HomeMy WebLinkAboutDestination Resort Study - Final
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
Page | ii Oregon Economic Development Needs Assessment UO Economic Development Center
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
Economic Development Needs Assessment October 2010 Page | iii
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
Deschutes County Destination Resorts October 2010 Page | 1
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.1 Our review of these studies is that
each served a specific purpose and looked at a relatively narrow aspect of
destination resorts. What is lacking is a study that provides a comprehensive
overview of the fiscal, economic, societal, and environmental impacts (both
positive and negative) and implications of destination resorts.
In March 2010, 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.
1 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.
Page | 2 Community Planning Workshop
Organization of this report
The remainder of this report is organized in four sections:
Section II: Summary of Focus Group Meetings, discusses information gathered
from stakeholders during the focus group meetings.
Section III: 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
Deschutes County Destination Resorts October 2010 Page | 3
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
• Jobs
• Water issues
• Community separation
• Economic multiplier effect
• Water issues
• Negative effects on fish and wildlife
habitats
• Costs for mitigation of degraded
habitats
• Tax revenues
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
Page | 4 Community Planning Workshop
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)
Deschutes County Destination Resorts October 2010 Page | 5
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.
Page | 6 Community Planning Workshop
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.
Deschutes County Destination Resorts October 2010 Page | 7
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 UGBs, and urban resorts such as those that are either within or functionally part
of a city.
Page | 8 Community Planning Workshop
• 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.
Deschutes County Destination Resorts October 2010 Page | 9
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.
Page | 10 Community Planning Workshop
• 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.
Deschutes County Destination Resorts October 2010 Page | 11
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.
Page | 12 Community Planning Workshop
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
Deschutes County Destination Resorts October 2010 Page | 13
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
Page | 14 Community Planning Workshop
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.
Deschutes County Destination Resorts October 2010 Page | 15
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)
Page | 16 Community Planning Workshop
• 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
Deschutes County Destination Resorts October 2010 Page | 17
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
Page | 18 Community Planning Workshop
(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
Deschutes County Destination Resorts October 2010 Page | 19
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.
Page | 20 Community Planning Workshop
APPENDIX A: 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 19th, 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.
Deschutes County Destination Resorts October 2010 Page | 21
Table A-2. Pros and Cons of Destination Resorts identified by Focus
Group Participants
Pros of Having Destination Resorts in
Deschutes County
Cons of Having Destination Resorts in
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
companies and businesses
Concerns about impact studies
Improves quality of life Potential for resorts to undermine urban areas
(Bend and other cities)
No net loss and no net degradation of resources
is positive
Lower paid service workers housing: they may
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
sky
Creating a surplus of destination resorts. Over
building and further degradation of natural
resources
Good community partners who contribute to
community causes and activities
Impact on fish and wildlife
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
Page | 22 Community Planning Workshop
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
of mitigation and
restoration of habitats) *
(6)
Water quality and
resources. Includes
concerns for groundwater
mitigation reuse and cost
(placed on urban
communities) for
mitigation plus surface
water flow temperatures *
(9)
Sprawl * (2)
2 Increased property tax
base * (3)
Negative effect on fish and
wildlife habitats: Push out,
over use, reduction, and
other direct and indirect
effects * (7)
More competition for
natural and outdoor
resources * (2)
3 Lack of fair economic
contribution by
developers to costs of
resorts (2)
Inadequate protection for
water and wildlife habitats
(3)
Social justice inequality:
‘Sagebrush’ subdivisions
not allowed, but golf
course subdivisions/gated
community is okay *(2)
4 Job creation. Low‐wage
jobs. South County needs
jobs too. Could small DR
be an answer? * (2)
Increases Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT), which is
contrary to state and
federal polices to reduce
VMT (2)
Promoter of low‐wage and
seasonal jobs * (1)
5 Infrastructure: Impacts
from and infrastructure
costs not paid to cities (2)
Lack of concrete values
placed on natural
resources (1)
Lack of county follow‐
through to enforce
conditions against DR * (1)
6 Brings new and tourist
dollars to the region (2)
Concern for water wells:
USGS Hydrology model
should be run for each
well to show location of
impacts on waterways and
sensitive fish species (1)
Inadequate services,
school policies, and
transportation * (1)
Deschutes County Destination Resorts October 2010 Page | 23
Economic Impacts Environmental Impacts Social Impacts
7 Positive employment
economic development
impacts *
Wildlife displacement and
fragmentation in rural
landscapes *
Housing for low‐income
families and workforce.
