HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-04-16 Work Session MinutesDeschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 -Fax (541) 385-3202 -www.deschutes.org
MINUTES OF WORK SESSION
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
MONDAY, APRIL 16, 2012
Present were Commissioner Anthony DeBone, Alan Unger and Tammy Baney.
Also present were Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; and, for a portion of
the meeting, Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; Susan Ross, Property &
Facilities; Tom Anderson and Nick Lelack, Community Development; Chris Doty,
Road Department; media representative Hillary Borrud ofThe Bulletin; and eight
other citizens.
Chair DeBone opened the meeting at 1:35 p.m.
1. Update: CASA (Court-Appointed Special Advocates).
Pam Fortier poke about the difficulties of inadequate funding to keep the
program viable. State money has decreased, but their workload is up and they
need one more FTE to continue the program as it should be. She read a
message from a High Desert Education Service District representative about the
need for this program. They serve the tri-county area and contract with a part
time Director. Their program is mandated by law.
She gave an overview of the case load and the work being done by the
coordinators and volunteers. They use the peer coordinator model, which is
also being used by Lane County and is being considered on a state and national
level.
2. Review of Proposed Fee Schedule.
This item will be addressed next week.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, April 16, 2012
Page 1 of8
3. Volunteer Recognition -CDD Code Enforcement Program.
Tom Anderson and John Griley introduced Rex Wolf and Harold Anderson,
who are volunteers for Code enforcement. Mr. Anderson volunteered for the
Sheriffs Office and offered to extend what he was doing there into Community
Development. Staff worked on this and they were able to come up with a
match.
The Sheriff was contacted to get his approval, and this has turned out to be a
good program. Mr. Wolf and Mr. Anderson do non-threatening activities in
Code enforcement, following up inspections in the field regarding replacement
buildings, agricultural structures and other inspections done from the road right
of way, with photos.
Mr. Griley presented some statistics: Mr. Wolfput in 150 hours, Mr. Anderson
90 hours working for CDD. About 560 of those hours are for inspections,
equating to 15 or 20 actual cases. They have a good success rate working with
people on voluntary compliance.
Mr. Griley stated he was surprised someone would volunteer for this. The
program is something staff got going in 2006 but they get a printout on a daily
basis of permits they need to follow up. This is proactive work and the
assistance of these citizens has been great.
Mr. Anderson said he was surprised by this program. Many people do not see
what they do and it has given them a whole new understanding of the work that
needs to be done. Every item has to be researched and a decision made as to
whether something needs a closer look. He would like to see a few more
volunteers brought on board.
Mr. Wolf wanted to get to know the County better, and it was an eye-opener.
There are some very interesting parts of the County. They see places where no
one has lodged a complaint and sometimes it is frustrating to not be able to take
action. He appreciates the Sheriffs Office even more. There is an opportunity
to do more field work, but it all ends up with Mr. Griley and he cannot do much
more than he does now.
Commissioner Unger does not want the County to be the Code enforcement
Nazi's, so that is why this process is complaint driven. Chair DeB one asked
how it starts. Mr. Griley said they are doing the proactive program for pre
identified permits.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, April 16, 2012
Page 2 of8
Commissioner Baney asked if there are other ways to expand this type of
program. Mr. Oriley said this is a good time to celebrate accomplishments, and
do some pre-field research. Most cases will resolve in this fashion.
Commissioner DeBone would like to see more of this kind of cooperation.
Commissioner Baney said they are heading into budget seasons, so it is timely
to talk about this now.
4. Discussion of Request for Land Use Approval Extension.
Mr. Anderson explained the item. The citizen making the request received
approval for a non-farm dwelling in 2005, which expired in August 2011. No
waiver was included for people who miss the deadline. She cites compelling
reasons to grant an approval and extension, including military service, but he
has no way to do this under the current rules. Therefore, it is coming to the
Board. He could recreate the approval process; but this would cost her almost
$3,000 when an extension would have cost just $310.
The Board can waive the fee for a new application; or reduce the fee to
whatever level is felt to be appropriate. The department is fee-supported so the
cost would have to be absorbed by the operating fund; however, the cost should
be less than it was previously if nothing has changed. This could also result in
more requests for a waiver from others. It was clear when the renewal was due.
The Board would have to make a finding that the public benefit is being served
by a reduction or waiver. She was called away for military service, however.
J
Commissioner Baney asked if she would have to reapply under today's Code. t .1 Mr. Anderson said that they would still have to do an inspection but he does not
see anything that would be a Code issue.
Chair DeBone asked about the non-farm use. Mr. Anderson said that to even
apply to have a house on farmland, you have to go through the process. You
have to show that part of the land is not suitable for farming purposes.
