1. law, govt and politics
2. legal issues
3. legislation

Devils Lake Water Improvement District
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
3788 SE High School Drive ● Post Office Box 974
Lincoln City, Oregon 97367
(541) 994-5330 ● FAX (541) 994-6040
[email protected]
www.DLWID.org
Fiscal Year 2015-2016
BUDGET
Budget Committee Recommendation
Budget Available --- May 8, 2015
Budget Committee Meeting --- May 15, 2015
Budget Hearing --- June 11, 2015
NOTE:
PAUL ROBERTSON
BUDGET OFFICER
[email protected]
This is the Budget Recommendation as provided
by the Budget Committee. It is inherently
incomplete as it is just the second step in the
budget process. This budget has been reviewed by
the Budget Committee and is offered to the
governing body, The Board of Directors, for
approval. The Final Budget will replace all
previous versions and will include all appendices
and completed worksheets.
Table of Contents
BUDGET NARRATIVE
Budget Committee Members……………………………… 2
Budget Calendar…………………………………………… 3
Budget Message……………………………………………
4
General Fund……………………………………………… 10
Reserve Fund……………………………………………… 22
WORKSHEETS
LB 1 --- Notice of Budget Hearing
LB 11 --- Reserve Fund: The Improvement Fund
LB 20 --- General Fund Resources
LB 30 --- General Fund Requirements
LB 31 --- General Fund Detailed Expenditures
LB 50 --- Notice of Property Tax Inside Watershed
LB 50 --- Notice of Property Tax Outside Watershed
APPENDICES
Detailed Budget Overview General Fund ……………… A
Detailed Budget Overview Improvement Fund ………… B
Resolution Adopting the Budget…………………………… C
Resolution Levying Ad Valorem Taxes…………………… D
Resolution Making Appropriations……………………… .. E
Copies of Notices………………………………………… … F
-1-
Devils Lake Water Improvement District
2015-2016
Budget Committee
MEMBER
POSITION
TERM
Brian Green
David Skirvin
Kent Norris
Randy Weldon
Kip Ward
Susan Wahlke
Ed Willette
Robert Landhuis
Douglas Holbrook
Mitchell Moore
Board Chair
Board Vice Chair
Secretary/Treasurer
Board Member
Board Member
Position 1
Position 2
Position 3
Position 4
Position 5
Board Term
Board Term
Board Term
Board Term
Board Term
December 31, 2016
December 31, 2015
December 31, 2016
December 31, 2016
December 31, 2015
Budget Officer
Paul Robertson
Budget Committee Recommendation
Proposed: 2015-05-15
-2-
Devils Lake Water Improvement District
2015-2016
Budget Calendar
January 8
Appoint Budget Officer (ORS 294.331)
January 8
Establish Budget Calendar
February 12
Appoint Budget Committee (ORS 294.336)
January - April
Budget Officer Prepares Budget (ORS 294.331)
April 22
Publish Budget Committee Meeting Notice
(ORS 294.401)
April 22
Web Posting Budget Committee Meeting Notice
(ORS 294.401)
May 8
Proposed Budget Available (ORS 294.401 (6), (8))
May 15
Budget Committee Meets (ORS 294.401)
May 15
Budget Committee Approves Budget (ORS 294.40(6))
May 27
Publish Budget Summary & Hearing Notice (ORS 294.416)
June 11
Budget Hearing Held (ORS 294.430)
June 11
Budget Adopted, Appropriations Made, Taxes Declared
and Categorized (ORS 294.435)
July 15
Taxes Submitted to County Assessor:
2 Copies of LB-50, 2 copies of Resolutions (ORS 294.555)
September 30
Copy of Budget Sent to County Clerk (ORS 310.060 (7))
Budget Committee Recommendation
Proposed: 2015-05-15
-3-
Budget Message
The Devils Lake Water Improvement District was established in 1984 for the “restoration,
maintenance, and enhancement of Devils Lake”. In 1988 property owners in the watershed
voted to financially support the District with a permanent tax base. This ongoing support is
budgeted each year to accomplish specific objectives that seek to meet the overriding mission of
the District listed below:







Improve and maintain the water quality in Devils Lake.
Improve the environment for fish, wildlife, and humans in Devils Lake and its watershed.
Improve recreational opportunities in and on Devils Lake.
Improve and maintain safe and efficient navigation through Devils Lake.
Increase public access to Devils Lake.
Improve the economy of north Lincoln County through the restoration and maintenance
of Devils Lake.
Increase public awareness and public education of Devils Lake.
Major Variances from the Previous Year Budget and with the Upcoming Year
In the last fiscal year the District determined that Aeration-Oxidation is the best project to
proceed with to reduce Harmful Algal Blooms in Devils Lake. In the last budget cycle this
determination was just being evaluated, and thus the budget called for an open-ended approach
for Harmful Algal Bloom reductions. This current budget then simply directs funds towards the
aeration-oxidation project, removing the uncertainty. This budget also sets aside resources for
the replacement of the impoundment structure, otherwise known as the dam. Other projects that
were in the last year’s budget such as Lake Monitoring and Modeling, Recreation and Sewer
have been modified as needs have changed, or in some cases have had funds directed at the
primary focus for the District being Aeration-Oxidation to reduce Harmful Algal Blooms.
Budget Priorities for FY 2015-2016 and summary of recent activities
Harmful Algal Bloom reduction is the primary focus for the District. Having vetted multiple
biological, chemical, and/or physical control methods the District settled on and is developing an
aeration-oxidation project for Devils Lake. This will be the focus for the District throughout the
budget cycle. Currently the District is seeking a contract for the Engineering Plan and General
Report which once developed will lead to a request for bids for the actual construction of the
project. As such there is a need for consulting, contracting, and significant capital improvements
which are associated with the project.
The District will also continue to work on many of the goals it set in previous years although
with a lesser focus given the significant financial and staff resources necessary for the aerationoxidation project. These goals were supported by a wide constituent of stakeholders in both
2012 and 2013. This included a survey based on the Devils Lake Plan with which 190 responses
were received showing support for the various facets of the Devils Lake Plan as adopted in 2011.
Budget Committee Recommendation
Proposed: 2015-05-15
-4-
The District has thus previously set itself these seven additional priorities beyond the primary
focus of aeration-oxidation for limiting Harmful Algal Blooms as listed below. Most of these
additional priorities are reformulations or near direct continuances of previous goals established
in 2010. Brief summaries and progress reports have been provided.
1. Develop and implement a strategy for aquatic vegetation management and control.
2. Forward the septic tank revitalization program by passing a mandatory inspection
ordinance.
3. Implement new technology for sewering the lake through the LID process.
4. Increase District’s time spent on the lake to promote communication to stakeholders.
5. Determine and control the sources of E. coli on Thompson Creek and the D River.
6. Promote Devils Lake as a recreational opportunity.
7. Continue efforts to protect and rehabilitate the shoreline vegetation.
Priority # 1 deals with the founding element of the District that being vegetation management.
As such the District between 2009 and 2011 developed and has begun implementing the Devils
Lake Plan which specifically calls for vegetation management through the use of sterile grass
carp. In 2013 the District filed its formal petition for a rule change, and made a public plea
during the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Commission’s October 2013 meeting. The
District has since been working with ODFW staff and our consultant to clarify information that
has been requested and participated in some grass carp sampling last summer. That analysis
established the Grass Carp in Devils Lake as some of the oldest, if not the oldest, grass carp in
North America. This was an important finding as it reflects that the fish that are present in
Devils Lake are from one of the legal stocking in 1986, 1987, or 1993. At this point the District
is waiting for an opportunity to have its case reintroduced to the Oregon Fish and Wildlife
Commission.
Priority #2, seeks to create a mandatory septic inspection program. The District has been a solid
advocate and partner with the City, but must rely on our partner’s jurisdiction for implementation
of the project. In August 2013, the City Council directed staff to develop such a program, but
this still unfortunately languishes. The City has under gone significant transition in staff and
council, and thus a new emphasis must be concerted. Progress though in 2014-2015 in the
complementary objective of providing sewer around the lake were significant and are discussed
below.
The District’s Priority #3 of implementing new technology for sewers through the development
of Local Improvement Districts (LID) is a progression from the previous goal related to
sewering. Following the advancement on an initial LID independently spearheaded by DLWID
Chair Brian Green in his neighborhood, the District seeks to promote the replication in other
suitable areas. This “Voyage-Lake” Local Improvement District recently got forwarded by the
City Council and thus is on the verge of actually becoming a reality. Also developed through
this process is the prospects of an ordinance to allow for reimbursement districts which can
accompany these improvements. Funding opportunities have also been developed making the
Local Improvement District process a better alternative to sewering the lake than ever before.
In April 2014 the City and the District met with federal and state agencies in a “One Stop
Financing” meeting in Salem. At the meeting financing options were explored including grant
funding in excess of $1,000,000 for the sewer backbone proposed for the watershed. At the
meeting the funding entities requested two items as part of any formal applications. The City
took immediate action to address these issues by funding, soliciting bids for, and is nearing
Budget Committee Recommendation
Proposed: 2015-05-15
-5-
receipt of the completed Sewer Master Plan update and environmental review of the low pressure
technology to be used. The District had set aside funds for the assistance of the environmental
review, which as were not required are not thus carried forth in this upcoming budget. Other
work relevant to sewers continues to include the development of an Urban Growth Management
Agreement between the City and the County aimed to provide for sensible growth in the
watershed that protects the lake from development. Additionally the City is embarking on its
Comprehensive Plan review which it is anticipated the District will serve a stakeholder role in.
