2006-355-Resolution No. 2006-010 Recorded 3/23/2006TES COUNTY
FICIAL
REVIEWED NANCY UBLANKENSHIP,FCOUNTY CLERKS Vy 20Vu
SIURN�3��
COMMISSIONERS' JOAL 03/232006 02;58;30 PM
LEGAL CO SEL 11111111 11,11
2 0d-3S
i
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
A Resolution to Establish Transportation System
Development Charges for Those Properties Within * RESOLUTION NO. 2006-010
Deschutes County Located South of La Pine State
Recreation Road
WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners ("Board") held a public hearing
on February 22, 2006, to consider establishing a transportation system development charge ("SDC") to help
fund three specific traffic signal projects within the La Pine Urban Unincorporated Community boundary and
one signal just outside of said boundary that are necessary to serve the growth related needs in the
unincorporated area, and
WHEREAS, ORS 223.297 through 223.314 authorize governmental units to establish transportation
system development charges, and
WHEREAS, the methodology proposed by Deschutes County Community Development Department
("CDD") staff, Exhibit A, identifies the use of an "improvement fee" SDC based on a population growth
methodology and considers the needs of the La Pine Unincorporated Community area, and
WHEREAS, methodology proposes applying the SDCs to the properties within Deschutes County
located south of La Pine State Recreation Road, and
WHEREAS, the Board determined that it is in the public interest to provide limited transportation
capital facilities through the use of SDCs; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES
COUNTY, OREGON, as follows:
Section 1. Findings. The Board adopts as its findings in supoprt of this resolution the staff report attached
as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference.
Section 2. Rates of Charges. The County shall collect transportation system development charges
("SDCs")at the rate of $226 per peak hour trip identified in the methodology attached in Exhibit A.
Section 3. Applicability and Collection.
(A) Transporation SDCs chall be collected from properties located within Deschutes
County south of La Pine State Recreation Road.
(B) Transportation SDCs calculated in accordance with Exhibit A shall be collected from
new development within the collection area described in this resolution.
(C) Transportation SDCs shall be collected and paid in full upon application for a building
permit.
PAGE 1 OF 5 — RESOLUTION NO. 2006-010 (02/22/06)
Section 4. Receipt and Expenditure of System Development Charges.
(A) Trust Accounts. The County hereby establishes a separate trust account to be designated
as the "La Pine Transportation SDC Account." All transportation system development
charge payments shall be deposited into the appropriate trust account immediately upon
receipt.
(B) Use of System Development Charges. The monies deposited into the account
designated as the "La Pine Transportation SDC Account' shall be used solely for the
purpose of providing the identified capital improvements which provide for the
increased capacity necessitated by development. Such expenditures may include, but
are not limited to:
(1) Design and construction plan preparation;
(2) Permitting and fees;
(3) Land and materials acquisition, including any costs of acquisition or
condemnation;
(4) Construction of capital improvements;
(5) Design and construction of new drainage facilities required by the construction
of capital improvements and structures;
(6) Relocating utilities required by the construction of improvements and
structures;
(7) Landscaping;
(8) Construction management and inspection;
(9) Surveying, soils and material testing;
(10) Acquisition of capital equipment;
(11) Repayment of monies transferred or borrowed from any budgetary fund of the
County which were used to fund any of the capital improvements as herein
provided;
(12) Payment of principal and interest, necessary reserves and costs of issuance
under any bonds or other indebtedness issued by the County to fund capital
improvements;
(13) Direct costs of complying with the provisions of ORS 223.297 to 223.314,
including the consulting, legal, and administrative costs required for developing
and updating the transportation SDCs methodology report, resolution/
ordinance, and capital improvements master plan; and the costs of collecting
and accounting for transportation SDC expenditures.
(E) Investment of Trust Account Revenue. Any funds on deposit in transportation SDC
trust accounts which are not immediately necessary for expenditure shall be invested by
the County. All income derived from such investments shall be deposited in the
transportation SDC trust accounts and used as provided herein.
PAGE 2 of 5 — RESOLUTION NO. 2006-010 (02/22/06)
(F) Refunds of Transportation System Development Charges. Collected transportation
SDCs shall be refunded in accordance with the following requirements:
(1) An applicant or owner shall be eligible to apply for a refund if:
(a) The building permit has expired and the development authorized by
such permit is not complete; or
(b) The funds collected as transportation SDCs have not been expended or
encumbered prior to the end of the fiscal year immediately following
the tenth (10`") anniversary of the date upon which such charges were
paid. For the purposes of this Section, transportation SDCs collected
shall be deemed to be expended or encumbered on the basis of the first
transportation SDCs collected shall be the first transportation SDCs
expended.
(2) The application for refund shall be on a formed approved by the County, filed
with the County Community Development Department ("CDD") and contain
the following:
(a) The name and address of the applicant;
(b) The location of the property which was subject of the transportation
SDCs;
(c) A notarized sworn statement that the petitioner is the then current
owner of the property for which the transportation SDCs were paid.
The statement must be accompanied by documentation of proof of
ownership, such as a certified copy of the latest recorded deed;
(d) The date the transportation SDCs were paid;
(e) A copy of the receipt of payment for the transportation SDCs; and, if
appropriate; and
(f) The date the building permit was issued and the date of expiration.
(3) The application shall be filed within ninety (90) days of the expiration of the
building permit, or within (90) days of the end of the fiscal year following the
time period described in Section 4, (F)(1)(b) above. Failure to timely apply for
a refund of the transportation SDCs shall waive any right to a refund.
(4) The County CDD Director shall determine whether the application submitted is
complete and verify the ownership of the property, the amount of and date for
any SDCs paid and date of submittal in compliance with this section.
(5) Within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a petition for refund, the
CDD Director shall provide written notice to the petitioner of the Director's
determination of eligibility for the refund.