Typically, you look at the entire property and determine what is irrigated and
what might not be farmable. In 2005, it was felt there was a location for a
residence that would not impact farm use. A new approval would give her
another four years to build.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, April 16,2012
Page 3 of8
Commissioner Unger wants to recognize her military service and feels that an
extension should be allowed, at the $310 level. The County would be
responsible for the balance of any costs. Chair DeB one feels that this also will
result in economic benefit when the home is built.
UNGER: Move approval of this option.
BANEY: Second.
VOTE: UNGER: Yes.
BANEY: Yes.
DEBONE: Chair votes yes.
5. Discussion of Implementation of Road Advisory Committee
Recommendations.
Chris Doty said the Forest Fund is down by about $900,000 the last year; and
funds from State gas tax are down $500,000. This was anticipated, but it was
hoped it would not become fact.
He explained the road investment needs as well. The Road Committee
evaluated cost savings and efficiencies, and five recommendations were made
by the Committee (four cost savings possibilities, along with potential revenue).
Recommendations # 1 and #2 have to do with a pavement management
program. This is underway now. Previously they had been doing snapshots of
pavement condition and evaluation of spreadsheets. This was done year-to
year. The new program gives them the ability to model into the future. At this
time, they are putting in data on the current condition of the roads to have the
baseline established. The same contractor is doing similar work with the
neighboring counties and cities.
They will look at various scenarios: the ideal, with no deferred maintenance. It
is more cost-effective to deal with it now rather than later. A goal is a sustained
PCl (pavement condition index). The next issue is the anticipated investment
level. Another scenario is how the system reacts if no maintenance is done. I
l
From this, they develop the work plan for the next couple of years, making it
more efficient. The timeframe for the report is June 2012.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, April 16, 2012
Page 4 of8
The strategic pavement investment chart shows nonnal road life without
maintenance. If you catch a road before the PCI goes below 65, it costs less to
bring it back up. Ifit goes lower than that, a chip seal may not help. Under 35
means the road has to be reconstructed. Chip seal and maintenance costs about
25% less than an overlay. With timely care, you can stretch out the life of a
road for 60 or 70 years before you have to do reconstruction.
The Committee's recommendation #3 is to prioritize services to match existing
funding levels. They looked at deliverables; and then personnel levels. They
have to think of this in advance so they are prepared to make changes when
someone retires, etc.
Attrition examples are to eliminate two vacant positions, and one management
position due to a planned retirement (the I.S. Manager). These changes would
result in a savings of$215,000.
Another example relates to materials, services and equipment. They are
reducing the five-year capital equipment replacement plan by 250/0, mostly in
the replacement of pickup trucks. They will refurbish some other equipment to
get more life out of them. This would result in about $150,000 in annual
savings. They want to invest in equipment that makes them money by
contracting with other agencies. They will rely on partners or lease when
appropriate.
Recommendation #4 was to explore shared services and partnerships. He hopes
to convene the local agencies on a quarterly basis, and implement an IGA to
promote disclosure and sharing resources. This would include road districts as
well as other governmental entities. There need to be agency specific goals
with a timetable and perfonnance monitoring. It is hoped ODOT can be
brought into this at some point.
Collaborative opportunities could apply to equipment, specialty maintenance, a
regional agreement and combined contracting and training. It makes sense for
all entities to buy into this locally.
Commissioner Unger asked about combining contracting needs, which can
attract outside contractors when he would like to see a balance, and hopes that
would include local companies. Mr. Doty said that locally there are just two
pavers. Ultimately, the department can bid out work, but needs to keep the bids
in line.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, April 16,2012
Page 5 of8
Recommendation #5 would involve new funding tools. They are not ready to
take this on, and want to instead work on the other ideas first. They want to
complete the internal reduction matrices to determine what the paving levels
could be. They also will initiate partnership collaboration this spring.
At that time, they can update the Road Committee on what has taken place,
probably in July.
Chair DeB one asked if there would be a budget message tied to this. Mr. Doty
said that they are progressing towards implementation and there are some
budget implications; but it is too soon to have a lot of the answers.
Commissioner Baney stated that it is encouraging to hear something like this
during the budget process rather than the same requests for money without
other recommendations or plans. Mr. Doty said that the Road Study group did
a lot of good work that got things heading in this direction.
6. Other Items.
Before the Board were Deliberations and Consideration of First and
Second Readings, by Title Only, and Adoption by Emergency of Ordinance
No. 2012-004, Establishing Provisions for Agri-Tourism and Other
Commercial Events and Activities, and to Amend the Winery Standards in
the Exclusive Farm Use Zone (continued from the morning business meeting).
