Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-05-19 Work Session Minutes Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, May 19, 2014 Page 1 of 13 For Recording Stamp Only Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY, MAY 19, 2014 ___________________________ Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Anthony DeBone and Alan Unger. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Wayne Lowry, Finance; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel, Nick Lelack, Will Groves, Lori Furlong, Tim Grundeman, Todd Cleveland, John Griley and Peter Gutowsky, Community Development; and approximately twenty other citizens, including media representative Elon Glucklich of The Bulletin. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. ___________________________ 1. Discussion of Finance/Tax Update. Wayne Lowry explained that regarding the portfolio, they have increased investments, and are now at about $83 million. Debt service is paid this time of the year, so this will reduce the limit. The bulk of the investing has been completed at this time. Rates have not changed that much, so it made sense to go forward with investments. There has been no real change in the general fund, but this is shown combined with the Bethlehem Inn fund. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, May 19, 2014 Page 2 of 13 The Clerk’s revenue has increased the second month in a row. The Sheriff’s ending balance has improved. Community Development is showing increased activity as is recognized in the projected balance, and they should reach this. Their fund is looking very strong. In regard to capital funds, the jail project was a negative number but will be funded next year. Otherwise, the fund is doing well. Progress payments will become smaller over time. 2. Review of a Request for a Fee Waiver for a Zone Change Application, related to the Bend Airport Master Plan Update. This portion of the meeting was audio recorded. Nick Lelack said there is a request from the City of Bend in the amount of $5,000 for a fee waiver, about the cost of a zone change. He wants to make sure the area and designation are correct. In 2002, 3 subzone districts were adopted but not mapped. A zone change will correct this. (He referred to a handout at this time.) Laurie Craghead reminded the Board that this is a work session and not a public hearing, so they normally would not take testimony. If they do, this will need to be disclosed at a hearing if one occurs. Chair Baney said that she sees this a little differently since it involves another public entity. Commissioner Unger said he supports splitting the fee 50/50 with the City. Commissioner DeBone asked what the work product is. Mr. Lelack replied it would result in an accurate map. There will be a zone change application with findings, which they will take legislatively to the Planning Commission. If supported, it would then come to the Board for final approval. Chair Baney stated that she feels 50/50 is appropriate. Tom Anderson noted that typically the Board makes this type of cost up out of the general fund so other applicants do not have to make up the shortfall for this applicant. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, May 19, 2014 Page 3 of 13 UNGER: Move that the County enter into a 50/50 fee waiver for $5,000 with the City, with the County’s portion of the funds coming from general fund. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. 3. Consideration of Hearing an Appeal, either De Novo or On the Record (Leading Edge Fuel Station). Will Groves explained this is in regard to an appeal of a land use decision. It is the second review of this matter. The Hearings Officer approved it, the Board declined to hear it, and the appeal went to LUBA who remanded it and said the Hearings Officer did not appropriately interpret certain factors. Th e Hearings Office revised the findings and it went back to LUBA, which again declined it. The applicant has agreed to extend the time limit if the Board will hear it. At issue is Code at the Bend Airport, regarding the master plan and transportation plan, which interlock. The effect of the plan is the debate. Plans are general guidance documents that can be updated over time. The opponent feels they are not. The Hearings Officer found the language does not support this, and talks about recommendations and guidance, and accommodating change. Normally staff would not ask the Board to hear this, but would appreciate the Board’s interpretation. The opponent would like a de novo review. The Board can hear it on the record or decline review altogether. Staff concurs with the Hearings Officer but the Board has the ultimate ability to decide. Staff recommends an on the record appeal hearing, with no new evidence. There would be legal argument and rebuttal at a hearing. The key reason for this is that all relevant documents have been entered into the record already. The argument is mostly about what Code means in this situation. Ms. Craghead said that the opponents asked for a de novo review. Statute allows an extension of the time period at the request of the applicant. The Commissioners agreed that it should be heard, and on the record. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, May 19, 2014 Page 4 of 13 DEBONE: Move Board signature of Order 2014-015, allowing for this to be heard on the record. UNGER: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. The audio recording ended at this time. 4. Update on Code Enforcement Policies and Procedures Review . Mr. Lelack stated the volume and activity for the department has increased greatly. They are prepared with a presentation and a matrix, to learn if the Board is ready to initiate public hearings and go forward. John Griley conducted a PowerPoint presentation at this time. He said complaint based code enforcement is about 95% of what they do. The average is about 250 cases a year, which are resolved more quickly now than in the past. About 85% of code enforcement cases result in voluntary compliance. Citations are a last resort, with only about 4% of cases requiring a citation. Adjustments to the policies were made due to some redundancy, and the procedure or injunction has changed. The complaint policy is to keep the parties’ names confidential during the process, but it then becomes public record when it has been resolved. Most jurisdictions prioritize or allow staff to initiate investigations, but this is a small percentage. In regard to the complaining party not being identified, some jurisdictions will separate this information from the case. Anonymous complaints might be addressed, depending on the nature of the problem. Commissioner Unger said that he does not like anonymous complaints, but it depends on whether it is compelling enough to affect safety or the environment. Ms. Craghead noted that she advises against accepting verbal complaints as well. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, May 19, 2014 Page 5 of 13 Commissioner Unger asked that if a code enforcement person noted something while driving by, how this is handled. The City feels there needs to be more equity. Chair Baney said that if there are safety or health concerns, that is different from other things. Commissioner DeBone stated he is comfortable with the procedure as it is. It already can be awkward. Commissioner Unger said he supports the confidentiality part. Otherwise sometime serious might not be addressed, and he wants a case to have a chance to be properly concluded. Mr. Griley noted that if there are complaints from CDD staff, it is good to be up front with the public or the person subject to a violation. This prevents an awkward situation at the end of the case as well. This could extend to complaints from other agencies and departments. Regarding compliance versus enforcement, Mr. Griley said that every case is unique. Commissioner Unger noted that people do not always hear what you say, and will state that staff told them something else. He suggested this be memorialized Chair Baney asked about case turnaround. Some seem to take a long time or people complain that something is not moving forward fast enough. There are waiting periods, but she wonders what those are based on. She feels there should be goals or language that will enable things to move forward more quickly. She knows there can be many factors involved, but someone may be watching and they do not know what is happening so think nothing is. Mr. Anderson stated that some violations get double fees if they are not timely. Lori Furlong said that sometimes the courts give them more time than the County would. There is a recommendation made to the Judge but it does not have to be followed. Mr. Lelack asked if a numeric benchmark or target might help. Mr. Griley said that they could have an intended workflow timeframe, and set up certain dates. It can depend on other limiting factors, such as financial aspects. Additional penalties may not resolve it any faster. He understands this issue, and it was included in their recommendations. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, May 19, 2014 Page 6 of 13 He explained that citations are used as a last resort. An injunction is when a citation did not work at the court level. The reality is that in circuit court, fines are rarely imposed. Courts want to know how to resolve the problem instead. Often a timeframe and fine are set, but are ultimately vacated. Building code violations can be up to $1,000 a day; others are up to $2,000 per day. This is different from other jurisdictions, as initial violation penalties are higher here. Others are tiered or compounded. This has been a big topic in recent months. They need to determine if fines should be tiered or reflective of the type of violation. Chair Baney asked if there is a good model for this. Mr. Griley responded that he could not find good information overall by the type of violation. Ms. Craghead stated that ‘all other violations’ mean zoning, building, and solid waste. This does not include room tax payments or permits from the Road Department. These presumptive fines are not the same others at this point. Mr. Griley said they are operating status quo at this time. Ms. Craghead noted that the presumptive fine is not yet the same as the actual fine. The Ordinance has not yet been finalized by the Board. The Courts do not know what to do. Mr. Griley stated he is not sure how to go about doing this. He will try to find more complete information from other jurisdictions. The Code Enforcement Association may be of some help. Commissioner Unger feels they are doing very well with voluntary compliance, but if this does not work, they need to pull out the hammer if there is no sense of cooperation. Tim Grundeman said there is a solid waste case that has been going on for two years and the people just will not comply. The Judge finally set a $2,000 fine. However, this is a daily fine. This is an extreme situation and new testing ground. Chair Baney asked if the property owner can come up with this kind of money. Ms. Furlong stated that in general, it is difficult for most. The Court can send it to collection. Ms. Craghead added that there can be an injunction if it is not met, and a filing for contempt and a daily fine, and eventually it becomes the County’s responsibility and the property can be seized. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, May 19, 2014 Page 7 of 13 Mr. Lelack said the penalties cannot be so damaging that the property owner cannot get ahead of it. The County wants the situation corrected. Mr. Griley added that often the Judge will go along with what the County recommends. Chair Baney said they should send it out like it is and see what happens. Commissioner Unger noted that it seems to be working in most situations. Mr. Griley said the procedures manual give them the ability to fine, but the fine amounts are set in Code. Chair Baney asked about setting penalties and a timeline. Mr. Griley stated that the existing manual has good ideas, but it also includes restricting permits if there is an existing Code violation. However, they may have to get a permit to get the work done to correct the violation. This is a placeholder at this time. Ms. Craghead stated that this was related mostly to land use. For instance, someone built a house but not according to the permits. They would not issue a permit to build a shop until the other is addressed. Or, they built a shop without permits and wish to expand the house. Or, the issue might have something to do with compliance with flood plain mitigation, or a woodstove permit. Chair Baney said she is not inclined to lean in that direction. Ms. Craghead stated that this has been a citizen request for years. Chair Baney said she is worried about making adjustments for the few, since those adjustments might have unforeseen impacts on the many. Mr. Griley said they could keep the same text with a disclaimer. Mr. Lelack stated that they will not change policy without direction. He recommends a text amendment if it is to remain as a policy; or otherwise remove that portion of the policy. This is an ongoing work plan item. Chair Baney said they could ask for public input to see if anyone else is interested. Ms. Craghead stated that someone may need to do flood plain mitigation or include a heating source. Counsel feels it had unintended consequences. Mr. Anderson noted that there should be sufficient authority without a Code change. Commissioner Unger stated that perhaps someone forgot an issue, so they could maybe not stop the permit but take a look at the first issue again. Mr. Lelack noted that it will still come up in hearings. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, May 19, 2014 Page 8 of 13 Commissioner DeBone stated that if they see a code enforcement issue and there is activity, a bad situation will become obvious. Mr. Lelack said that an example could be a home occupation with a failing septic system, and unintended consequences. Commissioner DeBone stated they would have to stop to fix something, or perhaps it could be well documented. Ms. Craghead said maybe the first has nothing to do with the other and there is no relationship, so they should not hold up the other for the first. Chair Baney said that they are already working towards voluntary compliance, and there should not be a situation going on for long without a remedy, except for the few that might end up in court. She does not feel this is necessary, but would like them to reach clarity sooner. The Board said that this topic should be left in for discussion. Commissioner DeBone asked how County-initiated code enforcement would come up. Mr. Griley replied that it could be from building inspectors or others. If it is on the same property, this is in the manual and they would address it. If it is not the same property and it is not a health or safety issue, they would not. A permit requires an inspection. The Board directed that the appropriate changes be made to the document, that they get feedback from various entities and parties, and then a hearing will be scheduled. The Board would like to see a revised matrix noting the changes. 5. Discussion of the CDD Work Plan for FY 14-15. Mr. Lelack presented the proposed work plan. He said the Planning Commission and Historic Landmarks Commission have reviewed it and are supportive. They held a work session and a public hearing, but there was little testimony. He reviewed a matrix and showed projects that have been initiated that are not on the plan. Some are a carry-over from the previous year. It now includes three citizen-initiated proposals. The only one not listed is from the Sunriver Homeowners’ Association board, which wants to be informed of activities that might apply to them. