Loading...
2004-1168-Minutes for Meeting August 25,2004 Recorded 9/7/2004DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS CJ 2004.1168 NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 09/07/2004 04;33;17 PM 1111111111111111111111111111111111 200-1188 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.ora MINUTES OF MEETING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 25, 2004 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St.., Bend Present were Commissioners Michael M. Daly, Dennis R. Luke and Tom DeWolf. Also present were Mike Maier, County Administrator; Mark Amberg and Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Steve Jorgensen, Matt Martin, Catherine Morrow and Jeff Freund, Community Development Department; Timm Schimke, Solid Waste Department; Dave Peterson, Information Technology; Anna Johnson, Commissioners' Office; Ken Mathers, Juvenile Community Justice; Cheryl Circle and Marty Wynne, Finance Department; and Dan Peddycord, Health Department. Also in attendance were media representatives Barney Lerten of bend com and The Bugle, and Chris Barker of the Bulletin; and approximately twenty-five other citizens. Chair Mike Daly opened the meeting at 10: 00 a.m. 1. Before the Board was Citizen Input. Phil Philiben of the Friends of Deschutes County urged the Board and other citizens to vote "no" on Measure 34. He said that the issue is very complicated, requires more funding, and means more work for government agencies. He added that the Secretary of State indicated the final price tag can't be determined. The City of Portland has noted that the biggest potential loss is property tax revenue. 2. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2004- 406, an Amendment to the Drinking Water Systems Agreement with the State. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, August 25, 2004 Page 1 of 26 Pages Jeff Freund explained that this document amends the agreement approved a few weeks ago. This amendment is necessary because the State was late with including some clarifications. DEWOLF: Move approval. LUKE: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. 3. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2004- 402, Amendment #2 to the Financial Assistance Contract with the State of Oregon (regarding Bioterrorism Preparedness and Information Security Enhancement Equipment). Commissioner Luke asked how Information Technology is involved in this agreement. Dave Peterson explained that this contract will help increase firewall capabilities and lead to improved security. There is an annual maintenance fee of about $1,100 per year to cover the equipment. This cost is handled by the grant for the first year only. However, the improvements are significant, and the equipment will be used countywide. LUKE: Move approval. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. 4. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2004- 370, an Intergovernmental Agreement with the USDA regarding Wildlife Services. Timm Schimke explained that the agreement is primarily meant to cover bird control at the landfill, but includes other wildlife services. A discussion then took place regarding the number of birds managed each year and the associated cost. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, August 25, 2004 Page 2 of 26 Pages Commissioner DeWolf asked if this work is still needed at the same level now that the bird population is under control. Mr. Schimke stated that using specific chemicals — is the only effective way to control the bird population — can only be handled by a specialist. The alternative is to bring someone over from the valley as needed, which could be less expensive overall but the response would not be quick. Mike Maier asked that an activity report be presented to the Board giving an overview of all of the services provided. DEWOLF: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: No. (Split vote) LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. 5. Before the Board was a Public Hearing on an Exemption from the Competitive Bid Process for Youth Mentorship Services (Construction of Low Income Housing in Conjunction with Habitat for Humanity). Ken Mathers gave an overview of the item. He indicated that Legal Counsel had advised that the contract should either go out to bid or go through an exemption process. Commissioner Luke observed that this is the proper process, but he doesn't believe any other organization is capable of providing the same service. Chair Daly then opened the public hearing. Being no testimony offered, Chair Daly closed the public hearing. DEWOLF: Move approval of the exemption. LUKE: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. 6. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2004- 387, regarding Youth Mentorship Services through Habitat for Humanity. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, August 25, 2004 Page 3 of 26 Pages DEWOLF: Move approval. LUKE: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. 7. Before the Board was a Public Hearing regarding File #TA -04-6, Amendments to Table A, Road and Street Standards in the La Pine Planning Area. Steve Jorgensen gave a brief overview of the proposed ordinance. He said no comments have been received except a recent letter from the Sanderson Company in support of ordinance. Commissioner Daly said that they had called him to ask for a meeting, but there wasn't time to do so. Commissioner Luke added that they also called him, and he advised them to submit their comments in writing. At this time Chair Daly opened the public hearing. Jon Skidmore, a planner for W & H Pacific Company, which is representing Sanderson Company, asked that the Board adopt by emergency due to time constraints. The company is trying to record a plat so that the roads can be built at the encouragement of the Road Department, but this can't take place until the ordinance is adopted. Building could begin this year if the ordinance is passed by emergency; otherwise the project will be delayed until spring. This is creating a financial hardship for the company, and it appears everyone is in support of the ordinance. Being no further testimony offered, Chair Daly closed the hearing. Commissioner Luke observed that it makes sense to do this. Curbs in south County focus the runoff, making it hard to drain. There is a reason for not having curbs in the new neighborhood. He encouraged staff to prepare the final ordinance as soon as possible. Laurie Craghead indicated that staff can be directed to move forward with the ordinance, but another hearing may be required to add the extra language for an emergency clause. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, August 25, 2004 Page 4 of 26 Pages An additional hearing, and the proposed first and second readings and adoption, by emergency, will be on the Board's agenda in the near future. 8. Before the Board was a Public Hearing on a Proposed Plan Amendment and Zone Change regarding File #PA -03-4 #ZC-03-2 for an EFU-zoned Parcel Located North of Bend. Chair Daly read the opening statement. A copy is attached as Exhibit B. In regard to the Commissioner disclosure of contacts, Commissioners DeWolf and Daly indicated they had none; Commissioner Luke indicated he personally knows the attorney for the applicant. There were no challenges to bias, prejudgment or personal interest. Laurie Craghead noted that since this is a legislative matter, the time limit and ex parte issues do not apply. Matt Martin provided some procedural history. He said the proposal includes an exception to Goal 3 of the statewide planning goals; the procedures ordinances are required to go before the Board on appeal. The issue relates to a legal lot of record that totals 15.5 acres. Historically, in 1973 Deschutes County approved a nonconforming use — a mobile home park to be located on 57 acres. After that the owner got State approval of his proposal and established a well and pump house, septic systems and drainfields. An adjacent owner filed a lawsuit that eventually invalidated the approval. One reason given for this appeal is that the land is irrevocably committed to other uses not permitted in an EFU zone, given the history of the mobile home park and the establishment of infrastructure. Another reason given is the lack of productive soils on the property. The State has identified the soil types as 38B and 58C, adequate for crop production or livestock grazing. There is only 2.6 acres of irrigation on this property, plus 3.4 acres on the 17 -acre parcel. The Hearings Officer did not accept these arguments. Also, the previous proposal for the mobile home park was enjoined by the court case, and the improvements have not been used since that time. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, August 25, 2004 Page 5 of 26 Pages Mr. Martin referred to an oversized map, pointing out the MUA-10 and EFU zoned properties. Much of the area is zoned MUA-10, but the property is adjacent to EFU zoned properties as well. The Hearings Officer found that while MUA-10 zoned property is present in the area, this doesn't preclude agricultural uses on the property. The property in question shares characteristics of MUA-10 zoned property, but also shares that found in EFU zoned property. The Hearings Officer found that the property shared more characteristics of the EFU zoned properties, since it is currently vacant and is over forty acres in size. Most of the WA -10 zoned properties are smaller. The Hearings Officer found that this did not meet the burden of proof for a Goal exception. Further, she reviewed the plan amendment and zone change criteria, and found that although it is consistent with transportation services, it did not meet the economic policy regarding agricultural lands. Under the zone change criteria, it may be consistent for a zone change, but it needs to be consistent with the comprehensive plan as well. One criterion is that the property was zoned in error, based on the soil types and other items. Mr. Martin pointed out that the notice of hearing was published in a timely manner on August 15; however, the mailed notices went out eight days prior to the hearing instead of ten days. If someone has an objection, it will need to be proven that they were substantially prejudged or made unable to testify today because of this error. The record could be left open to satisfy this situation. Commissioner Luke asked why there has to be a goal exception and plan amendment for a goal change. Laurie Craghead said that it is in a resource zone, from EFU to MUA-10, requiring a zone change. Commissioner Luke noted that both are agricultural uses. Ms. Craghead replied that MUA doesn't qualify as part of Goal 3, and allows uses that Goal 3 doesn't. A residential, non-farm dwelling is a conditional use under MUA, but not under EFU. Matt Martin added that it is similar to an RR -10 use. Bob Lovlien, representing the owner of the property, then spoke. He said that he believes a mistake was made in 1979 in that the 40 acres should have been zoned MUA-10 at that time, especially since it is one legal lot of record with the adjacent 17 -acre parcel. The owners have a dog kennel on that parcel. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, August 25, 2004 Page 6 of 26 Pages The first question raised was regarding the drainfields. He said he has an exhibit of an as -built drawing done by an engineering firm, which shows about $350,000 or more of today's dollars into the property. He said he also has a printout from the sanitarian of the drainfields as approved. Commissioner Luke stated that the Hearings Officer said that the maps aren't part of the record. Mr. Lovlien replied that he believes they should be; but he will be submitting them now since the hearing is de novo. (These documents were submitted to Catherine Morrow to be included in the permanent record.) The improvements were not just planned, but were also installed. He urged the Commissioners to make a site visit. The roads are passable, and it is very obvious where the land has been disturbed and where the drainfields are located. Mr. Lovlien said that a picture of the land that's in the record shows that calling it agricultural land is a real stretch. Swalley Irrigation District water was purchased in 1994, but the nearest diversion point is almost a mile away and it is hard to get it to the site. It is now used for landscaping around the entrance, for the dog training field and around the residence and kennels. This is not high value farmland, has never been irrigated and grazed, and has been extensively disturbed by the installation of drainfields and roads. This is consistent with the area, as there are no agricultural uses within a half - mile radius of the property. The property to the north is owned by Deschutes County. Other property is owned by the State Parks Division. Neither has been used for agriculture, not even grazing. It is unclear why the subject property is not zoned the same as the surrounding properties. Neighbors appeared at the initial hearing to oppose the mobile home park. However, the property would be used for no more than four residences, and this would still require land use approval by the County. Commissioner Daly asked for clarification as to where everything is located on the property. Mr. Lovlien gave an overview of where the house, kennels and parcels are. He said that the split zone of the one lot of record doesn't make sense. He encouraged the Commissioners to make a site visit if at all possible. He reiterated that the property is not suitable for agriculture or grazing purposes. In fact, it took some doing to even find enough soil to place the drainfields since the land is so rocky. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, August 25, 2004 Page 7 of 26 Pages Mr. Lovlien clarified that the 17 acres is zoned MUA-10, and the 40 is zoned EFU. The previous owner died about the time land use laws were changing, and the issue was dropped. There was no activity on the property for years after that. The owner put the improvements in that still remain, except for the original office building. There is only 2.6 acres of irrigation available for the 40 acre parcel. To have it delivered the owner had to put in a pipeline from about a mile away. This made it feasible to develop the kennel and training field. The staff report analyzed properties located within a half -mile; there were 90 properties examined, and one of them is the Juniper Ridge property. Most of the properties are zoned MUA-10, 17 are zoned EFU or open space, and 11 are owned by public entities. Mr. Lovlien contended that the zoning of the subject property was a mistake, and it can be argued that it has been irrevocably committed to other uses. And the revenue that could be generated for grazing purposes is probably less than $100 a year. Commissioner Daly asked how domestic water is provided to the area. Mr. Lovlien said that most are on wells, although Avion water has a line that comes across at Cooley Road. Mr. Lovlien clarified that the drainfields were established prior to the zone change. The owner had already committed over $350,000 of today's dollars toward the project at that time. He urged the Commissioners to view the property and envision how it would have looked in 1979 with no irrigation. The owners have forty acres that they cannot use for any purpose with the current zoning. Laurie Craghead stated that this issue is both legislative and judicial, and asked the Commissioners to put their observations in writing into the record. She added that the change would be legislative regarding the comprehensive plan and the zone change. Commissioner Luke stated that this might set precedence for other EFU ground. Commissioner DeWolf noted that the owners would still have to go through a process to establish the four lots. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, August 25, 2004 Page 8 of 26 Pages No other testimony was offered, and Chair Daly closed the oral testimony portion, leaving the written testimony portion open for one week (September 1). The applicant will then have until September 8 for rebuttal. A decision will be rendered by the Board at their Monday, September 20 morning work session. 