Loading...
2008-839-Minutes for Meeting August 25,2008 Recorded 9/11/2008COUNTY NANCYUBLANKENSHIP,F000NTY CLERKOS U NONE COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 11111111110111111111,1111 III Ell 09/11/2008 09:46:31 AM 2008-838 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, AUGUST 25, 2008 Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Michael M. Daly and Tammy Melton. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Susan Ross and Teresa Rozic, Property and Facilities; Mark Pilliod, Legal Counsel; Scott Johnson, Mental Health Director; Ken Hales, Community Justice Director; David Inbody, Assistant to the Administrator; Anna Johnson, Communications; Tom Blust, Road Department Director; and eight other citizens. Chair Luke opened the meeting at 1: 30 p. m. 1. Property Management Update - Little Deschutes Lodge, La Pine. Teresa Rozic asked for an extension to December 31, 2008 so that the group can address a funding gap on the project. Oregon Housing & Community Services feels they can extend to October 31 but a few more months would make more sense. A representative of the project said that within three weeks they should know what the OHCS would do. The group thinks that even without that funding, they may be able to fill the need before the end of the year. If it is not closed by the end of the year, all options will have been exhausted. The Board consensus was to support a December 31 deadline. Ms. Rozic will prepare a Resolution in this regard. Susan Ross said that the interior road has not been built yet and Vic Russell has not been able to proceed with the roads leading up to this point. The road is needed for the project to continue. The County can participate 50150 with Mr. Russell in this regard so that it can occur. Ms. Ross explained the costs and the amount that Mr. Russell is to contribute at some point. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, August 25, 2008 Page 1 of 6 Pages 2. Discussion regarding Secure Residential Treatment Facility Siting. Ms. Ross said an award letter from the State has been received committing a grant of $275,000 for this project. A contractor will manage the facility and the County is entitled to three beds. Ms. Ross went over the proposed site plan at this time. Commissioner Daly said that the rock removal costs quoted seem to be excessive. Solid Waste has this type of project being done now and the cost is much less. Ms. Ross will check on this. Ken Hales stated that there needs to be room for outdoor activities, and also for a place to gather in case of fire or other emergency. However, moving the fence in would eliminate any possible expansion of the facility in the future. The facility was designed to expand in that direction; going in any other direction would cost a lot more. Commissioner Luke said that there is capacity to operate for at least ten years. Mr. Hales stated that he would think it could be four or five years. Commissioner Luke stated that the pods now in use are not at capacity and one pod is not used at all, and it costs about $800,000 to open and staff the pod. Commissioner Melton observed that this is only if there are no ballot measures or legislation in the near future that affect the juvenile facility. After a brief discussion, the Board decided that it is time to move forward. The County will step up to the plate with the additional funding. Mr. Kanner pointed out that a fueling station also needs to be part of the overall plan. A station needs to be located on the north end of Bend since it would save a lot of time and expense in vehicles having to be driven to the Knott Landfill fueling station. Ms. Ross said that as part of the grant process, the State will lien the property. Appropriate grand documents will be prepared for Board signature. 3. Transient Lodging Tax; Review of Resolution and Ballot Language. Mark Pilliod said that he received from Wayne Shetterly re HB 2267 which was approved in the past. To summarize, he recalls that the leadership chose language intentionally that was ambiguous in regard to tourist-related facilities. Forest Road 45 is one case in point, since it is used heavily by tourists. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, August 25, 2008 Page 2 of 6 Pages In his letter, Mr. Shetterly recognized that in some cases there can be a difference in roads that are maintained for tourist reasons or for general county reasons. Commissioner Luke said that he has spoken with Mr. Minton about this issue. He is concerned about contracts now in place. He wondered if it was brought in on January 1, could these contracts be considered. He suggested a .01 increase on September 1, 2009 with the second .01 on September 1, 2010. Mr. Pilliod would insert in the summary a statement on how those numbers would kick in. Commissioner Daly thought that the budget committee should deal with this in 2009. Commissioner Luke stated that it is not easy since the funds are not specifically dedicated. Commissioner Melton said that she doesn't want to see an arbitrary increase but the goal is to address the importance of all the needs. Commissioner Luke said, if phased over time, can address some of these concerns. This frees up general fund money to do other things that need to be done. After further discussion, Commission Baney asked what the intent is for those dollars. Commissioner