2012-1569-Minutes for Meeting April 26,2012 Recorded 4/26/2012DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS Cd ~~i2.1569
NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 0412612412 03;11;57 PM
IIIIIIIII IIIIII~IIIIII IIII III
I
2012-1 0
Do not remove this page from original document.
Deschutes County Clerk
Certificate Page
T P'_ t
6
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
MINUTES OF WORK SESSION
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
MONDAY, APRIL 16, 2012
Present were Commissioner Anthony DeBone, Alan Unger and Tammy Baney.
Also present were Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; and, for a portion of
the meeting, Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; Susan Ross, Property &
Facilities; Tom Anderson and Nick Lelack, Community Development; Chris Doty,
Road Department; media representative Hillary Borrud of The Bulletin; and eight
other citizens.
Chair DeBone opened the meeting at 1:35 p.m.
1. Update: CASA (Court-Appointed Special Advocates).
Pam Fortier poke about the difficulties of inadequate funding to keep the
program viable. State money has decreased, but their workload is up and they
need one more FTE to continue the program as it should be. She read a
message from a High Desert Education Service District representative about the
need for this program. They serve the tri-county area and contract with a part-
time Director. Their program is mandated by law.
She gave an overview of the caseload and the work being done by the
coordinators and volunteers. They use the peer coordinator model, which is
also being used by Lane County and is being considered on a state and national
level.
2. Review of Proposed Fee Schedule.
This item will be addressed next week.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, April 16, 2012
Page 1 of 8
3. Volunteer Recognition - CDD Code Enforcement Program.
Tom Anderson and John Griley introduced Rex Wolf and Harold Anderson,
who are volunteers for Code enforcement. Mr. Anderson volunteered for the
Sheriffs Office and offered to extend what he was doing there into Community
Development. Staff worked on this and they were able to come up with a
match.
The Sheriff was contacted to get his approval, and this has turned out to be a
good program. Mr. Wolf and Mr. Anderson do non-threatening activities in
Code enforcement, following up inspections in the field regarding replacement
buildings, agricultural structures and other inspections done from the road right
of way, with photos.
Mr. Griley presented some statistics: Mr. Wolf put in 150 hours, Mr. Anderson
90 hours working for CDD. About 560 of those hours are for inspections,
equating to 15 or 20 actual cases. They have a good success rate working with
people on voluntary compliance.
Mr. Griley stated he was surprised someone would volunteer for this. The
program is something staff got going in 2006 but they get a printout on a daily
basis of permits they need to follow up. This is proactive work and the
assistance of these citizens has been great.
Mr. Anderson said he was surprised by this program. Many people do not see
what they do and it has given them a whole new understanding of the work that
needs to be done. Every item has to be researched and a decision made as to
whether something needs a closer look. He would like to see a few more
volunteers brought on board.
Mr. Wolf wanted to get to know the County better, and it was an eye-opener.
There are some very interesting parts of the County. They see places where no
one has lodged a complaint and sometimes it is frustrating to not be able to take
action. He appreciates the Sheriff's Office even more. There is an opportunity
to do more field work, but it all ends up with Mr. Griley and he cannot do much
more than he does now.
Commissioner Unger does not want the County to be the Code enforcement
Nazi's, so that is why this process is complaint driven. Chair DeBone asked
how it starts. Mr. Griley said they are doing the proactive program for pre-
identified permits.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, April 16, 2012
Page 2 of 8
Commissioner Baney asked if there are other ways to expand this type of
program. Mr. Griley said this is a good time to celebrate accomplishments, and
do some pre-field research. Most cases will resolve in this fashion.
Commissioner DeBone would like to see more of this kind of cooperation.
Commissioner Baney said they are heading into budget seasons, so it is timely
to talk about this now.
4. Discussion of Request for Land Use Approval Extension.
Mr. Anderson explained the item. The citizen making the request received
approval for a non-farm dwelling in 2005, which expired in August 2011. No
waiver was included for people who miss the deadline. She cites compelling
reasons to grant an approval and extension, including military service, but he
has no way to do this under the current rules. Therefore, it is coming to the
Board. He could recreate the approval process; but this would cost her almost
$3,000 when an extension would have cost just $310.
The Board can waive the fee for a new application; or reduce the fee to
whatever level is felt to be appropriate. The department is fee-supported so the
cost would have to be absorbed by the operating fund; however, the cost should
be less than it was previously if nothing has changed. This could also result in
more requests for a waiver from others. It was clear when the renewal was due.
