2010-2955-Minutes for Meeting December 01,2010 Recorded 12/14/2010DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL
NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL
11111111111111111111111111 IT I III
2010-2955
RECORDS
C } 2010.2955
CLERK J
12/14/2010 08:41:05 AM
Do not remove this page from original document.
Deschutes County Clerk
Certificate 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
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2010
Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Alan Unger and Tammy Baney.
Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy
County Administrator; Tom Anderson, Nick Lelack and Peter Russell of
Community Development; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; Tom Blust and
George Kolb, Road Department; media representatives Hillary Borrud of The
Bulletin and Dave Adams of KBND Radio; and two other citizens.
Chair Luke opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m.
1. Consideration of Approval of Amendments to Promissory Notes and an
Option Advance Note with the Humane Society of Redmond.
Dave Kanner gave a brief overview of the item. He said they got in surrendered
horses of some value, and have been able to sell them. They also got a $25,000
challenge grant and some funds from an estate. He feels that their financial
situation has improved and they will address their policies regarding accepting
cats in the near future.
UNGER: Move approval of Document Nos. 2010-698 and 2010-699.
BANEY: Second.
VOTE: UNGER: Yes.
BANEY: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
2. Discussion of Fee Waiver Request (Deschutes Junction Declaratory
Ruling).
Tom Anderson said he has the authority to waive some fees, but in some
instances, this must come before the Board. One requirement is that the waiver
must benefit the community.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Page 1 of 6 Pages
Mr. Anderson stated that the owner of the subject property, Mr. Fagen, feels a
waiver should be considered in a case involving property he owns at Deschutes
Junction so that there is some clarification.
The fee waiver form submitted by Mr. Fagen is an older version. Paul Dewey
commented on the substance of that submission. Mr. Anderson feels
consideration of the request today should be conducted under the new version.
Peter Russell said that part of the definition of a rural service center would be
that there is more than one residential structure. It does not fit the criteria in
this case. The permanent residential status of the building needs to be
determined. There are three options: waive the $1,230 fee; waive a portion of
the fee; or don't waive the fee at all.
Commissioner Luke stated that because it is in a landscape management zone,
the pink color of the building is not in compliance. Mr. Anderson said this is
being addressed.
Commissioner Unger said that he believes there is just one building there. Mr.
Russell stated there is a brick building west of this one that has been used as a
f
dwelling. At question is the permanent residential status of the big, pink
building. This has been in question since 2002 when the State criteria for an
unincorporated commercial area was found not to fit Administrative Rule.
Commissioner Luke said that an arrangement was made at that time, which is
one reason the Funny Farm owners relocated to the east side of the highway.
He added that the people who bought the previous Funny Farm property were
surprised to find out that the use had changed and had been `moved' to the other
side of the highway.
Mr. Russell stated that this ruling was never appealed, but it would help if a
declaratory ruling could be made at this time.
Commissioner Baney said that she feels that this is not really a fee waiver
request but something else that should be addressed in a different manner. Mr.
Russell stated that the fee waiver process started because he was under the
impression that the property owner's permission was needed to proceed. He
has since found out that this is not the case.
Commissioner Luke said that Deschutes Junction has been unclear for a long
time. He thinks the County and residents deserve some clarity. Commissioner
Unger asked what the next steps would be, and what the declaratory ruling
would accomplish.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Page 2 of 6 Pages
Nick Lelack stated that this effort would be incorporated into the
comprehensive plan update work being done on this area. The financial
question is, they can make an administrative ruling, but if the Board does not
call it up, it will be subject to an appeal. Mr. Russell said that the public would
have a chance to respond if it is called up by the Board. Otherwise, it would
have to be appealed and there are costs associated with it going to the Hearings
Officer.
Commissioner Luke suggested that the Board authorize reimbursement of
Community Development up to $1,230, an amount equal to the fee, for staff
time and expenses, but to be clear that this is not a fee waiver but a request for
review and a declaratory ruling. Commissioner Unger would also like to see
this issue clarified.
UNGER: Move approval of funding up to $1,230 to cover staff time to research
and write the declaratory ruling on the permanent residential status of
the pink building on the Fagen property; and, after staff issues its
administrative decision, the Board will call up that decision and hold a
public hearing.
BANEY: Second.
VOTE: UNGER: Yes.
BANEY: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
3. Transportation Systems Plan Update.
Peter Russell explained there have been memoranda and other documents
produced and analyzed. Performance standards for some areas have been
reviewed, and some improvements to the failing areas are suggested. Most of
the failing locations involve where County roads meet State highways. There is
so much volume on the highways that this impacts the other roads.
He referred to a map showing the problem areas. The model just shows what is
failing now, assuming it will also be failing in twenty years if nothing changes.
One suggestion is to add travel lanes and turn lanes. At-grade separated
interchanges are best but can only be done in specific locations.