As to Priority #4, communications efforts continued to be expanded well beyond, but inclusive
of the lakefront property owners. The District continues to hold its meetings at Lincoln City’s
Council Chambers, which are broadcast on Channel 4 on the Charter Cable system and streamed
live over the internet. Minutes for the meetings continue to highlight breaks in agenda items
which then allow internet replays to be cued up at specific items of interest to the viewers,
skipping over other parts of the meeting. Outside of the meetings, the District held its fifth
Devils Lake Revival last summer with again hundreds of attendees. Other ongoing Outreach
and Education included a booth at the Senior Fair and the Know Your Lake Articles published in
the News Guard. Digitally, the District also continued its use of its online listserv providing
summertime weekly water quality updates, monthly meeting announcements, and issuance of the
District’s quarterly e-Newsletter, Clearwater.
For Priority #5, the District in August 2010 took the first steps in identifying the sources of the
bacteria in Thompson Creek. In its DNA based sampling and analysis, canines were determined
to be a known source of fecal contamination in the drier, late summer months. Resumption of
this program in late 2012 provided additional sampling which was expanded to include the D
River. Avian sources were decisively shown to be present at this location. Thompson Creek
data showed the presence of human, avian, and equine derived bacteria. Our Bacteria Source
Tracking program has been used as a model by Oregon Department of Environmental Quality in
assisting other similar groups interested in cataloguing the bacterial sources in their watershed.
Priority #6 of promoting Devils Lake as a recreational opportunity continues to grow in strength.
In 2014 with support from the District, ODFW held its first annual Devils Lake Family Fishing
Frenzy at Regatta Grounds which in 2015 returned to even larger numbers. The Devils Lake
Dash also returned this year. The Devils Lake Revival plays an important role in promoting the
lake as does the District’s partnership with the TigerShark Surf Club whose primary founders
Keith Galbraith and Skye Anderson were honored by the District as the 2015 Lake Stewards.
One potential and simple role the District could play in promoting Devils Lake to the world in
the future might be support for renaming our 50 year old city to a name that recognizes the
natural resources which brought many people here originally, settling in villages such as
Oceanlake, DeLake or Neotsu.
For Priority #7 the District continues to partner and cost share with landowners and landscapers
for shoreline restoration, and the District continues to provide site visits and materials. In the
fall of 2014, the District embarked on a door to door outreach campaign for our Save our
Shorelines or SOS program. Hundreds of lakefront properties were visited. The District
provided handouts and free shoreline plants to those at home and left door knockers explaining
the program to those who were not. Excess plants were provided to several interested parties and
supporting multiple projects formally and informally involved in the program. The SOS
program as a whole was also streamlined with improved agreement forms making it simpler for
all parties. In 2015 as part of a larger restoration effort associated with reducing shoreline
Budget Committee Recommendation
Proposed: 2015-05-15
-6-
erosion, reducing Harmful Algal Blooms, and improving fish passage, the District took steps to
permanently reduce the maximum lake impoundment and window of impoundment to provide better
protection for wetland and riparian plants and their recruitment. This formalized the District’s policy
from 2012 for lake impoundment.
Other projects outside of these Top 7 priorities were also addressed in the most recent year. Most
prominently, the District as stipulated previously embarked on assessing strategies for Harmful Algal
Bloom reductions. As part of that the District developed and solicited responses to a request for
proposals for a Modeling and Monitoring Program. Given the cost associated with the responses
received, the District opted to forgo the project in favor of moving forward on the aeration-oxidation
project mentioned previously. To that end the District developed a request for qualifications for an
Engineering and General Report for Aeration-Oxidation. Having received substantial interest in the
project, but no formal submittals the District is now developing a direct appointment for the
engineering as allowed by state statute. Work now and in 2015-2016 will continue on this most
important project for Harmful Algal Bloom reduction.
The District also embarked on other new projects. The District constructed the first Life Jacket
Loaner Station on Devils Lake at Regatta Grounds. This safety and education project provides the
simplest and most cost effective means to prevent accidental drowning directly to users of the lake.
Also in the last year, the District has investigated the prospects of replacing the dam in favor of a
truly temporary summertime impoundment structure. An engineering firm was retained for
consultation and two hydrologists were solicited to provide input into the prospective project. The
District also met with numerous federal and state agencies in a pre-application meeting on the project
and continues to develop the project.
The District also continues to contribute to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality led
development of the Implementation Ready TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) for the Mid Coast.
This stakeholder influenced processed will ultimately provide methods and guidance for removing
impaired waterbodies in the Mid Coast watershed from the federal 303 d list. Devils Lake, Thompson
Creek, and recently the ocean beaches in front of the D River are all currently listed. The District
serves on the Bacterial Technical Working Group of the TMDL as well as sits on the larger
stakeholder group.
Additionally, the District again provided and benefited from a summer internship. This year’s intern
served additional time into December, spearheading the outreach efforts associated with the SOS
program, developed a safety manual, and updated sampling and analysis protocols.
The District also in 2014-2015 has been partnering on fish passage. The District having been part of
the investigation of fish extent and fish barrier assessment in early 2014 on Thompson Creek has
followed up on that work supporting culvert replacement projects on that system. Most notably in
2014-2015 though was the partnering with an upland landowner on Neotsu Creek which amounted to
the first documentation of the presence of threatened Coho salmon in that system. Subsequent to that
first documentation, the District has been leading restoration efforts with the land owner and Lincoln
County Road Department to improve the fish passage through that system, while allowing restoration
associated with healthy beaver management.
Finally, a list of other additional programs and activities the District maintains are presented
alphabetically by subject heading below. Projects include ongoing water quality programs, lake level
management, and additional outreach. The budget that follows seeks to address the economic needs
of all of these programs, but with a focus on aeration–oxidation to reduce Harmful Algal Blooms as
noted initially.
Budget Committee Recommendation
Proposed: 2015-05-15
-7-
Ongoing Programs and Activities












Communications
o Devils Lake Radio - 1610 am
o Internet Streaming of Meetings
o Government Cable Access Channel 4
o Email Service (Listserv)
 Weekly Summertime Water Quality Updates
 Monthly Meeting Announcements and Staff Reports
 Quarterly e-Newsletter
o Radio Interviews, KBCH 1400 am
o www.DLWID.org
Conferences and Trainings: NALMS, OLA, & SDAO
Emergency Preparedness
Internship Program
Lake Level Management
o D River dam and recreational water right administration
o Emergency dredging of the D River
Outreach Programs
o Buy Local
o Devils Lake Revival
o Earth Day
o Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Seminar
o Get the Lead Out!
o Lake Steward Award
o Senior Fair
o SOLV “Down by the Lakeside”
Property and Planning Issues
o Site Plan Reviews for Developments
o Site Plan Reviews in the Natural Resource Zone
o Water Right Applications Review
o Wetland Removal & Fill Applications Review
Safety Program
Save our Shorelines (SOS)
Signage
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Stakeholder Process
Water Quality Programs
o Bacterial Source Tracking
o Chemical Parameters
o Database Maintenance
o E. coli monitoring
o Harmful Algal Bloom Surveillance
o Physical Parameters
Fiduciary Responsibility and Financial Summary in Brief
The budget process as a whole is a public one. The public is provided the opportunity and is
encouraged to provide input as laid out in the timeline that is the budget calendar. To facilitate
public involvement both the annual budget and most recent annual audit are available online at
www.DLWID.org or can be obtained directly from the District.
Budget Committee Recommendation
Proposed: 2015-05-15
-8-
The budgeting process is also by
definition an estimation, which makes it
incumbent on the budget officer and the
budget committee to adjust estimates for
both revenues and requirements
according to the best information
possible. Currently, estimating revenues
continues to be practical. Over the
decade the revenue projections and
actual revenues collected have aligned
relatively well.
In some years
projections have exceeded actual
collected, while in other years actual
revenues have slightly outpaced the
estimates (See figure, right).
General Fund: Revenues Collected, Projected & Spent
$250,000
$225,000
$200,000
$175,000
$150,000
$125,000
$100,000
Collected
$75,000
Projected
$50,000
Spent
$25,000
$0
FY 2000- FY 2001- FY 2002- FY 2003- FY 2004- FY 2005- FY 2006- FY 2007- FY 2008- FY 2009- FY 2010- FY 2011- FY 2012- FY 20132001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Expenditure of these revenues on the other hand can be quite variable. Up until the recent year,
expenditures in the General Fund had been significantly curtailed dating back to FY 2005-2006
As a result, budget surpluses have been seen in most of the budget years in the last half of the
decade. A recent trend of focused spending reversed the pattern of accumulating resources, yet
the District remains in good stead with its financial reserves and the overall unrestricted assets of
the District (See Net Assets
Net Assets
figure, left).
$600,000
These reserves have provided
the District the capacity to
$400,000
undertake larger scale projects
otherwise not afforded within
$300,000
a single fiscal year.
