HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 059 - Establish SDC Charge ProcessREVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
For Recording Stamp Only
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
A Resolution to Establish Transportation System
Development Charges for those Properties Within
unincorporated Deschutes County
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-059
WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners ("Board") held a duly notic:d
public hearing on May 28, 2008, to consider establishing a transportation system development charge ("SD( ")
to help fund transportation projects that are necessary to serve the existing and growth -related needs in the
unincorporated County; and
WHEREAS, ORS 223.297 through 223.314 authorize governmental units to establish transportation
system development charges; and
WHEREAS, the methodology proposed by Deschutes County Road Department ("Department") staff,
Exhibit A, identifies the use of an "improvement fee" SDC, a "reimbursement fee" SDC, and considers the
needs of the unincorporated County; and
WHEREAS, the methodology proposes applying the SDCs to developing properties within the
unincorporated County outside of the designated urban growth boundaries of 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,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES
COUNTY, OREGON, as follows:
Section I. The Board adopts as its findings in support of this resolution the staff report attached as
Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference.
Section 2. The Board adopts the project list provided in Exhibit "B," attached and incorporated by
reference.
Section 3. The County shall collect transportation system development charges ("SDCs") at the inii ial
rate of $3,016 per peak hour trip, consisting of a $2,978 improvement fee, a $0 reimbursement fee, and a x.38
administrative recovery charge.
Section 4. On July 1, 2009, the SDC will increase to the rate of $3,549 per peak hour trip, consisting of
a $3,504 improvement fee, a $0 reimbursement fee, and a $45 administrative recovery charge, identified in the
methodology in Exhibit "A," attached an incorporated by reference.
Section 5. Annually, on July 1, the County shall adjust the transportation SDC rate by the anneal
percentage increase or decrease in the preceding January Engineering News Record's Construction Cost Index
for the City of Seattle.
Page 1 of 4 — Resolution 2008-059 (05/28/08)
Section 6. SDCs calculated in accordance with Exhibit "A" shall be collected from all new
development within the unincorporated County and outside of the urban growth boundaries of the cities of
Sisters, La Pine, Redmond and Bend.
Section 7. Properties located in the unincorporated area south of the La Pine State Recreation Road
shall receive a "credit" in the amount of the SDC fee imposed by Resolution 2006-010.
Section 8. SDCs shall be due and paid in full upon issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.
Section 9. SDC Appeals.
(1)
The owner of a non -single family residential property who is required to pay a transportation
SDC shall have the right to appeal to the Department Director the peak -hour trip rate applied to
the property if the following conditions are met:
a. The non -single family residential development demonstrates long-term, ongoing,
reduced infrastructure impacts; and
b. The difference between the demonstrated number of peak hour trips and the number of
peak hour trips used to calculate the SDC is more than ten percent; and
c. The difference between the demonstrated number of peak hour trips and the number of
peak hour trips used to calculate the transportation SDC is documented and certified by
a professional engineer.
(2) If the Department Director determines that the demonstrated number of peak -hour trips is
sufficiently documented, the SDC will be recalculated and charged based on the demonstrated
trip rate.
(3)
If the appeal is approved, the SDC shall be determined by multiplying the per peak hour trip
SDC by the demonstrated number of peak hour trips.
Section 10. The County hereby establishes two separate funds to be designated as the "Countywide
Transportation SDC Improvement Fee Fund" and the "Countywide Transportation SDC Reimbursement I ee
Fund."
(1)
All SDC payments shall be deposited into the appropriate fund immediately upon receipt.
(2) The monies deposited into the fund designated as the "Countywide Transportation SDC
Improvement Fee Fund" 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:
a. Design and construction plan preparation;
b. Permitting and fees;
c. Land and materials acquisition, including any costs of acquisition or condemnation;
d. Construction of capital improvements;
Page 2 of 4 — Resolution 2008-059 (05/28/08)
(3)
e. Design and construction of new drainage facilities required by the construction of
capital improvements and structures;
f. Relocating utilities required by the construction of improvements and structures;
g. Landscaping;
h. Construction management and inspection;
i. Surveying, soils and material testing;
j. Acquisition of capital equipment;
k. Repayment of monies transferred or borrowed from any budgetary fund of the Cow ty
which were used to fund any of the capital improvements as herein provided;
1. 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;
m. 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
SDCs methodology report, resolution/ordinance, and capital improvements master plan;
and the costs of collecting and accounting for tSDC expenditures.
The monies deposited into the fund designated as the "Countywide Transportation SDC
Reimbursement Fee Fund" shall be used solely for the purpose of providing transportation
capital improvements including expenditures relating to repayment of indebtedness.
Section 11. Investment of Trust Fund Revenue.
(1)
Any funds on deposit in SDC trust funds that are not immediately necessary for expenditure
shall be invested by the County.
(2) All income derived from such investments shall be deposited in the transportation SDC trust
funds and used as provided herein.
Section 12. Annual Accounting Reports. The Department Director shall prepare an annual report
accounting for SDCs, including the total amount of SDC improvement fee and reimbursement fee revenue
collected in the funds, and the capital improvement projects that were funded.
Section 13. Challenge of Expenditures.
(1) Any citizen or other interested person may challenge an expenditure of tSDC revenues.
(2) Such challenge shall be submitted, in writing on a form approved by the County, to the
Department for review within two years following the subject expenditure, and shall include the
following information:
(a) The name and address of the citizen or other interested person challenging the
expenditure;
Page 3 of 4 — Resolution 2008-059 (05/28/08)
(3)
(b) The amount of expenditure, the project, payee or purpose, and the approximate date on
which it was made; and
(c) The reason why the expenditure is being challenged.
If the Department 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 revenue sources shall be made within one year following the determination that tie
expenditures were not appropriate.
(4) The County shall make written notification of the results of the expenditure review to the citizan
or other interested person who requested the review within ten days of completion of the
review.
Section 14. If any clause, section or provision of this resolution shall be declared unconstitutional or
invalid for any reason or cause, the remaining portion of said resolution shall be in full force and effect and le
valid as if such invalid portion thereof had not been incorporated herein.
Section 15. This resolution is effective immediately upon signature.
DATED this day of , 2008.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
DENNIS R. LUKE, Chair
TAMMY (BANEY) MELTON, Vice Chair
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary MICHAEL M. DALY, Commissioner
Page 4 of 4 — Resolution 2008-059 (05/28/08)
EXHIBIT "A"
CONSULTING SERVICES PROV11)EI) BY:
'JOU, f.,Int irict'Alf' ld lr;
Redmond Town Center
7525 166th Avenue NE,
Suite D-215
Redmond, WA 98052
.1: 925.867.1802
1:: 925-867-1937
DKS Associates
This entire report e made of readily recyclahk• inateridI , including
the h die wire binding dud Ili , Iront and back cover, which are
niacin trom post -consumer rocycic•d plastic huttles.
Deschutes County
Oregon
Draft Report for
TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT
CHARGE STUDY
March 2008
www.fcsgroup.com
Deschutes County
Transportation System Development
Charge Study
Table of Contents
Section Description Page
I. Introduction / Background 1
II. System Development Charge Methodology 2
III. SDC Calculation 6
Stakeholders Advisory Committee Meeting Summaries Appendix A
Technical Analysis Appendix B
SDC Presentation Appendix C
•:FCS GROUP
Deschutes County
Transportation System Development Charge Study
March 2008
I. Introduction / Background
In July 2007, Deschutes County contracted with Financial Consulting Solutions Group, Inc.
(FCS GROUP), and its subconsultant DKS Associates, to perform a transportation system
development charge (SDC). Deschutes County is a growing county experiencing increasing
demands on its transportation infrastructure. The County's latest transportation system plan
identified a number of improvements that are needed to meet the needs of growth over the next
twenty years. With the study, the County wished to implement an equitable, adequate, and
defensible transportation SDC that would generate funding to meet the needs of growth without
unduly burdening existing residents and business owners.
Consistent with these objectives, the following general approach was used to calculate the
County's transportation SDC:
• Assist with the Public Process. In this step, we worked with a Stakeholders Advisory
Committee (SAC) to present and explain, as well as solicit input on, the proposed charges
and the policy recommendations behind them. Summaries of the Committee meetings are
included as Appendix A.
• Conduct Technical Analysis. In this step, we worked with the Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC), made up of County staff and the project engineer, to finalize the SDC
project list, forecast demand growth in the service area, discuss policy options and
recommendations, isolate the recoverable portion of existing and planned facility costs, and
calculate proposed fees. The technical analysis is included as Appendix B.
• Assemble Documentation and Presentation. In this step, we wrote the report describing the
recommended policies and resulting charges, and drafted adopting ordinances / resolutions.
The SDC presentation packet is included as Appendix C.
•FCS (; ROU I?
Deschutes County
Transportation System Development Charge Study
March 2008
II. System Development Charge Methodology
A system development charge is a one-time fee imposed on new development (and some types
of re -development) at the time of development. The fee is intended to recover a fair share of the
costs of existing and planned facilities that provide capacity to serve growth.
Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 223.297 - 223.314 defines SDCs and specifies how they shall be
calculated, applied, and accounted for. By statute, a SDC is the sum of two components:
• a reimbursement fee, designed to recover costs associated with capital improvements
already constructed or under construction, and
• an improvement fee, designed to recover costs associated with capital improvements to be
constructed in the future.
The reimbursement fee methodology must be based on "the value of unused capacity available to
future system users or the cost of the existing facilities", and must further consider prior
contributions by existing users and gifted and grant -funded facilities. The calculation must also
"promote the objective of future system users contributing no more than an equitable share to the
cost of existing facilities." Reimbursement fee proceeds may be spent on any capital
improvements related to the systems for which the SDC applied — e.g., transportation SDCs must
be spent on transportation improvements.
The improvement fee methodology must include only the cost of projected capital improvements
or portions of improvements needed to increase system capacity for future users. In other words,
the cost(s) of planned projects or portions of projects that correct existing deficiencies, or do not
otherwise increase capacity for future users, may not be included in the improvement fee
calculation. Improvement fee proceeds may be spent only on capital improvements, or portions
thereof, which increase the capacity of the systems for which they were applied.
A. Reimbursement Fee Methodology
The calculation of the reimbursement fee, described in detail in Section III, is fairly
straightforward under the approach taken. In short, it is the dollar cost of unused, available,
system capacity divided by the capacity it will serve. The unit of capacity used becomes the basis
of the fee. In addition to the cost or value of the system, Oregon law (ORS 223.304) requires that
the reimbursement fee methodology also incorporate the following:
• "Ratemaking principles employed to finance publicly owned capital improvements", taken to
mean that the fees must be calculated to equitably recover appropriate costs;
• "Prior contributions by existing users", taken to mean that the cost of contributed assets
should not be included in the reimbursement fee basis;
• "Gifts or grants from federal or state government or private persons", taken to mean that
gifted or grant -funded assets should not be included in the reimbursement fee basis; and
• "Other relevant factors identified by the local government imposing the fee".
Finally, the methodology must promote the objective of future system users contributing no more
than an equitable share to the cost of existing facilities.
2 .;>FCS GROUP
Deschutes County
Transportation System Development Charge Study
March 2008
Construction of the County's existing transportation system has been funded largely from
contributions and general tax sources such as property taxes and state gas taxes. Contributed
assets clearly may not be included in the fee basis. Regarding general tax sources, the owner of a
developing property can effectively argue that they have already paid for a share of the existing
system through the taxes they have paid over time. Accordingly, asset costs funded by either of
these sources should not be included in a reimbursement fee cost basis.
Conversely, a strong argument can be made that the cost of assets funded by previously paid
SDC improvement fees provides a valid reimbursement fee cost basis. If previously paid charges
have funded facilities that still have unused capacity available for growth, then the cost of that
capacity may be included in the cost basis for new customers to pay for a full share of the
capacity that will serve them. Therefore, we recommend that the County forego consideration of
a reimbursement fee until such time that it has unused capacity in facilities funded by previously
paid improvement fees.
