The URL can be used to link to this page

2024-14-Minutes for Meeting December 20,2023 Recorded 1/12/2024Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2024-14 Steve Dennison, County Clerk Commissioners' .journal 01 /12/2024 9:03:37 AM wjES CO a C G BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon (541) 388-6570 9:00 AM WEDNESDAY December 20, 2023 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I III 2024-14 FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY Barnes Sawyer Rooms Live Streamed Video Present were Commissioners Tony DeBone, Patti Adair and Phil Chang. Also present were County Administrator Nick Lelack; County Counsel David Doyle; and BOCC Executive Assistant Brenda Fritsvold. This meeting was audio and video recorded and can be accessed at the Deschutes County Meeting Portal webpage www.deschutes.org/meetings. CALL TO ORDER: Chair DeBone called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZEN INPUT: Ryan Rudnick spoke against the purchase of property on SE Wilson Avenue for male justice -involved persons and expressed concern about safety risks to children in the neighborhood. Objecting that families are being displaced from the property and that it is located only 600 feet from a park, he said the process was rushed and lacked sufficient notification, particularly for non-English speakers. He urged that the County delay this action, implement mitigating measures, and formally accept liability for any crimes or damages that result from siting a shelter at this location. Commissioner Chang said the courts decide who is a good candidate for re -integration into the community and released on parole, not the County. He added that because most cases of child abuse and child sexual abuse involve persons who are known to BOCC MEETING DECEMBER 20, 2023 PAGE 1 OF 9 and have a close relationship with the victim and/or their family, the danger is not physical proximity to sex offenders —it's having a close relationship with them. He said the County cares about public safety and wants to provide the best opportunity for parolees to rehabilitate without risk of recidivism. RECOGNITION: Chair DeBone recognized County Administrator Nick Lelack's 15 years of service to Deschutes County. Lelack expressed his appreciation for the County's excellent culture, which makes it an extraordinary place to work. CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was Consideration of the Consent Agenda. 1. Approval of Resolution No. 2023-068 adopting a supplemental budget and increasing or adjusting appropriations in the Full Faith and Credit Debt Service Fund, the General Fund and the Project Development and Debt Reserve Fund 2. Approval of a Water Pipeline and Access Easement to Avion Water Company, and a Gas Pipeline and Access Easement to Cascade Natural Gas 3. Approval of Board Order No. 2023-057 authorizing the sale of property located at 16775 CW Reeves Lane in La Pine to Pudding River Properties, and further authorizing the Deschutes County Property Manager to execute the documents associated with the sale 4. Approval of Chair Signature of Document No. 2023-1078, a Notice of Intent to Award Contract for Engineering Services for the Tumalo Reservoir Road: OB Riley Road to Sisemore Road Improvement Project 5. Approval of amendment to Oregon Health Authority grant agreement #180009-4 6. Approval of request to apply for State and Local Cybersecurity Grant Program 7. Consideration of Board Signature on letters of appointment to the Deschutes River Mitigation and Enhancement Committee 8. Consideration of Board Signature on letters of appointment, reappointment and thanks for various Committees and Special Road Districts 9. Approval of minutes of the BOCC November 27 and 29 and December 4, 2023 meetings ADAIR: Move approval of the Consent Agenda as presented CHANG: Second BOCC MEETING DECEMBER 20, 2023 PAGE 2 OF 9 VOTE: ADAI R: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried ACTION ITEMS: 10. Public Hearing: Plan Amendment and Zone Change at 64430 Hunnell Road Jacob Ripper, Principal Planner, presented a request to change the Comprehensive Plan designation of property at 64430 Hunnell Road from Agricultural to a Rural Residential Exception Area and also change the zoning of the subject property from Exclusive Farm Use to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA- 10). Ripper said the first of two required public hearings was held before the Hearings Officer, who recommends approval of the requests. Ripper described the property and said a proposed four -lot subdivision has been put on hold pending the outcome of the map amendment and rezone requests. No public comments were provided at the first public hearing. Commissioner Chang said while he has no conflict of interest in this matter, he does have interests in this general area pertaining to previous communications about the widening and paving of Hunnell Road and how that might impact future development. He therefore recused himself from participating in this matter and stepped down from the dais. The public hearing was opened at 9:20 am. Liz Dixon, representing the applicant, said the way in which this site was initially zoned was faulty and failed to take many relevant factors into consideration. Noting that the property is not currently being farmed and in fact has never been farmed, she shared the results of a soil analysis which determined that more than 60% of the site has Class VII and Class VIII soils, which cannot be farmed even with irrigation. She concluded that there is no commercial farming operation in the immediate vicinity. There being no one else who wished to testify, the public hearing was closed at 9:38 am. The Board was in consensus to close the oral and written records and immediately commence deliberations. BOCC MEETING DECEMBER 20, 2023 PAGE 3 OF 9 Commissioner DeBone said rezoning this property to MUA-10, which stipulates lots sized a minimum of ten acres, would be acceptable considering the soils analysis and no history of farming for profit. Commissioner Adair was in agreement. ADAIR: Move approval of a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to change the designation of property at 64430 Hunnell Road from Agricultural to Rural Residential Exception Area, and further approve a corresponding Zoning Map Amendment to change the zoning of the subject property from Exclusive Farm Use to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10) DEBONE: Second VOTE: ADAIR: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 2 - 0 Commissioner Chang returned to the dais. 11. Resolution No. 2023-067, adding 3.00 FTE and increasing revenue and appropriations for the Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Program within Health Services Paul Partridge, Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (I/DD) Program Manager, explained that this past July —after the County had adopted its 2024 Budget—I/DD was notified that its annual funding amount from the State for 2024 will be $5,453,343, an increase of $961,037 from the amount anticipated. I/DD proposes using the additional funds to increase capacity by adding the following positions over the next year: 1.0 FTE Administrative Support Specialist effective 1/1/24 • 2.0 FTE IDD Specialist I (i.e., service coordinators); one effective 1/1/24, and one effective 3/1 /24 Patridge explained the services provided by I/DD, saying the average caseload per service coordinator is 45 individuals. Commissioner Adair questioned the recommendation to add an administrative support specialist instead of another service coordinator. Patridge shared a staff organizational chart and said I/DD's leadership team currently lacks the support of an administrative specialist. Cheryl Smallman, Health Services Business Officer, explained the local match needed to secure federal funds in conjunction with the additional State grant funds and said the department will look into whether it can use interest income from the Behavioral Health reserves for the match instead of general funds. BOCC MEETING DECEMBER 20, 2023 PAGE 4 OF 9 Alternatively, it may be possible to use unbudgeted community surplus funds if those are received from the state. Commissioner Chang recognized the need to expand the capacity of the department's case management services due to the dramatic growth in demand for those services. CHANG: Move approval of Resolution No. 2023-067 increasing appropriations and FTE within Health Services and the 2023-24 Deschutes County Budget ADAI R: Second VOTE: ADAI R: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 12. Resolution No. 2023-069 effecting changes to the FY 2023-34 Budget to extend a .10 limited duration FTE in the District Attorney's Office by six months to support illegal marijuana market enforcement Kathleen Meehan Coop, Management Analyst, said the County's work to combat illegal marijuana markets is a joint cooperative effort between the Sheriff's Office and the Office of the District Attorney. She explained the proposal to use rollover funds from the 2019 Illegal Marijuana Market Enforcement (DCIMME) program grant to continue funding the program coordinator position in the District Attorneys Office for six months until June 30, 2024. This will enable the department to avoid a reduction in staffing for this important work until the next grant cycle for these funds. ADAIR: Move approval of Resolution No.2023-069 adjusting and increasing appropriations and extending a .10 limited duration FTE within the 2023-24 Deschutes County Budget CHANG: Second VOTE: ADAI R: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 13. Pre -Deliberation Update: Draft 2020-2040 Transportation System Plan Tarik Rawlings, Senior Transportation Planner, reminded that a draft update of the Transportation System Plan was presented for public comment on November 291". Staff now invites the Commissioners to identify topics they would like to be BOCC MEETING DECEMBER 20, 2023 PAGE 5 OF 9 included in a decision matrix that will be presented at a future Board meeting; a draft list was provided for the Board's consideration and possible revision. In response to Commissioner Chang, Planning Manager Will Groves said that although the record is officially closed at this time, the Board could decide to re- open it to allow additional testimony. Commissioner DeBone noted the large amount of engagement and comments already received on the draft update. With regard to the subject of paved paths, he preferred that the update include a general statement of support for multi - modal connections without specifying any particular location(s) as these projects are the jurisdiction of other agencies. Commissioner Chang said the decision matrix should include the recommendations issued by the Planning Commission. 14. Consideration of letter providing input on a comprehensive approach to Measure 110 Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator, reminded that following a presentation to the Board from District Attorney Steve Gunnels on December 131h regarding the Public Safety Partners' Comprehensive Approach to Addressing Oregon's Addiction and Community Livability Crisis, the Board directed staff to draft a letter supporting the proposals with a few recommended changes. Commissioner DeBone appreciated the proposals regarding drug possession and distribution. Commissioner Chang supported efforts to drive addicted persons towards treatment and recovery, and said bipartisan support will be required in the Legislature to address this issue in a comprehensive way. Commissioner Adair reported a new total of 23 overdose deaths in Best Care's treatment facilities and suggested that persons seeking treatment reach out to Ideal Option. She expressed appreciation that District Attorney Gunnels brought these proposals forward. CHANG: Move approval of a letter providing input to Governor Kotek on the proposed comprehensive approach to Measure 110 as developed by Public Safety Partners ADAIR: Second VOTE: ADAIR: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried BOCC MEETING DECEMBER 20, 2023 PAGE 6 OF 9 15. Draft letter regarding ODF Wildfire Funding Proposal Deputy County Administrator Erik Kropp reviewed that on December 6t", the Board had discussed a request from AOC that the County weigh in on a proposal regarding the sustainable funding of wildfire costs across the state. Kropp presented a draft memo to the co-chairs of AOC's Natural Resources Committee providing feedback on the proposal and seeking more information. Commissioner Chang said the overarching concern is that although adequate fire suppression capacity is needed, Deschutes County residents should not be made to pay for added capacity that will benefit other parts of the state. Commissioner DeBone added that Central Oregon also needs support for fuels reduction work. CHANG: Move approval of a revised memo to AOC's Natural Resources Committee providing feedback on the Oregon Department of Forestry's Wildfire Funding Proposal and seeking more information ADAIR: Second VOTE: ADAIR: Yes CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried A break was announced at 10:45 a.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:52 a.m. 16. Treasury Report for November 2023 Treasury Director Bill Kuhn presented the Treasury Report for November 2023. 17. Finance Report for November 2023 Chief Financial Officer Robert Tintle presented the Finance Report for November 2023. 18. Board selection of Chair and Vice Chair for 2024 Commissioner DeBone supported Commissioner Adair serving as Chair in 2024. Commissioner Chang said for decades, the Board had a precedent and tradition of rotating the chair role among all three of the Commissioners, but this practice has been abandoned in the last three years. He objected that the ideological BOCC MEETING DECEMBER 20, 2023 PAGE 7 OF 9 majority of the Board is not adhering to tradition and instead is selecting a Chair from amongst themselves. Commissioner DeBone nominated Commissioner Adair to serve as Chair of the Board in 2024. VOTE: ADAI R: Yes CHANG: No DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion carried 2 - 1 Following Commissioner Chang's declination to serve as Vice Chair in 2024, Commissioner Adair nominated Commissioner DeBone to serve as Vice Chair of the Board in 2024. VOTE: ADAI R: CHANG: DEBONE: OTHER ITEMS: Yes No Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 2 - 1 • Commissioner DeBone referred to a draft presentation for the Board to present at the upcoming Leadership Bend session on January 161h. Deputy County Administrator Whitney Hale said staff will edit the presentation as directed by the Board. • Jen Patterson, Strategic Initiatives Manager, sought direction from the Board regarding when and how often to schedule meetings on the 2024 legislative session which begins in February. Following discussion, it was decided to schedule an initial work session on Friday, January 12th with regular updates each Friday thereafter. • Following discussion, the Board was in consensus to appoint Commissioner DeBone to a voting position on the AOC's Legislative Committee for 2024. • County Administrator Nick Lelack asked if the Board wished to revisit the proposed amendment to the intergovernmental agreement with the Oregon Judicial Department for a funding contribution to the courthouse expansion project. Following discussion, the Board was in agreement to bring this item back on January 311 for action. • Commissioner Adair reported that the annual Fair Association dinner will be on Monday, January 15th • Commissioner DeBone wished everyone a great holiday. BOCC MEETING DECEMBER 20, 2023 PAGE 8 OF 9 EXECUTIVE SESSION: At 11:54 a.m., the Board moved into Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Real Property Negotiations. At 12:18 p.m., the Board moved out of Executive Session with no action taken. I! I; Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:19 pm. � DATED this I day of 2$23 �foy r the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: RECORDING SECRETARY ANTHONY DEBONE, CHAIR PATTI ADAIR, VICE CHAIR PHIL CHANG, COUfAISSIONER BOCC MEETING DECEMBER 20, 2023 PAGE 9 OF 9 �01ESCoG 2� BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING DATE: December 20, 2023 SUBJECT: Request to apply for State and Local Cybersecurity Grant Program RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move approval of the IT Department's application for the State and Local Cybersecurity Grant Program. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: In 2022, the Department of Homeland Security announced a first -of -its -kind cybersecurity grant program specifically for state, local, and territorial governments across the country. $1 billion in funding will be dispersed over four years, with $375 million allocated this year. The State of Oregon applied for a portion of this grant money and has approximately $15 million in funding available'. Local and Tribal governments are eligible subrecipients under this program and must apply for funds through the Oregon Department of Emergency Management (OEM). OEM must obligate at least 80 percent of funds awarded to local and territorial governments. The IT Department is seeking Board approval to apply for grant funding for two projects through this program. The first project would provide funding to assist with migrating the County's web and email presence from deschutes.org to deschutescounty.gov. Migrating from Deschutes.org to Deschutes.gov will require significant resources. Because .gov domains are reserved for government entities only, by completing this project, the County will enhance its cyber credibility, foster trust with residents, and meet requirements for specific grant opportunities. Staff requests Board approval to submit an application in the amount of $71,700 to complete this project. The second project would provide funding to remediate cybersecurity vulnerabilities. There have been vulnerabilities identified in our environment which require a great deal of time and resources to address. This work is important as it will strengthen our security posture, mitigate risk, and address compliance requirements. Staff request Board approval to submit an application in the amount of $176,000 to complete this project. The Department plans to outsource the work associated with both projects. The first round of grant applications are due by January 10, 2024. Successful applicants are expected to complete projects within 24 months. BUDGET IMPACTS: To be determined. No match funds are required. ATTENDANCE: Tania Mahood, IT Director/CTO �v1ES CO BOARD OF o COMMISSIONERS MEETING DATE: December 20, 2023 SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Plan Amendment and Zone Change at 64430 Hunnell Road RECOMMENDED MOTION: PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUATION • 1 move to continue both the oral and written portions of the hearing to [Month, Day, Year]. PUBLIC HEARING - CLOSE ORAL, OPEN RECORD PERIOD I move to close the oral portion of the hearing, leave the written record open for _ days. I move to close the oral portion of the hearing, leave the written record open for _ days and schedule deliberations for a date to be determined. PUBLIC HEARING - CLOSE HEARING, DELIBERATIONS I move to close the public hearing and begin deliberations. I move to close the public hearing and set a date and time for deliberations on a date to be determined. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Board will conduct a public hearing on December 20, 2023 to consider a Plan Amendment and Zone Change. The applicant requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to change the designation of property at 64430 Hunnell Road from Agricultural to Rural Residential Exception Area. The applicant also requests approval of a corresponding Zoning Map Amendment to change the zoning of the subject property from Exclusive Farm Use to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10). This will be the second of two required public hearings. BUDGET IMPACTS: None ATTENDANCE: Jacob Ripper, Principal Planner STAFF MEMORANDUM Date: December 12, 2023 To: Board of County Commissioners From: Jacob Ripper, Principal Planner Re: Public Hearing following a Hearings Officer's Decision on a Plan Amendment and Zone Change at 64430 Hunnell Road (File Nos. 247-23-000210-PA & 247-23-000211-ZC). The Board of County Commissioners (Board) is conducting a public hearing on December 20 to consider a Plan Amendment and Zone Change. The applicant requests approval of a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to change the designation of the subject property from Agricultural (AG) to a Rural Residential Exception Area (RREA). The applicant also requests approval of a corresponding Zoning Map Amendment (Zone Change) to change the zoning of the subject property from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10). This will be the second of two required public hearings. The Hearings Officer's recommendation of approval of the application is attached to this memo as Attachment 2. There was no appeal filed. I. BACKGROUND The applicant requests that Deschutes County change the zoning and the plan designation because the subject property does not qualify as "agricultural land" under Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) or Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) definitions. The applicant proposes that no exception to Statewide Planning Goal 3, Agricultural Land, is required because the subject property is not agricultural land. A soils assessment conducted by a qualified soils professional approved by the Department of Land Conservation and Development can be used by property owners to determine the extent of agricultural land as defined in Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-033. Submitted as the applicant's Exhibit 4, is a soil assessment titled Site -Specific Soil Survey of Property Located at 64430 Hunnell Road t...1, dated December 11, 2020, with field work completed my Soil Scientist Michael Sowers, CCA-WR, CPSS, and the report prepared by Soil Scientist Brian T. Rabe, CPSS, WWS, of Cascade Earth Sciences. 1 1 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 Q, (541) 388-6575 @ cdd@deschutes.org @ www.deschutes.org/cd Staff notes the original proposal included a Tentative Plan (TP) application for a four -lot subdivision. Because that subdivision application would be dependent on the successful outcome of the subject plan amendment and zone change, the TP application has been placed "on hold" and decoupled from the current applications. Several documents and materials submitted by the applicant include information directed towards the approval of a subdivision but are not applicable to the plan amendment and zone change. 11. TIMELINE This proposal is not subject to the statutory 150-day timeline that applies to other land use actions. III. HEARINGS OFFICER RECOMMENDATION The Deschutes County Hearings Officer held a public hearing on November 14, 2023. Only the applicant's attorney provided testimony. On November 23, 2023, the Hearings Officer issued a recommendation of approval for the proposed Plan Amendment and Zone Change. IV. BOARD CONSIDERATION As the property includes lands designated for agricultural use, Deschutes County Code 22.28.030(C) requires the application to be heard de novo before the Board, regardless of the determination of the Hearings Officer. The record is available for inspection at the following link: https://www.deschutes.org/cd/page/247-23-000210-pa-247-23-000211-zc-hunnell-road-plan- amendment-and-zone-change V. CONCLUSION The Hearings Officer's recommendation for this application identifies all applicable zoning ordinances and evaluates compliance with the criteria and standards of those ordinances. The Hearings Officer found the proposal meets all the requirements and recommends approval. Attachments: 1. Area Map 2. Hearings Officer's Recommendation 247-23-000210-PA, 211-ZC Page 2 of 2 File Nos 247-23-000210-PA, 211-ZC 64430 HUNNELL RD, BEND, OR 97703 SGFJF3EAM LN LOWE 0� Mailing Date: Wednesday, November 22, 2023 HEARINGS OFFICER RECOMMENDATION FILE NUMBERS: 247-23-000210-PA, 247-23-000211-ZC HEARING: November 14, 2023, 6:00 p.m. (the "Hearing") Videoconference and Barnes & Sawyer Rooms Deschutes Services Center 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97708 SUBJECT PROPERTY/ Groves Family Revocable Trust OWNER: Map and Taxlot: 1612330000800 Situs Address: 64430 Hunnell Rd, Bend, OR 97703 (the "Subject Property") APPLICANT/OWNER: Michael F. Groves and Cathie L. Groves (the "Applicant") 20075 Cox Lane Bend, OR 97703 ATTORNEY: Elizabeth A. Dickson Dickson � Hatfield, LLP 400 SW Bluff Dr., Ste. 240 Bend, OR 97702 PROPOSAL: The Applicant requested approval of a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to change the designation of the Subject Property from Agricultural ("AG") to a Rural Residential Exception Area ("RREA"). The Applicant also requests approval of a corresponding Zoning Map Amendment (Zone Change) to change the zoning of the Subject Property from Exclusive Farm Use ("EFU") to Multiple Use Agricultural ("M UA-10"). STAFF REVIEWER: Jacob Ripper, Principal Planner Jacob.Ripper@deschutes.org 541-385-1759 I. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: Deschutes County Code, Title 18, County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.04, Title, Purpose, and Definitions Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones 1 Chapter 18.32, Multiple Use Agricultural Zone Chapter 18.136, Amendments Deschutes County Code, Title 22, Procedures Ordinance Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 2, Resource Management Chapter 3, Rural Growth Management Appendix C, Transportation System Plan Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), Chapter 660 Division 6, Forest Lands Division 12, Transportation Planning Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines Division 33, Agricultural Land Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 215.211, Agricultural Land, Detailed Soils Assessment. II. BASIC FINDINGS: LOT OF RECORD: The Subject Property has been verified as a lawfully created lot of record as it was created by a Land Patent in April of 1022, recorded in Volume 33, Page 67 of the Deschutes County Book of Records. However, per DCC 22.04.040 (Verifying Lots of Record) lot of record verification is only required for certain permits: B. Permits Requiring Verification. 1. Unless an exception applies pursuant to subsection (B)(2) below, verifying a lot or parcel pursuant to subsection (C) shall be required prior to the issuance of the following permits: a. Any land use permit for a unit of land in the Exclusive Farm Use Zones (DCC Chapter 18.16), Forest Use Zone - F1 (DCC Chapter 18.36), or Forest Use Zone - F2 (DCC Chapter 18.40); b. Any permit for a lot or parcel that includes wetlands as shown on the Statewide Wetlands Inventory; C. Any permit for a lot or parcel subject to wildlife habitat special assessment; d. In all zones, a land use permit relocating property lines that reduces in size a lot or parcel, e. In all zones, a land use, structural, or non -emergency on -site sewage disposal system permit if the lot or parcel is smaller than the minimum area required in the applicable zone; In the PowelllRamsey (PA-14-2, ZC-14-2) decision, a County Hearings Officer held in a prior zone change decision (Belveron ZC-08-04; page 3), that a property's lot of record status was not required 247-23-000210-PA & 247-23-000211-ZC Page 2 of 36 to be verified as part of a plan amendment and zone change application. Rather, the Hearings Officer concluded that the Applicant would be required to receive lot of record verification prior to any development on the property. Therefore, the Hearings Officer, in this case, finds that this criterion does not apply. PROPOSAL: The Applicant requested approval of a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to change the designation of the Subject Property from AG to RREA. The Applicant also requested approval of a corresponding Zoning Map Amendment (Zone Change) to change the zoning of the subject property from EFU to MUA-10. The Applicant requested that Deschutes County change the zoning and the plan designation because the Subject Property does not qualify as "agricultural land" under Oregon Revised Statutes ("ORS"), Oregon Administrative Rules ("OAR") or Deschutes County Code definitions. The Applicant proposed that no exception is required to Statewide Planning Goal 3, Agricultural Land, because the Subject Property is not "agricultural land." Staff, in the Staff Report (page 3), noted that the original proposal included a Tentative Plan ("TP") application for a four -lot subdivision. Because that subdivision application would be dependent on the successful outcome of the subject plan amendment and zone change, the TP application has been placed "on hold" and decoupled from the current applications. Several documents and materials submitted by the Applicant include information directed towards the approval of a subdivision but are not applicable to the plan amendment and zone change. SITE DESCRIPTION: The Subject Property is undeveloped and scattered with sagebrush and juniper and is relatively flat. Although the Subject Property is zoned EFU, there is no indication in the record of current or historic farm i � uses or agricultural uses. The Subject Property ;s not in farm tax deferral and does not contain any irrigated areas nor does it have irrigation water rights. SURROUNDING LAND USES: Surrounding land uses generally consist of rural residential uses as well as some agricultural or small-scale farm uses. Zoning in the areas to the north, west, and south are smaller 5- to 10-acre lots or parcels in the MUA10 Zone. The property directly to the east of the Subject Property is approximately 80 acres in size, vacant, owned by Deschutes County, and is within the EFU Zone. Properties further to the east are relatively large lots, owned by Deschutes County and the City of Bend, and are predominately in the EFU and Open Space and Conservation ("OS&C") Zones. Highway 97 runs approximately 0.85 miles to the southeast. The City of Bend's Urban Growth Boundary and city limits are approximately 1.5 miles directly south. The Subject Property fronts on Hunnell Road to the west, which is designated as a rural collector. SOILS: According to Natural Resources Conservation Service ("NRCS") maps of the area, the Subject Property contains three soil units: NRCS Soil Map 27A Clovkamp Loamy Sand: Clovkamp Loamy Sand soils consist of 85 percent Clovkamp soils and similar inclusions and 15 percent contrasting inclusions. The agricultural capability ratings of this 247-23-000210-PA & 247-23-000211-ZC Page 3 of 36 soil are 3s when irrigated and 6s when not irrigated. Section 18.04.030 of the DCC considers this soil type high -value farmland' soil when irrigated. 38B Deskamp-Gosney complex 0 to 8 percent slopes: This soil is composed of 50 percent Deskamp soil and similar inclusions, 35 percent Gosney soil and similar inclusions, and 15 percent contrasting inclusions. The Deskamp soils have ratings of 6e when unirrigated, and 3e when irrigated. The Gosney soils have ratings of 7e when unirrigated, and 7e when irrigated. This soil type is not considered high -value farmland soil. 58C Gosney-Rock Outcrop-Deskamp complex. 0 to 15 percent slopes: This soil type is comprised of 50 percent Gosney soil and similar inclusions, 25 percent rock outcrop, 20 percent Deskamp soil and similar inclusions, and 5 percent contrasting inclusions. The Gosney soils have ratings of 7e when unirrigated, and 7e when irrigated. The rock outcrop has a rating of 8, with or without irrigation. The Deskamp soils have ratings of 6e when unirrigated, and 4e when irrigated. This soil type is not considered high -value farmland soil. Site -Specific Soil Survey Submitted as Exhibit 4 is a soil assessment titled, Site -Specific Soil Survey of Property Located at 64430 Hunnell Road [... ], dated December 11, 2020, with field work completed my Soil Scientist Michael Sowers, CCA-WR, CPSS, and the report prepared by Soil Scientist Brian T. Rabe, CPSS, WWS, of Cascade Earth Sciences (the "Applicant Soil Study"). A letter from the DLCD, dated April 12, 2021, and Included it h Exhibit 4, stated: "7n accordance with OAR 660-033-0045(6)(a), the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) finds that this soils assessment is complete and consistent with reporting requirements. The county may make its own determination as to the accuracy and acceptability of the soils assessment. DLCD has reviewed the soils assessment for completeness only and has not assessed whether the parcel qualifies as agricultural land as defined in OAR 660-033-0020(1) and 660-033-0030." ' Deschutes County code, 18.04, defines "High Value Farmland" as: "High -value farmland" means land in a tract composed predominantly of the following soils when they are irrigated: Agency loam (2A and 213), Agency sandy loam (IA), Agency -Madras complex (313), Buckbert sandy loam (23A), Clinefalls sandy loam (26A), Clovkamp loamy sand (27A and 28A), Deschutes sandy loam (31A, 31 B and 32A), Deschutes-Houstake complex (33B), Deskamp loamy sand (36A and 3613), Deskamp sandy loam (3713), Era sandy loam (4413 and 45A), Houstake sandy loam (65A, 66A and 67A), Iris silt loam (68A), Lafollette sandy loam (71A and 113), Madras loam (87A and 8713), Madras sandy loam (86A and 8613), Plainview sandy loam (98A and 9813), Redmond sandy loam (104A), Tetherow sandy loam (150A and 15013) and Tumalo sandy loam (152A and 15213). In addition to the above described land, high -value farmland includes tracts growing specified perennials as demonstrated by the most recent aerial photography of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture taken prior to November 4, 1993. For purposes of this definition, "specified perennials" means perennials grown for market or research purposes including, but not limited to, nursery stock, berries, fruits, nuts, Christmas trees or vineyards but not including seed crops, hay, pasture or alfalfa. 247-23-000210-PA & 247-23-000211-ZC Page 4 of 36 Soil Scientist Mr. Rabe included the following summary and conclusions within the Applicant Soil Study: "The purpose of this report is to present the results of an assessment to verify and, where necessary, refine the soils, map units, and boundaries mapped on the Site and to determine whether the soils on the Site meet the land capability classification criteria for a non -resource zoning designation. The published soil survey information was reviewed and direct observations of soil conditions were made at representative locations across the Site. CES has determined that the information from the published soil survey was generally consistent with observations on the ground with boundary refinements primarily limited to delineating components of the complex mapped by the NRCS and/or commonly occurring inclusions. CES has determined that 26.2 acres, or 65.4%, of the Site consists of Class Vll and Class Vlll soils. Since the Site is predominantly Class VII and Class Vlll soils and does not otherwise meet the criteria for further consideration as agricultural land, the Site meets the soils criteria for consideration of a non -resource zoning designation." AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice on April 14, 2023, to several public and private agencies and received the following comments: Deschutes County Building Safety - Randy Sheid, Building Official: "NVIICL. The Deschutes County Building Safety Divisions code mandates that Access, -5, Setbacks, Setbacks, Fire & Life Safety, Fire Fighting Water Supplies, etc. must be specifically addressed during the appropriate plan review process with regard to any proposed structures and occupancies. Accordingly, all Building Code required items will be addressed, when a specific structure, occupancy, and type of construction is proposed and submitted for plan review." Deschutes County Onsite Wastewater - Todd Cleveland, Manager: 'A complete approved site evaluation is required for each proposed residential lot prior to final plat approval. Site evaluation applications for new properties need to include details of the proposed lot lines and proposed septic system areas/test pit locations for each parcel." Planning Staff Comment (Staff Report, page 5): "The original application included a proposal for a four -lot subdivision, which this comment was directed towards. Subsequently, it was determined that the subdivision would be reviewed once the subject Plan Amendment and Zone Change decision becomes final." Deschutes County Senior Transportation Planner - Peter Russel: "l have reviewed the transmittal materials for 247 23-000210-PA1211 ZC/212-TP to amend the Comprehensive Plan designation of a 40-acre property from Agriculture (AG) to Rural Residential 247-23-000210-PA & 247-23-000211-ZC Page 5 of 36 Exception Area (RREA) and change the zoning for that same property from Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) to Multiple Use Agriculture (MUA-10) and a tentative plan to subdivide the property into four, 10-acre lots. The property is located at 64430 Hunnell Rd., aka County Assessors Map 16-12-33 Tax Lots 800. For reasons discussed below, staff finds more information is needed to address the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) and County code. The applicant's traffic study dated April 17, 2023, is incomplete for two reasons. The TPR at Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-012-0060 requires the demonstration of whether a plan amendment/zone change will have a significant effect or not. To determine that, the traffic study must include the operational analysis of the affected intersections predevelopment and post - development. The traffic study lacks this information and thus does not comply with the TPR. The TIA does analyze the segment of Hunnell Road itself for throughput, but not the intersection of the future Groves Road/Hunnell Road. Second, Deschutes County Code (DCC) 18.116.310(G)(4) requires zone changes to include a 20 year analysis. DCC 18.116.310(G)(10) requires existing and future years levels of service (LOS), average vehicle delay, and volume%apacity (V/C) ratios both with and without the project. (The V/C ratios are only applicable if ODOT facilities are analyzed.) The TIA lacks this feature and thus does not comply with County code. The TIA does not use the traffic volume standard of 9,600 Average Daily Traffic (ADT), which is set forth in the Transportation System Plan (TSP) at Page 81, Table 2.2T2 (Generalized County Road Segment and LOS). Further, the combination of the TPR and County code helps identify whether the transportation system has adequate capacity to serve the plan amendment/zone change or if the system is already overcapacity regardless of the proposed plan amendment/zone change. By contrast, the applicant has submitted what is in essence a trip generation memo. The property accesses Hunnell Road, a public road maintained by Deschutes County and functionally classified as a collector. The property lacks a driveway permit, the applicant will need to either provide a copy of an access permit approved by Deschutes County or be required to obtain one as a condition of approval to meet the access permit requirements of DCC 17.48.210(A). The County will assess transportation system development charges (SDCs) when development occurs based on the type of proposed use. However, as a plan amendment or a zone change by itself does not generate any traffic and neither does the subdividing of the land, no SDCs are triggered at this time. The SDCs are triggered by actual development." Planning Staff Comment (Staff Report, page 6): "The applicant submitted additional information to address these comments. Below is the response from the Senior Transportation Planner." Deschutes County Senior Transportation Planner - Tarik Rawlins "These updated materials and the application materials in record satisfy the County's requirements and no further materials or analysis are required from the applicant." The following agencies either had no comment or did not respond to the notice: Arnold Irrigation 247-23-000210-PA & 247-23-000211-ZC Page 6 of 36 District, Avion Water Company, Bend Fire, Bend La Pine School District, Bend Metro Parks and Rec, Bend Planning Dept., Bend Public Works, BLM - Prineville, Department of State Lands, Dept of Land Conservation & Development, Deschutes County Assessor, Deschutes County Property Mgmt., Deschutes County Road Department, OR Dept of Ag Land Use Planning, OR Dept of Agriculture, OR Dept of Agriculture, OR Dept of Fish & Wildlife, OR Parks and Recreation, Swalley Irrigation District, and Watermaster - District 11. PUBLIC COMMENTS: On April 14, 2023, the Planning Division mailed a Notice of Application to all property owners within 750 feet of the Subject Property. No comments from the public were received. Only the Applicant, Applicant's representative and County Staff appeared at the Hearing. No request was received prior to or at the Hearing to keep the record open to allow the submission of additional evidence/argument. The Hearings Officer closed the record at the conclusion of the Hearing. Following the Hearing a letter was received from Kenneth Katzaroff (Schwabe, November 20, 2023). The Hearings Officer finds that the Katzaroff letter was submitted after the close of the record and therefore cannot be considered in the making of this recommendation. NOTICE REQUIREMENT: The Applicant complied with the posted notice requirements of Section 22.23.030(B) of Deschutes County Code (DCC) Title 22. The Applicant submitted a Land Use Action Sign Affidavit, dated March 30, 2023, indicating the Applicant posted notice of the land use action on the Subject Property on that same date. On September 25, 2023, the Planning Division mailed a Notice of Public Hearing to all property owners within 750 feet of the Subject Property. A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Bend Bulletin on Sunday, October 1, 2023. Notice of the first evidentiary hearing was submitted to the Department of Land Conservation and Development on Septer i ber 22, 2023, REVIEW PERIOD: According to Deschutes County Code 22.20.040(D), the review of the proposed quasi-judicial Plan Amendment and Zone Change application is not subject to the 150-day review period. LAND USE HISTORY: Previous land use actions associated with the subject property are: • LR-90-16: Lot of record verification. 111111. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS PRELIMINARY FINDINGS As noted above no person or entity offered oral testimony or written documentation, in a timely manner, in opposition of the Applicant's proposal or the Staff Report in this case. As such, the Hearings Officer finds that the Staff Report, as drafted, provides substantial evidence and legal argument to allow the Hearings Officer to adopt the Staff Report as findings for this recommendation. 247-23-000210-PA & 247-23-000211-ZC Page 7 of 36 Staff discussed, in the Staff Report (see pages 12-23), evidence and legal issues related to Applicant's choice to not seek a Goal 3 exception. The Hearings Officer provides the following supplemental findings related to Applicant's decision not to seek a Goal 3 exception. Relevant Law The following quoted sections of statutes, regulations and case law represent a general overview of the law related to whether a Goal 3 exception is warranted and/or necessary: OAR 660-033-0020 (1)(a) "Agricultural Land" as defined in Goal 3 includes: (A) Lands classified by the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as predominantly Class I -IV soils in Western Oregon and I- VI soils in Eastern Oregon; (B) Land in other soil classes that is suitable for farm use as defined in ORS 215.203(2)(a), taking into consideration soil fertility, suitability for grazing; climatic conditions; existing and future availability of water for farm irrigation purposes; existing land use patterns; technological and energy inputs required; and accepted farming practices, and (C) Land that is necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby agricultural lands. OAR 660-033-0030 (5 (b) If a person concludes that more detailed soils information than that contained in the Web Soil Survey operated by the NRCS, would assist a county to make a better determination of whether land qualifies as agricultural land, the person must request that the department arrange for an assessment of the capability of the land by a professional soil classifier who is chosen by the person, using the process described in OAR 660-033-0045. ORS 215.203 (2)(a) As used in this section, 'farm use" means the current employment of land for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money by raising, harvesting and selling crops or the feeding, breeding, management and sale of, or the produce of, livestock, poultry, fur -bearing animals or honeybees or for dairying and the sale of dairy products or any other agricultural or horticultural use or animal husbandry or any combination thereof. "Farm use" includes the preparation, storage and disposal by marketing or otherwise of the products or by-products raised on such land for human or animal use. "Farm use" also includes the current employment of land for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money by stabling or training equines including but not limited to providing riding lessons, training clinics and schooling shows. "Farm use" also includes the propagation, cultivation, maintenance and harvesting of aquatic, bird and animal species that are under the jurisdiction of the State Fish and Wildlife Commission, to the extent allowed by the rules adopted by the commission. "Farm use" includes the on -site construction and maintenance of equipment and facilities used for the activities 247-23-000210-PA & 247-23-000211-ZC Page 8 of 36 described in this subsection. "Farm use" does not include the use of land subject to the provisions of ORS chapter 321, except land used exclusively forgrowing cultured Christmas trees or land described in ORS 321,267 (3) or 321.824 (3). DCC 18.04 "Agricultural Land" means lands classified by the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as predominately Class I -VI soils, and other lands in different soil classes which are suitable for farm use, taking into consideration soil fertility, suitability for grazing and cropping, climatic conditions, existing and future availability of water for farm irrigation purposes, existing land use patterns, technological and energy inputs required, and accepted farming practices. Lands in other classes which are necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands shall be included as agricultural lands in any event. "Farm use" means the current employment of land for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money by raising, harvesting and selling crops or by the feeding, breeding, management and sale of, or the produce of, livestock, poultry, fur -bearing animals or honeybees or for dairying and the sale of dairy products or any other agricultural or horticultural use or animal husbandry or any combination thereof. "Farm use" includes the preparation, storage and disposal by marketing or otherwise of the products or by-products raised on such land for human or animal use. 'Farm Use" also includes the current employment of the land for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money by stabling or training equines, including but not limited to, providing riding lessons, training clinics and schooling shows. "Farm use" also includes the propagation, cultivation, maintenance and harvesting of aquatic species and bird and anlmai specie$ tC the extent aiiof✓ed by tlice r uice.