2007-1328-Minutes for Meeting June 13,2007 Recorded 6/28/2007COUNTY
NANCYUBLANKENSHIP,F000NTY CLERKDS yd ~VQ~~~ ~y
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL
IIIIIIIIIII 111 06/2$/2001 04;24;13 PM
2007-1328
i
Do not remove this page from original document.
Deschutes County Clerk
Certificate Page
c~
i~
If this instrument is being re-recorded, please complete the following
statement, in accordance with ORS 205.244:
Re-recorded to correct [give reason]
previously recorded in Book
or as Fee Number
and Page
1?" 01 t -~3 c
{ Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.ore
MINUTES OF WORK SESSION
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 139 2007
Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Michael M. Daly and Tammy Baney.
Also present were Dave .Kanner, County Administrator; Judith Ure,
Commissioners' Office; Joe Studer, County Forester; Bob Bryant and Gary
Farnsworth, Oregon Department of Transportation; Jeff Munson, Commute
Options; and Andrew Spreadborough, COIL. No representatives of the media or
other citizens were present.
The meeting was called to order at 1:45 p.m.
1. Oregon Department of Transportation Project Update.
Gary Farnsworth gave an overview of projects underway and planned for the
local area. (A copy of the project list is attached.) The particulars of the
various projects were then discussed in regard to safety issues, funding,
property acquisition, public input, the timing of draft plans and completion,
vegetation management, paving and other aspects of the work being done by
ODOT, in conjunction with other government agencies and entities.
Discussed at length were possible plans for addressing the issue of railroad
crossings and freight mobility.
Mr. Bryant pointed out that it is possible that the Lafayette and Hawthorne exits
and entrances may be closed due to hazards of merging vehicles. Also
discussed was the lack of space on the sides of the parkway, which makes it
very hazardous for law enforcement involved in traffic stops. Mr. Bryant stated
that pullouts could be added but won't necessarily accommodate a traffic stop.
There is talk about using speed cameras for automated enforcement, but there is
no legal ability to utilize these yet.
At this time, the COACT needs list was briefly discussed.
Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Page 1 of 5 Pages
2. Forester Update.
Mr. Stutler said that there were 80 countries represented by 1,600 people at the
wildfire conference in Spain. There was so much to see and learn about, it was
hard to decide how to spend the time. It was pointed out that 10 million acres in
the United States are subject to wildfire, but that number is 350 million in the
world. Africa has the biggest problem. By 2020, they will have over 15
million people infected with AIDS, so crops can't be tended and will go to
brush and be subject to wildfire. Every country has problems with wildfire
interface issues.
Many people were interested in Project Wildfire. The United Nations
sponsored the event and arranged for the translation of presentations. It was a
great opportunity to learn, and representatives from other countries are certain
to visit this area to learn more about Project Wildfire. Several hundred
handouts were gone quickly. There were only about 25 people from the U.S.
there; most were from other parts of the world. The next event is scheduled for
2011 in South Africa. Project Wildfire should have some participation there.
The United Nations and other agencies are sponsoring a two-day panel, and Mr.
Studer has been asked to participate. This event is scheduled in Washington
D.C. for June 25 and 26.
The League of Oregon Cities is meeting in Bend on September 27-29; Mr.
Stutler and others have been asked to participate to discuss Project Wildfire and
provide a tour of various County projects
The issue of unprotected lands within Deschutes County is becoming very
important, and a plan needs to be developed on how to address wildfires in
these areas. The Community Fire Plans will help a lot, but not all properties are
in those areas and the cost and responsibility could end up being a huge
problem for the County and other agencies. There are ways to help these areas
but it takes a lot of effort to educate the residents and gain their support. Access
is always a big consideration as well. This was a potentially hazardous
situation at the recent Crooked River Ranch wildfire.
Commissioner Baney said she would like to have a meeting of various entities
to discuss coordination of resources and needs in this regard. Mr. Kanner stated
that the emergency operations plan addresses various scenarios and all of the
parties who may play a part in an emergency are probably aware of what they
need to do. Commissioner Luke stated that the Commissioners should be
informed of their participation in such an event.
Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Page 2 of 5 Pages
Mr. Studer then went over the proposed Project Wildfire recognition awards.
(A copy of this information is attached.)
The group then discussed Title III funding recommendations and standards. (A
copy of various documents is attached for reference)
3. Review of Human Services Transportation Plan (ODOT).
Judith Ure went over the Plan, which has been produced after about a year-long
process. This is a required document to be able to receive transportation
funding in the future. It must be adopted before June 30.
Also, the process involves the Oregon Solutions Process, which is intended to
improve transportation coordination in the area as well as to comply with State
and Federal requirements.
The coordination work is ongoing. Different agencies involved in the process
will take on certain aspects of the work.
There are broader purposes, impacting the entire region and not just Deschutes
County. Also, it can be used by Peter Russell of Community Development to
enhance the Deschutes County transportation plan.
The Oregon Solutions Project consists of a large group of people; some stayed
in the process while others did not. Most agencies and interests were
represented. COIC worked to facilitate the project and produced much of the
resulting information.
Mr. Spreadborough said that the process was very positive and meetings are
ongoing to continue this work and to define the next steps. Mr. Munson stated
that Commute Options is already working on van carpooling and other aspects
detailed in the plan. Ms. Ure added that many of the entities are already
working on some parts of the plan.
LUKE: Move approval of the Plan.
BANEY: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Page 3 of 5 Pages
4. Accept Central Oregon Mediation as the Eligible Grantee to Receive
Oregon Community Dispute Resolution Program Funding.
Ms. Ure stated that this group is the only qualified organization in the area to do
this work.
LUKE: Move approval of the agreement.
BANEY: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
5. Economic Development Grant Requests:
• Sisters Area Chamber of Commerce - Leadership Sisters - Commissioner
Baney granted $1,000
• Sisters Area Chamber of Commerce - Branding Sisters - Commissioner
Baney granted $1,000
6. Update of Commissioners' Schedules; Meeting Details.
None were discussed.
7. Other Items.
LUKE: Move Chair signature of an Oregon Liquor Control license
application for Lakeside Bistro, Sisters.
BANEY: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
Being no further items to come before the Board, Commissioner Luke
adjourned the meeting at 4:55 p.m.
Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Page 4 of 5 Pages
DATED this 13th Day of June 2007 for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners.
ATTEST:
ecording Secretary
Tammy aney, Com i sioner
Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Page 5 of 5 Pages
-Bennis R. Luke, ice Chair
0 { Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
WORK SESSION AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13, 2007
1. Oregon Department of Transportation Project Update - Bob Bryant (ODOT)
2. Forester Update - Joe Studer
3. Review of Human Services Transportation Plan (ODOT) - Judith Ure
4. Accept Central Oregon Mediation as the Eligible Grantee to Receive Oregon
Community Dispute Resolution Program Funding - Judith Ure
5. Economic Development Grant Requests:
• Sisters Area Chamber of Commerce - Leadership Sisters
• Sisters Area Chamber of Commerce - Branding Sisters
6. Update of Commissioners' Schedules; Meeting Details
7. Other Items
PLEASE NOTE:
At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to: ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations;
ORS 192.660(2) (h), pending or threatened litigation; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues
Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated.
Ifyou have questions regardinga meeting, please call 388-6572.
Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible.
Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities.
For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY.
Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information.
2
Active Construction Projects
• US 97 Parkway to Baker Road
- Pavement/Safety(Median)/VMS, Spring/Summer 2007
- $5.5M
• US 20 Hampton-Glass Butte
- Pavement, Spring/Summer 2007
- $6.1M
Funded Construction Projects
US 97 Lava Butte to S Century Drive
- 4-1ane divided, 2009 Construction
- $22M+ (OTIA III)
- Median & Access
(safety/monument/wildlife/visual)
4
Funded Construction Projects
• OR 126 Sisters to Redmond
- Pavement, Safety@Hemholtz, 2008
Construction
- $7-8M
• US 97 Crooked River to Redmond
- Pavement, Safety (Lower Bridge, Wimp, NW
10th), 2009 Constr.
- $8M, Workzone Mobility
5
Funded Construction Projects
• US 97 Jct OR 31 to Crescent
- Pavement, 2009 Construction Ready, $8M
- Workzone Mobility
• US 20 Purcell - Arnold Ice Cave
- Pavement, 2009 Construction
- $3-4M
• US 97 Bowery Lane to Romaine Village
(Parkway)
- Pavement, 2009 Construction
- $6-7M
Development Projects Underway
US 97@Wickiup Junction Rail Crossing
- Rail & Highway Alignment Options, NEPA Process
- $1M+ (County Federal Earmark)
6
Development Projects Underway
US 97@Murphy Road Interchange Area Plan
- Refinement Plan complete, City/ Developer partnership
- Potential phase 1 construction within a few years
Y•
ALIERNATNE fEAtUR6
\ \ I.T-Sport SO OnRO MdW With CSMar Flm h US 97
T. Wld.*v R.pu On ftrtw
1NB U59]OMtanp POraMIEtll FOm ltJtl St.
- 4. Lo.W MUphy Ooss'vq McIgo To A wvdoIe NO Loop OnRO
5.Mwhy Rd. S-o WS Inns We omo BWI
Development Projects Underway
Central Oregon Rail Plan (COACT)
- Rail Crossings, Freight Mobility/Industrial Access
- $150k+ (Region 4, Rail, possible DLCD grant)
9
10
11
Funded Development Projects
• US 97 Reroute Southerly Extension (NEPA)
- Central & Southerly Interchange Locations
- $1M, Late 2007 Start
• US 97 O'Neil Jct to Crooked River
Refinement
- Long Range corridor plan (e.g., Terrebonne?)
- $250k, Mid to Late 2008
Funded Development Projects
US 20@Tumalo Interchange (NEPA)
-Current development issue, safety
- $400k, Fall 2007 Start
12
Funded Development Projects
US 20 Purcell - Powell Butte Hwy
Refinement
- Area Planning including City/County system
- $300k ODOT, seeking additional partnership
• US 20 Sisters to Bend Refinement
- Long Range corridor plan
-$160k,2008
Funded Development Projects
OR 126 Redmond to Prineville Refinement
- Long Range corridor plan
- Break-out Powell Butte Junction Interchange
NEPA
-$250k,2008
13
COACT Needs List - Planning & D-STIP Projects (Deschutes Coun
June 2007
Currently Funded / Underway
Cost
US 97 S. Parkway Interchange Area Management Plan Bend
$250,000
US 97 Wickiu Jct Rail Crossing D-STIP & Right-of-way R-W
$1,000,000
COACT Rail Plan
$200,000
US 97 Wildlife Migration Study (S Deschutes County)
?
08-11 Planning & Development Draft STIP Projects
Cost
US 97 OR 126 Interchange Area Management Plan / EIS
$375,000
US 97 Redmond Reroute Phase 2 EIS
$450,000
US 20 Tumalo Interchange Area Management Plan / EIS
$404,000
US 20 Purcell - Powell Butte H Jct Refinement Plan
$325,000
OR 126 Redmond - Prineville Refinement Plan
$245,000
US 20 Bend - Sisters Refinement Plan
$225,000
US 97 Crooked River - O'Neil Hwy Jct Refinement Plan
$245,000
Planning & Development STIP Project Needs
Cost
US 97 S. Century - Wickiu Jct. Refinement Plan
$140,000
US 97 Quar Road Interch Area Mgt Plan Redmond
$150,000
US 20 3rd - 10th Refinement Plan Bend
$225,000
US 97 1st Street - OR 31 Refinement Plan La Pine
$300,000
COACT Area TSP (Long Range Planning)
?
O
O
d
N
W
A
O
W
V1
a
A~
W
G~
U
O
U
@)
Y
~4
0
o°
C-'
Ob
c
p
E
N
m
c
cd
o
o
C
0.
C
P.
CO
0.
oo
a °
on
N r-
3
p on
N =
00
D\ N
N
c
0.
CA '
0.
cn '
v6 E
E
°
C
E-)
E"'
C
C
0A
rl
1-
1
'
y
C/3 C/)
C)
° ^
cn O
`
-
Y N
r- E
C
ov'
N
ov'
O~
c
.
4:
at«~
.E
1
1
O
c
N
p
CL A
> E
w
Y
Y
i Y
~
O A
O A
N
s~ c1
~
O
U
o
a~ W
G-
E 'E
.E o
a
v
.
-o
a~
U"
4a.
c
4U+ y
O
w N
O C4
w
w
w O
O 0
0
cc
w
o
o
a
i
C
a>
C
>
C's C
'
a .
c
v~
aQ
a.a
U~l
ar
f~
N
aN
aa.
aw
ar~
4
F-P
U~
c•
Cc
U
Cd
U
n
rn
'A
rn
n
ti
cn
rn
n
rn
rn
Z
rte-
>
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Cl
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
~
O
O
O
O
~
~
O
N
M
00
N
O
4EO
vi
N
69
69
69
69
69
v7
69
69
69
h
69
N
b9
N
N
N
O
U
z
z
z
z
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.
Y
ai
.
Y
ai
.
Y
Ri
.
Y
cd
.
Y
cd
.
Y
to
.
Y
cd
.
Y
cd
.
Y
cd
.
Y
cd
.
Y
cd
.
Y
~
.
Y
N
.
(
~
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
a
N
'O
N
"O
N
b
N
'O
N
'O
N
'D
N
•O
N
'O
N
•O
N
't7
N
'O
N
•t7
N
b
N
b
N
~
V
0
o C)
s.,
0
N
C
O
O
U
iq
N
C
U
Cd
N
v~
U C
~n
V C
y
'O
to
'd
a
+
N
r t^q
U
U
U
U
O
m
C13
ON
w
b coo
O
M C
O
I-
cry
O
"
0
C4
U
'
y
0 o
a
o E
a
°
V2
-
) >
a
o
-o
-o
c0v
d 0
Cd
a
Y
3T O
. O
3~ 0
•
u
C
o
cd
U
0
c
~
Y
0
u
C
V~
U
LC
CL
° E
°
o
~Gr
a
i
a E
'n
to
C~
U
V]
C/5
V] N
{
x Y
Y
C
C7
a.
a
a
c
a
,
0
r- .E
"
a°i E
O
v
v
o
M v
cd
b
v
y
o
o
o
CO
u
C6
0
O
N
48
-~3
-:8
'y
4
m
-:8
(A
"
d4
O
bq
O
O
O
bA
0
0
O
0
-CA
-CA
0
CA
E
C6
In
W
U
an
U
nn
nn w
`d
0)
au
U
aq
°
oq
op
4)
on
°
cn
on
0
O
°
°
C;
°
0
°
❑
°
C:
0
❑
°
C:
0
C:
C: y
c
c
c
a
~
U
U
U w
U
U
U
U
Ucn
u
U
U
U
)
~
EE 41
cn
0
Id 42
«Y
O
as
cd 42
w
Cd
Cd
C',
cd
m
Cd
H
HU
H~
H
H
H¢
H
H
H
H
a
Cd
a
o
O
O
b
b
w
u
b
v
v
w
i
°
0
c
0
5 E
0
E
0
E
O
(D
r
Y
° E
E
a
a~
a~ o
a~ o
a~
o
° a~
o
a~
-o
a~
a
as
as
as
w
z a.
W
A U
A U
as
CA 1:4
rx
~
~n
V]
N
d
~
N
N
fn
N
Y
(n
N
rn
N
`n
N
fn
N
V1
N
V1
N
VI
N
V1
N
V1
N
(n
N
cn
N
-
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
O
U
U
U
U
V
U
U
J
U
U
U
U
U
V
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
o
a
p
oo
~n
l~
.-r
O
0
•.~•i
O
h
N
N
ON
o
a
x
o
v)
i
°
U
o
3
x
a
a
C
>
b
a!
b
+
E
G
N
Oll
A
y~
3
a
4i
aJJ
°
A
'a
T+
ILI
U
^Q
/
W
1
Q~j
E
w
>
>
Q
U
teS
>
cn
x
o
>
`
3
x
o
E
w
~
CA
o
V
~w
x*
x °
w*
0.1
@~
aU
aa
3
x
ON
N
N
N
Q~ ac-
N
N
O~
^ C
r-
D\
N
^
N
C~
pN
Z
A
A
A
AC7
A~
A
a
a
0U
xx
a
OM
OA
a
O
O
N
ti
cn
0
a
E x
a E 3
0 L
00 3 o a
o ~
0 H Y
0 E
O E 4. 0
0 0 °
a>i
M A
aAa
r
V
V
Z
O
h`y
W
A
O
W
1
rl
a
U
O
O
U
y
Cy
C~
w
F
c~
w
O
U
O
O
s
O
O
a
0
0
U
s,
~ tq
o ~
C)
N ~
tiz
N
Y
C)°
5
O
O ~I
0
o
0 0
o U p
0
N
0
N
0 -
N is
o
N
N
N
'b E
F
N
~°rr
v)
'A
O
c
~ y
un
1
°o
Co
o
°o
0
0
0
0
°o
°o
N
O
O
O
ON
r
N
69
69
69
0
0
0
0
N
N
N
N
't
'O
b
'O
1`
C~l
cn
y
w
O
,
CA
N
U
aU+
~
~
Q
N
z
z
U
V
N
N
O
h
O
'O
b
U
U
Q
Q
0
0
0
0
U
N~
N~
N
O
O
O
O
U
U
U
U
88
88
48
018
41
41
411>
1.0.
w
w
ca
V)
ca
V1
ca
U)
Cd
U
tUu
U
4E
U
E
Ca
co
H
E-~
H
H
>
O
>
Elf)
c
CA
rn
m
Q
Q
Q
Q
N
Cl
M
N
N
C
Q
cq
A
o
u
o
a~
O
o
U
z
U
v~
-o
>
a!
a
as
n
rn
t`
rn
n
c,
r
a,
~D
rD
N
O
W
E~
I~
~ o0
ON
Uti
~
~
tin
~
on
a
i
Q.
o
s~.
o
3
o
U
o
l+-4
En
m
0)
C)
rl-
CI.
9
1
•
S
"6
w
.
-
r
3-i
3-r
t
En
0
v
o
cd
o
~
cd
o
a
d
N
N
~
S
'
Cf)
~
V
Q
r
"i
U
y"
►
0
7
7
~
r~
'C
r7
b
'
"
to
4-4
4-4
-
to
4-4
p
N
u
O
O
U
U
G~
O
O
z
d
z
a
a
H
a
u
s
s
;
c•
rA
[
~
v,
cn
Cl.
C•
CI.
(n
v
z
z
z
0
z
z
1
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
WD
c
0
0
o
O
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ln
~n
Ln
o
Ln
to
o
~n
N
~
M
N
N
s
b
9
6
9
~ls
S
O-
f
s
f A
5&
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
,
,
,
,
,
H
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
_
o
°
CID
to
lvl
to
UD
cloo
C4
U
~
U
~
U
~
'
U
F
-
v
i
v
i
En
U
Q~d
dd
C2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
+
1
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
U
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a~
44
;-4
s.
cd
cd
cd
cd
cd
0
cd
Cd
Cd
cd
a
U
0
a
o
u
0
on
0
o
cd
a
~
o
a
i
cd
04
ry4
0
~
k4
04
U
Q
U
~Q
a
~
a
a
~
a
i
~
~
a
~
n
A
n
U)
n
rA
U
ch
En
L
C
E
E
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
w
a
O
00
M
r-
O
-
OO
y
r+
N
~O
N
p
kn
`D
kn
0
*
~
O
N
r
7
N
U
N
~
~
>
N
•
c
i~
R
V,
V,
VI
VJ
VJ
U
V!
Z
O
~
~
~D
O
~D
N
a
O
W
E~
a
Z
O
U ~
O~
Uti
a
'
o
4
a
o
rn
3
U
U
o
cu
~n
a)
3
v~
c~
~
a
Z
Z
w
x
Im
.
3
in,
c•
Cl.
M
~
o
0
0
0
0
~
o
0
0
0
U
o
O
O
O
o
o
o
O
O
O
O
o
o
~
z
6
fA
~Eos
6
9
s
s
s
s
s
s
.
N
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
0
y
Cd
Cd
0
°
to
to
w
o
C~o
C/D
C.00
Con
5
p
t
o
4-4
~
x
cn
C'n
x
~
~
~
~
O
~
U
h0
U
to
U
L7
"C~
'CS
'C
'C
,
U
y
f3.
~
Q,
~
Qr
88
C~3
88
O
O
O
O
O
O
d
sue.
;-4
64
O
O
O
U
U
U
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
a
0
a,
~
o
0
0
6
1
0
0
a
?
m
?
64
1-4
0
0
a
cd
^
A ~.y
^
r
^
'
^
U
C
CZ
' CZ
V
~
V
l
Con
°
N
O
0
"Cl
~
~
a
~
~
a
as
~
as
as
U
m
i
i
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
w
0
h
O
00
to
N
O
O
N
N
N
N
(ON
N
CC
V1
V]
C/]
CA
cn
CA
C/1
r~"+
~
~
~
ur
N
V
z
0
a
O
W
E~
I-a
rA
°o
N
rO ~
4a
U
U
U
U
'ts
U
'O
O
O
O
O
O
;-4
o
w
`d
.;;q
M
Q
l
Q
Q
~
,
o
,
44
4-4
a
a
w
r
n
a
a.
o
cs,
o
C
Q,
o
0
i
o
Cd
0
cd
c•
H
C6
CI.
&n
~
Cl.
C)
°o
0
0
°o
0
0
o
°
°
°
°
y
°
o
o
°
0
0
0
U
0
CD
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
k
G
0
6M
9
6
69
v,
6
n
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C~
C~
64
H
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
~
3
•
bb
w
bA
o
cri
CA
cqs
En
(A
O
>
.O
C,3
p
M
6
4
V)
v~
~c
s
O
v)
U
U
U
¢
~
~
.
