The URL can be used to link to this page

2004-1054-Minutes for Meeting July 28,2004 Recorded 8/5/2004COUNTY rf TES FICIAL NANCYUBLANKENSHIP,F000NTY CLERKDS yv 200T-1057 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 08/0512004 02:35:22 PM 111111111111111111111111111111 2004-1054 DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK CERTIFICATE PAGE This page must be included if document is re-recorded. Do Not remove from original document. Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1947 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF MEETING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, JULY 289 2004 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St.., Bend Present were Commissioners Michael M. Daly, Dennis R. Luke and Tom De Wolf. Also present were Mike Maier, County Administrator; Greg Canfield, Mental Health Department; George Read, Tom Anderson and Catherine Morrow, Community Development; Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Damian Syrnyk, City of Bend; Chuck McGraw, City of Redmond; and Brian Rankin, City of Sisters; media representatives Barney Lerten of bend.com and The Bugle, and Chris Barker of the Bulletin; and ten other citizens. Vice Chair Dennis Luke opened the meeting at 10:05 a.m. 1. Before the Board was Citizen Input. None was offered. 2. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2004-355, a Residential Real Estate Rental Agreement for the Transitional Housing Program (Liberty House). Greg Canfield explained that this is a renewal agreement. DEWOLF: Move approval LUKE: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Vice Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, July 28, 2004 Page 1 of 11 Pages 3. Before the Board was Consideration of a Request from the Sheriffs Office regarding Posting Signs at the County -owned Acreage Located off 9th & Antler, Redmond. This item will be addressed at a later date. 4. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of an Agreement between Deschutes County and the Department of Justice regarding ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) Changes to be Made to County Properties. This item will be addressed at a later date. 5. Before the Board was a Public Hearing on an Amendment to the County Comprehensive Plan in regard to Adopting the County Coordinated Population Forecast. Commissioner Luke read the preliminary public statement (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit B). Chair Daly joined the meeting at this time. Regarding bias or prejudgment of the Commissioners, none were offered. No challenges were brought forth by the public. Chair Daly then opened the public hearing. Catherine Morrow stated that at the Board's work session of Monday, July 26, she explained that the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the draft forecast document. The findings document and population forecast were slightly different from that of the Planning Commission. The City of Redmond hired Eco NW to assist in developing findings, and the new forecast is included in the findings document. Commissioner Luke said that there was an article in the local paper regarding the City of Sisters population. Ms. Morrow replied that the City is doing a housing analysis to determine an adequate supply and the amount of land needed to accommodate the housing. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, July 28, 2004 Page 2 of 11 Pages Ms. Morrow reiterated that the Planning Commission had conducted a public hearing on the draft forecast. A letter was received from Al Unger of the City of Redmond, supporting the findings of the population forecast. An e-mail has been received from the Office of Economic Analysis, who was provided notice of the public hearing and who submitted comments regarding the population numbers. An e-mail was received on May 19, supporting the coordinated planning forecast. Damian Symyk will summarize the information in a letter that was received. She pointed out that in addition to Damian Syrnyk of the City of Bend, Brian Rankin of Sisters and Chuck McGraw of Redmond were present. Commissioner DeWolf indicated that he received an e-mail from Kanea?, questioning the population forecast numbers. Ms. Morrow replied that she also received e-mails from him, and that the methodology Portland State University uses to establish a point in time doesn't make sense for all areas. Building permits in the County are considered residual. Commissioner DeWolf stated that he doesn't understand why they would use a contradictory way of establishing the numbers. Ms. Morrow said that this issue was brought to the attention of the Governor's economic development team leader, who is looking into the issue of how the coordinated population forecast affects Goal 14 and how this can be coordinated with the OEA. Commissioner DeWolf emphasized that it is frustrating, since most counties don't share the geographic limitations that Deschutes County has. There is very little land for Deschutes County's population to expand into, and the financial impact is absurd. Damian Syrnyk explained that he worked with Ms. Morrow and the City of Bend made some changes. (He submitted a letter explaining how those changes were determined. A copy is attached as Exhibit C.) He said that there is a lot of concern that this is being treated as a goal or aspiration, when it is actually an estimate of future population based on a series of assumptions. It is not set in stone, and can be reevaluated when there is new information from the Census Bureau and Portland State University. The County and cities are required to coordinate in a factual manner under the Statewide Planning Goal 2. The County and cities need to use methods that can be checked through published data and population forecasts developed by the OEA. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, July 28, 2004 Page 3 of 11 Pages Commissioner DeWolf pointed out that some of the numbers in the yellow sheet (attached as Exhibit D) are different than the numbers in the report. Ms. Morrow indicated the report is the accurate document. At this time, Chair Daly opened the public hearing. Paul Dewey testified, and submitted a document into the record. (A copy is attached as Exhibit E.) He said that the City of Sisters presented a new approach, which was the best laid out and easiest to follow, but he felt the methodology was not done in the way that was written. It assumes that as rural lands fill up, additional people will move into Sisters instead of living outside the city limits even though they would prefer to live in a rural area, in part because they want their children to be in the Sisters School District. He said that this is inconsistent with other approaches. If someone wants to live in the country they will find a place, perhaps not necessarily in the Sisters area. There is no basis for assuming that these people even have children or want them attending Sisters schools; another district may be satisfactory. Another assumption is that people will want to live in Deschutes County. However, rural Jefferson County is close to the Sisters area, and Crook County is expanding as part of regional growth. He stated that these fundamental assumptions are not valid and are inconsistent. Commissioner Luke stated that finding property outside of an urban growth boundary is getting more difficult all the time, and the idea of land use is to get people to live within the urban growth boundaries. Mr. Dewey said that this idea is theoretical; there is no basis to assume they will move into the urban growth boundary areas if no rural property is available. There has been no analysis of who is buying and whether they have children. It is a basic requirement of Goal 2 that the basis be factual in order to support the findings. Commissioner Daly observed that it is all still a guess. Mr. Dewey stated that it shouldn't be. The first County forecast was, since it was hard to document. There are ultimately variables, which LUBA allows; however, there needs to be a solid foundation. Another example is building permits in schools zones for various years where the latest figures are projected as continuing. There is no basis for assuming the same number for every year. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, July 28, 2004 Page 4 of 11 Pages He suggested that this approach should not be used. Only the building permit or growth rate should be used, and that an add-on is not justified. In regard to the City of Redmond, Mr. Dewey said that the new report by Eco NW doesn't accurately represent the City's figures, especially if they don't include annexations. He added that the City of Bend's methodology is to exclude those. Mr. Dewey stated that in regard to the City of Bend numbers, he has not yet read Mr. Symyk's letter and asked that some time be given to do so. He would also like to submit additional written material. He said that the City of Bend did an excellent job in analyzing material. The only qualm is that in the most recent years the City used significantly higher rates. The PSU data in recent years building permit data, including e-mail correspondence with PSU questioning data from the cities. They have had a hard time coming up with vacancy rates and used what was in the 2000 census. There has been a lot of building taking place, but the City shouldn't assume that all of the buildings are fully occupied. PSU indicated that this information was not provided by the City. Mr. Dewey said that it shouldn't be assumed that there is no vacancy factor. The water issue was addressed in a lot of detail. When a plan amendment is adopted, it should be internally consistent. This is a problem, especially for the City of Bend, which has insufficient water rights to sustain what is predicted beyond 2008. The City needs to address where that water will come from. The plan seems to be to take it away from agriculture by buying water rights from farmers. If this is the way Central Oregon wants to use water for additional population, it needs to be consistent with the rest of Goal 3 — the protection of farming interests, especially since irrigation is necessary. This is a significant issue across county lines. When Deschutes County needs water for urban areas, this reduces the water available for Crook and Jefferson counties and the Deschutes Basin's agricultural needs. The plan needs to be amended to reflect this. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, July 28, 2004 Page 5 of 11 Pages Commissioner Luke commented that this is true only if it is taken away from agriculture. He said that he has been told by experts that the amount of water used by the City of Bend is virtually immeasurable. Mr. Dewey replied that by doubling the population, there will be a significant increase in water use. If Bend doesn't have the water rights, it will have to buy them. Commissioner Luke stated that this is true, unless there is a major change in the legislative process. Mike Sequeira, a math professor at Central Oregon Community College for 23 years, then spoke. He said his interest hinges on population growth, and became interested in the population forecast some time ago. He made it clear that he is making his own statement and is not speaking on behalf of COCC. He found it interesting that all three cities used a different approach to calculate projections. After the last changes he submitted written observations to them. The cities of Bend and Sisters laid out their assumptions clearly, although he felt questionably. They used standard models and followed them accurately. He expressed concerns about the methodology used by Redmond. There appeared to be some confusion on the part of staff that developed the model, especially in regard to compounding. The compounding model assumes a steady rate of growth based on previous numbers. He also pointed out some mathematical errors in the calculations; these were acknowledged by Eco NW, but no reason was given for the inaccuracies. At this time a lengthy discussion took place regarding the Redmond numbers. (He submitted comments, which are attached as Exhibit F.) Mr. Sequeira pointed out that Bend and Sisters did a good job of laying out their assumptions and methodology, and it is clearly understood. The Redmond analysis uses a contorted way of getting there. It is a straight-line model, very different from that of Bend, Sisters and the County. He said he would like an opportunity to meet with them to discuss it and perhaps clarify it. Becky Breeze, representing the Central Oregon Association of Realtors, then spoke. She said that one of the first questions Realtors ask their clients is whether they have a preference regarding schools, and many have a school district in mind. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, July 28, 2004 Page 6 of 11 Pages Also, in regard to removing water rights, she suggested that this issue should be addressed at a more appropriate time, such as when infrastructure is discussed. She is a fifth generation farmer/rancher, and feels there will be many opportunities to review water issues and the Deschutes aquifer. She said she supports the numbers as shown and encouraged the Board to adopt the findings. Commissioner DeWolf said that the idea of flat -lining the growth numbers raises concerns, and that perhaps the City of Redmond did not take into account that the numbers fluctuate. Chuck McGraw, Senior Planner for the City of Redmond, said they know there is a difference between straight-line and compounding, and their consultants, Eco NW, went into some detail to explain the two different sets of methodology and felt that straight-line was better than compounding. They recommended straight- line because compounding doesn't work well for smaller jurisdictions. If there were disagreements regarding methodology, the City of Redmond has chosen to agree with the consultants; however, they may look at it again. He will contact Eco NW to discuss it further. At this time the Commissioners discussed how to proceed. Laurie Craghead indicated that technically the record will remain open, but recommended that the written record be left open for a week in order for staff to analyze anything that is submitted and to make recommendations to the Board. The public hearing was then continued to August 25, 2004, 10:00 a.m. (regular Board meeting). 6. Before the Board was a Public Hearing, and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2004-062, Approving the Patterson Annexation into Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection District No. 2. Laurie Craghead explained that this involves the annexation of one property. All information is complete. There have been no objections received. Chair Daly opened the public hearing. Being no testimony offered, he closed the public hearing. DEWOLF: Move approval LUKE: Second. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, July 28, 2004 Page 7 of 11 Pages VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. 7. Before the Board was the Second Reading, and Consideration of Adoption of Ordinance No. 2004-016, Establishing a General Policy that Right of Reversion Clauses Shall Not Include Termination Dates. Laurie Craghead said that nothing has changed since the first reading. LUKE: Move approval of the 2nd reading. LUKE: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. At this time Chair Daly conducted the second reading, by title only. DEWOLF: Move approval LUKE: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes no. (Split vote.) CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 8. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of $6,734.05. LUKE: Move approval, subject to review. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, July 28, 2004 Page 8 of 11 Pages CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-11 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 9. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-11 County Service District in the Amount of $2,041.35. LUKE: Move approval, subject to review. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $3,442,833.59. LUKE: Move approval, subject to review. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. 11. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA A. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2004-364, an Amendment to the State Human Services Contract for Chemical Dependency Services under the Oregon Health Plan. Greg Canfield stated that this is a restoration of some CDO benefits that were previously cut. DEWOLF: Move approval, subject to legal review. LUKE: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, July 28, 2004 Page 9 of 11 Pages B. Before the Board was the Reading of a Proclamation Declaring September 27, 2004 Family Day in Deschutes County. This item will be addressed at a later date. C. Before the Board was Consideration of a Request from the Historical Society. Commissioner DeWolf said that the Historical Society has made a request to place a banner across Highway 97 in Redmond for an upcoming event. A letter from the County has to be submitted for ODOT to consider this. DALY: Move approval DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. Being no further items brought before the Board, Chair Daly adjourned the meeting at 11:35 a.m. DATED this 28th Day of July 2004 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: Recording Secretary Mi ael M. Daly, air Dehms R. Luke, Commissigner Tom DeWolf, Commissioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, July 28, 2004 Page 10 of 11 Pages Attachments Exhibit A: Sign -in sheet (1 page) Exhibit B: Preliminary Statement — Public Hearing (I page) Exhibit C: City of Bend Planning Staff Documents; City of Sisters and City of Redmond Documents (23 pages) Exhibit D: Coordinated Population Forecast Table (1 page) Exhibit E: Documents submitted by Paul Dewey (S pages) Exhibit F: Comments submitted by Mike Sequeira (2 pages) Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, July 28, 2004 Page 11 of 11 Pages N � L •� 0 N ' 00 N I— � d a•+ x � UL 0 k O p IL C- �. V � C d � C O N � t a N C' V" M '� V) 0 E O V 3 Cj 0 v Z (D Exhibit Pae PRELIMINARY STATEMENT FOR A LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS BEFORE THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS This is a public hearing on proposed amendments to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, which is Title 23 of the County Code. This is County File Number PA -04-6 whihc will amend sections of the Comprehensive Plan to adopt a coordinated population forecast. This is a legislative matter, meaning the outcome of this process could change comprehensive plan of Deschutes County to adopt a new coordinated population forecast for Deschutes County and the cities of Bend, Redmond, and Sisters. The Board of Commissioners will hear oral testimony, receive written testimony, and consider the testimony submitted at this hearing. The hearing is also being taped. The Board may make a decision on this matter tonight, continue the public hearing to a date certain, or leave the written record open for a specified period of time. The hearing will be conducted in the following order. The staff will give a report on this issue. We will then open the hearing to all present and ask people to present testimony at one of the tables or at the podium. You can also provide the commission with a copy of written testimony. Questions to and from the chair may be entertained at any time at the chair's discretion. Cross-examination of people testifying will not be allowed. However, if any person wishes ask a question of another person during that person's testimony, please direct your question to the chair after being recognized. The Chair is free to decide whether or not to ask such questions of the person testifying. Prior to the commencement of the hearing any party may challenge the qualifications of any the planning commissioners for bias, prejudgment or personal interest. This challenge must be documented with specific reasons supported by facts. Should any commissioner be challenged, the member may disqualify himself or herself, withdraw from the hearing or make a statement on the record of their capacity to hear and decide this issue. At this time, do any members of the Board of Commissioners need to set forth any information that may be perceived