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, May 19, 2014 Page 9 of 13 From a high-level viewpoint, some projects will be carried over from the current year into next year. They have some big items to complete. Any new projects depend on staffing. Several large projects need to be taken on. One item to address is the TDC/PRC issue. Peter Gutowsky spoke about accomplishments, such as the La Pine intergovernmental agreement and local control. Kevin Harris advised him that the department had 300 additional customers this past year and a lot more land use applications. Noteworthy also in La Pine was economic development and the La Pine Land Conveyance Act, which impacts wastewater treatment and Parks and Recreation, which will require coordination into next year. There will be UGB amendments to serve the rodeo grounds with water and sewer. Regarding the agricultural lands program, there is a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and the Board in June. They are working on Goal 11 exception coordination, the brownfields grant, TGM with the City of Bend, the demo landfill, a historic preservation plan, the Oregon spotted frog and sage grouse, and domestic livestock issues. Ms. Furlong stated that they converted software to a building module with the State, and are launching planning and code enforcement this week with the City of Redmond, which is mutually beneficial. It has taken over a year for this software conversion. They had to think about different ways to handle other things, like scanned records. This work will mean involving less staff in the future. They are replacing reports on website and make information more accessible. They have conducted public outreach to contractors and others, with a State coordinator. Harney and Crook counties are also involved. This system will be region-wide, except for the City of Bend. Chair Baney asked about the life of the contract. Ms. Furlong said that the committee worked on getting input from the east side for the State program. She attended a national Acela conference to learn how agencies can manage this on their own. They are also moving the La Pine CDD office to La Pine City Hall soon. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, May 19, 2014 Page 10 of 13 The code enforcement manual is a big undertaking. Code enforcement has been busy with typical but also high-profile and complicated cases last year, and ongoing. This takes a lot of coordination. Some volunteers help with code enforcement work. Mr. Lelack said that the Acela conversion became a lot bigger undertaking as they went along. Ms. Furlong’s participation on a statewide level meant that it could be molded into what the County needs. They also have to make sure the finances stay on budget, while they meet deadlines. Dave Pedersen stated that permits and inspections increased almost double over the previous year. They developed more efficiencies, including sending four inspectors to a class for electrical training. Eventually the hope is they can avoid having to send more than one inspector to the same property for different things. Other efficiencies involve keeping the 10-day turnaround time for plan review. Predesign meetings help with efficiency for bigger projects. They make themselves available to property owners to be there at the start. Mr. Lelack noted that many inspectors are working after hours or on weekends to accommodate customers. Todd Cleveland said he has been very busy with septic inspections. They have on-call help as site evaluations have greatly increased. There are more failing systems seen this time of the year, and more overall building going on. Dealing with potential health hazards is a priority. They have one FTE on the proposed budget. The DEQ is having a problem finding qualified applicants for their part of this work. The County continues to work with the DEQ on south County issues. Inquiries about projects have increased as well. They are working with Neighbor Impact regarding loans and rebates, and are investigation other ways to offer financial assistance. Mr. Cleveland added that the Governor’s efficiency taskforce work was completed this year and recommendations came out of that. Some counties want to push this work to the DEQ. He sits on several advisory groups. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, May 19, 2014 Page 11 of 13 Mr. Lelack said that the destination resort overlay map comes up in August. Some residents have asked to be un-mapped. Mr. Gutowsky added that this is a policy choice for the Board. This activity cannot be done more frequently than every 36 months. It involves public notice and a lot more. They have only done this in the past when there were requests to add to the map, and applicants pay a fee for this. Un-mapping was handled by staff during that process. So handling this would take some time. Mr. Lelack said it could be privately initiated with a fee paid. The process for the County could cost $10,000. Mr. Gutowsky stated that they can continue this conversation and figure out if it should be pursued. Commissioner Unger stated that the work plan elements do not show staff time needed for each, or how far it could go into the year. It would be helpful to know this. Mr. Lelack said that the Planning Commission is prioritizing. There are some proposals from citizens that are not yet on the plan. Mr. Gutowsky stated that he feels they can accomplish what is now in the plan, but if something new gravitates into the m ix, they will need to talk about what should be taken off. Otherwise, they will need additional staff resources, especially for long-range planning. Chair Baney asked that they consider #22, firewise standards, from the beginning of the project. This seems like best practices to her. Mr. Gutowsky said that all new destination resorts have to coordinate with the Forester to be firewise. This policy may just enforce that. They all have CCR’s to maintain firewise standards. Early coordination with Miller Tree Farm suggests this, and they seem receptive. The Board agreed they should proceed with the draft to a public hearing. 6. Other Items. Mr. Anderson said that the Assessor is pulling the farm deferral off the Shepherd’s property. He has spoken publicly that he has not really farmed the land in a while. No one else brought this up Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, May 19, 2014 Page 12 of 13 The Assessor offered to meet with him to talk about minimizing the tax bill, through perhaps grazing or a tree farm or a wildlife zone, but Mr. Shepherd has not opted to speak with him at this time. He might at best now have chickens on a couple of acres. The financial impact could be as much as$2,000 a year. Mr. Lelack noted that Mr. Shepherd has testified publicly that he has no farming going on. ___________________________ Mr. Anderson stated that Jerry Aplin wants to meet with the entire Board. This is not recommended. Mr. Anderson is strategizing this issue with Mr. Lelack. Tom: Jerry Aplin wants to meet with the entire Board, not recommended. Strategizing with Nick. ___________________________ Chair Baney had to leave the meeting at this time. ___________________________ Commissioner Unger asked what the south County building is being used for, if Community Development is moving out. Mr. Kropp said that it is used by Health Services, Neighbor Impact and the Sheriff. Commissioner DeBone added that Behavioral Health divided the conference room and is expanding. It will become a health hub. OSU Extension has part of the space. Parole & Probation is there as well, so it is mostly spoken for. It is an adequate building, but could use something to make it more aesthetically pleasing. ___________________________ Being no further items brought up for discussion, the meeting adjourned at 3:45 p.m. DATED this ;;3 6.1J= Day of ~ 2014 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioner T ~ Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair ATTEST: Alan Unger, Commissioner ~~ Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, May 19 , 2014 Page 130f13 ______________________________________ PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues; or other issues under ORS 192.660(2), executive session. ______________________________________ Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners’ meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572. _________ ______________________________________ Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities. If you need accommodations to make participation poss ible, please call (541) 388-6571, or send an e-mail to bonnie.baker@deschutes.org. _________ ______________________________________ Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., MONDAY, MAY 19, 2014 ___________________________ 1. Discussion of Finance/Tax Update – Wayne Lowry 2. Review of a Request for a Fee Waiver for a Zone Change Application, related to the Bend Airport Master Plan Update – Nick Lelack 3. Consideration of Hearing an Appeal, either De Novo or On the Record (Leading Edge Fuel Station) – William Groves 4. Update on Code Enforcement Policies and Procedures Review – John Griley, Nick Lelack 5. Discussion of the CDD Work Plan for FY 14-15 – Nick Lelack 6. Other Items I , I I ~I '~I I '<' I i Monthly Meeting with Board of Commissioners Finance Director/Treasurer AGENDA 1 j May 19, 2014 i (1) Monthly Investment Report (2) April 2014 Financials -- Deschutes County Municipal Debt $ 3 ,600 ,000 2.54% Corporate Notes 28,744,000 20.28% Time Certificates 5 ,160,000 3.64% U. S. Treasuries 7,000,000 4.94% Federal Agencies 36,422,000 25.69% LGIP/BOTC 60,835,884 42.91% Total Investments $ 141,761,884 100.00% Total Portfolio : By Investment Types Municipal Debt Corporate 2 .5% Notes 20 .3% Time Certificates 3.6% LGIP/BOTC 42 .9% u.s Treasuries 4 .9% Federal Agencies 25 .7% Investment Income Investments By County Function Fiscal Year 2013-14 Apr-14 Y-T-DI I General $ 141,761,884 $ 74,592 $ 667,403 Total Investments $ 141,761,884 Total Investment Income 74,592 667,403 Less Fee: 5% of Invest. Income (3,730) (33 ,370) Investment Income -Net 1$ 70,862 $ 634,033 Yield Percentages -~.~BOTG I LGIP ~ 0.53% 0.53% Investments ~ 0.71% 0.71% Average .... 0.66% 0.62% Months to Maturity o to 30 Days 43% Under 1 Year 47% Under 5 Years 100% 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% Deschutes _County Investments -'--­---­t -j­\ Portfolio Management t--­ ...;. + T + + -~OrtfOIiO Details -Investments -­-.April 30, 2014 ----­--­--­I Purchase Maturity Days To . _..Ratings ~upon Par I Market Book Call CUSIP Security .Broker Date Date Maturity Moodys sap Rate YTM 385 Vatue Value Value Date SYS10078 :Local Govt Investment Pool 7/1/2006 1 0.540 0.540 56 ,948 ,248 56,948 ,248 56,948 ,248 -~.. --­11SYS10084 ·Bank of the Cascades 1 7/1/2006 0 .250 0.250 3,887,636 3 ,887,636 3,887.636 ---­-­--­ 938429ZEO 'Washington County SO Municipal PJ 5/612013 6/1/2014 31 AA­AA2 5.000 , 0 .300 600 ,000 602.406 602,344 , --972002570 :Umpqua Bank 617/2012 61 712014 37 1 0.400 0.406 240,000 240,000 240,000 - 1 _. 240,000 -PWB9393OO1582 PremierWest Bank CD 7/6/2012 7/6/2014 , 661­0.600 : 0 .608 240,000 240.000 - ~~Federal Bank CD ~~ol -­SYS1 032 1 I 1 9/19/2013 9/19/2014 141 1 0 .132 100,000 100,000 I 100,000,"­-_­__ ~329 I Columbia State Bank CD j 1 1215/2013 1215/2014 ' 218 1 0.210 , 0 .213 140,000 140,000 I 140,000 r I 8941748454 Sterling Savings Ban k ~Q.. 7/1/2013 1 1/112015 , 245 1 0.200 ' 0.203 2 ,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 1/31/2015 1 .­ 140,000 I .­ HFBCD IHome Federal Bank CD I 211/2013 275 ; 0 .200 , 0.203 140.000 140,0CX:1 - ­ 94980VAA6 ·Wells Fargo Corporate Not ~ WF 3/7/2013 21912015 1 284 A+ Al 4 .750 1 .Q.:~ 2 .000,000 2 ,067 ,640 2061 216 - --. . -­ 512,100 '511 : 52 ~~91159HGU8 US Bancorp CASTLE 1/2212014 3/4/2015 . 307 A+ AI 3.1SO 0.401 500 ,000 4001154 309 ----rColumbia State Bank CD ~ 100,000-­100,000 ­~4/1/2013 313012015 333 O.ISO 0.152 100,000 r-­--_.. -­ 0.758 1 ---­ 273-150017-5 South Valley Bank CD 5/20/2013 5/20/2015 384 0.748 200,000 200,000 200 .000 - 36962G4L5 ·General Electric -Corporate N ~E ,11/15/2013 6/29/2015 424 AA+ AI 3 . 5OO~_. 750,000 775,605 774,592-­---­----­._­ 36962G4L5 IGeneral Electric -Corporate N CASTLE 111/25/2013 6/29/2015 424 , AA+ AI 3.500 0 .550 1,275,000 1,318 ,529 1,3 18 ,416 - ~ 3692G5F7 General Electric -Corporate N CASTLE 1 9/17/2013 6/3012015 . ~ AA+ AI 2.375 0 .865 1,400,000 1.430,814 1,424,358 . -.. 2.375 r0.501~5F7 1General Electric -Corporate N .CASTLE 1/10/2014 6/3012015 425 1 AA+ AI 545,000 556 ,995 556,831-I 4341SYS10316 1Umpqua Bank 7/9/2013 7/9/2015 0 .500 : 0.507t 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 - 94985H5F7 IWeils Fargo Corporate Note l cAsiLE 9/30/2013 7/20/2015 ; 445 AA­AA3 0 .750 T 0541 1,000,000I 1,003,390 1,002,533 =----­91159HGX2 US BlIll<O!P CASTLE 4/212014 7127/2015 452 A+ AI 2.450 0.501 1,180,000 1,208,155 1,208,364 91159HGX2 U S Bank -Corp Note .CASTLE ~ 3/26/2014 1 7/27/2015 452 \ A+ ~5r O.500 1 1,573,000 1,610,532 1,610,820 315GOPR8 Federal National Mtg Assn l CASTLE 1019 /2013 1019/2015 1 526 1 AA+ Aaa 0.480 0.450 1,000,000 I 1,001,370 1,000,432 10/9/2014 064159BA3 Bank of Nova Scolla CASTLE 3/25/2014 10/9/2015 i 526 ' A+ Aa2 0.750 051~l 2.000,000 2 ,006,020 2,006,863 064159BA3 Blnk of Nova Scotia CASTLE 41312014 10/9/2015 526 A+ As2 0 .7SO 0.621 540,000 541 ,625 540,999 - ­ 3134G4HZ4 ~~eral Home Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE 10/28/20 13 10/28/2015 ! 545 AA+ Aaa O.SOO 0.500 2.000,oooj 2 ,003,560 2,000,000 10/28/2014 ~S5 Procter &Gamble CASTLE 121612013 11/15/2015 ' 563 AA­AA~I . 800 0.430 1,000,000_ 1,019,940 1,020,971 ----­591~ 1,549-;650SYS10368 lR ~al Bank of Canada VINISP 3127/2014 1211512015 AA­Aa3 2.625 0 .600 1 . 5~000 1,548,941 ~~N8 IEli Lill y &Co CASTLE 3/24/20 14 lii/2016 610 AA­~~70 0.500 1 , 40 8 , Q~ 1,2¥,562 1,549,613 1 ~33~~~erkshi re Hathaway Inc CASTLE 313/2014 2111/2016-: 651 AA Aa2 1 0.800 O.SOO 3,000,000 3,015,900 3,015,899 - 1 1 F8dn! Farm Cradi1§ank CASTLE 4130120 14 212212016 662 AA+ Aaa 0.490 0 .488 4,000,000 3,996,960 4,000,120 - 17275RAC6 Cisco Systems Inc CASTLE 2/27/2014 212212016 662 AA­AI 5.500 0.550 1,874,000 2.041 .123 2,040,599 - j ~CG2Q. BQ NeW York Mellon Corp CASTLE 4/4/2014 31412016 673 A+ A1 0.700 0 .681 1,000,000 999,850 1,000,346 213120 16 064159BV7 Bank of Nova Scotia CASTLE 3/11/2014 3/15/2016 684 ~ A+ Aa2 0 .9SO 0 .680 1,000!000 1,007 ,060 I 1,005,008 - - '3135G'ORH8 1Federal National Mtg Assn CASTLE 2/6/2014 5/6/2016 736 1 AA+ Aaa 0.550 0550_ 1,000,000 1,000,060 1,000,000 516/2 014 - - CASTLE ..478160AYO IJohnson & Johnson 11712014 5/1 5/2016 745 1 AAA Aa a 2.1SO 0 .620 1,529 ,000 1,576,124 1,576,272 - 949746QU8 :Wells Fargo Corporate Note 'VINISP 2120/2014 6/15/2016 776 A+ A2 3.676 0.750 1,000,000 1,059,480 1,061,440 - 686053CF4 Oregon School Boards As_soc CASTLE 3/7/2014 6/30/2016 791 A+ Aa2 0.000 0 .999 3,000,000 2 ,921,850 1 2,935,991 "-:_-__ 313OAOUP3 IFederal Home Loan Bank CASTLE 2119/2014 8/19/2016 841 AA-Aaa 0.700 0 .700 2,000,000 2,000,600 : 2,000,000 l-5/19/2014 !Federal Home Loan Bank ,CASTLE 1 84 1 --­-.­- 2 ,000,600 1313OAOUP3 2119/2014 8/19/2016 AA+ Aaa 0 .700 0.700 2 ,000,000 2,000,000 ~ 5/19/2014 912828RF9 _I ~' S , Treasury ,CASTLE 12/27/2013 , 6131/2016 : 653 j AA+ Asa 1.000 0 .646 1,000,000 1,009,770 I 1,QQ6, 177 - - '868 ' -31359YLS4 I Federal National Mtg Assn ' ~J 3/5/2014 9/15/2016 AA+ Asa 0 .778 0.812 672,000 658 ,620 659'36if~ -~K7 i redersl Home Loan Mtg CO,P ,CASTLE 3/27/20 14 10/2412016 90il AA+ Aaa 0 .500 1.119 3,01 5,000 3,017 , 5~3 + ~017.52 0 lQ~~ 912828RM4 U.S. Treasu ry I CASTLE 11212712013 10!~1I2016 1 914 AA+ Aaa 1.000 ' 0.727 1,000,000 1,008,590 _ 1,006,735 - - -3134G4K98 ' Federal Home Loan Mtg CarL 'CASTLE 212012014 111712016 921 AA+ Aaa 0 .800 0.800 2,000 ,~.gg: 1,999,060 2,000,000 I 51712014 3133ECWV2 1Federal Farm Credrt Bank 'CASTLE T1211712013 1217/2016 i 951 AA + , Aaa 0 .875 0.722 2,100 ,000 2,104,977 ­2,108,616 1 ­ - ~ 3136G1XP9 -;.Federal National Mtg Assn t PJ 3/6/2014 11211912016 963 AA+ Aaa 0.800 0.788 2,000,000 1,997,100 2,000,643 11111912014 ~~828RXO CASTLE j 12120/2013 12/3112016 ! 975 AA+T - 0.875 0.724 1 1,000,000 1 1,003,750 1,003,991;U.S. Treasury Aaa - 06406HCAS Bank or New YOI1l Mellon Corp CASTLE 41231201 4 1/17120 17 992 A+ Al 2.400 1.067 2,000,000 2,069,380 2,07 1,018 1211812.0 16 313OA1HX9 _ Federal Home loan Bank MB S 41231201 4 1123120 17 998 AA+ Aaa 1.000 0.985 2 , 000'~1 2 ,002,960 2,000,794 7123120 14 91282 8SC5 U.S. Treasury I CASTLE 1/1612014 113112017 ' 1006 AA+ I Aaa 0.875 0.844 2,000,000 2,005,780 1 2,001,698 - 313OAOSM3 Federal Home Loan Bank VINISP 212112014 2121 /2017 1027 AA!l Aaa -'~ 2,000,000 2,004,680 1 2,003,348 8121120141.000 0.939 912828SS0 U.S. Treasury WF 1/1712014 4/30/2017 1095 AAA Aaa 6.875 0.9SO 2,000,000 2 ,000,000 I 1,995,576---­.--::-== 3136FPYB7 Federal National Mtg Assn VINISP 21712014 5123/2017 1118 AA+ Aas 2.0SO 0.885 1,460,000 1,506,136 1,511 ,184 - 31359MEL3 Federal National Mtg Assn ,CASTLE 1211~~9_1 ~2017 . -'1-127 AA+ Aaa 1.061 .....--1.115 1,000,000 961,400 966773 - - 31359MEL37 1Federal National Mlg Assn CASTLE 1/2412014 61112017 1127 AA-Aaa 1.081 1.136 1,050,000 1,009,470 1,014:461 t -~ ~OCVZ2 Bonneville Power Admlnlstratlo CASTLE 412412014 7/112017 11 57 AA-Aal 1.197 1.171 670,000 668 ,446 670,553 - - 313383JB6 ~ome Loan Bank _IYINISP 12126 /2013 912712017 1245 AA+ j Aaa 1.000 1250l 1,000,000 993,660 991,706 1 - 3136GOC74 JFederal National Mtg Assn I VINISP 2/312014 912712017 1245 AA+ Aaa 1.000 0.943 1,050,000 1,042 ,188 1,051,999 912712015 3130A1G36 Federal Home Loan Bank MBS 4117/2014 111712018 1357 1.500 I.S08 575,000 576,305 574 ,829 711712014 31300N71 Federal Home Loan Bank VINISP 412120 14 113012018 1370 AA+ Aas 2.000 1.710 I ,SOO,Ooo 1,512,255 1,515,71 2 1130120 15 3 136G1AU3 Federal National Mtg Assn t VINISP 12123/2013 1/3012018 I 1370 AA+ 0 . 