There are 260 transportation analysis zones in the County. Tom Blust stated
that there are other ways of prioritizing the locations; for instance, by looking at
accident history, use and so on.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Page 3 of 6 Pages
Commissioner Unger said there should be plans for short, medium and long-
term issues. Mr. Blust said the capital improvement plan would be updated
when the TSP is adopted. There is also the system development charge to
consider, which also needs to be updated. The CIP is considered short-term
because there is no way to determine costs more than five years out.
The Burgess Road problem area is around Meadow and Huntington Roads.
There are also issues around Baker Road, which is a complex area.
Commissioner Unger said that people do not care whose road it is, they just
want the system to work. Some roads are affected by cities, the County and the
State. People are mobile and just want to get there. He just wants to make sure
everyone works together.
4. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules.
None were discussed.
5. Other Items.
Commissioner Luke said there has been a series of a-mails between him,
County Counsel and Community Development staff regarding the Outward
Bound appeal and photos taken of the structures. He wants to be sure that the
other Commissioners have the same information available to them.
Commissioner Unger updated the Board on the Collaborative Forest
Restoration project. They are trying to determine what is meant by
collaborative and how to work together to create a plan that helps all involved.
The charter and ground rules include thirty parties who will work with the
Forest Service. Commissioner Baney asked if this establishes any kind of costs
or budget. Commissioner Unger said that there are two individuals working on
this project that should be reimbursed for some of their efforts, perhaps through
grants.
Commissioner Unger stated that there would be a signing event at some point.
He asked if Board approval is needed to move forward with this effort.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Page 4 of 6 Pages
This is separate from timber receipt dollars, and comes from different sources
of funding. Commissioner Baney asked if it is necessary to pursue this funding
as well. Commissioner Unger said that this involves forest health, and the other
involves the sale of timber.
UNGER: Move approval.
BANEY: Second.
VOTE: UNGER: Yes.
BANEY: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
Dave Kanner asked about a letter that came to the Board from a person who is
concerned about individuals in her neighborhood feeding wildlife, which is not
necessarily healthy for the animals or safe for the area. It appears there are no
laws that prohibit this, even though the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife
discourages this type of activity. There might be legislation introduced to
address this issue. There are cities that have ordinances prohibiting this because
they do not want to attract larger predators to an area.
Commissioner Luke suggested that the citizen be advised to contact ODF&W
and her legislators to help them develop appropriate laws. Commissioner
Unger feels this is more of an educational problem and has not risen to the point
of being a safety issue.
Mr. Kanner said that he is still having a problem finding a date for a meeting of
the Board and Patrick Flaherty, the District Attorney-elect. He would like to
have this meeting occur before a Board vote needs to be taken on the union
agreement. Commissioner Luke said that a real effort has been made to work
with Mr. Flaherty, and things should not be delayed because it is not convenient
for Mr. Flaherty to meet.
Mr. Kanner stated that the Board reviewed the contract with the Board already,
line by line, and it has been ratified by the union. Mr. Flaherty has had a copy
for some time and has had plenty of time to read it. The agreement needs to be
ratified prior to the end of the year. If it is not approved, it will probably end up
being subject to potentially costly binding arbitration.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Page 5 of 6 Pages
Commissioner Luke would like to know what Mr. Flaherty thinks about it, but
evidently, he does not find it important enough to respond. Mr. Kanner stated
that the Board needs to help Mr. Flaherty understand how the contract works
and its ramifications.
It was decided that the public discussion would be held on December 8; and a
decision would be made on December 15, 2010 at the work session. The Board
hopes they are able to meet with Mr. Flaherty prior to then.
Being no further items discussed, the meeting adjourned at 3:05 p.m.
DATED this
Deschutes County
ATTEST:
U i Day of ' 2010 for the
Board of Commissioners.
112
Recording Secretary
Dennis R. Luke, Chair
9&- ulm-
Alan Unger, Vice Chair
Tammy Baney, ComrrXissioner
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Page 6 of 6 Pages
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, DECEMBER 1, 2010
1. Consideration of Approval of Amendments to Promissory Notes and an Option
Advance Note with the Humane Society of Redmond - Dave Kanner
2. Discussion of Fee Waiver Request (Deschutes Junction Declaratory Ruling) -
Peter Russell
3. Transportation Systems Plan Update - Peter Russell
4. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules
5. 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.
N
L
IC
0 V
M
~
f
E
c
c
0
N
s
a
N
J
~
-
lV
o
n
v
M
N
L
4
c
V
d
^
Q
v I
co
•OJ
to
N
N
V
W
0
z
'Ilk
a
J
41
O
CO
ommunity 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: December 1, 2010
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM Tom Anderson, Community Development Department Director
SUBJECT: Fee Waiver Request from Harry Fagen for declaratory ruling on residential status
of two-story pink building on NW quadrant of Deschutes Junction
Background:
The Planning Commission (PC) is currently holding public hearings on TA-10-6, the four
proposed transportation and land use policies for Deschutes Junction, as part of the
Comprehensive Plan update. At the Aug. 26 public hearing the residential status of the pink
building on the northwest quadrant was a topic of long discussion. The PC directed staff to
query the Board of County Commissioners (Board) on the following questions: 1) should the
County issue a declaratory ruling on the topic and 2) should the declaratory ruling be initiated by
staff or by the property owner. At a Sept. 29 work session the Board directed staff to initiate the
declaratory ruling, but it was not clear that in doing that the Board intended that the fees would
be waived. The Board also recommended the declaratory ruling be handled administratively,
but the Board would then call up the decision and hold a public hearing.