(6) If the CDD Director determines that the petitioner is elibible for the refund of
transportation SDCs paid, such funds shall be returned to the petitioner along
with the written notice of elibigility..
PAGE 3 OF 5 — RESOLUTION NO. 2006-010 (02/22/06)
(7) A building permit which is subsequently issued for a development on the same
property that was the subject of a refund shall pay the transportation SDCs
required by this resolution.
(G) Annual Accounting Reports. The CDD Director shall prepare an annual report
accounting for transportation SDCs, including the total amount of transportation SDC
revenue collected in the trust accounts, and the capital improvement projects that were
funded.
(H) Challenge xpenditures. Any citizen or other interested person may challenge
an expenditure of transportation SDC revenues.
(1) Such challenge shall be submitted, in writing on a form approved by the
County, to CDDfor review within two years following the subject expenditure,
and shall include the following information:
(a) The name and address of the citizen or other interested person
challenging the expenditure;
(b) The amount of expenditure, the project, payee or purpose, and the
approximate date on which it was make; and
(c) The reason why the expenditure is being challenged.
(2) If the CDD Director determines that the expenditure was not made in
accordance with the provisions of this resolution and other relevant laws, a
reimbursement of transportation SDC trust account revenues from other
revenue sources shall be made within one year following the determination that
the expenditures were not appropriate.
(3) The County shall make written notification of the results of the expenditure
review to the citizen or other interested person who requested the review within
ten days of completion of the review.
Section 5. Severability. If any clause, section or provision of this resolution shall be declared
unconstitutional or invalid for any reason or cause, the remaining portion of said resolution shall be in full force
and effect and be valid as if such invalid portion thereof had not been incorporated herein.
PAGE 4 OF 5 — RESOLUTION NO. 2006-010 (02/22/06)
Section 6. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect on thgl/�day o jjk!g� 2006.
DATED thisP- day of / Y C.AC,1�1— , 2006.
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
PACE 5 OF 5 - RESOLUTION NO. 2006-010 (02/22/06)
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
NNIS R. LUKE,CTrair
BEV CLARNO, Vice Chair
S_ EXHIBIT "A"
.�Community Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division
117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925
(541)388-6575 FAX(541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 14, 2006
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Steve Jorgensen, Senior Transportation Planner
Subject: UPDATE OF PROJECT COST SHARING FUNDING OPTIONS (SDCs)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This past June, I provided a memo that identified the possible use of a transportation system
development charge (SDC) or traffic impact fee (TIF) to help pay for selected transportation
improvements in the La Pine area. The assumption was that this fee would only apply to four
(4) specific projects and the fee would technically "sunset' after the projects are constructed and
the public SDC contribution completed. Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 223.297 through
223.314 identify what SDCs are and how they can be implemented at the local level. The law is
reasonably general and, thus, allows substantial leeway in how individual jurisdictions choose to
implement these fees. The main requirement is that a methodology be developed, presented
for public review and approved through resolution by the local elected decision making body.
In general, SDCs can either be an improvement fee designed to recover costs associated with
capital improvements to be constructed in the future or a reimbursement fee designed to
recover costs from capital improvements already constructed or under construction. Most
Oregon jurisdictions that have transportation SDCs use only the improvement fee structure,
while possibly less than 25% of jurisdictions use a combination of fee types.
The methodology I outlined in June was based on an analysis of vacant parcels. It used the
number and types of existing parcels and made broad assumptions as to how they could likely
develop given the existing Zoning Code requirements. I believe that this method (below) is
confusing and difficult to explain to the public because it has a rate that is different depending
on how many parcels are in the catchment area and how they actually develop out over time. It
is possible that the rate would need to be adjusted on a regular basis as development occurs,
further creating confusion and possible application inequity issues.
Vacant Lands Analysis Methodology (NOT Recommended by Staff)
1) BOCC adopts a transportation SDC for only the areas within the La Pine UUC boundary.
The projects would include a total of four new traffic signals, three (3) new signals within
the boundary, and one (1) just outside the boundary at Burgess/Huntington.
Estimated SDC Rate: 302 per new peak hour trip
2) BOCC adopts a transportation SDC and includes the entire area south of La Pine State
Recreation Road to fund the four new traffic signals inside the boundary.
Estimated SDC Rate: 160 per new peak hour trip
Page 1 of 7 EXHIBIT "A" TO RESOLUTION 2006-010 2/16/2006
Quality Services Performed zvith Pride
In the time since that June memo, I attended an AOC -sponsored SDC seminar, and performed
some additional analysis. Based on the research completed in the interim, I recommend that
the Board accept the Population Growth Methodolow. Option 4 (below) for ease of
justification, simplicity and equity, and take it forward for a public hearing on February 22, 2006.
With this methodology, the rate remains constant no matter how many properties are involved.
This is because only two variables go into the formula: percentage population growth increase
(35%) over the 20 -year period, and project cost basis.
Population Growth Methodology (Recommended by Staff)
3) BOCC adopts a transportation SDC to fund the four new traffic signals. This method
assigns an SDC to those areas that are anticipated to use the subject intersections and,
thus, contribute to the future amount of peak hour trips over the 20 -year planning
horizon. The boundary would be the La Pine Urban Unincorporated Community (UUC).
The rate would be tied to the number of estimated new peak hour trips.
Estimated SDC Rate: 226 per new peak hour trip
4) Same as #3, but The SDC area would be expanded to be the entire County area south
of La Pine State Recreation Road. The SDC contribution area would be larger, but the
rate would remain the same at $226 per new peak hour trip. Theoretically, if the larger
area is used, the project pay off time should be shortened.
I'm also recommending that the Board adopts the desired SDC via resolution as allowed under
ORS 223.304 (2) (a).
As many cities within the State have done, the Board also has the option of funding a consultant
that specializes in SDCs to prepare a system development charge program for the County. If
this is the chosen direction, then I'd suggest that, to justify the expense, the consultant should
also evaluate the option of establishing countywide SDCs in addition to just the La Pine area.