For
example, the District has
$200,000
taken advantage of these
$100,000
reserves recently to fund the
Shoreline Erosion Study as
$0
well as the Grass Carp
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
20002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013Consultant. Additionally, the
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
District had utilized reserve
funding to maintain a Project Manager position, which was instrumental in the creation of many
new programs in the District. As a result the District has been using up a portion of its reserves,
rendering a decline in the Net Assets in that time period. This of course was expected, given the
implementation of financial plans from previous budgets.
$500,000
Unrestricted Assets
Capital Assets
Total Net Position
Insight into the organization of the current year’s budget is as follows. The narrative of the
budget and the tables and figures are given and provide specificity and context to revenues and
expenditures. This narrative is followed by worksheets which contain comparisons of the current
proposed budget with the most recent, one as well as with two years’ worth of audited values.
These worksheets are followed by a set of detailed budgets which were used to guide the
development of the appropriations. Lastly, the final adopted budget includes copies of
publication notices and resolutions required under local budget law.
Budget Committee Recommendation
Proposed: 2015-05-15
-9-
General Fund
The General Fund is the annual operating fund for the District. In it are the resources and budget
requirements for the District in the upcoming year. Funding of the General Fund comes almost
strictly from annual tax assessments. The bulk of these ad valorem taxes are received in
November, making funding in the first half of the fiscal year dependent on savings from the
previous fiscal year. This savings account is known as the Unappropriated Ending Fund Balance
(UEFB). The UEFB is effectively the District’s revolving savings account for the General Fund.
Together then, the UEFB and current taxes levied are the primary resources available for
allocation.
Resources
Net Working Capital
23%
Current Taxes
52%
UEFB
23%
Delinquent Taxes
2%
Donations
0%
Grants
0%
Interest
0%
Requirements
Transfer to Improvement
Fund
23%
Materials & Services
31%
Contingency
0%
UEFB
23%
Personnel Services
19%
Capital Outlay
0%
Debt Service
4%
Budget Committee Recommendation
Proposed: 2015-05-15
- 10 -
Other resources available
include the Net Working
Capital, delinquent taxes,
interest,
grants,
and
donations. These are listed in
detail
on
the
LB-20
worksheet, presented in the
pie chart of Resources, and
are summarized in Table 1.
Requirements,
or
expenditures, in the General
Fund are costs associated
with the annual operations of
the District. They include
Materials
and
Services,
Personnel Services, Capital
Outlay,
Debt
Service,
Transfers to Reserve, the
restoration of the UEFB for
the following fiscal year, as
well as Contingency.
In alignment with a 2006
board directive the budget for
the General Fund must not
exceed the current year’s
resources,
and
unspent
monies are to be transferred
into a special reserve fund
called the Improvement
Fund. This fund is presented
separately later in this
budget.
General Fund Resources (LB-20)
The Great Recession while affecting many federal, state and county governments, the
establishment of Measures 5 and 50 at the state level in the 1990’s has provided for modest, yet
generally sustained growth opportunities for districts like the Devils Lake Water Improvement
District who are more or less strictly reliant on property tax revenues. A detailed explanation is
provided in the sidebar. The District has in fact continued to grow during all but one year during
the recession and recovery. Audited
financial records show a 4.2% average Measures 5 & 50: The Oregon Constitution limits how
property taxes are assessed.
The limit is based on a
annual increase in the tax base over the property's Maximum Assessed Value or MAV. The values
last 14 years. Growth though did slow were established for all property in FY 1997-98. Increases to
appreciable in 2013-2014 with only a the MAV are allowed, however they are limited (with few
0.8% increase in the taxes received from exceptions for qualified improvements) to no more than 3% a
the prior year.
Economic indicators year. Real Market Values (RMV) since the restriction have
outpaced this modest, regulated 3% growth, and as a
continue to improve however, in largely
result a large gap between the RMV and MAV has been
particular the Lincoln County Assessor’s created. Each year the MAV and RAV for each property are
office anticipates the first increase in figured. The property is then taxed on the lesser value, which
real market values since the onset of the is called the taxable assessed value.
real estate market decline. This should
provide additional confidence that the In 2014 residential properties Maximum Assessed Values, and
thus the taxable assessed values, were approximately 87% of
District can expect sustained funding the Real Market Values on average. For commercial and
through this fiscal year and likely well industrial properties the most recent values were also 87%.
into the future. This is further addressed In 2015 the total market value in the Lincoln City area is
in the section on the long-term financial projected to be up 5% from the previous year, while the
assessed was up 2.4% in the last period and would be capped
outlook below and the sidebar.
Resources in the General Fund are
primarily from taxes assessed in the
Current Year and the revolving savings
account, the UEFB. These resources are
estimated to be $230,725 and $100,000
respectively and are presented along
with other resources in Table 1. The Net
Working Capital, also shown in Table 1
is the sum of the monies currently in the
LGIP (Local Government Investment
Pool) General Fund bank account,
monies in the District’s local bank
accounts, anticipated revenues by June
30, 2015, less anticipated expenditures
expected by fiscal year end. These
ongoing resources and requirements for
the District are estimated and
summarized in Tables 2 and 3,
respectively. In total then, the Net
Working Capital is estimated to be
$102,421 all of which will be transferred
to reserve.
at 3%. Thus the Real to Assessed values are diverging for the
first time since the real estate crash in 2008. Maximum
Assessed Values also remained significantly less than market
values for most properties as only 24.6%, 26.0%, and 26.0% of
residential, commercial, and
industrial properties,
respectively were assessed at their Real Market values in the
Devils Lake Water Improvement District in 2014. As a result
the District can continue to expect a steady funding source
into the foreseeable future.
A second constitutional amendment, Measure 5, created
limits to the total amount a property could be taxed. At the
time of adoption, the amendment created permanent rates
for all existing taxing entities, including the Devils Lake Water
Improvement District. These permanent rates were subject
to a cumulative cap of $5 per $1,000 RMV for all local
government entities, and up to $10 per $1,000 RMV for
education. If taxes in either category exceeded the limit for a
property, the taxes would then be reduced or "compressed"
until the limit was reached. Permanent rates are insulated
from this compression to a degree, with local option taxes
being the first to be compressed. If the local option tax is
compressed to zero, and yet the limit still has not been
reached, the other taxes in the category are reduced or
compressed proportionally. Historically, compression has not
appreciably affected the resources of the District and is not
expected to change in the upcoming year.
Budget Committee Recommendation
Proposed: 2015-05-15
- 11 -
Not included in the Net Working Capital but available as an “Other Resource” is the
Unappropriated Ending Fund Balance or UEFB (LB-20, Line 6). For budgeting and clarity of
bookkeeping the UEFB has been separated out and is retained in an individual bank account at
the Oregon Treasury. At the end of FY 2010-2011, the UEFB was bolstered to $100,000 to
provide more even funding in the upcoming year. This value was retained in subsequent years as
shall it be in this budget.
The last of the anticipated resources listed on the LB-20 are Grants and Donations to the District.
Most grants are accounted for and utilized in the Special Revenue Fund, but a placeholder of $1
has been made for budgetary purposes. Similarly, donations which historically there have been
few has a one dollar placeholder as well. It is noteworthy that being a local government
donations to the District are tax deductible to the full extent of tax law, similar to a donation to a
501c3 Non-Profit.
Additional revenues are shown on the remainder of the LB-20 Worksheet. On lines 3 & 4 are
the Previously Levied Taxes, estimated to be $8,888, and Interest of $695, respectively. These
are monies expected to be recovered or received in the upcoming year, and are available for
appropriation. As to the contribution of interest to the General Fund, the LGIP interest rate has
declined significantly since a high of 5.33% in 2007 to the most recent value of 0.50%. Today’s
value remains the lowest the interest rate has been in a decade and is nearly at the theoretical
minimum, zero percent. Thus, with the optimism of interest rates not dropping any further,
0.50% has been again incorporated into this year’s budget as an average rate. The total resources
in the General Fund are then the sums of the Net Working Capital, Previously Levied Taxes,
Interest, the Unappropriated Ending Fund Balance, Grants, Donations, and the Taxes Estimated
to be Received. This currently totals $442,732 as seen in Table 1 and listed on Line 32 of the
LB-20 Worksheet.
