HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-05-08 Work Session Minutes
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Page 1 of 12
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
MINUTES OF WORK SESSION
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2013
___________________________
Present were Commissioners Alan Unger, Tammy Baney and Anthony DeBone.
Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy
County Administrator; and, for a portion of the meeting, Chris Doty, Road
Department; Nick Lelack and Peter Russell, Community Development; County
Counsel Mark Pilliod; Patrick Flaherty, Mary Anderson and Sarah Foreman,
District Attorney’s Office; Scott Johnson and Terry Schroeder , Health Services;
Andy High and Bill Robie and approximately six other citizens; and media
representative Shelby King of The Bulletin.
Chair Unger opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m.
___________________________
1. System Development Charges Update.
Chris Doty gave a PowerPoint presentation on the status of SDC’s. There is a
diverse group of people on the SDC Committee who came to consensus on
most aspects of SDC methodology, policies and rates. He referred to a handout
(a copy of which is attached for reference).
The Committee was tasked with finding consistency, evaluate reimbursement
possibilities; addressing home occupation SDC rates; clarify abandonment of
use, use changes and transferability; and determining trip generation issues.
Resolution No. 2008-059 dealt with growth’s share of planned improvements
divided by growth units over twenty years (trips). The total SDC is
improvements plus reimbursement. The SDC was determined to be
approximately $3,549, but was adjusted for inflation. A 4% increase was
computed based on national studies. Seattle is considered the closest example.
It is now at $3,820.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Page 2 of 12
Growth projections were revised to 2.2% for unincorporated areas – an addition
of 30,000 or more over twenty years. This means about 15,190 more peak hour
trips.
Census data has had an impact, with less than 1% growth occurring over the
past twelve years. Permit data shows 2.8% for some years but this went to
0.6% in later years. About 1% is estimated for unincorporated areas during
2010-1030 due to fewer rural subdivisions.
Residential trip generation methodology used two separate categories. Single-
family dwellings were computed at 1.0 peak hour trip; and destination resorts at
.32 peak hour trips per unit.
Resolution 2008-059 did not address destination resorts and just dealt with
single-family dwellings (a higher rate).
The proposed solution to this issue is a blended trip generation rate for all
residential units. This means primary home development and secondary home
development are examined separately. About 74% in Deschutes County are
primary dwellings, and the rest are secondary. This information comes from
census data.
The trip generation blended rate would be 0.81 peak hour trips per dwelling
unit, regardless of location. This will be used to calculate future transportation
uses. Considering new residential units at a 1% annual growth over twenty
years, it goes from 31,013 to 37,836 units, resulting in 5,525 more trips, or an
increase of 18%. You would add 10% for commercial.
Capital Improvement Plan.
Mr. Doty said that there was a carry-over from the prior list plus new and
anticipated projects. He explained the SDC eligible cost allocation by type of
project, totaling about $305 million; there are eligible SDC’s at $22 million, per
the opinion of the Committee. This computes to $3,672 per unit.
No funds were allocated towards system management, state highway segments,
or bicycle/pedestrian projects. Forest highway projects are funded at 10% now,
when previously this match was not required and was covered by federal
funding.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Page 3 of 12
The Committee examined the SDC reimbursement piece, which was established
in 2008. This is the only way to collect from previous capacity. This amounts
to $525,000, or $86 per trip, totaling $3,758. When this is computed at 0.81, it
is a decrease for residential of 20%, or $3,044. For non-residential, there is a
1.5% decrease. Most of it is residential, however.
In regard to home occupation SDC rates, there are three types to consider. The
committee decided this is often not a long-term situation, so a flat rate was set
for each.
Peter Russell stated that a single family home has one PMP. To figure it
through commercial charts does not make sense. There could be little activity in
a large structure or more activity in a smaller one. They worked towards a
decision that makes sense.
The SDC will stay with the land. If the use is abandoned, and if within two
years a replacement structure is placed, they will acknowledge the prior
payment of the SDC. There may not be a building permit relating to a change
of use, but there might be more employees.
The Committee talked about events and how to determine those impacts. This
will be addressed at the next update.
There is a public hearing on SDC’s on June 5. The new fee structure would
take effect upon approval of the Board. An applicant will be able to pay the
lesser amount upon the certification of occupancy.
Andy High said he appreciate this cost going down over ten years. It still could
be a problem long-term if destination resorts come into play. He has an issue
with abandonment of the property or use. The City of Bend allows ten years
rather than two; there are cases when the County wants a structure removed, but
the property owner is not ready to build.
Bill Robie said the process went smoothly and staff did a good job of getting to
this point.
Commissioner Baney asked what happens when property owners feel they have
overpaid. Mr. Doty stated that the argument and rationale could be upheld, but
mostly it involves getting into the ballpark. He does not think there is a lot of
liability, and it has never been appealed since the charges were consistent with
the fee schedule. Mr. Russell stated that there was a table used, and an appeal
process that was never used.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Page 4 of 12
Commissioner Baney stated that when she voted for the SDC, it was not
implemented and did not remain consistent. Her understanding of what was
eventually charged is different from what she thought would happen.
Mr. Pilliod stated that this did not dictate SDC’s. People had recourse if, in
their opinion, the fees were not accurate. Commissioner Baney noted that the
County should be transparent, even if this only amounts to a small amount.
Mr. Pilliod stated that if this were the wrong amount, a determination needs to
be made as to what is should be and at what level. The Board could be faulted,
but there was no error in the way the fees were established and collected.
2. Consideration of Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2013-
012, Amending the City of Bend’s Urban Growth Boundary to Include a
12.44-acre Property.
BANEY: Move second reading by title only.
DEBONE: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
DEBONE: Yes.
UNGER: Chair votes yes.
BANEY: Move adoption.
DEBONE: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
DEBONE: Yes.
UNGER: Chair votes yes.
3. Follow-up Discussion on Civil Commitment Process.
Mr. Anderson referred to his staff report, which speaks to redirecting these
cases to the District Attorney from Legal Counsel. One suggestion was whether
this work could be contracted to an external party, such as what is done in Linn
County. Evidently, Legal Counsel, the D.A. and Behavioral Health were
skeptical whether this is practical.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Page 5 of 12
A more recent discussion addressed other possibilities. At issue is the level of
administrative support and document handling. DHS has a section at the State
level that oversees these cases. There have been discussions regarding what
this effort would mean to the D.A.’s Office. Some additional expertise at the
support level might be necessary; but what might really be needed is another
Deputy D.A.
The question is what it currently entails; this information is contained in the
staff report, detailing attorney time and administrative time. The caseload is
increasing. Last year it was 24 cases, but in 2013, there have already been 14
cases, potentially amounting to 42 cases in 2013.
Options include the status quo. Another option would be to consider
contracting the work out. A different option would be having the D.A.’s Office
assume responsibility for these cases. This would have an impact on the D.A.’s
budget and workload.
The last option would be directing staff to perform additional research on how
this is being handled in other places, or getting feedback from DHS. The D.A.
and Legal Counsel could prepare a more detailed and formal analysis as to how
this work could impact these departments, and what is needed to be able to
handle the additional workload.
Commissioner Baney noted this is a mandatory duty. Chair Unger asked about
retaining it in Legal Counsel, but realizes there are challenges of having to do
this work immediately when it comes in, and dropping other things.
Commissioner Baney asked if the caseload increase is an anomaly. Mr.
Schroeder indicated there are about 400 Mental Health holds each year. A
certain percentage goes to civil commitment, and those numbers are both
increasing. There are seasonal patterns, but it is busy now when it normally
would not be. This is not a good sign. Some are due to changes in reporting,
but they are seeing more of these cases anyway, and they are increasingly
complex, involving fewer options and longer holds.
He said that there is a large number of holds, some of which are committed. It
is hard to manage all those cases and difficult to be efficient when they
increase.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Page 6 of 12
Mr. Pilliod said that in regard to keeping it in house, there is a list of discrete
tasks tied to the work, and it is hard to identify an average or typical amount of
time needed for each. He added that the other advantage of doing this on a
regular basis helps to better understand the work involved. It is not a matter of
finding capacity on an annual basis; but that without notice, the regular tasks
have to be diverted to handle these cases. This is when it becomes disruptive.
There is no other staff in the County who could do this on short notice. It does
not lend itself to a mix of one office doing one thing and another office doing
other things.
In regard to using outside counsel, it is unknown whether other agencies have
one person handle the administrative support or just the court portion. He is
hearing from the D.A. and Behavioral Health that this is not the preferred
alternative due to liabilities if it is not done properly. It then becomes a
problem for the County or the D.A.
Mr. Flaherty agreed that this would not be a good option. He knows of no other
D.A. offices that have farmed out this work.
Scott Johnson said his department would prefer having Legal Counsel handle
this for consistency. Commissioner Baney asked if it was farmed out but not
handled properly, what are the potential problems. Ms. Foreman stated that this
could mean the release of someone from custody who is not stable. Ms.
Anderson added that the DHS childcare administrator feels there need to be
consistent attorneys appearing, and the staff person needs someone who can be
contacted quickly.
Chair Unger stated that a larger firm would have to dedicate someone to handle
this, but it is a problem if they have to be accessible quickly.
Terry said by the third day of the commitment proceeding, a conclusion has to
be reached. That means quick action. Mr. Flaherty indicated they would do
what the Board requests. This is somewhat unusual due to quirks in the law.
The Board of Commissioners or County Court has the legal authority to make a
decision about who represents the State of Oregon in civil court. Some
accountable governmental body has to make this decision.
Mr. Pilliod noted that four counties handle it through their legal counsel; others
handle it thorough the DA. There are counties that are doing this, but just a few.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Page 7 of 12
Commissioner Baney said it seems that full-service staff is preferable from
whichever department, to be consistent with the goals and objective s relating to
public safety.
In regard to workload, Mr. Flaherty stated that he looked at the law, and wishes
he would have known this was coming up before submitting his budget request.
Under the law, it is up to the Board. However, he would need additional
staffing. He asked Sara Foreman to contact other D.A. offices to see how they
handle these cases.
.
The most cost effective solution in order to provide minimum standards would
involve a paralegal being added to staff. They have almost every Deputy D.A.
at capacity plus handling special projects. Multi-disciplinary teams require a lot
of work. They are also handling specialty courts, law enforcement training,
reviewing search warrants and more. They could reclassify someone to a
paralegal, but in the context, with the addition of child support enforcement
services, an attorney rather than a paralegal would typically handle these cases
He is concerned about who might be able to do what. He is confident he could
find an attorney who could be a great asset for this work and other matters
dealing with the State. There is no paralegal in his office at this time.
Mr. Laherty said that a legal secretary could do some support work. Mr.
Flaherty added that there is a lot of statutory interpretation involved. A
paralegal might be appropriate for some, but they have to be certified to
complete legal documents. The D.A. counsel time listed in the memo seems
low to him, and they cannot predict how many cases might come in. They need
to have a dedicated attorney on these cases when they come in. It is hard to
have one available who is not already tied up on a criminal case or is in court.
Commissioner DeBone asked if they have to study each case a lot, or just figure
out how it fits into the law. Mr. Laherty replied that they need to know all the
facts to determine if the person fits into the appropriate category. Mental
Health staff conducts an investigation during the hold period. If it is to go to a
commitment, a report must be submitted by the investigator within three days.
Then there is a lot of contact with witnesses, interviews to conduct, and
questions prepared for court, followed by going to court and calling up
witnesses then.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Page 8 of 12
Commissioner Unger said the decision to be made is which o ffice should
handle this workload, and then a decision how to pay for it. It appears that
outside contracting is not a viable option. The work is disruptive and the
existing system is not working well. If the D.A. takes this on, it is then a matter
of transitioning and how to pay for it. They are close to budget discussions, but
there is time to talk about the financial implications. He would like to see a
decision reached on who is going to handle the work, and go from there.
Commissioner Baney agreed. She stated that neither office is sitting idle
waiting for one of these to come in. It is hard to find the sweet spot due to the
timing and urgency. Whichever office takes it will have to be mindful of this.
There would be unique consequences to contracting out this work, and this
option does not seem to be supported now.
The Board has two employees, Legal Counsel and County Administrator. The
budget piece could be an add-back. She is in favor of moving it to the D.A.’s
Office, and it will involve a budget decision. No one wants an attorney doing
clerical work. This is a core role and function, something they have to do.
They do not have a choice as to whether it is done, just by whom. There is a
choice as to how the child support enforcemen t work is done. That is a priority,
but it is not mandated. She would like to set aside this aspect for now.
Mr. Flaherty said this is partially true. The law obligates the D.A. to handle
child support enforcement. If the Attorney General decides something goes to
the D.A., it does. It is then a mandate. There has been some suggestion from
the Attorney General’s Office that they might get rid of this, but in the State
most of this work is done by the D.A.
Commissioner Baney stated that no one else is available to do civil
commitments. It has to be done, and it cannot be held up for something else.
Mr. Flaherty said they need to have another attorney in the D.A.’s office to
handle this and more. Commissioner Baney stated that the budget committee
will want to hear about the justification for this. Commissioner DeBone feels
that the D.A. should handle civil commitment proceedings. He does not have a
feel for what kind of staffing level is needed, though, and does not understand
the capacity side of it. Mr. Anderson noted that he hears all three groups having
the desire to transfer this to the D.A.’s office. He will ask Mr. Pilliod to prepare
an Order in this regard, which could be approved today.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Page 9 of 12
Ms. Anderson asked about a transition period. They will need to hire and train
someone, and this cannot be done in just thirty days. Connie Scorza has
indicated she will be available to train, but they have to hire first. Mr.
Anderson stated this could begin in July.
Mr. Johnson added that they will want adequate time to prepare protocols and
staffing changes, and wants to be sure it is done right.
Mr. Anderson stated that the main thing is the change. County Counsel will
offer training or whatever is needed during the transition. If they are not yet
there on July 1, delays can be discussed to reach the right point.
Ms. Anderson stated that the Order does not say this. Commissioner Baney
pointed out that County Counsel did not bring in more staff with the additional
workload increase, so she cannot imagine it will be impossible. It might be a
bit tight for a while, but it would be hard anyway to be fully loaded on a given
date. There will be some time when it will be painful.
Mr. Flaherty said that the work they perform is dynamic and changes daily. It
can be all-consuming, and these proceedings are important. They want to
maintain a high quality of representation and not have any time when it is
below par. It is important to consider the timeframe. This issue could have
been brought up several months ago before budgets were submitted.
