HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-06-03 Work Session Minutes
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, June 3, 2013
Page 1 of 13
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
MONDAY, JUNE 3, 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 , Laurie Craghead,
County Counsel; Nick Lelack, Paul Blikstad and Peter Russell, Community
Development; Chris Doty, Road Department; Dan Despotopulos, Fair & Expo
Center; Anna Johnson, Communications; members of the Fair Board; and
approximately a dozen other citizens.
Chair Unger opened the meeting at 1:35 p.m.
1. Discussion of the Upcoming Public Hearing on the Alfalfa Cell Tower
Appeal.
Paul Blikstad gave an overview of the item. He said there are a couple of things
in the appeal that staff feels should be determined by the Board.
He addressed the search ring, only a few of which are contained within EFU
zoned land. The Oregon Department of State Lands owns about 80 acres that
might be suitable per the opponents. It does have some topographic differen ces
with higher locations on a pressure ridge, or on the dirt close to Three Mile Road.
The applicant has considered other sites with less visual impact, and indicates
that they are not suitable. The Hearings Officer feels there needs to be more of
a search of alternative sites or for co-location. The applicant submitted a co-
location study for other towers.
The Hearings Officer found that the applicant did not consider using the electric
transmission lines along Elk Lane. He believes they cross through the DSL
property.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, June 3, 2013
Page 2 of 13
Chair Unger asked who they plan to serve with this tower. Mr. Blikstad said
local users and travelers along Highway 20. They feel there is a gap in service;
however, there may be coverage through other providers.
The applicant did not respond adequately to a request to investigate placement
on the DSL land, which could be a viable alternative.
Negative visual impacts are largely unavoidable and would be experienced by
many neighbors. Code and State law require looking at other areas, then EFU
land.
The applicant feels that if they cannot locate on RR-10 land, is there
justification to site on EFU land. The Hearings Officer felt that they should
have more adequately investigated RR-10 land opportunities. EFU is the last
choice per State law.
Regarding the second criterion, it was pointed out by staff that there is not much
vegetative screening in the area; mostly topographical. The Hearings Officer
said that this has never been a criterion but Mr. Blikstad stated that this has
happened when no one complained. There is no real history of interpreting this
specific criterion. This is not in State law, just Deschutes County Code, and it
is hard to interpret.
This criterion has been inconsistently interpreted and applied, and there has
never been a Board ruling on this. The wording in the criterion is not
consistent, per the Hearings Officer. The screening has to be effective, and it
was felt none of it in this area would meaningfully screen the tower.
Commissioner DeBone asked if there was a written submittal from the applicant
prior to the hearing. Mr. Blikstad said he thought there is one, but it has not yet
been received. He expects another submittal and their presence at the hearing.
Chair Unger stated in the past they sited towers that are higher than the
vegetation on Cline Buttes.
Ms. Craghead noted that they need to show the gap in service and then sites
where there is no other available property.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, June 3, 2013
Page 3 of 13
Mr. Blikstad said that when he asked about them not considering the DSL land,
he was told it takes much longer to do that process. Moreover, the State might
plan to sell it down the road.
Commissioner Baney stated that the Board cannot presuppose that they might
be able to use DSL land. Ms. Craghead added that they have to have a willing
property owner in any case.
Commissioner DeBone said that they need to stay focused on the two narrow
issues. Mr. Blikstad emphasized that the Board’s interpretation will be
important. Commissioner Baney agreed that this will not be the last of this kind
of application or appeal, so it is important to set it up properly now.
2. Discussion of Tetherow SDC Issues.
Chris Doty said the residential portion of the resort feels there should be an
exemption to the SDC’s for the remaining 400+ units. There is an appeal
process, but it does not work well with this kind of request. As far as timeline
regarding dual payments and the City of Bend, it is summed up in the staff
memo with recommendations.
Regarding exempting Tetherow, it would set precedence. There are many such
developments and others may feel they should have not been charged (Eagle
Crest and Sunriver for example). There was a right time and place to bring this
forward, and that was in 2008. They are into five years of implementation.
Regarding a point of context, there are bundled SDC requirements of the City’s
water and sewer infrastructure agreement. It needs to be viewed as the total
cost to the City. The original developer probably did not differentiate the
systems. There is a variety of ways to serve a development.
The Road Department capital programs budget is suffering, and it is important
to have viable SDC funding.
Chair Unger asked what steps should be taken before the Board meeting. Mr.
Doty replied that he can gather more information if needed. If the Resolution is
going to be changed, it has to be soon since this is on the Board business
meeting of Wednesday, June 5.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, June 3, 2013
Page 4 of 13
Mr. Anderson noted that this is not a land use issue nor a fee waiver, but an
SDC Ordinance.
Commissioner Baney stated that they used Sunriver and Eagle Crest as
examples, but they are not paying City SDC’s. Mr. Doty noted that they made
a big investment in development prior to the SDC’s, and currently pays them.
Commissioner Baney feels this is a very unique situation.
Mr. Anderson said that it is tough to absorb this into the land use system. Peter
Russell added that they have to look at the overall scope of the system.
Commissioner Baney stated that this is a unique situation that requires more
than a yes or no. She has seen some suggestions and recognizes that they could
have made this case. However, in 2008 things were very different.
Mr. Doty said the original agreements were entered into in 2005, with SDC’s
coming in 2007.
Commissioner DeBone stated that this has been out there for a while. Chair
Unger noted that if they are in the County, they need to pay County costs. Mr.
Doty said they want a 100% discount, and he is proposing 20%. But, this
would have to be for everyone to be fair.
3. Joint Meeting with the Fair Board.
Fair Board members Dan Despotopulos, Bev Clarno, Mike Shiel, Jim Morrill
and Cheryl Davidson came before the Board.
Mr. Despotopulos said that proposed changes to the budget allocation to the
Central Oregon Visitors Association were a surprise to him. He met with Tom
O’Shea and Commissioners Baney and Unger. They have had several meetings
and some good dialogue with resorts and COVA. Most support the future of
the Fair & Expo Center and realize money is needed to protect this investment.