Determining the residential status of this building is the threshold question for determining the
potential of Deschutes Junction to be considered for designation as an unincorporated
community under Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-22. The 1979 Comprehensive Plan
had designated Deschutes Junction as a Rural Service Center (RSC) but with the development
in 1994 of OAR 660-022 that designation was changed to Rural Commercial (RC) in 2002.
Per the attached request, Harry Fagen has requested the County waive the fee for a declaratory
ruling.
Discussion Points:
The following points are important for the Board to consider in weighing the waiver request:
• The declaratory ruling provides staff the opportunity to thoroughly research and review
the land use record for the site as well as various building and septic permits.
• There has been widespread interest in this topic by not only the property owner, but also
by the adjacent rural neighborhoods, albeit for differing reasons.
• The results of a declaratory ruling can be relayed to the PC to inform their discussion at
the Jan. 13, 2011, continued hearing on TA-10-6, the proposed transportation and land
use policies for Deschutes Junction.
• The declaratory ruling would provide adequate findings and hopefully a final resolution
on this topic at the local level. The declaratory ruling would not affect the current RC
zoning on the Fagen property.
• The fee in question is $1,230.00
• Per the Community Development Fee Waiver, the Board must find that the waiver
serves the public benefit since Mr. Fagen is not claiming indigence.
Requested Board Action:
Provide direction to staff from the following possible actions:
1) Find that the fee waiver request serves the public benefit; accept the fee waiver request;
and direct staff to immediately begin work on a declaratory ruling on the permanent
residential status of the pink building.
2) Same as1), except Mr. Fagen pays a portion of the fee
3) Deny the fee waiver request; if Mr. Fagen chooses to pay the fees and apply for a
declaratory ruling, staff will then prepare the declaratory ruling. If he chooses not to pay
the fee, then no declaratory ruling will be processed.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends alternative 1), due primarily to three factors. First, the change in zoning
from Rural Service Center (RSC) to Rural Commercial (RC) was an outcome of a County-
initiated process in 2002. Several members of the public have stated the County's
determination of the building's residential status was the key component in that decision and
therefore it is appropriate the County absorb the costs of the declaratory ruling on that same
topic. Second, staff has not been able to find any record or fully developed findings in the 2002
decision on the issue of the subject building. Third, if the fee waiver is denied, the property
owner may withdraw the declaratory ruling application and thus the controversy would likely
continue as staff cannot process the application without the property owner's consent.
2
[Fee Waiver Request For~nl
Name of Organization:
Address of Organization:
City State: Zip Code:
Type of Permit
[ ] Building $ . [ ] Planning $
[ ] Restaurant $ [ ] Subsurface Sewage $
[ ] Other $
Total amount of Fee(s) requested to be waived: $ .
The applicant shall provide a written explanation of the request and explain why one or more of
the criterions stated below are satisfied. The request will be reviewed by the Community
Development Director and a response will be provided within ten business days.
Criterion that must be met to qualify for a Fee Waiver.
A. The applicant meets the criteria for indigency and at least one of the following conditions.
Indigence shall be established by the financial hardship process attached (refer to Affidavit of
Indigence and Request for Fee Waiver form).
1. There is an immediate need of the services. to CDD to protect the applicant's or
public's health or safety.
2. Where granting the waiver will create a long term efficiency of a Code
Enforcement issue.
B. The request is from a nonprofit organization that has encountered an extraordinary
hardship that could not have been anticipated in planning for and funding of the project;
'the fee waiverwill benefit the communi~tv.. .
(NOTE: Community Services may be required by the CDD Director for some or all of
the waived fees.)
Deschutes County Community Development Fee Waiver Policy January 2006.doc
Page 7
10/27/2010
Harry Fagen
53 NW Tumalo Ave.
Bend, OR 97701
Community Development Department
117 NW Lafayette Avenue
Bend, OR 97701
To Whom It May Concern:
"It is our understanding the Board of County Commissioners has already
granted a fee waiver, however, we have been instructed by staff to submit
this letter in support of our written fee waiver request. Our review of the fee
waiver requirements indicate either financial indigency or a nonprofit with
extraordinary hardship is required for a fee waiver to be granted. The
written fee waiver form we received from staff crossed out the "and" after
non-profit and underlined only "the fee waiver will benefit the community".
We take this to mean no showing of indigency or non-profit status is
required. This understanding is further support by a September 30, 2010
email from Peter Russell wherein he states, "The only criterion to be used
will be B, which says the fee waiver will benefit the community". The
financially indigent criteria can be ignored.