Commissioner DeBone noted that the D.A. would have the authority, but
perhaps Mr. Laherty could help with the first cases. Mr. Pilliod responded that
his department will provide for training and support, and he has been saying
this all along. However, he might not want anyone from his staff to be a
temporary Deputy D.A. The difficulty is, the Board is making a high -level
decision. They cannot let this be qualified for too long. The transition will not
happen if there are these kinds of delays. This is the same Order as in 1988
with a defined date, which does not allow for a lot of uncertainties. His
department will be ready to provide support and training. He wants to see this
succeed as well. If the D.A has a better way of implementing the process, he
can do so.
Commissioner Baney asked about making the effective date August 1, as a
compromise. They won’t know until they go through the budget the level of the
FTE.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Page 10 of 12
Mr. Anderson noted this will allow some time to get up to speed. They could
bring on additional staff, whether a Deputy D.A. or a paralegal, whoever the
D.A. feels is appropriate. They don’t need to get ahead of themselves on this.
Perhaps they can come up with a better idea of the staff level needed. It might
be beneficial to do this before signing the Order.
Mr. Pilliod said that this will end up being a budget committee hearing instead.
He can allow for an August 1 date. If the Board proceeds with the Order with
that date, it will help determine the mix of staffing.
Ms. Foreman stated that it takes three weeks to post a job so it takes five or six
weeks to get someone on board. Commissioner Baney said that they may have
to absorb extra work for a short period of time.
BANEY: Move approval of Order No 2013- , showing an effective date of
on or before August 1, 2013.
DEBONE: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
DEBONE: Yes.
UNGER: Chair votes yes.
Mr. Anderson noted that he is not saying the Board will authorize another
position; they need to make the case for this. Mr. Kropp suggested they not run
ads until the position is authorized. Commissioner Baney added that there will
be direction coming on May 21 at the presentation.
Mr. Flaherty said he wants to develop a sustainable program and not have to
struggle with it. There is an uptick now during what should be a slow season.
He anticipates they also will be getting back child support enforcement cases in
the near future.
4. Other Items.
Chair Unger said the County needs to get onto the next FEMA grant that
applies to housing that is near the forests. He wants to be sure FEMA is getting
the message.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Page 11 of 12
Commissioner Baney stated that County Counsel drafted an agreement that was
sent to the Oregon Department of Emergency Management. Mr. Pilliod said
that they came to an agreement on the numbers, which were high enough for the
groups to feel were sufficient, and also satisfactory to FEMA. There has been a
lot of discussion on this. They need to document the purpose, and close the
book on the disputed amounts.
The County does not have contracts with FEMA except through the OEM, so
the OEM is the one on the hot seat. The deal involves OEM making a
contribution in addition to that of the County. A contract is needed with OEM
to settle part of this. There were two grants and two agreements with the OEM,
with OEM paying some, the County paying some, and OEM submitting to
FEMA a request for formal closeout of the grants. OEM would release the
County from liability under these grants. This would conclude the matter.
Based on what he is hearing from the OEM and Joe Stutler, everyone is on
board. The last piece, the final release, might be challenging. Unless the
County gets that, they are not yet there. FEMA won’t sign off direct and they
can’t be brought to the table.
Mr. Anderson said that he understands this was one of the main purposes of the
OEM visit and reviews of County records. A verbal agreement was reached.
They found what they needed, so this should be done.
Mr. Pilliod noted that this might be a non-issue. They will share the agreement
with the higher-ups at OEM, ask for changes, bring them money and get
signatures. The Board indicated that Commissioner Baney can sign the
document on behalf of the County.
Commissioner Baney stated they need to give Ed Keith (Forester) support to
push for categorical exclusions on the new grant.
Chair Unger said he will be in Washington D.C. in a week and hopes to meet
with legislative representatives Wyden, Merkley and Walden to show them how
this worked during the very recent wildfire situation in La Pine. It worked out
well because of the mitigation that had been done, and it saved homes. More
work needs to be done, so they want that 2010 grant.
Commissioner Baney noted that the protection of communities against wildfire
is based on sweat equity, and having people understand the importance of doing
this work consistently. However, FEMA struggles with the calculations on
sweat equity. The FEMA requirement of wanting to calculate the work that
each homeowner has done is not possible. The County asked the homeowners '
associations to certify this work was done . A federal agency should understand
how to roll out this work on the ground.
Mr. Anderson pointed out that the lines of communication within such a
massive organization are not there.
Mr. Anderson said that the County got the brownfields grant for $400,000. It
will be used for planning and assessment of the old landfill, the old shooting
range , how to address the dicalite (diatomaceous earth) mine issue, and maybe
other projects.
Being no further items addressed, the work session ended at 4:40 p.m.
DATED this 1A1!:-Day of ~ 2013 for the
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners:
Ala ~
Tammy Baney, VIce haIr
ATTEST:
Anthony DeBone, Commissioner ~~
Recording Secretary
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Page 12 of12
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, MAY 8, 2013
1. SDC Update -Chris Doty
2. Consideration of Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2013-012,
Amending the City of Bend's Urban Growth Boundary to Include a 12.44-acre
Property -Peter Gutowsky
3. Follow-up Discussion on Civil Commitment Process -Mark Pilliod
4. 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.
Meeting dates. times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board ofCommissioners' meeting rooms at
1300 NW Wall St .• Bend. unless otherwise indicated. /fyou 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 TTY.
Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information.
M
5
N
00
>
ctl
~
-0
OJ
~
I
I
tJ I
I ~
Q) c ~'
0 I
.c
Q.
I\)
; ~
~
~i I
1 51 I ~11I ~
I
I
I
I I I
I
I
-h-
I
I
I
I
1
I
ITI
I
I
I I
Memorandum
To: Board of County Commissioners
Through: Tom Anderson, County Administrator
From: Chris Doty, Director
Date: May 8, 2013
RE: Transportation SDC work session with BOCC
On May 8, 2013, staff will conduct a work session with the Board of County Commissioners to
review the published information relating to the upcoming public hearing for Resolution 2013-
020 (Transportation SDC Update).
Information to be reviewed and discussed includes the following:
1. Resolution 2013-020 (published draft)
a. Exhibit A to Resolution 2013-020 (Methodology Report dated April 5, 2013)
i. Exhibit A-1: CDD Growth Rate Projection
ii. Exhibit B: 2012 Transportation CIP List (per TSP)
iii. Exhibit C: Transportation SDC Rate Sheet
iv. Exhibit D: SDC Policy Issues Memorandum (February 12, 2013)
The purpose of the work session will be to review the above documents and the associated
recommendations of the SDC Committee in advance of the June 5, 2013 public hearing.
The June 5, 2013 public hearing has been scheduled in conformance with the notification
requirements of ORS 223.304 (7).
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE UPDATE
(Methodology Report)
By Chris Doty, PE/PTOE, Road Department Director
April 5, 2013
With the recent County approval and State acknowledgement of the County’s new
Transportation System Plan (TSP), the County’s Transportation System Development
Charge (SDC) must be updated to reflect a new Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) contained
within the TSP as well as modified growth projections through the year 2030.
Background:
In July of 2008, the Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution 2008-059 which
established a countywide Transportation SDC. The passage of the Resolution concluded a
public process primarily involving the Deschutes County Transportation SDC Stakeholders
Advisory Committee. The Committee recommended a SDC methodology and final SDC
rate based upon the best available data regarding needed transportation projects and growth
projections. A primary component of the SDC methodology and rate is the Road
Department’s CIP which establishes the planned transportation projects necessary to
accommodate growth and system improvement throughout a 20-year planning horizon.
On August 20, 2012, the Board of County Commissioners approved an update to the
County’s TSP. The update includes a new Transportation CIP. The revised CIP contains
significant changes in planned projects through the year 2030.
The current SDC methodology calculates an improvement fee (no reimbursement fee1)
based on the number of PM peak hour trips added to the transportation system. The
formula is as follows:
1 The current SDC methodology does not contain a reimbursement fee portion; however Resolution 2008-059 (and supporting documents)
describes a “placeholder” methodology for future consideration of a reimbursement SDC.
EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION 2013-020
Transportation SDC Update: April 5, 2013 Page 2
The existing SDC methodology calculates the SDC eligible cost of planned capital
improvements at approximately $55M (of $280M in total project cost). The existing SDC
methodology also assumes growth, measured in the estimated number of daily peak hour
trips added to the system, at approximately 15,200.
The resulting SDC, updated several times through inflation adjustments, stands at $3,673
per PM peak hour trip (including $47/PM peak hour trip administration fee).
SDC Committee:
On February 12 and February 26th 2013, the County’s SDC Committee met to review an
update proposal based on a new CIP and revised infrastructure growth estimates. The SDC
Committee was comprised of the following members:
Paul Dewey, Central Oregon Landwatch
Chris Doty, Deschutes County Road Department Director
Andy High, Central Oregon Builders Association
Steve Hultberg, Radler, White and Alexander
Gary Miller, Special Road District #8
Bill Robie, Central Oregon Realtors Association
Peter Russell, Deschutes County, Senior Transportation Planner
Dale Van Valkenburg, Brooks Resources
Mike Williams, Hooker Creek
In addition to reviewing and recommending adoption of:
1. A revised infrastructure growth estimate
a. With new methodology for estimating system trip generation.
2. A project list (CIP)
a. With growth’s portion of improvements identified.
The SDC Committee also reviewed the following elements related to the SDC
methodology:
3. Consistency within the methodology as it relates to resort versus non-resort single-
family residential dwelling units.
4. Transportation SDC Recommendation
a. Reimbursement fee SDC Portion
b. Improvement fee SDC Portion
c. Total Transportation SDC
5. SDC Resolution related clarifications pertaining to:
Transportation SDC Update: April 5, 2013 Page 3
a. Establishment that SDCs are assigned to land rather than structure.
b. Timeframe to declare abandonment of use.
c. Clarification of how to charge Home Occupations.
d. How to address illegal use.
e. How to address change of use.
f. How to adopt changes/updates to the Institute of Transportation Engineers’
Trip Generation Manual.
In establishing items 1-5 above, the SDC Committee arrived at a new SDC rate.
The SDC Committee achieved full consensus on the above issues as follows:
Item 1 and 1a: Infrastructure Growth Estimate
Similar to the estimate calculated in Resolution 2008-059, the growth in transportation
system use utilized a residentially based background trip generation estimate, then
calculated system growth across the 20-year planning period utilizing an estimated growth
rate.
Based on recent Census and historical permit data, the Deschutes County Community
Development Department (CDD) has estimated an unincorporated area growth rate of
1.0% per year (2010 to 2030). See Exhibit A-1.
To calculate the background system use in 2010 (as a baseline for estimating future growth),
a “blended” residential trip generation rate was created and utilized to account for
Deschutes County’s unique high percentage of secondary home development.
The blended residential trip rate is calculated as follows:
Blended Single-Family Residential Trip Generation Rate Calculation
Land Use ITE #/Type PM peak hour
trips/unit
% of Total Use in
Des. County
Rate
Single Family Residential
(primary housing)
#210
Single Family
Detached
Housing
1.00 74% 0.74
Single Family Residential
(Secondary/resort housing)
#260
Recreational
Homes
0.26 26% 0.07
Total “Blended” Trip
Generation Rate per
Residential Dwelling
Unit (PM Pk Hr)
0.81
Transportation SDC Update: April 5, 2013 Page 4
The blended trip generation rate resolves the prior issue of methodology inconsistency
between residential uses contained within, or outside of, a Goal 8 destination resort. The
blended rate is a global rate of the average trip generation of a dwelling unit in Deschutes
County that will be applied to all building permits for single-family residences (inside and
outside of resorts).
Utilizing 2010 Census and CDD permit data, the 20-year growth in system use within the
unincorporated area is estimated per the following tables:
Growth in Residential Development
Land Use # Units 2010
# Units 2030
(1% per year for 20
years)
Growth in Units
Single Family (SF) Residential 31,013 37,836 6,823
Growth in System Use (Residential Based at 0.81 PM peak hour trips/unit)
Land Use
# of PM Peak
Hour Trips
(2010)
# of PM Peak
Hour Trips
(2030)
Growth in # of
PM Peak Hour
Trips
Growth (2010 to
2030) as a
percent of total
system use.
SF Residential 25,120 30,645 5,525 18.0%
Total Growth Related Trips added to System (2010 to 2030)
Land Use Growth Related PM peak hour trips
Residential 5,525
Non-Residential (Commercial, etc.)
*Estimated at 10% of residential trips per 2009 to 2013 SDC collection data 553
Total 6,078
Based on a revised growth estimate and a modified trip generation rate, growth within the
unincorporated area of Deschutes County is anticipated to add 6,078 PM peak hour trips to
the transportation system by 2030. This growth is estimated to account for an 18.0%
increase in transportation system use.
Item 2 and 2a: Capital Improvement Plan/Project List and Growth’s Portion of Planned Projects
Utilizing the CIP (with minor modifications) contained within the recently approved TSP,
the SDC Committee assigned growth’s share of planned projects primarily based on the
methodology and rationale established in Resolution 2008-059.
Transportation SDC Update: April 5, 2013 Page 5
Exhibit B is the recommended Project List with identified SDC funding apportionment
based on the SDC Committee’s recommendation in the following categories:
SDC Eligible Expense by Project Category
Project Category Project Cost % SDC Eligible Total $ SDC Eligible
County Intersection
Projects $7.08M 100% $7.08M
System Management $0.2M 0% $0
State Highway Segments $125.10M 0% $0
State Highway
Intersections $115.55M 2.7% $3.12M
County New Segments $3.46M 100% $3.46M
County Modernization
Projects $34.49M 18% $6.21M
Forest Highway Projects $15.4M 10% $1.54M
Bike/Ped Projects $0.57M 0% $0
Bridge Projects $3.44M 18% $0.62M
TOTAL Project Cost $305.3M $22.03M
The SDC Committee followed the prior methodology and rationale for assignment of SDC
eligible expense (growth’s portion) as established in Resolution 2008-059, with one
exception (Forest Highway Projects).
County Intersection Projects and New County Road Segments remain funded at 100% via
growth. County Modernization Projects and Bridge Projects are funded based on growth’s
proportional impact to background use – which has been revised to 18.0%. State Highway
Intersection Projects (intersecting County facilities) are funded at 2.7%. This is based on a
percent of a percent. The County’s share of an intersection’s is 15%. Assuming growth
accounts for 18% of the new use of the intersection, then 2.7% is 18% of the total County
share of 15%. System Management, State Highway Segments, and Bike/Ped Projects
(mostly sidewalk) do not have any funding assigned to growth.
