HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-07-02 Work Session Minutest
I
f
For Recording Stamp Only
t
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 -Fax (541) 385-3202 -www.deschutes.org
MINUTES OF WORK SESSION
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WEDNESDAY, JULY 2, 2014
Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Anthony DeBone and Alan Unger.
Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator,' Erik Kropp, Deputy
County Administrator; and, for a portion ofthe meeting, Chris Doty and George
Kolb, Road Department; Scot Langton, Assessor,' Wayne Lowry, Finance; Dave
Doyle, County Counsel; Nick Lelack, Peter Russell and Peter Gutowsky,
Community Development; Elon Glucklich ofThe Bulletin, and four other citizens.
Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m.
1. La Pine Urban Renewal District Proposal.
Rick Allen, interim City Manager of La Pine; Elaine Howard, consultant; and
Cory Misley, intern, explained that an economic summit was held in La Pine,
and they looked at ways to stimulate the local economy. Urban renewal
districts are a key tool and are used in other cities. There is wide local support
for this. Fifteen entities were invited to be part of the work group along with
individuals, and they spent over six months in meetings and discussions. The
Fire District is the only one not participating, as they feel the district as
proposed is too big.
Commissioner DeBone said he attended one of the meetings, but did not speak (
for the Board. Mr. Allen said that the Park District is heavily involved. This is
a 25-year plan and they need to think ahead. There are no local tax l
ramifications either way. I
Minutes of Board ofCornrnissioners' Work Session Wednesday, July 2,2014
Page 1 of 7 Pages
Ms. Howard stated that this has to be presented to the Board. The County also
has land within the district, so needs to vote to approve the plan. They will
draft a Resolution for the Board to review and approve. She gave an overview
of how the funds would be utilized. They were unable to include Wickiup
Junction but instead focused on the core portions of the City.
The timeframe is a 25-year life. The controlling factor is the maximum
indebtedness. In this case, the amount is about $7 million. At 4%, it is not
overly ambitious. They have to be able to service the debt.
There is potential impact on other entities such as Deschutes County, law
enforcement and other taxing districts, but there are long-term benefits for alL
They did not include single-family zoned parcels so it is mostly commercial.
They hope to leverage for State or other funds.
Commissioner Unger noted that he is glad workforce housing is a part of it.
Mr. Allen said that there are parcels across from the schools and close to all
services, which he would like to see as multi-family.
Commissioner Unger stated that this worked well in Redmond, and this is one
of the few tools that help with this kind of effort.
Scot Langston said there is a thirty-day window for the application. One parcel
is outside the City so it is a little more challenging. Ms. Howard stated that the
City votes on this on July 23, so would like to present to the County soon
afterwards.
2. Discussion of Powell Butte Highway/Neff Road Intersection Project.
Chris Doty provided a handout of the project. They hired Kittleston to do the
initial safety analysis and concepts. Notice has been mailed to all adjacent
property owners, and a public meeting was held. A press release brought in
others. Some have concerns about a roundabout there.
The various concepts will be on the July 21 as a public hearing, even though a
hearing is not required. The Board wishes to hear from the public.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, July 2,2014
Page 2 of7 Pages
I
f
3. Discussion of Sign Removal, Old Bend-Redmond Highway.
f
Mr. Doty stated that Mountain View Stables has a commercial sign that is
located too close to the road. They had been working with the property owners,
but communication has stopped. There is no record of a sign permit, so they fneed to go through the process, which includes notice and a public hearing. A
separate hearing would be needed if the County has to incur costs and wants to
collect on them. IGeorge Kolb added that the owner claims that when the road was widened, it
changed the fog line. Mr. Kolb does not think this is the case. The County has
offered to remove the sign. They will keep the Board advised, but the hearing
I
is set for August 6. l
I
I4. Newberry Country Plan: Implementation Update.
Nick Lelack stated they have done a lot of work on this. Peter Russell added
that Sunriver and others have been working on a task force regarding the Harper
Bridge situation. They eliminated the SW quadrant from consideration. The t
Sunriver board meets on July 10 to talk about this issue. They are aware of the
Peters Road right-of-way of 1908, but Sunriver has now built a fence across it
to limit public access. I
Mr. Anderson said he met with some of the individuals involved to discuss the
fence issue. They claim it is an insurance problem. The walkway to the river
has been narrowed, so this forces cars back onto the road and is a safety
concern. Perhaps the fence should be moved, or rumble strips put down, which
are noisy. He thinks more aggressive action will need to happen.
Peter Russell added that the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council members are
upset about the fencing, since it affects public access to the river. They may file
a formal complaint. Dave Doyle noted that the Sunriver representatives say the
right-of-way is an easement only for roadway purposes.
Commissioner Unger asked if there is an easier way to offload people and
equipment. Mr. Gutowsky said the hazard has been worsened with the new
fence. The property owners on the northeast side want to develop their land for
RV use. It is in a flood plain and would be hard to rezone for this, but the
previous owner wanted to put in a cluster development with 65% open space.
I
I
t
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, July 2,2014
Page 3 of7 Pages
An RV park is not listed in the Sunriver code or their UUC. It is almost like
expanding an urban growth boundary. Sunriver won't want to see RV's across
the river, either. There are all kinds of regulatory issues on the surrounding
areas, including the spotted frog.
Chair Baney asked about the State Marine Board proposals. Mr. Russell said
that one was drafted by fly-fishers. The Marine Board won't fund anything for
hand-launched since their funds come through motorized boats. They need
property to be donated by Sunriver, who wants a price into six figures.
Commissioner DeBone asked if there is potential south of there. There are a lot
I
lof DRRH parcels that have river access. Mr. Russell said that the locals
wouldn't want a lot of additional car and boat traffic on their local roads. The
subject area is where people go.
Chair Baney said they should go forward with signage (reduce speed, restricted I
I
parking) and rumble strips. Mr. Lelack added that people need to know to
contact the Sunriver Owners Association with complaints. Mr. Anderson stated
that they may try to put up 'no trespassing' signs. They are clearly pushing the
issue. The County might remove the fence for safety reasons. Mr. Doyle said
that it is not a danger to the motorized public, but might be to pedestrians. It
could be hard to justify in court.
Mr. Anderson said that now people have to be a resident or owner or guest of
Sunriver to use the Sunriver boat launch, so there is not much available.
Chair Baney advised them to send a letter detailing the safety concerns, made
more dire because of the changed fence. They say insurance requires it. Mr.
Russell stated that if this is the case, they should fence off their entire area. It
won't keep people off the adjacent Sunriver property. This just makes it less
safe. Mr. Lelack noted that the Paddle Trail Alliance was involved in previous
years. Commissioner DeBone agreed that the Board should proceed with
signage, rumble strips and a letter.
Mr. Russell said that regarding the Newberry Country Plan and the burden of
proof, the State did the rest but the County hasn't seen it yet. Transportation
came up as well.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, July 2,2014
Page 4 of 7 Pages
Groundwater lots were not considered in this, but if sewer comes in, it will
impact traffic and changes the TSP and transportation plan rule. It appears that
1,500 trips on the State highway system is acceptable, but there is nothing at the
County level to analyze this.
There is a difference of opinion with the State DLCD as to whether a study is
needed. The cost for this is estimated up to $20,000. County Legal says it is
needed. They meet on July 10 with State agencies. There won't be a hearing
possible until fall at this point.
These lots are platted but not developed, or were minimally developed. They
went with what they knew about undevelopable lots. Mr. Anderson asked
about the likelihood of these assumptions if they go after a Goal 11 exception.
Mr. Russell said the TPR won't consider this; they would have to amend the
comprehensive plan to do it. There is no wiggle room.
Mr. Lelack said that there a lots scattered throughout a large area, and there
might be little impact on a local level. The SDC's would include t hose lots,
and they would also have to pay for mitigation.
Mr. Lelack stated that if you take those out of the Goal 11 exception, there
would be no impacts. However, the property owners have made it clear that
they want to be included. Mr. Gutowsky said that they have reserve capacity to
document the Goal 11 exception. They are meeting monthly but still waiting
for information. The DEQ is being passive-aggressive, and the DLCD is
supposed to help.
The draft findings do speak to nitrates, but the Citizen Action Group did not
like this. They want the Goal 11 exception without the language that is needed
to justify it. It will be divisive. The DEQ has to declare a public health
problem to proceed; this is in the OAR. They would lose at LUBA otherwise.
They have to show there are no reasonable alternatives to sewer; otherwise, it is
dead. Goal 11 and the OAR are the State's, and they need to handle this. The
TPR can be gotten around, but the other two are high bars. A health problem,
now or in the future, needs to be addressed.
He said it is being compared to the local rule. They are seeing a surge of
housing now, and properties are selling. The public health connotations will
cause problems. The DEQ and DLCD need to stand up to this.
I
I
(
t
f
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, July 2,2014
Page 5 of 7 Pages
Commissioner DeBone stated the Ford Foundation graduates worked on this for
five years, and some want to talk about this in a logical fashion. Maybe they
can rely more on them than the CAG. The community needs to recognize the
problems of sewer, water, and roads.
Mr. Russell said they need a map with the criteria. For instance, do they go into
Goal 4, forest lands. Mr. Gutowsky stated there are large tracts of forest land
also, included although not developed. It is felt that the USFS might decide to
sell them off. There is a significant amount of pressure from the DEQ to
identify resource lands. They have to rely on agencies for justification, and it
needs to be defensible. Mr. Lelack noted they will use the USGS study as the
basis. The alternative is the higher cost septic systems.
Mr. Gutowsky told the DEQ the County would do a public mailing for two
hearings and split the cost with the DEQ. They support this.
Chair Baney said this feels like deja vu. She asked if there is any way to lighten
the blow. Mr. Anderson replied that this is the burden of the DEQ. They know
the issues well. Mr. Lelack said the County will help all it can. It needs
defensible language.
Mr. Gutowsky noted that in a long-term look, the process will allow more
towards a geographic rule; if all that could have been done has been done.
Mr. Lelack said they will proceed with a traffic study and wait for others to get
their work done. The TDC/PRC group convenes next month. They can talk
about the money, and where it has gone and will go. Perhaps the traffic study
can come out of this fund. Mr. Russell stated he would ask the State agencies
to split the cost.
I
l
I
t
I
I
!
J
Mr. Gutowsky noted that the membership of the CAG has changed over time.
The Baldwin-Herndon Trust property is owned by Vic Russell, and he has
strong feelings about the encumbrances on his property. They are still trying to
fill the appraiser role.
5. Other Items.
Being no further items discussed, the meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, July 2,2014
Page 6 of 7 Pages
DATED this ~-; Dayof ~ 2014 for the
Deschutes County Board of CommissiorierSO
T~J
Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair
ATTEST:
Alan Unger, Commissioner ~~
Recording Secretary
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, July 2,2014
Page 7 of 7 Pages
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 -Fax (541) 385-3202 -www.deschutes.org
WORK SESSION AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, JULY 2, 2014
1. La Pine Urban Renewal District Proposal -Rick Allen I
(
2. Discussion of Powell Butte HighwaylNeff Road Intersection Project -Chris
Doty
3. Discussion of Sign Removal, Old Bend-Redmond Highway -Chris Doty
4. Newberry Country Plan: Implementation Update Nick Lelack
5. Other Items
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; or other
issues under ORS 192.660(2), executive session.
Meeting dates. times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board o/Commissioners' meeting rooms at
1300 NW Wall St .. Bend. unless otherwise indicated. Ifyou have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572.
Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities, This event/location is
accessible to people with disabilities. If you need accommodations to make participation possible, please call (541) 388-6571, or
send an e-mail to bonnie,baker(aJ.deschutes.org.
VI
I :::>
~, .
~'<t ~
(1) j4 ~\l
~ -O ~~ . '"~i"0 0
'-IO @ __ ~
, \ 'n; t"~
N ~~ ,~ (1) \ ~ t ~ -\-~
r +
'1lC) ~
~;~ r
,
(1) -~c: .~ ~
.r:: 0 n--~
0I
{Yl ~
~ ~
~·-t + -L . 1-+ .
r3t
t
51
-I + r 1--rr
~
~
(1)...
"0
"0
-<
Ic: ,
'n;
~ ~ ~ +t ~~
C
0
'Vi
VI
Q)
V\
.:¥....
0
~
~" ~ ~ " '\
i ~ {
..., ~
C: -S. ~ 'i(1) ~
-< l J €
0 \'-l . ---I
~ ~! :::::
~ ,5:: ~ f:~ ct ~ ~ {'0~ 10 --\) ~I z ~ ~~_=' ~ ~ ,l ~
c:..1.. ~ '0 ~ I
V'I
(1)
co
0
4
~
Q)
co
0
0
Date: June 9, 2014
Re: Proposed La Pine Urban Renewal Plan
The La Pine City Council is considering adoption of an ordinance to establish an urban renewal
area that encompasses the downtown commercial core of La Pine (Figure 1). The tax increment
revenues from urban renewal would assist with funding projects that would increase the
economic vitality of La Pine.
The legal requirements for the adoption of an urban renewal plan stipulate that the proposed
urban renewal plan be sent to representatives of overlapping taxing districts. Although the
approval of overlapping taxing districts is not required, the City Council is required to respond
specifically to any written recommendations of the districts. This letter is the official
transmission of the proposed La Pine Urban Renewal Plan.
The La Pine City Council is scheduled to consider the adoption of the proposed La Pine Urban
Renewal Plan on July 9th, 2014 at the La Pine City Hall, 16345 6th Street, at 6:00 pm.
I. BACKGROUND
The La Pine Urban Renewal Plan (Plan) and La Pine Urban Renewal Report (Report) have been
developed with the cooperative input of the La Pine Urban Renewal Citizens’ Advisory
Committee (Committee). The Committee was comprised of representatives from the La Pine
City Council, La Pine Planning Commission, Deschutes County Library, Bend -La Pine School
District, La Pine Parks and Recreation District, Deschutes County, La Pine Chamber of
Commerce and businesses of La Pine. The consulting team met with the advisory committee
three times. The first was to review urban renewal and the potential boundary, the second to
review and advise on the goals and objectives, potential projects and the third to review and
provide input on the entire draft La Pine Urban Renewal Plan (Plan) and Report including the
financial data in the Report. At the final meeting, the committee voted unanimously to forward
the draft Plan and Report to the La Pine City Counci l for their review.
An Open House will be held on June 18, 2013, 5:30 – 6:30 pm at the La Pine Chamber of
Commerce office where there will be an opportunity to gather and share information. Please
feel free to attend the Open House.
The La Pine Urban Renewal Plan contains goals, objectives, and projects for the development of
the La Pine Urban Renewal Area. The overall purpose of the Plan is to use tax increment
financing to help improve the vitality of downtown La Pine, overcoming obstacles to the full
development of the Area.
II. PROPOSAL
The La Pine Urban Renewal Plan area (Area), shown in Figure 1, consists of approximately 577
acres of land including rights of way. The Area encompasses the downtown commercial core of
La Pine and adjacent development opportunities including the future Rodeo/Event site.
The purpose of urban renewal is to improve specific areas of a city that are poorly developed or
underdeveloped. These areas can have old deteriorated buildings, public spaces which need
improvements, a lack of investment, streets and utilities in poor condition or they can lack
streets and utilities altogether. The Area has many properties that are undeveloped or under
developed, and lacks sufficient infrastructure within the Area. The Area also needs streetscape
improvements and effective signage. The Area does not have a program that provides
assistance to property owners for improvement of their properties, and such a program is
identified in the Plan.
Urban renewal projects in general can include construction or improvement of streets, utilities
and other public facilities, assistance for rehabilitation or redevelopment of property,
acquisition and re-sale of property (site assembly) from willing sellers and can provide funds for
improvements to public spaces. The specific projects proposed in this Plan are outlined in
Sections IV and V of the Plan.
Urban renewal is unique in that it brings its own financing source: tax increment financing (TIF).
Tax increment revenues - the amount of property taxes generated by the increase in total
assessed values in the urban renewal area from the time the urban renewal area is first
established – are used to repay borrowed funds. The funds borrowed are used to pay for urban
renewal projects.
Urban renewal is put into effect by the local government (the city in this case) adopting an
urban renewal plan. The urban renewal plan defines the urban renewal area, states goals and
objectives for the area, lists projects and programs that can be undertaken, provides a dollar
limit on the funds borrowed for urban renewal projects, and states how the plan may be
changed in the future.
The goals of the Plan are shown below and the specific objectives are listed in Section III of the
attached Plan.
Public Involvement
Provide for community input in urban renewal planning and administration.
Objectives
a. Include the community in a Citizens’ Advisory Committee for planning the urban
renewal area.
b. Provide opportunities for community-wide input in the urban renewal plan planning
process.
c. Have an informal open house at the Chamber of Commerce office to help inform the
public and business owners about the urban renewal planning process.
d. Include citizens in the urban renewal agency.
Economy
Promote the role of the Area as an energetic community of local businesses that is supported
by the residents of both La Pine and outlying areas and by tourists travelling through La Pine.
Objectives
a. Develop programs and incentives to encourage expansion of existing businesses, and
development of new business activity to create additional jobs in the Area.
b. Provide for a pleasing visual perception of La Pine by providing assistance for storefront
improvements to businesses in the Area.
c. Form public-private partnerships and use public investment to generate private
investment.
d. Encourage the creation of a focused area of commercial activity to both strengthen
existing businesses and create new business activity.
e. Promote an entrepreneurial climate for business expansion and growth, including a
potential business incubator building.
f. Identify opportunities to support tourist/recreational related businesses, activities, and
growth.
Create an Identifiable Town Center as a Hub of Community Activity
The Town Center would be a compact area that is centrally located and planned for easy
walking access. The uses would be comprised of a mixture of commercial businesses, civic
buildings, and other community uses.1
Within this Town Center, create a unique identity that strengthens the sense of place,
promotes economic development through resident and tourist visits, encourages return
patronage, and leverages private investment.
Objectives
a. Establish an identity that promotes a sense of character, providing a community for
existing businesses and residents and inviting visitors to bring additional commerce to
the Area.
b. Establish gateway features to delineate the Town Center and show pride in the
community by providing improved aesthetic features.
c. Improve sidewalks, streetscape, walkways, and bike pathways to provide easier access
to the commercial area and to promote activity within the Town Center.
d. Provide business and way finding signage.
e. Create gathering places that will provide focal points and draw patronage to the Area.
f. Assess parking needs to support the business district.
g. Assist in the development of public facilities that expand or enhance the services
provided in the Town Center and that serve the interests of the citizens of La Pine and
tourist activity in La Pine.
Housing/Mixed-Use Development
Encourage development in the Mixed-Use Commercial Residential District of the Area.
a. Encourage development of workforce housing opportunities, commercial support
services, and office opportunities in proximity to the housing.
b. Help facilitate the development of public spaces within the mixed-use area.
1 Language from La Pine Comprehensive Plan
Infrastructure
Assist in providing infrastructure (water, sewer, storm water) to encourage development in La
Pine.
a. Upgrade/provide infrastructure as necessary to allow for the development or
redevelopment of parcels within and adjacent to the urban renewal area.
Public Facilities
Provide opportunities for residents and visitors alike to shop and recreate in La Pine, supporting
public service providers and existing businesses and providing stimulus for new economic
activity.
a. Assist in development and redevelopment of public facilities that provide vital services
(fire, police, and medical), gathering spaces, and other services for the community,
including the proposed Rodeo and Events site.
III. FINANCING
The proposed maximum indebtedness, the limit on the amount of funds that may be spent on
administration, projects and programs in the Area is $7,017,000. The maximum indebtedness
does not include interest paid on any borrowing by the urban renewal agency. There is a
proposed financing plan in the Report that shows that the Plan is financially feasible. It is
understood that the Agency may make changes to the financing plan as needs and
opportunities arise, typically during the annual budgeting process.
Figure 1 - Proposed Urban Renewal Area
IV. IMPACT ON TAXING JURISDICTIONS
The impact of tax increment financing on overlapping taxing districts consists primarily of the
property tax revenues foregone on permanent rate levies as applied to the growth in assessed
value in the Area. The projections for impacts on the taxing jurisdictions are estimated through
fiscal year (FY) 2040-41.
Revenue sharing was a feature of the 2009 legislative changes in urban renewal law. Revenue
sharing is based on the actual tax increment revenues generated and occurs at stipulated
trigger points in the life of a Plan. Revenue sharing is based on the actual tax increment
revenues generated and occurs at stipulated trigger points in the life of a Plan. The first trigger
point is when the annual tax increment revenues are equal to 10% of the maximum
indebtedness established for the Area. It is projected that this urban renewal area may reach
the revenue sharing triggers in the final year of the Plan. If actual assessed value growth in the
urban renewal area exceeds the projections made in the urban renewal plan, revenue sharing
could occur earlier.
General obligation (GO) bonds and local option levies issued after October 2001 would not be
impacted by the proposed urban renewal district. The issuing jurisdiction will still receive their
share of the taxes on any GO bonds and local option levies issued after October 2001.
The School District 1 and the High Desert Education Service District are not directly affected by
the tax increment financing, but the amounts of their taxes divided for the urban renewal plan
are shown in the charts. Under current school funding law, property tax revenues are combined
with State School Fund revenues to achieve per-student funding targets. Under this system,
property taxes that are foregone because of the use of Tax Increment Financing are replaced
(as determined by a funding formula at the State level) with State School Fund revenues.
Tables 1a and 1b show the projected impacts to the taxing districts as a result of the proposed
La Pine Urban Renewal Plan.
Table 1a – Projected Impact on Taxing District Permanent Rate Levies
Source: ECONorthwest La Pine Schools and the Education Service District are not directly impacted, as they are allocated funding through
a state school funding formula based on per pupil counts.
FYE
DESCHUTES
COUNTY
COUNTY
LIBRARY
COUNTYWIDE
LAW
ENFORCEMENT
RURAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT
COUNTY
EXTENSION
/ 4H 911
CITY OF
LAPINE
LAPINE RURAL
FIRE DISTRICT
LAPINE PARKS
AND REC SUBTOTAL SCHOOL DISTRICT #1
2016 (4,652) (2,002) (3,457) (5,095) (82) (589) (7,024) (5,603) (1,092) (29,596) (17,338)
2017 (6,358) (2,736) (4,725) (6,963) (111) (805) (9,600) (7,658) (1,492) (40,448) (23,696)
2018 (8,132) (3,499) (6,044) (8,907) (143) (1,029) (12,279) (9,795) (1,909) (51,737) (30,309)
2019 (9,978) (4,293) (7,415) (10,928) (175) (1,263) (15,065) (12,018) (2,342) (63,477) (37,186)
2020 (11,897) (5,119) (8,842) (13,030) (208) (1,506) (17,962) (14,330) (2,792) (75,686) (44,339)
2021 (13,893) (5,977) (10,325) (15,215) (243) (1,758) (20,975) (16,734) (3,260) (88,380) (51,777)
2022 (15,968) (6,871) (11,867) (17,489) (280) (2,021) (24,109) (19,234) (3,748) (101,587) (59,513)
2023 (18,127) (7,799) (13,472) (19,853) (318) (2,294) (27,369) (21,834) (4,254) (115,320) (67,558)
2024 (20,372) (8,765) (15,140) (22,312) (357) (2,579) (30,759) (24,538) (4,781) (129,603) (75,926)
2025 (22,707) (9,770) (16,875) (24,869) (398) (2,874) (34,284) (27,351) (5,329) (144,457) (84,628)
2026 (25,136) (10,815) (18,680) (27,529) (440) (3,182) (37,950) (30,276) (5,899) (159,907) (93,678)
2027 (27,661) (11,901) (20,557) (30,294) (485) (3,501) (41,763) (33,317) (6,492) (175,971) (103,090)
2028 (30,287) (13,031) (22,509) (33,171) (531) (3,834) (45,728) (36,481) (7,108) (192,680) (112,878)
2029 (33,019) (14,207) (24,539) (36,162) (579) (4,179) (49,853) (39,771) (7,749) (210,058) (123,058)
2030 (35,860) (15,429) (26,650) (39,274) (628) (4,539) (54,142) (43,193) (8,416) (228,131) (133,646)
2031 (38,814) (16,700) (28,846) (42,509) (680) (4,913) (58,602) (46,751) (9,109) (246,924) (144,657)
2032 (41,887) (18,022) (31,129) (45,875) (734) (5,302) (63,241) (50,452) (9,830) (266,472) (156,108)
2033 (45,082) (19,397) (33,504) (49,374) (790) (5,706) (68,066) (54,301) (10,580) (286,800) (168,017)
2034 (48,406) (20,827) (35,974) (53,014) (848) (6,127) (73,084) (58,304) (11,360) (307,944) (180,403)
2035 (51,862) (22,314) (38,542) (56,799) (909) (6,564) (78,302) (62,467) (12,171) (329,930) (193,284)
2036 (55,456) (23,861) (41,214) (60,736) (972) (7,019) (83,729) (66,797) (13,015) (352,799) (206,680)
2037 (59,195) (25,469) (43,992) (64,830) (1,037) (7,493) (89,373) (71,299) (13,892) (376,580) (220,612)
2038 (63,082) (27,142) (46,881) (69,088) (1,105) (7,985) (95,243) (75,982) (14,805) (401,313) (235,102)
2039 (67,126) (28,881) (49,886) (73,516) (1,176) (8,496) (101,347) (80,852) (15,753) (427,033) (250,170)
2040 (67,836) (29,187) (50,414) (74,294) (1,189) (8,586) (102,419) (81,707) (15,920) (431,552) (252,817)
Total (822,793) (354,014) (611,479) (901,126) (14,418) (104,144) (1,242,268) (991,045) (193,098) (5,234,385) (3,066,470)
Table 1b – Projected Impact on Taxing District Permanent Rate Levies
Source: ECONorthwest
Table 2 shows the tax revenues projected to be available to taxing jurisdictions once the Area is
terminated. These are estimates only; changes in the economy may impact the projections. The
table depicts the taxes from the frozen base of the Area that the taxing jurisdictions receive
throughout the life of the Plan, and the taxes estimated from the additional taxes which will be
received by the taxing jurisdictions once the Plan is terminated, estimated to be in FY 2041 -42.