However, to do that and develop a logical and representative countywide SDC rate, the 1998
County Transportation System Plan (TSP) should be updated first to arrive at current
intersection deficiencies and a revised countywide transportation project list. This TSP update
process is not currently programmed and thus would require funding and likely take upwards of
at least one to two years.
Page 2 of 7 EXHIBIT "A" TO RESOLUTION 2006-010 2/16/2006
DISCUSSION
The following summarizes what staff understands to be the SDC requirements, options for
funding and analysis.
System Development Charges (SDC) have been used in Oregon and throughout the United
States to fund capital transportation improvements (not operating or maintenance) that can be
attributed to growth. The cornerstone to development of SDCs involves two principles:
1) There must be a reasonable connection between growth generated by development and the
facilities constructed to serve that growth (generally determined by level of service or
connectivity); and
2) There must be a general system -wide connection between the fees collected from the
development and the benefits development receives.
Charges are typically developed based on a measurement of the demand that new
development places on the street system and the capital costs required to meet that demand.
State law (ORS 223.304) allows jurisdictions to adopt SDCs by resolution. SDCs do not require
a vote of the public and are not a tax.
The basis for SDC collections is usually the trip generation rates identified in the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, which is recognized and used
nationwide by transportation and engineering agencies and organizations to plan for safe and
efficient transportation. While not designed to make new development completely "pay its own
way, SDCs do provide a portion of the revenue for transportation improvements. SDC charges
are typically paid at the time of building permit issuance. Keeping in mind that the counties
referenced below are generally more urban than Deschutes County, for comparison purposes,
the following are sample single family home SDC fees for other Oregon counties with
countywide Transportation SDCs:
Washington County TIF:
Clackamas County SDC:
General County Area:
Happy Valley/Clackamas County Joint Area
Marion County SDC:
Average:
$2,850
$3,226
$5,006
$1,725 (5% increase being considered)
$3,202
Deschutes County (proposed)
Population based: $ 231
Vacant land based: $ 290
Deschutes County does not currently have any localized or countywide SDCs for transportation
purposes. However, as destination resort and rural development has accelerated in recent
years, mitigation for the traffic impacts associated with that development is largely the burden of
the individual developers or property owners. With so many previously platted residential lots
being developed, particularly in the South County, there is no mechanism for those established
owners to contribute a fair share to transportation improvements related to their impacts. In
addition, the ability of government to equitably assess and exact financial responsibility for
needed transportation improvements is constrained by the United State's Supreme Court's
findings in the Dolan vs. City of Tigard decision. For unincorporated communities such as La
Page 3 of 7 EXHIBIT "A" TO RESOLUTION 2006-010 2/16/2006
Pine, the problem is exacerbated by the presence of increasing levels of background (non -
locally generated) traffic on US Highway 97, continued development of retail/commercial/
industrial uses in the area, and new residential subdivisions.
The County Transportation System Plan contains a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) that is
updated annually by the County Board of Commissioners. Many transportation projects in the
CIP are primarily location -specific and thereby benefit relatively small geographic areas,
whereas others are of regional significance. For the La Pine area, there are several large cost
projects that will benefit the greater La Pine area. The absence of a formal transportation fee
program makes it difficult to equitably distribute the cost to install/build those improvements.
The focus of this fee analysis is related to four traffic signalization projects located at:
1. Huntington Road and 1St St.
2. 15t St. at US Highway 97
3. Finley Butte Road at US Highway 97, and
4. Huntington Road and Burgess Road (outside of La Pine UUC boundary)
DESCHUTES COUNTY SDC OPTIONS
The following methodologies are based on trip generation rates identified in the 6th Edition of the
Institute of Transportation Engineers trip Generation Handbook. The combined cost estimates
of signals at Huntington and 1st St. ($600,000), Hwy 97 at Finley Butte ($600,000), 1st St. and
Hwy 97 ($600,000), and Huntington and Burgess ($250,000) form the cost basis ($2,050,000)
for the proposed SDC rate.
Vacant Lands Analysis Methodology (Not Recommended)
This methodology for a system development charge is similar to that used for cost recovery for
the traffic signal that was installed at the South Century Drive @ Venture Lane intersection in
the Sunriver Business Park.
This method uses a group of vacant properties only within the La Pine Unincorporated
Community (UUC), including the Neighborhood, La Pine and Wickiup Junction Planning Areas,
or would include the entire area south of La Pine State Recreation Road, to establish the peak
hour trip rate each developing property would pay at time of building permit application. The
downsides to this method are that, while it is not too cumbersome to apply to a small geographic
area and perform the required analysis, it would be difficult to eventually apply countywide in the
future. In addition, this method may be less than ideal because of the broad assumptions that
are made about how individual vacant lots may develop. These future estimates of peak hour
trips factor directly into the rate analysis. This SDC rate is dependent on the relationship
between these three factors:
• peak hour trips
• capital cost
• number of vacant lots.
Option 1) Staff evaluated the current zoning and estimated development potential of the
group of vacant properties within the LPUUC (including all four phases of the
Neighborhood Planning Area) and combined that with the signal cost estimate of
$2,050,000).
Page 4 of 7 EXHIBIT "A" TO RESOLUTION 2006-010 2/16/2006
The total combined cost for those projects was spread out across all the vacant properties
based on their estimated peak hour traffic impacts. Staff then identified the existing PM peak
hour traffic entering the subject intersections, and estimated how much new peak hour traffic will
be added over time as the vacant properties build out. As with the Population Growth
Methodology, already developed properties will not contribute to the cost of the new signals
unless they have a change of use that triggers a site plan review or conditional use permit.
They would only contribute if that change results in a more traffic -intensive use. The County
share of the cost of the intersection is based on the number of existing peak hour ADTs.