Laurie Craghead referred to the final version of the Ordinance, exhibit B, where
language was changed as a result of deliberations this morning.
UNGER: Move first and second readings by title only.
BANEY: Second.
VOTE: UNGER: Yes.
BANEY: Yes.
DEBONE: Chair votes yes.
Chair DeBone conducted the first and second readings at this time.
BANEY: Move adoption of Ordinance No. 2012-004.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: UNGER: Yes.
BANEY: Yes.
DEBONE: Chair votes yes.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, April 16, 2012
Page 6 of8
Mr. Lelack said the department has developed a handout for those who ask for
it. The main issue is fanning being established as the primary use of the
property. A Hearings Officer's fee is not reflected in this document.
Commissioner Baney said that the pre-application meeting might help to
answer some of these questions early.
Mr. Lelack said that his department would try to hold workshops to let people
know what is expected and how to mitigate for potential problems.
Commissioner Baney asked about possible fines; she wants to get ahead of that
issue since some people might be right on top of this and will push for more
action. There could be issues about non-compliance and also of harassment.
Mr. Anderson presented a draft budget to COBA (Central Oregon Builders'
Association), along with some options for balancing CDD's budget, including a
5% fee increase. They were not opposed to this, but could not speak for the
organization's members. He will present this 5% fee increase to the Budget
Committee. Commissioner Baney said she would like this to be more specific
as to the divisions that need more or less funding.
Chair DeBone would like to know how the fees match to the work of the
department. He would like to see an example as to how they come up with a
specific fee. Mr. Anderson said he can provide survey results in this regard
relating to what similar organizations in other areas are charging.
At 3:05 p.m., the Board went into Executive Session, called under ORS
J92.660(2)(e), real property negotiations; and ORS J92.660(2)(h), pending or
threatened litigation.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday. April 16, 2012
Page 7 of8
I
..
DATED this J2If... Dayof ~ 2012 for the
Deschutes County Board of Commission~
Anthony DeBone, Chair
Alan Unger, Vice Chair
ATTEST:
~~
Recording Secretary
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, April 16" 2012
Page 80f8
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, APRIL 16,2012
1. Update: CASA (Court-Appointed Special Advocates)
2. Review of Proposed Fee Schedule -Marty Wynne, Jeanine Faria
3. Volunteer Recognition -CDD Code Enforcement Program -Tom Anderson
4. Discussion of Request for Land Use Approval Extension -Tom Anderson
5. Discussion of Implementation of Road Advisory Committee Recommendations
-Chris Doty
6. Other Items
Executive Session, called under ORS 192.660(2)( e), real property
negotiations; and ORS 192.660(2)(h), pending or threatened litigation
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 192.66O(2)(b). personnel issues.
Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board o/Commissioners' meeting rooms at
J300 NW Wall St.• Bend, unless otherwise indicated. Ifyou 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.
----
-,
'i:
Q.-<
>.
10
"0
C o
~
.-0
\1\
\1\
OJ
V\
~ r....
0 ~
~
.~
rt
~ g,.
~ ~
ri8ti a ~ tzJ
() ~
----.-~
J <J q: 4~ VJ 5~ cJ
~------~---
~ l!~
".. /~ -'
OJ -+ ~ CCJ
E I..-~ .3ra
Z ~~
~ ~ X(j,\;;) ~~QL
• c..
V'\
OJ
fO c..
"
::t:I:::
OJ
fO
C
0
CASA of Central Oregon
A voice of hope for abused and neglected children
April 16,2012
Dear Commissioners and Budget Committee:
Thank you for your continued commitment to CASA of Central Oregon and the abused
and neglected children in Deschutes County. As you know, our program's mission is
based on the belief that every child deserves a safe and permanent home. Our goal is to
provide a volunteer advocate for every abused and neglected child in need.
The attached program flow chart illustrates our need of your continued support. As you
can see, our staffing is inadequate and we are in need of additional FTE. In order to meet
the needs of the children in care, we need to increase our volunteer base without
increasing staff. To accomplish this goal we now use Peer Coordinators to provide
volunteer supervision and support. The Peer Coordinators are highly skilled advocates
and they have made a tremendous difference for increasing our capacity.
Your $30,000 allocation to CASA is deeply appreciated.
Sincerely,
'7~
Pam Fortier
Executive Director
1130 NW Harriman St., Suite 122· Bend, OR 97701
Bend: 541.389.1618· Madras: 541.475.9426· Prineville: 541.447.7220
Community Partner www.casaofcentraloregon.org
Executive Director
Admin
Assistant .25
-------,
Program Manager .5 FTE
(Manages 6 staff & 8 peer coordinators,
reporting &data, training.)