�i adopted by the State Il.I and Wildlife Commission. "Farm use" includes the on -site construction and maintenance of equipment and facilities used for the activities described above. "Farm use" does not include the use of land subject to the provisions of ORS chapter 321, except land used exclusively for growing cultured Christmas trees as defined in ORS 215.203(3). Current employment of the land for farm use also includes those uses listed under ORS 215.203(2)(b). Wetherell v. Douglas County, 342 Or 666 (2007) [hereafter referred to as "Wetherell Decision ,]2 Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes County, LUBA No. 2023-006 (2023) [hereafter referred to as the "LUBA 710 Decision"] Goal 3 Analysis The following represents the Hearings Officer's overview findings related to the legal approach to be taken with respect to addressing Applicant's argument that the Subject Property is not "agricultural land" and therefore no Goal 3 exception is required. 2 Staff, in the Staff Report (page 13), referenced the LUBA decision (52 Or LUBA 677 (2006)); the LUBA decision was appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court. The legal issue referenced by Staff was not a focus of the Wetherell Oregon Supreme Court decision. 247-23-000210-PA & 247-23-000211-ZC Page 9 of 36 LUBA stated, in the LUBA 710 Decision (page 11), that "generally counties apply Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zones to'agricultural land"' (citing OAR 660-033-0090(1)). LUBA then proceeded to analyze the laws/regulations/codes referenced above in the context of determining if the property identified in that case was "agricultural land." The LUBA 710 Decision (pages 13-18) analysis of OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(A) addressed the need to meet identified U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service ("NRCS") soil classifications. Generally, OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(A) identifies soils (Eastern Oregon) classified as I -VI as "agricultural land." However, LUBA (LUBA 710 Decision) held that OAR 660-033-0030(5) permits a county to rely, if certain conditions are met, upon a site -specific soils assessment. OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(B) provides that property can be considered "agricultural land" in "other soil classes" if it is: "suitable for farm use as defined in ORS 215.203(2)(a) taking into consideration soil fertility, suitability for grazing; climatic conditions, existing and future availability of water for farm irrigation purposes; existing land use patterns; technological and energy inputs required, and accepted farming practices." The Hearings Officer refers to the OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(B) factors (i.e., soil fertility, suitability for grazing, ect.) as the "Suitability Factors." OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(B) refers to ORS 215.203(2)(a) for the definition of "farm use." ORS 215.203(2)(a), in part, states: 'lar�m use" mean the `Nlrrant empinyment of lanrlfnr the rn, Ylmary nllrnnCP of nhtnining n nrnfit J r rnc_ �� r• �• in money by..." The Oregon Supreme Court (Wetherell Decision) and LUBA (LUBA 710 Decision) addressed the "primary purpose of obtaining a profit" language in ORS 215.203(2)(a). The underlying County interpretation of "primary purpose of obtaining profit" focused on whether or not each of the Suitability Factors, in the context of whether it was reasonably possible (reasonable farmer concept) to obtain a profit, were met on the specific subject property. The LUBA 710 Decision refined LUBA's interpretation of "primary purpose of obtaining profit" to require consideration of property other than (in addition to) just the property subject to the application (i.e., neighboring properties). OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(C) provides that "agricultural land" includes "land that is necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby agricultural land." DCC 18.04 definitions of "farm use" and "agricultural land" are generally consistent with the OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a) and ORS 215.203 definitions. The Hearings Office finds the LUBA 710 Decision is currently under appeal to the Oregon Court of Appeals. The Hearings Officer considered the LUBA 710 Decision as instructional but not a final statement of the law related to the determination of what is "agricultural land" under Oregon and Deschutes County statutes/regulations/code. The Hearings Officer, however, did consider in this 247-23-000210-PA & 247-23-000211-ZC Page 10 of 36 recommendation the Applicant's Hearing testimony and submitted exhibits in the context of the LUBA 710 Decision. Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code Chapter 18.136, Amendments Section 18.136.010, Amendments DCC Title 18 may be amended as set forth in DCC 18.136. The procedures for text or legislative map changes shall be as set forth in DCC 22.12. A request by a property owner for a quasi-judicial map amendment shall be accomplished by filing an application on forms provided by the Planning Department and shall be subject to applicable procedures of DCC Title 22. FINDING: The Applicant, also the property owner, requested a quasi-judicial plan amendment and filed the applications for a plan amendment and zone change. The Applicant filed the required land use application forms for the proposal. The application will be reviewed utilizing the applicable procedures contained in Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code. Section 18.136.020, Rezoning Standards The applicant for a quasi-judicial rezoning must establish that the public interest is best served by rezoning the property. Factors to be demonstrated by the applicant are: A. That the change conforms with the Comprehensive Plan, and the change is consistent with the plan's introductory statement and goals. FINDING: Conformance with relevant sections of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan is reviewed below. The proposed rezoning from EFU to MUM 0 is required to be consistent with the proposed new plan designation. In previous comprehensive plan and zone change recommendations' to the Board of County Commissioners ("BCC") County hearings officers have found that the introductory statement of the Comprehensive Plan to be aspirational in nature and not necessarily approval criteria. The Hearings Officer, in this case, concurs with the prior BCC and hearings officer findings that this section is aspirational and not an approval criterion. B. That the change in classification for the subject property is consistent with the purpose and intent of the proposed zone classification. FINDING: In response to subsection (B) of this policy, the Applicant's Burden of Proof provides the following: 3 Powell/Ramsey decision (PA-14-2, ZC-14-2) and Landholdings Decision (247-16-000317-ZC, 318-PA). 247-23-000210-PA & 247-23-000211-ZC Page 11 of 36 "The proposed Plan change from Agricultural to Rural Residential Exception Area and Zone change from EFU-TRB to MUA-10 is consistent with the purposes and intents of the MUA zone classification. Per DCC 18.32.010, the stated purposes of the MUA zone are as follows: The purposes of the Multiple Use Agricultural Zone are to preserve the rural character of various areas of the County while permitting development consistent with that character and with the capacity of the natural resources of the area; to preserve and maintain agricultural lands not suited to full time commercial farming for diversified or part time agricultural uses; to conserve forest lands for forest uses, to conserve open spaces and protect natural and scenic resources, to maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the County, • to establish standards and procedures for the use of those lands designated unsuitable for intense development by the Comprehensive Plan, and to provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use. The County's Transportation System Plan includes planned improvements for the triangle between Highway 20 and Highway 97, as ODOT's management of the highways themselves is focusing on streamlining these through -ways by reducing local points of ingress and egress to the highways. The City of Bend and Deschutes County must develop local transportation networks that do not rely on these highways for local trips. This change includes improvements to Hunnell Road, scheduled for 2023. See Exhibit 7, Hunnell Road Project. City UGB Expansion includes expansion northward as well, presently approximately 7600'south of the subject property. The MUA-10 lands and other exception zone designations in the area are preferred lands for such expansion, as they do not require conversion of resource lands to urban uses, which is disfavored as part of the urban management process. The MUA-10 zone is the optimal county zone designation to transition the Subject Property to a rural residential use. As detailed above and incorporated herein by reference, the Subject Property is not suited for agricultural use, as evidenced by the site -specific study of its soils (Exhibit 4). This property is more appropriately zoned MUA-10, like the surrounding property on 3 sides. The Subject Property is currently zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) likely due to generalized designations in the overall area and/or prior ownership of larger parcels, rather than consideration of the agricultural capability of the land itself. The Property is not documented as ever having been in farm or pasture use, since it is unirrigated. It is not feasible to engage in productive or profitable farming activity without water rights, and the soils classified Classes Vll and VIII will not sustain significant usable plant growth without irrigation. This Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map Amendment request will standardize zoning in the area and address the potential conflict and incompatibility between the EFU permitted uses and the adjacent, surrounding lands developed or committed for exception uses. The requested Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendments will result in a zoning assignment that is compatible with neighboring properties rather than the current EFU zoning. Rezoning of the Subject Property from EFU to MUA-10 will resolve the latent conflict between EFU permitted uses and the immediately adjacent rural residential uses. Furthermore, the Comprehensive Plan Map and Zone Map change will serve the interests of the northwest Bend 247-23-000210-PA & 247-23-000211-ZC Page 12 of 36 residents, surrounding neighborhoods, and existing and future public investments in public facilities and services along Hunnell Road. By allowing for single family dwellings as an outright permitted use (DCC 18.32.020(B), the MUA- 10 zone recognizes that rural lands may sometimes be better suited for residential use than agricultural uses. Other non -resource land uses are conditionally permitted, any nonresource land development proposal on the property other than a single family dwelling would not be allowed unless it was found to be consistent with the surrounding properties and the applicable conditional use evaluation standards. Therefore, the proposed change in zoning is consistent with the intent and purpose of the MUA-10 zone, and will be compatible with surrounding properties. The Hunnell Road improvements already planned serve this change well. As a straightened, widened, paved roadway, it is well planned to handle additional trips likely to be coming soon to this growing area." The Hearings Officer finds, based upon Applicant's record submissions, that Applicant has demonstrated that the requested change in classification is consistent with the purpose of the proposed zoning. C. That changing the zoning will presently serve the public health, safety and welfare considering the following factors: 1. The availability and efficiency of providing necessary public services and facilities. FINIDING: Alfkl i h there are nn ninnc to de �ielnn the qi iihiPrt Prnnarty in itc rii irrent data the ahnve uv tea. �M _ I 1 11 v r. I ..I,. J...... .,,r—. J ,., - criterion specifically asks if the proposed zone change will presently serve public health, safety, and welfare. The Applicant provided the following response in the submitted Burden of Proof statement: "The proposed change from EFU to MUA-10 will not require the extension of new public services to the Subject Property. The site is already adjacent to enhanced infrastructure (Hunnell Road, Avion water lines, and electrical power). The site will be served by on -site septic systems. Thus, public facilities are available and can be efficiently provided to the site. Subdividing the property and the Plan Amendment / Zone Change will presently serve public health, safety, and welfare. The 40-acre parcel is not used as farm land at the present time because its soils are not sufficient and it is not irrigated. The proposed land use approvals would allow this land to be used safely and efficiently for uses allowed in the MUA-10 zone, benefiting public health, safety, and welfare by utilizing the facilities already in place to expand housing in the area. The surrounding areas contain numerous properties that are residentially developed and have water service from a quasi -municipal source or wells, on -site sewage disposal systems, electrical service, telephone services, etc. There are no known deficiencies in public services or facilities that would negatively impact public health, safety, or welfare by allowing a housing supply increase. Development of the property under MUA-10 zoning would need to comply with applicable requirements of the DCC, including land use permits, building permits, and sewage disposal permit processes. Through development review processes, assurance of adequate public services and 247-23-000210-PA & 247-23-000211-ZC Page 13 of 36 facilities will be verified and public health, safety, and welfare overall will be improved by the addition of much needed housing in an underutilized area." Staff noted (Staff Report, page 10) that prior to development of the Subject Property the Applicant would be required to comply with the applicable requirements of the DCC, including possible land use, building, and sewage disposal permits, in addition to approval of the related subdivision. Through these development review processes, assurance of adequate public services and facilities will be verified. The Hearings Officer agrees with Staff and the Applicant that Applicant's record submissions demonstrate compliance with this criterion. 2. The impacts on surrounding land use will be consistent with the specificgoals and policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan. FINDING: In response to this criterion the Applicant's Burden of Proof included the following comments: "This application asks for approval to change the Comprehensive Plan designation of non- agricultural land to the more accurate Rural Residential Exception Area category, and rezone the Subject Property from EFU-TRB to MUA-10. The MUA-10 zone serves as a transition between EFU lands with productive soils and other rural lands that are "not suited to full time commercial farming" and are more appropriately suited for "diversified or part time agricultural uses." The MUA-10 zone retains consistency with EFU lands by allowing a limited array of rural uses and mandating a 10-acre minimum lot size. There are only a limited number of uses allowed in the IVI UA- i v zone that are a not also aii o'Wnl in the EFU Zv^ne FiA rth o,P the , Sri }/ f the �IJ�fe rent nnn_ resource land uses in the MUA-10 zone are conditional, thereby ensuring that potential impacts on surrounding land uses are reviewed by the County during each application. In summary, the MUA-10 zone remains a rural zone devoted to a mix of mixed rural and residential uses that acknowledges soil deficiencies precluding profitable farm use. This minimizes potential impacts on surrounding lands. The MUA-10 zoning would emphasize the continued protection of the open space and wildlife values of the property with its 10-acre minimums." In addition to these comments, the Applicant provided specific findings for relevant Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, which are addressed below. The Hearings Officer concurs with Staff and Applicant that the Applicant demonstrated, with evidence in the public record, that the impacts on surrounding land use will be consistent with the specific goals and policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan. D. That there has been a change in circumstances since the property was last zoned, or a mistake was made in the zoning of the property in question. FINDING: In response to this criterion, the Applicant's Burden of Proof provides the following: "Circumstances have changed since the zoning of the property in November, 1979. Much of unirrigated lands were zoned EFU in large blocks in the interest of efficiency and expediency, even 247-23-000210-PA & 247-23-000211-ZC Page 14 of 36 though these parcels were dry and not profitably formable. This property was zoned without detailed or site specific consideration given to its history, soil, geologic, or topographic characteristics. Now that a certified soils scientist has conducted a detailed Soils Investigation, it is documented that the parcel does not qualify as agricultural farmland and is properly rezoned to a practical designation reflecting the true facts of the parcel. See Exhibit 4. In summary, the County's zoning of agricultural lands has been a process of refinement since the 1970s. The Subject Property appears to have never been suitable for production as profitable agriculture and there is no record of it ever been actively farmed, due to its poor soil and lack of irrigation water. Although it was originally assigned EFU zoning, this property likely should have been originallyzoned MUA-10 due to its location, soils, geology, and lack of irrigation watersupply. However, in 1979, only tracts with dwellings or divisions below minimum sizes were classified as exception lands, regardless of soils. It is now known that the parcel should be rezoned to MUA-10, consistent with the zoning of adjacent rural -residential uses and its poor soil. The MUA-10 zoning assignment supports logical, compatible, and efficient use of the land in keeping with its highest and best use." Staff, in the Staff Report (page 12), stated the following: "It is unclear to staff why the subject property was initially zoned EFU. Staff is unaware of any evidence such as soil classification, availability of irrigation, or historic farming, which explains its current zoning. Staff agrees with the applicant's findings that there have been several particularly relevant changes in circumstances that warrant a zone change, especially in consideration of the detaled iforation obthe tff idtap/Cant hs domnn�tratoNlimdy1o1 Sall hep!a compliance with this criterion, but asks the Hearings Officer to amend or add to these findings as the Hearings Officer sees fit." The Hearings Officer agrees, after reviewing the documents in the record and considering the testimony of County Staff and Applicant's representative at the Hearing, that the underlying rationale and reasoning underlying the original zoning the Subject Property being zoned as EFU is not clear and/or certain. The Hearings Officer finds that whatever the circumstances leading to the decision to assign the Subject Property with the EFU designation there are many relevant factors that are different today. Currently, urban style growth is moving towards the Subject Property and farm uses in the immediate vicinity are rare; if they exist at all. Properties to the north and west of the Subject Property are not in farm use; the property boarding to the north has been developed as the Sun Cloud Estates subdivision and properties to the south and west are divided into residential use parcels. The property boarding the Subject Property to the east is owned by the County and based upon evidence in the record has not been used for farming or agricultural purposes. The Hearings also finds, based primarily upon the Applicant's site -specific soil study, that the soils on the Subject Property do not support the original EFU zoning designation. The Hearings Officer finds that there has been a change in circumstances since the Subject Property was zoned EFU. The Hearings Officer also finds that the EFU zoning was a mistake. The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is met. 247-23-000210-PA & 247-23-000211-ZC Page 15 of 36 The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 2, Resource Management Section 2.2, Agricultural Lands Policies Goal 1, Preserve and maintain agricultural lands and the agricultural industry. FINDING: The Applicant provided the following response in the submitted Burden of Proof statement: 'As discussed below, the Subject Property is not correctly categorized as agricultural land, because of its inability to retain water and sustain plantgrowth to a sufficient degree to make it profitable. See the Applicant's soil study (Exhibit 4) and the responses in the submitted burden of proof, which effectively demonstrate that the Subject Property is not suitable for designation as Agriculture in the Comprehensive Plan. Changing the Subject Property's Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning is an acknowledgment of site -specific facts, not interpretation. The Hearings Officer incorporates the Preliminary Findings as additional findings for this criterion. The Hearings Officer also incorporates the findings for Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.2.3 and OAR 660-006-0005, 660-015-0000(3), 660-033-0020 and 660-033-0030 as additional findings for this criterion. The Hearings Officer, based upon Applicant's record submissions and the incorporated findings, concludes that the Subject Property is not "agricultural land" as that phrase is described in relevant laws/rules and relevant land use case law. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds this policy is not applicable to the Subject Property. Policy2.2.2 Exclusive Farm Use sub -zones shall remain as described in the 1992 Farm Study and shown in the table below, unless adequate legal findings for amending the sub -zones are adopted or an individual parcel is rezoned as allowed by Policy 2.2.3. FINDING: The Applicant is not asking to amend the subzone that applies to the Subject Property; rather, the Applicant is seeking a change under Policy 2.2.3 and has provided evidence to support rezoning the subject property to MUA-10. Policy 2.2.3 Allow comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments for individual EFU parcels as allowed by State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rules and this Comprehensive Plan. FINDING: The Hearings Officer incorporates the Preliminary Findings as additional findings for this criterion. The Hearings Officer also incorporates the findings for Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.2.3 247-23-000210-PA & 247-23-000211-ZC Page 16 of 36 and OAR 660-006-0005, 660-015-0000(3), 660-033-0020 and 660-033-0030 as additional findings for this policy. The Applicant is seeking approval of a plan amendment and zone change to re -designate and rezone the properties from Agricultural to Rural Residential Exception Area. The Applicant is not seeking an exception to Goal 3 - Agricultural Lands, but rather demonstrated that the Subject Property does not meet the state definition of "Agricultural Land" as defined in Statewide Planning Goal 3 (OAR 660-033-0020). Staff provided the following comments in the Staff Report (page 13): "The Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) allowed this approach in Wetherell v. Douglas County, 52 Or LUBA 677 (2006), and this approach has been utilized in the previous Plan Amendment and Zone Change applications within Deschutes County. The County Hearings Officer also accepted this method in file PA-10-5 (Rose & Associates). In Wetherell v. Douglas County, LUBA states at pp. 678-679: 'As we explained in DLCD v. Klamath County, 16 Or LUBA 817, 820 (1988), there are two ways a county can justify a decision to allow nonresource use of land previously designated and zoned for farm use or forest uses. One is to take an exception to Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands) and Goal 4 (Forest Lands). The other is to adopt findings which demonstrate the land does not qualify either as forest lands or agricultural lands under the statewide planning goals. When a county pursues the latter option, it must demonstrate that despite the prior resource plan and zoning rlocianatinn noithor Gnrrl 3 nr rnal4 annlipz to tho nrnnortt/ (Trine i/ Tillmmnnk County, 25 Or LUBA 209, 218 (1993), DLCD v. Josephine County, 18 Or LUBA 798, 802 (1990)." Staff agrees that the facts presented by the applicant in the burden of proof for the subject application are similar to those in the Wetherell decisions and in previous Deschutes County plan amendment and zone change applications. Therefore, the applicant has the potential to prove the properties are not agricultural land and do not require an exception to Goal 3 under state law." The Hearings Officer, based upon the above -quoted Staff comments and the incorporated findings, concurs with Staffs conclusion that the Applicant may attempt to prove the Subject Property is not "agricultural land" and therefore does not require a Goal 3 exception. Policy 2.2.4 Develop comprehensive policy criteria and code to provide clarity on when and how EFU parcels can be converted to other designations. FINDING: This plan policy provides direction to Deschutes County to develop new policies to provide clarity when EFU parcels can be converted to other designations. In the findings for previous Plan Amendment and Zone Change applications, the County has found that this policy does not impose a moratorium on requests for applications of this type, and that nothing in this plan policy prohibits the conversion of EFU parcels to other designations (see also PA-11-7, 247-16-000318-PA, PA-10-5, PA-07-1 and more). The Hearings Officer concurs with the County's previous determinations and finds the proposal is consistent with this policy. 247-23-000210-PA & 247-23-000211-ZC Page 17 of 36 Goal 3, Ensure Exclusive Farm Use policies, classifications and codes are consistent with local and emerging agricultural conditions and markets. Policy 2.2.13 Identify and retain accurately designated agricultural lands. FINDING: The Hearings Officer incorporates the Preliminary Findings as additional findings for this criterion. The Hearings Officer also incorporates the findings for Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.2.3 and OAR 660-006-0005, 660-015-0000(3), 660-033-0020 and 660-033-0030 as additional findings for this policy. This plan policy makes it clear that it is County policy to identify and retain agricultural lands that are accurately designated. The Applicant proposed that the Subject Property was not accurately designated as demonstrated by the soil study and the applicant's Burden of Proof. The Hearings Officer finds that the EFU designation was not accurately placed on the Subject Property. Section 2.5 Water Resources Policies Goal 6, Coordinate land use and water policies. Policy 2.5.24 Ensure water impacts are reviewed and, if necessary, addressed for significant land uses or developments. FINDING: The Annlirint i5 Brit nrnnncinv a cnarifir rfieyelnnmant Annliratinn at thic time, Therefnre the Applicant is not required to demonstrate the water impacts associated with development. Rather, the Applicant will be required to address this criterion during development of the subject property, which would be reviewed under any necessary land use process for the site (e.g. conditional use permit, tentative plat). This criterion does not apply to the subject application. Section 2.7, Open Spaces, Scenic Views and Sites Goal 1, Coordinate with property owners to ensure protection of significant open spaces and scenic views and sites. Policy 2.7.3 Support efforts to identify and protect significant open spaces and visually important areas including those that provide a visual separation between communities such as the open spaces of Bend and Redmond or lands that are visually prominent. Policy 2.7.5 Encourage new development to be sensitive to scenic view and sites. FINDING: These policies are fulfilled by the County's Goal 5 program. The County protects scenic views and sites along major rivers and roadways by imposing Landscape Management ("LM") Combining Zone to certain adjacent properties. Staff noted (Staff Report, page 15) that no LM Combining Zone applies to the subject property at this time. The Subject Property is also not located 247-23-000210-PA & 247-23-000211-ZC Page 18 of 36 within the Open Space and Conservation ("OS&C") Zone. Furthermore, no new development is proposed under the present application. These provisions of the plan, therefore, are not impacted by the proposed zone change and plan amendment. Chapter 3, Rural Growth Section 3.2, Rural Development Growth Potential As of 2010, the strong population growth of the last decade in Deschutes County was thought to have leveled off due to the economic recession. Besides flattergrowth patterns, changes to State regulations opened up additional opportunities for new rural development. The following list identifies general categories for creating new residential lots, all of which are subject to specific State regulations. 2009 legislation permits a new analysis of agricultural designated lands Exceptions can be granted from the Statewide Planning Goals • Some farm lands with poor soils that are adjacent to rural residential uses can be rezoned as rural residential FINDING: The Hearings Officer incorporates the Preliminary Findings as additional findings for this criterion. The Hearings Officer also incorporates the findings for Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.2.3 and OAR 660-006-0005, 660-015-0000(3), 660-033-0020 and 660-033-0030 as additional findings for thic nnliry This section of the Comprehensive Plan does not contain Goals or Policies, but does provide the guidance above. In response to this section, the Applicant's Burden of Proof provides the following: "The County Comprehensive Plan above notes that "Some farm lands with poor soils that are adjacent to rural residential uses can be rezoned as rural residential." The requested Plan amendment is based on the results of the submitted Soils Investigation (Exhibit 4) which has demonstrated that the Subject Property does not constitute "agricultural lands" as defined in the goal, based upon a site -specific soils study conducted by a certified, professional soil scientist (Brian Roby). Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this section of the Comprehensive Plan, given that the Subject Property has been determined to be non -resource land appropriate for rural residential development. Its poor soil and adjacency to rural residential areas on 3 sides and 7600' from the Bend UGB make it an appropriate candidate for the change contemplated by this section of the Plan." Based upon the incorporated findings and the above -quoted Applicant response the Hearings Officer finds Applicant's proposal in this case complies with this policy. Section 3.3, Rural Housing Rural Residential Exception Areas 247-23-000210-PA & 247-23-000211-ZC Page 19 of 36 In Deschutes County most rural lands are designated for farms, forests or other resources and protected as described in the Resource Management chapter of this Plan. The majority of the land not recognized as resource lands or Unincorporated Community is designated Rural Residential Exception Area. The County had to follow a process under Statewide Goal 2 to explain why these lands did not warrant farm or forest zoning. The major determinant was that many of these lands were platted for residential use before Statewide Planning was adopted. In 1979 the County assessed that there were over 17,000 undeveloped Rural Residential Exception Area parcels, enough to meet anticipated demand for new rural housing. As of 2010 any new Rural Residential Exception Areas need to be justified through taking exceptions to farm, forest, public facilities and services and urbanization regulations, and follow guidelines set out in the OAR. FINDING: The Hearings Officer incorporates the Preliminary Findings as additional findings for this criterion. The Hearings Officer also incorporates the findings for Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.2.3 and OAR 660-006-0005, 660-015-0000(3), 660-033-0020 and 660-033-0030 as additional findings for this policy. A County hearings officer's decision for file numbers PA-11-17/ZC-11-2 provides the following findings in response to this portion of Section 3.3 of the Comprehensive Plan: "Tn fho oxtont dint tho mintPrl Innal/!Y P nhnl(P rPnrPCPnt(z n nnI1r1/ It nr)nPnrz to hp rllrPrtP(l (it n fundamentally different situation than the one presented in this application. The quoted language addresses conversions of 'farm" or 'forest" land to rural residential use. In those cases, the language indicates that some type of exception under state statute and DLCD rules will be required in order to support a change in Comprehensive Plan designation. See ORS 197.732 and OAR 660, Division 004. That is not what this application seeks to do. The findings below explain that the applicant has been successful in demonstrating that the subject property is composed predominantly of nonagricultural soil types. Therefore, it is permissible to conclude that the property is not 'farmland" as defined under state statute, DLCD rules, and that it is not correctly zoned for exclusive farm use. As such, the application does not seek to convert "agricultural land" to rural residential use. If the land is demonstrated to not be composed of agricultural soils, then there is no "exception" to be taken. There is no reason that the applicant should be made to demonstrate a reasons, developed or committed exception under state law because the subject property is not composed of the type of preferred land which the exceptions process was designed to protect. For all these reasons, the Hearings Officer concludes that the applicant is not required to obtain an exception to Goal3. There is one additional related matter which warrants discussion in connection with this issue. It appears that part of Staffs hesitation and caution on the issue of whether an exception might be required is rooted in the title of the Comprehensive Plan designation that would ultimately apply to the subject property - which is "Rural Residential Exception Area." There appears to be seven countywide Comprehensive Plan designations as identified in the plan itself. These include 247-23-000210-PA & 247-23-000211-ZC Page 20 of 36 'Agriculture, Airport Development, Destination Resort Combining Zone, Forest, Open Space and Conservation, Rural Residential Exception Area, and Surface Mining." Of the seven designations, only Rural Residential Exception Area provides for associated zoning that will allow rural residential development. As demonstrated by reference to the Pagel decision discussed above, there appears to be instances in which rural residential zoning has been applied without the underlying land necessarily being identified as an exception area. This makes the title of the "Rural Residential Exception Area" designation confusing, and in some cases inaccurate, because no exception is associated with the underlying land in question. However, it is understandable that since this designation is the only one that will allow rural residential development, that it has become a catchall designation for land types that are authorized for rural residential zoning. That is the case with the current proposal, and again, for the same reasons set forth in Hearings Officer Green's decision in Pagel, I cannot find a reason why the County would be prohibited from this practice. Based on the incorporated findings and the above -quoted comments this Hearings Officer agrees with the past Deschutes County hearings officer interpretations and finds that the above language is not a policy and does not require an exception to the applicable Statewide Planning Goal 3. The Hearings Officer finds that the proposed RREA plan designation is the appropriate plan designation to apply to the Subject Property. Section 3.7, Transportation The Transportation System was adopted in Ordinance 2012-005 and is hereby incorporated into this Plan ncJ Appendix f IIIiV iI IJ I I M... Appendix C - Transportation System Plan ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR ROAD PLAN Goal 4 4. Establish a transportation system, supportive of a geographically distributed and diversified economic base, while also providing a safe, efficient network for residential mobility and tourism. Policies 4.4 Deschutes County shall consider roadway function, classification and capacity as criteria for plan map amendments and zone changes. This shall assure that proposed land uses do not exceed the planned capacity of the transportation system. FINDING: This policy applies to the County and advises it to consider the roadway function, classification, and capacity as criteria for plan amendments and zone changes. The County will 247-23-000210-PA & 247-23-000211-ZC Page 21 of 36 comply with this direction by determining compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule ("TPR"), also known as OAR 660-012, as described below in subsequent findings. OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES CHAPTER 660, LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Division 6, Goal 4 - Forest Lands OAR 660-006-0005, Definitions (7) "Forest lands" as defined in Goal 4 are those lands acknowledged as forest lands, or, in the case of a plan amendment, forest lands shall include: (a) Lands that are suitable for commercial forest uses, including adjacent or nearby lands which are necessary to permit forest operations or practices, and (b) Other forested lands that maintain soil, air, water and fish and wildlife resources. FINDING: The Subject Property is not zoned for forest lands, nor are any of the properties within an approximately 3.6-mile radius. The Subject Property does not contain merchantable tree species and there is no evidence in the record that the Subject Property has been employed for forestry uses historically. None of the soil units comprising the parcel are rated for forest uses according to NRCS data. The Subject Property does not qualify as forest land. Division 33 - Agricultural Lands & Statewide Planning Goal 3 - Agricultural Lands; OAR 660-015-0000(3) To preserve and maintain agricultural lands. Agricultural lands shall be preserved and maintained for farm use, consistent with existing and future needs for agricultural products, forest and open space and with the state's agricultural land use policy expressed in ORS 215.243 and 215.700. FINDING: Goal 3 defines "agricultural land," which is repeated in OAR 660-033-0020(1). The Hearings Officer incorporates the Preliminary Findings as additional findings for this criterion. The Hearings Officer also incorporates the findings for Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.2.3 and OAR 660-033-0020 and 660-033-0030 as additional findings for this policy. The Hearings Officer finds that the Subject Property is not "agricultural land" as defined by relevant Oregon laws/regulations. OAR 660-033-0020, Definitions For purposes of this division, the definitions in ORS 197.015, the Statewide Planning Goals, and OAR Chapter 660 shall apply. In addition, the following definitions shall apply: (1)(a) "Agricultural Land" as defined in Goal 3 includes: 247-23-000210-PA & 247-23-000211-ZC Page 22 of 36 (A) Lands classified by the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as predominantly Class I -IV soils in Western Oregon and I -VI soils in Eastern Oregon4 FINDING: The Hearings Officer incorporates the Preliminary Findings as additional findings for this criterion. The Applicant's basis for not requesting an exception to Goal 3 is that the Subject Property is not "agricultural land." In support, the Applicant offered the following response to the above definition in addition to subsection (1)(c)5 as included in the submitted Burden of Proof statement: "A professionally conducted Soils Investigation has demonstrated that the Subject Property is not composed predominantly of Class I - VI soils (Eastern Oregon administrative standard cited above). To analyze the soils on the site, the Applicant obtained the services of Brian Raby, a Certified Professional Soil Scientist. The complete Soils Investigation report, detailing the procedures and methodology used as well as the complete findings, is attached to this application as Exhibit 4. It is certified by DLCD and that certification is included in the cited exhibit. The purpose of the Soils Investigation for the Property was to determine the existence of agricultural soils on the Subject Property for planning purposes. The soils were found to be predominantly non-agricultural soils according to a certified and well -qualified soils scientist using state sanctioned and approved field investigation methods and techniques. Thus, the Subject Property as defined in OAR 660-033-0020 does not legally qualify as Agricultural land. The Subject Property is characterized as a "lava plain north of Bend" on Page 2 of Exhibit 4. It has no record of ever having been irrigated, used for producing crops or grazing livestock, and is not part of a farm unit and is currently vacant and unused. None of the surrounding properties are used for profitable agriculture including the MUA-10 on three sides and the one EFU-zoned abutting property to the east. They are predominantly developed with rural residences and small hobby farms or are unused. There are no known commercial farm practices being undertaken on adjacent or nearby agricultural lands. The Subject Property is zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU), but this designation is not based on the agricultural capability of the land, as the Subject Property has no record of ever having been in farm or pasture use. This is understandable, now that the soil classification of this specific property is known. The soil types are Class Vll and Vlll and the property has no irrigation water rights. This Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map Amendment request will help to resolve the potential conflict and 4 OAR 660-033-0020(5): "Eastern Oregon" means that portion of the state lying east of a line beginning at the intersection of the northern boundary of the State of Oregon and the western boundary of Wasco County, then south along the western boundaries of the Counties of Wasco, Jefferson, Deschutes and Klamath to the southern boundary of the State of Oregon. s "Agricultural Land" does not include land within acknowledged urban growth boundaries or land within acknowledged exception areas for Goal 3 or 4. 247-23-000210-PA & 247-23-000211-ZC Page 23 of 36 incompatibility between the EFU permitted uses and the adjacent, surrounding lands developed or committed for rural residential uses, and allow the land to be put to its highest and best use, rather than continue to go fallow." Staff (Staff Report, pages 19-20) provided the following comments: "Staff has reviewed the soil study provided by Brian Rabe of Cascade Earth Sciences (dated December 11, 2020) and agrees with the applicant's representation of the data for the subject property. Staff finds, based on the submitted soil study and the above OAR definition, that the subject property is comprised predominantly of Class Vll and Vlll soils and, therefore, does not constitute "Agricultural Lands" as defined in OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(A) above." The Hearings Officer finds that the Applicant Soil Study is credible and constitutes substantial evidence. The Hearings Officer finds that the Applicant Soil Study was conducted consistent with DLCD requirements (Exhibit 4 - Letter from DLCD). The Applicant Soil Study found that the Subject Property has 26.2 acres (65.4%) of Class VII and Class VIII soils. The Applicant Soil Study concluded that the Subject Property is "predominantly" Class VII and Class VIII soils. The Hearings Officer finds that OAR 660-033-0020 (1)(a)(B) describes "agricultural land," in Eastern Oregon, to include lands that are predominantly Class I - VI. Based upon the Applicant Soil Study that the Subject Property is predominantly Class VII and Class VIII soils. The Hearings Officer finds, per OAR 660-033-0020 (1)(a)(A) that the Subject Property is not "agricultural land." (B) Land in other soil classes that is suitable for farm use as defined in ORS 219; 7AWWY) tnkino intn rnncidarntinn cnil fprtility cuitnhility Mr gm7inu- climatic conditions, existing and future availability of water for farm irrigation purposes, existing land use patterns, technological and energy inputs required, and accepted farming practices, and (C) Land that is necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby agricultural lands. (b) Land in capability classes other than I-I11/1-VI that is adjacent to or intermingled with lands in capability classes I-1V/1-VI within a farm unit, shall be inventoried as agricultural lands even though this land may not be cropped or grazed, FINDING: The Hearings Officer incorporates the Preliminary Findings as additional findings for this criterion. The Hearings Officer finds that the Applicant addressed the OAR 660-033-0020 (1)(a)(B) "Suitability Factors" in the Applicant Soil Study and in Applicant's Hearing testimony and Hearing documentary submissions. Staff, in the Staff Report (pages 20 - 21) included the following statements from the Applicant Soil Study: 247-23-000210-PA & 247-23-000211-ZC Page 24 of 36 Sol F M -Y, 11inn Wis mv pKaWnmay Wow Wh sandy Wxtures (Iamclay content)and lo", organic muner mitem TV= conditions rosuh in as lory Cation Emhm%e Capacity "IN) hat Imly die nNHV of hew sots m rota in MY& VcMihzcr must bu apphed tnatJiive optimum yields. Ilroper 11--amagmilew 1-cquires thm NQUzurs be applied in small dos= mia freil tient The reVCOILIC Irmst I ocal I y adarted crops Will not cover the cosr,s of impta", and In ,I nagmiwnl. S-00*11] AtAdpg M&Wn wawq dryland gra.7ing is L�0 only potenhal agricultual use. Hie rangeland IxoductKy pumniN cWoe WIN map pcd at the Sitc are shomi in luble 6 of the petal LShekt i0il SUR-Nrey'. 'I'he pmdubviy ranges 11mm 700 to 900 to U 00 pounds of Q matter Pa acm PvjTm (whWOMINIC, norinal, and OvomhK vvidtimis, respactively) Air Dedwanji soils. The productivity rarqges I-ron) 500 to 700 to 900 P)II(ILIS Ofeh-y TUHtLer per ac-u pi::r yt�aw ('ainfavorab,1Q, nonnal, and, fmoribl.c condWons, respeeMly) Or Own, It is often recommendod Ifiat a sustainable level or ra7-ing. only removes ab(mit 25',, W`(ho total prriduction leavdig the mnainder Air mahocnative nr the 51and, MOM, ajA deWs KY Wing soal' organic inmer Accurdhig to 0& it Brazeck it takes an cOnmed 9121 rmtrids of dry nmUet to led a ccme and call pair, or equivalent, for one rVi.cinth production potential far the Sitc nuigcs from 5100 bi 6325 to 8,450 pouritis, or abotit 5 to 7 lu 9 AUM (1.111favorable, normal, and favarabto conditicnis, rcnipectively). SO tile 'i,T,-17iVg potential is limited to 5 to 9 pair Air ont liu:a)nLfi (w Ics; ftan aric pair for, a year. This does not represent a vAble sumc of gmz&g. 3 Oeq D, & Rmum B (MMI %Nwal now, menuopq NOW jmAaN ova, ON Rmgv Rk 31 BQW I& IA F -r ' 1, Alifll ',,,Nice L.),qmmnerit Col1w -'� - S (continued) 247-23-00021 O-PA & 247-23-000211 -ZC Page 25 of 36 Climatic Conditions Th gencrall chmaatc cc=nditiowr at Ifl b Sits:, arc lyilicall of'thtl:sc in tht; f. entl area with o., ld wvit,,wrw and wvarrw dry sunirliers. There is no reason to hclicve there is s,in",01ing., llnl(trc� ral.