B. Improvement Fee Methodology
The improvement fee calculation, like that of the reimbursement fee, is straightforward. In short,
it is the eligible dollar cost of capacity -increasing capital projects divided by the capacity they
will serve. Again, the unit of capacity used becomes the basis of the fee. The overriding issue to
consider in the improvement fee calculation is the identification and separation of capacity -
increasing capital costs.
We recommend that the County utilize the "capacity" method to allocate costs to the
improvement fee basis. Under the capacity approach, the cost of a given project is allocated to
growth proportionately by the capacity made available for growth. As an example, assume we
are allocating the $1 million cost of adding a lane to an existing road to meet existing demand as
well as the needs of growth. If the new lane provides capacity for 500 trips and 200 meet an
existing deficiency and 300 are for growth, then the allocation to the improvement fee basis
would be 300 / 500 = 60% of $1 million, or $600,000.
C. Calculation Summary
In general, a SDC is calculated by adding the applicable reimbursement fee component to the
applicable improvement fee component. Each separate component is calculated by dividing the
eligible cost by the appropriate measure of growth in capacity. The unit of capacity used
becomes the basis of the charge. A sample calculation is shown below.
Reimbursement Fee
Eligible cost
of capacity in
existing facilities
Growth in system
capacity demand
Improvement Fee
SDC
Eligible cost of planned
capacity -increasing
+ capital improvements = SDC ($ / unit)
Growth in system
capacity demand
3 •:>FCS RoUP
Deschutes County
Transportation System Development Charge Study
March 2008
D. SDC (Improvement Fee) Credits
The law requires that credits be provided against the improvement fee, for the construction of
qualified public improvements. Oregon Revised Statute 223.304 states that, at a minimum,
credits be provided against the improvement fee for
"the construction of a qualified public improvement. A `qualified public improvement' means a capital
improvement that is required as a condition of development approval, identified in the plan and list
adopted pursuant to ORS 223.309 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."
The law further states that credits
"may be granted only for the cost of that portion of such improvement that exceeds the local
government's minimum standard facility size or capacity needed to serve the particular development
project or property."
The challenge is to craft a credit approach that meets statutory requirements and the County's
assumed general objectives for cash flow, prioritization of capital projects, and orderly but
sustained development. It must be noted that we believe it is important for the County to retain as
much control as possible over the prioritization and implementation of its capital plan(s). These
plans are created to address total system needs — not just the needs of growth. Without control
over how and when those needs are addressed, the re -prioritization of projects over time can
leave important County needs unmet. To avoid this outcome, credits should:
■ be only for the portion of the actual, estimated, or agreed-upon cost of capacity in excess
of that needed to serve the particular development;
■ provide cash redemption of credits only from SDCs paid by subsequent development on
the site;
■ be for planned projects only; and
■ be provided only upon completion of a "qualified public improvement".
We further recommend that cash redemption of credits be allowed for improvements that are not
on the SDC project list, provided that they meet certain conditions. To be eligible for cash
reimbursement, such improvements should:
■ be required as a condition of development approval;
■ provide additional capacity beyond the build -out demand of the proposed development;
■ be limited to the oversizing portion of the improvement cost, up to the total of
improvement fees to be paid in the sole recovery area; and
■ be provided only after the improvement is added to the SDC project list.
Cash redemption of credits for projects not on the SDC project list would be provided only from
SDCs paid by subsequent development in the sole recovery area. The policy is provided in
Exhibit A to Meeting Summary #4 in Appendix A.
4 '.;> FCS G RO U P
Deschutes County
Transportation System Development Charge Study
March 2008
E. Indexing Charge for Inflation
Oregon law (ORS 223.304) allows for the periodic indexing of system development charges for
inflation, as long as the index used is
"(A) A relevant measurement of the average change in prices or costs over an identified time period for
materials, labor, real property or a combination of the three;
(B) Published by a recognized organization or agency that produces the index or data source for
reasons that are independent of the system development charge methodology; and
(C) Incorporated as part of the established methodology or identified and adopted in a separate
ordinance, resolution or order."
We propose that Deschutes County index its charges to the Engineering News Record (ENR)
Construction Cost Index (CCI) for the City of Seattle, and adjust the charges annually as per that
index. There is no comparable Oregon -specific index.
F. Policy Review
The County requested a review of four important SDC policies: SDC credits, Measure 37 claims,
development of destination resorts, and area -specific transportation charges. These issues and
our recommendations are summarized below:
5 •:>FCS GROUP
Deschutes County
Transportation System Development Charge Study
March 2008
Issue
Preliminary Recommendation
1.
SDC Credits
SDC credits must be provided when developers construct
qualified improvements that add system capacity (in excess of
that needed by the development). What is a reasonable SDC
credit policy that meets statutory requirements as well as the
County's general objectives for cash flow, prioritization of
capital projects, and orderly but sustained development?
See section E above.
2.
Response to Measure 37 Claims
Measure 37 essentially requires the County to compensate
property owners for the reduced market value of their land
due to regulations, or waive the regulations to allow the
development to occur. This may have obvious effects on
infrastructure needs. How does the enactment of Measure 37
relate to the County's transportation SDC?
"Measure 37"developments would be required to make "local"
improvements and pay an SDC for their share of "system" capacity.
Therefore, while these developments, should they occur, could impact
long-term County infrastructure needs and priorities, they would
adequately pay their fair share of infrastructure costs through the
combined effect of the local improvements they would construct and the
share of system capacity they would pay for through the SDC.
3.
Destination Resorts
Central Oregon is the site of several destination resorts, and it
is expected that a number of similar resorts will locate in
Deschutes County. What is the best approach for recovering
the cost of providing transportation capacity to destination
resorts that were not planned at the time of SDC calculation?
The County's current policy requires destination resorts to mitigate their
immediate impacts by constructing local, or project, improvements. A
new resort should be held to that standard and pay the new SDC in order
to pay for its share of the system capacity needed to serve it.
4.
Area -Specific Transportation Charges
Does it make sense, due to expected levels of development
and varying infrastructure needs, to charge SDCs that vary by
geographic area within the rural County?
The generally rural character of the service area, with regard to the SDCs,
and the common level of service provided and to be provided, supports the
implementation of a uniform charge throughout the rural County.
III. SDC Calculation
The County does not currently have a transportation SDC that is applied Countywide. However,
a charge does exist for properties located south of La Pine State Recreation Road.
The proposed Countywide charge is based on trip generation statistics provided in the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual for each land use type and development
size. We recommend that the Countywide charge be assessed on the same basis as that of the La
Pine charge: peak -hour trips (P-HTs) generated by development. Peak -hour trips are defined as
the average trip rate during the peak hour of adjacent street traffic — which usually coincides with
the traditional commuting peak periods of 7 am to 9 am or 4 pm to 6 pm. Transportation
engineers commonly use peak -hour trip estimates to assess transportation performance and
determine system needs. Average daily trips, as measures of total traffic volume, are not
generally used to size a system.
6 •:;> FCS GROUP
Deschutes County
Transportation System Development Charge Study
March 2008
Also, there is documentation presented in the ITE Trip Generation manual that a significant
percentage of trip ends associated with specific land uses are a result of linked, or pass -by, trips.
Accordingly, the proposed charges are adjusted for pass -by trips — as shown at the end of this
section.
The calculation of the proposed Countywide transportation SDC is summarized below and
provided in detail in Appendix B.
A. Capacity Basis
In order to estimate the number of peak -hour trips to be generated by growth over the planning
period (ending in 2027) — the denominator in both the reimbursement and improvement fee
calculations — the following approach was taken.
• Utilizing 2007 development records, County staff reported the number of dwelling units
within the unincorporated County. Based on ITE peak -hour trip rates for single-family
residences, multi -family dwellings, and destination resorts, total trip generation for the
unincorporated County was estimated to be 27,857 P.M. peak -hour trips in 2007.
• The Deschutes County 2000-2025 Coordinated Population Forecast reported an
unincorporated County population of 53,032 in 2000 and projected a 2025 unincorporated
population of 81,951. Assuming a constant annual growth rate of 2.2%, the 2007
unincorporated population was estimated to be 55,391 and the 2027 unincorporated
population was projected to be 85,596.
• Next, the 2007 peak -hour trip estimate of 27,857 was grown proportionately with the
projected population growth from 55,391 to 85,596. Accordingly, total P.M. peak -hour trips
in 2027 were projected to be 43,047.
• Therefore, during the 2007-2027 study period, new development within the unincorporated
County was expected to generate 15,191 P.M. peak -hour trips.
B. Reimbursement Fee Calculation
As stated previously, we recommend no initial reimbursement fee. However, as the County
constructs transportation improvements with SDC proceeds, we recommend that it appropriately
add these projects to the reimbursement fee cost basis. The County should promptly charge a
reimbursement fee based on the remaining unused capacity provided by these SDC -funded
improvements.
C. Improvement Fee Calculation
The following approach was taken to determine the cost of capacity -increasing capital
improvements for inclusion in the improvement fee cost basis.
• The County's 2008 SDC Project List provided a list of needed capital projects. The sum of
this list of project costs in current dollars was $279,490,589.
• Next, a number of allocation alternatives were considered. Each alternative was based on a
different allocation approach for the seven project categories: intersection improvements,
State highway improvements, new road segments, existing road improvements, federal forest
highway improvements, pedestrian and bike improvements, and bridge improvements or
7 •:;) FCS GROUP
Deschutes County
Transportation System Development Charge Study
March 2008
reconstruction. The allocation alternatives ranged from allocating almost 100% of project
costs to the improvement fee cost basis to allocating an average of 19% of project costs to the
SDC (based on projected growth in trip volumes).
• After review and discussion, it was determined that the volume growth approach was the
most appropriate for allocating SDC -eligible costs. Under this approach, project costs were
allocated to growth to the extent that each improvement added capacity for future users. First,
projects that did not provide capacity for future users were assigned a growth allocation of
0%. Next, projects that created capacity that would serve existing and future users equally
were assigned a growth allocation of 35.3% — equivalent to growth's share of the future
peak -hour trip total. Those projects that served only growth were allocated 100% to the
improvement fee cost basis. Finally, State project costs were assigned a growth allocation of
approximately 5.3%, which represented growth's proportionate share of the County's 15%
funding target. The resulting total of eligible costs became the improvement fee cost basis:
$53,225,053.
Based on forecasted growth of 15,191 P.M. peak -hour trips, the resulting improvement fee was
$3,504 per peak -hour trip.
D. Recommended System Development Charge
The recommended transportation SDC of $3,549 per peak -hour trip is the sum of the
reimbursement fee and the improvement fee, adjusted by an administrative cost recovery factor
of 1.28%, or $45. At this time, there is no reimbursement fee component to the recommended
charge. The administrative cost recovery factor was derived by dividing projected annual SDC
accounting and administrative costs, including the amortized cost of this study, by forecasted
annual SDC revenues. The resulting recommended SDCs for a comprehensive list of land uses
are provided below.
8 ) FCS CROUP
Deschutes County
Transportation System Development Charge Study
March 2008
ITE
Code
Customer Type
Land Use Description
Peak -Hour
Trips
Pass -By
Trip
Factor
Adjusted
P -H Ta
SDC
Units
110
General Light
Industrial
Typically less than 500 employees, free standing and single use. Examples:
Printing plants, material testing laboratories, data processing equipment
assembly, power stations.
0.98
1
0.98
$ 3,478
KSF
130
Industrial Park
Industrial Park areas that contain a number of industrial and/or related
facilities (mix of manufacturing, service, and warehouse).
0.86
1
0.86
$ 3,052
KSF
140
Manufacturing
that convert raw materials into finished products. Typically have
related office, warehouse, research, and associated functions.
0.74
0.74
1
0.74
$ 2,626
KSF
151
Mini -Warehouse
Storage Units or Vaults rented for storage of goods. Units are physically
separate and access through an overhead door or other common access point.
Example: U -Store -It.
0.26
1
0.26
$ 923
KSF
210
SF Detached
Single family detached housing.
1.01
1
1.01
$ 3,584
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.