7QQ~1 1,000,000 980,170 987,807 4/30/2014 3135GOVU4 Federal Nat.ional Mtll. Assn i:iiNISP 1/2412014 1 413 /2018 1433 AA+ Aaa 1.125 1.540 1,000,000 989,710' 984 ,280 413/2015 3136G 16BO Federal National Mtg Assn __VINISP 112 112014 ~ 1212712018 1701 AA+ Aaa 0.7SO 1.8 20 1 1,000,000 980,060 97 2,42 5~612712014.-­141 ,761,884 142,470,414 142489,612. Memorandum Date: May 12, 2014 To: Board of County Commissioners Tom Anderson, County Administrator From: Wayne Lowry, Finance Director RE: Monthly Financial Reports Attached please find April 2014 financial reports for the following funds: General (001), Community Justice -Juvenile (230), Sheriffs (255, 701, 702), Public Health (259), Behavioral Health (275), Community Development (295), Road (325), Community Justice -Adult (355), Commission on Children & Families (370-399), Solid Waste (610), Insurance Fund (670), 9-1-1 (705), Health Benefits Trust (675), Fair & Expo Center (618), and Justice Court (123). The projected information has been reviewed and updated, where appropriate, by the respective departments. Cc: All Department Heads GENERAL FUND Statement of Financial Operating Data Through April 30, 2014 Revenues Property Taxes -Current Property Taxes -Prior Other General Revenues Assessor County Clerk BOPTA District Attorney Tax Office Veterans Property Management Grant Projects Total Revenues Expenditures Assessor County Clerk BOPTA District Attorney Tax Office Veterans Property Management Grant Projects Non-Departmental Total Expenditures Transfers Out Total Exp &Transfers Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance Actual $ Variance FY 2013 Actual 20,734,019 1,108,377 2,683,531 866,121 1,710,900 16,419 174,794 252,869 74,348 100,249 000 27,723,627 3,439,127 1,299,189 58,401 5,034,333 779,725 250,880 275,329 20,926,013 593,304 1,800,693 807,611 1,064,979 16,097 121,265 229,119 53,934 76,733 1667 25,691,414 2,966,462 1,047,101 51,444 4,449,406 678,523 237,043 206,682 21,031,062 720,000 1,955,900 812,421 1,415,487 15,200 184,194 208,750 70,920 FY 2014 21,656,062 625,000 652,000 (68,000) 2,081,400 125,500 889,421 77,000 1,193,487 (222,000) 16,097 1,400 184,194 231,000 22,250 70,920 91,000 2 26,506,934 27,067,581 561,150 3,687,131 3,617,131 70,000 1,500,045 1,385,045 115,000 76,901 63,051 13,850 5,638,777 5,388,777 250,000 846,733 810,000 36,733 299,163 299,163 252,807 6,000 122,139 109,042 1 749 1 197016 $ 7,692,433IBeginning Net Working Capital -Proposed Budget a) Current year taxes due November, February and May b) PILT received in July -$500,941 c) A& T grant exceeded budget by $38,300 d) Projection includes a transfer to close out the Bethlehem Inn Fund. Page 1 COMM JUSTICE-JUVENILE Statement of Financial Operating Data Through April 30, 2014 Revenues Federal Grants FY 2014 -Year to FY2013 Date (83% of Year) Actual Actual Budget I % Of -7,272 171% a) 8,606 13,326 222% b) 101,659 27,255 75% 8,703 1,870 24,650 19,314 80% 354,583 128,964 113,760 28,200 90,765 5,543 5% 6,343 6,123 102% 1,200 1,173 98% 1,729 404 120,595 96,530 20,000 10,000 50% 790 853,383 400 61% 346,373 48% 4,878,315 4,067,176 1,086,677 850,131 78% --0% 50,400 6,015,391 (5,162,008) 2,745 75% 4,920,052 79% (4,573,679) 5,344,523 182,515 4,473,620 83% (100,059) 995,051 $ 1,177,566 1,177,566 105% $ 1,077,507 4,254 11,715 7,461 SB #1065-Court Assess. 6,000 15,316 9,316 Jail Funding HB #2712 36,568 36.568 ­ Discovery Fee 23% c) 8,300 2,300 (6,000) Food Subsidy 24,000 24,000 ­ OYA Basic &Diversion 35% d) 364,268 359,149 (5,119) Inmate/Prisoner Housing 23% e) 125,000 36,198 (88,802) Contract Payments f) 120,000 5,543 (114,457) Interest on Investments 6,000 7,300 1,300 Leases 1,200 1,200 ­ Grants -Private 32% c) 1,250 539 (711) CFC Interfund Grant n/a g) -128,041 128,041 Interfund Grant -Gen Fund 20,000 20,000 ­ Miscellaneous 650 650 ­ Total Revenues 717,490 648,519 (68,971) Expenditures Personnel Services 80% h) 5,109,496 4,880,532 228,964 Materials and Services f) 1,085,433 1,035,000 50,433 Capital Outlay 100 ­ Transfers Out 3,660 3,660 ­ Total Expenditures 6,198,689 5,919,192 279,497 Revenues less Expenditures (5,481,199) (5,270,673) 210,526 Transfers In-General Fund 5,368,346 5,368,346 ­ Change in Fund Balance (112,853) 97,673 210,526 Beginning Fund Balance 1,125,000 1,177,566 52,566 Ending Fund Balance $1,012,147 $1,275,239 $ 263,092 FY 2014 Budget I Projection I $ Variance I Beginning Net Working Capital -Proposed Budget $1,250,000 a) Includes $7.090 payment on a FY 2013 grant b) Increased utilization c) Revenue trending lower than anticipated d) State informed County ofthe FY 2014 amount subsequent to preparation of FY 2014 budget e) Housing trending lower than anticipated -$750 billing outstanding f) BRSlMaplestar 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 2 100 I SHERIFF -Consolidated Statement of Financial Operating Data Through April 30, 2014 Revenues (Funds 701 &702) Law Enf Dist Countywide Law Enf Dist Rural Total Revenues 31,740,543 19,558,226 1 30,414,852 Expenditures (Fund 255) Sheriffs Services Civil/Special Units Automotive/Communications Investigations/Evidence Patrol Records Adult Jail Court Security Emergency Services Special Services Training Other Law Enforcement Svcs Non-Departmental Total Expenditures 2,263,061 723,704 1,837,849 1,425,223 8,174,690 685,178 12,850,417 298,060 185,439 1,236,781 481,717 667,913 85 1,931,538 951,451 1,373,320 1,198,863 6,887,411 644,134 11,621,947 243,010 169,236 1,079,259 398,199 679,398 2,386,512 1,215,101 1,613,040 1,462,370 8,515,898 810,086 14,534,459 295,852 177,330 1,528,933 558,596 804,314 81701 2,363,738 1,150,075 1,611,790 1,418,578 8,286,654 809,986 14,266,156 292,752 203,173 1,429,298 507,879 809,523 81701 22,774 65,026 1,250 43,792 229,244 100 268,303 3,100 (25,843) 99,635 50,717 (5,209) Revenues less Expenditures 1,976,958 DC Comm Syst Reserve Transfer to Reserve Funds Change in Fund Balance 1,976,958 Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance a) Projected savings in Personnel from open unfilled positions b) Personnel expenses will exceed plan due to higher overtime and extra help c) Projected savings in Personnel and Bond Debt expense will be used to offset the cost of renting additional jail beds from Jefferson County and other Jail unexpected expansion expenses d) Postponed purchase of a SAR vehicle and the mapping plotter was purchased for less than $5,000 Page 3-A I SHERIFF -Fund 255 Statement of Financial Operating Data Through April 30, 2014 Revenues (Fund 255) Law Enf Dist Countywide Law Enf Dist Rural Total Revenues Expenditures (Fund 255) Sheriffs Services 2,263,061 1,931,538 2,386,512 2,363,738 22,774 Civil/Special Units 723,704 951,451 1,215,101 1,150,075 65,026 Automotive/Communications 1,837,849 1,373,320 1,613,040 1,611,790 1,250 Investigations/Evidence 1,425,223 1,198,863 1,462,370 1,418,578 43,792 Patrol 8,174,690 6,887,411 8,515,898 8,286,654 229,244 Records 685,178 644,134 810,086 809,986 100 Adult Jail 12,850,417 11,621,947 14,534,459 14,266,156 268,303 Court Security 298,060 243,010 295,852 292,752 3,100 Emergency Services 185,439 169,236 177,330 203,173 (25,843) Special Services 1,236,781 1,079,259 1,528,933 1,429,298 99,635 Training 481,717 398,199 558,596 507,879 50,717 Other Law Enforcement Svcs 667,913 679,398 804,314 809,523 (5,209) Non-Departmental 85 084 81 701 81701 Total Expenditures 30,915,283 27,245,848 33,984,192 33,231,303 752,889 Revenues less Expenditures * FY 2014 ContingencY-$ 5,284,491 a) Projected savings in Personnel from open unfilled positions b) Personnel expenses will exceed plan due to higher overtime and extra help c) Projected savings in Personnel and Bond Debt expense will be used to offset the cost of renting additional jail beds from Jefferson County and other Jail unexpected expansion expenses d) Postponed purchase of a SAR vehicle and the mapping plotter was purchased for less than $5,000 18,708,928 12 355 30,915,283 FY 2014 -Year to Date (83% of Year) 17,022,424 10 5 27,245,848 Page 3-B 6,191,690 446,447 7,694,405 7,473,459 220,946 563,921 563,921 549,727 94,407 700,961 700,961 109,025 109,025 SHERIFF .Expenditure Detail Statement of Financial Operating Data Through April 30, 2014 Expenditures Sheriff's Services Personnel Materials & Services Capital Outlay Total Sheriffs Services CivilfSoecial Units Personnel Materials & Services Capital Outlay Total Civil/Special Units AutomQ!!ve/Communications Personnel Materials & Services Capital Outlay Total Automotive/Communications InvestigationsfEviden911 Personnel 1,283,221 1,077,198 1,323,285 1,278,593 44,692 Materials & Services 142,001 121,665 138,985 139,985 (1,000) Capital Outlay 100 100 TotallnvestigationslEvidence 1,425,223 1,198,863 1,462,370 1,418,578 43,792 Patrol Personnel 7,325,801 Materials & Services 613,033 Capital Outlay 235,856 249,274 257,572 249,274 8,298 Total Patrol 8,174,690 6,887,411 8,515,898 8,286,654 229,244 Records Personnel 583,461 Materials & Services 101,717 Capital Outlay 100 100 Total Records 685,178 644,134 810,086 809,986 100 Adult Jail Personnel 10,934,201 9,906,534 12,060,079 11,910,079 150,000 Materials & Services 1,879,643 1,606,925 2,097,790 2,047,790 50,000 Capital Outlay 36,573 56,519 76,590 63,317 13,273 Transfer Out -Jail Debt Service 51,969 300,000 244,970 55,030 Total Adult Jail 12,850,417 11,621,947 14,534,459 14,266,156 268,303 Court Security Personnel 285,997 234,766 285,966 282,966 3,000 Materials & Services 12,063 8,244 9,786 9,786 Capital Outlay 100 100 Total Court Security 298,060 243,010 295,852 292,752 3,100 Emergen!<X Service§ Personnel 175,729 147,205 150,882 176,825 (25,943) Materials & Services 9,710 22,031 26,348 26,348 Capital Outlay 100 100 Total Emergency Services 185,439 169,236 177,330 203,173 (25,843) Special Services Personnel 1,024,967 930,249 1,281,831 1,211,196 70,635 Materials & Services 175,717 149,010 211,502 201,502 10,000 Capital Outlay 36,096 35,600 16,600 19,000 Total Special Services 1,236,781 1,079,259 1,528,933 1,429,298 99,635 Training Personnel 345,417 302,947 415,342 364,725 50,617 Materials & Services 136,300 95,253 143,154 143,154 Capital Outlay 100 100 Total Training 481,717 398,199 558,596 507,879 50,717 Other Law Enforcement Services Personnel 607,877 617,274 730,083 735,392 (5,309) Materials & Services 60,035 62,124 74,131 74,131 Capital Outlay 100 100 Total Other Law Enforcement Svcs 667,913 679,398 804,314 809,523 (5,209) 1,311,042 1,116,231 952,019 815,308 2,263,061 1,931,538 637,830 854,222 85,874 97,229 723,704 951,451 413,153 336,263 1,406,033 1,001,307 18,663 35,750 1,837,849 1,373,320 1,396,494 1,373,820 22,674 989,918 989,918 100 100 2,386,512 2,363,738 22,774 1,099,232 1,039,306 59,926 110,769 110,769 5,100 5,100 1,215,101 1,150,075 65,026 373,535 373,535 1,202,505 1,202,505 37,000 35,750 1,250 1,613,040 1,611,790 1,250 Non·Departmental Materials & Services Total Non·Departmental Total Expenditures 85,253 68,084 4 LED #1 -Countywide Statement of Financial Operating Data Through April 30, 2014 Revenues Tax Revenues -Current Tax Revenues -Prior Federal Grants State Grant Jail Funding HB 2712 Jail Funding HB 3194 Transp. of State Wards SB 1145 Prisoner Housing Des. Cty Gen Fund Grant Des. Cty Video Lottery Grant Grants Des Cty Court Security Des Cty Juvenile Contract Title III Reimbursement Inmate Commissary Fees Work Center Work Crews Concealed Handgun Classes Inmate Telephone Fee Soc Sec Incentive-Fed Medical Services Reimb Sheriff Fees Interest Donations·"Shop with a Cop" Miscellaneous Total Operating Revenues EXPENDITURES & TRANSFERS DC Sheriffs Office DC Comm Systems Reserve Transfer to Reserve Fund Total Expenditures Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance FY 2014 -Year to Date (83% of Year) 15,812,544 817.322 24,510 158,199 101,659 3,289 1,479,991 284,189 5,000 20,640 116,646 12,051 39,916 29,756 53,237 8,050 97,403 14,600 20,461 314,668 44,629 31,717 21599 19,512,075 18,708,928 80,000 1 000 15,984,514 449,838 20,897 63,332 27,255 107,806 3,233 1,630,823 218,232 380,465 5,000 49,533 12,594 25,515 54,461 2,450 66,468 10.000 15,831 303,614 41,352 63,828 21184 19,558,226 17,022,424 80,000 100 16,103,377 16,468,804 365,427 507,902 501,263 (6,639) 25,500 20,897 (4,603) 115,524 115,524 46,143 36,143 (10,000) 107,806 107,806 5,000 5,000 1,584,991 1,630,823 45,832 80,000 218,232 138,232 4,762 380,465 375,703 5,000 5,000 99,318 49,533 (49,785) 10,000 16,792 6,792 15,000 30,000 15,000 50,000 60,000 10,000 3,500 3,500 80,000 80,000 5,000 10,000 5,000 13,000 18,000 5,000 250,000 350,000 100,000 32,000 50,000 18,000 51,897 63,828 11,931 849 1,133,696 20,855,753 3,622,709 80,000 70% 24,658,462 21,035,753 3,622,709 (5,541,699) 541 (785,294) 110 4,756,405 11 Ending Fund Balance * Payment to Sheriffs Fund adjusted monthly to equal actual expenditures attributable to countywide services a) Current year taxes due November, February, and May b) Bureau of Justice SCAPP funding will be less than planned due to qualifying inmate population c) Unanticipated HB 3194 funding for the Adult Jail d) 1145 inmate reimbursement will exceed budget amount for the year e) Based on YTD actual, DOC reimbursement for SB395 (repeat DUll) inmates will exceed plan for the year f) General Fund grant budgeted for LED #2 will be made instead to LED #1 g) State OJD distributions will be less than planned for the year Page 5 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 April 30, 2014 FY 2013 Actual Budget FY 2014 Projection $ Variance Revenues Tax Revenues -Current 7,698,340 7,647,216 7,839,932 7,878,906 38,974 Tax Revenues -Prior 404,894 221,444 263,858 246,565 (17,293) Federal Grants 53,818 37,217 14,500 40,591 26,091 Federal Grants-BLM 20,881 8,389 25,000 15,000 (10,000) US Forest Service 78,750 78,750 76,500 78,750 2,250 Bureau of Reclamation 40,580 17,007 26,000 26,000 State Grant 274,465 89,914 169,000 169,000 SB #1065 Court Assessment 8,606 13,426 55,000 15,000 (40,000) Marine Board License Fee 143,724 94,171 150,000 150,000 Des Cty General Fund Grant 136,735 375,703 (375,703) Des Cty Transient Room Tax 2,513,265 1,895,248 2,274,297 2,713,243 438,946 Asset Forfeiture 11,760 City of Sisters 468,060 405,565 486,678 486,678 Des Cty CDD Contract 54,366 49,392 59,270 59,270 Des Cty Solid Waste Contr 54,366 49,392 59,270 59,270 School Districts 46,212 43,631 40,000 50,000 10,000 Claims Reimbursement 860 108 108 108 Seat Belt Program 5,390 3,920 10,000 7,000 (3,000) Sheriff Fees 9,617 8,067 10,000 10,000 Court Fines &Fees 120,247 112,849 125,000 125,000 Interest 20,654 17,696 12,000 20,000 8,000 Grants-Private 6,500 5,000 5,000 5,000 Donations 11,650 7,000 7,000 7,000 Miscellaneous 728 51 53 Total Revenues 12,228,468 10,856,626 12,215,381 90,373 EXPENDITURES & TRANSFERS DC Sheriffs Office 12,206,355 10,223,425 14,525,221 12,375,550 2,149,671 DC Comm Systems Reserve Transfer to Reserve Fund 120,000 120,000 1 1 Total Expenditures 71% 14,745,221 12,595,550 2,149,671 Change in Fund Balance (2,620,213) (380,169) 2,240,044 Beginning Fund Balance 2,620,213 3,046,683 426,470 Ending Fund Balance $ $2,666,514 $2,666,514 I Beginning Net Working Capital -Proposed Budget $2,416,760 * Payment to Sheriffs Fund adjusted monthly to equal actual expenditures attributable to countywide services a) Current year taxes due November, February, and May b) HIDTA overtime reimbursements for drug investigations will exceed plan c) Invoiced quarterly. Reimbursements reflect seasonal activity d) 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 --- PUBLIC HEALTH Statement of Financial Operating Data Through April 30, 2014 FY 2013 I I FY 2014 -Year to Date (83% of Year) Actual Actual Budget I '10 Of 68 -nJa 630 77,936 1948% 212,500 63,750 75% 2,795,249 2,501,800 83% 38,154 22,341 56% 248,176 89,555 55% 578,042 629,865 103% 519,121 340,326 62% 40,214 78,629 45% 174,624 71,721 47% 214,544 199,925 109% 95,108 70,450 59% 32,475 31,365 77% 112,235 84,570 85% 755,693 712,459 95% 6,262 6,539 109% 19,366 63,322 3518% 162,757 71,224 3,425 6,008,643 5,930 424% 5,121,708 83% 6,344,766 5,385,383 75% 2,036,535 1,513,263 71% --0% 157,200 8,538,501 (2,529,858) 117,990 75% 7,016,636 74% (1,894,929) 2,349,357 2,251,230 83% 62,136 24,750 75% 65,100 2,476,593 (53,265) 48,825 75% 2,324,805 83% 429,876 1,327,199 $ 1,273,934 1,273,934 92% $ 1,703,810 FY 2014} i I Revised BUd9~ Projection I$ Variance Revenues Medicare Reimbursement 4,000 90,455 86,455 Federal Grant (ARRA) Federal Grant & Fed Reimb 85,000 80,750 (4,250) State Grant a) 3,021,360 3,089,284 67,924 Child Dev & Rehab Center b) 39,609 39,609 ­ State Miscellaneous b) 163,310 92,335 (70,975) OMAP 612,400 677,477 65,077 Family Planning Exp Proj 550,000 420,000 (130,000) Grants (Intergvt, Pvt, & Local) 176,513 176,513 ­ Contract Payments b) 151,316 75,000 (76,316) Patient Insurance Fees 