Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-09-26 Business Meeting MinutesDeschutes 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 MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2011 Commissioners' Hearing Room -Administration Building -1300 NW Wall St., Bend Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Alan Unger and Anthony DeBone. Also present were Erik Kropp, Interim County Administrator; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; George Kolb, Road Department; Tom Anderson, Nick Lelack, Peter Russell, Cynthia Smidt and Peter Gutowsky, Community Development; media representative Hillary Borrud o/The Bulletin; and approximately a dozen other citizens. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 10:00 a.m. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. CITIZEN INPUT None was offered. 3. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of First Reading and Second Readings, and Adoption by Emergency, of Ordinance No. 2011-008, Amending Title 23, to Adopt the South County Local Wetland Inventory into the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Baney opened the hearing and read the opening statement (a copy of which is attached for reference). In regard to potential conflicts of interest, Commissioner DeB one said he thinks he might have a small portion of wetlands inventory in his back yard, but he sees no conflict of interest. Commissioners Baney and Unger said they had none. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, September 26,2011 Page 1 of 19 Pages There were no challenges from the public. Peter Gutowsky gave an overview of the item. He said this is the largest project of its type in Oregon and involves 3,400 acres of mapped wetlands. A consultant was hired and local residents were involved over a year's time. The draft report was provided to the public last fall. The Board has had several work sessions on this issue. He said he can keep the presentation brief unless there are concerns or questions. Representatives of the Oregon Department of State Lands are in attendance. The Plan will be updated and policies will be revised accordingly. This will be utilized as the National Wetlands Inventory has been when property is to be developed. This process has been in place for more than twenty years. The emergency adoption is proposed because the local inventory needs to be a part of the comprehensive Plan. In that way property owners can be advised if their property is affected. It is much more precise than the National Wetlands Inventory. Laurie Craghead added that the Comprehensive Plan affected is the old one and not the one adopted but not yet effective. The new language will be rolled into the new Plan at that time. Chair Baney said that about 500 properties were taken off the list, which is significant. She asked that if someone feels their property should not have been mapped, what is their recourse. Mr. Gutowsky said that they can coordinate with the Department of State Lands. As resources are available, DSL staff will visit the property and do a determination to verify if there are wetlands on the site. If there are not, they can advise the County and the property owner will be able to avoid having to get a conditional use permit. No public testimony was offered. Commissioner Unger stated that he feels a good job has been done on this project. Commissioner DeBone added that it is more detailed and accurate, he and is supportive of the emergency clause. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, September 26,2011 Page 2 of 19 Pages i i 1, " l 'I UNGER: Move first and second readings of Ordinance No. 2011-008, "1I 1 i declaring an emergency. ,~ DEBONE: Second. 1 VOTE: UNGER: Yes. ~ ! 4 DEBONE: Yes. i t BANEY: Chair votes yes. 'l i ,1 Chair Baney conducted the first and second readings by title only. ,i j 3 j UNGER: Move adoption. ,I4 DEBONE: Second. ~ 11 " ~ , VOTE: UNGER: Yes. i DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. I" i,, ·l I f, ~ ~i 4. Before the Board was a Public Hearing, and Consideration of First 1 Reading of Ordinance No. 2011-017, Amending Title 23, to Adopt a i 1 Regional Economic Opportunity Analysis and Regional Large-Lot j Industrial Land Policy for Central Oregon. ) i ,~ Mr. Gutowsky read the opening statement at this time. The Commissioners iJ 1 declared no conflicts of interest, and there were no challenges from the public. j ~ 1 I Mr. Gutowsky presented the case file into the record, and provided an overview , ,1,, of the item. The issue involves all regional cities, counties, and all kinds of ~ ~ organizations who have an interest in improving the economic development J 1 j environment. The report documented that the individual cities have not been j, i able to justify the need for large lot industrial sites. The issue has to be I approached from a regional level, and the work done has been a huge ,i 'l I collaborative effort. i I 1., 1 .. Once this is adopted, it will allow interested cities to be able to initiate ~ , processes to help meet the need for large lot industrial sites. The County is l trying to recognize this technical document and help set in motion regional ! .~ efforts through the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council, working with I 1 the cities. 1 J Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, September 26, 2011 Page 3 of 19 Pages The County has structured the findings to justify the regional need, and additionally where State law requires additional findings, the approach is to be phased. Municipalities will do the analyses as required. If there are concerns about the analysis and the plan, Mr. Gutowsky asked that the Board require people to voice their exact concerns, in detail. Commissioner Unger stated that he is Board Chair of COIC, which has worked with Mr. Gutowsky on these efforts. Mr. Gutowsky said that COIC sent a letter of support and are interested in this process, and it could be a natural fit for their group. He is being cautious, as the Plan policies don't specify who will be doing this. Laurie Craghead pointed out that this is a legislative issue, not land use. Chair Baney added that a letter from the Central Oregon Association of Realtors was received today, supporting this effort. Mr. Gutowsky said that there is an additional letter from Crook County. Commissioner Unger said that the cities have to make application to the State to expand. The State tells the city what to do in regard to a twenty-year supply of certain types of land. He asked how this applies to a specific use for the zone. Mr. Gutowsky replied that when a city identifies a twenty year land need, they initiate a legislative plan amendment. That plan has to have findings documenting the need. The city would provide a buildable lands inventory. If the need cannot be met within a UGB, they look outside the UGB. The State requires that if there are specific site characteristics (i.e. 50+ acres), there has to be a willing property owner, and the city has to be able to serve it. This process is different because it specifies through policies the requirement for a large lot industrial overlay zone. Cities will be required to provide this and protect the use with the overlay for at least twenty years just for that use. Commissioner Unger said this is an opportunity for the cities to look at the challenges of servicing the area. Without this designation, it would be difficult to justify. Mr. Gutowsky said there has to be a documented need. The cities do not have to go through this process. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, September 26, 2011 Page 4 of 19 Pages The OLCO grant sought to establish a regional governance framework to work with the cities and counties; to collaborate to do a buildable lands inventory and to cooperate with all the other entities, prospective property owners and others. This will get everyone closer to the end point of making the area is more marketable to attract larger industrial users. Roger Lee of EOCO has inventory information already available, but the area lacks large lot industrial sites. This will complement what is already available. The large users can help to bridge infrastructure gaps, and bring associated business and economic development to the area. Karen Swirsky of the OLCO said this is an ambitious project, but has come together well, and the OLCO feels it is a good model. They provided some funding and support the findings. There needs to be a new way to provide for economic development at a regional level. This helps to enhance employment through a cooperative effort. This is new ground for everyone, and there are substantial policy issues worthy of discussion both locally and at the State level. The State would like to receive a list of any concerns and issues during this process. Chair Baney said this is an exciting effort and can help to get the region somewhere. Bill Robie of the Central Oregon Association of Realtors said he has provided some written testimony. It is important to deliberate carefully, but he wants this moved up to OLCO as quickly as possible. It is a lengthy process, and this is just the first step. A huge amount of coordination needs to be done before there is any land to offer. John Russell, Asset Manager for the Oregon OSL, said this has been a collaborative process, the most extensive he has seen in thirty years. It is a remarkable work. OSL has been involved for a long time, as an interested stakeholder and landowner here. They own major properties adjacent to Redmond and some outside of Prineville. He hopes this will help with their long-range goals. EOCO has been involved from the beginning as well. He urged the Board to pursue this process. There is a lot of land that can come in incrementally over time. There has been some opposition, but he feels the approach and discipline is very broad, and has a lot of diverse support. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, September 26,2011 Page 5 of 19 Pages Pam Hardie of 1,000 Friends of Oregon stated that the theme seems to be collaboration. She has nothing but good things to say about the effort put into this, and they are absolutely on the right track. 1,000 Friends wants to see something good result. There seems to be a huge amount of belief that the large lots will help to provide stable jobs in this area, and she hopes this is true. She believes it is, with so many smart people involved. She is concerned, however, that there are still some technical flaws and some analytical tlaws as well that may not get anyone to the presumed end. At this time she provided a handout (a copy is attached for reference), and said she wanted to be detailed about those concerns. She sees four things being the most critical. These were then reviewed. She pointed out what she felt were errors in the community vision regarding phased adoption and the economy. She is concerned that the vision is not for stable, well-paying jobs, but for businesses that simply require a lot of land. She said in the past, tax incentives were given to large businesses in Eugene/Springfield. She would like to know how that worked out. If taxpayer dollars are spent to do this, they need to find out how successful this was in other areas. She stated that there is a significant data error in the REOA and the final recommendation regarding how much land is needed short-term and long-term. She asked if short-term needs are included in the long-term need analysis. This needs to be clarified. She questioned the census data regarding businesses. She was surprised to discover this is the latest available data, which was done during an economic boom. There are four critical numbers: establishment death, birth, contractions and expansions. The problem is, the estimated birth and expansions are not in the previous chart but are derived from what there is now to what is expected. It is not a net number with the contractions and deaths. This means very different results. This shows an astounding result, better than anything that has happened in the Portland metropolitan area in many years. There is no way that many firms will relocate in that period of time. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, September 26, 2011 Page 6 of 19 Pages There is another key statistic in the chart that is confusing. Thirty firms per decade is unrealistic, since many employers of that size are losing employees and cutting back expansion. Small firms have expanded more than the large firms. Net numbers in the REOA need to be used instead of the gross numbers. There is time for the consultant to review this, as well as the inventory (page 17), since the OAR requires a specific inventory. She recommended the document be accepted from the consultant but with the caveat that it be adopted only after amendments are made. Also, there was discussion about short-term phasing, but it does not appear this is allowed by law. The OAR specifically says that under Goal 14, whatever is identified as the twenty-year need has to be what is brought into the UGB. The idea of a phased adoption with lots being replaced as they are used up is probably not a legal proposal. She said that 1,000 Friends wants to see some large lots brought into the region. They believe there has been evidence that really supports this but doesn't feel this document meets that. They would work with the County to develop this. There are some ideal sites but the process is not yet refined or complete. Chair Baney said they will review her document and ask for clarification from staff on some of the concerns. Brian Meece, the Central Oregon representative on the REOA, said he has been involved almost a year. He encouraged the Board to move ahead on this and not drag it out. Central Oregon needs jobs and this won't happen overnight. They have to consider market dynamics, and there is a low probability that property already in the UGB will be downzoned to large lot industrial. Most will have to come into the UGB. Market dynamics will dictate this. The process could be streamlined if the properties could remain outside of the UGB, but this had to be compromised. There is no history for this and the statistics do not exist. There are no sites in Bend that apply at this point. They can only bring in small employers now, but realize it has to be phased. There was no time to figure out who the property owners are, and that still needs to be considered. The companies don't have to be huge but the land needs to be available. Rather than looking at personal agendas, the best interest of the communities need to be considered. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, September 26, 2011 Page 7 of 19 Pages Mr. Gutowsky shared a suggestion with the Board. He contacted the DSL and they discussed some testimony received. It is important for the DSL to be able to respond to the phased approach and the regional need, and whether compliance with State law is there. The DCLC should take on that role, as they have promoted this and done much of the work. They will coordinate with Business Oregon regarding national trends, documenting Central Oregon has the ability, and the benefits of large lot employers. Jerry Johnson, the consultant, should also be in attendance to respond to some of the information and concerns. The DSL upper management has indicated they can attend the October 31, 2011 Board meeting. This would give this process an incredible amount of momentum. The Regional Advisory Committee will reconvene prior to that point to make sure all is addressed. Chair Baney stated that there are a lot of moving parts and assumptions. It would be beneficial to hear this from the top. Mr. Gutowsky said there is an immediate need for six sites. There could be more discussion of a replenishment process. This will help to determine if the policy for the future would remain the same. Also, what if this process is successful but no user has been attracted. At this time, the process should be reevaluated at a regional level. He said there is a coordination role for the County, through policies, to specify what needs to be done to meet the needs. This requires the involvement of the DSL. Chair Baney said that she wants to avoid appeals, so it will be good to clarify all that can be addressed in advance. She asked about a work session prior to October 31 to get some concerns to the DSL, and to address as much as possible ahead of time. Ms. Craghead stated that a work session is appropriate as long as it is not a public hearing. The work sessions will be recorded so anyone can hear the discussion or attend the meeting. Mr. Gutowsky said that there will be another substantive hearing on October 31. The record could be closed and work could be done towards deliberations, possibly in November or early December. The Commissioners were supportive of this process. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, September 26, 2011 Page 8 of 19 Pages The hearing was continued to the Board business meeting ofMonday, October 31, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. A work session will be held on Monday, October 3, at 1:30 p.m. 5. Before the Board were Deliberations and Consideration of First Reading of Ordinances No. 2011-001 and 2011-002, Modifying the Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map regarding Areas Eligible for the Destination Resort Overlay. Mr. Gutowsky said the written record was continued to Friday, September 23. Several items were submitted, and the record is closed at this time. If the Board supports the current approach to reduce the map as detailed, staff can be directed to update findings and return prior to November 9 to consider the first reading. Ms. Craghead said deliberations begin today, and subsequent meetings would be to consider findings. Chair Baney said she has a question about a document submitted on Friday. She asked how relevant the signalization issue is. Mr. Gutowsky said staff can demonstrate compliance with the transportation planning rule, so this should not be a problem. Commissioner Unger feels some of these things will come at the application leveL Ms. Craghead stated that some of the issues are specific to Thornburgh, and there have been concerns about mapping and the transportation planning rule. Adequate findings have to be made to show this has been thoroughly addressed. There does not seem to be an issue with properties being taken off the map, and that reduces the potential impact of traffic. Others are grandfathered in. The three specific properties will require findings and more work. Chair Baney said that there may be changes at the State level and adjustments can be made as needed. Ms. Craghead stated that no changes can occur for another thirty months since this would be adopted under the previous Plan. Mr. Gutowsky said the justification will be there for these properties. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, September 26, 2011 Page 9 of 19 Pages Commissioner Unger asked about first and second readings and what happens if there are changes in between. Ms. Craghead said that any changes have to be read into the record so it cannot be done by title only. Mr. Gutowsky stated the findings need a little work and an exhibit needs to be adjusted in the footer regarding dates. He suggested continuing deliberations. No specific date was determined for continued deliberations. 6. Before the Board was a Public Hearing on a Lot of Record Verification Appeal (Applicant: Russell). Chair Baney said this is a de novo hearing, and read the opening statement at this time. In regard to ex parte contacts, Commissioners DeBone and Baney declared none. Commissioner Unger said he knows Mr. Russell but this does not have any bearing on this issue. No challenges from the audience were given. Cynthia Smidt gave an overview of the appeal and the history of the property. An oversized aerial photo was provided for reference. She said that the Hearings Officer supported staff s decision. This is inherently a legal issue. Ms. Craghead said the applicant wants to be able to have two separate lots. There are two owners and the question is whether they own the one property together or if they can divide it into two parcels. The owners request that these lots be considered two separate lots. There is no variance process for this situation. Commissioner Unger asked if the subdivision was ever recorded legally. Ms. Smidt said there appears to be two subdivisions, and a road divides the two. The one with smaller lots was lawfully created but the other one which was created years prior was not done legally. Commissioner Unger asked if the lots are about the same size. Ms. Smidt said they are. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, September 26, 2011 Page 10 of 19 Pages Chair Baney asked about the relevancy of subdivisions being recorded or not. Ms. Craghead said the County had no rules at this time but this was necessary at the State level. However, it pertained to creating more than three lots in a calendar year. Some of the lots have been recognized as legal lots of record, but not all. Commissioner Unger said that if a subdivision was to be recorded, would all have to do it at the same time or can they do it individually. There are perhaps fifty lots. Ms. Smidt stated that it depends on when this happened. Some did record previously but there may not be a way for them to do that now. Commissioner DeBone asked what steps need to be taken to have a property recorded as part of a subdivision. Ms. Craghead said that some have come in and applied to be a legal lot on their own, but that may not be available for this parcel or others. Commissioner DeBone stated that it appears about half of the lots are developed. He asked if the others are therefore buildable. Ms. Smidt said to do a subdivision in that zone now would require them all to be ten acres, so they would not qualify. Six tax lots have unknown legal lot of record status, five are vacant; there are 28 tax lots total with 22 developed with permits. Most have homes. Seven lots have been approved as legal lots of record up until 1994. Ms. Craghead said that part of this situation is that some lots were less than five acres. These two lots were never separated. The Korish Trust document of 2010 shows a similar situation regarding eight parcels that were deeded out from the parent parcel, but the Hearings Officer felt that it was just one parcel. The Thomas case does not apply because they were deeded out separately at one point, but then brought together. Commissioner Unger said that it was probably assumed that due to the size of the parcels that they were separate. Ms. Smidt said it was the same property owner until 2006. Steve Pfeifer representing John Russell said that the facts may be accurate but are far simpler. The subdivision was created in the late 1960's and was in compliance at that time. There was no local process regarding creating the parcels and the ORS at the time only required the subdivision be filed with the agency ofjurisdiction, which could not have been the County. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, September 26, 2011 Page 11 of 19 Pages The question is how the County should handle this situation, conveying parcels legally created at the time. The parcels are substandard in size now, but were not when created. Counties have dealt with this since the 1970's. It is a policy choice and is handled differently in different places. A parcel created by deed or a contract of sale is a lot of record, and should enjoy full development rights unless that parcel was created in a single deed. It was identified as two parcels. Some are probably not developed because of how they were conveyed thirty years ago, and the owners feel they will have no right to develop them. He said the parcel was purchased in 1973 as two lots. Others did not get two deeds but had no idea that years later they would not be able to build on their land. The question is what happens when someone else comes to staff with a similar situation. As a practical matter, the Board may need to modify Code, but otherwise this leaves the owner with few options. Other lots are undevelopable due to this situation, but some have appealed to LUBA and prevailed. The primary point is that the Code is arbitrary and should not be applied to this situation, based on LUBA rulings on other properties. The Hearings Officer waned to minimize the development of substandard parcels, and force consolidation of such parcels. They are accurately stated, but how this was created 40+ years ago is relevant. Other parcels are immune from this. No one could have seen this coming years ago. LUBA provided a definition of retroactive Ordinances that subject a new disability that results in a loss of development rights. The Hearings Officer said this is the way it has been applied in the past, but there is case law showing otherwise. Also, "acknowledgment" has different meanings; and statewide planning goals are not impacted. John Russell said he has owned the lots since 1973 and this process has been difficult. He had an offer on one of the lots but the purchaser was told that it was not buildable. The delay caused the sale to fail. He believes if this goes to LUBA, they will win. A loss to the County there means a loss of others in similar situations. Simply stated, if the lots were bought in 1973 with two pieces of paper, it would be different. The document described them as separate parcels with separate metes and bounds descriptions. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, September 26,2011 Page 12 of 19 Pages The rest of the lots in the area are allowed. In the interest of fairness to him and his family, he feels the lots should be considered separate. Mr. Pfeifer asked if there needs to be a continuance, he would ask for just a few days to respond to written documents. Ms. Smidt commented that in 1969 there was State law and some channels to go through to record subdivisions. It likely went through the surveyor. In 1973 the minimum lot sizes were established, at a five-acre minimum. Chair Baney said that even if it was unrecorded subdivision, how he would know this when he bought it in 1973. Ms. Craghead said it was illegal to sell the parcels at the time he bought them. Chair Baney said that person may no longer be here or alive, so cannot respond. Commissioner Unger wanted to learn more about potential options. Ms. Craghead said the record would need to remain open if this involves new information. Mr. Russell said that the unrecorded subdivision issue seems to be going down the wrong path. All of his neighbors have built on their lots. Ifhis property had been conveyed with two deeds instead of one, he would not be here today. Commissioner Unger feels that the intent was that the lots were customary size. He wonders what this would do with the bigger picture. Ms. Smidt said this would change how they look at lot of record verifications in the future. Chair Baney asked if this would be similar to the Wasco County case, policy rather than being compliant with State regulations. There may be some flexibility to handle planning objectives. There is no State law regarding lot of record issues, and it seems to be left up to the local entity. Ms. Craghead said it may have to do with the protection of farmland, and being in compliance with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner DeBone stated that this mostly happened forty years ago. The neighborhood supports similar lots and uses, and this provides balance to the vision of forty years ago. Commissioner Unger said he is ready to move on. Ms. Craghead stated that they may need to submit certain information into the record at the request of the applicant. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, September 26, 2011 Page 13 of 19 Pages Mr. Pfeifer said he would appreciate closure today and the Board is free to vote now. Commissioner DeBone asked what the background of the area is. Ms. Craghead said it was EFU and subject to some regulations at the time. Ms. Smidt stated that the Hearings Officer reversed a similar case some time ago, but the deeds made the difference. Ms. Craghead said this information does not need to be a part of the record since it deals with MUA and not EFU. Ms. Smidt stated that if this is reversed, the effect could be big on how the County processes lot of record issues. If the decision is held, it will be appealed to LUBA and the result is unknown. Chair Baney said that whether it might be appealed is not part of her decision. The County has an opportunity to set these policy decisions. It has not been consistent in the past. She feels that a property owner in 1973 may not have known the potential ramifications of unrecorded subdivisions, buyer beware and the deed issue, and attorneys were often not involved. Things were different then. If the paperwork had been done slightly differently, it would not matter now. The Board has an opportunity to assist in clarifying what was not clear at the time. These are consistent uses with consistent lot sizes. The homes are there. She feels this should be reversed, using the language from LUBA, and adopt a way to handle this policy in the future. Commissioner Unger said it is the nature of development there that makes him feel the same. He is curious as to what this means in the future. Chair Baney stated that others would have to be similar in issues. Staff needs to look at a text amendment to deal with this type of thing in the future. The Board consensus was to reverse the Hearings Officer's decision and support the lot of record request. Discussion occurred as to how this language could be written in a legal argument. Chair Baney said staff has done a good job, but the Board can look at it differently. The Board can set policy for the future through a Code interpretation. Mr. Pfeifer offered to help staff draft the findings and decision. Chair Baney closed the hearing. The decision document will be addressed in the near future. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, September 26, 2011 Page 14 of 19 Pages 7. Before the Board was a Public Hearing (continued/rom August 31) and Possible Deliberations regarding a Protest of SDC Charges Assessed on a Property with a Relocated Dwelling (Applicant: Walker). George Kolb said the applicant could not stay for this item, but has not had a chance to respond to any information submitted since August 31. Peter Russell said that Mr. Walker has discussed some issues with staff. Ms. Craghead suggested that Mr. Walker should be able to provide further testimony. This was continued to Monday, October 3 (first item). 8. Before the Board was Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2011-612, a Labor Agreement between AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) and Deschutes County. Erik Kropp provided a brief overview of the agreement. He thanked the bargaining and management teams for their hard work. The union ratified the tentative agreement 102 votes versus 5. It is based on the consumer price index and no COLA the first year. The Commissioners complimented the groups on the work they did, and feel the contract is fair. Both sides had to make concessions, but the result appears to be fair. UNGER: Move approval of Document No. 2011-612. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda. The minutes of September 19,2011 were removed from the Consent Agenda. DEBONE: Move approval, with this change. UNGER: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, September 26, 2011 Page 15 of 19 Pages BANEY: Chair votes yes. Consent Agenda Items 9. Signature of Document Nos. 2011-547, 2011-548 and 2011-549, Accepting Easements for Gas Monitoring Probes of County-owned Property 10. Signature of Order No. 2011-022, Appointing County Residents to Two Pools from which the County Clerk will Select Member of the Board of Property Tax Appeals 11. Signature of Document No. 2011-565, an Interim Food Service Agreement with Aramark Correctional Services 12. Signature of Document No. 2011-592, Designating Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator, as the Grantee's Authorized Signing Official for the Department of Justice Grant Awards 13. Chair Signature of Document No. 2011-464, an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Oregon Commission on Children & Families regarding Medicaid Services 14. Signature of Document No. 2011-490, Subgrant Agreement with High Desert Education Service District 15. Signature of Resolution No. 2011-108, Transferring Appropriations in the Video Lottery Fund 16. Signature of Resolution No. 2011-110, Transferring Appropriations in the Public Health Fund 17. Signature of Resolution No. 2011-111, Transferring Appropriations in the Behavioral Health Fund (Personnel) 18. Signature of Resolution No. 2011-115, Transferring Appropriations in the OHP-Chemical Dependency Fund 19. Signature of Resolution No. 2011-116, Transferring Appropriations in the Sheriffs Office Fund 20. Signature of Resolution No. 2011-117, Transferring Appropriations in the Behavioral Health Fund (Nurse Practitioner) 21. Signature of Resolution No. 2011-119, Transferring Appropriations in the General Fund, Non-Department Category Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, September 26,2011 Page 16 of 19 Pages 22. Signature of Resolution No. 2011-120, Transferring Appropriations in the Public Health Fund (Personnel) 23. Signature of Resolution No. 2011-121, Appropriating a New Grant in the Behavioral Health Fund 24. Signature of Resolution No. 2011-122, Appropriating a New Grant in the Public Health Fund 25. Signature of Resolution No. 2011-123, Transferring Appropriations in the General County Projects Fund 26. Signature of Resolution No. 2011-125, Transferring Appropriations in the Public Health Fund (Nurse Practitioner) 27. Signature of Resolution No. 2011-126, Transferring Appropriations in the Healthy Start Prenatal Fund 28. Signature of Resolution No. 2011-127, Transferring Appropriations in the Behavioral Health Fund (Personnel) 29. Signature of Resolution No. 2011-128, Transferring Appropriations in the Public Health Fund (Personnel) 30. Signature of Letters Reappointing Judith Parker and Norma Brenton to the Deschutes County Dog Control Board of Supervisors, through June 30, 2013 31. Approval of Minutes: • Board Meeting of September 19, 2011 • Work Sessions of September 14 and 19,2011 CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 32. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2011­ 610, Amending an Agreement for Law Enforcement Records Management Software System. Capt. Jim Porter of the Bend Police Departement said he is the program manager for this project. He said there were thought to be a lot of interface issues between agencies, but they found that some of these were not a problem. However, some database information had to be moved. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, September 26, 2011 Page 17 of 19 Pages Rob Poirier added that during this process, it was found that they could save $90,000 in the interface portion, and wish to utilize that savings for database transfer. All parties are supportive of this amendment. UNGER: Move approval. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEB ONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. 33. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2011­ 124, Transferring Appropriations in the 911 County Service District Fund. UNGER: Move approval. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. 34. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of $8,163.61. DEBONE: Move approval, subject to review. UNGER: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION AND 4-H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 35. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extensionl4-H County Service District in the Amount of $1,008.97. DEBONE: Move approval, subject to review. UNGER: Second. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, September 26,2011 Page 18 of 19 Pages I r OTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 36. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts I Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $486,227.96. I DEBONE: Move approval, subject to review. UmGER: Second. t OTE: UNGER: Yes. I DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. 37. t DDITIONS TO THE AGENDA lYone were offered. Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 1:15 p.m. I I DATED this (~ Dayof ()eAlJ~ 2011 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ~ Tammy Baney, Chair 0 Anthony DeB one, Vice Cha1?­- AT ~EST: ~~ Alan Unger, Commissioner Recdrding Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, September 26, 2011 Page 19 of 19 Pages 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., MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2011 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. Citizens who wish to speak should sign up prior to the beginning ofthe meeting on the sign-up cards provided. Please use the microphone and also state your name and address at the time 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 record ofthat hearing. 3. A PUBLIC HEARING and Consideration of First Reading and Second Readings, and Adoption by Emergency, of Ordinance No. 2011-008, Amending Title 23, to Adopt the South County Local Wetland Inventory into the Comprehensive Plan -Peter Gutowsley, Community Development Suggested Actions: Open public hearing and take testimony. Move first and second readings by title only ofOrdinance No. 2011-008. Move adoption by emergency ofOrdinance No. 2011-008 4. A PUBLIC HEARING and Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance No. 2011-017, Amending Title 23, to Adopt a Regional Economic Opportunity Analysis and Regional Large-Lot Industrial Land Policy for Central Oregon­ Peter Gutowsky, Community Development Suggested Actions: Open public hearing and take testimony. Move first reading by title only ofOrdinance No. 2011-017. (Second reading to be conducted no sooner than two weeks from the first reading.) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, September 26,2011 Page 1 of 7 Pages 5. DELIBERATIONS and Consideration of First Reading of Ordinances No. 2011-001 and 2011-002, Modifying the Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map regarding Areas Eligible for the Destination Resort Overlay -Peter Gutowsky, Community Development Suggestion Actions: After deliberations, move first reading by title only of Ordinance No. 2011-001; and Movefirst reading by title only ofOrdinance No. 2011-002. (Second readings and adoption no sooner than two weeks from today.) 6. A PUBLIC HEARING on a Lot of Record Verification Appeal (Applicant: Russell) -Cynthia Smidt, Community Development Suggested Actions: Open hearing; deliberate and make a decision to allow or deny the lot ofrecord. 7. A PUBLIC HEARING (continuedfrom August 31) and Possible Deliberations regarding a Protest of SDC Charges Assessed on a Property with a Relocated Dwelling (Applicant: Walker) -George Kolb, Road Department; Peter Russell, Community Development Suggested Actions: Continue hearing to a date certain unless applicant is in attendance. 8. CONSIDERATION of Board Signature of Document No. 2011-612, a Labor Agreement between AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) and Deschutes County -Erik Kropp, Interim County Administrator Suggested Action: Move signature ofDocument No. 2011-612. CONSENT AGENDA 9. Signature of Document Nos. 2011-547, 2011-548 and 2011-549, Accepting Easements for Gas Monitoring Probes of County-owned Property 10. Signature of Order No. 2011-022, Appointing County Residents to Two Pools from which the County Clerk will Select Member of the Board of Property Tax Appeals Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, September 26,2011 Page 2 of 7 Pages 11. Signature of Document No. 2011-565, an Interim Food Service Agreement with Aramark Correctional Services 12. Signature of Document No. 2011-592, Designating Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator, as the Grantee's Authorized Signing Official for the Department of Justice Grant Awards 13. Chair Signature of Document No. 2011-464, an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Oregon Commission on Children & Families regarding Medicaid Services 14. Signature of Document No. 2011-490 -Subgrant Agreement with High Desert Education Service District 15. Signature of Resolution No. 2011-108, Transferring Appropriations in the Video Lottery Fund 16. Signature of Resolution No. 2011-110, Transferring Appropriations in the Public Health Fund 17. Signature of Resolution No. 2011-111, Transferring Appropriations in the Behavioral Health Fund (Personnel) 18. Signature of Resolution No. 2011-115, Transferring Appropriations in the OHP-Chemical Dependency Fund 19. Signature of Resolution No. 2011-116, Transferring Appropriations in the Sheriffs Office Fund 20. Signature of Resolution No. 2011-117, Transferring Appropriations in the Behavioral Health Fund (Nurse Practitioner) 21. Signature of Resolution No. 2011-119, Transferring Appropriations in the General Fund, Non-Department Category 22. Signature of Resolution No. 2011-120, Transferring Appropriations in the Public Health Fund (Personnel) 23. Signature of Resolution No. 2011-121, Appropriating a New Grant in the Behavioral Health Fund 24. Signature of Resolution No. 2011-122, Appropriating a New Grant in the Public Health Fund 25. Signature of Resolution No. 2011-123, Transferring Appropriations in the General County Projects Fund Board ofComrnissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, September 26, 2011 Page 3 of 7 Pages 26. Signature of Resolution No. 2011-125, Transferring Appropriations in the Public Health Fund (Nurse Practitioner) 27. Signature of Resolution No. 2011-126, Transferring Appropriations in the Healthy Start Prenatal Fund 28. Signature of Resolution No. 2011-127, Transferring Appropriations in the Behavioral Health Fund (Personnel) 29. Signature of Resolution No. 2011-128, Transferring Appropriations in the Public Health Fund (Personnel) 30. Signature of Letters Reappointing Judith Parker and Nonna Brenton to the Deschutes County Dog Control Board of Supervisors, through June 30, 2013 31. Approval of Minutes: • Board Meeting of September 19, 2011 • Work Sessions of September 14 and 19, 2011 CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 32. CONSIDERATION of Signature of Document No. 2011-610, Amending an Agreement for Law Enforcement Records Management Software System -Rob Poirier, 911; Joe Sadony, Information Technology Suggested Action: Move approval and signature ofDocument No. 2011-610. 33. Signature of Resolution No. 2011-124, Transferring Appropriations in the 911 County Service District Fund Suggested Action: Move signature ofResolution No. 2011-124. 34. 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 35. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extensionl4-H County Service District Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, September 26, 2011 Page 4 of 7 Pages RECONVENE AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 36. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County 37. 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; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues. Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TIY. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. FUTURE MEETINGS: (Please note: Meeting dates and times are subject to change. All meetings take place in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at J300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. Ifyou have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572.) Monday, September 26 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Wednesday, September 28 I :30 p.m. Administrative Work Session could include executive session(s) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, September 26,2011 Page 5 of 7 Pages Monday, October 3 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session could include executive session(s) Wednesday, October 5 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Thursday, October 6 8:00 a.m. Joint Meeting with the Sisters City Council, (Sisters City Hall) Monday, October 10 All Day Association of Oregon Counties' Legislative Committee Meetings (Salem) Wednesday, October 12 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Monday, October 17 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Monday, October 24 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Wednesday, October 26 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1 :30 p.m. Administrative Work Session could include executive session(s) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, September 26, 2011 Page 6 of 7 Pages Monday, October 31 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Wednesday. November 2 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session could include executive session(s) Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-\ to access the state transfer relay service for TTY. Please can (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, September 26,2011 Page 7 of7 Pages BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: _~....:.k-.;Q +..:.....-______ Date: q I(Ii /1(7 ~ Nan.: ~d l-l a~ Address _______________________ Phone #s ~4 / E-mail address~4~---------- D In Favor D NeutrallUndecided D Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? GJYes D No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. -q /4 ­a Cfr:. r !.L...I!.L....~!L.-~.l...1..:!