The URL can be used to link to this page

2010-2933-Minutes for Meeting October 27,2010 Recorded 11/16/2010DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL I I II III 111111111111111111 CLERKDS 11 ~0~0.7933 11/16/201011;38:21 AM Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page L 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 MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2010 Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Alan Unger and Tammy Baney. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; and, for a portion of the meeting, Judith Ure, Administration; Scott Johnson and Kate Moore, Health Services; Tom Anderson, Nick Lelack, Terri Payne and George Read, Community Development; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; and eight other citizens. No representatives of the media were present. Chair Luke opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. 1. Review of Proposed Application for School-based Health Center Capital Grant. Judith Ure gave a brief overview of the grant application. The portable building now used for the project is not adequate. Scott Johnson said that there are two possible scenarios - first, seeing if the Sisters School District would apply, but this will not be known until next week. The other is the County handles the project. Maximum funding is $500,000, and it would provide better and more services than now offered. Kate Moore stated that the County funded $25,000 for each site in the past. Lately Health Services has been funding part of the services now being offered. The property will be donated and it is a permitted use. Affordable housing and a senior center will be adjacent. The County would own and maintain the property as the operator, with the exception of janitorial, which would be handled by the School District. There would have to be a notice of federal interest, so the use of the building would have to remain the same for a number of years. They hope long-term to be able to provide mental health, senior and dental services at the same location. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, October 27, 2010 Page 1 of 12 Pages 2. Destination Resort Study Update. Bob Parker, Community Planning Workshop director at the University of Oregon, came before the Board. He summarized the information requested earlier in the year by the Board regarding stakeholder perceptions of destination resorts in this area. He said that they spoke with many people and will try to accurately report what he believes they stated. However, there may be those who feel that their comments were not entirely or accurately conveyed. They had focus group meetings and conducted expert interviews. The main topics were the pros and cons of destination resorts; prioritizing a list of impacts and included suggestions of the Board of Commissioners. Interviews included past, present and future of destination resorts, ideas about the benefits, concerns and recommendations regarding potential impacts. The Tourism and Resort Industry focus group pointed out the tax revenues generated, jobs, water issues, community separation, economic multiplier effect and habitat benefits. Environmental groups addressed water issues negative effects on fish and wildlife habitat, costs for mitigation of degraded habitats, and tax revenues. The same topics were brought up but the opinions were somewhat different. Potential metrics, or how to measure tax revenues, was based on annual property tax revenues from land within destination resorts. All conceded that tax revenue has a positive impact although some feel that the revenue does not cover the cost of services required. Water issues covered were the amount of water used, the cost of water and delivery, water quality, economic valuation of changes in surface water temperature, and changes in water use from irrigated agriculture to destination resort use. Commissioner Luke said that he does not understand the surface water temperature statement because discharging treated water to the surface is not used here. Merry Ann Moore stated that drawing cold water from the ground but replacing it with warmer water is the issue. Jobs came up with employment opportunities, both direct and indirect; and further breakdown of on- and off-site jobs by type (construction, permanent, seasonal, family wage, etc.) Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, October 27, 2010 Page 2 of 12 Pages Community separation means the number of part-time residents and full-time residents of the resorts; the distance of resorts to key services; and the percentage of destination resort employees who live within the resorts or within a certain distance of the resort (which could be less than the average commute distance for the area). The census database provides an employment dynamic that helps to determine this, but it does not give precise information. Commissioner Luke pointed out that Bend itself is a destination resort, about 2- 1/2 hours from major cities, but also draws from the region. Sisters encourages this as well. La Pine is also starting to encourage this type of activity. Mr. Parker stated that a challenge is to segment out the broader tourism issues from the destination resorts that might generate some of it. Commissioner Luke said that the City of Bend's population doubled mostly from annexing outlying areas. Tetherow is an urban type resort that is immediately adjacent. The economic multiplier effect addressed the input/output modeling of economic multipliers; business creation or closure related to destination resorts; and the number of jobs created by those businesses. Business creation or closure might include a golf course within the resort; but also the impact of competition for the same type of business elsewhere that might cause other businesses of a similar nature to fail. Commissioner Unger asked if others who talk about the economic multiplier are looking at the same kind of thing. Mr. Parker stated that he feels it is the same or similar. Impacts on fish and wildlife habitat was a concern, regarding loss and gain by destination resorts. Remaining habitat and the quality of that habitat is in question. And there is an economic valuation of the habitat. Commissioner Unger asked if Thornburgh Resort is included in this study. Mr. Parker said that the discussion was broad, and did not specifically address certain resorts. Commissioner Baney said she is struggling to figure out how to determine this impact. Almost 80% of the County is public lands while other areas may have a minimal amount of public lands. Mr. Parker stated the wildlife people felt that this appears to be more location-specific. When resorts come in, they disrupt wildlife corridors and it is important to know the impacts. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, October 27, 2010 Page 3 of 12 Pages Commissioner Luke observed that some people have grazing allotments and the cattle had been competing with the deer and elk. It depends a lot on how far you go back on the history of the property. A resort might have less of an impact. Some people feel the impacts are occurring but are not being mitigated by the resorts. The focus groups asked for information on existing legacy resorts; better evaluation tools - how resorts are used; a case study analysis - how other resorts perform; better accounting; documentation of public purpose; impacts to public facilities and services; consumer expenditures (up to $300 per day per person); and comparative employment analysis. Alan VanVliet of Jeld-Wen said that there is a way to compare some resorts in other areas to those in this area. Often the resorts that make the best sense are those sited near ski resorts. Mr. Parker stated that there are models based on the aggregate, as not every person visiting will have the same impact. The environmental focus group recommendations were to require resort impact studies; create a classification scheme for resorts; evaluate the potential for smaller resorts; evaluate whether existing resorts are meeting the intent of the State's Goal 8; require plans for potential failure of resorts; and document the impacts. There was a lot of talk about the value of smaller resorts, which might be the future. They would address the smaller markets with less environmental impact. Nick Lelack stated that the State is evaluating this. Commissioner Luke said that the DLCD asked ODOT to address rules for transportation, but feels that it is not being handled as they feel it should be. He thinks they need to talk to each other more. The resort focus group recommended involvement of a broad range of community interests; classifying resorts; allow resorts closer to the cities (this is now 24 miles from a population of 100,000 or more); continue planning for additional resorts; and consider best practices, which would consider what other places are doing to mitigate impacts. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, October 27, 2010 Page 4 of 12 Pages Expert interviews were conducted. These people are knowledgeable about the business and/or impacts. They felt that analysis is needed to compare tax base improvements with the actual cost to the County that is supporting the destination resorts. The best data on economic impacts would come from current resorts and localized data instead of a national data bank. There was disagreement in the interviews as to whether the national data is useful at a local level, especially in regard to transportation and other infrastructure. The economic benefits have to address build/no build since there is nothing to which one can compare a destination resort. Commissioner Luke said that communities used to put in infrastructure because it benefited everyone, but now people want to see system development charges. For example, if you come in to where I am already, you need to invest more to be there yourself. Mr. Parker stated there are cross-generational issues as well. This is extremely complicated and there are a lot of things that are impossible to determine. Destination resorts should not be the only economic opportunity that is analyzed. Opportunities for smaller resorts should be examined. Destination resorts should provide a bonded exit strategy to minimize County risk. Commissioner Luke said that the problem the County has faced mostly deals with the rental units. This is not a problem with the residences. The County cannot build if a developer fails. Mr. Parker stated that there are economic impacts beyond the resort itself. Dave Kanner added that few homes were built at Pronghorn thus far, but all the infrastructure is in place. If it failed, it is still creating impacts but not paying its way. If a bond has to be a substantial amount, it may keep resorts from being built. Commissioner Luke asked if this would also impact a developer of a subdivision. Mr. Kanner stated that the difference is the type of land that is used. Commissioner Unger said that the Inn of the 7th Mountain changed hands a lot but now appears to be viable. Mr. VanVliet said that it is an economic cycle and there will be a buyer for this kind of thing anyway. All resorts have to change with demand and with the times. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, October 27, 2010 Page 5 of 12 Pages Conclusions ask if an impact study is needed. Stakeholders felt that there is tension between the perceived costs/benefits. There is common ground. People generally accept there are positive economic impacts. People feel there is a lack of credible information even though there are a lot of studies on destination resorts. Some people feel those are not objective. None were comprehensive. There are debates regarding the methodology, whether extensive or accurate enough. Commissioner Luke asked if a County had a requirement for the impact study, would it be appealable as part of the land use process. Mr. Lelack said that it is required now, and this has not yet been subject to appeal. It is not so much a criteria so much as a way to gather and track information. It does require a higher level of work, which ends up being an environmental review process, which could end up being overly restrictive. Commissioner Luke said that the State's environmental study for transportation is more stringent than the federal. He feels that a process is needed, but sometimes goes too far. Mr. Parker said questions were raised regarding how close the County is to build-out. Not much is known about the characteristics of resort residents or visitors. More baseline data is needed regarding the impacts on social services and traffic. Information on the long-term market trends in the visitor/resort industry needs to be analyzed. The shift in demographics may make the resorts less economically viable unless adjustments are made. Commissioner Luke said that building a destination resort in Oregon is not easy, but it is a business decision. Someone will step up to take advantage of the opportunity if one fails. There is a lot of value already established in the existing resorts. More research is not necessarily going to settle this debate. Another study will probably bring the same result. Commissioner Luke asked if the County could take a different track to answer the questions without overburdening the applicant. Mr. Parker said a little bit of information might go a long way to help, but it may not make the policy decision any easier. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, October 27, 2010 Page 6 of 12 Pages Recommendations included: • Not conducting a comprehensive impact study. • Directing staff to gather baseline information on approved resorts. • Conducting an evaluation on how well Goal 8 resorts are meeting the stated intent of Goal 8. • Conducting a study/literature review to better understand future market demand for destination resorts in Oregon. • Working with local stakeholders to develop a more robust entitlement review process for destination resorts. Mr. Parker stated that the market might go to smaller, more focused resorts, which will require changes at the State level. The same framework and requirements will not allow these to be viable. Commissioner Baney said that there are things that require study but are so arbitrary as to not make sense. No one knows if some of these things are appropriate or necessary. Commissioner Luke asked Terri Payne how she feels about the issue. Ms. Payne said that the same conclusions are reached with each study. There are two sets of experts that will never agree totally. What needs to be done is to start tracking things better. Commissioner Luke observed that sometimes the concerns can be addressed to everyone's satisfaction. Sometimes the groups work this out ahead of time. There can be common ground. Ms. Payne said that the best way is to get a handle on what is already in place. She would like to see this evaluated from a staff perspective, working with the organizations. Mr. Lelack said that the future of destination resorts is a big first step. Most resorts eventually meet the intention of Goal 8. Some are built out and continue to change to meet demand. Mr. Parker is not sure another consultation would help. He feels this should not sit too long, but if a market study is needed, that would probably not be done by staff. Commissioner Unger asked if the resorts could provide this information. Mr. Lelack said that an impartial firm would be best. Mr. VanVliet added that any developer would do its own market study. They will not want to compete directly if possible, as they are looking for opportunities. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, October 27, 2010 Page 7 of 12 Pages This is not the County's job, to determine what market a resort might be in. Some of the difficulties that Pronghorn have relate to being in the higher end of the market and the economy in general. They will have to reposition their project eventually. Pam Hardie of 1,000 Friends of Oregon said that regarding the market study, one coming from the County would be more a political piece to educate the public on what to expect. There is value to this. Commissioner Luke stated that a resort might not want to disclose the information gathered, as it might be proprietary. Ms. Hardie agreed that there are issues that will continually not be resolved. Some were not raised because it is almost impossible to get to them neatly resolved. Gated communities versus wildlife habitat is an example. There are losses and gains that are not resolvable. They should work on the common ground where there can be some kind of agreement and progress made. Commissioner Luke said that there are few gated communities. He asked why this is a problem. Ms. Hardie said that this creates a sense of `us and them' and creates a social tension. Some concerns have answers and should be highlighted so they do not have to be endlessly debated. As time goes on, destination resorts might cater to retirees. It would be useful to have an expert opinion on this. Commissioner Luke asked what difference this would make. Commissioner Unger said that their impact might be different. Mr. Parker suggested a market study that would be a broad evaluation of the next twenty years, with a focus on Deschutes County. The impacts and uses could change drastically. Mr. Kanner said that the information can be gathered, but the relative value will be totally subjective. The answer to every public policy question is, it depends. Whoever looks at the data may draw a completely different conclusion. The idea of a study that will tell you whether it is more detrimental or beneficial is impossible. However, everyone should have the same facts. Mr. Anderson said that there seems to be a lot of talk about large destination resorts, but there are a lot of resorts that exist, including smaller ones with different uses. Some would like to pursue these, but there is no place for that in the Code. A study of the future should perhaps include these. Since the market is in a lull, it might be time to look at different kinds of resorts that might be successful rather than just considering large resorts. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, October 27, 2010 Page 8 of 12 Pages Mr. VanVliet stated that creativity should not be stymied, but should be encouraged. Commissioner Unger said that maybe small resort models are the way to go. It might be easier to mitigate the impacts as well. This would mean application flexibility. The land, location and the market need to be considered. Mr. Kanner asked if the Board is accepting the recommendations given. Commissioner Baney said that the study says nothing, but it says at lot. It points out the obvious, that there are very different opinions. There are legislative things that should be fixed, but there are things that cannot be. Looking at Goal 8 will not result in a change. Commissioner Luke asked if staff could bring back a report on what staff thinks would work and what is needed to get to that result. There is some common ground but eventually a political decision has to be made. The Commissioners asked Mr. Lelack and planning staff to disseminate this information and come back with a recommendation. Mr. Parker said he had the same reaction, regarding telling the Board what it already knows, but realizes there is value in the study and perhaps it includes some food for thought. The Commissioners commended Mr. Parker on a good job done on a difficult topic. 3. Comprehensive Plan Update. Nick Lelack and Terri Payne provided updated information and a handout (attached for reference). The 45-day notice was given to DLCD, the website has been updated and Planning Commission meetings have been scheduled along with off-site public hearings. Notice was widespread and included all kinds of organizations. A press release will be done as well. The goal is to get the final information to the Board in early 2011. Community Development staff will be meeting with the Planning Commission this week to talk about other ideas to reach out to the community; how to make sure the information is accurate since it is a big document; and how to run a smooth process with maximum public involvement. They want to keep the momentum going, while getting feedback to the greatest extent possible. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, October 27, 2010 Page 9 of 12 Pages Commissioner Unger asked if there is a staff recommendation. Ms. Payne replied that the Planning Commission wants to have all of the recommendations the same. They will provide their formal recommendations after the public process has been completed. The Planning Commission has spent a lot of time on this and has gained a lot of knowledge. Commissioner Baney disagreed. She appreciates what the Planning Commission does but the Board asked for direction from this advisory group. There is an opportunity to offer different ideas on certain aspects, and it would be helpful to have some idea of the process. Commissioner Unger stated that he would like them to proceed in their work. Commissioner Baney is slightly apprehensive to the Planning Commission's opinion as to what the Board asked. Mr. Lelack said that consistency within the document is being sought. Ms. Payne stated that she would find a way to make the recommendations. The Planning Commission would like to get this through the process so they can get on to the more specific issues. If the Board wants more time for public comment, that can be arranged. Mr. Lelack said that the Board can instruction how to structure the process. Commissioner Luke asked if there were questions from the audience. Lee Wilkins of La Pine said that there will be a special section for south County, but at this point, it has not been addressed. It will it go to the Board prior to being finalized. Also, in the draft there are references consisting with south County. Will those references be removed and put in a separate south County section. Ms. Payne stated they would like to do a south County plan but are waiting for results and comments from the DEQ process. Most citizens seem to want this included. They have a chapter in the current Comprehensive Plan but it was done before La Pine incorporated. Once the DEQ process has been completed, more could be done about the unincorporated areas in south County. There are other things in the Plan that apply to south County and all areas. Deschutes River Woods has also asked about a community plan for that area. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, October 27, 2010 Page 10 of 12 Pages Mr. Lelack stated that the comprehensive plan is a broad document. There are items that might affect just a small area, however. Smaller areas will be handled through community plans. Terrebonne is done; Tumalo is underway. There could be other community plans that might afford a specific section. It will be a living document, subject to change. Ms. Payne said that there is more than the regional problem solving and La Pine incorporation; there are area-specific issues. East County has also asked the County to look at specific issues. Residents asked for the County to wait until the DEQ work is done. There are also air pollution and traffic issues to address. Commissioner Unger asked about when the TSP is added. Ms. Payne stated that there is a placeholder for it, and it will likely be added at some point. Commissioner Luke asked Tom Anderson about a test septic system that appears to not be working as hoped. Mr. Anderson said they are reviewing the documentation on this issue. The systems were experimental, based on a federal grant, the County would replace the system with one that is known to work. It was installed at no cost to the property owner. The systems were approved by the DEQ, not the County. 4. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules. Laurie Craghead asked for a motion to approve her participation in the Hoffman/Latham case appeal at the Supreme Court. UNGER: Move approval. BANEY: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes UNGER: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 5. Other Items. Mr. Johnson said that eighteen people attended the public meeting on the new Secure Residential Treatment Center off Poe Sholes Road. Notice went to over 1,000 households. In general, the meeting went well. He said that opening of the facility should be in late January. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, October 27, 2010 Page 11 of 12 Pages Being no further items discussed, the meeting adjourned at 4:35 p.m. DATED this Deschutes County ATTEST: 1 V/0DaY o f hivAqA-~ 2010 for the Board of Commissioners. &WX~, kaA--,, Recording Secretary -r~ Dennis R. Luke, Chair &&L UM6=m- Alan Unger, Vice Chan Tammy Baney, Com issioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, October 27, 2010 Page 12 of 12 Pages %-TES 2~ Department of Administrative Services 0 AAA Dave Kanner, County Administrator 1300 NW Wall St, Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 www.co.deschutes.or.us October 21, 2010 TO: Board of Commissioners FROM: Dave Kanner RE: Grant application for SBHC The Federal government, Department of Health and Human Services, has announced the availability of capital grants for school-based health centers. Two hundred grants of up to $500,000 each will be available. As you know, we have started a school-based health center in Sisters, but it is currently operating out of a modular unit on donated land near Sisters High School. Kate Moore, MCH program manager in Health Services, will be at your October 27th work session to seek approval of applying for a grant to build a new facility on the donated land in Sisters. Enhancing the Lives of Citizens by Delivering Quality Services in a Cost-Effective Manner L 0 N L 2 O N ~ N E r ' ~r r J N C tft M O CL NI I ~ ~ ~ v Q ~ q p ~ N ~ V ~ J V l `n O u a a; cEo o o 4,A 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 TO: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners FROM: Terri Hansen Payne, Senior Planner MEMO DATE: October 19, 2010 MEETING DATE: October 27, 2010 SUBJECT: Work Session: Comprehensive Plan Update BACKGROUND The purpose of this memo is to update the Board of County Commissioners on the progress of the Comprehensive Plan update. Deschutes County recently completed a revised draft update of the County Comprehensive Plan and is now initiating the public hearing process. On October 4, the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) received the required 45- day notice, along with a copy of the revised draft Plan. As you know, the draft Plan reflects nearly 2'h years of public input and Planning Commission review. Planning Commission public hearings are being scheduled as follows. Planning Commission Public Hearings Bend Deschutes Services Center 1300 NW Wall Nov 18, 2010 5:30 p.m. Sisters City Hall 520 E Cascade Ave, Dec 2, 2010 5:30 p.m. La Pine Senior Center 16450 Victory Way Dec 9, 2010 5:30 p.m. It is anticipated that the Planning Commission will make a recommendation before the end of the year and public hearings before the Board of County Commissioners will begin early in 2011. 2010 DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Copies of the revised draft Plan have been provided to the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. It can also be found on the website at www.deschutes.org/cdd under the heading Comprehensive Plan Update. The draft Plan consists of 5 chapters, each divided into sections covering the various topics in the Plan, such as Community Involvement, Water Resources or Urbanization. There will be two versions available on the website. The version labeled DLCD 2010 Draft Comprehensive Plan can be accessed by section and is currently available. The version called 2010 Draft Comprehensive Plan is accessed and numbered by chapter and should be posted by October 22. Quality Services Performed zvith Pride -r C" Comprehensive Plan 2010 Outreach Overview Purpose: ■ To get the word out that after 2Y2 years the 2010 draft Comp Plan is going to public hearings before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners Public Outreach: ■ 45-day notice to DLCD October 4, 2010 ■ Website updated with revised draft Comp Plan, including maps ■ Letter sent to 92 local agencies, organizations and stakeholder groups with Planning Commission public hearing dates and an invitation/offer to meet with them or provide a presentation for their agency and/or members ■ Email with the same letter attached sent to an established list of interested parties ■ Flyer widely distributed showing dates of the Planning Commission hearings ■ Short PowerPoint is being prepared to highlight the process and key issues ■ Press release is being prepared ■ Bulletin & other newspaper notices being prepared ■ Hearings scheduled in Bend, Sisters and La Pine Please note that the County will have funds available for newspaper ads beginning in early November, but not before. For Discussion: ■ Final Planning Commission work session before the public hearing is tomorrow ■ Input from the Board and Planning Commission to strengthen communication between residents and the County ■ Other ideas for reaching out to the community and/or specific organizations? ■ How to be sure that accurate information is available and understood? ■ Ideas for a smooth hearing process with maximum public involvement? 10-27-10 a ~ October 26, 2010 Dear Stakeholder: 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/ Deschutes County is initiating public hearings on the revised draft Comprehensive Plan dated September 30, 2010. The draft Plan is based on nearly 2Y2 years of public input and Planning Commission review. It incorporates local values, State regulations and existing conditions and trends. The draft Plan includes goals and policies that will guide land use in unincorporated Deschutes County over the next 20 years. A copy can be found on the website listed below. Public hearings on the draft Comprehensive Plan will first be held before the Planning Commission and then the Board of County Commissioners. Oral or written testimony is strongly encouraged and welcome. Planning Commission Public Hearings Bend Deschutes Services Center 1300 NW Wall Nov 18, 2010 5:30 p.m. Sisters City Hall 520 E Cascade Ave, Dec 2, 2010 5:30 p.m. La Pine Senior Center 16450 Victory Way Dec 9, 2010 5:30 p.m. Board of County Commissioner Public Hearings Starting in 2011, dates to be determined More information on the Plan update, including the 2010 draft, can be found on the Comprehensive Plan website at www.deschutes.org/cdd under Comprehensive Plan update. There are two versions, one (the 2010 DLCD draft) is numbered by Section, the other (2010 draft) is numbered by Chapter. Hard copies are available for $10 each, with 24 hour notice. We would be happy to make a presentation or attend a meeting with your agency or organization to discuss the draft Plan. If you have questions or would like to schedule a presentation or meeting, please contact Long Range Senior Planner Terri Payne at 385-1404 or terrip(a)-deschutes.org. Thank you for your interest in the future of Deschutes County. S' cerely, Nick Lelack Deschutes County Planning Director Quality Services Performed with Pride 2010 DRAFT DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS Deschutes County is pleased to announce that public hearings have been initiated on the revised draft Comprehensive Plan dated September 30, 2010. The draft Plan is based on nearly 2Y2 years of public input and Planning Commission review. It incorporates local values, State regulations and existing conditions and trends. The draft Plan includes goals and policies that will guide land use in unincorporated Deschutes County over the next 20 years. A copy can be found on the website listed below. Public hearings on the draft Comprehensive Plan will first be held before the Planning Commission and then the Board of County Commissioners. Oral or written testimony is welcome. Participate in the Planning Commission Public Hearings Bend Deschutes Services Center 1300 NW Wall Nov 18, 2010 5:30 p.m. Sisters City Hall 520 E Cascade Ave, Dec 2, 2010 5:30 p.m. La Pine Senior Center 16450 Victory Way Dec 9, 2010 5:30 p.m. Participate in the Board of County Commissioner Public Hearings Starting in 2011, dates to be determined c- Comprehensive Plan Map2 Desiputions i _ i For More Information see Web site: www.deschutes.orq/cdd link to Comprehensive Plan Update r T- 9i ~a.