2010-2649-Minutes for Meeting May 26,2010 Recorded 6/9/2010COUNTY
NANCYUBLANKENSHIP,F000NTY CLERKS 1rd 200.2649
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 06/09/2010 11;00;57 AM
II VIII III IIIIIIIIIII III II III
2110-2
8 0
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 at the request of
[give reason]
previously recorded in Book _
or as Fee Number
and Page
to correct
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
WEDNESDAY, MAY 269 2010
Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Alan Unger and Tammy Baney.
Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy
County Administrator; and, for a portion of the meeting, Nick Lelack, Tom
Anderson, Peter Russell and George Read, Community Development; Tom Blust,
Road Department; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; David Inbody, Assistant to
the Administrator; representatives of Neighborlmpact; Keith Cyrus, Planning
Commissioner; media representative Hillary Borrud of The Bulletin; and five other
citizens.
Chair Luke opened the meeting at 1: 30 p.m.
1. Discussion of Proposed Speed Limit on Skyliners Road.
George Kolb said that ODOT requires a speed study to change the speed on a
given road. It is not posted, so therefore is handled through basic rule, which is
"reasonable and prudent". Until the road is reconstructed, a temporary limit of
45 miles per hour can be set if there are good reasons for the reduction, and
there has to be a set deadline.
The Sheriff's Office is supportive and evidently many of the residents are in
favor of this as well, based on their testimony regarding bicycle events and
other uses.
2. Discussion of Proposed Residential Sprinklers Requirement.
Tom Anderson said the international building code has a provision for sprinkler
systems in all new construction. The State of Oregon will adopt a new code
next year and will have to make a determination on this specific issue. The
Oregon Building Officials Association has requested input from local
jurisdictions. The staff report explains a number of situations on this issue. He
would prefer that this be a local option.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Page 1 of 6 Pages
Chair Luke likes the idea of a uniform building code so that contractors will
know what is expected in different locations. However, he has doubts about
how well this type of system would work in this area, especially in rural
locations.
Andy High of the Central Oregon Builders' Association asked that the Board
indicate that this not be supported. This would add perhaps $3,000 cost per
dwelling.
It was pointed out that most people are saved by a good, working smoke alarm
and by construction that is up to date.
Justin Burke of Bend Fire Protection said that he does not support a mandate on
sprinkler systems at this time. However, damage to homes is reduced by about
90% if there is a sprinkler system in place when compared to damage done by
fire departments when they have to put out a fire. Usually other damage is due
to improper installation. He feels there needs to be proper licensing in place
before supporting a mandate.
Bill Robie with the Central Oregon Association of Realtors stated that they
support a local decision.
The Commissioners were supportive of staff's recommendation for a local
option.
3. NeighborImpact Loan Program for South County Septic Replacement.
Tom Anderson gave a brief overview of the proposed program, which would
help those property owners who may be unable to afford to replace their septic
systems as required. (He referred to a staff memo and report.)
Commissioner Unger asked if they will have to pay the loan back. Mr.
Anderson said that payment is deferred, and the loan would be due upon sale or
transfer of the property.
Karen Orme of NeighborImpact said that these are risky loans, and these
individuals often need help more than others do. Laurie Craghead added that
these are people who would not qualify for a traditional program, and there is
no requirement for equity in the home. The loans are unsecured. She sad that
lenders handle foreclosure or late payments differently from other situations.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Page 2 of 6 Pages
Mr. Anderson said he will have to rely on the expertise of NeighborImpact in
this regard. The foreclosure process is taking such a long time; it is worth it to
protect the environment. There will be other loans that conform to standards.
The target population probably will be very few. NeighborImpact has to fund
that loan and structure how it is handled.
Mr. Anderson said that there has been at least one instance where a property
owner had a failed system and needed help immediately. They also were low
income and intended to pursue the standard rehab loan through
NeighborImpact. Under that plan they have to be qualified before having the
work done. They did get a rebate but were unable to get a deferred loan
because they had the work done right away. Commissioner Baney stated that if
the system is failing, it needs to be fixed right away.
Commissioner Baney asked that they come back and give the Board an idea of
how many properties might apply. Commissioner Unger would like to help the
one who already had it done.
Chair Luke asked how anyone would know if the people have money in the
bank, jobs or other assets. Commissioner Baney said she would like to go
ahead and help this person who was faced by an emergency repair. Mr.
Anderson thinks she would have qualified based on income, but was also
behind on payments; therefore, she would not have fit into NeighborImpact's
normal program.
The Board supported Item # 1 and wants more information on #2, the situation
involving the one individual.
4. Continued Discussion of Transportation SDC Methodology.
Tom Blust said that the Resolution does not differentiate between single-family
dwellings and others. Single-family dwellings have a trip factor of 1.01 during
peak hours. Multi-family dwellings have .62. The trip factor for destination
resorts is .32. This was used to develop the system development rate.