'C1
En
~
U
m
O
~
a
H
O
H
H
O
H
O
O
U
i
n
bA
~
cd
cl)
En
N
~
U
~
U
bA
~
~
U
O
~
N
O
~
m
CA
C/)
0
z
'a
N
~
CIS
U
0
U
0
~
+0+
O
x
~
O
, 0
O
=
bA
to
~p
O
144
C13
by
:I
C*
by
cis
by
s
;
:E~
v
4
O
0
0
°
O
0
N
°
0
U
N
S.
U
L;
U
U
U
bU
>
U
to
>
64
CA
rA
CA
o
Cd
U
-o
U
to
°
to
a
a
a
L
un
~
~
o
0
>
't
>
I
O
Vl
,
,
;-4
i
44
1
U
E
rU+
U)
O
O
0
0
O
a
aa
x
as
~
as
~
Q
U
Q
U
Q
~
1
CA
4
~
.
0A
y
M
U
En
En
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
L
Q
Q
ti
w
y
M
M
N
V1
M
00
o
kn
O
O
o
N
o
p
x
,
Cd
.
ai
3
0
0
on
Go~
0
M
O
N
U
U
O
ti
~
U
rn
N
~
0
~
N
N
N
cl~
Cl)
a)
Cn
V1
rn
Cn
r/1
p
W
D
~D
Q
Cn
~
M
~
aa
co
ro
V
D
v
FBI
W
N
4-0
z
ON
Uti
0
O
~O
0
O
CCU
rig
U
O
U
U
c•
a
h
0
0
o
U
kn
0
0
0
0
10
lmw
i
i
H
O
O
O
O
d
Q
O
c
"
C4
U
U
N
O
O
y
C,S
X23
X23
' ~
~3
0
0
o
~
O
O
O
0
0
o
~
U
U
~
U
N
N
Cd
CA
°
o
o
V
Cl)
~
U
U
U
U
O
U
N
N
Q
Q
Q
Q
O
O
N
N
O
in,
~J
N
-x
a
Ua
o
N
a
M
00
0-4
H
ry)
~ o
o
0
L
w~
~w
v~ 0 4U•. 3
a a cq3
0
N
0
0
C)
N
ce)
0
0
0
0
0
o
00
M
N
bs
0
0
~
w
O
O
C
ti)
s,
v,
Q
X23
a3
0
0
O
O
0
0
~
c
c,3
0
Q
Q
(D
ke)
O
M
O
~
x
~
U
C
IT
0
0
U
0
e~
a
H
a
C
O
U
Q
a
0
0
G
0
U
V
0
s.
a
d ~
r..r o
E"y o
~ a
A ~
W ~
0
w U
a
r~ G
V
I
rA
V
0
U
w
'C
O
U G
0
bn
on
on
bu
~o
b
~
b
u
N
0
°
0
O
o
O
O
O~
O
N
~
~
~
6
9
6
9
64
x
x
-
U
U
4
v
a
C/]
a
Cn
a
CA
w
Cv)
a.a
x
u
x
14
14
x
x
m
a
3
3
71
"Cl
W
W
W
W
"o
"d
w
c~i
w
"d
w
-
U
a
C'n
A4
CA
p
C%)
A
-I
C%
py
Cn
0
0
"d
U)
V)
cn
CA
cj~
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
CA
4
O~
N
-
bA
y
cn
O
O
n
O
v
CZ)
z
a~
Gr)
~7/
a>
CA
N
cd
Cn
~D
N
x
b
b
x
x
x
°
O
°O
°O
°
O
O
O
O
O
00
00
d
00
N
N
64
69
N
69
69
C-•
C--
W
al
P~
al
0.1
W
O
U
O
U
O
U
Cd
O
U
C
O
a~
O
~
a
a
a
a
a
a~
~4
a
s
w
a
N
v~
Cis
Cis
Cis
u,
Cis
4
Q?
C~3
d
U
U
U
o
U
U
U
c
d
W
W
W
W
W
W
m
CA
CA
1+
1-+
rA
r.+
CZ
U)
"C3
"o
"o
4Q)
t4R
"O
w
v~
C>
a
cif
C~
N
a
cd
C~
N
p.,
cd
CA
N
a
m
v~
u
a
co
C~
cn
(A
U)
En
y
th
En
y
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
z
z
z
z
z
z
U
H
a~
kr)
o
w
o
O
ai
N
cn
N
~
~
b
Cd
z
3
z
Q
a
z
C/)
z
o
H
U
a
C
a~
O
h
A
O
P*O
a
0
a
0
ON
Uti
N
o
O
q
o
.
cd
O
N
a
U
r
N
o
O
c
bn
z
z
.
3
x
o
col
c•
a
H
~
z
cn
cn
z
0
0
0
C
0
O
O
N
O
O
d'
N
01
O
G
69
UM9
b~9
~
6Mn-
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
Z
V
)Z
z
N
N
~
n+
Cd
U
Cd
U
C
d
U
m
U
Cd
U
U
H
a
m
a
r~°
a
ct
a
rx
a
rk
a
a'
C,
Ld
P
a
co
a
z
0
C's
u
'd
s,
U
U
Z
U
U
q
c
z
z
as
s
o
en
on
.
a
o
k
3
k
~
~
b
~
~
b
~
~
~
48
0
o
Vn
~
~
~
bn
~
nn
0
V)
VI
0
0
o
'N
o~
o~
o~j
U
o~j
U
to
bb
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U
U
rA
U
`
U
0
0
0
~
as
as
~
;d
A.r
u
U
U
C
U
un
H
H
p
^d
0
'd
0
^C
0
b
0
°
>
o
0
0
0
a
x
x
x
~
x
r~
as
U
Ca
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Ca
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
~
o
un
10
cm"
g
O
V2
0
U
a
Z
b
o
>
a!
N
O
a
~ ce
u
~
n.,
y
~
o
z
z
z
~
w
~
M
z
M
C'n
U
AOC
...-Association of Oregon Counties
P.O. Box 12729
''r
0 21~Salem, Oregon 97309
O&C
Association of O & C Counties
P.O. Box 2327
Harbor, gregon 97415
1
To: All County Commissioners and Judges for Counties Eligi le to Receive Payments
Under PL 106-393.
CC: Designated County Contacts
From: Bob Cantine, Executive Director, AOC
Rocky McVay, Executive Director, Association of O&C Counties
Kevin Davis, Legal Counsel
Date: January 30, 2Q01
Re: Sideboards for Title III Projects; the "Red-Face" Test Under PL 106-393
A. Background
Titles II and III of PL 106-393 offer counties an opportunity to expend 15% to
20% of their total "safety-net" payments on various kinds of projects or, alternatively, to
return that portion of their safety net payments to the U.S. Treasury. It will obviously be
in the best interest of every county in Oregon eligible for safety-net payments to not
return any available funding to the Treasury. The more difficult decision will be deciding
how to divide the 15% to 20% between Title II and Title III projects.
As was discussed at length at workshops conducted in Burns, Medford and Salem,
counties will ultimately be asked to express their allocation of funding between Titles II
and III in a resolution, a draft of which will be distributed to the counties in March.
Counties must, however begin their pre-budgeting process in February, which requires
that they make estimates of how much of the project funding they will be able to spend
on projects that fit within the restrictions of Title III. By looking first at Title III,
counties will be able to identify projects that would otherwise have to be funded from
their general funds. Once all suitable projects are identified under Title III, the balance of
PL 106-393 project funding can then be allocated to Title II projects. Title II projects are
on Federal lands or for the benefit federal resources and are not projects for which a
county would ordinarily provide funding.
The purpose of this memorandum is to help the counties identify appropriate
projects under Title III of PL 106-393. Doing so should facilitate the counties' pre-
budgeting activities and help prepare the counties for the elections they must make in
formally allocating project funding between Titles II and III.
B. Title III Procedures
Once a county makes its formal allocation between Titles II and III the resolution
in which the allocation is expressed will be transmitted to the Secretary of the '
~y4!
management agency concerned and, ultimately, to the U.S. Treasury. Soon after the
close of each federal fiscal year (September 30) the Treasury will disburse funds
according to Title I of PL 106-393 and the allocations made by the counties. Funds
allocated to Title II will remain in special county accounts at the Treasury. Title III funds
will be sent to the counties, which will be required to hold them in special accounts of
their own and used only in accordance with Title III.
While the range of authorized uses under Title III is narrow, the governing body
of a county has complete discretion in choosing projects within that range, and the
procedures a county must follow are few and simple. In addition to whatever procedures
a county ordinarily follows under state law, PL 106-393 requires that a county give the
public a 45-day period for comment on proposed Title III projects. The comment period
must be announced with a description of the proposed projects published in the local
publications of record. The only other required procedure is to notify the Resource
Advisory Committee(s) ("RAC(s)") established for the area under Title II of PL 106-393.
RACs only receive notice of a proposed project. They have no role in the selection or
approval of Title III projects.
C. Title III Accounting
It is anticipated that counties in Oregon will undergo federal audits for
compliance with Title III restrictions, perhaps as early as the end of federal fiscal year
2002. For that reason we recommend that Title III project selection be made very
conservatively and that Title III financial accounting be detailed and thorough. A county
should have written justification to document every withdrawal from a county's Title III
account.
A county should establish a special fund account for Title III project funds into
which the money disbursed to the county from the U. S. Treasury for Title III projects is
deposited. Within the county's Title III special fund account a county should establish 6
line items that correspond to the 6 categories of authorized expenditures under Title III.
Even if a county does not expect to expend funds in all 6 categories in the first year the
account should be set up to accommodate unanticipated or future expenditures in all six
categories. The 6 categories are described later in this memorandum.
Once projects are selected and funds deposited in the account, Title III project
expenditures should be made only after reimbursement invoices are submitted by a
county department to the county governing body. This step is recommended to assure
that the expenditures from the special fund account are made solely on projects that meet
the requirements of Title III. Careful records should be kept attributing every
expenditure to a specific project and to a specific line item within the Title III project
special fund account. A county department relying on outside vendors and outside
contractors to complete Title III projects should either pay third-party billings from a
department operating account and then seek authorization for reimbursement from the
Title III project special fund account, or submit the third party billings for authorization
of direct payment from the account. In all cases the invoices for which payments are
made from the special fund account should clearly identify the previously approved Title
III project for which the expenditure is authorized.
Interest on funds held in the Title III project special fund account will accrue and
must remain in that account for expenditure in accordance with Title III. If funds remain
in a Title III project special fund account at the end of a given year, it must remain in the
account and be carried over to the next year for use by the county on subsequent Title III
projects.
It is recommended that a county's Budget Committee review the Title III project
special fund account allocation during the budget process.
D. Project Limitations and Authorized Uses
The following are suggestions to aid a county in budgeting for projects that fit
within the six categories authorized under Title III. The authorized uses are limited and
challenging, so it is our strong recommendation for the first year of Title III funding that
counties be conservative in their project selection. The second round of project selection
in 2002 will be easier because of the experience gained this year.
The language quoted below in the 6 categories is taken directly from the
provisions of Title III of PL 106-393. Emphasis has been added to certain words or
phrases to highlight particularly restrictive aspects of the law.
Categorv (1). Search. Rescue and Emergency Services:
Reimbursement for all documented costs incurred and maid, for by a county or
county_sherifPs department for "search and rescue and other emergency services,
including firefighting, performed on federal lands." "Federal lands" is defined
in the statute for this and all other purposes to mean only lands within the
National Forest system (excluding National Grasslands) and O&C or Coos Bay
Wagon Road lands.
One approach for projecting future costs in this category would be to review a
county's last three or five year's direct expenditures for search and rescue missions on
federal lands to arrive at a historic annual average. Certain general, overhead and capital
costs can also be justifiably charged to the Title III special fund account in this category,
though we recommend an especially conservative approach in this area. One appropriate
method would be to calculate the percentage of direct costs associated with search, rescue
and other emergency services performed on federal lands out of the total of all direct
costs for all such services performed on all lands. That same percentage could then be
used to calculate the portion of total indirect costs (overhead, etc.) that can fairly be
attributed to the services actually performed on federal lands. This method would allow a
county to be reimbursed for a portion of its training and planning costs.
Exam lames
❖ Response by Sheriff s department to accidents on water bodies located on
federal lands
❖ Sheriffs department's cost of responding to search and rescue missions on
federal lands
❖ County payments to other search and rescue or other emergency services
providers/organizations responding to missions on federal lands
,
❖ County payments to rural fire departments for responding to fires on federal
lands
Note that any cost reimbursed by other third parties to a county for the above
activities must be deducted from the reimbursement attributed to the Title III project
special fund account in this category. Only those costs for which a county is actually out-
of-pocket and that can be attributed to actual services performed on federal lands are
reimbursable.
Category (2). Community Service Work Camps:
Reimbursement for all or part of the costs "incurred by the county to pay the
salaries and benefits of county employees who supervise adults or juveniles
performing mandatory community services on federal lands."
Note that reimbursement is limited to the cost of salaries and benefits for
employees. For those counties that do not already have programs that would fit within
this category (or any of the other authorized categories under Title III); new programs
could be created to take advantage of the funding authorized.
Category (3). Easement Purchases:
Funding to acquire easements from private or other non-county landowners, on a
willing seller basis, to provide "nonmotorized access to public lands" (city,
county, state or federal) for hunting, fishing, and other recreational purposes.
Authorization is also provided to acquire "conservation easements." Costs within
this category may include, but are not limited to:
❖ Attorneys' Fees
❖ Negotiating Expenses
❖ Preparation and Planning
❖ Purchasing
Recording
Note that development of or improvements to an access easement (such as trail
construction) after acquisition are not included as authorized expenditures, nor are
developments or improvements to the land after acquisition of a conservation easement to
enhance the conservation purpose for which the easement was acquired (such as tree
planting or fencing a streamside buffer). There is no reason under Title III why such
improvements could not be made by the landowner prior to county acquisition, however,
and the costs of such improvements could then be included as part of the overall payment
to the landowner to acquire the easement.
"Conservation easement" is not a defined term in PL 106-393. This term is
subject to broad interpretation and may include a wide variety of development or other
s.
land-use rights a county may choose to acquire and then not exercise for conservation
reasons. For example, a county may choose to acquire the right of a rancher to graze
cattle on a particular parcel of land if the county determines that preservation of the
vegetation on that parcel serves an important conservation purpose. Or, a county may
choose to acquire timber harvesting rights on a. particular parcel if the county determines
that preserving the trees on that parcel of land serves a worthwhile conservation purpose.
Conservation easements can serve a broad array of conservation purposes, including, but.
not limited to, the protection of open space or viewsheds, wildlife habitat, clean water
sources and virtually any other environmental amenity deemed worthy of preservation by
a county.
Category (4). Forest Related Educational Opportunities:
A county may use Title III funds for part or all of the cost incurred and paid for by
a county "to establish and conduct forest-related after school programs."
Suggestions for possible programs within this category include:
❖ Work/education programs to teach participants how to properly construct,
maintain or improve trails and other facilities in the forest.
❖ On-campus or in-forest education programs on forest health conducted
after regular school hours.
❖ Work/education programs to teach participants how to properly collect
data on forest inventory, fish and wildlife populations, stream conditions
and other measures for monitoring the health of forest resources.
❖ Educational programs establishing or utilizing forestry interpretive
centers.
❖ 4-H and other extension service after-school forestry education programs.
❖ Other programs used to provide experiences to children and adults related
to forest education.
Note that these programs can be for children or adults and can be conducted on or
off school campuses. The primary restrictions are that the educational programs be
forestry related and not be included as part of the curriculum during the school day.
Category (5). Fire Prevention and County Planning:
Funding to cover county costs for (1) " efforts to educate homeowners in fire-
sensitive ecosystems about techniques in home siting, home construction, and
home landscaping that can increase the protection of people and property from
wildfires;" and (2) planning efforts to reduce or mitigate the impact of
development [that occurs on nonfederal lands if such development might have an
impact] on adjacent Federal lands and [planning] to increase the protection of
people and property from wildfires."
The component of this category that authorizes the expenditure of Title III funds
for planning to reduce the effects of development on adjacent federal lands is focused on
the boundary areas where federal and non-federal lands meet. Note, however, that the
component that addresses the education of homeowners about wildfire and the
component that authorizes the expenditure of Title III finds for planning to reduce the
risks of people and property from wildfire is not restricted to the interface of federal and
nonfederal lands. Rather, it appears that costs for education of homeowners and planning
costs are authorized for reimbursement under Title III if the education and planning are
intended to reduce the risks of wildfire anywhere in a county, even if distant from federal
lands.
Programs that might qualify for reimbursement under this category would
include, but are not limited to:
❖ Studies to determine where "fire-sensitive ecosystems" are located and
mapping of such areas.
❖ Educational, programs for homeowners in fire-sensitive areas showing the
consequences of wildfires.
❖ Development and publication of mitigation techniques and the conduct of
courses or meetings intended to educate homeowners in home siting,
construction and landscaping to increase protection from wildfires in
fire-sensitive areas.
❖ Development of maps of wildland-urban interface fire evacuation routes.
❖ Any planning that enhances the protection of people or property from
wildfires.
❖ Land-use or construction planning intended to reduce the impacts of
construction or development on resources located on nearby federal
lands.
❖ Funding for special neighborhood technical assistance packets for
distribution to homeowners in the wildland-urban interface.
Category (6). Community Forestry:
A county may use Title III funds "towards non-federal cost-share requirements of
section 9 of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2105)."
The scope of programs authorized under this category is unknown at this time
because of an ambiguity in the above quoted language. The original "section 9 of the
Cooperative Forestry assistance Act of 1978" addresses the consolidation of funds from
all sources to be used to support the full range of programs authorized under the 1978
Act. The citation above in parentheses, however, is not to the original section 9 of the
1978 Act. Rather, 16 U.S.C. 2105 is a reference to a particular subset of programs
available only within urban areas. It is unclear whether the programs in this category
may include the full range of programs under the 1978 Act or are, instead, restricted to
just those few programs that address urban forestry.
Every effort is being made to obtain clarification of the above quoted language as
soon as possible. It would obviously be more beneficial to counties to have a broad
interpretation rather than a narrow one. If an authoritative interpretation is obtained, it
will be provided to all counties as soon as it is received. Until a clarification is available,
however, it is recommended that counties not attempt to plan programs under this
category for expenditures under Title III. If there is substantial delay in obtaining a
clarification, it may be necessary to avoid this category for the first year under Title III
and revisit it during the second year of project selections.
~_RKEV1;EED_
LEGAL COUNSEL
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
In the Matter of the 2004 Election to
- - Receive National--Forest Related S
Net Payments Under P.L. 106-393
RESOLUTION NO.
2004
nr. z T r
WHEREAS, Congress enacted in 1908 and subsequently amended a Iaw;that rec ll t
25 percent of the revenues derived from National Forest lands be paid to states for-la e berth ,
counties in which the lands are situated for the benefit of public schools and roads; and
WHEREAS, the principal source of revenues from National Forest lands is from the sale and
removal of timber, which has been sharply curtailed in recent years with a corresponding
precipitous decline in revenues shared with counties; and
WHEREAS, the United States Congress recognized a need to stabilize education and road
maintenance funding through predictable payments to the affected counties, job creation in those
counties, and other opportunities associated with restoration, maintenance and stewardship of
federal lands, and to achieve those goals enacted P.L. 106-393 in 2000; and
WHEREAS, P.L. 106-393 provides for guaranteed minimum payments for the benefit of
affected counties, as well as an opportunity to invest a portion of the guaranteed minimum
payments in projects on federal lands or that benefit resources on federal lands, or in county
projects or activities; and
WHEREAS, Title I, Section 102 of P.L. 106-393 gives each eligible county the right to elect
to receive either its traditional share of revenues from the National Forest lands pursuant to the Act
of May 23, 1908 and Section 13 of the Act of March 1, 1911, or instead to receive the guaranteed
minimum amount, also known as the "full payment amount;" and
WHEREAS, an election to receive the full payment amount is effective for all federal fiscal
years through fiscal year 2006; and
WHEREAS, in 2001, Deschutes County elected to receive its full payment amount rather
than electing to receive its traditional share of National Forest revenues; and
WHEREAS, any county electing to receive the full payment amount must further elect to
expend an amount not less than 15 percent nor more than 20 percent of its full payment amount as
project funds in accordance with Title I, Section 102(d)(1)(B) of P.L. 106-393; and
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-047 - Page 1 of 3
For Recording Stamp Only
WHEREAS, Title I, Section 102(d)(1)(B) of P.L. 106-393 requires that counties electing to
receive the full payment amount must allocate its project funds for expenditure between projects in
accordance with Title II of P.L. 106-393, projects in accordance with Title III of P.L. 106-393, and a
return of the balance unspent under Titles II and III to the General Treasury of the United States,
and communicate such allocation to the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture;
and
WHEREAS, Title II of P.L. 106-393 provides for special projects on federal lands or that
benefit resources on federal lands, which projects are recommended by local resource advisory
committees ("RACs"); and
W-HE-RE-AS-,RAC-s-r-eeo-mrnend-projects for-consider-ation-by-the-Secretary- of-Agriculture; - - -
with project funding supplied in whole or in part out of monies allocated for such purposes by
participating counties; and
WHEREAS, counties that allocate funding to projects under Title II of P.L. 106-393, and are
participants in more than one RAC, may further direct that their Title II project funds be divided
between different RACs according to an allocation decided by each participating county, with such
funds held in the General Treasury of the United States under the name of the county with a
designation of the amount allocated to each RAC; and
WHEREAS, Title III of P.L. 106-393 provides for county projects or services, some of which
are associated with federal lands, with Title III authorizing expenditures for search, rescue and
emergency services, staffing of community service work camps, the purchase of easements, forest
related educational opportunities, fire prevention and planning, and community forestry pursuant to
the Cooperative Forest Assistance Act of 1978:
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved as follows:
Deschutes County hereby allocates Fifteen percent (15%) of its full payment amount for
expenditure on projects under Title II and Title I I I of P.L. 106-393. Deschutes County will
return none (zero percent) of its full payment amount to the General Treasury of the United
States pursuant to Title I, Section 102(d)(1)(13)(iii).
