Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-01-30 Work Session MinutesDeschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 -Fax (541) 385-3202 -www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 30, 2013 Present were Commissioners Alan Unger, Tammy Baney and Anthony DeBone. Also present were Tom Anderson, Interim County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; and, for a portion ofthe meeting, Court Administrator JeffHall; Ken Hales, Steve Kurzer, Travis Graves, Eddie Ybarra, Meghan DeMars and Charles Puch, Juvenile Community Justice; Susan Ross, Property & Facilities; Judges Wells Ashby and Stephen Forte; District Attorney Patrick Flaherty; and Jason Kropfofthe District Attorney's Office. Also in attendance were for a portion ofthe meeting were David Givans, Administration; Hillary Saraceno, Children & Families' Commission; Sheriff Larry Blanton, Jim Ross, Michael Espinoza and Darryl Nakahira, Sheriff's Office; Chris Doty, Road Department; Nick Lelack and Peter Gutowsky, Community Development; media representatives Sheila Miller and Dylan Darling ofthe Bulletin; and several other citizens. 1. Juvenile Community Justice Work Center Update. Tom Anderson distributed a staff report detailing the history of this issue. It began with concerns about capacity issues in the adult jail. The cost was $10.9 million to expand the jail, but after initially supporting this, the underutilization of the Juvenile Detention Center became a concern. The Board elected to commission a consultant to look at current and long-tenn needs for Juvenile detention, along with some alternatives for detention. In December, the consultant presented her report and charted the medium-and long-tenn capacity issues for Juvenile. The focus was on Deschutes County youth primarily. The projection was that in the immediate future, 12-18 beds would be needed. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 30, 2013 Page 1 ofl2 As part of the study, alternatives were analyzed, including the detention center from years ago, located downtown, underutilized space in the current detention center; also the Sheriff's work center. The recommendation was that of those alternatives, the work center was the best choice. Staff was directed to look at the work center more specifically regarding capacity and costs. This review has been completed. Susan Ross summarized the findings of the architect in this regard. She said they tried to use the existing footprint of the work center: 10 beds. Using all three dorms would equal 13 beds. They could not expand further as they are required to have an exercise area. They would have the recreation room and other ancillary rooms. A new intake area would be needed with two holding rooms plus the two existing holding rooms, equaling 14-17 beds. The costs are general, based on square footage and improvements. It would be $2.4 million for Option 1 plus another $500,000 for the juvenile detention facility to get it ready for part of the adult jail population. Option 2 is $3.3 million, plus the $500,000. Commissioner DeBone said this is a lot more than he had anticipated. Ms. Ross stated that it has to meet a certain criteria, so it is costly. Mr. Anderson said that the Sheriff informed him that moving the adult jail population with medical needs would require phasing. Not all of the work could be done at the same time. They cannot combine populations. So this transition adds to the cost. As a result, they thought it would be prudent for the Board to consider all of the options again at this point. Option A had been discussed more recently, making the juvenile center available for prisoners by this summer. It would house up to 88 adult prisoners at the costs given. From a staff perspective, the pros and cons were detailed. This would avoid the $10.9 million cost of expanding the adult jail to accommodate a larger population. By moving the juveniles into the work center, they can only fit in one pod. The operational costs ofjuvenile detention would decrease due to less staffing required. The savings would be about $400,000. As pointed out in the consultant's report, this limits capacity now and later if over 12 beds were needed at the same time. In addition, having part of the adult population in the main jail and others elsewhere is less efficient and has operational challenges. Ms. Ross said that with a lack of a feasible transition plan, someone has to be out of the way. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 30, 2013 Page 2 of12 Mr. Anderson said that Option B is to add 144 beds to adult jail, and juvenile won't move. The challenge is to finance about $10.9 million. The pro's are that all adults will be in the same building, offering operational efficiencies and avoiding the limitations of having juvenile detainees in the work center. Also, to the extent that those limitations could not be overcome, they would have to construct a new juvenile facility at a cost of about $9-10 million. Also, this does not address anything having to do with the juvenile detention facility. A sub-option would be to address that issue as well by essentially accomplishing the savings by going from two pods to one pod, for 12 juveniles, plus the holding rooms. This would result in a savings of about $400,000. Some of the same issues would have to be considered, such as operational capacity, housing more than 12 juveniles in one pod, and so on. The ability to meet changing demands would be easier. The remodeled work center would make this a lot more difficult. And with some of the juvenile space empty, it might be possible to lease it. Other options are probably not as palatable to the Board. The Board could direct them to look for other alternatives for juvenile detention. It is unknown what that might be at this point, but could include 100% contracted space, construction outside of what the consultant recommended, or to not do anything at this point, but that creates issues with the adult jail. There could be other options not yet considered. Commissioner Baney asked how many holding rooms there would be if there were one pod in the juvenile center as it is today. Mr. Anderson said three. It would probably be the same for the adult jail; perhaps not a sleeping area, but holding cells. Ms. Ross said to follow this logic, each pod in juvenile has 14 beds. Mr. Hales said that even with double bunk beds, they couldn't be used in isolation type circumstances. You cannot house juveniles overnight continually in the intake area. Commissioner Baney stated that the best-case scenario seems to be a 13-bed facility. With the work center, it would be 14 plus 3. It is basically the same thing. They could invest $4 million nearby. It costs about $100,000 for courtroom space. Mr. Hales noted that about 75% of court appearances are non-custody kids. It is not set up for that volume. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 30,2013 Page 3 of12 Commissioner DeB one said they hoped with the remodel and redo of the work center, it would be about $1 million. Ms. Ross said that numbers are about 75% accurate without a plan. This is about the best they can do at this point. The work center numbers are very conservative and minimal. The adult jail project is easier. It involves building onto the outside of the jail. Remodeling while trying to operate with a full jail population is expensive. Also, being able to use the work center for what it was designed to do will serve the community well for many years. Commissioner Baney noted that people talk about how slow government is. This is a good example for government taking time. There had not been a juvenile needs assessment done since 1996, and it was at a much lower level. She said she is sensitive to surrounding counties' needs, but dollars can't be spent that way. If the County can help the partners, that is good; but this is not always possible. They can get the exact same thing by revamping the work center. The existing juvenile facility is woefully underutilized. If this were embraced as a positive, she would like to direct administration to come back with a funding package for what they would have spent to revamp the work center, and move forward with expansion of the jail for the Sheriff, with the promise that this will work for years to come. Also, as critical, there have been significant staffing cuts, and they cannot continue to do this. They need stable funding in the future. She would direct that during the budget process this year, they adjust the juvenile facility from two pods to one; and come back with a staffing plan for how they would handle certain circumstances, i.e. mental health issues, a female detainee, etc. and present some rental opportunities to best utilize the space. Minor structural changes need to be known as well. Commissioner DeBone stated that the funding package would be meant to support adult jail expansion instead of a remodel. Commissioner Baney said that right now Deschutes County kid numbers are not what they thought they'd be years ago. Right-sizing for the current number but preparing for the unknown is tough. They have to right-size the detention facility but be prepared for peaking. They can benefit the surrounding counties in some ways, but those counties are not covering the increased costs. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 30, 2013 Page 4 of 12 Chair Unger noted that there would be less money in the future, so they need to get a handle on fixed costs. They do not want to cut back on worthwhile programs. Commissioner Baney said that she wants to invest in programs to keep youth out of the system. Commissioner DeBone stated that he supports the concept. The goal is to be efficient but save money. Mr. Hales stated that if the question is not taking out of county kids, some start out in this county because the crime happened here. The courts decide what needs to be done. This is a small number. They can do a few things in programs to drop the level. He is concerned about peaking and will need to develop contingencies to deal with that. Much depends on the nature of the kids in the facility at that time. They can matrix out with the court's authority, but it depends on the makeup of the population. Commissioner Baney said that there could be new ideas to handle the population, or admissions could be done differently. They need to get to a sustainable average. Maybe other counties would give more on an annual basis if we help them out. Mr. Hales explained that they need to be flexible for the future. The population can't continue to go down. They have done a good job with this, but logically it can't go much lower. Chair Unger asked if any of the other elected officials wished to comment. Sheriff Blanton agreed that there is a time and place to be diligent. He started this process in 2003 with the initial assessment. He has tried to have his department live within its means, as he is always concerned about tax money. He supports the motion to add to the existing facility. This will hold down the costs of supervision and staffing, and they need something soon. He has concerns about available beds for medical and mental health situations. They will hold down the costs as much as possible. The priority is to add on and soon. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 30, 2013 Page 5 of 12 Patrick Flaherty added that he strongly supports this motion as well, which is unquestionably the best option. He also stressed the importance of having a fully-functional work center. There will be some effort in the legislative session to shift things back to the counties. This might mean that individuals are incarcerated in the local jails for a long time. They need the work center for this. Agencies have to be cost-effective, and the Sheriff has been doing that. Judge Forte stated that the courts support this. They also supported the juvenile facility in 1996. It was state of the art and allowed for flexibility or expansion as needed. Judge Wells Ashby said he appreciates how Deschutes County is a responsible steward of public money. He supports the need for expansion, and is encouraged that the Board is not overreacting to underutilization at this point. There might be a variety of ways to use that space. Temporary use makes sense to perhaps change the budget numbers. Commissioner Baney said she wants to be sure it is clear that this needs to be right-sized. There is a time to be serious about operations, and she wants this to be a priority. They have had other users in the past. The Board will assist when possible in the future; there needs to be a plan for unique situations requiring another pod be used. But they need to right-size for today and not stay the same. Commissioner DeBone stated they need a funding package to expand the adult jail, about $10 million; but also should adjust the cost of operations to support Deschutes County youth. Sheriff Blanton said that he has been told a funding package needs to consider available capital reserves, lessen the amount that needs to be bonded, and no new taxes. Commissioner DeBone noted that the exercise has created a lot of learning. This is two issues that need to be brought up to speed. Commissioner Baney added that they need funds for debt service and also to reinvest in services for youth. They need to move away from want versus need due to operational issues. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 30, 2013 Page 6 of12 ------.._-------- Mr. Hales stated that they would be right-sizing, and give up capacity if the numbers do not warrant it. Mr. Anderson stated that the numbers for Deschutes County youth will change. They need to identify a sustained average to do this work and for a basis for budget recommendations. Whether they need one pod or two is the largest variable. As long as this is recognized, he is comfortable with this action. BANEY: Move that staffbe directed, during the budget process, to adjust the needs of Deschutes County youth with appropriate operational staffing. Move support of Option B, the expansion of the jail, upon appropriate funding solutions. DEBONE: Second. Chair Unger said that staff should be directed to try to make up some of the time lost during the past six months to move the jail expansion process forward. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. 2. The Board went into Executive Session, called under ORS 192.660(2)(e), Real Property Negotiations, at 3:05 p.m. The session ended at 3:40 p.m. 3. Planning Division Update on FY 2012-13 Long-Range Work Program. Mr. Lelack gave an update of the projects that has been done, some of which is being wrapped up after years of work. Mr. Gutowsky said there have been significant role changes in the department. He has his hands on all aspects except transportation planning. The Planning Department and Community Development want to convey that, as other projects emerge, they need to meter those projects. They can start them and develop a scope of work, but it might take longer than desired to complete them. All projects have their own peaks and valleys. They will never say 'no', but they need to be able to inform the Board of the priorities. They will know now that the South County plan is closing out. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 30, 2013 Page 7 of12 Commissioner Baney stated that they are a team and they want to stay away from potential litigation. They need to make sure the results are good and the group needs to feel it is supported. Commissioner DeBone asked about south Count and specifically Oregon Water Wonderland, Deschutes River Recreation Homesites and similar areas. He wanted to know what the larger picture is for those communities. In regard to a possible Goal 11 exception, he asked if the public is behind this. Mr. Lelack said that the steering committee will make a recommendation. It is not known if the DEQ will take this on. They might want to isolate this process to specific areas, and maybe take a first step at one of them. A community association or even an individual can initiate this at any time. BANEY: Move to support the recommendations as listed. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. 4. Discussion of Fee Waiver Request. Mr. Lelack introduced the applicant, John Shepherd, who has submitted a private park application for his property located at Lower Bridge and Holmes Road. This is in the EFU, wildlife combining zone. Private parks are not specifically prohibited, and the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife oversees this. He gave an overview of the application at this time. Senate Bill 960 was adopted by the legislature, but a primary requirement is that there be a farm use. No farm use exists on this property. It is not known if there are any options available except as maybe a private park. However, this would require a hearing and there are costs associated with the Hearings Officer. Crook, Benton and other counties have since approved private parks. One problem is that none of these issues have been appealed at the State level. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 30, 2013 Page 8 of12 LDCD has not clarified this situation, either. It is risky, and probably any decision would be appealed. Mr. Shepherd said that he has no water on this land and no viable use, except to host weddings events. Mr. Anderson asked if he has requested the help of Oregonians in Action. Mr. Shepherd said they are waiting for an application and may assist. Commissioner Baney noted that his perseverance is admirable. The difficulty is the fee waiver request. There are a variety of needs of all kinds in the County. This department depends on fees. She wondered if there is countywide significance. Mr. Shepherd said that he hopes this would help to provide clarity. He can't afford $8,000 for something that is not more certain. Commissioner Baney stated that a lot of the unknown is out of the hands of the County, as they have to follow what the State says. Commissioner DeBone asked if there would be more clarity if an application was in place. Mr. Lelack said there is a Code enforcement action against the property now. Under Code, they can allow an event every ninety days only. Commissioner DeBone said he is hesitant to fund this with County money unless it gets them somewhere. Chair Unger stated that this should be in the business plan. The challenge is that other counties can get away with things that some in Deschutes County might challenge. Commissioner Baney noted that it is sensitive, as the first person out finds it more difficult. He may find support from individuals he has already spoken with. The County has to maintain a neutral approach and not be thought as not being objective. Mr. Shepherd said this business is an economic driver for the County. He is worried that the scenario might be impossible, but he can't afford to take that chance. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 30, 2013 Page 9 of12 --~-------- Commissioner Baney stated that she has a hard time figuring out some farm uses. EFU is the most restrictive. She asked what kind of relief is available for land that is not productive. If it has never been farmed and has no water rights, there may be a way there through the legislature. They would want to track this closely as it is of some significance to the area. BANEY: Move to deny the fee waiver request. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. 5. Other Items. Chris Doty said the City of Bend representatives asked if the water line on Skyliners Road could be added after the road is constructed. There are a lot of cost and other issues relating to this. (He provided a handout with more information.) He is looking at what might be five years from now. He said there is a moratorium on pavement cuts. The County has some control over the right of way and could demand this work b done outside of the roadway. The City has an existing easement. This request could have a significant negative impact on the County's relationship with Federal Highways, which might push back with funding and construction. There are spending more on this than planned anyway. The U.S. Forest Service helped to push it through, but they are no longer at the table. Mr. Doty cautioned the City against pursuing this option. He does not want to jeopardize the relationship with Federal Highways. The City is putting together cost estimates to push for action now so they don't have to try to repair the roadway later. Commissioner DeBone said that it took a lot of political capital, and this is an economic driver for Bend, so the city should recognize this. Commissioner Baney stated that this project in particular has joint benefits, but she cannot support a decision that makes the investment vulnerable. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 30, 2013 Page 10 of12 Chair Unger noted that cutting pavement can ruin the road. He would like to see the City get the pipe at least under the road before construction, or decide to put it outside of the roadway. All Commissioners agreed. Commissioner Baney left the meeting at this time. 6. Certified Local Government Grant -Permission to Proceed. Peter Gutowsky and the Board briefly discussed this grant. DEBONE: Move approval.. UNGER: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. The Board briefly discussed a letter to be sent to the Oregon Department of Emergency Management regarding FEMA grants. Once drafted, it will have all signatures of the Board and legislators and the Governor will be copied. It is a sensitive issue and awkward for all parties. The letter offers positive background information and details on cooperative efforts. It is important to retain these relationships while they attempt to solve the various grant issues. DEBONE: Move approval of the draft form, and authorize Commissioner Baney to continue trying to resolve this issue through various contacts. UNGER: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. Being no further items addressed, the meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 30, 2013 Page 11 of 12 DATED this ! ~'!2 Day of lr.thr{,L~/ 2013 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ~~ Alan Unger, Chair ~> Tammy Baney, Vice C111ir ATTEST: Anthony DeBone, Commissioner ~~ Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 30,2013 Page 12 ofl2 Work Session ~ednesday,January 30,2013 (Please Print) Name A2encv Mailing Address Ctly ZlQ Phone # e-mail address ~~~~\r.."..1 ~~~ ~~€3ac 9rlJ~ ~~,} , c.aflT> S,VI!' KIQl.l.£IL lJts~oi..S G:.. -J 'Wt..cIl '-t T~_~~s besJ..-k.3 c. --:::s-~; \.c. _ SdJ/l: Yb~~A.4 ~c.I<.~; / <::. Mt1\taM-~llXS ~t'S . e~ ...JlUi\4.4\t. ~cVf It?.) ~v" C~ YE'~c.= y,,1 ~A.J ~~ aw~·\~\U; .~?~ £007 .,. 7~C-~pey-F jJ;ff/f I~ MI/tdf17 !/a7!r;1mf1U! - The Bulletin ~ Serving Central Oregon sinc€' 1903 - 1777 S.w. Chandler Ave. Dylan J. DarlingP.o. Box 6020 - Bend, OR 97708-6020 Public Lands Reporter Phone : 541 -382-1811 Direct Line: 541 -617-7812 - Fa x: 541-385-5804 1#3 Cell: 541-410 -0535 ddarling@bendbulletin,co m ~ Page # of Pages ---I -­I Work Session I I---­--+(Please Print) 1-­ --T - Name AS!:encv MailinS!: Address _ ~OQqV\ l~ TIlt (}(-.b_~ ~O b","'7' -~~' I<,D£,i.. c;w,,,,\,,,~p- ~\\(6 ~~iJ~C'( Q(\11~~ _~@VO 0'L<:\]}OL-­I #Ut'I7V(~~4 ~ec.pc.. lSl ~b A_v\ \d c2f)D --t _el l \"Z-4-? .. -- Ji~~ ) ~o Sl-l4N ( Ncl.. SON 15''.c:J ' L . S2<:iY''>LJ ~~· ,or(. 3 .' ..<. j__ .fl~L4l. I_b.-p$'f.,4 _ s.O. ---+ . ~AIUl~~~AKI1HI ~.. $-.9 J 17/ A -JfIP, -I /7D I _D t~_ r lA-tY7-­-~-. --! _SWtL_~Lw~Unci~ -- Pasze # of Paszes L --1 I t- t ----t- City Zip --+-­ Phone # __1­~_I "Jt1-21?i ~ednesday.January 30.2013 t­---­ + e-mail address -r­- -:f:s(J.,..}f,,('(~tJL_ JJCA ·0_ -~ --I': ~"c..~~'t\-te.d.&:"<S'("~~~~ _f2.~.)? ~.ncrz..--t 21.{\-;g1_-j~jl-3. po \.V\ .t.1"....s;.~ _ I I + __l ~ 1 I l S1(t~IL~~ -­t- - - -, I 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 2:00 P.M., WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 30, 2013 -Note Later Time 1. Juvenile Community Justice Work Center Update -Susan Ross 2. Executive Session, called under ORS 192.660(2)( e), Real Property Negotiations 3. Planning Division Update on FY 2012-13 Long-Range Work Program -Peter Gutowsky 4. Discussion of Fee Waiver Request -Nick Lelack 5. Certified Local Government Grant -Permission to Proceed -Peter Gutowsky 6. Other Items PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session eould be called to address Issues relating to OKS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; OKS 192.660(2) (h), litigation; OKS 192.66O(2)(d), labor negotiations; OKS 192.66O(2)(a), employment of a public officer; OKS 192.660(2)(1), evaluation of employee performance; or OKS 192,66O(2)(b), personnel discipline. 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. ljyou have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572. Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the State transfer relay service for TrY. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding altemativeformats or for further information. Board of Cou Commissiol1ers 1300 NW Wall St. Suite 200· Bend. OR 97701-1960 [541) 388-6570· Fax (541) 385-3202 www.co.deschutes.or.us board@co.deschutes. or. us MEMORANDUM Tammy Baney Anthony DeBone DATE: January 30,2013 Alan Unger TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM Tom Anderson, Interim County Administrator SUBJECT: Adult/Juvenile Detention Background: For a number of years, the population in the Deschutes County adult jail had reached the point where capacity had been reached and difficult decisions were being made with respect to renting jail beds in Jefferson County and/or matrixing prisoners. Consequently, a proposal was made to the Board of Commissioners to issue bonds in order to finance an expansion of the adult jail, at a cost of approximately $10.9 million, which would have increased jail capacity by 144 beds. In August 2012, the Board supported the conceptual expansion and directed staff to prepare financial bonding plan for the project. Soon thereafter, due to continuing low populations in the juvenile detention facility, it became apparent that another option existed to utilize that facility for adult prisoners, which would have created 88 adult jail beds with minimal capital remodeling cost. The next question was what would be a suitable alternative location for juvenile detainees, specifically youth from Deschutes County, which are the primary responsibility of the County's Juvenile Justice program. In September 2012, the Board rescinded their previous direction to pursue financing for an adult jail expansion, and directed staff to commission a consultant report to examine short and long term juvenile detention needs, as well as possible alternative detention locations, including an underutilized section of the existing Britta St detention facility and the old downtown juvenile detention facility. The Board also directed that the juvenile detention facility be made available to the Sheriff'S Office by July 1, 2013. In October 2012, the consultant was also asked to include the existing Sheriff's Office Work Center facility in her assessment of alternate juvenile detention locations. In December 2012, Karen Chinn, the consultant hired to perform the study. presented her findings to the Board of Commissioners. The report covered historical juvenile populations, which have been steadily declining over the past 10 years. However, it predicted future growth in population based on current referral trends, and recommended an optimal juvenile detention capacity of 12-18 beds for Deschutes County youth. The report also assessed alternative detention locations, and recommended the Work Center as the best option to the current location for juvenile detention. Accordingly, the Board directed that staff focus on the Work Center and bring back a more detailed assessment of a Work Center remodel, including layout, capacity and cost. Enhancing the Lives a/Citizens by Delivering Quality Services in a Cost-Effective Manner • Factors for Consideration -Con: • Additional capital cost • Does not address underutilization of juvenile detention facility* *Note -Independent of the options listed above, to address current underutilization of the juvenile detention facility, capacity could be reduced from 2 pods to 1 pod. • Annual savings of approximately $400,000 • Reduced immediate operational capacity • Less ability to separate detainees (younger/older, male/female) • Increased opportunity to lease space within detention facility to other agencies C. Research Additional Alternative Juvenile Detention Locations • Delay decision on addressing adult jail capacity issues • Alternatives may be limited or more costly D. Status Quo • Capital construction savings • Does not address adult jail capacity issues • Does not address underutilization of juvenile detention facility* Requested Board Action: Discuss and direct staff to pursue one of the options listed above. Discussion: In conjunction with a contracted architect, Property & Facilities staff has developed two options for the Work. Center. The first option includes 13 sleeping rooms along with 4 holding cells for a total of 17 beds, at an estimated cost of $3.3 million. The second option includes 10 sleeping rooms along with 4 holding cells for a total of 14 beds, at an estimated cost of $2.4 million. Following full architectural drawings and City permitting, construction time for either option is estimated at 4-6 months. Due to recent additional inmates in the adult jail, it became necessary to transfer additional prisoners from the adult jail to the Work Center. As a result, transitioning detainees from the juvenile detention facility to the Work Center, and Work Center inmates to the juvenile detention facility during the remodel work has become much more problematic, and it is not certain that capacity needs will be maintained during the remodel construction. In the opinion of staff, the two critical pieces of information noted in the previous two paragraphs warrants revisiting all options associated with adult jail capacity and current juvenile detention operation levels. Accordingly, the following options are presented for consideration by the Board. Options A. Remodel Work Center -13+4/10+4 bed alternatives • Move juvenile detainees to Work Center and make improvements to juvenile detention to accommodate adult inmates • Allow up to 88 adult prisoners to occupy juvenile detention center • Cost -$2.9 -$3.8 million (including Detention Center improvements) • Factors for Consideration -Pro: • Lower cost than adult jail expansion • Savings of approximately $400,00 in juvenile detention operational cost • Factors for Consideration -Con: • Limited capacity for juvenile detention needs and the need to construct a new facility in the future • Operational difficulty and loss of efficiency with adult prisoners in separate facility B. Expand Adult Jail • Adds additional 144 beds • No movement of juvenile detainees • Cost -approximately $10.9 million • Factors for Consideration -Pro: • Operational savings by housing adult prisoners in same facility • Allows greater capacity for adult prisoners • Does not limit juvenile detention capacity • Limited capacity to build new facility in future (est. cost $9 to $9.5 million) \ a ~ ~ • ~ II 1 1 ~ r~ 9 1 I ~ i 1 1 1 r& • ! i 1 1 I .I t ~ r r ~ ~ \~• \--\--1---1­--+-1-1--1·-+-\­-­f--;---­ w I .~~ ! ~ t I I WORK CENTER CONVERSION FOR JUVENILE Prepared January 30, 2013 Option 1 (10 beds) Remodel work center to create 10 sleeping rooms Improvements to juvenile detention for adult jail Total Option 1 Option 2 (13 beds) Remodel work center to create 13 sleeping rooms Improvements to juvenile detention for adult jail 2AOO,000 500,000 3,300,000 500,000 3,800,000 Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division PO Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ MEMORANDUM DATE: January 22,2013 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Nick Lelack, Interim Community Development Director Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner MEETING: January 30, 2013 RE: Planning Division Work Plan Update The purpose of this work session agenda item is to update the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on the Planning Division's work plan and seek direction on future project(s) as capacity becomes available in the spring and summer. Since the Division's last work plan update in September: • Senior Planner Terri Payne retired and Planning Director Nick Lelack was appointed Interim Community Development Department (COD) Director, reducing long range planning staff from 3.75 FTE to 2.25 at least through June 30, 2013. • The BOCC approved the Central Oregon Large Lot Industrial Land Needs Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Staff has subsequently developed a scope of work with regional partners to begin implementing the Large Lot Land Needs program (discussed below). The Planning Division's proposed role is to provide technical assistance to the City of Redmond for creating a clear, defensible approach for entitling regional large-lot industrial sites. • The Planning Commission recommended approval of Newberry Country: A Plan for Southern Deschutes County (South County Plan) into the Comprehensive Plan. BOCC public hearings to consider it are scheduled for February 26 and March 12 with adoption anticipated later this spring. The rest of this memorandum summarizes the status of high priority projects, introduces new ones requiring limited resources at the request of regional partners or other County departments, and offers recommendations for the BOCC's consideration. I. Planning Division Existing Work Program Table 1 identifies the Planning Division's projects and coordination duties by their