The Board would have to make a finding that the public benefit is being served
by a reduction or waiver. She was called away for military service, however.
Commissioner Baney asked if she would have to reapply under today's Code.
Mr. Anderson said that they would still have to do an inspection but he does not
see anything that would be a Code issue.
Chair DeBone asked about the non-farm use. Mr. Anderson said that to even
apply to have a house on farmland, you have to go through the process. You
have to show that part of the land is not suitable for farming purposes.
Typically, you look at the entire property and determine what is irrigated and
what might not be farmable. In 2005, it was felt there was a location for a
residence that would not impact farm use. A new approval would give her
another four years to build.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, April 16, 2012
Page 3 of 8
Commissioner Unger wants to recognize her military service and feels that an
extension should be allowed, at the $310 level. The County would be
responsible for the balance of any costs. Chair DeBone feels that this also will
result in economic benefit when the home is built.
UNGER: Move approval of this option.
BANEY: Second.
VOTE: UNGER: Yes.
BANEY: Yes.
DEBONE: Chair votes yes.
5. Discussion of Implementation of Road Advisory Committee
Recommendations.
Chris Doty said the Forest Fund is down by about $900,000 the last year; and
funds from State gas tax are down $500,000. This was anticipated, but it was
hoped it would not become fact.
He explained the road investment needs as well. The Road Committee
evaluated cost savings and efficiencies, and five recommendations were made
by the Committee (four cost savings possibilities, along with potential revenue).
Recommendations #1 and 92 have to do with a pavement management
program. This is underway now. Previously they had been doing snapshots of
pavement condition and evaluation of spreadsheets. This was done year-to-
year. The new program gives them the ability to model into the future. At this
time, they are putting in data on the current condition of the roads to have the
baseline established. The same contractor is doing similar work with the
neighboring counties and cities.
They will look at various scenarios: the ideal, with no deferred maintenance. It
is more cost-effective to deal with it now rather than later. A goal is a sustained
PCI (pavement condition index). The next issue is the anticipated investment
level. Another scenario is how the system reacts if no maintenance is done.
From this, they develop the work plan for the next couple of years, making it
more efficient. The timeframe for the report is June 2012.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, April 16, 2012
Page 4 of 8
The strategic pavement investment chart shows normal road life without
maintenance. If you catch a road before the PCI goes below 65, it costs less to
bring it back up. If it goes lower than that, a chip seal may not help. Under 35
means the road has to be reconstructed. Chip seal and maintenance costs about
25% less than an overlay. With timely care, you can stretch out the life of a
road for 60 or 70 years before you have to do reconstruction.
The Committee's recommendation #3 is to prioritize services to match existing
funding levels. They looked at deliverables; and then personnel levels. They
have to think of this in advance so they are prepared to make changes when
someone retires, etc.
Attrition examples are to eliminate two vacant positions, and one management
position due to a planned retirement (the I.S. Manager). These changes would
result in a savings of $215,000.
Another example relates to materials, services and equipment. They are
reducing the five-year capital equipment replacement plan by 25%, mostly in
the replacement of pickup trucks. They will refurbish some other equipment to
get more life out of them. This would result in about $150,000 in annual
savings. They want to invest in equipment that makes them money by
contracting with other agencies. They will rely on partners or lease when
appropriate.
Recommendation #4 was to explore shared services and partnerships. He hopes
to convene the local agencies on a quarterly basis, and implement an IGA to
promote disclosure and sharing resources. This would include road districts as
well as other governmental entities. There need to be agency specific goals
with a timetable and performance monitoring. It is hoped ODOT can be
brought into this at some point.
Collaborative opportunities could apply to equipment, specialty maintenance, a
regional agreement and combined contracting and training. It makes sense for
all entities to buy into this locally.
Commissioner Unger asked about combining contracting needs, which can
attract outside contractors when he would like to see a balance, and hopes that
would include local companies. Mr. Doty said that locally there are just two
pavers. Ultimately, the department can bid out work, but needs to keep the bids
in line.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, April 16, 2012
Page 5 of 8
Recommendation #5 would involve new funding tools. They are not ready to
take this on, and want to instead work on the other ideas first. They want to
complete the internal reduction matrices to determine what the paving levels
could be. They also will initiate partnership collaboration this spring.
At that time, they can update the Road Committee on what has taken place,
probably in July.
