Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PC Agenda 01-20-2016
Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING AGENDA Tri-Area Community Center January 20, 2016 P: 360-379-4450 621 Sheridan St. F: 360-379-4451 Port Townsend WA 98368 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us 6:30 pm OPENING BUSINESS • Call to Order/Roll Call • Approval of Agenda • Staff Updates • Pleasant Harbor Public Hearing – Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe’s request • Commissioner Announcements • Approval of Minutes Aug. 5th, Sept. 2nd, Oct. 7th 6:45 pm DISCUSSION • Comprehensive Plan Update- Public Participation Program David Wayne Johnson, Associate Planner, Department of Community Development • Comprehensive Plan Update- Timeline Joel Peterson, Associate Planner, Department of Community Development • Wastewater Treatment issues and options Roundtable discussion. Guests: Al Cairns, citizen, and Linda Atkins, Jeff Co Environmental Health, 8:00 pm OBSERVER COMMENT When the Chair recognizes you to speak, please begin by stating your name and address. Please be aware that the observer comment period is … i An optional time period dedicated to listening to the public, not a question and answer session. The Planning Commission is not required to provide response; ii Offered at the Chair’s discretion when there is time; iii Not a public hearing – comments made during this time will not be part of any hearing record; iv May be structured with a three-minute per person time limit. 8:15 pm CLOSING BUSINESS • Summary of today’s meeting • Follow-up action items • Agenda Items for February 3rd meeting at 6:30 pm at the Tri-Area Community Center 8:30 pm ADJOURNMENT • Thank you for coming and participating in your government at work! 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-4450 F: 360-379-4451 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES Tri-Area Community Center August 5, 2015 Page 1 of 3 Call to Order at 6:30 pm ROLL CALL District 1 District 2 District 3 Staff Present Coker: Present Smith: Present Brotherton: Present Carl Smith, DCD Director Felder: Present Sircely: U-Absence Giske: Present Joel Peterson, DCD Assoc. Planner Koan: Present [Vacant] Hull: E-Absence Public in Attendance: 3 Approval of Agenda: Kevin Coker approved the agenda. Approval of Minutes: Kevin Coker moved to approve the minutes for 04/15/2015, 05/20/2015 & 06/03/2015 all were approved with none opposed. STAFF UPDATES Carl Smith: Mark Jochems has interview for Commissioner this Friday to fill Patricia’s seat. Chair & Vice Chair Nominations: Elections will wait until next month with more member’s present. Nominations for Chair: Cynthia Kohn and Kevin Coker. Vice Chair: Lorna Smith, Matt Sircely & Richard Hull. COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS Comp Plan work: Brinnon Master Plan, Development Agreement & Zoning & finalization of FEIS to go to board for Approval. David W Johnson asked for a special meeting on 10/21/15 in Brinnon for that. We need a September overview meeting beforehand to address issues. Kevin attended the Joint Land Use Study Meeting: I have additional information for you and they want additional information. It was very informative with a total of nine boards reviewing, all very well versed, all input from their countless resources. Public Comment is open till 08/28/2015. Website is: kiijlus.com. Will bring numbers from Joint Growth Management Steering Committee to you. Navy Joint Land Use Study: Joel Peterson spoke. Recommendations are: It’s a community plan, NOT the Navy’s Plan. We’ve come up with a tool set of recommendations on how to avoid conflicts. See table on Page 9, it shows implementation phases. Funded by OEA, and they have needs assessment, identified tools, have a report. Have a resolution that will be useful. Phase 2 could say there could be projects or studies for additional OEA funding. Jefferson County doesn’t have issues for a new study. We may not pursue additional funding, we may in the future. Will finalize a report in September and accept comments till 08/28/15 will approach the BOCC for a resolution. Planning Commission is also welcome to provide a letter. 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-4450 F: 360-379-4451 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES Tri-Area Community Center August 5, 2015 Page 2 of 3 OBSERVER COMMENTS: We need to know what power or authority the Navy has over our planning/building. Do they have full power? Do we have a definition of what the Navy’s mission is? You mentioned Tribes, what was discussed? You mentioned REPI Funding. Why can’t it support compliance activity by the County? Freight Overlays? Bookmark for future, I’m worried about the single access to the Indian Island. You didn’t include the Planning Commission on your announcement of a tour. We need more notice. We’re meeting Tuesday in Paulsbo, and Bremerton on 08/11/15. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Referring to July packet: Broad Overview of Comprehensive Plan – including letter from BCC regarding the new GMA deadline, with a calendar, flowchart & 2016 Mandatory & Potential Updates and need for discussion of overview & updates of Chapters. Carl would like us to review this Plan. Be ready to tackle first two Chapters for next month’s meeting. OBSERVER COMMENTS: If deadline is extended, can we consider making a recommendation sooner for the more urgent issue(s) of ecological housing & jobs, etc., we need to change that sooner. This will be brought up next meeting, and other more urgent things as well. Simultaneously Code Amendments will occur before our CPA. Is there thought of increasing our meeting schedule? Instead, follow this process: ONE and ONLY ONE Chapter subject for each meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT None FOLLOW-UP ITEMS First two Chapters of Comp Plan Development & Updates, keeping in mind the community priorities & any specific code issues. Next Planning Commission meeting scheduled for 09/02/2015 at 6:30 pm at the Tri-Area Community Center Adjourned at 8:28 pm These meeting minutes were approved this ____________ day of ___________________________, 2015. ________________________________________ _________ ______________________________________________________________ Kevin Coker, Chair Teresa A Smith, PC Secretary/DCD 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-4450 F: 360-379-4451 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES Tri-Area Community Center September 2, 2015 Page 1 of 3 Call to Order at 6:30 pm ROLL CALL District 1 District 2 District 3 Staff Present Coker: Present Smith: Present Brotherton: U-Absence Carl Smith, DCD Director Felder: Present Sircely: Present Giske: E-Absence David W. Johnson, Assoc. Planner Koan: Present Jochems: Present Hull: Present Public in Attendance: 2 Approval of Agenda: Kevin Coker approved the agenda. Approval of Minutes: Kevin Coker moved to approve the minutes for 08/05/2015, all were approved with none opposed. STAFF UPDATES Carl Smith: Welcome our new Commissioner Mark Jochems. Carl Smith announced his retirement, last day is 09/25/15. David Goldsmith will be the interim DCD Director. Everyone is invited & encouraged to get involved in the new selection process. Elizabeth Williams the planning clerk is leaving. Recruiting for that position closes next week. Hailey Clement, our part time clerk, is applying for the position & will do the minutes. It’s time for a Planning Manager again as well. Chair & Vice Chair Elections: Tom Giske & Tom Brotherton are not here tonight. Nominations for Chair: Cynthia Coleman and Kevin Coker. Cynthia won with 5 (five) votes. Nominations for Vice Chair: Lorna Smith, Matt Sircely & Richard Hull. Lorna won with 6 (six) votes. COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS Comp Plan work: Brinnon Master Plan Resort & Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement we reviewed last fall, David Johnson believes the final SEIS & Development Agreement will be ready for your review. David Johnson requests that you all commit to a special meeting (a public hearing) on 11/18/15 for that presentation in Brinnon at either the Community Center or School. 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-4450 F: 360-379-4451 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES Tri-Area Community Center September 2, 2015 Page 2 of 3 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Tonight we’re looking at Chapters 1 & 2. Cynthia advised us to look at the schedule & matrix again. Element 1 & 2 are for tonight. David Wayne Johnson will be here on October 7th with an overview of Element 4. Know that the appropriate Staff Leads will be here for their overviews. Introduction: The Comprehensive Plan is online. As we have no budget to advertise these public meetings, we could: distribute fliers or interview on local radio for public input. Email is discouraged. It’s on our website. To trim Chapter 1, staff needs to come back with recommendations i.e. move things to the appendix. The Urban Growth Element is very important. We can move a lot into the traffic section. The sewer section needs updated language. The Health element needs to move as well. Population Growth can be updated (Page 2-9), someone here needs to attend the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee. Countywide Planning Policies are on our website & you need to look at them. The septic issue in Glen Cove needs to be worked out as soon as possible. The County & City need to agree on the revenue sharing issue first. New documents for Brinnon will show updated traffic documents. The UGA population numbers are urban like, adding growth for Brinnon & Port Ludlow needs to be mentioned (population growth). Element 2: Unfunded & unfinished traffic projects, some are done, it mentioned SR 19 (some are 3 & 4 lanes) is out of date & needs to be moved to the Traffic Section. The 13 Elements and additional goals need to be moved to right up top. Public Comment: Emailed meetings in a private board setting I sit on are allowed but we’re not allowed to vote by phone so please check your bi-laws. FOLLOW-UP ITEMS Due to the anticipated amount of paperwork