2. Of the total amount allocated to Title II and Title III projects above in paragraph 1,
hereinafter referred to as the "Project Funds," Deschutes County further allocates between
such Titles for federal fiscal year 2004 (for expenditure after federal fiscal year 2004) on the
following basis: Fifty percent (50%) of Project Funds for expenditure on Title II projects and
Fifty percent (50%) of the Project Funds for expenditure on Title III projects.
3. Of the amount of Project Funds allocated to Title II projects above in paragraph 2,
Deschutes County further allocates between RACs as follows:
100 percent to the Deschutes / Ochoco RAC.
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-047 - Page 2 of 3
r
4. The original or a certified copy of this Resolution shall be transmitted to Mr. Rocky McVay
with instructions to reconvey the Resolution to the Secretary of the United States
Department of Agriculture.
ADOPTED this day of r v , 2004.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY. OREGON
M
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
IR
DENNISR. LUKE, COMMISSIONER
TOM DEWOLF, COMMISSIONER
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-047 - Page 3 of 3
YowerPoint Presentation
Payments-to-States:
P.L. 106-393
,Iy,t"_:~r_I
hull f i~nicnl
25% Payment
(undcr 1908 Act)
nI I L I I
:4
~.llm III Ir~ti I 1
„f. r%c.',I, t I ,11~;
.0 lnll ~~,nm nl'
t oluit~`elc~t5 h~ ~ti
t;'u ~ Rcsu lunzi~'
:In'[ PrilcL I's
rolcch propu;; 1 y F ~ti ~ur~c
\d~V ro~nmlu ~fhN( 1
lI c"y. lh", Ioi Ltiu~l
VIII{tYlk`Ili 111 l fix["
]x„01111111 ~ 111
P~ fL Irn In ~n} uJ
rr n l \CI I L fV -
it y b
..Cu lif -iu IC _'ill n lblt i'a l
t P1`nn unIII ~In I a~( il~' ~~5~°;
1 l tl'II it 111 - 1 --3
y
l~ 1,~.v c[Il }#`~ya
k~ {k c
l ~ l .I 11 lI ~ a•- t.`
~s. I n 9 h dm d
k` itcr2 '
c( r►UIL FL) 1Lnl I n r u0 I fi-
e
~ V~Vth r I I Ic.~ ~l 1 1 r~nt i th=
I
~'ihc !~r i ri irl ICI r'_ I
Il11 Iti l il~ a :uij tiYuril~;
II LlI.C yp I - _
80 to 85% of county
payment available for
traditional uses
I n
Ill
I ~ rza
x:
Ill d~
I ll l f
~ I~yl~1
ar NF 3
c ~lll
I J I_I1
11 l~n
f ~ Co
County spends
funds on roads
and schools as in
past, under 1908
1911 Acts
nVr7Y.-'rnlccts-+
1:1 U ~rtlI
%Funds Returned
to Treasur
y
Ie1 bo 10
nt h~c unn ipr~'
hur5inl nt Vol',, ~
f ll.l 'lil~~
.~i puh11 Ian Js;
http://www. fs. fed.us/payments/l Flow_Chart4_flles/slide0001.htm
After 2 yrs.
County may
change this
Election
No
election
15% returned
to Treasury
85% available
for traditional
uses
rage i of i
6/26/2003
P,owerPoint Presentation
Title III Projects
(P.L. 106-393)
,County Im016mentsl
`Projects
Page 1 of 1
http://www. fs.fed.us/payments/l Flow_Chart4_files/slide0007.htm 6/26/2003
~~~~C,otyf ~ ti e
Authorized., `
-~owerYomt Presentation
rage 1 01 1
http://www.fs.fed.us/payments/lFlow_Chart4_files/slide0008.htm 6/26/2003
Title II Projects
(P.L. 106-393)
PoweirPoint Presentation
Title II Project Evaluation
(P.L. 106-393)
Forest 5e ice Evaluation of
Public Land Projects
r
Project Meets_ Requir-;ed Conditions:
(1) . Complies w/ a11-Federal -Laws,
,(2): Consistent with LMP and
existing watershed plans,
:-(3) Recoinn ended_by RAC;`
(4) Project'dekr'-tion consistent `
section .2Q3.of thie Act,
7
(5) Pmject WiIHm "rove, exist0g
_ infrastructure.;implement
`z stewardship objectives; and
imp_rove,land,health and water
quality.,
No Project
Rejected
RAC, otifie_d Project
l w/in?30 days Withdrawn
Project Rejected RAC Does,
By the FS Not Agree
iFSRequests RAC_Fundq
Enyironmental Review,
No
Agree"s
ecision
i
Project '
ilmplemente"
Page 1 of 1
http://www.fs.fed.us/payments/IFlow-Chart4-files/slideOO06.htm 6/26/2003
i
Project Wildfire Recognition Awards
All nominations and suggestions received and summarized here by Katie Lighthall.
For personal recognition:
Lisa Clark - "After working with Project Wildfire for many years, I cannot think
of any one person who has worked as hard as Lisa to make things happen. Her
endless energy and passion for what she does is remarkable. This year Lisa was
the driving force behind the wildfire public education piece that was inserted into
The Bulletin. She found the funding to pay for it; spent countless hours sorting
through materials, copy, and images; and then wrote and worked directly with the
designer to make sure the pieces were dynamic and easy to understand. It was the
most effective and important piece Project Wildfire produced this year, and Lisa
was responsible for it. Lisa spends much of her time educating others about
eliminating combustible vegetation from their property by attending homeowners'
and neighborhood meetings. She is well versed on what is going on in the region
with all the different agencies, wildfire education, and grants. She is a good
communicator, establishes great relationships with all those she works with, and
is one of the most committed steering committee members. She is also a key
player in the FireFree program and spends more than her fair share of time
educating and promoting that worthwhile program in Central Oregon."
Jack Barringer - "Jack has proven to be an extremely valuable asset to both
Black Butte Ranch and Project Wildfire. Working closely with BBR Fire and the
homeowners association there, he has implemented a successful hazardous fuels
reduction program and educated many groups about insect infestation and
diseases that are impacting our forests."
Susan Bailey - Susan was the driving force behind the creation and
implementation of the emergency plan for Tetherow Crossing. Following her
committed participation in the development of the Greater Redmond CWPP,
Susan continued her focus on one of the highest priorities in Tetherow Crossing
subdivision - emergency evacuations. She continues to be active in her
homeowners association supporting the emergency plan and the education of all
homeowners there about wildfire planning and the need for hazardous fuels
reduction.
For group recognition:
• Awbrey Butte Neighborhood Association - "...for their active participation in
the 2007 FireFree wildfire defense program. 2007 marked the first organized year
in which homeowners from ABNA took an active role in recognizing the
importance of wildland fire safety awareness and education and taking action.
ABNA's board of directors recognized the need to provide wildfire education to
G~
its homeowners. They distributed FireFree information to all of 2,200 owners in
its bi-annual newsletter in April, and also posted up to date information on it's
website regarding the Spring clean up dates. The most noteworthy success of
ABNA was the collaborative effort of a fuels mitigation project between Bend
Fire & Rescue, Bend Public Works, Bend Metro Parks and Recreation and
Deschutes County Weed Management. A two acre parcel of land belonging to
Bend Metro Parks was used as a demonstration site to show residents the types of
hazardous fuels that are prominent in Deschutes County, and to teach residents
how to create and maintain a natural fire resistive landscape around their homes.
Much of the material was removed, chipped and broadcasted back into the soil, or
hauled away. Brooks Resources was also a valuable partner. They contributed to
the success of FireFree by funding $2,000 towards debris collection dumpsters
during the FireFree weekends. Home consultation requests for wildfire defense
have increased measurably for homeowners living on Awbrey Butte, as a direct
result of ABNA's impact. ABNA has committed to the continuance of FireFree
with plans for 2008, some of which include identifying and targeting hazardous
sections of Awbrey Butte, and exploring ideas of reaching the "green industry" to
educate landscaping businesses on fire resistive plants and materials."
• Upper Deschutes River Natural Resources Coalition - for their focus on
private and public land wildfire reduction activities. A major accomplishment has
been the implementation of the 2007 revised community wildfire protection plan
and dozens of accomplishments over the years including the securing of grant
funding to significantly reduce hazardous fuels in the 18 neighborhoods (6,000
lots) that make up the Coalition.
For long term achievement awards:
Five individuals stand out for recognition in this category for 10+ years of passion and
commitment to the safety of our community through their work and dedication to Project
Wildfire. Dennis Luke, Tom Fay, Gary Marshall, George Chesley and Wendie
Every have each been present since the creation of Project Impact and have led the
diverse group through many challenges and accomplishments. Utilizing and sharing their
experiences and expertise these individuals have helped to shape the success and future
of Project Wildfire. Their dedication to supporting projects in Deschutes County that
support the mission of Project Wildfire is only matched by their enthusiasm to ensure the
long term success of Project Wildfire.
- 4,
. Deschutes County
Coordinated Human Services Public Transportation Plan
June 1, 2007
Contributors
Deschutes County Transportation Coordination Project
Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council
Central Oregon Partnership
Oregon Department of Transportation
Oregon Solutions
lp S -ft!
Deschutes County
Coordinated Human Services Public Transportation Plan
May 30, 2007
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................................................................2
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................4
1.1 Federal and State Plan Requirements ................................................................................................................4
1.2 Funding Sources Affected ....................................................................................................................................4
1.3 Definitions ..............................................................................................................................................................4
2. Stakeholder-Driven Planning Process ........................................................................................................................5
3. Vision, Principles and Goals ........................................................................................................................................6
3.1 Vision Statement ...................................................................................................................................................6
3.2 Guiding Principles .................................................................................................................................................6
3.3 Planning Goals .......................................................................................................................................................6
4. Resource Analysis .........................................................................................................................................................7
5. Data Analysis and Needs Assessment .......................................................................................................................7
5.1 Demographic Analysis ...........................................................................:..............................................................7
5.2 Survey of Transportation Service Demands ......................................................................................................8
5.3 Analysis of Common Transportation Origins and Destinations .....................................................................9
6. Barriers and Gap Analysis - Priority Strategies ........................................................................................................9
7. Desired System Characteristics ................................................................................................................................12
8. Action Items ................................................................................................................................................................12
Appendix A.1 - Population and Employment Centers
13
Appendix A.2 - Transportation Service Providers
14
Appendix A.3 Areas Exceeding State Average - Senior Population
15
Appendix A.4 Areas Exceeding State Average - Low Income
16
Appendix A.5 Areas Exceeding State Average - Disabled
17
Appendix A.6 Common Origins and Destinations, Deschutes County
18
Appendix A.7 Common Origins and Destinations, Bend Area
19
Appendix A.8 Common Origins and Destinations, Redmond Area
20
Appendix B - Demographic and Other Statistical Information
21
1. Demographics and Population
21
Destination resorts in Deschutes County:
21
Proposed Destination Resorts in Deschutes County
21
Neighboring Destination Resorts:
21
2. Income and Employment
26
3. Transportation Data
28
Appendix C - Resource Analysis
36
a. Provider Inventory
36
b. Provider Service Detail
39
c. Other transportation resources
43
d. Administrative Capacity
43
e. Public Transportation Funding Sources
43
Federal Funding Programs
43
State Funding Programs
Local Options
45
Appendix D - Project Participants
46
Appendix E - Outreach Invitees
48
Deschutes County Coordinated Human Services Public Transportation Plan Page 1
t .i C
Executive Summary
The Deschutes County Coordinated Transportation Plan will meet state and federal statutory requirements for Special
Transportation Fund (STF) agencies to produce a coordinated human services transportation plan. The purposes of the
coordinated plan are to 1) improve transportation services for people with disabilities, seniors, and individuals with lower
incomes by identifying opportunities to coordinate existing resources; 2) to provide a strategy to guide the investment of
financial resources; and 3) to guide the acquisition of future grants. It is the responsibility of Deschutes County to
produce, approve, and submit this plan to the Oregon Department of Transportation Public Transit Division by June 30,
2007.
This plan originated with the Deschutes County Transportation Coordination Project, a joint effort of Deschutes County,
the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council (COIC) and Central Oregon Partnership (COP). The Oregon Department
of Transportation (ODOT) provided project funding and participated on the project steering committee. Governor Ted
Kulongoski authorized the project and directed Oregon Solutions to provide facilitation services. Mike Daly, Deschutes
County Commissioner, convened the project and invited community, business and public service stakeholders to
participate. Commissioner Daly served as the Project Chairman.
The stakeholder "Core Team" guided the planning process, developing a vision, principles and goals for public
transportation in Deschutes County. Through research, surveys, data analysis and facilitated stakeholder needs
identification, the Core Team produced this plan as a means to identify strategies to improve public transportation
services. The planning process resulted in the identification of critical public transportation system gaps and barriers,
along with proposed strategies to address those barriers:
Strategy #1- Protect and strengthen existing transportation services
a. Support and strengthen the existing network of private and public transportation providers (protect the
assets that are in place - that the community has invested in)
b. Pursue a funding strategy that leverages local, state, federal and private resources
c. Allocate available public and private resources to implement plan goals
Strategy #2 - Improve inter-city and inter-community transportation services
a. Establish a system of inter-"community" transportation services that connect population centers such
as shuttles and vanpools between communities
b. Support and coordinate participation in the statewide "trip-check" and carpool programs
c. Provide improved services to human services populations, such as Court ordered groups and
populations, the elderly and persons with disabilities, and public service clients such as participants in
the federal Women, Infants and Children Program (WIC)
d. Provide public access to jobs, basic services and life skills, shopping and recreation
e. Focus public transportation on access to social and medical services, jobs, shopping, education and
recreation
f. Encourage and support multi-modal options including pedestrian and bicycle usage
Strategy #3 - Increase accessibility to transportation services
a. Identify "underserved" areas (geography) and population (demographics)
b. Identify transportation-dependent populations geographically
c. Evaluate the effectiveness of existing transportation services
d. Institute an ongoing evaluation process focused on system effectiveness
e. Operate a clearinghouse for transportation information
f. Develop an ongoing public education program focused on commuting and transportation services
g. Provide transportation options that are sustainable and "environmentally sensitive"
h. Maintain public transportation services that are fast, fair, flexible and frequent
Strategy #4 - Coordinate Transportation Services
a. Identify or develop a regional coordinating entity with the authority, expertise, resources and capacity
to coordinate transportation services
b. Coordinate transportation services within Deschutes County and the Central Oregon region
c. Develop a regional ride scheduling, dispatch and travel information center to facilitate improved
coordination
d. Provide political and administrative leadership by obtaining the endorsement and active support of
elected officials and professional staff
e. Create a Public Transportation Advisory Committee to (1) develop partnership agreements with public
transportation system stakeholders, (2) identify and support efforts to coordinate public and private
investments in public transportation services in Deschutes County and the region, (3) provide guidance
and recommendations to elected public officials, and (4) conduct public information and outreach, and
facilitate public involvement
Deschutes County Coordinated Human Services Public Transportation Plan
Page 2
f. Build tools for a coordinated system of public transportation services, including (1) conduct a
comprehensive market analysis to inform investment and programming decisions, (2) develop a model
agreement to coordination transportation services, (3) develop a coordinated approach to insurance,
training, dispatch and other central support services, and (4) develop a model process to attract new
public and private investors and service partners
According to the statutory requirements, for a public transportation project to be eligible for the STF and/or Public
Transit Division Discretionary Grant programs, it must be consistent with or derived from the coordinated plan priorities.
The plan priorities will be used by the Deschutes County STF Committee and the ODOT Public Transit Division when
reviewing and recommending public transportation funding applications submitted by Deschutes County transportation
providers and organizations.
Placeholder: add summary of Deschutes County Board of Commissioner action on plan.
Deschutes County Coordinated Human Services Public Transportation Plan Page 3
I, i
1. Introduction
Rapid population growth and rising fuel prices are accelerating the need for public transportation services for the people
and communities of Deschutes County. The elderly, low income, persons with disabilities and persons without the
means of personal mobility are particularly disadvantaged by a lack of reliable transportation options. The county's
economic and social vitality depend on coordinated transportation systems that link people and communities within the
county and throughout Central Oregon. Effective and sustainable solutions must address five fundamental challenges:
■ a dispersed pattern of settlement and economic development,
■ increasing demand for a variety of transportation options,
■ increasing interconnectedness and interdependence of communities in Central Oregon,
■ a diverse and unevenly distributed mix of transportation service providers, and
• limited local and regional resources to leverage state, federal and private investments.
This coordinated public transportation plan sets forth a set of principles, goals and action items to begin to address these
fundamental challenges. The plan is the product of a year of planning, research and deliberations involving a diverse
group of stakeholders. Their investment in the planning process is a down-payment towards a more mobile and
accessible county and region.
The success of this plan depends on a partnership of all transportation stakeholders in Deschutes County and Central
Oregon. To be sure, county officials pay a particularly critical leadership role, given their responsibilities to coordinate
and allocate federal and state transportation grants. However, their ability to develop and sustain a coordinated system
of transportation services is limited by available resources. The framers of this plan recognize that every public and
private partner has a role to play in responding to the transportation challenges and pressing needs for transportation
services in the county and region.
1.1 Federal and State Plan Requirements
This plan will meet federal and state coordinated planning requirements. Beginning in FY 2007, as a condition of Federal
assistance, the ODOT Public Transit Division must certify to the U.S. Secretary of Transportation that projects selected
for funding derive from locally developed coordinated plans. Also in 2007, Oregon statute requires that Special
Transportation Fund (STF) Agencies (counties and Tribe) must complete a plan for their STF programs. These two
planning requirements are very similar in intent and timing. To meet these new planning requirements, STF Agencies
must complete a single coordinated plan that meets the state and federal requirements.
1.2 Funding Sources Affected
ODOT Public Transit Division Discretionary Grant programs and projects funded by STF local formula allocations must be
consistent with and derived from the Coordinated Plan. ODOT Discretionary Grant programs include: Formula Program
for Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities (§5310); New Freedom (§5317) and Job Access Reverse Commute
(§5316).
1.3 Definitions
Following are definitions for common terms used in this plan. The definitions are in alignment with Oregon Department
of Transportation terminology:
1. Public Transportation: Any form of passenger transportation by car, bus, rail or other conveyance, either
publicly or privately owned, which provides service to the general public on a regular and continuing basis. Such
transportation may include services designed to meet the needs of specific user groups, including the elderly,
people with disabilities, and for purposes such as health care, shopping, education, employment, public services
and recreation. This planning process does not seek to address needs or priorities related to transportation system
infrastructure such as roads, streets, highways or bridges.
2. Coordination: Cooperation between government, providers, businesses, individuals and agencies representing
people unable to drive, low income, the elderly, and/or people with disabilities, to more effectively apply funding
and other transportation resources to meet common transportation needs. Coordination actions may reduce
duplication of services, reduce cost, increase service levels or make services more widely available in communities.
3. Special Populations: Low income individuals, seniors, and people with disabilities.
Deschutes County Coordinated Human Services Public Transportation Plan
Page 4
2. Stakeholder-Driven Planning Process
This plan originated with the Deschutes County Transportation Coordination Project, a joint effort of Deschutes County,
the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council (COIC) and Central Oregon Partnership (COP). The Oregon Department
of Transportation (ODOT) provided project funding and participated on the project steering committee. Governor Ted
Kulongoski authorized the project and directed Oregon Solutions to provide facilitation services. Mike Daly, Deschutes
County Commissioner, convened the project and invited community, business and public service stakeholders to
participate. Commissioner Daly served as the Project Chairman.
The Project began in the fall of 2005 with organizing meetings of a Steering Committee consisting of representatives
from Deschutes County, COP, COIC, ODOT Public Transit Division and Oregon Solutions. Commissioner Daly convened
the first meeting of the project committee ("Core Team') in April 2006. The Core Team consisted of following
representatives from leading social service providers, educational institutions, government agencies, employers and
business representatives and community service organizations. Interested citizens were encouraged to participate as
well.
Bend Chamber of Commerce
Bend Community Action Team
Bend Downtowners
Bend La Pine School District
Bend Metro Park and Recreation District
Bend Metropolitan Planning Organization
Black Butte Ranch
Central Cascade Lines
Central Oregon Coalition for Access
Central Oregon Community College
Central Oregon Council on Aging
Central Oregon Partnership
Central Oregon Resources for Independent Living
City of Bend - Bend Area Transit
City of Redmond
Commute Options for Central Oregon
Deschutes County Administration
Deschutes County Community Development
Deschutes County Mental Health Department
Interfaith Action for Justice
La Pine Chamber of Commerce
La Pine Community Action Team
City of Sisters
Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council
Community Action Team of Sisters
Latina Leadership, Education and Cultural Center
Oregon Department of Transportation - Public Transit Division
Oregon Department of Transportation - Region 4
Old Farm District Neighborhood Association
Opportunity Foundation of Central Oregon
Oregon Department of Human Services
Oregon Employment Department
Oregon Solutions
Redmond Chamber of Commerce
Redmond Community Action Team
Redmond Economic Development
Redmond School District
Sisters Chamber of Commerce
T- Mobile
WorkSource Central Oregon
The Core Team meetings were made a part of the Deschutes County public meetings calendar, and opened to the
general public. The meetings were generally held on the fourth Thursday of each month, between 9 AM and 12 noon, in
one of the following three locations:
• Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council, 2363 SW Glacier Place, Redmond
• Deschutes County Administration, 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend
• Oregon Department of Human Services, 1300 NW Wail Street, Bend
Attendees, both Core Team members and the general public, were encouraged to participate actively in the meetings,
and were provided opportunities to discuss their programs, share information, articulate needs, and identify
transportation priorities.
Between April and June 2006, the Core Team developed ground rules for its deliberations, and reached consensus on a
vision statement and goals. During this time, the Steering Committee compiled a demographic profile of Deschutes
County and an inventory of transportation service providers and resources, and received detailed information about state
and federal funding programs for public transportation services.
From July through September 2006, the Core Team established a sub-committee to assess the depth and breadth of
transportation and mobility needs in the county. The sub-committee developed and conducted surveys of employers,
service organizations and individuals in August and September 2006.