Burden on cities to
provide such housing * (1)
8 Resorts near cities ‘rob’
cities of high‐end
development
opportunities
Recreation and open
space availability aimed at
small audience
Broadly divisive issue =
Bad public policy (1)
9 Impact on cities in UGB:
property taxes for high
end development don’t
fund city infrastructures
(eg. roads) that are used
by visiting resort dwellers
(2)
Loss of productive
resource lands
Service‐based economy
can be fragile
10 Property and Transient
Room tax can occur inside
UGB
Lack of mechanism for
assessing cumulative
impacts on environment
Loss of ability for residents
to determine what
happens to their
communities
11 Transportation SDC’s not
collected for any DR
Adjacent agencies such as
BLM, USFS, and State have
different management
goals of lands, which DR
are adjacent to and using
Not‐compatible with rural
& agricultural living: Zero‐
lot line and commercial
building heights and
densities
12 Property taxes revenues * Lack of follow‐up or
enforcement on
mitigation plans
Water policy rules for best
environmental health are
not followed
13 Cost of drilling wells Failure to include current
wildlife data into
Comprehensive plan and
resort map
Dismissal of existing
economic benefits of
existing recreational areas
14 Opportunity cost: to
agriculture communities
plus loss of revenue to
existing hospitality
businesses *
Failure to recognize
‘tipping‐point’ of water
quality/needed for fish
and wildlife populations
and # of people being
served by water sources
Resorts cater to the
wealthy
15 The public and public
agencies bear costs of
analysis
Water rights and Irrigation
prioritization between
resorts and other users
People driven to seek
action at the state level
16 Future costs of failed
resorts and mitigation
plans *
Rural trip generation =
urban congestion
Lack of consistent and
enforced policies and rules
for DRs
Page | 24 Community Planning Workshop
Economic Impacts Environmental Impacts Social Impacts
17 Cost of services RFPD to
outlying areas and
subsidies by city taxpayers
Increased fishing Lack of acknowledgement
of cumulative impacts on
current residents
18 Loss of economic
opportunities for fish
and/or wildlife related
industries *
Increased use of forest
resources
Loss of quality of life for
larger community due to
rampant and spread‐out
development *
19 Change in values to
wildlife: hunting Æ
viewing
“Mitigation concept not
valid when $ goes for one
time BLM thinning vs.
permanent loss of habitat”
More traffic congestion
20 Public reallocation of
resources to protect DR
assets
Increased amount of
waste production (sewer,
garbage, car pollution,
runoff) and required
associated services
Temporary residents may
be less supportive of local
needs
21 Subst. investment by
taxpayers in “dying”
model (golf
courses/second home
development)
Increase non‐native fish
species
Increased visitors to
limited outdoor
opportunities
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:
Deschutes County Destination Resorts October 2010 Page | 25
Category Issue as Described by Group Stakeholders Number of Dots
Environmental
Impacts
Water quality and resources. Includes concerns for
groundwater mitigation reuse and cost for mitigation (placed
on urban communities) plus surface water flow temperatures
9
Environmental
Impacts
Negative effect on fish and wildlife habitats: push out, over use,
reduction, and other direct and indirect effects
7
Economic
Impacts
Mitigation (includes cost of mitigation and restoration of
habitats)
6
Environmental
Impacts
Inadequate protection for water and wildlife habitats 3
Economic
Impacts
Increased property tax base 3
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).
Page | 26 Community Planning Workshop
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
Deschutes County Destination Resorts October 2010 Page | 27
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
Page | 28 Community Planning Workshop
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
Deschutes County
Cons of Having Destination Resorts in
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
surrounding areas
Localized traffic issues
They boost funding for schools, the fire
dept, and other public services
Trouble working within existing rural
communities
They provide jobs Development competes against the
environment
They attract businesses to open or relocate
in the county
Building on the edge of forests puts a lot of
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
in resorts
Strain on governmental resources
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
Deschutes County Destination Resorts October 2010 Page | 29
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,
county, state government
& schools, lodging tax
revenues; tax base
support for agencies like
DEQ, BLM, Forest Service;
increased property tax
base; improved services to
entire district (14)*
Water demand, planning,
management, availability;
reduced water usage
when converted from
other irrigated uses;
reduction in irrigated
agriculture; watershed
impacts, flow/volume,
water quality; water
resources & effective
management* (6)
Separate community
within another larger
community; 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* (4)
2 Jobs; construction service
jobs; employment;
employment
opportunities on and off
site; permanent jobs;
family wage jobs; seasonal
jobs (10)*
Environmental mitigation;
protection of sensitive
areas; environmental
standards; management
of resources* (2)
Improved social services
(3)
3 Brings new money into
county economy; helps
bring new business to
Central Oregon and
creates a multiplier effect;
economic multiplier:
business relocation x jobs
= bonus; investment* (4)
Habitat restoration &
preservation; enhanced
wildlife habitat; fish &
wildlife; loss of habitat for
key species * (1)
Resorts enhance image of
Central Oregon to visitors;
promote awareness of
region life style (2)
4 Increased infrastructure
needs such as for traffic;
offsite infrastructure
needs borne by others*
(1)
Wildfire buffers; fire
suppression & prevention;
creation of safer wildfire
conditions*
Reconciling resort use
with agricultural use i.e.
