Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-03-17 Work Session Minutes Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, March 17, 2014 Page 1 of 11 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, MARCH 17, 2014 ___________________________ Present were Commissioners Anthony DeBone and Alan Unger; Commissioner Baney was to arrive later. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; and, for a portion of the meeting, Scot Langton, Assessor; Wayne Lowry, Finance; Judith Ure, Administration; Nick Lelack, Peter Gutowsky, Paul Blikstad and Matt Martin, Community Development; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; Ed Keith, Forester; and six other citizens. Vice Chair DeBone opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. ___________________________ 1. Request: Bend Area Habitat for Humanity. Judith Ure said the request is for fundraising dollars, for their annual breakfast meeting. Commissioner Unger observed this fund was set up to support these kinds of events. UNGER: Move approval of the grant request for $1,500. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Vice Chair votes yes. 2. Finance and Tax Update. Wayne Lowry said that current yield is .6%, up from .58% in January. They are purchasing investments as appropriate. This will grow by taking items out of the pool. They have 61 FTE’s not yet filled; usually this is about 45. Most are in Health, Sheriff’s Office and 9-1-1. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, March 17, 2014 Page 2 of 11 The General Fund is a bit better than break-even. Clerk’s Office revenue is down for the year, as it is dependent on recordings. They appear to be at a low spot, but they should not see further drops with this final adjustment. The Clerk will take a draw of $192,000 from General Fund this year. This amount would be adjusted for next year, as real estate should continue to improve, but there will still be a draw from General Fund. The Sheriff’s Office report shows a smaller draw than anticipated. This projection should get better as they get to the end of the year. Community Development shows a great improvement this year. There were some budget adjustments on the expense side. Solid Waste is tracking well, but revenue estimates have come down some. They are still higher than projected. The Health Benefits Trust Fund has improved dramatically over the past few months. He expects it will end at about $12 million, with nearly 100% of expenses covered. The Fair & Expo Fund under special events projected more than has come in, but there are a lot of robust bookings for the rest of the fiscal year that should bring this up. Capital projects, in particular the Jail project, show a contribution from the Sheriff’s Office of $136,000. This is to cover materials or services not originally included in the project but that the Sheriff felt were needed. There is still some contingency in the contractors’ portion. 3. Forester Update – includes Oregon Dept. of Forestry discussion regarding Forestland Classification. George Ponte, District Forester, and Kristen Cotugno, Assistant District Forester, joined the meeting. Mr. Ponte said he wants to form a forestland classification committee for the purpose of classifying forest lands within Deschutes County. They have spoken about this in general in the past, and it is time to take action. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, March 17, 2014 Page 3 of 11 He provided an overview of the classifications, why this is important and the potential pitfalls. (See the attached handout for reference.) This is driven by statute and Administrative Rule, for a committee of six to study all lands in the County and determines which meet the definition of forest land. If a parcel meets the basic description, it is then determined which classification it should be. These might be protected in the wild land fire protection program, and the owners may have to pay a fee for this. There are forest protective associations established for this reason. Three people must be appointed by the County. One must be an owner or representative of private lands, one of grazing land, and an at-large member. The three remaining members are appointed by the State Forester and Fire Marshall. It was suggested six people be appointed. This has been done in Hood River, Wasco County and others, and they are working on Crook County. It has been about forty years since the last classification process. It is a challenge and it has become even more difficult since it was delayed for so long. There are lands that are classified as forest land but should probably not be. Also, there are places in the County that have never been classified. These need to be examined and a determination made as to classification, if any. (He referred to a brochure and map.) Commissioner Unger asked if juniper forest lands are included. Mr. Ponte said lands are those that are primarily for timber production, class 1; class 2 is the conifer and dry pine sites that are also used for grazing ; and class 3 gets to the juniper, which is a buffer from rangeland and timber land. Some areas are predominately juniper. The far reaches of eastern Deschutes County would generally not be considered except some areas northeast of Sisters and south of Lake Billy Chinook. Jumper for this purpose is not considered timber per se. Commissioner Unger said that it all looks like private land. Mr. Ponte stated that this is the intent, but the committee might ask to classify public lands due to past and future exchanges between public and private entities. There is also an off-set agreement with the BLM that means they can block off protected areas to provide help for private lands and public lands in exchange. This is not the official business of the committee, but this will be considered. The process will take a couple of years in committee. Some committees meet frequently and others about once a month. The process is open and transparent and the public is invited. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, March 17, 2014 Page 4 of 11 Once the committee has done its first run, there will be a series of public information meetings. Owners can provide comments at that time. After the meetings, there is a formal public hearing, which will likely be extended. The committee will examine the comments and learn more about specific properties. Once the maps have been finalized, they are filed with the County Clerk and there is a 30-day hearing time for challenges. When this is completed, some places that are currently protected may not be forest land. He would be surprised if there were many additions. This is not a money grab by the State. The budget is prorated over 2.8 million acres He presented a draft document to form the committee. They can help but are not obligated to facilitate. They will take care of the logistics of the meetings. The agreement establishes the committee and lays out its responsibilities. All of the members would be local so they should not have to travel much. No one has been reimbursed for expenses at this time. They may ask for help from the G.I.S. people to provide mapping, along with employees of the Department. There are nine rural fire protection districts in the County that may be impacted by the process. They are limited to assessing the value of structures and five acres of land if it is in a forest district and is being assessed. Lower Bridge has no fire protection at this point, but protection through the Oregon Department of Forestry may not be the right solution. The committee will not recommend someone do this if there is another form of fire protection available. Commissioner Unger is supportive of the people on the selection list. Mr. Ponte said the public generally does not participate much, at least on the first part. Once you get to where you find harvestable trees, it is not consistent with protecting forest lands. Statute talk about all lands, but they have no intention of having the committee doing it all. Ms. Cotugno said that they want to get this officially adopted and will continue with outreach. The first general meeting will be somewhat for public information; and the committee’s first meeting, perhaps occurring a month from now. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, March 17, 2014 Page 5 of 11 The committee will then determine how often to meet. They will have to create their own sideboards and bylaws. They may go out on field trips, look at aerial GIS landscapes and so on. Mr. Ponte said about four years ago they reviewed some classi fications and took some tours in this area. There have been a lot of land use changes over the years that need to be addressed and considered. 4. Discussion of Rural Residential – Domestic Livestock Issues. Matt Martin said this has been addressed at the Planning Commission level with various agencies and other representatives. The point was to have experts and interested citizens involved in the topic. Background was provided on the issues, benefits and drawbacks. Of primary importance is good stewardship and best practices. There are a multitude of educational opportunities available, and some enforcement mechanisms. The Oregon Dept. of Agriculture has a primary purpose of protecting the waters of the State, including rivers and streams, but also the groundwater. Enforcement opportunities were highlighted, along with educational aspects. The Sheriff’s Office is responsible for animal neglect cases; and Code enforcement for the nuisance ordinance, which does not permit the accumulation of solid waste from animals. These are on the books now. The Planning Commission felt that no additional land use regulations are warranted at this time. However, the Planning Commission and staff found it beneficial to go through the process and not let this work go by the wayside. They created a matrix showing enforcement and educational opportunities. Mediation is also available. They want to make this matrix accessible to the public and to partners. They hope to dedicate a portion of the CDD website to this issue. It should remain a topic of discussion and revised as appropriate. Commissioner DeBone is surprised it turned out this way. He expected recommendations on the number of animals or similar findings. Commissioner Unger stated the problem is mostly the waste and not the number of animals. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, March 17, 2014 Page 6 of 11 Mr. Martin said this highlights the available resources for all. There is an outstanding concern regarding open range and the livestock issues in Deschutes County in Crooked River Ranch. Jefferson County has that area as a livestock district and the animals have to be fenced. Peter Gutowsky said the programs summarized had been viewed in isolation, and it was not until the panel came together that they learned there are existing programs that are adequate for this issue. For south County residents, there is a real concern with water quality and livestock. The Department of Agriculture has the responsibility to protect against commercial and domestic livestock pollution. They want to educate and emphasize stewardship, but they do have enforcement capabilities. If the Department of Agriculture revises its plan, perhaps more can be included. Jefferson County does not have an enforcement ordinance for livestock issues. The perspective is that land use can solve roaming livestock, and there is a misconception that the livestock district is open range, which would obligate those with livestock coming on their property to put up fences. Ms. Craghead stated that in a livestock district, you are obligated to fence in; open range means you have to fence out. Mr. Gutowsky stated that Jefferson County does not have an enforcement mechanism in place to handle this. Mr. Anderson asked if the Planning Commission discussed specific numbers of livestock. Mr. Martin said they provided them a matrix of other jurisdictions’ rules to address capacity. Mr. Anderson stated that some people have two horses per acre. They would have to decide if something is an extreme case. Mr. Martin said it would have to take into account a lot of factors of the land and carrying capacity. Mr. Gutowsky added the Planning Commission grappled with it and knew of instances where there have been problems. One horse per acre might work, but even that might be unbearable if someone doesn’t manage it properly. There may be times of the year when you rotate animals in for different purposes. There was no easy answer. The nuisance ordinance helps with some of this, but they get less than six complaints a year. Some might go to the Sheriff or mediation. Holistically, the resources available to handle these are adequate per the Planning Commission. The County can provide education and links to other agencies as well. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, March 17, 2014 Page 7 of 11 Commissioner DeBone asked if the DEQ steering committee wanted this addressed. Mr. Gutowsky said there were concerns from the south and the north. There was a formal recommendation from the steering committee. The Planning Commission agreed unanimously that this is the way to go, through enforcement that is already in place, and education. Mr. Martin stated that this would not be a takings, but could require a Measure 56 notice, to all similar properties. Laurie Craghead stated this is not Measure 49 as it would just be a restriction on an existing use. They would have a hard time finding how the property’s value would be reduced. Mr. Gutowsky said that if there were a metric to regular livestock, there would be a significant number of non-conforming uses. It is important to understand that there has been an opportunity to step back to identify solutions that are already there. The Planning Commission said they need to accentuate what is in place today and make sure the public knows. They can cast a broad net to all in the County. Commissioner Baney joined the meeting at this point. Chair Baney asked if Mr. Keith notices this problem when he is in the field. He said he has seen some overlap and management gone wrong. Mr. Martin said there is printed material on rural living that addresses this and other issues. Ms. Craghead said no one can complain against normal farming practices. Mr. Martin said that the manure issue and welfare of the animals can come in to play. The Sheriff does respond and often it can be handled through education. 5. Discussion of Hearings Officer’s Decision regarding the Thornburgh Resort Appeal/LUBA Remand. Kevin Harrison advised the Board of the issuance today of a decision of Countywide significance. This is the decision on Thornburgh on the status of the conceptual master plan. The Hearings Officer’s decision is available, which found that that the CMP had not been initiated. This means that if the decision is upheld, the CMP has expired and therefore everything since has expired as well. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, March 17, 2014 Page 8 of 11 This group acquired the property through bankruptcy proceedings. The CMP was filed in 2005, went to LUBA and beyond, came back to the County, and back again. In 2011, an application was made as to whether the CMP was initiated. It went back to LUBA and this is the decision of that hearings officer. There is a 150-day time line for most decisions, but for LUBA it is 90 days. The appeal period ends March 31. There is not enough time for an appeal. He anticipates this will be appealed again, beyond the County to the Court of Appeals. The CMP had 42 conditions of approval. They were defined by the Hearings Officer who had to find that they were substantially initiated, or the applicant was not at fault. Each condition of approval was addressed. There is ambiguity in Code and the LUBA remand as to whether all aspects have to be addressed. The parties involved argue differently. The issues are fleshed out, and ultimately the Hearings Officer found that the conditions of approval were not substantially addressed. The appeal period ends on March 31. The Board would have to hear it by April 5. The applicant can extend the 90-day window if they want the Board to hear this. Mr. Lelack does not feel they will just head to LUBA but will ask the Board to deal with this. In that case, if the Hearings Officer’s decision was reversed, the opponents will probably appeal to LUBA instead. Mr. Lelack stated that the applicant has indicated that Mr. Delashment hopes the Board would hear this since it carries more weight at LUBA if it has been heard by the Board. An appeal is expected. Ms. Craghead stated that the Board has chosen not to hear appeals in these cases, but they have come back to the Board from LUBA on at least one issue. The Board will be given deference if it is even plausible. No Board has addressed this situation yet. She feels it is unlikely that there will any other destination resorts with this type of situation. The Board will wait to see what comes from the applicant, who would have to extend the timeframe if the Board is to hear it. 6. Other Items. Tom Anderson asked about the Oregon Department of Forestry satisfaction survey. Mr. Keith said he believes the ODF does this maybe every other year. He will gather input and let the Board know. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, March 17, 2014 Page 9 of 11 Commissioner Unger feels they are doing a great job; he has not heard otherwise. They respond to spot fires faster than the Forest Service does. Chair Baney said if information is needed, they seem to respond quickly. Mr. Keith said that the ODF puts its stamp on the firewise community program, but they should provide more time to promote it. This affects homeowners and homeowner associations, encouraging them to take charge of their defensible space. He would like to see the ODF be more proactive and involved in this process. ___________________________ Mr. Anderson asked about a joint meeting with the La Pine City Council. Commissioner DeBone would like to see this happen. He would also like to talk about the PRC/TDC issues at the same time. Mr. Anderson stated Mr. Lelack could do this, but probably will have to shorten the presentation. Commissioner Unger would like to talk about an expectation of transit support. The CAG picked it up previously. Commissioner DeBone said they won’t pay their part until the County covers its share. Mr. Anderson stated that the County has paid its part; but it was late because there was no bill received. Mr. Anderson asked if Andrew Spreadborough of COIC spoke to the La Pine City Council there about this. Commissioner Unger stated that he should have. He feels that all partners need to recognize the needs of the area. Mr. Anderson isn’t sure there was a final request or plan from COIC. The cities were to demonstrate how many riders are from within the cities and from the outlying areas. Commissioner Unger stated the discussions seem to have revolved around the right level of support and funding streams. The need is critical, and the local match is important because the federal government will match each dollar with two of theirs. Chair Baney asked if the executive director is unable to meet with local governments. Commissioner Unger feels the follow-up is not there due to timing. Chair Baney wants to know what the ridership is from outside the cities. Commissioner Unger thinks they should be able to provide this information, although some riders from Deschutes River Woods might be handled differently. ___________________________ Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, March 17, 2014 Page 10 of 11 Mr. Anderson said the Health Services Director recruitment is concluded. The reference check process was robust, and Jane Smiley’s came back beyond good. They heard the same stellar comments across the board from 20 or 25 checks made. She has been offered the position and she accepted, with a starting date in early May. She wants an overlap period with Scott Johnson to get familiar with current local and state issues. ___________________________ Commissioner Unger spoke about the Tumalo Community Association. It is unclear what kind of nonprofit they are or want to be. There have been some internal coups resulting in a different board and chair. They have questions as to whether to talk to an attorney or CPA and have little funding. He wanted to know if the County can offer them some help in this regard. It was suggested that they could contact the Nonprofit Association of Oregon (formerly TACS) for guidance. Commissioner Baney stated that it might be difficult if they are not prepared to run an organization. County Counsel cannot give legal advice to others. Perhaps they could work with another nonprofit in this regard. Mr. Kropp said they need to determine what they want to be first. Once they do that, they can get advice from a similar group. Mr. Anderson said the County is the governing board for Tumalo. The City of Bend carved up the city and established neighborhood groups, but maybe this is not what they want. Commissioner Unger said they don’t know what they want to be and don’t understand the options. Being a 501(c)(3) may not be their best option since it costs money to get there. Commissioner DeBone asked if the Ford Foundation could help them. Commissioner Unger does not think they are ready for that. They are trying to do too much with too little, and cannot agree. Commissioner DeBone stated that he tried to learn more about the irrigation situation there, and there does not seem to be consensus of the people who live in that area. There is still undertow between the different factions. Commissioner Unger asked if mediation might help. Central Oregon Mediation could perhaps get involved if the group is open to this. ___________________________ The Executive Director of Youth Villages, Lynn Saxton, met with Chair Baney. Chair Baney said they keep kids in their homes and provide services to families there. They may want to contract for youth services in this area. They will meet with PacificSource and the DHS, and Ken Hales at Juvenile, as they need twenty kids here to make their presence viable. They are a not for profit that merged with another group in the past. They call the program Intercept, similar to functional family therapy. It costs less to keep kids at home than to send them elsewhere. A pushback might be that at times County Mental Health services coordinates some of this work and it would need to be a partnership. It needs to be coordinated, and this has been lacking in some cases. Chair Baney will be out of the office on March 26 through 28. The Board business meeting will be canceled and the work session will be downsized; and the Human Resources Performance Review needs to be rescheduled. Being no further items discussed, the meeting adjourned at 4: 15 p.m. DATED this V Day of ~ 2014 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners a~~ Tammy Baney, C . r Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair ATTEST: Alan Unger, Commissioner Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, March 17,2014 Page 11 of 11 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, MARCH 17,2014 1. Request: Habitat for Humanity -Judith Ure 2. Finance and Tax Update -Wayne Lowry 3. Forester Update -includes Oregon Dept. of Forestry discussion regarding forestland classification (30-45 minutes) -Ed Keith, Forester; others 4. Discussion of Rural Residential -Domestic Livestock Issues -Matt Martin, CDD I 5. Discussion of Hearings Officer's Decision regarding the Thornburgh Resort ,\ Appeal/LVBA Remand Nick Lelack j 6. Other Items I t t I 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) (b), litigation; ORS I 92.660(2 Xd), labor negotiations; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues; or otherI issues under ORS 192.660(2), executive session. i I Meeting dates. times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board o/Commissioners' meeting rooms at i 1300 NW Wall St.. Bend. unless otherwise indicated. Jfyou have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572. J Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities. If you need accommodations to make participation possible, please call (541) 388-6571, or send an e-mail to bonnie.baker@deschutes.org. ~~---- 4­o I I I I I L I I Monthly Meeting with Board of Commissioners Finance Director/Treasurer AGENDA March 17,2014 (1) Monthly Investment Report (2) February 2014 Financials -- Deschutes County Municipal Debt $ 600,000 0.39% Corporate Notes 12,873,000 8.73% Time Certificates 5 ,160,000 3.36% U. S . Treasuries 7,000,000 4.58% Federal Agencies 26,660,000 17.30% LGIP/BOTC 100,911,486 65.63% Total Investments $ 153.204.486 100.00% Total Portfolio: By Investment Types Municipal Corporate Debt 0.4% Notes 8.4% Time Certificates 3.4% u.s Treasuries 4.6% ,~ "~1IJ ~: -: Federal Agencies D/BO 17.4% 65 .9% Investments By County Function General $ 153,204,486 Total Investments $ 153,204,486 Total Investment Income Less Fee : 5% of Invest. Income Investment Income Fiscal Year 2013-14 Feb-14 I I Y-T-D $ 70,607 $ 526,826 70,607 526,826 (3,530) (26 ,341 ) Investment Income -Net 1$ 67,077 $ 500,485 Yield Percentages -~.~BOTe I LGIP ~ 0.53 % 0.53% Investments ~ 0.73 % 0.74 % Average .. 0.60 % 0.58% 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% c(.; .tt 24 M onth Treas. ~ 0.33% LGI P Rate ~ 0.54% 36 Month Treasu ~ 0.68% Months to Maturity o to 30 Days 66% Under 1 Year 69% Under 5 Years 100% NIC Nig N/S; NIC ~ NIC N/c:: NIC NC NIC N~ N/C -N~ N/C i'!/c:; i'!~ _ NiC J):3I"1~14 10109/1~ 51612014 Co~~inuo~-s ~~-" _51191£014 NIC NIC "q!Ja!1e~y _ Njc:: N/C Nc:; .8I£.1}20 "14 NC_ _1"C ~/C . _~If Q"-a_,!~.<IY N/C 912712015 -.J-;-­ Memorandum Date: March 13, 2014 To: Board of County Commissioners Tom Anderson, County Administrator From: Wayne Lowry, Finance Director RE: Monthly Financial Reports Attached please 'find February 2014 financial reports for the following funds: General (001), Community Justice -Juvenile (230), Sheriff's (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 GENERAL FUND Statement of Financial Operating Data Through February 28,2014 FY 2014 -Year to Date (67% of Year)FY 2013 I "10 ot Actual Actual Budget FY 2014 Budget I Projection I $ Variance Revenues Property Taxes -Current 20,734,019 Property Taxes -Prior 1,108,377 Other General Revenues 2,683,531 Assessor 866,121 County Clerk 1,710,900 BOPTA 16,419 District Attorney 174,794 Tax Office 252,869 Veterans 74,348 Property Management 100,249 Grant Projects 2,000 Total Revenues 27,723,627 Expenditures Assessor 3,439,127 County Clerk 1,299,189 BOPTA 58,401 District Attorney 5,034,333 Tax Office 779,725 Veterans 250,880 Property Management 275,329 Grant Projects 122,139 Non-Departmental 1,221,749 Total Expenditures 12,480,872 Transfers Out 13,930,307 Total Exp & Transfers 26,411,179 Change in Fund Balance 1,312,448 Beginning Fund Balance 9,059,394 Ending Fund Balance $ 10,371,843 20,676,674 98% a) 21,031,062 21,656,062 625,000 523,935 73% 720,000 652,000 (68,000) 1,650,129 84% b) 1,955,900 2,081,400 125,500 674,347 83% c) 812,421 889,421 77,000 873,030 62% 1,415,487 1,193,487 (222,000) 13,494 89% c) 15,200 17,200 1,400 85,897 47% 184,194 184,194 ­ 195,763 94% c) 208,750 231,000 22,250 36,031 51% 70,920 70,920 ­ 61,567 68% 91,000 91,000 ­ 1,333 67% 2,000 2,000 ­ 24,792,199 94% 26,506,934 27,068,684 561,150 2,370,520 64% 3,687,131 3,617,131 70,000 857,674 57% 1,500,045 1,385,045 115,000 39,153 51% 76,901 63,051 13,850 3,531,420 63% 5,638,777 5,388,777 250,000 558,344 66% 846,733 810,000 36,733 184,134 62% 299,163 299,163 - 169,857 66% 258,807 252,807 6,000 84,161 65% 129,951 129,951 - 994,098 71% d) 1,392,993 1,414,993 {22,000} 8,789,360 64% 13,830,501 13,360,918 469,583 9,143,681 67% 13,615,578 13,615,578 ­ 17,933,041 65% 27,446,079 26,976,496 469,583 6,859,158 (939,145) 92,188 1,031,333 10,371,843 109% 9,500,000 10,371,843 871,843 $17,231,001 $8,560,855 $10,464,031 $1,903,176 I Beginning Net Working Capital -Requested Budget $ 10,380,228 a) Current year taxes due November, February and May b) PILT received in July -$500,941 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 February 28,2014 Revenues Federal Grants SB #1 065-Court Assess. Jail Funding HB #2712 Discovery Fee Food Subsidy OVA 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 FY 2014 -Year to FY2013 Date (67% of Year) Actual Actual I "10 Of Budget -7,272 171% a) 8,606 9,435 157% b) 101,659 27,255 75% 8,703 1,870 24,650 15,560 65% 354,583 128,964 113,760 26,400 90,765 2,226 2% 6,343 4,818 80% 1,200 873 1,729 404 120,595 74,520 20,000 10,000 50% 790 853,383 221 34% 309,817 43% 4,878,315 3,227,616 1,086,677 650,214 60% --0% 50,400 6,015,391 (5,162,008) 1,830 50% 3,879,660 63% (3,569,842) 5,344,523 182,515 3,578,896 67% 9,054 $ 995,051 1,177,566 1,177,566 105% $ 1,186,619 I Beginning Net Working Capital -Requested Budget FY2014 Budget I Projection I $ Variance 4,254 11,715 7,461 6,000 9,435 3,435 36,568 36,568 ­ 23% c) 8,300 2,802 (5,498) 24,000 24,000 ­ 35% d) 364,268 359,149 (5,119) 21% e) 125,000 39,600 (85,400) f} 120,000 4,553 (115,447) 6,000 7,200 1,200 73% c) 1,200 1,000 (200) 32% c) 1,250 700 (550) nfa g) -128,041 128,041 20,000 20,000 ­ 650 650 ­ 717,490 645,413 (72,077) 63% h) 5,109,496 4,877,931 231,565 f} 1,085,433 1,052,110 33,323 100 -100 3,660 3,660 ­ 6,198,689 5,933,701 264,988 (5,481,199) (5,288,288) 192,911 5,368,346 5,368,346 ­ (112,853) 80,058 192,911 1,125,000 1,177,566 52,566 $1,012,147 $1,257,624 $ 245,477 $1,250,000 a) Includes $7,090 payment on a FY 2013 grant b) Increased utilization c) Revenue trending lower than antiCipated -PSU lease being discontinued d) State informed County of the FY 2014 amount subsequent to preparation of FY 2014 budget e) Housing trending lower than antiCipated -$750 billing outstanding f) BRS/Maplestar program discontinued. Projected revenues and expenditures