~ 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: October 27, 2010 TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM Nick Lelack, Planning Director SUBJECT: Perceptions of Destination Resort Impacts in Deschutes County Final Report The purpose of this agenda item is for the University of Oregon's Community Planning Workshop Director Bob Parker to present the Perceptions of Destination Resort Impacts in Deschutes County Final Report. Based on the report and presentation, staff seeks the Board's direction on the next steps, if any, for this project. Alternatives for the next steps are summarized in the table below. Table 1: Next Step Alternative Approaches Approach BOCC Direction Timelines/Tasks Deem the project complete, and do not conduct a second phase. The study 1 remains valuable for informing Not applicable Not applicable discussions of new/different resort models in state/local processes. Schedule a BOCC work session to Should the options include all of 4-8 weeks to develop 2 discuss Phase 2 options, including cost the impacts or selected options with cost estimates and potential funding sources. impacts? estimates & potential funding sources Determine the impacts to be 4 weeks to develop a 3 Initiate the second phase of the study. studied and budget estimate at draft work program and ' this work session budget for the Board s . consideration. 4 Other (TBD) TBD TBD Quality Services Performed with Pride 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, OCTOBER 27, 2010 1. Review of Proposed Application for School-based Health Center Capital Grant - Kate Moore, Health Services 2. Destination Resort Study Update - Nick Lelack 3. Comprehensive Plan Update - Nick Lelack, Terri Payne & Planning Division Staff 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 otherwise indicated. lfyou 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. Perceptions of Destination Resort Impacts in Deschutes County Prepared By: University of Oregon Community Planning Workshop Community Service Center University of Oregon 1209 University of Oregon Eugene, Oregon 97403-1209 October 2010 Community Planning Workshop Table of Contents Section I: Introduction and Methods .........................................................................1 Methods ...1 Organization of this report ...2 Section II: Summary of Focus Group Meetings 3 Destination Resort Impacts Identified by Focus Group Participants ......................3 Tax Revenues 4 Water Issues 4 Jobs 4 Community separation 5 Economic multiplier effect 5 Impacts on fish and wildlife habitats: 5 Costs for mitigation of habitat impacts 5 Information Needs Identified by Focus Group Participants .......................................6 Recommendations from Focus Group Participants ..7 Recommendations from environmental group representatives 7 Recommendation from resort industry representatives 7 Section IV: Summary of Expert Interviews 9 Ed Whitelaw and Bryce Ward 9 Joe Bessman 10 Roger Lee 11 Mark Smuland 12 Richard Shaw 13 Section IV: Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................15 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................15 Stakeholder perceptions ..................................................................................................................15 Lack of credible information ..........................................................................................................16 Lack of baseline data .........................................................................................................................16 More research won't necessarily settle the debate ..............................................................17 Recommendations 18 Appendix A: Focus Group Summary Reports .......................................................20 Environmental Groups and Agencies Focus Groups 20 Background 20 Pros & Cons ...........................................................................................................................................20 Key Impacts of Destination Resorts ............................................................................................21 Economic Impacts ................................................................................................................................22 Environmental Impacts .......................................................................................................................22 Social Impacts 22 Summary of Key Impacts .................................................................................................................24 Next Steps Discussion .......................................................................................................................25 Conclusions 26 Tourism, Resort Industry, and Agency Focus Groups 27 Background 27 Pros & Cons ...........................................................................................................................................27 Key Impacts of Destination Resorts ............................................................................................28 Economic Impacts ................................................................................................................................29 Environmental Impacts .......................................................................................................................29 Page I ii Oregon Economic Development Needs Assessment UO Economic Development Center Social Impacts ........................................................................................................................................29 Summary of Key Impacts .................................................................................................................31 Next Steps Discussion .......................................................................................................................31 Conclusion ..............................................................................................................................................33 Appendix B: Group Interview Summary ................................................................35 Background ...........................................................................................................................................35 Pros & Cons ...........................................................................................................................................35 Key Impacts of Destination Resorts ............................................................................................35 Summary of Key Impacts .................................................................................................................36 Next Steps Discussion .......................................................................................................................36 Other Comments .................................................................................................................................37 Conclusions ...........................................................................................................................................37 Economic Development Needs Assessment October 2010 Page iii SECTION I: INTRODUCTION AND METHODS 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 amend the County's destination resort map and potentially allow 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, the economic downturn, and both positive and negative perceptions of the impacts of destination resorts. Several studies examining the impacts of destination resorts in Deschutes County exist-as well as a lot of anecdotal evidence.' 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, Deschutes 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 on May 5, 2010. This report examines what is needed to move these policy issues forward. Methods Information was gathered by CPW through four focus group meetings and five expert interviews. The focus group meetings covered three topics: (1) pros and cons of having destination resorts in Deschutes County, (2) a prioritized list of environmental, and societal impacts, and (3) suggestions aimed at the County Board of Commissioners for how to proceed. Interviewees were asked about the past, present, and future of destination resorts as well as for their examples of work that could serve as relevant case studies. Experts were asked to share their opinions on the benefits, concerns, and key impacts of an impact analysis of destination resorts in Deschutes County, Oregon. ' These include an analysis of the fiscal and economic impacts by Fodor and Associates, ELESCO's study for Sunriver, 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. ~w?l= Deschutes County Destination Resorts October 2010 Page 1 1 Organization of this report The remainder of this report is organized in four sections: Section I1: Summary of Focus Group Meetings, discusses information gathered from stakeholders during the focus group meetings. Section 111: Summary of Expert Interviews, discusses made by the five experts during their interviews. Section IV: Conclusions and Recommendations, is a summary of the research and suggested next steps. This report also includes two appendices with detailed information about CPW's research. Appendix A: Focus Group Summary Appendix B: Group Interview Summary Page 12 Community Planning Workshop SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FOCUS GROUP MEETINGS CPW facilitated four focus group meetings on August 19th, 2010 at the Deschutes Services Center in Bend to determine stakeholder opinions on key impacts of destination resorts, areas for further study, the priority each takes, and how an analysis of those impacts should be conducted. Two of the focus groups were attended by representatives of the tourism industry, the resort industry, or government agencies (17 participants). The other two focus groups were attended by environmental groups and government agencies (18 participants). Participants identified key environmental, economic, and social impacts of destination resorts. Then, they prioritized these impacts by order of importance. This prioritization process identified the impacts that would be most important to examine if further analysis were to occur. Table 2-1 summarizes the prioritized list by group. Table 2-1. Prioritized list of issues, by stakeholder group Tourism/Resort Industry Environmental Groups • Tax revenues • Water issues • Jobs • Negative effects on fish and wildlife • Water issues habitats • Community separation • Costs for mitigation of degraded • Economic multiplier effect habitats • Taxrevenues The results shown in Table 2-1 articulate one of our key findings: different groups prioritize issues differently. This is an obvious point, but it is the foundation of the debate over destination resorts. Moreover, it underscores the complexity of issues that accompany the development and operation of destination resorts. Finally, Table 2-1 presents a subset of the issues identified by stakeholders in the focus group meetings; many other issues were identified and discussed. Appendix A presents a transcript of the focus group meetings, including the list of issues identified by participants. Destination Resort Impacts Identified by Focus Group Participants As an initial exercise, participants identified key issues they feel are important to understanding the impacts of destination resorts in Deschutes County. All of the groups identified tax revenues and water issues as key issues. The participants from the environmental groups also prioritized negative effects on fish and wildlife habitats and costs for mitigation of degraded habitats. Participants from the tourism and resort industry prioritized jobs, community separation, and the economic multiplier effect as key issues, in addition to water issues and tax Deschutes County Destination Resorts October 2010 Page 13 revenues. Details about each of the issues that were prioritized by both focus groups are discussed in more detail below. Tax Revenues All of the groups discussed the impact of destination resorts on property taxes and identified tax revenues as an important impact to monitor. Participants mentioned the increased property tax base that could come from destination resorts. Potential Metrics: • Annual property tax revenues from land within destination resorts Water Issues All of the groups identified water issues as important impacts to investigate. Participants discussed both issues of water quality and water resources. Participants in the environmental focus group discussed concerns for groundwater reuse mitigation and the cost of that mitigation, which might be placed on urban communities. In addition, they discussed concerns about changes in surface water temperatures. Potential Metrics: • Amount of water used by destination resorts • Cost of water - both for delivery and supply • Water quality metrics • Economic valuation of changes in surface water temperature • Changes in water use from irrigated agriculture to destination resorts Jobs The tourism, resort, and agency focus group discussed the impacts of destination resorts on jobs. They emphasized that simple job numbers do not provide enough information to truly understand impacts, but more complex measures are needed. Participants from the environmental and agency focus groups also acknowledged jobs as a potential benefit. Potential metrics: • Employment opportunities on site (direct employment) • Employment opportunities off site (indirect employment) • Further breakdowns of on- and off- site jobs by type (construction, permanent, seasonal, family wage, etc.) • Annual average wage for resort employees (compared with annual average wage in the retail/service sector within the region) Page 14 Community Planning Workshop Community separation Participants from the tourism, resort, and agency focus group discussed whether destination resorts create a separate community within another larger community as well as issues related to the distance of designation resorts to cities. They discussed issues of community integration and potential impacts on community cohesion (rural vs. residential, part time vs. full time residence, etc.) Potential metrics: Number of part time residents and number of full time residents of destination resorts • Distance of resorts to key services (e.g., groceries, medical/dental, etc.) • Percent of destination resort employees who live within destination resorts or within a certain distance (possibly less than the average commute length in Deschutes County) Economic multiplier effect Participants from the tourism, resort, and agency focus groups discussed the role that destination resorts have in bringing new money into the county's economy. Understanding the multiplier effect created by this money is important to these participants. Potential metrics: • Input/output modeling of economic multipliers • Business creation or closure related to destination resorts • Number of jobs created by those businesses Impacts on fish and wildlife habitats: Participants from environmental groups discussed the indirect and direct effects of destination resorts on fish and wildlife habitats. The majority of comments focused on negative impacts of resorts due to fragmentation of habitat or overuse of resources. They discussed whether wildlife would be pushed out of areas with destination resorts and whether remaining habitat would be degraded by overuse. Potential metrics: • Habitat loss caused by destination resorts • Remaining habitat in the area • Changes in quality of remaining habitat (onsite and offsite) • Economic valuation of habitat Costs for mitigation of habitat impacts Participants from environmental groups discussed the costs that would be associated with mitigating the negative effects on wildlife habitats. 