Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-02-24 Work Session Minutes Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, February 24, 2014 Page 1 of 13 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2014 ___________________________ Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney and Alan Unger; Commissioner Anthony DeBone was out of the office. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; and, for a portion of the meeting, Wayne Lowry, Finance; Nick Lelack, Peter Gutowsky, Peter Russell and Matt Martin, Community Development; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; and about twenty other citizens, including representatives of the School District, the Alfalfa Fire District, the City of Bend and others, and media representative Elon Glucklich of The Bulletin. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. ___________________________ 1. Discussion of a Promissory Note and Loan to the Alfalfa Fire District. Wayne Lowry, along with Bob Kathman and Roan Hollite of the Alfalfa Fire District, briefed the Board on the item. It involves a request for a tax anticipation loan for $10,000, which would be paid off by the District when it obtains tax revenue. It is at the County’s investment rate, which is better than most. It was explained that this would fund District activities until tax revenue is collected next year. This will put them ahead about nine months, and enable them to pay legal expenses, accounting fees, and so on. This item is on the Wednesday, February 26 business meeting agenda for formal Board approval. 2. Discussion of a Resolution Approving Issuance of Hospital Revenue Bonds by the Hospital Facility Authority of Deschutes County. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, February 24, 2014 Page 2 of 13 Mr. Lowry stated this Resolution will allow the Hospital Facility Authority to bond debt for about $80 million. Commissioner Unger is Chair of the Authority and said they will consider this bond tomorrow. It requires a vote of the Commissioners on Wednesday, February 26 to proceed at that point. Some proceeds will be spent outside of Deschutes County, requiring hearings in those locations (Crook and Jefferson counties). Chair Baney said this will help change the perspective of how medical care is given, as there are concerns about the delivery of medical care in general. For some private doctors that are not part of a larger system, the chan ging face of medical services will make their work more challenging. Mr. Lowry stated there will be a presentation given on Wednesday, February 26 at the Board business meeting to explain this further. 3. Finance/Tax Update. Mr. Lowry went over the monthly investment report, up to 58 basis points from 53. The County has about $36 million in investments, moving into the market and out of the pool, cautiously making these changes. Regarding year to date expenses, most funds are on track, but in some cases, expenditures are lower. Property tax receipts have been adjusted to show current collections. General fund highlights are the Clerk’s revenue, below projections. This fund is usually a net add, but may be more of a draw this year. The Sheriff ’s funds show revenues up on the property tax side. Community Development will have a budget adjustment due to better performance in revenue. Road is now seeing capital outlay projections declining, with some budget savings. Motor vehicle revenue is higher than anticipated. Solid Waste is up about 9%. The Health Benefits Trust is about the same as it has been. In capital projects, the jail project has had a change order due to desired security systems adjustments. The Sheriff’s Office is funding some of this. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, February 24, 2014 Page 3 of 13 4. Discussion of a Proposal from the Bend-La Pine School District for a UGB Expansion to Accommodate a New School for Bend. Matt Martin gave an overview of the item. This is a quasi-judicial request of the School Board to enable them to build a n ew middle school near Summit High School, to form a new tri-school campus. The City of Bend was part of the previous meeting, and the decision was approved by the Hearings Officer. There was no opposing testimony or any appeals offered. There was a request to approve this by emergency so the school can open by fall of 2015. There would be no zone change; just a change to the comprehensive plan. Commissioner Unger said they will need to explain to the audience why the emergency clause is necessary. Sharon Smith gave an overview through a PowerPoint presentation. The acreage needs are large and they were unable to find suitable land within the current UGB. This allows for some campus collaboration. The design is new since it has been 14 years since a middle school was built. They will need to do some road realignments due to topography. They are in a tight timeframe, as school capacity is already behind by the time they pass a bond measure. They don’t want to miss opening in fall 2015. Traffic and utility issues have already been addressed with the City of Bend. They beefed up many of the pedestrian connections in this area. Chair Baney asked that they do a similar presentation at the Board meeting on Wednesday. 5. Discussion of Text Amendment regarding the County’s Traffic Study Requirements. Peter Russell said they are changing requirements due to higher capacity in some subdivisions. Some language will be added to give more discretion to the County Road Department depending on capacity and traffic flow. The public hearing date has not yet been set. Chair Baney asked why this is coming up now. Mr. Russell said there have been some inquiries from developers who are uncertain how to proceed. This will make Code easier to use. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, February 24, 2014 Page 4 of 13 Commissioner Unger asked if it has to do with road construction standards. Mr. Russell said it would not change this or other physical properties of the roads. It allows for more congestion in certain situations. The changes will be on new roads as appropriate. Commissioner Unger asked about monument signs on the highway outside Tumalo, and the archeological studies. Mr. Russell said it is unincorporated so they are not eligible for ODOT to provide this. The Road Department will sign the permit if the community will be responsible for maintenance. ODOT has tentatively approved the locations. 6. Discussion of Possible Code Amendments: PRC, Domestic Livestock and Long-range Planning Projects. Nick Lelack gave a brief overview of the items to be discussed. First to be addressed was the City of Bend’s request to supplement the grant for the west side project. Jon Skidmore of the City said they want to request match funding for transportation growth management, through an integrated study. DLCD and ODOT are granting up to $200,000 and the City has to provide a local match of $100,000. They are working with OSU – Cascades and Bend Metro Park & Recreation District through partner agencies investing in the study. They are refining the scope of work and it is coming back for comments. Each group should have someone sit in on the consultant selection process. They are looking at land use patterns and transportation in that area, development in different combinations, and how they affect each other. There will be a public process to determine what makes the most sense and is supported. They will develop performance measures, look at scenarios and refine it to code and overlay amendments. Safety, access and connectivity are to be considered. The goal is to be able to tell landowners or developers what is expected. Chair Baney asked if they are looking at the scope of work. Mr. Lelack stated that Community Development is involved, as is Property & Facilities and others. Commissioner Unger noted that the County has 80 acres in that area and there are others with large land holdings. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, February 24, 2014 Page 5 of 13 He asked if those larger property owners would be interested in participating or invited to sit in. Mr. Skidmore said he would like to see local government lead the way, since individual property owners may have more of a vested interest. With the timelines involved, they thought it might be easier to start out with just the government agencies. Mr. Lelack stated that 18 months ago, it was the County, Park & Rec District and Robinson. The City has the TGM grant now and the project is significantly larger. Susan Ross said they discussed this but there are more than just a few property owners. The readiness for the County to proceed with its own land is valuable. Commissioner Unger wants to be sure all options are well-managed. Mr. Anderson stated that this could be funded a couple of different ways. It could be decided through the budget process , and economic development or project development, for instance. This is a good move for the City, County and others. Mr. Lelack stated that the consultant would handle all the public outreach. UNGER: Move approval of $25,000 in support of the study. BANEY: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. ___________________________ Nick Lelack spoke about the agricultural lands program (ALP). No decisions were made previously whether to proceed with this process. Peter Gutowsky said it will be helpful to understand the current workload. The ALP started out with the ideas of a certain outcome, but staff realized there needs to be a lot of conversations, starting with the irrigation districts and others tied to agricultural lands. The County needs to understand what is working and what isn’t. It would involve a significant outreach by long range planning staff, with the hope of coming back in the summer with results. The Board can then determine next steps. Conversations with the Planning Commission show strong opinions, which will also be found in the community. Staff is ready to begin this undertaking, but it involves a three or four month public involvement process. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, February 24, 2014 Page 6 of 13 Commissioner Unger said it will make a big difference on how it is staged, and having people understand how the County and State look at this issue. Mr. Gutowsky noted there would be statistics on the landowner base, average parcel size, irrigation and non-irrigation, and the full spectrum of land use relationships. Some are in fire districts, wildlife combining zones, and so on. They would have to show what the zoning means and relevant land use rules. People need to have a good context of what it all means. This requires a lot of front-loading work. They also would have to be able to explain why this is being done and what potential outcomes might be. They also have to explain to the State why this is being considered. Some may feel their land is improperly designated. The County wants to know what is working and what isn’t. Commissioner Unger stated this has been a frustrating discussion for years. The Big Look process tried, but couldn’t get into it deeply enough. Mr. Lelack said the list shows what is currently underway, and there are resources to start this process. Mr. Gutowsky said the City of La Pine now has jurisdiction over the lands affected by the PRC. They should reconvene a committee to address and update this if needed, although it has been seven years since the last meeting. Mr. Lelack said they could find out if the committee desires changes. Mr. Anderson said the PRC/TDC issue is one that Commissioner DeBone is watching, but realizes the importance of other issues. He suggested that perhaps they could convene the committee and bring them up to speed , and see if they are interested in modifications, as an intermediate step. Chair Baney said they should let the group know this would be addressed later in the year. Commissioner Baney said the County will be picked off by issues one at a time unless they have developed some sidebars and criteria. Right now, with issues of soils classifications and other details, they are unable to make a lot of headway. There might be technologies available or other ways that are not so black and white, to deal with lands. Commissioner Unger wants the public engaged to learn about opportunities and problems. Mr. Lelack said the initial agricultural lands were established decades ago, but this has not been addressed for almost twenty years. ___________________________ Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, February 24, 2014 Page 7 of 13 Mr. Lelack then went into details on the City of Bend Airport Master Plan. The City is in a position to initiate this now. They are coordinating this within the next few months. The City Council has adopted this Plan and the County will need to consider it. ___________________________ Mr. Gutowsky stated that the Deschutes County Bicycle Guide uses customized software to allow the public to get on the site and utilize interactive mapping within the transportation system. The old model was on paper; this is more interactive and useful for active cyclists. This is a growing segment of the population. It addresses road cycling on County-maintained roads. Erik Kropp said the mountain biking areas are mostly on USFS land. ___________________________ Mr. Lelack spoke about tracking systems for resorts, both the annual tracking and the ongoing tracking of the lots and properties, residential, overnight lodging etc. They are consolidating this into one system with a format that works for the County and the resorts. They are meeting with the resorts one at a time. This should be done by mid -April, at which time they will report back to the Board. The other table is a look back and forward. It shows the CMP and amendments, and how the information is captured, plus what is outstanding. ___________________________ Mr. Gutowsky stated that regarding domestic livestock issues, they will convene a panel through Matt Martin to examine rural residential issues like this. They will include people from the Extension District, Soil and Water Conservation District and others to talk about how to deal with issues regarding manure. Primarily this is a problem in Crooked River Ranch and southern Deschutes County. Ordinances might work, but the Department of Agriculture has regulatory responsibility. The Planning Commission will discuss whether ordinances need to be enhanced. John Griley of Code Enforcement said there are about half a dozen complaints a year on average. There are strong opinions on how livestock is managed, and a role for the Sheriff’s Office. This will be a future work session discussion. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, February 24, 2014 Page 8 of 13 They are examining ordinances from other counties, which have been in place for decades. It is a dynamic issue, depending on acreage size, number of animals, etc. They need to know if new regulations will resolve these issues or if there are other means. Mr. Lelack said there are several paths forward. One is to keep things the same but educate. Or they can limit the ordinance to where it is needed the most. They could look at all small acreages and treat them all the same. The Planning Commission will make recommendations. Chair Baney notes that someone could have twenty acres, but be putting all their livestock on a small part of it. ___________________________ Mr. Lelack discussed Harper Bridge. The Sunriver Owners’ Association and others went to the State Marine Board to discuss boat launch ideas. He will be meeting with SROA members to discuss this further, and will share the results with the Board. Commissioner Unger asked about following dual tracks. Mr. Lelack said they would find consensus if possible, and look at funding through the SMB. They are looking at both concepts. ___________________________ Peter Gutowsky stated that they will spend six months on a certified local government grant, and Zechariah Peck is spearheading interactive mapping efforts. This will be a significant contribution to historic preservation efforts. There will always be an interest in this. Mr. Lelack said they want to make this program relevant for tourism and economic development, as part of recreational resources. Mr. Gutowsky said this should be ready by May. It will be a fresh experience and more meaningful. Much of it is being done by volunteers, and I.T. is also involved. It will be interactive in many ways. ___________________________ They are working on legislative amendments, which is mostly housekeeping. ___________________________ Mr. Lelack said that they are working closely with DLCD and DEQ on a Goal 11 exception and findings for the La Pine area. They want to initiate this no later than early May, with hearings later in the year. They hope to get feedback before winter when a lot of residents are gone from the area. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, February 24, 2014 Page 9 of 13 This is a significant work program, taking a lot of staff time and resources. He added that Klamath County does not want to take this on now; they will wait to see how it goes here. They will make sure absentee landowners are involved as much as they want to be. DEQ will help with the mailings to 5,000 or more property owners. ___________________________ Mr. Gutowsky said in regard to the brownfields grant, they are working on the inventory process and are still involved with the cities on their part. They will share a preliminary map based on DEQ’s database. They can then prioritize for additional analysis and site assessment, and remediation. After they convene to look at the maps, they will need a brownfields advisory committee formed by about this summer. It is going smoothly at this point. ___________________________ In regard to Sage Grouse, he is meeting with Richard Whitman, the Governor’s policy advisor regarding BLM’s environmental impact statement. They are trying to minimize the listing. One element conveyed by Mr. Whitman was the possibility that the County consider an ordinance regulating development in Sage Grouse areas based on a disturbance cap; if they can avoid the areas, use mitigation and determine how much disturbance is allowed. He is collaborating regionally with seven counties and this is no small task. The Governor’s Office feels this will demonstrate to Fish & Wildlife that the State has adequate measures in place, and a plan for the future. This is potentially significant. They have collaborated for one and one-half years, and further work will take a significant amount of time, dealing with Measure 49, ESEE, and other details. Ms. Craghead said if it is meant to head off a listing, it could be a Measure 49 issue. Commissioner Unger asked what the other counties want. Chair Baney said the County has granted Mr. Gutowsky’s time for all of this, and she thinks the counties expect even more. Deschutes County should not have to own this, drafting ordinances for seven counties. They need to balance what Peter needs to do, as he has already given a lot of time to the other counties. She feels it has gone far enough. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, February 24, 2014 Page 10 of 13 Mr. Gutowsky stated he might be involved in further discussions. If the Governor’s Office wants to explore this, they need to engage the counties on the concept. He also is concerned about resources. They are suggesting this summer. Chair Baney emphasized that the needs are not in this county. The County took the lead because we could, but they will allow this to continue if we let them. This is more of a regional solution issue. On the one hand, people can still hunt Sage Grouse, while they are talking about protecting it on the other hand. Does not make sense. ___________________________ Mr. Lelack stated that they are working on a text amendment regarding code violations. The Planning Commission elevated this but there are no resources set aside to deal with it. One issue might be to take the code enforcement procedures manual and do a major update. It contains a number of policies in it to enforce code. This could be handled through a text amendment. Chair Baney asked how many properties are involved in code violations versus the PRC/TDC. Mr. Lelack said he has no idea. They work on code violations as they come in. Mr. Anderson stated there are typically 300 or more per year, with about 180 to 220 open cases at any time. They would have to drop something else if this is to get proper attention. Chair Baney said when it comes to groundwater issues versus code violations, she leans towards groundwater protection. A lot of it will have to do with Goal 11 and other issues and how they can get them to align. ___________________________ Chair Baney observed that the County is investing in a consistent timeframe so long-range planning issues can be addressed in a timely manner, rather than be reactionary. 7. Other Items. Commissioner Unger said that he would like to be reappointed as representative to the Oregon Consortium Board of Directors, through 2015. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, February 24, 2014 Page 11 of 13 BANEY: Move approval. UNGER: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. ___________________________ Mr. Anderson stated that the Mock Trial group wants to do a presentation at the Wednesday work session. ___________________________ There will be a weed ordinance discussion on March 5. The Board asked for a matrix of changes and suggestions. ___________________________ The litigation update has been moved to March 12 , and will be under executive session.. ___________________________ The Board went into executive session at this time, under ORS 192.660(2)(a), employment of a public officer;192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations; and 192.660(2)(h), pending or threatened litigation. ___________________________ Chair Baney brought up concerns regarding marijuana dispensaries. Mr. Anderson said there have been no comments on a proposed ordinance except from the Sheriff. There are a few retail outlets now in Bend. They have heard nothing thus far from the community. Chair Baney would like to prepare for this issue and it is easier to restrict outside of the cities. Commissioner Unger suggested they wait and see what others are doing first, before putting in a lot of work. Mr. Anderson said there is a State bill in play that would allow local governments to regulate this, but the County has just been monitoring it. ___________________________ Mr. Anderson asked about a support letter requested for OSU – Cascades capital projects. BANEY: Move approval. UNGER: Second. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, February 24, 2014 Page 12 of 13 VOTE: UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. ___________________________ In regard to COVA, Chair Baney said she met with Brent McLean of Northview Hotel Group (General Manager of Brasada), and Geoff Roemelt of Eagle Crest. They asked what the County wants; for instance, performance measures, more than the increase in tax revenue , and whether there is a DMO of choice. They ended up in a Visit Bend/COVA discussion. Sunriver has chosen COVA as their DMO of choice. This is a significant issue and it is hard to get away from Sunriver’s choice. She asked for a letter stating what they want. This seems to be skewed towards Sunriver. Chair Baney is getting tired of COVA’s defensive attitude all the time. She does not think the COVA board has open discussions, and it is chaired by Sunriver. She would like to get input from Dan Despotopulos. Mr. Kropp stated they need to ask them to brand Central Oregon. Chair Baney noted that the COVA website is almost all Sunriver. They say it is because the majority of revenue is from there. The solution is to get performance measures from COVA. They are far behind in modern technology. Mr. Anderson said they have drafted an agreement with COVA that sets out some mechanisms for their reporting on performance. Now it is just budgeting and planning. The Board can tell them what it wants to see. Chair Baney stated she wants to hear out Mr. McLean without the COVA board interfering. They are too defensive. Brasada is looking to Visit Bend. Eagle Crest feels left out. Commissioner Unger asked about the others also, such as Redmond and La Pine. Mr. Kropp and Mr. Anderson will meet with Mr. McLean early next week. ___________________________ Mr. Anderson talked about potential traffic issues at OSU – Cascades and the problem of separate parking for some students who live on campus. They think this is not hinged to site plan approval. They are looking at a five-year lease of County property to do this, and feel this should be adequate. However, master planning needs to include Robinson and the County. They would have to pave and light it, so there is a commitment. He is meeting with the City to see if this will meet site plan review. Chair Baney feels that infrastructure or those types of investments are not to be considered permanent in case the County wants to do something different. Improvements would have to be considered short-term. They need to think of the entire vision. Mr. Anderson stated that he has not gotten the draft MOU back. It acknowledges the County is not locked into certain things. Being no further items discussed, the work session adjourned at 5: 15 p.m. DATED this ~ Day of YflUJv~ 2014 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Ta ~ ~~ Anthony De one, VIce ChaIr ATTEST: Alan Unger, Commissioner ~~ Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners ' Work Session Monday, February 24 , 2014 Page 13 of 13 ______________________________________ PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this 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; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues; or other issues under ORS 192.660(2), executive session. ______________________________________ Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners’ meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572. _________ ______________________________________ 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 poss ible, please call (541) 388-6571, or send an e-mail to bonnie.baker@deschutes.org. _________ ______________________________________ Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2014 ___________________________ 1. Discussion of a Promissory Note and Loan to the Alfalfa Fire District – Wayne Lowry 2. Discussion of a Resolution Approving Issuance of Hospital Revenue Bonds by the Hospital Facility Authority of Deschutes County – Wayne Lowry 3. Finance/Tax Update – Wayne Lowry 4. Discussion of a Proposal from the Bend-La Pine School District for a UGB Expansion to Accommodate a New School for Bend – Matt Martin, CDD; Members of the School Board 5. Discussion of Text Amendment regarding the County’s Traffic Study Requirements – Peter Russell, CDD 6. Discussion of Possible Code Amendments: PRC, Domestic Livestock and Long-range Planning Projects – Nick Lelack, CDD 7. Other Items c o 'Vi VI Q) VI .:::L. S­ O ~ 4­o February 7, 2014 To: Wayne Lowry, Finance Director, Deschutes County, Oregon From: Karen M. Shepard, Executive Vice President of Finance/CFO, St. Charles RE: St. Charles Health System, Inc. 2014 Debt Offering Overview In December 2013 the St. Charles Health System, Inc. (SCHS) Board of Directors approved the issuance $75 million of new debt to be used to finance certain capital improvements. The form of debt will be a private bank placement. The issuance is intended to be on a tax-exempt basis through the conduit issuer, the Hospital Facility Authority of Deschutes County, Oregon (the Authority). Although a bank private placement, the issuance will be treated as hospital revenue bonds and is solely the obligation of SCHS. Financing History and Purpose SCHS’s most recent large-scale financing was completed in 2008 with the issuance of hospital revenue bonds that were used primarily to refinance outstanding variable rate obligations. The economic climate and SCHS’s financial position at that time resulted in a high cost of capital and limited SCHS’s ability to access capital markets in recent years. Fiscal discipline since 2008 has significantly improved SCHS’s financial position and in December 2012 SCHS was upgraded to a Moody’s A2 credit rating. As we look to the future, SCHS has various building projects planned through 2018 to improve access to care, patient experience and healthcare value across the Central Oregon region. These efforts could be funded from free operating cash flows however, the capital markets and SCHS’s overall financial position have created the opportunity for affordable financing in the near term. New capital will provide additional liquidity to SCHS during a time of healthcare transformation, lower the overall cost of capital to the organization and take advantage of improved capital market conditions. Projects The following capital projects, in addition to SCHS’s routine capital spending of approximately $30 million annually, would qualify for application of these tax-exempt financing proceeds: St. Charles Prineville – A new hospital facility, approximately 60,000 square feet in size, with twelve inpatient beds and outpatient services including, but not limited to, primary care, lab, radiology and imaging, emergency and physical therapy in Prineville, Oregon. Estimated project budget of $30 million with spending occurring from winter 2013 through fall 2015. St. Charles Madras – Capital additions and improvements to the existing hospital and outpatient clinic facilities in Madras, Oregon. Estimated project budget of $12 million occurring throughout 2014 and 2015. St. Charles Bend – Capital additions and improvements to the existing hospital, including a new integrated Cancer Center building, patient tower remodel and outpatient clinic facilities in Deschutes County, Oregon. Estimated project budget of $45 million with spending occurring from 2014 through 2016. St. Charles Redmond– Capital additions and improvements to the existing hospital and outpatient clinic facilities in Deschutes County, Oregon. Regional Approval Process SCHS intends to utilize the financing proceeds throughout the Central Oregon region and as a result needs approval from key governing bodies in each primary jurisdiction. The Hospital Facility Authority of Deschutes County, Oregon will be the conduit issuer. The Authority is governed by an independent Board of Directors comprised of Deschutes County Commission Alan Unger and community business leaders with financing expertise: Stacey Dodson, Tom Schnell, Craig Apregan and Summer Sears. In order to invest financing proceeds in projects inside and outside of Deschutes County, Oregon the Authority needs acknowledgement and approval from Deschutes County, Oregon, the City of Prineville, Oregon and the City of Madras, Oregon in the form of resolutions and intergovernmental agreements. As with all debt issued through the Authority SCHS is sole obligor on the revenue bonds. The Authority, Deschutes County, the City of Prineville and the City of Madras will have no financial obligations related to this financing. All of the debt issuance costs and the debt obligation are the sole responsibility of SCHS and are reported in their entirety in the books and records of SCHS. SCHS has engaged the legal firm of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP (Orrick) from Portland to assist with coordinating the tax-exempt related processes for this debt issuance. A member from SCHS’s management and a representative of Orrick will be in attendance at an upcoming Deschutes County, Oregon Board of Commissioners meeting to formally present the request to approve the financing and answer any questions. If there are questions prior to the council meeting please contact Karen Shepard directly at (541) 706-7707 or kmshepard@stcharleshealthcare.org. LEGAL COUNSEL For Recording Stamp Only BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON A Resolution Approving