Deschutes County Coordinated Human Services Public Transportation Plan Page 5
a L ~
In October 2006, the Core Team began work on the Deschutes County Public Transportation Plan. A new Steering
Committee was recruited to replace departing representatives of the Central Oregon Partnership. The Core Team
dedicated its November and December meetings to reach consensus on short and long-term public transportation
priorities to better serve the people and communities of Deschutes County. Meetings in April and May refined the
strategies and priorities to ensure the needs of special populations were fully considered and integrated. The following
plan reflects a consensus of the Core Team based on nearly 12 months of research and deliberations.
3. Vision, Principles and Goals
3.1 Vision Statement
The people and communities of Deschutes County are served by the improved coordination of existing transportation
services and the creation of a permanent system of public transportation.
The countywide system is safe, affordable, reliable, accessible, environmentally sound, flexible, efficient, responsive to
diverse transportation needs, and coordinated with regional transportation systems.
In short, transportation and mobility services in Deschutes County are fast, fair, flexible and frequent.
3.2 Guiding Principles
Deschutes County and its public and private partners shall adhere to the following guiding principles in pursuit of public
transportation goals. These principles reflect a holistic approach to the provision of transportation services and therefore
do not appear in any particular priority order:
1. Seek broad and diverse public involvement in the planning and implementation of public transportation policies,
programs and investments.
2. Avoid duplication of effort and leverage community investments by coordinating its public transportation
investments and programs with those of other local and regional governments, transportation service providers,
employers and community institutions.
3. Give priority to the transportation and mobility needs of special populations (the elderly, persons with disabilities
and persons who cannot afford to drive) and to persons seeking employment opportunities or transportation
options.
4. Build off of existing public transportation assets to advance the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan,
Transportation Systems Plan and other related County policies.
5. Seek investment and program opportunities that provide multiple benefits by providing access to medical and social
services, employment, businesses and personal services, education, recreation and cultural amenities.
6. Pursue adequate and sustained financing strategies to achieve the public transportation principles, goals and action
items set forth in this plan.
7. Establish measurable performance benchmarks and standards to guide and govern its public transportation
investments.
3.3 Planning Goals
This transportation plan represents an initial step to coordinate public transportation services to address the diverse
needs of people and communities in Deschutes County. The plan satisfies state and federal planning requirements that
link human services to transportation services. To that end, Deschutes County establishes the following initial goals for
transportation planning and coordination.
1. Identify present and future transportation needs for people who live, work, conduct business, attend school, seek
medical and social services, and recreate in Deschutes County.
2. Align transportation planning efforts with the goal of the Oregon Competitive Employment Project to expand and
develop transportation systems and services necessary for competitive employment of individuals with disabilities.
Deschutes County Coordinated Human Services Public Transportation Plan
Page 6
I C-
3. Develop a shared vision for the ideal public transportation system for Deschutes County.
4. Identify steps to coordinate existing public transportation services and expand services to achieve the shared vision.
5. Prioritize coordination initiatives based on the needs that would be met and the potential for success.
6. Maximize the use of public transportation funds to leverage state, federal and private investments in public
transportation services.
7. Implement top priority coordination projects.
4. Resource Analysis
There are at least 36 different public transportation providers that operate in Deschutes County, including dial-a-ride
systems, public transit, school districts, cab companies, volunteer providers, inter-community providers, business
shuttles, and client shuttles. This number does not include an unknown number of church, assisted living vans, and
other private providers not inventoried through this project. Collectively, these transportation providers serve all of the
employment and residential centers of the County. However, the number of providers that provide services between
communities is limited and does not fully meet the needs of the county's public transportation users. Other specific gaps
and barriers related to the existing network of transportation providers were identified through this planning effort. A
summary of providers can be found in appendix C.
Additionally, an inventory of funding resources, other transportation resources, and administrative capacity are found in
appendix C.
5. Data Analysis and Needs Assessment
COIC and Oregon Solutions reviewed demographic, income and employment, and transportation data from the U.S.
Census and other sources to determine the community composition and trends related to special populations. A
resource analysis was conducted to determine levels of existing public transportation service, secured and available state
and federal funding resources, and administrative capacity within the county. Detailed assessment data are included in
this document as appendix B.
5.1 Demographic Analysis
Rapid and persistent growth has become a defining characteristic of life in Deschutes County. The US Census Bureau
reports that the County added more than 65,000 persons between 1990 and 2005. During this period the County added
more than 12,000 persons under age 18, more than 45,000 persons between 18 and 64 years old, and more than 7,500
person aged 65 and older.
This growth has increased demands on the County's transportation infrastructure. The Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT) reports that between 1994 and 2004 the average daily traffic volumes at seven key locations in
the county increased by 57%, an increase of more than 56,000 vehicles per day. The greatest increase in traffic
volumes occurred along Highway 97 at locations north of Redmond and near the intersection of Highway 97 and
Highway 20 (north of Mountain View Mall). ODOT predicts that traffic volumes will increase an additional 57% (88,100
vehicles per day) by 2024.
Noteworthy trends and statistics - Population data:
• Population growth rates continue to outpace state and national averages. See Appendix B, Table 1.1.
• Redmond was the fastest growing city in Oregon with a population over 10,000 for the time period from 2000
to 2006, with a growth rate of 74.3%. Bend was second over the same time period, with a growth rate of
44.7%. Sisters was the second fastest growing city of any size in Oregon from 2000 to 2006 with an 82%
growth rate, trailing Happy Valley (103.8%).
Deschutes County's Hispanic population was the county's fastest growing ethnic group from 1990 to 2000,
though growth rates in the Hispanic population were lower than state and US averages. See Appendix B Table
1.4.
• The fastest growing age group from 1990 to 2000 was the 50-64 age group. This group increased at a higher
rate than Oregon and the US. The slowest growing age group is the Under 5 age group. See Appendix B,
Table 1.5.
• Deschutes County's senior population will increase as a percent of the county's total population - from 18.5% in
2000 to a projected high of 33.5% in 2040. Additionally, the numbers of 85+ residents will grow steadily. See
Appendix B, Table 1.7.
• Deschutes County's population is projected to continue growing at higher rates than state average over the
next 30 years. See Appendix B, Table 1.3.
Deschutes County Coordinated Human Services Public Transportation Plan Page 7
Noteworthy trends and statistics - Income and Employment data:
• Deschutes County's average wage, per capita income and median household income are lower than Oregon and
US averages. See Appendix B, Table 2.1.
• A total of 13,761 Deschutes County residents lived below poverty levels in 2003, including 4,673 children. See
Appendix B, Table 2.3.
• Home prices increased sharply in Deschutes County from 2000 to 2006, at rates higher than neighboring
counties. See Appendix B, Table 2.4.
Noteworthy trends and statistics - Transportation data:
• Deschutes County worker mean travel time to work is lower than state and federal averages. See Appendix B,
Table 3.2.
• According to the U.S. Census, average travel time for commuters in Central Oregon has increased over the past
five years (53% of workers traveled 11 or more minutes to work in 2004, compared with 46.4% in 2000). See
Appendix B, Table 3.1.
• The region has seen an increase in workers traveling from one county to another for work from 1990 to 2000 -
with the increases being experienced in Crook and Jefferson counties. Deschutes County has the highest
percentage of their employees that reside within the county, and also imports more workers from the other
counties. Jefferson County had the largest number of residents who commuted to another county for
employment. See Appendix B, Table 3.3.
• According to the U.S. Census, carpool rates in Central Oregon are higher than Oregon or U.S. averages. Each
Central Oregon county increased carpool rates from 1990 to 2000, over a time period when the Oregon and
U.S. rates declined. See Appendix B, Table 3.5.
• The Central Oregon Workforce Housing Needs Assessment (Housing Works, 2006) results indicate that the
community with the highest percentage of workers coming from other communities is Redmond, with only
52.9% of Redmond workers residing in Redmond. Madras trailed Redmond slightly in terms of importing
workers (55.2% of Madras workforce lives in the community). Prineville had the highest percentage of workers
who also lived in the community (84.4%). See Appendix B, Table 3.4.
5,2 Survey of Transportation Service Demands
The Deschutes County Transportation Coordination Project distributed surveys to businesses, organizations, employees,
and agency clients to better understand the changing demands for transportation services. The goal was to collect
information on commute patterns, workforce transportation challenges, client transportation challenges, and general
interest in utilizing inter-community transit services.
The project received 1,119 responses, including 983 surveys from employees of 17 employers in Deschutes County. The
major employee responses came from T Mobile (336 employee surveys), Columbia Aircraft (153 surveys), Deschutes
County (66 surveys), City of Bend (53 surveys), and Eagle Crest (53 surveys). In addition, the project received
responses from 27 employers, 17 agency/organizations, and 92 responses from the clients of 5 agencies in Deschutes
County, including COIC, Bend Metro Park and Recreation District, Oregon Employment Department, Oregon Department
of Human Services, and Deschutes County Mental Health.
Key Findings of Need:
• 45% of employees work in a different community than they reside.
• 52% of employees said they would ride a bus or shuttle system between communities, while 29% were
undecided.
• 62% of manufacturing employees said they would ride a bus or shuttle system, which was the highest
percentage by sector grouping. The lowest sector grouping percentage was the professional and service sector,
with 45% responding that they would ride a bus or shuttle system between communities.
• 77% of employees who would ride a bus or shuttle between communities would ride to/from work. The second
highest destination was shopping at 29%. Manufacturing employees had the highest rate of interest in riding
to/from work (89%).
• A bus or shuttle system between Bend and Redmond was the most popular inter-community route, with 38% of
the employees, 41% of the organizations and 30% of the clients identifying it as the highest priority route.
• Routes within Bend were the second highest priority, garnering 13% of employee responses, 11% of
organizations, and 22% of clients.
• Assuming the service could meet their transportation needs, 63% of employees would ride the service either
"daily" or "twice or more per week."
Deschutes County Coordinated Human Services Public Transportation Plan
Page 8
• 33% of employers said they have challenges in attracting or retaining employees due to transportation costs
and/or availability, while 63% said that they had no challenges.
• 48% of employers said that their employees have a need for a tri-county transportation system, with 7%
responding "maybe." 33% of employers said their employees do not need a tri-county transportation system.
• 76% of agencies/organizations said that their clients have transportation needs that are not served by existing
transportation services. These agencies estimated that 2,145 clients per month lack transportation.
• 72% of agency clients would ride a bus or shuttle system between communities, with 60% riding to
services/medical appointments and 54% to shopping destinations.
5.3 Analysis of Common Transportation Origins and Destinations
COIC staff implemented a brief survey of transportation and human service providers to identify common transportation
origins and destinations, and to identify where special populations need to travel but are unable to due to cost, lack of
service, or other reason.
Not surprisingly, common origins were most likely to be low-income neighborhoods and subsidized housing, nursing
homes, and continuing care facilities. The most commonly-cited destinations were medical facilities, grocery stores,
social service offices (e.g. DHS office), and employment assistance centers. Respondents noted that large places of
employment are also key destinations for special populations, but did not tend to identify individual locations.
Organizations submitting survey responses:
City of Bend Dial-A-Ride
Commute Options for Central Oregon
Deschutes County Mental Health Department
Housing Works
Neighbor Impact
Oregon Employment Department
Oregon Department of Human Services Volunteer Program
Oregon DHS - Seniors and People with Disabilities
Oregon DHS - Self Sufficiency Programs
Oregon Department of Vocational Rehabilitation Services
WorkSource Central Oregon
Origins and destinations maps can be found in appendix A, and a table of specific origin and destination responses are
included in appendix B
Deschutes County Coordinated Human Services Public Transportation Plan Page 9
u_
p
CL
C
Vf
a
m
O1
cm
C
O
w
a~
L
Vl
2-
m
C
m
v
c
m
c
O
49
V)
V)
C
O
L
a~
U
O
L
v
E
m
c~
m
e d
(U v
v L
4-1
o n
n
v ~
u
C c
o~
c
m p
L
O
a)
N (LO
L
ul t
Ln
L v
rru
V1 0 .2
o CM
O Nm,
'r- 'v
a wtj
C -0
U_► m o
.N L n
r m o.
N-0
CL E m
m CU
'_C ~
O V)
U c
L a, .S
•i cn O
m = Q.
00 0 c
tp IL- 4.1
p
O
u
O
m
t
n'
O
O
N 2
N w
L
aJ
N
d
L
~
u1
O
0
V
C
O
a
i~
C
O
C
V O
o .a L
' 0
N
L
m
V
l
cf°
.1-1
m
M
C Vl
0a)
U
t
_0
r-
O
n
M L
44
>
m
0
u a_+
C
o 'O
U c
V)
C
H
n
rn
O
= p
rv
°
L
c
c
m
c
C
c
E
c
H
C
w
E
v
V
a
n.
-
n•
I
O
U
U
7 a7 C
W
L
N
VVl
'Lil
0
C u
a)
aci
4-1
C
L
fLp
's
a)
G
cu
E
a)
(U
O
,
V)
C
Vl
FA
's
w
•C
3
C
4
O
4
n
4-1
E
L
O VJ
_0
M Zi r-
,a41 M
Ln
~
E
C
n
rte N
a 3
v
cr
c
00
a
a;
'
$cv
v
m
c
Yv
u
v
lOa
NoE
0
u
fu
io
c
o ra
C
o
0
d
M
•
v
v~
c
L
)
+
>
p
IV
Q
r
4
CL
cm
10
m
2
u
m
s
at
f^
L
>
0
m
E - 0
u
n
L
E y ai
0
L
m
uo
m,+
u •
0
o
H
fo
n
V
p
V
0
L
0
m
C N
E
L
N.4
Y
'O
i
V V)
t
O a) .S
vi
o u
i+
IA
4L., cu
m
N m
d
V) aL-+
au
O
CO N
O
E
a
CD
c
0'
10
41
G
O
:3 (A
0
C
V)
V)
0 C
0
d
~
E
p
f9
u
c~
d
2
rn
0
a
E
a
iv
ca.
L
-
to O
16
io
u
p a M
u
+
, :3
c
a
c a
m
>
I
M c
n~ u
7
u 0
!0
M
m
m
N
L O
mVl
Ec
m e
n
M
=3 pj
CU
rn
N
>
°
p
t! E
w V)
v
~ c
y
n c
-
v
i
O
~
ul
~q
a m
u
>
>
u o
0
cn a5
a
Q
w n
Ln a
aL rnv
aL
wu
w
O
i
~
ro
~
v
+
off
ay7
N
ro
~
u
'o
ai
uw
01
0
C
m
vM
_
N
'
m
u y0., C
:
m
"u
E
a
c
E >m
n ar
~
Q
a
n o c
w.
y
yo
`
c
v
u
m
-6 -0 CU
O
•
u o
0
p
m
a
i
0 v c
0
p
Q
v►
47
Z
,
mL
u, n
C'
C
L
'O
N
a)
E m(V
v u
0-
R
c p
o
E
rca
~ rn c
K'
C
H
N
>
•L
N
Vl
2
a) (U
n
CL
7
4+
a~
m C
`d
c
n
O
F-
c
u
0
c u
¢
C a
a
.
m
Im
m" C
w
.
s
U) u
j
cr o
c
'n
3
4a)
ac
~ O
%
_c
0
-
12
c
w o
m E
E
41
0 m
2
,
21)
u
t
d n
'0 O N
E
h
u!
V
p
C a) O
+
°f
~U
U
o
m
E°'
~b o
o
0
R
9
c t~
c
N
o
o o
M
L
E a
u
m
C
m
p
O
~O E
~O m o
fn
a
'v
~o
C
U M
y
0 in
CU
v~
vii
Vol iC
C U
o O N~
p
0
ti c
, 4=
w
a1 - 41
d
U
w
U
U C
(U C: (U
u L C.
u
H
:V
O
z
¢
¢
¢ m
¢ w om
'Z
N
ro
a
a)
c
O
41
c
a)
p
v
i
cr
CL
C
Im
c
1A
d
Ol
0
t'
:3
E
E
c
m
E
(U
E
o
0
W
E
c
v
=
0
O
4.1
C
CL
M
N
~
p
O
N
C
i
w
=
o
T
Ol
°
C
°
o
E
N
u
m
m
L
p
n
a
~
AM
a
-2
a
a
o
n
v-
N
CL
C
w
O
o
N
C
E
C
u
f
6
0
2
_
N
co
:E
-C=
7
CL
L
-W
N
N
41
CL
N
N
0
n
(m
c
c~
O
c
to
_V
l0.
OD
p
w
4d
L
°
n
c
3
tip
•
'Vj
•
I
w
'O
x
a)
c0
m
N
C
~
m
ac)
0
'9
+
L
v
o
0
u
°n'
(A
=
>
4O
u
c,
ca.
°
m
O
%
Q
y
c
p
a)
V)
>
n
a)
c
p
m
J2
>
t
0
rn
m2:
m
N
i
(O/1
p
rn
7
o, (n
~0
d
M
C
n
a)
c
°
a)
C C
0 0
CL
N
U
H
C
3
C
a)
r- 41
I^
41
v
a)
m
0
CL)
N.
_
4
L
p n
N
-0
43
`
CD
N
N
w
a
C
>
D
>O
L
C
Vf
O
41
a
O
•
d
r0
L
`
C
O
L
0
L
O
a"'
E
d
1
-
L
41
3:
0
tn
C
(A
0
41
O
V) O
c
O
° V
j
N
N n
Z
E
°
cm
N
° a
m V)
V)
u
N N
c
C
c
U
f0
i'
n
L
70
,
M
N
C
E
4)
.
0
C
•
V
N
_
•
O
C 2r
C U
Z
Q
~
C
H-
m
o y a)
0
n
a
0
N
41
cu w
N N
V)
:3 41
N L
V)
a)
41
_
cm E O1
C
CL
E
N C
4_..
C C
U
E
L
lC
d
C d E
O
>
L n
m
=
E2
U M
Z-
CI.,
'
~ L" p a)
O)
-C
O
6
a) '
OL
-2
Ln O
110
C
H
y = N
(n m
x
n
V
.w C
c
L U
M
C
c
E '
10
•y,
O
E c N
0
c t
`
°
v
0
~
m
oaoco
E m
0
l
o
c
~
0c
° n
c'a
o
°
=o
o T
o
w
•C
y
•C
n
M O W U= d
E
E
0
O
€
p y
.
C
C O
O
n n
" (5
5
N •V
c
ca.
> Ca.
0
i
G
y
O
~
_
c
C
C
Q)
p C
c
-
O
°
aj n c
p
n
p
.
U
oa
o,4T a
i
y
;4
N~
)
~a
o
Nro~
_L
C
C9
. V
L O
O N
v
d
Y
Y
~
O
N"
C N El
0 Y E
Y
O N=
C \O
Y
c
ap
L
W J ~ a)
~
m
J
o
a
9
Q ~
~ L
~
J
V)
0
'Z
m
.
m
IU
. c
i
f- a)
V) ra a
Q N
Z
V1
ci
•o
a)
m
a
0
c
v
0
U
Z"
O
U
0
,AL I
C
O
y
CO c
m
^ c
y C vi (a
L
c
m
t`3 c
v u
L
O
°
c
s~
0.
c
E vsc
a
L
41
L
°j
QI
E
V)
L C
v m m E
m
th n
o
u tm
x
c
°
c
m
3
c
c
c
a
i
C f
a
i
u
12
t! c
m u
n o
m
0
o
nc. m -
O
yv{+
C
L
_o
c
n
a- j u"
_u C p 48
o
v
o (a.
^m
-
X41 nab
m
m
E
(U
s
aiai
:
>v.c.oCL
~ccNm
rn
-0 t
CM
o f
i>
L
=
C
C
C
a) c
'a
M 41
W O C' v
+
+ N
to
O
U
>
m
E
0 > u
°
C m 'C O
C
3
°
+
0
,
y
O
v > 0
v
(U
O
C L
vn) E~ -a-, n
0
+
V ~i
L
-
D
.
-
r~
Z
o
c
m
CO
n
E
C
c m
i- 0 u'O
a..+ C_
.
N
n
A
E
O
u
OmE
i
V1 rn t
D
u
12 cu
o V
t C:
-ffi
'
m
m
m
n
aka
p
n
rn[3
U
r~i a) U O
u ncc0
v
m
o
-W C
L
j
y
~
0
m
;
o
°
O
oc
'
o
c
v m
o
c o
u+' u
> i
C W
0 c
E m
p S
O
~n
a)
~
c
>
(n
o
v >
4:C
" u.
a) 41 of m t:
W
H
p
.0 O a
cL0
c C. n m 0. V
!n i 'a) n V Q
d.
f0 C
O
Ch
c fu
1 C 41 v
r
E O M 'ac COJ
L.
L
Ol
F"
` y
C
U C
I
°
C O
m
yo C O t
7
m'
41 O E
c
Q.
a)
-2-1~
m
41
v
c O
.o y
m t.
o U U.2
Lni :5 O of v
c m i+ V1 a1
C CL C to
a
u
f
4-J 41
° 0
e
:0 0
L
0.
C N
r
co w
u
0
u > O m
L
;rtYa
V
L, t!
d.
V C.