�lant thin c-liniaate al this specific location that w:vould,, by Itscil" wia9rratl special alttE:lltion, Existitt,;AIRet FttstilkllOt_ilWttrrr Itrl atl f.hc Sile i.-i w�Jfll,irt the. Sww itic:y Q fir( con hiif,?atlorl District aincl iias ilti) ww tc.r atsslgned to it. Most ww��atel- f"or iui-iat n is fuIIV itIIoc tt4 t (car' over-1 lt,e,artvd) thrutt�,tlouC die rct�ir;r. In n osl Asscs.,watcr I rr any neww�ly� it-ripated aavreatge wvotitd haave t(l I-)c rcmi3w 0i frovii tc c age° clse vvhcru- 'this o:aly 9Ya�ak.t,s sensc if tP•x lord that the ww a lcr is Ix-,ing Illllvcd to is bcttc:r thwi .he lond ww°hercit is curt-antly bellig used, l heri, ,,ire substa ntlfal cw.sIs rchilcd to acquiring, or lnovIlie, wv2aic'r 1ti Il w., as wb01 a,; costs I'm. arc(lUirrng, or mudlfy'unv, alrld 111alirlttliainP 1'l Ilaattit711 egtlipftlr(w lhe,-sc CostS w°.'u,,. 74f 11-)t i)c jllslilrc(] f(?r stmill or lrregulaar shaped aalcis, The Chiss'w'+ll and V'fif 14'61S dOURltented 0111 the Site: WIR r .nlaain C aass V'll aand VIlt regarcitess of irngaatioii. L`vein if'kw atc.r aw4,rc the dispersed naaturc and villa PC,,S OftiI Class VI (Deskarnp) soils niake 3hc installf i7ic: n of irrig,.Itiori q uiiimenit iinpructic:all far the lil,E,iteii iucicf(:(f wIenc lit ir1 i�a(ti�.,11 wwoul�.l l,:rit:wikfc. I lic only J."otell l It rl ricla6tmall trst� w�.+ct tltd L-t(,, fi7r drykuitl gracing of nitove gr ''ses (Cli..,, tI,` St-.;:l i714. +l';lt) l ,t. ThC lin--ited fovigc" poteiiIidll Rlr the Isite does not rcprCwnt a sufica.raf"A[UM f(?° ccualrlcrci1I1} wirl€livestock, cprati(1_atOct' Exi§jt%tq-1.pF1d-_ p— Pgttgr► I liv, `. itc a iul parcel t,l d,,e rust. are zorutcl Lxclusi ve Farrll Use 'I Arrl a lo-Re.dtl oAid-Bend f >'FU TRB). 'I he pzrrccl v! tilt; t`,0,,t consists Oat a8t;I acres, is (lww'ried by De.scl)U % OUnty, and is not rtl ulap2:i 60r aag r-ic;t. hurarl usc, '111e, Ilatrc.c°l. tat the nortl,,, �wt 't, ianil south are /milud Mrrltiplc 1_isc ,i�.t eicuttraraal 10- JCI_" Ill l 4lti.nluni (MUAl -Viilt I,,o hidic:aiticim ofcutretit 1. rec ,at alrr c.ltlttinll activity. Toptjq Lr,.tntacLE�_Fec�ired There is ll(ltl_i111; that h&i been revealed during the c:ta.l W cIf'thi ChM wV�t:ultl suggest therc is any 0ch'-Iollogi 'all or r:nerg.y'-relatted rcaS(Irl t0' r'Ctallll 111 SLIlI CC$ PWJ);.11t 1r1 a n. a gricultUrall I ku;, I-jcatiori. 'I I%: [ovv 11crtitity, of irrigation sysunnns, sfid other inft Is''tr-tletLIIV, als wwc:�f ZIS the irrt°iMlar ptatter•rt, of ptxetlt ray suitil)le lai::s wake the c3,sc oaf t'lc Sitc for ui,i.minercial agricultitral }rc,dilcti¢nl i4lzln acli,rl �cu? rtltjlr(Ilit,htc Accepted Farm n._ ra�cticos SlleC.1: the `srt� is wi-rounded by pal-C;"s that? ate not, ra'ldar?:a1L?i;tl 101'4,:.671'1' mer'cial Civil use aiil(I lhol- (Joes riot li°,pear to be tiny recent history Of fiII'M tls(,, the rc-zciiiinLg oCthis parcel is riot likely to represent oily significant incrc�ase in the. patcntial fAar c+sntlit.ts with ac.c i3ted ia�rietlltur-id prwtices.. Applicant's legal counsel, Liz Dickson ("Dickson"), offered oral testimony and additional documents at the Hearing. Dickson's additional documents were referenced, at the Hearing, as Exhibits 11, 12, 13 and 14. The focus of Dickson's Hearing testimony was upon the LUBA 710 Decision and LUBA's analysis of the Suitability Factors. The Hearings Officer finds Dickson's testimony and accompanying documentary submissions to be credible and persuasive. Dickson, in her Hearing testimony, emphasized that the Subject Property soils are predominantly class VII and VIII. Dickson stated the Applicant attempted to ascertain the level, if any, of historical farming activity in the immediate vicinity of the Subject Property. Dickson indicated, based upon Applicant's research, that the Subject Property has never been used for farm or agricultural 247-23-000210-PA & 247-23-000211-ZC Page 26 of 36 purposes. Dickson noted that the Subject Property has not been cleared and has no water (irrigation rights). Dickson testified that Applicant considered the Suitability Factors in the context of the LUBA 710 Decision. Dickson stated that Applicant considered adjacent / neighboring properties in relation to all relevant Suitability Factors. Dickson stated, based upon Applicant's research, that adjacent/ neighboring properties are not used for commercial farming or "agricultural purposes." Dickson stated that some nearby properties may conduct "hobby farm" activities but those activities were subordinate to the primary residential use and are not conducted for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit. Dickson opined that the only possible "agricultural use" or farm use that might be considered feasible at the Subject Property is "grazing." Dickson, referencing the Applicant Soil Study, stated that the Subject Property standing alone, could not support commercial grazing. Dickson noted that property adjacent to the north, west and south are developed for residential uses. Dickson stated that combining the Subject Property with any of the adjacent properties would not result in creating a profitable situation for grazing. Dickson reiterated that the Subject Property does not possess any irrigation rights. Dickson stated that existing land use patterns preclude the likelihood of combining the Subject Property with one or more adjacent property for the purpose of creating a profitable agricultural or farm use. Likewise, Dickson stated that the "accepted farming practices" Suitability Factor was not relevant to the Subject Property as no farming occurs on the Subject Property or any adjacent property. Dickson, relying upon Exhibits 11, 12, 13 and 14, demonstrated geographical and land use differences between the property subject to the LUBA 710 Decision and the Subject Property. Dickson noted that the property subject to the LUBA 710 Decision is located in an area where agricultural/farm uses are prevalent. Dickson noted that ranches adjacent to or nearby the property subject to the LUBA 710 Decision expressed the desire to combine to facilitate improved agricultural/farm efficiency. Dickson noted that the LUBA 710 Decision is under appeal and it is possible that the Oregon Court of Appeals and/or Oregon Supreme Court could reverse or modify the LUBA 710 Decision. However, despite the appellate status of the LUBA 710 Decision Dickson opined that there is evidence in the record sufficient to meet the requirements of that decision. The Hearings Officer finds Applicant addressed, with substantial evidence, the LUBA 710 Decision Suitability Factors analysis. The Hearings Officer agrees with Staff and Applicant that there is sufficient evidence in the record to conclude that the Subject Property does not qualify as "agricultural land" as defined in OAR 660-033-0020. (c) "Agricultural Land" does not include land within acknowledged urban growth boundaries or land within acknowledged exception areas for Goal 3 or 4. FINDING: This criterion is addressed above. 247-23-000210-PA & 247-23-000211-ZC Page 27 of 36 OAR 660-033-030, Identifying Agricultural Land (1) All land defined as "agricultural land" in OAR 660-033-0020(1) shall be inventoried as agricultural land. (2) When a jurisdiction determines the predominant soil capability classification of a lot or parcel it need only look to the land within the lot or parcel being inventoried. However, whether land is "suitable for farm use" requires an inquiry into factors beyond the mere identification of scientific soil classifications. The factors are listed in the definition of agricultural land set forth at OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(B). This inquiry requires the consideration of conditions existing outside the lot or parcel being inventoried. Even if a lot or parcel is not predominantly Class I -IV soils or suitable for farm use, Goal 3 nonetheless defines as agricultural "Lands in other classes which are necessary to permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands." A determination that a lot or parcel is not agricultural land requires findings supported by substantial evidence that addresses each of the factors set forth in 660-033-0020(1). FINDING: The Hearings Officer incorporates the Preliminary Findings as additional findings for this criterion. The Hearings Officer Hearings Officer also incorporates as additional findings the findings for OAR 660-033-0020 (1)(a)(A) & (B). The Hearings Officer finds that the Applicant addressed the OAR 660-033-0020 (1)(a)(B) "Suitability Factors" in the Applicant Soil Study and in Applicant's Hearing testimony in documentary submissions. Staff provided (Staff Report, pages 22-24) additional discussion of the LUBA 710 Decision. " ".. in a recent decision by the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA)' LUBA remanded the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners decision to approve a post -acknowledgement plan amendment and rezone application submitted by 710 Properties, LLC to change the designation and zoning of the subject property from AG/EFU to RREA/RR-10 on 710 acres of property west of Terrebonne and Redmond and north of Highway 126. LUBA remanded the decision to "consider the ability to use the subject property for farm use in conjunction with other property, including the Keystone property," and directed that the Board "may not limit its review to the profitability of farm use of the subject property as an isolated unit." LUBA further stated that the Board "must consider the ability to import feed for animals and may not limit its consideration to the raising of animals where adequate food may be grown on the subject property." LUBA continued that the Board "must also consider whether the subject property is suitable for farm use as a site for construction and maintenance of farm equipment," and must "consider the evidence and adopt findings addressing the impacts of redesignation of the property related to water, wastewater, and traffic and whether retaining the property's agricultural designation is necessary to permit farm practices on adjacent or nearby lands." Each of the remanded issues is listed separately below. 6 Central Oregon Landwatch, et al. v. Deschutes County and 710 Properties, LLC, et al. (LUBA No. 2023-009) 247-23-000210-PA & 247-23-000211-ZC Page 28 of 36 • LUBA's discussion at pages 36-37 sustained DLCD's second assignment of error and portions of Redside's and Keystone's assignments of error based on a determination that the County did not consider the ability to use the subject property with a primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money in conjunction with other property. LUBA stated that "Relating the profitability of farm related activity solely to the activity on the subject property places undue weight on profitability." More discussion on this is found on pages 46-49 of the decision. • 'Source of Feed"- this discussion is found at pages 37-42 of the decision. LUBA's decision states that the County erred in construing OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(B) and ORS 215.203(2)(a) in concluding that land is suitable for farm uses involving animals only if sufficient feed can be grown on -site. LUBA stated that these authorities are silent as to the source of the feed that is necessary to sustain animals involved in farm uses. It also noted that, in determining whether land is suitable for dryland grazing, a farmer would have a reasonable expectation of obtaining a profit in money from that activity, based on the factors listed in OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(B) (soil fertility, suitability forgrazing, climactic conditions, availability of water for irrigation, etc.) • "On -Site Construction and Maintenance of Equipment and Facilities" - this discussion is found at pages 42-46 of the decision. LUBA determined that the County erroneously concluded that this use need not be limited to supporting farm activities that occur on the subject property. In other words, it does not matter where the equipment and facilities are used, whether on or off -site. That said, after a consideration of whether equipment and facilities can be stored onsite for the purpose of making a profit in money also requires a determination of the suitability of the property based on the factors listed in OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a)(B). • "Nearby and Adjacent Land" - discussion at pages 46-49 of the decision. LUBA directs the County to make findings and conclusions on the question of whether the subject property is suitable for farm use in conjunction with nearby or adjacent land. It noted that several farms and ranchers testified they would not consider incorporating the subject property into their farm operations, and that it "may be that the subject property is not suitable for farm use even in conjunction with nearby or adjacent land. However, the county did not reach that conclusion." • DCC 18.136.020(C)(2) and DCCP Agricultural Lands Goal 1 - see pages 69-74 of the decision. The County's findings that the impacts on surrounding land use from rezoning will be consistent with DCCP Agricultural Lands Goal 1 are inadequate and not supported by substantial evidence. LUBA states that the County only considered impacts on surrounding nonresourcelands, and that it was error to consider that the subject property is functionally separated from surrounding agricultural lands due to its location on a plateau. LUBA remands for further consideration of water, wastewater, traffic impacts on surrounding agricultural lands and the agricultural industry. The Hearings Officer appreciates Staffs above -quoted analysis and perspective. The Hearings Officer finds that Applicant, in its Burden of Proof, Applicant Soil Study and Dickson's Hearing testimony and record submissions, provided evidence and argument relating to (1) the ability to use the Subject Property with a primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money in conjunction with other 247-23-000210-PA & 247-23-000211-ZC Page 29 of 36 property, (2) the impacts of providing feed for grazing stock from outside properties, (3) the on -site construction and maintenance of equipment and facilities to serve other properties, and (4) the off - site impacts on resource and nonresource lands. As summarized in the findings for OAR 660-033-0020 (1)(a)(B) above, the Subject Property has soils that are not considered suitable for "agricultural use" and that the Subject Property is not and has not been used for "agricultural uses." The OAR 660-033-0020 (1)(a)(B) findings indicated that the adjacent or nearby properties are not used for "agricultural uses" or farm uses. The OAR 660-033- 0020 (1)(a)(B) findings indicate that combining the Subject Property with any adjacent or nearby property would not improve the chances that the Subject Property, or any nearby or adjacent property, could be operated for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit from agricultural or farm related uses. Impacts on nearby properties is discussed elsewhere in this recommendation. The Hearings Officer approval of Applicant's request would have minimal impacts, if any, on adjacent properties. Rather, the Hearings Officer finds that the proposed change would more consistently reflect the existing land use pattern in the area. The Hearings Officer agrees with Staff and Applicant that there is sufficient evidence in the record to conclude that the Subject Property does not qualify as "Agricultural Land" as defined in OAR 660- 033-0030. (3) Goal attaches no significance to the ownership of a lot or parcel when determining whether it is agricultural land. Nearby or adjacent land, regardless of ownership, shall be examined to the extent that a lot or parcel is either "suitable for farm use" nr "nPrPSSary to nermit farm nrartires to he undertaken an adiarent or nearhv _. ---^--I -- r------- J -- -- -- r- ----- - -- -- --- --- ---------- --- ----- -v --- - - - lands" outside the lot or parcel. FINDING: The Hearings Officer incorporates the Preliminary Findings as additional findings for this criterion. The Hearings Officer Hearings Officer also incorporates as additional findings the findings for OAR 660-033-0020 (1)(a)(A) & (B). The Hearings Officer finds that the Applicant addressed the OAR 660-033-0020 (1)(a)(B) "Suitability Factors" in the Applicant Soil Study and in Applicant's Hearing testimony and Hearing documentary submissions. The Hearings Officer finds, based upon the evidence and arguments in the record that the Subject Property is not suitable for any identified "agricultural use" or farm use. Further, the Hearings Officer finds that is not necessary to conduct any sort of "agricultural use" or farm use on the Subject Property to facilitate or promote agricultural or farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby lands. In this review the Hearings Officer has not assigned any significance to the ownership of the Subject Property or adjoining properties. (5)(a) More detailed data on soil capability than is contained in the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil maps and soil surveys may be used to define agricultural land. However, the more detailed soils data shall be related to the NRCS land capability classification system. (b) if a person concludes that more detailed soils information than that contained in the Web Soil Survey operated by the NRCS as of January 2, 2012, would assist a 247-23-000210-PA & 247-23-000211-ZC Page 30 of 36 county to make a better determination of whether land qualifies as agricultural land, the person must request that the department arrange for an assessment of the capability of the land by a professional soil classifier who is chosen by the person, using the process described in OAR 660-033-0045. FINDING: The Hearings Officer incorporates the Preliminary Findings as additional findings for this criterion. The submitted Applicant Soil Study provided more detailed soils information than contained in the NRCS Web Soil Survey. NRCS sources provide general soils data for large units of land. The Applicant Soil Study provided detailed and accurate information about a single property based on numerous soil samples taken from the Subject Property. The Applicant Soil Study reports data and conclusions consistent with the NCRS Land Capability Classification (LLC) system that classifies soils class 1 through 8. An LCC rating is assigned to each soil type based on rules provided by the NRCS. The Applicant Soil Study concluded that the Subject Property contains 65.4 percent Class 7 and 8 soils, based on site observations and examination of 111 test holes. The Applicant Soil Study is accompanied in the record by correspondence from the DLCD. The DLCD correspondence confirms that the Applicant Soil Study was completed and consistent with the reporting requirements for agricultural soils capability as dictated by DLCD. Based on qualifications of the professionals conducting the site work and report preparation, the Hearings Officer finds the submitted Applicant Soil Study to be definitive and accurate in terms of site -specific soil information for the Subject Property. tr1 Thic cortinn nnrl nAP #;# n-n32-nndS nnnly tn- (A) A change to the designation of land planned and zoned for exclusive farm use, forest use or mixed farm forest use to a non -resource plan designation and zone on the basis that such land is not agricultural land, and FINDING: The Hearings Officer incorporates the Preliminary Findings as additional findings for this criterion. The Hearings Officer Hearings Officer also incorporates as additional findings the findings for OAR 660-033-0020 (1)(a)(A) & (B). The Hearings Officer finds that the Applicant addressed the OAR 660-033-0020 (1)(a)(B) "Suitability Factors" in the Applicant Soil Study and in Applicant's Hearing testimony and Hearing documentary submissions. The Hearings Officer finds the Subject Property is not "agricultural land" as that phrase is defined within relevant Oregon law. (d) This section and OAR 660-033-0045 implement ORS 215.211, effective on October 1, 2011. After this date, only those soils assessments certified by the department under section (9) of this rule may be considered by local governments in land use proceedings described in subsection (c) of this section. However, a local government may consider soils assessments that have been completed and submitted prior to October 1, 2011. FINDING: The Applicant submitted the Applicant Soil Study which was prepared by Michael Sowers and Brian Rabe of Cascade Earth Sciences and dated December 11, 2020. The Applicant Soil Study was submitted following the ORS 215.211 effective date. The Applicant submitted to the record an 247-23-000210-PA & 247-23-000211-ZC Page 31 of 36 acknowledgement from Hilary Foote, Farm and Forest Specialist with the DLCD, dated April 12, 2021, that the Applicant Soil Study is complete and consistent with DLCD's reporting requirements. The Hearings Officer finds this criterion to be met based on the submitted Applicant Soil Study and confirmation of completeness and consistency from DLCD. (e) This section and OAR 660-033-0045 authorize a person to obtain additional information for use in the determination of whether land qualifies as agricultural land, but do not otherwise affect the process by which a county determines whether land qualifies as agricultural land as defined by Goal 3 and OAR 660-033-0020. FINDING: The Applicant has obtained additional information regarding soils and how these soils relate to the agricultural designation of the Subject Property. The Applicant has also submitted DLCD's certification of its soils analysis, attached as part of Exhibit 4, and has complied with the soils analysis requirements of OAR 660-033-0045 in order to obtain that certification. DLCD's certification establishes compliance with OAR 660-033-0045. DIVISION 12, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING OAR 660-012-0060 Plan and Land use Regulation Amendments (1) If an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation (including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, then the local government must put in place mnncurec tic nrnvided in certinn (2) of this rule, unless the amendment is allowed under section (3), (9) or (10) of this rule. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would. (a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan), (b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or (c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection based on projected conditions measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP. As part of evaluating projected conditions, the amount of traffic projected to be generated within the area of the amendment may be reduced if the amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement that would demonstrably limit traffic generation, including, but not limited to, transportation demand management. This reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the significant effect of the amendment. (A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility, (e) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that it would not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or 247-23-000210-PA & 247-23-000211-ZC Page 32 of 36 (C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise projected to not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan. FINDING: This above language is applicable to the proposal because it involves an amendment to an acknowledged comprehensive plan. The proposed plan amendment would change the designation of the Subject Property from AG to RREA and change the zone from EFU to MUA-10. The Applicant is not proposing any land use development of the properties at this time. As referenced in the agency comments section in the Basic Findings section above, the Senior Transportation Planner for Deschutes County requested additional information to clarify the conclusions provided in the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) analysis prepared by Joe Bessman, PE of Transight Consulting, LLC, dated March 17, 2023. The Applicant submitted an updated report and responses to issues raised also from Mr. Bessman, dated June 27, 2023, to address the additional information that was requested. Staff noted (Staff Report, page 26) that the original application included a subdivision proposal in addition to the comprehensive plan and zone change proposal that is subject to this recommendation. Applicant has decoupled the subdivision proposal from the comprehensive plan amendment and zone change applications. The Hearings Officer notes that traffic impact studies take into account requirements for a subdivision in addition to the plan amendment and zone change. In re�,nnnse to the revisions noted above. the Countv Senior Transportation Planner stated. "These updated materials and the application materials in [the] record satisfy the County's requirements and no further materials or analysis are required from the applicant." As such, the Hearings Officer finds that the proposed plan amendment and zone change will be consistent with the identified function, capacity, and performance standards of the County's transportation facilities in the area. DIVISION 1S, STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND GUIDELINES OAR 660-015 Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines FINDING: The Statewide Planning Goals are outlined below in the Applicant's Burden of Proof: "Goal 1, Citizen Involvement. This proposal satisfies this goal because the Planning Division will provide notice of the proposed plan amendment and zone change to the public through individual notice to affected property owners, posting of the Subject Property with a notice of proposed land use action sign, online notice of the application on the County's website, and publishing notice of the public hearing in the "Bend Bulletin" newspaper. In addition, at least two public hearings will be held on the proposed plan amendment before it can be approved - one before the Hearings Officer and one before the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Goal 2, Land Use Planning. This proposal satisfies this goal because the applications were handled pursuant to the procedures applicable to plan amendments and zone changes in the 247-23-000210-PA & 247-23-000211-ZC Page 33 of 36 County's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. An exception to Goal 3 is not required because site soils have been conclusively determined to be not Agricultural as that term is legally defined. Goal 3, Agricultural Lands. The Applicant is not required to take an exception to Goal 3 for the Subject Property, but rather to provide evidence supporting response that the Subject Property does not constitute "agricultural land" as legally defined in Goal 3 and supporting administrative rules. The application includes a professionally prepared Soils Analysis (Exhibit 4) that proves the Subject Property does not constitute "agricultural land" and therefore the proposed plan amendment to Rural Residential Exception Area and zone change to MUA-10 is consistent with Goal 3. Goal 4, Forest Lands. The proposal is consistent with Goal 4 because the Subject Property is not zoned for forest use and the Applicant's soil survey shows the Subject Property does not contain any forest soils or related resources. Goal 5, Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources. The proposal is consistent with Goal 5 because the site is not identified as containing scenic, historic, or natural resource areas. It is not unique as open space in the area and has not been designated as significant for that purpose. It is reasonable to conclude that the proposed plan amendment and zone change will have no effect on any designated Goal 5 resources. Goal 6, Air, Water and Land Resources Quality. The proposal is consistent with Goal 6 because it will not result in any legally significant detrimental impact on air or water quality and land resources. Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards. Goal 7 is not applicable to the proposal because the Subject Property is not located in a known natural disaster or hazard area (i.e., flood hazard zone, steep slopes, historic landslide areas or other hazards identified under Goal 7). Goal 8, Recreational Needs. Goal 8 is not applicable to the proposal because the proposal will not affect property zoned for recreation or impact recreational needs. Goal 9, Economy of the State. The proposal is consistent with Goal 9 because it will not adversely impact legally identified economic activities in the state. It may have a minimal impact on the construction industry eventually when the four homesites are developed, but these have not been recognized as significant for purposes of evaluating goal impacts. Goal 10, Housing. Goal 10 is not directly applicable to the proposal because it does not include development of additional housing. The proposal does not remove any land from the county's supply of land for needed housing. The proposal supports a potential, though not certain, eventual transition to development of four homes on the respective parcels. Applicant plans to develop the four created sites for rural residential homes in the future. 247-23-000210-PA & 247-23-000211-ZC Page 34 of 36 Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services. The proposal is consistent with Goal 11 because the proposed plan amendment and zone change will have minimal impact upon the provision of public facilities and services to the Subject Property. Avion Water is already available to the site in Hunnell Road, power is available and sufficient, and Hunnell Road is scheduled for paving, widening, and straightening in 2023 already by the County. These facilities will not be strained by the addition of four lots made possible by the Plan Amendment and Zone Change. Goal 12, Transportation. The proposal is consistent with the TPR, and therefore is also consistent with Goal 12 as demonstrated by the attached, professionally prepared Transportation Analysis. See Exhibit S. Goal 13, Energy Conservation. The proposal is consistent with this goal because it will have no legally significant impact on energy use or conservation. Southern exposure and spacing of the four proposed lots will allow solar power development if desired. Rezoning the Subject Property from EFU to MUA-10 will allow future dwellings to be developed on the site, which will be advantageous to the water supply, since the proposed change makes it less likely that the tracts will be irrigated with surface water, where such irrigation would not be productive considering the poor qualify of the soils. Current irrigation practices commonly use electricity for pumping of water for distribution. This wasteful use would be made less likely by approval of this proposal. Goal 14, Urbanization. The proposal is consistent with Goal 14 for the following reasons: 1. The proposal supports a likely, though not certain, eventual transition from rural to urban land use that responds to identified needed lands as the Bend UGB expands north 7600 feet; 2 The nrnnnsal represents an orderly growth nattern that eventually will efficiently utilize nublic facilities and services, including the 2023 improvements to Hunnell Road, 3. The proposal will ultimately result in the maximum efficiency of land uses on the fringe of the existing urban area; 4. The Subject Property has been found to be not predominantly agricultural land as defined in OAR 660-033-0020; and 5. The proposal will promote compatibility with surrounding rural residential uses and will not adversely impact any nearby commercial agricultural uses because there are none. Goals 15 through 19. These goals, which address river, ocean, and estuarine resources, are not applicable to the proposal because the Subject Property is not located in or adjacent to any such areas or resources." The Hearings Officer incorporates the Preliminary Findings as additional findings for this criterion. The Hearings Officer Hearings Officer also incorporates as additional findings the findings for OAR 660-033-0020 (1)(a)(A) & (B). The Hearings Officer finds that the Applicant addressed the OAR 660- 033-0020 (1)(a)(B) "Suitability Factors" in Applicant's Soil Study and in Applicant's Hearing testimony and Hearing documentary submissions. The Hearings Officer, based upon Applicant's above -quoted responses and the incorporated findings, concludes that Applicant's proposal complies with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals. 247-23-000210-PA & 247-23-000211-ZC Page 35 of 36 The Hearings Officer finds the overall proposal appears to comply with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals for the purposes of this review. IV. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION: The Hearings Officer finds that the Applicant has met the burden of proof necessary to justify changing the Plan Designation from Agriculture to Rural Residential Exception Area and Zoning of the Subject Property from Exclusive Farm Use to Multiple Use Agricultural through effectively demonstrating compliance with the applicable criteria of DCC Title 18 (The Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance), The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, and applicable sections of OAR and ORS. DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER Gregory). Frank, Hearings Officer 247-23-000210-PA & 247-23-000211-ZC Page 36 of 36 E ai U U rV N r-1 ri ri c-1 N N Q Q d d _0 O O N N U N N N 0 r) CL O O M N O O � n r N Ql al N cc cl� O O > c c +� v v U Co co r_. Mailing Date: Wednesday, November 22, 2023 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NOTICE OF HEARINGS OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Deschutes County Hearings Officer has recommended approval of the land use application(s) described below: FILE NUMBER: 247-23-000210-PA, 247-23-000211-ZC LOCATION: Map and Taxlot: 1612330000800 Situs Address: 64430 Hunnell Rd, Bend, OR 97703 OWNER: Groves Family Revocable Trust APPLICANT: Michael F. Groves and Cathie L. Groves f1 In IL!'T. T4.n Av. r�lii--.ref a-fni-1 I nF ('n vr. r. vi. l-..�v.., �. ..� Dl- — KA- — .woJKa. I . i i e rNNNncai ii requested approval vi a `Ui 1 iNi ci ic1 iZ.ivc r iai i rviaN Amendment to change the designation of the Subject Property from Agricultural ("AG") to a Rural Residential Exception Area ("RREA"). The Applicant also requests approval of a corresponding Zoning Map Amendment (Zone Change) to change the zoning of the Subject Property from Exclusive Farm Use ("EFU") to Multiple Use Agricultural ("M UA-10"). STAFF CONTACT: Jacob Ripper, Principal Planner Jacob.Ripper@deschutes.org 541-385-1759 RECORD: Record items can be viewed and downloaded from: www.buildingpermits.oregon.gov and https://www.deschutes.org/cd/page/247-23-00021 0-pa-247-23- 000211 -zc-hunnell-road-plan-amendment-and-zone-chaDge APPLICABLE CRITERIA: Deschutes County Code, Title 18, County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.04, Title, Purpose, and Definitions Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones 11 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 i P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 ��(541)388-6575 @cdd@deschutes.org @www.deschutes.org/cd Chapter 18.32, Multiple Use Agricultural Zone Chapter 18.136, Amendments Deschutes County Code, Title 22, Procedures Ordinance Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 2, Resource Management Chapter 3, Rural Growth Management Appendix C, Transportation System Plan Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), Chapter 660 Division 6, Forest Lands Division 12, Transportation Planning Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines Division 33, Agricultural Land Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 215.211, Agricultural Land, Detailed Soils Assessment. DECISION: The Hearings Officer finds that the application meets applicable criteria, and recommended approval to the Board of County Commissioners. This decision becomes final twelve (12) days after the date mailed, unless appealed by a party of interest. To appeal, it is necessary to submit a Notice of Appeal, the base appeal deposit plus 20% of the original application fee(s), and a statement raising any issue relied upon for appeal with sufficient specificity to afford the Board of County Commissioners an adequate opportunity to respond to and resolve each issue. Copies of the decision, application, all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost. Copies can be purchased for 25 cents per page. NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIEN HOLDER, VENDOR OR SELLER: ORS CHAPTER 215 REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT MUST BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. 247-23-000210-PA, 211-ZC Page 2 of 2 File Nos 247-23-000210-PA, 211-ZC 64430 HUNNELL RD, BEND, OR 97703 -3 IJ N BE AM LN LONE r.Fi Deschutes County GIS, Sources: Esn, USGS, NOAA N 0 320 640 1.280 ft 1 inch= 752 feet QEEEEE2RER/rreE(eeee0 f 7\\))\\\\\\\\\\�\\\\/(z0 . - `! / _,._:=====jj\jjjj\j§§ Z. z/%\/ Z\)\zfz [/1§3§/&(/�\/\\\/ / [ »!/) `\ 10 )§§\ )( \ 5 z \ } §§)Dz / [ - :!j§/:§: > ! )\\!/\\§}!\:<�2\<,e%! _ _-,:4m1,§2©»`3: §&2tG(/3§§ _ »:m:§/!a;!\/§!/e) \{�{\/\< (\(\\j}((/)))\( �uIES CO o� Gam{ BOARD OF --� fI COMMISSIONERS MEETING DATE: December 20, 2023 SUBJECT: Pre -Deliberation Update: Draft 2020-2040 Transportation System Plan RECOMMENDED MOTION: On December 20, 2023, the Board will receive a staff update regarding the public input topics and Planning Commission amendments associated with the County's drafted 2020- 2040 Transportation System Plan (TSP) Update. Staff requests that the Board identify the topics they would like to be included in a decision matrix that will be presented at a future Board meeting. The Board is not limited to the topics and amendments included in the attached memo and the Commissioners are welcome to include any desired topics from the public record associated with this TSP update. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: On December 20, 2023, the Board will hold a pre -deliberation update in consideration of the Draft 2020-2040 Transportation System Plan (TSP) Update (Files 247-23-000507-PA, 508-TA). The full record is located on the project webpage: https•//www.deschutes.or /g cd/page/transportation-system-plan-update-2020-2040- 247-23-000507-pa-508-ta BUDGET IMPACTS: The draft TSP document outlines cost estimates associated with various transportation improvement projects for the 2020-2040 planning period. ATTENDANCE: Tarik Rawlings, Senior Transportation Planner Chris Doty, Road Department Director Cody Smith, County Engineer/Assistant Road Department Director MEMORANDUM TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (Board) FROM: Tarik Rawlings, Senior Transportation Planner DATE: December 13, 2023 SUBJECT: Pre -Deliberations Update: Draft 2020-2040 Transportation System Plan (TSP) The Road Department, with the assistance of the Community Development Department (CDD), has prepared an update of the 2010-2030 Deschutes County Transportation System Plan (TSP), covering the years 2020-2040. The TSP focuses on County arterials and collectors as well as bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and other modes. Following a public hearing on November 29, 2023, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) will engage in a pre -deliberation update on December 20, 2023 in preparation for a future deliberations process before the Board. 1. BACKGROUND The County selected Kittelson & Associates Inc. (KAI) as the consultant for the 2020-2040 TSP. The County and KAI prepared the draft of the 2020-2040 TSP based on technical analysis, public comments, and internal staff review. During the plan development process, KAI and County staff from the Road Department and Planning Division have coordinated with Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and staff from other local jurisdictions. KAI and County staff reviewed a proposal from the County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) on future road improvements and connectors. Additionally, KAI and the County held an on-line presentation from April 27 to May 14, 2021, including an online public meeting on May 4, 2021, to solicit public comment. The on-line presentation included technical memos on plans and policy reviews, goals and objectives, and needs analyses of existing and future conditions. The background materials were posted at the following link: https://kai.pro-ject.com/websites/68/ The full record including public and agency comments is included at the following project -specific website: https://www.deschutescounty.gov/cd/page/transportation-system-plan-update-2020- 2040-247-23-000507-pa-508-ta 1 1 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 (541) 388-6575 @ cdd@deschutes.org ® www.deschutes.org/cd The Deschutes County Planning Commission (PC) held a public hearing' on August 10, 2023 and held deliberations on October 12, 20232. Ultimately, the PC issued a recommendation to the Board, which is reviewed later in this memorandum. II. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Overall, approximately 328 written comments were received from both individuals and public agencies. The main topics within the public testimony were highlighted for the Board during their November 29, 2023 public hearing. Of the highlighted public testimony topics, staff emphasizes the following topics which were directly referenced during the November 29, 2023 public hearing and in written comments leading up to the public hearing: • Allowance/disallowance of multi -use pathways in the rural county related to wildlife values and resource -zoned lands; • Multi -use pathway connection between the City of Sisters and Black Butte Ranch (BBR); • Potential development of a footbridge across the Deschutes River near the Brookswood neighborhood of Deschutes River Woods; • Concerns regarding Local Access Roads in Special Road District #1, including replacement of the canal crossing (culvert) on Island Loop Way; and • Priority status elimination for BPAC Bicycle Route Community Connections As a reminder, the written comments in public record appear at the following project -specific website under the tabs labeled "Comments & Submittals - Agencies", "Comments & Submittals - Pi ihlir" ,Ptnrr Haarinu — Pi ihlir rnmmPnte" anri "RC)rr HParina — NP1n/ FviriPnrP R, TPCiimnn\/"- https://www deschutescounty.gov/cd/page/transportation-system-plan-update-2020-2040-247-23- 000507-pa-508-ta The Sisters-BBR multi -use pathway connection has generated numerous e-mails and phone calls, some prior to the initiation of the TSP public process and some during the Comprehensive Plan process. Regarding the subject land use before the PC, the bulk of the submitted written comments have been in opposition with a small amount being in favor. Recurring themes from those opposed include concerns about the public using private paths in BBR; adverse effects to the forest; potential trespassing; criminal activity; attracting transients; disruption to wildlife; and safety. (Staff notes the multiuse path would lie on Deschutes National Forest (DNF) land and/or ODOT right of way, which each have their own regulations and environmental review processes.) Concerning multi -use pathways generally, the TSP (at Table 5.6 - Bicycle Route Community Connections) describes and prioritizes connections between various cities, unincorporated communities, and destination resorts. Table 5.7 (Bicycle Route Recreation Connections) provides similar information about these corridors. Neither table lists design specific aspects such as precise routes, widths, surface type, etc., as those variables would be determined prior to actual construction. No specific alignments are identified or mapped, except for the Bend -Lava Butte Trail, which appears as S-3 on Figure 5-4 (ODOT Facility Changes). The TSP tables were prepared based 1 https://www.deschutes.org/bc-pc/page/planning-commission-38 Z https://www.deschutes.org/bc-pc/page/planning-commission-41 Page 2 of 4 on input from the Deschutes County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC). There has been a mix of public input regarding the overall allowance of multi -use pathways in Deschutes County with the bulk of testimony opposed to a full prohibition of multi -use pathways and additional comments in support of the prohibition based on wildlife habitat and resource -zoned property sensitivities. Regarding the specific improvements requested for the Island Loop Way canal crossing/culvert and the larger Three Rivers community in general, the Road Department Director Chris Doty has provided individual responses to multiple comments received from the Three Rivers community related to project feasibility, funding, and legal constraints. Stakeholders have been referred to Special Road District #1 for maintenance and operational concerns within the District. Staff requeststhatthe Board reviewthis list of topics (in addition to the amendments recommended by the PC) and highlight any topics which they would like to include in deliberations at a future meeting. III. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW Staff held a June 22, 2023, work session' with the Planning Commission (PC) to provide an overview of the updated TSP and the process to create it. The PC held a public hearing4 on August 10, 2023, on the draft 2020-2040 TSP. The PC closed the oral record and left the written record open until 4 p.m., August 24, 2023. Staff provided an update on record submittals during the August 24, 2023 Planning Commission meetings. The PC held deliberations6 on October 12, 2023, ultimately making a recommpnriatinn to the Rnarri to arinnt the TSP dnrument inrhiriinu five (51 amPndrnPnts- In addition to the deliberation topics outlined in "Section II - Public Testimony" of this memorandum, staff presents the five (5) amendments offered by the PC, below, which the Board may also request for inclusion in a forthcoming deliberation matrix. • Removal of the Conceptual Multi -use Pathway Connection between City of Sisters and Black Butte Ranch. (6 Commissioners in favor, 1 Commissioner in opposition) • Changing the Multi -use Pathway Connection between Baker Road and Lava Butte to be located on the west side of Highway 97 rather than the east side. (7 Commissioners unanimously in favor) • Changing the priority status for the 2�a Street/Cook Ave sidewalks in Tumalo project (Table 5.5 ID BP-3) from Medium to High. (6 Commissioners in favor, 1 Commissioner absent) • Changing the priority status for the US 20/Powell Butte Highway Roundabout project (Table 5.4 ID S-9) from Low to High. (6 Commissioners in favor, 1 Commissioner absent) • Changing the priority status for the US 20/Locust St Roundabout project (Table 5.4 ID 5-11) from Low to High and noting that the project, with contributions from Deschutes County, City of Sisters, and ODOT, is funded for construction in 2024. (6 Commissioners in favor, 1 Commissioner absent) 3 https://www.deschutes.org/bc-pc/page/planning-commission-30 4 https://www.deschutes.org/bc-pc/page/planning-commission-38 s https://www.deschutes.org/bc-pc/page/planning-commission-39 e https://www.deschutes.org/bc-pc/page/planning-commission-41 Page 3 of 4 Throughout deliberations, the Planning Commission entertained other motions including the allowance of multi -use pathways generally within the County jurisdiction and dark skies standards. On both motions, the Planning Commission's vote resulted in a tie, leading to the failure of those motions. Staff includes this information to illustrate how the Planning Commission was generally closely aligned on certain deliberative aspects of these topics, but ultimately diverged on some of the more detailed points. In addition to the topics raised in Section II, staff requests that the Board review the amendments recommended by the PC and highlight any topics which they would like to include during future deliberations. The Board is, of course, not limited to the topics and amendments outlined in Sections II and III of this memorandum and the Commissioners are welcome to identify any desired topics from public record that they would like to see reflected on a future decision matrix during Deliberations. IV. NEXT STEPS Following the Board's review of topics outlined in Section II and the PC recommendation and amendments outlined in Section III of this memorandum, staff requests that the Board identify the specific topics that they would like to see reflected in a future decision matrix. The future decision matrix (reflecting the topics requested by the Board) will be utilized for deliberations at a future meeting, likely sometime in January 2024. Again, the Board is not limited to the topics and amendments outlined in Sections II and III of this memorandum and the Commissioners are wPlcnmP to identifv anv desired tonics from Dublic record that thev would like to see reflected on a future decision matrix during Deliberations. Following future deliberations, the Board will ultimately vote on the proposal either adopting the plan as drafted, with amendments, or denying the plan. V. CONCLUSION Staff is prepared to answer any questions. Attachments: 1. Draft 2020-2040 Transportation System Plan Page 4 of 4 Deschutes County Transportation System Plan Deschutes County, Oregon Prepared for Deschutes County Prepared by: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. August 2023 Contents 011INTRODUCTION .......................................................... 5 Prioritized Investments For The Future...................................................6 TSPOrganization.....................................................................8 Purpose.............................................................................9 Guiding Principles And Context.........................................................9 Regional Coordination & Community Engagement.......................................10 02 GOALS AND POLICIES.....................................................11 Goal 1: Coordination And Collaboration................................................11 Goal2:Safety .......................................................................12 Goal 3: Mobility And Connectivity......................................................13 Goal 4: Economic Development........................................................14 Goal 5: Equity And Accessibility........................................................15 Goal 6: Sustainability And Environment.................................................16 Goal 7: Strategic Investments..........................................................16 03 1 NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION.....................................17 Existing Transportation System Conditions..............................................17 Basis Of Need Assessment............................................................18 Evaluation Of Transportation System Alternatives to Address Identified Needs ...............19 041 PROVIDING MULTIMODAL SYSTEMS........................................21 The Roadway System.................................................................21 County Roadway Cross -Section Standards...............................................23 Federal Lands Access Program Roadways...............................................25 State Highway Design Standards.......................................................25 The Pedestrian System...............................................................27 TheBicycle System...................................................................27 Transit Services......................................................................29 RailService.........................................................................29 Pipelines And Waterways.............................................................29 AirService..........................................................................29 Bridges.............................................................................30 Vehicular Performance Standards......................................................30 05 1 TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PRIORITIES................................31 ProjectCosts........................................................................31 Intersection Changes................................................................32 Roadway Changes...................................................................35 Pedestrian Facilities..................................................................48 Bicycle Facilities.....................................................................51 Bridges.............................................................................56 Federal Lands Access Program Roadways...............................................58 Transit.............................................................................61 Transportation Safety Action Plan Projects..............................................61 061FUNDING............................................................... 63 Funding Sources.....................................................................63 Funding Projections — 20 Year Estimate.................................................64 Capital Funding Estimate.............................................................65 Road Moratorium Evaluation..........................................................66 Impacts of Lifting the Road Moratorium................................................66 Local Access Road Tools And FAQs.....................................................68 01 1 INTRODUCTIO� Deschutes County is located in the heart of Central Oregon with the Cascade Mountain Range to the west and the High Desert plateau to the east. The County covers 3,055 square miles of natural beauty, outdoor recreation, and is home to a growing economy. For the last two decades, Deschutes County has experienced rapid population growth and has become a national destination for new residents, visitors and a center for economic prosperity and progress. In the past 10 years, the population of the County has increased by more than 40 percent to more than 200,000 people today; only 33 percent of the County's residents live in the unincorporated and rural areas. With this unprecedented growth, Deschutes County faces the challenges of maintaining, funding, and planning for a transportation system that both enhances the health and well- being of residents and supports long-term economic resilience for businesses, tourism and recreation. The Countv's transportation system must accommodate traffic passing through enroute to destinations elsewhere in the region, the day-to-day travel needs of its residents and those employed here in addition to the influx of visitors during the winter and summer months. The County also is home to US 97 and the Redmond Municipal Airport, which are two of the crucial components of Oregon's Resilience Plan in the event of a Cascadia Subduction Zone Event (an earthquake and/or tsunami striking the Oregon coast). With limited funding for new transportation infrastructure, as well as built and natural environmental considerations, the County must balance the need to preserve its existing transportation system with strategic changes to the system that enables these needs to be met during the next 20 years. The County's Transportation System Plan (TSP) was last updated in 2012. This updated TSP provides a coordinated guide for changes to the County's transportation infrastructure and operations over the next 20 years. Planning for the County's future transportation reflects regional and community goals and values, supports local and regional economic development activities, and enhances the quality of life that residents and visitors enjoy and expect. The identified list of priorities for future transportation investments reflects the County's commitment to prioritizing changes to the transportation system that reflect its focus on preserving and maintaining its existing investments. This list of capital investments identified in the TSP will be reviewed and prioritized as part of the County's regular budgeting efforts. For reference purposes, Figure 1-1 shows how the County prepares its annual prioritization and budget for maintenance, operation, and capital expenditures. Figure 1-1: Hierarchy of Expenditures and Investment aintain ine systeni The list of prioritized investments in the TSP is based on this hierarchy and was developed assuming: 1. Current maintenance and operational standards remain in place. 2. The County's existing Road Moratorium (Resolution 2009-118), which limits acceptance of new road miles into the County maintenance system, remains in place. 3. Existing funding levels remain in place and are occasionally adjusted legislatively to a level that will roughly match inflation. 4. No significant additional local funding mechanisms are developed or implemented. 5. State and Federal grant programs are available at approximately the same historical intervals and funding levels. With this backdrop, the County refined the list of possible TSP projects by working with its residents, policy -makers, and partner agency staff and performing technical analyses of roadways, intersections, bike facilities, transit, walking routes, and transportation safety. Many of the identified projects help to support plans adopted by the local cities, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), other County planning efforts, the County's Transportation Safety Action Plan (TSAP) and/or local refinement and facility plans. Some of the other considerations that shaped the final list of recommended investments include: • Balancing impacts to existing and developable parcels with County -wide and community needs; • Minimizing impacts to Goal 5 resources (natural resources, scenic and historic areas, and open spaces); • Supporting and enhancing key state and regional economic plans and priorities; • Identifying key intersections that could be changed in the future to address known safety and/or dlllll.IpdLCU Capacity IICCUJ, • Prioritizing roadway corridors where strategic investments may be needed to help support future growth and economic development in the region, enhance the safety of all users and/or strengthen connections between areas of the County and to other areas in Central Oregon; • Providing regional bicycle connections that could serve broad transportation functions, such as commuting, recreation, or daily services; • Modifying key bridges as funding and/or other opportunities arise; • Leveraging opportunities for future system changes that could be provided using funds from the Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP), particularly for transportation facilities providing connections to key recreational areas and economic development priorities adjacent to/and or located within Federal lands; • Coordinating with Cascades East Transit (CET) on projects that can help increase service to the unincorporated areas of the County as well as to the High Desert Museum and Lava Lands Visitor Center; • Enhancing access to the Redmond Municipal Airport and Bend Municipal Airport; and, • Leveraging funding opportunities with key partner agencies and private investments. The list of transportation investments are organized into the following categories for implementation based on complexity, likely availability of funding, and assessment of need: • Intersection changes; • Roadway segments, including changes to functional classification; • ODOT intersections and roadways; • Pedestrian facilities; • Bicycle facilities; • Bridges; • FLAP projects; • Transit; and, • Safety. Table 1-1 shows the list of identified projects by category and by prioritization. In reviewing this table, it is important to note that some projects may be accelerated and others postponed due to changing conditions, funding availability, public input, or more detailed study performed during programming and budgeting processes. Further, project design details may change before construction commences as public input, available funding, and unique site conditions are taken into consideration. Projects identified herein may be funded through a variety of sources including federal, state, county or local transportation funds, system development charges (SDCs), through partnerships with private developers, or a combination of these sources. In addition, as part of TSP implementation, the County will continue to coordinate with ODOT and the local communities regarding project prioritization, funding, and construction. Table 1-1: Total Cost of Prioritized TSP Investments The remainder of this chapter outlines the organization of the TSP as well as a summary of public engagement activities and compliance of the TSP with some of the regulatory requirements. The TSP is comprised of two volumes. Volume 1 is the main document and includes the items that will be of interest to the broadest audience. Volume 2 contains the technical memoranda, data, and related transportation plans that enhance and support Volume 1. Volume 1 includes the following: • Chapter 1 — a brief overview of the planning context for the TSP; • Chapter 2 — goals and policies that express the County's long-range vision for the transportation system; • Chapter 3 — the transportation system deficiencies and needs as well as the process to develop the TSP's list of planned capital improvements and transportation programs; ® Chapter 6 — a summary of transportation funding and implementation, including estimated revenue, cost of 20-year needs, and potential funding sources. Volume 2 includes the following technical documents: • Appendix A: Plans and Policy Review Memo; • Appendix B: Public Involvement Plan; • Appendix C: Methodology Memo; • Appendix D: Transportation System Conditions, Deficiencies, and Needs Memo; • Appendix E: Solutions Analysis Memo; • Appendix F: Preferred Alternatives and Funding Plan Memo; • Appendix G: Redmond Municipal Airport Master Plan; and, • Chapter 4 — an overview of the Appendix H: Tumalo Community Plan recommended projects for the multimodal (TCP) Active Transportation Update/Sisters system (this chapter also serves as Country Vision Action Plan Trails Outreach the Transportation Element of the Update. Comprehensive Plan); • Chapter S — a list of the multimodal While not all of Volume 2 is adopted as part of projects and the costs estimated for their the TSP, all of the documents provide useful construction; and, information regarding the basis for the decisions represented in Volume 1. R �; The TSP addresses transportation needs in Deschutes County except within the Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB) for Redmond, Sisters, La Pine and Bend. The TSP goals, policies, projects, and implementation tasks are based on technical analyses and thoughtful input received from the community, Deschutes County staff, partner agency staff, and County policymakers. The TSP identifies transportation facilities and services that can support the County's adopted Comprehensive Plan and continued regional economic development. This TSP provides for a long-term vision to support growth in jobs and population in the County as well as improving the safety for all transportation -users over the next 20 years. The TSP serves as a resource for the County to make decisions about transportation and land use by providing: • A blueprint for future County transportation investments that improve safety for all travelers; • A tool for coordination with state, regional and local agencies; • Information to ensure prudent land use and transportation choices; • Order of magnitude cost estimates for transportation infrastructure investments needed to support system needs, and possible sources of funding for these improvements; and, • Function, capacity and location of future roadways, sidewalks, bikeways, transit, and other transportation facilities. The TSP satisfies the state's requirements as prescribed by Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 12: Transportation. ZUIDING PRINCIPLES A "; ill;: CONTEXT The TSP provides a flexible, adaptable framework for making transportation decisions in an increasingly unpredictable and financially constrained future. Decisions about the County's transportation system will be guided by the goals contained in Chapter 2, but ultimately the decisions will be made within the overall context of the County's land use plans and support for local and regional economic development. These guiding plans and principles provide a foundation for the TSP's goals, policies, and potential actions. The Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) require that the TSP be based on the Comprehensive Plan land uses and provide for a transportation system that accommodates the expected growth in population and employment. Development of this TSP was guided by ORS 197.712 and the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) administrative rule known as the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR, OAR 660-012-0060). Per the TPR, this TSP identifies multimodal transportation needs to serve users of all ages, abilities, and incomes. As such, solutions to address existing and future transportation needs for bicycling, walking, transit, motor vehicles, freight, and rail, and improved safety for all travelers are included. Further, one of the implementation steps of the TSP will include proposed amendments to the Deschutes County Code. As required by the TPR, this TSP was developed in coordination with local, regional and state transportation plans. The TSP reflects the County's continued commitment to coordinating transportation and land use planning within Central Oregon. This update was collaboratively developed by community members, businesses, the freight community, ODOT, Sisters, Redmond, La Pine, Bend, Terrebonne, Sunriver, Tumalo Cascades East Transit (CET), and the County's Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC). Opportunities for engagement included: • Project website that included all technical reports, draft goals and objectives, and links to other relevant documents; • Project Management Team Meetings attended by County staff, • Two Advisory Committee Meetings; • Four Agency Partner Advisory Committee Meetings; • Two Public Open Houses; • Targeted outreach with community and social service organizations; and, • Updates with the Board of County Commissioners. Through these activities, the County provided community members with a variety of forums to identify their priorities for future transportation projects, programs, and policies. 51 M, GOALS AND POLICIEJ The TSP provides a coordinated guide for changes to the County's transportation infrastructure and operations over the next 20 years. The development of the TSP is based on the assumption that the transportation system meets daily travel needs and also contributes to the physical, social, and economic health of the County and of Central Oregon. The TSP strives to provide users with a safe and efficient transportation network. As such, planning for the County's future transportation needs must be conducted within regional and community goals and values, support local and regional economic development activities, and enhance the quality of life that residents and visitors enjoy and expect. The TSP goals provide the County's visions for the future transportation system. The goals are aspirational in nature and may not be fully attained within the 20-year planning horizon. The policies support the goals to help the County implement the TSP projects and programs after the TSP has been adopted. The policies, organized by goals, provide high-level direction for the County's policy and decision -makers and for County staff. The policies will be implemented over the life of the TSP. The County's 2012 TSP goals and policies were used as a foundation for providing the updated TSP goals and policies outlined below. GOAL 1: COORDINATION AND COLLABORATION Promote a multimodal transportation system that supports the County's Comprehensive Plan and is consistent and coordinated with the adopted plans for the State, the region, adjacent counties, and the cities and incorporated communities within the County. Policies 1.1 Coordinate the design and operations of the County's transportation system with State, regional, and local planning rules, regulations and standards. 1.2 Coordinate future land use and transportation decisions with state, regional and local agencies to efficiently use public investments in the County's transportation system, for people driving, bicycling, walking, or using transit as well as the movement of freight, emergency responses, and evacuation needs. 1.3 Coordinate regional project development and implementation with the cities of Bend, Redmond, Sisters, and La Pine. 1.4 Provide notification to the affected local and state agency partners regarding land use development proposals, plan amendments and zone changes that have the potential to significantly impact non -County transportation facilities. 1.5 Coordinate system management and operations with ODOT on major roadways. 1.6 Maintain an intergovernmental agreement with each of the cities to provide specific timelines and milestones for the transfer of County roadways within the urban growth boundaries at the time of annexation, including the full width of right of way. 1.7 Provide regular outreach to residents and employers, schools, law enforcement and public health professionals to encourage participation with the County in identifying and solving transportation issues. 1.8 Coordinate with CET to implement the Transit Master Plan recommendations within the County to support people taking transit. GOAL 2: SAFETY Provide a transportation system that promotes the safety of current and future travel by all users. Policies 2.1 Design and maintain County roadways consistent with their expected use, vehicular travel speeds, and traffic volumes. 2.2 Incorporate the Transportation Safety Action Plan (TSAP) goals and action items into County planning projects and update the TSAP at appropriate intervals. 2.3 Coordinate with the Sheriff's Office to discuss enforcement activity on specific facilities in the County and jointly communicate safety issues when observed and encountered. 2.4 Continue the partnership with the County's BPAC to promote education and outreach activities and to inform future County investment decisions in facilities for people riding bikes and walking. 2.5 Coordinate with the emergency service providers in the County to prioritize the maintenance and investment in key lifeline and evacuation routes. 2.6 Coordinate with ODOT, railroads, and local communities to prioritize safety investments at rail crossings. 2.7 Prioritize investments in key crossing locations for people walking and riding bikes across major County roadways and/or ODOT highways, especially at locations that serve vulnerable populations. 2.8 Coordinate with ODOT for planning for grade -separate wildlife crossings of State highways using relevant wildlife migration information, crash data, and best management practices. GOAL 3: MOBILITY AND CONNECTIVITY Promote a multimodal transportation system that moves people and goods between rural communities and Sisters, Redmond, Bend, La Pine, and other key destinations within the County as well as to the adjacent counties, Central Oregon, and the state. Policies 3.1 Maintain the County's roadway system in a state of "good repair." 3.2 Invest in new roadways only when a need has been demonstrated that benefits the economic growth of the County and/ or locations that address key gaps in the roadway system and there is sufficient long- term funding to operate and maintain the new roadways. 3.3 Monitor the safety, traffic volumes, and usage by people walking and riding bikes on County arterials and collectors to help determine when changes to specific roadways are needed and/or educational outreach to the traveling public. 3.4 Maintain a County -wide bicycle route map 3.5 Partner with ODOT, Bend, La Pine, Redmond, Sisters, and neighboring counties to coordinate investment in transportation facilities that cross jurisdictional boundaries. 3.6 Pursue funding to provide secondary access roadways to isolated rural subdivisions. 3.7 Periodically review transportation performance standards used to review land use applications and modernization projects and revise if needed. 3.8 Periodically review and update the County design and construction standards related to roadways and facilities for people walking and riding bikes in unincorporated areas. 3.9 Periodically review policies and standards that address street connectivity, spacing, and access management. 3.10 Support transit service to improve mobility within the County and connectivity to transit stations in Bend, Redmond, La Pine, and other regional and state destinations. 3.11 Monitor the condition of County bridges on a regular basis and perform routine maintenance, repair and replacement when necessary. 3.12 Partner with local agencies, ODOT, and the public airports to periodically review airport master plans for Redmond, Bend, Sisters, and Sunriver to ensure they and County development code are consistent. 3.13 Partner with the US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to maintain the County's system of forest highways to continue to provide key access to recreational areas such as campsites, lakes, hiking, and biking trails in the County. 3.14 Coordinate with ODOT to identify County routes to be used as detours when a crash or other incident closes a State highway. 3.15 At a minimum, seek dedication of public rights of way for extensions of existing roads or future roads on lands not zoned Exclusive Farm Use or Forest in order to develop a rural -scale grid system. GOAL 4: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Plan a transportation system that supports existing industry and encourages economic development in the County. Policies 4.1 Prioritize transportation investments that support access to allowed land uses, activities, airports, and recreational areas. 4.2 Maintain arterials and collector roadways for the movement of people and goods to employment centers in the County. 4.3 Update and continue to implement the County's Transportation System Development Charge (SDC) program. 4.5 Support bicycle tourism by prioritizing and improving designated County bike routes. 4.5 Incorporate improvements to the County arterial system that support freight service and provide access to US97, US 20, and OR 126. 4.6 Support economic development by encouraging ODOT to prioritize modernization, preservation, and safety projects on highways designated as Freight Routes. 4.4 Incorporate facilities for people walking and 4.7 Periodically assess the probability of riding bikes to key recreational areas as part providing passenger rail service to and of changes to the roadway system. through Deschutes County. GOAL 5: EQUITY AND ACCESSIBILITY Provide a multimodal transportation system 5.5 Maintain road design standards that promote that supports a safe, efficient, and low -stress pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities to environment for walkers, cyclists and transit and from schools, community gathering users as well as benefits the overall health and places, grocery stores, and other services as environment within the County. prescribed within community plans. Policies 5.1 Prioritize investments in the County's transportation system that support users of all abilities, ages, race/ethnicity, income levels, and those with disabilities. 5.2 Design all new transportation facilities consistent with the requirements of the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA). 5.3 Maintain a partnership with CET, the cities, ODOT, and transportation options providers to promote walking and cycling, public transportation, micro mobility options, and rideshare/carpool programs through community awareness and education. 5.4 Accommodate bicycle, pedestrian, and transit lfurtinGi+ioc, \elk— rocrr;knfA by _y design standards and various master plan documents, when new roads are constructed and/or existing roads are reconstructed. 5.6 Establish priorities for construction and maintenance of roadway shoulders or shared use pathways to provide for walking and bicycle travel. 5.7 Partner with ODOT, the cities, CET and other providers to secure funding for transit service to underserved areas of the County. 5.8 Support efforts of local agencies to develop and maintain a trail system along the Deschutes River, within Tumalo, and along major irrigation canals. 5.9 Support Commute Options' efforts to work with major employers, local business groups, non-profit agencies, school districts to support implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies that pIOVIUC Vf.JllVlu CIIIf.IIVyCC�, IeZ:IUClIIZ:,, dllU customers to use transit, walk, ride bikes, carpool, and telecommute. GOAL 6: SUSTAINABILITY AND ENVIRONMENT Provide a transportation system that balances transportation services with the need to protect the environment. Policies 6.1 Partner with BPAC, local agencies, CET, and non-profit groups to promote the use of walking, cycling and transit as viable options, minimize energy consumption, and lessen air quality impacts. 6.4 Preserve listed Goal 5 resources within the County. 6.5 6.2 Ensure changes to the County transportation system are consistent with the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). 6.6 6.3 Comply with applicable state and federal noise, air, water, and land quality regulations as part of transportation investments in the County. GOAL 7: STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS Implement, where cost-effective, environmentally friendly materials and design approaches as part of County transportation projects (e.g., storm water retention/ treatment to protect waterways, solar infrastructure, impervious surfaces, etc.). Prioritize transportation investments that support system resilience to seismic events, extreme weather events, and other natural hazards. Maintain the safety, physical integrity, and function of the County's multi -modal transportation network, consistent with r-1 ti of +ho nTD wuiv - L v i i . Policies 7.1 Continue to pursue and implement Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) funding to prioritize County investments to support tourism and access to key recreational areas. 7.2 Maintain long-term funding stability for maintenance of the transportation system 7.3 Prioritize investment in the existing transportation network through maintenance and preservation activities. 7.4 Coordinate with ODOT and local agency partners to implement intelligent transportation solutions that increase the life of transportation facilities and/or delay the need for capacity improvements. 7.5 Periodically review and, if needed, make updates to the County Code requirements to ensure that future land use decisions are consistent with the planned transportation system. 7.6 Coordinate with ODOT in the implementation of the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and Statewide Transportation Improvement Funding (STIF). 7.7 Coordinate with and provide guidance to CET in programming public transportation funds received by the County. 7.8 Pursue additional funding sources to support major reconstruction or replacement of County bridges. 7.9 Partner with federal and state agencies to seek funding that prioritize investments that support recommendations from the Bend, Redmond, Sisters, or Sunriver airport master plans. , I � 13 NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION The TSP projects and implementation tasks were informed by technical analyses of existing transportation conditions, forecast year 2040 deficiencies, and an evaluation of possible system changes that can meet the transportation needs for all users (including the transportation disadvantaged) and address the need for movement of goods and services to support local and regional economic development priorities. The needs assessment, in combination with thoughtful input received from the community, Deschutes County staff, partner agency staff, and County policy makers, formed the list of recommended projects, the TSP goals and policies and the funding plan. This chapter summarizes the key elements of the existing and future needs analyses; further details of the needs analyses are provided in Volume 2. Existing transportation needs, opportunities, and constraints reflect an inventory of the County transportation system conducted in 2019 and 2020. This inventory included all major transportation -related facilities and services at that time. Key roadway features (including number and type of roadway lanes, speeds, pavement type/condition, traffic volumes and roadway classifications), traffic conditions, safety performance, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and transit service, among other topics, were analyzed. Key findings related to the existing County system are highlighted below. The areas within the County with the highest percentages of youth are primarily located in Tumalo and Terrebonne as well as adjacent to the Bend and Redmond Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs). Connections for school students between their homes, the local community schools, and school bus stops were considered in identification of potential roadway, walking, cycling and transit projects. The highest percentage of elderly populations is located in the Sunriver area and adjacent to the Sisters, Redmond, and La Pine UGBs. The areas adjacent to these three UGBs are also where the highest concentration of the population with disabilities and the minority populations reside. Coordination with Cascades East Transit (CET) to serve the existing and future needs of these residents is included in the recommended implementation task list for the TSP. • Continued coordination between the County and ODOT and the incorporated communities will help address and provide rnncictanry of inrlivirliml mar WAX/ fiinrtinnal _. _........ _ .... _.I _.. ......... _......,.. _, .,. _.....,. ........ _......_ . classification designations. • Roadway repairs are and will continue to be monitored and accomplished as part of the County's ongoing maintenance program. The County does not have any designated freight routes that provide connections to local industrial and employment lands. The TSP alternatives evaluation explored the need to designate County freight routes to serve key economic priority areas to supplement the ODOT freight system. • No roadway capacity deficiencies were identified under existing conditions. • The County's Transportation Safety Action Plan (TSAP) identified key locations for monitoring and potential changes to the transportation system to address documented safety deficiencies. The TSAP is incorporated by reference as part of the TSP. • Many of the County bikeways and highways do not have paved shoulders that are at least six feet wide which is the standard for ODOT highway while the County standard for paved shoulders is 3-5'. The small, unincorporated communities in the County do not have dedicated bicycle facilities and several of the roadways adjacent to schools or other pedestrian trip generators (parks, trail connections, rural commercial areas, etc.) located in Terrebonne and Tumalo are missing sidewalks. Safe Routes to School funding may be an option to assist with implementation of TSP recommendations in small communities. The TSP addresses the projects, programs, and policies needed to support growth in population and jobs within the County as well as the travel associated with regional and state economic growth between now and the year 2040. The identified set of recommendations reflects County policy makers' and community members' priorities to maintain existing facilities and reduce congestion, save money, improve safety, and provide community health benefits without costly i n�.�c �reu�c.� w oeor• to of infmctri v-ti ira Over time, the County will periodically update the TSP to respond to changing conditions and funding opportunities. The existing land use patterns, economic development opportunities, and population and job forecasts helped inform the analysis of year 2040 needs. This information helped identify future changes to the transportation system (and the supporting policies and programs) to address deficiencies and support economic development in a manner consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map. Growth in County Population By Oregon Revised Statute 195.034, incorporated cities and counties formulate and adopt coordinated population projections. Based on the June 2022 Coordinated Population Report prepared by the Portland State University (PSU) Center for Population Research, in 2020 the total County population was 198,253 and is forecast to grow to a total population of 275,905 by the year 2040. Much of the County growth is expected to occur within the Redmond, Bend, and Sisters UGBs. Within the unincorporated/rural areas, the 2020 population was 59,471 and is anticipated to grow to approximately 64,000 people by 2040. The anticipated growth in both urban and rural population within the County helped inform the estimation of year 2040 traffic volumes using the County transportation facilities. Traffic Volume Development The expected increase in traffic volumes on key roadways within the County was based on a review of past changes in traffic volumes as well as expected increases in population and area jobs. Further details on the anticipated growth in traffic volumes on roadways within the County is provided in Volume 2. The deficiencies evaluation included a review of County arterials and collector roadways. The roadway capacity needs associated with the State facilities within the County are addressed through other planning efforts by ODOT. The County will continue to partner with ODOT to monitor and identify additional needs through future planning and evaluation efforts. The deficiencies analysis compares the anticipated traffic volumes on the roadways to capacity levels associated with a Level -of -Service (LOS) "D" condition, which is considered by the County to reflect "acceptable" conditions. From a planning standpoint, two-lane rural roadways carrying a total daily volume of less than 24,000 vehicles per day is generally considered to operate with a LOS "Y or better. Baseline Roadway Analyses The baseline (future) analysis forms the basis of the project list reflected in Chapter 5. This baseline analysis was guided by the transportation needs identified in previously adopted plans and policies for the County, ODOT, and other agency partners, the 2040 population forecasts and the County's land use map, the anticipated growth in traffic volumes, and the fact that there are no major construction projects that are funded at this time that could materially change traveler behaviors or traffic volumes on the County's roadway network in the future. Baseline (Year 2040) Transportation Needs In addition to the summary of existing deficiencies identified in the previous section, the future deficiencies analysis revealed: • Two County roadways that would exceed LOS "D" conditions, including Deschutes Market Road at Greystone Lane and S Century Drive at Venture Lane. Following adoption of the TSP, the County will continue to monitor the need for changes to the transportation system to address roadway and intersection safety, especially at the locations included in the TSAP. Although most County roadways do not have adequate width for comfortable and convenient connections for people walking and riding bicycles, providing shoulders on all County collectors and arterials in the next 20 years is not feasible due to constraints such as available right-of-way, environmental and/or property impacts and the high costs to construct. The County will continue to seek opportunities to provide shoulders, particularly in areas with significant roadway curvature, hills, bridges and other locations that could be beneficial for sharing the road among people driving, walking and riding bikes. Additionally, many County roads have low volumes of traffic, which offsets the substandard shoulders. Additional public transportation services are needed to provide options for people who cannot or may choose not to drive vehicles. In the future, transit service will continue to be coordinated and operated by CET. The County will continue to collaborate with CET and ODOT on the prioritization of funding and operating public transportation services within and to the County. The Redmond Municipal Airport Master Plan was updated in 2018 to identify needs through the year 2040. This updated Master Plan identified the provision of additional airside facilities, general aviation facilities, parking supply, passenger facilities, and non -aeronautical property development in the vicinity of the airport to support the Airport through the year 2040. • No changes to the existing rail or pipeline facilities were identified to serve the future needs of the County. The Advisory Committee (AC), Agency Partner Coordination Committee (APCC), Project Management Team (PMT), the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) and participants at open houses and other community forums identified transportation system alternatives that had the potential to address existing and future transportation needs. Many of the potential alternatives help to support plans that have been identified by the cities and unincorporated areas within the County, ODOT, other County planning efforts, the TSAP and/or local refinement and facility plans. The identified alternatives address all modes of travel and include programs that could reduce vehicular travel demand. Further, these potential system alternatives avoid principal reliance on any one mode of transportation and increase transportation choices for all users. The PMT developed these ideas into a potential project list that they screened considering the TSP's goals and objectives and key County priorities. The potential solutions were reviewed and refined through community members and policymakers to form the 20-year list of projects reflected in Chapter 5. Through this process, evaluation of solutions that could address the identified needs as well as serve to accomplish key County objectives were identified. Some of the considerations that shaped the final list of recommended projects include: • Balancing impacts to existing and developable parcels with County -wide and community needs; • Minimizing impacts to Goal 5 resources (natural resources, scenic and historic areas, and open spaces); • Supporting and enhancing key state and regional economic plans and priorities; • Leveraging future transportation investments to reduce access, economic, safety and health disparities within the County, particularly those areas identified as serving populations of low income, minority, youth and/or the elderly; • Providing additional connections within Terrebonne and Tumalo for people walking; • Identifying key intersections where the roadway geometry and/or traffic control could be changed in the future to address known safety and/or anticipated capacity needs; Prioritizing strategic roadway corridors where vehicular capacity and/or changes to the roadway characteristics may be needed to help support future growth and economic development in the region, enhance the safety of all users and/or strengthen connections between areas of the County and to other areas in Central Oregon; • Providing regional bicycle connections that could serve broad transportation functions, such as commuting, recreation, or daily services; • Modifying key bridges as funding and/or other opportunities arise; • Leveraging opportunities for future system changes that could be provided using funds from the Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP), particularly for transportation facilities providing connections to key recreational areas and economic development priorities adjacent to/and or located within Federal lands; • Coordinating projects included in the CET Master Plan that can help increase service to the unincorporated areas of the County as well as to the High Desert Museum and Lava Lands Visitor Center; • Enhancing access to the Redmond Municipal Airport and Bend Municipal Airport; • Improving freight mobility; and, • Leveraging funding opportunities with key partner agencies and private investments. The resultant 20-year project list is intended to address the identified transportation needs, meet the TSP goals, and reflect the criteria included in ORS 660-012-0035. The TSP projects are categorized as high, medium, and low priorities for future inclusion into the County's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) based on the complexity, likely availability of funding, and assessment of need. The intent of identifying likely priorities allows the County with the flexibility to adapt to changing economic development and community needs over the next 20 years. The project lists and maps of the potential locations were posted to the LUUIIIY�s WtULR UC JJ11U1 tU dUUPLIUn. Details UI the recommended project lists are provided in Chapter 5. , I 141 SYSTEMS The TSP is a coordinated set of multimodal policies, programs, and projects that addresses the transportation needs within the rural and unincorporated areas of the County over the next 20 years. This chapter provides an overview of these programs and projects; the detailed project list and associated cost estimates are shown in Chapter 5. Although driving will continue to be the primary mode of travel in the County and the preservation and improvement of the existing roadway system will remain important, the TSP projects, policies, and programs are intended to increase transportation choices, reduce reliance on the automobile by better accommodating and encouraging travel by foot and bike for short trips, improve safety for all transportation users, and provide for improved transit service. The TCD nnrl +kn r,in+v'c mrinn+arl lanrl iicc nlanc and regulations are intended to make walking, cycling, and use of transit convenient. People driving, walking, biking, and taking transit all rely on the roadway network to access destinations locally within the County as well as regionally within Central Oregon. The identified roadway solutions in the TSP address mobility, access, freight, and safety needs. Functional Classification The County's functional classification system provides a system hierarchy based on the intended function of each type of roadway (e.g., moving people across Central Oregon or providing access to local destinations). ODOT identifies the appropriate classifications for state facilities whereas the County identifies the appropriate classifications for roads under its authority. The classification levels also describe how the roadway "looks and feels" and provides recommendations for travel lane widths, roadside treatments, accommodating bicycles, and the need for sidewalk or trails adjacent to the road. The County's functional classification is based on the following hierarchy: Arterials are intended to serve more regional needs and provide connections to key activity centers within the County. They are also intended to represent the key movement of goods and services throughout and to/from the County. These roadways also provide connections to the incorporated UGBs within the County. • Collectors primarily connect the rural areas of the county with the state facilities and the County arterials. These roadways provide important connections to much of the unincorporated areas of the County. Forest Highways provide access to recreational areas such as campsites, lakes, hiking, and biking trails in the County. Maintenance of these facilities is provided by the County and by the Forest Service, depending on location. • Local roads serve specific areas within the County and can be paved or unpaved. Figure 4-1 presents the County's functional classification map. 0 R w �N A V m c 0 V LL a m 3 N L C rn Q O = N U � � N ti U li The County's cross-section standards are used to guide the construction of new roadways and/or changes to existing roadways. These standards are updated over time to support the needs of all users as well as continued economic development opportunities. Many existing roadways within the County area are not built to the standards shown in Table 4-1. The adoption of these standards is not intended to imply that all existing roadways be rebuilt to match these standards, rather the standards will help inform identified changes to specific roadways in the future. Further, because the design of a roadway or corridor can vary based on the needs of the area, these standards provide flexibility based on adjacent land use and specific topographic considerations. The unincorporated communities of Terrebonne and Tumalo have their own standards; these are shown in Table 4-2 and Table 4-, respectively. The County standards do not require a sidewalk except for certain segments in Terrebonne and Tumalo; people walking or biking are assumed to use the shoulder or share the road on lower volume streets. Standards are presented within the TSP for reference only. DCC Chapter 17.48 (in particular Table A) contains the adopted County's roadway standards. Table 4-1: Minimum Road Design Standards, Rural County (outside of La Pine, Tumalo, and Terrebonne) Table 4-2: Minimum Road Design Standards, Terrebonne Unincorporated Community o® o e o o- e a • a o • c US97 80'-100' 60' 12' 6' 6' 14' No* Minor Arterial Smith Rock Way TeC 60' 34' 12' S' 2' 14' Yes TeR 60 34' 12' S' 2' 14' No Lower Bridge Way 60' 34' 12" 5' 2' 14' No Collector Commercial TeC 60' 24' 12' --- 2' --- Yes TeR 60' 24' 12' --- 2' --- No Residential TeR 60' 24' 12' --- 2' --- No** Local Commercial TeC 60' 24' 12' --- 2' --- Yes TeR 60' 24" 12' --- 2' --- No Residential TeR 60' 20' 12' --- 2' --- No*** Other Allay (Commercial) 20' 20' 10' -- - --- --- No Path/Trail 1 5' 6'-8' ___ ___ 2.5**** Source: Deschutes County Code 17.48.050, Table A 6-foot sidewalks are required on both sides of US97 between South 11th Avenue and Central Avenue with improved pedestrian crossings at B Avenue/97 and C Avenue/97 ** 5-foot sidewalks with drainage swales are required from West 19th to 15th Street on the south side of C Avenue *** 5-foot curb sidewalks with drainage swales required along Terrebonne Community School frontage on B Avenue and 5th Street **** If path/trail is paved Table 4-3: Minimum Road Design Standards, Tumalo Unincorporated Community Source: Deschutes County Code 17.48.050, Table A *5-foot curbless sidewalks on both sides for roads designated for sidewalks in Tumalo Comprehensive Plan Map D2. ** If path/trail is paved I The Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) was established to "improve transportation facilities that provide access to, are adjacent to, or are located within Federal lands." This program is intended to supplement State and County funds for public roads, transit, and other transportation facilities accessing federal lands with a prioritized emphasis for "high -use recreation sites and economic generators." FLAP is funded through the Federal Highway Trust Fund and its allocation is based on road mileage, bridges, land area, and number of visits to the lands. FLAP provides funding opportunities to help the County deliver capital projects that increase access to Federal Lands. In addition, FLAP is a funding tool to help the County fund maintenance of existing roads that are designated as Forest Highways and other roads that provide similar access. As part of TSP implementation, the County will continue to coordinate with all of the federal agencies, BPRD, CET, and ODOT on the request for future FLAP -funded projects. Any future changes to the state highways within the County will be informed by the OHP, the state's Highway Design Manual (HDM), and the Blueprint for Urban Design, which provides more flexible standards for urban areas. Access Management and Spacing Guidance Providing appropriate levels of access to adjacent lands is a key part of operating and planning for a transportation system that serves the needs of all users. ODOT and the County maintain standards to help balance the needs for both "through travelers" (including freight and public transportation) as well as serving the localized needs of residents, employees, and visitors. For state highways, access spacing guidelines are specified in the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan, Appendix C — Access Management Standards. Access to State Highways is controlled under Oregon Administrative Rule, Division 51 (OAR 734-051-4020(8)). The adopted County access spacing standards are included in DCC Chapter 17.48. Movement of Freight The movement of goods and services within the County and the overall region will continue to rely upon the state highways, especially those designated as freight routes. The TSP does not include a designated freight system of County roadways. Traveler Information/ITS Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) infrastructure enhances traffic flow, maintenance activities, and safety through the application of technology. The provision of reliable ITS infrastructure to inform motorists about incidents, weather conditions, and congestion has proven to be a useful and cost-effective tool for the County to manage its roadway system. ODOT and the County collaborated to update the Deschutes County ITS Plan in 2020. This update reflected identified needs, advanced and emerging technologies, and supports an integrated Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO) strategy. The plan includes recommended TSMO strategies, a communications plan, and a deployment plan. This plan is incorporated by reference into the TSP Safety The County's 2019 Transportation Safety Action Plan (TSAP) provides specific projects, policies, and programs to address identified safety needs within the unincorporated areas of the County. The TSAP is adopted by reference into the TSP. As part of TSP implementation, the County will continue to identify future project refinements, as needed, monitor the timing of intersection changes at these locations, and seek funding opportunities and/or the potential to combine safety -related projects with other project development within the County. Several of the safety -based needs for the County reflect conditions best addressed through education, enforcement, or outreach programs. Others may be addressed through systemic intersection and roadway treatments at specific locations. The type of treatments that could be considered by the County are further detailed in the TSAP and include: Roadway Treatments to Reduce Roadway Departure Crashes — With new road construction and roadway maintenance projects, the County may consider the construction of shoulders (as required by roadway standards), centerline and shoulder rumble strips, edge -line striping, recessed or raised pavement markers, and/or curve signing upgrades. Roadway Treatments to Reduce Speed — With new road construction and roadway maintenance projects, the County may consider lane narrowing at targeted locations, transverse speed reduction II IdI KI11yJ, d11U JpCCU ICCUIJdC.K Jlgl is 111 conjunction with posted speed limit signs. At rural communities, changes in roadside elements can be used to indicate a change in context to reduce speeds. In addition, enhanced enforcement at key corridors could focus on driving at appropriate speeds. Safety Data Monitoring — County staff, in collaboration with ODOT, will continue to periodically analyze crash data and identify the need for engineering, enforcement and educational treatments at specific locations. Tools such as ODOT's Safety Priority Index System (SPIS) and All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) programs may be used to assist with prioritizing locations. Safe Routes to School — The County, Tumalo, and Terrebonne should seek projects that improve safety near schools and school routes, particularly for those walking and biking to school. These efforts should be coordinated with infrastructure projects such as ADA projects. Enhanced Intersection Signing and Striping Options — At collector and arterial intersections, the County may consider enhancements such as advanced warning signs, double advance signs, reflective striping and signage, oversized stop signs, double stop signs, stop ahead pavement markers, transverse rumble strips, and edge - line treatments to help increase visibility and awareness of an intersection. The County should prioritize the use of treatments that have documented effectiveness through the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) or documented Crash Modification Factors (CMFs). The top sites for safety improvements in unincorporated Deschutes County are identified in the TSAP and will help inform future funding and prioritization in the County's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Outside of the urban areas, sidewalks are needed in portions of Tumalo and Terrebonne to provide walking facilities between the residential areas and schools and the neighborhood commercial areas. In addition, dedicated sidewalks are appropriate within one -quarter mile of transit stops. The County will work with the local communities, CET and the private sector to identify funding opportunities to add sidewalks in these areas over the next 20 years. Additional changes not specifically identified in the TSP to the sidewalks, pathways, and pedestrian crossings treatments at key intersections may be provided in the future based on project development and design as well as funding opportunities. Where applicable, the County will require sidewalk and/or multiuse pathway construction as part of future land use actions per the DCC Chapter 17.48 requirements. Deschutes County provides and maintains useable shoulders along roadways for use by people riding bikes though not all roadways are currently improved to include such facilities. The County has an aspirational designated bicycle route system ("County Bikeways") where useable shoulders will be provided, as practical, as part of ongoing maintenance and roadway improvements projects. Crossing improvements for people riding bikes, though not specifically identified in the TSP, may be provided when bicycle facilities are constructed that intersect major roads. The need for and type of crossing treatments as well as other facility changes will be evaluated at the time of project development and design. The County may provide such facilities as standalone projects or in conjunction with scheduled maintenance activities. As part of TSP implementation, the County will evaluate the need to modify existing DCC Chapter 17.48 requirements related to bicycle facility requirements as part of future land use actions. In addition, as part of implementation of the TSP, changes to the bicycle network will continue to be informed by the County's Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee (BPAC) activities. BPAC's mission is "to promote and encourage safe bicycling and walking as a significant means of transportation in Deschutes County" and focuses on both changes to the system as well as public education and awareness and a review of safety and funding needs as part of implementation of potential projects. The County will also continue to partner with ODOT to identify priority locations along the state highways for increased shoulder widths and/or shared use paths. The County, by reference, will adopt the Map 11 of the Bend Parks and Recreation District's (BPRD's) Comprehensive Plan (2018) identifying future trail connections to parks within the County but outside the Bend (UGB) as well as those within the Deschutes National Forest. As noted in the BPRD plan, the trails have been prioritized for implementation but the actual alignments in the map are approximate and subject to future easement/user agreements to enable trail construction, availability of funding, and securing agreements from affected property owners for trailheads and parking areas. The Redmond Area Parks and Recreation District (RAPRD) also provides access to trails and facilities outside of the Redmond City Limits, including those in Terrebonne and Tumalo and the Borden Beck Wildlife Preserve. As part of TSP implementation, the County will coordinate with RAPRD on the need for and timing of new trails outside of the Redmond City Limits. The La Pine Parks and Recreation District also provides facilities outside of the City Limits, such as the Leona Park and Rosland Campground. They y are also planning for a working with BLM on a property transfer of 141 acres to the Park District that will house a future "South County Events Area" to include facilities for "campers, bikers, walkers, hikers, horse owners and others". The County will coordinate with Park District on the planning for this new facility as well as overall access to existing facilities outside the City Limits. As part of TSP implementation, the County will coordinate with BPRD, RAPRD, the La Pine Parks and Recreation District, and the Sisters Park and Recreation District on the planning for and timing of new trails outside of city limits. It is important to note that not all County roadways are currently or will be designed to provide roadside parking for trailhead users within the County. The County will work with each of these parks and recreation districts to identify appropriate locations in the future to provide safe access for trail users as well as to roadway users not accessing the parks/trails. Other Programmatic Considerations for the Pedestrian and Bicycle System Other policy/programmatic considerations that the County may incorporate as part of TSP implementation are dependent on funding opportunities and potential agency partnerships. These types of considerations could include: Monitoring System — pending availability of resources, the County could establish a data monitoring or counting program that helps to identify and prioritize locations with higher levels of walking and cycling activity. In combination with safety reviews through TSAP and other ongoing regional efforts, this data monitoring program can help the prioritization of resources in the future. Continued Education and Outreach — implementation activities might include topics related to providing the Sheriff's Department and other emergency services personnel with training regarding bicycle/ pedestrian safety and enforcement issues; encouraging and supporting efforts by County schools or other organizations to rle%ialnn and aryl a hlr%irlP/narlactrian safety curriculum for students of all ages; identifying opportunities to install signage along roadways where bicycle touring or other significant bicycling activity is expected advising travelers of the "rules of the road" pertaining to motorists and non - motorized travelers, etc. Ongoing Maintenance Activities — further reviewing the budgets associated with maintenance activities along key cycling routes, including the periodic removal of debris including small branches and other roadside debris that could create safety hazards for a bicyclist or pedestrian. Additional Funding Partnerships - exploring opportunities for coordination and cooperation with state and federal agencies in examining innovative means of providing or funding pathways, trails, and equestrian facilities. In 2020, CET adopted its Master Plan to reflect the transit needs of the region through the year 2040. The CET Master Plan is adopted by reference into the Deschutes County TSP. Per the adopted Master Plan, CET will continue to provide high -quality, available, and reliable transit service that fundamentally supports the environment, economic development, and equity for all travelers. Within the unincorporated and rural areas of the County, the CET Master Plan identifies the following: • Increasing local circulation via local Dial -A - Ride and/or Community Connector vehicles; • Providing service to Crooked River Ranch via shopper/medical shuttles; • Potential service to Eagle Crest and/or providing a stop in Tumalo along Route 29; • Changes to the bus stop for Deschutes River Woods (e.g., Riverwoods Country Store) or an alternative way to serve Deschutes River Woods via Route 30; n- +: +: 11 , -o c.. • RC-IUULIfIY. CxIJ1.111 JCIVII.e lines lV JUI Ir IVCI, • Adding service to the High Desert Museum and Lava Lands Visitor Center (potentially seasonally based); and, • A new Route 31 and/or modification of Route 30 to connect La Pine and Sunriver. Finally, the transit capital investments identified in the CET Plan include fleet replacement and expansion and transit stops enhancement and additions. The County and CET will continue to partner on transit projects that serve the community. Freight rail service will continue to be an important, energy efficient mode of transportation. The TSP supports the continued use of freight rail tracks and service provided in the County by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway and Union Pacific (UP) Railroad. The TSP also supports the continued use of the City of Prineville's short line freight railway that runs from Redmond to Prineville along OR 370. The nearest passenger rail service is and will continue to be provided in Portland and in Chemult. No passenger rail service is anticipated within the County within the next 20 years. Today, there is one natural gas pipeline in the County that parallels US97. The TSP recommends continued coordination with the gas pipeline operator to provide continued services within the County. No additional pipeline facilities are anticipated within the next 20 years. There are no navigable waterways located in Deschutes County but there are several waterways and lakes that are used recreationally. As local and regional destinations, access to these bodies of water facilitate tourism, economic development, and environmental conservation efforts. Major bodies of water include Paulina Lake, East Lake, Wickiup Reservoir, Crane Prairie Reservoir, Sparks Lake, the Crooked River, and the Deschutes River. The TSP recommends enhancements to the roadways accessing these recreational areas to improve safety for all users. Within the County, the largest public use airport is the Roberts Field -Redmond Municipal Airport (RDM) located in southeast Redmond. The Bend Municipal Airport, Sunriver Airport, and Sisters Eagle Airport are also available for public use. The TSP supports the continued use of these airports for service within the County in the future. The TSP adopts by reference the City of Redmond's Airport Master Plan (as Updated in 2018) to reflect the needs of the Redmond Municipal Airport through the year 2040. This updated Master Plan includes a prioritized list of additional airside facilities, general aviation facilities, parking supply, passenger facilities, and non -aeronautical property development in the vicinity of the airport to support the anticipated 20-year growth at the Airport. The TSP supports continued coordination with the City of Redmond and ODOT to maintain safe and efficient connections to the airport for Deschutes County residents and visitors. The County regularly reviews the structural ratings of its bridges and addresses changes to the bridges as funding and other opportunities arise. The need for changes to existing bridge locations within the County will be addressed throughout the 20-year period of the TSP and incorporated as part of County budgeting and partner agency funding discussions, as appropriate. STANDARDS The County uses motor vehicle Level of Service (LOS) standards to evaluate acceptable vehicular performance on its road system. LOS standards are presented as grades A (free flow traffic conditions) to F (congested traffic conditions). ODOT uses mobility targets based on volume to capacity (V/C) ratios as defined in the OHP for planning evaluations of existing facilities and in the Highway Design Manual (HDM) for design of future facilities to evaluate acceptable vehicular performance on state facilities. As V/C ratios approach 1.0, traffic congestion increases. In some cases, it may not be possible or desirable to meet the designated mobility target or LOS standards. In those cases, an alternative mix of strategies such as land use, transportation demand management, safety improvements or increased use of active modes may be applied. The County roadways and intersections are subject to LOS "D" whereas ODOT highways and intersections are evaluated using the applicable mobility targets in the Oregon Highway Plan (OHP). Within the urban areas of the County, each city's standards apply to their streets and intersections. 05 1 TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PRIORITIES This Chapter presents a list of prioritized transportation investments intended to serve the County in the future. These investments were identified and prioritized based on feedback obtained from County residents, partner agency staff and by technical analyses of roadways, intersections, bike facilities, transit, walking routes, and transportation safety. Many of the identified projects help to support plans adopted by the local cities, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), other County planning efforts, the Transportation Safety Action Plan (TSAP) and/or local refinement and facility plans. For planning purposes and the County's future considerations related to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), the prioritized investments have been categorized as high, medium or low. Each of the identified investments have associated cost estimates. The transportation investments are organized into the following categories for implementation based on complexity, likely availability of funding, and assessment of need: • Intersection changes; • Roadway segments, including changes to functional classification; • ODOT intersections and roadways; • Pedestrian facilities; • Bicycle facilities; • Bridges; • Federal Land Access Program (FLAP) roads; • Transit; and, • Safety. Some projects may be accelerated and others postponed due to changing conditions, funding availability, public input, or more detailed study performed during programming and budgeting processes. Further, project design details may change before construction commences as public input, available funding, and unique site conditions are taken into consideration. Projects identified herein may be funded through a variety of sources including federal, state, county or local transportation funds, system development charges (SDCs), through partnerships with private developers, or a combination of these sources. In addition, as part of TSP implementation, the County will continue to coordinate with ODOT and the local communities regarding project prioritization, funding and construction. The estimated construction costs are provided in the subsequent tables. These costs are order -of - magnitude (e.g., planning -level) estimates that account for right-of-way, design engineering, and construction and generally include a 30 percent contingency factor . The costs were calculated for each project using the methodology and procedures recommended by the American Association of Cost Engineers (Class 5 estimates). All costs are rounded to the nearest $100,000 and provided in 2021 dollars. The detailed costs include all estimation assumptions as well as any deviations related to unique topographic, right- of-way, or other constraints. Where applicable, cost estimates include anticipated project funding that would provide bicycle or pedestrian facilities, including usable shoulder space. Costs for individual transit corridors are not provided. The County and Cascades East Transit (CET) will continue to collaborate on capital improvements and strategic policies that can help implement more robust transit service throughout the County. As discussed in Chapter 4, the needs assessment at intersections focused on both vehicular capacity as well as potential geometry changes identified by the Project Advisory Committee, public input, and those identified through the TSAP. The TSP is not inclusive of all of the intersection projects that the County will pursue over the next 20 years. Rather, these have been identified as projects that the County can pursue to strategically improve the operational efficiency of specific intersections and important roadways. These projects can enhance system operations and can be completed as opportunities arise. In all cases, the County will review the appropriate intersection control options at the time of project development and delivery. The projects are illustrated in Figure S-1 and in Table ®1. I t Y c JNSY � oz of � w cF 7 � a+ y �O ______—_—, FotgJj�4 PO I J I 5 4 oa rmvn�no,;, j, I _ I I o cr c -rnm�� GH\NA HAT RO �L .i3iJCi5 4h` q 1, CASCADE LAKES HWY \�I Table 5-1. Intersection Changes and Associated Cost Estimates • CI-1 Powell Butte Hwy Butler Market Rd Roundabout High $2,500,000 - CI-2 S Century Dr Spring River Rd Roundabout High $2,200,000 $200,000 CI-3 Huntington Rd South Century Dr Roundabout High $2,000,000 - CI-4 NE 5th St O'Neil Hwy Realignment High $130,000 - CI-5 Burgess Rd Day Rd Signal High $800,000 $100,000 Left Turn Lanes CI-6 Coyner Rd Northwest Way (Northwest Way High $400,000 - Only) CI-7 NW Lower Bridge NW 43rd St Realignment/ Left Turn Lane High $3,500,000 $200,000 Way or Roundabout CI-8 S Century Dr Vandervert Rd Roundabout Medium $2,100,000 - CI-9 NW 43rd St NW Chinook Dr/ Realignment, Left Turn Lane Medium $700,000 - CI-10 Graystone Ln Pleasant Ridge Rd Realignment,Left Turn Lane Medium $2,700,000 - � l.j- I i 1,A-,A—+ DA UC:" iuLc.D ,v,arnc,. ,N�,, �,,.,�+ �� i n viuyowi,c ��, Signal With Turn Lanes KA.Ai,,, �.,�...�..,,� 4t,) Qnn nnn w�,,..,..,--- _ CI-12 Venture Ln S Century Dr Roundabout Or Realignment Medium $2,100,000 - CI-13 S Canal Blvd McVey Ave Realignment Medium $400,000 - CI-14 Cinder Butte Rd Cheyenne Rd Realignment Medium $200,000 - CI-15 Johnson Rd Tyler Rd Realignment Medium $600,000 - CI-16 Cline Falls Hwy Cook Ave/Tumalo Roundabout Or Medium $1,800,000 $200,000 Rd Realignment CI-17 S Canal Blvd SW Young Ave Realignment Medium $300,000 - CI-18 Baker Rd Cinder Butte Rd Intersection Improvements Medium $1,200,000 - CI-19 NW Lower Bridge NW 19th St Turn Lanes/ Medium $500,000 - Way Realignment CI-20 Old Bend Redmond Swalley Rd/Kiowa Realignment Low $200,000 - Hwy Dr CI-21 NW Lower Bridge NW 31st St Turn Lanes Low $500,000 - Way CI-22 Baker Rd Brookswood Blvd Signal/Turn Low $1,400,000 $100,000 Lanes As discussed in Chapter 4, the needs assessment identified strategic roadway corridors where vehicular capacity and/or changes to the roadway characteristics may be needed to help support future growth and economic development in the region as well as to enhance the safety of all users. The identified projects also can help to strength connections between areas of the County and to other areas in Central Oregon. These projects are illustrated in Figure and Table -2. The projects identified will be implemented over time to reflect changing needs for the various users of the transportation system and economic development opportunities. In reviewing the prioritized list, it is helpful to note that many existing roadways within the County area are not built to current County standards and that not all roadways within the County will be rebuilt to match these standards over the next 20 years. It is also important to note that changes to existing roadways (beyond those identified in the TSP) may be required as part of future land use approvals consistent with the roadway functional classification requirements. 1 S lj il£4 ryLJ - AtlM Zl'IOHWl3H MN c py� ,_ •,rc y u C J 'rfii 5( `yS _ o OL s7,vy Ls r�e� nis O J d u 1 J rt�F 6UTiF Vii 2G "/N Y oa NaOHN�/19 v F.. Jn'lY-2139 y��r7 C ^L J w --. — a o CHIIJA HAT RD 2 NN m C iW a m Y C � 1 � V C8 5/ v�S7jdi 9N1"l� 'c C ^ � z ----------- Nt____ r Z!J 6 �r Od,S�?417 0 11 FR1'REAR Fpn F.� SS `'cry �tl z Od z FS 41 ObN C ® $p��NL1Nn a mU' �o .<OR� RD N- m ri P aID 0� a 20 _„c N N Shy _ 2 a N >d 0] dy0�+� RIU ER SUMMIT OR a d > SL Sj GC, C I m no Nw row �r Of lL Table 5-2. Roadway Changes and Associated Cost Estimates Hunnell Rd Loco Rd Rodgers Rd New Road High $1,600,000 $500,000 CC-1 CC-2 Hunnell Rd Rodgers Rd Tumalo Rd Reconstruction/ High $3,900,000 $1,200,000 Pave Railroad Widen & CC-3 Smith Rock Way Highway 97 Crossing/UGB Overlay High $600,000 $200,000 Terrebonne CC-4 NW Lower Bridge 43rd St Holmes Rd Widen & Medium $8,900,000 $3,500,000 Way Overlay CC-5 Rickard Rd Knott Rdn t St Bozeman Trail Widening Medium $2,300,000 $700,000 CC-6 Sunrise Ln 300' North Of Burgess Rd County Standard Medium $1,300,000 $400,000 Shady Ln Improvement CC-7 N. Canal Blvd Redmond O'Neil Hwy Widen & Medium $700,000 $200,000 City Limits Overlay CC-8 61st St S. Canal Blvd Hwy 97 Widen & Overlay Medium $1,800,000 $600,000 CC-9 Tumalo Reservoir OB Riley Rd Collins Rd Widen & Medium $5,300,000 $1,600,000 Rd Overlay CC-10 NW 19th St NW Lower NW Odem County Standard Medium $2,700,000 $800,000 Bridge Way Ave Improvement CC-11 NW Odem Ave NW 19th St Hwy 97 County Standard Medium $1,100,000 $300,000 Improvement CC-12 SW Helmholtz OR 126 Antler Ave Widen & Medium $900,000 $300,000 Way Overlay NE 1st St, Ne CC-13 Knickerbocker O'Neil Hwy Smith Rock Widen & Low $3,400,000 $1,000,000 Ave, And Ne 5th Way Overlay St NW Eby Ave, Ne CC-14 5th St, Ne Cayuse US97 Ne Wilcox Rd Widen & Low $1,700,000 $500,000 Ave, And Ne 9th Overlay St Whittier Dr, Wolf Whittier CC-15 St, And Shawnee Dr - End Lazy River Dr County Standard Low $2,600,000 $800,000 Circle of County Improvement Maintenance Stellar Dr End Stage Stop Dr • ® e o o - a • • Stellar Dr, Upland CC-16 Rd, Savage Dr, of County (@Browning County Standard Low $1,300,000 $400,000 Winchester Dr, Maintenance Dr/Pitch Ct) Improvement BrowningDr (@Milky Way) Illustrative Roadway Extension. End Of US97 (In the May require To be deter- CC-17 SW 19th St Pavement — Vicinity of SW statewide mined $8,600,000 $2,600,000 SW 19th St Quarry Ave) planning goals exceptions prior to implementation CC-18 Cooley Rd Urban Growth Deschutes Roadway Low $2,900,000 $900,000 Boundary Market Rd Extension 6th St - End Roadway CC-19 6th St Masten Rd Of County Extension Low $3,800,000 $1,100,000 Maintenance County Standard CC-20 Foster Rd South La Pine State Improvement/ Low $4,100,000 $1,200,000 Century Dr Rec. Rd Widen & Overlay CC-21 Burgess Rd Day Rd Huntington Widen &Rd Low $1,900,000 $600,000 Overlay CC-22 5th St (La Pine) Amber Ln La Pine State Rec. Rd Widen & Overlay Low $800,000 $200,000 CC-23 W Antler Ave NW 35th St NW Helmholtz Widen & Overlay Low $400,000 $100,000 Way CC-24 O'Neil Hwy N Canal Blvd Highway 97 Widen & Overlay Low $1,100,000 $300,000 Canal, 1 Mile Widen & CC-25 Gosney Rd US 20 South of Overlay Low $2,800,000 $800,000 Us20 CC-26 31st St NW NW Lower Widen & Low $1,000,000 $300,000 Sedgewick Bridge Way Overlay CC-27 NW Almeter Way Northwest WaySedgewick NW Widen & OverlayLow $500,000 $200,000 Ave ® • e - a US 20 o Tumalo Reservoir Rd e ® a s Widen & Overlay a Low a $1,300,000 - a o a o • e $400,000 CC-28 Bailey Rd CC-29 Bear Creek Rd City Limits US 20 Widen & Overlay Low $3,200,000 $1,000,000 CC-30 Cinder Butte Rd Baker Rd Minnetonka Ln Widen & Overlay Low $1,300,000 $400,000 CC-31 NW Helmholtz Maple Ave NW Coyner Widen & Low $2,500,000 $700,000 Way Ave Overlay Widen & Overlay, CC-32 Huntington Rd South Century Dr Burgess Rd Excluding Portion from Low $6,600,000 $2,000,000 Riverview Dr to Riverview Dr CC-33 SW Wickiup Ave SW Helmholtz SW 58th St Widen & Overlay Low $600,000 $200,000 Way CC-34 4th St Majestic Rock F Ave County Standard Low $200,000 $100,000 (Terrebonne) Dr Improvement CC-35 F Ave 4th St 5th St County Standard Low $100,000 - (Terrebonne) Improvement CC-36 5th St F Ave Central Ave County Standard Low $300,000 $100,000 (Terrebonne) Improvement CC-37 H Ave 11th St 12th St County Standard Low $200,000 $100,000 (Terrebonne) Improvement CC-38 Amber Ln 5th St Day Rd Realignment Low $300,000 $100,000 CC-39 Day Rd Amber Ln Burgess Rd Widen & Overlay Low $3,000,000 $900,000 CC-40 NW Sedgewick NW 19th Ave NW Almeter Widen & Low $1,000,000 $300,000 Ave Way Overlay In addition to the roadway changes, the County is proposing changes to the existing functional classification system based on review by County staff, input from stakeholders, and coordination with partner agencies. These changes will occur as part of TSP implementation. These recommended changes are shown in Figure S-3 and Table -3. a� LL LL Table 5-3. Changes to the Functional Classification Designations ® ° a a • e o e o - o 0 NW One of the main roads NW 1 43rd St NW Lower Chinook Collector Arterial of Terrebonne, main access Bridge Way Ave to Crooked River Ranch, 1/2 access roads to CRR NW Maple NW Possible database error, 2 Ave Helmholtz NW 59th St Arterial Collector updating to match county Way mapping Future connection; called out in the city of Redmond tsp; from tsp- "proposed 3 lane arterial to improve connectivity NW between and within existing 3 NW Maple NW 35th St Helmholtz oltz N/A Arterial neighborhoods, employment, Ave and commercial areas, to provide connections to newly developed or developing areas, and to provide alternative travel routes for all models to existing streets" Improve connection to canal which is an arterial road that parallel to US97, key road 4 SW Quarry Ave US97 US97 S Canal Blvd Local Collector segment in connection to north Tumalo area from US97, 2 lane road with narrow gravel shoulders 1275' segment that is key in Deschutes Pleasant the eastern parallel roads to 5 Graystone Ln Market Rd Ridge Rd Collector Arterial US97, Connection for US97 Access from Tumalo Rd/ Deschutes market road 600' segment that is key in 6 Pleasant Graystone US97 Collector Arterial connection for US97 Access Ridge Rd Ln from Tumalo Rd/Deschutes market road 1750' segment that connects 7 19th St Deschutes Morrill Rd Collector Local to rural farmland area NE Market Rd of Bend, no major traffic generators 1675' segment that connects to rural farmland and hiking 8 Morrill Rd 19th St McGrath Rd Collector Local area NE of Bend, no major traffic generators, the rest of Morrill Rd is local 0 0 ® ' 0• 0 0 0•• • 0 Road that connects to rural 9 McGrath Rd Morrill Rd End Collector Local farmland area NE of Bend, no major traffic generators Deschutes 4,180' segment that connects 10 Dale Rd Market Rd McGrath Rd Local Collector rural land to Deschutes Market Rd George Possible database error, 11 Millican Rd US 20 County Line Local Arterial updating to match county mapping Traffic from homes, driveways 12 Navajo Rd Cinder End Local Collector every 50-100', 1' paved Butte Rd shoulder, connects to cinder butte road which is a collector Traffic from homes, driveways 13 Minnetonka Cinder Cherokee Local Collector every 50-100', no paved Ln Butte Rd Dr shoulder, connects to cinder butte road which is a collector Traffic from homes, driveways every 50-100', 1' paved 14 Cherokee Dr Minnetonka Navajo Rd Local Collector shoulder, connects to Ln Minnetonka Lane and Navajo road that are being upgraded as well Sage Possible database error, 15 McClain Dr City Limits Steppe Dr Local Collector updating to match county mapping 1580' segment in new 16 Sage Steppe McClain Dr City Limits Local Collector developed area, continues Dr McClain drive proposed upgrade of collector Connection to the 17 S Century Dr Spring Deschutes Collector Arterial communities of Three River Rd River Xing Rivers, Caldera Springs, and Crosswater Connection between La Pine, 18 Huntington Rd S Century City Limits Collector Arterial Three Rivers, and Sunrise; Dr gravel shoulder and paved shoulder 0'-2' Possible database error, 19 Burgess Rd Day Rd Sunrise Blvd Collector Arterial updating to match county mapping Huntington Huntington Parallel to Huntington Road, 20 Riverview Dr Rd Rd Collector Local rural connections to river and homes, curvy road Connection to many homes, 21 Sunrise Blvd Burgess Rd Day Rd Local Collector driveways every 50-300', gravel shoulders, paved shoulders 0-2' Enhance connection route to La Pine La Pine state park from Three 22 Whittier Dr State Rec. Wolf St Local Collector Rivers and other communities Rd to the north; 1/2 is a gravel road, other half is paved with no striping Enhance connection route to 23 Wolf St Whittier Dr Shawnee Local Collector La Pine state park from Three Circle Rivers and other communities to the north; gravel road Enhance connection route to 24 Shawnee Wolf St Lazy River Local Collector La Pine state park from Three Circle Dr Rivers and other communities to the north; gravel road Enhance connection route to 25 Lazy River Dr Shawnee S Century Local Collector La Pine state park from Three Circle Dr Rivers and other communities to the north S Century Stage Stop Fnhnnrn rnnnor+inn rnj 26 Bonanza Ln Dr Dr Local Collector west Three Rivers homes and big river group campground 27 Stage Stop Bonanza Ln Browning Local Collector Enhance connection route to Dr Dr west Three Rivers homes 28 Browning Dr Stage Stop Winchester Local Collector Enhance connection route to Dr Dr west Three Rivers homes 29 Winchester Dr Browning Savage Dr Local Collector Enhance connection route to Dr west Three Rivers homes 30 Savage Dr Winchester Upland Rd Local Collector Enhance connection route to Dr west Three Rivers homes 31 Upland Rd Savage Dr Milky Way Local Collector Enhance connection route to west Three Rivers homes 32 Milky Way Stellar Dr Solar Dr Local Collector Enhance connection route to west Three Rivers homes 33 Solar Dr Milky Way Spring River Local Collector Enhance connection route to Rd west Three Rivers homes 34 Stellar Dr Milky Way Spring River Local Collector Enhance connection route to Rd west Three Rivers homes ODOT Intersections and Roadways Future changes to ODOT intersections and roadways within the County have been identified in previously adopted and/or acknowledged transportation plans. ODOT and County staff prioritized the list of changes for inclusion in the TSP. These are shown in Figure ®4 and Table ®4® In addition to this list, the County will continue to partner with ODOT to monitor and identify future projects that help to address the needs of local, regional and statewide travel. As the road authority for projects on the state highway system, the timing, need, and funding for projects will be directed by ODOT rules and regulations. In some cases, the County may partner with ODOT on implementation whereas in others, the projects will be planned, designed and constructed by ODOT. O ea woiNnon�� K O. O;!iIV3J SI�H� w a: x f_ _—_—" _ _._. NA I1A"( RU i w © t� E c9 i K Gy 31inH HJiNj432i.i ZF.f`0 �t FC�6 �tl1�if1G;V rtsy I aa'aat•6 � 7NI'1U ®O � �y z � b I S1� '. FRYREARRO 0 s I ) 0N I O c FS at as No �W o 1DNl1NUH a Lo a yyOdJd, OR jN c RIVER SUMId1T Table 5-4. ODOT Intersections Changes and Associated Cost Estimates • ® 0 0 0 0 ® Cook Two -Lane 0 ODOT project 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 • • • 0 0 S-1 US 20 Ave/O.B. Roundabout programmed for High $11,000,000 $9,100,000 $1,800,000 Riley Rd 2023 Interchange project identified via Grade US97: Terrebonne/ Lo Lower Separated Lower Bridge Way S-2 US97 Bridge Way Interchange improvement High $30,200,000 $10,000,000 $700,000 From US97 project. ODOT project programmed for 2023. Baker Road Implementation ODOT project S-3 US97 To Lava Of Multiuse currently in design High $3,000,000 - - Butte Path phase Coordinate with SW Traffic Signal city of Redmond & S-4 OR Helmholtz or Intersection OD on specific Medium $1,000,000 $500,000 $100,000 126 Way Improvement o ject. Also pro identified within Redmond tsp. Turn Lane Intersection S-5 US 20 Fryrear Rd on Highway, identified withinDeschutes County Medium $3,000,000 $2,500,000 - Realign TSAP This project will provide a grade separated interchange on US97 that will connect the Deschutes River Deschutes Woods subdivision River (west) and the High Woods Desert Museum S-6 US97 South Interchange area (east). A future Low $42,900,000 $10,000,000 - Interchange refinement process (interchange area Project management plan, or other) will determine the connection point to the DRW. A grade separation of the BNSF Railroad will also be required. 0• ' 0 0 ® ® Implement 0 The county will 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0• • 0 Components of coordinate with the Interchange ODOT and the city S-7 US97 Pershall- Area of Redmond on the LOW Multiple O'Neil Hwy Management appropriate county Projects Plan (TAMP) involvement to Adopted for implement IAMP This Area. projects. Illustrative Project. Timing and need to be further refined. May require statewide Grade planning goals S-8 US97 Quarry Rd Separated exceptions prior to To bedelermined $50,000,000 $5,000,000 Interchange implementation. From US97 Need for project likely driven by economic development within Redmond industrial lands _„ Project timing and S-9 US 20 rowel Roundabout need to be further Low $5,000,000 $500,000 - Butte Hwy refined. Pinehurst Turn Lane Project timing and 5-10 US 20 Rd on Highway, need to be further Low $3,000,000 $2,500,000 - Realign refined. County 5-11 US 20 Locust St Roundabout contribution to ODOT/ city of Low $6,000,000 $1,000,000 - Sisters project Implement The county will Components coordinate with of The ODOT and the Baker Interchange city of Bend on Multiple 5-12 US97 Road Area the appropriate Low Projects Management county involvement to Plan (IAMP) implement IAMP For This Area. projects. Figure 5-5 and Table S-5 reflect priorities for changes to the pedestrian system within Terrebonne and Tumalo. In general, the sidewalks identified in the TSP reflect providing sidewalks between the residential areas and schools as well as to provide connections to neighborhood commercial areas in the two communities. Other changes to the pedestrian system as well as pedestrian crossing improvements may be provided in the future based on project development and design as well as funding opportunities. The County may require sidewalk construction as part of future land use actions as well, consistent with the Development Code requirements. - Pedestrian Projects S-1— os.i,sess co„,11Y Parks Water Unincorporated Cities Figure 5-5Q Pedestrian Facility Projects Terrebonne , Oregon Figure 5-513 — Pedestrian Facilities Improvements Pedestrian Projects Parks Water Unincorporated Cities Figure 5-5A Table 5-5. Pedestrian Facilities and Associated Cost Estimates 7th St (Tumalo) US 20 Cook Ave 5' Sidewalk On Both High $300,000 BP-1 Sides BP-2 4th St (Tumalo) Wood Ave Bruce Ave 5' Sidewalks On High $300,000 Both Sides 2nd St/Cook Ave Tumalo Cline 5' Sidewalks In BP-3 Sidewalks (SRTS- School Falls/4th Areas Without Medium $1,700,000 Tumalo) Street BP-4 5th St B Ave C Ave 5' Sidewalk On East Medium $200,000 (Terrebonne) Side Only BP-5 B Ave 5th St 6th St 5' Sidewalk, North Medium $200,000 (Terrebonne) Side Only BP-6 5th St (Tumalo) Wood Ave Cook Ave 5' Sidewalks On Medium $500,000 Both Sides BP-7 C Ave 6th St NW 19th St 5' Sidewalks On Medium $1,000,000 (Terrebonne) Both Sides BP-8 C Ave US97 16th St 5' Sidewalk On Low $600,000 (Terrebonne) South Side Only BP-9 11th St Central Ave US97 5' Sidewalks On Low $1,100,000 (Terrebonne) Both Sides Riverview 5' Sidewalks On 'Low IBID-1 0 I 8th St (Tumalo) I Cook Ave I Ave I Both Sides I I $4UU,000 Deschutes County provides and maintains useable shoulders along roadways for use by people riding bikes though not all roadways are currently improved to include such facilities The County has an aspirational bicycle route system, referred to as County Bikeways, where useable shoulders will be provided, as practical, as part of ongoing maintenance and roadway improvements projects. Facilities designated as County Bikeways are shown in Figure - . Crossing improvements, though not specifically identified in the TSP, may be provided when bicycle facilities are constructed that cross major roads. The need for and type of crossing treatments as well as other facility changes will be evaluated at the time of project development and design. The County may provide such facilities as standalone projects or in conjunction with scheduled maintenance activities. At the time the TSP was written, the County was evaluating potential changes to the Development Code requirements (as included in the County Code Title 22 requirements) related to bicycle facility requirements as part of land use actions. Future changes to Title 22 will be considered as part of TSP implementation. In addition, as part of implementation of the TSP, changes to the bicycle network will continue to be informed as part of the County's Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee (BPAC) activities. BPAC's mission is "to promote and encourage safe bicycling and walking as a significant means of transportation in Deschutes County" and focuses on both changes to the system as well as public education and awareness and a review of safety and funding needs as part of implementation of potential projects. As part of that coordination, Table -6 and Table -7 identify regional bicycle connections that have been developed and prioritized with input from BPAC. Table 5-6 identifies routes that would connect communities and serve broad transportation functions, such as commuting, recreation, or daily services. Table 5-7 identifies routes that primarily provide connections to recreational opportunities, which could also serve to improve transportation mode choices available to County residents and visitors. Over time, strengthening the identified connections will help to expand the overall bicycle infrastructure within the County. Specific routes, including roadways and projects needed to support or develop these routes, have not yet been identified nor has the funding to construct and maintain these facilities. In the future, these costs may be funded by the County and/or a variety of agency partners, pending the actual alignment and project elements identified. The County will work with BPAC and agency partners, including ODOT and local jurisdictions, to advance development and implementation of preferred routes as resources allow. 0 b 0 'o I y�J I I I i i O oa rvwin�neri ��.