as bias, prejudgment, or personal interest? I will accept any challenges from the public now. (Hearing none, I will open the public hearing). STAFF REPORT Exhibit 15 Page [ of —r' 710 WALL STREET PO Box 431 BEND, OR 97709 [541] 388-5505 TEL [541] 388-5519 FAx WWW.ci.bend.or.us ORAN TEATER Mayor BILL FRIEDMAN Mayor Pro Tem JOHN HUMMEL City Councilor BRUCE ABERNETHY City Councilor R. DAVID MALKIN City Councilor CHRIS TELFER City Councilor LINDA S. JOHNSON City Councilor RONALD A. GARziNi Interun City Manager SONIA K. ANDREWS Interim Finance Director ANDREW JORDAN Police Chief LARRY LANGSTON Fire Chief Patricia Stell City Recorder July 28, 2004 Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St Bend, OR 97701 RE: City of Bend Planning Staff testimony on 2000 - 2025 Deschutes County Coordinated Population Forecast Commissioners, The purpose of this letter is to present the City of Bend's testimony in support of the 2000 to 2025 Deschutes County Coordinated Population Forecast. This testimony also addresses and summarizes the city's findings in support for its urban growth boundary population forecast. Bend planning staff has worked with the planning and legal staff of the county and the cities of Redmond and Sisters to develop the population forecast before the Board. City staff believes the record before the Board supports the forecast as proposed with an adequate factual base and documented assumptions. County -wide forecast The county population forecast for the year 2025 is 240,208. This total represents an increase of 123,608, or 106%, over a 25 -year period beginning in 2000. The State's Office of Economic Analysis (OEA) 2025 forecast for Deschutes County is 214,479, which is 25,738 persons, or 12 percent, lower than the county coordinated forecast'. The OEA released final state and county population forecasts for 2000 to 2040 in April of this year. City staff presents this data because the Board may receive testimony that the county forecast for 2025 is excessive or too high. For such testimony to be effective, it must compare the coordinated forecast with another population forecast for the county that forecasts lower population growth between 2000 and 2025. The record developed thus far includes only one other population forecast for Deschutes County, and that forecast is the OEA forecast 1 httn://www.oca.das.state.or.us/DAS/OEA/docs/demoeraDhic/non comnonents.xls. July 28, 2004 letter to Board of County Commissioners Page 1 of 5 Exhibit Page t of Z 3 for 2000 to 2040. City and county staff used a 2003 draft forecast from OEA and the final 2004 forecast to evaluate the local coordinated forecast. You will find the comparison of the two forecasts at pages 10 and 11 of the forecast report. City and county staff believe the record supports the coordinated county forecast and includes detailed findings and an adequate factual base to support each city and county element of the forecast. City staff also provides the Board with the following data to further support the coordinated population forecast. According to the 2003 Oregon Population Report from the Population Research Center at Portland State University (PRC), Deschutes County's population has grown by 15,133 persons, an increase of 13 percent, between the April 2000 Census and the July 1, 2003 PRC estimate for the county2. The State's population has grown by 3.5% during this same period. Only Multnomah and Washington counties saw greater population growth. No other Oregon county grew by a faster percentage. This data supports the position that the county's population will continue to grow in the near term. During this same period (2000 to 2003), the County saw a net increase in job growth while employment declined state-wide. Between April 1, 2000 and July 1, 2003, the State of Oregon saw total nonfarm payroll employment decline by 27,600 jobs, or 1.77 percent3. In this same period, Deschutes County's total nonfarm employment increased by 3,160 jobs, or 6.2 percent4. The State's overall job outlook has improved over the last year, and so has the County's. As of May 2004, the State's total nonfarm payroll employment grew by 17,000 jobs over the last year (May 2003), an increase of 2.1 percents. During this same period, the County's nonfarm employment grew by 1,860 jobs, an increase of 3.3 percent6. City staff brings this employment data to the Board's attention to show the County's overall population growth has not been dependent only on job growth. Population growth in Deschutes County has continued to outpace job growth and does not appear to have been affected by the recent recession. City staff 2 2003 Oregon Population Report (2004) Population Research Center, Portland State University - http://www.UDa.pdx.edu/CPRC/publications/annualorpopulation html. 3 Oregon Labor Trends newsletters for June 2000 and August 2003 - www.gualityinfo.org. 4 Central Oregon Labor Trends newsletters for June 2000 and August 2003 - www.gualityinfo.org. 5 Oregon Labor Trends newsletter for July 2004. 6 Central Oregon Labor Trends newsletter for July 2004. July 28, 2004 letter to Board of County Commissioners Page 2 of 5 Exhibit C-1 Page v of ?_5 believes this recent population and job growth supports the county's continued population growth in the near term. City of Bend UGB forecast You will find the Bend 2000 to 2025 UGB population forecast and the findings in support of this forecast at pages 19 through 24 of the forecast report. The city's UGB population forecast for 2025 is 109,389. This forecast represents an increase of 56,589 persons, or 107 percent, during the forecast period. The following summarizes the city's findings in support of the forecast. The city used certified estimates from the PRC at Portland State University for the first four years (2000 through 2003) of the forecast. The Deschutes County Planning Commission received oral testimony that called these estimates into question for such a purpose. The Commission did not receive any further testimony, expert or otherwise, regarding substitute estimates that should be used in this forecast. City staff finds that the estimates prepared by the PRC are prepared by qualified professionals in the field of demography and represent adequate factual data upon which to base the forecast. For the next two years of the forecast (2004-2005), the city used the city's adjusted average annual growth rate of 4.74% for the 1991 to 2002 period based on the PRC's certified estimates for these same years. City staff assumed that the momentum of population growth during the last 12 years would continue for at least two more years during the forecast horizon. For the next four years (2006-2009), the city staff assumed population growth would slow to the average annual rate between 1980 and 2002 of 3.52%. City staff again used the historic estimates data from the PRC to calculate this average annual growth rate. For the remainder of the city's forecast, from 2010 to 2025, the city relies upon the average annual growth rates developed by the OEA for its population forecast for Deschutes County during this same period7. The OEA forecast for the entire county shows declining rates of population growth during this 15 year period. City staff 7 See Table 8 at page 11 of July 28, 2004 forecast report. July 28, 2004 letter to Board of County Commissioners Page 3 of 5 Exhibit C -Page —_ of 7� finds that the OEA's forecast was also prepared by qualified professionals in the field of demography and represents and adequate factual base for forecasting the city's UGB population to 2025. The County Planning Commission received testimony that raised several issues and questions that City Staff addressed in a May 20, 2004 memorandum to the Planning Commission (see attached). Staff presents this same memorandum to the Board to show that city planning staff has addressed those issues that have been raised in public testimony on the City's UGB population forecast. The PRC reports that Bend's population, like Deschutes County's, has grown rapidly since the 2000 Census. Between April 1, 2000 and July 1, 2003 the city's population has grown by 10,781 persons, an increase of 21 percent over this period. While a number of cities have grown faster than Bend on percentage basis, only the City of Portland saw a greater increase in population growth (+16,019) during this three-year period$. This data supports the position that the city's population will continue to grow in the near term and further supports the forecast and growth rates for the 2004 to 2009 period. The City believes that recent building permit activity also indicates continued population growth in the near term. During the last four calendar years (2000 to 2003), Bend has seen increasing levels of residential building permit activity. The Census Bureau issues monthly reports on the number of permits for residences (single family, two family, three and four family, and five or more family) . Between January and May of this year, Bend issued 675 permits for 973 total units9. This represents a year -over -year increase of 201 permits, or 42 percent, for this same period in 2003. In addition, during the last four calendar years, Bend has issued a total of 4,486 building permits for 5,451 new residential units'O. This activity in construction leads city staff to believe that Bend's population growth will also continue in the near term and supports the use of recent growth rates for the city's UGB population forecast. 8 See Table 7, Alphabetical Listing of Incorporated Cities with Population for July 1, 2003, in Population Growth in Oregon: 2000 - 2003 (2004) Population Research Center. 