involved, everyone agreed to use three ring binders. Everyone needs to think up sub-committees please. Next Planning Commission meeting scheduled for 10/07/2015 at 6:30 pm at the Tri-Area Community Center Adjourned at 8:30 pm These meeting minutes were approved this ____________ day of ___________________________, 2015. ________________________________________ _________ ______________________________________________________________ Kevin Coker, Chair Teresa A Smith, PC Secretary/DCD 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-4450 F: 360-379-4451 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES Tri-Area Community Center October 07, 2015 Page 1 of 3 Call to Order at 6:31 pm ROLL CALL District 1 District 2 District 3 Staff Present Coker: Present Smith: Present Brotherton: Present Jean Baldwin, Director, JCPHD Felder: Present Sircely: Present Giske: Present Karen Obermeyer, JCPHD Koan: Present Jochems: Present Hull: Present David W. Johnson, Associate Planner Joel Peterson, Associate Planner Public in Attendance: Approval of Agenda: Approved the agenda by acclimation. Approval of Minutes: STAFF UPDATES Carl Smith: Pleasant Harbor Master Plan Resort: we’re close to finalizing the SEIS, however the applicant has come up with a new alternative (#3) which is a reduction in the number of holes from 18 to 12. The technical team is in the process of analyzing those changes. It pushes us back even further, also the contract is going to have to be extended for a second time. Special meeting 10/21/15 is not going to work. We’re looking at Wednesday, 11/18/15 now in Brinnon @ Community Center. Joint Growth Management Steering Committee Meeting is 1:00 on October 16th, at Pope Marine Bldg. will be looking at population projections for the Comp Plan Updates for Jefferson County & Port Townsend. ANNOUNCMENTS At last meeting I brought up the bi-laws about the number of terms for Chair & Vice Chair. I looked them up: A member shall serve no more than four consecutive years as Chair or Vice Chair. In today’s meeting with the Architecture Group for the redesign of Grant St. School. Has a long way to go. Has lofty goals of what we’d like to see happen. Current School Levy to be complete within 3 months. This Friday at JFK Bldg. at Fort Warden the collective impact group is having their Fall Community Mtg. Topic is housing. COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS I have a meeting on 10/12/15 with David Goldsmith about: Our November 4th meeting, our Comp Plan Amendment Process, Organizing ourselves with sub-committees, planning commission member’s different strengths and interests, listing our own focuses. I’d like a sub-committee about proposing sub-committees and what we want addressed. Who will work with me before the 11/04/15 meeting? Tom, Kevin & Tom have volunteered. 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-4450 F: 360-379-4451 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES Tri-Area Community Center October 07, 2015 Page 2 of 3 Comp Plan work: Brinnon Master Plan Resort & Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement we reviewed last fall, David Johnson believes the final SEIS & Development Agreement will be ready for your review. David Johnson requests that you all commit to a special meeting (a public hearing) on 11/18/15 for that presentation in Brinnon at either the Community Center or School. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE PRESENTATIONS: Health Element: Jean Baldwin & Karen Obermeyer from Jefferson County Public Health: The Health Department keeps demographics. We welcome you to go through this data. In 2014 – 2015 a group of community health leaders led by Jefferson Health Care & the Health Department started reviewing the Community Health Assessment Data for the last three years. When you look at health indicators, many things contribute to healthcare. We came up with four (4) things that healthcare providers could use to make a difference on: Access to Mental Health & Substance Abuse Treatment Healthy eating/active living/chronic disease prevention Access to health care (senior issues, prenatal care) Immunizations (For 25 years, Jefferson County has the most unimmunized population in the state.) Natural Resources Element: David W Johnson: Last updated in 1998. Propose updates to text, references & maps. Goals, policies & strategies need to be made compatible. NRP 4.1 Prohibits subdivisions of designated forest lands for residential purposes, allowing only one dwelling per each legal lot of record. In 2006 NRP 4.8 was written and it allows subdivisions of more than one dwelling per lot as long as they’re protected by a buffer. NRP 4.8 is law now so I’d like to strike NRP 4.1 Al Latham’s proposed changes: It appears he wants comp plan changes to reflect UDC: Pages 25 – 27 of your packet: Table 4.2 Guidelines for classification of Agricultural Resource Lands: #1 looking at criteria to designate agricultural he wants the addition of and/or soils of statewide significance (Agree). #2 historic uses for agriculture; lands which have not been used for a number of years (five)can be re-designated agricultural even though they haven’t been used for such for 5 yrs. (UDC change item, (he can speak to county commissioners & let them know the issue)) #3 existing & ongoing agriculture, table 4. 