Loading...
2014-413-Minutes for Meeting July 02,2014 Recorded 8/12/2014 DESCHUTES BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK CJ X014.413 NANCY COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 08/12/2014 08;01;22 AM III IIII 1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII III 2 14- 1 U�J r Es\ <. W � 1 � Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, JULY 2, 2014 Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Anthony DeBone and Alan Unger. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; and,for a portion of the meeting, Chris Doty and George Kolb, Road Department; Scot Langton, Assessor; Wayne Lowry, Finance; Dave Doyle, County Counsel; Nick Lelack, Peter Russell and Peter Gutowsky, Community Development; Elon Glucklich of The Bulletin, and four other citizens. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. 1. La Pine Urban Renewal District Proposal. Rick Allen, interim City Manager of La Pine; Elaine Howard, consultant; and Cory Misley, intern, explained that an economic summit was held in La Pine, and they looked at ways to stimulate the local economy. Urban renewal districts are a key tool and are used in other cities. There is wide local support for this. Fifteen entities were invited to be part of the work group along with individuals, and they spent over six months in meetings and discussions. The Fire District is the only one not participating, as they feel the district as proposed is too big. Commissioner DeBone said he attended one of the meetings, but did not speak for the Board. Mr. Allen said that the Park District is heavily involved. This is a 25-year plan and they need to think ahead. There are no local tax ramifications either way. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, July 2, 2014 Page 1 of 7 Pages Ms. Howard stated that this has to be presented to the Board. The County also has land within the district, so needs to vote to approve the plan. They will. draft a Resolution for the Board to review and approve. She gave an overview of how the funds would be utilized. They were unable to include Wickiup Junction but instead focused on the core portions of the City. The timeframe is a 25-year life. The controlling factor is the maximum indebtedness. In this case, the amount is about $7 million. At 4%, it is not overly ambitious. They have to be able to service the debt. There is potential impact on other entities such as Deschutes County, law enforcement and other taxing districts, but there are long-term benefits for all. They did not include single-family zoned parcels so it is mostly commercial. They hope to leverage for State or other funds. Commissioner Unger noted that he is glad workforce housing is a part of it. Mr. Allen said that there are parcels across from the schools and close to all services, which he would like to see as multi-family. Commissioner Unger stated that this worked well in Redmond, and this is one of the few tools that help with this kind of effort. Scot Langston said there is a thirty-day window for the application. One parcel is outside the City so it is a little more challenging. Ms. Howard stated that the City votes on this on July 23, so would like to present to the County soon afterwards. 2. Discussion of Powell Butte Highway/Neff Road Intersection Project. Chris Doty provided a handout of the project. They hired Kittleston to do the initial safety analysis and concepts. Notice has been mailed to all adjacent property owners, and a public meeting was held. A press release brought in others. Some have concerns about a roundabout there. The various concepts will be on the July 21 as a public hearing, even though a hearing is not required. The Board wishes to hear from the public. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, July 2, 2014 Page 2 of 7 Pages 3. Discussion of Sign Removal, Old Bend-Redmond Highway. Mr. Doty stated that Mountain View Stables has a commercial sign that is located too close to the road. They had been working with the property owners, but communication has stopped. There is no record of a sign permit, so they need to go through the process, which includes notice and a public hearing. A separate hearing would be needed if the County has to incur costs and wants to collect on them. George Kolb added that the owner claims that when the road was widened, it changed the fog line. Mr. Kolb does not think this is the case. The County has offered to remove the sign. They will keep the Board advised, but the hearing is set for August 6. 4. Newberry Country Plan: Implementation Update. Nick Lelack stated they have done a lot of work on this. Peter Russell added that Sunriver and others have been working on a task force regarding the Harper Bridge situation. They eliminated the SW quadrant from consideration. The Sunriver board meets on July 10 to talk about this issue. They are aware of the Peters Road right-of-way of 1908, but Sunriver has now built a fence across it to limit public access. Mr. Anderson said he met with some of the individuals involved to discuss the fence issue. They claim it is an insurance problem. The walkway to the river has been narrowed, so this forces cars back onto the road and is a safety concern. Perhaps the fence should be moved, or rumble strips put down, which are noisy. He thinks more aggressive action will need to happen. Peter Russell added that the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council members are upset about the fencing, since it affects public access to the river. They may file a formal complaint. Dave Doyle noted that the Sunriver representatives say the right-of-way is an easement only for roadway purposes. Commissioner Unger asked if there is an easier way to offload people and equipment. Mr. Gutowsky said the hazard has been worsened with the new fence. The property owners on the northeast side want to develop their land for RV use. It is in a flood plain and would be hard to rezone for this, but the previous owner wanted to put in a cluster development with 65% open space. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, July 2, 2014 Page 3 of 7 Pages An RV park is not listed in the Sunriver code or their UUC. It is almost like expanding an urban growth boundary. Sunriver won't want to see RV's across the river, either. There are all kinds of regulatory issues on the surrounding areas, including the spotted frog. Chair Baney asked about the State Marine Board proposals. Mr. Russell said that one was drafted by fly-fishers. The Marine Board won't fund anything for hand-launched since their funds come through motorized boats. They need. property to be donated by Sunriver, who wants a price into six figures. Commissioner DeBone asked if there is potential south of there. There are a lot of DRRH parcels that have river access. Mr. Russell said that the locals wouldn't want a lot of additional car and boat traffic on their local roads. The subject area is where people go. Chair Baney said they should go forward with signage (reduce speed, restricted parking) and rumble strips. Mr. Lelack added that people need to know to contact the Sunriver Owners Association with complaints. Mr. Anderson stated that they may try to put up `no trespassing' signs. They are clearly pushing the issue. The County might remove the fence for safety reasons. Mr. Doyle said that it is not a danger to the motorized public, but might be to pedestrians. It could be hard to justify in court. Mr. Anderson said that now people have to be a resident or owner or guest of Sunriver to use the Sunriver boat launch, so there is not much available. Chair Baney advised them to send a letter detailing the safety concerns, made more dire because of the changed fence. They say insurance requires it. Mr. Russell stated that if this is the case, they should fence off their entire area. It won't keep people off the adjacent Sunriver property. This just makes it less safe. Mr. Lelack noted that the Paddle Trail Alliance was involved in previous years. Commissioner DeBone agreed that the Board should proceed with signage, rumble strips and a letter. Mr. Russell said that regarding the Newberry Country Plan and the burden of proof, the State did the rest but the County hasn't seen it yet. Transportation came up as well. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, July 2, 2014 Page 4 of 7 Pages Groundwater lots were not considered in this, but if sewer comes in, it will impact traffic and changes the TSP and transportation plan rule. It appears that 1,500 trips on the State highway system is acceptable, but there is nothing at the County level to analyze this. There is a difference of opinion with the State DLCD as to whether a study is needed. The cost for this is estimated up to $20,000. County Legal says it is needed. They meet on July 10 with State agencies. There won't be a hearing possible until fall at this point. These lots are platted but not developed, or were minimally developed. They went with what they knew about undevelopable lots. Mr. Anderson asked about the likelihood of these assumptions if they go after a Goal 11 exception. Mr. Russell said the TPR won't consider this; they would have to amend the comprehensive plan to do it. There is no wiggle room. Mr. Lelack said that there a lots scattered throughout a large area, and there might be little impact on a local level. The SDC's would include t hose lots, and they would also have to pay for mitigation. Mr. Lelack stated that if you take those out of the Goal 11 exception, there would be no impacts. However, the property owners have made it clear that they want to be included. Mr. Gutowsky said that they have reserve capacity to document the Goal 11 exception. They are meeting monthly but still waiting for information. The DEQ is being passive-aggressive, and the DLCD is supposed to help. The draft findings do speak to nitrates, but the Citizen Action Group did not like this. They want the Goal 11 exception without the language that is needed to justify it. It will be divisive. The DEQ has to declare a public health problem to proceed; this is in the OAR. They would lose at LUBA otherwise. They have to show there are no reasonable alternatives to sewer; otherwise, it is dead. Goal 11 and the OAR are the State's, and they need to handle this. The TPR can be gotten around, but the other two are high bars. A health problem, now or in the future, needs to be addressed. He said it is being compared to the local rule. They are seeing a surge of housing now, and properties are selling. The public health connotations will cause problems. The DEQ and DLCD need to stand up to this. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, July 2, 2014 Page 5 of 7 Pages Commissioner DeBone stated the Ford Foundation graduates worked on this for five years, and some want to talk about this in a logical fashion. Maybe they can rely more on them than the CAG. The community needs to recognize the problems of sewer, water, and roads. Mr. Russell said they need a map with the criteria. For instance, do they go into Goal 4, forest lands. Mr. Gutowsky stated there are large tracts of forest land also, included although not developed. It is felt that the USFS might decide to sell them off There is a significant amount of pressure from the DEQ to identify resource lands. They have to rely on agencies for justification, and it needs to be defensible. Mr. Lelack noted they will use the USGS study as the basis. The alternative is the higher cost septic systems. Mr. Gutowsky told the DEQ the County would do a public mailing for two hearings and split the cost with the DEQ. They support this. Chair Baney said this feels like déjà vu. She asked if there is any way to lighten the blow. Mr. Anderson replied that this is the burden of the DEQ. They know the issues well. Mr. Lelack said the County will help all it can. It needs defensible language. Mr. Gutowsky noted that in a long-term look, the process will allow more towards a geographic rule; if all that could have been done has been done. Mr. Lelack said they will proceed with a traffic study and wait for others to get their work done. The TDC/PRC group convenes next month. They can talk about the money, and where it has gone and will go. Perhaps the traffic study can come out of this fund. Mr. Russell stated he would ask the State agencies to split the cost. Mr. Gutowsky noted that the membership of the CAG has changed over time. The Baldwin-Herndon Trust property is owned by Vic Russell, and he has strong feelings about the encumbrances on his property. They are still trying to fill the appraiser role. S. Other Items. Being no further items discussed, the meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, July 2, 2014 Page 6 of 7 Pages DATED this LP- Day of I • 2014 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Tammy B.ney, Chai* Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair Cd64,,_ /5,--viAtuL rfeau-- Alan Unger, Commissioner Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, July 2, 2014 Page 7 of 7 Pages J5, Q p` Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutcs.org d �W WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, JULY 2, 2014 1. La Pine Urban Renewal District Proposal --Rick Allen 2. Discussion of Powell Butte Highway/Neff Road Intersection Project — Chris Doty 3. Discussion of Sign Removal, Old Bend-Redmond Highway— Chris Doty 4. Newberry Country Plan: Implementation Update —Nick Lelack 5. Other Items PLEASE NOTE:At any time during this meeting,an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2)(e),real property negotiations;ORS 192.660(2)(h),litigation;ORS 192.660(2)(d),labor negotiations;or ORS 192.660(2)(b),personnel issues;or other issues under ORS 192.660(2),executive session. Meeting dates,times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners'meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St.,Bend,unless otherwise indicated. lfyou have questions regarding a meeting,please call 388-6572. Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities. If you need accommodations to make participation possible,please call(541)388-6571,or send an e-mail to bonnie.baker@deschutes.org. P. -4 Via ' '-O U CY ,C 1 cd,9 � -1 I I a I I N-) 1 E I C-----"' v o O1rl- n- p � M 1 � —...., v)1 I i I 1 _L_ _._. ! a L_._ I — 1 I _ _ _.___ '1 1 __ 1 1 I � 1 i VI .— t I .D -p 4I C 1 ._.. 7_._. ..._ I L— ' ,Q � ... C-y, i 1 - T411 COI 0 d q N 1 'c—J coo a City of LA PINE Date: June 9, 2014 Re: Proposed La Pine Urban Renewal Plan The La Pine City Council is considering adoption of an ordinance to establish an urban renewal area that encompasses the downtown commercial core of La Pine (Figure 1).The tax increment revenues from urban renewal would assist with funding projects that would increase the economic vitality of La Pine. The legal requirements for the adoption of an urban renewal plan stipulate that the proposed urban renewal plan be sent to representatives of overlapping taxing districts. Although the approval of overlapping taxing districts is not required, the City Council is required to respond specifically to any written recommendations of the districts.This letter is the official transmission of the proposed La Pine Urban Renewal Plan. The La Pine City Council is scheduled to consider the adoption of the proposed La Pine Urban Renewal Plan on July 9th, 2014 at the La Pine City Hall, 16345 6th Street, at 6:00 pm. I. BACKGROUND The La Pine Urban Renewal Plan (Plan) and La Pine Urban Renewal Report (Report) have been developed with the cooperative input of the La Pine Urban Renewal Citizens'Advisory Committee (Committee). The Committee was comprised of representatives from the La Pine City Council, La Pine Planning Commission, Deschutes County Library, Bend-La Pine School District, La Pine Parks and Recreation District, Deschutes County, La Pine Chamber of Commerce and businesses of La Pine.The consulting team met with the advisory committee three times.The first was to review urban renewal and the potential boundary,the second to review and advise on the goals and objectives, potential projects and the third to review and provide input on the entire draft La Pine Urban Renewal Plan (Plan) and Report including the financial data in the Report. At the final meeting,the committee voted unanimously to forward the draft Plan and Report to the La Pine City Council for their review. An Open House will be held on June 18,2013, 5:30—6:30 pm at the La Pine Chamber of Commerce office where there will be an opportunity to gather and share information. Please feel free to attend the Open House. The La Pine Urban Renewal Plan contains goals, objectives, and projects for the development of the La Pine Urban Renewal Area. The overall purpose of the Plan is to use tax increment financing to help improve the vitality of downtown La Pine, overcoming obstacles to the full development of the Area. II. PROPOSAL The La Pine Urban Renewal Plan area (Area), shown in Figure 1, consists of approximately 577 acres of land including rights of way. The Area encompasses the downtown commercial core of La Pine and adjacent development opportunities including the future Rodeo/Event site. The purpose of urban renewal is to improve specific areas of a city that are poorly developed or underdeveloped.These areas can have old deteriorated buildings, public spaces which need improvements, a lack of investment, streets and utilities in poor condition or they can lack streets and utilities altogether.The Area has many properties that are undeveloped or under developed, and lacks sufficient infrastructure within the Area. The Area also needs streetscape improvements and effective signage. The Area does not have a program that provides assistance to property owners for improvement of their properties, and such a program is identified in the Plan. Urban renewal projects in general can include construction or improvement of streets, utilities and other public facilities, assistance for rehabilitation or redevelopment of property, acquisition and re-sale of property(site assembly)from willing sellers and can provide funds for improvements to public spaces.The specific projects proposed in this Plan are outlined in Sections IV and V of the Plan. Urban renewal is unique in that it brings its own financing source:tax increment financing (TIF). Tax increment revenues-the amount of property taxes generated by the increase in total assessed values in the urban renewal area from the time the urban renewal area is first established--are used to repay borrowed funds.The funds borrowed are used to pay for urban renewal projects. Urban renewal is put into effect by the local government(the city in this case) adopting an urban renewal plan.The urban renewal plan defines the urban renewal area, states goals and objectives for the area, lists projects and programs that can be undertaken, provides a dollar limit on the funds borrowed for urban renewal projects, and states how the plan may be changed in the future. The goals of the Plan are shown below and the specific objectives are listed in Section III of the attached Plan. Public Involvement Provide for community input in urban renewal planning and administration. Objectives a. Include the community in a Citizens'Advisory Committee for planning the urban renewal area. b. Provide opportunities for community-wide input in the urban renewal plan planning process. c. Have an informal open house at the Chamber of Commerce office to help inform the public and business owners about the urban renewal planning process. d. Include citizens in the urban renewal agency. Economy Promote the role of the Area as an energetic community of local businesses that is supported by the residents of both La Pine and outlying areas and by tourists travelling through La Pine. Objectives a. Develop programs and incentives to encourage expansion of existing businesses, and development of new business activity to create additional jobs in the Area. b. Provide for a pleasing visual perception of La Pine by providing assistance for storefront improvements to businesses in the Area. c. Form public-private partnerships and use public investment to generate private investment. d. Encourage the creation of a focused area of commercial activity to both strengthen existing businesses and create new business activity. e. Promote an entrepreneurial climate for business expansion and growth, including a potential business incubator building. f. Identify opportunities to support tourist/recreational related businesses, activities, and growth. Create an Identifiable Town Center as a Hub of Community Activity The Town Center would be a compact area that is centrally located and planned for easy walking access. The uses would be comprised of a mixture of commercial businesses, civic buildings, and other community uses.' Within this Town Center, create a unique identity that strengthens the sense of place, promotes economic development through resident and tourist visits, encourages return patronage, and leverages private investment. Objectives a. Establish an identity that promotes a sense of character, providing a community for existing businesses and residents and inviting visitors to bring additional commerce to the Area. b. Establish gateway features to delineate the Town Center and show pride in the community by providing improved aesthetic features. c. Improve sidewalks, streetscape, walkways, and bike pathways to provide easier access to the commercial area and to promote activity within the Town Center. d. Provide business and way finding signage. e. Create gathering places that will provide focal points and draw patronage to the Area. f. Assess parking needs to support the business district. g. Assist in the development of public facilities that expand or enhance the services provided in the Town Center and that serve the interests of the citizens of La Pine and tourist activity in La Pine. Housing/Mixed-Use Development Encourage development in the Mixed-Use Commercial Residential District of the Area. a. Encourage development of workforce housing opportunities, commercial support services, and office opportunities in proximity to the housing. b. Help facilitate the development of public spaces within the mixed-use area. 1 Language from La Pine Comprehensive Plan Infrastructure Assist in providing infrastructure (water, sewer, storm water) to encourage development in La Pine. a. Upgrade/provide infrastructure as necessary to allow for the development or redevelopment of parcels within and adjacent to the urban renewal area. Public Facilities Provide opportunities for residents and visitors alike to shop and recreate in La Pine, supporting public service providers and existing businesses and providing stimulus for new economic activity. a. Assist in development and redevelopment of public facilities that provide vital services (fire, police, and medical),gathering spaces, and other services for the community, including the proposed Rodeo and Events site. III. FINANCING The proposed maximum indebtedness,the limit on the amount of funds that may be spent on administration, projects and programs in the Area is $7,017,000. The maximum indebtedness does not include interest paid on any borrowing by the urban renewal agency. There is a proposed financing plan in the Report that shows that the Plan is financially feasible. It is understood that the Agency may make changes to the financing plan as needs and opportunities arise, typically during the annual budgeting process. l' s 1 IN u3- i j i x '. . 4 ., ,.. 2 L.,„, I 0 0 sir.) °- i ILLilj IC,,. y, 1 f .�e u 10115w , ii . ii, ,:_,„,',‘ ., , .,,,,, r : ■■ . s tpoop imoung , AM ihilb„, , 1 ',„.,,r, 1 II b./ W. 444114 I S ell std s7 r vuld sl O1 L... .......u.n Q o3 so;nyysod n..n.n...n..nu.. u....� poisaodJo)uryn; � o�oo nykpu i P po;vrodaoautun el s a CIJ 1•11.............. , , 144744r1 .41,11,1 ,,,,,„,,,,,,,,,,,; 1 ,.., , , , , , . .„ f , , k, , , , , •0 ,, ,„, , , , ',''.',,N , '' ) ', : .h.,i: '', O a \\. , „ 0 . 4,..\\\44111441\16,6:, ,.,,,,, ,''4111soil I .: ',: , Lkik.,141*11,,, '1 414046,, Wu IV. IMPACT ON TAXING JURISDICTIONS The impact of tax increment financing on overlapping taxing districts consists primarily of the property tax revenues foregone on permanent rate levies as applied to the growth in assessed value in the Area.The projections for impacts on the taxing jurisdictions are estimated through fiscal year(FY) 2040-41. Revenue sharing was a feature of the 2009 legislative changes in urban renewal law. Revenue sharing is based on the actual tax increment revenues generated and occurs at stipulated trigger points in the life of a Plan. Revenue sharing is based on the actual tax increment revenues generated and occurs at stipulated trigger points in the life of a Plan.The first trigger point is when the annual tax increment revenues are equal to 10%of the maximum indebtedness established for the Area. It is projected that this urban renewal area may reach the revenue sharing triggers in the final year of the Plan. If actual assessed value growth in the urban renewal area exceeds the projections made in the urban renewal plan, revenue sharing could occur earlier. General obligation (GO) bonds and local option levies issued after October 2001 would not be impacted by the proposed urban renewal district.The issuing jurisdiction will still receive their share of the taxes on any GO bonds and local option levies issued after October 2001. The School District 1 and the High Desert Education Service District are not directly affected by the tax increment financing, but the amounts of their taxes divided for the urban renewal plan are shown in the charts. Under current school funding law, property tax revenues are combined with State School Fund revenues to achieve per-student funding targets. Under this system, property taxes that are foregone because of the use of Tax Increment Financing are replaced (as determined by a funding formula at the State level)with State School Fund revenues. Tables la and lb show the projected impacts to the taxing districts as a result of the proposed La Pine Urban Renewal Plan. a0 0 0 L _, o R-R Oa g.-6,f R K-, c, 0 i4 ' .= c m .= c m tNn l bD i4f:' d+ � ehumS � al5`. TE rnRrm P, F.: n m c F O+ _7 M er] 00 in CT' CT tr) N O' °4 '0 ' ao N N 1. n o N ,-+ 4 'O O to ∎o 00 O .� in n Cr ,-- rr. ' ,-t ,--i ,N-- 1-i r-w 1--1 ,--I N N a1 N M m �] M d+ N C Ili 7 A w cu p�. pp pN pN∎ C\ C N CP, ' - Lc) as N O� C O 1 - O (4) CC0 '0 N ,fir. 0'i C 14) N M �V R U O vr 01 M N' N N N N er] m .:14 N dr ,--I 00 try M ,--4 O 00 a0 N C7� 4 CJ `L w ve4C. N Vv'1'. 4 V 61n o.o a a: o 1 Nei r�i dP uii M ri 0 zA v • (o z . P-- -11 0) ca F. pp a CU d U d m m cO M A rr'I+� r14rry .0 E�.po-ppr rw M 'Pi N O mP prpy1 aN ONO N p t�o+ y= «C.] yD 1D n C7 rI n N a0 tr M N M d� N ,--1 n M M dt n N CT a0 n O - F" .i..`, v N 'TM 1O O� ∎ - N O m tC 0' e rD O d4 00 N .D ,--■ in O ,--1 ti 2 N ,--� .-i r-r r-r N �N„ N M... co w a• � n.. .N.,. z p z3 ' U a � W. ca W 0.O N '0 NO ,o 00pp '0 14 NN 'C N m 0 r) N m p N O o O NN 14 -O 1D N O CA CT ,-+ M n N CT NNCD n N N N Q lNa ` ' m W OO ate.4 VN .NM n m I - M E� M o o .� U . u a +., W M to CT M 00 ,- dr dr N ,� O1 M N rD P.� CT M 0 10 rD; 4 0 J „Si O N ,D to N aN n 00 0 M -1 O N 10 •-• ON OD CT a0 , 000 O N n o N in co ,--r in ioi5 r-i In O, r+� n ,-+ tr) O d+ CT sr in ,•a I- > e r-+ 1- ,--i 6 N N N v m rri 'd+ d' m t ,46 1D N N E 00 a.o, O m c z N .--, m m 00 m o m �1 m p to -I m m o dt O 0 Rs in ra pr 00 yr rd ]• 0 00 ,--+ d+ N O dt 00 ,--i i 0 d+ 00 M N N 00 Mt� Qr 1i O N m O N G0. .--i g F "-"1-1 .L-1 ,-0._. V..,N N M er) M..._. �. 117 L \v G, N_. OD Cn 0 .-t ,� ww ' 0 O F L X a) ea w " I.i M C©�. of(ep�� e i of M N Cr Or d, ,--t N d+ pF, In dt v,m r0 O 00 .O N O vt a) r W G 0 Ch rn 4 N nr. 0000 c r) a`DO LN'y N rn+ N in Ono M C N n rrz� oD .-w C ++ �-,j� r� In p a0 O tr) N ,--i a..r PW a eri rD 00' O' ,.. 4 , N N N COr) m e CCr) dt dt 14 u UU7 rD m '0 n N O U u O �. , O O z N z Q u, pry p p C"er tN m N '0 N 1 N 00 O M O r14 N O N d' ,emu M 00 00 N C C- gy w z 1 l� C d. a] M 00 d4 ,-. 00 '0 in in to '0 CO r-+ in O' try N O) ' i d 0 i O i[L ) `. .n. 00 -O -4 rri U J D r0 N N N i N m c+M] M 4 m 4 Od .-• N C C N ... F U r 7 O .0 N w 0 % L c-1 til ) e� ua C "3 t� N N ° 00 N N N O C 0 o$ te� NN 1 M o N 14 z N .1N ,-rrnaonn °0. C-) 00 C') 4 r-+ 0 , o 3 - : ` °V ao o rr r ad a 7 ni ri r o ao a o 4-� % ` . �v^ �'� � N � NN � iA O �� .� .-. ... �.-.rm tn a U ., 3 c CU .,�_, K N 00 N 00 K' m 00 n R.10 _ Rs 01 CO er K'N 1D N 10 to N rD 1C e+] ' C 0 a 1- en to rn n 01 a1 � , rce, N .- 'CD 0 0`$ 0o 000. 0 .w00 '14 o - 0"0 N 4- F. U,en C") N 0' h0 P. P 1. 00 0 M M OO o N itt�j n o M LO M V) 00 1 ui M erg N N ' ,-y r-+ H r-r N N N N m m M M C� d� to to to 1 1D 1O N '..Jr 0 Pa O U O U N •d rO' n 00 T 7 ,-4 N rr te) r0 n p T O ,-I N m fi�. u i O N 0p0 O 0) .7 N ,-r .