The URL can be used to link to this page

2013-972-Minutes for Meeting May 08,2013 Recorded 6/4/2013NANCYDESCHUTESBLANKENSHIPCOUNTY CLERKS vu 20130972 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 06/04/2013 08:09:58 AM 1111111111111111111111111111111 2 13-972 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, MAY 8, 2013 Present were Commissioners Alan Unger, Tammy Baney and Anthony DeBone. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; and, for a portion of the meeting, Chris Doty, Road Department, Nick Lelack and Peter Russell, Community Development; County Counsel Mark Pilliod; Patrick Flaherty, Mary Anderson and Sarah Foreman, District Attorney's Office; Scott Johnson and Terry Schroeder, Health Services. Andy High and Bill Robie and approximately six other citizens; and media representative Shelby King of The Bulletin. Chair Unger opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. 1. System Development Charges Update. Chris Doty gave a PowerPoint presentation on the status of SDC's. There is a diverse group of people on the SDC Committee who came to consensus on most aspects of SDC methodology, policies and rates. He referred to a handout (a copy of which is attached for reference). The Committee was tasked with finding consistency, evaluate reimbursement possibilities; addressing home occupation SDC rates; clarify abandonment of use, use changes and transferability; and determining trip generation issues. Resolution No. 2008-059 dealt with growth's share of planned improvements divided by growth units over twenty years (trips). The total SDC is improvements plus reimbursement. The SDC was determined to be approximately $3,549, but was adjusted for inflation. A 4% increase was computed based on national studies. Seattle is considered the closest example. It is now at $3,820. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 8, 2013 Page 1 of 12 Growth projections were revised to 2.2% for unincorporated areas - an addition of 30,000 or more over twenty years. This means about 15,190 more peak hour trips. Census data has had an impact, with less than 1 % growth occurring over the past twelve years. Permit data shows 2.8% for some years but this went to 0.6% in later years. About I% is estimated for unincorporated areas during 2010-1030 due to fewer rural subdivisions. Residential trip generation methodology used two separate categories. Single- family dwellings were computed at 1.0 peak hour trip; and destination resorts at .32 peak hour trips per unit. Resolution 2008-059 did not address destination resorts and just dealt with single-family dwellings (a higher rate). The proposed solution to this issue is a blended trip generation rate for all residential units. This means primary home development and secondary home development are examined separately. About 74% in Deschutes County are primary dwellings, and the rest are secondary. This information comes from census data. The trip generation blended rate would be 0.81 peak hour trips per dwelling unit, regardless of location. This will be used to calculate future transportation uses. Considering new residential units at a I% annual growth over twenty years, it goes from 31,013 to 37,836 units, resulting in 5,525 more trips, or an increase of 18%. You would add 10% for commercial. Capital Improvement Plan. Mr. Doty said that there was a carry-over from the prior list plus new and anticipated projects. He explained the SDC eligible cost allocation by type of project, totaling about $305 million; there are eligible SDC's at $22 million, per the opinion of the Committee. This computes to $3,672 per unit. No funds were allocated towards system management, state highway segments, or bicycle/pedestrian projects. Forest highway projects are funded at 10% now, when previously this match was not required and was covered by federal funding. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 8, 2013 Page 2of12 The Committee examined the SDC reimbursement piece, which was established in 2008. This is the only way to collect from previous capacity. This amounts to $525,000, or $86 per trip, totaling $3,758. When this is computed at 0.8 1, it is a decrease for residential of 20%, or $3,044. For non-residential, there is a 1.5% decrease. Most of it is residential, however. In regard to home occupation SDC rates, there are three types to consider. The committee decided this is often not a long-term situation, so a flat rate was set for each. Peter Russell stated that a single family home has one PMP. To figure it through commercial charts does not make sense. There could be little activity in a large structure or more activity in a smaller one. They worked towards a decision that makes sense. The SDC will stay with the land. If the use is abandoned, and if within two years a replacement structure is placed, they will acknowledge the prior payment of the SDC. There may not be a building permit relating to a change of use, but there might be more employees. The Committee talked about events and how to determine those impacts. This will be addressed at the next update. There is a public hearing on SDC's on Tune 5. The new fee structure would take effect upon approval of the Board. An applicant will be able to pay the lesser amount upon the certification of occupancy. Andy High said he appreciate this cost going down over ten years. It still could be a problem long-term if destination resorts come into play. He has an issue with abandonment of the property or use. The City of Bend allows ten years rather than two; there are cases when the County wants a structure removed, but the property owner is not ready to build. Bill Robie said the process went smoothly and staff did a good job of getting to this point. Commissioner Baney asked what happens when property owners feel they have overpaid. Mr. Doty stated that the argument and rationale could be upheld, but mostly it involves getting into the ballpark. He does not think there is a lot of liability, and it has never been appealed since the charges were consistent with the fee schedule. Mr. Russell stated that there was a table used, and an appeal process that was never used. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 8, 2013 Page 3 of 12 Commissioner Baney stated that when she voted for the SDC, it was not implemented and did not remain consistent. Her understanding of what was eventually charged is different from what she thought would happen. Mr. Pilliod stated that this did not dictate SDC's. People had recourse if, in their opinion, the fees were not accurate. Commissioner Baney noted that the County should be transparent, even if this only amounts to a small amount. Mr. Pilliod stated that if this were the wrong amount, a determination needs to be made as to what is should be and at what level. The Board could be faulted, but there was no error in the way the fees were established and collected. 2. Consideration of Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2013- 012, Amending the City of Bend's Urban Growth Boundary to Include a 12.44-acre Property. BANEY: Move second reading by title only. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. BANEY: Move adoption. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. 3. Follow-up Discussion on Civil Commitment Process. Mr. Anderson referred to his staff report, which speaks to redirecting these cases to the District Attorney from Legal Counsel. One suggestion was whether this work could be contracted to an external party, such as what is done in Linn County. Evidently, Legal Counsel, the D.A. and Behavioral Health were skeptical whether this is practical. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 8, 2013 Page 4 of 12 A more recent discussion addressed other possibilities. At issue is the level of administrative support and document handling. DHS has a section at the State level that oversees these cases. There have been discussions regarding what this effort would mean to the D.A.'s Office. Some additional expertise at the support level might be necessary; but what might really be needed is another Deputy D.A. The question is what it currently entails; this information is contained in the staff report, detailing attorney time and administrative time. The caseload is increasing. Last year it was 24 cases, but in 2013, there have already been 14 cases, potentially amounting to 42 cases in 2013. Options include the status quo. Another option would be to consider contracting the work out. A different option would be having the D.A.'s Office assume responsibility for these cases. This would have an impact on the D.A.'s budget and workload. The last option would be directing staff to perform additional research on how this is being handled in other places, or getting feedback from DHS. The D.A. and Legal Counsel could prepare a more detailed and formal analysis as to how this work could impact these departments, and what is needed to be able to handle the additional workload. Commissioner Baney noted this is a mandatory duty. Chair Unger asked about retaining it in Legal Counsel, but realizes there are challenges of having to do this work immediately when it comes in, and dropping other things. Commissioner Baney asked if the caseload increase is an anomaly. Mr. Schroeder indicated there are about 400 Mental Health holds each year. A certain percentage goes to civil commitment, and those numbers are both increasing. There are seasonal patterns, but it is busy now when it normally would not be. This is not a good sign. Some are due to changes in reporting, but they are seeing more of these cases anyway, and they are increasingly complex, involving fewer options and longer holds. He said that there is a large number of holds, some of which are committed. It is hard to manage all those cases and difficult to be efficient when they increase. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 8, 2013 Page 5of12 Mr. Pilliod said that in regard to keeping it in house, there is a list of discrete tasks tied to the work, and it is hard to identify an average or typical amount of time needed for each. He added that the other advantage of doing this on a regular basis helps to better understand the work involved. It is not a matter of finding capacity on an annual basis; but that without notice, the regular tasks have to be diverted to handle these cases. This is when it becomes disruptive. There is no other staff in the County who could do this on short notice. It does not lend itself to a mix of one office doing one thing and another office doing other things. In regard to using outside counsel, it is unknown whether other agencies have one person handle the administrative support or just the court portion. He is hearing from the D.A. and Behavioral Health that this is not the preferred alternative due to liabilities if it is not done properly. It then becomes a problem for the County or the D.A. Mr. Flaherty agreed that this would not be a good option. He knows of no other D.A. offices that have farmed out this work. Scott Johnson said his department would prefer having Legal Counsel handle this for consistency. Commissioner Baney asked if it was farmed out but not handled properly, what are the potential problems. Ms. Foreman stated that this could mean the release of someone from custody who is not stable. Ms. Anderson added that the DHS childcare administrator feels there need to be consistent attorneys appearing, and the staff person needs someone who can be contacted quickly. Chair Unger stated that a larger firm would have to dedicate someone to handle this, but it is a problem if they have to be accessible quickly. Terry said by the third day of the commitment proceeding, a conclusion has to be reached. That means quick action. Mr. Flaherty indicated they would do what the Board requests. This is somewhat unusual due to quirks in the law. The Board of Commissioners or County Court has the legal authority to make a decision about who represents the State of Oregon in civil court. Some accountable governmental body has to make this decision. Mr. Pilliod noted that four counties handle it through their legal counsel; others handle it thorough the DA. There are counties that are doing this, but just a few. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 8, 2013 Page 6 of 12 Commissioner Baney said it seems that full-service staff is preferable from whichever department, to be consistent with the goals and objectives relating to public safety. In regard to workload, Mr. Flaherty stated that he looked at the law, and wishes he would have known this was coming up before submitting his budget request. Under the law, it is up to the Board. However, he would need additional staffing. He asked Sara Foreman to contact other D.A. offices to see how they handle these cases. The most cost effective solution in order to provide minimum standards would involve a paralegal being added to staff. They have almost every Deputy D.A. at capacity plus handling special projects. Multi-disciplinary teams require a lot of work. They are also handling specialty courts, law enforcement training, reviewing search warrants and more. They could reclassify someone to a paralegal, but in the context, with the addition of child support enforcement services, an attorney rather than a paralegal would typically handle these cases He is concerned about who might be able to do what. He is confident he could find an attorney who could be a great asset for this work and other matters dealing with the State. There is no paralegal in his office at this time. Mr. Laherty said that a legal secretary could do some support work. Mr. Flaherty added that there is a lot of statutory interpretation involved. A paralegal might be appropriate for some, but they have to be certified to complete legal documents. The D.A. counsel time listed in the memo seems low to him, and they cannot predict how many cases might come in. They need to have a dedicated attorney on these cases when they come in. It is hard to have one available who is not already tied up on a criminal case or is in court. Commissioner DeBone asked if they have to study each case a lot, or just figure out how it fits into the law. Mr. Laherty replied that they need to know all the facts to determine if the person fits into the appropriate category. Mental Health staff conducts an investigation during the hold period. If it is to go to a commitment, a report must be submitted by the investigator within three days. Then there is a lot of contact with witnesses, interviews to conduct, and questions prepared for court, followed by going to court and calling up witnesses then. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 8, 2013 Page 7of12 Commissioner Unger said the decision to be made is which office should handle this workload, and then a decision how to pay for it. It appears that outside contracting is not a viable option. The work is disruptive and the existing system is not working well. If the D.A. takes this on, it is then a matter of transitioning and how to pay for it. They are close to budget discussions, but there is time to talk about the financial implications. He would like to see a decision reached on who is going to handle the work, and go from there. Commissioner Baney agreed. She stated that neither office is sitting idle waiting for one of these to come in. It is hard to find the sweet spot due to the timing and urgency. Whichever office takes it will have to be mindful of this. There would be unique consequences to contracting out this work, and this option does not seem to be supported now. The Board has two employees, Legal Counsel and County Administrator. The budget piece could be an add-back. She is in favor of moving it to the D.A.'s Office, and it will involve a budget decision. No one wants an attorney doing clerical work. This is a core role and function, something they have to do. They do not have a choice as to whether it is done, just by whom. There is a choice as to how the child support enforcement work is done. That is a priority, but it is not mandated. She would like to set aside this aspect for now. Mr. Flaherty said this is partially true. The law obligates the D.A. to handle child support enforcement. If the Attorney General decides something goes to the D.A., it does. It is then a mandate. There has been some suggestion from the Attorney General's Office that they might get rid of this, but in the State most of this work is done by the D.A. Commissioner Baney stated that no one else is available to do civil commitments. It has to be done, and it cannot be held up for something else. Mr. Flaherty said they need to have another attorney in the D.A.'s office to handle this and more. Commissioner Baney stated that the budget committee will want to hear about the justification for this. Commissioner DeBone feels that the D.A. should handle civil commitment proceedings. He does not have a feel for what kind of staffing level is needed, though, and does not understand the capacity side of it. Mr. Anderson noted that he hears all three groups having the desire to transfer this to the D.A.'s office. He will ask Mr. Pilliod to prepare an Order in this regard, which could be approved today. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 8, 2013 Page 8of12 Ms. Anderson asked about a transition period. They will need to hire and train someone, and this cannot be done in just thirty days. Connie Scorza has indicated she will be available to train, but they have to hire first. Mr. Anderson stated this could begin in July. Mr. Johnson added that they will want adequate time to prepare protocols and staffing changes, and wants to be sure it is done right. Mr. Anderson stated that the main thing is the change. County Counsel will offer training or whatever is needed during the transition. If they are not yet there on July 1, delays can be discussed to reach the right point. Ms. Anderson stated that the Order does not say this. Commissioner Baney pointed out that County Counsel did not bring in more staff with the additional workload increase, so she cannot imagine it will be impossible. It might be a bit tight for a while, but it would be hard anyway to be fully loaded on a given date. There will be some time when it will be painful. Mr. Flaherty said that the work they perform is dynamic and changes daily. It can be all-consuming, and these proceedings are important. They want to maintain a high quality of representation and not have any time when it is below par. It is important to consider the timeframe. This issue could have been brought up several months ago before budgets were submitted. Commissioner DeBone noted that the D.A. would have the authority, but perhaps Mr. Laherty could help with the first cases. Mr. Pilliod responded that his department will provide for training and support, and he has been saying this all along. However, he might not want anyone from his staff to be a temporary Deputy D.A. The difficulty is, the Board is making a high-level decision. They cannot let this be qualified for too long. The transition will not happen if there are these kinds of delays. This is the same Order as in 1988 with a defined date, which does not allow for a lot of uncertainties. His department will be ready to provide support and training. He wants to see this succeed as well. If the D.A has a better way of implementing the process, he can do so. Commissioner Baney asked about making the effective date August 1, as a compromise. They won't know until they go through the budget the level of the FTE. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 8, 2013 Page 9 of 12 Mr. Anderson noted this will allow some time to get up to speed. They could bring on additional staff, whether a Deputy D.A. or a paralegal, whoever the D.A. feels is appropriate. They don't need to get ahead of themselves on this. Perhaps they can come up with a better idea of the staff level needed. It might be beneficial to do this before signing the Order. Mr. Pilliod said that this will end up being a budget committee hearing instead. He can allow for an August 1 date. If the Board proceeds with the Order with that date, it will help determine the mix of staffing. Ms. Foreman stated that it takes three weeks to post a job so it takes five or six weeks to get someone on board. Commissioner Baney said that they may have to absorb extra work for a short period of time. BANEY: Move approval of Order No 2013- , showing an effective date of on or before August 1, 2013. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. Mr. Anderson noted that he is not saying the Board will authorize another position; they need to make the case for this. Mr. Kropp suggested they not run ads until the position is authorized. Commissioner Baney added that there will be direction coming on May 21 at the presentation. Mr. Flaherty said he wants to develop a sustainable program and not have to struggle with it. There is an uptick now during what should be a slow season. He anticipates they also will be getting back child support enforcement cases in the near future. 4. Other Items. Chair Unger said the County needs to get onto the next FEMA grant that applies to housing that is near the forests. He wants to be sure FEMA is getting the message. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 8, 2013 Page 10 of 12 Commissioner Baney stated that County Counsel drafted an agreement that was sent to the Oregon Department of Emergency Management. Mr. Pilliod said that they came to an agreement on the numbers, which were high enough for the groups to feel were sufficient, and also satisfactory to FEMA. There has been a lot of discussion on this. They need to document the purpose, and close the book on the disputed amounts. The County does not have contracts with FEMA except through the OEM, so the OEM is the one on the hot seat. The deal involves OEM making a contribution in addition to that of the County. A contract is needed with OEM to settle part of this. There were two grants and two agreements with the OEM, with OEM paying some, the County paying some, and OEM submitting to FEMA a request for formal closeout of the grants. OEM would release the County from liability under these grants. This would conclude the matter. Based on what he is hearing from the OEM and Joe Stutter, everyone is on board. The last piece, the final release, might be challenging. Unless the County gets that, they are not yet there. FEMA won't sign off direct and they can't be brought to the table. Mr. Anderson said that he understands this was one of the main purposes of the OEM visit and reviews of County records. A verbal agreement was reached. They found what they needed, so this should be done. Mr. Pilliod noted that this might be a non-issue. They will share the agreement with the higher-ups at OEM, ask for changes, bring them money and get signatures. The Board indicated that Commissioner Baney can sign the document on behalf of the County. Commissioner Baney stated they need to give Ed Keith (Forester) support to push for categorical exclusions on the new grant. Chair Unger said he will be in Washington D.C. in a week and hopes to meet with legislative representatives Wyden, Merkley and Walden to show them how this worked during the very recent wildfire situation in La Pine. It worked out well because of the mitigation that had been done, and it saved homes. More work needs to be done, so they want that 2010 grant. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 8, 2013 Page 11 of 12 Commissioner Baney noted that the protection of communities against wildfire is based on sweat equity, and having people understand the importance of doing this work consistently. However, FEMA struggles with the calculations on sweat equity. The FEMA requirement of wanting to calculate the work that each homeowner has done is not possible. The County asked the homeowners' associations to certify this work was done. A federal agency should understand how to roll out this work on the ground. Mr. Anderson pointed out that the lines of communication within such a massive organization are not there. Mr. Anderson said that the County got the brownfields grant for $400,000. It will be used for planning and assessment of the old landfill, the old shooting range, how to address the dicalite (diatomaceous earth) mine issue, and maybe other projects. Being no further items addressed, the work session ended at 4:40 p.m. DATED this ~ r A Day of 2013 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Alan Unger, Chair Tammy Bailey, Vice Chair ATTEST: e5A fx",- Anthony DeBone, Commissioner Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 8, 2013 Page 12 of 12 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 8, 2013 1. SDC Update - Chris Doty 2. Consideration of Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2013-012, Amending the City of Bend's Urban Growth Boundary to Include a 12.44-acre Property - Peter Gutowsky 3. Follow-up Discussion on Civil Commitment Process - Mark Pilliod 4. Other Items PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to OAS 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 13001VW 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 finther information. ~i I ICI o a -CE a~ ~ ro ~I I Q) ca 0.. 14- O N °4. ,'T Road Department 61150 SE 27th St. • Bend, Oregon 97702 (541) 38"581 • FAX (541) 388-2719 Memorandum To: Board of County Commissioners Through: Tom Anderson, County Administrator From: Chris Doty, Director Date: May 8, 2013 RE: Transportation SDC work session with BOCC On May 8, 2013, staff will conduct a work session with the Board of County Commissioners to review the published information relating to the upcoming public hearing for Resolution 2013- 020 (Transportation SDC Update). Information to be reviewed and discussed includes the following: 1. Resolution 2013-020 (published draft) a. Exhibit A to Resolution 2013-020 (Methodology Report dated April 5, 2013) i. Exhibit A-1: CDD Growth Rate Projection ii. Exhibit B: 2012 Transportation CIP List (per TSP) iii. Exhibit C: Transportation SDC Rate Sheet iv. Exhibit D: SDC Policy Issues Memorandum (February 12, 2013) The purpose of the work session will be to review the above documents and the associated recommendations of the SDC Committee in advance of the June 5, 2013 public hearing. The June 5, 2013 public hearing has been scheduled in conformance with the notification requirements of ORS 223.304 (7). EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION 2013-020 J Road Dapartmont 81130 SE 27th St. - Bend, Oregon 97702 (541) 388-6581 - FAX (541) 388.2719 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE UPDATE (Methodology Report) By Chris Doty, PE/PTOE, Road Department Director April 5, 2013 With the recent County approval and Star acknowledgement of the County's new Transportation System Plan (TSP), the County's Transportation System Development Charge (SDC) must be updated to reflect a new Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) contained within the TSP as well as modified growth projections through the year 2030. Background: In July of 2008, the Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution 2008-059 which established a countywide Transportation SDC. The passage of the Resolution concluded a public process primarily involving the Deschutes County Transportation SDC Stakeholders Advisory Committee. The Committee recommended a SDC methodology and final SDC rate based upon the best available data regarding needed transportation projects and growth projections. A primary component of the SDC methodology and rate is the Road Department's CIP which establishes the planned transportation projects necessary to accommodate growth and system improvement throughout a 20-year planning horizon. On August 20, 2012, the Board of County Commissioners approved an update to the County's TSP. The update includes a new Transportation CIP. The revised CIP contains significant changes in planned projects through the year 2030. The current SDC methodology calculates an improvement fee (no reimbursement fee) based on the number of PM peak hour trips added to the transportation system. The formula is as follows: The current SDC methodology does not contain a reimbursement fee portion; however Resolution 2008-059 (and supporting documents) describes a "plac"der" nmthodoloU for futurc cansiderstion of a raimbtrsenwd SDC. Eligible cost of planned "capacity increasing" capital imps SUC Growth in system capacity demand (in peak hour The existing SDC methodology calculates the SDC eligible cost of planned capital improvements at approximately $55M (of $280M in total project cost). The existing SDC methodology also assumes growth, measured in the estimated number of daily peak hour trips added to the system, at approximately 15,200. The resulting SDC, updated several times through inflation adjustments, stands at $3,673 per PM peak hour trip (including $47/PM peak hour trip administration fee). SDC Committee: On February 12 and February 26' 2013, the County's SDC Committee met to review an update proposal based on a new CIP and revised infrastructure growth estimates. The SDC Committee was comprised of the following members: Paul Dewey, Central Oregon Landwatch Chris Doty, Deschutes County Road Department Director Andy High, Central Oregon Builders Association Steve Hultberg, Radler, White and Alexander Gary Miller, Special Road District #8 Bill Robie, Central Oregon Realtors Association Peter Russell, Deschutes County, Senior Transportation Planner Dale Van Valkenburg, Brooks Resources Mike Williams, Hooker Creek In addition to reviewing and recommending adoption of: 1. A revised infrastructure growth estimate a. With new methodology for estimating system trip generation. 2. A project list (CIP) a. With growth's portion of improvements identified. The SDC Committee also reviewed the following elements related to the SDC methodology: 3. Consistency within the methodology as it relates to resort versus non-resort single- family residential dwelling units. 