The URL can be used to link to this page

2019-291-Minutes for Meeting May 15,2019 Recorded 7/3/2019Recorded in Deschutes County Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk CJ2019-291 Commissioners' Journal 07/03/2019 $:45:20 AM 2019-291 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon (541 ) 388-6570 10.00 AM FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY 11MEA-111EX Will 11UN :`110 n i del KOMI] 11 j •�� Present were Commissioners Phil Henderson, Patti Adair, and Anthony DeBone. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Adam Smith, Assistant County Counsel; and Sharon Keith, Board Executive Assistant. Several citizens and no identified representatives of the media were in attendance. This meeting was audio and video recorded and can be accessed at the Deschutes County Meeting Portal website http://deschutescountyor.iqm2.com/Citizens/Default.aspx CALL TO ORDER: Chair Henderson called the meeting to order at 10:00 am PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: CITIZEN INPUT: Commissioner Henderson read a statement honoring Medal of Honor Recipient Bob Maxwell's life. BOCC MEETING MAY 15, 2019 PAGE 1 OF 7 CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda. DEBONE: Move approva ADAIR: Second VOTE: DEBONE: Yes ADAI R: Yes HENDERSON: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried Consent Agenda Items: 1. Consideration of Board Signature of Purchase Agreement, Document No. 2019-213, and Acceptance of Dedication Deed, Document No. 2019-214 from Edward H. Lampe and Julie L. Hinkley Lampe for Right of Way for Six Corners Intersection Improvement Fund 2. Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2019-287, Findings of Fact for the Use of the Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) for the Health Services Courtney HVAC Replacement 3. Consideration of Board Approval of Grant Application for Zero Suicide Initiative 4. Consideration of Letters Reappointing Dale Crawford and Maggie Kirby to the Deschutes County Planning Commission 5. Approval of Minutes of the April 15, 2019 BOCC Meeting 6. Approval of Minutes of the April 17, 2019 BOCC Meeting 7. Approval of Minutes of the April 22, 2019 BOCC Meeting ACTION ITEMS: 8. Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2019-271, COIC Cascades East Transit Lease in La Pine James Lewis, Property Manager presented the document for consideration. ADAIR: Move approval of Document No. 2019-271 DEBONE: Second BOCC MEETING MAY 15, 2019 PAGE 2 OF 7 VOTE: ADAI R: Yes DEBONE: Yes HENDERSON: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 9. Discussion on a Solid Waste Management Plan Survey Timm Schimke, Solid Waste Director presented an update on the process of the solid waste management plan telephone survey. Commissioner DeBone recommends a press release to announce the upcoming telephone survey. The consultant, Triton Polling, will contact residents for the survey. ADAIR: Move approval of Triton Polling conducting a 500 sample size telephone survey DEBONE: Second VOTE: ADAIR: Yes DEBONE: Yes HENDERSON: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 10.OSU Extension Loan Public Information Officer Whitney Hale, Facilities Director Lee Randall, and Assistant Legal Counsel Adam Smith presented a loan agreement for the OSU Extension/41-1 Service District. The Board directed staff to proceed with external legal review (on behalf of 4-H) of the loan documents. 11. Destination Resort Annual Reports Zechariah Heck, Community Development Department presented reports for the Goal 8 destination resorts of Eagle Crest, Pronghorn, Tetherow, and Caldera Springs. Deschutes County Code requires the annual report documenting compliance with overnight lodging criteria. BOCC MEETING MAY 15, 2019 PAGE 3 OF 7 12. PRESENTATION: PERS Solutions Sal Peralta of PERS Solutions presented PERS information for public services (a copy of the presentation attached for the record). Mr. Peralta is a City Councilor in McMinneville, Oregon. Mr. Peralta asks the Board to consider adopting a resolution to ask the Oregon Legislation to take action to reform and reduce pension costs for public employers. Commissioner DeBone recommended Mr. Peralta also present to the City of Bend. OTHER ITEMS: • County Administrator Anderson announced a few items for consideration including an upcoming National Association of Counties of Oregon conference in Las Vegas in duly and the voting opportunity at the conference for Deschutes County. Commissioner DeBone reported on a request from Sunriver Service District to review their budget prior to the Budget hearing week. RECESS: At the time of 11:38 a.m. the Board took a recess and reconvened the meeting at 1:00 p.m. 13.PUBLIC HEARING Continuation: Historic ADU Text Amendments (Ordinance No. 2019-009) Tanya Saltzman, Community Development Department presented the continuation of the public hearing from April 24. Ordinance No. 2019-009 would incorporate changes to the text amendments relative to state law regarding historic accessory dwelling units per House Bill 3012. BOCC MEETING MAY 15, 2019 PAGE 4 OF 7 Chris Breitenstein provided public testimony and asked for clarification. Commissioner Henderson closed the oral portion of the hearing. Commissioners DeBone and Adair support closing the written record as well. ADAIR: Move first reading of Ordinance No. 2019-009, by title only DEBONE: Second VOTE: ADAIR: Yes DEBONE: Yes HENDERSON: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried Commissioner Henderson read the ordinance by title only into the record. 14. PRESENTATION: Community Renewable Energy Association Brian Skeahan, CREA Managing Director presented (a copy of the presentation is attached to the record). CREA supports business and economic opportunities for its members through renewable energy development in a competitive environment in support of economically and environmentally responsible electric generation within the state of Oregon. Commissioners Henderson and DeBone asked questions about the relationship and status of CREA regarding investor-owned and cooperative electric utilities and with regard to fossil fuels and renewable services. Discussion occurred. 15.CONTINUED DELIBERATIONS: Marijuana Production Appeal at 25606 Alfalfa Market Road Will Groves, Community Development Department presented the continued deliberation process for the subject appeal. The Board continued BOCC MEETING MAY 15, 2019 PAGE 5 OF 7 deliberations. This item will be brought back to the Board for continued deliberations and consideration of first draft of written decision in several weeks. RECESS: At the time of 3:37 p.m. the Board took a recess and the meeting was reconvened at 3:44 p.m. 16.Continuation of Video Lottery Fund Allocation Discussion Judith Ure, Management Analyst presented the continued discussion. Based on the Board's direction, Ms. Ure will update the Video Lottery Fund Allocation. This item will be reviewed during the budget hearing week. Legislative Bill List: Judith Ure, Management Analyst reviewed potential legislative issues related to funding measures. Ms. Ure will email the list to the Board and Legislators. 17.Crisis Stabilization Center Debrief from BOCC Site Visits Commissioner Henderson reported on his observations of the site visits of the crisis stabilization centers within Oregon. Commissioner DeBone commented on the future of a facility that could provide a stabilization center and one that includes office space. Commissioner Henderson stated it is more clear to him there is a difference in levels and length of stay and expressed concern on the building design and location needs. Commissioner Adair reported on her observations and the importance of marketing. Commissioner Henderson commented on short term verses long term care. Commissioner DeBone commented on the population growth in BOCC MEETING MAY 15, 2019 PAGE 6 OF 7 Deschutes County and another plan may be needed within five years based on that. County Administrator Anderson reported on focus points for the project moving forward. OTHER ITEMS Continued: • Chair of the 911 User Board Meeting: County Administrator Anderson inquired who the Board would like to designate as chair for the meeting next Tuesday. Sara Crosswhite will chair the meeting. Terrebonne Sewer Feasibility Study: County Administrator Anderson reported on a request for funding the Terrebonne Sewer Feasibility Study. This item will be discussed at a future BOCC Meeting. The Board gave direction for staff to develop historical information on this topic. Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:46 p.m. DATED this Day o.L 2019 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners ANTHONY DEBONE, COMMISSIONER BOCC MEETING MAY 15, 2019 PAGE 7 OF 7 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - www.deschutes.or� BOCC MEETING AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10:00 AM, WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 2019 Barnes Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Center - 1300 NW Wall Street - Bend This meeting is open to the public, usually streamed live online and video recorded. To watch it online, visit www.deschutes.org/meetings. Pursuant to ORS 192.640, this agenda includes a list of the main topics that are anticipated to be considered or discussed. This notice does not limit the Board's ability to address other topics. Meetings are subject to cancellation without notice. Item start times are estimated and subject to change without notice. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZEN INPUT CONSENT AGENDA Consideration of Board Signature of Purchase Agreement, Document No. 2019-213, and Acceptance of Dedication Deed, Document No. 2019-214 from Edward H. Lampe and Julie L Hinkley Lampe for Right of Way for the Six Corners Intersection Improvement Project 2. Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2019-287, Findings of Fact for the Use of the Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) for the Health Services --Courtney HVAC Replacement 3. Consideration of Board Approval of Grant Application for Zero Suicide Initiative Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Wednesday, May 15, 2019 Page 1 of 3 4. Consideration of Letters Reappointing Dale Crawford and Maggie Kirby to the Deschutes County Planning Commission 5. Approval of Minutes of the April 15, 2019 BOCC Meeting 6. Approval of Minutes of the April 17, 2019 BOCC Meeting 7. Approval of Minutes of the April 22, 2019 BOCC Meeting ACTION ITEMS 8. 10:05 AM Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2019-271, COIC Cascades East Transit Lease in La Pine -James Lewis, Property Management 9. 10:15 AM Discussion on a Solid Waste Management Plan Survey - Timm Schimke, Director of Solid Waste 10. 10:35 AM OSU Extension Loan - Whitney Hale, Public Information Officer 11. 10:45 AM Destination Resort Annual Reports - Zechariah Heck, Associate Planner 12. 11:15 AM PRESENTATION: PERS Solutions, Tim Nesbitt, Interim Executive Director LUNCH RECESS 13. 1:00 PM PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION: Historic ADU Text Amendments (Ordinance No. 2019-009) - Tanya Saltzman, Associate Planner 14.11:30 PM PRESENTATION: Community Renewable Energy Association -Brian Skeahan, Managing Director 15. 2:00 PM CONTINUED DELIBERATIONS: Marijuana Production Appeal at 25606 Alfalfa Market Road -Jacob Ripper, Senior Planner 16. 2:45 PM Continuation of Video Lottery Fund Allocation Discussion -Judith Ure, Management Analyst 17. 