-e ,-I N N N N N N N N N N M M m M M m C) M Im v y OO C. O 7 O © O O O d O CIO C) O O O O O O O O ,g L IM wN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N[-I w F h to • Table lb-Projected Impact on Taxing District Permanent Rate Levies CENTRAL OREGON COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT #l. HIGH DESERT ESD COLLEGE SUBTOTAL TOTAL 2016 (17,338) (351) (2,258) (19,947) (49,543) 2017 (23,696) (479) (3,086) (27,261) (67,709) 2018. (30,309) (613) (3,947) (34,869) (86,606) 2019. (37,186) (752) (4,843) (42,781) (106,258) 2020 (44,339) (897) (5,774) (51,010) (126,696) 2021 (51,777) (1,048) (6,743) (59,568) (147,948) 2022 (59,513) (1,204) (7,750) (68,467) (170,054) 2023 (67,558) (1,367) (8,798) (77,723) (193,043) 2024 (75,926) (1,536) (9,887) (87,349) (216,952) 2025 (84,628) (1,712) (11,021) (97,361) (241,818) 2026 (93,678) (1,896) (12,199) (107,773) (267,680) 2027 (103,090) (2,086) (13,425) (118,601) (294,572) 2028 (112,878) (2,284) (14,699) (129,861) (322,541) 2029 (123,058) (2,490) (16,025) (141,573) (351,631) 2030 (133,646) (2,704) (17,404) (153,754) (381,885) 2031 (144,657) (2,927) (18,838) (166,422) (413,346) 2032 (156,108) (3,159) (20,329) (179,596), (446,068) 2033 (168,017) (3,400) (21,880) (193,297) (480,097) 2034 (180,403) (3,650) (23,493) (207,546) (515,490) 2035 (193,284) (3,911) (25,170) (222,365) (552,295) 2036 (206,680) (4,182) (26,915) (237,777) (590,576) 2037 (220,612) (4,464) (28,729) (253,805) (630,385) 2038 (235,102) (4,757) (30,616) (270,475) (671,788) 2039 (250,170) (5,062) (32,578) (287,810) (714,843) 2040 (252,817) (5,116) (32,923) (290,856) (722,408) Total (3,066,470) (62,047) (399,330) (3,527,847) (8,762,232) Source: ECONorthwest Table 2 shows the tax revenues projected to be available to taxing jurisdictions once the Area is terminated.These are estimates only; changes in the economy may impact the projections.The table depicts the taxes from the frozen base of the Area that the taxing jurisdictions receive throughout the life of the Plan, and the taxes estimated from the additional taxes which will be received by the taxing jurisdictions once the Plan is terminated, estimated to be in FY 2041-42. The final column estimates the total amount of taxes estimated for the year that the Plan is expected to be terminated. Table 2-Additional Revenues Projected After Termination of Tax Increment Financing From Frozen From Expiration Jurisdiction Tax Rate Base of URA Total Deschutes County $ 1.2783 $ 38,000 $ 75,704 $ 113,704 County Library $ 0.5500 $ 16,350 $ 32,572 $ 48,922 Countywide Law Enforcement $ 0.9500 $ 28,241 $ 56,261 $ 84,502 Rural Law Enforcement $ 1.4000 $ 41,618 $ 82,911 $ 124,529 County Extension 4H $ 0.0224 $ 666 $ 1,327 $ 1,993 911 $ 0.1618 $ 4,810 $ 9,582 $ 14,392 City of La.Pine $ 1.9300 $ 57,374 $ 114,299 $ 171,673 La Pine Rural Fire District $ 1.5397 $ 45,771 $ 91,185 $ 136,956 La Pine Parks and Rec $ 0.3000 $ 8,918 $ 17,767 $ 26,685 School District#1 $ 4.7641 $ 141,624 $ 282,141 $ 423,765 High Desert ESD $ 0.0964 $ 2,866 $ 5,709 $ 8,575 Central Oregon Community College $ 0.6204 $ 18,443 $ 36,741 $ 55,184 Table 3 shows the impact of the first year of tax increment funds projected to be received in 2016 on the 2014/15 permanent rate levy of the taxing jurisdiction. The impact should be less than this chart shows because the permanent rate levy usually increases each year, so the 2016 permanent rate levy would be higher than the 2014 levy depicted. Table 3-Percent of Permanent Rate Levy 2013/14 2016 Tax Percentage of Permanent Increment Permanent Rate Jurisdiction Rate Levy Revenue Lev Deschutes County 23,747,378 4,652 0.02% County Library 10,143,587 2,002 0.02% Countywide Law Enforcement 17,520,004 3,457 0.02% Rural Law Enforcement 8,381,815 5,095 0.06% County Extension 4H 414,250 82 0.02% 911 2,984,946 589 0.02% City of La Pine 241,294 7,024 2.91% La Pine Rural Fire District 1,797,468 5,603 0.31% La Pine Parks and Rec 212,002 1,092 0.52% School District#1 60,640,139 17,338 0.03% High Desert ESD 1,720,682 351 0.02% Central Oregon Community College 11,070,002 2,258 0.02% ............................ ....................... ource: ECONorthwest V. PROCESS FOR REVIEW The process for final review of the Plan and Report include the following steps: June 11 La Pine Urban Renewal Agency review June 12-13 Send formal notice to taxing jurisdictions June 18 Planning Commission review June/July Presentation to Deschutes County Commission June/July Notice to property owners July 9 City Council Public Hearing The draft La Pine Urban Renewal Plan and Report are enclosed with this letter. If you would like to provide written comments, they will be responded to by the La Pine City Council. Please provide any written comments by June 27, 2014, For more information, please contact me at (541) 536-1432 or rlallen @ci.la-pine.or.us. Sincerely, Rick Allen, Interim City Manager City of La Pine 16345 6th Street, La Pine, OR 97739 Attachments: A: La Pine Urban Renewal Plan B: Report on the La Pine Urban Renewal Plan La Pine Urban Renewal Plan Adopted by the City of La Pine July 23, 2014 Ordinance No. Erw List of Participants Mayor: Ken Mulenex City Council: Kathy Agan Greg Jones Stu Martinez Karen Ward Conrad Parker Planning Commission: Doug Ward, Chair Gloria Fleming,Vice Chair Rolando Alonzo Don Greiner Norm McClung Interim City Manager: Rick Allen City Planner: Deborah McMahon Office Utility Specialist: Ashley Williams Administrative Assistant: Patti Morgan Urban Renewal Citizens' Advisory Committee: Tony De Bone Deschutes County Commissioner Todd Dunkelberg Director Deschutes County Library Gloria Fleming Planning Commission City of La Pine Ann Gawith Director La Pine Chamber of Commerce Mike Jensen Bend-La Pine School District Board of Directors Corrine Martinez Business—Wilderness Garbage Ken Mulenex Mayor City of La Pine Vicky Russell Business—Vic Russell Construction Dave Schneider General Manager Mid State Electric Bob Schulz Director La Pine Parks and Recreation District Gary Tingey Business—High Lakes Realty Dan Varcoe Business—Newberry Eagle Steve Dodd Business—Ace Hardware Vacant La Pine Rural Fire Protection District Consultant Team: Elaine Howard Consulting LLC,Elaine Howard ECONorthwest,Nick Popenuk,Tessa Krebs,Rob Wyman Jeannette Launer,Legal Counsel Leslie Vanden Bos,Editor TABLE OF CONTENTS I. DEFINITIONS 1 IL INTRODUCTION 3 III. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 5 IV. OUTLINE OF MAJOR URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT ACTIVITIES 9 V. URBAN RENEWAL PROJECTS 9 VI. PROPERTY ACQUISITION AND DISPOSITION 11 VII. RELOCATION METHODS 11 VIII. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING OF PLAN 12 IX. FUTURE AMENDMENTS TO PLAN 13 X. LAND USES 15 XI. RELATIONSHIP TO LOCAL OBJECTIVES 15 APPENDIX A: LEGAL DESCRIPTION 25 I. DEFINITIONS "Area"means the properties and rights of way located with the La Pine urban renewal boundary. "Citizens' Advisory Committee"means the committee formed from private individuals to provide input on the La Pine Urban Renewal Plan. Those members are identified on the acknowledgement page of the urban renewal plan. "City"means the City of La Pine,Oregon. "City Council"or"Council"means the City Council of the City of La Pine. "Comprehensive Plan"means the City of La Pine Comprehensive Land Use Plan and its implementing ordinances, policies, and standards. "County"means Deschutes County. "Fiscal year"means the year commencing on July 1 and closing on June 30. "Frozen base"means the total assessed value including all real,personal, manufactured,and utility values within an urban renewal area at the time of adoption. The county assessor certifies the assessed value after the adoption of an urban renewal plan. "Increment"means that part of the assessed value of a taxing district attributable to any increase in the assessed value of the property located in an urban renewal area, or portion thereof,over the assessed value specified in the certified statement. "Maximum indebtedness"means the amount of the principal of indebtedness included in a plan pursuant to ORS 457.190 and does not include indebtedness incurred to refund or refinance existing indebtedness. "ORS"means the Oregon revised statutes, specifically Chapter 457,which relates to urban renewal. "Planning Commission"means the La Pine Planning Commission. "Tax increment financing(TIF)"means the funds that are associated with the division of taxes accomplished through the adoption of an urban renewal plan. "Tax increment revenues"means the funds allocated by the assessor to an urban renewal area due to increases in assessed value over the frozen base within the area. "Urban renewal agency"or"agency"means an urban renewal agency created under ORS 457.035 and 457.045. This agency is responsible for administration of the urban renewal plan. "Urban renewal area"means a blighted area included in an urban renewal plan or an area included in an urban renewal plan under ORS 457.160. City of La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 1 July 23, 2014 "Urban renewal plan"or"plan"means a plan, as it exists or is changed or modified from time to time, for one or more urban renewal areas, as provided in ORS 457.085, 457.095,457.105, 457.115,457.120,457.125,457.135 and 457.220. "Urban renewal project"or"project"means any work or undertaking carried out under ORS 457.170 in an urban renewal area. "Urban renewal report"means the official report that accompanies the urban renewal plan pursuant to ORS 457.085(3). City of La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 2 July 23, 2014 IL INTRODUCTION The La Pine Urban Renewal Plan(Plan)has been developed for the La Pine City Council(City Council)with the cooperative input of a Citizens' Advisory Committee. The Plan contains goals, objectives, and projects for the development of the La Pine Urban Renewal Area(Area).The overall purpose of the Plan is to use tax increment financing to overcome obstacles to the proper development of the Area. The purpose of urban renewal is to improve specific areas of a city that are poorly developed or underdeveloped.These areas can have old or deteriorated buildings, public spaces that need improvements, streets and utilities in poor condition, a complete lack of streets and utilities altogether, or other obstacles to development. The Area has infrastructure needs, lacks adequate streetscape and parking, and does not have a program for assistance to business owners. Urban renewal allows for the use of tax increment financing(TIF), a financing source that is unique to urban renewal,to fund its projects.Tax increment revenues—the amount of property taxes generated by the increase in total assessed values in the urban renewal area from the time the urban renewal area is first established—are used to repay borrowed funds. The funds borrowed are used to pay for urban renewal projects. In general,urban renewal projects can include construction or improvement of streets,utilities, and other public facilities; assistance for rehabilitation or redevelopment of property; acquisition and re-sale of property(site assembly)from willing sellers; and improvements to public spaces. The specific projects to be approved in this Plan are outlined in Sections IV and V. Urban renewal is put into effect when the local government(the City of La Pine, in this case) adopts an urban renewal plan.The urban renewal plan defines the urban renewal area, states goals and objectives for the area, lists projects and programs that can be undertaken,provides a dollar limit on the funds borrowed for urban renewal projects, and states how the plan may be changed in the future. The Area, shown in Figure 1, consists of approximately 577.13 total acres: 498.02 acres in parcels and 79.11 acres of public right-of-way. City of La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 3 July 23, 2014 The Plan will be administered by the La Pine Urban Renewal Agency(Agency),which was established by the La Pine City Council as the City's Urban Renewal Agency(Ordinance No. ). Substantial changes to the Plan, if necessary,must be approved by the City Council, as outlined in Section IX of this Plan. The Plan is accompanied by the City of La Pine's Urban Renewal Report(Report)that contains additional information, as required by ORS 457.085.The technical information in the Report includes: • A description of the physical, social, and economic conditions in the area; • The expected impact of the Plan, including fiscal impact in light of increased services; • The reasons for selection of each Area in the Plan; • The relationship between each project to be undertaken and the existing conditions; • The total cost of each project and the source of funds to pay such costs; • The estimated completion date of each project; • The estimated amount of funds required in the Area,and the anticipated year in which the debt will be retired; • A financial analysis of the Plan; • A fiscal impact statement that estimates the impact of tax increment financing upon all levying taxes upon property in the urban renewal area; and • A relocation report. It is anticipated that the Plan will take 25 years of tax increment collections(through FY 2039-40) to implement. The maximum amount of indebtedness(amount of tax increment financing for projects and programs)that may be issued for the Plan is $7,019,000(seven million nineteen thousand dollars). City of La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 4 July 23,2014 III. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The goals of the Plan represent the basic intents and purposes.Accompanying each goal are objectives, which generally describe how the Agency intends to achieve the goals. The urban renewal projects identified in Sections IV and V of the Plan are the specific means of meeting the objectives. The goals relate to adopted plans,as detailed in Section XI, and were developed with input from the La Pine Urban Renewal Plan Citizens' Advisory Committee, and community input from the urban renewal open house.The goals and objectives will be pursued as economically as is feasible and at the discretion of the urban renewal agency. The goals and objectives are not ranked by priority. 1. Public Involvement Provide for community input in urban renewal planning and administration. Objectives a. Include the community in a Citizens' Advisory Committee for planning the urban renewal area. b. Provide opportunities for community-wide input in the urban renewal plan planning process. c. Have an informal open house at the Chamber/Event Center to help inform the urban renewal planning process. d. Include citizens in the urban renewal agency. 2. Economy Promote the role of the Area as an energetic community of local businesses that is supported by the residents of both La Pine and outlying areas and by tourists travelling through La Pine. Objectives a. Develop programs and incentives to encourage expansion of existing businesses, and development of new business activity to create additional jobs in the Area. b. Provide for a pleasing visual perception of La Pine by providing assistance for storefront improvements to businesses in the Area. c. Form public-private partnerships and use public investment to generate private investment. d. Encourage the creation of a focused area of commercial activity to both strengthen existing businesses and create new business activity. e. Promote an entrepreneurial climate for business expansion and growth, including a potential business incubator building. City of La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 5 July 23,2014 f. Identify opportunities to support tourist/recreational related businesses, activities,and growth. 3. Create an Identifiable Town Center as a Hub of Community Activity The Town Center would be a compact area that is centrally located and planned for easy walking access. The uses would be comprised of a mixture of commercial businesses,civic buildings, and other community uses.1 Within this Town Center, create a unique identity that strengthens the sense of place,promotes economic development through resident and tourist visits, encourages return patronage, and leverages private investment. Objectives a. Establish an identity that promotes a sense of character,providing a community for existing businesses and residents and inviting visitors to bring additional commerce to the Area. b. Establish gateway features to delineate the Town Center and show pride in the community by providing improved aesthetic features. c. Improve sidewalks, streetscape,walkways,and bike pathways to provide easier access to the commercial area and to promote activity within the Town Center. d. Provide business and way finding signage. e. Create gathering places that will provide focal points and draw patronage to the Area. f. Assess parking needs to support the business district. g. Assist in the development of public facilities that expand or enhance the services provided in the Town Center and that serve the interests of the citizens of La Pine and tourist activity in La Pine. 4. Housing/Mixed-Use Development Encourage development in the Mixed-Use Commercial Residential District of the Area. Objectives a. Encourage development of workforce housing opportunities, commercial support services, and office opportunities in proximity to the housing. b. Help facilitate the development of public spaces within the mixed-use area. 5. Infrastructure Assist in providing infrastructure(water, sewer, storm water)to encourage development in La Pine. Objectives 1 Language from La Pine Comprehensive Plan City of La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 6 July 23, 2014 a. Upgrade/provide infrastructure as necessary to allow for the development or redevelopment of parcels within and adjacent to the urban renewal area. 6. Public Facilities Provide opportunities for residents and visitors alike to shop and recreate in La Pine, supporting public service providers and existing businesses and providing stimulus for new economic activity. Objectives a. Assist in development and redevelopment of public facilities that provide vital services(fire, police, and medical), gathering spaces, and other services for the community, including the proposed Rodeo and Events site. City of La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 7 July 23, 2014 w Y ° 43,11 d Ig 3 t A N Su ID F'1 19H i , 0 . LO 6 w p tl , 1111111— VYiiI8M C) CI Mil' : ' 7. W-''', - �eo ..� 2 sowl - .^ Ould e1 uuu .WWWIAAeMNWdI1W ''� - 03 6001.10s0�y NMMAWA1WWdW1YWWWWMWWWWWWNWW rrNpIMN po1eJodJoaueu JodJo �s • peyerod.P0001un I 1I 10 eel - isMWWeiidWWWWA111AI1WI1WWW1111 -..-_. " Prl N Tfid Q c --, s\hi., gt et a) t- \ k%■\.11\111k I _ 11114*" a ) I 4+ 1 U w IV. OUTLINE OF MAJOR URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT ACTIVITIES The projects within the Area include: A. District identity/transportation improvements B. Planning and development assistance programs C. Public facilities/Infrastructure D. Debt service and project administration E. Property acquisition V. URBAN RENEWAL PROJECTS Urban renewal projects authorized by the Plan are described below. Public improvements authorized under the Plan include assistance to help create a district identity for the Area,upgrade of utilities to encourage development, and economic assistance to developers. The projects are in conformance with the La Pine Comprehensive Plan,The La Pine Corridor Plan, and the La Pine Transportation Systems Plan as detailed in Section X1 of this Plan. As shown in the Report,urban renewal funds will be combined with existing and other future sources of funding to finance project costs.Projects authorized by the Plan are: A. District Identity/Transportation Improvements 1. Sidewalk improvements Improve sidewalks within the Area to allow for greater access for pedestrians to the commercial district. 2. Signage: business and way-finding Support effective signage for businesses and for way-finding to allow citizens and visitors to frequent the commercial area and to know of other opportunities the La Pine community has to offer. 3. Streetscape Improve the streetscape in the Area to encourage citizens and visitors to visit the Area. Streetscape includes sidewalks, signage,trees,benches, landscaping,public art, archways, bus shelters, lighting and other improvements to enhance the overall appearance of the Area and encourage development and redevelopment of the Area. 4. Bicycle paths Add bike paths within the Area to encourage greater access to the commercial district. 5. Gathering spaces Develop gathering spaces to add to the overall positive environment of the Area, encouraging visits to the Area by citizens of La Pine and visitors to the Area. 6. Parking Assess parking needs for the Area. City of La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 9 July 23,2014 B. Planning and development assistance programs to support economic development 1. Assist with development of mixed-use area Encourage development of the mixed-use area by providing amenities to help make the area more desirable. 2. Encourage/support business expansion Work with business owners to develop and redevelop properties within the Area, leveraging public investment with private investment. 3. Storefront Improvements Work with business owners to improve the overall appearance of the exteriors of their properties. 4. Support for incubator businesses Look for opportunities to help facilitate the development of new businesses within La Pine. C. Public Facilities/Infrastructure 1. Rodeo/Event Site development 2. Development and redevelopment of public facilities that provide vital services(fire, police, and medical), gathering spaces,and other services for the community. 3. Upgrade/provide infrastructure as necessary to allow for the development or redevelopment of parcels within and adjacent to the urban renewal area. D. Debt service and project administration This project will allow for the repayment of costs associated with the preparation of an urban renewal plan, including the potential repayment of the initial planning costs for the development of the urban renewal plan, including the adoption,and implementation of the La Pine Urban Renewal Plan. It also includes ongoing administration and any financing costs associated with issuing long-term debt, relocation costs,and other administrative costs. E. Property Acquisition This project will fund acquisition and assembly of key properties for redevelopment,public open space,public parking,trail corridor,housing, or other use consistent with the goals and objectives of this plan, consistent with the property acquisition section of this Plan(Section VI). City of La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 10 July 23, 2014 VI. PROPERTY ACQUISITION AND DISPOSITION The Plan authorizes the acquisition and disposition of property as described in this section. Property includes any and all interests in property, including fee simple ownership, lease, easements,licenses,or other rights to use. A. Property acquisition for public improvements The Agency may acquire any property within the Area for the public improvement projects undertaken pursuant to the Plan by all legal means, including use of eminent domain. Good faith negotiations for such acquisitions must occur prior to institution of eminent domain procedures. B. Property acquisition from willing sellers The Plan authorizes Agency acquisition of any interest in property within the Area that the Agency finds is necessary to support private redevelopment,but only in those cases where the property owner wishes to convey such interest to the Agency. The Plan does not authorize the Agency to use the power of eminent domain to acquire property from a private party to transfer property to another private party for private redevelopment. Property acquisition from willing sellers may be required to support development of projects within the Area. C. Land disposition The Agency will dispose of property acquired for a public improvement project by conveyance to the appropriate public agency responsible for the construction and/or maintenance of the public improvement. The Agency may retain such property during the construction of the public improvement. The Agency may dispose of property acquired under Subsection B of Section VI of this Plan by conveying any interest in property acquired.Property shall be conveyed at its fair reuse value. Fair reuse value is the value,whether expressed in terms of rental or capital price, at which the urban renewal agency, in its discretion, determines such land should be made available in order that it may be developed,redeveloped,cleared, conserved, or rehabilitated for the purposes specified in such plan. Because fair reuse value reflects limitations on the use of the property to those purposes specified in the Plan,the value may be lower than the property's fair market value. Where land is sold or leased,the purchaser or lessee must agree to use the land for the purposes designated in the Plan and to begin and complete the building of its improvements within a period of time that the Agency determines is reasonable. VII. RELOCATION METHODS When the Agency acquires occupied property under the Plan,residential or commercial occupants of such property shall be offered relocation assistance, as required under applicable state law. Prior to such acquisition,the Agency shall adopt rules and regulations,as necessary, for the administration of relocation assistance. City of La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 11 July 23,2014 VIII. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING OF PLAN Tax increment financing consists of using annual tax increment revenues to make payments on loans,usually in the form of tax increment bonds.The proceeds of the bonds are used to finance the urban renewal projects authorized in the Plan. Bonds may be either long-term or short-term. Tax increment revenues equal most of the annual property taxes imposed on the cumulative increase in assessed value within an urban renewal area over the total assessed value at the time an urban renewal plan is adopted.(Under current law,the property taxes for general obligation (GO)bonds and local option levies approved after October 6,2001 are not part of the tax increment revenues.) A. General description of the proposed financing methods The Plan will be financed using a combination of revenue sources. These include: Tax increment revenues; Advances, loans, grants, and any other form of financial assistance from the federal, state, or local governments, or other public bodies; Loans, grants, dedications,or other contributions from private developers and property owners, including,but not limited to, assessment districts; and Any other public or private source. Revenues obtained by the Agency will be used to pay or repay the costs, expenses, advancements, and indebtedness incurred in(1)planning or undertaking project activities,or(2)otherwise exercising any of the powers granted by ORS Chapter 457 in connection with the implementation of this Plan. B. Tax increment financing and maximum indebtedness The Plan may be financed, in whole or in part, by tax increment revenues allocated to the Agency, as provided in ORS Chapter 457. The ad valorem taxes, if any, levied by a taxing district in which all or a portion of the Area is located, shall be divided as provided in Section lc,Article IX of the Oregon Constitution, and ORS 457.440.Amounts collected pursuant to ORS 457.440 shall be deposited into the unsegregated tax collections account and distributed to the Agency based upon the distribution schedule established under ORS 311.390. The maximum amount of indebtedness that may be issued or incurred under the Plan,based upon good faith estimates of the scope and costs of projects in the Plan and the schedule for their completion, is$7,017,000. This amount is the principal of such indebtedness and does not include interest or indebtedness incurred to refund or refinance existing indebtedness. C. Prior indebtedness Any indebtedness permitted by law and incurred by the Agency or the City of La Pine in connection with the preparation of this Plan or prior planning efforts that support the preparation or implementation of this Plan may be repaid from tax increment revenues from the Area when, and if, such funds are available. City of La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 12 July 23, 2014 IX. FUTURE AMENDMENTS TO PLAN The Plan may be amended as described in this section. A. Substantial Amendments Substantial Amendments are amendments that: • Add land to the urban renewal area, except for an addition of land that totals not more than 1%of the existing area of the urban renewal area; or • Increase the maximum amount of indebtedness that can be issued or incurred under the Plan. Substantial Amendments, in accordance with ORS 457.085(2)(i), shall require the same notice, hearing, and approval procedure required of the original Plan, under ORS 457.095, including public involvement, consultation with taxing districts,presentation to the Planning Commission, and adoption by the City Council by non-emergency ordinance after a hearing.Notice of such hearing shall be provided to individuals or households within the City of La Pine,as required by ORS 457.120.Notice of adoption of a Substantial Amendment shall be provided in accordance with ORS 457.095 and 457.115. B. Council Approved Amendments Council approved amendments are those amendments that provide for the addition of improvements or activities that cost more than $500,000 in 2014 dollars.The$500,000 amount will be adjusted annually from the year 2014 according to the"Engineering News Record" construction cost index for the Northwest Area. C. Minor Amendments Minor Amendments are amendments that are not Substantial Amendment nor Council Approved Amendments in scope. They require approval by the Agency by resolution. D. Amendments to the La Pine Comprehensive Plan and/or La Pine Zoning Ordinance Amendments to the La Pine Comprehensive Plan and/or La Pine Zoning Ordinance that affect the Urban Renewal Plan and/or the Urban Renewal Area shall be incorporated automatically within the Urban Renewal Plan without any separate action required by the Agency or the City Council. City of La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 13 July 23,2014 L g•1 + d 0 12cmr h i 1. 