2008-813-Minutes for Meeting June 16,2008 Recorded 8/22/2008COUNTY OFFICIAL
NANCYUBLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERKDS CJ 2008.813
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 0812212008 08;16;11 AM
II II I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII III
2 0 -813
Do not remove this page from original document.
Deschutes County Clerk
Certificate Page
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
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
MINUTES OF WORK SESSION
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
MONDAY, JUNE 169 2008
Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke and Michael M. Daly; Commissioner
Tammy Melton was out of the office. Also present were Dave Kanner, County
Administrator; Mark Pilliod, Legal Counsel; Tom Anderson, Community
Development Department; Tom Blust, Road Department; and one other citizen.
Chair Luke opened the meeting at 1: 30 p.m.
1. Contracting Code Update.
Mark Pilliod reviewed the proposed ordinances that would amend the
contracting code. The major reasons for presenting this now is to conform the
code to changes that arose from last year's legislative session and model rules
prepared by the Attorney General.
The legislature substantially changed the contracting rules. The County can
follow the model rules or adopt something different. Counties can opt out in
part if desired.
When the Code was adopted previously, the special service districts needed
direction as well. If there is a managing board in place, the County
Administrator can make a finding as to procurement issues as long as the
amount does not exceed $150,000.
Regarding signature authority, after the competitive process has been
completed, certain people employed by the County may be able to sign the
contracts. Department heads can sign for agreements of $25,000 or less; the
Administrator can sign for $150,000 or less; and the Board must sign any above
that amount.
Commissioner Luke said that if an agreement is with another governmental
entity, he thinks the Commissioners should be aware of it. Dave Kanner stated
that there could be a provision added regarding intergovernmental agreements.
Minutes of Administrative Work Session Monday, June 16, 2008
Page 1 of 3 Pages
Mr. Pilliod went on to explain other provisions of the proposed ordinance. He
said the draft went to the department heads several times for input already.
2. Continued Discussion of System Development Charges.
Tom Anderson said there are some unresolved issues remaining after the
hearing, such as dates of implementation, phasing and so on. He suggested
using the date of the building permit application. Dave Kanner suggested an
effective date of September 1, 2008; Commissioner Luke prefers January 1,
2009.
Commissioner Daly asked if these charges are really necessary; that perhaps the
timber dollars are not totally gone. Commissioner Luke stated that SDC's
could work for industry and the County. Mark Pilliod added that a future Board
of Commissioners could change this if desired or needed.
In regard to phasing in, Mr. Kanner said it would go from the 85% rate to the
100% rate; Tom Blust suggested that happen on January 1 2010. Andy High of
the Central Oregon Builders' Association suggested going from 85 to 90 to 95
to 100% with full implementation on January 1, 2011. The City of Redmond
phase in their over four years, and added an inflation factor the last year.
Mr. Kanner said that written comments have been received; they all seem to be
supportive but want to include things like bike lanes or similar improvements.
This issue will likely be discussed further at the July 2 or July 9 Board meeting.
3. Signature of a Letter regarding a Skyliners Road Forest Highway Route
Proposal.
Mr. Kanner stated that this proposal would allow for federal funds to eventually
rebuild Skyliners Road, which will never come up through the regular schedule.
It meets all of the criteria for a federal forest highway. However, funding could
take as long as ten years.
DALY: Move approval of Board signature of the letter, including the
signature of Commissioner Melton.
LUKE: Second.
VOTE: DALY: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
Minutes of Administrative Work Session Monday, June 16, 2008
Page 2 of 3 Pages
4. Economic Development Grant Requests.
None were offered.
5. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules.
None were discussed.
6. Other Items.
Commissioner Daly asked about increasing the tipping fee at the landfill to help
with the Road Department shortfall. He feels the tipping fee should have gone to
$10. Tom Blust replied that with the cost of paving, they are already short of
funds for preservation even if they had full timber revenue. In regard to growth,
there is not enough funding to cover new construction as well as maintenance.
Commissioner Daly said that it is a bad time to add another tax. Commissioner
Luke noted that there is never a good time to increase taxes, and no one likes
SDC's, but the Realtors and builders have signed off on it as necessary. Mr.
Blust added that if they cannot meet infrastructure needs, that will look bad, too.
Mr. Kanner stated that there are other options to also review, such as vehicle tax
allocations, some of which could go to counties instead of all to the cities.
DATED this 16th Day of June 2008 for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners.