3:15 PM Crisis Stabilization Center Debrief from BOCC Site Visits Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Wednesday, May 15, 2019 Page 2 of 3 EXECUTIVE SESSION Executive Sessions under ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Real Property Negotiations and ORS 192.660 (2) (i) Employee Evaluation OTHER ITEMS These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners wish to discuss as part of the meeting, pursuant to ORS 192.640. At any time during the 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; ORS 192.660(2)(b), personnel issues, or other executive session categories. Executive sessions are closed to the public, however, with few exceptions and under specific guidelines, are open to the media. ADJOURN Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. To request this information in an alternate format please call (541) 617-4747. FUTURE MEETINGS: Additional meeting dates available at www deschutes ormeetingcolendar Meeting dates and times are subject to change. If you have questions, please call (541) 388-6572. Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Wednesday, May 15, 2019 Page 3 of 3 �i E S CO � Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners BOCC Wednesday Meeting of May 15, 2019 DATE: May 9, 2019 FROM: Janice Garceau, Health Services, TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Board Approval of Grant Application for Zero Suicide Initiative RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Request approval of grant application. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Oregon Health Authority Public Health Division (PHD) will provide 4 -month grants of $10,000 - $15,000 each to between five and eight healthcare organizations or regional partnerships to support Zero Suicide Initiative implementation efforts. Healthcare organizations must have applied or attended the September 2018 Zero Suicide Academy and demonstrate continued commitment to Zero Suicide implementation. Grant recipients must each propose a plan to train staff on safer suicide care, facilitate strategic planning of Zero Suicide implementation, implement a quality improvement project that supports Zero Suicide efforts, upgrade electronic health records to enhance Zero Suicide tracking, and/or propose additional strategies that further Zero Suicide efforts. The funding period is June 1 - September 29, 2019. DCHS is a designated Zero Suicide Academy Site, eligible for this funding opportunity and has an existing strategic and quality improvement plan in place to advance Zero Suicide efforts. DCHS has made upgrades to the electronic health record to enhance Zero Suiicde Efforts. DCHS is seeking funding for training of clinical staff in the "Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality" (CAMS). CAMS is a therapeutic framework for suicide - specific assessment and treatment of a patient's suicidal risk. It is a flexible approach that can be used across theoretical orientations and disciplines for a wide range of suicidal patients across treatment settings and different treatment modalities. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Revenue, between $10,000 to $15,000. ATTENDANCE: Janice Garceau, Deputy Director Zero Suicide Initiative Implementation Funding Budget Justification June 1- September 29, 2019 Note: Applicants may use this template or another budget format of their own choosing. Applicants should propose budgets totaling $10,000 - $15,000 (the amount available to each funded health care organization) or, if multiple eligible entities are submitting a single proposal, the combined total budget. The proposed budgetshould include a clear explanation/justification for each requested line item. Organization(s) name: Deschutes County Health Services Date: April 23, 2019 Object Class Category 'Grant'funds Justification/Explanation Training $14,355 On line training of 145 clinical staff in Collaborative Asseement and Management of Suicidality (CAMS) cost is $99.00pp Supplies $507 13 Treatment Manuals of CAMS, 1- for Each Program at $34.85 + 5.00 S&H Printing $138 Copies of CAMS forms for training purposes $0 $0 Other $0 $0 Total project costs $15,000 Indirect costs (no more than 10%) $0 TOTAL $15,000 \)-C E'S C Deschutes County Health Services •.J GRANT APPLICATION REQUEST 77, Official Grant Title: Oregon Caring, Connections Grant Scope of Work for Zero Suicide Initiative Implementation Funds Source of Grant Funds: Ore on Health Authority Public Health Division Funding Amount and Duration (include amount per year if multiple years): 4 -month grants of $10,000 - $15,000 Application Due Date: MaV 16, 2019 FTE Required and Cost of FTE: No additional FTE will be required for the grant. Staff Responsible: Elizabeth Holden Matching Requirements? ❑ Yes N No If Yes, ❑ in-kind or ❑cash? Amount: Check or, tali here to eater text. Contract or MOU Required? N Yes ❑ No Does grant allow for admin fee? ❑ Yes N No If Yes, amount: Click or tali here to enter text. Expedited Director approval? ❑ Yes N No If Yes, attach copy of grant opportunity notification. Please answer the following questions: 1. How does this grant opportunity align with priorities in the Health Services Strategic Plan, the Regional Health Improvement Plan or an emerging need? DCHS is seeking funding for on-line training of 145 clinical staff in the "Collaborative Assessment and. Management of Suicidality" (CAMS). Both the Regional Health Improvement Plan and Health Services Strategic Plan identify the need for effective, evidenced based mental. health. treatment modalities 2. Briefly summarize what work the grant is intended to accomplish. Oregon Health Authority Public Health Division (PHD) will provide 4 -month grants of $10,000 - $15,000 each to between five and eight healthcare organizations or regional partnerships to support Zero Suicide Initiative implementation efforts. Healthcare organizations must have applied or attended the September 2018 Zero Suicide Academy and demonstrate continued commitment to Zero Suicide implementation. Grant recipients must each propose a plan to train staff on safer suicide care, facilitate strategic planning of Zero Suicide implementation, implement a quality improvement project that supports Zero Suicide efforts, upgrade electronic health records to enhance Zero Suicide tracking, and/or propose additional strategies that further Zero Suicide efforts. The funding period is June 1 — September 29, 2019. DCHS is a designated Zero Suicide Academy Site, eligible for this funding opportunity and has an existing strategic and quality improvement plan in place to advance Zero Suicide efforts. DCHS has made upgrades to the electronic health record to enhance Zero Suiicde Efforts. DCHS is seeking funding for training of clinical staff in the "Collaborative Assessment and. Management of Suicidality" (CAMS). CAMS is a therapeutic framework for suicide -specific assessment and treatment of a patient's suicidal risk. It is a flexible approach that can be used across theoretical orientations and disciplines for a wide range of suicidal patients across treatment settings and different treatment modalities. Rev. 11/19/2018 Page 1 of 3 3. Describe the science or evidence base that supports delivering the work the grant is intended to accomplish. 'Three Randomized Controlled Trials (R.CT's) have been published demonstrating the effectiveness of CAMS for treating suicidal risk. Additional supportive RCT data from two unpublished RC`1's in the US arid abroad and three on-going R.CT's are presently being conducted in Seattle, Washington, San Diego, California and Germany with other RCT's in the planning stages. Eight published correlational/open clinical trials of CAMS in real-world clinics and hospitals around the world. provide further support for the efficacy of CAMS. 4. Does the work the grant is intended to accomplish require ethics review? If so, what is the regulating authority and who will do the work? Not applicable 5. Summarize the cost of doing the work the grant is intended to accomplish (include costs of personnel, equipment, materials and services, travel/training, etc., as applicable, using the grant calculator tool [to be developed]). Grant funds will be released to the designated project/fiscal lead entity when the project plan and budget have been approved by OHA/PHD. Funds will be used to purchase the on-line training of Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality (CAMS) for 145 clinical staff members. In addition 13 CAMS Treatment Manuals ( 1 for each clinical team) will be purchased with grant funds and printing cost of CAMS handouts will be covered by grant funds. Rev. 11/19/2018 Page 2 of 3 N Administrative supports required (check all that applv): ❑ Compliance oversight ® Contract ® Data analysis: Is the data N already collected? OR N new to us? Where does the data live? Web based survey of staff training needs and experience. Grantees using the funds for providing training must collect a brief baseline survey from participants at the start of each training and submit a training summary by web survey for each training completed that includes the type of training, the training date, the number of clinicians trained and the number of non -clinicians trained. © EHR ® Fiscal oversight and/or reporting ❑ Operations (building, vehicles, etc.) ® Reporting: What: The Portland State University Regional Research Institute for Human Services is conducting an evaluation of the impact of OHA's Zero Suicide efforts. At the end of this project, grantees will be asked to complete a web survey similar to the Organizational Self -Assessment submitted with their 2018 Zero Suicide Academy application. If requested, progress since this self-assessment will be compiled into an individualized implementation outcome report for each health system completing the survey. A de -identified cross -site report will be created that demonstrates the progress made across all participating sites. The cross -site report will be shared with the US Substance Abuse Mental Health Administration (SAMHSA), the agency funding OHA's Zero Suicide efforts. ❑ Other, please describe: Click or tali here to enter text. To be completed by Director: Final review of grant application materials prior to submittal will be done by: ❑ Deputy Director ❑ Director Deputy Director Approval Director Approval ❑ Yes ❑ No Date & Initials: ❑ Yes ❑ No Date & Initials: Rev. 11/19/2018 Page,3 of 3 ��.. ES CSG �r -Z o Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST &STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners BOCC Wednesday Meeting of May 15, 2019 DATE: May 6, 2019 FROM: Timm Schimke, Solid Waste, 541-317-3177 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Discussion on a Solid Waste Management Plan Survey RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Staff recommends proceeding with both a formal telephone survey as well as a web based survey that can be supplied by Triton Polling. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Department of Solid Waste is nearing completion of a Solid Waste Management Plan that has been developed in anticipation of the closure of Knott Landfill in Bend which is estimated to reach capacity in about 10 years. The two primary options for disposal after Knott Landfill closes are siting a new landfill in the County, or contracting for long haul and disposal at regional landfills located on the Columbia River. The Board is interested in surveying the citizens of the County on how which option they support and why. Triton Polling has provided a quote for conducting a statistically valid telephone survey as well as posting the survey on a web site to gain input from the citizens. I have attached a copy of the cost proposal as well as a copy of the proposed survey questions for discussion. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The total cost of proposed services ranges from $8, 000 to $10,875 depending on sample size. ATTENDANCE: Timm Schimke -TES p .