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 6th Edition generalized trip generation rates were
used to assign cost share to each of the vacant properties.
The attached Figure 1 would be used as the basis of vacant properties (in yellow) to contribute
to the signals. Fees collected would be deposited into a specific signal improvement fund. To
establish a rate, assumptions were made concerning how the vacant properties could likely
develop based on the existing zoning.
The project cost basis starts with $2,050,000 (for the signals) and then deducted the BiMart
(phase 1) contribution of $39,266, the high school contribution of $4,860, then deducted the
County contribution of $691,449 based on the existing peak hour trips to reduce the cost basis
to $1,314,425. The cost basis leads to a cost per peak hour trip calculation of:
$1,314,425 / 4,348 (future) trips = 302 per new peak trip.
Table 1 identifies sample SDC rates for Option 1 per type of unit derived from the estimated
peak hour trip generation rates in the ITE Trip Generation Manual. Sample rates are:
Single Family Residential (1 house): $308 per lot
Industrial (10,000 sq. ft. building): $2,610 per lot
Business Park (7,000 sq. ft. building): $2,730 per lot
General Office (4,000 sq. ft. building): $1,440 per lot
Motel (50 rooms): $6,750 per lot
With this method, any proposed development within the La Pine UUC boundary will be charged
a traffic impact fee at site plan review and/or through findings from a traffic impact analysis
commensurate with their impact.
Option 2) This option uses the same methodology outlined above but expands outside of
the La Pine UUC boundary to include all the vacant properties south of La Pine
State Recreation Road. This would spread the cost out over an additional
number of vacant residential lots.
The attached Figure 2 would be used as the basis of vacant properties (in yellow) to contribute
to the signals.
The project cost basis starts with $2,050,000 and then deducted the BiMart (phase 1)
contribution of $39,266, the high school contribution of $4,860, then deducted the County
contribution of $365,365 based on the existing peak hour trips to reduce the cost basis to
$1,640,509. The cost basis leads to a cost per peak hour trip calculation of:
$1,640,509 / 10,269 (future) trips = 160 per new peak trip
Page 5 of 7 EXHIBIT "A" TO RESOLUTION 2006-010 2/16/2006
Table 2 identifies sample SDC rates for Option 2 per type of unit derived from the estimated
peak hour trip generation rates in the ITE Trip Generation Manual. Sample rates are:
Single Family Residential (1 house): $163 per lot
Industrial (10,000 sq. ft. building): $1,380 per lot
Business Park (7,000 sq. ft. building): $1,442 per lot
General Office (4,000 sq. ft. building): $764 per lot
Motel (50 rooms): $3,600 per lot
Population Growth Methodology Recommended
This methodology for a system development charge uses the Deschutes County Coordinated
Population forecast to estimate the future number of peak hour trips added to specific
intersections (or countywide). Existing peak hour trips are estimated, then the percentage
population growth (35%) over the 20 -year planning horizon is applied to those intersections (or
countywide) to develop new peak hour trip amounts. The number of new peak hour trips are
factored into a formula that includes the cost basis of projected projects, and then comes up
with an SDC rate. This SDC rate is dependent on the relationship between these two factors:
• capital cost
• percentage of population growth (new peak hour trips)
Option 3) This method assigns an SDC to those areas that are anticipated to use the
subject intersections and, thus, contribute to the future number of peak hour trips.
The boundary would be the La Pine UUC.
Table 3 (attached) identifies the calculation used arrive at this SDC rate. The project cost basis
starts with the total signal project cost ($2,050,000), and then applies the population growth
percentage (35%) to come up with the allowable cost for each project. The resulting project
cost total ($673,374) which includes the BiMart (phase 1) contribution of $39,266 and the high
school contribution of $4,860 deducted from the cost of the Huntington and 1s' Signal.
The cost basis leads to a cost per peak hour trip calculation of:
$673,374 / 3,087 (future) trips + $8 (admin cost) = 226 per new peak trip.
Table 4 identifies sample SDC rates for Options 3 or 4 per type of unit derived from the
estimated peak hour trip generation rates in the ITE Trip Generation Manual. Sample rates are:
Single Family Residential (1 house): $231 per lot
Light Industrial (10,000 sq. ft. building): $1,950 per lot
Business Park (7,000 sq. ft. building): $2,044 per lot
General Office (4,000 sq. ft. building): $1,076 per lot
Motel (50 rooms): $5,050 per lot
With this method, any proposed development within the La Pine UUC boundary will be charged
a traffic impact fee at site plan review and/or through findings from a traffic impact analysis
commensurate with their impact.
Option 4) Same as #3, but the SDC area would be the entire area south of La Pine State
Rec. Road. The rate would be tied to the number of anticipated new peak hour
Page 6 of 7 EXHIBIT "A" TO RESOLUTION 2006-010 2/16/2006
trips over the 20 -year planning horizon at just the subject intersections. This
option would use the same rate as Option 1 since the intersections (and capital
project cost) are the same. However, with more properties eligible to pay into
the fund, the time span to pay off the projects would be shortened.
Attachments: 1) Figure 1, vacant parcel map (UUC area)
2) Figure 2, vacant parcel map (full area)
3) Table 1, vacant lands (UUC area) rate sheet
4) Table 2, vacant lands (full area) rate sheet
5) Table 3, population methodology spreadsheet
6) Table 4, population methodology rate sheet
Page 7 of 7 EXHIBIT "A" TO RESOLUTION 2006-010 2/16/2006
T E
C,
Community Development Department
! Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division
A A
117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925
(541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Board of County Commissioners will hold a Public Hearing on February 22, 2006, at 10:00
A.M. in the Barnes and Sawyer rooms of the Deschutes Services Center at 1300 NW Wall
Street in Bend, to take testimony on the following item:
FILE NUMBER: Resolution 2006-010
APPLICANT: Deschutes County
SUBJECT: The Board of County Commissioners will hear testimony regarding the
possibility of approving Resolution 2006-010 to adopt a transportation
system development charge to contribute towards the cost of
installating four (4) future traffic signals in the La Pine area.