Dennis R. Luke, Chair
tb~:=
am (Ba ey) elton, Vice Chair
17
ATTEST:
iAUX,L 4~-
Recording Secretary
chael M. Daly,'Yommissioner
Minutes of Administrative Work Session
Page 3 of 3 Pages
Monday, June 16, 2008
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., MONDAY, JUNE 16, 2008
1. Contracting Code Update - Mark Pilliod
2. Continued Discussion of System Development Charges - Tom Blust
3. Signature of a Letter regarding a Skyliners Road Forest Highway Route
Proposal
4. Economic Development Grant Requests:
5. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules
6. 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 regarding a 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.
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE
• Implementation date
- initial SDC rate of 85% shall apply to all building permits issued on or
after this date
• Phase-in date
- date after which the full 100% SDC rate will be charged
• Collection
- point at which the SDC fee will be collected (Certificate of Occupancy?)
• Payment over 10-year period
- this provision is currently in DCC
• South county SDC provision
- Properties located in the unincorporated area south of the La Pine State
Recreation Road and subject to the SDC assessed by Resolution Number
2006-010, shall pay the amount of the SDC assessed by this Resolution,
less the amount of the SDC assessed by Resolution 2006-010.
• SDC credit
- credit for projects not on adopted list
- cash redemption for SDC credits
• Appeal process
0 Discussion of written comments submitted for the record
Deschutes County Commissioners
by email with 3 attachments
June 12, 2008
Page 1 /4
Gould Testimony
RE: Deschutes County transportation SDC
I commend your taking action to replace lost timber receipts.
Attached is the most current SDC adopted by the City of Redmond.
The City of Redmond has adopted Exhibit A Recommended SDC Phasing
Schedule which shows in that in 2010, just 2 years time, Redmond's
Transportation SDC will be $ 5'300 per PM Peak Hr Trip; this translates to $5'300
per single family dwelling.
This is 82% higher than what Redmond was collecting per your chart in the SDC
Report page 18. Deschutes County's proposed SDC could be 47% higher to
reach this $5'300 rate.
Why should Deschutes County's SDC me higher than proposed?,
Because the list of Projects identified does not contain all of the County's
needed projects and it also downplays real costs associated with the
needed projects.
I commend you to finally identify the Tumalo Interchange in Deschutes County
road projects now identified at $11.25 million. This is a step in the right direction.
I would like to bring to your attention that ODOT has projected the Tumalo
interchange to be exceeding $23.4 million. (See attachment)
Using the 100+% higher figure of $23.4 million will more likely achieve project
completion than undervaluing the cost of the infrastructe needed in Tumalo.
I realize you are politically pressed by developers and Central Oregon Builders
Association to not increase their costs by levying a high SDC; heavens forbid
noone would want to move to Central Oregon because the transportation fees
are high....
I would encourage you to consider the impacts of not considering the real costs
of projects.
If our deteriorating roads are not fixed, heavens forbid who? would want to move
to Central Oregon because our roads are so bad..., and think of all of the wear
and tear on construction vehicles!, nah, a contractor wouldn't want to risk wear
on their vehicle to do business in Central Oregon...
When sufficient monies are not collected by an SDC, it becomes exponentially
harder to prioritize a project. When sufficient monies are not collected by an
SDC, it also becomes a challenge to round up monies from contributing
agencies, such as from ODOT. Why would ODOT want to prioritize it's monies in
Region 4 if financial participation from a local County , such as Deschutes
County, does not have the resources to chip in it's own part?
All the meanwhile, if a project that needs doing is not funded, the result is a time
delay. This translates to more traffic at already dangerous and failing
intersections, which in the case of Tumalo endanagers the health, safety and
welfare of our community. And in particular not funding projects translates to a
higher cost for the project because of time delay. This leads to increased ROW
costs, increased building costs, and the cost of inflation.
Time = money.
There is an assumption that Destination Resorts generate 0.32 Trip Factors in
Initial Residential Development (Appendix B Technical Analysis Table 2 Trip
Data Page 2 Trip Factor.) This information does not come from an ITE source as
per the footnote 2. Rather this data comes from a Kittleston Report funded by
private resort developers. Typically resorts minimize their traffic counts so they
minimize traffic mitigation. Resorts would pay as few fees as they can get away
with.