long range or transportation planning emphasis. Either a principal planner or the senior transportation planner leads these projects.1 1 Associate and senior planners in the Current Planning Section staff the Historic Landmarks Commission and process applicant-initiated legislative plan and zoning amendments. Quality Services Perfonned ivith Pride Table 1 -Planning Division Existing Projects and Coordination Responsibilities Project Description Long Range Planning South County Plan Deschutes County is amending its Comprehensive Plan to formally recognize the South County Plan. On December 13, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 recommending approval. Status: Two BOCC public hearings are scheduled: (1) February 26 at 6:00 p.m. at the La Pine Senior Center; and (2) March 12 at 6:00 p.m . at the Sunriver Homeowners Aquatic and Recreation Center. Plan adoption is anticipated later this spring. Sage Grouse Staff is involved in two sage grouse projects. Last summer Deschutes County signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to become a cooperating agency. BLM is conducting an environmental analysis and preparing a draft and final programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for amendment of federal land use plans to incorporate conservation measures for the Greater sage-grouse in Central and Eastern Oregon. On a similar note, Harney County has recently been awarded grant funding from Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) to consider possible land use strategies for Greater Sage Grouse habitat on non-federal lands. The grant program recognizes that involving all of Oregon's affected counties will produce the greatest possible benefit. Deschutes County will be participating with them in a unique regional lands approach to wildlife conservation planning . Status: These projects are expected to be completed by late 2013 or 2014 . Statewide Planning Goal 11 (Public Facilities and Services) I Coordinate with Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) on their efforts to lead the groundwater protection program for the Upper Deschutes basin, including discussions regarding Statewide Planning Goal 11 (Public Facilities). Status: The South Deschutes/Northern Klamath County Groundwater Protection Steering Committee is expected to issue its final recommendations to the DEQ in the next few months. Upon the issuance of the recommendations, DEQ and the County will cooperate and coordinate on next steps, timing and resources to protect groundwater quality in South County. Non-Resource Lands Develop a scope of work outlining the tasks and schedule for undertaking a project that establishes criteria and procedures that would allow individual property owners and/or the County to reclassify areas with exceedingly low capaCity for agricultural activities to a Non- Resource designation . Status: Not yet started. Certified Local Government Grant Every 24 months, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), provides matching grants to local governments that have been "certified" as historic preservation partners with both the state and federal governments. Certified Local Government (CLG) grant applications are due on February 22,2013. The Deschutes County Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC), which meets quarterly, provides technical assistance and input. Potential projects for 2013/2014 CLG include inventorying historic recreational sites, public education, photographing national register and locally designated structures and sites in the rural county , and HLC training. Status: Staff is preparing the grant application . Grant awards and agreements are expected in April/May. Grant-funded projects are expected to be initiated in summer 2013. Legislative Session Participate in and monitor Oregon Legislature, committees and work groups to amend state planning law, and keep the BOCC, Planning Commission, staff and the public informed and engaged on such activities. Status: Ongoing through July 2013 . -2­ Table 1 -Planning Division Existing Projects and Coordination Responsibilities Project Description NEW: Knott Landfill Gas to Energy Project Coordinate with the Solid Waste Department to develop and execute a public outreach strategy for the landfill gas to energy project. Status: Project expected to occur over 2-3 months in late winter through spring 2013. Harper Bridge Coordinate with property owners, residents, river users, state agencies, Sunriver, and other stakeholders to develop a solution for safe river access in the Harper Bridge area. Status: Ongoing . I EPA Brownfield Community- In December Deschutes County submitted a grant application to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as part of the Fiscal Year 2013 Brownfields Grant Competition requesting $400,000 of community-wide assessment grant funding . The County envisions using the funding to support two major types of economic redevelopment initiatives which will I form the basis of the County's grant application strategy and objectives: Wide Assessment Grant for the Simpson Ave. Demo Landfill Property I 0 Environmental Assessment and Cleanup/Redevelopment Planning of the Demolition Landfill in Bend and/or the Shooting Range Property in Redmond. Support economic development initiatives by other units of local government within the 0 County, to assess sites within the cities of Bend, La Pine, Redmond, or Sisters. A decision by the EPA is expected April-June 2013. Status: Ongoing. Planning staff will continue to provide support to the Property and Facilities Department whether the grant is approved or not. City of Bend Growth Management Coordinate with the City of Bend to complete their Urban Growth Boundary amendment. Upon state acknowledgment, discuss initiating an Urban Reserve Area (U RA) work program for the City . Status: Ongoing. Transportation Planning System Development Charges Update SDCs with applicable policy changes with the Road Department Director and SDC Committee. Status: Planning staff is supporting the Road Department on this project, which is expected to be completed by spring. Regional Trail Plan Coordinate with local, state and federal agencies through the Deschutes County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee to develop a regional trail plan. Upon completion of a trail plan, amend the Transportation System Plan (TSP) to include the routes. Also work with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee to develop an online trail guide. Status: Project completion is expected in summer 2013. Tumalo Trail Grant Administer a successful $185,000 recreational trails grant along with the Oregon State Parks and Recreation to the State of Oregon to design and construct a trail near Tumalo State Park. Status: Project is underway. ODOT Participate in ODOT funded refinement planning projects for U.S. 97 and U.S. 20. These Refinement projects may include planning for the Quarry Road interchanges and the Wickiup Junction Planning interchange or bypass . Projects Status: Ongoing. -3­ I Table 1 -Planning Division Existing Projects and Coordination Responsibilities Project Description Transportation Committees • Bend Airport Master Plan Update Technical Advisory Committee • Bend Metropolitan Planning Organization • Canals as Regional Trails Committee • Central Oregon Area Commission on Transportation T AC • Commute Options Working Group • Deschutes County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee • Highway 97/20 Project Technical Advisory Committee I: South County Transportation Advisory Committee on U.S. 97 South Redmond Collaborative Group U.S. 20 in Tumalo Project Technical Advisory Committee • U.S. 97 North Corridor Agency Coordination Committee • U.S. 97 Wickiup Junction Interchange ENEIS Project • Wickiup Junction/97 Technical Advisory Committee Status: Ongoing . City of Bend Airport Master Plan Coordinate with the City to update the Airport Master Plan. Status: Ongoing. It is not yet known when the City will initiate an amendment to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan to adopt the updated Bend Airport Master Plan by reference. Planning staff continues to coordinate with City staff, EDCO, and airport businesses on a variety of projects. Code Amendment Initiate an amendment to Deschutes County Code to establish a new stand-alone section for traffic studies and update provisions as necessary (remove from the subdivision standards). Status: Not