Accordingly, we believe the fee waiver will benefit the community because
the issue to be decided by the declaratory ruling is an issue of County
concern. The status, both current and historic of this property is and has
been a contested issue. We believe the community will benefit from a
determination regarding possible development and uses on the property. We
understand the declaratory ruling may have a significant impact on the
possibility of master planning or the establishment of a rural service center
in the area. We believe the citizens of Deschutes County will benefit from
this clarification. We also further believe much of the confusion has been
created by seemingly inconsistent statements and findings in previous
County decisions regarding this area. Finally, we believe the County
Commissioners expressed their support for a fee waiver in this matter and
have directed staff to process the declaratory ruling application. We request
the fee waiver be granted.
Sincerely,
I/gegn
~sR
Tom Anderson
From:
Paul Dewey <pdewey@bendcable.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, November 30, 2010 3:49 PM
To:
Tom Anderson; Board
Cc:
Dave Kanner; Laurie Craghead; Peter Russell; Nick Lelack
Subject:
RE: Central Oregon Landwatch opposes Fagen fee waiver request
Hello Tom and Commissioners:
Thank you, Tom, for the clarifying material. Once again on behalf of Central Oregon LandWatch, we do not believe the
fee waiver criteria are met here even under a more limited review of item # 8. There is no clear "public benefit" here
where the primary interest of Mr. Fagen and a couple of other individuals is in upzoning their land. That is a private, not a
public, interest. If the criterion of "public benefit" is that a rezoning or other land use decision will have a substantial
impact on the public, then this and many other land use applications could probably qualify here. But that is surely not the
intent of the term "public benefit." This is not a pressing issue other than to those very few individuals who want to rezone
their land there. This is also not a matter of countywide significance. It is very site specific, dependent on local facts and
has no broad public application. The additional requirement of item #8 ("and other remedies have been exhausted") is
also not met here. This language assumes that this request is a last resort, but to our understanding a private application
by an applicant has not even been pursued (or "exhausted"). As I said in my earlier email, the granting of fee waivers on
such sketchy grounds is just going to invite more and more requests. Perceived inconsistent application of this fee waiver
rule will result in claims of favoritism or discrimination. Finally, just from a financial perspective, the County cannot afford
it. CDD is in no position to be volunteering its staff time so that these applicants, who are apparently not indigent, can get
a free ride.
Thank you for your consideration.
Paul
Paul Dewey Attorney at Law
1539 NW Vicksburg Ave.
Bend, OR 97701
541-317-1993
pdewey(a bendcable.com
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed and may
contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this
message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this information is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have
received this message by error, please notify us immediately and destroy the related message. Thank you.
From: Tom Anderson [mailto:Tom-Anderson@co.deschutes.or.us]
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 2:40 PM
To: pdewey@bendcable.com
Cc: Dave Kanner; Laurie Craghead; Peter Russell; Nick Lelack
Subject: FW: Central Oregon Landwatch opposes Fagen fee waiver request
Paul,
My sincere apologies for the confusion, but Mr Fagen used an older version of the fee waiver policy/form in his
application. The current version is attached. The Board will consider the fee waiver request under #8 (page 2). 1 was
intending to clarify this for the Board at the work session discussion, but I wanted to let you know right away given the
points in your e-mail.
Tom
Tom Anderson
Director
Deschutes County Community Development
117 NW Lafayette Avenue
Bend, OR. 97701
541/385-1704
541/385-1764 (fax)
toma@co. deschutes. onus
Bcc - Board of Commissioners
From: Peter Russell
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 1:50 PM
To: Tom Anderson; Nick Lelack
Subject: Central Oregon Landwatch opposes Fagen fee waiver request
FYI
Peter Russell
Senior Transportation Planner
Deschutes County Community Development Dept.
117 NW Lafayette Ave.
Bend, OR 97701
ph: (541) 383-6718
FAX (541) 385-1764
From: Paul Dewey [mailto:pdewey@bendcable.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 1:48 PM
To: Board
Cc: Laurie Craghead; Peter Russell
Subject: Re Fagen fee waiver request at Deschutes Junction
Dear Commissioners:
I am writing on behalf of Central Oregon LandWatch to express its opposition to the Fagen fee waiver request that is
apparently going to come before the Board on Wednesday. The fee waiver request is incomplete and should be
denied. Your Fee Waiver Policy allows for two alternative approaches, one by "the applicant" and one by "a nonprofit
organization." Mr. Fagen, as an applicant, must meet the criteria for indigency (supported by an affidavit) and meet one of
two conditions, one concerning health and safety and the other concerning a long term efficiency on a code enforcement
issue. Rather than apply for the fee waiver as an applicant, though, Mr. Fagen has submitted the request under B. which
concerns a nonprofit organization. (A nonprofit organization has to show that it has encountered an extraordinary
hardship and that the fee waiver will benefit the community.) There is no showing that Mr. Fagen is representing a
nonprofit organization, that it has encountered an extraordinary hardship or that the fee waiver will benefit the
community. Note that there is no basis to cross out the "and" on the form, as has been done here, or to argue that one
may obtain a fee waiver merely on the basis of an argument that it will benefit the community. If the applicable standard
for a fee waiver request was only a showing of community benefit, the remainder of the criteria regarding indigency,
hardship, etc. would be irrelevant. Also, as a policy matter, you would open yourselves up to the argument that many land
use matters involve a "community benefit" and you would get complaints about subjectively applying the waiver criteria. If
the Board wants to remove its objective criteria from the Fee Waiver Policy it should only do so after hearing from the
public and assessing the fiscal impacts associated with a new, broad waiver policy.