9. Before the Board was Consideration of Adoption of an Amendment to the County Comprehensive Plan in regard to Adopting the County Coordinated Population Forecast. Catherine Morrow said she received a letter from Paul Dewey earlier in the day, which has been distributed (a copy is attached as Exhibit C); however, there wasn't time to consider it. She recommended that the hearing be continued for oral testimony, then close the hearing record so that she can meet with the other jurisdictions to determine if additional written correspondence should be considered. She added that she has conferred with the other jurisdictions and they concur that the current population forecast has been adequately documented and that the numbers listed in the report will not be changing at this time. However, they may want to make sure that the findings address anything raised in Mr. Dewey's letter that was received today. Ms. Morrow also requested that the proposed adoption be scheduled for when all three Commissioners are present, and that the adoption occur with an emergency clause, which will expedite the timing for any appeals. The cities have been waiting a long time for this to conclude. Commissioner Luke asked if it would be appropriate for the written record to close on Friday, August 27. Ms. Morrow replied that the record has been left open twice already, and she isn't aware of any other possible input. She said that if someone doesn't testify today, she has probably received everything. Chair Daly asked if anyone wished to testify; no testimony was offered. At this time Chair Daly closed the public hearing and the record. Laurie Craghead said that all that is needed at this time is updated findings from staff. A decision on this ordinance will be made at the Wednesday, September 8 Board meeting. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, August 25, 2004 Page 9 of 26 Pages 10. Before the Board was Consideration of Written Testimony and Deliberations on Ordinances No. 2004-017 and 2004-018, regarding an Expansion of the Bend Urban Growth Boundary. Catherine Morrow said that written testimony was received and considered, resulting in revised findings from the City of Bend. Another letter was discovered yesterday from the Beauchemins (a copy is attached as Exhibit E). Correspondence has also been received from the law firm of Bryant Lovlien and Jarvis, representing Cascade Pumice; and from property owner Tony Aceti, relating to property located in the Deschutes Junction area. Ms. Morrow stated that this is not part of the issue before the Board at this time. These properties are not contiguous to the urban growth boundary, and the issues raised by these property owners are not relevant to criteria regarding the expansion of the City's urban growth boundary. Brian Shetterly went over some of the highlights of the supplemental findings. The City has addressed testimony that was received from the Friends of Deschutes County regarding the analysis done that supports the need to acquire 513 acres for light industrial development. The result of those findings is that the City did not overestimate the need for industrial land; the City also provided updated and more complete figures on the rate of absorption of industrial land within the City, which validates the study. The need is well documented. The record includes documents that address each of the statewide planning goals. In regard to Cascade Pumice's request to be involved in planning Phase I and Phase II, they have been asked and agreed to be included in the planning process for Phase Il. Regarding letters from the Hildebrands and Tony Aceti, their concerns are not relevant at this time. In regard to the letter from the Beauchemins, it appears their concerns are with planning and activities at the site. They are on the mailing list and can participate in the planning process if they wish. Commissioner Luke stated that he appreciates the lengthy process conducted by the City and County to address the concerns of the public. He said he believes the City has met its burden of proof on this issue. LUKE: Move first reading of Ordinance No. 2004-017, by title only. DEWOLF: Second. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, August 25, 2004 Page 10 of 26 Pages VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. Chair Daly then conducted the first reading of Ordinance No. 2004-017. LUKE: Move first reading of Ordinance No. 2004-018, by title only. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. Chair Daly then conducted the first reading of Ordinance No. 2004-018. Consideration of the second reading and adoption of the two ordinances is scheduled for the Wednesday, September 8 Board meeting. 11. Before the Board was a Public Hearing on Proposed Changes to the Deschutes County Room Tax Ordinance. Mark Amberg stated that in February 2004 the Board took public comments on proposed changes to the County's room tax ordinance. At that time, however, the State was in the process of revising Administrative Rules, and the Board wished to delay a decision until the State had completed its work. (A copy of the proposed amended ordinance is attached as Exhibit E.) The changes to Administrative Rules came out in June, and the Board is again considering proposed changes to the County's room tax ordinance. Commissioner Luke said that this issue goes back much further than this year. Mr. Amberg confirmed that discussions of representatives of the lodging industry and the County have been taking place for over two years. Commissioner Luke stated that the proposed changes were a result of an audit that pointed out inconsistencies in the way the current ordinance is administered. Mr. Amberg added that this was an external audit that spot- checked various operators and found inconsistencies, and it was the recommendation of the audit to clarify the situation in order to have the ordinance be fair and consistent for everyone, and to promote ease in administration of the ordinance. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, August 25, 2004 Page 11 of 26 Pages The revisions to the ordinance proposed at this time are essentially the same as the revisions considered in February. There have been two changes since then. Some time ago issues were raised by the lodging industry regarding tax on comp lodging, where the operators comp rooms but would have to pay tax on the comp room amount. This has been taken out of the ordinance. The other clarification is in regard to the definition of rent. Deschutes County tax is not assessed on other taxes, fees or assessments levied by other entities; just on the remaining amount. There is one other proposed change that is not included in the version now before the Board. This is in regard to delinquencies and penalties for failure to remit. It is suggested that if an operator is not granted an extension or if the extension has expired, that they be subject to a penalty of 10% of the amount that is past due. Cheryl Circle said that other criteria and penalties may apply in regard past -due amounts. Mr. Amberg added that this has been in place since the original ordinance was passed in 1975, but thus far there have been few, if any, situations where an operator has been subject to that situation. Mr. Amberg further explained that representatives of the lodging industry have submitted written comments, including suggestions that the ordinance should mirror the State's Administrative Rules. (Copies are attached as Exhibit F.) However, for a number of reasons, these Rules are not always followed. The basic provision is that if the item is not optional, it is subject to room tax. This makes it fair across the board, and there is less of a possibility that it will be misinterpreted or administered improperly. A collection fee for operators has also been included in the proposed ordinance. This would be for all operators, and the intent is to make it fair for all of them. There are many kinds of lodging, and everyone should be treated the same with the identical rules applying to all. This also provides for ease in administration of the program. Commissioner DeWolf asked what the State ended up with. Mr. Amberg said there were a number of differences, including the rental of single family homes being left out. These owners are subject to County tax but not State tax. The tax applies to the entire fee charged and all incidental services and amenities. The State tried to clarify what is meant by incidental services and amenities, but the operators can back out those items that they believe are reasonable, such as charges for breakfast and other items that the occupant may or may not utilize. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, August 25, 2004 Page 12 of 26 Pages Another example would be a guest room for $200 per day, including activities. The operator can allocate the fee for the lodging and other amenities separately. Commissioner DeWolf asked how they would determine the value of these things. Mr. Amberg replied that under Administrative Rules, the operator makes the initial determination. The State then decides if the amount is reasonable. It is not clear under Administrative Rules how they can make this determination. One operator could say one thing, but another could say something different. Marty Wynne stated that the goal is not to raise overall revenue. Of course, the County doesn't want to lose revenue since these funds supports Sheriff services in rural areas as well as the activities of the Central Oregon Visitors' Association. The primary purpose is to have consistency in the rules, making them fair for everyone. Mark Amberg added that the room tax for the City of Bend and City of Redmond is at 9%. The County would be keeping the rate at 7%. Any change to this rate would require a vote of the citizens. Operators would need to break out a line item in their records for Deschutes County's room tax. There have been and will be situations where the operators will have a line item that puts together the fees, taxes and assessments, but this makes it hard to tell how much is for the State, the County, recreation fees and so on. This change would allow the auditor to determine the appropriate amounts. LAURA HARVEY: I own four private residences that are vacation rental homes in the Sunriver area. My company name is Sunriver Retreats. Apparently the State of Oregon has a definite view of the difference between hotels and private, single family residences. And reading the changes here, I see that you are trying to put a single family — trying to lump every residence, accommodation, bed and breakfast, motel, trailer lot, whatever under the category of being a hotel, which is a change. The definition, therefore, in disguise the State has taxed an extra 1% tax on a hotel, not on private residences. But if you guys throw private residences under the category of hotels, then you can gain more leeway to put on further taxes on private residences, under the guise of being a hotel. Which is written in red in your revisions. Now I understand, because I haven't received anything from the State because I only own private residences. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, August 25, 2004 Page 13 of 26 Pages Now, you have some definitions here of what you are trying to change. Definition, hotel, 4.08.045, "hotel means any structure or any portion of any structure which is occupied or intended or designed for transient occupancy for thirty days or less for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes. This includes, but is not limited to, any hotel, inn, tourist home, tourist accommodation, condominium, motel, studio, hostel, hostel bachelor hotel, lodging house, bed and breakfast, etc., etc." Occupying, 4.08.050, means "used or possession for sleeping purposes of any room or rooms or rooms in a hotel or space in a mobile home or trailer park, or portion thereof'. DALY: Mrs. Harvey, I have a question for you. I really don't know where you're headed. Could you tell us or maybe condense it? HARVEY: I would like to read you some charges in a lawsuit that I've been involved in for four years next month regarding the definition of single family dwellings. I will not be able to comply to your new rules because I own, and I'm adjudicated, and I have that with me, single family residences are not considered hotels. The reason is, the two claims on the lawsuit were, vacation rental homes are illegal according to the Deschutes County ordinances. And Dennis knows about this. Claim 2: vacation rental homes are illegal according to the CCR's of DRRH, which is the expansion community just outside of Sunriver. Now, the reason that this lawsuit came about could take years of discussion. Hotels are illegal according to the Deschutes County ordinances in RR -10 zones. This includes Sunriver, Black Butte Ranch, DRRH because a hotel is a commercial enterprise. Okay. I have the newspaper article here from April 20, 2003, and this lawsuit is in regard to vacation home rentals, and I have circled in green, which I can submit to you. A Portland -based attorney who represents neighborhood residents says there isn't a neighborhood in the County that might not be subject to somebody running a hotel up the street. And you are trying to change the definition of single family residence to hotel. DALY: Mrs. Harvey, I don't believe that we — and Mark, maybe you can help me here — I don't think we're trying to change that definition at all, are we? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, August 25, 2004 Page 14 of 26 Pages IamUay= Yes, you are. It's right in here. DALY: I mean, is that any different than it's been, the definition. AMBERG: No, Commissioner. The definition of a hotel has not changed since this ordinance was originally adopted in 1975. The only additions that we are proposing to make would add the "not limited to" language, and add "hostel and bed and breakfast" into the definition. Other than that, the definition of hotel has not changed since this ordinance was originally adopted. DALY: And that's her concern. Is that your concern, Mrs. Harvey, that this ordinance will change something here? HARVEY: It is. On 4.08.090, tax imposed, in red, 7%, this is new. Of the rent for occupancy in space in a hotel. So, I will not have to pay room taxes any more, and none of the other managers of private residences, which has been adjudicated in my case, on July 9, 2003 from Judge Stephen Tiktin, who did not find a violation of the Deschutes County zoning ordinances. That means — and there is another letter in here, and I will read his interpretation of the rules — also that came into the lawsuit. Means that they are single family dwellings and not hotels. DEWOLF: Are these single family homes that you are talking about, that you rent out to people who are on vacation? For less than 30 days? HARVEY: Yes, they are vacation rental homes. Yes. DEWOLF: Then they are subject to room taxes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, August 25, 2004 Page 15 of 26 Pages HARVEY: That's correct. But with this new insert here of 7% that says it's for occupancy of space in a hotel, period, I have been adjudicated in a court of law that my houses are houses, not hotels. You cannot go back on that. LUKE: I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that perhaps Mr. Amberg could meet separately with Mrs. Harvey and look at the letter from the judge and the other things. Because this sounds to me a like a technical, legal issue that really doesn't get to the heart of the entire ordinance, although it could be very important to the ordinance. Would that work for you? AMBERG: That's fine. HARVEY: That would work. I do have interpretatations, and my other part of this is that I would say, take the chance, call it a sales tax. There are a lot of people in here under different situations that are mentioned here. Different types of accommodations. If you want to apply a sales tax, put it to the vote of the people and see if that's what the people of Deschutes County who you represent want. Just to underhandedly try to tax things like going swimming or road maintenance — 198111411 I don't believe, Laura, that this is underhanded. I've known you a long time. This has been a very public process, and we have talked with a lot of people, and brought lodging owners in and had good discussions with them, although we don't always agree. But there is nothing underhanded about what we are doing. And if it doesn't come to a conclusion, it might go to a vote. HARVEY: I haven't heard that there is any agreement. LUKE: We have not been able to — Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, August 25, 2004 Page 16 of 26 Pages HARVEY: We've had the worst tourist season ever, except when Sunriver was much smaller. The old adage is, reduce the tax and more revenue will come in. DALY: Mrs. Harvey, I need to cut you off. We've got a bunch of people who want to testify and we're running out of time today. You should meet with Mark privately and maybe iron out some of this. Would that be okay? HARVEY: Sure. DEWOLF: We're going to have to take a break at noon and come back to this, unfortunately. We have a meeting with the presiding judge. Maybe we can do that in a half-hour or so, if people want to grab some lunch and come back or something. DALY: Maybe we have time for one more. TOM LUERSEN: I have to catch a flight, so I'd like to do this now. I'm managing partner at Sunriver Resort. Most of what I want to say is in this document. (A copy of the document is attached as Exhibit G.) I acknowledge that we have been working together, we as a group of people who met together initially with Marty Wynne and others to discuss this. That group includes Sunriver Resort, Black Butte Ranch, Eagle Crest, Sunset Realty, and Discover Vacations. We've been in those discussions for the last couple of years. I think the goal of those meetings was to create a consistent methodology to collect transient taxes. We all agreed that this is important. The actual reason we are at this juncture is because not necessarily of an audit, but more that a lodging entity came forward in Sunriver and acknowledged that there were inconsistent practices that were brought to the County's attention. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, August 25, 2004 Page 17 of 26 Pages Consequently, the audit found that those inconsistencies were there, and that there had been for years a different process of collecting and applying the taxes. Unity is something that I wish I could sit up here and talk to you about in terms of industry representation. But as Laura Harvey just said, the industry is broad. It's like saying, "the sales tax industry". That's a broad perspective if you talk about sales tax. Our industry includes all types, hotels, bed and breakfast inns, limited services resorts, property management, et cetera. There is not one umbrella entity that covers that in terms of a 501 type of association. We have come together at these meetings hopefully with the largest tax providers in the area, including Sunriver, which is the largest, at your invitation. We've worked together collaboratively to try to figure out a solution. We gave two or three different suggestions, one of which Laura Harvey talked about today in regard to the bed and breakfast scenario, and about creating an excepting exemption of a room rate, very similar to the adoption that the City of Bend went through when they excluded in the scenario, if a continental breakfast is included, there's a $5 exemption per person in that occupancy. They are trying to control this so abuse doesn't take place, which has been the concern of Mark and Marty, which we understand. DEWOLF: But the State didn't include that kind of language. LUERSEN: The State didn't include that language. We made that recommendation and came up with a proposed solution to that for you, but for whatever reason it was not adopted by you. Another major issue here is that there are two taxes — the State tax and the County tax. The ability of our industry to apply that to a guest folio — we have two different types of products in our inventory. We have property management in Sunriver, 305 homes and condos; and then we have 33 hotel rooms that we wholly own; and we also have 205 condominiums in a rental pool. If you go through this definition, I have two different applications of a transient tax from both entities, the State and the County. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, August 25, 2004 Page 18 of 26 Pages Our systems, the way that we manage our business, is automated. There's no way that we can have an individual sitting in at the guest folio with 500 departures on any given Sunday morning and go through that accounting. That's why it is automated. I cannot think of a way in which we, the industry, and specifically Sunriver, could apply these differentials of languages between the State and the County, and the issues that we talk about in here. There's one that Mark didn't raise, which is about packages. When we talk about packages, if another room is available for sale, for example you said if there's a room rate that sells for $100 and the operator says he wants to sell a golf package, the $100 room rate plus a $70 round of golf or whatever. And if there is another room available of choice at $100, then you get to apply the $100 versus the gross package. Last night at Sunriver Resort we had 197 packages. Who in the County is going to audit that process? Who in Sunriver Resort can do that? In the age of sophisticated rate management — much like the airline industry — our room rates on Saturday in August can be much different than a room rate on Saturday in September or December. Who is going to be able to apply that? In my view, this gets you right back to why we are here today. There is going to be an inconsistency. I do not have a posted rate at Sunriver. I don't think many people in this room have a posted rate because of yield management and the sophistication of rate practices. If I had to adopt these today, I would be unclear and I don't think you would be clear on how that process would take place. We agreed back in February as a group, with the County, to wait for the State's rulings to come out. It seemed logically. It was unknown at that time where the State would come. They've been in a legislative process and had the Attorney General's opinions posted. They accepted this language, yet you made the decision — and I think that Mike (Maier) put it in one of his letters to us in the notice of this meeting — is that the County doesn't want to go in that direction. It doesn't feel it is appropriate. I would challenge you today not to make any decision, and to reconvene the group that you had together and talk about these issues. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, August 25, 2004 Page 19 of 26 Pages There has already been a compromise in rural services and we've made some progress. But we're talking about an industry that has vernacular that you do not understand. If I said to you today, what is the rate of an owner stay in a condo versus the rate of an owner's guest in a condo, you would look at me and say, I don't know. DEWOLF: It's 12.07 versus 14.25, isn't it? LUERSEN: You're absolutely right, Mr. DeWolf. What is our rate structure in July versus August. What's the difference between hotel language versus a condo versus property management. We want you to adopt the State's language, in that it applies to certain things that are already changed where we can get to consistency. We don't have to have someone in the back room trying to figure out — both your back room and our back room — what is the consistent way to apply the codes. DEWOLF: But they leave out the single family residences. LUERSEN: They do, and that's a mistake on the State's level. As you all know, they are rewriting the legislation to adopt that. We, the industry, support — I support, since I can't speak for the industry — I support that transient tax should be applied to a private home. DEWOLF: Any vacation rental. LUERSEN: Yes, that's my personal view. DEWOLF: But if we adopt with those in place and the State hasn't adopted it, even if everything else is exactly as you propose, you still have two different systems. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, August 25, 2004 Page 20 of 26 Pages LUERSEN: Currently. But within the next session, just like last time, it is highly probable that it is going to pass and we'll be right back here again saying, let's accept this. I think you can figure out an amendment and a way to adopt that which would be fair and consistent. I was going to read the rest of my letter to you, but I know you are short on time. I will make it available to anyone who wants it. To conclude, I would tell you that we should reconvene, meet again so that you will understand what you are putting together. I have had several conversations with some of you and also with Marty and Mark, and at each different meeting there has been a new understanding of how this can be applied. I know you are frustrated with the long process, and if you think you are frustrated, we're in the private sector and trying to make a living, and we're a little frustrated, too. However, that is not a reason to then make a decision that you aren't comfortable with. It's more of a reason to sit down and try to find a solution to it, and put a process to it. I don't care what that is. We will always have some differences, but so far the spirit of those conversations has been forthright, and we've been exchanging information on best practices used around the country on different ways things are done. Some people have asked what the economic impact would be, and we gave you those numbers. My question to you today, and to Marty, is based upon your language, what is the economic impact to the County. Does anybody know that? DEWOLF: I think it's about a net $90,000. MIKE MAIER: More like $50,000. LUERSEN: My math on that, just doing Sunriver Resort, based on your language, your net would be $112,000 just from Sunriver Resort alone, based on 2003 numbers. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, August 25, 2004 Page 21 of 26 Pages DEWOLF: There are others who benefit in the opposite direction. LUERSEN: That's not true. There's a net payout based upon 2003's application of the tax code, and your new proposal would have given you, even including the operator fee reimbursement, a net of $112,000 on the exact same process. This means that is your net. To my view that doesn't match with your figures. MAIER: We're talking of $50,000 to $60,000 overall, because of the 5% operator fee there are a number of operators who would gain. LUERSEN: I would challenge your numbers on that, because just know the math myself and visiting with those people who carry 75% of the transient tax, the weighted average of that 75% is a tremendous net gain to you. Even with operator fees. The other question — LUKE: We have a presiding judge who left his courtroom to meet with us, and he's got a very tight schedule. Can you put some more in writing? DEWOLF: I guess I have a question. I'm uncomfortable with adopting this today. I've said that a few times in the past. I agree with Tom. I think it would be a good idea to put this group back together again. We can either reconvene later today and take more testimony, or we can put the work group back together and work through the process that way, with everybody at the table. That would be my preference. I don't know how people in the audience are feeling about this. LUKE: I don't want to do that if it is going to run another two years. I mean, this thing has got to get resolved. This is taking so much of our staff time, and it's taking your personal time and the time of other people who are in the audience. It creates bad feelings and creates a lot of work for a lot of people. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, August 25, 2004 Page 22 of 26 Pages I don't mind reconvening the group — I don't have a problem with that. But I surely don't want to take another two years on this. LUERSEN: I agree with you, Dennis. If there's anything in this language that you are not comfortable with and you don't understand, I don't know how as a Commissioner you could vote on it. So I would encourage you, and based on Tom's views, to put the group back together. I would suggest that you change the composition of the work group to include the three Commissioners, because we have had a lot of sessions and when it gets to the Commissioners it churns up. You should get the decision makers at the table so we can get it done. DEWOLF: Sounds like a good idea. LUERSEN: Took the words out of my mouth. Also, what I am unclear on and no one has talked about is the 70/30 rule. Can someone enlighten me on how you all, and the County, has interpreted the 70/30 rule, meaning that of any new tax being imposed, 70% will go into tourism. DALY: Mark, you want to come back up? DEWOLF: The question is, the thing is, if we agree that we're going to reconvene the group with the Board included, can we deal with this issue at that time as well? Rather than trying to continue it today. I'm sorry, but we are late meeting the presiding judge who is on a much tighter schedule than we are. AMBERG: I can make a simple response to that. It is the County's view that this is not a new tax, so it is therefore not subject to the 70/30 rule. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, August 25, 2004 Page 23 of 26 Pages DALY: Is there anyone in the audience who wants us to come back after 1:00, or do you want to go ahead and convene like Tom was saying? (The consensus of audience members was that this is appropriate — there is no need to come back today.) DALY: Here are my feelings regarding the work group. I'm willing to do this. I think we ought to be able to resolve this in one or two meetings. I don't want it to go on for years like it did before. Do you think that's doable? LUERSEN: I think it is, but you are going to have to allocate an appropriate amount of time for it. An hour meeting won't do it. DEWOLF: We may have to set up an afternoon deal, start at lunch and go until we're done. DALY: We'll work out the details then. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 12. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of $8,912.32. (two weeks). LUKE: Move approval, subject to review. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, August 25, 2004 Page 24 of 26 Pages CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-11 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 13. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-11 County Service District in the Amount of $1,569.35 (two weeks). 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 14. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $1,654,544.74 (two weeks). LUKE: Move approval, subject to review. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. 15. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA None were offered. Being no further items brought before the Board, Chair Daly adjourned the meeting at 12:15 p. m. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, August 25, 2004 Page 25 of 26 Pages DATED this 25th Day of August 2004 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: Recording Secretary Tom DeWolf, Commi er Attachments Exhibit A: Sign -in Sheet (I page) Exhibit B: The opening statement regarding File #PA -03-4 #ZC-03-2. (2 pages) Exhibit C: Letter from Paul Dewey dated August 25, 2004 regarding the Population Forecast. (3 pages) Exhibit D: Letter from Beauchemins dated August 1, 2004 regarding the Juniper Ridge annexation. (3 pages) Exhibit E: Copy of proposed revised room tax ordinance. (15 pages) Exhibit F: Copy of written comments from members of the lodging industry, dated August 23 and 24. (4 pages) Exhibit G: Letter from Tom Luersen of Sunriver Resort, dated August 25, 2004 (3 pages) Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, August 25, 2004 Page 26 of 26 Pages I— H q 2 O �7 �a N to Y O V \ %Zr ,u L(i N N 3 a 4w X LL a c � � c o U) o) t a Oak 4) y T Q _ p .N D •� ` �2. O .o a yE s Z Exhibit � Page l of q 2 O �7 OPENING FOR PUBLIC HEARING Introduction• This is a public hearing on Plan Amendment file No. PA -03-4 and Zone Change file No. ZC-03- 2. The applicants requested to designate the subject property from Agriculture to Rural residential Exception Area and to change the zoning from Exclusive Farm Use to Multiple Use Agricultural. These applications were previously considered by the Hearings Officer after a public hearing held on February 3, 2004. Evidence and testimony were received at that hearing. The Hearings Officer denied the applicants' requests. Burden of Proof and Applicable Criteria: The applicants have the burden of proving that they are entitled to the approval sought. The Planning Staff will identify the applicable criteria during the Staff Report given. Hearings Procedure: The procedures applicable to this hearing provide that the Board of County Commissioners will hear testimony, receive evidence and consider the testimony, evidence and information submitted into the record, as well as that evidence constituting the record before the Hearings Officer. The record as developed to this point is available for public review at this hearing. Testimony and evidence at this hearing must be directed toward the criteria set forth in the notice of this hearing, which will be read by the Planning Staff during the Staff Report. Testimony may be directed to any other criteria in the comprehensive land use plan of the County or land use regulations which any person believes apply to this decision. Failure on the part of any person to raise an issue with sufficient specificity to afford the Board and parties to this proceeding an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals on that issue. Order of Presentation: The hearing will be conducted in the following order. The Staff will give a report on the prior proceedings and the decision of the Hearings Officer. —The applicants will then have an opportunity to make a presentation and offer testimony and evidence. QEV.2nents will then be given a chance to make a presentation. After both proponents and appellants have made a presentation, the proponents will be allowed to make a rebuttal presentation. At the board's discretion, opponents may be recognized for a rebuttal presentation. At the conclusion of this hearing, the staff will be afforded an opportunity to make any closing comments. The Board Exhibit Page --,/— of 2 may limit the time period for presentations. Questions to and from the chair may be entertained at any time at the Board's discretion. Cross-examination of witnesses will not be allowed. However, if any person wishes a question be asked of any person during that person's presentation, please direct such question to the chair after being recognized. The Chair is free to decide whether or not to ask such questions of the witness. Pre -hearing Contacts: I will now direct a question to the other members of the Board of County Commissioners. If any member of the Board, including myself, has had any pre -hearing contacts, now is the time to state the substances of the contacts so that all persons present at this hearing can be fully advised of the nature and context of those contacts and with whom contact was made. Are there any contacts that need to be disclosed? At this time, do any members of the Board need to set forth the substance of any ex parte observations or facts of which this body should take notice concerning this appeal? Any person in the audience has the right during the hearings process to rebut the substance of any communication or observation that has been placed in the record. Challenges for Bias, Prejudgment, or Personal Interest Any party prior to the commencement of the hearing may challenge the qualifications of the Board of County Commissioners or any member thereof of bias, prejudgment or personal interest. This challenge must be documented with specific reasons supported by facts. I will accept challenges now. Should any Board member be challenged, the member may disqualify himself, withdraw from the hearing or make a statement on the record of their capacity to hear the appeal. Hearing no challenges, I shall proceed. Staff report Exhibit Page _, of �_ Paul D. Dewey Attorney at Law 1539 NW Vicksburg Bend, Oregon 97701 (541) 317-1993 August 25, 2004 Board of County Commissioners Deschutes County 1300 NW Wall St. Bend, OR 97701-1960 Re: Coordinated Population Forecast Dear Commissioners: I am sorry I will not be able to attend the Board meeting on Wednesday, the 24I', but wish to provide these written comments. As a true sign that I have been working on this too long, I have spotted a minor but technically important editorial error in both the Ordinance and Exhibit A at page 2 where the references should be to the August 2004 Report instead of the July 2004 Report. On a more substantive note, the unincorporated County numbers have largely been ignored by us in the past. In fact, we were concerned at one point that the County was not acknowledging that some population growth was going to be occurring in the forest zone. Thanks to recent OEA comments, though, we have taken a second look and believe that the County's projections for the unincorporated area are excessive. Catherine Morrow, in a Staff Report to you of August 19, states that my arguments for not using the 1980s data (which showed a higher growth rate than the 1990s data) is inconsistent with my July 27 argument that the forecast is flawed by "relying on growth rates over a short period of time." She also characterizes my August 4 argument against using the 1980s data as asserting that the impact of Oregon's land use laws were more effective during the previous decade, the 1970s. To clarify, my August 4 argument was that the 1990s' data was more appropriate because during that time Oregon land use laws were more effective than during the previous decade (the 1980s). At no point did I suggest that the 1970s were years during which Oregon's land use laws were in effect. My August 4 criticism of the forecast in general is that it relies too much on recent growth rates, meaning just the past few years when PSU numbers spiked for Sisters, Bend and Redmond. The County already acknowledges that land use laws will particularly restrict growth in unincorporated areas. The limitation is only described as one of capacity, however, or how many land divisions can be made. Completely ignored by the County is that much of the proposed development, particularly in farm and forest areas, will occur as conditional uses. There is no Exhibit Page / of 3 Board of County Commissioners Deschutes County August 25, 2004 Page 2 basis for the County to assume that every parcel in these zones can be built upon, particularly where there are such OAR criteria as 660-033-0130 requiring findings that non-farm dwellings will not significantly affect the land use pattern in an area. As more non-farm dwellings are built in the County, presumably they are going to be impacting the overall land use patterns. The County has failed to properly account for or to include in its analysis such restrictions on development. An August 10 letter to the Commissioners from Damian Syrnyk asserts that I have not provided any data to show the vacancy rate for Bend is higher or lower than in 2000. The onus, however, is on the County to provide this information, not the public. A four-year-old reported vacancy rate simply is not credible with all of the new construction going on. Mr. Symyk also criticizes my mention of higher mortgage rates as being meaningless. Obviously, my argument is that if interest rates increase then building becomes more expensive and its rate of growth should decline. When PSU and others (whose forecasts you are relying on to show recent population spikes) base their population forecasts on building permits, then a decline in building permit rates will mean decreasing population forecast rates. The reason why population growth is related to the interest rates is because you have adopted PSU's prediction of population on the basis of recent building permits (but with no recent vacancy rates). We should not be accused of being illogical because we challenge assumptions of your a priori illogical methodology. In addition, we challenge the PSU numbers you are relying on because they apparently assume that each dwelling or apartment house for which a permit is issued in a given year is immediately occupied, whether or not it is even built. These PSU numbers which are for allocating federal dollars to cities or counties are being improperly used by the County as a basis for predicting future growth when the PSU numbers already include "future" growth. There are still problems with the Redmond forecast. The projected 4.42% growth rate for each year for the next 20 years is excessive and not justified.' The more logical approach is to show a growth rate that would decline over time, as predicted by both Bend and the OEA. Redmond has also inflated its growth by assuming a starting point of 15,505 in 2000 though the City at that time was only 13,481 (according to the 2000 Census) or 13,770 (according to the PSU). Redmond improperly adds unincorporated areas. The City is not defined by its urban growth boundary. It is also not consistent to be switching back and forth between utilizing PSU, Census and other sources with varying boundaries. Were the 1,446 people Redmond added to its numbers subtracted from the County's unincorporated numbers? Furthermore, Redmond's complete discount of its annexations is unjustified. Just because no records were kept for over 10 years does not mean that there were zero annexations during that time. 1 Since this exercise is for a 20 -year forecast, the target year for all these forecasts is 2024. Exhibit <:�_ Page 2, of -3 Board of County Commissioners Deschutes County August 25, 2004 Page 3 As reported in the August 19 memorandum, my clients will not be challenging the current Sisters forecast numbers. For the above reasons regarding the unreliability of the PSU data, we also challenge Bend's population numbers based on the most recent PSU figures. Because of the spike in growth of building permits, Bend assumes a far greater growth rate over the next several years then does OEA. We believe that the OEA growth rate figures are more appropriate. We will not repeat our arguments on water except to point out that the County cannot on the one hand propose a population forecast as a building block for the future (on which to allow urban growth boundary expansions and do construction) and then claim that this is only a population forecast, with no need to demonstrate that there will be adequate water to service the forecasted population. The City of Bend also states that in order to get the needed water it needs to have a population forecast. This, in itself, is a tacit admission that the City lacks the water. The population forecast for Deschutes County, Bend and Redmond should be limited to the amount of water they can prove is available to them now. To the extent they must rely on some "reallocation" in the future (such as from agriculture) then their planning documents must acknowledge and accommodate for that. The admission that operations under a FERC relicensing agreement will have "far greater impacts on the lower Deschutes flows than any future groundwater pumping" (8/16/04 memo, p. 9) does not mean that any municipal withdrawals will be fine. If anything, it means that such withdrawals could have even greater impacts. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Very truly yours, O -d; PAUL DEWEY PDD:ao cc: Clients Exhibit C - Page 3 of 3 August 1, 2004 Deschutes County - Community Development Dept. Planning Division �g 117 NW Lafayette Avenue CE1 D Bend, OR 97701-1925 AUG - 5 2004 Re: County File Number: PA -04-2 DESC HUTES COWNTY CV Dear Planning Officer and County Commissioners: This letter of comment is directed toward County File Number PA -04-2 (or City Project Number PZ -03-565 and PZ -04-02), and most specifically against the proposed amendments to the Bend Area General Plan to change the zoning designation of approximately 513 acres, commonly known as Juniper Ridge and described on Tax Assessor's Map 17-12, as Tax Lot 200, from EFUAL to Industrial Light (IL or UAR10). It is astounding to think that our County Planning Department is willing to jeopardize the integrity of a significantly large and attractive northeast suburban neighborhood with an industrial site. The simple explanation given by planners was that Bend was running out of this type of designated land.. The substantial adverse impact on the existing adjacent residentially zoned citizens was not even expressed. It seems an Economics Lands Study is the primary motivation of this amendment request. Issues of more importance, which would lead to rejecting such an amendment, .need to bereviewed more comprehensively. As depicted in°Statewide Planning Goal 2, the Bend Area General Plan revisions to be affected by this proposed amendment would be adverse, and therefore the amendment should be rejected. These adverse conditions would include land use changes that would have a widespread and significant impact on ther immediate area, most specifically the surrounding suburban neighborhood. There would be quantitative changes in the volume and type of traffic, especially a significant rise in commercial truck traffic. Residential commuters and children attending neighborhood schools would be subjected to -frequent commercial vehicles. The character of the surrounding residential area would be significantly altered aesthetically and socially with commercial buildings and activities adjacent to residential dwellings and area schools. Residents would be exposed to increased noise levels, industrial fumes, dust and other industrial hazards. These types of conditions would significantly devalue and alter the surrounding suburban neighborhood in an unacceptable manner. In addition, adequate traffic routing and supporting infrastructure has not been identified to sustain this proposed amendment. With reference to Statewide Planning Goal 3, the agriculture zoned land proposed to be changed by this amendment can be considered for open space use. This open space currently adds to the intrinsic value and character of the surrounding suburban neighborhood, whereas an industrial zoning would depress inherent residential values and character. This begs the question of why these lands are not being considered as open space or parks. There are no large-scale suburban park facilities in this northeast Bend Exhibit 7) Page _/ of - 3 area. These lands may be one of the last remaining quality opportunities for such a facility near this major concentration of housing. The desirability of this land base for open space is evident in that it is centrally located to a large adjacent residential population, it is adjacent to schools, it is adjacent to residential streets, there are desirable natural features, views are present and irrigation water from the existing canal on the east side of this property is available. Certainly a need for open space and recreation opportunity (reference also Statewide Planning Goal 8) in this significant residential area already exists and needs to be addressed as a major planning consideration. Statewide Planning Goal 9 describes criteria on the zoning of land for industrial uses, which can be applied to this proposed amendment. This amendment should not proceed based on the incompatibility and conflicts that would arise due to the preponderance of adjacent residential development in this area. Most notably, the southern portion of Juniper Ridge is not near an existing commercial or industrial site; interjecting an industrial zone here would be creating an inconsistent land use plan. This type of industrial activity needs to be placed in on near comparable activities, such as with existing industry, with present commerce and