Loading...
2009-60-Minutes for Meeting January 28,2009 Recorded 2/11/2009DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS 60 NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK CJ VII 20099-COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 02 11/2009 10:16:05 AM IIIIIIIII (IIIIIIII1.11I~II III 2009-60 Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page If this instrument is being re-recorded, please complete the following statement, in accordance with ORS 205.244- Re-recorded to correct [give reason] previously recorded in Book or as Fee Number and Page Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.orc MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 28, 2009 Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Alan Unger and Dennis R. Luke. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; David Inbody, Assistant to the Administrator; Dan Despotopulos, Fair & Expo Center; Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Nick Lelack, Kristen Maze, Tom Anderson, Peter Russell and George Read, Community Development; media representative Hillary Borrud of The Bulletin; and ten other citizens, including Suzanne Knapp, Policy Advisor in the Governor's Natural Resource Office. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1:35 p.m. 1. Central Oregon Steelhead Recovery Planning Efforts. David Inbody gave a brief overview of the project, and introduced Suzanne Knapp. Ms. Knapp explained that the public comment period concluded at the end of the year after extensive outreach efforts. She then gave a PowerPoint presentation detailing the reason for the project, along with the scope and future plans. (A copy is attached as Exhibit C.) These are not regulatory documents. Plans were developed collaboratively, and were based on sound research and science. All of the participating groups agreed on how the plan would be implemented. Commissioner Baney observed that the County cannot simply delist a fish without concurrence of other areas where the fish is still considered endangered. Mr. Inbody said that the County is working closely with Community Development and the Road Department to clarify current policies to identify potential risks, and will have that information available in a few months. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 28, 2009 Page 1 of 11 Pages 2. Discussion of Destination Resort Mapping. Kristen Maze said there are two questions: take off map and change; what process to determine which properties should be mapped. A table was put together with the alternatives. Stakeholder and public meetings have been held to help refine this discussion. Commissioner Luke said that it might be easier to eliminate pieces off the mapping as the first step; these are parcels that Ms. Maze said they would have to wait thirty months to make a second set of changes, per legislation. Commissioner Baney asked about the Measure 49 takings issue. Laurie Craghead said that they do not qualify as takings, but the basic question is whether a destination resort is a residential use. At this point, the thinking is it is not residential, so the Measure 49 issue would not kick in. However, this is not known yet. It was thought to be a way to provide income to the area. Commissioner Baney stated that it is possible for people to buy properties and combine, to change the use. Commissioner Luke said there are properties that are resource or other uses that will never be able to become a destination area. Ms. Maze said the minimum lot size is 160 acres, but does give a disadvantage if you wanted to combine properties. Ms. Craghead said that there are destination resort developers who have no residential component, just a hotel and other recreational amenities for tourists. Those developments would not require a lot of acreage. Ms. Maze observed that she has heard over and over that 160 acres is too small to work. Keith Cyrus of the Planning Commission said they have had this discussion more than once. The big stumbling block is to find people who are willing to give up their resort overlay. Some of this is in regard to the Measure 49 issue. The ideal scenario is that people give up their overlay and release it officially. If it was a five or ten acre subdivision, someone could buy it all. However, it would be difficult to do this. There are situations where someone could expand an existing resort if adjacent properties have the overlay. There are 112,000 acres now mapped, but that takes in a lot of subdivisions that probably would not be able to do anything. He would like to eliminate those first to make the overview more realistic. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 28, 2009 Page 2 of 11 Pages Commissioner Baney said if some of the people in a subdivision sign a release, this would automatically exclude the adjacent properties. Commissioner Luke stated that they are not eligible anyway since they already have residences on them. Ms. Craghead said that the Board dealt with a cluster development application and this situation was different. Commissioner Baney stated that there appears to be no way to know for sure how many of these there are. Ms. Maze said that mapping alternative #3 says that; that notices be sent out and if they do not reply, they would be excluded; if they did and wanted to be kept on, they could be included upon approval of the Board. Commissioner Unger stated that the comprehensive plan process might end up adding to the map. He wanted to add a #5 and address the mapping through this process. He wants to see in the end that they have predictable uses of property, including consideration of the roads, water and other aspects. Ms. Maze said that the problem is if someone wants to come in and go through the process, they have to take it through the decision-making process. There are two bills in the legislature right now, the Metolius and one taking some resort language out of statute and putting it in goal, saying that destination resorts are not a residential use. This would take the Measure 49 aspect out. Commissioner Luke stated that they are placeholder bills at this point. He said he does not know anyone who believed a Jack Nicklaus golf course would be built in the middle of dry land and that sales would be as strong as they were. Things can change and these changes cannot always be anticipated. Commissioner Unger said there are other concerns, such as the amount of water. Commissioner Luke stated that is not for the County to consider; this is for the developer to prove. Ms. Maze said the second part of the table shows how to make these decisions; where do these make sense. (She referred to the alternatives at this time.) Commissioner Luke said that licensed professionals are used to determine traffic and other impacts. It would be no different if the County hired these people, but they could eventually end up working for the resorts. There are always going to be gray areas. Ms. Craghead stated that Peter Russell reviews traffic impacts already. Mr. Russell stated that this is a multi-stage process. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 28, 2009 Page 3 of 11 Pages Ms. Maze said that the process is incomplete in regard to handling the amendments over a thirty-month period of time. The other part is how to judge them. If an applicant comes in with a text amendment, the County will have to judge and make a decision. Mr. Russell asked what could be taken out - a predeveloped subdivision, a deer migration area, and so on. Commissioner Luke said why not take them all off and they have to respond to be left on. Most people do not know what the standards and minimums are. It does not have to be a difficult process. You then see who wants to be left on and deal with those individually. Ms. Craghead stated that the potential impacts are not known, especially in regard to Measure 49. Ms. Craghead said that there is no affirmative requirement or obligation for someone to respond to the County. Mr. Russell stated that if they are less than 160 acres, notice could be sent out and those properties excluded. Commissioner Baney said that this takes away their opportunity to ever apply in any circumstances. Mr. Cyrus stated that a lot depends on the Measure 49 aspect. Some of the earlier neighborhoods that do not have high value homes could be wiped off and come back with a development plan. There are a lot of thing that could be done to generate open space and start fresh. He could envision something like a fairgrounds or RV park or similar use. The ideal situation would be to have people voluntarily release the mapping. Commissioner Luke said that some have to be taken off to map any more. There is already too much acreage according to many people. Tom Anderson stated that if everyone could voluntarily be removed, it would solve a lot of issues. Ms. Craghead clarified that in the two tiers, they get something better in tier one due to size, closer to infrastructure, etc. Commissioner Baney said that most properties are not good prospects for that. The County would not change the map but consider the potential one differently. They will have more hurdles. Commissioner Luke suggested they go with #2; Commissioners Baney and Unger would like a hybrid of #3 and #4. Perhaps all that are less than 160 acres should be notified that they are going to be removed. They would have to file a formal request to be left on. Most of the people on smaller parcels will not care. The likelihood that some will file a Measure 49 claim is very remote. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 28, 2009 Page 4 of 11 Pages Commissioner Luke asked how much would be eliminated if this was done. Ms. Maze said it would be about 80%. She asked if during the remapping process someone wants to be mapped, they will have to know how to do it. They would have to add lands at the same time to avoid a thirty-month process. Commissioners Luke said it is clearly not just the land, but also the location. The process would have to allow adequate time for a response. Commissioner Baney stated that they could send certified letters to those that do not respond one way or another. Mr. Russell asked about parcels that are big enough but not already mapped. Commissioner Luke said that a notice could be sent to every property owner with the tax bills in the fall. Commissioner Unger asked how the property ended up on the map. Mr. Russell said that everything that could possibly be mapped was done at the time. Commissioner Luke stated that anyone who wants to be mapped is probably paying attention to what is going on. Commissioner Baney stated that they still need to be notified in some manner if they are not already mapped. Mr. Kanner stated that those who own large parcels of property will have an opportunity to come to the County and ask why their property is not included. It will be put out for input. Anyone who is aware of Oregon land use law and has a large tract of land is probably going to respond if they are interested. Commissioner Luke said there should be hearings before the Planning Commission and the Board as well. Mr. Cyrus said that some may decide to combine properties. Eagle Crest was originally eight parcels. Commissioner Luke responded that at some point in the future someone could request to be added to the map if they do combine properties. Commissioner Unger added that he would like some predictability to land use and know what might be coming. Commissioner Luke said that no one can predict the distant future. Nick Lelack said it is not just the thirty- month window. If the legislature moves this into the Rule process, they could change a lot of things. The County should act quickly to give opportunities to property owners. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 28, 2009 Page 5 of 11 Pages Commissioner Luke said he would have a real problem with Salem doing land use for Deschutes County. He likes the public process, which is for the most part overlooked if this moves to Salem. Mr. Cyrus stated that he wants to be sure the Commissioners are aware that he has a potential conflict of interest because of his personal interests in land use. The Commissioners stated that he is very fair and open and clearly knows how to separate his individual opinion from those of the Planning Commission, and that he is at the meeting today for his own interests. Commissioner Luke asked that Ms. Maze come back with a plan. Ms. Maze asked which property owners should be notified. Commissioner Luke stated that staff can talk about these options. Property owners should be notified that they may be removed. Mr. Anderson stated that the cost to do a notification to all of them could be high. Commissioner Baney would like to limit it to 160 acres and less. Commissioner Unger would like to do the same. He does not think there are that many. Linda Swearingen stated that if 160 is used they would get over 90%. Ms. Maze agreed. Commissioner Unger said that the notification should be sent to everyone who is mapped that their property could be removed. Ms. Craghead said that statute requires a procedure to do this. Commissioner Luke said there would be a schedule for mailing and hearings. Ms. Craghead said that the portion to include properties has to be done at the same time. Ms. Maze stated they need guidelines for the second part as well. Mr. Lelack stated that procedures have to be defined as to what properties might be added. Mr. Maze stated that some of this will be complex and controversial. Commissioner Baney feels that this might eliminate some opportunities for mitigation. Commissioner Luke said that choice "D" is what is in place now and has been relatively effective. Commissioner Baney would like a hybrid of choice "C" and "D". Commissioner Unger said that is should be a recreational facility and may not have a golf course. It could look like the fairgrounds and have a water park. It is hard to know what it might be. