. 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. 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 73 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 73 of 84 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. FINDINGS: 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, the Hearings Officer finds such conditions are authorized by this section. 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. FINDINGS: 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. Section 18.128.360, Guest Ranch. A guest ranch established under DCC 18.16.037 shall meet the following conditions: A. Except as provided in DCC 18.128.360(C), the guest lodging units cumulatively shall: 1. Include not less than four nor more than 10 overnight guest lodging units, and, FINDINGS: The Hearings Office incorporates the Preliminary findings for sections ILA.6 (Definition of Guest Lodge Unit) and II.A.12 (Number of Guest Lodging Units) as additional findings for this criterion. The Applicant proposed ten overnight guest lodging units, consisting of one -bedroom cabins. Based upon the incorporated findings the Hearings Officer finds the number of guest lodging units will be more than four and not more than ten. Therefore, this criterion will be met. 2. Not exceed a total of 12, 000 square feet in floor area, not counting the floor area of the lodge that is dedicated to kitchen area, rest rooms, storage or other shared or common indoor space. FINDINGS: The Hearings Office incorporates the Preliminary findings for sections II.A.6 (Definition of Guest Lodge Unit) and II.A.12 (Number of Guest Lodging Units) as additional findings for this criterion. Each of the ten proposed cabins will have 1,200 square feet of floor area, which is a total of 12,000 square feet in floor area dedicated to the guest cabins. Space within an existing nonfarm dwelling will be converted into a lodge for the guest ranch. The application materials indicate this structure will continue tocontainno more than one kitchen, and will function as both a lodge and_a nonfarm dwelling. Space within the lodge may be dedicated to kitchen area, rest rooms, storage or other shared or common indoor space. Staff (Staff Decision, page 59) noted that the guest ranch would exceed the allowed 12,000 square feet of floor area if space in the lodge is used for private guest rooms. Therefore, Staff recommended the following condition: No space within the lodge building shall be rented out to visitors for overnight occupancy as part of the guest ranch. This does not preclude employees of the guest ranch from residing in the 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 74 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 74 of 84 nonfarm dwelling within the same structure. As noted above, the Applicant proposed ten cabins with a total floor area of 12,000 square feet. Utilizing the nonfarm dwelling as overnight accommodations would exceed the permitted number of guest lodging units, and permitted floor area of guest lodging units. The Applicant has not proposed to rent space within this nonfarm dwelling in conjunction with the guest ranch. Therefore, after the conversion of a portion of this building to lodge space, the remainder of the building must continue to operate as a private, nonfarm dwelling. Pursuant to a recent Court of Appeals decision (1000 Friends of Oregon v. Clackamas County), it does not appear that using an existing dwelling as a short term rental is a use that is permitted outright in resource zones. Staff (Staff Decision, page 59) recommended adding the following condition: The nonfarm dwelling shall not be used as a short term rental or vacation rental without first obtaining any required land use permits. The Hearings Officer, based upon the incorporated findings set forth above and inclusion of Staff's recommended condition, this criterion can be met. B. The guest ranch shall be located on a lawfully established unit of land that: 1. Is at least 160 acres in size; FINDINGS: The Applicant proposed two property line adjustments as part of the application in this case. After these adjustments, the Subject Property where the guest ranch is located will be 186.26 acres in size. 2. Contains the dwelling of the person conducting the livestock operation; and FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer incorporates the Preliminary findings for section ILAA (Person Conducting Farm Operation) as additional findings for this criterion. The submitted site plan indicates the existing dwelling for the farm/ranch manager is located to the southwest of the proposed guest ranch. The application materials indicate this existing 1,440-square-foot dwelling will continue to be occupied by the farm/ranch manager. Staff (Staff Decision, page 60) recommended the following condition: Approval of the guest ranch is contingent on the subject property continuing to contain the dwelling of the person conducting the livestock operation. The Hearings Officer, based upon the incorporated findings, the findings set forth above and Staff's recommended condition, this criterion can be met. 3. Is not classified as high value farmland as defined in DCC 18.04.030. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer incorporates the Preliminary Findings sections II.A.8 (Tract) and ILA.9 (High Value Farmland) as additional findings for this criterion. The Hearings Officer also finds credible and based upon substantial evidence the Staff findings (Staff Decision, pages 60-61) and incorporates those findings as additional Hearings Officer findings for this criterion. The Hearings Officer finds, based upon the incorporated findings, that the Subject Property is not high -value farmland 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 75 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 75 of 84 as defined in DCC 18.04.030. C. For every increment of 160 acres that the lawfully established unit of land on which the guest ranch is located exceeds the minimum 160-acre requirement described under DCC 18.128.360(B), up to five additional overnight guest lodging units not exceeding a total of 6,000 square feet of floor area may be included in the guest ranch for a total of not more than 25 guest lodging units and 30,000 square feet of floor area. FINDINGS: The Applicant has not requested additional lodging units based on the size of the Subject Property. The Hearings Officer finds this criterion does not apply. D. A guest ranch may provide recreational activities in conjunction with the livestock operation's natural setting, including but not limited to hunting, fishing, hiking, biking, horseback riding and swimming. Intensively developed recreational facilities including golf courses or campgrounds identified in DCC 18.16.030 through 18.16.033, shall not be allowed in conjunction with a guest ranch, and a guest ranch shall not be allowed in conjunction with an existing golf course or with an existing campground. FINDINGS: The Applicant proposed low -intensity outdoor recreation, such as yard games. The submitted site plan does not indicate any formal recreation areas will be developed in conjunction with the guest ranch. The application materials also do not indicate that any fee -based recreation will be offered to guests. No intensively developed -recreational facilities, such as golf courses or campgrounds, are proposed. The Hearings Officer finds this criterion will be islet. E. Food services shall be incidental to the operation of the guest ranch and shall be provided only for the guests of the guest ranch, individuals accompanying the guests, and individuals attending a special event at the guest ranch. 1. The cost of meals, if any, may be included in the fee to visit or stay at the guest ranch. 2. The sale of individual meals to persons who are not guests of the guest ranch, an individual accompanying a guest, or an individual attending a special event at the guest ranch shall not be allowed. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer incorporates the Preliminary Findings for section (Food Service) as additional findings for these criteria. In a letter dated March 28, 2023, the Applicant stated: "Food service is not proposed with this application /project. " Based upon the incorporated findings and because no food service is proposed as part of the guest ranch, the Hearings Officer finds that the criteria regarding cost and operating characteristics of food service do not apply. F. The exterior of the buildings shall maintain a residential appearance. FINDINGS: The submitted application materials include drawings of the proposed cabins. These 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 76 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 76 of 84 drawings indicate the buildings have the appearance of a small single-family dwelling with attached porch. There is nothing about the building design that gives the appearance of a commercial use or guest lodging unit. The Hearings Officer finds the proposed buildings will maintain a residential appearance and this criterion will be met. G. To promote privacy and preserve the integrity of the natural setting, guest ranches shall retain existing vegetation around the guest lodging structure. FINDINGS: The application materials indicate vegetation will be retained around the guest ranch. The southeast portion of the Subject Property contains dispersed juniper trees and ground vegetation. The project will require the removal some trees to construct the new cabins, parking spaces, and service drive. However, trees that are not required to be removed for construction will be preserved. To ensure compliance, Staff (Staff Decision, page 62) recommended the following condition of approval: Existing vegetation around the guest lodging structures shall be retained. The Hearings Officer finds with Staff's recommended condition of approval this criterion can be met. H. All lighting shall be shielded and directed downward in accordance with DCC I5.10, Outdoor Lighting Control FINDINGS: Staff recommended that this criterion be added as a condition of approval. The Hearings Officer concurs and finds that with such condition this criterion can be met. L Signage shall be restricted to one sign no greater than 20 square feet, nonilluminated and posted at the entrance to the property. FINDINGS: The application materials do not indicate whether any signage is proposed for the guest ranch. Instead, the Applicant requested a condition of approval be added to ensure future compliance with this criterion if a sign is added. Due to the limited impacts of adding a sign, as described above, the Hearings Officer finds a modification of approval is not required if the Applicant chooses to add a sign to the property in the future. Staff (Staff Decision, page 62) recommended the following condition of approval to ensure any future signage complies with this criterion: If signage is added to the guest ranch in the future, it shall be limited to one sign no greater than 20 square feet, nonilluminated and posted at the entrance to the property. The Hearings Officer finds with Staff's recommended condition of approval this criterion can be met. J. Occupancies shall be limited to not more than 30 days. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer incorporates the Preliminary Findings for section II.A.2 (Shor-term Rental Use Alleged Violation) as additional findings for this criterion. Staff recommended that this criterion be added as a condition of approval. The Hearings Officer concurs and finds that with such condition this criterion can be met. 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 77 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 77 of 84 K. The guest ranch shall be operated in a way that will protect neighbors from unreasonable disturbance from noise, dust, traffic or trespass. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer incorporates the Preliminary Findings for section II.A.7 (Farm Impact Test) as additional findings for this criterion. The submitted Burden of Proof included the following response to this criterion: "Given the distance of the use from property boundaries and neighbors, it is highly unlikely that the ranch will create an unreasonable disturbance from noise, dust, traffic or trespass. " The Hearings Officer agrees with that the proposed guest ranch facilities will be located a significant distance from neighboring properties. The Hearings Officer finds that the guest ranch will be served by internal pedestrian pathways and service drives, which will encourage guests to stay within the portion of the property designated as the guest ranch. A buffer of undeveloped land and vegetation will separate the guest ranch from the closest neighboring property, which is located to the southeast. The site plan is also designed so that cabins and pedestrian paths are all located to the northwest of the service drive, which will likely keep any outdoor activities on that side of the service drive. This design orients outdoor activities and pedestrian paths away from the neighboring, privately -owned property to the southeast. For these reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the guest ranch will be operated in a way that will protect neighbors from unreasonable disturbance from noise, dust, traffic or trespass. L. One off-street parking space shall be provided for each guestroom in addition to parking to serve the residents. FINDINGS: The submitted site plan indicates one parking space will be provided for each of the one - bedroom cabins. One ADA-accessible parking space will also be provided at the lodge building, which contains shared indoor space for the guest ranch. The lodge building also contains a nonfarm dwelling, which has its own garage and separate vehicle parking. The Hearings Officer finds one off-street parking space is provided for each guestroom, in addition to parking associated with the two dwellings on the Subject Property. This criterion will be met. M. Any conversion or alterations to properties designated as historic landmarks shall be approved by the Deschutes County Historical Landmarks Commission. FINDINGS: The Subject Property is not designated as a historic landmark. The Hearings Officer finds this criterion does not apply. A. A guest ranch that is authorized under this section shall submit an annual report, that shall be made available to the public upon request, to the Community Development Department by the real property owner or licensee, if different, each February 1 documenting the following: 1. The size of the guest ranch's livestock operation; 2. The income that the guest ranch obtained from: a. Livestock operations; and b. Guest ranch activities; and 3. Other information to ensure ongoing compliance with this section or any condition of approval. 