STAFF CONTACT: Steve Jorgensen, Senior Transportation Planner
ANY INTERESTED PERSON MAY APPEAR, BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, OR
SUBMIT WRITTEN SIGNED TESTIMONY. ALL WRITTEN TESTIMONY MUST BE
RECEIVED BY THIS DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THE HEARING DATE OR BE SUBMITTED
AT THE HEARING.
Seven (7) days prior to the public hearing, copies of the proposed documents and attachments
will be available for inspection at no cost at the Deschutes County Community Development
Department at 117 NW Lafayette Avenue. Copies of the documents and attachments can be
purchased at the office for (25) cents a page.
The meeting location is wheelchair accessible. For the deaf or hearing impaired, an interpreter
or assistant listening system will be provided with 48 hours notice. Materials in alternate
formats may be made available with 48 hours notice by dialing 541-388-6621. For other
assistance, please dial 7-1-1, State Relay Service.
Please contact Steve Jorgensen with the County Planning Division at (541) 383-6718 if you
have any questions.
Quality Services Performed with Pride
Figure 1
Vacant Parcels within the La Pine Urban
Unincorporated Community (UUC)
�V� � ,
•�.. ��
-,
Figure 2
Vacant Parcels South of
La Pine State Rec. Road
0 Taxlots
® La Pine UUC Boundary
0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 Miles
9/16/05 1" = 1 Mile N
Table 1 Deschutes County
Transportation Systems Development Charge (SDC)
Rate Schedule
2006 ISDC Rate: $ 302 per peak hour trip
SAMPLE
ITE LAND USE CODES / CATEGORIES
Daily Trips
per Unit
Peak Hr
Trips
Pass by
Reduction
Reduced Rate per
Trips Unit Unit
RESIDENTIAL
9.57
1.02
0%
1.02 "$ 308; ! dwelling unit
220
Apartment
6.63
0.67
0%
0.67 dwelling unit
230
Residential Condominium
5.86
0.54
0%
0.54 ,; 163. /dwelling unit
240
Mobile Home Park
4.81
0.58
0%
0.58 $ 41'` _,1.,75,, / dwelling unit
260
Recreational Home
3.16
0.31
0%
0.31$"•";, 94„ /dwelling unit
INSTITUTIONAL
030
Truck Terminals
9.85
0.82
0%
0.82 $ '. 248::; / TGSF
412
County Park
2.28
0.59
0%
0.59 ; , 17& /acre
430
Golf Course
35.74
3.56
0%
3.56 „$ , " 1,075';^, /hole
443
Movie Theater
220.00
37.83
0%
37.83 $11425; /screen
492
Racquet Club
17.14
1.28
0%
1.28 $ ', 387 / TGSF
520
Elementary School
1.02
0.26
0%
0.26 79 / student
522
Junior High School
1.45
0.29
0%
0.29 $ 88:, / student
530
High School
1.79
0.30
0%
0.30 �,` 91 / student
540
Junior/Community College
1.54
0.16
0%
0.16 •�$ ,48 / student
550
University
2.38
0.24
0%
0.24/student
560
Church
9.11
1.41
0%
1.41$, "„ , •, 426 !TGSF
565
Day Care Center/Preschool
4.52
0.86
0%
0.86 $ : ' 260 / student
590
Library
54.00
7.02
0%
7.02. 2,120a / TGSF
610
Hospital
16.78
1.46
20%
1.17$��"353;; / TGSF
620
Nursing Home
2.61
0.36
20%1
0.29 [1"', 87 / bed
BUSINESS & COMMERCIAL
•`
310
Hotel
8.230.61
20%
0.49 $ 147` /room
320
Motel
5.63
0.56
20%
0.45$"„ "� 135'' / room
330
Resort Hotel
5.10
0.51
20%
0.41 :.$ 123'' /room
812
Building Materials/Lumber
39.71
5.15
20%
4.12 $ ;1,244 / TGSF
814
Speciality Retail Center
40.67
4.93
20%
3.94 , X1,191 ; / TGSF
815
Discount Stores
56.63
5.51
33%
3.69 $ 1115 / TGSF
816
Hardware/Paint Stores
51.29
4.74
33%
3.18 $ ; " 959 / TGSF
817
Nursery - Garden Center
36.08
4.97
33%
3.33 $ 1,006 /TGSF
820
Shopping Center
42.92
3.74
20%
2.99$ ;•,,,__ 904 / TGSF
832
High Turnover, Sit -Down
"
Restaurant
130.34
19.32
44%
10.82$" 3,267 /TGSF
833
Fast Food Restaurant (no drive-thru)
716.00
52.4
56%
23.06 $ s." ` 6;963 / TGSF
834
Fast Food Restaurant (w/ drive-thru)
496.12
46.28
56%
20.360-7 ',,,j 6;150 , / TGSF
836
Bar
154.90
15.49
56%
6.82$ s 2,058 / TGSF
841
New Car Sales
37.50
2.50
20% °
2.00$� , 604 /TGSF
844
Service Station (no store)
168.56
16.18
56%
7.12 2,150.; / pump
845
Service Station (w/ market)
162.78
13.57
56%
5.97$ 1;803 /pump
850
Supermarket
111.51
12.02
42%
6.97 '$ 2,105 / TGSF
851
Convenience Market
737.99
52.74
74%
13.71 $ „ 4,141; / TGSF
853
Conv. Market w/Gas Pump
542.60
19.98
74%
5.19 $" ', 1,569,, /pump
870
Apparel Store
66.40
4.20
44%
2.35$ .. ", A 710 / TGSF
890
Furniture Store
5.06
0.53
33%
0.36
911
Bank/Savings: Walk -In
156.481
33.15
44%1
18.56$ '", 5j066'11 TGSF
Table 1
2006
Deschutes Gounty
Transportation Systems Development Charge (SDC)
Rate Schedule
ISDC Rate: $ 302 per peak hour trip
SAMPLE
ITE LAND USE CODES /CATEGORIES
Daily Trips
per Unit
Peak Hr
Trips
Pass by
Reduction
Reduced Rat11 e pe1111 '1r
Trips '_1 ;.