Only two (2) resorts were reviewed in the Kittleston Report. The counts from
Eagle Crest were diluted by the counts from Black Butte Ranch. Black Butte
Ranch is not a Goal 5 resort; only portions of Eagle Crest Resort were developed
under the Goal 5 rules. Therefore, assuming that Resorts will have the same
0.32 Trip Factor count in Future Residential Development chart is unfounded.
Since the Board of Commissioners is making this review, I would encourage
Deschutes County Roads to contribute it's own traffic counts for destination
resorts and to verify data submitted by specialty interests for accuracy.
A second assumption in the SDC methodology Exhibit B (1 page before
Appendix B Technical Analysis) 3. Destination Resorts "The County's current
policy requires destination resorts to mitigate their immediate impacts by
constructing local or project, improvements. A new resort should be held to that
standard and pay the new SDC in order to pay for its share of the system
capacity needed to serve it."
As a destination resort example: Deschutes County Planning did not require the
proposed Thornburgh Resort to mitigate their immediate impacts on Deschutes
County Roads: Cook Ave, 7th Street or 5th Streets in Tumalo. Per the
developer, this represents 20% of their traffic. Deschutes County also did not
require the proposed Thornburgh Resort mitigate for the proposed 5% traffic on
Tumalo Road. (Know that Tumalo Road at Deschutes Junction Phase II
interchange is proposed at $ 5.1 million and does not appear on the County's list
of projects for the SDC.)
Additionally, the proposed Thornburgh Resort still to this day and in the course of
the Final Master Plan review (file #M072; #MA086) has not provided counts at
their secondary access road @ Cline Falls Highway (the ROW across BLM lands
also known as the Bennett Road). If such traffic counts are not availble in the
record, how can Deschutes County calculate for or measure mitigation for the
traffic that is not quantified?. When such counts are not in the record, how does
ODOT mitigate for the traffic?
And, specifically why after repeated requests by the public asking for this data
has Deschutes County not demanded these counts be provided at this planning
stage?
So, in the case of Thornburgh Resort, ODOT is basing the Thornburgh Resort's
contributing share on a $2 milllion interchange cost based on an incomplete
traffic analysis. Why does't ODOT use the $23.4 million cost for the interchange
and demand a complete traffic impact of this proposed resort? Isn't Deschutes
County planning doing a disservice to ODOT by not providing complete
transportation analyses?
For some reason the political will has skipped over collecting for the Tumalo
interchange.
Other adjacent land uses in Tumalo have been approved over the last few years
without any contribution to this large expensive infrastructure. So, why does
Deschutes County figure an $11.25 million cost?
Regarding collecting SDC's upon final occupancy: I think in the case of
Destination Resorts, this is unwise.
There is huge amounts of heavy construction traffic, contractor traffic, sales
traffic and developer traffic that will use the roadway infrastructure many years
before a certificate of occupany is issued. Additionally, it may be that the
infrastructure is needed prior to the development and that the developer share
might be available, but the County's matching funds (or what is projected to be
collected for a specific project) will lag. This scenario could slow the completion
of the built environment. This is the case for Tumalo and previous contributions
by Eagle Crest Resort. (Tumalo has no grade separated interchange now but in
the late 1990's it was identified to be needed in 2005.) So, I think it is important to
revisit when the County will need it's funds and how this segways into some
permitting process. Perhaps through the land use approval? but most assuredly
not at the later stage of certificate of occupancy.
encourage you to be bold. The City of Redmond has done this and so can
you. Plan for the safety of our community and for the sustainable long range
growth of our community. Think of the Tumalo interchange as a gateway to the
City of Bend as it grows towards the north. Think of Deschutes Junction as a
gateway to Juniper Ridge, to 19th street and the City of Redmond, and to Crook
County.
I encourage you to revisit the following:
Value the Tumalo interchange at $23.4 million.
Include Deschutes Junction Phase II in your project list at $5.1 million, for which
County funding will be needed soon.
Revisit whether in fact Deschutes County is collecting for local impacts now..
(Thornburgh Resort @ Tumalo, Thornburgh Resort's 2ndary access Bennett
ROW@ Cline Falls Hwy, Knife River @ Tumalo, Robinson & Sons @ Deschutes
Junction)
Collect SDC's at land use approval not at final occupancy.
Imagine families and businesses wanting to live and work in Deschutes
County because of your forsight to plan well for growth.