0.62
1
0.62
$ 2,200
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
$ 1,845
DU
240
Mobile Home
Trailers or Manufactured homes that are sited on permanent foundations.
Typically the parks have community facilities (laundry, recreation rooms,
pools).
0.59
1
0.59
$ 2,094
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
$ 603
Occupied
DU
310
Hotel
Lodging facility that may include restaurants, lounges, meeting rooms, and/or
convention facilities. Can include a large motel with these facilities.
0.59
1
0.59
$ 2,094
Room
320
Motel
Sleeping accommodations and often a restaurant. Free on-site parking and
little or no meeting space.
0.47
1
0.47
$ 1,668
Room
411 •
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
$ 319
Acres
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,
0.2
1
0.2
$ 710
Acres
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, lounges.
Many of the muni courses do not include such facilities.
2.74
1
2.74
$ 9,724
Holes
435
Multipurpose
Recreation Facility
Multi-purpose recreational facilities contain two or more of the following land
uses at one site: mini -golf, batting cages, video arcade, bumper boats, go-
carts. and driving ranges.
5.77
1
5.77
$ 20,478
Acres
437
Bowling Alley
Recreational facilities with bowling lanes which may include a small lounge,
restaurant or snack bar.
3.54
1
3.54
$ 12,563
Lanes
493
Athletic Club
Privately owned with weightlifting and other facilities often including swimming
pools, hot tubs, saunas, racquet ball, squash, and handball courts.
5.76
1
5.76
$ 20,442
KSF
49b
Recreational
Community Center
Recreational community centers are facilities similar to and including YMCAs,
often including classes, day care, meeting rooms, swimming pools, tennis
racquetball, handball, weightlifting equipment, locker rooms, & food service.
1,64
1
1.64
$ 5,820
KSF
520 •
Elementary School
Public. Typically serves K-6 grades.
0.28
1
0.28
$ 994
Student
622
Middle School
Public. Serves students that completed elementary and have not yet entered
high school.
0.15
1
0.15
$ 532
Student
530
High School
Public. Serves students that completed middle or junior high school.
0.14
1
0.14
$ 497
Student
640
Junior/Community
College
Two-year junior colleges or community colleges.
0.12
1
0.12
$ 426
Student
560
Church
Contains worship area and may include meeting rooms, classrooms, dining
0.66
1
0.66
$ 2,342
KSF
666 •
Day Care
Facility for pre-school children care primarily during daytime hours. May
include classrooms, offices, eating areas, and playgrounds.
13.18
0.82
0.33
0.33
4.35
0.27
$ 15,438
$ 958
KSF
Student
690
Library
Public or Private. Contains shelved books, reading rooms or areas,
sometimes meeting rooms.
7,09
1
7.09
$ 25,162
KSF
591
Lodge/Fratemal
Organization
Includes a club house with dining and drinking facilities, recreational and
entertainment areas, and meeting rooms.
0.03
1
0.03
$ 106
Members
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
$ 5,288
KSF
716
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.
1.73
1
1.73
$ 6,140
KSF
720
Medical -Dental
Office
Provides diagnosis and outpatient care on a routine basis. Typically operated
by one or more private physicians or dentists.
3.72
1
3.72
$ 13,202
KSF
760
Office Park
Park or campus -like planned unit development that contains office buildings
and support services such as banks & loan institutions, restaurants, service
stations.
1.5
1
1.5
$ 5,324
KSF
9
•FCS GROUP
Deschutes County
Transportation System Development Charge Study
March 2008
ITE
Code
Customer Type
Land Use Description
Peak -Hour
Trips
Pass -By
Trip
Factor
Adjusted
P -H Ts
SDC
Units
760
Research &
Development Center
Single building or complex of buildings devoted to research & development.
May contain offices and light fabrication facilities.
1.08
1
1.08
$ 3,833
KSF
770
Business Park
Group of flex -type or incubator 1 - 2 story buildings served by a common
roadway system. Tenant space is flexible to accommodate a variety of uses.
Rear of building usually served by a garage door. Typically includes a mix of
offices retail & wholesale.
1 29
1
1.29
$ 4,678
KSF
812
Building Materials &
Lumber
Small, free standing building that sells hardware, building materials, and
lumber, 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
$ 16,935
KSF
813
Discount Super
Store
A free-standing discount store that also contains a full service grocery dept.
under one roof.
3.87
0.718
2.78
$ 9,866
KSF
814
Specialty Retail
Small strip shopping centers containing a variety of retail shops that typically
specialize in apparel, hard goods, serves such as real estate, investment,
dance studios, florists, and small restaurants.
2.71
1
2.71
$ 9,618
KSF
815
Discount Store
A free-standing discount store that offers a variety of customer services,
centralized cashiering, and a wide range of products under one roof. Does not
include a full service grocery dept. like Land Use 813, Free-standing Discount
Superstore.
5.06
0.475
2.4
$ 8,618
KSF
816
Hardware/Paint
Store
Typically free-standing buildings with off-street parking that sell paints and
hardware.
4.84
0.450
2.18
$ 7,737
KSF
817
Nursery/Garden
Center
Free-standing building with yard containing planting or landscape stock. May
have large green houses and offer landscape services. Typically have office,
store e, and shi
g pping facilities. GLA is Building GLA, not yard and storage
GLA.
3.8
1
3.8
$ 13,486
KSF
820
Shopping Center
Integrated group of commercial establishments that is planned, developed,
owned, and managed as a unit. Provides enough on-site parking to serve its
own parking demand. May include non -merchandising facilities such as office
buildings, movie theatres, restaurants, post offices, health clubs, and
recreation like skating rinks and amusements
3.75
0.393
1.47
$ 6,217
KSF
Leasable
841
New Car Sales
New Car dealership with sales service, parts, and used vehicles
2.64
1
2.64
$ 9,369
KSF
848
Tire Store
Primary business is tire sales and repair. Generally does not have a large
storage or warehouse area.
4.15
1
4.15
$ 14,728
KSF
860
Supermarket
Free-standing grocery store. May also contain ATMs, photo centers,
pharmacies, video rental areas.
10.45
0.265
2.76
$ 9,795
KSF
861
Convenience Market
Sells convenience foods, newspapers, magazines, and often Beer & Wine.
Does not have gas pumps.
52.41
0.282
14.8
$ 52,525
KSF
880
Pharmacy w/o drive
through
Facilities that fulfill medical Prescriptions
8.42
0327
2.75
$ 9,760
KSF
881
Pharmacy w/ drive
through
Facilities that fulfill medical Prescriptions
8.62
0.383
3.3
$ 11,712
KSF
890
Furniture Store
Sells furniture, accessories, and often carpet/floor coverings.
0.46
0.157
0.07
$ 248
KSF
911 `
Walk -In Bank
Usually a Free-standing building with a parking lot. Does not have drive -up
windows. May have ATMs.
33.15
0.270
8.95
$ 31,764
KSF
912
Drive -In Bank
Provides Drive -up and walk-in bank services. May have ATMs.
45.74
0.270
12.35
$ 43,830
KSF
931
Quality Restaurant
High quality eating establishment with slower tumover rates (more than one
hour).
7.49
0288
2.15
$ 7,630
KSF
932
High Turnover Sit-
Down Rest.
Sit -Down eating establishment with tumover rates of less than one hour.
10.92
0.315
3.44
$ 12,209
KSF
933 •
Fast Food w/o Drive-
Thru
Fast Food but no drive-through window
26.15
0265
6.94
$ 24,630
KSF
934
Fast Food With
Drive-Thru
Fast Food with drive-through window
34.64
0.265
9.2
$ 32,651
KSF
936'
Drinking Place
Contains a bar where alcoholic beverages and snacks are serviced and
possibly some type of entertainment such as music, games, or pool tables
11.34
0.315
3.58
$ 12,705
KSF
944
Gas Station
Sell gasoline and may also provide vehicle service and repair. Does not have
Convenience Market and/or Car Wash.
13.86
0.235
3.26
$ 11,670
Fueling
Positions
945
Gas/Service Station
with Convenience
Market
Selling gas and Convenience Market are the primary business. May also
contain facilities for service and repair. Does not include Car Wash.
13.38
0.123
1.65
$ 6,866
Fueling
Positions
946 •
Gas/Service Station
with Convenience
Market, Car Wash
Selling gas, Convenience Market, and Car Wash are the primary business.
May also contain facilities for service and repair,
13.33
0.382
5.09
$ 18,064
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
$ 19,661
Wash
Stalls
NOTES:
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition.
Peak -Hour Trips: Weekday, peak -hour of adjacent street traffic. Most often, one hour between 4 and 6 p.m.
Pass -By Trip Factor reflects diverted linked trips in addition to pass -by trips.
ITE codes identified with asteriske (') include information derived from the ITE manual (e.g., pass -by factor is derived from pass -by counts for a similar land use or are as
estimated by traffic engineers).
Land Use Units:
KSF = 1,000 gross square feet building area
DU = dwelling unit
Room = number of rooms for rent
Fueling Positions = maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously
Student = number of full-time equivalent students enrolled
10
>FCS GROUP
Appendix A
Stakeholders Advisory Committee
Meeting Summaries
Appendix A
•:• FCS G RO 1
Deschutes County
Transportation System Development Charge Study
Stakeholders Advisory Committee
Summary of Meeting #1
On November 27th, the Deschutes County Transportation System Development Charge (SDC)
Stakeholders Advisory Committee held its first meeting. The following were in attendance:
Name Representing
Andy High
Steve Hultberg
Erik Kancler
Bill Robie
Conrad Ruel
Kirk Schueler
Todd Taylor
Tom Blust
John Ghilarducci
Central Oregon Builders Association
Ball Janik LLP
Central Oregon Land Watch
Central Oregon Association of Realtors
South County
Brooks Resources
Knife River
Deschutes County
FCS GROUP
The meeting began with introductions. The consultant then reviewed the proposed meeting
agenda, and summarized the project scope and schedule. The Committee agreed to meet in
December in order to expedite completion of the study, and set the date and time of the next
meeting -- December 18 from 3 to 5 pm.
The consultant then provided a presentation on SDC Basics. There were questions and
discussion throughout the presentation, which segued into a review of several specific policy
issues which had been identified and summarized in advance of the meeting. These issues are
listed below, with comments stating the general input of the Committee.
• Appropriateness of the reimbursement fee. Due to the fact that the existing County
transportation system has been funded by a combination of tax sources and other "general"
funds, the consultant proposed that the County should forego charging a reimbursement fee
as part of its initial transportation SDC. The Committee generally agreed, but suggested that
a reimbursement fee methodology, or formula, 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.
I . SDC Credits. The consultant summarized the minimum legal requirements for SDC credits,
as well as some practices that exceed minimum requirements but may still provide adequate
protection for the County's financial health. The Committee generally agreed that it was in
both the County's and the developer's interests to allow for cash redemption of SDC credits
by a developer. However, there remained some question as to whether that cash
reimbursement should be limited to SDCs subsequently paid by building on the development
site, or whether the SDC fund could be used in special circumstances to cash reimburse SDC
•FCS GROUP
Solutions -Oriented Consulting
Page 1
Deschutes County
Meeting Summary
credits. Such a special circumstance could occur when a developer constructed a qualified
public improvement but could not reasonably expect to recover the over -sizing cost of that
improvement from subsequent development if limited to the development site. The
consultant offered to develop a proposed approach that might meet these interests.
Z. Measure 37 Claims. This issue revolved around the potential impact of unplanned
development on transportation infrastructure needs and, as a result, SDCs. The Committee
generally agreed with the consultant and County staff that in the case of "Measure
37"development, those developments would still be required to make "local" improvements
and pay an SDC for their share of "system" capacity. Therefore, while these developments,
should they occur, could impact long-term County infrastructure needs and priorities, they
would adequately pay their fair share of infrastructure costs through the combined effect of
the local improvements they would construct and the share of system capacity they would
pay for through the SDC.
3. Destination Resorts. The County's current policy requires destination resorts to mitigate
their immediate impacts by constructing local, or project, improvements. It was generally
understood and agreed that a new resort should be held to that standard and pay the new SDC
in order to pay for its share of the system capacity needed to serve it.