184,200 240,000 55,800 Health Dept/Patient Fees 119,400 82,000 (37,400) Vital Records-Birth 41,000 41,000 ­ Vital Records-Death 100,000 100,000 ­ Environmental Health-Lic Fac c) 753,750 753,750 ­ Interest on Investments 6,000 8,000 2,000 Grants & Donations 1,800 63,322 61,522 Interfund Contract 39% b)d) 180,426 91,691 (88,735) Miscellaneous 1,400 6,000 4,600 Total Revenues 6,191,484 6,127,186 (64,298) Expenditures Personnel Services 7,159,169 6,500,000 659,169 Materials and Services 2,139,075 1,950,000 189,075 Capital Outlay 100 -100 Transfers Out 157,320 157,320 ­ Total Expenditures 9,455,664 8,607,320 848,344 Revenues less Expenditures (3,264,180) (2,480,134) 784,046 Transfers In-General Fund 2,701,475 2,701,475 ­ Transfers In-PH Res Fund 33,000 33,000 ­ Transfers In-Gen. Fund Other 65,100 65,100 ­ Total Transfers In 2,799,575 2,799,575 ­ Change in Fund Balance (464,605) 319,441 784,046 Beginning Fund Balance 1,385,592 1,273,934 1111,658~ Ending Fund Balance $ 920,987 $ 1,593,375 $ 672,388 . . .I Beginning Net Working Capital -Proposed 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 BEHAVIORAL HEALTH Statement of Financial Operating Data Through April 30, 2014 Actual Revenues Marriage Licenses 5,650 Divorce Filing Fees 122,971 Federal Grants 252,331 Federal Grant (ARRA) 63,750 State Grants 7,552,648 State Miscellaneous 62,361 Adult Mental Health Initiative 229,038 Title 19 121,876 Liquor Revenue 144,595 School Districts 23,317 Patient Fees 110,491 Interest on Investments 19,900 Rentals 16,625 Administrative Fee 5,224,877 Interfund Contract-Gen Fund 127,000 Miscellaneous 17,482 Total Revenues 14,094,911 Expenditures Personnel Services 10,916,057 Materials and Services 5,970,799 Capital Outlay 26,965 Transfers Out 204,000 Total Expenditures 17,117,821 Revenues less Expenditures (3,022,909) Transfers In-General Fund 1,307,787 Transfers In-OHP-CDO 484,494 Transfers In-Acute Care Svcs 264,631 Transfers In-ABHA 524,039 Total Transfers In 2,580,951 Change in Fund Balance (441,958) Beginning Fund Balance 3,113,095 Ending Fund Balance $ 2,671,137 FY 2014 -Year to FY2013 Date (83% of Year) I %Of FY2014 Actual Budget Budget I Projection I $ Variance 5,085 78% 6,500 6,000 (500) 107,064 76% 140,600 130,000 (10,600) 102,481 41% a) 252,349 201,879 (50,470) 63,750 250% 25,500 63,750 38,250 6,274,261 74% b) 8,533,166 8,077,086 (456,080) 25,920 42% c) 61,860 30,000 (31,860) 204,299 89% 230,000 594,299 364,299 191,097 132% 144,246 251,096 106,850 73,325 54% 137,000 147,000 10,000 499 nla -499 499 180,595 114% 158,082 215,000 56,918 16,232 79% 20,500 20,000 (500) 10,750 58% 18,500 18,500 ­ 6,873,434 83% 8,318,643 8,318,643 ­ 72,491 57% d) 127,000 127,000 ­ 40,215 40215% 100 41,000 40,900 14,241,499 78% 18,174,046 18,241,752 67,706 10,297,411 73% 14,147,348 12,810,808 1,336,540 4,995,030 71% e} 7,082,738 6,122,720 960,018 -0% 10,000 -10,000 153,675 75% 204,900 204,900 - 15,446,116 72°k 21,444,986 19,138,428 2,306,558 (1,204,618) (3,270,940) (896,676) 2,374,264 1,147,750 83% 1,377,302 1,377,302 - -nla --- 244,660 83% 293,593 293,593 - -nla --- 1,392,410 187,792 (1,600,045) 774,219 2,374,264 2,671,137 77% 3,461,651 2,671,137 F90,514l $2,858,929 $1,861,606 $3,445,356 $ 1,583,750 83% 1,670,895 1,670,895 ­ . . .I Beginning Net Working Capital -Proposed Budget $3,313,248 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 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Statement of Financial Operating Data Through April 30, 2014 FY 2014 -Year to FY 2013 Date (83% of Year) I % Of Actual Revenues Admin-Operations 31,848 Admin-GIS 778 Admin-Code Enforcement 239,264 Building Safety 1,563,938 Electrical 336,210 Contract Services 166,428 Env Health-On Site Prog 340,564 Planning-Current 798,221 Planning-Long Range 348,545 Total Revenues 3,825,796 Expenditures Admin-Operations 1,311,935 Admin-GIS 117,502 Admin-Code Enforcement 208,357 Building Safety 599,764 Electrical 200,596 Contract Services 163,822 Env Health-On Site Pgm 160,291 Planning-Current 581,155 Planning-Long Range 356,807 Transfers Out (DIS Fund) 179,155 Total Expenditures 3,879,383 Revenues less Expenditures (53,586) Transfers In General Fund -Gen Ops 854,872 General Fund -UR Planning 495,360 A&T Reserve (DIS assistance) 89,577 Other ­ Total Transfers In 1,439,809 Change in Fund Balance 1,386,223 Beginning Fund Balance 192,482 Ending Fund Balance $1,578,705 $1,798.206 ~< , Actual Budget FY2014 Budget I Projection I $ Variance 32,932 59% 56,243 62,605 6,362 2,879 192% a) 1,500 3,750 2,250 212,543 119% 178,000 263,000 85,000 1,414,829 113% 1,247,359 1,570,450 323,091 327,191 116% 283,073 382,700 99,627 197,541 96% b) 204,800 234,771 29,971 344,576 119% 288,484 422,880 134,396 728,828 115% 634,602 845,150 210,548 325,246 118% 274,527 504,193 229,666 3,586,565 113% 3,168,588 4,289,499 1,120,911 1,328,414 80% c) 1,669,409 1,715,138 (45,729) 104,054 84% 124,246 126,346 (2,100) 229,121 83% 275,515 279,224 (3,709) 560,776 83% d) 672,796 745,106 (72,310) 179,811 82% 218,300 217,272 1,028 183,895 76% e) 241,036 205,675 35,361 148,791 87% 171,529 200,997 (29,468) 546,427 82% 665,901 675,355 (9,454) 325,238 83% 391,485 436,000 (44,515) 173,338 97% 179,035 173,338 5,697 3,779,864 82% 4,609,252 4,774,451 (165,199) (193,299) (1,440,664) (484,952) 1,286,110 -0% f) 465,121 -(465,121) - - 412,800 83% 495,360 495,360 ­ 0% f) 89,518 -(89,518) 0% 100 -~1OO1 412,800 39% 1,050,099 495,360 l554,7391 219,501 (390,565) 10,408 400,973 1,578,705 227% 696,290 1,578,705 882,415 $ 305,725 $1,589,113 $1,283,388 . . .I Beginning Net Working Capital· Proposed 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 Permit Tech position d) Conversion of on-call position (Sisters) to permanent position and re-create Ass't. Building Official position e) Additional contract (on-call) services required to meet plan review and inspection service demands f) Beginning Fund Balance and FY 14 revenues are projected to be sufficient to cover FY 14 expenditures P age 9 ROAD Statement of Financial Operating Data Through April 30, 2014 FY 2013 Actual Actual Revenues Federal Grant (ARRA) 7,335 Mineral Lease Royalties 140,591 36,799 140,000 140,000 Forest Receipts 1,265,279 1,259,367 356,270 1,259,367 903,097 Federal -PIL T Payment 1,064,365 1,064,365 1,064,365 State Miscellaneous 542,290 588,197 773,452 588,198 (185,254) Motor Vehicle Revenue 10,495,426 9,372,000 10,554,500 11,000,000 445,500 City of Bend 45,486 212,716 310,000 783,380 473,380 City of Redmond 315,525 27,482 370,000 294,535 (75,465) City of Sisters 1,861 84,691 10,000 84,692 74,692 City of La Pine 10,000 10,000 (10,000) Interest on Investments 32,342 37,897 18,000 44,300 26,300 Interfund Contract 526,110 562,000 527,450 (34,550) Equipment Repairs 255,369 204,414 220,000 220,000 Vehicle Repairs 82,542 90,000 75,000 (15,000) Vegetation Management 49,503 Forester 24,628 1,500 1,500 Other Inter-fund Services 30,387 14,278 12,500 44,692 Inter-Fund Sales -Fuel 623,074 Sale of Equip &Material 287,313 201,699 Miscellaneous 35 593 Total Revenues 14,770,079 13,200,499 Expenditures Personnel Services 5,303,241 5,385,717 5,324,993 60,724 Materials and Services 7,277,398 10,306,609 8,181,108 2,125,501 Capital Outlay 67,987 2,882,108 121,456 2,760,652 Transfers Out 450 450000 Total Expenditures 12,923,627 9,824,461 19,024,434 14,077,557 4,946,877 Revenues less Expenditures 1,846,452 3,376,038 (4,753,012) 2,450,142 7,203,154 Trans In -Solid Waste 276,272 211,611 282,148 282,148 Trans In -Transp SOC 400,000 (400,000) Trans In-Road Imp Res Total Transfers In 276,272 211,611 Change in Fund Balance 2,122,724 3,587,649 Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance I Beginning Net Working Capital -Proposed 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 d) Payments to be received in June 2014 from other Road Department funds e) Fuel sales to County departments are recorded reductions of M &S expenditure instead of as revenues. Page 10 f) $20,000 claim reimbursement for damaged stop light in La Pine. Also, refund related to 19th Street Junction. g) Transfer from Solid Waste posted quarterly. -- - ADULT PAROLE & PROBATION Statement of Financial Operating Data Through April 30, 2014 FY 2014 -Year to FY2013 Date (83% of Year) I %of Actual Actual Budget Revenues DOC Measure 57 219,240 220,788 101% a} Justice Reinvest HB3194 458,143 nfa b} State Miscellaneous 4,301 4,142 96% Alternate Incarceration 17,725 118% c} State Subsidy 22,329 14,677 106% SB 1145 2,748,555 3,028,672 103% d} Probation Work Crew Fees 14,136 6,997 52% e} Claims Reimbursement 8,347 n/a f} Miscellaneous 4,648 621 14% g} Electronic Monitoring Fee 177,947 192,726 124% h} Probation Superv. Fees 189,330 172,620 99% i} Interest on Investments 5,743 6,027 100% Interfund -Sheriff 50,000 41,667 83% Sale of Equipment 250 -n/a Crime Prevention Grant 50,000 25,000 50% j} CFC-Domestic Violence 63,906 35,120 47% j} Total Revenues 3,550,384 4,233,270 101% Expenditures Personnel Services 2,956,034 2,783,874 83% Materials and Services 912,384 839,270 76% h) Capital Outlay ­-0% Total Expenditures 3,868,418 3,623,144 81% Revenues less Expenditures (318,034) 610,126 Transfers In-General Fund 435,328 375,990 83% Change in Fund Balance 117,294 986,116 Beginning Fund Balance 630,226 747,520 106% Ending Fund Balance $ 747,520 $1,733,636 . . . .I Beginning Net Worlung Capital • Proposed Budget I FY 2014 Kevlsecl Budget Projection I $ Variance 219,240 220,788 1,548 458,143 458,143 ­ 4,301 4,142 (159) 15,000 20,000 5,000 13,826 14,677 851 2,951,504 3,029,790 78,286 13,376 8,000 (5,376) -8,347 8,347 4,500 855 (3,645) 156,000 231,127 75,127 175,000 205,121 30,121 6,000 7,250 1,250 50,000 50,000 ­ 50,000 50,000 - 73,938 73,938 - 4,190,828 4,382,178 191,350 3,361,157 3,344,618 16,539 1,100,980 1,064,280 36,700 100 -100 4,462,237 4,408,898 53,339 (271,409) (26,720) 244,689 451,189 451,189 - 179,780 424,469 244,689 707,953 747,520 39,567 $ 887,733 $1,171,989 $ 284,256 $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) Received payment of approximately $7,000 from the previous fiscal year d) State grant in aid budget for FY 14 higher than budgeted e) Program participation decreasing f} Insurance settlement g) Number of out of state transfers was less than projected, lowering the fee collection h) Program utilization increase i) Program collection rate is higher, possibly due to more employed offenders Page 11j) Quarterly payments not yet received CHILDREN & FAMILIES COMMISSION Statement of Financial Operating Data Through April 30, 2014 FY 2014 -Year to .. FY2013 Actual Date (83% of Year) Actual I %of Budget KeVlsea Budget I FY2014 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 36,454 46% b) 80,000 62,000 (18,000) Youth Investment 196,053 62,524 50% 125,048 125,048 - State Grant --0% 55,185 -(55,185) State Prevention Funds 65,270 -nJa --- HealthyStart /R-S-G 219,950 132,927 52% a) 254,322 264,623 10,301 OCCF Grant 392,440 63.157 33% 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 4,710 nJa 5.600 6,060 460 Court Fines & Fees 73,959 64,239 86% 75,034 77,086 2,052 Interest on Investments 3,659 2,320 232% 1,000 2,700 1,700 Donations 13 50 nJa -50 50 Private Grant -130 nJa -130 130 Interfund Grants 358,343 219,812 63% a) 350,375 329,624 ~20,751} Total Revenues 1,692,590 721,463 46% 1,562,238 1,290,097 (272,141) Expenditures Personnel Services 570,985 420,341 78% c) 539,665 506,259 33,406 Materials and Services 1,424,002 826,107 54% b} 1,530,796 1,228,868 301,928 Total Expenditures 1,994,987 1,246,448 60% 2,070,461 1,735,127 335,334 Revenues less Expenditures (302,397) (524,984) (508,223) (445,030) 63,193 Transfers In General Fund 275,984 232,280 83% 278,739 278,739 - General Fund -Other -67,013 75% 89,350 89,350 - Total Transfers In 275,984 299,293 81% 368,089 368,089 . Change in Fund Balance (26,413) (225,692) (140,134) (76,941) 63,193 Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance 574,985 $ 548,572 548,572 $ 322,880 146% .. 375,704 $ 235,570 548,572 $ 471,631 172,868 $ 236,061 . . . .I Beglnnmg Net Workmg Capital -Proposed Budget $ 318,121 a) Revised to reflect actual award b} Revised to reflect actual earnings, which are lower than budgeted. Corresponding payment to provider will be lower than budgeted c} Removed 1.0 FTE Early Learning Regional Coordinator from budget and reduced Extra Help line 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 Operating Revenues Miscellaneous Franchise 3% Fees Commercial Disp. Fees Private Disposal Fees Franchise Disposal Fees Yard Debris Special Waste Interest Leases Recyclables Miscellaneous Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures Personnel Services Materials and Services Debt Service Capital Outlay Total Operating Expenditures Operating Rev less Exp Transfers Out Road Capital Reserve Total Transfers Out Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance SOLID WASTE Statement of Financial Operating Data Through April 30, 2014 FY2013 Actual 19,127 209,076 971,213 1,376,005 3,980,498 107,801 73,568 8,118 10,801 47,033 3,131 6,806,370 1,651,419 2,808,337 946,711 76,335 5,482,802 1,323,569 276,272 630,000 1,608,696 211,611 545,000 75% 100% e) f) 558,502 282,148 545,000 1,061,384 282,148 576,000 502,882 - {31,000l 906,272 756,611 91°,4 827,148 858,148 ~31,000l 417,297 5,159,856 -(268,646) 203,236 533,882 807,470 1,224,767 148% 825,655 1,224,767 399,112 $1,224,767 FY 2014 -Year to Date (83% of Year) I %of Actual Budget FY 2014 Budget I Projection I$ Variance 16,154 73% a) 22,000 20,000 (2,000) 204,440 102% 200,000 210,000 10,000 851,627 89% 954,100 1,045,550 91,450 1,201,083 92% 1,309,350 1,498,000 188,650 3,487,571 85% 4,095,525 4,264,550 169,025 72,059 85% 85,000 92,000 7,000 37,249 149% b) 25,000 40,000 15,000 8,589 107% 8,000 9,000 1,000 9,001 83% 10,801 10,801 - 28,695 64% c) 45,000 45,000 - -n/a --- 5,916,467 88% 6,754,776 7,234,901 480,125 1,484,645 79% 1,868,124 1,867,446 678 2,412,344 72% 3,342,993 3,325,018 17,975 384,886 41% d) 930,157 930,157 - 25,895 47% 55,000 50,896 4,104 4,307,771 70% 6,196,274 6,173,517 22,757 $6,384,624 $ 557,009 $1 z428,003 $ 932,994 . .I Beginning Net Working Capital· Proposed Budget $1,428,003 a) Disposal of tires and appliances less than antiCipated b) Unpredictable-revenue mainly from clean-up projects c) Recycling market prices have been down since last Fall d) Payments made November and May e) Transfers will be made quarterly f) As requested during the year; additional $31,000 to come from Contingency Page 13 RISK MANAGEMENT Statement of Financial Operating Data Through April 30, 2014 Revenues Inter-fund Charges: General Liability FY 2013 FY 2014 -Year to Date (83% of Year) Actual Actual Budget I 'roOT 262,333 227,353 83% 313,480 272,105 83% 173,635 136,792 83% 1,448,553 1,260,157 83% 254,165 258,496 83% 34,401 31,476 79% 1,300 840 37% 76 14 18% 23,060 21,060 150% 12,226 2,523,228 12,065 100% 2,220,357 84% 382,659 224,345 50,919 49,236 85,751 19,509 148,035 161,994 8,790 3,165 3,290 5,099 200 679,645 159,171 54,449 213,620 - 4,531 467,878 117% 166,668 144,265 310,933 124% 375 366 205 16,030 15,248 54,919 71,316 367,051 43,922 59,750 50% 370,934 -5,000 141,960 145,048 36,000 43,289 46,366 591,376 137,082 1,693,039 308,508 131,414 2,132,961 390,267 2,240,791 $2,631,057 38,953 603,223 75% 80,468 40% 1,522,253 86% 258,749 78% 122,360 62% 1,903,362 83% 316,995 2,631,057 $2,948,053 272,823 272,823 ­ Property Damage 326,526 326,526 ­ Vehicle 164,150 164,150 ­ Workers' Compensation 1,512,188 1,512,188 ­ Unemployment 310,203 310,203 ­ Claims Reimb-Gen Liab/Property 40,000 50,000 10,000 Process Fee-Events/Parades 2,300 2,300 ­ Miscellaneous 80 80 ­ Skid Car Training 14,000 24,000 10,000 Interest on Investments 12,050 15,000 2,950 TOTAL REVENUES 2,654,320 2,677,270 22,950 Direct Insurance Costs: GENERAL LIABILITY Settlement / Benefit Defense Professional Service Insurance Loss Prevention Miscellaneous Repair / Replacement Total General Liability 400,000 570,000 ~170,000~ PROPERTY DAMAGE Insurance Repair / Replacement Total Property Damage 250,000 350,000 ~100,000~ VEHICLE Professional Service Insurance Loss Prevention Repair / Replacement Total Vehicle 120,000 90,000 30,000 WORKERS' COMPENSATION Settlement / Benefit Professional Service Insurance Loss Prevention Miscellaneous Total Workers' Compensation 800,000 670,000 130,000 UNEMPLOYMENT -Settlement/Benefits 200,000 150,000 50,000 Total Direct Insurance Costs 1,770,000 1,830,000 ~60,000~ Insurance Administration: Personnel Services 333,327 333,327 ­ Materials & Srvc, Capital Out. & Tranfs. 