Chair DeBone asked if there would be a budget message tied to this. Mr. Doty
said that they are progressing towards implementation and there are some
budget implications; but it is too soon to have a lot of the answers.
Commissioner Baney stated that it is encouraging to hear something like this
during the budget process rather than the same requests for money without
other recommendations or plans. Mr. Doty said that the Road Study group did
a lot of good work that got things heading in this direction.
6. Other Items.
Before the Board were Deliberations and Consideration of First and
Second Readings, by Title Only, and Adoption by Emergency of Ordinance
No. 2012-004, Establishing Provisions for Agri-Tourism and Other
Commercial Events and Activities, and to Amend the Winery Standards in
the Exclusive Farm Use Zone (continued from the morning business meeting).
Laurie Craghead referred to the final version of the Ordinance, exhibit B, where
language was changed as a result of deliberations this morning.
LINGER: Move first and second readings by title only.
BANEY: Second.
VOTE: UNGER: Yes.
BANEY: Yes.
DEBONE: Chair votes yes.
Chair DeBone conducted the first and second readings at this time.
BANEY: Move adoption of Ordinance No. 2012-004.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: UNGER: Yes.
BANEY: Yes.
DEBONE: Chair votes yes.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, April 16, 2012
Page 6 of 8
Mr. Lelack said the department has developed a handout for those who ask for
it. The main issue is farming being established as the primary use of the
property. A Hearings Officer's fee is not reflected in this document.
Commissioner Baney said that the pre-application meeting might help to
answer some of these questions early.
Mr. Lelack said that his department would try to hold workshops to let people
know what is expected and how to mitigate for potential problems.
Commissioner Baney asked about possible fines; she wants to get ahead of that
issue since some people might be right on top of this and will push for more
action. There could be issues about non-compliance and also of harassment.
Mr. Anderson presented a draft budget to COBA (Central Oregon Builders'
Association), along with some options for balancing CDD's budget, including a
5% fee increase. They were not opposed to this, but could not speak for the
organization's members. He will present this 5% fee increase to the Budget
Committee. Commissioner Baney said she would like this to be more specific
as to the divisions that need more or less funding.
Chair DeBone would like to know how the fees match to the work of the
department. He would like to see an example as to how they come up with a
specific fee. Mr. Anderson said he can provide survey results in this regard
relating to what similar organizations in other areas are charging.
At 3:05 p.m., the Board went into Executive Session, called under ORS
192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations; and ORS 192.660(2)(h), pending or
threatened litigation.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, April 16, 2012
Page 7of8
Day of 2012 for the
DATED this L
2I- C-~~
Deschutes County Board of Commissione .
A,OW4~~
Anthony DeBone, Chair
6L 64'~
Alan Unger, Vice Chair
ATTEST:
Tammy Baney, Com sioner
(6-4~ Recording Secretary
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, April 16„ 2012
Page 8 of 8
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
WORK SESSION AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
1:30 P.M., MONDAY, APRIL 16, 2012
1. Update: CASA (Court-Appointed Special Advocates)
2. Review of Proposed Fee Schedule - Marty Wynne, Jeanine Faria
3. Volunteer Recognition - CDD Code Enforcement Program - Tom Anderson
4. Discussion of Request for Land Use Approval Extension - Tom Anderson
5. Discussion of Implementation of Road Advisory Committee Recommendations
- Chris Doty
6. Other Items
Executive Session, called under ORS 192.660(2)(e), real property
negotiations; and ORS 192.660(2)(h), pending or threatened litigation
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), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues.
Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. Ifyou have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572.
Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible.
Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities.
For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY.
Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information.
N H
Vi R
D
i
I Q I
o l ~L
TMCASW
Court Appointed Special Advocates
FOR CHILDREN
April 16, 2012
CASA of Central Oregon
A voice of hope for abused and neglected children
Dear Commissioners and Budget Committee:
Thank you for your continued commitment to CASA of Central Oregon and the abused
and neglected children in Deschutes County. As you know, our program's mission is
based on the belief that every child deserves a safe and permanent home. Our goal is to
provide a volunteer advocate for every abused and neglected child in need.
The attached program flow chart illustrates our need of your continued support. As you
can see, our staffing is inadequate and we are in need of additional FTE. In order to meet
the needs of the children in care, we need to increase our volunteer base without
increasing staff. To accomplish this goal we now use Peer Coordinators to provide
volunteer supervision and support. The Peer Coordinators are highly skilled advocates
and they have made a tremendous difference for increasing our capacity.