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 28, 2009 Page 6 of 11 Pages Ms. Maze asked if she should meet with stakeholders to work this out. They may be able to come back with some refinements and know what might work. Ms. Craghead stated that the stakeholders need to include more than just the property owners. Ms. Maze replied that this would include opponents to development as well. Mr. Lelack said that Sunday's Oregonian will have an article about destination resorts, and it is not known yet what it will say. He was interviewed for it, though. Commissioner Luke observed that the people in the valley feel that Central Oregon is their playground and do not want things to change. Commissioner Baney emphasized that the process needs to be as open as possible so the proper decisions can be made. 3. Discussion of Funding Request from Sunriver Chamber of Commerce. Dennis Smeage, Executive Director of the Sunriver Chamber of Commerce, gave an overview of funding needs for 2009, which they expected to come from COVA. The COVA Board did deny this, however. He asked that the County fund this directly instead of through COVA as it has been done in recent years. Dave Lewis said that COVA and the Marketing Alliance were not able to come to an agreement; the Chamber had no say on the funding and has had no representation for more than a year. Half of the funding that was to go to the Chamber was being used for other things. They wish to expand their hours of operation as well. He does not understand why COVA does not see the importance of what they do. Most communities have this resource, which is funded by the cities in large part. Mr. Smeage said that property managers sometimes have a rack of brochures but more than that is needed to be a real resource. Commissioner Luke stated that EDCO and the Chambers would say that a lot of business end up in this area after visiting the area. Those who are visiting Sunriver will not go to COVA for information. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 28, 2009 Page 7 of 11 Pages Dave Kanner said that he had a couple of concerns regarding the fact sheet. One question was whether they would be open seven days a week. Commissioner Baney stated that a visitors' center should be open on the weekends when visitors are there. That is different from a Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Smeage said that they lost funding a year ago and were unable to do both. They also lost the ability to handle some of the events that helped with their funding. They are looking at the cumulative effect of not having half of their budget anymore. They have to decide how to survive as a Chamber and be a visitors' center as well. Mr. Kanner asked about the number of inquiries, which averages about five a day. Mr. Lewis said they do not have a counter on the door. Some people come into the foyer and not the rest of the building, so those cannot be easily tracked. Those who do not directly engage staff are not counted. Mr. Kanner asked if the membership has been asked if a visitors' center is important to them and feel should be in place, rather than being just a Chamber that develops and supports businesses. If they feel it is a priority, whether the members would help with funding. Mr. Lewis said they surveyed members last year and some indicated it is a viable function. The Chamber board feels that the visitors' center is important to put a face to the business community. Commissioner Luke said that it bothers him that COVA changed the rules without telling the County. They were not to pull the funding. He would not have voted to put the money into COVA if he knew at the time they would not forward the appropriate amount to the Chamber. COVA indicated it would look their records look better and would provide consistency. He feels that a Chamber in that area is more important than other locations. Mr. Smeage said that they are trying to be good stewards, but it is hard to survive with a limited number of members and businesses. They want to be the face of Sunriver and need to make it more than just a Chamber. The members want to see public outreach. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 28, 2009 Page 8 of 11 Pages Mr. Lewis stated that the request for $30,000 is based on a budget analysis. They included an arbitrary figure to try to recovery some of the funds they feel they should have gotten from COVA in the past. Their normal funding is $2,300 per month but the request is for more to make up part of the funding for the months they did not receive any. Commissioner Luke said that a discussion needs to occur at the Chamber as to what should be funded, tourism activities or Chambers. Commissioner Unger stated that Redmond Chamber is not open on the weekends but brochures and information are available all the time. He does not understand why the Mall is taking over some of the activities normally handled by a Chamber. It does not sound like the various groups are talking to each other and there may be duplication of efforts. He would like to see a work plan of some kind with benchmarks on who handles what and how funding would be used. Commissioner Luke stated that the new mall owners are more involved than previous owners, in an effort to increase business. Commissioner Unger said there needs to be accountability at COVA as to where the funding is going and for what. Mr. Kanner said that the COVA board authorized a 15% reduction in their budget. They project that revenue will be down that much and possibly more. They cut about $100,000 from their advertising budget. Instead of $30,000, perhaps this should also be cut by 15%. Mr. Lewis said they need about $6,000 a month to operate. There are other revenue sources, such as membership dues and an annual dinner. Mr. Kanner said that the Chamber has operated in good faith and drew from reserve funds to keep operating. However, transient funding is down. Commissioner Luke stated that he would support $25,500 at this time, but looked for recommendations in this regard. Commissioner Baney added that there are many things at play, including a variety of entities that offer services of some kind and they are not on the same page. Mr. Smeage stated that the local businesses have no representation except through the Chamber. The other groups are property owners or the mall that may want to support their own plans that do not benefit these businesses. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 28, 2009 Page 9 of 11 Pages LUKE: Move that $25,500 be provided to the Sunriver Chamber for operations between now and June 30, from funds 160 and 170. UNGER: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. 4. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules. None were discussed. 