Table 1. General Fund Total Resources
GENERAL FUND RESOURCES
(As of April 23, 2015)
LGIP General Fund Bank Account
TLC Checking Account
TLC Money Market Account
TLC Share Account Account
Anticipated Revenues
Anticipated Expenditures
92,687
30,927
3,000
6
7,777
(31,975)
Net Working Capital (Projected for June 30, 2015)
Previously Levied Taxes (Estimate)
Interest on LGIP from Levied Taxes (Estimate)
Unappropriated Ending Fund Balance (UEFB)
Grants
Donations
$102,421
8,888
695
100,000
1
1
Total Resources Except Taxes to be Levied
$212,007
Current Year Taxes Expected to be Received
TOTAL RESOURCES
$230,725
Budget Committee Recommendation
Proposed: 2015-05-15
- 12 -
$442,732
Table 2. Resources expected by end of current fiscal year
Current Year’s Taxes
Previous Year’s Taxes
LGIP Interest
Money Market Account Interest
Property Tax Interest
7,000
700
74
2
1
$7,777
Table 3. Requirements necessary through the end of current fiscal year
Personnel Services
Material & Services
Debt Service
Capital Outlay
Transfers (UEFB)
(15,148)
(16,497)
0
0
(330)
($31,975)
Summary of Taxes Estimated to be Received
The Estimated Taxes to be Received has been calculated using last year’s Total Assessed Value
of properties in the two taxing districts plus 3% to account for increase valuation. Property
values previously released from assessment from the Lincoln City Urban Renewal Agency have
also been added. These values are then multiplied by the two permanent rates held by the
District. The two taxing districts refer to properties inside the watershed which pay the “Inside”
rate and those also in the physical boundaries of the Devils Lake Water Improvement District,
but outside the watershed who pay the lesser, “Outside” rate. These tax rates are 0.2499 and
0.1280 per thousand assessed, respectively. The calculations are displayed in Table 4.
Table 4. Taxes Expected to be Received (Gross) – Includes 80% of Urban Renewal
Assessed Property Value "Inside Watershed"
Plus 3% annual accrual
Total Assessed --- Inside
Tax Rate per $1,000
Subtotal
445,308,715
13,359,261
458,667,976
0.2499
$114,621
Subtotal
972,766,868
29,183,006
1,001,949,874
0.1280
$128,250
Total Taxes Levied
$242,871
Assessed Property Value "Outside Watershed"
Plus 3% annual accrual
Total Assessed --- Outside
Tax Rate per $1,000
Budget Committee Recommendation
Proposed: 2015-05-15
- 13 -
Tax receipts in Lincoln County were collected by the treasurer’s office successfully 96% of the
time in the last year. Collections have stabilized after a dip mid-recession where approximately
8% of taxes remained uncollected. Given the variability year to year, a 5% loss from the levy
has been used in the current year resulting in net revenue of $230,725 from the current year’s
taxes (Table 5).
Table 5. Taxes Expected to be Received (Net)
Loss due to uncollected taxes (-5%)
Loss due to compression
($12,144)
(2)
Total Taxes Estimated to be Received
$230,725
Long Range Financial Outlook
Ultimately, over time what are deemed uncollected taxes are generally recovered as property
owners either get caught up on their back taxes or ownership changes and debts are recovered.
These late collections return to the District as income defined as Previously Levied Taxes or
delinquent taxes for which estimates are made each year (See figure below). Also from the
figure, it is clear that the total taxes and the current taxes both were less in 2008-2009 than in the
previous year. This was the first drop in revenue in a decade. This however was mostly due to
lower interest rates accumulating on these taxes prior to distribution. The assessed values of
properties in the District continued to increase over the same period.
Notably, as many properties did lose value in the marketplace in the Great Recession, more
properties are being assessed at, or near the Real Market Value. Should this trend continue for
all properties, the tax revenue could plateau and potentially even decrease. Realistically, this is
not expected in the near future though as most economic indicators suggest a real estate market
and economy that continues to recover, and as previously stated the Lincoln County Assessor’s
office expects a 5% increase in Real Market Values. Additionally, the overwhelming majority of
the properties in the District are
still assessed below the market
Taxes Received During Fiscal Year
rates, and thus there exists the
$225,000
prospect for consistent economic
$200,000
growth for the District.
$175,000
$150,000
$125,000
Total Taxes
$100,000
Current Year
$75,000
Delinquent
$50,000
$25,000
$0
Budget Committee Recommendation
Proposed: 2015-05-15
- 14 -
The longer range outlook for the
District also continues to be
strong.
In 1988, when the
District received its first tax base,
another taxing district of sort was
formed. The Lincoln City Urban
Renewal Agency was developed
not by creating a new taxing
district, but by using a small
fraction of the tax bases of
existing districts such as fire, water, or the municipality. Thus since the District began receiving
taxes, it has done so slightly less than what it was originally slated due to the tax sharing. In the
current year 80% of the taxable value of that tax increment retained by the Lincoln City Urban
Renewal Agency will again be returned to the District. This will continue until at the latest
2024, when then the urban renewal district will have reached its maximum collectable amount
and will then return 100% of the taxable value to the District and the other overlying taxing
districts. The 80% influx equated to about $20,000 in the first year. These dollars also are
eligible for up to 3% growth each year based on the current assessments. Overall this amounts to
an annual infusion of revenue which continues to be available to fund projects or service debt the
District may incur.
General Fund Requirements (LB-30 & LB-31)
The Requirements of the General Fund cover the annual operational needs of the District. This
is compared to the Improvement Fund, detailed further on in this budget, which is used to fund
special projects which are not reoccurring. The expenditures of the General Fund are
summarized in three parts, the LB-30 worksheet, the LB-31 worksheet, and the Detailed Budget
(Appendix A). The Detailed Budget was used as an estimating tool to generate the budget, but
does not limit the actual appropriations for the year. Appropriation limits are however
categorized and listed on the LB-30 and the LB-31.
Requirements Summary LB 30
The LB-30 combines the spending in Materials & Services (listed in detail on the LB-31
worksheet) with the other appropriations made in the General Fund, specifically, Personnel
Services, Debt Service, Capital Outlay, Transfers, and Contingency. By law these requirements
must equal the resources available. Therefore the best understanding of the District’s General
Fund is rendered by viewing the revenues highlighted in the LB-20 in conjunction with the
requirements provided in the LB-30 and LB-31. In review, for FY 2015-2016 a tax inflow of
$230,725 is expected, which with the Net Working Capital, current year interest, delinquent
taxes, and the UEFB provide $442,732 for appropriation.
PERSONNEL SERVICES
The Devils Lake Water Improvement District strives to offer fair and competitive wages and
benefit packages to attract and retain high quality employees. Personnel Services are those costs
associated with having employees in the District, past and present. Salary and benefit packages
offered by the District include health insurance, disability insurance, a wellness program, and
retirement. These together with the requisite employer costs such as worker’s compensation,
unemployment insurance, and payroll taxes make up the total appropriation in Personnel
Services. The total budgeted and thus available for the Board of Director’s contract negotiation
with their manager is $85,621, of which $66,000 has been apportioned for salary, unchanged
from last year. Health and disability insurances are not expected to increase significantly and as
the budget last year slightly overestimated the cost of these benefits, there are no proposed
changes in the upcoming budget for this appropriation.
Budget Committee Recommendation
Proposed: 2015-05-15
- 15 -
MATERIALS & SERVICES
Appropriations cover a myriad of expenses which are categorized in detail in the LB-31 and are
expounded on below in the narrative. Materials & Services will be appropriated at $138,739.
CAPITAL OUTLAY
Capital expenses in the General Fund are expected to be modest, but may include the need for
office equipment, specifically a new multi-function color laser printer/fax/scanner, which is
nearing its useful life. As a result $750 is shown, an increase from the $1 placeholder a year ago.
DEBT SERVICE
The Devils Lake Water Improvement District has no outstanding debt to service. However,
currently the District is actively pursuing an aeration-oxidation project which is a large-scale
lake wide project which may need to be financed over multiple years. Previously Debt Service
had been established to fund a permanent home for the District, which while still part of the
long-term goals of the District and is called for in the Devils Lake Plan, it has been tabled until a
more appropriate and feasible time. As for the aeration-oxidation project, while the need for
additional funding is still being determined, it is prudent and a legal requirement for the District
to provide for itself the financial tools of debt servicing should it desire to borrow funds for the
project. This budget thus acknowledges the potential for debt service and provides through the
Improvement Fund appropriations of such funds should the Board of Directors choose to incur
such debt. Notably though given the operation and maintenance expenses associated with such
a project, the monies available for debt service have been halved.
As a local government with permanent taxing authority, special discounted rates are available to
the District well below commercial lending rates. Programs such as “Oregon Special Districts
Cooperative Financing Programs” provide rates as low as 3.5%. By way of example, a 20 year
loan on a $200,000 note would be serviceable with approximately $1,160 a month or $13,920
annually. That same loan at 4% would cost the District $1,212 a month or $14,544. This
financing system is effectually unsecured, and based on the District’s capacity and commitment
to repay the loan or its full faith and credit, and not the type of capital (e.g. real estate vs.
equipment) the monies might be used to acquire. Rates and terms would be based on the useful
life of the capital and the interest rates available at time of closing.
Similarly, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund loan program though Oregon DEQ provides
low-cost loans for the planning, design and construction of various water pollution control
activities. Given the EPA 303d listing Devils Lake may be eligible for such funding. This may
provide an opportunity for the District directly or an opportunity to have a partnering agency
such as the Lincoln City or Siletz Tribe seek funding as a match towards the aeration-oxidation
project as a whole. Rates are even more favorable with 20 year notes for design and construction
for small communities as low as 1.40% with a 0.5% annual fee on unpaid balances. Therefore to
serve the budgetary requirements of servicing any such loan should they be incurred, $15,000
has been appropriated from the General Fund for the purpose of Debt Service.