Your $30,000 allocation to CASA is deeply appreciated.
Sincerely,
Pam Fortier
Executive Director
1130 NW Harriman St., Suite 122 • Bend, OR 97701
Bend: 541.389.1618 • Madras: 541.475.9426 • Prineville: 541.447.7220
Csa9sosnwnity P,,,tner
www.casaofcentraloregon.org
L-
0
v
a,
Q)
7
U
N
X
W
N
0
Ln
N
u L
U O
M41 Y
U
c v
U
Vf
O
c
W
L
LL
to O
L U
cu tio
w v _
Q_ c
00 Fa
F
06
E tt=
Y
f6
N
O LD cj6
n. ~ qA
~ O
O O
R
Ln
N
C
c -
Y
~ N
as
Y
c
3
O
U
C
O
N
a~
A
C
O
O
U
Y
O
O
U
4
C
7
O
U
N
N
t
U
N
W
W N
1n L
O
N
(v 4-1
(v vOi c
L ~ 7
U O
N I~
N
kn
N -
CJ u >
a ~ m
a) I
U v >
N
N
O
d.
~
if
N
O
\
Lj
0_ lD m
L
I- i
LL
Ln W
N c
C
O
O
O
O
-
am U
vi
O
>
j
>
C4
V u >
(7 N ri
d Ln d'
c
N
W
1~L L
Ln O
N i
O
O c
Y 2
O O N >
N ~ v O
N
L
v
N w
v
>
Y
O
a
,
M r-I >
D_ r-I m
N
ai LA
O
N
>
CJ m
d r-4 N
W
O1
LL
L!l N C
4J 3
1
N
N vi
U >
d N N
N
c
L
3
E V O
E
N
N o,
In N
O
Y
N
i
41 N
N
(U U >
c
0
N
3
L
N
!••1
N
LL
ri v >
U v >
Q m
r,
d N N
N
U v >
a ~ ri
N
ri
O
N
Q
Q
L
Q~
Y
3
O
N
N
O
N
m
u
H LD
~ N
4- W
LL
O Lr!
> I
N O
\ O
N L
QJ N
C V N
M
Y N
N L
!W4)
LL C:
~
~ I
O O
E >
E 4:3
L
(U V) d N i0if
f6
Q in
N U
a L r,
O N
_ 1 w
O O t~i
R O Ln
z O I
Y
co
\ O
c U
U N
U L
Ln W
W c
~ 7
LL 0
ri >
Ln
ri
N
cu
N
f6
U
N
N
W
LL
Ln
TE
Community Development Department
cum ~2
Q ',i~ +s 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: April 16, 2012
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM Tom Anderson, Director
SUBJECT: Request for Land Use Approval Extension
Background:
Staff received the attached request from Guinevere Johnson for an extension of an expired land
use approval on March 15, 2012. The approval, for a non-farm dwelling, was originally
completed in July, 2005. It was due to expire in 2009, but the applicant applied for and received
a two year extension to August 6, 2011. Since no additional extension requests were filed, the
approval expired on that date. Ms. Johnson indicates that the reason for filing a new extension
request was due to military service.
Discussion:
Deschutes County code section 22.36.010(C)(1)(b) is clear that any extension request must be
"...submitted to the County prior to the expiration of the approval period". There are no other
provisions in County code for variances to this requirement. Therefore, we see no possible
avenue to re-activate Ms. Johnson's approval.
It is possible for Ms. Johnson to submit a new application for a non-farm dwelling. The current
fee for such an application is currently $2,955.
The Community Development Fee Waiver Policy allows the Board of County Commissioners to
reduce or waive fees "in any case where the public benefit is served and other remedies have
been exhausted". In this case, if the Board found that the public benefit was served, presumably
in recognition of Ms. Johnson's active military service, it could elect to reduce or waive the fees
associated with a new farm dwelling application.
In evaluating a fee reduction or waiver, the Board is advised to consider:
1. Financially, Community Development is designed to cover it's expenses with fee
revenue, so costs associated with non-revenue generating applications must be
absorbed by the department, and
2. Fee reductions or waivers may encourage other applicants with what they consider to
be extraordinary circumstances to ask for the same consideration.
In consideration of the two factors outlined above, one options for the Board would be to, rather
than fully waive the new application fee, reduce the application fee equivalent to the fee that Ms.
Johnson would have paid for the approval extension last August, which is currently $310.