yet started . Staff expects to initiate this amendment in spring 2013. II. NEW: Preliminary Large Lot Industrial Buildable Lands Inventory With Deschutes County's assistance, in February 2012 Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council (CalC) received a DLCD Technical Assistance grant to formalize a management structure for the regional large lot industrial lands program and identify large lot industrial candidate sites. calc recently approached Deschutes County and the City of Redmond to see if there was interest and the capacity to develop a clear, defensible approach for entitling regional large-lot industrial sites. Approximately $12,000 is available to complete the following scope of work for the City of Redmond that can serve as a model for other jurisdictions: • Task 1 -Preliminary large lot industrial buildable lands inventory • Task 2 -Regional large lot industrial overlay zone • Task 3 -Gauging property owner interest for large lot industrial siting • Task 4 -Reconnaissance level infrastructure analysis for preliminary candidate sites • Task 5 -Preliminary Urban Growth Boundary findings report • Task 6 -Lessons learned memorandum • Task 7 -Presentations If the BOCC supports allocating staff time to this project, the City of Redmond and Deschutes County would share the work load responsibilities listed above and split the grant funds. The work must be completed by June 30, 2013. -4­ The timing of this opportunity complements recent action taken by the BOCC. On January 7,2013 the BOCC adopted the Central Oregon Large Lot Industrial Land Need Analysis (Analysis) and regional large lot industrial lands policies into the Comprehensive Plan. Both provide a policy framework for the tri-county region to coordinate as a single entity promoting large-lot industrial employments sites that best serve the region as a whole to create family wage jobs, region economic diversification, and place Central Oregon on the map for regional, national and international industrial recruitment. Crook and Jefferson counties are now in the process of adopting similar amendments to their comprehensive plans. Once all three counties complete their plan amendments, municipalities in the region will be able rely on the Analysis to address the short-term need for up to nine competitive and diverse vacant developable large lot industrial sites. III. Work Plan Recommendations Staff offers the following recommendations for the BOCC's consideration, which are achievable based on the Planning Division's current resources (2.25 FTE): 1. Complete the public hearings and adoption process of the South Countv Plan into the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Continue to participate and coordinate in two sage grouse protection efforts through its completion in 2013 or 2014. 3. Provide technical assistance to the City of Redmond with its preliminarv buildable lands inventory with OLCD grant funding. 4. Submit the CLG historic preservation grant application in February, execute the grant agreement in spring. and initiate projects later in the summer. Some may be performed by consultants paid for by the grant. 5. Complete the transportation planning projects listed in the table above. 6. Support the Solid Waste Department's public outreach efforts on the Knott Landfill gas to energy project. While this project was not identified in the Planning Division's FY 2012-2013 work program, Timm Schimke, Director of Solid Waste Dept., has asked the Planning Division to allocate time to help his department develop and execute a public outreach strategy. The Planning Division believes it can provide this service without disrupting existing planning projects this spring, but it would delay initiating any new projects (please see below). 7. Continue supporting and partnering with the DEQ to protect groundwater in southern Deschutes County through attending Steering Committee meetings and others as requested by the agency. After the Steering Committee has submitted its recommendations to DEQ, which may include an Exception to Statewide Planning Goal 11 to allow sewer systems in rural areas, conduct meetings with OEQ, DLCO, the Planning Commission, stakeholders and the public to discuss the recommendations and a strategy to move forward. Strategy discussions should address actions, leading and supporting organizations. general time frames, and resources.2 8. Similar to the DEQ groundwater protection efforts described above, the Planning Division will have some capacity to initiate a Non-Resource Lands program by early summer. However, if 2 Upon completing the South County Plan, City of Redmond preliminary buildable lands inventory. and Knott Landfill public outreach strategy in late spring/early summer, the Planning Division will have some capacity to contribute to this effort. -5­ Planning Division's resources require initiating a Goal 11 Exception, then this work plan item may need to be delayed until staffing resources become available. 9. Support the Property and Facilities Department's efforts to plan for the redevelopment of the County-owned Demo Landfill site (Simpson Ave. in the city of Bend) and efforts to address the need for an improved boat launch at or near Harper Bridge. IV. BOCC Direction Planning staff seeks direction from the BOCC on the next long range planning project(s) as capacity becomes available in the spring/summer. The BOCC may support the Planning Division Work Plan recommendations, modify them, or direct staff to dedicate resources to other projects not listed above. -6­ Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Nick Lelack, Interim Director DATE: January 30, 2013 RE: John Shepherd Fee Waiver Request Summary John Shepherd submitted the attached Fee Waiver Request for all or part of the $8,270 application fees to apply for a private park to hold commercial weddings on his property. Mr. Shepherd's 215­ acre property is located at 71120 Holmes Road, zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) and Wildlife Area Combining Zone (Deer Winter Range) 1, and is not high value farm land. A private park application for commercial weddings requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) ($2,240), Site Plan Review ($3,030), and a Hearings Officer deposit ($3,OOO) for a public hearing. Mr. Shepherd is applying under Deschutes County Community Development Fee Waiver Policy 8: "The Board of County Commissioners may waive fees in any other case where the public benefit is served and other remedies have been exhausted." Background I Discussion In April 2012, the Board adopted amendments to Deschutes County Code (DCC) to allow agri­ tourism and other commercial events and activities as limited use permits (LUP) per Senate Bill 960 in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zone. These amendments allow up to six (6) or eighteen (18) agri-tourism and other commercial events or activities each year depending on the type of LUP. However, in order for an EFU property owner to qualify for agri-tourism or other commercial events or activities a farm use must exist on the property. A farm use means the primary purpose of the property is to make a profit in money in agricultural operations as defined by state law. Last summer, Mr. Shepherd applied for a Type 3 LUP for up to 18 commercial events (weddings). He subsequently withdrew his application after planning staff informed him that he did not qualify for a LUP because he does not have a farm use on his property. Mr. Shepherd submitted the attached letter and Fee Waiver Request for all or part of the private park application fees for the following reasons: {1} He cannot afford the fees. 1 Deschutes County Code 18.88.040{B} lists prohibited uses in the Wildlife Area (WA) Combining Zone. Private parks are not prohibited in the WA Zone. Quality Services Performed 'with Pride I (2) There is uncertainty in the outcome of a private park application to host commercial weddings, and this land use application/decision would clarify whether commercial weddings can be approved as a private park in the EFU Zone. Deschutes County denied an application for a private park for a commercial wedding event venue in 1991. However, Crook, Benton and Douglas counties have approved private parks for commercial wedding event venues over the past few years. Private parks are not defined in State Law and the Land Use Board of Appeals has not ruled on a private park application. (3) The economic