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 78 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 78 of 84 FINDINGS: Staff (Staff Decision, pages 63 & 64) provided the following comments: "Staff adds this as a condition of approval. Because no food service, special events or fee -based services are proposed, staff finds the income generated by the guest ranch activities will consist entirely of income generated by cabin rentals. Therefore, staff does not require the annual report to include any additional information in order to ensure ongoing compliance with this section or any condition of approval. Staff adds the following condition of approval regarding annual reporting. - The owner shall submit an annual report to the Community Development Department by February Ft of each year: The annual report shall document the size of the guest ranch's livestock operation, the income that the guest ranch obtained from livestock operations, and the income that the guest ranch obtained from guest ranch activities. " The Hearings Officer finds the above -quoted Staff comments to be credible and based upon substantial evidence. The Hearings Officer, based upon the Staff comments finds this criterion can be met. SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE The Hearings Officer finds Staff's comments related to the County System Development Charge (Staff Decision, page 64) are relevant. IV. CONCLUSIONS Staff approved, with conditions, Applicant's proposed guest ranch proposal located on the Subject Property. COLW appealed the Staff approval on numerous grounds. The Hearings Officer addressed directly each of COLW's appeal issues in the Preliminary Findings and in findings for relevant approval criteria. The Hearings Officer denied COLW's appeal claims. The Hearings Officer found that all relevant approval criteria had or could be satisfied by Applicant's guest ranch proposal. Specifically, the Hearings Officer concluded the following: Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review Based on the foregoing findings, the Hearings Officer concludes that the proposed use can comply with the applicable standards and criteria of the Deschutes County zoning ordinance if conditions of approval are met. The Hearings Officer found that COLW's appeal issues were not supported -by=substantial evidence and/or persuasive legal argument. The Hearings Officer notes that other permits may be required. The applicants are responsible for obtaining any necessary permits from the Deschutes County Building Division and Deschutes County Environmental Soils Division as well as any required state and federal permits. Property Line Adjustments 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 79 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 79 of 84 The proposed adjustment(s) in size are within the allowable limits for the respective zoning districts. This application meets the requirements as established and has been tentatively approved by the Deschutes County Planning Division. This tentative approval only confirms that the proposed adjustment meets the current zoning criteria necessary for property line adjustments. All restrictions for these zones still apply to the subject properties. Pursuant to Bowerman v Lane County, 287 Or App 383, 403 P3d 512, the Court of Appeals ("Court") ruled a local government has, "...the discretion to approve a series of requested property line adjustments, including to property lines not yet reflected in recorded deeds, contingent upon an applicant recording each approved adjustment in proper sequence." The Court goes on to state, "A county's approval of sequential property line adjustments could accommodate the deed information requirements by conditioning approval on the requirement that each deed comply with ORS 92.190(4)." For these reasons, the Hearings Officer includes conditions of approval G. (3-4) to ensure compliance with Bowerman. A property line adjustment may have an effect on any completed septic site evaluations for the properties involved. Applicant, or any successor applicant, may wish to check with the Environmental Soils Division regarding this matter. A property line adjustment may also affect any water rights appurtenant to your property. If there is an affected water right, the Applicant, or successor applicant, should contact the relevant irrigation district before the property line adjustment is surveyed. V. DECISION APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions of approval. 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 Environmental Soils -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. 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 80 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 80 of 84 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. In order to obtain final approval of property line adjustment 247-22-000885-LL: 1. A new deed, reflecting the consolidated property, shall be recorded with the Deschutes County Clerk, and a copy of the recorded deed shall be submitted to the Planning Division. The consolidation deed shall contain the names of the parties, the description of the eliminated line, references to original recorded documents and signatures of all parties with proper acknowledgment. G. In order to obtain final approval of the property line adjustment 247-22-000886-LL: Except as provided in ORS 92.060(7-9), the adjusted property lines shall be surveyed and monumented by a registered professional land surveyor and a survey complying with ORS 209.250, shall be filed with the County Surveyor. A copy of the filed survey shall be submitted to the Planning Division. Property line adjustments of properties each over 10 acres in size are not required to file a survey according to ORS 92.060(8). 2. New deeds, reflecting the new adjusted properties, shall be recorded with the Deschutes County Clerk, and a copy of the recorded deeds shall be submitted to the Planning Division. The adjustment deed shall contain the names of the parties, the description of the adjusted line, references to original recorded documents and signatures of all parties with proper acknowledgment. Each deed for each requested adjustment shall be recorded in the order detailed in this decision. 4. Each deed shall comply with ORS 92.190(4). H. No land division shall separate the guest ranch from the dwelling of the person conducting the livestock operation. All new fences within the portion of the Subject Property within the Wildlife Area Combining Zone shall comply with DCC 18.88.070. J. The service drive clear vision area shall be maintained in accordance with DCC 18.116.020(A). K. All lighting shall be shielded and directed downward in accordance with DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control. L. The subsequent use of the property for which the permit is issued shall be conditional upon the unqualified continuance and availability of the amount of parking and loading space required by DCC Title 18. 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 81 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 81 of 84 M. Off-street parking areas used to fulfill the requirements of DCC Title 18 shall not be used for loading and unloading operations except during periods of the day when not required to take care of parking needs. N. Required parking facilities shall be provided prior to or concurrently with construction and/or initiation of the proposed use. O. 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. P. All vehicle standing and maneuvering areas for the guest ranch will be a gravel surface that is adequately maintained for all weather use and maintained in a manner that will not create dust problems for neighboring properties Q. Prior to issuance of building or septic permits for the guest ranch, the owner shall submit a revised site plan showing markers or barriers spaced no more than 100 feet apart along the service drive. R. Prior to the issuance of building or septic permits for the guest ranch, the owner shall submit a revised site plan showing that bicycle parking complies with the following: 1. Each bicycle parking space shall be at least two by six feet with a vertical clearance of seven feet. 2. An access aisle of at least five feet wide shall be provided and maintained beside or between each row of bicycle parking. S. The bicycle parking surface shall be maintained in a smooth, durable, and well -drained condition. T. 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. U. All exterior lighting shall be shielded so that direct light does not project off site. V. The Applicant shall provide for watering planting areas where such care is required. W. = Required landscaping shall be continuously maintained and kept alive and attractive. X. The nonfarm dwelling shall not be used as a short term rental or vacation rental without first obtaining any required land use permits. Y. No space within the lodge building shall be rented out to visitors for overnight occupancy as part of the guest ranch. This does not preclude employees of the guest ranch from residing in the nonfarm dwelling within the same structure. 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 82 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 82 of 84 Z. Existing vegetation around the guest lodging structures shall be retained. AA. The owner shall submit an annual report to the Community Development Department by February 1 st of each year. The annual report shall document the size of the guest ranch's livestock operation, the income that the guest ranch obtained from livestock operations, and the income that the guest ranch obtained from guest ranch activities. BB. Occupancies of the guest ranch cabins shall be limited to not more than 30 days. CC. Prior to the issuance of building or septic permits for the guest ranch, the owner shall submit a revised site plan showing the location of signage for the bicycle parking. DD. If signage is added to the guest ranch in the future, it shall be limited to one sign no greater than 20 square feet, nonilluminated and posted at the entrance to the property. EE. Prior to issuance of building or septic permits for the guest ranch cabins, the owner shall submit documentation that they have applied for a structural permit to convert a portion of the nonfarm dwelling to lodge space, and that an approved AMM form (Request for Alternate Design, Materials and Methods of Construction) has been reviewed by Deschutes County Building Division. FF. Approval of the guest ranch is contingent on the Subject Property continuing to contain the dwelling of the person conducting the livestock operation. GG. Areas in ranch cabins that are not guest rooms shall not be used for sleeping by guests. No more than a total of 10 rooms in cabins may be used as guest rooms. 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 of $250.00 and a statement raising any issue relied upon for appeal with sufficient specificity to afford the Hearings Body anadequateopportunity 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. 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 83 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 83 of 84 Deschutes County Hearings Officer Gregory J. Frank Date: 247-22-000883-CU, 884-SP, 885-LL, 886-LL Page 84 of 84 Exhhibit 1, Page 84 of 84 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH UTCR 5.100(1) AND 5.100(2) I hereby certify that I complied with UTCR 5.100(1) with respect to the (Proposed) General Judgment to which this certificate is attached by doing the following: On October 17, 2023, I served opposing counsel with the (Proposed) General Judgment to which this certificate is attached. Opposing counsel consented to the form of Judgment. This proposed order or judgment is ready for judicial signature because: 1. ® Each opposing party affected by this order or judgment has stipulated to the order or judgment as shown by each opposing party's signature on the document being submitted. 2. ❑ Each opposing party affected by this order or judgment has approved the order or judgment as shown by signature on the document being submitted or by written confirmation of approval sent to me. 3. ❑ I have served a copy of this order or judgment on all parties entitled to service and: a. ❑ No objection has been served on me. b. ❑ I received objections that I could not resolve with the opposing party despite reasonable efforts to do so. I have filed a copy of the objections I received and indicated which objections remain unresolved c. ❑ After conferring about objections, , attorney for the plaintiff, agreed to independently file any remaining objection. 4. ❑ The relief sought is against an opposing party who has been found in default. 5. ❑ An order of default is being requested with this proposed judgment. 6. ❑ Service is not required pursuant to subsection (3) of this rule, or by statute, rule or otherwise. 7. ❑ This is a proposed judgment that includes an award of punitive damages and notice has been served on the Director of the Crime Victims' Assistance Section as required by subsection (4) of this rule. DATED this 17"' day of October 2023. HATHAWAY LARSON LLP By: s/ Christopher P. Koback Christopher P. Koback, OSB No. 913408 Of Attorneys, for Relator Page 1 - CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE HATHAWAY LARSON LLP 1125 NW Couch Street, Suite 550 Portland, OR 97209 Telephone: 503-303-3101 (Main) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 17, 2023, I served the foregoing STIPULATED PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND GENERAL JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL on the party listed below in the manner indicated: David Doyle, OSB No. 901477 Deschutes County Legal Counsel 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 205 Bend, OR 97703 david. doyleAdeschutes. org Of Attorneys for Defendant ® U.S. Mail ❑ Facsimile ❑ Hand Delivery ❑ Overnight Courier ® Email ❑ Via Odyssey File & Serve DATED this 17t" day of October 2023. HATHAWAY LARSON LLP Page I - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE By: s/ Christopher P. Koback Christopher P. Koback, OSB No. 913408 Of Attorneys, for Relator HATHAWAY LARSON LLP 1125 NW Couch Street, Suite 550 Portland, OR 97209 Telephone: 503-303-3101 (Main) JT E S cOG�� BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING DATE: October 23, 2023 SUBJECT: Update on the proposal for roundabout art at US 20/013 Riley -Cook Avenue in Tumalo RECOMMENDED MOTION: None; informal presentation from stakeholders only. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: In April of this year the BOCC was approached by a group of Tumalo area residents interested in pursuing installation of a community themed decorative installation (artwork) within the roundabout under construction at the intersection of US 20/013 Riley -Cook in Tumalo. ODOT provides for art or other decorative installations via a permit issued to the corresponding local agency (city or county). Within the permit and corresponding IGA, ODOT requires the local agency (Deschutes County) to provide for installation, perpetual maintenance and indemnification. While ODOT has the final say on material types and installation, the determination of the artwork itself is a decision of the local agency. In April, the County communicated its requirements to the community stakeholders as a condition of the County accepting the liability and expense associated with any artwork installation within the roundabout. The stakeholders were advised by staff to prepare a proposal which: 1. Funds installation. 2. Funds or addresses perpetual maintenance. 3. Provides a community process for feedback on options and a consensus of what type of installation would be acceptable to the community. To date, the stakeholders have engaged with the community and used the input received to complete the selection process and are working towards raising funds for installation and maintenance. Tumalo area resident Lauren Cramer, with the newly formed Tumalo Community Foundation, is now the lead stakeholder for the process and will provide an update to the BOCC on the forthcoming proposal to the County. Lauren will be accompanied by local craftsman Nathan Wismer (Nathan's Custom Wood and Steel), whose proposal was selected via the community process. BUDGET IMPACTS: Not yet determined ATTENDANCE: Lauren Cramer, Tumalo Community Foundation Nathan Wismer, Nathan's Custom Wood & Steel Chris Doty, Road Department (via phone) ATTACHMENTS: Tumalo Community Foundation flyer Community process photos Renderings of selected concept G O � N C U a,v N r N 0 L N N p M 2 Z,� m © E ov�G c� av coQ�� E�Ev 0. c" Cn w _ U N „ f N a 3 N e v N N a2' aC2 N v � N N coO E G IF a� � O �0 m u Z h\ i 1 Ear 4 AA k s M, x � F � �3 y,�. � '� v ��" '. to � 4 t✓ 4 � �cz„k "�,,� �r S k ¢ y r § Tumalo Roundabout US20 & Cook Avenue **Title:** Tumalo Roundabout Art Installation Proposal **Objective:** Enhance community aesthetics and promote a sense of unity and warmth through a visually captivating roundabout art installation that represents the community of Tumalo. We created a grassroots 501 c3, Tumalo Community Foundation, that will provide funds for this project through community fundraising. **Concept:** Nathan's Custom Wood and Steel, LLC concept will feature a Handmade steel windmill with a trout as a weather vane, Juniper corner fence with wire (made in steel), Rusted silhouettes of mule deer and horses, and a school of trout. The sculptures are surrounded by native landscape comprised of rabbit brush, sage and native grasses. **Budget Breakdown:** 1. **Sculptures:** $90,000 - Materials and fabrication - Installation - Plans and Engineering 2. **Landscaping:** $50,000 - Plant selection and installation 3. **Contingency:** $10,000 - Unforeseen expenses and adjustments **Total Budget:** $150,000 **Maintenance Plan:** The Tumalo Community Foundation (TCF) will oversee maintenance twice a year, allocating $2,000 per maintenance cycle (May and October). Responsibilities include: - Weeding and general upkeep - Plant replacement if necessary - Water Truck, if necessary - Structural inspections and repairs **Community Involvement:** There were two information meetings held in May at Tumalo Coffeehouse and Tumalo Cider. At that time there were multiple stakeholders that wanted to submit a concept. All of the concepts were from local Tumalo residents. We held voting for 4 days, with a total of 20 hours. This was advertised via social media, fliers, news media network and visual signage on the voting tent. **Timeline:** 1. **Approval and Artist Selection:** Month 1-2 (Aug/Sept) 2. *Sculpture Fabrication &-Installation:Month 7-8-Months (May/June) 3. **Landscaping:** After Sculpture installation (May/June) 4. **Maintenance Commencement:** Month 12 (October) **Conclusion:** This project aims to transform our roundabout into a landmark that reflects the community's unique identity. The proposed budget ensures the creation and maintenance of a special entrance to a special community, Tumalo. *Note: Budget and timeline estimates are based on general considerations and may vary depending on specific circumstances and artist negotiations.