Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2024-82-Minutes for Meeting February 14,2024 Recorded 3/25/2024
GI E S CMG BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon Recorded in Deschutes County (541) 388-6570 Steve Dennison, County Clerk Commissioners' Journal • 9:00 AM WEDNESDAY February 14, 2024 2024-82 OJ2024-82 03/25/2024 9:46:39 AM Barnes Sawyer Rooms Live Streamed Video Present were Commissioners Patti Adair, Tony DeBone and Phil Chang. Also present were County Administrator Nick Lelack; Assistant Legal Counsel Kim Riley; and Executive Assistant Brenda Fritsvold. This meeting was audio and video recorded and can be accessed at the Deschutes County Meeting Portal webpage www.deschutes.org/meetings. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Adair called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZEN INPUT: Ashley Schreiber spoke regarding fires in and around homeless encampments, and the harmful effects from secondhand exposure to fentanyl. Schreiber demanded transparency and accountability from the County with respect to the transitional housing program at 640 Wilson Avenue. Dorinne Tye expressed appreciation for the emergency declaration regarding fentanyl. On another subject, Tye said flight schools operating at Bend Municipal Airport are retaliatory and objected that responses to complaints are referred to the FAA. She listed harmful environmental effects from aviation operations and said these can and do result in human deaths. • Tom Gugg said many people oppose the low -barrier shelter at 640 SE Wilson Avenue for persons on parole or probation, including level 2 and level 3 sex BOCC MEETING FEBRUARY 14, 2024 PAGE 1 OF 10 offenders. He claimed a lack of appropriate public outreach, described discrepancies between the grant application which was submitted for this program and the program itself, and urged changing the plans for this property. Commissioner Chang said Gugg may be confusing the Governor's emergency order for shelter and homelessness prevention with this specific program which was not submitted as a shelter project. Ryan Rudnick said of the two individuals who so far have been placed at the 640 Wilson facility, one of them has already caused disturbances in the neighborhood. He objected to using taxpayer funds to provide for criminals instead of law-abiding citizens and said even if the participants of this program are screened, one or more of them might yet reoffend. He said if this shelter is not converted to house women and children only, it should be moved —perhaps to a County -owned property in proximity to the jail. CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was Consideration of the Consent Agenda. Approval of Chair signature of Document No. 2024-047, a Notice of Intent to Award Contract for the Supplying and Hauling of Crushed, Uncoated Rock for Chip Seal 2024 Contract 2. Approval of Chair signature of Document No. 2024-049, a Notice of Intent to Award Contract for the Supply and Delivery of Asphalt Oil for Chip Seal 2024 Contract 3. Consideration of Board Signature on letter thanking Mike Kutansky and appointing David McDonald for service on the River Bend Estates Special Road District 4. Consideration of Board Signature on letter reappointing Danielle MacBain for service on the Behavioral Health Advisory Board S. Consideration of Board Signature on letter appointing Sheldon Rhoden for service on the Project Wildfire Steering Committee 6. Approval of the minutes of the February 2, 2024 BOCC Legislative Update meeting 7. Approval of minutes of the BOCC January 24 and 29, 2024 meetings DEBONE: Move approval of the Consent Agenda as presented CHANG: Second VOTE: CHANG: Yes BOCC MEETING FEBRUARY 14, 2024 PAGE 2 OF 10 DEBONE: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried ACTION ITEMS: 8. Potential Ground lease Extension with Mountain View Community Development for the Redmond Safe Parking Program Kristie Bollinger, Property Manager, introduced the request from Mountain View Community Development to extend its lease of County -owned property at SE 7th Street and SE Evergreen Avenue in Redmond for a safe parking program. Rick Russell, executive director of Mountain View Community Development (MVCD), said MVCD is currently operating safe parking sites at seven different locations. Russell said these operations allow for the safe parking of vehicles which are temporarily housing numerous persons, including 19 minors —most of whom are elementary school age. Heather Englestater relayed the positive experience she and her husband had in MVCD's safe parking program, sharing that now they are housed in an apartment in Prineville. She expressed gratitude for the program, which included assistance from a case manager, and said she is now volunteering as a former participant. Continuing, Russell provided an overview of MVCD's safe parking sites and programs, confirming that these include participant oversight and case management services. He said contrary to concerns raised at the outset, the program operating at the 7th and Evergreen site has not resulted in increased calls to law enforcement. Generally, the program takes in older, disabled persons, or those in poor health, or younger people, some of whom have children. Russell concluded that Mountain View seeks a two-year extension of the ground lease and the authorization to add gravel to the property. In response to Commissioner Chang, Russell said these sites serve persons who have between 1-30% of average median incomes. No communications have been received from the site's neighbors over the past six months and in fact, some neighbors have commented on the quiet nature of the program, which they had not anticipated. Russell said he was comfortable with allowing up to eight vehicles per location; more than that would require adding on -site management. Commissioner DeBone stated his support for a one-year extension of the lease. Commissioners Adair and Chang supported extending the lease for two years as BOCC MEETING FEBRUARY 14, 2024 PAGE 3 OF 10 requested and also allowing gravel to be brought in. Bollinger said staff will return with an amendment to the lease for the Board's formal approval. Commissioner Chang suggested that the Fair and Expo consider contributing to efforts to relocate people who are camping on the County -owned property which is pending to be exchanged with the State, as that property transfer will directly benefit the Fair & Expo. Commissioner Adair said this matter is currently before the Fair Board. 9. Consideration whether to hear an appeal of a Hearings Officer's decision associated with the Oregon Department of Transportation's Lava Butte Trail Multi -Use Path Project Caroline House, Senior Planner, presented a request that the Board hear an appeal of the Hearings Officer's decision associated with the Oregon Department of Transportation's ("ODOT") Lava Butte Multi -Use Path project which parallels Highway 97. House said if the Board declines to hear this appeal, the decision of the Hearings Officer will become the County's final decision on this matter. Commissioner Chang stepped down from the dais after recusing himself from discussing or acting on this quasi-judicial matter due to potential bias resulting from his service on the Policy Board of the Metropolitan Planning Organization which submitted a letter supporting ODOT's preferred alignment for this path. Continuing, House described the application submitted by ODOT seeking interpretation of the County's Zoning Code, maps and Comprehensive Plan to determine if the proposed multi -use path is permitted outright. After the Hearings Officer determined that the path is indeed permitted outright, Windlinx Ranch Trust filed an appeal. House shared seven key issues raised by the appeal, including the claim that the Hearings Officer's decision reverses a prior Board decision that the subject Highway 97 right-of-way is zoned F2. House summarized reasons for the Board to hear the appeal as well as reasons not to hear it. Commissioner DeBone spoke to the history of this matter, including the 1999 determination of the right-of-way zoning by the Board as cited. He found the decision of the Hearings Officer to be well -reasoned, therefore accepted it, and did not support hearing the appeal. Commissioner Adair noted that the County's map shows this property zoned as Forest, yet the Hearings Officer says it is not. She asked for clarification on the status of the Board's 1999 decision. BOCC MEETING FEBRUARY 14, 2024 PAGE 4 OF 10 House responded that the Hearings Officer determined that in 1999, the Board did not have the same information which is now available. As a result, the Hearings Officer determined that this property is zoned RR10. Stephanie Marshall, Assistant Legal Counsel, stated her agreement that the decision of the Hearings Officer is well -reasoned and well -supported. Commissioner Adair expressed reservations about not hearing the appeal. Commissioner DeBone said the weigh station is entirely within the right-of-way of Highway 97, which supports the Hearings Officer's determination that the proposed muti-use path is a Class III project. DEBONE: Move approval of Board Order No. 2024-008 denying review of the Hearings Officer's decision in File No. 247-23-000302-DR ADAIR: Second VOTE: CHANG: (recused) DEBONE: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 2 - 1 - 0 Commissioner Chang returned to the dais. 10. Consideration to hear an appeal of a Hearing's Officer decision involving commercial activity in conjunction with farm use at 20520 Bowery Lane, Bend Nathaniel Miller explained the application for a Conditional Use Permit for commercial activities in conjunction with farm use to establish a winery with associated uses. Following a public hearing last October, the Hearings Officer issued a decision approving the Conditional Use Permit. An appeal was filed by Toby Bayard seeking Board review of the application. Miller said the property owner proposes to convert a portion of an existing accessory building into a tasting room and office space. The proposal also includes the conversion of an existing barn for wine production and storage. The approval would include the production of up to 2,000 cases of wine annually as well as hosting wine related events on the property, wine tastings, wine dinners, and other wine marketing events directly related to the sale and promotion of wine. No new buildings or structures are included in the proposal. Miller concluded that the decision of the Hearings Officer placed numerous conditions on the allowed use. BOCC MEETING FEBRUARY 14, 2024 PAGE 5 OF 10 Will Groves, Planning Manager, added that a number of those conditions of approval appear to be open to interpretation and thus could be argued. Because unclear conditions could place staff in the position of making discretionary determinations outside of a public process, staff recommends that the Board hear this appeal to allow for the refinement of the problematic condition language. Commissioner Chang noted that the record contains the argument that the new Hunnell Road will create different access point opportunities which will relieve transportation stresses on the surrounding neighborhood; however, he believed that the alignment of Hunnell Road at its southern section remains in question. Miller referred a response on this inquiry to the Road Department. Commissioner Chang asked to know how much of the property would be utilized to grow grapes to produce wine. Miller said the record does not specify this information, although the applicant has indicated that not all wine used or sold would be produced on -site. Miller noted that the applicant has waived the 150-day clock on this matter. DEBONE: Move approval of Board Order No. 2024-006, accepting review of Hearings Officer's decision approving a Conditional Use Permit for commercial activities in conjunction with farm use at 20520 Bowery Lane, Bend, and establishing the review will be heard de novo ADAIR: Second VOTE: CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 11. Oregon Health Authority grant agreement #PO-44300-00026008 for Behavioral Health Services Holly Harris, Behavioral Health Director, reviewed the proposed intergovernmental agreement with the Oregon Health Authority to accept $11,771,788 to fund community mental health, addiction treatment, recovery, prevention, and problem gambling services for the period of January 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025. CHANG: Move approval of Chair signature of Document No. 2024-135, an agreement accepting grant funding from the Oregon Health Authority Second BOCC MEETING FEBRUARY 14, 2024 PAGE 6 OF 10 VOTE: CHANG: Yes DEBONE: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried A break was announced at 10:30 am. The meeting resumed at 10:34 am. 12. Deliberations: Draft 2020-2040 Transportation System Plan Update Tarik Rawlings, Senior Transportation Planner, presented a matrix to guide particular decisions of the Board with respect to the 2020-2040 Transportation System Plan (TSP) Update before adopting it. Rawlings stressed that the matrix can be amended to include other items the Board deems appropriate. Upon the advice of Rawlings, the Board took up the second item in the matrix first. 2. Should the Board include a conceptual Community Connection multi -use pathway in the updated TSP between the City of Sisters and the Black Butte Ranch Resort community? Rawlings noted that the Planning Commission recommended this reference be removed from the TSP. Commissioner Chang emphasized that the County would not design, fund or maintain any of the proposed multi -use paths. He supported leaving references to these facilities in the TSP—without identifying specific alignments —as many people support having these. He added that the Sisters City Council unanimously voted to support this trail. Commissioner Adair supported the recommendation of the Planning Commission, noting the large number of people who are not comfortable with this proposed trail. Commissioner DeBone referred to previous discussion to include multi -use paths in the TSP, but not prioritize them. Road Director Chris Doty commented that not including this project in the TSP would not preclude it from being constructed. BOCC MEETING FEBRUARY 14, 2024 PAGE 7 OF 10 A majority of the Board was in consensus to include a conceptual Community Connection multi -use pathway in the updated TSP between the City of Sisters and the Black Butte Ranch Resort community. Rawlings stated that the first decision point in the matrix —whether the Board should include a County -wide prohibition on multi -use pathways in the updated TSP based on proximity to farm and forest resource -zoned lands and wildlife habitat fragmentation —has now been nullified by the Board's decision on the second question. 3. Should the Board include a conceptual community connection multi -use pathway in the updated TSP between Baker Road and Lava Butte? Rawlings referred to preferences stated by different persons and entities for locating this pathway on the west side or the east side of Highway 97. Commissioner Adair noted multiple fires in the area of China Hat since January 1 st, saying that such impacts may be a good reason to site the path on the west side of the highway. A majority of the Board was in consensus to include a conceptual community connection multi -use pathway in the updated TSP between Baker Road and Lava Butte with no specific alignment supported or referenced. 4. Should the Board support inclusion by reference of the BPRD Master Plan within the updated TSP, including a bridge connecting the Deschutes River Woods neighborhood to the west side of the Deschutes River? A majority of the Board was in consensus to support inclusion by reference of the BPRD Master Plan within the updated TSP, including a bridge connecting the Deschutes River Woods neighborhood to the west side of the Deschutes River. 5. Should the Board include language in the updated TSP responsive to concerns regarding Local Access Roads in Special Road District #1, including replacement of a canal crossing on Island Loop Way? A majority of the Board was in consensus to not include language in the updated TSP responsive to concerns regarding Local Access Roads in Special Road District #1, including replacement of a canal crossing on Island Loop Way. 6. Should the Board eliminate the columns labeled "Priority" from Table 5-6 and Table 5-7 of the drafted TSP document related to bicycle route and other community connections? BOCC MEETING FEBRUARY 14, 2024 PAGE 8 OF 10 A majority of the Board was in consensus to eliminate the columns labeled "Priority" from Table 5-6 and Table 5-7 of the drafted TSP document related to bicycle route and other community connections. 7. Should the Board adopt ODOT's proposed language related to ODOT intersection changes outlined in S-9 and S-11? Rawlings explained ODOT's recommended revisions which would 1) change the priority level for the US 20 / Powell Butte Highway Roundabout project from low to high; and 2) change the priority level for the US 20 / Locust Street Roundabout project from low to high. A majority of the Board was in consensus to designate high priority for the Locust Avenue roundabout project and medium for the Powell Butte Highway roundabout project. 8. Should the Board adopt a citizen comment's recommendation to include a high priority category associated with Table 5.5 Project ID BP-3 related to 2nd Street/Cook Avenue sidewalk improvements in Tumalo? County Engineer/Assistant Road Director Cody Smith explained this recommendation from the Planning Commission was based on one comment received from a citizen. A majority of the Board was in consensus to include a high priority category associated with Table 5.5 Project ID BP-3 related to 2nd Street/Cook Avenue sidewalk improvements in Tumalo. Commissioner Adair asked for clarity as to why staff had recommended that the Board re -open the record after a comment was received following its formal closure. Rawlings explained that more than one post -record comment had been sent directly to the Board with no opportunity for staff to divert these. The Commissioners and staff expressed gratitude to the Planning Commission and the project consultant for their work on the update. CHANG: Move approval of the TSP update with revisions as specified DEBONE: Second VOTE: CHANG: DEBONE: ADAI R: Yes Yes Chair votes yes. Motion Carried BOCC MEETING FEBRUARY 14, 2024 PAGE 9 OF 10 OTHER ITEMS: • Commissioner Chang recapped his recent attendance at the National Association of Counties annual conference in Washington, D.C., which enabled him to visit with some of the County's Congressional delegation. Subjects discussed including funding and other support for affordable and workforce housing; how to steward groundwater; increased appropriations for the wolf livestock demonstration grant program; large solar energy facilities being sited on ELM lands; and behavioral health needs and funding. • Commissioner Adair said the number of cattle is declining as prices are rising. • Commissioner DeBone reported on the Sunriver-La Pine Economic Development meeting; the annual SLED luncheon which will take place on April 3rd; and the State Interoperability Executive Council meeting where the critical nature of maintaining radio communications during emergency events was discussed. • Commissioner Adair reported on the Fair Board meeting and said the Fair is seeking volunteers for this year's event. • Commissioner Adair shared that she met with Ashley Smith who works with women who are on parole. • County Administrator Nick Lelack presented the annual dues invoice from the Association of Oregon Counties and sought Board approval. The Commissioners agreed on the tremendous value provided by AOC and all concurred in paying the required dues for the upcoming year as a worthy investment. EXECUTIVE SESSION: None ADJOURN: Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:55 am. DATED this o o Commissioners. ATTEST: -�I- _ day of JVl iN 2024 for the Deschutes County Board of PATTI ADAIR, CHAIR RECORDING SECRETARY i PHIL CHANG, COMMIrSSIONER BOCC MEETING FEBRUARY 14, 2024 PAGE 10 OF 10 I ES COGS { ? BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING 9:00 AM, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2024 Barnes Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Building - 1300 NW Wall Street - Bend (541) 388-6570 1 www.deschutes.or MEETING FORMAT: In accordance with Oregon state law, this meeting is open to the public and can be accessed and attended in person or remotely, with the exception of any executive session. Members of the public may view the meeting in real time via YouTube using this link: http://bit.ly/3mminzy. To attend the meeting virtually via Zoom, see below. Citizen Input: The public may comment on any topic that is not on the current agenda. Alternatively, comments may be submitted on any topic at any time by emailing citizeninput@deschutes.org or leaving a voice message at 541-385-1734. When in -person comment from the public is allowed at the meeting, public comment will also be allowed via computer, phone or other virtual means. Zoom Meeting Information: This meeting may be accessed via Zoom using a phone or computer. • To join the meeting via Zoom from a computer, use this link: http•//bit.ly/3h3o-q • To join by phone, call 253-215-8782 and enter webinar ID # 899 4635 9970 followed by the passcode 013510. • If joining by a browser, use the raise hand icon to indicate you would like to provide public comment, if and when allowed. If using a phone, press *9 to indicate you would like to speak and *6 to unmute yourself when you are called on. When it is your turn to provide testimony, you will be promoted from an attendee to a panelist. You may experience a brief pause as your meeting status changes. Once you have joined as a panelist, you will be able to turn on your camera, if you would like to. Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities. If you need accommodations to make participation possible, call (541) 388-6572 or email brenda fritsvold@deschutes.org. Time estimates: The times listed on agenda items are estimates only. Generally, items will be heard in sequential order and items, including public hearings, may be heard before or after their listed times. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZEN INPUT: Citizen Input may be provided as comment on any topic that is not on the agenda. Note: In addition to the option of providing in -person comments at the meeting, citizen input comments may be emailed to citizeninput@deschutes.org or you may leave a brief voicemail at 541.385.1734. To be timely, citizen input must be received by noon on Tuesday in order to be included in the meeting record. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Chair signature of Document No. 2024-047, a Notice of Intent to Award Contract for the Supplying and Hauling of Crushed, Uncoated Rock for Chip Seal 2024 Contract 2. Approval of Chair signature of Document No. 2024-049, a Notice of Intent to Award Contract for the Supply and Delivery of Asphalt Oil for Chip Seal 2024 Contract 3. Consideration of Board Signature on letter thanking Mike Kutansky and appointing David McDonald for service on the River Bend Estates Special Road District 4. Consideration of Board Signature on letter reappointing Danielle MacBain for service on the Behavioral Health Advisory Board 5. Consideration of Board Signature on letter appointing Sheldon Rhoden for service on the Project Wildfire Steering Committee 6. Approval of the minutes of the February 2, 2024 BOCC Legislative Update meeting 7. Approval of minutes of the BOCC January 24 and 29, 2024 meetings ACTION ITEMS 8. 9:10 AM Potential Ground Lease Extension with Mountain View Community Development for the Redmond Safe Parking Program 9. 9:25 AM Consideration whether to hear an appeal of a Hearings Officer's decision associated with the Oregon Department of Transportation's Lava Butte Trail Multi -Use Path Project February 14, 2024 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 2 of 3 10. 9:40 AM Consideration to hear an appeal of a Hearing's Officer decision involving commercial activity in conjunction with farm use at 20520 Bowery Lane, Bend 11. 9:55 AM Oregon Health Authority grant agreement #PO-44300-00026008 for Behavioral Health Services 12. 10:10 AM Deliberations: Draft 2020-2040 Transportation System Plan Update 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. EXECUTIVE SESSION 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 February 14, 2024 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 3 of 3 �vTES CO BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING DATE: February 14, 2024 SUBJECT: Potential Ground Lease Extension with Mountain View Community Development for the Redmond Safe Parking Program RECOMMENDED MOTION: Consider a request from Mountain View Community Development to extend the existing ground lease by two years for use of property located at SE 71h Street and SE Evergreen Avenue for the Redmond Safe Parking Program. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: In March 2023, after a 90-day trial period, the Board authorized extending a zero -cost ground lease with Mountain View Community Development (MVCD) for a one-year term to utilize County -owned property located at SE 7ch Street and SE Evergreen Avenue for the Redmond Safe Parking Program (Program). Prior to the end of the one-year term, MVCD agreed to provide a Program update to include successes and challenges. At the conclusion of the Program update, if the Board supports a two-year lease extension and continued use of the property for said use, staff will return with a Consent Agenda item to memorialize the extension that will include language to authorize adding gravel at the site. BUDGET IMPACTS: None ATTENDANCE: Kristie Bollinger, Property Manager Rick Russell, Mountain View Community Development cC _� .'v a r_ T IA GY' H� ol L f { gymTom g 11 & O i Q O U •U . (li � U O U N O 06 O � � co O j � U � O � � O N •cu > L O U N >, (n O >> O CM U Q •� -0 C6 L N -0 O U Cu L U) O 4-4 U_ Cll Cli Cll C6 U 06 Cll Cll � � CU � � cn � Cll (� Co cn N CU E C O U U O U 4-a Cll >> Cllcn j>> O= Q W Q © . 0 0 Q 0 0 (Li ' CL _0 i � (n LO (o U C: C: .� —2 cm n CO E L N N U' N CO • N CO O O E O Ca � •� ,� � N O N > N � 06 U O N N 4-0 N � o o U o >' —0 U E O (6 —0 m E .�cn ``— m Q U d- NO •— •— > � U O O O Lo U (Y) U cn z z O d' O O� O 00 M ry U J -+-a .U) � J '(n : • cn O :3 CCf � O � d- OCL N C` ) N C �- 0 O N 0 (n c6 j -Ln cY CflCD (6 ca � � C: Q N 0 •� p 06 Q o0 0 —a O r- N cyi D O -+-4 E Q m o T— fn O (C5 4-a U)^1 (%J W U 4-a Q > O L CL U Co> O .� co N > O W C� cn (CiE c O _ Co.- N > -a -0 4-a U) U -0 O X O O_ Q N Q O I� CO O N M CO LO TA 11 a) 0 4- N N X N O L LZ Q. L fa O N � to L -a U COCL U N � L •� M -� c m p L L (U �vTES CO G 2-� BOAR® OF o � I COMMISSIONERS MEETING DATE: February 14, 2024 SUBJECT: Deliberations: Draft 2020-2040 Transportation System Plan Update RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: 1. Conduct deliberations as described below. 2. Either continue deliberations to a future meeting, or, if the Board concludes its deliberations, then: a. Move to adopt the TSP Update as presented; b. Move to adopt the TSP Update with amendments; or c. Deny the TSP Update. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: On February 14, 2024, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) will deliberate on the County's drafted 2020-2040 Transportation System Plan (TSP) Update. The Board is not limited to the issue areas outlined in the attached Decision Matrix (Attachment 2); rather, the Commissioners may deliberate on any desired topics from the public record which they deem pertinent. If the Board determines that additional deliberations are necessary, staff will schedule a future meeting for continued deliberations. If the Board concludes its deliberations during the February 14, 2024, meeting, the Board may then vote on whether to adopt the plan as drafted, adopt the plan with amendments, or deny the plan. If the Board renders a vote during the February 14, 2024, meeting, staff will present a draft ordinance and relevant exhibits at a future meeting. The full record of the Draft 2020-2040 Transportation System Plan (TSP) Update (Files 247- 23-000507-PA, 508-TA) is located on the project webpage: https•//www deschutes org_/cd/page/transportation-s sy tem-plan-update-2020-2040- 247-23-000507-pa-508-ta BUDGET IMPACTS: The draft TSP document outlines cost estimates associated with various transportation improvement projects for the 2020-2040 planning period. ATTENDANCE: Tarik Rawlings, Senior Transportation Planner Chris Doty, Road Department Director Cody Smith, County Engineer/Assistant Road Department Director MEMORANDUM TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (Board) FROM: Tarik Rawlings, Senior Transportation Planner DATE: February 7, 2024 SUBJECT: Continued Deliberations: Draft 2020-2040 Transportation System Plan (TSP) The Road Department, with the assistance of the Community Development Department (CDD), has prepared an update of the 2010-2030 Deschutes County Transportation System Plan (TSP), covering the years 2020-2040. The TSP focuses on County arterials and collectors as well as bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and other modes. Following a public hearing on November 29, 20231, and initial deliberations on February 7, 2024, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) will engage in continued deliberations on February 14, 2024. 1. BACKGROUND The County selected Kittelson & Associates Inc. (KAI) as the consultant for the 2020-2040 TSP. The County and KAI prepared the draft of the 2020-2040 TSP based on technical analysis, public comments, and internal staff review. During the plan development process, KAI and County staff from the Road Department and Planning Division have coordinated with Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and staff from other local jurisdictions. KAI and County staff reviewed a proposal from the County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) on future road improvements and connectors. Additionally, KAI and the County held an on-line presentation from April 27 to May 14, 2021, including an online public meeting on May 4, 2021, to solicit public comment. The on-line presentation included technical memos on plans and policy reviews, goals and objectives, and needs analyses of existing and future conditions. The background materials were posted at the following link: https://kaiproiect.com/websites/68/ The full record including public and agency comments is included at the following project -specific website: https://www deschutescounty gov/cd/page/transportation-system-plan-update-2020- 2040-247-23-000507-pa-508-ta 1 https://www.deschutes.org/bcc/page/board-county-commissioners-meeting-139 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 Q1 (541) 388-6575 @cdd@deschutes.org ®www.deschutes.org/cd The Deschutes County Planning Commission (PC) held a public hearing' on August 10, 2023 and held deliberations on October 12, 2023'. Ultimately, the PC issued a recommendation to the Board, which is reviewed later in this memorandum. Following a public hearing on November 29, 20234, the Board extended the open record period until December 6, 2023 at 4pm to collect any additional testimony. On December 20, 2023, staff engaged the Board in a pre -deliberation update where the Board was asked to identify the pertinent issue areas they would like presented through a decision matrix during future deliberations5. On January 10, 2024, the Board elected to reopen the record through Board Order 2024-003, allowing for additional materials in record until January 31, 2024, at 4pm'. Staff has prepared a decision matrix reflecting the Board's input from the December 20, 2023, pre -deliberation update, attached to this memorandum. II. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Overall, approximately 374 written comments were received from both individuals and public agencies. The main topics within the public testimony were highlighted for the Board during their November 29, 2023 public hearing. Of the highlighted public testimony topics, staff emphasizes the following topics which were directly referenced during the November 29, 2023 public hearing and in written comments leading up to the public hearing: • Allowance/disallowance of multi -use pathways in the rural county related to wildlife values and resource -zoned lands; • Multi -use pathway connection between the City of Sisters and Black Butte Ranch (BBR); • Potential development of a footbridge across the Deschutes River near the Brookswood neighborhood of Deschutes River Woods; • Concerns regarding Local Access Roads in Special Road District #1, including replacement of the canal crossing (culvert) on Island Loop Way; and • Priority status elimination for BPAC Bicycle Route Community Connections As a reminder, the written comments in public record appear at the following project -specific website under the tabs labeled "Comments & Submittals - Agencies", "Comments & Submittals - Public", "BOCC Hearing - Public Comments", and "BOCC Hearing - New Evidence & Testimony": https•//www deschutescounty gov/cd/page/transportation-system-plan-update-2020-2040-247-23- 000507-pa-508-ta The Sisters-BBR multi -use pathway connection has generated numerous e-mails and phone calls, some prior to the initiation of the TSP public process and some during the Comprehensive Plan process. Regarding the subject land use before the Board, the bulk of the submitted written comments have been in opposition with a smaller amount being in favor. Recurring themes from those opposed include concerns about the public using private paths in BBR; adverse effects to the Z https://www.deschutes.org/bc-pc/page/planning-commission-38 a https://www.deschutes.org/bc-pc/page/planning-commission-41 a https://www.deschutes.org/bcc/page/board-county-commissioners-meeting-139 s https://www.deschutes.org/bcc/page/board-county-commissioners-meeting-145 e https://www.deschutes.org/bcc/page/board-county-commissioners-meeting-146 Page 2 of 5 forest; potential trespassing; criminal activity; attracting transients; disruption to wildlife; and safety. (Staff notes the multiuse path would lie on Deschutes National Forest (DNF) land and/or ODOT right of way, which each have their own regulations and environmental review processes.) Concerning multi -use pathways generally, the TSP (at Table 5.6 - Bicycle Route Community Connections) describes and prioritizes connections between various cities, unincorporated communities, and destination resorts. Table 5.7 (Bicycle Route Recreation Connections) provides similar information about these corridors. Neither table lists specific design aspects such as precise routes, widths, surface type, etc., as those variables would be determined prior to actual construction. No specific alignments are identified or mapped, except for the Bend -Lava Butte Trail, which appears as S-3 on Figure 5-4 (ODOT Facility Changes). The TSP tables were prepared based on input from the Deschutes County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC). There has been a mix of public input regarding the overall allowance of multi -use pathways in Deschutes County with the bulk of testimony opposed to a full prohibition of multi -use pathways and additional comments in support of the prohibition based on wildlife habitat and resource -zoned property sensitivities. Regarding the specific improvements requested for the Island Loop Way canal crossing/culvert and the larger Three Rivers community in general, the Road Department Director Chris Doty has provided individual responses to multiple comments received from the Three Rivers community related to project feasibility, funding, and legal constraints. Stakeholders have been referred to Special Road District #1 for maintenance and operational concerns within the District. Van Dyke LUBA Case Law Staff notes the Van Dyke LUBA case law has been raised in record and may be pertinent to the review of multi -use pathways as referenced in the updated TSP document. Staff presents the relevant case law, below, through the framing of two relevant questions related to pathways. Question 1 • How are conflicts handled between farm or forest uses and trails on resource lands? Van Dyke / (LUBA 2018-061) The above -referenced decision involved an appeal against Yamhill County's Ordinance 904, which authorized the development of a recreational trail within a portion of a former railroad corridor. Petitioners, who owned agricultural land adjacent to the proposed trail, raised concerns about the trail's impact on farming practices, particularly regarding pesticide use. They argued that the trail's development would necessitate new restrictions on pesticide application, significantly changing accepted farm practices in violation of ORS 215.296. However, the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) remanded the decision, finding that the county failed to adequately assess and make findings on the potential impacts of the trail on farming practices as required by ORS 215.296. Staff notes that, based on Van Dyke / (LUBA 2018-061), trails are considered conditional uses subject to the Farm Impacts Test. Page 3 of 5 Question 2• How are conflicts handled between farm or forest uses and trails along a zone boundary (for example, EFU zoning adjacent to RR10 zoning)? Van Dyle 11 (LUBA 2019-047) In the above -referenced decision, the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) concluded that the proposed recreational trail did not significantly change accepted farm practices or significantly increase the cost of these practices along a zone boundary. LUBA agreed with the county's argument that off -site pesticide application is not an accepted farm practice, and thus, the presence of the trail would not impose additional restrictions on pesticide use on the adjoining farmlands. This decision effectively allowed the construction of the trail, as it was found to comply with the farm impacts test under Oregon's land use laws. Legal Counsel and staff are available if there are any further questions on the above -mentioned LUBA case law. 111111. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW Staff held a June 22, 2023, work session' with the PC to provide an overview of the updated TSP and the process to create it. The PC held a public hearing$ on August 10, 2023, on the draft 2020-2040 TSP. The PC closed the oral record and left the written record open until 4 p.m., August 24, 2023. Staff provided an update on record submittals during the August 24, 2023 Planning Commission meeting'. The PC held deliberations10 on October 12, 2023, ultimately making a recommendation to the Board to adopt the TSP document including five (5) amendments, presented below in no particular order: • Removal of the Conceptual Multi -use Pathway Connection between City of Sisters and Black Butte Ranch. (6 Commissioners in favor, 1 Commissioner in opposition) • Changing the Multi -use Pathway Connection between Baker Road and Lava Butte to be located on the west side of Highway 97 rather than the east side. (7 Commissioners unanimously in favor) • Changing the priority status for the 2nd Street/Cook Ave sidewalks in Tumalo project (Table 5.5 ID BP-3) from Medium to High. (6 Commissioners in favor, 1 Commissioner absent) • Changing the priority status for the US 20/Powell Butte Highway Roundabout project (Table 5.4 ID S-9) from Low to High. (6 Commissioners in favor, 1 Commissioner absent) • Changing the priority status for the US 20/Locust St Roundabout project (Table 5.4 ID S-11) from Low to High and noting that the project, with contributions from Deschutes County, City of Sisters, and ODOT, is funded for construction in 2024. (6 Commissioners in favor, 1 Commissioner absent) https://www.deschutes.org/bc-pc/page/planning-commission-30 a https://www.deschutes.org/bc-pc/page/planning-commission-38 9 https://www.deschutes.org/bc-pc/page/planning-commission-39 11 https://www.deschutes.org/bc-pc/page/planning-commission-41 Page 4 of 5 Throughout deliberations, the Planning Commission entertained other motions including the allowance of multi -use pathways generally within the County jurisdiction and dark skies standards. On both motions, the Planning Commission's vote resulted in a tie, leading to the failure of those motions. Staff includes this information to illustrate how the Planning Commission was generally closely aligned on certain deliberative aspects of these topics, but ultimately diverged on some of the more detailed points. IV. NEXT STEPS The Board is, of course, not limited to the issue areas outlined in the attached Decision Matrix (Attachment 2) and the Commissioners are welcome to deliberate on any desired topics from public record that they deem pertinent. If the Board determines that additional deliberations are necessary, staff will work with the Board to schedule a future meeting for continued deliberations. If the Board concludes their deliberations during the February 14, 2024 meeting, the Board may then vote on whether to adopt the plan as drafted, adopt the plan with amendments, or deny the plan. If the Board renders a vote during the February 14, 2024 meeting, staff will coordinate with the Board to return for a future meeting during which a draft ordinance and relevant exhibits will be presented and a first reading of the ordinance initiated. V. CONCLUSION Staff is prepared to answer any questions. Attachments: 1. Draft 2020-2040 Transportation System Plan 2. Decision Matrix Page 5 of 5 Deschutes County Transportation System Plan Deschutes County, Oregon Prepared for Deschutes County Prepared by: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. August 2023 Contents 011 INTRODUCTION .......................................................... 5 Prioritized Investments For The Future...................................................6 TSPOrganization.....................................................................8 Purpose.............................................................................9 Guiding Principles And Context.........................................................9 Regional Coordination & Community Engagement.......................................10 021 GOALS AND POLICIES.....................................................11 Goal 1: Coordination And Collaboration................................................11 Goal2:Safety .......................................................................12 Goal 3: Mobility And Connectivity......................................................13 Goal 4: Economic Development........................................................14 Goal 5: Equity And Accessibility........................................................15 Goal 6: Sustainability And Environment.................................................16 Goal 7: Strategic Investments..........................................................16 03 NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION.....................................17 Existing Transportation System Conditions..............................................17 Basis Of Need Assessment............................................................18 Evaluation Of Transportation System Alternatives to Address Identified Needs ...............19 041 PROVIDING MULTIMODAL SYSTEMS........................................21 TheRoadway System.................................................................21 County Roadway Cross -Section Standards...............................................23 Federal Lands Access Program Roadways...............................................25 State Highway Design Standards.......................................................25 The Pedestrian System...............................................................27 The Bicycle System...................................................................27 TransitServices......................................................................29 RailService.........................................................................29 Pipelines And Waterways.............................................................29 AirService..........................................................................29 Bridges.............................................................................30 Vehicular Performance Standards......................................................30 05 1 TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PRIORITIES................................31 ProjectCosts........................................................................31 Intersection Changes................................................................32 RoadwayChanges...................................................................35 Pedestrian Facilities..................................................................48 Bicycle Facilities.....................................................................51 Bridges.............................................................................56 Federal Lands Access Program Roadways...............................................58 Transit.............................................................................61 Transportation Safety Action Plan Projects..............................................61 061FUNDING............................................................... 63 FundingSources.....................................................................63 Funding Projections — 20 Year Estimate.................................................64 Capital Funding Estimate .............................................................65 Road Moratorium Evaluation..........................................................66 Impacts of Lifting the Road Moratorium................................................66 Local Access Road Tools And FAQs.....................................................68 01 1 INTRODUCTION Deschutes County is located in the heart of Central Oregon with the Cascade Mountain Range to the west and the High Desert plateau to the east. The County covers 3,055 square miles of natural beauty, outdoor recreation, and is home to a growing economy. For the last two decades, Deschutes County has experienced rapid population growth and has become a national destination for new residents, visitors and a center for economic prosperity and progress. In the past 10 years, the population of the County has increased by more than 40 percent to more than 200,000 people today; only 33 percent of the County's residents live in the unincorporated and rural areas. With this unprecedented growth, Deschutes County faces the challenges of maintaining, funding, and planning for a transportation system that both enhances the health and well- being of residents and supports long-term economic resilience for businesses, tourism and recreation. The County's transportation system must accommodate traffic passing through enroute to destinations elsewhere in the region, the day-to-day travel needs of its residents and those employed here in addition to the influx of visitors during the winter and summer months. The County also is home to US 97 and the Redmond Municipal Airport, which are two of the crucial components of Oregon's Resilience Plan in the event of a Cascadia Subduction Zone Event (an earthquake and/or tsunami striking the Oregon coast). With limited funding for new transportation infrastructure, as well as built and natural environmental considerations, the County must balance the need to preserve its existing transportation system with strategic changes to the system that enables these needs to be met during the next 20 years. The County's Transportation System Plan (TSP) was last updated in 2012. This updated TSP provides a coordinated guide for changes to the County's transportation infrastructure and operations over the next 20 years. Planning for the County's future transportation reflects regional and community goals and values, supports local and regional economic development activities, and enhances the quality of life that residents and visitors enjoy and expect. PRIORITIZED INVESTMENTS FOR THEFUTURE The identified list of priorities for future transportation investments reflects the County's commitment to prioritizing changes to the transportation system that reflect its focus on preserving and maintaining its existing investments. This list of capital investments identified in the TSP will be reviewed and prioritized as part of the County's regular budgeting efforts. For reference purposes, Figure 1-1 shows how the County prepares its annual prioritization and budget for maintenance, operation, and capital expenditures. Figure 1-1: Hierarchy of Expenditures and Investment Maintain the system 'Operatee system Improve system The list of prioritized investments in the TSP is based on this hierarchy and was developed assuming: 1. Current maintenance and operational standards remain in place. 2. The County's existing Road Moratorium (Resolution 2009-118), which limits acceptance of new road miles into the County maintenance system, remains in place. 3. Existing funding levels remain in place and are occasionally adjusted legislatively to a level that will roughly match inflation. 4. No significant additional local funding mechanisms are developed or implemented. 