4. Transportation SDC Recommendation a. Reimbursement fee SDC Portion b. Improvement fee SDC Portion c. Total Transportation SDC 5. SDC Resolution related clarifications pertaining to: Transportation SDC Update: April 5, 2013 Page 2 a. Establishment that SDCs are assigned to land rather than structure. b. Timeframe to declare abandonment of use. c. Clarification of how to charge Home Occupations. d. How to address illegal use. e. How to address change of use. f. How to adopt changes/updates to the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation Manual. In establishing items 1-5 above, the SDC Committee arrived at a new SDC rate. The SDC Committee achieved full consensus on the above issues as follows: Item 1 and 1a: Infrastructure Growth Estimate Similar to the estimate calculated in Resolution 2008-059, the growth in transportation system use utilized a residentially based background trip generation estimate, then calculated system growth across the 20-year planning period utilizing an estimated growth rate. Based on recent Census and historical permit data, the Deschutes County Community Development Department (CDD) has estimated an unincorporated area growth rate of 1.0% per year (2010 to 2030). See Exhibit A-1. To calculate the background system use in 2010 (as a baseline for estimating future growth), a "blended" residential trip generation rate was created and utilized to account for Deschutes County's unique high percentage of secondary home development. The blended residential trip rate is calculated as follows: Blended Single-Family Residential Trip Generation Rate Calculation Land Use Single Family Residential (primary housing) Single Family Residential fcotkiarYrreso~t housing) Total "blended" Trip Generation Rate per Residential Dwelling Unit (PM Pk Hr) ITE #/Type PM Sri ur % of Toted Use in /fit Des. Copy #210 Single Family Detached Housing # mat Hots 1.00 74% 0.26 26% Rate 0.74 0.07 0.81 Transportation SDC Update: April 5, 2013 Page 3 The blended trip generation rate resolves the prior issue of methodology inconsistency between residential uses contained within, or outside of, a Goal 8 destination resort. The blended rate is a global rate of the average trip generation of a dwelling unit in Deschutes County that will be applied to all building permits for single-family residences (inside and outside of resorts). Utilizing 2010 Census and CDD permit data, the 20-year growth in system use within the unincorporated area is estimated per the following tables: Growth in Residential Development # Units 2030 lAnd Use # Units 2010 (1% per year for 20 (howth in Units Yew) Single Family (SF) Residential 31,013 37,836 6,823 Growth in System Use (Residential Based at 0.81 PM peak hour trips/unit) # of FM Peak # of PM Ptak Growth in # of 10 to Growth f a Land Use How Trips HOW Trips rM Peak Hour 2030) a s a as Ac cent of total (2010) (O) Trips system use. SF Residential 25,120 30,645 5,525 18.0% Total Growth Related Trips added to System (2010 to 2030) Lid Use, Growth Reid PM peak h *s Residential 5,525 Nan-Residential (Commercial, etc.) 553 * tc+t7at10%u}iide ltripspff 2009toW13SDCM#ediMdata Total 6,078 Based on a revised growth estimate and a modified trip generation rate, growth within the unincorporated area of Deschutes County is anticipated to add 6,078 PM peak hour trips to the transportation system by 2030. This growth is estimated to account for an 18.0% increase in transportation system use. Item 2 and 2a: Capital Improvement Plan /Project Last and Growth's Pow of Ammd Projects Utilizing the CIP (with minor modifications) contained within the recently approved TSP, the SDC Committee assigned growth's share of planned projects primarily based on the methodology and rationale established in Resolution 2008-059. Transportation SAC Update: April 5, 2013 Page 4 Exhibit B is the recommended Project List with identified SDC funding apportionment based on the SDC Committee's recommendation in the following categories: SDC Eligible Expense by Project Category Project category County Intersection Projects System Management State Highway Segments State Highway Intersections County New Segments County Modernization Projects Forest Highway Projects Bike/Ped Projects Bridge Projects TOTAL Pwica Cost $115.55M 2.71/6 $3.12M $3.46M 100% $3.46M $34.49M 18% $6.21M $15.4M 10% $1.54M $0.571M 0%n $4 $3.44M 18% $0.62M ~$.$M $22.03M The SDC Committee followed the prior methodology and rationale for assignment of SDC eligible expense (growth's portion) as established in Resolution 2008-059, with one exception (Forest Highway Projects). County Intersection Projects and New County Road Segments remain funded at 100% via growth. County Modernization Projects and Bridge Projects are lhnded based on growth's proportional impact to background use - which has been revised to 18.0%. State Highway Intersection Projects (intersecting County facilities) are funded at 2.7%. This is based on a percent of a percent. The County's share of an intersection's is 15%. Assuming growth accounts for 18% of the new use of the intersection, then 2.7% is 18% of the total County share of 15%. System Management, State Highway Segments, and Bike/Ped Projects (mostly sidewalk) do not have any funding assigned to growth. Transportation SDC Update: April 5, 2013 Page 5 Within the existing SDC methodology, Forest Highway Projects were not assigned any growth-related SDC expense as previously the Federal Forest Highway Program fully funded Forest Highway reconstruction and modernization projects. With passage of the federal transportation bill, MAP-21, Forest Highway projects now require a 10% local match. As Forest Highway Projects are similar to County Modernization Projects (18% growth attributable), the SDC Committee has accepted a staff recommendation of a 10% allocation attributable to growth - equal to the match requirement. In summary, the SDC Committee has recommended a growth-related allocation of approximately $22.2M of the $305.3M project list. Of the $305.3M in projects contained on the list, approximately $64.6M are County system related projects and $240.7M are State Highway projects planned within Deschutes County. Item 3: Consistency within the methodology as it relates to resort versus non-resort residential dwelling units. The prior SDC rate approved in Resolution 2008-059 contained inconsistencies within the methodology report regarding the estimated impact of destination resort development versus the SDC that was applied at time of development. These inconsistencies were noted and arguments were made that single-family residential development within destination resort communities should pay lower SDCs due to observed lower trip generation rates. To address this inconsistency, staff proposed a "blended" single-family residential trip generation rate which assumes and/or acknowledges the following: 1. Lower trip generation rates observed within destination resorts are primarily a function of secondary home development. 2. Secondary home development is not exclusive to Goal 8 destination resorts within Deschutes County. 3. Primary single-family home development is generally not restricted or prohibited within destination resort communities. 4. It is not practical to assign or predict which single-family residences are or will remain secondary homes in perpetuity. 5. Approximately 74% of single-family residential units in Deschutes County are primary residences and 26% are secondary residences (or "recreational" homes). 6. The Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation manual provides trip generation rates for traditional single-family residential development (ITE land use #210) and secondary or recreation home development (ITE land use #260). In consideration of these assumptions and acknowledgements, a weighted or "blended" trip generation rate was calculated as previously outlined in Item #Ia. The blended residential trip rate is calculated as follows: Transportation SDC Update: April 5, 2013 Page 6 Blended Single-Family Residential Trip Generation Rate Calculation Lam use #/Type PM peak lour % of Total Vs+e in late t Immit Des. Cc~uw #210 Single Family Residential Single Family (primary housing) Detached Housing Single Family Residential #2501 (SewndW/r+esort housing) Recreational Homes 1.00 74% 0.26 26% 0.74 11:07 Total "lid" Trip Generation Rate per Residential Dwelling Unit (PM Pk Hr) 0.81 Given the existing blend of residential use observed within Deschutes County, the blended residential trip rate provides a reasonable rate for calculation of existing transportation system use. With an assumption that future development patterns will closely resemble the existing residential development composition (primary vs secondary home development), the blended trip generation rate provides a reasonable predictor for future system use. As proposed by staff and approved by the SDC Committee, the trip generation rate for all single-family residential development in unincorporated Deschutes County is recommended to be 0.81 PM peak hour trips per dwelling unit. Item 44-c: Transportation SDC Recommendation ORS 223.297-223.314 defines SDCs and provides the framework for how they are calculated and applied, as well as accounted for. The SDC is comprised of two components: the improvement fee portion and the reimbursement fee portion. The improvement fee portion is designed to capture costs associated with growth's share of future projects. The reimbursement fee portion is designed to recover costs of capital improvements already constructed, but used by future growth. The SDC methodology established in Resolution 2008-059 utilized an improvement fee portion, but deferred establishment of a reimbursement fee portion until the County has a justifiable cost basis for doing so, as follows: Transportation 5AC Update: April 5, 2013 Page 7 "Due to the fact that the existing County transportation system has been funded by a combination of tax sources and other `general" funds, the County should forgo charging a reimbursement fee as a part of its initial transportation SDC. A reimbursement fee methodology or formula should be included in the analysis and report in order to allow the County to add a reimbursement fee when it later develops a basis for such a fee. " The reimbursement fee portion methodology established in Resolution 2008-059 is as follows: E3 Cost of assets funded by previi SDC improvementfees($) I (in peak hour trips) In, system capacity Reimbursement Fee Portion: The SDC Committee reviewed the above methodology as well as a record of SDC expenditures from 2009 to present (FY 13) and recommended approval of a reimbursement fee portions as follows. $525,000 (SDC expenditures 2009 to 2013) 6,078 PM Peak Hour Trips (per Item 1) = $86 per PM Peak Hour Trip Improvement Fee Portion: In contemplation of the CIP (Project List) and growth's recommended portion of planned projects as well as the revised growth projects for transportation system use, the SDC Committee recommended the following improvement fee portion: $22,030,000 (SDC eligible expense per Item 2) 6,078 PM Peak Hour Trips (per Item 1) = $3,672 per PM Peak Hour Tripz Total Transportation SDC: The total recommended Transportation SDC is: = $86 + $3,672 = $3, 7S8 per PM Peak Hour Trip z Including the existing $47 per PM peak hour trip administrative recovery fee, established in Resolution 2008-059. Transportation SDC Update: April 5, 2013 Page 8 Exhibit C contains an updated listing of SDC rates for various land uses utilizing the 9' Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation Manual. Item Sa through Sf• Other Modifications and Clarifications to the SDC Resolution The SDC Committee reviewed staff recommendations pertaining to requested modifications and clarifications within the SDC Resolution based on issues that have been raised since implementation of Resolution 2008-059. The SDC Committee approved a staff proposal' to address the following in the new SDC Resolution: a. Establish that SDCs run with the land. b. Declare that uses which have been abandoned for more than two (2) consecutive years are not eligible for any credit for existing use. c. Establish that: i. Type I home occupations have negligible impact and pay no SDC ii. Type II home occupations have a 0.5 PM peak hour trip impact and pay the according SDC for 0.5 PM peak hour trips. iii. Type III home occupations have a 1.0 PM peak hour trip impact and pay the according SDC for 1.0 PM peak hour trips. d. Address illegal use issues through code enforcement and require payment of SDC. e. Establish that SDC payment be required of development applications (not just those requiring a building permit) for change of use which result in increasing use of the transportation system. £ Reference the applicability of subsequent updates of the ITE Trip Generation Manual. Exhibits /Attachments: Exhibit A-1: DC CDD Growth Rate Projection Letter Exhibit B: Project List (Capital Improvement Plan) Exhibit C: Transportation SDC Rate Sheet Exhibit D: February 12, 2013 Memo to SDC Committee (Proposals on several SDC Policy Issues) See Peter Russell Memo, dated February 12, 2013, Re: Proposals on several SDC Policy Issues Transportation SDC Update: April 5, 2013 Page 9 -r January 15, 2013 Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Sails DiVision KO. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, 'Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 httP,//www.co,deschutes.0r.us/cd`d/" Chris Doty, Director Deschutes County Road Department 61150 SE 27"' Street Bend, OR 97702 Re: Percentage of Seasonal Homes in Rural Deschutes County Dear Chris: As part of the Road Department's work to revise the County's transportation system development charge (SDC), you had asked the Planning Division to: 1) look at the percentage of homes in unincorporated Deschutes County that are not primary residences and 2) make a projection about future housing unit starts. The non-primary homes, which the Census describes as seasonal, recreational, or occasional use, do not generate trips at the same rate as a home that is occupied year-round. Staff contacted Portland State University, which is the entity that prepares the state's coordination population forecast. PSU provided US Census data for 2010 regarding total housing units as well as occupied vs. vacant units for the unincorporated area of Deschutes County. The federal data do not distinguish between single-family vs. multi-family units. All the data provided below are for the unincorporated areas of Deschutes County: • Total Housing Units: 31,013 • Occupied Housing Units: 20,808 • Vacant Housing Units: 10,205 • Seasonal Housing Units: 8,017 Seasonal homes are therefore 26% of the housing units in Deschutes County (8,017131,013). We recommend monitoring the federal Census data to see if the share of seasonal housing units of the County's total housing units changes over time. The historic growth rates for population and housing support the Census results where a significant number of homes are recreational homes. The Planning data incorporates our GIS records from 2000-2010. It shows rooftops grew at a faster rate than people. Quality Services Performed with Pride Table 1, Growth of Population and Housing Units in Deschutes County 2000 2010 Avg. Annual Growth Rate Population< 48,898 46,148* 51,188. Housing Units 26,348 24,973* 31,013 2.2% tsumatea urnncorporatea population less annexation trom ttedmona and La Nine incorporation The table shows while the unincorporated population of Deschutes County grew by 1.0% per year by contrast the rate of housing units was more than double that, growing by 2.2%. Rooftops