* 44 S b t C p Id J n � J ro � r O N t i rt N O 6 t N ro E Cc: up N _ S N to •,4;, y s u CT �' u, � ro •`+� v o `' +% row '� Cis � o E Co--c a N a) O (D v c o p��._ ro m ..ems _= a.a .0 .��dJ af: U)= 0 ro �r31N ro E� ,@ p M�.0-� ro p f�6� O o O © ro w.. ra � � N aV) N N ro62 O 6 5 v w N. � N C N -.P - N N 2 O� ®.. R9.2.0 ,E.. N u E E $¢ 6 I `a`�.+.w �.u, j �J� ill NU) 0 E 0 N .row N N� �N �N -0 Cl N 7 O qi Qi N w a.+ n E ro N Ua to UY C •,a<i t.., > r� aC rl Z flcu > �rca BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING DATE: October 23, 2023 SUBJECT: Treasury Report for September 2023 ATTENDANCE: Bill Kuhn, County Treasurer DATE: October 16, 2023 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Bill Kuhn, Treasurer SUBJECT: Treasury Report for September 2023 Following is the unaudited monthly treasury report for fiscal year to date (YTD) as of September 30, 2023. Treasury and Investments • The portfolio balance at the end of September was $248.9 million, a decrease of $7.3 million from August and a decrease of $16.2 million from last year (Sept 2022). • Net investment income for September was $508,283 approximately $16K more than last month and $267K greater than September 2022. YTD earnings of $1,S16,523 are $868,321 more than the YTD earnings last year. • All portfolio category balances are within policy limits. • The LGIP interest rate increased to 4.80% during the month of September. Benchmark returns for 24-month and 36-month treasuries are up from the prior month by 23 basis points and up by 33 basis points respectively. • Average portfolio yield is 2.60%, which is higher than the prior month's average of 2.48%. • The portfolio weighted average time to maturity is 1.05 years, down slightly from 1.06 years in August. Portfolio Breakdowns Par Value by Investment Type Municipal Debt $ 38,475,000 15.5% Corporate Notes 37,821,000 15.2% Time Certificates 1,245,000 0.5% U.S. Treasuries 55,000,000 22.1 Federal Agencies 81,295,000 32.7% LGIP 19,368,973 7.8% First Interstate (BookBalanc( 15,777,519 6.3% Total Investments $ 248,982,492 100.0% Total Portfolio: By Investment Type Frst hterstate Municipal Debt Bank 15.5% Corporate Notes 15.2 Time C. Investment income Sep-23 Y-T-D Total Investment Income $ 513,283 $ 1,531,523 Less Fee: $5,000 per month (5,000) (15,000) Investment Income - Net $ 508,283 $ 1,516,523 Prior Year Comparison Sep-22 245,952 $ 663,202 U.S. Treasuries LGIP ($59,847,000) Federal Agencies Banker's Acceptances Time Certificates Municipal Debt 'tes Corporate Debt Portfolio by Broker $60 $55.3 o $36.5 $39.0 $41.7 $40 $31.7 $20 $6.7 Stifel DA Robert W Piper Moreton Great Castle Capital Davidson Baird & Sandler Capital Pacific Oak Co Markets Securities Yield Percentages Current Month Prior Month FIB/ LGIP 4.80% Investments 2.24% 2.21 Average 2.60% LGIP Rate 4.80% Maturity ( 36 Month Treasury 4.87% -Years Max WeightedAverage 3.13 1.05 Term Minimum '= Actual 0 to 30 Days 10 % - 16.5% Under 1 Year 25% 49.3% Under 5 Years 100% 100.0% Other- -- Policy Actual Corp Issuer 5% 2.6% Callable 25% 18.3% Weighted Ave. AA2 AA1 Investment Activity Purchases in Month $ 5,000,000 Sales/Redemptions In Month $ 16,700,000 5.50% 5.00% 4.50% 4.00% 3.50% 3.00% 2.50% 2.00% 1.50% 1.00% 0.50% 0.00% 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 Pa7onth Historic Investment Returns Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec lair Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep ® County Rate ® 2 Year Treasury Rate — Corporate Bond Rate LGIP Rate Three Year Portfolio Balance Sep-20 Nov-20 Jan-21 Mar-21 May-21 Jul-21 Sep-21 Nov-21 Jan-22 Mar-22 May-22 Jul-22 Sep-22 Nov-22 Jan-23 Mar-23 May-23 Jul-23 Sep-23 20,000,000 Five Year Maturity Distribution Schedule Sep-23 Dec-23 Mar-24 Jun-24 Sep-24 Dec-24 Mar-25 Jun-25 Sep-25 Dec-25 Mar-26 Jun-26 Sep-26 Dec-26 Mar-27 Jun-27 Lv' IMI, N Yi N N j j "V U (I, N IN I I(`ilf N N'N'NIN NNVt N I 1 I.J CO! 5 INI L7 IN ..! U i I N I I J Vl ill NINN N� I � i i i i I O O O O O O O O O M 'l O � M V �ILn o IL7 t,� O 11 � O d' O 05, V 05, _\ LO h N 0 4 r oIC i-I ( 1 (`: 4 0 L O L� O O O) <' OIL 1.4, �,J.N ) 0 00 4` o (? C 0 0 c..JCC 1 4) m M N mV I�- r� M0^ 4) CC t` M M C M r Y N 0 0 m m 0 C O) fA 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 m O m.0 (Ti O O G m C LOI C m 0 0 CJ �! O N o m m O O . CIO mC.l O �R (O N O' O O"OIO O Tim (V i4� (O�C'I.. m 'N N LO N O 7d. O M V �. d. d.O OO mOOOO'O. mIM '7 f� OIC14: D ) Cm O' Ool mo 0 7 ,� OO Im Om O UC m CCm maomOCr Ch CO NN m> N N N N N O N O O M M m C .- N 0 m O m N N o m I O C IC C Oc a N - m mlolo`,` -- O1IO INI s' o Ni m10 Oi (L C �I�IM ., o m O r m O O O JIN O C � m m (' .-.- m m mIm .- CC C � m m � m m � � m ' C M O r N_ N (o O U7 V LO C'.Ln N NIMNILn N O r C'N N Ln m 0 f� 0� C C N m C tO N V 4) V :() tO r O C 'T f� M I� d' M m' 71 LO M C M M V C r C V r n o r O Ln C (O m M m N N m m c-_ lO cD N V _ N r M C V V V C N m N dOD C Co OOC W co oC f� t•m'.C«i On OD OOo O �m MM V mMn Ln tAo NCM C �rN LO InN CO C MOC MN V' C' V (o Mm o) m;N M MMMM N N N r Nm V N f`roc O f� oc LO � m m', a! '.. 61; m W (O 47 C m fTm M N OD NC N m a m M OOo LO m O W m I- Mm co I` Coc N ocmC N M C �' Mn M oc mmONN M C W Ooo r C � (O N mfT O N 01 � C V W Oo V C 01m I-- m OCa O 2 N N. - N N V. N o m m m m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 O.O O O O O 0 0 O O 0 0 LO 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 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A m d; N N N N N N N N N O N 0 O c 0 0 O O O G O O'O O O O O'.O O .0 O O n O O O O O Ln o C O 0: O C O O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O Lf! So O O O O O O O O O O O O c V O 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N M M N N N -'..N '..N '.N - N N N- N N N N N - N N C N N N N N N (h N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N LL7 C Ln 4)NlO N V7 V d' CNLO M t` C NCM m'C m N m OO4 LO Lo M O LOM (o m`- V'OC co W r V Cmm M M m o I` O ao m LO O) V' m m (O mNNONOm Il (O N co IO M Mm(o N I'T w N o m w N � Ln !`M M N OmM L�0000 Ly (OC �� n ma m mCo NI�-t` m'.LO '.LO M f�.-It NNCm LOm �: co MMNMr �-N m r O MM m� m M O O N O N N mm�N0oom� NMm OOOm m M mom m mom m 7 mom N m N.-Ln m C N(o I� Nln NNm CNLO mm Lo lO .- 7 N m N N:�- LO O V (o O m C M C I` M m � r O m (o N O V7 C o o 0 0 O M t` C LO O O m 0 41 O (o O Lo N N m r N O m N V O O OD C M C N N N M O N M V N o O V F p N V M V N', I", LO c0 M O N 1l- 6 I� (O V V' N N M N M 6 LO co Lo c0 LO LO d' O o O o N 4 N N cO cO (O LO cO i O O O O T d' d' M LO V V V o 0 o O M m V V O O O O O O V M M M M V 4 V It V d' V V C Lo Lo LO N Lo LO LO LO tO N tO N M t` LO N V M Ln N M d' N N', (o N M h Nj LO N t� N m LO d' r lO C co r- V a Lo _N V N Lo Lo M N co C N Ln N f` r r C LO LO r M N (O (o lO (o LO N LO N LO N tO tO LO N N LO LO N LO LO m N LO LO N N LO N Lo r p M M M M M towN C Cm M OM Om M N O M O 00 00 No O O p U Y QQ QQ QQ QQ QQ QQ QQ Q q Q q q g g Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q g q q q q a yu) y tm N p p m m m m m m m m m m m @'. m'@'m m m. m. mm @ 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 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 p aaaQaaalaaaaa¢aaa¢¢aaaa¢ aaooaaa¢¢¢aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa O M N OO LO m m0� _C LO nCM r- O m W 7 N N C �- N m m.-CO NOc- N m m (o f�N n V M O(Dm C M m lOM V M vmC (O w M V N r, N Lo CN M m N w o CmC r C mmm O C O 41 mCC C m CNC N N M N d' CM O C cO r C f� OmN r r N M NOM M V' N N M M LO M n n m .- C M M V' V 7 t` r C 7 C M C (o (o (O I� t` LO N LO LO co N N LO M u7 V7 't a V V' M C' V Ln V V M m V1 M m't N [t V' lO M V to m LO M N m N N LO m o N Lo w Lo d' V d' LO M '7 Lo o V'T V lO LL) 7 @ OmN m mNN 4)MN .h M I- I'- V o0(O Ro m (O Mtn N mM m �m m a\ N .-Ln MO MM NLn M N I�t`n N M M N o0 W N O NI� N �- �- N OmONM NNN M O m O N Vl M C m N Or- N r- N N O N N m I� N N C N W W N N W mC.-�- N ^^ N V.-M t\ M M �- Ln �} M O M th 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 y m 0 L 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 0 N N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 N ` m000 O O M N m N W Ln N NC ON m o m o cO I�r CCO V' m00 m M o M ,_` wo C OC r O CCINM V' m N O M co C N N CCMMMM N r O O O O OOm N N Ifl N N V 4. t` t` r W M M W O N t� O O r- 0 0 �- •- W O O �- �- I� W W C M W (D (O (O 0 0 0 0 > W W Z , Z WWWWWW J WZZWWZ -i- W W W Z FWW Z F- ZF- zF- zF- zZ m W ¢m JJ- m W F-F- w ---F-1--F-WPPWP m - - ULLWn¢ W F W W W W W20 Q n a- Q Q IL LL Q LL LL Ot! O¢a V )) co u) 3oN ¢¢¢ N ¢ 0 0¢0 Q u Q Q O o Q 0,C,C,0,WQ 0 0 0 0 0 LLow00Of2UcaoQ�w2a000000w0220020mci0ww0w0002L)LLa(L M2M:RF- Y Z Q n n a n n n a n n m u) o Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 1 Y Y Y 0 0 0 U U U U U U U U y N N N N N N N N N m U u� U C C m m a C m m C C C C C m m m m m C C m m a a m@ a C m m@@@ C C C a) __ OI __ _m _m _ _m _m N N ¢ Q N N a a N N a a N N a Q N N a Q O J a m m ._ m m r m m m m m r M. m m •= .•= m m C a m m C G m m C C m C C C C C C C a C C G C +� aa• m m (1) U) -2 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 __N _m _ _ __ _m _ U ZwU Q U U U U U U U U U U J m ¢ N ¢ w z_ 3 E E E E E E E E E E E Eo@ E E N O) E E @ m E E m m E E N m E E O) m E E m m E E O) Eo E E Em 0 E E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L` � LI LI " LIL, Z Q� Q LL Q Y Z Q m m LL LL m m LL LL m m m m m LL LL LL ILL LL m m LL LL o o S S 0 0 S M= 0 0 M 0 0 M M 0 0 M M 0 0 M M 0 0 M= 0 0 M= 0 0 M M m m Z Z w m m Z Z w w m m@@ Z Z w>>>>>>>>> Z Z m m Z Z W N. m m N m m N W m m N m m m N m m m 3>> N m m m m m Q o] 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 N F-F-F-F-F-F-F-HF�HF-F-F- N N N N N N N N N N N pw�m ?) c 0 Q m N N N N N@ m@ m m m 2O N N N wN N N N@ N O) @ N N N N N ID N N m m N 0 V1 UI VI U1 UI CO C� V)F-LLLL ILL ILL LLLLLL ILL LLLLLL LLLLLL ILL LLLL LLLLLL LLLLLL LL L@ ILLLL LL LLLL ILL LL ILLLLLLLL L LLLLLL u- u- � ��D 7�D �D y a�C��rtax O0 M X (O a JLL•mMM LO M coOD I, M Z LO LL UJ Y M m CO Ln(pI--(p(.�N0}Mnwl�m0 Z2 z LL V)LLU m o C m JZ N N Z LOLL O N ��>>>> Co O Z W> LL M Lo C LO N W I"L m> 1� Y >>Y V N LLXD�� v M m W W V 'V W Z d' C (�I JXZ V V � ryry XZN V O �zcD»cD�xoM�G M M (oM0 o N W W o W W o m m J F- N LO > LTI�>O M N m w W G ,My, rnm N G ��-� XJ J rGw ZZZZZ 0 F- F-Y ON F->>>> Q>X i-a Q 7 a a V V V V a 000U U U U UC N N CUCC U U =Q O mLn 4)oO N w W W W W W W W W W W QQQQaQQC'1 C�U� U' W C�C�CJ C7 W W CJ C'1 C�C)C�C�U U U` U� N N N N NN NNNNN N N Ejp LO LO N M t M M (O M M M M C0 M M (O M M M M M M (O M M M M M CO M C0 (O M M fO M M M M M M M M M N N N N N N N NNN N N N LO C m m 0 C C N c N O F- o m o > O O O O m U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U Um3 SUUUUUQaaaaaaQaaQaaaaaaaQaaaaaaa¢LLILL aQa¢aasF-F�F- F-F- F-F-F- � d mmmmZLLLL LL LL LL LLLL LL LL LLLL LL LLLL LLLLLL LLLLLL LLLLLL LL ILL ILL LL LLLL LLLLLLLLLL LLLL LLLL LL LLF- F-F- F-F-F- F-F-F-F- F-F- F- c a o L O O y'7n Nm0 C Md' MOCNIt')CC r V M�-N �C �t`C N N'cf m N m V' LO N Nt`ONM V' M(O NO Naf�mO V'tO Cm V' O > C0D 0 0 7 7 d' N M C C C N N d' N m mmm N N O M mo' M M m M m mmf� V7 C r m f� r m m r r m N tam 0 M m mm 7 LO m C C h hnr CO t` r r rt` m m N mmm O O O O N N N N N N mmm M d N - C°°tbC o 0 0 0 °° 0 0 fir 0 0 rCC`°� 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r� 0 0 r 0 0 0 0 mmo1Olm 0 0 0 0 mmm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a (L m N-r-7- N N N N, (N I .. N N N N )I ! U O 1 ' , ' i ' ' ' I ' , ' N M N M O) N T V' N O (0 M n n (0 m a- O) IN �- d' m W l0 N P N (0 7 d) .-IN m 0 N W 0 n o1nl f V 1 ,: (O W :. I.-- f� J�m ) 'd 10 O) N (N`IIGi(f IM MI(O!G!Oj Ir�l •- miJlM O In pp iV C, ail. O [t 0 'J m NI N O> O� WO n N M M( I N �'niOOmO)n N n W (0 C N .- n o(0MOO O n M 0 O) Y 0 l0nNO(0OOl0N M V 4 V N (0 N N (0 W () (0 d' V n (0 .-(0 (0 �- n m n,.0 :0) (D V' o n.M (0 n n V (O m'00L d'IM .- M n mj(J (D M 47' C'I") w N 1. (i C 3) ((` 11, O)j <t'. V� mO_ c)lC o �7 On:0 .; C N I10,6., 01 N V m (O.W'm N O' NOD)Io O > I`- P G (0 nO)M�WI 010 _ -..I WI�'WIO _ nIM .lL'n V o W m�-it6nm O W M1�0 10 V MOmmmON(OOm P M O M m O M d' O M C0 t0 O) O) O D) Q) d7 O) O) O O O d7 d) O) 0 0 0 0 v V U G7 0 O.U) O O nIGIO C Oirn N U O) (0 M O o NIC' O�m IN. NIN V'�.0 n M (0 O N N N C N n O n m> .- N N N N N N M�-N ^�NNIr'I r' ("--ICJ N(VCJN N � ( N fVN Imo) N � n N V N n 7 O) 7 W N n N m 0 M O M m N n d' N W N V V M N O) W <t W (O N M 10 0 m m M I ;r � m "i l g � O) m .0 m N Flo N N M N N m W o M 7 0 d' V 0 (O O (0 V O o O IN m n N O P a I( N OI N M N In 0 (O <`7 m O M n (O n N (O M O N W O) O m N O W O W o m o n (0 N (0 W= m IT m n N W m m (0 V N ( V m M 0) N N 0 7 V (O M ct N f� (0 N'.n (") n W O n O O n m n W V' M n 'To n (0 o o W W N W n n N n M n I lO N' N co M O W m O N N 0M M N o N W m 'TW N n m O m m N M � N 'TN O) N N M N c0 (0 n M n m o n 0 m O d' M M N m n O) P N It O m m O (0 d' V M ` @@ N N O) O) O) P W W N N P O) m Cl) 47 61 n (0 D7 O) N N'. n'. V' M O) Q7'. m d) W M O) W N m O W m m (0 W W M O) M 00 m-, M W m W 't M m O) M M O) O) 'ITm 41 W m (0 W N t0 M M O) W P V N O M W M m N M O a)N W n N 0 m O N N (D W v v M n M"t N 0)c0 G N N m N (0 M .- O) n M n > - N.�.. �- N N- N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O 0 0 0 0l0;0'.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 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 0 O 0 0 o O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 C O O 0 O.0.0.0 O O O O O 0 0 O O C 0 0 O O C C 0 0 M O 0 0 C 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 C o O 0 0 N O 0 0 O 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 m O 0 0 O O c 0 0 O O 0 0 C O O 0 0 O O C 0 0 O (n c 0 0 m O C 0 0 (n O C 0 0 O m 0 0 N O 0 0 C C O O C 0 0 O O 0 0 O O C C 0 0 O O C 0 0 0 o O N @ o 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 O O O O m m o 0 0 0 o O O O O O O O o M n 0 m O O O O N O o m (0 O O (0 (0 o a7 O m O O (O (0 O d@ > 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 0 0 0 N N '.M N IN 0 0 N N 0 O) N N (p O N O O N N O Ln N O O n 0 N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N d) N O O N Ln M O O N N V O m N �- n N N- N N N N N (0 n M N l0 O N N N O N C n 0 W NN m m V M Mm V W m d)n d) m V M n n N (0 (0 M N n 0�- W O) O) Q) N W rn nrn W a W n m MM n (O O)00 n n LL)O N W m W W W m P MM�-MM N V' n N O) �- W CO V' m W O) N CO �M(O -,t W W n m.-N m 'tM n 0 10O m MV n M �--mm (O (0 N N m m N P 7 (0 M n O O O O n O) N O n O C' n (0 m n N N N n 7 m m a N M M m N M 0 (O N W O n N N o u) T N N O (D V 6) (0 M N D O V' n O M v v N V' M O M O M M N O O O d' �- M V M O O (0 O M m n O N m l0 O �- n N m C n m m M O O M O O O O n .? �: O N 0 0 W (0 M O m) m (n m N 0 P m m .0 ' M n M m n o V' M O W W m m m N.M N M m M m V' n n V O m N O n n N n W n N o N N a � n m W M m v n 0 (0 (O m (0 o ct o M W V 0 0 M (O 0 N W 0 0 O) (0 o C) O O n m W m M V lO m 0 M o 0 0 M o M O m O m O m O N Cl n ONO 0 o M N m M M N m .,r t n V N N W 0 (0 V O) * m m m O O M m W O) 0 0 U n 0 0 (0 W 0 0 (0 l0 0 0 (O 6 0 m o o m m 6 O (V (0 n W N m (O t m M n V O) M n m (O . . .(. 0 W 0 0 d' n m 0 0 V mil' d' V' N ,. O O- O o o C n _. (O Cl)M M m l0 Nr (0 (O nN M (0 (0 m (:) n �rn n M m O .. M m NN V V (0N m l0 N (0 N NN (0 N n N V NmO) (0 N O) M n m W V' C' M M m <t M r. M m W W IN M �- N M't O)O N W O) Mn n m OO)mm (0 m M W mMn <t n N M n O _� n -v NIn p y W W O W: N N m (O u) c- m W N O O W m m 7 p W m m (0 n (0 uj a) Ln W N n . a M N O 04 ,a M M M M M N N O O N O O O N N o O O O O M O V W a +++L_ aQa�QaaaQaQ�aa� a ++ ++Q + a+ +++Q++ +¢ rn (n _ c ' I @ alaaaQaaaaQaaaaaQaaaaa¢ @ @ M M N N @ � N N M N N N @ N N aaaaaa �- @ a @ �- aaa N ¢aaaaa Qaaaaa M �- �- N N a $a¢aa¢aa¢a¢aa E O NIA V O l N O N (m0 0 N�M o (`M � M V W W( W w N N O OIO C'I (`m')IN (NOIN m CWO M (m0 In W (00 (00 N W CO oo m0 CO O� 010 wI.M- r r 0: to I.n W M m 0 m m 0 .- C' .- O N M (O (0 t N �- V d' M V (O M u') V M n N N O M M m O) N m N m 0 (0 M M N N N O M N O) M n In 7 (O (0 N N V m N N (0 l0 N N V V N N a C' N N (O (0 m d' m N N N N N [t m N N (0 r N N m (O N N M m N N (O 7 N N 7-,t N N V V N N V (O N N V (O N N d' M N N V (0 N N V V N N m V N N V (0 N N m V N N (O V N N (O m N N (O V N N q V N N d' V' N N V' m N N m V N N V m N N V M m N N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O.o N'.N O O N N o 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 0 N N N (n (n (0 u2 O 0 (n (� N (A N W : M m � (n 01 .