The final column estimates the total amount of taxes estimated for the year that the Plan is
expected to be terminated.
FYE SCHOOL DISTRICT #1 HIGH DESERT ESD
CENTRAL
OREGON
COMMUNITY
COLLEGE SUBTOTAL TOTAL
2016 (17,338) (351) (2,258) (19,947) (49,543)
2017 (23,696) (479) (3,086) (27,261) (67,709)
2018 (30,309) (613) (3,947) (34,869) (86,606)
2019 (37,186) (752) (4,843) (42,781) (106,258)
2020 (44,339) (897) (5,774) (51,010) (126,696)
2021 (51,777) (1,048) (6,743) (59,568) (147,948)
2022 (59,513) (1,204) (7,750) (68,467) (170,054)
2023 (67,558) (1,367) (8,798) (77,723) (193,043)
2024 (75,926) (1,536) (9,887) (87,349) (216,952)
2025 (84,628) (1,712) (11,021) (97,361) (241,818)
2026 (93,678) (1,896) (12,199) (107,773) (267,680)
2027 (103,090) (2,086) (13,425) (118,601) (294,572)
2028 (112,878) (2,284) (14,699) (129,861) (322,541)
2029 (123,058) (2,490) (16,025) (141,573) (351,631)
2030 (133,646) (2,704) (17,404) (153,754) (381,885)
2031 (144,657) (2,927) (18,838) (166,422) (413,346)
2032 (156,108) (3,159) (20,329) (179,596) (446,068)
2033 (168,017) (3,400) (21,880) (193,297) (480,097)
2034 (180,403) (3,650) (23,493) (207,546) (515,490)
2035 (193,284) (3,911) (25,170) (222,365) (552,295)
2036 (206,680) (4,182) (26,915) (237,777) (590,576)
2037 (220,612) (4,464) (28,729) (253,805) (630,385)
2038 (235,102) (4,757) (30,616) (270,475) (671,788)
2039 (250,170) (5,062) (32,578) (287,810) (714,843)
2040 (252,817) (5,116) (32,923) (290,856) (722,408)
Total (3,066,470) (62,047) (399,330) (3,527,847) (8,762,232)
Table 2 – Additional Revenues Projected After Termination of Tax Increment Financing
Table 3 shows the impact of the first year of tax increment funds projected to be received in
2016 on the 2014/15 permanent rate levy of the taxing jurisdiction. The impact should be less
than this chart shows because the permanent rate levy usually increases each year, so the 2016
permanent rate levy would be higher than the 2014 levy depicted.
Table 3 – Percent of Permanent Rate Levy
Jurisdiction
2013/14
Permanent
Rate Levy
2016 Tax
Increment
Revenue
Percentage of
Permanent Rate
Levy
Deschutes County 23,747,378 4,652 0.02%
County Library 10,143,587 2,002 0.02%
Countywide Law Enforcement 17,520,004 3,457 0.02%
Rural Law Enforcement 8,381,815 5,095 0.06%
County Extension 4H 414,250 82 0.02%
911 2,984,946 589 0.02%
City of La Pine 241,294 7,024 2.91%
La Pine Rural Fire District 1,797,468 5,603 0.31%
La Pine Parks and Rec 212,002 1,092 0.52%
School District #1 60,640,139 17,338 0.03%
High Desert ESD 1,720,682 351 0.02%
Central Oregon Community College 11,070,002 2,258 0.02%
Source: ECONorthwest
Jurisdiction Tax Rate
From Frozen
Base
From Expiration
of URA Total
Deschutes County 1.2783$ 38,000$ 75,704$ 113,704$ Jail -$ -$ -$ -$
County Library 0.5500$ 16,350$ 32,572$ 48,922$
Countywide Law Enforcement 0.9500$ 28,241$ 56,261$ 84,502$
Rural Law Enforcement 1.4000$ 41,618$ 82,911$ 124,529$ La Pine Library -$ -$ -$ -$
County Extension 4H 0.0224$ 666$ 1,327$ 1,993$
911 0.1618$ 4,810$ 9,582$ 14,392$
City of La Pine 1.9300$ 57,374$ 114,299$ 171,673$
La Pine Rural Fire District 1.5397$ 45,771$ 91,185$ 136,956$
La Pine Parks and Rec 0.3000$ 8,918$ 17,767$ 26,685$
School District #1 4.7641$ 141,624$ 282,141$ 423,765$
High Desert ESD 0.0964$ 2,866$ 5,709$ 8,575$
Central Oregon Community College 0.6204$ 18,443$ 36,741$ 55,184$
V. PROCESS FOR REVIEW
The process for final review of the Plan and Report include the following steps:
June 11 La Pine Urban Renewal Agency review
June 12-13 Send formal notice to taxing jurisdictions
June 18 Planning Commission review
June/July Presentation to Deschutes County Commission
June/July Notice to property owners
July 9 City Council Public Hearing
The draft La Pine Urban Renewal Plan and Report are enclosed with this letter. If you would like
to provide written comments, they will be responded to by the La Pine City Council. Please
provide any written comments by June 27, 2014. For more information, please contact me at
(541) 536-1432 or rlallen@ci.la-pine.or.us.
Sincerely,
Rick Allen, Interim City Manager
City of La Pine
16345 6th Street,
La Pine, OR 97739
Attachments: A: La Pine Urban Renewal Plan B: Report on the La Pine Urban Renewal Plan
i
l
I
!
f
t
La Pine Urban Renewal Plan <I
f
r
l ,r.
Adopted by the City of La Pine
July 23, 2014
Ordinance No.
List of Participants
Mayor: Ken Mulenex
City Council: Kathy Agan
Greg Jones
Stu Martinez
Karen Ward
Conrad Parker
Planning Commission: Doug Ward, Chair
Gloria Fleming, Vice Chair
Rolando Alonzo
Don Greiner
Norm McClung
Interim City Manager: Rick Allen
City Planner: Deborah McMahon
Office Utility Specialist: Ashley Williams
Administrative Assistant: Patti Morgan
Urban Renewal Citizens' Advisory Committee:
Tony De Bone Deschutes County Commissioner
Todd Dunkelberg Director Deschutes County Library
Gloria Fleming Planning Commission City of La Pine
Ann Gawith Director La Pine Chamber of Commerce
Mike Jensen Bend-La Pine School District Board of Directors
Corrine Martinez Business -Wilderness Garbage
Ken Mulenex Mayor City of La Pine
Vicky Russell Business Vic Russell Construction
Dave Schneider General Manager Mid State Electric
Bob Schulz Director La Pine Parks and Recreation District
Gary Tingey Business -High Lakes Realty
Dan Varcoe Business -Newberry Eagle
Steve Dodd Business -Ace Hardware
Vacant La Pine Rural Fire Protection District
Consultant Team: Elaine Howard Consulting LLC, Elaine Howard
ECONorthwest, Nick Popenuk, Tessa Krebs, Rob Wyman
Jeannette Launer, Legal Counsel
Leslie Vanden Bos, Editor
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. DEFINITIONS
II. INTRODUCTION
III. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
IV. OUTLINE OF MAJOR URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT ACTIVITIES
V. URBAN RENEWAL PROJECTS
VI. PROPERTY ACQUISITION AND DISPOSITION
VII. RELOCATION METHODS
VIII. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING OF PLAN
IX. FUTURE AMENDMENTS TO PLAN
X. LAND USES
XI. RELATIONSHIP TO LOCAL OBJECTIVES
APPENDIX A: LEGAL DESCRIPTION
I
,
f ~.
~
3 I5 t
,t
(:
9 !9
,f
11 f
t
11 l
12 I
13 I
15 !
15
25
t
I
I
l
! t
I
I. DEFINITIONS
"Area" means the properties and rights of way located with the La Pine urban renewal boundary.
"Citizens' Advisory Committee" means the committee formed from private individuals to
provide input on the La Pine Urban Renewal Plan. Those members are identified on the
acknowledgement page of the urban renewal plan.
"City" means the City of La Pine, Oregon.
"City Council" or "Council" means the City Council of the City of La Pine.
"Comprehensive Plan" means the City of La Pine Comprehensive Land Use Plan and its
implementing ordinances, policies, and standards.
"County" means Deschutes County.
"Fiscal year" means the year commencing on July 1 and closing on June 30.
"Frozen base" means the total assessed value including all real, personal, manufactured, and
utility values within an urban renewal area at the time of adoption. The county assessor certifies
the assessed value after the adoption of an urban renewal plan.
"Increment" means that part of the assessed value of a taxing district attributable to any increase
in the assessed value of the property located in an urban renewal area, or portion thereof, over the
assessed value specified in the certified statement.
"Maximum indebtedness" means the amount of the principal of indebtedness included in a plan
pursuant to ORS 457.190 and does not include indebtedness incurred to refund or refinance
existing indebtedness.
"ORS" means the Oregon revised statutes, specifically Chapter 457, which relates to urban
renewal.
"Planning Commission" means the La Pine Planning Commission.
"Tax increment financing (TIF)" means the funds that are associated with the division of taxes
accomplished through the adoption of an urban renewal plan.
"Tax increment revenues" means the funds allocated by the assessor to an urban renewal area due
to increases in assessed value over the frozen base within the area.
"Urban renewal agency" or "agency" means an urban renewal agency created under ORS
457.035 and 457.045. This agency is responsible for administration of the urban renewal plan.
"Urban renewal area" means a blighted area included in an urban renewal plan or an area
included in an urban renewal plan under ORS 457.160.
City of La Pine Urban Renewal Plan July 23, 2014
"Urban renewal plan" or "plan" means a plan, as it exists or is changed or modified from time to
time, for one or more urban renewal areas, as provided in ORS 457.085, 457.095, 457.105,
457.115,457.120,457.125,457.135 and 457.220.
"Urban renewal project" or "project" means any work or undertaking carried out under ORS
457.170 in an urban renewal area.
"Urban renewal report" means the official report that accompanies the urban renewal plan
pursuant to ORS 457.085(3).
,
I
I
City of La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 2 July 23, 2014
II. INTRODUCTION
The La Pine Urban Renewal Plan (Plan) has been developed for the La Pine City Council (City
Council) with the cooperative input of a Citizens' Advisory Committee. The Plan contains goals,
objectives, and projects for the development of the La Pine Urban Renewal Area ( Area). The
overall purpose ofthe Plan is to use tax increment financing to overcome obstacles to the proper
development of the Area.
The purpose of urban renewal is to improve specific areas of a city that are poorly developed or
underdeveloped. These areas can have old or deteriorated buildings, public spaces that need
improvements, streets and utilities in poor condition, a complete lack of streets and utilities
altogether, or other obstacles to development. The Area has infrastructure needs, lacks adequate
streets cape and parking, and does not have a program for assistance to business owners.
Urban renewal allows for the use of tax increment financing (TIF), a financing source that is
unique to urban renewal, to fund its projects. Tax increment revenues the amount of property
taxes generated by the increase in total assessed values in the urban renewal area from the time
the urban renewal area is first established -are used to repay borrowed funds. The funds
borrowed are used to pay for urban renewal projects.
In general, urban renewal projects can include construction or improvement of streets, utilities,
and other public facilities; assistance for rehabilitation or redevelopment of property; acquisition
and re-sale of property (site assembly) from willing sellers; and improvements to public spaces.
The specific projects to be approved in this Plan are outlined in Sections IV and V.
Urban renewal is put into effect when the local government (the City of La Pine, in this case)
adopts an urban renewal plan. The urban renewal plan defines the urban renewal area, states goals
and objectives for the area, lists projects and programs that can be undertaken, provides a dollar
limit on the funds borrowed for urban renewal projects, and states how the plan may be changed
in the future.
The Area, shown in Figure 1, consists of approximately 577.13 total acres: 498.02 acres in
parcels and 79.11 acres of public right-of-way.
City of La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 3 July 23,2014
The Plan will be administered by the La Pine Urban Renewal Agency (Agency), which was
established by the La Pine City Council as the City's Urban Renewal Agency (Ordinance No.
--">. Substantial changes to the Plan, if necessary, must be approved by the City Council, as
outlined in Section IX of this Plan.
The Plan is accompanied by the City of La Pine's Urban Renewal Report (Report) that contains
additional information, as required by ORS 457.085. The technical information in the Report
includes:
• A description of the physical, social, and economic conditions in the area; I
• The expected impact of the Plan, including fiscal impact in light of increased services;
J• The reasons for selection of each Area in the Plan;
• The relationship between each project to be undertaken and the existing conditions;
• The total cost of each project and the source of funds to pay such costs;
• The estimated completion date of each project;
• The estimated amount of funds required in the Area, and the anticipated year in which the
debt will be retired;
• A financial analysis of the Plan;
• A fiscal impact statement that estimates the impact of tax increment financing upon all
entities levying taxes upon property in the urban renewal area; and
• A relocation report.
It is anticipated that the Plan will take 25 years of tax increment collections (through FY 2039-40)
to implement. The maximum amount ofindebtedness (amount of tax increment fmancing for
projects and programs) that may be issued for the Plan is $7,019,000 (seven million nineteen
thousand dollars).
City of La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 4 July 23, 2014
In. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The goals of the Plan represent the basic intents and purposes. Accompanying each goal are
objectives, which generally describe how the Agency intends to achieve the goals. The urban
renewal projects identified in Sections IV and V of the Plan are the specific means of meeting the
objectives. The goals relate to adopted plans, as detailed in Section XI, and were developed with
input from the La Pine Urban Renewal Plan Citizens' Advisory Committee, and community input
from the urban renewal open house. The goals and objectives will be pursued as economically as
is feasible and at the discretion of the urban renewal agency. The goals and objectives are not
ranked by priority.
1. Public Involvement
Provide for community input in urban renewal planning and administration.
Objectives
a. Include the community in a Citizens' Advisory Committee for planning the urban
renewal area.
b. Provide opportunities for community-wide input in the urban renewal plan planning
process.
c. Have an informal open house at the ChamberlEvent Center to help inform the urban
renewal planning process.
d. Include citizens in the urban renewal agency.
2. Economy
Promote the role of the Area as an energetic community of local businesses that is supported by
the residents of both La Pine and outlying areas and by tourists travelling through La Pine.
Objectives
a. Develop programs and incentives to encourage expansion of existing businesses, and
development of new business activity to create additional jobs in the Area.
b. Provide for a pleasing visual perception of La Pine by providing assistance for
storefront improvements to businesses in the Area.
c. Form public-private partnerships and use public investment to generate private
investment.
d. Encourage the creation of a focused area of commercial activity to both strengthen
existing businesses and create new business activity.
e. Promote an entrepreneurial climate for business expansion and growth, including a
potential business incubator building.
City of La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 5 July 23, 2014
f. Identify opportunities to support tourist/recreational related businesses, activities, and
growth.
3. Create an Identifiable Town Center as a Hub of Community Activity
The Town Center would be a compact area that is centrally located and planned for easy walking
access. The uses would be comprised of a mixture of commercial businesses, civic buildings, and
other community uses.l
Within this Town Center, create a unique identity that strengthens the sense of place, promotes
economic development through resident and tourist visits, encourages return patronage, and
leverages private investment.
Objectives
a. Establish an identity that promotes a sense of character, providing a community for
existing businesses and residents and inviting visitors to bring additional commerce
to the Area.
b. Establish gateway features to delineate the Town Center and show pride in the
community by providing improved aesthetic features.
c. Improve sidewalks, streetscape, walkways, and bike pathways to provide easier
access to the commercial area and to promote activity within the Town Center.
d. Provide business and way finding signage.
e. Create gathering places that will provide focal points and draw patronage to the
Area.
f. Assess parking needs to support the business district.
g. Assist in the development of public facilities that expand or enhance the services
provided in the Town Center and that serve the interests of the citizens of La Pine
and tourist activity in La Pine.
4. HousinglMixed-Use Development
Encourage development in the Mixed-Use Commercial Residential District of the Area.
Objectives
a. Encourage development of workforce housing opportunities, commercial support
services, and office opportunities in proximity to the housing.
b. Help facilitate the development of public spaces within the mixed-use area.
5. Infrastructure
Assist in providing infrastructure (water, sewer, storm water) to encourage development in La
Pine.
Objectives
1 Language from La Pine Comprehensive Plan
City of La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 6 July 23, 2014
I
I
I
t
a. Upgrade/provide infrastructure as necessary to allow for the development or
redevelopment of parcels within and adjacent to the urban renewal area.
6. Public Facilities
Provide opportunities for residents and visitors alike to shop and recreate in La Pine, supporting
public service providers and existing businesses and providing stimulus for new economic
activity.
Objectives
a. Assist in development and redevelopment of public facilities that provide vital
services (fire, police, and medical), gathering spaces, and other services for the
community, including the proposed Rodeo and Events site.
City of La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 7 July 23,2014
Figure 1 -Urban Renewal Area Boundary
/
.,./"
~.Ii ••"~
I
1:1 0 ..........,;;
,g (,) : ~ en L-...---Mem n ,.. o cp: Qf ~I a,-: .: J
QE! Q.
u vI: ~ c: enl -l
-11).c: 0 ,:
,
i
,I
r--../---1_1/.' -.''\~ ,/ /
II fI ..
" ~ /l , /'-,/'
/ ~....u .......it.....,
/' :
zyl
/ .//,' IS
./ I
.,,,--// .i
J/''#'ff7 7 7 / 7 7 7 7 7 7-;>'""7-7;
.
J.-d ..J. _ '1=-=, /I
~.
I ~
""l lllllftl!!U
oI
i 1\ .. '
..................i .....~i.._ .._................. . ' . • :CON8I".lC5
\ /r-----------~--------------_,i'
La Plne,OR
Urban Renewal
Boundary
...CIMIM .........I
Tabl Boundary AIN:: 517:'3 Acres
--1 1""1 Inside Oty of La Pine :L........J 26250Aaes
Outside QtyofLa Pine:
314.63 Acres
, La Pine City Boundary
NA 1/J ..I ,.. ,
0ift.eSQ,~!!CO~~....,.Iob_.u..
LIIECO;~~west
• FI N . .>"NC[ • r_~.N'lING I
City of La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 8 July 23 , 2014
I
IV. OUTLINE OF MAJOR URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT ACTMTIES
The projects within the Area include:
A. District identity/transportation improvements
B. Planning and development assistance programs
C. Public facilitiesllnfrastructure
D. Debt service and project administration
E. Property acquisition
v. URBAN RENEWAL PROJECTS
Urban renewal projects authorized by the Plan are described below. Public improvements
authorized under the Plan include assistance to help create a district identity for the Area, upgrade
of utilities to encourage development, and economic assistance to developers. The projects are in
conformance with the La Pine Comprehensive Plan, The La Pine Corridor Plan, and the La Pine
Transportation Systems Plan as detailed in Section XI of this Plan.
As shown in the Report, urban renewal funds will be combined with existing and other future
sources of funding to finance project costs. Projects authorized by the Plan are:
A. District Identitynransportation Improvements
1. Sidewalk improvements
Improve sidewalks within the Area to allow for greater access for pedestrians to the commercial
district.
2. Signage: business and way-finding
Support effective signage for businesses and for way-finding to allow citizens and visitors to
frequent the commercial area and to know of other opportunities the La Pine community has to
offer.
3. Streetscape
(Improve the streetscape in the Area to encourage citizens and visitors to visit the Area.
Streetscape includes sidewalks, signage, trees, benches, landscaping, public art, archways, bus
shelters, lighting and other improvements to enhance the overall appearance of the Area and f
encourage development and redevelopment of the Area.
4. Bicycle paths r
Add bike paths within the Area to encourage greater access to the commercial district.
5. Gathering spaces f
Develop gathering spaces to add to the overall positive environment of the Area, encouraging f
visits to the Area by citizens of La Pine and visitors to the Area. I6. Parking
Assess parking needs for the Area.
I
City of La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 9 July 23, 2014
B. Planning and development assistance programs to support economic development
1. Assist with development of mixed-use area
Encourage development of the mixed-use area by providing amenities to help make the area more
desirable.
2. Encourage/support business expansion
Work with business owners to develop and redevelop properties within the Area, leveraging
public investment with private investment.
3. Storefront Improvements
Work with business owners to improve the overall appearance of the exteriors of their properties.
4. Support for incubator businesses
Look for opportunities to help facilitate the development of new businesses within La Pine.
C. Public Facilitieslln/rastructure
L RodeolEvent Site development
2. Development and redevelopment of public facilities that provide vital services (fire,
police, and medical), gathering spaces, and other services for the community.
3. Upgrade/provide infrastructure as necessary to allow for the development or
redevelopment of parcels within and adjacent to the urban renewal area.
D. Debt service and project administration
This project will allow for the repayment of costs associated with the preparation of an urban
renewal plan, including the potential repayment of the initial planning costs for the development
ofthe urban renewal plan, including the adoption, and implementation of the La Pine Urban
Renewal Plan. It also includes ongoing administration and any fmancing costs associated with
!
f
I
I
issuing long-term debt, relocation costs, and other administrative costs.
E. Property Acquisition
This project will fund acquisition and assembly of key properties for redevelopment, public open
space, public parking, trail corridor, housing, or other use consistent with the goals and objectives
of this plan, consistent with the property acquisition section of this Plan (Section VI).
City of La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 10 July 23, 2014
VI. PROPERTY ACQUISITION AND DISPOSITION
The Plan authorizes the acquisition and disposition of property as described in this section.
Property includes any and all interests in property, including fee simple ownership, lease,
easements, licenses, or other rights to use.
A. Property acquisition for public improvements
The Agency may acquire any property within the Area for the public improvement projects
undertaken pursuant to the Plan by all legal means, including use of eminent domain. Good faith
negotiations for such acquisitions must occur prior to institution of eminent domain procedures.
B. Property acquisition from willing sellers
The Plan authorizes Agency acquisition of any interest in property within the Area that the
Agency finds is necessary to support private redevelopment, but only in those cases where the
property owner wishes to convey such interest to the Agency. The Plan does not authorize the
Agency to use the power of eminent domain to acquire property from a private party to transfer
property to another private party for private redevelopment. Property acquisition from willing
sellers may be required to support development of projects within the Area.
C. Land disposition
The Agency will dispose of property acquired for a public improvement project by conveyance to
the appropriate public agency responsible for the construction and/or maintenance of the public
improvement. The Agency may retain such property during the construction ofthe public
improvement.