Contracted .5 Dev.
Director
Deschutes County Crook County [Fff~;~~~ C~~~~y
Ali 1. FTE
70 cases
36 volunteers
P.C.
2 cases
2 vols.
Jaymie .5 FTE
52 cases
29 volunteers
PC.
2 cases
2 vols.
P.C.
1 case
1 vol.
Patty .25 FTE
11 cases
9 volunteers
Gaylynn .5 FTE Maureen .5 FTE
27 cases 26 cases
12 volunteers 7 volunteers
P.C.
6 cases
3 vols.
P.e.
4 cases
3vols.
Jenna .25 FTE
Monitors 17
cases
o volunteers
P.C.
2 cases
2 vols.
P.C.
5 cases
4vols.
14 new volunteers to be sworn-in 4/27 2 new volunteers 4/24
National CASA recommended staffing:
1 FTE 45 cases 130 volunteers (Deschutes -1FTE : 67 cases 142 volunteers)
.5 FTE 22 cases 115 volunteers (Crook -.5 FTE : 27 cases/12 volunteers *Jefferson -.5 FTE 26 cases 17 volunteers)
April,2012
Community Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division
117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925
(541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 16, 2012
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM Tom Anderson, Director
SU B..I ECT: Request for Land Use Approval Extension
Background:
Staff received the attached request from Guinevere Johnson for an extension of an expired land
use approval on March 15, 2012. The approval, for a non-farm dwelling, was originally
completed in July, 2005. It was due to expire in 2009, but the applicant applied for and received
a two year extension to August 6, 2011. Since no additional extension requests were filed, the
approval expired on that date. Ms. Johnson indicates that the reason for filing a new extension
request was due to military service.
Discussion:
Deschutes County code section 22.36.010(C}(1)(b) is clear that any extension request must be
" ... submitted to the County prior to the expiration of the approval period". There are no other
provisions in County code for variances to this requirement. Therefore, we see no possible
avenue to re-activate Ms. Johnson's approval.
It is possible for Ms. Johnson to submit a new application for a non-farm dwelling. The current
fee for such an application is currently $2,955.
The Community Development Fee Waiver Policy allows the Board of County Commissioners to
reduce or waive fees "in any case where the public benefit is served and other remedies have
been exhausted". In this case, if the Board found that the public benefit was served, presumably
in recognition of Ms. Johnson's active military service, it could elect to reduce or waive the fees
associated with a new farm dwelling application.
In evaluating a fee reduction or waiver, the Board is advised to consider:
1. Financially, Community Development is designed to cover it's expenses with fee
revenue, so costs associated with non-revenue generating applications must be
absorbed by the department. and
2. Fee reductions or waivers may encourage other applicants with what they consider to
be extraordinary circumstances to ask for the same consideration.
In consideration of the two factors outlined above, one options for the Board would be to, rather
than fully waive the new application fee, reduce the application fee equivalent to the fee that Ms.
Johnson would have paid for the approval extension last August, which is currently $310.
Requested Board Action:
Decide whether to grant a full or partial fee waiver to Ms. Johnson for a new non-farm dwelling
application.
Full waiver -$2,955
Reduction to Extension Request Fee -$310
Other amount
If the Board decides to grant a full or partial waiver, it must find that the action is in the public
benefit, per the fee waiver policy.
"RBCBIVSD
\\~R 1 o· 2Q\'l.
Guinevere D. Johnsonueseh\ltesCo\l1lt)' CDD Member Manager Golden Horizons LLC
64421 Findlay In
Bend Or 97701
541-480-4124
March 13,2012
Re: Retaining CUP extension option on Golden Horizons LLC Map 17-12-11lLot 301
Dear Tom Anderson, Community Development Department Director,
Thank you for taking the time to review this unique issue with me and consider the possibility of
retaining our CUP extension option.
I am contacting you today after speaking with and being referred by Paul Blickstad. I contacted
Paul on March 12,2012 in a panic because I had just become aware that I had missed our CUP
extension date July 1, 2011.
In normal circumstances I would expect this issue to be my sole responsibility, however, in my
situation I had some extenuating circumstances that left me unable to take care of this at the
required time. I would like to share some of these things with you in hopes to compel the
planning dept to extend the property CUP for an additional 2 years.