~..::!....;...........L.!;-....::: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: ........IL.£~_.;:;.O ~1Ad; £_:....L....______ Date: Name :;o h ~ kuL<?2ei/ Address 1 1:2 Ski. vnVhf2y 5"f 0.)t. S (~ O(~ E-mail addreSs j .. [. VI. C U i i eA fa s b -K ,a { . L-L 5' f4' In Favor 0 NeutraVUndecided 0 Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? DYes [] No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Name Address Date: Phone#s --------~~~~~---- E-mail address --------~~~---,~~~ [J InFavor D NeutraliUndecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? No If please give a copy to the for the record. BOARD OF MEETING Agenda Item Interest:------1...... Date: _....lO.­___ Name ----~~--~--~------------------------------------- Address ___id::l~!J!J.~?J:j?J:jl!S~lli.~__________ Phone #s ----------------~--------------------------------- E-mail address In Favor D NeutraliUndecided Opposed Submitting written documents as of testimony? If so, please give a copy to the Recording fi BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: -..:..__________ I>ate:~\~8a~ Name 12ritf rJ Mee CR , Address __...c.-.=..~_-=------,-rJ v.J __..:;;;.....-,,--~ 3 ~S-L----=_-",tv\C ~_-----+::-______ ~ Phone #s Sy-I . 32-2---. ro 15-:3 ----------~~--~~---------------------------- E-mail address ~bYlvi.J @r-uJ ~rnJ . ~Favor 0 NeutraVUndecided 0 Opposed Submitting written documents as part of te stim ony? DYes Q No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the recor~, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: L.r/r~~ R~c..>r-« IJlt;'>' Date: 9(1111/, Address ~/!..-..jl 2__---.!.-,------,{.V'C' -=---___________'----'-->.0 M~::....:..rJ----,~h _ >-oJ- Phone #s ]), 7 -'2 'J.. &1 p ,(l f)Qtk,;'Jcole.. .C~1kE-mail address Sf Ttl ttc:.r @ ~ ~ InFavor D NeutrallUndecided D Opposed ~r'~ li/b,",7/if. / Submitting written documents as part of testimony? DYes G No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK " Ii\ & L-e. -o~-tlJ fAgenda Item of Interest: n-p<~ Jt-i 1-\ ~~ Date: 146 Itt , I Name ~ot+-.Jv RJs:%&<L.."""--= Address \,12-'1 'Je1j (~(~/...rr.L'7£&.,'t­ D~t~l> oR... q1~l Phone #s 5l> -; ~s? ~~~ E-mail address ~f.r#J.. Rt)& !!iCJ..i4fl, GOS l~~( L./) ro... A-PP~I( ___ D In Favor U NeutrallUndecided D Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? DYes [2t'No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT FOR A LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS BEFORE THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS South County Local Wetland Inventory I Plan Amendment Public Hearing September 26,2011 This is a public hearing on Ordinance 2011-08, Plan Amendment 11-2 (PA 11-2). Initiated by Deschutes County, the proposal amends Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan DCC Chapters 23.104, Fish and Wildlife and 23.112, Water Resources, to formally recognize a South County Local Wetland Inventory (LWI) that has been approved and peer reviewed by the Oregon Department of State Lands. The Board will hear oral testimony, receive written testimony, and consider the testimony submitted at this hearing. The hearing is also being taped. The Board may make a decision on this matter today, continue the public hearing to a date certain, or leave the written record open for a specified period of time. The hearing will be conducted in the following order. The staff will give a report on this issue. We will then open the hearing to all present and ask people to present testimony at one of the tables or at the podium. You can also provide the Commission with a copy of written testimony. Questions to and from the chair may be entertained at any time at the chair's discretion. Cross-examination of people testifying will not be allowed. However, if any person wishes to ask a question of another person during that person's testimony, please direct your question to the chair after being recognized. The Chair is free to decide whether or not to ask such questions of the person testifying. Prior to the commencement of the hearing any party may challenge the qualifications of any Commissioner for conflict of interest. This challenge must be documented with specific reasons supported by facts. Should any Commissioner be challenged, the member may disqualify himself or herself, withdraw from the hearing or make a statement on the record of their capacity to hear and decide this issue. At this time, do any members of the Commission need to set forth any information that may be perceived as a conflict of interest? I will accept any challenges from the public now. (Hearing none, I will open the public hearing). STAFF REPORT I l t­ Department of Fish and Wildlife Higb Desert Region 61374 Parrell Road Bend, OR 97702 ~<:~l'II!l) (541)388-6363 FAX (541) 388-6281 AUG SO ,2011... Deschutes County CDD Peter Gutowsky, AICP Principal Planner Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 August 26, 2011 Dear Peter, This letter is in response to your request to provide a letter of support for the Local Wetlands Inventory (LWI) that was recently completed and approved for the southern portion of Deschutes County. The Department's mission is to "protect and enhance Oregon's fish and wildlife and their habitats for use and enjoyment by present and future generations." Our decisions and support regarding this issue are guided by the Department of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Policy (2000), the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds (2003), the Native Fish Conservation Strategy (2003), as well as the Upper Deschutes River Sub-Basin Plan (1996) (http://www.dfw.state.or.us/OARs/OARs.html). ODFW supports the South County LWI because of the comprehensive information it provides regarding accurate, up-to-date wetland delineations that are of importance when designing monitoring studies and/or making management decisions within the Deschutes River basin. Not only will ODFW benefit from the LWI, local landowners will be able to make more informed decisions with regards to fish and wildlife management on their properties, as well as work more effectively and efficiently with state and local agencies throughout the permitting and development processes while minimizing impact to, and potentially enhancing, fish and wildlife habitat. I have already referred to the LWI several times with regards to individual property owners who are interested in pursuing streambank restoration and fish habitat projects on their property. The Deschutes District wildlife biologist and I have also referred to the LWI while providing comment to a private landowner who applied for a conditional use permit, from Deschutes County, to construct a boathouse on their property. In addition to using the LWI to determine permitting needs and wetland designations for restoration and habitat projects, I see the LWI as a very valuable tool in providing guidance and opportunities to educate members of the public with whom we interact when dealing with issues affecting the Deschutes River basin. The Department appreciates the opportunity to provide input on this issue. If you need to contact me for any reason, I can be reached at (541) 633-1112 or by email at nancy.e.doran@state.or.us. Nancy ran Mitigation and Enhancement Coordinator PRELIMINARY STATEMENT FOR A LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS BEFORE THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Regional Economic Opportunity Analysis I Plan Amendment Public Hearing September 26,2011 This is a public hearing on Ordinance 2011-017, Plan Amendment 11-3 (PA 11-3). Initiated by Deschutes County, the proposal amends Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan (DCC) Chapters 23.48, Urbanization and 23.52, Economy, to formally adopt a Regional Economic Opportunity Analysis and several economic development policies. The Board will hear oral testimony, receive written testimony, and consider the testimony submitted at this hearing. The hearing is also being taped. The Board may make a decision on this matter today, continue the public hearing to a date certain, or leave the written record open for a specified period of time. The hearing will be conducted in the following order. The staff will give a report on this issue. We will then open the hearing to all present and ask people to present testimony at one of the tables or at the podium. You can also provide the Commission with a copy of written testimony. Questions to and from the chair may be entertained at any time at the chair's discretion. Cross-examination of people testifying will not be allowed. However, if any person wishes to ask a question of another person during that person's testimony, please direct your question to the chair after being recognized. The Chair is free to decide whether or not to ask such questions of the person testifying. Prior to the commencement of the hearing any party may challenge the qualifications of any Commissioner for conflict of interest. This challenge must be documented with specific reasons supported by facts. Should any Commissioner be challenged, the member may disqualify himself or herself, withdraw from the hearing or make a statement on the record of their capacity to hear and decide this issue. At this time, do any members of the Commission need to set forth any information that may be perceived as a conflict of interest? I will accept any challenges from the public now. (Hearing none, I will open the public hearing). STAFF REPORT September 23, 2011 Commissioner Tammy Baney, Chair Commissioner Tony Debone Commissioner Alan Unger Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97701 Re: COIC comments on proposed Post Acknowledgement Plan Amendment Commissioners, On behalf of the COIC Board of Directors I'd like to comment on the proposed amendment to the County's comprehensive plan to adopt the Regional Economic Opportunity Analysis and associated policies for creating a regionally coordinated supply of large industrial lots. The COIC Board is composed of elected officials from each of the three counties and eight cities of Central Oregon, along with Tribal, business and education representatives. The COIC board has engaged in discussions at our July and September meetings regarding COIC's potential role as the regional large lot industrial program governance authority. If we choose to accept this role, we understand this role to include the following: • Manage the development of a multi-jurisdictional Memorandum of Understanding for the large lot program. • Approve six "short term" large lot industrial sites (50+ acres) which will compose the regional portfolio, along with 17 long-term sites. • Ensure that this portfolio is consistent with the REOA framework for site location. • Conduct an annual review of the site inventory, including the long-term sites. • Support the counties in convening the Regional Advisory Committee. • Explore regional approaches to infrastructure financing. Our board discussions have focused on exploring these roles and better understanding the necessary framework for a regional large lot industrial program. While our board has not yet reached the point in their decision-making process where we have committed to serving as the regional governance authority, I do want to express our overall support for the concept of a regional large lot program, our interest in supporting and promoting inter­ jurisdictional planning, and our belief that COIC is the appropriate home for regional-level collaboration and problem-solving. We support the County's efforts to amend their comprehensive plan to adopt the REOA, and we look forward to continuing our partnership to develop this important regional economic development initiative. COINCIL Everywhere Central Oregon Works \ Executive Director Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council Cc: COIC Board of Directors 2363 SW Glacier Place, Redmond, OR 97756 (541) 548·8163 -Fax: (541) 923·3416 Office Locations: Bend, Klamath Falls, Lakeview, La Pine, Madras, Prineville, Redmond Department of Land Conservation and Development regon Central Oregon Regional Office 888 NW Hill Street. Suite 2 John A Kitzhabcr. M.D., Jovemor Bend, OR 97701-2942 Central Oregon RegionaJ Representative (541) 325-6927 Community Service pecial ist (541) 318-8193 Fax (541) 318-8361 www.lcd.state.or.us September 26,2011 Deschutes County Commissioners: Thank you for the opportunity to comment. As the Central Oregon Regional Representative for the Department of Land conservation and Development, I would like to thank Deschutes County for its ongoing work on the Regional Economic Opportunity Analysis (REOA). Nick Lelack and Peter Gutowsky have provided invaluable leadership to make sure that this ambitious project can reach a conclusion that will be useful to the tri-county area and the state. As you know, the department funded the Regional Economic Opportunity Analysis that that led to this proposed plan amendment. We continue to strongly support the results of the project and Deschutes County's effort to initiate its regional implementation. The purpose of the REOA was to create a new way to accomplish industrial land planning at a regional level, within existing laws and rules. The dilemma that Central Oregon and many other regions face is that, while our existing land use system tends to focus on individual jurisdictions, large industrial sites are primarily regional assets that depend on other regional assets. In order to promote employment and maintain land use efficiency, the department recognizes that a cooperative regional planning system is needed. This effort to establish a regional approach to land use planning for large lot industrial land is new ground for everyone involved. There are important and substantial policy questions raised by both the concept and its application. We believe that these are important questions and worthy of discussion at both the state and local level. As a continuation of that discussion, we encourage you to ask those questions -both of your staff and of DLCD. As part of your deliberations today, we invite you to begin to make a list of the issues that you would like the state to address. We are committed to having that discussion with you at the highest level. Again, thank you for your time, energy, and commitment to Central Oregon's future. We look forward to continuing our partnership with you. Sincerely, !i/;S; Karen Swirsky AICP Central Oregon Regional Representative Crook County Community Development PLANNING DEPARTMENT 300 N.E. 3rd Street • Prineville, Oregon 9i754 • Phone (541) 447·8156 • FAX (541) 416-3905 August 24, 2011 Deschutes County Planning Commission 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97701 RE: REOA As a oommittee participant of the REOA over the past ten plus months, I would like to provide some thoughts as to the finished product that resulted from the committee's and consultant's exhaustive work for the regional approach to land scale Industrial lands. I have read the written comments provided by 1000 Friends, Economic Development For Central Oregon, and comments from Business Oregon. The August 17. 2011 letter from Roger Lee was right on point This project in no way was intended to develop a regional economic plan. Its SINGUlAR purpose was to develop a marketing strategy for a regional Inventory of large scale industrial sites -something that is generally missing in the region. The problem has been In the forefront of issues for economic development, and became even higher on the radar screen when Faceboak located in Prineville. Questions were raised of '"Why there and not Bend or Redmond"'? Several factors were involved induding we had a 120+aae parcel they oould purchase that was in an Enterprise Zone and was a Certified "shovel ready-site. Crook County and City of Prineville participated in this project to show the support among the region and that we as a region are one big unit and are Influenced by each other. The State of Oreaon through Department of Land Conservation and Development, Business Oreaon, and the Oregon Senate must have thought there was a problem in business recruitment for the region, otherwise, why did they fund, support by committee involvement, and the introduction of a Senate Bill to solve this issue. 1000 Friends would have you believe that farge companies on large lots do not provide jobs. I won't reo Iterate what EDCO wrote in their August 17 letter, but that is not correct. Facebook. besides adding another building, is now considering establishing their own assembly line of servers in Prineville which will add an additional 35-50 jobs. What other benefits resulted beside the generous amounts of dollars provided to many local nonprofit agencies as well as the school district? Well, the entire community has benefited with high speed redundant fiber optics, necessary for bUSiness these days. It has spurred on the power companies and Bonneville Power to step up their transmission capability that the entire region will benefit from. There have been three to four other prospects that have at least shown in interest in relocating here. All of them are irrterested in 80 to 160 acre parcels. I don't think these same companies have made an inquiry fnto the Bend area. Each of the jurisdictions in central Oregon have their own plan and program to assist small startups along with business retention. l1lis was NEVER the intent of the grant award that Deschutes County received. Contrary to 1000 Friends assertion that Goal 9 works and this document doesn't reflect compliance with the Goal, the idea of regional marketing for large lot Industrial lands was never contemplated within the Goal. I thought this process was to enable US to think "outsfde the box", and be creative, and not living with a 30 year old process that hasn't changed or been updated. I would encourage the Commission to recommend adoption to the Deschutes Board of County Commissioners. The EXPERTS in Oregon, through Business Oregon recommends it, and the Department of Land Conservation recommends approval. Crook County also recommends it. Should this be appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals, I would think that Crook and Jefferson Counties would support you, as well as the cities In the region. We need to be creative in problem solving. Remember, this is only ONE element of a strategy for economic development. As the county with the highest unemployment in the State of Ore80n, and with many empty buildings, we cannot afford to live in the past and hope the system works. This project has opened up the dialogue to work together for a regional purpose, notwithstanding our own individual plans and our own individual needs and differences. This will not change our own plans, but will supplement them. William P. zelenka Crook County Plan 534 SW Third Avenue, Suite 300' Portland, OR 97204 • (503) 497·1000 • fox (503) 223·0073 • www.friends.org Southern Oregon Office' PO Box 2442 • Grants Pass, OR 97528 • (541) 474·1155 • fox (541) 474·93891000 eO .! Willornette Volley Office' 220 East 1 ]thAvenue, Suite 5' Eugene, OR 97401' (541) 520·3763' fox (503)575·2416friends (·f Oregull I Central Oregon Office' 1 15 NW Oregon Ave #21 • Bend, OR 97701 • (541) 719·8221 • fox (866) 394·3089" Sept 26, 2011 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97701 Re: Central Oregon Regional Economic Opportunity Analysis Dear Commissioners, I am writing today to provide comments on behalf of 1000 Friends of Oregon on the proposed adoption of the Regional Economic OppOltunity Analysis. 1000 Friends participated in the advisory council that helped guide the drafting of this document. We fully support the vision behind this project: regional cooperation in support of better economic development for everybody. We applaud the Central Oregon region for stepping toward the regional cooperation that has long been a part of the law, but that has rarely been exercised. 00al9 provides communities with a framework for economic success. i Unfortunately, several errors remain in the REOA that must be fixed before it can be considered accurate and complete. Those errors are detailed in these comments. We ask that you direct staff to re-engage the study's consultant to resolve these errors, and then reconvene the RAC to examine the final product before bringing it back to you one for review and, hopefully, approval. Our request that these enors be resolved is not merely a request for detailed adherence to law. At least one of the enors results in a significant over-estimation of the amount of land that will actually be required for large lot industrial use. Community Vision The REOA difficulties begin with the "Community Vision," which states: "To build a strong and thriving regional economy by establishing and actively maintaining a competitive pOltfolio of large lot employment sites ..." The first part of this statement is a true community vision. However, the second pal1 is no more than a method of obtaining the first part. It assumes that a competitive P0l1folio of large lot employment sites will in fact create a strong and thriving economy. However, as explained below, there is no evidence in the REOA to support this assumption. Oregon land use law requires substantial evidence. Celebrating Thirty-five Years of Innovation '" According to the Oregon Supreme COUlt, substantial evidence requires "a basis in reason connecting the inference to the facts from which it is derived." City ofRoseburg v. Rosebllrg City Firefighters, 292 Or 266,271 (1981). Conversations with suppOlters of the REOA effOlt indicate there is a prevailing assumption that businesses that use large lots are generally large and stable, and provide living wage jobs with benefits. This is in contrast to the prevailing perception that businesses that require small lots provide low wage jobs and few benefits. First, the REOA provides no evidence that large lot users really bring in large numbers of jobs. Second no substantial evidence is provided showing that those jobs are any better than the jobs provided on small lots. If large lot users really do bring that kind ofjob, evidence for that should not be difficult to locate, and include in the REOA. One method of obtaining this infOlTI1ation would be to survey a handful of businesses using large lots in the region and around the state to detelTI1ine how many jobs on those sites provide a living wage and benefits. This could then be compared with a cross section of small businesses in the same region and/or industry. This not just a technical fix, it is a practical one. Serving large lots with infi-astructure and/or providing the incentives that so many large out of town businesses require can cost taxpayers substantial amounts of money. Closer investigations of the return for the investment other regions have received from bringing large, out of town businesses in have shown that returns can be low. Attached is an article fi'om the Eugene Register Guard. It details how large businesses.in that area 113.at received significant tax subsidies, in one case as much as $60,000 per job, left tOWIl;~as soon as i the subsidies ended. By contrast, it showed that smaller businesses receiving smaller tax breaks closer to $2,000 per job stayed many more years. We recommend that the region strut with the policy objective of growing and attracting stable, livable wage jobs in businesses that are likely to locate or expand in Central Oregon, rather than staiting with the policy of simply attracting businesses that require large amounts of land. Then, evaluate what the land, building, infrastructure, location, and other needs of those jobs and businesses are, and whether and how Central Oregon can meet those. The rest of the REOA can be aimed at those jobs. Starting with the Final Conclusion The final conclusion of the REOA is located at page 46. It is summarized in the following chaIt: 1000 Centro I Oregon Office' 115 NW Oregon Ave #21 • Bend, OR 97701 • friends (541) 719-8221 • fox (866) 394-3089 .... aO. rmge 2 .. FIGURE 29: RECOMMENDED COMPETITIVE LARGE LOT INDUSTRIAL INVENTORY The exact number of acres reconunended is difficult to discern given that all of these are ranges. However, if average lots sizes are assumed, 1 this chart shows a need for 2700 acres.2 The difficulty with the final conclusion is that it is impossible to tell which ofthe many arguments were actually used in reaching it. The text just prior to this chaI1 on page 46 only explains that the final numbers were arrived at by "working with EDCO and Business Oregon." The Oregon Supreme C0U11 has explained that substantial evidence requires "a basis in reason connecting the inference to the facts from which it is derived." City ofRoseburg v. Roseburg City Firefighters, 292 Or 266,271 (1981). The COUl1 of Appeals recently clarified this standard: "We recently explained that the requirements that an agency cOlTectiy interpret the law, explain inconsistencies, and have evidentiary support for the decision implies that LCDC must" 'demonstrate in [its] opinion[] the. reasoning that leads the agency from the facts that it has found to the conclusions that it draws from those facts.' " 1000 Friends ofOregoll v. LCDC, 237 Or.App. 213, 225, 239 PJd 272 (2010) (Woodburn) (quoting Drew v. PSRB, 322 Or. 491, 500,909 P.2d 1211 (1996)) Here, of course, the inference is that 2700 acres of new land need to be made available to accommodate industlies that want to move to the central Oregon region. However, the statement "working with EDCO and Business Oregon" does not make it clear what reasoning led the consultant 1 Average lots sizes would be 50 -100 acre lots are assumed to be 75 acres 100 -200 acre lots are assumed to be 150 acres. 