197,193 197,093 100 Total Expenditures 2,300,520 2,360,420 {59,900~ Change in Fund Balance 353,800 316,850 (36,950) Beginning Fund Balance 2,517,479 2,631,057 113,578 Ending Fund Balance * $ 2,871,279 $ 2,947,907 $ 76,628 cI Beginning Net WOrking Capital -Proposed Budget $ 3,074,957 FY2014 Budget I Projection I $ Variance Page 14 DESCHUTES COUNTY 9~1~1 Statement of Financial Operating Data Through April 30, 2014 FY 2014 ~ Year to Date FY2013 (83% of Year) Actual Actual I %of Budget FY 2014 Budget I Projection I $ Variance Revenues Property Taxes -Current Property Taxes -Prior Federal Grants State Reimbursement Telephone User Tax Data Network Reimb. Jefferson County User Fee Police RMS User Fees Contract Payments Miscellaneous Claims Reimbursement Interest Total Revenues Expenditures Personnel Services Materials and Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Revenues less Expenditures Transfers Out -Reserve Fund Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance 6,323,533 319,349 46,514 35,066 767,453 64,247 30,755 69,012 229,103 11,885 10,084 46,760 54,324 8,008,083 5,991,470 173,654 34,885 29,350 378,367 20,381 28,228 51,073 72,025 196 28,911 29,627 35,306 6,873,474 3,982,162 1,929,460 81,515 5,993,138 3,691,139 1,502,923 64,156 5,258,219 2,014,945 1,615,254 500,000 1,514,945 8,883,086 7,800,000 (6,184,746) 10,398,030 $ 4,213,285Ending Fund Balance $ 10,398,030 . . I Begmmng Net Working Capital -Proposed Budget 101% a) 79% 17% b) 82% 50% c) 68% 94% 95% 28% d) 0% e) 321% nla 58% 5,947,600 219,007 200,000 36,000 750,000 30,000 30,000 54,000 256,791 137,000 9,000 - 60,600 6,173,348 190,000 193,698 (25,309) 200,000 ­ 36,000 ­ 750,000 ­ 30,000 ­ 30,000 ­ 54,000 ­ 256,791 ­ 27,000 (110,000) 28,911 19,911 29,627 29,627 60,600 ­ 89% 7,729,998 7,869,975 79% 70% 11% f) 4,654,796 2,132,476 600,000 4,654,796 2,132,476 600,000 104,229 - - - 71% 7,387,272 7,387,272 ­ 342,726 482,703 104,229 100% 7,800,000 7,800,000 ­ (7,457,274) (7,317,297) 104,229 106% 9,800,000 $2,342,726 10,398,030 $3,080,734 $ 598,030 702,260 $ 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) New World ($210,115) & IT ($46.676). Billed in April e) Radio Consultant reimbursements received in FY 2013. Receipts in FY 2014 have been deferred f) Capital projects are in progress. Some will moved to FY 15 due to resource availability while others will be amended for less expensive alternatives Page 15 Health Benefits Trust Statement of Financial Operating Data Through April 30, 2014 Revenues: Intemal 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-DentaWlSion Claims Refunds Stop Loss Insurance Premium State Assessments Administration Fee (EMBS) Preferred Provider Fee Health Impact other -Administration Other -Wenness Admin & Wellness Deschutes On-site Clinic Contracted Services Medical Supplies Equipment other Total DOC Deschutes On-site Phannacy Contracted Services Medication and Drugs Other Total Phannacy Total Expenditures Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance $ FY2013 Vearto Date %ofActual Actual (83.3% BudgetofVear) 12,874,815 12,070,667 85% 30,280 13,885 35% 643,918 665,525 68% 1,405,518 1,323,769 83% 963,987 901,103 94% 99,330 107,637 213% 50,493 1,675 nJa 1,240 582 nJa 70,959 53,330 89% 16,140,540 15,138,173 84% 197,101 114,927 55% 11,879,332 9,634,991 78% a) 1,059,923 569.696 54% a) 1,835,199 1,432,378 78% a) (131,375) (166,054) nJa 336,407 230,468 61% 194,510 67,753 32% 334,141 279,324 85% 50,841 41,297 75% 52,224 4,327 8% 101,616 27,518 46% 49996 105,503 137% 15,762,814 12,227,201 75% 804,311 616,876 67% 33,155 41,622 416% 2,170 -0% 46,715 22,233 58% 886,351 680,731 71% 367,193 236,701 82% 1,446,nO 1,384,655 92% b) 63,518 10,673 90% 1,Sn480 1,632028 91% 18,723,746 14,654,888 76% (2,583,206) 483,285 14,551,028 $ 11,967,822 102'% 11967,822 $ 12,451,107 FY 2014 Budget Projection 14,269,138 14,467,500 40,000 15,559 980,000 811,865 1,592,750 1,593,253 958,333 1,075,624 50,493 107,637 -1,675 -582 60,000 65,299 17,950,714 18,138,993 209,676 175,536 12,321,732 11,609,445 1,064,841 716,224 1,825,442 1,738,741 -(166,054) 375,000 375,000 215,000 215,000 330,000 330,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 4,327 60,162 60,162 76,739 156,000 16,378,916 15,093,846 915,000 915,000 10,000 50,000 250 - 38,310 38,310 963,560 1,003,310 289,004 289,004 1,500,000 1,694,655 11,876 11,876 1,Sool 880 1.9951535 19,353,032 18,268,227 (1,402,318) (129,233) 11,700,000 11,967,822 $10,297.682 $11 1838.588 $ Variance 198,362 (24,441) (168,135) 503 117,291 57,144 1,675 582 51299 188,279 34,140 670,115 375,907 93,264 166,054 - - - - 50,673 - (Z9,261) 1,285,070 - (40,000) 250 - (39,750) - (194,655) - '194.655~ 1,084,805 1,273,085 267,822 $1,540,906 I % of Exp covered by Revenues 86.2% 103.3% 92.8% 99.3% I Beginning Net Working capital -Proposed Budget $11,585,710 a) Projection based on combination of annualizing current year and 12-month rolling average Page 16 b) March and April based on February actual of $154,590. Projection for May -June at $155,000 per month. FAIR AND EXPO CENTER Statement of Financial Operating Data Through April 30, 2014 Miscellaneous $ 4,102 $ 3,491 69.8% $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ ­ Vending Machines ­106 7.1% 1,500 1,500 ­ Telephone Fees -Events 255 510 nla -510 510 Special Events Revenues 383,339 336,931 85.3% 395,000 497,818 102,818 Interest 76 363 nla -363 363 Storage 35,283 35,590 65.9% 54,000 40,000 (14,000) Camping at F & E 16,700 8,018 72.9% 11,000 15,000 4,000 Horse Stall Rental 48,036 6,667 22.2% 30,000 45,000 15,000 Concession % -Food 139,006 87,650 57.7% 152,000 120,000 (32,000) Rights (Signage, etc.) 85,338 60,000 75.0% 80,000 80,000 ­ Grants ­62,006 34.4% a) 180,000 180,000 - Interfund Rentals 2,400 2,000 83.3% 2,400 2,400 ­ Annual County Fair (net) 245,000 205,000 82.0% b) 250,000 205,000 (45,000) Interfund Contract 45,000 -nla - -­ Total Revenues 1,004,534 808,331 69.6% 1,160,900 1,192,590 31,690 Expenditures: Personnel Services 821,293 750,419 84.5% 887,593 887,593 ­ Materials and Services 580,396 530,940 79.5% c) 667,733 652,228 15,505 Debt Service 114,117 69,227 61.3% 112,974 112,974 ­ Capital Outlay 9,000 176,289 97.9% a) 180,100 180,000 100 Total Expenditures 1,524,806 1,526,875 82.6% 1,848,400 1,832,795 15,605 (718,543) (687,500) (640,204) 47,296Revenues less Expenditures (520,272) Transfers In: General Fund 320,000 311,820 83.3% 374,186 374,186 ­ 21,450 83.3% 25,744 25,744 ­Room Tax -6% (Fund 160) 25,744 Room Tax -1% (Fund 170) 82,800 157,630 83.3% 189,156 225,734 36,578 Less: Promotion Expenditures Fair & Expo Reserve 50,000 75,000 75.0% 100,000 100,000 ­ 565,900 82.1% 689,086 725,664 36,578 Change in Fund Balance (41,728) Total Transfers In 478,544 (152,643) 1,586 85,460 83,874 Beginning Fund Balance 35,055 %of Actual Budget (6,673) 48,827 ~6,673~ ~55,500l $ (159,316) $ 50,413 $ 78,786 $ 28,373Ending Fund Balance $ (6,673) I Beginning Net Working Capital -Proposed Budget $ 87,000 FY 2014 -Year to Date (83% of Year)FY2013 Actual Revenues FY2014 Revised Budget Projection $ Variance 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 April 30, 2014 FY 2014 -Year to FY 2013 Actual Date (83% of Year) Actual I Ufo or Budget Budget FY 2014 I Projection I $ Variance Revenues Court Fines &Fees a) 357,920 313,237 74% b)c) 422,500 422,500 - State Miscellaneous --0% 600 600 - Interest on Investments 796 530 59% 900 900 - Total Revenues 358,716 313,767 74% 424,000 424,000 - Expenditures Personnel Services 365,245 340,966 76% 445,984 400,830 45,154 Materials and Services 166,294 154,788 81% 190,210 185,704 4,506 Total Expenditures 531,539 495,753 78% 636,194 586,534 49,660 Revenues less Expenditures (172,823) (181,986) (212,194) (162,534) 49,660 Transfers In-General Fund a) 221,716 117,350 83% 140,819 140,819 - Change in Fund Balance 48,893 (64,636) (71,375) (21,715) 49,660 Beginning Fund Balance 104,925 153,818 124% 124,241 153,818 29,577 Ending Fund Balance $ 153,818 $ 89,181 * $ 52,866 $ 132,103 $ 79,237 . . . .I Beginning Net Working Capital. Proposed Budget $ 107,621 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". April fines, to be received in May -$40,609 c) Collections tend to be seasonal and are greater during February, March and April Page 18 CAPITAL PROJECTS • Bethlehem Inn • Campus Improvement • Jail Proj ect • 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 April 30 , 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 (83% of Year) Actual I %of Budget $ - 24,408 24,408 $ - 20,340 20,340 0.0% 83.3% 83.3% 14,617 14,617 12,134 12,134 49.7% 49.7% 9,792 J2, 71 0, 173) $ (2,700,381) 8 ,206 (2,700,381) $ (2,692,175) 100.0% a) Interest on April 2014 negative cash balance: $1,342.24 . b) Inception through April 30, 2014: Revenues -Lease Payments Expenditures : Land/Building (Amertitle) -July 2007 Hickman Williams City of Bend -May 2008 KN EXCO Kleinfelder Total expended on facility Interest on Negative Cash Balance Total expended Net $ 93,564 2,241,313 17,578 250,000 5,289 3,732 2,517 ,913 267,826 2,785,739 $ (2,692,175) FY 2014 Budget I Projection $ 2,700 ,600 24,408 $ 24,408 $ (2 ,700 ,600) 2,725,008 24,408 (2,700,600) 24,408 14,200 10,208 24,408 14,200 10,208 2,700,600 10,208 (2,690,392) (2,700,600) (2,700,381) 219 $ Variance $ $ (2,690,173) $ (2,690,173) jrf 5/1/2014 Deschutes County Campus Improvement (Fund 463) Inception through April 30, 2014 Received and Committed or Expended Projected I 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 8,296 500 8,796 Total Resources 1,317,662 350,500 1,668,162 EXPENDITURES: Basement Jail/Boiler Demolition JB1 168,109 168,109 Basement Public File View JB2 141,862 141,862 1 st 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 2/Basement Phases 1/2 JB8 102,054 571,557 673,611 "Stone Building" 720 720 Internal Service Fund Charges 6,091 2,250 8,341 Total Materials & Services 1,094,355 573 ,807 1,668,162 Revenues less Expenditures $ 223,307 $ (223,307) 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 5/9/2014 Deschutes County Jail Project (Fund 456) -Phase II Beginning July 1, 2012 Through April 30, 2014 Actual Total (Actual Project Budget (Through Committed Projected + Committed Variance(Note 1) April 30, + Projected)2014) Resources Interest $ 26,157 $ 36,918 $ $ 3,750 $ 40,668 Transfers In: General County Projects (142) 100,000 100,000 100,000 General Capital Reserve (143) 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 General Fund (001 ) 750,000 750,000 750,000 Sheriff's Office (FY 2015) 136,000 136,000 Jamison Acq &Remodel (457) (Note 2) 540,939 540,939 540,939 Bond Issuance, net 8,400,000 8,403,481 8,403,481 Total Resources 11,067,096 11,081,338 139,750 11,221,088 Expenditures Architect (Note 2) 820,000 837,149 93,435 930,584 Engineering 29,002 13,659 42,660 Environmental 593 593 Surveying 500 500 Consulting 35,000 4,160 8,733 12,893 Building & Grounds 9,127 9,127 Fees & Permits, SDCs (water & sewer) 310,000 336,362 336,362 Insurance 40,000 7,938 7,938 Internal Service Fund Charges 33,700 28,422 5,278 8,044 41,744 Miscellaneous Administrative 30,000 8,758 10,000 18,758 FF &E -Security System 68,866 68,866 FF &E -Storage System 40,000 40,000 40,000 Construction -Expansion & Remodel (3) 9,458,396 6,289,682 3,562,318 9,852,000 Construction Contingency 300,000 Total Expenditures 11,067,096 7,620,559 3,661,031 80,435 11,362,025 Net $ $ 3,460,779 $(3,661,031) 59,315 (140,937) Note 1: The project includes the Jail expansion and a remodel for the Medical Unit Note 2: Steele: Jail-$699,000, Other-$115,400. KMD: Medical-$86,000, Housing Study-$21,000. Plus expenses. Note 3: 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, Rated Glazing Assemblies-$75,274, Conduit to Expansion-$10,454) 14,511 136,000 3,481 153,992 (110,584) (42,660) (593) (500) 22,108 (9,127) (26,362) 32,062 (8,044) 11,242 (68,866) (393,604) 300,000 (294,929) (140,937) JRF 5/912014 RESOURCES: Loan Proceeds, net of issuance costs Rentals Resources from Fund 142 Resources from Fund 142 Transfer In (Fund 142) Proceeds of S~Real Property 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 a~Building Remodel Total Capital Outlay Contingency Total Expenditures Net Deschutes County North County Services Building Inception through April 30, 2014 ACTUAL PROJECTION Received / Encum brances Project to Project Expended & Commitments Date Budget * Projected Variance 500 1,402,013 25,000 600,000 9,191 2,036,704 ~Q , OOO 2,000,000 500 1,402,013 25,000 600,000 2,000 .000 9,191 4,036,704 a) b) c) 5,500,000 1,402,013 25,000 700,000 L 50,000 7,677,013 51,735 28 ,628 1,933 22,475 23 104,794 25,000 25,000 76,735 28,628 1,933 22,475 23 129,794 b) 325,000 100,000 31,724 200,000 20 ,000 676,724 --.!A.02,013 230 1,402,243 600,000 600,000 2,002,013 230 2,002 ,243 a) d) 1,402,013 5,481,426 6,883,439 1,507,037 625,000 2,132,037 116,850 7,677,013 529,667 1,375,000 1,904,667 (5,500,000) 500 500 1,402,013 25,000 600,000 (100,000) 2,000,000 2,0007 000 10,000 ~40,000} 4,037,513 (3,639,500) 325,000 56,278 43,722 31,724 200,000 22,475 (2,475) 23 ~23} 635,500 41,224 2 ,002 ,013 2,002,013 (600,000) 5,481,426 4,881,426 2,637,513 116,850 4,922,650 1,400,000 1,400,000 a) The building was purchased in FY 2011 with resources from General County Projects (Fund 142) -$1,402,013 . b) $25,000 was paid to the architect in FY 2011 with resources from General County Projects Fund (Fund 142) c) Estimated proceeds from sale of the DeSign Center (Hwy 97 Building) d) Acquisiton of real property on Antler in Redmond. JRF 5/9/2014 Deschutes County Sisters Health Clinic (Fund 464) Inception through April 30, 2014 ACTUAL Received and Encumbrances Project to Expended & Commitments Date Projected - RESOURCES: Beginning Net Working Capital Federal Grants 40,000 460,000 500 ,000 a) 500 ,000 Resources from Fund 142 50,381 50 ,381 b) 50 ,381 Transfer in (Fund 142) 255,000 255 ,000 c) 255,000 Transfer in (Fund 270) 50,000 50,000 d) 50 ,000 Interest Revenue 752 752 1,000 Total Resources 396,133 460,000 856,133 856,381 EXPENDITURES: Materials & Services Architectu reI Des ig n 59,829 10,000 69,829 b) 69,829 Engineering 5,000 5,000 5,000 Planning 1,140 1,140 2,000 Surveying 2 ,029 2,000 4 ,029 4 ,029 Interfund Charges 3,059 3,059 3,677 Fees, Permits, Insurance &SDCs 64,429 1 ,120 65,549 65,549 Miscellaneous Project Costs 2,151 25,000 27,151 27 ,151 Miscellaneous Admin Costs 26 26 2 ,096 Total Materials & Services 132,663 43,120 ~783 179,331 Capital Outlay New Construction -CS Construction 55,312 621 ,130 676,442 e) 676,442 Total Capital Outlay 55,312 621,130 676,442 676,442 Total Expenditures 187,975 664,250 852,225 855,773- Net $ 208,158 $ (204,250) $ 3,908 $ 608 a) The County was awarded a $500,000 Federal Grant. To date, $40,000 has been received . Project completion date has been extended to September 30, 2014. b) $50,381 paid in FY 2012 with resources from General County Projects Fund (Fund 142) c) FY 2013 -$100,000; FY 2014 -$155,000 (Resolution No. 2014-023 Feb 26,2014) d) FY 2014 -$50,000 (Resolution No . 2014-024 Feb 26, 2014) e) Original contract -$552,730 , Change Order #1 -$123,712 JRF 5/9/2014 Deschutes County General Support Services· BOCC Conference/Seminar, EducationlTraining and Travel Expenditures County College Expenditures FY 2014 BOCC Conference & Travel TammyBane~ Conf/Sem .~ EduclTraining Travel Meals Accommodations Airfare Mileage reimbursement Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan · 35 · 340 45 · · · · · -30 50 - · --312 - · ---- · 478 • 104 450 105 . -r--­i 5 I ~: ... Ground Transport/Parking -· · -· · · i Total Baney · 513 104 i 1,101 677 545 105 Alan Unger Conf/Sem .~ EduclTraining 205 -10 375 · 110 35 i Travel Meals · ----81 - Accommodations 192 --415 -479 - Airfare · · · -· Mileage reimbursement · · · -· .2,056 i · Ground Transport/Parking · · · -· 14 -!----­..... -­---' ---' -­---­ Total Unger 397 · 10 ! 790 · 2,739 35 • !on~DeBone ..... 520 !_........-:­Conf/Sem &EduclTraining 184 340 45 i 10 120 ... ~elMeals .. · 82 • · · -100 - ~mmodations 618 164 · 415 i -145 · Airfare 658 50 · · · · · Mileage reimbursement · 105 · 411 · 347 ! · Ground Transport · i 74 · -· · · ~..... Total DeBone 1,795 474 184 1,166 45! 601 : 120 : _... ... ! Total· BOCC Department Conf/Sem &EduclTraining 725 35 194 1,055 90 120 155 ... Travel Meals · 82 --30 230 i · -Accommodations 810 164 -1;143 91 i 727 - ~r:..e 658 50 · --· -I Mileage Reimbursement -583 104 861 510 • 2.794 105 Ground Transport -74 · · -14 - Total· BOCC Department 2,192 ' 987 298 3,058 722 3,886 260 FY 2014 Original Budget P~rcent of FY 2014 Budget Expend~ BOCC County College ! Printing/Binding -· -i -· -14 Office/Copier Supplies 176 - -48 --· Meeting Supplies -: ----.1 ~2.362 734 -· ! t----.;;; 176 289 ~734 14Total BOCC County College · · C---. i ---:­---'­ NOTE: Above amounts include only those expenditures processed for payment._ Additional conference and travel costs may have been incurred. but not processed for payment.: FY2014 Feb Mar Apr Total i 60 83 · 563 · 10 i · 90 -91 -598 -i · · · · 858 · 2,896 • · · · · 60 1,042 • · 4,147. i 95 i 118 60 1,008 . -· · '-an · · · 1,086 · -· · · · -2,056 --· 14--­--­--­ 95 118 60 4,245 95 1.222 60 2.596 · 114 · 295 -1,650 ! -2.991 · 681 • · 1.389 -872 I -1,735 · 178 i · i 252 95 : 4,717 60 • 9,258 .... 