� oa ov+; sra� i Zyy � � �HINN NA"f RD I I u o • - fJ R i w O v �� S>lbj (1 0 as anv� 3NIT'J o 9 S't'Hor • O I S�� FRYREAR i v.� FS 45 py'0 - 1UNI1Npl{ RO`. O O O K MI AVO �dti R\VER r SL Sj O� d, Finally, the County, by reference, will adopt the Map 11 of the Bend Parks and Recreation District's (BPRD's) Comprehensive Plan (2018) identifying future trail connections to parks within the County but outside the Bend (UGB) as well as those within the Deschutes National Forest. As noted in the BPRD plan, the trails have been prioritized for implementation but the actual alignments in the map are approximate and subject to future easement/user agreements to enable trail construction, availability of funding, and securing agreements from affected property owners for trailheads and parking areas. Table 5-6. Bicycle Route Community Connections As part of TSP implementation, the County will coordinate with BPRD on the planning for and timing of new trails. It is important to note that not all County roadways are currently or will be designed to provide roadside parking for trailhead users. The County will work with BPRD to identify appropriate locations in the future to provide safe access for trail users as well as to roadway users not accessing the parks/trails. ® .ISO Various routes possible. Preferred i liliii Ill Ill. Bend To Redmond route alignment has not been High identified. Route currently in design as a Bend To Sunriver multi -use path along US97 (project High s-3). Would connect bend, lava lands, and Sunriver. Could include Bend to Tumalo and/or Bend to Tumalo state park connection, which is also a priority route, and would likely include county and ODOT facilities. Future Bend To Sisters coordination will be required. High Additional Sisters to Tumalo connection may be necessary if Bend to Sisters route does not include the Tumalo community. Redmond To Sisters Route could occur adjacent to or High within ODOT right-of-way (or 126) Route would likely occur adjacent Redmond To Terrebonne to or within ODOT right-of-way High (US97) Route may overlap with other Redmond To Tumalo route development, such as Bend High to Sisters or possible Redmond to Sisters. Route is currently part of a scenic Sisters To Terrebonne & Smith Rock bikeway. Improvements to the High State Park existing route, including improved crossings, are needed. p p p IN ® 0 0 0 Significant prior planning which Sisters To Black Butte Ranch assumed a multi -use path parallel High to US 20. Route would connect area south of Bend to new development areas Deschutes River Woods to East and recreational opportunities Side of Bend within or near southeast bend. Medium Route could benefit from trail construction within future SE Bend developments. ODOT is currently in the planning Sunriver To La Pine stages to identify preferred route Medium location. Route could utilize state highways Bend To Prineville and/or county roads. Coordination Low with ODOT and crook county will be required. Route could utilize state highways Redmond To Powell Butte & and/or county roads. Coordination Low Prineville with ODOT and crook county will be required. Black Butte Ranch to Camp Route would require coordination Low Sherman with Forest Service. Table 5-7. Bicycle Route Recreation Connections p ® p ® 8 p p Bend To Redmond Various routes possible. Preferred route alignment has not been High identified. Bend To Sunriver Route currently in design as a multi -use path along US97 High (project s-3). Would connect Bend, Lava Lands, and Sunriver. Could include Bend to Tumalo and/or Bend to Tumalo state park connection, which is also a priority route, and would likely include county and ODOT facilities. Future coordination will be Bend To Sisters required. High Additional Sisters to Tumalo connection may be necessary if Bend to Sisters route does not include the Tumalo community. Redmond To Sisters Rout)e could occur adjacent to or within ODOT right-of-way (or High 126 Redmond To Terrebonne Route would likely occur adjacent to or within ODOT right -of- High way (US97) Redmond To Tumalo Route may overlap with other route development, such as Bend High to Sisters or possible Redmond to Sisters. Sisters To Terrebonne & Route is currently part of a scenic bikeway. Improvements to the High Smith Rock State Park existing route, including improved crossings, are needed. Kama il�i�l Sisters To Black Butte Ranch Significant prior planning which assumed a multi -use path High parallel to US 20. Route would connect area south of Bend to new development Deschutes River Woods to areas and recreational opportunities within or near southeast Medium East Side of Bend bend. Route could benefit from trail construction within future SE Bend developments. Sunriver To La Pine ODOT is currently in the planning stages to identify preferred Medium route location. Bend To Prineville Route could utilize state highways and/or county roads. Low Coordination with ODOT and crook county will be required. Redmond To Powell Butte & Route could utilize state highways and/or county roads. Low Prineville Coordination with ODOT and crook county will be required. Black Butte Ranch to Camp Route would require coordination with Forest Service. Low Sherman In 2020, the majority of the County's bridges were rated as being structurally sufficient. The County regularly reviews the structural ratings of its bridges and makes changes as funding and other opportunities arise. Projects to address county bridge priorities are shown in Figure -7 and Table -. These projects represent the County's current priorities but do not encapsulate all the bridges that may be modified over time. 'ytuyy4: 5 Q 22 Sy c, cvaisr so GNIIdA HAT RD JY: JNJJ�c CliO - N CASCADE 1-AKCS li'" N U \�I o i a` Table 5-8. Bridge Projects and Associated Cost Estimates Smith Rock Way North Unit Canal Replacement High $1,000,000 77BR-1 BR-2 Gribbling Rd Central Oregon Canal Replacement High $900,000 BR-3 Hamehook Rd - Replacement High $1,100,000 BR-4 S Century Dr BNSF RR Rehabilitation High $2,700,000 BR-5 Wilcox Ave - Removal Medium $200,000 BR-6 Wilcox Ave - Removal Medium $100,000 BR-7 Burgess Rd - Replacement Medium $2,100,000 BR-8 Cottonwood Dr BNSF RR Replacement Low $3,800,000 BR-9 Spring River Rd Deschutes River Rehabilitation Low $400,000 BR-10 Old Deschutes Rd Pilot Butte Canal Replacement Low $400,000 BR-11 Sisemore Rd - Replacement Low $600,000 BR-12 Camp Polk Rd - Replacement Low $1,400,000 BR-13 Wilcox Ave - New Bridge Low $1,300,000 11L Viz- •' The Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) was established to "improve transportation facilities that provide access to, are adjacent to, or are located within Federal lands." This program is intended to provide supplemental funding to be used in combination with State and County funds for public roads, transit, and other transportation facilities. In particular, FLAP helps prioritize funding for "high -use recreation sites and economic generators." FLAP is funded through the Federal Highway Trust Fund and its allocation is based on road mileage, bridges, land area and number of visits to the lands. FLAP provides funding opportunities to help the County deliver capital projects to increase access to Federal Lands. In addition, FLAP is a funding tool to help the County fund maintenance of existing roads that provide access to Federal Lands, such as those designated as Forest Highways and other roads that provide similar access. Figure -8 and Table 5-9 identify the County's current priorities for future FLAP -funded projects. As part of TSP implementation, the County will continue to coordinate with all of the federal agencies, BPRD, Cascades East Transit, and ODOT on the request for future FLAP -funded projects. — ---- ---- -iz 'hJ a o I ct Jri w B 79 4. � o I W z I i Qm m. 3NI 10 Ow I � I � ?S'vHUf � pb`4:91 FRYRFAkvkU w � v)pb I m I Q 1S �n N a ❑iJ SH'YY - � � p,l A HAT RD Oxl: JVJ01_ Z 0. O S FS 41 pbN 0. j x p1pNi1NDli �.� z 9 oct / o E \ . z {\2 \\)} ! § \ f / -\\! \ /a7 \/s7 - @&E ;7\;E \\ / )/{\ -( \/ E (\ f§ (s»»§ E JeE�: § \ [« § [ {*Ym ( 7 {7m [§_ /2/#) i2 ®\k{ƒ \1. {� !\6{ƒ ] / / Z /{}ae «_ }/f® _} a a ƒ\§ E\/f®:\ -a : (7 %( ) j / \\ \ { a m })\ \r � K/ \ � a ) � ƒ ƒ By reference, the County will adopt the Cascade East Transit (CET) Master Plan. This Master Plan has a number of projects that can help increase service to the unincorporated areas of the County as well as to the High Desert Museum and Lava Lands Visitor Center. As part of TSP implementation, the County will continue to partner with CET to identify collaborative funding sources and future service enhancements. The County's 2019 Transportation Safety Action Plan (TSAP) provides a range of projects, policies, and programs to address identified safety needs Table 5-10. TSAP Priority Locations & Status within the unincorporated areas of the County. The County will adopt the TSAP, by reference, as part of the updated TSP. The top sites for safety improvements in unincorporated Deschutes County identified through the TSAP are shown in Table S-10. This table also includes projects that have been identified to address these needs and relevant status. As part of TSP implementation, the County will continue to identify future project refinements, as needed, monitor the timing of intersection changes at these locations, and seek funding opportunities and/or the potential to combine safety -related projects with other project development within the County. NONE MEMO IN: IN US 20/Ward Rd/Hamby Rd Roundabout Project Complete US97/Vandevert Rd Intersection Improvement Project Complete US 20/Fryrear Rd Turn Lane on Highway, Realign County to Coordinate with ODOT Fryrear Road (Project SI-5) on Future Project Refinement. Burgess Rd/Day Rd/Pine Forest Dr Turn -Lanes Project Complete Bear Creek Rd/Ward Rd None County to Conduct Future Project Refinement. Alfalfa Market Rd/Dodds Rd None County to Conduct Future Project Refinement. US 20/01d Bend Redmond Hwy Roundabout ODOT Project Programmed for 2023 US 20/013 Riley Rd/Cook Ave Roundabout ODOT Project Programmed for 2023 US97/61 st St Improved as Part of ODOT US97 Project Complete Bend to Redmond Project US97/11th St/Lower Bridge Way Part Of US97: Terrebonne/Lower ODOT Project Programmed for Bridge Way Improvements 2023 61st St/Quarry Ave/Canal Blvd Improved as Part of ODOT US97 Project Complete Bend to Redmond Project Northwest Way/Coyner Ave Add Turn Lanes Project Identified in Deschutes County TSP. Alfalfa Market Rd/Walker Rd None County to Conduct Future Project Refinement. US97/Smith Rock Way/B Ave Part Of US97: Terrebonne/Lower ODOT Project Programmed for Bridge Way Improvements 2024 Deschutes Market Rd/Hamehook Roundabout County Project Programed for 2023 Rd Project Identified in Wickiup Junction Refinement Plan. County US97/Burgess Rd Traffic Signal to Coordinate with City of La Pine and ODOT on Future Project Refinement and Implementation. US 20/Hawks Beard (Black Butte None County to Coordinate with ODOT Ranch) on Future Project Refinement. El Camino Lane/Helmholtz Way None County to Conduct Future Project Refinement. S Canal Blvd/Helmholtz Way Add Turn Lanes Project Complete Dickey Rd/Nelson Rd None County to Conduct Future Project Refinement. US97/Galloway Ave None County to Coordinate with ODOT on Future Project Refinement, Butler Market Rd/Powell Butte Hwy Roundabout Programmed For 2023 Construction Butler Market Rd/Hamby Rd None County to Conduct Future Project n..L:...,. CIIIICIIICIiI. I�.... ent Butler Market Rd/Hamehook Rd None Intersection Now Under City of Bend Jurisdiction Baker Rd/Cinder Butte Rd Intersection Improvement Project Identified in Deschutes County TSP. S Century Dr/Huntington Rd Roundabout Project Identified in Deschutes County TSP. Cline Falls Rd/Coopers Hawk Dr/ None County to Conduct Future Project Falcon Crest Dr Refinement. Lower Bridge Way/19th St Turn Lanes/Realignment (Project Project Identified in Deschutes C-18) County TSP. Lower Bridge Way/31 st St Turn Lanes (Project C-20) Project Identified in Deschutes County TSP. Lower Bridge Way/43rd St Included in Future Roadway Project Identified in Deschutes Improvement Project (Project CC-4) County TSP. Deschutes County receives transportation funding via a variety of state, federal, and local sources. Resources are initially budgeted to meet maintenance and operation standards; resources exceeding these needs are directed to the Road Department's Capital Fund to fund Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects. This Chapter provides a description of funding sources and a projection of capital resources available to fund CIP projects. State Highway Fund The State Highway Fund (SHF) is managed by the State (ODOT) and contains revenue generated from taxes on motor fuels (gas and diesel), taxes on heavy trucks (including weight -mile tax and truck registrations), and driver/vehicle fees (license, title and registration). f SHF Counties receive approximately 30o oiiet revenue (whereas ODOT receives 50% and cities, 20%). Revenue increases to the SHF occur at irregular intervals at the discretion of the Oregon Legislature. Within the 20-year horizon of the TSP/CIP, the State Highway Fund model will most likely transition to a user -based fee structure to replace the traditional fuel tax. Federal Secure Rural Schools (SRS) and Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Program Funding The federal Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Preservation Act (SRS) provides a federal payment to counties and school districts to offset the loss in timber revenue from federal land that is no longer received by counties due to environmental restrictions. Per federal code, a specific portion of SRS is dedicated to county road funding. In March 2023, the Deschutes County Road Agency (DCRA) was formed as an Intergovernmental Entity (per ORS 190) to receive SRS funding from the State via the federal government. Funds received by the DCRA will be internally transferred to the Road Department for expenditure. Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) is a federal payment to counties with significant federal land holdings to partially offset the loss in tax revenue. PILT funding is to be used for government purposes and its allocation occurs at the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners. Historically, the Board has provided the Road Department with a portion of PILT in recognition of the significant reduction in SRS funding (prior timber revenue) received by the Road Department. Federal Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) Funding The Surface Transportation Block Grant program is a federal program which provides formulaic allocations to states to invest in federal -aid highways. The federal -aid system includes roads classified as collector and above, which includes county roads. A memorandum of understanding between the Oregon Department of Transportation, the League of Oregon Cities and the Association of Oregon Counties establishes a methodology for allocation of Oregon's portion of the federal funding. Historically, ODOT has operated a fund exchange program for local government in which federal funding is exchanged (90%) for state dollars to enable local governments to deliver projects outside of the federal process. Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) The Federal Lands Access Program is a federal program administered by the Federal Highway Administration for the purpose of improving transportation facilities that provide access to, are adjacent to, or are located within federal lands. Given the significant amount of federal land within Deschutes County, the Road Department has historically fared well in this competitive program for projects ranging from chip seal, bridge replacement, overlay and reconstruction efforts. System Development Charges (SDQ System Development Charges are fees assessed to new development (or redevelopment) to fund capacity adding improvements necessary to accommodate new growth within the County's transportation system. Routine State Grant Programs The State of Oregon, via ODOT, provides grant programs to fund various aspects of local transportation systems. Primary State programs include: • Safe Routes to Schools • Local Bridge Program All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) Federal Grant Programs The Federal government funds various grant programs through occasional federal transportation bills, most recently the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL). Primary federal programs include: • Safe Streets and Roads for Ail (SS4A); • Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP); • Rebuilding American Infrastructure Sustainably and Equitably (RAISE); • Infrastructure for Rebuilding American (INFRA); and, • Other programs. Local Funding • Due to statutory limitations and other restrictions, it is difficult for counties to generate transportation funding via local sources. Noted restrictions include: • Prohibition in franchise fees from utility companies located in the public right-of- way; and, • Restriction in use of general fund tax dollars for road purposes. Notable funding sources, which require voter approval, include: • Local Fuel Tax; • Local Registration Fee; and, Sales Tax. Deschutes County does not have a local funding source for transportation. ESTIMATEFUNDING PROJECTIONS - 20 YEAR With transportation funding almost exclusively derived from state and federal funding sources, the nature of transportation funding can be very cyclical in Oregon. The legislature has approved fuel tax increases only four times since 1993. The federal fuel tax has not increased since 1993. The current state of transportation funding in Deschutes County is stable due to the passage of a phased -in 10-cent per gallon fuel tax approved via HB 2017 in 2017. The last remaining phase of the fuel tax will occur January 1, 2024 (2-cents per gallon). Counties in Oregon receive approximately 30% of the SHF; individual county distribution is determined based upon the proportion of registered vehicles in each county. In 2023, Deschutes County received approximately 5.5% of the portion of the SHF allocated to counties in the state. Prioritization of Expenditures Based on the Road Department's hierarchy of investment, funding for capital construction is a function of the total resources available, less the annual amount required to maintain and operate the system based on existing maintenance standards and operational levels -of -service. Maintenance standards and operation levels -of - service are derived from a combination of studies (example, annual pavement maintenance and budget options report), and operational policy (example, snow and ice plan). Figure -1 represents the prioritization of expenditures for maintenance, operation and capital expenditures as annually presented to the County's Budget Committee. Figure 6-1: Hierarchy of Expenditures and Investment a Maintall"n the system r ';=r ? ' i €i.;T 1E, k K° i rI . s Capital Funding Estimate Assumptions A projection of transportation funding resources available for capital investment has been prepared for the 20-year investment period of the TSP and Capital Improvement Plan based on the following assumptions: 1. Current maintenance and operational standards remain in place. 2. The County's existing Road Moratorium (Resolution 2009-118), which limits acceptance of new road miles into the County maintenance system, remains in place. 3. Existing funding levels remain in place and are occasionally adjusted legislatively to a level that will roughly match inflation. 4. No significant additional local funding mechanisms are developed or implemented. 5. State and Federal grant programs are available at approximately the same historical intervals and funding levels. A projection of transportation system revenues and expenditures for a 20-year horizon has been prepared with consideration to the noted assumptions and prioritization (hierarchy of expenditures and investment). For comparative and project placement purposes, the estimated available Capital Improvement Project revenue has been calculated in 2023 value and estimated across the High (0 to 5 years), Medium (6 to 10 years) and Low (11-20 years) priority timeframe. Table 6-1: Capital Project Revenue Estimate (Present Value) The proposed Capital Improvement Program will need to account for project funding availability within the approximate amounts as noted in Table -1. The estimated total capital project revenue of $157M is approximately $32M less than the $189M project list per Table 1-1 (Total Cost of Prioritized TSP Investments). The estimated funding gap can be addressed via additional and aggressive pursuit of state and federal grant funding opportunities for select projects throughout the 20-year horizon period. In 2006, facing an unknown future regarding transportation funding, the Board of County Commissioners passed a Road Moratorium (Resolution 2006-049) which suspended the establishment of new County roads. The resolution was modified and replaced in 2009 (via Resolution 2009-118) to allow for the addition of collector and arterial road miles to the County's system. A County road is a road that has been dedicated for public use, improved to County road standards, and accepted by the County for maintenance via Board action (ORS 368.001(1)). A road that has been dedicated for public use but has not been accepted for County maintenance is defined as a Local Access Road (per ORS 368.001(3)). While the transportation funding environment has improved since 2006, many of the concerns which gave rise to the creation of the moratorium remain, such as: 1. High reliance on infrequent legislative adjustment to the state fuel tax, weight -mile tax, and DMV fees. 2. Funding mechanisms, such as the fuel tax, which have no inflation hedge and are therefore eroded or outpaced by inflation. 3. High reliance on fuel tax revenue which is negatively impacted by increasing fuel efficiency in vehicles, as well as an increasing number of hybrid and electric vehicles. 4. Reliance on federal programs, such as SRS and PILT, which require frequent reauthorization and are subject to reduction. 5. Legislative restrictions on the ability for counties to generate local revenue, such as a prohibition on establishment of franchise fees, and other mechanisms. The Road Moratorium has allowed the County to invest new revenue in a Capital Improvement Plan program and has also focused long-term maintenance investment in the preservation of the County's collector and arterial road network. IMPACTSr OJ MORATORIUM Upon establishment of the Road Moratorium in 2006, the County ceased to accept new road infrastructure. Prior to 2006 road miles were added to the County system via new development as well as improvement of existing road miles via the Local Improvement District (LID) process. New development which has occurred since 2006 has been required to establish private road maintenance funding arrangements which have typically occurred via a homeowners association or other road maintenance agreements. Approximately 30 miles of new local road infrastructure have been constructed in the post -moratorium era; these road miles could be immediately eligible for County acceptance and maintenance if the Road Moratorium were to be lifted. Additionally, approximately 380 miles of Local Access Road exist in Deschutes County, of which over 120 miles exist within the 19 Special Road Districts within the County. The Road Moratorium limited the ability to form LIDS — which are districts formed under rules within County Code and State Statute in which the County contracts for the design and improvement of County roads within the district and is reimbursed for the expense via assessments applied to properties within the district. Lifting of the Road Moratorium would allow Local Access Roads to become eligible for the LID process. Lifting the Road Moratorium would result in increased costs associated with road maintenance for new local road miles added to the County system and the addition of staff to administer the LID program. An estimate of costs associated with the addition of new local road infrastructure has been prepared based on the following assumptions: 1. Estimated annual cost of local road maintenance (paved) and operation: $15,000/mi/year. 2. 30 miles of local road (previously constructed to County standard, post moratorium) will be added to the system in Year 1. 3. Twenty-five percent of Local Access Road mileage will be improved via the LID process in the 20-year horizon period (approximately 5 miles added per year). 4. Administration of the LID program will require 2.0 FTE (1-engineer and 1-administrative support personnel). Table 6-2: Estimated Costs of Lifting the Road Moratorium (Present Value) Acceptance oq30 iles of $450,000 $8,550,000 $9,000,000 improved Acceptance of 5 miles per year of new local road $0 $12,825,000 $12,825,000 infrastructure (starting year 3) Personnel costs associated with $250,000 $4,750,000 $5,000,000 administration of the LID program TOTAL $700,000 $26,125,000 $26,825,000 Lifting the moratorium would reduce funding available for capital projects by approximately $27,000,000 across the 20-year horizon period Recommendation Given the financial impact of lifting the Road Moratorium and concerns related to long-term transportation system funding in Oregon, it is recommended that the Road Moratorium remain in place to extend Deschutes County's ability to maintain its existing infrastructure and sustain a viable Capital Improvement Program into the future. To assist with explanation and provide information to customers seeking to improve or establish maintenance on non -county maintained Local Access Roads (LARs), the Road Department provides the following information and explanation to customers: How are Local Access Roads maintained? LARs are typically maintained by adjacent property owners and road users. This usually occurs in one of three ways: 1. Informally: In which neighbors work together to hire a contractor or self -perform maintenance and "pass -the -hat" to share in the cost. 2. Formally: Through homeowners associations (HOAs) or other formal agreements to share in the cost of maintenance. Special Road Districts: In which area residents vote to establish a district which levies a property tax to fund maintenance. Deschutes County has 19 Special Road Districts — which is the highest number of road districts within any county in the state By observation, all three methods work well in some areas and not very well in other areas depending upon a variety of factors. Frequently Asked Questions and Explanations: 1. 1 pay taxes and receive no service from Deschutes County. Deschutes County does not utilize property tax to fund transportation maintenance improvements as that practice is restricted by State law. Regarding gas tax, the State currently charges 38-cents per gallon (and various DMV fees) to fund the transportation system. The State distributes the gas tax revenue in a 50-30-20 proportion in which the State keeps 50% to fund the state system, the counties receive 30% to fund the county systems, and cities receive 20% to fund the city systems. When customers pay the gas tax, they don't individually fund the transportation jurisdiction in which they live, they fund the entire system of state highways, county roads and city streets. Everyone pays the same rate, whether or not they live in a city or the unincorporated areas. If you are paying a gas tax, chances are you are driving on the system that is being maintained with gas tax funds. 2. Why can't the County maintain my gravel road (LAR)? Due to the fiscal burden that would be placed on county road departments to maintain significant mileage of sub -standard road construction, state law restricts the ability of counties to spend road funds (fuel tax and DMV fee revenue) on LARs. If we add gravel, grade, or plow one mile we would be obligated to provide that same service to all of the other LARs in the County. 3. How come the County maintains some gravel roads but not others? The County maintains approximately 125 miles of gravel road that have been lawfully established as County roads and accepted for maintenance. Most of these miles were gravel when Deschutes County was established in 1916 and had previously been accepted for maintenance, with gravel surfacing, when Deschutes County was a part of Crook County. Current LARs have never been accepted by Deschutes County for maintenance. 4. Not everyone contributes to help maintain my Local Access Road. This is the biggest downside of living on a LAR. Some neighbors have different opinions on levels of road maintenance and some choose not to pay for other reasons. This is where good neighborhood relations and communication pay dividends. There are many examples of where this is taking place in Deschutes County. 5. We have public traffic on our LAR that accesses public land. Living next to public land has positive and negative impacts to quality of life. The attraction of the public to public land is one of the negative consequences. Use of public roads, like LARs, to access public land is a logical and predictable occurrence and therefore something that property owners should factor into their decision to purchase property when conducting due diligence. Similarly, road maintenance costs associated with unmaintained LARs should also factor into the decision to purchase property. Most LARs have been in existence for many decades as have the public lands they may serve. �vIES CO G2� BOARD OF l COMMISSIONERS MEETING DATE: December 20, 2023 SUBJECT: Consideration of letter providing input on a comprehensive approach to Measure 110 RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move approval of letter providing input on the proposed comprehensive approach to Measure 110 as developed by Public Safety Partners. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: On December 13, 2023, District Attorney Steve Gunnels presented the Public Safety Partners' Comprehensive Approach to Addressing Oregon's Addiction and Community Livability Crisis to the Board. The Board expressed general support of the approach and directed staff to draft a letter supporting the proposal with a few recommended changes. Staff was not able to draft the letter in time for publication of the Board's meeting packet, but will provide it to the Commissioners once it's written. BUDGET IMPACTS: None. ATTENDANCE: Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator DRAFT — December 18, 2023 Governor Kotek Central Oregon State Legislative Delegation At a recent Board of Commissioners meeting, Deschutes County District Attorney Stephen Gunnels presented on recommendations for reform Measure 110 called, "A Comprehensive Approach to Addressing Oregon's Addiction and Community Livability Crisis." The policy recommendations are the work of the League of Oregon Cities, Oregon District Attorneys Association, Oregon Association Chiefs of Police, and Oregon State Sheriffs' Association. The Board of County Commissioners commends this comprehensive approach and generally supports the package of eleven policy proposals with a few recommended modifications. As discussion moves forward on these proposals, the Board offers the following comments and input: Policy Proposal #4: Fund county probation departments to supervise misdemeanor theft and property crime cases where defendants are dealing with an addiction/substance abuse disorder: We are concerned that the State of Oregon has not been adequately funding county community corrections agencies. Community correction agencies play a critical role in reducing recidivism and providing positive outcomes for offenders. We strongly encourage proper funding for this essential public safety service. Policy Proposal #7: Prioritize adequate and sustainable funding for Oregon's Specialty Courts: While we support Specialty Courts, the Deschutes County Local Public Safety Coordinating Committee has concluded that a formal Drug Treatment specialty court in our community is not currently sustainable. Barriers to implementing drug court in rural communities include lack of the full continuum of treatment services, lack of adequate wraparound services, lack of substance -free housing as well as a substantial impact on the Court. We advocate broadening the recommendation to include court -connected programs. At Deschutes County, we believe a court - connected program will still reduce recidivism, provide positive outcomes for offenders, and reduce the substantial impact on the Court. 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, Oregon 97703 (5,11)388-6572 board@deschutes.org www,deschutes.org Policy Proposal #8 — Establish authority to utilize welfare holds of up to 72 hours for intoxicated persons who pose a danger to self or others: While we generally agree with the intent of this policy proposal, we have concerns that our current system does not have enough treatment resources. With such low treatment access, releasing someone with a substance use disorder after 72 hours will increase the overdose fatality risk. A fully funded treatment system would be a critical element to support a 72-hour hold policy. In conclusion, we strongly encourage a comprehensive approach to Measure 110 reform that adequately funds the community justice system and the pathways out of additions: treatment, residential and supported housing, stabilization, and sobering and specialty courts. Deschutes County Commissioners Stephen Gunnels, Deschutes County District Attorney uT E S COG�� i BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING DATE: December 20, 2023 SUBJECT: Draft letter regarding ODF Wildfire Funding Proposal RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move Board signature of letter to AOC providing input on the ODF (Oregon Department of Forestry) Wildfire Funding Proposal. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: On November 30, 2023, Commissioners received the following email from Association of Oregon Counties` staff member Branden Pursinger: "Below is an update from Co -Chair Perkins who has been serving on a workgroup that was tasked with looking at the way we fund wildfire costs in Oregon. Especially the Landowner Ratepayer Offset issue from 2023. Please see his brief description below and the attached document. We are hoping that Commissioners will take a look at the document attached and pass along any questions, comments, concerns, etc. to myself and Commissioner Perkins as soon as possible. The information shared will then be taken to the next meeting of the workgroup for review and input into the final proposal coming." The email attachment referenced is the "Sustainable Wildfire Funding' proposal which is attached to this staff report. At the December 6, 2023 Board meeting, staff discussed the proposal with the Board. The Board provided input and directed staff to draft a letter for its consideration. BUDGET IMPACTS: None. ATTENDANCE: Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator Kevin Moriarty, County Forester Background Oregon has long benefitted from a highly functioning wildfire suppression system. A cornerstone of our success has been a strong partnership between landowners and the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF). In recent years, however, the catastrophic impacts of wildfire have increasingly impacted public health and safety, community wellbeing, and the economy across Oregon. At the same time landowners within ODF protection districts paying for wildfire protection have seen dramatic increases in base fire protection per -acre rates (over 40% from last biennium in some areas of the state) that have pushed the system to a breaking point. To address these issues and provide a firm foundation for continued success going forward, Oregon's funding system needs to be stable, sustainable, and equitable. Right now, it struggles to be any of those things. Over the interim, Senator Steiner convened a diverse workgroup of landowners to develop a more effective funding system. The proposed system creates more transparency, while providing for stable and equitable financing of wildfire suppression, which is a public service that benefits all Oregonians. This workgroup will continue into the 2025 session to steward the transition of wildfire funding. Financing ODF-protected landowners: The proposal indexes existing landowner assessments (Minimum Lot Assessment, Improved Lot Surcharge and Harvest Tax) according to CPI going forward and applies the inflation rate back to 2007 (most recent adjustment date). All landowners: To reflect the all -Oregon nature of the problems created by wildfire, the proposal assesses all property accounts a flat $10 fee, which produces $20M annually in revenues to contribute to Oregon's increasing wildfire protection costs across the state. Benefits Establishing a statewide fee recognizes that all Oregonians benefit from a robust wildfire protection system. Realigning Oregon's wildfire protection funding system results in a more sustainable per acre assessment rate, making the system more affordable for all landowners. Affordability enables continued long-term participation in Oregon's wildfire protection system and maintenance of ownership, reducing pressure to sell for alternative uses such as permanent development. Stabilizing Oregon's wildfire protection system funding allows ODF to maintain their ability to respond to wildfire. This, in turn, reduces the frequency of catastrophic impacts of wildfire on public health and safety, community wellbeing, and the economy overall. C (� rr co (o O N o LL u- LL LL (q C1 U.N r O p U' IL LO C,: too 0 r: N o :r m N CV) � r to N o m N w LO i .O •� r M.. 69 ' 64 691 64 69 6fl m fi> EFi 09- a EA 60 N N U V o N Np •rj 0 c odd as O LL � a) o a-� LL O C r Cj dca c O E a) ,a) fn a) > Q °� > LO m a) o W a) 0 Co Q U) i coLO 2 ma to o F Q Q v c N U) a) N C 01 m N a 2 N C a 0. J C: -°a E o Est L +N+ LL LL J LL C C C LL (a E ~ O N (D O LL LL (U` � U) O) (n C9 J N a) t) O U 75 2 (7 O 0. in a) v w E 2i 64 a) U) 2 2 a) .r is co O r 2 N r— U) Fo N LL r LO N > CM 07 6). � 6m? 6M4 Q 1:1 Q (0 40 6 Q ate. � a' � r N O ro a�i Q o 2 L L y U G G c G c G to 3 V O O r I- r r Z 6) 69 69 64 N U U 'c C N_ O 2.1 () a) O r O L m a. 0 U o > m N m � > 'C d C a) J d' a) �— E > N >-is m N N OL w (n Q (N6 m U- FO— Q> Q Z C O N .O �U (3) C. C. O C N C C L) L) c o a) m C;) ui D (DX V (6 — (D c Q '0 w L O c0 N O C 0 E 3 C C a) 7 4- m N C E O E 0) a) C_ _Q m C a, E � LL Q m p a) �a X 3 -0 LL m Y o N � �� g "CI c N U -O _ o o c L o a) 0:� •� a c a� a) > w Q -OO O .0—) (D = Q m a LL _I O O (D N U 0 > T LL (0 @ U a) nz +J p co c vOY •o � .O — Q N y m �' E-0� ca U LL N > N „c3 a) _N o�� ooa�iN C U ) () C L N— a) - w Co g m @ 3 0 C i0 p� O 0- O U �. N U O i (DO N U— NE U 80-E m E o E v LL O a) 0 'a C O C C" wp ef)- 0— O 'D O Q LO 0) m n o c o U) m c Z.": -00 3 E a m •° u) a) C o a` )i 0 U LL N E LL a) ooa)'a co o m c�a>i o C: C) C: -C Cw00) O O U LL C "a— a- _ (6 O_ (0 a) N LL N .E o '� ,�T, C LL (9 ~ > 0 Q a) �° > o m c � N 0 w u0i `m 2) c j'0-00u W'O c wa)a)> -c c a)a) CD n .— Property ownership within 9 ODF forest protection districts and 3 forest protective associations (Includes private rate avg: $1.50/acre. Does not include — Forest Products Harvest Tax, property tax, income tax, local structural fire protection district assessments) • 1/101h to approximately 18-acre lot, without improvement - $37.55 / current structure is $18.75 o Minimum lot surcharge - $27.55 / indexed from current charge of $18.75 o Statewide property account - 10 • 1/101h to approximately 18-acre lot, with improvement - $107.35 / current structure is $66.25 o Minimum lot surcharge - $27.55 / indexed from current charge of $18.75 o Statewide property account - 10 o Improved lot surcharge - $69.80 / indexed from current charge of $47.50 • 100-acre lot, without improvement - 160 / current structure is $239 (uses average statewide rate) o Private rate avg - 150 o Statewide property account - 10 • 100-acre lot, with improvement - $229.80 / Current $286.50 o Private rate avg - 150 o Statewide property account - $10 o Improved lot surcharge - $69.80 / indexed from current charge of $47.50 • 1000-acre lot, without improvement - $1,510 / current $2,390 o Private rate avg - J1,M o Statewide property account - 10 • 1000-acre lot, with improvement - $1,579.80 / current $2,437.50 o Private rate avg - $1,500 o Statewide property account - 10 o Improved lot surcharge - $69.80 / indexed from current charge of $47.50 Properties outside 9 ODF forest protection districts and 3 forest protective associations: $10 Date: DRAFT — December 11, 2023 To: Les Perkins, Co -Chair of AOC Natural Resources Committee Graig Pope, Co -Chair of AOC Natural Resources Committee Re: Input on Sustainable Wildfire Funding Proposal Thank you for serving on the workgroup established to look at alternative methods to fund wildfire costs in Oregon. On November 30, 2023, we received a copy of the proposal called "Sustainable Wildfire Funding." We discussed the proposal at our Board meeting on December 6, 2023, and again on December 20, 2023. As requested, below is feedback and input from Deschutes County: The Board may have an issue with the $10 flat fee for all property accounts since all residents who pay taxes into the State's general fund are already paying for statewide fire suppression (through the General Fund portion of the ODF budget). In addition to the feedback listed above, we respectfully request the following additional information: 1. Could you please provide a chart showing a chart of ODF protected acreage for each Oregon county? 2. Could you please explain how much federal funds are part of the ODF wildfire funding since the ODF fire suppression costs, in certain cases, are eligible for reimbursement through the Emergency Conflagration Act? a. Historically, how much of ODF fire suppression costs been paid by the federal government? 3. Could you please explain how mutual aid agreements work with ODF? a. Over the past several years, how much has fire suppression value has ODF received from mutual aid agreements? b. Over the past several years, how much fire suppression costs has ODF incurred as a result of mutual aid agreements? 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, Oregon 97703 `ta541)388-6572 board@deschutes.org @Avww.deschutes.org 4. ODF's mission is "To serve the people of Oregon by protecting, managing, and promoting stewardship of Oregon's forests to enhance environmental, economic, and community sustainability." If the ODF funding methodology changed, would ODF's mission change? Also, if the ODF funding methodology changed, would ODF's approach to protecting structures change? Deschutes County Commissioners Branden Pursinger, AOC Legislative Affairs Manager Fire suppression capacity within the Oregon Department of Forestry is important to all Oregonians and especially to ODF-protected property owners. We are thankful and appreciative of your efforts to build a sustainable funding formula for ODF fire suppression capacity. We would like to better understand how the costs and benefits of the proposed funding formula are distributed across property owners in Deschutes County and Oregon before we express support for or request modifications to the proposal. We would appreciate responses to the questions and concerns below in evaluating the funding formula proposal: 1) The Board may have an issue with the $10 flat fee for all property accounts across the state. All residents who pay taxes into the State's general fund are already contributing to ON fire suppression capacity through general fund allocations. Since ON fire suppression capacity is primarily focused on ODF-protected lands the new proposal could mean that tax payers who get minimal benefit from ON fire suppression capacity are paying twice for that capacity. 2) We would like to see a table showing ON protected acreage for each Oregon County and breaking that acreage down by size class of property. The proposed formula increases fees for small landowners and decreases fees for larger landowners. It would be helpful to understand the proportions of small and large landowners in both Deschutes County and the other 35 Oregon Counties to evaluate the impact of the proposed new fee structure. 3) Federal funds are not accounted for in the Sustainable Wildfire Funding proposal document, but r�r�r .[•.... F..,..... .....+I....17..'I-.I.. F..v .�,'II�.. F .J ..II... F i... .....,.,......+ F.- ON' Iilesuppressioncostsare Ilequeuuy eligible fo minfbnsof ubnarsof reimbursement from the federal government through the Emergency Conflagration Act. Why are no federal funds included in anticipated funding streams for fire suppression capacity and, historically, how much federal funding has ON received for fire suppression costs annually? 4) We would like to better understand how much ON fire suppression capacity will provide protection outside of the ON protected land base. We believe that such assistance does occur through mutual aid or other agreements. For the Central Oregon region, can you describe how much fire suppression value ON has provided outside of ON protected lands through mutual aid agreements in the last 5 years? If you can estimate how much that assistance outside of ODF protected lands has cost the agency in the last 5 years that would also be valuable to understand. 5) ODF's Fire Protection division was not set up to provide structural fire protection. It was intended to protect trees and timber more than homes. If ODF's funding formula changed and all property owners were paying a fee to support ON fire suppression capacity, would the focus of ODF's Fire Protection division change to emphasize protection of homes more and would ON provide more fire suppression services outside of ON protected lands? MEETING DATE: December 20, 2023 SUBJECT: Treasury Report for November 2023 ATTENDANCE: Bill Kuhn, County Treasurer MEMORANDUM DATE: December 20, 2023 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Bill Kuhn, Treasurer SUBJECT: Treasury Report for November 2023 Following is the unaudited monthly treasury report for fiscal year to date (YTD) as of November 30, 2023. Treasury and Investments • The portfolio balance at the end of November was $335.6 million, an increase of $33.7 million from October and a decrease of $19.2 million from last year (Nov 2022). • Net investment income for November was $957.8K, approximately $429K more than last month and $474K greater than November 2022. YTD earnings of $3,002,473 are $1,578,011 more than the YTD earnings last year. • All portfolio category balances are within policy limits. • The LGIP interest rate remained at 5.00% during the month of November. Benchmark returns for 24-month and 36-month treasuries are down from the prior month by 35 basis points and by 34 basis points respectively. • The average portfolio yield is 3.34%, which improved over last month's average of 3.04%. • The portfolio weighted average time to maturity is .86 years, up slightly from .81 years in October. Portfolio Breakdown: Par Valtie by Investment Type, Municipal Debt $ 38,475,000 11.5% Corporate Notes 35,821,000 10.7 % Time Certificates 1,245,000 0.4% U.S. Treasuries 73,000,000 21.8% Federal Agencies 82,295,000 24.5% LGIP 36,063,805 10.7 % First Interstate (Book Balance) 68,703,624 20.5 % Total Investments $ 335,603,429 100.0 Total Portfolio: By Investment Type Municipal Debt First Interstate 11,5 % Bank Corporate Notes 205% ��rft� tea 10.7% ¢t me Certificates LGIP 10.7 U. S. Treasuries ederal Agen 121 8% 24.5 % Portfolio by Brokers N $60 $49.7 $52.3 o $40 $35.7 $38.5 $39.0 tE $20 $6.7 $9.0 $- DA Stifel Robert W Piper Moreton Great Castle Oak Davidson Capital Baird & Cc Sandler Capital Pacific Markets Securities Total Investment Income Less Fee: $5,000 per month Investment Income - Net Prior Year Comparison (5,000) $ 557,861 Nov-22 483,445 Category Maximums: Yield Percentages U.S. Treasuries 100% Current Month Prior Month LGIP ($59,847,000) 100% FIB/ LGIP 5.00% Federal Agencies 100% Investments 2.35 % 2.35 Banker's Acceptances 25% Average 3.34% Time Certificates 50% Municipal Debt 25 % Benchmarks Corporate Debt 25 % 24 Month Treasury 4.58 LGIP Rate 5.00% _ Maturity (Yearn 36 Month Treasury 4.31 % Max Weighted Average 2131 0.86 _ 1 Term Minimum Actual 0 to 30 Days 10 % 33.6 Under 1 Year 25 % 58.7% Under 5 Years 100% 100.0% Other Policy Actual Corp Issuer 5 % 1.9 % Callable 25 % 13.5 % Weighted Ave. AA2 AA1 investment Activity _ Purchases in Month $ 30,0001000 Sales/Redemptions in Month $ 7,000,000 6.00% 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 Month Historic Investment Returns Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov County Rate ® 2 Year Treasury Rate -< Corporate Bond Rate — LGIP Rate County Rate ® 2 Year Treasury Rate Corporate Bond Rate — LGIP Rate Three Year Portfolio Balance 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 Nov-23 Five Year Maturity Distribution Schedule Nov-23 Mar-24 Jul-24 Nov-24 Mar-25 Jul-25 Nov-25 Mar-26 Jul-26 Nov-26 Mar-27 Jul-27 Nov-27 M �t N N 7 V' N N M C' N N V N V N Vt N V N V' V' N N V' V' N N It 7 N N It N O O O O O WN�Wm O O O O O 0 m 0 0 Wm 0 0 0 0 m 0 N LA _ ' CO N N N �-- N N N N V' N N N— � N �'- N N W N 00 N . 