- .- V M M lO Z C C O (0 a) m (n .- N �(O INN OJ i� .- M Inr M r- Mn �- 7 �_ N (O',.,, n,.... M:� N mM .- m .- (n (�.- N N N .--(n N M •- �- •- •- N N O O .- c0 c06) �(O (O r (O(O(O M M In W V In (i mmm. (h (� W - (O (O W N N N N N N N N N N N N N O � � � � O � 0 0 �- �-- � O � 0 0 0 0 o O O N O O .- 0 0 �- �- O r- O .- � y N @ = N N 0 0 N N N N 0 0 N N N N 0 0 N N N N 0 0 N N N N 0 0 N N N N N I 0 0 O N N N N N O O N N N N O O N N N N O O N N N N O O N N N N O O N N N N O O N N N N O O N N N N O O N N N N O O N N N N O O N N N N O O N N N N O O N N N N O O N N N N O O N N N N O O N N N N O O N N N N O O N N N N O O N N N N O O N N N N O O N N N N O O N N N N O O N N N N O O N N N N N O O O N N N U@ V\' V -` W W - - W W -- M OM OIOM W NU0NNc aC9 0 `UN�O NUNN 0D NUN 2 (U - m(NnCn-�-Wc� - NC� O N N OO M- N OM TN 4W NNvN� N N� N T WNm NOv� �NUaLL- tL ONN� E E N O - - ONI� WWO � NI�n N tzzzzZH>W FW�NMI� W W W W W W UwW - UUmmUU¢ O m mW U M d'RWQnau¢Q¢¢QrnQ(0(q a-a_nQaQ¢¢¢Qanad CID U) t�(�Qq ¢¢Q¢ o <n 0000000<0-<( (q (�MC� C7 CN�W _> aO fino_d� _ 0 of U � 0 X XaW �LL0XLLa 2�m�7 �m�.- 0OCU. F- �� F- z o 0 Lj wF- oom rrF- U � O D U K 000 0 w z z z z F (1)(f)S W 00n F WWWD OOWm 5u W> WOLL ��zF- NO Q¢2OSEp N>O U- UW qj O O O Z W amp mmof = 0) N n W<�� a a -0 (if L)z OUyzl 0 QOozzU p N w °U U U Q� >a ULOOLL > z t j .-L,}Yyy}r z FUJU- W .0 ~O0��-0 cI Qz S_ ZUU- U O �}� UUO U W � In �� T OO �YYYI Q Q E EEQLL0 EO daZ OU U U U U mC@CC O O Z Z0O QQWmOUNQ Z @ R@OOO>¢UU>>0 UO O @@@ m� W 2O Z 002 Q YOZZZ O n n c c u n C0 co U(J7 UUJ S W W> > E o o o¢QmJ0WwwJ ,0C) ELLt-I-I-w0oU O W a O OOOOO 2 __E� U z n nu�u n n n > a2WCL222200Ua0JQQJ Q w¢W000ctC or o0 00v a} M W z N OON o M v} W (0 n W>> W W m S(�OUOM w c7 n O z O N O) a O) m g M M O O YY, d) W x V V' O O N X> "r (0 S U m a� n W n N Y c7 J 0 n m x >� O) M O w m n N w W M n U r}> O U>LL w o LL m= 2QOS jUUUUmU W W }Om W W UUUUUnMMMOOd' d' W SSS S 00 N N 000M000J 2 N00 J(0m ¢> e--1OnU' M W (n N M ww W O W d2ZQ W mn nLL N(/)N�0 �-�> it K0fO W W W F-Cn N N N NNN N N N N N N N O) M M M N m m m m (0 (0 l0 (0 W m W 7 .- .- O m m d' W m O) N Vl N m W W O n O) O m n O) M M M n rn m W U W W N N W W N N W W N N W W N N W W N N W W N N W n N N W W n n W n n (0 V n (O m n O m P N N m W N N W m lO (O N N (O � M M N N (O MMM V V V O V O O O) M O) O a m M N W m N (0 t (0 (0 V) (0 (0 W 0 i0 m 0 0 m m 0 0 m m W m (O (O W O N m O m N m m n m a n V N d N m m m m m m m N N_ W W M W O) 0 0 M M W O) 0 M 0 M n n (0 N U7 n V V' rn m 7 (0 m N (0 mmm N N W W ' m W W m m W W m m W W m m W W m m M M n n M M n n M (0 n n H >UUUUUUUUUUUUUO `-`-`-`-"-' ZZZz ZZ z z z z Z Z z zZZZZZ Z Z ZZZZzZZZZZ of U P U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U 0 0 0 0>> 0 0 » » »> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 » F-F-F- HF- F- F- r F-r-Q22�i2:5 :52E222 :22E2i222:E :5i :�i2222E :2 (0 m N M (O m m m M m CO M) M N m N (O N O W V' N n m V M n M W m O W O) W O n n m O O N (0 m m O (0 O) M M mOMAN' > M M d' a 7 'd' -t V' m a) (0 (0 O) m M (O m m m m P m O CO W m m N m W M WmWmroW N o N m n W W M N nW M W coWWWnnIn O o W W o M n 0) o n mWmnWco n W V n m N d' WIn n M O N n Ww n M wW m nM wmrn000000000000000000 (0O)mPmO)m 0 m m I , I O Oj0 I �iCi 0 0 N 0 0 O VN V r 10 b 0 m 0 of 0 (O tO YNI r-- 0t r.N O m m > r''..r N wto O O W m OD 7 w o O N .--Oa- r d d O m M r r N N m N M M r m m M w 10'.M r ..w Y R m mo0d M cD c0 N M r d' 'IT V N c0 MM r'V r >� ��' cl,m M N O O O O O O O O O O O O O M O r m�N �Q7 N �00010 0000000 m Ol0(O m rco O. > O lA N M V t0 M M a r Of L[] co N <Y m wm aw oN M.... N N O V' co M o 000 �a 6. rn vv � '.F o 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 c O yo cn m rn Co O r u) c0om N p O O O U r. U atl cr. c > • p 00 — m N M a Q a Q Q Q a O �nrOrtn l!)N H •� N (O M (O N N (O N 7 � m N N N N N N N y N N N N N N N lo� m N N N N N N N N N N N o 0 N t w0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 N ` m�<omoo 0 � � N� O IL Y > O Q fa � (n rn aa- o aa m a D- a_ a o U W _ — m — > Z o U W :U > _U w W O 3 O 3 o a°. O u) u) , v'Q c c c O U O} U U sm 2 Q WO0O } f-o O'5 m [ifa �o�z:2 0 U c m o c W > z z a o N m tC7 N m M U (n u) O F Z > > J LL aN y�md LL'(n N W>co� ouoom mW y'>moo o >�u,mQroo rrncornNON U to p N r V M V (n W m m mm M N OmN(n O M M W �nrmmmmmu) T 0 N > Z Z Z Z Z Z LL N c -5;; 2Z 2 z,L 2 K LL' K > >rMmmroomrm mrm v,mma c r 00 r r r r r 0 0 \3T E S Co o BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING DATE: October 23, 2023 SUBJECT: Finance Report for September 2023 ATTENDANCE: Robert Tintle, Chief Financial Officer DATE: October 16, 2023 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Robert Tintle, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Finance Report for September 2023 Following is the unaudited monthly finance report for fiscal year to date (YTD) as of September 30, 2023. Budget to Actuals Report General Fund • Revenue YTD in the General Fund is $2.71VI or 6.0% of budget. By comparison, last year revenue YTD was $3.11VI and 7.2% of budget. • Expenses YTD are $10.91VI and 23.6% of budget. By comparison, last year expenses YTD were $10.91VI and 24.7% of budget. • Beginning Fund Balance is $14.01VI or 101.1% of the budgeted $13.81VI beginning fund balance. �Es `� �` Couniy Wide FilanCial Dashboard 001 - General Fund 25.0% 3 Year Complete Fund Select all (Blank) 001 - General Fund 010 - Assmt-Clerk... 020 - Code Abate... 030 - Community ... 040 - Court Techn... 050 - Economic 0... 060 - General Co... 070 - General Co... 090 - Project Dev... 120 - Lava Library 130 - Park Acquisi... 132 - Park Develo... Monthly GL Peri... ` a 3 $12.1M (Blank) All Major Funds Budget to Actuals Requirements Resources Beginning Working Capital Budget to Actuals by Category *Actuals •Budget *Projection $10.9M $2.7M 23.6% 6.0% Monthly Expenditures f$14.OM% .�_.!.1 3PL�aA 513➢LI 101.1% 24.7% %of last vear budget J e - 0 @last Year Actuals *Current Year Actuals Monthly Revenues 7.2% % of last vear budget ern a 2 a E 10 • Last Year Actuals • Current Year Actuals y�c 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 September 30, 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 Filled 31.63 31.63 31.63 Unfilled 3.63 3.63 3.63 10.29% Clerk Filled 9,48 10.48 2.90 Unfilled 1.00 7.58 27.29% BOPTA Filled 0.52 0.52 0.10 Unfilled - 0,42 26,88% DA Filled 57.90 1 58.90 58,90 Unfilled 3.20 2,20. 2.20+ Tax Filled 6.50 6.50 i 6,50 Unfilled - 0.00% Veterans''. Filled 5.00 5,00 5.00 Unfilled - 0.00% Property Mgmt Filled 2,00 2,00 2.00 Unfilled 1,00 1.00 - 1.00 33.33% Total General Fund Filled : 113.03 1115.03 107.03 - - - Unfilled 8.83 6.83 14.83 8.34% Justice Court Filled 4.60 4.60 `: 4.60 Unfilled 0.00% Community Justice Filled 45.00 43.00 45.00 Unfilled 4.00 6.00 4.00 9.52% Sheriff Filled <' 233.75 232.75 229.75 Unfilled 37.25 38.25 41.25 14.36% Houseless Effort Filled 1.00 1.00 1.00 Unfilled 1.00 1.00 1.00 50.00% Health Svcs .Filled '. 381.55 F 376.95 378,75 Unfilled '': 33,25 37.85 37.05 CDD Filled 54.80 54.80 52.80 Unfilled 3.20 3.20 5.20 6.67% Road filled :` 57.00 57.00 57.00 i Unfilled 5,00 5.00 5.00 : ': 8.06% Adult P&P Filled 33.75 33.75 33.75 Unfilled 6.00 6.00 6.00 15.09% Solid Waste Filled 29.00 - 31,00 - 30.00 Unfilled `' 12,00 10.00 11.00 :: 26.83% Victims Assistance Filled 6.50 7.50 7.50 Unfilled 3.00 2.00 2.00 24.56% GIS Dedicated Filled 2.00 2.00 2.00 ' Unfilled - - 0.00% Fair & Expo Filled 11.75 11.75 11.75 Unfilled 5.75 5.75 5.75 32,86% Natural Resource :Filled 2,00 2.00 `. 2.00 Unfilled 0.00% ISF-Facilities Filled 23.75 22.75 22.75 Unfilled 3.00 4.00 4.00 13.71% ISF -Admin Filled 9.75 9.75 9.75 Unfilled - 0.00% ISF -BOCC Filled 3.00 3.00 3.00 Unfilled - - - 0.00% ISF- Finance -Filled 12.00 '. 12,00 ` 12.00 Unfilled 1.00 1.00 '. 1.00 7.69% ISF - legal Filled 7.00 7.00 7.00 Unfilled - - - 0.00% ISF -HR 'I :.Filled 8.80 8.80 ': 8.80 - Unfilled 1.20 1.20 1.20 - 12.00% ISF - IT ........Filled 17.00__.. _17.00__. 17.00...... .Unfilled _ _.... _..... _. _.._ _... 0.00% ISF - Risk `, filled 3,25 3.25 3.25 Unfilled - 0.00% 911 Filled 53.00 55.00 55.00 Unfilled 7.00 5.00 5.00 9.44% Total: Filled 1,113.28 1,111.68 1,101.48 - - - - - - - - - Unfilled 131.48 133.08 144.28 - - - - - - - - - Total 1,244.76 1,244.76 1,245.76 A - - - - - - - - - %Unfilled 10.56% 10.69% 11.58% 10.95% A 1.0 FTE increase in Health Services uTESC0G�� Budget to Actuals v Countywide Summary All Departments 25.0% FY24 YTD September 30, 2023 (Lo!naudited) Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % 001 - General Fund 030 - Juvenile 160/170 - TRT 200 - ARPA 220 - Justice Court 255 -Sheriffs Office 274 - Health Services 295 - CDD 325 - Road 355 - Adult P&P 465 - Road CIP 610 - Solid Waste 615 - Fair & Expo 616 - Annual County Fair 617 - Fair & Expo Capital Reserve 618 - RV Park 619 - RV Park Reserve 670 - Risk Management 675 - Health Benefits 705 - 911 999 - Other TOTALRESOURCES 43,472,708 43,034,834 99% 1,010,203 1,050,931 104% 13,631,282 12,748,688 94% 105,186 14,955,890 999% 525,032 518,001 99% 49,577,055 50,672,726 102% 57,787,985 55,638,108 96% 11,675,519 9,455,886 81% 24,889,063 25,698,009 103% 6,134,018 6,295,372 103% 1,943,063 782,549 40% 14,503,499 13,899,874 96% 1,738,534 2,260,708 130% 1,969,380 2,359,790 120% 7,414 317,269 999% 44,408,216 1,014,168 12,751,790 2,630,533 525,540 58,332,752 59,755,691 10,460,840 26,673,711 5,535,606 2,179,426 15,995,411 2,343,500 2,324,117 64,800 642,252 579,826 90% 530,800 6,298 21,589 343% ; 34,300 3,311,477 3,297,596 100% ; 3,364,344 23,658,700 25,492,341 108% ; 30,654,045 13,744,678 14,120,981 103% ; 14,034,323 62,651,873 66,318,323 106% ; 81,637,214 332,985,219 349,519,291 105% ; 375,251,127 2,657,913 6% ; 60,817 6% ; 6,141,018 48% ; 14,197,890 540% ; 137,049 26% ; 1,044,801 2% ; 19,997,247 33% 2,183,207 21% ; 7,507,936 28% ; 1,217,551 22% ; 1,063,887 49% ; 4,660,088 29% ; 1,060,967 45% ; 2,378,365 102% ; 17,490 27% ' 176,307 33% ; 8,881 26% ; 1,006,403 30% ; 6,919,621 23% ; 139,229 1 % ; 14,134,114 17% ; 86,710,782 23% ; 44,407,996 100% ; 1,027,772 101% ; 12,311,430 97% ; 14,374,148 546% ; 526,420 100% ; 58,300,992 100% ; 58,802,483 98% ; 8,294,030 79% ; 26,842,627 101% ; 5,537,148 100% ; 2,334,697 107% ; 16,037,811 100% ; 2,390,993 102% ; 2,448,513 105% 69,960 108% ; 493,688 93% 35,530 104% 3,381,394 101% ; 30,727,068 100% ; 14,010,621 100% ; 81,437,214 100% ; 383,792,535 102% ; Fiscal Year 2023 1Fiscal Year 2024 REQUIREMENTS Budget_ Actuals %_ Budget Actuals % Projection % - (26,749) - (6,197) 001 - General Fund 24,337,373 23,057,601 95% 25,183,057 5,770,762 23% 24,359,187 97% ; 030 - Juvenile 7,928,538 7,497,365 95% 8,481,279 1,890,610 22% 8,137,645 96% ; 160/170 - TRT 13,123,218 11,822,231 90% 6,902,223 4,211,851 61% ; 6,789,443 98% ; 200 - ARPA 23,129,361 14,662,784 63% 12,326,272 335,963 3% 9,753,207 79% ; 220 - Justice Court 766,183 742,697 97% ; 822,370 196,541 24% ; 832,630 101% ; uTES C- Q`� °G�� (Budget to Actu als - Countywide Sure mary All Departments 25.0% FY24 YTD September 30, 2023 (unaudited) Year Complete 255 - Sheriffs Office 60,415,533 58,373,715 97% ; 65,642,097 274 - Health Services 70,979,127 62,912,108 89% ; 71,231,711 295 - CDD 11,233,304 9,466,620 84% ; 10,269,561 325 - Road 16,188,996 13,822,550 85% 17,124,761 355 - Adult P&P 7,575,910 6,790,874 90% ; 7,526,032 465 - Road CIP 28,387,166 16,897,136 60% ; 23,772,827 610 - Solid Waste 11,754,672 10,769,061 92% ; 14,355,234 615 - Fair & Expo 3,098,054 3,330,291 107% ; 3,734,327 616 - Annual County Fair 1,972,030 2,067,492 105% ; 2,582,856 617 - Fair & Expo Capital 870,000 483,310 56% 1,090,000 Reserve 618 - RV Park I 594,181 498,157 I 84% 617,131 619 - RV Park Reserve 100,000 5,532 6% ; 174,000 670 - Risk Management 5,887,806 2,915,728 50% 4,744,447 675 - Health Benefits 31,769,217 30,688,534 97% ; 32,587,213 705 - 911 17,709,497 13,390,020 76% ; 15,113,760 999 - Other 108,884,843 63,570,653 58% ; 93,362,911 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 446,705,009 353,737,710 79% 417,644,069 14,261,266 22% 14,127,002 20% 2,157,450 21% 3,633,181 21% ; 1,543,609 21% ; 3,200,906 13% ; 2,149,393 15% ; 880,723 24% ; 1,931,117 75% ; 160,110 15% ; 77,302 1 13% ; - 0% 1,228,282 26% ; 4,822,351 15% ; 3,209,878 21% ; 10,320,537 11 % ; 76,102,636 18% ; 63,547,390 97% ; 74,422,420 104% ; 9,337,337 91 % ; 16,751,816 98% ; 6,782,694 90% ; 23,765,779 100% ; 14,355,234 100% ; 3,480,639 93% ; 2,260,718 88% ; 1,090,000 100% ; E i 537,850 87% ; 174,000 100% ; 4,773,658 101 % ; 32,587,213 100% ; 14,284,293 95% ; 93,157,006 100% 411,180,159 98% ; 0Tes C °G�{ Budget to Actuaa s - Countywide Summary All Departments FY24 YTD September 30, 2023 (u iaudited) TRANSFERS 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 25.0% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 Fiscal Year 2024 Budged At;t als % Budget Ac>tuals % Projection % (20,871,416) (19,890,038) 95% ; (20,902,064) 6,452,997 6,452,997 100% ; 6,678,013 (6,021,446) (5,913,148) 98% ; (8,575,254) - - (5,022,145) 263,217 263,217 100% : 364,688 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 (5,299,665) 704,127 (156,706) 1,149, 827 (81,566) 261,750 (3,500) (59,900) 10,959,373 12,238,662 86% (3,453,962) 65% 621,827 88% (156,706) 100% 1,113,829 97% (81,566) 100% 261,566 100% (3,500) 100% (59,900) 100% 12,205,258 111 % 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) 16,326,336 TOTAL TRANSFERS 9,745 - 0 ; - (5,085,039) 24% 1,680,750 25% (1,668,675) 19% (5,022,145) 100% 91,170 25% 912,945 27% 1,772,417 23% (188,662) -40% (7,700,000) 61% 115,239 25% 5,000,000 40% (653,489) 25% 218,919 25% (8,625) 25% 281,041 34% (20,896,159) 100% ; 6,678,013 100% ; (8,524,684) 99% (5,022,145) 100% ; 364,688 100% (7,893) -6% ; 12,891 25% ; (873) 25% ; 10,250,029 63% ; 3,378,587 100% ; 8,076,456 104% ; 583,723 125% ; (12,700,000) 100% ; 460,950 100% ; 12,500,000 100% ; (2,613,962) 100% ; 840,282 96% ; (34,503) 100% ; 809,016 98% ; 128,436 a 100% ; 51,564 100% ; (3,500) 100% ; 15,923,238 98% ; uSESC 0G� Budget to Actual u Collintywide SUmm ry All Departments FY24 YTD September 30, 2023 (unaUdited) 25.0% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 Fiscal Year 2024 ENDING FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals Ala Budget Actuas Projection % 001 - General Fund 030 - Juvenile 160/170 - TRT 200 - ARPA 11,239,637 634,663 4,000,000 26,749 999% ; 13,984,329 124% ; 1,528,688 241% ; 4,488,842 112% ; 401,204 999% - 6,197 12,149,095 5,786,441 710,902 1,379,646 1,999,500 4,749,334 - 9,240,985 13,136,981 108% 1,096,829 154% 1,486,145 74% 220 - Justice Court 22,066 38,521 175% ; 67,858 31,678 58,478 86% ; 255 -Sheriff's Office 7,024,650 11,001,214 157% ; 9,254,393 (1,302,306) 9,133,404 99% ; 274 - Health Services 6,045,519 12,519,113 207% ; 7,737,952 20,161,776 4,975,634 64% ; 295 - CDD 1,627,134 1,322,717 81% ; 1,975,730 1,159,812 863,134 44% ; 325 - Road 2,262,898 7,351,679 325% ; 2,370,201 3,526,435 4,742,491 200% ; 355 - Adult P&P 1,925,640 3,010,934 156% ; 1,470,524 2,800,115 2,226,339 151% ; 465 - Road CIP 12,334,484 23,347,907 189% ; 9,918,979 26,210,888 14,416,824 145% 610 - Solid Waste 556,359 2,743,514 493% ; 1,442,600 4,600,720 1,812,129 126% ; 615 - Fair $ Expo 315,960 547,764 173% ; 238,854 946,927 298,401 125% ; 616 - Annual County Fair 225,358 521,447 231% ; 245,910 960,069 674,740 274% ; 617 - Fair & Expo Capital 1,587,183 2,757,229 174% ; 2,391,825 2,895,649 2,546,206 106% ; Reserve ; 618 - RV Park 82,920 166,640 201 % ; 135,220 257,752 250,915 186% ; 619 - RV Park Reserve 1,340,766 1,469,559 110% ; 1,284,317 1,491,331 1,382,654 108% ; 670 - Risk Management 5,107,351 9,323,307 183% ; 6,616,397 9,100,554 7,927,544 120% ; 675 - Health Benefits 3,815,139 6,107,998 160% ; 3,809,575 8,230,643 4,273,227 112% ; 705 - 911 8,926,080 13,393,950 150% ; 12,122,906 10,323,301 13,120,280 108% ; 999 - Other 56,596,539 110,051,728 194% ; 105,557,249 124,115,335 ; 107,110,741 101% ; TOTAL FUND BALANCE 106% ; 125,670,346 226,105,032 180% ; 181,499,987 236,673,283 191,533,095 Q`�uSES COG�< Budget to Actuals Report General Fund - Fund 00 FY24 YTD September 30, 2023 (unaudited) RESOURCES Property Taxes - Current Property Taxes - Prior Other General Revenues Assessor Clerk BOPTA District Attorney Tax Office Veterans Property Management TOTALRESOURCES REQUIREMENTS Assessor Clerk BOPTA District Attorney Medical Examiner Tax Office Veterans Property Management Non -Departmental TOTAL REQUIREMENTS TRANSFERS Transfers In Transfers Out TOTAL TRANSFERS FUND BALANCE Beginning Fund Balance Resources over Requirements Net Transfers - In (Out) TOTAL FUND BALANCE 25.0% Year Complete F7777ECaj'�ea;r2'.2.3 �� v Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Actuals % Budges Actuals % Projection % $ Variance 34,467,173 34,606,785 100% < 37,400,000 - 0% a 37,400,000 100% A 301,000 334,760 111% 318,000 141,102 44% _ 318,000 100% 3,591,874 4,310,996 120% a 3,480,844 1,817,236 52% ! 