with adequate industrial supporting utilities. To place industrial activities in a large area of suburban housing is to ignore current social, environmental and economic activities already fully in force within the surrounding neighborhood. As described in Statewide Planning Goal 12, transportation activities should not be incompatible with current adjacent land uses and should minimize adverse social, economic and environmental impacts. This proposed amendment to change zoning from EFUAL to Industrial Light would produce transportation conflicts and would have detrimental social consequences to the surrounding residential community. Environmental derogation, due to commercial transportation and industrial activity next to homes and schools would be present, even if only in the form of noise, dust, truck traffic, night-time manufacturing, commuting workers, security lighting and sirnilar industrial activities, not to mention possible exposure to industrial by-products. These types of impacts would cause adverse social conditions and devalue home values in a major residential neighborhood, and therefore this proposed amendment should be rejected. Statewide Planning Goal 14 depicts a planned need to provide orderly urbanization. While this amendment might address a need for industrial land, it severely diminishes the livability of the adjacent suburban neighborhood. Predicting long-range population growth and providing for residential carrying capacity is also an important planning function, especially in an area that has shown such a recent success in developing a quality community, as has the adjacent residential neighborhood and related schools. To site an industrial site adjacent to this residential area and schools would be an incompatible land use. This is especially evident when considering the Juniper Ridge area for industrial purposes. Encouragement needs to be given to placing new industrial sites next to existing similar activities before conversion of EFUAL zoned lands, especially when next to an existing attractive residential neighborhood and two new schools. We hope that this analysis of the proposed amendments to the Bend Area General Plan to change the zoning designation of approximately 513 acres, commonly known as Juniper Ridge, from EFUAL to Industrial Light (IL) is given sincere deliberation and each of our points seriously considered, as they do directly relate to the specific 2 Exhibit Page _� of 3 applicable goals. As a property owner in this area, we are very concerned about the adverse effects industrial activities would have to our neighborhood character, its residents, transportation system, schools, property values and resulting livability. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, I James and Barbara Beauchemin 46000 Hwy 97 N. Chiloquin, OR 97624 3 Exhibit D Page 3 of 3 08/24/2004 18:14 FAX eS6ON iION August 24, 2004 Deschutes County Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St. Bend, OR 97709 Dear Deschutes County Commissioners, IM 002/002 The Oregon Restaurant Association believes that consistent tax structures between the state and local government are essential to the hospitality members' ability to efficiently and effectively conduct their business. It was discovered by the County, through an audit process, that the transient room taxes were being collected differently at different properties, which caused a vast amount of difficulty in collecting taxes in a consistent and efficient manner. After this discovery, the County determined that the ordinance needed to be amended. The lodging industry members in Deschutes County have come together in support of the County's adoption of language similar to the state administrative rules for determining what fees and services are to be taxed under the transient room tax. The adoption of newly finalized state administrative rules regarding transient room tax as the language for the Deschutes County transient room tax is also supported by the hospitality industry members. The County's original position and the Oregon Lodging Association's position will be blended in a fairly balanced compromise that will benefit all, and the consistent tax structure between the county and the state will greatly ease the burden on these industry members. Consistent tax structures are essential for the lodging industry members' ability to effectively and efficiently run their businesses and will also benefit the county's efforts to uniformly meet its tax collection responsibilities. The Oregon Restaurant Association asks for your support in this crucial matter of adopting an ordinance consistent with the new state rules This reasonable and balanced compromise is the solution to an issue that greatly affects not only the lodging industry, but all areas of the hospitality industry. If you have any questions, please call me at 503.682.4422. Sincerely, Bill Perry Director of Government Affairs Exhibit Page -L of Y 08/24/2004 18:13 FAX IM 001/002 Phone: i Number of pages (including this page): 2 8565 SW Salish Lane, Ste #120 Wilsonville, OR 97070-9633 Web: www.ora.org Phone: 503-682-4422 / 800-462-0619 Fax: 503-682-4455 08/23/2004 13:53 FAX August 23, 2004 The Honorable Mike Daly 1300 NW Wall St. Bond., OR 97709 [dear Commissioner Daly, Thank you very much for the opportur tjr to provide comments on this proposal to revise the local Trani Room Tax Ordinance. We realize this has been an ongoing effort between the county and members of the lodging industry, and we are pleased to Inform you thaat the lodging community has buift a consensus around the -new state rhes on the Transient Room Tax. IM 002/004 The Oregon Lodging Association -and Its -members in Deschutes County supports a unified position that the county adopt language similar to the state administrative rules in determining what fees and services are to be taxed under the transient room tax. The Oregon. Lodging Association apposes the excursion of vacation home rentals from the tsx. Through an.. audit process, the Countydiscovered that transient room taxes were being collected differently at different properties. OLA understands that . Deschutes County needs to address the issue of the County's Inconsistent tax collection from operators. The County- determined that the transient room tax ordinance needed to be revised. The Oregon Lodging Association, and local industry members, testified before the County Commissioners - asking them to wait for the state to finalize their administrative rules for the implementation of the newly passed statewide lodging tax. Though neither the County nor OLA knew what those rules would include, Exhibit F Page .2- of of 08/23/2004 13:53 FAX • ti If H f rA M ♦ i f I _ f •':. 6 - :: i 4 Mr' i@ .'b f e S �� .. 77 UL^�.1l.� 7WG it 1 a 1e Ni. �_ >i 4 L Our original position was in opposition to the- taxation of any fees or any amenities such as -meals, events, or -activities to be inckided In the tax base. The County's- position was that any non -optional bhaMe should be taxed. The state, without knowing these positions, provided a reasonable and -balanced compromise. The state fuses ,include cleaning fees, pot fees, and provision of toiletries in the tax base. The rules exclude "non -incidental" services such as meals, "free" transportation to the -airport, or access to exercise equipment, Poole, or spas. OLA believes the County's position regardingg-varcation packages is, cumbersome, confusing, and extremely dtfficuit. to consistently apply. The results of such a policy will lead us back to an Inconsistent application -of -the taxation. Fortunately, there is a compromise approach to theses issues that our members embrace -and that the county ought to support. The local members of the lodging Industry are willing to support language similar to the state rules even though they do not represent the ivdging industry's original position. We are willing to support them -for two reasons: 1) They provide a fair balance between the County's original position and ours 2) Consistent tax structures are critical to our members' ability to efficiently- run their businesses and are important for the county to uniformly most its tax collection responsftfift. It Is Important to note that this original discussion did not arise out of a concern about enhancing county revenues. This discussion started because of Inconsistent tax colhmlion practices by the county. The tourism industry Is. just beginning to recover from'the devastating impact of the September 11th attacks and the. recession that gripped the : country, and hit ' Orragon especially hard. Deschutes County's tourism members need to stay viarble and competitive In this challenging market. OLA- maintains its original position that this proposed language constitutes a new tax which biggens the state statutory requirement that the operators naive a five percent reimbursement on ALL taxes collected. Also; if the proposed language is adopted, any new revenue ratted by the collection of taxes on cleaning fees, meals, etc. will need to be split 70/30 wfth 70% allocated to tourism related activities. IM003/004 Exhibit F Page 3 of '/ 08/23/2004 13:54 FAX IM004/004 The OLA urges the Deschutes minty c onytiserlon to'support this reasonable :and bats compromise that would result by adopting an offtwco consixWnt with. new state rubes and -tt* reflects legislative intent. OLA Is strongly c ommftd to working with the county to make th tnew system work for our members and, your constituents. Sincerely,. ; M - Karen Mainzer Director of Local Government Affairs Exl tb c Page _ f of q— �SUNRIVER Post Office Box 3609 Sunriver, Oregon 97707 Telephone 541-593-1000 Reservations 800-547-3922 www.sunriver-resort.com August 25, 2004 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97709 Dear Board of Commissioners, On behalf of Sunriver Resort Limited Partnership, owner of Sunriver Resort, I submit correspondence for the record in the public hearing scheduled for Wednesday August 25, 2004 regarding the Room Tax Ordinance (Deschutes County Code Title 4.08 -Transient Tax. As you are aware, Transient Tax `talks' have been occurring in Central Oregon for the last two years. The `talks' have included several large tax providers in the County including Sunriver Resort, Black Butte Ranch, Sunset Realty, Eagle Crest Resort, and Discover Vacations. Our talks were initiated by Marty Wynne representing the County. The goal as outlined in minutes provided by the County, was to achieve a consistent practice for collecting transient taxes throughout the County. The purpose of the meeting was the culmination of findings that the County had long been collecting taxes differently and inconsistently from the lodging industry for many years, despite annual audits of the process. This was brought to their attention from a lodging provider in Sunriver, Oregon. Consequently, at the request and invite of the County, this group met irregularly for over a year attempting to find a fair and equitable methodology for Transient Tax. In this process, several recommendations were presented including: 1) suggestion to follow the same recently revised language of Transient Tax that the city of Bend had undertaken. 2) Similarly to Bend, a plan which allowed lodging entities to have a small portion of their room rate be exempt from Transient Tax for additional services unrelated to the rent of the room (continental breakfasts, fitness club access, intra -resort transportation, community access which was funds redirected to Home Owners Association, etc) was, at first, of great interest to the County ( the County asked for all those involved in the meeting to provide financial data so they could further evaluate), however, in the end, this was not accepted. 3) The Lodging group convened provided `best practices references' to the County for their review. 4) Lastly, the Lodging entities represented suggested the County reference the State's new rule whereby a 1% increase to Transient Tax had recently been introduced in the legislature, and ultimately passed approval and was adopted and enacted in January 2004. It was thought, that since the State had gone A distinctive experience provided by Destination Hotels & Resorts. ASPEN • BOSTON • CHARLESTON • COLORADO SPRINGS • DENVER • JACKSON HOLE • MAUI • NEW YORK • PALM COAST • PHOENIX SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO • SNOWMASS VILLAGE • SUNRIVER • TELLURIDE • TEMPE • VAIL • W, -- www. www. des tin ationItoteIs. com Exhibit Page I of -3 through extreme measures to evaluate the Transient Tax rules of the State, in conjunction with the Lodging and Tourism Industry, that this model would be best to duplicate and adopt in Deschutes County. However, as stated in Mike Maier's letter dated August 10, 2004, " As you may recall, it was decided to delay a decision until the State of Oregon issues its new rules regarding the new statewide 1 % tax. After reviewing these rules and procedures, it is apparent to us that the State is taking a different approach that we do not feel is applicable to Deschutes County." Much to our (the lodging entities asked to work with the County) surprise, the County has recommended amending its current language which yields increased revenue for the County versus accepting the State's rules and procedures. Further to our surprise, although we had been meeting for over a year on this topic, the representatives of the industry which were invited in the process by the County, were put on notice of the County's direction without any conversation or explanation. This action has been received as an expression of disinterest and a break of good faith process. For the record, on behalf of Sunriver Resort, I do not support the County's proposed direction and amendments to the Transient Tax. I, as well as other members which have met with the County, do support the following changes: 1) We believe, as the State of Oregon does and is in the process of a rewrite of their Bill, that transient tax should be collected on property management which includes condominiums, private homes, and the like. 2) We believe that a change, revision or amendment which alters the collection of transient tax from lodging entities from previous methodology evokes the 5% Operator Fee reimbursement rule. 3) It is also believed the 70/30 rule allocation rule applies to any new tax collection (70% allocated to Tourism) 4) We also agreed, in the spirit of collaboration with the County, that any fee associated with the cleaning or implied Housekeeping Fees could be subject to transient tax. 5) It is also believed that the current recommendation by the County will be nearly impossible for the County to audit and collect consistently due to the ambiguity and unclear language proposed (without hiring additional staff to audit). Lastly, as an Operator of a AAA 4 Diamond Resort in Central Oregon, which is the largest single transient tax provider in Deschutes County, we strongly believe the rules proposed by the County will burden the properties with cumbersome, manual accounting practices costing the industry substantially more labor, as well as create additional confusion from the guest's perspective. For example, the State of Oregon new 1% Transient tax will be applied differently than that of the County. Consequently, the properties will need to create internal procedures to apply the tax differently, creating an accounting quagmire. The customer, who is entitled to a simple explanation of all charges, will find the two different tax procedures very Exhibit ( Page _, 0f -- confusing. Additionally, the language proposed from the County requires a daily review and manual audit of the application of the transient tax collection versus an automated system. In closing, the Industry Representatives invited to participate in collaborating a new transient tax methodology for Deschutes County are unified in their support of accepting and adopting the State of Oregon Transient Tax language. It is obvious that Tourism and Lodging plays a significant role in the County in terms of income, job creation, property tax, and economic impacts. It is imperative that the Board of Commissioners spend appropriate time investing in the Lodging Industry's perspective and collaborating with the Industry. The hospitality industry, like other industry, has a language and vernacular specific to their practices that is difficult and cumbersome for a non -industry person to learn quickly and ultimately, make decisions which impacts the businesses, the County Offices, and ultimately, the visitors to Central Oregon. Sincerel e. Thomas P Luersen Vice President and Managing Director Sunriver Resort Limited Partnership Exhibit Page 3 of 8/25/04 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED REVISIONS TO DESCHUTES COUNTY ROOM TAX ORDINANCE Section Proposed Change 4.08.010 Notices Clarifies how notices may be given (personal delivery or first class mail) and when notice is deemed delivered. 