In February 2011 I was placed, en,Qr:egon Army National Guard orders to complete a five-month
training pro8ram in South Carolina and Virginia. During this time my contact with home was
redu<;ed to two-5 min occasions on the phone with my husband and snail-mail via the USPS only,
~ithanavg. 10 day turn around. I gratefully returned home on Juty 1,2011 (when my CUP
extension request was due). My return home, although joyous was filled with unemployment,
med.ica.l issues;and:farmingseason·allofwbic.h demanded my immediate: attention. I was not
home long until I was once a~in placed on additional ORANG orders for training in Idaho where
I spent Aug-Sept again separated from home, files; and phones. October remained a difficult
month of adjustmeqt for me and my family as we lost 2 family members and found ourselves
traveling througboutOregon.to tend to family issues. The holidays came and went although I was
contacted mid-December once again with ORANG orders to fill a need for a Soldier in the
Middle-East (Oman). I repacked my things and uprooted myself once again to tend to my duties. I
finally returned home in February and once again picked up the shattered pieces of the last 10
months which eventually included following up on the property with the overdue CUP request.
I can imagine that this is a huge inconvenience for you and I apologize,profusely about this. I
know that the State ofOregon takes into consideration the obligations of their military citizens
and protects our employment, foreclosure on property, and many other things and so I am hopeful
that they in coorpination with your office has, something that protects me and the CUP for the
property from being negatively effected by our service obligations. To date, and since the fU'St
extension request I have investe;d $700Q.00 into the property for improvements which include a
driveway and power,. This would merely be a loss ifthe property does not-have the CUPoption.
~; . \·r .. >."
la:pprecriate your.time and took.forward:toany,otper questi~ns you m~y. have for me..
1:, '
'i " "I,'.: !:
Road Department
61150 SE 27th St .• Bend. Oregon 97702
(541) 388-6581· FAX (541) 388-2719
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 16, 2012
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Chris Doty, PE, Director
RE: Update regarding implementation of the Road Committee Recommendations
On January 4th , 2012 the Board of County Commissioners heard recommendations from the
Road Committee regarding steps to be taken to address long term sustainability of the County
road network.
Attached is the Implementation Plan that has been developed to assist in evaluating and
implementing the recommendations of the Committee.
At the April 16, 2012 BOCC Workshop, a presentation will be conducted which will update the
Commission regarding the status of each implementation item.
Road Department
61150 SE 27th St.• Bend, Oregon 97702
(541) 388-65811 FAX (541) 388-2719 •
Implementation Plan
Road Committee Recommendations
In the summer of 2011, the Board of County Commissioners convened a Road Committee to
formulate recommendations to address the fiscal conditions in the Road Department resulting
from a continued decline in road maintenance funding.
On January 4th , 2012 the Board of County Commissioners heard recommendations from the
Road Committee regarding steps to be taken to address long term sustainability of the County
road network. Below is a summary of the recommendations as well as a proposed work plan
necessary to achieve their desired outcome.
The committee developed five recommendations -with the 5th recommendation to explore
alternative funding sources. The committee was clear that the first four recommendations,
which are focused on improved asset management efforts, internal efficiencies and regional
partnerships, should be fully explored and exhausted before proceeding with alternative funding
source development.
Recommendation #1: Develop a modernized Pavement Management Program and modeling
tool with the goal of achieving (funding) a sustainable Pavement Condition Index that is
acceptable to the users.
Deliverable: The primary deliverable for Recommendation #1 will be a Budget Options Report
which models various funding scenarios for pavement maintenance of the County Road
Network. At a minimum, the funding scenarios (five and/or 10-year
projections) will include:
a. Optimum Funding Scenario: This scenario models an
investment level necessary to improve the PCI to a mid-80s
level, which is the optimal practical condition which resulting in
the lowest annual sustainable maintenance cost. (Note: The
mid-80s goal produces prescribed maintenance treatments
consisting primarily of low cost surface/chips seals versus
overlay/full-depth reclamation treatments).
b. Sustainable Funding Scenario: This scenario models an
investment level necessary to sustain the existing PCI of 78.
c. Current Funding Scenario: This scenario prescribes the
prioritized maintenance treatments based upon the
existing/project funding available for pavement maintenance.
The PCI deterioration is also projected over a five and/or 10 year
Page 1 of 3
period.
d. Zero Maintenance Scenario: This scenario models the degradation of the PCI over a
five and/or 10 year period with no pavement maintenance investment.
e. Other Funding Scenarios, as necessary.
Timeframe : Complete , June 2012. Staff is currently in discussion with a vendor to assist in the
establishment of the initial Pavement Management Program set-up and preparation of the initial
Budget Options Report .
Recommendation #2: Develop a refined list of maintenance alternatives with known life cycle
costs to serve as inputs to the Pavement Management Program to program and ensure the
most cost effective maintenance treatment.