Lm
i+
0
v n
E
'+-3 0
n
O D m e
:3
m
w O N m
Q t;
v..n v
0 V,
m._
o.
n
a
a c y c
cu 2
y
m O>>
C
=
o
av~
m
w
E
a~
>V
S
t
p~ a) ut
°O
a>i 'u
2
o
N 0 o c
v
c u c >
°
'
V
-
a M
U M Vl t
n ' O
m
V
u d
O
m
a
y
-6
a;
a:
c 'n
m
u
d
O
O
0
0.-
o 41
-0
a
f
co
p
CL
E
a
?N
0-0
V1 CU
o
V
`orn
w e
ua~
vi
m
a
cw
f'n
d
c c
M
C O
m
m
(u c
E V)
°
u :p
c
y
c c
01-
o d
+
.0
N
L Gv
to
+ L
m
r,
nu
D
L
°
o u
'n
C
;X
o
o
c
•a;
c c
'n m
m
o f
v~
:
c ~ (A
u
(U
m o
+
12 CL
~ y
`n
m
41
w v
o
v E
m
U
e
E o
b
"o
cu
M
O
o
.0
o
o N
v o+
,
a.+
N
O v
M
C m
c
m~
6w
C
0 tn a)
C
N
N E
°
m
u u
O
~
N
a
)
C w
°
p u -Nd
u ra
c
N
m
a
p
U
•E c
m 0
o c
m
a
c
m
m
m
'a
'
r
.0
cm
-'Z
p
CU
c
c
m e
v m
c W >
a~
m
cm -
m
fu
.0 D
-0
c
L
°
V
R3
C
CL
~ O
_c
4 -
u c
Y m
b 0)
_
-M 0
n
0
_
V) (U
0
O
v
i
10
Z V)
d i
J
J VR
Z
Q 4+
Z
V1
ai
a)
01
a
c
0
0
~a
c
r
a
y ~ r
7. Desired System Characteristics
1. Increase the number and frequency of coordinated public transportation services linking major cities and
transportation corridors
2. Increase the number of persons using coordinated public transportation services
3. Reduce the number of single-occupancy vehicle trips (SOV)
4. Reduce levels of air pollution
5. Increase the number of modes of transportation used by residents
6. Increase private and employer investments in transportation services
8. Action Items
The Core Team identified the following immediate action items that should be undertaken to implement this public
transportation plan:
1. Provide political and administrative leadership
a. Obtain the endorsement and active support of elected officials and professional staff
b. Pursue a funding strategy that leverages local, state, federal and private resources
c. Allocate available public and private resources to implement plan goals and priorities
2. Create a Public Transportation Advisory Committee
a. Develop partnership agreements with public transportation system stakeholders
b. Identify and support efforts to coordinate public and private investments in public transportation services
in Deschutes County and the region
c. Provide guidance and recommendations to elected public officials
d. Conduct public information and outreach, and facilitate public involvement
3. Build tools for a coordinated system of public transportation services
a. Conduct a comprehensive market analysis to inform investment and programming decisions
b. Development of a model agreement to coordination transportation service
c. Develop a coordinated approach to insurance, training, dispatch and other central support services
d. Develop a model process to attract new public and private investors and service partners
Appendix A.1 - Population and Employment Centers
Deschutes County Transportation Coordination Project
Lake Metoliusr'
Bi'Idy :f 4'S Madras
County/State Offices - - -
l , -
-
r'. _ r~ f x> Airport G
Industrial Park r'
CuhroM ht wood Co
97 Tail i
Crooked River
1 Ranch
20 camp
Sherma
n
TreImnne Smith bock
er
slack , . i
Butte
R '-I R.
anch - -
C Outward { !L
IL I r)Y 11
J ISB fS 1 Bound IndAirpoustrial rt Pa
oli
~
1 Aspen ~ 1~8 CI1~1 U Il [I i ` ti ochoco Clinic
Lakes
Eagle 'r'--~'^• r Remmington r BLM
A/ Cloverdale Crest i~ Ranch r National Guard
Airrppqqrf- t
Industriai Park pl owed ~lll
SS
airgrounds ii Butte
Plainview t•
Pronghorn' ft~
Whispering
Pines ii
Deschutes
s River Ranch
97 1prilper I ~T]YIeVi le
Ridge =
Reservoir
Municipal I Alfalfa
Bp "Port
B n dl - !National Guard I k
Cascade Community Youth Challenge
` , Nighlandsr_ Center y
M Bachelor, chutes 20 I J~I
,f"•~~ , f, '.River W tit ~ t I I•.
s 'High Desert } t L - - - - - - - - _ -rr
Museuni
"Lava Land y i
~ ~S~
su fiver ,
.y t
,
-schools { r
f.
Deschutes i `
Homesi 1 ti
%
.ti
dd-up
]unctlo 1 4 i
rill khAst
Crescent`'-
rr: a Pine
Deschutes County Coordinated Human Services Public Transportation Plan Page 13
A . 4- ■
Appendix A.2 - Transportation Service Providers
Deschutes County Transportation Coordination Project
Madras to Redmond.• # 4
• COCOA's Madras Dial-A-Ride offers
service to Bend on Thursdays, with stops d • . , - - - -
in Redmond en route. S
• Central Oregon Breeze
• American Smile
Bend City Cab 97
• Cascade Shuttle
Central Oregon Cabulance
F:
. High Desert Wheelchair Prineville to Redmond.
• COIC's Crook County Dial-A-Ride offers service to
Redmond on Thursdays, with interconnection to the
r` COCOA service to Bend
1 Crook County Veteran's Transportation
20 Sisters to Redmond. Central Oregon Breeze
. Black Butte Ranch employee shuttle American Smile
T- _ • American Smile - Bend City Cab
' . Bend City Cab Cascade Shuttle
• Cascade Shuttle Central Oregon Cabulance
• Central Oregon Cabulance ; High Desert Wheelchair
• High Desert Wheelchair
4 ~
'Y
y r
Sisters N i Pry
a dipa n d
Pr/nevi//e M BenaF.
. Columbia Air em
pbyee shuttle
Central Oregon Breeze (via Redmond)
American Smile
Bend City Cab
Cascade Shuttle
' Central Oregon Cabulance
S/sters fo Bend: High Desert Wheelchair
American Smile
Bend City Cab
• Cascade Shuttle
• Central Oregon Cabulance 97 Redmond M Bend: PrtYleytlde
• High Desert Wheelchair • COCOA's Madras Dial-A-Ride offers service to Bend Reservoir
on Thursdays, with stops In Redmond en route
Columbia Air employee shuttle .r
• Central Oregon Breeze
end • Green Energy Transportation d
• American Smile
• Bend City Cab
• Cascade Shuttle ~J
• Central Oregon Cabulance t)
. County Fair Shuttle
• High Desert Wheelchair I
)
=,1 Un, iver
7 d
La Pine to Bend:
Sunriver Resort employee shuttle
• Central Cascade Lines (proposed)
• COCOA DWI-a-Ride, once per week
• American Smile
• Bend City Cab
• Cascade Shuttle
• Central Cascade Lines (In development)
Central Oregon Cabulance
• High Desert Wheelchair
r La Pine
1
L
,~ytiY
I~
L _
Deschutes County Coordinated Human Services Public Transportation Plan Page 14
A3NOIO
LL
w
z
a
°1
o
Mw
nQ yffi~~'i B
Q 3 e
Y
W
m N
~ N
~ Q Q
C
0
Q Q m
m
a
H1L
Gl a a
J
V b
r ~
W ~w
a
~
w
d
101.211111
SL
H6
z
S3 OV OA
9
16
S OH
d~
d0
o
w
ss
a° $
m ~
z
J
r
W
3
a1 V
H
s
$Q
O
H16L
y
O
w
Q
bti
Z~
E E°m
S
aZ
3
144
W
O
a
EF
9
F-
N
H1
.
H1SE
K
w
z
Zll HWl3H
w
Y
Y
N
m
~
N
N
cc
-
C
L
o
w
(L
a
H
o
C
o
O
C
co
y
-
cu 5
LO
c
X
O Q
N
t
w
> 0
Q L.V
II
Cl)
4)
m
N L'
+r O
R
O
E
L
W
Q
~
a
M
(I1
/t
~
W
Q
e
a
cn
f'r-
l
o
3 ~
w
w
~
s` E e
9~
a
$
~
WtlH
U
Q
Q
Y
U
O
O
p
EE
y■
E ss°
<
m
OLItl
M
Z _
j
O
w
L
U
W .q R
°
w
U
w
H Z
M3USU13d
S
d ¢ -
J
Iw1
2
ri t
"
w
~
'
~
as
H 8
T
!
Y O
Z3 6e
a
lot
,a
e
E [9'GA
@
OpMS)j00
o
12TH
o Z
\
9
w
a
G
l z
a
G
w
1
W
31 d30001
=
H1S£
J
c
m
z H £
Go`
id
w
2 a
CSC W
b o
b
~
ry
~
Hi HWl3H
m
O
~S m¢
~bJ
M
W
J
CL
<
50'
co
N
N
a°
a~
W
a~
o~
c
co
o
0
t
v
Ul)
m
.Y
O
cv
W
~
o
o
L
3
~
CD
Z
W
~
a)
N
y
II
CU
U)
E
la
L
i
E5
m
a)
3:
CIO
O
m
X
J
c
an d
LU
gym-
VJ
3 Q Q~
N
03
C9 3 O m ° O
y J
.1
N
v
L
Q
r
3 m > o o o °
~m g<<<<<
d
ME
C
m
y
o
N N
U 8
p~~ u5
6
t
c
d
wW
W
U
BWVH
w OaVM Z
m w
E
II
w
15.0
w
c
` m
> D Q
LL
o
w
O
H L l
2
Q o m L m m m
K Z
U
LZ
co
B
(n
U
m
j
m
Y
U
p
N
U) N
N
N d m d
W
J
Q
~
L r m O O O O
l NV3
~ ~
H o W a° ae
~ O
H18
H1 W
¢ f10Ha31 Oa9
2P
~
@
0
~ F- ~ r N M N
• I
, ®1
y
J
~
O ON W
a
2
6L
H19
z
co
w
Np
it
U
w
¢
y
y
` y 8
Z
H
¢ pOMS
Nppaa
a
S MHlaON j
t-
= <
rn >
U C7
1LZ
=
~`sa
Jig
12T
co
f
H1SE
Z HI
S
m
a H14L
3l d3'JOOI
Zll HWl3H
p
co
5
MT WA HING ON
O
U
AEG `Pd
(V j
yd
7
Y~~
w
a
g
~h E
M
LJJ
J
$9 ~5
,n
Hl6
H18S
9;
s
co
„CEO
~
'g.~ o ri _o
3
4Mn.
»rwY~.
EnG-O
.O O
(D
c
E
N
O
4)
tV
~
A
O
N
E
=
co
H
V
N
4)
Q
N rn
a
o
cu o
(n 7C) o
co
II
70 ~
d
X m
W Q
d
L
4
Appendix B - Demographic and Other Statistical Information
Deschutes County Transportation Coordination Project
I, Demographics and Population
Total Population: 152,615 (Portland State University estimate, 2006)
Square miles: 3,018 (US Census,•2000)
Persons per square mile: 50.56
Population centers:
Bend: 75,290
Redmond: 23,500
Sisters: 1,745
Unincorporated: 52,080 (including La Pine)
Source: Portland State University Population Estimates, 2006)
Destination resorts in Deschutes County.,
Sunriver
Eagle Crest
Black Butte Ranch
Pronghorn: A 640 acre resort under development between Bend and Redmond. 400 single family lots, 210 multi-
family units, two golf courses.
Proposed Destination Resorts in Deschutes County
Cascade Highlands - a 706 acre resort planned for development in southwest Bend. 379 single-family homes, 210
multi-family units, 300 room resort hotel and 15,000 square feet of retail space.
Caldera Springs - 390 acres, 300+ residential lots near Sunriver in south Deschutes County. The development will
include a 9 hole golf course, meeting facility, and restaurant.
Shevlin Park: A potential 370-acre destination resort with 1,500 homes, golf course and retail store on the northwest
side of Bend (project currently pending).
Thornburgh Resort: 1,000 home development west of Redmond. Three golf courses proposed.
Neighboring Destination Resorts
Brasada Ranch (Crook): An 1,800 acre resort under development, located south of Powell Butte and north of Alfalfa,
with 900 units on lots that will average 1/2 acre in size.
Seven Peaks/Remington Ranch (Crook): Located north of Powell Butte, between highways 126 and 26. The 2,100
acre destination resort will have three golf courses, 800 residential units, and employ 300 persons when completed.
Groundbreaking could take place in 2007.
Hidden Canyon (Crook): Located several miles east of Brasada Ranch, south of the community of Powell Butte. An
estimated 3,250 acres in size, with 2,450 houses and 1,225 overnight units planned.
Sources: Central Oregon Workforce Housing Report, Housing Works, 2006; the Bend Bulletin.
Camp Sherman/Metolius (Jefferson): Destination resort zoning in Jefferson County is limited to areas around Camp
Sherman on the Metolius River.
Deschutes County Coordinated Human Services Public Transportation Plan Page 21
.
- •
: Deschutes
Jefferson'
.
1.1 Population Information
Ctook County
County
; . , County
.
Region
Oregon.
Population
1990:. . ` 4..,
14111.
.74,958._,.
13,676 ,
_ 102745
2,842;321
1993
15,300
86,800
14,900
117,000
3,038,000
1998 `
16,650
.104,900
8 950
3 267;550
2000
19,182
115,367
19,009
153,558
3,421,399
2002; ;
20 200• ; ; .
126.500,-`;;:
1%050
_
166550,,,. -
.11-11 ,04,,700
2004
20,650
135,450
20,250
176,350
3,582,600
2005' _ .F . -
22755
143;400,
„20,600
186,845 `
3,631';440•:;
2006
24,525
152,615
21,410
198,550
3,690,505
Source: Portland state,UNversity Center for PopulatortFtesear h
Annual Population Growth Rate
Population,Change 1990 2000;; .
5,071 ,
40;409
5,333
50,813,.,
,$79,07,8_ e
Annual Growth Rate 1990-
2000
3.6%
5.4%
3.9%
2.0%
~Popylatlon Change°2000 2006_
5 343
37,248.
Percent Change 2000-2006
27.9%
32.3%
12.6%
22%
7.9%
Source: U.S. Census, Portland State University Centecfor Po ulation Research
Bend Rec~trrond Sisters
1990 20,447
7,165
708
20,0,0 52,029
13,481
959
2004 65,210
18,100
1,490
2005 1 70,330,
..20,010
1;705
2006 75,290
23,500
1,745
Source. Portland State 6nivei It Center for Po `ulatlon i3esearch
2005 2010 .2015, 2020 2025,,,
lend Urban Growth
Boundary
69,004
81242
91,158
100,646
109,389
3
Redmond Urban Growth
Boundary
19 249'
23,897
29,867
36,831.
„ .45,724
Sisters Urban Growth
Boundary
1,768
2306
2694
3,166
3,747
„Non rban County
53,032
59,.127
65-;%4
y.
73,502 , .
. 111 951....,:;
County Total
143,053
166572
189,443
214,145
240,811
Source. Deschutes Coun 'Coordlnated Po uiation Forecast '
1990
Dechutes
Region
Oregon
U.S. '
County
Total Population
74,958
102,745
2,842,321
248,709,873
73,343
97;124
2,636,787
199,68
6
,070.
Black
85
120
46,178
29,986,060
American Indian-and Alaska Native, ,
; 648,
3,543 ' _
38 496;;
1,959,234,
Asian or Pacific Islander
444
553
69,269
7,273,662
Hispanic
112 707
4,354,059-:
;
Deschutes County Coordinated Human Services Public Transportation Plan Page 22
Percent of Total Population, 1990
White.,,_, s ; 97.8%..
94.5°{0
92 8%.':.
80.3%
Black
1:' 7
0.1%
0.1%
1.6%
12.1%
American Indian and Alask6 Native .
0.9%
3.4% ; ;
1 4.%
0.8%
Asian or Pacific Islander
0.6%
0.5%
2.4%
2.9%
Hispanic "
2.0%.
3.3%'-
9.0%
2000
Dechutes
Region
Oregon
U.S.
County
,ln
Total Popu atio
1t5,3ti7
_ ,153,558"
.
3421,395
.
281,421,906
White
109,423
140,366
2,961,623
211,460,426
Black
.222.'::
280.
, 55,6b2,
34&5% 190
American Indian and Alaska Native
956
4,187
45,211
2,475,956
Asian or Pacific Islander .
934
1,121
109,32ti
10 641;833,
Hispanic
4,304
8,758
275,314
35,305,818
Percent•of Total Population, 2000
White
94.8%
91.4%
86.6%
75.1%
Black
0.2%
0.2%:j,._
1.6%
12.3% . ,
American Indian and Alaska Native
0.8%
2.7%
1.3%
0.9%
rAsian or Pacifc Islander
0 8%,
0."7%
3,2% _
3.8%
Hispanic
3.7%
5.7%
8.0%
12.5%
;Change in_Proportion ofeach;Race Group 199072000.,,
Dechutes
Region
Oregon
U.S.
rt
County
White .
-3.0°!°
-6.2%
5.1.%4 _ . .
Black
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.3%
&i can Indian and. Alaska 'Native
0.0%
0.0%
0.11%6
Asian or Pacific Islander
0.2%
0.2%
0.8%
0.9%
%
1.5 Aqe Groups by Number and % of Total Population. 1990 to 2000
Deschutes
unt Re Ion, O
_Populationy,1890. . Co Y 9 regon. _ U.S. F
Age # % # % # % # %
I~NDR 5~,. 5,185 6.9%„` 7,602. _ ;7 4% 201,421 ;1.8,354,443 , ~7:4.%
5 to 17 14,140 18.9% 19,869 19.3% 522,709 18.4% 45,249,989 18.2%
TB:to 29 _ 1„0,5.1,7 :14 14,764 _ 1.4 4%'_ _ 479,5Q9 16.9°l0 , . - 4$,05Q809 , .19,,3%
30 to 49 24,295 32.4% 31,815 31.0% 881,792 31.0% 73,314,332 29.5%
50yt0 64 , , _ 10 423 .13.91/6 , 14;352 , „14.0°!0 365,566 12,9°!0 . ' :32,498383 13:1%.
65 and up 10,398 13.9% 14,343 14.0% 391,324 13.8% 31,241,787 12.6%
Total 1990 74,958,100.0% 102,745 10.0.0%2,842,321 1000%,' 248;709,743 100.0%'•
Deschutes LL
Population 2000- County Region Oregon U.S.
UNDER 5 7,074 6.1% 9,795 6.4% 223,005 6.5% 19,175,798 6.8%
.
5_to=17," 21,509!.,' 29,554. 19 206623,521 , 1.8.2% . 53,1.18,014 18 9%;
18 to 29 16,153 14.0% 21,307 13.9% 561,734 16.4% 46,524,790 16.5%
Deschutes County Coordinated Human Services Public Transportation Plan Page 23
30; to• 49
"35,528..
-:3080/6,.,
45,912
29.9%, , .
1 034,734
30.2%,,,
85,751,319.
-30.5%
50 to 64
20,014
17.3%
26,720
17.4%
540,228
15.8%
41,860,232
14.9%
,
65;and
15,089
20,269
_
. 13 2/0
, °
.4381 7..T
,
12'8%.'_
34,991 753*,_
.,,12,4%,.
,
Total 2000 115,367
100.0%
153,557
100.0%
3,421,399
100.0%
281,421,906
100.0%
,Changein Age.Group 1990, 2000,.Total # Increase/Decrease and Change in
Proportion(96) of each
Age. Group'
Deschutes
`
County
Region
Orego
n
U.S.
w.
x
UNDER 5
1,889
-0.8%
2,193
-1.0%
21,584
-0.6%
821,355
-0.6%
5 t0.17, _
7,369
-0.2%''
9,685,
-0;1%
100,812
T,804,025,
;,,0.7%
18 to 29
5,636
0.0%
6,543
-0.5%
82,225
-0.5%
(1,526,019)
-2.8%
{r.
30 to 49..,. (
s 1;14233
1 6%,;.
14,097,
16
; _152;942
0.8%
12,436,987, -
1.0%
50 to 64
9,591
ro 3.4%
12,368
3.4%
174,662
2.9%
9,361,849
1.8%
F
:,t...
65 ;and up,
,4 691.
0 8%
5;926
-0.8%
46,853
-1.0%
3,749,966.
_.-0.10/4
;
Total
40,409
50,812
579,0
8
32 712,163
„Uof~ge'Groups_1990-2000
Gro "ate
N
Deschutes Co.
Region
State of
Oregon
United Sta
tes
#
DER 5
1,889 6.4%
2,193
28.8%
21,584
10.7%
821,355
4.5%
5 to,17
7,369 52.1%
9;685 „ `
48.7% ,
;100,812
, 193%
7,864A025 ; ,
17,4%4
18 to 29,
5,636 53,6%
6,543
44.4%
82,225
17.1%
(1,526,019)
-3.2%
3O
9, , _ , .
X11 233„
46.2%
; „1„4,097
~44
152,942
1 7.'3%
_12,436,9$7,
50 to 64 9,591 92.0% 12,368 86.2% 174,662 47.8% 9,361,849 28.8%
65;end up M 4,691, 451% 5,926 _41 3% 46,853 12.0% , .3,749,966 12'.0%`
otal Population Increase 40,409 35.0% 50,812 3.3.1% 579,078 16.9% 32,712,033 11.6%
Data and maps Copyright 1996,1998
YESRI Data and Wips Copo ht 2001-2005 DVD
1.6
Number and Percent (of age group) of Disabled Residents by Community 2000
r
4
ver
p
B
2000`„
Bend ,
Redmond
Sisters....
4,:La,Pine
W odg
;
Terreli
onne
Ore o,r1
g
Population 5 to 20 Years
770(6.9%)
299(8.7%)
14(6.1%)
113(9.9%)
84(7.4%)
35(8.6%)
8.20%
4,326
1296
105
855;
Populatlon 21,J6 64,Years
„(1
4:2%)
„(17.5%)
(25.4%)
573 (20.2%),. ,
187 (20.8%)
18%•
2
,285
561
Population 65 Years and Oider
(38.1%)
703(40.9%)
46(37.7%)
(46.4%)
167(39.7%)
81 (43.1%)
41.50%
_
'1;529 ;
Total
7,381 (15%),
,2,298.(1,7_%)
165_(1,7%).
. (26°!0)
$24(.17%)
303,(20%)
17%
Bureau
Deschutes County Coordinated Human Services Public Transportation Plan Page 24
1.7 Forecasts of Central Oregon's Senior Population, 2005 - 2040
Area
Total
% increase
% of Total
Population
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85+
Total
since 2005
''Oregon Total.- 3,618 200
168,846 -J
J124,83. ^ 101,126.