5. State and Federal grant programs are available at approximately the same historical intervals and funding levels. With this backdrop, the County refined the list of possible TSP projects by working with its residents, policy -makers, and partner agency staff and performing technical analyses of roadways, intersections, bike facilities, transit, walking routes, and transportation safety. Many of the identified projects help to support plans adopted by the local cities, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), other County planning efforts, the County's Transportation Safety Action Plan (TSAP) and/or local refinement and facility plans. Some of the other considerations that shaped the final list of recommended investments include: • Balancing impacts to existing and developable parcels with County -wide and community needs; • Minimizing impacts to Goal 5 resources (natural resources, scenic and historic areas, and open spaces); • Supporting and enhancing key state and regional economic plans and priorities; • Identifying key intersections that could be changed in the future to address known safety and/or anticipated capacity needs; • Prioritizing roadway corridors where strategic investments may be needed to help support future growth and economic development in the region, enhance the safety of all users and/or strengthen connections between areas of the County and to other areas in Central Oregon; • Providing regional bicycle connections that could serve broad transportation functions, such as commuting, recreation, or daily services; • Modifying key bridges as funding and/or other opportunities arise; Leveraging opportunities for future system changes that could be provided using funds from the Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP), particularly for transportation facilities providing connections to key recreational areas and economic development priorities adjacent to/and or located within Federal lands; • Coordinating with Cascades East Transit (CET) on projects that can help increase service to the unincorporated areas of the County as well as to the High Desert Museum and Lava Lands Visitor Center; • Enhancing access to the Redmond Municipal Airport and Bend Municipal Airport; and, • Leveraging funding opportunities with key partner agencies and private investments. The list of transportation investments are organized into the following categories for implementation based on complexity, likely availability of funding, and assessment of need: • Intersection changes; • Roadway segments, including changes to functional classification; • ODOT intersections and roadways; • Pedestrian facilities; • Bicycle facilities; • Bridges; • FLAP projects; • Transit; and, • Safety. Table 1-1 shows the list of identified projects by category and by prioritization. In reviewing this table, it is important to note that some projects may be accelerated and others postponed due to changing conditions, funding availability, public input, or more detailed study performed during programming and budgeting processes. Further, project design details may change before construction commences as public input, available funding, and unique site conditions are taken into consideration. Projects identified herein may be funded through a variety of sources including federal, state, county or local transportation funds, system development charges (SDCs), through partnerships with private developers, or a combination of these sources. In addition, as part of TSP implementation, the County will continue to coordinate with ODOT and the local communities regarding project prioritization, funding, and construction. Table 1-1: Total Cost of Prioritized TSP Investments Intersection Changes $11,530,000 $14,900,000 $2,100,000 $28,530,000 Roadway Changes $6,100,000 $25,000,000 $57,500,000 $88,600,000 County Share of ODOT Intersections $19,100,000 $3,000,000 $19,000,000 $41,100,000 Pedestrian Facilities $600,000 $3,600,000 $2,100,000 $6,300,000 Bridges $5,700,000 $2,400,000 $7,900,000 $16,000,000 County Share of FLAP Projects $600,000 $3700 ,,000 $4,500,000 $8,800,000 Total $43,630,000 $52,600,000 93,100,000 $189,330,000 The remainder of this chapter outlines the organization of the TSP as well as a summary of public engagement activities and compliance of the TSP with some of the regulatory requirements. The TSP is comprised of two volumes. Volume 1 is the main document and includes the items that will be of interest to the broadest audience. Volume 2 contains the technical memoranda, data, and related transportation plans that enhance and support Volume 1. Volume 1 includes the following: • Chapter 1 — a brief overview of the planning context for the TSP; • Chapter 2 — goals and policies that express the County's long-range vision for the transportation system; • Chapter 6 — a summary of transportation funding and implementation, including estimated revenue, cost of 20-year needs, and potential funding sources. Volume 2 includes the following technical documents: • Appendix A: Plans and Policy Review Memo; • Appendix B: Public Involvement Plan; • Appendix C: Methodology Memo; • Appendix D: Transportation System Conditions, Deficiencies, and Needs Memo; • Appendix E: Solutions Analysis Memo; • Chapter 3 — the transportation system • Appendix F: Preferred Alternatives and deficiencies and needs as well as the process Funding Plan Memo; to develop the TSP's list of planned capital improvements and transportation programs; . Appendix G: Redmond Municipal Airport Master Plan; and, • Chapter 4 — an overview of the recommended projects for the multimodal • • Appendix H: Tumalo Community Plan system (this chapter also serves as (TCP) Active Transportation Update/Sisters the Transportation Element of the Country Vision Action Plan Trails Outreach Comprehensive Plan); Update. • Chapter 5 — a list of the multimodal projects and the costs estimated for their construction; and, While not all of Volume 2 is adopted as part of the TSP, all of the documents provide useful information regarding the basis for the decisions represented in Volume 1. ..� The TSP addresses transportation needs in Deschutes County except within the Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB) for Redmond, Sisters, La Pine and Bend. The TSP goals, policies, projects, and implementation tasks are based on technical analyses and thoughtful input received from the community, Deschutes County staff, partner agency staff, and County policymakers. The TSP identifies transportation facilities and services that can support the County's adopted Comprehensive Plan and continued regional economic development. This TSP provides for a long-term vision to support growth in jobs and population in the County as well as improving the safety for all transportation -users over the next 20 years. The TSP serves as a resource for the County to make decisions about transportation and land use by providing: • A blueprint for future County transportation investments that improve safety for all travelers; • A tool for coordination with state, regional and local agencies; • Information to ensure prudent land use and transportation choices; • Order of magnitude cost estimates for transportation infrastructure investments needed to support system needs, and possible sources of funding for these improvements; and, • Function, capacity and location of future roadways, sidewalks, bikeways, transit, and other transportation facilities. The TSP satisfies the state's requirements as prescribed by Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 12: Transportation. CONTEXTGUIDING PRINCIPLES AND The TSP provides a flexible, adaptable framework for making transportation decisions in an increasingly unpredictable and financially constrained future. Decisions about the County's transportation system will be guided by the goals contained in Chapter 2, but ultimately the decisions will be made within the overall context of the County's land use plans and support for local and regional economic development. These guiding plans and principles provide a foundation for the TSP's goals, policies, and potential actions. The Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) require that the TSP be based on the Comprehensive Plan land uses and provide for a transportation system that accommodates the expected growth in population and employment. Development of this TSP was guided by ORS 197.712 and the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) administrative rule known as the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR, OAR 660-012-0060). Per the TPR, this TSP identifies multimodal transportation needs to serve users of all ages, abilities, and incomes. As such, solutions to address existing and future transportation needs for bicycling, walking, transit, motor vehicles, freight, and rail, and improved safety for all travelers are included. Further, one of the implementation steps of the TSP will include proposed amendments to the Deschutes County Code. As required by the TPR, this TSP was developed in coordination with local, regional and state transportation plans. The TSP reflects the County's continued commitment to coordinating transportation and land use planning within Central Oregon. This update was collaboratively developed by community members, businesses, the freight community, ODOT, Sisters, Redmond, La Pine, Bend, Terrebonne, Sunriver, Tumalo Cascades East Transit (CET), and the County's Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC). Opportunities for engagement included: • Project Management Team Meetings attended by County staff, • Two Advisory Committee Meetings; • Four Agency Partner Advisory Committee Meetings; • Two Public Open Houses; • Targeted outreach with community and social service organizations; and, • Updates with the Board of County Commissioners. Through these activities, the County provided • Project website that included all technical community members with a variety of forums to reports, draft goals and objectives, and links identify their priorities for future transportation to other relevant documents; projects, programs, and policies. 117m, GOALS ANDTOLICIES The TSP provides a coordinated guide for changes to the County's transportation infrastructure and operations over the next 20 years. The development of the TSP is based on the assumption that the transportation system meets daily travel needs and also contributes to the physical, social, and economic health of the County and of Central Oregon. The TSP strives to provide users with a safe and efficient transportation network. As such, planning for the County's future transportation needs must be conducted within regional and community goals and values, support local and regional economic development activities, and enhance the quality of life that residents and visitors enjoy and expect. The TSP goals provide the County's visions for the future transportation system. The goals are aspirational in nature and may not be fully attained within the 20-year planning horizon. The policies support the goals to help the County implement the TSP projects and programs after the TSP has been adopted. The policies, organized by goals, provide high-level direction for the County's policy and decision -makers and for County staff. The policies will be implemented over the life of the TSP. The County's 2012 TSP goals and policies were used as a foundation for providing the updated TSP goals and policies outlined below. GOAL 1: COORDINATION AND COLLABORATION Promote a multimodal transportation system that supports the County's Comprehensive Plan and is consistent and coordinated with the adopted plans for the State, the region, adjacent counties, and the cities and incorporated communities within the County. Policies 1.1 Coordinate the design and operations of the County's transportation system with State, regional, and local planning rules, regulations and standards. 1.2 Coordinate future land use and transportation decisions with state, regional and local agencies to efficiently use public investments in the County's transportation system, for people driving, bicycling, walking, or using transit as well as the movement of freight, emergency responses, and evacuation needs. 1.3 Coordinate regional project development and implementation with the cities of Bend, Redmond, Sisters, and La Pine. 1.4 Provide notification to the affected local and state agency partners regarding land use development proposals, plan amendments and zone changes that have the potential to significantly impact non -County transportation facilities. 1.5 Coordinate system management and operations with ODOT on major roadways. 1.6 Maintain an intergovernmental agreement with each of the cities to provide specific timelines and milestones for the transfer of County roadways within the urban growth boundaries at the time of annexation, including the full width of right of way. 1.7 Provide regular outreach to residents and employers, schools, law enforcement and public health professionals to encourage participation with the County in identifying and solving transportation issues. 1.8 Coordinate with CET to implement the Transit Master Plan recommendations within the County to support people taking transit. GOAL 2: SAFETY Provide a transportation system that promotes the safety of current and future travel by all users. Policies 2.1 Design and maintain County roadways consistent with their expected use, vehicular travel speeds, and traffic volumes. 2.2 Incorporate the Transportation Safety Action Plan (TSAP) goals and action items into County planning projects and update the TSAP at appropriate intervals. 2.3 Coordinate with the Sheriff's Office to discuss enforcement activity on specific facilities in the County and jointly communicate safety issues when observed and encountered. 2.5 Coordinate with the emergency service providers in the County to prioritize the maintenance and investment in key lifeline and evacuation routes. 2.6 Coordinate with ODOT, railroads, and local communities to prioritize safety investments at rail crossings. 2.7 Prioritize investments in key crossing locations for people walking and riding bikes across major County roadways and/or ODOT highways, especially at locations that serve vulnerable populations. 2.4 Continue the partnership with the County's 2.8 Coordinate with ODOT for planning BPAC to promote education and outreach for grade -separate wildlife crossings of activities and to inform future County State highways using relevant wildlife investment decisions in facilities for people migration information, crash data, and best management practices. riding bikes and walking. GOAL 3: MOBILITY AND CONNECTIVITY Promote a multimodal transportation system that moves people and goods between rural communities and Sisters, Redmond, Bend, La Pine, and other key destinations within the County as well as to the adjacent counties, Central Oregon, and the state. Policies 3.1 Maintain the County's roadway system in a state of "good repair." 3.2 Invest in new roadways only when a need has been demonstrated that benefits the economic growth of the County and/ or locations that address key gaps in the roadway system and there is sufficient long- term funding to operate and maintain the new roadways. 3.9 Periodically review policies and standards that address street connectivity, spacing, and access management. 3.10 Support transit service to improve mobility within the County and connectivity to transit stations in Bend, Redmond, La Pine, and other regional and state destinations. 3.11 Monitor the condition of County bridges on a regular basis and perform routine maintenance, repair and replacement when 3.3 Monitor the safety, traffic volumes, and usage by people walking and riding bikes 3.12 on County arterials and collectors to help determine when changes to specific roadways are needed and/or educational outreach to the traveling public. 3.4 Maintain a County -wide bicycle route map 3.5 Partner with ODOT, Bend, La Pine, Redmond, Sisters, and neighboring counties to coordinate investment in transportation facilities that cross jurisdictional boundaries. 3.6 Pursue funding to provide secondary access roadways to isolated rural subdivisions. 3.7 Periodically review transportation performance standards used to review land use applications and modernization projects and revise if needed. 3.8 Periodically review and update the County design and construction standards related to roadways and facilities for people walking and riding bikes in unincorporated areas. necessary. Partner with local agencies, ODOT, and the public airports to periodically review airport master plans for Redmond, Bend, Sisters, and Sunriver to ensure they and County development code are consistent. 3.13 Partner with the US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to maintain the County's system of forest highways to continue to provide key access to recreational areas such as campsites, lakes, hiking, and biking trails in the County. 3.14 Coordinate with ODOT to identify County routes to be used as detours when a crash or other incident closes a State highway. 3.15 At a minimum, seek dedication of public rights of way for extensions of existing roads or future roads on lands not zoned Exclusive Farm Use or Forest in order to develop a rural -scale grid system. GOAL 4: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Plan a transportation system that supports existing industry and encourages economic development in the County. Policies 4.1 Prioritize transportation investments that support access to allowed land uses, activities, airports, and recreational areas 4.2 Maintain arterials and collector roadways for the movement of people and goods to employment centers in the County. 4.3 Update and continue to implement the County's Transportation System Development Charge (SDC) program. 4.5 Support bicycle tourism by prioritizing and improving designated County bike routes. 4.5 Incorporate improvements to the County arterial system that support freight service and provide access to US97, US 20, and OR 126. 4.6 Support economic development by encouraging ODOT to prioritize modernization, preservation, and safety projects on highways designated as Freight Routes. 4.4 Incorporate facilities for people walking and 4.7 Periodically assess the probability of riding bikes to key recreational areas as part providing passenger rail service to and of changes to the roadway system. through Deschutes County. GOAL 5: EQUITY AND ACCESSIBILITY Provide a multimodal transportation system 5.5 Maintain road design standards that promote that supports a safe, efficient, and low -stress pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities to environment for walkers, cyclists and transit and from schools, community gathering users as well as benefits the overall health and places, grocery stores, and other services as environment within the County. prescribed within community plans. Policies 5.1 Prioritize investments in the County's transportation system that support users of all abilities, ages, race/ethnicity, income levels, and those with disabilities. 5.2 Design all new transportation facilities consistent with the requirements of the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA). 5.3 Maintain a partnership with CET, the cities, ODOT, and transportation options providers to promote walking and cycling, public transportation, micro mobility options, and rideshare/carpool programs through community awareness and education. 5.4 Accommodate bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities, when prescribed by design standards and various master plan documents, when new roads are constructed and/or existing roads are reconstructed. 5.6 Establish priorities for construction and maintenance of roadway shoulders or shared use pathways to provide for walking and bicycle travel. 5.7 Partner with ODOT, the cities, CET and other providers to secure funding for transit service to underserved areas of the County. 5.8 Support efforts of local agencies to develop and maintain a trail system along the Deschutes River, within Tumalo, and along major irrigation canals. 5.9 Support Commute Options' efforts to work with major employers, local business groups, non-profit agencies, school districts to support implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies that provide options employees, residents, and customers to use transit, walk, ride bikes, carpool, and telecommute. GOAL 6: SUSTAINABILITY AND ENVIRONMENT Provide a transportation system that balances transportation services with the need to protect the environment. Policies 6.1 Partner with BPAC, local agencies, CET, and non-profit groups to promote the use of walking, cycling and transit as viable options, minimize energy consumption, and lessen air quality impacts. 6.4 Preserve listed Goal 5 resources within the County. 6.5 6.2 Ensure changes to the County transportation system are consistent with the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). 6.6 6.3 Comply with applicable state and federal noise, air, water, and land quality regulations as part of transportation investments in the County. GOAL 7: STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS Implement, where cost-effective, environmentally friendly materials and design approaches as part of County transportation projects (e.g., storm water retention/ treatment to protect waterways, solar infrastructure, impervious surfaces, etc.). Prioritize transportation investments that support system resilience to seismic events, extreme weather events, and other natural hazards. Maintain the safety, physical integrity, and function of the County's multi -modal transportation network, consistent with Goal 6 of the OTP. Policies 7.5 Periodically review and, if needed, make updates to the County Code requirements 7.1 Continue to pursue and implement Federal to ensure that future land use decisions are Lands Access Program (FLAP) funding to consistent with the planned transportation prioritize County investments to support system. tourism and access to key recreational areas. 7.2 Maintain long-term funding stability for maintenance of the transportation system 7.3 Prioritize investment in the existing transportation network through maintenance and preservation activities. 7.4 Coordinate with ODOT and local agency partners to implement intelligent transportation solutions that increase the life of transportation facilities and/or delay the need for capacity improvements. 7.6 Coordinate with ODOT in the implementation of the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and Statewide Transportation Improvement Funding (STIF). 7.7 Coordinate with and provide guidance to CET in programming public transportation funds received by the County. 7.8 Pursue additional funding sources to support major reconstruction or replacement of County bridges. 7.9 Partner with federal and state agencies to seek funding that prioritize investments that support recommendations from the Bend, Redmond, Sisters, or Sunriver airport master plans. 