Transportation SDC Update: April 5, 2013 Page 6
Within the existing SDC methodology, Forest Highway Projects were not assigned any
growth-related SDC expense as previously the Federal Forest Highway Program fully
funded Forest Highway reconstruction and modernization projects. With passage of the
federal transportation bill, MAP-21, Forest Highway projects now require a 10% local
match. As Forest Highway Projects are similar to County Modernization Projects (18%
growth attributable), the SDC Committee has accepted a staff recommendation of a 10%
allocation attributable to growth – equal to the match requirement.
In summary, the SDC Committee has recommended a growth-related allocation of
approximately $22.2M of the $305.3M project list. Of the $305.3M in projects contained on
the list, approximately $64.6M are County system related projects and $240.7M are State
Highway projects planned within Deschutes County.
Item 3: Consistency within the methodology as it relates to resort versus non-resort residential
dwelling units.
The prior SDC rate approved in Resolution 2008-059 contained inconsistencies within the
methodology report regarding the estimated impact of destination resort development versus
the SDC that was applied at time of development. These inconsistencies were noted and
arguments were made that single-family residential development within destination resort
communities should pay lower SDCs due to observed lower trip generation rates. To
address this inconsistency, staff proposed a “blended” single-family residential trip
generation rate which assumes and/or acknowledges the following:
1. Lower trip generation rates observed within destination resorts are primarily a
function of secondary home development.
2. Secondary home development is not exclusive to Goal 8 destination resorts within
Deschutes County.
3. Primary single-family home development is generally not restricted or prohibited
within destination resort communities.
4. It is not practical to assign or predict which single-family residences are or will
remain secondary homes in perpetuity.
5. Approximately 74% of single-family residential units in Deschutes County are
primary residences and 26% are secondary residences (or “recreational” homes).
6. The Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation manual provides trip
generation rates for traditional single-family residential development (ITE land use
#210) and secondary or recreation home development (ITE land use #260).
In consideration of these assumptions and acknowledgements, a weighted or “blended” trip
generation rate was calculated as previously outlined in Item #1a.
The blended residential trip rate is calculated as follows:
Transportation SDC Update: April 5, 2013 Page 7
Blended Single-Family Residential Trip Generation Rate Calculation
Land Use ITE #/Type PM peak hour
trips/unit
% of Total Use in
Des. County
Rate
Single Family Residential
(primary housing)
#210
Single Family
Detached
Housing
1.00 74% 0.74
Single Family Residential
(Secondary/resort housing)
#260
Recreational
Homes
0.26 26% 0.07
Total “Blended” Trip
Generation Rate per
Residential Dwelling
Unit (PM Pk Hr)
0.81
Given the existing blend of residential use observed within Deschutes County, the blended
residential trip rate provides a reasonable rate for calculation of existing transportation
system use.
With an assumption that future development patterns will closely resemble the existing
residential development composition (primary vs secondary home development), the
blended trip generation rate provides a reasonable predictor for future system use.
As proposed by staff and approved by the SDC Committee, the trip generation rate for all
single-family residential development in unincorporated Deschutes County is recommended
to be 0.81 PM peak hour trips per dwelling unit.
Item 4a-c: Transportation SDC Recommendation
ORS 223.297-223.314 defines SDCs and provides the framework for how they are
calculated and applied, as well as accounted for. The SDC is comprised of two
components: the improvement fee portion and the reimbursement fee portion.
The improvement fee portion is designed to capture costs associated with growth’s share of
future projects. The reimbursement fee portion is designed to recover costs of capital
improvements already constructed, but used by future growth. The SDC methodology
established in Resolution 2008-059 utilized an improvement fee portion, but deferred
establishment of a reimbursement fee portion until the County has a justifiable cost basis for
doing so, as follows:
Transportation SDC Update: April 5, 2013 Page 8
“Due to the fact that the existing County transportation system has been funded by a
combination of tax sources and other “general” funds, the County should forgo charging a
reimbursement fee as a part of its initial transportation SDC. A reimbursement fee
methodology or formula should be included in the analysis and report in order to allow the
County to add a reimbursement fee when it later develops a basis for such a fee.”
The reimbursement fee portion methodology established in Resolution 2008-059 is as
follows:
Reimbursement Fee Portion:
The SDC Committee reviewed the above methodology as well as a record of SDC
expenditures from 2009 to present (FY 13) and recommended approval of a reimbursement
fee portions as follows:
Improvement Fee Portion:
In contemplation of the CIP (Project List) and growth’s recommended portion of planned
projects as well as the revised growth projects for transportation system use, the SDC
Committee recommended the following improvement fee portion:
2
Total Transportation SDC:
The total recommended Transportation SDC is:
2 Including the existing $47 per PM peak hour trip administrative recovery fee, established in Resolution 2008-059.
Transportation SDC Update: April 5, 2013 Page 9
Exhibit C contains an updated listing of SDC rates for various land uses utilizing the 9th
Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual.
Item 5a through 5f: Other Modifications and Clarifications to the SDC Resolution
The SDC Committee reviewed staff recommendations pertaining to requested modifications
and clarifications within the SDC Resolution based on issues that have been raised since
implementation of Resolution 2008-059.
The SDC Committee approved a staff proposal3 to address the following in the new SDC
Resolution:
a. Establish that SDCs run with the land.
b. Declare that uses which have been abandoned for more than two (2)
consecutive years are not eligible for any credit for existing use.
c. Establish that:
i. Type I home occupations have negligible impact and pay no SDC
ii. Type II home occupations have a 0.5 PM peak hour trip impact and
pay the according SDC for 0.5 PM peak hour trips.
iii. Type III home occupations have a 1.0 PM peak hour trip impact and
pay the according SDC for 1.0 PM peak hour trips.
d. Address illegal use issues through code enforcement and require payment of
SDC.
e. Establish that SDC payment be required of development applications (not just
those requiring a building permit) for change of use which result in increasing
use of the transportation system.
f. Reference the applicability of subsequent updates of the ITE Trip Generation
Manual.
Exhibits/Attachments:
Exhibit A-1: DC CDD Growth Rate Projection Letter
Exhibit B: Project List (Capital Improvement Plan)
Exhibit C: Transportation SDC Rate Sheet
Exhibit D: February 12, 2013 Memo to SDC Committee (Proposals on several SDC Policy
Issues)
3 See Peter Russell Memo, dated February 12, 2013, Re: Proposals on several SDC Policy Issues
DRAFT DC Transportation CIP and SDC Project List
RESOLUTION 2013-020
EXHIBIT B
shade areas = contained in Res. 2008-059 project list Current Existing County SDC Com. Rec
Proposed Functional Road Standard Construction Engineering &Project SDC Eligible
Road Name From To Treatment Class Section (ft.)Section (ft.)Cost Administration cost cost Priority
County Improvement Projects (intersection only)
Intersection Location 100%
POWELL BUTTE HWY./NEFF-ALFALFA MKT. ROAD Rural/Bend Area Install Roundabout Arterial/Arterial 720,000$ 180,000$ 900,000$ 900,000$ High
POWELL BUTTE HWY./BUTLER MARKET ROAD Rural/Bend Area Install Roundabout Arterial/Arterial 720,000$ 180,000$ 900,000$ 900,000$ High
BURGESS RD AT DAY RD Rural / South County Area Add turn lanes to Burgess Road Arterial/Collector 225,000$ 56,250$ 281,250$ 281,250$ Medium
OLD REDMOND-BEND HWY
AT TUMALO RD
Rural / Tumalo Area Add turn lanes to Old Redmond-Bend Hwy
and improve intersection sight distance
Arterial/Collector $ 200,000 $ 50,000 $ 250,000
250,000$
Medium
BAKER ROAD AND CINDER BUTTE ROAD Rural/ Deschutes River Woods Install Roundabout Arterial/Collector 720,000$ 180,000$ 900,000$ 900,000$ Medium
CANAL BLVD/HELMHOLTZ Rural /Redmond Area Install Roundabout Arterial/Collector 720,000$ 180,000$ 900,000$ 900,000$ Medium
DESCHUTES MKT/HAMEHOOK Rural/Bend Area Install Roundabout Collector 720,000$ 180,000$ 900,000$ 900,000$ Medium
SOUTH CENTURY/SPRING RIVER ROAD Rural / South County Area Install Roundabout Collector/Arterial 720,000$ 180,000$ 900,000$ 900,000$ Medium
HUNTINGTON RD AT SOUTH CENTURY DRIVE Rural / South County Area Install Roundabout Collector 720,000$ 180,000$ 900,000$ 900,000$ Low
COYNER RD AT NORTHWEST WAY Rural / North County Area Add turn lanes to Northwest Way Collector 200,000$ 50,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ Low
Subtotal 7,081,250$ 7,081,250$
Transportation System Management (TSM) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Projects
Project 0%
Regional TDM Program Countywide County share to continue funding of Commute Options (per year)8,000$ 160,000$ -$ High
Rideshare Lots Countywide Install regional rideshare lots at various future locations 45,000$ 45,000$ -$ Medium
Subtotal 205,000$ -$
State Highway Improvement Projects (ODOT Projects with County participation)
Highway 0%
U.S. 97 11TH AVE. - O'NEIL HWY add travel lanes each direction Principal Arterial 9,000,000$ -$ 9,000,000$ -$ High
U.S. 97 South Century - La Pine Rec add travel lanes each direction Principal Arterial 25,300,000$ -$ 25,300,000$ -$ High
U.S. 20 HAWK'S BEARD TO RAIL WAY add travel lanes each direction Principal Arterial 20,000,000$ -$ 20,000,000$ -$ High
U.S. 97 La Pine Rec - DRAFTER add travel lanes each direction Principal Arterial 11,800,000$ -$ 11,800,000$ -$ Medium
U.S. 20 COUCH MARKET - GERKING MARKET add travel lanes each direction Principal Arterial 4,900,000$ -$ 4,900,000$ -$ Medium
U.S. 20 PROVIDENCE - HAMBY add travel lanes each direction Principal Arterial 2,000,000$ -$ 2,000,000$ -$ Medium
U.S. 20 OB Riley - Cooley add travel lanes each direction Principal Arterial 2,400,000$ -$ 2,400,000$ -$ Medium
OR 126 QUAIL TREE DR. - 2 MI. EAST add travel lanes each direction Principal Arterial 7,900,000$ -$ 7,900,000$ -$ Medium
OR 126 CLINE FALLS HWY. - HELMHOLTZ add travel lanes each direction Principal Arterial 9,600,000$ -$ 9,600,000$ -$ Medium
OR 126 SHERMAN - CROOK CO.add travel lanes each direction Principal Arterial 6,100,000$ -$ 6,100,000$ -$ Medium
OR 370 U.S. 97 TO 1/2 MILE WEST overpass, geometric improvments Principal Arterial 26,100,000$ -$ 26,100,000$ -$ Low
Subtotal 125,100,000$ -$
State Highway Intersection Improvement Projects (ODOT Projects with County participation)
Intersection Location 2.70%
U.S. 97/LOWER BRIDGE WAY Rural/Terrebonne Area Grade separate from U.S. 97 Principal Arterial/Arterial 21,000,000$ -$ 21,000,000$ 567,000$ High
U.S. 20/COOK AVE/O.B. RILEY RD.Rural / Tumalo Area Overpass with jughandles Principal Arterial/Collector 15,500,000$ -$ 15,500,000$ 418,500$ High
U.S. 97/WICKIUP JUNCTION INTERCHANGE PHASE I Rural/South County Area grade separation, realignment Principal Arterial 30,000,000$ -$ 30,000,000$ 810,000$ Medium
U.S. 97/PERSHALL-O'NEIL HWY Rural/Terrebonne Area Simple Overpass Principal Arterial/Collector 9,500,000$ -$ 9,500,000$ 256,500$ Medium
OR 126/HELMHOLTZ Rural/Redmond Area Traffic Signal Principal Arterial/Collector 1,250,000$ -$ 1,250,000$ 33,750$ Medium
U.S. 97/QUARRY ROAD INTERCHANGE Rural/Redmond Area grade separation Principal Arterial 15,000,000$ -$ 15,000,000$ 405,000$ Low
U.S. 97/VANDEVERT Rural/South County Area Disconnect from U.S. 97 Principal Arterial/Collector 2,300,000$ -$ 2,300,000$ 62,100$ Low
U.S. 20/HAMBY/WARD Rural/Bend Area Install Roundabout Principal Arterial/Collector 1,000,000$ -$ 1,000,000$ 27,000$ Low
U.S. 20/POWELL BUTTE HIGHWAY Rural/Bend Area Install Roundabout Principal Arterial/Arterial 1,000,000$ -$ 1,000,000$ 27,000$ Low