Commissioner Luke said that Sunriver is not a destination resort. Part of this is
determined from the fact that many of the properties are rentals; it would be
hard to track if the house did not end up in the rental pool, or ended up being
occupied full-time.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Page 3 of 6 Pages
Mr. Blust said the .32 study looked at Black Butte Ranch and Eagle Crest. The
definition of destination resort is nebulous but the uses are similar. The study
did not differentiate between types of residences: single family, condos and
others.
Commissioner Unger asked if the Kittleston study was used to determine the
amount of the SDC. Mr. Blust said it was to show the twenty-year projected
trip growth. Peter Russell said they look at the developments at peak hours at
certain times of the year.
Commissioner Unger feels that all single-family dwellings should have the
same rate.
Mark Pilliod said they have a choice of taking no action, or can reopen the
issue. Dave Kanner said a separate policy decision may need to be made.
Commissioner Luke feels the impact on the roads is the same no matter where
the house is located. Commissioner Unger agreed.
5. Discussion of Planning Commission Appointments.
It was explained that some of the terms expire the end of June. Keith Cyrus has
had two terms, which can be extended for an additional six months.
Commissioner Unger stated that there has been a lot of discussion in the local
newspapers about Mr. Cyrus and his personal interest. The Planning
Commission has addressed this concern, and said it has not affected their
decisions. They are into periodic review of the comprehensive plan and other
big projects, and he feels the six-month option should be exercised. Mr. Cyrus
represents local farming interests and his input is valuable.
Commissioner Baney acknowledged his integrity and service, and that they
have been through a lot of challenging issues over the past eight years. It was
very helpful to have his history and knowledge. However, she does not think
the comprehensive plan update will be ready with in six months, and this would
just delay the inevitable. She prefers that something be done to balance the
information, and suggested leaving Mr. Cyrus on for a few months to work with
a new Planning Commissioner and bring him or her up to speed. This is almost
like a mentorship, and might be a good idea to do this as a general policy.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Page 4 of 6 Pages
Commissioner Unger stated that six months would take this until the end of the
year. This runs through with the process on the comprehensive plan update,
when the Planning Commission is supposed to have recommendations ready. It
would be difficult to bring someone up to speed along with another new
member during the same time frame.
Commissioner Luke said that it appears there are not two votes to extend the
term for six months. He noted that it has been postponed too long already. It
will be hard to replace Mr. Cyrus because of his knowledge of land use. He
would support two or three months, but no longer. Mr. Cyrus has done a good
job, takes it seriously, and has gone out of his way to follow the law.
The Board agreed to extend his term for another sixty days.
The second position is for the Redmond area. Commissioner Klyce can serve
another term. Commissioner Unger said that they have some autonomy while
fulfilling their term. When a term ends, that is the time to discuss how things
are going and maybe to let others apply. The choice is to either reappoint him
or select another. There should be a policy to follow each time.
Commissioner Baney stated that this would take a lot of time that no one has
available. If there are reservations about someone, they should not be
reappointed.
Commissioner Luke observed that he does not expect the Planning
Commissioners to agree with each other all the time. They need to make
independent decisions. He has disagreed with Commissioner Klyce on some
things also. It has been a while since the appointment, and he feels it would be
good to meet with him again.
Commissioner Unger suggested that they should meet with anyone who is up
for reappointment anyway.
6. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules.
None were discussed.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Page 5 of 6 Pages
7. Other Items.
A grant request for the Central Oregon Youth Investment Foundation, for
scholarships, was presented. Commissioner Luke granted $1,000, and
Commissioners Unger and Baney agreed to split the difference, up to $400 each.
Mr. Kanner presented an amendment to an agreement with EDCO regarding
economic development options. The Board was supportive of the change.
The La Pine Community Kitchen is being required to pave the parking lot
because the site plan approval occurred prior to city incorporation, and is
seeking options. Mr. Kanner stated that they can apply for an economic
development grant. It will be a decision of the City as to whether to modify for
site plan requirements. The Board wants to help in any way possible.
At this time, the Board went into executive session under ORS 192.660(2)(h),
pending or threatened litigation.
After executive session, Hillary Borrud asked if the Board received any a-mails
from the public regarding Richard Klyce's term on the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Baney agreed to provide them to her.
Being no further items addressed, the meeting adjourned at 3:50 p.m.
DATED this 26h Day of May 2010 for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners.