Unit
912
Bank/Savings: Drive -In
265.21
51.23
44%
28.69
/TGSF
OFFICE'
630
Clinic
51.80
5.18
20%
4.14 $�,; 1,251;" /TGSF
710
General Office
11.01
1.49
20%
1.19 $ ;; _ D: / TGSF
720
Medical/Dental Office Building
36.13
4.36
20%
3.49" , /TGSF
730
Government Office Building
68.93
11.03
20%
8.82 $ : 2,G6 /TGSF
760
Research/Development Center
8.11
1.08
0%
1.08 $ '326 / TGSF
770
Business Park
12.761
1.29
0%1
1.29 $ .; 9Q / TGSF
INDUSTRIAL:`
5' 4
110
General Light Industrial
6.97
1.08
20%
0.86 �$f /TGSF
120
General Heavy Industrial
6.75
4.22
20%
3.3813Osz /Acre
130
Industrial Park
6.96
0.86
20%
0.69 � �_ ,� /TGSF
140
Manufacturing
3.82
0.75
20%
0.60 " /TGSF
150
Warehouse
4.96
0.61
0%
0.61 =e: t4 /TGSF
151
Mini -warehouse
2.501
0.29
0%1
0.29 /TGSF
ITE = Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers
TGSF = 1,000 gross square feet (building)
Pass By Reduction based on estimated percentage of "passerby" or "diverted" trips. (source: City of Central Point, OR)
"Peak Hr Trips" are those trips estimated for the P.M. Peak Hour of the traffic generating land use category.
Som , lw 5D eealcu7ai~ro»Qel rocrs unrsR�t er Unit $14- SaC $'4,41'x.
Table 2 Deschutes County
Transportation Systems Development Charge (SDC)
Rate Schedule
2006 ISUC Rate: $ 160 per peak hour trip
SAMPLE
ITE LAND USE CODES / CATEGORIES
Daily Trips
per Unit
Peak Hr
Trips
Pass by
Reduction
Reduced Rate per
Trips Unit
Unit
RESIDENTIAL
9.57 1.02 0% 1.02 ;-$ 163
/ dwelling unit
220
Apartment
6.63
0.67
0%
0.67 „$
107
/ dwelling unit
230
Residential Condominium
5.86
0.54
0%
0.54 $ ,
, 86=
/ dwelling unit
240
Mobile Home Park
4.81
0.58
0%
0.58 IF$' `
93' / dwelling unit
260
Recreational Home
3.16
0.31
0%
0.31 $°"
50
/dwelling unit
INSTITUTIONAL
0 n
,•
030
Truck Terminals
9.85
0.82
0%
0.82 $
131
/TGSF
412
County Park
2.28
0.59
0%
0.59$
,�94,ro / acre
430
Golf Course
35.74
3.56
0%
3.56 $
570 /hole
443
Movie Theater
220.00
37.83
0%
37.83 $
-16,053,,
/screen
492
Racquet Club
17.14
1.28
0%
1.28 •,$; "
205_'
/TGSF
520
Elementary School
1.02
0.26
0%
0.26 �$
42" /student
522
Junior High School
1.45
0.29
0%
0.29
student
530
High School
1.79
0.30
0%
.$ ',
0.16,
b -" 48
/student
540
Junior/Community College
1.54
0.16
0%
0.1 $ •, 26,' / student
550
University
2.38
0.24
0%
0.24 i$_ "`
�; ;38"=
/ student
560
Church
9.11
1.41
0%
1.41 $ _,.;
��226'
/TGSF
565
Day Care Center/Preschool
4.52
0.86
0%
0.86$'n,,; 138 f` /student
590
Library
54.00
7.02
0%
7.02 $'�
1,123x; /TGSF
610
Hospital
16.78
1.46
20%1
1.17•
X187
, /TGSF
620
Nursing Home
2.611
0.36
20%1
0.29_"
$.. ,
4 / bed
BUSINESS &COMMERCIAL
310
Hotel
8.23
0.61
20%
0.49 $
78
/ room
320
Motel
5.63
0.56
20%
0.45 ;",$
72 .
/ room
330
Resort Hotel
5.10
0.51
20%
0.41 $
65"
/ room
812
Building Materials/Lumber
39.71
5.15
20%
4.12 `$
656
/TGSF
814
Speciality Retail Center
40.67
4.93
20%
3.94 $"'"
631 `
/ TGSF
815
Discount Stores
56.63
5.51
33%
3.69 $;
591
/TGSF
816
Hardware/Paint Stores
51.29
4.74
33%
3.18 $ .