250 1.422 , 120 4.167 -124 -466 · I 1,741 -4.676 · 681 -1.389 -1,731 -6.687 -178 -266 250 : ~!877 ! 120 17,650 i 15,250 115.7% ! · · · 14 · · -224 -· · 3,384 · -· 3,622-- JRF 4/30/2014 Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division I 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Nick Lelack, Community Development Director DATE: May 9,2014 RE: Fee Waiver Request -Bend Airport Zone Change Summary I Background The City of Bend is seeking a fee waiver of $5,000 for a zone change within the current boundaries of the Bend Airport. The zone change is to ensure 1) the correct boundaries of the Airport Development (A-D) zone appear on the County's zoning map, and 2) that the three A-D subzoning districts adopted by the County in Ordinance (Ord.) 2003-036 appear correctly on the County's zoning map. Under the County's current fee structure, a zone change is $4,920 plus actual costs of services for providing public notice. The City in the attached request for a full waiver has indicated it would accept a fee waiver of half that amount. The A-D zone was created in 1980 the same year the Bend Airport received an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 3 (Agriculture). The 340 acres of the A-D zone were mapped in 1982. When the County's paper maps were digitized in the mid-to late 1990s, there was apparently an introduced error for the A-D zone. The 16 acres of land on the northeast portion of the airport was misidentified as Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) instead of A-D. The City updated the Bend Airport Master Plan in 1994, but did not submit a land use application to the County. Thus, the EFU mapping error was not discovered until the 2002 Bend Airport Master Plan (BAMP) Update. Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) Ord. 2002-035 adopted the 2002 BAMP into the County's Comprehensive Plan. The 2002 BAMP Update created several zoning districts at the airport: Airfield Operations District (AOD), Aviation Support District (ASD), and Aviation-Related Industrial District (ARID). BOCC Ord. 2003-036 repealed and replaced the A-D zoning ordinance (18.76) in its entirety. Due to a procedural error, the zoning maps for the AOD, ASD, and ARID zoning districts were not adopted. The error was discovered in March 2014 when City and County staff were preparing presentation materials for an open house as part of a federal Environmental Assessment to relocate helicopter operations to the northeast side of the airport. The proposed helicopter site is the same 16 acres shown on the County's GIS map as zoned EFU, but which was rezoned as A-D in 1982. Discussion The City states there is a public benefit to the County waiving the fee as the correct boundaries of the A-D zone will be displayed on the County's zoning map. In addition, the City states the zoning Quality Services Performed with Pride map will reflect the correct boundaries of the A-D's AOD, ASD. and ARID districts. Currently, there is only A-D zoning at the airport, not AOD, ASD, or ARID due to the procedural error regarding the maps. The City discovered the 2002 procedural error while researching the EFU vs. A-D zoning on the 16 acres. County Staff agrees there was an error during the transition from paper to electronic maps and the A-D zone should be applied to the 16 acres on the northeast side of the airport. The City acknowledged the error on page 12 of the 2002 BAMP Update and agreed to fix it: However, during a review of existing zoning for this project, it was discovered that a small area near the northeast corner of the airport is zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU), rather than Airport Development (AD) zoning. County planning staff indicated that this was most likely an oversight which may have been created by a mapping error at some earlier point. The City will pursue re-zoning the small area from EFU to AD at some time in the future. " The City is now pursuing the re-zoning from EFU to AD, and requesting a full or partial fee waiver from the County to help correct this error. County staff agrees the zone change to accurately portray the location of the AOD, ASD. and ARID subdistricts in the A-D zone will be a public benefit as applicants will know the allowed uses at the Bend Airport. BOCC Decision The BOCC's options include the following: 1. Approve a full fee waiver and find that the action is in the public benefit per the fee waiver policy (attached). 2. Approve a partial (Le., 50%) fee waiver and find that the action is in the public benefit per the fee waiver policy. 3. Deny the fee waiver request. Attachments 1. City of Bend Fee Waiver Request 2. Fee Waiver Policy I I I I -2­ 710 NW WALL STREET PO Box431 BEND, OR 97701 (541] 388-5505 TEL [541]385-6676 FAX BENDOREGON.GOV JIM CLINTON Mayor JODI!: BARRAM Mayor Pro Tern VICTOR CHUDOWSKY City Councilor DOUG KNIGHT City Councilor SALLY RUSSELL City Councilor MARK CAPELL City Councilor ScOnRAMSAY City Councilor ERIC KING City Manager Sy:~VED APR 1 6 2014 DEliVERED BY: April 16, 2014 -----­ Nick Lelack, Director Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Ave Bend, OR 97701 RE: Fee Waiver Request for Forthcoming zone change application from City of Bend Dear Nick: The City of Bend respectfully requests a fee waiver in the amount of $5,000 for an application for a zone change. The purposes of this requested zone change are twofold. First, to ensure the correct boundary of the Airport Development (AD) Zone as applied to the Bend Airport property is reflected on the County's official zoning map. Second, to correctly reflect the districts adopted for the Bend airport through Ordinance 2003-036 on the County's official zoning map. The request for the fee waiver is based in part on changes in the boundary of the AD zone that were inadvertently made in the early 1990s. The City has examined the County ordinances through which the AD Zone was adopted and then applied to the Bend Airport property. These documents correctly show the County adopted an exception to Goal 3 for this property and that the AD Zone boundaries matched the boundary of the property for which the exception was adopted. We understand that sometime in the early 1990s when the County was converting its official plan and zoning maps to an electronic format that an error was likely made in how the boundary of the AD zone was digitized. We found that the error was not discovered until very recently as the City was completing a 2013 airport master plan for the Bend Airport. At the same time, we also found that the zoning districts adopted through Ordinance 2003-036 were not reflected on the County's official zoning map. Through this ordinance, the County adopted three (3) sub-districts and incorporated them in DCC Chapter 18.76. These same districts were not mapped concurrently with or after the adoption of this ordinance. The City was not aware that this application would be needed to ensure the 1982 AD zone boundary and the sub-districts are correctly reflected on the County's official zoning maps. There is a public benefit to the County waiving the fee in this situation. The City benefits by ensuring that the boundary of the AD zone is correctly displayed on the County's official zoning map. In addition, the public who uses the airport property and its structures benefits from an accurate application of the zoning districts applied to the airport under DCC Chapter 18.76. The City acknowledges that this application for a zone change would not be necessary if the AD Zone was correctly reflected on the County's official zoning maps, and the zonillg adopted through Ordinance 2003-036. That said, we understand that these errors were made before current County staff were involved. The City would accept a waiver of half of the fees to recognize the work Community Development Department Staff have completed to assist us in this manner and to ensure that the zoning for the Bend Airport is accurate. We don't have an accounting of how much staff time went into dOing this research, and expect that it was significant and was not accounted for in the County's budget for this year. Please contact Assistant City Attomey Gary Firestone or Senior Planner Damian Syrnyk if you have any questions. Sincerely, C~ Eric King City Manager CC: Gary Firestone Damian Syrnyk Community Development Department Planning DiVision Building Safltty Division Environmental Soils Division P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend. Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ FEE WAIVER REQUEST FORM Name of Individual/Organization: ---I.fi(::::...:...i2...-:..../C=-......JL...;L::;..L..I.L..:lv~G:....r...l.I.....;:C::::·_I....:.l_lJ..(~()_~_....!.8~£:;;..-_f-..J_D-,-,....:.cJ;;..-.Q-:-,..___ Address: II () N wW /I-LL 5, City/State/Zip: 'i§ G'f...JC:>. e-i K. Phone: e.:!!.J 58 B-S5 .:;;S Cj'/701 Type of Permit and Fees: [J Building $_____________ [v(Planning $ 5, 000, Q0 [J Subsurface Sewage $,_________ [ ] Other: $_________~_ Total amount of fee(s) requested to be waived: $-",5"'--1-'""o.""d=-:).-'=oJo:;.;;:..____~______ The applicant shall provide a written explanation of the request and explain why one or more of the criteria below are satisfied. The request will be reviewed by the Community Development Director and a response will be provided within ten (10) business days. Criteria that must be met to qualify for a Fee Waiver: A. The applicant meets the criteria for indigency and at least one of the following conditions. Indigence shall be established by the financial hardship process attached (refer to Affidavit of Indigence and Request for Fee Waiver form). 1, There is an immediate need of the Community Development Department's services to protect the applicant's or public's health or safety. 2. Granting the fee waiver will create a long-term efficiency for a Code Enforcement issue. B. The request is from a nonprofit organization that has encountered an extraordinary hardship which could not have been anticipated in planning for and funding of the project; and the fee waiver will benefit the community. (NOTE: The Community Development Director may require performance of community services for some or all of the waived fees.) Quality Services Perfonned toith Pride Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ FEE WAIVER POLICY Effective January 4. 2006. the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners approved Ordinance Nos. 2006-001, 2006-002 and 2006-003. delegating authority to administer and approve septic permit, building permit. and land use permit fee waiver requests to the Community Development Director and County Administrator (DOC 13.0B, 15.04.160 and 22.0B.01 0). The Board of County Commissioners of Deschutes County has delegated full authority to the Community Development Department (COD) Director to administer this policy. with the exception of Items #7 and #B. POLICY GUIDELINES: ~ 1. Fee waivers under this policy provide a public benefit. I 2. With the adoption of this policy and continuing with each budget. an amount not to exceed $5,000 shall be set aside into a hardship account within the COD budget from any savings of budgeted expenses or excess revenue. 3. When money is available in the hardship account of COD, the COD Director may authorize fee waivers in amounts not to exceed the fee waiver budget each year. , 4. The COD Director shall find an applicant meets one of the following criteria in granting fee waivers: A. The applicant meets the criteria for indigency and at least one of the following conditions. Indigence shall be established by the financial hardship process attached as Exhibit "A." I t 1. There is an immediate need of the services of the Community Development Department to protect the applicant's or the public's health or safety. 2. Granting the waiver will create a long-term efficiency of a Code Enforcement issue. B. The request is from a nonprofit organization that has encountered an extraordinary hardship that could not have been anticipated in planning for and funding of the project, and the fee waiver will benefit the community. (NOTE: Community Service may be required by the COD Director for some or a" of the waived fees.) 5. Fee Waiver requests covered above shall be submitted on a form provided by COD. Applicant shall provide a written explanation of the request and explain why one or more of the above criteria are satisfied. The request will be delivered to the COD Director for review and decision. Quality Services Perjonned with PrideI 6. The applicant may appeal the COD Director's decision to the Deschutes County Administrator. The applicant may appeal the Deschutes County Administrator's decision to the Board of County Commissioners. 7. The Board of County Commissioners may issue blanket fee waivers, subject to the above criterion, for classes of hardship such as catastrophic fire. 8. The Board of County Commissioners may waive fees in any other case where the public benefit is served and other remedies have been exhausted. FINANCIAL HARDSHIP Some property owners or other responsible persons who lack the financial ability to obtain permits and approvals to pay fees established by the County for Community Development Services may receive relief. The procedure for establishing financial hardships is set forth below: Procedure: In cases where the applicant appears to have insufficient resources to pay fees, the applicant may apply to qualify for financial or other assistance within available resources and under the following procedures. 1. Criteria for Indigency To qualify for assistance under this section, the applicant or other responsible person must demonstrate a substantial financial hardship that makes paying the required fees impractical. 2. Fee ReductionlWaiver An applicant may apply for a reduction or waiver of COD development fees for permits. The decision to reduce or waive development fees will be made by the COD Director, considering the following factors: A. The degree of the applicant's indigency; B. The cost of the development permit(s) or approval(s) required; C. Funds available for fee reductionslwaivers in COD's budget or in any other available funds; and D. Other assistance available in the community. 3. Community Service in Lieu of Fees Upon a finding of indigency, the COD Director may order community service at the rate of $10.00 per hour in lieu of some or all waived fees. A period of time shall be established in which the community service shall be completed. Fee Waiver Policy and Form 1/2006, Rev. 1/2012 Page 2 Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Solis Division P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388:6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENCE AND REQUEST FOR FEE WAIVER This information is submitted in confidence and is not subject to public disclosure (ORS 192.502(2). APPLICANT'S NAME: ___________________ I, the undersigned, am requesting a waiver of Deschutes County Fees for Community Development Services because I cannot pay at this time without causing substantial hardship to myself and/or my dependent family. The following information is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I ask the CDD Director to use the information to decide whether I may receive a fee waiver at public expense. I understand I may be required to document or verify this information. 1. PERSONAL Name (print): ________________________ Phone: L-) ___________ Residence Address: __________________ City/State/Zip: __________ Mailing Address (if different}: _______________ City/State/Zip: ________ Date of Birth: ________ Social Security No. _________ [ 1 Male [ 1Female Mo/Day/Year Marital Status: [ 1Married [ 1Single [ 1Divorced [ ] Separated [ jWidowed [lOther: ______ Complete the following information for everyone living in your household: Name Relationship Age Monthly Income 1 **Staff Use Only** Description of fees to be waived: __________________ Est. Amount: $_____ Fee Waiver Approved: [ J Yes [ 1No __1__1_­ Director, Community Development Dept. DateComments: _______________________________________ Quality Services Perfonned with Pride 2. EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME Present Employer ____________ How Long Occupation __________ Address: City/State/Zip: Phone: '-l ___ Hourly wage $_____Average Hrs.lWeek: ______ Net (after tax) monthly income: _____ If unemployed, how long since you were employed: ______ Previous Employer: How Long: Occupation: _______ Address ___________________ Phone ( ___ )_____________ Spouse's Employer: How Long: Occupation: _______ Address ___________________ Phone ( ___ )_____________ Hourly Wage ...._____ Average Hrs.lWeek: ______Net (after tax) monthly income: _____ If unemployed, how long since spouse was employed: ______ Other income for you and spouse, dependents or household members (example: Social Security, unemployment, retirement, public assistance, child support, worker's compensation, disability, etc.) Source of Income (Describe) Amount How Long Received How Often Received Other household members who help pay for your living expenses: Name Amount Payment for What Describe 3. PROPERTY AND ASSETS OWNED BY YOU, SPOUSE AND DEPENDENTS Cash Available: ______________ Savings Acc't. No: _________ Balance: $_____ Bank/Branch Office: _______ Checking Acc't. No: ________ Balance: $ _____ Bank/Branch Office: _______ Other Acc't. No: ___________ Balance: $_____ Bank/Branch Office: _______ Real Estate: Address, City Value Amount Owed Equity Payments Made Fee Waiver Policy and Form 1/2006, Rev. 1/2012 Page 4 Credit Card Name/Bank Account Number Expiration Date Motor Vehicle MakeNear Value Amount Owed Equity Payments Made Are any of these motor vehicles used for work (other than driving to and from work)? [ 1Yes [ ] No All other property or assets (example: furniture, boats, guns, jewelry, tools, etc.): Description Value Description Value Money owed to you or spouse by others (example, tax refund, trust, judgment, etc.): Name of Debtor Amount Owed Date Payment Expected 4. MONTHLY EXPENSES List all expenses that are paid monthly by you, individually, or by you, jOintly with spouse: I i RenVMortgage: $______ Utilities: $.