0 ; +t3 "' E r p A 0 P 1 ti�.a, N!? w,S r fi. td>a r.r _ • ' � 0 ,' II,,, :. i I } U i tie �.�pp '. p� Ny r�h�, �y� + u ��'. '914 C.Y? � , $ �'f @Dy� dw& r a.7 �' " n,_M 'f xz, r S .._-._ ■ r-1 y P° Id 7 simi ! ,u!d el y "r 7XINNN�aN$'1 N�'JS aNNNw Jf YWwiINY.. .pMNN,.",.NN^_......NNNMNN11 'o Y 4 0 i poie.radJayuJu stiyny�ea� pr)Qaad,roourury o _ ji F. CC a �XrwwwwNwwNMNNNMNNNM.. _ _. ... 3 N al i p \ U 1 cl U w 1 X. LAND USES The land uses in the Area are shown in Table 1 of the Report accompanying the Plan.The land uses are defined by the Deschutes County Assessor.They are: Industrial,Commercial(partially exempt, improved,miscellaneous, and vacant),Manufactured Residential,Manufactured Structure, State Responsibility,Tract, Multi-Family,and Exempt. The zoning categories are shown in Table 2 of the Report accompanying the Plan.The zones are Traditional Commercial, Forest Use 1,Public Facility,Master Plan Residential,and Public Land/Bureau of Land Management(BLM). The densities and building requirements are detailed in the City of La Pine Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No.2011-03. This ordinance may be updated from time to time,and those updates are hereby incorporated into this Plan. XL RELATIONSHIP TO LOCAL OBJECTIVES The Plan relates to local planning and development objectives contained within the City of La Pine's Comprehensive Plan, La Pine Zoning Ordinance,the La Pine Corridor Plan,and the La Pine Transportation Systems Plan.The following section describes the purpose and intent of these plans,the particular goals and policies within each planning document to which the proposed Plan relates, and an explanation of how the Plan relates to these goals and policies. The numbering of the goals,policies, and implementation strategies will reflect the numbering that occurs in the original document. Italicized text is text that has been taken directly from an original planning document.The Comprehensive Plan designations are shown in Figure 2. This is not a comprehensive list of all parts of the above referenced documents that are supported by this Plan.This list includes the major Goals and Policies from the Comprehensive Plan that are supported,however,there may be other Goals and Policies that are not listed but are still supported by this Plan. A. City of La Pine Comprehensive Plan Goal 1 Citizen Involvement The City shall: I. Establish a process to involve a cross section of affected citizens, ensure effective communication between citizens and elected officials, and assure citizens will receive a response from policy makers. 2. Assure compliance with all state requirements for open meetings and open records, as well as defining the process for standing for advisory committees in La Pine land use actions. 3. Provide two bodies for assisting in citizen involvement in La Pine: a. The Committee for Citizen Involvement(CCI)shall be an advisory body to the City Council to assure that the intent and purposes of this chapter are met. b. Citizen Advisory Committees (CAC's)shall insure plan amendments are developed in accordance with an overall City plan and advise the Council on individual land use matters. The La Pine Planning Commission is one example of such an advisory committee. The Plan conforms with the intent of Goal I Citizen Involvement because, even though this was not the development of or amendments to the comprehensive plan,a Citizens Advisory Committee was formed to provide input to the urban renewal plan. In addition,there was a public open house, an open Planning Commission meeting, and a City Council hearing that was noticed La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 15 July 23, 2014 to all citizens of La Pine. In addition,the city council has included citizens on the board of the urban renewal agency. Goal V State Planning Goals 5,Natural Resources,Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces Goal#1:Protect and enhance identified Goal 5 resources and other features of the natural environment using a variety of methods and strategies. Policies • The City shall coordinate with the BLM and Forest Service for the preservation of the natural forest environment on lands under their respective jurisdictions that are within and adjacent to the City, including transitions from urban to rural environments. • Programs are needed to address the protection of the natural environment in a balanced and fair fashion given the urban development goals of the City. • The City shall coordinate efforts with and among the La Pine Water and Sewer District, and Deschutes County to ensure appropriate provisions for connections to the La Pine sewer system for new and existing development in order to maintain safe groundwater. • The City shall coordinate wildfire protection plans with the La Pine Rural Fire protection District and shall implement wildfire protection regulations for new development. The Plan conforms with Goal V by allowing for development and redevelopment assistance, which may be used to help meet needs expressed by this goal. Goal VI Parks, Recreation and Open Space Goal#1: Create a system of parks, recreational facilities, and open space areas that provide quality active and passive recreational experiences for all urban area residents. Policies • The City shall coordinate the development of new parks and recreation opportunities, and programs with the La Pine Park and Recreation District. • The City shall encourage the continual involvement of private recreation providers to citizens. • The City shall encourage recreational opportunities within the community to acknowledge and encourage use by visitors and tourists to the community. • Given the various agencies involved in providing open space,parks, trails, and recreational opportunities—a high level of coordination and planning will be required in order to maximize efficiency and reduce duplication. • The addition of new parks and recreational opportunities shall be sought in the most cost effective way possible, including land grants from County, State and Federal agencies. • Local parks and recreational opportunities tend to be distributed throughout the community without connecting links other than streets;La Pine's citizens desire to connect existing and future parks and recreation facilities by sidewalks, trails, and other mechanisms. Such connections provide greater opportunities for citizens,particularly children, to safely access parks without vehicle use. • Open space and/or recreational areas should be available to residents within 1/4 mile of their homes unless an exception is granted by the City as new development occurs. La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 16 July 23, 2014 • New parks, linkages, and recreational facilities should be incorporated into new developments as a way to distribute resources throughout the community and reduce vehicle miles traveled. • Older neighborhoods and redevelopment areas should consider incorporating parks, trails, and other recreational facilities as a way to enhance the community. • New parks to serve new residents should be developed without community subsidy, while new trails and regional community recreational facilities may require additional funding through those sources available to the City and LPRD. The Plan conforms with Goal VI Parks,Recreation, and Open Space by designating gathering spaces s a project in the Plan. Linkages will be supported by streetscape improvements. Funding for the support for entrepreneurial ventures will potentially support the recreation alternatives of citizens. The development of the Rodeo/Events facility will provide additional activities to citizens and tourists who will support the local economy through their visits. Chapter VII Public Facilities and Services Goal 1: Coordinate intra-agency efforts, including coordination with private service and Special District providers, and create a system of public facilities for the planning horizon. • The La Pine Rural Fire Protection District shall continue to provide fire protection service within the City of La Pine. • Although many of the public facilities and services are not currently provided by the City, the City shall take an active role in coordinating and ensuring that such services are adequate for existing residents and businesses without adverse effects from anticipated future growth. • Providing needed services in an economically viable and effective manner is good business and a good growth management tool. Goal 2: Create a system of conservation practices for public resources, services, and related facilities. • Services such as public sewer collection facilities,public water sources, solid waste disposal, other point of contact public services, and services related to emergency response will need to be carefully managed to ensure supply and duration. The Plan conforms with Goal VII by stating that providing for public facilities development is one of the goals of the Plan and is in the project list for the Plan. Assisting in the provision of infrastructure to the Rodeo/Event site will assist in the development of the site,a goal for the community. Goal VII Transportation Goal 1: Create a safe, convenient, balanced,functional and economical transportation system to maximize and extend the life of transportation facilities and improve livability throughout the La Pine community. • Vehicle use is the primary and most important form of transportation for the majority of La Pines citizens, but increased alternate mode use is essential to the livability of the community and to preserve valuable resources. • The street system shall be fully functional for the safe and efficient delivery of emergency services. La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 17 July 23,2014 • Alternate mode use is essential for providing a full complement of transportation choices and that land use regulations need to require an analysis of transportation impacts, needs, and mitigation options. • The proper function and increased mobility of Highway 97 to and through the community contributes to the local economy and bring goods and services into the community bolstering local commerce and tourism. • Balancing the needs of the local community with regional transportation needs must include open dialogue with citizens, state agencies/ODOT, Deschutes County, local business interests, special interest groups, and tourism professionals. • Traffic calming measures in core commercial areas and residential neighborhoods can reduce vehicular speeds on roadways and create a safe pedestrian/bicycle environment. • The community, as a whole, will benefit from transportation systems that provide sidewalks, trails, bike lanes and transit amenities to encourage alternate mode use and promote a high level of livability. • The community will benefit from streets that are designed to permit emergency service vehicles to access all parts of the community in an efficient manner. • Street trees,pedestrian amenities, separated sidewalks; curb extensions, traffic calming, and other related devices can be useful design elements especially when supported by a cost benefit analysis showing they are appropriate. • A transportation system that includes alternate modes in addition to vehicle needs is a State requirement. The term `Alternate Mode"includes anything, besides single occupant vehicles, capable of moving people and goods such as rail,pedestrian facilities, bike lanes, air transport, transit, and the like. Bicycle and Pedestrian Policies • Encourage pedestrian and bicycle movement as a safe,feasible alternative to the automobile. • Require that all proposed subdivisions consider bicycle and pedestrian paths, integrated with other bicycle and pedestrian path systems within the City. • Insure that bicycle and pedestrian paths, not along street right-of-ways are well lit and provide visual surveillance from the street. • Preserve space along existing and proposed Arterial streets and require at least one combined bicycle and pedestrian path. • Require all proposed activity centers generating large amounts of traffic to provide safe and convenient off-street bicycle parking space and routes in their design. • Insure neighborhoods and activity centers, including public loading and pickup areas, are served by pedestrian and bicycle routes. • Provide curb cuts at all corners, intersections, or locations where bicycle and pedestrian routes and paths intersect with streets. • Provide for paving of pedestrian and bicycle ways where appropriate. • Improve signs, markings, and safety features on existing bicycle and pedestrian paths. The Plan conforms with Goal VII Transportation by providing infrastructure improvements to the Area, including sidewalk and streetscape improvements and bike path improvements that will La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 18 July 23, 2014 support economic activity, create a sense of identity, and help with the efficiency of transportation system in the Area,thereby attracting more businesses and retail activity in the Area. Goal IX Economy Goal# 1.-Provide adequate industrial and commercial land inventories to satisfy the urban development needs of La Pine for the 20 year planning horizon. Goal#2:Develop an "Economic Development Strategic Plan"and other mechanisms necessary for supporting and enhancing the local economy. • Successful economic development strategies require cooperation with a variety of agencies and other groups to develop a plan that best meets the requirements of a growing community. • Successful economic opportunities rely upon the communities'ability to support and connect various elements of the economic development into an integrated framework. • Promoting an entrepreneurial climate for existing and new businesses is a key factor in strategic planning. • Providing a strong public partnership with local businesses is key to successful economic development. • Ensuring a high quality of life and the small town atmosphere is essential to addressing citizen concerns about growth and economic development. The Plan conforms with Goal IX Economy by providing infrastructure improvements to the Area that will support economic activity in the Area.The Plan also allows for assistance programs for businesses located in the Area to improve their appearance and condition, as well as financial and technical assistance for entrepreneurial business activity in the Area. These programs will help grow the economy in La Pine, provide employment opportunities,and enhance the well-being of the community. Goal X Housing Goal#1:Encourage a wide range housing types satisfying the urban development needs of the La Pine community. • It is essential to develop strategies that increase the variety of housing choices in the community. These strategies must include an inventory and analysis of needed housing types, existing housing supplies, and strategies for meeting the changing community demographic. • It is necessary to accommodate growth and provide mechanisms to ensure that a variety of housing options for all income levels are available in both existing neighborhoods and new residential areas. • It is necessary to encourage development and redevelopment of residential areas to make them safe, convenient, and attractive places to live and located close to schools, services, parks, shopping and employment centers. • La Pine desires to encourage and sustain affordable housing while protecting the physical characteristics of land relating to the carrying capacity of the land, drainage, natural features, and vegetation. La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 19 July 23, 2014 Goal#4:Promote and protect neighborhood qualities that reflect the small town appeal of La Pine and improve compatibility between various uses. • Compatibility standards are effective tools for making sure neighborhood uses are consistent with community goals and design standards. • The La Pine community demands a quality living experience for all residents and multi- family developments. Thus, site plans for multi-family developments or attached single-family housing are required to provide for adequate yard space for residents and play space for children which have distinct area and definite shape, appropriate for the proposed use, and are not just the residue left after buildings are designed and placed on the land. It is necessary for the public health and safety of the community to monitor and manage neighborhood uses. • The La Pine community desires to preserve,protect, and strengthen the vitality and stability of existing neighborhoods while permitting uses that make neighborhoods more "complete" and reduce vehicle miles traveled. • Multi-modal access should be provided internally and to adjacent new and existing neighborhood developments. • Higher density developments should be in close proximity to schools, services,parks, shopping, employment centers, and public transit. • Areas developed or designated for multi-family development should be compatible with adjoining land uses and not detract from the character of existing residential areas. • The location of most multi-family housing will be best suited near the City core, major transportation corridors, schools, services,parks, shopping, employment centers, and transit corridors. Goal#5:Promote quality affordable housing and recognize that lack of affordable housing is an economic issue negatively affecting the vitality and sustainability of La Pine. • Affordable housing should be available for all income levels in the community. This issue affects all citizens because the economic health of the community is tied to providing greater choices in housing types. • It is necessary for the public health, safety, and economic values of the community to improve awareness of affordable housing problems and to encourage affordable housing for all income levels. • A lack of particular housing choices create traffic congestion as people commute from one community to another, increase costs for businesses related to employee travel time, employee absences, unnecessary street expansions and parking demand, reduced mobility for certain disadvantaged groups, and unnecessary community subsidy to remedy these and other impacts. Goal#6:Recognize that addressing the housing needs of the community is essential to the successful future of La Pine as desirable place to live, work, shop, and play. • Strategies to improve the type and range of housing choices in the community must be based upon careful examination of demographic data, trends, and local demands. La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 20 July 23, 2014 • The vitality of the City depends not just on the health of one aspect of housing but preferably by taking a systemic approach to growth and development,preservation and continuity. The Plan conforms with Goal X Housing by providing streetscape improvements will help create a sense of identity and provide a pleasant atmosphere for living in the Area and in the city of La Pine. A project in the Plan is the development of open space in mixed-use developments in the Area. Chapter XI Energy Conservation Goal# 1: Create an arrangement and density of land uses to encourage energy conservation. • The City will seek ways to require and will encourage the further development of sidewalks, trails and other bike and pedestrian paths. • The City shall increase the efficiency of all City operations where possible. The Plan conforms with Goal XI Energy Conservation 1 by providing infrastructure improvements that will help facilitate development of properties within the Area that will create a more compact retail core,encourage different types of transportation, and support the development of mixed-use properties in the Area. Chapter XII Urbanization Goal#1:It is expected that Forest and Agricultural lands within the City limits will be converted to urban uses. Goal#2: Land within the City limits is adequate to serve as the La Pine Urban Growth Boundary unless special circumstances are identified and established as reasonable and supportable. • At such time as a transfer of land from the Bureau of Land Management to a government agency(City of La Pine or Deschutes County) occurs along the southwest City boundary, the use of such lands for rodeo facilities shall be examined. The City desires such land to be included within the City limits, with future administration of the lands and facilities used as rodeo grounds to be determined by mutual agreement of the City and the La Pine Park and Recreation District. The Plan conforms with Goal XII Urbanization by providing programs and infrastructure improvements to the Area,which lies within the current Urban Growth Boundary and is the downtown core of La Pine. This will help maximize the efficient use of land by encouraging more intense uses on lands already developed or designated for urban development, and will help keep the urban pattern compact.There is also a project in the Plan to assist with the future development of the BLM property into a Rodeo/Event site. La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 21 July 23, 2014 B. La Pine Zoning Ordinance The Plan conforms to the La Pine Zoning Ordinance as all projects envision the present zoning of properties. The Plan also conforms to the Deschutes County Zoning Code, Title 18 for the property that is outside the city limits. C. La Pine Corridor Plan The La Pine Corridor Plan(Corridor Plan)was adopted in July 2011.The Corridor Plan addresses multi-modal and capacity needs for the downtown La Pine corridor between 1St Street and 6th Street. Key study findings are: Frequent pedestrian and bicycle crossings occur at the US 97/First Street intersection throughout the course of the day. There are no delineated pathways or crosswalks at the intersection and field observations reveal frequent "near misses"between the pedestrians and oncoming traffic. This situation is further compounded by high vehicular speeds from southbound traffic entering the city from the rural segment of US 97. Many of the existing intersections along US 97 intersect the highway at a skewed angle, which make pedestrian crossings and turning onto and off of the highway difficult. There are continuous sidewalks on the eastside of US 97 but not on the west. The presence of multiple driveways along the corridor presents conflicts between pedestrians and turning motorists. There are no bicycle lanes along US 97 so cyclists must share the road or walk their bicycles along the sidewalk. The Isf Street--Reed Road, Huntington Road, Finley Butte, and 6th Street intersections with US 97meet minimum volume thresholds for the installation of a traffic signal today. Although the highway has five-lanes in areas of the downtown core, the curb-side lanes are primarily for used for passing or decelerating maneuvers. The wide striped shoulder toward the north end of the City serves as a deceleration area. This wide cross-section makes pedestrian and bicycle crossings of the highway difficult and provides a level of discomfort for those walking or cycling alongside the highway. La Pine is planning for significant industrial and employment growth on the east side of the city during the next twenty years. This growth will further exacerbate the multimodal connectivity and capacity needs near the US 97/First Street intersection. This growth will also require multimodal connectivity on city streets that parallel US 97 to provide residents with non-highway options to access their homes and jobs. The Plan conforms to the Corridor Plan as there are streetscape improvements identified as a project in the Plan. These improvements will help address some of the deficiencies identified in the Corridor Plan, including pedestrian and bicycle deficiencies. La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 22 July 23, 2014 D. La Pine Transportation Systems Plan The La Pine Transportation Systems Plan(TSP)was completed in October 2013. The TSP tended to provide the City, County and ODOT with guidance for operating and improving a multirnodal transportation system within the La Pine Urban Growth Boundary.The TSP focuses on priority projects, policies and programs for the next twenty years but also provides a vision for longer term projects that could be implemented should funding become available.The TSP is intended to be flexible to respond to changing community needs and revenue sources over the next twenty years and will be updated every 5—7 years. Key projects identified are: Pedestrian Projects All roadway upgrades within the City of La Pine should include pedestrian facilities, as specified in the street design standards, to create a network of continuous sidewalks that enable residents to travel via walking. Priority for pedestrian projects should be given to: Providing pedestrian access across US 97 within Wickiup and downtown La Pine. Creating a connected trail system between the downtown and Wickiup,particularly along the west side of the highway where the majority of developable lands are located. Considering pedestrian connectivity for recreational trips, such as those to existing and planned parks and trails. Bicycle Projects A network of continuous bicycle facilities, whether they are bike lanes or shared-use paths, should be developed to encourage bicycling as a form of transportation within the City. Improving bicycle facilities and connectivity will provide more opportunities for bicyclists of all abilities to travel throughout the City. Priority for bicycle facility improvements projects should be given to: Providing east-west connections within the Cagle subdivision where roadways are currently unpaved. Providing trail system connectivity between the downtown and Wickiup,particularly along the west side of the highway where the majority of the developable lands are located. The Plan conforms to the Transportation Systems Plan as there are streetscape improvements identified as a project in the Plan. These improvements will help address some of the deficiencies identified in the Transportation Systems Plan, including pedestrian and bicycle deficiencies. La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 23 July 23,2014 REPORT ACCOMPANYING LA PINE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN Adopted by the City of La Pine July 23,2014 Ordinance No. La Pine Urban Renewal Area Elaine Howard Consulting,LLC Elaine Howard ECONorthwest Nick Popunek Tessa Krebs Rob Wyman Jeannette Launer,Legal Counsel Leslie Vanden Bos,Editor Elaine Howard Consulting,LLC www.elainehowardconsulting.com office: 503.635.2783 cell: 503.975.3147 el aine @elainehowardconsulting.com TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 2 EXISTING PHYSICAL.SOCIAL.AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND IMPACTS ON MUNICIPAL ERVICE 4 PHYSICAL CONDITIONS 4 LAND USE 4 ZONING AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIONS 5 INFRASTRUCTURE:EXISTING CONDITIONS 7 INFRASTRUCTURE 7 SOCIAL CONDITIONS 9 ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 11 TAXABLE VALUE OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE AREA 11 BUILDING TO LAND VALUE RATIO 12 IMPACT ON MUNICIPAL SERVICES 13 1MSONS FOR SELECTION OF EACH URBAN RENEWAL AREA IN THE PLAN 13 THE RE..,.'TIONS,_IP BET EEN U.'BAN RE _WAL PR• E TS AND ,E EXISTIN CONDITIONS IN THE URBAN RENEWAL AREA 14 A. STOREFRONT LOANS/GRANTS 14 B. DISTRICT IDENTITY/TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS 14 C. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS TO SUPPORT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 15 D. PUBLIC FACILITIES/INFRASTRUCTURE 16 E. DEBT SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION 16 F. PROPERTY ACQUISITION 16 THE ESTIMATED TOTAL COST OF EACH PROTECT AND THE SOURCES OF MONEYS TO PAY SUCH CO. S 17 TH ;NTICIP'TED COMPLET •N DA FOR EA PRO ECT 18 THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF TAX INCREMENT REVENUES REOUIRED AND THE A TICIPAT .D YEAR IN WHI H IN I EBTEDNE WILL BE LETIRED 22 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE PLAN ... 26 IMPACT OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING .,, 22 COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY LIMITS ON ASSESSED VALUE AND SIZE OF URBAN RENEWAL AREA 34 RELOCATION REPORT 34 Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 1 INTRODUCTION The Report on the La Pine Urban Renewal Plan(Report)contains background information and project details that pertain to the La Pine Urban Renewal Plan(Plan).The Report is not a legal part of the Plan, but is intended to provide public information and a basis for the findings made by the City Council as part of its approval of the Plan. The Report provides the information required in ORS 457.085(3).The format of the Report is based on this statute.The Report documents not only the proposed projects in the Plan,but also documents the existing conditions in the La Pine Urban Renewal Area(Area). The Report provides the analysis required to meet the standards of ORS 457.085(3), including financial feasibility. However,the Report provides only guidance on how the urban renewal plan might be implemented.As the urban renewal agency reviews revenues and potential projects each year,they have the authority to make adjustments to the assumptions in this Report. They may allocate budgets differently, adjust the timing of the projects, decide to incur debt at different timeframes than projected in this Report,and make other changes, as allowed in the amendments section of the Plan. Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 2 M i L obi 2 u ed ate 11 Q z moo, m �; Z ix a19 I W I I-• •uII1U1 a .. g a 1 o ... . 1 a1aio r NI O I uId el euld el • A .. 'dilimminti UM/1..IpN ..__NNWMM�M MN nNMNsMMMNNMt oo on;ny550O ao sootosoa� pomp : poleio&JO aulU n y;, 1 cts A co am l ■1 \ \ a ) w EXISTING PHYSICAL, SOCIAL, AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND IMPACTS ON MUNICIPAL SERVICES This section of the Report describes existing conditions within the La Pine Urban Renewal Area and documents the occurrence of"blighted areas," as defined by ORS 457.010(1). Physical Conditions Land Use According to data obtained from the City of La Pine and Deschutes County Assessor's office,the Area, shown in Figure 1 above, contains 194 parcels and consists of 498.02 acres and 79.11 acres of public right-of-way,for a total size of 577.13 acres, 262.50 of which is in the city of La Pine. An analysis of property classification data from the City of La Pine and Deschutes County Assessment and Taxation database was used to determine the land use designation of parcels in the Area.Within the Area,the largest use of land is Exempt(67%of total acreage).This includes the parcel that is presently owned by the Bureau of Land Management(BLM) and outside the city limits. Commercial—Vacant(12%of total)is the next largest category, followed by Commercial— Improved with 9%of the Area. Table 1—Existing Land Use of Area 1=11111111111111111111M1-- _ Acreage % of Total Acreage 3 � Industrial 3.98 0.80% Commercial Partially Exempt 2 0.55 0.11% Commercial Improved 73 44 03 9 61.66 12.38% Commercial Vacant 22.... Misc Commercial Improved 2.47 0.50% .... ._m .._...____. Manufactured residential 4 13.44 2.70% Manufactured structure 1 37 0.48% 2 State Responsibility 2 1.10 Misc. 2 0.02 0.00% Tract 54 31.475_.._.. _.._. .... Multi Family.... -.. 1 0.766 0.15% Exer (t ..... .. ....�._ l 21 67.50%J_.. 336 163 . . _ .- ......_. Total 194 498.02 100 0 00 ° Source: Deschutes ..._ ..... ... .... County Assessor Data Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 4 Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designations The zoning code establishes districts to control land use throughout the city and regulates development standards within these established use districts. As illustrated in Table 2a, the large majority(62%)of the Area is zoned as Public Land.This is followed by Traditional Commercial, which is approximately 25% of the Area.Aside from public land,the vast majority of the land is zoned Traditional Commercial,and includes 182 of the 194 parcels. Table 2a—Existing Zoning Plan Designations of Area % of Total Zoning Parcels Acreage Acreage Traditional Commercial 182 122.47 24.59% Forest Use 1 _._._..._.._...___........_...._.___..._ ._..__...._.._._..__..._...___..._....._...._.__._.�._....._. 9 20.36 4.09% Public Facility � 1 8.38 i 1.68% Master Plan Re ._,__.... 1 37.21 7.47% Public LandBLM 1 309.60 62.17% Total 194 498.02 100.00% Source: Deschutes County Assessor Data As illustrated in Table 2b, the large majority(62%)of the Area has a Public Land comprehensive plan designation.This is followed by Traditional Commercial,which is approximately 24%of the Area. Aside from public land,the vast majority of the land is zoned Traditional Commercial, and includes 179 of the 194 parcels.These can be seen in Figure 2. Table 2b—Existing Comprehensive Plan Designations of Area e....... p Parcels Acreag� %Acres e of Total Cant prehns�vc Plan g' Traditional Commercial 179 117.91 23.67% Open Space and Park __......m_ ..�._..._..._.4.56 0.92% J..._.........._...._.__. ._....... - __% Mixed e n p Mix ......_._..._.__._...__..__.... __._..__.,._._...._._ Use 10 57.57 11.56% 1..... ...,_...._.. I Public Facility . . . ...........__..._..........._._.....____1_ 8.388 1.68%._......._...__.....m._....._...—._._._... Public LandBLM 1 309.60 62A7% _....___._.._......_...._..�,...,.._.,._..._..__.._._.— .._._._.___._... . __-- _......._,._._.__..._.-- ....,.w._._ Total 194 498.02 100.00% Source: Deschutes County Assessor Data Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 5 in I ', 1 u 01Xi : Iti ,! o 8 g 8 .3. 0 , -•a ct -a 0 - a v ia "a 2 —9 1 y ct m d a Ts -Ekl II a, PG cd rah y x i 4 %�' r r '''''"°^:''''''''Xiti,'+'..',''',;:':g,.1,.:;',4d,TV:AA,;.:„.„.. ......,„,..,„„s.,,,.,.. ,......,,..,,,.,....,.., N.,.... ,,,,.., bD k - ry l d"..'..Z1.41.1.. ..:'f el o x rrN t M i 0. viol :'uId 171 aL' el • ) Low; MMMRMIRM1YMwaxftr. "NwMMMMMMIIIM'MRMMMaWf�MMSM!IMM '�.._...aMMMMMMII� pe� cc1nyacbe i a;� catnyaca�g •,.. ppyslcRdraauiu( pa�s2odReutu� 0 E I I ta •a • rea IR as .__..__ ._____!A ' wMxMXRRrMRwwMAlI 1 1 rm. U es co ei w • Infrastructure: Existing Conditions Infrastructure The streets within the Area have the following classifications, as identified in the La Pine Transportation Systems Plan(TSP): Highway 97 Highway Huntington Road Downtown Arterial/Arterial Morson Street Downtown Arterial 4th Street Major Collector 3rd Street Major Collector/Minor Collector 6th Street Minor Collector All other streets are local streets. This section of the study identifies the existing deficiencies in the infrastructure in the Area.The street conditions information is from the TSP.This does not mean that a project has been identified in the urban renewal plan to address each deficiency,this is solely to identify conditions that are deficiencies within the Area. 1. Streets/Sidewalks/Pathways/Bike Lanes The following deficiencies are identified in the TSP. Huntington Road needs to be improved to Downtown Arterial standards from US 97 to l't Street. South Huntington Road intersection with Highway 97 needs to be realigned. Morson Street needs to be improved to Downtown Arterial standards. 3rd Street to 6th Street needs to be upgraded to Minor Collector/Major Collector standards. 4th Street needs to be upgraded to Major Collector standards. 1st Street needs to be upgraded to Downtown Arterial standards. Intersection improvements US 97/Ashton Eaton.Blvd/ 1St Street/Reed Road US 97/Ashton Eaton Blvd/Finley Butte Road-Morson Street US 97/Ashton Eaton Blvd/6t'' Street Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 7 Safety projects US 97/Ashton Eaton Blvd/ 1st Street US 97/Ashton Eaton Blvd/Finley Butte Road-Morson Street US 97/Ashton Eaton Blvd/6th Street Huntington Road Transit system Downtown area connection for service to Bend Sidewalks Highway 97/Ashton Eaton Blvd has sidewalks on the east side, but not continuous sidewalks on the west side of the street from 6th Street to 1st Street. Huntington Road has non-continuous sidewalks. 3rd Street has sidewalks on a single side from Huntington to Highway 97/Ashton Eaton Blvd and no sidewalks west of Huntington Road. st Street has sidewalks on a single side in some portions. 4th Street has sidewalks on both sides from Huntington to Highway 97/Ashton Eaton Blvd and no sidewalks west of Huntington Road. The Area would benefit from numerous types of sidewalk and streetscape improvements, from repaving, to constructing new sidewalks where they do not exist, to clearly identifying crosswalks. The condition of the sidewalks and the lack of bike lanes are factors of blight in the Area. Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 8 2. Water Most water lines in the Area were constructed in 2001 and are in good condition. There are some areas that could benefit from an increased number of fire hydrants. Information for the La Pine Rural Fire District in May 2014 is shown below. The goal for the amount of water flow for fire flow is 3,500 gallons per minute (gpm) for common commercial areas. Not all of the commercial area in La Pine meets this gpm. For example,the flow at Ace Hardware is only 2,076 to 2,405 gpm. The water system booster fire pumps are not operational nor are they automatic. For each 1,000 required gpm in the business district,there should be a fire hydrant within 250 feet. Deficiencies in this are in the following locations: • South County Service Center needs 1 more on E side of 97 (has 1 on Huntington) • City Hall needs 1 more(has 1 on Huntington and 6th) • Shop smart needs I more on E side of 97 (has 2 on Huntington) • La Pine Dental Center needs 1 on E side of 97 • High lakes feed area needs 1 more on E side of 97 (has 1 on Finely Butte) • Aspen Alley needs 2 on E side of 97 • Los 3 Caballeros/Whispering Pines needs 1 on east side of 97 • La Pine Square needs 2 on E. side of 97 • Industrial Warehouse on Bluewood place needs 3 • Strip malls on Bluewood Court need 1 more(has 1 in cul-de-sac) 3. Storm Water The storm water system in the Area needs significant improvement. There is no complete storm water system in the Area. 4. Sanitary Sewer Sanitary sewer lines that are in good condition exist throughout in the Area. 5. Parks Heritage Park is located at the corner of 1st from Huntington to Munson. 6. Conditions of Buildings A quick visual survey shows buildings that are in need of façade improvements. Social Conditions Of the 194 parcels in the Area, only 10 are recorded as mixed-use that could include residential use, and these account for 11.56% of parcels in the Area.The 2010 census data is used,below,to describe the social conditions within the Area. As of the 2010 census,there were 1,653 people in La Pine. Age The age distribution of the Area is shown in Table 3.The majority of the population in the Area is between the ages of 15 and 44, and over 87%of the Area is younger than 60 years old. Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 9 Table 3—Age Distribution of Area Age Bracket Population 0 to 17 years 22.40% 18 to 24 years 6.80% 25 to 44 years 22.50% 45 to 64 years 30.40% 65 and older 17.80% Total 100% Source: US Census 2010 Race The racial characteristics of the Area are shown in Table 4. The majority of people(93.5%)identify themselves as white and the second largest group(1.8%)that people identify with is"some other race."Hispanic or Latino of any race account for 5.8%of the population. Table 4—Racial Characteristics of the Area Race Population White alone 95.84% Black or African American alone _..._..._...,,....,.__....-._,. ___...�....... 0.09% American Indian and Alaska Native alone 1.28% Asian_._..__..__..........-.....,__..__.,..._.,.._....w._.............___..,...._............__.._.._-...._._......__ .... 0.24% Pacific Islander 0.10% Some other race alone 0.55% Two or more races_.._............_._.,_...,.._....__....,..,...,_.... ..-......_.,__....._...., _..�_.._. 1.90% Total ..__._._____......__.____........__.._.... ......_ ,_,.__ 100% Source: US Census 2010 Income The median income for a household in the area is $29,859, and the median income for a family is$33,938. Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 10 Population In the last few years, La Pine has remained stable in population. This change is typical of readjustments performed by the Portland State University Population and Research Center after reviewing the 2010 Census data. Table 5—Population in La Pine Year Population % Change 2010 1,660 0.60% 2011 1,670 0.00% _... 2012 __._...__........____..._._......._...___.___. 1,670 0.00% 2013 1,670 0.00% Source: Portland State University Population Research Center Economic Conditions Taxable Value of Property Within the Area The estimated 2013/2014 total assessed value of the real property in the Area is $26,466,444.The Deschutes County Assessor has recommended to apportion a share of the total citywide utility value in the same proportion as the ratio of real property real market value in the Area to real property assessed market value in the City(3.97%), for an estimated utility value of$1,082,274. The Assessor did caution that the personal property values may end up higher, so the boundary was adjusted to allow for the chance that the values of the personal properties are higher than estimated. The total estimated value of personal property in the Area is estimated at$1,257,672. This is based on calculating the share of personal property within the city and using that same percentage as a factor for the Area(4.62%). The total estimated assessed value, including all real, personal, and utility properties, is$28,945,892. This data is summarized in Table 6. Table 6—Total Estimated Assessed Value Property Urban Renewal % Factor Type Area Citywide Used to Apportion Real $26,466,444 $114,364,898 Personal 1,257,672 5,278,720 4.62% Manufactured 139,502 585,520 .51% Utility 1,082,274 4,542,537 3.97% Total $28,945,892 $124,771,675 Source: Deschutes County Assessor's data If an urban renewal plan is adopted,the Deschutes County Assessor will calculate the frozen base using tax accounts for all of the real, personal,manufactured, and utility properties in the Area.The Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 11 total assessed value of the City of La Pine is $124,771,675.' Using the figures in this Report,the Urban Renewal Area's estimated assessed value equals 23.20%of the total assessed value of the City. Building to Land Value Ratio An analysis of property values can be used to evaluate the economic condition of real estate investments in a given area.The relationship of a property's improvement value(the value of buildings and other improvements to the property)to its land value is generally an accurate indicator of the condition of real estate investments.This relationship is referred to as the"Improvement to Land Ratio," or"I:L."The values used are real market values. In urban renewal areas,the I:L may be used to measure the intensity of development or the extent to which an area has achieved its short- and long-term development objectives.A healthy condition of real estate investment in the Area would be 3:1 or more. An important fact to note about Table 7 is that there are 59 parcels with no improvements on them. These are vacant parcels that account for 83.91 acres of underutilized land that are located within the urban renewal area. There are also 24 parcels that are presently non-taxable, accounting for 346 total acres. In general, there is a very low I:L ratio in the Area. Over 97% of the Area(even excluding the Rodeo site)does not achieve the desired ratio of 3:1 or better. Table 7—I:L Ratio of Parcels in the Area I' % of % of total acreage I:L Ratio Parcels Acreage Total except Acreage Rodeo Not Taxable 24 345.63 69.40% 19.71% No Improvements 59 83.91 16.85% 44.21% 0.01 -0.50 37 20.65 4.15% 10.88% 0.51 - 1.00 34 22.23 4.46% 11.71% 1.01 - 1.50 21 10.93 2.19% 5.76% 1.51 -2.00 7 6.71 1.35% 3.54% 2.01 -3.00 6 4.09 0.82% 2.15% 3.01 -4.00 3 2.851 0.57% 1.50% 4.01 - 5.00 2 0.86 0.17% 0.45% >5.0 1 0.16 0.03% 0.08% Total 194 498.02 100.00% 100.00% Source: Deschutes County Assessor Real Market Value data 'Data from Deschutes County Assessor's 2012-13 tax roll summary Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 12 Impact on Municipal Services The fiscal impact of tax increment financing on taxing districts that levy taxes within the Area (affected taxing districts) is described in the Section on Impact of Tax Increment Financing of this Report. This subsection discusses the fiscal impacts resulting from potential increases in demand for municipal services. The projects being considered for future use of urban renewal are primarily district identity/transportation, business improvement/development, and public facilities projects.The use of urban renewal funding for these projects allows the City to match other funding sources to actually construct the improvements. It also allows the City to tap a different funding source besides the City of La Pine's general funds to make these improvements. It is anticipated that these improvements will catalyze development on the adjacent undeveloped and underdeveloped parcels.This development will require city services. As the development will be new construction or redevelopment, it will be up to current building code and will aid in any fire protection needs. These impacts will be countered by providing transportation funding for vital connections to La Pine and major parcels of undeveloped and underdeveloped land.This land will provide future jobs to the La Pine area and future increased tax base for all taxing jurisdictions. REASONS FOR SELECTION OF EACH URBAN RENEWAL AREA IN THE PLAN The reason for selecting the Area is to provide the ability to fund improvements necessary to cure blight within the Area. Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 13 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN URBAN RENEWAL PROJECTS AND THE EXISTING CONDITIONS IN THE URBAN RENEWAL AREA The projects identified for the Area are described below, including how they relate to the existing conditions in the Area.The projects are listed in no particular order. A. Storefront loans/grants Establish a program to allow for assistance to property owners for improvements to the facades on their properties. B. District Identity/Transportation Improvements 1. Sidewalk improvements Improve sidewalks within the Area to allow for greater access for pedestrians to the commercial district. 2. Signage: business and way-finding Support effective signage for businesses and for way-finding to allow citizens and visitors to frequent the commercial area and to know of other opportunities the La Pine community has to offer. 3. Streetscape Improve the streetscape in the Area to encourage citizens and visitors to visit the Area. Streetscape includes sidewalks, signage,trees,benches, landscaping,public art, archways, bus shelters, lighting, and other improvements to enhance the overall appearance of the Area and encourage development and redevelopment of the Area. 4. Bicycle paths Add bike paths within the Area to encourage greater access to the commercial district. 5. Gathering spaces Develop gathering spaces to add to the overall positive environment of the Area, encouraging visits to the Area by citizens of La Pine and visitors to the Area. 6. Parking Assess parking needs for the Area. Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 14 Existing Conditions: There is no funding source at the City for these programs. There will be some streetscape improvements with an Oregon Department of Transportation project, but for only a few blocks within the Area. The La Pine parks district is in charge of parks, and any gathering spaces would be coordinated with them. Bike paths and sidewalks were identified as areas of need in the Transportation Systems Plan. Signage is presently not coordinated in terms of a style or specific type. C. Planning and development assistance programs to support economic development X. Assist with development of mixed-use area Encourage development of the mixed-use area by providing amenities to help make the area more desirable. 2. Encourage/support business expansion Work with business owners to develop and redevelop properties within the Area, leveraging public investment with private investment. 3. Storefront Improvements Work with business owners to improve the overall appearance of the exteriors of their properties. 4. Support for incubator businesses Look for opportunities to help facilitate the development of new businesses within La Pine. Existing Conditions: There is no funding source at the City for these programs. Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 15 D. Public Facilities/Infrastructure 1. Rodeo/Event Site development 2. Development and redevelopment of public facilities that provide vital services (fire,police, and medical),gathering spaces, and other services for the community. 3. Upgrade/provide infrastructure as necessary to allow for the development or redevelopment of parcels within and adjacent to the urban renewal area. Existing Conditions: There is no funding source at the City for the Rodeo/Event site development. The site is totally undeveloped at this time. The City Council would decide whether there was sufficient funding for development or redevelopment of public facilities or upgrading of infrastructure in future city budgets. These are not presently in the city budget. E. Debt Service and Administration This project will allow for the repayment of costs associated with the preparation, adoption,and implementation of the La Pine Urban Renewal Plan.This includes the potential repayment of the initial planning costs for the development of the urban renewal plan. It also includes ongoing administration and any financing costs associated with issuing long-term debt,relocations,and other administrative costs. Existing Conditions: As there is currently no urban renewal program,these activities do not exist. F. Property Acquisition This project will fund willing seller/willing buyer property acquisition and assembly of key properties for redevelopment, public gathering spaces, public parking, or other use consistent with the goals and objectives of this plan. Existing Conditions: The City has general fund revenues that can be used for property acquisition. By allowing acquisition in the urban renewal plan, tax increment funds could also be used for property acquisition. Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 16 THE ESTIMATED TOTAL COST OF EACH PROJECT AND THE SOURCES OF MONEYS TO PAY SUCH COSTS The costs of the projects are shown in Table 8. The sources of funds are tax increment revenues. There will be other funding sources sought to leverage urban renewal funds. These sources include grant funds, general funds, state funding, or other sources of funding the City may identify, including private developer contributions. These figures are in nominal dollars,the cost of the dollar when spent in the future and constant dollars, the dollars in today's dollar. The actual dollars allocated to Planning and Development, District Identity/Transportation and Public Facilities/Infrastructure are roughly the same when using constant dollars. The differences in the nominal dollars is a result of how soon those dollars are spent as inflation increases the amount needed to actually complete projects in the future. For example,the District Identity category receives the largest budget allocation the earliest, over a million dollars in 2018/19. This makes the total amount look smaller, but when you compare in constant dollars,they are very similar. The allocations are the best estimates of expenditures at the time of preparation of the urban renewal plan. The urban renewal agency will be able to review the allocations on an annual basis when they prepare their budgets. Table 8a—Projects to be Completed Using Urban Renewal Area Funds Urban tJrhan Projects Renewal Renewal constant nominal dollars dollars Storefront loans $300,000 $406,700 Planning and development $1,445,000 $2,443,900 assistance District $1,200,000 $1,617,600 identity/transportation .._.__.__. 100,000 $],778,20 Public $1 0 facilities/infrastructure Parking $175,000 $341,100 Repay initial planning $30,000 $33,800 Administration. ............__.._...._. .. $212,514 $331,065 Financing...._..-_..-,._._.......__........._._._.....__.._.._...._._.__......_..�.._...._..____.. fees $45,880 $65,000 $4,508,394 $7,017,365 Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 17 THE ANTICIPATED COMPLETION DATE FOR EACH PROJECT The infrastructure projects will be scheduled as shown in the financing plan in Table 9.The other projects will be ongoing and will be completed as directed by the Urban Renewal Agency(Agency). The Agency may change the completion dates in their annual budgeting process or as project decisions are made in administering the urban renewal plan.This financing plan shows large allocations to projects in the final year.This is due to the ability to use the debt reserve funds for the bonds that have been defeased in the final year of the plan,FY2040-41. The inflation rate for project costs is 3%. Administration is allocated a 5%amount of the total annual tax increment. Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 18 cn M N .0 .0 N CO H N N N to en N 1 O N • ER ER ER ER ER ER O O LI) . to C •A co b L N .o N N r-i in r N ca C co N N O CV EA ER i ER ER ER ER O O co Ln q l N r. N p- 0 N M I I Lo .0 N O N ER ER ER ER ER ER • O O O O O O N n rn C m m N e, o .d co co M C hL N M O N N d, N S .--I N-.. o N Lzt V3 ER d3 ER ER Yr, ER QI o O C . C r fi 1 i" N a� r N N I N N m r-1 GJ /,� O W N Z cd ER ER ER ER Eft U9 7-. OO O Cr, a. co O m Ian 4 ri MN. N r• M b N n P-I O (d N M4 ER ER ER ER ER ER ER bU N N •-I r-∎ 111 r-I ld r-1 N 1-1 E.) U) {� V r. N 0 N 0 ER ER ER ER ER V3 U GR y< a. En ' .n 0 O N o ccnn 1-1...e 0 A N Rai h. 0 ER ER N-1 ER ER ER .4▪ 'O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 to C Lc) In O O O 0 0 .0 O •D •C R N a.:. .p N ---1 Oa 0 0 C') C') GL o m t. ao m m so n F a ,11 o �: o m o 0 W N .--i .--i N' l-.. 4-1 N O a u) ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ER ;. ww GC a) cat 8 Cl) C O b • 'O y o a) O m 0) • • o w o at w c G G m u • g cO t 5 Z 0 b .5 K W Gto -.. A X04 _ W iLi •1- i .5 ., .r, G -^ - a +� 5 io. i• w n e-1 6 4 w g w w tj a 0 0 o 0 0 N o N Q o CO ., o o n 0 td n CO M d H N d• Q W d' 1 M I. O N 1 EA ER 63 ER ER ER C., o Co co co t.y ef] o c'? m• ' O 6",di o R" N N N O N EA ER ER ER ER ER N t. o a a - Id di CO M N c0 N ,•D CT N di d, N Qi CE eh O eA np t--I e"I N 0 N ER ER ER ER ER ER N n o M a O t..1 c1 g m '--i N di 07 n CS N CO N t--i O N (Pr ER E9 ER ER ER g 0 o d' di en en m to en R. g a © L nl el N M b n .0 ,b N O N y ER ER ER ER ER ER QI m AD N N eA In Z N 00 N to to 'C 0 N O V = ER R. E{} u=r EiY ER E{} .i e 0 O O O dt en CJ O a b cn O d• N Q V te1 pp N. O .--I N T m CZ' e. N 10 '' N 0 in y„t N 6. P4 A HS EFf ER E{3 {A, . ER i. a s 0 N m ON e in N H VD t■ N N n N ati a ,,,z.- N N N • N 4) 0 N M W V} w3- E9 EA ER ER W 0 CI 0 •. u to G e �N O w O N m cn '= u O 7 C/3 ill CC a , * u C G y V z m p v� r 7• ■o Q o �� 0 S G R. v d 0. 4 G � .5aw = a cu eu A- G oA ,a '° E bq W w W o q w to o on 0 U CC SY p g N 55 5" E" K a Q I H . IM o: Im en N C j N o, I , c N 1 O n i . I un on i o III I.- 'w n m M m GO M 'm c°J ;� ut,vt di ;n vj va Q o o n ,m N ( I M d' :..N'.. T .4 1 N en en M I I c N I o:■ iH'. k u5 IC 1e en M N N T ,c;i ,r tot IN son P1 N N O N I iA ER T di di 69 CS '8 .= O; a O Ion r P-■ N I A I Ca I tot ER ..Et,Ni i Y! EA �y Io eJ fiery � 8 C� C) O .0; e ��--� � n N� 'o 'm en CO in O CO N 4)! V-t Hid3 df Cd 0 1-'a o C I C I T M 0 en o s = c O eft .n Efl Vg 1 Yt ca vj 0 I CI S 1 I N g QU co en 0 C �, p O N I I A I y Gt c+t on v, vs Ca 4 0 I . 0 i N e. .y-+ o n I n N M .ts n GO N k I I W E F» ER ce• di : 0 CC con O 8' U I l y, I ^C3 N 2 eu I , G IQI a a> ea d_i 161 a;... h eo. m oI b 5 : 1 K Z I 2i al ~ a °a E, I_.._ :; = no m 8 a w',n gI C O C/7 • THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF TAX INCREMENT REVENUES REQUIRED AND THE ANTICIPATED YEAR IN WHICH INDEBTEDNESS WILL BE RETIRED Table 10 shows the tax increment revenues and their allocation to loan repayments,reimbursements, debt service, and debt service reserve funds. The Area also reaches the point where revenue sharing is required to begin, as implemented by the State in ORS 457.470, and this is further described in the section of this report on Impacts to Taxing Jurisdictions. It is anticipated that all debt will be retired by FY2041-42 (any outstanding bonds will be defeased). The maximum indebtedness is$7,017,000 (seven million, seventeen thousand dollars). The estimated total amount of tax increment revenues required to service the maximum indebtedness of$7,017,000 is$8,769,858. The interest rate for the bonds is estimated at 5%and the terms of the bonds are varied, depending on time of issuance. The time frame of urban renewal is not absolute; it may vary depending on the actual ability to meet the maximum indebtedness. If the economy is slower, it may take longer; if the economy is more robust than the projections, it may take a shorter time period.The Agency may decide to issue bonds on a different schedule,and that will alter the financing assumptions.These assumptions show one scenario for financing and this scenario is financially feasible. Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 22 V M h .C73 N 1 (I) ..:1- N N pp N C) en en O C O O o Q ri Q v .r-. r v T.. N E9 V3 63 63 63 V} 64 49 V3 U3 44 49 49 CA 1n a . . N- . to N 0 0 N N 0 h fi 11"."-: 11Z. cu ° NN C)) N- iN N n r-:', nom! C N V9 V3 43 V3 63 44 N3 69 64 49 V3 63 69 a) CD 4 W . . N . N gr, N N N N tND co N (00 CO N CO N o a 0) u d l() 1100 tt j t() NN 1- r v -... .� N 49 V3 V3 64 V3 403 43 63 V3 V3 49 49 K . to 0 co, f�) 1 1 tQ ' t0 ca tD O (0 t0 N V CO C 6) N N 0 N A AAA ov... v v v... N 63 V3 63 V3 63 Vi 64 64 64 64 V3 64 69 . r - . cO 0 0 O O O 2 8 2 Qv Ta �. ....�, N 69 69 69 69 49 64 64 63 64 V) 63 49 r3 W I d' 'Q T 7 4 I I I 4744 U t- co co ao co co co w c O GC N -0 64 63 V3 69 V3 69 to 03 03 Vl 64 69 ., . t- N R N . . N ' N R R y ti h 1 ti n N 1T+ h.. n CO. •tip m CO m tD CO fn 0 p "' Nv v v.. 0 63 V3 03 69 N E4 63 69 V3 V) b9 49 b CO 00 0 C , C ' CCC '�' CU. C.O N V3 V3 69 63 V3 64 64 64 64 V3 64 V3 V con r+ -- U 60 CO co O Co-t0 N N . N 1 N N N 43 CO C LAC)N M CEO CO CCO W t-� A CO I.,-;t7 K is t: P- t: 1: o N co q O N t[ R N id CP CI V O nil Q 0 i 64 64 6g to V3 45 t9 64 69 64 V3 69 69 � ct C) te�a) Z )`"I U. E ❑ c w CO c a) v `.. 14 a LL c 0 IL U y Q," 7 ... Li M :: v 2 . • Q Cy � e " dry. ti CO p� ty tO ❑ LL .3 Zy cDEEE = O- s L) Lli LL a F2 a) d' W W `k `� d' W O m rl U 0 CCC W E .? w .1 u'-' 1.