Thank you
Nunzie Gould
19845 JW Brown Rd
Bend, OR 97701
541-420-3325
3 attachments: by email
Deschutes County SDC Project List 2008-Resolution exhibit B_5-28-2008-1.xls
(2pg)
ODOT Region 4 Potential Region 4 Modernization Projects for 2010-2013 STIP
Update and SB 566 List (3 pg)
City of Redmond Exhibit A: Recommended SDC Phasing Schedule (1 pg)
Deschutes County Commissioners 6/13/08 Page 4/4 SDC
Gould Testimony
Page 1 of 1
Tom Blust
From: Merry Ann Moore [merryann@bendcable.com]
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 4:47 PM
To: Tom Blust
Subject: Public comments: Proposed Transportation SDC for Deschutes County
I served on the 2006-7 Sisters, Oregon SDC Citizen's Advisory Committee. I am writing to express strong
support for the county's proposed implementation of SDCs to offset the added transportation costs that new
development brings to the county.
It is sensible to require developers to help offset the costs their new construction imposes on local residents. This
is especially true at a time when about one dozen new destination resorts are being planned in unincorporated
areas. As a current Deschutes County resident and taxpayer, I believe it would be unfair for me to pay increased
fees or taxes to fund new road capacity/maintenance necessitated by developments which are to meant to serve
primarily non-residents.
Another important issue I hope the SDC policy will address is requiring the "last developer in" to pay for the full
costs of road upgrades. As we are seeing in Crook County, when two, three, then four destination resorts are
proposed and sited, projected "road failure" (reaching a point where traffic cannot be safely managed) may not
occur until the third or fourth resort has submitted plans. In this instance, current residents should not be forced
to share in the great cost of big road projects that meet new capacity needs. This burden should fall on the last
developer to submit plans, thereby reflecting the true cost of these developments.
Thank you for considering my views.
\.Icrrv Ann ;Moore
69225 Hawksflight Dr.
Sisters, OR 97759
541-549.2468
nieYlS-ann crbendcable.com
6/16/2008
Tom Blust
From: Dave Kanner
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 8:01 AM
To: Tom Blust
Subject: FW: SDCs for Transportation
-----Original Message-----
From: edavidson@coinet.com [mailto:edavidson@coinet.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2008 5:41 PM
To: Board
Subject: SDCs for Transportation
Many of the roadways need improvement for bicycling!
Tnank you, Eleanor Davidson
2588 NW Monterey Pines
Bend 97701
Page 1 of 1
Tom Blust
From: Bonnie Baker
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 11:24 AM
To: Tom Blust
Subject: FW: SDC's to improve road for cyclists
FYI
From: Bob & Donna Mathers [mailto:bd247@bend broadband. com]
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 10:26 AM
To: Board
Subject: SDC's to improve road.for cyclists
Hello Commissioners,
I am a long time recreational cyclist here in Bend, OR and my wife and I ride many of the county and state roads
in Deschutes, Crook, Lane Counties as well as other parts. Some of Deschutes Co. roads are the poorest for
cyclists that we have found. Many times the roadway is repaired but not the shoulder area where bikes try to
travel. And the cars blow all trash, ie. glass, metal etc. to the sides where cyclists try to ride. So as the
population grows, we need more sweeping and repairing and widening of these lanes or shoulders.
Many of the miles of county highway are in true need of improving, especially the "bike" lanes or the non-existent
"bike" lane. Plus many miles of roadway (in the shoulder or bike area need cleaning so trash, metal, glass,
screws, nails etc. are removed). Over the past 5 or 6 years we have seen an enormous accumulation of glass in
the bike lane area. I guess it has to do with the population growth from the south and the lack of sufficient
sweeping and vacuuming.
With the gasoline prices rising many more of our citizens seem to be using their old bikes. So it seems that this is
where a small portion of the SDC money should be spent, ie. to make it safer for all concerned.
We hope that you will find a way to allocate some funds from future SDC collections to make improvements for
the self propelled.
Thank you,
Robert and Donna Mathers
Bend, OR
541-388-9822
6/5/2008
Tom Blust
From: Tammy Melton
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 4:45 PM
To: 'dirkhall@bendbroadband.com'
Cc: Tom Blust
Subject: RE: SDCs for roads
Hi Dirk-
Thank you for sharing your comments regarding the establishment of a transportation SDC in
Deschutes County. I have forwarded your email for inclusion in the public record.
In Partnership,
Tammy (Baney) Melton
Deschutes County Commissioner
Office: 541 388-6567
Cell: 541 419-2233
-----Original Message-----
From: dirkhall@bendbroadband.com [mailto:dirkhall@bendbroadband.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 12:53 PM
To: Board
Subject: SDCs for roads
I understand Deschutes County commissioners are seeking public input on SDCs for roads. I
would like to go on record supporting SDCs for roads and in particular improving the roads
for cycling like adding bike lanes, adding laws increasing the distance allowed between a
cyclist and passing car and enforcing such laws.
