HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 020 - Update Transp System Devel Chg
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
For Board Business Meeting of June 5, 2013
_____________________________
DATE: May 29, 2013
FROM: Chris Doty, PE Road Department Phone #: 541.322.7105
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution 2013-020, an update to the Deschutes County
Transportation System Development charge methodology.
PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE? Yes.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Resolution 2013-020 revises the County's Transportation System Development Charge methodology
and is a supplement to Resolution 2008-059 (original SDC resolution). A methodology revision is
necessary to account for the revised Capital Improvement Plan produced throught the recent
Transportation System Plan process, coupled with revised growth projections within the unincorporated
area of Deschutes County.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
The proposed SDC will primarily affect residential development via a 20% decrease in the existing rate.
This decrease has been budgeted within the proposed FY 14 Road Department budget.
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:
Approval is recommended via the following motion: "I move to approve Resolution 2013-020,
updating the Deschutes County Transportation System Development Charge".
ATTENDANCE: Chris Doty, Road Department Director
DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS:
Information to be reviewed includes the following:
1. Resolution 2013-020
a. Exhibit A to Resolution 2013-020 (Methodology Report dated April 5, 2013)
i. Exhibit A-1: CDD Growth Rate Projection
ii. Exhibit B: 2012 Transportation CIP List (per TSP)
iii. Exhibit C: Transportation SDC Rate Sheet
iv. Exhibit D: SDC Policy Issues Memorandum (February 12, 2013)
Page 1 of 11 – Resolution 2013-020 (06/05/13)
For Recording Stamp Only
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
A Resolution to Modify the Transportation
System Development Charges Established by
Resolution No. 2008-059 for Properties Within
Unincorporated Deschutes County.
*
*
*
RESOLUTION NO. 2013-020
WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners (“Board”) held a duly noticed
public hearing on June 5, 2013, to consider modifying the transportation system development charge (“SDC”)
originally established by Resolution No. 2008-059 to help fund transportation projects that are necessary to
serve the existing and growth-related needs in the unincorporated areas of the county; and
WHEREAS, ORS 223.297 through 223.314 authorize governmental units to establish and modify
transportation system development charges; and
WHEREAS, system development charges are incurred upon the decision to develop property at a
specific use, density and/or intensity, and the incurred charge equals, or is less than, the actual cost of providing
public facilities commensurate with the needs of the chosen use, density and/or intensity; and
WHEREAS, system development charges are separate from and in addition to any applicable tax,
assessment, charge, fee in lieu of assessment, or other fee provided by law or imposed as a condition of
development; and
WHEREAS, system development charges are fees for services because they are based upon a
development’s receipt of services considering the specific nature of the development; and
WHEREAS, system development charges are imposed on the activity of development, not on the land,
owner, or property, and, therefore, are not taxes on property or on a property owner as a direct consequence of
ownership of property within the meaning of Section 11, Article XI of the Oregon Constitution or the legislation
implementing that section; and
WHEREAS, revenues from the system development charges are to be used for capital improvements in
the unincorporated areas outside the cities of La Pine, Sisters, Redmond and Bend; and
WHEREAS, the methodology proposed by Deschutes County Road Department (“Department”) staff,
identifies the uses of an “improvement fee” SDC, and a “reimbursement fee” SDC, and considers the
transportation capital improvement needs of the unincorporated county; and
WHEREAS, the methodology proposes applying the SDCs to future development of properties within
the unincorporated county and outside the cities of Sisters, La Pine, Redmond and Bend; and
WHEREAS, the Board determined that it is in the public interest to provide transportation capital
facilities through the use of general county revenues, SDCs, and matching funds from the State of Oregon; now,
therefore,
REVIEWED
______________
LEGAL COUNSEL
Page 2 of 11 – Resolution 2013-020 (06/05/13)
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES
COUNTY, OREGON, as follows:
Section 1. The Board in Resolution No. 2008-059 adopted the report, titled Transportation System
Development Charge Study prepared by FCS Group Inc. and DKS Associates, dated March 2008 (FCS Group
Report) which is hereby amended by a report titled “Transportation System Development Charge Update”,
dated April, 2013, prepared by Deschutes County Road Department, attached as Exhibit “A” and incorporated
by reference (herein “Methodology” or “Methodology Report”). In the event of a conflict between the FCS
Report and Methodology Report, the latter shall control. The Board authorizes the assessment and collection of
transportation system development charges in the unincorporated areas of Deschutes County.
Section 2. The Board adopts the System Development Charge Project List, attached as Exhibit “B,” and
incorporated by reference (“Capital Improvement Plan”). The Capital Improvement Plan hereby supersedes the
capital improvement plan which was adopted as part of Resolution No. 2008-059.
Section 3. DEFINITIONS.
(A) “Applicant” shall mean the owner or other person who applies for a building or development
permit in the unincorporated areas of Deschutes County outside the boundaries of the cities of La
Pine, Sisters, Redmond and Bend.
(B) “Building” shall mean any structure, built for the support, shelter or enclosure of persons, chattels
or property of any kind.
(C) “Building Permit” shall mean an official document or certificate authorizing the construction or
siting of any building.
(D) “Capital Improvement” shall mean a public facility or asset used for Transportation in the
unincorporated areas outside the urban growth boundaries of the cities of La Pine, Sisters,
Redmond and Bend.
(E) “Citizen or Other Interested Person” shall mean any person whose legal residence is within the
unincorporated areas of Deschutes County outside the urban growth boundaries of the cities of La
Pine, Sisters, Redmond and Bend, as evidenced by registration as a voter, or by other proof of
residency; or a person who owns, occupies, or otherwise has an interest in real property which is
located within the unincorporated area of Deschutes County outside the urban growth boundaries
of the cities of La Pine, Sisters Redmond and Bend.
(F) “County” shall mean Deschutes County, Oregon.
(G) “Department” shall mean the Deschutes County Road Department.
(H) “Development” shall mean a building or other land construction, or making a physical change in
the use of a structure or land, in a manner which increases the usage of any capital improvements
or which may contribute to the need for additional or enlarged capital improvements.
(I) “Development Permit” shall mean an official document or certificate, issued by Deschutes
County, other than a building permit, authorizing development.
(J) “Encumbered” shall mean monies committed by contract or purchase order in a manner that
obligates the County to expend the encumbered amount upon delivery of goods, the rendering of
services, or the conveyance of real property provided by a vendor, supplier, contractor or Owner.
(K) “Improvement Fee” shall mean a fee for costs associated with capital improvements to be
constructed after the effective date of this resolution. Notwithstanding anything in this resolution
Page 3 of 11 – Resolution 2013-020 (06/05/13)
to the contrary, it is an incurred charge or cost based upon the use of or the availability for use of
the systems and capital improvements required to provide services and facilities necessary to meet
the routine obligations of the use and ownership of property, and to provide for the public health
and safety upon development.
(L) “Manufactured Housing” shall mean a dwelling unit constructed primarily off-site and transported
to another site for use. A unit located in a designated mobile home park shall be considered a
manufactured housing dwelling unit; otherwise a manufactured housing unit shall be considered a
single-family dwelling unit.
(M) “Multi-family housing” shall mean attached residential dwelling units.
(N) “Occupancy Permit” shall mean an official document or certificate authorizing the occupation or
use of any building or improvement authorized by a building permit.
(O) “Owner” shall mean the person holding legal title to the real property upon which development is
to occur.
(P) “Person” shall mean an individual, a corporation, including without limitation, limited liability
corporation, a partnership, an incorporated association, or any other similar entity.
(Q) “Qualified Public Improvement” shall mean a capital improvement that is:
(1) Required as a condition of development approval; and
(2) Identified in the capital improvement plan adopted pursuant to this resolution; and either:
(a) Not located on or contiguous to property that is the subject of development approval;
or
(b) Located in whole or in part on or contiguous to property that is the subject of
development approval and required to be built larger or with greater capacity than is
necessary for the particular development project to which the improvement fee is
related.
(R) ”Reimbursement fee” means a fee for costs associated with capital improvements constructed or
under construction by the County on the effective date of this resolution.
(S) “Road Department Director” or “Director” shall mean the appointed Road Department Director of
Deschutes County, Oregon or the Director’s designee.
(T) “Single-family housing” shall mean a detached residential dwelling unit located on an individual
lot.
(U) “System Development Charge” or “SDC” shall mean a reimbursement fee, an improvement fee,
or a combination thereof and an administrative recovery charge, assessed or collected at the time
of increased usage of a capital improvement or issuance of an occupancy permit. System
development charges are separate from and in addition to any applicable tax, assessment, fee in
lieu of assessment, or other fee or charge provided by law or imposed as a condition of
development.
(V) “System Development Charges Methodology” shall mean the methodology set forth in the FCS
Group Report as modified by the Methodology Report.
Section 4. APPLICABILITY.
Page 4 of 11 – Resolution 2013-020 (06/05/13)
(A) A Transportation System Development Charge is hereby assessed and imposed upon all new
development for which a building permit or a development permit is required and issued within
all unincorporated areas of the County outside the cities of La Pine, Sisters, Redmond and
Bend. From and after assessment, the transportation system development charge shall run with the
property, not with any structure attached to the property. Development shall mean and include
new construction, alteration, expansion or replacement of a building or dwelling unit. Non-
residential, farm-related buildings for growing and/or storing agricultural products to be used on
site, and that do not generate additional commercial traffic, are exempt.
(B) Consideration of existing use.
1) If construction, alteration, expansion, replacement, or change-of-use results in an increase in
the calculated number of peak hour trips generated by the development or the property on
which the development is located, as compared to the pre-development number of
calculated peak hour trips, then a new Transportation SDC shall apply. The amount of the
system development charge to be paid shall be the difference between the calculated trips
generated from the proposed development and the calculated trips generated from the
property prior to the construction, alteration, expansion or replacement. If the change in use
results in a Transportation SDC for the proposed use which is less than the Transportation
SDC for the use being replaced, then no new or additional SDC shall be assessed and no
refund or credit shall be given.
2) If the previous development or prior use of the property, which was not subject to SDC
payment, has been abandoned for at least two consecutive years, as determined by the
Community Development Department under the County Code, then no consideration of
existing use shall occur and a new SDC assessment shall apply.
3) Previously paid SDCs shall be credited to the property regardless of any period of
abandonment. The credit shall be based on the number of PM peak hour trips generated by
the development at the time of original SDC assessment.
