Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-07-23 SDC Proposal CommentsDeschutes County Commissioners by email with 3 attachments RE: Deschutes County transportation SDC I commend your taking action to replace lost timber receipts. June 12, 2008 Page 1/4 Gould Testimony Attached is the most current SDC adopted by the City of Redmond. The City of Redmond has adopted Exhibit A Recommended SDC Phasing Schedule which shows in that in 2010, just 2 years time, Redmond's Transportation SDC will be $ 5'300 per PM Peak Hr Trip; this translates to $5'300 per single family dwelling. This is 82% higher than what Redmond was collecting per your chart in the SDC Report page 18. Deschutes County's proposed SDC could be 47% higher to reach this $5'300 rate. Why should Deschutes County's SDC me higher than proposed?, Because the list of Projects identified does not contain all of the County's needed projects and it also downplays real costs associated with the needed projects. commend you to finally identify the Tumalo Interchange in Deschutes County road projects now identified at $11.25 million. This is a step in the right direction. I would like to bring to your attention that ODOT has projected the Tumalo interchange to be exceeding $23.4 million. (See attachment) Using the 100+% higher figure of $23.4 million will more likely achieve project completion than undervaluing the cost of the infrastructe needed in Turnalo. I realize you are politically pressed by developers and Central Oregon Builders Association to not increase their costs by levying a high SDC; heavens forbid noone would want to move to Central Oregon because the transportation fees are high.... would encourage you to consider the impacts of not considering the real costs of projects. If our deteriorating roads are not fixed, heavens forbid who? would want to move to Central Oregon because our roads are so bad..., and think of all of the wear and tear on construction vehicles!, nah, a contractor wouldn't want to risk wear on their vehicle to do business in Central Oregon... When sufficient monies are not collected by an SDC, it becomes exponentially harder to prioritize a project. When sufficient monies are not collected by an SDC, it also becomes a challenge to round up monies from contributing agencies, such as from ODOT. Why would ODOT want to prioritize it's monies in Region 4 if financial participation from a local County , such as Deschutes County, does not have the resources to chip in it's own part? All the meanwhile, if a project that needs doing is not funded, the result is a time delay. This translates to more traffic at already dangerous and failing intersections, which in the case of Tumalo endanagers the health, safety and welfare of our community. And in particular not funding projects translates to a higher cost for the project because of time delay. This leads to increased ROW costs, increased building costs, and the cost of inflation. Time = money. There is an assumption that Destination Resorts generate 0.32 Trip Factors in Initial Residential Development (Appendix B Technical Analysis Table 2 Trip Data Page 2 Trip Factor.) This information does not come from an ITE source as per the footnote 2. Rather this data comes from a Kittleston Report funded by private resort developers. Typically resorts minimize their traffic counts so they minimize traffic mitigation. Resorts would pay as few fees as they can get away with. Only two (2) resorts were reviewed in the Kittleston Report. The counts from Eagle Crest were diluted by the counts from Black Butte Ranch. Black Butte Ranch is not a Goal 5 resort; only portions of Eagle Crest Resort were developed under the Goal 5 rules. Therefore, assuming that Resorts will have the same 0.32 Trip Factor count in Future Residential Development chart is unfounded. Since the Board of Commissioners is making this review, I would encourage Deschutes County Roads to contribute it's own traffic counts for destination resorts and to verify data submitted by specialty interests for accuracy. A second assumption in the SDC methodology Exhibit B (1 page before Appendix B Technical Analysis) 3. Destination