� Department of Solid Waste � 61050 SE 27th Street • Bend, Oregon 97702 (541) 317-3163 FAX (541) 317-3959 To: BOCC From: Timm Schimke CC: Tom Anderson Date: May 3, 2019 Re: Disposal Options Survey The Board has indicated a desire for additional public input into the decision of future solid waste disposal options identified in the draft Solid Waste Management Plan. We have discussed the use of Triton Polling and Research to conduct a statistically valid survey of citizens on this topic. We have also discussed using the franchised collectors' customer billing system to direct service customers to our web- site to take a survey posted there. We have had further discussions with Triton on these approaches and have received the following quote for services. Sample Size 8.5 Minute Interview cost 300 $7,000 400 $8,450 500 $9,875 In addition to the phone survey, Triton will post the survey questions on their web site for an additional $1,000. Prices include separate results as well as a comparative report showing results side by side. I have attached a copy of the survey questions that Triton would use. This item will be on your Monday agenda for discussion. Quality Services Performed with Pride Deschutes County Solid Waste Survey Live Interview Telephone Version 2 We would like to start by providing you some background information on the Knott landfill, the only landfill in Deschutes County, Currently the Knott landfill is estimated to reach its capacity in ten years. One of the biggest questions facing County officials is what will happen once the landfill is full. A committee of local residents and stakeholders have been studying a variety of disposal options, but two main choices have emerged: The first option is to build a new landfill in Deschutes County. The second option is to transport our trash out -of -county to a large landfill near the Columbia River Gorge. In terms of costs, currently, Deschutes County spends about $35 per ton of trash to maintain garbage at the Knott Landfill. If we build a new landfill, costs are estimated to increase to $42 per ton. If we transport trash out of county, costs are estimated to increase to $47 - $60 per ton. These are estimated rates which can be difficult to forecast because of unpredictable factors like fuel prices, taxes and other fees .t, l,ti.slt) NNTp(-",fttint the fir<<.x.:l'dzl inaq--act of this (l;ecisri..Ft is vfJ \tw�,r in teEa`." ',ria 2rped"i`, %hl�rP sK th("4 l noOt -a l: dfill ar, ft l rt,..f 0 ur.e tgf m r'ty factors Not aX: tni' f !aCtt It le s E kll, t i4 fa'cto'r As garbage decomposes, it produces emissions and other byproducts. If we build a new landfill, these emissions will remain in Deschutes County. If we transport trash out of county, emissions from our trash will impact other jurisdictions. 2, indicate ttu E't?5' at, Eex"tent You ,(gree t,7ffl¢kf the 1C4BI1o'wini t,€um,, is q rie.r':a Cl here ,I'r ; uki slcay l tr e,,. Do yFtt.?;,.? Stir Ffr"trd y Agree Agree Disagree If we transport trash out of county, there will be a larger environmental impact because of the miles trash will travel to be disposed of. If we transport trash out of the county, we estimate the following transportation impacts: o In 2030:1,655,000 more miles traveled o In 2040:2,080,000 more miles traveled 3. Please indicate how important the transportation impacts of this decision are to you, is it-.? If we build a new landfill, jobs and revenue from trash disposal stay here. If we transport trash out of county, revenue and jobs are created in other places. 4. Please indicate how important the econonaic impacts of this decision are to you, is it...? The most important factor One of irmny important factors Neutral Not an important factor 'The least important factor Not sure / don't know If we build a new landfill, 400-500 acres of land will need to be developed. This development could displace other uses and may impact neighboring parcels of land. If we transport trash out of county, there won't be an impact to local land within the county. hat e,, -€ fl,�,e fo�k,-,�,,adnq swteneer at, i wotald be P�ease hroficate to w xtent yo�,.�, agree vifWf conatorrtabte othf--n, uses ffioc-0. a kanrifiR could bf built focaHy, Do you ..... I Strpnpq�y Agree A �,j r e e, Neutrr Disagree Strc.-m.giy Disaqree Not, Sure / DcoVt 6. Please rank the following impacts from most important to least important based on your values: (Agent: ONLY SELECT ONE NUMBER PER QUESTION ) • Impacts on my monthly trash bill / disposal rates • Environmental impacts • Irnpacts to local jobs and the ecoriorny • Impacts to land and local development 0 Not sure / don't know 7, Ovprall, vidh"Wh orptiorl Wcauld yo -u suptpok t? r3uikfinq a niew landf Hl 41 Deschutes County c-fr tran,sporfing cmr tra�,.,h o Building a new landfill in Descluates County o Transporting our trash out -of -county o Not sage / don't know Lastly, we have a few questions about you that are needed for statistical purposes. Your responses will remain anonymous and strictly confidential. 8. Are you--? o A residential customer o A lousiness custorner o Both as a residential and as a business customer a A self hauler o I never use a recycling or transfer station or the landfill 10. Gender [ agent code based on observation o Fen -tale o Male 11. What is the highest level of education you have completed? 0 Bachelors Degree o Some College o Dost Graduate o High School Graduate o Some High School o Prefer not to answer 12e What is your annual hoaasehold income? o less than $30,000 o 31 to $40,000 o $41 to $75,000 o $41 to $75,000 41 to $75,000 o $41 to $75,000 Where do you live in Deschutes County? [ derived from voter database ] o City of Bend o City of La Pine o City of Redmond o City of Sisters o Unincorporated Deschutes County �1T E S C E Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners BOCC Wednesday Meeting of May 15, 2019 DATE: April 22, 2019 FROM: Whitney Hale, Administrative Services, 541-330-4640 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: OSU Extension Loan BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The OSU Extension / 4-H Service District is expanding and improving its facility at the Fair & Expo Center and is constructing a new building. The County has agreed to loan the District money to assist with completion of the project. County Legal has drafted a loan agreement for the County loan, which needs to be reviewed by the District. Staff is seeking Board direction on whether: a. County Legal should perform the review of the loan on behalf of both parties (the County and the District). b. Outside counsel should perform review of the loan on behalf of the District, since it was drafted by County Legal. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Deschutes County plans to assist in the expansion of the Extension / 4-H Service District's new facility by loaning the District a sum of money not to exceed $1, 000, 000, required by the District for construction and equipment costs of the new facility. ATTENDANCE: Dave Doyle, Legal; Whitney Hale, Administrative Services ES CSG � 2 o " Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners BOCC Wednesday Meeting of May 15, 2019 DATE: May 8, 2019 FROM: Zechariah Heck, Community Development, 541-385-1704 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Destination Resort Annual Reports BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Deschutes County has four Goal 8 destination resorts: Eagle Crest, Pronghorn, Tetherow, and Caldera Springs. Destination resorts are required to have overnight lodging units (OLUs) as a way to promote tourism and spur local economic growth. A specific ratio of permanent residences to OLUs is set for each resort. Every year, resorts must provide a report to the County documenting their required ratio of platted residential lots to OLUs. As an informational item on May 15, staff will provide an overview of the County's destination resorts, specifically the OLU status of each resort. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Eagle Crest Resort compliance fee is $105,380.44. ATTENDANCE: Zechariah Heck, Associate Planner; Peter Gutowsky, Planning Manager. MEMORANDUM To: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners From: Zechariah Heck, Associate Planner Peter Gutowsky, AICP, Planning Manager Date: May 7, 2019 Re: Destination Resort Annual Reports I. BACKGROUND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Deschutes County has four Goal 8 destination resorts: Eagle Crest, Pronghorn, Tetherow, and Caldera Springs. Each resort has numerous land use decisions, which in turn, have extensive conditions of approvals. One of the critical elements revolves around the ratio of permanent residences to overnight lodging units (OLUs). Initially, the ratio was 2:1, but changes to State law and, subsequently, County code, allowed for a 2.5:1 ratio. Each Goal 8 resort must provide an annual report to the County documenting their required ratio of platted residential lots to OLUs. Some resorts have built their required OLUs or provided financial security guaranteeing their development. Others utilize sophisticated programs to document OLUs within their resort that are privately owned, i.e., not actively managed by a centralized reservation system. II. Annual Reporting Attached to this memo are summaries of each Goal 8 destination resort. Staff provides these materials including a map as an informational item for discussion. The following bullet points highlight the ratios for each resort in the 2018 calendar year. Caldera Springs, Pronghorn and Tetherow are in compliance with their required ratios. Eagle Crest does not meet the required 2.5:1 ratio. Nonetheless, Eagle Crest is in compliance because of a text amendment they initiated in 2016. Please refer to the Eagle Crest summary sheet for the resort's compliance status. • Caldera Springs - 1.77:1' • Pronghorn - 2.5:1 • Eagle Crest - 4.44:1 • Tetherow - 2.45:1 Attachments: Destination Resort Summary Sheets Deschutes County Goal 8 Destination Resort Map 1 Caldera Springs required ratio is two single-family dwellings/lots for every single OLU. They have not modified their original land use decisions to increase the required ratio from 2:1 to 2.5:1. 11 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97707 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR I08-6005 �'� (541) 388-6575 @ cdd@deschutes .org 0 www.deschutes.org/cc March 22, 2019 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Caldera Springs Destination Resort A 390 -acre resort located south of Sunriver, lying both south and east of South Century Drive, west of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad and U.S. 97 and north of Vandevert Road. Conceptual Master Plan The Conceptual Master Plan (CMP) was approved in 2005 (file no. CU -05-7). The Resort's CMP identified 150 rental units available in a combination of cottages, condominiums, and lockout units. The latter are bedrooms within a residence that could be rented overnight separately. Some of the single-family residential units were also proposed to be rentable. Phase I included eating and meeting facilities to accommodate 100 people. Amenities included bike and pedestrian trails, lakes and ponds, and a nine -hole golf course. The resort was required to build, or bond, for $3,636,190 in recreational facilities based on 2004 dollars. The CMP was modified in 2007 by file no. MC -07-2, which dealt with internal dimensions for lots containing overnight cottages in the core area, but did not change any land uses or ratios. Conceptual Master Plan Approvals 500 total 350 single-family 150 cottages, condominiums, and residential homes lockout units units *No hotel proposed Final Master Plan The Final Master Plan (FMP) was approved in 2005 (file no. M-05-1). The plan included 320 single-family homes, some of which would be rentable, and 30 to 75 cottage or cabin units, each with up to five lock -out units which can be rented separately as overnight accommodations. File no. MC -13-4 modified both the CMP and FMP to change the weeks the overnight lodging units (OLUs) were required to be available for rent from 45 to 38 weeks. File no. M-05-1 required a nine -hole short golf course, three practice golf holes, practice putting green, croquet and tennis courts, walking/biking trails, lakes for canoeing and fishing, and a clubhouse with recreational amenities. Prior to sale of Phase I, the applicant was required to construct or bond for $4,305,000 (2004 dollars) for a short course, putting