________ Credit Card: $ _________ Car: $_______________ Medical: $________Insurance: $__________ Child Support ~__________ Court Order: $______ Other: [] I am willing to perform Community Service to offset the public cost of my request. [1 I unable to perform Community Service for the following reasons: I certify that the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Applicant Signature Date Fee Waiver Policy and Form 1/2006, Rev. 1/2012 Page 5 Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ RELEASE TO OBTAIN INFORMATION FOR VERIFICATION (CONFIDENTIAL) APPLICANT'S NAME: ___________________________ I understand that the County may verify my employment and financial situation to determine my eligibility for a fee waiver. I understand that some of the information necessary for this verification is contained in records that are protected under federal and state laws. I have therefore signed this release which allows public and private organizations and individuals to provide the County or its designee with requested information. I understand that organizations and individuals which may be contacted include but are not limited to: • Social Security Administration • State Department of Revenue • Mortgage Holder • Department of Motor Vehicles • Employment Division(s) • Utility Companies • Worker's Compensation Disability Provider • Adult and Family Services Division • Landlords • Private Disability Insurance Provider • Private Ufe Insurance Provider • Past Employers • Release Assistance Office • Credit Card Holders • Credit Bureaus • Schools and Colleges • Banks, Savings & Loans, Credit Unions (requesting savings, stocks, bonds, checking, loan and credit information including copies of applications) • Other:________ By signing this release, I specifically authorize the County or its designee to directly contact my current employer by telephone or in writing, and to release and utilize my address as needed by the Board of County Commissioners or its designee. Applicant Signature Date Quality Seroices Perfonned with Pride Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soli. DivI.lon P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541 )388-6575 FAX (541 )385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ FEE WAIVER REQUEST FORM Name of Individual/Organization: ___________________________ Address:._______________ City/State/Zip: Phone: L-) ___ Type of Permit and Fees: [] Building $_____________ 1 Planning $____________ [] Subsurface Sewage $,__________ ] Other: $____________ Total amount offee(s) requested to be waived: The applicant shall provide a written explanation of the request and explain why one or more of the criteria below are satisfied. The request will be reviewed by the Community Development Director and a response will be provided within ten (10) business days. Criteria that must be met to qualify for a Fee Waiver: A. The applicant meets the criteria for indigency and at least one of the following conditions. Indigence shall be established by the financial hardship process attached (refer to Affidavit of Indigence and Request for Fee Waiver form). 1. There is an immediate need of the Community Development Department's services to protect the applicant's or public's health or safety. 2. Granting the fee waiver will create a long-term efficiency for a Code Enforcement issue. B. The request is from a nonprofit organization that has encountered an extraordinary hardship which could not have been anticipated in planning for and funding of the project; and the fee waiver will benefit the community. (NOTE: The Community Development Director may require performance of community services for some or all of the waived fees.) Quality Services Performed with Pride MEMORANDUM DATE: May 12, 2014 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Will Groves, Senior Planner RE: The Flight Shop and Aero Facilities Appeal / Hearings Officer’s Decision (File Nos. SP-13-7, A-14-2 and A-13-4). Before the Board of County Commissioners (Board) is an appeal filed by The Flight Shop and Aero Facilities. The appeal is submitted in response to a Deschutes County Hearings Officer’s decision on remand from LUBA that a proposed fueling station at the Bend Airport complies with all applicable regulations. The appellant requests the Board formally reconsider the decision. BACKGROUND The applicant, Leading Edge Aviation, requested site plan approval to establish an aviation fueling station at the Bend Airport. The property is owned by the City of Bend. The Hearings Officer issued a decision on July 19, 2013 finding that the proposal complies with all applicable regulations. On July 26, 2013 opponent appealed the decision to the Board. By Order 2013-038 dated August 7, 2013, the board declined to hear the appeal. On November 12, 2013 opponent appealed the Hearings Officer’s decision to LUBA (LUBA No. 2013-073). The appeal raised two assignments of error. By a decision dated January 10, 2014, LUBA sustained one assignment of error, and remanded the decision to the county for further proceedings. The Hearings Officer approved the site plan review on remand from LUBA on April 30, 2014. Opponent filed a timely appeal on May 12, 2014. The 90-day period for issuance of a final local decision on remand under ORS 215.435 expires on May 19, 2014. However, the applicant has provided a letter May 13, 2014 providing ninety extra days and any additional time reasonably necessary for the Board to hear this matter. APPEAL The notice of appeal describes several assignment of error. This is summarized below, with references to those pages within the decision where the Hearings Officer addressed the issue. File No.: A-14-2 (A-13-4 and SP-13-7) Page 2 of 3 a. By finding that the Bend Municipal Airport AMP does not include any standards and criteria applicable to the Applicant’s site plan; b. By finding that the AMP does not preclude approval of the Applicant’s fueling station on the subject property; c. By concluding that policy 16.2(h) of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and TSP should be interpreted to not prohibit development except as specifically designated on the Airport Layout Plan; d. By finding that Deschutes County has revised, or has approved revisions, of the Airport Layout Plan several times since the 2002 version in order to reflect actual development at the Airport, most recently in 2013 with the addition of the Applicant’s fueling station on the subject property; e. By concluding to not consider the Airport Development Zone Purpose Statement (DCC 18.76.010) in connection with the issues on remand, including whether the AMP or any of its contents must be applied as an approval criterion because of the purpose statement; and f. By finding that the “AMP and ALP are intended to describe recommended airport developments to meet identified needs and to accommodate development that may not have been foreseen at the time the update was adopted”. The appellant requests de novo review. If the Board decides to hear the appeal, the review shall be on the record unless the Board decides to hear the appeal de novo because it finds the substantial rights of the parties would be significantly prejudiced without de novo review and it does not appear that the request is necessitated by failure of the appellant to present evidence that was available at the time of the previous review; or whether in its sole judgment a de novo hearing is necessary to fully and properly evaluate a significant policy issue relevant to the proposed land use action (See: DCC 22.32.027(B)(2)(c) and (d)). The Board may, at its discretion, determine that it will limit the issues on appeal to those listed in the notice of appeal or to one or more specific issues from among those listed on the notice of appeal (See: DCC 22.32.027(B)(4)). DECLINING REVIEW If the Board decides that the Hearings Officer’s decision shall be the final decision of the county, then the Board shall not hear the appeal and the party appealing may continue the appeal as provided by law. The decision on the land use application becomes final upon the mailing of the Board’s decision to decline review. In determining whether to hear an appeal, the Board may consider only: 1. The record developed before the Hearings Officer; 2. The notice of appeal; and 3. Recommendations of Staff (See: DCC 22.32.035(B) and (D)). File No.: A-14-2 (A-13-4 and SP-13-7) Page 3 of 3 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board hear this matter. While Staff concurs with the Hearings Officer’s code interpretation, the Board has the ultimate ability to interpret the County Code and, if this matter is appealed to LUBA again, the Board’s interpretation of the Code will be given deference. Staff also recommends this matter be heard on the record. This will allow the parties to submit written legal arguments in advance of a Board deliberation in this matter, but preclude submissions of new evidence. Staff believes that all relevant documents are presently in the record and that substantial rights of the parties would not be significantly prejudiced without de novo review. Attachments 1. Hearing Officer’s decision on Remand (File no. SP-13-7) 2. Notice of Intent to Appeal (File no. A-14-2) 3. Draft Orders to hear this matter de novo and, alternatively, on the record. ----- ---- DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION * * LAND USE APPLICATION * * A142 Taxmap 17 13-2000 200 SERIAL 151469 13:27:52 12 MAY 2014 Request APPEAL OF SP-13 7 HEARINGS OFFICER DECISION ON REMAND AERO FACILITIES LLC, c/o MICHAEL MCGEAN, FRANCIS HANSEN & MARTIN Location 63132 POWELL BUTTE HWY,BE Zone AD AS Other affected property NONE Submitted date 05/12/14 Accepted date Assigned planner NONE Expiration date 120th day _____ Counter Person WWG Applicant AERO FACILITIES LLC, c/o MICHAEL MCGEAN, FRANCIS HANSEN & MARTIN Own Address 1148 NW HILL STREET Phone (541) 389-5010 City BEND, OR 97701 Receipts 476926 Amount Paid 2801.00 Status P Status date 05/12/14 Other Permit's 134 Permits TN Due to staff Due in mail Mailed Notice Due to staff Due j n maj] Mailed Admn decision due Due plan Dir Admn dec Admn decision mailed Admin decision appealed HO Hearing date Staff rpt due Staff rpt mailed.----­HO decision HO Decision mai Appealed BOC hearing BOC decision ----,...,,---::-­BOC decision mailed BOC decision appealed OTHER LAND USE APPLICATIONS ON THIS PROPERTY LIMITED TO FIRST 10 OF 66 LUA ID ACCPT DATE REQUEST A134 07/29/13 APPEAL OF SP137 V124 10/15/12 VARIANCE TO THE FRONT SETBACK SP1119 11/28/11 SITE PLAN FOR MODULAR BUILDING FOR OFFICE/DISPATCH CENTER TU0918 08/04/09 TEMPORARY USE FOR SIX AIRCRAFT HANGARS SP0925 07/27/09 SITE PLAN FOR 6 NEW HANGARS AT BEND AIRPORT. SOP072 08/17/07 NOISE PERMIT FOR BEND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT CU0767 07/03/07 CUP FOR AVIATION RELATED BUSINESS SOP071 06/18/07 NOISE PERMIT S078 06/11/07 SIGN PERMIT (GROUND MOUNTED) FOR THE BEND AIRPORT S071 01/16/07 SIGN PERMIT FOR CAFE AT THE BEND AIRPORT I I DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 117 NW LAFAYETTE BEND, OREGON 97701 (541) 388-6575 * * RECEIPT * RECEIPT * RECEIPT * RECEIPT * RECEIPT * RECEIPT * RECEIPT * * RECEIPT# 476926 BATCH 6857 INIT WWG 13:27:43 12 MAY 2014 Page 1 TRANSIT# A142 Taxmap# 17-13-2000 200 Serial# 151469 Situs: 63132 POWELL BUTTE HWY,BE DESCRIPTION FEE PLANNING FEE 2801.00 CHECK NUMBER 14966 AMOUNT APPLIED 2801.00 PROFESSIONAL AIR TaTAr. AMOUNT RECEIVED 2801. 00 This is a receipt and does NOT constitute a permit or license Community Development Department PlanninIJDMsion Building Safety DM.Jon =nvirom".ntal Solis Division P.O. Box 6005 117 MN Lafayette AVenue Bend, Oregpn 97708-6005 (S41)388~6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.iJs/cdd/ APPEAL APPLICA TION FEE: $2 / 801 EVERY NOTICE OF APPEAL SHALL INCLUDE: 1. A statement describing the specific reasons for the appeal. 2. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body, a request for review by the Board stating the reasons the Board should review the lower decision. 3. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body and de novo review is desired, a request for de novo review by the Board, stating the reasons the Board should provide the de novo review as provided in Section 22.32.027 of Title 22. 4. If color exhibits are submitted, black and white copies with captions or shading delineating the color areas shall also be provided. It is the responsibility of the appellant to complete a Notice of Appeal as set forth in Chapter 22.32 of the County Code. The Notice of Appeal on the reverse side of this form must include the items listed above. Failure to complete all of the above may render an appeal invalid. Any additional comments should be included on the Notice of Appeal. Staff cannot advise a potential appellant as to whether the appellant Is eligible to file an appeal (DCC Section 22.32.010) or whether an appeal is valid. Appellants should seek their own legal advice concerning those Issues. Michael H. McGeanl Francis Hansen & Martin LLP obo Appellant'sName(print):The Flight Shop & Aero Facilities Phone:Q±Jj389-5010 Mailing Address: 1148 NW Hill Street City/StateJZip: Bend 1 OR 97701 Land Use Application Being Appealed: File No. SP-13-71 Leading Edge Aviation Properly Desaiption: Town.~13 Section . ...:2=...;0:.-_ Tax Lot 2 ° ° Appellant's Signature: ......, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 22.32.024, APPELLANT SHALL PROVIDE A COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT OF ANY HEARING APPEALED, FROM RECORDED MAGNETIC TAPES PROVIDED BY THE PLANNING DMSION UPON REQUEST (THERE IS A $5.00 FEE FOR EACH MAGNETIC TAPE RECORD). APPELLANT SHALL SUBMIT THE TRANSCRIPT TO THE PLANNING DMSION NO LATER THAN THE CLOSE OF THE DAY FIVE (5) DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE SET FOR THE DE NOVO HEARING OR, FOR ON-THE-RECORD APPEALS, THE DATE SET FOR RECEIPT OF WRITTEN RECORDS. I t (over) 3/13 f I [ Statement on Appeal by Opponents The Flight Shop Inc. and Aero Facilities LLC (collectively "Appellants") of Decision of Deschutes County Hearings Officer on Remanded Application A-13-4 and SP-13-7, Leading Edge Aviation Inc. 1. Standing. Appellants have standing to appeal because they are an interested party, and filed comments and appeared in proceedings on the Application with the Planning Division. 