(C) The Transportation System Development Charges (SDC’s) shall be determined as follows:
(1) For those land-use categories which are specifically identified in the most recent edition of
the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual or the Methodology Report
adopted pursuant to this resolution, the SDC amount shall be determined as identified in the
Methodology Report, unless otherwise approved by the Director.
(2) For land-use categories for which no trip generation rate is included in the Methodology
Report (or ITE Trip Generation Manual), the Director shall use the land-use category
identified in the Methodology Report (or ITE Trip Generation Manual) that is most similar
to the subject land use category and apply the corresponding trip generation rate. The
Director may consider seasonal and/or cyclical variations to adjust the calculation of peak
hour trip rates. An applicant who disagrees with the Director’s decision may appeal this
decision as outlined in Section 12 of this Resolution.
(D) Applicants may submit a request for an alternative trip generation rate and corresponding system
development charges for a development, subject to the following conditions:
(1) In the event an applicant believes that the trip generation impact on County capital
improvements resulting from the development is less than the trip generation rates used to
establish the SDC fee established by this Resolution, the applicant may submit a calculation
for an alternative system development charge to the Director, but no later than the issuance
of a building permit.
Page 5 of 11 – Resolution 2013-020 (06/05/13)
(2) The alternative system development charges rate calculations shall be based on data,
information and assumptions contained in this Resolution and the Methodology or an
independent source, provided that the independent source is:
(a) a study supported by a data base adequate for the conclusions contained in such
study;
(b) the study is performed using a generally accepted methodology and is based upon
generally accepted standard sources of information relating to facilities planning, cost
analysis and demographics;
(c) The demonstrated number of peak hour trips is at least ten (10%) p ercent less than the
number of peak hour trips set forth in the Methodology Report or otherwise
calculated by the Director pursuant to subsection (B) of this Section; and
(d) the demonstrated number of peak hour trips shall be documented by a registered
traffic engineer or otherwise qualified professional engineer.
(3) The Director shall issue a written decision within ten (10) working days from the date of
receipt of a complete application and shall notify the applicant by regular mail.
(4) If the Director determines that the data, information and assumptions utilized by the
applicant to calculate the alternative system development charges rates satisfy the
requirements of this subsection and have been timely submitted, the alternative system
development charges rates shall be paid in lieu of the rates set forth in or otherwise
determined by the Director under this Resolution.
(5) If the Director determines that the data, information and assumptions utilized by the
applicant to calculate the alternative system development charges rates do not satisfy the
requirements of this subsection or have not been timely submitted, the Director shall deny
the application and apply the rates established by the Director.
(E) Subject to the provisions of this Resolution, the County hereby assesses and shall collect a
transportation system development charge (“SDC”) on the following schedule:
(1) at the initial rate of $3,758 per PM peak hour trip, consisting of a $3,625 improvement fee,
a $86 reimbursement fee, and a $47 administrative recovery charge.
(E) For SDC’s that have been assessed, but not yet been paid as of the effective date of this
Resolution, the property owner shall pay the lesser of the applicable SDC charge determined
under Resolution No. 2008-059 or this Resolution.
(F) Unless otherwise adjusted by order of the Board of County Commission, on each succeeding July
1 after 2014, the SDC, consisting of the improvement fee, the reimbursement, if any and the
administrative recovery charge shall be adjusted by the annual percentage increase or decrease in
the construction cost index, published in the immediately preceding January by the Engineering
News Record for the City of Seattle, Washington. The calculation shall use the immediately
preceding July 1 and the then-applicable rate per peak hour trip as the starting point.
Section 5. COLLECTION.
(A) The Transportation SDC’s shall be collected and paid in full no later than the date of submittal of
an application for an occupancy permit. An applicant may elect to pay an SDC over a ten-year
period under the provisions of DCC 15.12.060.
Page 6 of 11 – Resolution 2013-020 (06/05/13)
(B) In cases where an occupancy permit is not required, the Transportation SDC shall be collected and
paid in full no later than the date on which the property is used in the manner approved by the
development permit. An applicant may elect to pay an SDC over a ten-year period under the
provisions of DCC 15.12.060.
(C) Notwithstanding the receipt of an occupancy permit or the use of the property pursuant to a
development permit without payment of the SDC, the SDC liability shall survive and be a
personal obligation of the permittee.
(D) Intentional failure to pay the SDC within sixty (60) days of the due date shall result in a penalty
equal to fifty percent (50%) of the SDC. Interest shall accrue on and after 60 days after the due
date at the rate of nine (9%) percent per annum.
(E) In addition to an action at law and any statutory rights, the County may:
(1) Refuse to issue a Certificate of Occupancy;
(2) Refuse to issue any permits of any kind to the delinquent permittee for any development;
(3) Condition any development approval of the delinquent permittee on payment in full,
including penalties and interest;
(4) If the property becomes occupied prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, initiate
code enforcement proceedings;
(5) For purposes of this section, delinquent permittee shall include any person controlling a
delinquent corporate permittee and, conversely, any corporation controlled by a delinquent
individual permittee.
Section 7. CREDITS FOR DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS OF QUALIFIED PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS.
(A) The County may grant a credit against the improvement fee portion, if any, of system
development charges imposed pursuant to this Resolution for the construction of any qualified
public improvement.
(B) Prior to issuance of a development permit, the applicant shall submit to the County a proposed
plan and estimate of cost for the applicant to construct one or more qualified public
improvements. The proposed plan and estimate shall include:
(1) a designation of the development project for which the proposed plan is being submitted;
(2) a legal description of any land proposed to be donated, if any, and documentation as to the
seller and purchase price;
(3) a list of the contemplated capital improvements contained within the development plan;
(4) an estimate of construction costs for the contemplated capital improvements certified by a
professional architect or engineer; and
(5) a proposed time schedule for completion of the proposed capital improvements.
(C) The credit provided for construction of a qualified public improvement shall be only for the cost
of that portion of such improvement that exceeds the minimum standard facility size and must be
designed and constructed to provide additional capacity to meet projected future transportation
Page 7 of 11 – Resolution 2013-020 (06/05/13)
needs. Projected future transportation needs shall be determined by reference to the Deschutes
County Transportation System Plan. Improvements that address capacity deficiencies existing at
the time of development are not eligible. In the case of improvements addressing both capacity
deficiencies and adding future capacity, only that portion providing future capacity is eligible.
The applicant shall have the burden of demonstrating that a particular improvement qualifies for
credit.
(D) The Director is authorized to determine that the timing, location, design and scope of proposed
improvement is consistent with and furthers the objectives of the County’s capital improvements
program and either:
(1) the improvement is required to fulfill a condition of development approval; or
(2) the improvement is within the impact area of the development. For purposes of this section,
impact area is that geographic area determined by the Director in which the estimated peak
hour traffic to be generated by the development exceeds ten (10%) percent of the existing
average peak hour traffic. Existing traffic volumes shall be those observed and measured
within six months prior to filing the development application, adjusted for daily and
seasonal traffic variations using factors provided by the Director.
(E) Credit eligibility shall be determined by the Director. In addition to meeting the standards of this
section, the following shall control:
(1) No credits shall be issued for design or construction costs associated with landscaping,
street lighting, storm sewers, sidewalks, and erosion control; or sound walls, berms or other
such mitigation devices.
(2) Road right-of-way required to be dedicated pursuant to the applicable comprehensive plan
or development condition is not creditable. The reasonable market value of land purchased
by the applicant from a third party that is necessary to complete a required off-site
improvement is creditable. The Director may require an applicant at the applicant’s expense
to furnish an appraisal to determine the market value of such property.
(3) No credit shall granted for utility relocation except for that portion which otherwise
would have been the legal obligation of the County pursuant to a tariff, easement or similar
relationship if the project had been undertaken by the County.
(4) No credit shall be granted for minor realignments not designated on the comprehensive
plan.
(5) No more than 13.5 percent of the total eligible construction cost shall be creditable for
survey, engineering, inspection and permit fees.
(F) All requests for credit vouchers must be in writing and filed with the Director not more than 90
days after County acceptance of the improvement. Improvement acceptance shall be in
accordance with the County’s policies, practices, procedures and standards. The amount of any
credit shall be determined by the Director and based upon the subject improvement construction
contract documents, or other relevant information, provided by the applicant for the credit. Upon a
finding by the Director that the contract amounts exceed prevailing market rates for a similar
project, the credit shall be based upon market rates. The Director shall provide the applicant with
a credit voucher, on a form provided by the Department. The original of the credit voucher shall
be retained by the Department. The credit voucher shall state a dollar amount that may be applied
only against the SDC otherwise imposed by the County against the subject property. In no event
shall a subject property be entitled to redeem credit vouchers in excess of the SDC imposed.
Page 8 of 11 – Resolution 2013-020 (06/05/13)
Under no circumstances will the County be required to pay an applicant in cash, as consideration
for the improvement. This paragraph applies only to issuance of credit vouchers and does not
extend the deadline for credit redemption or otherwise modify the credit redemption deadline.
(G) Credits shall be apportioned against the property which was the subject of the application to
construct an improvement eligible for credit. Unless otherwise requested, apportionment against
lots or parcels constituting the property shall be proportionate to anticipated average peak hour
trips generated by the respective lots or parcels. Upon written application to the Director,
however, credits shall be reapportioned from any lot or parcel to any other lot or parcel within the
confines of the property originally eligible for the credit. Reapportionment shall be noted on the
original credit voucher retained by the Department.
(H) Any credits issued pursuant to this Resolution are assignable, however, they shall apply only to
that property subject to the original condition for land use approval upon which the credit is based
or any partitioned or subdivided parcels or lots of such property to which the credit has been
apportioned. Credits shall only apply against SDC’s, are limited to the amount of the
improvement fee attributable to the development of the specific lot or parcel for which the credit
is sought, and shall not be a basis for any refund.
(I) Any credit must be redeemed not later than the issuance of the occupancy permit. The applicant is
responsible for presentation of any credit prior to issuance of the occupancy permit. Under no
circumstances shall any credit redemption be considered after issuance of an occupancy permit.
(J) Credit vouchers shall expire on the date ten (10) years after the acceptance of the applicable
improvement by the county. No extension of this deadline shall be granted.
Section 8. FUND ESTABLISHED. The County hereby establishes a fund to be designated as the
“Countywide Transportation SDC Improvement Fee Fund,” (herein Transportation SDC Fund or the Fund).
(A) All SDC payments shall be deposited into the Transportation SDC Fund immediately upon
receipt.