accumulating at a faster rate than people indicate many dwellings are being constructed as secondary homes. We looked at the number of single-family and manufactured housing units constructed from 2000-2012 based on our permitting records. There were 6,423 single-family units and 1,170 manufactured homes constructed for a total of 7,593 housing units over twelve years. However, the volumes dropped substantially beginning in 2008. Table 2 shows different averages for three different time periods, the raw data for the table is enclosed. Table 2, Average Number of Housing Units Built in Deschutes County Years Averaged Stick built Homes Manufactured Homes Both Types 2000-2012: 494- ' 90 584 2000-2007 712 125 837 2008-2012 145 34 179 Based on the combination of a large supply of vacant homes and low population growth, it would seem the housing starts in the County will remain at levels closer to 2008-2012 than 2000-2007. In the last three (2010-2012) stick built and manufactured housing starts have totaled 131, 141, and 185 units respectively, so there does appear to be a gradual recovery. In terms of projections, a conservative estimate would be 1 % in new housing units annually. Of that potential 1% growth in annual homes, it would seem reasonable to assume 26% units will be second homes. I hope this information proves helpful and I look forward to participating in any committee work on the revision of the transportation SDC. P4, Peter Russell Senior Transportation Planner 2 Year Stick built Mfg Home Both 2000 695 226 921 2001 605 151 756 2002 596 140 736 2003 665 139 804 2004 804 100 904 2005 945 71 1,016 2006 908 102 1,010 2007 479 70 549 2008 228 53 281 2009 125 34 ~V159 2010 98 33 131 2011 118 23 141 2012 157 28 185 TOTALS 6,423 1,170 7,593 2000-12 avg. 494 90 584 2000-2007 a.vg 712 125 837 2008-12 avg. 145 34 179 Source: Deschutes County Planning Division permitting records N J V d O a` ~ p tea 4 a~ U CO O o Q N A F _ a[ ± = E I s F ~ E E F_ E s E = = z ? ~ > ~ j a E ~ E E g A r = t = ~ s ~ ~ ~ s s 4 . R a n n m a g g U Up N SS b S SE N O SS O SS O Op O pp P p 4 S ~ S O S O Gp O 4 S g ~ o o po O S p p o S O S O 8 Ca S S S O O o S b e O S O 8 O Op O R S O+ pp O+ p ~ N O N S ~a d~ S O~ 8 O~ 8 C~ p O 0 S 0 0 o W p OA S V 6 o O~ ~ cdo S p O .5 S O 8 O g o N O N E v I ~ ~ _ A+i w N w N N N w w A w N ai ~ O ~ V N N A pi w ~n w N N M r w u'i N ~ w w ~ w N w tV w ~ w ~ w T w w w w w w y S O ry P O O O S S O ~ N ~ p g p O b p p p s C5 p ~ tl1 o p p N w y i N N N w N N N N N N N N w w w N N N N N N N gC M O O p N n op O 49 N OM 4y - o E ~ N 8 N N S S O V S O ~ S S ~Oy O S pO O p P S 0 B OH 0 p O op 4 S d 4 p E o o S S S 0 9 Sd 9 S 0 8 pQ . w pq , S 0 9 S 0 9 - S 9 S 9 M 9 SV ~ [pO I fi p p ° I p 4 S S t+~ N 11; b 1 0 w w N N N N N N N N w w w w w w N N N N w 79~Q I O rv 6 S O 'o J i m m [l LL 1 ~ . •G 'C ~ t a U ~j ~ fn u C C ~ ~ 3Q 921 C C C C C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ta i 5 V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U j p g [ 4 [ 4 ~ ~ ~ LL ~ } LL } 4 } LL y LL ~ _ ~ i ➢ N 1~1 m 1~ c c~~ t ee C c ,C C ,C ,C C E ~ V p o G ~ N c d h c sE ~ ~ Q ~ ~ - a a n v o v v Y3 E j - rn v K ~ ~ ~ ~ z R $ 8 m - m ~S ~i YS YS K E $ m 5 4 4 E S c z z z z .Q ° # a ro ,r a° E Eo 3 3 d d ~ o ~ ~ ~ i9 `9 o a }9 ~ `S n a 9 m m a` S ,Q 5 O ~ •a° p a m m ¢ ¢ a` ~ ~ ~ a` ~ ro a` a w } m E S' i c V $ E 5 $ ~ E ro S O ~ i 2 F ~ K K K K K 4' K ~ ~ Q' C V V C X ~ Ir AK IX ( ~ O N CO ~ a H CC 4 p ¢ ~ N o Q a m ~ 3 ~ ~ K a~ q K z Y K Y qq W = 0 N ~ O P - «b a LL ~ g a ~ F m a = ~ O p ~ ~v r = OY a w N u . C ~ Y ~ Lr a s 0 O ~ Y a U o ° p w ~ Q 2 w 0 a p F W C _ a o ° w o w 43 m w ~ W ~ ~ a o Y ~ F x w z w m cc I LL a g K 7 m Y w Fr w U F E 'o a` ~ ~i ~ ~ 0 U W a m p 7 0 ~ U Z in . 7 E } z _ 0 I-u w W r$ N J O W Z H 7 Nw m .T W I W ? W "e a d K r o T d m p z ° p ~ ~d a ~ = s p a ' S o mo i z Q a F ° ~ k a E u. a c d o a w r X } K o x F m a m 't > a > i ~ o cx w W mJ J n ° ac . Z v 4 p a w w ~ Z ¢ g 9 ro t W Y $ 3 O 0 Cr = ~ a Q i m ~ a ` O - v~ p a O a w E ~ o & m = = z w ~ x pp pp p m o _ € v gg 2 r 2 c' o E N I C r W W o to Z yW ZQ F 7 m .4 L T m n d n Q o N O N N N N ' N ' N ' ' ~ rn V V V rn N rn V rn N N n Z R' o U a a 7 m h a t m ¢ U w ° op c~ 7 S p U ~ ~ _ a in x N 7 (/l » N fn ~ N ~ (n ~ N 7 R 0 R 0 R 0 R p N I 7 l 7 I 7 a ~ o i 7 N 7 N 7 m 7 ~ p z 7 M 2• . ~ E ~ v N n rv ~ o p ~ 4 H J r V W a V a a~ U z Co O O y oa 0 I-- 12 U O F a a a r S r S c S c S c T t r Z r x > E > > > > E ~ 7 E 1 0 a 3 S 3 s 3 3 -9 3 -9 3 -9 a # .pi o o E 2 S r _ > E J s _ g E a J 9 .2 2 2 53 U w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w cv W S O S O N S O AW ~ y Y~1 o N ~ M rAi m ~ ~ p o ~ ~D c t ~C ~ p N O ^ ep V N W m V e.~ eO S o ^ ~ m ~ ~ M S O m 8 O m S O S O S O ~D N o N S ~1 p P S N p N O m V ` Y~ ~ ~uy'i I[I a~ ~ ci A cooti N cV ~ ~yp O ~ N N th ~ q{y Q N(.~ t7 uM(1~~~ ~fl 1~ V Q A ~ e~ m V 0 S X6 ~ ,6 S rwr~ W Nf u] OP P ~ ~n ~ ~ N ~((~pp~ O ~n i~1 S ul ~1 pq V 11; ~ 1: pf N 1y O~ 0 A ~ ' A Oi 6 5 g ,-l H H H H w w w w w w w p w H H H H H H w w w w w w w V~ w H N H H H H H H N M w w w d ~Vp Q+ p0p 4 0 S u] n ~ N n pp Y~ Q+ Si ~ S iA ~1 m m oAO ~n M ~iny N i~~yyn AG pop tp ~ t~v ~(1 r N N pp N O ^ CpDp fD ui ~ imp t0 'n ~ O ~1 A N f+ t+~ O N ~ W aD S ~ A A S O g S O O N ~ N W po N N pp Oo ~ ~ p N 8 O 1~ ~ 8 O o y~ O+ ~p, ~D O M o n . $ m "m m ~ V - ~ O~ ~ gi ~ m ~ W N M U~i ~ ~ Yl N"~' ~d fq fV fV ~n rf 4 m M O~ g E W q ` H H w ~/Y w w w w N w H H H w w w w w w w w w a /i M H H H M M H M w W H Cg N 5 25 ~li 5 ~ 2a5 O mm F $ m ° A O g p Q+ ~ ~p oD 4 ~i p N ~ N gu''S N s 7S ~ s ~i, A N Q 8S N ~ 4 u~5 ~p ~ trpD t+~ 5 ~ 25 a N ~i SN i4i N ~ Yi N ~ S N"1 S ~h 'g~' ~ Yi q ~ m g u`S ~ s E5 R N Q 25 I Q ~S N Q E uYi_ n A 75 c&~p N N N M - ~ Q E E 0 S 8 v S O o S t7 ii9 OG Q ~2S O 8 N 4 9 N E ~ S v N U y Z w N w w w w w w w H H H (V H H H H w w w w w w w a A V i H H H H H H H N H w aA w H H N r1 pt - N % y 'O N N N O A N p M O ~i n M O n N n 1 %1 % "R N pp M pp N N e pp N p M AO I RI R R R A a M n N R N cN', N m iA S N N N N N N N R zz N N N N N N N N N N R 4 N N R c1 ry zz zz I ' m - M ` w o U C~ o ~ c~ c~ rn c~ o a a c~ c> o v c~ v A S w ~ E 2 ~c ~c 2 2 L ro m m m m = m Z 1 c c t c z r6 $ ,x 8 `o $ c ~ X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 0 y Q g g g 8 . 6 my ery6 e m p N Q We N ctl N N M p N 1 N Cy eyb e6 tl etl d H w .tl e H C w H 8 w q `r N N Q~ G1 Q~ N N a L~ N O O J ~ V O 3 ~ ° 3 3 9 s K ~ s a c~ $ $ $ 3 a $ $ $ ~ o ~ G 0 ~ a a K m 0 c 6 pp Q W I w p tw7 w ¢ a , U I V C%; ~ " w a N F w z Z o } a a g, ❑ fn K V K w N m ❑ ~ W A IL Y U K Z Z ❑ ~ w Q ❑ 4 W w w W z LK w a a _ ~ z O WUW aa O ❑ o ry N z O ~ C o en ~ ~ M1 Oi J C ~ ~ `epi ~ 4° 2 ' ~ 6 3 W n `ty C o N w 1- ~ x } 5 V~ w g °a N ~ ~ W ~ c o Q a ? Z ~ ~ a pp 3 w W U W H ~i 1111 o p o ~ O Z6 a ~ w K Z ? ~ W o x a 6 { a x b e r 2 g d ~ H Z ~ T = ~ = ❑ ~ x 7 + } N V `2 6 z K ; V X ~ ` gq Y U ~j (n ° q = 5 0 z E $ < A 5 Y i s ° z i z z x Z ~ w ~ O z m ~ ~ v ai ~ E w w S m g z : v ~ g E ~ F F m Q. N } K w Z ~ } 4' F ❑ V z GI ❑ w } 3 W ~ >>J - ~ w Y C W Y 7 a H O W W o W: Z ' A !7 7 N w V E N m m N ~ f7 W z W z t N ~ ~ W a O t s ~ d ❑ a z g N 7 x U p z o N ¢ w w c~ p z o fY 3 w c7 O m vi t.. ~ a p x ~ 2 a z w U U a z ' a > t x ~ ~ ~ U w 2S ❑ z w Q a d a y ` n ~¢jj~ Q W ~ 0 W Q F- y y m z O N - 4? O W (aj ~0." N J O Y " ss ? O = 2 x y Z m Z 1 . ~L n b • U O a G ry N N o a m g , I w o i z ~ i z ° z z ui ~ ~ u 73 ~ = z to 0)) U Q a ~ a c ~ ~ RR CS F m ini a E ° 5 ❑ a 3 a a } a a 2 1 ~ i L Z ❑ O ❑ Q w ~ W ❑ ~ } q$ 4 r w ¢ ¢ K ❑ 6 W ❑ F O 7 a }i P K W w a ~ - S C~ x " C ❑ p . m :5 a , & N 0 o r N IM a ~ Z r W s r c W y~ s O ~ t o z o z Q m w a 7 Q F N w p C N x ❑ C, s ` a Z K F W ' 2 F z ~ a g ui C~ , M ~ = I .w.i a a z ~ * T' W ~ w y S M w F - F , ¢ ~ W W K aY ~ a p r ~ W Y ~ x ~ m 0 a , z w O W a ~ L w J fir _ " W Z y IIyLL 9 C r m r y $ al ~o " ~ m m u~Wl I `q x Z CZ w ~ x ~ ~ N O w V `n $ ~ $ ~ W3 ? pp 3 g . r }o ~ 2 ` b B ~ W W j vi a y 11 •4 4 LL w U = m a~i ~ Z C7 z Z ~ m z 0 z V u) u) ~ w m ~4 a a t a A A U m a d ~i N N - ~ H 1 1 -1 -c f-f -I . 6 j V ci b I d ~ M 0 M ~ 0 $j 4 ~ rf 0 ~ ~ ~ V ~ O 0 Q ~ ~V ~ S W ~ [i LLLL H I c ms N n Yi ~ ~ 1 t N N J V m O a` U G vo ~4 I a~ Uz co O~z r~ b Ow CL Z w r U D LL. a O = o v v ~ = Z ~ ~ o ~ a S A w ~ y w w S N N N w N N N N N ~ a 55~~ 25 ~ ~ 45 u1 S N O W O gg~ B r O o r: ~o iri ~n N `D 9 9 9 M ~ N M N ~ w N N N M o o ~o gi ug QQ 25 4 25 $ ~ 5 25 s 25 $ S d n , µ N N 9 ~ w n g W w w an N ~ F~ a 1W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d t t ? ? W ~ r $ v ~ ~ ~u t ~u t `c m m m m m c ~ ~ E m` m m m m ~ ~ a s ~ ; ~ z z z z z a m ~ a m M M $ I ; - N 1 1 1 J f wj ~ vi 1 S N rn a 9 1 F ~ .r- fn 7 U M N ~ _pp N w Z K li w C S ~ , 1 U E a M 11 31 1 1 f 1 m v ~ ° F w 4S ~ I N N U H - . a r r to $ Si N EXHIBIT C: Deschutes County Transportation SDC Rate Sheet April 5, 2013 Peak- Trip iTE Hour Reduction Adjusted Code Type of Use Land Use Description Trips Factor' P-H-Ts SDC Units Typically less than 500 110 General Light e. E amplest Printing plants, material testing laboratoriial, us 0.97 1 0.97 $3,082 KSF Industrial data processing equipment assembly, power stations. Industrial park areas that contain a number of industrial 130 Industrial Park and/or related facilities (mix of manufacturing, service and 0.85 1 0.85 $3,194 KSF warehouse). Facilities that convert raw materials into finished products. 140 Manu- Typically have related office, warehouse, research and 0.73 1 0.73 $2,743 KSF facturing associated functions. Storage units or vaults rented for storage of goods. Units 151 Mini- are physically separate and access is through an overhead 0.19 1 0.19 $714 KSF Warehouse door or other common access point. Example: U-Store-It. 210 Single family detached housing. 0.81"" 1 0.81"" $3,044 DU Detached Rental dwelling units within the same building. At least 4 220 Apartment units in the same building. Examples: Quadplexes and all 0.60 1 0.62 $2,255 DU types of apartment buildings. Residential condominium/townhouses under single-family 230 Condo/ ownership. Minimum of two single-family units in the same 0.52 1 0.52 $1,954 DU Townhouse building structure. Mobile Trailers or manufactured homes that are sited on permanent Occupied 240 foundations. Typically the parks have community facilities 0.59 1 0.59 $2,217 DU Home (laundry, recreation rooms, and pools). Restricted to senior citizens. Contains residential units 253 Elderly similar to apartments or condos. Sometimes in self- 0.17 1 0.17 $639 Occupied Housing contained villages. May also contain medical facilities, DU dining and some limited, supporting retail. Lodging facility that may include restaurants, lounges, 310 Hotel meeting rooms and/or convention facilities. Can include a 0.60 1 0.60 $2,255 Room large motel. 320 Motel Sleeping accommodations and often a restaurant. Free 0.47 1 0.47 $1,766 Room onsite parking and little or no meeting space. Similar to hotel, but primary difference is resort hotels cater 330 Resort Hotel to tourist and vacation industry, often providing a wide 0.42 1 0.42 $1,578 Room variety of recreational facilities/programs (golf course, tennis court, beach access, or other amenities). County-owned parks, varying widely as to location, type and 412 Local number of facilities, including boating/swimming facilities, 0.09 1 0.09 $338 Acre Park ball fields and picnic facilities. Regional park authority-owned parks, varying widely as to 417 Regional location, type and number of facilities; including trails, lakes, 020 1 0.20 $752 Acre Park pools, ball fields, camp/picnic facilities and general office space. Includes 9, 18, 27 and 36 hole municipal and private country 430 Golf clubs. Some have driving ranges and clubhouses with pro 2.92 1 2.92 $10,973 Hole course shops, restaurants and lounges. Many of the municipal courses do not include such facilities. Multipurpose Contain two or more of the following land uses at one site: 435 Recreation mini-golf, batting cages, video arcade, bumper boats, go- 3.58 1 3.58 $13,454 KSF Facility carts, driving ranges 437 Bowling Recreational facilities with bowling lanes which may include 1.71 1 1.71 $6,426 KSF Alley a small lounge, restaurant or snack bar. Athletic Privately owned with weightlifting and other facilities, often 493 Club including swimming pools, hot tubs, saunas, racquetball, 5.96 1 5.96 $22,398 KSF squash and handball courts. Recreational Facilities similar to and including YMCAs, often including 495 Communit Community classes, day care, meeting rooms, swimming pools; and 2-74 1 2.74 $10,297 KSF Center tennis, racquetball, handball, weightlifting equipment, locker rooms and food service. 520 Elementary School public, typically serves grades K-6. 1.21 0.15 1 1 1.21 0.15 $4,547 $564 KSF Student 522 Middle Public, serves students who have completed elementary 1.19 1 1.19 $4,472 KSF School school but have not yet entered high school. 0.16 1 0.16 $601 Student High Public, serves students who have completed middle or 0.97 1 0.97 $3,645 KSF 53D School junior high school. 0.13 1 0.13 $489 Student Junior) 2.54 1 2.54 $9,545 KSF 540 Community Two-year junior colleges or community colleges. 0.12 1 0.12 $451 Student College 560 Church I Contains worship area and may include meeting rooms, 0.55 1 0.55 $2,067 KSF classrooms, dining area. EXHIBIT C: Deschutes County Transportation SDC Rate Sheet April 5, 2013 Peak- Trip ITE Hour Reduction Adjusted Code Type of Use Land Use Description Trips Factor P-H-Ts SDC Units Facility for care of pre-school children, primarily during 12,34 0.33 4.07 $15,295 KSF 565 Day Care daytime hours. May include classrooms, offices, eating 0.81 0.33 0.27 $1,015 Student areas and playgrounds. Library Public or private. Contains shelved books, reading rooms or 7.30 1 7.30 $27,433 KSF areas, and sometimes meeting rooms. Lodge/ Fraternal Includes a clubhouse with dining and drinking facilities, 0.03 1 0.03 $113 Member recreational and entertainment areas and meeting rooms. Organization Office building with multiple tenants. Mixture of tenants can General include professional services, bank and loan institutions, 1.49 1 1.49 $5,599 KSF r Office restaurants, snack bars and service retail facilities. Single Tenant Single tenant office building. Usually contains offices, 715 Office meeting rooms, file storage areas, data processing, 1.74 1 1.74 $6,539 KSF Building restaurant or cafeteria, and other service functions. Provides diagnosis and out-patient care on a routine basis. Medical- Typically operated by one or more private physicians or 3.57 1 3.57 $13,416 KSF Dental Office dentists. Park or campus-like planned unit development containing 750 Office Park office buildings and support service such as banks and loan 1.48 1 1.48 $5,562 KSF institutions, restaurants and service stations. Research & Single building or complex of buildings devoted to research 760 Development and development. May contain offices and light fabrication 1.07 1 1.08 $4,021 KSF Center facilities. Group of flex-type or incubator one- and two-story buildings Business served by a common roadway system. Tenant space is 770 flexible to accommodate a variety of uses. Rare of building 1.26 1 1.26 $4,735 KSF Park is usually served by a garage door. Typically includes a mix of offices, retail and wholesale. Small, freestanding building where hardware, building 812 Building Materials & materials and lumber are sold. May include yard storage 4.49 1 4.49 $16,873 KSF Lumber and shed storage areas. The storage areas are not included in the GLA needed for trip generation estimates. 