Requested Board Action:
Decide whether to grant a full or partial fee waiver to Ms. Johnson for a new non-farm dwelling
application.
Full waiver - $2,955
Reduction to Extension Request Fee - $310
Other amount
If the Board decides to grant a full or partial waiver, it must find that the action is in the public
benefit, per the fee waiver policy.
cav-tw
OARIbZ012
Der-1110S C'Uuuty COD
Guinevere D. Johnson
Member Manager Golden Horizons LLC
64421 Findlay In
Bend Or 97701
541-4804124
March 13, 2012
Re: Retaining CUP extension option on Golden Horizons LLC Map 17-12-11/Lot 301
Dear Tom Anderson, Community Development Department Director,
Thank you for taking the time to review this unique issue with me and consider the possibility of
retaining our CUP extension option.
I am contacting you today after speaking with and being referred by Paul Blickstad. I contacted
Paul on March 12, 2012 in a panic because I had just become aware that I had missed our CUP
extension date July 1, 2011.
In normal circumstances I would expect this issue to be my sole responsibility, however, in my
situation I had some extenuating circumstances that left me unable to take care of this at the
required time. I would like to share some of these things with you in hopes to compel the
planning dept to extend the property CUP for an additional 2 years.
In February 2011 I was placed on Oregon Army National Guard orders to complete a five-month
training program in South Carolina and Virginia. During this time my contact with home was
reduced to two-5 min occasions on the phone with my husband and snail-mail via the USPS only,
with: on,avg. 10 day turn around. I gratefully returned home on July 1, 2011 (when my CUP
extension request was due). My return home, although joyous was filled with unemployment,
medical issues; and farming season all of which demanded my imrnediate:attention.4 was not
home long until I was once again placed on additional ORANG orders for training in Idaho where
I spent Aug-Sept again separated from home, files; :and phones. October remained a difficult
month of adjustment for me and my family as we lost 2 family members and found ourselves
traveling throughout.Oregon.to tend to family issues. The holidays came and went although I was
contacted mid-December once again -with -ORANG orders to fill a need fora Soldier in the
Middle-East (Oman). I repacked my things and uprooted myself once again to tend to my duties. I
finally returned home in February and once again picked up the shattered pieces of the last 10
months which eventually included following up on the property with the overdue CUP request.
I can imagine that this is a huge inconvenience for you and I apologize;profusely about this. I
know that the State of Oregon takes into consideration the obligations of their military citizens
and protects our employment, foreclosure on property, and many other things and so I am hopeful
that they in coordination with your office has, something that protects me and the CUP for the
property from being negatively effected by our service obligations. To date, and since the first
extension request.I have invested $7000.00 into the property for improvements which include a
driveway and power. This would merely be a loss if the property does not have .the CUP. option.
Road Department
611 So SE 27th St. • Bend, Oregon 97702
(541) 388-6581 • FAX (541) 388-2719
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 16, 2012
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Chris Doty, PE, Director
RE: Update regarding implementation of the Road Committee Recommendations
On January 4th, 2012 the Board of County Commissioners heard recommendations from the
Road Committee regarding steps to be taken to address long term sustainability of the County
road network.
Attached is the Implementation Plan that has been developed to assist in evaluating and
implementing the recommendations of the Committee.
At the April 16, 2012 BOCC Workshop, a presentation will be conducted which will update the
Commission regarding the status of each implementation item.
{ Road Department
61150 SE 27th St. • Bend, Oregon 97702
(541) 388-6581 - FAX (541) 388-2719
Implementation Plan
Road Committee Recommendations
in the summer of 2011, the Board of County Commissioners convened a Road Committee to
formulate recommendations to address the fiscal conditions in the Road Department resulting
from a continued decline in road maintenance funding.
On January 4th, 2012 the Board of County Commissioners heard recommendations from the
Road Committee regarding steps to be taken to address long term sustainability of the County
road network. Below is a summary of the recommendations as well as a proposed work plan
necessary to achieve their desired outcome.
The committee developed five recommendations - with the 5th recommendation to explore
alternative funding sources. The committee was clear that the first four recommendations,
which are focused on improved asset management efforts, internal efficiencies and regional
partnerships, should be fully explored and exhausted before proceeding with alternative funding
source development.
Recommendation #1: Develop a modernized Pavement Management Program and modeling
tool with the goal of achieving (funding) a sustainable Pavement Condition Index that is
acceptable to the users.