The Agency may dispose of property acquired under Subsection B of Section VI of this Plan by
conveying any interest in property acquired. Property shall be conveyed at its fair reuse value.
Fair reuse value is the value, whether expressed in terms of rental or capital price, at which the
urban renewal agency, in its discretion, determines such land should be made available in order
that it may be developed, redeveloped, cleared, conserved, or rehabilitated for the purposes
specified in such plan. Because fair reuse value reflects limitations on the use of the property to
those purposes specified in the Plan, the value may be lower than the property's fair market value.
Where land is sold or leased, the purchaser or lessee must agree to use the land for the purposes
designated in the Plan and to begin and complete the building of its improvements within a period
of time that the Agency determines is reasonable.
VII. RELOCATION METHODS
When the Agency acquires occupied property under the Plan, residential or commercial
occupants of such property shall be offered relocation assistance, as required under applicable
state law. Prior to such acquisition, the Agency shall adopt rules and regulations, as necessary, for
the administration of relocation assistance.
City of La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 11 July 23, 2014
vm. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING OF PLAN
Tax increment financing consists of using annual tax increment revenues to make payments on
loans, usually in the form of tax increment bonds. The proceeds of the bonds are used to finance
the urban renewal projects authorized in the Plan. Bonds may be either long-term or short-term.
Tax increment revenues equal most of the annual property taxes imposed on the cumulative
increase in assessed value within an urban renewal area over the total assessed value at the time
an urban renewal plan is adopted. (Under current law, the property taxes for general obligation
(GO) bonds and local option levies approved after October 6,2001 are not part ofthe tax
increment revenues.)
A. General description ofthe proposed financing methods
The Plan will be financed using a combination of revenue sources. These include:
Tax increment revenues;
Advances, loans, grants, and any other form of financial assistance from the federal, state,
or local governments, or other public bodies;
Loans, grants, dedications, or other contributions from private developers and property
owners, including, but not limited to, assessment districts; and
Any other public or private source.
Revenues obtained by the Agency will be used to payor repay the costs, expenses, advancements,
and indebtedness incurred in (1) planning or undertaking project activities, or (2) otherwise
exercising any ofthe powers granted by ORS Chapter 457 in connection with the implementation
of this Plan.
B. Tax incrementfinancing and maximum indebtedness
The Plan may be financed, in whole or in part, by tax increment revenues allocated to the
Agency, as provided in ORS Chapter 457. The ad valorem taxes, if any, levied by a taxing district
in which all or a portion of the Area is located, shall be divided as provided in Section Ic, Article
IX of the Oregon Constitution, and ORS 457.440. Amounts collected pursuant to ORS 457.440
shall be deposited into the unsegregated tax collections account and distributed to the Agency
based upon the distribution schedule established under ORS 311.390.
The maximum amount of indebtedness that may be issued or incurred under the Plan, based upon
good faith estimates of the scope and costs of projects in the Plan and the schedule for their
completion, is $7,017,000. This amount is the principal of such indebtedness and does not include
interest or indebtedness incurred to refund or refinance existing indebtedness.
C. Prior indebtedness
Any indebtedness permitted by law and incurred by the Agency or the City of La Pine in
connection with the preparation of this Plan or prior planning efforts that support the preparation
or implementation of this Plan may be repaid from tax increment revenues from the Area when,
and if, such funds are available.
City of La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 12 July 23,2014
IX. FUTURE AMENDMENTS TO PLAN
The Plan may be amended as described in this section.
A. Suhstantial Amendments
Substantial Amendments are amendments that:
• Add land to the urban renewal area, except for an addition of land that totals not more than
1% of the existing area of the urban renewal area; or
• Increase the maximum amount of indebtedness that can be issued or incurred under the Plan.
Substantial Amendments, in accordance with ORS 457.085(2)(i), shall require the same notice,
hearing, and approval procedure required of the original Plan, under ORS 457.095, including
public involvement, consultation with taxing districts, presentation to the Planning Commission,
and adoption by the City Council by non-emergency ordinance after a hearing. Notice of such
hearing shall be provided to individuals or households within the City of La Pine, as required by
ORS 457.120. Notice of adoption of a Substantial Amendment shall be provided in accordance
with ORS 457.095 and 457.115.
B. Council Approved Amendments
Council approved amendments are those amendments that provide for the addition of
improvements or activities that cost more than $500,000 in 2014 dollars. The $500,000 amount
will be adjusted annually from the year 2014 according to the "Engineering News Record"
construction cost index for the Northwest Area.
C. Minor Amendments
Minor Amendments are amendments that are not Substantial Amendment nor Council Approved
Amendments in scope. They require approval by the Agency by resolution.
D. Amendments to the La Pine Comprehensive Plan and/or La Pine Zoning
Ordinance
Amendments to the La Pine Comprehensive Plan and/or La Pine Zoning Ordinance that affect the
Urban Renewal Plan and/or the Urban Renewal Area shall be incorporated automatically within
the Urban Renewal Plan without any separate action required by the Agency or the City CounciL
City of La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 13 July 23,2014
Figure 2 -Comprehensive Plan Designations
~....~il: La Pine Cily Boundary
I!""~.,... N
o 1/3A
I I I
"'~
a.ta SaJ~ec.otlcra'r-c. £SRI u ....n..... .1D.
cw~..GMiII!..•
ECONorthwest
:CON~t'dC5 • fll'\.".NCC • r..AN 'JINr:;
~ .. i o IP-as: c0.... !:> a.0=Q ..u -IC ..
-0> co
Memoria l JJ;~ -~
La Pine. OR
Comprehensive Plan
Designations wlln
Urban Renewal
Boundary
....:.........,........
La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 14 July 23 , 2014
x. LANDUSES
The land uses in the Area are shown in Table 1 of the Report accompanying the Plan. The land
uses are defined by the Deschutes County Assessor. They are:
Industrial, Commercial (partially exempt, improved, miscellaneous, and vacant), Manufactured
Residential, Manufactured Structure, State Responsibility, Tract, Multi-Family, and Exempt.
The zoning categories are shown in Table 2 of the Report accompanying the Plan. The zones are
Traditional Commercial, Forest Use 1, Public Facility, Master Plan Residential, and Public
LandIBureau of Land Management (BLM).
The densities and building requirements are detailed in the City of La Pine Zoning Ordinance,
Ordinance No. 2011-03. This ordinance may be updated from time to time, and those updates are
hereby incorporated into this Plan.
XI. RELATIONSBJP TO LOCAL OBJECTIVES
The Plan relates to local planning and development objectives contained within the City of La
Pine's Comprehensive Plan, La Pine Zoning Ordinance, the La Pine Corridor Plan, and the La
Pine Transportation Systems Plan. The following section describes the purpose and intent ofthese
plans, the particular goals and policies within each planning document to which the proposed
Plan relates, and an explanation of how the Plan relates to these goals and policies. The
numbering of the goals, policies, and implementation strategies will reflect the numbering that
occurs in the original document. Italicized text is text that has been taken directly from an original
planning document. The Comprehensive Plan designations are shown in Figure 2.
This is not a comprehensive list of all parts of the above referenced documents that are supported
by this Plan. This list includes the major Goals and Policies from the Comprehensive Plan that are
supported, however, there may be other Goals and Policies that are not listed but are still
supported by this Plan.
A. City ofLa Pine Comprehensive Plan
Goall Citizen Involvement
The City shall:
1. Establish a process to involve a cross section ofaffected citizens, ensure effective
communication between citizens and elected officials, and assure citizens will receive a response
from policy makers.
2. Assure compliance with all state requirements for open meetings and open records, as well as
!
f
defining the process for standingfor advisory committees in La Pine land use actions.
3. Provide two bodies for assisting in citizen involvement in La Pine:
a. The Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI) shall be an advisory body to the City Council to
assure that the intent andpurposes ofthis chapter are met.
b. Citizen Advisory Committees (CAC's) shall insure plan amendments are developed in
accordance with an overall City plan and advise the Council on individual land use matters. The
La Pine Planning Commission is one example ofsuch an advisory committee.
The Plan conforms with the intent of Goal I Citizen Involvement because, even though this was
not the development of or amendments to the comprehensive plan, a Citizens Advisory
I~Committee was formed to provide input to the urban renewal plan. In addition, there was a public ,
i
topen house, an open Planning Commission meeting, and a City Council hearing that was noticed
f
f tLa Pine Urban Renewal Plan 15 July 23,2014 !
!,
i
I
I
t
to all citizens of La Pine. In addition, the city council has included citizens on the board of the
urban renewal agency.
Goal V State Planning Goals 5, Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open
Spaces
Goal # 1: Protect and enhance identified Goal 5 resources and other features ofthe natural
environment using a variety ofmethods and strategies.
Policies
• The City shall coordinate with the ELM and Forest Servicefor the preservation ofthe natural
forest environment on lands under their respective jurisdictions that are within and acijacent
to the City, including transitions from urban to rural environments.
• Programs are needed to address the protection ofthe natural environment in a balanced and
fair fashion given the urban development goals ofthe City.
• The City shall coordinate efforts with and among the La Pine Water and Sewer District, and
Deschutes County to ensure appropriate provisions for connections to the La Pine sewer
system for new and existing development in order to maintain safe groundwater.
• The City shall coordinate wildfire protection plans with the La Pine Rural Fire protection
District and shall implement wildfire protection regulations for new development.
The Plan conforms with Goal V by allowing for development and redevelopment assistance,
which may be used to help meet needs expressed by this goal.
Goal VI Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Goal # 1: Create a system ofparks, recreational facilities, and open space areas that provide
quality active and passive recreational experiences for all urban area residents.
Policies
• The City shall coordinate the development ofnew parks and recreation opportunities. and
programs with the La Pine Park and Recreation District.
• The City shall encourage the continual involvement ofprivate recreation providers to
citizens.
• The City shall encourage recreational opportunities within the community to acknowledge
and encourage use by visitors and tourists to the community.
• Given the various agencies involved in providing open space, parks, trails, and recreational
opportunities -a high level ofcoordination and planning will be required in order to
maximize efficiency and reduce duplication.
• The addition ofnew parks and recreational opportunities shall be sought in the most cost
effoctive way possible, including land grants from County, State and Federal agencies.
• Local parks and recreational opportunities tend to be distributed throughout the community
without connecting links other than streets; La Pine's citizens desire to connect existing and
future parks and recreation facilities by sidewalks, trails. and other mechanisms. Such
connections provide greater opportunities for citizens, particularly children, to safely access
parks without vehicle use.
• Open space and/or recreational areas should be available to residents within Y4 mile oftheir
homes unless an exception is granted by the City as new development occurs.
La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 16 July 23, 2014
• New parks, linkages, and recreational facilities should be incorporated into new
developments as a way to distribute resources throughout the community and reduce vehicle
miles traveled.
• Older neighborhoods and redevelopment areas should consider incorporating parks, trails,
and other recreational facilities as a way to enhance the community.
• New parks to serve new residents should be developed without community subsidy, while new
trails and regional community recreational facilities may require additional funding through
those sources available to the City and LPRD.
The Plan conforms with Goal VI Parks, Recreation, and Open Space by designating gathering
spaces s a project in the Plan. Linkages will be supported by streetscape improvements. Funding
for the support for entrepreneurial ventures will potentially support the recreation alternatives of
citizens. The development ofthe RodeofEvents facility will provide additional activities to
citizens and tourists who will support the local economy through their visits.
Chapter VII Public Facilities and Services
Goal 1: Coordinate intra-agency efforts, including coordination with private service and Special
District providers, and create a system ofpublic facilities for the planning horizon.
• The La Pine Rural Fire Protection District shall continue to provide fire protection service
within the City ofLa Pine.
• Although many ofthe public facilities and services are not currently provided by the City, the
City shall take an active role in coordinating and ensuring that such services are adequate for
existing residents and businesses without adverse effects from anticipatedfuture growth.
• Providing needed services in an economically viable and effective manner is good business
and a good growth management tool.
Goal 2: Create a system ofconservation practices for public resources, services, and related
facilities.
• Services such as public sewer collection facilities, public water sources, solid waste disposal,
other point ofcontact public services, and services related to emergency response will need
to be carefully managed to ensure supply and duration.
The Plan conforms with Goal VII by stating that providing for public facilities development is
one of the goals of the Plan and is in the project list for the Plan. Assisting in the provision of
infrastructure to the RodeofEvent site will assist in the development of the site, a goal for the
community.
Goal VII Transportation
Goal 1: Create a safe, convenient, balanced, functional and economical transportation system to
maximize and extend the life oftransportationfacilities and improve livability throughout the La
Pine community.
• Vehicle use is the primary and most importantform oftransportation for the majority ofLa
Pines citizens, but increased alternate mode use is essential to the livability ofthe community
and to preserve valuable resources.
• The street system shall be fully functional for the safe and efficient delivery ofemergency
services.
La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 17 July 23,2014
• Alternate mode use is essential for providing a full complement oftransportation choices
and that land use regulations need to require an analysis oftransportation impacts, needs,
and mitigation options.
• The proper function and increased mobility ofHighway 97 to and through the community
contributes to the local economy and bring goods and services into the community
bolstering local commerce and tourism.
• Balancing the needs ofthe local community with regional transportation needs must include
open dialogue with citizens, state agencies/ODOr, Deschutes County, local business
interests, special interest groups, and tourism professionals.
• Trqffic calming measures in core commercial areas and residential neighborhoods can
reduce vehicular speeds on roadways and create a safe pedestrianlbicycle environment.
• The community, as a whole, will benefit from transportation systems that provide sidewalks,
trails, bike lanes and transit amenities to encourage alternate mode use and promote a high
level oflivability.
• The community will benefit from streets that are designed to permit emergency service
vehicles to access all parts ofthe community in an efficient manner.
• Street trees, pedestrian amenities, separated sidewalks; curb extensions, traffic calming, and
other related devices can be useful design elements especially when supported by a cost
benefit analysis showing they are appropriate.
• A transportation system that includes alternate modes in addition to vehicle needs is a State
requirement. The term "Alternate Mode" includes anything, besides single occupant
vehicles, capable ofmoving people and goods such as rail, pedestrian facilities, bike lanes,
air transport, transit, and the like. I
Bicycle and Pedestrian Policies f
• Encourage pedestrian and bicycle movement as a sqfe, feasible alternative to the f
automobile.
• Require that all proposed subdivisions consider bicycle and pedestrian paths, integrated l
with other bicycle and pedestrian path systems within the City. t
• Insure that bicycle and pedestrian paths, not along street right-ofways are well lit and
provide visual surveillance from the street.
• Preserve space along existing and proposed Arterial streets and require at least one
combined bicycle and pedestrian path.
• Require all proposed activity centers generating large amounts oftraffic to provide sqfe and
convenient off-street bicycle parking space and routes in their design.
• Insure neighborhoods and activity centers, including public loading and pickup areas, are
served by pedestrian and bicycle routes.
• Provide curb cuts at all corners, intersections, or locations where bicycle and pedestrian
routes andpaths intersect with streets.
• Provide for paving ofpedestrian and bicycle ways where appropriate.
• Improve signs, markings, and safety features on existing bicycle andpedestrian paths.
The Plan confonns with Goal VII Transportation by providing infrastructure improvements to the
Area, including sidewalk and streetscape improvements and bike path improvements that will
La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 18 July 23, 2014
support economic activity, create a sense of identity, and help with the efficiency of
transportation system in the Area, thereby attracting more businesses and retail activity in the
Area.
Goal IX Economy
Goal # J: Provide adequate industrial and commercial land inventories to satisfy the
urban development needs ofLa Pine for the 20-year planning horizon.
Goal # 2: Develop an "Economic Development Strategic Plan" and other mechanisms necessary
for supporting and enhancing the local economy.
• Successful economic development strategies require cooperation with a variety ofagencies
and other groups to develop a plan that best meets the requirements ofa growing
community.
• Successful economic opportunities rely upon the communities' ability to support
and connect various elements ofthe economic development into an integrated framework.
• Promoting an entrepreneurial climate for existing and new businesses is a key factor in
strategic planning.
• Providing a strong public partnership with local businesses is key to successful economic
development.
• Ensuring a high quality oflife and the small town atmosphere is essential to addressing
citizen concerns about growth and economic development.
The Plan conforms with Goal IX Economy by providing infrastructure improvements to the Area
that will support economic activity in the Area. The Plan also allows for assistance programs for
businesses located in the Area to improve their appearance and condition, as well as financial and
technical assistance for entrepreneurial business activity in the Area. These programs will help
grow the economy in La Pine, provide employment opportunities, and enhance the well-being of
the community.
Goal X Housing
Goal # J: Encourage a wide range housing types satisfying the urban development needs ofthe
La Pine community.
• It is essential to develop strategies that increase the variety ofhousing choices in the
community. These strategies must include an inventory and analysis ofneeded housing
types, existing housing supplies, and strategies for meeting the changing community
demographic.
• It is necessary to accommodate growth andprovide mechanisms to ensure that a variety of
housing options for all income levels are available in both existing neighborhoods and new
residential areas.
• It is necessary to encourage development and redevelopment ofresidential areas to make
them safe, convenient, and attractive places to live and located close to schools, services,
parks, shopping and employment centers.
• La Pine desires to encourage and sustain affordable housing while protecting the physical
characteristics ofland relating to the carrying capacity ofthe land, drainage, natural
features, and vegetation.
La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 19 July 23, 2014
Goal # 4: Promote and protect neighborhood qualities that reflect the small town appeal ofLa
Pine and improve compatibility between various uses.
• Compatibility standards are effective tools for making sure neighborhood uses are consistent
with community goals and design standards.
• The La Pine community demands a quality living experience for all residents and multi
family developments. Thus, site plans for multi-family developments or attached single-family
hous ing are required to provide for adequate yard space for residents andplay space for
children which have distinct area and definite shape, appropriate for the proposed use, and
are not just the residue left after buildings are designed and placed on the land. It is
necessaryfor the public health and safety ofthe community to monitor and manage
neighborhood uses.
• The La Pine community desires to preserve, protect, and strengthen the vitality and stability
ofexisting neighborhoods while permitting uses that make neighborhoods more "complete"
and reduce vehicle miles traveled.
• Multi-modal access should be provided internally and to adjacent new and existing
neighborhood developments.
• Higher density developments should be in close proximity to schools, services, parks,
shopping, employment centers, andpublic transit.
• Areas developed or designatedfor multi-family development should be compatible with
adjoining land uses and not detractfrom the character ofexisting residential areas.
• The location ofmost multi-family housing will be best suited near the City core, major
transportation corridors, schools, services, parks, shopping, employment centers, and transit
corridors.
Goal # 5: Promote quality affordable housing and recognize that lack ofaffordable
housing is an economic issue negatively affecting the vitality and sustainability ofLa
Pine.
• Affordable housing should be available for all income levels in the community. This issue
affects all citizens because the economic health ofthe community is tied to providing greater
choices in housing types.
• It is necessary for the public health, safety, and economic values ofthe community to improve
awareness ofaffordable housing problems and to encourage affordable housingfor all
income levels.
• A lack ofparticular housing choices create traffic congestion as people commute from one
community to another, increase costs for businesses related to employee travel time, I
employee absences, unnecessary street expansions andparking demand, reduced mobility for >.
certain disadvantaged groups, and unnecessary community subsidy to remedy these and
other impacts.
Goal # 6: Recognize that addressing the housing needs ofthe community is essential to the
successful future ofLa Pine as desirable place to live, work, shop, and play.
• Strategies to improve the type and range ofhousing choices in the community must be based
upon careful examination ofdemographiC data, trends, and local demands.
La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 20 July 23, 2014
• The vitality ofthe City depends not just on the health ofone aspect ofhousing but preferably
by taking a systemic approach to growth and development, preservation and continuity.
The Plan confonns with Goal X Housing by providing streetscape improvements will help create
a sense of identity and provide a pleasant atmosphere for living in the Area and in the city of La
Pine. A project in the Plan is the development of open space in mixed-use developments in the
Area.
Chapter XI Energy Conservation
Goal # 1: Create an arrangement and density ofland uses to encourage energy conservation.
• The City will seek ways to require and will encourage the further development of
sidewalks, trails and other bike and pedestrian paths.
• The City shall increase the efficiency of all City operations where possible.
The Plan confonns with Goal XI Energy Conservation I by providing infrastructure
improvements that will help facilitate development of properties within the Area that will create a
more compact retail core, encourage different types of transportation, and support the
development of mixed-use properties in the Area.
Chapter XII Urbanization
Goal # 1: It is expected that Forest and Agricultural lands within the City limits will be converted
to urban uses.
Goal #2: Land within the City limits is adequate to serve as the La Pine Urban Growth
Boundary unless special circumstances are identified and established as reasonable and
supportable.
• At such time as a transfer ofland from the Bureau ofLand Management to a government
agency (City ofLa Pine or Deschutes County) occurs along the southwest City boundary,
the use ofsuch lands for rodeo facilities shall be examined. The City desires such land to be
included within the City limits, with future administration ofthe lands andfacilities used as
rodeo grounds to be determined by mutual agreement ofthe City and the La Pine Park and
Recreation District.
The Plan confonns with Goal XII Urbanization by providing programs and infrastructure
improvements to the Area, which lies within the current Urban Growth Boundary and is the
downtown core of La Pine. This will help maximize the efficient use of land by encouraging
more intense uses on lands already developed or designated for urban development, and will help
keep the urban pattern compact. There is also a project in the Plan to assist with the future
development of the BLM property into a RodeolEvent site.
La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 21 July 23, 2014
B. La Pine Zoning Ordinance
The Plan conforms to the La Pine Zoning Ordinance as all projects envision the present zoning of
properties. The Plan also conforms to the Deschutes County Zoning Code, Title 18 for the
property that is outside the city limits.
C. La Pine Corridor Plan
The La Pine Corridor Plan (Corridor Plan) was adopted in July 2011. The Corridor Plan addresses
multi-modal and capacity needs for the downtown La Pine corridor between 1 st Street and 6th
Street.
Key study findings are:
Frequent pedestrian and bicycle crossings occur at the US 971First Street intersection throughout
the course ofthe day. There are no delineated pathways or crosswalks at the intersection and
jield observations reveal frequent "near misses" between the pedestrians and oncoming traffic.
This situation is further compounded by high vehicular speeds from southbound traffic entering
the city from the rural segment of us 97.
Many ofthe existing intersections along US 97 intersect the highway at a skewed angle, which
make pedestrian crossings and turning onto and offofthe highway difficult.
There are continuous sidewalks on the eastside of us 97 but not on the west. The presence of
multiple driveways along the corridor presents conflicts between pedestrians and turning
motorists.
There are no bicycle lanes along US 97 so cyclists must share the road or walk their bicycles
along the sidewalk.
The pi Street -Reed Road, Huntington Road, Finley Butte, and 61h Street intersections with US
97meet minimum volume thresholds for the installation ofa traffic signal today.
Although the highway has jive-lanes in areas ofthe downtown core, the curb-side lanes are
primarily for usedfor passing or decelerating maneuvers. The wide striped shoulder toward the
north end ofthe City serves as a deceleration area. This wide cross-section makes pedestrian and
bicycle crossings ofthe highway difficult andprovides a level ofdiscomfort for those walking or
cycling alongside the highway.
La Pine is planningfor significant industrial and employment growth on the east side ofthe city
during the next twenty years. This growth will further exacerbate the multimodal connectivity and
capacity needs near the US 971First Street intersection. This growth will also require multimodal
connectivity on city streets that parallel US 97 to provide residents with non-highway options to
access their homes andjobs.
The Plan conforms to the Corridor Plan as there are streetscape improvements identified as a
project in the Plan. These improvements will help address some of the deficiencies identified in
the Corridor Plan, including pedestrian and bicycle deficiencies.
La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 22 July 23,2014
D. La Pine Transportation Systems Plan
The La Pine Transportation Systems Plan (TSP) was completed in October 2013.
The TSP tended to provide the City, County and ODOT with guidance for operating and
improving a multimodal transportation system within the La Pine Urban Growth Boundary. The
TSP focuses on priority projects, policies and programs for the next twenty years but also
provides a vision for longer term projects that could be implemented should funding become
available. The TSP is intended to be flexible to respond to changing community needs and
revenue sources over the next twenty years and will be updated every 5 -7 years.