Luke said he would like the Budget Committee to make those determinations each year. Commissioner Baney stated that the Fair & Expo Center portion is understood but she is not sure this will achieve what is needed. Mark Pilliod said that the information provided is set out as examples for hat the Board feels is the proper direction for the funds. The Budget Committee would decide each year where those funds would go; the Fair & Expo may receive more or less each year; and the Committee would determine what amount would be needed for roads that are used primarily to support tourism. He said that the summary leaves it up to the Committee to decide. Commissioner Melton stated that she doesn't want the Budget Committee to be backed into a corner. Commissioner Daly agreed that the original idea was to support the needs of the Road Department, and the Fair & Expo is secondary. The Budget Committee process is the right way to go, since things change each year and flexibility is needed. Each year COVA has to come before the Committee and justify why they should get the funds they request. There is some uncertainty but puts everyone on their toes. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, August 25, 2008 Page 3 of 6 Pages Commissioner Daly said that he is reluctant to hand the Fair & Expo Center money easily. He feels that the concessions part of operations is not handled properly and could generate more money. He feels that local companies are not getting their fair share of business. He does not want to hand them a lot of funding until they make an effort to support more local, private industry in this regard. He is supportive of staggering the implementation of the two cent increase over two years so that the industry can honor existing contracts. Mr. Kanner said that the discussion started with concerns about Road Department funding but has evolved. Different scenarios were presented on how to handle this funding gap. One option is to put all of the funding into Roads, but this could result in a lawsuit. Another scenario was to split the funding between Roads, the industry and Fair & Expo. The third scenario was to put 30% into Roads and put $200,000 into maintenance of Road 45, and divide the remainder into COVA and the Fair & Expo. A lot of research into legal validity of this plan shows it is on solid ground. It does not fill all of the needs of Road but this will take using other options. The only way to fill the gap is through budget cuts and cuts in service. Available resources and the needs of the Department do not meet. Commissioner Melton said that perhaps they don't have to be that specific, but there should be a maximum amount stated, perhaps a percentage, showing intent. Commissioner Luke said that the amount given to the Sheriff was not formally approved, and the amount given to COVA is through the budget process. This was not in the ballot title at the time. Flexibility needs to be given in this regard and it should not be that specific. The industry, the Road Department and the Fair & Expo will all have an opportunity to testify as to what they plan to do with the funds. Commissioner Melton feels it needs to be more specific so that everyone knows where they are. $200,000 for Road 45 should be allocated for each year for five years. Commissioner Luke stated that if there is an emergency in the future regarding Elk Lake or other locations, the funds may not be available as needed. Commissioner Melton feels it is the wrong time to do this if it is not specific enough to show where the money will go. Commissioner Luke asked what specific language Commissioner Melton wants regarding where the funds will go. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, August 25, 2008 Page 4 of 6 Pages Consensus was to split the two cents being effective on consecutive years, and for it to be effective in September of those years since that is between peak tourist times. Commissioner Melton said that if it can be delayed, why not wait and do it all in 2010. Commissioner Luke wants to proceed now and put it before the voters. All of the entities need the funds and future State funding is going to be lost. Commissioners Luke and Daly support putting this on the ballot and for letting the Budget Committee make a decision each year on how the funding should be allocated. Commissioner Melton is not prepared to proceed with putting question on the ballot at this time. Mr. Pilliod will generate the appropriate documents for the Commissioners to review. This will be discussed further at the Wednesday, August 27 Board business meeting. 4. Economic Development Grant Fund Requests. • Downtown Bend Business Association - Banners - Commissioner Melton granted $500. • Fair & Expo Center regarding nonprofit pro bono use of the facilities - Mr. Inbody said that the Board had suggested that they request this money through the budget process. Commissioner Daly this was primarily to help small organizations be able to use the facilities. Commissioner Luke stated that these groups can apply for grant funds as needed. 5. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules. None were discussed. 6. Other Items. None were discussed. 7. Executive Session, under ORS 192.660(2)(i), employment-related performance review. The Board convened in executive session at this time. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, August 25, 2008 Page 5 of 6 Pages Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 4:10 p. m. DATED this 25th Day of August 2008 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Den is R. Luke, Chair Tammy ne y) on, Vice Chair ATTEST: ~f It Recording Secretary A4 ichael M. Daly, C missioner Minutes of Administrative Work Session Page 6 of 6 Pages Wednesday, August 25, 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, AUGUST 25, 2008 Property Management Update - Little Deschutes Lodge, La Pine - Teresa Rozic 2. Discussion regarding Secure Residential Treatment Facility Siting - Susan Ross 3. Transient Lodging Tax; Review of Resolution and Ballot Language - Mark Pilliod 4. Economic Development Grant Fund Requests: . Downtown Bend Business Association - Banners 5. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules 6. Other Items 7. Executive Session, under ORS 192.660(2)(1), employment-related performance review 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. If you 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 infonnation. fr ~°1 J y O L c/ ` llll~ x c ~ ► N ~ s c o U- M ~A I r~ M !YJ Lo on \ ! .x 0 ~i N N LIQ rt•9 p~ N C1 c~•• W OA ~l O 0 pL, ~J L~ M i c Q cv~ I~ M c`'J ► ~o M ~o Q) Lo I CTR ) a 9 ' M o M h b s°~. © a v 9 `V 3 ' ) ~p c c ~ M x t N 3 P4 LR v ca 0 F - Qj co s a 01 TES Property & Facilities Department Susan C. Ross, Director 14 NW Kearney Street, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6594 • Fax: (541) 317-3168 www. co. deschutes. or. us MEMORANDUM TO: COPY FROM DATE: RE: Board of County Commissioners Dave Kanner, Erik Kropp Teresa Rozic, Property & Facilities Department August 20, 2008 Affordable Housing Project - La Pine Pacific Crest Affordable Housing In my June update to you I reported that the developer had obtained approval to proceed with a full application for USDA Rural Development Section 538 funds. The USDA funds significantly closed the funding gap but Pacific Crest still must raise approximately $250,000 - $300,000. Because it was not possible to obtain final approval for the loan guarantee by June 30th (the original deadline to close the funding gap for this project) and to allow time for the developer to raise the additional funds, the Board granted an extension to September 30, 2008. The USDA deadline to submit the application for Section 538 funds is September 8tn They will not accept an application for a project that is not 100% funded. Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS) expects to receive millions of dollars from the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (the "housing stimulus bill"), some specifically identified for increased tax credits for affordable housing. Pacific Crest will apply for additional tax-credits this week but OHCS's answer will not come in time to meet the USDA deadline. In addition to the tax credits, Pacific Crest may be eligible for private foundation grants for the difference between the Little Deschutes Lodge costs and the Section 538 funds. Pacific Crest would like an extension to December 31, 2008. Quality Services Performed with Pride 2 Road Development The estimates received from an engineer for construction of the road is $280,000 which includes street improvements, extensions of both water and sewer, and engineering and surveying costs. A memo from Richard Nored, president of HGE Engineering, is attached for reference. The cost of just the Memorial Lane portion, which Vic Russell was responsible for building per a development agreement with the County, is estimated at $80,000. We have asked him to participate in the cost of this road, and he has agreed that he can participate with his share with road improvement labor and materials but not with cash. With the business downturn in the building industry, he does not have cash available to contribute. Staffs recommendation is that the County contribute the road development costs with funds available in the business loan fund. There is currently a balance of more than $400,000 in that fund. The fund was originally capitalized with a community development block grant from the State, and the purpose of the CDBG funds is to develop projects that serve low income residents. This housing project clearly meets that intent. County's share of the cost, with Vic Russell's participation, is $240,000. 2 Y ",A ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS ■ 375 PARK AVE COOS BAY OREGON 97420 ■ 541.269.1166 FAX 541.269.1833 CELL 541.404.3791 rnored@hgel.com ■ Richard D. Nored, P.E. Joseph A. Slack, A.I.A. Russ Dodge, PLS Stephen R. Cox July 28, 2008 Deschutes County 14 N.W. Kearney Street Bend, OR 97701 Attn: Susan Ross Property & Facilities Director Re: Engineering and Infrastructure Costs for Affordable Housing Project - AMENDED LaPine, Oregon Dear Susan: In follow up to our estimates on July 14, we now understand ownership issues more clearly, and should be able to offer better overall cost projects. We have looked at the most cost effective needed infrastructure to serve the Affordable Housing Project in LaPine (Little Deschutes Lodge), and recommend the following infrastructure approach for serving the development. Overall Recommendations 1. Water. A new 12" line should be extended from the North boundary of the Senior Center to interconnect with existing facilities at Memorial Lane. In addition, since access will be down Memorial Lane, water should be extended through the East side of a proposed new road separating Tracts # 2 and # 3, hereinafter designated as "LDL Road". 