813 Discount A freestanding discount store that also contains a full 4.35 0.72 3.13 $11,763 KSF Super Store service grocery department under one roof. A variety store is a retail store that sells a broad range of 814 Variety Store inexpensive items at a single price. These are also called ° 6.82 1 6.82 $25,630 KSF and can be stand done or in a smell sh* "doper stores shopping center. A freestanding discount store offering a variety of customer services, centralized cashiering, and a wide range of 815 Discount products under one roof. Does not include a full-service 4.98 0.54 2.69 $10,109 KSF Store grocery department, like Land Use 813 (Freestanding Discount Superstore). 816 Hardware/ Typically freestanding buildings with off-street parking, 4.84 0.29 1.40 $5,261 KSF Paint Store where paints and hardware are sold. Freestanding building with yard containing planting or Nursery/ landscape stock. May have large greenhouses and offer 6.94 1 6.94 $26,081 KSF 817 Garden landscaping services. Typically contain office, storage and 8.06 1 8.06 $30,289 Acre Center shipping facilities. GLA is Building GLA, not yard storage GLA. A free-standing building with an outside storage area for Nursery planting or landscape stock. Primarily service contractors 5.17 1 5.17 $19,429 ,42 KSF 818 (Wholesale) and suppliers and may have large greenhouses and offer 0.45 1 0.45 $1 Acre landscaping services. Most have office, storage, and shipping. Integrated group of commercial establishments that is KSF Shopping planned, developed, owned and managed as a unit. 1.48 820 Center Provides enough onsite parking to serve its buildings, movie 3.71 0.40 $5,562 Leasable theatres, restaurants, post offices, health clubs and Area recreation such as skating rinks and amusements. Small strip shopping centers containing a variety of retail KSF 826 Specialty shops that typically specialize in apparel, hard goods, 2171 0.39 1.06 $3 983 Gross Retail services such as real estate, investment, dance studios, , Leasable florists and small restaurants. Area 841 New Car Sales Car dealership with sales, service, parts and used vehicles. 2.62 1 2.62 $9,846 KSF 848 Tire Store Primary business is tire sales and repair. Generally does 4.15 0.72 2.99 $11,236 KSF not have a large storage or warehouse area. 850 Supermarket Freestanding grocery store. May also contain ATMs, photo 9,48 0.26 2.45 $9,207 KSF centers, pharmacies, video rental areas. EXHIBIT C: Deschutes County Transportation SDC Rate Sheet April 5, 2013 Peak- Trip ITE Hour Reduction Adjusted Code Type of Use Land Use Description Trips Factor P-H-Ts SDC Units 851 Convenience Sells conventional foods, newspapers, magazines and often 52.41 0.28 14.67 $55,130 KSF Market w/o gas beer and wine. Does not have gas pumps. Sells conventional foods, newspapers, magazines and often 853 Convenience beer and wine. Market has gas pumps but primary business 50.92 0.11 5.6 $21,044 KSF Market w/gas is selling convenience items. Pharmacy 880 Without Facilities that fill medical prescriptions. 8.40 0.34 2.86 $10,748 KSF Drive-Through Pharmacy 881 With Facilities that fill medical prescriptions. 9.91 0.38 3.77 $14,168 KSF Drive-Throu h 890 Furniture accessories and often carpet/floor coverings. Sells furniture 0.45 0.16 0.07 $263 KSF Store , 911 Walk-In Usually a freestanding building with a parking lot. Does not 12.13 0.27 3.28 $12,326 KSF Bank have drive-up windows. May have ATMs. 812 Drive-In Provides drive-up and walk-in bank services. May have 24.30 0.27 6.6 $24,803 KSF Bank ATMs. Contains a bar where alcoholic beverages and snacks are 925 Drinking Place served, and possibly some type of entertainment such as 11.34 0.32 3.63 $13,642 KSF music, games or pool tables. 931 Quality High-quality eating establishment with slower turnover rates 7.49 0.29 2.17 $8,155 KSF Restaurant (more than one hour). High 932 Turnover Sit- Sit-down eating establishment with turnover rates of less 9.85 0.31 3.05 $11,462 KSF Down than one hour. Restaurant Fast Food 933 Without Fast-food restaurant without drive-through window. 26.15 0.27 7.06 $26,531 KSF Drive-Through Fast Food 934 With Fast food restaurant with drive-through window. 32.65 0.27 8.82 $33,146 KSF Drive-Through 936 Coffee/Donut Shop w/o Single-tenant coffee and donut restaurants without drive- 40.75 0.17 6.92 $26,005 KSF Drive- Throu h through windows. Limited to no indoor seating. 937 Coffee/Donut Shop w/Drive- Single-tenant coffee and donut restaurants with drive- 42.80 0.11 4.70 $17,663 KSF Through through windows. Limited to no indoor seating. Coffee/Donut 938 Shop w/Drive- Single-tenant coffee and donut restaurants with drive- 75.00 0.11 8.25 $31,004 KSF Through and through windows. No seating present. no seating 944 Gas Station Sells gasoline and may also provide vehicle service and 13.87 0.23 3.08 $11,575 Fueling repair. Does not have convenience market and/or car wash. Positions Gas/Service St ti ith Primary businesses are selling gas and convenience Fueling 945 a on w market. May also contain facilities for service and repair. 13.51 0.17 2.30 $8,643 Positions Convenience Does not include car wash. Market Gas/Service 948 Station with Convenience Sells gas. Primary businesses are convenience market and 13.86 0.17 2.37 $8,906 Fueling car wash. May also contain facilities for service and repair. Positions Market Car Wash 947 Self-Service Allows manual cleaning of vehicles by providing stalls for 5.54 1 5.54 $20,819 Wash Car Wash the driver to park and wash. Stall 950 Truck Stop Located on or near major roadways and provide refueling, 13.63 0.17 2.32 $8,719 Fueling food, and other services to motorists and truck drivers. Positions N/A Type 1 Home DCC 18.116.280(C). Does not produce more than five (5) 1 0.0- 0.0 $0 DU Occupation trips a day to/from the site, including parcel deliveries. N/A Type 2 Home DCC 18.116.280(D). Does not produce more than ten (10) 1 0.5- 0.5 $1,879 DU Occupation trips a day to/from the site, including parcel deliveries. N/A Type 3 Home DCC 18.116.280(E). Does not produce more than twenty 1 1*" 1 $3,758 DU Occupation (20) trips a day to/from the site, including parcel deliveries. "Trip Reduction Factor is average rate for both pass-by and diverted-link in ITE Manual and/or as set by previous SIX table in Resolution 2008-059 "Local blended rate for rural residences and Goal 8 destination resort residences """Rate based on empirical knowledge, planning and engineering best judgment, and SDC committee discussion EXHIBIT D Community Development Department w Q Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX(541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ MEMORANDUM To: Transportation System Development Charge (SDC) Review Committee From: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner Date: Feb. 12, 2013 Re: Proposals on several SDC policy issues Background The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) established a countywide transportation system development charge (SDC) in summer 2008 with Resolution 2008-059. In the years since, the County has identified several unanticipated issues during implementation of SDCs. While these issues have been resolved on a case-by-case basis either at the staff level or by an applicant's appeal to the Board, the Board and staff agree it would be preferable to add language into the SDC resolution itself to address these issues. The major topics are: • Does the SDC run with the land or the structure? • What to do if a use has been abandoned or interrupted? • How to handle home occupations? • What to do with uses established illegally? • Should SDCs only be limited to building permits or should the SDC be triggered by a change of use if the new land use will generate more trips than the previous one? • Update trip rates to 9th edition of Institute of Traffic Engineers handbook SDCs run with the land The issue of whether an SDC runs with the land or the structure came up in August 2011 when an applicant appealed to the Board an SDC charge based on a site plan review. The house on the site plan had been removed from a rural lot south of Redmond, stored in a second location, and was proposed to be placed on a vacant lot in Terrebonne for its third and final location. Staff argued the vacant Terrebonne lot was not producing any trips, but would after the single- family home was placed on the site. Applicant contended due to the home's age and original location it was already included in the traffic assumptions upon which the transportation SDC was based and thus SDCs should not be applied. The Board in its Sept. 24, 2011, work session and Oct. 3, 2011, decision upheld staff's interpretation and directed staff to develop policy language for inclusion in any SDC updates. Quality Services Performed with Pride Staff proposes language that SDCs run with the land and are not associated with the structure. Proposed language regarding SDCs are tied to the property In Section 4, Applicability, insert into (A) the following underlined sentence: (A) A Transportation System Development Charge is hereby imposed upon all new development for which a building permit is required within the unincorporated areas of the County outside the urban growth boundaries of the cities of La Pine, Sisters, Redmond, and Bend. Once assessed, the transportation sum develo ment charge is assigned to the property permanently unless 1 the use is interrupted or abandoned for a time of two years or more or 2)_ is replaced by a legally established land use that -generates more trips than the previously approved land use. The transportation system development charge runs with the land, not the structure. SDCs apply when a land use is abandoned or interrupted The majority of SDCs pertain to either a vacant site or one that is being redeveloped. Occasionally, however, a site will have a use that was abandoned or interrupted. In the County's development code (DCC 18.120.010) a land use must be legally re-established if the use or structure has been abandoned or interrupted for more than one (1) year. The time period in DCC 18.120.010 was based on national case law. In the past, staff has approached SDCs for abandoned or interrupted sites on a case-by-case basis. If the use had been abandoned 30 years ago, staff has applied SDCs. If the use had been abandoned for less than a year, then staff has not applied SDC's. The gray area has been uses that were lawfully established prior to the 2008 implementation of the SDC, but then abandoned for a year or more. Staff is sensitive to the current economic climate and in that previously mentioned Sept. 2011 work session recommended a two-year (2) window instead of one (1) year be used when determining if SDCs apply to a property or structure. The Board agreed with the two-year timeline. Staff recommends that a two-year timeline be used to determine when a use or structure has been abandoned or interrupted. This would include failure to initiate a use as well. Proposed language regarding SDCs are triggered when a use or structure is abandoned In Section 4, Applicability, insert into (A) the following underlined sentence: (A) A Transportation System Development Charge is hereby imposed upon all new development for which a building permit is required within the unincorporated areas of the County outside the urban growth boundaries of the cities of La Pine, Sisters, Redmond, and Bend. Once assessed the trans ortation system development charge is assigned to the property permanently unless 1) the use is interrupted or abandoned for a time of two years or more or 2) is replaced by a legally established land use that generates more trips than the previously approved land use. In other words, the transportation system development charge runs with the land, not the structure. SDCs and home occupations The County at DCC 18.116.280 allows for varied home occupations of differing levels of intensity, ranging from those that are essentially invisible to neighbors to those that result in 2 employees arriving on-site. For comparison's sake, a single-family home generates 10 trips a day. Type I home occupations result in less than five trips a day to the site, including customers, clients, or parcel deliveries. Type 2 home occupations result in no more than 10 business- related trips to the site and no more than two employees. Type 3 home occupations can have up to five employees if the property is 10 acres in size and zoned EFU, MUA10, or RR10 and has on-site parking for up to five customers and allows up to 20 business-related trips a day. In the past, for Type I home occupations staff has assessed half the SDC for a single-family home as Type I home occupations increase trips from a single-family home site by no more than 50%. For Type 2 and Type 3 home occupations, staff has attempted to find an analogous use in the ITE manual, scaling the trip generation based on the size of the proposed use. (For example, if the ITE indicated use X would generate 10 trips per 1,000 square feet and the home occupation use would only occupy 250 square feet, we'd base the SDC on 2.5 trips from the site.) One challenge is that many home occupations are not represented in the ITE manual or lack an even remotely analogous use. Staff recommends for Type I home occupations dropping the SDC requirement; for Type 2 home occupations charge half the SDC for a single-family home; and for Type 3 home occupations charge an SDC equal to a single-family home. Proposed modification to Land Use/Trip Generation Table for SDC rates: At the end of BOCC Resolution 2008-059 is a table listing ITE Code, Customer Type, Land Use Description, etc. Add the following underlined classifications, rates, and amounts. Peak Pass-By ITE Customer Land Use Hour Trip Adjusted Unit Code Type Description Trips Factor P-H-Ts SDC s N/A Type 1 Home 0 0 0 LO N/A Occu ation N/A Type 2 Home 0;5 0 0.5 $1,836 N/A Occupation N/A Type 3 Home 1 0 1 3 673 N/A Occupation SDCs apply to a use that was established illegally Infrequently, a land use process is initiated as a result of a code enforcement complaint. The County's first option in code enforcement is voluntary compliance, which means the property owner or his agent applies for the necessary building and/or land use permits. Staff recommends these cases be dealt with as if this were a new use and SDC's apply, otherwise the County runs the risk of people building illegal structures to avoid paying SDC's. In a previous work session the Board had agreed with that position. 