03 1 NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION The TSP projects and implementation tasks were informed by technical analyses of existing transportation conditions, forecast year 2040 deficiencies, and an evaluation of possible system changes that can meet the transportation needs for all users (including the transportation disadvantaged) and address the need for movement of goods and services to support local and regional economic development priorities. The needs assessment, in combination with thoughtful input received from the community, Deschutes County staff, partner agency staff, and County policy makers, formed the list of recommended projects, the TSP goals and policies and the funding plan. This chapter summarizes the key elements of the existing and future needs analyses; further details of the needs analyses are provided in Volume 2. Existing transportation needs, opportunities, and constraints reflect an inventory of the County transportation system conducted in 2019 and 2020. This inventory included all major transportation -related facilities and services at that time. Key roadway features (including number and type of roadway lanes, speeds, pavement type/condition, traffic volumes and roadway classifications), traffic conditions, safety performance, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and transit service, among other topics, were analyzed. Key findings related to the existing County system are highlighted below. The areas within the County with the highest percentages of youth are primarily located in Tumalo and Terrebonne as well as adjacent to the Bend and Redmond Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs). Connections for school students between their homes, the local community schools, and school bus stops were considered in identification of potential roadway, walking, cycling and transit projects. The highest percentage of elderly populations is located in the Sunriver area and adjacent to the Sisters, Redmond, and La Pine UGBs. The areas adjacent to these three UGBs are also where the highest concentration of the population with disabilities and the minority populations reside. Coordination with Cascades East Transit (CET) to serve the existing and future needs of these residents is included in the recommended implementation task list for the TSP. • Continued coordination between the County and ODOT and the incorporated communities will help address and provide consistency of individual roadway functional classification designations. • Roadway repairs are and will continue to be monitored and accomplished as part of the County's ongoing maintenance program. • The County does not have any designated freight routes that provide connections to local industrial and employment lands. The TSP alternatives evaluation explored the need to designate County freight routes to serve key economic priority areas to supplement the ODOT freight system. • No roadway capacity deficiencies were identified under existing conditions. • The County's Transportation Safety Action Plan (TSAP) identified key locations for monitoring and potential changes to the transportation system to address documented safety deficiencies. The TSAP is incorporated by reference as part of the TSP. • Many of the County bikeways and highways do not have paved shoulders that are at least six feet wide which is the standard for ODOT highway while the County standard for paved shoulders is 3-5'. The small, unincorporated communities in the County do not have dedicated bicycle facilities and several of the roadways adjacent to schools or other pedestrian trip generators (parks, trail connections, rural commercial areas, etc.) located in Terrebonne and Tumalo are missing sidewalks. Safe Routes to School funding may be an option to assist with implementation of TSP recommendations in small communities. The TSP addresses the projects, programs, and policies needed to support growth in population and jobs within the County as well as the travel associated with regional and state economic growth between now and the year 2040. The identified set of recommendations reflects County policy makers' and community members' priorities to maintain existing facilities and reduce congestion, save money, improve safety, and provide community health benefits without costly increases to automobile -oriented infrastructure. Over time, the County will periodically update the TSP to respond to changing conditions and funding opportunities. The existing land use patterns, economic development opportunities, and population and job forecasts helped inform the analysis of year 2040 needs. This information helped identify future changes to the transportation system (and the supporting policies and programs) to address deficiencies and support economic development in a manner consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map. Growth in County Population By Oregon Revised Statute 195.034, incorporated cities and counties formulate and adopt coordinated population projections. Based on the June 2022 Coordinated Population Report prepared by the Portland State University (PSU) Center for Population Research, in 2020 the total County population was 198,253 and is forecast to grow to a total population of 275,905 by the year 2040. Much of the County growth is expected to occur within the Redmond, Bend, and Sisters UGBs. Within the unincorporated/rural areas, the 2020 population was 59,471 and is anticipated to grow to approximately 64,000 people by 2040. The anticipated growth in both urban and rural population within the County helped inform the estimation of year 2040 traffic volumes using the County transportation facilities. Traffic Volume Development The expected increase in traffic volumes on key roadways within the County was based on a review of past changes in traffic volumes as well as expected increases in population and area jobs. Further details on the anticipated growth in traffic volumes on roadways within the County is provided in Volume 2. The deficiencies evaluation included a review of County arterials and collector roadways. The roadway capacity needs associated with the State facilities within the County are addressed through other planning efforts by ODOT. The County will continue to partner with ODOT to monitor and identify additional needs through future planning and evaluation efforts. The deficiencies analysis compares the anticipated traffic volumes on the roadways to capacity levels associated with a Level -of -Service (LOS) "D" condition, which is considered by the County to reflect "acceptable" conditions. From a planning standpoint, two-lane rural roadways carrying a total daily volume of less than 24,000 vehicles per day is generally considered to operate with a LOS "Y or better. Baseline Roadway Analyses The baseline (future) analysis forms the basis of the project list reflected in Chapter 5. This baseline analysis was guided by the transportation needs identified in previously adopted plans and policies for the County, ODOT, and other agency partners, the 2040 population forecasts and the County's land use map, the anticipated growth in traffic volumes, and the fact that there are no major construction projects that are funded at this time that could materially change traveler behaviors or traffic volumes on the County's roadway network in the future. Baseline (Year 2040) Transportation Needs In addition to the summary of existing deficiencies identified in the previous section, the future deficiencies analysis revealed: • Two County roadways that would exceed LOS "D" conditions, including Deschutes Market Road at Greystone Lane and S Century Drive at Venture Lane. Following adoption of the TSP, the County will continue to monitor the need for changes to the transportation system to address roadway and intersection safety, especially at the locations included in the TSAP. Although most County roadways do not have adequate width for comfortable and convenient connections for people walking and riding bicycles, providing shoulders on all County collectors and arterials in the next 20 years is not feasible due to constraints such as available right-of-way, environmental and/or property impacts and the high costs to construct. The County will continue to seek opportunities to provide shoulders, particularly in areas with significant roadway curvature, hills, bridges and other locations that could be beneficial for sharing the road among people driving, walking and riding bikes. Additionally, many County roads have low volumes of traffic, which offsets the substandard shoulders. Additional public transportation services are needed to provide options for people who cannot or may choose not to drive vehicles. In the future, transit service will continue to be coordinated and operated by CET. The County will continue to collaborate with CET and ODOT on the prioritization of funding and operating public transportation services within and to the County. The Redmond Municipal Airport Master Plan was updated in 2018 to identify needs through the year 2040. This updated Master Plan identified the provision of additional airside facilities, general aviation facilities, parking supply, passenger facilities, and non -aeronautical property development in the vicinity of the airport to support the Airport through the year 2040. • No changes to the existing rail or pipeline facilities were identified to serve the future needs of the County. EVALUATION TRANSPORTATION IDENTIFIEDALTERNATIVES TO ADDRESS NEEDS The Advisory Committee (AC), Agency Partner Coordination Committee (APCC), Project Management Team (PMT), the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) and participants at open houses and other community forums identified transportation system alternatives that had the potential to address existing and future transportation needs. Many of the potential alternatives help to support plans that have been identified by the cities and unincorporated areas within the County, ODOT, other County planning efforts, the TSAP and/or local refinement and facility plans. The identified alternatives address all modes of travel and include programs that could reduce vehicular travel demand. Further, these potential system alternatives avoid principal reliance on any one mode of transportation and increase transportation choices for all users. The PMT developed these ideas into a potential project list that they screened considering the TSP's goals and objectives and key County priorities. The potential solutions were reviewed and refined through community members and policymakers to form the 20-year list of projects reflected in Chapter 5. Through this process, evaluation of solutions that could address the identified needs as well as serve to accomplish key County objectives were identified. Some of the considerations that shaped the final list of recommended projects include: • Balancing impacts to existing and developable parcels with County -wide and community needs; • Minimizing impacts to Goal 5 resources (natural resources, scenic and historic areas, and open spaces); • Supporting and enhancing key state and regional economic plans and priorities; • Leveraging future transportation investments to reduce access, economic, safety and health disparities within the County, particularly those areas identified as serving populations of low income, minority, youth and/or the elderly; • Providing additional connections within Terrebonne and Tumalo for people walking; • Identifying key intersections where the roadway geometry and/or traffic control could be changed in the future to address known safety and/or anticipated capacity needs; Prioritizing strategic roadway corridors where vehicular capacity and/or changes to the roadway characteristics may be needed to help support future growth and economic development in the region, enhance the safety of all users and/or strengthen connections between areas of the County and to other areas in Central Oregon; • Providing regional bicycle connections that could serve broad transportation functions, such as commuting, recreation, or daily services; • Modifying key bridges as funding and/or other opportunities arise; • Leveraging opportunities for future system changes that could be provided using funds from the Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP), particularly for transportation facilities providing connections to key recreational areas and economic development priorities adjacent to/and or located within Federal lands; • Coordinating projects included in the CET Master Plan that can help increase service to the unincorporated areas of the County as well as to the High Desert Museum and Lava Lands Visitor Center; • Enhancing access to the Redmond Municipal Airport and Bend Municipal Airport; • Improving freight mobility; and, • Leveraging funding opportunities with key partner agencies and private investments. The resultant 20-year project list is intended to address the identified transportation needs, meet the TSP goals, and reflect the criteria included in ORS 660-012-0035. The TSP projects are categorized as high, medium, and low priorities for future inclusion into the County's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) based on the complexity, likely availability of funding, and assessment of need. The intent of identifying likely priorities allows the County with the flexibility to adapt to changing economic development and community needs over the next 20 years. The project lists and maps of the potential locations were posted to the County's website prior to adoption. Details of the recommended project lists are provided in Chapter 5. 1 1 1 41 PROVIDING MULTIMODAL SYSTEMS The TSP is a coordinated set of multimodal policies, programs, and projects that addresses the transportation needs within the rural and unincorporated areas of the County over the next 20 years. This chapter provides an overview of these programs and projects; the detailed project list and associated cost estimates are shown in Chapter 5. Although driving will continue to be the primary mode of travel in the County and the preservation and improvement of the existing roadway system will remain important, the TSP projects, policies, and programs are intended to increase transportation choices, reduce reliance on the automobile by better accommodating and encouraging travel by foot and bike for short trips, improve safety for all transportation users, and provide for improved transit service. The TSP and the County's adopted land use plans and regulations are intended to make walking, cycling, and use of transit convenient. People driving, walking, biking, and taking transit all rely on the roadway network to access destinations locally within the County as well as regionally within Central Oregon. The identified roadway solutions in the TSP address mobility, access, freight, and safety needs. Functional Classification The County's functional classification system provides a system hierarchy based on the intended function of each type of roadway (e.g., moving people across Central Oregon or providing access to local destinations). ODOT identifies the appropriate classifications for state facilities whereas the County identifies the appropriate classifications for roads under its authority. The classification levels also describe how the roadway "looks and feels" and provides recommendations for travel lane widths, roadside treatments, accommodating bicycles, and the need for sidewalk or trails adjacent to the road. The County's functional classification is based on the following hierarchy: • Arterials are intended to serve more regional needs and provide connections to key activity centers within the County. They are also intended to represent the key movement of goods and services throughout and to/from the County. These roadways also provide connections to the incorporated UGBs within the County. • Collectors primarily connect the rural areas of the county with the state facilities and the County arterials. These roadways provide important connections to much of the unincorporated areas of the County. • Forest Highways provide access to recreational areas such as campsites, lakes, hiking, and biking trails in the County. Maintenance of these facilities is provided by the County and by the Forest Service, depending on location. • Local roads serve specific areas within the County and can be paved or unpaved. Figure ®1 presents the County's functional classification map. The County's cross-section standards are used to guide the construction of new roadways and/or changes to existing roadways. These standards are updated over time to support the needs of all users as well as continued economic development opportunities. Many existing roadways within the County area are not built to the standards shown in Table 4-1. The adoption of these standards is not intended to imply that all existing roadways be rebuilt to match these standards, rather the standards will help inform identified changes to specific roadways in the future. Further, because the design of a roadway or corridor can vary based on the needs of the area, these standards provide flexibility based on adjacent land use and specific topographic considerations. The unincorporated communities of Terrebonne and Tumalo have their own standards; these are shown in Table 4-2 and Table 4-, respectively. The County standards do not require a sidewalk except for certain segments in Terrebonne and Tumalo; people walking or biking are assumed to use the shoulder or share the road on lower volume streets. Standards are presented within the TSP for reference only. DCC Chapter 17.48 (in particular Table A) contains the adopted County's roadway standards. Table 4-1: Minimum Road Design Standards, Rural County (outside of La Pine, Tumalo, and Terrebonne) Table 4-2: Minimum Road Design Standards, Terrebonne Unincorporated Community US97 80'-100' 60' 12' 6' 6' 14' No* Minor Arterial Smith Rock Way TeC 60' 34' 12' S' 2' 14' Yes TeR 60 34' 12' S' 2' 14' No Lower Bridge Way 60' 34' 12" 5' 2' 14' No Collector Commercial TeC 60' 24' 12' --- 2' --- Yes TeR 60' 24' 12' --- 2' --- No Residential TeR 60' 24' 12' --- 2' --- No** Local Commercial TeC 60' 24' 12' --- 2' --- Yes TeR 60' 24" 12' --- 2' --- No Residential TeR 60' 20' 12' --- 2' --- No*** Other Alley (Commercial) 20' 20' 10' --- --- --- No Path/Trail 15' 6'-8' --- --- 2.5**** --- --- Source: Deschutes County Code 17.48.050, Table A 6-foot sidewalks are required on both sides of US97 between South 11th Avenue and Central Avenue with improved pedestrian crossings at B Avenue/97 and C Avenue/97 ** 5-foot sidewalks with drainage swales are required from West 19th to 15th Street on the south side of C Avenue *** 5-foot curb sidewalks with drainage swales required along Terrebonne Community School frontage on B Avenue and 5th Street **** If path/trail is paved Table 4-3: Minimum Road Design Standards, Tumalo Unincorporated Community Source: Deschutes County Code 17.48.050, Table A *5-foot curbless sidewalks on both sides for roads designated for sidewalks in Tumalo Comprehensive Plan Map D2. ** If path/trail is paved .AAl The Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) was established to "improve transportation facilities that provide access to, are adjacent to, or are located within Federal lands." This program is intended to supplement State and County funds for public roads, transit, and other transportation facilities accessing federal lands with a prioritized emphasis for "high -use recreation sites and economic generators." FLAP is funded through the Federal Highway Trust Fund and its allocation is based on road mileage, bridges, land area, and number of visits to the lands. FLAP provides funding opportunities to help the County deliver capital projects that increase access to Federal Lands. In addition, FLAP is a funding tool to help the County fund maintenance of existing roads that are designated as Forest Highways and other roads that provide similar access. As part of TSP implementation, the County will continue to coordinate with all of the federal agencies, BPRD, CET, and ODOT on the request for future FLAP -funded projects. Any future changes to the state highways within the County will be informed by the OHP, the state's Highway Design Manual (HDM), and the Blueprint for Urban Design, which provides more flexible standards for urban areas. Access Management and Spacing Guidance Providing appropriate levels of access to adjacent lands is a key part of operating and planning for a transportation system that serves the needs of all users. ODOT and the County maintain standards to help balance the needs for both "through travelers" (including freight and public transportation) as well as serving the localized needs of residents, employees, and visitors. For state highways, access spacing guidelines are specified in the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan, Appendix C — Access Management Standards. Access to State Highways is controlled under Oregon Administrative Rule, Division 51 (OAR 734-051-4020(8)). The adopted County access spacing standards are included in DCC Chapter 77.48. Movement of Freight The movement of goods and services within the County and the overall region will continue to rely upon the state highways, especially those designated as freight routes. The TSP does not include a designated freight system of County roadways. Traveler Information/ITS Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) infrastructure enhances traffic flow, maintenance activities, and safety through the application of technology. The provision of reliable ITS infrastructure to inform motorists about incidents, weather conditions, and congestion has proven to be a useful and cost-effective tool for the County to manage its roadway system. ODOT and the County collaborated to update the Deschutes County ITS Plan in 2020. This update reflected identified needs, advanced and emerging technologies, and supports an integrated Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO) strategy. The plan includes recommended TSMO strategies, a communications plan, and a deployment plan. This plan is incorporated by reference into the TSP Safety The County's 2019 Transportation Safety Action Plan (TSAP) provides specific projects, policies, and programs to address identified safety needs within the unincorporated areas of the County. The TSAP is adopted by reference into the TSP. As part of TSP implementation, the County will continue to identify future project refinements, as needed, monitor the timing of intersection changes at these locations, and seek funding opportunities and/or the potential to combine safety -related projects with other project development within the County. Several of the safety -based needs for the County reflect conditions best addressed through education, enforcement, or outreach programs. Others may be addressed through systemic intersection and roadway treatments at specific locations. The type of treatments that could be considered by the County are further detailed in the TSAP and include: Roadway Treatments to Reduce Roadway Departure Crashes — With new road construction and roadway maintenance projects, the County may consider the construction of shoulders (as required by roadway standards), centerline and shoulder rumble strips, edge -line striping, recessed or raised pavement markers, and/or curve signing upgrades. Roadway Treatments to Reduce Speed — With new road construction and roadway maintenance projects, the County may consider lane narrowing at targeted locations, transverse speed reduction markings, and speed feedback signs in conjunction with posted speed limit signs. At rural communities, changes in roadside elements can be used to indicate a change in context to reduce speeds. In addition, enhanced enforcement at key corridors could focus on driving at appropriate speeds. Safety Data Monitoring — County staff, in collaboration with ODOT, will continue to periodically analyze crash data and identify the need for engineering, enforcement and educational treatments at specific locations. Tools such as ODOT's Safety Priority Index System (SPIS) and All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) programs may be used to assist with prioritizing locations. Safe Routes to School — The County, Tumalo, and Terrebonne should seek projects that improve safety near schools and school routes, particularly for those walking and biking to school. These efforts should be coordinated with infrastructure projects such as ADA projects. Enhanced Intersection Signing and Striping Options — At collector and arterial intersections, the County may consider enhancements such as advanced warning signs, double advance signs, reflective striping and signage, oversized stop signs, double stop signs, stop ahead pavement markers, transverse rumble strips, and edge - line treatments to help increase visibility and awareness of an intersection. The County should prioritize the use of treatments that have documented effectiveness through the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) or documented Crash Modification Factors (CMFs). The top sites for safety improvements in unincorporated Deschutes County are identified in the TSAP and will help inform future funding and prioritization in the County's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Outside of the urban areas, sidewalks are needed in portions of Tumalo and Terrebonne to provide walking facilities between the residential areas and schools and the neighborhood commercial areas. In addition, dedicated sidewalks are appropriate within one -quarter mile of transit stops. The County will work with the local communities, CET and the private sector to identify funding opportunities to add sidewalks in these areas over the next 20 years. Additional changes not specifically identified in the TSP to the sidewalks, pathways, and pedestrian crossings treatments at key intersections may be provided in the future based on project development and design as well as funding opportunities. Where applicable, the County will require sidewalk and/or multiuse pathway construction as part of future land use actions per the DCC Chapter 17.48 requirements. 