4.08.065 Definition — Clarifies that "rent", for purposes of assessing room Rent tax, includes all charges for occupying a room which are not optional for the'hotel guest. Any charges other than charges for providing a room which are optional for the guest do not need to be included in "rent" for assessment of room tax. It will be up to the hotel operator to decide whether to include charges such as cleaning fees, recreation fees or facilities use fees as part of the mandatory (non -optional) charge for the room or to give the guest an option to rent the room without paying those fees. Also clarifies that Deschutes County room tax is not charged on other taxes or assessments of other governmental entities (such as state room tax). Example: A hotel operator charges $100 for a room and the rate includes continental breakfast and use of the hotel's bike paths, swimming pools, tennis courts and spa. If the guest does not have the option of renting the room at a lower rate that does not include these extras, the full $100 is subject to assessment of room tax. If the operator chooses to make these extras available at an additional charge which is optional to the guest - e.g. room charge is $80 and the guest has the option to pay an extra $20 for breakfast and use of the recreation facilities - then only $80 is subject to assessment of room tax. 4.08.070 Definition — For hotels that offer "package" plans (e.g. room Rent Package Plan plus golf for a package rate), clarifies that the amount charged for the package plan above the Exhibit e Page / of 7 regular rate charged by the operator for just room rental is not considered "rent" for assessment of room tax. Example: The basic charge for a room is $100. The hotel offers a package of a room plus two rounds of golf for $125. Only $100 is subject to assessment of room tax. 4.08.085 Definition — Clarifies that the owner of a hotel or private Transient residence used as a hotel is not considered a "transient" and is not subject to room tax when the owner occupies the owner's residence or a room in the owner's hotel. Also clarifies that any rental of lodging on a monthly basis or longer is not subject to room tax. 4.08.120 Operator — Provides that each operator may retain, as a fee for Collection — collecting room tax, up to five percent (5%) of Procedures — the room tax revenues collected by the operator. Operator Fee 4.08.120 B Identification Provides that the amounts charged for Deschutes of Deschutes County Transient Room Tax shall be separately County Room stated and identified on all records of Operator Tax andon all invoices and receipts. 4.08.130 Exemptions Clarifies that employees of the Federal Government who are on government business and employees of Federally chartered organizations (such as the Red Cross) who are on organization businesses, are exempt from payment of room tax. This is in conformance with IRS regulations. 4.08.150 Returns and Clarifies when returns and payments are due. Payments 4.08.230 Fraud Clarifies penalties for fraud; makes fraud a Class A Violation. 4.08.300 Recordkeeping Clarifies that room tax records must be retained by an operator for a minimum period of three years and six months. Exhibit Page A_ of 15 V,., //,�j - EYMIT A Chapter 4.08. TRANSIENT ROOM 4.08.250. Redeterminations. TAX 4.08.260. Security for collection of tax. 4.08.270. Lien. 4.08.010. Short title. 4.08.280. Refunds. 4.08.015 Notices. 4.08.290. Transient room tax fund. 4.08.020. Definitions. 4.08.300. Recordkeeping. 4.08.025. Definition -Accrual accounting. 4.08.310. Examination of records. 4.08.030. Definition -Board. 4.08.320. Administration -Confidentiality. 4.08.035. Definition -Cash accounting. 4.08.330. Appeals. 4.08.040. Definition -County. 4.08.340. Unlawful acts -Penalty. 4.08.045. Definition -Hotel. 4.08.050. Definition -Occupancy. 4.08.055. Definition -Operator. 4.08.010. Short title. 4.08.060. Definition -Person. DCC 4.08 shall be known as the County transient 4.08.065. Definition -Rent. room tax ordinance. 4.08.070. Definition -Rent package plan. (Ord. 203-3 § 1, 1975) 4.08.075. Definition -Tax. 4.08.077. Definition -Site. 4.08.015 Notices. 4.08.080. Definition -Tax Administrator. All notices required or permitted to be given 4.08.085. Definition -Transient. under DCC 4.08 may be served personally or 4.08.090. Tax Imposed. by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the 4.08.100. Applicability. recipient of the notice. If notice is mailed to an 4.08.110. Operator -Collection Amount. Operator, it will be addressed to the Operator 4.08.120. Operator -Collection Procedures at the Operator's address as the address Operator Fee. appears in the record of the Tax 4.08.125. Personal liability. Administrator. Operator is required to 4.08.127. Penalties -Noncompliance with provide Tax Administrator with Operator's advertising requirements. current address and to provide Tax 4.08.130. Exemptions. Administrator with any change of Operator's 4.08.140. Operator -Registration -Form and address. If notice is personally served, it is contents -Execution -Certificate of deemed served at the time of delivery. If notice authority. is served by mail, it is deemed served (3) days 4.08.145. Operator -Advertising of hotel after the date the notice is deposited for rentals -Identification required. mailing with the United States Postal Service. 4.08.150. Returns and payments -Date due. (Ord. 2004-005 § 1, 2004). 4.08.160. Penalties and interest -Delinquency. 4.08.020. Definitions. 4.08.170. Penalties and interest -Continued For the purposes of DCC 4.08, unless otherwise delinquency. apparent from the context, certain words and 4.08.180. Penalties and interest -Fraud. phrases used in DCC 4.08 are defined as set forth 4.08.190. Penalties and interest -Assessment in DCC 4.08.025-085 throu DCC 4.08.085. of interest. (Ord. 2004-005 § 1, 2004�_Ord. 2001-016 § 2, 4.08.200. Penalties and interest -Penalties 2001; Ord. 95-029 § 1, 1995; Ord. 203-3 § 2, merged with tax. 1975) 4.08.210. Penalties and interest -Petition for waiver. 4.08.025. Definition -Accrual accounting. 4.08.220. Deficiency determination. "Accrual accounting" means the Operator enters 4.08.230. Fraud -Refusal to collect -Evasion. the rent due from a transient on his records when 4.08.240. Operator delay. rent is earned whether or not it is paid. EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE 2004-005-,2002-039- 1 (nnMn��n��� 2 SAL.egalTinancelRoom Tax RevisionTxhibit A to Ordinance 2004-005 - Chapter 4.08 -7-2004.doc Revised on 7/16/2004 Exhibit —� Page 3 of 15 (Ord. 203-3 § 2, 1975) 4.08.030. Definition -Board. "Board" means the Gt3�–Deschutes County Board of Countv Commissioners. (Ord. 2004-005 § 1, 2004LOrd. 203-3 § 2, 1975) 4.08.035. Definition -Cash accounting. "Cash accounting" means the Operator does not enter the rent due from a transient on his records until rent is paid. (Ord. 2004-005 § 1, 2004LOrd. 203-3 § 2, 1975) 4.08.040. Definition -County. "County" means Deschutes County and is limited to the unincorporated area of the County. (Ord. 203-3 § 2, 1975) 4.08.045. Definition -Hotel. "Hotel" means any structure, or any portion of any structure which is occupied or intended or designed for transient occupancy for 30 days or less, for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes, and includes, but is not limited to -any hotel, inn, tourist home, tourist accommodation, condominium, motel, studio hotel, hostel, bachelor hotel, lodging house, bed and breakfast, rooming house, apartment house, public or private dormitory, fiatemity, sorority, public or private club, space in mobile home or trailer parks, private home, or similar structure or portions thereof so occupied. (Ord. 2004-005 § 1, 2004; -Ord. 93-049 § 1, 1993; Ord. 203-3 § 2, 1975) 4.08.050. Definition -Occupancy and Occupying. "Occupancy" and "Occupying" means the use or possession, or the right to the use or possession, for lodging or sleeping purposes, of any room or rooms in a hotel, or space in a mobile home or trailer park or portion thereof. (Ord. 2004-005 § 1, 2004; -Ord. 203-3 § 2, 1975) the managing agent shall also be deemed an Operator for the purposes of DCC 4.08 and shall have the same duties and liabilities as his principal. Compliance with the provisions of DCC 4.08 by either the principal or the managing agent shall be considered to be compliance by both. (Ord. 2004-005 § 1, 2004; Ord. 203-3 § 2, 1975) 4.08.060. Definition -Person. "Person" means any individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, fraternity, sorority, public or private dormitory, joint stock company, corporation, estate, trust, business trust, receiver, trustee, syndicate or any other group or combination acting as a unit. (Ord. 203-3 § 2, 1975) 4.08.065. Definition -Rent. "Rent" means the full consideration elarged; whether-er- -tet--c hgLged whether or not received by the Operator, for the occupancy of space in a hotel valued in moneys or goods, labor, credits, property or other consideration valued in money, without any deduction. Rent includes all fees, charges and assessments charged or assessed by Operator, the payment for which is not optional to the person occupying a room or rooms in a hotel except that rent does not include any taxes, fees or assessments levied by any other governmental entideduetkm butRent does not include the sale of any goods, services, or and commodities or any fees, charges or assessments, other than the furnishing of rooms, or accommodations and parking space in mobile home parks or trailer parks, the payment for which is optional to the person occupying a room or rooms in a hotel. - (Ord. 2004-005 § 1, 2004LOrd. 203-3 § 2, 1975) 4.08.070. Definition -Rent package plan. "Rent package plan" means the consideration char ed —whether or not received by the 4.08.055. Definition -Operator. Opemtor�eliffged–for beth feed an rentlIus "Operator" means the person who is proprietor of food and/or other amenities or activities where a the hotel in any capacity. Where the Operator single rate is madecharged for the teW e€-beththe performs his functions through a managing agent combination of rent, food and/or other amenities of any type or character other than an employee, or activities. The full consideration charged for a EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE 2004-005-,2002-039- 2 (0490022Q7/2004) S:\Legal\Finance\Room Tax RevisionExhibit A to Ordinance 2004-005 - Chapter 4.08-7-2004.doc Revised on 7/16/2004 Exhibit Page _44_ of 15 rent package plan shall be considered rent for determination of transient room tax unless Operator offers the space for rent at one rate with the food and/or other amenities or activities and at another rate without the food and/or other amenities or activities in which case the Operator may exclude from rent, for determination of transient room tax under DCC 4.08, the difference between the two rates.arxeant (Ord. 2004-005 § 1, 2004LOrd. 203-3 § 2, 1975) 4.08.075. Definition -Tax. "Tax" means either the tax payable by the transient, or the aggregate amount of taxes due from an Operator during the period for which the Operator is required to report his -collections for the Operator's hotel. (Ord. 2004-005 § 1, 2004LOrd. 203-3 § 2, 1975) 4.08.077. Definition -Site. "Site" means an individual hotel, as defined in DCC 4.08, for which there is a separate real property tax account. An individual site may include more than one unit of separately rentable accommodations. (Ord. 97-073 § 2, 1997) 4.08.080. Definition -Tax Administrator. "Tax Administrator" means the County Finance Officer. (Ord. 97-013 § 1, 1997; Ord. 203-3 § 2, 1975) there is an agreement in writing between the Operator and the occupant providing for a longer period of occupancy. An owner of a hotel, an owner of a private residence used as a hotel, or a person who pays for lodging on a monthly basis, irrespective of the number of days in such month, shall not be deemed a transient. (Ord. 2004-005 § 1, 2004LOrd. 203-3 § 2, 1975) 4.08.090. Tag Imposed. For the privilege of occupancy in any hotel, on and after the effective date of the ordinance codified in DCC 4.08, each transient shall pay a tax in the amount of seven percent 7% of the rent for occupancy of space in a hotel.eharged-by the Aperaten The tax constitutes a debt owed by the transient to the County which is extinguished only by payment to the Operator as agent for the County. The transient shall pay the tax to the Operator of the hotel at the time the rent is paid. The Operator shall enter the tax on Operator's his records when rent is collected if the Operator keeps his -records on the cash accounting basis and when earned if the Operator keeps his -records on the accrual accounting basis. If rent is paid in installments, a proportionate share of the tax shall be paid by the transient to the Operator with each installment. It for any reason, the tax due is not paid to the Operator of the hotel, the Tax Administrator may require that such tax shall be paid directly to the County. (Ord. 2004-005 § 1, 2004iOrd. 95-029 § 1, 1995; Res. 87-053 adopted by the people 11/3/87; Ord. passed 3/11/80: Ord. 203-3 § 3, 1975) 4.08.100. Applicability. 