Recommendation #3: Prioritize services to
match existing funding levels.
Deliverable: Staff will develop as follows:
a. A Material/Services Reduction Matrix which identifies non-personnel related areas for
reduction in materials and services and associated outcomes (and savings) resulting
from reductions .
b. A Personnel Attrition Matrix which focuses on long term strategies for delivering cost
efficient service through personnel reductions associated with attrition (retirement, etc).
Hypothetical Example: A loss of one equipment operator will result in the need to fill
specific job duties. The matrix will identify a combination of service reductions, seasonal
workload assignment and/or contract work (and associated savings) that will be utilized
to fill the gap created through the vacancy.
Timeframe: Draft, July 2012
Recommendation #4: Explore shared services and partnerships with other agencies to reduce
overhead and achieve other cost efficiencies.
Deliverable: Staff will internally prepare a Tech
Memo which will identify cost and life cycle
estimates of the various pavement maintenance
treatments utilized within the County road
network. This data will serve as input data to the
Pavement Management Program software for use
in developing the Budget Options Report.
Timeframe: May, 2012
ICorNI Road ute Road LIft ..... PIIP
wIIlIout lbIntenance
~
AoconoNI
1110 --1011
011420
Tt..
.,020 3041150 !07V.
'Ion
Deliverables: A report will be assembled which documents the extent of existing partnerships
and the potential for growth and expansion of partnership opportunities with near-term, mid
term, and long-term objectives and opportunities.
a. The County Administrator and Road Department Director will meet with their equivalent
peers in potential partner agencies to initiate conversations regarding partnership and
efficiency through collaboration. Collaborative topiCS will then be developed through
individual agency workshops and meetings which will cast a wide net of opportunities
and refine as necessary; nothing will be off-the-table.
b . Collaborative opportunities will be analyzed for cost savings potential and ranked based
upon implementation criteria and other factors. Care will be exercised to not create
administratively complex processes or work components which would otherwise
compete with private sector businesses.
c. The Road Department Director will
convene an ongoing quarterly meeting of area
wide road jurisdiction personnel and other
stakeholders to communicate work plans and
facilitate opportunities for collaborative efforts as
well as provide general discussion and
educational platforms for the transportation
maintenance industry in the region.
Timeframe: Initiation of the conversation will
occur in April/May 2012, with a progress update
on progress in July 2012.
Recommendation #5: Explore new revenue sources for funding of road maintenance.
Deliverable: A matrix of new funding opportunities will be developed, identifying source, amount
of funding potential, implementation process and implementation obstacles. The matrix will
build upon ideas and concepts previously discussed by the Road Committee and introduce new
funding opportunities and strategies.
Timeframe: Draft matrix, July 2012
LLJtJ')
LLJZ
I-~
1-1-c:(
:!Eo
:!Ez
OLLJ
(.):!E
o:!E
C:(0
0(,)
C::LLJ
0::
Z
-0
I~LLJ
Z~
LLJO
:!Eo.
LLJ~
...J a.
:!E
-
(\Ja..
0T"'Io::I:
(\JU)
~
-0:: ~O
-I~
0::<.:J
a..<.:J
«0
CO
J un e 2 0 1 1: Road Maintenance Fund i n g Memo to BOC C
• Note d r es ource is sue s: Timbe r paymen t s d ow n, gas tax reven ue short of
p roj ection .
• Note d investm e nt d eman d: 20 -ye a r ov e rlay fre que ncy.
• Po te ntia l mai nt e nan ce strate gy : grave l road consi d erati on
Aug ust 201 1 : R oad Commit te e convene d
• 4 meetings to evaluate cost sav ings and ef fic iencies in a dd iti o n t o
revenue e nh a n cements.
Ja nua ry 20 12 :
• B OC C receives 5 reco m me nd ati on s*
• *4+1: Eval uate savings and effic ienc ies be fore consi d erin g n e w fund i ng
source dev elo pme n t.
February 20 1 2 : I m ple m e nt a tion Plan D ev eloped
• Recommend a tion #1 and #2: Install new Pavement Management
Program
StreetSaver Software Purchased (February)
Pavement evaluation and data input (April/May)
• Development of "Decision Tree" (life-cycle cost analysis, Rec #2)
• Deliverable: Budget Options Report
• Inves tment level modeling (5-year period)
Ideal scenario (no deferred maintenance)
• Sustained PCI
Anticipated investment level
No maintenance performed
Work plan development
• Timeframe: June 2012
HOlmal Road Li fe
without Matlntenance
ConstructJ
'Recon str uc t
100
-u
CL.-)(
~ 6S
..E ginal :
c Mod erat e cost .9
.t:: Special
"C
C ma intenance o u-c
Q) Problem:E
Q) igh cost>
CI:J Reconstruct a.