3,480,624 100% (220)- E 964,246 713,767 74% 775,350 11,066 1% s 775,350 100% o 2,298,566 1,451,801 63% 1,259,595 304,720 24% 1,259,595 100% i 14,588 9,434 65% 10,200 - 0% 10,200 100% a 1,183,942 1,089,499 92% 552,048 340,619 62% 552,048 100% a 221,483 120,714 55% 136,000 25,671 19% r 136,000 100% 214,836 182,018 85% 261,179 - 0% F 261,179 100% t i B 215,000 215,058 100% 215,000 17,500 8% 215,000 100% C 43,472,708 43,034,834 99% ; 44,408,216 2,657,913 6% 44,407,996 100% ; (220); Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % 5,910,478 5,399,847 91% 6,189,597 1,403,777 23% E 2,432,710 2,098,659 86% 2,351,515 458,747 20% 92,177 82,488 89% 97,522 20,182 21% 10,979,839 10,906,691 99% 11,630,172 2,528,731 22% 438,702 320,660 73% 461,224 69,324 15% 905,262 834,177 92% 940,770 254,159 27% 809,390 758,902 94% ! 919,283 180,103 20% 508,359 418,433 82% 539,558 101,120 19% 2,260,456 2,237,744 99% t 2,053,416 754,618 37% 24,337,373 23,057,601 95% ; 25,183,057 5,770,762 23% ; Projection % $ Variance 5,810,927 94% 378,670: D � 1 2,187,182 93% 164,333!1 E f 1 85,566 88% 11,956!I F E 11,491,359 99% 138,813<1 G E i 1 461,224 100% t 1 929,066 99% 11,704!1 H 1 � 924,051 101% (4,768)! E 416,396 77% 123,16Z 1 @ 1 1 2,053,416 100% 24,359,187 97% 823,870: Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance 260,000 260,439 100% 97,290 24,321 25% 97,290 100% J (21,131,416) (20,150,477) 95% (20,999,354) (5,109,360) 24% (20,993,449) 100% 5,905! (20,871,416) (19,890,038) 95% ; (20,902,064) (5,085,039) 24% (20,896,159) 100% ; 5,905; Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance 12,975,718 13,897,135 107% 13,826,000 13,984,330 101% 13,984,331 101% 158,331- K 19,135,335 19,977,233 19,225,159 (3,112,849) 20,048,809 823,650- (20,871,416) (19,890,038) 1 (20,902,064) (5,085,039) 1 1 (20,896,159) i 5,905! 1 $ 11,239,637 $ 13,984,330 124% ; $ 12,149,095 $ 5,786,441 48% $ 13,136,981 108% ; $987,886: 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 Projected Personnel savings based on FY23/FY24 average vacancy rate of 9.6% E Projected Personnel savings based on FY23/FY24 average vacancy rate of 16.0% F Projected Personnel savings based on FY23/FY24 average vacancy rate of 13.4% G Projected Personnel savings based on FY23/FY24 average vacancy rate of 3.8% H Projected Personnel savings based on FY23/FY24 average vacancy rate of 3.2% 1 Projected Personnel savings based on FY23/FY24 average vacancy rate of 29.2% J Final payment to the General Fund from Finance Reserves for ERP Implementation K Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY23 v"(ESC0' Budget to Actuals Report Juvenile - Fund 030 FY24 YTD September 30, 2023 (tm _1Liditecl) RESOURCES OYA Basic & Diversion ODE Juvenile Crime Prev Leases Gen Fund -Crime Prevention Inmate/Prisoner Housing Miscellaneous DOC Unif Crime Fee/HB2712 Interest on Investments OJD Court Fac/Sec SB 1065 Food Subsidy Contract Payments TOTAL RESOURCES 25.0% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2.f;23 Fiscal 'Year 2024 Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance 525,049 459,333 87% 476,611 0% 477,422 100% ; 811 A 123,000 107,720 88% 106,829 - 0% 112,772 106% 5,943, B 86,000 90,228 105% 90,228 23,460 26% = 90,228 100% 89,500 89,500 100% 89,500 - 0% a 89,500 100% 55,000 127,050 231% 75,000 11,340 15% 75,000 100% 42,500 66,375 156% 56,500 7,305 13% 56,500 100% 49,339 50,462 102% 52,000 0% 52,000 100% 6,815 29,441 432% : 37,500 11,086 30% 44,350 118% 6,850 15,000 12,420 83% 15,000 3,802 25% 15,000 100% 10,000 13,116 131% 10,000 2,592 26% 10,000 100% 8,000 5,285 66% ! 5,000 1,232 25% 5,000 100% 1,010,203 1,050,931 104% ; 1,014,168 60,817 6% ; 1,027,772 101% ; 13,604: REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Personnel Services 6,292,271 5,995,923 95% 6,852,966 1,500,701 22% _ 6,527,005 95% 325,961- C Materials and Services 1,527,992 1,394,956 91% 1,599,048 360,644 23% 1,581,375 99% 17,673! D Capital Outlay 108,275 106,487 98% 29,265 29,265 100% a 29,265 100% e E TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 7,928,538 7,497,365 95% 8,481,279 1,890,610 22% ; 8,137,645 96% ; 343,634: TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In -General Funds 6,529,064 6,529,064 100% = 6,798,630 1,699,653 25% 6,798,630 100% Transfers Out - - (45,000) - 0% ! (45,000) 100% Transfers Out-Veh Reserve (76,067) (76,067) 100% (75,617) (18,903) 25% (75,617) 100% i TOTAL TRANSFERS 6,452,997 6,452,997 100% ; 6,678,013 1,680,750 25% , 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 1,528,688 102% 1,528,689 102% 281689- F Resources over Requirements (6,918,335) (6,446,434) (7,467,111) (1,829,793) (7,109,873) 357,238! Net Transfers - In (Out) 6,452,997 6,452,997 6,678,013 1,680,750 6,678,013 TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 634,663 $ 1,528,688 241% ; $ 710,902 $ 1,379,646 194% ; ; $ 1,096,829 154% ; $385,927'. A Final State Grant allocation for 23-25 Biennium B Final State Grant allocation for 23-25 Biennium C Projected Personnel savings based on FY23/FY24 average vacancy rate of 7.8% D Materials and services projections based on current spending trends. E __Detention security_ upgrade project. Additional technology and upgrade requirements.____ F Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY23 1ESBudget to Actuaes Report TRT - Fund 160/170 FY24 YTD September 30, 2023 funau6ted) 25.0% Year Complete Fisca; Year 2023 �--� Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Room Taxes 13,580,874 12,652,871 93% 12,630,000 6,117,630 48% s 12,219,890 97% (410,110); A Interest on Investments 1 50,408 95,656 190% 121,790 23,208 19% _ 91,240 75% c (30,550); Miscellaneous 1 - 161 ' - 181 ' § 300 300� TOTAL RESOURCES 13,631,282 12,748,688 94% 12,751,790 6,141,018 48% 12,311,430 97% ; (440,360); REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance COVA 3,675,886 3,417,576 93% a 3,378,641 1,094,031 32% 3,265,861 97% t 1121780, B Grants & Contributions 1 5,600,000 4,600,000 82% 3,000,000 3,000,000 100% 3,000,000 100% _ C Administrative 1 225,508 183,956 82% 262,395 53,173 20% 262,395 100% Interfund Charges 3,574,573 3,574,573 100% @ 213,587 53,397 25% 213,587 100% Software 1 47,251 46,125 98% 47,600 11,250 24% a 47,600 100% 1 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 13,123,218 11,822,231 90% 6,902,223 4,211,851 61% ; ; 6,789,443 98% 112,780: TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfer Out - RV Park (20,000) (20,000) 100% (20,000) (4,998) 25% _ (20,000) 100% e Transfer Out - Annual Fair 1 (75,000) (75,000) 100% (75,000) (18,750) 25% t ! (75,000) 100% Transfer Out -Justice Court 1 (263,217) (263,217) 100% (364,688) (91,170) 25% _ (364,688) 100% e Transfer Out = Health 1 (418,417) (418,417) 100% ' (368,417) (92,103) 25% a (368,417) 100% Transfer Out - F&E Reserve 1 (501,683) (465,685) 93% (462,119) (115,527) 25% a (446,948) 97% 15,171: D Transfer Out - General County 1 : (723,720) (180,930) 25% 1 (723,720) 100% Reserve Transfer Out - F&E (1,091,342) (1,019,042) 93% E (1,009,023) (252,252) 25% @ t (973,624) 96% 35,399, Transfer Out - Courthouse Debt - - (1,900,500) - 0% (1,900,500) 100% Service Transfer Out - Sheriff (3,651,787) (3,651,787) 100% _ (3,651,787) (912,945) 25% _ _ (3,651,787) 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS ; (6,021,446) (5,913,148) 98% (8,575,254) (1,668,675) 19% ; (8,524,684) 99% ; 50,570: FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 9,513,382 9,475,532 100% 4,725,187 4,488,842 95% 4,488,842 95% (236,345); E Resources over Requirements 508,064 926,457 5,849,567 1,929,168 ! 5,521,987 (327,580) Net Transfers - In (Out) (6,021,446) (5,913,148) (8,575,254) 1 1 (1,668,675) i I I (8,524,684) 50,570, 1 1 TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 4,000,000 $ 4,488,842 112% ; $ 1,999,500 $ 4,749,334 238% ; $ 1,486,145 74% ; ($513,355); A Room Tax revenue down 3.2% from FY23 B Payments to COVA based on a percent of TRT collections C Includes contributions of $2M to Sunriver Service District and $1M 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 \)IESC,0 Budget to Actuals Report ARPA -- Fund 200 FY24 YTD September 30, 2023 (un2ddited) 25.0% Year Complete Fiscai'Year 2023 ~� Fisca! Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals Budget Ar.tuals % Projection % $ Variance Local Assistance & Tribal - - 2,311,073 4,622,145 200% 4,622,146 200% 2,311,073, Consistency Interest on Investments 105,186 293,106 279% w 319,460 58,753 18% 235,010 74% (84,450); State & Local Coronavirus Fiscal 14,662,784 E - 9,516,992 P 9,516,992 9,516,99Z Recovery Funds TOTAL RESOURCES 105,186 14,955,890 999% ; 2,630,533 14,197,890 540% ; 14,374,148 546% ; 11,743,615: REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Services to Disproportionately 15,394,824 11,733,287 76% ° 6,538,263 167,648 3% 6,538,263 100% Impacted Communities Administrative 4,317,328 144,531 3% 4,208,310 32,115 1% 1,635,245 39% 2,573,065; Infrastructure P 1,634,710 860,474 53% 766,410 19,134 2% 766,410 100% Public Health P 882,922 997,337 113% a 560,926 117,066 21% P 560,926 100% Negative Economic Impacts f— 899,577 927,155 103% 252,363 - 0% P 252,363 100% TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 23,129,361 14,662,784 63% ; 12,326,272 335,963 3% 9,753,207 79% ; 2,573,065: TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers Out - (5,022,145) (5,022,145) 100% (5,022,145) 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS - (5,022,145) (5,022,145) 100% ; ; (5,022,145) 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 23,024,175 108,098 0% 14,717,884 401,204 3% 401,204 3% : (14,316,680 A Resources over Requirements (23,024,175) 293,106 (9,695,739) 13,861,926 P 4,620,941 14,316,680, Net Transfers - In (Out) P P (5,022,145) (5,022,145) P P (5,022,145) o E E TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 401,204 999% ; $ 9,240,985 999% ; ; $0; A Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY23 Q`�uTES COG2< Budget to Actuals Report Justice Court - Fund 220 25.0% FY24 YTD September 30, 2023 (unaudited) Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Court Fines & Fees 525,000 517,489 99% 525,000 136,693 26% _ 525,000 100% Interest on Investments 32 513 999% ; 540 356 66% € 1,420 263% = 8W TOTAL RESOURCES 525,032 518,001 99% 525,540 137,049 26% ; 526,420 100% ; 880; REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Personnel Services 604,648 592,149 98% 651,767 145,125 22% 662,027 102% _ (10,260); Materials and Services 161,535 150,549 93% 170,603 51,416 30% 170,603 100% < <A TOTAL REQUIREMENTS ; 766,183 742,697 97% ; 822,370 196,541 24% 832,630 101% ; (10,260); TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In -TRT 263,217 263,217 100% 364,688 91,170 25% 364,688 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS 263,217 263,217 100% ; 364,688 91,170 25% ; 364,688 100% ; Resources over Requirements (241,151) (224,696) (296,830) (59,492) _ (306,210) (9,380); Net Transfers - In (Out) 263,217 263,217 364,688 91,170 a t 364,688 r e TOTAL ` $ 22,066 $ 38,521 175% ; $ 67,858 $ 31,678 47% ; ; $ 58,478 86% ; ($9,380); A One time yearly software maintenance fee paid in July for entire fiscal year oy`'�uIES C-0 Budget to Actuals Report Sheriff's Office - Fund 255 25.0% FY24 YTD September 30, 2023 (unaudited) Year Complete Fiscai Year 2023 -� Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuais % 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% a 1 15,110,056 100% a B Sheriff's Office Revenues F 5,307,630 6,093,977 115% 4,583,572 833,592 18% @ 4,730,632 103% = 147,0606 LED #1 Property Tax Prior 330,000 277,442 84% 330,000 121,380 37% _ 330,000 100% a e LED #1 Interest F 89,119 283,971 319% 264,000 37,226 14% _ 148,370 56% s (115,630) LED #2 Property Tax Prior 145,000 114,469 79% 120,000 52,091 43% 120,000 100% LED #2 Interest F 22,716 73,353 323% a 65,000 512 1% a 1,810 3% (63,190)! TOTAL RESOURCES 49,577,055 50,672,726 102% ; 58,332,752 1,044,801 2% 58,300,992 100% ; (31,760); REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Digital Forensics 808,610 856,836 106% 1,221,145 342,089 28% 1,323,609 108% (102,464); Concealed Handgun Licenses 335,044 345,454 103% 624,277 94,678 15% 446,526 72% 177,751 P Rickard Ranch 1 264,871 278,671 105% 334,232 97,843 29% 339,848 102% (5,616)a Sheriffs Services 1 5,863,885 5,196,628 89% 5,771,949 1,343,590 23% 5,992,278 104% (220,329); Civil/Special Units 1,168,300 1,102,770 94% 1,019,021 221,893 22% _ 1,095,629 108% ° (76,608); Automotive/Communications F 3,765,888 3,635,006 97% 4,574,918 836,782 18% a 4,482,766 98% 92,15Z Detective F 3,583,825 4,105,995 115% 4,774,538 1,152,048 24% 4,434,554 93% 339,984! Patrol F 14,880,315 14,858,735 100% 16,270,641 3,803,624 23% 16,715,449 103% (444,808)! Records 1 904,493 687,442 76% 855,590 159,899 19% 700,208 82% 155,382! Adult Jail ' 22,809,320 20,842,708 91% ! 23,784,474 4,478,617 19% 0 21,461,930 90% 2,322,544 Court Security 424,769 598,098 141% t 600,590 131,594 22% 577,824 96% 22,7661 Emergency Services 829,997 545,477 66% 808,931 123,454 15% ¢ 567,787 70% 241,144, Special Services 2,047,792 2,374,496 116% 2,779,458 635,859 23% 2,951,144 106% (171,686); Training 1,907,588 1,986,740 104% 1,537,498 514,119 33% E 1,488,003 97% 49,495, Other Law Enforcement F 820,836 958,658 117% 634,835 325,177 51% s 919,835 145% @ (285,000)l Non - Departmental 1 - 0% 50,000 - 0% s 50,000 100% i TOTAL REQUIREMENTS ; 60,415,533 58,373,715 97% ; 65,642,097 14,261,266 22% ; 63,547,390 97% 2,094,707: TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfer In -TRT 3,651,787 3,651,787 100% ; 3,651,787 912,945 25% I F 3,651,787 100% 1 F F Transfer In - General Fund 70,000 1 70,000 100% - - Transfers Out - Debt Service 1 (273,200) (272,678) 100% (273,200) - 0% F (273,200) 100% a TOTAL TRANSFERS 3,448,587 3,449,109 100% ; 3,378,587 912,945 27% 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 11,001,214 83% 11,001,215 83% (2,183,936); C Resources over Requirements_ (10,838,478) (7,700,989) _(7,309,345) (13,216,465) (5,246,398)_ 2,062,947, Net Transfers - In (Out) 1 3,448,587 3,449,109 p I 3,378,587 912,945 s E! 3,378,587 1 1 TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 7,024,650 $ 11,001,214 157% ; $ 9,254,393 ($ 1,302,306) -14% $ 9,133,404 99% ; ($120,989); 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 OTESfnG�� Budget to Actuals Report Hea th Services - Fund 4 25.0°�° FY24 YTD September 30, 2023 (unaudited) Year Complete Fisca! '- ear 2023 �__- f isc:al 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 TOTALRESOURCES 22,223,536 18,578,578 84% 22,695,518 9,497,030 42% 23,480,686 103% = 785,168: 12,882,624 12,088,181 94% 16,494,114 4,446,319 27% 0 16,494,114 100% 1 8,901,719 7,751,386 87% 6,267,385 2,294,877 37% ! 5,533,801 88% (733,584)i 1 3,232,620 5,287,409 164% = 4,947,581 826,798 17% ! 4,144,349 84% (803,232); 1 2,332,031 2,054,936 88% 1,567,894 1,292,475 82% 1,471,758 94% (96,136); i 1,238,499 1,335,280 108% 1,478,906 70,461 5% 1,478,906 100% 1 2,615,634 2,390,105 91% 1,440,560 295,928 21% 1,500,861 104% E 60,301! 1 615,644 748,534 122% 1,087,790 169,182 16% 658,298 61% (429,492)= 1 1,169,317 1,976,339 169% 1,061,371 444,996 42% 1,367,379 129% = 306,008! 1 807,530 1,197,300 148% 1,034,491 195,915 19% 762,561 74% _ (271,930) 1 430,863 746,146 173% 431,000 147,935 34% = 496,128 115% 65,128a 1 300,000 354,158 118% a 315,000 66,514 21% 274,050 87% (40,950)a 1 97,750 390,781 400% 262,007 140,508 54% 562,030 215% 300,023! 