OR 31/U.S. 97 Rural/South County Area Directional Interchange Principal Arterials 19,000,000$ -$ 19,000,000$ 513,000$ Low
Subtotal 115,550,000$ 3,119,850$
Length (mi)
New Road Segments (urban and rural)(may include intersections)
100%
0.76 HUNNELL ROAD COOLEY ROAD RODGERS ROAD New Road Collector 30 602,000$ 150,500$ 752,500$ 752,500$ High
0.66 COOLEY ROAD 18TH STREET DESCHUTES MARKET ROAD New Road Arterial 32 522,730$ 130,683$ 653,413$ 653,413$ Low
0.2 CROOKED RIVER DR WILCOX DR SMITH ROCK WAY New Road Collector 30 158,400$ 39,600$ 198,000$ 198,000$ Low
1.5 NEW ROAD MASTEN RD 6TH ST New Road Collector 30 1,188,000$ 297,000$ 1,485,000$ 1,485,000$ Low
0.2 BRITTA EXTENSION END OF BRITTA HWY 20/ROBAL RD New Road Collector 30 300,000$ 75,000$ 375,000$ 375,000$ Low
Subtotal 3,463,913$ 3,463,913$
Length (mi)
4/1/2013 Resolution 2013-020 Page 1
DRAFT DC Transportation CIP and SDC Project List
RESOLUTION 2013-020
EXHIBIT B
shade areas = contained in Res. 2008-059 project list Current Existing County SDC Com. Rec
Proposed Functional Road Standard Construction Engineering &Project SDC Eligible
Road Name From To Treatment Class Section (ft.)Section (ft.)Cost Administration cost cost Priority
Other Prioritized Modernization Projects (for roads with more than 1,000 ADT in 2011)
Project 18%
0.318 DEER RUN LANE PINECREST LANE HUNTINGTON ROAD Reconstruction/ pave Local 22-24 28 251,856$ 62,964$ 314,820$ 56,668$ High
2.32 FOSTER ROAD SOUTH CENTURY DRIVE LA PINE REC. ROAD Reconstruction/ pave Collector 20 30 2,500,000$ 625,000$ 3,125,000$ 562,500$ High
2.7 HUNNELL ROAD RODGERS ROAD TUMALO ROAD Reconstruction/ pave Collector 22-24 30 2,020,000$ 505,000$ 2,525,000$ 454,500$ High
2.3 HUNTINGTON ROAD RIVERVIEW DR. (N)RIVERVIEW DR. (S)Reconstruction/ pave Future Collector 22-24 30 1,158,860$ 289,715$ 1,448,575$ 260,744$ High
1.93 RICKARD ROAD GROFF ROAD HIGHWAY 20 Reconstruction/ pave Collector 20 30 617,600$ 154,400$ 772,000$ 138,960$ High
1.1 CANAL BLVD.61ST/QUARRY HELMHOLTZ Add Center Turn Lane Arterial 32 56 407,100$ 101,775$ 508,875$ 91,598$ High
4.23 HELMHOLTZ ELKHORN MAPLE Travel Lane each direction/center turn lane Collector 25-28 66 4,906,000$ 1,226,500$ 6,132,500$ 1,103,850$ High
1.55 BURGESS ROAD DAY ROAD HUNTINGTON ROAD Center turn lane/widen bridge Arterial 30 44 867,675$ 216,919$ 1,084,594$ 195,227$ High
0.82 5TH STREET AMBER LANE LAPINE STATE REC. ROAD Widen & Overlay Collector 25 28 205,000$ 51,250$ 256,250$ 46,125$ Medium
1 17TH STREET NE NEGUS WAY HIGHWAY 370 Widen & Overlay Collector 21 28 250,000$ 62,500$ 312,500$ 56,250$ Medium
0.51 W. ANTLER AVE NW 35TH STREET NW HELMHOLTZ WAY Widen & Overlay Collector 24 28 127,500$ 31,875$ 159,375$ 28,688$ Medium
1.39 N. CANAL BOULEVARD REDMOND CITY LIMITS HIGHWAY 97 Widen & Overlay Collector 21-24 30 347,500$ 86,875$ 434,375$ 78,188$ Medium
1.03 GOSNEY ROAD HIGHWAY 20 COID CANAL BRIDGE Widen & Overlay Collector 26 28 257,500$ 64,375$ 321,875$ 57,938$ Medium
8.49 NW LOWER BRIDGE WAY 43RD STREET HOLMES ROAD Widen & Overlay Collector 24 30 2,122,500$ 530,625$ 2,653,125$ 477,563$ Medium
1.45 NE NEGUS WAY REDMOND CITY LIMITS NE 17TH STREET Widen & Overlay Collector 21-26 30 362,500$ 90,625$ 453,125$ 81,563$ Medium
4.27 BUCKHORN ROAD LOWER BRIDGE HIGHWAY 126 Reconstruction/ pave Collector 20 30 1,366,400$ 341,600$ 1,708,000$ 307,440$ Medium
1 31ST STREET NW SEDGEWICK NW LOWER BRIDGE WAY Widen & Overlay Arterial 24 30 250,000$ 62,500$ 312,500$ 56,250$ Low
1.57 NW 35TH STREET NW HEMLOCK AVE.NW UPAS AVE.Widen & Overlay Collector 24 30 392,500$ 98,125$ 490,625$ 88,313$ Low
2.13 61ST STREET S. CANAL BLVD HWY 97 Widen & Overlay Collector 24 28 532,500$ 133,125$ 665,625$ 119,813$ Low
0.53 NW ALMETER WAY NORTHWEST WAY NW SEDGEWICK AVE Widen & Overlay Arterial 25 30 132,500$ 33,125$ 165,625$ 29,813$ Low
0.98 BAILEY RD US 20 TUMALO RESERVOIR RD Widen & Overlay Collector 23 30 245,000$ 61,250$ 306,250$ 55,125$ Low
2.78 BEAR CREEK ROAD CITY LIMITS HIGHWAY 20 Widen & Overlay Collector 23-28 30 695,000$ 173,750$ 868,750$ 156,375$ Low
1.835 CHINA HAT ROAD KNOTT ROAD END MAINTENANCE Widen & Overlay FS Collector 24 30 458,750$ 114,688$ 573,438$ 103,219$ Low
1.41 CINDER BUTTE BAKER RD MINNETONKA LN Widen & Overlay Collector 25 28 352,500$ 88,125$ 440,625$ 79,313$ Low
0.315 COOLEY ROAD HIGHWAY 20 O.B. RILEY ROAD Widen & Overlay Collector 22 30 78,750$ 19,688$ 98,438$ 17,719$ Low
1.33 NW HELMHOLTZ W. ANTLER AVE Maple NW WALNUT AVE Widen & Overlay Collector 25 28 332,500$ 83,125$ 415,625$ 74,813$ Low
0.8 SW HELMHOLTZ W. ANTLER AVE Elkhorn HIGHWAY 126 S Canal Blvd Widen & Overlay Collector 25 28 200,000$ 50,000$ 250,000$ 45,000$ Low
6.604 HUNTINGTON ROAD SOUTH CENTURY DRIVE BURGESS ROAD (less 2.3mi)Widen & Overlay Collector 24 28 1,651,000$ 412,750$ 2,063,750$ 371,475$ Low
1.01 SW OBSIDIAN AVE.REDMOND CITY LIMITS UGB Widen & Overlay Collector 20 30 252,500$ 63,125$ 315,625$ 56,813$ Low
0.31 SMITH ROCK WAY HIGHWAY 97 RR XING/UGB TERREBONNE Widen & Overlay Arterial 25 30 77,500$ 19,375$ 96,875$ 17,438$ Low
1.04 STEVENS ROAD BEND CITY LIMITS WARD ROAD Widen & Overlay Collector 27 30 260,000$ 65,000$ 325,000$ 58,500$ Low
4.61 TUMALO RESERVOIR RD OB RILEY COLLINS RD Widen & Overlay Collector 21-23 30 1,152,500$ 288,125$ 1,440,625$ 259,313$ Low
0.51 SW WICKIUP AVE.SW HELMHOLTZ WAY SW 58TH STREET24-26 Widen & Overlay Collector 20 30 127,500$ 31,875$ 159,375$ 28,688$ Low
0.3 BOZEMAN TRAIL CHISOLM TRAIL RICKARD ROAD Reconstruction/ pave Local 22-24 28 237,600$ 59,400$ 297,000$ 53,460$ Low
2.13 NW WAY COYNER MAPLE Travel Lane each direction/center turn lane Collector 32 70 2,339,100$ 584,775$ 2,923,875$ 526,298$ Medium
CLINE FALLS HIGHWAY AT NUTCRACKER DRIVE Disconnect from Cline Falls Hwy.Arterial 30 30 60,000$ 15,000$ 75,000$ 13,500$ Low
Subtotal 34,494,614$ 6,209,030$
Length (mi)
Federal Lands Access Program Projects (primarily federal funding)
Project 10%
8.36 SKYLINERS ROAD UGB BEND END CO. MAINTENANCE Reconstruction Collector 24 34 9,000,000$ 2,250,000$ 11,250,000$ 1,125,000$ High
3.62 BURGESS RD PRINGLE FALLS SOUTH CENTURY DR Reconstruction Collector 24 32 3,300,000$ 825,000$ 4,125,000$ 412,500$ Low
Subtotal 15,375,000$ 1,537,500$
(L.F.)
Prioritized Other Bike and Pedestrian Projects
Road Bike Projects Proposed Treatment
Tumalo 0%
300 7th Street U.S. 20 Cook Avenue 5' sidewalk both sides Local 8,500$ 2,125$ 10,625$ -$ High
220 4th Street Wood Avenue Bruce Avenue 5' sidewalks on both sides Local 10,500$ 2,625$ 13,125$ -$ Medium
575 5th Street Wood Avenue Cook Avenue 5' sidewalks on both sides Local 21,000$ 5,250$ 26,250$ -$ Medium
450 8th Street Cook Avenue Riverview Avenue 5' sidewalks both sides Local 14,000$ 3,500$ 17,500$ -$ Low
Trails/Other Projects -$
6200 Tumalo Trail Tumalo State Park Riverview Avenue 10' Multi-use trail 128,000$ 32,000$ 160,000$ -$ High
Subtotal 227,500$ -$
Terrebonne -$
450 5th Street B Avenue C Avenue 5' sidewalk on east side only Local 9,000$ 2,250$ 11,250$ -$ Medium
1046 C Avenue 6th U.S. 97 5' sidewalk both sides Local 36,000$ 9,000$ 45,000$ -$ Medium
260 B Avenue 5th Street 6th Street future 5' sidewalk, north side only Local 4,700$ 1,175$ 5,875$ -$ Medium
1080 A Avenue 11th Street 15th Street future 5' sidewalks both sides Local 40,000$ 10,000$ 50,000$ -$ Low
4/1/2013 Resolution 2013-020 Page 2
DRAFT DC Transportation CIP and SDC Project List
RESOLUTION 2013-020
EXHIBIT B
shade areas = contained in Res. 2008-059 project list Current Existing County SDC Com. Rec
Proposed Functional Road Standard Construction Engineering &Project SDC Eligible
Road Name From To Treatment Class Section (ft.)Section (ft.)Cost Administration cost cost Priority
1090 Smith Rock Way 11th Street 15th Street 5' sidewalks on both sides Arterial 40,000$ 10,000$ 50,000$ -$ Low
1550 C Avenue U.S. 97 16th Street 5' sidewalk on south side only Local 31,000$ 7,750$ 38,750$ -$ Low
1725 11th Street Central Ave U.S. 97 5' sidewalks on both sides Local 65,000$ 16,250$ 81,250$ -$ High
Trails/Other Projects -$
Canal "H"13th Street 12th Street 10' sandseal trail Local 1,500$ 375$ 1,875$ -$ Low
Canal "H"12th Street 400' south of A Avenue 10' sandseal trail Local 5,500$ 1,375$ 6,875$ -$ Low
B Avenue East end of west segment West end of east segment 300' stairway Local 21,000$ 5,250$ 26,250$ -$ Low
4th Street North Forster Drive 300' stairway Local 21,000$ 5,250$ 26,250$ -$ Low
Subtotal 343,375$ -$
Bike and Pedestrian Subtotal 570,875$ -$
Bridge Projects
Location Sufficiency Rating Treatment Posting Required 18%
TETHEROW RD 32.4 New Bridge Yes 1,266,000$ 316,500$ 1,582,500$ 284,850$ High
CASCADES LAKES (Fall River)46.6 New Bridge Yes 637,000$ 159,250$ 796,250$ 143,325$ High
GRIBBLING RD 24 New Bridge Yes 180,000$ 45,000$ 225,000$ 40,500$ Low
WILCOX AVE 47.2 New Bridge Yes 120,000$ 30,000$ 150,000$ 27,000$ Low
SISEMORE ROAD 49.1 New Bridge No 550,000$ 137,500$ 687,500$ 123,750$ Low
Subtotal 3,441,250$ 619,425$
TOTAL 305,281,901$ 22,030,968$
4/1/2013 Resolution 2013-020 Page 3
EXHIBIT C: Deschutes County Transportation SDC Rate Sheet
April 5, 2013
1
ITE
Code Type of Use Land Use Description
Peak-
Hour
Trips
Trip
Reduction
Factor*
Adjusted
P-H-Ts SDC Units
110 General Light
Industrial
Typically less than 500 employees, free standing and single
use. Examples: Printing plants, material testing laboratorial,
data processing equipment assembly, power stations.
0.97 1 0.97 $3,082 KSF
130 Industrial Park
Industrial park areas that contain a number of industrial
and/or related facilities (mix of manufacturing, service and
warehouse).
0.85 1 0.85 $3,194 KSF
140 Manu-
facturing
Facilities that convert raw materials into finished products.
Typically have related office, warehouse, research and
associated functions.
0.73 1 0.73 $2,743 KSF
151 Mini-
Warehouse
Storage units or vaults rented for storage of goods. Units
are physically separate and access is through an overhead
door or other common access point. Example: U-Store-It.
0.19 1 0.19 $714 KSF
210 SF
Detached Single family detached housing. 0.81** 1 0.81** $3,044 DU
220 Apartment
Rental dwelling units within the same building. At least 4
units in the same building. Examples: Quadplexes and all
types of apartment buildings.
0.60 1 0.62 $2,255 DU
230 Condo/
Townhouse
Residential condominium/townhouses under single-family
ownership. Minimum of two single-family units in the same
building structure.
0.52 1 0.52 $1,954 DU
240 Mobile
Home
Trailers or manufactured homes that are sited on permanent
foundations. Typically the parks have community facilities
(laundry, recreation rooms, and pools).
0.59 1 0.59 $2,217 Occupied
DU
253 Elderly
Housing
Restricted to senior citizens. Contains residential units
similar to apartments or condos. Sometimes in self-
contained villages. May also contain medical facilities,
dining and some limited, supporting retail.
0.17 1 0.17 $639 Occupied
DU
310 Hotel
Lodging facility that may include restaurants, lounges,
meeting rooms and/or convention facilities. Can include a
large motel.
0.60 1 0.60 $2,255 Room
320 Motel Sleeping accommodations and often a restaurant. Free
onsite parking and little or no meeting space. 0.47 1 0.47 $1,766 Room
330 Resort Hotel
Similar to hotel, but primary difference is resort hotels cater
to tourist and vacation industry, often providing a wide
variety of recreational facilities/programs (golf course, tennis
court, beach access, or other amenities).
0.42 1 0.42 $1,578 Room
412 Local
Park
County-owned parks, varying widely as to location, type and
number of facilities, including boating/swimming facilities,
ball fields and picnic facilities.
0.09 1 0.09 $338 Acre
417 Regional
Park
Regional park authority-owned parks, varying widely as to
location, type and number of facilities; including trails, lakes,
pools, ball fields, camp/picnic facilities and general office
space.
0.20 1 0.20 $752 Acre
430 Golf
Course
Includes 9, 18, 27 and 36 hole municipal and private country
clubs. Some have driving ranges and clubhouses with pro
shops, restaurants and lounges. Many of the municipal
courses do not include such facilities.
2.92 1 2.92 $10,973 Hole
435
Multipurpose
Recreation
Facility
Contain two or more of the following land uses at one site:
mini-golf, batting cages, video arcade, bumper boats, go-
carts, driving ranges
3.58 1 3.58 $13,454 KSF
437 Bowling
Alley
Recreational facilities with bowling lanes which may include
a small lounge, restaurant or snack bar. 1.71 1 1.71 $6,426 KSF
493 Athletic
Club
Privately owned with weightlifting and other facilities, often
including swimming pools, hot tubs, saunas, racquetball,
squash and handball courts.