200+ acre lots are assumed to be 225 acres. 2 This number was arrived at as follows: Thirteen 75-acre lots = 975 acres Seven 150-acre lots = 1050 acres Three 225-acre lots = 675 acres 975+1050+675 2700 In informal discussions with staff the claim was made that this number is inflated because the long term need is intended to incorporate the entire short term need. So instead of this chart calling for 1350-100 acre lots (3 short lerm + 10 long term) this chart only calls for 10 Iota I 50-100 acre lots. If this methodology is used this chart only calls for 1900 new acres. However, if this is the appropriate methodology, that must be clearly explained because it is not obvious from the text. Centrol Oregon Office' 115 NW Oregon Ave #21 • Bend, OR 97701 • 1000 (541) 719-8221 • fox (866) 394-3089friend.., .j' .... c •• rroge 3 from the facts and asseltions presented in the REOA to the conclusion regarding how many lots are needed. LUBA has explained that where findings are "conclusory and offer little or no SUppOlt for the conclusions drawn, the decision will be remanded on that basis alone, and LUBA need not reach the substantial evidence challenges." Middleton v. Josephine COllnty, 31 Or LUBA 423, 434 (1996); DLCD v. Columbia County, 16 Or LUBA 467,471 (1998). Based solely on this legal omission we hope that the County will direct staff to re-engage the consultant to have the reasoning that led to the final conclusion explained. Preceding the final recommendation chaIt there are a variety discussions and analyses. Although it is not clear which of them were directly responsible for the conclusion, several of the most robust arguments will be addressed here. Market Choice Several statements in the REOA imply that the number of sites claimed to be needed is based on supplying a portfolio of sites for adequate market choice. For example, the text in the paragraph immediately following the final recommendation chart states that the numbers are "what has been determined to be a regionally and nationally competitive portfolio of industrial sites." Additionally, early on the document explains that The goal of this regional effort IS NOT to generate an acreage calculation of needed vacant industrial land supply BUT rather is to identify the variety and size range of vacant industrial sites needed to make the region attractive to site selectors and competitive in the global marketplace - a qualitative as well as quantitative outcome. REOA, page 6 (capitalization emphasis in the original). However, Goal 9 specifically requires economic oppOltunity analyses to provide just such a forecast. OAR 660-09-0015.3 Market choice has long been recognized as encompassed in the 20-year long term land supply provided by urban growth boundaries. The COUlt of Appeals in 1000 Friends ofOregol1 v. LCDC, 237 Or.App. 213 (20 10) (Woodbum) explained: "Although LCDC may be con'ect that, in the abstract, "market choice" can be "a key component of a successful industrial development strategy" as required by OAR 660-009-0025, "market choice" is an infinitely pliable and elastic teIm--and all fOlms and degrees of market choice are not necessruily consistent with Goal 9. As an extreme example, it is unlikely that a local government that sought to target a single industry with a projected 10-acre site need, could, consistently with Goal 9 and its 3 OAR 660-009-0015 Economic Opportunity Analysis: Cities and counties must review and, as necessary, amend their comprehensive plans to provide economic opportunities analyses containing the information described in sections (1) to (4) of this rule. This analysis will compare the demand for land for industrial and other employment uses to the existing supply of such land. (emphasis added) 1000 Centrol Oregon Office' 115 NW Oregon Ave #21 • Bend, OR 97701 • friends (541) 719-8221 • fax (866) 394·3089 rroge 4 ... implementing lUles, designate hundreds of 10-acre industrial sites and amend its UGB accordingly simply because it wanted to provide optimally attractive "market choice." Bluntly, "market choice" without amplification is a label without reasoning. Here, given the variety of the industries that the city targeted and the diversity and multiplicity of the sites that the city designated, it is incumbent on LCDC to cogently explain the reasons that the degree of market choice employed by the city in this case is consistent with the requirements of Goal 9 and OAR 660-009-002S."The Court went on to explain that compliance with both Goal 9 and Goal 14 is required: "a local government is not pelmitted to establish an urban growth boundary containing more land than the locality 'needs' for future growth." On remand, LCDC clarified why "market choice" is not a proper consideration in establishing a 20­ year land supply inside a UGB: "'Market choice' is a tenn of art that refers to redundant sites provided to meet a short -term need for employment land." The amount of land this REOA claims to need far exceeds the amount available to any other jurisdiction considered "competitive" by Johnson Reid. This REOA claims a need for 2700 acres for a population of 220,000. On page 24 the REOA provides a chart on which it lists several jurisdictions with at least twice central Oregon's population, but that have substantially smaller inventories of available industrial land. ICompetitive 50-100 Acre Sites "'I lOOt Acre Sites 5(}1. Acre Sites :Market Site Count Acreage Site Count Acreage Site Count Acreage Colorado Springs 20 1,500 5 500 25 2,000 ~illeigh 2 126 12 1,470 14 1,596 Austin (Round Rock) 5 380 6 855 11 1,13.5 !Albuquerque 3 225 9 900 12 1,125 Hillsboro 1 78 0 0: 1 78 SOUfKE: johnson Reid Survey (Feb. 2010) The following population numbers were drawn from the US Census in 2010: Colorado Springs 419,568 Raleigh 406,609 Austin 790,390 Albuquerque 547,585 Hillsboro 91,954 This chart shows that this REOA requests substantially more land than any other region even those with minimal urban growth control policies -has identified as necessary. 1000 Central Oregon Office' 115 NW Oregon Ave #21 • Bend, OR 97701 • friends (541) 719-8221 • fax (866) 394-3089 ~ st .. rrcge S FUl1her, even if the amount of land claimed in this REOA were in confonnance with other jurisdictions, the fact that other jurisdictions have empty industrial land does not show that such land either has been, or will be, the deciding factor in bringing stable jobs to those regions. Neither this ChaI1, nor any other statements we have been able to locate in the REOA, provides substantial evidence that there is a Ileed for 2700 acres of large lot land. The Forecasting Requirements of Goal 9 Goal 9 sets communities up for success by requiring them to look at their strengths and weaknesses in light of national and global trends. In addition to qualitative questions it requires a forecast of the kinds of businesses and numbers ofjobs that will come to the region. OAR 660-009-0015(2) states: The economic oppol1unities analysis must identify the number of sites by type reasonably expected to be needed to accommodate the expected employment growth based on the site characteristics typical of expected uses. In other words, the EOA must include a forecast of expected employment growth, and must use that to detelTIline the number of sites reasonably expected to be required to accommodate that growth. Safe harbors at OAR 660-024-0040(9) allow jurisdictions to project employment growth based on either Oregon Employment Department numbers or jurisdictions own 20-year population forecast. However, there is no requirement that safe harbors are used. OAR 660-024-0040(5) is clear that "local govemment must provide a reasonable justification for the job growth estimate but Goal 14 does not require that job growth estimates necessarily be propo11ional to population growth." In other words, read together, these provisions allow a jurisdiction to forecast greater employment growth than would be expected due to nonnal population increases, but there must be a "reasonable justification." The possibility that the forecast will be greater than historical population trends does not allow a jurisdiction to avoid the forecast. It just requires that the forecast be based on actual data. Unfortunately, this REOA declines to provide such a forecast. On page 35 the REOA asse11s: "More imp0l1antly is an inherent disconnect between any trended forecast methodology and the potential demand for large-lot industrial employers. By nature, large industtial placements are 'game-changers', whereas [sic] a single placement can change the economic landscape of a community. The employment impacts are not reliably' forecastable'." Indeed, the REOA entirely lacks any employment forecast other than the OED forecast provided on page 35. Throughout this process 1000 Friends has provided suggestions about how the REOA might be able to meet the requirements of the Goal 9 forecast. Specifically we have consistently recommended that Central Oregon Office' 115 NW Oregon Ave #21 • Bend, OR 97701 • 1000 (541)719-8221' fax (866)394-3089friends ..... rmge6 a way to meet this goal would be to examine other regions that have seen employment growth exceed population growth. Why did new businesses move to the area? What did those regions do to attract exceptional growth? What exceptional skills or qualities does central Oregon have in this region that would create similar results? By looking at the growth pattems that have been successful in other regions of similar size an economist could reliably predict what kind of growth is likely to happen in central Oregon given similar recmiting effOl1s. Unfoltunately, the REOA has declined to provide an employment forecast While it is tme that circumstances will change quickly in this fast moving technological era, there is quite a bit that is known, and that can be predicted. That much, at least, needs to be in the forecast. The fact that some business model may arise that we are not yet aware of does not excuse the REOA from providing a prediction based on the business models that we are aware of. A document may not purpOl1 to satisfy the requirements of Goal 9 or call itself an Economic Opportunity Analysis unless is provides an employment forecast, and a prediction of the amount of employment land likely to be needed to accommodate those jobs over the 20-year planning period. Significant errors in the analysis of the data yield inflated results The REOA analysis of business growth is flawed. The U.S. Census Bureau chati on page 43 shows the bi11hs and deaths of businesses as well as jobs gained and lost in different size businesses. FIGURE 25: BIRTHS, DEATHS, EXPANSION & CoNTRACTION OF FIRMS, 2006-2007 '" < .. " . "' • In,tial year establishment> Change m l?stablishment> Percent ch~n~e ,n est3bllShrne'lts Es ta bil, h ment bi rths E5tJbli,hment deJths EstJbli>hment e,pansion5 Esobli ,~cnent contractions TOTAL lJJ67,S47 30,002 2,8% 156.065 126,Q63 298,061 296,88:; 1-4 469,155 14,386 3.1% 92,869 78,483 98,603 05.083 172,810 2,955 1,7% 16,242 13,287 51,935 &4,334 109,832 112,{1l9 1,882 4,423 1.1% 3-.9% 9,816 12,751 7,934 8,328 37,671 41,2D5 47,564 49,639 500.. 51.354 152,617 3,175 3,181 6,2% 6.771 3,596 14,435 17,965 49,681 20A'33 49,772 Percent en;) ORe in est~bii5hm""ts due to blfths Percent cna!'l;;e In estJbllShments dueto deaths Change ," employmentdueto tlirths Change:o emplovment dUE-to deaths Change m employment due to ""panSlon, Change.!'\ empiOI'ment due to contractions Percent ('l:Jnge in emplD''P'ment due to b!rth£ Percent en.Joge in employment due to deaths Percent c~Jnge In emp!o'\"ment d U~ to E:):pJns:'!ons. & births. Percent Cl1]nge I h employment due-to contrJctions 8. Jeaths 14,6% 11.8% 18,258,562 31,174 0,2% 1.176,589 ·1,031,368 1,~1l8,836 -2.Dlb,aS3 6.4% -5.&% 17.0% ·1&.7% ]9,8% 1£>,7% 162,490 ,13 3,995 234,651 '83,331 1&.1% ·13,8% 40.9'~ ~:!2 4% 9.4% 7,7% IDl,728 -SUl7S 147,836 -135,455 9.0% ,7,4% 22,2% T 19.4 C;j 8,9% 11,4% U% 7.4% 1,406,925 3A44532 2,741 -43}m9 0,2<;;; ·1.3% 110,507 234,975 ·93,033 -192,320 1'>4.902 334,050 '1&9,635 -420,514 7.9% 5 ,8~c; ·6,6% ~:'.6% 18,9% 16.5% '18,J% '17.8"" 13.2% 11.5% 7,0% 95% 2,756,375 8.556,107 ,76,264 {.~540 ~2.8% ·07% 173,D62 393.827 ·134,39~ ·394,746 252,101 795,23& ·3b7.091 '850,85'1 6.3% 4.5% 4,9% "4.6~ 15.4 v1J 13.9''{ ~lg2~i; -1..:1.6,:,; SOURCE: US Census Bur{;JU. Stati5tici of US BU5mej5€S Central Oregon Office· 115 NW Oregon Ave #21 • Bend, OR 97701 • 1000 (541) 719-8221 • fax (866)394-3089friends rroge 7 The data show that in the western United States many new businesses with 500+ employees were created and expanded. This data is used in a following chal1 entitled "Estimated Annual Large Film Location Activity." FIGURE 28: ESTIMATED ANNUAL LARGE FIRM LOCATION ACTIVITY Central Western % of Total Share of Western US % o.fTotal Share of Western US '% of Total Share of Western US 0.08% O.37·1'~, 1 0.01% 0.10% 7 0.09% 0.27% us 100. 0.08% 10000% 2,613 0.21% lOO.OO'ii~ The problem is that instead of using the data for the!1£!. growth -births and expansions of new companies less deaths and contractions -the data only looks at the bil1hs and expansions. The table notes the Western US employer "bil1h rate" of 11.5%, and an "expansion rate" of 32.6%. It also notes that cUlTently 7 firms over 500 employees exist in our region. Assuming an 11.5% birth rate, and a 32.6% expansion rate, that would mean we should expect 3 firms over 500 employees to locate or expand in Central Oregon every year. That means, according to this analysis, we should expect 30 new businesses with 500+ employees to grow into or locate in our region evelY decade. The results lack credibility when compared to the entire P0l11and Metro area, which has seen an average of less than two new large employers per decade since 1950. See P0l11and Urban Growth Rep0l1, Appendix 4, p. A4-4, Table 2, "Decade of origin of existing (year 2006) large, private employers in the Metro UGB." It is hard to imagine how a region with one tenth the population of the P0l11and Metro area could expect to see so many more large films locate in the area. Central Oregon Office' 115 NW Oregon Ave #21 • Bend, OR 97701 • 1000 (541) 719-8221 • fax (866) 394-3089friend..., ;( .., to. rroge 8 In fact compared to other regions that have done a similar analysis, this REOA recommends a need several times what most regions claim they need. See attached chart. The only other region in Oregon whose large lot need proportionally exceeded its jobs estimate was the Bear Valley region. That region includes Ashland, Medford, and the many smaller cities in the vicinity. That region projected an employment gain of38,313 (almost twice the central Oregon projection) and a large lot need of 7S0 acres. All other jurisdictions for which we could find data projected even smaller large lot needs. The exception was the P0l11and Metro region, which projected employment growth of 396,317 (18 times the central Oregon employment projection) and a large lot need of 1825 (only about two-thirds of the claimed central Oregon need). The extraordinary land need claimed for central Oregon comes fi'om two analytical en-ors. The first is that the REOA assumes that businesses with over 500 employees require large lots. There is no evidence in the REOA that this is true. Many information technology and bioscience businesses are able to house many more than SOO employees on smaller lots. The second is an error in the analysis of the data. Instead of using the !!:!}1 growth rate births and expansions minus deaths and contractions only the gross birth and expansion rates were used. We assume this was an oversight, as the region will experience business creations and expansions, as well as business closures and contractions over the next 20 years.~ . The "death rate" of films in the western US is 9.5% and the ttcontraction;rate';is 32.6%. When net growth rates are considered the following results: • Expansions and contractions are both 32.6% per year, and therefore cancel. (Actually, you can see from Figure 25 that contractions slightly exceed expansions.) • II.S% Bi11h rate minus 9.S% Death rate 2% annual net business creation rate . • The 2% annual growth rate applied to the 7 stat1ing employers equals only 3 new or & expanded large businesses over the next 20 years not 60 as claimed in this chart. Another critical, yet overlooked, piece of information in the chat1 is the total change in employment. Firms with 20+ employees shed 176,613 jobs in the time studied. Over 56,000 of those jobs were lost from businesses with SOO+ employees. In the same period films with less than 20 employees hired 213,787 new employees. So, although there were more large firms in existence at the end of the study period, they on average provided fewer total jobs than smaller finns. Based on these two Chat1S, the REOA assel1s that Central Oregon should expect to get its "fair share" of these films. What is a "fair share" of a shrinking job sector? Based purely on a "fair share" statistical analysis of this data, Central Oregon should expect to see no new job growth as a result of large film activity in the region. Centro I Oregon Office' 115 NW Oregon Ave #21 • Bend, OR 97701 • 1000 (541) 719-8221 • fox (866) 394·3089frienJs ....... rroge 9 Why an accurate estimation of needed acres matters If cities adopt this proposal as an EOA defining the 20-year industrial land need, then, under statewide planning Goal 9, they will be required to provide the claimed land need of 23 large sites. Once a 20-year need has been identified, it must be brought into UGBs, as described in the Goal 9 administrative rule: OAR 660-009-0025(2) "Total Land Supply. Plans must designate serviceable land suitable to meet the site needs identified in section (1) of this rule. Except as provided for in section (5) of this rule, the total acreage of land designated must at least equal the total projected land needs for each industrial or other employment use category identified in the plan dUling the 20-year planning period." OAR 660-024-0050(4): "If the inventOlY demonstrates that the development capacity ofland inside the UGB is inadequate to accommodate the estimated 20-year needs detelmined under OAR 660-024-0040, the local govemment must amend the plan to satisfy the need deficiency, either by increasing the development capacity of land already inside the city or by expanding the UGB, or both, and in accordance with ORS 197.296 where applicable. ***" (underlines added) Contraty to some perceptions, including the entire 20-year land need is not "optional." Rather, adopting a 20-year need binds a local govemment to unde11ake planning actions to meet that need, including serving those lands with infrastmcture. That is a tremendous level of public investment. Inaccurate expectations lead to unnecessary expenses. If the land is not actually needed, it becomes an unnecessaty tax payer cost. Additionally, land owners who rely on this analysis and keep their land as large parcels for an extended period of time will be disappointed if the actual need is only three new large lots in the next 20 years rather than the 23 predicted in this REOA. We understand the region hopes to make actual UGB expansions with willing landowners in cel1ain areas that are also suitable for large lot industrial use, for example, DSL lands. However, if the region and cities adopt a much more expansive REOA,4 this may not be possible. Rather, much more land would have to be added to UG Bs, possibly requiring the addition of lands without willing land owners. Additionally, since a1123 sites will need to be selected now, with velY little infOlmation about the actual future market for large lots, the odds of choosing incorrectly are higher. What if the wrong sites are chosen? The surplus of unused industrial land may make it difficult for future UGB 4 We do not concede that the region can justify a larger REOA. ]000 Centrol Oregon Office' 115 NW Oregon Ave #21 • Bend, OR 97701 • (541) 719-8221 • fox (866) 394-3089 friends ....... rroge 10 expansions