2010-2722-Minutes for Meeting June 23,2010 Recorded 7/2/2010COUNTY
NANCYUBLANKENSHIP,F000NTY CLERKS vu ~01~+~~~~~
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL
07/02/2010 10;47;43 AM
IIIIIII I 11111111111111111111111
2010-2722
Do not remove this page from original document.
County Clerk
Deschutes-
Certificate Page
If this instrument is being re-recorded, please complete the following
statement, in accordance with ORS 205.244:
Re-recorded at the request of to correct
[give reason]
previously recorded in Book and Page
or as Fee Number
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
MINUTES OF WORK SESSION
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 239 2010
Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke and Alan Unger, Commissioner
Tammy Baney joined the meeting later. Also present were Erik Kropp, Deputy
County Administrator; Tom Anderson, Cynthia Smidt and Eric Mone, Community
Development; David Givans, Internal Auditor; Judith Ure, Administration; Scott
Johnson, Health Services; Andrew Spreadborough, Central Oregon
Intergovernmental Council, and seven other citizens.
Chair Luke opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m.
1. Update on COIC Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy.
Andrew Spreadborough presented information on COIC's Comprehensive
Economic Development strategy. Judith Ure asked about the requirement for
separation of services regarding the La Pine Community Kitchen, relating to the
food bank and where meals are served. Mr. Spreadborough indicated that there
are strict guidelines as to what segments of the population are being served and
who is eligible. Even the parking lot cannot be shared. To do both at the same
location, the area has to qualify; or an income survey has to be conducted over
the course of a year. Therefore, the plan is to proceed with the food bank
program.
Ms. Ure stated that the County still owns land next to the Senior Center in La
Pine, but the Community Kitchen feels that the Newberry Business Park might
be a better location. This property is not owned by the County. There are four
properties that might work, and all are for sale.
Discussion occurred regarding decisions that must be made to determine what
the area's needs are and how to pursue them. They are in contact with a variety
of entities to work on programs.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Page 1 of 8 Pages
2. Update regarding Septic Upgrade Financial Assistance Program.
Tom Anderson updated the Board on this issue. A policy discussion was a
situation where a property owner (Mrs. Farley) had sought NeighborImpact's
assistance after her septic system had already been repaired. The Board had
asked for number regarding the potential pool of those who have had failed
systems back to 2008. None of the 29 received loans; two applied but did not
qualify. It is unknown how serious their situations were, but none appealed to
the County for help. Most have received the $3,750 rebate, however.
Mrs. Farley would have been disqualified at first because she was behind on
mortgage payments. Since then she would be covered.
Commissioner Baney stated that she is glad that there are those who want to
help. She asked what kind of programs might be available. Commissioner
Luke said he would not want to use the fund that provides the $3,750 rebate per
site.
Commissioner Baney sad that at the current rate, it will take some time for the
program to get into full swing.
3. Discussion of Next Steps - Destination Resort Study.
Nick Lelack gave some options as to handle this issue. (He presented a matrix
with these details)
Commissioner Luke asked what staff wants to see out of a study. Mr. Lelack
said they would like to see a definitive result and impacts. Commissioner
Unger likes the idea of a focus group. Commissioner Baney would like to see
the funds spent to get to the right result.
Commissioner Luke said that if an economic impact study were done at the
time Eagle Crest was developed, that would be valuable knowledge. The same
for Sunriver and Black Butte Ranch. It is all speculation.
Commissioner Unger said that he wants to know if impacts are being created
that can or cannot be mitigated. Transportation is one of them.
Commissioner Luke stated that at one time it was felt everyone benefited from
road improvements, but then SCD's were put into place. He asked if the things
that are not mitigated benefit the economy as a whole, and does that balance
with the potential negative impacts.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Page 2 of 8 Pages
Commissioner Unger stated that there is some risk of success to resorts in this
economy. They do not need impediments to this success.
The Board decided that a modified approach would be best.
4. Work Session Discussion - Bed & Breakfast Hearing.
Cynthia Smidt and Kevin Harrison said that a hearing is scheduled for June 28.
The Hearing Officer brought up two questions, whether the board and breakfast
is an allowed use and whether a shared well can be used.
Mr. Harrison stated that uses in EFU land come almost directly to the County
from the State. In 1991, the County adopted a bed and breakfast amendment,
acknowledged by the State. The use of a bed and breakfast to room and board
was changed about a year ago. It is basically the same use.