green, three practice holes, a core playground and an outfitters cabin. Final Master Plan Approvals Total Units 500 total residential units Single-family 320 single-family homes, some of which are rentable Overnight Units 30-75 cabins or cottages with up to five (5) lock -out units each Overnight Units Total of 150 rentable units Overnight Lodging Requirements File no. SP -05-53 required one -hundred fifty (150) overnight units in the resort's core, including a three -key cottage for three (3) units and a four -key cottage for four (4) units. The plot plan had twenty-three (23 structures) on two tracts. File no. SP -06-61 modified file no. SP -05-53 to have twenty-two (22) cottages with up to eighty-six (86) lock -off units within Tract 1. Tracts 2 and 3 would have twenty-three (23) cottages each. The findings and decision of SP -06-61 stated that ultimately Caldera Springs would have a total of one - hundred -sixty (160) lock -off units on Tracts 1, 2, and 3, spread among 45 cottages.' Caldera Springs uses codes, covenants, and restrictions (CC&Rs) to designate individually owned overnight units on recorded subdivision plats. The resort also notes the overnight lodging units in its CC&Rs. According to County legal counsel, CC&Rs are equivalent to deed restrictions for Caldera Springs Resort's purposes. There are currently 320 platted residential lots, including 45 platted for cabins. Caldera Springs relies on the cabins and lock -out units in various dwelling units to qualify as "overnight lodging" under DCC 18.04. The following table summarizes Caldera Springs Resort's overnight lodging ratio status for calendar year 2018. Overnight Lodging Status for 2018 Number of platted lots Current Overnight Units 1.77:1 platted residential 320 platted residential 41 cabins with 181 keys2 lots to overnight units3 lots For calendar year 2018, Caldera Springs was in compliance for the OLU ratio requirement. The decision also states the number of keys within each cottage is subject to variation between cottage models, which determines the number of keys. Thus, there are currently 199 keys, not 160, spread across the 45 cabins. 2 Four cabins (18 keys) did not meet the 38 week minimum availability requirement, and, thus, were not counted as 01 -Us. 3 Required ratio is 2:1, platted residential lots to overnight units (320 platted lots / 181 keys = 1.77: 1). -2- March 22, 2019 Pronghorn Resort C OM Mi 11.. DEVELOPMENT Pronghorn Resort consists of 640 acres located east of U.S. 97 and west of Powell Butte Highway, between Bend and Redmond. Conceptual Master Plan The Conceptual Master Plan (CMP) was approved in 2001 (file no. CU -00-118) and modified in 2013 (file no. MC -13-6). The Resort's CMP identifies 160 to 180 rental condominium units and 75 to 100 hotel rooms in the first phase of development. Amenities were to include a 10,000 square -foot conference center, specialty retail center, two golf courses, swimming pools, tennis courts and pedestrian and equestrian trails. Conceptual Master Plan 420 single family units 160-180 condominium units 75- 100 hotel units 700 total Final Master Plan The Final Master Plan (FMP) was approved in 2002 (file no. M-02-1) and modified in 2013 (file no. MC -13-6). The modification allowed overnight rentals for no fewer than 38 weeks per year through a central reservation system and the ratio of residential units to overnight units to be 2.5 to 1. According to the FMP, the resort's hotel would have a traditional central registration and check-in mechanism, which would also be responsible for coordinating registration and check-in for all overnight lodging units. The reservation system for the hotel and all additional overnight lodging units were created and operated by the applicant, or by an entity to which the applicant assigned them. CC&Rs required all designated overnight units to be available for overnight rentals no fewer than 38 weeks per year through the central reservation system. Final Master Plan The Estates at Pronghorn 420-450 units occupying 220 acres. 2.5 to 1 platted residential Golf course, hotel with 75-100 rooms, spa/fitness The Resort and Spa at center, tennis courts, swimming pool, restaurants Pronghorn and related amenities occupying 190 acres. Private golf club with golf course, clubhouse, swimming pool, tennis court, driving range and The Club at Pronghorn practice facilities occupying 230 acres. The resort includes 160-180 condominium units. Overnight Lodging Requirements At the end of calendar year 2018, there were 379 platted residential lots at Pronghorn Resort. The Resort relies on six, eight -unit structures containing 48 timeshare units in addition to a 104 -room hotel toward the OLU requirement.' Although the hotel has yet to open, the County has financial assurance it will be completed and, therefore, allows for the future rooms to be counted as OLU S.2 The following table summarizes Pronghorn Resort's overnight lodging requirements for 2018. Overnight Lodging Status in 2018 379 platted 152 overnight units 3 2.5 to 1 platted residential residential lots lots to overnight units For calendar year 2018, Pronghorn was in compliance the OLU ratio requirement. Eight of the timeshare units are deed restricted (file nos. SP -07-55 and SP -07-56). 2 Resort management states the hotel should open in April 2019. 3 48 condo units + 104 hotel units financially assured and under construction. 4 Required ratio is 2.5:1, platted residential lots to overnight units (379 platted lots / 152 OLUs = 2.5: 1). -2- ES March 22, 2019 COMMUN�TY DEVELOPMENT Tetherow Destination Resort Tetherow Resort consists of 706 acres located within a 906 -acre parcel located at the western edge of Bend, lying south of Skyliners Road and east of the Deschutes National Forest, west of SW Mount Washington Drive and Metolius Drive, and north of Cascade Lakes Highway, aka Century Drive. The resort was originally called Cascades Highlands. Conceptual Master Plan The Conceptual Master Plan (CMP) was approved in 2004 (CU -04-94). The Resort's CMP identified 379 single-family units, 210 multi -family units, a 300 -unit resort hotel, and approximately 15,000 square feet of commercial and specialty retail. Amenities included bike and pedestrian trails, tennis courts, pool, a clubhouse, and an 18 -hole golf course. A condition of approval in the CMP regarding financial guarantees for overnight accommodations was the subject of reconsideration in file no. RC -05-01. This file modified CU -04-94 to require 150 overnight units either be constructed or financially assured prior to the closure of sales on residential lots instead of requiring that 50 overnight units be constructed prior to residential sales as previously required under Condition 11. Conceptual Master Plan 589 total residential units 300 -unit hotel 379 single- family homes 210 multi- family units Final Master Plan The Final Master Plan (FMP) was approved under M-05-2 and included the extension of Skyline Ranch Road from Century Drive, aka Cascade Lakes Highway, north to Skyliners Road, and Metolius Drive east to Mount Washington. The required overnight lodging rate of permanent to overnight units was 2:1 and the overnight units needed to be available for at least 45 weeks out of the year. The FMP was appealed by two different parties. One appeal focused on the location and possible relocation of a power line and the other focused on the protection of natural features. The appeal file nos. were A-05-10 and A-05-11. The 'I 1 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 41 - e (� } 388-65 5 @ cdd(Udesc f� we_ .org @ w/vvw.deschutes.(.)i,, parties in the power line appeal reached a settlement which was then incorporated into the A-05-10 decision. The appeal regarding protection of natural features, A-05-11, was denied. Final Master Plan 589 total residential units Overnight Units 2.45:1 platted residential 468 single- 379 single- 210 multi- 300 family units family units residential Since 2005, Tetherow Resort has modified its conceptual and final master plan several times. Most recently, file nos. 247 -17 -000121 -MC and 125 -MC, added a total of six single family residential lots and removing three multi -family residential units. The following table reflects the current requirements for their residential and overnight lodging units. Modified Conceptual and Final Master Plan 589 total residential units Overnight Units 2.45:1 platted residential 468 single- 468 single- 121 multi- 300 family units family units residential Overnight Lodging Requirements The application materials in file no. M-05-2 stated the 300 -unit hotel was to be used to meet the overnight lodging requirements. Nonetheless, if any dwellings in the future were used to meet the then 2:1 overnight ratio, those units would be available for at least 45 weeks out of the year via CC&Rs and a resort check-in service per Conditions 5 and 11. File no. MC -13-3 modified the overnight ratio to 2.5:1, permanent residents to overnight lodging units, and reduced the minimum time requirement for rental availability from 45 weeks to 38 weeks. The following table summarizes Tetherow Resort's overnight lodging ratio status for the calendar year 2019. Overni ht Lodging Status for 2018 548 platted residential lots Current Overnight 2.45:1 platted residential 468 single- family 80 multi -family Units lots to overnight units residential units 223* units *223 overnight lodging units are either constructed (190) or financially secured (33). For calendar year 2018, Tetherow was in compliance for the OLU ratio requirement. 2 r4ep4lik April 30, 2019 CONMUMTY DEVELOPMENT Eagle Crest Destination Resort Background Eagle Crest Resort has received a number of land use approvals beginning in 1982. • Approved in 1981, Phase 1 consisted of 508 acres located on the east side of Cline Falls Highway. Phase 1 preceded Statewide Planning Goal 8, which detailed destination resort requirements. It contained 202 lots. • In 1993, after Deschutes County mapped areas for destination resorts and provided a zoning overlay district, Eagle Crest expanded into Phase 2. Located on the west side of Cline Falls Highway on the east slope of Cline Buttes, Phase 2 contained 746 acres. Under the Phase 2 expansion, Eagle Crest received approval for 497 single-family home -sites, 162 multi -family units, 120 timeshare townhouses and 226 hotel room facilities. It contained 903 lots in total. None of the individually -owned residential properties are deed restricted. • In 2001, Phase 3 was proposed on 480 acres south and southeast of Cline Butte. The proposal was to expand the existing resort by developing 480 non-contiguous acres with up to 900 dwellings units, which contained overnight units. Commercial uses and recreational amenities were also proposed. Phase 3 contained 806 lots. Table 1 - Platted Residential Lots Lodging Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Total Eagle Crest Lots 1 02 903 806 1,911 Table 2 identifies the overnight lodging units (OLUs) properties under Eagle Crest's control. Table 2 - Current Overnight Lodging Eagle Crest Lodging Hotel Timeshare Lodge at Eagle Crest 100 VROA 124 WorldMark - Lodge 43 WorldMark - Ridgehawk 34 WorldMark - Redtail 5 Fairway Vista 32 River View Vista 57 Eagle Creek 10 Eagle Springs 1 WorldMark - 8Plex 24 TOTAL OLUs '' 430 Overnight Lodging Requirements Eagle Crest is required to annually account for one OLU for every 2.5 residential units, a 2.5:1 ratio. Eagle Crest has 1,911 residential units (as platted residential lots) and 430 overnight units (as hotel, timeshare, and fractional ownership units) that meet county code, for a ratio of 4.44 residential units per a single overnight unit. To comply with the 2.5 to 1 overnight lodging ratio, Eagle Crest initiated a text amendment to Deschutes County's destination resort code. These amendments were codified in Ordinance 2016-003. Ordinance 2016-003 Under Ordinance 2016-003, which became effective in April 2016, overnight lodging units are documented through a monthly review of the Eagle Crest central reservation system as well as third -party websites, e.g., VRBO, Flipkey, Homeaway, that advertise individually -owned units available for overnight stays. Eagle Crest is required to document the weeks the units are advertised as being available and count as overnight units all units that meet or exceed the 38 week minimum. Ordinance 2016-003 also includes a compliance fee that provides the County with a remedy to recoup Transient Lodging Tax ("TLT") each year in the event the reporting mechanism revealed a shortfall in meeting the overnight lodging ratio, i.e., one OLU for each 2.5 platted lots. After documenting Eagle Crest's central reservation system and third -party websites, if the Resort is deficient of the required units, the Resort will be assessed a compliance fee equivalent to the lost transient lodging tax the county would have collected from those units. 