Key projects identified are:
Pedestrian Projects
All roadway upgrades within the City ofLa Pine should include pedestrian facilities, as specified
in the street design standards, to create a network ofcontinuous sidewalks that enable residents
to travel via walking. Priority for pedestrian projects should be given to:
Providing pedestrian access across US 97 within Wickiup and downtown La Pine.
Creating a connected trail system between the downtown and WickiUp, particularly along the
west side ofthe highway where the majority ofdevelopable lands are located.
Considering pedestrian connectivity for recreational trips, such as those to existing and planned
parks and trails.
Bicycle Projects
A network ofcontinuous bicycle facilities, whether they are bike lanes or shared-use paths,
should be developed to encourage bicycling as a form oftransportation within the City.
Improving bicycle facilities and connectivity will provide more opportunities for bicyclists ofall
abilities to travel throughout the City. Priority for bicycle facility improvements projects should
be given to:
Providing east-west connections within the Cagle subdivision where roadways are currently
unpaved.
Providing trail system connectivity between the downtown and WickiUp, particularly along the
west side ofthe highway where the majority ofthe developable lands are located.
The Plan conforms to the Transportation Systems Plan as there are streetscape improvements
identified as a project in the Plan. These improvements will help address some of the deficiencies
identified in the Transportation Systems Plan, including pedestrian and bicycle deficiencies.
La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 23 July 23,2014
APPENDIX A: LEGAL DESCRIPTION
July 23, 2014 La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 25
REPORT ACCOMPANYING LA PINE
URBAN RENEWAL PLAN
Adopted by the City of La Pine
July 23, 2014
Ordinance No.
La Pine Urban Renewal Area
Elaine Howard Consulting, LLC
Elaine Howard
ECONorthwest
Nick Popunek
Tessa Krebs
Rob Wyman
Jeannette Launer, Legal Counsel
Leslie Vanden Bos, Editor
Elaine Howard Consulting, LLC www.elainehowardconsulting.com office: 503.635.2783 cell:
503.975.3147 elaine@elainehowardconsulting.com
ITABLE OF CONTENTS
I
f,
REASONS FOR SELECTION OF EACH URBAN RENEWAL AREA IN THE PLAN ...........................13
ITHE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN URBAN RENEWAL PROJECTS AND THE EXISTING
CONDITIONS IN THE URBAN RENEWAL AREA ...................................................................................14
A. STOREFRONT LOANS/GRANTS .................................................................................................................................14
B. DISTRICT IDENTITY/TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS .................................................................................14
C. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS TO SUPPORT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ............. 15
ID. PUBLIC FACILITIES/INFRASTRUCTURE..................................................................................................................16
l
E. DEBT SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................16 t
F. PROPERTY ACQUISITION ...........................................................................................................................................16
EXISTING PHYSICAL. SOCIAL. AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND IMPACTS ON MUNICIPAL
SERVICES .., ..................................................................... , ........."..........,.........." ..................... , ...................,...... 4
PHYSICAL CONDITIONS .....•...•.....•..........•.•........•••....••........••••.......•..•.....•...•.....•..........•........•........••.................••. 4
LAND USE ............................................................................................................................................................................... 4
ZONING AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIONS .................................................................................................... 5
INFItASTRUCTURE: EXISTING CONDITIONS .............•.•......•..•.....••••.......•.•..•...•.....•.....••........•.••.......... , ....•.• " .....•. 7
INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................................................................................................................................. 7
SOCIAL CONDITIONS .•.....••..•.......•...............•.•........•.......•..........•.••.........•........•.....•.••••••.....•..•....•..•........•.•.........•. 9
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 11
TAXABLE VALUE OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE AREA .....................................................................................................11
BUILDING TO LAND VALUE RATIO ...................................................................................................................................12
IMPACT ON MUNICIPAL SERVICES ....................................................................................................................13
THE ANTICIPATED COMPLETION DATE FOR EACH PROJECT .......................................................18
THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF TAX INCREMENT REVENUES REQUIRED AND THE
ANTICIPATED YEAR IN WHICH INDEBTEDNESS WILL BE RETIRED ..........................................22
IMPACT OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING.................................................................................,,29
COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY LIMITS ON ASSESSED VALUE AND SIZE OF URBAN
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE PLAN ......................................................................................................26
RENEWAL A EA .............. . .......................................................................................................................... 34
RELOCATION REPORT ................................................................................................................................34
Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan
IINTRODUCTION
The Report on the La Pine Urban Renewal Plan (Report) contains background information and
project details that pertain to the La Pine Urban Renewal Plan (Plan). The Report is not a legal part of
the Plan, but is intended to provide public information and a basis for the findings made by the City
Council as part of its approval of the Plan.
The Report provides the information required in ORS 457.085(3). The format ofthe Report is based
on this statute. The Report documents not only the proposed projects in the Plan, but also documents
the existing conditions in the La Pine Urban Renewal Area (Area).
The Report provides the analysis required to meet the standards ofORS 457.085(3), including
financial feasibility. However, the Report provides only guidance on how the urban renewal plan
might be implemented. As the urban renewal agency reviews revenues and potential projects each
year, they have the authority to make adjustments to the assumptions in this Report. They may
allocate budgets differently, adjust the timing of the projects, decide to incur debt at different
timeframes than projected in this Report, and make other changes, as allowed in the amendments
section of the Plan.
Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 2
1---.../
\\
,.......
I .
to 0 ....'....; J ~u: ~~
:: .. i Msmo H81 I ";o Q,\o. Q)0.-: c:oE!O: ~
u uC a::Ii:: a't. J
-Q).co:
i ......·······i1···1
!
!
i
i
.
___.J....
..-_ • ( ..J.
_ j I L--.l 2fl2.5D A=s
••,liIIj.IIJ..W .iIiIl .................
Outside City of La Pine:
314.1!3A=s
o
I
:CON:lI"".ICS •
Figure 1 -La Pine Urban Renewal Plan Area BoundaIY
___---./•
La Plne,OR
Urban Renewal
Boundary
...-.........
Total BoundarvArec; S77.13 Acres
I r---1 lnside Oty of La Pine:
NA In
I I
M ....
o.u.~,-=-=D:XJ~t,CSIItI ..... &D_.1Q..
DIIIlJICla"'~",
ECONorthwest
FIN .~CC • r _AN\JINf'i I
Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 3
EXISTING PHYSICAL, SOCIAL, AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND
IMPACTS ON MUNICIPAL SERVICES
This section ofthe Report describes existing conditions within the La Pine Urban Renewal Area and
documents the occurrence of "blighted areas," as defined by ORS 457.010(1).
Physical Conditions
Land Use
According to data obtained from the City of La Pine and Deschutes County Assessor's office, the
Area, shown in Figure I above, contains 194 parcels and consists of 498.02 acres and 79.11 acres of
public right-of-way, for a total size of 577.l3 acres, 262.50 of which is in the city of La Pine.
An analysis of propelty classification data from the City of La Pine and Deschutes County
Assessment and Taxation database was used to determine the land use designation of parcels in the
Area. Within the Area, the largest use ofland is Exempt (67% oftotal acreage). This includes the
parcel that is presently owned by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and outside the city limits.
Commercial-Vacant (12% of total) is the next largest category, followed by Commercial
Improved with 9% of the Area.
Table 1 -Existing Land Use of Area
Industrial 3 3.98 0.80%
2 0.55Commercial Partially Exempt 0.11%
44.03Commercial Improved 73 8.84%
Commercial Vacant 29 61.66 12.38%
Misc. Commercial Improved 2 2.47 0.50%
Manufactured residential 4 13.44 2.70%
2.37Manufactured structure 1 0.48%
State Responsibility 2 1.10 0.22%
Misc. 2 0.02 0.00%
6.32%54 31.475Tract
0.15%Multi Family 1 0.766
67.50%21Exempt 336.163
Total 194 498.02 100.00%
Source: Deschutes County Assessor Data
Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 4
--- -----
- ---- -
- -- -
Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designations
The zoning code establishes districts to control land use throughout the city and regulates
development standards within these established use districts.
As illustrated in Table 2a, the large majority (62%) of the Area is zoned as Public Land. This is
followed by Traditional Commercial, which is approximately 25% of the Area. Aside from public
land, the vast majority of the land is zoned Traditional Commercial, and includes 182 of the 194
parcels .
Table 2a -Existing Zoning Plan Designations of Area
-
, ''l'o of Tota lZoning _,-_~~lrccls -r ACl'C_~g~ r
-
_ACl'c~ge
24.59%Traditional Commercial 182 122.47
Forest Use 1 20.36 4.09%9
Public Facility 8.38 1.68%1
1 37.21 7.47%Master Plan Residential
62.17%Public LandlBLM 309.601
498.02 100.00%Total 194
Source: Deschutes County Assessor Data
As illustrated in Table 2b, the large majority (62%) of the Area has a Public Land comprehensive
plan designation. This is followed by Traditional Commercial, which is approximately 24% of the
Area. Aside from public land, the vast majority of the land is zoned Traditional Commercial, and
includes 179 of the 194 parcels. These can be seen in Figure 2.
Table 2b -Existing Comprehensive Plan Designations of Area
-------~~--
% of Tota lComp.·ehcnsil'e Plan I Parcels rA~rca;c r Acreage I -
179 117.91 23.67%Traditional Commercial
4.56 0.92%Open Space and Park 3
57 .57 11.56%10Mixed Use
8.38 1.68%Public Facility 1
1 309.60 62.17%Public LandlBLM
498.02 100.00%194Total
Source: Deschutes County Assessor Data
Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 5
Figure 2 -Area Comprehensive Plan Designations
~o
~ tl :: ~i o Q,t. 4S0._: c:
... :> I C1.o.c •
... ... I: !G
,,;"' I ...J-...:: 0::
~.....n ......." ....!
i
M ti@ 1emo_
La Pine,OR
Comprehensive Ptan
Designations w/ln
Urban Renewal
Mixed-Use COM I RES
BLM I Public Facility
• t:l La Pirie City Boundary
~.t~ftM
N
o A. 113
I I I ...,..
QIr\jt~-.:~.CRlM.~"D_~"'11----...
ECONorthwest
.......................~.....-__u,.............~:CON:W,IC5 • FIN.~CC • r _~,N 'lING
Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 6
Infrastructure: Existing Conditions
Infrastructure
The streets within the Area have the following classifications, as identified in the La Pine
Transportation Systems Plan (TSP):
Highway 97 Highway
Huntington Road Downtown Arterial! Arterial
Morson Street Downtown Arterial
41h Street Major Collector
3rd Street Major Collector/Minor Collector
6th Street Minor Collector
All other streets are local streets.
This section of the study identifies the existing deficiencies in the infrastructure in the Area. The
street conditions information is from the TSP. This does not mean that a project has been identified in
the urban renewal plan to address each deficiency, this is solely to identify conditions that are
deficiencies within the Area.
1. Streets/SidewalkslPathwayslBike Lanes
The following deficiencies are identified in the TSP.
Huntington Road needs to be improved to Downtown Arterial standards from US 97 to 1 st
Street.
South Huntington Road intersection with Highway 97 needs to be realigned.
Morson Street needs to be improved to Downtown Arterial standards.
3rd Street to 6th Street needs to be upgraded to Minor CollectorlMajor Collector standards.
4th Street needs to be upgraded to Major Collector standards.
15t Street needs to be upgraded to Downtown Arterial standards.
Intersection improvements
US 971Ashton Eaton Blvdll sl StreetlReed Road
US 971 Ashton Eaton Blvdl Finley Butte Road-Morson Street
US 971 Ashton Eaton Blvd/6th Street
Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 7 II
Safety projects
US 97! Ashton Eaton Blvd! 15t Street
US 97!Ashton Eaton Blvd! Finley Butte Road-Morson Street
US 97!Ashton Eaton Blvd!6 th Street
Huntington Road
Transit system
Downtown area connection for service to Bend
Sidewalks
Highway 97!Ashton Eaton Blvd has sidewalks on the east side, but not continuous sidewalks
on the west side of the street from 6th Street to 15t Street.
Huntington Road has non-continuous sidewalks.
3rd Street has sidewalks on a single side from Huntington to Highway 97!Ashton Eaton
Blvd and no sidewalks west of Huntington Road.
1st Street has sidewalks on a single side in some portions.
4th Street has sidewalks on both sides from Huntington to Highway 97!Ashton Eaton Blvd
and no sidewalks west of Huntington Road.
The Area would benefit from numerous types of sidewalk and streets cape improvements,
from repaving, to constructing new sidewalks where they do not exist, to clearly identifying
crosswalks. The condition of the sidewalks and the lack of bike lanes are factors of blight in
the Area.
Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 8
Safety projects
US 97/Ashton Eaton Blvd/l st Street
US 97/Ashton Eaton Blvdl Finley Butte Road-Morson Street
US 97/Ashton Eaton Blvd/6th Street
Huntington Road
Transit system
Downtown area connection for service to Bend
Sidewalks
Highway 97/Ashton Eaton Blvd has sidewalks on the east side, but not continuous sidewalks
on the west side of the street from 6th Street to 151 Street.
Huntington Road has non-continuous sidewalks.
3rd Street has sidewalks on a single side from Huntington to Highway 97/ Ashton Eaton
Blvd and no sidewalks west of Huntington Road.
15t Street has sidewalks on a single side in some portions.
4th Street has sidewalks on both sides from Huntington to Highway 97/Ashton Eaton Blvd
and no sidewalks west of Huntington Road.
The Area would benefit from numerous types of sidewalk and streetscape improvements,
from repaving, to constructing new sidewalks where they do not exist, to clearly identifYing
crosswalks. The condition of the sidewalks and the lack of bike lanes are factors of blight in
the Area.
Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 8
2. Water
Most water lines in the Area were constructed in 2001 and are in good condition. There are
some areas that could benefit from an increased number of fire hydrants.
Information for the La Pine Rural Fire District in May 2014 is shown below.
The goal for the amount of water flow for fire flow is 3,500 gallons per minute (gpm) for
common commercial areas. Not all of the commercial area in La Pine meets this gpm. For
example, the flow at Ace Hardware is only 2,076 to 2,405 gpm. The water system booster fire
pumps are not operational nor are they automatic.
For each 1,000 required gpm in the business district, there should be a fire hydrant within 250
feet. Deficiencies in this are in the following locations:
• South County Service Center needs 1 more on E side of 97 (has 1 on
Huntington)
• City Hall needs 1 more (has 1 on Huntington and 6th)
• Shop smart needs 1 more on E side of97 (has 2 on Huntington)
• La Pine Dental Center needs 1 on E side of97
• High lakes feed area needs 1 more on E side of97 (has 1 on Finely Butte)
• Aspen Alley needs 2 on E side of 97
• Los 3 CaballeroslWhispering Pines needs 1 on east side of 97
• La Pine Square needs 2 on E. side of 97
• Industrial Warehouse on Bluewood place needs 3
• Strip malls on Bluewood Court need 1 more (has 1 in cul-de-sac)
3. Storm Water
The storm water system in the Area needs significant improvement. There is no complete storm water
system in the Area.
4. Sanitary Sewer
Sanitary sewer lines that are in good condition exist throughout in the Area.
5. Parks
Heritage Park is located at the corner of 151 from Huntington to Munson.
6. Conditions of Buildings
A quick visual survey shows buildings that are in need of fac;ade improvements.
Social Conditions
Of the 194 parcels in the Area, only 10 are recorded as mixed-use that could include residential use,
and these account for 11.56% of parcels in the Area. The 2010 census data is used, below, to describe
the social conditions within the Area. As ofthe 2010 census, there were 1,653 people in La Pine.
Age
The age distribution of the Area is shown in Table 3. The majority of the population in the Area is
between the ages of 15 and 44, and over 87% of the Area is younger than 60 years old.
f
Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 9
,J ,
Table 3 -Age Distribution of Area
-------.
Age Bracket
---
P
-
o
-
pulation-oto 17 years 22.40%
1 8 to 24 years 6.80%
25 to 44 years 22.50%
45 to 64 years 30.40%
65 and older 17.80%
Total 100%
Source: US Census 2010
Race
The racial characteristics of the Area are shown in Table 4. The majority of people (93.5%) identify
themselves as white and the second largest group (1.8%) that people identify with is "some other
race." Hispanic or Latino of any race account for 5.8% of the population.
Table 4 -Racial Characteristics of the Area
I Race
-
Population i
White alone 95.84%
Black or African American alone 0.09%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone 1.28%
Asian 0.24%
Pacific Islander 0 .10%
Some other race alone 0.55%
Two or more races 1.90%
Total 100%
Source: US Census 2010
Income
The median income for a household in the area is $29,859, and the median income for a
family is $33,938.
Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 10
-- -- -
Population
In the last few years, La Pine has remained stable in population. This change is typical of
readjustments performed by the Portland State University Population and Research Center
after reviewing the 20 10 Census data.
Table 5 -Population in La Pine
Year Population
-----
0;;) Clumgc
----I
2010 1,660 0.60%
2011 1,670 0.00%
2012 1,670 0.00%
2013 1,670 I 0 .00%
Source: Portland State University Population Research Center
Economic Conditions
Taxable Value ofProperty Within the Area
The estimated 20] 3/2014 total assessed value of the real property in the Area is $26,466,444. The
Deschutes County Assessor has recommended to apportion a share of the total citywide utility value
in the same proportion as the ratio of real property real market value in the Area to real property
assessed market value in the City (3.97%), for an estimated utility value of $1,082,274. The Assessor
did caution that the personal property values may end up higher, so the boundary was adjusted to
allow for the chance that the values of the personal properties are higher than estimated . The total
estimated value of personal property in the Area is estimated at $1,257,672. This is based on
calculating the share of personal property within the city and using that same percentage as a factor
for the Area (4.62%). The total estimated assessed value, including all real, personal, and utility
properties, is $28,945,892. This data is summarized in Table 6.
Table 6 -Total Estimated Assessed Value
Propert y
Type ,. ,
Real
Personal 1,257,672 5,278,720 4.62%
Manufactured 139,502 585,520 .51%
Utility 1,082,274 4,542,537 3.97%
Total $28,945,892 $124,771,675
Source: Deschutes County Assessor's data
If an urban renewal plan is adopted, the Deschutes County Assessor will calculate the frozen base
using tax accounts for all of the real, personal, manufactured, and utility properties in the Area. The
Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 1 ]
total assessed value of the City of La Pine is $124,771,675.' Using the figures in this Report, the
Urban Renewal Area's estimated assessed value equals 23.20% ofthe total assessed value of the City.
Building to Land Value Ratio
An analysis of property values can be used to evaluate the economic condition of real estate
investments in a given area. The relationship of a property's improvement value (the value of
buildings and other improvements to the property) to its land value is generally an accurate indicator
of the condition of real estate investments. This relationship is referred to as the "Improvement to
Land Ratio," or "I:L." The values used are real market values. In urban renewal areas, the I:L may be
used to measure the intensity of development or the extent to which an area has achieved its short
and long-term development objectives. A healthy condition of real estate investment in the Area
would be 3: I or more.
An important fact to note about Table 7 is that there are 59 parcels with no improvements on them.
These are vacant parcels that account for 83.91 acres of underutilized land that are located within the
urban renewal area. There are also 24 parcels that are presently non-taxable, accounting for 346 total
acres. In general, there is a very low I:L ratio in the Area. Over 97% of the Area (even excluding the
Rodeo site) does not achieve the desired ratio of 3: I or better.
Table 7 -I:L Ratio of Parcels in the Area
- ----~ -- ------
% of % of tota l I
.{:L Ratio Parcels Acreage Total H~~
except
Acreage R d o eo
Not Taxable 24 345.63 69.40% 19.71%
No Improvements 59 83.91 16.85% 44.21 %
0.01 -0.50 37 20.65 4.15% 10.88%
0.51 -1.00 34 22.23 4.46% 11.71%
1.01 -1.50 21 10.93 2.19% 5.76%
1.51 -2.00 7 6.71 1.35% 3.54%
2.01 -3.00 6 4.09 0.82% 2.15%
3.01 -4.00 3 2.851 0 .57% 1.50%
4.01 -5.00 2 0.86 0.17% 0.45%
>5.0 I 0.16 0.03% 0.08%
Total 194 498.02 100.00% 100.00%
Source: Deschutes County Assessor Real Market Value data
I Data from Deschutes County Assessor's 2012-13 tax roll summary
Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 12
Impact on Municipal Services
The fiscal impact of tax increment financing on taxing districts that levy taxes within the Area
(affected taxing districts) is described in the Section on Impact of Tax Increment Financing of this
Report. This subsection discusses the fiscal impacts resulting from potential increases in demand for
municipal services.
The projects being considered for future use of urban renewal are primarily district
identity/transportation, business improvement/development, and public facilities projects. The use of
urban renewal funding for these projects allows the City to match other funding sources to actually
construct the improvements. It also allows the City to tap a different funding source besides the City
of La Pine's general funds to make these improvements.
It is anticipated that these improvements will catalyze development on the adjacent undeveloped and
underdeveloped parcels. This development will require city services. As the development will be new
construction or redevelopment, it wi1l be up to current building code and will aid in any fire
protection needs.
These impacts will be countered by providing transportation funding for vital connections to La Pine
and major parcels of undeveloped and underdeveloped land. This land will provide future jobs to the
La Pine area and future increased tax base for all taxing jurisdictions.
REASONS FOR SELECTION OF EACH URBAN RENEWAL AREA IN
THE PLAN
The reason for selecting the Area is to provide the ability to fund improvements necessary to cure
blight within the Area.
Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 13
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN URBAN RENEWAL PROJECTS AND
THE EXISTING CONDITIONS IN THE URBAN RENEWAL AREA
The projects identified for the Area are described below, including how they relate to the existing
conditions in the Area. The projects are listed in no particular order.
A. Storefront loans/grants
Establish a program to allow for assistance to property owners for improvements to the facades on
their properties.
B. District IdentitylTransportation Improvements
1. Sidewalk improvements
Improve sidewalks within the Area to allow for greater access for pedestrians to the
commercial district.
2. Sign age: business and way-flnding
Support effective signage for businesses and for way-finding to allow citizens and visitors to
frequent the commercial area and to know of other opportunities the La Pine community has
to offer.
3. Streetscape
Improve the streetscape in the Area to encourage citizens and visitors to visit the Area.
Streetscape includes sidewalks, signage, trees, benches, landscaping, public art, archways,
bus shelters, lighting, and other improvements to enhance the overall appearance of the Area
and encourage development and redevelopment of the Area.
4. Bicycle paths
Add bike paths within the Area to encourage greater access to the commercial district.
5. Gathering spaces
Develop gathering spaces to add to the overall positive environment ofthe Area, encouraging
visits to the Area by citizens of La Pine and visitors to the Area.
6. Parking
Assess parking needs for the Area.
Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 14
Existing Conditions:
There is no funding source at the City for these programs.
There will be some streetscape improvements with an Oregon Department of Transportation
project, butfor only afew blocks within the Area. The La Pine parks district is in charge ofparks,
and any gathering spaces would be coordinated with them. Bike paths and sidewalks were
identified as areas ofneed in the Transportation Systems Plan. Signage is presently not
coordinated in terms ofa style or specific type.
C. Planning and development assistance programs to support economic development
1. Assist with development ofmixed-use area
Encourage development of the mixed-use area by providing amenities to help make the area
more desirable.
2. Encourage/support business expansion
Work with business owners to develop and redevelop properties within the Area, leveraging
public investment with private investment.
3. Storefront Improvements
Work with business owners to improve the overall appearance of the exteriors of their
properties.
4. Support for incubator businesses
Look for opportunities to help facilitate the development of new businesses within La Pine.
Existing Conditions:
There is no funding source at the City for these programs.
Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 15
D. Public Facilities/Infrastructure
1. RodeolEvent Site development
2. Development and redevelopment ofpublic facilities that provide vital services (fire, police,
and medical), gathering spaces, and other services for the community.
3. Upgrade/provide infrastrllcture as necessary to allow for the development or redevelopment
ofparcels within and adjacent to the urban renewal area.
Existing Conditions:
There is no funding source at the City for the RodeolEvent site development. The site is totally
undeveloped at this time.