This application became controversial with a neighbor in great part because of a
shared well. The Hearings Officer feels that these are two different uses.
Commissioner Luke feels that room and board is something that might be
typical with a temporary laborer on a farm. Bed and breakfast could be a
shorter timeframe.
Mr. Harrison said the main differences in Code and State is that in the bed and
breakfast the stay is limited to 30 days in a 60-day period. A room and board
situation has no stipulation on stay. There is a limitation on meals that are
served in a bed and breakfast; no such limitation exists for room and board.
Commissioner Luke asked how they came to the decision that they are the same
thing. Mr. Harrison stated that the State has to acknowledge an ordinance.
There have been a number of instances over the years when the State has done
so. Ms. Smidt said that they typically used the most restrictive in each case.
Commissioner Baney asked what the applicant wants. Ms. Smidt said they
want a room and board arrangement, not necessarily a bed and breakfast.
Septic approval was obtained for a certain number of people already. Mr.
Harrison said it is sized by the number of bedrooms, and they have six. One
neighbor is concerned about the shared well.
The applicant wants to demonstrate that the use would be for a room and board
use. The first question is what the proposed use is. What comes up is the
ability of the applicant to use a shared well for this use.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Page 3 of 8 Pages
The Hearings Officer indicated that any approval could be conditioned to cover
all the issues. Either there would have to be a new signed well agreement, or
the applicant would have to provide a judgment showing the well can be used
for this purpose, or establishes a water source on the property. The other
property owner has said that this use cannot be accommodated by the water
system. Under State law, if it were to serve overnight visitors the State has to
approve it.
Comments from Environmental Health were received, and some testing would
be required and it would have to be a public water system. The neighbor did
not bargain on this.
Commissioner Baney said that these seem to be conditions that can be applied
to a decision. These matters seem to be more of a civil issue.
Ms. Smidt would also change the condition of approval if it were a bed and
breakfast and not a room and board (condition F). Mr. Harrison said they have
to find that the site is suitable for the use and is compatible with surrounding
land use. Operating characteristics.
Commissioner Unger asked what is felt to be reasonable. This would be more
like an extended family situation. Mr. Harrison said each property is different
and there needs to be consideration of impacts on other properties.
Commissioner Baney asked to see the language for both uses; what the
differences might be.
The 150-day time frame ends in mid-July.
5. Discussion of Temporary Restaurant Licensing.
Commissioner Baney said that she had a conversation with Scott Johnson and
would like to continue on the same path. Erik Mone, environ health.
The County is an agent of the State in doing inspections and must remain in
compliance. Some counties have determined that they will be more flexible.
Some legal issues regarding equity have come up. If there are six or more food
vendors, they can get a license for a month. If fewer than that, they have to get
weekly licenses. This will take a legislative fix.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Page 4 of 8 Pages
Eric Mone of Environmental Health said that statute for farmers markets or
Saturday markets requires a weekly inspection unless there are six or more
vendors; then it is once a month. They got pressure from the State to start doing
more inspections in this regard. Other counties handle things in a different way.
It is not fair that some counties do it one way and others do it another, making it
difficult for the vendors. He hopes that weekly inspections are not required for
the same vendor doing the same thing.
Commissioner Baney said that recommendations have been drafted to provide
to the legislature and a statewide committee. Health and safety are the priority,
but at the same time, the community needs to be supported. She asked that
some vendors who are putting on events present their ideas.
Eric and Sharon Sande of the Redmond Chamber came before the Board. Ms.
Sande said that they have had several vendors who cannot pay the County's fee.
Redmond charges $15 per event, but the County charges much more. The $15
helps to make sure the vendors will honor their commitment. They usually try
to get six vendors, but this year they only have four. Mr. Mone said that there
is a list of exempt foods that only require an annual license, such as popcorn or
candied apples. If there are six or more, they are down to a monthly license.
Commissioner Baney stated that there are questions about the cost of
inspections, and how is having six vendors safer than having four, if that is the
purpose. She feels that there needs to be way to support the community but
cover the costs involved. There are variations of inspections and products. A
carve out is that normally in the fee structure, the building, training and
overhead is wrapped into the fees. She is thinking that this is a small number in
relation to other things. Some vendors require more extensive inspections than
others do.
Commissioner Luke stated that it is not fair to other established vendors to ask
them to help cover the cost of vendors who may not even be local. The cost has
to be made up somewhere.