2a; agriculture uses & single family should include farm worker housing (Agreed) #4 the ability to petition & be included in the agriculture 20, the land located outside master plan resort or urban growth area (he wants this removed stating Spring Rain Farm is outside the UGA. (Not accurate) Chapter 4 (All required actions) Remove all references to mineral forest & mineral agriculture ordnances, rewrite to show connection to UDC, instead of individual ordinances, consolidate them into the UDC. Update & add section to view the latest legal guidance & legislative actions. Rewrite strategies & action items, specifically, which ones? Conduct economic study to determine what’s economically viable in the natural resource industry. (Possible strategy, action item) go to economic development council to see if any of this has already been done. David will continue work on this. 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-4450 F: 360-379-4451 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES Tri-Area Community Center October 07, 2015 Page 3 of 3 UDC AMMENDMENT: Joel Peterson: UDC amendment & proposal: There’s a signed permit for Jefferson Transit Authority issued in 2014: They developed a 10 acre project outside the blue zone (bus barn & facilities). The question is are they invested under to old sign code or do they need to bump up to new code. JTA wants a reader board or electronic sign, which isn’t allowed. They’ve already purchased sign, before they got the permit. The new sign code broadens their ability, commercially. The contractor would like his bond released. Our sign code says they can’t have it there. A Public hearing on this is mandatory, it will be during our 11/04/15 meeting. Public Comment: FOLLOW-UP ITEMS 11/04/15 UDC Amendment/Proposal for Sign Code for JTA. Everyone please review the two packets given to you for the 11/04/15 agenda meeting Next Planning Commission meeting scheduled for 11/04/2015 at 6:30 pm at the Tri-Area Community Center Adjourned at 8:55 pm These meeting minutes were approved this ____________ day of ___________________________, 2015. ________________________________________ _________ ______________________________________________________________ Cynthia Koan, Chair Teresa A Smith, PC Secretary/DCD David W. Johnson From: Haylie Clement Sent: Monday, January 04, 2016 8:42 AM To: David W. Johnson Subject:FW: Brinnon MPR From: Rstlss49@aol.com Imailto:Rstlss49@aol.com] Sent:Thursday, December 31,2015 1:59 AM To: Planning Commission Desk<PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: Brinnon MPR Members of the Planning Commission, As I am unable to attend, I wish to enter and have read into the record my testimony for the January 6th meeting of the Jefferson Co. Planning Commission concerning the proposed MPR at Black Point, in Brinnon WA. From the beginning this was a poorly planned project that eventually ended up in the hands of the Jefferson Co. Dept.of Community Development to try and make some sense to the EIS, and to save the Statesman Group investment. I believe that you, as Planning Commission Members have a solemn duty to all of the people, not only of Jefferson County, but to all of Washington to protect and preserve Hood Canal, a body of water already under a tremendous amount of stress, and in some cases in the south part, actually beginning to die due to lack of oxygen. The Statesman Group claims that none of the runoff from golf course fertilizer or from street surfaces will ever reach Hood Canal. How naive they think we are. One small tear in their"Run off collection bagie"would mean an environmental disaster to Quilcene and Dabob bay's.World famous areas in the shellfish industry.Are you really willing to take that chance? To allow a Canadian Company to profit from our natural resources is both irresponsible and dangerous. What few jobs that they could provide mowing lawns,making up beds, and washing dishes will never, ever make up for the damage done to a fragile ecosystem those of us who live here try to preserve every day. Now is the time for you to take a stand and say"enough is enough"! Our environment, our community, is more important than a 9 Hole Golf Course and 800+Condominiums. I urge you to vote for the"No Action"option in this matter. Respectfully yours, Peter Siefert P.O. Box 378 Brinnon,WA 98320 1 David W. Johnson From: Haylie Clement Sent: To: Monday, January 04, 2016 8:42 AM David W.Johnson Subject:FW: Purpose of January 6 Planning Commission Meeting in Brinnon From: Barbara Moore-Lewis [mailto:brinnongroup@gmail.com] Sent:Wednesday, December 30, 2015 9:13 AM To: Darrell and Lorna Smith<ecosmithspt@gmail.com>; David Alvarez<DAlvarez@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Planning Commission Desk<PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: Purpose of January 6 Planning Commission Meeting in Brinnon Several