reduced accordingly g} Support to JCP program expenditures was not included in the original budget. CFC interfund grants were awarded during FY 2014 h) Unfilled pOSitions Page 2 I SHERIFF -Consolidated Statement of Financial Operating Data Through February 28,2014 FY 2014 -Year to FY2013 Date (67% of Year) Actual Actual I Budget FY2014 Budget I Projection I $ Variance Revenues (Funds 701 & 702) Law Enf Dist Countywide 19,512,075 18,624,596 Law Enf Dist Rural 12,228,468 10,172,051 Total Revenues 31,740,543 28,796,646 Expenditures (Fund 255) Sheriff's Services 2,263,061 1,556,255 Civil/Special Units 723,704 762,509 Automotive/Communications 1,837,849 1,120,246 Investigations/Evidence 1,425,223 959,138 Patrol 8,174,690 5,548,155 Records 685,178 466,731 Adult Jail 12,850,417 9,221,643 Court Security 298,060 194,281 Emergency Services 185,439 138,385 Special Services 1,236,781 863,510 Training 481,717 284,265 Other Law Enforcement Svcs 667,913 551,163 Non-Departmental 85,253 54,467 Total Expenditures 30,915,283 21,720,750 Revenues less Expenditures 825,260 7,075,897 DC Comm Syst Reserve 200,000 200,000 Transfer to Reserve Funds 200,000 200,000 Change in Fund Balance 425,260 6,675,897 Beginning Fund Balance 9,128,533 9,553,793 Ending Fund Balance $9,553,793 $16,229,690 97% 19,116,763 20,091,671 974,908 84% 12,125,008 12,207,540 82,532 92% 31,241,771 32,299,211 1,057,440 65% a) 2,401,838 2,363,838 38,000 69% 1,110,175 1,110,175 ­ 68% 1,643,912 1,643,912 ­ 65% a) 1,472,678 1,437,678 35,000 65% a) 8,544,952 8,436,654 108,298 60% 774,452 774,452 ­ 64% b) 14,384,459 14,314,359 70,100 70% c) 275,852 290,752 (14,900) 62% 223,273 223,273 ­ 58% d) 1,498,298 1,479,298 19,000 54% 527,979 527,979 ­ 71% c) 779,623 809,523 (29,900) 67% 81,701 81,701 ­ 64% 33,719,192 33,493,594 225,598 * (2,477 ,421) (1,194,383) 1,283,038 200,000 200,000 - 200,000 200,000 - (2,877,421) (1,594,383) 1,283,038 8,161,912 9,553,793 1,391,881 $5,284,491 $ 7,959,410 $ 2,674,919 I Beginning Net Working Capital -Requested Budget $7,658,937 a) Projected savings in Personnel from open unfilled positions b) 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 c) Personnel expenses will exceed plan due to higher overtime and extra help d) Postponed purchase of a SAR vehicle and the mapping plotter was purchased for less than $5,000 Page 3-A SHERIFF -Fund 255 Statement of Financial Operating Data Through February 28, 2014 FY2013 Actual Revenues (Fund 255) Law Enf Dist Countywide 18,708,928 Law Enf Dist Rural 12,206,355 Total Revenues 30,915,283 Expenditures (Fund 255) Sheriffs Services 2,263,061 Civil/Special Units 723,704 Automotive/Communications 1,837,849 Investigations/Evidence 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 Svcs 667,913 Non-Departmental 85,253 Total Expenditures 30,915,283 Revenues less Expenditures $ ­ * FY 2014 Contingency-$ 5,284,491 FY2014 Budget I Projection I $ Variance FY 2014 -Year to Date (67% of Year) Actual I Budget 13,550,210 8,170,539 21,720,750 1,556,255 762,509 1,120,246 959,138 5,548,155 466,731 9,221,643 194,281 138,385 863,510 284,265 551,163 54,467 55% 56% 56% 65% a) 69% 68% 65% a) 65% a) 60% 64% b) 70% c) 62% 58% d) 54% 71% c) 67% 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 21,020,365 12,473,229 33,493,594 2,363,838 1,110,175 1,643,912 1,437,678 8,436,654 774,452 14,314,359 290,752 223,273 1,479,298 527,979 809,523 81,701 (3,458,097) (2,051,992) (5,510,089) 38,000 35,000 108,298 70,100 (14,900) 19,000 (29,900) 21,720,750 64% 33,719,192 33,493,594 225,598 -.. $5,284,491 $ $ (5,284,4911 a) Projected savings in Personnel from open unfilled positions b) 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 c) Personnel expenses will exceed plan due to higher overtime and extra help d) Postponed purchase of a SAR vehicle and the mapping plotter was purchased for less than $5,000 Page 3-B SHERIFF -Expenditure Detail Statement of Financial Operating Data Through February 28.2014 FY 2013 Actual Expenditures Sheriff's Services Personnel 1.311,042 Materials & Services 952,019 Capital Outlay Total Sheriff's Services 2,263,061 CiviVSpecial Units Personnel 637,830 Materials & Services 85.874 Capital Outlay Total CivillSpecial Units 723,704 Automotive/Communications Personnel 413.153 Materials & Services 1.406.033 Capital Outlay 18,663 Total Automotive/Communications 1,837,849 Investigations/Evidence Personnel 1,283,221 Materials & Services 142,001 Capital Outlay Total Investigations/Evidence 1,425,223 Patrol Personnel 7,325,801 Materials &Services 613,033 Capital Outlay 235,856 Total Patrol 8,174,690 Records Personnel 583,461 Materials & Services 101,717 Capital Outlay Total Records 685,178 Adult Jail Personnel 10,934.201 Materials & Services 1,879.643 Capital Outlay 36.573 Transfer Out -Jail Debt Service Total Adult Jail 12,850,417 Court Security Personnel 285,997 Materials & Services 12,063 Capital Outlay Total Court Security 298,060 Emergencv Services Personnel 175,729 Materials &Services 9,710 Capital Outlay Total Emergency Services 185,439 Special Services Personnel 1,024,967 Materials & Services 175,717 Capital Outlay 36,096 Totat Special Services 1,236,781 Training Personnel 345,417 Materials & Services 136,300 Capital Outlay Total Training 481,717 Other Law Enforcement ServiCes Personnel 607,877 Materials &Services 60,035 Capital Outlay Total Other Law Enforcement Svcs 667,913 Non-Departmental Materials & Services 85,253 Total Non-Departmental 85,253 Total ExpendttunlS $ 30,915,283 FY 2014 -Year to Date (67% of Year) FY 2014 Actual I Budget Budget I Projection I $ Variance 891,180 665.075 - 1,556,255 677,195 85,314 - 762,509 268.186 816,310 35,750 1,120,246 862,288 96,849 - 959,138 4,941,223 357,659 249,274 5,548,155 439,750 26,981 - 466,731 7,882,967 1,230,188 56.519 51,969 9,221,643 187,088 7,193 - 194,281 124,034 14,351 - 138,385 763,966 99,544 - 863,510 228,607 55,658 - 284,265 494,129 57,034 - 551,163 54,467 54,467 $21,720,750 63% 67% 0% 65% 67% 89% 0% 69% 66% 68% 97% 68% 64% n% 0% 65% 64% 63% 97% 65% 66% 25% 0% 60% 65% 63% 74% 17% 64% 70% 74% 0% 70% 63% 54% 0% 62% 61% 47% 0% 58% 59% 39% 0% 54% 70% n% 0% 71% 67% 67% 1,411,820 989,918 100 2,401,838 1,009,306 95,769 5,100 1,110,175 404,407 1,202,505 37,000 1,643,912 1,338,593 133,985 100 1,472,678 7,723,459 563,921 257,572 8,544,952 665,327 109,025 100 774,452 12,060,079 1,947,790 76,590 300,000 14,384,459 265,966 9,786 100 275,852 196,825 26,348 100 223,273 1.251,196 211,502 35,600 1,498,298 384,725 143,154 100 527,979 705,392 74,131 100 779,623 81,701 81,701 1,373,820 38,000 990,018 (100) 100 2,363,838 38,000 1,009,306 100,869 (5,100) 5,100 1,110,175 404,407 1,203,755 (1,250) 35,750 1,250 1,643,912 1,303,593 35,000 134,085 (100) 100 1,437,678 35,000 7,623,459 100,000 563,921 249,274 8,298 8,436,654 108,298 665,327 109,125 (100) 100 774,452 11,910,079 150,000 2,102,790 (155,000) 56,520 20,070 244,970 55,030 14,314,359 70,100 280,966 (15,OOO) 9,786 100 290,752 (14,900, 196,825 26,448 (100) 100 223,273 1,251,196 211,502 16,600 19,000 1,479.298 19,000 384,725 143,254 (100) 100 527,979 735,392 (30,000) 74,131 100 809,523 (29,900) 81,701 Page 4 81 1701 64% $33,719,192 $ 33,493,594 $ 225,598 LED #1 -Countywide Statement of Financial Operating Data Through February 28, 2014 FY 2014 -Year to Date (67% of Year) Actual I Budget FY 2014 Budget I Projection I $ Variance 15,802,976 98% a) 16,103,377 16,468,804 365,427 400,491 79% 507,902 501,263 (6,639) 18,668 73% b) 25,500 18,668 (6,832) 24,309 21% 115,524 115,524 ­ 27,255 59% 46,143 46,143 ­ 107,806 n/a c) -107,806 107,806 3,233 65% 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 60,000 375,703 7890% 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 --­ 19,633 131% 15,000 25,000 10,000 51,232 102% 50,000 50,000 ­ 1,825 52% 3,500 3,500 ­ 54,742 68% 80,000 80,000 ­ 7,200 144% 5,000 10,000 5,000 12,219 94% 13,000 18,000 5,000 237,543 95% h) 250,000 300,000 50,000 30,956 97% 32,000 40,000 8,000 63,070 122% 51,897 63,070 11,173 19,302 67% 28,849 28,849 ­ 18,624,596 97% 19,116,763 20,091,671 974,908 13,550,210 55% * 24,478,462 21,020,365 3,458,097 80,000 100% 80,000 80,000 ­ 100,000 100% 100,000 100,000 ­ 13,730,210 56% 24,658,462 21,200,365 3,458,097 4,894,386 (5,541,699) (1,108,694) 4,433,005 6,507,110 5,541,699 6,507,110 965,411 $ -$5,398,415 $5,398,415$ 11,401,495 I Beginning Net Working Capital -Requested Budget $5,242,177 FY 2013 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 TiDe 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 * 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 O~ID distributions will be less than planned for the year Page 5 h) Civil fees for property sales and concealed handgun licenses will be above plan for the year LED #2 -Rural 702 Statement of Financial Operating Data Through February 28,2014 FY2014 -Year to Date FY 2013 (67% of Year) FY2014 Budget I Projection I $ Variance Actual Revenues Tax Revenues -Current 7,698,340 Tax Revenues -Prior 404,894 Federal Grants 53,818 Federal Grants-BLM 20,881 US Forest Service 78,750 Bureau of Reclamation 40,580 State Grant 274,465 SB #1065 Court Assessment 8,606 Marine Board License Fee 143,724 Des Cty General Fund Grant 136,735 Des Cty Transient Room Tax 2,513,265 Asset Forfeiture 11,760 City of Sisters 468,060 Des Cty CDD Contract 54,366 Des Cty Solid Waste Contr 54,366 School Districts 46,212 Claims Reimbursement 860 Seat Belt Program 5,390 Sheriff Fees 9,617 Court Fines &Fees 120,247 Interest 20,654 Grants-Private 6,500 Donations 11,650 Miscellaneous 44,728 Total Revenues 12,228,468 EXPENDITURES &TRANSFERS DC Sheriff's Office 12,206,355 DC Comm Systems Reserve 120,000 Transfer to Reserve Fund 100,000 Total Expenditures 12,426,355 Change in Fund Balance (197,887) Beginning Fund Balance 3,244,571 Ending Fund Balance $ 3,046,683 I BudgetActual 7,560,365 96% a) 7,839,932 7,878,906 38,974 197,071 75% 263,858 246,565 (17,293) 30,622 211% b) 14,500 35,000 20,500 8,389 34% c) 25,000 25,000 ­ 59,063 77% 76,500 76,500 ­ 17,007 65% c) 26,000 26,000 ­ 80,672 48% 169,000 169,000 ­ 9,495 17% d) 55,000 15,000 (40,000) 94,171 63% c) 150,000 150,000 ­ -0% e) 375,703 -(375,703) 1,516,198 67% e) 2,274,297 2,713,243 438,946 -nla --­ 324,452 67% 486,678 486,678 ­ 39,513 67% 59,270 59,270 ­ 39,513 67% 59,270 59,270 ­ 27,868 70% 40,000 40,000 ­ 108 nla -108 108 3,675 37% 10,000 7,000 (3,000) 6,782 68% 10,000 10,000 ­ 85,311 68% 125,000 125,000 ­ 13,314 111% 12,000 20,000 8,000 5,000 nla -5,000 5,000 7,000 nla -7,000 7,000 46,460 88% 53,000 53,000 ­ 10,172,051 84% 12,125,008 12,207,540 82,532 8,170,539 56% *' 14,525,221 12,473,229 2,051,992 120,000 100% 120,000 120,000 ­ 100,000 100% 100,000 100,000 ­ 8,390,539 57% 14,745,221 12,693,229 2,051,992 1,781,511 (2,620,213) (485,689) 2,134,524 3,046,683 ,4,828,194 2,620,213 $ -3,046,683 $2,560,995 426,470 $2,560.995 I Beglnmng Net Working Capital -Requested Budget $ 2,416,760 .., 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) HIDTA overtime reimbursements for drug investigations will exceed plan c) Invoiced quarterly. Reimbursements reflect seasonal activity d) Change in distribution of Circuit Court revenue by State e) Due to Transient Room Taxes projected to exceed budget, the $2,650,000 annual payment and an additional prOjected $63,243 payment will be received from Transient Room Tax Fund Page 6 Revenues Medicare Reimbursement Federal Grant & Fed Reimb Federal Grant (ARRA) State Grant Child Dev & Rehab Center State Miscellaneous OMAP Family Planning Exp Proj Grants (Intergvt, Pvt, & Local) Contract Payments Patient Insurance Fees Health Dept/Patient Fees Vital Records-Birth Vital Records-Death Environmental Health-Lic Fac Interest on Investments Donations Interfund Contract Miscellaneous Total Revenues Expenditures Personnel Services Materials and Services Capital Outlay Transfers Out Total Expenditures Revenues less Expenditures Transfers In-General Fund Transfers In-PH Res Fund Transfers In-Gen. Fund Other Total Transfers In Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance PUBLIC HEALTH Statement of Financial Operating Data Through February 28,2014 FY 2014 -Year to FY2013 Date (67% of Year) Actual Actual I %Of Budget FY2014 Budget I Projection I$ Variance 68 -n/a - -­ 49,909 1248% 4,000 90,455 86,455630 -0% 85,000 80,750 (4,250)212,500 1,770,627 59% a) 3,021,360 3,089,284 67,9242,795,249 17,815 45% b) 39,609 39,609 ­38,154 41,383 25% b) 163,310 85,835 (77,475)248,176 479,486 78% 612,400 677,477 65.077578,042 291,362 53% 550,000 550,000 ­519,121 33,519 20% 164,923 164,923 ­40,214 51,692 34% b) 151,316 68,456 (82,860)174,624 155,660 85% 184,200 198,881 14,681214,544 60,642 51% 119,400 103,810 (15,590)95,108 26,325 64% 41,000 41,000 ­32,475 68,355 68% 100,000 100,000 ­112,235 667,099 89% c) 753,750 753,750 ­755,693 4,674 78% 6,000 6,750 7506,262 44,662 2481% 1,800 44,662 42,86219,366 48,366 27% b)d) 180,426 91,691 (88,735)162,757 3,425 5,516 394% 1,400 5,516 4,116 6,008,643 3,817,092 62% 6,179,894 6,192,849 12,955 6,344,766 4,281,507 60% 7,153,756 6,637,269 516,487 2,036,535 1,181,443 55% 2,132,898 2,050,000 82,898 --0% 100 -100 157,200 78,660 50% 157,320 157,320 - 5,541,610 59% 9,444,074 8,844,589 599,4858,538,501 {1,724,518} (3,264,180) (2,651,740) 612,440{2,529,858} 1,800,984 67% 2,701,475 2,701,475 ­2,349,357 16,500 50% 33,000 33,000 ­62,136 65,100 32,550 50% 65,100 65,100 ­ 1,850,034 66% 2,799,575 2,799,575 ­2,476,593 125,516 (464,605) 147,835 612,440(53,265) 1,273,934 92% 1,385,592 1,273,934 {111,658}1,327,199 $ 1,399,450 $ 920,987 $ 1,421,769 $ 500,782Ending Fund Balance $ 1,273,934 .I Beginning Net Working Capital -Requested Budget $ 1,570,821 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 Revenues Marriage Licenses Divorce Filing Fees Federal Grants Federal Grant (ARRA) State Grants State Miscellaneous Adult Mental Health Initiative Title 19 Liquor Revenue School Districts Patient Fees Interest on Investments Rentals Administrative Fee Interfund Contract-Gen Fund Miscellaneous Total Revenues Expenditures Personnel Services Materials and Services Capital Outlay Transfers Out Total Expenditures Revenues less Expenditures Transfers In-General Fund Transfers In-OHP-CDO Transfers In-Acute Care Svcs Transfers In-ABHA Total Transfers In Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance BEHAVIORAL HEALTH Statement of Financial Operating Data Through February 28,2014 FY2014 Budget I Projection I $ Variance 12,153,315 57% 21,340,390 19.148,428 2,191,96217,117,821 (1,280,358) (3,166,344) (1,016,304) 2,150,040(3,022,909) 918,200 67% 1,377,302 1,377,302 ­1,307,787 -n/a --­484,494 264,631 195,728 67% 293,593 293,593 ­ 524,039 -n/a --­ 1,113,928 67% 1,670,895 1,670,895 .2,580,951 (166,430) (1,495,449) 654,591 2,150,040(441,958) 2,671,137 77% 3,461,651 2,671,137 (790,514)3,113,095 $2,504,707 $1,966,202 $3,325,728 $ 1,359,526 $2,671,137 .I BegInning Net Working Capital -Requested Budget $3,313,248 FY2013 Actual 5,650 122,971 252,331 63,750 7,552,648 62,361 229,038 121,876 144,595 23,317 110,491 19,900 16,625 5,224,877 127,000 17,482 FY 2014 -Year to Date (67% of Year)I Ufo ot Actual Budget 4,225 65% 6,500 85,652 61% 140,600 102,481 41% a) 252,349 63,750 250% 25,500 4,553,911 53% b) 8,533,166 22,120 36% c) 61,860 144,086 63% 230,000 127,108 88% 144,246 73,325 54% 137,000 499 n/a ­ 127,347 81% 158,082 12,789 62% 20,500 9,750 53% 18,500 5,488,595 66% 8,318,643 36,420 29% d) 127,000 20,900 20900% 100 14,094,911 10,872,957 60% 18,174,046 10,916,057 8,131,637 58% 14,042,752 5,970,799 3,919,229 55% e) 7,082,738 26,965 -0% 10,000 204,000 102,450 50% 204,900 6,500 ­ 140,600 ­ 204,849 (47,500) 63,750 38,250 8,077,086 (456,080) 30,000 (31,860) 534,086 304,086 193,792 49,546 150,000 13,000 499 499 222,319 64,237 20,500 ­ 18,500 ­ 8,318,643 ­ 127,000 ­ 24,000 23,900 18,132,124 (41,922) 12,810,808 1,231,944 6,122,720 960,018 10,000 - 204,900 - 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-On Site Prog Planning-Current Planning-Long Range Total Revenues Expenditures Adm in-Operations Admin-GIS Admin-Code Enforcement Building Safety Electrical Contract Services Env Health-On Site Pgm Planning-Current Planning-Long Range Transfers Out (DIS Fund) Total Expenditures Revenues less Expenditures Transfers In General Fund -Gen Ops General Fund -LlR Planning A&T Reserve (DIS assistance) Other Total Transfers In Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Statement of Financial Operating Data Through February 28,2014 FY 2014 -Year to Date (67% of Year)FY 2013 I Ufo ot Actual BudgetActual 31,848 26,099 46% FY2014 Budget I Projection I $ Variance 56,243 62,605 6,362 2,879 192% a) 1,500 3,750 2,250778 239,264 165,958 93% 178.000 263,000 85,000 1,087,913 87% 1,247,359 1,570,450 323,0911,563,938 255,301 90% 283,073 382,700 99,627336,210 173,446 85% b) 204,800 234,771 29,971166,428 265,986 92% 288,484 422,880 134,396340,564 547,975 86% 634,602 845,150 210,548798,221 348,545 245,455 89% 274,527 504,193 229,666 2,771,011 87% 3,168,588 4,289,499 1,120,9113,825,796 1,068,643 64% c} 1,669,409 1,715,138 (45,729)1,311,935 80,077 64% 124,246 126,346 (2,100)117,502 183,587 67% 275,515 279,224 (3,709)208,357 446,676 66% d) 672,796 745,106 (72,310)599,764 144,425 66% 218,300 217,272 1,028200,596 163,822 147,420 61% e} 241,036 205,675 35,361 118,007 69% 171,529 200,997 (29,468)160,291 581,155 430,847 65% 665,901 675,355 (9,454) 242,438 62% 391,485 436,000 (44,515)356,807 179,155 173,338 97% 179,035 173,338 5,697 3,035,456 66% 4,609,252 4,774,451 {165,199}3,879,383 (53,586) (264,446) (1,440,664) (484,952) 1,286,110 -0% f) 465,121 (465,121)854,872 330,240 67% 495,360 495,360495.360 -0% f) 89,518 (89,518)89.577 -0% 100 {100~- 1,439,809 330,240 31% 1,050,099 495,360 {554,739} 1,386,223 65,794 (390,565) 10,408 400,973 192,482 1,578,705 227% 696,290 1,578,705 882,415 $1,644,499 $ 305,725 $1,589,113 $1,283,388$1,578,705 I Beginning Net Working Capital. Requested Budget $1,589,113 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 Perm it 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 ROAD Statement of Financial Operating Data Through February 28, 2014 FY 2014 -Year to Date (67% of Year)FY 2013 I "10 Of Actual Actual Budget FY2014 Budget I Projection I $ Variance 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 SDC Trans In-Road Imp Res Total Transfers In Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance 7,335 -n/a --­ 140,591 29,585 21% 140,000 140,000 ­ 1,265,279 -0% a) 356,270 1,205,101 848,831 1,064,365 n/a b) -1,064,365 1,064,365- 542,290 588,197 76% 773,452 588,198 (185,254) 7,783,856 74% 10,554,500 11,000,000 445,50010,495,426 202,418 65% c) 310,000 783,380 473,38045,486 27,482 7% c) 370,000 294,535 (75,465)315,525 84,691 847% c) 10,000 84,692 74,6921,861 -0% c) 10,000 -(10,000)10,000 28,528 158% 18,000 32,000 14,00032,342 -0% d) 562,000 527,450 (34,550)526,110 255,369 165,786 75% 220,000 200,000 (20,000) -0% 90,000 75,000 (15,000)82,542 49,503 -n/a --­ -0% d) 1,500 1,500 ­24,628 13,478 108% 12,500 44,017 31,51730,387 358,169 65% 550,000 495,000 (55,000)623,074 202,991 75% 270,000 261,022 (8,978)287,313 61,890 267% e) 23,200 62,766 39,56635,018 10,611,436 74% 14,271,422 16,859,026 2,587,60414,770,079 3,536,651 66% 5,385,717 5,324,918 60,7995,303,241 4,655,030 45% 10,306,609 9,161,700 1,144,9097,277,398 87,057 3% 2,882,108 94,800 2,787,30867,987 450,000 100% 450,000 450,000 ­275,000 8,728,738 46% 19,024,434 15,031,418 3,993,01612,923,627 1,882,698 (4,753,012) 1,827,608 6,580,6201,846,452 141,074 50% d) 282,148 282,148 ­276,272 -0% 400,000 -(400,000)- -0% 1,000 -{1,000l- 141,074 21% 683,148 282,148 (401,000)276,272 2,023,772 (4,069,864) 2,109,756 6,179,6202,122,724 6,846,576 114% 6,014,368 6,846,576 832,2084,723,852 $8,870,349 * $ 1,944,504 $8,956,332 $ 7,011,828 Ending Fund Balance $ 6,846,576 . .I Beginning Net Working Capital -Requested Budget $8,954,332 a) Payment received annually in February b) One-time PILT payment. Not anticipated at the time the FY 2014 budget was adopted c) Billed upon completion of work Page 10 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 ADULT PAROLE &PROBATION Statement of Financial Operating Data Through February 28,2014 FY 2014 -Year to FY2013 Date (67% of Year) I %of Actual Actual Budget Revenues DOC Measure 57 219,240 220,788 Justice Reinvest HB3194 458,143 State Miscellaneous 4,301 4,142 Alternate Incarceration 7,408 State Subsidy 22,329 10,937 SB 1145 2,748,555 2,272,343 Probation Work Crew Fees 14,136 3,281 Claims Reimbursement 6,997 Miscellaneous 4,648 570 Electronic Monitoring Fee 177,947 146,692 Probation Superv. Fees 189,330 131,624 Interest on Investments 5,743 4,389 Interfund -Sheriff 50,000 33,333 Sale of Equipment 250 - Crime Prevention Grant 50,000 25,000 CFC-Domestic Violence 63,906 35,120 Total Revenues 3,550,384 3,360,767 Expenditures Personnel Services 2,956,034 2,215,737 Materials and Services 912,384 669,739 Capital Outlay -- Total Expenditures 3,868,418 2,885,476 Revenues less Expenditures (318,034) 475,291 Transfers In-General Fund 435,328 300,792 Change in Fund Balance 117,294 776,083 Beginning Fund Balance 630,226 747,520 Ending Fund Balance $ 747,520 $1,523,603 . . .I Begmnlng Net Workmg Capital -Requested Budget 101% a) n/a b) 96% 49% 79% 77% c) 25% d) n/a e) 13% f) 94% g) 75% h) 73% 67% n/a 50% i) 47% i) 80% 66% 68% g) 0% 66% 67% 106% KeVlsea I Budget FY2014 Projection I $ Variance 219,240 458,143 4,301 15,000 13,826 2,951,504 13,376 - 4,500 156,000 175,000 6,000 50,000 - 50,000 73,938 220,788 1,548 458,143 - 4.142 (159) 15,000 - 13,826 - 3,029,790 78,286 4,956 (8,420) 6,997 6,997 855 (3,645) 220,038 64,038 197,436 22,436 7,000 1,000 50,000 - -- 50,000 - 73,938 - 4,190,828 4,352,909 162,081 3,361,157 986,980 100 3,361,157 1,051,862 - - (64,882) 100 4,348,237 4,413,019 (64,782) (157,409) (60,110) 97,299 451,189 451,189 - 293,780 391,079 97,299 707,953 747,520 39,567 $1,001,733 $1,138,599 $ 136,866 $1,030,824 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) State grant in aid budget for FY 14 higher than budgeted d) Program participation decreasing e) Insurance settlement f) Number of out of state transfers was less than projected, lowering the fee collection g) Program utilization increase h) Program collection rate is higher, possibly due to more employed offenders i) Quarterly payments not yet received Page 11 CHILDREN & FAMILIES COMMISSION Statement of Financial Operating Data Through February 28, 2014 I FY 2014 -Year to FY2013 Date (67% of Year) Actual Actual I %of Budget FY 2014 Revised Budget Projection I $ Variance Revenues Federal Grants 252,020 125,590 31% a) 402,044 262,798 (139,246) Title IV -Family Sup/Pres 39,533 7,331 33% 21,994 21,994 - HealthyStart Medicaid 80,557 20,000 25% 80,000 80,000 ­ Youth Investment 196,053 31,262 25% 125,048 125,048 ­ State Grant ­-0% 55,185 -(55,185) State Prevention Funds 65,270 -n/a --- HealthyStart /R-S-G 219,950 132,927 52% a) 254,322 264,623 10,301 OCCF Grant 392,440 37,386 20% a) 189,636 133,984 (55,652) Charges for Svcs-Misc 5,148 2,220 111% 2,000 4,000 2,000 Program Fees 5,645 2,790 n/a 5,600 6,060 460 Court Fines &Fees 73,959 51,391 68% 75,034 77,086 2,052 Interest on Investments 3,659 1,804 180% 1,000 2,700 1,700 Donations 13 50 n/a -50 50 Private Grant ­130 nla -130 130 Interfund Grants 358,343 219,812 63% a) 350,375 329,624 ~20,751l Total Revenues 1,692,590 632,692 40% 1,562,238 1,308,097 (254,141) Expenditures Personnel Services 570,985 333,896 62% b) 539,665 526,259 13,406 Materials and Services 1,424,002 582,168 38% 1,530,796 1,244,868 285,928 Total Expenditures 1,994,987 916,064 44% 2,070,461 1,771,127 299,334 (283.372) (508,223) (463.030) 45,193Revenues less Expenditures (302,397) Transfers In General Fund 275,984 185,824 67% 278,739 278,739 ­ General Fund -Other ­44,675 50% 89,350 89,350 ­ 230,499 63% 368,089 368,089 ­Total Transfers In 275,984 (52,873) (140,134) (94,941) 45,193Change in Fund Balance (26,413) 548,572 146% 375,704 548,572 172,868Beginning Fund Balance 574,985 ...$ 495,699 $ 235,570 $ 453,631 $ 218,061Ending Fund Balance $ 548,572 . . .I Beginning Net Working Capital -Requested Budget $ 280,000 a) Revised to reflect actual award b) Removed 1.0 FTE Early 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 Early 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 February 28,2014 FY 2014 -Year to Date (67% of Year)FY 2013 I %of Actual BudgetActual Operating Revenues Miscellaneous 19,127 12,549 Franchise 3% Fees 209,076 86,287 Commercial Disp. Fees 971,213 676,729 Private Disposal Fees 1,376,005 943,738 Franchise Disposal Fees 3,980,498 2,835,811 Yard Debris 107,801 55,307 Special Waste 73,568 35,872 Interest 8,118 6,550 Leases 10,801 8,101 Recyclables 47,033 25,591 Miscellaneous 3,131 - Total Operating Revenues 6,806,370 4,686,534 Operating Expenditures Personnel Services 1,651,419 1,188,030 Materials and Services 2,808,337 1,967,372 Debt Service 946,711 384,886 Capital Outlay 76,335 25,895 Total Operating Expenditures 5,482,802 3,566,184 Operating Rev less Exp 1,323,569 1,120,351 Transfers Out Road 276,272 141,074 Capital Reserve 630,000 357,500 Total Transfers Out 906,272 498,574 Change in Fund Balance 417,297 4,187,960 Beginning Fund Balance 807,470 1,224,767 Ending Fund Balance $1,224,767 $5,412,727 FY 2014 Budget I Projection I$ Variance 69% 6,754,776 7,234,901 480,125 64% 1,868,124 1,867,446 678 59% 3,311,993 3,325,268 (13,275) 41% c) 930,157 930,157 - 47% 55,000 50,896 4,104 58% 6,165,274 6,173,767 (8,4931 589,502 1,061,134 471,632 50% d) 282,148 282,148 - 66% e) 545,000 576,000 {31,ooOl 60% 827,148 858,148 {31,OOO} -(237,646) 202,986 502,632 148% 825,655 1,224,767 399,112 $ 588,009 $1,427,753 $ 901,744 57% 43% a) 71% 72% 69% 65% 143% b) 82% 75% 57% n/a 22,000 200,000 954,100 1,309,350 4,095,525 85,000 25,000 8,000 10,801 45,000 - 20,000 (2,000) 210,000 10,000 1,045,550 91,450 1,498,000 188,650 4,264,550 169,025 92,000 7,000 40,000 15,000 9,000 1,000 10,801 ­ 45,000 ­ .I Beglnnmg Net Workmg Capital -Requested Budget $1,428,003 a) Due April 15, 2014 b) Unpredictable-revenue mainly from clean-up projects c) Payments made November and May d) Transfers will be made quarterly e) As requested during the year; additional $31,000 to come from Contingency Page 13 RISK MANAGEMENT Statement of Financial Operating Data Through February 28.2014 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 / Benefit Defense Professional Service Insurance Loss Prevention Miscellaneous Repair / 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 -SeWementlBenefits 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 2013 Actual 262.333 313.480 173,635 1,448,553 254,165 34,401 1,300 76 23,060 12.226 2,523,228 382,659 50.919 85.751 148.035 8,790 3.290 200 679,645 159,171 54,449 213,620 366 16,030 54,919 71,316 367,051 - 141,960 36,000 46,366 591,376 137,082 1.693.039 308,508 131,414 2,132,961 390.267 2.240.791 $2,631,057 , , , ,I Beginning Net Working Capital -Requested Budget FY 2014 -Year to Date (67% of Year) I "/0 of Actual Budget 181.882 67% 217,684 67% 109,433 67% 1,008.125 67% 206,797 67% 5,154 13% 490 21% 14 18% 19,350 138% 9,232 77% 66% 223,109 36.253 12.527 151.339 227 2.976 4,531 430,962 108% 1,758,161 166,668 133,892 300,560 120% 205 11,382 32,367 43,955 37% 287,140 5,000 113,452 21,712 25,860 453,164 57% 80,468 40% 1,309,109 74% 201.602 60% 99,928 51% 1,610,639 10% 147,522 2,631.057 $2,778,579 .. FY2014 Budget I Projection I $ Variance 272,823 272,823 ­ 326,526 326,526 ­ 164,150 164,150 ­ 1.512.188 1,512,188 ­ 310,203 310,203 ­ 40,000 40.000 ­ 2,300 2,300 ­ 80 80 ­ 14,000 22.000 8,000 12,050 12,050 ­ 2,654,320 2,662,320 8,000 400,000 550,000 (15O,OOOl 250,000 350,000 {100,000} 120,000 90,000 30.000 800,000 610.000 190,000 200,000 180,000 20,000 1,770,000 1,780.000 {10.oo0l 333.327 333.327 - 197.193 197.093 100 2,300,520 2,310,420 {9,90Ol 353,800 351,900 (1.900) 2,517,479 2.631.057 113.578 $ 2,871,279 $ 2,982,957 $ 111,678 $ 3,074,957 Page 14 -- DESCHUTES COUNTY 9-1-1 Statement of Financial Operating Data Through February 28,2014 FY 2013 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 -Year to Date (67% of Year) I 'Yo Of Actual Budget 5,923,567 100% a) 154,732 71% -0% b) 22,868 64% 378,367 50% c) -0% 26,930 90% 43,191 80% -O%d) -0% 55,783 620% -n/a 30,713 51% FY 2014 Budget I Projection I $ Variance 5,947,600 6,173,348 190,000 219,007 193,698 (25,309) 200,000 200,000 ­ 36,000 36,000 ­ 750,000 750,000 ­ 30,000 30,000 ­ 30,000 30,000 ­ 54,000 54,000 ­ 256,791 256,791 ­ 137,000 137,000 ­ 9,000 55,783 46,783 - 60,600 60,600 ­ 6,636,151 86% 7,729,998 7,977,220 211,474 2,955,461 67% 4,432,356 4,432,356 ­ 1,329,473 62% 2,132,476 2,132,476 ­ 61,644 10% e) 600,000 600,000 ­ 4,346,577 61% 7,164,832 7,164,832 ­ 2,289,574 565,166 812,388 211,474 7,800,000 100% 7,800,000 7,800,000 ­ (5,510,426) (7,234,834) (6,987,612) 211,474 10,398,030 106% 9,800,000 10,398,030 598,030 4,887,604 $2,565,166 $3,410,419 $ 809,505$ .I Beginning Net Working Capital -Requested Budget $ 3,410,000 a) Current year taxes due November, February, and May b) Reimbursement grant for CAD to CAD Capital Expenditures. Awaiting payment from ODOT c) Payments received quarterly -October, January, April, and July d) Billed annually e) Capital projects are in progress. Currently evaluating what projects will be addressed this fiscal year. Page 15 Health Benefits Trust Statement of Financial Operating Data Through February 28,2014 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-DentalMsion Claims Refunds Stop Loss Insurance Premium State Assessments Administration Fee (EMBS) Preferred Provider Fee Health Impact Other -Administration Other -Well ness Admin & Wellness Deschutes On-site Clinic Contracted Services Medical Supplies Equipment Other Total DOC Deschutes On-site Pharmacy Contracted Services Medication and Drugs Other Total Pharmacy Total Expenditures Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance $ FY2013 Year to Date %ofActual Actual (67% of Year) Budget 12.874,815 9.635,929 68% 30.280 12,420 31% 643.918 519.635 53% 1.405.518 1.051.894 66% 963,987 725.270 76% 99.330 107,637 213% 50,493 1,675 nla 1,240 