Commissioner Unger said that the initial inspection might require more time.
However, if they are doing the same thing all weekend or each week, it is
overkill to charge the same each time. An event fee might be appropriate, and
should be the same no matter where the event is held. The fees would be less if
they were consistent each time.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Page 5 of 8 Pages
Commissioner Baney stated that there are some behind the scenes work to be
considered. Perhaps the vendors or event to organizers can do some of the
expected work ahead of time, so they know what will be done.
Mr. Mone stated that if there are 600 temporary events, a third or less have
critical violations such as had washing, temperatures, etc. Those are corrected
on site or they do not stay open. Very seldom are they unable to comply. The
fees have been audited by the State to show the cost of doing business, and they
say the amount is justified.
Commissioner Baney does not want to see someone penalized just because
there are one or two vendors. Mr. Sande stated that if there are more than six,
the vendors do not make much money due to the competition.
Lee Perry with Laid Out Events said that in 2006 or 2007, the fees were $40 for
a booth, then went up to $80, and now are down to $70. They want to know
why the fees jumped so much. There are 35 vendors for the Bite of Bend and it
is felt that the fees are out of line. The restaurants cannot afford to subsidize
this expense.
Mr. Mone said that they inspect all restaurants, pools and other public locations
in addition to the temporary venues.
Mr. Perry said that he has been working on these events for about twenty years.
In recent years the restaurant vendors said that they might not be able to
continue due to the fees. It was not a problem prior to the fees being doubled.
Tom Anderson said that the frequency might be the problem. Mr. Mone stated
that once a month went to once a week for some vendors per State law. This
drove the cost up. He said that the for-profit vendors can get a reduced fee if
they are working at a benevolent event.
Commissioner Luke said that the County could subsidize, as the money has to
come from somewhere. Mr. Mone stated that there are different levels of
0
vendors. Someone handling iced drinks would pay less than someone cooking
food. Restaurants pay an annual fee but they can be open seven days a week
and are not inspected that often.
Mr. Anderson said that fees are averaged overall. They can sometimes isolate a
specific type of permit and narrow the cost. There are different fees for pools,
restaurants and other uses. They have a good idea of the cost of an FTE for
this. Some will require more work than others. He said that it appears that an
accounting is desired to figure out actual costs per vendor and event. This will
take some time to perform.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Page 6 of 8 Pages
Commissioner Luke said that it may not be fair to charge more to a vendor in
La Pine just because the drive is further. Commissioner Unger suggested that
the fee be reduced to $40 at this point, and work be done to change the law.
Mr. Mone said that a lot of times the temporary vendors require more time and
education. There are a lot of community events where food is served that they
cannot even get to.
Mr. Johnson asked if they are considering a reduced fee (Option A).
Mr. Perry said that a lot of vendors have paid their fees in advance. Mr.
Johnson stated that there would be a cost attached to refunding.
Commissioner Unger likes Option A #1, which would require some County
subsidy. Commissioner Luke asked if someone with violations would be
charged more. Commissioner Unger would like to keep it simple and work
done to change things at the State level. They want vendors to be available at
the events to help make the events successful.
A conference call with Commissioner Unger will take place during the
Monday, June 28 Board business meeting to discuss this issue further.
6. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules.
The Commissioners briefly discussed their calendars for the rest of the week.
7. Other Items.
Cindy Pasco of Project Connect said that a lot of volunteers are involved who
are not affiliated with agencies or are employees who are donating their time
outside of their normal work duties. Mr. Kropp said that the insurers and the
County might be liable. Ms. Pasco said that sometimes events are excluded
from policies in any case. A liability waiver is signed by each participant.
Mr. Kropp recommended that a volunteer be tied to a group, but this is not
practical. It is difficult for nonprofits to get event coverage. Also, it makes a
difference whether the event is held during weekdays or weekends.
Commissioner Baney asked if it could be moved to a weekday format, which
might help with insurance coverage. Ms. Pasco stated that a weekend allows
people who work during the week to participate, and it also allows volunteers
and families to participate.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Page 7 of 8 Pages
Mr. Kropp said that he has still not heard back from the insurance providers.
Commissioner Unger asked how this differs from the Fair. Mr. Kropp replied
that they name the County as an additional insured. The Fair event organizers
do this all the year. The nonprofit providers would be doing something that is
beyond their usual work. Commissioner Baney asked if this could be taken
under the wings of the County. Mr. Kropp said the liability would be the same.