He referred to a PowerPoint presentation at this time. There was information
on the community, discounted services to groups, and the impact of the Fair &
Expo Center on the area. He talked about the economic impacts of events held
there, but also emphasized the free or discounted services such as 4 -H,
graduations and other community events. This is time and space they cannot
charge other entities for, and it amounts to about $500,000 a year for the
community.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, June 3, 2013
Page 5 of 13
Regarding the annual fair, it includes concerts, bus rides and much more. A lot
of it is at no charge except general admission. (He referred to an aerial photo of
the area.) Adjacent land would add millions to the value of the Fair & Expo.
There would be more parking for the bigger events such as the Family Motor
Coach Association and others. The event center is too far away from general
parking. Acquiring adjacent land is important for the future.
They went through a process regarding land use and potential exchanges with
the DSL. He would like to get this conversation open again. It has been years
and might be quite different now.
Commissioner Baney said that given the importance of the land, she asked if
the Fair & Expo Board has discussed coming to the table with ideas and
funding. The DSL wanted everything and then some, plus cash. Mr.
Despotopulos replied that they have been through their budget process, and
there is not a lot that can be spent on land. Perhaps there should be some long-
term ideas. Mr. Shiel noted that they need to have adequate reserve funds.
Mr. Despotopulos said that a room tax increase could help market the facility
more. A lot of relationships are already been established. The room tax would
help with marketing, to bring in more events, and also helps with local lodging
and other services. Perhaps some could be generated to go towards the land.
Bev Clarno stated they need to close the door on this. They have a fiduciary
obligation to get something done. This process has remained in limbo for a
long time. There was no room for negotiations in the past, and everyone was
put off by the attitude of the DSL. But the DSL land is very important to the
County’s future and investment. The original appraisal is outdated but showed
the highest and best use for a projected zone, making it nebulous. This needs to
start from another place. Opportunities are not set in concrete.
Commissioner Baney noted that they cannot use the highest and best use if not
in place already; this may never happen. It should be appraised as-is.
Chair Unger added that the DSL said the County offered land for trade, but
most of it was EFU. They wanted a lot, and the County did not have that much
to trade.
Jim Morrill said that before he came on board, the RV park came in. Within a
year, it was making money. It is the only RV park for miles. It is a great
facility, but limited. More land to the south offers expansion potential.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, June 3, 2013
Page 6 of 13
Mr. Shiel stated that one main reason for these ideas is the dream when the
facility was proposed, when the old facility was found to be very inadequate;
and this dream was able to grow. That additional land is essential for the future.
He is having a hard time accepting that they might get just a small part of it.
The airport also affects what can be put there. Cheryl Davidson added that it is
not adequate as-is; they need an option for growth.
Ms. Clarno said that she attended a meeting of the DSL and staff from the
Governor’s Office, and Mike Hollern chairs this advisory committee. Their
number one goal is the university. The Fair & Expo should be number two.
They could maybe mediate this issue with the DSL. Between this group, the
Board and others, they might be able to get somewhere.
Chair Unger stated he is on the steering committee of the collaboration group,
which is the third iteration of the community solutions team. A Redmond
collaborative group was formed regarding the extension of 19th Street. This
group still exists.
Ms. Clarno said they need someone with a close relationship with the Governor,
and that could be Mike Hollern. But they would need to know what the
property could be used for and an appraised amount. John Russell of the DSL
said they thought they had a cut and dried deal with the County and the
military.
Chair Unger noted that Mr. Hollern does not usually meet in the problem
solving stage. Mr. Anderson said that he met with the Fair Board and heard
their passion; and met with the DSL since then. The biggest difference now is
that the land is in line for the regional economic opportunity analysis process.
There are only two large lot landholders with candidate sites: the County and
DSL. There is room for negotiations on that piece of land, but now the stakes
are higher. It is viable in terms of large lot industrial use. Both the DSL and
the City have submitted applications to analyze the infrastructure.
Considering the layout of the 900 acres, the corner by the Fairgrounds is the
closest to utilities. It is likely that is where the industrial use would expand
into. This ratchets up the stakes. The County also has a lot invested in its land.
He knows how the DSL operates, and regardless of who you talk to, it is all
about the school fund. That is their mindset.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, June 3, 2013
Page 7 of 13
This also involves the City of Redmond since as part of an annexation through
the Regional Economic Opportunity Analysis, they are looking for job creation
and benefits to the City. Under the process, they get special consideration if
there is a large lot industrial use committed.
Mike Sheil said the infrastructure stops at the Fair & Expo Center. He asked
what would happen if it was expanded south. Mr. Anderson replied that the
difficulty with this process is that the land has to abut the UGB. They can’t
leapfrog to a different use. They have to dedicate all land to some kind of
industrial use, although he is not sure what those uses might include.
Mr. Despotopulos said the if the County got the 70 acres, it then would still be
industrial. Chair Unger noted that it would have to be rezoned for Fair use. Mr.
Anderson emphasized that it can’t be rezoned if it is brought in under the
REOA. Nick Lelack said that they would have to amend the Fairgrounds
master plan and go through a process. Potentially it could all be done at one
time. Mr. Anderson said this would not happen immediately as the REOA
might.
Chair Unger asked about having the REOA to the east instead. Commissioner
Baney said they have 216 acres within the City limits, and this mi ght be a
bargaining chip. The County has as much to gain to work with them. Mr.
Anderson stated that the co-owned land is not there; the other candidate land
would be under the REOA. It is probably more viable than this location.
Chair Unger asked if the regional solutions group might want to discuss this.
Commissioner DeBone said that this may not be a big problem for this group.
Ms. Clarno asked about going to the City of Redmond. Chair Unger stated that
the City wants to have the water park property near the Fairgrounds, and wants
to do other things to enhance the Fairgrounds.
Mr. Anderson said that he believes a deal could be structured, but there is a
financial detriment to having the County do it, like purchasing land outright and
giving up the return on land elsewhere. Timing is an issue for the DSL and the
REOA. The County would lose the REOA use.
Commissioner Baney stated that if they sold the 216 acres to pay off jail debt,
this would reduce the ability to sell the rest.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, June 3, 2013
Page 8 of 13
Mr. Despotopulos said that because of the lack of space, they lost one big event.
There was too much red tape. They lost $60,000 plus a lot of area hotel rooms.