Dennis R. Luke, Chair
Alan Unger, Vice Chair
ATTEST: CK~,, /
' c
S Tammy Baney, Co missioner
Recording Secretary
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Page 6 of 6 Pages
O
'O
S,~
O
Y
C
~p
M
N
>
co
V
v
E
J1
~
--CI
,
Ci~l
N
N
~
4
l9
v
c
J
4
~
~
s
v
co
.CO
C
a
V1
J
4-
ca
00
co
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, MAY 26, 2010
1. Discussion of Proposed Speed Limit on Skyliners Road - George Kolb
2. Discussion of Proposed Residential Sprinklers Requirement - Tom Anderson
3. NeighborImpact Loan Program for South County Septic Replacement - Tom
Anderson
4. Continued Discussion of Transportation SDC Methodology
5. Discussion of Planning Commission Appointments - Nick Lelack
6. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules
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.
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 information.
Road Department
61150 SE 27th St. • Bend, Oregon 97702
(5411388-6581 • FAX (5411388-2719
MEMORANDUM
TO:
BONNNIE BAKER
FROM:
GEORGE KOLB, COUNTY ENGINEER
SUBJECT:
'T'EMPORARY SPEED LIMIT ON SKYLINERS ROAD
DATE:
5/10/2010
CC: -
FILE
Hello Bonnie;
I would like to have this Order which sets a temporary speed limit on Skyliners put on the May
26th work session agenda. The Board had talked about the installation of a temporary speed limit
on Skyliners Road until such time as the road is reconstructed. I have not requested a number for
the order as I would like to wait to see what direction the Board decides to go. Thanks - George
George Kolb, PE
County Engineer
Deschutes County Road Department
aeoraek a.co.deschutes.or.us
(541) 322-7113
Quality Services Performed with Pride
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Order Setting a Temporary Speed Limit of
45 miles Per Hour on Skyliners Road from ORDER NO. 2010-
MP 1.96, Crosby Road (Bend City Limits) to
MP 10.04, End of County Maintenance
WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Road Department, pursuant to the provisions of ORS
810.180(8), has determined that the existing pavement width and condition of Skyliners Road has
altered the character of the roadway to the extent that a speed lower than the statutory speed is
necessary; and
WHEREAS, Skyliners Road's condition includes potholes, broken down shoulders, severe
cracks, narrow travel lanes, the absence of bike lanes and curved roadway sections, and
WHEREAS, the increased use of Skyliners Road by bicyclists has created an unsafe situation
for the bicyclists and automobile traffic; and
WHEREAS, Skyliners Road is scheduled for reconstruction in the year 2013 though the
Federal Forest Highway Program; and
WHEREAS, Skyliners Road will be constructed with paved shoulder bikeways to allow
bicyclists and automobiles to use the road together in a safe manner, and
WHEREAS, based upon said engineering determination of danger to the public, the County
Engineer has found that when the speed designated in ORS 811.105 or ORS 811.111 or by
permanent written order is greater than the speeds designated below, a temporary speed reduction to
lessen the risk to the public is desirable; now, therefore
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON,
HEREBY ORDERS as follows:
Section 1. That the designated speed for the following section of roadway be as follows:
Name: Skyliners Road
Designated Speed: 45 miles per hour
From: Milepost 1.96 Crosby Road (Bend City Limits)
To: Milepost 10.04 End of County Maintenance
Section 2. That the Road Department shall install appropriate signs giving notice of the
designated speed per ORS 810.180, Subsection 8(d).
PAGE 1 OF 2- ORDER No. 2010-
Section 3. That the signs installed pursuant to this order comply with the provisions of ORS
810.210 and 810.220.
Section 4 That this speed zone will be in effect until completion of the reconstruction of
Skyliners Road.
Section 6. That this Order shall be recorded with the Deschutes County Clerk, and copies
shall be filed with the Deschutes County Surveyor and County Assessor.
DATED this day of , 2009.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
DENNIS R. LUKE, CHAIR
ATTEST: ALAN UNGER, VICE CHAIR
Recording Secretary
TAMMY BANEY, COMMISSIONER
PAGE 2 OF 2- ORDER No. 2010-
)T FS `
Community Development Department
hA< Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division
I~L 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925
(541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 26, 2010
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM Tom Anderson, Director
Dave Pedersen. Building Official
SUBJECT: Residential Sprinklers Requirement
Background:
As you may recall, the 2009 International Residential Code (IRC) included the requirement that
all new 1 & 2 family dwellings be constructed with fire suppression sprinklers. The State Building
Codes Division (BCD) has begun to develop the proposed 2011 Oregon Residential Specialty
Code, and intends to use the 2009 IRC as the model code within it. The Oregon Building
Officials Association (OBOA) is soliciting input from member jurisdictions on the BCD proposal,
and prior to providing that input, the Board is requested to give direction to staff on the form of
that input.
Discussion Points:
• Fire sprinkler systems in all new homes will likely result in a reduction to property loss,
particularly in rural fire districts where response times are longer.
• A number of rural fire districts within the county have expressed support for fire
sprinklers over the years, although at least one urban fire district is not in favor of making
them mandatory.
• Fire sprinklers are expensive and will add cost to all new homes.