Issuance of Hospital * Revenue Bonds, Series 2014 (St. Charles * RESOLUTION NO. 2014-028 Health System) By The Hospital Facility * Authority of Deschutes County, Oregon. * WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Deschutes County, Oregon ("County") acknowledges that The Hospital Facility Authority of Deschutes County, Oregon ("Authority") has received a request from St. Charles Health System, Inc., a nonprofit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Oregon ("Borrower") to issue Revenue Bonds, Series 2014 (St. Charles Health System), in one or more series (the "2014 Bonds"), in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $80,000,000; and WHEREAS, the proceeds of the 2014 Bonds are expected to be used for the purpose of financing all or a portion of the costs of capital construction, acquisition, development, improvements, renovations and equipment at the healthcare facilities of the Borrower located in (i) Deschutes County at: 2500 NE Neff Road, Bend, OR 97701, 2600 NE Neff Road, Bend, OR 97701, 2042 NE Williamson Court, Bend, OR 97701,2084 NE Professional Court, Bend, OR 97701, 2100 NE Wyatt Court, Bend, OR 97701,2275 NE Doctors Drive, Suite 5, Bend, OR 97701, 2542 NE Courtney Drive, Bend, OR 97701,2965 NE Conners Ave., Suite 127, Bend, OR 97701, 1253 NW Canal Blvd., Redmond, OR 97756, 1541 NW Canal Blvd., Redmond, OR 97756, 1245 NW 4th Street, Suite 101, Redmond, OR 97756, 211 NW Larch Ave., Redmond, OR 97756, 213 NW Larch Ave., Suite B, Redmond, OR 97756,655 NW Jackpine Ave., Redmond, OR 97756 and 630 N ArrowleafTrail, Sisters, OR 97759; (ii) the City of Madras, Oregon at: St. Charles Madras (formerly Mountain View Hospital) and its outpatient clinic facilities located at 470 NE "A" Street, 480 NE "A" Street and 76 NE 12th Street, each in Madras, Oregon 97741; and (iii) the City of Prineville, Oregon at Pioneer Memorial Hospital located at 1201 NE Elm Street, outpatient clinic facilities located at 1103 NE Elm Street, and a new healthcare facility to be located on a 19.5 acre parcel on the east side of SE Combs Flat Road between Fifth Street to the south and Second Street to the north, the closest street address being 200 SE Combs Flat Road at the Ochoco Lumber Company headquarters office, each in Prineville, Oregon 97754 (collectively, the "Projects"); and WHEREAS, the principal of and interest on the 2014 Bonds will not constitute a debt of the County nor shall the 2014 Bonds be payable from a tax of any nature levied upon any property within the County nor any other political subdivision of the State of Oregon. The 2014 Bonds will be payable only from the revenues and resources provided by the Borrower; and Page 1 of 4 RESOLUTION NO. 2014-028 (02/26/14) WHEREAS, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the "Code") authorizes the issuance of revenue bonds for a ""qualified 50 1 (c)(3) entity," such as the Borrower; and WHEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Code requires that qualified 501 (c)(3) bonds be approved by the applicable elected representatives of the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the area in which the projects are located and the Board of County Commissioners of Deschutes County are the applicable elected representatives of the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the portion of the projects being financed with the proceeds of the 2014 Bonds located in the County; and WHEREAS, on February 25, 2014, the Authority adopted a Resolution authorizing the issuance of the 2014 Bonds and the execution and delivery of an Intergovernmental Agreement ("Intergovernmental Agreement") between the Authority, the City of Madras, Oregon, and the City of Prineville, Oregon, pursuant to ORS 190.010 which designates the Authority as the issuer of the 2014 Bonds. Such Intergovernmental Agreement will help provide cost savings to the nonprofit healthcare facilities of the Borrower; and WHEREAS, on February 25,2014, the Common Council ofthe City of Madras conducted a public hearing and adopted a Resolution approving the issuance of the 2014 Bonds by the Authority for the portion of the Projects located in its jurisdiction and authorizing the execution and delivery of the Intergovernmental Agreement; and WHEREAS, on February 25, 2014, the City Council of the City of Prineville conducted a public hearing and adopted a Resolution approving the issuance of the 2014 Bonds by the Authority for the portion of the Projects located in its jurisdiction and authorizing the execution and delivery of the Intergovernmental Agreement; and WHEREAS, on February 25,2014, the Authority conducted a public hearing, adequate notice ofthis hearing having been published pursuant to Section 147(f) ofthe Code, to provide a reasonable opportunity for members of the public to express their views regarding the issuance of the 2014 Bonds and the uses and purposes of the proceeds of the 2014 Bonds; and WHEREAS, a copy of the Public Hearing Report to the Board of County Commissioners submitted by the Chair of the Authority is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, the County finds that it would be in the best interest of the County to approve of the issuance of the 2014 Bonds by the Authority pursuant to the requirements of Section 147(f) of the Code; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, as follows: Section 1. As the applicable elected representatives of the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the Authority and over the area in which a portion of the Projects are located, and having concluded that a public hearing was validly held to provide a reasonable opportunity for members of the public to express their views regarding the issuance ofthe 2014 Bonds and the uses and purposes of the proceeds of the 2014 Bonds, the Board of County Commissioners of Deschutes County, Oregon, approves of the issuance of the 2014 Bonds by the Authority. Page 2 of 4 -RESOLUTION NO. 2014-028 (02/26114) Section 2. This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. Dated this 26th day of February, 2014. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON TAMMY BANEY, Chair ANTHONY DEB ONE, Vice Chair ATTEST: ALAN UNGER, Commissioner Recording Secretary Page 3 of 4 -RESOLUTION NO. 2014-028 (02/26/14) Exhibit"A" Public Hearing Report to the Board of County Commissioners P~Uf~N.l46l}{ESOLUTION NO. 2014-028 (02/26114) Monthly Meeting with Board of Commissioners Finance Director/Treasurer AGENDA i February 24, 2014 I I (1) Monthly Investment Report (2) January 2014 Financials Deschutes County Investments By County Function General $ 149,504,973 $ Investment Income Fiscal Year 2013-14 Jan-14 I I Y-T-O 72,321 $ 450,480 -- Total Investments $ 149,504,973 Total Investment Income Less Fee : 5% of Invest. Income Investment Income -Net $ 72,321 (3,616) 68,705 450,480 (22,524) $ 427,956 Municipal Debt $ 600,000 0.41% Corporate Notes 9,999,000 6.89% Time Certificates 5,160,000 3.45% U. S. Treasuries 7,000,000 4.70% Federal Agencies 13,150,000 8.69% LGIP/BOTC 113,595,973 75.86% Total Investments $ 149.504.973 100.00% Total Portfolio: By Investment Types CorporateMuniCipal NotesDebt Time6.7%0.4% Certificates 3.5% u. s. Treasuries 4 .7%_;':·~I· ~ , . ~ t-~ -~ . . ,. Federal--~ .~.' AgenCies 8.8% LGIP/BOTC 76.0% Category Maximums: U.S. Treasuries LGIP Federal Agencies Banker'S Acceptances Time Certificates Municipal Debt Corporate Debt Term Minimums 0-30 days Under 1 Year Under 5 Years 100% 100% 75% 25% 50% 25% 25% 10% 25% 100% BOTC I LGIP Investments A verage Yield Percentages ~.~ ~ 0.53% 0.53% ~ 0.74% 0.64% ~ 0.58% 0.55% CC tt 24 Month Treas . ~ 0.35% LGIP Rate ~ 0.54% 24 Month Corp ~ 0.51 % Months to Maturity o to 30 Days 76% Under 1 Year 78% ,Under 5 Years 100% " Memorandum Date: February 12, 2014 To: Board of County Commissioners Tom Anderson, County Administrator From: Wayne Lowry. Finance Director RE: Monthly Financial Reports Attached please find January 2014 financial reports for the following funds: General (001). Community Justice -Juvenile (230), Sheriffs (255, 701, 702), Public Health (259). Behavioral Health (275). Community Development (295). Road (325), Community Justice -Adult (355), Commission on Children & Families (370-399), Solid Waste (610), Insurance Fund (670). 9-1-1 (705), Health Benefits Trust (675), Fair & Expo Center (618), and Justice Court (123). The projected information has been reviewed and updated, where appropriate, by the respective departments. Cc: All Department Heads .J I I GENERAL FUND Statement of Financial Operating Data Through January 31,2014 ! I i FY 2014 -Year to Date (58% of Year)FY2013 I "10 of Actual BudgetActual Revenues Property Taxes -Current 20,734,019 19,819,957 94% 489,310 68%Property Taxes -Prior 1,108,377 Other General Revenues 2,683,531 1,570,692 80% Assessor 866,121 669,877 82% County Clerk 1,710,900 800,090 57% BOPTA 16,419 13,494 89% District Attorney 174,794 64,452 35% Tax Office 252,869 193,265 93% Veterans 74,348 36,031 51% Property Management 100,249 53,083 58% 1,167 58%Grant Projects 2,000 23,711,418 89%Total Revenues 27,723,627 Expenditures 2,066,678 56%Assessor 3,439,127 County Clerk 1,299,189 769,949 51% 34,874 45%BOPTA 58,401 District Attorney 5,034,333 3,097,572 55% FinancefTax 779,725 493,453 58% 160,047 53%Veterans 250,880 Property Management 275,329 156,696 61% Grant Projects 122,139 73,593 57% Non-Departmental 1,221,749 558,033 40% Total Expenditures 12,480,872 7,410,895 54% 8,184,593 60%Transfers Out 13,930,307 Total Exp & Transfers 26,411,179 15,595,488 57% Change in Fund Balance 1,312,448 8,115,930 10,371,843 109% Ending Fund Balance $ 10,371,843 Beginning Fund Balance 9,059,394 $ 18,487,772 ... FY 2014 Contingency-$ 8,560,855 a) Current year taxes due November, February and May b) PIL T received in July -$500,941 FY2014 Budget I PrOjection I $ Variance a) 21,031,062 21,656,062 625,000 720,000 652,000 (68,000) b) 1,955,900 2,035,900 80,000 c) 812,421 889,421 77,000 1,415,487 1,193,487 (222,000) c) 15,200 17,200 1,400 184,194 184,194 c) 208,750 234,536 25,786 70,920 70,920 91,000 91,000 2,000 2,000 26,506,934 27,026,720 519,186 3,687,131 3,617,131 70,000 1,500,045 1,385,045 115,000 76,901 63,051 13,850 5,638,777 5,438,777 200,000 846,733 800,839 45,894 299,163 299,163 258,807 258,807 129,951 129,951 d) 1,392,993 1,409,993 {17,OOO~ 13,830,501 13,402,757 427,744 13,615,578 13,615,578 27,446,079 27,018,335 427,744 (939,145) 8,385 947,530 * 9,500,000 $8,560,855 10,371,843 $10,380,228 871,843 $1,819,373 c) A & T grant -1st, 2nd & 3rd Quarter payments have been received and are trending in excess of budget d) The $375,703 budgeted to be paid to LED #2 will instead be paid to LED #1. Utility expensed budgeted and paid from General Fund Non-Departmentmental are projected to exceed the amounts appropriated. Page 1 COMM JUSTICE-JUVENilE Statement of Financial Operating Data Through January 31,2014 Revenues Federal Grants SB #1 065-Court Assess. Jail Funding HB #2712 Discovery Fee Food Subsidy OYA Basic & Diversion Inmate/Prisoner Housing Contract Payments Interest on Investments Leases Grants -Private CFC Interfund Grant Interfund Grant -Gen Fund Miscellaneous Total Revenues Expenditures Personnel Services Materials and Services Capital Outlay Transfers Out Total Expenditures Revenues less Expenditures Transfers In-General Fund Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance FY2014 Budget I Projection I $ Variance 50,400 1,830 50% 3,660 3,660 6,015,391 3,355,479 54% 6,198,689 5,974,093 224,596 (5,162,008) (3,066,267) (5,481,199) (5,333,570) 147,629 5.344,523 3,131,534 58% 5,368,346 5,368,346 182,515 65,267 (112,853) 34,776 147,629 995,051 1,177,566 105% 1,125,000 1,177,566 52,566 $ 1,177,566 $ 1,242,833 * $1,012,147 $1,212,342 $ 200,195 FY 2014 -Year to Date (58% of Year)FY2013 I vfo Of Actual BudgetActual 7,272 171% a} 4,254 8,606 - 7,725 129% 6,000 101,659 18,198 50% 36,568 8,703 1,870 23% b} 8,300 24,650 13,220 55% 24,000 354,583 128,964 35% c) 364,268 113,760 19,950 16% d) 125,000 90,765 2,086 2% e) 120,000 6,343 4,200 70% 6,000 1,200 673 56% b) 1,200 1,729 404 32% b) 1,250 120,595 74,520 nla f) 20,000 10,000 50% 20,000 790 129 20% 650 289,212 40% 717,490853,383 4,878,315 2,813,617 55% g) 5,109,496 1,086,677 540,032 50% e) 1,085,433 -0% 100- 11,715 8,000 36,568 3,500 24,000 359,149 35,000 5,000 7,200 1,000 700 128,041 20,000 650 640,523 5,000,000 970,433 7,461 2,000 (4,800) (5,119) (90,000) (115,000) 1,200 (200) (550) 128,041 (76,967) 109,496 115,000 * FY 2014 ContingencY-$ 1,012,147 a) Includes $7,090 payment on a FY 2013 grant b) Revenue trending lower than anticipated -PSU lease being discontinued c) State informed County of the FY 2014 amount subsequent to preparation of FY 2014 budget d) Housing trending lower than antiCipated -$4,650 billing outstanding e) BRS/Maplestar program discontinued. Projected revenues and expenditures reduced accordingly f) Support to JCP program expenditures was not included in the original budget. CFC interfund grants were awarded during FY 20143 g) Unfilled positions Page 2 100 SHERIFF -Consolidated Statement of Financial Operating Data Through January 31, 2014 FY2013 Actual Revenues (Funds 701 & 702) Law Enf Dist Countywide 19,512,075 Law Enf Dist Rural 12,228,468 Total Revenues 31,740,543 Expenditures (Fund 255) Sheriffs Services 2,263,061 CiviVSpecial Units 723,704 Automotive/Communications 1,837,849 InvestigationslEvidence 1,425,223 Patrol 8,174,690 Records 685,178 Adult Jail 12,850,417 Court Security 298,060 Emergency Services 185,439 Special Services 1,236,781 Training 481,717 Other Law Enforcement SVC5 667,913 Non-Departmental 85,253 Total Expenditures 30,915,283 Revenues less Expenditures 825,260 DC Comm Syst Reserve 200,000 Transfer to Reserve Funds 200,000 Change in Fund Balance 425,260 Beginning Fund Balance 9,128,533 Ending Fund Balance $9,553,793 * FY 2014 ContingencY-$ 5,284,491 FY 2014 -Year to Date (58% of Year) Actual I Budget 17,535,460 92% 9,545,018 79% • 27,080,478 87% 1,375,795 57% 671,503 60% 1,022,571 62% 846,556 5T'k 4,883,150 57% 409,412 53% 8,042,231 56% 170,700 62% 125,305 56% 771,719 52% 247,734 47% 488,766 63% 47,659 58% FY 2014 Budget I Projection I $ Variance 19,116,763 20,023,596 906,833 12,125,008 12,240,040 115,032 31,241,771 32,263,636 1,021,865 2,401,838 2,401,738 100 1,110,175 1,110,175 a) 1,643,912 1,643,912 1,472,678 1,472,578 100 b) 8,544,952 8,494,952 50,000 774,452 774,352 100 c) 14,384,459 14,384,459 275,852 275,752 100 223,273 223,173 100 1,498,298 1,498,298 527,979 527,879 100 d) 779,623 829,523 (49,900) 81,701 81,701 19,103,100 7,977,377 .. (2,477,421 ) (1,454,856) 1,022,565 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 57% 33,719,192 33,718,492 7,577,377 (2,877,421 ) (1,854,856) 1,022,565 9,553,793 8,161,912 9,553,793 1,391,881 $17,131,170 $5,284,491 $7,698,937 $2,414,446 a) FY 2014 appropriated amount, $291,747 for payment Deschutes County Communication System Fund expended in July 2013 b) Projected savings in Personnel from open unfilled positions c) Projected savings in Personnel and Bond Debt expense will be used to offset the cost of renting additional jail beds from Jefferson County and other Jail unexpected expansion expenses d) Additional Personnel expense (Extra Help & Overtime) due to workload Page3-A 700 SHERIFF -Fund 255 Statement of Financial Operating Data Through January 31, 2014 Revenues (Fund 255) Law Enf Dist Countywide Law Enf Dist Rural Total Revenues Expenditures (Fund 255) Sheriffs Services Civil/Special Units Automotive/Communications Investigations/Evidence Patrol Records Adult Jail Court Security Emergency Services Special Services Training Other Law Enforcement Svcs Non-Departmental Total Expenditures Revenues less Expenditures FY2013 Actual FY 2014 -Year to Date (58% of Year) Actual I Budget 18,708,928 12,206,355 30,915,283 11,874,194 7,199,940 19,074,135 49% 50% 49% 2,263,061 723,704 1,837,849 1,425,223 8,174,690 685,178 12,850,417 298,060 185,439 1,236,781 481,717 667,913 85,253 30,915,283 1,375,795 671,503 1,022,571 846,556 4,883,150 409,412 8,042,231 170,700 125,305 771,719 247,734 