9 Monthly, New Privately -Owned Residential Building Permits. Bend, Oregon - http://www.census.goy/const/www/permitsindex.html. 10 Ibid htto: / /www.census.goy/const/www/permitsindex.html. July 28, 2004 letter to Board of County Commissioners Page 4 of 5 Exhibit C Page _ f of Z Conclusion Planning and legal staff of the county and the cities of Bend, Redmond, and Sisters have prepared a coordinated population forecast for 2000 to 2025. The record developed to date supports the forecast with an adequate factual base and documented assumptions. The City of Bend planning staff has prepared a population forecast of 109,389 for the Bend UGB in the year 2025. City staff has summarized the city's method and factual base in support of the forecast and refers the Board to the July 28, 2004 forecast report which includes the city's detailed findings. City staff has addressed those issues raised in public hearings before the Deschutes County Planning Commission and has provided the Board with a copy of the city's memorandum for reference. With respect to any issues raised during the Board's hearing, City staff requests the opportunity to address them orally and/or in writing before the close of the record. Recommendation City staff recommends the Board adopt Ordinance 2004-012 and amend the County Comprehensive Plan to include the 2000 to 2025 Deschutes County coordinated population forecast. Sincerely, Community Development Department 41 . Damian Syrnyk, AICP Senior Planner Enclosure July 28, 2004 letter to Board of County Commissioners Page 5 of 5 Exhibit C— Page S of Z3 710 WAt-t• STRGES' PO Box 431 Br,ND, OR 97709 [5411388-5505 TEL [5411388-5519 FAX ww ci.bend or.us M E M O R A N D U M TO: DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIC FROM: DAMIAN SYRNYK, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER CITY OF BEND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: RESPONSES TO TESTIMONY FROM MAY 131, 2004 PUBLIC HEARING ON 2000 TO 2025 COORDINATED POPULATION FORECAST DATE: MAY 20, 2004 CC: CATHERINE MORROW, DESCHUTES COUNTY CDD BRIAN SHETTERLY, CITY OF BEND CDD PETER SCHANNAUER, CITY ATTORNEY Purpose This memorandum presents the City of Bend's responses to issues raised in oral testimony before the Deschutes County Planning Commission at the May 13, 2004 public hearing on the coordinated population forecast. The Planning Commission received testimony from Paul Dewey on behalf of the Sisters Forecast Planning Committee and from Carol Macbeth on behalf of 1000 Friends of Oregon. Background The Planning Commission considered the 2000 to 2025 coordinated population forecast during a public hearing on May 13, 2004. The combined planning and legal staff of Deschutes County and the cities of Bend, Redmond, and Sisters have been working toward improving and completing the forecast since the County repealed the March 2003 forecast in August of last year. One of the common goals has been to revise or change the respective forecasts to address the issues raised in an appeal filed before the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals See Sisters Forecast Planning Committee v. Deschutes County, LUBA 2003-058). Response Memorandum to Deschutes County Planning Commission Page I of 7 May 20, 2004 Exhibit C Page Co of z3 The city and county planning and legal staff worked through the summer of 2003 to revise the forecast and presented it during a noticed public meeting on November 6, 2003. At this meeting, the respective planning staff of the county and the cities presented the entire forecast and the methods employed by each jurisdiction in preparing their respective forecasts. The city and county staff received written comments from Kate Kimball on behalf of 1000 Friends of Oregon and oral comments from Paul Dewey, who also appeared before the commission at the hearing. Michael Sequeria submitted written comments after the public meeting. After the public meeting the cities and the county went back to address the issues and questions raised during the public meeting to improve the forecast for a public hearing process. The product before the Deschutes County Planning Commission is the final forecast based on the changes made in response to public comments during and after the November 2003 public meeting. City staff would point out that neither the Oregon Revised Statutes See ORS 195.036) nor the Oregon Administrative Rules prescribe a single population forecast or method for producing a population forecast. The record includes examples of multiple methods for producing a population forecast (e.g. cohort -component versus linear/ trending). The forecast before the Planning Commission is one that was created through professionally accepted means of population forecasting and used public sources of data (e.g. Census Bureau data) for producing the forecast. Issue Responses City staff understands that the following issues were raised in oral testimony before the Planning Commission during the May 13, 2004 with respect to the May 2004 forecast report: Use of estimates data from the Population Research Center (PRC), including the use of 2000 vacancy data for housing. 2. Using more up to date vacancy data because of a belief or assumption that the percentage of vacant housing in a city (e.g. Bend) is currently higher than the vacancy rate reported in the results for the 2000 Census. 3. The impact of current, low mortgage interest rates on the financing of new residential construction. Response Memorandum to Deschutes County Planning Commission Page 2 of 7 May 20, 2004 Exhibit � Page -1 of �_,3_ 4. The City of Bend's ability to provide water to the 2025 population forecast of 109,389, 5. Retaining existing text in the County Comprehensive Plan regarding water resources and population See DCC Section 23.16.020). b. Using Monte Carlo methods of preparing several forecast scenarios for the population forecast. The following are the responses of city staff to these issues with respect to the City of Bend's portion of the population forecast. 1. Use of estimates data from the Population Research Center (PRC), including the use of 2000 vacancy data for housing. 2. Using more up to date vacancy data because of a belief or assumption that the percentage of vacant housing in a city (e.g. Bend) is currently higher than the vacancy rate reported in the results for the 2000 Census. RESPONSE: City staff proposes to address both issues through the following response. One of the questions Mr. Dewey raised was how cities report their building permit data to the Population Research Center at Portland State University (PRC) for the purposes of estimating the city populations. You will find enclosed a copy of the city's "2003 City Population Questionnaire" through which the city reported the number of building permits for new construction and demolition. The methods employed by the City of Bend to forecast its UGB population from 2000 to 2025 are professionally accepted methods and rely on data prepared by professional demographers using standard methods for estimating population. Mr. Dewey raised the question of whether the estimates produced by the Population Research Center (PRC) should be considered sacrosanct because of an expressed sense that the vacancy data used in producing such estimated may not reflect the actual vacancy rates on the date of the official population estimates'. Mr. Dewey expressed a sense that the current vacany rates were higher than those used in the preparation of the PRC estimates, but did not provide any data or evidence to show that this was the case.. This ' Both the PRC and the Census Bureau estimate city populations as of July 1 of an estimate year. Response Memorandum to Deschutes County Planning Commission Page 3 of 7 May 20. 2004 Exhibit (2 - Page Page _g__ of Z testimony did not submit or refer to alternative data into the record for the Planning Commission to consider. Enclosed with this memorandum are copies of the methods used by the PRC and the United States Census Bureau for estimating the populations of cities and towns.. You will note that both agencies make some assumption of the number of vacant housing units based on the 2000 Census count of the number of vacant housing units for a city. City staff does not agree that additional research is necessary to address this issue. There is no single federal or state agency, such as OEA, that tracks residential vacancy rates in a statistically valid and comprehensive manner for the city of Bend or Deschutes County. Local agencies such as the Central Oregon Regional Housing Authority (COHRA) conduct ,yearly surveys of rental units. Relying on this data or data from property management firms regarding the number of vacant units they maintain would provide only a sample of properties that are vacant in the Bend UGB and one that would not be scientifically valid. City staff argues that the Planning Commission and ultimately the Board of County Commissioners will need to be aware of and accept the limitations of the forecast, including the use of PRC data and vacancy rates for housing. 3. The impact of current, low mortgage interest rates on the financing of new residential construction. RESPONSE: City staff does not agree that the impact of what testimony describes as "low" mortgage rates has an impact on current vacancy rates or the city's population forecast. First, this testimony did not provide any data as to current interest rates in Bend and how those allegedly "low" interest rates have fueled a level of residential construction that might result in a larger forecast by 2025. City staff would point out that the city's population forecast, for example, relies on past estimates from the PRC for 2000 to 2003. For the 2004 to 2005 period, the city relies on historic growth rates for 1991 to 2002, which do not include two years of population growth that are higher than average. For the period for 2006 to 2009 the city relies on a longer time period of 1980 to 2002, which city staff believes addresses the potential influence of short term growth with periods of recession. Home mortgage rates during the 1980 to 2002 period have fluctuated between five (5) percent and 12 percent. The population data relied upon for the years 1980 through 2003 were produced by the PRC and checked through the Census counts of 1980, 1990, and 2000.. The Planning Commission did not receive any new evidence or data that shows the current mortgage interest rates are leading to higher than average construction in the near Response Memorandum to Deschutes County Planning Commission Page 4 of 7 May 20, 2004 Exhibit L' Page :t of Z3 term (e.g. 2000 to 2003) and that this development will skew or bias the forecast in the long term. 4. The City of Bend's ability