Thank you for your consideration.
Paul Dewey
Paul Dewey Attorney at Law
1539 NW Vicksburg Ave.
Bend, OR 97701
541-317-1993
Pdewev(@bendcable.com
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FEE WAIVER POLICY
Effective January 4, 2006, the Deschutes County Board of Commissioner approved
Ordinance No, 2006-001, 2006-002 and 2006-003 delegating authority to administer and
approve septic permit, building permit and land use permit fee waiver requests to the Community
Development Director and County Administrator. (DDC 13.08, 15.04.160 and 22.08.010).
The Board of County Commissioners of Deschutes County has delegated full authority to
the CDD Director to administer this policy with the exception of items #7 and #8.
POLICY GUIDELINES:
1. Fee waivers under this policy provide a public benefit.
2. With the adoption of this policy and continuing with each budget, an amount not to
exceed $5,000 shall be set aside into a hardship account within the CDD budget form
any savings of budgeted expenses or excess revenue.
3. When money is available in the hardship account of CDD, the CDD Director may
authorize fee waivers in amount not to exceed the fee waiver budget each year.
4. The CDD Director shall find an applicant meets one of the following criterion in
granting fee waivers:
A. The applicant meets the criteria for indigency and at least one of the following
conditions. Indigence shall be established by the financial hardship process attached as
Exhibit "A".
1. There is an immediate need of the services to CDD to protect the applicant's or
public's health or safety.
2. Where granting the waiver will create a long term efficiency of a Code
Enforcement issue.
B. The request is from a nonprofit organization that has encountered an extraordinary
hardship that could not have been anticipated in planning for and funding of the project;
and the fee waiver will benefit the community.
(NOTE: Community Services may be required by the CDD Director for some or all of
the waived fees.)
5. Fee Waiver requests covered above shall be submitted on a form provided by CDD.
Applicants shall provide a written explanation of the request and explain why one or
more of the above criteria are satisfied. The request will be delivered to the CDD
Director for review and decision.
r
6. The applicant may appeal the CDD Director's decision to the Deschutes County
Administrator. The applicant may appeal the Deschutes County Administrator's
decision to the Board.
7. The Board of County Commissioners may issue blanket fee waivers, subject to the
above criterion, for classes of hardship such as catastrophic fire.
8. The Board of County Commissioners may waive fees in any other case where the public
benefit is served and other remedies have been exhausted.
FINANCIAL HARDSHIP
Some property owners or other responsible persons who lack the financial ability to obtain
permits and approvals to pay fees established by the County for Community Development
Services may receive relief. The procedure for establishing financial hardships as set forth
below:
Procedure:
In cases where the applicant appears not to have the financial recourse to pay fees, the person
may apply to qualify for financial or other assistance within available resources and under the
following procedures:
A. Criteria for Indigency
To qualify for assistance under this section, the property owner or other
responsible person must demonstrate a substantial financial hardship that makes paying
the required fees impractical.
B. Fee Reduction/Waiver
An applicant may apply for a reduction or waiver of CDD development fees for
permits. The decision to reduce or waive development fees will be made by the CDD
Director, considering the following factors:
1. The degree of the defendants indigency;
2. The cost of the development permit(s) or approval(s) required;
3. Funds available for fee reductions/waivers in CDD's budget or in any other
available funds; and
4. Other assistance available in the community.
C. Community Service in Lieu of Fees
Upon a finding of indigency the CDD Director may order community service at
the rate of $10.00 per hour in lieu of some or all waived fees. A period of time shall be
established in which the community service shall be completed.
Fee Waiver Policy and Fonn January 2006.doc Page 2
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Affidavit of Indigence and Request for Fee Waiver
The infonnation is submitted in "Confidence" and is not subject to public disclosure (ORS 192.502(2)
Applicants Name:
I, the undersigned, am asking for a waiver of Deschutes County Fees for Community Development Services
because I cannot pay now without causing substantial hardship to myself or my dependent family.
The following information is true. I ask the CDD Director to use the infonnation to decide whether I can have
a fee waiver at public expense. I understand I can be required to document or verify this information.