5. Other Items. None were discussed. Being no further items addressed, the meeting adjourned at 4:25 p.m. DATED this 28th Day of January 2009 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. /f 1~~/ t- Tammy Baney, Chair K Dennis R. Luke, Vice Chair ATTEST: Recording Secretary Alan Unger, Commissioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 28, 2009 Page 10 of 11 Pages Attachments Exhibit A: Agenda Exhibit B: Sign in sheet Exhibit C: Steelhead Recovery Plan Presentation Exhibit D: Destination Mapping Alternatives & Testimony Exhibit E: Letter from Sunriver Area Chamber of Commerce Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 28, 2009 Page 11 of 11 Pages Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 28, 2009 1. Central Oregon Steelhead Recovery Planning Efforts - Suzanne Knapp, Policy Advisor, Governor's Natural Resource Office 2. Discussion of Destination Resort Mapping - Community Development 3. Discussion of Funding Request from Sunriver Chamber of Commerce - Dennis Smeage, Executive Director 4. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules 5. Other Items PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), pending or threatened litigation; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherivise indicated. Ifyou have questions regardinga meeting, please call 388-6572. Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. I~ o 06 ~ x a N , 4 0 N ~ • 3 d n V I Ll O cn w oo v _ .9 Y z w o w > ~ r zo 4 4 W W F.ci,M~3tM 71 o M° i°~ n CD t -Q, LO r2. u m cx0 ~ s LL aaj M U) "I A~v r CJ~ N a ° o G ad o • rn , Q o U o. a Q, -It 0 a~ tY N PA N ~ c m r nM 1i ~ ~ ;3 o w a~ ce o -c %0 M (xi w F. z N V\ v t~ W w O p ~ R ril W 00 C:) NI r ' N t~ O Lr) a: o X N O C7 cn w h r r r vl s 5 TL Q V7 ~ p CLl' ~ Q J ~ ~A M z j 0 0 w u L? w U) w oo .9 W Q R; ~o F. ~ tz. ~ C .0 ` ! a A ~ `o L L- V; c0 ✓ s ~a 0 a s s N J U i X F. w r _ f I ~r t • ~ • ti • r , a L ! ! r M ~ ff • r • • 1 ~ f A I r 0 2 U O 0 .C) h c/3 E O :5 c O w 0 > 75 0- O 0 0 E JC O c a U 1 Q 7C3 _ ^ o longs E :g cc), -C ~ .I■. O a W c c C3 N C3 U Q O N ~ ~ d O O V N > O O O (D.0 [/1 O O N ~ 'd ~ w ~ Cl O t p I m ~ Cp ; C U ~ C,> "O O ca cO N > S, C O = 5 N D O > cum O V (l)73 01 C C H c0 'O N - N p 'ES s 2 Cts E 30- -A 99 X, N C _O N C_ N CL C~ N C c6 N C N > N_ V ~ d O C N N C CL LL O y Q N ~ Q O 0 Z f- O 3 c U a Q~ cu - L N CO) 'O :3 7a5 (D C V W ) 'o o N ca (D a c > a o 2 v 3 y 1 5 .2 w L ° U c U - ~ y (D rn ~ ~ ILE m `o ~ " E L 10 ~ c6 v) O :3 O Z O 4- U C O V ti,_ N a O o w V J! N ~ > C UCU) U) (D d) (D t w.• "O O 3 "O_ c a 16 N t s (D 3 0 cc 75 Cc .0 m O 85 La) CL ` c ' C Q CL - O (5 U) L Cc 0 c- .0) A 0 ~ .0 -0 C- Q L c 0 o co D 4 v .6 Cc o c O° rn rn C a co rn o CL - OC ~ o V5 O O F- - a cn O 4 a a W = ;U 0 0 -o w Q D n 0 H o 570 CD (D ~ (D. Q M fD 0 c a O Q 0-0 O 0 3- 0 0 0 Q 0 o CD o C o CD CD c° < M Q CD (D m o 33: 0 M 0 CD 0 0 0 Q 0 CD = 3 O Q CD -0 Q CD ~ NQ CM=' D_ : 3 n Q 3 > C O C D CD -'-0 • Q< O m r Q n G7 a - CD CD < (C) (Q C. 3 ° Q Q c c~ = o 0 Q Q Q ~ < -0 0_ CD < ~ V ^ 3 ? ~ 3 CD < D CD 5' CD CD 0 CD 3: 07 -:2 a~ N o a CCDD 3• a 03 C< N= CD C Q 3-0 ~ m C ga 3 Q o ) m N N m N a= Q-0 m3 Q O Q y® C a Q Q Q - 0 o. O,• (D < N (D a 0 C Q O p vC Q C N ° CD o Q (Q O 3 Q. Q O < Q(Q (D Q N w D' 0 07 CD CL' Q N o N Q -0 N - z;l 0 3 3- C a a 0 (Q Q m m 3 O° N Q Q 0 CD Q Q ca 3 a _ a 3 (D D a Q Q (Q Q n° O Q O 3- -0 Q CT CD (D N ~ n 0-. (Q N-0 3 - CD m 0 C(CDD N (Q CD CD :3 cr (D Q CD < (Q c° Q Q Q Q ~D D (0 Q -0 < p~ AO (Q CCDD 0= (D (Q j c a 0 C Q Q =.r CD D CD (Q CD O (0 0 0 0 0 ~D Q C Q c p O N. 0 a - Q U 0 C_ Q a 3 Q (N Q a 3 Q a o m m Q Er (D O CD Q :3 ~ 3 3 0 p N o 0 (Q (D CD < CD CND ? (D 3 N -0 3- x Q n x a Q -o CD -a a Q a (D - Q_° a Q_1) Q ° o Q CD l(Q C)_ (a Q-- 0 CCDD CD a 3 `a^ o ' CCDD Q Q Q O Q Q_ (Q 0 H:;: Q X 0 0 Q 3 a cy- O a-o a 3 Q -O Q CD :E CD = p f ~D Q3 ~Q QCfl~ QX0QN 3- Q_ t2 CD Q m o ~ c. CD =a Q ~Q ~ C CDD-0 o NQ -~-a Q,O Q~~ mQQ < 0Q CD 3 :3 ~mQ-< m _ m g c CD N 3 0 a Q Q Q Q Q Q j Q 3 3 C 0 Q Q_ _ G CD a O (D ° N -O a c 3 O fl CD 0 .Q a Q Q 0 (Q CD ° CD - x• Cl mo Q Q CD O C 3 0 CD N O Q U' 3 M Q CD :3 CD =3 CD OL CL 0 =t f. ~g m- Q (D CD CD C) D CD 07 3 n Q CD O Q 3 0 3 (D N ((DD 0(0 c Q- 3 0 0 Q.° ? ° Q-5D- ° m Q o °°-Q Q 3 m n D ~ a o~nm = cr 3 Q c CD O Q . cD 3 Q Z' CD N (D a p' 3 Q 7 CCDD (Q a CD 07 3 3 p 3 (S ~ Q 3- Q 3- - Q (p CD O Q Q (Q 3 Q Q N Q (Q c a O Q 3 Q: O n a (a c 3 CD C C 3. O S cr - Q < 0 Q 3 a QcKQ m o Q CD N'(Q cl z Q <Q p D ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CD OO p Q Q_ a ■ ■ ■ O CD ~ ~ ~ Q~ Q n C(D Dno ° n ~•'-Q O non a o o-0 C Qm30 3c < 0 0 33 (DQ = (D a O Q (D < (D T C CD (D C Q Q 3 p n n in + M Q •Q CD '0 CD CQ 0 CD Q o~ cD m CD s? a~ Q Q °c Q D ~ a m ~ o 0 m CD j-ao Q Q CD Q Q Q' 3< aCD (D 3 Qo(D = Q 3 0 Q 0 :3 Q N N N Q CD Q T A- R, a O o CD - ;a CD CD - N- o Q CD ~ o N 3 Q- Q a o Z5 Z5 0 0 o m o °<Q CD o p (D (D DQ o o`o Q 3 t7m p o° 3~ Q CD Q a a° 2Q m Q m o ° N M 07 CD CL _0 (D 3 ? Q 0 j Q Q Q M CD Q< CD ?r < Q CD CD a (3 O Q (D 3 N N 00 CD Z (D < Q Q- 3 Q _0 < CD• Q o 0 CD Oy N C -0 N• a cc 07 O N CD o D-Q o Q N o _DQ 3'0 CD ~Q ~CD 0 C 3 0 (D CD (S N Q CD - 3 CD CD 3- O CD Q ( a -o a CD - _ 3: O N CD CD - Z) (D a 0 CD o m o 3 m o 0 Q (D~ 3 a 3 < c Q Q a- a Q Q_ p = CD o• ~0 4 0 0 CD (D C) 0 -0 3 060 QC CD 00 c cM-ooD 3=' o- CD CD 70 (Q o Q N CD 5• Q N CD Q o a Q CD CD C O Q 0 O'er Q Q- c 3 :7 N n Q 3 3 Q N Q 73 :3 o =3 O Q Q Z O CD a (9D Q Q Q Q_ CD 3 3 57 D ° = a 77 o N N CD CD (p 5 GUMML1 1 0 d $ g B ~ ~ ~ v a g C f ; s o c 0 •c m a o a po o c o CD o o CD 30 o Q 607 CD Q CD 0 D M 0~ 0 c° <D 0 m ;u D-~ Q< M Q C 3~ Q m cy- c ? 3 c ,C CD 0~ oT o o3 0 3 a 3 C 3 •a to m o3 Q 3 m H o° a wQ rnT= o-0 0 3 Q'33 c 3 ~ Q ~(D o .3 Q wa c Q O m 4 Q CD ~ o 00° =o O? 0 D- 0* 0 0 3 Q m 54 3 n H~ p o 3 :3 0'm n n m :3 3 CD fl 3-Z = N Q'• n rap<CDD°cx ~3700 ~ mQ ~~•~0 0 Z0 oo/~I~ 0Q 0 ~Q s 3a CDC ~Q.m3 Z~ M`~ _C° ~ (.~3 cD Q 3 Q-~ 3 - CD 0 C.3 a o 40 0 a 3N 0 3~ a CD m Q o= -a3 ~ 0 0 = 3 2 C1 w V w H p 3 n O O a N 0 ? 07 c 0 0 3 CD 3 Q O y 3 O M CD < p' Q o aCD. C Q Q c c c v w a ' CD O Q ao o< zy Q (<D o CD? Q Q Q CO CAD ° Q c Q' CL ;r ~ Q a a o -0-3 m Ny H (DD 3'3 CDC 0 c CD ~~n ooQ- (•D Q ° C a o ` (D N o Q_3 C :.o x m CD o c 0g?-0 0 CD m °~rt3oo_, o0 X N~~3 C. O oo' C a m :E CD R N 0° -o Q Q p o (Q 3 a c< Q o 3 Q 0 0 0 :3 (Q 0 Q o c= m m =s n m 3 3 c~ cQ Q (Q C ° 0 H 0 °O °o Qn~~ smm O:c ~n ~~O CDm°Q m°•Q(Q Q~• CL N~~ O G CS N< CO D 3 N Q 3 N (D CD 3. 3 m ca 0 C(CDD m CD CD Q (ND C Q O N O p Q N D 0* 0 3 3 C v.' CS Q Q Z CD Q c CD N 3 < 3 0 CD c m zO=0o 30.Q CD 739=. 3°<<~ ~3QQQ c o Om c 0 CD QCD o (C Dn(MDCD ° 0 <0-(D3O QoQ3(D n 3CD C 3 c 0 (D 3: Q Q a Q Q 3 3 Q3?Q c m QQCDN~~• Q0 0 a° ma o ~CQ C C c 3 c C (D 3 0 0 07 a o Q 5' N 0 7 0 Q 3 Q D- CD Oz (Q - Qm0 0 CD CD o n(D~ CD cr 3 Q ° acn CD ~0 Q O Z C O 0 c~D 0 5' 0 O \ CD Q a c• C) - Q 0 < Q N D 0 Q~ Q ~ 3 Q a fl o'c D- 3 m Q Q o Q a z N N 0 C C CD Q CD N O CD ? (D CD CL (Q = Q:3 CD . 3 03 ~ + CD CD :3 CL - (D N a CD oocument Reproduces Poorly (Archived) Eut_ Li~t_d ~y_ci.a vu~ I~%r.