The City Council would decide whether there was sufficientfundingfor development or
redevelopment ofpublic facilities or upgrading ofinfra structure infuture city budgets. These are
not presently in the city budget.
E. Debt Service andAdministration
This project will allow for the repayment of costs associated with the preparation, adoption, and
implementation ofthe La Pine Urban Renewal Plan. This includes the potential repayment of the
initial planning costs for the development of the urban renewal plan. It also includes ongoing
administration and any financing costs associated with issuing long-term debt, relocations, and other
administrative costs.
Existing Conditions:
As there is currently no urban renewal program, these activities do not exist.
F. Property Acquisition
This project will fund willing seller/willing buyer property acquisition and assembly of key properties
for redevelopment, public gathering spaces, public parking, or other use consistent with the goals and
objectives ofthis plan.
Existing Conditions:
The City has generalfund revenues that can be usedfor property acquisition. By allowing
acquisition in the urban renewal plan, tax increment funds could also be used for property
acquisition.
Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 16
-------
THE ESTIMATED TOTAL COST OF EACH PROJECT AND THE
SOURCES OF MONEYS TO PAY SUCH COSTS
The costs of the projects are shown in Table 8. The sources of funds are tax increment revenues.
There will be other funding sources sought to leverage urban renewal funds. These sources include
grant funds, general funds, state funding, or other sources of funding the City may identify, including
private developer contributions.
These figures are in nominal dollars, the cost of the dollar when spent in the future and constant
dollars, the dollars in today's dollar. The actual dollars allocated to Planning and Development,
District IdentitylTransportation and Public FacilitieslInfrastructure are roughly the same when using
constant dollars. The differences in the nominal dollars is a result of how soon those dollars are spent
as inflation increases the amount needed to actually complete projects in the future. For example, the
District Identity category receives the largest budget allocation the earliest, over a million dollars in
2018119. This makes the total amount look smaller, but when you compare in constant dollars, they
are very similar. The allocations are the best estimates of expenditures at the time of preparation of
the urban renewal plan. The urban renewal agency will be able to review the allocations on an annual
basis when they prepare their budgets.
Table 8a -Projects to be Completed Using Urban Renewal Area Funds
Urhan IT rhan
Projeds Renc\\al Renewal
constanl nominal
- -dollars dollars
-----
Storefront loans $300,000 $406,700
Planning and
development $1,445,000 $2,443,900
assistance
District
identity/transportation $1,200,000 $1,617,600
Public
facilities/infrastructure $1,100,000 $1,778,200
Parking $175,000 $341,100
Repay initial planning
costs $30,000 $33,800
Administration $212,514 $331,065
Financing fees $45,880 $65,000
$4,508,394 $7,017,365
Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 17
THE ANTICIPATED COMPLETION DATE FOR EACH PROJECT
The infrastructure projects will be scheduled as shown in the financing plan in Table 9. The other
projects will be ongoing and will be completed as directed by the Urban Renewal Agency (Agency).
The Agency may change the completion dates in their annual budgeting process or as project
decisions are made in administering the urban renewal plan. This financing plan shows large
allocations to projects in the fmal year. This is due to the ability to use the debt reserve funds for the
bonds that have been defeased in the final year of the plan, FY2040-41. The inflation rate for project
costs is 3%. Administration is allocated a 5% amount of the total annual tax increment.
I
,f
Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 18
Table 9 -Projects and Costs in Year of Expenditure Dollars
Source: ECONorthwest
Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 19
Table 9 -Projects and Costs in Year of Expenditure Dollars, continued
$ 200,669 $ 56,549 $ 52,307 $ 72,039 $ 117,301 $ 189,617 $ 290,587 $ 7,887
\Inflation Percent 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%: 3%
Source: ECONorthwest
Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 20
Table 9 -Projects and Costs in Year of Expenditure Dollars, continued
$ 186,000 $
Source: ECONorthwest
Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 21
THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF TAX INCREMENT REVENUES
REQUIRED AND THE ANTICIPATED YEAR IN WHICH INDEBTEDNESS
WILL BE RETIRED
Table 10 shows the tax increment revenues and their allocation to loan repayments, reimbursements,
debt service, and debt service reserve funds. The Area also reaches the point where revenue sharing is
required to begin, as implemented by the State in ORS 457.470, and this is further described in
the section of this report on Impacts to Taxing Jurisdictions.
It is anticipated that all debt will be retired by FY2041-42 (any outstanding bonds will be defeased).
The maximum indebtedness is $7,017,000 (seven million, seventeen thousand dollars).
The estimated total amount of tax increment revenues required to service the maximum indebtedness
of $7,017,000 is $8,769,858.
The interest rate for the bonds is estimated at 5% and the terms of the bonds are varied, depending on
time of issuance. The time frame of urban renewal is not absolute; it may vary depending on the
actual ability to meet the maximum indebtedness. lfthe economy is slower, it may take longer; if the
economy is more robust than the projections, it may take a shorter time period. The Agency may
decide to issue bonds on a different schedule, and that will alter the financing assumptions. These
assumptions show one scenario for financing and this scenario is financially feasible.
Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 22
Table 10 -Tax Increment Revenues and Allocations to Debt Service
DEBT SERVICE FUND
Resources
Beginning Fund Balance $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ -$
TlF for URA $ $ $ $ 88,481 $ 108,491 $ $ $ $ 193,043
Total Resources 043
$ (1,845,580) $ (92,279) $ (92,279) $ (92,279) $ (92,279)
$ (1,725,258)
$ (1,513,636)
$ (1,487,892) $ (51,055) $ (69,717) $ (88,481) $ (108,491) $ (34,416) $ (55,670) $ (77.775) $ (100,764)
I $
$
$
$
$
$
$
- $
1,487,892 $
- $
-$
- $
51,055 $
-$
- $
- $
69,717 $
- $
- $
$
88,481 $
- $
- $
- $
108,491 $
- $
34,416 100,764
Expenditures
Debt Service
New Loan 2020
New Loan 2025
New Loan 2033
Transfer to DIS Reserve Fund
Total Expenditures
DEBT SERVICE RESERVE FUND
Resources
Beginning Balance
Interest Eamings
Transfer from DIS Fund
Transfer to Project Fund
Total Expenditures
Source: ECONorthwest
Rep0l1 Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 23
Table 10 -Tax Increment Revenues and Allocations to Debt Service, continued
2023-24 2024-25
DEBT SERVICE FUND
Resources
Beginning Fund Balance $ -$ - $ - $ -$ - $ -$ -$
T1F for URA $ 216,953 $ 241,818 $ 267,678 $ 294,572 $ 322,542 $ 351,631 $ 381,884 $ 413,347
Total Resources $ 216,953 $ 241,818 $ 267,678 $ 294,572 $ 322,542 $ 351,631 $ 381,884 $ 413.347
Expenditures
Debt Service
New Loan 2020 $ (92,279) $ (92 ,279) $ (92,279) $ (92 ,279) $ (92,279) $ (92,279) $ (92,279) $ (92,279)
New Loan 2025 $ (88,267) $ (88,267) $ (88,267) $ (88,267) $ (88,267) $ (88,267) $ (88 ,267)
New Loan 2033 $ (80,243)
Transfer to DIS ReseNe Fund $ (124,674) $ (61,272) $ (87,132) $ (114 ,026) $ (141,996) $ (171,085) $ (201,338) $ (152,558)
Total Expenditures $ (216,953) $ (241,818) $ (267,678) $ (294,572) $ (322,542) $ (351,631
DEBT SERVICE RESERVE FUND
Resources
Beginning Balance $ - $ - $ -$ -$ - $ -$ - $
Interest Earnings $ - $ -$ - $ -$ -$ - $ -$
Transfer from DIS Fund $ 124 ,674 $ 61,272 $ 87,132 $ 114 ,026 $ 141,996 $ 171,085 $ 201,338 $ 152,558
Transfer from Project Fund $ - $ - $ -$ - $ -$ - $ -$
Total Resources $ 124,674 $ 61,272 $ 87,132 $ 114,026 $ 141,996 $ 171,085 $ 201,338 $ 152,558
Transfer to Project Fund $ (124,674) $ (61,272) $ (87,132) $ (114,026) $ (141 ,996) $ (171,085)! $ (201,338) , $ (152,558)
Total Expenditures $ (124,674) $ (61,272) $ (87,132) $ (114,026) $ (141.996) $ (171.085) $ (201,338) $
Source: ECONorthwest
Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 24
Table 10 -Tax Increment Revenues and Allocations to Debt Service, continued
DEBT SERVICE FUND
Resources
Beginning Fund Balance
l1F for URA
Total Resources
Expenditures
Debt SeNice
New Loan 2020
New Loan 2025
New Loan 2033
Transfer to DIS Reserve Fund
$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
$ 446,068 480,097 $ 515,489 $ 552,295 $ 590,575 $ 630,385 $ 671,787 $
$ (92,279) $ (92,279) $
$ (88,267) $ (88,267) $
$ (80,243) $ (80,243) $
515,489 $ 552,295 $ 590,575 $ 630,385 $ 671,787 $
(92,279) $
(88,267) $
(80,243) $
(92,279) $
(88,267) $
(80,243) $
(92,279) $
(88,267) $
(80,243) $
(92,279) $
(88,267) $
(80,243) $
(92,279) $
(88,267) ' $
(80,243) $
$ (185,279) $ (219,308) $ (254,700) $ (291,506) $ (329,786) $ (369,596) $ (410,998) $
Total Expenditures $
DEBT SERVICE RESERVE FUND
Resources
Beginning Balance
Interest Earnings
Transfer from DIS Fund
Transfer to
Total Ex
$ - $
$ -$
$ 185,279 $
$ - $
- $
- $
219,308 $
- $
- $
- $
254,700 $
- $
- $
- $
291,506 $
-$
- $
- $
329,786 $
- $
369,596
- $
714,845 $
714,845 $
(92,279)
(88,267), $
(80,243)1 $
(20,979) $
433,077
722,407
1,1
(401,253)
(791,449)
Source: ECONOIihwest.
Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 25
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE PLAN
The estimated tax increment revenues through FY 2040-41, as shown above, are based on projections of the assessed value of development
within the Area and the total tax rate that will apply in the Area. The assumptions include new development projects, as identified by the City of La
Pine, and minimum growth rates at 4%. There is substantialacreage in the Area that is undeveloped where the full future development value will add
to the incremental assessed value of the Area.
Table 11 -Historical Assessed Value Growth for City of La Pine
FYE
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
AAGR
Source:
Real Value
$110,142,209
$116,105,105
$122,122,053
$120,412,805
$114,428,058
$113,192,354
$114,364,898
0.63%
Personal Manufactured
Value Value
$6,188,560 $682,140
$6,437,010 $655,270
$7,807,300 $683,310
$6,168,920 $592,710
$5 ,677 ,600 $545,850
$5,503,650 $526,010
$5,278,720 $585 ,520
-2.62% -2.51 %
Deschutes
M50 Assessed
Value
Utility Total AVValue
Unincorporated
Unincorporated
$3,016,747 $120,029,656
$3,035,608 $126,232,993
$3,133,730 $133,746,393
$3,453,463 $130,627,898
$5,193,676 $125,845,184
$4,493,122 $123,715,136
$4,542,537 $124,771,675
7.06% 0.65%
County
Annual
Growth
Rate
5.20%
6.00%
-2.30%
-3.70%
-1.70%
0.90%
Assessor's data
Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 26
FYE Assessed Value Frozen Base Excess Value Tax Rate TIF
2014 $ 29,727,252 $ 29,727,252 $ -14.2205 $ -
2015 $ 30,916,342 $ 29,727,252 $ 1,189,090 14.1930 $ -
2016 $ 33,366,466 $ 29,727,252 $ 3,639,214 14.0291 $ 51,055
2017 $ 34,701,124 $ 29,727,252 $ 4,973,872 14.0166 $ 69,717
2018 $ 36,089,168 $ 29,727,252 $ 6,361,916 13.9079 $ 88,481
2019 $ 37,532,734 $ 29,727,252 $ 7,805,482 13 .8993 $ 108,491
2020 $ 39,034,044 $ 29,727,252 $ 9,306,792 13 .6132 $ 126,695
2021 $ 40,595,406 $ 29,727,252 $ 10,868,154 13.6131 $ 147,949
2022 $ 42,219,222 $ 29,727,252 $ 12,491 ,970 13.6131 $ 170,054
2023 $ 43,907,990 $ 29,727,252 $ 14,180,738 13.6130 $ 193,043
2024 $ 45,664,309 $ 29,727,252 $ 15,937,057 13 .6131 $ 216,953
2025 $ 47,490,881 $ 29 ,727,252 $ 17,763,629 13 .6131 $ 241,818
2026 $ 49,390,516 $ 29,727,252 $ 19,663,264 13.6131 $ 267,678
2027 $ 51 ,366,136 $ 29,727,252 $ 21 ,638,884 13 .6131 $ 294,572
2028 $ 53,420,782 $ 29,727,252 $ 23,693,530 13.6131 $ 322,542
2029 $ 55,557,613 $ 29 ,727,252 $ 25,830,361 13.6131 $ 351,631
2030 $ 57,779,917 $ 29,727,252 $ 28 ,052,665 13.6131 $ 381,884
2031 $ 60,091,114 $ 29,727,252 $ 30,363,862 13.6131 $ 413,347
2032 $ 62,494,759 $ 29,727,252 $ 32,767,507 13.6131 $ 446,068
2033 $ 64,994,549 $ 29,727,252 $ 35,267,297 13.613] $ 480,097
2034 $ 67,594,331 $ 29,727,252 $ 37,867,079 13.6131 $ 515,489
2035 $ 70,298,104 $ 29,727,252 $ 40,570,852 13 .6131 $ 552,295
2036 $ 73,110,028 $ 29,727,252 $ 43,382,776 13.6131 $ 590,575
2037 $ 76,034,428 $ 29,727,252 $ 46,307,176 13 .6131 $ 630,385
2038 $ 79,075,805 $ 29,727,252 $ 49,348,553 13.6131 $ 671 ,787
2039 $ 82,238,837 $ 29,727,252 $ 52,511,585 13.6131 $ 714,845
2040 $ 85,528,391 $ 29,727,252 $ 55,801,139 13.6131 $ 759,626
Table 12 shows the projected incremental assessed value, projected tax rates that would produce tax
increment revenues , and the annual tax increment revenues (not adjusted for under-collection,
penalties, and interest). These projections of increment are the basis for the projections in Table 16.
Revenue sharing is projected to be a feature of this urban renewal plan in the final year, FY 2040/41.
However, if growth occurs at a faster pace, the Area will commence revenue sharing at the time
required by the stature, the year after the tax increment proceeds equal 10% of the initial maximum
indebtedness .
Table 12a -Projected Incremental Assessed Value, Tax Rates, and Tax Increment Revenues
.
Source : ECONorthwest
Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 27
Table 12b -Projected Revenue Sharing
I -----rTF Tn-;-----Til-=---I
i I
2014 $0 $0 $0
2015 $0 $0 $0
2016 $51,055 $51,055 $0
2017 $69,717 $69,717 $0
2018 $88,481 $88,481 $0
2019 $108,491 $108,491 $0
2020 $126,695 $126,695 $0
2021 $147,949 $147,949 $0
2022 $170,054 $170,054 $0
2023 $193,043 $193,043 $0
2024 $216,953 $216,953 $0
2025 $241,818 $241,818 $0
2026 $267,678 $267,678 $0
2027 $294,572 $294,572 $0
2028 $322,542 $322,542 $0
2029 $351,631 $351,631 $0
2030 $381,884 $381,884 $0
2031 $413,347 $413,347 $0
2032 $446,068 $446,068 $0
2033 $480,097 $480,097 $0
2034 $515,489 $515,489 $0
2035 $552,295 $552,295 $0
2036 $590,575 $590,575 $0
2037 $630,385 $630,385 $0
2038 $671,787 $671,787 $0
2039 $714,845 $714,845 $0
2040 $759,626 $722,407 $37,220
Source: ECONorthwest
Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 28
IIMPACT OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
This section describes the impact of tax increment financing of the new maximum indebtedness, both
until and after the indebtedness is repaid, upon all entities levying taxes upon property in the urban
renewal area.
The impact of tax increment financing on overlapping taxing districts consists primarily of the
property tax revenues foregone on permanent rate levies and local option levies as applied to the
growth in assessed value in the Area. These projections are for impacts estimated through FY 2040
41, and are shown in Tables 13a and 13b.
Revenue sharing is part of the 2009 legislative changes to urban renewal and means that, at
thresholds defined in ORS 457.470, the impacted taxing jurisdictions will receive a share of the
incremental growth in the area. The share is a percentage basis dependent upon the tax rates of
the taxing jurisdictions. The first threshold is 10% of the original maximum indebtedness. At the
10% threshold, the urban renewal agency will receive the full 10% of the initial maximum
indebtedness plus 25% of the increment above the 10% threshold and the taxing jurisdictions will
receive 75% of the increment above the 10% threshold. The second threshold is set at 12.5% of
the maximum indebtedness, however the projections do not estimate this threshold is met.
Revenue sharing is projected to commence during the final year of the 25-year life of tax
increment proceeds of the Plan.
The La Pine School District and the Education Service District are not directly affected by the tax
increment financing, but the amounts of their taxes divided for the urban renewal plan are shown in
the following tables. Under current school funding law, property tax revenues are combined with
State School Fund revenues to achieve per-student funding targets. Under this system, property taxes
foregone, due to the use of tax increment financing, are substantially replaced with State School Fund
revenues, as determined by a funding formula at the State level. The formula for funding schools did
not change in the 2012 legislative session.
Dedicating efforts to maintaining a healthy downtown is one variable in a livable city. These efforts
will produce spin-off economic benefits in terms of increased economic development in the area,
increased jobs, and expected increases in overall populations, including the student populations in the
schools. These increases in the schools' populations will bring in more funding to the schools through
the per pupil funding formula.
Tables 13a and 13b show the projected impacts to permanent rate levies of taxing districts as a result
of this Plan. It assumes the growth as projected in the other tables in this Report, a 4% average annual
growth rate in assessed value. Table 13a shows the general government levies and Table I3b shows
the education levies.
I
f
i ~
Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 29
I
t
I
Table 13a -Projected Impact on Taxing District Permanent Rate Levies General Government
CITY OF LArINI' RURAL LAPINE PARKS
LAPINE FIRE DISTRICT ANDREC
2016 (4,652) (2,002) (3,457) (5,095) (82) (589) (7,024) (5,603) (1,092) (29,596)
2017 (6,358) (2,736) (4,725) (6,963) (111) (805) (9,600) (7,658) (1,492) (40,448)
2018 (8,132) (3,499) (6,044) (8,907) (143) (1,029) (12,279) (9,795) (1,909) (51,737)
2019 (9,978) (4,293) (7,415) (10,928) (175) (1,263) (15,065) (12,018) (2,342) (63,477)
2020 (11,897) (5,119) (8,842) (13,030) (208) (1,506) (17,962) (14,330) (2,792) (75,686)
2021 (13,893) (5,977) (10,325) (15,215) (243) (1,758) (20,975) (16,734) (3,260) (88,380)
2022 (15,968) (6,871) (11,867) (17,489) (280) (2,021) (24,109) (19,234) (3,748) (101,587)
2023 (18 ,127) (7,799) (13,472) (19,853) (318) (2,294) (27,369) (21,834) (4,254) (115,320)
2024 (20,372) (8,765) (15,140) (22,312) (357) (2,579) (30,759) (24,538) (4,781) (129,603)
2025 (22,707) (9,770) (16,875) (24,869) (398) (2,874) (34,284) (27,351) (5,329) (144,457)
2026 (25,136) (10,815) (18,680) (27,529) (440) (3,182) (37,950) (30,276) (5,899) (159,907)
2027 (27,661) (11,901) (20,557) (30,294) (485) (3,501) (41,763) (33,317) (6,492) (175,971)
2028 (30,287) (13,031) (22,509) (33,171) (531) (3,834) (45,728) (36,481) (7,108) (192,680)
2029 (33,019) (14,207) (24,539) (36,162) (579) (4,179) (49,853) (39,771) (7,749) (210,058)
2030 (35,860) (15,429) (26,650) (39,274) (628) (4,539) (54,142) (43,193) (8,416) (228,131)
2031 (38,814) (16,700) (28,846) (42,509) (680) (4,913) (58,602) (46,751) (9,109) (246,924)
2032 (41,887) (18,022) (31,129) (45,875) (734) (5,302) (63,241) (50,452) (9,830) (266,472)
2033 (45,082) (19,397) (33,504) (49,374) (790) (5,706) (68,066) (54,301) (10,580) (286,800)
2034 (48,406) (20,827) (35,974) (53,014) (848) (6,127) (73,084) (58,304) (11,360) (307,944)
2035 (51 ,862) (22,314) (38,542) (56,799) (909) (6,564) (78,302) (62,467) (12,171) (329,930)
2036 (55,456) (23,861) (41,214) (60,736) (972) (7,019) (83,729) (66,797) (13,015) (352,799)
2037 (59,195) (25,469) (43,992) (64,830) (1,037) (7,493) (89,373) (71,299) (13,892) (376,580)
2038 (63,082) (27,142) (46,881) (69,088) (1,105) (7,985) (95,243) (75,982) (14,805) (401,313)
2039 (67,126) (28,881) (49,886) (73,516) (1,176) (8,496) (101,347) (80,852) (15,753) (427,033)
2040 (67,836) (29,187) (50,414) (74,294) (1,189) (8,586) (102,419) (81,707) (15,920) (431,552)
Total (822,793) (354,014) (611,479) (901,126) (14,418) (104,144) (1,242,268) (991,045) (193,098) (5,234,385)
Source: ECONOIthwest
RepOit Accompanying the La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 30
Table 13b -Projected Impact on Taxing District Permanent Rate Levies Education
2016 (17,338) (351) (2,258) (19,947) (49,543)
2017 (23,696) (479) (3,086) (27,261) (67,709)
2018 (30,309) (613) (3,947) (34,869) (86,606)
2019 (37,186) (752) (4,843) (42,781) (106,258)
2020 (44,339) (897) (5,774) (51,010) (126,696)
2021 (51,777) (1,048) (6,743) (59,568) (147,948)
2022 (59,513) (1,204) (7,750) (68,467) (170,054)
2023 (67,558) (1,367) (8,798) (77,723) (193,043)
2024 (75,926) (1,536) (9,887) (87,349) (216,952)
2025 (84,628) (1,712) (11,021) (97,361) (241,818)
2026 (93,678) (1,896) (12,199) (107,773) (267,680)
2027 (103,090) (2,086) (13,425) (118,601) (294,572)
2028 (112,878) (2,284) (14,699) (129,861) (322,541)
2029 (123,058) (2,490) (16,025) (141,573) (351,631)
2030 (133,646) (2,704) (17,404) (153,754) (381,885)
2031 (144,657) (2,927) (18,838) (166,422) (413,346)
2032 (156,108) (3,159) (20,329) (179,596) (446,068)
2033 (168,017) (3,400) (21,880) (193,297) (480,097)
2034 (180,403) (3,650) (23,493) (207,546) (515,490)
2035 (193,284) (3,911) (25,170) (222,365) (552,295)
2036 (206,680) (4,182) (26,915) (237,777) (590,576)
2037 (220,612) (4,464) (28,729) (253,805) (630,385)
2038 (235,102) (4,757) (30,616) (270,475) (671,788)
2039 (250,170) (5,062) (32,578) (287,810) (714,843)
2040 (252,817) (5,116) (32,923) (290,856) (722,408)
Total (3,066,470) (62,047) (399,330) (3,527,847) (8,762,232)
Source: ECONorthwest. Please refer to the explanation of the schools funding in the preceding
section
Report Accompanying the La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 3]
Table 14 shows the impact of the first year of tax increment funds projected to be received in 2016 on
the 2014/15 permanent rate levy of the taxing jurisdiction. The impact should be less than this chart
shows because the permanent rate levy usually increases each year, so the 2016 permanent rate levy
would be higher than the 2014 levy depicted.