3 Proposed language regarding SDCs are applicable for a land use that was initiated to resolve a code enforcement complaint. In Section 4, Applicability, insert into (A) the following underlined sentence: (A) A Transportation System Development Charge is hereby imposed upon all new development for which a building permit is required or a develolment permit is approved within the unincorporated areas of the County outside the urban growth boundaries of the cities of La Pine, Sisters, Redmond, and Bend. Should SDCs be only tied to building permits or could development permits be included? The County SDC is tied to the building permit process. However, a land use application can result in a more intense use of a building, yet not require a building permit as can a zone change or plan amendment. Examples of this include a general office becoming a medical office, a personal hangar becoming the site of an aviation-related business, or a home being rezoned for commercial use. In other words, the site will generate more traffic post-land use approval than pre-land use approval, yet the applicant will not have paid any SDCs to mitigate that additional traffic Staff would recommend the language proposed for code enforcements would also address this issue. The proposed language cites a development permit, but is silent on whether the permit is tied to resolving a code enforcement complaint or is just a run of the mill land use application. Update tables to most recent edition of Institute of Traffic Engineers trip generation manual BOCC Resolution 2008-059 contains a table listing 57 land uses and their trip generation rates and their applicable SDCs, based on the ITE "Trip Generation" 7th edition. This table is now two editions behind and several land uses now have lower trip generation rates in the 9th edition than they had in the 7th While BOCC 2008-059 is based on the ITE manual, nowhere does the resolution explicitly state that fact. Staff would recommend adding the following underlined language and updating the table. Proposed language regarding trip generation for specific land uses. In Section 4, Applicability, insert into (B) the following underlined sentence: (B) The Transportation System Development Charges (SDCs) shall be determined as follows: (1) For those land-use categories which are specifically identified in the most recent edition of the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Handbook and the methodology report adopted pursuant to this resolution, the SDC amount shall be determined as identified in the Methodology Report. Another option would be to keep the reference to the most recent ITE edition and simply delete the table from the updated resolution. By choosing that option, the SDC resolution would not need to be updated every time a new edition of the ITE manual was published. Staff presents all of the above recommendations to the SDC review comment for review and discussion. Once the SDC review committee has made its recommendations, staff will coordinate with Legal Counsel on a new resolution with updated language. 4 REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL DRAFT For Recording Stamp Only BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON A Resolution to Modify the Transportation System Development Charges Established by * RESOLUTION NO. 2013-020 Resolution No. 2008-059 for Properties Within Unincorporated Deschutes County. WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners (`Board") held a duly noticed public hearing on June 5, 2013, to consider modifying the transportation system development charge ("SDC") originally established by Resolution No. 2008-059 to help fund transportation projects that are necessary to serve the existing and growth-related needs in the unincorporated areas of the county; and WHEREAS, ORS 223.297 through 223.314 authorize governmental units to establish and modify transportation system development charges; and WHEREAS, system development charges are incurred upon the decision to develop property at a specific use, density and/or intensity, and the incurred charge equals, or is less than, the actual cost of providing public facilities commensurate with the needs of the chosen use, density and/or intensity; and WHEREAS, system development charges are separate from and in addition to any applicable tax, assessment, charge, fee in lieu of assessment, or other fee provided by law or imposed as a condition of development; and WHEREAS, system development charges are fees for services because they are based upon a development's receipt of services considering the specific nature of the development; and WHEREAS, system development charges are imposed on the activity of development, not on the land, owner, or property, and, therefore, are not taxes on property or on a property owner as a direct consequence of ownership of property within the meaning of Section 11, Article XI of the Oregon Constitution or the legislation implementing that section; and WHEREAS, revenues from the system development charges are to be used for capital improvements in the unincorporated areas outside the cities of La Pine, Sisters, Redmond and Bend; and WHEREAS, the methodology proposed by Deschutes County Road Department ("Department") staff, identifies the uses of an "improvement fee" SDC, and a "reimbursement fee" SDC, and considers the transportation capital improvement needs of the unincorporated county; and WHEREAS, the methodology proposes applying the SDCs to future development of properties within the unincorporated county and outside the cities of Sisters, La Pine, Redmond and Bend; and WHEREAS, the Board determined that it is in the public interest to provide transportation capital facilities through the use of general county revenues, SDCs, and matching funds from the State of Oregon; now, therefore, Page 1 of 11- Resolution 2013-020 (XX/YY/13) BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, as follows: Section 1. The Board in Resolution No. 2008-059 adopted the report, titled Transportation System Development Charge Study prepared by FCS Group Inc. and DKS Associates, dated March 2008 (FCS Group Report) which is hereby amended by a report titled "Transportation System Development Charge Update", dated April, 2013, prepared by Deschutes County Road Department, attached as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference (heroin "Methodology" or "Methodology Report"). In the event of a conflict between the FCS Report and Methodology Report, the latter shall control. The Board authorizes the assessment and collection of transportation system development charges in the unincorporated areas of Deschutes County. Seojo,2,. The Board adopts the System Development Charge Project List, attached as Exhibit "B," and incorporated by reference ("Capital Improvement Plan"). The Capital Improvement Plan hereby supersedes the capital improvement plan which was adopted as part of Resolution No. 2008-059. Sggligia DEFINITIONS. (A) "Applicant" shall mean the owner or other person who applies for a building or development permit in the unincorporated areas of Deschutes County outside the boundaries of the cities of La Pine, Sisters, Redmond and Bend. (B) "Building" shall mean any structure, built for the support, shelter or enclosure of persons, chattels or property of any kind. (C) "Building Permit' shall mean an official document or certificate authorizing the construction or siting of any building. (D) "Capital Improvement" shall mean a public facility or asset used for Transportation in the unincorporated areas outside the urban growth boundaries of the cities of La Pine, Sisters, Redmond and Bend. (E) "Citizen or Other Interested Person" shall mean any person whose legal residence is within the unincorporated areas of Deschutes County outside the urban growth boundaries of the cities of La Pine, Sisters, Redmond and Bend, as evidenced by registration as a voter, or by other proof of residency; or a person who owns, occupies, or otherwise has an interest in real property which is located within the unincorporated area of Deschutes County outside the urban growth boundaries of the cities of La Pine, Sisters Redmond and Bend. (F) "County" shall mean Deschutes County, Oregon. (G) "Department" shall moan the Deschutes County Road Department. (H) "Development" shall mean a building or other land construction, or making a physical change in the use of a structure or land, in a manner which increases the usage of any capital improvements or which may contribute to the need for additional or enlarged capital improvements. (I) "Development Permit" shall mean an official document or certificate, issued by Deschutes County, other than a building permit, authorizing development. (.I) "Encumbered" shall mean monies committed by contract or purchase order in a manner that obligates the County to expend the encumbered amount upon delivery of goods, the rendering of services, or the conveyance of real property provided by a vendor, supplier, contractor or Owner. (K) "Improvement Fee" shall mean a fee for costs associated with capital improvements to be constructed after the effective date of this resolution. Notwithstanding anything in this resolution Page 2 of 11 - Resolution 2013-020 (XX/YY/13) to the contrary, it is an incurred charge or cost based upon the use of or the availability for use of the systems and capital improvements required to provide services and facilities necessary to meet the routine obligations of the use and ownership of property, and to provide for the public health and safety upon development. (L) "Manufactured Housing" shall mean a dwelling unit constructed primarily off-site and transported to another site for use. A unit located in a designated mobile home park shall be considered a manufactured housing dwelling unit; otherwise a manufactured housing unit shall be considered a single-family dwelling unit. (M) "Multi-family housing" shall mean attached residential dwelling units. (N) "Occupancy Permit" shall mean an official document or certificate authorizing the occupation or use of any building or improvement authorized by a building permit. (O) "Owner" shall mean the person holding legal title to the real property upon which development is to occur. (P) "Person" shall mean an individual, a corporation, including without limitation, limited liability corporation, a partnership, an incorporated association, or any other similar entity. (Q) "Qualified Public Improvement" shall mean a capital improvement that is: (1) Required as a condition of development approval; and (2) Identified in the capital improvement plan adopted pursuant to this resolution; and either: (a) Not located on or contiguous to property that is the subject of development approval; or (b) Located in whole or in part on or contiguous to property that is the subject of development approval and required to be built larger or with greater capacity than is necessary for the particular development project to which the improvement fee is related. (R) "Reimbursement fee" means a fee for costs associated with capital improvements constructed or under construction by the County on the effective date of this resolution. (S) "Road Department Director" or "Director" shall mean the appointed Road Department Director of Deschutes County, Oregon or the Director's designee. (T) "Single-family housing" shall mean a detached residential dwelling unit located on an individual lot. (U) "System Development Charge" or "SDC" shall mean a reimbursement fee, an improvement fee, or a combination thereof and an administrative recovery charge, assessed or collected at the time of increased usage of a capital improvement or issuance of an occupancy permit. System development charges are separate from and in addition to any applicable tax, assessment, fee in lieu of assessment, or other fee or charge provided by law or imposed as a condition of development. (V) "System Development Charges Methodology" shall mean the methodology set forth in the FCS Group Report as modified by the Methodology Report. Section 4. APPLICABILITY. Page 3 of 11- Resolution 2013-020 (XX/YY/13) (A) A Transportation System Development Charge is hereby assessed and imposed upon all new development for which a building permit or a development permit is required and issued within all unincorporated areas of the County outside the cities of La Pine, Sisters, Redmond and Bend. From and after assessment, the transportation system development charge shall run with the property, not with any structure attached to the property. Development shall mean and include new construction, alteration, expansion or replacement of a building or dwelling unit. Non- residential, farm-related buildings for growing and/or storing agricultural products to be used on site, and that do not generate additional commercial traffic, are exempt. (B) Consideration of existing use. 1) If construction, alteration, expansion, replacement, or change-of-use results in an increase in the calculated number of peak hour trips generated by the development or the property on which the development is located, as compared to the pre-development number of calculated peak hour trips, then a new Transportation SDC shall apply. The amount of the system development charge to be paid shall be the difference between the calculated trips generated from the proposed development and the calculated trips generated from the property prior to the construction, alteration, expansion or replacement. If the change in use results in a Transportation SDC for the proposed use which is less than the Transportation SDC for the use being replaced, then no new or additional SDC shall be assessed and no refund or credit shall be given. 2) If the previous development or prior use of the property, which was not subject to SDC payment, has been abandoned for at least two consecutive years, as determined by the Community Development Department under the County Code, then no consideration of existing use shall occur and a new SDC assessment shall apply. 