88,999
71,763
67 597
623 164:
`,17.2% '
Deschutes
County
139,994
7,567
5,815
4,221
3,499
2,533
2,257
25,893
18.5%
TRI=
COUNTY ,
Trf COUnty TOtal_
;1$1,520.;,
TOTAL `
33;955
18 7%'
Year 2010
Total
Area
Population
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85+
Oregon Total
3,843 9,OQ
2.28,279
159,820 ,
112,772ry !
447
733
67,
76,272 ,
730,223~
17 2%
19
0%%
;
Deschutes
_
-
_
,
County
158,792
11,175
7,875
5,412
3,656
2,765
2.825
33,708
M2%
21.2%
T,RI=
COUNTY
TOTAL;
..43 63,
27 1 %
. 21 2%;
Year 2015
Total
Area
Population
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85+
Oregon, Total,;
4;095,708
262471 .
: 217 832 ;
..145,136;
.95;840 ,
65,626
81,172
868,076
39.31/6-L
21.2 %
Deschutes
County
178,418
13,669
11,644
7,329
4,689
2,903
3,367
43,601
68.4%
24.4%
`
TRI-
Tri,County Total
_-227 748
COUNTY
TOTAL
j49 274_„
45 1%
21 6o
Year 2020
Total
Area
Population
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85+
y0r,409 (TA: -
CI '
c
'4359 258,',
267,583
,
251,301
198 776?
12,4 275
_74A95
1909
1,001,339
60.7%,
23.0%:,
D
es
hut S
County
197,150
15,216
14,157
10,820
6,359
3,738
3,842
54,133
109.1%
27.5%
r
TRI-
,
Tr
Co
T
t
l
805
5
COUNTY`.
t,
unty
o
a
`
2
0
w, _,1. _
Year 2030
Total
Area
Poi pulation
60-64
65-69
70-74
-
75-79
80-84
85+
m n
OrrBgon T,otal,;
4;891,225 s
261,311,_,
, 253,683 ,
77
7 -p
Q37 821_;:
1,648,:
;799
,,137'799
119,971
1 212,234 ,
94.5%
24.8%`:.
Deschutes
County
229,933
15,524
15,621
14,568
11,409
7,494
6,071
70,686
173.0%
30.7%
-.TRI-
COUNTY
~Ti~1..Ooutlty Total..
293,560
TOTAL;
$_,6,238
154 AN
Year 2040
Total
Area
Population
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85+
Oregon'Total. ?
5,4Z&,404
"2
,
.26$,$16,,.
,;:235769
208,589
.171,551"
,>213,094
1,395,306 ;
123.9%
'12 L
25.7%
Deschutes
County
257,088
18,646
17,838
14,925
12,729
10,356
11,644
86,138
232.7%
33.5%
~
~
,
TR
4
"
CO Y
UNT
°
T,~i G_oun Total
tY...
'.N,1,7, ;
_
,
.
.
; TOTAL„
„ 104,,7,89..
208, fi(o
31, 610,'
Deschutes County Coordinated Human Services Public Transportation Plan Page 25
Z Income and Employment
2.1 Income and Workforce County
Region
Oregon
Average Annual „Nonfarm Employment
2001 53,230
65,500
1,593,600
2002. -.53,580
65;680.
, 11,§12,3001
2003 54,687
66,898
1,563,650
x2004. f 58,487 .,71,285
595 683
2005 63,029
76,369
1,652,859
Source. Oregon Emplo
ymentDepartment
Average Wage per Job
X993 $20,652-
N/A
$23,654
1995 $21,572
.
N/A
$25,399
$22,8$2... ;
N/A
$27,.968
1999 $25,352
N/A
$30,340
$27089
2001...,,
, , $32,655.
2003 $29,118
$28,934
$34,446
„2904
$29,921
$35,621
2005 $31,492
$31,238
$36,591
Sour'ce: 6*6n Emplgyment Department , .
Per Capita Personal Income
1999 $25,636
N/A
$26,481
2001 $27,805
N/A
$28,507
2003 n $28,616.
N/A
$29,1161
2004 $29,853
N/A
$30,561
_Sour6e US BurBau of Economic Analysis, REIS ,
Median Household Income (Family of 4)
2000..,. $41,609
_ N/A
$46,000
2001 $44,200
N/A
$47,800
2002 $45.440
N/A
$48,900:
2003 $54,200
N/A
$56,300
N/A .
. , $58,660 . ;
2005 $57,800
N/A
$58,600
Source. 2005'Central Or on Area Profile, Economic Develo' merit tocCentral Ore an
Rates
Crook County
Dechutes County
Jefferson County
Oregon
us
6.3
1995
7.9
6.6
6.1
4.9
5.6
2000
7.2
5.4
5
5.1
4
2001
8.3
6.4
6.8
6.4
4.7
2002
9: 2..
7..6
6.9
7:6
5.8 -
2004
8.1
6.6
6.4
7.3
5.5
2005 w.
_ 67
6.1
51
2006
6
4.6
5.7
5.4
January,_2007
7 6 „ :
5 6
7,7: ,
0.0
5.0
{ .
ource, Oregon Employment Department
Deschutes County Coordinated Human Services Public Transportation Plan Page 26
2.3 Poverty Rates, 1993-2003
_ ,
Crook
Deschutes . ;
Jefferson „
. Oregon
U S, , .
Total Persons in Poverty
1993 ,
1,759.
9;712
2,732.
406,722
39,264811
1997
2,226
11,331
2,785
379,506
35,573,858
2,357..
2,692.
_ .:361,280
2002
2,532
12,909
2,828
396,157
34,569,951
2003.
2,496,
„ 13,261
2,845
423,918 ;
35,861,170,
Percent of Population in Poverty
1993,,
0.6°!0
17.4%
13.2%
1551%0,
1997
12.8%
10.6%
16.6%
11.6%
13.3%
2000
12.0%
" 9.6%
11'9%
10.6%
002
12.4%
10.0%
14.5%
11.3%
12.1%
2003
1:1.8%
10.3%
14.4%
12.5
Children Under 18 in Poverty
°993....
281
. F
1 13
9
8 146,71
5,727,49
1997
854
4,291
1,127
134,932
14,113,067
rq ,
X876 '
_
X4,008
1,264
, 127,54
11.8..:.
2002
791
4,162
1,131
127,481
12,132
645
20Q3
"91.9
4,673-. _
~ 1,278
147,433
,
t28f5,806.
Percent of Children Under 18 in Poverty
%1993
1.4 0%'
4.7%
_
23.5%
18.3%
1997
18.6°/
0
15.9%
23.0%
16.3%
19.9%
2000
17.6%,
. 13.8%:,'-
2002
16.0%
13.8%
20.2%
15.1%
16.7%
603
f8; %
§'2 OX 0
n22.8°(0
1T.%
17.6.°7u
US Census
2.4 Average Residential Home Prices
_
Crook
Bend
`Redmortd
„ Sisters..
Jefferson
2000
$95,753
$197,682
$124,696
$275,070
$91,108
2QQL
$106;524 ,
;-,$208,097
,$136,481
$249,994
$93,302 „t
2002
$104,633
$225,866
$147,515
$279,057
$90,818
2003 , _
$111,434,•
$235882_.
.$162,377
$317;400 -
$98;239
4
0,430
„$271,457
$182,759
$358,066
$106,052
2005
$154906
$334,570
$226;238
$449,979
$1311493
2006 , , _
_ .:$212;173_
_ ,$406 122 „
` 1292,268
$514259
. $170,228
/o ° change 2000-2005
61.8%
69.2%
81.4%
63.6%
44.3%0
%change2004-2005,
28.6%
_ .23.3%
23,8°lu
25.7%
24.0°/u
Median Home Prices
2000
, $88,200
$163,000 _
$118,900
$232;000
$83,000
2001
$106,000
$168,950
$125,000
$235,000
$87,000
2002
$99,400
$1.83 5Q0
$135,125
$247,070
T;. $87,500
2003
$105,450
$195,000
$148,567
$270,000
$95,000
„$114,928_.
. , ; .$227,50Q
$158 50Q
X308 500
$104,000.,..
2005
$149,275
$279,000
$198,818
$394,250
$133,500
2006
$
0
51,978
$262 749
$460,000
$165,080
I
r
/o: than a 2000-2005 „ .
o._.. g
o
. •
69 2 /0
$ 7,1 2 /0,
67 2/0
69.9
%
0.8%
% change 2004-2005
29.9%
23.0%
25.4%
27.8%
28.4%
source: Central Or on Realtors AssodaUon
Deschutes County Coordinated Human Services Public Transportation Plan Page 27
3. Transportation Data
3.1 Average Travel Time to Work - Region compared to Oregon
a
21 to 30
Work at.
5 min, or less
6,to,10'min
11 to 20 min.
min:
31 or more
home:
Region - 2000
25.60%
21.70%
21.90%
14.50%
10.00%
4.70%
Oregon _2000
:16.60% '
1720%
29.80% ,
15.
30%:
Region - 2004
23.30%
19.00%
31.90%
9.60%
11.50%
4.70%
O. gon_ 2004.
1750
14.79%9,,'
32.50%, .
15.10%
T5.70%
4,5q% . ,
Office of
3.2 Mean Travel Time to Work by County - Measured in Minutes
u.... Crook Desnhutes w; Jefferson Oregon, U.S.
2000 18.7 18.7 20.9 22.2 25.5
4 P
Sour lee: US Census, 2000
3.3 Commuting to Another County, 1990-2000
Crook Deschutes
Jefferson
Share of ResidentsCornmuting,to,Another County for Work' 1990 and 2000, t,
1990 14.00% 5.90%
15.70%
2000 (,,19 60%p. 5,$0%.
_ 24,400
Share of County's Jobs Held by its Residents - 1990 and 2000
a
1990
84 90% 94
20%~
87:
10°/
.
- _I ~ _
q .
,
2000 84.50% 93.20%
85.50%
SijurCet Oregon F-mPloymeriYDepertmerit/US ~
r "
Census
Place of
3.4 Where Employees Live by
Community,
2006
Work
PI ce of r
sidence
e
;Bend
Sisters
_ Redmond..
Prineville
Madras _
Culver , ,
Metollus
Bend
76.7%
19.3%
19.2%
3.5%
14.5%
0.3%
0.0%
S}SiQrs , _
3 8%
63`0% ;
0.7% "
.
t .0.1 %
0 0%
_ a,
°
,0.0%
Redmond
10.0%
15.3%
52.9%
9.2%
7.3%
22.6%
0.0%
F?rln@vl{le. ,
2.5%
,0.¢%
9% ,
. 84.4%
3.0% '
0,.0%.
Madras
0.9%
1.3%
3.2%
1.8%
55.2%
17.0%
0.0%
Calvet,,,
0 4%;:
` 0.0%
0,4%
0.4%
7.5%
53.70X. : - .
0.0%
Metolius
0.1%
0.0%
0.9%
0.4%
1.1%
3.4%
75.0%
La,Pine
. 0.0%
0.0.%
1.3%
0.0%
0.0%
Warm Springs
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.0%
0.0%
0.0%
;Other ; . "
0.7%.::
.,.0.5%
`0.0%
o
„0.0%
o -
0.0 /6
o
0:0%,
°
25:0%,
# of Businesses Surveyed
44
8
15
27
17
7
1
#.of;Employees Sury d
.2,337._
, 197
1,1341
1,291
200 .
163
Source: Employer Survey, Central Oregon
Workforce Housing
Needs Assessment, CORHA,
,
Deschutes County Coordinated Human Services Public Transportation Plan Page 28
i
3.5 Carpool Rates - Workers 16 and Older
Crook.. ,
Deschutes
Oregon. . U.S.
1990 13.55%
12.60%
16.90%
12.76% 13.29%
2000 . , 00%
o
1,9 4 /o 0
0%
92.291/6 12.2
Source: US Census, 2000 and 1990
Deschutes County Coordinated Human Services Public Transportation Plan
Page 29
U
~
C
O
C
O
c
E
O
~
O
N
N
r
?
U
w
L
M:
EF=
O
O
p
w
-
0)
O
O
U
U)
cli
0
to
0
U)
co
O
y
N
0
O
N
w
O
0
a)
0
O
0
w
O
N
O
0
O
W
a)
U
0
to
0
V)
O
0
0
w
0
w
0
N
0
S
M
~
O
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
c)
Z
Z
Z
Z
2
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
.Z
=
.Z
.
.
E
O
v)
O
V)
O
V)
(D
w
O
V)
c
.T
O
V)
O
v)
0
V)
0
v)
0
V)
a)
V)
O
a)
'
a)
"
O
v)
O
W
(n
O
u)
M
u)
W
u)
O
U
M
u)
O
v)
m
c
0
v)
0
u)
0
v)
0
v)
O
L
O
L
O
L
a)
L
O
L
O
U
_
L
O
L
O
L
O
L
O
L
O
L
O
~
I
D
1
0
I
L
0
2
1
L
0
L
0
L
0
L
0
L
0
L
0
L
O
C
O
O
L
O
L
O
L
O
L
O
E
-
7
7
7
>
j
(n
c
C
C
C
C
C
Q
QI
Q
C
j
c
C
C
C
C
C
L
C
w
c
L
0
_
o
_
o
_
0
_
0
_
0
w
0
_
0
_
0
O
0
>
0
>
0
2
0
la
c0
ca
O
a
2
0
2
0
2
0
>
0
>
0
>
0
j
a3
O
y
O
O
7
_M
0
C
.2
0
C
-2
0
C
O
0
O
L
»
»
>
V)
»
»
»
0
0
0
>
o
>
»
>
>
~
>
t
E
»
»
O
L
,
a)
v)
2
v)
2
v)
2
v)
M
0
2
w
2
to
2
to
2
w
2
w
2
w
U
c
c
c
c
c
v)
U
U)
U
U)
U
c
(n
E
U
U
(n
v)
2
2
0
(D
0
2
0
2
2
=
2
2
2
a)
2
0
0
2
2
2
2
y
a)
w w
C
O
M
N
N
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
b)
d
O
C
C
a
o
a)
co
C
c
O
w
'O
C
O
C
m
C
D
C
co
y
'0
C
'D
c
m
"0
c
C
O
U
0
E
O
m
O
E
c
CO
O
m
o
O
m
o
E
`
~
O
m
°
a°i
O
C,
"
E
O
c
O
LL
C
O
c
O
C
C
O
'O
O
U
-0
c
`
~
O
O
C
C
c
co
O
c
O
w
H
W
a)
D
c
a)
m
co
m
O
C
Y
O
m
U
C:
O
-tY.
¢
L
a)
'y
in
C
>
>
C
Ln
u)
m
a)
co
7
U
C
'E
X
O
co
L
r
W
ui
r_
p
C
V)
L
O
m
W
z
O
O
W
z
O
°
a)
U
'a
C)
r
-
p
J
)
Q
y
V
>
>
O
C
¢
L
N
N
C
co
U)
w
O
a
m
O
oU+
n
a)
M
0)
N
N
r
'
7
d
4
Z
W
=
N
V)
Z
LO
m
>
>
Q
E
O
U
Z
fn
O
c
O
E
N
W
>
¢
C)
W
V)
It
j
O
c
O
W
Z
In
O
a
Z
U
O
a
W
O
M
Lo
p
C
N
ad
U
C
~
v)
N
Cf)
v
Z
M
t
n
u)
M
C
4l
M
r-
O
O
V)
E
'O
Z
M
In
0
r
U
C
f
6
C
L
°
oo
w
Z
In
M
r
a)
Q)
a)
M
in
_C
O
N
v
O
N
w
O
¢
In
O
d
C
CO
E
S
C
C
O
CO
O
N
CD
N
M
N
C
f3
M
O
E
U
O
E
O
N
Z
~
y
E
0
E
0
O
E
m
Z
E
(C
O
O
O
U)
c
5
y
s
°
m
N
c
O
L
•
Q
O L:
o
)
a)
2
io
c
nL
CL
U
-
LO
o
2
2
0
2
3
m
¢
0
or,
2
0
S
~
to
c
p
h
n
E
c
c`a
>
3
06
cca
m
a
-0
3
°
c
-cL
aNi
E
a`)
L
U
o
N
L
2
_0
a)
•6
2
a
i
>
>
v
L
Q
c
c
O
e
ca
ri
c
2
2
c
-
U
=
¢
U
O
M
.2!
w
V)
>
m
fn
V)
o
Q
4
co
m
U
O
O
'O
O
t6
V)
L
U
O
co
U
c
C
y
d
a)
L
f0
N
O
O
N
C
a)
O
U
N
t
o
y
V
o
O
r-
O
L
L
Y
.
c
m
y
0
0
0
0
f0
E
O
Co
O
O
a)
a)
t
O
O
cr.
c
cr.
C
O
c
to
L
U
c
w
3
M
C
0
C
0
C
0
C
O
C
O
•
C
c
C
L
2~
:5
m
y
a3
c6
'O
O
o
O
o
C
O
`
o
t3
F-
m
2
<n
Q
Q
Q
¢
¢
¢
¢
Q
¢
co
co
m
m
m
co
Co
m
m
m
m
m
U
O l
?
U
U
0
O
0
w
0
Q)
N
N
a)
0
(D
0
a)
m
a)
w
a)
w
a)
w
0
0
N
co
a)
-C
m
a)
(D
N
a~
0
a)
m
8
0
8
m
a)
0
m
o
w
a)
0
a)
0
O
w
a)
0
0)
N
(1)
0
a)
N
(1)
to
a)
m
a)
_o
_
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
_U
Cl)
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Z
Z
Z
Z
U
Z
Z
~
Z
Z
Z
Z
S
Z
_
Z
Z
_
Z
_
Z
Z
_
Z
Z
Z
Z
_
Z
Z
~
Z
_
Z
Z
_
Z
Z
a)
m
a)
a)
c
U
o
a)
a)
(1)
a)
N
o
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
(2)
a)
a)
(2)
a)
(1)
O
a)
a)
tq
.LL
!A
`LL
a)
a)
a)
a)
~
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
y
LL
m
C
N
a)
a)
L
a)
a)
a)
N
-
a)
-
a)
a)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
m
C
C
C
C
(/1
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
c
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Q
C
C
C
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
0
V)
0
7
0
7
7
7
0
7
0
7
0
7
0
c
7
c
7
c
3
a
7
>
>
c
c
a
C
(7,
C
0
>
0
>
0
>
0
>
0
(n
0
>
0
>
0
>
0
>
0
>
0
>
C
O
>
j
L
0
>
0
>
0
>
0
>
0
>
0
>
0
>
0
>
0
>
0
>
0
>
0
>
0
>
0
>
0
>
0
>
C
O
>
O
>
7
7
cn
(n
U)
cn
U)
(n
(n
(n
(n
U)
j
U)
y
U)
U)
U)
U)
U)
U)
(n
U)
C
U)
U)
U)
U)
cn
U)
(n
(n
O
o
2
2
S
S
2
=
S
S
S
2
2
o
2
a)
S
S
S
2
2
2
2
2
2
a)
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
OD
2
2
-
-
-
-
-
r-
-
a-
-
-
r-
-
-
e-
a-
-
a-
-
a-
-
-
-
v
.o
o
co
a)
c
N
m
c
c
m
E
ai
ca
c
U
c
c
U
m
o
c
E
m
c
c
i
a
co
c
CO
c
~
a
°
C
m
U
~c
a
i
m
>
c
E
c
m
c
m
O
O
C
CU
tt:E
N
)
>
o
-
o
a)
C
O
o
C
m
a
i
m
C
O
'a
N
"
O
C
C
c
N
•i
O
J
C
m
J
Z
Q
a)
a 10
'O
C
C
m
O
E
C
a)
'p
CL
O
C
d
a
a)
lY
m
Of
.0
(
a
y
CO
0
E
m
io
m
O
CD
co
O
O
co
m
C
m
0
co
w
c
•o
m
J
a)
F-
m
m
a)
m
a)
m
=
.
O
o
f
C
a)
C
o
of
`
c
C
o
co
cr.
o
.
'
n
N
O
a)
m
-
c
O
m
cco
C
a)
J
a)
y
a)
"
L
lL
Z
J
O
N
m
>
X
>
y
O
7
U
m
m
U
N
a)
"
C
CD
U)
U
O
I-_
>
co
m
0
U)
a)
W
U
m
>
O
y
m
0
3
CL
Z
O
S
O
U
0
m
Q
N
U
O
O
U'
y
c
co
M
a)
on
m
S
O
L
N
CC
C
E
O
w
>
O
Co
O
(f
E
Q
c
m
a)
E
c
0
~
Z
CO
S
E
a~
N
c
a
N
N
F
L
Lo
U
cn
J
~t
CO
a3
C
m
W
z
(n
W
M
O
c
C
a)
U)
S
M
0
W
Z
W
W
U)
O
:p
m
0
a)
M
C.)
N
Z
m
~
C
O
a)
Ur
W
Z
N
(n
M
`L
N
cn
00
M
00
°
m
Cf)
0
N
m
Y
m
U
co
r
Z
co
m
r
o
U
O
CO
Z N
04
_
N
Z
Lo
°
7
fn
°v
`
w
°
LO
v
y
m
~
W
Z
06
v
z
v)
C
0°O
r
0 N
~
m
N
U
Z
Ln
O
aS
co c
°
a)
m
M
d
m
M
M
rn
rn
tZ
h
o
2
U
Lo
O
oL$
co
CO
0
0
L
0
0
'o
E
U
2
M
O
N
c)
E
C
-
y
U
Nu
3
m
E
E
o
m
a)
0)
LO
cN
LL
7
O
LL
Q
c
O
(O
N
C
N
N
O
Z
N
C
C
p
2
_
O
O
LL
r
co
r
M
cu
L
Co
Lo
N
O
2
E
O
w
m
2
N
U
.T
Z
N
0
U
S
,
N
0
S
,
N
1=
f~0
J
C
a
j
0
N
'O
E
a)
N
Q
2
m
C
a)
N
E
S
N
2
co
O
N
>
y
W
y
N
-
Q
}
m
Q
O
S
a)
N
O
o
m
C
m
ca
O
2
y
~
m
U
C
G
-
)
,
Q
E
O
C
4)
a)
W
m
U
m
U
m
o
to
2
N
U
M
Y
cQ
m
N
O
S
C
Q)
C
a)
E
-0
C
C
0
C
Q
"
a)
r
+
to
c
0
2
a)
G
C
J
m
m
2
.D
G
m
m
co
cn
=
N
O
O
0
d
L
n
E
E
x
°
0
°
0
cca
aoi
€
>
L
E
E
m
=
cEo
m
L
m
E C,
w
o
a~
a)
:
m =
m
Y
a
m
o
c
3
3
.5
0
-0
c
w
f-
m
W
W
0
LL
0
LL
U
U
U
U
m
S
m
S
S
O
S
O
S
O
S
N
Y
Y
m
J
m
J
J
.