-- C D 'O 4i CO O CO N F/y►.� C m U) N — N — N CD CO C d J J J y r�, ca 'p) y C G G U LLJ � •r3) flxx.q�q�� H w 0 co c F h H H O �.y ❑ cemF it F- ❑ c/] ■■. r Co N N Co N �U) LU M U) Co 40 to in to NCO O N Co E-, T r 0 o3 c0 0 V r r r r co O N 69 63 69 69 6.9 69- 64 EF} 69. 6a 69- 64 to 6R U, N n Co CO ' ' M co CO CO co co CO N-CO co CO M M co co)- M r N Co r r r r r 0) Co Co 0)CO N Co O 0 N N N N co Cl) N E{3 69 Ea ER U3 69- U, Et EA U3 ER to U3 6R I �) ' U) U) U) 0) I 0 CM0 N N CO Co CO co co 0 0 co 0 En 0) N- Er -0 N N c0 N- In co Cl) Cl r r v Y O N ER 64 Eft ER U3 ER 6R 64 69- ER 69. 69. ER 40 0)~ ' 0) Q00) 4 N 'Er 0) ) 0) 0) cc) E0 10 N N 0) to 0) 0) O 0) N —�y 'c N` N N a)co t N Et .1- Ect 0 N co CO v Cl) r r -. r. ca co. N P-i 63 U3 ER 64 E3 63 to U3 ER 64 63 to EH 64 cd n ti� CO 1N. N 0 c•N C c) 0 N to N N O u) C) N-c0 0 Py co N N 0)CO r r r N N N r N r r a O Et N 64 U3 ER 64 Ea U3 ER 69- Ea U3 ER ER E9- 49' yy ' CO CO 0)N N aD , ' N I N N N v co 1- co co co Co c ^O co cD E^O N CO r CO e- r Y r 03 co Co CO Q N N N Co M 5 0 0 01 CO CO ed i+ N bA C." ER fA d? EA-U3 U3 ER dg 6R U3 Ea V! 63 6f> O O V I CO CO 0)N N CO ' ' n ' N N. n N co in co OrO N Co N Co N N N N Q. N c ' r N aD r Er0 EO Er�D Co o G t N Cr) cfl h7 y d N N 0 Nn N U }' U3 U3 ER 6g U3 U3 EA U3 64 U3 U3 6F} U3 44)- d, C) U A ' co M 6i M ' n ti ti ti Q. n In O N rn 0) N co 0) Co Co Co Co a) r�) Cl)Y r cn N Co r N N N A N N N " N r — w O N S ER (12). U3 d} EA U3 E3 CC 63 U3 EA- U4 U3 Et U O d 'c Q CC z cn 0 U.. 0 C) a +, W- a Q z Cl) c E � o N EU N NL N o w C to E/ O N aR C V Q C) Qm .5 V a 'a) O H a m o :E, co e" CI Z � a 8 ocn co c � 'E 0. c Z at Ct N H LJ,� to u_ 0 ' _UNNN 0 QX- W cw � 0 o a. O (/) a) D)� d c c c w W U) 'C in w W 0 ei c D +� 10 ca) O O N I, 6. c EU to co — an m c o c� Li 33 "~ z 'cn a) c c a c z ) CO U c o I- .- CD. EU -•• E T o E O ).. w qNj N LL faxt m N N N w co N S H H F H F- p E Q Q' m F .. Z Z Z I- Q a (4 N- N- n. M o) ' .. M S • In 8 4 N 4 N 4 M ti U N 4 N 64 69 44 CO 69 CO CO 64 CO CO 44 CO 64 CA z CO N.CD'- r- co ' N- ' N- O N. N pN N C)) h 0) O0) 0)) C)) C? c0 n ti 0(0 0 N N CC N N N 4 N CO CO CO 69 CO 44 49 CO 44 CO CO(f} co co CO CO N- h CO NNN Qom) N. 0) ' 0)) 00)) W M co O O 4 O O h F. 0, A _ t _M (0 4 N 64 CO CO 64 CO 44 CO CO 69 CO 69 64 449 CO 44 ' 40 41 0)ti C9 CO CO 1 ' ' CD CO CO j 1 n C9 N N N 40 C., U) (0 (C 117 N of o5 L7 D to' N N v M 8 M M =0 4 N CO 64 44 69 64 44 64 CO CO CO 44 CO CO 64 CO N- ti h CO^7 CO N. ' ' CO ' CO CD CD 4 L() 10 N N N h in N co co co N M 4 0 NCO C7 (i Cr. Cri cr Oi CJ) Q IO N - —co v 150 N (•J C9 V N CF} 64 49 69 64 CO EA CO CO 64 4:4 CO 64 FA 413 C0 10 LC) W I(�p M (per LC) i p In N N NNN Lri N ' (4 ' I))_ µ) �--+ M N 1100 O) OJ N 10 0) 0 .L1 g 4 N N N N g N y:+ CA 44 CO E)4 64 CO CO CO 40 64 64 64 CA 44 CO ' CO ' ' ' O O O O =_V V CC ,- r v N al r YS �' ..r M U) 1A N �. N N N N ��.. 4 N � 64 CO 49 CO 64 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO d .O ch , 0)) 00)) h CO O 00)) , O ' p8p a) co U (h 4 R. N N N C0 O M (y M C9 A N SC 0) 0)10 CO"D CA ai N 'ct '�t N N N N N �' NO dam) CO CO CO CO CO V)CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 69 �J Q ' CO CO O)ti M 0) CO I (p Ch CO M N C N. N O N N N N 44 �:co co co 4 cocc•• C) ti -*4 N CH CA 44 64(0 64 CO CO CH 44 64 CR CA CH 49 .a 0 CI O ❑z CD x a O Cr E z z y 0.) U C Ll C H CO CO L w N LL N LL e hE V m 6- a) )3 V c rn N (d'i O cr la f6 cod 2 o(G Z F Ct = $ a) moo"�4) q d � m � EE = fic) O 1 I1I (ALL Q' L() NNN O aw y ALL 'k o a U CO m D O C(a) O O 4 ,0 - I.. C e .L a - is 4 14 LU C Co.. H go _1_1_1 C al a 0 C E O O s.. F ❑ crF ill8z°�'zz ti ' q % °° s � � i- � � 0 a -0 cd o g a. U 8 m O E o v cn cn 0 cn 0 00 -,-, o o g C o g Q 0 Q.2 = vi `4:;.) N c� O Q N aU. ¢ Ci � U a .A m m 00 0 -O O v1 01 O1 Q1 00 c l- o �p Q1 M oo .--. . k �D 0 U "O �aa) N M N t-, r--- c=' N Q" v cd O N l `P p O VUi 0 0 O VD c�1 O v1 M v 0 0 cif 05 -o v, 0 0 69 99 s9 69 69 69 69 -o v 0 0 v 0 m o 0 O 7 H 0 0 O o y O m �o - N n U RS3, m G -. v, m m m c*i N N 41 , 4) .-� m -in .; 01 vii v al g w rte- 669 69 6m9 66'} 69 69 \° U] at -0 V 0 'd O O 4 O O .- N o t4 0 -' N M 1. 00 O vn in +� N vi M N v'> %4 vi Ui. ca oo v) 00 41 d- N o0 c - «� 0 a) 69 b9 69 69 69 69 z N .= a5 0 0 a � � QO ° ° ° N ` a Pi r q-.41 y v, Q re') o, r— U 3 Q) 00 L- r- 00 [1 M oo N a) up 0 v 00 m 0 �o N o N 0 ... a) ed Q a0i a y "� p-I > 6�9 6.9 os- b,s 6,4 6,9 W i v -cdg O r.+ O v 01 0) m 0 oio 00 o yy cd rrn ro] y N Ca o�0 O m oo rH 0 N vi N ( N 01 O a)0 1-4 - .0 'a) 0 0 d N N m 1-1 o o O b9 H`3 6R 64 69 69 b9 b�A ���yy U W ,� N c*1 7,cr, r F 0 5 '--I -1 O O O P 4 O O O O P. �„� (� cd N N N N N N N N N N L) •• -1 4-, O U 4 +� H U Ca. G4 4. fx Table 12 shows the projected incremental assessed value,projected tax rates that would produce tax increment revenues, and the annual tax increment revenues(not adjusted for under-collection, penalties,and interest). These projections of increment are the basis for the projections in Table 16. Revenue sharing is projected to be a feature of this urban renewal plan in the final year, FY 2040/41. However, if growth occurs at a faster pace,the Area will commence revenue sharing at the time required by the stature,the year after the tax increment proceeds equal 10% of the initial maximum indebtedness. Table 12a—Projected Incremental Assessed Value,Tax Rates,and Tax Increment Revenues FYF Assessed Value Frozen Base Excess Value Tax Rate 11F 2014 $ 29,727,252 $ 29,727,252 $ - 14.2205 $ - .._..__..____.._ 2015 $ 3p,916916,342 $$ 29,727,,252 $ 1,,_..._._,._,..._..._ __. ._.__... ._._.____ 189,090 14.1930 $ 2016 $ 33,366,466 $ 29,727,252 $ 3,639,214 14.0291 $ 51,055 2017 $....,.._.. .34,701,124 $ 29,727,252 ._........ 4,973,872 __.._._..,...14.0166.._._......_.._.. _ $ 699,,717 717 ............... ,089,168._.._._..._ 29,727,252 6,361,916_.... ._ 7__.._.__,.._ 8_._.._.... 2011 36 8 $ 36,089,168 13.9079 $ 88,4881 2019 $ 37,532,734 $ 29,727,252 $ 7,805,482 13.8993 $ 108,491 . 27,252 $ 9,306,792 13.6132 ..$....._.169 5.... _._...__._._...___.._._.__._..,._..._._ 1266,,695 2020 ____.. 39,034,044 $ 29,7 �..._...___.._.-- 29,727,252 $ 10,868,154 13.6131 $ 147,949 .._....__.._..__._ .._ __-,219,222 ...$ ...__,727,2—.. ._._....__.. �._...._. _ —_.....w_..__ �_.. 2021 40,595,406 $ 2022 $ 42 21 29,727,252 $ 12,491,970 13.6131 $ 170,054 2023 43,907,990 $ 29,727,252 $ 14,180,738 13.6130 $ 193,043 $ 45,664,309 $ 29,727,252 $ 15,937,057 13.6131 $ 216,953 2025 ___.._.__.......�_...___�_.�.�....._.__.,..____-..�_.–__....�..._.,.... ��_._._._... __._.__....�..._._.._._.._._.-.._�...__...._.�.__. 2026 $ __. $ 47,490,881 $ 29,727,252 $ 17,763,629 13.6131 $ 241,818 ._.,_ ._._......_.___.._.._..._..-_.�___..__._._....�__..___....__.__._._____.........__.._�. ___......__..�_�......_..... 49,390,516 $ 29,727,252 $ 19,663,264 13.6131 $ 267,678 2027 $ _._._..__..__.......�..._..._....51,366.136 V......_._..__ -----._.._....._...,..-___._._____.__. . ._.W�...._.____...___..._._._...__..._..._..__._ 29,727,252 $ 21,638,884 13.6131 $ 294,572 2028 $ 53,420,782 $ 29,727,252 $ 23,693,530 13.6131 $ 322,542 2029 $ 55,557,613 $ 29,727,252 __.....�___.._�.._..._ ._.. _._...._.._..�....__._.�_. $ 25,830,361 13.6131 $ 351,631 2030_..$..._........_.57,779,917_.._..__..°29,727,252 ....._._...__.._....._.._.__._..__�.._........------_......_._. �_._......_..._..�—.�._.._ $ 28,052,665 13.6131 $ 60 381,884 2031 $ p _.....�-_..._.___...._._._.._._... 91,114 $ 29,727,252 $ 30,363,862 13.6131 $ 413,347 I..�..,......_2032 $ 62,4 _...__�_.._..__.._. ..._.__..........._.__._.._.__ _.m_..._._.._..�._.___..__._._ 94,759 $ 29,727,252 $ 32,767,507 13.6131 $ 446,068 2033 $ 64,994,549 $ 29,727,252 $ 35,267,297 13.6131 $ 480,097 2034 $ 67,594,331 $ 29,727,252 $ 37,867,079 13.6131 $ 515,489 2035 $ 70,298,104 $ 29,727,252 $ 40,570,852 13.6131 $ 552,295 2036 $ 73,110,028 $ 29,727,252 $ 43,382,776 13.6131 $ 590,575 2037 $ 76,034,428 $ 29,727,252 $ 46,307,176 13.6131 $ 630,385 038 _..7 _..75,8__.___._._.._.._.._..__..2. 2 31....___._.__.6.__1,787 2038 $ 79,075,805 $ 29,727,252 $ 49,348,553 13.6131 $ 671,787 2039 $ 82,238,837 $ 29,727,252 $ 52,511,585 13.6131 $ 714,845 2040 $ 85,528,391 . .._.._. $ 29,727,252 $ 55 801,139 13.6131 $ 759,626 Source: ECONorthwest Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 27 Table 12b-Projected Revenue Sharing TIF 'CIF TIE EYE Total for URA Shared 2014 $0 $0 $0 2015 $0 $0 $0 ...,2O16_. µ$51,055 $51,055 ...^.Y $0 2017 $69,717 $69,717 $0 2018 $88,481 $88,481 $0 2019 $108,491 $108,491 $0 2020 $126,695 $126,695 $0 2021 $147,949 $147,949 $0 �...._......_..2022__...._.____._.__...._......_.___.__...�_...__..._._.....,._......�.__._. $170,054 $170,054 $0 2023 $193,043 $193,043 $0 2024 $216,953 $216,953 $0 2025 $241,818 $241,818 $0 2026 $267,678 $267,678 $0 2027 $294,572 $294,572 $0 2028 $322,542 $322,542 $0 2029 $351,631 ,..$351,631... ..,_,..,..._...,._$0. 2030 $381,884 $381,884 $0 2031 ...-.$413,347�...rv_$413,347 mf $0 $446,068 $446,068 $0 .............-2033 $480,097 $480,097 .._..,_._._._.�_.. $0 2034 $515,489 $515,489 $0 .....-.2035....--$552,295._......,$552,295..._.............._...._..__.._ $0 .............. .2036.... $590,575__...,._..._...__._.._____.__................_.__..n_._....... $590,575 $0 .........203._._.__.----._......__....._._._.M__._..�..._..._...._....,.._...__..,..__ 7 $630,385 $630,385 $0 2038 $671,787 $671,787 $0 2039 $714,845 $714,845 _.....,......__.._$0_., 2040 $759,626 $722,407 $37,220 Source: ECONorthwest Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 28 • co R- R.' o Rs ED m R' F-7.' ,� o 00 ,-, tea, Na d o o, o m co N n a, co N CO 00 00 N O L) o N 00 LU co N N Cr:, d4 CO 6' 00 r-4 CO In CO F"' LO n d1 .D CO t1; co .D Fr a, a, .D C) ,-i a1 d' CO, ON a\ n Lf) CO O LO^ CO 5 C` rti V Ln CO r-i U Ci '4 a\ tri N 6 xi' \4 \D \ N C∎ N QD. r-1 N r2 `r N- V vo N CO. O ,-1 N d If) N ON r-) N d 'D CO 4 N LO N O N co co co �' N N \ N N 6 00 d+ ,�-I a, Q, N 00 Q, .D O\ d 4 d r-i 10 N LC) co C7 Co a, a, d d+ a, ' d' L j CO N a, C, O d+ r-I C) co CO 'D N r-1 ON 4 10 N C, Ig U O d' C1 CO N N N N N m 0 'di ,--1 N dt ,--i 0 Ln co H O 0 00 n a, 4 FL' M. d: V lri. ,D V L•-. Cp Qi a� a "T^I N " Cr) " LC) "Us) cO w Z z z .^'",, u C7 Lri 00 O cN �N N 00 - ,D L\ — - c+7 N - d+ E� C� N N C� Lc� O Lo ON r-i CO co co co co LC) N r-i CO N C, Ln Lo 4 O .D o, a, 0 Lo O d+ ,D 'C n d c+7 n N 00 Lf) Crj N m d' N ,--, n eN co m d' N N C, 00 n d .. HLoN cvd"aONr� d+' N000 .fla ri � o �r00Nv -; Lrior-I w z A u' ,a w R.I. .-. .-, .-, crr-�, N d N 'C N N O, Q, 6-,, 00 O CO N c7 N N O N CO tl+ 'di rrm .'D A N o N .D \D at O .D N LC) N Ln N N to d' O NN D O .D N o 6, O\ r-, m n N C, n n OO r-i .D N o d cci N m N m d+ N CP O z N Q, N LO N C7 di N 0 'cM N ri LO d� 00 c) CO Cr) CO CO ON LO rti N cy E r A F w V N II U •� L © .•i r-. ,.. D O O Lc) C c'ci ,D 0 r-i 'c a, d+ N H e C Q, 00 N .D L i d Q, co Ln \ co at 00 6 N \D O LO N ON N N 00 CD CO N CO r-i O d N ,C ,-w ON CO ON CO di F. r- V CO O N IT) n 4 N 617 CO r-1 Lf) CO r-4 LO ON m n ,--I LO„ O eN O, d' to r-i CI.) O L7 v •4? z N r co Lc) 00 co 4 CO o0 4 Lo 1-1 Q CEO O o CO Q N E� LC) .D Q, 00 :. 0 0c0 r-i d' N 4 CO r-( LO C\ '.:1•1 00 CO n N 00 Cr) C, d N CO 4 N CO H f z v � � v - 0.) w g U k w F ,-, ,-, ,z E" Ln CO n 00 o LU a, CO N CT C, d' N d, [T d' a, .D o 00 \D d+ ,D W W 0 CO, a CA, CO N 0 CO 00 LO N rn-i Cl, LU O000 CO O N N 00 00 Lo N 'Nw ett .''1 W V .D. co p co Ltj N S N d+ N 0 00 .O C N Lf) ON M .O d 'cN O, Cr) .41 r- ir `" g E G.1 ° C ,w g Lw 0 ': n co- d� LC) N LU n N O Lf) 4 N O, C\ a .O C 'cN eN N , .D d, Q, w F• Ln N d+ H <N N ,D N d' NCO Lo O Cr) in d' N a N q r-I C, 00 00 ,-i N N A ;2) eN N o d1 00 c7 CO d rl CO .D in Ln u7 \p Co ,-i to a, LO N ON 00 CO d d C W CO b. V N 00. 0 rH CO Lfj .D 00 C7 N d� ,D CO ri Cr) LCj 00' , Cr1 .D C, C7 H P4 u -• z w b O a Z v UQ .-, ,-, ,-, -. -, .-, �. .-, ,-, P es • N \po, ma N O' If) C) IC) Ina, oNNR'' rnN ,� � Ga F o 00 C, a, 1-1 N N C, \D N r 4 m O 4 N CT N ,-+ .D .D 00 00 r-■ C) N N„ r a, CO N. NN00rn4Ndrynomoomood - 00 o ,l E z g N N.chi. �M. " Le .`D L�. oo. aL, C7 ,-i co d" Llj .D' CO o; O N cr] Lfj NCO a■ d+' 6) o vv � � � �� � N N � N. ,-. V to ^C U .� Cr) bA W N CO N 0 C n c 7 p C N N n D N Q 4 d N p N D o t N D D c)y •.5 >+ Ln Ln CO n C, ON V? N N d CO \D 00 ,-1 \D r I 00 CO O .D LO ON CO N CO ON C 0 w ■D m 1-1 a, 00 0 a, rti r7 nn r-, \D N O OO 00 00 0 di 00 di r� O ,-1 CO N y Ej Co r4 . ' , .O 0-0 a■ ` w v N. N N N v Cr) W U c' d' ti,:n. do \D v N Z I w O oo v CO mt ;21 W '~ .0 N CO a` 4 r-1 N CO d LO .D n Co a` 4 r-I N C0 'cM in .D N CO ON O Cl 1-1 r-1 ,-1 r1 N N N N N N N N N N CO cO m m CO n O Cr m m d V 0 O 0 0 CD 0 Q C) O d d 4 0 7 0 4 0 C) 4 0 0 CD C) o C _ 1,,, 0 {.x7 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N H H ch f IMPACT OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING This section describes the impact of tax increment financing of the new maximum indebtedness,both until and after the indebtedness is repaid, upon all entities levying taxes upon property in the urban renewal area. The impact of tax increment financing on overlapping taxing districts consists primarily of the property tax revenues foregone on permanent rate levies and local option levies as applied to the growth in assessed value in the Area.These projections are for impacts estimated through FY 2040- 41, and are shown in Tables 13a and 13b. Revenue sharing is part of the 2009 legislative changes to urban renewal and means that, at thresholds defined in ORS 457.470,the impacted taxing jurisdictions will receive a share of the incremental growth in the area. The share is a percentage basis dependent upon the tax rates of the taxing jurisdictions.The first threshold is 10%of the original maximum indebtedness.At the 10%threshold,the urban renewal agency will receive the full 10%of the initial maximum indebtedness plus 25%of the increment above the 10%threshold and the taxing jurisdictions will receive 75%of the increment above the 10%threshold. The second threshold is set at 12.5% of the maximum indebtedness, however the projections do not estimate this threshold is met. Revenue sharing is projected to commence during the final year of the 25-year life of tax increment proceeds of the Plan. The La Pine School District and the Education Service District are not directly affected by the tax increment financing, but the amounts of their taxes divided for the urban renewal plan are shown in the following tables.Under current school funding law, property tax revenues are combined with State School Fund revenues to achieve per-student funding targets.Under this system,property taxes foregone,due to the use of tax increment financing, are substantially replaced with State School Fund revenues, as determined by a funding formula at the State level.The formula for funding schools did not change in the 2012 legislative session. Dedicating efforts to maintaining a healthy downtown is one variable in a livable city. These efforts will produce spin-off economic benefits in terms of increased economic development in the area, increased jobs, and expected increases in overall populations, including the student populations in the schools.These increases in the schools'populations will bring in more funding to the schools through the per pupil funding formula. Tables 13a and 13b show the projected impacts to permanent rate levies of taxing districts as a result of this Plan. It assumes the growth as projected in the other tables in this Report, a 4%average annual growth rate in assessed value. Table 13a shows the general government levies and Table 13b shows the education levies. Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 29 Table 13b-Projected Impact on Taxing District Permanent Rate Levies Education CENTRAI. OREGON COMMUNITY I SCHOOL.DIN'RECT r'1 HIGH DESERT EST) COLLEGE SUBTOTAL TOTAL 2016 (17,338) (351) (2,258) (19,947) (49,543) 2017 (23,696) (479) (3,086) (27,261) (67,709) 2018 (30,309) (613) (3,947) (34,869) (86,606) 2019 (37,186) (752) (4,843) (42,781) (106,258) 2020 (44,339) (897) (5,774) (51,010) (126,696) 2021 (51,777) (1,048) (6,743) (59,568) (147,948) 2022 (59,513) (1,204) (7,750) (68,467) (170,054) 2023 (67,558) (1,367) (8,798) (77,723) (193,043) 2024 (75,926) (1,536) (9,887) (87,349) (216,952) 2025 (84,628) (1,712) (11,021) (97,361) (241,818) 2026 (93,678) (1,896) (12,199) (107,773) (267,680) 2027 (103,090) (2,086) (13,425) (118,601) (294,572) 2028 (112,878) (2,284) (14,699) (129,861) (322,541) 2029 (123,058) (2,490) (16,025) (141,573) (351,631) 2030 (133,646) (2,704) (17,404) (153,754) (381,885) 2031 (144,657) (2,927) (18,838) (166,422) (413,346) 2032 (156,108) (3,159) (20,329) (179,596) (446,068) 2033 (168,017) (3,400) (21,880) (193,297) (480,097) 2034 (180,403) (3,650) (23,493) (207,546) (515,490) 2035 (193,284) (3,911) (25,170) (222,365) (552,295) 2036 (206,680) (4,182) (26,915) (237,777) (590,576) 2037 (220,612) (4,464) (28,729) (253,805) (630,385) 2038 (235,102) (4,757) (30,616) (270,475) (671,788) 2039 (250,170) (5,062) (32,578) (287,810) (714,843) 2040 (252,817) (5,116) (32,923) (290,856) (722,408) Total (3,066,470) (62,047) (399,330) (3,527,847) (8,762,232) Source: ECONorthwest. Please refer to the explanation of the schools funding in the preceding section Report Accompanying the La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 31 Table 14 shows the impact of the first year of tax increment funds projected to be received in 2016 on the 2014/15 permanent rate levy of the taxing jurisdiction.The impact should be less than this chart shows because the permanent rate levy usually increases each year, so the 2016 permanent rate levy would be higher than the 2014 levy depicted. Table 14—Percent of Permanent Rate Levy 2016. tax percentage of increment permanent rate Jurisdiction 2013/14 levy revenue levy Deschutes County 23,747,378 4652 0.02% County Library 10,143,587 2002 0.02% Countywide Law Enforcement 17,520,004 3457 0.02% Rural Law Enforcement 8,381,815 5095 0.06% County Extension 4H 414,250 82 0.02% 911 2,984,946 589 0.02% City of La Pine 241,294 7024 2.91% La Pine Rural Fire District 1,797,468 5603 0.31% La Pine Parks and Rec 212,002 1092 0.52% School District#1 60,640,139 17,338 0.03% High Desert ESD 1,720,682 351 0.02% Central Oregon Community Colle e 11,070,002 2258 0.02% Source: Deschutes County Assessor records Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 32 Table 15 shows the projected increased revenue to the taxing jurisdictions after tax increment proceeds are projected to be terminated. These projections are for FY 2041/42. Table 15-Additional Revenues Obtained after Termination of Tax Increment Financing From Frozen From Expiration jurisdiction Tax Rate Base of URA Tota Deschutes County $ 1.2783 $ 38,000 $ 75,704 $ 113,704 County Library $ 0.5500 $ 16,350 $ 32,572 $ 48,922 Countywide Law Enforcement $ 0.9500 $ 28,241 $ 56,261 $ 84,502 Rural Law Enforcement $ 1.4000 $ 41,618 $ 82,911 $ 124,529 County Extension 4H $ 0.0224 $ 666 $ 1,327 $ 1,993 911 $ 0.1618 $ 4,810 $ 9,582 $ 14,392 City of La Pine $ 1.9300 $ 57,374 $ 114,299 $ 171,673 La Pine Rural Fire District $ 1.5397 $ 45,771 $ 91,185 $ 136,956 La Pine Parks and Rec $ 0.3000 $ 8,918 $ 17,767 $ 26,685 School District#1 $ 4.7641 $ 141,624 $ 282,147. $ 423,765 High Desert FSD $ 0.0964 $ 2,866 $ 5,709 $ 8,575 Central Oregon Community College $ 0.6204 $ 18,443 $ 36,741 $ 55,184 Source: ECONorthwest Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 33 COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY LIMITS ON ASSESSED VALUE AND SIZE OF URBAN RENEWAL AREA State law limits the percentage of both a municipality's total assessed value and the total land area that can be contained in an urban renewal area at the time of its establishment to 25%for municipalities under 50,000 in population.As noted below,the frozen base, including all real, personal, personal manufactured,and utility properties in the Area, is projected to be $28,945,892. The total assessed value of the City of La Pine is$124,771,675.This is 23.20% of the total assessed value,below the 25%maximum.The Urban Renewal Area has 577.13 acres, including right-of-way, and the City of La Pine has 4,474.33 acres;therefore 12.90%of the City's acreage is in an urban renewal area,below the 25%state limit.It should be noted that over 300 of these acres are the ELM parcel for a future Rodeo/Event site. Table 16—Urban Renewal Area Conformance with Assessed Value and Acreage Limits Assessed Acres Urban Renewal Area. Value La Pine Urban Renewal Area $28,945,892 ME City of La Pine $124,771,675 4,474.33 Percent of La Pine Assessed Value in Urban Renewal 23.20% IIIII Percent of La Pine Acreage in Urban Renewal Mil 12.90% Source: City of La Pine,Deschutes County Assessor RELOCATION REPORT There is no relocation report required for the Plan.No relocation activities are anticipated. Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 34 �,n, City of LA PINE <' Snapshot of Central Oregon Urban Renewal Districts Maximum Indebtedness (MI)of Central Oregon Urban Renewal Districts $140,000,000 $120,000,000 $120,717,081 $100,000,000 $80,000,000 $60,000,000 552,600,000 $40,000,000 $41,250,000 $24,695,196 $20,000,000 514' SZ1,oDD;aoD °� °> ,000,000 56,690,000 $7,01.7,000 $9'889,199 $0 a a' a 404.i a Culver La Pine Sisters Madras Bend Redmond Bend Bend Redmond Downtown Airport Juniper Murphy Downtown (Closed) (Closed) Ridge Crossing .es#0r..'",Armai."*„.....:_,.,. ,,,,, City of LA PINE Y. Urban Renewal Districts Across Oregon City Population MI ,,, ' 1; � iirt �; $15,0 v1 1. � .. Coquille 4,165 $11,000,000 , ,1.. Depot u",,',r,'' 146t $191430900 Florence 9,410 $25,900,000 4395 $1 "a�wrtaa,� � 1,040,07 �Gar1 h t `2,n s�1 � Keizer 36,150 $45,890,384 Lincoln City • • $23000,000, . North Plains 1,905 $17,112,000 Oregon City 30 •\u1 5 $130, 0,000 4 855 $14,600,000 Pheon�x C , �u,�� � a 'A� �.� ��� ` � ; � 7 25013. w , 4 Rose ' ) .,,, .,,. ,, ,, , . ;. Seaside 6,445 $13,100,000 ,, ' Sherwwad :. -,r PI $35, 47,600 Tillamook 4,700 $12,228,000 Ttr l ti&n � Y •�,U �� , $64,131,72�21 166 Wald s ort 2,145 $ 00,00 ;wa Act City of LA PINE Proposed Types of Projects to be Completed Using La Pine Urban Renewal Funds Public Facilities/Infrastructure: $1,778,200 • Assist in redevelopment of public facilities that provide vital services: Fire Station and Medical Facilities • Assist in development of gathering spaces for the community, including parks and the proposed Rodeo/Events Site Storefront Loans: $406,700 • Work with business owners to improve the overall appearance of the exteriors of their properties • Assist in signage updates to strengthen aesthetic appeal Planning and Development Assistance: $2,443,900 • Empower business owners and encourage/support business expansion through public/private partnerships: examples include a movie theater, retail stores, brewery and incubator buildings for food, retail and small business • Assist in development of mixed-use areas and foster opportunities for new businesses within La Pine MEL District Identity/Transportation: $1,617,000 • Form gateway features of Town Center and improve aesthetic/transportation features within La Pine: sidewalks, streetscapes, walkways, and bike paths • Establish an identity that promotes a sense of La Pine's character, providing a community for existing businesses and residents, and inviting visitors to bring additional commerce to La Pine Parking: $341,100 • Assess, update, and/or establish parking to support the business district as well as various gathering spaces • Create accessibility for visitors to La Pine, including adequate space for motor home visitors Administration: $331,065 • Preparation, development, adoption, and administrative implementation for the lifetime of the La Pine Urban Renewal Plan • Facilitate public involvement at various stages of La Pine Urban Renewal Financing Fees: $65,000 • Necessary to procure the combination of funds that support the La Pine Urban Renewal Plan Repay Initial Planning Costs: $33,800 • Reimburse the City of La Pine for the planning costs required to create the Urban Renewal District KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES , INC . T R A N S P O R T A T I O N E N G I N E E R I N G / P L A N N I N G 354 SW Upper Terrace Drive,Suite 101, Bend,Oregon 97702 541.312 8300 541.312.4585 POWELL BUTTE HIGHWAY/NEFF ROAD INTERSECTION Interim Report: Existing Conditions, Needs, and Alternatives Review Date. December 30, 2013 Project#: 13963.0 To: Chris Doty PE and George Kolb, Deschutes County From: Joe Bessman PE, Casey Bergh PE, Hermanus Steyn PE, and Brett Korporaal PROJECT PURPOSE County staff identified the need for safety improvements at the Powell Butte Highway intersection with Neff Road to address an increasing number of crashes. County staff have previously implemented low-cost treatments to improve visibility and driver awareness, and identified this intersection as a high priority location both in the County Transportation System Plan and in the Capital Improvement Plan. The rural area, high-speed approaches, and angle crash type contributes to the severity of crashes. The Deschutes County Transportation System Plan has previously identified this intersection as a future single-lane rural roundabout based on the roadway types and safety issues that were identified. The purpose of this analysis is to further explore a range of potential improvement options (to include low-cost interim treatments) and better identify right-of-way needs and construction costs for a final recommended alternative. This Interim Technical Memorandum provides information on the existing traffic conditions. This includes a review of historical safety, operations, and field observations. Based on the issues identified, this memorandum identifies key project needs, also identifies potential improvement alternatives to address this need. This memorandum provides a qualitative screening of the potential improvement options, and presents a recommendation that the County continue to refine the roundabout concept. BACKGROUND The Powell Butte Highway provides a connection from US 20 to OR 126 serving a mix of commuters (between Bend and Prineville), rural residential property owners, commercial traffic (rural farms and the Bend Municipal Airport), and tourists (Brasada Ranch and Pronghorn). This section of the Powell Butte Highway is under the jurisdiction of Deschutes County, and has a posted speed of 55 miles per hour. Neff Road (west of Powell Butte Highway) serves as a connection to the east side of Bend, connecting to St. Charles hospital and ultimately to 3rd Street (Business 97). Neff Road becomes Alfalfa Market Document Reproduces Poorly Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road Intersection Review (Archived) Project#:13963 December 30,2013 Page 2 Road on the east side of the Powell Butte Highway, connecting to rural communities, farms, and the Prineville Reservoir boat launch (seasonal). East-west traffic at the intersection is controlled by stop signs, with uncontrolled north-south movements on the Powell Butte Highway. An overhead flashing beacon was installed in 2011, supplementing the stop-signs for east-west travelers and providing an intersection warning for motorists on the Powell Butte Highway. Intersection Ahead signs are present around the curves on the Powell Butte Highway, and are supplemented with LED lights on the sign border that blink as motorists approach the intersection. ( tom ' N L wN is '`• mot "� 1^L, k� '°owe<< doss $ :w -4111 N vvY _ STOP 4 t wrX et Yr 4 ' x • Exhibit 1. Powell Butte Highway/Neff Road layout and control. The physical intersection layout includes both horizontal and vertical curvature. The east-west approaches intersect the Powell Butte Highway on a horizontal curve, limiting sight distance for stopped east-west vehicles of oncoming motorists. A vertical curve is present on the eastern (westbound) approach, limiting visibility to the intersection on the approach. Stop Ahead signage has been installed at the crest of the curve to improve awareness for approaching motorists. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Bend,Oregon Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road Intersection Review Project#:13963 December 30,2013 Page 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS KAI conducted field reviews, evaluated historic crash data to identify trends, collected traffic count information and speed data, and conducted intersection operations analysis at the Powell Butte Highway/Neff Road-Alfalfa Market Road intersection. The existing conditions analysis is intended to inform the overall intersection needs and support the selection of treatment alternatives. Data Collection Information was collected around the intersection to better understand the traffic flows and characteristics. Turning movement counts, average daily traffic volumes, vehicle speed, and vehicle classification data was obtained during the final week of October and the first week of November 2013. Automated tube counts were conducted over a 48-hour period on Tuesday, October 29, 2013 and Wednesday, October 30, 2013. The tube count data was used to identify the daily travel patterns and peaking characteristics of the intersection. Tube count locations were roughly 1,000 feet west of Powell Butte Highway on Neff Road and 1,000 feet south of Neff Road on Powell Butte Highway. —Powell Butte Hwy —Neff Road/Alfalfa Market Rd 500 ._ 450 400 350 300 250 E 200 150 100 s V 50 4 ¢ C Q Q ¢ ¢ ¢ Q a a cL c- d a d a a a a a 8 0 0 o © O Q d O 0 v $ $ Q d © o © a ° 8 8 8 on m 4 �i rn n 66 vi O ri ri fV m Lc; cIl N. 66 an o «� r-1 H r1 t-1 Time Exhibit 2. Two-way roadway volume profiles. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Bend,Oregon Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road Intersection Review Project#:13963 Page 4 December 30,2013 As illustrated in Exhibit 2,the volume profile indicates that traffic flows peak twice per day(during the morning and evening commute periods), and traffic on the Powell Butte Highway is two to three times higher than Neff Road. Vehicle classification data was obtained from the tube counts to identify the fleet mix passing through the intersection. Vehicles are classified from the tube counts based on the number and spacing of tires and axles. A simplified summary of the classification data is provided in Table 1. Table 1.Vehicle Classification Data Classes 2,3, and 4 Classes 5,6, (Passenger and 7 Class 8+ Class 1 cars and (Delivery (Tractor Roadway (Motorcycles) buses) Trucks) Trailers) Not Classed Powell Butte Hwy 0.4% 83.8% 11.5% 1.5% Neff Road 0.1% 88.0% 9.3% 1.9% 0.7% As shown, the fleet mix is largely comprised of passenger cars and delivery trucks. Only about 2 to 3 percent of the vehicles using the Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road are tractor trailers. The profile of recorded speeds on the intersection approaches are shown in Exhibit 3. Most people are traveling near the posted speed limit of 55 miles per hour, though upper travel speeds were recorded above 76 miles per hour. 25/0 20% I CD d� 99 � > 15% yr 10% O 5% O/o .: 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 76+ Speed (Miles Per Hour) Exhibit 3. Powell Butte Highway speed profile. Bend,Oregon Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road Intersection Review Project#:13963 December 30,2013 Page 5 The 85th percentile speed is the travel speed at which 85 percent of the vehicles are traveling at or below. This metric is used in Oregon to establish the posted roadway speeds. Vehicle speeds along the Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road are summarized in Table 2. It should be noted that the location of the tube counts near the intersection (where motorists may be decelerating to turn or slowing out of caution) may have an influence on speeds. Table 2.Summary of Directional Travel Speed Roadway Direction 8Sth Percentile Speed Powell Butte Highway 56 mph SB 54 mph Neff Road EB 49 mph WB 48 mph Note:Speed calculations reflect the average over the two-day study period. The intersection was also videotaped throughout the day, and the individual turning movement counts were obtained from the videotapes during the peak periods identified from the tube counts (6:45 a.m. to 8:45 a.m. and 4:10 p.m. to 6:10 p.m.). Exhibits 4 and 5 identify the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour turning volume.Appendix "A"contains the data collection worksheets and summaries. AM 40 116 2 Pt 22 178 9 •L It• 4I Nt /14 —± 11 28 —± 6 9 - -- 80 54 4_ 28 \\I — vil— 77 8 *c*-- 49 47 r' +1 r' 4 114 9 4 124 94 Exhibit 4. Weekday AM Peak Hour Turning Exhibit 5. Weekday AM Peak Hour Turning Volume Volume Field Review Kittelson & Associates, Inc. and Deschutes County staff conducted a field visit to observe existing operations, geometry, and driver behavior during the weekday afternoon peak hour and morning peak hour in October 2013. Appendix "B" contains the photos at each approach of the intersection Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Bend,Oregon Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road Intersection Review Document wRepro es poorly Project#:13963 December 30,2013 (Archived) Page 6 obtained during the field visit. The following observations were recorded that appear to influence safety and operations at the intersection: • Horizontal and vertical curvature on the northern approach limits sight distance (See Exhibit 6). • An overhead beacon has been installed at the intersection to warn drivers of the intersection. • Advanced intersection ahead warning signs with Light Emitting Diode (LED) borders are installed on the northbound and southbound approaches. • A crest vertical curve on the eastern approach, approximately 250 feet east of intersection, limits sight distance for westbound drivers. A STOP AHEAD warning sign with LED borders is located on the approach near the crest of the vertical curve. • Some eastbound through drivers were observed aligning their vehicles at a 90-degree angle to Powell Butte Highway. Drivers are able to increase sight distance by orienting their vehicle in this manner. • The super-elevation on Powell Butte Highway allows northbound and southbound vehicles to travel at or above posted speed through the intersection. Limited view to north � Y le 4l Exhibit 6: Eastbound Approach at Powell Butte Highway Looking North Kittelson&Associates,Inc- Bend,Oregon Powell Butte Highway and Neff Rood Intersection Review Project B.13963 December 30,2013 Page 7 Sight Distance Review A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 6th Edition, published by the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO), provides guidance on minimum sight distance. A comparison of the AASHTO-computed intersection sight distance (ISD), AASHTO stopping sight distance (SSD), and available sight distance for vehicles on the stop-controlled eastbound and westbound approaches is summarized in Table 3. The values in the table are based on the posted speed. Table 3.AASHTO Intersection Sight Distance Review Design AASHTO AASHTO Available Speed for Stopping Intersection Intersection Vehicle Passenger Sight Sight Sight Movement Vehicle Distance Distance? Distance Adequate? Eastbound Left- Turn 610 ft 600 ft No Eastbound Right- I 530 ft 550 ft i `J isM ai". Turn/Crossing Westbound Left- I' s, Turn 610ft 650ft '«: >" Westbound Right- 55 mph 495 ft r turn/Crossing 530 ft 630 ft Yes Northbound Left- turn 445 ft 560 ft Southbound left- turn 445 ft 600 ft Mill 1 Based on AASHTO(6th Edition)Table 3-1,Stopping in Sight Distance on Level Roadways. 2 Based on AASHTO(6th Edition)Table 9-6,Table 9-8, and Table 9-14. As indicated in Table 3, available sight distance to the north exceeds the AASHTO-computed ISD by approximately 20 feet for the eastbound right-turn/crossing movement. Available sight distance to the south for the eastbound left-turn is 10-feet less than the AASHTO-computed ISD. When a vehicle on Powell Butte Highway exceeds the posted speed, or a truck is turning or crossing at the intersection,the available sight distance will not be adequate. AASHTO-computed SSD is provided for all movements, indicating a vehicle on the uncontrolled approach could stop if they see a vehicle turning or crossing in front of them at least 495 feet in advance of the intersection. This assumes that drivers with the right-of-way adequately perceive the conflict and begin braking within the two-second period considered typical. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Bend,Oregon Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road Intersection Review Project#:13963 8 December 30,2013 Traffic Operations Traffic counts were collected in late October so a seasonal adjustment factor of 1.07 was applied to the through volumes on the Powell Butte Highway to reflect peak summer conditions. The seasonal adjustment factor was calculated based on the methodology identified in ODOT's Analysis Procedures Manual (APM) and reflects seasonal variations on OR 126 near mile post 3.23 (approximately 0.35 miles west of the Deschutes-Crook County Line). Appendix "A" includes seasonal adjustment factor calculations. Intersection operations were based on Highway Capacity Manual 2000 methodology using Synchro 8 software.The existing traffic conditions are summarized in Exhibits 7 and 8.The intersection operates with low delays at Level of Service "B" on the stop-sign controlled approaches during the a.m. and p.m. peak-hours. rf.; d l c c me I.moinasso 114 is-, CM=WB 1`t0 CM=EB Los.CRITICAL � 30�' �os�s �s LOSS 4--85 10 Dek14.7 +-5�0 �6 De�1 i7 80 DQI ORMCAl-M�CONTROL DELAY vic=023 V/C�.37 ti t r ,I C ► VOLUME- ACitY FATio t r Exhibit 7. Existing seasonal Exhibit 8. Existing seasonal peak conditions, weekday AM peak conditions,weekday PM peak hour peak hour Historical Crash Analysis Historical crash data was obtained from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) crash database for the Powell Butte Highway/Neff Road-Alfalfa Market Road intersection. The crash data includes crashes reported over a five-year period from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2012. Appendix "C" contains the crash data, worksheets, summaries and the predictive crash analysis output. A total of 20 crashes were reported at or within the immediate vicinity of the intersection that resulted in 19 total injuries. No fatalities were reported within the past five years that were reviewed. The incidence of crashes has been increasing annually, as shown in Exhibit 9. Bend,Oregon Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road Intersection Review Project#:13963 December 30,2013 Page 9 Crashes By Year 8 7 v 6 5 E 5 t 4 2 ii a � • 2 I 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012. Year Exhibit 9.Crash frequency by year. Table 4 summarizes the reported crash history between 2008 and 2012 at the Powell Butte Highway/Neff Road intersection by crash type and severity. The majority of the reported crashes (75 percent) involve angle or turning movement crashes related to vehicles crossing or turning onto Powell Butte Highway from the minor-street stop-controlled approaches. This crash type increased in 2012, despite the recent installation of the advance warning signs with flashing LED borders in mid- June 2011. Table 4.Powell Butte Highway/Neff Road Intersection Crash History(2008-2012) Collision Type Crash Severity Turning Fixed Non- Year Movement Angle Object Animal Other Injury Injury Fatality Total 2008 0 ME 1 0 0 © 0 0 ©I, 2009 0 ©0 0 1 2 0 MIE 2010 © 0 0 0 1 © 1 0 3 2011 © 2 1 0 0 3 2 0 5 2012 =M© 0 1 © 3 4 0 W Total ©..._ 5 0 . ... 20 Crash trends were reviewed time of day, month of year, roadway surface, weather conditions, and several other characteristics. Key findings of this review are summarized below: • 75% of reported crashes occurred during daylight. • 90%of crashes occurred with clear weather and dry road conditions. • Drugs and alcohol were not cited as a factor in any of the reported crashes. • The crashes involved a total of 35 passenger vehicles and 1 motorcycle. • 4 crashes were single-vehicle collisions. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Bend,Oregon Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road Intersection Review Project It 13963 December 30,2013 Page 10 • All 36 involved drivers had a valid license, and 30 were within 25 miles of their residence. • Teenagers were at fault in all 5 collisions they were involved in. Beyond these trends, crash records state the crash causes were largely attributed to failure to yield right-of-way or failure to stop (cited in 14 of the 20 crashes). Excessive speed was cited as a contributing factor in only two of the crashes. Prior to 2008, a fatal crash occurred at the study intersection, but data was not available to review crash details. Predictive Crash Analysis Review of historical crash records provided an indication of past trends and potential geometric issues. Crash prediction methods estimate the crashes that are statistically likely to occur over the long term, for a given set of geometric and volume characteristics.This analysis reduces the potential for statistical bias and provides a baseline crash prediction for use in identifying crash reduction potential of various alternatives. The predictive crash method for estimating average crash frequency for intersections on rural two- lane, two-way roads, is found in Chapter 10 of the Highway Safety Manual (HSM). The crash prediction models in the HSM are based on national studies and were calibrated to reflect Oregon- specific conditions. The crash prediction method results in an estimate of expected average crash frequency that reflects a statistical average of observed and predicted values to provide the most statistically-rigorous long-term estimate. Based on the existing intersection characteristics, the crash prediction method indicates we could expect 2.1 crashes per year in the future. As shown in Table 5, over the past five years the observed crash frequency has been nearly double the expected value. Comparing the observed crash frequency to the expected crash frequency provides an indication of whether the study intersection is experiencing more crashes than expected at similar locations in Oregon over the long term. The expected crash frequency of 2.1 crashes per year will be used as the baseline crash frequency to identify the change in crashes expected upon implementation of the proposed alternative. Table 5. Expected and Observed Annual Crash Frequency Fatal and Property Damage Crash Category Injury Only(PDO) Total Expected Annual 0.9 2.1 Crash Frequency Observed Annual 1.0 3.0 4.0 Crash Frequency Kittelson&Associates,Inc- Bend,Oregon Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road Intersection Review Project#:13963 December 30,2013 Page 11 Summary of Intersection Needs Based on this review of the intersection, improvements to the Powell Butte Highway intersection with Neff Road should be focused primarily on safety. Improvement alternatives should consider changes to the intersection geometry that improve driver awareness and visibility of oncoming vehicles, and that can reduce both the number and severity of crashes. INTERSECTION ALTERNATIVES Based on the identified intersection needs, four intersection improvement alternatives were developed. These improvements considered how the existing intersection control could be retained with improved geometrics, or other types of control that would improve safety while still meeting the long-term capacity needs. The following section summarizes the development and preliminary evaluations of these alternatives based on future operations, safety, right-of-way impacts, and construction costs. Conceptual Design Development Four intersection concepts were developed to reduce angle and turning crashes reported over the study period and increase sight distance. Appendix "D" contains the conceptual designs for each of the intersection alternatives. The concepts include various traffic control alternatives that consider signalization, stop-control, or construction of a roundabout. Each of these alternatives would require extensive treatments along the intersection approaches to further alert drivers of the intersection. These approach treatments could consider cross-sectional changes, improvements to sight distance, illumination, advance signing and striping, and a variety of treatments to increase driver awareness and manage approach speeds. These treatments would extend approximately 500 or 600 feet from the intersection to allow motorists on the Powell Butte Highway to react to vehicles entering or exiting the highway. For this preliminary evaluation the concepts were developed in pencil sketch format over scaled aerial imagery. These concepts represent reasonable dimensions and general right-of-way impacts to appropriately assess the magnitude of impact from the layout.This high-level analysis provides a cost- effective method of assessing treatment feasibility. Minor-Street Realignment with Two-way Stop Control Exhibit 10 illustrates the Realignment concept. Realignment of the Neff and Alfalfa Market approaches to reduce the skew angle in combination with clearing vegetation will increase sight distance and maintain free-flow movements for traffic on the Powell Butte Highway. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Bend,Oregon Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road Intersection Review Document Reproduces #.es Poorly Project 13963 December 3O,2013 (Archived) g r, , - w " MI r Q #+ itCLH � 4 }ss „O'r ifY a.✓ MW" a ry.,� .iyq h. gr. Jl ois , # P" 4 l r „o■• I 1 lifS";0). (< 4 44p ti, gyp. w w F t : '."4'."4".„*aY . �,. a ,� ¢ J ` Y F t Exhibit 10. Minor-Street Realignment Concept. As shown in Exhibit 10, alignment of the east-west roadways could be accomplished with approach splitter islands,which would also help increase driver awareness. The minor-street realignment concept is the lowest-cost alternative because it requires minimal right- of-way impacts and the least amount of new pavement. Increasing sight distance is expected to reduce crashes to a level consistent with other stop-controlled intersections, but the alternative does not meet the key project goals of eliminating conflict points or reducing crash severity. Signalized intersection A conceptual design of a signal at the study intersection is shown in Exhibit 11. This concept includes realignment of the intersection approaches to provide perpendicular approach angles to increase sight distance and reduce the conflict area- Turn lanes are shown primarily to reduce conflicts between high-speed through and turning vehicles, but the additional lanes also reduce intersection delays. As shown, this alternative requires right-of-way acquisition in the southeast and southwest corners of the study intersection. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Bend,Oregon Document Reproduces Poorly Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road Intersection Review (Archived) Project#:13963 December 30,2013 \• rchiv`d) Page 13 *' . di -I" !''' gAiiii- ' "INV"6 4 ' ' VI N CI3Lr ac • f y, w "�. )... ■ r S^„ y \" m" to ll . 5 `<p,,,, yy V �� ., ■ TM oil ,. tx L l 1 e } w p .war ', r e :4'•, , AI Exhibit 11. Signalized Intersection Concept. A signal provides dedicated phases for minor-street traffic, which would have been effective in addressing 70-percent of the reported crashes (e.g., "did not yield right-of-way" and "passed stop sign or red flasher"). Empirical studies have found converting stop control to signal control may result in a reduced number of angle and/or turning movement crashes, but the intersection may experience an increase in rear-end crashes on Powell Butte Highway(Reference 1). Traffic Signal Warrants were established to assess the tradeoffs made between safety, delays, and installation capital costs. Traffic Signal Warrants are the minimum criteria by which a traffic signal should be installed. Guidance provided in Chapter 4C of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) indicates "A traffic control signal should not be installed unless one or more of the factors described in this chapter are met." Those factors that apply to the study intersection include hourly, 4th highest hour, and 8th highest hour volume warrants and crash experience warrants. Volume-based signal warrants are not currently met at the intersection for any of the volume-based signal warrants. Traffic volumes would need to increase 30 to 50 percent to meet the minimum volume-based signal warrant thresholds. To meet crash warrants an intersection must have experienced at least 5 reportable crashes in a single year that were susceptible to mitigation with signalization, and must meet the 80% volume thresholds identified under Warrant 1. The condition also states that adequate trial of other crash mitigation strategies must also have failed to improve safety. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Bend,Oregon Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road Intersection Review Document Reproduces Poorly Project#:13963 December30,2013 (Archived) Page 14 To date, the County has incorporated advanced warning signs with LED borders and previously installed an overhead flashing beacon. Despite these measures, the crashes have continued to increase annually. There has been five reported crashes in a 12-month period susceptible to mitigation with a traffic signal, but the 80% traffic volume thresholds are not met. As such, minimum thresholds for the volume and crash experience signal warrants are not currently met, and are unlikely to be met for several years. offset"T"with Two-way Stop Control ' o Vacated road/ ' New Intersection local access te;, r 111110, 3 do it4Pi S. I VI hillb Vacated road /00 f w New Intersection Exhibit 12.Offset"T" Intersection Concept. Converting the existing stop-controlled intersection to two offset "T" intersections separates movements and reduces the number of conflict points from 32 to 22.The concept shown in Exhibit 12 includes left-turn lanes and a median on Powell Butte Highway between the offset intersections. The concept includes development of medians on Powell Butte Highway that extend 1,000 feet north and south of the intersection. Extending a median provides advanced warning of a change in the roadway environment and is intended to increase driver expectation of crossing traffic. Research indicates an average crash reduction of 25 percent when converting a stop-controlled intersection to two stop-controlled intersections in urban areas with minor street volume representing 15 to 30 percent of the total entering volume (TEV). The minor street volume at the study intersection ranges from 25 to 30 percent of the TEV throughout the day. While the study area is not an urban environment, similar crash reductions are expected. !Otte/son&Associates,Inc. Bend,Oregon 4 Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road Intersection Review Document Reproduces Poorly (Archived) Project Page December 30,2013 Page 15 The concept in Exhibit 12 includes an offset of 500 feet between the offset T-intersections, consistent with County design practice. Options to reduce this offset distance may be possible to minimize right- of-way impacts. While construction costs and ROW acquisition will be more costly than realigning the minor-street approaches, the safety and operational benefits are expected to be greater. However, while this concept could reduce the frequency of crashes, it is unlikely that it would reduce the severity of the crashes that occur. Roundabout A single-lane roundabout concept was developed for the study intersection, as illustrated in Exhibit 13. This design is forecast to operate with very low delays on all approaches through the horizon year 2030. co or 1E3 ._. it., 1 .4 A ...je" 4111":,41 Z` 8 • '" , r t " 4 " r• 7 i tv:' i \ . : I . c kit � +. ,; a x Exhibit 13. Roundabout intersection concept. The roundabout concept presented in this section represents a possible option for the roundabout horizontal geometry. Roundabout design is based upon a set of fundamental principles outlined in the NCHRP Report 672: Roundabouts: An Informational Guide — 2nd Edition (Reference 8). These principles include: (1) achieving speed control at entry, (2) providing appropriate lane numbers and arrangements, (3) appropriately aligning the natural path of vehicles, (4) accommodating the design vehicle, (5) accommodating non-motorized users, and (6) providing adequate sight distance and visibility. Alternative sizes, shapes, placement, and approach alignments may also be acceptable provided that they result in a design that meets these fundamental principles. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Bend,Oregon .w. Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road Intersection Review Project#:13963 Page 16 December 30,2013 To lessen right-of-way and irrigation pond impacts in the NW quadrant, the center of the roundabout is shown shifted to the south and east. The roundabout could be centered to the south and west to reduce property impacts in the SE quadrant and the irrigation pond. The inscribed circle diameter, as shown, is 160 feet. The diameter will need to be optimized to reduce right-of-way impacts while providing for truck traffic. The roundabout maintains all turning movements while minimizing the number of conflict points.The reduction in speeds on the approaches and removal of higher-severity head-on and angle crashes also reduces the crash severity.Therefore, it is expected to provide the greatest safety benefits relative to other alternatives. The construction cost of a roundabout will vary based on the diameter of the roundabout and the extent of the approach treatments, and is expected to be similar in costs to the offset"T" intersections. QUALITATIVE ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION The identified alternatives were screened based on their ability to address the project needs and overall feasibility.A summary of the screening criteria is shown below. Feasibility This criterion considers whether the alternative is appropriate in the setting (such as in meeting applicable installation requirements such as signal warrants), and whether the alternative can be constructed without impacting significant utilities, homes, or land features. Cost Refined cost estimates have not been prepared for any of the alternatives as part of the qualitative screening, and costs are based only on the relative overall cost to 'construct the alternative considering right-of-way, pavement, and hardware. Operations Traffic operations considers whether the alternative can adequately serve the forecast year 2030 design traffic based on Deschutes County level of service thresholds. Operations were assessed for each alternative during the critical weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour to inform this initial screening. Appendix "E"contains the traffic operation output for each of the future alternative scenarios. Crash Reduction A key project need is to reduce the total number of annual crashes that occur at the intersection, without regard to the severity. This criterion is intended to address the escalating crash experience identified through review of the reported crash history. Crash Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Bend,Oregon Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road Intersection Review Project#:13963 December 30,2013 Page 17 reduction potential is based on review of crash modification factors developed from studies of similar projects in rural areas. Crash Severity The crash severity criterion considers how the alternative can reduce the number of injuries and fatalities that may occur in the future. This is generally achieved by changing the type of conflicts geometrically or with changes to speeds. Crash reduction potential is based on review of crash modification factors for similar projects in rural areas. A summary of the relative alternative screening is provided in Table 6, and further details on the screening are summarized for each alternative below. Table 6.Qualitative Alternatives Evaluation Crash Crash Severity Alternative Feasibility Cost Operations Reduction Reduction • Offset"r ECM • 0 • 0 0 Roundabout • • MEM Red: Least improvement/Poor Yellow: Moderate improvement/Acceptable Green: Highest improvement/Good Intersection Realignment This treatment provides the lowest construction cost but the least safety benefit of the alternatives. This alternative could serve as a phasing alternative if the signalization alternative were selected, or could serve as an interim treatment while funding for a long-term solution was being sought. As a stand-alone treatment this would otherwise provide only marginal benefits and is not recommended for further evaluation. Signal Alternative As indicated above, a signal is not warranted based on existing volume, and will not be warranted without substantial growth in traffic volumes. Signalization would also require extensive intersection approach treatments to alert drivers to the traffic control device and increase visibility of the signals around the horizontal and vertical curves, and is less likely to reduce crashes given the rural nature of the area and low driver expectation for a traffic signal. A signal is not a feasible short-term alternative as it does not meet MUTCD signal warrants and is not recommended for further evaluation. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Bend,Oregon Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road Intersection Review Project tl:13963 December 30,2013 Page 18 Offset "T" with Two-way Stop Control Maintaining stop control while reconfiguring the intersection into two offset "T" intersections is expected to reduce crashes by reducing conflict points, increasing sight distance, and providing left- turn lanes on Powell Butte Highway approaches. The disadvantage of this option is that the crashes that do occur are likely to be higher-severity angle crashes. While construction costs will be high due to the new pavement and right-of-way impacts, the potential crash reduction is also high and free-flow is maintained for traffic on the Powell Butte Highway. Without higher levels of traffic control (such as a roundabout or traffic signal) this alternative would operate very low delays through the horizon period. As costs are likely to be similar to the roundabout with lower reductions in crash frequency and severity this alternative is not recommended for further evaluation. Roundabout Alternative The roundabout is expected to have the greatest crash reduction potential of the alternatives based on empirical studies conducted in rural high-speed environments. The roundabout reduces the number of conflict points, changes the conflict type to lower-severity sideswipe collisions, and further reduces crash severity by reducing speeds at the conflict points. Roundabout construction costs, right-of-way impacts, and operations will be of a similar magnitude to the Offset"T" alternative. NEXT STEPS Please review this interim memorandum at provide us with any comments or questions on our interim findings and recommendations. As the roundabout is the only alternative we would recommend the County continue to pursue, next steps would include further details on the intersection approach treatments, design vehicle details, review of right-of-way, and expected construction costs. This information will be amended to this interim report, forming the final report for this evaluation. APPENDICES Appendix A: Data Collection Worksheets Appendix B: Photo Records of Intersection Appendix C: Intersection Crash Records and Summaries Appendix D:Alternatives Concepts Appendix E: Operational Analysis Worksheets Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Bend,Oregon �^ N 0 eLi l q 4 O cy MI ' n w I Po d 4 jok :3',4, z, I 11 ■ ilk 4 i . ] j7p I a � FAQ W O F • ,,. IL-471 Of , 5. () '� ', ° d Y ui ui ] dr 4)itt Z Q. �. u a s.. • til CI 0 i d d 0-. 