1= Deschutes County Destination Resorts October 2010 Page 15 Potential metrics: • Habitat loss caused by destination resorts • Cost of habitat mitigation Information Needs Identified by Focus Group Participants Focus group participants discussed the information that they believe would be helpful in evaluating the impacts of destination resorts. This information included: Information on existing legacy resorts. This data could provide indicators for decision-making about future resorts' needs, requirements and expectations. The environmental group participants wanted more and better information about the performance of existing resorts-as well as the possibility of comparing the performance of legacy resorts with Goal 8 resorts. • Better evaluation tools. Participants in the environmental focus group felt that the county's review process missed key criteria that would help in the review and decision-making process. One idea was to create a template that simplifies the process of evaluation and analysis of destination resorts, which could be used to understand net benefits. • Case study analysis. A set of case studies that examine other destination resort areas would provide a basis for comparison of the impacts (positive and negative) of resorts in Deschutes County. • Better accounting. While recognizing the challenges of accounting for certain impacts, environmental participants suggested examining methods to value environmental services such as water or native fish habitat. • Documentation of public purpose. Concerns were expressed that more recent resorts were high-end, large lot rural subdivisions. Participants suggested information from homeowners associations be provided that quantifies resorts' private improvements that provide or contribute to public uses. • Impacts to public facilities and services. Concerns were expressed that little is known about the demand for public services created by destination resorts. Information from social service agencies such as the police, fire department, and public library that identifies the impacts destination resorts have on these agencies would help address this concern. • Consumer expenditures. Information on where and how residents of destination resorts spend their money in the county. • Comparative employment analysis. Data concerning the types of jobs that destination resort land would provide if it were agricultural resource land. Page 16 Community Planning Workshop Recommendations from Focus Group Participants The final part of the focus group process asked participants to share their recommendations with the County Board of Commissioners with respect to next steps. Recommendations from environmental group representatives Participants from the environmental focus group identified the following recommendations: • Require resort impact studies. Independent third-party professionals should perform impact studies. Participants pointed out that there were at times conflicting facts presented from opposing interests. These independent professionals would need a variety of applicable backgrounds to perform these impact studies. • Create a classification scheme for resorts. Research should classify resorts into different types to perform analysis of economic impacts. Legacy resorts operate differently than newer resorts. Possible classification system could separate Sagebrush, Adjacent, and Urban Destination Resorts.2 • Evaluate potential for smaller resorts. The Goal 8 rule applies to large destination resorts. Analysis should examine whether small resorts would be feasible if large resorts no longer are needed or feasible. • Evaluate whether existing resorts are meeting the intent of Goal 8. Analysis should compare the stated goals for destination resorts with how residents and visitors are using them. • Require plans for potential failure of resorts. A plan should be developed that determines what happens to failed resorts and who pays for that outcome. • Document impacts. Analysis should examine economic, social, and environmental impacts. Recommendation from resort industry representatives Participants from the tourism and resort industry focus groups suggested the following recommendations: • Involve a broad range of community interests. Deschutes County, social service agencies (police, fire, library, schools, others), realtors, homeowners associations, public policy makers, and residents who do not live in destination resorts should all be involved in discussions of the impacts of these resorts. 2 Participants identified sagebrush resorts as resorts that are distant from population centers (e.g., those that meet the Goal 8 criteria), adjacent resorts such as resorts that are near or adjacent to UG8s, and urban resorts such as those that are either within or functionally part of a city. -rl= Deschutes County Destination Resorts October 2010 Page 1 7 • Classify resorts. Research should classify resorts into different types to perform analysis of economic impacts. One way to classify resorts would be into existing, entitled, and potential new resorts. • Allow resorts closer to cities. The state should require resorts to be closer to local cities. • Continue planning for additional resorts. Although the county does not currently need more destination resorts, the county may need more resorts in the future. • Consider best practices. While too much regulation of destination resorts would be problematic, regulation based on previous best practices related to traffic, water, and other impacts may be important to the success of the community as well as the destination resorts. Page 18 Community Planning Workshop SECTION IV: SUMMARY OF EXPERT INTERVIEWS To further understand destination resorts, CPW interviewed five experts that represent various areas related to destinations resorts. These interviews addressed the history of destination resorts, opportunities and needs for the future, and any recommendations that these experts suggest going forward. The interviews are summarized below. Ed Whitelaw and Bryce Ward Ed Whitelaw is president of ECONorthwest and Bryce Ward is a senior economist with ECONorthwest. Measuring economic impacts requires measuring gross local product (changes in jobs, incomes, tax revenues, and local products), changes in values from a costs and benefits analysis, and distribution of the changes in jobs on tax revenues or across different demographics (equity). It looks at impacts of having a destination resort in an area, subtracts various social costs, and compares it with the area as it stands without disturbance or destination resort intervention. This method demonstrates that the jobs and tax revenue benefits of destination resorts are not lost to the rest of the county in absence of the destination resort. The impact of a destination resort should be compared to "no build" not another land use choice (such as agriculture). Each destination resort application should have a rigorous unbiased professional feasibility analysis using this three-part methodology and with/ without test. Key issues: • Water rights are oversubscribed. It is unknown the volume of existing water that is available for use. Adding destination resort amenities that use high volumes of water adds to the scarcity. • Developers often present feasibility studies that assume they are going to build the destination resort out with 100% occupancy. This is unreasonable because a good occupancy rate would be maximally in the 85% range and it does not take into account what happens during the down period. • Destination resorts are located in sensitive areas. If the destination resort goes bankrupt, the habitat has been altered. The developer has not agreed to return the habitat to baseline conditions and so that habitat is lost. Destination resorts in the future should provide a bonded exit strategy to minimize county risk. • Destination resorts should not be the only alternative explored. There could be 'substitutes' that yield benefits (such as attracting a younger, entrepreneurial cohort than destination resorts currently do) without yielding the negative impacts of destination resorts. There are likely to be options that provide the same good effects and less bad effects. Deschutes County Destination Resorts October 2010 Page 19 Based on professional cases, there is precedent to assume that people would buy a house in the area anyway -not that they would have bought a house in another area within a destination resort, or that the destination resort brought them to the area. Legislation should not limit the total number of destination resorts in the county, however constructing new destination resorts should not be allowed until there is excess demand in the area. Joe Bessman Joe Bessman, PE, PTOE is a licensed professional transportation engineer with the Bend office of Kittleson & Associates, Inc. (KAI). Destination resorts have additional system impacts related to the fact that they are outside of long-range planning models. A transportation planner needs to know what the impacts are and assess them appropriately. The strategies used for assessing destination resort traffic impacts have been a learning process for the transportation planning industry. Standard data to estimate the impact of the vehicle trips from destination resorts has been limited, requiring reliance on data that was collected in the 1970's. The best data would be what they can learn from current resorts and localized data instead of national data. Surveys have been collected by KAI at Eagle Crest and Black Butte Ranch in 2007, though these reflected peak summertime conditions that coincided with peak resort occupancy, resort events, and while significant construction activity was underway. A critical data need is additional driver surveys that would help understand where the drivers are going, why, for what purposes behind the trips, and how many trips, as well as seasonal changes in destination resort driver behavior. This would be useful in discerning between the long distance arrival and departure trips and the "local outing" trips to retail, recreation, and entertainment. Driver surveys were obtained at Black Butte Ranch as part of the visitor center addition (2008?), but the intent of the surveys was not specifically for transportation analysis and the study methods and documentation could have been improved had this been the intent. Knowing the purpose of trips also helps determine the confidence and variation in typical trip generation because transportation impact studies need to be based on an assessment of typical conditions as accurately as possible. This assessment of trip purpose could better allow the forecasting for trip generation to be crafted based on the specific amenities provided. Another data need is information outside of the peaks. While it is helpful to know what the peak impacts will be, it is equally important to understand "typical" conditions and to be able to quantify the seasonal variation. Traffic impacts for destination resorts provide a unique complexity of analysis and there are different dynamics from one destination resort to the next. Factors and conditions are not the same with each resort in terms of the unit types, resort amenities, or proximity to recreational, housing, and retail opportunities. There is not a one size fits all strategy for analyzing resorts' traffic impacts. Page 1 10 Community Planning Workshop Roger Lee Roger Lee is the Executive Director of Economic Development for Central Oregon (EDCO). Resorts comprise several of the tri-county region's top employers. Among the top 20 private employers in Central Oregon region, four are resorts: Sunriver, the third largest; Mt. Bachelor, the fifth largest; Eagle Crest and Black Butte, the thirteenth and fourteenth largest respectively. EDCO, like the architects of the visitor industry plan three decades ago, sees the destination resort industry as a means to an end - namely that tourism cannot be our sole diversification strategy. Destination resorts expose travelers (many of which are business owners) to Central Oregon with a high quality, high amenity experience. A percentage of those visitors buy second homes here and a percentage of those move their companies here or found new ones. For these reasons, EDCO sees the resorts as an important part of the region's overall economic development strategy - a sophisticated marketing plan to bring people to the area to see its scenic beauty, recreational activities and (ideally) thriving communities. Some people do not like destination resorts because they present a form of urban development in rural areas, which runs counter to Oregon's land use laws. Other opponents argue social or environmental impacts, but objections for either have lacked factual substance. One potentially legitimate criticism is the fact that many employees must commute from some distance to work at destination resorts, which create transportation impacts. One possible answer may be to have a development requirement for construction of some on-site housing for workers to reduce trips to and from resorts. From a public services financial perspective, the reality is that destination resorts pay property taxes that support public services far exceeding impacts to school districts, fire districts, law enforcement and other county services. Resorts dominate the list of top ten property tax payers in Deschutes County, and consequently play an important part of the local base of revenue for public services. Because the resorts have a long history of second home ownership among the residential developments, they consequently have very few full time residents - even the larger, more established developments like Sunriver, Black Butte Ranch and Eaglecrest. 10 to 15% full time residents is the range for Central Oregon resorts. The challenge comes when there are enough of those residents that want local amenities most residents expect nearby - grocery stores, schools, and convenience/commercial businesses. Some resorts have no intention of going this route, while others are now grappling more with issues of becoming more like communities. A segment of the resort development industry is also heading in this direction with more "community-like" developments like Whistler, Aspen/Vail, and Lake Tahoe. In the long run, destination resort development and build-out of permitted projects will return to the tri-county area, but activity will be slow for the next five years. Destination resorts will eventually need new (or differentiated) amenities to attract and compete for customers and investment. -J1 Deschutes County Destination Resorts October 2010 Page 1 11 Without destination resorts, it is probably much less likely that Central Oregon would have grown or diversified as much as it has in the past three decades. Many examples of former natural resource (wood products) based communities exist that have much less successfully make this significant economic transformation. Central Oregon is still not "there" yet in terms of its economy and diversification, but it has incrementally made significant progress with the help of bringing in new residents, investors and business owners via destination resorts. Mark Smuland Mark Smuland managing director at Development Strategy and Management and is a resort development expert. Destination resorts are bringing in jobs and raising the tax base in the county. Resorts pay their own way -money does not come out of taxpayers' funds. There are also environmental benefits from mitigation, because investor money pays to fund on and off-site environmental programs and infrastructure improvements such as the City of Bend's sewage treatment plant. Other benefits include the fact that more people are brought to the county and spend money in a variety of other goods and services. Some of the jobs are short term or temporary. Destination resorts provide economic improvements, but there is seasonality to the improvements that challenges spring, fall, and winter. Water usage can pose a problem, but only if not done right. Developers can use treated effluent and mitigate for their needs. Traffic is mitigated and paid for by the developer. The approval process has become politicized. Interested parties get reports to support their positions. What is needed is a non-partisan, objective analysis of the impacts of destination resorts, instead of special interests. The current destination resort zoning ordinance is a "one size fits all" legislation that makes it so that there are not many options for destination resorts besides building a golf course and selling real estate. Currently, destination resorts get scrubland that developers are forced to change to make more beautiful. At the same time, they are not allowed to build attractions or lodging at Mt. Bachelor, where the attraction is. The goal of the legislation is good, but it does not allow for enough variation in resort types and amenities. Demographics are not a problem. Economics are