488,766 47,659 19,103,100 57% 60% 62% a) 57% 57% b) 53% 56% c) 62% 56% 52% 47% 63% d) 58% 57% $ -(28,965.48) • FY2014 Budget I Projection I $ Variance 33,719,192 33,718,492 $5,284,491 $ $ {5,284 E491} 24,478,462 14,525,221 39,003,683 2,401,838 1,110,175 1,643,912 1,472,678 8,544,952 774,452 14,384,459 275,852 223,273 1,498,298 527,979 779,623 81,701 21,161,510 (3,316,952) 12,556,982 {1,968,239} 33,718,492 (5,285,191) 2,401,738 100 1,110,175 1,643,912 1,472,578 100 8,494,952 50,000 774,352 100 14,384,459 275,752 100 223,173 100 1,498,298 527,879 100 829,523 (49,900) 81,701 • FY 2014 Contingency-$ 5,284,491 a) FY 2014 appropriated amount, $291,747 for payment Deschutes County Communication System Fund expended in July 2013 b) Projected savings in Personnel from open unfilled positions c) Projected savings in Personnel and Bond Debt expense will be used to offset the cost of renting additional jail beds from Jefferson County and other Jail unexpected expansion expenses d) Additional Personnel expense (Extra Help & Overtime) due to workload Page3-B 700 SHERIFF -Expenditure Detail Statement of Financial Operating Data Through JanualY 31, 2014 FY 2014 -Year to Date (58% of Year)FY2013 Actual Actual I Budget Expenditures Sheriff's Services Personnel 1.311.042 FY2014 Budget I Projection I $ Variance 786.062 56% 1,411.820 1.411.820 Materials & Services 952.019 589.733 60% 989.918 989,918 Capital Outlay -0% 100 100 Total Sheriffs Services 2,263,061 1,375,795 57% 2,401,838 2,401,738 100 Civil/Special Units Personnel 637,830 592.164 59% 1.009.306 1.009.306 Materials & Services 85.874 79.339 83% 95.769 95,769 Capital Outlay -0% 5.100 5.100 Total Civil/Special Units 723,704 671,503 60"'{' 1,110,175 1,110,175 Automotive/Communications Personnel 413.153 230,340 57% 404.407 404.407 Materials & Services 1,406,033 756.480 63% 1.202.505 1.202.505 Capital Outlay 18.663 35,750 97% 37,000 37.000 Total Automotive/Communications 1,837,849 1,022,571 62% 1,643,912 1,643,912 Inyestigation~ence Personnel 1.283.221 758.885 57% 1.338,593 1.338.593 Materials & Services 142.001 87,671 65% 133.985 133.985 Capital Outlay -0% 100 100 TotallnvestigationslEvidence 1,425,223 846,556 57% 1,472,678 1,472,578 100 Patrol Personnel 7,325.801 4.314.999 56% 7,723,459 7.673,459 50.000 Materials & Services 613.033 318.878 57% 563.921 563.921 Capital Outlay 235.856 249,274 97% 257.572 257,572 Total Patrol 8,174,690 4,883,150 57% 8,544,952 8,494,952 50,000 Records Personnel 583.461 385,479 58% 665.327 665,327 Materials & Services 101,717 23.933 22% 109.025 109.025 Capital Outlay -0% 100 100 Total Records 685,178 409,412 53% 774,452 774,352 100 Adult Jail Personnel 10,934.201 6.877.909 57% 12.060.079 11.960.079 100.000 Materials & Services 1.879,643 1.055.833 54% 1.947,790 2.103.038 (155.248) Capital Outlay 36,573 56,519 74% 76,590 76.590 Transfer Out -Jail Debt Service 51.969 17% 300.000 244,752 55.248 Total Adult Jail 12,850,417 8,042,231 56% 14,384,459 14,384,459 Court Security Personnel 285.997 164.032 62% 265.966 265.966 Materials & Services 12.063 6.668 68% 9.786 9.786 Capital Outlay -0% 100 100 Total Court Security 298,060 170,700 62% 275,852 275,752 100 Emergency Services Personnel 175.729 111.813 57% 196.825 196.825 Materials & Services 9.710 13,492 51% 26.348 26.348 Capital Outlay -0% 100 100 Total Emergency Services 185,439 125,305 56% 223,273 223,173 100 Special Services Personnel 1,024.967 687.014 55% 1.251,196 1.251.196 Materials & Services 175.717 84.705 40% 211.502 211.502 Capital Outlay 36.096 -0% 35.600 35.600 Total Special Services 1,236,781 771,719 52% 1,498,298 1,498,298 Training Personnel 345,417 198.923 52% 384.725 384.725 Materials & Services 136.300 48.811 34% 143.154 143.154 Capital Outlay -0% 100 100 Total Training 481,717 247,734 47% 527,979 527,879 100 Other Law Enforcement Services Personnel 607.8n 436.450 62% 705.392 755.392 (50.000) Materials & Services 60.035 52.316 71% 74.131 74,131 Capital Outlay -0% 100 100 Total Other Law Enforcement Svcs 667,913 488,766 63% 779,623 829,523 (49,900) Non-Departmental Materials & Services 85.253 47,659 58% 81.701 81.701 Page 4 Total Non-Departmental 85,253 47,_ 58% 81,701 81 1701 Total Expenditures $ 30,915,283 $19,103,100 67% $ 33,719 192 $ 33,718i!!2 $ 7001 LED #1 • Countywide Statement of Financial Operating Data Through January 31,2014 $ * Payment to Sheriff's Fund adjusted monthly to equal actual expenditures attributable to countywide services a) Current year taxes due November, February, and May b) Bureau of Justice SCAPP funding will be less than planned due to qualifying inmate population c) Unanticipated HB 3194 funding for the Adult Jail d) 1145 inmate reimbursement will exceed budget amount for the year e) Based on YTD actual, DOC reimbursement for SB395 (repeat DUll) inmates will exceed plan for the year f) General Fund grant budgeted for LED #2 will be made instead to LED #1 g) State OJD distributions will be less than planned for the year Page 5 FY2013 Actual Revenues Tax Revenues -Current 15,812,544 Tax Revenues -Prior 817,322 Federal Grants 24,510 State Grant 158,199 Jail Funding HB 2712 101,659 Jail Funding HB 3194 - Transp. of State Wards 3,289 SB 1145 1,479,991 Prisoner Housing 284,189 Des. Cty Gen Fund Grant ­ Des. Cty Video Lottery Grant 5,000 Grants 20,640 Des Cty Court Security 116,646 Des Cty Juvenile Contract 12,051 Title III Reimbursement 39,916 Inmate Commissary Fees 29,756 Work Center Work Crews 53,237 Concealed Handgun Classes 8,050 Inmate Telephone Fee 97,403 Soc Sec Incentive-Fed 14,600 Medical Services Reimb 20,461 Sheriff Fees 314,668 Interest 44,629 Donations-"Shop with a Cop" 31,717 Miscellaneous 21,599 Total Operating Revenues 19,512,075 EXPENDITURES &TRANSFERS DC Sheriff's Office 18,708,928 DC Comm Systems Reserve 80,000 Transfer to Reserve Fund 100,000 Total Expenditures 18,888,928 Change in Fund Balance 623,147 Beginning Fund Balance 5,883,963 Ending Fund Balance $ 6,507,110 FY 2014 -Year to Date (58% of Year) Actual I Budget FY2014 Budget I Projection I $ Variance 15,179,216 94% a) 16,103,377 16,468,804 365,427 375,957 74% 507,902 501,263 (6,639) 18,668 73% b) 25,500 18,668 (6,832) 24,309 21% 115,524 115,524 18,198 39% 46,143 46,143 107,806 nfa c) 107,806 107,806 1,215 24% 5,000 5,000 1,223,569 77% d) 1,584,991 1,628,947 43,956 129,237 162% e) 80,000 140,000 60,000 -0% f) 4,762 380,465 375,703 5,000 100% 5,000 5,000 -n/a -0% g) 99,318 45,632 (53,686) 8,627 86% 10,000 10,000 -n/a 17,531 117% 15,000 20,000 5,000 48,271 97% 50,000 50,000 1,825 52% 3,500 3,500 47,233 59% 80,000 80,000 7,200 144% 5,000 10,000 5,000 10,386 80% 13,000 13,000 206,312 83% 250,000 250,000 25,568 80% 32,000 32,000 62,994 121% 51,897 62,995 11,098 16,337 57% 28,849 28,849 17,535,460 92% 19,116,763 20,023,596 906,833 11,874,194 80,000 100,000 49% 100% 100% * 24,478,462 80,000 100,000 21,161,510 80,000 100,000 3,316,952 12,054,194 49% 24,658,462 21,341,510 3,316,952 5,481,265 (5,541,699) (1,317,914) 4,223,785 6,507,110 5,541,699 6,507,110 965,411 11,988,375 $ $5,189,196 $5,189,196 I LED #2 -Rural 702 Statement of Financial Operating Data Through January 31,2014 I I i I BudgetActual Actual FY 2014 -Year to Date FY 2013 (58% of Year) FY2014 Budget I Projection l $ Variance Revenues Tax Revenues -Current Tax Revenues -Prior Federal Grants Federal Grants-BlM US Forest Service Bureau of Reclamation State Grant SB #1065 Court Assessment Marine Board License Fee Des Cty General Fund Grant Des Cty Transient Room Tax Asset Forfeiture City of Sisters Des Cty COD Contract Des Cty Solid Waste Contr School Districts Claims Reimbursement Seat Belt Program Sheriff Fees Court Fines & Fees Interest Grants-Private Donations Miscellaneous 7,698,340 7,261,950 93% a) 7,839,932 7,878,906 38,974 404,894 184,929 70% 263,858 246,565 (17,293) 53,818 30,622 211% b) 14,500 35,000 20,500 20,881 -0% c) 25,000 25,000 78,750 39,375 51% 76,500 76,500 40,580 2,401 9% c) 26,000 26,000 274,465 65,904 39% 169,000 169,000 8,606 7,785 14% 55,000 55,000 143,724 91,976 61% c) 150,000 150,000 136,735 -0% d) 375,703 (375,703) 2,513,265 1,326,673 58% d) 2,274,297 2,713,243 438,946 11,760 -n/a 468,060 283,896 58% 486,678 486,678 54,366 34,574 58% 59,270 59,270 54,366 34,574 58% 59,270 59,270 46,212 27,868 70% 40,000 40,000 860 108 n/a 108 108 5,390 3,535 35% 10,000 10,000 9,617 6,222 62% 10,000 10,000 120,247 76,070 61% 125,000 125,000 20,654 10,970 91% 12,000 12,000 6,500 5,000 n/a 5,000 5,000 11,650 4,500 nfa 4,500 4,500 44,728 46,087 87% 53,000 53,000 9,545,018 79% 12,125,008 12,240,040 115,032Total Revenues 12,228,468 EXPENDITURES & TRANSFERS DC Sheriffs Office 12,206,355 7,199,940 50% * 14,525,221 12,556,982 1,968,239 DC Comm Systems Reserve 120,000 120,000 100% 120,000 120,000 Transfer to Reserve Fund 100,000 100,000 100% 100,000 100,000 Total Expenditures 12,426,355 7,419,940 50% 14,745,221 12,776,982 1,968,239 Change in Fund Balance (197,887) 2,125,078 (2,620,213) (536,942) 2,083,271 Beginning Fund Balance 3,244,571 3,046,683 2,620,213 3,046,683 426,470 Ending Fund Balance $ 3,046,683 $5z171,761 $ $2,509,741 $2,509,741 * Payment to Sheriffs Fund adjusted monthly to equal actual expenditures attributable to countywide services a) Current year taxes due November, February, and May b) HIDTA overtime reimbursements for drug investigations will exceed plan c) Invoiced quarterly. Reimbursements reflect seasonal activity d) Due to Transient Room Taxes projected to exceed budget, the $2,650,000 annual payment and an additional projected $63,243 payment will be received from Transient Room Tax Fund Page 6 PUBLIC HEALTH Statement of Financial Operating Data Through January 31,2014 FY 2013 Actual Revenues Medicare Reimbursement 68 Federal Grant & Fed Reimb 630 Federal Grant (ARRA) 212,500 State Grant 2,795,249 Child Dev & Rehab Center 38,154 State Miscellaneous 248,176 OMAP 578,042 Family Planning Exp Proj 519,121 Grants (Intergvt, Pvt, & Local) 40,214 Contract Payments 174,624 Patient Insurance Fees 214,544 Health Dept/Patient Fees 95,108 Vital Records-Birth 32,475 Vital Records-Death 112,235 Environmental Health-Lic Fac 755,693 Interest on Investments 6,262 Donations 19,366 Interfund Contract 162,757 Miscellaneous 3,425 Total Revenues 6,008,643 Expenditures Personnel Services 6,344,766 Materials and Services 2,036,535 Capital Outlay ­ Transfers Out 157,200 Total Expenditures 8,538,501 Revenues less Expenditures (2,529,858) Transfers In-General Fund 2,349,357 Transfers In-PH Res Fund 62,136 Transfers In-Gen. Fund Other 65,100 Total Transfers In 2,476.593 Change in Fund Balance (53,265) Beginning Fund Balance 1,327,199 Ending Fund Balance $ 1,273,934 FY 2014 -Year to Date (58% of Year) FY2014I'roof Actual Budget Budget I Projection I$ Variance -nfa 27,545 689% 4,000 90,455 86,455 -0% 85,000 80,750 (4,250) 1,532,249 51% a) 3,021,360 3,089,284 67,924 10,125 26% b) 39,609 39,609 14,259 9% b) 163,310 85,835 (77,475) 370,761 61% 612,400 677,477 65,077 252,888 46% 550,000 550,000 33,519 20% 164,923 164,923 32,175 21% b) 151,316 68,456 (82,860) 136,960 74% 184,200 198,881 14,681 55,300 46% 119,400 103,810 (15,590) 22,150 54% 41,000 41,000 56,310 56% 100,000 100,000 641,279 85% c) 753,750 753,750 3,966 66% 6,000 6,750 750 44,372 2465% 1,800 44,372 42,572 48,366 27% b)d) 180,426 91,691 (88,735) 3,550 254% 1,400 4,000 2,600 3,285,774 53% 6,179,894 6.191,043 11,149 3,718,947 52% 7,153,756 6,637,269 516,487 1,010,547 47% 2,132,898 2,050,000 82,898 -0% 100 100 78,660 50% 157,320 157,320 4,808,153 51% 9,444,074 8,844,589 599,485 (1.522.379) (3,264,180) (2,653,546) 610,634 1,575,861 16,500 32,550 58% 50% 50% 2,701,475 33,000 65,100 2,701,475 33,000 65,100 1,624,911 58% 2,799,575 2,799,575 102,532 (464,605) 146,029 610,634 1,273,934 92% 1,385,592 1,273,934 (111,658~ 1,376,466 * $ 920,987 $ 1,419.962 $ 498,975$ * FY 2014 Contingency-Original Budget $ 1,252,630; as of January 31,2014 $920,987 a) Oregon Health Authority grant projected at amended contract amount b) Received quarterly in arrears. Invoices have been submitted c) Majority of fees are due annually and collected in December and January d) Interfund contract reduced due to elimination of FTE Page 7 BEHAVIORAL HEALTH Statement of Financial Operating Data Through January 31,2014 Actual Revenues Marriage Licenses 5.650 Divorce Filing Fees 122,971 Federal Grants 252,331 Federal Grant (ARRA) 63,750 State Grants 7,552,648 State Miscellaneous 62,361 Adult Mental Health Initiative 229,038 Title 19 121,876 liquor Revenue 144,595 School Districts 23,317 Patient Fees 110,491 Interest on Investments 19,900 Rentals 16,625 Administrative Fee 5,224,877 Interfund Contract-Gen Fund 127,000 Miscellaneous 17,482 Total Revenues 14,094,911 Expenditures Personnel Services 10,916,057 Materials and Services 5,970.799 Capital Outlay 26,965 Transfers Out 204,000 Total Expenditures 17,117,821 Revenues less Expenditures (3,022,909) Transfers In-General Fund 1,307,787 Transfers In-OHP-CDO 484,494 Transfers In-Acute Care Svcs 264,631 Transfers In-ABHA 524,039 Total Transfers In 2,580,951 Change in Fund Balance (441,958) Beginning Fund Balance 3,113,095 Ending Fund Balance $2,671,137 FY 2013 FY 2014 -Year to Date (58% of Year) I 'ro Of Actual Budget 3.980 61% 6,500 6,500 74.945 53% 140,600 140,600 36.617 15% a) 252,349 204,849 (47,500) 63,750 250% 25,500 63,750 38,250 4,087,484 49% b) 8,296,649 8,077,086 (219,563) 21,520 35% c) 61,860 21,520 (40,340) 144,086 63% 230,000 534,086 304,086 106,426 74% 144,246 193,792 49,546 63,015 46% 137,000 150,000 13,000 499 nla 499 499 116,215 74% 158,082 222,319 64,237 11,273 55% 20,500 20,500 8,500 46% 18,500 18,500 4,805,375 58% 8,318,643 8,318,643 36,420 29% d) 127,000 127,000 19,826 19826% 100 20,000 19,900 9,599,929 530/0 17,937,529 18,119,644 182,115 7,036,919 51% 13,716,801 12,810,808 905,993 3,373,296 48% e) 7,004,720 6,122,720 882,000 -0% 10,000 10,000 102,450 50% 204,900 204,900 10,512,665 (912,736) 50% 20,936,421 (2,998,892) 19,148,428 (1,028,784) 1,787,993 1,970,108 803,425 - 171,262 - 58% nla 58% nla 1,377,302 293,593 1,377,302 293,593 58% 1,670,895 1,670,895974,687 61,951 (1,327,997) 642,111 1,970,108 2,671,137 77% 3,461,651 2,671,137 (79O,5141 $2,733,087 * $2,133,654 $3,313,248 $ 1,179,594 FY 2014 Budget I Projection I $ Variance * FY 2014 Contingency-Original Budget $ 2,359,100; as of January 31,2014 $2,133,654. a) Federal grant projected at amended contract amount b) Oregon Health Authority grant project at amended contract amount c) Contract for Addiction Recovery terminated d) Received quarterly in arrears e) M&S reduction related to Oregon Health Authority amended contract Page 8 Revenues Admin-Operations Admin-GIS Admin-Code Enforcement Building Safety Electrical Contract Services Env Health-Dn Site Prog Planning-Current Planning-Long Range Total Revenues Expenditures Admin-Operations Admin-GIS Admin-Code Enforcement Building Safety Electrical Contract Services Env Health-Dn Site Pgm Planning-Current Planning-Long Range Transfers Out (DIS Fund) Total Expenditures Revenues less Expenditures Transfers In General Fund -Gen Ops General Fund -UR Planning A&T Reserve (DIS assistance) Other COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Statement of Financial Operating Data Through January 31,2014 FY 2014 -Year to Date (58% of Year)FY2013 I "10 Of Actual BudgetActual FY2014 Budget I PrOjection I $ Variance 31,848 23,565 42% 56,243 33,400 (22,843) 778 2,878 192% a) 1,500 3,500 2,000 239,264 154,641 87% 178,000 243,860 65,860 1,563,938 1,022,494 82% 1,247,359 1,700,882 453,523 336,210 237,193 84% 283,073 370,446 87,373 166,428 161,717 79% b) 204,800 225,760 20,960 340,564 248,314 86% 288,484 390,223 101,739 798,221 485,592 77% 634,602 761,522 126,920 348,545 230,021 84% 274,527 329,432 54,905 3,825,796 2,566,415 81% 3,168,588 4,059,025 890,437 1,311,935 933,919 58% c) 1,610,396 1,657,896 (47,500) 117,502 70,342 57% 124,246 124,246 208,357 161,155 58% 275,515 275,515 599,764 391,031 58% d) 672,796 717,796 (45,000) 200,596 126,733 58% 218,300 218,300 163,822 125,684 77% e) 162,658 187,057 (24,399) 160,291 103,821 61% 171,529 171,529 581,155 380,330 57% 665,901 665,901 356,807 210,869 47% 450,498 450,498 179,155 173,338 97% 179,035 179,035 3,879,383 2,677,222 59% 4,530,874 4,647,773 (116,899) (53,586) (110,807) (1,362,286) (588,748) 1,007,336 854,872 -0% f) 465,121 (465,121) 495,360 288,960 58% 495,360 495,360 89,577 -0% f) 89,518 (89,518) --0% 100 (100) Total Transfers In Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance 1,439,809 1,386,223 192,482 $1,578,705 288,960 178,153 1,578,705 $1,756,858 28% 227% .. 