4. Area -specific Charges. There was initial agreement that a uniform charge would be
preferred for the rural County, but it was also agreed that the Committee should review both
the project list and recent growth patterns to ensure that such an approach would not be
inequitable.
The next meeting will include follow-up discussion of these issues, as well as a review of
preliminary SDC calculations, and the alternative methods of approaching the improvement fee
allocation and subsequent calculation. The consultant also agreed to bring trip generation
estimates for a number of different land uses, including hotels.
PREPARED BY FINANCIAL CONSULTING SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. Page 2
F:\Deschutes County\Documentation\Report\5-Meeting Summary #1.doc
Deschutes County
Transportation System Development Charge Study
Stakeholders Advisory Committee
Summary of Meeting #2
On December 18th, the Deschutes County Transportation System Development Charge (SDC)
Stakeholders Advisory Committee held its second meeting. The following were in attendance:
Name Representing
Andy High
Steve Hultberg
Erik Kancler
Bill Robie
Conrad Ruel
Kirk Schueler
Tom B lust
Peter Russell
Carl Springer
John Ghilarducci
Central Oregon Builders Association
Ball Janik LLP
Central Oregon Land Watch
Central Oregon Association of Realtors
South County
Brooks Resources
Deschutes County
Deschutes County
DKS Associates
FCS GROUP
The consultant presented the proposed meeting agenda, and reviewed the meeting summary from
meeting #1. In the course of that discussion, the Committee revisited the issue of providing
credits for system improvements that have not been included on the SDC project list. While not
required, it has been generally agreed that the practice of providing SDC credits for projects not
on the list may be warranted if the County's cash position can be protected. The initial
recommendation had been that credits be provided only for the construction of system
improvements that have been included on the project list. It was also recommended that cash
reimbursement of those credits be allowed only from SDC receipts generated by subsequent
building permitted on the development site.
The consultant suggested that credits for projects not on the list could be provided without
detriment to the County cash position if the project, once initiated, was put on the list and
subsequent SDCs paid by development on the site were used to cash out credits earned by the
initial developer. Ideally, the SDC would be updated at the time the new project was known, so
that the SDCs charged would reflect that new cost. Allowing transferability of credits, or cash
reimbursement from SDCs generated elsewhere in the County would put County cash receipts at
risk and is not recommended.
As an example, if a developer constructs a roundabout (e.g, the Calderra Springs Roundabout),
and it is agreed that the roundabout is a qualified system improvement except for the fact that it is
not on the project list, then under the suggested policy the County would credit the developer
with the oversizing portion of that project cost (say, $250,000 of a $750,000 project). The
project would then be added to the project list, and the SDCs adjusted commensurately. As
•:> FCS GROUP
Solutions -Oriented Consulting
Page 1
Deschutes County
Meeting Summary
building permits are issued for development in Calderra Springs, the SDCs paid would be used to
cash redeem the credits issued to the initial developer who constructed the roundabout until
$250,000 is recovered. The County would not use other SDC funds generated to redeem
developer credits associated with the roundabout.
The consultant then presented the initial technical analysis, including a trip growth forecast used
in the calculation, and several alternative approaches to allocating planned project cost to growth
by project type (i.e., bridges, new roads, State projects, etc.). The Committee generally agreed
that the method used to forecast trip growth (proportional with population growth) was
reasonable, and is considering the cost estimates and the calculated SDC alternatives.
There was a question about how the project costs on the list were determined. Staff agreed to
review the project costs to ensure that those costs are reasonable and accurate given the planning
level of detail used.
The next meeting, scheduled for January 15th at 3 pm, will include follow-up discussion of these
issues and the technical analysis.
PREPARED BY FINANCIAL CONSULTING SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. Page 2
F:\Deschutes County\Documentation\Report\6-Meeting Summary #2.doc
Deschutes County
Transportation System Development Charge Study
Stakeholders Advisory Committee
Summary of Meeting #3
On January 15th, the Deschutes County Transportation System Development Charge (SDC)
Stakeholders Advisory Committee held its third meeting. The following were in attendance:
Name Representing
Andy High
Steve Hultberg
Erik Kancler
Bill Robie
Conrad Ruel
Kirk Schueler
Todd Taylor
Tom Blust
John Ghilarducci
Central Oregon Builders Association
Ball Janik LLP
Central Oregon Land Watch
Central Oregon Association of Realtors
South County
Brooks Resources
Knife River
Deschutes County
FCS GROUP
The consultant presented the proposed meeting agenda, and reviewed the meeting summary from
meeting #2. In the course of that discussion, the Committee again revisited the issue of
providing credits for system improvements that have not been included on the SDC project list.
It has been generally agreed that the practice of providing SDC credits for projects not on the list
may be warranted if the County's cash position can be protected. The consultant paraphrased his
updated proposal that credits for projects not on the list could be provided without detriment to
the County cash position if SDCs paid by subsequent development on the site were used to cash
out the credits earned by the initial developer. ideally, the SDC would be updated at the time the
new project was known, so that the SDCs charged would reflect that new cost.
It was suggested that the County could offer cash reimbursement from its general SDC fund
balance if limited to a percentage of that fund. The City of Bend uses a formula approach to
establish the amount, as a percentage, that is paid out in credit redemptions from the SDC fund.
Another approach would be to provide criteria for the County to use to determine whether an
improvement not on the list would qualify for an SDC credit and then subsequent cash
redemption. Such criteria could include that the project must provide agreed-upon excess
capacity that will provide system benefit but will exceed the ability of the "recovery area" to
generate subsequent SDCs for cash repayment of that oversizing cost to the initial developer.
Steve Hultberg offered to draft some policy language on this issue for discussion by the
Committee.
Next, Tom Blust briefed the Committee on the updates County staff made to the project list,
resulting in a reduction to the total of approximately $25 million. During the course of the
project list discussion, and the presentation of draft findings that followed, the Committee
FCS GROUP
Solutions -Oriented Consulting
Page 1
Deschutes County
Meeting Summary
expressed concern about the gap between what would be funded by SDCs and the total cost
(County share) of the project list. The County is obligated to address this gap, estimated to be as
high as $60.5 million after deducting the State's anticipated share of State projects, using sources
other than SDC improvement fees, which may be spent only on capacity -increasing project costs.
The consultant noted that as the County constructs projects on the project list, it will establish a
basis for an SDC reimbursement fee. Reimbursement fee proceeds may be spent on the gap.
Their use is not restricted to capacity -increasing project costs. The Committee generally favored
the affirmation that adoption of an SDC program carries with it an obligation on the part of the
County to meet the funding gap through other sources.
There was also much discussion on the allocation of State projects to the SDC basis.
Improvement fee alternatives 3 and 4 (4 is the recommended option) both include an allocation
of 15% of State projects to the SDC basis. This is effectively 100% of the anticipated County
share of these project costs. Assuming that the growth -related portion of each State project is
greater than 15%, then this approach effectively allocates the benefit of State funding to existing
County residents, and defines the full County share (anticipated to be 15%) of each State project
as part of the growth share of that project. An alternative approach, generally supported by the
Committee, would be to define the likely County share of each State project, in this case 15% of
each project cost, and then share the burden of funding that local share between existing residents
and growth. County staff agreed to review each State project and determine an appropriate
allocation between existing County and new development.
The project team also agreed to research comparable transportation SDCs for counties. The
information provided in the presentation packet included only nearby cities.
The next meeting, yet to be scheduled, will include follow-up discussion of these issues and the
technical analysis. It is anticipated that the next meeting will be the last meeting of the
Committee.
PREPARED BY FINANCIAL CONSULTING SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. Page 2
F:\Deschutes County\Documentation\Report\7-Meeting Summary #3.doc
Deschutes County
Transportation System Development Charge Study
Stakeholders Advisory Committee
Summary of Meeting #4
On March 4th, the Deschutes County Transportation System Development Charge (SDC)
Stakeholders Advisory Committee held its fourth meeting. The following were in attendance:
Name Representing
Andy High
Steve Hultberg
Bill Robie
Conrad Ruel
Tom Blust
Peter Russell
John Ghilarducci
Central Oregon Builders Association
Ball Janik LLP
Central Oregon Association of Realtors
South County
Deschutes County
Deschutes County
FCS GROUP
The consultant presented the proposed meeting agenda, and reviewed the meeting summary from
meeting #3. The meeting summary was accepted as written.
The first topic of discussion was the proposed SDC credit policy, and the related policy for cash
redemption of credits. The committee reviewed and discussed language proposed by committee
member Steve Hultberg. Some minor revisions / clarifications were suggested, but in general,
the proposed language was received positively by the group. The proposed credit policy,
incorporating the suggested revisions is provided as Exhibit A. Please review and comment as
appropriate.
Next, the consultant summarized the policy issues that have been discussed with the committee
to date, and confirmed the committee's recommendations on each issue. The matrix of issues
and recommendations (excluding the credit recommendation in Exhibit A), is provided as
Exhibit B.
After concurring on the issues summary, the committee discussed a suggestion related to the
timing of SDC collection. It was proposed that the County collect the SDC as a condition of
issuance of a certificate of occupancy (C of 0). It is the understanding of the committee that
after April 1, 2008 a C of 0 will be required of all new development in the state, and it was
thought that issuance of the certificate would better approximate the time of actual additional
demand for system capacity. The committee agreed with this recommendation, subject to the
County's ability to efficiently administer such a policy.
County staff next summarized the input of the State of Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT) regarding the State projects on the project list, and the County's proposed allocation of
those project costs to growth and, consequently, the system development charge. Briefly, ODOT
•FCS GROUP
Solutions -Oriented Consulting
Page 1
Deschutes County
Meeting Summary
recommended that several additional projects be included on the project list, and provided
updated cost information for the projects that were already on the list. ODOT further
recommended that the County increase the percentage of State projects allocated to the SDC.
The committee considered this input, but did not concur with the ODOT recommendations about
increasing the allocation from previous alternatives.
Finally, the committee considered the updated SDC analysis, focusing the discussion on four
alternatives.
1. The first alternative included the expanded list of projects, based on ODOT's longer list, and
allocated the full 15% County share to the SDC basis. The result of this first alternative was
an SDC of $6,318 per peak -hour trip.
2. The second alternative again included the expanded list of projects, but allocated only a
proportional share (about 35%) of the 15% County share of State projects to the SDC basis.
Philosophically, this approach shares the burden of meeting the County cost share between
existing County residents and growth. The result of this second alternative was an SDC of
$4,131 per peak -hour trip.
3. The third alternative included only those projects previously identified as State projects, but
with their updated costs, and allocated the full 15% County share to the SDC basis. The
result of this third alternative was an SDC of $4,667 per peak -hour trip.
4. The fourth alternative again included only those projects previously identified as State
projects, with their updated costs, and allocated only a proportional share (again about 35%)
of the 15% County share of State projects to the SDC basis. The result of this fourth
alternative was an SDC of $3,549 per peak -hour trip.
The committee agreed on the fourth alternative as the recommended SDC. County staff agreed
that the original list of State projects represented the highest priority projects from the perspective
of the County. In addition, those projects had been reported in the County transportation system
plan (TSP). The additional projects that ODOT proposed had not been included in the TSP. In
addition, the committee agreed that the County cost share of State projects would be most
appropriately shared between current County residents and growth.
The comment was made that presentation materials should focus on the charge to a single family
residence, because that number will be seen far more often than the charge per peak -hour trip.
The consultant agreed to emphasize the charge per single family residence.
County staff and the consultant thanked committee members for their participation and briefly
reviewed the schedule for remaining tasks and meetings with the County Board of
Commissioners, inviting committee members to attend any and all meetings to the extent that
they can. There is a Board work session scheduled for March 26th, and a public hearing
scheduled for May 28th. There will be no further meetings of the Stakeholders Advisory
Committee.