benefits of commercial weddings to the region's tourism and local agricultural community. Requested Board Action Decide whether to grant a full or partial fee waiver for Mr. Shepherd's application for a CUP ($2,240), Site Plan Review ($3,030) and/or Hearings Officer deposit ($3,000) for a public hearing. If the Board decides to grant a full or partial fee waiver, it must find that the action is in the public benefit, per the fee waiver policy. -2­ John Shepherd 71120 Holmes Road Sisters OR 97759 Request for Fee Waiver I am hereby requesting that Deschutes County waive all or part of the following fees in my application to establish a private park and qualify to hold weddings thereon: -Conditional Use Permit ($2,240) -Site Plan Review ($3,030) -Hearings Officer Deposit ($3,000) I am requesting that the County waive the fees for three reasons: 1. I am currently unemployed, receiving food stamps and cannot afford the fees 2. The outcome of this process would create a long-term efficiency for Deschutes County in that my case could be one of the first to complete the permitting process for private parks and would establish legal precedent for what is or is not permitted. In that the County has spent extraordinary means to clarify the Commercial Events Venue question, this process would be a great step forward in further clarifying this same issue. At present, Deschutes County does not know if or how weddings would be allowed on a private park. Proceeding through this permitting and hearing process would resolve that question. 3. Furthermore, weddings on my property would greatly benefit both the local agricultural community as well as Deschutes County as a whole. a. My proposal is that my wedding venue would support the local agricultural community by purchasing locally grown food products, such as wine from Faith, Hope and Charity Vineyards, beeffrom Just-a­ meer farms and produce from Rainshadow Organics. This locally grown produce could be used for rehearsal dinners and wedding reception dinners. b. My venue would bring well over $1 million into the Deschutes County economy. Most of my weddings will be destination weddings, bringing visitors and their money to Deschutes County. 18 weddings at 200 people per wedding means 3600 people spending their money here. According to VisitBend.com, the average visitor to Bend spends $70 per day here. So, based on 3600 visitors spending $70/day for 3 days, that totals $756,000 in spending. In addition, according to the Wedding Report, a market research publication, the average wedding costs $29,000. Multiply $29,000 by 18 weddings, and Deschutes County would see $522,000 in economic activity. This totals over $1.25 million in annual economic activity, much of it coming from outside the county. Nick, Please find enclosed 3 documents to supplement my fee waiver request which comes before the Board on Wednesday, January 30th • Please convey these to the Board for their consideration. Page 1 is a map which shows the relative size of the proposed park to the overall size of the parcel, roughly a 1:100 ratio. This demonstrates the feasibility of the park on my large acreage. Furthermore, the map shows the two closest houses, one is 1/3 mile away and the other is over 1 mile away. Page 2 is a printout of the money spent on the average wedding. It is proof of my assertion that holding weddings in a park would be an important economic activity for Deschutes County. Page 3 is a copy of my current SNAP (food stamps) card, in support of my indigency request. RECEIVED JAN 2 [) l013 Deschutes County COD \ ~ To see all the details that are 'visible on the screen, use the ·Print" link next to the map. ",(c, ~. Average Colorado Wedding Prices \ lut 10 (' P C( (0 pa. Below are some average price ranges you can expect from Colorado vendors. Though many people are often shocked at the cost of weddings and events, keep in mind that many vendors operate small businesses and incur overhead, marketing, insurance, supplies, equipment, training and multiple other fees related to the cost of doing business. In 2009, the National average overall cost of a wedding is expected to surpass $29,000 (source: The Wedding Report). Low Middle High Simtingat .... Slarting at ... Slartillg at ... Day-of Coordi.nators $750 1)1,200 52,000 Planners $3,000 $6,000 10,000 Location Rental $1,500 83,300 $8,000 Rentals & Decor Variable Variable Variable Cilair Covers / Linens (I 00 guest~) $500 $1,500 $4,000 Catering (100 guesl~);t 33,000 1513,000 525,000-1. --j,.. ' vt-~£..c.-~ Beverage (100 gucststr 32,000 $3,500 1)8,000<..~l.( ) Photographers $1,200 $4,000 $10,000 \5 0 ~ ~" Videographers 31,200 53,300 $8,000<A-JL ( V-~ Florists (100 guests, 4 attendants) $750 152,800 58,000 Bakers ( 1 00 guests) $350 $600 $1,200 DiscJockeys $500 $900 $1,800 Bands SI,500 $4,000 $8,000 Invitations 5200 S700 $1,300 Bridal Gown & Accessories 5900 $3,000 $6,000 Hair & Makeup (bride + two) $400 $700 $1,200 Miscellaneous $1,000 $4,000 $8,000 A.boul W , ..dec ~ alLer VeZlcui Wendee has been coordinating weddings and meeting for over 12 years. She earned her Bachdors from Iowa Slate University and a Masters from Cnlorado Slate University. Her professional backgrowld includes being an assistant to [WO wedding coordinators. a director oferuering. a meeting planner for continuing medical education programs. and a tcaeher. She specializes in onsite coordinating. location search assistance and detailed logistical planning. She is hased out ofthe Denvcr area, bue has travcied allover Ihe world for work. Hrr disrim:rive .~kills are her immense knowledge oflocarions and vendors. the ability [0 understand diems' desires. thoroughness. and allen lion 10 delaiJ -all with a warm and rriendlyapproach . W\vw,Cu.sLOmWeddin6TSol'Colorado, '(lin • b03) 9--16-A 2. Pni liJfJ, III~il'rl l" rlumgr Plmlrmlllllrt rr md"':fi1r u tN l /fIlII lMI q/ll/l,'. AI Ylll"M:/1lr 11'/111'/ 1/ ",!till lift.. ." "., CA ,-' 1..:1 l,II\·· v''}· . It". . ," Road Department 61150 se 27th St.• Bend. Oregon 97702 (541) 388-6581' FAX (541) 388-2719 January 29, 2013 Tom Hickmann, PE Heidi Lansdowne, PE City Engineer Principal Engineer/Project Manager City of Bend City of Bend via email: THickmann@cLbend.or.us HLansdowne@ci.bend.or.us RE: Water line installation, post Skyliners Road reconstruction Mr. Hickmann/Ms. Lansdowne: Let me start by saying that Deschutes County greatly values the working relationship we have with the City of Bend, specifically with regard to the cooperation and communication that has existed in advance of the City's Bridge Creek Project and the County's Skyliners Road Reconstruction Project (administered via the Federal Highway Administration ­ Western Lands Division). In our meeting of January 25, 2013 and follow-up email of January 29, 2013, you have asked that we respond in writing to ieveral scenarios regarding potential requirements that would be imposed if the City were to move forward with water line installation in or near Skyliners Road -after reconstruction of SkYliners Road. The scenarios/questions are specifically: 1. What road reconstruction and water line backfill requirements would the County impose if the water line were to be installed in the alignment as currently planned (10 to 12 feet off the centerline on the south side of the road, under the new bike lane)? 2. What road reconstruction and water line backfill requirements would the County impose if the water line were to be installed outside of the roadway prism? Prior to a response to the specific questions/scenarios above, please be aware that Deschutes County would be alarmed and highly critical of any future plan which would require significant pavement cutting of a new roadway -especially when that roadway has yet to be constructed. While Deschutes County will have the authority to permit such a cut in the future, the reliance upon a plan to significantly impact Skyliners Road in the near future will most likely initiate a dialogue with the FHWA whereby they question, and aware. once a road is cut it is never the same. despite best management practices to mitigate impact Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your questions and continue the communication and cooperation that have mutually benefitted our respective projects. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or comments. Sincerely. Chris Doty. PEjPTOE Director. Deschutes County Road Department chris.doty@co.deschutes.or.us cc: Tom Anderson. Interim County Administrator George Kolb. County Engineer Attachments: December 6,2011 Memo from G. Kolb. Road artment 61150 SE 27th St .