in more suitable locations to proceed. Removing wrongly-chosen land from UGBs will prove difficult. "Exogenous Need" The REOA asselis that all the job growth associated with large lots is an "exogenous" need. According to the MelTiam-Webster online dictionary the word exogenous means: "a : caused by factors (as food or a traumatic factor) or an agent (as a disease­ producing organism) from outside the organism or system <exogenous obesity> <exogenous psychic depression> <exogenous market fluctuations> "b : introduced from or produced outside the organism or system; specifically: not synthesized within the organism or system" In other words, the REOA claims that 100% of the predicted need will come from outside the forecasted job growth already accounted for by the economic opportunity analyses of the various cities within the tri county area. If the need is not exogenous need, then the REOA does not provide a basis on which to add additional land to existing UGBs above and beyond what has already been justified by existing employment forecasts. It would only provide a basis on which to change the percentage of land dedicated to large lots in existing U~:JBs. Therefore, any city that were to adopt this EOA would be committing-to 'placing more landiiito large lots, but would not have any justification on which to increase the amount of land allocated_ for industrial use purposes. If the forecast for the number of large lot users who will be aniving in the next 20 years is excessive, then cities run the risk of placing too much of their inventOlY in large lots. As the REOA shows, all the job growth is in businesses with under 20 employees. If too much land is allocated for large lots, cities run the risk of excessively restricting the supply for the industry sector for which there is real evidence of growth. As shown above, the analysis of the industry growth in the western US shows that businesses with 500+ employees have been shedding jobs. Therefore there is no evidence for the REOA's conclusions regarding the number of new large employers and their need for large lots over the next 20 years in central Oregon. Target Industries The proposed REOA assumes that if central Oregon has large lots available it will attract a greater share of certain "target" industries than any other region. Specifically, the REOA highlights data centers, renewable energy manufacturing, and warehousing and distribution. Although these industries are discussed, no substantial evidence exists in the REOA to suppOli the conclusion that we should expect a greater share than would anive under norn1aI employment growth patterns. Given that 1000 Central Oregon Office' 115 NW Oregon Ave #21 • Bend, OR 97701 • friends (541) 719-8221 • fax (866) 394-3089 ~ sO. rrcge 11 the US Census chmi in the REOA shows that some large firms are shrinking as fast as others are expanding, the evidence actually shows that suitable vacant land already exists inside the region's urban growth boundaries, and is already served with water, sewer, electricity and telecom infrastlUcture. No evidence is provided as to why new or existing businesses would chose raw land rather than already available land being vacated by sm'inking films, OAR 660-009-0015 requires that" "(1) The economic oppOliunities analysis must identify the major categories of industrial or other employment uses that could reasonably be expected to locate or expand in the planning area based on infOimation about national, state, regional, county or local trends. This review of trends is the principal basis for estimating future industrial and other employment uses as described in section (4) of this IUle. A use or category of use could reasonably be expected to expand or locate in the planning area if the area possesses the appropriate locational factors for the use or category of use. * * * * "( 4) Assessment of Community Economic Development Potential. The economic oppOliunities analysis must estimate the types and amounts of industrial and other employment uses likely to occur in the planning area. The estimate must be based on infOimation generated in response to sections (1) to (3) of this IUle and must consider the planning area's economic advantages and disadvantages. Relevant economic advantages and disadvantages to be considered may include but are not limited to: (a) Location, size and buying power of markets; (b ) Availability of transportation facilities for access and freight mobility; (c) Public facilities and public services; (d) Labor market factors; (e) Access to suppliers and utilities; (f) Necessary suppOli services; (g) Limits on development due to federal and state environmental protection laws; and (h) Educational and technical training programs." (Underlining added) In ShOli, the underlined elements of this OAR require that an EOA must estimate the employment uses likely to occur. The REOA must include an employment forecast for these targeted industries within the 20-year planning period. 1000 Central Oregon Office· 115 NW Oregon Ave #21 • Bend, OR 97701 • frienci:-; (541) 719·8221 • fax (866) 394·3089 .... eO. rroge 12 The REOA does not provide infOlmation about either larger trends or the scale of employment that could reasonably be expected from the target industries. It fails to provide any evidence that growth from these sectors should be expected to be above and beyond the normal trending growth central Oregon is cun'ently experiencing. Each of the target industries in the REOA is discussed below. Data Centers The REOA makes several claims about how appropriate central Oregon is for data centers. While this is a good beginning, the analysis does not go far enough. It does not explain how many new jobs central Oregon could reasonably expect fi:om this sector, or how many new acres that would require. Further, there are some analytical questions left unanswered that make it unclear that central Oregon could really expect a large sector of this market The REOA claims that energy prices are the most important factor in locating a data center, but then provides a cha11 showing large areas in eastem Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming that have similar climates, but even lower energy prices. Quincy, Washington, the town known for its six new data centers and highlighted in the appendices of this REOA, has the lowest energy prices in the US. The REOA also asserts that "because of the significant investments characterized by data centers both in mission critical infrastmcture and physical plant (typical cost per square foot is $1,000), most companies require large industrial sites for future expansion." REOA page 32. It is not clear why this conclusion follows from this premise. Why would very expensive infrastmcture require large lots? Second, even if this is hue (which we are not conceding) this conclusory statement provides no basis to draw a conclusion about the actual lot sizes needed. If central Oregon is going to attract data centers, the evidence in this REOA shows that it will have to be on a basis other than cheap energy or simple availability oflarge lots. For example, if the region has paI1icuiarly good telecom infrastmcture the REOA must explain why it is so much better than other regions with lower energy prices. What is the realistic capacity before additional infrastmcture needs to be added. Data "pipes" just like sewer pipes can only carry so much infonnation. Does the fact that Facebook has recently moved here provide an advantage? Will the region see secondary suppliers to Facebook move in that will make the region more attractive to other data centers? Is there a better educated workforce than places with lower energy costs? Goal 9 does not preclude a community from expecting to attract a reasonable, even a large proportion of a growing economic sector. However, it does require an analysis of the type of finns the community is likely to attract, and a forecast of the resources those businesses are likely to require such as employees, land, utilities, transp0l1ation, etc. This REOA's discussion of the data center Central Oregon Office' 115 NW Oregon Ave #21 • Bend, OR 97701 • 1000 (541) 719·8221 • fax (866) 394·3089friend;:; ... n•• nnge 13 industry does not provide evidence to forecast what propOl1ion of that market is likely to come to central Oregon. Renewable Energy Manufacturing Again, the REOA's discussion of this emerging industry is a good beginning. It mentions some of central Oregon's local strengths, such as the OSU program in renewable energy. It also mentions some weaknesses such as a small educated population. UnfOlwnately, it fails to provide enough quantitative info1111ation about either local or national trends that would allow a reader to understand the extent to which this growing industlY is likely to expand in central Oregon. Without this critical infOlmation there is no evidence that this sector can be relied upon to provide any jobs in excess of the nOlmally forecasted trends. There is cel1ainly no evidence that the jobs it is likely to attract will require large lots. Regional Warehousing Like the analysis of the renewable energy industry this discussion provides a good beginning, but fails to provide sufficient evidence on which to make a prediction of the size of the industry that can be reasonably expected to move to the region. FUl1her, at least one claim on which this discussion might rely appears to be intuitively unsuppOl1able. The REOA claims that "while Highway 97 is not -' .. ,., ,... '" . . perceived to be of equal value as Interstate 5 as a north/south link, its functionis equivalent and sometimes superior for many prospective finns." REOA, Page 25.· Curiously, the REOA also claims that "Central Oregon's distance from the Interstate system is a major impediment for many prospective films." A finding is considered to be suppOl1ed by substantial evidence when "the record, viewed as a whole, would pennit a reasonable person to make that finding." Dodd v. Hood River County, 317 Or 172, 179 (1993). Even if there is some SuppOl1ing evidence, that evidence may not be substantial when viewed together with the countervailing evidence in the whole record. Canfield v. Yamhill COllnty, 142 Or App 12, 17-18 (1996). Warehousing inherently requires excellent access to efficient transportation facilities because of the regular transfer of goods. Any analysis of the potential for future expansion of the warehousing and disttibution industIy in central Oregon requires a more detailed analysis of this potential impediment. Again, without a more detailed, or quantitative analysis of how much of this industry central Oregon can expect, there is no way to predict either how many jobs will likely be created, nor how much land is likely to be needed. Scale needs to be considered The REOA chal1 on page 40 purpOl1ing to show the appropriate lot sizes raises significant questions. It does not appear to be grounded in actual research, nor scaled to the sizes of industries likely to move to central Oregon. The chal1 lists industlY types along the top, then shows various needs such Centrol Oregon Office' 115 NW Oregon Ave #21 • Bend, OR 97701 • 1000 (541) 719-8221 • fox (866) 394-3089friends "., cO. rroge 14 as local workforce population, water, sewer, electricity etc. Most of the industries shown need 50­ 200+ acres. It is not clear how a food processing plant that requires 50 acres would have the same workforce and water requirements as a food processing plant that requires 200+ acres. The chart appears internally inconsistent. At the very least, each industry should be reviewed individually, and each size should be treated individually. If there is evidence that there is no difference in the workforce or utility requirements for installations of vastly different sizes, the evidence for that should be presented. Ideally, the industries that are most likely to be attracted to the central Oregon region should be examined in the most detail. In fact, it is not clear why other industJies should be examined at all, Additionally, this chart appeared in a different fmm in an earlier draft. That earlier draft is attached here on 11 x 17 paper and is labeled "Figure 20: Industrial Development Profile MatJix, Oregon Economic and Community Development Department." This chart is from page 25 of the draft REOA released on November 24, 2010, On this earlier draft all the industries listed required the same workforce, water, sewer and electricity, but substantially smaller acreages. In fact, on the earlier draft the only industries that needed more than 25 acres were globally scaled high tech businesses, and multi-state import-expmi businesses. However, according to that earlier chart both those businesses were precluded from Central Oregon. Globally scaled high tech businesses needed a workforce over 300,000, and import-export busi~esses needed a sea pmi., _, The reason for the changed acreage must be documented. The acreage required by call centers is particularly confusing. In thefirst charta call center requires 3 acres of land, a4" water main, 30 kva of electricity, and a local workforce of25,000. However, in the second chart a call center that requires 200+ acres of land has the exact same workforce, water, and electricity requirements. It is hard to understand how a facility almost 70 times the size would need the exact same utilities infi'astructure. It is even harder to understand how a call center that was going to hire enough workers to fill a 200+ acre facility would be able to find that many people in a town of only 25,000. There is not substantial evidence in the document that this chart is accurate or scaled to the population size in this region. The connections simply are not made. Ifthere is a good reason for the updating of this chart, it needs to rely on substantial evidence. In an effmi to discem the origins of the first (large) chart we spoke with Mike Williams, the industrial lands specialist at Business Oregon, the agency to which the chaIi is credited. He explained that the chaIi was originally designed to show the minimum site requirements for various industries for their site certification program. Unfortunately, according to him, the chaIi was not created based on verifiable research, such as looking at the size of existing businesses. It was created based on the best guess of several people who had been in the economic development business for some years. It was meant only to provide a "ball park" idea of what kinds Central Oregon Office' 115 NW Oregon Ave #21 • Bend, OR 97701 • lOOO (541) 719-8221 • fax (866) 394-3089 friendsI( ... se. rroge 15 of sites Business Oregon should be celtifying. He verified that the version in the earlier REOA was still aceurate. The chalts also do not seem to conform to actual data about the large lot users that already exist in the Metro area. In the large employer/large lot analysis of the Metro Urban Growth Report (attached here) all the large lot users in Metro UGB are individually listed. It appears from the Metro tables that a lot size of over 100 acres is extraordinarily rare. The few examples of industries with exceptional lot sizes are globally scaled electronics manufacturing and steel and concrete manufacturing. There are only two lots in the entire Metro region larger than 200 acres: the Intel manufacturing facility, and the Nike distribution center. Both are businesses that have grown substantially from small beginnings in Oregon. It seems unlikely that a business of this size would move their entire enormous facility all at once to a new location. If evidence exists that such a move might take place, it should be included in the document. Although an appendix identifies industries in other states that occupy large lots, there is not a good history with any of those except the Quincy, Washington site, about how those businesses came to be located there. It simply is not clear whether the large businesses highlighted grew slowly in place or whether they moved in from out of town bringing some or all of their employees with them. In summary, scale needs to be carefully considered. Is it just as realistic that Central Oregon could attract a call center that requires 200+ acres as a call center that requires three acres? The size of the data base industry needs to be examined, in light of the cost and availability of electricity locally. The document needs to show how many data centers the region is likely to attract, and then forecast the employment likely to come with such centers. Similarly, for the warehouse and renewable energy manufacturing businesses the document needs to examine national and global markets, and explain what sector of that business central Oregon has a reasonable chance of capturing. Then it must express how many jobs can be expected from that sector, and what size facilities are likely to be built in a region with existing population and levels of education. This infOlmation needs to be based on an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of Central Oregon in light of the actual needs of the industries the region hopes to attract. Again, this document claims that 100% of the need it purpolts to show is "exogenous" -above and beyond what would be expected in nOlmal growth scenarios. The fact that there are three industries highlighted that could reasonably be expected to grow in central Oregon does not make the jobs forecasted from that growth "exogenous." To show that a need is "exogenous" the REOA would have to show what amount of growth is likely to occur under nOlmal conditions, and then provide substantial evidence that normal conditions are not controlling. It would require substantial evidence that Central Oregon's present advantages are so significant and so different that past trends are not an indicator of predictable future growth. No such evidence cun'ently exists in the REOA Central Oregon Office' 115 NW Oregon Ave #21 • Bend, OR 97701 • 1000 (541) 719-8221 • fax (866) 394-3089friends J l .., ... rroge 16 Missing Inventory Finally, OAR 660-009-0015 requires Cities and counties must review and, as neceSSaIY, amend their comprehensive plans to provide economic opportunities analyses containing the information described in sections (I) to (4) of this rule. This analysis will compare the demand for land for industrial and other employment uses to the existing supply of such land. * * * (3) Comprehensive plans for all areas within urban growth boundaries must include an inventory of vacant and developed lands within the planning area designated for industrial or other employment use. There is no such inventory in this document. Conversations with staff have revealed that this lack of inventOlY is solely because of a lack of time, and that the inventory will be done as soon as funding becomes available. We encourage the Board to either rename this document to something that does not purport to satisfy Goal 9, or postpone any adoption until an inventory is complete. Additionally, there are analytical deficiencies in the document that should be addressed before it is adopted, which could be . addressed while the inventOlY is being completed. We recommend that the Board direct staff to re­ 00. engage the consultant and ask that the errors be corrected. After the elTors are corrected, we ask the Board to direct staff to reconvene the RAC for final approval. Please include these comments in the record, and let me know of any decision in this matter. Also, please let me know if there is any way we can be of any further assistance in helping the Commission understand the issues involved in this matter. Bg~:-:2 )~t: ~ Pm-Hm'Cly- Staff Attomey & Central Oregon Advocate Central Oregon Office' 115 NW Oregan Ave #21 • Bend, OR 97701 • 1000 (541) 719-8221 • fax (866) 394-3089friends ,., eft .. rroge 17 Oregon Jobs & Projected Industrial land Need: Comparison of 20 year forecasts 450,000 3000 400,000 ~20-yeCJr Employment Growth 2500 350,000 Projected Projected,2000300,000Jobs SO+Acre Over Industrial 20-Year Land Need 250,000Period Over 20-Year 1500 Period (acres) 200,000 150,000 1000 100,000 500 50,000 0 0 ~ ~o" \> R'\> .~"-' ~,,-,<f:' ~g R''<' " q}-0""~,<IO <Q'<' ~" e; «;.<0«,,'0 R' ",'I) ~,e./ 0"" o~ .~..,o <v,,<10 ~ (.0~ ~,~~ .:t>.' <Qe./~e.; "'~ Source: 1000 Friends research. All data points are from published or the most recent draft EOAs we were able to obtain. Appendix 4: Forecast-based large employer / large lot analysis A strong regional economy that provides job choices and prosperity is an important part of quality of life. The economic position of the Portland metropolitan region is partially dependent upon global factors as the world shifts towards new market realities. However, local and regional choices can shape this region's place in the global economy. In addition to job capacity, factors that contribute to a strong regional economy include, an educated workforce, high value added businesses, wage levels, the mix of jobs, the success of economic development efforts, the transportation system, infrastructure investments and quality of life. This appendix is intended to provide more detailed information than found in the urban growth report about how the relationship between demand for employment capacity and parcel formats and configurations may change over the next 20 years. The analysis approaches the topic from several angles to help inform growth management decisions. This report includes the following contents. Some of the reports contents are strictly informational and do not impact the demand analysis: • Inventory of existing large employers (by number of employees) • Inventory of existing large parcel users (over 25 acres) • Forecasted large lot demand (years 2010 to 2030) • Reconciliation of large lot supply and demand • Policy questions lal~Je ~ This analysis provides information on both large lot users and the region's large employers. An inventory of existing large employers (in 2006) suggests that not all large employers use large parcels of land. This portion of the analysis also draws attention to the region's many Oregon-originated, large employers that have been in the region for decades. Existing employers playa critical role in supporting the region's economy, and their needs should not be forgotten amongst efforts to attract the next big employer. 1 This large employer portion of the analysis uses United States Bureau of Labor Statistics data (ES-202) from 2006. This data includes only those employees that are covered by unemployment insurance (about 98 percent of all non-farm employees). This data set is deemed confidential by the federal government, requiring that it be presented in a generalized format that does not identify individual employers. 