• Water supply and minimum pressure may be issues with respect to fire sprinkler
systems and may limit new residential construction in certain parts of the county.
• Some insurance companies have told us that they do not like to see sprinklers in
residences because of the potential for accidental damage from frozen or broken heads.
• It is possible for the State to adopt the 2009 IRC, but make the residential sprinkler
requirement optional for local jurisdictions to adopt if they wish.
• There exists currently a process whereby BCD would permit a local jurisdiction to adopt
a sprinkler ordinance, but to our knowledge none has been adopted in Oregon.
• The Central Oregon Builders Association (COBA) and the Central Oregon Association of
Realtors (COAR) have been made aware of the Board's discussion of this issue and are
expected to attend the work session.
Options:
1) Support full inclusion of the 2009 IRC in the 2011 Oregon residential Code, including the
mandatory requirement of fire sprinklers in all new construction.
2) Oppose inclusion of the 2009 IRC in the 2011 Oregon residential Code.
3) Support inclusion of the 2009 IRC in the 2011 Oregon residential Code, but support fire
sprinklers in all new construction only as an option for local jurisdictions.
4) Other
Staff Recommendation:
Option #3.
~I
,A
Community Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division
117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925
(541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 26, 2010
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM Tom Anderson, Director
Laurie Craghead, Assistant Legal Counsel
SUBJECT: Proposed Contract with Neighborlmpact for South County Septic Upgrade
Financial Assistance
Background:
Deschutes County ordinance 2008-019 requires that nitrogen reducing septic systems be
installed in southern Deschutes County for all new construction, major home expansions, or in
situations where the existing septic system has failed. Currently, financial assistance is available
through the USDA and Neighborlmpact (NI) to qualifying low and moderate income households
to install these systems in the latter case. However, certain households do not qualify for this
assistance in certain circumstances, including situations where the property owner is behind on
mortgage payments or county tax payments, or in situations of minimal or negative home equity.
The Board has previously indicated that they would like to assist this group of property owners
through a contract with NI, whereby the county would provide funds for "non-conforming" loans
through the regular NI rehabilitation loan program. CDD staff and legal counsel have been
working with NI to develop the scope of services associated with this contract, and prior to
finalization and final approval, would like to discuss it with the Board to ensure that it covers
what is intended and satisfies the Boards direction.
Discussion Points:
The draft scope of services is attached. Major points include:
• $60,000 is obligated to NI to fund the subject loans. Language is included outlining a
process for the request of additional funds if needed.
• County shall have sign off authority for each loan proposed.
• Loan recipients shall be required to attend a workshop on foreclosure prevention and
meet with a foreclosure counselor.
• An emergency loan review/application process where a system is failing and requires
immediate repair.
• Quarterly reports to the county on loan activity.
• Commitment from NI for matching funds for two years.
0 A 10% administrative fee paid to NI for each awarded loan.
Additional Policy Questions:
1) Should loan recipients also be eligible for the $3,750 loan rebate program for successful
installation of nitrogen reducing systems?
2) Should the program be made retroactive to assist property owners who have already
installed nitrogen reducing systems through private financing, especially those who may
have been disqualified from NI assistance because they may not have been aware that
the NI program required loan approval prior to commencement of work? Staff is aware of
at least one situation where this occurred where the property owner's system was failing
and they felt it was imperative to fix the system immediately.
Requested Board Action:
Provide feedback on proposed scope of services and direction on policy questions.
DRAFT #4 DESCHUTES COUNTY REHABILITATION LOAN -°SCOPE OF SERVICES
EXHIBIT 1
STATEMENT OF WORK & COMPENSATION
PAYMENT TERMS AND SCHEDULE
1. Contractor shall perform the following work:
a. Contractor shall provide loans to Clients who have residential mortgages encumbering their primary
dwellings and who would not otherwise qualify for Contractor's existing loan program ("Nonconforming
Loans").
b. "Client" means any person who owns and resides in a dwelling, as his or her primary residence, located
in the areas designated in Exhibit 7, attached and incorporated by reference herein.
c. Contractor shall accept and review all applications from Clients, provide funding for those
Nonconforming Loans approved by Contractor, and service all Nonconforming Loans.
d. Contractor shall pay for the Nonconforming Loans from the grant described in Paragraph 2 below.
e. Contractor shall provide clients with Nonconforming Loans to only aid Clients in paying to upgrade
existing onsite wastewater treatment systems to nitrogen-reducing systems as required by County
("Upgrade").
f. Contractor shall require any Client who applies for a Nonconforming Loan to provide Contractor
documentation of the estimated cost for an Upgrade.
g. Except as provided in Paragraph 1.h. below, Contractor shall not provide a Nonconforming Loan for
more than the Client's estimated cost for an Upgrade and its installation.