508
/TGSF
817
Nursery - Garden Center
36.08
4.97
33%
3.33 $`
5,1,1
/TGSF
820
Shopping Center
42.92
3.74
20%
2.99$"___
_479
/TGSF
832
High Turnover, Sit -Down
Restaurant
130.34
19.32
44%
10.82 ;'$
1;731
/TGSF
833
Fast Food Restaurant (no drive-thru)
716.00
52.4
56%
23.06 $,�
3,689
/TGSF
834
Fast Food Restaurant (w/ drive-thru)
496.12
46.28
56%
20.36 : $
3,258
/TGSF
836
Bar
154.90
15.49
56%
6.82
1,090
/TGSF
841
New Car Sales
37.50
2.50
20%
2.00 ;$••
320
/TGSF
844
Service Station (no store)
168.56
16.18
56%
7.12 $`
1,139
/pump
845
Service Station (w/ market)
162.78
13.57
56%
5.97 $
955
/pump
850
Supermarket
111.51
12.02
42%
6.97$,'`
1,115
/TGSF
851
Convenience Market
737.99
52.74
74%
13.71 $"
2;194
/TGSF
853
Conv. Market w/Gas Pump
542.60
19.98
74%
5.19$
831
/pump
870
Apparel Store
66.40
4.20
44%
2.35 $;
376
/TGSF
890
Fumiture Store
5.06
0.53
33%
0.36 =$ ; ;,
57
/TGSF
911
Bank/Savings: Walk -In
156.48
33.15
44%
18.56 $
2;970
/TGSF
Table 2 Deschutes County
Transportation Systems Development Charge (SDC)
Rate Schedule
2006 JSDC Rate: $ 160 per peak hour trip
ITE = Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers
TGSF = 1,000 gross square feet (building)
Pass By Reduction based on estimated percentage of "passerby" or "diverted" trips. (source: City of Central Point, OR)
"Peak Hr Trips" are those trips estimated for the P.M. Peak Hour of the traffic generating land use category.
Sae aG F encu/af�on 3�U hCel roamsy (units) X , Ratp perUn�t $78 SD$'1,3D
SAMPLE
Daily Trips
Peak Hr
Pass by
Reduced bate per
ITE LAND USE CODES / CATEGORIES
per Unit
Trips
Reduction
Trips Unit. Unit
912
Bank/Savings: Drive -In
265.21
51.23
44%
28.69 $s,„p2 4,0 /TGSF
�il<<
OFFICE
630
Clinic
51.80
5.18
20%
4.14 $ ;, ti63 /TGSF
710
General Office
11.01
1.49
20%
1.19 TGSF
720
Medical/Dental Office Building
36.13
4.36
20%
3.49 /TGSF
730
Government Office Building
68.93
11.03
20%
8.82 `, / TGSF
760
Research/Development Center
8.11
1.08
0%
,, .��{
1.08 /TGSF
770
Business Park
12.76
1.291
0%11.29,
/TGSF
INDUSTRIAL
110
General Light Industrial
6.97
1.08
20%
0.86 $ / TGSF
120
General Heavy Industrial
6.75
4.22
20%
3.38 $ / Acre
130
Industrial Park
6.96
0.86
20%
0.69 ;w / TGSF
140
Manufacturing
3.82
0.75
20%
0.60;: /TGSF
150
Warehouse
4.96
0.61
°
0/0
� '.�8;�� /TGSF
0.61 $,
151
Mini -warehouse
2.501
0.29
0%1
0.29 $, 4.;"/TGSF
ITE = Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers
TGSF = 1,000 gross square feet (building)
Pass By Reduction based on estimated percentage of "passerby" or "diverted" trips. (source: City of Central Point, OR)
"Peak Hr Trips" are those trips estimated for the P.M. Peak Hour of the traffic generating land use category.
Sae aG F encu/af�on 3�U hCel roamsy (units) X , Ratp perUn�t $78 SD$'1,3D
Table 3
RECOMMENDED
Trans portatonSystemDevelopment Charge lm or" t,
Fee o ,,,; rowthmethod
p.: (p p 9 ).
SDC Fund Balance (BiMart, etc.):
Intersection:
2006 Project Capacity Allocable
Cost Increasing (1) Cost
$ 44,126
First St. @ US 97
$
600,000
35%
$
210,000
Finley Butte Rd. @ US 97
$
600,000
35%
$
210,000
First St. @ Huntington (adjusted)
$
600,000
35%
$
165,874
Huntington @ Burgess
$
250,000
35%
$
87,500
Planning Period Growth (20 -year)
$
2,050,000
3,087 PHT
$
673,374
County Share for Exisitng Trips:
$
1,376,626
$
195
$ 218 per PHT
Allocable Capacity Increasing Cost:
3.55%
$
$ 8 per PHT
$ 673,374
SDC Application
Sample Development Type
Existing
Capacity
New
Intersection:
PH Trips
Increase
PH Trips (PHT)
First St. @ US 97
351
35%
474
Finley Butte Rd. @ US 97
182
35%
246
First St. @ Huntington
766
35%
1,034
Huntington @ Burgess
988
35%
1,334
Planning Period Growth (20 -year)
Supermarket
6.97
3,087 PHT
Adjusted Project Cost:
1,576
Light Industrial
$ 673,374
Improvement Fee (subtotal):
$
195
$ 218 per PHT
Administrative Cost Recovery:
3.55%
$
$ 8 per PHT
Total SDC Rate:
$ 226 per PHT
SDC Application
Sample Development Type
Adjusted Peak Hour Trips (2)
Units
SDC
Single Family
1.02
DU
$
231
Apartments
0.67
DU
$
151
General Office
1.19
1,000 sq.ft.
$
269
Speciality Retail
3.94
1,000 sq.ft.
$
891
Supermarket
6.97
1,000 sq.ft.
$
1,576
Light Industrial
0.86
1,000 sq.ft.
$
195
Manufacturing
0.6
1,000 sq.ft.
$
136
Notes:
(1) Represents capacity available to serve only the 35% (2.2%/yr) growth in the 20 -yr study period (2005-2025):
(2) Adjusted down for most retail land uses to account of estimated diverted or "pass -by" trips.
