Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-06-05 Business Meeting Minutes Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, June 5, 2013 Page 1 of 21 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF BUSINESS MEETING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, JUNE 5, 2013 _____________________________ Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend __________________________ Present were Commissioners Alan Unger, Tammy Baney and Anthony DeBone. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Chris Doty and George Kolb, Road Department; Nick Lelack and Will Groves, Community Development; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; Chris Partain, Finance; Ronda Connor, Personnel; and about thirty other citizens Chair Unger opened the meeting at 10:00 a.m. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. CITIZEN INPUT Before the Board came cadets and student leaders from the Oregon Youth Challenge program. The cadets explained which city they came from, and what they plan to do with their future, which ranged from finishing high school, to joining the service, to attending college. The group began with 160 cadets and now there are 135 slated to graduate on June 19. 3. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2013-018, Completing Legalization Procedures for a Portion of O.B. Riley Road. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, June 5, 2013 Page 2 of 21 Goerge Kolb gave an overview of the item. Chair Unger opened the public hearing, at which time the Board had no conflicts of interest to disclose, and there were no challenges from the public. Citizen Nunzie Gould testified that no wetlands study was done on the river trail, and this is an important component to the environmental aspects of the river. The new Cascades Academy School will be delivering more traffic, and she wanted to know if this was factored into SDC fees. Mr. Kolb stated he does not know about the SDC issue. He explained the work is minimal, being done on the inside curve of O.B. Riley Road and Tumalo Reservoir Road, and is not near the river. It is a separate project from the trails project. It simply sets the center line for O.B. Riley Road as it is used today. Ms. Gould asked if the center line is being redefined, how that would relate to the bridge. Mr. Kolb responded that the center line is not changing from what it is now. This just formally establishes the center line of the existing road as the center line of the right of way. This was established in 1908 through a metes and bounds description. If it cannot be traced, there has to be a legalization process. The road itself is not changing. The inside radius may be widened to allow for truck traffic and storm drain issues. This sets the painted striped line as the center of the road. Public notice and property owner notice was done per statute. Ms. Gould said that she wants to be kept informed of this kind of thing. No one seems to be aware of it. The exterior corridor with truck traffic, additional mining and other things are on their radar. Peter Russell said SDC’s were assessed when the school’s application was handled. Ms. Gould further asked whether the costs are factored in when they move forward. The County needs to be diligent in analyzing what these changes mean. She does not think the County is collecting the cost of growth needs, taking into account the eco-system, the river corridor and other things that need to be considered. Chair Unger said that this item is not a part of the concerns she expressed today. This is just putting on paper what is on the ground already, and a very simple matter. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, June 5, 2013 Page 3 of 21 Commissioner Baney added that establishing a center line on a road that already exists is not something that should concern the community. There will be a time to discuss the other concerns voiced today. Commissioner DeBone stated that it was pointed out to him that there is potential for bicycle/truck problems in that general area, and the Board is kept aware of what is going on in the community. Being no further testimony offered, the hearing was closed. BANEY: Move approval. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. 4. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of Approval of the Community Development Department’s Annual Report, and Work Plan for Fiscal Year 2013-14. Nick Lelack said there is a lot of interest in the Annual Report and Work Plan this year. He provided a PowerPoint presentation (a copy of which is attached for reference). Some items are meant to address the amount of livestock allowed on small property; temporary dwellings; and other recommendations or concerns coming in from the public. Chair Unger said there was carryover from last year as well; he asked if this is flexible. Mr. Lelack stated that the Work Plan identifies pro jects that they expect to begin; but there may be others to be addressed, depending on staffing and other resources, and with the guidance of the Board. The workload for the department has finally increased significantly; about 40% for building permits and others similarly; and Code enforcement complaints are up 10-12% as well. Commissioner Baney said that Attorney Paul Dewey had voiced concerns about fees. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, June 5, 2013 Page 4 of 21 Chair Unger opened the public hearing. Attorney Bruce White said he is not representing anyone today. He is interested in the rural lands reclassification issue, which he has been waiting for a long time. He hopes there are more than discussions, and that it will end up with some action. Mr. Unger stated that the interface with the State makes it slow and difficult to move forward on some issues. Nunzie Gould stated that it is important to prioritize living wage jobs – good jobs that allow people to afford to live here. Under Natural Resources, there should be a new bullet point, wildlife inventories. This is what brought her to this area. As population increases, these resources need to be protected and prioritized. There needs to be support for growth where there is already infrastructure. If city sewer systems are not connected, they don’t need to create another non-connected development. The concept should be putting development within cities first to be served by infrastructure that is already there. In regard to tracking resorts, she encouraged that prior to adding new resorts or changing housing density in existing resorts, that the County implement the tracking system. The Board is currently reviewing legislation that increases housing by 20% but there is no tracking mechanism. The County can’t rely on the resorts to report to it. Their statistics probably do not meet the law. This creates bigger, sprawling subdivisions. Regarding groundwater issues, surface water is connected. Updating wetland inventory is important, especially around Tumalo State Park and that area. None of that inventory has been established by the community. Bringing density to an area with no sewer system. She has noted applications to reduce setbacks on property next to rivers. As things move towards a hotter global climate, these setbacks should not be allowed. This is not good resource management or community stewardship. In regard to equine facilities, she noted a complaint in May regarding an equine event that is a commercial event. If the Board is to promote equestrian goals within the County, there needs to be clarity on what kinds of events are to be allowed and whether they meet State law. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, June 5, 2013 Page 5 of 21 William Kuhn stated that he has three items to discuss. One is the situation with wildlife and landscape management overlay zones. If there is no conditional use in place on a property, there is nothing prohibiting the owner of that land to do what they want with the vegetation. This needs to be on the record and a simple ordinance could address this. He said this may be flighty, but asked for a prohibition of citizen drones in wildlife overlay zones. He wanted to raise the level of importance of the bullet point on page 21, initiating a text amendment to prohibit the issuance of permits on properties that have not yet met conditions of approval. It has been ten years since he recommended this, and it is time for it to be done. Malcolm Brown, who lives in Auburn Washington, is trying to move here. Specifically he asked about: adding yurts to the temporary dwelling classification. He has a problem with this. State building code officials say they are allowed in parks only, but every county can make an exception. He talked to someone in October who said it was okay, so he bought one and put it up in January. Someone reported this as a Code violation and he has now been told he can’t live in it. He called an official and was told again it was okay. The Code is really old. Yurts are efficient and structurally well-designed. He would like to find out if it is possible they can be allowed. His property is in La Pine and he can’t use it at this time. Sharon Sampson stated that they went bankrupt and lost two homes, and RV and a truck, and are living in a foreclosed home now. Based on the original information given, they went ahead and bought a yurt. They are retired and now don’t know what to do. Chair Unger advised them to talk to Mr. Lelack in Community Development. Being no further testimony offered, the hearing was closed. Chair Unger said that he feels the work plan is flexible. Commissioner DeBone added that the process works well, they have had a lot of input over time, and it is adaptable when it needs to be. DEBONE: Move approval. BANEY: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, June 5, 2013 Page 6 of 21 5. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2013-020, an Update to the Deschutes County Transportation System Development Charge Methodology . Chris Doty gave a PowerPoint presentation at this time (a copy of which is attached for reference). Chair Unger opened the public hearing. Andy High of the Central Oregon Builders’ Association, and a member of the SDC committee, stated that the community process was very complete and the members are diverse. Coming to consensus is difficult but thorough. It took about a year. He would like to see a few changes, one on abandonment being more than two years; the City of Bend offers ten years. People should get credit for this. He would also like to see the deferral process allow more time. He said that the Board should vote on inflation increases and not have it be automatic. He thinks the blended rate policy should be cleared up, as he feels they are overcollecting on the SDC fees. This is a compromise. Tia Lewis, representing Arrowood/Tetherow, said that staff worked hard on this ordinance and she and her clients support the process and results. It was a big effort and was done fairly. She requested they look at the transportation SDC’s at Tetherow. One issue there is that the single family dwelling units, not overnight units, are paying to the City and County. It is affecting the ability of Tetherow to be competitive. Arrowood Development is working on a Tetherow project and another location. They are similar but it is costing $20,000 per unit at one and $12,000 at the other. They asked that the transportation SDC charges to single family dwellings be analyzed. They ran some numbers and think it equates to about 400 units, less than the maximu m approved for Tetherow. This comes to about $1.2 million. When Tetherow was constructed, the developers built about $4 million in public transportation improvements, not the interior areas. The majority of transportation infrastructure is dedicated to the public. The County portion of Metolius Road and Skyline Ranch Road were built to full collector status. There are two to three units per acre. Those improvements are not eligible for transportation SDC reimbursement due to the timing. At the time, they agreed to pay City SDC's, and the County did not have this in place. There is no mechanism to seek reimbursement, and the timing of the previous transportation SDC ordinance was during when the development was on hard times and nothing was happening. She asked that they do not adopt the ordinance at this time in order for them to meet with the County to discuss this further. Don Bauhofer, representing Arrowood, reiterated Ms. Lewis' statements. In 2005 and 2006, when they were negotiating with the City, the property was within the UGB, so both City and County had jurisdiction. They needed to work out an arrangement with the City to establish sewer and water services. They wish to annex the property into the City. They thought at the time that there would be no County SDC's. In 2008, they were considering transferring the property back to lenders, but now the builders of homes in the project have a much higher burden. He understands how the system works. However, there is a problem for those who are building the homes and those buying them. They spent $4 million to put in public roads in the area, with no expectation of reimbursement but also no expectation of County SDC's. Bruce White spoke on behalf of several of the entities who were not in the picture as owners in 2008. BRE Crescent and Lodge Homes own some of the lots in the area. They were a lender and now are owners. They were not around in 2008 to get involved in the discussion. They have the same fairness concerns. Tetherow is a unique situation as the only place paying double road SDC's, so this would not set precedence. It is not like any other destination resort or development in the area in this way. There is a way to explain this to any others, who would only be paying one road SDC. When the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1996, it talked about providing water and sewer to destination resorts. This was adopted by both the City and County. Both stated that sewer and water "shall" be provided. There was an expectation this would happen. The documents approving Tetherow do not discuss who pays what SDC's. This came after the approval. To say that there was a trade-off at the time is erroneous; the developer was working with the framework as it existed then. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, June 5, 2013 Page 7 of21 Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, June 5, 2013 Page 8 of 21 This is an awkward position, a question of who gives it up, the City or County. Not much movement is seen on the part of the City. Tetherow is so integrated into the City’s transportation network, it makes sense that the City gets this since most of the trips would be on city streets. That part of the Westside Consortium contributed to the bridge, which is in the City. They may use County roads as well, but that is true of everyone in the area regardless where they live. He would appreciate the Board making a decision in the context of this information. Steve Hultberg said he is a member of the SDC committee both times, but is speaking for himself. He also represents some resorts, but is not talking about those. He apologized for last-minute testimony. The double payment of SDC’s is an issue. There is history on this. In 2008, he proposed a trip generation rate of .32. It came into play through traffic studies of other destination resorts. This is less than 1.01 which was adopted for single family residential in 2008. Subsequent to the 2008 adoption, it became clear that although the methodology was based on .32, it was not adopted into ordinance. Dest ination resorts under Goal 8 have been overpaying by about 69% of their trip generation factor. The blended rate addresses some of this, but it means someone is paying less and someone is paying more than they should. Destination resorts are significantly overpaying. There is a reduction to the current rate, but it is not justified. In 2010 there was a staff recommendation to adjust the rate, but not acceptable to the Board at the time. There is a solution. Use the .32 trip factor for the Goal 8 destination resorts. There are a limited number of units to which this would apply. It is a reflection of what they should be paying. They can keep the blended rate, to pick up secondary homes in particular. Resorts have a fixed traffic generation that is easier to figure out. There needs to be some equity. He would like to work with staff to see if they can come up with better figures. Another thing to look at is that destination resorts pay a disproportionate share of taxes. They may be used infrequently and not occupied, but they pay the same as a fully-occupied family home. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, June 5, 2013 Page 9 of 21 Ms. Gould stated that she has been an advocate for SDC’s for a long time. The point .32 on resorts was a farce and she commends the work previously done. The blended rate is a farce also. How do you know how many are vacant or full-time? To do special exemptions for some resorts is not wise. Tumalo needs infrastructure changes, and as you add density, you add more vehicles, and this relates to safety. She would also like a break. She doesn’t have children in school, and hasn’t had a fire. However, everyone should pay for the betterment of the community. The monitoring of data is a problem. The next resort may come in and ask for the same consideration. Simple tracking of whether a home is secondary or primary is impossible. The impact is what happens and she does not recommend a blended rate. The long range plan should include charging the full residential rate as part of the SDC’s. Chris Doty explained that the blended rate; resorts do generate fewer trips in general. They do so because they have a lot of secondary homes in the developments. The issue is that builders pay the SDC’s, not the resorts. They don’t exclude primary homes in their boundaries. There will be low end and high end users. The trip generation rate is a blended rate. It is impossible to know the difference on occupancy. There are different types of users; retired folks or a household with three teenagers. You have to average. If a resort wants to pay for SDC’s up front. Regarding collection and taxes, the Road Department gets revenue from the State highway fund, primarily from gas tax. This computes to the number of registered vehicles in the County. Not too many secondary homes have one of these vehicles, so they lose out on this at Road. There are winners and losers no matter how you look at it. In regard toTetherow, there is a $26,000 bill for a unit which includes all the City and County SDC’s and other permits. This is apples and oranges. This bill includes water SDC’s and sewer SDC’s. They pay for those services. That is infrastructure that was not built by Tetherow. Eagle Crest and Sunriver had to put in their own and continue to operate them. There is tremendous value to Tetherow having that infrastructure in place. The City is not likely to exempt any of their fee. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, June 5, 2013 Page 10 of 21 Tetherow did sign an annexation agreement, but that would mean higher tax rates to them. Five years of this lower rate equals about the SDC’s that would be paid to the County. Commissioner Baney asked about methodology and whether it includes the .32 from the resorts. Mr. Doty replied that the prior methodology did include this. Commissioner Baney noted that in 2008 it was based on expert input, and not just a guess. Chair Unger said they talked about this yesterday at a work session and he thought a discussion with Tetherow mi ght be appropriate. He asked about continuing the conversation and then moving forward with the result. There is no way to just disconnect these. Mr. Doty said that they assumed 1% growth, not a full build out of Tetherow. This reflects annexations as well. He does not propose revisiting the numbers . What would be most pertinent would be to exempt Tetherow out of it. It is 5% if full built-out. Commissioner DeBone asked about the investment of the existing roads. Commissioner Baney stated she prefers the conversation to be another time. It is too hard to make this determination today. Also, she wanted to consider as they look at Section 4, the existing use; she wondered about extenuating circumstances or grandfathering. Perhaps there is something that allows the Board an option should this happen, so they could hear more. There are unique situations occasionally that are not expected. Mr. Doty stated that the appeal process results in that. It ultimately could come to the Board. They could allow staff some leverage for extenuating circumstances on some things. Commissioner Baney said she doesn’t want to make it difficult for staff. But someone may not know they can appeal. Also, she asked about the possibility of them wanting to go higher than 4%. Maybe they should look at this every few years. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, June 5, 2013 Page 11 of 21 Mr. Doty noted that there are some automatic provisions, and others are prohibited by State law. They can increase this based on an inflation factor, a cost index for construction, published monthly. On January 1 each year they look at the prior year numbers. It has been negative at some times. To arbitrarily increase is a methodology adjustment that is covered by State law. Commissioner DeBone said he supports the methodology, as they need the investment in transportation. The infrastructure is needed even though it may not be used all the time. Commissioner Unger stated he also supports the methodology. The hearing was continued to the Wednesday, June 12 business meeting. 6. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2013-046, Adopting the Deschutes County Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2013-14. Chris Edleston said that there is a reduced request of an increase from 3.5% to 2.5% for Community Development. This was the only change. Commissioner Baney stated that there was a comment on this from Central Oregon LandWatch and Paul Dewey that raised concerns. Commissioner Unger noted that the fees are based on the cost of doing business, and reflect the time it takes to get the work done. Commissioner Baney feels this provides a balance. Chair Unger opened the hearing. Andy High of COBA said he appreciates the work done with COBA. The amount has increased a total of 7.5% over the past few years, and he appreciates the adjustment on the appeal fees since some appeals are submitted simply to slow or stop the process. Chair Unger said that the County tries to work with citizens to educate, listen and adjust if appropriate. Being no further testimony offered, the hearing was closed. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, June 5, 2013 Page 12 of 21 BANEY: Move approval. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. 7. Before the Board was Consideration of First and Second Readings by Title Only, and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2013-008, Amending Deschutes County Code to Change the Ratio of Overnight to Residential Units in Destination Resorts, with an Emergency Clause Allowing for an Effective Date of July 5, 2013. Chair Unger said that the emergency clause is to recognize that cities have a 30 day delay and counties 90 days. Will Groves gave an overview of the item. He said this was verbally approved by the Board, and there are two versions of the ordinances: one for 30 days and one for immediate adoption. The applicant has a chain of events to complete before construction, and this would provide some benefit to them during the building season. Commissioner Baney noted that aligning with the cities is reasonable. Laurie Craghead said that Title 19 does not allow the 30 day extension, and they are further into the building season. The Board can do a straight emergency clause. This process has taken longer than anticipated. They still have to apply for CMP and FMP amendments, if the Board wants to take this into consideration. Commissioner Unger asked if any of this can run concurrently. Mr. Grov es said that the applicant can’t do construction until this process is complete. There are a lot of things to do before this happens. Commissioner Baney recommended the thirty-day timing. She did not hear a significant reason why this would cause a major problem. BANEY: Move first and second readings by title only, declaring an emergency, with the effective date to be July 5, 2013. DEBONE: Second. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, June 5, 2013 Page 13 of 21 VOTE: BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. Chair Unger conducted the first and second readings, by title only. BANEY: Move adoption by emergency, with the effective date to be July 5, 2013. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. 8. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Employee Benefits Advisory Committee’s Recommended Changes to the Health Benefits Plan. Ronda Connor said that the proposed changes equal about an $800,000 savings to the plan. Mr. Kropp added that they need to generate more revenue or they have to cut costs. EBAC was given a target of $400,000 and came back with $800,000 from both sources. This will mean increases to employees and dependents, and cutting back costs. Chair Unger thanked EBAC for understanding the need. They are trying to find ways to continue the program. Commissioner Baney said that health benefits are hard to talk about, because it usually means reductions. They want to keep the program healthy. It is difficult work that EBAC takes seriously. Some sacred cows have had to be addressed. Ms. Connor noted that this is the best group they have had, all working towards the goal of a good plan. The July payroll will show a fee of $90. Prescription co-pays go into effect on August 1. Mr. Anderson added that the recommen ded budget was for $400,000 in savings, and they will leave that in place. The change to $800,000 won’t change the departments’ charges; it will just help with the benefit plan ’s bottom line. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, June 5, 2013 Page 14 of 21 BANEY: Move approval of the changes to the plan. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda. BANEY: Move approval of the Consent Agenda. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. Consent Agenda Items 9. Chair Signature of a Letter Designating Central Oregon Mediation, Inc. as Grantee to Receive Oregon Community Dispute Resolution Funds 10. Signature of Documents relating to Software Agreements with Accela, Inc., in Conjunction with the State of Oregon and Community Development (Document Nos. 2013-259, -260, -261 and -262) 11. Approval of County Administrator Signature of Document No. 2013 -300, an Intergovernmental Agreement with the State of Oregon regarding Utilization of the State’s Permitting System 12. Chair Signature of Document Nos. 2013-297, -298 and -299, State Early Learning Davison Funding Documents 13. Chair Signature of Document No. 2013-264, an Addendum to the Lease Agreement with the State Water Resources Department regarding an Extension to August 30, 2013 14. Chair Signature of Document No. 2013-183, an Addendum to a Real Estate Sale Agreement with Biogreen Sustainable Energy Co., Extending the Timeframe Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, June 5, 2013 Page 15 of 21 CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 15. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2013-048, Adopting the 9-1-1 County Service District Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2013-14. Chair Unger opened the public hearing. Chris Partain said changes were requested from FY 2012-13, which were discussed at the May 1 work session. Being no other testimony offered, Chair Unger closed the hearing. DEBONE: Move approval. BANEY: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. 16. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of $27,141.97. DEBONE: Move approval, subject to review. BANEY: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION AND 4-H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 17. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2013-051, Adopting the Deschutes County Extension and 4-H County Service District Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2013-14. Chair Unger opened the public hearing. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, June 5, 2013 Page 16 of 21 Chris Partain said there are no changes to the fee schedule. Being no other testimony offered, Chair Unger closed the hearing. DEBONE: Move approval. BANEY: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. 18. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-H County Service District in the Amount of $19,472.28. DEBONE: Move approval, subject to review. BANEY: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE BLACK BUTTE RANCH COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 19. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2013-047, Adopting the Fiscal Year 2013-14 Fee Schedule for the Black Butte Ranch County Service District. Chair Unger opened the public hearing. Chris Partain said changes no changes were requested. Being no other testimony offered, Chair Unger closed the hearing. DEBONE: Move approval. BANEY: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, June 5, 2013 Page 17 of 21 CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE SUNRIVER SERVICE DISTRICT 20. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2013-052, Adopting the Fiscal Year 2013-14 Fee Schedule for the Sunriver Service District. Chair Unger opened the public hearing. Chris Partain said changes were requested from FY 2012-13, which were discussed at the May 1 work session. Being no other testimony offered, Chair Unger closed the hearing. DEBONE: Move approval. BANEY: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF DESCHUTES COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT DISTRICT #1 21. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2013-049, Adopting the Fiscal Year 2013-14 Fee Schedule for Deschutes County Law Enforcement District #1. Chair Unger opened the public hearing. Chris Partain said changes were requested from FY 2012-13, which were discussed at the May 1 work session. Being no other testimony offered, Chair Unger closed the hearing. DEBONE: Move approval. BANEY: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, June 5, 2013 Page 18 of 21 CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF DESCHUTES COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT DISTRICT #2 22. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2013-046, Adopting the Fiscal Year Fee 2013-14 Fee Schedule for Deschutes County Law Enforcement District #2. Chair Unger opened the public hearing. Chris Partain said changes no changes were requested.. Being no other testimony offered, Chair Unger closed the hearing. DEBONE: Move approval. BANEY: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 23. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $335,485.77. DEBONE: Move approval, subject to review. BANEY: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. 24. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Discussion took place regarding HB 3536. In reviewing this, it was thought that the Board was going to support the program, but through the local County process. The State land use process does not require the subject property to meet requirements. The County does not necessarily agree with the proposal, but it appears this excludes the County’s process. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, June 5, 2013 Page 19 of 21 Mr. Anderson said that the proposed legislation proposes waiving the local process. The County has asked to remain involved. It would be the same land use process as if they were eligible, land-use wise. They would be logistically able to move forward with the establishment of a destination resort. Commissioner Baney said if the legislature allows it and they can meet the requirements for traffic and other things, the legal i ssues come in regarding compatibility. Chair Unger said that he heard on Monday that there is a hearing today. This is not much of an opportunity for a public process. He is not sure of the context of the bill. It requires the County to approve it without the full local proce ss. Commissioner Baney stated she wants to be sure they meet the mitigating factors that are not addressed in the bill. Commissioner DeBone said he spoke with Matt Cyrus today, and was told there can be amendments. Using the County process opens it up to appeals, which after all this time and expense they are trying to avoid again. He is not sure where this will end up. Commissioner Baney said they need to give direction to staff so they will know what to talk about. She understands the County won’t stand in the way, but impacts need to be mitigated at the local level. If it is a conditional use, it will be the same scenario as before. Either they shouldn’t agree at all, or should go with the legislative fix with County oversight. Mr. Anderson feels an outright use eliminates the land use process. They can only review impacts and have them mitigated if nec essary. Along with that local review is the ability to appeal. Chair Unger said that there is no easy solution. The property owners went to the legislature to deal with it. The last minute nature of it is frustr ating. Commissioner Baney stated that it is no surprise. It seemed to be the only option for them. They have gone through a long process locally already. The desire was there to break the gridlock. They tried working through it and were not successful. The criteria is based on State land use planning laws. Mr. Lelack noted that the County tried to be careful to not subject them to onerous requirements. The challenges are significant. With the application submission is a section called conditional use permit. This is not a standard. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, June 5, 2013 Page 20 of 21 The bill would provide the standards. The only other piece is complying with mitigation standards. It is not a destination resort per se, but a heritage guest ranch, recreational in nature. It does not have all the destination resort standards. He said the threshold question is whether it is a guest ranch or a destination resort regarding compatibility issues. They can work on Code through this bill to address this. There is a way to get there. Chair Unger stated that it prescribes a type of destination resort without discussion or adjustments, and no working through the issues. He wants them to be successful, but wonders if this means 400 homes plus an RV park. There are a lot of things in this bill that should have been analyzed. Commissioner Baney said if the legislature agrees to put this through, they could leave out the local voice. She prefers that if it does pass, that there be as much protection in it as possible. Deschutes County needs protection in the development part. She hopes to see those things in there to at least leave it neutral. Commissioner DeBone noted that the interested parties have been working on this for many years. They are ready to move quickly now. They have been very good long-time supporters of the community. Commissioner Baney said she can’t support this as written, and it needs amendments. She asked if this is enough direction to staff. Mr. Lelack stated that Matt Cyrus wants to find a path forward to include some County standards. He realizes this could set precedence for others. Chair Unger suggested they try to get together with the parties and see if some changes can be included. Being no further items discussed, the meeting adjourned at 1:05 p.m. DATED this U Day of ~ 2013 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioner~ ~tbr= Alan Unger, Chair ~ Tammy Baney, Vice Chair ATTEST: Anthony DeBone, Commissioner ~~ Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, June 5,2013 Page 21 of21 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest __---=a'_6 ~=---+L-~________ Date -S -r 3 Name Ji 0-L~(S Address 3CQ\J Sw ~~t Phone#s _________________________ E-mail address __1 \~I ~S C--~~=-=----==--_______--L-....:!....--.--::..:=..$-----=-~V0:....=0.~, C <J t'Y\ ~InFavor D NeutrallUndecided D Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? DYes ~o BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest ~. S Date 6 ' J-' /"J Name ==-DO"-' ~w.twCt Address 5"II ,.()tU fJ ttk :=6 ..R", J 072 271tJ I / Phone #s Jl// -'I' / 9 -8 2fJ ? E-mail address clba~~flr #) p ~NAJ'r~' C o;V\ G-InFavor D NeutrallUndecided D Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? DYes EJ-No ------------------------------------------ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK C OD Mlr~ Pitt,.} Agenda Item of Interest T(i"Le( S D .s -RulA..r). S~LI Date b/ t'/2.0t 1 /, L z.-, ,f-e,wt 0Name Bv I.J(e w (." Tt I Phone #s G\.·q ) .~~1. -2..0~..)- E-mail address D . In Favor D NeutrallUndecided D Opposed Submitting written documents as part of te stimony? DYes D No BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest _~Date 6/(0/ I)~.!-.Ao""---_________ Name s\ew ~lA \~ Address Yo :t:f 2CXJJ ~0, 1"01 Phone#s ___________________________________ E-mail address __________________________________ D In Favor Q3 NeutrallUndecided D Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? .18f Yes D No BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REOUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest ~O/~~ Date ~-s '/~ Name 4U-tLtlL/I1~fl S~~~,f"'S.?AJ Address ~c;5 ~c.h I)'/~~= ~*. E-mail address InFavorg D NeutrallUndecided D Opposed / . Submitting written documents as part of testimony? D Yes ~No BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING Agenda Item of Interest Name ~t(l\~ Yv k~ I /'Phone#s ___________________________________________ E-mail address W([{t~& Ktc:;{<. F~ior-, L~ D In Favor D NeutrallUndecided D Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? DYes D No BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest C i)\) W<L--lt. ft.a.~_ Date Ii<;!UJ l3 Name ~"'-V\~ QQu.,U Ots Q,eGa \ (2 . ') Address {q 8l(~--:JvJ t'~\t'-., F--J (~~ 2)-Q q'lo~ Phone#s ~Lj(-L{~{) 3S~S- E-mailaddress1\Lth~ ~ ~Qc,\~', ~ D In Favor D Neutral/Undecided t,&1Y"~sed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? DYes D No Agenda Item of Interest _--"-!2:-'-. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK __-t__b_______ Date ____ Name A~&~ ~~(~ Address ______________________ Phone#s ______________________ E-mail address ____________________ D In Favor IAI NeutrallUndecided D Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? D Yes ~No Road Department 61150 SE 27th St.• Bend. Oregon 97702 (541) 388-6581 • FAX (541) 388-2719 MEMORANDUM OATE: April 2. 2010 TO: Board of County Commissioners Oave Kanner. County Administrator FROM: Tom Blust, Oirector RE: Transportation SOC for Destination Resorts Background: The Board adopted a Resolution establishing a transportation system development charge (SOC) in July of 2008. This Resolution included adoption of a transportation system development study (SOC methodology) as the basis for establishing the SOC fees. The SOC methodology established trip generation rates and corresponding SOC's for various land uses. including residential. Separate trip generation figures for single family dwellings located within destination resorts and outside destination resorts were identified and used in the SOC methodology for the trip growth calculation and the recommended SOC. However. the trip generation rate table in the SOC methodology includes only a trip generation rate for single family dwellings and does not distinguish a trip generation rate and SOC for single family dwellings within destination resorts. The SOC rate in the table has been applied to Single family dwellings both within and outside of destination resorts. This discrepancy has raised two issues: 1) Should the County amend the SOC rate table to include a separate trip generation rate and corresponding SOC for single family dwellings within destination resorts? 2) Should applicants that paid the single family dwelling SOC rate for dwellings within destination resorts qualify for a reimbursement? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the trip generation rate for Single family dwellings within destination resorts used for calculating SOC charges should correspond with the figures used in the trip growth calculation in the methodology report for single family dwellings within destination resorts and that such trip generation rate and corresponding SOC should be established. Attached is a draft resolution that would amend the original SOC resolution to add the destination resort rate. soc -Destination Resorts Page 2 ot2 Staff further recommends that the county not reimburse any SOC funds already collected. The SOC's paid were not in error -they were paid at the rate established in the original SOC resolution. The original SOC resolution has not been appealed nor has there been an appeal of the SOC's already collected. The table below shows the current SOC rate for SF detached housing and the proposed destination resort rate: I ITE Peak· Pass-By Adjusted code Customer Type land Use Description Hour Trip P-HTs SOC Trips Factor 210 SF Detached Single family detached houslna 1.01 1 1.01 $3,583 NJA Destination Resort. Single family detached housing within 0.32 1 0.32 $1,136SF Detached a destination reeort UnitS DU OU To date (from October 1,2008) the County has collected SOC's on approximately ten dwelling units in destination resorts. REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL For Recording Stamp Only BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES. COUNTY, OREGON A Resolution amending Resolution 2008-059 to • add a Trip Generation Category for Destination • RESOLUTION NO. 2010·<> Resort SF Dwelling to the Transportation System • Development Charges WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Board of CQUDty Commissioners ("Board") adopted Resoluti')n 2008-059 on July 23, 2008 establishing a transportatiori:sxst~m development charge ("SOC") to help fund transportation projects that are necessary to serve the existin8l:Pld growth-related transportation needs in the unincorporated areas of the county; and .; g:. . \' WHEREAS, Resolution 2008-059 approved and adopted a Transportation System Development Study, prepared by FCS Group, dated March 2008, (herein "SOC Methodology") as .the basis for establishing a transportation SOC; and WHEREAS, Resolution 2008-059 establishes trip generation rates and corresponding SDC's for various land uses, including residential; a~d ' WHEREAS, trip ,n..e.r~tion figures for single family (SF) dwellings located either within or outside destination resorts wasidcftified and used in the SOC Methodology for the trip growth calculation and tile recommended SOC-and 'iii'it,'{,t . WHEREAS, the trip generation rate table in the SDC Methodology includes a trip generation rate for all SF dwellings, but does not distinguish a trip generation rate and SOC for SF dwellings within destination resorts; and WHEREAS, the trip generation rate for SF dwellings within destination resorts used for calculating SOC charges should correspond with the figures used in the trip growth calculation in the methodology report for SF dwellings within destination resorts and that such trip generation rate and a corresponding SOC should he established; now, therefore. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, as follows: (\ Section 1. The table on pages 9 and 10 of Exhibit "A", Resolution 2008·059, shall be amended to add the following category: . ITE code Customer Type Land Use Descriplion Peak·Hour Trips Pass-By Trip Factor Adjusted P·HTs SOC Units Destination Resort. SF Detached Single family detached housing within a destinatiOn resort 0,32 1 0.32 $1,136 DU Page 1 of 2 Resolution 2010-< > III Section 2. FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. Except as provided in this resolution, Resolution 2008-059 remains in full force and effect. Section 3. EFFECTIVE. This resolution is effective immediately upon adoption by the Board of County Commissioners. DATED this __day of____,___.....;, 2010. . .­ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY. OREGON DENNIS R. LUKE. Chair ALAN UNGER, Vice Chair ATTEST: Recording Secretary TAMMY BANEY. Commissioner Page 2 of2 --Resolution 2010-< > .. '-,'-, - Deschutes County Transportation SDC Study I DRAFT]Customer Data: Trip Growth Table 2 Trip Growth estimated From Residential Development and Population Change ------------_.--_._--_ •. _--­ Development Type Dwellings [1] Trip Factor [21 Peak-Hour TriDS SinJl,le..Family Residential 25101 1.01 25352 Multi-Family Residential 177 0.62 110 ~ation Resorts 7484 0.32 2,395 Totals 32,762 27,817 2005 Uninoo 53032.0 2025Uninoo 81951.0 Estimated 2007 Uninoo ulation 55 391.1 ulation 85596.5 1.545 So\KC8: DeschI.Ites County 2000-2025 Coordinated Population Forecast. ------Itlal Development .----_._ .... -.•._...... Development Type DwellinGS 131 Trip Factor (21 Peak-Hour Trips Single-Family Residential 38789 1.01 39177 Multi-Family Residential 274 0.62 170 Destination Resorts 11565 0.32 3701 Totals 50,628 43,047 ITotal Growth in County-Wide P.M. Peak-HourTrlps, 2007;'2027 15,190.81 NOTES: (1) Source: Deschutes County Community Development Department (December 2007). (2) Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition. (3) Based on escalating the number of 2007 developments to 2027 based on the 2007-2027 population growth factor. FCSGROUP 312812008 (425) 867·1802 10-SOC Model Trans 031308 DRAFT Trip Data -Page 2 DESCHUTES COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT SDC UPDATE, RESOLUTION 2013 -020 BOCC WORK SESSION: MAY 8, 2013 PUBLIC HEARING: JUNE 5, 2013 Why the Update?: New TSP  New CIP (+ Revised Growth Projections)  New System Development Charge Process Used?: SDC Committee reviewed new project list, revised growth projections, and prior methodology decisions to arrive at consensus*. Work Products: Resolution 2013 -020 (supplement to 2008 -059) Exhibit A: Methodology Report Exhibit A -1: CDD Growth Rate Projection (2010 to 2030) Exhibit B: 2012 Transportation CIP List (per TSP) Exhibit C: Transportation SDC Rate Sheet Exhibit D: SDC Policy Issues Memorandum (February 12, 2013) TRANSPORTATION SDC UPDATE 1. Achieve methodology consistency (resort vs non -resort or primary vs secondary) 2. Evaluate “reimbursement” portion of SDC 3. Address home occupation SDC rates 4. Clarify transferability 5. Clarify abandonment of use 6. How to address “change of use” 7. Address ITE Trip Generation Manual updates 8. Other issues raised by the Committee These issues have been addressed within the proposed SDC methodology itself or clarified within the new SDC Resolution 2013 -020. ADDITIONAL CHARGE OF SDC COMMITTEE Transportation SDC* (per PM Peak Hour Trip) = SDC METHODOLOGY RES 2008 -059 *Improvement SDC portion only Transportation SDC (per PM Peak Hour Trip) = SDC METHODOLOGY RES 2008 -059 = $3,549 (incl $45 admin cost recovery portion, 1.28% of SDC) Note: Current SDC is $3,673 due to inflation adjustments 2009 to 2012 Note: SDC would automatically increase 4% to $3,820 on July 1, 2013, per ENR inflation index New Data: Census Data Population Growth less than 1% for past 12 years Permit Data From 2.8% per year (2000 -2007) To 0.6% per year (2008 -2012) Planning estimate for 2010 to 2030: 1.0% annual growth rate in unincorporated area. REVISED GROWTH PROJECTION Create a “blended” trip generation rate for ALL units in Deschutes County as follows: Per known residential data: Deschutes County contains 74% Primary homes and 26% Secondary homes. Using ITE Rates for both Single Family units (#210) and Recreational units (#260) create a blended rate: 74 x 1.0 trips/unit + 26 x 0.26 trips/unit = 81 trips/ 100 units or 0.81 trips per unit. Proposal: The trip generation rate of 0.81 PM peak hour trips/dwelling unit would apply to all residential units, regardless of whether or not they are located in a Destination Resort. SDC METHODOLOGY CONCEPT PROPOSAL FOR RESIDENTIAL TRIP GENERATION # of Units # of PM Peak Hour Trips (0.81 trips/unit) Existing Residential Units 31,013 25,120 Projected 20-year growth in Residential Units (at 1% annual growth) 37,836 30,645 System Growth 6,823 5,525 Residential Growth’s % of 20-year value 18% PROPOSED BACKGROUND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM USE AND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM GROWTH CALCULATION Note: Non -residential (commercial) trips have accounted for 5 to 10% of SDC collections since inception. Factoring a 10% increase due to non -residential trips places the estimate of 20 -year growth in the transportation system at 6,078 PM Peak Hour Trips. Review Handout. Projects obtained via 2012 TSP Update. Projects in green are carry -over from prior list. Revised/Revisited Cost Estimates. Prioritized (H -M -L). Includes new category for State Segments (not just intersections). DISCUSS/REVIEW PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN SDC ELIGIBLE COST ALLOCATIONS Project Category Project Cost % SDC Eligible Total $ SDC Eligible Project Cost % SDC Eligible Total $ SDC Eligible County Int Projects $5.0M 100% $5.0M $7.08M 100% $7.08M System Management $0.2M 0% $0 $0.2M 0% $0 State Highway Segs not incl not incl not incl $125.10M 0% $0 State Highway Ints $175.0M 5.3% (35.3% of 15%) $9.3M $115.55M 2.7% (18% of 15%) $3.12M County New Segs $20.1M 100% $20.1M $3.46M 100% $3.46M County Mod Projects $50.2M 35.3% $17.7M $34.49M 18% $6.21M Forest Hwy Projects $25.4M 0% $0 $15.4M 10% $1.54M Bike/Ped Projects $0.6M 0% $0 $0.57M 0% $0 Bridge Projects $3.2M 35.3% $1.1M $3.44M 18% $0.62M TOTAL Project Cost $279.5M $53.2M $305.3M $22.03M Transportation SDC (per PM Peak Hour Trip) = PROPOSED SDC (IMPROVEMENT) = $3,672 (incl $47 admin cost recovery portion, 1.28% of SDC) Per initial SDC committee recommendation and supporting information in Resolution 2008 -059: “Due to the fact that the existing County transportation system has been funded by a combination of tax sources and other “general” funds, the County should forgo charging a reimbursement fee as a part of its initial transportation SDC. A reimbursement fee methodology or formula should be included in the analysis and report in order to allow the County to add a reimbursement fee when it later develops a basis for such a fee”. Methodology (per March 2008 SDC study): Reimbursement SDC = REIMBURSEMENT SDC CONSIDERATION =Cost of assets funded by previously paid SDC improvement fees($) Growth in system capacity demand (in peak hour trips) Deschutes County has expended $525,000 in SDC revenue on capital projects from FY 2008/09 to present. If a Reimbursement SDC were considered at this time, it would calculate as follows: Reimbursement SDC = $525,000 / 6,078 PM peak hour trips Reimbursement SDC = $86 per PM peak hour trip REIMBURSEMENT SDC CONSIDERATION Transportation SDC (per PM Peak Hour Trip) = TOTAL PROPOSED SDC (IMPROVEMENT + REIMBURSEMENT) = $3,758 (per PM Peak Hour Trip) Residential Unit = $3,758 x 0.81 = $3,044 = 20% decrease Non-Residential = 1.5% decrease (actual charge varies) Issue Outcome: 1 Achieve methodology consistency Blended rate solution 2 Evaluate “reimbursement” portion of SDC Recommend approval 3 Address home occupation SDC rates SDC Table (Exhibit C) 4 Clarify transferability Res 2013-020, Section 4A 5 Clarify abandonment of use Res 2013-020, Section 4B (2 and 3) 6 How to address “change of use” Res 2013-020, Section 4B (1) 7 Address ITE Trip