Table 14 -Percent of Permanent Rate Levy
Jurisdiction
Deschutes County
County Library
Countywide Law Enforcement
Rural Law Enforcement
County Extension 4H
911
City of La Pine
La Pine Rural Fire District
La Pine Parks and Rec
School District #1
High Desert ESD
Central Oregon Communi
2013/14 levy
23,747,378
10,143,587
17,520,004
8,381,815
414,250
2,984,946
241,294
1,797,468
212,002
60,640,139
1,720,682
11,070,002
2016 tax
increment
revenue
4652
2002
3457
5095
82
589
7024
5603
1092
17,338
351
2258
percentage of
permanent rate
levy
0.02%
0.02%
0.02%
0.06%
0.02%
0.02%
2.91%
0.31%
0.52%
0.03%
0.02%
0.02%
Source: Deschutes County Assessor records
Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 32
•
Table 15 shows the projected increased revenue to the taxing jurisdictions after tax increment
proceeds are projected to be terminated. These projections are for FY 2041/42.
Table 15 -Additional Revenues Obtained after Termination of Tax Increment Financing
From Frozen From Expiration
Jurisdiction Base ofURA
Deschutes County $ 1.2783 $ 38,000 $ 75,704 $ 113,704
County Library $ 0.5500 $ 16,350 $ 32,572 $ 48,922
Countywide Law Enforcement $ 0.9500 $ 28,241 $ 56,261 $ 84,502
Rural Law Enforcement $ 1.4000 $ 41,618 $ 82,911 $ 124,529
County Extension 4H $ 0.0224 $ 666 $ 1,327 $ 1,993
911 $ 0.1618 $ 4,810 $ 9,582 $ 14,392
City of La Pine $ 1.9300 $ 57,374 $ 114,299 $ 171,673
La Pine Rural Fire District $ 1.5397 $ 45,771 $ 91,185 $ 136,956
La Pine Parks and Rec $ 0.3000 $ 8,918 $ 17,767 $ 26,685
School District #1 $ 4.7641 $ 141,624 $ 282,141 $ 423,765
High Desert ESO $ 0.0964 $ 2,866 $ 5,709 $ 8,575
Central Oregon Community College $ 0.6204 $ 18,443 $ 36,741 $ 55,184
Source: ECONorthwest
33Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan
COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY LIMITS ON ASSESSED VALUE AND
SIZE OF URBAN RENEWAL AREA
State law limits the percentage of both a municipality's total assessed value and the total land area
that can be contained in an urban renewal area at the time of its establishment to 25% for
municipalities under 50,000 in population. As noted below, the frozen base, including all real,
personal, personal manufactured, and utility properties in the Area, is projected to be $28,945,892.
The total assessed value of the City of La Pine is $124,771,675. This is 23.20% of the total
assessed value, below the 25% maximum. The Urban Renewal Area has 577.13 acres,
including right-of-way, and the City of La Pine has 4,474.33 acres; therefore 12.90% of the
City's acreage is in an urban renewal area, below the 25% state limit. It should be noted that
over 300 of these acres are the BLM parcel for a future Rodeo/Event site.
Table 16 -Urban Renewal Area Conformance with Assessed Value and Acreage Limits
-
Source: City of La Pine, Deschutes County Assessor
IRELOCATION REPORT
-~---~ ---------~ --
AssessedUrban Renewal Area AcresValue
La Pine Urban Renewal Area $28,945,892 577.13
City of La Pine $124,771,675 4,474.33
Percent of La Pine Assessed Value in Urban Renewal 23.20%
Percent of La Pine Acreage in Urban Renewal 12.90%
There is no relocation report required for the Plan. No relocation activities are anticipated .
Report Accompanying La Pine Urban Renewal Plan 34
Snapshot of Central Oregon
Urban Renewal Districts
S140,OOO,OOO
S120,OOO,OOO
S100,OOO,OOO
$BO,OOO,OOO
$60,000,000
$40,000,000
$0
Maximum Indebtedness (MI) of Central Oregon
Urban Renewal Districts
$120,717,081
S52,600,000
541.250,000
521,000,000 S24.675 ,196
S14,OOO,000
$9,889,19956,690,000 S7,017,000
Culver La Pine Sisters Madras Bend Redmond Bend Bend Redmond
Downtown Airport Juniper Murphy Downtown
(Closed) (Closed) Ridge Crossing
Urban Renewal Districts Across Oregon
City Population MI
Brookings 6,465
Coquille 4,165
-==-=-Depot Bay 1,405
Florence 9,410
Garibaldi 895
Keizer 36,150
Lincoln City
----"-
7,875
North Plains 1,905
Oregon City 30,405
Pheonix---4,855
Roseburg 2:1 235
Seaside 6,445
Sherwood 16,420
Tillamook 4,700
Tualatin 26,040
Waldport 2,145
Yachats 780
$15,825,000
$11,000,000
$19,430,000
$25,900,000
---.
$11,040,070
$45,890,384
$23,000,000
$17,112,000
$130,000,000
$14,600,000
$77,250,133
$13,100,000
$35,347,600
$12,228,000
$64,131,722
$16,600,00
$7,824,600
Proposed Types of Projects to be Completed
Using La Pine Urban Renewal Funds
Public Facilities/Infrastructure: $1,778,200
• Assist in redevelopment of public facilities that provide vital services:
Fire Station and Medical Facilities
• Assist in development of gathering spaces for the community, including
parks and the proposed Rodeo/Events Site
Storefront Loans: $406,700
• Work with business owners to improve the overall appearance of the
exteriors of their properties
• Assist in signage updates to strengthen aesthetic appeal
Planning and Development Assistance: $2,443,900
• Empower business owners and encourage/support business expansion
through public/private partnerships: examples include a movie theater,
retail stores, brewery and incubator buildings for food, retail and small
business
• Assist in development of mixed-use areas and foster opportunities for
new businesses within La Pine
District Identity/Transportation: $1,617,000
• Form gateway features of Town Center and improve
aesthetic/transportation features within La Pine: sidewalks,
streetscapes, walkways, and bike paths
• Establish an identity that promotes a sense of La Pine's character,
providing a community for existing businesses and residents, and
inviting visitors to bring additional commerce to La Pine
Parking: $341,100
• Assess, update, and/or establish parking to support the business
district as well as various gathering spaces
• Create accessibility for visitors to La Pine, including adequate space for
motor home visitors
Administration: $331,065
• Preparation, development, adoption, and administrative
implementation for the lifetime of the La Pine Urban Renewal Plan
• Facilitate public involvement at various stages of La Pine Urban
Renewal
Financing Fees: $65,000
• Necessary to procure the combination of funds that support the La Pine
Urban Renewal Plan
Repay Initial Planning Costs: $33,800
• Reimburse the City of La Pine for the planning costs required to create
the Urban Renewal District
POWELL BUTTE HIGHWAY/NEFF ROAD INTERSECTION
Refined Alternatives Evaluation
Date: May 8, 2014 Project #: 13963.4
To: Chris Doty, PE and George Kolb, Deschutes County
From: Casey Bergh, PE; Joe Bessman, PE; and, Hermanus Steyn, PE
PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND
Four intersection improvement alternatives were developed to reduce crash frequency and severity
at the Powell Butte Highway/Neff Road/Alfalfa Market Road intersection. The alternatives and
qualitative evaluations were outlined in the December 30, 2013 memorandum. The qualitative
evaluations indicate the roundabout could achieve project safety objectives better than other
alternatives at similar cost to other alternatives. To confirm the qualitative findings, the roundabout
concept was refined and the differences in cost and crash reduction between the roundabout and the
Offset “T” concept are quantified.
This memorandum describes the additional design elements incorporated into the refined
roundabout concepts. In the process of developing a refined roundabout concept, a second
roundabout concept was developed that shifts the center of the circle to the southwest to reduce
right-of-way impacts. Both of the refined roundabout concepts are feasible; the trade-offs of each
concept are identified to inform the public involvement process.
The refined roundabout design concepts and the preliminary Offset “T” concept are provided in
Appendix “A.”
RURAL ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATIVE
Geometric design characteristics of roundabouts can be customized to meet the needs of various
roadway users. In rural areas, roundabouts can be designed to accommodate the transition from
high-speed approaches, rural farm equipment, and freight. The following sections outline the
characteristics incorporated into the refined roundabout concepts at Powell Butte Highway/Neff
Road, including: approach treatments, roundabout diameter, and signs/markings.
Approach Treatments
Similar to any at-grade intersection control (roundabout, signal, or all-way stop) that could be applied
on Powell Butte Highway, a roundabout will need to include appropriate advance warning to
motorists of the potential need to stop or otherwise respond to the traffic control device. These
Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road Intersection Review Project #: 13963
May 8, 2014 Page 2
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Bend, Oregon
treatments will be essential to promote driver compliance and expectation along this rural high-speed
facility, and will contribute to the improvement costs.
Typical speed-reduction treatments at rural roundabouts include a series of curves approaching the
roundabout with decreasing radii that encourage drivers to progressively reduce their speeds. These
treatments are supplemented with a change in the roadway character through treatments including
illumination, striping, signing, or other cross-sectional treatments (i.e., raised medians) that highlight
the changing roadway character. Additionally, at roundabouts in a high-speed rural environment
increasing the visibility of the central island is important to avoid single-vehicle crashes.
The two refined roundabout alternatives include splitter islands on each approach that provide
advanced warning of the roundabout and promote deceleration. The length of the splitter islands and
lane marking taper is established to provide comfortable deceleration distance on the south and west
approaches. On the east and north approaches the splitter island is extended such that a driver can
see the nose of the splitter island in advance of the horizontal or vertical curves.
Successive horizontal curvature on the north and south approaches has been intentionally added
within the concepts to reduce speeds in advance of the roundabout entry radius. As described above,
these curves provide successively smaller radii as a vehicle approaches the roundabout to gradually
reduce speed. The splitter island provides physical reinforcement of the horizontal curvature.
Roundabout Diameter
The diameter of the roundabout influences the ability to accommodate a various sizes of vehicles and
control the circulatory speeds through the roundabout. Diameter is often influenced by right-of-way
and other physical features that constrain the roundabout location. The roundabout alternatives
developed for the Powell Butte Highway/Neff Road intersection include an inscribed circle diameter
(ICD - measured from the outer curb of the circulatory roadway) of 160 feet that can accommodate
the design vehicle (a WB-67 truck and trailer) and maintain an appropriate circulatory speed of
approximately 25 miles per hour. For reference, the roundabout at the intersection of Reed Market
Road and Bond Street has a 160-foot ICD.
Typical ICD for single-lane roundabouts in urban areas are between 120 and 140 feet. NCHRP Report
672 – Roundabouts: An Information Guide, Second Edition indicates that an ICD between 130 and 150
feet can typically accommodate a WB-67 design vehicle. (Reference 1) The use of this larger ICD at
the Powell Butte Highway/Neff Road intersection is recommended to accommodate other farm
equipment and facilitate travel for the design vehicle. Other accommodations may also be
appropriate at this rural location, such as increasing sign setback distance for wide vehicles.
KAI utilized AutoTurn software to simulate the path of the identified design vehicle, which is a typical
highway truck and trailer (WB-67). This design vehicle was reviewed making all possible movements
at the intersection. Both roundabout concepts were sized with truck aprons and corner radii to
Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road Intersection Review Project #: 13963
May 8, 2014 Page 3
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Bend, Oregon
accommodate this design vehicle. The truck apron, provided in both concepts, is mountable to allow
the trailer to overtrack. Appendix “B” includes truck turning path figures.
Safety
Roundabouts have proven to be an effective intersection treatment for improving safety –
particularly for reducing severe injury and fatal crashes. The potential to reduce crashes is evaluated
qualitatively in terms of the number of conflict points and quantitative ly with crash prediction
estimates that are based on national studies of other similar treatments.
Conflict Points
A comparison of intersection conflict points indicates that relative to the existing stop -controlled
intersection, the roundabout alternative will reduce conflict points. Excluding pedestrian conflicts
within a rural environment, a standard 4-legged intersection has 32 conflict points associated with
crossing, merging, and diverging movements. The roundabout alternative has 8 conflict points, as
shown in Exhibit 1.
Exhibit 1: Conflict Points at Four-Legged Intersections (Reference 1)
Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road Intersection Review Project #: 13963
May 8, 2014 Page 4
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Bend, Oregon
Crash Prediction
Research conducted in 2012 by Isebrands is summarized in A Statistical Analysis and Development of
a Crash Prediction Model for Roundabouts on High-Speed Rural Roadways (Reference 2). The study
includes a comprehensive look at single lane and multilane rural roundabouts with high speed
approaches in multiple states. The study conducted a before-and-after crash analysis of 19
intersections that showed statistically-significant reductions for all crashes and injury crashes when
roundabouts were implemented. Of particular importance to the Powell Butte Highway/Neff Road
intersection, results showed that injury-producing crash types, such as angle crashes, were reduced
by 91%. The study developed Crash Modification Factors (CMFs), supplementing those in National
Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 572: Roundabouts in the United States
(Reference 3).
Annual crash predictions were prepared to estimate the change in crashes expected with the
conversion from the existing stop-controlled intersection to a roundabout using the crash prediction
method from the Highway Safety Manual (HSM, Reference 4). The reduction in crash frequency is
based on CMFs developed for high-speed rural roads by Isebrands.
Table 1 provides a summary of the expected crash reduction associated with the roundabout
alternative.
Table 1: Crash Prediction Estimates for Conversion from Two-way Stop Control to Roundabout Control
Intersection
No-Build Roundabout Crashes Reduced Percent Reduction
Fatal
and
Injury
Crashes
All
Crashes
Fatal and
Injury
Crashes All Crashes
Fatal and
Injury
Crashes All Crashes
Fatal and
Injury
Crashes All Crashes
Annual 0.9 2.1 0.1 0.6 0.8 1.3
89% 74%
5-year Total 4.5 10.5 0.5 2.7 4.0 6.5
Cost
The conceptual cost estimates are broken into general items using planning-level unit prices. The cost
estimates include an itemized breakdown of major earthwork, pavement structure, and other
identifiable major components, (i.e. signing and pavement marking, street lighting). Groups of items
(such as traffic control) are lumped together and the estimates provided are based on similar work for
other projects. Planning-level cost estimates for the two roundabout alternatives were prepared
based on estimated quantities. Assumed unit costs and estimated quantities are provided in
Appendix C. The following factors have the greatest influence on the roundabout costs:
Assume 3 foot excavation and 2 foot embankment for all new roadway
Assume all new pavement starting at splitter island nose (includes base plus 8-inch pavement)
Splitter islands are 8 to 10 feet wide
No sidewalk and no curb on outside of roadway
Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road Intersection Review Project #: 13963
May 8, 2014 Page 5
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Bend, Oregon
Right-of-way acquisition cost of $5/square foot
Construction cost includes 10% mobilization, 5% erosion control, and 5% traffic control
Based on these assumptions, the preliminary construction cost and project cost estimates are
summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. Preliminary Construction Cost Estimates for Refined Roundabout Alternatives
Performance Measure
Roundabout
Alternative A
Roundabout
Alternative B
Construction Cost
excluding contingency
including 30% contingency
$1,459,000
$1,896,000
$1,621,000
$2,107,000
Professional Fees (25%) $474,000 $527,000
Right of Way $139,000 $66,000
Project Cost (including contingency) $2,509,000 $2,700,000
OFFSET “T” ALTERNATIVE
Qualitative assessment of the Offset “T” intersection indicated it would have similar cost to a
roundabout, but not reduce the crash potential as much as a roundabout, as documented in the
previous memorandum. Additional evaluation of this alternative was completed to determine how it
compares to the refined roundabout alternatives.
The geometry and traffic control of this alternative provides several benefits, including:
Maintains free-flow movements for the highest-volume through movements on Powell Butte
Highway.
Existing alignment is maintained on Powell Butte Highway resulting in no substantial change
for heavy vehicle through travel.
Approach treatments on Powell Butte Highway for the roundabout alternative will similarly be
used to reduce speeds between 45 and 55 mph and increase driver awareness of
turning/crossing traffic.
Realignment of Neff Road and Alfalfa Road impacts adjacent properties in the undeveloped
northeast and southwest intersection quadrants.
Provides a left-turn lane on Powell Butte Highway to separate through and turning traffic,
reducing the potential for rear-end crashes on the major street approaches.
Safety
Converting one 4-leg stop-controlled intersection to two offset “T” intersections has been promoted
in urban areas by Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The potential to reduce crashes in the
Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road Intersection Review Project #: 13963
May 8, 2014 Page 6
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Bend, Oregon
rural area at the study intersection was similarly evaluated in qualitative terms of the number of
conflict points and a quantitatively based on crash prediction estimates.
Conflict Points
A comparison of intersection conflict points indicates that relative to the existing stop -controlled
intersection, the Offset “T” alternative will reduce the number of conflict points from 32 to 18, as
shown in Exhibit 2.
Exhibit 2: Conflict Points at Offset “T” Intersection (Reference 5)
Crash Prediction
Annual crash predictions were prepared to estimate the change in crashes expected with the
conversion from the existing stop-controlled intersection to an Offset “T” using the crash prediction
method from the HSM. The reduction in crash frequency is based on a CMF provided in the HSM for
urban areas because no empirical studies have been documented in rural areas. There are no
geometric and roadway characteristics in rural areas that are expected to further reduce crash
frequency at a rural Offset “T” intersection relative to an urban offset “T.”
Table 3 provides a summary of the expected crash reduction associated with the conversion to an
Offset “T” alternative.
Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road Intersection Review Project #: 13963
May 8, 2014 Page 7
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Bend, Oregon
Table 3: Crash Prediction Estimates for Conversion from Two-way Stop Control to Offset “T”
Intersection
No-Build Offset “T” Crashes Reduced Percent
Reduction*
Fatal
and
Injury
All
Crashes
Fatal
and
Injury
All Crashes
Fatal
and
Injury
All Crashes
Fatal
and
Injury
All
Crashes
Annual 0.9 2.1 0.7 1.9 0.2 0.2 25% 10% 5-year Total 4.5 10.5 3.4 9.4 1.1 1.1
* Based on the best-available CMF that was developed for urban areas
Cost
A planning-level cost estimate for the Offset “T” alternative was prepared based on estimated
quantities, consistent with assumptions for the roundabout alternatives. Assumed unit costs and
estimated quantities are provided in Appendix C. The following factors have the greatest influence on
the Offset “T” costs:
Assume 3 foot excavation and 2 foot embankment for all new roadway,
Assume all new pavement from beginning of widening for turn lanes (includes base plus 8-
inch pavement)
Right-of-way acquisition cost of $5/square foot
Construction cost includes 10% mobilization, 5% erosion control, and 5% traffic control
Based on these assumptions, the preliminary construction cost estimate for the Offset “T” alternative
is summarized in Table 4.
Table 4. Preliminary Construction Cost Estimates for Offset “T” Alternative
Performance Measure Offset “T”
Construction Cost
excluding contingency
including 30% contingency
$1,550,000
$2,015,000
Professional Fees (25%) $504,000
Right of Way $363,000
Project Cost (including contingency) $2,882,000
COMPARISON SUMMARY
As summarized in the previous sections the roundabout alternative varies from the Offset “T” in
terms of the crash reduction potential and construction cost. Table 5 includes direct comparisons of
construction cost and safety for the roundabout and the Offset “T” alternatives.
Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road Intersection Review Project #: 13963
May 8, 2014 Page 8
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Bend, Oregon
Table 5. Quantitative Alternative Comparison
Performance Measure
Roundabout
Alternative A
Roundabout
Alternative B Offset “T”
Conflict Points 8 16
Percent Crash Reduction
Fatal and Injury Crashes
Total Crashes
89%
74%
25%
10%
Project Cost $2,509,000 $2,700,000 $2,882,000
As shown in Table 3, a roundabout is estimated to cost less than the Offset “T” alternative. Among
the roundabout alternatives, Alternative A is expected to cost approximately 10 percent less than
Alternative B, but Alternative B has less right-of-way impact.
Given the primary purpose and need of this evaluation is to reduce crash potential, KAI prefers the
roundabout alternatives over the Offset “T” alternative. We recommend obtaining public input to
identify a preferred roundabout alternative.
REFERENCES
1. NCHRP Report 672 - Roundabouts: An Informational Guide – Second Edition. Transportation
Research Board. Washington, DC. 2010.
2. Isebrand, H. "A Statistical Analysis and Development of a Crash Prediction Model for
Roundabouts on High-Speed Rural Roadways." Presented at the 91st Annual Meeting of the
Transportation Research Board Paper No. 12-4191, Washington, D.C., (2012). Earlier study:
Isebrands, H. "Crash Analysis of Roundabouts at High-speed Rural Intersections." TRB 88th
Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers CD-ROM. Washington, D.C., (2009).
3. NCHRP Report 572: Roundabouts in the United States. Transportation Research Board.
Washington, DC. 2007.
4. Highway Safety Manual. American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials.
2010.
5. Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide. Federal Highway Administration. McLean, VA.
2004.