1,050,099 (312,187) 696,290 $ 384,103 495,360 (93,388) 1,578,705 $1,485.317 (554,739) 218,799 882,415 $1,101,214 .. FY 2014 Contingency-$ 384,103 a) $2,500 to be paid by City of La Pine to set up City's new plan and zoning designations in GIS b) Additional revenue generated from contract plan review and inspections services (Sisters, Redmond) c) Includes $63,891 for the Computer Software, additional Accela training expenses, computer replacement & new Permit Tech pOSition d) Conversion of on-call position (Sisters) to permanent position and re-create Ass't. Building Official position e) Additional contract (on-call) services required to meet plan review and inspection service demands f) Beginning Fund Balance and FY 14 revenues are projected to be sufficient to cover FY 14 expenditures Page 9 Revenues Federal Grant (ARRA) Mineral Lease Royalties Forest Receipts Federal -PIL T Payment State Miscellaneous Motor Vehicle Revenue City of Bend City of Redmond City of Sisters City of La Pine Interest on Investments Interfund Contract Equipment Repairs Vehicle Repairs Vegetation Management Forester Other Inter-fund Services Inter-Fund Sales -Fuel Sale of Equip &Material Miscellaneous Total Revenues Expenditures Personnel Services Materials and Services Capital Outlay Transfers Out Total Expenditures Revenues less Expenditures Trans In -Solid Waste Trans In -Transp SOC Trans In-Road Imp Res Total Transfers In Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance ROAD Statement of Financial Operating Data Through January 31,2014 FY 2014 -Year to FY2013 Date (58% of Year) Actual Actual I 'Yo ot Budget FY2014 Budget f PrOjection I $ Variance 7,335 140,591 1,265,279 - 542,290 10,495,426 45,486 315,525 1,861 10,000 32,342 526,110 255,369 82,542 49,503 24,628 30,387 623,074 287,313 35,018 - 25,530 - 1,064,365 588,197 6,759,679 202,418 27,482 84,691 - 24,515 - 144,970 - - - 13,216 334,428 185,140 53,567 n/a 18% 0% a) n/a b) 76% 64% 65% c) 7% c) 847% c) 0% c) 136% 0% d) 66% 0% n/a 0% d) 106% 61% 69% 231% e) 140,000 356,270 773,452 10,554,500 310,000 370,000 10,000 10,000 18,000 562,000 220,000 90,000 1,500 12,500 550,000 270,000 23,200 140,000 1,205,101 1,064,365 588,198 11,000,000 783,380 294,535 84,692 32,000 527,450 200,000 75,000 1,500 44,017 495,000 261,022 60,768 848,831 1,064,365 (185,254) 445,500 473,380 (75,465) 74,692 (10,000) 14,000 (34,550) (20,000) (15,000) 31,517 (55,000) (8,978) 37,568 14,770,079 9,508,198 67% 14,271,422 16,857,028 2,585,606 5,303,241 3,078,745 57% 5,385,717 5,305,874 79,843 7,277,398 4,276,410 41% 10,306,609 9,145,700 1,160,909 67,987 79,336 3% 2,882,10a 94,800 2,787,308 275,000 -0% 450,000 450,000 12,923,627 7,434,491 39% 19,024,434 14,996,374 4,028,060 1,846,452 2,073,708 (4,753,012) 1,860,654 6,613,666 276,272 141,074 50% d) 282,148 282,148 --0% 400,000 (400,000) --0% 1,000 (1,oool 276,272 141,074 21% 683,148 282,148 (401,000) 2,122,724 2,214,782 (4,069,864) 2,142,802 6,212,666 4,723,852 6,846,576 114% 6,014,368 6,846,576 832,208 Ending Fund Balance $ 6,846,576 $9,061,358 * $ 1,944,504 $8,989,378 $7,044,874 * FY 2014 ContingencY-$1,944,504 a) Payment received annually in February b) One-time PIL T payment. Not anticipated at the time the FY 2014 budget was adopted c) Billed upon completion of work d) Payments to be received in June 2014 from other Road Department funds e) $20,000 claim reimbursement for damaged stop light in La Pine Page 10 ADULT PAROLE & PROBATION Statement of Financial Operating Data Through January 31,2014 FY2013 Actual Revenues DOC Measure 57 219,240 Justice Reinvest HB3194 State Miscellaneous 4,301 Alternate Incarceration State Subsidy 22,329 SB 1145 2,748,555 Probation Work Crew Fees 14,136 Claims Reimbursement Miscellaneous 4,648 Electronic Monitoring Fee 177,947 Probation Superv. Fees 189,330 Interest on Investments 5,743 Interfund -Sheriff 50,000 Sale of Equipment 250 Crime Prevention Grant 50,000 CFC-Domestic Violence 63,906 Total Revenues 3,550,384 Expenditures Personnel Services 2,956,034 Materials and Services 912,384 Capital Outlay - Total Expenditures 3,868,418 Revenues less Expenditures (318,034) Transfers In-General Fund 435,328 Change in Fund Balance 117,294 Beginning Fund Balance 630,226 Ending Fund Balance $ 747,520 * FY 2014 Contingency-$ 610,647 FY 2014 -Year to Date (58% of Year) FY2014I% Of Budget I Projection I $ Variance Actual Budget 220,788 101 % a) 219,240 220,788 1,548 458,143 n/a b) 458,143 458,143 4,142 96% 4,301 4,142 (159) 7,408 49% 15,000 15,000 10,937 79% 13,826 13,826 2,272,343 77% 2,951,504 2,951,504 2,891 22% c) 13,376 4,956 (8,420) 6,997 nla d) 6,997 6,997 70 2% e) 4,500 100 (4,400) 128,023 82% f) 156,000 219,468 63,468 112,207 64% g) 175,000 192,354 17,354 3,599 60% 6,000 6,000 29,167 58% 50,000 50,000 -nla 25,000 50% h) 50,000 50,000 35,120 47% h) 73,938 73,938 3,316,834 89% 3,732,685 4,267,216 534,531 1,944,825 581,610 - 58% 61% d) 0% 3,326,077 955,003 100 3,326,077 1,020,359 (65,356) 100 2,526,435 59% 4,281,180 4,346,436 (65,256) 790,399 (548,495) (79,220) 469,275 263,193 58% 451,189 451,189 1,053,592 (97,306) 371,969 469,275 747,520 106% 707,953 747,520 39,567 $1,801,111 * $ 610,647 $1,119,489 $ 508,842 a) Annual M57 payment calculated slightly higher than expected b) Unanticipated grant for funding of programs and personnel in FY 2014 ($137,216) and FY 15 ($320,927) c) Program participation decreasing d) Insurance settlement e) Number of out of state transfers was less than projected, lowering the fee collection f) Program utilization increase g) Program collection rate is higher, possibly due to more employed offenders h) Quarterly payments not yet received Page 11 CHILDREN & FAMILIES COMMISSION Statement of Financial Operating Data Through January 31, 2014 FY 2014 -Year to Date (58% of Year) FY 2013 FY 2014 I 'Yo of Actual Actual Budget Budget I Projection I $ Variance Revenues Federal Grants 252,020 Title IV -Family Sup/Pres 39,533 HealthyStart Medicaid 80,557 Youth Investment 196,053 State Prevention Funds 65,270 HealthyStart /R-8-G 219,950 OCCF Grant 392,440 Charges for Svcs-Misc 5,148 Program Fees 5,645 Court Fines & Fees 73,959 Interest on Investments 3,659 Donations 13 Private Grant ­ I nterfund Grants 358,343 Total Revenues 1,692,590 Expenditures Personnel Services 570,985 Materials and Services 1,424,002 Total Expenditures 1,994,987 Revenues less Expenditures (302,397) Transfers In General Fund 275,984 General Fund -Other ­ Total Transfers In 275,984 Change in Fund Balance (26,413) Beginning Fund Balance 574,985 Ending Fund Balance $ 548,572 * FY 2014 Contingency-$175,181 a) Revised to reflect actual award 125,590 31% $) 402,044 262,798 (139,246) 7,331 33% 21,994 21,994 20,000 25% 80,000 80,000 31,262 nla 125,048 125,048 -nla 132,927 52% ~) 254,322 264,623 10,301 37,386 20% a} 189,636 133,984 (55,652) 2,220 111% 2,000 4,000 2,000 2,790 nla 6,060 6,060 44,967 60% 75,034 77,086 2,052 1,573 157% 1,000 2,700 1,700 50 nla 50 50 130 nla 130 130 219,812 63% a) 350,375 329,624 {20,751! 626,037 42% 1,501,453 1,308,097 (193,356) 301,881 53% b) 573,849 526,259 47,590 565,320 38% 1,496,216 1,244,868 251,348 867,201 42% 2,070,065 1,771,127 298,938 (241,164) (568,612) (463,030) 105,582 162,596 44,675 58% 50% 278,739 89,350 278,739 89,350 207,271 56% 368,089 368,089 (33,893) (200,523) (94,941) 105,582 548,572 146% 375,704 548,572 172,868 '" $ 175,181 $ 453,631 $ 278,450$ 514,679 b) Removed 1.0 FTE Ear1y Learning Regional Coordinator from budget For budgeting and reporting purposes, these activities are presented in a single fund "Children and Families Commission." There are two activities: "Regional Ear1y Learning Hub~ and "Substance Abuse Prevention~. It is anticipated that Substance Abuse Prevention will be merged with Public Health programs in FY 2015. State funding for the Regional Early Learning Hub after FY 2014 is uncertain. Page 12 SOLID WASTE Statement of Financial Operating Data Through January 31. 2014 FY2013 Actual Operating Revenues Miscellaneous 19.127 Franchise 3% Fees 209,076 Commercial Disp. Fees 971,213 Private Disposal Fees 1,376,005 Franchise Disposal Fees 3,980,498 Yard Debris 107,801 Special Waste 73,568 Interest 8,118 Leases 10,801 Recyclables 47,033 Miscellaneous 3,131 Total Operating Revenues 6,806,370 Operating Expenditures Personnel Services 1,651,419 Materials and Services 2.808,337 Debt Service 946,711 Capital Outlay 76,335 Total Operating Expenditures 5,482,802 Operating Rev less Exp 1,323,569 Transfers Out Road 276,272 Capital Reserve 630,000 Total Transfers Out 906,272 Change in Fund Balance 417,297 Beginning Fund Balance 807,470 Ending Fund Balance $1,224,767 * FY 2014 Contingency-$ 588,009 a) Due April 15, 2014 b) Seasonal FY 2014 -Year to Date (58% of Year) Actual l % of Budget Budget FY 2014 l Projection I$ Variance 11.534 52% 22,000 20,092 (1,908) 20,090 10% ill) 200,000 210,000 10.000 609,902 64% 954,100 1,071,286 117.186 873,864 67% 1.309,350 1.538.040 228.690 2,487,649 61% 4,095,525 4.345,708 250.183 54,167 64% b) 85,000 95,000 10,000 35,872 143% c} 25.000 40,000 15,000 5.758 72% 8,000 9,000 1.000 6.301 58% 10.801 10.801 24.067 53% 45.000 45,000 -n/a 4,129,203 61% 6,754.776 7.384.927 630,151 1,040,787 1,784,208 384,886 25.895 56% 54% 41% d) 47% 1.868.124 3,311.993 930.157 55.000 1.866,466 3.280,226 930.157 50.896 1,658 31,767 4.104 3,235,778 893,426 589,502 1,257,182 667,680 141.074 50% e) 282,148 282.148 357,500 66% f) 545,000 545,000 52% 6,165.274 6,127,745 371529 498,574 60% 827,148 827,148 3,630,629 (237.646) 430,034 667,680 1,224,767 148% 825,655 1,224,767 399,112 $4,855,396 * $ 588,009 $1,654,801 $1 1066,792 c) Unpredictable-revenue mainly from clean-up projects d) Payments made November and May e) Transfers will be made quarterly f) As requested during the year Page 13 Revenues Inter-fund Charges: General Liability Property Damage Vehicle Workers' Compensation Unemployment Claims Reimb-Gen Liab/Property Process Fee-Events/Parades Miscellaneous Skid Car Training Interest on Investments TOTAL REVENUES Direct Insurance Costs: GENERAL LIABILITY Settlement I Benefit Defense Professional Service Insurance Loss Prevention Miscellaneous Repair I Replacement Total General Liability PROPERTY DAMAGE Insurance Repair I Replacement Total Property Damage VEHICLE Insurance Loss Prevention Repair / Replacement Total Vehicle WORKERS' COMPENSATION Settlement I Benefit Professional Service Insurance Loss Prevention Miscellaneous Total Workers' Compensation UNEMPLOYMENT -Settlement/Benefits Total Direct Insurance Costs Insurance Administration: Personnel Services Materials & Srvc, Capital Out. & Tranfs. Total expenditures Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance '* FY 2014 ContingenCY-$ 2,871,279 RISK MANAGEMENT Statement of Financial Operating Data Through January 31. 2014 FY 2014 -Year to Date (58% of Year)FY2013 I "10 Of Actual BudgetActual FY2014 Budget I Projection I $ Variance 262,333 313,480 173,635 1,448,553 254,165 34,401 1,300 76 23,060 12,226 159,147 58% 272,823 272.823 190,474 58% 326,526 326.526 95,754 58% 164,150 164.150 882,110 58% 1,512,188 1.512.188 180,947 58% 310,203 310.203 1,098 3% 40,000 40,000 280 12% 2,300 2,300 14 18% 80 80 18,450 132% 14.000 22.000 8,000 7.996 66% 12.050 12.050 2,523,228 1,536,269 58% 2,654,320 2,662,320 8,000 138,205382,659 21,30850.919 11,68585.751 151,339148.035 8,790 113 2,9263,290 2,200200 327,777 82% 400,000 450,000 (50,000)679,645 159,171 166,668 54.449 121,234 213,620 287,902 115% 250,000 350,000 (100,000) 366 205 16,030 11.237 54,919 27,994 71,316 39,437 33% 120,000 100,000 20,000 367,051 264,250 -5,000 141,960 36,000 46,366 113,452 21,173 25,860 591,376 429,736 54% 800.000 630,000 170,000 137,082 1,693,039 80,468 1,165,319 40% 66% 200,000 1,770,000 180,000 1,710,000 20,000 60,000 308,508 131,414 175,573 88,931 53% 45% 333,327 197,193 333,327 197,093 100 1,429,823 62% 2,300,520 2,240,420 60,1002,132,961 106,446 353,800 421,900 68,100390,267 2,240,791 2,631,057 2,517,479 2,631,057 113,578 '*$ 2,631,057 $2,737,503 $ 2,871,279 $ 3,052,957 $ 181,678 Page 14 DESCHUTES COUNTY 9-1-1 Statement of Financial Operating Data Through January 31, 2014 FY2013 Actual Revenues Property Taxes -Current 6,323,533 Property Taxes -Prior 319,349 Federal Grants 46,514 State Reimbursement 35,066 Telephone User Tax 767,453 Data Network Reimb. 64,247 Jefferson County 30,755 User Fee 69,012 Police RMS User Fees 229,103 Contract Payments 11,885 Miscellaneous 10,084 Claims Reimbursement 46,760 Interest 54,324 Total Revenues 8,008,083 Expenditures Personnel Services 3,982,162 Materials and Services 1,929,460 Capital Outlay 81,515 Total Expenditures 5,993,138 Revenues less Expenditures 2,014,945 Transfers Out -Reserve Fund 500,000 Change in Fund Balance 1,514,945 Beginning Fund Balance 8,883,086 Ending Fund Balance $ 10,398,030 * FY 2014 Contingency-$ 2,565,186 FY 2014 -Year to Date (58% of Year) I "/0 of Actual Budget 5,689,820 96% a) 145,277 66% -0% b) 19,957 55% 188,545 25% c) -0% 26,689 89% 43,191 80% -0% d) -0% 54,963 611% -nla 28,503 47% Budget 5,947,600 219,007 200,000 36,000 750,000 30,000 30,000 54,000 256,791 137,000 9,000 60,600 FY2014 I Projection I $ Variance 6,173,348 190,000 193,698 (25,309) 200,000 36,000 750,000 30,000 30,000 54,000 256,791 137,000 54,963 45,963 60,600 $ b) Reimbursement grant for CAD to CAD Capital Expenditures. Billing for a portion made to ODOT c) Payments received quarterly -October, January, April, and July d) Billed annually e) Capital projects are in progress. AntiCipate expending the amount budgeted 6,196,945 80% 7,729,998 7,976,400 210,654 2,607,361 59% 4,432.356 4,432.356 1,252,573 59% 2,132,476 2,132,476 44,477 7% e) 600,000 600,000 3,904,411 54% 7,164,832 7,164,832 2,292,534 565,166 811,568 210,654 7,800,000 100% 7,800.000 7,800.000 (5,507,466) (7.234,834) (6,988,432) 210,654 10,398,030 106% 9,800,000 10,398,030 598,030 4,890,564 * $ 2,565,166 $3,409,599 $ 808,685 a) Current year taxes due November, February, and May Page 15 Health Benefits Trust Statement of Financial Operating Data Through January 31, 2014 Revenues: Internal Premium Charges Part-Time Employee Premium Employee Monthly Co-Pay COIC Retiree I COBRA Co-Pay Prescription Rebates Claims Reimbursements Miscellaneous Interest Total Revenues Expenditures: Personnel Services (all depts) Materials & Services Admin & Wellness Claims Paid-Medical Claims Paid-Prescription Claims Paid-DentalNision Claims Refunds Stop Loss Insurance Premium State Assessments Administration Fee (EMBS) Preferred Provider Fee Health Impact Other -Administration Other -Wellness Admin & Wellness Deschutes On-site Clinic Contracted Services Medical Supplies Equipment Other Total DOC Deschutes On-site Phannacy Contracted Services Medication and Drugs Other Total Phannacy Total Expenditures Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance FY 2013 FY 2014 -Year to Date (58.3% of Year) Actual Actual %of Budget 12,874,815 30,280 643,918 1,405,518 963,987 99,330 50,493 1,240 70,959 16,140,540 8,372,748 11,094 446,555 917,951 641,441 107,637 1,675 429 36,441 10,535,971 58.7% 27.7% 45.6% 57.6% 66.9% 213.2% nJe nJe 60.7% 58.7% 197,101 94.413 45.0% 11,879,332 1,059,923 1,835,199 (131.375) 336,407 194,510 334,141 50.841 52,224 101,616 49.996 15,762.814 6.872,558 431,982 993,073 (147,996) 163,163 67,753 197,102 28,590 4,327 19,409 71,025 8,700,986 55.8% a) 40.6% a) 54.4% a) nJe 43.5% 31.5% 59.7% 52.0% 7.9% 32.3% 92.6% 53.1% 804.311 33,155 2,170 46,715 886,351 448,780 30,567 - 17,061 496,409 49.0% 305.7% 0.0% 44.5% 51.5% $ 367,193 1,446,770 63,518 1.877 480 18,723,746 (2,583,206) 14551,028 11,967,822 159.122 888,539 7,393 1,055,054 10,346,861 189,109 $11,967,822 $12,156,931 55.1% 59.2% b) 62.3% 58.6% 53.5% 102% .. FY 2014 ProjectionBudget $ Variance 14,269,138 14.335,839 66,701 40,000 19,000 (21,000) 980,000 800,000 (180,000) 1,592,750 1,570,000 (22,750) 958,333 1,100,000 141,667 50,493 107,637 57,144 1,675 1,675 429 429 60,000 62,000 2,000 17,950,714 17,996,581 45,867 209.676 175,536 34,140 12,321,732 11,734.720 793.571 1.064,841 789.918 340,226 1,825,442 1,746.269 159,641 (147.996) 147,996 375,000 375.000 215.000 215.000 330,000 330.000 55,000 55,000 55,000 4,327 50.673 60,162 60,162 76,739 156.000 Q:9.261~ 16,378,916 15,318,399 1,060,517 915.000 10,000 250 38,310 915,000 30,567 38,310 (20,567) 250 963,560 983.877 (20,317) 289,004 1.500,000 11,876 289.004 1,600,000 11,876 (100.000) 1,800,880 119001880 11ool oool 19,353,032 18,378:692 974,340 ( 1.402.318) (382,111) 1,020,207 11,700.000 11,967,822 267.822 $10,297,682 $11 1585,710 !1,288I 028 I % of EXp covei'8d by Revenues 86.2% 101.8% 92.8% 97.9%1 Page 16 • FY 2014 Contingency-$ 10,297,682 jrt 211012014 a) Projection based on combination of annualizing current year and 12-month rolling average b) January has not been billed/paid. Estimated based on December actual FAIR AND EXPO CENTER Statement of Financial Operating Data Through January 31,2014 FY 2014 Budget Projection $ Variance b) Revenues and Expenses for the annual fair recorded in a separate fund and the available net income is transferred to the Fair & Expo Center Fund c) The expenditure for the fire alarm/suppression system was not included in the FY 2014 budget FY 2014 -Year to Date (58% of Year)FY2013 0/0 of Actual Budget Revenues Miscellaneous $ 4,102 Actual $ 3,221 64.4% $ 5,000 Vending Machines ­-0.0% 1,500 Telephone Fees -Events 255 140 nla Special Events Revenues 383,339 202,208 51.2% 395,000 Interest 76 394 nla Storage 35,283 13,602 25.2% 54,000 Camping at F & E 16,700 838 7.6% 11,000 Horse Stall Rental 48,036 1,635 5.5% 30,000 Concession % -Food 139,006 50,968 33.5% 152,000 Rights (Signage, etc.) 85,338 8,000 10.0% 80,000 Grants ­14,149 7.9% a) 180,000 Interfund Rentals 2,400 1,400 58.3% 2,400 Annual County Fair (net) 245,000 205,000 82.0% b) 250,000 Interfund Contract 45,000 -nla Total Revenues 1,004,534 501,555 43.2% Expenditures: Personnel Services 821,293 516,986 58.2% Materials and Services 580,396 367,580 76.0% c) Debt Service 114,117 69,227 61.3% Capital Outlay 9,000 48,392 26.9% a) Total Expenditures 1,524,806 1,002,185 60.2% Revenues less Expenditures (520,272) (500,630) Transfers In: General Fund Room Tax -6% (Fund 160) Room Tax -1% (Fund 170) Fair & Expo Reserve Total Transfers In Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance 320,000 25,744 82,800 50,000 478,544 (41,728) 35,055 (6,673) $ 218,274 15,015 110,341 50,000 393,630 (107,000) (6,673) (113,673) 58.3% 58.3% 58.3% 50.0% 57.1% ., FY 2014 Contingency-$234,613 a) Pacific Power and Energy Trust grant for solar panels on the Event Center 1,160,900 887,593 483,533 112,974 180,100 1,664,200 1,797,389 (503,300) (675,955) $ 5,000 1,500 140 395,000 394 40,000 15,000 45,000 152,000 80,000 180,000 2,400 205,000 1,121,434 887,593 616,822 112,974 180,000 $ 140 394 (14,000) 4,000 15,000 (45,000) (39.466) (133,289) 100 (133,189) (172,655) 36,578 Page 17 JUSTICE COURT Statement of Financial Operating Data Through January 31,2014 FY 2014 -Year to FY 2013 Date (58% of Year) Actual Actual l "10 Of Budget Revenues Court Fines &Fees State Miscellaneous Interest on Investments Total Revenues a) 357,920 - 796 358,716 Expenditures Personnel Services Materials and Services Total Expenditures 365,245 166,294 531,539 Revenues less Expenditures Transfers In-General Fund Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance a) $ (172,823) 221,716 48,893 104,925 153,818 * FY 2014 Contingency-$ 52,866 FY2014 Budget I Projection I $ Variance 193,856 46% b)c) 422,500 422,500 -0% 600 600 396 44% 900 900 194,252 46% 424,000 424,000 241,135 54% 445,984 445,984 113,366 60% 190,210 190,210 354,501 56% 636,194 636,194 (160,249) (212,194) (212,194) 82,145 58% 140,819 140,819 (78,104) (71,375) (71,375) 153,818 124% 124,241 153,818 29,577 $ 75,714 *' $ 52,866 $ 82,443 $ 29,577 a) FY 2013: The Transfer from the General Fund was $579,636. As Justice Court Fines &Fees recorded in the General Fund as revenue totalled $357,920, the net transfer to Justice Court was $221,716 b) YTD Actual reported on "cash basis". January fines, to be received in February -$34,530 c) Collections tend to be seasonal and are greater during February, March and April Page 18 ~ ...., CAPITAL PROJECTS • Bethlehem Inn • Campus Improvement • J ail Project • North County Campus • Sisters Health Clinic Deschutes County Bethlehem Inn (Fund 128) FY 2013-Actual; FY 2014-Year to Date Actual, Budget and Projection Through January 31,2014 FY2013 FY 2014 -Year to Date (58% of Year)I %of Actual Actual Budget Revenues Grants -Private Lease Payments Total Revenues Expenditures Debt Service: Interest Expense Total Expenditures Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance 0.0% 58.3% 58.3% 34.2% 34.2% 100.0% FY2014 Budget I Projection $ 2,700,600 $ 24,408 24,408 2,725,008 24,408 24,408 14,200 24,408 14,200 2,700,600 (2,700,600) $ 10,208 (2,700,381) $ (2,690,173) $ Variance $ (2,700,600) (2,700,600) 10,208 10,208 (2,690,392) 219 $ (2,690,173) $ - 24,408 24,408 $ - 14,238 14,238 14,617 14,617 8,348 8,348 9,792 (2,710,173) $ (2,700,381) 5,890 (2,700,381) $ (2,694,492) a) Interest on January 2014 negative cash balance: $1,214.31. b) Inception through January 31, 2014: Revenues -Lease Payments Expenditures: Land/Building (Amertitle) -July 2007 Hickman Williams City of Bend -May 2008 KN EX CO Kleinfelder Total expended on facility Interest on Negative Cash Balance Total expended Net $ 87,462 2,241,313 17,578 250,000 5,289 3,732 2,517,913 264,041 2,781,954 $ (2,694,492) I ' = " ' " _____ __ _;~"",."~~.."". __'''''''''''''''''~'''''''''~"'''''' .,'"","" ....-"'"","",~,'---'......_'..""""'_'~"'__....._~_-__ __.'~,"""-....,,,;","~--=-~.=.=.-.-....~ ... ______... """I!8........~. ~~~i,lj;l·.... ......_.",~~I(....._~,_~""_...,.~",......,~""""""''¥~''''''''_c:.&.W_""t"'''''''''''"""""•.-t"",."_~",,,,,,,-='>i'-:liiI',_;;~' Deschutes County.. '" Campus Improvement (Fund 463) Inception through January 31.2014 Received and Expended I Projected Total RESOURCES: Transfer in (Note A) $ 796.617 $ $ 796.617 Transfer in -General Fund 150,000 150,000 Transfer in -General County Projects (142) (Note B) 350.000 350,000 700,000 Oregon Judicial Dept Payment 12,750 12,750 Interest Revenue 7,936 500 8,436 Total Resources 1,317,302 350,500 1,667,802 EXPENDITURES: Basement Jail/Boiler Demolition JB1 168,109 168,109 Basement Public File View JB2 141,862 141,862 1at Floor Public File View JB3 117,980 117,980 18t Floor Restrooms/Haslinger Court JB4 401,231 401,231 1st Floor OeHooglBagley Court/Jury Room JB5 81,702 81,702 Accounting Area Open Workspace JB6 40,664 40,664 Courthouse OA Offices JB7 34,348 34,348 Hearing Room Justice Bldg 2/Basement Phases 1/2 JB8 54,421 618,766 673,187 "Stone Building" 720 720 Internal Service Fund Charges 5,748 2,250 7,998 Total Materials & Services 1,046,786 621,016 1,667,802 Revenues less Expenditures $ 270,516 $ (270,516) Notes: A. Remaining proceeds from the FF&C borrowing for the OSP/911 Building. B. Projected $350,000 subject to being approved in the FY 2015 budget. Completed Projects JRJ: ?/~f?n1.4 Deschutes County Jail Project (Fund 456) -Phase II Beginning July 1, 2012 Through January 31, 2014 Project Budget (Note 1) Actual (Through January 31, 2014) Committed Projected Total (Actual + Committed + Projected) Variance Resources Interest $ 26,157 $ 29,761 $ $ $ 29,761 3,604 Transfers In: General County Projects (142) 100,000 100,000 100,000 General Capital Reserve (143) 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 General Fund (001 ) 750,000 750,000 750,000 Sheriff's Office 80,000 80,000 80,000 Jamison Acq &Remodel (457) (Note 2) 540,939 540,939 540,939 Bond Issuance, net 8,400,000 8,403,481 8,403,481 3,481 Total Resources 11,067,096 11,074,182 80,000 11,154,182 87,086 Expenditures Architect 820,000 783,193 31,207 5,600 820,000 Engineering 17,039 17,039 (17,039) Environmental 593 593 (593) Surveying 500 500 (500) Consulting 35,000 2,893 32,107 35,000 0 Building &Grounds 9,127 9,127 (9,127) Fees &Permits, SDCs (water &sewer) 310,000 276,465 46,240 322,705 (12,705) Insurance 40,000 7,938 7,938 32,062 Internal Service Fund Charges 33,700 20,505 13,195 33,700 Miscellaneous Administrative 30,000 7,703 22,297 30,000 FF &E -Security System 50,210 50,210 (50,210) FF &E -Storage System 40,000 40,000 40,000 Construction -Expansion &Remodel (2) 9,458,396 3,263,325 6,473,433 9,736,758 (278,362) Construction Contingency 300,000 50,613 50,613 249,387 Total Expenditures 11,067,096 4,439,489 6,517,835 196,857 11,154,182 (87,086) Net $ $ 6,634,692 $(6,517,835) $ (116,857) $ (0) Note 1: The project includes the Jail expansion and a remodel for the Medical Unit Note 2: Original contract with KNCC-$9,593.276. Change Order #1-$143,482 (Generator-$32,019, Water Closet controls-$91 ,496 &Bunk Bed Reconfiguation-$19,967) JRF 2/11/2014 RESOURCES: loan Proceeds, net of issuance costs Resources from Fund 142 Resources from Fund 142 Transfer In (Fund 142) Interest Revenue Total Resources EXPENDITURES: Materials &Services Architecture/Design Engineering Internal Service Fund Charges Fees, Permits & SDCs Utilities Travel-Meals/Mileage Reimb Total Materials & Services Capital Outlay land and Building Remodel Total Capital Outlay Contingency Total Expenditures Net Deschutes County North County Services Building Inception through January 31, 2014 Received or Expended ACTUAL Encumbrances & Commitments Project to Date 1,402,013 25,000 600,000 8,444 2,035,457 1,402,013 25,000 600,000 8.444 2,035,457 a) b) c) 51.735 25,000 76,735 c) 23.985 1.693 21,731 23 99,168 25,000 23,985 1,693 21,731 23 124,168 1,402,013 230 1,402,243 1,402,013 230 1,402,243 b) a) 1,501,410 25,000 1,526,410 534,048==-: (25,000) 509,046 5,500,000 1,402,013 25.000 700,000 50,000 7,677,013 325,000 100,000 31,724 200.000 20,000 676,724 1,402,013 5,481,426 6,883,439 116.850 7,677,013 PROJECTION Variance 1,402.013 25,000 700,000 50,000 2,177,013 325,000 100.000 31,724 200,000 20,000 23 676,747 1,402.013 1,402,013 2,078,760 98,253 (5,500,000) (5,500,000) ~231 ~231 5,481,426 5,481,426 116.850 5,481,403 98,253 • The project budget is the consolidation of FY 2012 & FY 2013 and FY 2014 adopted budget a) FY 2014 budget includes appropriation of proceeds of issuance of $5,500,000 FF&C Bonds. This is not likely to occur in FY 2014. b) The building was purchased in FY 2011 with resources from General County Projects (Fund 142) -$1,402,013 c) $25,000 was paid to the architect in FY 2011 with resources from General County Projects Fund (Fund 142) ACTUAL Projected I Deschutes County Sisters Health Clinic (Fund 464) Inception through January 31,2014 RESOURCES: Beginning Net Working Capital Federal Grants Resources from Fund 142 Transfer in (Fund 142) Transfer in (Fund 270) Interest Revenue Total Resources 40,000 48,626 100,000 546 189.172 155,000 50,000 205,000 40,000 48,626 255,000 50,000 546 394,172 a) 500,000 48,626 255,000 50,000 600 854,226 EXPENDITURES: Materials & Services Architecture/Design Engineering Planning Surveying Interfund Charges Fees, Permits & SDCs Utilities Miscellaneous Project Costs Miscellaneous Admin Costs Total Materials & Services 56,499 1,140 2,029 2,670 25,549 993 26 88,906 56,499 1,140 2,029 2,670 25,549 993 26 88,906 a) 56,607 2,000 2,029 3,318 25,549 2,000 993 4,000 96,496 Capital Outlay New Construction Total Capital Outlay 55,312 55,312 497,418 497,418 552,730 552,730 b) 757,730 757,730 Contingency Total Expenditures 144,218 497,418 641,636 854,226 Net 44,953-­(292,418) (247,464) -0 a) $48,626 paid to the architect in FY 2012 with resources from General County Projects Fund (Fund 142) b) Additional costs due to delay in the project have not yet been determined. U;U= ?I<I/?n1A -------- Descnutes (.;ounty General Support Services -SOCC Conference/Seminar, Education/Training and Travel Expenditures County College Expenditures FY 2014 I FY2014 BOCC Conference & Travel I Jul I Aug I Sep I Oct I Nov I Dec I Jan Total Tammy Baney Conf/Sem & EducJTraining -35 -340 45 - -420 ---~-..... Travel Meals - ---30 50 -80 Accommodations -- -312 91 1~ -507 Airfare -------­ Mileage reimbursement -478 104 450 510 391 105 2,038 f----=-­ Ground Transport/Parking -- -----­ ------.. Total Baney -513 104 1,101 fiT7 545 105 3,045 Alan Unger .,.. Conf/Sem & EducJTiclining 205 -10 375 -110 35 -~ 735 .. _­ Travel Meals -- ---81 -81 Accommodations 192 - -415 -479 -1,086 Airfare ------ -­ Mileage reimbursement -...._-----2,056 -2,056 ..-~~-Ground Transport/Parking ...... -- -.... --14 -14 Total Unger 397 -10 790 -2,739 35 3,972 Tony DeBone .-._....­ Conf/Sem & EducJTraining 520 -184 340 45 10 120 1,219 Travel Meals -82 - --100 -181 Accommodations 618 164 -415 -145 -1,342 Airfare 658 50 ---- -708 Mile~ge reimbursement -1~~_= 411 -347 -862 Ground Transport -74 --- - -74---_..... Total DeBone 1,795 474 184 1,166 45 601 120 4,386 .... _--_..... ... ..... ....~~ -~ ,Total -BOCC Department Conf/Sem & EducITraining 725 35 194 1,055 90 120 155 2,374 Travel Meals -82 --30 230 -342 Accommodations 810 164 -1,143 91 727 -2,~ Airfare 658 50 - -- - -708._M._ Mileage Reimbursement -583 104 861 510 2,794 105 4,956 Ground Transport -74 -- -14 -88 Total -BOCC Department 2,192 987 298 3,058 722 3.886 260 11.403 FY 2014 Original Budget 15.250 ------.._---_...._------. Percent of FY 2014 Budget Expended 74.8% BO~C County College . _M._________.. _. Printing/Binding ------14 14 Office/Copier Supplies . _ ..._----_._....­176 -.. -....~---~- -48 ---224 Meeting Supplies --289 2,362 734 --3,384 Total BOCC County College -----_.....­ 176--289 2,409 734---14 3,622 ~ ..... .