1 337,614 234,401 69% 209,500 49,169 23% 170,383 81% (39,117) 177,574 161,412 91% 177,574 16,630 9% 177,574 100% 1 125,000 152,985 122% 158,000 42,510 27% 102,605 65% a (55,395) 1 127,000 127,000 100% e d 127,000 - 0% a 1 1 127,000 100% f 1 1 173,030 63,178 37% - - 57,787,985 55,638,108 96% 59,755,691 19,997,247 33% ; 58,802,483 98% (953,208); REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Administration Allocation - - 999% - - - _ - -1 Personnel Services 1 50,658,752 48,187,764 95% 50,066,651 11,222,739 22% 51,920,601 104% ° (1,853,950)a Materials and Services 1 19,393,800 14,220,207 73% 20,817,560 2,871,977 14% 21,966,709 106% (1,149,149); Capital Outlay 1 926,575 504,137 54% 347,500 32,286 9% 535,110 154% (187,610)� TOTAL REQUIREMENTS ; 70,979,127 62,912,108 89% ; 71,231,711 14,127,002 20% ; 74,422,420 104% ; (3,190,709); TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In- General Fund 6,608,245 5,648,912 85% 6,780,140 1,695,006 25% 6,780,140 100% Transfers In- OHP Mental Health 1,473,586 345,442 23% 1,930,573 60,350 3% 2,210,573 115% 280,0W Transfers In - TRT 1 418,417 418,417 100% 368,417 92,103 25% 368,417 100% Transfers Out 1 (492,306) (562,306) 114% (1,282,674) (75,042) 6% (1,282,674) 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS 8,007,942 5,850,465 73% 7,796,456 1,772,417 23% 8,076,456 104% ; 280,000: FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 11,228,719 13,942,649 124% 11,417,516 12,519,113 110% 12,519,115 110% 1,101,599- Resources over Requirements _ (13,191,142) __ (7,274,000)__ _ _ (11,476,020) 5,870,245 (15,619,937)_ _(4,143,917)! Net Transfers - In (Out) I 8,007,942 5,850,465 1 7,796,456 1,772,417 I I 8,076,456 280,000! I 1 TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 6,045,519 $ 12,519,113 207% $ 7,737,952 $ 20,161,776 261% $ 4,975,634 ° 2,762,318 64 /o ($ , ) V1ES C °G2� Budget to Actuals Report Health Services -Ail° - Fund 274 25.0% FY24 YTD September 30, 2023 (unaudited} Year Complete Fi6iai Year 2023 ��_ �- Fis�;ai Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance OHP Capitation 367,074 367,074 100% 435,349 119,490 27% a 435,349 100% Interest on Investments 97,750 390,781 400% F 262,007 140,508 54% 562,030 215% 300,023! State Grant 379,180 142,133 37% 160,000 103,716 65% 160,000 100% Other 160,495 33,725 21% 9,000 132,609 999% 161,977 999% 152,977!A Federal Grants 454,405 592,179 130% - - TOTAL RESOURCES ; 1,458,904 1,525,892 105% ; 866,356 496,324 57% 1,319,356 152% ; 453,000; REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Personnel Services 6,738,820 6,093,176 90% 6,519,513 1,491,706 23% 6,874,956 105% (355,443); Materials and Services 6,998,683 6,732,321 96% 7,527,129 1,793,208 24% 7,908,848 105% (381,719) Capital Outlay 12,000 - 0% 43,750 - 0% 43,750 100% Administration Allocation (11,228,846) (11,228,846) 100% (12,589,086) - 0% (12,589,086) 100% TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 2,520,656 1,596,650 63% ; 1,501,306 3,284,914 219% ; ; 2,2389468 149% ; (737,162); 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 (230,635) (230,635) 100% (300,174) (75,042) 25% a (300,174) 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS ; (149,864) (149,864) 100% ; (218,924) (75,042) 34% ; (218,924) 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 3,884,332 4,007,465 103% ; 3,665,544 3,786,843 103% 3,786,844 103% 121,300� B Resources over Requirements (1,061,752) (70,758) (634,950) (2,788,590) (919,112) (284,162) Net Transfers - In (Out) ! g (149,864) (149,864) 1 (218,924) (75,042) ( d (218,924) I a 1 TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 2,672,716 $ 3,786,843 142% ; $ 2,811,670 $ 923,211 33% ; ; $ 2,648,808 94% ($162,862), 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. 8 Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY23 Qy`leviES C-0 Budget to Actuals Report Health Services - Behavioral Health - Ewald 274 25.0% FY24 YTD September 30, 2023 (unaudited) Year Complete Fiscal rear `2.023 ��-- _y F;z cai Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance 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 TOTALRESOURCES REQUIREMENTS Administration Allocation Personnel Services Materials and Services Capital Outlay TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 15,718,843 12,660,784 81% 17,043,491 8,669,345 51% _ 17,593,013 103% 549,522: A 12,515,550 11,721,107 94% 16,058,765 4,326,829 27% _ 16,058,765 100% 8,027,373 7,063,393 88% 5,398,674 2,293,509 42% a 4,691,539 87% (707,135)a 3,214,360 5,256,164 164% 4,927,331 821,101 17% ` 4,123,841 84% 6 (803,490)a 1,475,139 1,262,473 86% 1,348,943 793,104 59% a 1,098,648 81% (250,295): 2,017,169 1,636,693 81% 1,285,560 259,047 20% 1,335,125 104% 49,565� 719,670 730,175 101% ` 631,245 158,603 25% ` 632,216 100% 6 971d 519,344 607,872 117% 448,500 128,641 29% 473,587 106% a 25,087, 430,863 746,146 173% 431,000 147,935 34% 496,128 115% 65,128! 337,614 234,401 69% 209,500 49,169 23% e E 170,383 81% (39,117) 177,574 161,412 91% a 177,574 16,630 9% 177,574 100% 127,000 a 127,000 100% 127,000 - 0% 127,000 100% � e 173,030 e 63,178 37% _ - - - 45,453,529 42,270,797 93% ; 48,087,583 17,663,912 37% 46,977,819 98% (1,109,764); Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance 8,265,132 8,265,132 100% 9,521,531 - 0% 9,521,531 100% 32,453,031 31,307,705 96% 31,872,043 7,165,685 22% a 32,921,518 103% (1,049,475); 9,948,652 5,531,099 56% 11,084,085 804,020 7% _ 11,556,069 104% (471,984) 497,443 312,691 63% 160,250 26,398 16% 135,000 84% 25,250 51,164,258 45,416,627 89% ; 52,637,909 7,996,103 15% ; , 54,134,118 103% ; (1,496,209); TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In -General Fund 2,231,439 1,440,767 65% = 2,231,439 557,844 25% 2,231,439 100% Transfers In- OHP Mental Health 1,392,815 264,671 19% 1,5299358 - 0% 1,809,358 118% 280,000! Transfers Out (152,921) (196,921) 129% (481,000) - 0% (481,000) 100% a TOTAL TRANSFERS 3,471,333 1,508,517 43% 3,279,797 557,844 17% 3,559,797 109% ; 280,000; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 4,788,795 6,317,144 132% 3,989,589 4,679,830 117% _ 4,679,831 117% 690,242, B Resources over Requirements (5,710,729) (3,145,830) (4,550,326) 9,667,809 (7,156,299) (2,605,973) Net Transfers - In (Out) 3,471,333 1,508,517 3,279,797 557,844 3,559,797 280,000 TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 2,549,399 $ 4,679,830 184% $ 2,719,060 $ 14,905,483 548% $ 1,083,329 40% ;($1,635,731); 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). B Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY23 uTES C Q`� 0' Budget to Actuals Report Health Services - Public Health - and 274 FY24 YTD September 30, 2023 (unaudited) RESOURCES State Grant Environmental Health Fees State - Medicaid/Medicare State Miscellaneous Patient Fees Other Vital Records Local Grants State Shared- Family Planning Federal Grants OHP Fee for Service TOTAL RESOURCES 25.0% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2,323 w� Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance 6,125,513 5,775,661 94% 5,492,027 723,969 13% _ 5,727,673 104% 235,64& A 1,238,499 1,335,280 108% 1,478,906 70,461 5% e a 1,478,906 100% E 807,530 1,197,300 148% 1,034,491 195,915 19% 9 762,561 74% _ (271,930); B 874,346 687,993 79% 868,711 1,367 0% ` 842,262 97% (26,449); 96,300 140,662 146% 639,290 40,541 6% , 184,711 29% _ (454,579); C 289,152 1,212,439 419% 421,126 153,784 37% _ 573,186 136% 152,060- 300,000 354,158 118% - 315,000 66,514 21% ! 274,050 87% a (40,950); 856,892 792,463 92% 218,951 499,371 228% o 373,110 170% 154,159- 125,000 152,985 122% ; 158,000 42,510 27% , 102,605 65% f (55,395) 144,060 161,233 112% 155,000 36,881 24% 165,736 107% = 10,736- 18,260 31,245 171% 20,250 5,698 28% i 20,508 101% 258! 10,875,552 11,841,419 109% ; 10,801,752 1,837,011 17% 10,505,308 97% ; (296,444); 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% 11,675,095 2,565,348 22% a f 12,124,127 104% a (449,032)6 Materials and Services 2,446,466 1,956,788 80% 2,206,346 274,748 12% 2,501,792 113% (295,446); D Capital Outlay 417,132 191,446 46% 143,500 5,888 4% 356,360 248% (212,860)e E TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 17,294,213 15,898,830 92% 17,092,496 2,845,985 17% ; , 18,049,834 106% ; (957,338); TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In -General Fund 4,376,806 4,208,145 96% 4,548,701 1,137,162 25% 4,548,701 100% Transfers In - TRT 418,417 418,417 100% a 368,417 92,103 25% 368,417 100% Transfers In- OHP Mental Health - 319,965 60,350 19% _ , 319,965 100% Transfers Out (108,750) (134,750) 124% (501,500) 0% , (501,500) 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS 4,686,473 4,491,812 96% ; 4,735,583 1,289,615 27% ; 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% 4,052,440 108% 290,057� F Resources over Requirements a (6,418,661) (4,057,412) (6,290,744) (1,008,974) (7,544,526) (1,253,782) i Net Transfers - In (Out) 4,686,473 4,491,812 4,735,583 1,289,615 4,735,583 TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 823,404 $ 4,052,440 492% ; $ 2,207,222 $ 4,333,081 196% ; $ 1,243,497 56% ; ($963,725); 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 Medicaid trending lower than budgeted. C Patient Insurance Fees trending lower than budgeted. D Expenditures above budget related to delayed renovations at the North County Campus ($374K). E Includes remodel and furniture expenses originally budgeted in FY23 for North County Campus that were delayed into FY24. F Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY23 �vTESC�G�� Budget to Actuals Report Community Development - Fund 295 FY24 YTD September 30, 2023 (unauditeU) 25.0% Year Complete Fiscal Ycar 2,623 Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Admin- Operations 153,445 154,886 101% = 157,300 32,540 21% 157,300 100% = F Code Compliance 1,171,592 915,867 78% 1,124,181 199,637 18% a 770,181 69% (354,000); A Building Safety 4,821,160 4,118,192 85% a 3,991,388 901,978 23% @ 3,370,538 84% (620,850); A Electrical 1,022,005 769,054 75% 902,175 211,746 23% 810,175 90% _ (92,000); A Onsite Wastewater 1,017,678 718,263 71 % 923,880 219,792 24% 898,420 97% (25,460) A Current Planning 2,425,334 1,966,872 81% 2,304,562 386,513 17% ! 1,446,562 63% (858,000); A Long Range Planning 1,064,305 812,752 76% 1,057,354 231,000 22% ! 840,854 80% _ (216,500)- A TOTAL RESOURCES 11,675,519 9,455,886 81% ; 10,460,840 2,183,207 21% 8,294,030 79% (2,166,810); REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuais % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Admin - Operations 3,432,980 3,085,363 90% 3,241,288 725,739 22% _ 3,025,961 93% 215,327, B Code Compliance 805,614 714,049 89% 743,931 151,392 20% 666,791 90% < 77,140! B Building Safety 2,538,721 1,866,742 74% 2,088,542 406,182 19% e 1,972,784 94% 115,75& B Electrical 641,837 538,383 84% 583,718 122,873 21% 568,230 97% 15,488- B Onsite Wastewater 753,369 754,829 100% 865,670 180,242 21% ' 755,315 87% 110,355a B Current Planning 2,062,044 1,613,571 78% 1,857,735 382,523 21% a 1,621,401 87% 236,334! B Long Range Planning 998,739 893,682 89% 888,677 188,499 21% f 726,855 82% 161,822! B TOTAL REQUIREMENTS ; 11,233,304 9,466,620 84% ; 10,269,561 2,157,450 21% ; 9,337,337 91% 932,224: TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers in - CDD Operating - - 510,105 - 0% a 510,105 100% = D Fund Transfers in - General Fund 160,000 139,916 87% 100,000 4,196 4% 100,000 100% C Transfers In - CDD Electrical 108,670 86,721 659 1% 75,690 87% (11,031): D Reserve Transfers In - CDD Building - - - 5,472 5,472- D Reserve Transfers Out (112,619) (112,619) 100% (107,544) (26,877) 25% a (107,544) 100% Transfers Out - CDD Reserve (958,966) (971,472) 101% (122,752) (1669640) 136% , - 0% 122,752= E TOTAL TRANSFERS (911,585) (835,505) 92% 466,530 (188,662) -40% ; 583,723 125% ; 117,193: FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 2,096,504 2,168,956 103% 1,317,921 1,322,717 100% 1,322,718 100% 4,797, F Resources over Requirements 442,215 (10,734) 191,279 25,756 _ (1,043,307) _ (1,234,586)! Net Transfers - In (Out) (911,585) (835,505) 466,530 (188,662) 583,723 117,193- TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 1,627,134 $ 1,322,717 81% _ $ 1,975,730 $ 19159,812 59% $ 8639134 44% t($1,112,596); A YTD revenue collection is lower than anticipated due to reduced permitting volumes B Projections reflect unfilled positions and increased health benefits costs C Quarterly transfer for hearings officer actual cost of service D Transfer in from reserves anticipated to balance the division E Transfer out anticipated to be reversed over the next two quarters as revenue collections are anticipated to be significantly less during this period F Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY23 o`1*31ESC-,o Budget to Actuals Report Road - Fund 325 FY24 YTD September 30, 2023 (unaudiked 25.0% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 �N Fis,,ai Yea, 2124 RESOURCES Budget Actuals °/) Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Motor Vehicle Revenue 19,483,147 20,563,619 106% = 20,648,483 4,915,557 24% 20,648,483 100% a Federal - PILT Payment 2,200,000 2,239,616 102% a 2,240,000 2,394,054 107% I 2,394,054 107% ` 154,054 A Other Inter -fund Services I 1,311,901 1,232,001 94% 1,450,015 88,217 6% 1,450,015 100% Cities-Bend/Red/Sis/La Pine I 403,731 969,028 240% 763,171 - 0% 763,171 100% Federal Reimbursements I - 7,641 I 689,703 - 0% I 689,703 100% s Sale of Equip & Material 426,000 385,036 90% 0 614,500 64,942 11% I 614,500 100% Interest on Investments I 54,172 105,203 194% 138,031 25,753 19% 103,010 75% i (35,021)l Miscellaneous I 77,610 65,385 84% 73,808 8,836 12% ! 73,808 100% 1 Mineral Lease Royalties 50,000 105,306 211% 50,000 707 1% E 87,883 176% 37,883! A Assessment Payments (P&I) - 5,175 65000 9,871 165% 18,000 300% = 12,000, A Forest Receipts 882,502 - 0% - - _ State Miscellaneous - 20,000 - - TOTAL RESOURCES 24,889,063 25,698,009 103% ; 26,673,711 7,507,936 28% 26,842,627 101% ; 168,916; REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Personnel Services 7,802,271 7,346,958 94% a 8,406,468 1,840,062 22% 8,033,523 96% 3721945= B Materials and Services 8,246,700 6,385,588 77% B 8,600,033 1,790,643 21% 8,612,188 100% (12,155)! Capital Outlay I 140,025 90,004 64% ! 118,260 2,475 2% I 106,105 90% 12,155! TOTAL REQUIREMENTS ; 16,188,996 13,822,550 85% 17,124,761 3,633,181 21% 16,751,816 98% 372,945: TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers Out (12,330,136) (12,330,136) 100% (12,700,000) (7,700,000) 61% (12,700,000) 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS (12,330,136) (12,330,136) 100% ; (12,700,000) (7,700,000) 61% ; (12,700,000) 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 5,892,967 7,806,356 132% 5,521,251 7,351,679 133% _ 7,351,679 133% 1,830,428, C Resources over Requirements 8,700,067 11,875,459 9,548,950 3,874,756 10,090,811 541,861- Net Transfers - In (Out) (12,330,136) (12,330,136) (12,700,000) (7,700,000) (12,700,000) TOTAL FUND BALANCE o $ 2,262,898 $ 7,351,679 325% ; $ 2,370,201 $ 3,526,435 149% ; ; $ 4,742,491 200% ; $2,372,290: A Actual payment higher than budget B Projected Personnel savings based on FY23/FY24 average vacancy rate of 7.4% C Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY23 ,��31esC0G�{ Budget to Actuals Report Adult P&P -Fund 355 FY24 YTD September 30, 2023 (unaudited) 25.0% Year Complete F-777F;cal Year 2,123 v v 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% a 4,143,986 101% = 27,522, A CJC Justice Reinvestment 1 892,038 943,172 106% 943,172 - 0% _ 908,108 96% _ (35,064); B DOC Measure 57 1 244,606 271,606 111% 256,815 - 0% 259,307 101% 2,492, C Interest on Investments 1 18,151 63,625 351% 75,230 21,180 28% 84,720 113% ! 