~ery IJUrnuiua l~J Document Reproduces Poorly Wddle Cololnblo SOeaIMad Gape om - on o.m om o.so c oa om oao alo om om ~"c` ~p'l°~$c' as po ~`p3` va 1p F ~~iW {'P Oe Y' OJ~OO~ ~a~ J ~ M de O U,ccumant Repmducer, P004V NcNved), I ~ i ~,ri' V v:', Osctjmgnl (AmNvad) Community Development Department X11 f Planning Division Building Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Bend, Oregon 97701-1925 CC~MPteEHENSIVE (541) 388-6575 FAX (541) 385-1764 PLAN Lt"Pl,A F http://www.co.deschutes.or.us\cdd Memorandum TO: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners FROM: Terri Hansen Payne, Senior Planner DATE: January 21, 2009 MEETING: January 28, 2009 SUBTECT: Destination Resort Discussion DESTINATION RESORT MAPPING ALTERNATIVES At a meeting with the Board of County Commissioners on January 5, 2009 staff raised some alternatives for updating the adopted destination resort overlay map. The Commissioners requested that staff present the alternatives in table form and schedule a work session. Attached please find the table of alternatives. Also attached is an abbreviated checklist and point system document to clarify how that alternative might function. The relevant section of the Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) is quoted below. ORS 197.445(2) "In carrying out subsection (1) of this section, a county shall adopt, as part of its comprehensive plan, a map consisting of eligible lands within the county. The map must be based on reasonably available information and may be amended pursuant to ORS 197.610 to 197.625, but not more frequently than once every 30 months. The county shall develop a process for collecting and processing concurrently all map amendments made within a 30-month planning period. A map adopted pursuant to this section shall be the sole basis for determining whether tracts of land are eligible for destination resort siting pursuant to ORS 197.435 to 197.467" Attachments: 1. Table of alternatives 2. Abbreviated sample destination resort checklist and point system cn Q~ u p cri O a~ ,Oy a~ Q c O vi a) L = O O c a) fn L a) O C ^ L O O " O iiC Q N N OU N cu ~ O N E =S C a) p C O ^^L'' E -0 M C M m 0 Cl) a) ~ -0 E p 7O.-% pN a) E C U a) a) Q- m O O Cl) 3: a) ca C > CL _0 _-o M y, O T C E CD C Co a) O a) O > cn L O 'U O N L 0) m > cQ L O E C O Q -0 cn 0 co Q L O a) U C a N C M L O N c L (D a) Zn V -C -0 0 H Q L- 0 c°~Q N O CU O a E a) ~ ate) Q 0E ~)cc 4-- CD Q Q E cc m cc -CE (D ~ L (a Cl) O _ > a O O Cy C. 0) OL C O U N CD O Q _CU 'a) C O m o= E U co X ca a) L U) m c L > 7 O c 0 L) U O O N 0 - c0 U 4- "a O a) U (B m E O a) cu 't co L D Z E ~ - O - co cu cu 0 L co ) U O)T L m E 2 "O O co CU Cc CU O (6 •c N 0 0 U S cn Q N CL -0 - , • 0.- , cu CD U) 0 4) 0 a) p 0) N cc 0 CC: cv ~m ma)C r QC cn ca N 4-- C L ~ E c6 p E per`' L p p a cn Q E ~o3°E a) E a) aj Q O cn Q "a c U) O a) CL cn a ) " ) a O U) C > O t co L U (D C U a) L -p O N O a) a) E O CU _ CD N Ei aLr U ~a)a)C U O~~UEpCC u Of>ocaU `T°o axivQEU ~Ev ` (D F O O O O C ' O E C E E ca E cu ~ 0 E C L >O _ L Qa)3 a U -0 .C .c a) U E O E O a) m CU p E AS O m 4- L-a Cl) co cu ~ > 5 N o c ~E p N~ 0 L f O CU -C c N p C Q- cu - L CL cn 4.1 a) O C a) U co can) E C-y ppa) O 0 c0 0 N t :E p ~ C O ~ C - cB _ N ' L Q O a) 0 ca E a)O O.U vii U E W~ Q>~ O U~ 4- (D L Q) N cn 0 m p a) 0 _ Q _ t a) a) E E C OO~ O co a) 0 3 a) L 0 4-~ a- 0 CD -0 C 3 ca O fB a) c c U) O 0 p N> O 0 a) a) . ca E L a) p p U) w Q- O - 3 L a) O 0-0 0 ~ Q 0 a) Q Q p) ca - O C cn a) - > a- C: 2 p L > U "p a) Q E p + v c- ca U - Fn N L C cn + -t x a) a) > c j , O c Co N a) p O O L- ca c U LO 0 Q n Z o E fa a L QT) CE a) o o ~C - a n(D c , w ~m a) co U ` Q .0 0 C) co 'aa3 0 E Q %L poCU E cQ .co N a) M ca O U > uQi v d ca ca b~ O .a a, 0 N t--~ H bA M i P-4 m v O ca i-1 O cn ~0~.y Q rn O 4- p 'C)) Cl) C M CO "O cB C O CO) ~ U L V) cn Qom' C O _ L C C m> E O a), O-0L .2 E cu 7. r- 2 O C QO N V) E E +r N L CO (a a) N N U Q-~ -OaCocaas a) N CL O C 0 -a a) N c6 C ca m O "O 3 O 0--a (a fB c'+r o > ca cu - - a) . o N -a o 3 ca t C a) U O a) V)U-0a) -6 72 >O =c m o75 ~ CL J= V)-2 -o Oa)000 0, ~ Q) O C cB c6 'p E cl) -a cu cu O -C-- CU Q U Cl) a) Q cu cn O Z O - a) U " c o -E o O O U Q~ cu 30 m ~N+ Cl) }r L CU N C "a (a O O U (6 C a) to CU CU a) M V N O L La) c E ca E_ 3: ~t ~c :3 cn c - 3 E 3 - cm a) a .22s E Qo ~E m(D~co~ a) ~ 3 O a) r C C C -0 O 3 L- a) cn O E a) -w O o Lo -0 0 -0U C (D a) CD E 2- L- M O -0 Q O C Q O O Q CD O O Q a) a) E Q O O M M~ U tm -O U) Cl) C p D- c a) -0 O C L Q o _ - a)oQO- ca m a) ~ L m ~E+ L Q L co O O C C O C O Y V) ~a).~~Ecls 2 U E O C Q O a) a) E N a) E 4- 0 a_ -2 > ~ :3 E n a) O Q ~ E U O'E L X a) Q . om -0 C -a) V c6 N a) 'Z O ) co a C C) a) c 3 a) O-C y.. = cn E O p O N %a- O1.N 4- O cu C 3 Y O U a) C L ~o L~ a) > = • C ~o Q'Eo C O C a) , E c ) C C O a) .Q b cv Ep ~ a)co a)~ 0 o~~ , a) 0 0 U C O) E -O C > c0 Cn C U c c L 3 0 ~ L::-, 4-a E i 4) L ~ (u fa M a) c a) . ; C Q O a U EE UU Ua) ~-7g Ec0) 2 cu a) a) cu a) - :3 c~c o cu ciao Q a) 0 :3 C U a) a) C U O m a) O C 4) O 4-- Q o Q a) U N Q O O 'O c cn ca m a) O O O O a) +r O q E a) +r CL O Q V) cu E > a) E c u a) a) N y. N cO) ca o f Q E O O U L > a) X •C U~ Q" fl. O L a C C O 3 a) Q o L T E : Cl D) o cu Q O ) Q> O Q E 4- cu O a) (6 Y > m~~ Q " c>E 4-- m -0 O C .a > C co a) ca cu > 3 O (B O - 00 N O . a) > a) N "O L a) Q O O U') CO Q E i L .5 ~ ~ ~ ~ cam ~ 'C E oo a)cO o.••,~~ o~cn Eo ocn•c ~ 1J a . is -a - ° a) o a. ~ o in Q E E a) a) Q O C ~ O N N Q U O U -0 C: to N C cb Q O a a) 0) a) N O M p O C O E= w O C c - cu a) Q -0 ca 0 E ca Q 0 o Q a)= _a Q U Qa) - 3 ) c a o.-. N 'a) :r > .4.1 m ~ L O ~ O o co 3 Z 0 U C 4m- C 4- a) ca o a) a) -a c o L a) a) > E ca 4/-~ •V E ~ = cn a) C: - •C 0 0 or a) O C o a) V) W O O X a) L a) C a) O O _0 N U a) co U U .Q a) OQ U a "C O O V) -O 4. -0 C L a) L a) ~ O cn v- f Q CC a) ~ a) V) > A~E♦♦ Q y m a) Z -0 a) U 0 L 0 E Q C A 4- V) I W ~ ° C a) ~ co a) 1 ( W a L L >o a) o a) Q 4- Q co CU 4- w V) L O a) a) L 3: • a ) T 5L o N L ~ U O U 4-. 