the problem for the future. There will probably not be any new resorts for quite some time. Central Oregon likely has enough destination resorts to last for a while. There will be limited demand to purchase resort real estate and a lack of access to capital to develop resort assets because of oversupply in destination resort housing across the country. World-class attractions can mitigate the barriers. The destination resort business model should not depend on the sale of real estate. Instead, destination resorts need to create opportunities for memorable experiences for visitors that can compete with other venues from around the country. Because of the limitations of the current legislation, opportunities for smaller resorts that offer particular activities should be examined. There could be Page 1 12 Community Planning Workshop opportunities for niche resorts that focus on culinary, adventure sports, and eco activities that could improve the local economy by appealing to a broader group of tourists during a greater portion of the calendar year. Analysis is needed that compares tax base improvements with the actual costs to the county that support the destination resorts. The impact analysis should show the secondary economic effects of resorts. The social impacts of destination resorts are not that big of an issue. Environmental impacts are covered through the right process of mitigation. What is needed is information on how destination resorts can better round out the economy and provide positive economic impacts. Richard Shaw Richard Shaw is a principal with the Design Workshop, a consulting firm that specializes in resort design. There is no single way to succeed with a one-formula style of destination resorts. They don't have the same uses, focuses, or emphases. Destination resorts are classified and lumped together with a wide range of resort types that have been developed, but they all have different consequences. Legislation makes them all the same. Destination resorts have the ability to bring in and develop an economic strategy to attract people to enjoy the beauty, weather, and special culture of Central Oregon. They bring new economic activity, job growth, and a multiplier effect. Overnight guests spend more when at the place of recreation as opposed to being a commuter. Consumers are going to want more of a wide range of ownership styles like time shares, condos, single-family houses, private residential clubs, fractional ownerships, etc. The biggest trend is to have even a wider variety of ownership types that way the consumer is able to purchase just exactly what they want. At the same time, there is a general downsizing in what people expect in a destination resort property. They will want less acreage and have smaller living spaces than before. Communities should share the destination resort development risk with the developer, as Whistler in British Columbia did. They used a deliberate public- private partnership to make the resort worthwhile to invest in. Another example is in Driggs, Idaho, where most of the community was agriculturally employed so in the winter there were no jobs. They created a community-based ski area to develop a tourism economy in winter. It diversified and balanced out the economy, using recreation. There should be very specific land use and decision methods for resort areas, with allowances that are different than regular zoning. This presents a tailored land use and development approach. Many specific impact analyses are needed, such as land use, air quality, transportation impacts, community impact, sociological impact, employment, housing price and affordability, all environmental issues from water rights to soil ZI!= Deschutes County Destination Resorts October 2010 Page 1 13 erosion, utilities and infrastructure systems, water quality and quantity, visual and scenic impacts, and wildlife. However, impact analyses need to be defined, specific to a particular project, and be determined in advance of any proposals. Page 1 14 Community Planning Workshop SECTION IV: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The purpose of this study was to better understand the perceptions of key stakeholders involved in the debate about destination resorts in Deschutes County. When county staff initially approached CPW, the focus was on developing a comprehensive study of the impacts-both positive and negative-of destination resorts in Deschutes County. In short, the intent of the Phase I analysis (this report) is to develop a framework for a comprehensive analysis by understanding the issues that stakeholders are concerned about. Having now completed the Phase I work, it is not clear to us that such a study would serve the purpose of moving towards a consensus about how to regulate and review future destination resort proposals in the County. We describe why in the following section and then provide some suggestions about things that we think will provide a foundation for the difficult policy decisions that face the County Board of Commissioners. Conclusions Stakeholder perceptions Input we received during the focus group meetings and interviews articulate one of our key findings: different groups prioritize issues differently. It should come as no surprise that differing views on destination resorts exist among Deschutes County residents. The debate is typical of public policy debates and broadly revolves around the question whether the benefits outweigh the impacts. Based on what we heard in the focus group meetings, the tourism and resort industry believe the impacts of destination resorts are largely positive, while others in the community believe the negative impacts mostly outweigh the positive impacts. While this level of detail masks many nuances of community perceptions, it distills the perceptions down to their core essence. Despite these differences, some areas of common ground exist. All of the groups acknowledged that resorts have important economic impacts-job creation and property tax revenues were most frequently mentioned. Differences of opinion among the stakeholders existed around the importance and significant of other destination resort impacts. Participants broadly classified these as environmental, social, and economic impacts. Specifically, participants ranked the issues as follows: Water quality and resources. Includes concerns for groundwater mitigation reuse and cost for mitigation (placed on urban communities) plus surface water flow temperatures Negative effects on fish and wildlife habitats: push out, over use, reduction, and other direct and indirect effects • Mitigation (includes cost of mitigation and restoration of habitats) 'l= Deschutes County Destination Resorts October 2010 Page 1 15 • Inadequate protection for water and wildlife habitats • Increased property tax base An important point that was made repeatedly in the focus group meetings was that not enough is known about the impacts of destination resorts. These comments most frequently focused on natural resources, but infrastructure and social impacts were also frequently discussed. Lack of credible information Many studies exist of destination resorts in Deschutes County. These range from an economic activity analysis by the State regional economist, to a fiscal impact study sponsored by Land Watch Deschutes County, to several reports and analysis conducted by the resort industry. The general perception among stakeholders is that these studies are biased in the direction of the group that sponsored them. Moreover, our review of them suggests that they all focus on a subset of the impacts that stakeholders expressed concern about. In other words, none of the studies could be considered comprehensive in the sense that they address the broad range of impacts. To compound the problem of studies being perceived as biased, and the lack of a comprehensive study, debates exist around the methods used in the studies. We appreciate the methodological challenges that exist in evaluating even the simpler impacts related to destination resorts, much less the challenge of developing a comprehensive methodological framework that would address all of the potential impacts. If debates are emerging around the credibility of the methods and data on smaller studies, there is no reason to believe such debates would also likely emerge around a larger study-regardless of who conducts the study. The bottom line is that all sides have legitimate interests and concerns, and a lack of trust exists among the various interests as well as with the county. The impacts are complicated and many of them do not lend themselves to easy analysis. Even if they did, we anticipate that debates would emerge around threshold levels for acceptable impacts. As a result of these and other factors, it appears there is no universal support for any impact study conducted to date. It is our opinion that conducting another study-no matter how comprehensive or robust the methodology-would not solve this problem. Lack of baseline data Some focus group participants expressed frustration around the lack of basic information about destination resorts. Following is a list of baseline data (some of which may exist) that participants would like generated: • Build out capacity of existing resorts. This would include information about existing and proposed development capacity at all of the resorts in Page 1 16 Community Planning Workshop Deschutes County. It would broadly answer the question of "how many more dwellings and rental units could be built at full build out of approved resorts." • Characteristics of resort residents. Develop a profile of year round resort residents including various socioeconomic characteristics, place of work, commute patterns, etc. • Characteristics of resort users. This would be a similar profile as above, but would focus on characteristics of visits-how long, what activities, visitor expenditures, etc. • Impacts on social services. This would look at the impact of destination resort visitors, residents and employees on social services in Deschutes County. This should include evaluation of impacts on schools. • Traffic impacts. All of the groups acknowledged that destination resorts create traffic impacts. Less is known about the overall traffic impacts of resort residents and visitors. • Long-term market trends in the visitor/resort industry. Some participants expressed concern about the long-term viability of destination resorts in the face of current economic conditions and socioeconomic trends (including the aging of the baby boom population). More research won't necessarily settle the debate The input we received suggests that stakeholders perceive destination resorts create both positive and negative impacts. The degree to which the perception is positive or negative is somewhat contingent on who one speaks with. The fact is that no clear standards or guidance exists with respect to how much impact is acceptable. Thus, this is a stereotypical public policy issue in the sense that (1) no obvious correct answer exists, (2) the impact of County policy is difficult to weight against the "public good," (3) no single course of action can be proven to be absolutely correct, (4) the fairness of the solution is difficult to measure objectively, (5) considerable uncertainty exists around measuring the long-term impacts of the policy, and (6) getting good, credible information about the issue will not necessarily sway people's values. In short, this is a policy matter that demands both technical analysis and consideration of public values, or what the literature calls a "mixed policy decision." The county can sponsor more research on both of these matters- scientific studies on the impacts of destination resorts, and community values around destination resorts. Based on stakeholder input and our understanding of the issues, more research on existing resorts may, in fact, be useful. More research, however, is unlikely to make the policy choices facing the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners any easier. The Board will still be faced with the difficult task of weighing the impacts (presumably based on sound technical data) against community values Deschutes County Destination Resorts October 2010 Page 1 17 (which appear far from consensus at this point) to determine a policy course that balances the positive and negative impacts of destination resorts. Of course, the Board did not need to hire a group of academics to make this point; it seems painfully obvious given the history of the debate to date. What we think the Board did hire us for was to gather information about stakeholder perspectives with the intent of shedding some light on through this debate and get to policy choices that are acceptable for the community. Recommendations Following are a set of recommendations about potential next steps the County might take to move the debate over destination resorts forward. It is not intended to be a comprehensive framework about how to proceed, or provide a detailed methodology for a comprehensive impact study. • Do not conduct a comprehensive impact study. It is our evaluation that this would not serve to further the policy debate, but would attract attention to the details of the methods and results of the study. Direct staff to gather baseline information on approved resorts. This should include documenting buildout capacity and documenting the characteristics of resort residents, users and employees. We recognize that much of this data does not exist, and do not advocate expensive surveys of resort residents, users and employees. We do advocate use of existing data sources including the upcoming Census, the longitudinal employee-household dynamics database, continued reports from the Oregon employment department, and other readily available secondary data sources. • Conduct an evaluation of how well Goal 8 resorts are meeting the stated intent of Goal 8. This effort would attempt to answer the question of whether destination resorts are achieving stated outcomes. Conduct a study/literature review to better understand future market demand for destination resorts in Central Oregon. Many individuals we spoke with expressed concern that the market was "saturated" or "overbuilt" and that the potential exists for some resorts to fail. While such a study will be of limited use in managing existing resorts, it is important in the overall policy context of whether to permit additional resorts. Such a study should include an evaluation of the relative market for large (in the Oregon context, Goal 8) versus small resorts. Work with local stakeholders to strategically revise the current entitlement review process for destination resorts. Stakeholders identified many concerns about the impacts of destination resorts. This process could work to address specific issues identified by stakeholders. The County could also consider approaches to activity monitor/enforce approved resort land use decisions as a part of this process. While we do not advocate for an overly onerous or expensive process, the current Page 1 18 Community Planning Workshop system appears to overlook key impacts that stakeholders are concerned about. It is our opinion that answering these questions, rather than questions of economic impact, would go a long way towards clarifying the conversation and moving the policy discussion forward. --71= Deschutes County Destination Resorts October 2010 Page 1 19 APPENDixA: FOCUS GROUP SUMMARY REPORTS Environmental Groups and Agencies Focus Groups Background Deschutes County is currently amending the County's destination resort eligibility map, which will potentially allow for the siting of new resorts. As part of this process, it is looking for stakeholder input on what elements should be examined regarding local impacts of destination resorts (DR). CPW held four focus groups for Deschutes County to help determine opinions on key impacts of destination resorts for further study, the priority each takes, and how an analysis of those impacts should be conducted. Four focus groups were held on August 19`h, 2010 at the Deschutes Services Center in Bend, Oregon. Two of the focus groups were attended by representatives of tourism, the resort industry, or state/ federal agencies. The other two focus groups were attended by