ofus have been organizing people to attend this meeting and have been analyzing the FSEIS (although, of course, we have less than a month to do this and it is the holiday season). Concerns have arisen that the development is pretty much a "done deal" and that our attendance at this meeting and our participation in it are largely irrelevant. It appears that our comments on the FSEIS, although it differs from the DSEIS,will be considered. We do not want to get others to attend if this is just some sort of public show. It would be helpful to know what you see as the purpose ofthe January 6 public meeting. It would be helpful to know the rules surrounding any comments that would be made about the development of Black Point. Please let me know if I can clarify these concerns and questions. i David W. Johnson From: Sent: To: Haylie Clement Monday, January 04, 2016 8:42 AM David W.Johnson Subject:FW: Comments on FS-EIS for Pleasant Harbor Attachments: Comments on FS-EIS-Pleasant Harbor_R&L Johnson .pdf From:Johnson, Reid C., Ph.D. [mailto:RCJohnson@mednet.ucla.edu] Sent:Sunday,January 03, 2016 4:19 PM To: Planning Commission Desk<PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us> Cc:'Lianna Johnson'<lianna.johnson@gmail.com> Subject:Comments on FS-EIS for Pleasant Harbor To whom it may concern: We have just obtained and reviewed the Final Supplemental EIS for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort on the Black Point Peninsula. We will not be able to attend the Public Hearing on January 6, 2016 but wish our comments to be entered into the public record. We favor the No Action Alternative without a 9-hole golf course that would require large scale construction- grading and maintenance that we believe to be environmentally inappropriate for the area. We are an interested party as we own a cottage on the Hood Canal on the other side of the Duckabush estuary (221 Canal Lane, Brinnon)from Black Point. We were unaware of this development plan when we purchased our cottage a year and a half ago, and had we been aware, probably would not have done so. The planned resort development that is located immediately adjacent to the highly sensitive Duckabush estuary will potentially double the population of the Brinnon area. Along with the 890 housing units, construction of the site will involve massive clearing and grading involving 1-2.2 million cubic yards of earthwork (cut and fill)for golf course grading, 1550 parking spaces, 56,608 -79,000 sq.ft. of commercial space, and a 9-18 hole golf course. A development of this magnitude is inappropriate for the area and is likely to have detrimental environmental consequences. Below we list some of our specific concerns that we feel are not adequately considered in the Final Supplemental EIS or where there are vague and poorly supported assurances. We are concerned about the impact on water quality in the Hood Canal affecting the entire marine ecology. In the summers,the canal already suffers from low dissolved oxygen and the Pleasant Harbor marina area exhibits clear evidence of eutrofication, despite what is written in 3.5-1. The impact on Hood Canal water quality would seem particularly acute during the 10 year construction phase where runoff and silting during high precipitation periods seem likely to be unavoidable, despite stated "best practices" assurances otherwise. How will the effectiveness of mitigation procedures be monitored, evaluated, and policed? 1 We are concerned about the impact of the expected large increase in local boat traffic, which is now relatively light and compatible with the marine wildlife present (seals,otters, water birds,fish, etc). We are concerned about the impact of the almost certain large increase in recreational shellfishing: crabs, shrimp, oysters, and clams. We are concerned about the impact of golf course maintenance (fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides, irrigation requirements) on the ecology of the area, especially the Hood Canal, despite assurances otherwise in the EIS. We note that a monoculture golf course is NOT a natural area. We are concerned about the increase of vehicle traffic on Hwy 101 and the resulting increase dangers to people and wildlife. Already, deer are killed regularly while crossing the highway. Last summer alone, at least two were killed while crossing the highway in front of the Olympic Canal Tracts community center.We question the mild impact on traffic stated in the EIS. We are concerned about the impact on wintering elk,which occasionally travel through our property that is on the east side of Hwy 101, as is the planned development. We seriously question the economic viability of this high end development in an economically depressed area with low real estate prices. It is stated that 99 percent of operational jobs that would be created by the Pleasant Harbor project could be at 80%or less of the Brinnon area AMI. This would hardly seem to be an economic benefit to the community. We believe the concerns raised by the Brinnon Group (FSEIS vol. 2 letter 8)should be more seriously considered. Thank you