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Preliminary Design Alternatives
Appendix B: Roundabout Design Vehicle Paths
Appendix C: Cost Estimates
Appendix A Preliminary Design
Alternatives
Appendix B Roundabout Design Vehicle
Paths
Appendix C Cost Estimates
Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total
Excavation (Cut) cu. yd. 12,442 $15.00 $186,633
Embankment (Fill) cu. yd. 8,295 $10.00 $82,948
Pavement Rehabilitation sq. ft. $4.00 $0
New Pavement sq. ft. 75,956 $3.00 $227,868
Concrete Roundabout Upgrade sq. ft. 37,800 $3.50 $132,300
New Curb lin. ft. 5,767 $15.00 $86,505
Concrete Median sq. ft. 36,024 $5.00 $180,120
Pavement markings lin. ft. 18,375 $0.50 $9,188
Signage each 25 $500.00 $12,500
Pavement Removal sq. ft. 7,150 $2.00 $14,300
Subtotal A (Roadworks) $932,361
Storm Drainage System % of Subtotal A 5% $46,618
Landscape Improvement % of Subtotal A 5% $46,618
Street Lighting each 20 $7,000.00 $140,000
Private Utility Coordination Lump/Sum 1 TBD $50,000
New Traffic Signal each $250,000.00 $0
Traffic Signal Modification each $100,000.00 $0
Retaining Walls (less than 5 feet) sq. ft. $50.00 $0
High Retaining Walls sq. ft. $110.00 $0
Structures sq. ft. $150.00 $0
Railroad Crossing & Signalization each $750,000.00 $0
Subtotal B (Other) $283,236
$1,215,597
Mobilization % of Subtotal 1 10% $121,560
Erosion Control % of Subtotal 1 5% $60,780
Traffic Control % of Subtotal 1 5% $60,780
$243,119
$1,458,717
Plus Contingencies % of Total 30% $437,615
Estimated Construction Cost $1,896,332
Architectural/Engineering % of Est. Cost 15% $284,450
Construction Management % of Est. Cost 10% $189,633
$474,083
Right-of-Way sq. ft. 27,800 $5.00 $139,000
$139,000
Estimated Project Cost $2,509,415
Estimated Professional Fees
Estimated Property Acquisition Cost
POWELL BUTTE HWY/NEFF RD/ALFALFA MKT RD - RDBT ALT A
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST
Proposed Road Improvements
Subtotal 1 (Subtotals A + B)
Subtotal 2 (Mobilization & Traffic Control)
Total (Subtotals 1 + 2)
KAI Confidential 5/8/2014 Page 1
Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total
Excavation (Cut) cu. yd. 14,972 $15.00 $224,580
Embankment (Fill) cu. yd. 9,981 $10.00 $99,813
Pavement Rehabilitation sq. ft. $4.00 $0
New Pavement sq. ft. 91,400 $3.00 $274,200
Concrete Roundabout Upgrade sq. ft. 37,800 $3.50 $132,300
New Curb lin. ft. 5,782 $15.00 $86,730
Concrete Median sq. ft. 40,357 $5.00 $201,785
Pavement markings lin. ft. 18,375 $0.50 $9,188
Signage each 25 $500.00 $12,500
Pavement Removal sq. ft. 7,150 $2.00 $14,300
Subtotal A (Roadworks) $1,055,396
Storm Drainage System % of Subtotal A 5% $52,770
Landscape Improvement % of Subtotal A 5% $52,770
Street Lighting each 20 $7,000.00 $140,000
Private Utility Coordination Lump/Sum 1 TBD $50,000
New Traffic Signal each $250,000.00 $0
Traffic Signal Modification each $100,000.00 $0
Retaining Walls (less than 5 feet) sq. ft. $50.00 $0
High Retaining Walls sq. ft. $110.00 $0
Structures sq. ft. $150.00 $0
Railroad Crossing & Signalization each $750,000.00 $0
Subtotal B (Other) $295,540
$1,350,935
Mobilization % of Subtotal 1 10% $135,094
Erosion Control % of Subtotal 1 5% $67,547
Traffic Control % of Subtotal 1 5% $67,547
$270,187
$1,621,123
Plus Contingencies % of Total 30% $486,337
Estimated Construction Cost $2,107,459
Architectural/Engineering % of Est. Cost 15% $316,119
Construction Management % of Est. Cost 10% $210,746
$526,865
Right-of-Way sq. ft. 13,250 $5.00 $66,250
$66,250
Estimated Project Cost $2,700,574
POWELL BUTTE HWY/NEFF RD/ALFALFA MKT RD - RDBT ALT B
Estimated Property Acquisition Cost
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST
Proposed Road Improvements
Subtotal 1 (Subtotals A + B)
Estimated Professional Fees
Subtotal 2 (Mobilization & Traffic Control)
Total (Subtotals 1 + 2)
KAI Confidential 5/8/2014 Page 1
Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total
Excavation (Cut) cu. yd. 22,167 $15.00 $332,500
Embankment (Fill) cu. yd. 14,778 $10.00 $147,778
Pavement Rehabilitation sq. ft. $4.00 $0
New Pavement sq. ft. 117,000 $3.00 $351,000
New Curb lin. ft. 2,500 $15.00 $37,500
Concrete Median sq. ft. 11,600 $5.00 $58,000
Pavement markings lin. ft. 16,538 $0.50 $8,269
Signage each 18 $500.00 $9,000
Pavement Removal sq. ft. 28,800 $2.00 $57,600
Subtotal A (Roadworks) $1,001,647
Storm Drainage System % of Subtotal A 5% $50,082
Landscape Improvement % of Subtotal A 5% $50,082
Street Lighting each 20 $7,000.00 $140,000
Private Utility Coordination Lump/Sum 1 TBD $50,000
New Traffic Signal each $250,000.00 $0
Traffic Signal Modification each $100,000.00 $0
Retaining Walls (less than 5 feet) sq. ft. $50.00 $0
High Retaining Walls sq. ft. $110.00 $0
Structures sq. ft. $150.00 $0
Railroad Crossing & Signalization each $750,000.00 $0
Subtotal B (Other) $290,165
$1,291,811
Mobilization % of Subtotal 1 10% $129,181
Erosion Control % of Subtotal 1 5% $64,591
Traffic Control % of Subtotal 1 5% $64,591
$258,362
$1,550,173
Plus Contingencies % of Total 30% $465,052
Estimated Construction Cost $2,015,225
Architectural/Engineering % of Est. Cost 15% $302,284
Construction Management % of Est. Cost 10% $201,523
$503,806
Right-of-Way sq. ft. 72,688 $5.00 $363,438
$363,438
Estimated Project Cost $2,882,469
Estimated Professional Fees
Estimated Property Acquisition Cost
POWELL BUTTE HWY/NEFF RD/ALFALFA MKT RD - OFFSET "T"
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST
Proposed Road Improvements
Subtotal 1 (Subtotals A + B)
Subtotal 2 (Mobilization & Traffic Control)
Total (Subtotals 1 + 2)
KAI Confidential 5/8/2014 Page 1
POWELL BUTTE HIGHWAY/NEFF ROAD INTERSECTION
Interim Report: Existing Conditions, Needs, and Alternatives Review
Date: December 30, 2013 Project #: 13963.0
To: Chris Doty PE and George Kolb, Deschutes County
From: Joe Bessman PE, Casey Bergh PE, Hermanus Steyn PE, and Brett Korporaal
PROJECT PURPOSE
County staff identified the need for safety improvements at the Powell Butte Highway intersection
with Neff Road to address an increasing number of crashes. County staff have previously
implemented low-cost treatments to improve visibility and driver awareness, and identified this
intersection as a high priority location both in the County Transportation System Plan and in the
Capital Improvement Plan. The rural area, high-speed approaches, and angle crash type contributes
to the severity of crashes.
The Deschutes County Transportation System Plan has previously identified this intersection as a
future single-lane rural roundabout based on the roadway types and safety issues that were
identified. The purpose of this analysis is to further explore a range of potential improvement options
(to include low-cost interim treatments) and better identify right-of-way needs and construction costs
for a final recommended alternative.
This Interim Technical Memorandum provides information on the existing traffic conditions. This
includes a review of historical safety, operations, and field observations. Based on the issues
identified, this memorandum identifies key project needs, also identifies potential improvement
alternatives to address this need. This memorandum provides a qualitative screening of the potential
improvement options, and presents a recommendation that the County continue to refine the
roundabout concept.
BACKGROUND
The Powell Butte Highway provides a connection from US 20 to OR 126 serving a mix of commuters
(between Bend and Prineville), rural residential property owners, commercial traffic (rural farms and
the Bend Municipal Airport), and tourists (Brasada Ranch and Pronghorn). This section of the Powell
Butte Highway is under the jurisdiction of Deschutes County, and has a posted speed of 55 miles per
hour.
Neff Road (west of Powell Butte Highway) serves as a connection to the east side of Bend, connecting
to St. Charles hospital and ultimately to 3rd Street (Business 97). Neff Road becomes Alfalfa Market
Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road Intersection Review Project #: 13963
December 30, 2013 Page 2
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Bend, Oregon
Road on the east side of the Powell Butte Highway, connecting to rural communities, farms, and the
Prineville Reservoir boat launch (seasonal).
East-west traffic at the intersection is controlled by stop signs, with uncontrolled north -south
movements on the Powell Butte Highway. An overhead flashing beacon was installed in 2011,
supplementing the stop-signs for east-west travelers and providing an intersection warning for
motorists on the Powell Butte Highway. Intersection Ahead signs are present around the curves on
the Powell Butte Highway, and are supplemented with LED lights on the sign border that blink as
motorists approach the intersection.
Exhibit 1. Powell Butte Highway/Neff Road layout and control.
The physical intersection layout includes both horizontal and vertical curvature. The east-west
approaches intersect the Powell Butte Highway on a horizontal curve, limiting sight distance for
stopped east-west vehicles of oncoming motorists. A vertical curve is present on the eastern
(westbound) approach, limiting visibility to the intersection on the approach. Stop Ahead signage has
been installed at the crest of the curve to improve awareness for approaching motorists.
NE
F
F
R
D
AL
F
A
L
F
A
M
K
T
R
D
Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road Intersection Review Project #: 13963
December 30, 2013 Page 3
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Bend, Oregon
EXISTING CONDITIONS
KAI conducted field reviews, evaluated historic crash data to identify trends, collected traffic count
information and speed data, and conducted intersection operations analysis at the Powell Butte
Highway/Neff Road-Alfalfa Market Road intersection. The existing conditions analysis is intended to
inform the overall intersection needs and support the selection of treatment alternatives.
Data Collection
Information was collected around the intersection to better understand the traffic flows and
characteristics. Turning movement counts, average daily traffic volumes, vehicle speed, and vehicle
classification data was obtained during the final week of October and the first week of November
2013.
Automated tube counts were conducted over a 48-hour period on Tuesday, October 29, 2013 and
Wednesday, October 30, 2013. The tube count data was used to identify the daily travel patterns and
peaking characteristics of the intersection. Tube count locations were roughly 1,000 feet west of
Powell Butte Highway on Neff Road and 1,000 feet south of Neff Road on Powell Butte Highway.
Exhibit 2. Two-way roadway volume profiles.
Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road Intersection Review Project #: 13963
December 30, 2013 Page 4
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Bend, Oregon
As illustrated in Exhibit 2, the volume profile indicates that traffic flows peak twice per day (during the
morning and evening commute periods), and traffic on the Powell Butte Highway is two to three
times higher than Neff Road.
Vehicle classification data was obtained from the tube counts to identify the fleet mix passing through
the intersection. Vehicles are classified from the tube counts based on the number and spacing of
tires and axles. A simplified summary of the classification data is provided in Table 1.
Table 1. Vehicle Classification Data
Roadway
Class 1
(Motorcycles)
Classes 2, 3,
and 4
(Passenger
cars and
buses)
Classes 5, 6,
and 7
(Delivery
Trucks)
Class 8+
(Tractor
Trailers) Not Classed
Powell Butte Hwy 0.4% 83.8% 11.5% 2.8% 1.5%
Neff Road 0.1% 88.0% 9.3% 1.9% 0.7%
As shown, the fleet mix is largely comprised of passenger cars and delivery trucks. Only about 2 to 3
percent of the vehicles using the Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road are tractor trailers.
The profile of recorded speeds on the intersection approaches are shown in Exhibit 3. Most people
are traveling near the posted speed limit of 55 miles per hour, though upper travel speeds were
recorded above 76 miles per hour.
Exhibit 3. Powell Butte Highway speed profile.
Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road Intersection Review Project #: 13963
December 30, 2013 Page 5
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Bend, Oregon
The 85th percentile speed is the travel speed at which 85 percent of the vehicles are traveling at or
below. This metric is used in Oregon to establish the posted roadway speeds. Vehicle speeds along
the Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road are summarized in Table 2. It should be noted that the
location of the tube counts near the intersection (where motorists may be decelerating to turn or
slowing out of caution) may have an influence on speeds.
Table 2. Summary of Directional Travel Speed
Roadway Direction 85th Percentile Speed
Powell Butte Highway NB 56 mph
SB 54 mph
Neff Road EB 49 mph
WB 48 mph
Note: Speed calculations reflect the average over the two-day study period.
The intersection was also videotaped throughout the day, and the individual turning movement
counts were obtained from the videotapes during the peak periods identified from the tube counts
(6:45 a.m. to 8:45 a.m. and 4:10 p.m. to 6:10 p.m.). Exhibits 4 and 5 identify the weekday a.m. and
p.m. peak hour turning volume. Appendix “A” contains the data collection worksheets and summaries.
Exhibit 4. Weekday AM Peak Hour Turning
Volume
Exhibit 5. Weekday AM Peak Hour Turning
Volume
Field Review
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. and Deschutes County staff conducted a field visit to observe existing
operations, geometry, and driver behavior during the weekday afternoon peak hour and morning
peak hour in October 2013. Appendix “B” contains the photos at each approach of the intersection
Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road Intersection Review Project #: 13963
December 30, 2013 Page 6
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Bend, Oregon
obtained during the field visit. The following observations were recorded that appear to influence
safety and operations at the intersection:
Horizontal and vertical curvature on the northern approach limits sight distance (See Exhibit
6).
An overhead beacon has been installed at the intersection to warn drivers of the intersection.
Advanced intersection ahead warning signs with Light Emitting Diode (LED) borders are
installed on the northbound and southbound approaches.
A crest vertical curve on the eastern approach, approximately 250 feet east of intersection,
limits sight distance for westbound drivers. A STOP AHEAD warning sign with LED borders is
located on the approach near the crest of the vertical curve.
Some eastbound through drivers were observed aligning their vehicles at a 90-degree angle to
Powell Butte Highway. Drivers are able to increase sight distance by orienting their vehicle in
this manner.
The super-elevation on Powell Butte Highway allows northbound and southbound vehicles to
travel at or above posted speed through the intersection.
Exhibit 6: Eastbound Approach at Powell Butte Highway Looking North
Limited view to north
Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road Intersection Review Project #: 13963
December 30, 2013 Page 7
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Bend, Oregon
Sight Distance Review
A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 6th Edition, published by the American
Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO), provides guidance on minimum sight
distance. A comparison of the AASHTO-computed intersection sight distance (ISD), AASHTO stopping
sight distance (SSD), and available sight distance for vehicles on the stop-controlled eastbound and
westbound approaches is summarized in Table 3. The values in the table are based on the posted
speed.
Table 3. AASHTO Intersection Sight Distance Review
Vehicle
Movement
Design
Speed for
Passenger
Vehicle
AASHTO
Stopping
Sight
Distance1
AASHTO
Intersection
Sight
Distance2
Available
Intersection
Sight
Distance Adequate?
Eastbound Left-
Turn
55 mph 495 ft
610 ft 600 ft No
Eastbound Right-
Turn/Crossing 530 ft 550 ft Marginal
Westbound Left-
Turn 610 ft 650 ft Marginal
Westbound Right-
turn/Crossing 530 ft 630 ft Yes
Northbound Left-
turn 445 ft 560 ft Yes
Southbound left-
turn 445 ft 600 ft Yes
1 Based on AASHTO (6th Edition) Table 3-1, Stopping Sight Distance on Level Roadways.
2 Based on AASHTO (6th Edition) Table 9-6, Table 9-8, and Table 9-14.
As indicated in Table 3, available sight distance to the north exceeds the AASHTO-computed ISD by
approximately 20 feet for the eastbound right-turn/crossing movement. Available sight distance to
the south for the eastbound left-turn is 10-feet less than the AASHTO-computed ISD. When a vehicle
on Powell Butte Highway exceeds the posted speed, or a truck is turning or crossing at the
intersection, the available sight distance will not be adequate.
AASHTO-computed SSD is provided for all movements, indicating a vehicle on the uncontrolled
approach could stop if they see a vehicle turning or crossing in front of them at least 495 feet in
advance of the intersection. This assumes that drivers with the right-of-way adequately perceive the
conflict and begin braking within the two-second period considered typical.
Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road Intersection Review Project #: 13963
December 30, 2013 Page 8
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Bend, Oregon
Traffic Operations
Traffic counts were collected in late October so a seasonal adjustment factor of 1.07 was applied to
the through volumes on the Powell Butte Highway to reflect peak summer conditions. The seasonal
adjustment factor was calculated based on the methodology identified in ODOT’s Analysis Procedures
Manual (APM) and reflects seasonal variations on OR 126 near mile post 3.23 (approximately 0.35
miles west of the Deschutes-Crook County Line). Appendix “A” includes seasonal adjustment factor
calculations.
Intersection operations were based on Highway Capacity Manual 2000 methodology using Synchro 8
software. The existing traffic conditions are summarized in Exhibits 7 and 8. The intersection operates
with low delays at Level of Service “B” on the stop-sign controlled approaches during the a.m. and
p.m. peak-hours.
Exhibit 7. Existing seasonal
peak conditions, weekday AM
peak hour
Exhibit 8. Existing seasonal
peak conditions, weekday PM
peak hour
Historical Crash Analysis
Historical crash data was obtained from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) crash
database for the Powell Butte Highway/Neff Road-Alfalfa Market Road intersection. The crash data
includes crashes reported over a five-year period from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2012.
Appendix “C” contains the crash data, worksheets, summaries and the predictive crash analysis
output.
A total of 20 crashes were reported at or within the immediate vicinity of the intersection that
resulted in 19 total injuries. No fatalities were reported within the past five years that were reviewed.
The incidence of crashes has been increasing annually, as shown in Exhibit 9.
Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road Intersection Review Project #: 13963
December 30, 2013 Page 9
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Bend, Oregon
Exhibit 9. Crash frequency by year.
Table 4 summarizes the reported crash history between 2008 and 2012 at the Powell Butte
Highway/Neff Road intersection by crash type and severity. The majority of the reported crashes (75
percent) involve angle or turning movement crashes related to vehicles crossing or turning onto
Powell Butte Highway from the minor-street stop-controlled approaches. This crash type increased in
2012, despite the recent installation of the advance warning signs with flashing LED borders in mid-
June 2011.
Table 4. Powell Butte Highway/Neff Road Intersection Crash History (2008-2012)
Year
Collision Type Crash Severity
Total
Turning
Movement Angle
Fixed
Object Animal Other
Non-
Injury Injury Fatality
2008 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 2
2009 0 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 3
2010 2 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 3
2011 2 2 1 0 0 3 2 0 5
2012 1 5 0 1 1 3 4 0 7
Total 5 10 3 1 2 15 5 0 20
Crash trends were reviewed time of day, month of year, roadway surface, weather conditions, and
several other characteristics. Key findings of this review are summarized below:
75% of reported crashes occurred during daylight.
90% of crashes occurred with clear weather and dry road conditions.
Drugs and alcohol were not cited as a factor in any of the reported crashes.
The crashes involved a total of 35 passenger vehicles and 1 motorcycle .
4 crashes were single-vehicle collisions.
Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road Intersection Review Project #: 13963
December 30, 2013 Page 10
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Bend, Oregon
All 36 involved drivers had a valid license, and 30 were within 25 miles of their residence .
Teenagers were at fault in all 5 collisions they were involved in.
Beyond these trends, crash records state the crash causes were largely attributed to failure to yield
right-of-way or failure to stop (cited in 14 of the 20 crashes). Excessive speed was cited as a
contributing factor in only two of the crashes.
Prior to 2008, a fatal crash occurred at the study intersection, but data was not available to review
crash details.
Predictive Crash Analysis
Review of historical crash records provided an indication of past trends and potential geometric
issues. Crash prediction methods estimate the crashes that are statistically likely to occur over the
long term, for a given set of geometric and volume characteristics. This analysis reduces the potential
for statistical bias and provides a baseline crash prediction for use in identifying crash reduction
potential of various alternatives.
The predictive crash method for estimating average crash frequency for intersections on rural two-
lane, two-way roads, is found in Chapter 10 of the Highway Safety Manual (HSM). The crash
prediction models in the HSM are based on national studies and were calibrated to reflect Oregon-
specific conditions. The crash prediction method results in an estimate of expected average crash
frequency that reflects a statistical average of observed and predicted values to provide the most
statistically-rigorous long-term estimate. Based on the existing intersection characteristics, the crash
prediction method indicates we could expect 2.1 crashes per year in the future. As shown in Table 5,
over the past five years the observed crash frequency has been nearly double the expected value.
Comparing the observed crash frequency to the expected crash frequency provides an indication of
whether the study intersection is experiencing more crashes than expected at similar locations in
Oregon over the long term.
The expected crash frequency of 2.1 crashes per year will be used as the baseline crash frequency to
identify the change in crashes expected upon implementation of the proposed alternative.
Table 5. Expected and Observed Annual Crash Frequency
Crash Category
Fatal and
Injury
Property Damage
Only (PDO) Total
Expected Annual
Crash Frequency 0.9 1.2 2.1
Observed Annual
Crash Frequency 1.0 3.0 4.0
Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road Intersection Review Project #: 13963
December 30, 2013 Page 11
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Bend, Oregon
Summary of Intersection Needs
Based on this review of the intersection, improvements to the Powell Butte Highway intersection with
Neff Road should be focused primarily on safety. Improvement alternatives should consider changes
to the intersection geometry that improve driver awareness and visibility of oncoming vehicles, and
that can reduce both the number and severity of crashes.
INTERSECTION ALTERNATIVES
Based on the identified intersection needs, four intersection improvement alternatives were
developed. These improvements considered how the existing intersection control could be retained
with improved geometrics, or other types of control that would improve safety while still meeting the
long-term capacity needs. The following section summarizes the development and preliminary
evaluations of these alternatives based on future operations, safety, right-of-way impacts, and
construction costs.
Conceptual Design Development
Four intersection concepts were developed to reduce angle and turning crashes reported over the
study period and increase sight distance. Appendix “D” contains the conceptual designs for each of
the intersection alternatives. The concepts include various traffic control alternatives that consider
signalization, stop-control, or construction of a roundabout. Each of these alternatives would require
extensive treatments along the intersection approaches to further alert drivers of the intersection.
These approach treatments could consider cross-sectional changes, improvements to sight distance,
illumination, advance signing and striping, and a variety of treatments to increase driver awareness
and manage approach speeds. These treatments would extend approximately 500 or 600 feet from
the intersection to allow motorists on the Powell Butte Highway to react to vehicles entering or
exiting the highway.
For this preliminary evaluation the concepts were developed in pencil sketch format over scaled
aerial imagery. These concepts represent reasonable dimensions and general right-of-way impacts to
appropriately assess the magnitude of impact from the layout. This high-level analysis provides a cost-
effective method of assessing treatment feasibility.
Minor-Street Realignment with Two-way Stop Control
Exhibit 10 illustrates the Realignment concept. Realignment of the Neff and Alfalfa Market
approaches to reduce the skew angle in combination with clearing vegetation will increase sight
distance and maintain free-flow movements for traffic on the Powell Butte Highway.
Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road Intersection Review Project #: 13963
December 30, 2013 Page 12
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Bend, Oregon
Exhibit 10. Minor-Street Realignment Concept.
As shown in Exhibit 10, alignment of the east-west roadways could be accomplished with approach
splitter islands, which would also help increase driver awareness.
The minor-street realignment concept is the lowest-cost alternative because it requires minimal right-
of-way impacts and the least amount of new pavement. Increasing sight distance is expected to
reduce crashes to a level consistent with other stop-controlled intersections, but the alternative does
not meet the key project goals of eliminating conflict points or reducing crash severity.
Signalized Intersection
A conceptual design of a signal at the study intersection is shown in Exhibit 11. This concept includes
realignment of the intersection approaches to provide perpendicular approach angles to increase
sight distance and reduce the conflict area. Turn lanes are shown primarily to reduce conflicts
between high-speed through and turning vehicles, but the additional lanes also reduce intersection
delays. As shown, this alternative requires right-of-way acquisition in the southeast and southwest
corners of the study intersection.
Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road Intersection Review Project #: 13963
December 30, 2013 Page 13
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Bend, Oregon
Exhibit 11. Signalized Intersection Concept.
A signal provides dedicated phases for minor-street traffic, which would have been effective in
addressing 70-percent of the reported crashes (e.g., “did not yield right-of-way” and “passed stop
sign or red flasher”). Empirical studies have found converting stop control to signal control may result
in a reduced number of angle and/or turning movement crashes, but the intersection may experience
an increase in rear-end crashes on Powell Butte Highway (Reference 1).
Traffic Signal Warrants were established to assess the tradeoffs made between safety, delays, and
installation capital costs. Traffic Signal Warrants are the minimum criteria by which a traffic signal
should be installed. Guidance provided in Chapter 4C of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD) indicates “A traffic control signal should not be installed unless one or more of the
factors described in this chapter are met.” Those factors that apply to the study intersection include
hourly, 4th highest hour, and 8th highest hour volume warrants and crash experience warrants.
Volume-based signal warrants are not currently met at the intersection for any of the volume-based
signal warrants. Traffic volumes would need to increase 30 to 50 percent to meet the minimum
volume-based signal warrant thresholds.
To meet crash warrants an intersection must have experienced at least 5 reportable crashes in a
single year that were susceptible to mitigation with signalization, and must meet the 80% volume
thresholds identified under Warrant 1. The condition also states that adequate trial of other crash
mitigation strategies must also have failed to improve safety.
Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road Intersection Review Project #: 13963
December 30, 2013 Page 14
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Bend, Oregon
To date, the County has incorporated advanced warning signs with LED borders and previously
installed an overhead flashing beacon. Despite these measures, the crashes have continued to
increase annually. There has been five reported crashes in a 12-month period susceptible to
mitigation with a traffic signal, but the 80% traffic volume thresholds are not met. As such, minimum
thresholds for the volume and crash experience signal warrants are not currently met, and are
unlikely to be met for several years.
Offset “T” with Two-way Stop Control
Exhibit 12. Offset “T” Intersection Concept.
Converting the existing stop-controlled intersection to two offset “T” intersections separates
movements and reduces the number of conflict points from 32 to 22. The concept shown in Exhibit 12
includes left-turn lanes and a median on Powell Butte Highway between the offset intersections. The
concept includes development of medians on Powell Butte Highway that extend 1,000 feet north and
south of the intersection. Extending a median provides advanced warning of a change in the roadway
environment and is intended to increase driver expectation of crossing traffic.
Research indicates an average crash reduction of 25 percent when converting a stop-controlled
intersection to two stop-controlled intersections in urban areas with minor street volume
representing 15 to 30 percent of the total entering volume (TEV). The minor street volume at the
study intersection ranges from 25 to 30 percent of the TEV throughout the day. While the study area
is not an urban environment, similar crash reductions are expected.