2018 Annual Report Eagle Crest representatives provided the Planning Division with OLU data based on a collection system utilizing sophisticated web -based technologies that included screenshots of each unit listing and schedule of availability.' Data sources included Flip Key, HomeAway, VRBO, and Vacation Rentals.com. Using this data, Eagle Crest was able to document 91 individually owned, non - deed restricted vacation rental units that were not directly managed by the resort in 2018. Calendar year 2018 is the third time Eagle Crest has utilized this technology to account for privately -owned overnight lodging units. However, because the resort changed ownership February 2018, documentation was not provided for January and February 2018. Based on data provided by the resort, staff's conclusions are highlighted in the following bullet points. • Eagle Crest Resort possesses 469 OLUs as of December 31, 2018, including 100 hotel units, 320 timeshare units and 49 individually owned, yet managed by Eagle Crest, non -deed restricted vacation rental units. • Eagle Crest Resort documented an additional 91 individually owned, non -deed restricted vacation rental units that are not directly managed by the resort.z • Per the above, Eagle Crest Resort counted a total of 560 OLUs available for the 2018 calendar year. • Eagle Crest Resort has 1,911 platted lots. When the 49 OLUs under Eagle Crest's control and 91 individually owned OLUs are removed from the 1,911 platted lots, Eagle Crest Resort has 1,771 net platted lots devoted to non-OLUs. To comply with the 2.5:1 ratio, Eagle Crest Resort is required to have 708 OLUs. • Subtracting the 708 OLU obligations from those OLUs under Eagle Crest's control, Eagle Crest has a deficiency of 148 OLU S.3 • Eagle Crest Resort paid $333,942.45 in TLT for the 2018 calendar year. Per DCC 18.113.060(L)(7), this amount is then divided by the OLUs actively managed by the resort, or 469 OLUs for $712.03 per OLU. Therefore, the compliance fee is $105,380.44 ($712.03 multiplied by 148 or the OLU deficit). Staff is coordinating with Eagle Crest to pay the compliance fee by May 31, 2019. 2 These units were documented in a spreadsheet provided by Eagle Crest and incorporated herein by reference. The spreadsheet was populated with data from the web scraper utilized by the resort. 3 708 (OLU Requirement) - 560 (469 OLUs controlled by Eagle Crest + 91 OLUs individually -owned and not controlled by Eagle Crest) = 148 (OLU deficit). In N It 0 N c' O y� C i0 „+ C }i G c x 4-0!! X11 •V j Q O C iii =0 C m � a s1Oi CL Q N � C J o d ` o IL E r C � O � c 1 N �� it �m0 'm a d N N m m � In N It 0 N O y� C i0 „+ C }i 0 03 O x 4-0!! X11 •V j Q O C iii =0 C m � a s1Oi CL Q N � C J o About Us PERS SOLUTIONS for Public Services PERS Solutions for Public Services is an information resource for individuals and organizations from across Oregon working to advance cost-sharing reforms to the state's pension system that reduce the impact of PERS on taxpayer budgets, ensure competitive retirement benefits and working conditions for public workers, and preserve and enhance vital public services. 5/15/2019 III PERS Liability INPERS SOLUTIONS for Public Services PERS Unfunded Liability = $22.3 26.6 billion Per Oregon HOLAsehold For Every Public Employee Past, Current & Projected PERS Employer Rates 35.00% PERS payroll rates are at 30.00% LO25.00% 4- 20.00% 0 (V an 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% 1975-2015 2015-2017 2017-2019 2019-2021 IMPERS SOLUTIONS for Public Services 2021-23 5/15/2019 2 $213 Revenue Package vs. PERS $4,000 $3,500 $3,000 o $2,500 0 a $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $50n0 ZW19 PERS S01url0NS for Public Services 23 25 27 2931 Cumulative non-G/LF Covered PERS Increases for State Agency +Schools * Cumulative G/LF Covered PERS Increases for State Agency + Schools ® $26 Revenue Package Starting 2020 $21bn Business Entity Tax (BAT or GRT) Grows at 5% per year per LRO Public Finance Basic Facts 2019 PERS Costs Calculated Using Milliman PERS Rate Increase Projection (501h percentile) and Payroll Growth Assumptions (December, 2015) G/LF and total fund split assumes that G/LF covers 43% of state agency PERS costs, and that G/LF covers 100% of school district PERS costs. PERS An expensive 8 years for all Oregon"°PubllicS'ev ces governments Total projected INCREASE above 2017-18 over the following 8 years: ` An additional -$10.2 Billion A w K12 Schools -$3.3 Billion State/Universities °"$3.0 Billion Cities/Counties/CCs/Other -$3.9 Billion These are funds that will be diverted from budgets and services. 5/15/2019 3 ISPERS SOLUTIONS LEGAL: Moro decision clarifies for Public Services what can be done In Moro v. Oregon (2015), the Supreme Court changed its minds about what changes can be made to the system: • Keep the promise for benefits earned to date, but: • Changes may be made going forward: • Benefits to be earned in the future are (with limited exceptions) modifiable • Employee contributions may be established for pension benerits going torwara (See also, Strunk V. PLHB, ZU05) Note: In Moro, the Court reversed its earlier OSPOA decision and rejected the "California rule:' 5/15/2019 21 5/15/2019 PERS SOLUTIONS for Public Services Reduce the system's rising claims on budgets to preserve services. Do more with new revenues -- whether those revenues come from the growth of the economy or from new taxes. Manage ongoing costs and remaining liabilities so as not to place an undue burden on next generation of Oregonians ("kids in today's classrooms".) Options for Prospective Cost 501UPER for Public Services Saving Reforms 5/15/2019 IS PERS Employee contributions. or Public S'evices Oregon is an outlier Employee Share of Contributions, State and Locally Administered Defined Benefit Pension Systems, FY 2014 " US. A-.ge n; ��iillillll� �� .��IILLILIILLILILIIILIIIIII IIIIILILILIIIIILIIIILII £59`F2 5 PySYe^2i a -i P2 fi�ae �kL n ��a a .M�e a PERS SOLUTIONS Average Contribution Rates Across for Public Services U.S. Defined Benefit Plans 13.3% Nationally, in 2016: 12.0° Employers paid 13.3% of payroll 10.6' Employees paid 6.0% of payroll ° Employers with 9.5 / Social Security 8.5% 8.7°/ - 7.1 6.0% 5.7% 6.0% 5.0% Employees with Social Security 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Fiscal Year Public Fund Survey Nov -17 PERS sOLUTIONs Average Contribution Rates Across U.S. for Public Services Defined Benefit Public Plans 13.3% In Oregon: Employers paid 17.5% on 2016-17 12.0° Employers pay 20.85% now 1o.s°� Employers will pay 25.23% next year/ Employers with 9.50 Employees pay 0% Social Security 8.5% 8.7 7.1 °/ I% 5.7% 6.0% Employees with Social Security 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Fiscal Year Public Fund Survey Nov -17 5/15/2019 rA PERS Liability vs. State Economy FY 2017 Total Public Employee Pension Liability Expressed as a Share of CY 2017 Total Personal Income on ao:a 2oa in,. 0=1 IS PERS S0LUT10N8 for Public Services Keep the current PERS system and require all government employees to contribute 6% of their salaries to help pay for their pension benefits, as was required prior to 2004. o 68% support o 22% oppose Make changes to PERS to reduce the system's costs for governments in the future but protect retirement benefits earned to date by employees. 0 77% support 0 19% oppose Replace the current PERS system with a new "defined contribution" system—like a 401(k) plan— where employees and government would each contribute 6% of employees' salaries, DHM April Survey, for a total of 12%. 589 respondents, o 72% support Apr. 18-26, 2019 o 1.9% oppose 5/15/2019 0 PERS 44.'z&ree 0 1 t1is118rce S0LUT10NS for Public Services 0! rrgrcc '0 1114N."PrVe What Oregon voters think about reform Keep the current PERS system and require all government employees to contribute 6% of their salaries to help pay for their pension benefits, as was required prior to 2004. o 68% support o 22% oppose Make changes to PERS to reduce the system's costs for governments in the future but protect retirement benefits earned to date by employees. 0 77% support 0 19% oppose Replace the current PERS system with a new "defined contribution" system—like a 401(k) plan— where employees and government would each contribute 6% of employees' salaries, DHM April Survey, for a total of 12%. 589 respondents, o 72% support Apr. 18-26, 2019 o 1.9% oppose 5/15/2019 0 INPERS for Public Services Framework for Comprehensive Reform L9 Reduce Reduce Limit Manage Reduce going Reducelegam Limit growth of Manage forward costs, costs, within legal liabilities, by remaining without retreating limits, for aligning liabilities, to to substandard example, via contribution rates smooth out retirement ^workback/pny to investment impacts onfuture benefits back" plan returns and salary generations experience Reduce Going Forwa~dC[lcfs fflr Public Services 2019 SB 148: Reinstate employee cost sharing (6Y6)\nall plans )� Expand IAP tocreate an alternative D[ plan Allow employees tochoose: Pension plan ordefined contribution plan but not both! )�Allow continuation ofemployer pickup 5/15/2019 Oj Is PERS S 0 1. U T 10 N S Comparison of Packages for Public Services Now on the Table Proposal EmA p q jgLSa�vin s Initiative Petition 24 Employees contribute 3.0-6.0% 4 27% of projected Tier ! Salary cap = $280K increases next 8 years Legislative Pka (SB1049-1 Employees contribute 0.75%-2.5% >$30,000 annual salary Salary cap @ $195K Money Match annuitization correction Extend debt repayment to 22 years for UAL for Tier 1/2 retirees 4 12% of projected increases next 8 years o of proiected 5/15/2019 10 PERS Manage Remaining Liabilities fa0PublicServices ➢ Longer amortization periods? ➢ Rate freezes? ➢ Year-to-year borrowing to offset scheduled rate increases w/ or w/o a dedicated revenue stream ➢ State assistance for schools and local governments (SB 1566 — 2018) ➢ Prioritization of programs targeted for assistance Key Takeaways PERS SOLUTIONS for Public Services 5/15/2019 11 PERS o n i it r i n u e 5/15/2019 ON RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION URGING THE OREGON LEGISLATURE TO ENACT PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM (PERS) REFORMS THAT REDUCE PENSION COSTS FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYERS, AND APPROVING [LOCAL JURISDICTION] MEMBERSHIP IN PERS SOLUTIONS FOR PUBLIC SERVICES COALITION WHEREAS, Oregon public employers, including [local jurisdiction], are facing an unfunded actuarial liability (UAL) in the Oregon Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) pension program of more than $26 billion, and employer payroll costs have risen from 12% of payroll in 2010 to 19% in 2020 and are expected to rise to more than 30% of payroll by 2025 if the legislature fails to address reforms to the PERS pension program that will reduce system's claims on public budgets and public services; and WHEREAS, taxpayer annual costs are also rising, from about $600 per Oregon household in 2010 to more than twice that amount currently — more $1,500 per household this year and climbing to more than $2,200 