4.08.085. Definition -Transient or Occupant. The tax imposed by this ordinance shall apply "Transient" or "Occupant" means any individual= only to those hotels located within the except the owner of a hotel or private residence unincorporated area of the County. used as a hotel, -who exercises occupancy or is (Ord. 95-029 § 1, 1995; Ord. 203-3 § 4, 1975) entitled to occupancy in a hotel for a period of 30 consecutive calendar days or less, counting 4.08.110. Operator -Collection --Amount. portions of calendar days as full days. The day a A. Every Operator renting rooms in the County, transient checks out of the hotel shall not be the occupancy of which is not exempted included in determining the 30 -day period if the under the terms of DCC 4.08, shall collect a transient is not charged rent for that day by the tax from thepant transient occupying the Operator. Any such individual so occupying room. The tax collected or accrued by the space in a hotel shall be deemed to be a transient Operator constitutes property of the County until the period of 30 days has expired unless EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE 2004-005,2002-03-9- 3 (0440807/2004) S:\Le=1\Finance\Room Tax Revision\Exhibit A to Ordinance 2004-005 - Chapter 4.08-7-2004.doc Revised on 7/16/2004 C Exhibit Page _�- of 15 in the possession of the Operator, held in trust by such Operator until conveyed to the County in accordance with the provisions s-inof DCC 4.08. B. In all cases of credit or deferred payment of rent, the payment of tax to the Operator may be deferred until the rent is paid, and the Operator shall not be liable for the tax until credits are paid or deferred payments are made. (Ord. 2004-005 § 1, 2004LOrd. 97-073 § 1, 1997; Ord. 95-029 § 1, 1995; Ord. 203-3 § 5, 1975) 4.08.120. Operator -Collection _Procedures Operator Fee. A. Each Operator shall collect the tax imposed by DCC 4.08 at the same time as the rent is collected from every transient. B. The amount charged by an Operator for Deschutes County Transient Room Tax shall be separately stated on all records of Operator and on all invoices and receipts rendered by Operator and shall be specifically identified on all Operator records, invoices and receipts as "Deschutes County Room Tax." The amounts listed by an Operator on the Operator's records, invoices and receipts as "Deschutes County Room Tax" shall not include any other taxes, fees, charges or assessments.T" meant of twx shall -oc C. Operator of a hotel shall advertise that the tax or any part of the tax will be assumed or absorbed by the Operator, or that it will not be added to the rent, or that, when added, any part will be refunded, except in the manner provided by DCC 4.08. D. Each Operator may retain as a collection reimbursement charge, up to five percent (5%) of all Deschutes County transient room tax revenues collected by Operator_ (Ord. 2004-005 § 1, 2004, Ord. 95-029 § 1, 1995; Ord. 203-3 § 6, 1975) 4.08.125. Personal liability. Each person who uses, expends, diverts any tax held in trust, or withholds or authorizes or directs such use, expenditure, diversion, or withholding, shall be personally liable to the County for all taxes so used, expended, diverted, or withheld, plus all penalties and interest accrued or imposed as a result of such action. (Ord. 97-073 § 2, 1997) 4.08.127. Penalties -Noncompliance with advertising requirements. It is an infiaetien -a violation for any Operator who places or causes to appear through any medium an advertisement soliciting reservations or rental availability for any location if such advertisement does not include the certificate of authority number as prescribed in DCC 4.08.140. No Operator shall fail or refuse to furnish information related to the advertising of any location upon request of the Tax Administrator. Vielatien of ai pfekisieqViolation of any provisions of DCC 4.08.127 is a Class A infivktienViolation. (Ord. 2004-005 § 1, 2004LOrd. 97-073 § 2, 1997) 4.08.130. Exemptions. No tax imposed under DCC 4.08 shall be imposed upon: A. Any occupant for more than 30 successive calendar days (a per -sen whe pays fer- !edging tiy —he c`�A�6 basis, iircapiccivv--vf r—t— he a tmnsient); B. Any occupant whose rent is of a value less than $4.00 per day; C. Any occupant whose rent is paid for a hospital room or to a medical clinic, convalescent home or home for aged people. the -peeple-14/9/93 -93-020 §-1, 1993Ord 203 3 § 7,197-5) D. The United States Government when a federal employee is on federal government business and the lodging for the employee is directly paid for by the government or employee with a government -issued check credit card. purchase order or other form of rocurement document. EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE 2004-005-,2002-03-9- 4 (04/002207/2004) S:1LewJTinance\Room Tax Revision\Exhibit A to Ordinance 2004-005 - Chanter 4.08-7-2004.doc Revised on 7/16/2004 Exhibit____E Page _� of 15 v� E. Any Federally Chartered organization when an oWgization employee is on organization business and the lodging for the employee is directly paid for by the organization or employee with an organization -issued check credit card, purchase order or other form of procurement document. (Ord. 2004-005 § 1, 2004, Ord. 95-029 § 1, 1995, Ord. 93-049 adopted by people 11/9/93, Ord. 93-020 § 1, 1993, Ord. 203-3 § 7, 1975) 4.08.140. Operator -Registration -Form and contents -Execution -Certificate of Authority. A. Every person engaging or about to engage,in business as an Operator of a hotel in the County shall register within 15 calendar days after commencing business with the Tax Administrator on a form provided by_the Tax Administrator.— The privilege of registration after the date of imposition of such tax shall not relieve any person from the obligation of payment or collection of tax regardless of registration. In IN Registrants shall provide the following information: (1) the name under which an Operator transacts or intends to transact business; (2) the office address of his place or places of business; (3) a residence address, if no business address exists; (4) the address of each site operated or to be operated by registrant which is subject to DCC 4.08; and (5) and such other information to facilitate the collection of the tax as the Tax Administrator may require. The registration form shall provide for submission of the information required by DCC 4.08.140;1 shall set forth in full the requirements imposed by DCC 4.08 regulating an Operator's advertisement of hotel accommodations;, and shall be signed by the Operator. The Tax Administrator shall, within ten (10) days after registration, issue without charge from the occupant, together with a duplicate thereof for each additional place of business for each registrant, a certificate of authority. Certificates shall be nonassignable and nontransferable and shall be surrendered immediately to the Tax Administrator upon the cessation of business at the location named or upon its sale or transfer. Each certificate and duplicate shall state the place of business to which it is applicable and shall be prominently displayed therein so as to be seen and come to the notice readily of all occupants and persons seeking occupancy. D. The certificate shall, among other things, state the following: 1. The name of the Operator; 2. The physical address of the hotel; 3. The date upon which the certificate was issued; 4. The Deschutes County Certificate of Authority (DCCA) number, as assigned by the Tax Administrator; and 5. This Transient Occupancy Registration Certificate signifies that the person named on the face hereof has fulfilled the requirements of the Transient Room Tax Ordinance of the County of Deschutes by registration with the Tax Administrator for the purpose of collecting from transients the room tax imposed by said County and remitting said tax to the Tax Administrator. (Ord. 2004-005 § 1, 2004LOrd. 97-073 § 1, 1997; Ord. 95-029 § 1, 1995; Ord. 203-3 § 8, 1975) 4.08.145. Operator -Advertising of hotel rentals -Identification required. Every Operator, in placing advertisements soliciting business for any location represented by that Operator, must include the certificate of authority (DCCA) number. For purposes of DCC 4.08, advertisement includes any print, electronic, or audio media, including, but not limited to, advertisements appearing in newspapers, magazines, newsletters, flyers, internet sites, or any other advertising medium, regardless of origin, distribution method, or distribution location of such medium. Such identification shall appear as "DCCA #" followed by the certificate number assigned by the Tax Administrator for that location, shall appear in a E)aMrF A TO ORDINANCE 2004-005- 5 (04/ 8)2207/2004) &TegalTinance\Room Tax Revision\Exhibit A to Ordinance 2004-005 - Chapter 4.08-7-2004.doc Revised on 7/16/2004 Exhibit__ Page --I— of 15 EXHIBIT A readable size and font, if applicable, and shall be 1. The sites for which rental income was placed in such location that it is readily noticed as collected during the month, listed by a part of the advertisement. This advertising address and the number of separately requirement does not apply to Operators whose rentable units per site; certificate of authority is assigned to only one 2. Gross receipts of Operator for such physical location, and that location provides six period; or more rooms or individual units available for 3. The total rentals upon which tax was transient occupancy. collected or otherwise due; (Ord. 97-073 § 2, 1997) 4. An explanation in detail of any discrepancy between such amounts; and 4.08.150. Returns and payments -Date due. 5. Any new units added from the previous A months or any units deleted from the by the ient te erator �*-army ciri previous months; and 6. The amount of rents exempt, if any. eelleeted— by any—Operator am Ddu—a D. The person required to file the return shall payable to the Tax AdnimstfateF en deliver the return, together- vAth the meatWy basis on the 15th day ef the menth feni#anee ef the amount ef the tax ,to the Tax Administrator at the his officer of the en the l6th day of the meffth in whieh fliel, Tax Administrator, either by personal are due-. The tax imposed by DCC 4.08 shall delivery or by mail. If the return is mailed, be paid by the transient to the Operator at the the postmark shall be considered the date of time that rent is paid. All amounts of such delivery for determining delinquencies. taxes collected by an Operator, or for which l -:—For good cause, the Tax Administrator may the tax is otherwise owed by Operator to extend the time for making any return or County, are due and savable to the Tax payment of tax for a period not to exceed one A Administrator on a monthly basis by no later month th *;,..a c . ..� ,.,.. , o+.,, ., „� than the 15th day of the month following the pa5�n�• No fiarther extension shall be month in which the tax is collected by the granted, except by the Board. Any Operator Operator or is otherwise owed by Operator to to Whom an extension is granted shall pay County. and are delinquent if not paid to the interest at the rate of one percent 1 /o per Tax Administrator by not later than the last month on the amount of tax due without day of the month in which such taxes are due proration for a fiaction of a month. If a and payable to the Tax Administrator. return is not filed, and the tax and interest due B. On or before the 15th day of the month is not paid by the end of the extension following each month of collection, every granted, then the interest shall become a part Operator liable for payment of tax shall file a of the tax for computation of penalties return for the preceding month's tax described elsewhere in DCC 4.08. collections with the Tax Administrator. The return shall be filed in such format or on such (Ord. 2004-005 § 1, 2004LOrd. 97-073 § 1, 1997; forms as the Tax Administrator may Ord. 95-029 § 1, 1995; Ord. 203-3 § 9, 1975) prescribe. C. Returns shall show the amount of tax 4.08.160. Penalties and collected or otherwise due for the related interest -Delinquency. period by site. The Tax Administrator may Any Operator who has not been granted an require returns to show any or all of the extension of time for remittance of tax due and following: who fails to remit any tax imposed by DCC 4.08 prior to delinquency shall pay a penalty of 40 -ten EX1MIT A TO ORDINANCE 2004-005-,2002-039- 6 (041208 07/2004) S:TeTax Revision\Exhibit A to Ordinance 2004-005 - Chapter 4.08-7-2004.doc Revised on 7/16/2004 Exhibit Page _ of 15 EXHIBIT A percent f10% of the amount of the tax due in addition to the amount of the tax. (Ord. 2004-005 § 1, 2004)iOrd. 95-029 § 1, 1995; Ord. 203-3 § 10(1), 1975) 4.08.170. Penalties and interest -Continued delinquency. Any Operator who has not been granted an extension of time for remittance of tax due, and who failsed to pay any delinquent remittance on or before a-peFied-a17 thiM (301 days following the date on which the remittance first became delinquent shall pay a second delinquency penalty of fifteen 4 -5 -percent 15% of the amount of the tax due plus the amount of the tax and the 410 --ten percent1(0 . penalty first imposed. (Ord. 2004-005 § 1, 2004LOrd. 95-029 § 1, 1995; Ord. 203-3 § 10(2), 1975) 4.08.180. Penalties and interest -Fraud. If the -Ttax Aadministrator determines that the nevi--e€nonpayment of any remittance due under DCC 4.08 is due to fraud or intent to evade the provisions thereof, a penalty of twen - five2-5 percent25 %___J of the amount of the tax shall be added thereto in addition to the penalties stated in DCC 4.08.160 and DCC 4.08.170. (Ord. 2004-005 § 1, 2004LOrd. 95-029 § 1, 1995; Ord. 203-3 § 10(3), 1975) 4.08.190. Penalties and interest -Assessment of interest. In addition to the penalties imposed, any Operator who fails to remit the tax imposed by DCC 4.08 shall pay interest at the rate of one-half of one percent per month, or fraction thereot without proration for portions of a month, on the amount of the tax due, exclusive of penalties, fromeF the date on which the remittance first became delinquent until paid. (Ord. 2004-005 § 1, 2004LOrd. 95-029 § 1, 1995; Ord. 203-3 § 10(4), 1975) 4.08.200. Penalties and interest -Penalties merged with tag. Every penalty imposed and such interest as accrues under the provisions of DCC 4,08.200 shall be merged with and become a part of the tax required in DCC -4 -.e -to be paid pursuant to DCC 4.08. (Ord. 2004-005 § 1, 2004)iOrd. 95-029 § 1, 1995; Ord. 203-3 § 10(5), 1975) 4.08.210. Penalties and interest -Petition for waiver. Any Operator who fails to remit the tax levied in DCC 4.08 within the time stated in DCC 4.08 shall pay the penalties stated in DCC 4.08; provided, however, the Operator may petition for waiver or refund of any penalty, or any portion thereof. If the total penalty due does not exceed $10,000, any petition for waiver or refund of penalties shall be directed to and determined by the Tax Administrator. If the total penalty due exceeds $10,000, any petition for waiver or refund of penalties shall be directed to and determined by the Board. Upon receipt of a petition for waiver or refund of penalties as set forth herein, the Tax Administrator or Board may, if a good and sufficient reason is shown, waive or direct a refund of the penalty or any portion thereof. (Ord. 2002-022 § 1, 2002; Ord. 95-029 § 1, 1995; Ord. 203-3 § 10(6), 1975) 4.08.220. Deficiency determination. If the Tax Administrator determines that the re many returns --Etre is incorrect, hethe Tax mayAdmmistrator may compute and determine the amount required to be paid upon the basis of the facts contained in the return ef FeWms or upon the basis of any information within histhe possession of or available to the Tax Administrator. One or more deficiency determinations may be made on the amount due for one, or more than one period, and the amount so determined shall be due and payable immediately upon service of notice as provided in DCC 4.08 after which the amount determined is delinquent. Penalties on deficiencies shall be applied as set forth in DCC 4.08.160 through DCC 4.08.210. A. In making a determination,, the Tax Administrator may offset overpayments if any, which may have been previously made for a period or periods, against any EX Mrr A TO ORDINANCE 2004-005-,2002-03.9- 7 (84/ 882207/2004) S ALeaTinancelRoom Tax Revision\Exhibit A to Ordinance 2004-005 - Chapter 4.08 -7-2004 doc Revised on 7/16/2004 - -- Exhibit Page of 15 EXHIBIT A underpayment for a subsequent period or periods, or against penalties; and interest, on the underpayments. The interest on underpayments shall be computed in the manner set forth in DCC 4.08.160 through DCC 4.08.210. B. The Tax Administrator shall give to the Operator or occupant a written notice of hsthe determination made by the Tax Administrator.- The notice may be served personally or by mail; if by mail, the notice shall be addressed to the Operator at histhe Operator's address as it appears in the records of the Tax Administrator. In case of service by mail of any notice required by DCC 4.08 the service is complete at the time of deposit in the United States Post Office. C. Except in the case of fraud or, intent to evade DCC 4.08 or authorized rules and regulations, every deficiency determination shall be made and notice thereof mailed within three years after the last day of the month following the close of the monthly pefW for which the amount is proposed to be determined or within three years after the return is filed, whichever period expires the later. D. Any determination shall become due and payable immediately upon receipt of notice and shall become final within ten 10I days after the Tax Administrator has given notice thereof, provided, however, the Operator may petition for redemption and refund if the petition is filed before the determination becomes final as provided for in DCC 4.08. (Ord. 2004-005 § 1, 2004LOrd. 95-029 § 1, 1995; Ord. 203-3 § 11(1), 1975) 4.08.230. Fraud -Refusal to collect -Evasion Administrator may deem best to obtain facts and information on which to base an estimate of the tax due. As soon as the Tax Administrator has determined the tax due that is imposed by DCC 4.08 from any Operator who has failed or refused to collect the same and to report and remit such tax, hethe Tax Administrator shall proceed to determine and assess against such Operator the Lax, interest and penalties provided for by DCC 4.08. In case such determination is made, the Tax Administrator shall give a notice in the manner aforesaid of the amount so assessed. Such determination and notice shall be made and mailed within three years after discovery by the Tax Administrator of any fraud, intent to evade or failure or refusal to collect such tax, or failure to file return. Any amount of tax, interest, and penalties which the Tax Administrator determines are owed shall become due and payable immediately upon service of notice by the Tax Administrator of the amount of deficiency. The determination shall become final within ten (10) days after service of notice of the amount owed The Operator may petition for redemption and refund if the petition is filed with the Tax Administrator before the determination becomes final as provided in this section. The failure or refusal of an Operator to collect or remit an_y or taxes required under DCC 4.08 is a Class A Violation. 