DeliygMble_: The primary deliverable for Recommendation #1 will be a Budget 012ligns Report
which models various funding scenarios for pavement maintenance of the County Road
Network. At a minimum, the funding scenarios (five and/or 10-year
projections) will include:
a. Optimum Funding Scenario: This scenario models an
investment level necessary to improve the PCI to a mid-80s
level, which is the optimal practical condition which resulting in
the lowest annual sustainable maintenance cost. (Note: The
mid-80s goal produces prescribed maintenance treatments
consisting primarily of low cost surface/chips seals versus
overlay/full-depth reclamation treatments).
b. Sustainable Funding Scenario: This scenario models an
investment level necessary to sustain the existing PCI of 78.
c. Current Funding Scenario: This scenario prescribes the
prioritized maintenance treatments based upon the
existing/project funding available for pavement maintenance.
The PCI deterioration is also projected over a five and/or 10 year
Page 1 of 3
period.
d. Zero Maintenance Scenario: This scenario models the degradation of the PCI over a
five and/or 10 year period with no pavement maintenance investment.
e. Other Funding Scenarios, as necessary.
Timgframe: Complete, June 2012. Staff is currently in discussion with a vendor to assist in the
establishment of the initial Pavement Management Program set-up and preparation of the initial
Budget Options Report.
Recommendation #2: Develop a refined list of maintenance alternatives with known life cycle
costs to serve as inputs to the Pavement Management Program to program and ensure the
most cost effective maintenance treatment.
Deliverable: Staff will internally prepare a Tech
Memo which will identify cost and life cycle
estimates of the various pavement maintenance
treatments utilized within the County road
network. This data will serve as input data to the
Pavement Management Program software for use
in developing the Budget Options Report.
Timeframe: May, 2012
Noaad Mai Ufa Road LM WWn PW
0awoduaYlRmm" • saarcia~~ceoo
CONZW
aa1L01dm PACWWM
100 - ------------100
Bakst
a sako~a
35- x
n«arrua
0 0
0 0 14 20 0 10 ao 70 00 a0 60 70 00
Yen YM
Recommendation #3: Prioritize services to
match existing funding levels.
Deliverable: Staff will develop as follows:
a. A Material/,Serviggs Reouctign Matrix which identifies non-personnel related areas for
reduction in materials and services and associated outcomes (and savings) resulting
from reductions.
b. A Personnel Attrition Matrix which focuses on long term strategies for delivering cost
efficient service through personnel reductions associated with attrition (retirement, etc).
Hypothetical Example: A loss of one equipment operator will result in the need to fill
specific job duties. The matrix will identify a combination of service reductions, seasonal
workload assignment and/or contract work (and associated savings) that will be utilized
to fill the gap created through the vacancy.
Timeframe: Draft, July 2012
Recommendation #4: Explore shared services and partnerships with other agencies to reduce
overhead and achieve other cost efficiencies.
Deliverables: A report will be assembled which documents the extent of existing partnerships
and the potential for growth and expansion of partnership opportunities with near-term, mid-
term, and long-term objectives and opportunities.
a. The County Administrator and Road Department Director will meet with their equivalent
peers in potential partner agencies to initiate conversations regarding partnership and
efficiency through collaboration. Collaborative topics will then be developed through
individual agency workshops and meetings which will cast a wide net of opportunities
and refine as necessary; nothing will be off-the-table.
b. Collaborative opportunities will be analyzed for cost savings potential and ranked based
upon implementation criteria and other factors. Care will be exercised to not create
administratively complex processes or work components which would otherwise
compete with private sector businesses.
c. The Road Department Director will
convene an ongoing quarterly meeting of area
wide road jurisdiction personnel and other
stakeholders to communicate work plans and
facilitate opportunities for collaborative efforts as
well as provide general discussion and
educational platforms for the transportation
maintenance industry in the region.
Timeframe: Initiation of the conversation will
occur in April/May 2012, with a progress update
on progress in July 2012.
Recommendation #5: Explore new revenue sources for funding of road maintenance.
Deliverable: A matrix of new funding opportunities will be developed, identifying source, amount
of funding potential, implementation process and implementation obstacles. The matrix will
build upon ideas and concepts previously discussed by the Road Committee and introduce new
funding opportunities and strategies.