Commissioner Baney asked about the cost of paving the additional land. Mr.
Despotopulos said the previous paving’s true cost was about $1 million.
Commissioner Baney said that in any case, they need long-term funding. They
could ask for an operations levy for capital reserves. But if there is also a
transient lodging tax increase, there would be two taxes involved.
Mr. Despotopulos stated that the room tax money should not be used for
operations, but for marketing. They also want the Visitors Association to do
more as well. The operations levy would go towards maintenance.
Commissioner Baney said that it would take a year to prepare for an operations
levy. If they start dipping into the TLT and then go for a levy, there will be
issues. Mr. Despotopulos pointed out that the Board controls where the TLT
goes, and room tax allocations can always be adjusted.
Mr. Shiel noted that they don’t benefit from the room tax. The major players,
the cities and County should want to protect this investment.
Commissioner Baney said this is a gravy train for the cities and they should
want it to be successful. There will be a window of opportunity when the debt
service expires. Ms. Clarno stated that there is deferred maintenance, and not
enough in reserves.
Commissioner Baney noted they are at a crossroads. The City of Bend will ask
the Board to co-sponsor a TLT increase. This increase would be in essence
forever. She wondered about negotiating the carve-out. Mr. Despotopulos said
that it would be much harder to do this afterwards. Maybe they should go for
1% in year one, followed by another; maybe phase it in. perhaps they could
consider a different split.
Chair Unger stated that the industry is willing to work at this and be at the table.
They have to talk with key collectors, who handle different amounts and
allocations, and bring in the cities. They can be more successful overall, but
can’t just rely on the providers.
Mr. Despotopulos said at 2% it would generate about $700,000.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, June 3, 2013
Page 9 of 13
Commissioner Baney stated that the City of Bend meets this month on the TLT.
They will get some pressure from the County and COVA. They will need to
maximize the dollars in a campaign, and this requires teamwork. Chair Unger
said that the City of Bend needs to be asked how much of this will go to the
County to help the Fair & Expo.
Mr. Despotopulos noted that most voters live in the City of Bend. The City of
Redmond does not have to go to a vote. Commissioner DeBone said there are
two ways to get this on the ballot. Commissioner Baney stated she prefers a
coordinator effort of COVA, the City and the County, including a long-term
plan for the Fair & Expo.
Mr. DeBone said that what resorts can get is market-driven. He wondered if
taxing visitors is the way to go. He suggested they diversify the economy by
bringing in new businesses.
Alana Hughson of COVA stated that there is a proven history that this does
both.
Chair Unger asked what 2% means to the lodging industry. He wants them to
be successful. The Fair Board should advocate to both cities how important the
Fair & Expo Center is. They need to help with this. And regarding the DSL
land, the Fair & Expo needs a master plan. No one is clear on what the use of
this land could be.
Mr. Shiel stated that they need the land before they will discuss this.
Chair Unger asked what the Fair Board wants: to support a hotel or conference
center in the Fairgrounds, or what. Commissioner DeBone said that this might
be a good conversation with the City of Redmond. He asked what a 500-room
convention center look like.
Mr. Shiel stated they could move the barns south and use that land for other
things. They can’t go any other way because of the airport. Mr. Anderson
stated a master plan is a good idea. In terms of immediate direction, should
DSL acquire a chunk of the land or negotiate an exchange for actions of the
County, a sequence of events and development of the REOA.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, June 3, 2013
Page 10 of 13
Chair Unger said he is not sure how to move forward. It is complicated when
dealing with the UGB, zoning and the DSL.
Commissioner Baney noted they need to make a decision. They will lose an
opportunity or someone will figure it out for the County. Dan Despotopulos
pointed out that the DSL wants this land for a reason, and it would be smart for
the County to acquire it for whatever reasons.
Commissioned Baney said that it would be useless for the DSL if the County
gets the REOA first elsewhere. Chair Unger stated that he always thought the
County should have that land. Mr. Despotopulos said they would talk more
about the TLT and get back to the Board.
The Fair Board and other citizens left the meeting at this time.
4. Other Items.
The group discussed the Heritage Farm HB 3536 at this time. Mr. Lelack
advised there is a hearing on June 5 at 3 PM, and AOC has asked for comments.
The Heritage Farm Bill was reintroduced this year and was dead until last week
when it was rolled into HB 3536. It created a transfer development opportunity
that was mostly for the coast and Jefferson County. Ms. Craghead noted that it
was amended in 2011 to add rural lands.
It takes this concept and blends it with a transfer development opportunity and
can site a small-scale recreational opportunity. It allows them to utilize the
amenities that are already there, at Aspen Lakes. It could include a heritage
guest ranch, restaurants, a conference center, recreation facilities, up to 480
residential units plus overnight units, plus 100 spaces for RV’s. It would
require 25% overnight lodging. The residential units are not to be over 1800
square feet.
Commissioner Baney pointed out that deed-restricted properties can’t get
financing. They want to build a hotel. They already have some recreational
facilities through the golf course.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, June 3, 2013
Page 11 of 13
Mr. Lelack stated that this is tied to the Metolius, which is protected. The
Board could ask Jefferson County if they are comfortable transferring Jefferson
County resort development opportunities to Deschutes County. Ms. Craghead
said that most are on the coast.
Mr. Lelack explained that this allows for small-scale recreational communities
as an outright permitted use, as a heritage farm. He suggested the Board treat
those as any other and make it a conditional use. It would have to follow a
process and there would be conditions to meet. The bill supersedes
transportation impacts. It also waives a lot of the requirements of the County’s
comprehensive Plan and transportation plan.
Mr. Anderson said the Board could submit testimony on this, either for, against
or neutral. Commissioner Baney stated that she thinks the Cyrus’ have been
good stewards of their land and the community. She would like to see a path
that marries closely with the Comprehensive Plan. They need to mitigate the
transportation part. She does not see any negatives in overnight stays. The
market will determine how things go, but the County needs a say in it.
Chair Unger added that he always wanted the Cyrus’ to be successful, but
doesn’t like the idea they could possibly now do whatever they want. They
want outright approval without interference from 1,000 Friends or Central
Oregon LandWatch. This bill cuts through the process, and is an awfully big
reach all at once.