0 ~7 ca O~ Q E ~E.C- -*E- O OD 2) U > m U 2) E a) 6 M c ~ - w ca v aJ ^^V O a O\ O I t- N N bOA 21 cn 0 'd Q) 14 U s.. O N t~ 0 Q M v D z Q w U) F- _Z O M N O I N ~ I U) F- Z O a w J m U) CL N CV) 'wt to (D N M a) O U co C D c O O (D E cn ca ~ U (6 ~ O :t:~ 0 = -0 0m U) F- f6 a) C) CU m E:! r.. Q U CU O -D F- U) m O = a? a) 4_. Q c U -O ` E :3 C O C U) Rf 0 CY U - c a) cu Q a 4) E c O O ca C.) co U) +y N N a) o W X O H O 25 CO F- 0 Q " E x z M O IL H Q o 0 ~ 0 co Co I m ~ .3 c`v a) Z ~ ° W a ~ C a c • ~ 'v o r- a) U Q cn c cn c v~ c o Q w m m Q ~ a) z W o ca a~ cn a) O o 0 0 E U co a L o o o c Z o o o LL LU Q i m " - O = a) c wn u~ i o LL m X X X o N c c c ~ un un cn o • E M w ap . F- N m m u w 0 0 0 + O c N Q V ~ ~ ~ Q O J Q i U J ED Z c6 m cu m ca m ~ o ~ 0 m a) X O ca cB co 0 co m U L u a m U U oo w-a F- F- Z Z Z F- N a ) v 44 '0 v W 14 U 0 N r-4 bA Tern Payne, Senior Planner Community Development Dept 117 NW Lafayette Ave Bend, OR 97701 Dear Terri: CEIVED Deschutes County CDD Jan 18, 2009 As a 35-year citizen of this state, I want to respond (1) specifically to the rezoning of two properties south of Vandevert Rd from F-1 forestland to F-2 forestland so they can be developed as destination resorts and (2) to the state's legislative 1980's destination resort rules in general which are outdated and pose a detriment to Oregon. I reside within 5 miles of these two properties and would be impacted negatively from the effect of increased traffic on county roads built to accommodate rural traffic if they were to be developed as destination resorts (DR). Along the same county roads we use to get to Hwy 97, and within a few miles north of these same properties, we already have destination resorts built (Caldera Springs being the most recent) plus a possibility of a third being created on 600 acres directly north of the subject properties off Vandevert Rd. If all these newly rezoned properties were to become DR, we would have 5 within a few miles or less of each other! ! One of the properties asking for rezoning is 99 acres and doesn't even meet the 160 acre minimum requirement for being developed as a DR. How many, so-called resorts, all making unanticipated impacts on roads, water, wildlife, and forests, does the county really need!!? Destination resort demands on our water resources are too great. I have personally observed a DR nearby create streams, lakes, and waterfalls where only high desert and dry landscape existed before with no natural streams nearby. Their total lack of conservation of ground water by pumping the aquifer as if it was bottomless strikes me as irresponsible. Other examples witnessed are their overhead watering of their new golf course perimeter berms all day, often during mid-afternoon on the hottest days of summer with some sprinklers "stuck" so that SW Century Drive becomes well watered instead!! This has been disconcerting and places unnecessary strains on limited natural resources as our groundwater is in the high desert. DR development of three of these rezoned properties would impact wildlife migration corridors. Highway 97 in this area north and south of Vandevert Rd for several miles has posted deer crossing signs where herds east of Hwy 97 try to get to the Little Deschutes River for water. Many residents county and statewide feel that DR land is primarily developed to create high-end primary and second home communities all with their own private golf courses rather than developments whose primary objective was supposed to attract and serve tourists and visitors. I strongly agree with DLCD's opinion that DR are more resembling residential subdivisions rather than unique developments for tourists. Already there has been public disclosure that several high-end "resorts" in Deschutes County have delayed their requirement to provide in a timely manner a certain ratio of hotel/rental rooms per number of residential properties developed. Clearly, these DR are taking advantage of the loose unenforced state rules and restrictions placed on DR development. As a conservationist and long-time member of World Wildlife Fund, the Wilderness Society, 1000 Friends of Oregon, and Friends of Mt Hood and NRDC, and a strong believer in preserving scenic value and natural resources, I want to take a stand against approving DR statewide until there can be adequate scientific studies conducted on the hidden negative impacts of DR and research on appropriate mitigation requirements for developing them. These impacts include: increased demand for public service, impacts on natural resources including water, wildlife, and forestland, and transportation demands and increased traffic on roads designed for rural use only. As we all should know by now, with climate change, one of the largest terrestrial stores of carbon are in our forests. Deforestation and degradation of forests contribute as much as 20% of all global carbon emissions more than any single source other than combustion of fossil fuels for electricity and transport. When government fails to protect our natural resources, then individuals can start their own grassroots campaign to accomplish what the government can't (this worked in Crook County, when a ballot measure was overwhelmingly passed to remove the resort overlay map). Many conservationist individuals realize that rapid growth in population and affluence with its waste of our resources (i.e., many unoccupied, part-time vacation homes in DR having to be heated all winter long and lawns watered all summer long instead of using xeriscaping, dozens of golf courses within miles of each other also watered all summer long even though they provide entertainment for less than a half-year in our harsh climate. Cutting down 100's of acres of forests only for second homes and interrupting wildlife movement corridors is short-sighted and a product of greed that only harms our earth and contributes to climate change. I believe each of us needs to play our part to try to make a difference to not worsen climate change. I will start by telling my elected representatives, county commissioners and county planners, and state agencies like the DLDC, Oregon Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Water Resources, Central Oregon Landwatch, and Oregon Department of Environment Policy that climate change and natural resource degradation is real and that unbridled, unregulated development such as DR has detrimental impacts and should be stopped. Deschutes County definitely needs to revamp its DR zone map and listen to its citizens. I was pleased to read in a recent newspaper article that many county residents attending community meetings regarding DR spoke- out overwhelmingly against DR. These same residents feel that county land use goals should be to preserve the county's rural character, scenic value, and natural resources. Our state and several counties in particular (Deschutes, Jefferson, and Crook) need to carefully listen to this growing sentiment of the public and not be so influenced by big developers who make a fast buck, but leave long-term harmful impacts on our land's resources. Several commissioners in these counties want DR so their county can reap the "benefits" from increased property taxes and room taxes, but I would like to see an official impact study of how the income from taxes earned for the county compare with increased expenditures of the county from having to upgrade roads, and improve infrastructure - i.e., schools, power supply, water supply, sewer upgrades, to name a few - to accommodate the demands of increased population and the impact of exuberant development. Sincerely, del Vx-( Donna M. Harris, DVM 55785 Lost Rider Loop Bend, OR 97707 cc: 1000 Friends of Oregon Oregon Fish and Wildlife Oregon Water Resources Central Oregon Landwatch State Representative, Gene Whisnant DLDC Director Richard Whitman State Senator, Chris Telfer PO Box 3246 Sunriver, OR 97707 541-593-8149 • 541-593-3581 fax