Vacated road/
local access
Vacated road
NE
F
F
R
D
New Intersection
New Intersection
Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road Intersection Review Project #: 13963
December 30, 2013 Page 15
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Bend, Oregon
The concept in Exhibit 12 includes an offset of 500 feet between the offset T-intersections, consistent
with County design practice. Options to reduce this offset distance may be possible to minimize right-
of-way impacts. While construction costs and ROW acquisition will be more costly than realigning the
minor-street approaches, the safety and operational benefits are expected to be greater. However,
while this concept could reduce the frequency of crashes, it is unlikely that it would reduce the
severity of the crashes that occur.
Roundabout
A single-lane roundabout concept was developed for the study intersection, as illustrated in Exhibit
13. This design is forecast to operate with very low delays on all approaches through the horizon year
2030.
Exhibit 13. Roundabout intersection concept.
The roundabout concept presented in this section represents a possible option for the roundabout
horizontal geometry. Roundabout design is based upon a set of fundamental principles outlined in
the NCHRP Report 672: Roundabouts: An Informational Guide – 2nd Edition (Reference 8). These
principles include: (1) achieving speed control at entry, (2) providing appropriate lane numbers and
arrangements, (3) appropriately aligning the natural path of vehicles, (4) accommodating the design
vehicle, (5) accommodating non-motorized users, and (6) providing adequate sight distance and
visibility. Alternative sizes, shapes, placement, and approach alignments may also be acceptable
provided that they result in a design that meets these fundamental principles.
Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road Intersection Review Project #: 13963
December 30, 2013 Page 16
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Bend, Oregon
To lessen right-of-way and irrigation pond impacts in the NW quadrant, the center of the roundabout
is shown shifted to the south and east. The roundabout could be centered to the south and west to
reduce property impacts in the SE quadrant and the irrigation pond. The inscribed circle diameter, as
shown, is 160 feet. The diameter will need to be optimized to reduce right-of-way impacts while
providing for truck traffic.
The roundabout maintains all turning movements while minimizing the number of conflict points. The
reduction in speeds on the approaches and removal of higher-severity head-on and angle crashes also
reduces the crash severity. Therefore, it is expected to provide the greatest safety benefits relative to
other alternatives. The construction cost of a roundabout will vary based on the diameter of the
roundabout and the extent of the approach treatments, and is expected to be similar in costs to the
offset “T” intersections.
QUALITATIVE ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
The identified alternatives were screened based on their ability to address the project needs and
overall feasibility. A summary of the screening criteria is shown below.
Feasibility
This criterion considers whether the alternative is appropriate in the setting (such as in
meeting applicable installation requirements such as signal warrants), and whether the
alternative can be constructed without impacting significant utilities, homes, or land features.
Cost
Refined cost estimates have not been prepared for any of the alternatives as part of the
qualitative screening, and costs are based only on the relative overall cost to construct the
alternative considering right-of-way, pavement, and hardware.
Operations
Traffic operations considers whether the alternative can adequately serve the forecast year
2030 design traffic based on Deschutes County level of service thresholds. Operations were
assessed for each alternative during the critical weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour to inform
this initial screening. Appendix “E” contains the traffic operation output for each of the future
alternative scenarios.
Crash Reduction
A key project need is to reduce the total number of annual crashes that occur at the
intersection, without regard to the severity. This criterion is intended to address the
escalating crash experience identified through review of the reported crash history. Crash
Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road Intersection Review Project #: 13963
December 30, 2013 Page 17
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Bend, Oregon
reduction potential is based on review of crash modification factors developed from studies of
similar projects in rural areas.
Crash Severity
The crash severity criterion considers how the alternative can reduce the number of injuries
and fatalities that may occur in the future. This is generally achieved by changing the type of
conflicts geometrically or with changes to speeds. Crash reduction potential is based on
review of crash modification factors for similar projects in rural areas.
A summary of the relative alternative screening is provided in Table 6, and further details on the
screening are summarized for each alternative below.
Table 6. Qualitative Alternatives Evaluation
Alternative Feasibility Cost Operations
Crash
Reduction
Crash Severity
Reduction
Realignment
Offset “T”
Signal
Roundabout
Red: Least improvement/Poor
Yellow: Moderate improvement/Acceptable
Green: Highest improvement/Good
Intersection Realignment
This treatment provides the lowest construction cost but the least safety benefit of the alternatives.
This alternative could serve as a phasing alternative if the signalization alternative were selected, or
could serve as an interim treatment while funding for a long-term solution was being sought. As a
stand-alone treatment this would otherwise provide only marginal benefits and is not recommended
for further evaluation.
Signal Alternative
As indicated above, a signal is not warranted based on existing volume, and will not be warranted
without substantial growth in traffic volumes. Signalization would also require extensive intersection
approach treatments to alert drivers to the traffic control device and increase visibility of the signals
around the horizontal and vertical curves, and is less likely to reduce crashes given the rural nature of
the area and low driver expectation for a traffic signal. A signal is not a feasible short-term alternative
as it does not meet MUTCD signal warrants and is not recommended for further evaluation.
Powell Butte Highway and Neff Road Intersection Review Project #: 13963
December 30, 2013 Page 18
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Bend, Oregon
Offset “T” with Two-way Stop Control
Maintaining stop control while reconfiguring the intersection into two offset “T” intersections is
expected to reduce crashes by reducing conflict points, increasing sight distance, and providing left-
turn lanes on Powell Butte Highway approaches. The disadvantage of this option is that the crashes
that do occur are likely to be higher-severity angle crashes.
While construction costs will be high due to the new pavement and right-of-way impacts, the
potential crash reduction is also high and free-flow is maintained for traffic on the Powell Butte
Highway. Without higher levels of traffic control (such as a roundabout or traffic signal) this
alternative would operate very low delays through the horizon period. As costs are likely to be similar
to the roundabout with lower reductions in crash frequency and severity this alternative is not
recommended for further evaluation.
Roundabout Alternative
The roundabout is expected to have the greatest crash reduction potential of the alternatives based
on empirical studies conducted in rural high-speed environments. The roundabout reduces the
number of conflict points, changes the conflict type to lower-severity sideswipe collisions, and further
reduces crash severity by reducing speeds at the conflict points. Roundabout construction costs,
right-of-way impacts, and operations will be of a similar magnitude to the Offset “T” alternative.
NEXT STEPS
Please review this interim memorandum at provide us with any comments or questions on our
interim findings and recommendations. As the roundabout is the only alternative we would
recommend the County continue to pursue, next steps would include further details on the
intersection approach treatments, design vehicle details, review of right-of-way, and expected
construction costs. This information will be amended to this interim report, forming the final report
for this evaluation.
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Data Collection Worksheets
Appendix B: Photo Records of Intersection
Appendix C: Intersection Crash Records and Summaries
Appendix D: Alternatives Concepts
Appendix E: Operational Analysis Worksheets
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 5, 2014
TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (BOCC)
FROM: Nick Lelack, Community Development Department (CDD) Director
Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner
Peter Russell, Senior Planner
RE: Newberry Country Plan: Implementation Update
This memorandum is for BOCC information. No action is being requested.
SUMMARY
CDD is in the early stages of implementing Newberry Country: A Plan for Southern Deschutes
County.1 This memo summarizes CDD’s efforts to implement three projects, which are also
recognized as FY 2014/2015 Goals and Objectives.2 Applicable Newberry Country Plan goals
and policies for each project are also referenced below. The projects include:
1. Goal 11 Exception;
2. Transferable Development Credit (TDC) Advisory Committee; and
3. River access at Harper Bridge.
I. GOAL 11 EXCEPTION
Newberry Country Plan: Public Facilities
Goal 9 Partner with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to protect
groundwater and public health.
Policy 9.1 Explore opportunities for Goal 11 exceptions and the full range of advance
wastewater treatment opportunities, including but not limited to, the use of
onsite alternative treatment technology, centralized sewer systems and
cluster systems.
1 http://www.deschutes.org/Community-Development/Planning/Long-Range-Planning/Completed-Projects/South-County-
Plan-2.aspx
2 http://www.deschutes.org/Finance/Budget-and-Finance/Budgets/FY-2015-Proposed-Program-Budget.aspx. Pages 12 and 13.
Robust Economy Goal. Objectives #4 and #5; Management of Natural Resources Goal, Objective #1.
-2-
Implementation
The Planning and Environmental Soils divisions continue to support the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) South Deschutes/Northern Klamath County Groundwater
Protection Project. DEQ, with the assistance of the Oregon Department of Land Conservation
and Development (DLCD), continues to finalize the burden of proof and a map of the affected
area to justify a Goal 11 exception.
Goal 12, Transportation, must also be met. A transportation study is necessary to comply with
the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). A Goal 11 exception could enable approximately
1,500 high groundwater lots to develop. The lots are presently restricted from development due
to the State’s onsite wastewater rules. If a Goal 11 exception is approved the lots could then
hook up to a sewer, cluster, or similar public system. As most of the lots are zoned residential,
there would be 15,000 new daily trips generated from these lots or about 1,500 trips in the
morning peak and again in the evening peak hours. For context, 15,000 daily trips represent
about the same amount of traffic now carried on U.S. 97 just south of the Baker Road
interchange. DLCD is coordinating with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to
determine if they can produce the traffic study. If ODOT is unable to produce it, the partner
agencies (County, DLCD, DEQ) will need to determine a funding source to pay for the
approximately $20,000 study, including such options as pursuing grant funding or sharing the
costs. Grant funding would extend the project at least 6-8 months.
Timeline:
Once County staff receives the justification for a Goal 11 exception and a transportation study, it
will take 10 weeks to schedule the first evidentiary hearing. Staff needs approximately 6 weeks
to complete the entire land use proposal and prepare public notices. Since this is a legislative
plan amendment, DLCD also requires a minimum 35 day notice to review the formal proposal.
II. RECONVENING TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT CREDIT (TDC) ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
Newberry Country Plan: Land Use
Goal 4 Manage County-owned lands to meet community objectives.
Policy 4.4 In conjunction with the City of La Pine, evaluate and revise as needed, the
Transfer of Development Credit and Pollution Reduction Credit programs by
considering, at a minimum, the following:
a. Reconvening the Transfer of Development Credit Advisory Committee;
b. Analyzing the results of the program;
c. Understanding existing market trends and land development constraints
in the rural area and La Pine Neighborhood Planning Area; and
d. Exploring, if necessary, different alternatives for developing the La Pine
Neighborhood Planning Area that maximize revenues from the sale of
property to fund groundwater protection efforts.
-3-
Implementation
The TDC / Pollution Reduction Credit (PRC) program is aimed at protecting groundwater in
southern Deschutes County in conjunction with La Pine’s Newberry Neighborhood. TDCs, which
have been in place since 2003, are deeded restrictions on future property development. They
are acquired voluntarily in designated areas for the preservation of water quality and open
space. The acquisition of TDCs is one option for developers of new parcels in the Newberry
Neighborhood in the city of La Pine. Similarly, PRCs, which were added to the program in 2006,
certify the placement of a nitrogen-reducing septic system in qualifying areas. They may be
purchased as an alternative option to allow Newberry Neighborhood development. Revenue
associated with TDCs and PRCs, together with Newberry Neighborhood land sale proceeds and
other revenue sources, provide financial assistance to South County residents in implementing
actions which reduce the amount of nitrates potentially entering the groundwater and therefore
protect the source of drinking water in the area.
In addition to funding sewer feasibility studies on an as-needed basis, financial assistance from
this program has enabled rebates to be paid to South County property owners who have
installed nitrogen-reducing septic systems. Low interest cost-deferred loans have also been
made available to property owners to fund complete septic system replacement for those who
may not otherwise qualify for project financing.
TDC Advisory Committee
Deschutes County Code (DCC), Chapter 11.12 codifies the TDC Program (Attachment). DCC
11.12.040 specifically addresses the TDC Advisory Committee’s purpose, duties, and
membership. Committee members are selected by CDD based on the knowledge and expertise
that each member may contribute to the development of the TDC program.
The TDC Advisory Committee’s last meeting occurred in March 2007. They met nine times
between 2005 and 2007. As shown in Table 1, the committee consisted of the following
representatives:
Table 1 - Previous TDC Advisory Committee Representatives 3
Baldwin-Herndon Trust
Deschutes River Conservancy
Developer - Excavation / Finley Butte Aggregate
Developer - Pahlisch Homes
Excavator
Kerr Commercial Group
La Pine Community Action Team
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
Planning Commissioner – South County Region
Realtor
Soil Scientist / Sanitarian
South County Resident / Property Owner
3 Representatives from Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Compass Commercial were formally invited to participate
but did not attend any of the meetings.
-4-
Staff wants to add the following two representatives to the committee:
o City of La Pine
o Deschutes County Citizens Actions Group (CAG)
Expanding the committee will help broaden the discussion as members determine if changes
are needed to the TDC program. CDD recently coordinated with the City of La Pine to
successfully transition land use permitting responsibilities from the County to the City. The
transfer became effective last January. The City is now administering zoning and development
review within its jurisdiction, which includes the Newberry Neighborhood, the receiving area for
TDCs. The CAG is an organization that promotes active participation in all aspects of
community development and decision-making in Deschutes County, specifically in the La Pine
basin.4 Members were actively involved in the creation of the Newberry Country Plan, adopted
by the BOCC in May 2013.
Timeline:
Staff anticipates contacting representatives this month and scheduling the first committee
meeting in August. Up to five meetings are planned from August through December.
Recommendations will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and BOCC in January 2015.
III. HARPER BRIDGE
Newberry Country Plan: Recreation
Goal 17 Encourage a variety of parks, trails and recreation options for South County residents
Policy 17.2 Collaborate with the La Pine Park and Recreation District, community
organizations, Sunriver and La Pine to provide safe and convenient river
access points, including:
a. Improving existing sites including those at or near Harper Bridge and
Maxwell Veterans Memorial Bridge; and
b. Assessing options for new or improved public locations.
Implementation
The Sunriver Owners’ Association is forming a task force to reach out to the various groups that
have expressed an interest in resolving the issues of parking and launching watercraft at Harper
Bridge. CDD will represent one of the task force members, which is expected to have an initial
meeting later this month.
Timeline:
The Harper Bridge Task Force is slated to complete its work by September.
IV. BOCC ACTION
No action is being requested.
Attachment: DCC Chapter 11.12, TDC Program
4 http://www.cagg.us/about-cag
Chapter 11.12. TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT CREDIT PROGRAM
11.12.010. Definitions.
11.12.020. TDC Transactions.
11.12.030. TDC Sending Area Eligibility Criteria.
11.12.040. TDC Advisory Committee.
11.12.010. Definitions.
As used in DCC 11.12, the following words and phrases shall mean as set forth in DCC 11.12.010.
“Certificate of TDC Purchase” means a certificate from Deschutes County that documents the purchase or,
in the case of a PRC, creation of TDC(s).
“Department” means, for purposes of this chapter, the Deschutes County Community Development
Department.
“Existing Wastewater Treatment System” means a wastewater treatment system in use in the Sending Area
on May 31, 2006 that is not a Nitrogen Reducing System approved by Deschutes County.
Financial Assistance Fund” means whichever fund created by the County to aid property owners in
complying with the requirements to reduce the overall discharge of nitrogen into the basin groundwater of in
south Deschutes County.
“High Priority Deer Migration Corridor Area” means the area mapped in 2000 by the Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife which shows the area of priority protection for migrating mule deer within a larger
migration corridor acknowledged under statewide planning Goal 5. A copy of this map is on file with the
Department.
“Net Developable Acre” means the acreage in a tract of land in a Receiving Area calculated by subtracting
the acreage reserved for collector road right-of-way and community parks and open space from the gross
acreage of a subject tract.
“Nitrate Loading Management Model” means the groundwater model developed by the US Geological
Survey to determine the nitrate loading capacity of the drinking water aquifer underlying south Deschutes
County.
“Nitrogen Reducing System” means a wastewater treatment system that reduces nitrogen loading to the
groundwater in accordance with the Nitrate Loading Management Model and that is approved by Deschutes
County.
“Pollution Reduction Credit” (PRC) means the credit given for the Retrofitting of an Existing Wastewater
Treatment System or payment into the County’s Financial Assistance Fund.
“Receiving Area” means the area designated by the County where Transferable Development Credits are
required in order to purchase and develop a tract of land.
“Restrictive Covenant” means a legal instrument which places restrictions on future development on a lot or
parcel of land in the Sending Area.
“Retrofit” means to upgrade or replace an Existing Wastewater Treatment System in the Sending Area with
a Nitrogen Reducing System approved by the County.
“Sending Area” means the area designated by the County in which Transferable Development Credits may
be sold.
Chapter 11.12 (2009) 1
“TDC Report” means a report from a title company verifying title to and encumbrances on the subject
property.
“Transferable Development Credit” (TDC) means the credit given for a Restrictive Covenant granted to
Deschutes County restricting the placement of a septic system. on the subject property or a PRC.
(Ord. 2009-003 § 1, 2008;Ord. 2006-016 §1, 2006; Ord. 2004-007 §1, 2004; Ord. 2002-010 §1, 2002)
11.12.020. TDC Transactions.
A. Sale of TDCs from the Sending Area. Either Section B or C shall be followed for the creation of TDCs,
B. Restrictive Covenant
1. The property owner or any other interested person shall request verification from the County that
the subject property is eligible for a TDC.
2. The Department shall send the property owner or interested person written verification confirming
the number of TDCs the subject property is eligible for based on the criteria in DCC 11.12.030.
3. Upon mutual agreement of a sale between the property owner and TDC purchaser, the following
transactions shall occur:
a. The property owner shall provide a TDC Report to the Department.
b. If the TDC purchaser is other than the County then the property owner and TDC purchaser shall
sign a TDC Contract form provided by the County.
c. Upon Department review and approval of the TDC Report and receipt of payment of the
consideration in accordance with the County’s agreement with the property owner or the TDC
Contract pursuant to DCC 11.12.010(A)(3)(b), the County shall prepare a Restrictive Covenant
that restricts development on the subject property. This Restrictive Covenant shall be signed by
the County and the property owner. The County shall record the Restrictive Covenant.
d. Contemporaneously with the recording of the Restrictive Covenant, County shall provide the
TDC purchaser with documentation of the TDC purchase.
C. PRC.
1. The property owner or any other interested person shall request verification from the County that
the subject property is eligible for a PRC.
2. The Department shall provide the property owner or interested person written verification
confirming the subject property is eligible for a PRC based on the criteria in DCC 11.12.030.
3. The County shall grant a PRC to a developer in the Receiving Area if the developer provides one of
the following:
a. A Retrofit, in cooperation with the property owner of a property eligible for a PRC, Existing
Wastewater Treatment System and documentation submitted to the County that includes proof
of ownership of the subject property, proof of consent of the property owner for the Retrofit,
and final County inspection of the Retrofit; or
b. Payment into the County’s Financial Assistance Fund the proportional cost established by
Board of County Commissioner Resolution for a Retrofit. The County’s fund shall be use d to
aid property owners in reducing the overall discharge of nitrogen into the basin groundwater of
in south Deschutes County.
.
D. Assignment of TDCs to the Receiving Area.
1. The total number of required TDCs, including PRCs, applicable to a subdivision in the Receiving
Area shall be established and made a condition of approval at the time of tentative plan approval.
2. The tract or lot shall be located within the La Pine Neighborhood Planning Area in the La Pine
Urban Unincorporated Community and be zoned Residential General or Residential Center. The
Receiving Area is identified on a map prepared and maintained by the Department.
3. TDCs shall be assigned to a lot or tract based on the Net Developable Acres at a rate approved by
Board of County Commissioner resolution.
Chapter 11.12 (2009) 2
4. PRCs shall be assigned to a tract at a rate established by Board of County Commissioner resolution.
5. The Board may, by resolution, adjust the number of TDCs required per acre or alter the factors for
which TDCs are required in the Receiving Area.
6. At the time of final plat approval , any remaining required PRCs for the partition or subdivision
shall be divided by the number of residential lots approved for the partition or subdivision.
7. The required PRCs and their cost for each lot shall be shown on the final plat.
8. Prior to issuance of a building permit for a residential lot in the Receiving Area, the Department
must have payment of the required number of PRCs for that lot.
E. Non-Residential Districts. Where permitted under DCC 18.61.050, uses in non-residential districts in
the Receiving Area do not require TDCs.
F. Right to Develop. If an owner of a lot or parcel of land eligible for a TDC chooses not to participate in
the TDC program, the owner shall not be restricted from developing said lot or parcel in accordance
with the applicable zoning standards in DCC Title 18, and any other applicable regulations, rules or
standards.
(Ord. 2009-003 § 1, 2008; Ord. 2006-016 §1, 2006; Ord. 2004-007 §1, 2004; Ord. 2002-010 §1, 2002)
11.12.030. TDC Sending Area Eligibility Criteria.
A. A lot or parcel that meets the following criteria is eligible to receive a TDC. The lot or parcel shall:
1. Be located within the “Sending Area” identified on a map prepared and maintained by the
Department;
2. Be no greater than two acres in area;
3. Be capable of being served by an on-site sewage disposal system that meets current Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality standards, as demonstrated by a satisfactory feasibility
evaluation for an on-site sewage disposal system or when the lot or parcel is shown as being eligible
for such system on the TDC Sending Area map; and
4. Not be developed with an existing sewage disposal system, or if developed with an existing sewage
disposal system, the landowner shall disable said system, or
5. Have received prior approval for a site evaluation or an installed septic system that has expired or is
no longer valid, or
6. Have an Existing Wastewater Treatment System eligible for a Retrofit.
B. TDCs shall be assigned to an eligible lot or parcel that meets the criteria in DCC 11.12.030(A), as
follows:
1. An eligible lot or parcel upon which a Restrictive Covenant is recorded shall be assigned one TDC.
2. An eligible lot or parcel located in the High Priority Deer Migration Corridor Area upon which a
Restrictive Covenant is recorded shall be assigned an additional one-half TDC.
3. An eligible lot or parcel upon which an Existing Wastewater Treatment System has been Retrofitted
shall be assigned one TDC.
4. The Board of County Commissioners may by Resolution revise the number of TDCs assigned or
the factors for which TDCs are assigned to eligible lots or parcels in the Sending Area.
(Ord. 2006-016 §1, 2006; Ord. 2004-007 §1, 2004; Ord. 2002-010 §1, 2002)
11.12.040. TDC Advisory Committee.
A. Purpose. The TDC Advisory Committee is an advisory committee whose purpose is to assist staff in
implementing the TDC program and to recommend to staff the means to accomplish the goals of
Regional Problem Solving insofar as the transfer of development credits from the Sending Area to the
Receiving Area are concerned.
B. Duties. The committee will advise staff in evaluating the TDC program for record keeping accuracy,
determine if program goals are being met, consider whether any changes to the TDC allocation criteria
in the Sending Area or TDC requirements in the Receiving Area are advisable, or if any other revisions
Chapter 11.12 (2009) 3
Chapter 11.12 (2009) 4
to the program are warranted. The committee may assist the County in determining which TDC options
to exercise.
C. Committee member terms. Committee members will be selected by staff based on the knowledge and
expertise that each member may contribute to the development of the TDC Program. One-half the
initial members shall serve for one year and one-half shall serve for two years. Thereafter, members
shall serve two-year terms. Members may be requested to serve additional terms. Staff shall report the
membership of the TDC Advisory Committee to the Board of County Commissioners on an annual
basis.
D. Committee members. The TDC Advisory Committee may include a representative from each of the
following organizations, agencies or professions:
1. The International Society of Appraisers or an Oregon State Certified Appraiser;
2. A firm established for the purpose of real estate development or the representation of development
interests;
3. An individual with recognized expertise in hydrology or ground water;
4. An individual with recognized expertise in big game wildlife management;
5. The Community Solutions Team for Central Oregon;
6. An individual who resides in the designated Sending Area;
7. A member of the La Pine Community Action Team;
8. The Deschutes County Community Development Department Director or designee as an ex officio
member.
9. Staff may select additional members as it deems appropriate.
(Ord. 2006-016 §1, 2006; Ord. 2003-033 §1, 2003; Ord. 2002-010 §1, 2002)