Dirk Hall
(541)317-5007
dirkhall@bendbroadband.com
1
Tom Blust
From: Dave Kanner
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 7:38 PM
To: Tom Blust
Subject: FW: sdc for real bike lanes
-----Original Message-----
From: cceberle@bendcable.com [mailto:cceberle@bendcable.com]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 4:11 PM
To: Board
Subject: sdc for real bike lanes
It would be great if while repaving some county roads they widen the area on the right of
the fog lines so bicyclists have at least an 18 inch lane in which to cycle. Some
overpass lanes or designated crossings at busier intersection would also be appreciated.
Thanks, Craig Eberle
1
To: Deschutes County Commissioners
From: Brenda Pace
Date: May 29, 2008
Regarding: SDC for Roads
In your deliberations, please consider the loss of historical uses for rural roads. Rural
roads used to be able to accommodate the movement of farm machinery, animals,
children walking or bicycling to school and recreational bicycling. Several rural roads
can no longer do so.
The most immediate reason for the change may be that destination resorts as well as other
developments put additional traffic on these roads but such projects have only mitigated
for intersections. Non-farm housing on EFU housing, though the numbers are smaller,
have the same impacts but do not mitigate at all.
Such roads as Redmond-Bend Highway, Cline Falls Highway and Powell Butte Highway
need very wide shoulders or perhaps a separate paved corridor to accommodate historic
and current uses. Many smaller roads are similarly afflicted like Alfalfa Market Road,
Cloverdale Road and Lower Bridge Way.
Please consider that SDCs, set at the appropriate level, could improve the ability of rural
roads to accommodate traditional uses.
Sincerely,
Brenda Pace
60738 Golf Village Loop
Bend, OR 97702
541-383-8055
jetpace@bendcable.com
TES
LL~
o MrA%AA <
Road Department
61150 SE 27th St. • Bend, Oregon 97702
(541) 388-6581 • FAX (541) 388-2719
June 12, 2008
George N. Fekaris
Transportation Planner
FHWA-Western Federal Lands
610 East Fifth Street
Vancouver, WA 98661
Re: Skyliners Road Forest Highway Route Proposal
Deschutes County is requesting that Skyliners Road, located west of Bend, OR (see
attached map) be added as a route on the Forest Highway Program.
The proposed route begins at the City limits of Bend and ends at USFS Rd. 4603 for a
total length of 8.4 miles.
The proposed route is the primary access for both winter and summer recreation use in
the Deschutes National Forest as well as serving as access to the OMSI field station
(Cascade Science Field Camp), Skyline subdivision (50 lots) and the water intake for the
City of Bend. Recreational use consists of the Tumalo Falls Recreation site, several
trailheads for mountain biking, hiking and cross-country skiing and also access to the
high county (Broken Top Trailhead). It is also heavily used by the road biking
community as witnessed by a time trials event that is held through the summer on the
lower portion of the road.
We believe that the importance of this route as a primary access to the federal lands
immediately west of Bend warrants its inclusion as a federal forest highway route.
Thank you for your consideration of our proposal.
Dennis R. Luke, Chair Tammy (Baney) Melton, Vice Chair
Michael M. Daly, Commissioner
Quality Services Performed with Pride
\ y 1 { i NO-LONIR
t 'C
1;
1 \
ty,
w
fl Z
' J
}
a -
c
{
~I
&A
S ~
~co
O
tr '
LL
(U
M
-
(U
M
N
td ~ N ryO
C
00
ho
L- o
l7 g.
Y
O
N ovwiG
N
®
C
O
a _
C V 0 D m
g
n
~
N v
= V
0
E
A
'
7
~
~
o
CU
-
i
O
U)
C
n
:
Fir-1
n
,
r-r-f
C C
aa)
2 CC T.- 6
O N ~ ~ ~ W ~pp
O U. C C
m
C
p
W
` V O
0 a_
~ c ~ o a ~ L
~ m U a ~ p
~e~^ om 3
M
N p1
N mO li~ O.
ROU @
b O uu
L U O
C N N S
A Z NS~-pC 3~d
t C O N 7
t d m-Ll'
FOE>v no
r
o .-2,4 iF
a`) o c
` w m
m
N 49 0
Y N 1:3 O X T
U) U U) U U
Y