2. Sanitary Sewer. There are alternatives, but the most cost effective approach would be to extend the existing 8" sanitary sewer that was moved out from under the County paving project on Huntington Road. The existing line is approximately 350' South of the developed portion of Victory Way. Depth of this line should allow for a gravity connection to the planned development. Normal LaPine Special Sewer District policy is to require development to extend facilities to and through the property being served. However, because of depth, it would appear that the line extension could end about 250 feet South of Memorial Lane, where the line would be approximately 4' in depth. It might also be possible to provide sewer infrastructure in 2 phases, since initial thoughts were that the Affordable Housing Project would be built in 2 phases. Our estimates do assume that sanitary sewers would be provided in one phase. A 0.48 Acre parcel of Tract 2, and the property North of Memorial Lane would not receive service from the proposed sewer. It is anticipated that the property North of Memorial Lane will receive sewer service to the North, and the 0.48 acre parcel could be served in either direction, dependent on the planned elevation of the building. 3. Street Construction. We have assumed that street construction would include Memorial Lane to the East side of the LDL Road R/W, extending down LDL Road to Crescent Creek Drive. iI -'t Engineering and Infrastructure Costs for Affordable Housing Project LaPine, Oregon July 28, 2008 -AMENDED Page 2 Construction costs for the proposed work appear as follows: 1. Water - $ 61,525 2. Sanitary Sewer - $ 82,800 3. Street Improvements - $ 92,250 4. Increased Costs for Plat to dedicate Memorial Lane to East side of LDL Road separating Tracts 2 and 3 - $ 1,500 5. TOTAL INFRASTRUCTURE - $ 238,075 The plat costs shown include a modification to the tentative partition plat to dedicate a portion of Memorial Lane, and add one additional lot South of Memorial Lane to the original proposal. We estimate engineering and surveying costs for the needed infrastructure as follows: 1. Preliminary Surveying - $ 2,560 2. Survey Stakeout for Construction - $ 8,000 3. Design and Constriction Management - $ 17,900 4. Construction Inspection - 1$ 3,000 5. TOTAL ENGR. & SURVEYING $ 41,460 Inspection costs can be variable, but we have assumed full time inspection for the buried infrastructure, and limited inspection for street improvements. The portion of the project along Memorial Lane should be shared between various parcels and entities. A breakdown of construction, engineering and surveying costs for the Memorial Lane portion of the project appears as follows: 1. Increased Costs for Plat to dedicate Memorial Lane to East side of LDL Road separating Tracts 2 and 3 - $ 1,500 2. Water and Street on Memorial Lane - $ 71,380 3. Eng. and Surveying on Memorial Lane - $ 7,140 4. TOTAL MEMORIAL LN. COST TO BE $ 80,020 SHARED BETWEEN PARTIES - We would appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project, and can provide services within a mutually agreeable time frame. If you have any questions, please contact me. Very truly yours, HGE INC., Architects, Engineers, Surveyors & Planners Richard D. Nored, P.E. President ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS & PLANNERS 375 Park Avenue, Coos Bay, Oregon 97420 MEMORANDUM August 22, 2008 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Susan Ross, Property & Facilities Director RE: 8/25 WORK SESSION AGENDA ITEM STAFF REPORT REGARDING RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT CENTER Scott Johnson and I will be providing an update at your Monday work session regarding the Mental Health SRTF facility. We will be asking the Board to make a decision on which site--north or south--that will be chosen to locate the facility. I am attaching the latest drawing showing the facility located on the north site. It will fit on that site if we move the juvenile detention facility's fence back about 45 feet. Ken Hales will attend the work session as well to discuss his thoughts on moving back the fenceline. The State Mental Health Division has expressed their support for whichever site will be the quickest to develop. They are urging us to build and open this facility as soon as possible. Because of the additional site development needs (removing rock, piping canal, moving and reinstalling fence) for the north site, an additional two months could be added to the project. PROJECT BUDGET Deschutes Mental Health Building: North Site opt. 2 Date: 8.11.08 Project Square Footage 7,000 Site 39,798 Estimate Comments A/E Fees Estimate (including consultants $70,000.00 Reimbursable expenses $7,000 Other Consultants not provided b A/E Geo-Tech: $5,000 Survey $5,000 Septic n/a Permits: Septic Approval n/a Site Plan review $7,276 Plan Check Fee $6,992 Building Permits $10,757 ystem Development Charges (SDCs) 7,995 Water $4,449, Sewer $2,800, transportation $746 Other Permits n/a Construction Testing soil compaction/fill compaction) $3,000 Legal Fees n/a Accounting Fees n/a Owners Insurance n/a Soft Cost Contin ency 10% $5,302 TOTAL SOFT COSTS $128,322 HARD COSTS