for consideration of our concerns. Sincerely, Reid C.Johnson, Ph.D. Professor, Biological Chemistry University of California, Los Angeles rciohnson@mednet.ucla.edu Lianna M.Johnson, Ph.D. Academic Administrator, Life Sciences Core Faculty University of California, Los Angeles lianna.johnson@gmail.com Local address: 221 Canal Lane, Brinnon, WA 98320 Permanent mailing address: 10492 Colina Way, Los Angeles, CA 90077 IMPORTANT WARNING:This email (and any attachments) is only intended for the use of the person or entity to which it 2 is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. You, the recipient, are obligated to maintain it in a safe, secure and confidential manner. Unauthorized redisclosure or failure to maintain confidentiality may subject you to federal and state penalties. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify us by return email, and delete this message from your computer. 3 January 2,2016 To whom it may concern: We have just obtained and reviewed the Final Supplemental EIS for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort on the Black Point Peninsula. We will not be able to attend the Public Hearing on January 6, 2016 but wish our comments to be entered into the public record. We favor the No Action Alternative without a 9-hole golf course that would require large scale construction-grading and maintenance that we believe to be environmentally inappropriate for the area. We are an interested party as we own a cottage on the Hood Canal on the other side ofthe Duckabush estuary (221 Canal Lane,Brinnon)from Black Point. We were unaware of this development plan when we purchased our cottage a year and a half ago, and had we been aware, probably would not have done so. The planned resort development that is located immediately adjacent to the highly sensitive Duckabush estuary will potentially double the population of the Brinnon area. Along with the 890 housing units, construction ofthe site will involve massive clearing and grading involving 1- 2.2 million cubic yards of earthwork(cut and fill) for golf course grading, 1550 parking spaces, 56,608 -79,000 sq. ft. of commercial space,and a 9-18 hole golf course. A development of this magnitude is inappropriate for the area and is likely to have detrimental environmental consequences. Below we list some of our specific concerns that we feel are not adequately considered in the Final Supplemental EIS or where there are vague and poorly supported assurances. We are concerned about the impact on water quality in the Hood Canal affecting the entire marine ecology. In the summers,the canal already suffers from low dissolved oxygen and the Pleasant Harbor marina area exhibits clear evidence of eutrofication, despite what is written in 3.5-1. The impact on Hood Canal water quality would seem particularly acute during the 10 year construction phase where runoff and silting during high precipitation periods seem likely to be unavoidable,despite stated"best practices"assurances otherwise. How will the effectiveness of mitigation procedures be monitored, evaluated,and policed? We are concerned about the impact of the expected large increase in local boat traffic, which is now relatively light and compatible with the marine wildlife present (seals, otters,water birds, fish,etc). We are concerned about the impact ofthe almost certain large increase in recreational shellfishing: crabs, shrimp, oysters, and clams. We are concerned about the impact of golf course maintenance (fertilizers,herbicides, insecticides, irrigation requirements)on the ecology of the area, especially the Hood Canal, despite assurances otherwise in the EIS. We note that a monoculture golf course is NOT a natural area. We are concerned about the increase of vehicle traffic on Hwy 101 and the resulting increase dangers to people and wildlife. Already,deer are killed regularly while crossing the highway. Last summer alone, at least two were killed while crossing the highway in front of the Olympic Canal Tracts community center. We question the mild impact on traffic stated in the EIS. We are concerned about the impact on wintering elk, which occasionally travel through our property that is on the east side of Hwy 101, as is the planned development. We seriously question the economic viability ofthis high end development in an economically depressed area with low real estate prices. It is stated that 99 percent of operational jobs that would be created by the Pleasant Harbor project could be at 80%or less ofthe Brinnon area AMI. This would hardly seem to be an economic benefit to the community. We believe the concerns raised by the Brinnon Group(FSEIS vol. 2 letter 8)should be more seriously considered. Thank you for consideration of our concerns. Sincerely, e,-...P GA' Reid C. Johnson,Ph.D. Professor,Biological Chemistry University of California,Los Angeles rcjohnson,cmednet.ucla.edu Lianna M. Johnson,Ph.D. Academic Administrator,Life Sciences Core Faculty University of California, Los Angeles lianna.johnson gmail.com Local address: 221 Canal Lane,Brinnon, WA 98320 Permanent mailing address: 