J
J
O
.J
y
Z
m
U.
L
a.
M
2
M
O
a.
O
o"
a.
m
X
a)
lY
CD
Of
>
_
tY
m
U)
a)
rn
M
0-
c
0
0
a
c
T
u
a'
N
a~
c
0
N
N
m
U
~
D
_
c
U
U
c
c
>
O
o
-
O
E
c
w
C
O
a>
U
O
O
E
L
O
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
U
CV
rL.+
(n 10
X-
w
v
v
8
U
U
U)
Z
m
Cn
f°
m
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
_
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
i
a
2
0
a
i
2
i
a
2
a~
a~
(n
m
fn
m
m
0)
0
a>
m
m
fn
a>
m
a~
(n
a>
fn
a~
(n
a)
a)
o
In
m
N
N
m
B
N
N
co
N
L
CU
N
R'
N
0
d
ro
U
EE
C
N
cl
m
c
CU
C
N
0
0
0
0
-
2
2
-2
E
N
m
M
E
E
M
M
>
0
>
0
>
0
>
0
o
>
>
>
75
ia
2
o
a
(n
cn
U)
>
>
>
>
0
c
c
c
c
>
0
0
>
0
>
0
>
0
>
0
>
0
>
0
>
O
)
L
0
L
0
L
>
L
>
Oll
C
V)
C/)
Cn
"O
c
"0
c
0
7
0
7
Cl)
7
y
7
C
fn
v
C
'O
C
-
L
U
N
L
cr.
L
U
N
L
U
C/)
•
N
2
2
S
S
m
m
0
0
0
0
2
y
2
S
2
2
2
0:
0
0
2
S
a>
S
CD
.
N
a~
m
N
w
0!
7
O
o
co
ao
2
2
2
2
°
co
°
°
°
°
°
>
co
m
°
°
Z
°
°
Z
>
>
Z
°
°
>
2
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
-
-
-
-
e-
-
e-
-
e-
M
N
N
-
-
s-
c
c
ai
m
m
o
m
°
m
N
-p
N
0
c
0
O
m
co
a>
O
N
co
°
(A
c
D
~
O
E
0
m
L
ai
co
E
O
c
a
i
~
c
m
c
-o
>
`
4a)
c
cc
°
L)
a
a
v
'0
'O
o
°C
Co
0
0
E
°
CO
N
M
of
°
V)
m
'D
°
co
C
N
CO
-0
>
O
c
~
CD
L)
O
W
W
'
a)
N
M
C
T
C
H
=
U
m
Co
m
0
m
co CO
CU
J
m
Q
)
a
C
m
LL
C
m
0
E
7
j
-
N
0)
M
~
>
0
7
w
>
0
0
N
7
cn
N
U
C
C
O
m
U
LL
Z
E
p
O
CO
Z
M
to
O
to
J
N
N
N
Q.
M
N
L
N
LO
N
U
co
E
Z
tCf
LO
p
S
C
CO
O
CO
0
N
N
co
O
>
<
N
-
'D
0
co
a)
N
L
N
N
~
N
>
L
M
(0
U
D!
Z
CD
N
m
Cj
C
O
7
C
N
Cn
LU
m
U
2
C
C
O
r- to
O
O
C
N
LO
N
p
N
Z
v
000
00
•O
y
CO
M
N
N
U
-
-
-
C
O
0
C~
N
O
CO
~L
N
N
O
N
3
N
N
p
p
CO
0
Q
Lu
L
C
o
CD
Y
m
-
c
p
Cu
>
>
-
O
M
N
L
CO
-
p
C
h
m
>
N
(D
Q
•p
U)
N
O
CO
W
E
0
E
'
L
m
Q
ri
C
o
N
.E
ca
U
c
_
V
c
o
O
o
c
m
O
`m
m
a
cu
Q_
m
m
LLl
d
~o
m
N
e
?
0_
m
O
=
O
2
C
0
m
0
41
•
N
M
`
L
U
U
•
CL
N
c
E
`
CO
LL
U
2
2
C!)
y
C
C
C
L
.0+
N
4?
2
N
m
1-
O
L
U)
O
fn
(n
M
(n
w
U)
L
w
to
(n
0
U)
E
3
(A
E
m
H
0
H
CU
L
I-
N
L
H
(U
L
H
N
L
I-
N
L
F-
N
t
I-
'm
F-
m
f6
0
O
>0
0
>
C
N
0
a
m
J
w
CU
0
> '
C
a
*a
w
-Y
n
m
C
0
0
V
W
N
0
LL
2
0
O
2
•C
m
2
a
c
~o
a
O
(n
C
N
to
o
~
N
m
E
E
O
E
L
O
L
o
N
j
C
W
L
O
L
L
L
g,
E
D
fn
fn
>
E
(1)
cr
IX
Z
Z
U
0
Z
>
>
r
r
r
r
r
H
a7
N
C
O
H
ce
c
O
m
O
J
O
m
C
m
N
m
d
C
~
w
Em.
m
O
C
12
o
m
L
a~
(v
m
c
2
U
m
L
F-
0
m
OC
m
C
a)
0
N
C:
L)
`
0
E
N
O
a1
f~
~
o
cr
E
a)
L
h
9
M
M
,
a)
0
'
'
n
E
F-
o
F-
a)
S
C
a)
U
~
C
c
o
CD
L
~
o
L
c
Q
'
O
o
p
m
c
U
a)
Q)
(n
co
U
C
J
C
J
Q)
=
L
J
O
Q
Q
'Z
y
0
-
>
0
o
V
Q
m
ca
U
(n
co
c
>
T
m
o
L
w
a
o
O
O
w
m
c
E
-
o
Of
m
U
U
o
0
_c
=
2
LU
c
>
c
U
f0
-J
L
m
C
O
U)
m
y
a)
J
-0
ii!
~
~
U
m
w
a)
o
'V
C
O
C
a)
ca
0)
I)
,t=
'
a
1
I
U
Q
Q
cx
E
)
U
c
~
U
m
-
O
~
f4
-1
O
M
~
~
N
m
O
m
f0
N
U
U)
0
=
'Op
f
m
ff7
L
o
`
U
~
C
O
=
c
0
S
f`
L
S
Q
m
U
p
p
L
_
p
:3
0
"
m
w
y
t6
:
'D
'
~
C
fn
o
U
m
U
w
V
a)
S
vi
C
d
(a
U
w
C
C
C
6
0)
U)
L
L
C
N
(n
a)
C
a)
cu
c
-
m
CO
Z
O
2
U
M
Q
'y
a>
1
12
U
L
m
a
a)
a
aci
m
Z
c
0
a)
C
=3
y
CD
(n
a)
~
O
co
o
U
U
>
0
0
0
>
O
c
J
v
C
a)
Q
co
o
o
c
J
c
J
0-
w
y
Cc
V)
a-
a.
a)
U
U
N
a)
a)
C
LD
L m
N
.n~+
O
ca
CI
L
L
L
c
N
L
N
-0
U
U
3
ca
L
a)
~
w~
•Q
U
•p
U
U
3
-
A)
C
U C
m
V
Q
.
Q)
C
m
C
C
C
N
M
L
3
a
p
N
N
fn
p `p
p J
w d
N
N
CU
L
O
7
7
7
L
7
U
L
27
0
U
in
a>
i
U
fA
a)
U
U
w!
t
(°a
U
Q
Q
L
O
>
O
>
O
>
O
L
O >
m
a)
fn
0
L
Z
Q
O
Q
E
f
a
m
fn
.
a)
x
'
L
a
S
a
i N
(D
al
S
S
2
N
M
N
2
'm
Of
Of
0
~
N
m
2
Qz
QU
>
>
co
l
z
Q
Q
Q
Z.
Q
U
Q
z
>
>
m
>
U
U
Q
(n
a>
N
C
O
N
L0
V•
d'
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
-
-
d
L
O
r'
w
4t
C
1`: C
dd
b
OA
rn
c
p
c
y
~
m
(6
a)
y
d
p
C
_
C
a>
Q
C
p
O
o
p
N
a)
(L6
2
C
p
V
-
m
U
U
C
O
C
O
C
Q
a
E
a~
EE
co
co
a>
;
Gi.
Z
(D
J
C
C
CD
U
S
C
O
C
a)
L
.
co
O
O
co
c
O
O
N
>
m
0
C9
CD
(D
c)
a)
0
C-)
z
c
-
co
co
L,
N
a)
(n
2
E
(n
(n
Q)
-0
0
U
L
M
(n
(n
O
m.
(U
2
U
0
(n
J
t
L
2
3
a
L
L
co
a)
O
-a
O
W
(n
w
Q
U
O
S
vii
ai
U
C
y
N
p
U
'V
N
m
C
t°
(6
°
~
°
~
o
i
m
o
0
o
~
o
r
>
a
a
n
f
n
n
c
n
f
w
rn
a
a~
Q
m
0
o
c
a~
m
O
r
c
,
12
O
c
a~
U
U
L
7
H
O
C
~
C
d
O
d
>
>
U
C
j
O
CL
c
U)
d
o
a
U
U)
U
(n
O
Q
~
wc
t
a)
E
ca
S
cc
ca
a)
S
S
L
E
c
E
c
c
E
0
(D
Z
c
y
y
C
cr,
O
U
c
O
V
2
z-
c
O
C:
y
C
U
a)
d
a)
a>
aD
c
a>
a
D
c
c
N
n`
o
E
E
o
2
A
w-
:2
o
(
o
0
~D
`
as
o
o
-0
~
L)
c
D
a:
EE
U
i2
m
EG
U
U
0
~
O
-
o
-
~
o
15
O
c
U)
E
(n
O
w
a
Q
U
N
O
(0
f0
-L
a)
m
m
O
N
U
2
-
76
U
w
W
M
C
D
E
>
0
0
cn
r
0
0
>
L
cq
z
c'
E2
>
-
a
o
0
0
~
v,
C
c
E
c
c
uvi
c
c
U
~
cr,
~
U)
vvi
ai
c
U)
c
(n
c
cr,
cr.
c
am
:
L.L
N
O
S
S
a)
a)
ED
ty
S
FV
y
2
~
/
a'
0
0
S
Q)
w
a)
o
L
o
L
as
Q' /
a j
L
S
N
>
[O
U
D
m
m
D
O
m
m
>
0
>1
01
>
0
D
U
0
m
>
U
01
0
co
>
C7
0
C)
H
d
~ N
C
-
-
4t d
,
'
r
r
~
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
',t
N
N
U)
d
V
fq
a~
0
y
a~
U
c
~
~
U
N
m
C
p
C
O
j
ui
m
U
C
U
0
p
L
w
Q
U
C
N
(n
y
Q
N
C
C
a)
c
a)
•o
c
U
CO
N
a
a)
-
U
E
a
i
D
U
E
m
-
-
m
O
E
U
€
ca
c
6
c
d
U
o
a
•5
w
5
U
c
y
E
E
7
y
m
w
-o
-
n
o
m
E
E
`
U
U
O
.2?
y
J
IM
L
N
O
ca
7
Q
T
m
0
cv
a
c
co
C
m
d
a
O
-
o
2
oy.
aa)
a
c
j
U
o
E
2
~
a
O
a
~
y
~
~
0
Q
~
Q
U
W
I
Q
E
U
U
.
U
m
(D
o
U)
LL
N
2
=
'
,
O
m
c
U
k
I
>
Y
Y
0
'
o
V
7
D
~
"
C
=
a
O
N
i
O
O
d
N
C
f0
O
a)
9, 7
O
O
(n
N
O
S
2
%
7
Q
N
C
O
a)
a)
L
-
fn
m
0
0
10
D
D
D
w
LL
LL
u
C7
_
-
7
0
a
.
cn
cn
>
>
>
>
CD
2
m
cn
M
v
rn
a
C
f0
a
C
O
0
a
V)
C
F"
U
.n
0-
a
f0
E
S
N
c
v
°U
Z.
7
u
O
w
c
m
C
O
N
f4
f0
CO
2
2
2
O
C
C
C
C
~
U
~
~
U
U
O
~
c
C
d
y
c
O
~
c
N
c
O
c
C
d
C
N
o
3
U
U
>
>
(n
U)
C
N
O
N
O
N
W
C
L
a~
CO
E
3
L
E
3
L
N
co
N
cn
N
U)
U)
E
E
O
2
O
N
O
(D
2
2
CD
O
D
U
0
0
0
y
d
w y
Q
e-
r
r
r
ft CL
N
d
U)
'a
t0
R
C
O
y
N
(
~
y
0
D
'c
C
y
y
O
d
CL
N
Q
L
O
LL
c
V
N
a
o
E
w
°
a)
f6
°
-
>
Q
m
U
~
~
~
in
i
n
~
~
Ln
m
N
cm
m
d
c
m
n.
Appendix C - Resource Analysis
Deschutes County Transportation Coordination Project
a. Provider Inventory
This inventory is based primarily on the Transportation Resources Survey conducted by the Deschutes County
Transportation Coordination Project Steering Committee, as well as previous surveys and research conducted by
COIC. The goals of the resource analysis process include:
• To identify gaps in transportation service in the region
• To identify resources that are available as we begin working to create a coordinated community transportation
system
Following is a list of providers that provide services within Deschutes County:
Identified Deschutes County Transportation Providers
Operator
Class
Type of Service
Adventure Taxi Service
private
cab company
American Smile Transport
non-profit
client transport
Bend Area Transit
public
transit provider
Bend City Cab Company
private
cab company
Bend La Pine School District
public
student transport
Bend Metro Parks and Rec District
public
client transport
Black Butte Ranch Employee Shuttle
private
employee shuttle
Boys and Girls Club of Central Oregon
non-profit
client transport
Central Oregon Breeze and Central Oregon
Airport Shuttle
private
bus company
Central Oregon Cabulance
private
cab company
Central Cascade Lines
non-profit
bus company
Central Oregon Charters
private
bus company
Central Oregon Community College
public
Student transport
Central Oregon Council on Aging
non-profit
Dial-A-Ride
COIC/Crook County
public
Dial-A-Ride
Central Oregon Parks and Rec. District
public
client transport
Central Oregon Resources for Independent
Living
non-profit
client transport
Columbia Aircraft Employee Shuttle
private
employee shuttle
Crook County Veterans Transport
public
client Shuttle
DHS Volunteer Services
public
client transport - volunteer drivers
Executive Limousine and Shuttle
private
cab company
Grant County Transportation District - People
Mover
public
general public
Green Energy Transportation and Tour
private
cab company
High Desert Express
private
cab company
High Desert Wheelchair Transport
private
cab company
Interfaith Volunteer Caregivers
non-profit
client transport - volunteer drivers
Interstate Tours
private
charter bus company
Mt. Bachelor Employee Shuttle
private
employee shuttle
Opportunity Foundation of Central Oregon
non-profit
client transport
Owl Taxi
private
cab company
Neighbor Impact Head Start
non-profit
client transport
Redmond School District
public
_
student transport
Redmond Taxi
private
cab company
Residential Assistance Program
non-profit
client transport
Sisters School District
public
student transport
Sunriver Resort Employee Shuttle
private
employee shuttle
Inter-community Providers: The following providers offer transportation services between Deschutes County
communities:
A. Sisters to Bend:
• American Smile
• Bend City Cab
• Cascade Shuttle
• Central Oregon Cabulance
• High Desert Wheelchair
• Oregon Department of Human Services - Volunteer Services
B. Sisters to Redmond;
• Black Butte Ranch employee shuttle
• American Smile
• Bend City Cab
• Cascade Shuttle
Central Oregon Cabulance
• High Desert Wheelchair
• Oregon Department of Human Services - Volunteer Services
C. Redmond to Send.
• COCOA's Madras Dial-A-Ride offers service to Bend on Thursdays, with stops in Redmond en route
• Columbia Air employee shuttle
• Central Oregon Breeze
• Green Energy Transportation
• American Smile
• Bend City Cab
• Cascade Shuttle
• Central Oregon Cabulance
• High Desert Wheelchair
• Oregon Department of Human Services - Volunteer Services
D. Madras to Redmond.
• COCOA's Madras Dial-A-Ride offers service to Bend on Thursdays, with stops in Redmond en route.
• Central Oregon Breeze
• American Smile
• Bend City Cab
• Cascade Shuttle
• Central Oregon Cabulance
• High Desert Wheelchair
• Oregon Department of Human Services - Volunteer Services
E. Prineville to Redmond,,
• COIC's Crook County Dial-A-Ride offers service to Redmond on Thursdays, with interconnection to the
COCOA service to Bend
• Crook County Veteran's Transportation
• Central Oregon Breeze
• American Smile
Deschutes County Coordinated Human Services Public Transportation Plan Page 37
• Bend City Cab
• Cascade Shuttle
• Central Oregon Cabulance
• High Desert Wheelchair
• Oregon Department of Human Services -Volunteer Services
F. Prineville to Bend.
• Columbia Air employee shuttle
• Central Oregon Breeze (via Redmond)
• American Smile
• Bend City Cab
• Cascade Shuttle
• Central Oregon Cabulance
• High Desert Wheelchair
• Oregon Department of Human.Services - Volunteer Services
G. La Pine to Bend:
• Sunriver Resort employee shuttle
• Central Cascade Lines
• COCOA Dial-a-Ride, once per week
• American Smile
• Bend City Cab
• Cascade Shuttle
• Central Oregon Cabulance
• High Desert Wheelchair
• Oregon Department of Human Services - Volunteer Services
Deschutes County Coordinated Human Services Public Transportation Plan Page 38
I if
m
(U
_
v
a
a
u
~
u
cu
Q)
a
$
u
u
u
B
o
Ul
t
U
N
fo
N
-
N
N
E
O
u
u
fo
~
u
u
U
U
m
a
cu
m
y
c
v
u
io
3
u
~i
3
t
3
r
3
ro
u
u
c°
%
c
v
3
a~
f°
0
3
t
v
1°
1
Z
Q
f9
c
3
E
V
O
N
O
-VJ
O
p
u
N
r0
U
4
a
co
.0
L
N
ON C~ C, ^ M C,
al CD C,
y
N
C)
CD
t+1
O D
000 RyO
o0
N
N
N
N O O C O
C
O~
~F
_q)
ni
N
a
N
'O
c
N
to
.
•r`
otS
co
Ln
ro
Ln
Ln
LM
'i
v
ko
Ln
v
r`o
Ln
`r
e
y e
3
0
>
?
0
c
C
`
•a
m '
O
N
_0
C7 V)
O
E
v
~
n o°'n
n"
y
u
u0.
~
g
9 A
U
C
41
C
LL
A
VI
t.
r-1
~
V a
.
~
N
U)
N
m
'
In
C
L
d
y Z'
ro"
c
>
>
7
c
>
c
>
~
c
rv
c
c
C .Y ~
'
O
c
a
>
>
>
N
c
c
c
O
C
5
In
*-I
.-i
01
N
N
N
> > 7
N >
>
>
V1
>
V1
N
a°
d
c :
t''
L
O1
(D
o
~
3
y
=
y
V
V
c
0
N
p
O
V
B
O
c
ME
F-
'
C
m
c
3
a y
'm
c
m
a
o
~
,
L
K
V
dd
E
~
H
C
W
u
to
a
io
s
M
r~,
a
o
s
c
.
0
to
C
'c
c
u
c
a
y
~
c
V
m v
f
V
c
V
y
L
a
t
p
O
O
`
a
a10'
H
i
0~
0 0
O
c
a E
u
o
E
.
>
x
W
3
O
FA
(A
Q
O
N L.
d
jC d
p
cm
Q
B
-'1
.4
c
L1
t!
F-
c
d
b
fi
V
O Q
O
OC
D
O
O
S
0
N
7
O
O
O
N
+
+
d
y
=
m
L
>
0
c
ul
H
,
o
y
b a
b
v
v
b
u
c
M
r
s
4
E
r
w
w
M
o
a0i
w
cy
O M
~
0
0
d
O'
o~
c
O
Q
CO
Co
Co
m
m
u
U
U E
U
U
U
O
W
C7
C7
=
_
n
i
O
v
y
.a
3
B
~
d
l
C
u
a
n
U
L
c
L
D
L
1 k`
00
W
Q,
.W
4
-
W.
rl
N
v-1
0.
~
.O
V)
q)
V)
(n
41)
U)
c
>
Ln
N
L
{U/1
LU
U
~
=3
d
r4
N
>
n
M
~
.M-1
c
d
E
R
t!
V
Of
vii
O
c
Q
a
v~,
G
"a
q
0
V
0
N
y
{.i
{L
L
C
.
y
N
=
v
O
M
°
t! c
y
o
m
om
O~
FA
c
c
:
E
'a
y
f
z
0 0
it
Vf
co
ce
(A
N
m
a
c
O
L
0
N
c
_U
a
U
cn
C
~O
E
M
x
0
c
v
O
c
7
s
7
cu
au
0
U
Q'
7
n
a:
v
.
0
CL
o
-
V
C
n
m
L
d
~ - '
c
O
a,
4
u
v
tG
a)
cu
:o
.n
B
to
Lu
. =
Ol
>
co
'0
;a
O
o,
o
10
n
:3
n
v
o
n
o
o.
>
D.