0: 1 ,I I, .~
Adequate:,
Lo w cost-,. .Im mum
maint en ance
35-----
o 8 14 20
Years
Road L ife under PMP
• Sped al City Action
Construct!
Reconstruct
o ~
CL.-
------65 -8
)(
t:
Sea tcoat\ ~
.2
.t::
"2
- - --35 (,J
o
-c:I ~ Overlay '(I)>
tV
CL.
__..._~_....._ ..._ ....... 0
o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Years
Reco mm e nd ation #3: Prio r itize s erv ices to m atch existing
funding levels.
• Deliv er able:
• Materials and Services Reduction Matrix
• Identifies non-personnel related areas for reduction in materials and
services and associated outcomes (and savings) resulting from reductions
• Personnel Attrition Matrix
• Focuses on long term strategies for delivering cost efficient service
through personnel reductions associated with attrition (retirement, etc).
T i meframe: July 2012
IMPLEMENTED REDUCTIONS
PROPOSED FY 2012/2013
• Attrition Examples :
• 2 vac ant positions el i m i nated
• Eliminat i on o f 1 management pos i tion due to ret ire ment .
• Transitio n inter nal I S Ma nager d u t i es to t h e IT Depa r t m en t
• Re-orga n ization t o sh ar e mana g ement re sp onsi b ilities
• D e par t me n t FTE Redu cti on : 60 .5 (F Y 12) to 56 .5 (FY 13)
• Total Dep a rtment Sa v i n gs : $21.5,000+/-
M at e ri a I s / Ser vi ce s/E q ui pment Ex a m p i e :
• 25% Re duction i n 5 -y e ar Cap it a l Equ i pment Rep lacemen t P l an
• Ext end r eplac e men t li fe of pick u p trucks
• Re furbishme nt (water tru c k, stripin g truck) vs re p lace m ent
• P hilosophy c h ange af fec ting investm en t a p proach
• $150,000+/-an nual s avin gs
• R ecommen d ation # 4 : Explore shared services and
partn er shi p s w ith other agencies to reduce overhead and
ach i eve oth e r cost efficiencies.
• Deliverable(s):
• Convene the agencies (quarterly meeting).
• Implement regional IGA to promote disclosure and sharing of
resources. (Example: Willamette Valley PMAT IGA)
• Agency specific goals (City of Bend/Deschutes County conversation)
with timetable and performance monitoring.
• Partnership and Collaborative Opportunities:
• Equipment • Specialty Maintenance • PMP (Regional) • . Combined
contracting (overlays, etc) • Training • Etc .....
• Recommendation #5 : New Fund i ng Tools
:. Deliverable : Mat rix of Options and Strategies
• T imetable : Dependent upon effectivenes s of
Re c ommendation s 1 th ru 4
1. Complete Pavement M a nagement Program installation and
review B udget O ptions Report.
. Co mp lete inte rn al reduction m atrices.
3. Init iat e P artnership/Collaboratio n working gro up with area
agencies, th en;
Reconvene a n d Update the Road Committee (July timeframe)
• Questions?
USES, STANDARDS, REQUIREMENTS
Alri-Tourism
Commercial Events and Actlviti~s
Farm Use
Minimum Lot Size
Maximum Number of Events Per Year
Maximum Duration of Each Event
Setbacks from Property Une to the Area for
Alri-Tourism and Commercial Events or
Activities
expiration I Renewal of Umited Use Permit
Noise I Sound Amplification
Hours of Operation I Time of Events
Set-up/Take Down of Temporary Structures
Event Notification Requirements
Transportation Management Plan
New Permanent Structures for Events
Inspection of Event Premises Authorization
Health and Safety Requirements
Sanitation Requirements
Ovemisht Campi..Allowed
Combine with other County Event P",rrnltc
Yes
No
Yes. Must be related to and supportive of agriculture
and incidental and subordinate to the existing farm
use of the tract.
5 acres
6
1 calendar day
100 feet
2 years
Not allowed.
Noise Control Ordinance in effect at all times. .
7:00 a.m. -10:00 p.m.
1 business day before/after event
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes. Must be related to and supportive of agriculture
and Incidental and subordinate to the existing farm use
of the tract.
10 acres
6
Agri-tourism: 72 consecutive hours
Commercial events and activities: 30 consecutive hours
100 feet
2 years
Shan comply with state regulations at the property line
during approved events. County Noise Control
Ordinance in effect 10:00 D.m. -7:00 a.m.