Budget Committee Recommendation
Proposed: 2015-05-15
- 16 -
TRANSFERS & CONTINGENCIES
Under a board directive for managing the General Fund, excess resources from the previous
fiscal year are now transferred to reserve. Currently the District has one reserve fund entitled,
“The Improvement Fund”. At the close of FY 2015-2016, $102,421 are expected to be available
for transfer. This is the amount tallied in the Net Working Capital from Table 1 above and is the
largest transfer the District has been able to budget in all of its history, over double what has
been available for a typically transfer in the last decade.
Other monies budgeted in this category are Contingency dollars which are set aside for
expenditures in the current fiscal year which are beyond the reasonable scope of budget
visioning. This amount varies from year to year depending on the current state of identified
projects requiring known amounts of funding. Typically the contingency fund should not
exceed 15% of the total appropriation in a fund as that is the limit that can be transferred by
resolution. Transfers in excess of 15% of the fund from contingency require a supplemental
budget. This year $200 have been placed in Contingency.
UNAPPROPRIATED ENDING FUND BALANCE
The Unappropriated Ending Fund Balance is the reserve money necessary to fund the
government activities through the first half of the following fiscal year. At the end of fiscal year
2010-2011, this revolving fund was increased by $25,000. Currently the District’s annual tax
base provides approximately $230,000, but these monies are not available until half way through
the fiscal year. Increasing the UEFB to $100,000 allows revenues to be distributed more evenly
across the year which then are available for appropriations. A reserve of $100,000 in this fiscal
year will refortify the Unappropriated Ending Fund Balance for FY 2016-2017.
Detailed Expenditures LB 31
MATERIALS & SERVICES
Total Material and Services for the General Fund are $138,739. This sum is presented in detail
on the LB-31 and is also listed on the LB 30.
Accounting includes the cost of the financial review; associated filing fees; bookkeeping; and
costs related to doing payroll. The cost for the review (previously a full audit) continues to rise.
The most recent review cost the District $3,800 up $1,462 from four years ago. As the most
recent three-year contract has just ended, a new contract will need to be negotiated.
Additionally, filing fees have increased for the District as it has passed the threshold of $150,000
worth of expenditures which moved the District into the next higher fee structure with the
Oregon Secretary of State, and fees have increased at the District’s financial institutions. Payroll
and bookkeeping costs are expected to only need level funding. Overall, the annual
appropriation for Accounting is for $6,555 for 2015-2016.
Consulting funds have typically been allocated for a paid internship over the summer and other
actual consulting needs. To attract and retain qualified applicants, the hourly wage for the
internship was increased from $10.00 to $13.50, with an upper limit of $15.00 an hour
Budget Committee Recommendation
Proposed: 2015-05-15
- 17 -
established by the board. Costs of payroll taxes and workers compensation insurance will also
be incurred through the temporary agency and are included in the budget.
Funds are also
budgeted again for part-time assistance for routine water quality monitoring during periods when
the intern is not available (September-May). For safety and other reasons associates with data
collection it is prudent to have two people partake in field work. This person would be paid
through a temporary agency for approximately 8 hours a month and would assist in monitoring
and testing. Last year a volunteer accompanied District staff and thus funds were not expended.
Actual consultants that might be hired by the District for the current year are largely expected to
be funded through the Improvement Fund. However as seen last year, small consulting needs
may again arise which may not be part of the planned projects in the Improvement Fund, and
thus an additional $500 has been added to the Consulting appropriation over previous years.
Overall the appropriation is set for $15,000.
Contracting is a new appropriation and is funded to a modest degree to allow for small
contracting within the General Fund. This would provide the District with some flexibility for
small projects which may arise in the year. The proposed appropriation is set for $500.
Elections take place on two-year cycles. Traditionally the District has paid its full cost share for
the election during the fiscal year that it occurred. This results in one year with an allocation of
approximately $1,800 followed by zero the following year. In 2012-2013 budget the District
began breaking up the payments, and will thus equally fund the election from the two adjacent
fiscal years. Elections then are appropriated at $900 for the upcoming year.
Equipment and Facilities Operation and Maintenance is a revised appropriation title from
previous budgets as it now includes operational costs associated with certain equipment and
facilities generally. Operational cost are expected to predominately be electricity demand for
compressors for a large-scale aeration-oxidation project discussed throughout this budget.
Preliminary estimates are for approximately $27,000 worth of electricity annually. Additionally,
there will be a need for maintenance of any equipment and facilities needed for the aerationoxidation project.
This may include periodic inspections and routine maintenance of
compressors, housings, diffusers, and all associated components of the aeration-oxidation
system. This is being estimated to be four full days a year plus monthly service visits of three
hours each for a total of 68 hours. If average hourly cost are limited to $30 hour, this would add
$2,040 to the budget needs. In addition to the new costs associated with the aeration-oxidation
project a summertime slip rental which was added in the previous budget has been retained here
at a cost of approximately $75/month. Lastly, more or less generally level funding is needed
for boat storage costs and operations, the bulk of the previous appropriation. Overall the
appropriation has increased to $31,320 for the upcoming fiscal year.
Erosion and Sediment Control will be budgeted at $1 in the current year as no actual
expenditures are slated. Erosion and sediment control is mostly addressed through the
Improvement Fund through Save Our Shoreline projects.
Insurance & Bonds since FY 2011-2012 have been appropriated to cover the cost associated with
real property insurance for a permanent facility for the District. Currently the District expects to
continue renting, and thus the needs for the appropriation were reduced accordingly. However
should the District implement a large capital improvement like aeration in the lake, additional
insurance needs would be required which were estimated and included in last year’s budget.
With refinement to the Engineering Plan and General Report for Aeration-Oxidation, insurance
Budget Committee Recommendation
Proposed: 2015-05-15
- 18 -
needs may need to be recalculated.
then $3,681.
The total current estimated needs for this appropriation is
Lake Level Management has been modified slightly from last year. A total of $8,000 has been
appropriated of which $5,100 has funded the Lake Contractor. Contractor duties include
installation, removal and transport of the dam; daily lake level and precipitation monitoring; sign
maintenance, and construction projects funded for 20 hours. As the District is seeking a new
methodology for impounding the lake and the existing contract expires at the end of June there is
some uncertainty in what the costs associated with installing the dam might be. Other monies
are set aside for emergency clearing of the D River in the event of a storm, dam maintenance, log
removal, and Personal Protective Equipment.
Legal costs this year will again include the cost of publication of legal notices. The Legal
Services budget specifically has been recently allocated at $1,920 which equates approximately
one hour of attorney time for every month based on recent contracted rates. These rates have
been budgeted using the billed hourly rate has allowed for better estimation of the resources
available and the anticipated costs involved when requesting attorney services. Previous Budget
Committees, recognizing the potential legal cost associated with a Grass Carp application,
increased the appropriation. This is being carried forward in this fiscal year. Other expenses in
Legal include fees to the Government Ethics Commission. To accommodate for potential
increase in contracted hourly rates, a four percent increase is shown over previous estimates.
The total budgeted amount proposed for this appropriation is $3,020.
Monitoring expenditures will fund the Bacteria, Harmful Algal Bloom Surveillance, and
Physical and Chemical Monitoring programs. The monitoring program however has been
expanded to include sampling and analysis beyond the traditional recreational period of
Memorial Day to Labor Day. In addition to expanding the routine water quality monitoring
program the District anticipates continuing to collect and analyze nutrient and flow data. The
District is however declining to reserve funds at this time to continue its fecal source tracking
monitoring program it initiated in 2010 on Thompson Creek. This program utilizes DNA
analysis to determine the sources of bacterial contamination and has been funded to $5,000
annually.
Blue-green Algae (scientifically known as Cyanobacteria) and their toxins will
however continue to be funded under this budget as part of the Harmful Algal Bloom
Surveillance (HABs) program. With the potential for year-round surveillance, the funds required
to administer this program has grown. Further as the Oregon Health Authority recently expanded
the criteria within this program additional funds are needed as delisting the lake can cost the
District $1,000 per episode. Additional expenses include reagents and supplies for toxicity
monitoring, plus the costs in phytoplankton identification and enumeration. Currently, the
District may need to seek a new commercial lab to conduct this work, but is also partnering with
some volunteered assistance which may offset cost associated with this potential conversion.
Toxin monitoring may be expanded this year to include in house Anatoxin-a as new technologies
have just come on the market. The need for an incubation chamber though will also need to be
afforded to meet the needs of this new technology. This has been budgeted for as a Capital
Outlay in the Improvement Fund. Chemical monitoring (e.g. phosphorus and nitrogen) has
increased in the last year. Chemical analysis is done by an outside lab, which while relatively
affordable, saving may be afforded should the District pursue in house chemical analysis. Such
monitoring would however require instrumentation purchase which is provided for in the
Improvement Fund. Physical parameter monitoring expenditures will be limited to consumables,
Budget Committee Recommendation
Proposed: 2015-05-15
- 19 -
probe replacements, and repair of serviceable equipment. There is however is a developing need
for replacement of the Dissolved Oxygen meter which would be met by a capital outlay from the
Improvement Fund. The overall Monitoring budget is $16,550.
Nutrient Control will be budgeted at $1 this year. In previous years these monies have been used
for riparian plantings and domestic waterfowl relocation. This year, projects are expected for the
Save Our Shoreline (SOS) Project. These funds though are made available through the
Improvement Fund.