Commissioner Baney noted that there could be safety issues tied to
transportation. Mr. Lelack said that they wanted to have the County waive its
procedure ordinances, which the Board would have to approve. The Board
remained neutral in the past since appeals might come before them. She would
like to convey the concerns through Mr. Lelack. She wants them to have a
path, but they need to consider the big picture. Mr. Anderson said they need to
follow all the rules for destination resorts.
Mr. Lelack was instructed to draft a letter expressing these concerns, for Chair
signature.
___________________________
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, June 3, 2013
Page 12 of 13
Commissioner Baney updated the group on the OEM grant closeouts. The
Director is now on administrative leave. She is waiting for a Department of
Justice response. Until this is resolved, they can’t move forward on the 2010
grant. She will keep everyone informed.
___________________________
Chair Unger stated there is a meet and greet at the County tomorrow with the
U.S. Forest Service and others, primarily to discuss emergency preparedness
issues. Commissioner DeBone indicated he would be attending an Eastern
Oregon Counties meeting tomorrow.
___________________________
Mr. Anderson asked about the status of a community plan for Deschutes River
Woods. John Skidmore, Assistant City Manager for the City of Bend said the
City is doing transportation planning on the demo landfill and Boise Cascade
site. They want a letter of support from the County for their TGM grant
application. The project cost is $250,000 and the grant for the entire region is
just $150,000. They want the County to contribute a hard match for part of the
balance if they get the grant.
It is awkward to submit a letter of support and then submit the County’s own
application. The County’s would be for the DRW plan and would use about
$80,000.
Mr. Russell stated they could do most of this in -house. However, the
homeowners’ association was told that the County would go out for the grant.
Commissioner Baney asked if it would benefit the County if the City chose not
to use it on that property; would it be a win for only the City and college. Mr.
Anderson said that they’d say it benefits everyone.
Commissioner Baney said she wants to see the university, but should this
application be examined before being submitted. Mr. Lelack stated he could
ask the City to create an overlay zone for OSU Cascades, using existing
buildings in Mill Point, but needs to know if they would do the overlay and
analysis on the County land.
Commissioner Baney asked what happens if the Mill Point properties work for
ten years. That could hold up the County. Mr. Lelack said this could come to
the legislature as early as 2015. Their goal is to kick it off quickly.
Chair Unger added that he wants to see a win-win. The City has historically
ignored this property. There is an opportunity to utilize it as a university or
have the City buy it for a use of some type.
Mr. Anderson said they did not ask for $100,000. It may be for $50,000 or a
smaller amount. They were not specific.
Mr. Lelack stated that the EPA grant could be kicked in for site assessment.
Mr. Russell asked about the DRW grant. The intent to apply has already been
submitted. Chair Unger suggested that they look at the following year for
DRW.
Mr. Anderson supports the City's efforts. Financial assistance could be the
brownfields process, or lottery money, which is clearly for economic
development.
Commissioner Baney said that if the scope is right, $50,000 is cheap. But it
needs to be specific for OSU. Mr. Anderson stated the County should offer
nothing up front, but instead let them ask.
Being no further items addressed, the work session ended at 5:20 p.m.
DATED this U Day of ~ 2013 for the
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners.
tiL Urr=
ATTEST:
Anthony DeBone, Commissioner ~~
Recording Secretary
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, June 3, 2013
Page 13 of 13
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., MONDAY, JUNE 3, 2013
1. Discussion of Public Hearing on the Alfalfa Cell Tower Appeal-Paul BUlestad
2. Discussion of Tetherow SDC Issues -Chris Daty, Peter Russell, Nick Lelack
and Others
3. Joint Meeting with the Fair Board
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 I 92.660(2X 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
/300 NW Wall St., Bend. unless otherwise indicated. lfyou have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572.
Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchlUr 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.
Monday. June 3. 2013Work Session
(Please Print) +--l-
Name A~ency Mailin~ Address .<;!!Y ZiIL _+ Phone # + e-mail address
LAI'2JZ.'7" ~1T'f1-tfC4..\Gr -o~ 2. S 100 Aif-ALFA fVI... F3c!0o : ct1701 5""4,1-(,.,7 -~4-~______ _
.
I , 591-5J?-?J"/0 1 ,k.~5ei~ck/V"e?~r/ 'cJ"""1/'5){' {At/tJ;;' Ak+
--I ---'>pL~ l
O(;)flf.' 2526LJ)JiJ£lJJf '. _ lil}i< 5rfJ~c~~-~vnc:
\'\ <.l lf\ \ c? v -.-J o/\.e" I .l.~\u c) ~~ \~<-....~~\I\ll ~~""~._ ~c-'0.-'-'= \~~
eA-P-.DLyJ MrrsE Ypm E. OWA/£/!... ~~~:t ~Nb.~Th~'\j~~-~-~~
~1BrULe.-Iv ~'Jc _1____ftlfo //J( '1 IPo \6 O.,L It 'iL
L3~IVJ{.,_opR/J.)J.Ilu ~_ . ~11-'~~_ ;2 $"0 IJlU t;;,"";,t 1",,<..1 ~~ '"I"f'7,
_~~,s, _ .,l\ttom~ 3("o'SW r.onJ-_Si<4 t o ~
.p"",,,,-(AYLJi( !h~1 ffI/ 5V('1 ;t!j;BMlU; W __
1.l[JJL~ \1Uffi~S{fn -l .o'J V'-L -lOS <;W \3on ",,~ ~ dd
' ~j \\ eo~ ~ Co~____ ~~±h ~. ~~_
Wk~~~f11A. Cu 5f,
__Cl.;LJ)..ly ~. t. _
'/ -t2t)-.J~2-.83)6 ~M~~]eY'@ j~~()o .. t ~t'Y"\
w~,\ ~ @ C e V\lu.~\"'\~ V\e--\-
, CJJI't~~~~~L ~~~~ ~~~~~~
'1t1-vt_l 5'{l ~5~Z.~2..-O~~U.H.J ~e .f.H~ro ,_
I '11'70 _ C;t'1J707 ~ ~~.J~
, 017 () i '7 Lf I ~ 74'1 -L( D'i~ i lu0I<;' C? SC~wo.be, U/ rn
Q1J-oL I ~/!1fZ -If?; I -r1A-/o,.(~<b~· J&..~. OJ /Nt.