4:9� (Ord. 2004-005 § 1, 2004LOrd. 95-029 § 1, 1995; Ord. 203-3 § 11(2), 1975) If any Operator shall fail or refuse to collect sank tax -the correct room tax set forth in DCC 4.08 or 4.08.240. Operator delay. to make, within the time provided in DCC 4.08 If the Tax Administrator believes that the any report and remittance of such tax or any collection of any tax or any amount of tax portion thereof required by DCC 4.08, or makes a required to be collected and paid to the County fraudulent return or otherwise willfully attempts will be jeopardized by delay, or if any to evade DCC 4.08, the Tax Administrator shall determination will be jeopardized by delay, hethe proceed in such manner as he --the Tax Tax Administrator shall therexpen—make a determination of the tax or amount of tax required EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE 2004-005,2002-039- 8 (049002207/2004) S:\LeaTiIIance\Room Tax RevisionTxhibit A to Ordinance 2004-005 - Chapter 4.08 -7-2004 doc Revised on 7/16/2004 Exhibit Page io of 15 Iwo -11-66.1v to be collected, noting the €aet open --an; determination. The amount so determined as provided in DCC 4.08 shall be immediately due and payable, and the Operator shall immediately pay same determination to the Tax Administrator after service of notice thereof;; pFeNi&d; he�veveF dw—The Operator may file a petition, after payment has been made, for redemption and refund of all or a portion of any amount paid such detemitimtien� -if the petition is filed within ten (10) days from the date of service of notice by the Tax Administrator. (Ord. 2004-005 § 1, 2004LOrd. 95-029 § 1, 1995; Ord. 203-3 § 11(3), 1975) 4.08.250. Redeterminations. A. Any person against whom a determination is made under DCC 4.08.220, 4.08.230 and 4.08.240 or any person directly interested may petition for a redetermination and redemption and refund within the time required in DCC 4.08.220, 4.08.230 and 4.08.240. If a petition for redetermination and refund is not filed within the time required in DCC 4.08.220, 4.08.230 and 4.08.240, the determination becomes final at the expiration of the allawable-time allowed to submit a petition. B. If a petition for redetermination and refund is filed within the allowable period, the Tax Administrator shall reconsider the determination, and if the person has so requested in histhe petition, shall grant the person an oral hearing and shall given himthe person ten 101 days written notice of the time and place of the hearing. The Tax Administrator may continue the hearing from time to time as may be necessary. C. The Tax Administrator may decrease or increase the amount of the determination as a result of the hearing and, if an increase is determined, such increase shall be payable immediately after the hearing. D. The eFder- of decision of the Tax Administrator upon a petition for redetermination of redemption and refund becomes final ten (10) days after service upon the petitioner of notice thereof, unless appeal of such order or a decision is filed with the Board within ten ( 101 days after service of such notice. E. No petition for redetermination of redemption and refund or appeal therefrom shall be effective for any purpose unless the Operator has fust complied with the payment provisions of DCC 4.08. (Ord. 2004-005 § 1, 2004LOrd. 95-029 § 1, 1995; Ord. 203-3 § 12, 1975) 4.08.260. Security for collection of tax. A. The Tax Administrator, after delinquency and when he- the Tax Administrator, in the Tax Administrator's sole discretion, deems it necessary to insure compliance with DCC 4.08, may require any Operator subjeet dwFete--to deposit with him --the Tax Administrator such security in the form of cash, bond or other security as the Tax Administrator may deteFCFtittedeems appropriate. The amount of the security shall be fixed by the Tax Administrator but shall not be greater than twice the Operator's estimated average monthly liability for the period for which hethe Operator files returns, determined in such manner as the Tax Administrator deems proper, or $5,000.00, whichever amount is tie -lesser. The amount of the security may be increased or decreased by the Tax Administrator subject to the limitations provided in DCC 4.08. B. At any time within three years after any tax or any amount of tax required to be collected becomes due and payable or at any time within three years after any determination becomes final, the Tax Administrator may bring an action in tieany courts of the Sstate of Oregon, ef any state or of the United States, in the name of the County to collect the amount delinquent together with penalties and interest. (Ord. 2004-005 § 1, 2004; -Ord. 95-029 § 1, 1995; Ord. 203-3 § 13, 1975) E,NMrr A TO ORDINANCE 2004-005-,2002-03.9- 9 (0490022Q7/2004) SALeQal\FinancelRoom Tax RevisionTAdbit A to Ordinance 2004-005 - QWter 4.08-7-2004.doc Revised on 7/16/2004 - Exhibit Page _ / of 15 EXHIBIT A 4.08.270. Lien. A. The tax imposed by DCC 4.08 together with the interest and penalties provided in DCC 4.08 and the filing fees paid to the County Clerk and advertising costs which may be incurred when the same becomes delinquent as set forth in DCC 4.08 shall be and, until paid, remain a lien from the date of itsthe recording with the County Clerk a notice of lien, which shall be; md superior to all subsequent recorded liens on all tangible personal property used in the hotel of an Operator and may be foreclosed on and sold as may be necessary to discharge such lien, if the lien has been recorded. Notice of lien may be issued by the Tax Administrator, or lea deputy of the Tax Administrator, whenever the Operator is in default in the payment of such tax, interest, and penalty and shall be recorded, and a copy sent to the delinquent Operator. The personal property subject to such lien seized by any deputy or employee of the Tax Administrator may be sold by the department seizing the same at public auction after ten 1017_days' notice which shall mean one publication in a newspaper of general circulation within the County. B. Any lien for taxes as shown on the records of the proper County official shall, upon the payment of all taxes, penalties and interest thereon, be released by the Tax Administrator when the full amount determined to be due has been paid to the County and the Operator or person making such payment shall receive a receipt therefor stating that the full amount of taxes, penalties and interest thereon have been paid and that the lien is thereby released and the record of lien is satisfied. (Ord. 2004-005 § 1, 2004:Ord. 95-029 § 1, 1995; Ord. 203-3 § 14, 1975) illegally collected or received by the tax administrator under DCC 4.08, it—such amount may be refunded, provided a verified claim in writing therefor, stating the specific reason upon which the claim is founded, is filed with the Tax Administrator within three years from the date of payment. The claim shall be made on forms provided by the Tax Administrator. If the claim is approved by the Tax Administrator, the excess amount collected or paid may be refunded or may be credited -en against any amounts then due and payable from the Operator from whom it was collected or by whom paid and the balance may be refunded to eaehthe Operator or the Operato�s— , 4us administrators, executors or assignees. B. Transient Refunds. Whenever the tax required by DCC 4.08 has been collected by the Operator, and deposited by the Operator with the Tax Administrator, and it is later determined that the tax was erroneously or illegally collected or received by the Tax Administrator, it may be refunded by the Tax Administrator to the transient, provided a verified claim in writing therefor, stating the specific reason on which the claim is founded, is filed with the Tax Administrator within three years from the date of payment. (Ord. 2004-005 § 1, 2004LOrd. 95-029 § 1, 1995; Ord. 203-3 § 15, 1975) 4.08.290. Transient room tag fund. The Tax Administrator shall place all moneys received pursuant to DCC 4.08 in the transient room tax fund. (Ord. 95-029 § 1, 1995; Ord. 203-3 § 16(1), 1975) 4.08.300. Recordkeeping. Every OpV1LLto f sha l keep guest ef;ds of reeerds of - the -reem-sales. AJI feeerds shut 4.08.280. Refunds. be fetained by the Operator peed -of A. Operator's Refunds. Whenever the amount of i to being—Ev r L Operator shall, on a current any tax, penalty or interest has been paid more than once or has been erroneously or and ongoing basis, keen guest records. accounting books, records of room sales records EXLIIBIT A TO ORDINANCE 2004-005:'M�- 10 (0490 )2 07/2004) S:\L.ewd\Finance\Room Tax RevisioMExhibit A to Ordinance 2004-005 - Chapter 4.08 -7-2004 doc Revised on 7/16/2004 Exhibit___r Page i Z of 15 of room tax collected and remitted to the County and a record of all operator fees retained bX Operator pursuant to DCC 4.08.120.D. All records shall be retained by the Operator for a minimum period of three years and six months after the record is created. (Ord. 2004-005 § 1, 2004LOrd. 95-029 § 1, 1995; Ord. 203-3 § 16(2), 1975) 4.08.310. Examination of records. The Tax Administrator, or any person authorized in writing by him -the Tax Administrator_ may examine, during aemWLegWar business hours, the books, papers and accounting records relating to room sales of any Operator after notification to the Operator liable for the tax and may investigate the business of the Operator in order to verify the accuracy of any return made, or if no return is made by the Operator, to ascertain and determine the amount required to be paid. (Ord. 2004-005 § 1, 2004LOrd. 95-029 § 1, 1995; Ord. 203-3 § 16(3), 1975) 4.08.320. Administration -Confidentiality. It is unlawful for the Tax Administrator, or any person having an administrative or clerical duty under the provisions of DCC 4.08 to make known in any manner whatever the business affairs, operations or information obtained by an investigation of records and equipment of any person required to obtain a transient occupancy registration certificate or pay a transient occupancy tax, or any other person visited or examined in the discharge of official duty, or the amount of source of income, profits, losses, expenditures or any particular thereof, set forth in any statement or application, or to permit any statement or application, or copy of either, or any book containing any abstract or particulars thereof to be seen or examined by any person; provided, that nothing in DCC 4.08.320 shall be construed to prevent: A. The disclosure to, or the examination of records and equipment by another County official, employee or agent for collection of taxes for the sole purpose of administering or I enforcing any provision of DCC 4.08; or collecting taxes imposed under DCC 4.08. B. The disclosure after the filing of a written request to that effect, to the taxpayer himself, receivers, trustees, executors, administrators, assignees and guarantors, if directly interested, of information as to any paid tax, any unpaid tax or amount of tax required to be collected or interest and penalties; provided further, that the district attorney approves each such disclosure and that the Tax Administrator may refuse to make any disclosure referred to in DCC 4.08.320 when in his the opinion of the Tax Administrator, the public interest would suffer thereby. C. The disclosure of the names and addresses of any persons to whom transient occupancy registration certificates have been issued. D. The disclosure of general statistics regarding taxes collected or business done in the County. E. With respect to delinquent transient room taxes, the disclosure of information required in accordance with Oregon Revised Statute 192.502(17), or any amendment of said statute. (Ord. 2004-005 § 1, 2004LOrd. 95-029 § 1, 1995; Ord. 203-3 § 16(4), 1975) 4.08.330. Appeals. Any person aggrieved by any provisions of the Tax Administrator may appeal to the Board by filing a notice of appeal with the Tax Administrator within twen 4-20) days of the Tax Aadministrator's decision. The Tax Administrator shall transmit such notice of appeal, together with the file of such appealed matter to the Board who shall fix a time and place for hearing such appeal. The Board shall give the appellant not less thanten -10) days written notice of the time and place of hearing of such appealed matter. (Ord. 2004-005 § 1, 2004LOrd. 95-029 § 1, 1995; Ord. 203-3 § 17, 1975) 4.08.340. Unlawful acts -Penalty. It is an a violation for any Operator, or other person so required, to fail or refuses to register as required in DCC 4.08, or -to fail or MGMIT A TO ORDINANCE 2004-005:2-00- � 11 (94/2992207/2004) S:\I..egW\Fnmce\Room Tax RevisionTxhibit A to Ordinance 2004-005 - Chapter 4.08 -7-2004 doc Revised on 7/16/2004 Exhibit Page 13 of 15 refuse to furnish any return required to be made, or—to fail or refuse to furnish a supplemental return or other data records or information required by the Tax Administrator, to fail or refuse to submit to an audit by or on behalf of the Tax Administrator or to render a false or fraudulent return. No person required to make, render, sign or verify any report shall make any false or fraudulent report, with intent to defeat or evade the determination of any amount due required by DCC 4.08. Violation of any provision of DCC Chapter 4.08 is a Class A 44enViolation. (Ord. 2004-005 § 1, 2004LOrd. 95-029 § 1, 1995; Ord. 83-013 § 1, 1983; Ord. 203-3 § 19, 1975) MGMIT A TO ORDINANCE 2004-005; "'^�-9- 12 (0 ram=07/2004) SALegabf nan�om Tax Revision\Exhibit A to Ordinance 2004-005 - Chapter 4.08-7-2004.doc Revised on 7/16/2004 — Exhibit Page (`f of 15 SAMPLE LETTER August 10, 2004 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1130 NW Harriman St., Bend, OR 97701-1947 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 388-4752 - www.deschutes.org RE: Deschutes County Code Title 4.08 Dear This is to notify you that Deschutes County is considering revisions to the County's Room Tax Ordinance (Deschutes County Code Title 4.08 — Transient Room Tax). The Board of Commissioners has set a public hearing to consider the proposed revisions for Wednesday, August 25, 2004 at 10:00 a.m. in the Board Hearing Room located in the Deschutes Services Center, 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon. (Please note: this in our new building located near the Parkway and Lafayette Avenue.) A copy of the proposed revised ordinance is enclosed for your review. As you may recall, it was decided to delay a decision until the State of Oregon issued its new rules regarding the new statewide 1% room tax. After reviewing these new rules and procedures, it is apparent to us that the State is taking a different approach that we do not feel is applicable in Deschutes County. Regarding the attached proposed ordinance, additions are shown in underline; proposed deletions are shown in strikethrough. Sincerely, Mike Maier County Administrator Enclosure Exhibit E Page 16- of 15