2009 -2030 urban growth report I APPENDIX 4 A4-1 Methodology and results (large employers) Different industries require different human resources. For instance, industrial uses typically require fewer employees per square foot than retail uses. This report's definition of a large employer recognizes these differences by varying employment minimums for each building type. To identify large employers, each North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code2 was first assigned to one of six building types.3 A minimum employee number was applied to each building type, assuming that the building is on a 20-acre site (to control for parcel size). The large employer definitions are described in Table 1 Table 1. 1: -­, I Number of equivalent Building type NAles codes jobs on 20 acres information excluded from this large finance employer analysis because real estate office uses would have too professional services many employees on a 20-acre management site to provide a means of I Office administration, waste identifying large employers Flex hi tech ~ manufacturing (non high tech) I General industrial IWarehouse and transportation, warehouse, and utilities 400 distribution IRetail -Ir esare ._. . . retail arts, entertainment, recreation accommodation and food service • other services 200 700 education I health and social services ~nstitution government 1,000 Using the definition of large employers found in Table 1 results in a list of 89 large employers inside the current urban growth boundary (UG8). 2 NAICS codes are self-reported by firms and in a few cases do not appear to accurately represent the activities of the business on these particular sites. For instance one employers NAICs code is in the wholesale category, placing them in the warehouse and distribution building type when most of their activities at this site appear to be office uses. 3 This differs from the general methodology used in the urban growth report, which assigned each NAICS code to several building types. This difference in methodology does not appear to influence the results of this large lot/large employer analySiS. 2009 -2030 urban growth report I APPENDIX 4 A4-2 Retail, 2 The original list of 89 large employers is described as follows: Existing large employers by building type Warehouse, Figure 1: number of !,Mge employers inside the Metro UGB in 2006 by building type • 16 percent of large employers are public sector • 10 percent of large employers are in the central city • 6 percent of large employers are in town centers or regional centers • 9 percent of large empioyers are in corridors " • 61 percent of large employers are in Title 4 Employment, Industrial or Regionally Significant Industrial Areas (in some cases, these areas overlap with centers and corridors) Nineteen of these 89 large employers are duplicates (same firm with multiple locations), leaving 70 unique large employers inside the UGB. Of these, 14 are public sector employers, leaving 56 large, unique, private-sector employers. Thirty-seven of these private firms (66 percent) originated in the Portland region. When public sector firms are included, 71 percent of the region's large employers originated in the Portland region (50 out of 70 employers). 2009 2030 urban growth report I APPENDIX 4 A4-3 As shown in Table 2, the 56 large, private employers have emerged in our region overthe course of a century and a half. Many of them started as a small business that grew over time.4 This data is for information purposes only and does not impact the 2010 -2030 large lot demand analysis. 2: 2(06) iarge, Number of existing (in 2006) .. :l large, private-sector employers by decade of I Number that are Oregon Decade 2.!:!&!l in the Metro region Originated i 1850 i ~I1860 I II. 1870 1880 0 1890 2: ~I 1 1 I 1900 1 1910 1: 4 41 ~.. 1920 4 21 1930 : 4 i 9i 1940 t== 1950 . 3 2 21960 : 1970 8 I 51 1980 I 2 11I I 1990 : 6 41 : 2000-2006 ! 3 0 4 Additional information about these S6 firms as well as a description of methodology is available as Attachment 1 to this report. 2009 -2030 urban growth report I APPENDIX 4 A4-4 users In addition to Identifying existing large employers, this study identifies existing large parcel users in the region. This provides an idea of what attributes future users may be looking for in large parcels. Large parcels were defined as 25 acres or larger. Methodology and results (existing large lot users) To find existing large parcel users, taxlots larger than 25 acres that are being used for industrial or commercial purposes were identified. Other large employers (the 89 large employers as defined earlier in this report) that are located on an assemblage of more than 25 acres were added to this inventory. This survey finds a total of 60 existing firms inside the Metro UGB that are located on a parcel of land (or grou p of parcels) of at least 25 acres. Figure 2 shows the geographical distribution of these large parcels throughout the region. These large parcel users accounted for 8.1% of total employment in the region in 2006. -----------------------------------------------------~-- Existing Large Lot Users Building Type • Flex .. GI _1 Instltubon @ None Port neasecl) WD 2: by GIS analysis indicates that these large parcels tend to be fairly flat. They may have some areas of slopes greater than 7% or even 15%, but these steep areas are usually small and scattered. Large parcel users with multiple buildings, like a hospital facility, are more likely to work around steeper slopes than a user 2009 -2030 urban growth report I APPENDIX 4 A4-5 building a large warehouse or industrial building. There is evidence that all building types can work around small environmental limitations when necessary. Many of the parcels in the survey have areas that are protected by Title 3 or Title 13, usually in the form of a single stream corridor running through the property or protected areas along the edges of the parcel. Many large lot users have only developed a portion of their property, evidence of their preference for future expansion opportunities. Some basic attributes of these large parcels/users, organized by building type, are shown in Table 3. Additional information about employers on large parcels is included as Attachment 2. lot USt:fS ~ Average AverageNumber of Total Proportion of Average acreage employees!BUlld;n g employees in regionallarge number ofper large type per acreemployers building type employment taxlots Iemployer Institutional 60.06 19,567 2.4% 54.3 31.5 9.4GI 10,475 1.3 %21 53.2 3.0 14.1WD 11,028 1.4 %16 48.8 2.7 14.6Flex 14 22,887 2.8% 3.1111.8 6.60.2% 82.2~ffice 3' 1,635 5.0 i I Total 60 I 65,592 8.1 % Institutional large lot users The six institutional employers inventoried here are all hospitals and related facilities. Together, they employed almost 20,000 people in 2006. There is strong evidence of taxlot assembly at these facilities, particularly those located in areas of higher density development. The total number of taxlots for each user ranges from 6 to 60 and total acreage ranges from 31 to 75 acres. For the large lot demand forecast section of this report, only medical uses are forecasted for the institutional building type. This is because other institutional large lot needs (e.g. schools) are better handled through the major UGB amendment process, which specifically addresses public facility needs. General Industrial (GI) large lot users There are 21 employers on large lots in the General Industrial category. The total Jot sizes for these employers range from 25 to 164 acres, with an average of about 53 acres. There seems to be less taxlot assembly in this category. Eight of these employers are located on a single taxlot and the average number oftaxlots for all Gllarge lot users is 3.0. GI buildings tend to be mostly one story, so coverage ratios provide a good indication of what the FARs might be on these lots. Coverage ratios were calculated for a sample of these employers and range anywhere from 0.16 to 0.67, with an average of 0.31. This is fairly consistent with the assumption in the preliminary employment urban growth report of an average FAR of 0.26 for the GI building type. 2009 -2030 urban growth report I APPENDIX 4 A4-6 Warehouse and Distribution (WD) large lot users There are 16 examples of WD employers located on large lots. Taxlot sizes range from 25 to 112 acres with an outlier (Nike 5 ) at 452 acres on an assembly of 17 taxlots. Most ofthese companies own fewer than five taxlots. A sample of coverage ratios for these lots provides a range of 0.07 to 0.58 and an average of 0.29. Flex large lot users There are 14 examples of Flex employers located on large lots. Flex buildings tend to be located on the largest parcels, with an average of 112 acres per employer. However, there is evidence that these companies a re holding land for future business expansion opportunities, as indicated by vacant taxlots and low coverage ratios where lots have been developed. Coverage ratios for a sample of developed lots range from 0.07 to 0.23 with an average of 0.13. Eight of these employers are located on a single taxlot while the rest are located on between two and 11 taxlots. Office large lot users Because office uses are well-suited to denser development, office building types are rare on large parcels. Counter intuitively, in this sampling of large parcel users, the office building type has the lowest average employee density per acre. There are three Office employers located on lots larger than 2S acres. Their total land area ranges from 44 to 123 acres on 3 to 6 taxlots. Additional large lot users There are some other examples of large lot users in the region that do not fit into our building type analysis. These include industrial users like sand and gravel mining as well as companies that are leasing large lots from the Port of Portland. The Port of Portland currently leases six large waterfront lots (or groups of taxlots) for warehouse and distribution use, one large lot for retail use and one for office use. for lots and This analysis was conducted to examine the relationships between jobs capacity and the types of firms that use large parcels. This analysis, as with the general employment analysis found in the UGR, is based on employment projections for the period 2010 to 2030.Two different growth scenarios, high growth and low growth were examined.6 These employment projections, by NAICS sector, are shown in Tables 4 and S. 5 Nike's self-reported wholesale NAICS code places them in the warehouse and distribution building type. They more correctly would be placed in the office building type. Because it is beyond the scope of this analysis to double-check each building type, Nike has been kept in the WD building type for consistency. This does not affect projected demand for future large lot office or WD uses. 6 The 2010 to 2030 range forecast is available as a separate document. 2009 2030 urban growth report I APPENDIX 4 A4-7 by af jobs -. 2015 2020 2025 2030 Sector 2010 NAICScodes 1.7 1.5Ag, Mining 1.9 1.8 1.611,21 93,6 117.185.0 104.0Construction 77.923 46,5Manufacturing -Hi tech 39.2 43.6 48.9 51.6334 108,9 111.4105.9 110.5Manufacturing -non-hi tech 98.531,32,33 (except 334) 74,1Wholesale 61.4 67.9 80.0 85.942 136,3 142,1 149.4132.344,45 Retail 120,6 53,0 60,748.322,48,49 Transp, Warehouse &Utilities 40.8 56.7 36.6 41.7 47.151 Information 26.9 31.5 72,562.3Finance 48.1 56.6 67.652 31.5 34.7 37.6 40.6Real Estate 28,553 100,381.9 90.954 Professional Services 60.8 71.8 39,733.6 46.0 52.7Management 26,855 95,3 108.9 121.2 132.8Admin, Waste 77.056 29.0 33.2 37.4 41.7Education 25.961 219,9143.6 170.6 194.5Health &Social Services 119,862 16,8 21,019.0 22.9Arts, Entertain, Rec 15.271 108,1 126,5Accomm &Food Service 88.1 98.1 117.272 76.1Other Services 41.9 51.2 68.281 60.2 Government 161.9 : 165,5 175.6 185.7 195.492 I Total 1,160.9 1,572.61 ,309.3 ~44.8 1,706.1 I I I 2009 2030 urban growth report I APPENDIX 4 A4-8 employment projections 2ly thousand, of jobs i NAICScodes Sector I 2010 2015 2020 . 2025 2030 11, 21 Ag, Mining 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.2 23 Construction 43.9 45.6 44.7 43.3 41.3 334 Manufacturing -Hi tech 24.9 26.3 27.5 28.3 29.1 31,32,33 (except 334) Manufacturing -non-hi tech 71.4 72.7 71.9 70.7 69.5 42 Wholesale 55.8 61.8 67.6 72.9 78.3 44.45 Retail 101.3 107.9 108.1 110.4 114.7 22,48,49 Transp, Warehouse & Utilities 36.2 43.1 47.3 50.4 53.9 51 Information 19.2 20.6 22.9 25.5 28.3 52 Finance 41.4 47.7 52.0 56.5 60.9 53 Real Estate 24.1 26.1 28.7 31.2 33.6 54 Professional Services 48.0 54.5 61.6 68.3 75.8 55 56 Management Admin, Waste 17.6 44.9 19.4 49.1 21.3 51.7 23.6 54.4 26.7 57.1 61 Education 21.7 24.0 27.1 30.1 32.9 62 Health & Social Services 107.5 126.7 149.8 169.7 190.8 71 Arts, Entertain, Rec 12.2 13.4 15.2 16.8 18.3 72 81 Accomm & Food Service i Other Services 82.7 30.5 92.1 35.6 101.4 41.3 109.9 46.5 118.5 51.7 92 I Government 149.0 151.2 160.0 168.9 177.3 I Total 933.6 1,019.1 1,101.4 1,178.5 1,260.0 , " Employment was distributed by real estate type using a set of density assumptions a bout the relationship between land area and employment for each building type. 2009 -2030 urban growth report I APPENDIX 4 A4-9 Table 6 shows the sectors (by NAles codes) that are expected to occupy each of the six building types. These assumptions are slightly djfferent than the methods used to assign sectors to building types in the UGR. For simplicity, each sector has been assigned to one building type as opposed to the proportional assignment used in the UGR. Assumptions about the average square foot per employee (SFE) and average floor to area ratio (FAR) were made for each building type, also shown in Table 6. These numbers allow for a calculation of the average number of jobs per acre for each building type. These values are the same as the Outer Ring density assumptions used in the broader UGR analysis, as most large lot development is expected to take place in Outer Ring subareas. As shown in the UGR's buildable land inventory, most of the existing large lot supply is located near the outer edges of the current urban growth area. l-~d'~' T 'I NIACS codes Average Average I Average Jobs , ~__ UI mg~y_pe___+-__~_______I-_S_F_E__+--~FAR per Acre! ! Warehouse/Distribution (WD) I 22, 42, 48, 49 1,850 i ~___0_'3_2-+-1__~__-::l I Ge:'a, ',d","'a' (G') ---+-1--2-3,~'~3-1'-,3-2-,3-3~(e-xce-p't-3-3-4-)+-----6-0-o+' 0.26 18.9 I I Tech/FleX_(_TF_)_.___--iI-___~____3_3_4_+_---99-0-lr·___0._31-+~__.__13_,--\6! IOffice 51,52, 53,54, 55._,_5_6+-___3_75-+___0_,7_5-+-___.__._---1 Retail 44,45,71 ,72,81 550 0.44± ~__________ ! i Medical ~.. .________6_2--'--___6_5_0_.JI'--_.~__0.._66_L_I.__~____' The next step is to determine how future job growth will be distributed among firm sizes. For this analysis, it is assumed that the proportional distribution of jobs by firm size will be the same as that observed in the 2006 employment data (for the Metro region). This distribution is shown in Table 7. 7: aistr!bution of ernployrnent by firm size ftJr each building Firm size by jobs WD GI TF Office Retail Medical less than 10 12% 15% 1% 17% 18% 13% 10 to 49 26% 30% 5% 26 % 41% 24% 50 to 99 14% 17% 4% 14% 16% 13% 100 to 149 9% 9% 4% 7% 8% 6% 150 to 199 5% 6% 4% 5% 5% 4% 200 to 499 15% 14% 25% 14% 10% 9% 500 to 999 5% 5% 17% 9% 1% 5% 1,000 to 1,999 6% 5% 34% 5% 0% 7% 2,000 to 2,999 0% 0% 6% 2% 0% 6% i . 3,000 or more 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.3~ ! Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% : 2009 -2030 urban growth report' APPENDIX 4 A4-10 I Finally, employment projections are run through this set of assumptions with the additional assumption of a 75% capture rate for the Metro UGB7. Tables 8 and 9 show the forecast of the number of new firms expected from 2010 to 2030 by firm size and building type. Note that in the low growth scenario, employment projections show a decline in employment in the General Industrial category, so the number of new firms and area of land forthis building type have been set to zero. Table High 'of nt::w finn!) bv finn siz,::; and bui~ding type, 2010 to 2030 --~!~irm size b;~T WD GI TF Office Retail Medical TotalI I. Jobs i I less than 10 778 1,140 14 4,518 2,976 11,4422,016 15 1,149 1,13010 to 49 290 393 603 3,580 87 24950 to 99 63 5 172 126 702 100 to 149 25 28 76 55 34 2213 14 24150 to 199 10 2 40 15 105 14 16 24200 to 499 7 55 20 136 17 1500 to 999 2 3 2 5 30 1 4 121,000 to 1,999 1 2 0 4 o . 1 0 20 0 32,000 to 2,999 3,000 or more 1I 0 3 4:01 01 __° Total· ~ 1,184 2,8284,382 16,235 I1,682 I 50 I 6,109 Table 9: tow growth forecast of new firms by firm size and building type, 2010 to 2030 ~irm size b;TwD I GI I TF Office Retail Medical TotalJobs l less than 10 2,2164 2,086 1,680 6,690704 0 10 to 49 5 563 792 502 2,125263 0 50 to 99 57 2 122 120 105 4060 100 to 149 1 12723 37 38 280 150 to 199 1 20 17 139 0 60 200 to 499 17 1713 0 2 27 76 500 to 999 1 8 1 5 172 0 1,000 to 1,999 21 1 70 0 3 2,000 to 2,999 0 1 1 20 00 3,000 or more 0' 0 01 0 2 3 o , 17 2,996 2,356 9,513Total 1,073 3,071 I 7 The capture rate used in this UGR is applied to a larger 7-county area than past UGRs, which used a 4-county capture rate. This change is due to the U.S. Office of Management and Budget's changed definition of the primary metropolitan statistical area. 2009 -2030 urban growth report I APPENDIX 4 A4-11 Using the assumptions about jobs per acre from Table 6, the forecast of firms is correlated to parcel size and building type, shown in Tables 10 and 11. 2010 to 2[130 size (acres) TF Office Retai~ rMedical 25 to 50 1 0 3 50 to 100 0 0 3 100 plus ~~~~__~.~~_____-L__ ___~____~L-____ 0 ____ 0~ ~.~._____ Total 15 10 4 large lot demand for marine and rail terminal use is not included in this analysis. These types of facilities may have relatively few employees and little building square footage. Consequently, a job forecast may be an inadequate means of forecasting land demand for these uses. Furthermore, these uses are extremely location specific and cannot be accommodated through UGB expansions. 1. Some of the region's existing large lot employers appear to hold vacant land forfuture local expansion opportunities. Should it be a regional policy to provide capacity for future business expansions that may exceed the twenty-year need? What are the risks of not doing so? 2. Given the inherent uncertainty of the range forecast, what are the risks and opportunities of providing too much or too little large-lot employment capacity? 3. This analysis identifies potential demand for one 2S-to-SO-acre lot for office uses. Office uses are well-suited to multi-story buildings. Should it be regional policy to expand the UGB to provide large lots for office uses? What are the risks of not doing so? 4. Should the cyclical UGR capacity analysis include large lot institutional uses (medical, education, government) or should they be handled on an as-needed basis? 5. Since they need to be located close to where people live, should we expect that future institutional uses will occur in smaller building formats that don't require large lot UGB expansions? 6. Should we assume that potential land assembly can help address large lot demand? 7. What strategies can be put in place to ensure that industrial land is used for job generating industrial purposes in order to protect public investments made to support industrial uses (such as transportation investments and planning efforts) and enhance regional competitiveness? 2009 -2030 urban growth report I APPENDIX 4 A4-12 It is likely that many future large parcel needs will need to be accommodated on vacant land rather than refill. Refill would appear to be a more likely source of capacity for smaller lot needs. The buildable land inventory for employment uses was amended by Metro's regional partners to incorporate local knowledge of available land. Details about the large lot buildable land inventory and a reconciliation of supply and potential demand are included in the urban growth report. 2009 -2030 urban growth report I APPENDIX 4 A4-13 Origins of the Portland metropolitan region's large, private sector employers by sector and decade {through 2006} EdCh fLon I cprc:.."cnl:> UilC IcHp,C priVdtt: ·;.ct.lur c..'llIJ-Iluyet 1':" P':, lL~ LarG,:Q amplOYQn; with unknown d~tQS of orla'n In thG Portland r(tglo11 KEY (b.lliad an NAICS IOfodtilli) ~ ..~~~ ""' .., ~l~ ut;;n:,jc,::, hCSP;tw' "(~'.) :,..l~""I,t""""\"':;ne ~ ·"'> ..,'It?<ul,ll..<t/J.....l,ibulo..,j, 1'.?i.•) + R.taU ano \'.Ihoies:.atl!! f\lr!{nG­ ~,"t ii;~"~..:;Y ..,"~ ~~~) .~. (0(""". ~~Ifi "'-J ~_ 19S0. iS-S0s 18705. 1SSc>5. 1.SS-Os 1900. I 1!910s I P::V ~ ~...V" ----,-u Caveats and methods! .ihh, ...n..,.~v1>il!.h.» nu Ik!H~\,;i titt til", h;I"'\"'Od:.tfU~ SutUf\i hoi. Mill IvL iJVIIIC.rn,.J. Hh kR.h..u.huJlu ;JJUYiyw IH'-IIVi f,,(v,lu.HuoH ..uuut ituw r,v4Uwult" ("IIt.{1O! iid mph..'" ",r lit h.""" i:efUl,Hj4\1tU fit ltHt' I-I ..::.l. -ldQf"tlfvrngwhliln flU' .mpIOY"H()rlg;~"ul(ty WctntIl"'110 bY~ln.u In thtl pOortla.od rfiglOn ,.Qqulr.s s:om-aJud,a.m.Qnllc..lls~somo firms artl: have rolocavitd t,~nt whHa othen on~lnlOlt9a tHi'Q~ butnaY'g und,1Hgonq. mC!!r,Q:Qrs. rcnQmlnl. O'r rc\oeotl0n wrthtn tho relton. OthQrftrms; hove-be-en In cxlGtenCC" in 'the: fettlO" 10' monydceodcs. butho\o'c !;Iub:!';;tQntlDlty chonaa:dthc nature: of their 'bu~ln~:;;~ over the yo~n:;. • sptncHs ;;r9 USti;)d,ln the "IQartha:';: tne spll!"lQ1fwas fcund~d • Flrm$ VJhc::;o. npm:,:;; no.... e s,.....:;t1gcd orc.II;;1'cd untier V1Cyt::Qrl'hc\,'ortgtl"lJlly wcntln:~o bU!ilne-~~ Ir the re-gton • firms tne!t bougntout e pre-e~15!II;.i bU$m.ess end have: c00ttnued to perform a 5lmn&r bUSk"Ie5stunction are listed under the e3lfUe( bu,",ne'!3.S: date of oHgm • fAre'" ",mrinyp.r<;. Flrp rl",ti,"'",d or: th,.. Or'lpr\~rt,.. o;ictp. f):ttiCl'" u<;p,\ Ft!"":Pl"xc:huil'"dtnrth:p r""A<;{"n"l'<; r:iipon (':l'l"'\ th,.. np('Jo,o;itp ..irll'"~ • n;;;t~ "inurrp'i: (1..,," RHl'i"';UiI Dt I Ahc.r 'o\t;:)ti"'1'1r~~7f10f' f?\?n' ?Ina v.=!n4.-uj<;:(nl'I"C"lf'iAt,.. \(>I ..h"l:if ....~ ,ipcjpr•.:dior;W ('lvnhihrh idpt:";TrtitJlljtinn 1.1+ jnc1ivjdll}J-~ F<~'r'f'llnyf'>"trnm F~7n;J dAt"'J 2009 -2030 urban growth report I APPENDIX 4 A4-14 I~ulllber of equivalent BlJlldlllg Jobs on 20 NAICS COd9 Type Method of defining "large emplovers"acre~ Ag. Mming ['.lanufac1uring -Each NorthAmerican IndustryClas,iticatlon System {NAICS} code is -HI tech rley. bUU ass igned to one 01 slx general buading types. 