Table 4 Deschutes County
Transportation Systems Development Charge (SDC)
Rate Schedule
ate: $ 226 per peak hour tri,p--r Recommended
SAMPLE
ITE LAND USE CODES / CATEGORIES
Daily Trips
per Unit
Peak Hr
Trips
Pass by
Reduction
Reduced Rate per
Trips ¢ Unit Unit
RESIDENTIAL
9.57 1.02 0%
1.02 $ „ 231 / dwelling unit
220
Apartment
6.63
0.67
0%
0.67 $, . 151 . /dwelling unit
230
240
Residential Condominium
Mobile Home Park
5.86
4.81
0.54
0.58
0%
0%
0.54 $ , x,,,122` / dwelling unit
0.58 $'', b,i,131 , / dwelling unit
260
Recreational Home
3.16
0.31
0%
0.31 $ Vit,• ,' 70 /dwelling unit
INSTITUTIONAL
030
Truck Terminals
9.85
0.82
0%
0.82$ r. 185,``, / TGSF
412
County Park
2.28
0.59
0%
0.59$Is A1n,', /acre
430
Golf Course
35.74
3.56
0%
3.56 $ ,:, 805x' / hole
443
Movie Theater
220.00
37.83
0%
37.83$ 8,550 / screen
492
Racquet Club
17.14
1.28
0%
1.28 6 ;; 289';; / TGSF
520
Elementary School
1.02
0.26
0%
0.26 $ „ m-„•
student
522
Junior High School
1.45
0.29
0%
0.29 j$': 66 / student
530
High School
1.79
0.30
0%
0.30$ :•, 68N / student
540
Junior/Community College
1.54
0.16
0%
0.16 student
550
University
2.38
0.24
0%
0.24 $ 54 /student
560
Church
9.11
1.41
0%
1.41 $ ..E- 319 / TGSF
565
Day Care Center/Preschool
4.52
0.86
0%
0.86 „$ 194 /student
590
Library
54.00
7.02
0%
7.02 =' 1,587`;. / TGSF
610
Hospital
16.781
1.46
20%1
1.17$ 264;' /TGSF
620
Nursing Home
2.611
0.36
20%1
0.29° 65 /bed
BUSINESS & COMMERCIAL
310
Hotel
8.23
0.61
20%
0.49 :$ 110` /room
320
Motel
5.63
0.56
20%
0.45 $ �,_101 /room
330
Resort Hotel
5.10
0.51
20%
0.41 $'' ` 92� / room
812
Building Materials/Lumber
39.71
5.15
20%
4.12$ 931, /TGSF
814
Speciality Retail Center
40.67
4.93
20%
3.94 $ :891 /TGSF
815
Discount Stores
56.63
5.51
33%
3.69 , $ a• _ 834_' /TGSF
816
Hardware/Paint Stores
51.29
4.74
33%
3.18 $ •,' �� 718 /TGSF
817
Nursery - Garden Center
36.08
4.97
33%
3.33 $ 753 /TGSF
820
Shopping Center
42.92
3.74
20%
2.99$ _ 676' /TGSF
832
High Turnover, Sit -Down
Restaurant
130.34
19.32
44%
10.82 $° 7 2,445 ° / TGSF
833
Fast Food Restaurant (no drive-thru)
716.00
52.4
56%
23.06 $;', •5,211 /TGSF
834
Fast Food Restaurant (w/ drive-thru)
496.12
46.28
56%
20.36 $ .. ` 4;602: /TGSF
836
Bar
154.90
15.49
56%
6.82 $ - ,4,5.40 /TGSF
841
New Car Sales
37.50
2.50
20%
2.00 $ 452,; / TGSF
844
Service Station (no store)
168.56
16.18
56%
7.12 $ 1,609' /pump
845
Service Station (w/ market)
162.78
13.57
56%
5.97$ 1,349 ` /pump
850
Supermarket
111.51
12.02
42%
6.97 $: 1-;676 /TGSF
851
Convenience Market
737.99
52.74
74%
..
13.71 $ X3;099 ` /TGSF
853
Conv. Market w/Gas Pump
542.60
19.98
74%
5.19 „ 1,174 , / pump
870
Apparel Store
66.40
4.20
44%
2.35 R$__; "!532/TGSF-
TGSF890
890
Furniture Store
5.06
0.53
33%
0.36 80 /TGSF
911
Bank/Savings: Walk -In
156.481
33.15
44%1
18.56$ ';_4,195 ; / TGSF
Table 4 Deschutes County
Transportation Systems Development Charge (SDC)
Rate Schedule
2006 ISDC Rate: $ 226 per peak hour trip I Recommended
SAMPLE
ITE LAND USE CODES / CATEGORIES
Daily Trips
per Unit
Peak Hr
Trips
Pass by
I Reduction
Reduced 'Ratelp YKI,
I Trips Unit
Unit
912
Bank/Savings: Drive -In
265.211
51.23
44%1
28.69 ,$ ,,I/
TGSF-
OFFICE-`
630
Clinic
51.80
5.18
20%
4.14 $$ 937,'; / TGSF
710
General Office
11.01
1.49
20%
1.19 $ 269.' / TGSF
720
Medical/Dental Office Building
36.13
4.36
20%
3.496, _ 788= / TGSF
730
Government Office Building
68.93
11.03
20%
8.82 ,$, 1,f�94. / TGSF
760
Research/Development Center
8.11
1.08
0%
1.08 TGSF
770
Business Park
12.761
1.29
0%1
1.29 $ ` W11 TGSF
INDUSTRIAL
110
General Light Industrial
6.97
1.08
20%
0.86 1$N TGSF
120
General Heavy Industrial
6.75
4.22
20%
3.38$ / Acre
130
Industrial Park
6.96
0.86
20%
0.69 $ s= g, /TGSF
140
Manufacturing
3.82
0.75
20%
0.60 $ ,A,, / TGSF
150
Warehouse
1 4.961
0.61
0%
0.61 ;$ , / TGSF
151
Mini -warehouse
1 2.501
0.29
0%1
0.29 ,$' , / TGSF
ITE = Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers
TGSF = 1,000 gross square feet (building)
Pass By Reduction based on estimated percentage of "passerby" or "diverted" trips. (source: City of Central Point, OR)
"Peak Hr Trips" are those trips estimated for the P.M. Peak Hour of the traffic generating land use category.