9,490! Interfund-Sheriff 1 50,000 50,000 100% 50,000 12,500 25% 50,000 100% Gen Fund/Crime Prevention 1 50,000 50,000 100% 50,000 - 0% 50,000 100% State Miscellaneous 1 123,453 179,530 145% 22,607 - 0% p 19,709 87% (2,898)� D Oregon BOPPPS 20,318 - 0% 20,318 0% _ 20,318 100% Electronic Monitoring Fee 500 889 178% 500 258 52% 500 100% Miscellaneous 1 500 2,099 420% 500 - 0% ! € 500 100% TOTAL RESOURCES 6,134,018 6,295,372 103% ; 5,535,606 1,217,551 22% 5,537,148 100% ; 1,542; REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Personnel Services 5,683,822 5,042,967 89% 5,907,511 1,190,812 20% g 5,174,443 88% 733,068, E Materials and Services 1 1,883,614 1,739,432 92% a 1,618,521 352,797 22% 1,608,251 99% 10,270! F Capital Outlay 1 8,475 8,475 100% a - - 1 - 1 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS ; 7,575,910 6,790,874 90% ; 7,526,032 1,543,609 21% 6,782,694 90% ; 743,338: TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In- General Funds 536,369 536,369 100% 536,369 134,091 25% 536,369 100% Transfers Out 1 (199,560) (199,560) 100% - - - Transfer to Vehicle Maint 1 (69,277) (69,277) 100% (75,419) (18,852) 25% (75,419) 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS 267,532 267,532 100% ; 460,950 115,239 25% 460,950 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 3,100,000 3,238,905 104% 3,000,000 3,010,934 100% a 3,010,935 100% = 10,935: G Resources over Requirements (1,441,892) (495,502) (1,990,426) (326,058) _ _ (1,245,546) 744,880 Net Transfers - In (Out) 1 267,532 267,532 1 460,950 115,239 i 0 460,950 1 1 TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 1,925,640 $ 3,010,934 156% ; $ 1,470,524 $ 2,800,115 190% ; ; $ 2,226,339 151% ; $755,815: A Final State Grant allocation for 23-25 Biennium B Final State Grant allocation for 23-25 Biennium C Final State Grant allocation for 23-25 Biennium D Final State Grant allocation for 23-25 Biennium E Projected Personnel savings based on FY23/FY24 average vacancy rate of 14.9% F --- Materialsandservices_ projections based on current spending trends. G Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY23 uTES COG�< Budget to Actuals Report Road SIP - Fund 465 FY24 YTD September 30, 2023 (unaudited) 25.0% Year Complete Fis-ai Year 2023 j _Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance State Miscellaneous 1,818,500 127,458 7% 1,704,116 891,811 52% ' 1,704,116 100% Interest on Investments I 124,563 337,583 271% 475,310 152,835 32% _ 611,340 129% 136,030- A Miscellaneous I - 317,508 ' - 19,241 I I 19,241 I 19,241, A TOTAL RESOURCES 1,943,063 782,549 40% ; 2,179,426 1,063,887 49% 2,334,697 107% ; 155,271: REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Materials and Services 127,640 127,640 100% ^ 132,770 33,193 25% 132,770 100% Capital Outlay I 28,259,526 16,769,496 59% 23,640,057 3,167,713 13% a I 23,633,009 100% i 7,048 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS ; 28,387,166 16,897,136 60% 23,772,827 3,200,906 13% 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% 19,012,380 23,347,907 123% 23,347,907 123% 4,335,527, B Resources over Requirements (26,444,103) (16,114,587) _ I (21,593,401) (2,137,019) 1 1 (21,431,082) d I 162,319! I 1 Net Transfers - In (Out) 1 14,230,313 12,238,662 I 12,500,000 5,000,000 1 t 12,500,000 t I TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 12,334,484 $ 23,347,907 189% ; $ 9,918,979 $ 26,210,888 264% ; ; $ 14,416,824 145% ; $4,497,845: A Actual payment higher than budget B Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY23 Budget to Actuals Report Wy`apres�0 Road CIP (Fund 465) - Capital Outlay Summary by Project 25.00% FY24 YTD September 30, 2023 Year Completed Fiscal Year 2023 Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Terrebonne Refinement Plan i $ 7,319,310 $ 2,200,000 $ 5,119,310 $ - 0% $ 5,119,310 100% $ $ Hunnel Rd: Loco Rd to Tumalo Rd 4,265,216 2,562,129 60% 1,569,800 324,503 21% 2,518,373 160% (948,573): Transportation System Plan Update - 51,980 9,954 27,256 (27,256) Gribbling Rd Bridge 818,500 141,509 17% 704,116 754 0% 692,000 98% 12,116i Smith Rock Way Bridge Replace 985,000 122,938 12% 1,417,429 - 0% 1,417,429 100% Deschutes Mkt Rd/Hamehook Round 1,663,000 750,822 45% 250,000 872,351 349% 1,170,000 468% (920,000) Powell Butte Hwy/Butler Market RB 785,000 250,902 32 % 2,642,402 77,527 3 % 2,642,402 100 Wilcox Ave Bridge #2171-03 Replacement 160,000 - 0% 160,000 - 0% 160,000 100% i Paving of Rosland Rd: US 20 to Draf 380,000 260,811 69 % 386,480 386,480 (386,480): Hamehook Rd Bridge #16181 Rehabilitation 96,500 227 0% 595,000 - 0% 350,000 59% i 245,000: NW Lower Bridge Way: 43rd St to Holmes Rd 100,000 10,825 11 % 1,290,000 0% i 320,000 25% 970,000: Northwest Way: NW CoynerAve to NW Altmeter Wy 815,000 0% 556,000 0% 556,000 100% Slurry Seal 2023 300,000 1,165 0% ? 357,325 357,325 (357,325): Terrebonne Wastewater System Phase 1 1,000,000 - 0% 1,000,000 - 0% 1,000,000 100% i Tumalo Reservoir Rd: OB Riley to Sisemore Rd 100,000 - 0% 1 300,000 377 0% 300,000 100 Local Road Pavement Preservation 200,000 - 0% 200,000 - 0% 200,000 100% US20:LocustS[ - - 1,000,000 - 0% 1,000,000 100% Paving Butler Market - Hamehook to Powell Butte 866 320,000 1,495 0% 1,494,879 467% 1 (1,174,879) Old Bend Rdm Hwy - US 20 to Tumalo - 1,210,000 1,136,947 94 % i 1,295,556 107 % (85,556) Paving Of Horse Butte Rd - - 460,000 - 0 % 460,000 100 Paving Of Obr Hwy: Tumalo To Helmho - - 3,000,000 0% 880,000 29% 2,120,000 Paving Of Spring River Rd: S Centur - 510,000 - 0% i 280,000 55% i 230,000: Slurry Seal2024 - 300,000 - 0% 120,000 40% 180,000' 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% i 169,000 100% Local Access Road Bridges 150,000 - 150,000 - 0% 150,000 100% ' - FY 23 Guardrail Improvements 150,000 - 0% - 0% 150,000 Signage Improvements - 97,156 150,000 - 0% 150,000 100% TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $ 28,259,526 $ 16,491,988 58% $ 23,640,057? 3,167,713 13% $ 23,633,009 100 % $ 7,048 Q.`�uTES COG,< Budget to Actuals Report Solid Waste - Fund 610 FY24 YTD September 30, 2023 (unaudite(i) 25.0% Year Complete Fisva! Yeai 2023 Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Franchise Disposal Fees 7,210,000 7,006,324 97% 8,000,000 1,954,571 24% 8,000,000 100% = A Private Disposal Fees 3,337,000 2,944,356 88% 3,450,000 972,761 28% 3,450,000 100% a A Commercial Disp. Fee 3,234,000 3,026,577 94% 3,310,000 1,348,403 41% s 3,310,000 100% ; A Franchise 3% Fees ' 305,000 363,105 119% ! 565,000 113,694 20% a 565,000 100% _ B Yard Debris 290,000 305,516 105% ! 400,000 153,263 38% = s 400,000 100% C Miscellaneous 70,000 140,837 201% 173,000 69,675 40% 173,000 100% Interest on Investments 30,498 43,342 142% 60,410 25,703 43% ! ! 102,810 170% = 42,400. D Special Waste a 15,000 62,756 418% 30,000 19,776 66% = 30,000 100% E Recyclables 12,000 7,060 59% 7,000 2,244 32% ! i i 7,000 100% a Leases 1 1 100% 1 - 0% 1 100% TOTAL RESOURCES 14,503,499 13,899,874 96% 15,995,411 4,660,088 29% ; 16,037,811 100% ; 42,400; REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Personnel Services 3,277,684 3,139,678 96% = 4,108,983 802,192 20% _ 4,108,983 100% Materials and Services 61473,358 5,716,762 88% 7,683,911 1,155,011 15% a 7,683,911 100% Capital Outlay 264,000 181,603 69% 260,000 192,190 74% 260,000 100% a 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 2,149,393 15% ; 14,355,234 100% ; TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance SW Capital & Equipment (5,299,665) (3,453,962) 65% (2,613,962) (653,489) 25% (2,613,962) 100% Reserve TOTAL TRANSFERS (5,299,665) (3,453,962) 65% ; (2,613,962) (653,489) 25% ; ; (2,613,962) 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 3,107,198 3,066,662 99% 2,416,385 2,743,514 114% _ 2,743,514 114% 327,129, F Resources over Requirements 2,748,827 3,130,814 1,640,177 2,510,696 1,682,577 42,400 Net Transfers - In (Out) o (5,299,665) (3,453,962) � (2,613,962) (653,489) _ oe (2,613,962) � o TOTAL FUND BALANCE _ $ 556,359 $ 2,743,514 493% ; $ 1,442,600 $ 4,600,720 319% ; $ 1,812,129 126% ; $369,529: 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. Franchise disposal fee payment of $253K was not received from Cascade Disposal by closing. B Annual fees due April 15, 2024; received year-to-date monthly installments from Republic C Yard Debris revenue is seasonal with higher utilization in summer months; fiscal YTD volumes are running 7% higher than last year-to-date D Investment Income projected to come in higher than budget E Special Waste revenue source is unpredictable and dependent on special clean-up projects of contaminated soil and asbestos (i.e. stormwater control sediment and debris) F Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY23 oy`�uTESCpG�{ Budget to Actuals Report Fair Expo Fund v1 a FY24 YTD September 30, 2023 (unaudited) 2 5.0% Year Complete Fiscai Year 2023 Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals °ia budget Actuals °/o Projection % $ variance Events Revenue 745,759 948,145 127% 1,050,000 311,384 30% 897,505 85% (152,495); Food & Beverage 745,000 1,048,507 141% 991,000 624,793 63% a 1,238,974 125% t 247,974 Rights & Signage 105,000 97,159 93% s 105,000 62,616 60% 99,616 95% ` (5,384) Horse Stall Rental 49,000 78,825 161% 100,000 35,190 35% _ 66,420 66% (33,580) Storage 65,000 45,551 70% 50,000 2,254 5% 45,333 91% (4,667) Camping Fee 20,000 23,500 118% 22,500 17,027 76% 20,762 92% (1,738) Interest on Investments 5,221 15,485 297% 22,000 4,409 20% s 17,630 80% E (4,370) Miscellaneous 3,554 3,536 99% 3,000 3,295 110% < 4,753 158% 1,753� TOTAL RESOURCES ; 1,738,534 2,260,708 130% ; 2,343,500 1,060,967 45% ; 2,390,993 102% ; 47,493: REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ variance Personnel Services 1,256,902 1,313,682 105% 1,748,441 358,090 20% 1,392,507 80% 355,934� A Personnel Services - F&B 170,247 85,623 50% 148,510 2,573 2% ! , 115,102 78% 33,408! B Materials and Services 965,684 1,168,404 121% 1,222,986 241,499 20% 1,221,694 100% 1,292! Materials and Services - F&B 603,950 661,314 109% 514,200 278,561 54% 651,146 127% (136,946); Debt Service 101,270 101,267 100% 100,190 - 0% 100,190 100% TOTAL REQUIREMENTS ; 3,098,054 3,330,291 107% ; 3,734,327 880,723 24% 3,480,639 93% 253,688: TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ variance Transfers In - Room Tax 1,101,342 1,019,042 93% 1,009,023 252,252 25% ; 973,624 96% _ (35,399). Transfers in - Park Fund 30,000 30,000 100% w 30,000 7,500 25% ' 30,000 100% Transfers Out (427,215) (427,215) 100% _ (163,342) (40,833) 25% (163,342) 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS 704,127 621,827 88% 875,681 218,919 25% ; 840,282 96% ; (35,399); FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ variance Beginning Fund Balance 971,352 995,519 102% = 754,000 547,764 73% _ 547,765 73% (206,235); C Resources over Requirements ; (1,359,520) (1,069,583) (1,390,827) 180,244 ; € (1,089,646) 301,181; Net Transfers - In (Out) 704,127 621,827 875,681 218,919 840,282 (35,399); TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 315,960 $ 547,764 173% ; $ 238,854 $ 946,927 396% ; $ 298,401 125% ; $59,547; A Projected Personnel savings based on FY23/FY24 average vacancy rate of 26.0% B Projected Personnel based on vacancy savings to date C Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY23 Oy`�uTESC,0 Budget to Actuals Report Annual County Fair - Funcul 616 FY24 YTD September 30, 2023 (Un6oriited) RESOURCES Concessions and Catering Gate Receipts Carnival Commercial Exhibitors Fair Sponsorship State Grant Rodeo Sponsorship RN Camping/Horse Stall Rental Interest on Investments Merchandise Sales Livestock Entry Fees Miscellaneous TOTAL RESOURCES 25.0% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 �� Fi-scal Year 2024 Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance 625,000 815,458 130% 790,000 834,968 106% _ 834,971 106% < 44,971; 1 710,000 E 782,364 110% = 775,000 E B 1,036,146 134% _ f 1,036,219 134% , I 261,219= E 385,000 0 R 433,682 113% 430,000 I k 245,809 57% s d 245,809 57% _ E (184,191); 80,000 1 117,100 146% = 118,200 I 114,091 97% 114,092 97% _ t (4,108); 61,000 99,655 163% = 92,500 66,057 71% _ = 66,059 71% I (26,441); t 53,167 53,167 100% 53,167 - 0% I 53,167 100% s ! I 24,000 1 22,430 93% = 30,000 1 8 40,351 135% _ € 40,351 135% = 1 10,351= 20,000 1 1 17,520 88% = 17,250 t l 31,449 182% _ 1 31,496 183% = t 14,24& 2,713 1 13,169 485% 13,500 I f 5,616 42% = E 22,470 166% s 1 8,970= I 3,500 I 3,245 93% 2,500 E E 1,899 76% i 1,899 76% I (601); 1 5,000 � f 1,925 39% 2,000 t f 1,940 97% = 8 1,940 97% E (60)= - a 75 - �Q 39 1 40 40=1 1,969,380 2,359,790 120% ; 2,324,117 2,378,365 102% ; 2,448,513 105% ; 124,396: REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Personnel Services 169,445 185,165 109% 276,531 42,236 15% 254,586 92% 21,945, A 1 Materials and Services 1,802,585 I 1,882,326 104% = 2,306,325 1,888,882 I E 82% = 2,006,132 ! 87% 300,193: TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 1,972,030 2,067,492 105% ; 2,582,856 1,931,117 75% ; 2,260,718 88% ; 322,138: TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfer In -TRT 1% 75,000 75,000 100% 75,000 18,750 25% 75,000 100% Transfers Out (231,706) (231,706) 100% _ (109,503) (27,375) 25% (109,503) 100% , TOTAL TRANSFERS (156,706) (156,706) 100% ; (34,503) (8,625) 25% ; (34,503) 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 384,715 385,854 100% 539,152 521,447 97% 521,448 97% (17,704); B Resources over Requirements (2,650) 292,298 (258,739) 447,248 187,795 f s 446,534; Net Transfers - In (Out) ` I (156,706) (156,706) ! t (34,503) (8,625) 1 1 (34,503) E I TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 225,358 $ 521,447 231% ; $ 245,910 $ 960,069 390% ; $ 6749740 274% ; $428,830: A Projected Personnel based on vacancy savings to date B Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY23 XX OVTESC Budget to Actuals Report QLGy` Annual County Fair o Fund 616 CY23 YTD September 30, 2023 (unaudited) Fair 2023 2-1 Actuals to 2023 Fair 2022 Date Projection RESOURCES Gate Receipts $ 782,364 "< $ 1,036,146 $ 1,036,146 Carnival 433,682 : 245,809 245,809 Commercial Exhibitors 436,292 436,160 436,160 Livestock Entry Fees 1,925 1,940 1,940 RN Camping/Horse Stall Rental 17,392 31,495 31,495 Merchandise Sales 3,245 1,899 1,899 Concessions and Catering 497,366 512,899 512,899 Fair Sponsorship 126,300 ;' e3: 96,153 96,153 TOTAL FAIR REVENUES $ 2,298,566 $ 2,362,500 $ 2,362,500 OTHER RESOURCES State Grant 53,167 ., - - nterest 5,794 10,449 13,449 Miscellaneous - 108 108 TOTAL RESOURCES $ 2,357,526 $ 2,373,057 $ 2,376,057 REQUIREMENTS Personnel 102,763 =`, 133,553 173,691 Materials & Services 1,722,703 1,956,408 2,005,785 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS $ 1,825,466 $ 2,089,961 $ 2,179,475 TRANSFERS Net Fair $ 504,270 ,$ 196,113 $ 100,974 Beginning Fund Balance on Jan 1 $ 448,151 $ 952,421 $ 952,421 Ending Balance $ 952,421 $ 1,148,534 $ 1,053,395 uTES C- o�`� °G�� Budget to Actuals Report �� Fair & Expo Capital Reserve - Fund 617 25.0% FY24 YTD September 30, 2023 (unaudited) Year Complete Fisi:al Year 2023 --TFiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Interest on Investments 7,414 39,492 533% e 64,800 17,490 27% s 69,960 108% < 5,160; ! 6 ! E 1 3 Local Government Payments - 277,777 - - - TOTAL RESOURCES 7,414 317,269 999% ; 64,800 17,490 27% , 69,960 108% ; 5,160; REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Materials and Services 495,000 100,309 20% 343,555 32,056 9% a 343,555 100% Capital Outlay ! 375,000 383,000 102% ` 746,445 128,054 17% ! 746,445 100% s A TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 870,000 483,310 56% ; 1,090,000 160,110 15% 1,090,000 100% ; TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In -TRT 1% 501,683 465,685 93% 462,119 115,527 25% _ 446,948 97% (15,171); Transfers In - Fair & Expo 416,437 416,438 100% 152,565 38,139 25% E c 152,565 100% Transfers In -Annual County Fair 231,706 231,706 100% = 109,503 27,375 25% 109,503 100% Transfers In - Fund 165 ! - - 100,000 100,000 100% 100,000 100% E TOTAL TRANSFERS ; 1,149,827 1,113,829 97% 824,187 281,041 34% ; , 809,016 98% (15,171); 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% = s 2,757,230 106% 164,39Z B Resources over Requirements (862,586) (166,040) (1,025,200) (142,620) (1,020,040) 5,160- Net Transfers - In (Out) g 1,149,827 1,113,829 824,187 ( 281,041 = B B 809,016 t (15,171); ! TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 1,587,183 $ 2,757,229 174% ; $ 2,391,825 $ 2,895,649 121% ; ; $ 2,546,206 106% ; $154,381: 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 o uIESC 2{ Budget to Actuals Report RV Park - Fund 618 FY24 YTD September 30, 2023 (unaudited) 25.0% Year Complete Fiscal Year'2023 `� Fiscal Year 2624 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Buudget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance RV Park Fees < 31 Days 605,000 548,219 91% 500,000 171,555 34% _ 465,404 93% _ (34,596); RV Park Fees > 30 Days 13,000 10,249 79% 12,500 - 0% 10,330 83% (2,170); Cancellation Fees I 14,000 8,636 62% a 7,000 (3,140) -45% s 2,288 33% (4,712); Washer / Dryer 4,200 5,560 132% = 5,000 1,792 36% 4,357 87% (643); Miscellaneous I 3,750 2,907 78% 2,500 3,980 159% @ 5,111 204% ! 2,611 Interest on Investments I 552 2,764 501% = 2,300 1,218 53% s 4,870 212% 2,570 Vending Machines I 1,750 1,492 85% 1,500 902 60% I 1,328 89% (172) TOTAL RESOURCES 642,252 579,826 90% ; 530,800 176,307 33% ; 493,688 93% (37,112); REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Personnel Services 111,153 82,265 74% 91,328 24,663 27% 96,037 105% (4,709); Materials and Services 259,755 192,620 74% 303,173 52,639 17% ` 219,183 72% 83,990- Debt Service I 223,273 223,272 100% 222,630 - 0% s 222,630 100% TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 594,181 498,157 84% ; 617,131 77,302 13% 537,850 87% 79,281; 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 I 20,000 20,000 100% 20,000 4,998 25% t 20,000 100% Transfer Out - RV Reserve I (261,566) (261,566) 100% (51,564) (12,891) 25% (51,564) 100% P TOTAL TRANSFERS (81,566) (81,566) 100% ; 128,436 (7,893) -6% 128,436 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 116,415 166,536 143% 93,115 166,640 179% _ 166,641 179% 73,52& A Resources over Requirements 48,071 81,669 (86,331) 99,005 _ (44,162) s 42,169! Net Transfers - In (Out) I (81,566) (81,566) I 128,436 (7,893) E 8 0 128,436 [ I TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 82,920 $ 166,640 201% ; $ 135,220 $ 257,752 191% ; ; $ 250,915 186% ; $115,695: A Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY23 o 01ESC 2� Budget to Actuals Report RV Park Resente - and 619 FY24 YTD September 30, 2023 ;u iaudite7) 25.0% Year Complete Fiscal 'fQas 2023 �- - Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget ,Actualm % Projection % $ Variance Interest on Investments 6,298 21,589 343% = 34,300 8,881 26% 35,530 104% 1,230- TOTAL RESOURCES 6,298 21,589 343% ; 34,300 8,881 26% ; 35,530 104% ; 1,230; REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Materials and Services - - 100,000 - 0% 100,000 100% Capital Outlay 100,000 t 5,532 6% 74,000 6 1 0% i 74,000 100% 1 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 12,891 25% 51,564 100% _ TOTAL TRANSFERS 261,750 261,566 100% ; 51,564 12,891 25% ; 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 a (93,702) 16,056 (139,700) 8,881 I € (138,470) 1,230- Net Transfers - In (Out) ! 