Office Operations cover costs such as Rent, Office Supplies, Information Technology (IT),
Furnishings, and Telephone. Additionally, the appropriation includes the costs associated with
recording minutes for the District. Overall the appropriation will be budgeted at $22,490.
Public Relations cover costs associated with outreach, education, conferences, and
communication. The Budget Committee last year raised this appropriation to $25,000. Public
relations include making presentations, programming on government access television, guest
appearances on local radio programs, impromptu chats with lake users, an active website, the
email service, publications, broadcast, and our own low-powered radio station, Devils Lake
Radio at 1610 am. In the FY 2011-2012 the District began holding its regularly monthly
meeting at City Hall which are now televised on the governmental access Channel 4. This
though comes with additional costs to the District to cover the cost associated with holding the
meeting as well as the production cost for the audio and video. In 2012-2013, this service was
expanded to include online streaming of the District’s meetings.
It is recommended that the Devils Lake Community Grant Opportunity be continued in this year,
but to a lesser amount. This mechanism provided two grants in the first year, and one in the
second, and thus the assumption is that fewer funds will suffice to keep the opportunity
available. Other funded aspects of Public Relations continue to be the Lake Steward Award,
Senior Fair, Get the Lead Out campaign, and the Devils Lake Revival. Additionally, the District
will maintain its professional memberships and seek to attend conferences of the Oregon Lake
Association (OLA), the North American Lake Managers Society (NALMS), and Special
Districts Association of Oregon (SDAO). Many of these other public relations costs are however
rising and thus overall, $25,000 has again been budgeted.
Training and Continued Education dollars have been allocated for the manager, staff, contractors
and the board to an amount of $1,000.
Transportation costs are constantly in flux. Currently regular unleaded gasoline is $2.89 a gallon
significantly less then what it was at budget time last year at $3.83 a gallon. Previous to that it
was priced at $4.13 a gallon, while the year prior it was $3.99 a gallon. In the last 12 months the
District has spent $1,012 on fuel driving 4,432 miles. When including insurance and
maintenance, the District spent $2,046 in the same period, averaging 46.2 cents per mile. This
was slightly more per mile than last year (42.9 cents/mile). Maintenance issues are also covered
in this appropriation. Monies in this budgetary item may be used for large repairs during the
year with the unused funds rolled over into the Improvement Fund to save for a vehicle
replacement or repair. In addition mileage reimbursement is also funded through this item.
Typically this is other staff’s use of personal vehicles for District business. It is noteworthy that
the vehicle continues to enable the District the capacity to tow the boat, move materials, conduct
sampling routines, and provides staff transportation locally and regionally. There are also
Budget Committee Recommendation
Proposed: 2015-05-15
- 20 -
ancillary benefits of high visibility and recognition as the District’s logo, phone number, and web
address are prominently displayed on the vehicle. In total, Transportation is budgeted at $4,720.
Vegetation Management and Control again as in previous years will be funded from the
Improvement Fund and thus only $1 has been allocated here.
Major projects in the
Improvement Fund though are expected to continue, including the contracted funding of a
consultant as part of the Grass Carp Strategic Plan.
Budget Committee Recommendation
Proposed: 2015-05-15
- 21 -
Reserve Fund
In April 2007, the District resolved to abolish the three reserve funds it held in favor of creating
one new, wholly encompassing “Improvement Fund”. The purposes of the fund are for
vegetation management, watershed protection, capital improvement, water quality
improvements, cyanobacteria (aka,
blue-green algae) control, and other
improvements seen necessary by
Improvement Fund Resources
the
Devils
Lake
Water
Improvement District Board of
Donations
Directors.
The initial transfer
0%
establishing the fund was on the
Grants (Unsecured)
order of $250,000. This new fund
Existing Reserve
25%
37%
better serves the needs of the
District and has saved time and
money in accounting.
Growth in the Improvement Fund
has come from transfers out of the
General Fund. These transfers like
the one budgeted this fiscal year are
from unspent resources from the
previous tax year (Net Working
Capital). Interest has also been
accumulating and has garnished the
fund at times over $1,000 per
month based on the balance in the
fund.
Grants (Secured)
0%
Loans (Not Active)
25%
Interest
0%
Transfer from General
Fund
13%
Improvement Fund Requirements
Reserved for Future
Expenditure
10%
Resources (LB-11)
Personnel Services
0%
The resources of reserve fund for the
upcoming fiscal year include the
existing balance, transfers from the
General Fund, interest, loans, and
grants, less expenditures expected
by June 30, 2015. The District
expects to have $291,925 available
in the Improvement Fund at the end
of the FY 2014-2015. With interest
of $1,949 and an expected transfer
of $102,421 from the General Fund,
the special revenue fund will have
approximately $396,000 available
for appropriations exclusive of
grants or borrowed funds.
Material & Services
39%
Capital Outlay
51%
Budget Committee Recommendation
Proposed: 2015-05-15
- 22 -
In the current year, there however exists the prospect of the District borrowing money to fund an
aeration-oxidation project beyond what it might afford with reserve funds. Previous budgets
have held borrowing potential which would be repaid through Debt Service in the General Fund,
and thus this is just changing how those funds might be appropriated and the extend of such
borrowing.
In addition, while the District does not have any active grant application, the needs of an
aeration-oxidation project may warrant such. It is estimated that given the diminished funds
available for debt service in the General Fund that grant acquisition may be needed to
supplement resources in the Improvement Fund and are included in this budget. Potential
sources include US Environmental Protection Agency, Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality, and/or Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board. A summary of the prospective
resources in the Improvement Fund is shown in Table 6.
Table 6. The Improvement Fund, Total Resources
RESERVE FUND RESOURCES (As of April 23, 2015)
Existing Account Balance
Plus Revenues by June 30, 2015
Less Expenses by June 30, 2015
Balance expected at beginning of FY
Transfers from General Fund
Interest
Grants (Secured)
Grants (Unsecured)
Loans (Not active)
Donations
TOTAL RESOURCES
$295,179
246
(3,500)
291,925
102,421
1,949
1
200,000
200,000
1
$796,297
Requirements (LB-11)
The Requirements of the Improvement Fund are allocated in the same major headings as the
General Fund. These are Materials & Services, Personnel Services, Capital Outlay, and Debt
Service. However as projects may encompass multiple appropriations, the organization of this
narrative is generally by project, followed by groupings by categorization for the actual
appropriations.
Budget Committee Recommendation
Proposed: 2015-05-15
- 23 -
PROJECTS
Aeration-Oxidation for Harmful Algal Bloom Management: In 2014, the District investigated a
number of strategies aimed at reducing Harmful Algal Blooms. This was a follow up to previous
work initiated in 2006 which led to the District developing plans for Whole Lake Circulation for
Harmful Algal Bloom control. The current research included more detailed reports on cost and
benefits of many of these same strategies previously identified and a few new ones. Strategies
included dredging, aluminum sulfate, algaecides, natural hydrology, aquatic vegetation, and
aeration to name a few of the more prominent strategies. Through this evaluation and with
feedback from a request for proposals for additional modeling and monitoring, the District has
determined that aeration-oxidation project for Harmful Algal Bloom Management is the most
practical, environmentally sensitive means of combating HABS which can be met with the
physical, social, and economic constraints of the District and the lake.
Also in 2014 the District developed and released a separate request of proposals for an
Engineering Plan and General Report for Aeration-Oxidation of Devils Lake. With no formal
bids the District is currently developing a direct contact with a highly qualified limnologist for
the in lake portions of the project having decoupled the project to an extent. Current
negotiations are also being developed for an engineer to work with the limnologist in order to
produce the Engineering Plan and General Report required for the project. The engineer would
also serve as the consultant to develop a bid packet for the actual construction. Cost for the
consulting though direct contracting are being developed, but are limited by statute to $100,000.
Subsequent to an approved plan and with formal determination of funding for the project, the
aeration-oxidation project will be put out to bid. Capital outlays and contracting cost will ensue
and are estimated here. Once the project is online, ongoing operation and maintenance of the
project will be required. Most notably will be the annual electrical expenses needed for
operation of the machinery. Additionally, labor cost will also be required. These cost will
necessarily be absorbed by the operating budget of the District, the General Fund and are so
afforded there.
Consulting
Equipment
Contracting
100,000
350,000
100,000
Aeration-Oxidation for HAB Management
M&S: Consulting
Capital Outlay: Equipment
M&S: Contracting
$550,000
Vegetation Management: The top priority of the District though the last two goal setting
workshops had been to create and to implement a strategy for aquatic vegetation management
and control. A major step forward in that endeavor was the revision and adoption of the Devils
Lake Plan in March 2011. This plan seeks the approval for the use of additional sterile Chinese
Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) in the lake for vegetation management. Current state
rules prohibit the use of these fish in Devils Lake, and the only way of approving the restocking
of grass carp is through a variance of the rules by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Commission and changes to the Wildlife Integrity Rules which the Commission oversees. In
seeking the appeal, the District has conducted a number of studies and retained a consultant
which has and continues to require significant funding. In 2013, the District submitted its
Budget Committee Recommendation
Proposed: 2015-05-15
- 24 -
application and testified in front of the Commission and thus much has been done to date.