5.96 1 5.96 $22,398 KSF
495
Recreational
Community
Center
Facilities similar to and including YMCAs, often including
classes, day care, meeting rooms, swimming pools; and
tennis, racquetball, handball, weightlifting equipment, locker
rooms and food service.
2.74 1 2.74 $10,297 KSF
520 Elementary
School Public, typically serves grades K-6. 1.21
0.15
1
1
1.21
0.15
$4,547
$564
KSF
Student
522 Middle
School
Public, serves students who have completed elementary
school but have not yet entered high school.
1.19
0.16
1
1
1.19
0.16
$4,472
$601
KSF
Student
530 High
School
Public, serves students who have completed middle or
junior high school.
0.97
0.13
1
1
0.97
0.13
$3,645
$489
KSF
Student
540
Junior/
Community
College
Two-year junior colleges or community colleges. 2.54
0.12
1
1
2.54
0.12
$9,545
$451
KSF
Student
560 Church Contains worship area and may include meeting rooms,
classrooms, dining area. 0.55 1 0.55 $2,067 KSF
EXHIBIT C: Deschutes County Transportation SDC Rate Sheet
April 5, 2013
2
ITE
Code Type of Use Land Use Description
Peak-
Hour
Trips
Trip
Reduction
Factor
Adjusted
P-H-Ts SDC Units
565 Day Care
Facility for care of pre-school children, primarily during
daytime hours. May include classrooms, offices, eating
areas and playgrounds.
12.34
0.81
0.33
0.33
4.07
0.27
$15,295
$1,015
KSF
Student
590 Library Public or private. Contains shelved books, reading rooms or
areas, and sometimes meeting rooms. 7.30 1 7.30 $27,433 KSF
591
Lodge/
Fraternal
Organization
Includes a clubhouse with dining and drinking facilities,
recreational and entertainment areas and meeting rooms. 0.03 1 0.03 $113 Member
710 General
Office
Office building with multiple tenants. Mixture of tenants can
include professional services, bank and loan institutions,
restaurants, snack bars and service retail facilities.
1.49 1 1.49 $5,599 KSF
715
Single Tenant
Office
Building
Single tenant office building. Usually contains offices,
meeting rooms, file storage areas, data processing,
restaurant or cafeteria, and other service functions.
1.74 1 1.74 $6,539 KSF
720 Medical-
Dental Office
Provides diagnosis and out-patient care on a routine basis.
Typically operated by one or more private physicians or
dentists.
3.57 1 3.57 $13,416 KSF
750 Office Park
Park or campus-like planned unit development containing
office buildings and support service such as banks and loan
institutions, restaurants and service stations.
1.48 1 1.48 $5,562 KSF
760
Research &
Development
Center
Single building or complex of buildings devoted to research
and development. May contain offices and light fabrication
facilities.
1.07 1 1.08 $4,021 KSF
770 Business
Park
Group of flex-type or incubator one- and two-story buildings
served by a common roadway system. Tenant space is
flexible to accommodate a variety of uses. Rare of building
is usually served by a garage door. Typically includes a mix
of offices, retail and wholesale.
1.26 1 1.26 $4,735 KSF
812
Building
Materials &
Lumber
Small, freestanding building where hardware, building
materials and lumber are sold. May include yard storage
and shed storage areas. The storage areas are not
included in the GLA needed for trip generation estimates.
4.49 1 4.49 $16,873 KSF
813 Discount
Super Store
A freestanding discount store that also contains a full
service grocery department under one roof. 4.35 0.72 3.13 $11,763 KSF
814 Variety Store
A variety store is a retail store that sells a broad range of
inexpensive items at a single price. These are also called
“dollar stores” and can be stand alone or in a small strip
shopping center.
6.82 1 6.82 $25,630 KSF
815 Discount
Store
A freestanding discount store offering a variety of customer
services, centralized cashiering, and a wide range of
products under one roof. Does not include a full-service
grocery department, like Land Use 813 (Freestanding
Discount Superstore).
4.98 0.54 2.69 $10,109 KSF
816 Hardware/
Paint Store
Typically freestanding buildings with off-street parking,
where paints and hardware are sold. 4.84 0.29 1.40 $5,261 KSF
817
Nursery/
Garden
Center
Freestanding building with yard containing planting or
landscape stock. May have large greenhouses and offer
landscaping services. Typically contain office, storage and
shipping facilities. GLA is Building GLA, not yard storage
GLA.
6.94
8.06
1
1
6.94
8.06
$26,081
$30,289
KSF
Acre
818 Nursery
(Wholesale)
A free-standing building with an outside storage area for
planting or landscape stock. Primarily service contractors
and suppliers and may have large greenhouses and offer
landscaping services. Most have office, storage, and
shipping.
5.17
0.45
1
1
5.17
0.45
$19,429
$1,691
KSF
Acre
820 Shopping
Center
Integrated group of commercial establishments that is
planned, developed, owned and managed as a unit.
Provides enough onsite parking to serve its buildings, movie
theatres, restaurants, post offices, health clubs and
recreation such as skating rinks and amusements.
3.71 0.40 1.48
$5,562
KSF
Gross
Leasable
Area
826 Specialty
Retail
Small strip shopping centers containing a variety of retail
shops that typically specialize in apparel, hard goods,
services such as real estate, investment, dance studios,
florists and small restaurants.
2.71 0.39 1.06 $3,983
KSF
Gross
Leasable
Area
841 New Car
Sales Car dealership with sales, service, parts and used vehicles. 2.62 1 2.62 $9,846 KSF
848 Tire Store Primary business is tire sales and repair. Generally does
not have a large storage or warehouse area. 4.15 0.72 2.99 $11,236 KSF
850 Supermarket Freestanding grocery store. May also contain ATMs, photo
centers, pharmacies, video rental areas. 9.48 0.26 2.45 $9,207 KSF
EXHIBIT C: Deschutes County Transportation SDC Rate Sheet
April 5, 2013
3
ITE
Code Type of Use Land Use Description
Peak-
Hour
Trips
Trip
Reduction
Factor
Adjusted
P-H-Ts SDC Units
851 Convenience
Market w/o gas
Sells conventional foods, newspapers, magazines and often
beer and wine. Does not have gas pumps. 52.41 0.28 14.67 $55,130 KSF
853 Convenience
Market w/gas
Sells conventional foods, newspapers, magazines and often
beer and wine. Market has gas pumps but primary business
is selling convenience items.
50.92 0.11 5.6 $21,044 KSF
880
Pharmacy
Without
Drive-Through
Facilities that fill medical prescriptions. 8.40 0.34 2.86 $10,748 KSF
881
Pharmacy
With
Drive-Through
Facilities that fill medical prescriptions. 9.91 0.38 3.77 $14,168 KSF
890 Furniture
Store Sells furniture, accessories and often carpet/floor coverings. 0.45 0.16 0.07 $263 KSF
911 Walk-In
Bank
Usually a freestanding building with a parking lot. Does not
have drive-up windows. May have ATMs. 12.13 0.27 3.28 $12,326 KSF
912 Drive-In
Bank
Provides drive-up and walk-in bank services. May have
ATMs. 24.30 0.27 6.6 $24,803 KSF
925 Drinking Place
Contains a bar where alcoholic beverages and snacks are
served, and possibly some type of entertainment such as
music, games or pool tables.
11.34 0.32 3.63 $13,642 KSF
931 Quality
Restaurant
High-quality eating establishment with slower turnover rates
(more than one hour). 7.49 0.29 2.17 $8,155 KSF
932
High
Turnover Sit-
Down
Restaurant
Sit-down eating establishment with turnover rates of less
than one hour. 9.85 0.31 3.05 $11,462 KSF
933
Fast Food
Without
Drive-Through
Fast-food restaurant without drive-through window. 26.15 0.27 7.06 $26,531 KSF
934
Fast Food
With
Drive-Through
Fast food restaurant with drive-through window. 32.65 0.27 8.82 $33,146 KSF
936
Coffee/Donut
Shop w/o
Drive- Through
Single-tenant coffee and donut restaurants without drive-
through windows. Limited to no indoor seating. 40.75 0.17 6.92 $26,005 KSF
937
Coffee/Donut
Shop w/Drive-
Through
Single-tenant coffee and donut restaurants with drive-
through windows. Limited to no indoor seating. 42.80 0.11 4.70 $17,663 KSF
938
Coffee/Donut
Shop w/Drive-
Through and
no seating
Single-tenant coffee and donut restaurants with drive-
through windows. No seating present. 75.00 0.11 8.25 $31,004 KSF
944 Gas Station Sells gasoline and may also provide vehicle service and
repair. Does not have convenience market and/or car wash. 13.87 0.23 3.08 $11,575 Fueling
Positions
945
Gas/Service
Station with
Convenience
Market
Primary businesses are selling gas and convenience
market. May also contain facilities for service and repair.
Does not include car wash.
13.51 0.17 2.30 $8,643 Fueling
Positions
946
Gas/Service
Station with
Convenience
Market
Car Wash
Sells gas. Primary businesses are convenience market and
car wash. May also contain facilities for service and repair. 13.86 0.17 2.37 $8,906 Fueling
Positions
947 Self-Service
Car Wash
Allows manual cleaning of vehicles by providing stalls for
the driver to park and wash. 5.54 1 5.54 $20,819 Wash
Stall
950 Truck Stop Located on or near major roadways and provide refueling,
food, and other services to motorists and truck drivers. 13.63 0.17 2.32 $8,719 Fueling
Positions
N/A Type 1 Home
Occupation
DCC 18.116.280(C). Does not produce more than five (5)
trips a day to/from the site, including parcel deliveries. 1 0.0*** 0.0 $0 DU
N/A Type 2 Home
Occupation
DCC 18.116.280(D). Does not produce more than ten (10)
trips a day to/from the site, including parcel deliveries. 1 0.5*** 0.5 $1,879 DU
N/A Type 3 Home
Occupation
DCC 18.116.280(E). Does not produce more than twenty
(20) trips a day to/from the site, including parcel deliveries. 1 1*** 1 $3,758 DU
*Trip Reduction Factor is average rate for both pass-by and diverted-link in ITE Manual and/or as set by previous SDC table in Resolution 2008-059
**Local blended rate for rural residences and Goal 8 destination resort residences
***Rate based on empirical knowledge, planning and engineering best judgment, and SDC committee discussion
MEMORANDUM
To: Transportation System Development Charge (SDC) Review Committee
From: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner
Date: Feb. 12, 2013
Re: Proposals on several SDC policy issues
Background
The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) established a countywide transportation system
development charge (SDC) in summer 2008 with Resolution 2008-059. In the years since, the
County has identified several unanticipated issues during implementation of SDCs. While these
issues have been resolved on a case-by-case basis either at the staff level or by an applicant’s
appeal to the Board, the Board and staff agree it would be preferable to add language into the
SDC resolution itself to address these issues. The major topics are:
Does the SDC run with the land or the structure?
What to do if a use has been abandoned or interrupted?
How to handle home occupations?
What to do with uses established illegally?
Should SDCs only be limited to building permits or should the SDC be triggered by a
change of use if the new land use will generate more trips than the previous one?
Update trip rates to 9th edition of Institute of Traffic Engineers handbook
SDCs run with the land
The issue of whether an SDC runs with the land or the structure came up in August 2011 when
an applicant appealed to the Board an SDC charge based on a site plan review. The house on
the site plan had been removed from a rural lot south of Redmond, stored in a second location,
and was proposed to be placed on a vacant lot in Terrebonne for its third and final location.
Staff argued the vacant Terrebonne lot was not producing any trips, but would after the single-
family home was placed on the site. Applicant contended due to the home’s age and original
location it was already included in the traffic assumptions upon which the transportation SDC
was based and thus SDCs should not be applied. The Board in its Sept. 24, 2011, work session
and Oct. 3, 2011, decision upheld staff’s interpretation and directed staff to develop policy
language for inclusion in any SDC updates.
EXHIBIT D
2
Staff proposes language that SDCs run with the land and are not associated with the structure.
Proposed language regarding SDCs are tied to the property
In Section 4, Applicability, insert into (A) the following underlined sentence:
(A) A Transportation System Development Charge is hereby imposed upon all new
development for which a building permit is required within the unincorporated
areas of the County outside the urban growth boundaries of the cities of La Pine,
Sisters, Redmond, and Bend. Once assessed, the transportation system
development charge is assigned to the property permanently unless 1) the use is
interrupted or abandoned for a time of two years or more or 2) is replaced by a
legally established land use that generates more trips than the previously
approved land use. The transportation system development charge runs with the
land, not the structure.
SDCs apply when a land use is abandoned or interrupted
The majority of SDCs pertain to either a vacant site or one that is being redeveloped. Occasionally,
however, a site will have a use that was abandoned or interrupted. In the County’s development
code (DCC 18.120.010) a land use must be legally re-established if the use or structure has been
abandoned or interrupted for more than one (1) year. The time period in DCC 18.120.010 was
based on national case law.
In the past, staff has approached SDCs for abandoned or interrupted sites on a case-by-case basis.
If the use had been abandoned 30 years ago, staff has applied SDCs. If the use had been
abandoned for less than a year, then staff has not applied SDC’s. The gray area has been uses
that were lawfully established prior to the 2008 implementation of the SDC, but then abandoned for
a year or more. Staff is sensitive to the current economic climate and in that previously mentioned
Sept. 2011 work session recommended a two-year (2) window instead of one (1) year be used
when determining if SDCs apply to a property or structure. The Board agreed with the two-year
timeline.
Staff recommends that a two-year timeline be used to determine when a use or structure has been
abandoned or interrupted. This would include failure to initiate a use as well.
Proposed language regarding SDCs are triggered when a use or structure is abandoned
In Section 4, Applicability, insert into (A) the following underlined sentence:
(A) A Transportation System Development Charge is hereby imposed upon all new
development for which a building permit is required within the unincorporated
areas of the County outside the urban growth boundaries of the cities of La Pine,
Sisters, Redmond, and Bend. Once assessed, the transportation system
development charge is assigned to the property permanently unless 1) the use is
interrupted or abandoned for a time of two years or more or 2) is replaced by a
legally established land use that generates more trips than the previously
approved land use. In other words, the transportation system development
charge runs with the land, not the structure.
SDCs and home occupations
The County at DCC 18.116.280 allows for varied home occupations of differing levels of
intensity, ranging from those that are essentially invisible to neighbors to those that result in
3
employees arriving on-site. For comparison’s sake, a single-family home generates 10 trips a
day.