Resorts "The County's current policy requires destination resorts to mitigate their immediate impacts by constructing local or project, improvements. A new resort should be held to that standard and pay the new SDC in order to pay for its share of the system capacity needed to serve it." As a destination resort example: Deschutes County Planning did not require the proposed Thornburgh Resort to mitigate their immediate impacts on Deschutes County Roads: Cook Ave, 7th Street or 5th Streets in Tumalo. Per the developer, this represents 20% of their traffic. Deschutes County also did not require the proposed Thornburgh Resort mitigate for the proposed 5% traffic on Tumalo Road. (Know that Tumalo Road at Deschutes Junction Phase II interchange is proposed at $ 5.1 million and does not appear on the County's list of projects for the SDC.) Additionally, the proposed Thornburgh Resort still to this day and in the course of the Final Master Plan review (file #M072; #MA086) has not provided counts at their secondary access road @ Cline Falls Highway (the ROW across BLM lands also known as the Bennett Road). If such traffic counts are not availble in the record, how can Deschutes County calculate for or measure mitigation for the traffic that is not quantified?. When such counts are not in the record, how does ODOT mitigate for the traffic? And, specifically why after repeated requests by the public asking for this data has Deschutes County not demanded these counts be provided at this planning stage? So, in the case of Thornburgh Resort, ODOT is basing the Thornburgh Resort's contributing share on a $2 milllion interchange cost based on an incomplete traffic analysis. Why does't ODOT use the $23.4 million cost for the interchange and demand a complete traffic impact of this proposed resort? Isn't Deschutes County planning doing a disservice to ODOT by not providing complete transportation analyses? For some reason the political will has skipped over collecting for the Tumalo interchange. Other adjacent land uses in Tumalo have been approved over the last few years without any contribution to this large expensive infrastructure. So, why does Deschutes County figure an $11.25 million cost? Regarding collecting SDC's upon final occupancy: I think in the case of Destination Resorts, this is unwise. There is huge amounts of heavy construction traffic, contractor traffic, sales traffic and developer traffic that will use the roadway infrastructure many years before a certificate of occupany is issued. Additionally, it may be that the infrastructure is needed prior to the development and that the developer share might be available, but the County's matching funds (or what is projected to be collected for a specific project) will lag. This scenario could slow the completion of the built environment. This is the case for Tumalo and previous contributions by Eagle Crest Resort. (Tumalo has no grade separated interchange now but in the late 1990's it was identified to be needed in 2005.) So, I think it is important to revisit when the County will need it's funds and how this segways into some permitting process. Perhaps through the land use approval? but most assuredly not at the later stage of certificate of occupancy. encourage you to be bold. The City of Redmond has done this and so can you. Plan for the safety of our community and for the sustainable long range growth of our community. Think of the Tumalo interchange as a gateway to the City of Bend as it grows towards the north. Think of Deschutes Junction as a gateway to Juniper Ridge, to 19th street and the City of Redmond, and to Crook County. I encourage you to revisit the following: Value the Tumalo interchange at $23.4 million. Include Deschutes Junction Phase II in your project list at $5.1 million, for which County funding will be needed soon. Revisit whether in fact Deschutes County is collecting for local impacts now: (Thornburgh Resort @ Tumalo, Thornburgh Resort's 2ndary access Bennett ROW@ Cline Falls Hwy, Knife River @ Tumalo, Robinson & Sons @ Deschutes Junction) Collect SDC's at land use approval not at final occupancy. Imagine families and businesses