1'.1anufactunng Ceo non-hi tecll Industrial 400 -11 min imlAm Qmploy<lQ numbQr is dssign"d to <lach building tYPQ, Warehouse, ass uming a 20-acre site (to control for site size). Wholesale distnbut ion 200 i-«etali Retail (UU -Emp~oyelfs listed in the 2006 ES202 data are analyzed using the above Tranaportatloll Hit.., tu kJ .."ury lllu,.. th",lljUahry Q~ Idl t' t'mlJ!uY~L>. , VVarehouse Gen 8. Utilities Industrial 400 -Empl.oyerstnateme:rged after 2006 are not indudedhere Information Office [,Jot included Finance Office Not included hteal I:.st ate Utllee ['Jot Included rrofessional Services Office t.Jot Included Management Office Not included Adm 111 , Waste UtlICE' ['Jot Il1cluded Education I nstilutlonal 1000 HGalth & Social Services Instltutlonsl 1000 Arts. Entertain. Rec Retsil 700 Accoml11 & Food Service Retail 700 OtMr SorJicos Rot",i 700 Government I nstl1utlonal 1000 2009 -2030 urban growth report I APPENDIX 4 A4-15 lot This section is included/or in/ormation purposes only histing large lot employers This is a list of employers located on a taxlot or assemblage of taxlots of at least 25 acres. They were collected by looking at three different sources: First, we looked at a set of "large employers" based on the 2005 ES-202 employment data to see if they were located on more than 25 acres of land. Different large employer criteria were established for each building type. We checked the area surrounding each employer to be sure to account for employers located on multiple taxlots. Next, we searched the current taxlot data for lots greater than 25 acres. Again, we checked the surrounding area for any additional taxlots being used by the employers associated with these large lots. We also checked the list of Industrial Cluster Employers from the City of Hillsboro (June 2009) for any additional large lot employers. Finally, this inventory includes additional large lot users on Port of Portland properties that were submitted by the Port . • Note: Coverage ratios were calculated for a sample of employers from each building type by measuring building footprints from aerial photographs by hand. These bulJding areas were then compared to total land area for the employer, regardless of whether the individual taxlots were developed or not. There may be some error in the building footpr; nt measurements, and the coverage ratios will be skewed downward for employers that own a lot of vacant land. This is particularly a problem with Flex employers, so FARs have been provided where available (see /I below.) /I Note: Adjusted floor to area ratios (FARsI have been provided by the City of Hillsboro for selected employers. These data have been calculated based only on the developed parcels of land (excluding vacant parcels). so they should be more indicative of building density for these records than coverage ratios. 2009 2030 urban growth report I APPENDIX 4 A4-16 l!'-;:t!~ ~lrfn1,;('l NAteS Number of Coverage Adjusted (3 digitI NAteS Description Name Market area Acres Taxlots ratio • FAR II 623 General Medical and Surgical Hospitals Providence Portland Medical Center inner north and east 31 45 622 General Medical and Surgical Hospitals PROVIDENCE ST VINCENT MEDICAL CTR inner westside 40 15 0.33 622 General Medical and Surgical Hospitals LEGACY EMANUEL HOSPITAL & HLTH CNTR central city 41 60 622 General Medical and Surgical Hospitals Legacy Meridian Park Hospital outer 1-5/1-205 68 10 622 General Medical and Surgical Hospitals SUNNYSIDE HOSPITAL outer clackamas 71 6 0.20 622 General Medical and Surgical Hospitals PORTLAND ADVENTIST MEDICAL CENTER inner north and east 7S 53 rotal 326 is'! Average S4.3 11.5 (U7 2009 -2030 urban growth report I APPENDIX 4 A4-17 ;; 4 _U 4 Xi 4 d, DMJIJIAP!(A4fl4, ,~~Gi1:;WWW ;:........~M¥!I,. j, ""If ""**w; a u *1 C4 ; -''''" ~-------~'--- ~,~~:nf.'I'~1! lnd~l:.~tr;al NAICS (3 digit) NAICS Description Name Market area Acres Numberof TaKlots Coverage ratio' Adjusted FAR II 331 331 Iron and Steel Pipe and Tube Manufacturing from Purchased Steel Steel Investment Foundries NORTHWEST PIPE COMPANY PCC STRUCTURALS, INC inner north and east outer clackamas 25 28 1 2 0.16 311 332 324 327 333 331 336 332 322 325 335 324 327 336 331 336 327 331 Coffee and Tea Manufacturing Fabricated Pipe and Pipe Fitting Manufacturing Asphalt Shingle and Coating Materials Manufacturing Lime Manufacturing Optical Instrument and Lens Manufacturing Steel Investment Foundries Heavy Duty Truck Manufacturing Saw Blade and Handsaw Manufacturing Paper (except Newsprint) Mills All Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Current-Carrying Wiring Device Manufacturing Asphalt Paving Mixture and Block Manufacturing Glass Container Manufacturing Railroad Rolling Stock Manufacturing Steel Foundries (except Investment) Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing Other Structural Clay Product Manufacturing Iron and Steel Mills BOYD COFFEE COMPANY TUBE SPECIALTIES CO INC HERBERT MALARKEY ROOFING COMPANY ASH GROVE CEMENT COMPANY LEUPOLD & STEVENS INC PCC STRUCTURALS, INC FREIGHTLINER OF PORTLAND llC OREGON CUTTING SYSTEMS GEORGIA PACIFIC TOKYO OHKA KOGYO AMERICA INC JAE OREGON INC PARAMOUNT OF OREGON INC OWENS BROCKWAY GlASS CONTAINER INC GUNDERSON, INC. COLUMBIA STEEL CASTING CO., INC. THE BOEING COMPANY MUTUAL MATERIALS CO, ­PORTLAND OR EVRAZ OREGON STEEL MILLS INC east multnomah co east multnomah co inner north and east inner north and east inner westside inner north and east inner north and east inner clackamas east multnomah co outer westside outer 1-5 / 1-205 inner north and east inner north and east inner north and east inner north and east east multnomah co east multnomah co inner north and east 28 28 28 29 29 29 33 35 36 39 40 42 48 55 80 86 88 147 1 2 1 5 11 3 4 1 3 6 6 5 3 2 0.25 0.38 0.67 0.23 0.39 0.27 0.17 327 Ready-Mix Concrete Manufacturing ROSS ISLAND SAND & GRAVEl CO. inner north and east 164 2 Total 1.1.1.8 6l i-hrerag0: U (lind distl'ibuU(m 2009 -2030 urban growth report 1 APPENDIX 4 A4-18 NAICS Number of Coverage Adjusted (3 digit) NAICS Description Name Market area Acres Taxlots ratio • FAR # 424 General line Grocery Merchant Wholesalers SYSCO FOOD SERVICE OF PORTLAND outer 1-5/ 1-205 25 2 0,27 423 Metal Service Centers and Other Metal Merchant Wholesalers LAMPROS STEEL inner north and east 25 493 General Warehousing and Storage G,I. JOES outer 1-5 / 1-205 26 1 484 General Freight Trucking, Long-Distance, Less Than Truckload USF REDDAWAY, INC. outer clackam as 27 3 0.Q7 Construction and Mining (except Oil Well) Machinery and 423 Equipment Merchant Wholesalers THE HALTON COMPANY inner north and east 29 2 0,19 493 Other Warehousing and Storage G-P CONSUMER PROD NW LP inner north and east 30 Men's and Boys' Clothing and Furnishings Merchant 424 Wholesalers COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR USA CORPORATION inner north and east 32 3 0,58 Other Professional Equipment and Supplies Merchant 423 Wholesalers VWR CORPORATION outer 1-5 / 1-205 33 1 425 Wholesale Trade Agents and Brokers PORTLAND AUTO AUCTION inner north and east 38 2 493 General Warehousing and Storage ALBERTONS east multnomah co 54 2 493 General Warehousing and Storage SAFEWAY STORES, INC, outer clackamas 70 7 0.37 424 General Line Grocery Merchant Wholesalers KROGER INC outer clackamas 75 1 0,49 424 Drugs and Druggists' Sundries Merchant Wholesalers GENENTECHINC outer westSide 75 5 0,19 488 Marine Cargo Handling Oregon Paper Fiber 77 5 488 Other Support Activities for Road Transportation SCHNITZER STEEL PRODUCTS inner north and east 112 5 424 Footwear Merchant Wholesalers Total 1,179 Sll Avcraf.;e 71,] 2009 -2030 urban growth report I APPENDIX 4 A4-19 NAICS Number Coverage Adjusted (3 digit) NAICS Description Name Market area Acres of Taxlots ratio • FAR # 334 Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing Integrated Device Technology Inc (lDT) outer westside 25 1 0.37 Instrument Manufacturing for Measuring and Testing Electricity 334 and Electrical Signals FEI CO outer westside 27 1 0.13 0.39 333 Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODUCTS inner westside 33 1 0.23 0.22 334 Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing Triquint outer westside 47 4 0.08 0.15 334 Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing INTEL CORPORATION (Hawthorn Farm) outer westside 53 1 0.27 334 Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing INTEL CORPORATION (Aloha) outer westside 59 7 334 Printed Circuit Assembly (Electronic Assembly) Manufacturing MERIX CORPORATION outer westside 68 3 334 Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing SILTRONIC CORPORATION inner north and east 79 1 0.13 ° Solarworld outer westside 94 1 0.32 334 Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing INTEL CORPORATION (Jones Farm) outer westside 116 1 0.18 334 Other Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing XEROX CORPORATION outer 1-5/1-205 136 2 0.15 334 Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY INC east multnomah co 140 2 0.07 Instrument Manufacturing for Measuring and Testing Electricity 334 and Electrical Signals TEKTRONIX, INC. inner westside 166 7 0.13 INTEL CORPORATION (Ronler Acres & 334 Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing vacant) outer westside 522 11 0.27 Total 1#555 43 Average 111,8 3.1 !.l.:I3 O,?J 2009 -2030 urban growth report I APPENDIX 4 A4-20 oHk~' NArcs (3 digit) NArcs Description Number of Coverage ratio • Adjusted FAR # 511 Software Publishers Synopsys outer westside 44 6 541 NMHG OREGON INC east multnomah co 79 3 541 Computer Systems Design Services MENTOR GRAPHICS CORP outer 1-5 123 6 Total 246 15 Average a2,2 .t;,t) No building type NArcS Number of Coverage Adjusted (3 digit) NArCS Description Name Market area Acres Taxrots ratio • FAR # 212 Other Crushed and Broken Stone Mining and Quarrying NORTHFORK EXCAVATING, INC outer 1-5/1-206 67 1 212 Construction Sand and Gravel Mining ROGERS NORTHWEST INC outer 1-5/1-205 213 13 2009 -2030 urban growth report I APPENDIX 4 A4,21 Large HiIIsiJoro employers litom Industrial Cluster list} Oil smaller luts NAICS (3dig) NAtCS Description Employer (Notes) 0 Should be Applied Materials? 334 Other Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing Epson 423 Industrial Supplies Merchant Wholesalers Tokyo Electron America 334 Electronic Computer Manufacturing Sun Microsystems 334 Electronic Computer Manufacturing Radisys 334 Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing Lattice Semiconductor Corporation 333 Semiconductor Machinery Manufacturing Novellus Port of Portland large lot users 493 Other Warehousing and Storage G-P CONSUMER PROD NW LP GEORIA-PACIFIC CONSUMER 494 Other Warehousing and Storage PRODUCT LLC 424 Grain and Field Bean Merchant Wholesalers COLUMBIA GRAIN CASCADE STATION RETAIL 811 Car Washes TOYOTA MOTOR SALES USA 493 Other Warehousing and Storage AUTO WAREHOUSING INC 425 Wholesale Trade Agents and Brokers HUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA 551 Corporate, Subsidiary, and Regional Managing Offices FREIGHTLINER LLC PORTLAND BULK TERMINALS BNSF/Portland Terminal Willbridge/Lake Rail Yard Union Pacific Albina Rail Yard Union Pacific Brooklyn Rail Yard Union Pacific Barnes Rail Yard BNSF Ford lead Portland Bulk Terminals/Canpotex @ TerminalS 2009 -2030 urban growth report I APPENDIX 4 A4-22 MAname outer westside outer westside outer westSide outer westside outer westside outer westSide outer westside Port of portland Port of Portland Port of portland Port of Portland Port of Portland Port of Portland Port of Portland Port of portland Port of Portland Acres 15 21 6 12 11 16 13 Number of Taxlots 2 1 2 2 5 2 Btype Flex Flex WD Flex Flex Flex Flex FAR 0.45 0,39 0,31 0,29 0,43 0.41 55 2 WD 54 38 27 74 120 49 27 83 2 2 1 1 2 4 WD WD Retail WD WD Office 120 193 98 37 36 80 Toyota @ Terminal 4 82 Freightliner Headquarters 27 Portland Shipyard on Swan Island 60 Shipyard Commerce Center on Swan Island 64 Knife River 48 2009 -2030 urban growth report I APPENDIX 4 A4-23 ?R;;ii',\11m~.'H )'Nf"'~~"il""'fi<ll!~~,,!!,! )'$1_ I!i "'r,r~,J Jm,(}<&) :w,;;";::U;;;\!l4i¥Al¥t(iWN:s~v:; ,.!kAW"*fli'!"fo''!Il'I1I''G ......Y" •.•",,1"",.""'" ,,,,,,,,",W*!5f'!f!'!i'WIi'i#i,,," iP; "'*4 Member login ExT User name ,-'--""'-"" ~...~.. --~-~~....-----..--".-..-.~-,,--,"'.,~.~,..--..---~. ,:' Periodicals ',_, Literature Password; Search ~j; ~-;.. 1'4 '# Remember me ,:: Keyword '~: Title~: Author_. Topic ••: T ExT UNLUCKY BREAKS. Track Paid Breaks bf C(;c<]I"0 The RTC-100 Employee Time Clock tracks paid and non-paid breaks! VJViw Jconlirnt-:>....rn Ch"leau Hote! Savlony Luxury Chateau in the Loire Valley. Very Romantic, Affordable rates, Scctland Break§. Tailor-Made Self-Drive Holidays. Explore, Relax, Book Today! ..","-t.:V.", .Sm·;ScotJdnduiff(.;rently co uk Track Paid Breaks !\cis by G(ioqie The RTC-100 Employee Time Clock tracks paid and non-paid breaks! 'NWW.lcontunS.COB'l Chateau Hotel Savigny Luxury Chateau in the Loire Valley. Very Romantic, Affordable rates, Scotland 3reaks i Tailor-Made Self-Drive Holidays, Explore, Relax, Book Today! ...·.: .......w ~;PHScoHancjDif~erently () t.IK Llilk to this paoe Link to this paoe Byline: Sherri Buri McDonald The Register-Guard Sony's sudden closure in April of its Springfield CD factory didn't just deal a blow to the plant's 277 workers, who all lost their jobs, It also gave a black eye to the enterprise-zone tax-break system -the corporate incentive program that's a centerpiece of Oregon's economic development strategy, Since Sony opened in Springfield 1996, it had been held as a model enterprise-zone company, From 1996 to 2000, Sony was largely exempt from paying property taxes on its 365,OOO-square-foot Springfield factory and equipment. Elected officials reasoned that the five-year waiver would payoff in the long run because Sony was bringing good jobs to the area, and the factory eventually would come onto the tax rolls and begin paying its fair share of local government and school costs, But after less than three years fully on the roils, Sony shut the plant. The closure stunned many. But perhaps it shouldn't have, In Lane County, the performance of big companies that got big tax breaks has been questionable, a Register-Guard examination of the program shows. Many of the largest companies that have gotten the biggest breaks in the past 12 years have closed factories or cut back jobs, either while receiving the tax breaks or soon after the breaks expired, the newspaper found, Title Annotation: Big property-tax waivers yield patchy returns in Lane County; Business Publication: The Reqister·Guard (Eugene, Qill Geographic Code: 1USA Dale: Aug 10 2003 Words: 2481 Previous Article: =~""'-.!a\.!)Ll£~~!.:2.~J!£2!'!' Next Article: Tax-break scorE:card.lBusines~) Topics: Computer periphera:s industry Consumer eieetroflies industrl fv1achinerv industry Paper industry PaDer machines ""')' ~ I This pattern appears to conflict with a key argument of tax-waiver advocates: that the breaks bring big companies to town that will stick around and strengthen the long-term jobs base . .C£!l1ary vVI'1£!,rf f\partl}]9J:1§. /<lS Luxury Serviced Apartments Pure Luxury in . Accommodation! deal at the 4 star d hotel ;h.\;lr.il3t..'1YtriIU1'2£:1lTJ.flfS§. Luxury Serviced Apartments Pure Luxury in Accommodationl .JmpLu>:u~./ em::: deal at the 4 star d hotel • Sony's high-profile closure is prompting some critics to urge more restrictions on granting the breaks. Communities should require that companies keep tax­ exempted factories open for a number of years beyond the waiver period or pay "restitution" if they shut them, said former Sony shipping worker Ellen Columbo of Junction City. Under current state rules, once a company stops claiming the breaks, it can cut jobs with impunity -as Sony did. The tax-break system needs to be fixed to produce "a long-term benefit to the community, not just a short­ term Band-Aid," Columbo said. Columbo, 60, had worked at the Sony factory since construction began in 1995. After being laid off at the closure, Columbo spent four months out of work, and this month starts a new job as a circulation coordinator at magazine publisher Advanstar in Eugene. "Global pressures" But others say the tax-waiver program is largely fine as is, and more restrictions would hurt. If cities want to recruit out-of-area firms such as Sony, they must offer waivers on liberal terms to compete against other communities that also offer breaks, said Jack Roberts, executive director of the business-advocacy group Lane Metro Partnership. "We never said the enterprise zone would repeal the business cycle and insulate companies from global pressures," he added. "Just because (companies) don't stay forever doesn't mean it has failed." In the wake of Sony's closure, The Register-Guard reviewed tax waivers granted to companies in the Eugene, Springfield, Coburg and Oakridge enterprise zones since 1990 to try to assess the effectiveness of the program. Experts nationwide differ on how to gauge whether tax breaks work, or whether it's even possible to do that. The newspaper posed a simple question: How many of the 76 companies that got the waivers are still in business and employing local residents? One answer: Many of the largest waiver recipients have shut down or cut back. But an overwhelming number of the firms that got small tax breaks are still here and providing far more jobs than when they first applied for the waivers. Most of these companies are locally owned. In addition, the biggest companies got far larger tax waivers per job created than did the multitude of , smaller firms. Consider: Aside from Sony, two other recipients of hefty breaks HMT Technology Corp. and Rosen Products -have shut. HMT, which made computer hard disk drives in west Eugene, was waived from paying $1.7 million in taxes on building upgrades and equipment from 1997 to 1999. In April 2001, the firm's California-based parent shut the plant and laid off its 350 workers. HMT in 2001 had to pay $470,000 of the waived taxes after a review by Lane County officials found the firm had been cutting jobs and breaking its job-creation agreement even as it was receiving tax breaks. Rosen, which made flat-panel display screens for cars and airplanes, was waived from paying nearly $300,000 in property taxes from 1996 through 2002. The firm's Philadelphia-based parent, The Berwind Group. shut the Eugene plant last year, laying off 225 workers. The county assessor is investigating whether Rosen must pay back some waivers because it broke its job-creation agreement. The big companies that have not closed their local plants have a clear pattern of failing to create the number of jobs they initially promised under their tax­ break agreements. Giants Hynix, Weyerhaeuser Co., and Symantec Corp. have all slashed their work forces below levels they initially agreed 10, and Ihen negotiated special new deals with elected officials to get some or all of the tax waivers anyway. Six firms received more than $1 million in tax waivers from 1990 through 2002: Hynix, Monaco Coach Corp., Weyerhaeuser, Sony, HMT and Shorewood Packaging. Of these, Hynix, Monaco, Weyerhaeuser and Shorewood are still here. These six companies created a net total of about 1,906 jobs. That's the difference between their current local head count and their head count when the six first applied for tax breaks. These six companies got the vast majority of the tax breaks ($61 million, or 95 percent of the total awarded since 1990.) Hynix alone got waivers worth $50.7 million. For Hynix, the community has waived nearly $60,000 in taxes for each of the 850 jobs now at the plant. Of the remaining 70 mostly small companies, at least 59 still exist and continue to operate locally, while 11 have shut These 70 firms are responsible for a net gain of at least 1,648 jobs. These 70 companies got relatively small tax breaks because they added modest buildings and equipment in small increments. In total, they have been waived from paying only about $3.5 million in taxes, according to a county estimate. That's a waiver of about $2,100 for each of the 1,648 jobs. Some local businesspeople and politicians see these findings as supporting their argument that it makes more sense to help small, locally-based firms than try to lure outside companies that have no special bond with Lane County. Mel Bankoff, founder of local salsa maker Emerald Valley Kitchen, likes the breaks for local firms. But, he added, "I detest it for the large companies going around trying to get the best deal. "It goes against the ethos of community-sustainable business endeavors," he said. "The large companies don't necessarily have any investment in the community. In the long-haul, who's going to be there five or 10 years down the road 7" Emerald Valley Kitchen got about $22,000 in tax breaks for its new Eugene factory and equipment, and has 19 local employees. Art Fish, the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department's enterprise-zone coordinator, said he's surprised at the woes of so many large tax-break recipients in Lane County. "That is weird," he said. "It sort of sounds like just bad luck for that area: Fish's agency oversees the tax-break program statewide. Lane County's pace of large plant closures and cutbacks isn't typical of the track record in other Oregon enterprise zones. he added. The shakiness of the big companies may be due in part to the volatile sectors they're in, he said. Hynix, HMT, Rosen, Sony and Symantec are all tech firms. That sector boomed and crashed in the 19905. Firms had high hopes When those firms built their factories and applied for tax breaks, they weren't expecting financial trouble, Fish stressed. "At the time when they set out, they had really good hopes. Obviously, we've had some bad economic times globally," he said. The Oregon Legislature created the tax-break system in 1985. Cities don't have to offer them, and many don't. Coburg offered the breaks for less than 12 months in the mid-1990s, then shut the program to new applicants. Dismayed by Hynix's huge waiver, Eugene closed its program to new applicants in 1997. Springfield, by contrast, renewed its program in 2000 for another 10 years. Local elected officials agonize over offering the breaks, in part because it is impossible to know for sure whether they truly spur job creation. In addition, no one has been able to nail down the broader impacts on a community of granting tax waivers to a company that moves into town or expands. When a manufacturer moves in, it creates benefits ­ and costs. On the plus side. workers gain paychecks and skills that can be valuable even if the company later foldS. On the cost side, new employers often spur in­ migration to a community, noted Peter Fisher, a professor of planning at the University of Iowa, and co-author of a new book about enterprise zones. In Eugene and'Springfield, that occurred when Hynix and Sony moved here. The in-migration forces local governments to gear up by building roads and sewers, adding parks and police patrols, and upgrading schools. Many of those are fixed costs that persist even if the company closes. Roads and parks still need to be maintained; schools still need to be repaired and heated, Fisher said. The question then becomes: Should a community try to encourage growth by waiving property taxes that are supposed to help pay for the