adjacent or nearby
different uses (1)
Page | 30 Community Planning Workshop
Economic Impacts Environmental Impacts Social Impacts
5 Increased costs for public
services & infrastructure
(fire suppression, roads,
police, etc)*
Enhances environmental
awareness; educational
programs for users;
promoting awareness of
Central Oregon
environment*
Support for non‐profits;
charitable commitments
to community;
philanthropic investment
in the community;
charitable foundation
creation* (1)
6 Reduced insurance rates
(fire district ISO)*
Lack/ loss of open space;
conversion of farm/ forest
land to development;
forest/farm management
issues*
Increased population;
attracts new people*
7 Further marketing of
region to potential
residents and new
business*
Carbon implications i.e.
sequestration, vehicle
miles traveled; carbon
emissions from traffic*
Enhanced cultural
amenities; enhanced
transportation & shopping
options; cultural centers
for community action*
8 Tourist draw* New LEED certified
structures; using greener
energy development*
Hubs for community
events; improved co‐op
educational
opportunities*
9 Home base for
entrepreneurs
Impact on natural
resources (i.e. water)*
Community recreation &
cultural events; expanded
recreation; improved
culture with restaurants,
art, music etc.*
10 Destination tourism
promotion benefits
(marketing)
Population density;
concentration of
development in a well
defined area*
Built‐in community
functions for residents
11 Charitable contributions Impacts of roads, highway
development &
maintenance*
Promote healthy living,
recreation & relaxation
12 Events that attract visitors
and dollars
Promotes community
involvement in things like
“Tree City USA” program
Prolific grassroots efforts
& proactive communities
13 Self‐supporting: small
impact on government
Impact on migratory
species, location specific &
collective migratory
patterns
Move from natural
resource extraction
economy to tourism
economy
14 Attraction to area of new
resources
Additional use of natural
resources
Higher density
15 Brings money to local
businesses
Recreational opportunities
from trail maintenance
etc.
Support of education
16 Real estate sales Reduction of fallow land Reduce public enjoyment
of natural amenities
Deschutes County Destination Resorts October 2010 Page | 31
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
Impacts
Tax support for city, county, state government & schools,
lodging tax revenues; tax base support for agencies like
DEQ, BLM, Forest Service; increased property tax base;
improved services to entire district
14
Economic
Impacts
Jobs; construction service jobs; employment; employment
opportunities on and off site; permanent jobs; family wage
jobs; seasonal jobs
10
Environmental
Impacts
Water demand, planning, management, availability;
reduced water usage when converted from other irrigated
uses; reduction in irrigated agriculture; watershed impacts,
flow/volume, water quality; water resources & effective
management
6
Social Impacts Separate community within another larger community;
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)
4
Economic
Impacts
Brings new money into county economy; helps bring new
business to Central Oregon and creates a multiplier effect;
economic multiplier: business relocation x jobs = bonus;
investment
4
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.
Page | 32 Community Planning Workshop
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.
Deschutes County Destination Resorts October 2010 Page | 33
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.
Page | 34 Community Planning Workshop
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.
Deschutes County Destination Resorts October 2010 Page | 35
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 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. 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
Page | 36 Community Planning Workshop
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 ‘2’.
The following table contains participant responses in prioritized order:
Economic Impacts Environmental Impacts Social Impacts
1 Recreational impacts Water quality/ water use &
consumption
Quality of life
2 Jobs Erosion, sediment Division between
economic spectrums –
especially housing
3 Impacts on businesses Habitat, migration routes Recreational impacts
4 Fires/ Wildfires/
Development protection
Endangered species Responsibilities to
contribute to community,
governance
5 Housing Impacts from roads Temporary jobs/
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
Deschutes County Destination Resorts October 2010 Page | 37
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
Page | 38 Community Planning Workshop
County. The report will go before the County Board of Commissioners on
September 30.