429 nfa 70,959 41,643 69% 16,140,540 12,096,532 67% 197,101 99,190 47% 11.879,332 7.709,043 63% a) 1,059.923 473,668 44% a) 1,835,199 1,149.566 63% a) (131,375) (151,998) nfa 336,407 185.651 50% 194.510 67.753 32% 334.141 224.907 66% 50,841 32.840 60% 52,224 4,327 8% 101.616 22.531 37% 49.996 82,820 108% 15,762,814 9,801,107 60% 804,311 521,279 57% 33,155 32,578 326% 2,170 -0% 46.715 18.748 49% 886,351 572,604 59% 367.193 191.189 66% 1.446.770 1.084.941 72% b) 63,518 8,460 71% 1,877,480 1,284,590 71% 18,723,746 11.757,491 61% (2,583,206) 339,042 14.551.028 $ 11,967,822 102% FY2014 Budget 14,269.138 40.000 980.000 1.592,750 958,333 50,493 - - 60.000 17,950,714 209,676 12,321,732 1,064,841 1,825,442 - 375.000 215.000 330.000 55.000 55.000 60.162 76.739 16,378,916 915.000 10.000 250 38.310 963,560 289,004 1.500.000 11.876 1,800,880 19.353,032 (1,402,318) 11,700,000 11,967822 $ 12,306,863 $10,297,682 Projection 14,453,894 17,000 810.000 1,580,000 1.100,000 107,637 1,675 429 62,000 18,132,636 175,536 11,430,813 758,423 1.723.994 (151,998) 375,000 215,000 330,000 55.000 4.327 60.162 156.000 14,956,722 915,000 32,578 - 38.310 985,888 289.004 1.725,000 11.876 2.0251880 18,144.025 (11.390) 11.967,822 $11,956,432 $ Variance 184,756 (23.000) (170.000) (12,750) 141.667 57,144 1.675 429 2.000 181,922 34,140 868,297 361,105 117.515 151.998 - - - - 50,673 - F9.261~ 1,422,194 (22.578) 250 - (22,328) - (225.000) - (225,OOO~ 1.209,007 1.390,928 267.822 $1,658,750 I % of Exp covered by Revenues 86.2% 102.9% 92.8% 99.9% I Beginning Net Working Capital· Requested Budget $11,585,710 a) Projection based on combination of annualizing current year and 12-month roiling average b) February based on January actual of $164.000. Projection based on March -June at $160,000 per month. Page 16 FAIR AND EXPO CENTER Statement of Financial Operating Data Through February 28,2014 Revenues Miscellaneous Vending Machines Telephone Fees -Events Special Events Revenues Interest Storage Camping at F & E Horse Stall Rental Concession % -Food Rights (Signage, etc.) Grants Interfund Rentals Annual County Fair (net) Interfund Contract Total Revenues Expenditures: Personnel Services Materials and Services Debt Service Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Revenues less Expenditures Transfers In: General Fund Room Tax -6% (Fund 160) Room Tax -1% (Fund 170) less: Promotion Expenditures Fair & Expo Reserve Total Transfers In Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance FY2013 Actual $ 4,102 - 255 383,339 76 35,283 16,700 48,036 139,006 85,338 - 2,400 245,000 45,000 1,004,534 821,293 580,396 114,117 9,000 1,524,806 (520,272) 320,000 25,744 82,800 50,000 478,544 (41,728) 35,055 FY 2014 -Year to Date (67% of Year) %of BudgetActual FY2014 Projection $ VarianceBudget $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ - 1,500 1,500 - -140 140 395,000 504,922 109,922 -382 382 54,000 40,000 (14,000) 11,000 15,000 4,000 30,000 45,000 15,000 152,000 120,000 (32,000) 80,000 80,000 - a) 180,000 180,000 - 2,400 2,400 - b) 250,000 205,000 (45,OOO) --- 1,160,900 1,199,344 38,444 887,593 887,593 ­ c) 667,733 650,674 17,059 112,974 112,974 ­ a) 180,100 180,000 100 1,848,400 1,831,241 17,159 (687,500) (631,897) 55,603 374,186 374,186 ­ 25,744 25,744 ­ 189,156 225,734 36,578 100,000 100,000 ­ 689,086 725,664 36,578 1,586 93,767 92,181 48,827 {6,673l ~55,5OO~ $ 50,413 $ 87,094 $ 36,681 $ 3,371 106 140 236,852 382 14,614 838 1,635 58,171 60,000 62,006 1,600 205,000 - 644,715 589,791 435,727 69,227 176,289 1,271,034 (626,319) 249,456 17,160 126,104 50,000 442,720 (183,599) (6,673) 67.4% 7.1% nla 60.0% nla 27.1% 7.6% 5.5% 38.3% 75.0% 34.4% 66.7% 82.0% nla 55.5% 66.4% 65.3% 61.3% 97.9% 68.8% 66.7% 66.7% 66.7% 50.0% 64.2% $ (190,272) I Beginning Net Working Capital -Requested Budget S 50,000 $ (6,673) a) Pacific Power and Energy Trust grant for solar panels on the Event Center 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 Page 17 JUSTICE COURT Statement of Financial Operating Data Through February 28, 2014 FY 2014 -Year to FY2013 Date (67% of Year) I "/oot Actual Revenues Court Fines &Fees a) 357,920 State Miscellaneous ­ Interest on Investments 796 Total Revenues 358,716 Expenditures Personnel Services 365,245 Materials and Services 166,294 Total Expenditures 531,539 Revenues less Expenditures (172,823) Transfers In-General Fund a) 221,716 Change in Fund Balance 48,893 Beginning Fund Balance 104,925 Ending Fund Balance $ 153,818 Actual Budget FY2014 Budget I Projection I $ Variance - 228,385 54% b)c) 422,500 407,103 (15,397) 0% 600 600 ­ 435 48% 900 900 ­ 228,820 54% 424,000 408,603 (15,397) 274,429 62% 445,984 404,099 41,885 128,802 68% 190,210 190,687 {477} 403,231 63% 636,194 594,786 41,408 (174,411) (212,194) (186,183) 26,011 93,880 67% 140,819 140,819 ­ (80,531) (71,375) (45,364) 26,011 153,818 124% 124,241 153,818 29,577 ...$ 73,286 $ 52,866 $ 108,454 $ 55,588 . .I Beginning Net Working Capital -Requested Budget $ 153,818 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". February fines, to be received in March -$41,718 c) Collections tend to be seasonal and are greater during February, March and April Page 18 ..J. CAPITAL PROJECTS • Bethlehem Inn • Campus Improvement • Jail 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 February 28, 2014 Revenues Grants -Private Lease Payments Total Revenues Expenditures Debt Service: Interest Expense Total Expenditures Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance FY 2013 Actual FY 2014 -Year to Date (67% of Year) Actual I % of Budget $ - 24,408 24,408 $ - 16,272 16,272 0.0% 66.7% 66.7% 14,617 14,617 9,527 9,527 39.0% 39.0% 9,792 (2,710,173) $ (2,700,381J 6,745 (2, 700,381) $ (2,693,63Z) 100.0% a) Interest on February 2014 negative cash balance: $1,1780.95. FY 2014 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) b) Inception through February 28,2014: 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 $ 89,496 2,241,313 17,578 250,000 5,289 3,732 2,517,913 265,220 2,783,133 $ (2,693,637) Deschutes County ..... Campus Improvement (Fund 463) Inception through February 28,2014 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 8,054 500 8,554 Total Resources 1,317,420 350,500 1,667,920 EXPENDITURES: Basement Jail/Boller Demolition JB1 168,109 168,109 Basement Public File View JB2 141,862 141,862 18t Floor Public File View JB3 117,980 117,980 1st Floor Restrooms/Haslinger Court JB4 401,231 401,231 1 st Floor DeHoog/Bagley Court/Jury Room JB5 81,702 81,702 Accounting Area Open Workspace JB6 40,257 40,257 Courthouse DA Offices JB7 34,348 34,348 Hearing Room Justice Bldg 21Basement Phases 1/2 JB8 60,278 613,320 673,598 "Stone Building" 720 720 Internal Service Fund Charges 5,863 2,250 8,113 Total Materials & Services 1,052,350 615,570 1,667,920 Revenues less Expenditures $ 265,070 $ (265,070) Notes: A. Remaining proceeds from the FF&C borrowing for the OSP/911 Building. B. Projected $350,000 subject to being approved in the FY 2015 budget. Completed Projects JRF 3/3/2014 ,taw? P:4IA% M~II!I!n"W"!"I'IU.H ntr::4h$ $A{"".I+Aiflb{J k i; SKARiQ,;!&, ihk..iGiNfi'lrIUll""""'Ali -" Deschutes County Jail Project (Fund 456) -Phase II Beginning July 1,2012 Through February 28,2014 Project Budget (Note 1) Actual (Through February 28, 2014) Committed -­ Projected Total (Actual + Committed + Projected) Variance Resources Interest Transfers In: General County Projects (142) General Capital Reserve (143) General Fund (001 ) Sheriff's Office Jamison Acq &Remodel (457) (Note 2) Bond Issuance, net Total Resources Expenditures Architect Engineering Environmental Surveying Consulting Building &Grounds Fees &Permits, SDCs (water &sewer) Insurance Internal Service Fund Charges Miscellaneous Administrative FF &E -Security System FF &E -Storage System Construction -Expansion &Remodel (2) Construction Contingency $ 26,157 100,000 1,250,000 750,000 540,939 8,400,000 11,067,096 820,000 35,000 310,000 40,000 33,700 30,000 40,000 9,458,396 300,000 $ 32,504 100,000 1,250,000 750,000 540,939 8,403,481 11,076,925 798,524 20,226 593 500 2,893 9,127 322,705 7,938 23,144 8,555 68,866 4,314,560 $ $ 5,000 15,876 10,556 5,537,439 136,000 141,000 5,600 10,000 8,044 10,000 40,000 2,779 $ 37,504 100,000 1,250,000 750,000 136,000 540,939 8,403,481 11,217,925 820,000 20,226 593 500 12,893 9,127 322,705 7.938 41,744 18,555 68,866 40,000 9,852,000 2,779 11,347 136,000 3,481 150,829 (20,226) (593) (500) 22,108 (9,127) (12,705) 32,062 (8,044) 11,445 (68,866) (393,604) 297,221 Total Expenditures 11,067,096 5,577,631 5,563,871 76,423 11,217,925 (150,829) Net $ $ 5,499,294 $(5,563,871) 64,577 (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) Change Order #2-$115,242 (Addenda 5 &6-$29,514. JRF 3/11/2014 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 February 28,2014 ACTUAL Encumbrances & Commitments Project to Qate J 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) 25,533 1,693 21,983 23 100,967 25,000 25,533 1,693 21,983 23 125,967 1,402,013 230 1,402,243 1,402,013 230 1,402,243 b) a) 1,503,210 25,000 1,528,210 532,246 (25,000) 507,246 PROJECTION f3 ud get * I I projected I I Variance 5,500,000 1,402,013 25,000 700,000 50,000 7,677,013 1,402,013 25,000 700,000 50,000 2,177,013 (5,500,000) (5,500,000) 325,000 100,000 31,724 200,000 20,000 676,724 325,000 100,000 31,724 200,000 20,000 23 676,747 ~23~ ~23} 1,402,013 5,481,426 6,883,439 1,402,013 1,402,013 5,481,426 5,481,426 116,850 7,677,013 2,078,760 116,850 5,481,403 98,253 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) JRF 3/11/2014 - RESOURCES: Beginning Net Working Capital Federal Grants Resources from Fund 142 Transfer in (Fund 142) Transfer in (Fund 270) Interest Revenue Total Resources EXPENDITURES: Materials & Services Architecture/Design Engineering Planning Surveying Interfund Charges Fees, Permits & SDCs Utilities Miscellaneous Project Costs Miscellaneous Admin Costs Total Materials & Services Capital Outlay New Construction Total Capital Outlay Contingency Total Expenditures Net Deschutes County Sisters Health Clinic (Fund 464) Inception through February 28, 2014 ACTUAL Received and Expended Encumbrances & Commitments Project to Date 40,000 48,626 100,000 155,000 50,000 565 189,191 205,000 57,639 1,140 2,029 2,800 25,549 2,151 26 91,334 55,312 497,418 55,312 497,418 146,646 497,418 42,545 (292,418) 40,000 48,626 a) 255,000 50,000 565 394,191 57,639 a) 1,140 2,029 2,800 25,549 2,151 26 91,334 552,730 b) 552,730 644,064 (24'!~'7~) Cumulative Through Projected I 6/30/14 500,000 500,000 48,626 48,626 255,000 255,000 50,000 50,000 600 600 854,226 854,226 57,639 56,607 2,000 2,000 2,029 2,029 4,720 3,318 25,549 25,549 2,000 2,000 2,151 2,151 1,810 4,000 97,898 97,654 756,328 717,730 756,328 717,730 854,226 815,384 a) $48,626 paid to the architect in FY 2012 with resources from General County Projects Fund (Fund 142) b) Additional costs due to delay in the project have not yet been determined. JRF 3/13/2014 ~I~~:W Ci4Hft'*"\I;;4,J$@,ti4mq; aM AI 'M«m,4b§JiJ J PilAU; %%%A44,Q)&It¥;:;:,;ztA4; 4j(MP 8!4&+ 01;; !4. Deschutes County General Support Services -eocc Conference/Seminar, EducationfTraining and Travel Expenditures County College Expenditures FY 2014 -:-c_om_m_od_a_ti_on_s_-~_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_.-I 810; 164 i -I 1,143 91 1 727 I --2,935 BOCC Conference &Travel Tammy Baney Jut I Aug Sep Oct Nov Conf/Sem &EducfTraining , 35 -340! 45 Dec Jan Feb 60 FY2014 I Total 480 ! _~T,-"ra-,-vec:..:I-,-M:.:.:e::...:.a::-=ls,-:--_______-'--_-_-+'__-_+_'__-_-+'_-:------'i---'3::.::0:....j~_.::..50=-+t·_···=---~I ~A~cco~m-m-od-a-ti-on-s--------~-----i-'-----+_---~--'-3~12~.~91~-1::...:.~~,---~i---_+I-- Airfare -i - - - - --! 80 i 507, Mileage reimbursement 478 ' 104 450 I 510 391 , 105 -1 2,038 Ground Transport/Parking ! - I -1------Total Baney 513 104 1,101. 677 5451 105 , 60 i 3,105 Alan Unger ! I , Conf/Sem & EducfTraining i 205 1 -I ~375! -110 I 35 95 830 ' Travel Meals ... "'--" : -I -! -I - -81 - -81 1 .------'-~~4---_---~ ~~r~modations : ~92 i ~ i ~ i ~15=-+--:-+---~::...:.7...:..9-T,--~-+-:i__~-+!---'-1!...:,~...:..86.=......j Mileage reimbursement -! - -I - -2,056 -, 2,056 Ground Transport/Parking -=--: --! - -14 14 Total Unger 397 I 10 i 790 -2,739 35 i 95 4,067 Tony DeBone :!" 1 jI--C:-'o"-n-C::-:f/-:::-Se-m--:C&-=E=-d-u-clT---ra---in~in-"'-g-_--=--_-_-_-_-_--,-+,===52:0=:',===-==:--184-+--34-0+45-1-1-0-+1 --=-1-=-20=-'-,---9-=-+-5:----:-1,-=-31-:-4:-11 Travel Meals ... , -! 82 '! : -:~i-1"-:0=-=0-+1---=-==--'-:---~+-!---~~... I'~~15=-+-1 Airfare ! 658, 50 i -, -1 -1 - - 1 . -708 • Accommod.-'.a-'-ti=on....::.s____._~~_====:,==6=-1.:...:8~i_--=1...:..6...:.-4-1-'___;...._--'~..j..__-+1_1.:.-4::...:.5-41__-______-_-'-1__--'=-:-:-1 1 ... Mileage reimbursement ···-·--·--=-+--10::.::5=-+-----+---4-1"""'1-"-+------+1 '--:-34-C-=7"--': ----,-+---+----'-8.::..62=-1 Ground Transport I -i 74 1 --i ~-=--f-:=-=.LI=-'",,--=---+===:....,'-"""-'=~-~!...====74=-1I, Total DeBone--1,795 ! 474 ! 184 1,166 1-45 601. 120 95 ' 4,4811-------'-----------,-1.. j--'---'-+--"'--'--+ .-,------+. -'-'--+---'-~'-+-!I--'-'-"-+--:...:-1-----=-'-=-'-\ Total -BOCC Department __. _--,-' __.. _. -=:-I---:--::-:-+-:-=+~:+--;-=-=-T--:-=-::+--::::-=-::-+'---:::-::-::-:-l I--C,-o_n_f/-'-Se_m--e&-CE=-d.-.cu-'cIT-=-.:...:ra=-in.:.::cin-"g______ ._-,-1_7=-25=--c..1__--'3::...:.5-4, _--,-19.:.-4-+,--'..,1,-,-,0...:..55=-+-!--=-90...:..+_-1.:.=2::...:.0--,1-155 250 2,624 Travel Mea_ts__._. ----c-_+----=8:.=2:....;1-·__-_+-1---:--:-----i,-+3::.::0=-+---=:2.=..30==-+-,__-_-==;~===.==:=====:34~2~ Airfare _~-:--___________---l__6...:..5::...::8~i_'~-~5=-~0:-++-i~~~~.~_-_:-_'-'--.::---~~::-~~.~i~~::_:.=~--++I,~~~~-~:-Li---=----·~~:~~~~::~7...:..0=-~8:-1 Mileage Reimbursement_...__. 1 -583 • 104 I 861 510 i 2,794 I 105 : - i 4,956 Ground Transport ! • I 74 I --! • 14 ~--.... -.-+i---'-'-'-c8~8~i Total-BOCC Department I 2,192 I 987 298 3,058 722! 3,886 • 260 250 , 11,653i t=F=Y=2=0=14=O=ri=g=l=na=I=B=U=dg=e=t========1!==ji====::;It===t:==±=jl===;:== ==f=:===.-.:::::t:' .... ===1;::;5~,2-;50:;=j Percent of FY 2014 Budget Expended i : 1 I 76.4% BOCC County College I: I Printing/Binding -----+--.-+!--.-1---,---+------1,-.-+1----.-+----,1-=-4-1---.-+----1"-4,-' 1 f--::c-=---:'~~-:>"---c-------__+-----c-___,._.----+-----1 '-----+---+----=--:+---+----:c~ Office/Copier Supplies 176 i - -48 i ­-224 ~M~ee~ti~n9~S~up~p~l.i~es~____ --~_----__ ==""-""-~~,,,,·~~I~,,,,2=8~9~=2~,3~6~2~,~7=3=4~1~.~+!.~~-~----~i==~3~,~384~: .. I I I---=--.-:-::::-=-cc-::--=:-------c---c----_-+1__.....:-I___+-I---,--c-c-+--=-___-I.--=c-::--f----'-----;-:-+---f------:;-==-1 Total BOCC County cO.II.e.~g~e___+-I,i.!~1....76!!w-;!!!!!!!!""'''''''-!!!!!!!!''''''-+-'''',........;2;;;.;;8~9~1~2;:;.;,,.;,;40;;.;;9~!c_'7.;.,.;3~4!4-.-........,,-!!!!!!!!'-~i'"""""'~14~!!!!!!!!""'!!!!!!-~+'!!!!"""""'