upgrades needed in order to handle that growth? Shifting the tax burden Were it certain that the new companies would stick around for many years, it might be easier to favor tax breaks, critics said. "I'm not saying that enterprise zones are categorically bad. Many of them do produce good jobs that last for a long time," said Paul Holvey, a local labor activist and union representative for Local 1273 of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. "But I think there needs to be something in writing that they (companies) be partners in the community once the tax break is over." • The breaks have become one more way that government in Oregon and nationwide in the past decade has lightened the tax burden on businesses and shoved it onto individuals instead, Holvey added. But Lane Metro's Roberts sees tax waivers as a way to try to keep industrial jobs in the United States even as manufacturers increasingly ship that work to low­ wage employees overseas. Roberts opposes new restrictions on the waivers. "The trickier you make this (program), the less effective it's going to be (as) an inducement to business to locate here." And property-tax breaks are a benign way to attract out-of-area firms, he argued. If a company decides not to come here, it wouldn't pay property taxes here anyway, he points out. So if a community offers tax waivers and succeeds in luring a new firm, the community isn't reducing its tax receipts, and stands to gain jobs, he said. That argument has won the day in hundreds of communities across the nation that now offer property-tax breaks. Roberts recalled a few years ago attending a seminar at which then-Secretary of Labor Robert Reich urged communities to stop competing against each other on tax breaks. After the speech "we all looked at each other and said 'You first: " Roberts said. "We all know that it's sort of like an arms race. You can't unilaterally disarm." Contact business reporter Sherri Buri McDonald at 338-2367 or sburi@guardnet.com. Business editor Christian Wihtol contributed to this report. He can be contacted at 338-2381 or cwihtol@guardnet.com. Hynix City: Eugene Business: Making computer chips Current jobs: 850 workers, up from 800 when the plant opened in 1998, but down from the 1,000 jobs Hynix promised in 1995 and in 2001. Tax waiver; $50.7 million, 1996-2002 HMT Technology Corp. City: Eugene Business: Making computer hard-disk drives Current jobs: Zero. Permanently shut in April 2001, laying off 350 workers. Tax waiver: $1.3 million, 1996-2000 Weyerhaeuser Co. City: Springfield Business: Paper/wood products manufacturing Current jobs: 570 workers, down from 1,000 in 1990. Tax waiver: $3.6 million in 1990, 1994-1997 Shorewood Packaging City: Springfield Business: Packaging Current jobs: 136, about the same as when opened. Tax waiver: $1 million, 1996-2000 Sony Disc Manufacturing .. City: Springfield Business: Making CDs Current jobs: Zero. Permanently shut in April 2003, laying off 277 workers, Tax waiver: $3 million, 1996-2000 Monaco Coach Corp. City: Coburg Business: Making RVs Current jobs: About 2.000, up from 500 jobs in 1995, when firm began rapid expansion, Tax waiver $1.3 million, 1997·2002 ZONING IN ABCs of Oregon enterprise-zone program Created: In 1985 by Legislature to combat economic slump. Lets cities designate zones and waive property taxes on certain firms. Eligible firms: Manufacturers, processors, distributors, headquarters, call centers, and in some zones hotels/motels. Retail, construction and financial businesses typically ineligible. When launched, the program gave some retailers tax breaks. Safeway in the early 1990s got three years of tax breaks for its grocery store on West 11th Avenue in Eugene, Basic rules: Waives 3-5 years of property taxes on new buildings/equipment for firms expanding or locating in zone. Firms already in or near zone must increase their work force by at least 10 percent to get breaks. Firms that move to zone from out of area must bring in at least one job. If firm later drops below promised job level, zone sponsors can stop the breaks. But law lets cities negotiate special deals with large companies to continue giving them breaks even if they cut jobs. Zones statewide: 49 ZONES IN LANE COUNTY West and northwest Eugene: Created in 1987, shut to new firms in 1997. In 1990-2002, about 56 firms received breaks. Oakridge: Created in 1987, renewed for 10 years in 1997. One firm has received breaks, Springfield: Created in 1990, renewed for 10 years in 2000. Zone encompasses all industrial areas in the city. In 1990-2002, about 18 firms received breaks. Coburg: Created in 1994, shut to new firms in 1995. Two firms have received breaks. Florence: Created in 2000 for 10 years. No breaks given yet Cottage Grove: Created in 2002 for 10 years. No breaks finalized yet FOR MORE INFORMATION Web: www.econ.state.oLusienterthezones. Web site for the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department, which runs the program Book: "State Enterprise Zone Programs: Have They Worked?" by Alan Peters and Peter Fisher, WE Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 2002. (www.upjohninstitute.org/publications) CAPTION(S): " .. Jack Roberts, executive director of Lane Metro Partnership, is a proponent of tax breaks that lured Sony to Springfield. INSIDE Business: Some flourish without enterprise-zone breaks I AiD Success: Small businesses prospering with tax breaks I A 11 Please bookmark with social media, your votes are noticed and appreciated: Please bookmark with social media, your votes are noticed and appreciated: I~.·C Unluc~y J\ds r~y C;c)ogfe Great deals on everything Unlucky themed, YahOD.com How To Build True Green See Examples of True Green Homes, Video, Interviews wI "Green Team," www Gr&enBrierGreenHcoH'les.ccm Ul1luck:y: {vb by G(,[JQ!c Great deals on everything Unlucky themed. '{ahoo.conl J::!pw To Bl;iid True Green See Examples of True Green Homes. Video, Interviews wI "Green Team," 't·:'Nw.GrHeI18rierGreenHoI11>::S c;om Reader ratings: 0 10 voters)] You can rate this article by selecting 1 to 5 stars on the left. Reader ratings: 0 [0 vote(s)] You can rate this article by selecting 1 to 5 stars on the left. Reader Opinion Title: Comment: I J I I SubmIt in Berwickshire, Scotland. Relax by crackling fire sample single malt V/Wt/_\""l~edlsrle;:~fN!:>Nif:tor co UK . .Breaks Tips on Breaks and more about breaks "V'N"-'i nlj-'r:;oHa1fmd.er.c>:Jn; F.(omar:tic Hotel P8nZ{H1Ce seaviews over 5t Michaels Mount small stylish hotel accommodation www.iy;{jun~H3·.... E:r.CO:.iK ·., Tax Breaks guide Find lax information today, .. id"~~tJn) nt::"t \:Vht.~a.tstleaf VJlrter Br8aU'~ in Berwickshire, Scotland, Relax by crackling fire sample malt Tax EJreakft , Tax Breaks guide Find tax information today, ,Breaks Tips on Breaks and more about breaks """'V'C'W" over St Michaels Mount small stylish hotel accommodation Publications by Name Publications by Dale Authors literature 6.:Q E<) ;:'·:r U-2 II 1 I } .. I I I BRYANT LOVLIEN "JARVIS.PC \ I ~" \ I '\ '\ \ I J \\\ ! ')! \1,\ 1St!! I) I!}j 'I Neil R. Bryant Robert S. Lovlien John A. Berge Sharon R. Smith John D. Sorlie Mark G. Reinecke Melissa P. Lande Kitri C. Ford Paul J. Taylor Kyle D. Wuepper Jeremy M. Green Peter A. Cluistoff Melinda Thomas 591 S.W. Mill View Way Bend, Oregon 97702 Phone: (541) 382-4331 Fax: (541) 389-3386 WWW.Bu.AWYEAS.COM September 22, 2011 HAND DELIVERED DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1300 NW WALL ST., SECOND FLOOR BEND, OR 97701 Re: Appeal Application of John Russell Property at: Map 15-11-19A, Tax Lot 100 File Nos.: LR-I0-8/A-l1-1 Dear Commissioners: Enclosed please fmd three (3) copies of a letter from attorney Steven Pfeiffer, submitted on behalf ofthe Applicant. Please call me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, . SEP 2 I. 2011 i~J~' .1 ROBERT S. LOVLIEN RSLlalk Enc!. {16060-00 1.00097093; 1 } Steven L. Pfeiffer PHON!!: (503) 727-2261 fAX: (503) 346-2261 EMAIL: SPfeiffer@perkinscoie.com SEP 2 2 2011 September 15,2011 VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL Tammy Baney, Chair Board of County Commissioners Deschutes County 1300 NW Wall Street, 2nd Floor Bend, OR 97701 Re: 17590 Forked Horn Drive, Map 15 M ll-19A, Tax Lot 100 Appeal of Hearing Officer's Decision, File No. A-ll-3 (A-ll-l; LR-I0­ 8) Dear Chair Baney and Fellow County Commissioners: We represent John W. Russell, the applicant in the above-referenced request for lot of record verification, and the appellant in this appeal of the Hearings Officerls decision affinning denial of lot of record verification for the subject property. Based on established Oregon law, and for the reasons more fully described below, we believe that the lot at issue is a valid legal lot of record, and should be verified as such. We respectfully request that the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (the IIBoard") grant this appeal and direct the approval of the subject lot of record verification request. Background It is undisputed that the subject property (Tax Lot 100) was first conveyed in a recorded Warranty Deed on December 1, 1969, together with another unit of land (Tax Lot 200). The 1969 Warranty Deed specifically describes the property subject to the Deed as "Two parcels of land" and provides a separate legal description for each parcel. Each legal description is separated into its own paragraph and has different points of beginning. It is also undisputed that at the time of the 1969 conveyance, no applicable subdivision or partition ordinance, and no I 4572-0001 ILEGAL2 I 729925.1 Board of County Commissioners September 15, 2011 Page 2 applicable zoning code, existed in Deschutes County. Therefore, Tax Lot 100 and Tax Lot 200 were lawfully created in accordance with the laws in place at the time of creation. In 2006, Tax Lot 200 was sold and conveyed separately from Tax Lot 100 by Warranty Deed, such that the two lots are no longer under the same ownership. In the challenged decision, the Hearings Officer detennined that, under the "lot of record" provision in Deschutes County Code ("DCC") 18.04.030, the inclusion of the legal description for the subject property with the description of a second parcel separately described in the original Deed serves as a basis for denying lot of record status. DCC 18.04.030 provides, in relevant part, as follows: "'Lot of Record' means: A. A lot or parcel at least 5,000 square feet in area and at least 50 feet wide, which confonned to all zoning and subdivision or partition requirements, if any, in effect on the date the lot or parcel was created, and which was created by any of the following means: * * * 3. By deed or contract, dated and signed by the parties to the transaction, containing a separate legal description of the lot or parcel, and recorded in Deschutes County if recording of the instrument was required on the date of the conveyance. If such instrument contains more than one legal description, only one lot of record shall be recognized unless the legal descriptions describe lots subject to a recorded subdivision or town plat;1I (Emphasis added.) In sum, despite the lawful creation of Tax Lot 100, the Hearings Officer has denied lot of record status to the subject lot to prevent its development based solely on the arbitrary difference in the wording of deeds. The issue before the Board is the legal validity of the Deschutes County "lot of record" provision. Analysis As a practical matter, the effect of the County's "lot of record" provision is to deny development of lawfully created lots based on the arbitrary distinction of how the deed creating the lot was worded. Furthennore, under this provision, the prohibition on development applies regardless of whether the lot is substandard in size or meets all minimum development standards. It also applies even if the lots required to be consolidated for development purposes are held in separate ownership, but only if the subject lots were historically created by a single deed. As a I4512·000 I ILEGAL2 I 129925. ! Board of County Commissioners September 15, 20 II Page 3 matter of public policy, the County should not hinge future development rights on arbitrary and illegitimate differences in the wording or form of deeds. The Land Use Board of Appeals ("LUBA") addressed this issue recently in review of a case with almost identical facts. Thomas v. Wasco County, 58 Or LUBA 452 (2009). In Thomas, the Wasco County ordinance required that contiguous substandard parcels that were created by deed before 1974 must be considered one property for development purposes if those parcels were subsequently transferred by a single deed, except where the properties listed in the single deed were described with separate metes and bounds descriptions and separate headings. Id While LUBA found that encouraging the consolidation of substandard lots for development purposes may serve a legitimate planning objective, it concluded that there was no legal basis for using the specific language of deeds to achieve such objective. LUBA specifically found as follows: "In sum, the county's apparent objective in encouraging the consolidation of substandard size lots for development purposes almost certainly serves a legitimate planning objective. There are a number of methods that the county can adopt to further that objective that are not based on deeds or the specific language of deeds. A relatively straightforward way would be to adopt code language that simply prohibits development of substandard size lots or parcels, with whatever exceptions the county deems appropriate. However, if the county continues to base its approach for consolidation of substandard size properties on the examination of deeds, the county must identify some legal basis for the distinctions it draws, such that future development rights do not hinge on apparently arbitrary differences in the wording or form of deeds." Id LUBA held that a land use regulation that applies, or does not apply, based on how the deeds that conveyed those parcels were written is a wholly arbitrary method of determining whether adjoining substandard parcels must be developed together as one parcel. As discussed in more detail below, the Deschutes County "lot of record II provision suffers similar flaws as the ordinance in Thomas. In the present case, the Hearings Officer's stated planning objectives, on which the "lot of record" provision is based, are contrary to Oregon law and are not achieved by such provision. Specifically, in his decision, the Hearings Officer stated as follows: II ••• I find that the provision of Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance IS.04.030(A)(3) dealing with multiple parcels being 14572·000IlLEGAL21729925.1 Board of County Commissioners September 15. 2011 Page 4 described on a single deed is not arbitrary and serves legitimate planning objectives by promoting the practical consolidation of substandard size lots for development purposes and preventing the recognition of land tracts that were created outside the applicable land division and zoning ordinances, where appropriate." Hearings Officer's decision, dated May 27.2011. p. 8. As previously mentioned, although the stated planning objective is to promote consolidation of substandard size lots for development, the County's "lot of record" provision applies to any and all lots that were created in a single deed, regardless of if the lots meet all minimum size and development standards. If the County desired to encourage consolidation of substandard size lots, it could simply adopt a code provision to prohibit development of substandard size lots, with any appropriate exceptions. The "lot of record" provision, as enacted, bears no relationship to this stated planning objective since the objective can be achieved through other means, regardless of whether lots are created by one or two deeds. The second planning objective stated by the Hearings Officer, namely to prevent the recognition ofland tracts that were created outside the applicable land division and zoning ordinances, is contrary to well-established Oregon law. Specifically, ORS 92.010 provides as follows: . '''Lawfully established unit of land' means: * * * B. Another unit of land created: >I< >I<* (ii) By deed or land sales contract, ifthere were no applicable planning, zoning or subdivision or partition ordinances or regulations. " ORS 92.01O(3)(a)(B)(ii). In addition, ORS 92.017 states as follows: "A lot or parcel lawfully created shall remain a discrete lot or parcel. unless the lot or parcel lines are vacated or the lot or parcel is further divided. as provided by law. II J4572-0001 fLEGAl21 729925.1 Board of County Commissioners September 15, 2011 PageS Taken together, these statutory provisions represent binding legislation directed to local governments regarding the minimum protections and rights of reconveyance to be afforded lawfully established lots or parcels, regardless of contrary local policy objectives. In stark contrast to the stated purpose of the County lot of record provision as asserted by the Planning Division, LUBA, upon consideration of the legislative history ofORS 92.017, found as follows: "The text ofORS 92.017, and its legislative history, make it clear that the functions ofORS 92.017 were (1) to prevent local governments from refusing to recognize lawful divisions of land such that lots and parcels CQuid not be SQld to third parties, and (2) to establish that the property lines established by such land divisions remain inviolate, absent the employment of a specific process to eliminate such property lines. II * * * "ORS 92.0 I 7 requires recognition of such parcels as separate until some action is taken to erase the lawfully-established property lines." Kishpaugh v. Clackamas County, 24 Or LUBA 164 (1992) (emphasis added). In the Memorandum from Associate Planner, Cynthia Smidt, dated September 8, 201 I, staff concedes that at the time the subject lot was conveyed by Warranty Deed in 1969, Deschutes County had no subdivision ordinance. Established Oregon law specifically requires recognition oflots that were created in accordance with the regulations in existence at the time of creation. Nothing in Deschutes County regulations or State law prohibited the lawful creation of the subject lot by deed. The issue of the lawful creation of the subject lot is wholly separate and distinct from the issue of whether or not it must be consolidated with another lot in order to be developable. In short, the wording of a deed has no bearing on whether lots listed in such deed should be developed separately or together and has no relevance to whether lots created prior to the existence of any subdivision or zoning ordinance should be recognized as lawful. Lastly, DCC 18.04.030 is an impermissible retroactive ordinance. As an initial matter, although the Hearings Officer found that the issue of retroactivity was not timely raised, it is important to note that DCC 22.32.027 provides that review on appeal before the Hearings Officer shall be de novo. Moreover, the Hearings Officer went ahead and substantively addressed the retroactivity issue. In any event, the hearing before the Board is de novo, and the issue of retroactivity has hereby been raised. Therefore, this issue is properly before the Board in this matter. 1 4572·000 I ILEGAL2 1729925,1 Board of County Commissioners September 15, 2011 Page 6 ORS 92.285 and ORS 215.110(6) expressly prohibit retroactive ordinances, and LUBA has found that the prohibition against adopting retroactive ordinances includes ordinances that allow retroactive application. Church v. Grant County, 37 Or LUBA 646 (2000). In general, a retroactive ordinance is one that "attach[ es] a new disability in respect to transactions or considerations already past." Id In Church, Grant County revoked Petitioner's prior approved partitions based on the County's ordinance that allowed the County to rescind or revoke prior land use approvals if they were found to violate the clear and objective standards of the code. Id LUBA determined that the Grant County ordinance was a retroactive ordinance within the meaning of ORS 92.285 because it allowed the County to affect the legal existence of previously approved partitions and, effectively, took away or impaired vested rights acquired under existing laws. Id Similar to the circumstances in Church, Deschutes County's "lot of record" provision attaches a significant new disability in the form ofloss of separate development rights to a deed that was finalized and recorded 42 years ago. Therefore, the effect of the "lot of record" provision is to add an implicit limitation on separate development to the terms of the 1969 deed conveying Tax Lot 1 00 and Tax Lot 200 together, which constitutes a retroactive ordinance prohibited by law. In response to this issue, the Hearings Officer found that the Deschutes County lot of record provision is not a prohibited retroactive ordinance because it only prospectively restricts future development. However, the Hearings Officer is mistaken. Under the Hearings Officer's analysis, the County's lot of record provision applies to historical facts and circumstances (specifically, the creation of a deed) undertaken before the lot of record provision even existed, reSUlting in the restriction or limitation of development rights. Stated differently, the County's lot of record provision reaches back in time to require that if a property owner conveyed two lots, albeit lawfully separate and distinct lots, within one deed, such lots can only be developed if they are consolidated, even though no such requirement existed at the time the deed was created. There can be no better definition of the retroactive application of a regulation. In conclusion, based on Oregon law and the analysis set forth above, the County's "lot of record" provision is not legally valid, and the subject property constitutes a legal lot of record under the controlling terms ofORS 92.017 and the Thomas and Kishpaugh cases. Therefore, the Hearings Officer's decision should be reversed with instructions that the subject parcel be recognized as a lot of record notwithstanding the legally impermissible provision of DCC 18.04.030. 14572-000IILEGAL21729925.1 Board of County Commissioners September 15,2011 Page 7 Please place this letter in the official Planning Division file for this matter and before the Board prior to the hearing scheduled for September 26,2011. Thank you for your assistance. Very truly yours, Steven L. Pfeiffer SLP:crl Cc: Robert S. Lovlien (via email) 14572·0001 ILEGAL2 I 729925.1 A-11-3 (A-11-1 and LR-10-8) Applicant J Own.r: John RUDen Legend Addr...: 17590 For1led Hom Dr, Slaters Taxlol: 1S-11-19AO-OO100D Subject Property 1!;-11·1!)'AO~0100 Socondary Property: 1S-11·19AO-OO200 Secondary Property 1!;-11 ·1!).A~200 ® ----.;;-........~.::..,~