per year by 2023;and WHEREAS, legal and fair options for reforming PERS pensions, including those outlined by the PERS Solutions for Public Services coalition, would provide a path for lowering present and future PERS costs for public employers and taxpayers across the state; and WHEREAS, [local jurisdiction] will benefit from participating with other public employers across the state as part of the PERS Solutions for Public Services coalition which is advocating for significant PERS pension reforms at the Oregon legislature. NOW, THEREFORE, [LOCAL JURISDICTION] RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. We believe that, while every public employer in Oregon is bearing the burden of the PERS UAL in rapidly rising payroll costs, only the state legislature has the authority to reform PERS pensions to reduce the system's costs to public employers; and Section 2. We believe the principles outlined by PERS Solutions for Public Services meet the objectives of [local jurisdiction] a bipartisan effort to find solutions that are fair for taxpayers, public employers and public employees alike; and Section 3. We believe that [local jurisdiction], its employees and its citizens will benefit from PERS pension reforms, and relieving the PERS pension burden on [local jurisdiction] budgets will allow [local jurisdiction] to invest in improved public services for our community, and that reforms should be done on a system -wide basis, so that all jurisdictions and the services they provide share in the relief; and Section 4. We believe the Oregon legislature has a responsibility to take steps necessary to reduce the PERS claim on public services; such as police and fire, public health, higher education, child welfare, college tuition, and senior services; and furthermore that all public employers, not solely K-12 education, be included in reforms. Section 5. We believe that our participation as a member of the PERS Solutions for Public Services coalition, including our endorsement of its principles to PERS reform, will benefit [local jurisdiction] and other public employers around the state. Section 6. This resolution is effective immediately upon its adoption. Signature Title Date www.PERSSolutions.org PERS Solutions 503.386.8016 /PERSSolutionsOR for Public Services /PERSSolutionsCoalition Principles for PERS Reform Keep the promise for all benefits earned to date — for public employees who are retired and for those still in the workforce. This is both a legal requirement and a commitment to fairness. Maintain the basic retirement benefits of the PERS pension plans for those in the current system. These basic benefits are based on years -of -service formulas that provide 45-50% of an employee's "final average salary" after 30 years of employment. With Social Security providing an additional 20-40% of final salary, these benefits meet the test of adequate, even generous, retirement benefits. Recognize that there are excesses in the current system that can and should be corrected on a going forward basis. These excesses, like the Money Match program for pre -2003 employees, continue to produce pension payouts far above the system's years -of -service formulas. Ditto for the use of unused sick leave and retirement to boost benefits for older employees. These add-on features can and should be changed prospectively without reducing the basic benefits of the system's pension plans. Ensure that employees share in the cost of supporting their retirement benefits, consistent with standard practices in both public and private sector plans. This used to be the case for the PERS pension plan until 2003, when employee contributions were shifted to a separate retirement savings plan. Employee support for the pension plan is needed to re-establish fairness for taxpayers and consistency with benefit practices in the public and private sectors. Work with current compensation plans and bargaining agreements so that reforms do not reduce employee paychecks. Employer "pick-ups" of employee contributions are a legitimate form of compensation when negotiated in lieu of salary. Give employees choices to tailor their retirement benefits to their career plans. Many employees will be better served with 401(k) -style defined contribution plans. Others who expect to spend their careers in public service may prefer a traditional pension plan. Control the liabilities of the system going forward. If current and future employees are to continue to have the option of a pension plan, employers should be expected to manage their compensation systems so as not to boost future payouts and shift costs to future generations of employees and taxpayers. Also, the system's managers should be required to establish feasible investment targets so as not to understate the true costs of the promised pension benefits. Commit that all cost savings stay in public budgets to expand and improve public services and attract a new generation of public employees. The purpose of reform is not to back money out of public budgets but to free up funds that would otherwise be diverted to chasing the rising liabilities of the PERS pension plans. With or without new revenues, these funds will be needed to add school days and reduce class sizes in our schools and to maintain competitive salaries and benefits for a new generation of public employees. Info@ perssolutions.org ( www.PERSsolutions.org ES � f cc) Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners BOCC Wednesday Meeting of May 15, 2019 DATE: May 9, 2019 FROM: Tanya Saltzman, Community Development, TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION: Historic ADU Text Amendments (Ordinance No. 2019- 009) The Board of County Commissioners (Board) will conduct a continuation of a public hearing on May 15, 2019 to consider Ordinance No. 2019-009, text amendments incorporating changes to state law regarding historic accessory dwelling units per House Bill 3012. MEMORANDUM TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Tanya Saltzman, Associate Planner DATE: May 8, 2019 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: Historic ADU Text Amendments - Public Hearing Continuation The Board of County Commissioners (Board) will conduct a continuation of a public hearing on May 15, 2019 to consider Ordinance No. 2019-009, text amendments incorporating changes to state law regarding historic accessory dwelling units per House Bill 3012. A public hearing was initiated on April 24, 2019, at which time the proposed amendments and findings were provided to the Board.' I. OVERVIEW The proposed text amendments incorporate the text of House Bill 3012, authorizing counties to allow a historic home located in a rural residential exception area to be converted to an accessory dwelling unit and a new single family dwelling to be constructed on the same lot or parcel. In Deschutes County, the proposed text amendments would apply to properties that are two acres or more in size, and located in the MUA, RR -10, UAR-10, or SR -2 1/2 zoning districts. Staff analysis indicates that approximately 113 properties in the county would be eligible to utilize the provisions of Ordinance No. 2019-009. II. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION In response to public testimony, staff offers additional information concerning shared private roads and shared private wells. 1 https://deschutescountyor.icim,2.com/Citize s/Detail Meeting.aspx?ID=2356 Shared private roads The proposed amendments do not specifically address shared private roads, as private roads are not in the County's jurisdiction. Concerns about upkeep or usage of private roads are the responsibility of the residents along the road, not Deschutes County. Deschutes County Senior Transportation Planner Peter Russell provided the following comments: Private roads by definition are not the responsibility of the County. Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 368 (County Roads) defines what roads the County has authority over; the roads must be public. See ORS 368.016 and 031. The maintenance of a private road is the responsibility of the abutting property owners served by that private road. The County by statute can only spend funds on roads which are part of the County -maintained system and in emergency situations on Local Access Roads (LAR's), which are public roads, but are not part of the County -maintained system. The property owners can tie the responsibility of the road's operation, maintenance, and improvements by informal agreement or more formally by forming a homeowners association (HOA); code, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's) in the development; or form a Special Road District. ORS 371.305 and 318 show how to form a Special Road District and ORS 371.336 details the powers and responsibilities of a Special Road District. These include the power to set property taxes, to make contracts, purchase real property, etc. Private roads normally have fairly low volumes of daily traffic. A single-family home generates 10 trips a day, including 1 p.m. peak hour (4-6 p. m.) trip. So a lot eligible for an ADU would go from 10 trips a day to potentially 20 daily trips and 1 p.m. peak hour trip to 2 p.m. peak hour trips. The issue of increased traffic, however, is not within the purview of the County. The issue would be between and among the property owners who use the private road. Shared wells The proposed amendments do not directly address shared private wells, as private wells are not in the County's jurisdiction. Generally, shared well agreements exist between neighbors in varying degrees of formality—from a verbal agreement to a more formal legal document—but are not monitored or controlled by any part of the Deschutes County Code. Concerns about maintenance, usage or operation of a private well—whether relating to accessory dwelling units enabled by the proposed text amendments or any other development—are the responsibility of the residents sharing the well, not Deschutes County. CDD Planning staff and Assistant Legal Counsel offer the following additional background: The Water Well Owners Handbook published by the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD), https://www.oregon.gov/OWRD/WRDPublicatio,nsl /Well Water Handbook.pdf, recommends that a shared well agreement address the following issues: • Who will maintain the well? • Who may access the well for maintenance? Page 2 of 5 • Under what conditions can the property on which the well is located be bought and sold? • How will power costs and water availability be shared? • What is each party's interest or right to use the water? • If the properties are to be served by individual pumps, whose pump will be the lowest in the well? • What type of organization will manage operation of the well now and in the future? • How will costs of well reconstruction or pump replacement be shared? • How will the '/z -acre of irrigation for lawn and garden watering exempt from a water right permit be divided among the parties? Similarly, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Handbook 415.1 Rev -1, Section 12-17 recommends that a shared well agreement (1) Be binding upon signatory parties and their successors in title; 2) Be recorded in local Deed Records; and (3) When executed and recorded, reflect joinder by any mortgages holding a mortgage on any property connected to the shared well. Further, HUD recommends that a shared well agreement: 1. Shall permit well water sampling and testing by a responsible local authority at any time at the request of any party. 2. Shall require that corrective measures be implemented if testing reveals a significant water quality deficiency, but only with the consent of a majority of all parties. 3. Shall assure continuity of water service to "supplied" parties if the "supplying" party has no further need for the shared well system. ("Supplied" parties normally should assume all costs for their continuing water supply.) 