01 10 411", -CI.—0...-- P.° C. i s 0 • ;r W - re,.gcl cc,L1 ;14):::_10_co: C2 4 e W e. C,. V• It li CO vcr O 3 I 4r e , 4 „ ,, , ,, 1 `n � � CJ v I CL Z u 21 ca a Q 3 ? c © a c to kl ¢ CO m 01c rnce t 7",'"' o v + s Z .W�, u 0 i.. • • S cu n f/�1 co ce 1=1 co cr ef w p `o i.a c A Pv LE y , rn r Cr H C dF +':; 'Y a.' ,;,,F .yew 'Z ..1w ""'^' 'C 1. vx d d' fn Z Col (Ns ai (U 91* a y fi ,7 Co) b� 4j oI-� era V' L) c_ ' ,44 OP te .. � U "^ww !fi (Archived) Document Reproduces Poorly (Archived) HT . . ›... . . ._ . co ,.= 4 ...-- 40 C , .._ 0 .1Th E FIT -0 cu c:c ITT Ca PIT i IT / TrY ' a* --Tr: un cv... Lo Ln. , . LDr . , C. . to- - tr) , orc CU . , . . , - :15. . cm. , . 4J IA Q.). . '5 .c (35 +, 1._ ' \\\ c D 0 _. . . , 1 • .4! . , Document Reproduces Poorly (Archived) Document -4'.-- - „ Poorly (Al tr.,4,•,..“..../ •.■ • (13 = 'ILL° r 1:5 C ... 0 E flu -o a) cc rirr . . ca prT -. -,-;1 / 0 ITT ----T-: Ln r-si t..0 . . -. U) - . -.■ , , - - r (..0$ . , " •., IV' E. . . . 4 A LIO - ,.. , . • ..r.- (I) CD _C2 ro +.4 vi a) t .5 c it . , . , • . 0 w r Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division I r1;,,±rr;a;wr.hGt4khma,ti;r�,rl°;AiWo', ,rt9a"^ YI'I,,,; P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 MEMORANDUM http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ DATE: June 5, 2014 TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (BOCC) FROM: Nick Lelack, Community Development Department (CDD) Director Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner Peter Russell, Senior Planner RE: Newberry Country Plan: Implementation Update This memorandum is for BOCC information. No action is being requested. SUMMARY CDD is in the early stages of implementing Newberry Country: A Plan for Southern Deschutes County.' This memo summarizes CDD's efforts to implement three projects, which are also recognized as FY 2014/2015 Goals and Objectives.2 Applicable Newberry Country Plan goals and policies for each project are also referenced below. The projects include: 1. Goal 11 Exception; 2. Transferable Development Credit (TDC)Advisory Committee; and 3. River access at Harper Bridge. I. GOAL 11 EXCEPTION Newberry Country Plan: Public Facilities Goal 9 Partner with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ) to protect groundwater and public health. Policy 9.1 Explore opportunities for Goal 11 exceptions and the full range of advance wastewater treatment opportunities, including but not limited to, the use of onsite alternative treatment technology, centralized sewer systems and cluster systems. 1 http://www.deschutes.org/Community-Development/Planning/Long-Range-Planning,/Completed-Projects/South-County- Plan-2.aspx 2 http://www.deschutes.org/Finance/Budget-and-Finance/Budgets/FY-2015-Proposed-Program-Budget.aspx. Pages 12 and 13. Robust Economy Goal.Objectives#4 and#5;Management of Natural Resources Goal,Objective#1. Quality Services Performed with Pride Implementation The Planning and Environmental Soils divisions continue to support the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) South Deschutes/Northern Klamath County Groundwater Protection Project. DEQ, with the assistance of the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), continues to finalize the burden of proof and a map of the affected area to justify a Goal 11 exception. Goal 12, Transportation, must also be met. A transportation study is necessary to comply with the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). A Goal 11 exception could enable approximately 1,500 high groundwater lots to develop. The lots are presently restricted from development due to the State's onsite wastewater rules. If a Goal 11 exception is approved the lots could then hook up to a sewer, cluster, or similar public system. As most of the lots are zoned residential, there would be 15,000 new daily trips generated from these lots or about 1,500 trips in the morning peak and again in the evening peak hours. For context, 15,000 daily trips represent about the same amount of traffic now carried on U.S. 97 just south of the Baker Road interchange. DLCD is coordinating with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to determine if they can produce the traffic study. If ODOT is unable to produce it, the partner agencies (County, DLCD, DEQ) will need to determine a funding source to pay for the approximately $20,000 study, including such options as pursuing grant funding or sharing the costs. Grant funding would extend the project at least 6-8 months. Timeline: Once County staff receives the justification for a Goal 11 exception and a transportation study, it will take 10 weeks to schedule the first evidentiary hearing. Staff needs approximately 6 weeks to complete the entire land use proposal and prepare public notices. Since this is a legislative plan amendment, DLCD also requires a minimum 35 day notice to review the formal proposal. II. RECONVENING TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT CREDIT (TDC) ADVISORY COMMITTEE Newberry Country Plan: Land Use Goal 4 Manage County-owned lands to meet community objectives. Policy 4.4 In conjunction with the City of La Pine, evaluate and revise as needed, the Transfer of Development Credit and Pollution Reduction Credit programs by considering, at a minimum, the following: a. Reconvening the Transfer of Development Credit Advisory Committee; b. Analyzing the results of the program; c. Understanding existing market trends and land development constraints in the rural area and La Pine Neighborhood Planning Area; and d. Exploring, if necessary, different alternatives for developing the La Pine Neighborhood Planning Area that maximize revenues from the sale of property to fund groundwater protection efforts. -2- Implementation The TDC / Pollution Reduction Credit (PRC) program is aimed at protecting groundwater in southern Deschutes County in conjunction with La Pine's Newberry Neighborhood. TDCs, which have been in place since 2003, are deeded restrictions on future property development. They are acquired voluntarily in designated areas for the preservation of water quality and open space. The acquisition of TDCs is one option for developers of new parcels in the Newberry Neighborhood in the city of La Pine. Similarly, PRCs, which were added to the program in 2006, certify the placement of a nitrogen-reducing septic system in qualifying areas. They may be purchased as an alternative option to allow Newberry Neighborhood development. Revenue associated with TDCs and PRCs, together with Newberry Neighborhood land sale proceeds and other revenue sources, provide financial assistance to South County residents in implementing actions which reduce the amount of nitrates potentially entering the groundwater and therefore protect the source of drinking water in the area. In addition to funding sewer feasibility studies on an as-needed basis, financial assistance from this program has enabled rebates to be paid to South County property owners who have installed nitrogen-reducing septic systems. Low interest cost-deferred loans have also been made available to property owners to fund complete septic system replacement for those who may not otherwise qualify for project financing. TDC Advisory Committee Deschutes County Code (DCC), Chapter 11.12 codifies the TDC Program (Attachment). DCC 11.12.040 specifically addresses the TDC Advisory Committee's purpose, duties, and membership. Committee members are selected by CDD based on the knowledge and expertise that each member may contribute to the development of the TDC program. The TDC Advisory Committee's last meeting occurred in March 2007. They met nine times between 2005 and 2007. As shown in Table 1, the committee consisted of the following representatives: Table 1 - Previous TDC Advisory Committee Representatives 3 Baldwin-Herndon Trust Deschutes River Conservancy Developer- Excavation/ Finley Butte Aggregate Developer - Pahlisch Homes Excavator Kerr Commercial Group La PinewCommunity Action Team Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development! Planning Commissioner— South County Region Realtor Soil Scientist/Sanitarian South County Resident/Property Owner 3 Representatives from Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Compass Commercial were formally invited to participate but did not attend any of the meetings. -3- Staff wants to add the following two representatives to the committee: o City of La Pine o Deschutes County Citizens Actions Group (CAG) Expanding the committee will help broaden the discussion as members determine if changes are needed to the TDC program. CDD recently coordinated with the City of La Pine to successfully transition land use permitting responsibilities from the County to the City. The transfer became effective last January. The City is now administering zoning and development review within its jurisdiction, which includes the Newberry Neighborhood, the receiving area for TDCs. The CAG is an organization that promotes active participation in all aspects of community development and decision-making in Deschutes County, specifically in the La Pine basin.4 Members were actively involved in the creation of the Newberry Country Plan, adopted by the BOCC in May 2013. Timeline: Staff anticipates contacting representatives this month and scheduling the first committee meeting in August. Up to five meetings are planned from August through December. Recommendations will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and BOCC in January 2015. III. HARPER BRIDGE Newberry Country Plan: Recreation Goal 17 Encourage a variety of parks, trails and recreation options for South County residents Policy 17.2 Collaborate with the La Pine Park and Recreation District, community organizations, Sunriver and La Pine to provide safe and convenient river access points, including: a. Improving existing sites including those at or near Harper Bridge and Maxwell Veterans Memorial Bridge; and b. Assessing options for new or improved public locations. Implementation The Sunriver Owners' Association is forming a task force to reach out to the various groups that have expressed an interest in resolving the issues of parking and launching watercraft at Harper Bridge. CDD will represent one of the task force members, which is expected to have an initial meeting later this month. Timeline: The Harper Bridge Task Force is slated to complete its work by September. IV. BOCC ACTION No action is being requested. Attachment: DCC Chapter 11.12, TDC Program a htt0://www.cagg.us/about-cag -4- '' 4., ''' 1KITTELS O N & ASSOCIATES INC . eilii0 yia p I�� ,, TRANSPORTATION ENG P L A N N I N G 11 1'w ` 354 SW Upper Terrace Drive,Suite 101, Bend,Oregon 97702 541.312.8300 541.312 4585 POWELL BUTTE HIGHWAY/NEFF ROAD INTERSECTION Refined Alternatives Evaluation Date: May 8, 2014 Project#: 13963.4 To: Chris Doty, PE and George Kolb, Deschutes County From: Casey Bergh, PE;Joe Bessman, PE; and, Hermanus Steyn, PE PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND Four intersection improvement alternatives were developed to reduce crash frequency and severity at the Powell Butte Highway/Neff Road/Alfalfa Market Road intersection. The alternatives and qualitative evaluations were outlined in the December 30, 2013 memorandum. The qualitative evaluations indicate the roundabout could achieve project safety objectives better than other alternatives at similar cost to other alternatives. To confirm the qualitative findings, the roundabout concept was refined and the differences in cost and crash reduction between the roundabout and the Offset"T"concept are quantified. This memorandum describes the additional design elements incorporated into the refined roundabout concepts. In the process of developing a refined roundabout concept, a second roundabout concept was developed that shifts the center of the circle to the southwest to reduce right-of-way impacts. Both of the refined roundabout concepts are feasible; the trade-offs of each concept are identified to inform the public involvement process. The refined roundabout design concepts and the preliminary Offset "1" concept are provided in Appendix"A." RURAL ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE Geometric design characteristics of roundabouts can be customized to meet the needs of various roadway users. In rural areas, roundabouts can be designed to accommodate the transition from high-speed approaches, rural farm equipment, and freight. The following sections outline the characteristics incorporated into the refined roundabout concepts at Powell Butte Highway/Neff Road, including: approach treatments, roundabout diameter, and signs/markings. Approach Treatments Similar to any at-grade intersection control (roundabout, signal, or all-way stop) that could be applied on Powell Butte Highway, a roundabout will need to include appropriate advance warning to motorists of the potential need to stop or otherwise respond to the traffic control device. These Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road Intersection Review Project#:13963 Page 3 May 8,2014 treatments will be essential to promote driver compliance and expectation along this rural high-speed facility,and will contribute to the improvement costs. Typical speed-reduction treatments at rural roundabouts include a series of curves approaching the roundabout with decreasing radii that encourage drivers to progressively reduce their speeds. These treatments are supplemented with a change in the roadway character through treatments including illumination, striping, signing, or other cross-sectional treatments (i.e., raised medians) that highlight the changing roadway character. Additionally, at roundabouts in a high-speed rural environment increasing the visibility of the central island is important to avoid single-vehicle crashes. The two refined roundabout alternatives include splitter islands on each approach that provide advanced warning of the roundabout and promote deceleration.The length of the splitter islands and lane marking taper is established to provide comfortable deceleration distance on the south and west approaches. On the east and north approaches the splitter island is extended such that a driver can see the nose of the splitter island in advance of the horizontal or vertical curves. Successive horizontal curvature on the north and south approaches has been intentionally added within the concepts to reduce speeds in advance of the roundabout entry radius. As described above, these curves provide successively smaller radii as a vehicle approaches the roundabout to gradually reduce speed.The splitter island provides physical reinforcement of the horizontal curvature. Roundabout Diameter The diameter of the roundabout influences the ability to accommodate a various sizes of vehicles and control the circulatory speeds through the roundabout. Diameter is often influenced by right-of-way and other physical features that constrain the roundabout location. The roundabout alternatives developed for the Powell Butte Highway/Neff Road intersection include an inscribed circle diameter (ICD - measured from the outer curb of the circulatory roadway) of 160 feet that can accommodate the design vehicle (a WB-67 truck and trailer) and maintain an appropriate circulatory speed of approximately 25 miles per hour. For reference, the roundabout at the intersection of Reed Market Road and Bond Street has a 160-foot ICD. Typical ICD for single-lane roundabouts in urban areas are between 120 and 140 feet. NCHRP Report 672—Roundabouts:An Information Guide, Second Edition indicates that an ICD between 130 and 150 feet can typically accommodate a WB-67 design vehicle. (Reference 1) The use of this larger ICD at the Powell Butte Highway/Neff Road intersection is recommended to accommodate other farm equipment and facilitate travel for the design vehicle. Other accommodations may also be appropriate at this rural location,such as increasing sign setback distance for wide vehicles. KAI utilized AutoTurn software to simulate the path of the identified design vehicle, which is a typical highway truck and trailer (WB-67). This design vehicle was reviewed making all possible movements at the intersection. Both roundabout concepts were sized with truck aprons and corner radii to Bend,Oregon Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road Intersection Review Project#:13963 May 8,2014 Page 3 accommodate this design vehicle. The truck apron, provided in both concepts, is mountable to allow the trailer to overtrack.Appendix "B"includes truck turning path figures. Safety Roundabouts have proven to be an effective intersection treatment for improving safety — particularly for reducing severe injury and fatal crashes. The potential to reduce crashes is evaluated qualitatively in terms of the number of conflict points and quantitatively with crash prediction estimates that are based on national studies of other similar treatments. Conflict Points A comparison of intersection conflict points indicates that relative to the existing stop-controlled intersection, the roundabout alternative will reduce conflict points. Excluding pedestrian conflicts within a rural environment, a standard 4-legged intersection has 32 conflict points associated with crossing, merging, and diverging movements. The roundabout alternative has 8 conflict points, as shown in Exhibit 1. • 414 ♦ • � r • Diverging O Merging O Crossing Exhibit 1: Conflict Points at Four-Legged Intersections (Reference 1) Kittelsan&Associates,Inc. Bend,Oregon Powell Butte Highway and Neff Rood Intersection Review Project#:13963 ppge 3 May 8,2014 Crash Prediction Research conducted in 2012 by Isebrands is summarized in A Statistical Analysis and Development of a Crash Prediction Model for Roundabouts on High-Speed Rural Roadways (Reference 2). The study includes a comprehensive look at single lane and multilane rural roundabouts with high speed approaches in multiple states. The study conducted a before-and-after crash analysis of 19 intersections that showed statistically-significant reductions for all crashes and injury crashes when roundabouts were implemented. Of particular importance to the Powell Butte Highway/Neff Road intersection, results showed that injury-producing crash types, such as angle crashes, were reduced by 91%. The study developed Crash Modification Factors (CMFs), supplementing those in National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 572: Roundabouts in the United States (Reference 3). Annual crash predictions were prepared to estimate the change in crashes expected with the conversion from the existing stop-controlled intersection to a roundabout using the crash prediction method from the Highway Safety Manual (HSM, Reference 4). The reduction in crash frequency is based on CMFs developed for high-speed rural roads by Isebrands. Table 1 provides a summary of the expected crash reduction associated with the roundabout alternative. Table 1:Crash Prediction Estimates for Conversion from Two-way Stop Control to Roundabout Control No-Build Roundabout Crashes Reduced Percent Reduction Fatal and Fatal and Fatal and Fatal and Injury All Injury Injury Injury Intersection Crashes Crashes Crashes All Crashes Crashes All Crashes Crashes All Crashes 0.9 ® 0.1 0.6 0.8 89% 5-year Total 4.5 10.5 0.5 ® 4.0 Cost The conceptual cost estimates are broken into general items using planning-level unit prices.The cost estimates include an itemized breakdown of major earthwork, pavement structure, and other identifiable major components, (i.e. signing and pavement marking, street lighting). Groups of items (such as traffic control) are lumped together and the estimates provided are based on similar work for other projects. Planning-level cost estimates for the two roundabout alternatives were prepared based on estimated quantities. Assumed unit costs and estimated quantities are provided in Appendix C.The following factors have the greatest influence on the roundabout costs: • Assume 3 foot excavation and 2 foot embankment for all new roadway • Assume all new pavement starting at splitter island nose (includes base plus 8-inch pavement) • Splitter islands are 8 to 10 feet wide • No sidewalk and no curb on outside of roadway Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Bend,Oregon Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road Intersection Review Projects•13963 May 8,2014 Page 5 • Right-of-way acquisition cost of$5/square foot • Construction cost includes 10% mobilization, 5% erosion control, and 5%traffic control Based on these assumptions, the preliminary construction cost and project cost estimates are summarized in Table 2. Table 2.Preliminary Construction Cost Estimates for Refined Roundabout Alternatives Roundabout Roundabout Performance Measure Alternative A Alternative B Construction Cost excluding contingency $1,459,000 $1,621,000 including 30%contingency $1,896,000 $2,107,000 Professional Fees(25%) $474,000 $527,000 Right of Way $139,000 $66,000 Project Cost(including contingency) $2,509,000 _._... . $2,700,000 OFFSET "T" ALTERNATIVE Qualitative assessment of the Offset "T" intersection indicated it would have similar cost to a roundabout, but not reduce the crash potential as much as a roundabout, as documented in the previous memorandum. Additional evaluation of this alternative was completed to determine how it compares to the refined roundabout alternatives. The geometry and traffic control of this alternative provides several benefits, including: • Maintains free-flow movements for the highest-volume through movements on Powell Butte Highway. • Existing alignment is maintained on Powell Butte Highway resulting in no substantial change for heavy vehicle through travel. • Approach treatments on Powell Butte Highway for the roundabout alternative will similarly be used to reduce speeds between 45 and 55 mph and increase driver awareness of turning/crossing traffic. • Realignment of Neff Road and Alfalfa Road impacts adjacent properties in the undeveloped northeast and southwest intersection quadrants. • Provides a left-turn lane on Powell Butte Highway to separate through and turning traffic, reducing the potential for rear-end crashes on the major street approaches. Safety Converting one 4-leg stop-controlled intersection to two offset "T" intersections has been promoted in urban areas by Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The potential to reduce crashes in the Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Bend,Oregon Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road Intersection Review Project#:13963 Page 6 May 8,2014 rural area at the study intersection was similarly evaluated in qualitative terms of the number of conflict points and a quantitatively based on crash prediction estimates. Conflict Points A comparison of intersection conflict points indicates that relative to the existing stop-controlled intersection, the Offset "T" alternative will reduce the number of conflict points from 32 to 18, as shown in Exhibit 2. / I • !r• • Diverging Qt Merging o Crossing Exhibit 2: Conflict Points at Offset "T" Intersection (Reference 5) Crash Prediction Annual crash predictions were prepared to estimate the change in crashes expected with the conversion from the existing stop-controlled intersection to an Offset "T" using the crash prediction method from the HSM. The reduction in crash frequency is based on a CMF provided in the HSM for urban areas because no empirical studies have been documented in rural areas. There are no geometric and roadway characteristics in rural areas that are expected to further reduce crash frequency at a rural Offset"T" intersection relative to an urban offset"T." Table 3 provides a summary of the expected crash reduction associated with the conversion to an Offset"T" alternative. Bend,Oregon Kittelson&Associates,Inc Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road Intersection Review Project#:13963 May 8,2014 Page 7 Table 3:Crash Prediction Estimates for Conversion from Two-way Stop Control to Offset"1" No-Build Offset"T" Crashes Reduced Percent Reduction* Intersection Fatal Fatal Fatal Fatal and All and All Crashes and All Crashes and All Crashes Crashes Injury Injury Injury Injury Annual 0.9 2.1 0.7 1.9 0.2 0.2 5-year Total 4.5 10.5 3.4 9.4 ®® 25% 10% * Based on the best-available CMF that was developed for urban areas Cost A planning-level cost estimate for the Offset "T" alternative was prepared based on estimated quantities, consistent with assumptions for the roundabout alternatives. Assumed unit costs and estimated quantities are provided in Appendix C. The following factors have the greatest influence on the Offset"T"costs: • Assume 3 foot excavation and 2 foot embankment for all new roadway, • Assume all new pavement from beginning of widening for turn lanes (includes base plus fl- inch pavement) • Right-of-way acquisition cost of$5/square foot • Construction cost includes 10% mobilization, 5%erosion control, and 5%traffic control Based on these assumptions, the preliminary construction cost estimate for the Offset "T" alternative is summarized in Table 4. Table 4.Preliminary Construction Cost Estimates for Offset"T"Alternative Performance Measure Offset "T" Construction Cost excluding contingency $1,550,000 including 30%contingency $2,015,000 Professional Fees(25%) $504,000 Right of Way $363,000 Project Cost(including contingency) $2,882,000 COMPARISON SUMMARY As summarized in the previous sections the roundabout alternative varies from the Offset "T" in terms of the crash reduction potential and construction cost. Table 5 includes direct comparisons of construction cost and safety for the roundabout and the Offset"T" alternatives. Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Bend,Oregon Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road Intersection Review Project#:13963 May 8,2014 Page 8 Table 5.Quantitative Alternative Comparison Roundabout Roundabout Performance Measure Alternative A Alternative B Offset"T" Conflict Points 16 Percent Crash Reduction Fatal and Injury Crashes 89% 25% Total Crashes 74% 10% Project Cost $2,509,000 $2,700,000 $2,882,000 As shown in Table 3, a roundabout is estimated to cost less than the Offset "T" alternative. Among the roundabout alternatives, Alternative A is expected to cost approximately 10 percent less than Alternative B, but Alternative B has less right-of-way impact. Given the primary purpose and need of this evaluation is to reduce crash potential, KAI prefers the roundabout alternatives over the Offset "T" alternative. We recommend obtaining public input to identify a preferred roundabout alternative. REFERENCES 1. NCHRP Report 672 - Roundabouts: An Informational Guide —Second Edition. Transportation Research Board.Washington, DC. 2010. 2. Isebrand, H. "A Statistical Analysis and Development of a Crash Prediction Model for Roundabouts on High-Speed Rural Roadways." Presented at the 91st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board Paper No. 12-4191, Washington, D.C., (2012). Earlier study: Isebrands, H. "Crash Analysis of Roundabouts at High-speed Rural Intersections." TRB 88th Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers CD-ROM.Washington, D.C., (2009). 3. NCHRP Report 572: Roundabouts in the United States. Transportation Research Board. Washington, DC. 2007. 4. Highway Safety Manual. American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials. 2010. 5. Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide. Federal Highway Administration. McLean, VA. 2004. APPENDICES Appendix A: Preliminary Design Alternatives Appendix B: Roundabout Design Vehicle Paths Appendix C: Cost Estimates Kittelson&Associates,Inc. Bend,Oregon Appendix A Preliminary Design Alternatives March 2074 Powell ants Highway/Nett Road Intersection Alternatives ,Iiii ,,.„.,,i'.;.4,,,•:,',...,,':.,,.,:.,,,‘,..',:,..,...t;;.:,'...7:'..t:.:„,'..x„LfirT 14..,:,.,,T, . ; ,,‘,....,,,,,,,,,a '',,,AS,,I,,Iir40,,,i.' .'..'4,''' ''OW,4 .."."' t.'1' ' 41F"....'.1 ''`. ...4. : P ' t, a "a i? 3 £;'' "'• 6 `�y .,w �, 1(, • M. w.:. "p mqY ^a1 ^e N" , 4l 'fL - ^�i Y r a it SAND A P, i2.' ,1713301800 B w , •y fi ° y ''�"' '�"-: 2 WELL BUTTE wNN. rc '{ '" OR 7 3` *Cr' i»' y. 551 .. » ,V? -' #Y m*i_ IAt it* :„,w.W ..T" 'AL DRA kMlll,TRUST 1^. $kx 1 f . ' axlnt. OD-209 ddd��ess: 2435 PO WTTf wWY, ,1 h�1 0Ft 77 a 4 414t,Q. 'µat,„ Vol. 2013 Pg.' • (P9ra0t ,r ;�P,' CO rt a T N :.,,t,,,,,.. . CHARLES P ET AL .5 r CK, KEITH AND KARA) a 330000-1801 ` h t.2310 NEFF RD. y i 9;70ty C�``ak+a�� Y. iii f:: , CC . 