environmental groups and agencies alone. This summary pertains to the environmental groups and agencies focus groups totaling eighteen participants. Focus groups provided three sets of useful information. Each group presented pros and cons of having destination resorts in Deschutes County, a list of their prioritized key economic, environmental, and societal impacts, and suggestions for how to conduct an analysis of the key impacts. Pros & Cons Participants were asked to share key pros and cons of having destination resorts in Deschutes County. Most respondents voiced that destination resorts provide positive economic impacts to the county, including job creation and increased tourism. They also noted that destination resorts could create environmental issues such as negative effects on plant, fish and wildlife habitats, and natural water and forest resources. Furthermore these environmental issues can be costly to mitigate and restore. Additionally, most respondents also had concerns these resorts are only accessible to a limited demographic of people and taking advantage of locations outside of urban growth boundaries (UGB), which are intended to protect agricultural and forest practices. Table A-1 contains participant responses. Page 1 20 Community Planning Workshop Table A-2. Pros and Cons of Destination Resorts identified by Focus Group Participants Pros of Having Destination Resorts in Cons of Having Destination Resorts in Deschutes County Deschutes County Invites tourism Not a good assessment of economic and environment impacts as of yet Positive economic impact Impacts of developments Economic benefits, property taxes, attracts Concerns about impact studies companies and businesses Improves quality of life Potential for resorts to undermine urban areas (Bend and other cities) No net loss and no net degradation of resources Lower paid service workers housing: they may is positive want to live in urban area or could not afford to live in resort they are employed in Attracts tourist and 'outside' money Urban development in non-urban area and the need for additional services Provided substantial development in area Impact on agricultural and forest practices Opportunity for proponents of clean water and Creating a surplus of destination resorts. Over sky building and further degradation of natural resources Good community partners who contribute to impact on fish and wildlife community causes and activities Opportunity to improve quality of life Loosing sight of purpose of destination resorts: support recreation. Now nothing but subdivisions Supportive of economic impact Becoming gated and gentrified developments for the elite outside of UGB, so don't have to follow rules of development within UGB Market not calling for additional destination resorts. Over-saturation Delusion of statistics: hard to compare all of these resorts; vary greatly Lack of policy and laws on water traffic and mitigation for wildlife Development outside UGB doesn't support community because so far away Supports sprawl and longer commutes Temporary private interest, not in long-term public interests Transportation impacts are great Key Impacts of Destination Resorts After mentioning initial pros and cons, participants were asked to discuss impacts of destination resorts. Each participant was given three sets of colored cards: three blue cards, three green cards, and three pink cards. They were asked to write three impacts -one on each card- for three different categories of impacts: blue cards for economic impacts, green cards for environmental impacts, and pink cards for social impacts. Results from each impact category were shared with the group and separated into similar sub-topic categories. All participants were then given three dots to Deschutes County Destination Resorts October 2010 Page 1 21 place on any topic or topics they thought were the most important regarding the destination resort issue. They were able to place them all on one key issue, or separate them among two or three key issues as desired. The following table shows key issue topics as they were presented by focus group participants. The number of dots placed on key topics by group participants for issue prioritization is indicated by a number inside of parenthesis following the description or statement, i.e. "(4)". Issues that were brought up by multiple stakeholder participants are indicated by an asterisk following the topic description/ statement, i.e. The following table contains participant responses in prioritization order: Economic Impacts Environmental Impacts Social Impacts 1 Mitigation (including cost Water quality and Sprawl * (2) of mitigation and resources. Includes restoration of habitats) * concerns for groundwater (6) mitigation reuse and cost (placed on urban communities) for mitigation plus surface water flow temperatures (9) 2 Increased property tax Negative effect on fish and More competition for base * (3) wildlife habitats: Push out, natural and outdoor over use, reduction, and resources * (2) other direct and indirect effects * (7) 3 Lack of fair economic Inadequate protection for Social justice inequality: contribution by water and wildlife habitats 'Sagebrush' subdivisions developers to costs of (3) not allowed, but golf resorts (2) course subdivisions/gated community is okay *(2) 4 Job creation. Low-wage Increases Vehicle Miles Promoter of low-wage and jobs. South County needs Traveled (VMT), which is seasonal jobs * (1) jobs too. Could small DR contrary to state and be an answer? * (2) federal polices to reduce VMT (2) 5 Infrastructure: Impacts Lack of concrete values Lack of county follow- from and infrastructure placed on natural through to enforce costs not paid to cities (2) resources (1) conditions against DR * (1) 6 Brings new and tourist Concern for water wells: Inadequate services, dollars to the region (2) USGS Hydrology model school policies, and should be run for each transportation * (1) well to show location of impacts on waterways and sensitive fish species (1) Page 1 22 Community Planning Workshop Economic Impacts Environmental Impacts Social Impacts 7 Positive employment Wildlife displacement and Housing for low-income economic development fragmentation in rural families and workforce. impacts * landscapes * Burden on cities to provide such housing * (1) 8 Resorts near cities 'rob' Recreation and open Broadly divisive issue = cities of high-end space availability aimed at Bad public policy (1) development small audience opportunities 9 Impact on cities in UGB: Loss of productive Service-based economy property taxes for high resource lands can be fragile end development don't fund city infrastructures (eg. roads) that are used by visiting resort dwellers (2) 10 Property and Transient Lack of mechanism for Loss of ability for residents Room tax can occur inside assessing cumulative to determine what UGB impacts on environment happens to their communities 11 Transportation SDC's not Adjacent agencies such as Not-compatible with rural collected for any DR BLM, USFS, and State have & agricultural living: Zero- different management lot line and commercial goals of lands, which DR building heights and are adjacent to and using densities 12 Property taxes revenues * Lack of follow-up or Water policy rules for best enforcement on environmental health are mitigation plans not followed 13 Cost of drilling wells Failure to include current Dismissal of existing wildlife data into economic benefits of Comprehensive plan and existing recreational areas resort map 14 Opportunity cost: to Failure to recognize Resorts cater to the agriculture communities 'tipping-point' of water wealthy plus loss of revenue to quality/needed for fish existing hospitality and wildlife populations businesses * and # of people being served by water sources 15 The public and public Water rights and Irrigation People driven to seek agencies bear costs of prioritization between action at the state level analysis resorts and other users 16 Future costs of failed Rural trip generation = Lack of consistent and resorts and mitigation urban congestion enforced policies and rules plans * for DRs '?(r Deschutes County Destination Resorts October 2010 Page 1 23 Economic Impacts Environmental Impacts Social Impacts 17 Cost of services RFPD to Increased fishing Lack of acknowledgement outlying areas and of cumulative impacts on subsidies by city taxpayers current residents 18 Loss of economic increased use of forest Loss of quality of life for opportunities for fish resources larger community due to and/or wildlife related rampant and spread-out industries * development 19 Change in values to "Mitigation concept not More traffic congestion wildlife: hunting valid when $ goes for one viewing time BLM thinning vs. permanent loss of habitat" 20 Public reallocation of increased amount of Temporary residents may resources to protect DR waste production (sewer, be less supportive of local assets garbage, car pollution, needs runoff) and required associated services 21 Subst. investment by Increase non-native fish Increased visitors to taxpayers in "dying" species limited outdoor model (golf opportunities courses/second home development) 22 Damage to view sheds Brings in diverse population and cultures and associated opportunities and activists * 23 Local workforce vs. workforce brought in (Tahoe model) Summary of Key Impacts Each category had eighteen individually identified issues with 54 total prioritization dots used. Overall, stakeholders prioritized a majority of issues under the environmental impacts category with a total of 23 prioritization indication dots. Economic development impacts had 17 prioritization dot indications, while social were given nine. Three of the top five issues identified are from the environmental impacts category. The top five issues can be summarized as concerns for water quality and resources, negative effects on fish and wildlife habitats, costs for mitigation of degraded habitats, and an increased property tax base. The following table shows the top five issues as acknowledged through the issue identification and prioritization process: Page 1 24 Community Planning Workshop Category Issue as Described by Group Stakeholders Number of Dots Environmental Water quality and resources. Includes concerns for 9 Impacts groundwater mitigation reuse and cost for mitigation (placed on urban communities) plus surface water flow temperatures Environmental Negative effect on fish and wildlife habitats: push out, over use, 7 Impacts reduction, and other direct and indirect effects Economic Mitigation (includes cost of mitigation and restoration of 6 Impacts habitats) Environmental Inadequate protection for water and wildlife habitats 3 Impacts Economic increased property tax base 3 Impacts Next Steps Discussion The last activity of each focus group session was a discussion regarding how to conduct an analysis of the prioritized impacts of destination resorts in Deschutes County. Participants expressed how to analyze high priority items, who should be involved, what kind of data would be effective, and whether new/future and existing resorts should be treated the same for purposes of an analysis of priority issues. The following is a summary of what was discussed, wherever possible, using actual language of participants to protect the integrity of the comments. HOW TO ANALYZE HIGH PRIORITY ITEMS Group members voiced the whole range and spectrum within each category of the high priority items should be looked at. Members stated they feel it is important to capture what are the true costs for the development of these resorts. One suggestion was to create an impact fee that mitigates for these issues/impacts and incorporate those funds into the development costs. WHO SHOULD BE INVOLVED The biggest concern for the focus group is finding unbiased experts to perform analyses on impacts of existing and future destination resorts. Independent third- party professionals with a variety of applicable backgrounds would be necessary to perform these impact studies. WHAT KIND OF DATA WOULD BE EFFECTIVE Participants felt information on existing legacy resorts could provide indicators for decision-making for future resort's needs, requirements and expectations. The creation of a template was suggested to simplify the process of evaluation and analysis. An outcome for the study then could be a tool for understanding if there is truly a net benefit from these destination resorts or if a net benefit could be possible. A literature review on case studies of similar situations was agreed upon as a useful method for gleaning lessons and data. Lastly, concerns were voiced about the challenges for placing a dollar amount on issues that are extremely difficult to apply a monetary value on (i.e. the dollar value of a cubic foot of water or a native fish population). . _is Deschutes County Destination Resorts October 2010 Page 1 25 EXISTING vs. NEW RESORTS Respondents commented that the question of whether existing destination resorts should be treated differently as future resorts could only be answered after a study looks at the impacts of existing resorts. Currently there is a lack of data, which makes it difficult to distinguish between different types and goals of these resorts. For example: Sunriver currently dominates the statistics, but should all resorts be compared to this legacy destination resort? Participants suggested new classifications for these resorts be made, possibly Sagebrush, Adjacent, and Urban Destination Resorts, rather than lumping them together into one category. OTHER COMMENTS A recurring concern from members of the focus group stated the importance of an analysis on whether this region is currently over saturated with destination resorts and if not now, how many more can be supported with the current and future economy? Do future markets predict it feasible for these resorts to continue to be built? Could a different type of resort be supported in this market such as smaller resorts? Furthermore, a preliminary analysis comparing the stated goals for destination resorts verses what in actuality is happening within them and how residents and visitors are using them is necessary. Members voiced concerns that these resorts are meant to provide recreational opportunities to locals and tourist, but instead are becoming gated, second-home residences for a limited, upper-class demographic of people. Also, concerns were raised on whether these outlying communities should follow rules implemented on cities and residents within urban growth boundaries. If they do not, should they receive services provided from taxes raised from within the cities? Another suggested study could research what would happen if destination resorts continue to be built but the market does not support them in the long-term? What happens to failed resorts? How are the remains mitigated and who pays for the mitigation? Participants ended this discussion by suggesting improved collaboration between the city, county and state must be improved and unbiased, credible studies need to be preformed on the impacts of these resorts economically, socially and environmentally in order for the resorts and greater communities to have a successful and healthy future. Conclusions Participants in the environmental focus groups shared pros and cons of having destination resorts in the county, economic, environmental, and social impacts of destination resorts, and opinions on how to conduct an analysis of the impacts. Most respondents voiced that destination resorts provide positive economic impacts to the county, including job creation and increased tourism. They also noted that destination resorts could create environmental issues such as negative effects on plant, fish and wildlife habitats, and natural water and forest resources. Furthermore these environmental issues can be costly to mitigate and restore. Additionally, most respondents also expressed concerns these resorts are only Page 1 26 Community Planning Workshop accessible to a limited demographic of people and taking advantage of locations outside of urban growth boundaries (UGB), which are intended to protect agricultural and forest practices. Stakeholders identified 67 impacts - 21 economic impact issues, 22 environmental issues, and 23 societal issues. Their prioritization