(B) The monies deposited into the Fund designated as the “Countywide Transportation SDC
Improvement Fee Fund,” including interest on the Fund, shall be maintained separate and apart
from all other accounts of the County and shall be used solely for the purpose of providing the
capital improvements that provide for the increased capacity necessitated by new development,
including but not limited to:
(1) Design and construction plan preparation;
(2) Permitting and fees;
(3) Property acquisition, including any costs of acquisition, relocation or condemnation;
(4) Construction of capital improvements;
(5) Design and construction of storm and surface water drainage facilities associated with the
construction of capital improvements and structures;
(6) Relocating utilities associated with the construction of improvements and structures;
(7) Landscaping within the right of way or upon property distur bed by the construction of
capital improvements;
(8) Capital construction management and inspection;
Page 9 of 11 – Resolution 2013-020 (06/05/13)
(9) Surveying, soils and material testing;
(10) Acquisition of capital equipment used on association with capital construction or road
maintenance or both;
(11) Repayment of monies transferred to or borrowed from any budgetary fund of the County,
including interest, which were used to fund any of the capital improvements as herein
provided;
(12) Payment of principal and interest, necessary reserves and costs of issuance under any bonds
or other indebtedness issued by the County to fund capital improvements;
(13) Direct costs of complying with the provisions of ORS 223.297 to 223.314, including the
consulting, legal, and administrative costs required for developing and updating the SDC,
the methodology, resolution, and capital improvements master plan; administration of credit
applications and apportionment; and the costs of collecting SDC’s and accounting for SDC
receipts and expenditures.
Section 9. INVESTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SDC FUND REVENUE.
(A) Any funds on deposit in Transportation SDC Fund that is not immediately necessary for
expenditure shall be invested by the County.
(B) All income derived from such investments shall be deposited in the appropriate SDC trust fund
and used as provided herein.
Section 10. ANNUAL ACCOUNTING REPORTS. The Director shall prepare an annual report
accounting for SDC funds received, including the total amount of SDC improvement fee revenue collected in
each fund, and expenditures.
Section 11. CHALLENGE OF EXPENDITURES.
(A) Any citizen or other interested person may challenge an expenditure of SDC revenues.
(B) Such challenge shall be submitted, in writing on a form approved by the County, to the
Department for review within two (2) years following the subject expenditure, and shall include
the following information:
(1) The name and address of the citizen or other interested person challenging the expenditure;
(2) The amount of expenditure, the project, payee or purpose, and the approximate date on
which it was made; and
(3) The reason why the expenditure is being challenged.
(C) If the Director determines that the expenditure was not made in accordance with the provisions of
this resolution and other relevant laws, a reimbursement of SDC fund revenues from other funds
shall be made within one (1) year following the determination that the expenditure was not
appropriate.
(D) The County shall make written notification of the results of the expenditure review to the citizen
or other interested person who requested the review within ten (10) days of completion of the
review.
Section 12. APPEALS AND REVIEW HEARINGS.
Page 10 of 11 – Resolution 2013-020 (06/05/13)
(A) An applicant who is required to pay system development charges shall have the right to request a
hearing to review a decision only in the following matters:
(1) A land-use category and/or seasonal/cyclical variations used by the Director to determine
the SDC amount pursuant to Section 4.
(2) An alternative rate calculation pursuant to subsection (C) of Section 4.
(3) A proposed credit for contribution of qualified public improvements pursuant to Section 7.
(B) Such hearing shall be requested by the applicant within thirty (30) days of the date of first receipt
of the Director’s decision. Failure to request a hearing within the time provided shall be deemed a
waiver of such right.
(C) The request for hearing shall be filed with the Director and shall contain the following:
(1) The name and address of the applicant;
(2) The legal description of the property in question;
(3) If issued, the date the building permit or development permit was issued;
(4) A brief description of the nature of the development being undertaken pursuant to the
building permit or development permit;
(5) If paid, the date the system development charges were paid; and
(6) A statement addressing the decision subject to review set forth in subsection (A) of this
section and the reasons why the applicant is challenging the decision.
(D) Upon receipt of such request, the County shall schedule a hearing before the Board of
Commissioners at a regularly scheduled meeting or a special meeting called for the purpose of
conducting the hearing and shall provide the applicant written notice of the time and place of the
hearing. Such hearing shall be opened within forty-five (45) days of the date the request for
hearing was filed.
(E) Such hearing shall be before the Board of Commissioners and shall be conducted in a manner
designed to obtain all information and evidence relevant to the requested hearing. Formal rules of
civil procedures and evidence shall not be applicable; however, the hearing shall be conducted in
a fair and impartial manner with each party having an opportunity to be heard and to present
information and evidence.
(F) Appeal of the decision of the Board shall be made to the Circuit Court of Deschutes County.
Section 13. FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. If any clause, section or provision of this resolution shall be
declared unconstitutional or invalid, the remaining portions of said resolution shall be in full force and effect and
be valid as if such invalid portion had not been adopted. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as
invalidating any assessment or collection of system development charges pursuant to Resolution No. 2008-059,
nor any project funded in whole or in part with funds collected thereunder. In addition, all funds assessed and
collected pursuant to Resolution No. 2008-059, which have not been committed, shall be treated in the same
manner as funds received pursuant to Section 8 of this Resolution.
Section 14. EFFECTIVE. This resolution is effective immediately upon adoption by the Board of
County Commissioners. The SDC established by Resolution No. 2008-059 shall first apply to building permits
for which a building permit application is accepted by the County as complete on and after October 1, 2008. The
Page 11 of 11 – Resolution 2013-020 (06/05/13)
SDC established by Resolution No. 2013-020 shall first apply to building permits or development approvals for
which a building permit or development application was accepted by the County as complete on and after the
effective date of this resolution.
DATED this _____ day of ____________________, 2013.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
_____________________________________________
ALAN UNGER, Chair
_________________________________________
TAMMY BANEY, Vice Chair
ATTEST:
______________________________
Recording Secretary
_________________________________________
ANTHONY DEBONE, Commissioner
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE UPDATE
(Methodology Report)
By Chris Doty, PE/PTOE, Road Department Director
April 5, 2013
With the recent County approval and State acknowledgement of the County’s new
Transportation System Plan (TSP), the County’s Transportation System Development
Charge (SDC) must be updated to reflect a new Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) contained
within the TSP as well as modified growth projections through the year 2030.
Background:
In July of 2008, the Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution 2008-059 which
established a countywide Transportation SDC. The passage of the Resolution concluded a
public process primarily involving the Deschutes County Transportation SDC Stakeholders
Advisory Committee. The Committee recommended a SDC methodology and final SDC
rate based upon the best available data regarding needed transportation projects and growth
projections. A primary component of the SDC methodology and rate is the Road
Department’s CIP which establishes the planned transportation projects necessary to
accommodate growth and system improvement throughout a 20-year planning horizon.
On August 20, 2012, the Board of County Commissioners approved an update to the
County’s TSP. The update includes a new Transportation CIP. The revised CIP contains
significant changes in planned projects through the year 2030.
The current SDC methodology calculates an improvement fee (no reimbursement fee1)
based on the number of PM peak hour trips added to the transportation system. The
formula is as follows:
1 The current SDC methodology does not contain a reimbursement fee portion; however Resolution 2008-059 (and supporting documents)
describes a “placeholder” methodology for future consideration of a reimbursement SDC.
EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION 2013-020
Transportation SDC Update: April 5, 2013 Page 2
The existing SDC methodology calculates the SDC eligible cost of planned capital
improvements at approximately $55M (of $280M in total project cost). The existing SDC
methodology also assumes growth, measured in the estimated number of daily peak hour
trips added to the system, at approximately 15,200.
The resulting SDC, updated several times through inflation adjustments, stands at $3,673
per PM peak hour trip (including $47/PM peak hour trip administration fee).
SDC Committee:
On February 12 and February 26th 2013, the County’s SDC Committee met to review an
update proposal based on a new CIP and revised infrastructure growth estimates. The SDC
Committee was comprised of the following members:
Paul Dewey, Central Oregon Landwatch
Chris Doty, Deschutes County Road Department Director
Andy High, Central Oregon Builders Association
Steve Hultberg, Radler, White and Alexander
Gary Miller, Special Road District #8
Bill Robie, Central Oregon Realtors Association
Peter Russell, Deschutes County, Senior Transportation Planner
Dale Van Valkenburg, Brooks Resources
Mike Williams, Hooker Creek
In addition to reviewing and recommending adoption of:
1. A revised infrastructure growth estimate
a. With new methodology for estimating system trip generation.
2. A project list (CIP)
a. With growth’s portion of improvements identified.
The SDC Committee also reviewed the following elements related to the SDC
methodology:
3. Consistency within the methodology as it relates to resort versus non-resort single-
family residential dwelling units.
4. Transportation SDC Recommendation
a. Reimbursement fee SDC Portion
b. Improvement fee SDC Portion
c. Total Transportation SDC
5. SDC Resolution related clarifications pertaining to:
Transportation SDC Update: April 5, 2013 Page 3
a. Establishment that SDCs are assigned to land rather than structure.
b. Timeframe to declare abandonment of use.
c. Clarification of how to charge Home Occupations.
d. How to address illegal use.
e. How to address change of use.
f. How to adopt changes/updates to the Institute of Transportation Engineers’
Trip Generation Manual.
In establishing items 1-5 above, the SDC Committee arrived at a new SDC rate.
The SDC Committee achieved full consensus on the above issues as follows:
Item 1 and 1a: Infrastructure Growth Estimate
Similar to the estimate calculated in Resolution 2008-059, the growth in transportation
system use utilized a residentially based background trip generation estimate, then
calculated system growth across the 20-year planning period utilizing an estimated growth
rate.
Based on recent Census and historical permit data, the Deschutes County Community
Development Department (CDD) has estimated an unincorporated area growth rate of
1.0% per year (2010 to 2030). See Exhibit A-1.
To calculate the background system use in 2010 (as a baseline for estimating future growth),
a “blended” residential trip generation rate was created and utilized to account for
Deschutes County’s unique high percentage of secondary home development.