Generation Manual updates Res 2013-020, Section 4C (1) 8 SDC Committee: How to assess “events”? Recommendation to monitor and re-evaluate at next update. OTHER ISSUES ADDRESSED If passed, Resolution 2013 -020 becomes effective immediately Transition period: Applicants (yet to pay SDCs) pay lesser of SDC via Resolution 2008 -059 or 2013 -020 if building permit submitted prior to Resolution 2013 -020. Legal action contesting adoption of the Resolution may not be filed more than 60 days after adoption. QUESTIONS ? FINAL DISCUSSION Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 -Fax (541) 385-3202 -www.deschutes.org AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT Board Meeting of June 5, 2013 DATE: 05/30/13 FROM: Ronda Connor Personnel 385-3215 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Consideration Board Approval ofEBAC recommended changes to the health benefits. PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE? No BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Each year, in advance of the plan renewal the health benefits Renewal Committee and EBAC meet to analyze our current benefit structure, state and federal requirements, benefits trends, and requests from employees. Our health plan insures approximately 3,000 people. We provide a comprehensive benefit package of Medical, Dental, Vision, Prescription and Alternative Care coverage. Below is a listing of the items that are recommended by EBAC. • Increase employee premium! co-pay from $65 per month to $90 per month. This is expected to generate approximately $300,000 in revenue to the plan. • Changes to the prescription portion of our benefit as follows 1. Remove the preferential co-pay pricing at the Redmond, Oregon Walgreens location 2. Change co-pays for retail and DOC Pharmacy as described below 3. Deschutes County 2013/2014 Prescription Plan Changes 1. Remove preferential co-pays at the Redmond, Oregon Walgreens retail location 2. Change co-pays for retail and DOC Pharmacy as described below ! DOCPhann CUrrent CoPay 30 CUrrent caPay 90 Proposed CoPay 30 Proposed caPay 90 Generic 0.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 I Formulary 10.00 20.00 20.00 40.00 • Non-Formulary 20.00 40.00 40.00 80.00 Retail CUrrent CoPay 30 Current CoPay 90 Proposed. CoPay 30 ProposedCoPay9O Generic 10.00 0.00 20.00 0.00 Formulary Greater of 20% or $35-$70 0.00 Greater of 20% or $50-$100 0.00 Non-Formulary Greater of 20% or $50-$100 0.00 Greater of 20% or $75-$125 0.00 .. Proposed CoPay 90 .Current CaPay 30 rrent CoPay 90 ProposedCoPay30Mall Order 0.00 20.00 0.00Generic 40.00 i 0.00 Greater of 20% or 0.00 Greater of 20% or •Formulary $55-$110 $100-$200 I 0.00 Greater of 20% or 0.00Non-Formulary Greater of 20% or I $140-$280 $150-$300 3. Implement Step Therapy Program as described in attachment "Making Prescription Drugs More Affordable" a. Must try a least costly alternative before a more expensive brand-name drug in certain categories of drugs. Plan payment in each category is limited to $50 per 30-day supply. The categories are listed below: i. Proton Pump Inhibitors-gastric acid ii. Antidepressants (SNRI)-mood iii. Antihyperlipidemic-cholesterol iv. Sedative-Hypnotic-sleep v. Adrenergics, Aromatic, Non-Cathecholamine-ADHD vi. Lipotropics-cholesterol b. Limit the first fill of a brand name drug to a 30 day supply c. Limit dispense of narcotic and chemotherapy classes of drugs to 15-day supply unless involved in a pain management, ADD/ ADHD, or oncology program. d. Limit fills of medications costing the plan greater than $1,000 to a 30-day supply with the exception of diabetic medications and supplies. Estimated savings: $500,000 FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Net savings of $800,000 RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Consideration of approval of EBAC recommendations. ATTENDANCE: Ronda Connor DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS: MAKING PRESCRIPTION DRUGS MORE AFFORDABLE. For you and your employer. Step Therapy is a program designed especially for people who take prescription drugs regularly to treat ongoing medical conditions, such as arthritis and asthma. Overview Step Therapy is a program designed especially for people who take prescription drugs regularly to treat ongoing medical conditions, such as arthritis and high blood pressure. The program is a new approach to getting you the prescription drugs you need, with safety, cost and -most importantly ­ your health in mind. The program makes prescription drugs more affordable for most members and helps control the rising cost of medications. It allows you and your family to receive the affordable treatment you need. In Step Therapy, drugs are grouped in categories, based on cost: • STEP 1 DRUGS -are generic drugs proven safe, effective and affordable. These drugs should be tried first because they can provide the same health benefit as more expensive drugs, at a much lower cost. • STEP 2 OR 3 DRUGS -Step 2 and Step 3 drugs -are brand-name drugs such as those you see advertised on TV. There are lower-cost brand drugs (Step 2) and higher-cost brand drugs (Step 3). Brand name drugs always cost more. What Happens at the Pharmacy The first time you submit a prescription that isn't for a Step 1 drug, your pharmacy should inform you that your plan uses Step Therapy. This simply means that, if you'd rather not pay more for your prescription drug, you need to first try a Step 1 drug. To receive a Step 1 drug: • Ask your pharmacist to call your doctor to request a new prescription. OR • Contact your doctor to get a new prescription. Only your doctor can change your current prescription to a Step 1 drug covered by your program. To Receive a Step 2 Drug With the Step Therapy Program, more expensive brand-name drugs are usually covered as a back-up if: 1) You've already tried the generic drugs covered under Step 1 2) You can't take a generic drug (for example, because of an allergy) 3) Your doctor decides, for medical reasons, that you need a brand-name drug If one of these situations applies to you, your doctor can request an override for you, allowing you to take a back-up prescription drug. Once the override is approved, you'll pay the appropriate copayment for this drug. If the override isn't approved, you may have to pay full price for the drug. More About Generic Drugs Generic alternatives have the same chemical makeup and same effect in the body as their original brand-name counterparts. Generics, which have been manufactured for many years, have undergone rigorous clinical testing and been approved by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) as safe and effective. Unlike manufacturers of brand-name drugs, the companies that make generic drugs don't spend a lot of money on research and advertising. As a result, their generic drugs cost considerably less than the original brand-name counterparts, and the savings are passed on to you and your employer. Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 -Fax (541) 385-3202 -www.deschutes.org BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10:00 A.M., WEDNESDAY, JUNE 5, 2013 Commissioners' Hearing Room -Administration Building -1300 NW Wall St., Bend 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. CITIZEN INPUT This is the time provided for individuals wishing to address the Board, at the Board's discretion, regarding issues that are not already on the agenda. Please complete a sign-up card (provided), and give the card to the Recording Secretary. Use the microphone and clearly state your name when the Board calls on you to speak. PLEASE NOTE: Citizen input regarding matters that are or have been the subject ofa public hearing will NOT be included in the official record ofthat hearing. 3. A PUBLIC HEARING and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2013­ 018, Completing Legalization Procedures for a Portion ofO.B. Riley Road­ George Kolb, Road Department Suggested Actions: Open hearing, receive public testimony, and move approval ofOrder No. 2013-018. 4. A PUBLIC HEARING and Consideration of Approval of the Community Development Department's Annual Report, and Work Plan for Fiscal Year 2013-14 -Nick Lelack, Community Development Suggested Actions: Open hearing, receive public testimony, and move approval ofthe Annual Report and Work Plan for the Community Development Department. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, June 5, 2013 Page 1 of8 5. A PUBLIC HEARING and Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2013-020, an Update to the Deschutes County Transportation System Development Charge Methodology -Chris Doty, Road Department Suggested Actions: Open hearing, receive public testimony, and move approval ofResolution No. 2013-020. 