to provide water to the population forecast for 2025, 109,389. RESPONSE: City staff disagrees with this position and argues again that the population forecast is a tool, not a goal. In order for the city to determine its needs for potable water, the city needs a forecast of what the city's population may be for a certain period of time. Mr. Dewey did not provide any data or evidence into the record that shows the city's forecast should be adjusted because the city will not be able to provide potable water to this population. You will find enclosed a copy of the executive summary for "Initial Assessment of Water Supply and Mitigation Alternatives" prepared by Newton Consultants, Inc. and the Deschutes Resources Conservancy for the City of Bend. The City of Bend retained Newton Consultants and Deschutes Resources Conservancy to conduct an initial assessment of water supply and groundwater mitigation alternatives for the city. City staff has submitted a copy of this document into the record not as conclusive evidence that the city will be able to provide water for a population of 109,389. Rather, the city has provided this data to show the city is taking concrete steps to ensure it can meet the water needs of the city's population regardless of the final number by the year 2025. The consultants used a November 2002 draft forecast for the city's UGB to estimate future water demand. City staff brings this information to the attention of the commission to demonstrate that the forecast is supposed to and has been used as a tool to evaluate water needs and is not supposed to be a goal for the city to achieve and ensure it can provide water for this goal_ 5. Retaining existing text in the County Comprehensive Plan regarding water resources and population See DCC Section 23.16.020). RESPONSE: City staff has no position on this issue since it involves text in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. The city believes this matter should be addressed through county staff making a recommendation to the Planning Commission and ultimately the Board of County Commissioners.. Response Memorandum to Deschutes County Planning Commission Page 5 of 7 May 20, 2004 Exhibit C:_ Page /o of Z3 6. Using Monte Carlo methods of preparing several forecast scenarios for the population forecast. RESPONSE: City staff argues that it is not necessary to use Monte Carlo methods for preparing alternative population forecasts for the cities and the county.. You will find a brief description of Monte Carlo simulation methods enclosed with this memorandum. City and county staff have already considered several forecast scenarios without using these software or methods. The March 2003 forecast adopted by the Board of Commissioners and appealed to LUBA represents one scenario. A second scenario was released for public review in November 2003, The April 15, 2004 report and forecast represent a third scenario with each jurisdiction preparing a new forecast or revised findings after receiving public comments on the November 2003 draft report. During the last year the cities and the county used a January 2003 draft population forecast from the State of Oregon Office of Economic Analysis (OEA) to evaluate draft forecasts, which represents a fourth forecast scenario. Finally, the recently released 2004 final OEA forecast for Deschutes County provides a fifth forecast for the county and the cities to consider in deciding upon a final forecast for the county to adopt. City staff submits that purchasing such software and preparing additional scenarios is not necessary especially when the proposed forecast before the commission is within 10 to 13 percent of OEA's recently released forecast for Deschutes County from 2000 to 2025. Conclusion The City has provided this memorandum to address the issues staff heard through oral testimony at the May 13, 2004 public hearing before the Deschutes County Planning Commission. Enclosed with this memorandum are a number of documents in support of city staff's responses to these issues. / DPS Enclosures: 1. 2003 City County Population Questionnaire from the City of Bend to the Population Research Center, Portland State University. Response Memorandum to Deschutes County Planning Commission Page 6 of 7 May 20, 2004 Exhibit � Page t/ 0f -Z-3 2. Estimates and Proiections Are Documentation: Subcounty total population estimates. U.S. Census Bureau http•//eine census ov/popest/topics/ methodology /citymeth php 3. Population Estimates Methodology.. Population Research Center, Portland State University, wNvw.upa.pdx.edu/CPRS/pro,grams/estimates/popestimates.html. 4. Initial Assessment of Water Supply and Mitigation Alternatives (September, 2003) Newton Consultants, Inc and Deschutes Resources Conservancy.. Available through City of Bend website www.ci.bend.or.us.. 5., "What is Monte Carlo Simulation?" (2004) Risk Analysis Overview from the website of Decisioneering. www.decisioneering.com., Response Memorandum to Deschutes County Planning Commission Page 7 of 7 May 20, 2004 Exhibit C - Page 1 2 --of 1-3 RESOLUTION 2004-06 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A CITY OF SISTERS POPULATION FORECAST FOR YEARS 2004-2025 WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 195.036, Deschutes County, acting as the coordinating body under ORS 195.025, is required to establish and to maintain a population forecast for the County, including the cities of Bend, Redmond, and Sisters; and WHEREAS, in 1998 the City of Sisters participated with the cities of Bend and Redmond and Deschutes County in developing the County's first coordinated population forecast; and WHEREAS, after the 2000 decennial Census, and subsequent population estimates of the Population Research Center of the State of Oregon, the County found that population growth was occurring faster than originally contemplated in the 1998 forecast; and WHEREAS, the City of Sisters then participated with the cities of Bend, Redmond, Deschutes County, and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, to develop a new population forecast from the year 2000 to the year 2025; and WHEREAS, the City of Sisters population forecast provides a basis for the County's determination of the City's projected population growth and guides the City's long range planning and urban growth boundary determination. NOW, THEREFORE THE SISTERS CITY COUNCIL RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City of Sisters Population Forecast for Years 2004-2025 as more thoroughly described in the attached Exhibit A is hereby adopted. ADOPTED by the City Council of Sisters this 13"' day of May 2004. APPROVED by the Mayor this 13th day of May 2004. M. David Elliott, Mayor Attest: 4ylla-te,�Z-2� - - ' Eileen Stein, City Manager/Recorder Resolution 2004-06 — Population Forecast for 2004-25 Exhibit C- Page t 3 of Message Catherine Morrow From: VAIDYA Kanhaiya L * DAS OEA [Kanhaiya.L.Vaidya@state.or.us] Sent: Monday, July 26, 200412:10 PM To: Catherine Morrow Subject: deschutes.doc Dear Catherine Morrow, Page 1 of 1 Just my thoughts on the draft population forecast. Please pass the attached document to the concerned official/s. Thanks. Kanhaiya Vaidya, Ph.D. Senior Demographer Office of Economic Analysis Department of Administrative Services State of Oregon 155 Cottage Street NE, U20 Salem, OR 97301 Phone: 503-3784967 Fax: 503-373-7643 email: kanhaiya.l.vaidya@state.or.us Web: http://www.oea.das.state.or.us/ 7/26/2004 Exhibit C: Page of Kanhaiya Vaidya Office of Economic Analysis, DAS I just want to make quick comments. Hopefully, these will be useful in your final decision. Deschutes County's population change in unincorporated area: Period Numeric change % change 1990-2000 (Census, April 1) 2,260 0.47% 2000-2010 (est./forecast, July 1) 11,807 2.23% 2010-2020 (forecast, July 1) 14,375 2.18% (Sources: the Census numbers are from the Census Bureau and the forecast numbers are from Deschutes County's draft forecast, pp. 16-17) I don't see any rationale for the future growth in unincorporated population that is more than five -fold in the last decade. The most recent estimate by PRC/PSU shows a lower unincorporated population in 2003 than in 2000. Table 4. Population Estimates for Oregon and Its Counties and Incorporated Cities: April 1, 1990 to July 1, 2003 122,050 116,600 115,367 74,958 Bend July 1 July 1 July 1 July 1 U.S. U.S. Population Population Population Population Census Census Estimates Estimates Estimates Estimates Count Count County and City 2003 2002 2001 2000 4/1/2000 4/1/1990 DESCHUTES 130,500 126,500 122,050 116,600 115,367 74,958 Bend 62,900 57,750 55,080 52,800 52,029 20,447 Redmond 17,450 16,110 14,960 13,770 13,481 7,165 Sisters 1,430 1,080 960 975 959 708 Uninc. 