1V&MMi�il Deschutes County provides and maintains useable shoulders along roadways for use by people riding bikes though not all roadways are currently improved to include such facilities. The County has an aspirational designated bicycle route system ("County Bikeways") where useable shoulders will be provided, as practical, as part of ongoing maintenance and roadway improvements projects. Crossing improvements for people riding bikes, though not specifically identified in the TSP, may be provided when bicycle facilities are constructed that intersect major roads. The need for and type of crossing treatments as well as other facility changes will be evaluated at the time of project development and design. The County may provide such facilities as standalone projects or in conjunction with scheduled maintenance activities. As part of TSP implementation, the County will evaluate the need to modify existing DCC Chapter 17.48 requirements related to bicycle facility requirements as part of future land use actions. In addition, as part of implementation of the TSP, changes to the bicycle network will continue to be informed by the County's Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee (BPAC) activities. BPAC's mission is "to promote and encourage safe bicycling and walking as a significant means of transportation in Deschutes County" and focuses on both changes to the system as well as public education and awareness and a review of safety and funding needs as part of implementation of potential projects. The County will also continue to partner with ODOT to identify priority locations along the state highways for increased shoulder widths and/or shared use paths. The County, by reference, will adopt the Map 11 of the Bend Parks and Recreation District's (BPRD's) Comprehensive Plan (2018) identifying future trail connections to parks within the County but outside the Bend (UGB) as well as those within the Deschutes National Forest. As noted in the BPRD plan, the trails have been prioritized for implementation but the actual alignments in the map are approximate and subject to future easement/user agreements to enable trail construction, availability of funding, and securing agreements from affected property owners for trailheads and parking areas. The Redmond Area Parks and Recreation District (RAPRD) also provides access to trails and facilities outside of the Redmond City Limits, including those in Terrebonne and Tumalo and the Borden Beck Wildlife Preserve. As part of TSP implementation, the County will coordinate with RAPRD on the need for and timing of new trails outside of the Redmond City Limits. The La Pine Parks and Recreation District also provides facilities outside of the City Limits, such as the Leona Park and Rosland Campground. They are also planning for a working with BLM on a property transfer of 141 acres to the Park District that will house a future "South County Events Area" to include facilities for "campers, bikers, walkers, hikers, horse owners and others". The County will coordinate with Park District on the planning for this new facility as well as overall access to existing facilities outside the City Limits. As part of TSP implementation, the County will coordinate with BPRD, RAPRD, the La Pine Parks and Recreation District, and the Sisters Park and Recreation District on the planning for and timing of new trails outside of city limits. It is important to note that not all County roadways are currently or will be designed to provide roadside parking for trailhead users within the County. The County will work with each of these parks and recreation districts to identify appropriate locations in the future to provide safe access for trail users as well as to roadway users not accessing the parks/trails. Other Programmatic Considerations for the Pedestrian and Bicycle System Other policy/programmatic considerations that the County may incorporate as part of TSP implementation are dependent on funding opportunities and potential agency partnerships. These types of considerations could include: Monitoring System — pending availability of resources, the County could establish a data monitoring or counting program that helps to identify and prioritize locations with higher levels of walking and cycling activity. In combination with safety reviews through TSAP and other ongoing regional efforts, this data monitoring program can help the prioritization of resources in the future. Continued Education and Outreach — implementation activities might include topics related to providing the Sheriff's Department and other emergency services personnel with training regarding bicycle/ pedestrian safety and enforcement issues; encouraging and supporting efforts by County schools or other organizations to develop and add a bicycle/pedestrian safety curriculum for students of all ages; identifying opportunities to install signage along roadways where bicycle touring or other significant bicycling activity is expected advising travelers of the "rules of the road" pertaining to motorists and non - motorized travelers, etc. Ongoing Maintenance Activities — further reviewing the budgets associated with maintenance activities along key cycling routes, including the periodic removal of debris including small branches and other roadside debris that could create safety hazards for a bicyclist or pedestrian. Additional Funding Partnerships - exploring opportunities for coordination and cooperation with state and federal agencies in examining innovative means of providing or funding pathways, trails, and equestrian facilities. In 2020, CET adopted its Master Plan to reflect the transit needs of the region through the year 2040. The CET Master Plan is adopted by reference into the Deschutes County TSP. Per the adopted Master Plan, CET will continue to provide high -quality, available, and reliable transit service that fundamentally supports the environment, economic development, and equity for all travelers. Within the unincorporated and rural areas of the County, the CET Master Plan identifies the following: • Increasing local circulation via local Dial -A - Ride and/or Community Connector vehicles; • Providing service to Crooked River Ranch via shopper/medical shuttles; • Potential service to Eagle Crest and/or providing a stop in Tumalo along Route 29; • Changes to the bus stop for Deschutes River Woods (e.g., Riverwoods Country Store) or an alternative way to serve Deschutes River Woods via Route 30; • Re-routing existing service lines to Sunriver; • Adding service to the High Desert Museum and Lava Lands Visitor Center (potentially seasonally based); and, • A new Route 31 and/or modification of Route 30 to connect La Pine and Sunriver Finally, the transit capital investments identified in the CET Plan include fleet replacement and expansion and transit stops enhancement and additions. The County and CET will continue to partner on transit projects that serve the community. Freight rail service will continue to be an important, energy efficient mode of transportation. The TSP supports the continued use of freight rail tracks and service provided in the County by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway and Union Pacific (UP) Railroad. The TSP also supports the continued use of the City of Prineville's short line freight railway that runs from Redmond to Prineville along OR 370. The nearest passenger rail service is and will continue to be provided in Portland and in Chemult. No passenger rail service is anticipated within the County within the next 20 years. Today, there is one natural gas pipeline in the County that parallels US97. The TSP recommends continued coordination with the gas pipeline operator to provide continued services within the County. No additional pipeline facilities are anticipated within the next 20 years. There are no navigable waterways located in Deschutes County but there are several waterways and lakes that are used recreationally. As local and regional destinations, access to these bodies of water facilitate tourism, economic development, and environmental conservation efforts. Major bodies of water include Paulina Lake, East Lake, Wickiup Reservoir, Crane Prairie Reservoir, Sparks Lake, the Crooked River, and the Deschutes River. The TSP recommends enhancements to the roadways accessing these recreational areas to improve safety for all users. Within the County, the largest public use airport is the Roberts Field -Redmond Municipal Airport (RDM) located in southeast Redmond. The Bend Municipal Airport, Sunriver Airport, and Sisters Eagle Airport are also available for public use. The TSP supports the continued use of these airports for service within the County in the future. The TSP adopts by reference the City of Redmond's Airport Master Plan (as Updated in 2018) to reflect the needs of the Redmond Municipal Airport through the year 2040. This updated Master Plan includes a prioritized list of additional airside facilities, general aviation facilities, parking supply, passenger facilities, and non -aeronautical property development in the vicinity of the airport to support the anticipated 20-year growth at the Airport. The TSP supports continued coordination with the City of Redmond and ODOT to maintain safe and efficient connections to the airport for Deschutes County residents and visitors. The County regularly reviews the structural ratings of its bridges and addresses changes to the bridges as funding and other opportunities arise. The need for changes to existing bridge locations within the County will be addressed throughout the 20-year period of the TSP and incorporated as part of County budgeting and partner agency funding discussions, as appropriate. STANDARDS The County uses motor vehicle Level of Service (LOS) standards to evaluate acceptable vehicular performance on its road system. LOS standards are presented as grades A (free flow traffic conditions) to F (congested traffic conditions). ODOT uses mobility targets based on volume to capacity (V/C) ratios as defined in the OHP for planning evaluations of existing facilities and in the Highway Design Manual (HDM) for design of future facilities to evaluate acceptable vehicular performance on state facilities. As V/C ratios approach 1.0, traffic congestion increases. In some cases, it may not be possible or desirable to meet the designated mobility target or LOS standards. In those cases, an alternative mix of strategies such as land use, transportation demand management, safety improvements or increased use of active modes may be applied. The County roadways and intersections are subject to LOS "Y whereas ODOT highways and intersections are evaluated using the applicable mobility targets in the Oregon Highway Plan (OHP). Within the urban areas of the County, each city's standards apply to their streets and intersections. 05 1 TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PRIORITIES This Chapter presents a list of prioritized transportation investments intended to serve the County in the future. These investments were identified and prioritized based on feedback obtained from County residents, partner agency staff and by technical analyses of roadways, intersections, bike facilities, transit, walking routes, and transportation safety. Many of the identified projects help to support plans adopted by the local cities, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), other County planning efforts, the Transportation Safety Action Plan (TSAP) and/or local refinement and facility plans. For planning purposes and the County's future considerations related to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), the prioritized investments have been categorized as high, medium or low. Each of the identified investments have associated cost estimates. The transportation investments are organized into the following categories for implementation based on complexity, likely availability of funding, and assessment of need: • Intersection changes; • Roadway segments, including changes to functional classification; • ODOT intersections and roadways; • Pedestrian facilities; • Bicycle facilities; • Bridges; • Federal Land Access Program (FLAP) roads; • Transit; and, • Safety. Some projects may be accelerated and others postponed due to changing conditions, funding availability, public input, or more detailed study performed during programming and budgeting processes. Further, project design details may change before construction commences as public input, available funding, and unique site conditions are taken into consideration. Projects identified herein may be funded through a variety of sources including federal, state, county or local transportation funds, system development charges (SDCs), through partnerships with private developers, or a combination of these sources. In addition, as part of TSP implementation, the County will continue to coordinate with ODOT and the local communities regarding project prioritization, funding and construction. The estimated construction costs are provided in the subsequent tables. These costs are order -of - magnitude (e.g., planning -level) estimates that account for right-of-way, design engineering, and construction and generally include a 30 percent contingency factor . The costs were calculated for each project using the methodology and procedures recommended by the American Association of Cost Engineers (Class 5 estimates). All costs are rounded to the nearest $100,000 and provided in 2021 dollars. The detailed costs include all estimation assumptions as well as any deviations related to unique topographic, right- of-way, or other constraints. Where applicable, cost estimates include anticipated project funding that would provide bicycle or pedestrian facilities, including usable shoulder space. Costs for individual transit corridors are not provided. The County and Cascades East Transit (CET) will continue to collaborate on capital improvements and strategic policies that can help implement more robust transit service throughout the County. As discussed in Chapter 4, the needs assessment at intersections focused on both vehicular capacity as well as potential geometry changes identified by the Project Advisory Committee, public input, and those identified through the TSAP. The TSP is not inclusive of all of the intersection projects that the County will pursue over the next 20 years. Rather, these have been identified as projects that the County can pursue to strategically improve the operational efficiency of specific intersections and important roadways. These projects can enhance system operations and can be completed as opportunities arise. In all cases, the County will review the appropriate intersection control options at the time of project development and delivery. The projects are illustrated in Figure -1 and in Table -1. -----------I 11 b i s i — 1 ins I i i oa 3i:na ss�� �n i I I I c I � I I K I "oavzn I �{l�RMGN FD n' 1- ar�na3woG!,dow oa 2-14 -Ir JC311 °s I -s, I I i ON r.3jCOG i i i i-_-_-_-_-_-i I I I I P� I IC�o` r_-__..-...______--__-_-__ ua wmNnc,•r='ard I I i - LL I i j o ter. oa o s�:+'�c ' 2 CHINA HAT RD oa naxcois ip CC aatS S>>Vi 3HI10 �� Pa'' co a' Sdy, •. FRYREARRU a a w � S gas ! S FS 41 Qy NC DRD Ru y a omia oa s N Jdgdy •. DR m I R1VgR5UMMIT 0 Sl Si r e i i a v I o i C JN(Y Ln o� p1 ry ti�s� a SF 0.0 F clams Cyl[i»0�; ;A `` rr sy u., 0 Q. O a2 c c =O U Table 5-1. Intersection Changes and Associated Cost Estimates a s CI-1 Powell Butte Hwy Butler Market Rd Roundabout High $2,500,000 - CI-2 S Century Dr Spring River Rd Roundabout High $2,200,000 $200,000 CI-3 Huntington Rd South Century Dr Roundabout High $2,000,000 - CI-4 NE 5th St O'Neil Hwy Realignment High $130,000 - CI-5 Burgess Rd Day Rd Signal High $800,000 $100,000 Left Turn Lanes CI-6 Coyner Rd Northwest Way (Northwest Way High $400,000 - Only) NW Lower Bridge Realignment/ CI-7 Way NW 43rd St Left Turn Lane High $3,500,000 $200,000 or Roundabout CI-8 S Century Dr Vandervert Rd Roundabout Medium $2,100,000 - CI-9 NW 43rd St NW Chinook Dr/ Realignment, Left Turn Lane Medium $700,000 - CI-10 Graystone Ln Pleasant Ridge Rd Realignment, Left Turn Lane Medium $2,700,000 - CI-11 Deschutes Market Rd Graystone Ln Signal With Medium $2,300,000 - Turn Lanes CI-12 Venture Ln S Century Dr Roundabout Or Realignment Medium $2,100,000 - CI-13 S Canal Blvd McVey Ave Realignment Medium $400,000 - CI-14 Cinder Butte Rd Cheyenne Rd Realignment Medium $200,000 - CI-15 j Johnson Rd Tyler Rd Realignment Medium $600,000 - CI-16 Cline Falls Hwy Cook Ave/Tumalo Roundabout Or Medium $1,800,000 $200,000 Rd Realignment CI-17 S Canal Blvd SW Young Ave Realignment Medium $300,000 - CI-18 Baker Rd Cinder Butte Rd Intersection Improvements Medium $1,200,000 - CI-19 NW Lower Bridge NW 19th St Turn Lanes/ Medium $500,000 - Way Realignment CI-20 Old Bend Redmond Swalley Rd/Kiowa Realignment Low $200,000 - Hwy Dr CI-21 NW Lower Bridge NW 31st St Turn Lanes Low $500,000Way - CI-22 Baker Rd Brookswood Blvd Signal/Turn Low $1,400,000 $100,000 Lanes IUUMTWM•� As discussed in Chapter 4, the needs assessment identified strategic roadway corridors where vehicular capacity and/or changes to the roadway characteristics may be needed to help support future growth and economic development in the region as well as to enhance the safety of all users. The identified projects also can help to strength connections between areas of the County and to other areas in Central Oregon. These projects are illustrated in Figure -2 and Table -2. The projects identified will be implemented over time to reflect changing needs for the various users of the transportation system and economic development opportunities. In reviewing the prioritized list, it is helpful to note that many existing roadways within the County area are not built to current County standards and that not all roadways within the County will be rebuilt to match these standards over the next 20 years. It is also important to note that changes to existing roadways (beyond those identified in the TSP) may be required as part of future land use approvals consistent with the roadway functional classification requirements. O CA J , �rZ Ob ba vf3b 3NI10 O d`S9W�ON FEAR RU CS`.o�'Eryo Y5, ¢ '%9 v 0 ORU RD is yN,. N� ays J� dS, 0 N ui � ow � r � spa as cl-�Sma0 of CHINA HAT RU oois JS J. �s fS 41 Ob O ` r� w RIVER SUMMIT OR o K 6 HTI- U N � � I Table 5-2. Roadway Changes and Associated Cost Estimates Loco Rd Rodgers Rd New Road High $1,600,000CC-2 CC-1 Hun71Rd HunRodgers Rd Tumalo Rd Reconstruction/ High $3,900,000 $1,200,000 Pave Railroad Widen & CC-3 Smith Rock Way Highway 97 Crossing/UGB Overlay High $600,000 $200,000 Terrebonne CC-4 NW Lower Bridge 43rd St Holmes Rd Widen & Medium $8,900,000 $3,500,000 Way Overlay CC-5 Rickard Rd Knott Rdn t St Bozeman Trail Widening Medium $2,300,000 $700,000 CC-6 Sunrise Ln 300' North. Of Burgess Rd County Standard Medium $1,300,000 $400,000 Shady Ln Improvement CC-7 N. Canal Blvd Redmond City Limits O'Neil Hwy Overlay Widen & Medium $700,000 $200,000 CC-8 61st St S. Canal Blvd Hwy 97 Widen & Overlay Medium $1,800,000 $600,000 CC-9 Tumalo Reservoir OB Riley Rd Collins Rd Widen & Medium $5,300,000 $1,600,000 Rd Overlay CC-10 NW 19th St NW Lower NW Odem County Standard Medium $2,700,000 $800,000 Bridge Way Ave Improvement CC-11 NW Odem Ave NW 19th St Hwy 97 County Standard Medium $1,100,000 $300,000 Improvement CC-12 SW Helmholtz OR 126 Antler Ave Widen & Medium $900,000 $300,000 Way Overlay NE 1st St, Ne CC-13 Knickerbocker O'Neil Hwy Smith Rock Widen & Low $3,400,000 $1,000,000 Ave, And Ne 5th Way Overlay St NW Eby Ave, Ne CC-14 5th St, Ne Cayuse US97 Ne Wilcox Rd Widen & Low $1,700,000 $500,000 Ave, And Ne 9th Overlay St Whittier Dr, Wolf Whittier CC-15 St, And Shawnee Dr - End Lazy River Dr County Standard Low $2,600,000 $800,000 Circle of County Improvement Maintenance Stellar Dr, Upland Stellar Dr End Stage Stop Dr CC-16 Rd, Savage Dr, of County (@Browning County Standard Low $1,300,000 $400,000 Winchester Dr, Maintenance Dr/Pitch Ct) Improvement Browning Dr (@Milky Way) Illustrative Roadway Extension. End Of US97 (In the May require To be deter- CC-17 SW 19th St Pavement — Vicinity of SW statewide mined $8,600,000 $2,600,000 SW 19th St Quarry Ave) planning goals exceptions prior to implementation CC-18 Cooley Rd Urban Growth Deschutes Roadway Low $2,900,000 $900,000 Boundary Market Rd Extension 6th St - End Roadway CC-19 6th St Masten Rd Of County Extension Low $3,800,000 $1,100,000 Maintenance County Standard CC-20 Foster Rd South La Pine State Improvement/ Low $4,100,000 $1,200,000 Century Dr Rec, Rd Widen & Overlay CC-21 Burgess Rd Day Rd Huntington Widen &Rd Low $1,900,000 $600,000 Overlay CC-22 5th St (La Pine) Amber Ln La Pine State Rec. Rd Widen & Overlay Low $800,000 $200,000 CC-23 W Antler Ave NW 35th St NW Helmholtz Widen & Overlay Low $400,000 $100,000 Way CC-24 O'Neil Hwy N Canal Blvd Highway 97 Widen & Overlay Low $1,100,000 $300,000 Canal, 1 Mile Widen & CC-25 Gosney Rd US 20 South of Overlay Low $2,800,000 $800,000 Us20 CC-26 31st St NW NW Lower Widen & Low $1,000,000 $300,000 Sedgewick Bridge Way Overlay CC-27 NW Almeter Way Northwest NW Sedg wick Widen & Low $500,000 $200,000 Way Ave Overlay e - s a • ME=°•. CC-28 Bailey Rd US 20 Tumalo Reservoir Rd Widen & Overlay Low $1,300,000 $400,000 CC-29 Bear Creek Rd City Limits US 20 Widen & Low $3,200,000 $1,000,000 Overlay CC-30 Cinder Butte Rd Baker Rd Minnetonka Widen & Low $1,300,000 $400,000 Ln Overlay CC-31 NW Helmholtz Maple Ave NW Coyner Widen & Low $2,500,000 $700,000 Way Ave Overlay Widen & Overlay, CC-32 Huntington Rd South Century Dr Burgess Rd Excluding Portion from Low $6,600,000 $2,000,000 Riverview Dr to Riverview Dr CC-33 SW Wickiup Ave SW Helmholtz SW 58th St Widen & Low $600,000 $200,000 Way Overlay CC-34 4th St Majestic Rock F Ave County Standard Low $200,000 $100,000 (Terrebonne) Dr Improvement CC-35 F Ave (Terrebonne) 4th St 5th St County Standard Improvement Low $100,000 - CC-36 5th St (Terrebonne) F Ave Central Ave County Standard Improvement Low $300,000 $100,000 CC-37 H Ave (Terrebonne) 11th St 12th St County Standard Improvement Low $200,000 $100,000 CC-38 Amber Ln 5th St Day Rd Realignment Low $300,000 $100,000 CC-39 Day Rd Amber Ln Burgess Rd Widen & Overlay Low $3,000,000 $900,000 CC-40 NW Sedgewick NW 19th Ave NW Almeter Widen & Low $1,000,000 $300,000 Ave Way Overlay In addition to the roadway changes, the County is proposing changes to the existing functional classification system based on review by County staff, input from stakeholders, and coordination with partner agencies. These changes will occur as part of TSP implementation. These recommended changes are shown in Figure S-3 and Table -3. LL LL za Table 5-3. Changes to the Functional Classification Designations • , ® 'oe • a •ee • • NW One of the main roads NW 1 43rd St NW Lower Bridge Way Chinook Collector Arterial of Terrebonne, main access Ave to Crooked River Ranch, 1/2 access roads to CRR 2 NW Maple NW Possible database error, Ave Helmholtz NW 59th St Arterial Collector updating to match county Way mapping Future connection; called out in the city of Redmond tsp; from tsp- "proposed 3 lane arterial to improve connectivity NW between and within existing 3 NW Maple Ave NW 35th St Helmholtz N/A Arterial neighborhoods, employment, Way and commercial areas, to provide connections to newly developed or developing areas, and to provide alternative travel routes for all models to existing streets" Improve connection to canal which is an arterial road that 4 SW Quarry runs parallel to US97, key road Ave US97 S Canal Blvd Local Collector segment in connection to north Tumalo area from US97, 2 lane road with narrow gravel shoulders 1275' segment that is key in 5 Graystone Ln Deschutes Market Rd Pleasant Ridge Rd Collector Arterial the eastern parallel roads to US97, Connection for US97 Access from Tumalo Rd/ Deschutes market road 600' segment that is key in 6 Pleasant Ridge Rd Graystone Ln US97 Collector Arterial connection for US97 Access from Tumalo Rd/Deschutes market road 1750' segment that connects 7 19th St Deschutes Market Rd Morrill Rd Collector Local to rural farmland area NE of Bend, no major traffic generators 1675' segment that connects 8 Morrill Rd 19th St McGrath Rd Collector Local to rural farmland and hiking area NE of Bend, no major traffic generators, the rest of Morrill Rd is local e p 9 McGrath Rd Morrill Rd End Collector Local Road that connects to rural farmland area NE of Bend, no major traffic generators 10 Dale Rd Deschutes Market Rd McGrath Rd Local Collector 4,180' segment that connects rural land to Deschutes Market Rd 11 George Possible database error, Millican Rd US 20 County Line Local Arterial updating to match county mapping Traffic from homes, driveways 12 Navajo Rd Cinder Butte Rd End Local Collector every 50-100', 1' paved shoulder, connects to cinder butte road which is a collector Traffic from homes, driveways 13 Minnetonka Ln Cinder Cherokee Local Collector every 50-100', no paved Butte Rd Dr shoulder, connects to cinder butte road which is a collector Traffic from homes, driveways every 50-100', 1' paved 14 Cherokee Dr Minnetonka Navajo Rd Local Collector shoulder, connects to Minnetonka Lane and Navajo road that are being upgraded as well 15 McClain Dr City Limits Sage Steppe Dr Local Collector Possible database error, updating to match county mapping SageDSreppe 1580' segment in new 16 McClain Dr City Limits Local Collector developed area, continues McClain drive proposed upgrade of collector Connection to the 17 S CenturyDr Spring River Rd Deschutes River XingCollector Arterial communities of Three Rivers, Caldera Springs, and Crosswater Connection between La Pine, 18 Huntington Rd S Century ury City Limits Collector Arterial Three Rivers, and Sunrise; gravel shoulder and paved shoulder 0'-2' 19 Burgess Rd Day Rd Sunrise Blvd Collector Arterial Possible database error, updating to match county mapping 20 Riverview Dr Huntington Rd Huntington Rd Collector Local Parallel to Huntington Road, rural connections to river and homes, curvy road 0 Connection to many homes, 21 Sunrise Blvd Burgess Rd Day Rd Local Collector driveways every 50-300', gravel shoulders, paved shoulders 0-2' Enhance connection route to La Pine La Pine state park from Three 22 Whittier Dr State Rec. Wolf St Local Collector Rivers and other communities Rd to the north; 112 is a gravel road, other half is paved with no striping Enhance connection route to 23 Wolf St Whittier Dr Shawnee Local Collector La Pine state park from Three Circle Rivers and other communities to the north; gravel road Enhance connection route to 24 Shawnee Wolf St Lazy River Local Collector La Pine state park from Three Circle Dr Rivers and other communities to the north; gravel road Enhance connection route to 25 Lazy River Dr Shawnee S Century Local Collector La Pine state ark from Three Circle Dr Rivers and other communities to the north 26 Bonanza Ln S Century Stage Stop Local Collector Enhance connection route to west Three Rivers homes and Dr Dr big river group campground 27 Stage Stop Bonanza Ln Browning Local Collector Enhance connection route to Dr Dr west Three Rivers homes 28 Browning Dr Stage Stop Winchester Local Collector Enhance connection route to Dr Dr west Three Rivers homes 29 Winchester Dr Browning Savage Dr Local Collector Enhance connection route to west Three Rivers homes 30 Savage Dr Winchester Upland Rd Local Collector Enhance connection route to west Three Rivers homes 31 Upland Rd Savage Dr Milky Way Local Collector Enhance connection route to west Three Rivers homes 32 Milky Way Stellar Dr Solar Dr Local Collector Enhance connection route to west Three Rivers homes 33 Solar Dr Milky Way Spring Local Collector Enhance connection route to dRiver west Three Rivers homes 34 Stellar Dr Milky Way Spring Local Collector Enhance connection route to dRiver west Three Rivers homes ODOT Intersections and Roadways Future changes to ODOT intersections and roadways within the County have been identified in previously adopted and/or acknowledged transportation plans. ODOT and County staff prioritized the list of changes for inclusion in the TSP. These are shown in Figure ®4 and Table 5-4. In addition to this list, the County will continue to partner with ODOT to monitor and identify future projects that help to address the needs of local, regional and statewide travel. As the road authority for projects on the state highway system, the timing, need, and funding for projects will be directed by ODOT rules and regulations. In some cases, the County may partner with ODOT on implementation whereas in others, the projects will be planned, designed and constructed by ODOT. ___ _____ ID v� a nm I as aa0e s7)y� 3Nno®p m j SNHor P i I Sdy, FRYREAR Ro ® i �QN I r mod• � I FOR, Ro ' e � 2� is annd Y.