Should ODFW approve the re-stocking federal permission may still need to be obtained. The
existing contract includes funding for that endeavor. With the increase for a Bayesian Neural
Network Model added to the original contract the total is for $36,500 with an outstanding
balance of $10,022.
Also as part of the Grass Carp Strategic Plan, an Aquatic Vegetation Survey and Mapping was
conducted over the summer of 2012, and again in 2013. As part of the District’s commitment to
monitoring the aquatic vegetation an additional $5,000 is budget this year for a similar survey
during the summer season, half of which is for software the other half for hardware as the
District seeks to bring this monitoring in-house.
Given the successful appeal for additional carp, a placeholder has been provided in this budget
for the fish themselves. This was previously listed under Materials & Services, but is more
accurately placed as a Capital Outlay. The last stocking took place in 1993 and 5,000 fish were
added (7.3 fish/acre). Current research has brought that number down to approximately 1 fish
for every two acres that might be needed. Based on an estimate of $20 per fish, $5,480 has been
set aside to implement this project should the District win approval and decide to implement.
Given the unknowns, previously $100,000 had been retained for this purpose and thus the
required appropriation has dropped considerably.
Mapping Software
Mapping Hardware
Grass Carp Consultant
Grass Carp
2,500
2,500
10,022
5,480
Vegetation Management Total
M&S: Vegetation Mgt
Capital Outlay: Equipment
M&S: Vegetation Mgt
Capital Outlay: Grass Carp
$20,502
Sewer: The District is actively supporting the extension of sewer around Devils Lake. The
Voyage-Lake LID discussed earlier is a model for future projects of similar size or as
demonstrated in the Puget Sound area may be used watershed wide. The City of Lincoln City
also recognizes the needs of sewering Devils Lake and has been an active partner in this pursuit.
In the previous budget the District had budgeted funds to assist in an environmental review of the
low-pressure technology currently proposed for the Voyage-Lake LID. The City however
funded this outright and is nearing its completion, and thus it is absent from this budget. The
District however budgeted other funds under this heading for incentives to connecting to sewer
through local improvement districts in other parts of the watershed. These funds are retained
within this budget which were proposed as grants. The funds however may be better utilized in
other forms, such as education and outreach about the LID process for instance, and thus are
retained under this project, but as Material and Services: Sewer Funding verses Material
Services: Grants which provides more flexibility, yet still inclusive of incentive grants. It also
provides a clearer understanding of the intent of these monies without the confusion of the word
grant which often indicates revenue, not an expense.
Sewer Funding
$30,000
Budget Committee Recommendation
Proposed: 2015-05-15
- 25 -
M&S: Sewer
Save our Shoreline (SOS): The Environmental Protection Agency recently released their first
National Lakes Study which identified shoreline encroachment by development as the number
one correlated activity to a lake’s impairment. Loss of riparian buffer is a major driver in the
ongoing degradation of waterbodies, nationwide and locally. Devils Lake, like other urbanized
bodies of water could greatly benefit from extensive revegetation of its shorelines. The recently
completed Shoreline Erosion Study echoes that recommendation. In 2009-2010, the Devils Lake
Water Improvement District initialized the Save our Shorelines (SOS) program to incentivize
replanting of the watershed with native vegetation.
Overall the District has completed a number of SOS projects thus far, and have prospective
projects in the queue. The last Budget Committee recommended that SOS program should be
expanded to include projects such as erosion prevention and sediment control as well as issue
surrounding stormwater such using bioswales to reduce nutrients from entering Devils Lake.
The District has in fact already completed such projects including a major stormwater treatment
site at East Devils Lake State Recreation Area and a Rain Garden at Regatta Grounds in 2010
which includes education signage highlighting the benefits of native plantings. Primary costs
associated with this program have been $250 - $750 per property for the direct costs of a
residential planting project with the larger public demonstration stormwater treatment facilities
costing approximately of $10,000 and $6,500, respectively. Typically two to three private
property projects have been funded in any given year.
The native plant nurseries at Taft 7-12 and Westwind that the District partners on with the
Northwest Oregon Restoration Partnership (NORP), the Salmon Drift Creek Watershed Council,
Westwind, and the Lincoln Soil and Water Conservation District make these projects possible.
With withdrawal of much of the federal dollars (Bureau of Land Management) that supported
this project’s initiation and has supported NORP who does all the seed propagation and native
nursery stock development for our nurseries, a change in how this overall program and
partnership’s funding is required. Partners of NORP are asked to provide $1 towards each plant
it seeks to acquire through the partnership. This is well below potential market rates which
might be $4 a plant on average if such a market existed.
Unfortunately the genetically distinct native coastal wetland and shoreline species necessary for
our programs are not favored by commercial markets and thus options are extremely limited
without the NORP partnership. As such a proposal of $1,000 towards the partnership, garnering
access to up to 1,000 plants through NORP is proposed as part of the total costs of making SOS
projects viable in the watershed. Other costs associated with this program include funding for
maintenance of the existing Rain Gardens, monies to hold training courses, plus printing and
distribution costs of outreach materials.
SOS Program
$15,000
M&S: Watershed Protection
Dam Replacement: The District is currently developing application for a removal/fill permit for
the replacement of the dam with a truly summertime only structure. Estimates for permitting and
removal of the existing structure have been provided as have the cost of replacement structure
materials. Installation of the dam currently and in the future would be funded through the
General Fund, M&S: Lake Level Management.
Budget Committee Recommendation
Proposed: 2015-05-15
- 26 -
Permitting
Removal of Existing Structure
Replacement Structure
750
25,000
1,100
Dam Replacement
M&S: Watershed Protection
M&S: Consulting
Capital Outlay: Equipment
$26,850
East Devils Lake Road: Currently, there are solutions identified for resolving flooding of this
roadway. Technical work done by Lincoln County Public Works through funding and
collaboration with the Siuslaw National Forest and the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board
has identified major alternatives. These are in the range of 5 – 30 million dollars. Lincoln
County is in the process of implementing a short-term fix to alleviate the problem again this
season, but long-term solutions are needed which local funding is largely not available.
Previously Lincoln County and the Devils Lake Water Improvement District have collaborated
with the Salmon Drift Creek Watershed Council to write grants and to coordinate stakeholders
from diverse backgrounds to help fund a solution. Oregon Solutions of the National Policy
Consensus Center at Hatfield School of Government at Portland State University has been asked
by Governor Brown’s Regional Solutions Team to assemble a task force of such to address the
problem as well. Collectively through grants, In-Kind and cash matches, a best fit fix may be
afforded and ultimately get funded.
In previous budgets the District committed an appropriation for the council support grant of
$5,000. These monies supplemented the financial support of approximately $25,000 the county
made available within its own budget. Of the $5,000, only $912 were billed which supported the
grant writing of two major opportunities, one through the US Forest Service the other through
Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board. The balance of that grant would be continued to be
made available for the Salmon Drift Creek Watershed Council to help supplement staff salary
and benefits, fishery consultant needs, publication expenses, as well as office and travel expenses
associated with the ongoing work on this project alongside the collaborative work of Oregon
Solutions and others.
Watershed Council Support Grant
$4,088
M&S: Watershed Protection
Education & Communication:
The District’s Communications Committee drafted a
Communications Plan. Many aspects of this plan have already been implemented including new
ideas such as the Listserv, water billing mailer, a new portable sign, and most importantly the
airing of all the District’s regular meetings on local cable access and now also streaming live on
the internet. These items and more such as the website, sign kiosks, “Know Your Lake”
publications, SOLV events, the Devils Lake Revival, and the Lake Steward Award are already
funded through the General Fund. However, additional expenditures for non-reoccurring
expenses have been appropriated from the Improvement Fund for educational videos. Video
would also be aired on government access television, and be available on the web, through social
media, and through the public libraries.
Phase I of this project has already been developed as a short video vignette on the SOS program.
Additional segments covering best management practices such as erosion prevention & control,
septic system maintenance, and storm water control through the use of rain gardens would also
Budget Committee Recommendation
Proposed: 2015-05-15
- 27 -
be produced to complete the project and ready it for distribution. This project as a whole is a
carryover from a previous budget year which appropriated a total of $5,000 with $3,000
remaining.
Educational Videos
$3,000
M&S: Watershed Protection
Fish and Wildlife: Oregon Coastal Coho salmon are currently listed as Threatened on the
Endangered Species List. Efforts to restore these fish are occurring on the local, state, tribal, and
federal levels. Within our own watershed dams have been removed or modified, large wood
placements made, and shorelines revegetated. Currently, there is a major project to seek a fix to
the chronically flooded East Devils Lake Road which in itself is a partial barrier to salmon
migration. Inward migrating adult fish strand on this roadway as they come out of the
downstream wetlands leaving the fish in a direct path with crossing traffic. Impromptu volunteer
fish rescue efforts have been successful at reducing the impact. However, given the availability
of volunteers being somewhat limited, a formal and funded effort has been developed in previous
budget cycles. Funds were and would be made available for paid fish rescue workers to staff the
roadway during peak migration periods. A pool of qualified, trained fish rescue workers will be
maintained. Fish rescue workers would work in teams of two, facilitating migration, but also
providing educational outreach to the drivers about the threatened fish and the impacts of the
vehicle traffic on water quality. Individuals would be paid with District funds through an
existing agreement with the watershed council. The project itself is deemed temporary as the
long-term fix on the road is achieved. However it is speculated that this project could though
extend for multiple years given the pace of such a large-scale road improvement.