10492 Colina Way,Los Angeles, CA 90077 o PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE 1 ,0O-`"31912 Little Boston Rd.NE—Kingston,WA 98346 J' December 16,2015 Jefferson County Planning Commission 621 Sheridan Street, i 2U15 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Email: PlanComm@co.jefferson.wa.us BEC David Wayne Johnson Pleasant Harbor FSEIS do Jefferson County DCD 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend WA 98368 Email: dwjohnson@co.iefferson.wa.us Subject: Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, December 2015,Case No's: MLA08-00188, ZON08-00056 Dear Planning Commission Members and Mr. Johnson, With regard to the December 9 Notice ofAvailability of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement(FSEIS)and Notice ofPlanning Commission Public Hearing and Notice of Intent to Amend the Unified Development Code for the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLC Master Planned Resort,I am submitting this letter on behalf of the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe(PGST). While we appreciate the February 18, 2015 meeting,the tribal consultation process is not yet finished. We understood that Jefferson County DCD would work with PGST staff to address the concerns raised at the meeting and in our comments. However, PGST staff were not consulted after the February meeting and were not given any notification ofthe FSEIS prior to its release. In view of the incomplete consultation process,and as stated in our January 5,2015 letter, we continue to oppose this project. We request a 60-day extension of the process in order to allow time to complete the Tribe's consultation. The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe is the successor in interest to Indian bands and tribes signatory to the 1855 Treaty of Point No Point, 12 Stat. 933.' Today the Tribe retains deep cultural and economic ties to the surrounding waters and to their fisheries in its usual and accustomed grounds and stations(U&A). More than a century of federal court decisions have fleshed out the components of the treaty right, including the right of access to places, the right to a share of harvest to meet tribal moderate living needs, and the right to protection of fish habitat in all areas of the Tribe's U&A.The proposed Pleasant Harbor project is located within the Tribe's U&A, in an area where tribal members depend on fish, shellfish and wildlife. We are concerned that the proposed project would jeopardize the Tribe's treaty right to fish and hunt in the project area. As stated in our previous comments in 2001,2006,2007 and 2015 regarding this project and at the February meeting,we are concerned about the potential for adverse impacts from increased traffic, intensity of land use,and environmental effects.The proposed project would United States v. Washington,459 F.Supp. 1020, 1039(W.D.Wash. 1978)(hereinafter Bo/ch l/). PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE 31912 Little Boston Rd.NE-Kingston,WA 98346 be located in an aquifer recharge area and the potential water quality and water quantity impacts to local groundwater, streams and wetlands are significant. We are concerned about the potential for significant adverse effects to fish habitat and the Tribe's fisheries as a result of these impacts. Additionally,numerous environmentally sensitive features are located within the project area, including unique kettle ponds. We are concerned about the potential adverse effects to these habitats from the proposed stormwater management system. An elk herd forages within the forested uplands to the northwest of the project between the Dosewallips and Duckabush river valleys. We are concerned about the development of highly attractive elk and deer forage from the proposed project lawns and fairways and the risk that the elk will cross the highway to get to the food.Couple that with the projected increase of 4,000 vehicle trips per day on the highway and it poses a significant risk to the viability of the elk herd. We are also concerned about the possible increase in recreational shellfish harvesting from project residents,which would have the potential to impact shellfish habitat and the Tribe's harvest. Tribal members harvest between 13,000 and 21,000 pounds of manila clam and between 13,000 and 48,000 pounds of Pacific oyster from the Duckabush alone. These issues were not satisfactorily addressed in the FSEIS.Although the document covers potential environmental effects to some extent,we are concerned that it does not go nearly far enough to resolve the potentially significant impacts to tribal treaty rights. In order to adequately address the Tribe's concerns,we are requesting a 60-day period to work with Jefferson County staff as needed to complete the tribal consultation process. We would appreciate your consideration and timely response. Thank you. Sinc y, J omy Sullivan Chair, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe CD il _._. _.___ .