Building $200 $1,400,000 Site Improvements Asphalt paving 7,680 s ft $1.80 sq ft $13,824 Pavement Markings 7,680 s ft $0.12 s ft $922 Concrete Sidewalks 750 s ft $3.00 s ft $2,250 Concrete Curbs 389 lin.ft $9.25 lin.ft $3,598 Landscaping 24,368 sq ft $3.50 sq ft $85,288 Rock Removal 5399.5 cubic yards $45.00 a cubic yard $242 978 Water Ditch 330 lin. ft. of site $60 In, ft. $19,800 Fence 180 lin. ft. of 8ft chain link fence with pvc slats $55 lin. ft. $9,900 Off Site Construction n/a Construction Contingency (5%) $88,928 TOTAL HARD COSTS $1,867,487 OTHER COSTS Site Acquisition Land Costs n/a Demolition Title Insurance n/a Real estate fees n/a Zoning Approval n/a Le al Fees Taxes n/a Appraisal n!a Other n/a Loan Fees Interim Financing Cost n/a Interim Financing Interest (Estimate) n/a Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment (FFE) $10 sf $70,000 TOTAL OTHER COSTS $70,000 TOTAL PROJECT $2,065,809 Q (3m S it Pagel of 3 Dave Kanner From: Lane Shetterly [lane@siso-law.com] Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 5:28 PM To: Mark Pilliod Cc: Dave Kanner; Steven Griffin Subject: Re: Transient Lodging Tax Mark Thanks for your email, recapping our conversation from this morning. I hope an email reply will suffice for your purposes. As I mentioned when we spoke, the political and legislative history of HB 2267 was convoluted, complex and filled with controversy. Not only did we spend most of the 2003 session dealing with the bill, we also spent a good deal of time and energy on a prior proposal during the 2001 session. As a result, I am sure there are plenty of details that are foggy in my mind, but I'm happy to share with you what I can recall in the context of the question you have raised. As you know, I was chair of the House Revenue Committee in both the 2001 and 2003 sessions. In that capacity, I had significant personal involvement in HB 2267, as it was a major effort of the session. It was supported by the Tourism Commission and the state hospitality industry, and (as I recall) was introduced as an agency bill at the request of the Governor. Local governments expressed strong concern about the bill, primarily in the areas having to do with preemption and the limitation on the use of new local tourism tax revenue. Basically, the proponents of the bill wanted to see that tourist tax dollars were spent on tourism (including tourism promotion and tourism- related facilities) and not on basic general fund expenses of local government. Local government, on the other hand, wanted greater flexibility on the use of the tax dollars, even on what might not appear to be tourism or tourism-related facilities. They made the argument, for instance, that a city like Seaside, which requires sewage treatment capacity well in excess of that needed to serve the city's year-round population, because of the surge of demand on the system from seasonal tourists, should be able to use their transient tax dollars to defray a portion of their sewage treatment capital costs. I recall a similar argument about the use of transient tax revenue for law enforcement where the need for capacity was driven in part by the need to serve tourists and the problems they bring. As I recall, both sides proposed amendments to the bill that would have specified uses that would either have been allowed or disallowed. None of the proposed amendments were successful in getting over the impasse. Late in the session, I recall proposing the language "a substantial purpose" in the definition of "tourism-related facility," in what has been codified as ORS 320.300(9)(b). ("Tourism-related facility * * * [m]eans other improved real property that has a useful life of 10 years or more and has a substantial purpose of supporting tourism or accommodating tourist activities." I'm not sure what the hearing record will reflect about that phrase, but the express intent in my mind and among those of us who negotiated it was to not have to define in the bill those uses that would be allowed or excluded, but rather to define the parameters of use, on the understanding that situations would come up from time to time and have to be worked out within those parameters. I think each side ultimately agreed to the language, which allowed the bill finally to be enacted, because they felt it left them an opening to argue for or against a particular use down the road (so to speak). That is, each side felt they had gotten enough to stand down from their more definitive positions, and could live with the ambiguity in the language because it would allow them to fight another day. Having said all of that, I will also say that the article "a" (as in, "a substantial purpose") was intentionally chosen over the article "the." The point with that, as I recall, was to make clear that "supporting tourism or accommodating tourist activities" did not have to be the principal purpose of the improvement, or even the only substantial purpose; it would be sufficient if it is a substantial purpose (possibly among other purposes, even other substantial purposes). As suggested by this discussion, "substantial" was intended to suggest "important," but less than "primary," or "principal" or "main," and certainly not "exclusive." 