>
CL
m
m
3
Ln
v
!9
c
n
L
~~pp
U
UJ
cu
c
L1
(LO
T
T
(A
C
w
'V
O
C
C
t
'0
L
'D
~~QQQnnn
E
C
-
U'
W
D
m
U
O~
Im
W
W
W
O
C7
r:
O
Ln
~
(A
Ln
'-L
t' N
0
E
^
V) M
a
~
QC L
YO
O
j,
N
ti
1
0
L
M
E
E a
L
a
E
E
O
a
o
y
f0
¢ o
m
E
.
a.+
t!1 O
M
O
O
m
C
r0
LIj
0 00
N
C:
M O
O
O
00
S
N
S
O
0
7
E
C
o
'p O
o
V,
O
C M
`
3
E
o y
co
ar,
a) n
Q)
(u
m
a~
(D
,
°
0
¢
°
m
a
c
~
~
n
~m
3
+
a3
c
i
0
o
M
m
U)
is
LL
~o
LL
'
n
LL
E
n O CL
O
o T
n n M
L
00
L
L71
0o
io
llN//~~
ai
>
.
L
C
L0
L
L
LL
LL
LL
C
0
A .
C
C n,
-
c
o
c c
CU
c
v
c
v
c
ai
c
C
U
W
p
t~3
C
~ Lp
a
C w
E
~
a
a
a
~
a
O
(
y
> O
~
v
aL
i
_Qj
E
L
c
E
a~ c
Ov
c
p
U.
CU
-0
19
i
>E~
T
T
~a~i
m
c
ra
c
Lo
c
Lv
w
c~
m
ai
c
x
0i
c
'M m a~0i
X
vci
d
aEi
aEi
~
aEi
y v
O
o
LL
O
O
O vL to
,-r
-L
I L 10
O
0
O
+
O
LL
t
0
f
C
'D >
c
rn
aw
L^
v
39
{B
~
c
a L
p
o c
n _ X o_
Ey
V)
p
c~ar
c
c~
cu -0
2: c
c:
0
'0
4)
~e
u
if
v''
c
~E
C:
o
E
c E
C:
=Cma~
Q1
Q
to
C
,~/1
m
E N O O v
E L O
CL'
a)
C 4, N 7
Cl
J•
to
(n
'O C L
CU -a r
C
IV M,
OC
O
E
C
0
L O E a
2-o
t~
O
O
C L
C t0 j
V
C
:3 (u
yy
.Z
V
-o
`
X O
O
x
c O
OL
)
y
O
01
O
-0 -
C
L
Gf
Oi'..
ro
d
m
d
E
c
c
m c
o~ a d
r.
m
ai ~ a E
E
v
f2
3
ai
O
a a~
B E E
" L
to
'
'D
'O
.0
'O
E
-6
;4 0 T t
N > 'C
°
~
V
C
N >
'
C:
>
W
47
v ^ C
o►-
"
9
c
a
~
c
c
C
°a
v
c
m
cn.c
mHt
`
~co
a
m
L=
o
u
O
Ec>
`9
>
V
c
`
c
U
~WC:CL
- a
L
.
t
co
t
a
n
a
i
o
v
00a
a
I
- °
a
`
d
~o
oL
d
H
C
v
d
og
w
d
o
m
o
~
C,
CL
0!
L
o
c
p
L
U)
E
Loo
u C
L
cm
•C
C
d
~
i
C
U
(A
m
V
0
0
~i
c
7
>t
Vl
L
p.,
O
dl
c
i
d
pC
b
c
0
O
a
Q
U
O J
V
`y
~
V
y
H
Q
O
L
d
L
U'
I a
:
y
La
X
O
4j
y c
d
Q
2i'
o
A
R
C
d
F
m
o
OQ
e
L
O
D
U
O
m
C
°
o
0
.
Q
L
o
m
0
q
y
CL
E
V
4-1
O
E
c
c
N
c
V
c
c
U
O
H
=
?
c
~ O'
D
Q
O
m
m
0
m
m
O
co
O
v0
O
u
O
u
O
u
0
S.,
O
v
o
.
c7E
O
0)
a
c
a
c
O
0
a
c
rL0
H
u
a
c
0
0
m
'Z
a
~
v
N
U
D
u
YJ
C
m
U
E
Gq
N
(
V
'O
'
U
.O
O
U
(n
w
u
v
2
cm
C7
>
o,
O
=
mo
w
a
s
n
LL
LL
LL
n
~
LL N
Y
I
v
3
a
a~i
c
O
T
N E
i0
LL
t0
>
i
E
ri
c
c
a
'0
c
0
'D
w
c
-
(0
'
c
v
0
0
Q)
0
0
0
0
lL v
LL
L
O
0
~
L°
o
3
O
L
U
v
cC
c
c
3
:L
~
0
m
v
E
LL
u°
z
c
3
o
.
O
8 °
3
c
w
a
(U
w
Cg
as
cs
is
d
L
e
E
c
i
y
}1
d
F..
O
a
b
L
t
c
0
v
i
R
`
G
CL
N
7
Ip
Ny
G
cp
s
s
c
=
0
III
3
p
9
O
`
c
A
LM
W
t!
t!
O
EM
y
j
.
y
r
O
to
H
A
c
m
a
c
W
c
Q
Q
'
a~
c
O
d
0p
J
O
La
t
O
CL
t
c
-
2!
2M
P
c
0
C7
S
s
N
w
00
Z
Vf
m
a
Vl
N
N
O1
a
0
0
°
a
C
L~
r
_U
a
Z
N
c
ro
E
a~
~o
c
'O
O
C
Q7
l.!
7
u
0
s a
c. Other transportation resources
Cascades East Ride Center - Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council (COIC)
The Cascades East Ride Center (CERC) is a medical ride brokerage that provides non-emergency rides to Medicaid
eligible clients in Central Oregon. The CERC has a call center staff of four who schedule medical rides and perform
dispatch services for the Crook County Dial-a-Ride.
Breakdown of CERC for FY 2005-2006:
a. Total Number of Medical Rides - 32,391
Breakdown:
Stretcher Car - 84
Wheel Chair Vans -10,222
Taxi Cabs - 22,058
Secured Transport - 27
b. Total Cost of Rides - $774,513
c. Average Cost per Ride (including administration) - $35.96
d. Administrative Capacity
COIC/CERC Call Center: The CERC Call Center provides computerized ride scheduling and dispatch services for the
Medical Ride Brokerage and the Crook County Dial-A-Ride system.
COIC/CERC Administration: The COIC provides transportation provider billing, transportation provider quality
assurance, and other associated administrative services for the Medical Ride Brokerage.
Commute Options of Central Oregon: Commute Options administers and helps start up several vanpool and
other "transportation demand management" services within Central Oregon.
Deschutes County: Deschutes County's STF Coordinator staffs the STF Committee, and provides STF reports (to
ODOT Public Transit Division) and fiscal administration.
e, Public Transportation Funding Sources
A variety of federal, state, and local funding sources can be used to implement public transportation projects and
programs. A brief description of each of the fund sources, along with project programming information is provided
below.
Federal Funding Programs
In August 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) was signed into law. SAFEATEA-LU built on the initiatives established in the two
prior transportation legislation packages. Under these Acts, State and local governments were given more flexibility in
determining transportation solutions, whether transit, highways, or multimodal projects.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Funding
The Federal Transit Administration carries out the federal mandate to improve public transportation systems. It is the
principal source of federal assistance to help urban areas (and, to some extent, non-urban areas) plan, develop, and
improve comprehensive public transportation systems. The funding programs administered by the FTA include, but
are not limited to, the following:
Sections 53031530415305 Metropolitan & Statewide Planning
Section 5307 Large Urban Areas
Section 5309 Discretionary Capital Program
Section 5310 Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities
Section 5311 Rural and Small Urban Areas Program
Section 5311(b)(3) Rural Transit Assistance Program
Section 5311(c) Public Transportation on Indian Reservations Program
Section 5316 Jobs Access and Reverse Commute Program
Section 5317 New Freedom Program
University Transportation Centers Program (TEA-21 5505)
A summary of these programs follows:
SECTION 5303 FUNDS - METROPOLITAN AND STATEWIDE PLANNING
Transit Section 5303 funds are part of the Transit Planning and Research Program. The Metropolitan planning funds
are allocated to states under a formula apportionment. Typically, the 5303 allocations are spent for transit planning
and coordination within metropolitan planning areas (areas with populations greater than 50,000). The match rate is
generally 80% federal, 20% state or local.
SECTION 5307 FUNDS - LARGE URBAN AREAS
The Section 5307 Formula Grant Program makes funds available on the basis of a statutory formula to all urbanized
areas in the country. For capital projects, the match rate is generally 80% federal, 20% state or local. Capital funds
are used for transit maintenance (e.g., replacing buses), as well as other projects. For operating assistance, the
match rate is 50% federal, 50% state or local. (Only Small Urban Areas - 50,000-200,000 population are allowed to
use 5307 for operations.)
SECTION 5309 FUNDS - DISCRETIONARY CAPrrAL PROGRAM
The transit capital investment program (Section 5309) provides capital assistance for three primary activities: 1) new
and replacement buses and facilities, 2) modernization of existing rail systems, and 3) new fixed guideway systems
(New Starts). Congress fully earmarks all funding available through this program. The match for New Starts funding
is generally 80% federal, 20% local. Prior legislation required that at least 5.5% of the total funding allocation be
used in non-urbanized areas (have not confirmed whether this carried into SAFETEA-LU).
SECTION 5310 FUNDS - ELDERLY PERSONS & PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
The Section 5310 program provides transportation services for the elderly and persons with disabilities. The funds
may go to private nonprofit organizations or to public bodies that coordinate service. Funds can continue to be used
for capital costs but acquisition of transportation services under contract, lease or other arrangements and state
program administration are also eligible expenses. Section 5310 funds are awarded on an annual competitive basis.
Capital projects are eligible for funding. The match rate is generally 80% Federal, 20% local.
SECTION 5311 FUNDS - RURAL AND SMALL URBAN AREAS
This program provides formula funding to states for the purpose of supporting public transportation in areas of less
than 50,000 population. It is apportioned in proportion to each State's non-urbanized population. Funding may be
used for capital, operating, State administration, and project administration expenses. Each state must use 15% of
its annual apportionment to support intercity bus service, unless the Governor certifies that these needs of the state
are adequately met. Projects to meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Clean Air Act, or
bicycle access projects, may be funded at 90% Federal match. The maximum FTA share for operating assistance is
50% of the net operating costs.
SECTION 5311(B)((3) FUNDS - RURAL TRANSIT ASSISTANCE
The Rural Transit Assistance Program provides a source of funding to assist in the design and implementation of
training and technical assistance projects and other support services tailored to meet the needs of transit operators
in nonurbanized areas. This program has both State and national program components. The State program provides
an annual allocation to each State to develop and implement training and technical assistance programs in
conjunction with the State's administration of the Section 5311 formula assistance program. The national program
provides for the development of information and materials for use by local operators and State administering
agencies and supports research and technical assistance projects of national interest. There is no Federal
requirement for a local match.
SECTION 5311(C) FUNDS - PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS
The purpose of this program is to provide public transportation on Indian reservations through a set aside of Section
5311 Program funds for direct grants to Indian Tribes. Allocations of these funds and terms and conditions for
awarding grants are to be determined after outreach to stakeholders.
SECTION 5316 FUNDS - JOBS ACCESS AND REVERSE COMMUTE
The twofold purpose of the JARC program is (1) to develop transportation services designed to transport low-income
individuals to and from jobs, and (2) to develop transportation services for residents of urban centers and rural and
suburban areas to suburban employment opportunities. Emphasis is placed on projects that use public transportation
services. The Federal/local share is 50/50.
Deschutes County Coordinated Human Services Public Transportation Plan Page 44
SECTION 5317 FUNDS - NEW FREEDOM PROGRAM
The purpose of this program is to encourage services and facility improvements to address the transportation needs
of persons with disabilities that go beyond those required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Funds will be
allocated through a formula based upon the population of persons with disabilities in each state. Funds can be used
for capital and operating costs. This is a new program and the rules specifying its uses have not been finalized.
Final guidance states all projects funded with New Freedom must be NEW services AND go beyond the minimum
stands of the ADA.
UNIVERSITY TRANSPORTATION CENTERS PROGRAM (TEA-21 5505)
Grants for university transportation research are awarded to non-profit institutions of higher learning by the Research
and Special Programs Administration. This program focuses on the transfer of knowledge relevant to national, state,
and local issues, and builds professional capacity of the transportation workforce. Research and education activities
address transportation planning, analysis and management, with special emphasis on increasing the number of
highly skilled individuals entering the field of transportation. Participating universities conduct basic and applied
research, education programs that include multidisciplinary course work and participation in research, and ongoing
programs of technology transfer that make research results available to potential users. The Federal share is 50%.
Portland State University is a designated University Transportation Center. There may be opportunities for planning
and research assistance projects in central Oregon.
State Funding Programs
STATE SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION FUND (STF)
ODOTs Public Transit section administers a *discretionary grant program derived from state cigarette tax revenues
that provides supplementary support for elderly and disabled transportation services. A competitive process has been
established for awarding STF discretionary funds. STF funds are programmed on an annual basis.
*Discretionary Grant Program
Biennial solicitation for mainly capital projects that benefit seniors, people with disabilities, and low income
individuals. Public Transit Division distributes 5310, New Freedom, ]arc, STF discretionary (portion not formula),
Intercity, and 5311 capital funds through this program.
Seventy five percent of the annual STF funding is distributed using a population-based formula to each transportation
district or the county if there is not a district, and to Indian Tribes. These recipients are the STF Agencies and act as
the governing body of their portion of the STF.
Section 5311 is also distributed on a formula basis to general public systems.
Local Options
PROPERTY TAXES
Local property taxes can be used to fund various transportation services, including public transportation services. The
property tax caps imposed by Measure 5 may limit the ability to use this funding source.
FAREsox REVENUE
Farebox revenues can help cover a percentage of the operating expense of a transit system.
TRANSIENT ROOM TAX
Many communities in central Oregon levy a tax on gross room receipts on hotel/motel rooms. These funds could be
used to fund public transportation services.
PAYROLL TAX
Payroll taxes are used in some areas to support public transportation operations.
FRANCHISE FEES
Many communities in central Oregon charge franchise fees to various utilities that use public right-of-way. These
revenues could be used to help fund public transportation services.
Deschutes County Coordinated Human Services Public Transportation Plan
Page 45
Appendix D - Project Participants
Deschutes County Transportation Coordination Project
Last Name
First Name
Organization
Alsbury
Rose
La Pine Chamber of Commerce
Arnold
Chuck
Bend Downtowners Association
Azbell
Tom
Central Oregon Council on Aging
Baney
Tammy
Deschutes County Commissioner
Belzer
Barbara
Interfaith Action for Justice
Blanco
Osmar
T-Mobile
Bryce
Robert W.
Central Oregon Veterans Outreach
Coleman
Sherrin
Oregon Department of Transportation
Curley
Kim
Commute Options of Central Oregon
Daly
Mike
Deschutes County Commissioner
Daniele
Gary
WorkSource Central Oregon Disability Navigator
Deke
Tyler
Bend Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
DeVoney
Mark
Oregon Department of Transportation
Drew
Kathy
Deschutes County Mental Health
Etzel
Richard
Interfaith Action for Justice
Farrell
Lynne
Interfaith Volunteer Caregivers
Flood
Allan
Bend Community Action Team
Friend
Karen
Cascades East Ride Center/COIC
Gardner
Lin
Oregon Department of Human Services
Gerachty
Patty
Oregon Department of Human Services
Harrison
Wendy
Oregon Vocational Rehabilitation Services/COIC
Horton
Don
Bend Park & Recreation
Jorgensen
Steve
Deschutes County
Lewis
Lupita
Central Cascade Lines
Lewis
Ray
Central Cascade Lines
Mallea
Janet
Central Oregon Resources for Independent Living
Maszk
Carol
Central Oregon Council on Aging
Mills
Cheryl
Sisters Chamber of Commerce
Minisce
Jessica
Express Personnel
Monson
Jeff
Commute Options of Central Oregon
Morris
Roy
Oregon Employment Department/Veterans Rep.
Nielson
Jeff
Bend Chamber of Commerce
Ornelas
Heather
Bend Area Transit
Otteni
Kristi
La Pine Community Action Team
Parsons
Ron
Oregon Department of Human Services
Deschutes County Coordinated Human Services Public Transportation Plan Page 46
i
Last Name
First Name
Organization
Patterson
Michael
City of Redmond
Peterson
Gary
Redmond School District
Prince
Bud
Redmond Economic Development
Rexford
John
Bend-La Pine School District
Ruel
Nancy
La Pine Community Action Team
Russell
Peter
Deschutes County Community Development
Sande
Eric
Redmond Chamber of Commerce
Schindel
Mark
Old Farm District Neighborhood Association
Schmidt
Mike
Bend Chamber of Commerce
Shaber
Kendell
Deschutes County Commission on Children & Families
Sharp
Yesenia
Bend Community Action Team and Latina Leadership,
Education and Cultural Center
Spreadborough
Andrew
Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council
Stein
Eileen
City of Sisters
Stevens
Lindsey
Central Oregon Resources for Independent Living
Thom
Laurie
Redmond Community Action Team
Timchak
Karen
Central Oregon Partnership
Trego
Judy
Community Action Team of Sisters
Tucker
Lynda
Central Cascade Lines
Ure
Judith
Deschutes County Administration
Van Der Hyde
Dinah
Oregon Department of Transportation
Vizzini
Dan
Oregon Solutions
Weeber
Bob
Opportunity Foundation
White
Jeff
Central Oregon Coalition for Access
Wilson
Darrel
Opportunity Foundation
Zinkraf
Gene
Central Oregon Community College
Deschutes County Coordinated Human Services Public Transportation Plan
Page 47
Appendix E - Outreach Invitees
Deschutes County Transportation Coordination Project
COIC and Deschutes County sent invitation letters to a broad list of stakeholders, inviting participation on the project
Core Team. The invitation letters were signed by Deschutes County Commissioner Mike Daly, who served as the
project convener. Letters were sent in March, 2006. Additional outreach and invitations continued throughout the
Core Team meeting schedule, including targeted outreach in March, 2007, to organizations and agencies that serve
special populations.
Heather
Alan
Michael
Eileen
John
Bill
Andy
Rick
Steve
Susan
David
Richard
Patrick
Lin
Ron
Jeffrey
Carol
Darrell
Jeff
Tyler
Martin
Bob
Sherrin
Lynne
Karen
Richard
Don
Katie
Carrie
Betty
Corky
Doug
Gary
Ted
James
Jay
Roger
Robert W.
Kirk
Mike
Eric
Cheryl
Dave
Ornelas Bend Dial-a-Ride
Unger
City of Redmond
Patterson
City of Redmond
Stein
City of Sisters
Hummell
City of Bend
Friedman
City of Bend
Anderson
City of Bend
Root
City of Bend
Jorgenson
Deschutes County
Ross
Deschutes County
McDaniels
Central Oregon Partnership
Gorby
Community of LaPine
Carey
DHS
Gardner
DHS
Parsons
DHS
White
COCOA
Maszk
COCOA
Wilson
Opportunity Foundation
Monson
Commute Options
Deke
Bend MPO
Loring
ODOT
Bryant
ODOT
Coleman
ODOT
Farrell
Interfaith Volunteer Caregivers
Friend
COIC
Gorby
Veterans
Horton
Bend Park & Recreation
Hammer Central Oregon Parks & Recreation District
Ward
Sisters Organization for Activities & Recreation
Shuler
COCAAN Head Start
Senecal
COCAAN
Nelson
Bend-La Pine School District
Peterson
Redmond School District
Thonstad
Sisters School District
Middleton
Central Oregon Community College
Casbon
OSU Cascades
Lee
Economic Development for Central Oregon
Bryce
Central Oregon Veterans Outreach
Utzinger
Boys and Girls Clubs of Central Oregon
Schmidt
Bend Chamber of Commerce
Sande
Redmond Chamber of Commerce
Mills
Sisters Chamber of Commerce
Wilkins
Sunriver Chamber of Commerce
Deschutes County Coordinated Human Services Public Transportation Plan Page 48
Rose
Aslbury
La Pine Chamber of Commerce
Osmar
Blanco
T-Mobile
Dan
Rutherford
Mt. Bachelor
Jerry
Andrus
Eagle Crest
Scott
Morris
Sunriver Resort
Don
Barbour
Jeld Wen Corporation
Greg
Cole
Black Butte Ranch
Jim
Diegel
St. Charles Medical Center - Bend
Todd
Sprague
St. Charles Medical Center - Redmond
Kirk
Schueler
Brooks Resources
Cindy
Pessemier
Central Oregon Breeze
Alana
Audette
Central Oregon Visitors Assocation
Bud
Prince
Redmond Economic Development
Todd
Sprague
Cascade Heathcare Community
Katie
Hammer
Central Oregon Parks & Recreation District
Carrie
Ward
Sisters Organization for Activities & Recreation
Betty
Shuler
COCAAN Head Start
Ted
Thonstad
Sisters School District
Dan
Rutherford
Mt. Bachelor
Sunriver Resort
Don
Barbour
Jeld Wen Corporation
Jim
Diegel
St. Charles Medical Center - Bend
Kirk
Schueler
Brooks Resources
Cindy
Pessemier
Central Oregon Breeze
Alana
Audette
Central Oregon Visitors Association
Lynne
Farrell
Interfaith Volunteer Caregivers
Heather
Lynch
Oregon Vocational Rehabilitation Services
Gary
Daniele
WorkSource Central Oregon Disability Nav.
Kendal
Shaber
Commission on Children and Families
Mike
Viegas
Coalition for Access
Roy
Morris
Oregon Employment Department
Angie
Albiar
Oregon Department of Human Services
Scott
Johnson
Deschutes County Mental Health
Stu
Steinberg
Central Oregon Veterans Outreach
Wendy
Harrison
Oregon Voc. Rehabilitation Srvcs./COIC
Lindsey
Stevens
C.O. Resources for Independent Living
Deschutes County Coordinated Human Services Public Transportation Plan
Page 49