2. Statement of Issue. Appellants COl rtelld tllat tile Hear il19 Officer Decision dated April 30, 2014 is in error for each and all of the following grounds: a. By finding that the Bend Municipal Airport AMP does not include any standards and criteria applicable to the Applicant's site plan; b. By finding that the AMP does not preclude approval of the Applicant's fueling station on the subject property; c. By concluding that policy 16.2(h) of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and TSP should be interpreted to not prohibit development except as specifically designated on the Airport Layout Plan (Hearings Officer Decision on Remand, p. 14); d. By finding that Deschutes County has revised, or has approved revisions, of the Airport Layout Plan several times since the 2002 version in order to reflect actual development at the Airport, most recently in 2013 with the addition of the Applicant's fueling station on the subject property (Decision on Remand at p. 14); e. By concluding to not consider the Airport Development Zone Purpose Statement (DCC 18.76.010) in connection with the issues on remand, including whether the AMP or any of its contents must be applied as an approval criterion because of the purpose statement; and f. By finding that the "AMP and ALP are intended to describe recommended airport developments to meet identified needs and to accommodate development that may not have been foreseen at the time the update was adopted" (Decision on Remand at p. 16). Page 1 of2 STATEMENT ON APPEAL 3. Request for Review. For the foregoing reasons, The Flight Shop, Inc. and Aero Facilities, LLC therefore request review by the Board of County Commissioners. Appellants request de novo review by the Board because the matter requires the interpretation of a significant policy issue and the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance. Dated this 12th day of May 2014. FRANCIS HANSEN &MARTIN LLP Martin E. Hansen, aSB #800526 Michael H. McGean OSB #004734 Attorneys for The Flight Shop, Inc. & Pro Air, LLC Page 2 of 2 STATEMENT ON APPEAL REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL For Recording Stamp Only BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Order Accepting Review of Hearings Officer's * Decision in File No. SP-13-7 (A-14-2, A-13-4) * ORDER NO. 2014-015 and Ordering the Review be on the Record. * WHEREAS, Appellant, The Flight Shop and Aero Facilities, appealed the Hearings Officer's decision in application number SP-13-7; and WHEREAS, Section 22.32.027 of the Deschutes County Code allows the Board of County Commissioners (Board) discretion on whether to hear appeals of Hearings Officer's decisions; and WHEREAS, the Board has given due consideration as to whether to review this application on appeal; now, therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, HEREBY ORDERS as follows: Section l. The Board will hear the appeal for application number SP-13-7 (A-14-2, A-13-4) pursuant to Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code and other applicable provisions of the County land use ordinances. Section 2. The appeal shall be on the record pursuant to DCC 22.32.030(E) that allows for written arguments from the parties based upon the record developed below but no new evidence and no "oral evidence, argument or comment other than staff comment." Section 3. The deadline for submittal of written arguments shall be: June 18,2014 -written arguments from all parties; July 2,2014 -rebuttal arguments from the applicant. /1/ Page 1 of2-ORDER NO. 2014-015 Section 4. Staff shall mail notice to persons or parties entitled to notice pursuant to DCC 22.32.030(A) no later than May 21, 2014. Dated this ___of _____" 2014 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON TAMMY BANEY, Chair ATTEST: ANTHONY DEBONE, Vice Chair Recording Secretary ALAN UNGER, Commissioner Page 2 of2-ORDER NO. 2014-015 REVIEWED --~~~---- LEGAL COUNSEL For Recording Stamp Only BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Order Accepting Review of Hearings Officer's * Decision in File No. SP-13-7 (A-14-2, A-13-4). * ORDER NO. 2014-015 WHEREAS, Appellant, The Flight Shop and Aero Facilities, appealed the Hearings Officer's decision in application number SP-13-7; and WHEREAS, Section 22.32.027 of the Deschutes County Code allows the Board of County Commissioners (Board) discretion on whether to hear appeals of Hearings Officer's decisions; and WHEREAS, the Board has given due consideration as to whether to review this application on appeal; now, therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, HEREBY ORDERS as follows: Sectio!Ll. The Board will hear the appeal for application number SP-13-7 (A-14-2, A-13-4) pursuant to Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code and other applicable provisions of the County land use ordinances. Section 2. The appeal shall be heard de novo. Section 3. Staff shall set a hearing date and cause notice to be given to persons or parties entitled to notice pursuant to DCC 22.32.030. Dated this ___of _____., 2014 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON TAMMY BANEY, Chair ANTHONY DEBONE, Vice Chair ATTEST: Recording Secretary ALAN UNGER, Commissioner I I PAGE 1 OF I-ORDER No. 2014-015 1 M E M O R A N D U M Date: 05/14/2014 To: Board of County Commissioners From: Code Enforcement Staff – John Griley, Tim Grundeman; Lori Furlong - Supervisor RE: Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual Update ______________________________________________________________________________________ Summary Community Development Department (CDD) Staff met with the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) in March 2013 to discuss the Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual (Manual) and to seek direction on the BOCC review process. The manual had not been formally reviewed or amended since 1997. The CDD Work Plan includes an action item, carried over from previous years, to update the Manual. Last year, the BOCC directed staff to perform the following tasks in the sequence listed: 1. Complete the internal review and prepare a draft Manual update; 2. Conduct a BOCC work session to present and discuss the draft Manual update; 3. Conduct a BOCC public hearing on the draft Manual update; and 4. BOCC adoption of the Manual Update as proposed or modified by the BOCC following public comment/testimony. The CDD Code Enforcement team (CDD staff, Sheriff’s Office, Legal Dept.) has coordinated to prepare the draft Manual Update for the BOCC’s consideration. Staff has also surveyed other Oregon Jurisdictions for base level understanding of how our procedures are similar or differ. Staff seeks BOCC direction on whether to: 1. Initiate a public hearing on the draft Manual update as proposed by staff or modif ied by the BOCC at this work session; or 2. Revise the draft Manual update per BOCC direction at this meeting and schedule a follow-up work session prior to initiating a public hearing. Background Please find in the attached presentation a Code Enforcement program performance report. The report includes workload trends, case resolution and compliance rates. Highlights from the report are: New reported violations have normalized since a dip experienced in the past recession. Staff continues with a proactive Code Enforcement program. Case resolution timeframes continue to improve. Voluntary compliance continues near 85% of all cases, up from a historic average of about 75%. Update Highlights Please find attached the draft Manual update. An explanation of the draft changes is included in the attached slide presentation. The draft incorporates changes reflective of current practice s. Side by side comparison of changes is possible by viewing the existing procedures manual available on the County Website (see http://www.deschutes.org/Community-Development/Property-Violations-Code- Enforcement.aspx ). Changes can be summarized as: Updates reflective of current practice or operational environment. Update reflective of current procedural law. Updates to eliminate redundancy if procedures are addressed in other County policy. Updates reflective of pending text amendments. Policy & Practices Discussion Items Please find below a list of the key code enforcement policies and practices identified by staff and raised by the public over the past several years. This is likely only a partial list. Other issues may be identified by the BOCC and the public. Should Code Enforcement accept anonymous complaints? (Matrix #1) Should CDD staff initiate cases based on observation of a code violation discovered while on County business? (Matrix #1) Should complainant information be more (or less) rigorously protected? (Matrix #1) Should confidentiality policy be amended to encourage disclosure or identification of complainant when the complainant is the County or other public agency? (Matrix #1) Should the frequency of citation issuance be increased in cases of willful disregard for the code? Should other punitive measures be taken to decrease the frequency of blatant code violations? (Matrix #2) Should a timeline for compliance be developed? (Matrix #2) Should fines be progressive? Should fines differ based on severity or degre e of issue? (Matrix #3) Should the potential to restrict development permits on properties with pending code violation cases be retained in the manual? (Matrix #3) BOCC Direction Staff seeks direction on next steps: 1. Initiate a public hearing on the draft Manual update as proposed by staff or modified by the BOCC at this work session; or 2. Revise the draft Manual update per BOCC direction at this meeting and schedule a follow-up work session prior to initiating a public hearing. 1 Code Enforcement Procedures Manual Review May 19, 2014 2 Year 2013 Code Enforcement Activity and Efficiency Report Case Initiation Summary Cases Opened New Proactive Cases Total New Cases Percent Change Over Previous Year 2011 181 7 188 (16%) 2012 252 24 276 47% 2013 241 13 254 (8%) 3 Case Turnaround Total Cases Closed 30 Days 60 Days 180 Days 360 Days 2011 197 10% 22% 50% 77% 2012 257 13% 26% 62% 77% 2013 264 8% 21% 64% 86% 4 Compliance Voluntary Warning Citation Injunction 2011 85% 11% 4% <1% 2012 85% 10% 5% <1% 2013 84% 13% 3% <1% 5 March 13, 2013 BOCC Work Session (Summary) Staff to return after internal review. Proposed areas for review (post staff review): 1. Complaint Policy (anonymous complaints, confidentiality). 2. Voluntary Compliance/ Timelines for Compliance 3. Penalty and Fines 6 UPDATE CODE ENFORCEMENT POLICY AND PROCEDURES MANUAL 7 What We’ve Changed … •Updates to reflect current practice or current operational environment (e.g. updates to sequence and levels of enforcement; removed procedure for working off fine, publication of citations, etc.) •Updates to reflect procedural law (e.g. removed text on warrants and bail. ) 8 What We’ve Changed (cont.) •Removed sections on stop work orders, financial hardship, file maintenance, restrictions on permits for accessory structures, media contact. •Stop work orders are a function of the Building Official. When utilized the Building Official coordinates with CE in resolution. •The County has an existing policy on financial hardship/ fee waiver. •The County has an existing policy on file maintenance. •County zoning code contains restrictions on development permits for accessory structures on undeveloped property. •Media Contact section removed. Procedures are currently addressed in County communications procedures. 9 What We’ve Changed (cont.) •Modification of procedure related to injunction. This change updates manual to reflect a DCC 1.16.040 text amendment approved by ordinance in 2013. 10 What Remains … •The most often identified policy concerns 11 Matrix Topic #1 Complaint Policy County Initiation vs. Citizen Complaint Initiation Anonymous Complaints File Confidentiality Proposed change for public sector or County initiated complaints (not confidential) 12 Matrix Topic #2 Voluntary Compliance/ Timelines for Compliance Voluntary Compliance vs. Enforcement Action Emphasis Discretionary vs. Defined Timelines 13 Matrix Topic #3 Penalty and Fines Restricting Development permits 14 Where to from here … 15 BOCC Direction Initiate a public hearing on the draft CE Policy & Procedures Manual update as proposed or modified by the BOCC OR Revise the Manual update based on BOCC direction and conduct a work session before initiating a public hearing 16 Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual Update, 5/19/2014 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT POLICY AND PROCEDURES MANUAL UPDATE MATRIX TOPIC #1 Policy Issue Existing Procedures Other Jurisdictions Staff Recommendation BOCC Options Complaint Policy Origin of Complaints County initiation vs. citizen complaint initiation Anonymous Complaints Should CDD accept anonymous complaints? Confidentiality Policy Should file information be made available to the public before a case is closed? Primarily Complaint Driven – 95% of cases are complaint based – 5% originate from proactive CE reviews CDD does not currently accept anonymous complaints (except in matters of public health and safety). CE files are confidential until case is closed, unless otherwise released under citation discovery. One variation to this policy might be to make public County/public sector initiated complaints, but preserve the confidentiality of privately- initiated complaints until the case is resolved/closed. Case file is scanned and available via County website once the case is resolved. (CDD receives few requests for a copy of complaint after the case is closed.) All Prioritize Complaint Based Enforcement How we differ… • Some allow staff initiated investigation. • Some allow anonymous complaints. • Some jurisdictions minimize complaint focus by separating complaint from investigation (e.g. complaint is not part of the case record). • File confidentiality varies. Some jurisdictions release current investigation files upon records request. • Some jurisdictions protect confidentiality more rigorously (e.g. release by court order only). The core policy issue is whether CDD accepts anonymous complaints. Staff suggests that complaint based code enforcement reflects public priority. There is also inherent objectivity in complaint based enforcement. The question then becomes the extent to which files should be kept confidential. • Continue with existing practice & procedure with respect to privately initiated complaints • Consider expanding criteria for when anonymous complaints might be accepted • Make public County/public sector initiated complaints immediately Citizen driven investigation necessitating some level of file confidentiality or Staff initiated investigation or Somewhere in between and Should confidentiality policy be amended to encourage disclosure or identification of complainant when the complainant is the County or other public agency? Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual Update, 5/19/2014 2 CODE ENFORCEMENT POLICY AND PROCEDURES MANUAL UPDATE MATRIX TOPIC #2 Policy Issue Existing Procedures Other Jurisdictions Staff Recommendation BOCC Options Voluntary Compliance Voluntary Compliance vs. Enforcement Action Emphasis Timelines for Compliance Discretionary vs. Defined timelines Objective is voluntary compliance. Flexibility with time, not with Code. Citations utilized when violations not corrected within a reasonable time. Injunction as a last resort. How we differ… Not significantly • Voluntary Compliance is a universal objective. • Most jurisdictions exercise discretion on time allowed. Public health and safety is the guiding factor in determining time frames. [One of six surveyed (Redmond) has a specified timeline (goal) for compliance]. Voluntary Compliance is the norm. Enforcement action (i.e. citation) does not necessarily prompt quicker resolution and is generally costlier for all. It also does not guarantee fine imposition. Ultimately, enforcement action is sometimes necessary and must be effective when indicated. Despite best intentions, resolution time frames vary. Circumstances faced by owner are a key factor. • Continue existing procedure with respect to compliance • Develop procedure for implementation of fines when indicated • Incorporate more rigorous analysis of statistics on resolution timeframes to ensure staff efficiency Carrot or Stick and How to limit the number of carrots? Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual Update, 5/19/2014 3 CODE ENFORCEMENT POLICY AND PROCEDURES MANUAL UPDATE MATRIX TOPIC #3 Policy Issue Existing Procedures Other Jurisdictions Staff Recommendation BOCC Options Penalties and Fines Citations used as compliance tool. Court rarely imposes fines. County presently amending fine schedule/procedure to reflect State rules. Fines for building code violations not to exceed $1,000/day. Fines for all other violations up to $2,000/day. How we differ… • Others per day penalty on initial violation are mostly less than that allowed under State rules (OARs). • Some have specific policy for fines on repeat violation. Some amass multi- day penalties. Others take a progressive approach where continuing violations prompt greater penalty. Staff recommends group discussion. Status quo or Penalty based on severity and whether violation impacts public health and safety. Additionally, Should fine schedule be progressive? Restrictions on Development Permits The existing manual provides for future restriction on development permits on properties with pending code violations (See section XI.I). Implementation of this policy would require a code change. How we differ… • Some jurisdictions have implemented this policy. Staff recommends group discussion. Should the potential to restrict development permits on properties with pending code violation cases be retained in the manual?