Timefr me: Draft matrix, July 2012
U
O O
i
O
s
N a-
O O
V
O
co _
x
Q t6
to N 'Q`
O cc 0 0 Q
0 CL
b~A N ~ 0
cr _
0 0 0
O
G1 0 > C cc 'v
O V N r a cc 0 U r_ 0 .0
tQ N O - N O to
r •E N
E
-O 0 O' 4)
y
• v 0 to
0
N m E i cc O E
.N 0 +~0+ q00 (D Lo ~N E
Q 0 CL
00 N 00 N
N 4-0 >
U) r '-f
t-I 0 0 O t0.> > 0 N
a~ c m N 0 w zs
04
4a -W W
Q OO 0 O > O d' 3m
a z cL Z a.' d' _ m S2`
Q ! LL.
v
E
v
N
to
~
~
v
+r
~
v
~
Q
>
~
^
ca
CL
~
~
+r
O
v
^
v
ca
Q
V
CO
a
N
L
I
CN
v
4)
k
Caa
ca
a.
ca
u)
~
tQ
p
v
ca
N
Co
4)
oa
_
~
~
~
v
E
a
o
O
~
'GA
v
>
ca
>
v
O
a.
it
a
■
■
■
■
^
O
v
p
Q
a
C
v
v
cA
'ca
v
cl.
O
,a?
c
~A
E
N
CL
~
v
p
~
p
cc
O
■
CV
v
0
CV
0.
O
v
v
~
a
~
a
E
~
y-
O
■
■
C
Q
a►
t/a
r~
u
0.
a
IL
tw
c
(13d) X" uOI.:P.PUOO Olmd
L
1 I ►
1 1 1
1 I I_
f t I
1 1
f 1 I ~r
1
f
1
1
0
1
1
1
f
i
1
(
2w i
1
IN U Q I I
s c
1 I I
1 1
ow 1 1
I I
~ p I I
I
(IJd) XOPUI UOlVPuo3 lusw *Avd
si
9
9
19
N
ao
40
N
0
O
^
.V
co
a-+
V~
U)
a)
Q1
1-
E
0
co
co
C
Co
to
a~+
E
R5
_
N 0
E
r
y
N L
0
~
+
all,
U
cu
-
t~
N
C;)
co
<n
-v ca
co
co
L U
N
y
cc
0 0
4- N
N
0
0
E
~
L
p
V
co
0
0
CY) to
a
c
.i
An.
O
X
?
co O
a
7j)
An.
N U
co
co
E
L
o
N
4)
a.
C
C
co
=
0 0
Tt6~
tea!
+
c:
w1
O
~
V
W
>
an
N
Cc
a~
to
cn
-
LL
U)
. ■
4)
(D
N
0
N s
CO 0)
0
>
LL
c
■
•
E
Q
7
lanan
M
(D
CL
C
o
Ltd
~
G
p
y
N
0
-ri
+
p
+r
~
>m
O
N
0
(D
o
w
Lo
CL
Tq
a~
N
0
Cc
tLi
E
~
E
r
N
ca
0)
tB
ca
_
cn
N
-a
c
ca
E
to
i8*
c
(a
C
C
r
_
X
LU
C
G
p
-Z
r r-
c
cc
r.
_
Rf
yr
0
cc
0
Co
.~.d
;
E
~
.F
N
W
■
■
p
O
F-
■
tQ
.f..r
a~
v
E
a~
i
(Q
_
N
>
O
i
fl.
Q
d)
E
0-1
to
E
.
N
t
J
x
S
~
L
4-0
to
W
r
W
N
+
W
=
N
LO
Q
M
S
E
V
co
c
~
v
s
ca
L
co
Q
0
~
Q~
Q
V
t
+
CL
0
N`
O,
O
(Q
~.d
,
w
o
G3
w
a
to
■
4-
°
lo--
V
O
i
°
O
Q~
>
V
0
■
i
CL)
>
U)
0
C(S
_
O
CO
(
~
.
Wi
n.
.
.
"
0
D
G..
N
CL
;
°
.
O
RS
O
v
w
0
CL
m
v
cu
0
0
'
Cc
ca
°
E
°
>
41
_
4-0
3
.
ca
~
Co
■
W
a)
.
o
O
~
a
ca
Q
.
CL
O
(a
U)
.
V
o
°
-
V
o
o
ca
~
U
^
x
.