1. PERSONAL
Full Name of Applicant
First Middle
Residence
Mailing Address (if di
Street Address City
State
Last
Zip
Street Address City State Zip
Phone # Birthday Social Security# - -
M/D/Y
Sex: [ ] Male [ ] Female
Marital Status: [ ]Married [ ]Single [ ]Divorced [ ]Separated [ ]Widowed [ ]Other:
List the following information for everyone living in your household:
Name Relationship Age Monthly Income
Description of Fees to be waived:
Fee Waiver Approved: [ ] Yes [ ] No
Comments:
i,ommuntty ueveiopment impartment, tnrector
Est. Amt $
Date
**Staff Use Only**
Fee Waiver Policy and Form January 2006.doc Page 3
2. EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME
Present Employer
Address
Hourly wage $ Avg hrs/week
If unemployed, how long since employed
Previous Employer
Address
Spouse's Employer
Address
How Long Occupation_
Phone # ( )
Net (after tax) monthly income
How Long Occupation
Phone #
How Long Occupation_
Phone #
Hourly wage $ Avg hrs/week Net (after tax) monthly income
If unemployed, how long since employed
Other income for you and spouse, dependents or household members: for example: Social Security,
unemployment, retirement, public assistance, child support, worker's compensation, disability, etc.
Source of Income (describe) Amount How long received How often received
Other household members who help pay for your living expenses:
Name Amount Payment for what? Describe
3. PROPERTY AND ASSETS OWNED BY YOU, SPOUSE AND DEPENTENTS
Cash available?
Savings Acct# Balance $ Bank/Branch Office
Checking Acct# Balance $ Bank/Branch Office
Other Acct # Balance $ Bank/Branch Office
Real Estate: Address, City Value Amt Owed Equity Real estate payments made
Fee Waiver Policy and Fonn January 2006.doc Page 4
Credit Cards: Card Name/Bank Acct # Expiration Date
Motor Vehicle: Make, Yr Value Amt Owed Equity Vehicle payments made
Are any of these motor vehicles used for work (other than driving to and from work)? [ ] Yes [ ] No
All other property or assets: (for example: furniture, boats, guns, jewelry, tools, etc.)
Description Value Description Value
Money owed to you or spouse by others: (for example, tax refund, trust, judgment, etc)
Name of Debtor Amount Owed Date Expected
4. MONTHLY EXPENSES
List all expenses that are paid monthly by you individually or by you jointly with spouse:
Rent/mortgage $ Utilities $ Credit Card pymt(s) $
Car payment $ Insurance $ Other: $
Medical Debt $ Child Support $ Court Order pymt(s) $
[ ] I am willing to perform Community Service to offset the public cost of my request.
[ ] I am not able to perform Community Service for the following reasons:
I certify that the above information is true and correct.
Date Signature of Applicant
Fee Waiver Policy and Form January 2006.doc Page 5
i
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Releases to Obtain Information for Verification
(Confidential)
Applicant Name:
I understand that the County may verify my employment and financial situation to detennine my eligibility for
the fee waiver. I understand that some of the information necessary for this verification is contained in records
that are protected under federal and state law. Because of this, I have signed releases below which allow
public and private organizations and individuals to provide the County or its designee with requested
information. I understand that organizations and individuals that may be contacted include, but are not limited
to, those listed below:
■ Social Security Administration
■ State Department of Revenue
■ Mortgage Holder
■ Department of Motor Vehicles
■ Employment Division(s)
■ Utility companies
■ Worker's Compensation Disability Provider
■ Adult and Family Services Division
■ Landlords
■ Private Disability Insurance Provider
■ Private Life Insurance Provider
■ Past Employers
■ Release Assistance Office
■ Credit Card Holders
■ Credit Bureaus
■ Schools and Colleges
• Banks, Savings & Loans, Credit Unions (requesting savings, stocks, bonds, checking, loan and credit
information including copies of applications)
■ Other:
Specifically, by signing the releases below, I authorize the court or it's designee to directly contact my current
employer by telephone or in writing and to release and utilize my address as needed by the Board or its
designee.
Date
Signature of Applicant
Fee Waiver Policy and Form January 2006.doc Page 6
Fee Waiver Request Form
Name of Organization:-
Address of Organization:
City:
Type of Permit
[ ] Building $
[ ] Restaurant $
[ ] Other $
State: Zip Code:
[ ] Planning $
[ ] Subsurface Sewage
Total amount of Fee(s) requested to be waived: $
The applicant shall provide a written explanation of the request and explain why one or more of
the criterions stated below are satisfied. The request will be reviewed by the Community
Development Director and a response will be provided within ten business days.
Criterion that must be met to qualify for a Fee Waiver:
A. The applicant meets the criteria for indigency and at least one of the following conditions.
Indigence shall be established by the financial hardship process attached (refer to Affidavit of
Indigence and Request for Fee Waiver form).
1. There is an immediate need of the services to CDD to protect the applicant's or
public's health or safety.
2. Where granting the waiver will create a long term efficiency of a Code
Enforcement issue.
B. The request is from a nonprofit organization that has encountered an extraordinary
hardship that could not have been anticipated in planning for and funding of the project;
and the fee waiver will benefit the community.
(NOTE: Community Services may be required by the CDD Director for some or all of
the waived fees.)
Fee Waiver Policy and Form January 2006.doc Page 7
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
TO: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner
DATE: December 1, 2010
SUBJECT: Status report on update of Deschutes County Transportation System Plan (TSP)
BACKGROUND
Commissioner Unger requested a work session on the Transportation System Plan (TSP)
Update that focused on a broad overview of traffic patterns, meshing of projects in the County
TSP with other TSP's or Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) projects, priority of
proposed projects, how TSP deals with other modes, etc.