process resulted in the environmental impacts category having three of the top five issues. The top five issues can be summarized as concerns for water quality and resources, negative effects on fish and wildlife habitats, costs for mitigation of degraded habitats, and an increased property tax base. Group members voiced that an analysis of the prioritized impacts should get an idea of the real costs and consequences of existing and future destination resorts. They felt that the current classification of resorts (lumping them all together) is ineffective and a new classification was suggested. Plus, associated definitions and goals for each classification would be helpful in understanding the roles and future of these resorts. It was also suggested that future analysis be conducted by unbiased, qualified third-parties and collaboration between the city, county and state needs to be improved for a successful continued integration of destination resorts into Deschutes County. Tourism, Resort Industry, and Agency Focus Groups Background Deschutes County is currently amending the County's destination resort eligibility map, which will potentially allow for the siting of new resorts. As part of this process, it is looking for stakeholder input on what elements should be examined regarding local impacts of destination resorts (DR). CPW held four focus groups for Deschutes County to help determine opinions on key impacts of destination resorts for further study, the priority each takes, and how an analysis of those impacts should be conducted. CPW held four focus groups on August 19th, 2010 at the Deschutes Services Center in Bend to help determine opinions on key impacts of destination resorts for further study, the priority each takes, and how an analysis of those impacts should be conducted. Two of the focus groups were attended by representatives of tourism, the resort industry, or state/ federal agencies. The other two focus groups were attended by environmental groups and agencies alone. This summary pertains to the tourism, resort industry, and agency focus groups totaling seventeen participants. Focus groups provided three sets of useful information. Each group presented pros and cons of having destination resorts in Deschutes County, a list of their prioritized key economic, environmental, and societal impacts, and suggestions for how to conduct an analysis of the key impacts. This memo is organized by those topics. Pros & Cons As a warm-up to get participants thinking about both sides of the issues, participants each spoke for 60 seconds or less, sharing key pros and cons of - 1( Deschutes County Destination Resorts October 2010 Page 1 27 having destination resorts in Deschutes County. Most respondents voiced that destination resorts provide positive economic impacts to the county, including property tax revenues, job creation, and public service support. They also noted that destination resorts can be a burden to both traffic and the environment and that there can be a separation between resort and non-resort community interests. The following table contains participant responses: Pros of Having Destination Resorts in Cons of Having Destination Resorts in Deschutes County Deschutes County They build property tax revenues Traffic impacts Positive economic impact They can struggle with competing interests from the non-resort community Economic development that also supports Localized traffic issues surrounding areas They boost funding for schools, the fire Trouble working within existing rural dept, and other public services communities They provide jobs Development competes against the environment They attract businesses to open or relocate Building on the edge of forests puts a lot of in the county buildings and people at risk of forest fires, which become a federal expense -everyone else's collective financial burden to bear Opportunity for businesses run by families Strain on governmental resources in resorts Increases property sales "Visitor attitudes" - not protecting the natural amenities and treating the environment as more of a playground Brings in affluent money to the community - They provide a long-term investment in the - community Key Impacts of Destination Resorts After mentioning initial pros and cons, participants were asked to discuss impacts of destination resorts. Each participant was given three sets of three colored cards. They were asked to write three impacts -one on each card- for three different categories of impacts: economic impacts, environmental impacts, and social impacts. Participants were first asked to write three economic impacts (one on each card) then share them with the group. Impacts were separated into similar sub-topic Page 1 28 Community Planning Workshop categories on the wall for the group to look at. The same process was repeated for environmental and social impacts. Participants were then given three dots to place on any topic or topics they thought were the most important to the destination resort issue. They were able to place them all on one key issue, or separate them among two or three key issues as desired. Dot placements indicate issue prioritization. The following table shows key issue topics as they were presented by focus group participants. The number of dots placed on key topics by group participants for issue prioritization is indicated by a number inside of parenthesis following the description or statement. Issues that were brought up by multiple stakeholder participants are indicated by an asterisk (*)following the topic description/ statement. The following table contains participant responses in prioritized order: Economic Impacts Environmental Impacts Social Impacts 1 Tax support for city, Water demand, planning, Separate community county, state government management, availability; within another larger & schools, lodging tax reduced water usage community; separate revenues; tax base when converted from classes vs. integrated support for agencies like other irrigated uses; community; potential DEQ, BLM, Forest Service; reduction in irrigated impacts on community increased property tax agriculture; watershed cohesion i.e. rural vs. base; improved services to impacts, flow/volume, residential, distance, part entire district (14)* water quality; water time and full time resources & effective residence, haves vs. have- management* (6) nots* (4) 2 Jobs; construction service Environmental mitigation; Improved social services jobs; employment; protection of sensitive (3) employment areas; environmental opportunities on and off standards; management site; permanent jobs; of resources* (2) family wage jobs; seasonal jobs (10)* 3 Brings new money into Habitat restoration & Resorts enhance image of county economy; helps preservation; enhanced Central Oregon to visitors; bring new business to wildlife habitat; fish & promote awareness of Central Oregon and wildlife; loss of habitat for region life style (2) creates a multiplier effect; key species * (1) economic multiplier: business relocation xjobs = bonus; investment* (4) 4 Increased infrastructure Wildfire buffers; fire Reconciling resort use needs such as for traffic; suppression & prevention; with agricultural use i.e. offsite infrastructure creation of safer wildfire adjacent or nearby needs borne by others* conditions* different uses (1) (1) :'I Deschutes County Destination Resorts October 2010 Page 1 29 Economic Impacts Environmental Impacts Social Impacts 5 Increased costs for public Enhances environmental Support for non-profits; services & infrastructure awareness; educational charitable commitments (fire suppression, roads, programs for users; to community; police, etc)* promoting awareness of philanthropic investment Central Oregon in the community; environment* charitable foundation creation* (1) 6 Reduced insurance rates Lack/ loss of open space; Increased population; (fire district ISO)* conversion of farm/ forest attracts new people* land to development; forest/farm management issues* 7 Further marketing of Carbon implications i.e. Enhanced cultural region to potential sequestration, vehicle amenities; enhanced residents and new miles traveled; carbon transportation & shopping business* emissions from traffic* options; cultural centers for community action* 8 Tourist draw* New LEED certified Hubs for community structures; using greener events; improved co-op energy development* educational opportunities* 9 Home base for Impact on natural Community recreation & entrepreneurs resources (i.e. water)* cultural events; expanded recreation; improved culture with restaurants, art, music etc.* 10 Destination tourism Population density; Built-in community promotion benefits concentration of functions for residents (marketing) development in a well defined area* 11 Charitable contributions Impacts of roads, highway Promote healthy living, development & recreation & relaxation maintenance* 12 Events that attract visitors Promotes community Prolific grassroots efforts and dollars involvement in things like & proactive communities "Tree City USA" program 13 Self-supporting: small Impact on migratory Move from natural impact on government species, location specific & resource extraction collective migratory economy to tourism patterns economy 14 Attraction to area of new Additional use of natural Higher density resources resources 15 Brings money to local Recreational opportunities Support of education businesses from trail maintenance etc. 16 Real estate sales Reduction of fallow land Reduce public enjoyment of natural amenities Page 1 30 Community Planning Workshop Summary of Key Impacts Each category had sixteen individually identified issues with 49 total prioritization dots used. Eleven total issues were identified as a priority as defined by having received at least one prioritization dot from a stakeholder in the focus group. Overall, stakeholders prioritized a majority of issues under the economic development category with a total of 29 prioritization indication dots. Social impacts had 11 prioritization dot indications, while environmental were given nine. Three of the top five issues identified are from the economic impacts category, however each category is represented. The top five issues can be summarized as tax support, jobs, water issues, community separation, and economic multiplier effect. The following table shows the top five issues as acknowledged through the issue identification and prioritization process: Category Issue as Described by Group Stakeholders Number of Dots Economic Tax support for city, county, state government & schools, 14 Impacts lodging tax revenues; tax base support for agencies like DEQ, BLM, Forest Service; increased property tax base; improved services to entire district Economic Jobs; construction service jobs; employment; employment 10 Impacts opportunities on and off site; permanent jobs; family wage jobs; seasonal jobs Environmental Water demand, planning, management, availability; 6 Impacts reduced water usage when converted from other irrigated uses; reduction in irrigated agriculture; watershed impacts, flow/volume, water quality; water resources & effective management Social Impacts Separate community within another larger community; 4 separate classes vs. integrated community; potential impacts on community cohesion (i.e., rural vs. residential, distance, part time and full time residence, haves vs. have- nots) Economic Brings new money into county economy; helps bring new 4 Impacts business to Central Oregon and creates a multiplier effect; economic multiplier: business relocation x jobs = bonus; investment Next Steps Discussion The last activity of each focus group session was a discussion regarding how to conduct an analysis of the prioritized impacts of destination resorts in Deschutes County. Participants expressed how to analyze high priority items, who should be involved, what kind of data would be effective, and whether new/future and existing resorts should be treated the same for purposes of an analysis of priority issues. The following is a summary of what was discussed, wherever possible, using actual language of participants to protect the integrity of the comments. .wl= Deschutes County Destination Resorts October 2010 Page 1 31 HOW TO ANALYZE HIGH PRIORITY ITEMS Group members voiced that an analysis of the prioritized impacts should get an idea of the real use of public services pertaining to destination resorts. That information would allow comparison of destination resort burden vs. dollars spent on mitigations and improvements to the community. They would like to know how much home owners association services affect public impacts and believe that the benefits resorts provide should be included in analysis. Contributors to the conversation want the experts and researchers to be unbiased and to not get wrapped up in the controversy regarding this issue. The researchers should recognize and distinguish among the different markets and classes within the resort communities. A suggestion was given for conducting a survey in and out of the resort communities to better understand and improve the "haves vs. have-nots" issue. WHO SHOULD BE INVOLVED The following is a bulleted list of groups, organizations, and agencies that came up in the discussions: • Deschutes County • Fire department • Police department • Public library • Social services • Realtors • School district • Home owners associations • Public policy makers (regarding the water issue big picture) • The "have-nots" WHAT KIND OF DATA WOULD BE EFFECTIVE Participants mentioned that information from home owners associations would be useful to factor in resort private improvements that go toward public use. They want more information from social services such as the police, fire department, and public library to better understand the impacts destination resorts have on these areas. The data would be able to show if destination resorts have high or low use on these services compared to the non-resort community. Focus group members would like to know where/ how people spend their money in the county so that there could be a thorough review of indirect economic impacts and tiers of job creation that result from destination resorts. Interest was expressed in finding data regarding the types of jobs that destination resort land would be providing if it were agricultural resource land. That way a comparison of best economic use of the land could be factored in. Page 1 32 Community Planning Workshop EXISTING vs. NEW RESORTS The focus groups reasoned about if new and existing resorts should be treated the same or differently for purposes of analyzing some of the key identified issues. Respondents commented they should be treated differently because their economics are different regarding the stages of development and maturity. Broadly, they face different obstacles and have different opportunities available as well. Participants noted that there are really three types of resorts: existing, titled, and potential new resorts. Changing times mean that each resort type is faced with different concerns including environmental concerns. An issue was brought up regarding an existing development that evolved into a resort and the question was raised about how that could affect the analysis of priority issues if existing and new resorts are treated differently. OTHER COMMENTS Additional statements and issues brought up by members of the focus groups ranged from state regulations to historic process. Some participants brought up that the state should require resorts to be closer to local cities. Less gas could be used from shorter commuting and it could help the resorts connect better with the community. There was also discussion about changing markets and demographics creating a need for resorts to evolve and reinvent themselves so that residential units do not stay empty. Discussion lead to whether or not more destination resorts would be needed in the county or not. Although it was asserted that the county does not need any more destination resorts because of all the empty residential units, it was also mentioned that the population will increase and there will, at some point, be a need for more resorts. It was brought up that too many rules on destination resorts would restrict their creativity; however, lessons learned