0 2, I '9\\ ~1Ci)"'fA D) o~V~\\-c.J,~
9b 5-~ b~)'€~L@h0\
-Pt~u:-bl) +-Di(---~~J~)o-j
O~ _ill __(;rz~_M. ---j_"_ AUtV~~.,uv~~
PaS2:e # of PaS2:es I r
Community Development Department
Planning Dlvtslon BuIlding safety 0ivIsI0n EnYlronmental Soils DivIsion
P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005
(541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cddj
MEMORANDUM
To: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
From: Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner
Kevin Harrison, Principal Planner
Date: May 23, 2013
Re: Appeal of cell tower decision
The following is designed to help the Board in their review of the Hearings Officer's denial of
CU-12-15. The Hearings Officer found that the applicant failed to meet the following approval
criteria for the reasons indicated in bullet points.
1. DCC 18.128.340(B)(2).
The applicant has considered other sites in its search are that would have less visual
impact as viewed from nearby residences than the site proposed and has determined
that any less intrusive sites are either unavailable or do not provide the communications
coverage necessary. To meet this criterion, the applicant must demonstrate that it has
made a good faith effort to co-locate its antennas on existing monopoles in the area to be
served. The applicant can demonstrate this by submitting a statement from a qualified
engineer that indicates whether the necessary service can or cannot be provided by co
location with the area to be served.
• The Hearings Officer found, based on review of the language and prior Hearings
Officer's decisions, that this criterion requires both a search for co-location opportunities
and a search for alternative sites that "would have less visual impact as viewed from
nearby residences than the site proposed." This criterion requires an applicant to
consider alternatives suggested by opponents.
• The Hearings Officer found that the applicant did not consider the alternative of utilizing
the existing transmission lines along Elk Lane.
• The applicant did not respond to opponents' suggestion that the tower might be located
on nearby DSL property in a way that only incrementally impacts views from nearby
residences which are already impacted by the transmission lines.
• The applicant's dismissal of the DSL property did not adequately respond to the
opponents' reasons for suggesting that property as an alternative. The argument
submitted by the applicant did not demonstrate a serious attempt to find a location on
the DSL property that both satisfies the RF needs and mitigates impacts on scenic
views. Opponents identified locations both on the west side and the east side of the
Quality Seroices Performed with Pride
DSL property that might represent lesser visual impacts to the surrounding residences,
but the applicant did not seriously respond to those suggestions.
• In circumstances such as this one where the record shows that negative visual impacts
of a proposed tower, including impacts to scenic views protected by the code, are largely
unavoidable and likely to be experienced by a significant number of nearby residences,
a larger search ring including EFU lands should be considered.
• The Hearings Officer found that demonstrated negative visual impacts on surrounding
properties can render urban and non-resource lands (Le., RR-10 and MUA-10 zoned
properties) "unavailable" for a proposed telecommunications facility under DCC
18.16.038(A)(3).
• The Hearings Officer could not find that the applicant has established that the DSL
property and potential locations along Elk Lane are not "available" because they
represent negative visual impacts. including impacts on protected scenic views.
2. DCC 18.128.340(B)(5).
In all cases, the applicant shall site the facility in a manner to minimize its impact on
scenic views and shall site the facility using trees, vegetation, and topography in order to
screen it to the maximum extent practicable from view from protected roadways. Towers
or monopoles shall not be sited in locations where there is no vegetative, structural or
topographic screening available.
• The Hearings Officer found that this criterion has never been the central focus of a
telecommunications facility decision. In reviewing past hearings officer's decisions, this
criterion has been somewhat inconsistently interpreted and applied. Therefore, the
question presented by this application has not been directly addressed in prior hearings
officer's decisions, nor has LUBA or the Court of Appeals previously reviewed this
provision. Staff notes that, to our knowledge, the Board has never ruled directly on this
provision.
• The Hearings Officer found that this criterion is directed at "scenic views" and that all
applications ("in all cases") are obligated to "minimize impacts" on scenic views.
• The Hearings Officer concluded that this section is only triggered where "scenic views"
are present and will be interfered with by the presence of the telecommunications facility.
• The Hearings Officer identified the scenic views present in this area as those of the open
desert plateau, the Cascade Mountains, Horse Ridge, Pine Mountain and the Paulina
Mountains.
• The Hearings Officer found that the second sentence in the criterion modifies the first
sentence such that where, as here, scenic views are present, the siting of a
telecommunications tower shall be disallowed where there is no vegetation, structures or
terrain to meaningfully screen the facility. In other words, the "screening" must actually
be effective at screening a proposed tower. The Hearings Officer found that neither the
vegetation, structures nor topographic features will meaningfully screen the proposed
tower.
Staff is anticipating a supplemental written submission from the applicant prior to the appeal
hearing. As soon as that comes in, we will forward it to the Board. Just a reminder that the
appeal hearing is scheduled for Thursday, June 13th at 6:00 p.m., and is to be held at the Alfalfa
Community Building, which is located near the Alfalfa Store.
rage 1 or ILU\"U_' .~
.I
a5 Land I nfo rmat ion
To ols
I I Nitll;Jatk'n
+; ,-.)
.1~4~ I ~
~yl ~
i~ QupJY/Jr~~
\ Syslom
..;..;; 'f!;
x = 4770915 Y = 878401rU t-ova 52
£Fu
RRJO RaMse~ RRI ~r<>~' MoV.\-If a.o"liU~C> ~.t: + "f C V ~j ~ f\...-.{ c: l . I-J:/!/31'13(' I kil"l~ RRIO lrI 5 / ~~g
Ki',vA u.-' ~J 3 11()()
RRlo I RR ,;r If> 1[(KIO IRR I{) I ~R/D\ I R RIO
~ '\j
~
§ I I~
~
tTl
",
~ . j... "i-
t;'? ~ s:
" .li ..... ~
h~I~l t I~ K{() ~RJo
-
~J6 ~~~
~~~~J
3/933 -'-
RRI {)
Ll:h/f ,kncb /cck ~~~:d> l :ffIS3~O I lfF 13 188? ,~:5 l q Ob-~o.----.. -~-~·U;.:l,l F'A.. i'fARK{'T ~
1~ t?l c ----
.,,'.,:?L_c.,..>< .. "_. ," <: I.~;~3/~' n QS §
-----..~ I
:::;1 Tabula r Res u lts
Query Results ~ ~ .