The risk is unknown.
Being no further items addressed, the meeting adjourned at 4:05 p.m.
DATED this 23rd Day of June 2010 for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners.
ATTEST:
C
D nnis R. Luke, Chair
91441- 66-94--
Alan Unger, Vice Chair
(4vx~v~~
Tammy Baney, Com sioner
Recording Secretary
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Page 8 of 8 Pages
o
E>
N
y
L
T
~
I
~
r
'J
V
N~
~
,
~
Cam.
J~
~
I
I
Q
I
o
c
O
t
co
a
to
o,
y
o
I-
0
i
ca
n.
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, JUNE 239 2010
1. Update on COIC Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy - Andrew
Spreadborough
2. Update regarding Septic Upgrade Financial Assistance Program - Tom
Anderson
3. Discussion of Next Steps - Destination Resort Study - Nick Lelack
4. Work Session Discussion - Bed & Breakfast Hearing - Cynthia Smidt
5. Discussion of Temporary Restaurant Licensing
6. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules
7. 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 otherwise indicated.
If you have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572.
Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible.
Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities.
For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY.
Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information.
Community Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division
117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925
(541)388-6575 FAX(541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 23, 2010
TO: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners
FROM Nick Lelack, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Impact of Destination Resorts in Deschutes County Study Proposal
SUMMARY/BACKGROUND
On May 5, the Board conducted a work session on a concept to study the impacts of destination
resorts in Deschutes County prepared by the University of Oregon's Community Planning
Workshop (CPW). The Board directed to staff to discuss the study concept with stakeholders
and to bring back a proposal for consideration. In response, CPW submitted the attached
proposal, and staff consulted with stakeholders. Stakeholders generally expressed support for
the study, but recommended a slightly modified approach.
The purpose of this agenda item is to discuss the different approaches, and for the Board to
provide direction on: (1) whether to conduct a study and, if so, (2) which approach should be
pursued?
DISCUSSION
CPW Director Bob Parker submitted the attached proposal for the Board's consideration based
on the work session discussion. CPW proposes a phased approach that builds from a
stakeholder analysis and from a literature review in an initial phase (Phase 1).
The purpose of Phase 1 is to identify and describe the range of impacts of destination resorts
and make a determination about which ones to address in a more comprehensive study (Phase
2). Specifically, CPW's approach consists of the following:
Phase 1
Task 1:
Project Organization and Kick-Off
Task 2:
Stakeholder Interviews
Task 3:
Literature Review
Task 4:
Local Assessment / Focus Groups
Task 5:
Draft and Final Summary Report
The total project cost would be $8,000 and the timeframe is 8-12 weeks.
Quality Services Performed with Pride
Phase 2
Phase 2 would be based on the Board's direction at the conclusion of Phase 1.
Staff discussed the study proposal with Linda Swearingen, Erik Kancler of Central Oregon
LandWatch, Department of Land Conservation and Development staff, and others. A majority
of stakeholders expressed strong support for the County's initiating the neutral, third-party
study. However, a couple of stakeholders questioned the need for a study at all. They
explained that a lot of information is readily available, and they said the State's efforts to reform
destination resort law may lead to the adoption of a new resort model with a different set of
impacts than those studied in the proposed project.
Most stakeholders, whether they believed a study was necessary or not, generally supported a
modified version of CPW's proposal. Specifically, they believe Phase 1 of the study should
consist of CPW conducting facilitated "scoping" meeting(s) in a focus group format with
stakeholder groups to determine the specific issues that should be studied in depth in Phase 2.
As a result, CPW would conduct Task 1, and slightly modified elements of Tasks 2, 4 and 5.
They contend that the literature review could be more focused to specifically address the areas
identified for in-depth study in Phase 2.
Staff discussed the modified approach with Mr. Parker. CPW is amenable to this modified
approach. The cost would be approximately $3,500 and the timeframe would be approximately
6 weeks.
Table 1: Alternative Approaches to Impacts of Destination Resorts Study
Approach
Tasks
Costs
Timelines
1
Do not conduct the study
Not applicable
$0
Not applicable
2
CPW Proposal
1-5 in the attachment
$8,000
8-12 weeks
3
Modified Approach
1, parts of 2, 4, and 5
$3,500
6 weeks
4
Other (TBD)
TBD
TBD
TBD
BOARD DIRECTION
Staff seeks the Board's direction on the following:
1. Whether to move forward with the study or not; and
2. If directed to move forward, which approach should be pursued - the approach in the
attached proposal or recommended by stakeholders?