4. Shall prohibit well water usage by any party for other than bona fide domestic purposes. 5. Shall prohibit connection of any additional living unit to the shared well system without: a. The consent of all parties, b. Appropriate amendment of the agreement, and C. Compliance with items C through F, above. 6. Shall prohibit any party from locating or relocating any element of an individual sewage disposal system within 50 feet (100 feet for proposed construction) of the shared well. 7. Shall establish easements for all elements of the system, assuring access and necessary working space for system operation, maintenance, replacement, improvement, inspection, and testing. 8. Shall specify that no party may install landscaping or improvements that will impair use of the easements. 9. Shall specify that any removal and replacement of pre-existing site improvements, necessary for system operation, maintenance, replacement, improvement, inspection or testing, will be at the cost of their owner, except that costs to remove and replace common boundary fencing or walls shall be shared equally between or among parties. 10. Shall establish the right of any party to act to correct an emergency situation in the absence on-site of the other parties. An emergency situation shall be defined as failure of any shared portion of the system to deliver water upon demand. Page 3 of 5 11. Shall permit agreement amendment to assure equitable readjustment of shared costs when there may be significant changes in well pump energy rates or the occupancy or use of an involved property. 12. Shall require the consent of a majority of all parties upon cost sharing, except in emergency situations, before actions are taken for system maintenance, replacement or improvement. 13. Shall require that any necessary replacement or improvement of a system element(s) will at least restore original system performance. 14. Shall specify required cost sharing for: a. The energy supply for the well pump; b. System maintenance including repairs, testing, inspection and disinfection; c. System component replacement due to wear, obsolescence, incrustation or corrosion; and d. System improvement to increase the service life of material or component, to restore well yield, or to provide necessary system protection. 15. Shall specify that no party shall be responsible for unilaterally incurred shared well debts of another party, except for correction of emergency situations. Emergency situation correction costs shall be equally shared. 16. Shall require that each party be responsible for: a. Prompt repair of any detected leak in his water service line or plumbing system; b. Repair costs to correct system damage caused by a resident or guest at his property; and a. Necessary repair or replacement of the service line connecting the system to his dwelling. 17. Shall require equal sharing of repair costs for system damage caused by persons other than a resident or guest at a property sharing the well. 18. Shall assure equal sharing of costs for abandoning all or part of the shared system so that contamination of ground water or other hazards will be avoided. 19. Shall assure prompt collection from all parties and prompt payment of system operation, maintenance, replacement, or improvement costs. 20. Shall specify that the recorded agreement may not be amended during the term of a Federally insured or guaranteed mortgage on any property served, except as provided in items 5 and 11, above. 21. Shall provide for binding arbitration of any dispute or impasse between parties with regard to the system or terms of agreement. Binding arbitration shall be through the American Arbitration Association or a similar body and may be initiated at any time by any party to the agreement. Arbitration costs shall be equally shared by parties to the agreement. While Oregon law generally requires a water right permit before using water from a well, exceptions (called "exempt uses") do not require a water right. These types of uses are most applicable to the proposed amendments and include the following: • Single or group domestic uses up to 15,000 gallons per day; • Stock watering; • Irrigation of any lawn or noncommercial garden of 1/2 -acre or less; Page 4 of 5 • Down -hole heat exchangers; • Single industrial or commercial purpose up to 5,000 gallons per day; or • Irrigation of school property up to 10 acres in critical groundwater areas. OWRD notes that the existence of more than one home connected to a well does not change the statutory exemptions listed above. Those limitations apply regardless of the number of homes that are hooked up to a single well. For new exempt wells, OWRD requires payment of a one-time recording fee and a location map. OWRD maintains records of existing wells. Further details are provided in testimony from OWRD concerning shared wells (Attachment A). III. PUBLIC COMMENT As of the time of submittal of this memorandum, no written public comments have been received. V. NEXT STEPS At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Board can: • Continue the hearing to a date certain; • Close the hearing and leave the written record open to a date certain; or • Close the hearing and commence deliberations. Attachments: A. OWRD Memorandum Page 5 of 5 Attachment A: OWRD Memorandum Memo To: Tanya Saltzman, Associate Planner, Deschutes County Community Development From: Kyle Gorman, Region Manager, Oregon Water Resources Department Date: May 7, 2019 Subject: Exempt wells and shared wells information Pursuant to ORS 537.545, any well in Oregon is allowed what are called exempt uses (meaning they don't require a water right for the use.) Exempt uses of groundwater include: Single or group domestic uses up to 15,000 gallons per day; Stock watering; Irrigation of any lawn or noncommercial garden of Y2 -acre or less; Down- hole heat exchangers; Single industrial or commercial purpose up to 5,000 gallons per day; or Irrigation of school property up to 10 acres in critical groundwater areas. If a property contains a well with multiple hookups, the same limitations on exempt uses apply and are not multiplied based on the number of hookups. Sharing a water well It is best to negotiate a written agreement between water users and well owners if you plan to construct a well to serve more than one household. Legal advice is generally sought for such an agreement. The agreement should address: • Who will maintain the well? • Who may access the well for maintenance? • Under what conditions can the property on which the well is located be bought and sold? • How will power costs and water availability be shared? • What is each party's interest or right to use the water? • If the properties are to be served by individual pumps, whose pump will be the lowest in the well? • What type of organization will manage operation of the well now and in the future? • How will costs of well reconstruction or pump replacement be shared? • How will the %-acre of irrigation for lawn and garden watering exempt from a water right permit be divided among the parties? The Oregon Health Authority's Drinking Water Services requires water quality testing on wells that serve more than three households. Information on requirements can be found on their website or by calling Drinking Water Services. More information can be found at this website: https://www.oregon.gov/owrd/WRDPublicationsi/Well_Water_Handbook.pdf ** SUBMIT TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS 4-j E Q) 4-j m 4-J Ln Fon Z < u E O 0 E 0 0 N C- 0 -a tw cn 4-1 4-J 0- W -E E 0 0 4-J o C: 0 .0 W 0- Ln E O c- Qw) C >- 04- 0 4- 0 > O N w a Ln 4-j "C: 0 w 0 L qp cinO C: a . C: a) 0- > C= 0 =3 Q) CA 4- 4-J >- 4-J 0 = to aru CL E V c- =3 E: E Ln 0 0 < Lu w "0o C: u V _s_- O �4-1 �N �a)3 -0 4-1 ° �'_ c - = v a -J U > .2 — +- U �— O N 0 Q N C O O CL u O CC -+ •— N ca > 0 CL X • M -,m b.0 taA a-+ O N O Q s - N i •�U C 0-0 4-1w > =3+- Q)vi Q O O co •E uE .E — - N L f� 6 - E O V lA fts 0 0 fB 4-'O m i a+ 4- a-1 > N a+- > UO, oC -0Zr Q N a -J W -0 - C O >� V OQ -0 O m •p •° •O JE •N > m m co -C N m N C: O Ln bo O �+- N -0 W — -0 i � �--+ O > U Etao E m cn O i N' V ca E i N Olie N P N m N O •� .�a� V) U cn O 4-+ E 0- U 0 N N U 4A— Q N O N j :3N X N U W m Q Q� >_ N N U L ' m s_ � =3•� 4 -JW 4O W ateJ CL 0 .�c 4mJ 0 +.;' bA f10-0 a) U> 4F co > N p -C N _--o N L U N a) bLA Cu 4. O.- O > a) ate- i —0 CL Z �,�_^ QU"0 C aJ 0 W v >c �O ,c CU Ln O0 X00 C:4- w -0� NQ .,�4, x}, X03 0,0° L Oco f0CC: C:m .dn "� Cu a) N AJ C_ >, N 0 a) c0 L .F, t �- =�o� a) o -0�' Yom}' ° a � �> �2No a) �Ln �.3��, o opo+_ �'0 �U +. cv-0 CL �_�+0+ O C� i O'U OL +11 m d �N A � w tea)+ NS O p � LU- � O bz �'L t°,cNa �co0 41m o0 U -C 0 O ECu > �� om 3�2 a,�)i6 c00 -C'4- �� 0�Q vo :3 4- �vW� o �� a,Cu o 2•0 M.-.�•� N Ay 5-U O U rH L a) c N `� -CL7 ++ 4- 0� O L 0 p•N C C o0 Ln N U,} > U �4- +' ate+ �N Q ++ N QJ aJ C Q C U O bn "p MNL a) �'Ln Cu C E� 0 0 O O L N L L in f- O x ++— _ C O O c0 m 41 QNUO X003 CLU OQ�^ OO c= >_ U°c cOvi0- ��a) 0 :3uuC: -C+, OO cons >-2•- `Loo -o �M-C - ao ��vw cnc 4-Q LbA C� L,0) U A� Q° C6 i"a C'N Cu ,L L Q) C Op._ > L> (6F N Oqp -cam faaJ'U — cO Q a)� a) - p a)� xr�N oo� 3�= ,? > a° (v� 0 t� -a a, U 3 w>°' =a, o WE _= Na) c� ?:.s L >-0 x ox = C70 c- �}I Ot C ++ p M— N Cu L i 0 a) C O 1 E< 0_•i, OCU ELp: �Uc) OflNm U �sN -'� a C Nva)°o0.5 tea- coo m3:25 `� Ua bn° >a V' O-0CLC OQ-CL 'i(pvN —�00 me a)C C> Ln Ln 0 m co L 7 4-1 0 uU L ctoC > O� NV O'�NM N -bn.^ a)M w Q�u -aEn�� 0v t�o�_QQ 'LtacL- N� N- vv �sw M0oav ALN 2°'�o ��oQ 3-Fu.N w� � m=ate-+ mLnQN °L E Ln y 4Jc-x 0 NQ) U,} Cu a)C vi w aJ •� a) m O bA (a .� +•1 •N 3 N x N 0 •+>-.,'+ +� > L On C •- +-1 O U -° C C == }' v v m e v m Q- o u -0 0 -p -a cam) c'o.� mop U -�CC ca m —=UE N-OUm m•N a)aJ xa�O poi �_'-gyp N+,� =vOaJ a-1 �N L— a) CL Co �Cp3 +, -co wco�c �'_ aJ3 NcC a)C0- W toa)Ln v L LN. -OU O NC Q'LO +'bno Coa)-o Lpv a)-c�p %-_coE y0 cow =mm _ O C L U Q)o.V LOL 4- a)= Ln 3:-o V-Y-QJI- N>- UO NLC Cu a) C OU = �'p O = N •E a) F O 41 N N'Q+, C U � a) bA vl.- a) C C �, u a) oC N •V U •- a) a) C ++ E QJ E— �f�CO Ca�iv�- LJ"a �fpflc0 {yl>-�E A p�0 NMy= m O � m daj °LA> d aj °O j N WS- N ajEwwI- u v a) _ �� 0Qm OOO=E >c NE-aS- �aJ° °i U%N 04m--0 mbAco c O E _O Q E d O .N .E E U .N �J U h� �dJ.7 O U Z) CL O m N 4-+ U aJ �O L- CL CL v v v L L E 4- 0 C: ai E a- -2 _O Qi a� L 0 C: ai E c O L C aJ aJ a, L U N 4- v aJ 0 Q 3 c v E 0 0 CL 0 a� 0 N U f0 4- C 0 U C m a N 0 v v LL • i 0 CL � ca _O 'N N _N N � iA W O O O N �- O 4-J CL L- 0 � Q CL (10 Ln \ N c: a) O u bA O Z a -J aJ v C O c _O �N N .E U a O C f0 O L c O M v E aJ CL E oa.. DC a N a� c � O N O � 4J U cu .E v 0 L O O V 00 a) • C v E CL O v a, aJ cv C: aJ L L aJ gL,fl cv L 0 E (6 L O L- CL CL c a, E O v co L d -j V) • 0 � O Ln 4-+ m U C c (Ij O 0 00 a-+ Q N U E (� O C6 co Ln 0 �aA O fQ � lD mm "Ln rq W 4-J C _0 t/} U O v Q O W 0 a� N U � a..+ U O • U � O U 0 a-+ Q N U ;-, f6 C6 4-J 0 �aA fQ � '— C L- O 0 a� L a..+ U O 4-1 Ln a -j E �-+ 0 O ca N O O U � c6 N N N > 4-+ N � O1 •N .� �Q N C: C: U a) Q . U .� f6 > N4 .� — C�A -J Q v �?� Ln N O s- M . — . O N — C:Q — 0 Q W CO = b.0 c N O .- c6 0 L cu 0 Lr) rj 4-JLQL LZL � aC U ca co O 00 I O a1 N N a) C a) L v L b.0 ca U O E a' QO • -J O t�0 C: � • � 0Z)01 O� 0.� Ln 0��u Q� N U L Ei2 •Qr- LnO 04-J N N QomJ . - �oUl U > N 0 Ln a) • -0 0 O _ O O 0� L N •+-J —Jw0W3: 0 w 4-J � 0 O 0 .EcOna. O= O O •E L a--+ � > : 0.s: 4-J 4A N N � O —O �U bn � •i O O O O E r -I L •N 0 > -0 Ov O Ov4- 50 - U� Os aJ 4 - CQ N �_ — °�=a�LnE � C�4-1 pv�O 4- 4A a-1 � U p0C:m v'aL}'c0 U L C: U4-., �OOgOQ� N O U +� 'CDvp•EO E.auN o.c 0LnC: CoO E ��UQJ a) � .0v (v i:: .N 4-J L •� 0 —,�C:0 0 0 D -f �o S O .0 .— �-+ AL -0 +1 00="a)m 4-J 0 .-, ONtoo N� 0�0� 0=3=0 N L p +j +j -ate=NCC �O.1- 20•— (� WO N (U—�. L U Naj O OO �C cu O�t4A*a) cuE oL,LA SON -0+ -+.S -v O .-, ��0�0 �• O O � O � v �UO�C 0� �A L bn �— >-000L w O • cn cn y- • • C�0 O U N m N U N � > E O 4-- =3 -0 Ov CL fu cn taA -32 O QO � J co N uj N O O U U 4— O N 4-A 4-j •7- C: •� p C6 U +� E m U •� = N - E 0- 0O O C w > O .N •� N •� i -0 ac v O • N C6 = O ca � 4-J O L N N -0 .O vii (1) X Ln L- CL C v Q `'— O O b.0 N O � a�+ fB Q � i � � N .