3) Previously paid SDCs shall be credited to the property regardless of any period of abandonment. The credit shall be based on the number of PM peak hour trips generated by the development at the time of original SDC assessment. (C) The Transportation System Development Charges (SDC's) shall be determined as follows: (1) For those land-use categories which are specifically identified in the most recent edition of the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual or the Methodology Report adopted pursuant to this resolution, the SDC amount shall be determined as identified in the Methodology Report, unless otherwise approved by the Director. (2) For land-use categories for which no trip generation rate is included in the Methodology Report (or ITE Trip Generation Manual), the Director shall use the land-use category identified in the Methodology Report (or ITE Trip Generation Manual) that is most similar to the subject land use category and apply the corresponding trip generation rate. The Director may consider seasonal and/or cyclical variations to adjust the calculation of peak hour trip rates. An applicant who disagrees with the Director's decision may appeal this decision as outlined in Section 12 of this Resolution. (D) Applicants may submit a request for an alternative trip generation rate and corresponding system development charges for a development, subject to the following conditions: (1) In the event an applicant believes that the trip generation impact on County capital improvements resulting from the development is less than the trip generation rates used to establish the SDC fee established by this Resolution, the applicant may submit a calculation for an alternative system development charge to the Director, but no later than the issuance of a building permit. Page 4 of 11 - Resolution 2013-020 (XX/YY/13) (2) The alternative system development charges rate calculations shall be based on data, information and assumptions contained in this Resolution and the Methodology or an independent source, provided that the independent source is: (a) a study supported by a data base adequate for the conclusions contained in such study; (b) the study is performed using a generally accepted methodology and is based upon generally accepted standard sources of information relating to facilities planning, cost analysis and demographics; (c) The demonstrated number of peak hour trips is at least ten (10%) percent less than the number of peak hour trips set forth in the Methodology Report or otherwise calculated by the Director pursuant to subsection (B) of this Section; and (d) the demonstrated number of peak hour trips shall be documented by a registered traffic engineer or otherwise qualified professional engineer. (3) The Director shall issue a written decision within ten (10) working days from the date of receipt of a complete application and shall notify the applicant by regular mail. (4) If the Director determines that the data, information and assumptions utilized by the applicant to calculate the alternative system development charges rates satisfy the requirements of this subsection and have been timely submitted, the alternative system development charges rates shall be paid in lieu of the rates set forth in or otherwise determined by the Director under this Resolution. (5) If the Director determines that the data, information and assumptions utilized by the applicant to calculate the alternative system development charges rates do not satisfy the requirements of this subsection or have not been timely submitted, the Director shall deny the application and apply the rates established by the Director. (E) Subject to the provisions of this Resolution, the County hereby assesses and shall collect a transportation system development charge ("SDC") on that following schedule: (1) at the initial rate of $3,758 per PM peak hour trip, consisting of a $3,625 improvement fee, a $86 reimbursement fee, and a $47 administrative recovery charge. (E) For SDC's that have been assessed, but not yet been paid as of the effective date of this Resolution, the property owner shall pay the lesser of the applicable SDC charge determined under Resolution No. 2008-059 or this Resolution. (F) Unless otherwise adjusted by order of the Board of County Commission, on each succeeding July 1 after 2014, the SDC, consisting of the improvement fee, the reimbursement, if any and the administrative recovery charge shall be adjusted by the annual percentage increase or decrease in the construction cost index, published in the immediately preceding January by the Engineering News Record for the City of Seattle, Washington. The calculation shall use the immediately preceding July 1 and the then-applicable rate per peak hour trip as the starting point. Se tic ign 5. COLLECTION. (A) The Transportation SDC's shall be collected and paid in full no later than the date of submittal of an application for an occupancy permit. An applicant may elect to pay an SDC over a ten-year period under the provisions of DCC 15.12.060. Page 5 of 11- Resolution 2013-020 (XX/YY/13) (B) In cases where an occupancy permit is not required, the Transportation SDC shall be collected and paid in full no later than the date on which the property is used in the manner approved by the development permit. An applicant may elect to pay an SDC over a ten-year period under the provisions of DCC 15.12.060. (C) Notwithstanding the receipt of an occupancy permit or the use of the property pursuant to a development permit without payment of the SDC, the SDC liability shall survive and be a personal obligation of the permittee. (D) Intentional failure to pay the SDC within sixty (60) days of the due date shall result in a penalty equal to fifty percent (50%) of the SDC. Interest shall accrue on and after 60 days after the due date at the rate of nine (9%) percent per annum. (E) In addition to an action at law and any statutory rights, the County may: (1) Refuse to issue a Certificate of Occupancy; (2) Refuse to issue any permits of any kind to the delinquent permittee for any development; (3) Condition any development approval of the delinquent permittee on payment in full, including penalties and interest; (4) If the property becomes occupied prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, initiate code enforcement proceedings; (5) For purposes of this section, delinquent permittee shall include any person controlling a delinquent corporate permittee and, conversely, any corporation controlled by a delinquent individual permittee. Section_7. CREDITS FOR DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS OF QUALIFIED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. (A) The County may grant a credit against the improvement fee portion, if any, of system development charges imposed pursuant to this Resolution for the construction of any qualified public improvement. (B) Prior to issuance of a development permit, the applicant shall submit to the County a proposed plan and estimate of cost for the applicant to construct one or more qualified public improvements. The proposed plan and estimate shall include: (1) a designation of the development project for which the proposed plan is being submitted; (2) a legal description of any land proposed to be donated, if any, and documentation as to the seller and purchase price; (3) a list of the contemplated capital improvements contained within the development plan; (4) an estimate of construction costs for the contemplated capital improvements certified by a professional architect or engineer; and (5) a proposed time schedule for completion of the proposed capital improvements. (C) The credit provided for construction of a qualified public improvement shall be only for the cost of that portion of such improvement that exceeds the minimum standard facility size and must be designed and constructed to provide additional capacity to meet projected future transportation Page 6 of 11 - Resolution 2013-020 (XXIYY/13) needs. Projected future transportation needs shall be determined by reference to the Deschutes County Transportation System Plan. Improvements that address capacity deficiencies existing at the time of development are not eligible. In the case of improvements addressing both capacity deficiencies and adding future capacity, only that portion providing future capacity is eligible. The applicant shall have the burden of demonstrating that a particular improvement qualifies for credit. (D) The Director is authorized to determine that the timing, location, design and scope of proposed improvement is consistent with and furthers the objectives of the County's capital improvements program and either: (1) the improvement is required to fulfill a condition of development approval; or (2) the improvement is within the impact area of the development. For purposes of this section, impact area is that geographic area determined by the Director in which the estimated peak hour traffic to be generated by the development exceeds ten (10%) percent of the existing average peak hour traffic. Existing traffic volumes shall be those observed and measured within six months prior to filing the development application, adjusted for daily and seasonal traffic variations using factors provided by the Director. (E) Credit eligibility shall be determined by the Director. In addition to meeting the standards of this section, the following shall control: (1) No credits shall be issued for design or construction costs associated with landscaping, street lighting, storm sewers, sidewalks, and erosion control; or sound walls, berms or other such mitigation devices. (2) Road right-of-way required to be dedicated pursuant to the applicable comprehensive plan or development condition is not creditable. The reasonable market value of land purchased by the applicant from a third party that is necessary to complete a required off-site improvement is creditable. The Director may require an applicant at the applicant's expense to furnish an appraisal to determine the market value of such property. (3) No credit shall granted for utility relocation except for that portion which otherwise would have been the legal obligation of the County pursuant to a tariff, easement or similar relationship if the project had been undertaken by the County. (4) No credit shall be granted for minor realignments not designated on the comprehensive plan. (5) No more than 13.5 percent of the total eligible construction cost shall be creditable for survey, engineering, inspection and permit fees. (F) All requests for credit vouchers must be in writing and filed with the Director not more than 90 days after County acceptance of the improvement. Improvement acceptance shall be in accordance with the County's policies, practices, procedures and standards. The amount of any credit shall be determined by the Director and based upon the subject improvement construction contract documents, or other relevant information, provided by the applicant for the credit. Upon a finding by the Director that the contract amounts exceed prevailing market rates for a similar project, the credit shall be based upon market rates. The Director shall provide the applicant with a credit voucher, on a form provided by the Department. The original of the credit voucher shall be retained by the Department. The credit voucher shall state a dollar amount that may be applied only against the SDC otherwise imposed by the County against the subject property. In no event shall a subject property be entitled to redeem credit vouchers in excess of the SDC imposed. Page 7 of 11 - Resolution 2013-020 (XX/YY/13) Under no circumstances will the County be required to pay an applicant in cash, as consideration for the improvement. This paragraph applies only to issuance of credit vouchers and does not extend the deadline for credit redemption or otherwise modify the credit redemption deadline. (G) Credits shall be apportioned against the property which was the subject of the application to construct an improvement eligible for credit. Unless otherwise requested, apportionment against lots or parcels constituting the property shall be proportionate to anticipated average peak hour trips generated by the respective lots or parcels. Upon written application to the Director, however, credits shall be reapportioned from any lot or parcel to any other lot or parcel within the confines of the property originally eligible for the credit. Reapportionment shall be noted on the original credit voucher retained by the Department. (H) Any credits issued pursuant to this Resolution are assignable, however, they shall apply only to that property subject to the original condition for land use approval upon which the credit is based or any partitioned or subdivided parcels or lots of such property to which the credit has been apportioned. Credits shall only apply against SDC's, are limited to the amount of the improvement fee attributable to the development of the specific lot or parcel for which the credit is sought, and shall not be a basis for any refund. (I) Any credit must be redeemed not later than the issuance of the occupancy permit. The applicant is responsible for presentation of any credit prior to issuance of the occupancy permit. Under no circumstances shall any credit redemption be considered after issuance of an occupancy permit. (J) Credit vouchers shall expire on the date ten (10) years after the acceptance of the applicable improvement by the county. No extension of this deadline shall be granted. Section 8. FUND ESTABLISHED. The County hereby establishes a fund to be designated as the "Countywide Transportation SDC Improvement Fee Fund," (herein Transportation SDC Fund or the Fund). (A) All SDC payments shall be deposited into the Transportation SDC Fund immediately upon receipt. (B) The monies deposited into the Fund designated as the "Countywide Transportation SDC Improvement Fee Fund," including interest on the Fund, shall be maintained separate and apart from all other accounts of the County and shall be used solely for the purpose of providing the capital improvements that provide for the increased capacity necessitated by new development, including but not limited to: (1) Design and construction plan preparation; (2) Permitting and fees; (3) Property acquisition, including any costs of acquisition, relocation or condemnation; (4) Construction of capital improvements; (5) Design and construction of storm and surface water drainage facilities associated with the construction of capital improvements and structures; (6) Relocating utilities associated with the construction of improvements and structures; (7) Landscaping within the right of way or upon property disturbed by the construction of capital improvements; (8) Capital construction management and inspection; Page 8 of 11- Resolution 2013-020 (XX/YY/13) (9) Surveying, soils and material testing; (10) Acquisition of capital equipment used on association with capital construction or road maintenance or both; (11) Repayment of monies transferred to or borrowed from any budgetary fund of the County, including interest, which were used to fund any of the capital improvements as herein provided; (12) Payment of principal and interest, necessary reserves and costs of issuance under any bonds or other indebtedness issued by the County to fund capital improvements; (13) Direct costs of complying with the provisions of ORS 223.297 to 223.314, including the consulting, legal, and administrative costs required for developing and updating the SDC, the methodology, resolution, and capital improvements master plan; administration of credit applications and apportionment; and the costs of collecting SDC's and accounting for SDC receipts and expenditures. Section . INVESTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SDC FUND REVENUE. (A) Any funds on deposit in Transportation SDC Fund that is not immediately necessary for expenditure shall be invested by the County. (B) All income derived from such investments shall be deposited in the appropriate SDC trust fund and used as provided herein. Sectio 0. ANNUAL ACCOUNTING REPORTS. The Director shall prepare an annual report accounting for SDC funds received, including the total amount of SDC improvement fee revenue collected in each fund, and expenditures. e t' 1. CHALLENGE OF EXPENDITURES. (A) Any citizen or other interested person may challenge an expenditure of SDC revenues. (B) Such challenge shall be submitted, in writing on a form approved by the County, to the Department for review within two (2) years following the subject expenditure, and shall include the following information: (1) The name and address of the citizen or other interested person challenging the expenditure; (2) The amount of expenditure, the project, payee or purpose, and the approximate date on which it was made; and (3) The reason why the expenditure is being challenged. (C) If the Director determines that the expenditure was not made in