h. Contractor may provide a Nonconforming Loan for more than the Client's estimated cost for an Upgrade
and its installation if:
1) Physical characteristics of the Client's property will result in additional cost for installation of the
Upgrade;
2) The installation contractor provides written documentation of physical characteristics of the Client's
property and the estimated additional cost; and
3) Contractor provides County with a copy of the written documentation described in Paragraph 1.h.2),
i. Contractor shall not provide a Nonconforming Loan of more than $25,000 per Client.
j. Contractor shall apply Contractor's existing Home Rehabilitation Loan Program ("Conforming Loan")
rules, attached as Exhibit 8 and incorporated by reference herein, in determining whether a Client shall
be awarded a Nonconforming Loan, with the following exceptions:
1) Contractor will consider for approval of a Nonconforming Loan application from Clients who failed to
make one or more timely mortgage payment;
2) Contractor will consider for approval Nonconforming Loan applications from Clients whose home
equity is insufficient to secure the Nonconforming Loan;
3) For all Clients under Paragraph 1.i.2), Contractor shall not consider any loan to value criteria;
4) Contractor shall require all Clients who apply for a Nonconforming Loan to attend Contractor's
Foreclosure Prevention Workshop and to meet with one of Contractor's foreclosure counselors
before considering the Nonconforming Loan application for approval;
5) Contractor shall not require a certified general contractor; and
6) The Client may have existing judgment liens attached to the Client's real property.
k. Contractor shall expedite the application review and approval upon written notice from County that an
emergency exists for the installation of a Client's upgrade.
1) To the expedite application and review and approval by Contractor, Contractor shall require from
client only proof of income and proof that the property on which the Upgrade is to be installed is the
Client's primary residence.
2) Contractor shall complete the expedited review and approval or denial of the application within three
(3) days of the Client's submission of the documentation required in Paragraph 1.k.1).
3) If the Client's loan application is approved under this expedited application review and approval,
Contractor may provide the loan to the Client from the Nonconforming Loan funds provided by the
County in Paragraph 2.
4) Contractor shall require the Client to complete the application for a Conforming Loan as a
condition of receiving the expedited approval of the application.
5) If the Client qualifies for the Conforming Loan after installation of the Upgrade, Contractor
shall replace the County's Nonconforming Loan funds with funds from the Conforming Loan
program.
1. Contractor shall provide approximately two to eight Nonconforming Loans during the period of this
contract.
m. Contractor shall provide a quarterly accounting to the County of all loan applications being reviewed,
loans funded and Upgrades installed.
n. If the $60, 000 in grant funds described in Paragraph 2.a. are fully utilized before the two-year term of
this contract expires, Contractor may request additional grant funds from County.
o. Contractor will provide additional Contractor funds to fund loans only for Upgrades to Clients who qualify
for Contractor's existing Conforming Loan program.
p. Contractor will provide funds in the amount of up to $60,000 from its Revolving Loan Fund for the
Conforming Loans.
q. Contractor will provide the Conforming Loan matching funds for two years.
2. County service. County shall provide Contractor, at County's expense, with material and services
described as follows:
a. County shall provide Contractor with Grant Funds in the amount of $60,000 for Contractor to provide
Nonconforming Loans.
b. County shall provide Contractor with the completed loan authorization form, attached as Exhibit 9 and
incorporated by reference herein, for each Client approved by County for any Nonconforming Loan
approval recommended to County by Contractor.
c. County may refer to Contractor Clients who may be eligible for either the Nonconforming Loans or
Conforming Loans.
d. If the $60, 000 in grant funds from the County described in Paragraph 2.a. are fully utilized by
Contractor prior to expiration of this contract and Contractor requests additional grant funds, this
contract may be amended upon written agreement of Contractor and County to add additional funds for
the Nonconforming Loan program.
e. When approving an Upgrade installation permit, County will follow all state and county regulations for
requiring Upgrade installation contractor certification
3. Consideration.
a. County shall pay Contractor a service delivery fee of ten percent (10%) of the Nonconforming Loan
amount per Nonconforming Loan awarded to a Client.
b. Contractor may deduct the service delivery fee in Paragraph 3.a. from the $60,000 County grant funds
described in Paragraph 2.a.
c. Contractor shall be entitled to reimbursement for expenses as set forth in Exhibit 5 ❑ YES R] NO
[Check one]
4. The maximum compensation.
a. The maximum compensation under this contract, including allowable expenses, is $60,000.00.
b. Contractor shall not submit invoices for, and County shall not pay for any amount in excess of the
maximum compensation amount set forth above.
1) If this maximum compensation amount is increased by amendment of this contract, the amendment
shall be fully effective before contractor performs work subject to the amendment.
2) Contractor shall notify County in writing of the impending expiration of this Contract thirty (30)
calendar days prior to the expiration date.