info@sunriverchamber.com www.sunriverchamber.com January 21, 2009 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200 Bend, OR 97701-1960 Dear Board of Commissioners: Prior to June 2007, the Sunriver Area Chamber was receiving $2,345 per month from the Central Oregon Visitors Association (COVA) to help offset the expenses of operating a visitor center in Sunriver. With the formation of the Sunriver Marketing Alliance, this funding was reallocated to the marketing and promotional activities of the Alliance. Since June 2007 when COVA funding ceased, the Sunriver Area Chamber has tried to operate the visitor center at the same level of activity using funds from its operating, budget and reserves. Trying to do this for nearly 18 months with no additional financial support has resulted in a complete depletion of the Chamber's cash reserves and a significant strain on its ability to continue to operate. On November 25, 2008, we submitted a formal request to COVA for financial support of our Sunriver visitor center for the period January through June 2009. Our request was for $3,333. per month (current monthly operating expense of the visitor center) plus an additional amount of $1,667. per month to help keep our Chamber's doors open while we build up a positive cash flow from other sources over the next six months. This additional amount would partially reimburse our Chamber for the expenses it incurred in operating the visitor center during 2008. We have been informed that at its Work Session on January 15, 2009, the Board of Directors of COVA voted not to approve our request. Although this vote must be ratified by COVA's Board at its January 27, 2009, meeting, Alana Audette has notified us that she expects this to occur and the denial to stand. For this reason, we respectfully ask that the Board of Commissioners grant the Sunriver Area Chamber of Commerce $5,000. per month for the period January through June 2009 ($30,000 total) for the purpose of supporting the operation of the Sunriver visitor center. Prior to the County's regular budget cycle for the next fiscal year, we will reevaluate the cost of operating the visitor center and submit an appropriate request for continuation of this support. We sincerely appreciate your consideration of this request. r-lle-spectfylly, Dennis E. Smeage President & CEO DES/ Attachment V it J; 2 1 2009 BOARD OF CONIMISS!ONERS ADMINISTRATION SUNRIVER VISITOR CENTER What is the purpose of a Visitor Center? • To provide a full range of services which increase resident and visitor awareness of local, regional and state tourism attractions and amenities. • To enhance the quality of the visitor's experience, leading to longer stays and/or return visits and thus maximizing the economic benefits to the community. Who uses a Visitor Center? • Travel Oregon (Oregon Tourism Commission) reports in a 2008 travel study that 60% of U.S. adults use Welcome/Visitor Centers. 40% said they generally have the information they need prior to their trip but may stop at a welcome/visitor center for specific information. An additional 19% reported regular use of welcome/visitor centers to obtain travel information. • In a 2006 analysis of Central Oregon visitors conducted by Longwoods International research firm, if was found that 2.5 million people spent time in Central Oregon. Of these, 175,000 or 7% used a local welcome/visitor center for information and trip planning. This was the highest percentage of all sources of information reported. Why does Sunriver need a Visitor Center? • To provide visitors with an easy to find and accessible "one stop" center for information and assistance. • To act as the primary source of tourism information in Sunriver, thus reducing the duplication of information sources in Sunriver among tourism related businesses. • To enable Sunriver to offer consistent and high quality visitor information services 7 days a week with fully trained and capable staff and volunteers. • To ensure that prospective visitors get their information about Sunriver from Sunriver sources and not from neighboring communities. • To ensure that a visitor's first impression of Sunriver is a positive one. • To refer visitors to services and attractions that are credible and best meet their needs. • To make lesser known services and attractions visible to visitors, thus enhancing the tourism experience and increasing visitor expenditures. • To collect and act as a repository of visitor data that can be used by all businesses and other entities in Sunriver for purposes of planning, preparation and evaluation. • To survey visitor needs and desires as a way of identifying potential new services and attractions. • To help give Sunriver an identity with which visitors and prospective visitors can associate. What are the objectives of a Sunriver Visitor Center? • Greet and assist visitors to Sunriver. • Provide accurate, useful and high quality information about attractions and visitor services. • Promote local attractions, events and tourism opportunities which motivate visitors to stay longer and spend more money in Sunriver. • Collect visitor data to determine who visitors are, their origin, their specific destination, their activities, their length of stay, and their needs. • Provide visitor data to businesses in Sunriver to help them meet anticipated demand for products and services. • Encourage development of the tourism industry in Sunriver and educate Sunriver residents about the value of tourism and the value of a visitor center. • Answer mail, email, telephone and fax inquiries from prospective visitors to make sure they receive useful and complete information about Sunriver in a timely manner. • Motivate current visitors to make return visits to Sunriver and encourage first time visits by individuals and families. • Promote Sunriver to potential visitors by cooperating with its Regional Destination Marketing Organization (COVA) and by supporting its marketing efforts. What other services might a Sunriver Visitor Center provide? • Maintain an active and up-to-date web site that enables prospective visitors and residents to access comprehensive information about Sunriver, its attractions, events and services, and directly book lodging and recreational activities. • Facilitate the development of a Sunriver-wide marketing plan that would incorporate the efforts of all interested entities in promoting Sunriver to the tourism market. Tens of thousands of people visit Sunriver annually and the Chamber would help gather visitor profile information and trip characteristics information to aid in the building of a marketing plan that would influence these visitors to return to Sunriver with their friends and family, as well as refer Sunriver to others. • As a neutral entity that represents the economic interests of Sunriver as a whole rather than the interests of individual parties, the Chamber and its visitor center should serve as the hub of marketing activity for all of Sunriver. • Develop and disseminate a generic Sunriver fulfillment piece that would effectively market Sunriver, its attractions, services and family friendliness to prospective visitors. • Work closely with Sunriver Resort and Sunriver Village owners to complement their advertising and marketing programs with promotions that would strengthen Sunriver's attraction in the tourism market. • Manage and coordinate events in the Village to enhance the positive experience of visitors to Sunriver and to attract new visitors. 