~3,!!!!!62;;;.;;2~ -I NOTE:Above amounts include only those expenditures processed for payment. !T . .. ...... I" ---+-----+------1 Additional conference and travel costs may have been incurred, but not processed for payment. i I JRF 2128/2014 Department of Forestry Central Oregon District regon PO B ox 670 John A Kitzhaber, MD, Governor 3501 NE 3 rd St. Prineville, OR 97754 541-447-5658 FAX 541-447-1469 www.oregon.gov/ODF/centra\oregon March 13 , 2014 'fEII'AR•f)SHIl' I,\' FOJl ESTI<r " To: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners From: George Ponte, ODF Central Oregon District Forester Re: Deschutes County Classification Committee Membership and recommendations Per state statute (526.310), "Pursuant to a request by the State Forester: The governing body of a county may establish a forestland classification committee of six persons , of whom one shall be appointed by the State Forester, one by the Director of the Oregon State University Extension Service, one by the State Fire Marshal and three by the governing body. Of the members appointed by the governing body, one must be an owner of forestland and." .one must be an owner of grazing land" The following individuals have been identified and selected pending final authorization by the respective entity. ~ Oregon Department of Forestry -Kristin Cotugno , Assistant District Forester ~ Oregon State Fire Marshall-Jeremy Ast, Sisters-Camp Sherman Fire Dept. ~ OSU Extension -Ron Boldenow, COCC Forest Technology Staff ~ Forest Landowner-Bill Swarts (Rep), Cascade Timberlands * ~ Grazing Landowner -Matt Cyrus (Rep), Keith Cyrus (Grazing owner)* ~ At Large Member -Ed Keith, Deschutes County Forester* * Positions in bold are the responsibility of the County to appoint representatives. The names listed are individuals who have expressed interest in participating on this committee and meet the requirements to do so. FORESTLAND CLASSIFICATION IN DESCHUTES COUNTY Central Oregon District, ODF FY14 STATISTICS FOR CLASSIFIED LANDS IN DESCHUTES COUNTY Assessed Private Acres Assessed Public Acres Total Acres Private Rate/ Ac* Public Rate/ Ac* Timber 138,867 9256 148,123 $1.4639 $3.3135 Grazing 6418 551 6970 $0.4313 $1.2482 *Additional $0.075/ac assessment for OFLPF Classified Acres (Timber) Classified Acres (Grazing) # Minimum Lots # Improved Lots Total Tax Lots 149,053 19,363 31,402 24,797 31,909 • FY14 Central Oregon District Budget -$6,127,506 • 12 acres or less subject to minimum assessment of $18.75 • 13 acres or larger subject to per acre assessment rate • Ideally assessed acres and classified acres would match. Some discrepancy is due to private and Federal ownership changes over time that weren't updated as being added or removed from classification/assessment when they changed ownership. Other minor discrepancies could be for a number of reasons . 1 Frequently Asked Questions about Forestland Classification Why are we doing this process? To improve the accuracy and equity of the Fire Patrol Assessment so the appropriate acres are being assessed the appropriate rate. What is Fire Patrol Assessment? Oregon Department of Forestry provides wildland fire protection on private, county and state owned forest and rangelands within their Fire Protection District Boundaries. This fire protection service is funded by a combination of an assessment on lands within the Fire Protection District and the General Funds for the State of Oregon. The landowner contribution is termed the Fire Patrol Assessment. Currently, the General Fund and the landowner’s assessment each contribute approximately 50% of the funding at the district level. The current landowner rates in the district are $XXX/acre for class 2 timberland and $.XX/acre for class 3 grazing land. What is included in a Forestland Classification? A map that identifies timberlands and grazing lands that meet the definitions set forth in Oregon Revised Statutes and Administrative Rules. Timberland is defined as all forestland primarily suitable for joint use of timber production and the grazing of livestock. Grazing lands are defined as all forestland that is primarily suitable for grazing or other agricultural uses. Grazing lands may contain undeveloped grasslands if such grasslands are in close proximity and intermingled with timberland. Who gave the committee the authority to complete this work? Oregon Revised Statutes and Administrative Rules. How was the classification committee formed? According to State Statute, one representative was appointed by the State Forester, one appointed by Oregon State University Extension Service and three members appointed by the County Commissioners, the Union County Fire Chief and Chief of the RFD served as an advisory member. Where do I find my current Fire Patrol Assessment? The Fire Patrol Assessment is located in your property taxes, collected by the County As sessor and passed on to the local ODF district. Will this affect the Fire Patrol Assessment that I currently pay? For most landowners it will create a change for several reasons. The differences in the accuracy of the mapping technology in the 1960’s an d today is enough to create small changes even if the timber and grazing lands are exactly as they were in the 60’s . Other reasons include, land use changes that were not captured and areas that were assigned the wrong classification. What effect will this have on ODF’s budget level if more lands are included? If more lands are included, this will spread the costs across more acres and slow the rate of increase landowners pay assuming the level of protection stays the same. The level of protection is determined by ODF and the Budget Committee which is composed of landowners’ representatives. What is forestland? “Forestland” has a very broad definition when used in the fire related statutes. The definition for “Forestland” is any woodland, brush land, timberland, grazing land or clearing that, during any time of the year, contains enough forest growth, slashing or vegetation to constitute, in the judgment of the forester, a fire hazard, regardless of how the land is zoned or taxed. What is a Minimum Assessment? Each lot of record must pay a minimum assessment of $18.75. This minimum assessment helps defray some of the additional administrative and operational costs of providing wildland protection on small parcels where, figured on an acreage basis, the assessment for forest protection would not reach $18.75. What is Dual Assessment? An assessment for fire protection from two different entities on the same parcel. An example is an assessment from ODF on the forestlands on a parcel for the purposes of wildland fire protection and an assessment from a Rural Fire Protection District on the value of the structures and up to five acres for purposes of structure protection. How are Agricultural lands defined? Those lands that do not meet the definition of forestland and that are being actively farmed. These lands were delineated through editing of 2005 color aerial photography. The basic intent was to include all lands that were being actively farmed in the agricultural lands class. Since lands that are actively farmed pose less of a fire threat, these lands would be excluded from the assessment process. How are agricultural lands classified? Agricultural lands that are actively being farmed are excluded from this process. How are lands under CRP contracts classified? CRP lands are being classified based on the current vegetation type present in the most recent aerial photography (2005). At the conclusion of the CRP contract if the land is converted back into agricultural lands, they then would be exempted. How can a landowner go about opting out of fire protection? Opting out for landowners with classified lands within the Fire Protection District boundaries is a rigorous process. A landowner must provide a robust fire protection plan that needs to be approved by the Oregon Board of Forestry. The specific requirements for what is needed can be found in Oregon Revised Statue 477.210 (2) and within Oregon Administrative Rule 629-042-0005. At present, no such plans exist in the State of Oregon. What is the purpose of the Public Meeting? We are offering public meetings to share the County Classification Committee’s findings with landowners in the County. What is the purpose of the Public Hearing? The Public Hearing is a mandatory and formal process that must occur prior to implementation of the findings of the classification effort. This hearing is a time when interested persons can object or offer changes to the proposed classification. Following the hearing the committee may make such changes in the preliminary classification as it finds to be proper, and thereafter shall make its final classification. The final results of the classification effort will be by formal written order which must include a statement of findings of fact on the basis of which the order is made, and must include a map showing the classifications or reclassifications. The original of the order shall be filed with the county clerk of the county, who shall maintain it available for public inspection. A copy of the order certified by the secretary of the committee shall be sent to the State Board of Forestry. How can a landowner appeal the findings of the Classification Committee? Any owner of land classified under ORS 526.328 or 526.340 and who is aggrieved by the classification may, within 30 days after the date of the order making the classification, appeal to the circuit court for the county. The appeal shall be taken by serving the notice of appeal on the secretary of the committee and by filing such a notice with the county clerk. FORESTLAND CLASSIFICATION IN DESCHUTES COUNTY Central Oregon District, ODF 1 What is Forestland Classification? Forestland Classification is a process by which a committee reviews all the lands within the county to determine whether they meet the definition of ‘forestland’. The committee further classifies the lands as Timber (Class 1), Timber/Grazing (Class 2), or Grazing (Class 3). This information is used to determine which lands are subject to the fire patrol assessment which helps fund a forest protection district budget. What is Forestland? ‘Forestland’ is defined in state statute and means any woodland, brushland, timberland, grazing land or clearing that, during any time of the year, contains enough forest growth, slashing or vegetation to constitute, in the judgment of the forester, a fire hazard, regardless of how the land is zoned or taxed. Why is Forestland Classification Needed? • To help create a FAIR and EQUITABLE approach to funding ODF’s fire protection program. The goal is to ensure that those landowners who should be helping to fund the system are doing so and the opposite is true. • To allow INVOLVEMENT of local interests (County Government, Fire Chiefs, and Local Landowners) in the process. • To update the current classification. Forestland classification was last completed in Deschutes County in the 1970’s. Many areas have been urbanized and no longer meet the definition of forestland. Local History and Overview • On average, there are 41 wildland fires annually, which burn 1066 acres on ODF protected lands in Deschutes County. • The District has been classifying lands since the 1940’s. • Forestland classification has not been done in Deschutes County since the 1970’s. There have been substantial land use changes since then. • Forestland classification and the corresponding per acre assessments of forestland is a major funding component for ODF’s protection system. The state’s General Fund is the other major funding source. How is Forestland Classification completed? • The classification process is guided by ORS Chapter 526 and associated Administrative Rules. • A Classification Committee examines lands within the county to determine which meet the definition of forestland. Urban and irrigated agricultural lands do not meet this definition. • For lands determined to be forestland, the committee classifies those lands as: o Timber production (Class 1) o Joint use--timber production & grazing (Class 2) o Grazing and non-irrigated agricultural uses (Class 3) • Work is done using GIS mapping with vegetation, soil productivity layers, and aerial imagery layers. The Committee reviews the landscape on a square mile by square mile basis. • Periodic field checks are made by the Committee and ODF Staff during the process. • Committee finalizes classification designations after public meetings and a Hearing. • Finalized classification is filed with the County Clerk. Committee Membership – Six Members • Three Committee members are appointed by County o One Forestland owner or representative thereof o One Grazing land owner or representative thereof o One at-large member FORESTLAND CLASSIFICATION IN DESCHUTES COUNTY Central Oregon District, ODF 2 • One member appointed by the State Fire Marshal • One member appointed by the Director of OSU Extension • One member appointed by the State Forester Transparent Public Process • Committee meetings are advertised in advance and open to public • Each meeting agenda include time for public comment • The Committee elects its own officers and creates its own by-laws • Minutes are recorded and available to the public • Multiple public information meetings and a formal public hearing is conducted. All affected landowners will receive a written invitation to these events. • Affected landowners can provide testimony prior to final classification information being filed with County. • Once the Committee has finalized the classification, it is filed with the County Clerk. This begins a 30-day appeal period. Landowners may make their appeal to the Circuit Court. Impacts on the Local ODF Budget • A common concern is this is a “money grab for ODF”. It is not. • The forest protection district prepares an annual budget to protect lands within the district. The cost of this budget is pro-rated over the acres protected to determine an amount per acre assessed to landowners to pay for wildland fire protection. If the protected acres increase as a result of classification, the per acre rate decreases and vice versa. Impacts to Local Structural Fire Departments • There are 9 Fire Districts within Deschutes County (Bend, Black Butte, Cloverdale, Crooked River Ranch, Deschutes #2, LaPine, Redmond, Sisters-Camp Sherman, Sunriver). Eight are within the ODF District Boundary. • Some lands inside the ODF Protection District and a local Rural Fire District are currently assessed by both entities. • ODF protects the wildland and RFD’s protect the structures and up to 5 acres in overlapping areas. • If ODF classifies inside RFD’s where we currently are not providing protection, there will be an impact to the RFD budget. This is because if ODF is not there, RFD can assess on entire taxlot. If there is overlapping protection, the RFD is restricted to assessing the structure and up to 5 acres. Vice versa is true also. Other Information • Wildland fire protection of private lands in Oregon is a private-public partnership. In general, private landowners pay half the cost of protection with the State of