04117 e -, RONALD >k SANORl Zel!S4 4ST ., ti, J fit C ?r'0 '-'r �°' y, Toslot:171330000 °. '� r1�fw Address: 22368�E�. '"' 4,„0,y. BEND, OR 977p(6�,. .,, y,`,r Vol. 2013 P . O_1438'"(6�t0EV. M Y § I ~ 41* . . i t> ■ THE SOUTH gpUNRY OFTC�4T R ��. w r 1801 IS DSCR18EIrTO THI . „ . DEED VOL.W14 PG'04117y ' rt4. 0 ., F:,t9�f1as:: • illi 1 . ►_2t. t: '17133,DD 105 ' A M 4 1 73 WELT, UTTE 1 .C O, OR rl �! 3� ol t g!' 3 0 D.R. (1 !A . w �; i. S Mina9 W jt9de�S221 O.R. (19 + ,e,wA,.,.x.+r,7t R 923.2 V �,�. ,w 1. . .oRCIA J BISCHOFF FAM TRUST A . -^ I #•�' .1 Taxlot; 171331000--1004 //t� .+� ., Jr Address: 22399 ALFALFA MARKET R0, _. y r KENO. OR 97701 y + Vol, 2008 Pq. 33039 t• A ik, j EPPERSON SUE E ~F` Tvxlot. 171331000-1011 "T, *'A " a3 Address: 62362 POWELL BUTTE HWY. ++. �" 1 y BEND, 0R 9770 �` .M� ! •N 8 y Vol, 521 Pg. 408 O.R. (1998) } 7' '"0�-- t 4 .. t • M. r y ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE A DESCHUTES COUNTY,OR A KKrrTELSON&ASSOCIATES,INC. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING,PLANNING •,,,,':::** • :':::•°.Itiiiirt :".111Wi'::::::;:'.'":4)111:'':„.6".' yfivef I Road ir s'ctier'.,...":„,...""":".5te4; 4::;.isikK;:li;i:0:: :::,4if.i''.,;:.:,!!!"O'r:17:: :::.!::.1'..":'..••:'. ..:'' . .::,::„:„..,"ix,:::' ''.."40..: ..11:00.010t7'.."!'...:;:"'"'"..• ..' '*' -' ''''''''' -.''::::::"':::'"F".::::4'""::::::: "...4::::4°:4::::'::164":1t '''''''..„'...".. '.......:.::::1•''''• • .....":.' " ..'''''.- ::"Aiiii.„:".„.;!:;:;•;••...,'":;'"::. :!:;:.,:....•..::::'''.""':•:::::.:•''I•::'::°:::f:!R:,.:;:„...:,::.:..::..:;C::"",:::;:::":'0"E:::::•::I;:.".■••.'":'"„,"""T7:•':::•'„''!„'„::'''." ''''''' ::::1!41r..""if ..:•.7::':".• .;" ... ...••';' 4.:.:.„....,.,„.::::„:„..„„::,...::.,„,:-... ,, ...,,,",":„....,..,....:11.0.,.,..:„,"...:, o,li..::*p..?ti,,..:„H'I.,,,. 40 Ao""'FTE ' ' .` -.',2•7,. • '&114: •:41:,7115411141 ":•'••'- *„ •'••••••:';•:•••••••••••••:•:- :•••••••••••••••••••••■:',:••„:"•••.::•••••:"A••••:•1:::•'t.v.„::;•1:::4::::••• +:.';,...•,:: • .,.• • ...314,101,41•Vtit ..^:,:-..••• :•••11r!.'.....:404,4.0114„„„!„!"„„„°" : • ..„„tt•t•A•••••:°""••1:!::';':...'"'"'"•"'•:(•••••:...."„'....:•••-•..?":::.::.•:•,":":44110t:„7„, :0"1:41300 ,1p::4• 4::,...• .•I. ".. .31 .:...• . ,'"' ' • ..,f:.::::::„i.•„,.:t1„••::•hittIONI", :.”,:•:•••• :1•.r'. • '.' . •:'„li„:'"'1:::':':''' '::•-••••:::"'":•".."'•':::,...'•.'':•••••••:::!::!;:iitiaVNI441kittie::::'""1:14::;(1.•:"'I': :7: "- -?-e . ..,..4”",-.0,.1'4.:•••".'.."".• ": "4 ....."•..:7,•:•*::'"::•• ••:::.::::::,::.";:'il'"' .1".•••".„ . ''•:!:,:•::1•.':1::;::::6:11:::•••:!:•::::::;101.14:T.•,,;;,...7;::::111:!:!::::0:":"....,.,...•::7"::,::::::.. -.,s: • ::-''.."L.,4 ... ...„,,i,,,,,anitiiiii,,„t • , ..:, . ..,.. . •.,- - :".....oP, ...............,. ..„,:,..„.„.„,:„::.,...„....... . ..: '-• A . .'..:: ' ;.--;i4"...'" :::!'""""'"i";64 . .. , .•,,,,,..tv.. ,,,,„„...,,,... , , , . . . :,i.i.,,,, :,t.•...,. •,.,. ..„„ ,. , .,•4 • ,„„„. • , • . . . . ••• ',IPA .4 i'...... ' .- . ,..... •. ,,,......,,,• .DRA wow •::,,,„„„„:„..„„:„ :„..,„.....,„„:„„,„„„,„:„.„•••,„„.„‘„...„.......„..., ---- k... • . . •,4•114 - 0-.22$454TTE ..„: c""t '.':62435 PO • ! , , ' • " ..".. ",. (Pw . "Ai . e:c,13R p99.77...;......*!". 7. -.-iii*. . italk •'••'•••::!:tIVEILI::::!!!•••• ., -• ........**,,,,..*,..:41,....".. 4 • 1. 11 vol, je " -,,,,,,,..........., , 4 . 1 ;'4',....i,...1,.,,..4.4.14 ".::„P:;ji...'''4;''''!::!■iOA:F:!',:!i'"':''''.'':::... ,....■ ' +.• it'HP '' ..' ''' ''''.■■'''.. .'''',4" OD 44:,;,ii.,•4C,"... ".' ••":'''• :".":'''''' " .., = P ET At. .i. 4. ' INIPZ''''',..':..1. • - ARLES . KARA) KEI 3.00°7 •10 N & SANDR:44:::' ;••"'' „.., _,..i,••■ ••••.•••,•• A 1141prOANCIOR10. • " ii,4 4117 14, •*!.. .., sAeRroo:Dcfrni:ess.r 07e.123:330,374117 „:30,....,....x4,..„....40‘.....,..... ,• „i...,. i,..., . 4,,, ,..„. .... . .y.,..,,.,., .. .- . .„ • Alt: • voi. 2013 Pg• - -'"• -4-:' • .... „•,•^. i••••: ," • PTO .::.,'',,,',....7":.,•' .•• e . ..,,.. : , •.. :',.''''. - It 'A ,,• ',, , t....1;„..„,... ,,,•••....:.... ,•••)Itt. - .,• .... •„ it77',#,Allt. -.At. i.4k - ,••2• . . ;;;;;....., t 0 • . ., . .. ....4,....,,i.. ... • ..,... 4, ..' . ai.-- •410' •••••••••„.„. ... .,...,. .(t., li a v"," • ' • •• .. ...... t::4'....46. .,,..,P.. Illii :•1114'.44:t *All> -,.. .,,..,y oF 7r1 ,,, ., ,-.....,,, ,:......„, ....,:...„.. ,• • oum '-... , . TH1. 7 " ' •:::..1: • .477'7 I. 1-• THE SIs pc.' ' 7.4'1:041171E74....Ah PE0E1D'VOL ri'3/4',.: • •46,,,A.-7 •• •:::.•••„....,.:•• - . 3 •• A,..,... '°!4ftP•:.•:. .4::*$% • ' ft- .. " .4.• ...•1A 2":'''• *4411111111111011.ms.._ .' ,••. t : ,.• • •r 11 --rierh 1.1 I -- .-r,... to 4 L4,,,, • 1. . 4,...,....•:, • :',... ...* .. •.. ,... , "44 • .Z:1' 1 ' i . . • "f",'", si .714' • t • , ' 4 a• , • • i . 71 1. . . „....,. .. ,4* It It• , '''''''....; A* .A.'0 ...Ylit'''.: 4 '• g '• 4.• 2. --$.1 .-46.4,.. '....• A ik• AL. OR i• • -Nkni-TtE%Otl°5 orTE* .1r• * • ' ;,t,...,!„ :.7. ,..,:s.,..4 ;:04:1.. wEll . R.923:7 • 7t14 . • !!! ' , • 7t,'• •• l• 1 ii.-. I'" 1. ‘• 0 D.R. (151.2121 Of-11'0910 ,, ,.r.* i .440 $11! to '4 :: ::t It- • •-k.: ....: 4-,,,, It. 4 I •,41;•'•••- *445 4., •.•• e,.. A..... •• - ••z"., 1'4 r • * ---" a ! 4 ' • •A, • CHOPF FAM•TRI,IS ., , ...2....1., .e 11...... MARCIA j 61.181000'.1()°4 mARIET RD, 4, . .„.. 1 t: 1713- ALFALFA Tex° 22399 ' ••••, •i ...4. ,, • AddresAn'R 97701 BEND, -- • • * 9 • .:141, ....4 • , - .. 8 pg. 3303 or ' 17., ..., , Vol. 200 I • .•,,Ift • 2 • ! - ,... • ift . . .. . ..„ .. .:„ P •"-04.4. ' . - - )11.1 li., '.'."*.A, ..... ici :. ,...... '.1 ''''''. • I ROUNDABOUTALTERNATIVEB DEscHuTEsCOUNNOR : 3 KKrrJg &AssOCIAT:lINc. TRANSPORTATION ..„ �; • tip �.i ;" a > * x _a W^^b •r i y fr ti... ' ' 4, :,..,44..# .'.... ,,,./- I '14;•,- • M:N w'�tiw J At;,ii , ' . ., A" A'''. ''' 4" / '" ' * 4 e :,-- ... ,.....? ,„,. 'yy�y�. 4; ,r hr �r r p r it . . i '4.hr�I9f�t . � ' .' R *”'o s F" l' : . • _._ — — —_. .. — — :a rw .. K . -,i,itt .. . .., .. „.... , . , r., , , . . .. 0 ; . __ , .. re4.ksi ., . . w .„ . ., 4,1.4 ,, . '"r' ,.: ' 'X"° ��„. dill am 41'. 444 4 ♦ . .. !d 1 Appendix B Roundabout Design Vehicle Paths . May 20tH Powell Butte Highway/Neff Road/ntersecnan Altemaaves _ ...-.. • t it M ., .�,1 p.;. ":r �t' 1 r ' y r ry y 4!#c: c .r# , r . J � • '. i . �, ,,4_" 1 "W .'tw~ ^.a AF T ' „ti a ✓ / @ Jc SAND U";,r ' w T773320C • WELL BUTTE o- ■ , x t n s„ a■ a 55T � d y w ^ //•}}f . [.,, ,. '''...4.,..4. ,0„„„ ,'.. ',,, ,f'4 ."t,".,,.4 3......;jilt, , S . ....41,.,.. ..44ilti #11,i it..?:11. , ^ ....*„...*:a : A 4.* 13.---. r, r Yin �s ILA, ,.Z w 4221t* ", v"' A DRA! TRUSi 1.: E 1 "" •• - MIELI IJTTE HWY. "w 4WJ d ess: 52A35 PO i r T 4 �n 0R 977 ,yam *YS5., y CC < 4. :e, Pore 1• �y Y� - w+ 4 4 ,4.. v4 701:4 P�. ( i C 0 E " • a r �IARLfS P ET AL "+t" F r �";`..: ""�,N M r, KEITH ANO KAR.4) 3UbUU-1801 ,°'yf ,4'i 0 NEFF RD. alt- 'r11w /' 3,701 w 04117 ,. s R.N. Y[ SANUk w - ItcIg57 ,w >;w+P h y-' " , Towlot I'''.33000G .v ,., " Address: 223fi E ,„„, BEND. OR 977 11,11:, �'S,,j� �.iC. Vol. 20"3 I''y. U61 Sfi'"(Y'sgt".e8�„'+•J r+ I !• �. t /7, , • ..`: + , r-- THE SOUTH}',3QWN({R'RY OFTk�I:s 1".. iy • 18Ut 1� DESCRIBE6TO THIER �T ' DEED V9L. C1 PU:UA117 r f fs . S,. V 44' if Ay ^H I�a.RI.ENE A f A 4 y •..t Y"1.3100_105 ' .T ss 73 wEL14fuTT '11.'+5,9 W. 1, , i ., 7ltx ��" ` ? /�,'J` .... 111 �. u> Aw 1/9 ; `221 O.R. ( 9 /f/ I—•;IS ^�e a P �r%77 fA ---- R 92;4:7 9 by a s i, i • MARCIA ,i 81sC 1a(lF"i FAM TRl15T '"" 'r.. *w ' TaxlotA 1?1:5s1000 1004 --^"""+ vA� 4041955. 2`/.399 AI FALFV MAR ET R0, •, p 4 ., L 9ENO OG 977(11 `" } rY+rti" 1� I ' �' '� •" Vol. 2008 ng. 331)39 L"'"'=., 'w " *'. h t. ! Rr.. ',� t + J, - �... "�I -- — J --' - - - ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE B ED E TRUCK TURN PATHS WB67-NB/S8 THROUGH a. DESCHUTES COUNTY.OR KINKITTELSON&ASSOCIATES.INC. YRANSPORTATIONENGEERING PANNING Powell Sutra Highway/Neff Road intersection Alternatives Aqgree P074 zo,T w T a "1B Jq$ 4 r �7 " "' S r( "» T �� " q f *l , p 1" ;;N l i7+•d.' .1� , ,4 a ,.r�:1g. Y"d°'",�1Jx ;w k T • �. " •R b H v a � 4.:4 ,yt,'.. a,'" yW . R n,t,SANG AR h , 4 . r r . c " s 0 - KU. BU , i.,;''' ,a,� " + PF A7 -" — w_ �t T Y !+° m CO a %-i* , Y• ,w k " AF, �'" DRA!�1 "„pM TRUST 1, "4"+'B. 6.cc < d ena •2435 POYY "! iTE HWY, 'i r� OR 977. Q� ! Vol. 2013 Pg. •, (�+or S1--..tglk .+T p : IyS,tl, y it O AARLES P ET AL .�• • O 4. KEITH AND KARA) �* T ° 30000-1801 - - '''''ills'1. 310 NEFF RD. «n ±u,"'•'Y tQ4117 ".4 a •... .. RONALD & SANOR r. • .ST ..yr 'IF'� Tdrlot;171330000 �",F µ ISIA ""' Address' 223 E "y i r • BEND, OR 9777 \yw „': ! 1. 4 Vol. 2013 Pg. Des11 !?{ } »;r r THE SOt1TH uN4{r1v OFT 'L 1N01 IS pE SC IB TO ER ,;A. DEED VOL" ef.,041,7 • .. / ^ �,,ry "' � 1. 1a7C c ~ ' '- a r rya �. l $ . r/5;;,...9frea, ''' r . r r , '1 : 9 .w ■ a. 1� H. RLENE it "^ � 'µ /.' y »";... w • •i t 171331QOIO5 /11 Y .7-ss.. 73 EL u TIE OR' �� 1 P .. 0 GR. ki !4 ,. 4 �:. nufW S. PR. (99 ^ R! ,a 4,.,,. ;V 7 Rn92.i.2 1 .'4 44, r 4. . rw IP MARCIA J BISCHOFF FAN{ TRUST 4. `. • '' .• 1 Tom& 171 331000-1(04 # ,, t.' i" r Address 22.:599 ALI"ALFA MAP F.T RIT, '+.lot V BENI, OR 97701 ,� :S aF►w 2 ``.wr 4 vnl. 2009 Pg, 33039 g •C i ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE B t TRUCK TURN PATDESC HUTES COUN Y.OR 'Z KKITTELSON&ASSOCIATES,INC- .YRANSPawrnrmN er we0RINe PLANNx,c ,a, March 2014 Powell Butte hlighway/Neff Road Intersection Alternatives 4,- 4.:i.,,,..,,,.,citg.„y.-, . v,..;..4.104,, ,. ....",'Ir.'.....;,,,'1,$ , :'e'',"..." ■!'' ,e:g'il,if ' . ...,,,, ' 'Fit,.,,,' 1:-,1*.'' r, - ''''''',i..4'.4'..#.. ,. ,,`,-. - . '11 44* -r401,4,."- t-4- •' ,....p.7-4.. '" *- '. '‘,. "' — - . ,41,0'.'kit,t.,„„':'1.,- ,..... ,, , ,;', l'' '`' , ,. -'7e'-'"-:--",*:* "... ,. , ''' „,'. -. •■•4. -. - - '.. 7air „ 2„ 1...,-°,11-: ' '4 1.w t ,S.‘ ,„,,,,, ,,,,-',: ' , 11,. '- .,f-1. 4L ',."' ' '-,,t- „'1, - '_ , ..,‘ , "',* ,11.,,I.,,,N, , ,,,,),,, ,, 44,-..,,--4-4,-..,. ...,, ;:..s.„7,„ t ,,i„-- , • , ,-, -,.. .fik,,,, ..., ,,,.,„ .,- .-:'..,f,,,4 '-- ,:4 3, ',..1... *.,14:' .'-'' ;04; '1;*,4, ,., AA.1W i• * ,;''["'X''''' ,;• ': . -4. , ;4,','0; -,4' ' 1'•:•11' ,..4'1.: It '11 '"" 44444,,,'..., . 4, ',...',4i " ' -.1'4 Al .: •:44.4 1` 47';-'1 :`...•.4-•, m- .': :' e i I t.; r,,A, ,, '4•-•.,..it . ' ..4,';,.,....: ..!•,:t.,,,:-,,•...::' ,L,,J1,....:P-; .6;4titeg!!!'w"L "T" • -s. ':: 1 4:,....,,, ,, ,;,.:1,4*!:'..,4 ;- ,, I ti ' ,. • '0 .._ ....., ..,,,,„ 47 e •• nit • A ... , ALADRA 200111154 TRUST - 4°N&NTE H,„, e A , i , .. , ,. .. . ..4 „ , . 0;47., 62435 PO , A% . - ; . C..) oR 977f C7o1 It CI Vol, 2013 pg. .,.. :(parpik' _ ; :.:..-.',4'4. ARLES P ET AL KEITH AND KARA) 30000-1601 310 NEFF RD, Ot . 04117 `7 ° . A& .. ., * ‘, II:midi 171330000 _ * ,'!”- Ak. „ '4. • ' Irr ' • 7.76 le BEND, OR 977 414. iiK 44 // i_in..,40- '('''LrOttfti. .../.A— Vol. 2013 pg o‘ime..- .011) / ,m. — . • # 11 *4, e . Ag- 4,-7 _. r — THE SOUTH ti2,iiikl'* or 7Nt 7 •I'' ' 1801 1 DESCRI8w-TO THI R ...., 4tIS'04 / 7 [SEED VOL.' A f 04 041'74111p. , . A : / ,07 4,_ / -\ 1, vo ,•. / -c. 44- , 5 1 .4 ,, .:. • - , ..., ' , * ..' • 4av .1,,, ' val* V ' - ., 1........,,,„, i / i.- ,-, iiih. _ .-- _.- .?, . .. ... - . .----- 1 .... -:-.. ,,,-- . . 4 I . . ear - frl - ... .. ,,,,4 ,. s . ., mir.3100•••••— 4,4 ; - o 4-",,,. 44, A ik \ SA - '4 -r= '4.41*-7-°- At A 4 . , 40, , ,.. T__. ..--, 41' A, A mi "iipft. A ' * -1-LyeRIFNF it ... 5 ",,, 44,, „1... VP ,.. '.. I. '7155100 -)05 N ti‘ 4 T-s73 WELL„dleUTTE'MI.3-IAD, OR „IV 4 * I 7 .1„f• , . .7.(' mi. .4t-ti * Jo s ",..,' A01,4 , g sr- 0 0.6. (1 4160 Mk. ...!. s' , •, 0 n,. w#11, A9402221 4.1. 1 4 .1,A■ 4 ar VC. * 1111h-• `— R40423 2 ., ..7 p, A.,.- it. st... . . I ..* ,•.• *io, •• --; . - 1° , • . ... 1 M ARCS A .1 BISCHOFF FAM TRUST -,- - -4 *• ' 11 3 31000-1004 4 _ .•-t , -.. Address 22.1043 ALFALFA MARIZET PE,. _ r • ;',' BEND OR '47701 ' I • 4 . 3339 4 ., .t*, va 2008 l'g 0 - -aw- 1-.. t ' ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE B -.1- TRUCK TURN PATHS-W867-SBLT i DESCHUTES COUNTY.OR .--• •--' KK ITT ELSON&ASSOCIATE'S,INC. Pawell Butte Highway/Nell Reap infersrecfian Alt2meti.a March 20!4 d.' rT" .-'''.. 16.E P oxi+X. ... k! .r .h, � M"a rA w�'k k a �ro W+ "�.R 'e u R r4 yp} X, yl, .YY4 A 7i"S r.'e . G -k "�y r � i;`Y ° ea ( N `ti A ? F p H : 3 , q 5' itt%:lit ' : . ,. , -,.."-t` ,.-tc.'.."',. ,.. 4..:„..,'„,,,4.. ?. ' ,- ..- - -1, , :Iiii d � W Y �.. Q C a 4,1x1t. ass •2435 POV - 1TE HWY, : ►OR 977" �5 ,' 1 fg .,,,,,,, 3{ Vnl. 2013 Pg:+. L (PgrellH - ,^. « iii" ARLES P ET AI. k "" KEITH AND KARA) w.. } .`y 7} k 30000-1801 4 r 310 NEFF RD, ,14117 "#r w • RONALD 8 SANER' RONA171330000 1457 ; !, "" Address: 2236 E °" BEND, OR 977 •1,, �°:" j „00# Vai. 2013 Pg 0813 E( 41 i4 4 1;� -- �„THE SOUTHp 1q�11ir OF T 4 T 1801 I5 DESCG�IOETJ`TO 1HI ER r y---�� X t:,,, 0550 VOL.�D1. EO'041;7, %/ :, ' 0 t gli ,..".' .. . iw it- , ' * tt, 411t44,* ", ' /* if' ' i 1 r .....:.i Itiorrior„ I 4444'''' w �" �lqh.. R ''H.H +k1 ENE 4 J ,K '. _ A. ,., r ,'. t: 17133100 105 -�" isss: 373*6WELI„A7tJTTE 7�M4 MOO. OP 7 :. ,y 7r }� P s00.R. I lea r X w n �`1'��!1....,, ;' 1151 .4' i/.1R=9-,0 25 2 q1•R, 1 k T MARCIA J BISCHOFF FAN 'TRUST + '^-w. " . P.. ">r 1na101. 171331000-1004 " ':��" ': ✓ — I �" Address. 22399 ALFALFA MARKET RU, Y ate. BEND OR 91701 '7; d • .~ + 1--i,-y-17. .4 1 Vnl. 2008 Pg. 33039 .0 • t J , A it, .., I ' , 4 i� —_-- ■__ ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE B z TRUCK TURN PATHS-W507-NBLT B 4 DESCHUTES COUNTY.OR K KITTELSON&ASSOCIATES„INC. TRANSPOCTATIDN ENCINHERING PLANNING Milk .... March 2014 Powell Butte'4,o-way/Neff Road Infesec7ion A1lematiVeB „3 1 lam '4F^`Mv "'F" f 'F .rl f p; r 'Ala �.t ',r. q ' „g .nom .'r',"P" 4 ..4^. 1 ea...' a "�• ,-.. ' � ax%1EiI R Na��'.< i,„A , f d"41, n� Y 'Wes. ;'.&SANOAI T'r„t • ,;2â 114 ' '''';'171L •N� "I-I ra S 4a 14,`• "iltik 04 per,� ro v" a. .fir , LDRA.BIM*TRIiSr ,��' :.. .y T: $1,,,,,110,,,,,)Noo...2,,,,__.438 POEL ddGess: 5243s Pa I TTE Hwy. ��, ; 7 r1r Qa 97a• M'" Vol. 2013 Pq.. .�� (Rarc�l+ +. r � x ARLES P ET AL r •�'�" KEITH AND KARA) �, .a 66 30000-1801 . . . -4 310 NEFF RD, '. 'ip . , , ,iir . . .rD;11? RQNALD & SANQRi S 3 M0 . y "+1� .' , Taxlot:I71330000 � Address: 2239 E � m � ■ '?r+.b ,/,,o BEND, OR 97 rr "'•" Vol, 2013 Pq. 0136;°( l„ i 4. 1 �. / i '�,. >. THE SOU 0-1 WH 4, OF 1' L „s; )_ y I I 1801 1S DE5 19E1'�'''TQ THI ER Y , DEED VOL.�Q, Lf.7'0411 7 '" �/ • Lam. t►-2«. a I W ,, - se.t.;... ':, e '',7 t. i..(9.,,' 'A -it, ,IA ,4 \ - ---;''' ,, it ^ M w f' t D nu K•H, RILE D0R. s 170 3 WFLt, VrrE. Pr , �t- y.� ... R®913.2 K AA w ,w . a 1 71•, 4. MARCIA 1 81501-IOFF FAM TRUST A' •... "' .* *y raxwa ,?133,voo—loon — •� � �' } " Address, 22.399 ALFALFA MAR ET PD, �, „« ,W BEND, OR 97701 a i ,.�,� N 1 * J 4 Vol 2008 Pa 33039 j " t,•� A I'r.- l' 4r , Sys iii;;; _.. _.. 7. ................... .............. .......... ....... ... ....... .... .... ............ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE 8 TRUCK TURN PATHS•WEi67-EM THROUGH DESCHUTES COUNTY.OR KKITTELSON&ASSOCIATES.INC. RANtspoRTAT,os ET. 4!lRING PLANNING - . POWELL BUTTE HWY/NEFF RD/ALFALFA MKT RD - RDBT ALT A ESTIMATED PROJECT COST . .. Proposed Road Im•rovements Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Excavation (Cut) cu.yd. 12,442 $15.00 $186,633 Embankment(Fill) cu.yd. 8,295 $10.00 $82,948 Pavement Rehabilitation sq.ft. $4.00 $0 New Pavement sq.ft. 75,956 $3.00 $227,868 Concrete Roundabout Upgrade sq.ft. 37,800 $3.50 $132,300 New Curb n.ft. 5,767 $15.00 $86,505- Concrete Median sq.ft. 36,024 $5.00 $180,120 Pavement markings lin.ft. 18,375 $0.50 $9,188 Signage each 25 $500.00 $12,500 Pavement Removal sq.ft. 7,150 $2.00 $14,300 Subtotal A (Roadworks) $932,361 Storm Drainage System %of Subtotal A 5% $46,618 Landscape Improvement %of Subtotal A 5% $46,618 Street Lighting each 20 $7,000.00 $140,000 Private Utility Coordination Lump/Sum 1 TED $50,000 New Traffic Signal each $250,000.00 $0 Traffic Signal Modification each $100,000.00 $0 Retaining Walls(less than 5 feet) sq.ft. $50.00 $0 High Retaining Walls sq.ft. $110.00 $0 Structures sq.ft. $150.00 $0 Railroad Crossing&Signalization each $750,000.00 $0 Subtotal B(Other) $283,236 Subtotal 1 (Subtotals A+ B) $1,215,597 Mobilization %of Subtotal 1 10% $121,560 Erosion Control %of Subtotal 1 5% $60,780 Traffic Control %of Subtotal 1 5% $60,780 Subtotal 2(Mobilization&Traffic Control) $243,119 Total (Subtotals 1 +2) $1,458,717 Plus Contingencies I I %of Total J 30% $437,615 Estimated Construction Cost $1,896,332 Architectural/Engineering i 1",//00 of EEsstt.. Cost I 15% $284,450 Construction Management 10% $189,633 Estimated Professional Fees $474,083 Right-of-Way sq. t. 27,800 $5.00 $139,000 Estimated Property Acquisition Cost $139,000 _ stimate• Project ost '.2,509,415 KAI Confidential 5/8/2014 Page 1 POWELL BUTTE HWY/NEFF RD/ALFALFA MKT RD - RDBT ALT B ESTIMATED PROJECT COST Proposed Road Improvements Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Excavation (Cut) cu. yd. 14,972 $15.00' $224,580 Embankment(Fill) cu. yd. 9,981 $10.00 $99,813 Pavement Rehabilitation sq.ft. $4.00 $0 New Pavement sq.ft. 91,400 $3.00 $274,200 Concrete Roundabout Upgrade sq.ft. 37,800 $3.50 $132,300 New Curb lin.ft. 5,782 $15.00 $86,730 Concrete Median sq.ft. 40,357 $5.00 $201,785 Pavement markings lin.ft. 18,375 $0.50 $9,188 Signage each 25 $500.00 $12,500 Pavement Removal sq.ft. 7,150 $2.00 $14,300 Subtotal A(Roadworks) $1,055,396 Storm Drainage System %of Subtotal A 5% $52,770 Landscape Improvement %of Subtotal A 5% $52,770 SYV... - ._. Street Lighting each 20 $7,000.00 $140,000 Private Utility Coordination Lump/Sum 1 TBD $50,000 New Traffic Signal each _ $250,000.00 $0 Traffic Signal Modification each $100,000.00 $0 Retaining Walls(less than 5 feet) sq.ft. $50M0 $0 High Retaining Walls sq.ft. $110.00 $0 Structures sq.ft. $150.00 $0 Railroad Crossing&Signalization each $750,000.00 $0 Subtotal B(Other) $295,540 Subtotal 1 (Subtotals A+ B) $1,350,935 Mobilization _ %of Subtotal 1 10% $135,094 Erosion Traffic s on Control %of Subtotal 1 5% $67,547 Control - %of Subtotal 1 5% $67,547 Subtotal 2(Mobilization&Traffic Control) $270,187 Total (Subtotals 1 +2) $1,621,123 Plus Contingencies I 1 %of Total [ 30% $486,337 Estimated Construction Cost $2,107,459 Architectural/Engineering I %of Est. Cost 15% $316,119 Construction Management _ I %of Est. Cost 10% $210,746 Estimated Professional Fees $526,865 Right-o-Way sq.ft. 13,250 5.00 66,250 Estimated Property Acquisition Cost $66,250 Estimated Project Cost ) $2,700,5741 KAI Confidential 5/8/2014 Page 1 POWELL BUTTE HWY/NEFF RD/ALFALFA MKT RD - OFFSET"T" ESTIMATED PROJECT COST - ro posed Road Improvements Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Excavation (Cut) _ cu.yd. 22,167 $15.00 $332,500 Embankment(Fill) _ cu.yd. 14,778 $10.00 $147,778 Pavement Rehabilitation sq.ft. — $4.00 _ $0 New Pavement sq.ft. 117,000 $3.00 $351,000 New Curb lin.ft. 2,500 $15.00 Concrete Median sq.ft. 11,600 $5.00 $58,000 Pavement markings lin.ft. 16,538 $0.50 $8,269 S g each 18 $500.00 _ $9,000 Pavement Removal sq.ft. — 28,800 $2.00 $57,600 Subtotal A(Roadworks) $1,001,647 Storm Drainage System %of Subtotal A 5% $50,082 Landscape $50,082 cape Improvement %of Subtotal A 5% Street Lighting each 20 $7,000.00 $140,000 Private Utility Coordination Lump/Sum 1 TBD $50,0008 New Traffic Signal each $250,000.00 $0 Traffic Signal Modification each $100,000.00 $0 g ... ( Retaining Walls (less than 5 fe et) sq.ft. $50.00 $0 High Retaining Walls sq.ft. $110.00 - $0 Structures sq.ft. $150.00 $0 Railroad Crossing& Signalization each $750,000.00 $0 Subtotal B(Other) $290,165 Subtotal 1 (Subtotals A+ B) $1,291'811 Mobilization %of Subtotal 1 10% $129,181 Erosion Control %of Subtotal 1 5% $64,591 Traffic Control %of Subtotal 1 5% $64,591 Subtotal 2(Mobilization&Traffic Control) $258,362 Total (Subtotals 1 +2) $1,550,173 Plus Contingencies I %of Total j 30% $465,052 rWmated Construction Cost _ $2,015,225 Architectural/Engineering %of Est. Cost 15% $302,284 Construction Management %of Est. Cost 10% $201,523 Estimated Professional ees $503,806 Right-of-Way sq.ft. 72,688 $5.00 $363,438 !stimated Property Acquisition ost $363,438 stimated Pro ect ost 2,882,469 KAI Confidential 5/8/2014 Page 1 \r II/ t Community Development Department 0 Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division P.0. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 MEMORANDUM http://www.co.deschutes,or.us/cdd/ DATE: June 5, 2014 TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (BOCC) FROM: Nick Lelack, Community Development Department (CDD) Director Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner Peter Russell, Senior Planner RE: Newberry Country Plan: Implementation Update This memorandum is for BOCC information. No action is being requested. SUMMARY CDD is in the early stages of implementing Newberry Country: A Plan for Southern Deschutes County.' This memo summarizes CDD's efforts to implement three projects, which are also recognized as FY 2014/2015 Goals and Objectives.2 Applicable Newberry Country Plan goals and policies for each project are also referenced below. The projects include: 1. Goal 11 Exception; 2. Transferable Development Credit (TDC)Advisory Committee; and 3. River access at Harper Bridge. f. GOAL 11 EXCEPTION Newberry Country Plan: Public Facilities Goal 9 Partner with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ) to protect groundwater and public health. Policy 9.1 Explore opportunities for Goal 11 exceptions and the full range of advance wastewater treatment opportunities, including but not limited to, the use of onsite alternative treatment technology, centralized sewer systems and cluster systems. 1 http://www.deschutes.org/Community-Development/Planni ng/Long-Range-Planning/Completed-Projects/South-County- Plan-2.aspx 2 http://www.deschutes.org/Finance/Budget-and-Finance/Budgets/FY-2015-Proposed-Program-Budget.aspx. Pages 12 and 13. Robust Economy Goal.Objectives#4 and#5;Management of Natural Resources Goal,Objective#1. Quality Services Performed with Pride Implementation The Planning and Environmental Soils divisions continue to support the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) South Deschutes/Northern Klamath County Groundwater Protection Project. DEQ, with the assistance of the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), continues to finalize the burden of proof and a map of the affected area to justify a Goal 11 exception. Goal 12, Transportation, must also be met. A transportation study is necessary to comply with the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). A Goal 11 exception could enable approximately 1,500 high groundwater lots to develop. The lots are presently restricted from development due to the State's onsite wastewater rules. If a Goal 11 exception is approved the lots could then hook up to a sewer, cluster, or similar public system. As most of the lots are zoned residential, there would be 15,000 new daily trips generated from these lots or about 1,500 trips in the morning peak and again in the evening peak hours. For context, 15,000 daily trips represent about the same amount of traffic now carried on U.S. 97 just south of the Baker Road interchange. DLCD is coordinating with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to determine if they can produce the traffic study. If ODOT is unable to produce it, the partner agencies (County, DLCD, DEQ) will need to determine a funding source to pay for the approximately $20,000 study, including such options as pursuing grant funding or sharing the costs. Grant funding would extend the project at least 6-8 months. Timeline: Once County staff receives the justification for a Goal 11 exception and a transportation study, it will take 10 weeks to schedule the first evidentiary hearing. Staff needs approximately 6 weeks to complete the entire land use proposal and prepare public notices. Since this is a legislative plan amendment, DLCD also requires a minimum 35 day notice to review the formal proposal. II. RECONVENING TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT CREDIT (TDC) ADVISORY COMMITTEE Newberry Country Plan: Land Use Goal 4 Manage County-owned lands to meet community objectives. Policy 4.4 In conjunction with the City of La Pine, evaluate and revise as needed, the Transfer of Development Credit and Pollution Reduction Credit programs by considering, at a minimum, the following: a. Reconvening the Transfer of Development Credit Advisory Committee; b. Analyzing the results of the program; c. Understanding existing market trends and land development constraints in the rural area and La Pine Neighborhood Planning Area; and d. Exploring, if necessary, different alternatives for developing the La Pine Neighborhood Planning Area that maximize revenues from the sale of property to fund groundwater protection efforts. -2- Implementation The TDC / Pollution Reduction Credit (PRC) program is aimed at protecting groundwater in southern Deschutes County in conjunction with La Pine's Newberry Neighborhood. TDCs, which have been in place since 2003, are deeded restrictions on future property development. They are acquired voluntarily in designated areas for the preservation of water quality and open space. The acquisition of TDCs is one option for developers of new parcels in the Newberry Neighborhood in the city of La Pine. Similarly, PRCs, which were added to the program in 2006, certify the placement of a nitrogen-reducing septic system in qualifying areas. They may be purchased as an alternative option to allow Newberry Neighborhood development. Revenue associated with TDCs and PRCs, together with Newberry Neighborhood land sale proceeds and other revenue sources, provide financial assistance to South County residents in implementing actions which reduce the amount of nitrates potentially entering the groundwater and therefore protect the source of drinking water in the area. In addition to funding sewer feasibility studies on an as-needed basis, financial assistance from this program has enabled rebates to be paid to South County property owners who have installed nitrogen-reducing septic systems. Low interest cost-deferred loans have also been made available to property owners to fund complete septic system replacement for those who may not otherwise qualify for project financing. TDC Advisory Committee Deschutes County Code (DCC), Chapter 11.12 codifies the TDC Program (Attachment). DCC 11.12.040 specifically addresses the TDC Advisory Committee's purpose, duties, and membership. Committee members are selected by CDD based on the knowledge and expertise that each member may contribute to the development of the TDC program. The TDC Advisory Committee's last meeting occurred in March 2007. They met nine times between 2005 and 2007. As shown in Table 1, the committee consisted of the following representatives: Table 1 - Previous TDC Advisory Committee Representatives 3 Baldwin-Herndon Trust Deschutes River Conservancy Developer- Excavation / Finley Butte Aggregate Developer- Pahlisch Homes Excavator Kerr Commercial Group La`;Pine Community Action Team Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development Planning Commissioner—South County Region Realtor Soil Scientist/Sanitarian ,South County Resident/ Property Owner 3 Representatives from Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Compass Commercial were formally invited to participate but did not attend any of the meetings. -3- Staff wants to add the following two representatives to the committee: o City of La Pine o Deschutes County Citizens Actions Group (CAG) Expanding the committee will help broaden the discussion as members determine if changes are needed to the TDC program. CDD recently coordinated with the City of La Pine to successfully transition land use permitting responsibilities from the County to the City. The transfer became effective last January. The City is now administering zoning and development review within its jurisdiction, which includes the Newberry Neighborhood, the receiving area for TDCs. The CAG is an organization that promotes active participation in all aspects of community development and decision-making in Deschutes County, specifically in the La Pine basin.4 Members were actively involved in the creation of the Newberry Country Plan, adopted by the BOCC in May 2013. Timeline: Staff anticipates contacting representatives this month and scheduling the first committee meeting in August. Up to five meetings are planned from August through December. Recommendations will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and BOCC in January 2015. III. HARPER BRIDGE Newberry Country Plan: Recreation Goal 17 Encourage a variety of parks, trails and recreation options for South County residents Policy 17.2 Collaborate with the La Pine Park and Recreation District, community organizations, Sunriver and La Pine to provide safe and convenient river access points, including: a. Improving existing sites including those at or near Harper Bridge and Maxwell Veterans Memorial Bridge; and b. Assessing options for new or improved public locations. Implementation The Sunriver Owners' Association is forming a task force to reach out to the various groups that have expressed an interest in resolving the issues of parking and launching watercraft at Harper Bridge. CDD will represent one of the task force members, which is expected to have an initial meeting later this month. Timeline: The Harper Bridge Task Force is slated to complete its work by September. IV. BOCC ACTION No action is being requested. Attachment: DCC Chapter 11.12, TDC Program n http://www.cagg.us/about-cag -4-