8/25/2008 Page 2 of 3 As to the nature of the purpose, note that the meaning of "supporting tourism or accommodating tourist activities" is expanded on in the definitions of "tourism" ("economic activity resulting from tourists") and "tourist" ("a person who, for business or pleasure, recreation or participation in events related to the arts, heritage or culture, travels from the community in which that person a resident to a different community that is separate, distinct from and unrelated to the person's community of residence, and the that trip (a) Requires the person to travel more than 50 miles from the community of residence; or (b) Includes an overnight stay.") It was in light of this definition that I suggested I thought it would be a plausible interpretation of the statute as I believe the Revenue Committee and the legislature would have understood it in 2003 to permit the use of transient tax dollars for some roads, for instance, but not others. A road that is heavily used by "tourists" for "tourism" might very well be eligible for funding with local transient tax dollars under HB 2267, while a local "farm- to-market" road that primarily serves the local residents would not. That is precisely the kind of flexibility and situational use of local transient tax dollars that I think we intentionally built into the bill. So, while I'm not in a position to offer the definitive opinion as to whether Forest Road 45 would qualify, I think you would at least be in a position of making a case and a record - that it does. (I should here add my disclaimer, as I told you, that happened to drive on Forest Road 45 earlier this month, when I was staying with my family at Sunriver, to get to the Devil's Lake trailhead for a South Sister climb, which was one of the planned activities for our stay at Sunriver in the first place.) For more information, I would encourage you to look at the legislative history of the amendment that introduced the language "a substantial purpose" it should have come in late in the session and listen to the archive recordings of any House Revenue Committee meetings that dealt with the amendment. (My recollection is that this bill was largely done in the House, and that the Senate Revenue Committee did not spend much time with it.) If you need help getting into the record of the bill, you should contact Paul Warner, Legislative Revenue Officer, at Paul.._D.Warne r@state..o...r._us, telephone (503) 986-1263. Best regards. Lane P. Shetterly Shetterly Irick and Ozias Attorneys at Law 189 SW Academy Street PO Box 105 Dallas, OR 97338 Phone: (503) 623-6695 Fax: (503) 623-6698 lane@sso-lawcom Original Message From: "Mark Pilliod" <Mark_Pilliod@co desch.utes.or._us> To: <lane(a siso-law.com> Cc: "Dave Kanner <Daye_Kan_ner@.c..o deschutes o..r us>; "Steven Griffin" <Steven_Griffin @co deschutes.or._us> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 3:56 PM Subject: Transient Lodging Tax Hi Lane: This follows our phone conversation this morning where we discussed the origins/meaning behind certain portions of HB 2267, adopted by the 2003 Legislature. Specifically, we focused on the definition of Tourism-related facility in ORS 320.300(9)(b) and whether it was intended to allow expenditures on roadways used substantially in support of or accommodating tourist activities. I mentioned Deschutes County Forest Road 45 by way of example, which provides a direct connetion between Sunriver and Mt. Bachelor. As you indicated, clearly not a "farm to market" county road. You mentioned that the language of the above-referenced definition, "substantial purpose of supporting tourism..." was meant to resolve what 8/25/2008 ~t Page 3 of 3 might otherwise have been a legislative impasse in order to approve the legislation. I reminded you that an earlier version of this definition had included an express prohibition of use of such funds for "roads, other transportion facilities, sewers or sewer plants." We feel that by removing this exclusion the Legislature was opening the door to local jurisdictions making a case for application of such funds in an appropriate case. You indicated a willingness to furnish a letter expressing your thoughts on the intent of this legislation and in particular whether a case COULD be made that particular roads, such as Forest Rd. 45 could qualify as tourist-related facilities. Appreciate the opportunity to chat with you today. I'll keep you informed of developments. Mark Pilliod Deschutes County Legal Counsel 541-388-6625 This mail may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise by return e-mail and delete immediately without reading or forwarding to others. 8/25/2008 t [217- Economic Development Fund Discretionary Grant Program Organization: Downtown Bend Business Association Organization Description: The Downtown Bend Business Association is a 25+ year old organization working to improve the econommic vitality of Downtown Bend. They orchestrate events like the Spring and Fall Art Hops, Ladies Night, Summer Sidewalk Sale, Oktoberfest and the Holiday Tree Lighting event on Mirror Pond Plaza. The organization also works on beautification projects through the use of flower baskets, banners, sidewalk washing, cleaning and snow plowing. Project Name: Downtown Bend Beautification - Banners Project Description: The grant funds will be used to purchase of 24 "Welcome to Downtown Bend" banners to be used year around. The banners would be adaptable, using space at the bottom, to promote specific events. Project Period: thru October 2008 Amount of Request: $2,400 (24 banners @ $100 each) Previous Grants: None G'~J ` V Cd w°j a { Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org DESCHUTES COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION Direct Application to: Commissioner Tammy Baney Commissioner Michael M. Daly Commissioner Dennis R. Luke All Three Commissioners x Date: 8/18/08 Project Name: Downtown Bend Beautification-Banners Project Beginning Date: in progress Project End Date: October 2008 Amount of Request: $2,400 Date Funds Needed: September 2008 Applicant/Organization: Downtown Bend Busi esfaxAFOWc. 