Oregon General Fund paying the other half. Non-federal public lands also pay into this system. • The Classification process does not determine assessment rates; it only determines who will be subject to the assessment. • Deschutes County classification process will begin in the spring of 2014 and is expected to take about two years to complete. • Only lands within the Forest Protection District may be assessed. • The Classification Committee may make recommendations to ODF to make changes to the Forest Protection District boundary. These recommendations are not binding. FORESTLAND CLASSIFICATION IN DESCHUTES COUNTY Central Oregon District, ODF 3 ------- What Is Included In The Forestland Classification? MAPP I NG A map that identifies timberlands and grazing lands that meet the definitions set forth in Orego'n Revised Statutes and Administrative Rules . Timberland (Class 1 & 2) is defined as all forestland primarily suitable for joint use of timber production and the grazing of livestock. Grazing lands (Class 3) are defined as all forestland that is primarily suitable for grazing / or other agricultural uses . Grazing lands may contain undeveloped grasslands if such grasslands are in close proximity and intermingled with timberland . Developed areas and agricultural lands are exempt from classification. Once the timberland areas are classified, intermingled and adjacent grazing lands are also classified. The purpose of this approach is to allow firefighters a reasonable chance to suppress fires at small sizes regardless of where they originate and to create logical control points. http :ftv:ww.oregon.gov/odf/centraloregonlDeschutesFLC ~"'nr1 IIC; ....nmm... nl<; 11<:'lnn Ih..,. ~MVjOo """,,,,..iT,,, ::",1I'1rp<:; <:. Oregon Forestland-Urban Interface Fire Protection Act S8360 The Forestland-Urban Interface Fire Protection Act, better known as Senate Bill 360, is an unique and effective means of protecting rural properties that are located in fire prone areas of our state. The recommended treatment prescriptions are new, fostered on retaining trees around the home, maintaining healthy landscapes, and enhancing curb appeal. Each home protected by the Oregon Department of Forestry received a certification form, which we hope you filled out and returned once the fire defense work is complete. The certification process renews every five years, wherein we will send out new forms and treatment information. I'f you are new to the are,a, misplaced your original documents or just need additional information please call our district office at 541-447-5658 . .. hltp :/I~WlW oregon.gov/odficentraloregonJpages/sb360.aspx Orego" Ocf*l1lf1C1fll of Forestry KrIIn B«Ilon -Llntl ForeS lc' George Pon~-cmtnet FOIo~r Central Orl!gOl'l [).SIr1c1 I~') 447·5658 x23(l (541) 44 7.ffi58 ,k231 3501 NE 3" Street kberJOnCocl S!alf or.us QfKl Rlc.@odlslaleor.us p~. OR9n54 Kris1in Cotugno -Ant, 0:$1!lC1 ~1IBr (541)-447-5.5 58 (541) 447 ·5658 x229 Ytw" Of'tQOlI goWOOf/tetl"allxegotl ICC01~r."tlJllII _Of .US Deschutes ~~nty Forestland Classification Oregon Department of Forestry EFFECT ON ODF FUNDING If more lands are included through the Forestland Classification process, the rate per acre paid by landowners is reduced due to being spread across more acres being protected , assuming the level of protection stays the same . The level of protection is determined by ODF and the District Budget Committee which is composed of landowners throughout Central Oregon . What is Forestland Classification? STA T E OF OREGO N STATUTE FOR FORESTLAN D CLASSIFICA TI O N Forestland classification is a process by "Forestland" means any woodland, which a committee studies all lands brush land, timberland , grazing land or within the fire protection boundary to clearing that, during any time of the determine which lands are year, contains enough forest growth , "forestlands". Once lands have been slashing or vegetation to constitute , in determined to meet the definition of the judgment of the forestlands (ORS 526 .005(5)(a)), they forester , a fire are further classified as lands primarily hazard, regardless suitable for timber production, grazing of how the land is use, or a combination of the two. zoned or taxed. complete and coordinated svstem HOW LANDOWNERS FUND ODF Oregon Department of Forestry provides wildland The Forestland Classification process is done to fire protection on private forest and rangelands improve the accuracy and equity of the Fire Patrol within their Fire Protection District boundaries . The Assessment to ensure the appropriate acres are being landowner contribution assessed at the appropriate rate for is termed the Fire Patrol protection from wildland fire. Assessment. For some landowners this process will Currently, the General create a change for several reasons. Fund and the The differences in the accuracy of the landowner's mapping technology in the 1960's (the assessment each last time Deschutes County contribute approximately classification was completed) today 50 % of the funding . is enough to create small changes even if the timber and grazing lands DUAL ASSESSMENTS are exactly as they were in the 1960's. Other reasons include, land use changes since the last Some lands may pay an assessment for fire classification deSignation, areas that may have protection to both ODF and the local Fire District. An been assigned the wrong classification and example is an assessment from ODF for wildland potential data entry errors . fire protection of the forestlands on that parcel and an assessment from a Rural Fire Protection District on the value of the structures and up to five acres for purposes of structure protection . Deschutes County Current Land Classification Legend I?2ZI Des_Cls_2 g CityLimits + Des Cis 3 Deschutes County : -.00;For~st Protection Units ~Structural Fire Protection Districts • Towns Highways Route Type -Interstate --US Highway --Slale Highway 12 16 ,........ Miles This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. Oregon Dept. of Forestry Central Oregon District Date: 12118/2013 •1r.. ... -W •... .,.• ...... ...1 ""t. • ••••••••...., .; ,I'~ • .....I ,..... . ..• ~ ••.. it­ co ....,. • Deschutes County Fire History • '1 ..• •. ~,. ,. !II! , "tt' ," ~..., ,,...', ,.-,',' ,', .. ' ,,, . , " , .. ,/'.. ' ". ,:,.: '. 1 ·,,7, I, • .I , , f ._,f ," .. '.., " . ~ '" ~, , .. ' ',.' , ..­, ,'. , ' to' · .' • ~ .' .: . ., ~ !: ' · ~oJ ". '. • ~ . r••'~" .~ .. .-,. ,'Qt! .. \) • ",....L... '.ill " • • ~ I"~.' ~,~. r. '. . ':,Ii'p • ' ,i", ..... .. " .. 1t­'.;' ·.. .. " . . . , 61" , '._ ~.,.. . ... 1 '... . .~~ • Legend +• Towns Public Ownersh Ip Highways _ us Bureau of land Management Route Type _ Oregon Depl of State lands _ Interstate 0 Oregon Parks and Recreation -­US Highway Private -­State Highway ~State of Oregon o City wmi[S L.J US Forest Service ~La rge Fifes 1911-2012 Fires.;: 10ac 1992-2012 Deschutes County 2.75 5.S 11 16.5 22 H Miles This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information . Oregon Dept. or Forestry Central Oregon District Date: 1210212013 1 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN DESCHUTES BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY, STATE FORESTER This agreement establishes the Deschutes County Forestland Classification Committee, and identifies the functions to be performed and the expenses to be incurred by the Deschutes Board of County Commissioners and by the Oregon Department of Forestry, in supporting the proper performance of the committee’s functions. WHEREAS, Pursuant to ORS 526.320, there is a need to periodically investigate and study all land in Deschutes County to determine which of the land is forestland.; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to ORS 526.324, there is a need to assign a classification to all forestland in Deschutes County; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to ORS 526.310, the governing body of a county may establish a forestland classification committee to periodically investigate and study forestland and to assign a classification to all such forestland. WHEREAS, Pursuant to ORS 526.310, the parties to this Cooperative Agreement may provide accommodations, funds, and supplies which are necessary for the proper performance of a forestland classification committee’s functions. WHEREAS, Pursuant to ORS 190.110, the parties to this Cooperative Agreement are authorized to cooperate by agreement for the establishment of a forestland classification committee and for the committee’s proper performance of its functions. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties to this Cooperative Agreement, in consideration of the covenants and the conditions hereinafter set forth, do agree as follows. ARTICLE 1 DESCHUTES COUNTY FORESTLAND CLASSIFICATION COMMITTEE 1.1 The Deschutes County Forestland Classification Committee is hereby established. ARTICLE 2 RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DESCHUTES BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2.1 Contingent on its ability to do so, including the availability of appropriate funding, the Deschutes Board of County Commissioners agrees to: 2.1.1 Appoint three members to serve on the Deschutes County Forestland Classification Committee. At least one of the appointed members shall be an owner of “forestland” and, if the land to be investigated and studied by the committee includes or is expected to include grazing land, one must be an owner of grazing land as that term is defined in ORS 526.005 . 2 2.1.2 Provide, at no charge, facilities for meetings of the Deschutes County Forestland Classification Committee. 2.1.3 Provide, at no charge, facilities for public hearings the Deschutes County Forestland Classification Committee is required by law to conduct. 2.1.4 Post, at no charge, public notices the Deschutes County Forestland Classification Committee is required by law to display. 2.1.5 Provide, at no charge, incidental reproduction services the Deschutes County Forestland Classification Committee determines it needs to properly perform its functions. 2.1.6 Provide, at no charge, assessor’s tax lot information, the Deschutes County Forestland Classification Committee determines it needs to properly perform its functions. 2.2 Contingent on its ability to do so, including the availability of appropriate funding, the Deschutes Board of County Commissioners may: 2.2.1 Provide GIS and mapping services the Deschutes County Forestland Classification Committee determines it needs to properly perform its functions. 2.2.2 Provide, accommodations, supplies, and county funds not otherwise appropriated as the Deschutes Board of County Commissioners determines necessary for the Deschutes County Forestland Classification Committee to properly perform its functions. 2.2.3 Reimburse members of the Deschutes County Forestland Classification Committee members for their actual and necessary travel and other expenses incurred in the performance of their duties. ARTICLE 3 RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY 3.1 Contingent on its ability to do so, including the availability of appropriate funding, the Oregon Department of Forestry agrees to: 3.1.1 Appoint one member to serve on the Deschutes County Forestland Classification Committee. 3.1.2 Request that the Director of the Oregon State University Extension Service appoint one member to serve on the Deschutes County Forestland Classification Committee. 3.1.3 Request that the State Fire Marshal appoint one member to serve on the Deschutes County Forestland Classification Committee. 3.1.4 Provide, at no charge, facilities for meetings of the Deschutes County Forestland Classification Committee. 3.1.5 Provide, at no charge, facilities for public hearings the Deschutes County Forestland Classification Committee is required by law to conduct. 3 3.1.6 Post, at no charge, public notices the Deschutes County Forestland Classification Committee is required by law to display. 3.1.7 Provide, at no charge, incidental reproduction services the Deschutes County Forestland Classification Committee determines it needs to properly perform its functions. 3.1.8 Provide, at no charge, forestland condition information, the Deschutes County Forestland Classification Committee determines it needs to properly perform its functions. 3.1.9 Provide, at no charge, wildfire incidence information, the Deschutes County Forestland Classification Committee determines it needs to properly perform its functions. 3.2 Contingent on its ability to do so, including the availability of appropriate funding, the Oregon Department of Forestry may: 3.2.1 Provide GIS and mapping services the Deschutes County Forestland Classification Committee determines it needs to properly perform its functions. 3.2.2 Provide, accommodations, supplies, and agency funds not otherwise appropriated as the Oregon Department of Forestry determines are necessary for the Deschutes County Forestland Classification Committee to properly perform its functions. 3.2.3 Reimburse members of the Deschutes County Forestland Classification Committee members for their actual and necessary travel and other expenses incurred in the performance of their duties. ARTICLE 4 MODIFICATION 4.1 This Cooperative Agreement may be modified by mutual consent of all parties to this Cooperative Agreement. 4.2 Modifications to this Cooperative Agreement shall be documented on a separate piece of paper and shall be attached to all copies of this Cooperative Agreement. ARTICLE 5 EFFECTIVE DATE & TERMINATION 5.1 This Cooperative Agreement shall become effective upon the date subscribed by the last signatory party or on March xx, 2014, whichever date occurs latest. 5.2 Any party to this Cooperative Agreement may terminate this Cooperative Agreement, upon providing not less than thirty days written notice to all other parties. 5.4 Unless otherwise terminated sooner, as provided in Article 5.2, this Cooperative Agreement shall automatically terminate ten years after it becomes effective. 4 ARTICLE 6 AUTHORIZED COORDINATORS 6.1 For the Deschutes Board of County Commissioners, the authorized coordinator of this Cooperative Agreement is: Name: Mailing Address: 6.2 For the Oregon Department of Forestry, the authorized coordinator of this Cooperative Agreement is: Name: Kristin Cotugno – Assistant District Forester Mailing Address: PO Box 670 Prineville, OR. 97754 6.3 Changes in either the name or the mailing address of an authorized coordinator of this Cooperative Agreement shall be documented on a separate piece of paper and shall be attached to all copies of this Cooperative Agreement. ARTICLE 7 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 This Cooperative Agreement may not be assigned, in whole or in part, to any other entity, by any party to this Cooperative Agreement. 7.2 Each party to this Cooperative Agreement agrees to defend, protect, save, and hold harmless the other parties, their officers, agents and employees from any and all claims, costs, damages, and expenses arising from performance under this Cooperative Agreement. 