PREPARED BY FINANCIAL CONSULTING SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. Page 2
F:\Deschutes County\Documentation\Meeting Summary #4.doc
Exhibit A
MEMORANDUM
TO: Deschutes County SDC
Stakeholders Advisory Committee
FROM: Steven Hultberg
DATE: February 28, 2008
CLIENT:
RE: Proposals for SDC Ordinance
The purpose of the recommendation below is to deal with a situation where i) a
property owner is required to construct an improvement as a condition of approval, ii) the
improvement creates capacity above and beyond the impacts of the approved development; and
iii) the improvement is not on the County's CIP, and is thus not eligible for SDC credits. In
general, the proposal would allow the property owner to i) request that the improvement be
placed on the County's CIP; ii) require the County to amend the CIP unless the amendment is
not in the public interest; iii) allow the property owner to receive SDC credits for the excess
capacity; and iv) limit the recovery area to the property owner's development, with no right to
transfer the credits.
Applicability. The following conditions would have to be met in order to request
that the County amend the CIP to include the improvement.
procedure:
1. The improvement is required as a condition of development approval.
2. The improvement is a system improvement that provides additional
capacity above and beyond the impacts of the full build -out of the
proposed development. The applicant is required to provide this analysis
to the County consistent with the requirements of the SDC ordinance.
3. The improvement is not on the County's CIP.
Procedure for Amending CIP. The CIP could be amended under the following
1. Applicant must file request within 30 days of final approval. (Note:
Ideally the applicant would be in discussion with the county regarding the
improvement prior to the approval.)
2. Applicant must provide sufficient evidence quantifying the excess
capacity created by the improvement.
3. Applicant must identify sole recovery area, which is limited to the
development approved by the land use approval.
P.ADeschutes CountyADocumentationAProposed Credit I,anguaee - Revised .1G.DOCI4ee++n+eHt4
conditions:
4. County mustte consider request within sixty days of application and
approve request unless it determines that request would negatively impact
the construction or funding of other projects on the CIP.
Procedure for SDC Credits. Credits would be issued pursuant to the following
1. CIP must be amended prior to payment of SDC or issuance of credits.
2. Credits limited to the oversizing portion of the improvement cost, up to
total of improvement fees to be paid in the sole recovery area.
3. Cash redemption of credits provided to applicant limited to improvement
fees generated by development in the sole recovery area.No cash
reimbursement, credits only.
4. All other provisions of SDC Ordinance would apply.
2E VDeschutes Count♦ Documentation \Proposed Credit [,an uagc- Revised.fG U). K:Doctnnent.
Exhibit B
Deschutes County
Transportation SDC Study
Preliminary Policy Issues Analysis
Issue
Preliminary Recommendation
■ Reimbursement Fee
Is it appropriate to include a reimbursement fee as a
component of the County's initial transportation SDC?
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 forego charging a reimbursement fee as part of its initia
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 feL
1.
SDC Credits
SDC credits must be provided when developers construct
qualified improvements that add system capacity (in excess of
that needed by the development). What is a reasonable SDC
credit policy that meets statutory requirements as well as the
County's general objectives for cash flow, prioritization of
capital projects, and orderly but sustained development?
See Exhibit A.
2. Response to Measure 37 Claims
Measure 37 essentially requires the County to compensate
property owners for the reduced market value of their land
due to regulations, or waive the regulations to allow the
development to occur. This may have obvious effects on
infrastructure needs. How does the enactment of Measure 37
relate to the County's transportation SDC?
"Measure 37"developments would be required to make "local"
improvements and pay an SDC for their share of "system" capacity.
Therefore, while these developments, should they occur, could impact
long-term County infrastructure needs and priorities, they would
adequately pay their fair share of infrastructure costs through the
combined effect of the local improvements they would construct and the
share of system capacity they would pay for through the SDC.
3. Destination Resorts
Central Oregon is the site of several destination resorts, and it
is expected that a number of similar resorts will locate in
Deschutes County. What is the best approach for recovering
the cost of providing transportation capacity to destination
resorts that were not planned at the time of SDC calculation?
The County's current policy requires destination resorts to mitigate their
immediate impacts by constructing local, or project, improvements. A
new resort should be held to that standard and pay the new SDC in order to
pay for its share of the system capacity needed to serve it.
4. Area -Specific Transportation Charges
Does it make sense, due to expected levels of development
and varying infrastructure needs, to charge SDCs that vary by
geographic area within the rural County?
The generally rural character of the service area, with regard to the SDC s,
and the common level of service provided and to be provided, supports he
implementation of a uniform charge throughout the rural County.
FCS GROUP
(425) 867-1802 Policy Recommendations Summary 3/13/2008
Appendix B
Technical Analysis
Appendix B • FCS (:., RO U i P
ci
0 it u) I—
Improvement Fee
CO
0
0
N
CO
N
M
SDC Calc - Page 1
10 -SDC Model Trans 031308 DRAFT
N
d 0
CO
CC co
0 co
U) Lo
N
U
u.
.13 O
y CD
C.) .12-
C F -
p C .+
l0 `
y+ o Q:
N0
c
a H V
ulation Chan
ment and Po
m Residential Develo
Development
Initial Residentia
Peak -Hour
a
H
N
U)
M
U)
N
0
U)
0)
M
N
0.
N
CO
O
M
0
0
U)
N
co
tt
ti
0 O
CO
C
0
.7,
C
V)
a
O
CO
n
N
O
CV
M
O
CC)
U)
0
0)
CO
00)
U)
U)
CO
U)
C
O
.0
a
O
a
C
O
U
v
a;
O
e-
8
C
U)
0
O
N
C
O
C
0
a
C
0
0
U
U)
f`0
O
2-
8
C
U)
0
N
C
O
C
a
0
0
C
0
U
N
0
8
C
n
O
0
N
N
(6
E
N
w
C
O
C
a
O
a
>
C
O
U
a)
0
a
8
C
ti
N
O
N
°)
(6
E
N
w
ti
N
O
N
ti
O
O
N
L
0
U
(6
LL
2
0
C
0
A
a
0
a
8
d
O
LL
0
O
0.
0
a
a
m
m
a
O
0
0
N
O
O
N
C
0
d
D
a
U)
Future Residential Development
ti
ti
0)
M
0
O
C')
N_
a�
C .2
U
A
LL
O
N
U)
O
M
O
u
N
O)
C
a
0)
co
0
M
r-
N
N
U)
co
r
(6
.0
a)
v
co
11)
N
LL
4)
c)
C
0
0
N
a)
C
O
C
Cl).
N
a
O
(Total Growth in County -Wide P.M. Peak -Hour Tr Ips, 2007-2027
Lu
H
0
Z
Trip Data - Page 2
0
U
O
o �
7
s-
a C O
O
Nc
N CN
N
0 0 i
O O
N C N
O N y
V L.
Ew o
0d°)
> N
a) (U
a)�L
N-
E N
CO •O N
CO O
CCL) C
E
d
0 O
y
> )
a)o0
a cN-
x'00
C C N
7 w w -
E C O
E .° a)
Oto E
O 7
C
o
U F-
a; 0'C
7 �(6p
.-• U
a
N
a E C O up
C CD
y
` C_ N CO 41
N
0 0 0 CO u
(/) aa
�ct-)
I-
L
N
O
U
w
6q
Historical SDC Expenditures (1)
Allocable Plant -in -Service for Reimbursement
0
Z
Unused Capacity of Assets Funded by SDC Expenditures. To date, the charge has not had a reimbursement fee component.
Unused Capacity of Assets Funded by SDC Expenditures
O
N
LL
N
O
N
LL
O
0
O
N
›-
U. LL
01
O
N
LL
O0
CO
N
LL
0
O
N
›-
U. LL
Construction Year
O
2
rn
O co
N O
CO
7 N
00 N
N Cr)
N
O
(V
r --
a) N
r
C)
C
:N
N
0
'C
0
O
L
f0
N
a
N
j N
N
U
0
o N
o rn
N c
w
N 8
.0 N
8
-
Q O
0. -0 N
Z m 0 1st
Q mce
0 0 N
0 O
Z Z u.
Existing Assets - Page 3
10 -SDC Model Trans 031308 DRAFT
J 31,742
31,059
43,047
L 0.0%
31,059
31,059
43,047
0.0%
W
30,390
31,059
43,047
e
H)
'
W
29,736 11
31,059
43,047
0
Of
O)
'
W
co
Ov
o)
CV N
31,059
43,047
e
.-
'
W
28,469
31,059
43,047
e
co
W
27,857
31,059
43,047
e
r
N
N
Improvement Fee Expenditures [Note A]
Beginning Trip Total [Note B]
Current Trip Total (FY2012) [Note B]
Ending Trip Total for Study Period (FY 2027) [Note B]
r% of Capacity Used by Growth to FY 2012
Cost of Unused Capacity
O
2
rn
O co
N O
CO
7 N
00 N
N Cr)
N
O
(V
r --
a) N
r
C)
C
:N
N
0
'C
0
O
L
f0
N
a
N
j N
N
U
0
o N
o rn
N c
w
N 8
.0 N
8
-
Q O
0. -0 N
Z m 0 1st
Q mce
0 0 N
0 O
Z Z u.
Existing Assets - Page 3
10 -SDC Model Trans 031308 DRAFT
a) eF _o Q) Q) N Tr IC) Q) Tr 1' 0 n Q)
FT a0
10 0 O .- N N h O 00 N0 .7 00 N
t OD In 1. M N h (C M
U
0
U) vi rs 69. v+ rs en vi rs E9 69 rn. 69 69.
SDC
Eligible
Cost
$ 279,490,589 I
co
N
Q)
Q)
o)
69
$ 166,559,339
$ 122,809,339
cn
to
O
O)
N
v+
$ 78,491,339
$ 70,921,873
$ 46,029,455
co
Q)
o
v
69.
$ 184,706,384 I
O)
f,D
h
N
o
_
69.
M
ODO
T
W
(D
o)
69
N
O
n
69.
N
O
N
N
M
to
69.
Transportation Components (1)
State Old Road Federal
Intersection Highway New Road (Existing Roads) Forest Bike / Ped Bridge
Alternative 1 100% 50% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Alternative 2 100% 50% 100% 100% 0% 100% 100%
Alternative 3 100% 25% 100% 100% 0% 100% 100%
Alternative 4 100% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 100%
Alternative 5 100% 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 100%
Alternative 6 100% 0% 100% Excess Capacity 0% 0% 100%
Alternative 7 100% 0% 100% Volume Growth 0% 0% 100%
Alternative 8 100% 0% 100% Capacity Increase 0% 0% 100%
Alternative 9 100% Excess Capacity 100% Excess Capacity 0% 0% Excess Capacity
Alternative 10 100% Volume Growth 100% Volume Growth 0% 0% Volume Growth
Alternative 11 100% 15% 100% Excess Capacity 0% 0% Excess Capacity
Alternative 12 100% 15% 100% Volume Growth 0% 0% Volume Growth
Alternative 13 100% 15% Vol. Growth 100% Volume Growth 0% 0% Volume Growth
Appendix C
SDC Presentation
Appendix C •:;> FCS G RO LII.
Ui
a
Presented by
John Ghilarducci, FCS GROUP Principal
(--."1 CD
cc
er
ccrr-1
r--4
0
c)
C
.73
cin
ct3
Co
00
0
(i)
fro 111,1,1 71'1
BEN'
010
.O
U
c
o -1--'
E
O o
> 0
O Cv
CZ _c
O O
- TO -o
Cv
C >
C13 O
ci
C�
CD • 0_
-4 1) —0 CO
LC3 cij
y --
U E
.
a)
E
a)
O
CZ
E
.
required as a condition of development,
.C/D
I 0 •
o o
•
,_ccy
0 0 a
cu
sa.4
Ua) Tij
ct
cip
is either off -sit
cf)
Cu
V
(/)
cn
O o
Qft
4)
E
C/)
� O
Q
a) t
(-9 . 14—) 41
V
� � O
O ct
(L)
Q Ticti
"54 4-4CIJC
V
Ct
E
(1.)
� O
"-(TiJ
cu 0
O
■
a�
4(1))
E E
cLi
D-.
r --a
(u
".0
U
cd
■ Future non-residential devel
th
oG
ca 1•-
a)
a.