wanting to live and work in Deschutes County because of your forsight to plan well for growth. Thank you Nunzie Gould 19845 JW Brown Rd Bend, OR 97701 541-420-3325 3 attachments: by email Deschutes County SDC Project List 2008_Resolution exhibit B_5-28-2008-1.xls (2pg) ODOT Region 4 Potential Region 4 Modernization Projects for 2010-2013 STIP Update and SB 566 List (3 pg) City of Redmond Exhibit A: Recommended SDC Phasing Schedule (1 pg) Deschutes County Commissioners 6/13/08 Page 4/4 SDC Gould Testimony 111111111111111iiiiiii 11111111111111111111111111 81111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111 11 'II'I!!!II LI IIit Illid1111111 6 11 III 111 1� i E y ea 111 iitill i !IIIIIIIIII!IIIIIH HiGiiiflhiIiiiIiiiiii v 8 O 49 h U 2 8 Q K K Y O w O w Op O n 0 8 Co' ry O O O 0 8 K 0 0 K () w88 z L>1 0 O O 0 8 v 1-x O N O 8 8 8 8 i n 8 W z r m 8 0 2 8 1°a 2 2 8 N 49 2 8 0 K 0 O 8 O 69 2 xis 2 0 (2 CL • 49 49 i 2 8 8 8 N w i s 8 K 8 4 8 K Q CL 8 2.1 w 0 9 0 w N 8 O N d 0 0 0 M w w N N NN 8 d 0 0 0 m 8 8 N 0 9s 0 =a Ss TI re x 8 N 8 voi w 8 O 49 49 N O 8 O O 49 A�1 69 8 O 8 w 8 8 O O 19 V 2 N 49 8 Cl w O 8 8 O N 8 8 O N 0 N 8 O O CI 8 O O 8 w O O 8 O O 49 O ft23. 49 8 0 2 U 0 i 0 w 2 8 2 8 d' aci 3 8. 4 s g 4 0 2 .0 ti 0 0 K 0 0 1- 0 m W 2 E 0 Y K p<QwQap K ps2¢0 =109 Z(Z,�KQ(2Q(.ip OZZw00 QOM' CFW K?�Z]iII�LL W O�w QK¢ W00 m mu.x r >i 00Z 0 m0g O w 15 8 r 2 tri 0 4 2 4 2 Pc - 4 2 2 3 2 4 2 2 s 1,3 P 8 2 15 5 8 4 2 2 W 8 CL gR gEg 8 15 8 2 2 g. 9 113 9 8 9 29886 2 m 2 z g 2 m 2 z TR m 3 z 2 ro z 2 m 2 Z 2 z 2 2 z SDC Project List Exhibit A: Recommended SDC Phasing Schedule Effective July 1, 2008 Category Unit Proposed Improvement Fee Proposed Reimbursement Fee Total $ Increase from prior SDC Proposed Total Transportation PM Peak Hr Trip $2,877 $287 $287 $3,164 Water Equivalent Dwelling Unit $2,116 $185 $209 $2,301 Wastewater Equivalent Dwelling Unit $2,060 $945 $900 $3,005 Parks Dwelling Unit $1,735 $0 $901 $1,735 Total $2,297 $10,205 Effective July 1, 2009 Category Unit Proposed Improvement Fee Proposed Reimbursement Fee Total $ Increase from prior SDC Proposed Total Transportation PM Peak Hr Trip $3,164 $316 $316 $3,480 Water Equivalent Dwelling Unit $2,166 $365 $230 $2,531 Wastewater Equivalent Dwelling Unit $2,922 $958 $875 $3,880 Parks Dwelling Unit $2,611 $0 $876 $2,611 Total $2,297 $12,502 Effective July 1, 2010: Full SDC Recommendation (At end of Year 3) Category Unit Proposed Improvement Fee Proposed Reimbursement Fee Total $ Increase from prior SDC Proposed Total Transportation PM Peak Hr Trip $4,685 $615 $1,820 $5,300 Water Equivalent Dwelling Unit $2,166 $453 $88 $2,619 Wastewater Equivalent Dwelling Unit $2,922 $1,165 $207 $4,087 Parks Dwelling Unit $2,793 $0 $182 $2,793 Total $2,297 ` $14,799 Effective July 1, 2011: Inflation Adjustment 2007-2011 Increase Improvement SDCs by Engineering News Record's Contruction Cost Index, 20 -City Average from July 2007 to July 2011. CITY OF REDMOND E P2 0 H 0) U ▪ O e• .°) g a f o 0 CD d U N a) O O g, fa' CD 00 E L U Q o o 0 rn 3 O 7 d U U 45, N N U 8 0 ▪ (0 a1 N N O l' N m N 117 N CO a) co a� ° a0., C N H E O C OQ O N • N 0 U E O -0 A co N a) co U d 1- E J aa, v) >. O M C O &. N O a a) a1 O L 0 (O N • 17 w cif) O C� a) O ▪ N . N CO U O 0 a a) (tea U a) E w (ca w E m L c o a� • U o6 N c a7 L a .a CO O O 0 1D E N L U U N N a) CA N w O c c a) d CO >d .) 2 a -o c a) E 5 - c(p EC N O U to y yN O O E .� p) .N N N c O v 'N 0, a) 0 (a v 2 y U 0 () CL a) a) m -0 C 7 C a) N 0 a) a) N D E o _,T, E 0 O. 0 U 0 U E a� 0 0 ,a2 C U O •C (6 .0 0 F2 O w N 0) O 2coA L (a O N a) >. U a) r O N 1- C a) U N U fa .0 7 3 0) a) C 0 O_ o u) > y E n a) y 0 C w m co �(pp N a) U U 3!c meL 0 0 rn D a) 0. _O co N N CO N CO w M 0 _ w N a) O y N L ; y 81--.-' a) N a j = N a O c co O w ▪ c c c L O .a) O 8 c 'a- l-. 0 m > Ni 0 2 a) ,°' 0 U co N - O CO t. L -0 O 0 1) C N O � ... 7 '5 p_ U 0) o 2:!), 00)) m 0 c x 0 C 3'm m 3 0) m pc CO = L L.. O PoteftifirfUUegion 4 Modernization Projects for 2010-2013 STIP Update and SB 566 List 2 O(o y U U O U) -c) 00 a`) v 0. N 0O r 0 (= a) 0 ., a) v — O v C 0 E .0 f4—� • _a c w f0 M c E9 c _T co (n a) t9 c 69 Cs= = —$2 million City cost share >. O) a) E m w (0 C 0 0 a) m d o U 0 O ` cC -0 a) U C C a1 0) 1-5 0)) awi c O > a c:1_ -o CD i C m 0 Q. ) 0 0 .CO (0>0) C < C E uoi > 7 a) 20'+ a) E • 0 0� d ✓ Zm E00 0 O. Y U v a c a a 6 2 0 ta. 