2 • Develop and implement promotional activities to support Sunriver businesses, especially during shoulder seasons. • Engage the Sunriver Business Park in marketing activities that promote Sunriver as whole. • Develop a trained cadre of volunteer "Sunriver Ambassadors" who would assist visitors and residents with specific needs. • Conduct periodic "welcome & orientation" sessions for new residents. • Coordinate a "welcome wagon" of volunteers who would visit new residents and businesses with information about Sunriver and offer their assistance. • Develop and provide tailored relocation packets of information that would encourage people to move to Sunriver. How has the Sunriver Area Chamber's Visitor Center operated so far? • The Chamber maintains a 1,700 sq ft Visitor Center in Building #5 in the Village at Sunriver. Located on Beaver Drive just a block inside the entrance to the Village, the Center enjoys good visibility from the street and adequate parking for visitors. • The Visitor Center has a spacious interior that permits the display of numerous brochures, flyers, booklets, maps and other printed materials that provide information about local and regional lodging, recreational activities, personal and home services, retail shopping and resources for both the visitor and local resident. A foyer outside the Center's entrance is open after hours and offers a selection of printed materials on the most popular attractions and services. • Signage for the Chamber's Visitor Center consists of an "Oregon Visitor Information" sign (turn next right) on South Century Drive, approaching the new traffic circle entrance to Sunriver. The Chamber's name and logo appear on the awning above the Visitor Center entrance and are visible from Beaver Drive. It is our Chamber's intention to secure Visitor Center directional signage at the US Hwy 97/South Century Drive interchange and within Sunriver on Abbot and Beaver Drives. • During the period October 1, 2007, through September 30, 2008, the Sunriver Chamber's Visitor Center processed the following inquiries and requests from visitors and potential visitors: Visitor packets requested - Oregon (other than Central Oregon) 198 Out of state 648 International 32 Relocation packets 238 TOTAL 1,116 Phone, email & walk-in Inquiries for tourist information (other than visitor packets) - Oregon (other than Central Oregon) 583 Out of state 540 International 3 TOTAL 1,126 • The Sunriver Area Chamber also maintains a newly-designed web site that features extensive information for visitors and prospective visitors. This information includes a daily events calendar, Sunriver and local area attractions, lodging, dining and other services, resources for current residents and people who may relocate to Sunriver, and a local business directory. During the six month period June 15 through November 15, 2008, there were 9,990 visits to this web site, 8,222 of which were made by people who live outside of Central Oregon. The breakdown of web site visits, by origin, is as follows: Oregon (other than Central Oregon) 3,669 Washington 1,443 California 1,180 Other states 1,790 International 140 TOTAL 8,222 • Prior to June 2007, the Sunriver Area Chamber was receiving $2,345. per month from COVA to help offset the expenses of operating the Visitor Center. With the formation of the Sunriver Marketing Alliance, this funding to the Chamber ceased. Since that time, the Chamber has continued to operate the Visitor Center at the same level of activity using funds from its operating budget and its reserves. • Trying to operate the Visitor Center for nearly 18 months with no additional support has resulted in a complete depletion of the Chamber's cash reserves and a significant strain on the Chamber's ability to continue to operate. Our request. • Currently, $40,000 of the Chamber's $125,000 annual budget is devoted to operating the Sunriver Visitor Center. We feel strongly that this cost should be borne by the entities that benefit from its operation. We think the use of Transient Room Tax monies would be an appropriate source for this funding. • The current cost of operating the Visitor Center is $40,000 per year, or $3,333 per month, and the Sunriver Area Chamber has depleted its reserves and dipped into its operating fund to finance the Visitor Center over the past 18 months. To enable our Chamber to continue operating the Visitor Center through our current budget year, we require funding of $3,333. per month for the six month period January through June 2009. To partially recoup our Visitor Center expenditures during 2008, we seek an additional $1,667. per month during this same period. This will help us replenish our operating fund and cash reserves. • On November 25, 2008, the Sunriver Area Chamber of Commerce submitted a request to the Central Oregon Visitors Association (COVA) for funding in the amount of $5,000. per month to support the operation of our Sunriver Visitor Center during the period January through June 2009 ($30,000 total). We have been informed that at its Work Session on January 15, 2009, the Board of Directors of COVA voted not to approve our request. Although this vote must be ratified by COVA's Board at its January 27, 2009, meeting, Alana Audette has notified us that she expects this to occur and the denial to stand. For this reason, we respectfully ask that the Board of Commissioners grant the Sunriver Area Chamber of Commerce $5,000. per month for the period January through June 2009 ($30,000 total) for the purpose of supporting the operation of the Sunriver Visitor Center. Prior to the County's regular budget cycle for the next fiscal year, we will reevaluate the cost of operating the Visitor Center and submit an appropriate funding request for the period July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010. 4 Sunriver Area Chamber of Commerce Annual Visitor Center Expenses - Projected 2009 Annual Visitor Percent of Total Expense Center Expense Chamber Expense Computer Rental & Maintenance 1,116.00 24% General Liability Insurance 500.00 22% Staff Salaries & Wages 19,200.00 34% Employee Benefits 192.00 10% Payroll Taxes 1,815.00 34% Postage & Shipping 2,670.00 69% Printing & Copying 750.00 35% Office Space Rent 9,209.00 67% Web Site Maintenance 675.00 50% Web Site Hosting 900.00 50% Office Supplies 1,000.00 67% Telephone & Internet 2,000.00 67% TOTAL EXPENSES $40,027.00