6. A PUBLIC HEARING and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2013-046, Adopting the Deschutes County Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2013­ 14 -Jeanine Faria, Finance Suggested Actions: Open hearing, receive public testimony, and move approval ofResolution No. 2013-046. 7. CONSIDERATION of First and Second Readings by Title Only, and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2013-008, Amending Deschutes County Code to Change the Ratio of Overnight to Residential Units in Destination Resorts, with an Emergency Clause Allowing for an Effective Date of July 5, 2013 -Will Groves, Community Development Department Suggested Actions: Conduct first and second readings by title only; move adoption ofOrdinance No. 2013-008, by emergency, with an effective date of July 5,2013 8. CONSIDERATION of Approval of the Employee Benefits Advisory Committee's Recommended Changes to the Health Benefits Plan -Ronda Connor, Personnel Suggested Action: Approve Changes to the Employee Health Benefits Plan CONSENT AGENDA 9. Chair Signature of a Letter Designating Central Oregon Mediation, Inc. as Grantee to Receive Oregon Community Dispute Resolution Funds 10. Signature of Documents relating to Software Agreements with Accela, Inc., in Conjunction with the State of Oregon and Community Development (Document Nos. 2013-259, -260, -261 and -262) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, June 5, 2013 Page 2 of8 11. Approval of County Administrator Signature of Document No. 2013-300, an Intergovernmental Agreement with the State of Oregon regarding Utilization of the State's Permitting System 12. Chair Signature of Document Nos. 2013-297, -298 and -299, State Early Learning Davison Funding Documents 13. Chair Signature of Document No. 2013-264, an Addendum to the Lease Agreement with the State Water Resources Department regarding an Extension to August 30,2013 14. Chair Signature of Document No. 2013-183, an Addendum to a Real Estate Sale Agreement with Biogreen Sustainable Energy Co., Extending the Timeframe CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 15. A PUBLIC HEARING and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2013-048, Adopting the 9-1-1 County Service District Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2013-14 -Jeanine Faria, Finance Suggested Actions: Receive public testimony; move approval ofResolution No. 2013-048. 16. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION AND 4-H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 17. A PUBLIC HEARING and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2013-051, Adopting the Deschutes County Extension and 4-H County Service District Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2013-14 -Jeanine Faria, Finance Suggested Actions: Receive public testimony; move approval ofResolution No. 2013-051. 18. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extensionl4-H County Service District Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, June 5, 2013 Page 3 of8 CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE BLACK BUTTE RANCH COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 19. A PUBLIC HEARING and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2013-047, Adopting the Fiscal Year 2013-14 Fee Schedule for the Black Butte Ranch County Service District -Jeanine Faria, Christina Edleston & Marty Wynne, Finance Department Suggested Actions: Receive public testimony; move approval ofResolution No. 2013-047. CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE SUNRIVER SERVICE DISTRICT 20. A PUBLIC HEARING and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2013-052, Adopting the Fiscal Year 2013-14 Fee Schedule for the Sunriver Service District -Jeanine Faria, Christina Edleston, and Marty Wynne Suggested Actions: Receive public testimony,' move approval ofResolution No. 2013-052. CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF DESCHUTES COUNTY LA W ENFORCEMENT DISTRICT #1 21. A PUBLIC HEARING and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2013-049, Adopting the Fiscal Year 2013-14 Fee Schedule for Deschutes County Law Enforcement District #1 Jeanine Faria, Christina Edleston, and Marty Wynne, Finance Department Suggested Actions: Receive public testimony; move approval ofResolution No. 2013-049. CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF DESCHUTES COUNTY LA W ENFORCEMENT DISTRICT #2 22. A PUBLIC HEARING and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2013-046, Adopting the Fiscal Year Fee 2013-14 Fee Schedule for Deschutes County Law Enforcement District #2 -Jeanine Faria, Christina Edleston, and Marty Wynne, Finance Department Suggested Actions: Receive public testimony; move approval ofResolution No. 2013-046. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, June 5, 2013 Page 4 of8 RECONVENE AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 23. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County 24. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)( d), labor negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues; or other executive session items. FUTURE MEETINGS: (Please note: Meeting dates and times are subject to change. All meetings take place in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. Ifyou have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572.) Monday, June 3 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Tuesday, June 4 7:30 a.m. Joint Meeting of the Commissioners and Representatives of Fire Departments and Law Enforcement to Address the Wildland Fire Season Forecast and Policies 3:30 p.m. Public Safety Coordinating Council Meeting Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, June 5, 2013 Page 5 of8 Wednesday, June 5 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting I :30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Wednesday, June 12 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting I :30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Thursday, June 13 7:30 a.m. Legislative Conference Call with Public Affairs Counsel 6:00p.m. Public Hearing on the Alfalfa Cell Tower Application Appeal -Alfalfa Community Center Monday, June 17 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1 :30 p.m. Administrative Work Session could include executive session(s) Thursday, June 20, 2013 8:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the City of Sisters Council-Sisters City Hall Friday, June 21 7:30 a.m. State of the County/Forecast Breakfast -Bend Country Club Monday, June 24 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session could include executive session(s) Wednesday, June 26 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1 :30 p.m. Administrative Work Session could include executive session(s) Thursday, June 27 7:30 a.m. Legislative Conference Call with Public Affairs Counsel Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, June 5,2013 Page 6 of8 Monday, July 1 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Tuesday, July 2 3:30 p.m. Public Safety Coordinating Council Meeting Wednesday, July 3 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session could include executive session(s) Thursday, July 4 Most County offices will be closed to observe Independence Day Wednesday, July 10 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30pm. Administrative Work Session could include executive session(s) Monday, July 15 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Thursday, July 11 7:00a.m. Regular Meeting with the City of Redmond Council -Redmond Council Chambers Monday, July 22 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session could include executive session(s) Wednesday, July 24 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, June 5, 2013 Page 7 of8 Thursday, July 25 6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting of the Board of Commissioners and the Deschutes County Planning Commission to Discuss Groundwater Protection Recommendations -Sunriver Homeowners Aquatic and Recreation Center Monday, July 29 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Wednesday, July 31 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Monday, August 5 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Tuesday, August 6 3:30 p.m. Public Safety Coordinating Council Meeting Wednesday, August 7 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues; or other executive session items. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, June 5, 2013 Page 8 of8