N
O
M
u7
N
O
O
0)
M
N
Fa I-
aL.
•C 0
CO
H v
LL
75.
N
co
O
N
M
O
N
a
O_
O
N
N
N-
co
co
N
C
a)
a
U)
a)
Ir
T
ca
U
2
co
O
U)
a)
tY
C
0
a
C
u)
a)
a
U,
02
N
N
N
C0
r-
1.1 M
N
O
N
M
CM
U)
O
O
co
O
CO
o)
O
to
Co
C
O
N
3
a
0
o_
C
0
U
a
w
N
8 C
E
U,
O
O
N
C
0
Ca
a
O
a
C
0
U
a
0.
8
O
C
0
a)
a
O
n
CC
O
U
a
a)
O
8
C
0 C
ti
0
N
a)
co
E
N
W
N
N
O
N
N
a
0
`o
W
2
0
0
C
Q
0
a
Source: Deschutes County 2000-2025 Coordinated Population Forecast.
N 0
O)
M
O
re;
N
O
F
N
Q
C
a
Co N
CO
M
M
CO
C
t
0
N
a)
CC
C
O
CC
C
N
N
a
N
0
N
N
O
N
N
O
O
N
0
'C
H
0
x
Y
ca
a
a
a)
7
0
C.)
�C+
2
C9
0
I-
10
O
0
U
O
CA
C
O
Ca
0.
0
0.
N
N
O
N
N C N
45 O
.0 -0 S:
E W CO
a)L
aa)) C
> o
a) N
ECN
CO
O N
N N
m C
C (� )
a)
E .0 a
.� o
o )
a) >
a)av
a cn
>-'.C)o
C W
E o
c
E ,O
C E
0
�C
c
E E2 -c
CA
C
' o
cz58
a, )a)
a .E C
.6ai0
`_i uCi
C)0 cu
(I) 0)
N M
y
175
•
I
U
O
a_
CC1
1O
H
a�
H
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O N 71:
V N
L L O O O ch
l— N L N
Intersection
State Highway (initial list)
�cd �
O
r24 r24
O
Federal Forest
Bike / Pedestrian
f
ii
75, O
CD 4WD4—) ct ..84.O
r 1 be u ' ci • cpo
'o
°'
Ct
Q 4-1 v-1:1
CA
U ..
O ¢.., 75
a) U 7S 4.-J (/)
-2) x 4-i
1 D J 0 +C :2v ) cpc• n t I 3 75 2 7-: . 4-105-‘ cp
T—c: u 4—I cip L r i 1 t+,
0 v ,,
4.,
c) 0 V . ,n
c)\4..4 re, t_i_ip
..c _i__, . (4-4
7s
cd
F (4
O O • r-, 44-1
�-' p
2 =
ct _1772
a.ict 4.4 - V 2
V0cct
ct cam, VO tv0•v
V
O C,. O ccs
< ci) r7-1 . 717! 4'4 ,L.)
cn '� O 72) p 'p p v
0
V 0 V O °
E c� � iii ct --4
O
0 .—..0 r',11, (1.) CDT --1 4 cAC1") l-ri C/) 0 rii
O Cr) p
4-1 Cd ■ ■ ■ ■
< P-1 ,-I0 414
Cdn
a
4+,
SDC
Eligible
Cost
co
0
o
N
0)
N
e-
Cr;
CC7
6}
Transportation Project Types
Bike / Ped
U)
cp
'a)0
a)
LL
Intersection
0
0
0
CO-
69 -
0
C)69
0
O
0
C1O
CD
Cn
64
$ 25,431,250
$ 50,163,748
O
O
O
O
N
O
N
$ 175,000,000
0
0 6L}
O
O 69-
c,,&)
4
0
CD
M
M
CD
CO
O
N
N
0
0
0
0
0 N
O a -
O
N
0
0
69}
CD
O
Note: The above costs do not include Transportation System Management (TSM) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) expenses ($55,000).
4
0)
1,
ea
c
0
Co
"50
Co
0
^W
W
LL
""E"'
W
)
II
Peak -Hour Trips
e--
0) 0)
LC)
e --
Projected Growth
LO O
O_ LC)
Ln M
N
N
M
U)
de} 6F}
U)
U)
O
= 0
o v
a)
' o
L
V
ch
0 •Cl
LL
u- U C
i C a)
• E
C ▪ U >
> a o
o CO °'
ca.
U
E
1Y
cn
N
X
W
0
•
H
.y
as
CO
V
0
U,
$ 3,584 per DU
$ 2,200 per DU
$ 5,288 per 1,000 sq. ft.
$ 9,617 per 1,000 sq. ft.
$ 9,794 per 1,000 sq. ft.
$ 3,478 per 1,000 sq. ft.
$ 2,626 per 1,000 sq. ft.
Adjusted Peak -Hour Trips
1.01 per DU
0.62 per DU
1.49 per 1,000 sq. ft.
2.71 per 1,000 sq. ft.
2.76 per 1,000 sq. ft.
0.98 per 1,000 sq. ft.
0.74 per 1,000 sq. ft.
Customer Type
Single -Family Home
Apartments
General Office Building
Specialty Retail
Supermarket
Light Industry
Manufacturing
V 4/ `
Co r�
vJ
4++
4
'KY
C
0
C
a)
Units
LL
Cl)
KSF
KSF
u.
Cl)
DU
0
O
0
GD
g O
O
a)
GD
g O
0
E
Room 1
N
Q
Cl)
Q
N
2
Total
SDC
00
I,-
'A
MCI
N
N
U)
O
N
to
N
(O
N
N
M
N
O)
N
V
00
CO
M
W
O
O
N
N
N
O
t}
00
r
w
'Q
O
O
N
N
M
O
CO
w
d
0)
O
N
4*
00
f0
IO
,
w
0)
r'
M
w
O
1-
IN
N
et
N
N
Q)
w
Adjusted
P -H Ts
0)
O
0.86 I
0.74
CO
co
1-
O
r'
NO[)
(0
co
co
O
(
O
O
v)
a
`7
a
O
O
N
O
N
N
Pass -By
Trip Factor
F
Peak -Hour
Trips
CO
Q)
O
(0V
co
O
!'
I-
O
(O
N
O
O
N
(O
O
N
N
O
Cr)
in
O
Oa
CO
u)
n
*
O
Q)
O
0
N
O
'7
N
N
Land Use Description
!Typically less than 500 employees, free standing and single use.
Examples: Printing plants, material testing laboratories, data processing
,equipment assembly, power stations.
Industrial Park areas that contain a number of industrial and/or related
facilities (mix of manufacturing service and warehouse).
Facilities that convert raw materials into finished products. Typically
,have related office, warehouse, research, and associated functions.
'Storage Units or Vaults rented for storage of goods. Units are physically
separate and access through an overhead door or other common
!access point. Example: U -Store -It.
Single family detached housing.
'Rental Dwelling Units within the same building. At least 4 units in the
same building. Examples: Quadplexes and all types of apartment
buildings.
Residential Condominium/Townhouses under single-family ownership.
Minimum of two single family units in the same building structure.
Trailers or Manufactured homes that are sited on permanent
foundations. Typically the parks have community facilities (laundry,
!recreation rooms, pools).
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.
Lodging facility that may include restaurants, lounges, meeting rooms,
and/or convention facilities. Can include a large motel with these
facilities.
Sleeping accommodations and often a restaurant. Free on-site parking
and little or no meeting space__
County -owned parks, varying widely as to location, type, and number of
facilities, including boating / swimming facilities, ball fields, and picnic
facilities.
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.
lIncludes 9, 18, 27, and 36 hole municipal and private country clubs.
S�t
have driving ranges and clubhouses with pro shops, restaurants,
lounges. Many of the muni courses do not include such iauuues.
Customer Type
General Light Industrial
Industrial Park
Manufacturing
Mini -Warehouse
SF Detached_
Apartment
Condo/Townhouse
Mobile Home
Elderly Housing
Local Park
Regional Park
Golf Course
o I
2
0M
0
O
r
O
r
O
d
r
41
41
r
o
e.N
N N
N
N
O
N
N
O
N N
M
N N
co
el
M
O
N
M
'
-
; et
ti
r
V
a
M
V
M
C
V V V
01
O••
3 •
N
ci)
ca
J
C
0
w
Units
H
Q
Lanes
LL
Cl) Y
LL
Y
Student
Student
Student I
Student
KSF
KSF
Student
KSF
Members
LL
Cl)
LL
KSF
LL
Cl)
KSF
Total
SDC
co
N
V
O
N
M►
$ 12,5631
$ 20,442
O
N
co
Na
N
V
CO
CI1
w
N
M
N
w
N
01
V
w
CO
N
V
CA
N
V
M
W
CO CO
M N
V 01
NIS
n-
M► w
N
(O
-
I
N
w
(O
0
i-
w
CO
CO
N
N
CA
0
V
n-
(O
Mi
N
0
N
()
w
V
N
MCO
N
w
M
M
M
H
Adjusted
P -H Ts
N
)r
In
U)
M
(0
N
I()
et
(O
,-
0.28
It)
O
O
0.12
(0
(O
O
4.35
0.27
0)
O
N
0.03
0)
et
.-
M
N.
,-
3.72
tr)a:
r
0
Pass -By
Trip Factor
.-
m-
m-
N-
r
.-
r
M M
M M
O O
,-
,-
.-
,-
,-
Peak -Hour
Trips
N
N
If)
c�
1f)
M
CO
N
Ii)
et
CO
)-
CO
N
O
11)
.-
O
et
e-
O
N
.-
O
CO
(O
O
c0 N
• 00
m O
0)
O
N
0)
O
O
0)
eY
.--
M
N.
.-
N
N
M
,
0)
C)
-
Land Use Description
Multi-purpose recreational facilities contain two or more of the following
land uses at one site: mini -golf, batting cages, video arcade, bumper
boats, qo-carts, and driving ranqes.
Recreational facilities with bowling lanes which may include a small
lounge, restaurant or snack bar.
Privately owned with weightlifting and other facilities often including
swimming pools, hot tubs, saunas, racquet ball, squash, and handball
courts.
Recreational community centers are facilities similar to and including
YMCAs, often including classes, day care, meeting rooms, swimming
pools, tennis racquetball, handball, weightlifting equipment, locker
rooms, & food service.
Public. Typically serves K-6 grades.
Public. Serves students that completed elementary and have not yet
entered high school.
Public. Serves students that completed middle or junior high school.
Two-year junior colleges or community colleges.
Contains worship area and may include meeting rooms, classrooms,
dining area and facilities.
Facility for pre-school children care primarily during daytime hours. May
include classrooms, offices, eating areas, and playgrounds.
Public or Private. Contains shelved books, reading rooms or areas,
sometimes meeting rooms.
Includes a dub house with dining and drinking facilities, recreational and
entertainment areas, and meeting rooms.
Office building with multiple tenants. Mixture of tenants can include
professional services, bank and Loan institutions, restaurants, snack
bars, and service retail facilities.
Single tenant office building. Usually contains offices, meeting rooms,
file storage areas, data processing, restaurant or cafeteria, and other
service functions.
Provides diagnosis and outpatient care on a routine basis. Typically
operated by one or more private physicians or dentists.
Park or campus -like planned unit development that contains office
buildings and support services such as banks & loan institutions,
restaurants, service stations.
'sink h, iIr4ing nr rmmplex of buildings devoted to research &
development. May contain offices and light fabrication facilities.
Customer Type
Multipurpose Recreation Facility
Bowling Alley
Athletic Club
Recreational Community Center
Elementary School
Middle School
'High School
Junior/Community College
Church
Day Care
E2
J
Lodge/Fratemal Organization
General Office
Single Tenant Office Building
Medical -Dental Office
Office Park
(Research & Development Center)
a)
0MI
H L±•
1f)
M
V
N
M
V
M
Q)
V
H)
O)
V
t
0
N
N
N
N
H
O
CO
U)
O
aa
N
0
(O
1f)
a
Y)
(O
U)
0
Q)
N
i-
Q)
N
0
e-
N
N
a-
N
0
N
N
0
10
N
0
(O
N
7,1
LLI
O
•
W
F-
Units
LL
co
LL
co
KSF I
LL
co
LL
co
KSF
LLLL
co
a)
co
co m
a)
-J
LL
co
KSF
LL
co
KSF
LL
co
Total
SDC
0
.