Type I home occupations result in less than five trips a day to the site, including customers,
clients, or parcel deliveries. Type 2 home occupations result in no more than 10 business-
related trips to the site and no more than two employees. Type 3 home occupations can have
up to five employees if the property is 10 acres in size and zoned EFU, MUA10, or RR10 and
has on-site parking for up to five customers and allows up to 20 business-related trips a day.
In the past, for Type I home occupations staff has assessed half the SDC for a single-family
home as Type I home occupations increase trips from a single-family home site by no more
than 50%. For Type 2 and Type 3 home occupations, staff has attempted to find an analogous
use in the ITE manual, scaling the trip generation based on the size of the proposed use. (For
example, if the ITE indicated use X would generate 10 trips per 1,000 square feet and the home
occupation use would only occupy 250 square feet, we’d base the SDC on 2.5 trips from the
site.) One challenge is that many home occupations are not represented in the ITE manual or
lack an even remotely analogous use.
Staff recommends for Type I home occupations dropping the SDC requirement; for Type 2
home occupations charge half the SDC for a single-family home; and for Type 3 home
occupations charge an SDC equal to a single-family home.
Proposed modification to Land Use/Trip Generation Table for SDC rates:
At the end of BOCC Resolution 2008-059 is a table listing ITE Code, Customer Type, Land Use
Description, etc. Add the following underlined classifications, rates, and amounts.
ITE
Code
Customer
Type
Land Use
Description
Peak
Hour
Trips
Pass-By
Trip
Factor
Adjusted
P-H-Ts SDC
Unit
s
N/A Type 1 Home
Occupation 0 0 0 $0 N/A
N/A Type 2 Home
Occupation 0.5 0 0.5 $1,836 N/A
N/A Type 3 Home
Occupation 1 0 1 $3,673 N/A
SDCs apply to a use that was established illegally
Infrequently, a land use process is initiated as a result of a code enforcement complaint. The
County’s first option in code enforcement is voluntary compliance, which means the property owner
or his agent applies for the necessary building and/or land use permits.
Staff recommends these cases be dealt with as if this were a new use and SDC’s apply, otherwise
the County runs the risk of people building illegal structures to avoid paying SDC’s. In a previous
work session the Board had agreed with that position.
4
Proposed language regarding SDCs are applicable for a land use that was initiated to resolve a
code enforcement complaint.
In Section 4, Applicability, insert into (A) the following underlined sentence:
(A) A Transportation System Development Charge is hereby imposed upon all new
development for which a building permit is required or a development permit is
approved within the unincorporated areas of the County outside the urban growth
boundaries of the cities of La Pine, Sisters, Redmond, and Bend.
Should SDCs be only tied to building permits or could development permits be included?
The County SDC is tied to the building permit process. However, a land use application can result
in a more intense use of a building, yet not require a building permit as can a zone change or plan
amendment. Examples of this include a general office becoming a medical office, a personal
hangar becoming the site of an aviation-related business, or a home being rezoned for commercial
use. In other words, the site will generate more traffic post-land use approval than pre-land use
approval, yet the applicant will not have paid any SDCs to mitigate that additional traffic
Staff would recommend the language proposed for code enforcements would also address this
issue. The proposed language cites a development permit, but is silent on whether the permit is
tied to resolving a code enforcement complaint or is just a run of the mill land use application.
Update tables to most recent edition of Institute of Traffic Engineers trip generation manual
BOCC Resolution 2008-059 contains a table listing 57 land uses and their trip generation rates and
their applicable SDCs, based on the ITE “Trip Generation” 7th edition. This table is now two editions
behind and several land uses now have lower trip generation rates in the 9th edition than they had in
the 7th.
While BOCC 2008-059 is based on the ITE manual, nowhere does the resolution explicitly state
that fact. Staff would recommend adding the following underlined language and updating the table.
Proposed language regarding trip generation for specific land uses.
In Section 4, Applicability, insert into (B) the following underlined sentence:
(B) The Transportation System Development Charges (SDCs) shall be determined as follows:
(1) For those land-use categories which are specifically identified in the most recent
edition of the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Handbook and the
methodology report adopted pursuant to this resolution, the SDC amount shall be
determined as identified in the Methodology Report.
Another option would be to keep the reference to the most recent ITE edition and simply delete the
table from the updated resolution. By choosing that option, the SDC resolution would not need to
be updated every time a new edition of the ITE manual was published.
Staff presents all of the above recommendations to the SDC review comment for review and
discussion. Once the SDC review committee has made its recommendations, staff will coordinate
with Legal Counsel on a new resolution with updated language.
Page 1 of 11 – Resolution 2013-020 (XX/YY/13)
For Recording Stamp Only
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
A Resolution to Modify the Transportation
System Development Charges Established by
Resolution No. 2008-059 for Properties Within
Unincorporated Deschutes County.
*
*
*
RESOLUTION NO. 2013-020
WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners (“Board”) held a duly noticed
public hearing on June 5, 2013, to consider modifying the transportation system development charge (“SDC”)
originally established by Resolution No. 2008-059 to help fund transportation projects that are necessary to
serve the existing and growth-related needs in the unincorporated areas of the county; and
WHEREAS, ORS 223.297 through 223.314 authorize governmental units to establish and modify
transportation system development charges; and
WHEREAS, system development charges are incurred upon the decision to develop property at a
specific use, density and/or intensity, and the incurred charge equals, or is less than, the actual cost of providing
public facilities commensurate with the needs of the chosen use, density and/or intensity; and
WHEREAS, system development charges are separate from and in addition to any applicable tax,
assessment, charge, fee in lieu of assessment, or other fee provided by law or imposed as a condition of
development; and
WHEREAS, system development charges are fees for services because they are based upon a
development’s receipt of services considering the specific nature of the development; and
WHEREAS, system development charges are imposed on the activity of development, not on the land,
owner, or property, and, therefore, are not taxes on property or on a property owner as a direct consequence of
ownership of property within the meaning of Section 11, Article XI of the Oregon Constitution or the legislation
implementing that section; and
WHEREAS, revenues from the system development charges are to be used for capital improvements in
the unincorporated areas outside the cities of La Pine, Sisters, Redmond and Bend; and
WHEREAS, the methodology proposed by Deschutes County Road Department (“Department”) staff,
identifies the uses of an “improvement fee” SDC, and a “reimbursement fee” SDC, and considers the
transportation capital improvement needs of the unincorporated county; and
WHEREAS, the methodology proposes applying the SDCs to future development of properties within
the unincorporated county and outside the cities of Sisters, La Pine, Redmond and Bend; and
WHEREAS, the Board determined that it is in the public interest to provide transportation capital
facilities through the use of general county revenues, SDCs, and matching funds from the State of Oregon; now,
therefore,
REVIEWED
______________
LEGAL COUNSEL
DRAFT
Page 2 of 11 – Resolution 2013-020 (XX/YY/13)
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES
COUNTY, OREGON, as follows:
Section 1. The Board in Resolution No. 2008-059 adopted the report, titled Transportation System
Development Charge Study prepared by FCS Group Inc. and DKS Associates, dated March 2008 (FCS Group
Report) which is hereby amended by a report titled “Transportation System Development Charge Update”,
dated April, 2013, prepared by Deschutes County Road Department, attached as Exhibit “A” and incorporated
by reference (herein “Methodology” or “Methodology Report”). In the event of a conflict between the FCS
Report and Methodology Report, the latter shall control. The Board authorizes the assessment and collection of
transportation system development charges in the unincorporated areas of Deschutes County.
Section 2. The Board adopts the System Development Charge Project List, attached as Exhibit “B,” and
incorporated by reference (“Capital Improvement Plan”). The Capital Improvement Plan hereby supersedes the
capital improvement plan which was adopted as part of Resolution No. 2008-059.
Section 3. DEFINITIONS.
(A) “Applicant” shall mean the owner or other person who applies for a building or development
permit in the unincorporated areas of Deschutes County outside the boundaries of the cities of La
Pine, Sisters, Redmond and Bend.
(B) “Building” shall mean any structure, built for the support, shelter or enclosure of persons, chattels
or property of any kind.
(C) “Building Permit” shall mean an official document or certificate authorizing the construction or
siting of any building.
(D) “Capital Improvement” shall mean a public facility or asset used for Transportation in the
unincorporated areas outside the urban growth boundaries of the cities of La Pine, Sisters,
Redmond and Bend.
(E) “Citizen or Other Interested Person” shall mean any person whose legal residence is within the
unincorporated areas of Deschutes County outside the urban growth boundaries of the cities of La
Pine, Sisters, Redmond and Bend, as evidenced by registration as a voter, or by other proof of
residency; or a person who owns, occupies, or otherwise has an interest in real property which is
located within the unincorporated area of Deschutes County outside the urban growth boundaries
of the cities of La Pine, Sisters Redmond and Bend.
(F) “County” shall mean Deschutes County, Oregon.
(G) “Department” shall mean the Deschutes County Road Department.
(H) “Development” shall mean a building or other land construction, or making a physical change in
the use of a structure or land, in a manner which increases the usage of any capital improvements
or which may contribute to the need for additional or enlarged capital improvements.
(I) “Development Permit” shall mean an official document or certificate, issued by Deschutes
County, other than a building permit, authorizing development.
(J) “Encumbered” shall mean monies committed by contract or purchase order in a manner that
obligates the County to expend the encumbered amount upon delivery of goods, the rendering of
services, or the conveyance of real property provided by a vendor, supplier, contractor or Owner.
(K) “Improvement Fee” shall mean a fee for costs associated with capital improvements to be
constructed after the effective date of this resolution. Notwithstanding anything in this resolution
Page 3 of 11 – Resolution 2013-020 (XX/YY/13)
to the contrary, it is an incurred charge or cost based upon the use of or the availability for use of
the systems and capital improvements required to provide services and facilities necessary to meet
the routine obligations of the use and ownership of property, and to provide for the public health
and safety upon development.
(L) “Manufactured Housing” shall mean a dwelling unit constructed primarily off-site and transported
to another site for use. A unit located in a designated mobile home park shall be considered a
manufactured housing dwelling unit; otherwise a manufactured housing unit shall be considered a
single-family dwelling unit.
(M) “Multi-family housing” shall mean attached residential dwelling units.
(N) “Occupancy Permit” shall mean an official document or certificate authorizing the occupation or
use of any building or improvement authorized by a building permit.
(O) “Owner” shall mean the person holding legal title to the real property upon which development is
to occur.
(P) “Person” shall mean an individual, a corporation, including without limitation, limited liability
corporation, a partnership, an incorporated association, or any other similar entity.
(Q) “Qualified Public Improvement” shall mean a capital improvement that is:
(1) Required as a condition of development approval; and
(2) Identified in the capital improvement plan adopted pursuant to this resolution; and either:
(a) Not located on or contiguous to property that is the subject of development approval;
or
(b) Located in whole or in part on or contiguous to property that is the subject of
development approval and required to be built larger or with greater capacity than is
necessary for the particular development project to which the improvement fee is
related.
(R) ”Reimbursement fee” means a fee for costs associated with capital improvements constructed or
under construction by the County on the effective date of this resolution.
(S) “Road Department Director” or “Director” shall mean the appointed Road Department Director of
Deschutes County, Oregon or the Director’s designee.
(T) “Single-family housing” shall mean a detached residential dwelling unit located on an individual
lot.
(U) “System Development Charge” or “SDC” shall mean a reimbursement fee, an improvement fee,
or a combination thereof and an administrative recovery charge, assessed or collected at the time
of increased usage of a capital improvement or issuance of an occupancy permit. System
development charges are separate from and in addition to any applicable tax, assessment, fee in
lieu of assessment, or other fee or charge provided by law or imposed as a condition of
development.
(V) “System Development Charges Methodology” shall mean the methodology set forth in the FCS
Group Report as modified by the Methodology Report.
Section 4. APPLICABILITY.
Page 4 of 11 – Resolution 2013-020 (XX/YY/13)
(A) A Transportation System Development Charge is hereby assessed and imposed upon all new
development for which a building permit or a development permit is required and issued within
all unincorporated areas of the County outside the cities of La Pine, Sisters, Redmond and
Bend. From and after assessment, the transportation system development charge shall run with the
property, not with any structure attached to the property. Development shall mean and include
new construction, alteration, expansion or replacement of a building or dwelling unit. Non-
residential, farm-related buildings for growing and/or storing agricultural products to be used on
site, and that do not generate additional commercial traffic, are exempt.
(B) Consideration of existing use.
1) If construction, alteration, expansion, replacement, or change-of-use results in an increase in
the calculated number of peak hour trips generated by the development or the property on
which the development is located, as compared to the pre-development number of
calculated peak hour trips, then a new Transportation SDC shall apply. The amount of the
system development charge to be paid shall be the difference between the calculated trips
generated from the proposed development and the calculated trips generated from the
property prior to the construction, alteration, expansion or replacement. If the change in use
results in a Transportation SDC for the proposed use which is less than the Transportation
SDC for the use being replaced, then no new or additional SDC shall be assessed and no
refund or credit shall be given.
2) If the previous development or prior use of the property, which was not subject to SDC
payment, has been abandoned for at least two consecutive years, as determined by the
Community Development Department under the County Code, then no consideration of
existing use shall occur and a new SDC assessment shall apply.
3) Previously paid SDCs shall be credited to the property regardless of any period of
abandonment. The credit shall be based on the number of PM peak hour trips generated by
the development at the time of original SDC assessment.
(C) The Transportation System Development Charges (SDC’s) shall be determined as follows:
(1) For those land-use categories which are specifically identified in the most recent edition of
the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual or the Methodology Report
adopted pursuant to this resolution, the SDC amount shall be determined as identified in the
Methodology Report, unless otherwise approved by the Director.
(2) For land-use categories for which no trip generation rate is included in the Methodology
Report (or ITE Trip Generation Manual), the Director shall use the land-use category
identified in the Methodology Report (or ITE Trip Generation Manual) that is most similar
to the subject land use category and apply the corresponding trip generation rate. The
Director may consider seasonal and/or cyclical variations to adjust the calculation of peak
hour trip rates. An applicant who disagrees with the Director’s decision may appeal this
decision as outlined in Section 12 of this Resolution.
(D) Applicants may submit a request for an alternative trip generation rate and corresponding system
development charges for a development, subject to the following conditions:
(1) In the event an applicant believes that the trip generation impact on County capital
improvements resulting from the development is less than the trip generation rates used to
establish the SDC fee established by this Resolution, the applicant may submit a calculation
for an alternative system development charge to the Director, but no later than the issuance
of a building permit.