, 7:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m.
1 business day before/after event
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes, including aU requirements of the Building Safety IYes, including all requirements of the Bundlng Safety
0IvIsI0n, Environmental Sols DIvision, and all OMsIon, Environmental Soils Division, and all applicable
state and local laws. federal, state and local laws.
Yes Yes
No No
No' No
Yes
Yes
Yes. Same as Types 1 and 2 AND must be necessary to
support the commercial farm uses or the commercial
I"nfll'rnric;_ of the area.
160 acres
18
Agrl-tourism: 72 consecutive hours
Commercial events and activities: 24 consecutive hours
100 feet
4 years
Shall comply with state regulations at the property line
during approved events. Noise Control Ordinance in
effect 10:00 D.m. 7:00 a.m.
7:00 a.m. -10:00 p.m.
1 business day before/after event
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes, Including all requirements of the Building Safety
DiVision, Environmental Soils Division, and all appUc:able
state and local laws.
Yes
No
No
.... Jf"'
.......... ___ .f' ,,; __
L
___ __
What is required for an application for a Limited Use Permit?
1. A completed application form with the property owner's original signature.
2. A copy of the deed showing the current owners.
3. A detailed explanation and/or verification of the existing farm use of the tract.
4. A written description of the types of agri-tourism and other commercial events or activities that are
proposed to be conducted, including the number and duration of the agri-tourism and other
commercial events and activities, the anticipated maximum daily attendance and the hours of
operation, and how the agri-tourism and other commercial events or activities will be related to
and supportive of agriculture and incidental and subordinate to the existing farm use of the tract.
5. An explanation and/or illustration of the types and locations of all permanent and temporary
structures, access and egress, parking facilities, and sanitation and solid waste to be used in
connection with the agri-tourism or other commercial events or activities.
6. A traffic management plan that: (a) Identifies the projected number of vehicles and any
anticipated use of public roads; (b) provides an assurance that adequate traffic control will be
provided; (c) demonstrates that the parcel. lot or tract has direct access per County Code; and (d)
a written consent to allow law enforcement, public health. and fire control officers and code
enforcement staff to come upon the premises for the purposes of inspection and enforcement of
the terms and conditions of the permit and County Code.
7. Filing fee (see current fee schedule).
Where can I get more information?
Main Office: Deschutes County
Community Development Dept.
117 NW Lafayette Avenue
Bend, OR 97701
Phone: (541}~575
Fax: (541) 385-1764
http://wwW.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd
La Pine: 51340 Highway 97
(541) 536-5852
Please send all mall to the main office. 4112
What Is a farm use?
Current employment of land for the
primary purpose of obtaining a profit in
money by raising. harvesting and selling
crops or by the feeding. breeding.
management and sale of. or the produce
Of. livestock. poultry. fur-bearing animals
or honeybees or for dairying and the
sale of dairy products or any other
agricultural or horticultural use or animal
husbandry or any combination thereof.
Includes:
• Preparation, storage and disposal by
marketing or otherwise of the
products or by-products raised on
such land for human or animal use.
• Current employment of the land for
the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money by stabling or training equines, including but not
limited to, providing riding lessons, training clinics and schooling shows.
• Propagation, cultivation, maintenance and harvesting of aquatic species and bird and animal species
to the extent allowed by the rules adopted by the State Fish and Wildlife Commission.
What is agri-lourism?
Agri-tourism means a commercial enterprise at a working farm or ranch that is incidental and subordinate to
the existing farm use of the tract that promotes successful agriculture, generates supplemental income for
the owner and complies with Oregon Statue and Rule. Any assembly of persons shall be for the purpose of
taking part in agriculturally based operations or· activities such as animal or crop care, picking fruits or
vegetables. cooking or cleaning farm products, tasting farm products; or leaming about farm or ranch
operations. Agri-tourism does not include "commercial events or activities.-Celebratory gatherings,
YJeddings. parties, or similar uses are not agri-tourism.
What Is a commercial event or activity?
Commercial event or activity means any meeting, celebratory gathering, wedding. party, or similar uses
consisting of any assembly of persons and the sale of goods or services. A commercial event or activity
shall.i?e related to and supportive of agriculture.
What is a Limited Use Permit?
A permit that is personal to the applicant and is not transferred by, or transferred with, a conveyance of
the property.
~ "<I"" 1i!II'~~~"""""'_~!'< ,M,~~.. t""'F I!!I ...!l:r. t)".Ii1!:.L (111!~.~~~~~~& L ......"~~·-------