P.
H
e
COP
w
$ 15,935
4.0
COCO
co
Q)
w
a—
co
0)
w
N
a0
w
CI
A
A
w
COP.
e}
M
.-
w
P.
N
N
w
CO O
Co
0)
w
$ 14,728
0N )
1:
0)
w
$ 52,525
*00
I.
O)
w
Adjusted
P -H Ts
N Ch
v
a
an°
N
n
N
v
N
,-
v
N
co
M
—
i.
N
4.15
2.76
14.8
2.751
Pass -By
Trip Factor
0.718
0
I.0)
d.
O
0.450
,-
C)
C)
O
—
a-
47
f0
N
O
N
00
(NI
O
0.327
Peak -Hour
Trips
N
Tr
3.87
N
N
O co
14.5
c
n
V
a0
C)
co
C')
(0
N
.—
4
10.45
52.41
CV
'a
00
Land Use Description
1Group of flex -type or incubator 1 - 2 story buildings served by a common
roadway system. Tenant space is flexible to accommodate a variety of
uses. Rear of building usually served by a garage door. Typically
includes a mix of offices retail & wholesale.
Small, free standing building that sells hardware, building materials, and
lumber. May include yard storage and shed storage areas. The storage
areas are not included in the GLA needed for trip generation estimates.
A free-standing discount store that also contains a full service grocery
dept. under one roof.
Small strip shopping centers containing a variety of retail shops that
typically specialize in apparel, hard goods, serves such as real estate,
investment, dance studios, florists, and small restaurants.
A free-standing discount store that offers a variety of customer services,
centralized cashiering, and a wide range of products under one roof.
Does not include a full service grocery dept. like Land Use 813, Free-
standing Discount Superstore.
Typically free-standing buildings with off-street parking that sell paints
and hardware.
Free-standing building with yard containing planting or landscape stock.
May have large green houses and offer landscape services. Typically
have office, storage, and shipping facilities. GLA is Building GLA, not
yard and storage GLA.
Integrated group of commercial establishments that is planned,
developed, owned, and managed as a unit. Provides enough on-site
parking to serve its own parking demand. May include non -
merchandising facilities such as office buildings, movie theatres,
restaurants, post offices, health dubs, and recreation like skating rinks
and amusements.
New Car dealership with sales, service, parts, and used vehicles I
Primary business is tire sales and repair. Generally does not have a
large storage or warehouse area.
Free-standing grocery store. May also contain ATMs, photo centers,
pharmacies, video rental areas.
Sells convenience foods, newspapers, magazines, and often Beer &
Wine. Does not have gas pumps.
Facilities that fulfill medical Prescriptions
Customer Type
a
a)
c
z
m
Building Materials & Lumber
Discount Super Store
Specialty Retail
Discount Store
Hardware/Paint Store
Nursery/Garden Center
Shopping Center
New Car Sales
Tire Store
Supermarket
Convenience Market
4811 !Pharmary w/n ririvp throuah
d
IL 0
H 0
O
n
I.
N
co
Co
r-
co
Ns.
co
N
1-
co
CO
co
1.
co
O
N
Co
co
co
V
co
O
in
co
%
N
co
ao
•
U)
N
cnJ
O
•
w
7
Y
KSF
co
KSF
Y
co
KSF
co
Y
Fueling
Positions
Fueling
Positions
Fueling
Positions
co o
Total
SDC
r00
I.
a-
1-
N
�F
N
W
31,764
co
Co
M
V
N
7,630
12,209
[; 24.630
v)
/0
N
M
441
12,705
0
H)
1-
N
r co
CO
H
N
O
Co
r
M
(00
t0
an
N
Adjusted
P -H Ts
CO
CO
0.07
8.95
Mu.,
N
4N
CO
6.94
a)
u
M
L 3.26
toCD.
C2CA
U7
5.54
Pass -By
Trip Factor
0.383
ts
It)
O
0.270
0
�
N
o
0.288
0.315
CO(0
N
O
ID
(0
N
o
U]
CO
CO
ID
CO
CI
o
N_
o
03
N M
o
Peak -Hour
Trips
[ND
CO
CD
O
LO
7
M
Vr
"�7
Nr
r
10.92
,
N
COO,
M
M
.-•CO
CO
CO
CO
i
CO
CO
to
U)
Land Use Description
Facilities that fulfill medical Prescriptions
Sells furniture, accessories, and often carpet/floor coverings.
Usually a Free-standing building with a parking lot. Does not have drive -
,up windows. May have ATMs.
Provides Drive -up and walk-in bank services. M y have ATMs.
High quality eating establishment with slower turnover rates (more than
one hour).
Sit -Down eating establishment with turnover rates of less than one hour.
Fast Food but no drive-throuqh window
Fast Food with drive-through window J
Contains a bar where alcoholic beverages and snacks are serviced and
possibly some type of entertainment such as music, games, or pool
tables
Sell gasoline and may also provide vehicle service and repair. Does not
have Convenience Market and/or Car Wash. J
Selling gas and Convenience Market are the primary business. May
also contain facilities for service and repair. Does not include Car Wash.
Selling gas, Convenience Market, and Car Wash are the primary
business. May also contain facilities for service and repair.
Allows manual cleaning of vehicles by providing stalls for the driver to
park and wash.
Customer Type
LPharmacy w/ drive through
Furniture Store
Walk -In Bank
Drive -In Bank
Quality Restaurant
High Turnover Sit -Down Rest.
Fast Food w/o Drive-Thru
Fast Food With Drive-Thru
Drinking Place
Gas Station
Gas/Service Station with
Convenience Market
Gas/Service Station with
Convenience Market, Car Wash
Self -Service Car Wash
a)
W 9
CO
0
CO
r
0)
N-
a)
.
0))
N
`Al
a)a
M
0)
At0
a
W
al
0)
V
0)
v.
O)
w
0
Z
N
a)
Etc
0
a)
N
to
f0
E
N
co
0
anC
>
an
N
a)
a
E
0
C)
>
•C
a)
N
E `o
a tS
co .�
v >.
c a
a7 H
co
c a
d
1 V)
a) 03
a a)
C
o C a)
.0 a) j
o c E E
'E o w V)
1.-
-13)
C a1— a)
r=•=w
C ° >.E w
>H a, o a)
o v) ,- a
fO� in
c 2
• 0
e - CO -(I) « N
c • E. o a w
c
N ,- '-o .� V d
4) co a) L 7
C C C o > y
'— C
E C C o a)
a) m v � v .om
C o Y V C: j 7
co - mY 0Ew
o a In 0 E • ▪ o E-' E
n m iS co a) v) . ;� u °
N .o a) L C N •C . C
y C C) .) E
->o.0° li
• ocE•Nc
1- a v >, c n v i '� -ori`+---.
c� H Q. 0 0)) i N=
° > ° a�
fn Et _Ym ° E• go
.) u
o a) co W .o ▪ C W-'-!
!nd0-= a co
Transportation Project Types
L
d
a_
d
(Existing Roads
c▪ o
O
d
z
Intersection
0
O
O
ori
C7)
r
toM
O
O
CO -
(0
u�
EA.
O
U)
M
d'
CC)
N
69
0o
Ccin
0
U)
$ 342,250,000
CA
CD
N
0
U)
CO
CO
CD
o o
Eft 69
6.
O O Q)
fA CA d
LL
$ 17,701,863
$ 17,701,863
0 0
N N
_
O O
N N
Eft
0_ O
M '-
rn
T o
U) r
E
N N
0 0
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
d
d
a_
d
N
O
u_
(Existing Roads
"o
ca
O
d
z
Intersection
0
O
0
CA
CO
t,9
O
O
co
0
CD
U)
69
O
U)
N
M
Cf)
N
Eft
(OD_ CSC)0
' 0
M
ER ER Ili
1.0
ER
vi
a)
vi
r=
N.N.cu
n.
in Lf) x
,. cu
N N _
'-
' C
.- .= F-
ER 69C
a)
Cr)
R1
0 0
"a
m
E
C)
C)
0 0 id
ER
n
i4
"3
4
:
fn
cu
cu
E
rn
Co
C
Co
2
E
to >.
Cr)
C
O
m
O
rn
C
U
C
O
C
O
w
O
C)
N
O
• ,._
.O.
O
z
0o M Cr)
n W co_O
.MO- O O
U)
U, U,
o o 0
co- co- N04
1- 1 -
N co• N
GR 4•
4}
$ 175,000,000
$ 26,250,000
N
V')
CD
N
CS
U,
1 c:1
Lo ul U)
N N N
O ▪ O O
U) U) U)
ER
Alternative 3
Iter
ti
U
Cfl (O I` CO
LCC)) CO OT OO
) M)
T
♦' ! V ! V / 00 00
M N (\ N
Eft
a)
N
0
Q
0
0
0
N
N
= 0 Cl)
C CD V CD CD CD 0 C
W
0
z
Charges shown are minimum SDCs for one single-family residence.
Currently under review.
r N
C)
O O N --
O) 00 d' O U) N
N- U M N N CO
M M M M N r --
69-
U)
MIL
W
0
Z
Charges shown are minimum SDCs for one single-family residence.
f!
$ 250,000
$ 250,000
$ 250,000
$ 625,000
$
1,526,650
_$ 1,829,691
/2
$ 30,000,000
$ 100,000,000
$ 11,250,000
$ 11,250,000
$ 11250,080
K
!
-
-
$ 7,250,0001
$ 625,0001
1 $ 481,250
$ 190,625
$ 484,375
I $ 390,625
$ _ _ 1,228,11
$ 318,7
$ 306,250
$ 1,406,250
$ 1440,625
$ 868,750
-- !-
E2»9
$ 671,875
$ 2,653,125
$ 325,000
$ 315,625
!!7}/
$ 6,125,000
$ 2.125 000
}%
-
�$ 305,330
$
365,938
)
$ 2,250,0001
\#
0
$ 2,250,000
$ 2,250,0001
$ 2,250,00)
I Subtotal)
$ 250,000
$ 375,0001
$ 300,000
$ 1,450,000
§!
,
.:§
&J,
$ 96,875
$ 78,125
$ 245,625
$ 63,750
,
$ 288,125
$ 173,750
$ 114,688
$ 225,000
$ 19,688
$ 102,500
$ 86,875
$ 90,625
$ 98,125
$ 134,375
4
$ 1,225,000
$ 425.000
`
k/
.
$ 200,000
$ 200,000 1
$ 200,0001
$ 500,000
$ 1,221,320
$ 1,463,753
$ 10,00
$ 45,0001
|
,
000`000'6 $
$ 24,000,00)0
$ 80,000,000
I000'000'6 $
000'000'6 $
000000'6 $
$ _ 1,500,000
$ 1,500,000
-
4
„
$ 1,200,000
$ 5,800,000
s 500,000
$ 377,500
-
-„_
$ 982,500
$ 255,000
$ 245,000
$ 1,125,000
$ 1,152,500
$ 695,000
000'006
0SL'95b $
$ 78,750
$ 410,000
$ 347,500
$ 362,500
$ 392,500
$ 537,500
$ 2,122,500 1
$
260,000
$ 252,500
$ 127,500
$ 437,5001
$ 76,250
$ 2,775,000
$ 4,900,000
$ 1,700,000
LCounty
Standard _
(
E
2 .
,�
.,
30
30
���
,,,
.
,
28
28
gym=,
,
,
30
30
28
30
��a;,a%°;%°;R;
„
,
,
;;
\|{
&\\
®
,
°®
*3,
,
w,,,,
,,,,IN
)
;°
Arterial/Collector
(!)
\!,§__
ƒ//!!