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O O c6 O M O O N'IT O N 'T Wm 'T c6 Mm (mn (0 0WVWO0nN rOL0 r Wm V L6 M M Wm O M Mm O0`- Lmn O OON OMO OON W0 O 000N O N O O OM MMO O O M Nm O ON 0 0 LO0 0nO ON C (0Wm NNO W 0 Wnm W r 6 MNCO WOW NN lW0 W W r- OOOM 0 00 M w O w (O N Wm0 0 rO 0OWm0 M 00 6 LC0O MOONO 1� �OOOr N V o WW Nn 7 6Wm0 WCO Lo L0 mm0NMN O0W OW d O� WN mm d o O A d' mn Or m m WN— O M m O N L0 N ^ O m c0 W N N m M Q) V' V M � m m Qj O V N Wm W W W M M M C.j rj M N �. �- O m O V O W L0 V L0 (o �j (oW N N W W W Qj W W W O.j W W W CO W r 'T- Lq L0 N N M L0 0 0 LQ M � M N m O Li) N N N V rj � W N M � W N N r N N O W L0 N N r-: N O O f� 10 m In W w N Lo V W V M W N N W 0 M V r (O n M (O (o to W V N W 0 L` O N V O M (O m M�; M O N (O W a w m d' 0 00 V' 0 (O O N 0 7 M f W O O (o M O 00 N N r (o N m c0 M M m m O d' W M T W r- O w N W m O m m L` W M M Lo m t` M O W N V' N 00 N M V O � m V N N � W V' V t� N V r f-- a N N W W L` m N d' W w m N V' O V M "t W Lo O u m M O m N O W d' L0 z 7 m iNN N N N NNmL-rOma-md)0)10� N N W W W N mm�-0 �- N W .- OMa- �- N W 'o 0' O N W MLA W (0 W N .- NNNN m m m W W V' �-W W W �-mmm r r r m r O W co CO m m W mm 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 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 m O 0 0 O m 0 0 m 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 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 0 10 N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 f� O O O O N O W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 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 NNN NNNNNN N N N N N N N N N N N N MN NNN N N NNNN N N N N N N N l0 N N t0 (fl l0 N W N W � m M L0 m N 7 m "- t` O N m N Lo M W M f N W m W W M (0 O f� M M M M W r O N W N W M r r W W N W Lo ;�: Lo � M M N O m M (p W a)M N 00 W N (O O m m m N m h 0 O M M O N N M m O O O m m m 0 M M m 7 N In N N W N N V W N V N O V W O t` O W m M (O m m M m m m l0 O W (0 N (0 D O O O O r M (0 O O D) O L0 O W 0 m O mLq N m O N N m O V' W O W MN r N M O N M Ln 0 F p N 0 V' M 00 d' ovdt N N 1- l0 (O -IT il W vtIgmm M O N f� I� m M m (0 It V 00 V N M(r M N 14 M 6 l0 o0 c0 (0 (0 l0 00 (0 oammmm I: O O O O : N N It It (o (o vv'aIt (0 (0 Y' 'IT It C L0 N L0 l0 Lo Lo Ln L0 N N Lo N M r L0 L0 V N 6 M c- N M N L0 N N (0 �M t` rj m M N N (o N d' Lo Lo t` r V (0 L- L m L• L` r W O 0 W— V V M M V' �- L0 M M (o M (n 6 r L0 f� t` M W L` L0 Lo W (o 0 N W (o 0 Lo (0 L0 LQ 0 M �M N r M N N 0L0 N N M M r- N M �M f nj l0 N 0 OCL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V V 10 (0 M M M V V W O O O M 0 0 M M O O O O O O (o W N (fl O M O M N O Cl) O O O co N O O O V U LL I aa+ QQ+ QQ+ QQ+ QQ+ QQ+ QQ+ QQ+ QQ+ QQ+ QQ+ QQ+ QQ+ QQ+ QQ+ QQ+ QQ+ QQ+ QQ+ QQ+ QQ+ QQ+ QQ+ QQ+ QQ+ QQ+ QQ+ QQ+ QQ+ aa+ QQ+ QQ+ QQ+ QQ Q++ N N Im Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q C N O m m m m m m m m m (a 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 to m m m m m m m m m m m 0 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 0 m m m aa¢aaQaaQQaaaaQaQQaaQQaQaaaaaaaaQQaQQa¢QQ¢aaQaa¢aaQaa _W O N 7 V W M T L0 V L0 O O N N m W W d' �--..0 M M O N W a w0 (0 CO W (O 2 m M t� V N W M m N M d' M W O m N M N W M L0 M N mm m W N N W W L0 O N m N N f� m M N r m M N a r 0 0 W 0 O N N W L0 O O (o t� 7 (O (0 M (o N W V F •� N N N N N (0 O M M N N M M V N W W .- O O u) r W m W N M� M � (0 t` W L0 � W W W t0 (O W r t` L0 � � t0 � L0 L0 a- `- � N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N y 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 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 mN LO NLnN N2 MNm W 1�d'L!')OO�L� V W W N M20 N� W m W Ln N(0m m W m m V'�N Ln W O W N N lh N N W � � �- N N '- N M O m N .- �- M m �- �- N M N � W W O N O N � .- � N O N N m N N f� N N W W N N W W W W �- �- V .- M N a M"t O t N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ' t; S3N N N N N N },{ii }Y'�{A N N N N N N N O N O O N N O O N N O O N N O OI N NN N N N N N N N N N N N N N I N N N N N N N N N t mod.. 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 NNN 0 0 N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 N`N 'izO,O O N N OL: N:t9•N 0 0 0 N N 0 O N N 0 0 N N 000000000 N N N N N N N N NN 0 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 NNN 0 0 N 0 0 N N m 0 W M NNW77�7-ZMN Ln in N N W O N m (0 0 NNN 10 i'(O j�N n N '(, 1��34 „T i'y 7 `d�U`OMM` m 0 0 W In W (`N W W f� NNNO W (\') 7 NW NNN W W M OOONNNN (� M O O O t0 6. r n W M W W O I� m 0 0 a•`,� O j 4 W O O �- r W W W W W W W d 'Y Z ~ J > J z ~ J J> Z J J J J J J~~ Z Z J J~ Z J J J Z Z Z ~~~~ Z Z U UUUUUm wF ¢mrmW1-UUI-QmmW w mm FF FFmF W WFF WF mFmm UUU W W W W W W naa.aaaaaa_ o¢v)¢ Q oamdQ¢ O n n¢¢¢¢¢ ¢OO¢¢Oa Q ¢ aaaKO 00(72TTLL2211EI2 n n nOKOOO C7(7 U( of2EUaoQU2LU UL (D U O LY K 2d� �LlUUU 00 (If U 22 U 02ULI fy U 0,0,30,1 Y Z Q n n n a n n n n co 0Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y U U U U U U U U U U U CD U C c m m c c m m c c m m c c m m C c m m c c m m C C m m C C m m C C m m C C m m C 0) m }--- m_ O) __ m_ _ N a N N N (A N N N y N (/) N N N N N N N N (/� a¢ a a a a¢ a Q Q c c c c c c c c c c rn rn rn m U ¢+�•000UUU m 0g- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g U 0 Q Z Q (n 3 U UU UU UJ J JJ JJJ JJJ JJJJJJ m N J J N J �p c @ �p c C �p �p C C �p � �p �p C C �p C � w z o � E E E E E E E E E E E E N O) E E OE O) E E m OE E E m OE E E OE m E E m 0) E E m 0) E E E E m E E Em o 0 0 0 0 0C 0C 0 0 0 2' z Q LL Y` m `m m m `m `m `m m m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o m m m m m m m m m m 0 y o o Q a Z¢ LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL S S- 2 2 2 2 2 2= 2 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z m m m m m m m m m m m 0 w w m m m m m m m m m m m m m m 2 m m m m m m m m m m m w w w w m m m m w w w m m m m w m m m m m m m m m� > - 0 J i (n O) -0 N O) -o N N -o N N '0 'o N N -0 -0 0) O) -o -o tU N -o N N '0 '0 N N '0 '0 O) N N N -o -o 0) N -o N N -o -o N N -0 N O) -0 -0 N N -0 -0 O) 0) -0 -O N N -0 N N -0 -0 N N N N -0 '0 N -a ca O Q O m O) v a) m 0 0 m m 0) 0 0) m m 0 N N N 0) N N N N 0 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 0) N m N N m m m 0 0) N O) N a a U) Ul Uj m (n U7 t'n (� N N /� U7 (� rN m(� (nh LLLL U. LL LLLL LL LL LL LLLLLL LL LL LL LL LLLLLL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LLLL LL L L LL LL LL Z) 7D 7)7D D D D M W to M f Lo O L0 V `- m W m O O O W N N N W •-- V d. >V L0 M 'T M O V V d' V d' V O M m O N W O �- N M0 O y a n (.7 X Q LLM> J L0 m ¢. 2 MMUJ ZF-LL W n-U` LLLL J Z LOLL W D> mQ>>>>>Y> � W W W ZJ XZX r Z Z C� N W > M o (.� W W 2 W m r O J F> M W N 0 > � C .y.. Nm d �Omt0 Q 2 � 2 LL, M x J J �� Z Z Z Z d O. In f- Y O N F> J>>>>> UC't UU X> U`U(�U' i- C.9 U' U' UC7N 0 U U U U ONO W W (Cl, W W U E U W L0 M W N N W W M M W W M M W W M M W W M M W W M M W W M M ¢QQQQQQQQC9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'ITM V I;tM M O (0 Ln W N N W W N NN W W N W W NN W W N N W W N V L0 V N N m M d' 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 N N N N N N N N N N N r > a+ y O M r W m M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M m m m m m m m O m m m C M O) � E L N O 7 N I O C m n > O o 0 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 V m NM N mO r mmmm aaaaaaaa ZLL LL LLLLLL LLLL aa¢aaaaaQaQa LL LLLL LL LLLLLL LL LL LL LLLLLL aaa LLLLLL Q aa¢aa LLLL LL LLLL LL a a LL LL a a LL LL a a LL LLLL as LLLL aQaa LL LL aLZ LL FHFH LL'R'LL'w F- of Q�w H♦-H wof HIH W O O O •C O O E � [t � W m O O M 7 M O W N W to � V' l0 M N r W�� d' N M O N N M L0 m� L0 N N r O N M V M CO N O N d' O O V' N W m U ; O) > N L > CW •� V t0 M W (0 W N N d' N N L0 r f` O M m mOOmmmmm M M d' N Orr O L- r m t` 0 m m rr N O co m M T m m L0 W m r- W W r- L` r t` n r f� f� L� L-r� m m L0 O m m O O 0) 0) O 0) 0) N N 0) 0) N N 0) 0) N N O)O) d O O O W W W W W f�t`f` W W W mmm�mm 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 (L z N N N N N N N y N N N N N N n r O r n W �- W W m n 0 c0 V n n W M W Oj v n W m C' R N l0 M m N 6 V n V W Ui W V n V O W N M W (O V7 V N M W M (O W W W -n M "t �t n M N n m M m O W W n t W (O n m O O O O W O �-- O a M O N W W �- (O O n o 0 n '0 0 n v n .- V W m W c0 (O m W OJ M n n N (n N N LO m r 0 (2 (D W (O N M O W (O W O V V' M V Ui N V W W n O M m (V Oi N V W U) CO V W O 4 W V' V' (O (0 m O 6 m Vt N n U) cM 00 O LL7 M n Oi (V (O N o0 00 C6 00 N O (N W W (O �- CD O (6 n Oi 10 M (Li N M V' V' T �- "r W (� M V M p 0 p 0 N O O m N W N O M N V' m m O �- W W M n V W U) o m M N (O m m V' m N (D N O l0 O W m m N u1 U) c0 O m V (O n n n W n m W V' W w W N W W n v W m 0 o <{ W o N N W (1') O m N n W n o N O m 0 o (0 co o W M V n O d. N n n 0 (0 M O N O W W n c0 (O M V W o R m> M y' m m V' M m m M m m m (O W m m W W m m n W m m m n MN W W m m N W m O O m N �- W m m �- (D W^ m m V' oN O M 0 m 0"0 W N W m U) O O O U) O M M O n N V OOO m N O o M O m (O m O O M O M N O N O O N W n (D N [�' n 0 (D wnM W o V7 N0 2 NO NN N N N N N V N N W W N n W W N n (D (O (0 n� o�t u 7 W W r n N (0 W N N (O � V W NCO d' tl' N N� U) W I� V W M m ,t W n N V W M (0 W (O W 060 N W W W N N M m (0 N (O N 7 7 V W M O N(D m 7 V m 7 N 0 0 O c0 c0 l0 r W o O (O V O N (O Cj W O O W W O E cD o -n � 6 O O N W n o 6 .- W co l0 W d OJ W o O m M LL2 V W Ui _ �- co00 V' W n W M �_ M M m V O c0 m N W M N V' M N M M M W 7 (O W f� n M <h (O N O co (n n W n n 0 O W m (, r m m O r� 0 m (0 W Di n co M W c(i W v m O m O W W n n W O m M N m U) N n m O m v M c0 o n M `- m M (D N ci m W n m W O N m y 7 m M W O M O N (O n U) W W M V' N n m (O O M N M W O n W M W n O V' n N O O n n M V' n 0 W U) 0 (O n 7 T n 00 m M V' n N N W M W W W W o O m t-W O n O W W N N n O n W M n (D m m n W N m (O d' M N W m m n M M W V W O m N W O n N n N d' m N W N M V' W n V' V' m (D m m m 0 (0 m O W W m U) W (O It m (O O V' 'tW m 0(O VW V V N O O 0 0 O 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 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O 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 O 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 M O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c0 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 U) U) 0 0 O u7 0 0 0 0 0 0 U) U) 0 0 O O a m 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 m W 0 0 0 (0 O O n 0 0 0 0 0 m N O o U) M O O N V O W N N N U) U) n M U) N N N N NNN N N N N N N M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N .- N N N Cl NNN N N N N E N yyM W Nd'M W M � V (D U)mn . W m V7 V' �-n M N n n W N 0 .� N MM m m NmMmm �- W n �- (0 00 l0 W V �-- N Nm m m N W m � n W m W W n M m 0 n O O n U) O N 0i W W m CO W m W N M M V -n � M N M � m W � d' CO m W W a- l0 m �- W V M (0 W (0n � W W N V n O M W (0 O (p M m n c0 O O O O m n O N O n n V' c0 U7 N n N N M n M W W M W N u7 W n N U) 7 N O 0 m LO O (0 N N �- N N n m O (0 N W O n o V7 N O m M U) m O O M N 'd' O O M O N O O V M M M O O O (0 m M O n W N O N .- N n W W W n W O O W N O m M M W V m O M O W m W M N d' W V N n O W M O M N u7 LL7 m (O <} O n n V W n O N n W n N U) N 0 } N n V7 M W v W O n U) u) u1 (O V O M O W O V M O U) N 0 0 W m 0 0 l0 0 (0 n 0 W 0 W M W l0 V W M O O m M �'t V V o 000000000 000 O(OO N W (0 OOOOO d' dt V V V' 4 V' 4 V' V' N't"t00 .-000 �-0000 c- V U7 V7 M c- l0 M M c0 U) V7 U) M c0 U) n d: (0 V n M U) N n U) m N N f U) N W m m N M c0 d' n M c0 O M l0 N V V N (0 c0 c0 N N (O c0 N n N N d' (O N W N m m 0 c- n c- (O d' W M V' M It W M M W W W M N N (O m Vt (O O m W n M n (O (O O m p y W W p W W 10 M(0 (0 CO m 0 0 C j C'i W (O U) 7 �-- (D W N m O W W .- (D .- W W (D l0 n C A cV O (V M M4 V'C`i 7m� 00 M— MM M M (V (V O ONO 00(V NO p 0M N U s N � Ci U E IIQI1 +1 1 N C > O 0 R R @ @ R R @ @ R R @ @ R@ @ @ R R @ R R R@@@ @ @ @ @ R@ @ @ R @ @ R R @ @ R R @ @ R@@ @ @ R@@ @ @ @ @ M @ M N N @ @ N N @ @ N M @ N N @ @ N N @ @ N�- @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a @ @ R @ @ aaaaaaaaaaa¢aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaQaaaaaaaaa aaaaaa a aaaaaaaaa O N n W N O m W N m V CD N ID m W M V W U) N O m N n W (O (D n n O W W m W m (0 V' m n U) O M W W V W m O 0 (O n .- O M n W n t-m N N m .- d' N W W N N T IT N O 'It V' m n c0 .- W O cD O U) O O n n m n n m N m m W W N n W N n W N d' n n m n N n V' T "tp d' Vt N N N (O N•; U) U) M V W (0 N �- (0 (0 m n W W m O W W W a- V O V N Ui W V V M M N M V N (O M M W MN N M m N M N N N N N N N N N N N N (0 NNN N N N N N N N N N W N N W N N N W W N N W W N N W N N N N d' N N M N N N V W N N N d N N N N N N N c0 N N V N N N N V N N V V N N c0 N N N c0 N N N M N N N N N NNN N N N N N N N N W N N a N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N V' N N N y O O N N O O N N O O N N O O N N O 0000000 N N OOOOOO N N N N N N O O N N O O N N O O N N O O N N O O N N O O N N O O N N O O N N O 0000000000 N N N N N N N N N N O N N O O N N O o 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 m(0 M\� !m mN 7 0( -7 (�0 (n� LL� i� u� L�i7 L1� 0M 0M 77 !7 7 i0 W O Vl N M NM N a .N ..mN •M N ..�. N i7 Vl) N M-6,•TXi.(5 N 2'a1 Pi "C1 Y*'jy-i 6Y (aY �"S �i?YR"O` Mj NAY R?I NNN 00 O �- �- N N O 00 O N N 0 O NNNN 000000 'N NNNN O 00 O O N N 0000 O O N N O o N N 00000 N O N N O N NNN O O O 000 c- NNNNNNN 000000 O o N NN O O O NNN O 000 R N � �i N � (- i s 00 N C N` W N M e N 1� m W N (� I� N M n W M 7 n d' O (0 N N a0 7- N N .- I: N N N N 7 a N m, i�vk+t i i 'S`y} y m' 3N N N N N O N N N �-' N O O N N O O r N `- N O .- N 1� N N N .- N N a 0 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z W J W W J W W J J W W W W W W W Q W W W W W W W W a J L'i J J J J J J J J J J J m m U m J CO QO�O7 00 LOaKKaKKaOQ(n 0000000¢a¢(nN(OP: LL (n QwQN V)a(LLL QaQ Q/n Q/n (n N U)(n Q(O QaQQmm¢a Q (n n-��(n� 222222200 m a(ODU (naHaa¢a�F.aaaaaaQQ¢¢¢as(naaaa��aa(na�00003:a aC�(q CCU UC9 (n (n U` (7 (70 U(7000Uo 0 U 0-0101(9(7KK U( (D OKaaaaa (D Q aUa(D Q�2a2 U)U) D O Z J J �L W .6 UJ j U 0010 J zz F WWi- a 2 U f- U wg Of H 000 S S Z Z z z z wU)Z)z LLJd =(n~ J UU0 d m m ui is UU 3r. >I-t-'HE"'0 w(n (n (n�JD u mz , , 0 o `o @JJ o o` a ILK 06.6 O O o a 0 S `-�Za��O- W x O O w ON 4) } UUUU W W y2i�KgQ200(<mm><00 O>Lu a'ZZo6 ZZ• N w o o m d (n(n F�� Z U U 0 0 U r 0 0 0 a W B B� 9 a U) d a @ R L L R R22 L L U U C C a O Z O W (n UJ (/J Z Q O Z z aUUUNF- S S S �- a J J J J Z 7>>> J J p 3>> 3 2 J J z J>> 2 7 2 7 O 7 O 3 J J O O O O D U U U - >. W O O a _ Z Q Q W m O U o 0 Q a a U)~ (n a O O O�J ZQ ��a �J �UO (D—o rn 0 Za DaaO� �J WF 0OC) 00S 00S Z0 u@Cd) (OnCd (@O U@OCd /cd1 >> OO OJ O�Qam<W WWW ui _NO¢JOOJ U 0-YZZZOoa 2Qg E�Hw�O O nn(n (n n N W NUN (! LLLL 10 a aO� 0)m >>>>727>>2>>>> a Q a.0 UUU-a3aa03: >- ¢ ¢ UUUU0--Y W2222000000 G.0 m S}ZNU}��>K}2� M W M (O O M W (O m W JCODUD]Ja�N>tL O W (p O m W M N 7 ('> n U' Z0IL O N m m M M m W XF-UUX> V 7 N� c0 2000QQ W (�a(nn W YCiLL�U(�[OXaXU W m W a W n w��U W UUUUUU W W W 00(O W O -0 UU0 W W SUr 00000 U` 22 2U` 000nnnMM U' (�22000¢am�pYY��UU20(O MUC!V V SSSSNN SN:�U 00JJY-)2 NNQ>M W lON n(J M W W W a�ZQ nn W NON F-'n> � U N N W W N N W W W N N W W W N N W W W N N W W N N W W N N W W N N W W N N W N N N N m m m 0 M M N W (O W M U) M M W W U) M m a U] M M m W N M W d M M" W m O m N M (O (O � V W O W W M N W W W O N O (O c0 n m W O m W O O n m O O N NNN N N N N N N N N N N N N NNN N N N N N N n n n V7 to W W W V7 W W N N M N N't O O V W 7 0 M 0 M M n m O n U (0 u7 n W m m (D It(O W NNN l0 (O N W W W W W W W W W W W m m M M m 0 0 N V N W W W W W W (D W W 12 H >UUUUU V U U UU U UUU U UUU U UU U 000ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ c a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a F U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U>>> » »>>>>>>>>>>>>> m M (O W m M m W m O M V' n W N n W (D N U) N O W n W V M n M W W O W m W O n n W O O N (0 (0 O c0 m V > c M M m m M m m m m m m m m d' m m m m m m m m m m m W m m W W m m W n m m n n m m n n m m O W m m 0) O m W W W W W N M W W N C4 W W N W W W n W W m N n W c0 W W O W W O W W n W O n W M n m n O n W W n W n n a n W W W N N n M a co W n (O W m O W W N n W W - 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U p0 O t0 N O V W O O O N O V O O V Ln � M Y d O O O N m m M V O M M �0 I� M O N O O N m m O M N O O 00 l0 d' O O M_ W m N M m M m M m M 10 N N d O N i0 O O C2 O N V �0 "IN M n M B Y 7 � d' N O M N��^ O O W M V (N'1 m OO m jp M N� N � �� 00 7 O c0 M O (p V V (O f- N M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l0 h M N dM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O O O O O O O c00 0 �010OM OOOtO MO NMI �M O W O O M O (O O In 10 M V V c0 M M l0 V t0 m0 N (O m N d' M Cp M't m V t0 t0 N Lp f�M m (O (p 0NM O Nt N O V' M m NOd' N M N <0M M m O 1� O r O m m L0 O (O � M O Lq m l0 m V f- O l0 V i m (O l0 O N C O. O t0 0 O m� N O O 6 l! O OMD N O M O O O O O N tr0 N O O M O O U U LL (n Vi Im Q Q Q Q Q QQ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q R N O O (6 (O t0 M tO tO fO l6 N t0 N f0 (0 N M (O N t6 c0 c6 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q O N N N O T V I� r N O O r M � •- N N O N(�O � 0 N N N N V V N N cD V N N M m N N N N V' t0 N N V V N N u1 N y 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 A 0 0 0 ` .- Q m N W W 00 c0 (O (O (O c0 <O <O CO cO N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O N N L 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 m m OD N r M W ti 77 M O N M � N `- N � V N� � N � O N � r�� O. Y z i Q m U m W m 0 m Q Q ❑ a n nww aC� no o_a2wc,0 navy Lin an-mao CO g (D oz U) V) a U U W wUio ZI- - - - E U U yNy - aia J J J W❑ M M LL W U U W %❑>] 0 _0000 =" d)ww< w W022 0 } U } U }U F U Q Q❑ T O wo Y Y Z Z Z W D j F �"' QU) O N> »gg> gZ) v= E E afwmQ 0 0 Z J U❑0 O 0 myN 2.2 my0 0 } 0 Uo o Q U U 3W0 0 0 Qm0N )U�v= K� U O UI-H0 w�O�z rffi-- r c E WW(002m1O,w >zzQO 0 ww�❑O00-QOC7Z 0 0 0 0 0 a aa 0 mmo LL N E 10 m p V dH>>U W N D W U) W>comvLn N UUU>a d' 0.' d' ❑ m m Q❑2UC1 m f- d' r .- to (gym M Q W Y M r rm°O M 0 0 0 V m m m (O It r N O I M V V% ww u7 u'J m m u� W m m m N N m M M W c0 V M M 7 N M O m M O M M t0 m M m cp M w O M m M}}} d E- > Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z p, N N 2 2 2.2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 a a > O W w o � W m O w Er m 0 0 m 0 0 m 0 0 W m 0 0 m M 0 0 f- 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 MEETING DATE: December 20, 2023 SUBJECT: Finance Report for November 2023 ATTENDANCE: Robert Tintle, Chief Financial Officer MEMORANDUM DATE: December 20, 2023 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Robert Tintle, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Finance Report for November 2023 Following is the unaudited monthly finance report for fiscal year to date (YTD) as of November 30, 2023. Budget to Actuals Report General Fund • Revenue YTD in the General Fund is $38.9M or 87.5% of budget. By comparison, last year revenue YTD was $36.OM and 82.3% of budget. • Expenses YTD are $18.2M and 39.5% of budget. By comparison, last year expenses YTD were $18.2M and 40.1%of budget. • Beginning Fund Balance is $14.OM or 101.1% of the budgeted $13.8M beginning fund balance. County Wide Financial Dashboard 001 - General Fund 5 41.7% Year Complete .,,.w._ ..N... �:. �..._,.. ,.u...,.�w .. __,.. ...,....t..... ,_ .. ..d, .,... �,... �,....e.,.�, .... _,,.-,...�. . wr., - ------ Fund Select all Budget to Actuals (Blank) ■ 001 Generai Pond Requirements Resources Beqinninq Workinq Capital Budget to Actuals by Category 010 - Assmt-Clerk... OAdUals ®Budget 020 - Code Abate.,. rProjxt,or. 030 - Community ... 040 - Court Tecttn... 050 - Economic D.,, :.zr•., 060 - General Cc... 00 Genera' e 090 Project Levv $18.2M e$38.9 NM fr$14.10A - 120 - La, Library i— .. _ - _...n . , .—_, 730 - Park Acguisl . 39.5% 87.5% 101.1 % -. . 132 - Park Develo.,. Ntont0ly GL Pe,t— Monthly Expenditures 402% Projected Ending Workinq Capital Approved FTE s-•., % of last vear budaet 121.86 QLagYea, A,tual, •C re tYea A<t ai sty im VACANT -m..... �...-... . », ....... ua.. .. 0 Budget 6 91.1', Monthly Revenues 82.491 0 Prgea on $12.1 M .e•,+ % of last vear budget (Blank)— a 9i06'8 ... ®Last Year ktu,!, • Current Year Actuals All Major Funds On the attached pages you will find the Budget to Actuals Report for the County's major funds with actual revenue and expense data compared to budget through November 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 31.63 30.00 Unfilled 3.63 3.63 3.63 3.63 5.26 11.22% Clerk Filled 9.48 10.48 10.48 9.90 9.90 Unfilled 1.00 - - 0.58 0.58 4.13% BOPTA Filled 0.52 0.52 0.10 0.10 0.10 Unfilled - - 0.42 0.42 0.42 48.39% DA Filled 57.90 58.90 58.90 59.40 59.90 Unfilled 3.20 2.20 2.20 1.70 1.20 3.44% Tax Filled 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 Unfilled - - - - - 0.00% Veterans' Filled 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 Unfilled - - - - - 0.00% Property Mgmt Filled 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 Unfilled 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - 20.00% Total General Fund Filled 113.03 115.03 114.61 115.53 114.40 - - - - - - - Unfilled 8.83 6.83 7.25 6.33 7.46 - - - - - - - 6.02% Justice Court Filled 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 Unfilled - - - - - 0.00% Community Justice Filled 45.00 43.00 45.00 45.00 46.00 Unfilled 4.00 6.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 8.57% Sheriff Filled 233.75 232.75 229.75 229.75 228.75 Unfilled 37.25 38.25 41.25 41.25 42.25 14.78% Houseless Effort Filled 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Unfilled 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 50.00% Health Srvcs Filled 381.55 376.95 378.75 383.40 384.40 Unfilled 33.25 37.85 37.05 32.60 34.60 8.43% CDD Filled 54.80 54.80 52.80 52.00 48.00 Unfilled 3.20 3.20 5.20 6.00 10.00 9,52% Road Filled 57.00 57.00 57.00 55.00 56.00 Unfilled 5.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 6.00 9.03% Adult P&P Filled 33.75 33.75 33.75 33.75 32.75 Unfilled 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 7.00 15.60% Solid Waste Filled 29.00 31.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Unfilled 12.00 10.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 26.83% Victims Assistance Filled 6.50 7.50 7.50 9.50 9.50 Unfilled 3.00 2.00 2.00 - - 14.74% GIS Dedicated Filled 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Unfilled - - - - - 0.00% Fair &Expo Filled 11.75 11.75 11.75 10.75 10.75 Unfilled 5.75 5.75 5.75 6.75 6.75 35.14% Natural Resource Filled 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Unfilled - - - - - 0.00% ISF- Facilities Filled 23.75 22.75 22.75 22.75 22.75 Unfilled 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 14.21% ISF -Admin Filled 9.75 9.75 9.75 8.75 8.75 Unfilled - - - 1.00 1.00 4.10% ISF - BOCC Filled 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Unfilled - - - - - 0.00% ISF - Finance Filled 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 Unfilled 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 7.69% ISF - legal Filled 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 Unfilled - - - - - 0.00% ISF - HR Filled 8.80 8.80 8.80 8.80 8.80 Unfilled 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 12.00% ISF - IT Filled 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 Unfilled - - - - - 0.00% ISF - Risk Filled 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 Unfilled - - - 0.00% 911 Filled 53.00 55.00 55.00 54.57 54.57 Unfilled 7.00 5.00 5.00 5.43 5.43 9.29% Total., Filled 1,113.28 1,111.68 1,109.06 1,111.40 1,107.27 - - - - - - - Unfilled 131.48 133.08 136.70 134.56 141.69 - - - - - - - Total 1,244.76 1,244.76 1,245.76 1,245.96 1,248.96 A - - - - - - - %Unfilled 10.56% 10.69% 10.97% 10.80% 11.34% 10.87% A 3.0 FTE increase in Health Services I ��ES` OG 2{ Budget to Actuals - Countywide Summary All Departments FY24 YTD November 30, 2023 (unaudited) RESOURCES 001 - General Fund 030 - Juvenile 160/170 - TRT 200 - ARPA 220 - Justice Court 255 -Sheriff's Office 274 - Health Services 295 - CDD 325 - Road 355 - Adult P&P 465 - Road CIP 610 - Solid Waste 615 - Fair & Expo 616 - Annual County Fair 617 - Fair & Expo Capital Reserve 618 - RV Park 619 - RV Park Reserve 670 - Risk Management 675 - Health Benefits 705 - 911 999 - Other TOTAL RESOURCES REQUIREMENTS 001 - General Fund 030 - Juvenile 160/170 - TRT 200 - ARPA 220 - Justice Court 41.7% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % 43,472,708 43,034,834 99% 44,408,216 38,908,549 88% ; 45,143,983 102% ; 1,010,203 1,050,931 104% ; 1,014,168 124,577 12% 1,027,772 101% ; 13,631,282 12,748,688 94% ; 12,751,790 7,798,537 61% ; 12,541,540 98% ; 105,186 14,955,890 999% ; 14,458,597 14,241,494 98% ; ; 14,374,148 99% ; 525,032 518,001 99% ; 525,540 222,767 42% 526,420 100% ; 49,577,055 50,672,726 102% ; 58,332,752 51,512,665 88% ; 57,787,985 55,638,108 96% 59,843,955 27,235,708 46% ; 11,675,519 9,455,886 81% ; 10,460,840 3,639,454 35% ; 24,889,063 25,698,009 103% ; 26,673,711 11,791,404 44% ; 6,134,018 6,295,372 103% ; 5,535,606 2,101,471 38% ; 1,943,063 782,549 40% 2,179,426 1,182,752 54% ; 14,503,499 13,899,874 96% 15,995,411 7,867,234 49% ; 1,738,534 2,260,708 130% ; 2,343,500 1,402,673 60% ; 1,969,380 2,359,790 120% ; 2,324,117 2,456,547 106% ; 7,414 317,269 999% ; 64,800 32,037 49% ; 642,252 579,826 90% ; 530,800 242,490 46% ; 6,298 21,589 343% ; 34,300 16,168 47% ; 3,311,477 3,297,596 100% ; 3,364,344 1,575,350 47% ; 23,658,700 25,492,341 108% ; 30,654,045 11,858,372 39% ; 13,744,678 14,120,981 103% ; 14,034,323 10,928,785 78% ; 62,651,873 65,511,028 105% ; 81,637,214 23,115,685 28% ; 332,985,219 348,711,997 105% ; 387,167,455 218,254,718 56% ; 58,636, 528 101% 61,022,086 102% ; 8,559,930 82% ; 26,842,627 101% ; 5,537,148 100% ; 2,334,697 107% ; 16,077,811 101% ; 2,588,157 110% ; 2,469,127 106% ; 69,960 108% ; 495,138 93% ; 35,530 104% ; 3,408,394 101% ; 30,727,068 100% ; 14,080,224 100% ; 81,499,093 100% ; 387,997,381 100% ; Fiscal Year 2023 Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % - (26,749) - (6,197) 24,337,373 23,057,601 95% 25,183,057 9,708,567 39% 24,524,251 97% ; 7,928,538 7,497,365 95% 8,481,279 3,156,517 37% 8,042,632 95% ; 13,123,218 11,822,231 90% 6,902,223 5,141,881 74% 6,852,723 99% ; 23,129,361 14,662,784 63% ; 9,837,656 783,738 8% 9,753,207 99% ; 766,183 742,697 97% 822,370 330,569 40% 827,596 101% ; oh �IEs 2� Budget to Actuals - Countywide Summary `1 n OG All Departments FY24 YTD November 30, 2023 (unaudited) 255 -Sheriff's Office 60,415,533 58,373,715 97% ; 65,642,097 23,871,547 36% ; 274 - Health Services 70,979,127 62,912,108 89% 71,807,916 24,817,389 35% ; 295 - CDD 11,233,304 9,466,620 84% ; 10,269,561 3,687,904 36% ; 325 - Road 16,188,996 13,822,550 85% ; 17,124,761 5,978,355 35% ; 355 - Adult P&P 7,575,910 6,790,874 90% ; 7,576,032 2,685,915 35% ; 465 - Road CIP 28,387,166 16,897,136 60% 23,772,827 5,383,940 23% ; 610 - Solid Waste 11,754,672 10,769,061 92% ; 14,355,234 4,828,133 34% ; 615 - Fair & Expo 3,098,054 3,330,291 107% ; 3,734,327 1,507,255 40% ; 616 - Annual County Fair 1,972,030 2,067,492 105% ; 2,582,856 2,014,109 78% ; 617 - Fair & Expo Capital 870,000 483,310 56% ; 1,090,000 160,110 15% ; Reserve 618 - RV Park 594,181 498,157 84% ; 617,131 126,262 20% ; 619 - RV Park Reserve 100,000 5,532 6% 174,000 - 0% 670 - Risk Management 5,887,806 2,915,728 50% ; 4,744,447 1,947,088 41% ; 675 - Health Benefits 31,769,217 30,688,534 97% 32,587,213 10,429,244 32% ; 705 - 911 17,709,497 13,390,020 76% ; 15,113,760 5,383,397 36% ; 999 -Other 108,884,843 63,570,653 58% 93,528,680 19,560,190 21% ; TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 446,705,009 353,737,710 79% ; 415,947,427 131,495,913 32% ; 41.7% Year Complete 63,525,118 97% ; 73,337,338 102% ; 9,277,487 90% ; 16,651,833 97% ; 6,802,405 90% ; 23,765,779 100% ; 14,355,234 100% ; 3,602,050 96% 2,260,168 88% 1,090,000 100% 532,559 86% ; 174,000 100% ; 4,754,929 100% ; 32,587,213 100% ; 14,485,862 96% ; 93,157,006 100% ; ; 410,359,390 99% ; TES `oG2� Budget to Actuals - Countywide Summary All Departments FY24 YTD November 30, 2023 (unaudited) 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 41.7% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 1Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % (20,871,416) (19,890,038) 95% ; (20,934,064) (8,489,185) 41% ; ; (20,934,064) 100% ; 6,452,997 6,452,997 100% ; 6,678,013 2,801,250 42% 6,678,013 100% ; (6,021,446) (5,874,627) 98% (8,575,254) (2,781,125) 32% ; (8,216,179) 96% ; - - ; (5,022,145) (5,022,145) 100% ; ; (5,022,145) 100% ; 263,217 224,696 85% 364,688 151,950 42% 364,688 100% ; 3,448,587 3,449,109 100% ; 3,378,587 1,521,575 45% ; 3,378,587 100% ; 8,007,942 5,850,465 73% ; (911,585) (835,505) 92% ; (12,330,136) (12,330,136) 100% ; 267,532 267,532 100% ; 14,230,313 12,238,662 86% ; (5,299,665) (3,453,962) 65% ; 704,127 621,827 88% (156,706) (156,706) 100% ; 1,149,827 1,113,829 97% ; (81,566) (81,566) 100% ; 261,750 261,566 100% ; (3,500) (3,500) 100% ; (59,900) (59,900) 100% ; 10,959,373 12,205,258 111% ; 8,026,456 466,530 (12,700,000) 510,950 12,500,000 (2,613,962) 875,681 (34,503) 824,187 128,436 51,564 (153,500) 16,228,336 2,954,028 37% ; (276,070) -59% ; (7,700,000) 61% ; 192,065 38% ; 5,000,000 40% ; (655,815) 25% ; 364,865 42% ; (14,375) 42% ; 401,735 49% ; 146,845 114% ; 21,485 42% ; (119,455) 78% ; 11,502,371 71% ; TOTAL TRANSFERS 9,745 - 0 ; - - 8,427,956 105% 394,840 85% ; (12,700,000) 100% ; 460,950 90% ; 12,500,000 100% ; (2,613,962) 100% ; 859,989 98% ; (34,503) 100% ; 817,463 99% ; 128,436 100% ; 51,564 100% ; (153,500) 100% ; 15,611,867 96% ; o`,�v"(Es C0G�� Budget to Actuals - Countywide Summary All Departments 41 7% FY24 YTD November 30, 2023 (unaudited) Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 Fiscal Year 2024 ENDING FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals Projection % 001 - General Fund 030 - Juvenile 160/170 - TRT 200 - ARPA 220 -Justice Court 255 - Sheriff's Office 274 - Health Services 295 - CDD 325 - Road 355 - Adult P&P 465 - Road CIP 610 - Solid Waste 615 - Fair & Expo 616 - Annual County Fair 617 - Fair &6 Expo Capital Reserve 618 - RV Park 619 - RV Park Reserve 670 - Risk Management 675 - Health Benefits 705 - 911 999 -Other TOTAL FUND BALANCE - 26,749 999% ; - 6,197 11,239,637 13,984,329 124% ; 12,117,095 34,695,127 634,663 1,528,688 241% ; 710,902 1,297,998 4,000,000 4,527,362 113% ; 1,801,675 4,402,893 - 401,204 999% ; - 8,836,815 22,066 - 0% ; 67,858 44,148 7,024,650 11,001,214 157% ; 9,254,393 40,163,907 6,045,519 12,519,113 207% ; 7,480,011 17,891,460 1,627,134 1,322,717 81% 1,975,730 998,198 2,262,898 7,351,679 325% ; 2,370,201 5,464,728 1,925,640 3,010,934 156% ; 1,470,524 2,618,555 12,334,484 23,347,907 189% ; 9,918,979 24,146,719 556,359 2,743,514 493% ; 1,442,600 5,126,800 315,960 547,764 i 73% ; 32,617 808,047 225,358 521,447 231% ; 228,205 949,510 1,587,183 2,757,229 174% ; 2,391,825 3,030,891 82,920 166,640 201% ; 135,220 429,713 1,340,766 1,469,559 110% ; 1,284,317 1,507,212 ; 5,107,351 9,323,307 183% ; 6,466,397 8,832,113 3,815,139 6,107,998 160% ; 3,809,575 7,537,126 ; 8,926,080 13,393,950 150% ; 12,122,906 18,939,339 56,596,539 109,244,434 193% ; 104,967,098 124,302,299 125,670,346 225,297,737 179% ; 180,048,128 312,029,794 ; 13,669,998 113% 1,191,841 168% 2,000,000 111 % 63,512 94% 9,491,211 103% 8,631,818 115% 1,000,000 51% ; 4,842,474 204% ; 2,206,627 150% 14,416,824 145% ; 1,852,129 128% ; 393,860 999% 695,903 305% ; 2,554,652 107% ; 257,655 191 % ; 1,382,653 108% ; 7,823,272 121 % ; 4,247,853 112% ; 12,988,312 107% ; 106,861,249 102% ; 196,571,841 109% ; o��TES c�G2< Budget to Actuals Report General Fund - Fund 001 FY24 YTD November 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 41.7% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance 34,467,173 34,606,785 100% 37,400,000 35,173,204 94% 38,135,987 102% = 735,987, A 1 301,000 � 334,760 1 111% , 318,000 229,949 1 1 72% f 318,000 t 100% 1 - 1 3,591,874 4,310,996 1 120% . 3,480,844 2,239,857 I 64% 3,480,624 ! 100% a (220)= I 964,246 713,767 @ 74% 775,350 241,131 e k 31% 775,350 I 100% I 2,298,566 1,451,801 63% 1,259,595 481,878 38% 1,259,595 100% 14,588 9,434 65% 10,200 3,161 31% 10,200 100% < 1,183,942 1,089,499 t 92% 552,048 397,128 i B 72% 552,048 1 100% _ 1 - 221,483 120,714 8 55% 136,000 64,462 47% 136,000 100% I 214,836 182,018 1 85% 261,179 48,612 1 8 19% 261,179 I 100% 1 B 215,000 215,058 100% 215,000 29,167 14% 215,000 100% C 43,472,708 43,034,834 99% ; 44,408,216 38,908,549 88% 45,143,983 102% ; 735,767: Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % 5,910,478 � 5,399,847 91% 6,189,597 2,309,401 37% 2,432,710 2,098,659 1 86% 2,351,515 836,786 1 36% � 92,177 � 82,488 i 89% 97,522 26,950 1 28% 10,979,839 � 10,906,691 1 99% 11,630,172 4,307,075 I 37% 438,702 � 320,660 1 73% 461,224 115,405 i 25% 905,262 � 834,177 1 92% 940,770 409,769 1 44% 809,390 � 758,902 1 94% 919,283 320,324 1 35% 508,359 418,433 1 82% 539,558 194,223 1 36% 2,260,456 2,237,744 99% a 2,053,416 1,188,634 58% 24,337,373 23,057,601 95% 25,183,057 9,708,567 39% ; Projection % $ Variance 5,769,975 i 93% 419,622, D 2,300,213 I 98% I 51,302, E 73,031 1 75% I 24,491. F i1 11,473,112 99% 157,060, G 461,224 1 100% I � 931,797 I 1 99% 8,973! H 937,497 e I 102% 1 (18,214)! 523,986 1 97% 15,572! 1 1 2,053,416 P 100% 1 24,524,251 97% 658,806; TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In 260,000 260,439 100% 97,290 40,535 42% 97,290 100% J i I I I i t Transfers Out (21,131,416) (20,150,477) 95% (21,031,354) (8,529,720) 41% (21,031,354) 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS (20,871,416) (19,890,038) 95% (20,934,064) (8,489,185) 41% ; (20,934,064) 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 12,975,718 13,897,135 107% 13,826,000 13,984,330 101% 13,984,330 101% 158,330. Resources over Requirements 19,135,335 19,977,233 19,225,159 29,199,982 1 1 20,619,732 1,394,573! Net Transfers - In (Out) (20,871,416) (19,890,038) (20,934,064) (8,489,185) (20,934,064) TOTAL FUND BALANCE . $ 11,239,637 $ 13,984,330 124% ; $ 12,117,095 $ 34,695,127 286% ; $ 13,669,998 113% ; $1,552,903. A Current year taxes received primarily in November, February and May; actual FY23-24 TAV is 5.59% over FY22-23 vs. 4.90% budgeted 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 FY24 average vacancy rate of 11.2% E Projected Personnel savings based on FY24 average vacancy rate of 4.1 % F Projected Personnel savings based on FY23/FY24 average vacancy rate of 24.2% G Projected Personnel savings based on FY24 average vacancy rate of 3.4% H Projected Personnel based on vacancy savings to date I Projected Personnel based on vacancy savings to date j Final payment to the General Fund from Finance Reserves for ERP Implementation I\)1ES ` 0G �c Budget to Actuals Report a Juvenile - Fund 030 41.7% FY24 YTD November 30, 2023 (unaudited) Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance OYA Basic & Diversion 525,049 459,333 87% 476,611 0% 477,422 100% 811 : A I ODE Juvenile Crime Prev i 123,000 I 107,720 88% 106,829 1 1 0% 1 112,772 106% a 1 5,943! B Leases 86,000 90,228 105% 90,228 39,100 43% 90,228 100% , Gen Fund -Crime Prevention 89,500 89,500 100% = 89,500 0% 89,500 100% Inmate/Prisoner Housing 55,000 127,050 231% 75,000 17,460 23% I 75,000 100% Miscellaneous I 42,500 66,375 156% 56,500 24,058 43% 56,500 100% _ ! I DOC Unif Crime Fee/HB2712 49,339 1 50,462 102% 52,000 13,340 1 1 26% E 52,000 100% E Interest on Investments 6,815 29,441 432% 37,500 19,889 53% 44,350 118% 6,850, I OJD Court Fac/Sec SB 1065 15,000 I 12,420 83% 15,000 5,722 1 1 38% t 15,000 100% 1 - I Food Subsidy 10,000 1 13,116 131% 10,000 3,776 I I 38% 1 10,000 100% ! Contract Payments I 8,000 5,285 66% 5,000 1,232 25% I 5,000 100% TOTAL RESOURCES 1,010,203 1,050,931 104% ; 1,014,168 124,577 12% 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 2,543,250 37% 6,431,992 94% 420,974: C Materials and Services i 1,527,992 1,394,956 91% 1,599,048 584,002 37% i 1,581,375 99% 17,673!I D Capital Outlay 108,275 1 106,487 98% 29,265 I 29,265 100% 1 29,265 100% 1 E TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 7,928,538 7,497,365 95% 8,481,279 3,156,517 37% ; 8,042,632 95% 438,647: TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In- General Funds 6,529,064 6,529,064 100% 6,798,630 2,832,755 42% 6,798,630 100% Transfers Out - - (45,000) - 0% (45,000) 100% - 1 Transfers Out-Veh Reserve (76,067) 1 (76,067) 100% (75,617) (31,505) I I 42% 4 1 (75,617) 100% ! - TOTAL TRANSFERS 6,452,997 6,452,997 100% ; 6,678,013 2,801,250 42% 6,678,013 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance I 1,100,001 1,522,125 138% 1,500,000 1,528,688 102% 1,528,688 102% 28,688. Resources over Requirements (6,918,335) (6,446,434) (7,467,111) (3,031,940) a (7,014,860) 452,251 Net Transfers - In (Out) 1 6,452,997 6,452,997 1 6,678,013 2,801,250 I I 6,678,013 - I I TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 634,663 $ 1,528,688 241% ; $ 710,902 $ 1,297,998 183% ; $ 1,191,841 168% ; $480,939: A Final State Grant allocation for 23-25 Biennium B Final State Grant allocation for 23-25 Biennium C Projected Personnel savings based on FY24 average vacancy rate of 8.6% D Materials and services projections based on current spending trends. E Detention security upgrade project. Additional technology and upgrade requirements. COG2< Budget to Actuals Report Q`le�31ES TRT - Fund 160/170 41.7% FY24 YTD November 30, 2023 (unaudited) Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Room Taxes 13,580,874 12,652,871 93% 12,630,000 7,753,341 61% 12,450,000 99% _ (180,000)= A 1 ! Interest on Investments 50,408 95,656 190% = 121,790 45,015 I I 37% 91,240 I 75% _ (30,550)=I Miscellaneous - 161 - 181 300 300=I TOTAL RESOURCES 13,631,282 12,748,688 94% ; 12,751,790 7,798,537 61% 12,541,540 98% (210,250); REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance COVA 3,675,886 3,417,576 93% 3,378,641 1,938,425 57% 3,329,141 99% 49,500, B Grants & Contributions 5,600,000 4,600,000 82% 3,000,000 3,000,000 100% _ 3,000,000 100% _ C 1 Administrative 225,508 183,956 P 82% a 262,395 91,962 I F 35% _ I 262,395 100% _ I - I Interfund Charges 3,574,573 3,574,573 1 100% = 213,587 88,995 I I 42% _ = 1 P 213,587 100% 1 Software 1 47,251 46,125 98% 47,600 22,500 47% 47,600 100% TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 13,123,218 11,822,231 90% ; 6,902,223 5,141,881 74% 6,852,723 99% 49,500: TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfer Out - RV Park (20,000) (20,000) 100% (20,000) (8,330) 42% (20,000) 100% Transfer Out - Annual Fair 1 (75,000) (75,000) 100% (75,000) (31,250) 42% I o (75,000) 100% i i Transfer Out -Justice Court (263,217) (224,696) 1 85% ; (364,688) (151,950) t 42% I (364,688) 100% Transfer Out - Health (418,417) (418,417) 100% (368,417) (153,505) 42% (368,417) 100% Transfer Out - F&E Reserve (501,683) (465,685) 93% (462,119) (192,545) 42% _ (455,395) 99% 6,724- D Transfer Out - General County - (723,720) (301,550) 42% _ _ (1,529,561) 211% _ (805,841)= E Reserve Transfer Out - F&E (1,091,342) (1,019,042) 93% (1,009,023) (420,420) 42% (993,331) 98% a 15,692. Transfer Out - Courthouse Debt - - (1,900,500) - 0% _ (758,000) 40% 1,142,500! F Service Transfer Out - Sheriff (3,651,787) (3,651,787) 100% ; (3,651,787) (1,521,575) 42% _ (3,651,787) 100% o TOTAL TRANSFERS (6,021,446) (5,874,627) 98% (8,575,254) (2,781,125) 32% (8,216,179) 96% 359,075: FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance I 9,513,382 9,475,532 100% 4,527,362 4,527,362 100% - 4,527,362 100% 0� Resources over Requirements i 508,064 926,457 5,849,567 2,656,656 5,688,817 (160,750) Net Transfers - In (Out) (6,021,446) (5,874,627) 1 (8,575,254) (2,781,125) 1 1 1 (8,216,179) I 359,075, TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 4,000,000 $ 4,527,362 113% ; $ 1,801,675 $ 4,402,893 244% ; $ 2,000,000 111% ; $198,325; A Room tax revenue down 2.2% from FY23 B Payments to COVA based on a percent of TRT collections C Includes contributions of $2M to Sunriver Service District and $1 M to Mt. Bachelor D The balance of the 1 % F&E TRT is transferred to F&E reserves E Includes the amount from the reduction in first year debt service and reserved for future debt payments, less adjustment for the decrease in revenues. F First year debt service and bond issuance costs are lower than originally estimated during FY24 budget development. v'(ES c0' Budget to Actuals Report ARPA — Fund 200 41.7% FY24 YTD November 30, 2023 (unaudited) Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance State & Local Coronavirus Fiscal: 14,662,784 9,516,992 9,516,992 100% _ 9,516,992 100% Recovery Funds Local Assistance & Tribal - - 4,622,145 4,622,145 100% 4,622,146 100% 1: Consistency Interest on Investments 105,186 293,106 279% 319,460 102,357 32% 235,010 74% (84,450)a TOTAL RESOURCES 105,186 14,955,890 999% ; 14,458,597 14,241,494 98% ; 14,374,148 99% ; (84,449); REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Services to Disproportionately 15,394,824 11,733,287 76% 6,538,263 508,082 8% 6,538,263 100% Impacted Communities Administrative 4,317,328 144,531 3% 1,719,694 56,277 3% _ 1,635,245 95% 84,449� Infrastructure ! 1,634,710 860,474 53% 766,410 19,134 2% 766,410 100% Public Health ! 882,922 997,337 113% 560,926 200,244 36% ! 560,926 100% Negative Economic Impacts 1 899,577 927,155 103% 252,363 - 0% 252,363 100% TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 23,129,361 14,662,784 63% 9,837,656 783,738 8% 9,753,207 99% ; 84,449; 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% 401,204 401,204 100% 0 401,204 100% & Resources over Requirements (23,024,175) 293,106 4,620,941 13,457,756 4,620,941 01 Net Transfers - In (Out) ! - (5,022,145) (5,022,145) (5,022,145) ! P ! 1 1 TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 401,204 999% ; $ 8,836,815 999% ; $0; ES CO, Budget to Actuals Report Justice Court - Fund 220 FY24 YTD November 30, 2023 (unaudited) 41.7% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 1 Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Court Fines & Fees 525,000 517,489 99% 525,000 222,162 42% 525,000 100% - Interestonlnvestments 32 513 999% 540 605 112% 1,420 263% = 880� TOTAL RESOURCES 525,032 518,001 99% 525,540 222,767 42% 526,420 100% ; 880; REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Personnel Services 604,648 592,149 98% 651,767 251,309 39% 656,993 101% (5,226); Materials and Services 161,535 150,549 93% 170,603 79,260 46% 170,603 100% , A TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 766,183 742,697 97% ; 822,370 330,569 40% ; 827,596 101% ; (5,226); TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In -TRT 263,217 224,696 85% 364,688 151,950 42% 364,688 100% a TOTAL TRANSFERS 263,217 224,696 85% 364,688 151,950 42% ; 364,688 100% ; Resources over Requirements (241,151) (224,696) (296,830) (107,802) E f (301,176) a (4,346): Net Transfers - In (Out) 263,217 224,696 364,688 151,950 364,688 TOTAL $ 22,066 - 0% $ 67,858 $ 44,148 65% $ 63,512 94% ($4,346); A One time yearly software maintenance fee paid in July for entire fiscal year o �1Es 2< Budget to Actuals Report `t 0 -�� Sheriff's Office - Fund 255 FY24 YTD November 30, 2023 (unaudited) 41.7% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance LED #1 Property Tax Current 30,282,049 30,424,303 100% 37,860,124 35,110,332 93% _ ° 38,006,062 100% 145,938= A LED #2 Property Tax Current ! 13,400,541 13,405,210 100% 15,110,056 14,032,069 93% 15,189,654 101% 79,598! B Sheriff's Office Revenues 5,307,630 6,093,977 115% 4,583,572 1,972,381 43% 4,745,042 104% @ 161,470, LED #1 Property Tax Prior 330,000 277,442 84% 330,000 196,378 60% • 330,000 100% LED #1 Interest 89,119 283,971 319% 264,000 102,389 39% a 220,110 83% a (43,890)e LED #2 Properly Tax Prior 1459000 114,469 79% 120,000 84,153 70% 120,000 100% LED #2 Interest ! 22,716 73,353 323% 65,000 14,964 23% ! 25,660 39% (39,340) TOTAL RESOURCES 49,577,055 50,672,726 102% ; 58,332,752 51,512,665 88% ; , 58,636,528 101% ; 303,776; REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Digital Forensics 808,610 856,836 106% 1,221,145 533,436 44% 1,313,251 108% (92,106)= Concealed Handgun Licenses 335,044 345,454 103% 624,277 169,731 27% 453,480 73% 170,7970 Rickard Ranch 264,871 278,671 105% 334,232 141,102 42% 341,216 102% (6,984)! Sheriffs Services 5,863,885 5,196,628 89% 5,771,949 2,343,951 41% 5,967,750 103% (195,801) Civil/Special Units 1,168,300 1,102,770 94% 1,019,021 459,970 45% 1,093,678 107% (74,657); Automotive/Communications ! 3,765,888 3,635,006 97% 4,574,918 1,520,236 33% ' 4,481,109 98% 93,809 Detective 3,583,825 4,105,995 115% • 4,774,538 1,783,516 37% • 4,309,090 90% 465,448• Patrol 14,880,315 14,858,735 100% • 16,270,641 6,270,272 39% 16,551,080 102% • (280,439)• Records ! 904,493 687,442 76% 855,590 267,054 31% ! 700,065 82% 155,525! Adult Jail 22,809,320 20,842,708 91% 23,784,474 7,826,842 33% • 21,297,696 90% 2,486,778• Court Security 424,769 598,098 141% • 600,590 231,207 38% • 583,058 97% • 17,532• Emergency Services 829,997 545,477 66% 808,931 196,336 24% • 1,011,329 125% • (202,398)° Special Services 2,047,792 2,374,496 116% 2,779,458 1,106,506 40% 2,876,156 103% (96,698); Training 1,907,588 1,986,740 104% 1,537,498 556,094 36% 1,418,866 92% 118,632 Other Law Enforcement 820,836 958,658 117% 634,835 465,295 73% 1,077,294 170% (442,459); Non a Departmental - - 0% ` 50,000 - 0% ! E 50,000 100% TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 60,415,533 58,373,715 97% ; 65,642,097 23,871,547 36% 63,525,118 97% 2,116,979: TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfer In -TRT 3,651,787 3,651,787 100% • 3,651,787 1,521,575 42% 3,651,787 100% • - Transfer In - General Fund 70,000 70,000 100% - - - Transfers Out - Debt Service (273,200) (272,678) 100% • (273,200) - 0% (273,200) 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS 3,448,587 3,449,109 100% ; 3,378,587 1,521,575 45% 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% 11,001,214 83% (2,183,937); Resources over Requirements (10,838,478) (7,700,989) (7,309,345) 27,641,118 (4,888,590) 2,420,755; Net Transfers - In (Out) ! 3,448,587 3,449,109 ! 3,378,587 1,521,575 !! 