The blended residential trip rate is calculated as follows:
Blended Single-Family Residential Trip Generation Rate Calculation
Land Use ITE #/Type PM peak hour
trips/unit
% of Total Use in
Des. County
Rate
Single Family Residential
(primary housing)
#210
Single Family
Detached
Housing
1.00 74% 0.74
Single Family Residential
(Secondary/resort housing)
#260
Recreational
Homes
0.26 26% 0.07
Total “Blended” Trip
Generation Rate per
Residential Dwelling
Unit (PM Pk Hr)
0.81
Transportation SDC Update: April 5, 2013 Page 4
The blended trip generation rate resolves the prior issue of methodology inconsistency
between residential uses contained within, or outside of, a Goal 8 destination resort. The
blended rate is a global rate of the average trip generation of a dwelling unit in Deschutes
County that will be applied to all building permits for single-family residences (inside and
outside of resorts).
Utilizing 2010 Census and CDD permit data, the 20-year growth in system use within the
unincorporated area is estimated per the following tables:
Growth in Residential Development
Land Use # Units 2010
# Units 2030
(1% per year for 20
years)
Growth in Units
Single Family (SF) Residential 31,013 37,836 6,823
Growth in System Use (Residential Based at 0.81 PM peak hour trips/unit)
Land Use
# of PM Peak
Hour Trips
(2010)
# of PM Peak
Hour Trips
(2030)
Growth in # of
PM Peak Hour
Trips
Growth (2010 to
2030) as a
percent of total
system use.
SF Residential 25,120 30,645 5,525 18.0%
Total Growth Related Trips added to System (2010 to 2030)
Land Use Growth Related PM peak hour trips
Residential 5,525
Non-Residential (Commercial, etc.)
*Estimated at 10% of residential trips per 2009 to 2013 SDC collection data 553
Total 6,078
Based on a revised growth estimate and a modified trip generation rate, growth within the
unincorporated area of Deschutes County is anticipated to add 6,078 PM peak hour trips to
the transportation system by 2030. This growth is estimated to account for an 18.0%
increase in transportation system use.
Item 2 and 2a: Capital Improvement Plan/Project List and Growth’s Portion of Planned Projects
Utilizing the CIP (with minor modifications) contained within the recently approved TSP,
the SDC Committee assigned growth’s share of planned projects primarily based on the
methodology and rationale established in Resolution 2008-059.
Transportation SDC Update: April 5, 2013 Page 5
Exhibit B is the recommended Project List with identified SDC funding apportionment
based on the SDC Committee’s recommendation in the following categories:
SDC Eligible Expense by Project Category
Project Category Project Cost % SDC Eligible Total $ SDC Eligible
County Intersection
Projects $7.08M 100% $7.08M
System Management $0.2M 0% $0
State Highway Segments $125.10M 0% $0
State Highway
Intersections $115.55M 2.7% $3.12M
County New Segments $3.46M 100% $3.46M
County Modernization
Projects $34.49M 18% $6.21M
Forest Highway Projects $15.4M 10% $1.54M
Bike/Ped Projects $0.57M 0% $0
Bridge Projects $3.44M 18% $0.62M
TOTAL Project Cost $305.3M $22.03M
The SDC Committee followed the prior methodology and rationale for assignment of SDC
eligible expense (growth’s portion) as established in Resolution 2008-059, with one
exception (Forest Highway Projects).
County Intersection Projects and New County Road Segments remain funded at 100% via
growth. County Modernization Projects and Bridge Projects are funded based on growth’s
proportional impact to background use – which has been revised to 18.0%. State Highway
Intersection Projects (intersecting County facilities) are funded at 2.7%. This is based on a
percent of a percent. The County’s share of an intersection’s is 15%. Assuming growth
accounts for 18% of the new use of the intersection, then 2.7% is 18% of the total County
share of 15%. System Management, State Highway Segments, and Bike/Ped Projects
(mostly sidewalk) do not have any funding assigned to growth.
Transportation SDC Update: April 5, 2013 Page 6
Within the existing SDC methodology, Forest Highway Projects were not assigned any
growth-related SDC expense as previously the Federal Forest Highway Program fully
funded Forest Highway reconstruction and modernization projects. With passage of the
federal transportation bill, MAP-21, Forest Highway projects now require a 10% local
match. As Forest Highway Projects are similar to County Modernization Projects (18%
growth attributable), the SDC Committee has accepted a staff recommendation of a 10%
allocation attributable to growth – equal to the match requirement.
In summary, the SDC Committee has recommended a growth-related allocation of
approximately $22.2M of the $305.3M project list. Of the $305.3M in projects contained on
the list, approximately $64.6M are County system related projects and $240.7M are State
Highway projects planned within Deschutes County.
Item 3: Consistency within the methodology as it relates to resort versus non-resort residential
dwelling units.
The prior SDC rate approved in Resolution 2008-059 contained inconsistencies within the
methodology report regarding the estimated impact of destination resort development versus
the SDC that was applied at time of development. These inconsistencies were noted and
arguments were made that single-family residential development within destination resort
communities should pay lower SDCs due to observed lower trip generation rates. To
address this inconsistency, staff proposed a “blended” single-family residential trip
generation rate which assumes and/or acknowledges the following:
1. Lower trip generation rates observed within destination resorts are primarily a
function of secondary home development.
2. Secondary home development is not exclusive to Goal 8 destination resorts within
Deschutes County.
3. Primary single-family home development is generally not restricted or prohibited
within destination resort communities.
4. It is not practical to assign or predict which single-family residences are or will
remain secondary homes in perpetuity.
5. Approximately 74% of single-family residential units in Deschutes County are
primary residences and 26% are secondary residences (or “recreational” homes).
6. The Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation manual provides trip
generation rates for traditional single-family residential development (ITE land use
#210) and secondary or recreation home development (ITE land use #260).
In consideration of these assumptions and acknowledgements, a weighted or “blended” trip
generation rate was calculated as previously outlined in Item #1a.
The blended residential trip rate is calculated as follows:
Transportation SDC Update: April 5, 2013 Page 7
Blended Single-Family Residential Trip Generation Rate Calculation
Land Use ITE #/Type PM peak hour
trips/unit
% of Total Use in
Des. County
Rate
Single Family Residential
(primary housing)
#210
Single Family
Detached
Housing
1.00 74% 0.74
Single Family Residential
(Secondary/resort housing)
#260
Recreational
Homes
0.26 26% 0.07
Total “Blended” Trip
Generation Rate per
Residential Dwelling
Unit (PM Pk Hr)
0.81
Given the existing blend of residential use observed within Deschutes County, the blended
residential trip rate provides a reasonable rate for calculation of existing transportation
system use.
With an assumption that future development patterns will closely resemble the existing
residential development composition (primary vs secondary home development), the
blended trip generation rate provides a reasonable predictor for future system use.
As proposed by staff and approved by the SDC Committee, the trip generation rate for all
single-family residential development in unincorporated Deschutes County is recommended
to be 0.81 PM peak hour trips per dwelling unit.
Item 4a-c: Transportation SDC Recommendation
ORS 223.297-223.314 defines SDCs and provides the framework for how they are
calculated and applied, as well as accounted for. The SDC is comprised of two
components: the improvement fee portion and the reimbursement fee portion.
The improvement fee portion is designed to capture costs associated with growth’s share of
future projects. The reimbursement fee portion is designed to recover costs of capital
improvements already constructed, but used by future growth. The SDC methodology
established in Resolution 2008-059 utilized an improvement fee portion, but deferred
establishment of a reimbursement fee portion until the County has a justifiable cost basis for
doing so, as follows:
Transportation SDC Update: April 5, 2013 Page 8
“Due to the fact that the existing County transportation system has been funded by a
combination of tax sources and other “general” funds, the County should forgo charging a
reimbursement fee as a part of its initial transportation SDC. A reimbursement fee
methodology or formula should be included in the analysis and report in order to allow the
County to add a reimbursement fee when it later develops a basis for such a fee.”
The reimbursement fee portion methodology established in Resolution 2008-059 is as
follows:
Reimbursement Fee Portion:
The SDC Committee reviewed the above methodology as well as a record of SDC
expenditures from 2009 to present (FY 13) and recommended approval of a reimbursement
fee portions as follows:
Improvement Fee Portion:
In contemplation of the CIP (Project List) and growth’s recommended portion of planned
projects as well as the revised growth projects for transportation system use, the SDC
Committee recommended the following improvement fee portion:
2
Total Transportation SDC:
The total recommended Transportation SDC is:
2 Including the existing $47 per PM peak hour trip administrative recovery fee, established in Resolution 2008-059.
Transportation SDC Update: April 5, 2013 Page 9
Exhibit C contains an updated listing of SDC rates for various land uses utilizing the 9th
Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual.
Item 5a through 5f: Other Modifications and Clarifications to the SDC Resolution
The SDC Committee reviewed staff recommendations pertaining to requested modifications
and clarifications within the SDC Resolution based on issues that have been raised since
implementation of Resolution 2008-059.
The SDC Committee approved a staff proposal3 to address the following in the new SDC
Resolution:
a. Establish that SDCs run with the land.
b. Declare that uses which have been abandoned for more than two (2)
consecutive years are not eligible for any credit for existing use.
c. Establish that:
i. Type I home occupations have negligible impact and pay no SDC
ii. Type II home occupations have a 0.5 PM peak hour trip impact and
pay the according SDC for 0.5 PM peak hour trips.
iii. Type III home occupations have a 1.0 PM peak hour trip impact and
pay the according SDC for 1.0 PM peak hour trips.
d. Address illegal use issues through code enforcement and require payment of
SDC.
e. Establish that SDC payment be required of development applications (not just
those requiring a building permit) for change of use which result in increasing
use of the transportation system.
f. Reference the applicability of subsequent updates of the ITE Trip Generation
Manual.