5. Schedule of Performance or Delivery.
a. County's obligation to pay depends upon Contractor's delivery or performance in accordance with the
schedule listed in Exhibit 1, Paragraph 1.
b. County will only pay for completed work that conforms to the terms of the Contract.
,-C' ES -4:
0 . -C
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 2, 2010
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Dave Kanner, County Administrator
FROM: Tom Blust, Director
RE: Transportation SDC for Destination Resorts
Road Department
61150 SE 27th St. - Bend, Oregon 97702
(541) 388-6581- FAX (541) 388-2719
Background:
The Board adopted a Resolution establishing a transportation system development charge
(SDC) in July of 2008. This Resolution included adoption of a transportation system
development study (SDC methodology) as the basis for establishing the SDC fees.
The SDC methodology established trip generation rates and corresponding SDC's for various
land uses, including residential. Separate trip generation figures for single family dwellings
located within destination resorts and outside destination resorts were identified and used in the
SDC methodology for the trip growth calculation and the recommended SDC. However, the trip
generation rate table in the SDC methodology includes only a trip generation rate for single
family dwellings and does not distinguish a trip generation rate and SDC for single family
dwellings within destination resorts. The SDC rate in the table has been applied to single family
dwellings both within and outside of destination resorts.
This discrepancy has raised two issues: 1) Should the County amend the SDC rate table to
include a separate trip generation rate and corresponding SDC for single family dwellings within
destination resorts? 2) Should applicants that paid the single family dwelling SDC rate for
dwellings within destination resorts qualify for a reimbursement?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the trip generation rate for single family dwellings within destination
resorts used for calculating SDC charges should correspond with the figures used in the trip
growth calculation in the methodology report for single family dwellings within destination resorts
and that such trip generation rate and corresponding SDC should be established. Attached is a
draft resolution that would amend the original SDC resolution to add the destination resort rate.
SDC - Destination Resorts
Page 2 of 2
Staff further recommends that the county not reimburse any SDC funds already collected. The
SDC's paid were not in error - they were paid at the rate established in the original SDC
resolution. The original SDC resolution has not been appealed nor has there been an appeal of
the SDC's already collected.
The table below shows the current SDC rate for SF detached housing and the proposed
destination resort rate:
ITE
Peak-
Pass-By
Adjusted
code
Customer Type
Land Use Description
Hour
Trip
P-H Ts
SDC
Units
Trips
Factor
210
SF Detached
Single family detached housing
1.01
1
1.01
$3,583
DU
N/A
Destination Resort,
Single family detached housing within
0.32
1
0.32
$1,136
DU
SF Detached
a destination resort
To date (from October 1, 2008) the County has collected SDC's on approximately 48 dwelling
units in destination resorts (see attached listing).
DESCHUTES COUNTY LEGAL COUNSEL
MARK E PILLIOD
Legal Counsel
S Ext. 6625
PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY- CLIENT COMMUNICATION - NOT TO BE DISCLOSED
TO: Board of Commissioners
DATE: May 19, 2010
RE: Systems Development Charge (SDC) FILE NO.:
On April 2 the Director of the Road Department submitted a report to the Board
discussing what appeared to be an oversight in the adopted transportation system
development study (Methodology Report) underlying the County's system development
charge SDC). The comprehensive list of uses contained in the Methodology Report
includes a trip generation factor and proposed SDC for single family dwellings, but does
not distinguish between single family dwellings located within and outside of destination
resorts. This, despite the fact that elsewhere the Methodology Report draws a
distinction over trip generation for single family dwellings within and outside destination
resorts. The Director recommended that the Board approve a resolution, amending the
original adoptive resolution, to add a separate use category, trip generation rate and
charge for single family residential uses located within destination resorts. The Board
decided not to take action and asked that the matter be rescheduled for future
consideration.
The purpose of this memorandum is to advise the Board on available options.
The first option is to approve a form of resolution similar to that recommended by the
Director of the Road Department. While single family detached residential outside of
destination resorts would pay roughly $3584, single family residential units inside of
destination resorts would pay 32% of such amount. This percentage is an extrapolation
from material contained in the Methodology Report. The Director's recommendation did
not distinguish among the types of residential units (attached or detached, single family
or multi-family) within destination resorts. Any amending resolution should anticipate
and address whether there should be additional rates for single family residential uses
in destination resorts, depending on whether they are detached or multi-family units.
The Director had recommended that any new rates would apply prospectively from the
date of the Board adopts an amending resolution.
The second option would be to leave the existing system development charge
unchanged. The effect would be to require the same amount for all single family
residential uses regardless of their location in a destination resort. To consider the effect
of this option, one needs to consider the mechanics of the SDC resolution.
Page 1 of 3
The SDC resolution, section 4(B) provides:
The Transportation System Development Charges (SDC's) shall be determined as
follows:
(1) For those land-use categories which are specifically identified in the methodology
report adopted pursuant to this resolution, the SDC amount shall be determined as
identified in the Methodology Report.