• Bend. Oregon 97702 (541) 388-6581 • FAX (541 J388-2719 MEMORANDUM TO: TOM HICKMAN, crrY OF BEND FROM: GEORGE KOLB, I>JTERll\t ROAD DEPARTMENT DIRECtOR SUBJECT: SKYLrNERS ROAD DATE: 12/6/2011 CC: ERIK KROPP, INTERIM COUNTY :\DMTNTSTIti\TOR, BOARD OF COUN1Y COMMISSIONERS Tom: This memo is in response to the questions posed by the City of Bend as to what the County's position would be concerning Skyliners Road if the City delayed the installation of their waterline for several years versus installation of the waterline prior to the reconstruction of Skyliners Road. There are several issues that would come into play: I. The Skyliners Road project was originally scheduled tor a construction date of2016. rn working with thc City of Bend, USFS and Deschutes County, the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) agreed to move up the construction date to the year 2013 to coincide with the installation of the waterline (see attached letter from City of Bend dated 12/1612009). By doing both projects together, it would mean less disruption for the public and ensure that Skyliners Road would be reconstructed immediately after the waterline installation. FHW A has stated that the Sky liners Road project should not proceed to construction ahead of any waterline work within the roadway. Any delays to the road project beyond 2013 could affect project funding and delays oHive years or more would likely require the project to re-compete for federal funding. Skyliners Road has deteriorated to the point where the County Road Department cannot ensure that they will be able to maintain the paved surface if the project is delayed. 2. County Code does not allow new pavement to be cut until 5 years after the project is completed. If it was allowed, the City would be required to install Cement Treated Base (CTB) in the trench for the entire length of the project which would be extremely expensive. We would also require the City to correct any damage to the road and possibly repave the entire roadway. Quality Services Performed with Pride 710 WALl. STREeT P.O.6OX431 BEND, OR 97109 (541)388-5505 TB. [541] 388-5519 FAX _.c:I.bend.or.1I4 ~ber16,2009 George N. Fekaris Transportation PIaMer FHWA-Westem Federal Lands 610 East Fifth Street Vancouver, WA 98661 RE: Skyllners Road Forest Highway Programming Concem The City of Bend requests that the Skyliners Road project. currently programmed for 201 S, be instead programmed for 2012 in the DraIf Proposal for Consideration in Programming 2008 Gan for ProjeGts, FY 2008-2013 (dated 11/1912009). The proposed 2016 delivery date creates concerns for the City of Bend, including the following: • The City is working coIlaboratively with Deschutes County and USFS to install a major water lite concurrently with the ra-pavement of SkyHners Road, in an effort to efficiently utilize tax dollars by re-building ttle road only once. The waterlne is scheduled to be constructed in FY 2011·2012, creating a substantial timing gap for the project, and svniflcanUy Inhibiting our ability to move forward with the single largest water Infrastructure need in the City of Bend, affecting 50% of the City's water supply. • Skyliners Road is a pivotal multi-modal route for citizens and viSitors to Central Oregon. The condition of the road is deteriorating. which makes the route potentially unsafe for bicyclists and motorists. Investing in our local recreational assets, this route in particular, is critical to our continued success in attracting tourism to our community while ensuring safety on this road. During these economically challenging times, Deschutes County and the City of Bend have been hit particularfy hard in our professional services and construction sectors. This project Is an opportunity to provide jobs in both sectors and invest in our local economy; we e;an nQt think of ,8 more apropos time or location for the use of this funding. We'tJrge you to conSider these 'facto'rs when making'your decision abOut the timing ,of the Skyfiners RDaa F'orest Highway'ProJed. Thank you for your consideration. ~l ../ " Planning Division P.O. Box 6005 Community Development Department Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ MEMORANDUM DATE: January 22. 2013 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Cynthia Smidt, Associate Planner Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner MEETING: January 30, 2013 RE: Certified Local Government Grant Application / Permission to Proceed The purpose of this memorandum is to receive support from the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) to apply for a $13,000.00 Certified Local Government (CLG) grant.1 Every twenty-four months, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) offers matching grants to cities and counties that have been "certified" as historic preservation partners with both the state and federal governments. Deschutes County is a CLG. The Community Development Department wants to prepare, with the support of the BOCC and Deschutes County Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC), an application for the 2013-2014 grant cycle. The deadline is February 22. 2013. CLG grants assist local governments with their historic preservation programs on a non-competitive basis in order to ensure that all localities benefit. The maximum award for each locality is $13,000.00 based on fund availability and requires a 50/50 match of local funds or donated services/supplies. State and federal requirements regulate the CLG grant, including project budget, project timeline, inspections and audits, reports and billings, consultant/contractor standards, etc. The Community Development Department has been the recipient and beneficiary of CLG grants for several years. Staff relies on the professional input and direction of the HLC, an appOinted body that provides technical expertise on historic and cultural resources issues for the rural county and city of Sisters. to customize grant proposals.2 Last year, in preparation of the upcoming grant, the HLC helped staff identify the following projects listed below for CLG funding. Upon receiving BOCC support for pursuing the CLG grant, staff will coordinate with the HLC will to finalize the application at their February 4, 2013 meeting. 1 Deschutes County Administrative Policy No. GA-20 requires the Community Development Department to receive approval from the Board of County Commissioners to proceed with any proposed grant application. 2 Deschutes County Code Chapter 2.28. http://www.deschutes.org/County-Code.aspx?F=chapter+2.28.pdf Quality Services Performed 'With Pride 2013-2014 CLG Grant Project List Project Title Project Summary Estimated Cost Eligibility 1. Grant Administration Project coordination, tracking, reporting , staffing HLC, and reimbursement requests $1,500 Project Administration 2. Preservation Month National Preservation Month activities $1,000 Public Education 3. Historic photographs and website Photograph all national and locally designated properties and post on COD's website. Develop presentations for public use , etc. This is a carryover from 2011­ 2012 grant to allow the City of Sisters use funding to complement their downtown streetscape project $2,000 Public Education 4 . Deschutes County's Recreational Heritage (Phase 1) Deschutes County's reputation as an outdoor and recreational destination builds upon a rich history of Oregonians and visitors experiencing the extraordinary amenities of Central Oregon. This project inventories historic properties that have historical recreational significance . Inventorying historic recreational sites allows the County to: 0 Identify those that may be worthy of further recognition 0 Develop a public outreach campaign that highlights the County's historic recreational areas and potentially $7,500 Reconnaissance Level Surveys weaves them into tourism promotion using maps and interactive websites Phase 1 involves hiring a consultant who can reach out to property owners to perform a reconnaissance level survey of historic recreational sites and properties on public and private land. Examples include inventorying sites along the upper Deschutes River, Mt. Bachelor, Cascade Lakes, state parks, Newberry National Monument, and historic resorts of Sunriver and Black Butte. 5. Training HLC Member trainings $1,000 Other Preservation Activities