48,720 51,560 51,050 49,055 48,898 46,638 Source: htip://www.upa.l?dx.edu/CPRC/publications/annuaigMp The main reason for the slow growth in the unincorporated population in the last decade was associated with annexation. Between 1990 and 2000, 54% of the population change in Bend and 44% of the change in Sisters were due to annexation. In my opinion, County's assumption of 2.2% annual growth rate in unincorporated population is out of line of 0.47% annual growth rate during the 1990s. It's true that the unincorporated population annual growth rate exceeded 2% during the 1980s. But again, unlike 1990s, the 1980s was the period when County's and Cities' population growth rates were lower than in the unincorporated area AND low annexation. Exhibit (�_ Page /5- of 7' Catherine Morrow From: Mark RADABAUGH [Mark. Radabaugh@state.or.us] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 2:28 PM To: bshetterly@ci.bend.or.us; DSyrnyk@ci.bend.or.us; mbyers@ci.bend.or.us; pschannauer@ci.bend.or.us; brankin@ci.sisters.or.us; Catherine Morrow; Laurie Craghead; Pam@gov-law.com; Jon JININGS; chuckm@redmond.or.us Cc: Doreen Blome; Tom Anderson; Merriesue Carlson Subject: Re: Population Forecast Public Hearing Documents Catherine: Thanks for the updated information. I'll be unavailable on the 28th due to obligations in Malheur County that day. However, it looks like you're in good hands as the county approaches the project's conclusion. As you know, DLCD is in support of the coordination process undertaken by Deschutes'County as it works to adopt population projections for its city jurisdictions. Having worked with a good number of similar county coordination efforts previously in the Willamette Valley region, I'm confident that the efforts of you and your staff easily rival the most exhaustive efforts in west -of -Cascades region. As we look at the plain meaning of ORS 195.036 and the County's overall coordination authority pursuant to ORS 195.025, it is clear that your effort has fully met the obligations called out in state planning law. Please let the Commissioners know of DLCD's support of your effort and our recommendation —fiat ey a op a up a e popu a ion orecast for its juris is ions. -_-- Mark. Mark Radabaugh DLCD 541/388.6157 >>> "Catherine Morrow" <Catherine_Morrow@co.deschutes.or.us> 7/15/2004 3:34:20 PM >>> Attached are the following documents: July 2004 BOCC Draft: Deschutes County Coordinated Population Forecast 2000-2025, Findings in Support of Forecast Ordinance 2004-012 Ordinance 2004-012 Exhibit A Ordinance 2004-012 Exhibit B Ordinance 2004-012 Exhibit C Ordinance 2004-012 Exhibit D Notice of Public Hearing The public hearing will be on July 28th at 10:00 am. These documents will be posted on the County web page tomorrow: http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/go/government/departments/community-develo pment-department (look under quick links). The notice in the Bulletin will be published on Sunday. The mailed notice will go out tomorrow to all the parties and to a long list of agencies and organizations. Damian, Chuck and Brian, please look over the report to check the numbers and your sections. We changed some table numbers because we inserted one new table for Redmond and the Redmond 2025 forecast changed from 47,169 to 44,180. The final county wide number went from 243,197 to 240,208. Let me know if you find any errors or typos. Thanks Catherine Exhibit C - Page t (,, of Z City of Sisters Population Forecast: Appendix C Overview Appendix C discusses three topics referenced in the report. First, how construction of a municipal sewer system impacted development potential in the city and resulted in a surge of building activity. Secondly, this appendix discusses the appropriateness of using the statistic persons per household in population projections. Lastly, the appendix provides a brief statement regarding public infrastructure and if it is a limiting factor on expected growth. Construction of a Municipal Sewer and its Impact on Land Divisions The lack of a sanitary sewer system artificially limited growth in Sisters during the biggest growth period in the county's history (see PRC July 1 estimates for unincorporated Deschutes County 1990-2000). Prior to the completion of the Municipal Sewer system in 2001-2002, the Oregon State Department of Environmental Quality required minimum'/ acre lots for on-site residential domestic septic system in Sisters. In 1998, of the 461 home sites in the City of Sisters, 380 (82%) lots were less than 1/2 acre, and thus ineligible for .DEQ .permits to .install .new, .approved septic systems. This DEQ requirement limited residential density, infill opportunities, and residential growth in general because 82% of the home sites in the City of Sisters were not eligible for DEQ septic system approval. The i s sewer system, mostly competedm2001, sup op ase owth than was possible in the past. Table 1: New Building Permits for Residential Units, shows a steadily increasing number of building permits for residential units being issued in the City of Sisters (hereafter referred to as Sisters or City) between 1995 and 2003, a period of time approximately three years preceding and three years following the completion of the municipal sewer system. There were more than twice as many building permits issued between 2001-2003 (243) than between 1995-2000 (114). Table 1: New Building Permits for Residential Units 1995 BUt din Pets or` es�d+eiat ` � A * . 5 1996 13 1997 13 1998 11 1999 20 2000 52 2001 69 2002 70 2003 104 2004 20 through March, est. 80 for yr. Source: City of Sisters Building Permits Note: Permits are for Residential Units, subtracting demolitions. 411412004 Exhibit (` Page 17 of Z 3 City of Sisters Population Forecast: Appendix C Table 2: Average Building Permits Issued Per Year Before and After Municipal Sewer (2001) shows that an average of 19 building permits per year were issued between 1995 and 2000 (preceding sewer), and 81 building permits per year were issued between 2001 and 2003 (after sewer). Table 2. Average Building Permits Issued Per Year Before and After Municipal Sewer 1995-2000 114 19 2001-2003 243 81 Source: City of Sisters Building Permits Table 3: Lots Created via Minor Partitions, and Table 4: Lots Created via Subdivision, demonstrate lot creation in Sisters prior to and after installation of the municipal sewer. The municipal sewer was approved by voters in 1998. In years 1993 through 1996, when -construction of a municipal sewer was more uncertain, no new lots were created via subdivision, and only two new lots were created by minor partition. In 1999, the year after voter approval, the number of lots created by subdivision and partition increased -----d over the preceding years. Since installation of the sewer, lot creation has been consistently higher than prior to the construction of the sewer. Table 3: Lots Created via Minor Partitions Source: City ofSisters Records 411412004 2 Exhibit L Page 40f - Z-3 e creatt e 1995 1 1996 1 1997 1 1998 1 1999 7 2000 6 2001 9 2002 20 2003 15 Source: City ofSisters Records 411412004 2 Exhibit L Page 40f - Z-3 City of Sisters Population Forecast: Appendix C Table 4: Lots Created via Subdivision 1993 0 1994 0 1995 0 1996 0 1997 17 1998 14 1999 178 2000 0 2001 18 2002 85 2003 22 Source:—City--of_Sisters_Records -- ---- -.- People per Housing Unit Approximately 10.5 percent of dwelling units in Sisters are vacant units used for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use according to the 2000 U.S. Census (see Table 5: Housing Occupancy). An analysis of residential water accounts in August of 2003 in Sisters shows that of the 529 residential water accounts, 61 have billing addresses outside of the 97759 zip code (Sisters area). This is approximately 12 percent of the total number of accounts, and further supports the 2000 U.S. Census data and assertion that a sizable number of units in Sisters are not occupied on a full time basis. Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 1 (SF -1) 100 -Percent Data Considering the fact of a vacancy rate in Sisters of 17.63% (in Table 6, above), the City of Sisters Planning Staff relied upon the statistic "People per Housing Unit' to estimate how many people will live in Sisters based on the construction of new dwelling units (i.e. residential building permits). Table 6: People per Housing Unit, shows information from the 1990 and 2000 U.S. Censuses, including the total population reported in each census year and the total number of housing units in each of those years. The statistic "People/Unit" is derived by dividing the "City of Sisters Population" by "Total Housing Units". This method accounts for seasonal use of units, vacancy, and recreational use of units. Between 1990 and 2000, the number of people per unit increased from 1.91 to 411412004 3 Exhibit /-I Page / ? of Z_ City of Sisters Population Forecast: Appendix C 1.99 (1990 and 2000 U.S. Censuses, SF -1, 100 -percent count). The City of Sisters Planning Staff believes this trend will continue in the future as shown in Table 9: Population and Building Permit Forecasts forthe Sisters UGB: 2003-2025, under the column "Persons per Dwelling Unit". 1990 679 354 1.91 2000 959 482 1.99 Source: 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 1 (SF -1) 100 -Percent Data Infrastructure The City has community facilities plans for water, wastewater, parks and transportation. A voter mandated Charter amendment that Systems Development Charges be paid as development permits are issued ensures there will be adequate capacity in those systems to accommodate growth. As more residential building permits are issued, the amount of SDCs coll-e-c—ted increases directly. f—ad itional landis needed to accommodate anticipated housing, industrial, or commercial growth, the City will comply with State of Oregon requirements to provide the necessary land base. Water, sewer, and transportation facility plans will be updated to reflect anticipated population growth, necessary infrastructure will be planned, and SDCs updated and required to fund needed improvements. The Sisters School District has adequate facilities to accept increased enrollment and their reputation for quality (as defined as being a public school with one of the highest average SAT scores for graduating seniors) attracts families to the district. The Sisters School District recently completed building a new high school, enabling the high school, middle school, and elementary school to all have enrollment at approximately half of the facilities total student capacity. In addition, the Sisters School District owns a large campus with sufficient room for an additional elementary school if needed. 411412004 4 Exhibit G Page Z -U of — z- I i ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS IN 375 PARK AVE COOS BAY OREGON 97420 ■ 541.269.1166 FAX 541.269.1833 CELL 541.953.3958 rnored@hgel.com ■ Richard D. Noted, P.E. Joseph A. Slack, A.I.A. Russ Dodge, PLS Stephen R. Cox June 1, 2004 City of Sisters P.O. Box 39 Sisters, OR 97759 Attn: Brian Rankin Planner Re: Water and Sewer System Capacity Project No. 9905 Dear Brian: In response to your recent request for infrastructure planning in the City of Sisters, we have developed the following information for water and sewer system planning for the City, in conjunction with the listed questions and concerns. 