2030 Traffic Patterns
ODOT's Transportation Planning and Analysis Unit (TPAU) prepared a traffic model with help
from the Planning Division and the Road Department. Tech Memo #3, "2030 Future Traffic
Conditions" was the result and analyzed both roadway segments and intersections. The results
were provided in a May 12, 2010, memo to the Board. After that work session County staff
discovered several apparent errors in the model. TPAU re-ran the model and produced a
revised Tech Memo #3 on July 12, 2010. (See attached map, Figure 3 "2030 Segment
Ranking" from Tech Memo 3.) The conclusions of the earlier memo did not substantively
change; the major shift was more traffic on Helmholtz to South Canal Boulevard to bypass
congestion in Redmond.
Segments
Essentially, the majority of congestion remains on State highways with the bulk of that being on
US 97. US 20 has areas of congestion from the western County line to Sisters, in the Tumalo
area, and from Bend's east side to the Powell Butte Highway. OR 126 has congestion on the
eastbound descent to the Deschutes River and at the west and east edges of Redmond.
The only congestion on County roads is Helmholtz just north of OR 126 to South Canal
Boulevard; the congestion continues on South Canal to slightly south of 61stStreet. The other
congested segment is Burgess Road west of La Pine from Huntington to Meadow Lane.
Intersections
Not surprisingly, the bulk of the intersections with the greatest operational challenges involve
State highways. Of the 16 intersections that fail mobility standards in 2030, 11 involve a State
highway. Of those 11 State highway intersections, five are on the margins of Bend, two are at
the edge of Redmond, two are in South County, one is in Tumalo, and one is in Terrebonne.
Quality Services Performed zvith Pride
Of the five County to County road intersections that fail, three are on the northeastern outskirts
of Bend:
• Butler Market Road/Powell Butte Highway
• Hamehook Road/Deschutes Market Road
• Neff Road/Powell Butte Highway/Alfalfa Market Road
The remaining failing County to County intersections are near Redmond (Canal Boulevard/SW
Helmholtz Way) and South County (South Century Drive/Spring River Road).
Proposed mitigations for roadway segments
Planning and Road Department staff met in mid-August with ODOT's Bend staff and again in
early September with ODOT Bend staff and modelers from TPAU to discuss potential
mitigations for the failing roadway segments and intersections identified in Tech Memo #3. The
results were reported in Tech Memo #4, which staff recently received and is reviewing.
State Highways
For roadway segments on State highways the group opted for adding lanes in most cases. In a
few areas the TSP will defer to upcoming ODOT refinement plans or ODOT project
development. For segments expected to be within an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), the
County TSP will also defer to the respective cities TSP's.
ODOT is developing a long-range project for US 20 in Tumalo, a refinement plan for US 97 in
Terrebonne, and is in project development for the O'Neil Highway.
County Roads
The group proposed turn lanes for most segments. The exception is the stretch of Baker Road
from the US 97 ramps west to Brookswood. The group recommended this segment be
deferred to an ODOT refinement plan of the Baker Road interchange and/or the Bend UGB
process. The complexity of this roadway in terms of access, geometrics, and a railroad
overcrossing really necessitates its own in-depth planning effort. Finally, the Baker Road
interchange lies within the boundaries of the Bend Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO).
Proposed mitigations for intersections
The County TSP deals predominantly with rural, high-speed segments punctuated by the
occasional failing intersection. Unlike urban intersections, traffic signals are not a viable option
as they do not meet driver expectations. However, it is also not feasible to plan for a grade-
separated interchange at every failing intersection due to costs. The group looked at options
ranging from road closures to overpasses to rural roundabouts. The overpasses may or may
not include ramps as a later phase.
State Highways
Interchanges:
• US 97/OR 31 (directional interchange, not all moves)
• US 97/Baker Road (upgrade existing interchange)
Overpasses:
• US 97/Lower Bridge Way
• US 97/Pershall-O'Neil Highway (from Redmond TSP)
• US 20 in Tumalo (a hybrid of overpass, turn lanes, new local connector)
• US 20/Old Bend-Redmond
Rural roundabouts
• US 20/Ward-Hamby
• US 20/Powell Butte Highway
2
County Roads
Rural roundabouts
• Butler Market Road/Powell Butte Highway
• Neff Road/Alfalfa Market Road/Powell Butte Highway
• Hamehook Road/Deschutes Market Road
• Canal Boulevard/SW Helmholtz Way
• South Century Drive/Spring River Road
Projects in other TSP's or ODOT projects that affect the County TSP
Redmond
The main topic is the City's desire to develop a westside ring road between O'Neil Junction
south to Quarry Road. This will be accomplished by upgrading Pershall and building a new
connector to Helmholtz, which depending on the alignment chosen could require a Goal 3
exception, and widening Helmholtz itself. The Quarry/97 interchange is already on the County's
adopted TSP. The link from Helmholtz to the Quarry Road/ 97 interchange will require a Goal 3
exception. The Redmond TSP classifies Helmholtz as a Minor Arterial while the current County
TSP classifies Helmholtz as a Rural Collector. The TSP Update will need to reclassify
Helmholtz as a Rural Arterial.