Exhibits/Attachments:
Exhibit A-1: DC CDD Growth Rate Projection Letter
Exhibit B: Project List (Capital Improvement Plan)
Exhibit C: Transportation SDC Rate Sheet
Exhibit D: February 12, 2013 Memo to SDC Committee (Proposals on several SDC Policy
Issues)
3 See Peter Russell Memo, dated February 12, 2013, Re: Proposals on several SDC Policy Issues
DRAFT DC Transportation CIP and SDC Project List
RESOLUTION 2013-020
EXHIBIT B
shade areas = contained in Res. 2008-059 project list Current Existing County SDC Com. Rec
Proposed Functional Road Standard Construction Engineering &Project SDC Eligible
Road Name From To Treatment Class Section (ft.)Section (ft.)Cost Administration cost cost Priority
County Improvement Projects (intersection only)
Intersection Location 100%
POWELL BUTTE HWY./NEFF-ALFALFA MKT. ROAD Rural/Bend Area Install Roundabout Arterial/Arterial 720,000$ 180,000$ 900,000$ 900,000$ High
POWELL BUTTE HWY./BUTLER MARKET ROAD Rural/Bend Area Install Roundabout Arterial/Arterial 720,000$ 180,000$ 900,000$ 900,000$ High
BURGESS RD AT DAY RD Rural / South County Area Add turn lanes to Burgess Road Arterial/Collector 225,000$ 56,250$ 281,250$ 281,250$ Medium
OLD REDMOND-BEND HWY
AT TUMALO RD
Rural / Tumalo Area Add turn lanes to Old Redmond-Bend Hwy
and improve intersection sight distance
Arterial/Collector $ 200,000 $ 50,000 $ 250,000
250,000$
Medium
BAKER ROAD AND CINDER BUTTE ROAD Rural/ Deschutes River Woods Install Roundabout Arterial/Collector 720,000$ 180,000$ 900,000$ 900,000$ Medium
CANAL BLVD/HELMHOLTZ Rural /Redmond Area Install Roundabout Arterial/Collector 720,000$ 180,000$ 900,000$ 900,000$ Medium
DESCHUTES MKT/HAMEHOOK Rural/Bend Area Install Roundabout Collector 720,000$ 180,000$ 900,000$ 900,000$ Medium
SOUTH CENTURY/SPRING RIVER ROAD Rural / South County Area Install Roundabout Collector/Arterial 720,000$ 180,000$ 900,000$ 900,000$ Medium
HUNTINGTON RD AT SOUTH CENTURY DRIVE Rural / South County Area Install Roundabout Collector 720,000$ 180,000$ 900,000$ 900,000$ Low
COYNER RD AT NORTHWEST WAY Rural / North County Area Add turn lanes to Northwest Way Collector 200,000$ 50,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ Low
Subtotal 7,081,250$ 7,081,250$
Transportation System Management (TSM) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Projects
Project 0%
Regional TDM Program Countywide County share to continue funding of Commute Options (per year)8,000$ 160,000$ -$ High
Rideshare Lots Countywide Install regional rideshare lots at various future locations 45,000$ 45,000$ -$ Medium
Subtotal 205,000$ -$
State Highway Improvement Projects (ODOT Projects with County participation)
Highway 0%
U.S. 97 11TH AVE. - O'NEIL HWY add travel lanes each direction Principal Arterial 9,000,000$ -$ 9,000,000$ -$ High
U.S. 97 South Century - La Pine Rec add travel lanes each direction Principal Arterial 25,300,000$ -$ 25,300,000$ -$ High
U.S. 20 HAWK'S BEARD TO RAIL WAY add travel lanes each direction Principal Arterial 20,000,000$ -$ 20,000,000$ -$ High
U.S. 97 La Pine Rec - DRAFTER add travel lanes each direction Principal Arterial 11,800,000$ -$ 11,800,000$ -$ Medium
U.S. 20 COUCH MARKET - GERKING MARKET add travel lanes each direction Principal Arterial 4,900,000$ -$ 4,900,000$ -$ Medium
U.S. 20 PROVIDENCE - HAMBY add travel lanes each direction Principal Arterial 2,000,000$ -$ 2,000,000$ -$ Medium
U.S. 20 OB Riley - Cooley add travel lanes each direction Principal Arterial 2,400,000$ -$ 2,400,000$ -$ Medium
OR 126 QUAIL TREE DR. - 2 MI. EAST add travel lanes each direction Principal Arterial 7,900,000$ -$ 7,900,000$ -$ Medium
OR 126 CLINE FALLS HWY. - HELMHOLTZ add travel lanes each direction Principal Arterial 9,600,000$ -$ 9,600,000$ -$ Medium
OR 126 SHERMAN - CROOK CO.add travel lanes each direction Principal Arterial 6,100,000$ -$ 6,100,000$ -$ Medium
OR 370 U.S. 97 TO 1/2 MILE WEST overpass, geometric improvments Principal Arterial 26,100,000$ -$ 26,100,000$ -$ Low
Subtotal 125,100,000$ -$
State Highway Intersection Improvement Projects (ODOT Projects with County participation)
Intersection Location 2.70%
U.S. 97/LOWER BRIDGE WAY Rural/Terrebonne Area Grade separate from U.S. 97 Principal Arterial/Arterial 21,000,000$ -$ 21,000,000$ 567,000$ High
U.S. 20/COOK AVE/O.B. RILEY RD.Rural / Tumalo Area Overpass with jughandles Principal Arterial/Collector 15,500,000$ -$ 15,500,000$ 418,500$ High
U.S. 97/WICKIUP JUNCTION INTERCHANGE PHASE I Rural/South County Area grade separation, realignment Principal Arterial 30,000,000$ -$ 30,000,000$ 810,000$ Medium
U.S. 97/PERSHALL-O'NEIL HWY Rural/Terrebonne Area Simple Overpass Principal Arterial/Collector 9,500,000$ -$ 9,500,000$ 256,500$ Medium
OR 126/HELMHOLTZ Rural/Redmond Area Traffic Signal Principal Arterial/Collector 1,250,000$ -$ 1,250,000$ 33,750$ Medium
U.S. 97/QUARRY ROAD INTERCHANGE Rural/Redmond Area grade separation Principal Arterial 15,000,000$ -$ 15,000,000$ 405,000$ Low
U.S. 97/VANDEVERT Rural/South County Area Disconnect from U.S. 97 Principal Arterial/Collector 2,300,000$ -$ 2,300,000$ 62,100$ Low
U.S. 20/HAMBY/WARD Rural/Bend Area Install Roundabout Principal Arterial/Collector 1,000,000$ -$ 1,000,000$ 27,000$ Low
U.S. 20/POWELL BUTTE HIGHWAY Rural/Bend Area Install Roundabout Principal Arterial/Arterial 1,000,000$ -$ 1,000,000$ 27,000$ Low
OR 31/U.S. 97 Rural/South County Area Directional Interchange Principal Arterials 19,000,000$ -$ 19,000,000$ 513,000$ Low
Subtotal 115,550,000$ 3,119,850$
Length (mi)
New Road Segments (urban and rural)(may include intersections)
100%
0.76 HUNNELL ROAD COOLEY ROAD RODGERS ROAD New Road Collector 30 602,000$ 150,500$ 752,500$ 752,500$ High
0.66 COOLEY ROAD 18TH STREET DESCHUTES MARKET ROAD New Road Arterial 32 522,730$ 130,683$ 653,413$ 653,413$ Low
0.2 CROOKED RIVER DR WILCOX DR SMITH ROCK WAY New Road Collector 30 158,400$ 39,600$ 198,000$ 198,000$ Low
1.5 NEW ROAD MASTEN RD 6TH ST New Road Collector 30 1,188,000$ 297,000$ 1,485,000$ 1,485,000$ Low
0.2 BRITTA EXTENSION END OF BRITTA HWY 20/ROBAL RD New Road Collector 30 300,000$ 75,000$ 375,000$ 375,000$ Low
Subtotal 3,463,913$ 3,463,913$
Length (mi)
4/1/2013 Resolution 2013-020 Page 1
DRAFT DC Transportation CIP and SDC Project List
RESOLUTION 2013-020
EXHIBIT B
shade areas = contained in Res. 2008-059 project list Current Existing County SDC Com. Rec
Proposed Functional Road Standard Construction Engineering &Project SDC Eligible
Road Name From To Treatment Class Section (ft.)Section (ft.)Cost Administration cost cost Priority
Other Prioritized Modernization Projects (for roads with more than 1,000 ADT in 2011)
Project 18%
0.318 DEER RUN LANE PINECREST LANE HUNTINGTON ROAD Reconstruction/ pave Local 22-24 28 251,856$ 62,964$ 314,820$ 56,668$ High
2.32 FOSTER ROAD SOUTH CENTURY DRIVE LA PINE REC. ROAD Reconstruction/ pave Collector 20 30 2,500,000$ 625,000$ 3,125,000$ 562,500$ High
2.7 HUNNELL ROAD RODGERS ROAD TUMALO ROAD Reconstruction/ pave Collector 22-24 30 2,020,000$ 505,000$ 2,525,000$ 454,500$ High
2.3 HUNTINGTON ROAD RIVERVIEW DR. (N)RIVERVIEW DR. (S)Reconstruction/ pave Future Collector 22-24 30 1,158,860$ 289,715$ 1,448,575$ 260,744$ High
1.93 RICKARD ROAD GROFF ROAD HIGHWAY 20 Reconstruction/ pave Collector 20 30 617,600$ 154,400$ 772,000$ 138,960$ High
1.1 CANAL BLVD.61ST/QUARRY HELMHOLTZ Add Center Turn Lane Arterial 32 56 407,100$ 101,775$ 508,875$ 91,598$ High
4.23 HELMHOLTZ ELKHORN MAPLE Travel Lane each direction/center turn lane Collector 25-28 66 4,906,000$ 1,226,500$ 6,132,500$ 1,103,850$ High
1.55 BURGESS ROAD DAY ROAD HUNTINGTON ROAD Center turn lane/widen bridge Arterial 30 44 867,675$ 216,919$ 1,084,594$ 195,227$ High
0.82 5TH STREET AMBER LANE LAPINE STATE REC. ROAD Widen & Overlay Collector 25 28 205,000$ 51,250$ 256,250$ 46,125$ Medium
1 17TH STREET NE NEGUS WAY HIGHWAY 370 Widen & Overlay Collector 21 28 250,000$ 62,500$ 312,500$ 56,250$ Medium
0.51 W. ANTLER AVE NW 35TH STREET NW HELMHOLTZ WAY Widen & Overlay Collector 24 28 127,500$ 31,875$ 159,375$ 28,688$ Medium