1. Based on today's infrastructure, how much growth can the City of Sisters First, it is worthwhile to address a basic understanding of how community infrastructure is developed. Water distribution and wastewater collection systems are designed for ultimate buildout to the limits of the established Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), and for the planned development density. In the case of Sisters, the UGB and the planning criteria is the boundary that existed in 1997. However, as increased density of development is approved in the Comprehensive Plan, provisions can be made to accommodate increased citizen demands, by reinforcing the water systems and by installation of interceptors for the wastewater system, if required to contain the increased flows. Plans are being continuously updated within the UGB, and growth inside the boundary should be readily accomplished with existing facilities, reinforced as necessary with planning for the future. The water sources and wastewater treatment facilities are limited in capacity at the present time, although planning is progressing for future needs. The existing wastewater facilities plan was developed for a population of 1,814 people, with provisions for additional storage and irrigation capacity, which is the limiting factor for the treatment facility. At the present time, the wastewater treatment facility has capacity for approximately 1,500 people, and the addition of land for increased holding and land disposal will increase the plant capacity to at least 1,814 people. Increased land area is available for irrigation within the current ownership of the City of Sisters, but this will utilize land initially set aside as an increased buffer adjacent to the Buck Run subdivision. Provisions were also made with the US Forest Service to allow for an expansion of the existing wastewater treatment plant disposal site, and the City is making plans for acquisition of an additional 80 acre land reuse site. Other alternatives for leasing land for reuse of wastewater effluent are being considered, and the City of Sisters may need to request additional lands for Exhibit C_ Page Zl of _ Water and Sewer System Capacity, Project No. Project # 9905 June 1, 2004 Page 2 effluent disposal from the US Forest Service, if privately owned lands cannot be made available by the time additional disposal capacity is required. Every water and sewer system is in a continuing evolution to meet demands of an increasing population, and Sisters is planning for continued growth. Sisters has made provisions to expand both the existing water and sewer systems with systems development charges (SDC's), and monies are being collected to accommodate continued growth. The existing water system, like the wastewater system, was designed to accommodate anticipated growth within the UGB that existed in 1997, and provisions for system expansion are continually being made as growth occurs. Limiting factors will be in reservoir capacity and in source capabilities. The City currently has capacity for 1,123 people, and the addition of an additional water source and reservoir will allow for growth to approximately 1,800 people. A new Water Master Plan is in the planning stages, and provisions will be made for both water and sewer systems to accommodate growth to the projected 20 year planning population of 4,700 residents. 2. Based on full construction of existing master plans, how much growth can the City of Sisters accommodate? Current master plans for the water system will provide for a capacity of approximately 1,123 residents, and the current wastewater system master plan will accommodate 1,814 residents. Provisions are currently being made for an update of the water system master plan, and for improved water source and storage capabilities. The wastewater system is limited in storage and available land for effluent reuse, and the City is currently pursuing land area for future effluent storage and effluent reuse needs. Plans are underway to allow for growth to the 20 year projected population of 4,700 residents. 3. What are some of the basic steps the City of Sisters is exploring to acquire new infrastructure capacity, and are these likely to be implemented? The City of Sisters has planned for a new groundwater source and a second storage reservoir. SDC funds are being collected to permit development of both. Additional water rights will need to be acquired from existing water sources, or by a purchase of water rights from some of the conservation groups that have collected water rights that will be made available for mitigation purposes. The City currently maintains surface water rights that are not currently being utilized by the City, and these may be made available for mitigation through exchanges for ground water sources. A new water system master plan is being planned, and should be implemented during 2004. This plan will make provisions for the projected 2024 population needs, and plans are likely to be implemented. Current wastewater planning has been completed for a population of 1,814 residents, and additional land area is being acquired to implement the existing plan for needed storage and effluent reuse needs. When the planned capacity of wastewater treatment and disposal is approached, the City will implement a new wastewater system master plan, ®ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS & PLANNERS 375 Park Avenue, Coos Bay, Oregon 97420 Exhibit C_ - Page Page z z --of Water and Sewer System Capacity, Project No. Project # 9905 r, June 1, 2004 Page 3 which will make provisions for the projected 2024 population needs of the City. Plans for future capacity are necessary to accommodate growth within City boundaries, and recommendations will be implemented. If you have any questions or concerns in this regard, please contact me. Very truly yours, HGE INC., Architects, Engineers, Surveyors & Planners Richard D. Nored, P.E. City Engineer C. Eileen Stein Gary Frazee Public Works Director ®ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS & PLANNERS 375 Park Avenue, Coos Bay, Oregon 97420 Exhibit C— Page Z3 of Z3 > >cu UC C O CD � U L :3 O n LL co N cu � L U- U C m o a N •- U j LL O CN M 1 N O I I'- � I "*' N m 1 N LO 1 e - It V) � C C� O I� � M N 0 pnj (0 N N N N 0 r N 't O GO r' CN N N M0 0 0 0 0 0 U-) co O O O O LIQ In N r r r r Ir - O CN M 1 N O I I'- � I "*' N m 1 N LO 1 e - It V) � c � r- � co 0 0 0 0 0 co M co to O O coo � 0 � M N pnj co N N N N LO �- NI L" M M 1 COd 0', 0 0 01 0 0 0 CN O O N 0 0 N 10, pnj co N N r r LO 0 0 0 0 M N r O -F!:2- N 10, pnj N uo co O I� NN N O GO �- CN 0 M0 M010- 0 0 0 0 0 M r _\ O _\ N N �t co O I� N O GO CN 0 �Irl, -'- N V N CU N N N N N N } Exhibit I'P Page �_ of I co M r O N coCN M CN 0 U-) co O O O O � Ir - �Irl, -'- N V N CU N N N N N N } Exhibit I'P Page �_ of I Paul D. Dewey Attorney at Law 1539 NW Vicksburg July 27, 2004 Bend, Oregon 97701 (541) 317-1993 Board of County Commissioners Deschutes County 1300 NW Wall St. Bend, OR 97701-1960 Re: Coordinated Population Forecast Dear Commissioners: I am writing on behalf of my clients, the Friends of Deschutes County and the Sisters Forest Planning Committee. At the outset, I would like to thank the Commissioners for this opportunity to comment and also to commend the County for an improved process for determining a Coordinated Population Forecast from the process the SFPC appealed last year. However, despite the narrowing of issues on this Coordinated Population Forecast process, there are still significant deficiencies in the County's analysis. City of Redmond The City of Redmond's new numbers are not adequately explained in the County's new materials. Though the County materials generally reference the ECONorthwest Report, we do not find justification of these particular numbers in that report. In addition, it appears that Redmond failed to adjust its numbers for persons annexed within the UGB (and certainly for the 1980-1992 period). City of Sisters There have been a variety of population forecasts for the City of Sisters for the past two years. We are attaching documents which attempt to track these many changes. Our central objection to these numbers is that they appear to be derived to justify a pre-existing conclusion of where the currently planned urban growth boundary expansion of Sisters should develop. One of our central concerns has been the way in which the City of Sisters used building permit data to show an exponential growth for the City of Sisters. In many respects, the City has now refined this process to acknowledge that there was a spurt in growth associated with the installation of the sewer that will not continue at the same rate into the future. However, in an apparent attempt to make up for whatever was lost in population due to that acknowledgement, the City has added a new category of "Residential Permits/Year from Rural Transfer." This add- on is totally unjustified. All of the other growth trend analysis used by the County, including Exhibit (: Page 1 of 5 Board of County Commissioners Deschutes County July 27, 2004 Page 2 growth rates over a number of years or increases in building permits, have been premised on these rates including variables such as recessions, low mortgage rates, land shortages, city growth policies, etc. It is totally unjustified for the City of Sisters to arbitrarily tack on this "Rural Transfer" analysis onto its growth trend analysis. No other community in the county has used such a process and the City of Sisters does not adequately justify it. The total population growth over the next 20 years associated with this Rural Transfer is 941 people. Accordingly, the City's numbers should be reduced by this amount over each year that there is an addition for this rural transfer and the County's overall numbers should also be reduced accordingly. Forecast in General The Forecast relies too much on recent growth rates, ignoring current downward trends and rising mortgage rates. The County also fails to adequately respond to the significantly lesser growth predicted by OEA. Water Shortage It is well known that surface water rights in the Deschutes Basin are over -appropriated. At Deschutes County's current population level, streamflows within the Deschutes Basin are already significantly depleted. Nearly year round flows in the lower Deschutes River do not meet the flow standards set by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) for protection of