DRAFT
Scope of Work:
Phase 1 Analysis - Impacts of Destination
Resorts in Deschutes County
BACKGROUND
Deschutes County is home to several of Oregon's "destination resorts." Goal 8 of the Oregon
Statewide Planning system defines destination resorts as "a self-contained development
providing visitor-oriented accommodations and developed recreational facilities in a setting
with high natural amenities."
Heightened by bills in the 2009 and 2010 State legislative sessions, considerable community
dialog surrounds Deschutes County's current effort to establish a legislative process for
amending the County's destination resort map and allow, potentially for the siting of new
resorts. The public's dichotomous reaction to this project stems from, among other things, the
impacts of "legacy" resorts (resorts that were developed prior to the state siting criteria),
several approved and partially constructed resorts, resort litigation, and the economic
downturn.
Several studies examining the impacts of destination resorts exist-as well as a lot of anecdotal
evidence.1 Our review of these studies is that each served a specific purpose and looked at a
relatively narrow aspect of destination resorts. What is lacking is a study that provides a
comprehensive overview of the fiscal, economic, societal, and environmental impacts (both
positive and negative) and implications of destination resorts.
In March 2010, County staff contacted the University of Oregon's Community Planning
Workshop (CPW) to inquire about our capacity and interest in conducting research on the
impacts of destination resorts in Deschutes County. CPW staff presented a project concept to
the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners in April 2010. The Phase I work program that
follows reflects input provided by the Board and subsequent discussions with County staff.
1 These include an analysis of the fiscal and economic impacts by Fodor and Associates, a 2007 analysis of
employment and payroll generated by destination resorts by the Oregon Employment Department, and
considerable work on the issue by County staff as a part of the Destination Resort Remapping project, and several
studies by private development interests and non-profit organizations such as the Urban Land Institute.
Impacts of Destination Resorts in Deschutes County May 2010 Page I 1
PROJECT APPROACH
CPW proposes a phased approach that builds from a stakeholder analysis and from a literature
review. The purpose of the initial phase is to identify and describe the range of impacts of
destination resorts and make a determination about which ones to address in a more
comprehensive study. Such a study could evaluate many potential categories of impacts:
• Costs of services: transportation systems, schools, public safety and emergency services,
parks and recreational facilities, water, wastewater, storm drainage, libraries, etc
• Water and wildlife impacts: both direct and indirect
• Economic impacts: jobs and payroll-both direct and indirect
• Revenue impacts: taxes and expenditures
• Social impacts: impacts to public services, school enrollment, community events, non-
profit organizations, etc
• Travel and tourism impacts: Impacts to the travel industry
• Secondary impacts: Impacts such as economic stimulus, business development,
exposure, etc
The results of Phase I would mark a decision point in the project; CPW proposes to present the
results of the stakeholder analysis and literature review to the Board of Commissioners in a
work session. The intent of the work session would be twofold: (1) present the results of the
literature review; and (2) identify priorities for additional research (if any). The remainder of
this memorandum provides a more detailed description of the conceptual work program.
PROPOSED WORK PROGRAM
The Community Planning Workshop working under the direction of Robert Parker (Managing
Director), and Amanda West (Project Coordinator) proposes to complete the following tasks in
the Phase I analysis.
Task 1 - Project Organization and Kick-Off
CPW will meet by phone with representatives of Deschutes County and other stakeholders to
clarify the goals and objectives of the project and refine the work plan. We will review the
sequence of activities and the project approach and refine the project schedule. This meeting
with also result in a list of stakeholders to interview, key literature already gathered by County
staff, and a discussion of any easily accessible data sources.
Product: Kick-off meeting
Schedule: Week 1
Meetings: One in Bend
Impacts of Destination Resorts in Deschutes County May 2010 Page 12
Task 2 - Stakeholder Interviews
CSC will conduct stakeholder interviews with individuals identified by the County staff.
Individuals interviewed may include county staff, business owners, community leaders, interest
group representatives, and others. The purpose of the stakeholder interviews is to identify the
range of perceived impacts and the priorities for analysis of the impacts.