L F'In d Ta x l ot (1 ' 1 of 1 Re cordl
-."), !>
.~ :.. I TAXLOT t !
R J< VE" N Li l
SfAl e of uV"e~~ Yl
[;FlA. -
11/ 51£3D
6)
M/Jl-(IO
~p t'<~ le \
ilJ31 gCf{
M /l-IJ ID t,1?\' S"h~fi,tt U
c· o o
~
G'
Sca le) : 6,
http://lava5 .deschutes,org/mox5Iindexpublic.cfm ?&action=mox5 2 _~f frameset 5/14 /2012 ®
8011
ALFALFA Mn::RICAN TOW::R
COfll' O HI\TI O N25070 ALF.ALF~ MARKET AD
NO OR q7701 View #: 1 November 06, 2012
inn IJhft!I,lllw ' IlIMJilr ~ I, rr.pn··.t:Jtll.:,flfl nf UI,l: P 'ljl~fJ 1'II1I11}i I t:m. 1.I1 o')c'1l1,tL",TI(Hkr.olloflR'c!ro!1" I'.....;!.c·nl . ..d uhl C{}fIlllnlOl,I I(Ir, ~'"",. ~ .OI'r(lr'lf"l ,'flt·1I1 ~1 .fI'llIIlI\I ·' 1 t.OJIl"'l j 'Ii',"C", 111/111"••uILIIIU".,'h'il" Pl S ,r.,"'If '(' 1.!II"I JIIt' s(;•• •!.:t'''''''' 1<1.11 'l"dlm''''\''
'N .OIIn¥" i''-'" " :(.Ir,l 4I1:1II.Il'1 ItW;t"O "t'~InJ!.'.!' "'~lf f1 " /fl'fl"A.f ..... ,; Illi \1 10" l"'Ii.'l1l I t,." ,,1'1 ;:ar loll'=--" "l';,lo'•• II"" " wlu",,.t< I. rT'I'n'"'IIDlI' l lt.... 1'10I1IoIDt'1i ~11:;.1 ,.cIIII.N I fllllll Mia,.. 1 11' ''II1''I 'I II I ~lntl' ,1 , ,"0,1, "",I .. ,;1 '1I'''~'I ' L'rl l'' h ' II, '·'..iI1"1 f,'p r~t 1111 It! ,t"
" cl llnllo....L'. "u~. TI .. rl.""'I1'~llItJ.U"'" .,••11 hlml .. "IJiIr<i . ~tlllilo ,100:., ,tI'I(' 100"UI I!Io 'JIIl/f:rlf'lIJ'I"..!>, ~,j d ., 1].IJ " lJl\.IIIItb, ,IUL •. "lor:! ""ltl " WIIUt' r.V" 'I' ~'rfUI ! " 'it! ... II IIHII' l U LL "~'''';H U...... c.r 'rTll ..It • ..:....., Lf,r" ",,"JI m" l'" 'UJltrty !.I ." .....'r· o.l l " UH" .u ,.~,1 , " ""-'" Ilion or PiI~I~r V't 11 nY> '~?T'r, !1JKIf1 rlOIl .~ 'ic.rUf ,n~, m "'ltu" M hUf'-n 1 U',t'l lnfi1flIIfUI :II ' 'I'll IIIJr AIl1.,,'lChl.
~-, ==a ,"
Pr~,ll,riU "'1'.' ,~,J
Iolhone t503) 95.'l-1 tI ,,~:a;=:\~~~,' EXHIBIT I
j 3j
801 1
ALFALFA MIIE:RICAN TOVV:=R
C. OI(r'O ll I\TrON
1h.... tll ~I'i lr !~ I'I1A r.tm~1: III a rr:n rc.1-f', .' O'l' 'IoUn N \~,t; P'.,:I IIO'IIt'IJ lhlI:'IOCl llR :IID1'1 (U'l ;,ill(I'mlfll nl., IMn vrO od b.., Lf\.:rtiliUJ'l l ~I Ul Il r:~I " Jf"htm "II!II r'm""OO I"~ndw'l1 "".l lIll(l ~"nlCIll.lr UGf l onllli ,,":r; ,lI'l(f lhc:(~I ()t ,· PT S II 'O'lIh L 1,.1,:.Jt!1ll ~';" ''''I'''''' '1< '1011 r",.""""" .,I ,'"
'U!I " '''f pl)~l l)t ud"I;t1l,U1 ,1'~I:11 (:flit/'ll:" M,·...... \',·I' '/o:IM'~:1 1 fit. II IIII I'· ..~"I'I ll li'll l l ~ prl lll~tPt l 11'I, lu"lIIl" 11 HV IUllcot ll , •• "tult , ." 111~ """"0'"4'.J v"'t" I!lllIfI" L' "!l IIII~I ,C r ~' l l" "l""\I/II"11 n l It U"" . '11 1 t<"I I III ~'I:I I'lIl v ,,, '" ,'10111.1 "'1"1',1 1«\ n il ,,1,1-'
l u:l u l,ll,v'''l' II .lI'! II,,' " ',,'I " ,..lIIll.lhI'>I , ...·,11 n.IVI' I "I.h· ... r;,lItII1I}(.o1 ' h. WI!'I ~,mIW H .lIliU ,I'f'lu r,\J, "Iw ll ,'.... MII III1""'", hv l ' . ;orrli l lllollJl.. WI,itc-l'''' '-',,·UOII ' w"l llI' lI u ul.. It. cI."jJl .... " 111.,,,-li""1J)ll' If" " t, 111<'1 'ott" U,lI ll ltlrlllh I,lT.llli'(I(I "I'lj.UII· ' ."fIII IIo "I '·"','",'·O
O· \liU,!l(IrlYf, IIOlln!l ....... lIDOfi (:14M" -.cU III". 1111:" H uO bil'1i.lfll lJol Itlll 11)"1<11''''110" "",II .Ir nlJP;U fl llI
1' 1 ,.;==:>-r:::;
rep;';'l l1d U\': Cil fliildtir. Telec.om ~{"I"Yi(~c :-. L U·
d Mi ~h 3 1t9 t AlrpIUl l ff,OD,,'r Co il ... l ·:, .... t:J. lJl l.~.I U J D
801 1
LF MII::RICAN TOW::R
C O RPOHATION
Thtl .1I:1511 ..lIon I1tJ(;llJ'l '" A ICf!'fCK'l,' M U")fl ('01 n~ tHO,ln'W11 r....fltl:O:I twftW;d ull iot{t,",ohftn I.. ~,.n by ""1 cAi l'/I'. /lid .... !!:o l"$ltUC lic;o "1r#W mrydc,*"ONH roO ."Jlf"'"ld ClWWIr'I.W:I'on ""'rt ~ a fle ' ,..,,.fO.,l j; l ~ (P •• ti1o( l '''OJ'..cMll s.m ..."'·... ,tJ...,.1,'111"*""""'"
tnl .....' ,1('41 ' ,.~J"""hl,n f,r-.t! •• rilh llt: ..... Motl\.tr ltt: tlolt!!-.""·' tilt 1110,) ,·,M'IIIJIIJ\ 1M (ll'U'~" II I!ii '""'lIlJlIl"'J tl(~ fl ll'U nO" I:!"' r l," pUI'..... "'''I''nJioUdl.'.,'' .... ,1n hIli..'!.. '<:I II I;::\I"nlr" ....... ',"" i< Itt...· ,.'",1,. II ",\~ tlilf'" '(I'" $ , 1"'''''\ tr'W !!""''''''''' ."."