fish, wildlife, and recreation. State scenic waterway flows and instream water rights are regularly not met in the summer and fall months. Even a small increase in demand for water from municipalities is significant in the over -appropriated Deschutes Basin, where most of the water rights are currently held by Central Oregon farmers, and streamflows needed for fish habitat are already low. The data indicates that the addition of 100,000 persons to the population of Deschutes County in the next 20 years will further strain the capabilities and limitations of the water resource in the Deschutes Basin in terms of water rights and supply by increasing absolute demand for water. If Deschutes County Commissioners amend the Plan to adopt the coordinated population forecast as currently projected they must also address other affected sections of the Plan (for required consistency under Goal 2) and other Statewide Goals, including Goals 3 and 5, plus DCC 23.88.020, to preserve and maintain agricultural land; DCC 23.96.010 and DCC 23.96.020, to conserve scenic resources including scenic waterways; and DCC 23.104.020(1) to conserve and protect existing fish and wildlife areas. Such consistency is also required by ORS 197.015(5) and DCC 23.12.00 which provide that the Comprehensive Plan is to interrelate natural systems and activities relating to the use of lands. In order to provide internally consistent and interrelated policy decisions in its Comprehensive Plan, the County must provide data to demonstrate that the actions taken by the County and its Exhibit 6� Page :2-_ of S Board of County Commissioners Deschutes County July 27, 2004 Page 3 municipalities to meet the water needs of the projected population, in particular canal piping for mitigation, will be consistent with the approved plan's goal to protect areas of special concern and scenic waterways. (DCC 23.96.020; ORS 197.015(5); OAR 660-015-0000(2)(III)(C)(1)) An apparent problem, though, is that canal lining or piping for mitigation purposes will not result in replacement water, but will only move water around with the ultimate result being less surface water in the lower Deschutes. The U.S. Forest Service, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Bureau of Land Management have all apparently adopted this position. The County must resolve these potential conflicts with regional, state and federal governments, and must provide factual data and policy guidance to ensure the steps the County and its municipalities will take to obtain the necessary water and water rights to supply the needs of the increased population without either resulting in harm to the regional economy or diminishing the flow and other protected characteristics of the state scenic waterways and the federal wild, scenic, and recreational rivers of the Deschutes Basin. (OAR 660-015-0000(2)(III)(A) and (B)) The preservation and maintenance of agricultural land is the subject of statewide planning Goal 3 (OAR 660-015-0000(3) which implements the Oregon legislature's agricultural land use policy as expressed in ORS 215.243 and ORS 215.700). For the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan to be internally consistent, it cannot both set protection for agricultural lands as a goal (DCC 23.88.020) and include a coordinated population forecast that commits the County and its cities to acquiring agricultural water rights to meet the demand from the increased population. Because farms in Central Oregon are almost wholly dependent on irrigation, a transfer of water rights from farmers to municipalities that even potentially leads to the drying up of farmland will have a permanent impact on the Central Oregon agricultural industry, not just in Deschutes County, but also in Crook and Jefferson Counties. The County must provide data and detailed policy guidance ensuring the actions taken by the County and its cities to meet the water needs of the projected population, in particular acquisition of water rights from individuals or irrigation districts, will be consistent with the approved Plan's economic policy of protecting agricultural land to assure continued agricultural production and the benefits to tourism. (DCC 23.52.030(2)(a)) The County will need to resolve with Jefferson County, Crook County, and the State any potential conflicts that may arise from re -allocation of water from the agricultural industry of one county to the municipal population of another. (OAR 660-015-0000(2)(III)(A) and (B)) Prior to adopting the proposed amendment, the County should amend the Water Resources portion of the Plan (DCC 23.112.010) by providing the factual data that have become available since that section was approved. As currently written, the approved Plan refers to the 2001 USGS study of the geohydrology of the Upper Deschutes Basin (Gannett, et al., 2001) as a study in which the USGS "is presently involved," and states, "Unfortunately, inadequate information exists on water supplies." Exhibit 6 Page 3 of Board of County Commissioners Deschutes County July 27, 2004 Page 4 Conclusion The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners should not amend the text of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan to adopt the proposed coordinated population forecast for Deschutes County and the cities of Bend, Redmond, and Sisters at this time. The Sisters forecast should be revised downwards and further explanation is required for the Redmond numbers and the County numbers as a whole. Prior to amending the text of the plan to adopt the population forecast, the County must also provide factual data and policy guidance that will interrelate the adoption of the population forecast with the capabilities and limitations of the water resources of the Deschutes Basin. Very truly yours, aEWEY PDD:ao Exhibit e Page q_ of S- Attached are the following materials for inclusion in the record: 1. A 3/31/04 letter from the Friends of Deschutes County and the SFPC to Deschutes County regarding the proposed Sisters UGB expansion, with attachments. 2. Excerpts from the 11/6/03 draft Forecast 3. App. C to the 4/14/04 Sisters Forecast draft 4. Excerpts from 3/24/04 Findings for UGB Expansion in Sisters 5. Excerpts from 12/18/02 Sisters Buildable Lands Inventory 6. 3/24/04 Sisters draft Forecast 7. 2003 Petition for Review by SFPC in 2003-058 8. The Appendix in the Petition for Review 9. 7/18/04 "Growth spreads to rural town," The Bulletin 10. WaterWatch, "Background on the Lawsuit to Protect Deschutes River Water Flows" 11. 7/1/04 "Fed ups interest rate by'/4 point," The Bulletin 12. Excerpts from "Ground -Water Hydrology of the Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon," USGS 2001 13. "Initial Assessment of Water Supply and Mitigation Alternatives," Newton Consultants 2003 14. 6/1/04 letter from HGE to Sisters 15. 5/17/04 letter from Maley to McGraw and 2003 "Water Mitigation Strategy for the City of Redmond Water Supply" 16. 6/7/04 "With growth in mind, Bend looks to buy water rights," The Bulletin 17. 6/5/02 letter from ODFW to WRD 18. 5/28/02 letter from Forest Service to WRD 19. 9/13/02 letter from ODF W to WRD 20. 10/18/01 letter from ODFW to WRD 21. 7/21/03 "Central Oregon rethinking water use," The Bulletin 22. 7/5/04 "Plan to protect trout habitat in Upper Deschutes raising ire," The Bulletin 23. WaterWatch, "Threats to the Deschutes" 24. WaterWatch of Oregon's testimony on Deschutes Basin rules 25. "Western Irrigation Economic Benefits Review: Irrigated Agriculture's Role for the 21St Century," Olsen and Ziari Exhibit 6 Page _S of -5- July 28, 2004 Comments on July 2004 Draft of Coordinated Population Forecast Redmond Point 1: Page 26: "The compounding methodology is inappropriate because it assumes population will increase at an increasing rate." This is false. Point 2: Table 20, column one includes the 47,169 population projection for 2025. That number was first erroneously manufactured two iterations of this report ago. That inaccuracy was acknowledged in the ECONorthwest report to Redmond. Now that number is enshrined in the July 2004 report. Point 3: Discussion of "straight-line methodology." The 7.4% model! Consider long-range data: Year Population 1980 6,452 2003 17,450 That represents a % change in population of. (17,450-6,452)/6,452 X 100 = 170% They imply this means an "annualized growth rate" of 1700/o/23years = 7.4% This figure is meaningless for further straight-line calculations. Straight-line method: Population change: (17,450-6,452)=10,998 That implies a population change, on average, of 10,998/23=478 people/year That figure is a meaningful number for further straight-line calculations. Comments on July 2004 Coordinated Population Forecas age 1 Exhibit Page of Z Analogy: Buy stock for $1,000. In 10 years, stock worth $2,000. That represents a 100% increase in 10 years. That is, stock grew on average of $100 per year. Valid for straight-line model. However, to observe that a 100% increase over 10 years meant an average rate of growth of 10% is false. In fact the average rate of growth would be 7.2% per year. Ignore local trends and just consider beginning and end. Draw straight line using average amount per year, not average percent per year. 1 Year J7P_aAa 31CJA3 iron f3d0 1pq h 3<M Y -K M Ne. O.c ]W r•2 fCr /H Y+F Au kl Volume .raM ��'�alil��I�I�.I&�II�P`JilJ6t+��la.�i�di!4�i��l��kiiiidl��lr`�I,r;p(•��)��If�U�.l��i�i1��i � • 'tiA .'w est t1xe Oe. :OM FM .a +W NFY arkmel!tlmlloM e%..kdty0 Summary of Redmond "straight-line" projection Their "methodology:" Vr 1, �i'rAitT Using 7.4% figure, let's see what number of people that would project from. 2000 to 2001: 15,505 + 7.4% X 15,505 = 16,652 (see line 2, column 3, Table 20). O.K. That's 1,147 people in the first year. Now, using that straight-line model, P = 1147 ( 2025 — 2000 ) + 15,505 = 44,180 Conclusion: If average has been 478 people/year for time -frame 1980-2003, and that linear trend continues, population predicted in 2025: P= 478 ( 2025-1980 ) + 6,452 = 27,962 Note the graphical differences illustrated below. ?e Y4 P �er/1w�einccl( bCcscei 61A + cNrkSjcss 7,q 1"�b —206,3 Comments on July 2004 Coordinated Population Forec#age 2 r Exhibit 1 Page 7i of Z