Sisters
There are no new roads planned as the roads within the UGB have adequate capacity for the
next 20 years. The main issue relates to bicycling. There is a strong desire to develop a non-
US 20 cycling route between Sisters and Bend. Proponents have suggested paving either the
Brooks-Scanlon logging road or Sisemore Road or building a separate path within the US 20 in
the Plainview to Tweed area to get cyclists farther away from the highway. ODOT has
mentioned the agency's preference for a parallel local road between Tollgate and Sisters.
Bend
No major new roads proposed; reclassifications of several roads from collector to arterial on the
northeast (Deschutes Market, Hamby), southeast (Ward), and northwest (parts of O.B. Riley
and Cooley; planned road, called Skyline Ranch on Bend TSP, between Shevlin Park Road -
which becomes Johnson Road - and a planned extension of Buck Drive). These
reclassifications and some rural-scale grids streets came out of the Bend UGB process.
La Pine
Main topic was identifying alternate routes for isolated subdivisions and County GIS staff is
preparing a series of maps depicting these areas. A second topic was the community's desire
for a future bypass between the current US 97 alignment and the railroad. As this is all within
the City of La Pine's boundaries, the County TSP will defer to the forthcoming City TSP as it
does with the TSP's for Bend, Redmond, and Sisters.
ODOT
The agency's main concerns are looking at long-term solutions for Terrebonne and Tumalo,
revising the O'Neil Junction intersection into an overpass, developing a frontage road system
between Bend and Redmond, and extension of Redmond Re-Route south to Quarry. The
adopted County TSP outlines a four-phase approach to evolving from a two-lane rural road to
ultimately a four-lane divided highway with frontage roads and interchanges. Other topics
include addressing the access to the High Desert Museum and explicitly expanding the "four-
phase approach" to other state highways.
3
Other modes
Airports - The realignment of the runway in Redmond and its effect on OR 126 is the only major
change for area public and private use airports. Staff is working with the City of Bend on the
update of the Bend Airport Master Plan, which will likely be completed after the TSP Update.
Bicycles - The TSP Update has mapped a draft network of County bikeways and the Three
Sisters Scenic Bikeway. Designated bikeways would have specific signing. The Road
Department has adopted internal policies to use smaller sized rock on chip seal projects.
Pedestrians - Sidewalk plans for Terrebonne and Tumalo have been updated and the TSP will
include a proposed trail between Tumalo and Tumalo State Park and another using an existing
pipeline road out to Smith Rock State Park from the Bend and Redmond areas. Additionally,
there is a canal ditchrider road that could also be used to reach Smith Rock. In the rural areas,
pedestrians are accommodated by shoulders on County roads.
Public Transportation - Identify future park and ride lots with assistance of Commute Options
staff; Planning Division staff is participating on Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council
(COIC) TAC that is analyzing alternate mode potential in the Tri-County area including
commuter rail.
Rail - The conclusions and recommendations of the Central Oregon Rail Study and its
prioritized list of improving or closing at-grade rail crossings will be included. For the County,
the highest-priority crossing was Baker Road near the Deschutes River Woods Country Store.
Prioritizing projects
The TSP TAC will make a recommendation to the TSP SC to review, but the Board has the final
say. The proposed method would be to consider functional classification, traffic volumes, crash
history, fill an existing gap, etc. Projects will be ranked short-term (0-5 years), mid-term (6-10
years) or long-term (11-20 years).
Coordination
Staff has utilized several techniques to ensure cross jurisdictional agreement. Staff has
reviewed the adopted TSP's of all the cities within Deschutes County for consistency with
functional classification and planned improvements. The TSP's of the adjoining Counties have
improvements for State highways; there is adequate capacity on the few County roads that
cross county lines. The other aspect is that Planning Division and Road Department staff serve
on several Technical Advisory Committees (TAC) and Steering Committees (SC) for projects
being done by ODOT or other jurisdictions.
The TSP TAC has representatives from ODOT, Bend, Bend MPO, Redmond, Sisters, and La
Pine. Planning and Road Department staff participate in numerous ODOT project development
committees and long-range planning efforts by Bend, Redmond, Sisters, and La Pine as well as
Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council (COIC) study on alternate mode options in Central
Oregon. Finally, County staff served on TAC for the COACT Rail Study and works with the
Deschutes County Bike and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) on their issues.
Enclosure: "2030 Future Traffic Volumes Map"
4
U
N
C U O 0
i
i
o~
1
/
/
I zt
43
Zc sj~ s a~~ !
~ ty
i
I
OS;
~ M
y
Y
x
z
~ w
a
F
~e
H.. I
w
Y
a
F
{Y ~j
z
O
f.
E+
N
U~
O C~
AM