7.3 Nothing contained in this Cooperative Agreement shall obligate any party to this Cooperative Agreement for expenditures in excess of funds made properly available, for activities or functions envisioned to be performed under this Cooperative Agreement. 7.4 Nothing contained in this Cooperative Agreement shall obligate any party to this Cooperative Agreement to perform activities or functions, which they cannot perform or for which they have no legal authority to perform. 7.5 All parties to this Cooperative Agreement agree their participation is voluntary and no part of this Cooperative Agreement is intended to be subject to the provisions of Article XI, Section 15 of the Constitution of Oregon. 5 APPROVED: For the Deschutes Board of County Commissioners: Deschutes County Commission Board Rep. Date: For the Oregon Department of Forestry: District Forester Date: Oregon John A. Kitzhaber, MD, Governor Department of Forestry Central Oregon District PO Box 670 3501 NE 3rd St. Prineville, OR 97754 541-447-5658 FAX 541-447-1469 www.oregon.gov/ODF/centraloregon March 14, 2014 Deschutes County Commission 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200 Bend, OR 97701 RE: Oregon Department of Forestry 2013 Customer Satisfaction Survey Dear Commissioners: The Oregon Department of Forestry is conducting its annual customer survey of the boards and commissions of Oregon’s forested counties. The purpose of this survey is to solicit your feedback on the services provided by the Department of Forestry to Deschutes County and its citizens during 2013. This survey is one of 14 performance measures the department uses to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of our programs and our employees. This information will be summarized and reported, along with other performance measure results, to the department’s Executive Team and Audit Committee, the Oregon Board of Forestry, and the Oregon Legislature. I am requesting that the commission take a few minutes at an upcoming business meeting to consider and collectively respond to the enclosed six-question survey and to also provide any additional comments that you would desire. The department views this process as an important opportunity to foster improved communication and collaboration with county governments and the citizens of Oregon. To that end, I would be happy to be present at the commission meeting when this matter is discussed. I am available to meet in advance with commissioners, either as a group or individually, at your convenience to answer any questions you may have about the Department of Forestry’s programs, our recent accomplishments in improving the stewardship of forest resources in Deschutes County, and our interactions with public and private forest landowners in the county. This same offer extends to your staff. I would encourage you to solicit feedback from your staff prior to submitting your response to our survey. I would appreciate receiving your survey response no later than May 30, 2014. Please contact me at 541-447-5658 or at kbenton@odf.state.or.us if you have any immediate questions or desire more information. Thank you in advance for helping the Department of Forestry to improve our service to Oregonians through this performance evaluation process. Sincerely, Kevin Benton Protection Unit Forester - Central Oregon District Oregon Department of Forestry Enclosure "STEWARDSHIP IN FORESTRY" Kevin Benton I I I Oregon Department of Forestry 2013 Customer Service Performance Measure Survey Please answer the following questions regarding your rating of service provided by the Oregon Department of Forestry during calendar year 2013 and add any additional comments: Scale: Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, Don't Know Questions: TIMELINESS -How do you rate the timeliness of the services provided by the Oregon Department of Forestry? Rating: Comments: ACCURACY -How do you rate the ability of the Oregon Department of Forestry to provide services correctly the first time? Rating: Comments: HELPFULNESS -How do you rate the helpfulness of Oregon Department of Forestry employees? Rating: Comments: EXPERTISE -How do you rate the knowledge and expertise of Oregon Department of Forestry employees? Rating: Comments: AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION -How do you rate the availability of information at the Oregon Department of Forestry? Rating: Comments: OVERALL SERVICE -How do you rate the overall quality of services provided by the Oregon Department of Forestry? Rating: Comments: MEMORANDUM TO: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners FROM: Matthew Martin, Associate Planner DATE: March 14, 2014 SUBJECT: Rural Residential Domestic Livestock Limitation Project Background Citizen of Deschutes County provided testimony that identified water quality impacts in Southern Deschutes County and nuisance issues in Crooked River Ranch stemming from the improper management of domestic livestock on small rural residential properties. Based on this, the Board of County Commissioners directed the County Planning Division to evaluate and determine if there is a need for establishing land use standards to regulate such uses. On February 13, 2014, the Planning Commission meeting included an introductory panel discussion comprised of representatives from Deschutes Soil and Water Conservation District, the Oregon Department of Agriculture, Oregon State University (OSU) Extension Services, and the South Deschutes/North Klamath Groundwater Protection Project Steering Committee. The panel and subsequent public comments focused on the importance of best management practices and several educational opportunities that are currently available to rural property owners. Of the panelists, the Department of Agriculture acknowledged that they are the only entity that can enforce water quality violations stemming from domestic livestock. At a subsequent work session with the Planning Commission, the Planning Division provided additional information highlighting many of the existing educational resources and regulations that pertain to keeping of livestock that are available to assist the community. Summaries of these resources and regulations are below. Existing Educational Resources There are many educational opportunities available for owners to learn best management practices for the keeping of livestock on small acreage such as manure removal and treatment, animal containment, proper grazing practice, and weed abatement. These include printed materials, workshops, and on site consultations provided by organizations such as Oregon Department of Agriculture, Deschutes Soil and Water Conservation District, and OSU Extension Services. These emphasize the importance of good stewardship of the animals and environment. Existing Regulations There are existing domestic livestock regulations as well as resources for mediation that address several negative impacts associated with poor livestock stewardship: 2 Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) - ODA has regulatory authority over agricultural waste that pollutes surface and groundwater quality. Agricultural waste is anything that can cause water pollution including, but not limited to, animal waste and earthen material.1 As stated during the panel discussion, ODA approaches agricultural waste violations by first emphasizing changes in the handling of manure through education and outreach. If however, water quality violations are not rectified, ODA has the authority to enforce a violation.2 County Code Enforcement - The County nuisance and abatement ordinance (DCC 13.36) specifies that “no person shall create or maintain a nuisance on private property.” Solid waste, including manure, is defined as a nuisance. This code provides for enforcement if determined to be an enforceable situation. Code enforcement estimates it receives fewer than 6 calls a year related to the negative impacts of manure such as odor, flies, water pollution and aesthetics. If related to the keeping of livestock in the Rural Residential (RR-10) and Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10) zones, these calls are referred, when appropriate, to ODA if impacting waters of the state or the Sheriff’s Office animal control division if related to animal health. County Sheriff’s Office Animal Control - Animal control is responsible for cases involving animal abuse and neglect which can include overcrowding. Central Oregon Mediation – This non-profit organization offers a service to help resolve neighbor disputes free of charge to the parties. The County covers a portion of these services. Civil Court - When it has been determined by the appropriate agencies that enforcement action is not warranted or an option, the complaining party does have the opportunity to bring the matter to civil court. Recommendation Based on existing educational and regulatory programs, the Planning Commission recommended that while there is no need for additional land use regulations, there is an extraordinary opportunity to emphasize the value of the information gathered during this process. Informational resources can be created and distributed to the public highlighting existing educational resources, regulations, and points of contact. The Planning Division has prepared a matrix identifying organizations relating to the keeping of livestock in a rural residential setting. This matrix can serve as a reference and referral guide. In addition, the Planning Division can establish a subpage on the Community Development Department web site that provides a variety of informational resources to better serve interested parties. These resources can include, but not be limited to: The education and enforcement contacts matrix Links to web sites of related organizations The Upper Deschutes Agricultural Water Quality Management Area Plan The Deschutes County Rural Living Handbook Deschutes County Code Chapter 13.36, Nuisances and Abatement 1 Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 468B.025 https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/lawsstatutes/2013ors468b.html; ORS 568.900 http://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/lawsstatutes/2013ors568.html 2 Oregon Administrative Rule 603-90 http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/NRD/docs/pdf/rules/grdrnd_fnlrls.pdf Keeping of Livestock in Rural Residential Setting: Education and Enforcement Resources Organization Resources Contact Information Oregon Department of Agriculture - Agricultural Water Quality Management Program The Oregon Department of Agriculture developed the Upper Deschutes Agricultural Water Quality Management Area Plan and Rules to address water quality and water’s designated beneficial uses in the Upper Deschutes Management Area that must be protected. The goal of the Area Plan is to prevent and control water pollution from commercial and non-commercial agricultural activities and soil erosion through voluntary activities, aided by information, technical and financial assistance. The Area Rules (Oregon Administrative Rules (OARs) 603-095- 3000 through 603-095-3060) contain required conditions to protect water quality. When voluntary approaches do not adequately achieve those conditions, the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) exercises its enforcement authority under OAR 603-090-0060 to 603-090-0120. Ellen Hammond, Water Quality Specialist 541-617-0017 Central Oregon Regional Office 475 NE Bellevue Drive, Ste 110 Bend, OR 97701 ehammond@oda.state.or.us www.oregon.gov/oda http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/pages/rul es/oars_600/oar_603/603_tofc.html Oregon State University Extension Service OSU Extension Services provides research-based, objective information to help people solve problems, develop leadership, and manage resources wisely. Extension staff offers programs in Pasture & Forage Management and Livestock & Range Management. In addition, Extension staff and over 500 volunteers personally assist Deschutes County residents through meetings, workshops, short courses, tours, publications, and demonstrations at such events as the Living on a Few Acres Conference. Oregon State University Extension Service – Deschutes County 541-548-6088 3893 SW Airport Way Redmond, OR 97756-8697 extension.oregonstate.edu/deschutes Deschutes Soil and Water Conservation District The Soil and Water Conservation District provides local leadership, education, motivation, and assistance to the citizens of Deschutes County for responsible, efficient stewardship of our soil and water resources. The District offers educational materials such as the Deschutes County Rural Living Handbook, manages a Manure Exchange Program, provides presentations, and conduct free site visits that address resource concerns on your property. Tammy Harty, Manager 541-923-2204 x132 625 SE Salmon Ave Redmond, OR 97756 www.deschutesswcd.com Deschutes County Sheriff Animal Control The Sheriff’s Office responds to all animal neglect complaints and conducts on-site investigations. A criminal investigation will be initiated if the animal is thin, emaciated, injured, without food or water, or kept in an area of unmanaged waste. These investigation often result in voluntary compliance after the owner is contacted and educated on the issues. 541-693-6911 63333 W. Highway 20 Bend, OR 97701 www.sheriff.deschutes.org/Community /Animal-Control/ Deschutes County Code Enforcement The Community Development Department administers the Code Enforcement program for Building, Environmental Soils, Land Use and Solid Waste. It consists of two code enforcement technicians and a law enforcement technician from the Office. Code Enforcement assures compliance with Deschutes County's land use, environmental and construction codes, including nuisances. Deschutes County Code Chapter 13.36, Nuisances and Abatement, prohibits the creation or maintenance of a nuisance on private property. As defined, a “nuisance” is solid waste including manure. 541-388-6575 Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, OR 97701 cdd-webmaster@deschutes.org www.deschutes.org/Community- Development/Property-Violations- Code-Enforcement.aspx http://www.deschutes.org/County- Code.aspx?F=chapter+13.36.pdf Central Oregon Mediation, Inc. Central Oregon Mediation is a private, non-profit providing a free service where an impartial third person(s) assists two or more parties to reach a voluntary agreement which resolves a dispute or provides options for the future. The mediators help the parties identify their individual needs and interests, clarify their differences, and find common ground. These services can be utilized for land use and neighbor disputes, including issues resulting from the keeping of livestock. 541-383-0187 1029 NW 14th Street Bend, OR 97701 coordinator@centraloregonmediation. com www.centraloregonmediation.org