3,378,587 ! TOTAL FUND BALANCE ; $ 7,024,650 $ 11,001,214 157% ; $ 9,254,393 $ 40,163,907 434% ; $ 9,491,211 103% ; $236,818, A Current year taxes received primarily in November, February and May B Current year taxes received primarily in November, February and May o uTES C , Budget to Actuals Report L� 0 Health Services -Fund 274 FY24 YTD November 30, 2023 (unaudited) RESOURCES 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 41.7% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 1 Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance 22,223,536 18,578,578 84% a 22,783,782 11,683,419 51% 24,056,745 106% = 1,272,963: 12,882,624 12,088,181 94% 16,494,114 5,989,655 36% 16,494,114 100% 1 8,901,719 7,751,386 87% ! 6,267,385 3,039,095 48% _ ' 5,395,914 86% _ (871,471)l 1 3,232,620 5,287,409 164% 4,947,581 1,828,309 37% a ' 5,010,821 101% 63,240 1 2,332,031 2,054,936 88% 1,567,894 2,006,167 128% 2,057,750 131% 489,856! 1 1,238,499 1,335,280 108% 1,478,906 114,196 8% a 1,475,129 100% (3,777) i 2,615,634 2,390,105 91% 1,440,560 342,245 24% a 1 1,323,718 92% (116,842)� 1 615,644 748,534 122% 1,087,790 319,042 29% ! 1 1 803,595 74% (284,195) 1 1,169,317 1,976,339 169% 1,061,371 708,920 67% a 1,370,342 129% 308,971, 1 807,530 1,197,300 148% 1,034,491 364,718 35% 968,347 94% (66,144) 1 430,863 746,146 173% 431,000 292,493 68% ` 645,772 150% t 214,772! 300,000 354,158 118% 315,000 116,651 37% 1 300,840 96% (14,160)! i 97,750 390,781 400% a 262,007 257,650 98% 1 562,030 215% 300,023! 1 337,614 234,401 69% 209,500 101,152 48% 194,282 93% (15,218)! 1 177,574 161,412 91% 177,574 47,783 27% 1 177,574 100% 1 125,000 152,985 122% 158,000 24,214 15% 1 58,113 37% (999887); 1 127,000 127,000 100% 1 127,000 - 0% 1 1 1 127,000 100% p 1 1 i 173,030 63,178 37% - - TOTAL RESOURCES 57,787,985 55,638,108 96% ; 59,843,955 27,235,708 46% ; ' 61,022,086 102% ; 1,178,131: REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Administration Allocation - - - - - Personnel Services 50,658,752 48,187,764 95% 50,270,121 19,644,346 39% 51,807,826 103% (1,537,705); Materials and Services 19,393,800 14,220,207 73% 21,190,295 5,140,758 24% 1 21,004,402 99% 185,893e Capital Outlay 1 926,575 504,137 54% 347,500 32,286 9% 1 525,110 151% (177,610), TOTAL REQUIREMENTS ; 70,979,127 62,912,108 89% ; 71,807,916 24,817,389 35% 73,337,338 102% ; (1,529,422); TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In- General Fund 6,608,245 5,648,912 85% 6,780,140 2,825,010 42% 6,780,140 100% Transfers In- OHP Mental Health 1,473,586 345,442 23% 2,210,573 100,583 5% 2,210,573 100% Transfers In - TRT 418,417 418,417 100% 368,417 153,505 42% 368,417 100% Transfers Out 1 (492,306) (562,306) 114% (1,332,674) (125,070) 9% 1 (931,174) 70% 401,500• TOTAL TRANSFERS 8,007,942 5,850,465 73% 8,026,456 2,954,028 37% 8,427,956 105% ; 401,500: 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% 12,519,114 110% 1,101,598, Resources over Requirements (13,191,142) (7,274,000) (11,963,961) 2,418,318 (12,315,252) (351,291)! Net Transfers - In (Out) 1 8,007,942 5,850,465 1 8,026,456 2,954,028 I I 8,427,956 I 401,5W 1 TOTAL FUND BALANCE I $ 6,045,519 $ 12,519,113 207% ; $ 7,480,011 $ 17,891,460 239% ; ; $ 8,631,818 115% ; $1,151,807: o`�uSESC0& Budget to Actuals Report Health Services - Admin - Fund 274 41 7% FY24 YTD November 30, 2023 (unaudited) Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance OHP Capitation 367,074 367,074 100% = 435,349 158,505 36% ! 435,349 100% Interest on Investments I 97,750 390,781 400% 262,007 257,650 98% 562,030 215% ; 300,023! State Grant 379,180 142,133 37% 160,000 207,433 130% 160,000 100% -!1 A Other 160,495 1 33,725 21% 9,000 139,541 1 1 999% fi 161,977 999% 152,977<1 B Federal Grants 1 454,405 1 592,179 130% - - 1 1 1 - I TOTAL RESOURCES 1,458,904 1,525,892 105% ; 866,356 763,128 88% ; 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 2,550,705 39% 6,736,196 103% _ (216,683); C I Materials and Services 6,998,683 6,732,321 1 96% 7,534,229 2,992,237 I B 40% 1 7,577,904 101% I (43,675); I Capital Outlay 12,000 - 1 0% 43,750 - 1 8 0% 1 43,750 100% 1 Administration Allocation (11,228,846) (11,228,846) 100% (12,596,186) - 0% (12,596,186) 100% TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 2,520,656 1,596,650 63% 1,501,306 5,542,943 369% ; ; 1,761,664 117% ; (260,358); TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In- OHP Mental Health 80,771 80,771 100% 81,250 - 0% 81,250 100% I Transfers Out (230,635) (230,635) 1 100% (300,174) (125,070) I I 42% i (300,174) 100% 1 TOTAL TRANSFERS (149,864) (149,864) 100% ; (218,924) (125,070) 57% (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% 3,786,843 103% ; 121,299, Resources over Requirements (1,061,752) (70,758) (634,950) (4,779,814) (442,308) E 192,642� Net Transfers - In (Out) (149,864) (149,864) (218,924) (125,070) (218,924) TOTAL FUND BALANCE . $ 2,672,716 $ 3,786,843 142% ; $ 2,811,670 ($ 1,118,041) -40% ; $ 3,125,611 111% ; $313,941; A Projection includes adjustment for anticipated unearned revenue. Amounts will be finalized at fiscal year-end. B Includes carryforward of $125k in unspent FY23 PacificSource Behavioral Health Workforce Diversity Grant. C Personnel projections include anticipated 3% vacancy. \y�ES c0G2< Budget to Actuals Report Health Services - Behavioral Health - Fund 274 41 7��0 FY24 YTD November 30, 2023 (unaudited) Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 1 Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance State Grant 15,718,843 12,660,784 81% 17,043,491 10,208,439 60% 17,830,262 105% < 786,771: A OHP Capitation 12,515,550 11,721,107 94% 16,058,765 5,831,150 36% 16,058,765 100% State Miscellaneous 8,027,373 7,063,393 88% 5,398,674 2,977,373 55% 4,891,456 91% (507,218)[ B OHP Fee for Service 3,214,360 5,256,164 164% 4,927,331 1,817,226 37% 4,986,336 101% 59,005! Local Grants 1,475,139 1,262,473 86% 1,348,943 1,221,239 91% 1,408,402 104% 59,459! C Federal Grants 2,017,169 1,636,693 81% 1,285,560 298,466 23% 1,183,820 92% (101,740); D Other 719,670 730,175 101% 631,245 292,558 46% 635,179 101% 3,934, Patient Fees 519,344 607,872 117% 448,500 242,242 54% ' 573,074 128% = 124,574w Medicaid 430,863 746,146 173% ! 431,000 292,493 68% ' 645,772 150% 214,772 State - Medicare 337,614 234,401 69% 209,500 101,152 48% 194,282 93% (15,218); Liquor Revenue 177,574 161,412 91% 177,574 47,783 27% 177,574 100% Interfund Contract- Gen Fund 127,000 127,000 100% 127,000 - 0% 127,000 100% Divorce Filing Fees 173,030 63,178 37% - - TOTAL RESOURCES 45,453,529 42,270,797 93% ; 48,087,583 23,330,120 49% 48,711,922 101% ; 624,339: REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Administration Allocation 8,265,132 8,265,132 100% = 9,521,531 - 0% 9,521,531 100% Personnel Services 32,453,031 31,307,705 96% 31,872,043 12,475,755 39% 32,997,151 104% (1,125,108)! E Materials and Services 9,948,652 5,531,099 56% 11,364,085 1,574,896 14% 11,466,752 101% (102,667)! Capital Outlay 497,443 312,691 63% 160,250 26,398 16% 135,000 84% 25,250! TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 51,164,258 45,416,627 89% ; 52,917,909 14,077,049 27% ; 54,120,434 102% ; (1,202,525); TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In -General Fund 2,231,439 1,440,767 65% 2,231,439 929,740 42% 2,231,439 100% Transfers In- OHP Mental Health 1,392,815 264,671 19% ! 1,809,358 a 0% 1,809,358 100% Transfers Out (152,921) (196,921) 129% (481,000) - 0% (631,000) 131% (150,000)- F TOTAL TRANSFERS 3,471,333 1,508,517 43% ; 3,559,797 929,740 26% 3,409,797 96% (150,000); 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% 4,679,830 117% 690,241- Resources over Requirements (5,710,729) (3,145,830) (4,830,326) 9,253,072 (5,408,512) (578,186); Net Transfers - In (Out) 3,471,333 1,508,517 3,559,797 929,740 3,409,797 (150,000); TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 2,549,399 $ 4,679,830 184% ; $ 2,719,060 $ 14,862,642 547% ; ; $ 2,681,115 99% ($37,945); A Includes $3.8M carried over from HB 5202 for BH Housing. Projections over budget. Projections include estimated adjustments for anticipated unearned revenue. Exact amounts will be finalized at fiscal year-end. B Projection less than budget primarily related to lower I/DD match anticipated than originally budgeted. Projections include estimated adjustments for anticipated unearned revenue. Exact amounts will be finalized at fiscal year-end. C Grant funds will be reconciled at end of year. COHC Older Adults projected under budget by ($211 K), and City of Bend MCAT ($68K). Projections include estimated adjustments for anticipated unearned revenue. Exact amounts will be finalized at fiscal year-end. D Projections include estimated adjustments for anticipated unearned revenue. Exact amounts will be finalized at fiscal year-end. E Personnel projections include anticipated 6% vacancy. F Projections over budget includes $150K transfer for expenses of North County originally budgeted in FY23. o`�vTESCpG2< Budget to Actuals Report Health Services - Public Health - Fund 274 FY24 YTD November 30, 2023 (unaudited) 41.7% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 1 Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance State Grant 6,125,513 5,775,661 94% 5,580,291 1,267,547 23% 6,066,483 109% = 486,19Z A Environmental Health Fees 1,238,499 1,335,280 108% 1,478,906 114,196 8% 1,475,129 100% (3,777) State - Medicaid/Medicare 807,530 1,197,300 148% 1,034,491 364,718 35% s 968,347 94% a (66,144)- B State Miscellaneous 874,346 687,993 79% 868,711 61,723 7% 504,458 58% (364,253): C Patient Fees 96,300 140,662 146% = 639,290 76,800 12% 230,521 36% (408,769)= D Other 289,152 1,212,439 419% 421,126 276,821 66% ! 573,186 136% ; 152,060! Vital Records 300,000 354,158 118% ° 315,000 116,651 37% ! 300,840 96% (14,160) Local Grants 856,892 792,463 92% 218,951 784,928 358% 649,348 297% 430,397- E State Shared- Family Planning 125,000 152,985 122% 158,000 24,214 15% 58,113 37% (99,887) Federal Grants 144,060 161,233 112% 155,000 43,779 28% 139,898 90% (15,102) OHP Fee for Service 18,260 31,245 171% 20,250 11,083 55% 24,485 121% 4,235� TOTAL RESOURCES 10,875,552 11,841,419 109% ; 10,890,016 3,142,459 29% ; 10,990,808 101% ; 100,792: REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Administration Allocation 2,963,714 2,963,714 100% 3,074,655 - 0% _ 3,074,655 100% Personnel Services 11,466,901 10,786,883 94% 11,878,565 4,617,885 39% 12,074,479 102% (195,914), F Materials and Services 2,446,466 1,956,788 80% 2,291,981 573,625 25% 1,959,746 86% 332,235! G Capital Outlay 417,132 191,446 46% 143,500 5,888 4% 346,360 241% (202,860), H TOTAL REQUIREMENTS ; 17,294,213 15,898,830 92% 17,388,701 5,197,398 30% 17,455,240 100% ; (66,539); TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In -General Fund 4,376,806 4,208,145 96% 4,548,701 1,895,270 42% 4,548,701 100% Transfers In - TRT 418,417 418,417 100% 368,417 153,505 42% m 368,417 100% o Transfers In- CHIP Mental Health - s 319,965 100,583 31% 319,965 100% Transfers Out (1087750) (134,750) 124% (551,500) - 0% - 0% 551,500! 1 TOTAL TRANSFERS 4,686,473 4,491,812 96% 4,685,583 2,149,358 46% 5,237,083 112% ; 551,500: 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% 2901057� Resources over Requirements (6,418,661) (4,057,412) (6,498,685) (2,054,939) (6,464,432) 34,253- Net Transfers - In (Out) 4,686,473 4,491,812 4,685,583 2,149,358 5,237,083 551,500 TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ $23,404 $ 4,052,440 492% ; $ 1,949,281 $ 4,146,859 213% ; $ 2,825,091 145% ; $875,810: A Projections over budget primarily related to carryforward of OHA COVID funds to be expended by June 2024. Projections include estimated adjustments for anticipated unearned revenue. Exact amounts will be finalized at fiscal year-end. B Medicaid trending lower than budgeted. C EISO Grant ($369K) budgeted as state miscellaneous, but converted to a program element (PE73). Funding coming through state grant line item. D Patient Insurance Fees trending lower than budgeted. E Includes funds from Central Oregon Health Council quality incentive metrics ($267K). Projection includes adjustment for anticipated unearned revenue. Amounts will be finalized at fiscal year-end. F Personnel projections include anticipated 3% vacancy. G Expenditures above budget related to delayed renovations at the North County Campus ($374K). H Includes remodel and furniture expenses originally budgeted in FY23 for North County Campus that were delayed into FY24. I Courtney remodel project delayed into FY25 or FY26. ES COG�< Budget to Actuals Report Community Development - Fund 295 FY24 YTD November 30, 2023 (unaudited) 41.7% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Admin - Operations 153,445 154,886 101% 157,300 54,504 35% 148,100 94% _ (9,200); Code Compliance 1,171,592 915,867 78% 1,124,181 362,375 32% 770,181 69% a (354,000); A Building Safety 4,821,160 4,118,192 85% 3,991,388 1,522,147 38% 3,732,038 94% (259,350), A Electrical 1,022,005 769,054 75% 902,175 364,294 40% 810,775 90% a (91,400); A Onsite Wastewater 1,017,678 718,263 71% 923,880 316,064 34% ! 831,420 90% (92,460); A Current Planning 2,425,334 1,966,872 81% 2,304,562 681,959 30% ! a 1,426,562 62% (878,000); A Long Range Planning 1,064,305 812,752 76% ! 1,057,354 338,112 32% 840,854 80% (216,500), A TOTAL RESOURCES 11,675,519 9,455,886 81% 10,460,840 3,639,454 35% 8,559,930 82% (1,900,910); REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Admin - Operations 3,432,980 3,085,363 90% 3,241,288 1,227,949 38% 3,025,161 93% 216,127; B Code Compliance 805,614 714,049 89% 743,931 257,644 35% 664,191 89% 79,740� B Building Safety 2,538,721 1,866,742 74% 2,088,542 709,833 34% 1,963,984 94% 124,558: B Electrical 641,837 538,383 84% 583,718 216,516 37% 569,530 98% 14,18& B Onsite Wastewater 753,369 754,829 100% 865,670 309,849 36% 757,315 87% 108,355! B Current Planning 2,062,044 1,613,571 78% 1,857,735 641,575 35% f 1,577,101 85% ! 280,634 B Long Range Planning 998,739 893,682 89% 888,677 324,539 37% 720,205 81% 168,472, B TOTAL REQUIREMENTS ; 11,233,304 9,466,620 84% 10,269,561 3,687,904 36% 9,277,487 90% ; 992,074, TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In -CDD Operating - - 510,105 - 0% 683,515 134% : 173,4% Fund Transfers in - General Fund 160,000 139,916 87% 100,000 25,050 25% 100,000 100% C Transfers In - CDD Electrical - 108,670 86,721 - 0% p 77,737 90% (8,984)! Reserve Transfers Out (112,619) (112,619) 100% (107,544) (44,795) 42% a (107,544) 100% Transfers Out - CDD Reserve (958,966) (971,472) 101% (122,752) (256,324) 209% a (358,868) 292% (236,116), D TOTAL TRANSFERS (911,585) (835,505) 92% 466,530 (276,070) -59% ; ; 394,840 85% ; (71,690); 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% 1,322,717 100% 4,796, Resources over Requirements 442,215 (10,734) 191,279 (48,450) (717,557) (908,836) Net Transfers - In (Out) (911,585) (835,505) 466,530 (276,070) 394,840 (71,690) TOTAL FUND BALANCE . $ 1,627,134 $ 1,322,717 81% $ 1,975,730 $ 998,198 51% $ 1,000,000 51% ($975,730); 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 to reserves per ORS 455.210 and ORS 479.845 Qy`�uTES coG�< Budget to Actuals Report Road - Fund 325 FY24 YTD November 30, 2023 (unaudited) 41.7% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Motor Vehicle Revenue 19,483,147 20,563,619 106% 20,648,483 8,618,766 42% 20,648,483 100% Federal - PILT Payment 1 2,200,000 2,239,616 102% = 2,240,000 2,394,054 107% _ 1 2,394,054 107% = 154,054= A Other Inter -fund Services 1,311,901 1,232,001 94% 1,450,015 149,276 10% 1,450,015 100% I Cities-Bend/Red/Sis/La Pine 403,731 I 969,028 240% = 763,171 306,724 1 1 40% I 763,171 100% P 1 Federal Reimbursements - I 7,641 689,703 - 1 1 0% I 689,703 100% ! 1 Sale of Equip & Material 426,000 1 385,036 90% = 614,500 239,296 I I 39% _ I 614,500 100% 1 -_ Interest on Investments 1 54,172 105,203 194% ! 138,031 48,185 35% 103,010 75% ! (35,021)! Miscellaneous 77,610 65,385 84% = 73,808 19,390 26% 73,808 100% Mineral Lease Royalties 50,000 105,306 211% = 50,000 5,543 11% _ 87,883 176% = 37,883, A Assessment Payments (P&1) - 5,175 6,000 10,171 170% 18,000 300% 12,000� A Forest Receipts 1 882,502 - 0% 1 - - e ! I ! 1 1 State Miscellaneous - 20,000 - - - TOTAL RESOURCES 24,889,063 25,698,009 103% ; 26,673,711 11,791,404 44% ; 26,842,627 101% ; 168,916: REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Personnel Services 7,802,271 7,346,958 94% 8,406,468 3,174,938 38% _ 7,933,540 94% 472,928= B Materials and Services 8,246,700 6,385,588 77% 8,600,033 2,799,292 33% = 8,612,188 100% _ (12,155); Capital Outlay 140,025 90,004 64% 118,260 4,125 3% 106,105 90% = 1 12,155= TOTAL REQUIREMENTS ; 16,188,996 13,822,550 85% ; 17,124,761 5,978,355 35% ; 16,651,833 97% 472,928; TRANSFERS Transfers Out TOTAL TRANSFERS 3iI►1�I1\�l�L Beginning Fund Balance Resources over Requirements Net Transfers - In (Out) TOTAL FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance (12,330,136) (12,330,136) 100% (12,700,000) (7,700,000) 61% (12,700,000) 100% (12,330,136) (12,330,136) 100% ; (12,700,000) (7,700,000) 61% ; (12,700,000) 100% ; Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance 5,892,967 7,806,356 132% 5,521,251 7,351,679 133% 7,351,679 133% 1,830,428: 8,700,067 11,875,459 9,548,950 5,813,049 10,190,794 641,844=1 (12,330,136) (12,330,136) (12,700,000) (7,700,000) ; (12,700,000) $ 2,262,898 $ 7,351,679 325% ; $ 2,370,201 $ 5,464,728 231% ; ; $ 4,842,474 204% ; $2,472,273, A Actual payment higher than budget B Projected Personnel savings based on FY24 average vacancy rate of 9.0% Q`�vTES COG�< Budget to Actuals Report Adult P&P - Fund 355 41.7% FY24 YTD November 30, 2023 (unaudited) Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance DOC Grant in Aid SB 1145 4,734,453 4,734,453 100% 4,116,464 2,047,127 50% 4,143,986 101% 27,522: A CJC Justice Reinvestment 892,038 943,172 106% 943,172 - 0% ' 908,108 96% (35,064): B DOC Measure 57 244,606 271,606 111% ! 256,815 - 0% 259,307 101% 2,492! C Interest on Investments 18,151 63,625 351% 75,230 33,253 44% 84,720 113% 9,490 Interfund- Sheriff 50,000 i 50,000 100% a 50,000 20,833 42% 50,000 100% i Gen Fund/Crime Prevention 50,000 e 50,000 100% • 50,000 - ie 0% o 50,000 100% State Miscellaneous 123,453 179,530 145% ! 22,607 0% ' 19,709 87% a (2,898); D Oregon BOPPPS 20,318 - 0% 20,318 0% a 20,318 100% Electronic Monitoring Fee 500 889 178% ; 500 258 52% @ 500 100% Miscellaneous 500 2,099 420% 500 - 0% 500 100% TOTAL RESOURCES ; 6,134,018 6,295,372 103% ; 5,535,606 2,101,471 38% ; 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 2,068,597 35% 0 5,194,154 88% 713,357: E Materials and Services 1,883,614 1,739,432 92% 1,668,521 617,318 37% 1,608,251 96% 60,270• F Capital Outlay 8,475 8,475 100% • - - TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 7,575,910 6,790,874 90% 7,576,032 2,685,915 35% 6,802,405 90% 773,627: TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In- General Funds 536,369 536,369 100% 536,369 223,485 42% 536,369 100% Transfers In- Health Services - - 50,000 - 0% s - 0% (50,000) Transfers Out (199,560) (199,560) 100% - - Transfer to Vehicle Maint (69,277) (69,277) 100% (75,419) (31,420) 42% (75,419) 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS 267,532 267,532 100% ; 5109950 192,065 38% 460,950 90% (50,000); 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% 3,010,934 100% 10,934� Resources over Requirements (1,441,892) (495,502) (2,040,426) (584,445) (1,265,257) 775,169! Net Transfers - In (Out) 267,532 267,532 510,950 192,065 460,950 (50,000); TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 1,925,640 $ 3,010,934 156% ; $ 1,470,524 $ 2,618,555 178% ; $ 2,206,627 150% ; $736,103: 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 FY24 average vacancy rate of 15.6% F Materials and services projections based on current spending trends. VTESC-0 Budget to Actuals Report Road CIP - Fund 465 FY24 YTD November 30, 2023 (unaudited) 41.7% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 1 Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance State Miscellaneous 1,818,500 � 127,458 7% 1,704,116 891,811 52% 1,704,116 100% a � Interest on Investments i 124,563 o 337,583 271% 475,310 271,700 �e 57% e 611,340 129% 136,030a A Miscellaneous - e 317,508 - 19,241 is i 19,241 o 19,241 A TOTAL RESOURCES 1,943,063 782,549 40% ; 2,179,426 1,182,752 54% 2,334,697 107% ; 155,271: REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Materials and Services 127,640 127,640 100% 132,770 55,321 42% 132,770 100% Capital Outlay 28,259,526 16,769,496 I 59% 23,640,057 5,328,619 f l 23% 23,633,009 100% 7,048! TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 28,387,166 16,897,136 60% ; 23,772,827 5,383,940 23% 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� Resources over Requirements (26,444,103) (16,114,587) (21,593,401) (4,201,188) (21,431,082) 162,319 Net Transfers - In (Out) 14,230,313 12,238,662 12,500,000 5,000,000 12,500,000 TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 12,334,484 $ 23,347,907 189% ; $ 9,918,979 $ 249146,719 243% ; $ 14,416,824 145% ; $4,497,845: A Actual payment higher than budget Budget to Actuals Report Wy`abs Road CIP (Fund 465) -Capital Outlay Summary by Project 41.67% FY24 YTD November 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% 1,569,800 405,510 26% 2,518,373 160% (948,573) Transportation System Plan Update 51,980 11,677 27,256 (27,256) Gribbling Rd Bridge 818,500 141,509 17% i 704,116 13,461 2% i 692,000 98% 12,116: Smith Rock Way Bridge Replace 985,000 122,938 12% 1,417,429 53,365 4% 1,417,429 100% Deschutes Mkt Rd/Hamehook Round 1,663,000 750,822 45% 250,000 1,146,597 459% 1,170,000 468% (920,000)' Powell Butte Hwy/Butler Market RB 785,000 250,902 32 % 2,642,402 119,434 5 % 2,642,402 100 Wilcox Ave Bridge #2171-03 Replacement 160,000 - 0% 160,000 - 0% 160,000 100% Paving of Rosland Rd: US 20to Draf 380,000 260,811 69% 386,480 386,480 (386,480): Hamehook Rd Bridge #16181 Rehabilitation 96,500 227 0% 595,000 47,694 8% 350,000 59% 245,000: NW Lower Bridge Way: 43rd St to Holmes Rd 100,000 10,825 11 % 1,290,000 59,251 5% 320,000 25% 970,000 Northwest Way: NWCoynerAvetoNWAltmeterWy 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% 300,000 377 0% 300,000 100 Local Road Pavement Preservation 200,000 - 0% 200,000 - 0% 200,000 100% US20: Locust St - 1,000,000 - 0% : 1,000,000 t00% Paving Butler Market - Hamehook to Powell Butte - 866 320,000 1,454,940 455 % 1,494,879 467 % (1,174,879) Old Bend Rdm Hwy- US 20 to Tumalo - 1,210,000 1,272,506 105% 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% 280,000 55 % i 230,000: Slurry Seal 2024 - 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% i S Century Dr / Huntington Rd Rounda • 169,000 - 0% 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 $ 16,491,988 581/a $ 23,640,057: 5,328,619 23%; $ 23,633,009 1001/s $ 7,048 o�uTES COG2< Budget to Actuals Report AV,Solid Waste -Fund 610 FY24 YTD November 30, 2023 (unaudited) 41.7% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 1 Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Franchise Disposal Fees 7,210,000 7,006,324 97% 8,000,000 3,715,545 46% 8,000,000 100% A Private Disposal Fees 3,337,000 2,944,356 88% ! 3,450,000 1,478,167 43% 3,450,000 100% A Commercial Disp. Fee 3,234,000 3,026,577 94% 3,310,000 2,028,011 61% 3,310,000 100% A Franchise 3% Fees 305,000 363,105 119% 565,000 202,072 36% 565,000 100% ! B Yard Debris 290,000 305,516 105% 400,000 245,380 61% 400,000 100% C Miscellaneous 70,000 140,837 201% 173,000 127,071 73% ! 173,000 100% Interest on Investments 30,498 43,342 142% ! 60,410 49,875 83% 102,810 170% 42,400! D Special Waste ! 15,000 62,756 418% ! 30,000 17,899 60% ! ! 70,000 233% ! 40,000! E Recyclables ! 12,000 7,060 59% ! 7,000 3,215 46% ! ! 7,000 100% Leases 1 1 100% ! 1 - 0% ! 1 100% TOTAL RESOURCES 14,503,499 13,899,874 96% 15,995,411 7,867,234 49% 16,077,811 101% ; 82,400; REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Personnel Services 3,277,684 3,139,678 96% 4,108,983 1,401,991 34% 4,108,983 100% Materials and Services 6,473,358 5,716,762 88% 7,683,911 2,487,556 32% 7,683,911 100% Capital Outlay ! 264,000 181,603 69% ! 260,000 192,190 74% ! ! 260,000 100% Debt Service 1,739,630 1,731,017 100% ! 2,302,340 746,396 32% ! 2,302,340 100% TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 11,754,672 10,769,061 92% ; 14,355,234 4,828,133 34% 14,355,234 100% ; TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance SW Capital & Equipment (5,299,665) (3,453,962) 65% (2,613,962) (655,815) 25% (2,613,962) 100% Reserve TOTAL TRANSFERS (5,299,665) (3,453,962) 65% ; (2,613,962) (655,815) 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� Resources over Requirements ! 2,748,827 3,130,814 ! 1,640,177 3,039,101 ! ! 1,722,577 ! 82,400! Net Transfers - In (Out) ! (5,299,665) (3,453,962) ! (2,613,962) (655,815) ! ! (2,613,962) TOTAL FUND BALANCE ; $ 556,359 $ 2,743,514 493% ; $ 1,442,600 $ 5,126,800 355% ; $ 1,852,129 128% ; $409,529: 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; fiscal YTD tons are running 0.2% less than last year-to-date. July Commercial revenue includes payment for the prior Hwy 97 bypass disposal charges. B Annual fees due April 15, 2024; received year-to-date monthly installments from Republic C 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, remediation of tanker truck accident, etc.) OTEs coG�< Budget to Actuals Report Fair & Expo - Fund 615 FY24 YTD November 30, 2023 (unaudited) 41.7% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Events Revenue 745,759 948,145 127% = 1,050,000 439,662 42% 794,594 76% (255,406); A Food & Beverage 745,000 1,048,507 141% 991,000 796,264 80% 1,529,546 154% 538,546- B Rights & Signage 105,000 97,159 93% 105,000 62,616 60% a 91,616 87% @ (13,384) Horse Stall Rental 49,000 78,825 161% 100,000 51,300 51% 67,030 67% _ (32,970) Storage 65,000 45,551 70% a 50,000 23,625 47% 46,825 94% (3,175); Camping Fee 20,000 23,500 118% 22,500 17,027 76% ' 37,052 165% 14,552 Interest on Investments 5,221 15,485 297% 0 22,000 8,648 39% 17,630 80% (4,370); Miscellaneous 3,554 3,536 99% 3,000 3,530 118% 3,864 129% 864= TOTAL RESOURCES 1,738,534 2,260,708 130% ; 2,343,500 1,402,673 60% 2,588,157 110% ; 244,657: REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Personnel Services 1,256,902 1,313,682 105% 1,748,441 599,303 34% 1,384,683 79% 363,758, C Personnel Services - F&B 170,247 85,623 50% 148,510 21,988 15% 109,766 74% 38,744, D Materials and Services 965,684 1,168,404 121% 1,222,986 482,816 39% : 1,253,725 103% (30,739) Materials and Services - F&B 603,950 661,314 109% : 514,200 398,230 77% 753,686 147% ° (239,486); E Debt Service 101,270 101,267 100% 100,190 4,918 5% _ 100,190 100% a TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 3,098,054 3,330,291 107% ; 3,734,327 1,507,255 40% 3,602,050 96% 132,277, TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In - Room Tax 1,101,342 1,019,042 93% 1,009,023 420,420 42% _ 993,331 98% _ (15,692), Transfers In - Park Fund 30,000 30,000 100% 30,000 12,500 42% 0 30,000 100% Transfers Out (427,215) (427,215) 100% (163,342) (68,055) 42% (163,342) 100% - TOTAL TRANSFERS 704,127 621,827 88% 875,681 364,865 42% 859,989 98% (15,692); FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 971,352 995,519 102% 547,763 547,764 100% 547,764 100% - 1. Resources over Requirements (1,359,520) (1,069,583) (1,390,827) (104,582) (1,013,893) 376,934 Net Transfers - In (Out) 704,127 621,827 875,681 364,865 E 859,989 a (15,692) TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 315,960 $ 547,764 173% ; $ 32,617 $ 808,047 999% ; ; $ 393,860 999% ; $361,243: A Confirmed Contracted Revenue, may continue to grow as additional events are contracted through the end of FY. Some revenue budgeted in Event category earned in F&B category. B Increase due to large events such as FairWell Festival, Cascade Equinox. Some revenue budgeted for Event revenue earned in this category. C Projected Personnel savings based on FY23/FY24 average vacancy rate of 27.1% D Projected Personnel based on vacancy savings to date E F&B Expenses largely align with F&B revenue, due to the cost of good, labor and supplies required to generate revenues Qe\)TES c0&2 Budget to Actuals Report Annual County Fair -Fund 616 41.7% FY24 YTD November 30, 2023 (unaudited) Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Concessions and Catering 625,000 815,458 130% 790,000 834,968 106% 834,968 106% = 44,968: Gate Receipts 710,000 782,364 110% 775,000 1,036,146 134% = 1,036,146 134% a 261,14& Carnival I 385,000 433,682 113% 430,000 245,809 57% , 245,809 57% (184,191); Commercial Exhibitors I 80,000 117,100 146% 118,200 114,091 97% , 114,091 97% (4,109); i Fair Sponsorship 61,000 1 99,655 163% • 92,500 1 6 86,797 94% a 1 86,798 94% 1 (5,702)• State Grant I 53,167 53,167 100% 53,167 53,167 100% 53,167 100% I Rodeo Sponsorship 24,000 E 22,430 93% 30,000 I E 40,351 135% _ 1 40,351 135% • i 10,351• R/V Camping/Horse Stall Rental I 20,000 17,520 88% 17,250 31,449 182% I 31,449 182% 14,199, Interest on Investments 2,713 13,169 485% 13,500 9,891 73% B 22,470 166% 8,970! Merchandise Sales 3,500 I 3,245 93% 2,500 I 1,899 76% 1 1,899 76% (601)•! Livestock Entry Fees 5,000 1,925 39% I 2,000 1,940 97% 1 1 1,940 97% I (60)! I i Miscellaneous - 75 - 39 39 39• TOTAL RESOURCES 1,969,380 2,359,790 120% ; 2,324,117 2,456,547 106% ; ; 2,469,127 106% ; 145,010: REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Personnel Services 169,445 185,165 109% 276,531 69,466 25% 235,728 85% 40,803, A Materials and Services 1,802,585 1,882,326 104% • 2,306,325 1,944,643 84% 2,024,440 88% 281,885• TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 1,972,030 2,067,492 105% ; 2,582,856 2,014,109 78% ; 2,260,168 88% 322,688; TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfer In -TRT 1% 75,000 75,000 100% 75,000 31,250 42% 75,000 100% Transfers Out (231,706) (231,706) 100% : (109,503) (45,625) 42% (109,503) 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS (156,706) (156,706) 100% ; (34,503) (14,375) 42% ; (34,503) 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 384,715 385,854 100% = 521,447 521,447 100% 521,447 100% 0. Resources over Requirements (2,650) 292,298 (258,739) 442,438 208,959 467,698 Net Transfers - In (Out) _ I (156,706) (156,706) _ I (34,503) (14,375) a I I (34,503) I 1 TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 225,358 $ 521,447 231% ; $ 228,205 $ 949,510 416% ; $ 695,903 305% ; $467, -93, A Projected Personnel based on vacancy savings to date g4�uIESC-Budget to Actuals Report Z,oAW t Annual County Fair - Fund 616 CY23 YTD November 30, 2023 (unaudited) Fair 2023 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 ' „ 31,449 31,449 Merchandise Sales 3,245 1,899 1,899 Concessions and Catering 497,366 512,899 512,899 Fair Sponsorship 126,300 ;;� , j 116,893 116,893 TOTAL FAIR REVENUES $ 2,298,566 r:. $ 2,383,194 $ 2,383,194 OTHER RESOURCES State Grant 53,167 53,167 53,167 Interest 5,794 17,027 19,027 Miscellaneous 114 114 TOTAL RESOURCES Y $ 2,357,526 ; _ - $ 2,453,502 It 2,455,502 REQUIREMENTS Personnel 102,763 ,,N; 160,783 174,162 Materials & Services 1,722,703 2,056,567 2,067,579 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS $ 1,825,466 $ 2,217,350 $ 2,241,741 TRANSFERS 1 Transfer In - TRT 1 % 68,750 j 68,750 75,000 Transfer Out - F&E Reserve 3 za 161,483 170,608 (96,540) fa ( ) ( ) Transfer Out - Fair & Expo -gogg - TOTAL TRANSFERS $ (27,790) a $ (92,733) $ (95,608) Net Fair $ 504,270 $ 143,419 $ 118,153 Beginning Fund Balance on Jan 1 $ 448,151 $ 952,421 $ 952,421 >;e Ending Balance $ 952,421 y�,y $ 1,095,840 $ 1,070,574 o ix 01E5 ` 0 2{ Budget to Actuals Report , Fair & Expo Capital Reserve -Fund 617 41.7% FY24 YTD November 30, 2023 (unaudited) Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Interest on Investments 7,414 39,492 533% 64,800 32,037 49% 69,960 108% 5,160� I I 1 1 ! 1 Local Government Payments - 277,777 - - - TOTAL RESOURCES 7,414 317,269 999% ; 64,800 32,037 49% ; 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% 343,555 100% Capital Outlay 375,000 383,000 102% < 746,445 128,054 17% 746,445 100% 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% 462,119 192,545 42% 455,395 99% (6,724)= Transfers In - Fair & Expo 416,437 416,438 100% 152,565 63,565 42% 152,565 100% Transfers In - Annual County Fair; 231,706 231,706 100% I 109,503 45,625 42% 109,503 100% Transfers In - Fund 165 - - 100,000 100,000 100% 100,000 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS 1,149,827 1,113,829 97% ; 824,187 401,735 49% ; 817,463 99% ; (6,724); 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% 2,757,229 106% 164,391: Resources over Requirements (862,586) (166,040) (1,025,200) (128,073) (1,020,040) 5,160! Net Transfers - In (Out) I 1,149,827 1,113,829 ! 824,187 401,735 I 1 817,463 ! (6,724)! 1 TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 1,587,183 $ 2,757,229 174% ; $ 2,391,825 $ 3,030,891 127% ; $ 2,554,652 107% ; $162,827: A Capital Outlay appropriations are a placeholder should viable projects be recommended and approved for construction NEST` �< Budget to Actuals Report L� a OG RV Park - Fund 618 FY24 YTD November 30, 2023 (unaudited) 41.7% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 1 Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance RV Park Fees < 31 Days 605,000 548,219 91% a 500,000 220,400 44% a 459,190 92% a (40,810); RV Park Fees > 30 Days 13,000 10,249 79% 12,500 6,131 49% 1 12,461 100% (39) Cancellation Fees 1 14,000 8,636 62% 7,000 6,826 98% 7,526 108% 526, Washer / Dryer 4,200 5,560 132% ; 5,000 2,637 53% 4,372 87% (628)! Miscellaneous 1 3,750 2,907 78% 2,500 2,569 103% 5,434 217% = 2,934! Interest on Investments 1 552 2,764 1 501% = 2,300 I m 2,984 130% 4,870 1 212% 2,570!1 Vending Machines 1 1,750 1,492 85% 1 1,500 944 63a m 1,285 86% _ (215)! TOTAL RESOURCES 642,252 579,826 90% ; 530,800 242,490 463/. ; 495,138 93% (35,662); REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Personnel Services 111,153 82,265 74% 91,328 38,480 42% 94,633 104% (3,305); Materials and Services 1 259,755 192,620 74% 303,173 87,782 29% 1 215,296 71% 87,877, i Debt Service 223,273 E 223,272 100% 222,630 - I m 0% C 222,630 100% 1 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS ; 594,181 498,157 84% 617,131 126,262 20% 532,559 86% 84,572: TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In - Park Fund 1609000 160,000 100% 160,000 160,000 100% 160,000 100% 1 Transfers In - TRT Fund 20,000 1 20,000 100% = 20,000 8,330 I m 42% I 20,000 100% 1 Transfer Out - RV Reserve 1 (261,566) (261,566) 100% (51,564) (21,485) 42% 1 (51,564) 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS (81,566) (81,566) 100% ; 128,436 146,845 114% ; 128,436 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 116,415 166,536 143% 93,115 166,640 179% 166,640 179% 73,525- Resources over Requirements 1 i 48,071 81,669 1 (86,331) 116,228 I m (37,421) 1 48,910! . 1 Net Transfers - In (Out) I (81,566) (81,566) 1 128,436 146,845 I f 128,436 1 1 TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 82,920 $ 166,640 201% ; $ 135,220 $ 429,713 318% ; ; $ 257,655 191% ; $122,435: C6"-.. C,Budget to Actuals Report RV Park Reserve - Fund 619 417% FY24 YTD November 30, 2023 (unaudited) Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Interest on Investments 6,298 21,589 343% 34,300 16,168 47% 35,530 104% 1,230: TOTAL RESOURCES 6,298 21,589 343% ; 34,300 16,168 47% 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 5,532 6% ! 74,000 0% 74,000 100% A TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 100,000 5,532 6% 174,000 - 0% ; 174,000 100% ; TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfer In - RV Park Ops 261,750 261,566 100% 51,564 21,485 42% 51,564 100% TOTAL TRANSFERS ; 261,750 261,566 100% ; 51,564 21,485 42% 51,564 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 1,172,718 1,191,937 102% E 1,372,453 1,469,559 107% 1,469,559 107% 97,106, Resources over Requirements (93,702) 16,056 (139,700) 16,168 (138,470) 1,230 Net Transfers - In (Out) 261,750 261,566 51,564 21,485 51,564 TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 1,340,766 $ 1,469,559 110% ; $ 1,284,317 $ 1,507,212 117% ; $ 1,382,653 108% ; $98,336, A Capital Outlay appropriations are a placeholder o��uTC0GES2� Budget to Actuals Report Risk Management - Fund 670 FY24 YTD November 30, 2023 (unaudited) 41.7% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 1 Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Workers' Compensation 1,234,761 1,226,486 99% 1,111,585 482,545 43% 1,111,585 100% o General Liability 892,681 892,681 100% : 935,832 389,930 42% ' 935,832 100% Unemployment 430,179 344,950 80% 439,989 314,997 72% a 439,989 100% ° A Property Damage 419,566 419,566 100% 418,028 174,178 42% 418,028 100% Vehicle 248,764 248,764 100% 226,710 94,463 42% a 226,710 100% Interest on Investments 49,346 148,514 301% 200,000 97,927 49% F 217,050 109% 17,050 Claims Reimbursement 25,000 6,476 26% 20,000 - 0% 30,000 150% 10,000! Skid Car Training 10,000 8,899 89% 10,000 20,760 208% s t 27,000 270% 17,000 a Process Fee- Events/ Parades 1,000 1,260 126% 2,000 550 28% 2,000 100% Miscellaneous 180 - 0% 200 - 0% 200 100% TOTAL RESOURCES 3,311,477 3,297,596 100% ; 3,364,344 1,575,350 47% ; ; 3,408,394 101% ; 44,050; REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Workers' Compensation 1,580,000 1,493,702 95% 1,880,000 791,280 42% 1,951,662 104% (71,662); General Liability 3,000,000 470,875 16% 1,200,000 404,046 34% 1,053,455 88% 146,545- Insurance Administration 607,558 602,676 99% 714,197 280,134 39% a 714,197 100% Vehicle 200,000 194,089 97% 400,000 70,021 18% s 389,015 97% 10,985! Property Damage 300,248 99,913 33% 300,250 370,765 123% a 421,586 140% (121,336) Unemployment 200,000 54,473 27% 250,000 30,842 12% 225,014 90% 24,986- TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 5,887,806 2,915,728 50% 4,744,447 1,947,088 41% 4,754,929 100% ; (10,482)! TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals 0/ PrCi-io„ % $ Va...,...... Transfers Out - Vehicle (3,500) (3,500) 100% (3,500) (1,455) 42% (3,500) 100% Replacement Transfers Out - IT (32,000) - 0% _ (32,000) 100% B Transfers Out - IT Reserve - (118,000) (118,000) 100% = e (118,000) 100% B TOTAL TRANSFERS (3,500) (3,500) 100% ; (153,500) (119,455) 78% (153,500) 100% ; FUND BALANCE Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Beginning Fund Balance 1 7,687,180 8,944,938 116% 8,000,000 9,323,307 117% 9,323,307 117% 1,323,307, Resources over Requirements (2,576,329) 381,869 (1,380,103) (371,738) (1,346,535) 33,568 Net Transfers - In (Out) (3,500) (3,500) (153,500) (119,455) (153,500) TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 5,107,351 $ 9,323,307 183% ; $ 6,466,397 $ 8,832,113 137% ; $ 7,823,272 121% ; $1,356,875. A Unemployment collected on first $25K of employee's salary in fiscal year B Transfer out to IT to support cyber-security work ESC0&< Budget to Actuals Report Health Benefits - Fund 675 FY24 YTD November 30, 2023 (unaudited) RESOURCES Internal Premium Charges COIC Premiums Employee Co -Pay Retiree / COBRA Premiums Prescription Rebates Claims Reimbursement & Other Interest on Investments TOTALRESOURCES REQUIREMENTS Health Benefits Deschutes On -Site Pharmacy Deschutes On -Site Clinic Wellness TOTAL REQUIREMENTS FUND BALANCE 41.7% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ variance 19,908,221 20,496,601 103% F 25,899,034 10,162,602 39% a 25,899,034 100% ; 1,547,778 1,951,365 126% 1,963,363 597,683 30% 1,963,363 100% 1,282,015 1,247,607 97% 1,247,416 505,321 41% ! 1,247,416 100% i 595,000 982,424 165% 1,019,288 220,361 22% a 1,019,288 100% ! 175,000 528,990 302% 280,000 155,160 55% s 280,000 100% ! A ! 55,000 109,282 199% 124,944 137,756 110% 137,757 110% ° 12,813 95,686 176,071 184% 120,000 79,489 66% 180,210 150% = 60,210! 23,658,700 25,492,341 108% ; 30,654,045 11,858,372 39% ; 30,727,068 100% ; 73,023: Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % 26,597,563 25,514,122 96% 26,697,663 8,439,620 32% I 1 I 3,779,608 3,807,986 101% 4,287,997 1,634,898 38% I 1 ! 1,212,497 1,205,226 99% 1,415,279 324,047 23% � I I 179,549 161,200 90% 186,274 30,678 16% 31,769,217 30,688,534 97% ; 32,587,213 10,429,244 32% ; Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals Beginning Fund Balance 1 11,925,656 11,304,191 95% 0 1 5,742,743 6,107,998 106% I Resources over R^ • ,.�___#s �rw I iQ /1n �1�� (8, . , �G 1oa 10�� (5, 96, 93) 1 11 az4 1au1 , A2u 129 ! Net Transfers - In (Out) 1 - 1 - I TOTAL FUND BALANCE . $ 3,815,139 $ 6,107,998 160% ; $ 3,809,575 $ 7,537,126 198% ; A Budget estimate is based on claims which are difficult to predict B Amounts are paid 1 month in arrears Projection % $ variance 26,697,663 100% B � I ! 4,287,997 100% B 6 I I 1,415,279 100% , B 186,274 100% B 32,587,213 100% ; Projection % $ variance 6,107,998 106% 365,255- 6 1 e (1,860,145) 72,n23!1 I ! 4 � � $ 4,247,853 112% ; $438,278: TE5CpG2� Budget to Actuals Report 911 - Fund 705 and 710 FY24 YTD November 30, 2023 (unaudited) 41.7% Year Complete Fiscal Year 2023 1 Fiscal Year 2024 RESOURCES Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Property Taxes - Current Yr 10,402,834 10,493,711 101% = 10,932,000 10,163,376 93% 11,001,603 101% 69,603, A Telephone User Tax 1,668,000 1,881,374 113% 1,827,530 503,662 28% a 1,827,530 100% ! B Interest on Investments 67,515 237,842 352% 312,321 140,972 45% a 288,619 92% (23,702)l Police RMS User Fees 237,221 244,437 103% 244,435 - 0% s 244,435 100% C Contract Payments 153,292 167,764 109% 167,765 16,250 10% ! ' 167,765 100% User Fee 140,445 146,863 105% 148,820 5,325 4% 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 90,291 113% 90,000 64,516 72% _ 90,000 100% Property Taxes - Jefferson Co. 39,497 38,104 96% 40,500 11,476 28% 40,500 100% Miscellaneous 25,000 40,191 161% 32,100 7,679 24% 32,100 100% TOTAL RESOURCES 13,744,678 14,120,981 103% ; 14,034,323 10,928,785 78% 14,080,224 100% ; 45,901. REQUIREMENTS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Personnel Services 8,606,196 7,891,350 92% 9,032,045 3,317,404 37% 8,404,147 93% 627,898, E Materials and Services 4,088,201 3,151,149 77% 4,250,715 1,399,936 33% 4,230,715 100% 20,000! Capital Outlay 5,015,100 2,347,522 47% 1,831,000 666,057 36% 1,851,000 101% (20,000)1 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 17,709,497 13,390,020 76% 15,113,760 5,383,397 36% 14,485,862 96% 627,898: TRANSFERS Budget Actuals % Budget Actuals % Projection % $ Variance Transfers In 1,750,000 1,750,000 100% 1,950,000 0% 1,950,000 100% 1 i Transfers Out (1,809,900) I (1,809,900) 100% (1,950,000) 0% 1 1 B (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% 13,393,950 101% 191,607, Resources over Requirements (3,964,819) 730,961 (1,079,437) 5,545,389 (405,638) 673,799, Net Transfers - In (Out) (59,900) (59,900) TOTAL FUND BALANCE $ 8,926,080 $ 13,393,950 150% ; $ 12,122,906 $ 18,939,339 156% , $ 12,988,312 107% ; $865,406: 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 FY24 average vacancy rate of 9.3% L�\)I E S C-0 BOARD OF li COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING 9:00 AM, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2023 Barnes Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Building - 1300 NW Wall Street - Bend (541) 388-6570 1 www.deschutes.org AGENDA MEETING FORMAT: In accordance with Oregon state law, this meeting is open to the public and can be accessed and attended in person or remotely, with the exception of any executive session. Members of the public may view the meeting in real time via YouTube using this link: http://bit.ly/3mminzy. To view the meeting via Zoom, see below. Citizen Input: The public may comment on any topic that is not on the current agenda. Alternatively, comments may be submitted on any topic at any time by emailing citizeninput@deschutes.org or leaving a voice message at 541-385-1734. When in -person comment from the public is allowed at the meeting, public comment will also be allowed via computer, phone or other virtual means. Zoom Meeting Information: This meeting may be accessed via Zoom using a phone or computer. To join the meeting via Zoom from a computer, use this link: http://bit.ly/3h3ogdD. • To join by phone, call 253-215-8782 and enter webinar ID # 899 4635 9970 followed by the passcode 013510. • If joining by a browser, use the raise hand icon to indicate you would like to provide public comment, if and when allowed. If using a phone, press *9 to indicate you would like to speak and *6 to unmute yourself when you are called on. • When it is your turn to provide testimony, you will be promoted from an attendee to a panelist. You may experience a brief pause as your meeting status changes. Once you have joined as a panelist, you will be able to turn on your camera, if you would like to. ®� Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities. �• If you need accommodations to make participation possible, call (541) 388-6572 or email brenda.fritsvold@deschutes.org. Time estimates: The times listed on agenda items are estimates only. Generally, items will be heard in sequential order and items, including public hearings, may be heard before or after their listed times. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZEN INPUT: Citizen Input may be provided as comment on any topic that is not on the agenda. Note: In addition to the option of providing in -person comments at the meeting, citizen input comments may be emailed to citizeninput@deschutes.org or you may leave a brief voicemail at 541.385.1734. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Resolution No. 2023-068 adopting a supplemental budget and increasing or adjusting appropriations in the Full Faith and Credit Debt Service Fund, the General Fund and the Project Development and Debt Reserve Fund 2. Approval of a Water Pipeline and Access Easement to Avion Water Company, and a Gas Pipeline and Access Easement to Cascade Natural Gas 3. Approval of Board Order No. 2023-057 authorizing the sale of property located at 16775 CW Reeves Lane in La Pine to Pudding River Properties, and further authorizing the Deschutes County Property Manager to execute the documents associated with the sale 4. Approval of Chair Signature of Document No. 2023-1078, a Notice of Intent to Award Contract for Engineering Services for the Tumalo Reservoir Road: OB Riley Road to Sisemore Road Improvement Project 5. Approval of amendment to Oregon Health Authority grant agreement #180009-4 6. Approval of request to apply for State and Local Cybersecurity Grant Program 7. Consideration of Board Signature on letters of appointment to the Deschutes River Mitigation and Enhancement Committee 8. Consideration of Board Signature on letters of appointment, reappointment and thanks for various Committees and Special Road Districts 9. Approval of minutes of the BOCC November 27 and 29 and December 4, 2023 meetings ACTION ITEMS 10. 9:10 AM Public Hearing: Plan Amendment and Zone Change at 64430 Hunnell Road December 20, 2023 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 2 of 3 11. 9:55 AM Resolution No. 2023-067, adding 3.00 FTE and increasing revenue and appropriations for the Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Program within Health Services 12. 10:05 AM Resolution No. 2023-069 effecting changes to the FY 2023-34 Budget to extend a .10 limited duration FTE in the District Attorney's Office by six months to support illegal marijuana market enforcement 13. 10:15 AM Pre -Deliberation Update: Draft 2020-2040 Transportation System Plan 14. 10:35 AM Consideration of letter providing input on a comprehensive approach to Measure 110 15. 10:45 AM Draft letter regarding ODF Wildfire Funding Proposal 16. 11:00 AM Treasury Report for November 2023 17. 11:15 AM Finance Report for November 2023 18. 11:30 AM Board selection of Chair and Vice Chair for 2024 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. 19. Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Real Property Negotiations ADJOURN December 20, 2023 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 3 of 3