Product: Interview summary
Schedule: Week 2-6
Meetings: None
Task 3: Literature Review
The literature review would be a comprehensive assessment of academic and professional work
related to the impacts and implications of destination resorts. The product of this task would be
a memorandum that summarizes the literature, provides a bibliography of materials reviewed,
and describes the impacts of destination resorts based on the literature.
Product: Interview summary
Schedule: Week 2-6
Meetings: None
Task 4: Local Assessment / Focus Groups
The intent of the local assessment is to develop a refined understanding of what individuals
that are knowledgeable about destination resorts see as key impacts. The local assessment
would consist of four focus groups conducted during the same visit with representatives from
(1) the tourism industry; (2) environmental community; (3) resort industry; and (4) affected
agencies - e.g., cities, irrigation districts, Oregon Department of Transportation, Housing
Works, and Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council. The product of this task would be a
chapter in the summary report that summarizes the focus group discussions.
Product: Focus Group summary
Schedule: Week 4-8
Meetings: None
Task 5. Draft and Final Summary Report
CPW will summarize the results of the Phase I analysis in a draft report to the County Board of
Commissioners. The report will be submitted for review by staff. Staff will provide comments
within two weeks and CPW will address comments in a revised report within two weeks of
receiving comments.
Product: Draft and final Report
Schedule: Week 8-12
Meetings: One - to present findings to the Board of Commissioners
1- Impacts of Destination Resorts in Deschutes County May 2010 Page 13
PROJECT SCHEDULE AND BUDGET
CSC is available to initiate work on this project starting June 2010. We anticipate finishing the
project by September 30, 2010. Table 1 presents our proposed project schedule. The
Community Service Center proposes to complete the work described for a fixed fee or $8,000.
Table 1. Proposed Project Schedule
Task - Description
Schedule
1. Project Kick-Off
Week 1
2. Stakeholder Interviews
Week 2-6
3. Literature Review
Week 2-6
4. Local Assessment
Week 4-8
5. Draft and Final Report
Week 8-12
Table 2. Proposed Project Budget
Labor
Amount
Task 1: Kick-off
$600
Task 2: Stakeholder Interviews
$1,500
Task 3: Literature Review
$2,500
Task 4: Focus Groups
$1,750
Task 5: Draft and Final Report
$1,200
Subtotal
$7,550
Direct Costs
Phone (project specific long distance calls only) $100
Printing (project specific printing of reports, drafts, etc) $50
Travel (site visits and meetings with client $300
Subtotal $450
Total $8,000
ABOUT THE COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER
The Community Service Center (CSC), a research center affiliated with the Department of
Planning, Public Policy and Management at the University of Oregon, is an interdisciplinary
organization that assists Oregon communities by providing planning and technical assistance to
help solve local issues and improve the quality of life for Oregon residents. The role of the CSC
is to link the skills, expertise, and innovation of higher education with the transportation,
economic development, and environmental needs of communities and regions in the State of
Oregon, thereby providing service to Oregon and learning opportunities to the students
involved.
The CSC provides three service learning programs through which student participants gain
important service and professional experience by helping solve community and regional issues.
c` ? ISM Impacts of Destination Resorts in Deschutes County May 2010 Page 14
• Community Planning Workshop - Community Planning Workshop (CPW) is an
experiential program within the Department of Planning, Public Policy and Management
at the University of Oregon. Students work in teams under the direction of faculty and
Graduate Teaching Fellows to develop proposals, conduct research, analyze and
evaluate alternatives, and make recommendations for possible solutions to planning
problems in Oregon communities. The CPW model is unique in many respects, but is
transferable to any institution that desires to link pedagogy with community service.
Resource Assistance to Rural Environments - The mission of the Resource Assistance for
Rural Environments (RARE) Program is to increase the capacity of rural communities to
improve their economic, social, and environmental conditions, through the assistance of
trained graduate-level participants who live and work in communities for 11 months.
Participants assist communities and agencies in the development and implementation
of plans for achieving a sustainable natural resource base and improving rural economic
conditions while gaining community building and leadership skills.
Partnership for Disaster Resilience - The Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience
(Partnership) is a coalition of public, private, and professional organizations working
collectively toward the mission of creating a disaster resilient and sustainable state.
Developed and coordinated by the Community Service Center (CSC) at the University of
Oregon the Partnership employs a service learning model to increase community
capacity and enhance disaster safety and resilience statewide.
r,---j
,E Impacts of Destination Resorts in Deschutes County May 2010 Page 15