Page 5 of 11 – Resolution 2013-020 (XX/YY/13)
(2) The alternative system development charges rate calculations shall be based on data,
information and assumptions contained in this Resolution and the Methodology or an
independent source, provided that the independent source is:
(a) a study supported by a data base adequate for the conclusions contained in such
study;
(b) the study is performed using a generally accepted methodology and is based upon
generally accepted standard sources of information relating to facilities planning, cost
analysis and demographics;
(c) The demonstrated number of peak hour trips is at least ten (10%) percent less than the
number of peak hour trips set forth in the Methodology Report or otherwise
calculated by the Director pursuant to subsection (B) of this Section; and
(d) the demonstrated number of peak hour trips shall be documented by a registered
traffic engineer or otherwise qualified professional engineer.
(3) The Director shall issue a written decision within ten (10) working days from the date of
receipt of a complete application and shall notify the applicant by regular mail.
(4) If the Director determines that the data, information and assumptions utilized by the
applicant to calculate the alternative system development charges rates satisfy the
requirements of this subsection and have been timely submitted, the alternative system
development charges rates shall be paid in lieu of the rates set forth in or otherwise
determined by the Director under this Resolution.
(5) If the Director determines that the data, information and assumptions utilized by the
applicant to calculate the alternative system development charges rates do not satisfy the
requirements of this subsection or have not been timely submitted, the Director shall deny
the application and apply the rates established by the Director.
(E) Subject to the provisions of this Resolution, the County hereby assesses and shall collect a
transportation system development charge (“SDC”) on the following schedule:
(1) at the initial rate of $3,758 per PM peak hour trip, consisting of a $3,625 improvement fee,
a $86 reimbursement fee, and a $47 administrative recovery charge.
(E) For SDC’s that have been assessed, but not yet been paid as of the effective date of this
Resolution, the property owner shall pay the lesser of the applicable SDC charge determined
under Resolution No. 2008-059 or this Resolution.
(F) Unless otherwise adjusted by order of the Board of County Commission, on each succeeding July
1 after 2014, the SDC, consisting of the improvement fee, the reimbursement, if any and the
administrative recovery charge shall be adjusted by the annual percentage increase or decrease in
the construction cost index, published in the immediately preceding January by the Engineering
News Record for the City of Seattle, Washington. The calculation shall use the immediately
preceding July 1 and the then-applicable rate per peak hour trip as the starting point.
Section 5. COLLECTION.
(A) The Transportation SDC’s shall be collected and paid in full no later than the date of submittal of
an application for an occupancy permit. An applicant may elect to pay an SDC over a ten-year
period under the provisions of DCC 15.12.060.
Page 6 of 11 – Resolution 2013-020 (XX/YY/13)
(B) In cases where an occupancy permit is not required, the Transportation SDC shall be collected and
paid in full no later than the date on which the property is used in the manner approved by the
development permit. An applicant may elect to pay an SDC over a ten-year period under the
provisions of DCC 15.12.060.
(C) Notwithstanding the receipt of an occupancy permit or the use of the property pursuant to a
development permit without payment of the SDC, the SDC liability shall survive and be a
personal obligation of the permittee.
(D) Intentional failure to pay the SDC within sixty (60) days of the due date shall result in a penalty
equal to fifty percent (50%) of the SDC. Interest shall accrue on and after 60 days after the due
date at the rate of nine (9%) percent per annum.
(E) In addition to an action at law and any statutory rights, the County may:
(1) Refuse to issue a Certificate of Occupancy;
(2) Refuse to issue any permits of any kind to the delinquent permittee for any development;
(3) Condition any development approval of the delinquent permittee on payment in full,
including penalties and interest;
(4) If the property becomes occupied prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, initiate
code enforcement proceedings;
(5) For purposes of this section, delinquent permittee shall include any person controlling a
delinquent corporate permittee and, conversely, any corporation controlled by a delinquent
individual permittee.
Section 7. CREDITS FOR DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS OF QUALIFIED PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS.
(A) The County may grant a credit against the improvement fee portion, if any, of system
development charges imposed pursuant to this Resolution for the construction of any qualified
public improvement.
(B) Prior to issuance of a development permit, the applicant shall submit to the County a proposed
plan and estimate of cost for the applicant to construct one or more qualified public
improvements. The proposed plan and estimate shall include:
(1) a designation of the development project for which the proposed plan is being submitted;
(2) a legal description of any land proposed to be donated, if any, and documentation as to the
seller and purchase price;
(3) a list of the contemplated capital improvements contained within the development plan;
(4) an estimate of construction costs for the contemplated capital improvements certified by a
professional architect or engineer; and
(5) a proposed time schedule for completion of the proposed capital improvements.
(C) The credit provided for construction of a qualified public improvement shall be only for the cost
of that portion of such improvement that exceeds the minimum standard facility size and must be
designed and constructed to provide additional capacity to meet projected future transportation
Page 7 of 11 – Resolution 2013-020 (XX/YY/13)
needs. Projected future transportation needs shall be determined by reference to the Deschutes
County Transportation System Plan. Improvements that address capacity deficiencies existing at
the time of development are not eligible. In the case of improvements addressing both capacity
deficiencies and adding future capacity, only that portion providing future capacity is eligible.
The applicant shall have the burden of demonstrating that a particular improvement qualifies for
credit.
(D) The Director is authorized to determine that the timing, location, design and scope of proposed
improvement is consistent with and furthers the objectives of the County’s capital improvements
program and either:
(1) the improvement is required to fulfill a condition of development approval; or
(2) the improvement is within the impact area of the development. For purposes of this section,
impact area is that geographic area determined by the Director in which the estimated peak
hour traffic to be generated by the development exceeds ten (10%) percent of the existing
average peak hour traffic. Existing traffic volumes shall be those observed and measured
within six months prior to filing the development application, adjusted for daily and
seasonal traffic variations using factors provided by the Director.
(E) Credit eligibility shall be determined by the Director. In addition to meeting the standards of this
section, the following shall control:
(1) No credits shall be issued for design or construction costs associated with landscaping,
street lighting, storm sewers, sidewalks, and erosion control; or sound walls, berms or other
such mitigation devices.
(2) Road right-of-way required to be dedicated pursuant to the applicable comprehensive plan
or development condition is not creditable. The reasonable market value of land purchased
by the applicant from a third party that is necessary to complete a required off-site
improvement is creditable. The Director may require an applicant at the applicant’s expense
to furnish an appraisal to determine the market value of such property.
(3) No credit shall granted for utility relocation except for that portion which otherwise
would have been the legal obligation of the County pursuant to a tariff, easement or similar
relationship if the project had been undertaken by the County.
(4) No credit shall be granted for minor realignments not designated on the comprehensive
plan.
(5) No more than 13.5 percent of the total eligible construction cost shall be creditable for
survey, engineering, inspection and permit fees.
(F) All requests for credit vouchers must be in writing and filed with the Director not more than 90
days after County acceptance of the improvement. Improvement acceptance shall be in
accordance with the County’s policies, practices, procedures and standards. The amount of any
credit shall be determined by the Director and based upon the subject improvement construction
contract documents, or other relevant information, provided by the applicant for the credit. Upon a
finding by the Director that the contract amounts exceed prevailing market rates for a similar
project, the credit shall be based upon market rates. The Director shall provide the applicant with
a credit voucher, on a form provided by the Department. The original of th e credit voucher shall
be retained by the Department. The credit voucher shall state a dollar amount that may be applied
only against the SDC otherwise imposed by the County against the subject property. In no event
shall a subject property be entitled to redeem credit vouchers in excess of the SDC imposed.
Page 8 of 11 – Resolution 2013-020 (XX/YY/13)
Under no circumstances will the County be required to pay an applicant in cash, as consideration
for the improvement. This paragraph applies only to issuance of credit vouchers and does not
extend the deadline for credit redemption or otherwise modify the credit redemption deadline.
(G) Credits shall be apportioned against the property which was the subject of the application to
construct an improvement eligible for credit. Unless otherwise requested, ap portionment against
lots or parcels constituting the property shall be proportionate to anticipated average peak hour
trips generated by the respective lots or parcels. Upon written application to the Director,
however, credits shall be reapportioned from any lot or parcel to any other lot or parcel within the
confines of the property originally eligible for the credit. Reapportionment shall be noted on the
original credit voucher retained by the Department.
(H) Any credits issued pursuant to this Resolution are assignable, however, they shall apply only to
that property subject to the original condition for land use approval upon which the credit is based
or any partitioned or subdivided parcels or lots of such property to which the credit has been
apportioned. Credits shall only apply against SDC’s, are limited to the amount of the
improvement fee attributable to the development of the specific lot or parcel for which the credit
is sought, and shall not be a basis for any refund.
(I) Any credit must be redeemed not later than the issuance of the occupancy permit. The applicant is
responsible for presentation of any credit prior to issuance of the occupancy permit. Under no
circumstances shall any credit redemption be considered after issuance of an occupancy permit.
(J) Credit vouchers shall expire on the date ten (10) years after the acceptance of the applicable
improvement by the county. No extension of this deadline shall be granted.
Section 8. FUND ESTABLISHED. The County hereby establishes a fund to be designated as the
“Countywide Transportation SDC Improvement Fee Fund,” (herein Transportation SDC Fund or the Fund).
(A) All SDC payments shall be deposited into the Transportation SDC Fund immediately upon
receipt.
(B) The monies deposited into the Fund designated as the “Countywide Transportation SDC
Improvement Fee Fund,” including interest on the Fund, shall be maintained separate and apart
from all other accounts of the County and shall be used solely for the purpose of providing the
capital improvements that provide for the increased capacity necessitated by new development,
including but not limited to:
(1) Design and construction plan preparation;
(2) Permitting and fees;
(3) Property acquisition, including any costs of acquisition, relocation or condemnation;
(4) Construction of capital improvements;
(5) Design and construction of storm and surface water drainage facilities associated with the
construction of capital improvements and structures;
(6) Relocating utilities associated with the construction of improvements and structures;
(7) Landscaping within the right of way or upon property disturbed by the construction of
capital improvements;
(8) Capital construction management and inspection;
Page 9 of 11 – Resolution 2013-020 (XX/YY/13)
(9) Surveying, soils and material testing;
(10) Acquisition of capital equipment used on association with capital construction or road
maintenance or both;
(11) Repayment of monies transferred to or borrowed from any budgetary fund of the County,
including interest, which were used to fund any of the capital improvements as herein
provided;
(12) Payment of principal and interest, necessary reserves and costs of issuance under any bonds
or other indebtedness issued by the County to fund capital improvements;
(13) Direct costs of complying with the provisions of ORS 223.297 to 223.314, including the
consulting, legal, and administrative costs required for developing and updating the SDC,
the methodology, resolution, and capital improvements master plan; administration of credit
applications and apportionment; and the costs of collecting SDC’s and accounting for SDC
receipts and expenditures.
Section 9. INVESTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SDC FUND REVENUE.
(A) Any funds on deposit in Transportation SDC Fund that is not immediately necessary for
expenditure shall be invested by the County.
(B) All income derived from such investments shall be deposited in the appropriate SDC trust fund
and used as provided herein.
Section 10. ANNUAL ACCOUNTING REPORTS. The Director shall prepare an annual report
accounting for SDC funds received, including the total amount of SDC improvement fee revenue collected in
each fund, and expenditures.
Section 11. CHALLENGE OF EXPENDITURES.
(A) Any citizen or other interested person may challenge an expenditure of SDC revenues.
(B) Such challenge shall be submitted, in writing on a form approved by the County, to the
Department for review within two (2) years following the subject expenditure, and shall include
the following information:
(1) The name and address of the citizen or other interested person challenging the expenditure;
(2) The amount of expenditure, the project, payee or purpose, and the approximate date on
which it was made; and
(3) The reason why the expenditure is being challenged.
(C) If the Director determines that the expenditure was not made in accordance with the provisions of
this resolution and other relevant laws, a reimbursement of SDC fund revenues from other funds
shall be made within one (1) year following the determination that the expenditure was not
appropriate.
(D) The County shall make written notification of the results of the expenditure review to the citizen
or other interested person who requested the review within ten (10) days of completion of the
review.
Section 12. APPEALS AND REVIEW HEARINGS.
Page 10 of 11 – Resolution 2013-020 (XX/YY/13)
(A) An applicant who is required to pay system development charges shall have the right to request a
hearing to review a decision only in the following matters:
(1) A land-use category and/or seasonal/cyclical variations used by the Director to determine
the SDC amount pursuant to Section 4.
(2) An alternative rate calculation pursuant to subsection (C) of Section 4.
(3) A proposed credit for contribution of qualified public improvements pursuant to Section 7.
(B) Such hearing shall be requested by the applicant within thirty (30) days of the date of first receipt
of the Director’s decision. Failure to request a hearing within the time provided shall be deemed a
waiver of such right.
(C) The request for hearing shall be filed with the Director and shall contain the following:
(1) The name and address of the applicant;
(2) The legal description of the property in question;
(3) If issued, the date the building permit or development permit was issued;
(4) A brief description of the nature of the development being undertaken pursuant to the
building permit or development permit;
(5) If paid, the date the system development charges were paid; and
(6) A statement addressing the decision subject to review set forth in subsection (A) of this
section and the reasons why the applicant is challenging the decision.
(D) Upon receipt of such request, the County shall schedule a hearing before the Board of
Commissioners at a regularly scheduled meeting or a special meeting called for the purpose of
conducting the hearing and shall provide the applicant written notice of the time and place of the
hearing. Such hearing shall be opened within forty-five (45) days of the date the request for
hearing was filed.
(E) Such hearing shall be before the Board of Commissioners and shall be conducted in a manner
designed to obtain all information and evidence relevant to the requested hearing. Formal rules of
civil procedures and evidence shall not be applicable; however, the hearing shall be conducted in
a fair and impartial manner with each party having an opportunity to be heard and to present
information and evidence.
(F) Appeal of the decision of the Board shall be made to the Circuit Court of Deschutes County.
Section 13. FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. If any clause, section or provision of this resolution shall be
declared unconstitutional or invalid, the remaining portions of said resolution shall be in full force and effect and
be valid as if such invalid portion had not been adopted. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as
invalidating any assessment or collection of system development charges pursuant to Resolution No. 2008-059,
nor any project funded in whole or in part with funds collected thereunder. In addition, all funds assessed and
collected pursuant to Resolution No. 2008-059, which have not been committed, shall be treated in the same
manner as funds received pursuant to Section 8 of this Resolution.