1.39 N. CANAL BOULEVARD REDMOND CITY LIMITS HIGHWAY 97 Widen & Overlay Collector 21-24 30 347,500$ 86,875$ 434,375$ 78,188$ Medium
1.03 GOSNEY ROAD HIGHWAY 20 COID CANAL BRIDGE Widen & Overlay Collector 26 28 257,500$ 64,375$ 321,875$ 57,938$ Medium
8.49 NW LOWER BRIDGE WAY 43RD STREET HOLMES ROAD Widen & Overlay Collector 24 30 2,122,500$ 530,625$ 2,653,125$ 477,563$ Medium
1.45 NE NEGUS WAY REDMOND CITY LIMITS NE 17TH STREET Widen & Overlay Collector 21-26 30 362,500$ 90,625$ 453,125$ 81,563$ Medium
4.27 BUCKHORN ROAD LOWER BRIDGE HIGHWAY 126 Reconstruction/ pave Collector 20 30 1,366,400$ 341,600$ 1,708,000$ 307,440$ Medium
1 31ST STREET NW SEDGEWICK NW LOWER BRIDGE WAY Widen & Overlay Arterial 24 30 250,000$ 62,500$ 312,500$ 56,250$ Low
1.57 NW 35TH STREET NW HEMLOCK AVE.NW UPAS AVE.Widen & Overlay Collector 24 30 392,500$ 98,125$ 490,625$ 88,313$ Low
2.13 61ST STREET S. CANAL BLVD HWY 97 Widen & Overlay Collector 24 28 532,500$ 133,125$ 665,625$ 119,813$ Low
0.53 NW ALMETER WAY NORTHWEST WAY NW SEDGEWICK AVE Widen & Overlay Arterial 25 30 132,500$ 33,125$ 165,625$ 29,813$ Low
0.98 BAILEY RD US 20 TUMALO RESERVOIR RD Widen & Overlay Collector 23 30 245,000$ 61,250$ 306,250$ 55,125$ Low
2.78 BEAR CREEK ROAD CITY LIMITS HIGHWAY 20 Widen & Overlay Collector 23-28 30 695,000$ 173,750$ 868,750$ 156,375$ Low
1.835 CHINA HAT ROAD KNOTT ROAD END MAINTENANCE Widen & Overlay FS Collector 24 30 458,750$ 114,688$ 573,438$ 103,219$ Low
1.41 CINDER BUTTE BAKER RD MINNETONKA LN Widen & Overlay Collector 25 28 352,500$ 88,125$ 440,625$ 79,313$ Low
0.315 COOLEY ROAD HIGHWAY 20 O.B. RILEY ROAD Widen & Overlay Collector 22 30 78,750$ 19,688$ 98,438$ 17,719$ Low
1.33 NW HELMHOLTZ W. ANTLER AVE Maple NW WALNUT AVE Widen & Overlay Collector 25 28 332,500$ 83,125$ 415,625$ 74,813$ Low
0.8 SW HELMHOLTZ W. ANTLER AVE Elkhorn HIGHWAY 126 S Canal Blvd Widen & Overlay Collector 25 28 200,000$ 50,000$ 250,000$ 45,000$ Low
6.604 HUNTINGTON ROAD SOUTH CENTURY DRIVE BURGESS ROAD (less 2.3mi)Widen & Overlay Collector 24 28 1,651,000$ 412,750$ 2,063,750$ 371,475$ Low
1.01 SW OBSIDIAN AVE.REDMOND CITY LIMITS UGB Widen & Overlay Collector 20 30 252,500$ 63,125$ 315,625$ 56,813$ Low
0.31 SMITH ROCK WAY HIGHWAY 97 RR XING/UGB TERREBONNE Widen & Overlay Arterial 25 30 77,500$ 19,375$ 96,875$ 17,438$ Low
1.04 STEVENS ROAD BEND CITY LIMITS WARD ROAD Widen & Overlay Collector 27 30 260,000$ 65,000$ 325,000$ 58,500$ Low
4.61 TUMALO RESERVOIR RD OB RILEY COLLINS RD Widen & Overlay Collector 21-23 30 1,152,500$ 288,125$ 1,440,625$ 259,313$ Low
0.51 SW WICKIUP AVE.SW HELMHOLTZ WAY SW 58TH STREET24-26 Widen & Overlay Collector 20 30 127,500$ 31,875$ 159,375$ 28,688$ Low
0.3 BOZEMAN TRAIL CHISOLM TRAIL RICKARD ROAD Reconstruction/ pave Local 22-24 28 237,600$ 59,400$ 297,000$ 53,460$ Low
2.13 NW WAY COYNER MAPLE Travel Lane each direction/center turn lane Collector 32 70 2,339,100$ 584,775$ 2,923,875$ 526,298$ Medium
CLINE FALLS HIGHWAY AT NUTCRACKER DRIVE Disconnect from Cline Falls Hwy.Arterial 30 30 60,000$ 15,000$ 75,000$ 13,500$ Low
Subtotal 34,494,614$ 6,209,030$
Length (mi)
Federal Lands Access Program Projects (primarily federal funding)
Project 10%
8.36 SKYLINERS ROAD UGB BEND END CO. MAINTENANCE Reconstruction Collector 24 34 9,000,000$ 2,250,000$ 11,250,000$ 1,125,000$ High
3.62 BURGESS RD PRINGLE FALLS SOUTH CENTURY DR Reconstruction Collector 24 32 3,300,000$ 825,000$ 4,125,000$ 412,500$ Low
Subtotal 15,375,000$ 1,537,500$
(L.F.)
Prioritized Other Bike and Pedestrian Projects
Road Bike Projects Proposed Treatment
Tumalo 0%
300 7th Street U.S. 20 Cook Avenue 5' sidewalk both sides Local 8,500$ 2,125$ 10,625$ -$ High
220 4th Street Wood Avenue Bruce Avenue 5' sidewalks on both sides Local 10,500$ 2,625$ 13,125$ -$ Medium
575 5th Street Wood Avenue Cook Avenue 5' sidewalks on both sides Local 21,000$ 5,250$ 26,250$ -$ Medium
450 8th Street Cook Avenue Riverview Avenue 5' sidewalks both sides Local 14,000$ 3,500$ 17,500$ -$ Low
Trails/Other Projects -$
6200 Tumalo Trail Tumalo State Park Riverview Avenue 10' Multi-use trail 128,000$ 32,000$ 160,000$ -$ High
Subtotal 227,500$ -$
Terrebonne -$
450 5th Street B Avenue C Avenue 5' sidewalk on east side only Local 9,000$ 2,250$ 11,250$ -$ Medium
1046 C Avenue 6th U.S. 97 5' sidewalk both sides Local 36,000$ 9,000$ 45,000$ -$ Medium
260 B Avenue 5th Street 6th Street future 5' sidewalk, north side only Local 4,700$ 1,175$ 5,875$ -$ Medium
1080 A Avenue 11th Street 15th Street future 5' sidewalks both sides Local 40,000$ 10,000$ 50,000$ -$ Low
4/1/2013 Resolution 2013-020 Page 2
DRAFT DC Transportation CIP and SDC Project List
RESOLUTION 2013-020
EXHIBIT B
shade areas = contained in Res. 2008-059 project list Current Existing County SDC Com. Rec
Proposed Functional Road Standard Construction Engineering &Project SDC Eligible
Road Name From To Treatment Class Section (ft.)Section (ft.)Cost Administration cost cost Priority
1090 Smith Rock Way 11th Street 15th Street 5' sidewalks on both sides Arterial 40,000$ 10,000$ 50,000$ -$ Low
1550 C Avenue U.S. 97 16th Street 5' sidewalk on south side only Local 31,000$ 7,750$ 38,750$ -$ Low
1725 11th Street Central Ave U.S. 97 5' sidewalks on both sides Local 65,000$ 16,250$ 81,250$ -$ High
Trails/Other Projects -$
Canal "H"13th Street 12th Street 10' sandseal trail Local 1,500$ 375$ 1,875$ -$ Low
Canal "H"12th Street 400' south of A Avenue 10' sandseal trail Local 5,500$ 1,375$ 6,875$ -$ Low
B Avenue East end of west segment West end of east segment 300' stairway Local 21,000$ 5,250$ 26,250$ -$ Low
4th Street North Forster Drive 300' stairway Local 21,000$ 5,250$ 26,250$ -$ Low
Subtotal 343,375$ -$
Bike and Pedestrian Subtotal 570,875$ -$
Bridge Projects
Location Sufficiency Rating Treatment Posting Required 18%
TETHEROW RD 32.4 New Bridge Yes 1,266,000$ 316,500$ 1,582,500$ 284,850$ High
CASCADES LAKES (Fall River)46.6 New Bridge Yes 637,000$ 159,250$ 796,250$ 143,325$ High
GRIBBLING RD 24 New Bridge Yes 180,000$ 45,000$ 225,000$ 40,500$ Low
WILCOX AVE 47.2 New Bridge Yes 120,000$ 30,000$ 150,000$ 27,000$ Low
SISEMORE ROAD 49.1 New Bridge No 550,000$ 137,500$ 687,500$ 123,750$ Low
Subtotal 3,441,250$ 619,425$
TOTAL 305,281,901$ 22,030,968$
4/1/2013 Resolution 2013-020 Page 3
EXHIBIT C: Deschutes County Transportation SDC Rate Sheet
April 5, 2013
1
ITE
Code Type of Use Land Use Description
Peak-
Hour
Trips
Trip
Reduction
Factor*
Adjusted
P-H-Ts SDC Units
110 General Light
Industrial
Typically less than 500 employees, free standing and single
use. Examples: Printing plants, material testing laboratorial,
data processing equipment assembly, power stations.
0.97 1 0.97 $3,082 KSF
130 Industrial Park
Industrial park areas that contain a number of industrial
and/or related facilities (mix of manufacturing, service and
warehouse).
0.85 1 0.85 $3,194 KSF
140 Manu-
facturing
Facilities that convert raw materials into finished products.
Typically have related office, warehouse, research and
associated functions.
0.73 1 0.73 $2,743 KSF
151 Mini-
Warehouse
Storage units or vaults rented for storage of goods. Units
are physically separate and access is through an overhead
door or other common access point. Example: U-Store-It.
0.19 1 0.19 $714 KSF
210 SF
Detached Single family detached housing. 0.81** 1 0.81** $3,044 DU
220 Apartment
Rental dwelling units within the same building. At least 4
units in the same building. Examples: Quadplexes and all
types of apartment buildings.
0.60 1 0.62 $2,255 DU
230 Condo/
Townhouse
Residential condominium/townhouses under single-family
ownership. Minimum of two single-family units in the same
building structure.
0.52 1 0.52 $1,954 DU
240 Mobile
Home
Trailers or manufactured homes that are sited on permanent
foundations. Typically the parks have community facilities
(laundry, recreation rooms, and pools).
0.59 1 0.59 $2,217 Occupied
DU
253 Elderly
Housing
Restricted to senior citizens. Contains residential units
similar to apartments or condos. Sometimes in self-
contained villages. May also contain medical facilities,
dining and some limited, supporting retail.