regarding traffic, water, and other impacts mean that some additional regulations may be important to the success of the community as well as the destination resorts. Conclusion Participants in the tourism, resort industry, and agency focus groups regarding Deschutes County destination resorts, shared pros and cons of having destination resorts in the county, economic, environmental, and social impacts of destination resorts, and opinions on how to conduct an analysis of the impacts. Respondents voiced that destination resorts provide positive economic impacts to the county, including property tax revenues, job creation, and public service support; however, they can create traffic and environmental issues and separation between resort and non-resort community interests. Stakeholders identified 48 impacts -16 from each category of economic, environmental, and societal issues. Their prioritization process resulted in the economic impacts category having three of the top five issues. The top five impacts were regarding tax support, jobs, water rights/ quality, community separation, and economic multiplier effect. - -'1= Deschutes County Destination Resorts October 2010 Page 1 33 Participants voiced that an analysis of the prioritized impacts should get an idea of the real use of public services pertaining to destination resorts. They want more information from social services such as the police, fire department, and public library to better understand the impacts destination resorts have on these services. The data would be able to show if destination resorts have high or low use of these services compared to the non-resort community. Focus group participants would also like to know where/ how people spend their money in the county so that there could be a thorough review of indirect economic impacts and tiers of job creation that result from destination resorts. Additional statements and issues brought up ranged from state regulations to historic process. Participants asked for information on how state regulations will affect the Deschutes County legislative process regarding destination resort mapping. Participants also discussed how the Metolius Basin was made into an area of critical concern and how some of the impacts of destination resorts were presented in that case. Participants pointed out that there were at times, conflicting facts presented from opposing interests and that they believe that should be avoided as best as possible by using a third party, unbiased, intermediary agency. This information will be combined with information gained from two additional sources: two other focus groups made up of environmental groups and agency representatives, and stakeholder interviews of additional knowledgeable parties and field experts. The result will be a summary of the process, information gathered, and a recommendation to the County Board of Commissioners on how to proceed regarding a potential impact analysis on destination resorts in the County. The report will go before the County Board of Commissioners on September 30. Page 1 34 Community Planning Workshop APPENDIX B: GROUP INTERVIEW SUMMARY Background Deschutes County is currently amending the County's destination resort eligibility map, which will potentially allow for the siting of new resorts. As part of this process, it is looking for stakeholder input on what elements should be examined regarding local impacts of destination resorts (DR). The County hired Community Planning Workshop (CPW) to gain input from stakeholder groups on this process. CPW is an experiential program within the Planning, Public Policy, and Management Department at the University of Oregon that provides professional planning assistance to communities, agencies, and organizations across the state. CPW held four focus groups on August 19`h, 2010 at the Deschutes Services Center in Bend to help determine opinions on key impacts of destination resorts for further study, the priority each takes, and how an analysis of those impacts should be conducted. Two of the focus groups were attended by representatives of tourism, the resort industry, or state/ federal agencies. The other two focus groups were attended by environmental groups and agencies alone. Stakeholder interviews took place for individuals who would otherwise have been a participant in either of the groups but were unable to attend at the time. There were two stakeholders interviewed -one participant from each focus group category. Stakeholder interviews provided the same information as the focus groups. Participants presented pros and cons of having destination resorts in Deschutes County, a list of their prioritized key economic, environmental, and societal impacts, and suggestions for how to conduct an analysis of the key impacts. This summary is organized by those topics. Pros & Cons As a warm-up to get participants thinking about both sides of the issues, participants each spoke for 60 seconds or less, sharing key pros and cons of having destination resorts in Deschutes County. Participants agreed that the biggest pros are the attraction of tourism dollars and the jobs that destination resorts provide. The cons listed between the participants were that the destination resorts have environmental and land use impacts as well as an opinion that destination resort siting should be up to the developer and not the government. Key Impacts of Destination Resorts After mentioning initial pros and cons, participants were asked to discuss impacts of destination resorts. Each participant was asked to first take turns sharing three economic impacts, then three environmental impacts, and finally three social impacts. To prioritize which impacts are most important, each impact they listed was read out loud by the interview administrator and participants took turns voicing their rating. They scores each impact on a scale of 1 to 5 where `1' is Deschutes County Destination Resorts October 2010 Page 1 35 lowest priority, '3' is medium priority, and '5' is high priority. They were able to use each number as many times as they felt necessary. The following table shows key issue topics as they were presented by stakeholder interview participants. The sum of their prioritization for key impact topics is indicated by a number inside of parenthesis following the impact statement. Given that there were two stakeholders interviewed, the highest prioritization score possible is a'10,' while the lowest is a T. The following table contains participant responses in prioritized order: Economic Impacts Environmental Impacts Social Impacts 1 Recreational impacts Water quality/ water use & Quality of life consumption 2 Jobs Erosion, sediment Division between economic spectrums - especially housing 3 Impacts on businesses Habitat, migration routes Recreational impacts 4 Fires/ Wildfires/ Endangered species Responsibilities to Development protection contribute to community, governance 5 Housing impacts from roads Temporaryjobs/ employment 6 Public improvements Air quality Summary of Key Impacts Eight total impacts received the highest ranking of '10' although the lowest ranked impact was a '6', of which there were four. Although there was a ranking of '10' in each category, all the environmental impacts were given the highest rank by both parties. The lowest ranked impacts were equally distributed in the social and economic impacts. The top issues can be summarized as recreational impacts, environmental impacts, and general quality of life. Next Steps Discussion The last activity was a discussion regarding how to conduct an analysis of the prioritized impacts of destination resorts in Deschutes County. Participants expressed how to analyze high priority items, who should be involved, what kind of data would be effective, and whether new/future and existing resorts should be treated the same for purposes of an analysis of priority issues. The following is a summary of what was discussed, wherever possible, using actual language of participants to protect the integrity of the comments. HOW TO ANALYZE HIGH PRIORITY ITEMS, WHO SHOULD Be INVOLVED, WHAT KIND OF DATA WOULD BE EFFECTIVE, AND EXISTING VS. NEW RESORTS Stakeholders would like purely unbiased, third-party professionals involved to break "quality of life" down into multiple factors for further study. They should draw upon existing studies and related work or information. One example is a Page 1 36 Community Planning Workshop case study of the San Juan River in New Mexico. The case explores the comparison in benefits of adding a destination resort and of allowing the land use to remain the same without development. Other Comments Additional statements and issues brought up by stakeholders were that the government should get any development or land use rules out early so that developers know how to mitigate properly. These rules need to be worked out first so that developers can do what is right and then not be further attacked later or down the line when new concerns are thought of. There should be clear codes, restrictions, or lists showing the range of what is acceptable and what isn't in destination resort development. It was mentioned that if destination resorts were only allowed inside UGB instead of outside, that it will make them prosper. Another comment was that destination resorts should be planned to help stimulate the economy in a sustainable way. They should be carefully planned, not'willy nilly' because the pie is only so big -or land resources are scarce resources. Conclusions Participants in the stakeholder interview regarding Deschutes County destination resorts, shared pros and cons of having destination resorts in the county, economic, environmental, and social impacts of destination resorts, and opinions on how to conduct an analysis of the impacts. Respondents voiced that destination resorts attract tourism dollars and provide jobs while they have some negative environmental and land use impacts. Stakeholders agreed that environmental impacts take the highest priority, but they also put recreational and quality of life impacts at the top. Stakeholders would like purely unbiased, third-party professionals involved to break "quality of life" down into multiple factors for further study. They should draw upon existing studies and related work or information such as a case study of the San Juan River in New Mexico. Additional statements and issues brought up by stakeholders were that the government should get any development or land use rules out early so that developers know how to mitigate properly. It was mentioned that if destination resorts were only allowed inside UGB instead of outside, that it will make them prosper. Another comment was that destination resorts should be planned to help stimulate the economy in a sustainable way. They should be carefully planned, not'willy nilly' because the pie is only so big -or land resources are scarce resources. This information will be combined with information gained from two additional sources: two other focus groups made up of environmental groups and agency representatives, and stakeholder interviews of additional knowledgeable parties and field experts. The result will be a summary of the process, information gathered, and a recommendation to the County Board of Commissioners on how to proceed regarding a potential impact analysis on destination resorts in the 'I- Deschutes County Destination Resorts October 2010 Page 1 37 County. The report will go before the County Board of Commissioners on September 30. Page 38 Community Planning Workshop O ro 4-j ill y-- O C O 4-J ro ro w Q ILA +J L. O ILA rr C O 4-J ro C -I--j V) 0 4- O V) C O 4-j 4J V 4J Document Reproduces Poorly (Archived) O V V) 41 v dJ D C O U V1 4-J D V t/1 aj O 4J O ru +-J a~ a~ Ul L O Un . ton E E O U 4- O r~ O m l- V_ O Q r-I i O N r N U o O m Ln i c O p +-1 ro O _0 l!1 C: 'E 0 E aj E O O V C: O O ru -0 t C O ru ra O un %ft Ln C m -0 L O N O • u 0O O D j u u 4- O ~ O u O ' - V1 U.) a-+ . -a N . 4-J O W +-j CL ro 4-J ul O n t C: c ro a) _0 ~ W lL 4-J Ul u 0- E 40 - 0 0 c O a--j ro N -I--j L. O L. r) V) V) Q 0 L V l/1 V O ,rr Ul y- 4- O 0 0 ILn u~ 4-'' M , ra M Ln V) E r C ^ > - o . > L N ru _ , ra i, . ro - . 4.j to ~ ~ z § Q ~ - • • • • V dJ p 41 M n Ln cn V, QJ D a . V E . ' D E E O X `n E o p Q v ra • l/1 x F.- 0 0 V 4-J .10 4-J 4-J O r • 4-J M E 0 w D L X M }}Ln J 4-J L > p t U-1 4J ~ Q. O C- 0 C- Q -0 V) V) tA L.. -1--j ro L V) ro t O aJ U i ro O - C: Ln ro M c: ' _ Ln dJ v1 ~1 -0 Q) U C- >I. _0 -p Ln M L 'c u O u M V _r L ro 4-J - M > O U ro C- D O O 0 +j E O O a--' Q u W ~ I I I I . D O D •N D U L O D ru c1 ro s u I O 4J L O 4-J r6 0 V) Ln u 4-1 W 4-J W O r) 0 ~ . E Ln • ru QJ c- 0 cn ^ , 1 f6 O r- C- A Ul 0 1 w ~ ro +J O E C: 4- D 0 kn I..L. O O C- p O O O ~ 4--J 4-J +J ru L Al Al Al ~ E E E E L o o o o E E E E W I w W I W ' I 0 fo N LA -I-J E E 0 V Ln •U a~ O r • L~ L~ O E D C: Ln -0 t C: O ra ~ O 0 ".P ru dJ w E -o +j O try ru 0-0 Ul dJ E :D E Z I oft L > L O U O ~ O1 a% O vi 4J V E •i w w t cn O Ln 4J ~ O O O, C: -0 0-0 o W U C: 4J +3 0 i Ln 4J E D E E ra O t u u ~ ru ru _ ra O t Ln O ~ s r~ L u Ln Ln :4-j a~ Ln w 0 U C: -I~--+ cn C: ' 4J 4--J u 4) 4- W C v E O C O v W V . L 2 4J 0 O u1 L (o C: V) a--~ Q) E O U -0 E --j O fu O L u ~ QJ L 4- ~ O c1 O C u L aJ O -0 C- O O -I--i r u u Ln O ~ ~Ln D _ m Ln t O Ln cn vi tn w cn D n w Ln O Q) 4.1 QJ L u Ln r) O 0 E Z 4"J ro .~...J Ln • ~ t . O ro Ln ro O .N r) ro (1) 4-J L C- 4-J - . M rD r) -0 E ru C o O ro c v1 u M o Imo `l C 4-J 4-J . ro ra D ~ M Ln J- 0- > 0 Ln Ul - J c: w E fo - E m c- o 4J w C- u _ c V w _ ~ I I I I 4-J L ro +J • ro r E O O .1..J ro 4"J O L n 4'J O V Ln V . i -^N1 W w 4-J O r 0 o t O ul c O (1) D ro u LA O ro ro c O 4-J ro E +j ro ro s O Ln O V V) "0 Z O -1--j u1 r E 5... ru O cm cm C V1 X O O L. C: V .O E V o C: O 4- E L O L t O .v Ln > Ln ~ 4J ~ cn O U _0 ~ C O = ra r6 0- L E - - O I ~ O 4-J O Ln O V CDL O C: - E X aJ O= ro Q- > u ~O E tn E V D C ~ 4-J 4-J V) 4-J E (1) ro (1) o O O m u m- U V • • V) a C: :3 0 0 4-j Ln V ra t O u E ~ O O ~ V" E 4J O w u -0 W C: C- u C- E o O ~ 4-1 E u t C: O Ln W Ln ru ~ u D 4-; a~ IZ cy- u . 0 Ln t O 4J E O ra W O r~ D r~ w 0 -^N1 Ln W t 4J O E Ln a~ a~ y- ru O L t O - Ln 4J ru ru w 00 O cn fu i V s O fu E D > s ~ O w r O un L. 4"J C- t u O E S r~ E E O E L, U O . v1 4J U ' _0 0 :3 ry, 4- o U f6 l!1 ~ ~ L L 4- - U - - CM U L.. L O . O -0 cn _ U C- C O O 4J CSC (Lj t O ) _0 > - O .7n 0 O ~ cn c > ro - - O O > - V Q V V t/'1 L -FJ -F-j L. Q X LJJ 4-J W r1 Ln M 4-J Ln _0 -0 0 4-J 0 4J X +-J L . N M cn 0 cn - ) v 4J u u 4~J O ro O fu 0 -0 C) ro E r~ E :D ru +.j u 0 u _ to V - E t ~l1 0 s 0 ru ~ _0 O ra aJ C: C O i -O 4J ru Ln E ro ~o E ~ O E 0 F- u Q l/1 L -I-j -I-j L. LJJ 0-0 4J (1) C- N 4-J ro -FJ rO O un -0 ooo~N _ ro 4-3 s O O U V) 4-J Ul c- t C: O Ln O 0L O O O v O ro E .S~ O ~ C: Ln a) O C: 0 0) O 0 4-J 4J V 4J Jc: a-j 4- O LA O r~ E a~ 4 4- 0 dJ V) D ro u 0) m 0 W t O .N cn -o E L O - E to O E Ln D O cn 4~ L 4J ~ Ul • - +-J - X w Ln W t C: t -0 0-- O W E ~-o ~ro O X O 0 -E-~ .0 r) ~ Ln > c o OJ O Ln r-) n- • 0 V O V D Ln L Ln M C r 0 Ln u n E ro Ul l/1 V O V Ln c o a~ 0 O a~ r~ Ul 4J ~ y_ > In o In 4-J u1 4~ a--+ O > u u _0 ro 4J Q ro - CD- t 0 E ro C: aj L- > 4-J ro w V, 4-J n -0 ul 0 _0 V) t O L O r cm E t C: 0 E E E O E E c E O 0.- ~D >1 E 4- Ln _0 C: D o o Ul o Ul E ~ . ~J1 0 E u v L- 0 Ln r6 u O u -0 ~ -0 0 4-; fo W C: ru E a~-+ r O 4- cn cn ro O I I I u ro ca- E t O a c O t~J1 0 V O V E W a) C- , D cn 0 . -0 +-1 Q, u J o C: r~ ~ a~ O -0 4-J 0 0 -0 4-J rD 4- 0 r) ro 0 cn ro E t o a~ L- 0 LA u - O CY) ro C: 0 ~ o - - o 0 M Ln u 0 o 4- L- X a ~ s 4 a~ u cn 4-J I- U) O I I I I ~ a 0 0 ro An M l/1 0 V O V ro a-J ro 0 l!1 ro m 4- O V ro J 0 Ln t O ~X Q) 4- O -N ~u ro Q. ro D O m t O L O u_ u ra V D t O Ln O u P i u ru s V u V) ro u O In O 4-J u ro C- V ro r E u I- t O cn L L O kn con 0 a~ L 4J ru w -N O J Ln V O V c 0 3: s u r~ a~ L O W 4-J V) ro Ln Ln 4J u 4~ 0 f6 N E E O V N D -1-j cn V ^o ~..L E O V ro u c O u 4-J O O 0 c O O E L O 4- w C: Ln ru a~ s ru Ul cmt 00 -I--+ V1 4- ~ 4- ~ ru -0 -I--> > u O 0 O ru 00 ru O 000 4- OO V O 4- Ln o ~ • O +-j r > 4~J 4J E r u ro Ln 0 t C: O O Ln vI- L +-j QJ O 04- -0 -0 I u E 4-j~ ru ru a~ E = O _0 +-j Ln Ln - ru C: O V ru i C: 4J -0 Ln O w V -0 O Ln O O ° U r~ i Ul N L 0 E ru ca- O~ > 4- Ln V 0 O r6 E cn V ~ dJ O- ~ D 4J O-0 Ln O 0