Section 14. EFFECTIVE. This resolution is effective immediately upon adoption by the Board of
County Commissioners. The SDC established by Resolution No. 2008-059 shall first apply to building permits
for which a building permit application is accepted by the County as complete on and after October 1, 2008. The
Page 11 of 11 – Resolution 2013-020 (XX/YY/13)
SDC established by Resolution No. 2013-020 shall first apply to building permits or development approvals for
which a building permit or development application was accepted by the County as complete on and after the
effective date of this resolution.
DATED this _____ day of ____________________, 2013.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
_____________________________________________
ALAN UNGER, Chair
_________________________________________
TAMMY BANEY, Vice Chair
ATTEST:
______________________________
Recording Secretary
_________________________________________
ANTHONY DEBONE, Commissioner
DESCHUTES COUNTY
ROAD DEPARTMENT
SDC UPDATE, BOCC WORKSHOP
BOCC WORK SESSION: MAY 8, 2013
PUBLIC HEARING: JUNE 5, 2013
Why the Update?:
New TSP New CIP (+ Revised Growth Projections) New System
Development Charge
Process Used?:
SDC Committee reviewed new project list, revised growth projections,
and prior methodology decisions to arrive at consensus .
Work Products:
Resolution 2013 -020 (supplement to 2008 -059)
Exhibit A: Methodology Report
Exhibit A -1: CDD Growth Rate Projection (2010 to 2030)
Exhibit B: 2012 Transportation CIP List (per TSP)
Exhibit C: Transportation SDC Rate Sheet
Exhibit D: SDC Policy Issues Memorandum (February 12, 2013)
TRANSPORTATION SDC UPDATE
1. Achieve methodology consistency (resort vs non -resort or
primary vs secondary)
2. Evaluate “reimbursement” portion of SDC
3. Address home occupation SDC rates
4. Clarify transferability
5. Clarify abandonment of use
6. How to address “change of use”
7. Address ITE Trip Generation Manual updates
8. Other issues raised by the Committee
These issues have been addressed within the proposed SDC
methodology itself or clarified within the new SDC Resolution
2013 -020.
ADDITIONAL CHARGE OF SDC COMMITTEE
Transportation SDC* (per PM Peak Hour Trip) =
SDC METHODOLOGY
RES 2008 -059
*Improvement SDC portion only
Transportation SDC (per PM Peak Hour Trip) =
SDC METHODOLOGY
RES 2008 -059
= $3,549 (incl $45 admin cost recovery portion, 1.28% of SDC)
Note: Current SDC is $3,673 due to inflation adjustments 2009 to 2012
Note: SDC would automatically increase 4% to $3,820 on July 1, 2013, per ENR inflation index
Prior estimate 2.2% annual
(unincorporated)
+30,000, population growth (20 -year)
+15,190 PM peak hour trips (20 -year)
New Data:
Census Data
Population Growth less than 1% for past 12
years
Permit Data
From 2.8% per year (2000 -2007)
To 0.6% per year (2008 -2012)
Planning estimate for 2010 to 2030:
1.0% annual growth rate in unincorporated
area.
REVISED GROWTH PROJECTION
Issue: SDC methodology utilized two separate Trip Generation
categories to calculate the background traffic and future
traffic growth projection.
Single Family Dwelling Unit (ITE Land Use #210): 1.0 PM peak hour
trips per unit.
Destination Resort Unit (Local Rate): 0.32 PM peak hour trips/unit.
Resolution 2008 -059 did not include a land use category for
Destination Resort Units
Destination Resort Units were assessed an SDC based on the ITE
Trip Generation Rate for a Single Family Dwelling (ITE Land Use
#210): 1.0 PM peak hour trips per unit.
RESIDENTIAL TRIP GENERATION
METHODOLOGY ISSUE
Create a “blended” trip generation rate for ALL units in
Deschutes County as follows:
Per known residential data: Deschutes County contains 74%
Primary homes and 26% Secondary homes.
Using ITE Rates for both Single Family units (#210) and Recreational
units (#260) create a blended rate:
74 x 1.0 trips/unit + 26 x 0.26 trips/unit = 81 trips/ 100 units or 0.81
trips per unit.
Proposal: The trip generation rate of 0.81 PM peak hour
trips/dwelling unit would apply to all residential units,
regardless of whether or not they are located in a Destination
Resort.
SDC METHODOLOGY CONCEPT PROPOSAL
FOR RESIDENTIAL TRIP GENERATION
Res 2008 -059
Methodology:
Growth
Factor: 1.545
(or 35.3%)
Total existing
trips: 27,857
Total new
trips: 15,190
RES 2008 -059 BACKGROUND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM USE
AND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM GROWTH CALCULATION
Proposed background and system growth calculation:
Total Existing Residential Units and Existing Trip Generation:
31,013 residential units x 0.81 pm peak hour trips/unit = 25,120 pm
peak hour trips (existing)
Total New Residential Units and new Trip Generation (at 1%
annual growth, 20 -year period)
31,013 x 1.22 (growth factor of 1% annual growth rate compounded
annually for 20 -years) = 37,836 units
37,836 residential units x 0.81 pm peak hour trips/unit = 30,645 pm
peak hour trips (20-years)
Estimated growth in Residential system use:
30,645 trips – 25,120 trips = 5,525 pm peak hour trips (residential)
18% of traffic attributable to new growth
BACKGROUND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM USE AND
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM GROWTH CALCULATION
# of Units # of PM Peak Hour Trips
(0.81 trips/unit)
Existing Residential Units 31,013 25,120
Projected 20-year growth
in Residential Units (at 1%
annual growth)
37,836 30,645
System Growth 6,823 5,525
Residential Growth’s % of
20-year value 18%
PROPOSED BACKGROUND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM USE AND
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM GROWTH CALCULATION
Note: Non -residential (commercial) trips have accounted for 5 to
10% of SDC collections since inception.
Factoring a 10% increase due to non -residential trips places the
estimate of 20 -year growth in the transportation system at 6,078
PM Peak Hour Trips.
Review Handout.
Projects obtained via
2012 TSP Update.
Projects in green are
carry -over from prior list.
Revised/Revisited Cost
Estimates.
Prioritized (H -M -L).
Includes new category for
State Segments (not just
intersections).
DISCUSS/REVIEW PROPOSED CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PLAN
SDC ELIGIBLE COST ALLOCATIONS
Project Category Project Cost
% SDC
Eligible
Total $ SDC
Eligible Project Cost
% SDC
Eligible
Total $ SDC
Eligible
County Int Projects $5.0M 100% $5.0M $7.08M 100% $7.08M
System Management $0.2M 0% $0 $0.2M 0% $0
State Highway Segs not incl not incl not incl $125.10M 0% $0
State Highway Ints $175.0M 5.3%
(35.3% of 15%) $9.3M $115.55M 2.7%
(18% of 15%) $3.12M
County New Segs $20.1M 100% $20.1M $3.46M 100% $3.46M
County Mod Projects $50.2M 35.3% $17.7M $34.49M 18% $6.21M
Forest Hwy Projects $25.4M 0% $0 $15.4M 10% $1.54M
Bike/Ped Projects $0.6M 0% $0 $0.57M 0% $0
Bridge Projects $3.2M 35.3% $1.1M $3.44M 18% $0.62M
TOTAL Project Cost $279.5M $53.2M $305.3M $22.03M
Transportation SDC (per PM Peak Hour Trip) =
PROPOSED SDC (IMPROVEMENT)
= $3,672 (incl $47 admin cost recovery portion, 1.28% of SDC)
Per initial SDC committee recommendation and supporting
information in Resolution 2008 -059:
“Due to the fact that the existing County transportation system has
been funded by a combination of tax sources and other “general”
funds, the County should forgo charging a reimbursement fee as a
part of its initial transportation SDC. A reimbursement fee
methodology or formula should be included in the analysis and report
in order to allow the County to add a reimbursement fee when it later
develops a basis for such a fee”.
Methodology (per March 2008 SDC study):
Reimbursement SDC =
REIMBURSEMENT SDC CONSIDERATION
Deschutes County has expended $525,000 in SDC revenue on
capital projects from FY 2008/09 to present.
If a Reimbursement SDC were considered at this time, it
would calculate as follows:
Reimbursement SDC = $525,000 / 6,078 PM peak hour trips
Reimbursement SDC = $86 per PM peak hour trip
REIMBURSEMENT SDC CONSIDERATION
Transportation SDC (per PM Peak Hour Trip) =
TOTAL PROPOSED SDC
(IMPROVEMENT + REIMBURSEMENT)
= $3,758 (per PM Peak Hour Trip)
Residential Unit = $3,758 x 0.81 = $3,044 = 20% decrease
Non-Residential = 1.5% decrease (actual charge varies)
Issue Outcome:
1 Achieve methodology consistency Blended rate solution
2 Evaluate “reimbursement” portion of SDC Recommend approval
3 Address home occupation SDC rates SDC Table (Exhibit C)
4 Clarify transferability Res 2013-020, Section 4A
5 Clarify abandonment of use Res 2013-020, Section 4B
(2 and 3)
6 How to address “change of use” Res 2013-020, Section 4B
(1)
7 Address ITE Trip Generation Manual updates Res 2013-020, Section 4C
(1)
8 SDC Committee: How to assess “events”?
Recommendation to
monitor and re-evaluate at
next update.
OTHER ISSUES ADDRESSED
1. Public Hearing: June 5, 2013 BOCC Meeting
Initial Public Notice, 90 days in advance (Per ORS 223.304)
Material available for review, 60 days in advance
2. Effective Date: Immediately upon adoption
3. Interim period: Applicants (yet to pay SDCs) pay lesser of
SDC via Resolution 2008 -059 or 2013 -020 if building permit
submitted prior to Resolution 2013 -020.
NEXT STEPS
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Tom Anderson, County Administrator
P. O. Box 6005 • Bend, Oregon 97708-6005
1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 206 • Bend, Oregon 97701
(541) 388-6565· FAX (541) 385-3202
www.des"hutes.org
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 8,2013
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM Tom Anderson, County Administrator
SUBJECT: Civil Commitments
Background:
Since 1988, the civil commitment process has been administered by the Legal Counsel's Office,
in cooperation with the Health Services Department-Behavioral Health Division. In February
2013, Legal Counsel Mark Pilliod recommended to the Board that the function be transferred to
the District Attorney's Office, due to the increasing volume of commitment cases, and the impact
that increase is having on his office now and into the future.
The Board held a work session discussion on this issue on April 10, 2013. Staff from Legal
Counsel, the District Attorney's Office and Behavioral Health provided background and input. At
that meeting, the Board directed that staff research alternatives more extensively, meet as a
group to discuss those alternatives, and come back to the Board in approximately 30 days to re
visit the matter.
Discussion:
From staff level discussions, Legal Counsel is firm in stating that retaining any portion of the civil
commitment process in his office will at times seriously jeopardize his offices ability to perform
its core functions, most importantly the protection of the County from liability. This would
preclude any kind of partial transfer of the civil commitment function, such as transferring the
courtroom component (attorneys) but retaining the administrative support work, as both attorney
time as well as administrative support staff are impacted as described above.
The possibility of contracting some or all of the civil commitment function to an external (private)
entity was discussed, but was deemed to be impractical by Legal Counsel, the District
Attorney's Office and Behavioral Health. Beyond posing a serious risk with respect to liability, it
was not felt that such a private entity exists locally to perform this specialized. part-time work.
,
! I
C. Sign Order Requesting that the District Attorney's Office Assume Responsibility for Civil
Commitments
• Issues: It is expected that the District Attorney's Office will request additional staff
through the County budgeting process associated with assuming the function.
D. Other -Direct Staff to Perform Additional Research
• Investigate more fully the amount of required administrative support work through
discussions with the State Department of Health Services.
• Request that the District Attorney's Office prepare a specific staffing request
associated with assuming the civil commitment function.
• Request that Legal Counsel prepare an analysis of additional staffing necessary
to retain the civil commitment process, while preserving the ability to perform
core functions.
• Prepare and issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) to determine if contracting the
function is possible or practical.
• Other research as directed.
Requested Board Action:
Discuss and direct staff to pursue one of the options listed above.
I
1 It is clear that the District Attorney's Office is willing to take on the civil commitment process, ij and recognizes the Board of Commissioners right to direct the office to do so. However, the
Office has expressed concerns over their ability to perform the work, given that existing staff is J at or near maximum capacity given their current responsibilities. There was also concern1
I expressed that there may not be sufficient expertise among existing support staff to perform the
administrative functions. District Attorney Patrick Flaherty has indicated that optimally. an
additional Deputy District Attorney would provide coverage for the civil commitment process at
the current time, and also be able to take on additional work in the coming year, such as Child 1 Support Enforcement work.
I There remain some questions as to the level of administrative process and support that is
necessary to adequately manage the civil commitment process. It is expected that these
questions will be resolved through direct discussions with the State Department of Health
Services. Unfortunately, the earliest those discussions could be scheduled is Thursday, May 9th •
We have researched the current amount of staffing that is associated with the civil commitment
process in Legal Counsel. Staffing is separated in the analysis below by Assistant legal Counsel
requirements and administrative support staff. Please note that the requirements are based on
24 civil commitment cases, which is the number administered in calendar year 2012. Please
also note that the work is inconsistent in volume, some weeks may involve multiple cases, while
other weeks have none. It is also a requirement of the process that when cases arise, they
become top priority, at the expense of other competing priorities.
Assistant Legal Counsel
• Preparation and court time 1
I o Average 3.75 hours per case -3.75x24= 90 hours annually I .043 FTE
I Administrative Support (Paralegal)
• Specific case work
o Average 3.5 hours per case -84 hours annually~ , • Daily administrative oversight 1 o Average 1 hour per day -260 hours annually
• Additional time for 14-day diversions
o Estimated 8 cases @ 45 minutes - 6 hours annually
• Total staff time -326 hours annually 10.17 FTE
I Note on 2013 -There have been 14 cases thus far in 2013. If that pace continues at the same
rate, it may equal 42 cases in 2013. In that case staff time required is estimated at 157.5 hours
I .075 FTE for attorney time, and 413 hours I .20 FTE for administrative support.
Options
1 A. Status Quo -Retain Civil Commitments in the Office of Legal Counsel
I
1 • Issues: Legal Counsel has stated that this option will undermine the Office's
ability to perform core functions and protect the County from legal liability.
i
I B. Direct Legal Counsel to Investigate Contracting of Civil Commitment Process
I
~ !!
• Issues: Legal Counsel, District Attorney and Behavioral Staff do not believe this
option is practical.
1
I