'N Y CO2f6 E E L'73 Lj ( o w a) 0 0 CO •- - a) C)'C LL E tel 9 O Z W 49 N .To .O CL To CL n H c a— a) O a) a• 90ac') a) a) >- >- (0 CO CDCD z CO CO t9 ✓ r ✓ r O V O to O O O N 69 CO C9 O O (9 z a) 0 a) 0 0) N O a)) O 0 O 0 0 O 0) d 0) a) U a) 0 N a) L U !A N 0 C N c CO L c E a) N m Q Y N 0) 0. E N 0) L U y a) 0 v a) m O N 03 0) 03 0) rn a) 0) O v O v 1- 0) (0 N (0 N O O O O O O O O O) O O O a IReserve Bucket to reduce R4 Financial Plan deficit US 20 Tumalo Interchange US 97 @ J Street L 0 d IUS 97: Lava Butte -South Century US 97: Veterans Way to South Wickiup (Redmond) US 97 Madras - Crooked River passing lanes Sand Creek To Spring Cr. a) 0) () 0 a8 C a) CT] C a3 E N v O C o a) m c •0 a) E (io) a a) oma n CL cr) 0) v m 0 L OR 140: Beatty Curve k IUS 97:Bend North Corridor US 97: South Redmond (Reroute Ph 2') m IUS 97: Strategic Interchange Improvements n IUS 26 Realignment away from Beaver Cr. o IUS 97:S.Century-LaPine (includes Wickiup Ph) 0 c 0 0) 0 .O. C N c N c ,7) L > j) a a) N Cti) O 3 i Y C a) a o a) L 0 C Q 0 N 0) N > j Q 0 J 3- 0 H Local cost share needed. O N 69 O O N 69 O O N fA t0 M O EA O r fR Z L f0 E N N uc 0 N a) u 0 N u 0 L U N 0 0) 0) O O) f0 N O) O N 0) O O O O O O O a IOR 140 @ Homedale Interchange b 10R39: Summers Ln-K-Falls/Malin a) rn co Lc 2 0) ai c 0) a a) U U 0) 0) f0 c O 0)) m a m '0 a) E v ac) 0 C N O 0 Q' a N m U O N E O 0) a) c >, v m L coL 0) 0 a U O O 2 0) Q1 U 0) 0 0) CC L )n c O U O E N c r 0 3 0) h IUS 97 in La Pine- signal at 1st Street US 20 @ Barclay Signal US 97: LaPine-Crescent Passing Lanes J H 0 H c 0 tnd t a Cd E G O 0) L 0 0) O a a 1- O 0 w > O C) o. a c O , E o O U o N o O c O 0) U a O O U f0 N O a IOR 126: Redmond -Prineville Refinement Plan Seeking funding/staffing partnerships. N 0) u 0) 0 O N O b IUS 20 Purcell -Powell Butte Hwy Refinement Plan Seeking funding/staffing partnerships. O N O CO (NJ 0) Seeking funding/staffing partnerships. 0 O N u 0) 0 0) O O a E N c � > m c:ca 0 o 0) T C13 N m >. as a) 0) . o E a vc to rn a c O H N �O-. > > E 0 U $800K of current funding for PE only co O 69 L E m 0) M e IOR 39/140: Western -Lost River Diversion 0 a 0 O O U f0 N O OR 126: Redmond -Prineville Passing Lanes f0 1- N 0) O 0) L f0 E m 0) 1) DRAFT Warm Springs requested Table 2 4 laning numerous sections City Requested on this list. Tied to Bend North Corridor project, MPO staff requested table 2. There may be a short-term/low-cost option. Assume Developer $ (08-11 DSTIP) County staff requested Table 2 Need corridor refinment, City requested Table 2 Scen #1 Could be addressed thru regular STIP Ops or Safety programs. Could be addressed thru regular STIP Ops or Safety programs. Need corridor refinement. Need corridor refinement. Could be addressed thru regular STIP Ops or Safety programs. Pending TSP Update. City/MPO requested on Central Signal System & ITS, working alternate strategy Tied to corridor refinement Aspen Lakes responsible for ROW Could be addressed thru regular STIP Ops or Safety programs. O O O (0 EA O O O b9 LO O Eft LO O Ea. O EA $3.2 Wasco Des/Klam Jefferson Deschutes Klamath Crook Crook Deschutes Jefferson Deschutes Deschutes , Deschutes Jefferson Jefferson _ Jefferson Sisters various Redmond Bend Deschutes , Wasco O N n Cr) n Cr) N- Cr) n Cr) O N fD NN 0 n Cr) r- 0) o N o N n 0) r- D) ED ClN 0 n Cr) ) 0 o LN n O 0 3- 0 0 ,_ 0 0 0 OO 0 O 0 0 0 0 a. 0 0 0 O DRAFT US 26 @ County Line Rd left turn lane US 97 Passing Lanes: LaPine-K-Falls US 97 Madras Truck Route US 97 Bend Parkway, Empire NB off ramp US 97 @ Silverlake Road: Left turn lane US 26 @ Barnes Butte Rd. left turn (Prineville) OR 126 - Powell Butte Hwy Interchange US 20 Sisters - Wychus Creek Canal passing lane US 97 @ Dover Lane: close Dover on east side US 97 © Gift Rd/ Pint Rdg Rd. -close east side US Sisters - Bend frontage roads US 20 @ Old/Bend Redmond grade -separate US 97 @ Bear Drive channelization US 97 @ Jericho Lane left turn lane US 26 @ Cherry Lane channelization US 20 Improvements through Sisters (couplet, bypass, etc) Adaptive signal timing in Bend, Redmond, & K -Falls US 97@Veterans Way northbound dual lefts US 20 Purcell to Ward/Hamby intersection/capacity needs OR 126 @ Camp Polk Road Left Turn Lane US 97 & US 197 Jct ._, Y - E c 0 d Cr L CO ... 