0.17 1 0.17 $639 Occupied
DU
310 Hotel
Lodging facility that may include restaurants, lounges,
meeting rooms and/or convention facilities. Can include a
large motel.
0.60 1 0.60 $2,255 Room
320 Motel Sleeping accommodations and often a restaurant. Free
onsite parking and little or no meeting space. 0.47 1 0.47 $1,766 Room
330 Resort Hotel
Similar to hotel, but primary difference is resort hotels cater
to tourist and vacation industry, often providing a wide
variety of recreational facilities/programs (golf course, tennis
court, beach access, or other amenities).
0.42 1 0.42 $1,578 Room
412 Local
Park
County-owned parks, varying widely as to location, type and
number of facilities, including boating/swimming facilities,
ball fields and picnic facilities.
0.09 1 0.09 $338 Acre
417 Regional
Park
Regional park authority-owned parks, varying widely as to
location, type and number of facilities; including trails, lakes,
pools, ball fields, camp/picnic facilities and general office
space.
0.20 1 0.20 $752 Acre
430 Golf
Course
Includes 9, 18, 27 and 36 hole municipal and private country
clubs. Some have driving ranges and clubhouses with pro
shops, restaurants and lounges. Many of the municipal
courses do not include such facilities.
2.92 1 2.92 $10,973 Hole
435
Multipurpose
Recreation
Facility
Contain two or more of the following land uses at one site:
mini-golf, batting cages, video arcade, bumper boats, go-
carts, driving ranges
3.58 1 3.58 $13,454 KSF
437 Bowling
Alley
Recreational facilities with bowling lanes which may include
a small lounge, restaurant or snack bar. 1.71 1 1.71 $6,426 KSF
493 Athletic
Club
Privately owned with weightlifting and other facilities, often
including swimming pools, hot tubs, saunas, racquetball,
squash and handball courts.
5.96 1 5.96 $22,398 KSF
495
Recreational
Community
Center
Facilities similar to and including YMCAs, often including
classes, day care, meeting rooms, swimming pools; and
tennis, racquetball, handball, weightlifting equipment, locker
rooms and food service.
2.74 1 2.74 $10,297 KSF
520 Elementary
School Public, typically serves grades K-6. 1.21
0.15
1
1
1.21
0.15
$4,547
$564
KSF
Student
522 Middle
School
Public, serves students who have completed elementary
school but have not yet entered high school.
1.19
0.16
1
1
1.19
0.16
$4,472
$601
KSF
Student
530 High
School
Public, serves students who have completed middle or
junior high school.
0.97
0.13
1
1
0.97
0.13
$3,645
$489
KSF
Student
540
Junior/
Community
College
Two-year junior colleges or community colleges. 2.54
0.12
1
1
2.54
0.12
$9,545
$451
KSF
Student
560 Church Contains worship area and may include meeting rooms,
classrooms, dining area. 0.55 1 0.55 $2,067 KSF
EXHIBIT C: Deschutes County Transportation SDC Rate Sheet
April 5, 2013
2
ITE
Code Type of Use Land Use Description
Peak-
Hour
Trips
Trip
Reduction
Factor
Adjusted
P-H-Ts SDC Units
565 Day Care
Facility for care of pre-school children, primarily during
daytime hours. May include classrooms, offices, eating
areas and playgrounds.
12.34
0.81
0.33
0.33
4.07
0.27
$15,295
$1,015
KSF
Student
590 Library Public or private. Contains shelved books, reading rooms or
areas, and sometimes meeting rooms. 7.30 1 7.30 $27,433 KSF
591
Lodge/
Fraternal
Organization
Includes a clubhouse with dining and drinking facilities,
recreational and entertainment areas and meeting rooms. 0.03 1 0.03 $113 Member
710 General
Office
Office building with multiple tenants. Mixture of tenants can
include professional services, bank and loan institutions,
restaurants, snack bars and service retail facilities.
1.49 1 1.49 $5,599 KSF
715
Single Tenant
Office
Building
Single tenant office building. Usually contains offices,
meeting rooms, file storage areas, data processing,
restaurant or cafeteria, and other service functions.
1.74 1 1.74 $6,539 KSF
720 Medical-
Dental Office
Provides diagnosis and out-patient care on a routine basis.
Typically operated by one or more private physicians or
dentists.
3.57 1 3.57 $13,416 KSF
750 Office Park
Park or campus-like planned unit development containing
office buildings and support service such as banks and loan
institutions, restaurants and service stations.
1.48 1 1.48 $5,562 KSF
760
Research &
Development
Center
Single building or complex of buildings devoted to research
and development. May contain offices and light fabrication
facilities.
1.07 1 1.08 $4,021 KSF
770 Business
Park
Group of flex-type or incubator one- and two-story buildings
served by a common roadway system. Tenant space is
flexible to accommodate a variety of uses. Rare of building
is usually served by a garage door. Typically includes a mix
of offices, retail and wholesale.
1.26 1 1.26 $4,735 KSF
812
Building
Materials &
Lumber
Small, freestanding building where hardware, building
materials and lumber are sold. May include yard storage
and shed storage areas. The storage areas are not
included in the GLA needed for trip generation estimates.
4.49 1 4.49 $16,873 KSF
813 Discount
Super Store
A freestanding discount store that also contains a full
service grocery department under one roof. 4.35 0.72 3.13 $11,763 KSF
814 Variety Store
A variety store is a retail store that sells a broad range of
inexpensive items at a single price. These are also called
“dollar stores” and can be stand alone or in a small strip
shopping center.
6.82 1 6.82 $25,630 KSF
815 Discount
Store
A freestanding discount store offering a variety of customer
services, centralized cashiering, and a wide range of
products under one roof. Does not include a full-service
grocery department, like Land Use 813 (Freestanding
Discount Superstore).
4.98 0.54 2.69 $10,109 KSF
816 Hardware/
Paint Store
Typically freestanding buildings with off-street parking,
where paints and hardware are sold. 4.84 0.29 1.40 $5,261 KSF
817
Nursery/
Garden
Center
Freestanding building with yard containing planting or
landscape stock. May have large greenhouses and offer
landscaping services. Typically contain office, storage and
shipping facilities. GLA is Building GLA, not yard storage
GLA.
6.94
8.06
1
1
6.94
8.06
$26,081
$30,289
KSF
Acre
818 Nursery
(Wholesale)
A free-standing building with an outside storage area for
planting or landscape stock. Primarily service contractors
and suppliers and may have large greenhouses and offer
landscaping services. Most have office, storage, and
shipping.
5.17
0.45
1
1
5.17
0.45
$19,429
$1,691
KSF
Acre
820 Shopping
Center
Integrated group of commercial establishments that is
planned, developed, owned and managed as a unit.
Provides enough onsite parking to serve its buildings, movie
theatres, restaurants, post offices, health clubs and
recreation such as skating rinks and amusements.
3.71 0.40 1.48
$5,562
KSF
Gross
Leasable
Area
826 Specialty
Retail
Small strip shopping centers containing a variety of retail
shops that typically specialize in apparel, hard goods,
services such as real estate, investment, dance studios,
florists and small restaurants.
2.71 0.39 1.06 $3,983
KSF
Gross
Leasable
Area
841 New Car
Sales Car dealership with sales, service, parts and used vehicles. 2.62 1 2.62 $9,846 KSF
848 Tire Store Primary business is tire sales and repair. Generally does
not have a large storage or warehouse area. 4.15 0.72 2.99 $11,236 KSF
850 Supermarket Freestanding grocery store. May also contain ATMs, photo
centers, pharmacies, video rental areas. 9.48 0.26 2.45 $9,207 KSF
EXHIBIT C: Deschutes County Transportation SDC Rate Sheet
April 5, 2013
3
ITE
Code Type of Use Land Use Description
Peak-
Hour
Trips
Trip
Reduction
Factor
Adjusted
P-H-Ts SDC Units
851 Convenience
Market w/o gas
Sells conventional foods, newspapers, magazines and often
beer and wine. Does not have gas pumps. 52.41 0.28 14.67 $55,130 KSF
853 Convenience
Market w/gas
Sells conventional foods, newspapers, magazines and often
beer and wine. Market has gas pumps but primary business
is selling convenience items.
50.92 0.11 5.6 $21,044 KSF
880
Pharmacy
Without
Drive-Through
Facilities that fill medical prescriptions. 8.40 0.34 2.86 $10,748 KSF
881
Pharmacy
With
Drive-Through
Facilities that fill medical prescriptions. 9.91 0.38 3.77 $14,168 KSF
890 Furniture
Store Sells furniture, accessories and often carpet/floor coverings. 0.45 0.16 0.07 $263 KSF
911 Walk-In
Bank
Usually a freestanding building with a parking lot. Does not
have drive-up windows. May have ATMs. 12.13 0.27 3.28 $12,326 KSF
912 Drive-In
Bank
Provides drive-up and walk-in bank services. May have
ATMs. 24.30 0.27 6.6 $24,803 KSF
925 Drinking Place
Contains a bar where alcoholic beverages and snacks are
served, and possibly some type of entertainment such as
music, games or pool tables.
11.34 0.32 3.63 $13,642 KSF
931 Quality
Restaurant
High-quality eating establishment with slower turnover rates
(more than one hour). 7.49 0.29 2.17 $8,155 KSF
932
High
Turnover Sit-
Down
Restaurant
Sit-down eating establishment with turnover rates of less
than one hour. 9.85 0.31 3.05 $11,462 KSF
933
Fast Food
Without
Drive-Through
Fast-food restaurant without drive-through window. 26.15 0.27 7.06 $26,531 KSF
934
Fast Food
With
Drive-Through
Fast food restaurant with drive-through window. 32.65 0.27 8.82 $33,146 KSF
936
Coffee/Donut
Shop w/o
Drive- Through
Single-tenant coffee and donut restaurants without drive-
through windows. Limited to no indoor seating. 40.75 0.17 6.92 $26,005 KSF
937
Coffee/Donut
Shop w/Drive-
Through
Single-tenant coffee and donut restaurants with drive-
through windows. Limited to no indoor seating. 42.80 0.11 4.70 $17,663 KSF
938
Coffee/Donut
Shop w/Drive-
Through and
no seating
Single-tenant coffee and donut restaurants with drive-
through windows. No seating present. 75.00 0.11 8.25 $31,004 KSF
944 Gas Station Sells gasoline and may also provide vehicle service and
repair. Does not have convenience market and/or car wash. 13.87 0.23 3.08 $11,575 Fueling
Positions
945
Gas/Service
Station with
Convenience
Market
Primary businesses are selling gas and convenience
market. May also contain facilities for service and repair.