93-0826652 Address: Fst Office Box 731 City & Zip: Bend 97709 Contact Name(s): Chuck Arnold Telephone: (5 41) 3 8 5- 6 5 7 0 Fax: same Alternate Phone: 788-3628 Email: chuck at downtownbb nd. org On a separate sheet, please briefly answer the following questions: 1. Describe the applicant organization, including its purpose, leadership structure, and activities. 2. Describe the proposed project or activity. 3. Provide a timeline for completing the proposed project or activity. 4. Explain how the proposed project or activity will impact the community's economic health. 5. Identify the specific communities or groups that will benefit. 6. Itemize anticipated expenditures*. Describe how grant funds will be used and include the source and amounts of matching funds or in-kind contributions, if any. If the grant will support an ongoing activity, explain how it will be funded in the future. Attach: Proof of the applicant organization's non-profit status. * Applicant may be contacted during the review process and asked to provide a complete line item budget. Amount Approved: By: Declined: By: Date: Date: 0 RUTHEt1T1C • ECLECTIC • ESSEOTIRL Downtown Bend Deschutes County Economic Development Fund Business Association Post Office Box 731 Discretionary Grant Program Bend, Oregon 97709 (541) 385-6570 Downtown Bend Beautification Program-Banners DowntownBend.Org 2008-2009 Board 1. Describe the applicant organization, including its purpose, leadership structure, and activities. CHUCK BAILEY 869 Wall Street Director The Downtown Bend Business Association is a private nonprofit working to improve the economic vitality of Downtown Bend. The 25+ year old organization serves downtown business and property owners and is governed by a Board of Directors TONYA BERNARDY . Liberty Bank Treasurer The DBBA has a voluntary membership base of about 125 businesses and operates an Economic Improvement District that is funded privately by all property and business KELLI BROOKS owners downtown. The DBBA orchestrates events like the Spring and Fall Art Hops, At The Beach Ladies Night, the Summer Sidewalk Sale (formerly Zany Dayz), Oktoberfest and the Secretary Holiday Tree Lighting event on Mirror Pond Plaza. The DBBA also operates a number of programs that beautify downtown including: flower baskets, banners, sidewalk washing, JODY DENTON M cleaning and snow plowing, holiday tree lighting as well as improving downtown erenda/Deep Restaurants infrastructure like trash receptacles. Director 2. Describe the proposed project or activity. GRETCHEN KOTH Morgan MacKenzie The proposed project is to expand the existing banner program in Downtown Bend. Vice-President Banners add color, life and set a pedestrian-friendly scale for a district. BILL PON The banner program has really grown over the past year as the DBBA has repaired banner 903 Wall Street President brackets that were installed over a decade ago by the Bend Urban Renewal Agency. At the beginning of 2008, we had the ability to hang just 18 banners on street lamps. We can now SCOTT RATCLIFF install 54 banners downtown. Volcano Vineyards Director The Deschutes County Economic Development Fund Grant, if awarded, would help fund 24 "Welcome to Downtown Bend" banners to be used year around and would welcome Ex-Offico visitors as they tour the region. The banners would also be adaptable with space on the bottom that could be changed to promote DBBA events held for the community benefit JEFF DATWYLER (ie-holiday tree lighting). City of Bend 3. Provide a timeline for completing the proposed project or activity. GEORGE THAYER Bend Metro Parks The banner program is currently underway. The DBBA has invested funds in floral Staff themed banners that now beautify Brooks Street as well as investing in new hardware. If awarded, the program will move forward immediately. A local vendor has already cxucx ARNOLD Executive Director prepared a design for the proposed "Welcome" banners. Production and installation would proceed immediately within 30 days of award. Promoting the economic vitality by enhancing the experience, image & lifestyle of Downtown Bend flIITHUTIC • ECLECTIC • E5SEIITIft Downtown Bend Business Association 4. Explain how the proposed project or activity will impact the community's Post Office Box 731 economic health. Bend, Oregon 97709 (541) 385-6570 The Central Oregon economy is fueled in part by half a billion dollars annually from DowntownBend.Org visitors to the area. Downtown Bend is a launching point for many activities in the region 2008-2009 Board and a "must see" stop on any visit to the area. Maintenance of the quaint downtown is essential in providing a quality experience for the visitor. Beautification, accentuated by CHUCK BAILEY colorful banners will continue to add to the value of a quaint downtown and will impact 869 Wall Street Director the entire community's economic health. 