Given the fact that the Salmon Rescue efforts were not activated in either of the last two years,
the District’s Board of Directors made these funds in the first year available for use in other fish
passage related projects. A grant application by the Salmon Drift Creek Watershed Council was
chosen as the best use of these funds from FY 2013-2014 and as their grant process is still
underway, these dollars are being carried over for the project on Thompson Creek where
multiple culverts need replacing. The District’s dollars serve as cash match for their Oregon
Watershed Enhancement Board Technical Assistance grant and fund the stream profile necessary
for their application. In addition under direction from the last budget committee salmon rescue
funds generally shall be used or available for other projects which can preemptively improve fish
passage. As such the Fish and Wildlife Protection Fund is proposed to be made available for
such opportunities.
Fish & Wildlife Protection Fund
SDCWC Match: Thompson Creek
10,000
10,000
Fish & Wildlife Total
M&S: Fish and Wildlife
M&S: Fish and Wildlife
$20,000
Recreation: This is a relatively new budget appropriation for expenditures that benefit recreation
and/or the promotion of recreation on Devils Lake. Sample projects have been identified in
previous budgets and while these and other project may warrant funding, resources are not
thought to be available in the current fiscal year. As such a placeholder is provided until future
budget can afford such investments.
Budget Committee Recommendation
Proposed: 2015-05-15
- 28 -
Recreation
1
M&S: Recreation
Monitoring:
This project was formerly Monitoring and Modeling. Capital Outlays for
monitoring equipment, namely a spectrophotometer and an incubator which were identified in
previous budgets have also been included. In addition the need for a replacement for the
District’s oxygen probe may develop. Given the technological advances and superior data
collection of newer equipment if replacement is warranted, a multi-parameter sonde (French for
probe) may be selected to not only replace the dissolved oxygen meter, but also for additional
parameters (pH, conductivity, temperature, chlorophyll a, and/or phycocyanin) in a deployable
device for long-term assessment of water quality particular to parameters related specifically to
Harmful Algal Bloom monitoring. Typically these may cost upwards of $7,000 and is thus
budgeted.
Spectrophotometer
Incubator
Sonde
4,500
500
7,000
Monitoring Total
Capital Outlay: Equipment
Capital Outlay: Equipment
Capital Outlay: Equipment
$12,000
CATEGORIZATION OF REQUIREMENTS
While it is helpful to provide a budget by means of projects as shown above, categorization of
requirements into the major appropriations is requisite by local budget law. Additionally, some
items within the budget might not fall into a project directly or have overlap with many projects
and thus are not easily broken apart. An example of that in this budget would be Personnel
Services, Bank Fees, and Transportation. As a result this section compiles the appropriations
from the Projects above and provides additional appropriations with explanations where
otherwise not previously explored. The appropriations are made with the same major headings
as the General Fund.
PERSONNEL SERVICES
Project Manager: Based of staffing needs assessment and projects in development this position
was not filled following the resignation of the former staff member. Notably, this position was
never permanent. Workloads associated with this position have been reduced and/or
redistributed to the Lake Manager. A place holder of one dollar remains, allowing flexibility
should the District find it necessary to reopen this position within the fiscal year.
Total Personnel Service: $1
Budget Committee Recommendation
Proposed: 2015-05-15
- 29 -
MATERIAL & SERVICES
Bank Fees: A monthly service charge of $10 is charged by the Local Government
Investment Pool (LGIP) at the Oregon Department of Revenue to hold this account.
Additional fees are charged at time of monetary transfer, which are minor. Total: $130
Watershed Protection: Primary appropriations in this category have been made under the
Projects identified above. These include monies for work on the Save our Shorelines
program, East Devils Lake Road watershed council support grant, permitting, and
Education & Communication. Total: $22,838
Vegetation Management & Control: The allocations within this budget relate to the
number one goal of the District of vegetation management including the pursuit of
reauthorization to plant Sterile Grass Carp in Devils Lake. Total: $12,522
Consulting: The allocation within this item relates to the Aeration-Oxidation Project, plus
the needs of Dam Replacement. Total: $125,000
Contracting: The spending within this appropriation is directed at implementation of an
Aeration-Oxidation project. Total: $100,000
Sewer: Introduced as a new item from the Budget Committee in 2013-2014 as “Grants”,
it has been funded should the Board desire to make available funding for grants to
incentivize homeowners to hook up to sewer through the LID process or provide
resources towards education on the process as described above. Total: $30,000
Fish and Wildlife: The allocation in this budget relates to the short-term Salmon Rescue
program funded for $10,000 and a grant match the District provided in the previous year
using the original $10,000 allotment which then has been carried over. Total: $20,000
Recreation: This was a new line item for 2013-2014, however no real funds are thought
to be available in the current fiscal year. Total: $1
Total Material & Services: $310,491
CAPITAL OUTLAY
Transportation: With the District’s purchase of a vehicle in 2006, transportation costs have been
generally regulated to insurance, fuel, and routine maintenance. With the late model vehicle
chosen, many years of maintenance free operation are expected. This invariably will change,
and thus a future replacement or major repair of the vehicle needs to be budgeted. In order to
fund this eventual expenditure, money will have to be set aside from the General Fund each year
and transferred into reserve. To initiate the savings, $5,000 of the surplus in FY 2008-2009’s
General Fund was placed into this designation. Additional dollars have been added each year
since. Currently, $2,500 is thought to be available from last year’s General Fund Transportation
Budget Committee Recommendation
Proposed: 2015-05-15
- 30 -
budget, to add to the total, all of which has been appropriated should the immediate need for
expenditures arise. Total: $22,500
Equipment: The largest expenditure in this category relates to equipment needs associated with a
potential Harmful Algal Bloom project. Additionally funds are also associated with the
Monitoring project, including previously identified desired acquisitions of a desktop
spectrophotometer for analytical chemistry and an incubator for additional toxin analyses as
discussed in previous budgets in greater detail. Total: $365,600
Grass Carp: Reserve dollars allocated for the purchase of sterile Chinese Grass Carp as part of
the Vegetation Management project. Total: $5,480
Property Acquisition: Funding for property acquisition and/or monies necessary to establish a
permanent home for the District. This project is not actively being pursued, but a placeholder
has been held in the budget. Total: $1
Boat, motor, and trailer: A critical component of the District’s work is reliant on accessing the
lake which necessitates the ownership and maintenance of a boat, trailer, and suitable motor.
While the District has and continues to maintain its current equipment the eventual replacement
may become necessary. This line item was thus been created in FY 2012-2013 to allow for
savings towards the future replacement and/or major repair. Like the outlay for transportation
above, this appropriation is expected to be increased yearly by transfers from the General Fund
until a suitable savings is met. In order to provide a base, an initial amount of $5,000 was
established with additions in subsequent years. Currently the $2,500 is being added. Total:
$15,000
Total Capital Outlay: $408,581
DEBT SERVICE
Debt Service is not scheduled within the Improvement Fund. If the District approves borrowing
which would require loan repayment, these funds would come from the General Fund.
Total Debt Service: $0
RESERVED FOR FUTURE EXPENDITURES
In the current budget, should the full amount of loan monies and grant resources be obtained and
all requirements be expended at their budgeted amounts, it is expected that the Improvement
Fund would still have funds in reserve. However, the more likely scenario is that grant funds
would be less than anticipated or the District would choose to borrow fewer dollars decreasing
the resources and thus reducing the funds shown as being available for future expenditures. For
many reasons it is preferable that the District either obtain grant funds or provide for some
borrowing as to not fully deplete reserves, but it is recognized here that may not be an option.
Reserved for Future Expenditures: $77,224
Budget Committee Recommendation
Proposed: 2015-05-15
- 31 -
Budget Committee Recommendation
Proposed: 2015-05-15
- 32 -
Budget Committee Recommendation
Proposed: 2015-05-15
- 33 -
Budget Committee Recommendation
Proposed: 2015-05-15
- 34 -
Budget Committee Recommendation
Proposed: 2015-05-15
- 35 -
Budget Committee Recommendation
Proposed: 2015-05-15
- 36 -
Budget Committee Recommendation
Proposed: 2015-05-15
- 37 -
Budget Committee Recommendation
Proposed: 2015-05-15
- 38 -
Devils Lake Water Improvement District
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Appendix
Detailed Budget Overview General Fund……………….. … … A
Detailed Budget Overview Improvement Fund ……….. … … B
Resolution Adopting the Budget…………………………..…… C
Resolution Levying Ad Valorem Taxes……………………...… D
Resolution Making Appropriations…………………… ...…… E
Copies of Notices………………………………..…………… ... F
Budget Committee Recommendation
Proposed: 2015-05-15
- 39 -
Budget Committee Recommendation
Proposed: 2015-05-15
- 40 -
Budget Committee Recommendation
Proposed: 2015-05-15
- 41 -
Budget Committee Recommendation
Proposed: 2015-05-15
- 42 -
Budget Committee Recommendation
Proposed: 2015-05-15
- 43 -
Budget Committee Recommendation
Proposed: 2015-05-15
- 44 -