accordance with the provisions of this resolution and other relevant laws, a reimbursement of SDC fund revenues from other funds shall be made within one (1) year following the determination that the expenditure was not appropriate. (D) The County shall make written notification of the results of the expenditure review to the citizen or other interested person who requested the review within ten (10) days of completion of the review. Section 12. APPEALS AND REVIEW HEARINGS. Page 9 of 11 -Resolution 2013-020 (XX/YY/13) (A) An applicant who is required to pay system development charges shall have the right to request a hearing to review a decision only in the following matters: (1) A land-use category and/or seasonal/cyclical variations used by the Director to determine the SDC amount pursuant to Section 4. (2) An alternative rate calculation pursuant to subsection (C) of Section 4 (3) A proposed credit for contribution of qualified public improvements pursuant to Section 7. (B) Such hearing shall be requested by the applicant within thirty (30) days of the date of first receipt of the Dirdetor's decision. Failure to request a hearing within the time provided shall be deemed a waiver of such right. (C) The request for hearing shall be filed with the Director and shall contain the following: (1) The name and address of the applicant; (2) The legal description of the property in question; (3) If issued, the date the building permit or development permit was issued; (4) A brief description of the nature of the development being undertaken pursuant to the building permit or development permit; (5) If paid, the date the system development charges were paid; and (6) A statement addressing the decision subject to review set forth in subsection (A) of this section and the reasons why the applicant is challenging the decision. (D) Upon receipt of such request, the County shall schedule a hearing before the Board of Commissioners at a regularly scheduled meeting or a special meeting called for the purpose of conducting the hearing and shall provide the applicant written notice of the time and place of the hearing. Such hearing shall be opened within forty-five (45) days of the date the request for hearing was filed. (E) Such hearing shall be before the Board of Commissioners and shall be conducted in a manner designed to obtain all information and evidence relevant to the requested hearing. Formal rules of civil procedures and evidence shall not be applicable; however, the hearing shall be conducted in a fair and impartial manner with each party having an opportunity to be heard and to present information and evidence. (F) Appeal of the decision of the Board shall be made to the Circuit Court of Deschutes County. Section 13. FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. If any clause, section or provision of this resolution shall be declared unconstitutional or invalid, the remaining portions of said resolution shall be in full force and effect and be valid as if such invalid portion had not been adopted. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as invalidating any assessment or collection of system development charges pursuant to Resolution No. 2008-059, nor any project funded in whole or in part with funds collected thereunder. In addition, all funds assessed and collected pursuant to Resolution No. 2008-059, which have not been committed, shall be treated in the same manner as funds received pursuant to Section 8 of this Resolution. Sec1i2a 1414. EFFECTIVE. This resolution is effective immediately upon adoption by the Board of County Commissioners. The SDC established by Resolution No. 2008-059 shall first apply to building permits for which a building permit application is accepted by the County as complete on and after October 1, 2008. The Page 10 of 11 - Resolution 2013-020 (XX/YY/13) SDC established by Resolution No. 2013-020 shall first apply to building permits or development approvals for which a building permit or development application was accepted by the County as complete on and after the effective date of this resolution. DATED this day of 12013. ATTEST: Recording Secretary BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ALAN UNGER, Chair TAMMY BANEY, Vice Chair ANTHONY DEBONE, Commissioner Page 11 of 11 Resolution 2013-020 (XX/YY/13) O N 01 Z T O O O CO OC a o C a O O V M Z 'O + ~ = a E a 0 o 7 ~ Z r r 10 D V 0 a A N O V O O L Q O N Z'3 to G1 = t!1 O L ~ ~ O N +iJ L v 0 0 0 a~ o as N rU z~ o as ~ (D ~A o AO O W O E E L- 0 O i U Q © O ~ ca 0 a a. O M rl N p M N ~ N O O L) O 00 O O a ~ L o U- 0 N N r v a~ 0 *z (D U o CL cn G C4 CY) e-I N 4 c a 0 v O '0 o j a -W 0: o ❑ U rj _ o Z " a, ca 4 'ri C) N U ❑ .o ° C ~ N 0 a U in a a a m c O ±r -W ~ 4-0 +r O K x x x x U) W W W W W (1) ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ i.. _ O O 4wo U c ~ M o ~ o L o 0 o O tll ~ i 0 7 Q V) 0 o a n O M Qa 4-+ C 0 4-0 O r, 4 ~-0 #j O V i c E E 4-0 C O - a C.) p O O N O 70 p ~ p O +r ~ ~ O to 00-1% O CL r Co c6 p C V 0 E Ca N N L L 70 -0 .0 O o E Q) O _ ~ O H O O v O - W 0 Cc ~ C%J O -0 +1 D Q E W Q U U 2 Q o o M rl N M C~ I` 06 = (D p H E N I1 lea ■ ~a r ..te V ~J 4 4 G O C. V 0,7 Q~ D CZ PE 011 al 4*1 .ire, cw' 1 1 A3 F i e~ g fit !flab list till wi 'a W ~ N rl L L co W ` L N N o e1 CO O 4-0 ca ~o ~ 0 t O N .Y 3 N ~ Co Cc o CU ° c~ E L O Q a •O ❑ Ca O 0) 4wo N O O rl t6 = a ca ❑ a = O X17 C M rl 4) + + c~ a z . E L o. . N O N N rl O O N O 0 00 N p a y N a~ L ~ as 'jo o Q 00 N 0 0 L ■ G1 r r ~ O L M o0 O I N U O O rc-I ~ N L ~ O O ~ +r 3 cc o E u c Q) ~ r_ co - NO r_ ON C6 cc ri co a ■ ' H .0 L o ca o L Q~ 0 L m ~ _ y L •1••r CL • 0 ♦..r 0 i.. . y wY co Q a. Q J W a. Q Cc 0 0 CIO V p C m = N a 0 Z3 N N 0 0 0 M ~ • o = 0 E 00 Co C J V ~ U. L 0 Qa N v _ 0 Cc (1) Q co .LZ w I 0 i ~ . Q c L u ~..r O cc V = s 00 0 4.1 g V a G 00 o i Co R5 0 a.+ , N o • 0 p _ N a Z; CL o Q~ o o o a~ o • i tl _ (6 ca 0 to 4-J :3 73 r r. V) 4•+ U) 4-0 U) r.L R$ 0 0 (L) •i N V/ J J Q O .m: M L O ca W ~O^ O ~ to W O (a O ~ +r v Cc 0 Qy V LJ O r~ 4-+ r. O 0 O V O 4-0 v c~ 0 p ~ N -co rrr CD N rrr. r • A A W E O L a a. 0 O 00 m O 0 L- 0 0 /y N ~ p cc p V-1 _ 00 ~ u 46./ (D c6 a U. ca •,r •QA ~ N E O = x O N te A' + L A +_J 0 .1-0 r1 •L cr O C4 p ~ * r-I x U r. O M O 4-" 4.0 O cu 0 _ CV r. a O O 4-0 v M 00 V O 0 O L Co O +r O c6 O O Q L O ~ yam, O ~ Q p L O ta r ~ W L O to t a O to O O O, to CU O L. M r w a (4 to k M h- a) . r o to r O 00 0 C) 010 N c ~ O CCO ~ G ■ U 19t LO . ~ M ~ui }r ~O M O V ~ O C3 LL ■ W/ CA - N ■ rs +r N N /0 V as LO Q ■ t3 m C31. a - O N cV -o o ~ o E W ~ H C p~ A r N M v v v E E _ CL O a cv O O m o zs i U') CL O N O Cy E M O II O u o C3 ~ •0 U N a+ E S7. U ~ CL CL O G G 0 Sao a E co a. cc a. O N ♦ 4 ~ r•i M In L ffi~ 0 10 ~ O O O M B to = N M 00 O II O 4,7 - O Z3 c~ _ cc x a U M X Q cc L it (n Q~ ca O O Q~ N O N t/~ ca x O O (D M N LO .X ~ ~cn ~N N o a 'N N (y o Q U 'C: N 30. io N ca 0 00 L.. x C cy) (o LO •x r•I Z e•I O M w ° ~ o c -M E 0 0. M ri O ca ri r- a~ o O -W M a - M m MCL M ~ ■ cc ■ ■ W ■ ■ ■ a ■ 0 O as O ca O ■ O 00 +r G~ ~ U) O cn (0 0 0 N L e-I w N co 0 E Lt's O LO H O N M UN O U ~ V1 w O Cm O LZ. O ~ o L M ~ -I M N ~v 00 M M ~ O O . O O O Z3 ~ 01- O 3 ~N O Cc O to = ~ av Cc CL 0 W 0 Q-- ` U) ....r o r 00 L O U ~N O OX (D 13 M Ri N o y) (1) Nt O = O O O ~ O c U vs Rf 'No ~ N "o = OO z T N ma. ul a _ w cn I v ■ ■ I ~ ~ ~ 9 ~ 9 4a 9 99 9 gg g g a ~ n a. it p R p p @ d ~.F R p p R p p R p RR ®p R p R p 9 d R p■ I f [ ~ F # a E P ii ➢3 l i ! f il I I e ~ . j} r . t ~ 4 P ? T a d Fp 6 b' R T ~ Ytl 4C P. i - - - - - - - - - - a P fiY H~ s s t f ~p d L- y I A V, 0 Iw~l1 ~ ~ p~ ^ W L 0 O V y }I 0 • . 0 L.. CL 0 O u N 0 O E 4-0 4-0 _ O • ~ W Y +N.+ ~ I-- ~ ' O ~ ~ ~ N t W w ~ Q1 V O N V N O N , 0 •0 •o ° ° L_ o U. (a a N Cl. v of w a - u~ O : ,N x ■ iA co o © N cp ~t 0 LLI p o o F~ .a 0 aR e a a'► aR © N eq vq ~ W N LO CO 4 • ~j V-1 4!3 4R 40 40 0. y g N O C , O © ° V c r j CV) t 4 i i CV) 14 O N c ~ N ~ tp N 44. o C H N` W) MI to N id? 4ow N . O qi ~ c~ ca (A OL LL ~ Za _ 4~ _ N n A a y = f c © a~ w v U) L2 m " VJ I 401 ism IC .~11- W V,i 00 ~ O (1) O ° O O 0 O y Q o O 4-0 U) fi . O 4.. O lit q> E ~ y • v E O O ci cv A qa 7a C~ p oo cn L N U 00 O O to ~ O +r p ` c0 ~ ~ c~ O p O fi fi N ~ fi fi O tl! O V IT fi O 0 ~ ca Z y". ~ t/1 O o y p a co 0 `V 0 O ~ , 4-0 4%0 C) 4-0 L z: ~4+ CL E •E.: ' G II m c O O O O 7 i U) LO C. ~ o 61% cr) z3 00 ~0 CLo x N O ~ to U. E ~ O O v V O Co V ~ Q ❑ V ■ O E 4•d i O 0 as as O ~ a O ~ O OS E Ga N 0 S~ y E V ~ O N Or i O CD CL C G a 00 0 0 0 0 Ln LO II ❑ to O i cr ■ Q i O a c~ a a~ CL 00 io Ln E 0 i E ■ r~ VJ ■ 0 00 0] O ~ co -Q 'c m 0 0 CL = E 0 Ir 0-1k. V_ x W n O , V O 4 N cr. O V O 4 N oc o N O V O 4 N it O V O 4 N ix O = 0 a: 0 7 > c E N d1 U C►. 10 O + - j 4~ _ 2 + _ to O fl 0 N N . = (A O V y © 0 a O i . W R i c 0 O .0 © yr = V N W =0 E rr 0 m 0 1 •M W O _ r E L am z O t 0 0 1 E ' N O N 0 V 10 © ❑ Q W Q V U = Q ~ rl N M d' ~D f~ ao O rr.r L E QD L M • tQ M O• • N ~ N ~ v N O O +r O m 0 V as > z3 Q M 0 N o ~ o o in . 0 ~ ~ N 0 N N ~ 0 r 00 O o (D Q N O o - ~ o .E O Z O 4-0 L ~ o ' _ a~ cn (D CL Q 0- E C: w Q QD (1) 4-0 W ,~.p ci a • in V4 m N M (n cn ■ a ■ DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Tom Anderson, County Administrator P. O. Box 6005 ■ Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 206 • Bend, Oregon 97701 (541) 388-6565 • FAX (541) 385-3202 www.deschutes.org MEMORANDUM DATE: May 8, 2013 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM Tom Anderson, County Administrator SUBJECT: Civil Commitments Background: Since 1988, the civil commitment process has been administered by the Legal Counsel's Office, in cooperation with the Health Services Department-Behavioral Health Division. In February 2013, Legal Counsel Mark Pilliod recommended to the Board that the function be transferred to the District Attorney's Office, due to the increasing volume of commitment cases, and the impact that increase is having on his office now and into the future. The Board held a work session discussion on this issue on April 10, 2013. Staff from Legal Counsel, the District Attorney's Office and Behavioral Health provided background and input. At that meeting, the Board directed that staff research alternatives more extensively, meet as a group to discuss those alternatives, and come back to the Board in approximately 30 days to re- visit the matter. Discussion: From staff level discussions, Legal Counsel is firm in stating that retaining any portion of the civil commitment process in his office will at times seriously jeopardize his offices ability to perform its core functions, most importantly the protection of the County from liability. This would preclude any kind of partial transfer of the civil commitment function, such as transferring the courtroom component (attorneys) but retaining the administrative support work, as both attorney time as well as administrative support staff are impacted as described above. The possibility of contracting some or all of the civil commitment function to an external (private) entity was discussed, but was deemed to be impractical by Legal Counsel, the District Attorney's Office and Behavioral Health. Beyond posing a serious risk with respect to liability, it was not felt that such a private entity exists locally to perform this specialized, part-time work. k1 It is clear that the District Attorney's Office is willing to take on the civil commitment process, and recognizes the Board of Commissioners right to direct the office to do so. However, the Office has expressed concerns over their ability to perform the work, given that existing staff is at or near maximum capacity given their current responsibilities. There was also concern expressed that there may not be sufficient expertise among existing support staff to perform the administrative functions. District Attorney Patrick Flaherty has indicated that optimally, an additional Deputy District Attorney would provide coverage for the civil commitment process at the current time, and also be able to take on additional work in the coming year, such as Child Support Enforcement work. There remain some questions as to the level of administrative process and support that is necessary to adequately manage the civil commitment process. It is expected that these questions will be resolved through direct discussions with the State Department of Health Services. Unfortunately, the earliest those discussions could be scheduled is Thursday, May gtn We have researched the current amount of staffing that is associated with the civil commitment process in Legal Counsel. Staffing is separated in the analysis below by Assistant legal Counsel requirements and administrative support staff. Please note that the requirements are based on 24 civil commitment cases, which is the number administered in calendar year 2012. Please also note that the work is inconsistent in volume, some weeks may involve multiple cases, while other weeks have none. It is also a requirement of the process that when cases arise, they become top priority, at the expense of other competing priorities. Assistant Legal Counsel • Preparation and court time o Average 3.75 hours per case 3.75x24= 90 hours annually /.043 FTE Administrative Support (Paralegal) • Specific case work o Average 3.5 hours per case - 84 hours annually • Daily administrative oversight o Average 1 hour per day - 260 hours annually • Additional time for 14-day diversions o Estimated 8 cases @ 45 minutes - 6 hours annually • Total staff time - 326 hours annually/ 0.17 FTE Note on 2013 - There have been 14 cases thus far in 2013. If that pace continues at the same rate, it may equal 42 cases in 2013. In that case staff time required is estimated at 157.5 hours / .075 FTE for attorney time, and 413 hours / .20 FTE for administrative support. Options A. Status Quo - Retain Civil Commitments in the Office of Legal Counsel • Issues: Legal Counsel has stated that this option will undermine the Office's ability to perform core functions and protect the County from legal liability. B. Direct Legal Counsel to Investigate Contracting of Civil Commitment Process • Issues: Legal Counsel, District Attorney and Behavioral Staff do not believe this option is practical. P) C. Sign Order Requesting that the District Attorney's Office Assume Responsibility for Civil Commitments + Issues: It is expected that the District Attorney's Office will request additional staff through the County budgeting process associated with assuming the function. D. Other - Direct Staff to Perform Additional Research • Investigate more fully the amount of required administrative support work through discussions with the State Department of Health Services. • Request that the District Attorney's Office prepare a specific staffing request associated with assuming the civil commitment function. • Request that Legal Counsel prepare an analysis of additional staffing necessary to retain the civil commitment process, while preserving the ability to perform core functions. • Prepare and issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) to determine if contracting the function is possible or practical. • Other research as directed. Requested Board Action: Discuss and direct staff to pursue one of the options listed above.