5. Identify the specific communities or groups that will benefit. TONYA BERNARDY Liberty Bank Treasurer The program will specifically benefit the commercial business district in downtown Bend by contributing to a more beautified downtown. The locally owned businesses that are the KELLI BROOKS heart of Central Oregon will benefit by having a district that is further cared for and thus At The Beach attracts and encourages more (and repeat) visitors. Secretary 6. Itemize anticipated expenditures. Describe how grant funds will be used and JODY DENTON include the source and amounts of matching funds or in-kind contributions, if Merenda/Deep Restaurants any. If the grant will support an ongoing activity, explain how it will be funded Director in the future. GRETCHEN KOTH The anticipated expenditures for the grant funds are as follows: Morgan MacKenzie Vice-President 24 banners $100 each $2,400 BILL PON The grant funds will be used to produce "Welcome to Downtown Bend" banners. The 903 wall Street President DBBA has already provided $1,100 in match funds thru' the start-up of the Banner Beautification Program by purchasing and installing 14 floral themed banners. SCOTT RATCLIFF Furthermore, the Bend Urban Renewal Agency has provided about $1,700 in funding to Volcano Vineyards help repair and replace aging infrastructure in the form of new banner bracket hardware. Director The DBBA has also provided over $1,000 in in-kind contributions of labor for the installation of the banners and hardware. Ex-Offico The grant funds will support the ongoing Banner Beautification Program. We anticipate JEFF DATWYLER the life of the banners to be about 5 years. It is anticipated that the DBBA will fund banner City of Bend replacement at that time. GEORGE THAYER Bend Metro Parks Staff CHUCK ARNOLD Executive Director Promoting the economic vitality by enhancing the experience, image & lifestyle of Downtown Bend ~ e"h '1+ 7R~~~f, tet.tl li Ini~ rrr P'0. Box 21308 Cincinnati 0" 45201 BEND DC1WNTOWNERS INC PO BOX 731 BEND 0 97709-0731313 In reply refer to: 02484155838 Aug. Ili, 2008 L.TR 4168C E0 93-0826652 000000 00 000 00016157 HODC: TE Employer Identification Number: 93°-€1826652 Person to Contact: SELLERS. Tn1.1 Free Telephone Number: 1-877-829-5500 Dear TAXPAYER This i in response to your request of Aug. 05, 2008, regarding your tax-exempt status. Our records indicate that a determination letter was issued in AUGUST 1993, that recognized you as exempt from Federal income tax, i?nci discloses that you are currently exempt under section 501(c)(6) of the internal Revenue Code, F--ause ync, ~.)r.e not an organization described in section 170(c) of tEre Cod(, donors may not deduct contributions made to you. You should nduise your contributors to that effect. if you Bove any questions, please call us at the telephone number shown in the heading of this letter,. Sincerely yours, Michele M. Sullivan, Oiler. Mgr. Accounts Management Operations I ALIF,USt'15, 2008 Deschutes County Beard of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, Oregon 97701-1960 Dear County Commissioners, I am writing on behalf of the Bend Chamber in support of the grant application being submitted by the Downtown Bend Business Association for the Downtown Bend Banner Beautification ProeTriol. The Bend community relies on tourism dollars to help maintain our local economy. Our visitors expect a well-maintained, charming downtown. Part of that picture is improvements lime banners that acid color and beauty to downtown. As 1 understand, this grant request will advance that effort and enable the added beautification element of banners to be installed year arouEId. I believe the DBBBP will follow the mission of our organization, to enhance the economic vitality of Bend. Best regards, Tim Casey Executive Director Bend Chamber r August 18, 2008 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, Oregon 97701-1960 Dear Deschutes County Commissioners, On behalf of Visit Bend and our Board of Directors, I am writing this letter to communicate our enthusiastic support of the grant application being submitted the Downtown Bend Business Association (DBBA) for the Downtown Bend Banner Beautification Program. Under Chuck Arnold's leadership, the DBBA has had a significant impact on the continued beautification and enhancement of Bend's downtown district - and their work is critically important to the ongoing health of Bend's economy. Downtown Bend is the single most visited "attraction" of the million plus tourists who visit Bend annually. Our tourism research continues to support the critical importance of a well-maintained, vibrant and charming downtown district. Visit Bend has been working closely with the DBBA to continue to make Downtown Bend remain the center of the community and a healthy contributor to the economics of the region. As an organization, Visit Bend is excited about the opportunity for further beautification of Downtown Bend with a year around banner program and were are extremely confident in DBBA's ability to leverage the grant dollars to have a significant impact on Bend. On behalf of Visit Bend, THANK YOU for considering of DBBA's grant request. All the best, Doug La Placa President/CEO Visit Bend (541)788-3788