261,750 261,566 1 1 51,564 12,891 1 1 51,564 1 I TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 1,340,766 $ 1,469,559 110% ; $ 1,284,317 $ 1,491,331 116% ; ; $ 1,382,654 108% ; $98,337; A Capital Outlay appropriations are a placeholder B Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY23 01ES C- �� °G� Budget to Actuals Report Risk Management - Fund 67a FY24 YTD September 30, 2023 (unaudited) 25.0% Year Complete Fiscci Year 2023 Fiscai Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Workers' Compensation 1,234,761 1,226,486 99% f 1,111,585 289,488 26% F 1,111,585 100% General Liability 892,681 892,681 100% a 935,832 233,958 25% 935,832 100% a Unemployment 430,179 344,950 80% A 439,989 259,155 59% E 439,989 100% e A @ Property Damage I 419,566 419,566 100% 418,028 104,507 25% = ' 418,028 100% Vehicle 248,764 248,764 100% ` 226,710 56,678 25% 226,710 100% ! Interest on Investments � 49,346 148,514 301% = 200,000 54,262 27% 217,050 109% = 17,050= Claims Reimbursement 25,000 6,476 € 26% 20,000 - II 0% s @ 20,000 100% _ @ Skid Car Training @ 10,000 8,899 1 89% 10,000 7,860 1 6 79% @ f @ 10,000 100% p Process Fee- Events/ Parades 1,000 1,260 126% 2,000 495 25% 2,000 100% f Miscellaneous 180 - 0% = 200 0% 200 100% _ TOTAL RESOURCES 3,311,477 3,297,596 100% ; 3,364,344 1,006,403 30% 3,381,394 101% ; 17,050: REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Workers' Compensation 1,580,000 1,493,702 95% = 1,880,000 351,459 19% _ = 1,880,000 100% General Liability I 3,000,000 470,875 16% 1,200,000 334,621 28% ! 1,100,000 92% 100,000 Insurance Administration 607,558 602,676 99% 714,197 155,705 22% e 723,658 101% (9,461); I Vehicle 200,000 194,089 I 97% = 400,000 68,405 f @ 17% @ 400,000 100% _ i Property Damage I 300,248 99,913 33% = 300,250 318,092 106% _ I 420,000 140% _ (119,750); Unemployment 200,000 54,473 27% a 250,000 0% 250,000 100% TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 5,887,806 2,915,728 50% 4,744,447 1,228,282 26% ; 4,773,658 101% ; (29,211); TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers Out -Vehicle (3,500) (3,500) 100% (3,500) (873) 25% (3,500) 100% Replacement TOTAL TRANSFERS (3,500) (3,500) 100% ; (3,500) (873) 25% ; (3,500) 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 7,687,180 8,944,938 116% 8,000,000 9,323,307 117% 9,323,308 117% 1,323,308, B Resources over Requirements (2,576,329) 381,869 (1,380,103) (221,879) (1,392,264) (12,161); Net Transfers - In (Out) (3,500) (3,500) (3,500) (873) (3,500) TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 5,107,351 $ 9,323,307 183% ; $ 6,616,397 $ 9,100,554 138% ; ; $ 7,927,544 120% ; $1,311,147: 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 Budget to AGtuais Report Health Benefits - Fund 675 FY24 YTD September 30, 2023 (unaudited) RESOURCES Internal Premium Charges COIC Premiums Employee Co -Pay Retiree / COBRA Premiums Prescription Rebates Claims Reimbursement & Other Interest on Investments TOTAL RESOURCES REQUIREMENTS Health Benefits Deschutes On -Site Pharmacy Deschutes On -Site Clinic Wellness TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 25.0% Year Complete Fiscai Y ur 2023 Fiscal Year 202.1 Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance 19,908,221 20,496,601 103% a 25,899,034 5,844,489 23% 25,899,034 100% s I 1,547,778 ! 1,951,365 126% = 1,963,363 302,076 ! E 15% 1 1,963,363 100% 1 I 1,282,015 1 1,247,607 97% a 1,247,416 302,914 I t 24% = 0 1,247,416 100% ! I 595,000 ! 982,424 165% 1,019,288 132,175 Is 13% = € 1,019,288 100% s I 175,000 ! 528,990 302% , 280,000 155,160 I ! 55% = ! 280,000 100% _ 1 A 55,000 B 109,282 199% = 124,944 137,756 1 1 110% _ = ! 137,757 110% = I 12,813, I 95,686 1 176,071 184% 120,000 45,051 I! 38% I 180,210 150% = I 60,210, 23,658,700 25,492,341 108% ; 30,654,045 6,919,621 23% 30,727,068 100% ; 73,023; Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance 26,597,563 25,514,122 96% 26,697,663 3,684,077 14% 26,697,663 100% _ B I 3,779,608 3,807,986 I 101% = 4,287,997 913,696 1 1 21% I 4,287,997 100% _ 1 B 1,212,497 1,205,226 99% = 1,415,279 205,130 14% _ 1,415,279 100% _ B 179,549 161,200 90% 186,274 19,447 10% 186,274 100% _ B 31,769,217 30,688,534 97% ; 32,587,213 4,822,351 15% ; 32,587,213 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Beginning Fund Balance 11,925,656 11,304,191 95% 5,742,743 6,133,372 107% P I 1 Resources over Requirements (8,110,517) (5,196,193) s (1,933,168) 2,097,271 Net Transfers - In (Out) - 1 P 1 TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 3,815,139 $ 6,107,998 160% ; $ 3,809,575 $ 8,230,643 216% ; 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 Projection % $ Variance 6,133,372 107% 390,629: C s (1,860,145) 73,023; ! ! 1 $ 4,273,227 112% ; $463,652: SES C-0&` Budget to Actuals Report 911 - Fund 705 and 710 FY24 YTD September 30, 2023 (unaudited) 25.0% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Property Taxes - Current Yr 10,402,834 10,493,711 101% 10,932,000 - 0% a 10,932,000 100% o A Telephone User Tax 1,668,000 1,881,374 113% : 1,827,530 - 0% ! 1,827,530 100% @ I B Interest on Investments I 67,515 237,842 352% , 312,321 71,479 23% ! € 288,619 92% (23,702) 1 Police RMS User Fees 237,221 I 244,437 103% = 244,435 - @ I 0% = B 244,435 100% _ f C 1 Contract Payments 153,292 I 167,764 109% = 167,765 6,000 i k 4% _ 9 167,765 100% 1 User Fee I i 140,445 146,863 105% 148,820 2,200 1% s 148,820 100% Data Network Reimbursement � 120,874 158,228 131% = 145,852 531 0% 145,852 100% State Reimbursement 810,000 622,177 77% 93,000 15,000 16% = 93,000 100% _ D Property Taxes - Prior Yr 80,000 1 90,291 113% 90,000 39,999 @ 1 44% _ B ! 90,000 100% 1 Property Taxes - Jefferson Co. 39,497 38,104 96% 40,500 593 1% 40,500 100% Miscellaneous ! 25,000 40,191 161% 32,100 3,428 11% ` 32,100 100% TOTAL RESOURCES 13,744,678 14,120,981 103% ; 14,034,323 139,229 1% ; 14,010,621 100% ; (23,702); REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Personnel Services 8,606,196 7,891,350 92% 9,032,045 1,895,708 21% 8,202,578 91% = 829,467= E I Materials and Services � 4,088,201 I 3,151,149 77% 4,250,715 842,197 1 1 20% = 4,230,715 E 100% 1 20,000- Capital Outlay 5,015,100 I 2,347,522 47% 1,831,000 471,973 I! 26% 1,851,000 I 101% 1 (20,000)= TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 17,709,497 13,390,020 76% 15,113,760 3,209,878 21% ; 14,284,293 95% 829,467: TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In 1,750,000 1,7509000 100% = 1,950,000 - 0% 1,950,000 100% Transfers Out (1,809,900) (1,809,900) 100% _ (1,950,000) 0% (1,950,000) 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS (59,900) (59,900) 100% FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 12,950,799 12,722,890 98% 13,202,343 13,393,950 101% 13,393,952 101% 191,609� Resources over Requirements o (3,964,819) 730,961 (1,079,437) (3,070,650) (273,672) 805,765 Net Transfers - In (Out) I (59,900) (59,900) - - - i I 1 1 F 1 TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 8,926,080 $ 13,393,950 150% ; $ 12,122,906 $ 10,323,301 85% $ 13,120,280 108% ; $997,374; 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 Projected Personnel savings based on FY23/FY24 average vacancy rate of 11.9% F_ Final Beginning Fund Balance will be determined after the final close of FY23___ p r f 0 A R [) 0, is C 0 U N Gov Y C () a',,% A 'SIN � wu S t 0 K,:=. R S October 23, 2023 Dear Governor Kotek and Central Oregon Legislative Delegation: We are writing to share our perspectives on Measure 110 implementation in Deschutes County and outline elements we would like to see in an effective public safety and drug treatment system. In Deschutes County, Measure 110 has not resulted in people entering treatment as a result of a drug possession citation. Also, although Measure 110 added serves have engaged more people in treatment, there is not enough readily accessible access to appropriate and effective treatment services. We support the current discussions at the state level to work to address concerns regarding Measure 110. As you do, we advocate for the following elements of an effective system: • Make screening, health assessment, treatment and recovery services for Substance Use Disorder widely available. • Increase access to low -barrier addiction services by providing specified and unified services related to health management of substance use concerns. • Ensure there are effective and appropriate drivers to get people into treatment. • Implement strategic, intensive, and effective drug treatment strategies. • Recognize that people with a Substance Use Disorder that do not have crime - driving factors, other than SUD, should be provided treatment and recovery services outside of the criminal justice system. • Coordinate real time data to inform targeted intervention. Thank you for your willingness to re-evaluate Measure 110 and please let us know how we can support you in this effort. Board of County Commissioners, Anthony DeBone Patti Adair Phil Chang Chair Vice Chair Commissioner 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, Oregon 97703 '��541) 388-6572 board@deschutes.org &ww.deschutes.org October 18, 2023 Governor Tina Kotek 900 Court Street Suite 254 Salem, Oregon 97301 Re: Water Resources and Groundwater Permits for Cities Governor Kotek, Thank you for your stewardship of Oregon's water resources and the Oregon Water Resources Department's efforts to slow declining groundwater levels across the state. We appreciate the Department's intent with the ongoing Groundwater Allocation rulemaking process. However, we firmly believe that to meaningfully slow the decline of groundwater levels in the Deschutes Basin, we need to engage in a collaborative, regionally specific approach that-Jfera with a strong - --------- emphasis on incentivized reduction in water consumption. The new rules being drafted by OWRD have set the agency on a collision course with other state agencies charged with advancing your housing production goals and with managing Oregon's land use planning system. They present challenges for many Oregon cities, including those in Central Oregon, because they will effectively prohibit the issuance of new groundwater permits. As drafted, these new rules could make it extremely difficult for incorporated cities to line up an adequate supply of water to match the required land supply. Cities need to be prioritized ever other We appreciate the state's continued support for, and longstanding recognition of our basin's strong history of collaborative work to plan and implement local solutions that have resulted in improved flows of water in the middle and up per Deschutes River and prev+ded-established a structured mitigation plan for groundwater access. �he Oregon Legislature has eR multiple ^ ens passed, legislation to create, codify and renew the Deschutes Basin Mitigation and Conservation statutes. That leRg history of supportgrogram has resulted in dramatically increased mid -Deschutes flows, restoration of critical areas including Whychus Creek, the ability to respond to federal ESA listings, and a twenty-five year collaborative effort to manage water in a responsible manner. The Deschutes Basin groundwater mitigation program has helped us address surface water flow needs in key places and canoe built upon to help us slow the decline of groundwater levels in the basin. The program provides a foundation that Commented [PC1]t While I think we want a "strong emphasis" on incentivized reduction in consumption maybe using the iphrase "focused on" would lead them to think we don't believe that restrictions on new groundwater allocations/permits have a role. I think they do have a role, I just don't think that limits should be imposed on our lincorporated cities the way they are in the draft rule supply. - Commented [PC2]; We need to celebrate the groundwater mitigation program without trying to argue As we move forward, we respectfully ask that you support fac4ita*e this next phasee-sue e4ype of that — as currently structured -it solves for the impacts of collaborative and regionally -specific work..OWRD staff have previously mentioned the possibility of a municipal and quasi municipal groundwater users on our local planning process or designation of a critical groundwater area to address our unique needs agwfers. and unique resource in the Deschutes Basin. Unlike other basins around the state most of the groundwater use here is for municipal and domestic purposes and the people who are feeling the impacts of groundwater declines are municipal and domestic use Agricultural wells are not a significant consideration in the Deschutes Basin This further emphasizes the need for a basin -specific approach to groundwater allocation and highlights the basin -specific solutions our community can develop that may be useful in other locations. We are ready to work with you to continue to ensure that key regional water users get the water they need and that existing water users are using groundwater as efficiently as possible. Please direct OWRD staff to work with us, and other partners, to ensure that any rulemaking process accommodates our region's required future growth and the collaborative work that has been occurring here for more than 20 years. Thank you for your continued support and leadership. The Honorable Jason Beebe Mayor, City of Prineville 387 NE 311 St. Prineville, OR 97754 On behalf of the Board of Deschutes County Commissioners, this letter is to express support for the Prineville Renewable Energy Project (PREP) because it will provide environmental, economic and community benefits. It's a key piece of infrastructure that will support local power needs and resilience as well as the economic use of forest biomass from forest restoration projects; all while stimulating economic development and generating baseload, renewable power. The Prineville Renewable Energy Project (PREP) is expected to spur economic development in multiple ways that are beneficial to region's economy and residents. The facility is anticipated to create 20 direct jobs, 100 indirect jobs, and 200 temporary jobs during construction. Generation of local, baseload electricity will help to alleviate transmission constraints and add needed power capacity to the region without costly, long-term transmission infrastructure improvements. Additionally, the facility will improve community resiliency by creating a potential power source for critical and emergency services in an extreme event such as the Cascadia Event. A biomass renewable energy facility in Prineville is centrally located to maximize the economic utilization of biomass. The facility will provide market opportunities for small diameter trees, low value species (such as western juniper), and logging debris that would otherwise not be processed. Utilizing this material, rather than burning it in the forest, will minimize smoke incursions and support the local economy and forest products industry. It will also increase the pace and scale of restoration efforts by reducing their cost. Additionally, the facility will create benefits related to water. Since the 1880s, western juniper range has increased tenfold in Central Oregon and the species is now considered an invasive weed. By creating a market for western juniper and increasing the pace and scale of remediation efforts, both water quality and quantity will be improved in the basin. This is evidenced by a long-term study in the Prineville area which has shown water savings estimated at 100,000 gallons annually per acre of juniper cleared. Finally, Oregon has recognized woody biomass as a renewable energy source for many years. Biomass is included in the state's Renewable Portfolio Standard and in 2020 the Oregon Legislature invested $50 million for community energy and resilience projects. This investment also acknowledges the potential of woody biomass. Thank you for the opportunity to support this important project.