� Ob SNd s I � GH 3Llnu H�iN30�H.y I I I i �aa nadeo-� i i - I - , I I I I O I I i __________� I i I I I �yll;�jor; 0 I�Eo�G zzsy I DU NIV1Ni10,�, 3, I I I LL O i ) GLI Qb3154ib`J I HAT RD j GMt4A OY. n3YG015 i ( I i f o I K i � I I a v\. J a � L� I I FS 41 Ob NO1DN,) � 0.1 a 01 1rygH ' � o a , 7 na AVO M z QO F U 5 R VFR SH),Ap11T PR h � i s� si od 4 I N o] a IL N I I C I 4 CASCADE LAKES HN1Y T 3 i m Li Table 5-4. ODOT Intersections Changes and Associated Cost Estimates Cook Two -Lane ODOT project S-1 US 20 Ave/O.B. Roundabout programmed for High $11,000,000 $9,100,000 $1,800,000 Riley Rd 2023 Interchange project identified via Grade US97: Terrebonne/ Lower Lo Separated Lower Bridge Way S-2 US97 griLo Way Interchange improvement High $30,200,000 $10,000,000 $700,000 From US97 project. ODOT project programmed for 2023. Baker Road Implementation ODOT project S-3 US97 To Lava Of Multiuse currently in design High $3,000,000 - - Butte Path phase Coordinate with SW Traffic Signal city of Redmond & S-4 12 6 Helmholtz or Intersection OD o c specific project. Also Medium $1,000,000 $500,000 $100,000 Way Improvement identified within Redmond tsp. Turn Lane Intersection S-5 US 20 Fryrear Rd on Highway, identified within Deschutes County Medium $3,000,000 $2,500,000 - Realign TSAP This project will provide a grade separated interchange on US97 that will connect the Deschutes River Deschutes Woods subdivision River (west) and the High Woods Desert Museum S-6 US97 South Interchange area (east). A future Low $42,900,000 $10,000,000 - Interchange refinement process Project (interchange area management plan, or other) will determine the connection point to the DRW. A grade separation of the BNSF Railroad will also be required. • • • Implement The county will • B Components of coordinate with the Interchange ODOT and the city S-7 US97 Pershall- Area of Redmond on the LOW Multiple O'Neil Hwy Management appropriate county Projects Plan (TAMP) involvement to Adopted for implement IAMP This Area. projects. Illustrative Project. Timing and need to be further refined. May require statewide Grade planning goals S-8 US97 QuarryRd Separated Interchange exceptions prior to implementation. To be deter mined $50,000,000 $5,000,000 From US97 Need for project likely driven by economic development within Redmond industrial lands Powell Project timing and S-9 US 20 Butte Hwy Roundabout need to be further Low $5,000,000 $500,000 - refined. Pinehurst Turn Lane Project timing and 5-10 US 20 Rd on Highway, need to be further Low $3,000,000 $2,500,000 - Realign refined. County 5-11 US 20 Locust St Roundabout contribution to ODOT/ city of Low $6,000,000 $1,000,000 - Sisters project Implement The county will Components coordinate with of The ODOT and the 5-12 US97 Baker Interchange city of Bend on the appropriate Low Multiple P - Road Area county Projects _ Management involvement to Plan (TAMP) implement IAMP For This Area. projects. Figure S-S and Table 5-5 reflect priorities for changes to the pedestrian system within Terrebonne and Tumalo. In general, the sidewalks identified in the TSP reflect providing sidewalks between the residential areas and schools as well as to provide connections to neighborhood commercial areas in the two communities. Other changes to the pedestrian system as well as pedestrian crossing improvements may be provided in the future based on project development and design as well as funding opportunities. The County may require sidewalk construction as part of future land use actions as well, consistent with the Development Code requirements. Figure 5-5A — Pedestrian Facilities Improvements `�uTES C0G�. Pedestrian Projects Parks } Water Unincorporated Cities Figure 5-5B Pedestrian Facility Projects n<,f<so�«e: cE:�n�rea cao�i,� Terrebonne , Oregon Table 5-5. Pedestrian Facilities and Associated Cost Estimates BP-1 7th St (Tumalo) US 20 Cook Ave 5' Sidewalk On Both High 3300,000 Sides BP-2 4th St (Tumalo) Wood Ave Bruce Ave 5' Sidewalks On High $300,000 Both Sides 2nd St/Cook Ave Tumalo Cline 5' Sidewalks In BP-3 Sidewalks (SRTS- School Falls/4th Areas Without Medium $1,700,000 Tumalo) Street BP-4 5th St B Ave C Ave 5' Sidewalk On East Medium $200,000 (Terrebonne) Side Only BP-5 B Ave 5th St 6th St 5' Sidewalk, North Medium $200,000 (Terrebonne) Side Only BP-6 5th St (Tumalo) Wood Ave Cook Ave 5' Sidewalks On Medium $500,000 Both Sides BP-7 C Ave 6th St NW 19th St 5' Sidewalks On Medium $1,000,000 (Terrebonne) Both Sides BP-8 C Ave US97 16th St 5' Sidewalk On Low $600,000 (Terrebonne) South Side Only BP-9 11th St Central Ave US97 5' Sidewalks On Low $1,100,000 (Terrebonne) Both Sides BP-10 8th St (Tumalo) Cook Ave Riverview 5' Sidewalks On Low $400,000 Ave Both Sides Deschutes County provides and maintains useable shoulders along roadways for use by people riding bikes though not all roadways are currently improved to include such facilities The County has an aspirational bicycle route system, referred to as County Bikeways, where useable shoulders will be provided, as practical, as part of ongoing maintenance and roadway improvements projects. Facilities designated as County Bikeways are shown in Figure -6. Crossing improvements, though not specifically identified in the TSP, may be provided when bicycle facilities are constructed that cross major roads. The need for and type of crossing treatments as well as other facility changes will be evaluated at the time of project development and design. The County may provide such facilities as standalone projects or in conjunction with scheduled maintenance activities. At the time the TSP was written, the County was evaluating potential changes to the Development Code requirements (as included in the County Code Title 22 requirements) related to bicycle facility requirements as part of land use actions. Future changes to Title 22 will be considered as part of TSP implementation. In addition, as part of implementation of the TSP, changes to the bicycle network will continue to be informed as part of the County's Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee (BPAC) activities. BPAC's mission is "to promote and encourage safe bicycling and walking as a significant means of transportation in Deschutes County" and focuses on both changes to the system as well as public education and awareness and a review of safety and funding needs as part of implementation of potential projects. As part of that coordination, Table ®6 and Table -7 identify regional bicycle connections that have been developed and prioritized with input from BPAC. Table 5-6 identifies routes that would connect communities and serve broad transportation functions, such as commuting, recreation, or daily services. Table 5-7 identifies routes that primarily provide connections to recreational opportunities, which could also serve to improve transportation mode choices available to County residents and visitors. Over time, strengthening the identified connections will help to expand the overall bicycle infrastructure within the County. Specific routes, including roadways and projects needed to support or develop these routes, have not yet been identified nor has the funding to construct and maintain these facilities. In the future, these costs may be funded by the County and/or a variety of agency partners, pending the actual alignment and project elements identified. The County will work with BPAC and agency partners, including ODOT and local jurisdictions, to advance development and implementation of preferred routes as resources allow. N - i i I i I I I • UY. al.fio j5;'1Ci I I � O tP I � ia i I i n o — - — - — - — I I I I - — i I S r,. nrnc,.e aG i ---------o ua aa3eroe,mof•+ ' i oa aura a3ia=aaae i I �• I a� I 1 I i oN iaaeo:: I I I � I I I1 I O I I ----_----' FJT I I i i nc I ry� I I I o 0 I i I Y ------------ 1 � P � CHINA HAT R� j y 11 Y3N p Qa As>iOGt£ I tl K � 1�e Y oa tavo ))bj 3NIJO � a j 9yhor w I Sd! '. F YREAR Ef0 e � v) .,CR h 5 � Y, i h `. FS 41 ONN Dd�NIdNNH I a i'I 1 oRO D�c F 3 o �dOd ¢ oanvo i o SUMM17 DR N a N I �k95 \V � Y i I I I ' � CASCADE LAKES HWY (0 U 0 oa m i 0 io o 0 w W LA r \'� — i._,� i I 0 O _ Finally, the County, by reference, will adopt the Map 11 of the Bend Parks and Recreation District's (BPRD's) Comprehensive Plan (2018) identifying future trail connections to parks within the County but outside the Bend (UGB) as well as those within the Deschutes National Forest. As noted in the BPRD plan, the trails have been prioritized for implementation but the actual alignments in the map are approximate and subject to future easement/user agreements to enable trail construction, availability of funding, and securing agreements from affected property owners for trailheads and parking areas. Table 5-6. Bicycle Route Community Connections As part of TSP implementation, the County will coordinate with BPRD on the planning for and timing of new trails. It is important to note that not all County roadways are currently or will be designed to provide roadside parking for trailhead users. The County will work with BPRD to identify appropriate locations in the future to provide safe access for trail users as well as to roadway users not accessing the parks/trails. Various routes possible. Preferred Bend To Redmond route alignment has not been High identified. Route currently in design as a Bend To Sunriver multi -use path along US97 (project High s-3). Would connect bend, lava lands, and Sunriver. Could include Bend to Tumalo and/or Bend to Tumalo state park connection, which is also a priority route, and would likely include county and ODOT facilities. Future Bend To Sisters coordination will be required. High Additional Sisters to Tumalo connection may be necessary if Bend to Sisters route does not include the Tumalo community. Redmond To Sisters Route could occur adjacent to or High within ODOT right-of-way (or 126) Route would likely occur adjacent Redmond To Terrebonne to or within ODOT right-of-way High (US97) Route may overlap with other Redmond To Tumalo route development, such as Bend High to Sisters or possible Redmond to Sisters. Route is currently part of a scenic Sisters To Terrebonne & Smith Rock bikeway. Improvements to the State Park existing route, including improved High crossings, are needed. slillillig Significant prior planning which Sisters To Black Butte Ranch assumed a multi -use path parallel High to US 20. Route would connect area south of Bend to new development areas Deschutes River Woods to East and recreational opportunities Side of Bend within or near southeast bend. Medium Route could benefit from trail construction within future SE Bend developments. ODOT is currently in the planning Sunriver To La Pine stages to identify preferred route Medium location. Route could utilize state highways Bend To Prineville and/or county roads. Coordination Low with ODOT and crook county will be required. Route could utilize state highways Redmond To Powell Butte & and/or county roads. Coordination Low Prineville with ODOT and crook county will be required. Black Butte Ranch to Camp Route would require coordination Sherman with Forest Service. Low Table 5-7. Bicycle Route Recreation Connections Bend To Redmond Various routes possible. Preferred route alignment has not been High identified. Bend To Sunriver Route currently in design as a multi -use path along US97 High (project s-3). Would connect Bend, Lava Lands, and Sunriver. Could include Bend to Tumalo and/or Bend to Tumalo state park connection, which is also a priority route, and would likely include county and ODOT facilities. Future coordination will be Bend To Sisters required. High Additional Sisters to Tumalo connection may be necessary if Bend to Sisters route does not include the Tumalo community. Redmond To Sisters Rout)e could occur adjacent to or within ODOT right-of-way (or High 126 Redmond To Terrebonne Route would likely occur adjacent to or within ODOT right -of- High way (US97) Redmond To Tumalo Route may overlap with other route development, such as Bend High to Sisters or possible Redmond to Sisters. Sisters To Terrebonne & Route is currently part of a scenic bikeway. Improvements to the High Smith Rock State Park existing route, including improved crossings, are needed. 0 • 0 ® 0 0 • Sisters To Black Butte Ranch Significant prior planning which assumed a multi -use path High parallel to US 20. Route would connect area south of Bend to new development Deschutes River Woods to areas and recreational opportunities within or near southeast East Side of Bend bend. Route could benefit from trail construction within future Medium SE Bend developments. Sunriver To La Pine ODOT is currently in the planning stages to identify preferred Medium route location. Bend To Prineville Route could utilize state highways and/or county roads. Low Coordination with ODOT and crook county will be required. Redmond To Powell Butte & Route could utilize state highways and/or county roads. Prineville Coordination with ODOT and crook county will be required. Low Black Butte Ranch to Camp Sherman Route would require coordination with Forest Service. Low In 2020, the majority of the County's bridges were rated as being structurally sufficient. The County regularly reviews the structural ratings of its bridges and makes changes as funding and other opportunities arise. Projects to address county bridge priorities are shown in Figure -7 and Table -8. These projects represent the County's current priorities but do not encapsulate all the bridges that may be modified over time. i i i I O Ec Fo+ e� � a . I x m __ —__ _____, a a GNIIdA HNC RD q Y go O l *FF))) J u ) Q O v 3Q Y j a • a 0 X I $g as ailJ'�S))yj aNI10 dy Od d N S %V FR1'REAR RD a� p0 •oo�' a • �` dly CD O&,yD1OIVI NI 1 C0 4 �i H D ❑ zn. isa iT, ��s ��O`9.+'d, RIVER SUMtdIT DR 0J a v I sl SJ C6. I 00 0 d of ° w r 7 yJ5 6f 34 a 0 l0 a S N U a a d Table 5-8. Bridge Projects and Associated Cost Estimates BR-1 Smith Rock Way North Unit Canal Replacement High $1,000,000 BR-2 Gribbling Rd Central Oregon Canal Replacement High $900,000 BR-3 Hamehook Rd - Replacement High $1,100,000 BR-4 S Century Dr BNSF RR Rehabilitation High $2,700,000 BR-5 Wilcox Ave - Removal Medium $200,000 BR-6 Wilcox Ave - Removal Medium $100,000 BR-7 Burgess Rd - Replacement Medium $2,100,000 BR-8 Cottonwood Dr BNSF RR Replacement Low $3,800,000 BR-9 Spring River Rd Deschutes River Rehabilitation Low $400,000 BR-10 Old Deschutes Rd Pilot Butte Canal Replacement Low $400,000 BR-11 Sisemore Rd - Replacement Low $600,000 BR-12 Camp Polk Rd - Replacement Low $1,400,000 BR-13 Wilcox Ave - New Bridge Low $1,300,000 The Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) was established to "improve transportation facilities that provide access to, are adjacent to, or are located within Federal lands." This program is intended to provide supplemental funding to be used in combination with State and County funds for public roads, transit, and other transportation facilities. In particular, FLAP helps prioritize funding for "high -use recreation sites and economic generators." FLAP is funded through the Federal Highway Trust Fund and its allocation is based on road mileage, bridges, land area and number of visits to the lands. FLAP provides funding opportunities to help the County deliver capital projects to increase access to Federal Lands. In addition, FLAP is a funding tool to help the County fund maintenance of existing roads that provide access to Federal Lands, such as those designated as Forest Highways and other roads that provide similar access. Figure -8 and Table 5-9 identify the County's current priorities for future FLAP -funded projects. As part of TSP implementation, the County will continue to coordinate with all of the federal agencies, BPRD, Cascades East Transit, and ODOT on the request for future FLAP -funded projects. I F� I I----------- ------ --------------- LL I oy �J OL AID+OJ 0 �� PD �XOo` p_ oa�lre'or. hA �h �zS y ua n;n,nnorr_.,rd i tt �. O , 11U Od315N�L� _.._ __ __._ GNIiJN HAT RD � ISON(F ar. �y 0� LL S � C+ •biHS i7 G B� S e ¢ rc � o S�JE/�3N1�� vmr GJa � w Q Ob bdVE �SNHOf ��1 O 0 �L FRYREARRO v0 _;a6 w 4)pH F C o z - a z hS at K OlyO RD N _ O we r y MIT DR N �� pIVER SUM v y � 91 Sd P 4 U d a a a LL I LA 7 01 U. 0 E a+ N W a+ 0 v° d R .0 0 N a V r Vl T 3 a LL 61 LA W 3 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 w 0 0 w 0 0 w 0 0 vs 0 0 0 Vi 0 0 0 M 64 0 0 o V bN9 0 0 d W M 0 0 0 b9 0 0 o O � b4 C p N V1 O O O (V 69 O O O ip b4 O O O O O N 64 O O O Oi bh O O O ip b9 O O O Vt b4 O O � V# v N 0 0 O O fl-v _ av y t _ t L 9 C L a C O c a c c 2� u c a o -o c N c o N O U 01 A L N O V 0� N N � °' c 0 C Im c a o a vo E = C '� C J O O o N N J O c O > d L 0 O C O E O S 0 O C E N C a O Y j Q N Ot o N O O O C v O �vf m� "OO QN O 0 O o O H C 0.0 o 0 N a v �m.0 A o c a o O E Y '^ c5 O E =m N O w a i G E v N c E c E o > c > c c v o o d o �� a o t0 E 2J N a x T T � Y Y Y O` .0 a o O O 0'C N 0'C E ` �'L m c0 O O _ E O c0 r a 0 E O o- o a� ° uo -O m v a 0 +� r 2 o 19 U 0 z w =O Y v n V L O 0 0 N U LL U N O O C � H T 0 3co U Y c v m a O y W C J O Y N 3 O � � Y l K O O V J O J O O O N Ol 2 N O u V U LL N Ll. LL <Y Ll Y IL D LL r IY By reference, the County will adopt the Cascade East Transit (CET) Master Plan. This Master Plan has a number of projects that can help increase service to the unincorporated areas of the County as well as to the High Desert Museum and Lava Lands Visitor Center. As part of TSP implementation, the County will continue to partner with CET to identify collaborative funding sources and future service enhancements. A The County's 2019 Transportation Safety Action Plan (TSAP) provides a range of projects, policies, and programs to address identified safety needs Table 5-10. TSAP Priority Locations & Status within the unincorporated areas of the County. The County will adopt the TSAP, by reference, as part of the updated TSP. The top sites for safety improvements in unincorporated Deschutes County identified through the TSAP are shown in Table 5-10® This table also includes projects that have been identified to address these needs and relevant status. As part of TSP implementation, the County will continue to identify future project refinements, as needed, monitor the timing of intersection changes at these locations, and seek funding opportunities and/or the potential to combine safety -related projects with other project development within the County. US 20/Ward Rd/Hamby Rd Roundabout Project Complete US97/Vandevert Rd Intersection Improvement Project Complete US 20/Fryrear Rd Turn Lane on Highway, Realign County to Coordinate with ODOT Fryrear Road (Project SI-5) on Future Project Refinement. Burgess Rd/Day Rd/Pine Forest Dr Turn -Lanes Project Complete Bear Creek Rd/Ward Rd None County to Conduct Future Project Refinement. Alfalfa Market Rd/Dodds Rd None County to Conduct Future Project Refinement. US 20/Old Bend Redmond Hwy Roundabout ODOT Project Programmed for 2023 US 20/013 Riley Rd/Cook Ave Roundabout ODOT Project Programmed for 2023 US97/61st St Improved as Part of ODOT US97 Bend to Redmond Project Project Complete US97/11th St/Lower Bridge Way Part Of US97: Terrebonne/Lower ODOT Project Programmed for Bridge Way Improvements 2023 61st St/Quarry Ave/Canal Blvd Improved as Part of ODOT US97 Bend to Redmond Project Project Complete Northwest Way/Coyner Ave Add Turn Lanes Project Identified in Deschutes County TSP. Alfalfa Market Rd/Walker Rd None County to Conduct Future Project Refinement. US97/Smith Rock Way/B Ave Part Of US97: Terrebonne/Lower ODOT Project Programmed for Bridge Way Improvements 2024 Deschutes Market Rd/Hamehook Rd Roundabout Count Project Programed for 2023 Y J g Project Identified in Wickiup Junction Refinement Plan. County US97/Burgess Rd Traffic Signal to Coordinate with City of La Pine and ODOT on Future Project Refinement and Implementation. US 20/Hawks Beard (Black Butte None County to Coordinate with ODOT Ranch) on Future Project Refinement. El Camino Lane/Helmholtz Way None County to Conduct Future Project Refinement. S Canal Blvd/Helmholtz Way Add Turn Lanes Project Complete Dickey Rd/Nelson Rd None County to Conduct Future Project Refinement. US97/Galloway Ave None County to Coordinate with ODOT on Future Project Refinement. Butler Market Rd/Powell Butte Hwy Roundabout Programmed For 2023 Construction Butler Market Rd/Hamby Rd None County to Conduct Future Project Refinement. Butler Market Rd/Hamehook Rd None Intersection Now Under City of Bend Jurisdiction Baker Rd/Cinder Butte Rd Intersection Improvement Project Identified in Deschutes County TSP. S Century Dr/Huntington Rd Roundabout Project Identified in Deschutes County TSP. Cline Falls Rd/Coopers Hawk Dr/ None County to Conduct Future Project Falcon Crest Dr Refinement. Lower Bridge Way/19th St Turn Lanes/Realignment (Project Project Identified in Deschutes C-18) County TSP. Lower Bridge Way/31 st St Turn Lanes (Project C-20) Project Identified in Deschutes County TSP. Lower Bridge Way/43rd St Included in Future Roadway Project Identified in Deschutes Improvement Project (Project CC-4) County TSP. Deschutes County receives transportation funding via a variety of state, federal, and local sources. Resources are initially budgeted to meet maintenance and operation standards; resources exceeding these needs are directed to the Road Department's Capital Fund to fund Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects. This Chapter provides a description of funding sources and a projection of capital resources available to fund CIP projects. State Highway Fund The State Highway Fund (SHF) is managed by the State (ODOT) and contains revenue generated from taxes on motor fuels (gas and diesel), taxes on heavy trucks (including weight -mile tax and truck registrations), and driver/vehicle fees (license, title and registration). Counties receive approximately 30% of SHF net revenue (whereas ODOT receives 50% and cities, 20%). Revenue increases to the SHF occur at irregular intervals at the discretion of the Oregon Legislature. Within the 20-year horizon of the TSP/CIP, the State Highway Fund model will most likely transition to a user -based fee structure to replace the traditional fuel tax. Federal Secure Rural Schools (SRS) and Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Program Funding The federal Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Preservation Act (SRS) provides a federal payment to counties and school districts to offset the loss in timber revenue from federal land that is no longer received by counties due to environmental restrictions. Per federal code, a specific portion of SRS is dedicated to county road funding. In March 2023, the Deschutes County Road Agency (DCRA) was formed as an Intergovernmental Entity (per ORS 190) to receive SRS funding from the State via the federal government. Funds received by the DCRA will be internally transferred to the Road Department for expenditure. Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) is a federal payment to counties with significant federal land holdings to partially offset the loss in tax revenue. PILT funding is to be used for government purposes and its allocation occurs at the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners. Historically, the Board has provided the Road Department with a portion of PILT in recognition of the significant reduction in SRS funding (prior timber revenue) received by the Road Department. Federal Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) Funding The Surface Transportation Block Grant program is a federal program which provides formulaic allocations to states to invest in federal -aid highways. The federal -aid system includes roads classified as collector and above, which includes county roads. A memorandum of understanding between the Oregon Department of Transportation, the League of Oregon Cities and the Association of Oregon Counties establishes a methodology for allocation of Oregon's portion of the federal funding. Historically, ODOT has operated a fund exchange program for local government in which federal funding is exchanged (90%) for state dollars to enable local governments to deliver projects outside of the federal process. Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) The Federal Lands Access Program is a federal program administered by the Federal Highway Administration for the purpose of improving transportation facilities that provide access to, are adjacent to, or are located within federal lands. Given the significant amount of federal land within Deschutes County, the Road Department has historically fared well in this competitive program for projects ranging from chip seal, bridge replacement, overlay and reconstruction efforts. System Development Charges (SDQ System Development Charges are fees assessed to new development (or redevelopment) to fund capacity adding improvements necessary to accommodate new growth within the County's transportation system. Routine State Grant Programs The State of Oregon, via ODOT, provides grant programs to fund various aspects of local transportation systems. Primary State programs include: • Safe Routes to Schools • Local Bridge Program • All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) Federal Grant Programs The Federal government funds various grant programs through occasional federal transportation bills, most recently the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL). Primary federal programs include: • Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A); • Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP); • Rebuilding American Infrastructure Sustainably and Equitably (RAISE); • Infrastructure for Rebuilding American (INFRA); and, • Other programs. Local Funding • Due to statutory limitations and other restrictions, it is difficult for counties to generate transportation funding via local sources. Noted restrictions include: • Prohibition in franchise fees from utility companies located in the public right-of- way; and, Restriction in use of general fund tax dollars for road purposes. Notable funding sources, which require voter approval, include: • Local Fuel Tax; • Local Registration Fee; and, • Sales Tax. Deschutes County does not have a local funding source for transportation. FUNDING ` ,. ESTIMATE With transportation funding almost exclusively derived from state and federal funding sources, the nature of transportation funding can be very cyclical in Oregon. The legislature has approved fuel tax increases only four times since 1993. The federal fuel tax has not increased since 1993. The current state of transportation funding in Deschutes County is stable due to the passage of a phased -in 10-cent per gallon fuel tax approved via HB 2017 in 2017. The last remaining phase of the fuel tax will occur January 1, 2024 (2-cents per gallon). Counties in Oregon receive approximately 30% of the SHF; individual county distribution is determined based upon the proportion of registered vehicles in each county. In 2023, Deschutes County received approximately 5.5% of the portion of the SHF allocated to counties in the state. Prioritization of Expenditures Based on the Road Department's hierarchy of investment, funding for capital construction is a function of the total resources available, less the annual amount required to maintain and operate the system based on existing maintenance standards and operational levels -of -service. Maintenance standards and operation levels -of - service are derived from a combination of studies (example, annual pavement maintenance and budget options report), and operational policy (example, snow and ice plan). Figure -1 represents the prioritization of expenditures for maintenance, operation and capital expenditures as annually presented to the County's Budget Committee. Figure 6-1: Hierarchy of Expenditures and Investment maintain ine system r Capital Funding Estimate Assumptions A projection of transportation funding resources available for capital investment has been prepared for the 20-year investment period of the TSP and Capital Improvement Plan based on the following assumptions: 1. Current maintenance and operational standards remain in place. 2. The County's existing Road Moratorium (Resolution 2009-118), which limits acceptance of new road miles into the County maintenance system, remains in place. 3. Existing funding levels remain in place and are occasionally adjusted legislatively to a level that will roughly match inflation. 4. No significant additional local funding mechanisms are developed or implemented. 5. State and Federal grant programs are available at approximately the same historical intervals and funding levels. A projection of transportation system revenues and expenditures for a 20-year horizon has been prepared with consideration to the noted assumptions and prioritization (hierarchy of expenditures and investment). For comparative and project placement purposes, the estimated available Capital Improvement Project revenue has been calculated in 2023 value and estimated across the High (0 to 5 years), Medium (6 to 10 years) and Low (11-20 years) priority timeframe. Table 6-1: Capital Project Revenue Estimate (Present Value) The proposed Capital Improvement Program will need to account for project funding availability within the approximate amounts as noted in Table -1. The estimated total capital project revenue of $157M is approximately $32M less than the $189M project list per Table 1-1 (Total Cost of Prioritized TSP Investments). The estimated funding gap can be addressed via additional and aggressive pursuit of state and federal grant funding opportunities for select projects throughout the 20-year horizon period. In 2006, facing an unknown future regarding transportation funding, the Board of County Commissioners passed a Road Moratorium (Resolution 2006-049) which suspended the establishment of new County roads. The resolution was modified and replaced in 2009 (via Resolution 2009-118) to allow for the addition of collector and arterial road miles to the County's system. A County road is a road that has been dedicated for public use, improved to County road standards, and accepted by the County for maintenance via Board action (ORS 368.001(1)). A road that has been dedicated for public use but has not been accepted for County maintenance is defined as a Local Access Road (per ORS 368.001(3)). While the transportation funding environment has improved since 2006, many of the concerns which gave rise to the creation of the moratorium remain, such as: 1. High reliance on infrequent legislative adjustment to the state fuel tax, weight -mile tax, and DMV fees. 2. Funding mechanisms, such as the fuel tax, which have no inflation hedge and are therefore eroded or outpaced by inflation. 3. High reliance on fuel tax revenue which is negatively impacted by increasing fuel efficiency in vehicles, as well as an increasing number of hybrid and electric vehicles. 4. Reliance on federal programs, such as SRS and PILT, which require frequent reauthorization and are subject to reduction. 5. Legislative restrictions on the ability for counties to generate local revenue, such as a prohibition on establishment of franchise fees, and other mechanisms. The Road Moratorium has allowed the County to invest new revenue in a Capital Improvement Plan program and has also focused long-term maintenance investment in the preservation of the County's collector and arterial road network. Upon establishment of the Road Moratorium in 2006, the County ceased to accept new road infrastructure. Prior to 2006 road miles were added to the County system via new development as well as improvement of existing road miles via the Local Improvement District (LID) process. New development which has occurred since 2006 has been required to establish private road maintenance funding arrangements which have typically occurred via a homeowners association or other road maintenance agreements. Approximately 30 miles of new local road infrastructure have been constructed in the post -moratorium era; these road miles could be immediately eligible for County acceptance and maintenance if the Road Moratorium were to be lifted. Additionally, approximately 380 miles of Local Access Road exist in Deschutes County, of which over 120 miles exist within the 19 Special Road Districts within the County. The Road Moratorium limited the ability to form LIDs — which are districts formed under rules within County Code and State Statute in which the County contracts for the design and improvement of County roads within the district and is reimbursed for the expense via assessments applied to properties within the district. Lifting of the Road Moratorium would allow Local Access Roads to become eligible for the LID process. Lifting the Road Moratorium would result in increased costs associated with road maintenance for new local road miles added to the County system and the addition of staff to administer the LID program. An estimate of costs associated with the addition of new local road infrastructure has been prepared based on the following assumptions: 1. Estimated annual cost of local road maintenance (paved) and operation: $15,000/mi/year. 2. 30 miles of local road (previously constructed to County standard, post moratorium) will be added to the system in Year 1. 3. Twenty-five percent of Local Access Road mileage will be improved via the LID process in the 20-year horizon period (approximately 5 miles added per year). 4. Administration of the LID program will require 2.0 FTE (1-engineer and 1-administrative support personnel). Table 6-2: Estimated Costs of Lifting the Road Moratorium (Present Value) ® 7$45(0,000 a $8,550,000 $9,000,000 Acceptance of 30 miles of improved Acceptance of 5 miles per year of new local road $0 $12,825,000 $12,825,000 infrastructure (starting year 3) Personnel costs associated with $250,000 $4,750,000 $5,000,000 administration of the LID program TOTAL 1 $700,000 $26,125,000 $26,825,000 Lifting the moratorium would reduce funding available for capital projects by approximately $27,000,000 across the 20-year horizon period Recommendation Given the financial impact of lifting the Road Moratorium and concerns related to long-term transportation system funding in Oregon, it is recommended that the Road Moratorium remain in place to extend Deschutes County's ability to maintain its existing infrastructure and sustain a viable Capital Improvement Program into the future. O. ; ACCESS "R AD TOOLSAND 'fie FAQS To assist with explanation and provide information to customers seeking to improve or establish maintenance on non -county maintained Local Access Roads (LARs), the Road Department provides the following information and explanation to customers: How are Local Access Roads maintained? LARs are typically maintained by adjacent property owners and road users. This usually occurs in one of three ways: 1. Informally: In which neighbors work together to hire a contractor or self -perform maintenance and "pass -the -hat" to share in the cost. 2. Formally: Through homeowners associations (HOAs) or other formal agreements to share in the cost of maintenance. 3. Special Road Districts: In which area residents vote to establish a district which levies a property tax to fund maintenance. Deschutes County has 19 Special Road Districts — which is the highest number of road districts within any county in the state. By observation, all three methods work well in some areas and not very well in other areas depending upon a variety of factors. Frequently Asked Questions and Explanations: 1.1 pay taxes and receive no service from Deschutes County. Deschutes County does not utilize property tax to fund transportation maintenance improvements as that practice is restricted by State law. Regarding gas tax, the State currently charges 38-cents per gallon (and various DMV fees) to fund the transportation system. The State distributes the gas tax revenue in a 50-30-20 proportion in which the State keeps 50% to fund the state system, the counties receive 30% to fund the county systems, and cities receive 20% to fund the city systems. When customers pay the gas tax, they don't individually fund the transportation jurisdiction in which they live, they fund the entire system of state highways, county roads and city streets. Everyone pays the same rate, whether or not they live in a city or the unincorporated areas. If you are paying a gas tax, chances are you are driving on the system that is being maintained with gas tax funds. 2. Why can't the County maintain my gravel road (LAR)? Due to the fiscal burden that would be placed on county road departments to maintain significant mileage of sub -standard road construction, state law restricts the ability of counties to spend road funds (fuel tax and DMV fee revenue) on LARs. If we add gravel, grade, or plow one mile we would be obligated to provide that same service to all of the other LARs in the County. 3. How come the County maintains some gravel roads but not others? The County maintains approximately 125 miles of gravel road that have been lawfully established as County roads and accepted for maintenance. Most of these miles were gravel when Deschutes County was established in 1916 and had previously been accepted for maintenance, with gravel surfacing, when Deschutes County was a part of Crook County. Current LARs have never been accepted by Deschutes County for maintenance. 4. Not everyone contributes to help maintain my Local Access Road. This is the biggest downside of living on a LAR. Some neighbors have different opinions on levels of road maintenance and some choose not to pay for other reasons. This is where good neighborhood relations and communication pay dividends. There are many examples of where this is taking place in Deschutes County. 5. We have public traffic on our LAR that accesses public land. Living next to public land has positive and negative impacts to quality of life. The attraction of the public to public land is one of the negative consequences. Use of public roads, like LARs, to access public land is a logical and predictable occurrence and therefore something that property owners should factor into their decision to purchase property when conducting due diligence. Similarly, road maintenance costs associated with unmaintained LARs should also factor into the decision to purchase property. Most LARs have been in existence for many decades as have the public lands they may serve. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECISION MATRIX Issue Area Applicable Plan Provision Support / Opposition PC Recommendation Staff Comment Board Decision Points Staff notes that, while there are clearly anticipated impacts • TSP Goal 5: Equity and • Support: Citizen related to multi -use pathways Should the Board include a County -wide prohibition on multi -use pathways in the Accessibility, Policy 5.6 Comment The PC deliberated on adjacent to farm and forest uses/properties and wildlife updated TSP when bordering or within farm and forest resource -zoned lands or Should the Board include a County- y (pg. 15) • Opposition: this issue area and habitat, the benefits of an active wildlife habitat areas? wide prohibition an multi -use • TSP Section 5 BPAC, COTA, ultimately decided not and integrated transportation 1 pathways in the updated TSP based (Transportation Bend Bikes, to prohibit multi -use system in the County that offers • If yes, the Board may add language prohibiting multi -use pathways in the on proximity to farm and forest Investment Priorities - DTC, ODOT, pathways in Deschutes a variety of transportation modes updated TSP document and move onto the next issue area. resource -zoned lands and wildlife Bicycle Facilities y pg. 51- BPRD, Citizen County. and options (including multi -use habitat fragmentation? 56) Comment' Bend pathways) are significant. Staff • If no, the Board may retain the existing language in the updated TSP • TSP Goal 2: Safety, Policy MPO, City of includes a briefing of LUBA's Van document related to multi -use pathways and move on to the next issue 2.8 (pg. 12) Bend Dyke case law in the attached area. memo, providing further legal context for this issue area. This decision point is at the discretion of the Board, but staff Should the Board include a conceptual Community Connection multi -use pathway in notes that there are no specific the updated TSP between the City of Sisters and the Black Butte Ranch Resort • TSP Goal 5: Equity and The PC deliberated on design or alignment proposals Community? Accessibility, Policy 5.6 this issue area and associated with this conceptual Should the Board include a (pg. 15) • Support: ultimately made a connection at this time. The If yes, the Board may retain the existing language in the updated TSP conceptual Community Connection • TSP Section 5 Citizen recommendation to amend the draft TSP by conceptual connections are reflective of public input related document related to a conceptual multi -use pathway Community multi -use pathway in the updated (Transportation Comment' removing the "Sisters to a desire for connectivity Connection between the City of Sisters and the Black Butte Ranch Resort 2 TSP between the City of Sisters and Investment Priorities - BPAC to Black Butte Ranch" between certain locations. Public Community and move on to the next issue area. the :Black Butte Ranch Resort Bicycle Facilities pg. 51- • Opposition: Community Connection input from certain residents of Community? 56) Citizen from the list of Bicycle Black. Butte Ranch expresses • If no, the Board may remove the conceptual multi -use pathway Community • TSP Table 5-6 Bicycle Comment Route Community concern around potential. Connection between the City of Sisters and the Black Butte Ranch Resort Route Community Connections on pages trespassing, traffic congestion, Community from the draft TSP and/or add language prohibiting such a Connections (pg. 54-56) 53-56 of the draft TSP. and degradation of infrastructure Community Connection and move on to the next issue area. from overuse related to this proposed connection. Issue Area Applicable Plan Provision Support / Opposition PC Recommendation Staff Comment Board Decision Points Should the Board include a conceptual Community Connection multi -use This decision point is at the discretion of the pathway in the updated TSP between Baker Road and Lava Butte on the Board, but staff notes that representatives of west side of Hi�hway 97, as recommended by the PC? The PC deliberated on ODOT have indicated that the proposed Baker this issue area and Road -Lava Butte multi -use pathway Community . If yes, the Board may incorporate the PC's recommendation to • TSP Goal 5: Equity ultimately made a Connection has gone through some preliminary locate the proposed pathway on the west side of Highway 97 rather Should the Board include a and Accessibility, • Support: recommendation to planning phases undertaken by ODOT. The than the east side. conceptual Community Connection Policy 5.6 (pg. 15) gpAC,` COTA, amend the draft TSP by conceptual connections are reflective of public • If the Board disagrees with the PCs recommendation, the Board multi -use pathway in the updated • TSP Section 5 DTC, Bend changing the location input related to a desire for connectivity may retain the existing Ian ua e in the updated TSP document y g language p 3 TSP between Baker Road and lava (Transportation Bikes, ODOT of the proposed Baker between certain locations. Public input from related to a conceptual multi -use pathway Community Connection Butte? Investment Priorities • Opposition: Road -Lava Butte multi- property owners adjoining ODOT's project area , between Baker Road and Lava Butte and move on to the next issue - Bicycle Facilities Citizen use pathway to the have expressed concerns with the pathway s area. pg. 51-56) Comment west side of Highway impacts to forest and farm uses as well as • If the Board disagrees with the PC's recommendation and the 97 rather than the east wildlife habitat. Other supportive comments side. highlight the benefits of active transportation existing language in the updated TSP document, the Board may networks and the need for connectivity remove the conceptual multi -use pathway Community Connection between Baker Road and Lava Butte. between Baker Road and Lava Butte from the draft TSP and move on to the next issue area. • TSP Goal 5: Equity Should the Board support inclusion by reference of the BPRD master plan and Accessibility, within the updated TSP, including a bridge connecting the Deschutes River Should the Board support inclusion Policy 5.8 (pg. 15) The PC did not Woods neighborhood to the west side of the Deschutes River? by reference of the BPRD Master • TSP Section 5 (Transportation • Support: Citizen deliberate on this issue area and made no This :decision point is at the discretion of the • If yes, the Board may utilize the existing language in the updated Plan within the updated TSP ' `. Investment Priorities Comment recommendation to Board , but staff notes that there has been no TSP document referencing the BPRD Master Plan which includes a 4 including a bridgeconnecting the - Bicycle Facilities pg. • Opposition: the Board concerning contemplation bythe County Road Department bridge connection between the Deschutes River Woods Deschutes River Woods 51-56) Citizen the inclusion of a of adding this project to the County Capital neighborhood and the west side of the Deschutes River and move neighborhood to the west side of the ' • TSP Section 5 Comment bridge in the draft TSP Improvement Plan (CIP). ` on to the next issue area. Deschutes River? (Transportation document. Investment Priorities • If no, the Board may remove BPRD Master Plan references from the — Bridges pg. 56-58) updated TSP document and move on to the next issue area. Issue Area Applicable Plan Provision Support / Opposition PC Recommendation Staff Comment Board Decision Points The County Road Department has • Support: Citizen provided citizen commenters with Comment clarification on Special Road • Opposition: The District #1's responsibility for Should the Board include language in the updated TSP responsive to concerns County Road improvement and maintenance regarding Local Access Roads (LARs) in Special Road District #1, including Department opposes The PC did not projects on Island Loop Way and replacement of a canal crossing on Island Loop Way? Should the Board include language in • TSP Local Access this request and has deliberate on this issue the surrounding area. Per state the updated TSP responsive to Road Tools and provided citizen area and made no statute ORS 368,031, Deschutes • If yes, the Board may add language related to Island Loop Way and Special 5 concerns regarding Local Access FAQs "How are commenters with recommendation to County is not liable for failure to Road District #1 and move onto the next issue area, though staff reiterates Roads (LARs) in Special Road District Local Access Roads clarification on the Board concerning improve or repair a LAR and is the County is legally restricted from maintaining infrastructure within #1, including replacement of a canal maintained?" (pg. Special Road District in the inclusion of a legally restricted from expending Special Road District #1's boundaries or expending funds on such crossing on Island Loop Way? 68) #1's responsibility bridge in the draft TSP funds on LARs unless there are improvements. for improvement document. emergency circumstances. No and maintenance emergency circumstances have If no, the Board may retain the existing language in the updated TSP projects on Island been identified in association with document and move on to the next issue area. Loop Way and the Island Loop Way or other surrounding area. infrastructure within the Special Road District #1 boundaries. The PC did not This decision point is at the deliberate on this issue discretion of the Board, but staff Should the Board eliminate the column labeled "Priority" from Table 5-6 of the Should the Board eliminate the • TSP Figure 5-6 g area and made no recommendation to notes that the effect of eliminating the priority status from the various drafted TSP document related to Bicycle Route Community Connections? 