7 > 3 X > N COf0 -0 .)) -oI 1- LL 0 O a c N 0 m c O N E v 0 L -o • • E • o ca a- c m Page 1 of 2 Bonnie Baker From: Mark Pilliod Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 4:29 PM To: Bonnie Baker Subject: FW: Transportation District Hearing August 18, 2008 This needs to be made part of the official record in this matter. Thanks Mark Pilliod Deschutes County Legal Counsel 541-388-6625 This mail may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise by return e-mail and delete immediately without reading or forwarding to others. From: pstell@ci.bend.or.us [mailto:pstell@ci.bend.or.us] Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 11:01 AM To: Dennis Luke; Mike Daly; Tammy Melton Cc: Dave Kanner; Laurie Craghead; Mark Pilliod Subject: Transportation District Hearing August 18, 2008 Good Morning Chair Luke, Commissioners Daly and Melton. I would like to first express my apologies for not having someone at the public hearing held yesterday, August 18, 2008 regarding the proposed Transit District. If I may explain myself, my absence was due to my understanding that the public hearing was set for the purpose of continuing the public hearing until August 25th and was a technical necessity rather than a need to be present. I was obviously wrong in my interpretation. Had I been there, I would be been pleased to have reported that we held our meeting with Deschutes River Woods residents on Thursday, August 14th at the Morningstar Christian School. We mailed initiations to registered voters from Deschutes River Woods on Monday, August 11th and most were delivered on Tuesday, August 12th. We sent cards to approximately 2,600 registered voters. At the public meeting, I had the honor of acting as moderator. Our primary speaker of course was Heather Ornelas, Bend Area Transit Manager, due to her expertise with the Bend Area Transit and laws and regulations governing transportation districts and service delivery. Heather made a presentation on the proposed Transportation District, emphasizing that the services to Deschutes River Woods would need to be developed by an advisory group created after the successful election of the Transportation District. She did go into detail about some of the service options that could be considered by the advisory group, such as an internal bus system and a flag stop system. June Haines spoke from her experience as a member of the Citizens for the Future of Transportation, the advisory group that developed the recommendation to the City Council, and made the decision to include Deschutes River Woods in its recommendation. She emphasized that the committee made the recommendation to include Deschutes River Woods, and the City Council had accepted the committee recommendation. Cards were handed out to all participants and collected. I took each question submitted and asked the questions of Heather. At the conclusion of the meeting, which lasted until 7:15 p.m., we broke into smaller groups for one on one questions. We had a tax calculator available to approximate the true cost to the individual property owner. We had 34 attendees, just over 1% of the registered voters in Deschutes River Woods which seems to be a fairly common turn out these days. The attendees were very cordial and respectful. I was pleased with the results of the meeting and hope to use the same format at other public information meetings in the future. 8/20/2008 Page 2 of 2 Our goal was to provide information and we commented several times that our role was not to be persuasive but to make sure voters in Deschutes River Woods had access to solid information. Once again, I apologize for failing to attend the public hearing. I will most definitely be at the August 25th meeting and look forward to any questions you may have for me. Kindest regards, Patricia S. Stell City Recorder City of Bend 710 NW Wall St Bend, Oregon 97701 541-388-5517 8/20/2008