;
\%}
$$
County share to continue funding of Commute Options (per year)
Install regional ddeshare lots at various future locations
k
k
{
Principal Arterial
Principal Arterial
leuapv lle louud
leualit/ledtsuud
leualrylediouud
_,
`a
)§\w&5!
i
ttP
Oi
.'6.
®2)
,ems
&u3
Collector
Collector
1..,t�
:««t«!
a�,l,!
:3233
PS Collector
Collector
Collector
Collector
Collector
Collector
Collector
Collector
\)#f!]!#)
00000
!}4
f�--
Add turn lanes to Burgess Road
Add turn lanes to Old Redmond -Bend
Add turn lanes
Add tum lanes to Northwest Way
Install Roundabout 1
11
2f
!
grade separation
grade separation, realignment
grade separation, realignment
grade separation/roadway extension
grade separation, realignment
grade serration_
New Road
New Road
New Road
New Road
New Road
New Road
-2/! ,
I Widen & Overlay
Widen & Overlay - - - - -
Widen & Overlay
Widen & Overlay
Widen & Overlay_
'Widen & Overlay
I Widen & Overlay
Widen & Overlay 7
Widen & Overlay
Widen & Overlay
Widen & Overlay
Miff
000000
{\))))
LWiden & Overlay
Widen & Overlay
If
.0
))
'Widen & Overlay
Widen & Overlay
Widen & Oveda
Widen & Oveda
'Reconstruction/ widen and oveda
Reconstruction/ .ave
Reconstruction/ •ave
a
1Lccatev
Rural / South County Area
Rural / Tumalo Area
Rural / South County Area
Rural / North County Area
Rural/ Deschutes River Woods
IRural/Bend Area
Rural/Bend Area
I Demand Management (TDM) Projt
Countywide
Countywide
E
WICKIUP JUNCTION INTERCHANGE PHASE I
WICKIUP JUNCTION INTERCHANGE PHASE II
NSION
DESCHUTES MARKET ROAD
RODGERS ROAD
DESCHUTES MKT. RD.
SMITH ROCK WAY
6TH ST
DESCHUTES MARKET ROAD
HWY 20/ROBAL RD
i NW LOWER BRIDGE WAY
BAKER RD
1 NW COYNER AVE
[NW
ODEM WY. -NW ALMETER W`
NW HELMHOLTZ WAY
GENERAL PATCH BRIDGE
SOUTH CENTURY DR
TUMALO RESERVOIR RD
TUMALO RESERVOIR RD
COLLINS RD
HIGHWAY 20
'END MAINTENANCE
HIGHWAY 126
10.B. RILEY ROAD
[DESCHUTES MKT. RD.
HIGHWAY 97
I NE 17TH STREET
INW UPAS AVE.
COYNER AVE
I HOLMES ROAD
WARD ROAD
'UGB
I SW 58TH STREET24-26
FS ROAD #40
COMMUNITY BOUNDARY
I BURGESS ROAD
1 COLLAR DRIVE
HIGHWAY 20
`From 7
rection only)
Intersection
BURGESS RD AT DAY RD
OLD REDMOND-BEND HWY AT TUMALO RD
HUNTINGTON RD AT SOUTH CENTURY DRIVE
COYNER RD AT NORTHWEST WAY
BAKER ROAD AND CINDER BUTTE ROAD
POWELL BUTTE HWY./NEFF-ALFALFA MKT. ROAD
POWELL BUTTE HWY./BUTLER MARKET ROAD
(TSM) and Transpottatio
Projects (ODOT Projects with Cot
'QUARRY ROAD INTERCHANGE)
18TH STREET
COOLEY ROAD
TEND NEW ALIGNMENT, PHASE
WILCOX DR
MASTEN RD I
19TH S'REDMOND)
END OF BRITTA
irlg Roads)
\
MINNETONKA LN
19ST
MAPLE
PERSHALL
VANDEVERT RD
HWY 97
US 20
SHEVLIN PARK
OB RILEY
CITY LIMITS
KNOTT ROAD
HIGHWAY 20
HIGHWAY 20
HIGHWAY 97
REDMOND CITY LIMITS
REDMOND CITY LIMITS
NW HEMLOCK AVE.
MAPLE AVE
43RD STREET
BEND CITY LIMITS
REDMOND CITY LIMITS
SW HELMHOLTZ WAY
HARPER BRIDGE
HIGHWAY 97
SOUTH CENTURY
HIGHWAY 97
GROFF ROAD
Mena
Regional TDM Program
Rideshare Lots
/\\\\\\
COOLEY ROAD
HUNNELL ROAD
DESCHUTES MKT., PHASE I
CROOKED RIVER DR
L1NEW ROAD
9TH STREET EXTENSION
BRITTA EXTENSION
Improvement Projects (Exist
0
CINDER BUTTE RD
NW PERSHALL WAY
NORTHWEST WAY
NW COYNER AVE
SOUTH CENTURY DR
VANDEVERT RD
BAILEY RD
JOHNSON MARKET RD
TUMALO RESERVOIR RD
BEAR CREEK ROAD
CHINA HAT ROAD
CLOVERDALE ROAD 1
COOLEY ROAD
PLEASANT RIDGE ROAD I
N. CANAL BOULEVARD
NE NEGUS WAY
F$WI 35TH STREET
INW HELMHOLTZ WAY 1
NW LOWER BRIDGE WAY
STEVENS ROAD
SW OBSIDIAN AVE.
SW WICKIUP AVE.
SPRING RIVER RD
SMITH ROCK WAY
HUNTINGTON ROAD
MASTEN ROAD
RICKARD ROAD
3
!{§a:f:
!,,o.-
!»±2(=6,-,-,
f§66.tri
SDC Project List
cost
$ 2,000,000
0 0
O N
VI w
$ 2,525,000I
11, $ 2,500,000
$ 861,300
$ 891,000
$ 1,663,200
$ 657,360
$ 297,000
$ 312,500.
$ 1,187,500
$ 1,131,2501
N F.
rW
n
N
N
0
w
0 o
m
w w
N
42
M
NN
w
moui
w w
$ 15,000 I
$ 65,000
$ 28,500
1 $ 28,500
w
1 $ 38,750I
$ 105,000
w
w
$ 25,0001
$ 26,250
$ 26,250
$ 26,250
$ 125,000
e
N
voi
NO oi
CO
N
w w
1 000'00L $
000091 $ 11
$ 150,100I
I $ 250,000
I $ 687,500
$ 3,195,000
111 $ 279,545,589,
Engineering &
Administration
$ 400,000
0 o
mm
ww
$ 505,000
$ 500,000
$ 172,260
$ 178,200_,
$ 332,640
$ 131,472
$ 59,400
$
62,500
$ 237,500
226,250
vOi O
Nd
N
w
N
w
$ 825,000
$ 1,887,500
O
d
U1
O
N
wNvswwwwwwwww
o
w h
.-i0
o0
el CO
Ul_N
O O
_
N O
n .D
N]
rA N
N
wwlNwwww
N
NN
0 0 I
N
J
wm
I
SyC
$ 45,000
$ 316,500
$ 30,000
$ 30,000
$ 30,000
I $ 50,000
' $ 137,500
Subtotal
TOTAL
uogontlsuo3
I $ 2,700,000
11 $ 2,500 000
$ 2,020 000
11-$ 2,000 000
$ 669,040
r$ - 712,800
1 $ 1,330,560
w
w
1 $ 250,000
I $ 950,000
I $ 905,000
0
w
$ 3,300,000
$ 7,550,000
j$ 9,000
88
o
w N
$ 12,000
$ 52,000
$ 22,800
00
N M
w w
31,000
$ 84,000
0000
N
-
N w
$ 20,000
1
$ 21,000
N-
w
o
cM
m
$ 180,000
$ 1,266,000
$ 120,000
$ 120,000
$ 120,000
$ 200,000
g
oN
w
C
u°m�n
D o
h h hN
N
N N
N N
NN
28
28
28
N
r. -4,h
N
ap
w p
C
N
NNN
N
O N
N
V V
NN
'
N N
V P
N N
N N
d
N N
N N
�- N N
N
N
b,
N
V V
N
E
tao
LL
#
UUUU
�j N
V-
!!
Local
Local
U
p 8
Collector
Collector
Collector
Collector
Y
UUU
wu
00
N
9�xx
N
o R �0
U
m mC m
flE!
m o
`N
8
Local
Local
Local
Local
a
o C
v'
none
none
none
5 tons
0
$
y`
m
E v
u
r -
2
`o_
8
Reconstruction/ pave
I Reconstructionl pave
'Reconstruction/ pave
'Reconstruction/ pave
IReconstruction/ pave
Reconstruction/ pave
Reconstruction/ pave
i Reconstruction/pave
'Reconstruction/pave
Widen & Overlap
Widen & Overlay
Widen & Overlap
m
v
Widen & Overlay
Reconstruction
Reconstruction
I Proposed Treatment
115 sidewalk on east side only_
15' sidewalk on south side only
15' sidewalk north side only
15' sidewalk on north side only
15' sidewalks both sides
15' sidewalk on south side only
5' sidewalks on both sides
15' sidewalks on both sides
1 future 5' sidewalks both sides
15' sidewalks on both sides
15' sidewalk on south side only
4
-
10' sandseal trail
10' sandseal trail
10' sandseal trail and bridge
1300' stairwgy
-
n
E
y
New Bndge
New Bridge
o g a
m m m
3z zzzz
a
m
[To
[BAKER ROAD
HIGHWAY 126
LA PINE REC. ROAD
'SOUTH CANAL
11174TH STREET
END MAINTENANCE
I END OF PUBLIC WAY
I WARD ROAD
I HUNTINGTON ROAD
I RICKARD ROAD
l3T STREET
5TH STREET
HWY. 126
'HIGHWAY 370
BURGESS RD
SOUTH CENTURY DR
END CO. MAINTENANCE
a.
U
1 Riverside Avenue
Cook Avenue
U.S, 97
Wharton Road
U.S. 97
Cook Avenue
Cook Avenue
15th Street
15th Street
lath Street
400' south of A Avenue
South Community Boundary
East of Canal "H"
West end of east segment
West end of east segment
Forster Drive
C
u
L
N�
m
36.2
49.9
55.1
66.2
v
From
'SHOSHONE ROAD
LOWER BRIDGE
SOUTH CENTURY DRIVE
RODGERS ROAD
HELMHOLTZ WAY
LA PINE STATE REC ROAD
G05NEY ROAD
HIGHWAY 20
PINECREST LANE
CHISOLM TRAIL
NW WAY
HWY 97
WILT ROAD
NE NEGUS WAY
acts (primarily federal funding)
GENERAL PATCH BRIDGE
PRINGLE FALLS
UGB BEND
gdestrianProjects_
Bike Projects B Avenue
Wharton Road
1 U.S. 20
15th Street
Cook Avenue
,19th Street
Wood Avenue
Wood Avenue
11th Street
U.S. 97
U.S. 97
Central Ave
Trails/Other Projects
13th Street
12th Street
Riverside Avenue
West of Canal "H"
East end of west segment
r)
Road Name
BUCK CANYON
BUCKHORN ROAD
FOSTER ROAD
HUNNELL ROAD
TETHEROW ROAD
WHITTIER ROAD
WARD ROAD
DRIBBLING ROAD
I DEER RUN LANE
BOZEMAN TRAIL
ODEM MEADOW
[LA PINE STATE REC ROAD
LAMP POLK RD
17TH STREET
I Project
SOUTH CENTURY DR
1 BURGESS RD
I SKYLINERS ROAD
[Prioritized Other Bike and P
o N
K n
18th Street
7th Street
1B Avenue
18th Street
1c Avenue
14th Street
15th Street
A Avenue
,Smith Rock Way
C Avenue
11th Street
'Canal "H"
2
_
0
E Avenue
B Avenue
E Avenue
4th Street
Bridge Projects
Location
GRIBBLING RD
TETHEROW RD
NE 17TH ST
HOLMES RD
WILCOX AVE
CASCADES LAKES (Fall Rive
SISEMORE ROAD
"a
3
nvno
�
vmi
o
o, Q-
n
mm
J
a�
00
n$vniF,
,,N,
SDC Project List