>
°
ca
W
cc
■
i
O
to
E
>
Q
~
4-P
o
>
CD
=
U
i
S
-
U
Q
y'
Lij
0
ca
Q
0
M
Q
■
■
■
■
O
O
N
~A
LL
Z
L~
O
O
E
E
O
U
■
+r
to
O
O
q-
O
X
4-j
tQ
Z
c6
■
O
N
O
Q
U
y--
O
c
o d'
~ }r
O ~
O +r
D a
_O O
.Q E
E
O O
E a~
H ~
■
Zi
O
cu
L
E
r
O
t6
c6
E
Q
4-d
~
o
o
cn
o
cc
V
•F +
E
c
O
O
r
O
ca
u
a
o
.O
O
O
O
O
4)
O
~
O
~
t6
E
Q
i
O
i
Q.
cc
a
0
0-
cc
O
CU
O
>
O
V
O
U
_
}QA
to
r_
v
O
~-I
N
M
N
O
4?
O'
■
0 ~
m
ov
~i X -43 toff
Zak
v r N
CA 0) 3 ~W V
AfN ~ CL Y' -4 cD
N y
co <
V tD
W p ~
u'
N
v
"t
~ B
n
O ~
o l7
a
G~ G
m
o
~ ~'~vc o3i
(D
o
p "'h
;wo ~ZO_
;178 a
M
03
a (D
a
of °N1
es- P.
Ci p y ((D
:Cr
j AA N 'a
CD
O ~ N
3
o n
N
O tl~ Co
~mmod
a
.(D
8 a~
`
x°
~
Mo
T'
0.
0 _%2
4 R-
M ,R* 5
8,
3
3
M N N
' p
Q.
~a~
j
0 0
0 N
o o~
o
m
~ tb
o a
cg
D 78
CL @
5Q
'A W N
D D
a
tv t
m Mg
a 3 ~ 3
CCL o
tb
C tC 0)
m o. ° o
-r
N
O
CL ID.
p N N CL a
00 ~ c
QSU.~. mj
ocD°c o,
~2.~
3 `D
(D
3, al
m°-'§~
(D _
_ (D 0
x o - ei 3•
ID W (D (D
41 N p 0-
_ A
M =aN
3:-, ~ su o
o CL
all)
oo,om
D
0
fG•
CCD
G
J C
D
v e~`
a
? ~L"C
o
0
o
3
M
N
0
tG .O
a
N
r
65gZ5
Mswr S
m
isms
fl
0 $ 0, a
3
OU N 0 09. v ~
came: 0a
104
c "
o
~uR
= m F
R 9.
Q 72 (D 0
- (D
CD I 3
" o Q
_oo
o c~m @ O. ~.c c~ 6 o
t! g OF k s3 .
8 Q. 0, o r- 5'
3 a) CL
R. @ 0=1 M
u,o coop ;oS._.
M CD (D
CL
-na
3~ g
1
EL
N
.
rm
o
=
a
c
E
c
`+r
0
cc
$
a,
g►'
c
O
av
a O
w
£
`
v
a. N
c
m
~
3 p
E {Q[
11 w
r
ap
y
p
~
O
~
-Z
y+
LA
V
Ts
p
o
z
E
E
n
a $
p°
>
v
in m
sm
C1 t
Q
F~ O C
,
O G
a
~r
s a
~
n
O
y
~
A
{.7
a a
'
°
m
>
? O` Qa
a
a-~
•T~
a w
i
3
a
Y
~ O
T! W
o 75
O
ro ;
(U 3
,
~nV 0
G
w.
4
0
c
.
75
`
~
O C
Q
a
y
N
X~
0
O 4
a Oc
l
t
C
as
,
M
y v
m
0
8
E
0
~
a
H
a
U
a y
a+
a
vi
c N
J ir I
6
a
}
N W
t0
p
^
pa
m
0
w
I
y
9
y
z
O
8
N
QQ a
r
u
.
Z
«
u
y c
`
QV
46
Q
g
N
. '
T7
j
C
O C
>
}r
N y
n
O
i.
N 10
=
tt:
22
.c
R O
V
^i
a
0)
v m
d
=m
To
1>1
t
E.
L.
d
a
c
'A
0
z
c
y
Z
Z
r
N
a
8
N
ro
>
«
C
T
Ri
R
T3
v
O
y
R~
o.
ffi
A
c
4i1
N
r~c
w
s
~r
Coco
t
40
yj
W
O
1~p
3
a
O
O
o
c
c.
c
c
o
E
a
E
.2
-
C
i
~
'S.
E
2
-
z
p
1 9
_
s
21
4
C
h
,
10
4C
t
C
C
Z
Iv
C
4R
LA