---­..... NOTE: Above amounts include only those expenditures processed for payment. ..... ­ Additional conference and travel costs may have been incurred, but not processed for payment. JRF 21312014 West Bend Middle School UGB Amendment and Annexation Annexation Area Conceptual Rendering Preliminary Rendering Preliminary Rendering Preliminary Rendering Preliminary Rendering Public Improvements Questions? Opening Fall 2015 M e m o r a n d u m To: Tom Anderson, Deschutes County From: Jon Skidmore, City of Bend Subject: City request for TGM funding match Date: February 24, 2014 The City received $150,000 to $200,000 from the Transportation Growth Management (TGM) grant program to conduct an integrated transportation and land use study for the central and westside of Bend. The area includes the new OSU Cascades campus area as well as the old Deschutes County land fill site. The City is working to generate a local match of $100,000 by requesting $25,000 from Deschutes County, OSU Cascades and the Bend Metro Parks and Recreation District for the TGM grant. The City will provide $25,000 as well. The following is a list of reasons why Deschutes County would benefit from the TGM planning project. The project will: Continue on-going community planning collaboration: The TGM planning process will be a collaborative effort between the City, Deschutes County, Bend Parks and Rec, OSU Cascades and the community; each entity has plans that will impact the west side of town, working together is the best way to identify and address community concerns. Conduct public outreach about land use and transportation issues and solutions: The TGM project will engage the public in a discussion about the impacts of growth generated from a variety of potential development scenarios on the west side of Bend. This discussion will be on a grander scale than the specific land fill site, but will be in a manner similar to how Deschutes County would have to work with the public to entitle and/or develop the land fill site. Outreach is expensive and time consuming. Further by teaming with various land owners and stakeholders on the west side of Bend, we have a larger context within which to discuss a number of projects versus specific proposals. Create, analyze, and conduct land use and transportation scenarios: The effort for the County to perform the transportation and land use analysis in order to rezone and develop the land fill site will be expensive and time consuming with studies and public outreach; the TGM planning project will analyze transportation and land use planning scenarios that are typically the first stages of planning and development. We expect that the County will take this opportunity to inform the scenario development process so that the resulting studies and recommendations accommodate desired entitlement strategies for the land fill site. Develop and implement code amendments: The TGM project is intended to develop land use and transportation code amendments that will provide a clear path for specific areas, such as the land fill site, to develop. I appreciate this opportunity to provide some initial comments on the TGM project and the benefits it will provide to the partner agencies we plan to work with on the study. We will be in attendance at the County Commission work session on February 24 to answer any questions or provide more information. Thank you. Deschutes Co.Land Fill Site Current OSULocation Deschute s R i v e r OSU SitePhase 1 FutureOSU Site B E N D P A R K W A Y PORTLAND AVE WILSON AVE B O N D S T ARIZONA AVE REED MARKET RD M E T O L I U S D R R I V E R S I D E BLVD SHEVLIN PARK RD C E N T U R Y D R NEWPORT AVE MT WASHINGTON DR GALVESTON AVE R E E D M A R K E T R D BO N D/INDUSTRIAL W A Y S C O TT ST SIMPSON AVE 1 4 T H S T C O L O R A D O A V E 9 T H S T W A L L S T B O N D S T M T W A S H I N G T O N D R Study Area Major Roads Roads Taxlots River Parks Plan Designation CC CG CL IG IL ME MR PF RH RM RS SM City of Bend: Proposed Immediate Study Area TGM Grant 2013 Ü 0 0.25 0.5MilesMap Prepared by City of Bend GIS, Jan. 2014Q:\GIS\GIS Projects\TransportationMapping TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner DATE: January 28, 2014 MEETING: February 24, 2014 SUBJECT: Work session with staff on proposal to move traffic study requirements from Title 17 to Title 18 and revise the level of service (LOS) standard from LOS C to LOS D for new County facilities (TA-13-2) BACKGROUND The County first added a traffic study requirement into the development code in 2006, placing it in Chapter 17.16, which deals with master plans and subdivisions. The traffic study requirements are triggered by any use that will generate more than 50 new weekday trips; however, over the years the County has accepted numerous land use applications that were not subdivisions or master plans, yet easily surpassed that trip threshold and thus had to submit a traffic analysis. At a Jan. 9, 2014, public hearing the Planning Commission recommended the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) approve the changes in TA-13-2. PROPOSAL A more logical location for the traffic study requirement would be DCC 18.116, Supplemental Provisions, which applies to all land use zones and already includes many general transportation items such as standards for Class I and II road projects, clear zones, off -street parking, and bicycle parking. TA-13-2 would move the traffic study requirements now found in DCC 17.16.115 and shift them to DCC 18.116 while creating a Section 18.116.310, Traffic Study Requirements. The cross-references in DCC 18.124.080, Site Plans, would be modified from DCC 17.16.115 to DCC 18.116.310 and DCC 17.16.115 would also add a cross-reference to the new DCC 18.116.310. The second aspect of TA-13-2 is to change the performance standard from Level of Service (LOS) C for new roads and intersections to LOS D, which is the standard for existing County facilities. By having LOS D as the performance standard for all existing and future County road segments and intersections, the resulting road network will be orderly and cost-effective. The proposed change from LOS C to LOS D for new County facilities would affect a minimal number of future projects. The County’s Transportation System Plan (TSP) at Table 5.3.T1 (County Road and Highway Projects) lists 53 total improvements to County roads. Of those 53 County road projects only five are future roads or intersections. Of those five, four are low priority (11-20 years) and one is high priority (1-5 years). None of the five is funded. 2 Staff has provided summary tables based on the “Highway Capacity Manual” (HCM) for the relevant LOS standards. The County’s LOS standards apply only to County roads; when County roads intersect State highways the performance standard is set by the “Oregon Highway Plan” (OHP). The LOS for intersections is based on delay. Table 1 compares the difference between LOS C and LOS D at both unsignalized intersection and signalized intersections. The comparison provides a sense of scale of the proposed change in terms of County road operations. Table 1 Average Seconds Delay per Vehicle by Level of Service and Intersection Type Level of Service Unsignalized Signalized LOS C 15-25 seconds 20-35 seconds LOS D 25-35 seconds 35-55 seconds Worst case delay (minimum LOS C subtracted from maximum LOS D) 20 seconds 35 seconds LOS applies not just to intersections, but also to lengths of roadway. The major factors for LOS along rural segments are traffic volumes, how easy it is to pass (which is indicated by percent time following a vehicle), and travel speed. The LOS continuum remains the same. LOS A has free flow conditions at or above the posted speed. At the opposite end LOS F has stop and go traffic, high volumes, and very variable speeds. A two-lane rural highway on level terrain can accommodate 3,200 passenger cars per hour (pc/h) in both directions. The capacity of a single travel lane is 1,700 pc/h. Table 2 compares the potential differences between LOS C and D and the pc/h is for traffic in both directions. As pc/h increases so does percent time following while travel speed declines. In other words, more traffic means fewer opportunities to pass. Table 2 Level of Service, Capacity, Percent Time Following, and Speed for Two-Lane Rural Roads Level of Service Passenger Cars/Hr Pct. Time Following Free Flow Speed LOS C 1,190 pc/h 50-65 45-50 mph LOS D 1,830 pc/h 66-80 40-45 mph Worst-Case Difference +640 pc/h +30 -10 mph In terms of rural, two-lane roads at LOS C, traffic volumes have increased and platoons (lines of several vehicles in a row) can begin to form and passing becomes more difficult. Speeds still remain above 45 mph. Traffic flow remains stable, although congestion can occur in the presence of slow-moving vehicles or lots of turning vehicles. LOS D on a rural, two-lane road means traffic begins to be unstable and passing opportunities become extremely difficult while demand for passing increases. Platoons of five to 10 vehicles become common. Slow-moving vehicles and turning vehicles have an even greater adverse effect. The County’s TSP on pages 125-126 found the only segments that exceed LOS D in 2030 were on the urban margins of Bend, Redmond, and La Pine. Staff has not yet set a public hearing date on proposed Ordinance 2014-001, which will implement TA-13-2. MEMORANDUM DATE: February 18, 2014 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Nick Lelack, Community Development Director Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner MEETING: February 24, 2014 RE: Planning Division Work Plan Update / City of Bend Airport Plan & TGM Requests The purpose of this work session is to:  Seek direction on initiating an agricultural lands program;  Recap the Planning Division’s existing projects and ongoing coordination responsibilities;  Discuss other projects; and  Seek direction on a City of Bend request for: o Twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) to supplement a Transportation Growth Management (TGM) Grant analyzing the longer term impacts of the Oregon State University-Cascades campus and other potential land use changes occurring in the west side of Bend. Deschutes County is one of four agencies exploring additional TGM costs. I. Agricultural Lands Program The Planning Division has developed a public outreach strategy to understand community, stakeholder, and landowner opinions about Deschutes County farm designations and land use regulations. By relying upon a series of meetings, public forums, and conversations with Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zoned property owners, this program can help determine if the County needs to change its agricultural zoning at the local and/or state level. Staff anticipates public outreach taking approximately 3 to 4 months (April-June). Staff will then present the results to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) and Planning Commission in mid to late-summer 2014, and seek direction on next steps, if any. II. Planning Division Existing Projects Table 1 summarizes Planning Division projects, several of which will extend at a minimum through the first half of FY 2014-2015. -2- Table 1 - Planning Division’s Existing Projects Project Description Agricultural Lands Please see the discussion above. City of Bend Airport Master Plan Coordinating with the City on a process to adopt: 1) the Bend Airport Master Plan into the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan; 2) a zone change to realign airport zoning boundaries if an Exception to Goal 3 Agriculture is proposed); and 3) a text amendment for Deschutes County Code (DCC) 18.76, Airport Development Zone. Status: 6-12 months Deschutes County Bicycle Guide Updating the County’s 10-year old bicycle guide in coordination with Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee, as called for in the Transportation System Plan. Interactive mapping software recently purchased by the Information Department will allow users to peruse th e map online in approximately two months. Status: 2 months Destination Resort Tracking Preparing a table/matrix to monitor resort requirements, in coordination with Goal 8 Destination Resort representatives. Status: 1.5 months Domestic Livestock Keeping domestic livestock on small acreage has been identified as a use that can have detrimental impacts on livability and groundwater quality. On February 13, the Planning Commission convened a panel of experts to discuss best management practices, pro perty owner responsibilities and enforcement options. On February 27, the Planning Commission will consider making a recommendation to the BOCC on next steps, if any, to address this issue. Status: TBD Harper Bridge Coordinating with the Sunriver Owners Association (SROA) and Oregon Marine Board (OMB) on a boat ramp concept(s) on the Deschutes River at/near Harper Bridge. County, SROA, and OMB staff will meet on February 19 to discuss design concepts for a boat ramp. The goal is to submit a boat ramp design concept for the OMB’s 2015 grant cycle. Status: 12-18 months Historic Preservation / CLG Grant Administering the Certified Local Government (CLG) Grant from the State Historic Preservation Office. Status: 6 months Housekeeping and Legislative Amendments The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on February 27 on a package of text amendments that incorporate changes in state law into County Code. In addition, there are “housekeeping” amendments that have been identified as necessary to correct errors and provide additional clarification to existing regulations and the Comprehensive Plan. Status: 2-3 months Statewide Planning Goal 11 Exception The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality is finalizing the burden of proof to justify a Goal 11 exception for southern Deschutes County. Draft findings are expected on February 19. If DLCD supports the findings, work sessions with the Planning Commi ssion and BOCC are anticipated in April. The first evidentiary hearing with the Planning Commission is tentatively scheduled for mid-June. Status: 6-8 months -3- Table 1 - Planning Division’s Existing Projects Project Description Traffic Study Code Amendment Initiating a text amendment to Deschutes County Code (DCC) 17.16, Subdivisions, 18.116, Supplemental Provisions, and 18.16.124, Site Plan to develop stand -alone traffic impact analysis requirements. The Planning Commission held a hearing on January 16 and recommended BOCC adoption. A BOCC work session is scheduled for February 24. Status: 6-8 months U.S. EPA Brownfield Community-Wide Assessment Grant Administering a $400,000 U.S. EPA Community-Wide Brownfield Assessment Grant. The project’s first phase (to conduct an inventory) is in process. The consultant team is also evaluating remediation options for the Demolition Landfill and Redmond Shooting Range. Status: Grant period is from October 2013 to September 2016 III. Ongoing Coordination Responsibilities The following list provides an update on some of the Division’s current coordination responsibilities. It is not exhaustive of all coordination activities.  Central Oregon Large-Lot Industrial Lands Project The City of Redmond has identified a site owned by the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) adjoining its Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) as a plausible location for a regional large- lot industrial campus. Redmond and DSL are currently coordinating with Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council (COIC) for an official endorsement. They are expected to submit an application to COIC, the regional governance authority this spring. Once this occurs, COIC’s Board will formally review the request. Following their approval, DSL would initiate a UGB amendment, likely in late spring, early summer.  City of Bend Growth Management Staff continues to coordinate with the City of Bend to complete their UGB amendment. This process is expected to ramp up with the issuance of a Request for Proposals on February 10 for consultants to perform significant Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission remand order work tasks. 1 Local adoption is scheduled for April 2016. In addition, staff is coordinating with the City on its TGM Grant funded project on the west side of Bend (discussed below).  