.-" '1," Ihll',: 1/0.:':. TI.(' rl.o$" ./ Mofu l lotl .{tf•• vlll h.tW 1,.l h!~ Lo,hlo tflOt h , lII lf l ffll"'~ l~htr:t.llfmh . ",":h '11'0 /'111 1.."'......-"",. ft.'" I.M)I h •• Whltf'· "''''Y''('IW' ....,ll'I~ ",ill tt ,n (Ii-.r.'_" U\ln.ll r,W'Y."."U1C. t/'Il'tf"':ill' IOfo1l,,' "',..101\ .10fWil"'·.-,,, ,I\(I")"lIfU 101 ...,.•• ,'I
(It CNt'~ no-C \·~t,\'fIGn ct(l1l/' V I'''H'''\. III(' t'lJ() I'II'lI UIC'ot " N' ~1~oI"llolUIWtwftl t)t" i\Clnhltnl --c:=:PortlRnd
""'€"+-~r.r(lc ~ i" 1:.11 p: lellu; telccom :' Vices. U ..
,.,cf hon 503) ~f1:{-...0'1 lin c "'IIII1 I! t".IID,," .t..ij~lJ ~)l . r":. IJU:·F·.1 1"\4
D
8011
LFALFA ..ANI::RICAN TOW::R
COHr O ~ I\.TIO N
November 06,2012View #: 4
n oe jftullhm ,l.<1t /ll Ul:wt',S .j r r.llr'~(I IiJ II,.->I1 (tI m !! ",r l'lL X'»;'~O Ilf oft;o:I hit,..... , I 'jI~ ,'.(\fu ....llrr n n.fD.'I(In rl ("y ll,r r.1,cn l. Act u,tl O()!tO I(lJ(:I'Ofi ll til-, "(11 ), (1 Nli:11:kn l,'II .. ,'Ill n"'-" c r)IT " rUCh,oI i (\j.lI'" ,,,,(I Ihl'(\~fOlf" PI S 1['",',1 1(, Tt:h;:t"·" ,l ~C:I\il~~}, I !~ 1'11"'1 ', ·::..1~",·.ltil.·
IN ....r. 'It~l !",",II~1II1oI1 tlo'..''''ljr. r.IIUJ1!.," tJill1'1\.lr (''I! d ~I<,.m.· · Ih , 11 '<1 rl,!!'" 111,.11111" (XIIJIIII:'o!.,,! ill'lluill\IJI'1 1I!l.:I\,[1f". ,I 11Ol'r1!',lr"l'] 11Iv; IWOL1t'JoW'r l "'''IIIIL.,,ill' ' 1. 111. ""KIl I' "'1)1"·.""1 11 11'''''' ,1'1 I II ~"_ .u-.l.,,'1 ",IJ'III;lc,t II ' 1"1 '01 , c r.-u;1 ".I ~ ':thJI :I .III '" ..11'
<1·,111.11 h"''''H til'" n""hultl If!I<' -'il(,,,Ut' r, wIl l h,l h ' ,-" 111'·',,. 1'-.1111" .,," '..... ;1I 1e' ".il ""'. ,HI.Jl:hi,U;/'!..'\ "' ICill ,l:. tJ n lt'llIll.I M.-lUI'" ...n(l lllIiI:t . W illi' 1.;"r"H " ((orl \\ 111 Uo" III IH\i1lnlllt· ':" 'l ' l tlo!'~-J'I '·' " IIIM.'III)[I!--UlII'r W,\'IIM'lllI: 1'lllltll 1 "1'1','/1 <,11" I'll \.•1.... 1111 u'!!.,'!l, r
OllVllo=.OfM-1111"1Wfr'11'r. __ jilin r l(If.C :onU'n"~. Iftfl l nl(" ftBUlrC Clf Iltt' Ifll'ol 1\Ir.,,)Hl ln wli1 l)of 'J IJC)o'1tr"nl
0-; ~ -•~-r=:;
"roPRii1f1 h,,·4 ;;,1 f--;"ldf(\, Tcl cco ln Sf".",ict,'S , : I.e
hone ' 150:1) 53· i 14.:i JHI~ f Alrpml llUI'l lit!""' l! 'I~1 ,1 Mru. r' t2r. 2ft..1HJ D
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 28, 2013
To: Board of County Commissioners
Through: Tom Anderson, County Administrator
From: Chris Doty, Road Department Director
RE: Tetherow SDC Discussion
In early 2013, representatives of the various ownership entities of the Tetherow Resort
approached Deschutes County staff with a request to evaluate the potential for System
Development Charge credit or relief in light of the fact that Tetherow pays both the Deschutes
County Transportation SDC as well as the Ci ty of Bend Transportation SDC (residential uses
only).