Does not include car wash.
13.51 0.17 2.30 $8,643 Fueling
Positions
946
Gas/Service
Station with
Convenience
Market
Car Wash
Sells gas. Primary businesses are convenience market and
car wash. May also contain facilities for service and repair. 13.86 0.17 2.37 $8,906 Fueling
Positions
947 Self-Service
Car Wash
Allows manual cleaning of vehicles by providing stalls for
the driver to park and wash. 5.54 1 5.54 $20,819 Wash
Stall
950 Truck Stop Located on or near major roadways and provide refueling,
food, and other services to motorists and truck drivers. 13.63 0.17 2.32 $8,719 Fueling
Positions
N/A Type 1 Home
Occupation
DCC 18.116.280(C). Does not produce more than five (5)
trips a day to/from the site, including parcel deliveries. 1 0.0*** 0.0 $0 DU
N/A Type 2 Home
Occupation
DCC 18.116.280(D). Does not produce more than ten (10)
trips a day to/from the site, including parcel deliveries. 1 0.5*** 0.5 $1,879 DU
N/A Type 3 Home
Occupation
DCC 18.116.280(E). Does not produce more than twenty
(20) trips a day to/from the site, including parcel deliveries. 1 1*** 1 $3,758 DU
*Trip Reduction Factor is average rate for both pass-by and diverted-link in ITE Manual and/or as set by previous SDC table in Resolution 2008-059
**Local blended rate for rural residences and Goal 8 destination resort residences
***Rate based on empirical knowledge, planning and engineering best judgment, and SDC committee discussion
MEMORANDUM
To: Transportation System Development Charge (SDC) Review Committee
From: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner
Date: Feb. 12, 2013
Re: Proposals on several SDC policy issues
Background
The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) established a countywide transportation system
development charge (SDC) in summer 2008 with Resolution 2008-059. In the years since, the
County has identified several unanticipated issues during implementation of SDCs. While these
issues have been resolved on a case-by-case basis either at the staff level or by an applicant’s
appeal to the Board, the Board and staff agree it would be preferable to add language into the
SDC resolution itself to address these issues. The major topics are:
Does the SDC run with the land or the structure?
What to do if a use has been abandoned or interrupted?
How to handle home occupations?
What to do with uses established illegally?
Should SDCs only be limited to building permits or should the SDC be triggered by a
change of use if the new land use will generate more trips than the previous one?
Update trip rates to 9th edition of Institute of Traffic Engineers handbook
SDCs run with the land
The issue of whether an SDC runs with the land or the structure came up in August 2011 when
an applicant appealed to the Board an SDC charge based on a site plan review. The house on
the site plan had been removed from a rural lot south of Redmond, stored in a second location,
and was proposed to be placed on a vacant lot in Terrebonne for its third and final location.
Staff argued the vacant Terrebonne lot was not producing any trips, but would after the single-
family home was placed on the site. Applicant contended due to the home’s age and original
location it was already included in the traffic assumptions upon which the transportation SDC
was based and thus SDCs should not be applied. The Board in its Sept. 24, 2011, work session
and Oct. 3, 2011, decision upheld staff’s interpretation and directed staff to develop policy
language for inclusion in any SDC updates.
EXHIBIT D
2
Staff proposes language that SDCs run with the land and are not associated with the structure.
Proposed language regarding SDCs are tied to the property
In Section 4, Applicability, insert into (A) the following underlined sentence:
(A) A Transportation System Development Charge is hereby imposed upon all new
development for which a building permit is required within the unincorporated
areas of the County outside the urban growth boundaries of the cities of La Pine,
Sisters, Redmond, and Bend. Once assessed, the transportation system
development charge is assigned to the property permanently unless 1) the use is
interrupted or abandoned for a time of two years or more or 2) is replaced by a
legally established land use that generates more trips than the previously
approved land use. The transportation system development charge runs with the
land, not the structure.
SDCs apply when a land use is abandoned or interrupted
The majority of SDCs pertain to either a vacant site or one that is being redeveloped. Occasionally,
however, a site will have a use that was abandoned or interrupted. In the County’s development
code (DCC 18.120.010) a land use must be legally re-established if the use or structure has been
abandoned or interrupted for more than one (1) year. The time period in DCC 18.120.010 was
based on national case law.
In the past, staff has approached SDCs for abandoned or interrupted sites on a case-by-case basis.
If the use had been abandoned 30 years ago, staff has applied SDCs. If the use had been
abandoned for less than a year, then staff has not applied SDC’s. The gray area has been uses
that were lawfully established prior to the 2008 implementation of the SDC, but then abandoned for
a year or more. Staff is sensitive to the current economic climate and in that previously mentioned
Sept. 2011 work session recommended a two-year (2) window instead of one (1) year be used
when determining if SDCs apply to a property or structure. The Board agreed with the two-year
timeline.
Staff recommends that a two-year timeline be used to determine when a use or structure has been
abandoned or interrupted. This would include failure to initiate a use as well.
Proposed language regarding SDCs are triggered when a use or structure is abandoned
In Section 4, Applicability, insert into (A) the following underlined sentence:
(A) A Transportation System Development Charge is hereby imposed upon all new
development for which a building permit is required within the unincorporated
areas of the County outside the urban growth boundaries of the cities of La Pine,
Sisters, Redmond, and Bend. Once assessed, the transportation system
development charge is assigned to the property permanently unless 1) the use is
interrupted or abandoned for a time of two years or more or 2) is replaced by a
legally established land use that generates more trips than the previously
approved land use. In other words, the transportation system development
charge runs with the land, not the structure.
SDCs and home occupations
The County at DCC 18.116.280 allows for varied home occupations of differing levels of
intensity, ranging from those that are essentially invisible to neighbors to those that result in
3
employees arriving on-site. For comparison’s sake, a single-family home generates 10 trips a
day.
Type I home occupations result in less than five trips a day to the site, including customers,
clients, or parcel deliveries. Type 2 home occupations result in no more than 10 business-
related trips to the site and no more than two employees. Type 3 home occupations can have
up to five employees if the property is 10 acres in size and zoned EFU, MUA10, or RR10 and
has on-site parking for up to five customers and allows up to 20 business-related trips a day.
In the past, for Type I home occupations staff has assessed half the SDC for a single-family
home as Type I home occupations increase trips from a single-family home site by no more
than 50%. For Type 2 and Type 3 home occupations, staff has attempted to find an analogous
use in the ITE manual, scaling the trip generation based on the size of the proposed use. (For
example, if the ITE indicated use X would generate 10 trips per 1,000 square feet and the home
occupation use would only occupy 250 square feet, we’d base the SDC on 2.5 trips from the
site.) One challenge is that many home occupations are not represented in the ITE manual or
lack an even remotely analogous use.
Staff recommends for Type I home occupations dropping the SDC requirement; for Type 2
home occupations charge half the SDC for a single-family home; and for Type 3 home
occupations charge an SDC equal to a single-family home.
Proposed modification to Land Use/Trip Generation Table for SDC rates:
At the end of BOCC Resolution 2008-059 is a table listing ITE Code, Customer Type, Land Use
Description, etc. Add the following underlined classifications, rates, and amounts.
ITE
Code
Customer
Type
Land Use
Description
Peak
Hour
Trips
Pass-By
Trip
Factor
Adjusted
P-H-Ts SDC
Unit
s
N/A Type 1 Home
Occupation 0 0 0 $0 N/A
N/A Type 2 Home
Occupation 0.5 0 0.5 $1,836 N/A
N/A Type 3 Home
Occupation 1 0 1 $3,673 N/A
SDCs apply to a use that was established illegally
Infrequently, a land use process is initiated as a result of a code enforcement complaint. The
County’s first option in code enforcement is voluntary compliance, which means the property owner
or his agent applies for the necessary building and/or land use permits.
Staff recommends these cases be dealt with as if this were a new use and SDC’s apply, otherwise
the County runs the risk of people building illegal structures to avoid paying SDC’s. In a previous
work session the Board had agreed with that position.
4
Proposed language regarding SDCs are applicable for a land use that was initiated to resolve a
code enforcement complaint.
In Section 4, Applicability, insert into (A) the following underlined sentence:
(A) A Transportation System Development Charge is hereby imposed upon all new
development for which a building permit is required or a development permit is
approved within the unincorporated areas of the County outside the urban growth
boundaries of the cities of La Pine, Sisters, Redmond, and Bend.
Should SDCs be only tied to building permits or could development permits be included?
The County SDC is tied to the building permit process. However, a land use application can result
in a more intense use of a building, yet not require a building permit as can a zone change or plan
amendment. Examples of this include a general office becoming a medical office, a personal
hangar becoming the site of an aviation-related business, or a home being rezoned for commercial
use. In other words, the site will generate more traffic post-land use approval than pre-land use
approval, yet the applicant will not have paid any SDCs to mitigate that additional traffic
Staff would recommend the language proposed for code enforcements would also address this
issue. The proposed language cites a development permit, but is silent on whether the permit is
tied to resolving a code enforcement complaint or is just a run of the mill land use application.
Update tables to most recent edition of Institute of Traffic Engineers trip generation manual
BOCC Resolution 2008-059 contains a table listing 57 land uses and their trip generation rates and
their applicable SDCs, based on the ITE “Trip Generation” 7th edition. This table is now two editions
behind and several land uses now have lower trip generation rates in the 9th edition than they had in
the 7th.
While BOCC 2008-059 is based on the ITE manual, nowhere does the resolution explicitly state
that fact. Staff would recommend adding the following underlined language and updating the table.
Proposed language regarding trip generation for specific land uses.
In Section 4, Applicability, insert into (B) the following underlined sentence:
(B) The Transportation System Development Charges (SDCs) shall be determined as follows:
(1) For those land-use categories which are specifically identified in the most recent
edition of the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Handbook and the
methodology report adopted pursuant to this resolution, the SDC amount shall be
determined as identified in the Methodology Report.
Another option would be to keep the reference to the most recent ITE edition and simply delete the
table from the updated resolution. By choosing that option, the SDC resolution would not need to
be updated every time a new edition of the ITE manual was published.
Staff presents all of the above recommendations to the SDC review comment for review and
discussion. Once the SDC review committee has made its recommendations, staff will coordinate
with Legal Counsel on a new resolution with updated language.