Sage Grouse As a cooperating agency, the Planning Division continues to participate with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), who recently released a draft programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for federal land use and resource management plan (RMP) amendments to incorporate sage-grouse conservation measures in Central and Eastern Oregon. The Division is also participating with the Governor’s Office, Sage Grouse Conservation Partnership. This involves interagency and inter-stakeholder coordination on issues related to sagebrush and sage grouse habitat conservation on non-federal lands. This effort compliments actions being 1 http://bendoregon.gov/index.aspx?page=1083 -4- undertaken by BLM on federal lands. The state’s goal is to demonstrate that listing the sage grouse as a threatened or endangered species under the federal ESA is unnecessary. The Final EIS and Record of Decision (ROD) are scheduled for September 30, 2014. IV. Other Projects Two projects, one from the FY 2013-2014 Planning Division Work Plan, the other brought up internally, remain on hold, due to limited resources: o Initiate a text amendment to prohibit the issuance of land use and building permits if a property has a pending code violation or is in violation with conditions of approval from a prior land use decision; and, In December 2013, the Planning Commission conducted a work session on this Work Plan action item at the request of William Kuhn. The Commission voted to recommend the BOCC move this project to a higher priority for the Planning Division. o Pollution Reduction Credit Amendments. The Newberry Country Plan’s Policy 4.4 calls for evaluating and revising as needed the Transfer of Development Credit and Pollution Reduction Credit programs with the City of La Pine and others. This project is not currently on the Work Plan, but there is interest in implementing this policy. V. City of Bend Request: TGM Grant Partnership & Contribution The City of Bend is reaching out to Oregon State University-Cascades, the Bend Park and Recreation District, and Deschutes County as prominent property owners to each contribute an additional $25,000 to the alternative mobility study being funded largely by a TGM grant. This amount will match their $25,000 contribution for a total of $100,000. A memorandum from the City is forthcoming, explaining this request in more detail. County Farm Designation and Land Uses Deschutes County Planning Commission January 23, 2014 COMMUNITY CONVERSATIONS Reframing the Discussion 1.Process to date enabled staff to reframe the issue away from Non-Resource Lands o Planning Commission engagement o Panel Discussions o Public Input 2.It is premature to contemplate agricultural land alternatives (i.e. Non-Resource Lands) when we don’t know all the issues today 3.Topic of interest is understanding community, stakeholder, and landowner opinions about Deschutes County farm designations and land uses 1.The Comprehensive Plan Update (2011) recaps the contentious history of agricultural land designations in Deschutes County and recognizes they remain controversial 2.Public expressed differences of opinion over which lands should be designated farm lands and what uses should be allowed Why Discuss Farm Designations and Land Uses? 3.The Comprehensive Plan Update recognizes: •Agriculture is part of the ongoing local economy •Secondary benefits of agricultural lands: scenic open spaces, rural character, and contributions to tourism economy •Difficult to predict future agricultural opportunities •Preserving farm lands benefits the wider public at expense of landowners •Farm land is marginal without irrigation •Agricultural zoning applied to land with no history of farming •Potential adverse impacts to farming community from agricultural land conversion Why Discuss Farm Designations and Land Uses? 4.Comprehensive Plan Agricultural Lands Goals and Policies: •Provide basis for evaluating the future of agriculture over next 20 years •Encourage flexibility, within state guidelines, to the farming community •Support preserving farm lands by ensuring a variety of alternative paths to profitability 5.Comprehensive Plan Community Involvement Goals and Policies: •Underscores the importance of engaging all members of the community on programs affecting land use Comprehensive Plan Update Agricultural Lands Goals 1 - 3 Policies 2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.2.12, 2.2.13, 2.2.14 Why Discuss Farm Designations and Land Uses? Goal 1 Preserve and maintain agricultural lands and the agricultural industry. 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. 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. Goal 2 Promote a diverse, sustainable, revenue-generating agricultural sector. Policy 2.2.12 Review County Code and revise as needed to permit alternative and supplemental farm activities that are compatible with farming, such as agri-tourism or commercial renewable energy projects. When a preferred alternative or supplemental use identified through a public process is not permitted by State regulations work with the State to review and revise their regulations. Why Discuss Farm Designations and Land Uses? 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. Policy 2.2.14 Explore new methods of identifying and classifying agricultural lands. a.Apply for grants to review and, if needed, update farmland designations. b.Study County agricultural designations considering elements such as water availability, farm viability and economics, climatic conditions, land use patterns, accepted farm practices, and impacts on public services. c.Lobby for changes to State statute regarding agricultural definitions specific to Deschutes County that would allow some reclassification of agricultural lands. Why Discuss Farm Designations and Land Uses? It Starts with a Conversation Deschutes County is interested in understanding public, stakeholder, and landowner opinions about the opportunities and challenges facing agricultural designated (EFU) lands •What’s working? •What’s not? your say in Deschutes County’s future COMMUNITY CONVERSATIONS spend a little time on the future of your county JOIN A COMMUNITY CONVERSATION Why Discuss Farm Designations and Land Uses? •What do you value about EFU Lands? •What are the advantages of EFU zoning? •Are there emerging agricultural opportunities given the possibilities of new farming techniques, different crops, and climate change? •What are the disadvantages and challenges of EFU zoning? •Given the disadvantages and challenges, what would you like to see changed relative to the EFU zone? •Should the County explore alternatives to EFU zoning? If so, what would you like considered? Potential Questions Why Discuss Farm Designations and Land Uses? Outreach Strategies Engaging Groups and Communities Media Outreach Targeted Stakeholder Input Public Forums General Public Interested Public/Citizen Leaders Stakeholder Groups Public Agencies EFU Landowners Irrigation Districts Community Input Strategies and Timeline •Background material •GIS Zoning Maps •Written materials •Opportunities for verbal comments Upon receiving Planning Commission and BOCC support, staff will initiate community conversations for 2-3 months throughout the region, holding listening sessions in Alfalfa, Bend, Brothers, La Pine, Redmond, Sisters, Terrebonne, and Tumalo and other locations TBD * Results will be presented to the Planning Commission and BOCC and staff will seek direction on next steps . . . Tentative Timeline Resource Materials Exclusive Farm Use Zone (EFU) Exclusive Farm Use Zone (EFU) Exclusive Farm Use Zone (EFU) Questions, Comments, Revisions IMPORTANT INFORMATION ­ PLEASE REVIEW CAREFULLY. FOR QUESTIONS CALL THE TOC ADMIN OFFICE AT 1.866.888.4862Date: February 20,2014 To: The Oregon Consortium Board of DirectorsI1 From: Jennifer Handy, Chief Operations Officer 1 Re: TOC Board Confirmation of Representation I ~ I Planning is underway for The Oregon Consortium meeting -to be held March 7, 2014. Please mark your calendar to attend. As a member of The Oregon Consortium Board of Directors, we sincerely hope that you will join us for this important meeting when we confirm county and regional Executive Committee representation for 2014. IN ORDER TO BE PREPARED, THE FOLLOWING ACTION IS REQUESTED BY FEBRUARY 26TH: In preparation for the meeting, it is necessary that we confirm by county -county representation on The Oregon Consortium Board of Directors as well as which members will serve as each Region's Representative on The Oregon Consortium Board of Directors Executive Committee. Action requested by all county representatives: If county representation on The Oregon Consortium Board of Directors will remain the same, then -NO ACTION IS NECESSARY. If representation is changing in 2014, please notify Elisha Templeton at The Oregon Consortium Administrative office by February 26th -Elisha is available at 1.866.888.4862, ext. 214 or via e-mail at elisha@tocowa.org. Action requested of current Executive Committee members: The Executive Committee of the Board is composed of one Commissioner or Judge from each of the nine regions of the Consortium. Executive Committee membership must be confirmed annually. Current Executive Committee members are asked to contact the balance of Board representatives from their region in order to determine which Board member will represent the region on the TOC Executive Committee in the corning year. If regional representation will remain the same in 2014, no action is necessary -if representation will change, please contact Elisha as indicated above. Please ensure that the Executive Committee representative is an individual with the time and interest to provide leadership and attend semi-annual and additional meetings as needed. The TOC Executive Committee also meets as the Joint Policy Committee as-needed along with the Oregon Workforce Alliance Executive Committee. To assist you with the above action(s) we have enclosed a roster of the current Board of Directors and have noted those who currently serve on the Executive Committee. If you have questions regarding this process, please call me at 1.866.888.4862, ext. 217. We look forward to hearing from you soon and to our continued work together. Enclosures: TOC Board Roster THE OREGON CONSORTIUM BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2013 MEMBERSHIP Chair: Judge Mike McCabe Vice-Chair: Judge Steve Grasty Region 1 Region 1 Region 1 Region 6 Region 7 Columbia County* Commissioner Henry Heimuller Columbia County Court House 230 Strand Street St. Helens OR 97051 henry.heimuller@co.columbia.or.us Clatsop County Commissioner Scott lee Clatsop County 800 Exchange Street Suite 410 Astoria OR 97103 slee@co.c1atsop.or.us Tillamook County Commissioner Bill Baertlein 201 laurel Avenue Tillamook OR 97141 bbaertle@co.tillamook.or.us Douglas County* Commissioner Susan Morgan Douglas County Courthouse 1036 SE Douglas Ave. Room 217 Roseburg OR 97470 morgan@co.douglas.or.us Coos County Commissioner Melissa Cribbins 250 North Baxter St. Coquille OR 97423 mcribbins@co.coos.or.us 2 Commissioner Term: 12/2014 503.397.4322 (Office) 503.397.7243 (Fax) 503.369.1503 (Cell) Commissioner Term: 12/2014 503.325.1000 (Office) 503.325.8325 (Fax) 503.468.8715 (Cell) Commissioner Term: 12/2015 503.842.3403 (Office) 503.842.1384 (Fax) Commissioner Term: 12/2014 541.440.4202 (Office) 541.440.4391 (Fax) Commissioner Term: 541.396.7539 (Office) t f t I Region 7 Curry County* Commissioner Susan Brown Curry County Courthouse 94235 Moore St. Suite 122 Gold Beach OR 97444 browns@co.curry.or.us Commissioner Term: 12/2015 541.247.3229 (Office) 541.247.2718 (Fax) Region 9 Wasco County Commissioner Rod Runyon 511 Washington ST Suite 101 The Dalles OR 97058 rodr@co.wasco.or.us Commissioner Term: 12/2014 541.506.2523 (Office) 541.993.6413 (Cell) Region 9 Hood River County* Commissioner Maui Meyer Hood River County Court 601 State Street Hood River OR 97031 maui@copperwest.com Commissioner Term: 12/2012 541.490.3051 (Cell) 541.386.1203 (Fax) Region 9 Sherman County Commissioner Mike Smith Sherman County Courthouse POBox 365 Morc OR 97039 Michaelsmith204@gmail.com Commissioner Term: 12/2012 541.565.3416 (Office) 541.565.3312 (Fax) Region 9 Wheeler County Judge Chris Perry Wheeler County Court PO Box 447 Fossil OR 97830 cperry@co.wheeler.or.us Judge Term: 12/2016 541 .763.3460 (Office) 541.763.2124 (Fax) Region 9 Gilliam County Judge Steve Shaffer Gilliam County Court PO Box 427 Condon OR 97823 Steve.shaffer@co.gilliam.or.us Judge Term: 12/2016 541.384.6351 (Office) 541.384.2166 (Fax) Region 10 Crook County* Judge Mike McCabe Crook County Court 300 NE Third Street Prineville OR 97754 mike.mccabe@co.crook.or.us Judge Term: 12/2014 541.447.6555 (Office) 541.447.1051 (Fax) 541.420.3289 (Cell) Region 10 Deschutes County Commissioner Alan Unger Administration Building 1300 NW Wall St Suite 200 Bend OR 97701 alan.unger@deschutes.org Commissioner Term: 12/2012 541.388.6568 (Office) 541.388.4752 (Fax) Region 10 Jefferson County Commissioner John Hatfield 66 SE "0" Street Suite A Commissioner Term: 12/2014 Madras OR 97741 john.hatfield@co.jefferson.or.us 541.4 75.2449 (Office) 541.475.4454 (Fax) Region 11 Lake County Commissioner Dan Shoun 513 Center Street Commissioner Term: 12/2014 Lakeview OR 97630 dshoun@co.lake.or.us 541.947.6002 (Office) 541.947.6015 (Fax) Region 11 Klamath County* Commissioner Dennis Linthicum Government Center Commissioner Term: 12/2015 305 Main Street, Suite 224 Klamath Falls OR 97601 dlinthicum@co.klamath.or.us 541.883.5100 (Office) 541.883.5163 (Fax) Region 12 Morrow County* Commissioner Leann Rea POBox 788 Heppner OR 97836 Irea@co.morrow.or.us Commissioner Term: 12/2014 541.676.5620 (Office) 541.676.5621 (Fax) 541.481.5922 (Home) Region 12 Umatilla County Commissioner George Murdock 216 SE 4th Room 121 Commissioner Term: 12/2014 Pendleton OR 97801 george. murdock@umatillacounty.net 541.278.6201 (Office) 541.278.5463 (Fax) Region 13 Wallowa County Commissioner Paul Castilleja 101 South River, Room 101 Enterprise OR 97828 I2castilleia~co.wallowa.or.us Commissioner Term: 12/2014 541.426.7731 (Office) 541.426.0582 (Fax) 541.398.0069 (Cell) Region 13 Union County* Commissioner Bill Rosholt 1106 K Avenue Commissioner Term: 12/2014 La Grande OR 97850 brosholt@union-countv.org 541.963.1001 (Office) 541.963.1079 (Fax) 541.910.1358 (Cell) Region 13 Baker County Commissioner Fred Warner Jr. 1995 Third Street Baker City OR 97814 fwarner@bakercounty.org Commissioner Term: 12/2014 541.523.8200 (Office) 541.523.5340 (Fax) Region 14 Malheur County* Judge Dan Joyce 251 "B" Street, West Vale OR 97918 djoyce@malheurco.org Judge Term: 12/2016 541.473.5123 (Office) 541.473.5168 (Fax) Region 14 Harney County Judge Steve Grasty 450 N Buena Vista Judge Term: 12/2016 Burns OR 97720 sgrasty@co.harney.or.us 541.573.6356 (Office) 541.573.8387 (Fax) 541.589.0215 (Cell) Region 14 Grant County Commissioner Boyd Britton POBox 64 John Day OR 97845 thecommish@centurytel.net Commissioner Term: 12/2014 541.575.0763 (Office) 541.575.4257 (Fax) *Executive Committee Members First Name Last Name County Year up for Re­ Election r Deschutes Commissioner Elect: Alan Hatfield 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2016 u.,-es £k> ~ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT $..\ ~FOR CENTRAL OREGON 0 -< ~ CHAMBER CftfJ\TtNC A lTRQ~(' to(Al (CONOMY February 19, 2014 Dear Speaker Kotek and Senator Girod, We are writing in support of two capital projects affiliated with Oregon State University -Cascades, OSU's branch campus in Bend, Ore. The first -the construction an Academic Building -builds on the promise created during the 2013 legislative session for a full four-year university campus in Central Oregon. The second involves a technical fix needed to follow through with bonding approved by the legislature in 2013 to enable the transfer of Cascades Hall to Central Oregon Community College campus. Both projects are fundamental to the Central Oregon region. Academic Building: This building will provide state-of-the-art classrooms, teaching laboratories, research and student community spaces as well as student support, faculty, and administrative offices. Approval this February will provide the academic space needed to open the new campus in Fall 2015. Enrollment at OSU-Cascades grew by 19% in headcount and 16% in FTE in Fall 2013. The immediate needs far exceed the capacity of the current home in Cascades Hall on the COCC campus. By Fall of 2015, QSU-Cascades will need 54,000 SF of academic space on the new campus. OSU is requesting $3,850,000 in Article XI-G bond authorization. These funds will be matched by $3,850,000 of other funds financed by the campus. Cascades Hall: When the legislature approved the expansion of OSU-Cascades into a four-year campus it also sought to facilitate the transfer of Cascades Hall into the campus infrastructure of COCC which is in need of a student success center. Unfortunately the approval of $5.2 million in Article XI-G bonds for the transfer and refurbishment of Cascades Hall did not match the financing needed. COCC and OSU-Cascades are seeking to reduce the initial bonding to $3.63 million, to be matched by $2 million from COCC and $1.63 in lottery bonds. Central Oregon is one of the fastest growing regions of the state, and expanding access to higher education in this region reduces transportation and living costs for students from the region and makes it more likely that they will complete their degrees and contribute to the State's 40-40-20 goal. We urge your support for these two requests. Sincerely, Signed below are representatives from the City of Bend, Economic Development of Central Oregon, Deschutes County and the Bend Chamber of Commerce. Jim Clinton, Mayor City of Bend Anthony DeBone, Commissioner Deschutes County Alan Unger, Commissioner Deschutes County Roger J. lee, Executive Director Economic Development for Central Oregon Jodie Barram, Mayor Pro Tern City of Bend Tammy Baney, Commissioner Deschutes County Tim Casey, Executive Director Bend Chamber of Commerce