(2) For land-use categories for which no trip generation rate is included in the
methodology report, the Director shall use the land-use category identified in the
Methodology Report that is most similar in trip generation, and may consider seasonal
and/or cyclical variations to adjust peak hour trip rates. An applicant who does not agree
with the Director's decision may appeal this decision as outlined in Section 12 of this
resolution "
The Director of the Road Department first determines whether to apply the particular
land use category specifically identified in the methodology. If so, the Director applies
that particular rate. Where the particular land use category and its associated trip
generation rate is not included in the methodology report, then the Director applies the
land use category identified in the methodology that is most similar in terms of trip
generation and may, at that time consider seasonal and/or cyclical variations to adjust
the peak hour trip rate.
Assuming an applicant were to take the position that the reference on the
comprehensive table of uses to detached single family residential units was not
intended to include residential units in destination resorts, or if they were dissatisfied
with the Director's consideration of seasonal and/or cyclical variations to adjust peak
hour trip rates, they could appeal the Director's decision to the Board.
Ultimately, the question to answer is what the Board intended when it adopted the SDC.
To address this question, one must first determine whether the text of what was
adopted is ambiguous. The description of single family detached residential dwellings is
not inherently ambiguous.
The Methodology Report, adopted as part of the resolution, consists of a narrative
description of data, information and assumptions used to calculate an SDC based upon
peak-hour trips generated by various types of development. This Report includes
summaries of meetings of the Stakeholders Advisory Committee, whose members
represented various development interests. Most importantly this Report contains a
comprehensive list of land uses, which, as it pertains here, refers simply to single family
residential (SF detached). While this list of uses includes distinct types of residential
development: apartment, condo/townhouse, mobile home, elderly housing, hotel and
motel, besides single family detached, the list contains no specific distinction for uses
within destination resorts.
The Methodology Report also includes a table entitled "Trip Growth Estimated from
Residential Development and Population Change." This table distinguishes among
Page 2 of 3
three types of residential development, single family detached, multi-family and
destination resorts. It also demonstrates that from the standpoint of existing and
predicted future development, while detached single family residential development
currently generates and is predicted to generate in the future slightly more than one
peak hour trip per unit (101 a residential dwelling in a destination resort generates
and is predicted to generate approximately one-third (1/3) peak hour trips per unit
(32%). This table might be used to support the conclusion that the impact from each
dwelling unit in a destination resort is or should be proportionately less than single
family dwellings outside of destination resorts and that the corresponding SDC should
similarly be reduced. This table might also imply that single family residential uses in
destination resorts are not otherwise included in the comprehensive list of uses.
The problem with concluding that the distinction used in this Table between single
family residential and destination resorts, is that the latter does not specify the nature of
development in destination resorts. In other words this reference to destination resorts,
could mean detached or attached dwellings or both. The comprehensive use table
draws a distinction between detached and multi-family residential. If the comprehensive
use table were to be adjusted to distinguish residential development in destination
resorts, then it might need to further specify detached and attached dwelling units and
single-family and multi-family units.
Some members of the Stakeholders Advisory Committee, particularly those who were
representing development interests probably anticipated the comprehensive table of
uses would reflect a distinct trip generation rate for single family residential uses in
destination resorts. Likewise, the consultant who prepared the methodology might have
intended to carry forward in the recommended SDC charge a distinction between
estimated future development inside and outside destination resorts. However, the
expectations of the participants in the advisory committee are not reflected in the finally
adopted SDC, including the Methodology Report, and cannot be used to insert a new,
distinct use category for single family residential development in destination resorts.
As an alternative to arguing for a new use category, an applicant could apply for an
alternative rate of SDC under Section 4(C). They would need to establish that the
impact on County capital improvements, i.e., roads, resulting from their development is
less than the fee for single family residential uses outside of destination resorts. Using
data, information and assumptions that are consistent with those used to establish the
SDC, an applicant would need to present from an independent source the following: a
local study supported by an adequate database; using a generally accepted
methodology and based upon generally accepted standard sources of information
relating to facilities planning, cost analysis and demographics; a demonstration that the
number of peak hour trips is at least ten (10%) percent less than the number set forth in
the Methodology; and the number of peak hour trips would need to be documented by a
registered engineer. The Director would determine whether the submitted information is
sufficient to support the conclusion that an alternative rate be applied. An applicant who
is dissatisfied with the Director's decision could appeal to the Board.