The purpose of this memorandum is to apprise the BOCC of discussions staff has held with
Tetherow as well as provide a staff recommendation for BOCC consideration with regard to the
issue.
Background/Timeline:
Spring 2005: Tetherow Resort originally approved as Cascade Highlands Resort.
Fall 2005: Cascade Highlands and the City of Bend enter into a Water and Sewer Service
Agreement in which the City agrees to provide water and sewer service to the development.
Within the agreement, Cascade Highlands agrees to:
1. Pay all City of Bend Water and Sewer SDCs (with surcharge).
2. Pay all City of Bend Transportation SDCs (residential uses only).
3. Dedicate right-of-way for future roundabout construction at Century Drive/Skyline
Ranch Road (specifically in lieu of Transportation SDC payment for non-residential
uses).
4. Construct Skyline Ranch Road and Metolius Drive through the development
(including a roundabout at their intersection) and forego any potential SDC
reimbursement of these facilities.
5. Pay all future City of Bend SDCs for any SDC established after implementation of the
agreement.
6. Consent to annex when deemed appropriate by the City.
Fall 2008: After a lengthy public process, Deschutes County implements Resolution 2008 -059
establishing a County Transportation SDC.
February 27, 2013: Staff meets with the legal counsel of the now numerous individual and
separate development entities of the prior Cascade Highlands project (now Tetherow). Staff
learns of the existence of the Water/Sewer Agreement as the mechanism requiring payment of
City SDCs. Staff suggests a joint meeting with City staff to similarly discuss the potential of
SDC relief from the City.
April 9, 2013: City and County staff meet with the legal counsel of the Tetherow entities, to
discuss the SDC issue. City staff indicates that the City has significant debt that is bonded
against Transportation SDC revenue from west side development, including the Tetherow
entities. Given the City’s bonded debt against future SDC revenue, it is clear that the City will
not consider SDC relief for the Tetherow entities.
Note: The above timeline briefly summarizes staff’s perspective of the key points relating to
Tetherow and the request for SDC relief. The history of the development, negotiation of
additional Westside Consortium related projects, impact of the recession, and the subdivision of
development components all factor into the discussion, but with lesser degrees of relevance.
Staff Recommendation:
It is quite uncommon for development projects to pay both City and County SDCs. There is no
land use mechanism or development requirement which would impose such a condition; it could
only occur through mutual agreement. The City of Bend/Cascade Highlands (Tetherow)
Water/Sewer Agreement is a mutually beneficial agreement. The City of Bend leveraged its
water and sewer capacity to direct investment into its bonded transportation system
improvements. The original developers of Tetherow willfully agreed to pay the City’s
Transportation SDC and most likely factored the additional cost of the Transportation SDC into
their decision whether to utilize the City’s water/sewer service or privately construct other
water/sewer systems similar to those provided in other resort communities.
Staff appreciates the argument that residential development within Tetherow is unfairly
assessed dual transportation SDCs and that the dual SDC places Tetherow’s residential
development at a competitive disadvantage. From staff’s perspective, this argument ignores the
self-imposed action which created the dual payment requirement as well as the quid pro quo
context in which the City provided highly valued utility capacity to the development in exchange
for additional revenue to fund needed west side transportation system improvements.
Any SDC relief or credit provided to the Tetherow entities would set a precedent whereby other
developments, specifically destination resorts, could request credit for infrastructure constructed
prior to establishment of the County SDC resolution. If SDC relief or credit were provided to the
Tetherow entities, other resorts or developments could also argue that they would now be
placed at a competitive disadvantage.
After review of the circumstances surrounding the dual SDC payment issue, staff
recommends foregoing any consideration of SDC relief or credit to the Tetherow entities.
Other outlets available to the Tetherow entities include renegotiation of their agreement with the
City of Bend, or annexation to the City of Bend whereby they would no longer be required to pay
the County’s Transportation SDC.
Additional Information to Consider:
In contemplation of the Tetherow request, the BOCC is invited to consider the following
additional information:
The County’s residential Transportation SDC is proposed to be reduced from $3,673 to
$3,044 – a 20% reduction per draft Resolution 2013-020 (June 5, 2013 public hearing).
While benefitting from City infrastructure systems, current Tetherow property owners (County)
pay significantly less property tax. Most developed residential lots within Tetherow will recover
the County’s SDC in less than five years due to a lower property tax rate within the County.
Similarly, Deschutes County’s transient lodging tax is 2% less than the City of Bend transient
lodging tax.
Skyliners Road is a proposed SDC eligible project on the County’s Capital Improvement Plan.
Skyliners Road is approximately one mile north of Tetherow.
Skyline Ranch Road (collector) and Metolius Drive (collector) - the streets bifurcating and
providing direct access to Tetherow - are Deschutes County facilities and are maintained and
operated by the Deschutes County Road Department.
A $3,044 Transportation SDC is less than one-half of one percent (<0.5%) of the cost of a
$750,000 home.
A waiver of the County’s Transportation SDC (residential only) for Tetherow properties will
result in a loss of potential revenue exceeding $1,000,000 – which equates to more than 5% of
the anticipated SDC revenue for the entire unincorporated County area.
The proposed 20% residential Transportation SDC reduction (per Resolution 2013 -020) will
reduce Tetherow’s SDC liability by over $250,000.
The City of Bend’s Water, Wastewater, and Transportation SDCs, paid by Tetherow, total
approximately $12,000 per residential dwelling unit. This upfront cost – which purchases
Tetherow the ability to connect to the City’s water and sewer system – is comparable to the
construction cost of a modern septic/drainfield system. If the City’s municipal utility services
were not made available to Tetherow, equivalent private or on -site water/sewer systems would
cost substantially more than $12,000 per dwelling unit.
Attachment: Water and Sewer Service Agreement between the City of Bend and Cascade Highlands Limited
Partnership