6 column labeled "Priority" from Table 5-6 of the drafted TSP document Table 5-6 Bicycle Route Community ' • Support.: N/A the Board concerning priority status for the projects outlined in Figure 5-6 and Table 5-6 of the drafted TSP • If yes, the Board may remove the "Priority" column included in Table 5-6 of related to Bicycle Route Community Y Y Connections (pg. . O Opposition: N/A Bicycle Route document may have the effect of the drafted TSP document and move on to the next issue area. Connections? 53-56) Community assigning an equal priority to all Connections outlined in projects outlined in Figure 5-6 and . If no, the Board may retain the existing "Priority" column in Table 5-6 of the Figure 5-6 and Table 5- Table 5-6. drafted TSP document and move on to the next issue area. 6 of the drafted TSP document. Issue Area Applicable Plan Provision Support / Opposition PC Recommendation Staff Comment Board Decision Points ODOT recommends the following changes to the updated TSP document: This decision point is at the 1. S-9: Recommend changing the priority level from Low to High discretion of the Board, but 2. S-11: Recommend changing the priority level from Low to High and noting that • TSP Section 5 - The PC deliberated on this staff notes that the effect of the project, with contributions from Deschutes County, City of Sisters, and Transportation issue area and ultimately increasing apriority status for ODOT, is funded for construction in 2024. Investment decided to recommend a given project or action item Should the Board adopt ODOT's Priorities — Table • Support: adoption of ODOT's proposed may place those projects 'Should the Board adopt ODOT's proposed language related to ODOT Intersection 7 proposed language related to ODOT 5.4 ODOT ODOT language related to priority before or after other Changes outlined in S-9 (US 20 / Powell Butte Highway Roundabout) and S-11 (US 20 / Intersection Changes outlined in S_9 Intersection • Opposition: status for ODOT Intersection identified projects with Locust St Roundabout)? and S-11? Changes and N/A Changes included in Table 5-4, relatively similar scope and Associated Cost project ID S-9 (US20: Powell impacts. Staff finds no issues • If yes, the Board may adopt ODOT's proposed language related to ODOT Estimates — ID S-9, Butte Hwy)and S-11 (US20: with the additional language Intersection Changes outlined in S-9 and S-11 and move on to the next issue S-11 (pg. 47) Locust St, within the City of ODOT has proposed for Sisters) and additional project ID S-11. area. language included for project • If no, the Board may retain the existing language included in the updated TSP ID S-11. document and move on to the next issue area. One public comment includes a recommendation to change the priority from Medium • TSP Section 5 - The PC deliberated on this This decision point is at the to High associated with Table 5.5 ID BP-3 related to 2nd Street / Cook Ave sidewalks in Should the Board adopt the citizen Transportation `issue area and ultimately discretion of the Board, but Tumalo. comment's recommendation to Investment • Support: decided to recommend staff notes that the effect of include a High priority category; Priorities —Table Citizen ` adoption of the proposed increasing a priority status for Should the Board adopt the citizen comment's' recommendation to include a High 8 associated with Table 5.5 Proiect ID 5.5 Pedestrian Comment priority changes for Pedestrian a given project or action item priority category associated with Table 5.5 ID BP-3? BP-3 related to 2"d Street / Cook Ave Facilities and • Opposition: Facilities and Associated Cost may place those projects sidewalks in Tumalo? Associated Cost N/A Estimates included in Table 5- before or after other ; • If yes, the Board may change the BP-3 priority from Medium to High and move Estimates — ID BP-3 5, project ID BP-3. identified projects with on to the next issue area. (pg. 51) relatively similar scope and impacts. • If no, the Board may retain the existing language included in the updated TSP document and move on to the next issue area. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECISION MATRIX 0211412024 Item #12. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN 2020-2040 UPDATE 1 _J .. - - f :1 _ w i _ n e -I ., . 0% % o% - - - - — - Issue Area Applicable Plan Provision Support / Opposition PC Recommendation Staff Comment Board Decision Points Staff notes that, while there are clearly anticipatedimpacts • TSP Goal 5: Equity and q Y • Su Support: Citizen . related to multi -use pathways adjacent to farm and forest Should the Board include a County -wide prohibition on multi -use pathways in the Should the Board include a County- Y Accessibility, Policy 5.6 (pg. 15 ) Comment , Opposition: The PC deliberated on uses/properties and wildlife updated TSP when bordering or within farm and forest resource -zoned lands or wide prohibition on multi -use • TSP Section 5 BPAC, COTA, this issue area and habitat, the benefits of an active wildlife habitat areas? 1 pathways p in the updated TSP based on proximity to farm and forest (Transportation Investment Priorities Bend Bikes, ultimately decided not to prohibit multi -use and integrated transportation system in the County that offers . If yes, the Board may add language prohibiting multi -use pathways in the resource -zoned lands and wildlife - Bicycle Facilities Y pg. 51- DTC, ODOT, BPRD, Citizen pathways in Deschutes a variety of transportation modes updated TSP document and move on to the next issue area. ? habitat fragmentation. 56) Comment, Bend County. and options (including multi -use: • TSP Goal 2: Safety, Policy MPO, City of pathways) are significant. Staff • If no, the Board may retain the existing language in the updated TSP 2.8 (pg. 12) Bend n includes a briefing of LUBA's Van g„ document related to multi -use pathways and move on to the next issue Dyke case law in the attached area. memo, providing further legal context for this issue area. This decision point is at the discretion of the Board, but staff notes that there are no specific Should the Board include a conceptual Community Connection multi -use pathway in • TSP Goal 5: Equity and The PC deliberated ated on design or alignment proposals the updated TSP between the City of Sisters and the Black Butte Ranch Resort Accessibility, Policy 5.6 this issue area and associated with this conceptual Community? Should the Board include a (pg. 15) • Su Support: ultimately made a connection at this time. The conceptual Community Connection • TSP Section 5 Citizen recommendation to conceptual connections are • If yes, the Board may retain the existing language in the updated TSP multi -use pathway in the updated (Transportation Comment amend the draft TSP by reflective public input related ' document related to a conceptual multi -use pathway Community 2 TSP between the City of Sisters and Investment Priorities - BPAC removing the "Sisters to a desire for connectivity Connection between the City of Sisters and the Black Butte Ranch Resort the Black Butte Ranch Resort Bicycle Facilities pg. 51- • Opposition: to Black Butte Ranch" between certain locations. Public Community and move on to the next issue area. � Community. 56) Citizen Community Connection input from certain residents of • TSP Table 5-6 Bicycle Comment from the list of Bicycle Black Butte Ranch expresses ' If no, the Board may remove the conceptual multi -use pathway Community Route Community Route Community concern around potential Connection between the City of Sisters and the Black Butte Ranch Resort Connections (pg. 54-56) Connections on pages trespassing, traffic congestion, Community from the draft TSP and/or add language prohibiting such a 53-56 of the draft TSP. and degradation of infrastructure Community Connection and move onto the next issue area. from overuse related to this proposed connection. 394 0211412024 Item #12. 3 4 Issue Area Applicable Plan Provision • TSP Goal 5: Equity Should the Board include a and Accessibility, conceptual Community Connection Policy 5.6 (pg. 15) multi -use pathway in the updated • TSP Section 5 TSP between Baker Road and Lava (Transportation Butte? Investment Priorities - Bicycle Facilities pg. 51-56) • TSP Goal 5: Equity and Accessibility, Should the Board support inclusion Policy 5.8 (pg. 15) by reference of the BPRD Master • TSP Section 5 Plan within the updated TSP, (Transportation including a bridge connecting the Investment Priorities Deschutes River Woods - Bicycle Facilities pg. neighborhood to the west side of the 51-56) Deschutes River? • TSP Section 5 (Transportation Investment Priorities — Bridges pg. 56-58) TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN 2020-2040 UPDATE Land use File No. 247-23-000507-PA, 508-TA Support / Opposition PC Recommendation Staff Comment Board Decision Points Should the Board include a conceptual Community Connection multi -use This decision point is at the discretion of the Board, but staff notes that representatives of pathway in the updated TSP between Baker Road and Lava Butte on the The PC deliberated on ODOT have indicated that the proposed Baker west side of Highway 97, as recommended by the PC? this issue area and Road -Lava Butte multi -use pathway Community ultimately made a Connection has gone through some preliminary . • If yes, the Board may incorporate the PC's recommendation to • Support: recommendation to planning phases undertaken by ODOT. The locate the proposed pathway on the west side of Highway 97 rather BPAC,',COTA, amend the draft TSP by conceptual connections are reflective of public than the east side. DTC, Bend changing the location input related to a desire for connectivity • If the Board disagrees with the PC's recommendation, the Board Bikes, ODOT of the proposed Baker between certain locations. Public input from may retain the existing language in the updated TSP document • Opposition: pp Road -Lava Butte multi- � property owners adjoining ODOT s project area related to a conceptual multi -use pathway Community Connection Citizen use pathway to the have expressed concerns with the pathway's between Baker Road and Lava Butte and move onto the next issue Comment west side of Highway impacts to forest and farm uses as well as area. 97 rather than the east wildlife habitat. Other supportive comments • If the Board disagrees with the PC's recommendation and the side. highlight the benefits of active transportation existing language in the updated TSP document, the Board may networks and the need for connectivity remove the conceptual multi -use pathway Community Connection between Baker Road and Lava Butte. between Baker Road and Lava Butte from the draft TSP and move on to the next issue area. Should the Board support inclusion by reference of the BPRD master plan The PC did not within the updated TSP, including a bridge connecting the Deschutes River • Support: deliberate on this issue .Woods neighborhood to the west side of the Deschutes River? Citizen Comment area and made no recommendation to This decision point is at the discretion of the Board, but staff notes that there has been no . If yes, the Board may utilize the existing language in the updated • Opposition: the Board concerning contemplation by the County Road Department TSP document referencing the BPRD Master Plan which includes a Citizen the inclusion of a of adding this project to the County Capital bridge connection between the Deschutes River Woods Comment bridge in the draft TSP Improvement Plan (CIP). neighborhood and the west side of the Deschutes River and move document. on to the next issue area. • If no, the Board may remove BPRD Master Plan references from the updated TSP document and move on to the next issue area. 395 0211412024 Item #12. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN 2020-2040 UPDATE Land use File No. 247-23-000507-PA, 508-TA Issue Area Applicable Plan Provision Support / Opposition PC Recommendation Staff Comment Board Decision Points The County Road Department has • Support: Citizen provided citizen commenters with Comment clarification on Special Road • Opposition: The District #1's responsibility for Should the Board include language in the updated TSP responsive to concerns County Road improvement and maintenance - regarding Local Access Roads (LARs) in Special Road District #1, including Should the Board include language in • TSP Local Access Department opposes this request and has The PC did not projects on Island Loop Way and the surrounding area. Per state replacement of a canal crossing on Island Loop Way? the updated TSP responsive to concerns regarding Local Access Road Tools and FAQs "How provided citizen deliberate on this issue area and made no statute ORS 368.031, Deschutes • If yes, the Board may add language related to Island Loop Way and Special 5 Roads (LARs) in Special Road District are Local Access Roads commenters with clarification on recommendation tothough County is noae or to not liable ffailure, improve or repair a LAR and is Road District #1 and move onto the next issue area staff reiterates #1, including replacement of a canal maintained?" (pg. Special Road District the Board concerning in the inclusion of a legally restricted from expending Y is legally Y the Count le restricted from maintaining infrastructure within Special Road District #1's boundaries or expending funds on such crossing on Island Loop Way? 68) #1's responsibility bridge in the draft TSP funds on LARs unless there are improvements. for improvement document. emergency circumstances. No and maintenance emergency circumstances have • If no, the Board may retain the existing language in the updated TSP projects on Island been identified in association with document and move on to the next issue area. Loop Way and the Island Loop Way or other surrounding area. infrastructure within the Special Road District #1 boundaries. The PC did not This decision point is at the deliberate on this issue discretion of the Board, but staff • TSP Figure 5-6, area and made no notes that the effect of eliminating Should the Board eliminate the column labeled "Priority" from Table 5-6 of the Should the Board eliminate the "Priority" Table 5-6 Bicycle recommendation to the priority status from the various p y drafted TSP document related to Bicycle Route Community Connections? 6 column labeled from Table 5-6 of the drafted TSP document Route Community • Support: N A / the Board concerning g priority status for the projects outlined in Figure 5-6 and Table 5-6 of the drafted TSP • If yes, the Board may remove the "Priority" column included in Table 5-6 of related to Bicycle Route Community Connections (pg. 53-56) • Opposition: N/A Bicycle Route document may have the effect of the drafted TSP document and move on to the next issue area. Connections? Community assigning an equal priority to all Connections outlined in projects outlined in Figure 5-6 and • If no, the Board may retain the existing "Priority" column in Table 5-6 of the Figure 5-6 and Table 5- Table 5-6. drafted TSP document and move on to the next issue area. 6 of the drafted TSP document. 396 0211412024 Item #12. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN 2020-2040 UPDATE Land use File No. 247-23-000507-PA, 508-TA Issue Area Applicable Plan Provision Support / Opposition PC Recommendation Staff Comment Board Decision Points ODOT recommends the following changes to the updated TSP document: This decision point is at the 1. S-9: Recommend changing the priority level from Low to High discretion of the Board, but 2. S-11: Recommend changing the priority level from Low to High and noting that • TSP Section 5 - The PC deliberated on this staff notes that the effect of the project, with contributions from Deschutes County, City of Sisters, and Transportation issue area and ultimately increasing a priority status for ODOT, is funded for construction in 2024. Investment decided to recommend a given project or action item Should the Board adopt ODOT's Priorities — Table • Support: adoption of ODOT's proposed may place those projects Should the Board adopt ODOT's proposed language related to ODOT Intersection 7 proposed language related to ODOT 5.4 ODOT ODOT language related to priority before or after other Changes outlined in S-9 (US 20 /Powell Butte Highway Roundabout) and 5-11 (US 20 / Intersection Changes outlined in 5_9 Intersection • Opposition: status for ODOT Intersection identified projects with Locust St Roundabout)? and S-11? Changes and N/A Changes included in Table 5-4, relatively similar scope and Associated Cost project ID S-9 (US20: Powell impacts. Staff finds no issues . If yes, the Board may adopt ODOT's proposed language related to ODOT Estimates — ID S-9, Butte Hwy)and S-11 (US20: with the additional language S-11(pg. 47) Locust St, within the City of ODOT has proposed for Intersection Changes outlined in S-9 and S-11 and move on to the next issue Sisters) and additional project ID S-11. area. language included for project ID S-11. . If no, the Board may retain the existing language included in the updated TSP document and move on to the next issue area. One public comment includes a recommendation to change the priority from Medium • TSP Section 5 - The PC deliberated on this This decision point is at the to High associated with Table 5.5 ID BP-3 related to 2"d Street / Cook Ave sidewalks in Should the Board adopt the citizen Transportation issue area and ultimately discretion of the Board, but Tumalo. comment's recommendation to Investment • Support: decided to recommend staff notes that the effect of include a High priority category Priorities —Table Citizen adoption of the proposed increasing a priority status for Should the Board adopt the citizen comment's recommendation to include a High 8 associated with Table 5.5 Proiect ID 5.5 Pedestrian Comment ' priority changes for Pedestrian a given project or action item priority category associated with Table 5.5 ID BP-3? BP-3 related to 2 na Street / Cook Ave Facilities and • Opposition: Facilities and Associated Cost may place those projects sidewalks in Tumalo? Associated Cost N/A Estimates included in Table 5- before or after other • If yes, the Board may change the BP-3 priority from Medium to High and move — ID BP-3 5, project ID BP-3. identified projects with on to the next issue area.Estimates (pg. 51) relatively similar scope and impacts. • If no, the Board may retain the existing language included in the updated TSP document and move on to the next issue area. ES c®G 2..a 1AA BOARD F COUNTY COMMISSIONERS February 21, 2024 Re: Support for an Imaging Center as part of the La Pine Community Health Center Expansion To Whom it May Concern: The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners supports the establishment of an imaging center as part of the La Pine Community Health Center expansion. The imaging center will greatly benefit the residents of Deschutes County, particularly those in La Pine and surrounding communities, by enhancing access to essential medical services. The provision of diagnostic imaging services is crucial for ensuring timely and accurate medical diagnoses, which in turn enables appropriate treatment and care planning. By establishing an imaging center, the La Pine Community Health Center will not only expand the range of healthcare services available locally but also reduce the need for residents to travel long distances for medical imaging procedures. The County is committed to supporting initiatives that promote health equity and improve healthcare outcomes for all residents of the Deschutes County. The establishment of an imaging center by the La Pine Community Health Center aligns with these objectives and represents a significant step forward in addressing the healthcare needs of County residents. The County fully supports the addition of an imaging center and strongly encourages your funding support for this expansion. We look forward to witnessing the positive impact that the imaging center will have on the health and wellbeing of the residents of Deschutes County. The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Patti Adair Chair Anthony DeBone Vice Chair Phil Chang Commissioner 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, Oregon 97703 (541) 388-6572 board@deschutes.org ® www.deschutes.org �vIES BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS February 21, 2024 Re: Support of Funding Request for Cinder Hollow Affordable Housing Partnership The Honorable Senator Wyden and Senator Merkley: This letter is in support of the City of Redmond's Congressionally Directed Spending request of two million dollars ($2,000,000) for infrastructure funding to serve the Cinder Hollow affordable housing partnership between the City of Redmond and Rooted Homes. In 2023, Redmond purchased this 8.34-acre site from Deschutes County for $247,000 and is now pursuing a housing development with Rooted Homes that will result in at least 30 homeownership opportunities, all for families living at 80% area median income (AMI) or less. Rooted Homes uses the Community Land Trust model, leasing the ground under the homes back to the homeowners through a 99-year renewable land lease, guaranteeing affordability for generations to come. To support the development of a 100% affordable neighborhood, substantial public funding is needed. This $2,000,000 request will help offset the cost of on- and off -site infrastructure that is necessary to serve the property, including sewer collection, water service, stormwater mitigation, fire hydrants, mass grading, slope retainage, streets, and sidewalks. The estimate for this work is $2,394,000. The federal request will be one component of a total project cost expected to exceed $14,000,000 (which includes the original purchase price of $247,000). The project is forecasted to break ground in 2025 and the resulting homes will be fully occupied by homeowners no later than spring 2027. Thank you very much for your consideration of this $2,000,000 funding request. The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Patti Adair Anthony DeBone Phil Chang Chair Vice Chair Commissioner 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, Oregon 97703 (541)388-6572 board@deschutes.org ®www.deschutes.org BOARD OF COUNTY T � Y COMMISSIONERS February 21, 2024 Re: Support for Senate Bill 1537 - One -Time Expansion of Urban Growth Boundaries Dear Members of the Joint Committee on Ways and Means, The Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners strongly support Senate Bill 1537, specifically containing an important one-time provision. Section 48-60 would allow for local governments to collaborate on a one-time expansion of their Urban Growth Boundaries. For regions which have struggled in the past to get through the lengthy and burdensome process, this provision is a limited safety valve that will allow us to address immediate needs. The provision is limited in size and scope and includes restrictions to protect key farmland and environmental resources. As a rapidly growing region, we are all working to stay up to date and provide our residents with adequate and affordable housing. This legislation, and particularly this provision, will help us do so. We strongly urge you to support Senate Bill 1537. Thank you for your consideration. The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Patti Adair Chair Anthony DeBone Vice Chair Phil Chang Commissioner CC: Senators Lynn Findley, Tim Knopp, and Dennis Linthicum Representatives Vikki Breese Iverson, Jason Kropf, Emerson Levy, and E. Werner Reschke 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, Oregon 97703 (541) 388-6572 board@deschutes.org ®www.deschutes.org