Page 3 of 3
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
For Recording Stamp Only
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
A Resolution amending Resolution 2008-059 to add a Trip
Generation Category for Destination Resort Single Family * RESOLUTION NO. 2010-<>
Dwellings to the Transportation System Development Charges
WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Board of County Co m m i 1,ioners ("Board") adopted Resolution
2008-059 on July 23, 2008 establishing a transportation ystcm development charge ("SDC") to help fund
transportation projects that are necessary to serve the cxistmg and ~,rowth-related transportation' needs in the
unincorporated areas of the county; and
WHEREAS, Resolution 2008-059 approved and adopted a "Transportation System Development Study,
prepared by FCS Group, dated March 2008, (herein "SDC Methodology") as the basis for establishing a
transportation SDC; and
WHEREAS, Resolution 2008-059 establishes trip generation rater and corresponding SDC's for various
land uses, including residential; and
WHEREAS, trip generation tgures for single family (SF) dwellings located either within or outside
destination resorts was identified and used in the SDC yethodology for the trip growth calculation and the
recommended SDC; and
WHEREAS, the trip generation rate table in the SDC Methodology includes a trip generation rate for
all SF dwellings, but does not distinguish a trip generation rate and SDC for SF dwellings within destination
resorts; and
WHEREAS, the trip generation rate for SF dwellings within destination resorts used for calculating
SDC charges should correspond with the figures used in the trip growth calculation in the methodology report
for SF dwellings within destination resorts and that such trip generation rate and a corresponding SDC should be
established ; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES
COUNTY, OREGON. as follows:
Section 1. The table on pages 9 and 10 of Exhibit "A", Resolution 2008-059, shall be amended to add
the following category:
ITE code
Customer Type
Land Use Description
Peak-Hour
Pass-By
Adjusted
SDC
Units
Trips
Trip Factor
P-H Ts
Destination Resort, SF
Single family detached housing within a
0.32
1
0.32
$1,136
DU
Detached
destination resort
Page 1 of 2 - Resolution 2010-< >
Section 2. FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. Except as provided in this resolution, Resolution 2008-059
remains in full force and effect.
Section 3. EFFECTIVE. This resolution is effective immediately upon adoption by the Board of
County Commissioners.
DATED this day of , 2010.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCITIITES COUNTY, OREGON
DENNIS R. LUKE, Chair
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
ALAN LINGER. V ice Chair
I Al Nl1 ' BAN EY, Commissioner
Page 2 of 2 - Resolution 2010-< >
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN DESCHUTES COUNTY and
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOR CENTRAL OREGON
Document No. 2010-353
WHEREAS, Deschutes County supports Economic Development for Central Oregon
(EDCO) in its job-creation and economic development efforts via an annual
appropriation in the Deschutes County budget; and
WHEREAS, EDCO focuses its efforts on job-creation activities with traded-sector
businesses of all sizes; and
WHEREAS, these job-creation efforts may include, but arc not limited to, assistance with
business relocation from outside of Deschutes County to D~:schutes County or the
expansion of an existing business within Deschutes Cottnt%-; acid
WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners has created Fund 105, "The
Economic Development Fund," whose uses aru delineated in Resolution No. 2010-038,
which is attached as exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 2010-038 envisions that EDCO shall use this fund for the
purposes described therein;
NOW, THEREFORE, EDCO AND DESCI I l_ TES C`OL; ti TY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. EDCO shall, in the course of its normal business recruitment and retention activities,
make eligible businesses avv are of the availabil it % of loans and grants from Deschutes
County's Economic Dcvelopmetit Fund...
2. Loan and/or grant funds shall be disbursed directly by Deschutes County to recipient
businesses upon receipt of an cxectttud grant/loan agreement. Such agreements shall be
prepared by EDCO in a Corm approved by Deschutes County.
3. In detertni11ina whether to recommend that a business be offered a loan or a grant,
EDCO shall eonsi(lor the following:
a. The long-term ability of a business to repay a loan or comply with clawback
provisions of a grant;
b. The likelihood that the award of a grant or loan will result in the creation of new
jobs in Deschutes County;
c. The marketplace viability of the business in question and the likelihood that the
business would relocate and/or expand without the loan or grant.
4. All loans and grants shall be tied, via written agreement, to specific job-creation
targets. Grant agreements shall contain a clawback provision requiring partial repayment
of the grant if job-creation targets are not met.
5. In general, loans and grants shall not exceed an aggregate value of $50,000 to any
Document No. 2010-353 Page 1 of 2
single recipient.
6. All loans and grants are subject to the prior approval of the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners, which approval shall not be unreasonably denied or delayed.
7. This memorandum of understanding shall be effective upon signature by all parties. It
shall terminate if the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners, in its sole discretion,
fails to appropriate monies in Fund 105 for the purposes described in Deschutes County
resolution 2010-038. This MOU may also be terminated by either party upon 30 days
written notice to the other party.
FOR DESCHUTES COUNTY:
Datc:
Name:
Title:
FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOfd CENTRAL OR~-GON:
Date:
Name:
Title:
Document No. 2010-353 Page 2 of 2