� (3) L- -C > o � N U 0-00 'oQ ._ 4- Co S +, • O 4-J CaA O m N O ro 0 •N L N m (a C O s °z Q N i E w E LUQ w U a-+ F S CO Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners BOCC Wednesday Meeting of May 15, 2019 DATE: May 8, 2019 FROM: Jacob Ripper, Community Development, 541-385-1759 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: CONTINUED DELIBERATIONS: Marijuana Production Appeal at 25606 Alfalfa Market Road BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Deschutes Board of County Commissioners began deliberations on May 8. This is a continuation of those deliberations. Application information and materials can be found in the May 1 Meeting packet: https:Hdeschutescountyor.igm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=2357 FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None ATTENDANCE: Will Groves, Senior Planner CATEGORY -128,000 703,58, -10,000 RESOURCES 693,58: 25,000 Be inni 658,581 General -15,000 State V -25,000 Interest TOTAL RESOURCES 608,58: REQUIREMENTS -25,000 583,582 0 Administration Persons 105 _�. -100,000 Internal Sub -Total 25 -3,000 -248,000 583,582 Undesignated Undesi Sub -Total 0 0 548,582 Economic Development i EDCO Other Ecor Sub -Total Grant nt TOTAL OVERS Deschutes County _ FY 2019 Video Lottery Fund Allocations Projected Amount Available: $847578 --- - -� I PROGRAM i FY 2019 FY 2020 Bi Fund Transfer Vi Lottery Re Revenue Local Capacity: La Pine Local Capacity:_Redmond Local Capacity: Sisters Sunriver Public Transit: Rural Services Arts & Culture To Be Determined One -Time Projec Other: Central Oregon Council on Ag>n&(( MountamStar Family Relief Nurser, J -Bar -J / Cascade Youth and Family Redmond Senior Center KIDS Center Latino Commun ty Association _ Bethlehem Inn Family Access Network (FANS Saving_Gra/ Mary's Place Central Oreog n Veterans' Outreach 1 Court Annointed Special Advocates Grants and ort__ -125,000: -128,000 703,58, -10,000 -10,000 693,58: 25,000 -35,000 658,581 4 10,00 ' 0 -15,000 643,58, -25,000 -35,000 608,58: -30,000 -25,000 583,582 0 0 583,582 105 _�. -100,000 0 583,584 25 -3,000 -248,000 583,582 -34,500: -35,000 548,582 0 0 548,582 _ -34,500 -35,000 548,582 j -3,000 -3,000 545,582 2,500 i -2,500 543 082 30,000 r -20,000 523,082 -50,000 -80,000 443,082 0 0 443,082 -85,500 = -105,500 443,082 �- -50,000 -75,000 368,082 -18,000 -20,000 348,082 -15,000 -15,000 333,082 _ 4 -3,000 5,000 328,082 30,000 -30,000 298,082 --�-- 20,000 -20,000 278,082 30,000 -35,000 243,082 " -15,000 228.082 115,000 15,000 - -20 000 208,082 - -20,000 -20,000 188,082 -30,000 158,082 20,000 -20,000 138,082 --_30,000 --� 10,000 -10,000 128,082 -20,000 ' -20,000 108,082 0 0 108,082 �- 0 0 108,082 -296,000 -335,000 108,082 -60,000 0 108,082 _ 20,000 0 108,082 j 0 0 108,082 0 0 108,082 _ -80,000 0 108,082 -80,000 0 108,082 -80,000 = 0 108,082 -969,200 i -739,496 -704,496 108,082 143,082 NOTES Personnel expenses notchargedto Video LotteryFund. BOCC, Administration, Finance Financ/HR Project. e Optional to allow for unexpected revenue variations. Requesting $128,000, increase of $3,000_. No increase requested. Requesting $35,000, increase of $10,000. No increase requested. _ Requesting $35,000, increase of $10,000. Match to be validated before payment. No increase requested. Additional information requested. Requesting $20,000 + $10,000 contingent on match First year of biennial commitment. Additional information requested. _ Affordable Housing & Wildfire Impacts Requesting $75,000, increase of $25,000. Requesting $20,000, increase of $2,000. No increase requested. Requesting 5,000, increase of $2,000. No increase requested. No increase requested. Requesting $35,000, increase of $5,000. No increase requested. Requesting $20,000, increase of $5,000. No increase requested. No increase requested. No increase requested. No increase requested. No increase requested. 9 Draft _ p n5 ° Deschutes County FY 2019 Video Lottery Fund Allocations s gg�� 6 D r a 1 51412018 9 Pro*ected Amount Available: - _ CATEGORY PROGRAM L FY 2019 _$_847,578 FY 2020 BALANCE.`; NOTES _ REMAINING'_, --_. RESOURCES j Beginning Net Working Capital_ 205,000 90.578 90,578 Revised from $98,800 based on 2019 actual receipts. !General Fund Transfer 0 0 90,578 State Video Lottery Revenue 760,000 750,000 840,578 Revised from $760;000 based on 2019 actual receipts. _ (Interest Revenue 4,200 : 7,000 847,578 - _..___..__. TOTAL RESOURCES 969,200 847,578 847,578 -- REQUIREMENTS Administration j Personnel 0 0 847,578 Personnel expenses not charged to Video Lottery Fund. ! Internal Services -14,001 : -15,996 831,582 B_OCC, Administration, Finance, Finance/HR Protect. _ _ Sub-Total -14,001 -15,996 831,582 Undesignated (Undesignated-88,699 0 831,582 Optional to allow for unexpected revenue variations. Sub-Total -- -88,699 0 831,582 _ - Economic Development EDCO Regional Ca aci /Operational Support -125,000 -128,000 703,582' Re uestinpz$128,OOQ increase of $3,000. Local Capacity: Bend 10,000 -10,000 693,582 No increase requested. - Local Capacity: La Pine -25,000 -35,000 658,582 Requesting $35 000 increase of $10 000. _ _ !Local Capacity: Redmond _ -- ___10'000 -15,000 643,582 No increase requested. _ 1 Local Capacity: Sisters -25,000 -35,000 Requesting $35,000, increase of $10,000. Match to be 608,582 validated before payment. Venture Catalyst Program - 30,000 -25,000 583,582 No increase requested. Additional information re uested. - 1 �- 0 0 583,582 _ --- Business Loan Fund Recapitalization (Fund 105) 100,000 0 583,582 Sub-Total _ __. -325,000 -248,000 583,582 Other Economic Developmentumiver Chamber of Commerce 34,500 -35,000 548.582 Central Ore on Intergovernmental Council 0 0 548,582 Requesting $20,000 + $10,000 contingent on match. Sub-Total _ -34,500 -35,000 548,582 Project Support i Shop-with a CoPro p gram -3,000 -3.000 545,582 _ Public Transit: Rural Services -2,500 -2,500 543,082First year of biennial commitment. Additional information requested. - - -1 Arts & Culture -30,000 -20,000 523,082 To Be Determined One-Time Projects 50,000 -80,000 443,082 Affordable Housing & Wildfire Impacts Other: 0 0 443,082' Sub-Total - _ _�_ _ -85,500 -105,500 443,082_- _ Service PartnersCentral Oregon Council on Aging (COCOA) --_ 50,000 -50,000 393,082 Requesting $75,000, increase of $25,000. __ MountainStar Family Relief Nursery_ -18,000 -18,000 375,082 Requesting $20,000, increase of $2,000. J-Bar-J / Cascade Youth and Family Services -15,000 -15,000 360;082 No increase requested. --___- Redmond Senior Center _� 3,000 -3,000 357,082 Requesting 5,000, increase of $2,000. KIDS Center _ -30,000 -30,000 327,082 No increase requested. Latino Community Association _ _ - -20,000 - -20,000 307,082 No increase requested. Bethlehem Inn -30,000 277,082 Requesting $35,000, increase of $5,000. ____'_'__i____-30,000 Family Access Network (FAN)_ - -15,000 -15,000 262,082 No increase requested. Saving Grace /Mary's Place - ; _ -15,000 -15,000 247,082 Requesting $20,000, increase of $5,000. -- - Central Oregon Veterans' Outreach (COVO)- _ -20,00.0 -20,000 227,082 No increase requested. Appointed Special Advocates (CASA)______ 30,000 30,000 197,082 No increase requested.__ - - _ourt Healthy -- 20,000 -20,000 177,082 No increase requested. -- -' Central Oregon 2-1-I 10,000 -10,000 167,082 No increase requested. U er Deschutes Watershed Council. -20,000 -20,000 147,082 No increase requested. ___, _-_ __ 1Other: 0 0 0 0 147,082 147,082 Other: -..-_._ Sub-Total -296,000 -296,000 147,082 Discretionary Grant Program- Discretio Grants __- __, _ -60,000 0 147,082 Fundraisin Grants -20,000 - 0 147,082 _ _ _._..-_ Other: 0 0 147,082 Other: - 0 0 147,082 Sub-Total - -- - -- - - - -80,000 0 147,082 _. Community Grant ProgramEmergency Food, Clothing and Shelter _ -80,000 0 147,082_-- Sub-Total -_.-_--_ __ _ -80,000 0 147,082 _ __-.._-...-.- TOTAL REQUIREMENTS -,_ -969,200 -700,496 -665,496 OVER/SHORT 0 147,082 182,082 o U C) Cd'b ; ° 0` O Cd 0 E 'o & cd � •�d CN Cd cd U �� s �� ci O 4 U U N N y OA U cd cqs 59 OU O a) cd � O N .fl rp 'd Ln r.t 'U 0l�p0 O�,� � b a UO cd OOV 00 Cd NO '0 C CE p CiO�f)a4) i cd (0-, a) 'U Ulz� U ::� W un dU U U) c Mrl cd U Cd -45- 'C 44- Q C,3 Ln .CCAS Col Cd w Q U Y•1 icy Q) ?-1 � -OVCd CCS 4% F•61 Q-1 Q eS-1 � F�O1 C� 1-�i ir•1 5� �y Q .�-1 � 0 Cd C� � � Q Q yQy,yy U �vUi o Z M o Z o Z M o a Z O >, -- O cl) Ln r Cd��a ' to o d aoi. 4B b y °� > ° ; En .2 Cd m Ln � o ti o AD 4 o V) cd y 4 - No U am Cd .- ° 4 v�c( ° N o "d Cd N C) a) O V to , - i cs z sr U cid' cd ¢+•� P,- O U Q, a) 4, t '- a) Cd r-+ cd O O O .fl U U bq U 0 y� U O 'cj Or' : +C 0 O�� 0 O � U Q rn Cd :� V1 ' - �U' ° $~ a � 4 O � L+0, V] rn V1 • O Q 4 rte+ a)> 'n 4] S~ V] "'' rn a) U N i �y '� Cd M U 7-•� Ay i"•1 (n ~ ,•a o OQ a, O; U Cd p O U S~ �co 0000 C M N N � � N M o .'—'-. U cd 41 N O N 'C U U G4 cn Cd � s 'd �� w+ U O U Z criQId , �� O° aip, U N O N bA U a- Oy a�y3 O b OCd ¢ ii}Uy, u c O O cd 5 N 0 N N' •� O tcd� O � G� +- U �+ M U O Cd Q,a3 d O N Cd ¢+ O 'CCd ��, d ' • 'C3 `r'' cc3 `a a3 U O O1 N bA 2 :E O — ° W N bA t`� .- ' '.0 U CA �. w °� U °�'w� O Q.U. IS m �,. Q. Cd cd 0 cd to U oO 0 U po U x U 0 'd ° � N cdcd Cd o a Z M o i Z o Z in �r Ji v) Z M Cot) vi Z O D U O U 03 0 cd Cd En w 0 o cd LP o o o ti) i o C7 �. i y N N N O U -0 O b O O w ° O N cc y' a.cd y 4� N N cd �' tti. m p NV a Q° QCd +U2O rn tp IrT cd to ° oo 0 0 r~ o o 0 0 cd O Q, N U) 10 O M � � N O OLr) kn 0 �cdo U N U Q' - U bA cdcnO U � � N b�4 a � O y Cd U CdCc bA 48 cn 0 �cclt�� o o o o ' N cd ;D N Ln U) N- un.- N N g O U >' 4-' 0 > U � N> cl O U rn N n/+ " — U +" U V) r- rn vi >, W O N U U N y Q,cd Q,�a W i QQ � �45 d- 0 Initial Observations on Stabilizations Centers Phil Henderson — Deschutes County Commissioner 4/19/19; 5/15/2019 Hawthorn -- Washington Location — on Max transit line Walk-in primarily 80% Windows everywhere Sight line over cubicles Aggressive marketing plans Peer support/ respite room Natural Artwork, Water feature in entry Two -door "interview" rooms One security staff/ ghakis/polo Connected with the rest of mental health Police entry — totally separate. 9 a.m. — 8:30 p.m 10 —12 per day/ $ 5 million per year Clackamas Location in mall Walk-in primarily Run by Lifeworks 1 police drop off per week. Separate police entrance Window visibility to employees in center Peer services/ big part/ independent contractor 400 in 2018 needing ongoing 1400 new clients in 2018 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. Mon — Friday 10 — 7 Sat; closed Sunday Eugene - Hourglass Location - by Alton Baker Park, Autzen stadium, Health Services Walkin, but also people from their crisis teams Run by Columbia Care/ Cahoots, thru White bird goes with police 140 per month to 300 / mo Eugene -Hourglass (cont.) Open 24- 7, Hold for 23 hrs, release and bring back Recliner based. (3) In waiting room, In back room (4) 2 staff on at all times., no security. None under 18 year old. CCO very involved in forming it. Marion Location On Hospital Grounds, near downtown Many walk-in Lots of on-call employees Open 24 hours; 23 hour service; respite, longer term at Private homes Does hospital mental health assessments Many police drops — Salem, Silverton, Up the canyon (santiam river) Jackson Brand new facility, residential structure Three pods, coed, with multiple livable bedrooms, in each. Up to 30 days, level two license, All cabinetry, etc. is built in Within %Z mile of hospital Operated by Columbia Care Crisis "resolution" — more than stabilization Wanting to add a 23 hour, Level 1, Stabilization Center CCO's contribute and part of the planning. Statistic on hand-out for first 4 months. Josephine Level 2, 30 -day facility; older building; but very utilitarian Oldest Crisis Center in Oregon; founders of this started Columbia Care More features to take away risk, higher fences, no bushes in backyard 3 pods with bedrooms, 1 observation, 1 Male, 1 female Run by non-profit entity (?) 3 CCOs involved Close to hospital (1/4 mile or less)