____ North Hood Canal Chamber of Commerce DEC 2 4 is Ili [ Emerald Towns of L. Quilcene and Brinnon JEFFEFtSGN COUNTY DEPT.OF COF.I IUNOY DEVELOPMENT December 22, 2015 Ms. Cynthia Koan, Chair Planning Commission Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend,WA 93368 Re: Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLC Master Planned Resort Ref: Case No's MLA08-00188,ZON08-00056 Ms. Koan The North Hood Canal Chamber of Commerce (the Chamber) requests that this letter be read into the record of the January 6, 2016 Hearing on the above referenced case. Recommendation The Chamber prefers and strongly recommends APPROVAL ofAlternative 3: Nine-hole golf course (with associated 3 hole practice course),890 residential units, 56,608 square feet of commercial space with resort related and 103 acres of natural area preserved with 1 million cubic yards of earthwork for golf course grading. The Chamber strongly recommends AGAINST a No Action Alternative. Background Background for this case is in the official case files locate at the Jefferson County Department of Community Development. Discussion Economic considerations: o Short term economic impacts: e Jobs: Short term jobs have been extensively analyzed in Appendix N and the Chamber takes no exception to that analysis. It would be naive to believe that all short term workers would make their residence in Jefferson County. However it would be expected that many of the skilled construction workers would be reasonably well compensated and that almost all of them PO Box 774 I Quilcene,WA 98376-0774 360.765.4999 Visitor Center I www.emeraldtowns.com North Hood Canal Chamber of Commerce 1, `1 !=: Emerald Towns of 41014QuilceneandBrinnon jJ \ iY would spend at least some of their wages in Jefferson County, npm= bolstering both private economic activity and sales tax revenue. Sales tax revenue: Sales taxes generated on purchases of materials for this project will be significant.And as local sales taxes are generally remitted to the County where delivery of material occurs that should provide a significant increase in short term revenue to Jefferson County. o Long term economic impacts: Jobs: Long term jobs have been extensively analyzed in Appendix N. The Chamber finds that criticism of proposed wage levels is unwarranted. While it may be a matter of public policy to establish minimum wage and working condition requirements, those public policy issues are properly the province of the Federal, State and certain local legislatures and agencies.The Chamber feels these items are not the province of the County Planning Commission (which is established to opine on matters of land use only'). Any employer(including the applicant) will pay whatever is necessary to obtain the professional, skilled and unskilled labor required to provide goods and services it can sell to its customers. The Chamber reminds the Planning Commission that employer- employee relations (including wages) are the subject of decades of(now mostly settled) legislative and legal action.Any employee who is aggrieved under any of the multitude of rules and regulations will find a ready advocate in either State or Federal agencies or in labor law attorneys. Tax revenue: The project is expected to provide significant real estate and sales tax revenue to the County over the long term. Cost of Community Services; o The Chamber is not aware of a Cost of Community Services study or a study of the fiscal impact on government services for this project. o However, a cursory review of several opinions suggests that this project may provide more in real estate and sales tax revenues than it would cost the County or its see RCW 36.70.010 PO Box 774 I Quilcene,WA 98376-0774 360.765.4999 Visitor Center I www.emeraldtowns.com North Hood Canal Chamber of Commerce Emerald Towns of Quilcene and Brinnon junior taxing authorities to provide public services.This opinion is based on the following hypotheses: Schools. Demand for schooling should be significantly lower due to the project's nature as a resort with significant commercial development. Policing. Policing efforts should be significantly lower due to the socio-economic strata of residents and significant commercial development. nn Fire Protection Services. Fire protection services should be relatively minor as the project will be built to current fire specifications. Even so,the I i developer has agreed to provide certain IU mitigations to the local fire protection district. Jf Roads. Roads will be built by the developer. Parks and Recreation. Parks and recreation 0"IFNT services and facilities are not likely to be demanded as those will be provided by the resort. Health and Social Services. Health services including emergency services) may be demanded at rates less than the rest of the county as the age of the population resident at any one time is expected to be somewhat less advanced and general health is expected to be somewhat better. Likewise, demand for social services might be expected to be minimal. o In sum,the Chamber believes it very likely that the project will generate more in tax revenues than it will cost the government to provide needed services. o Prevention of development has a cost: Harvard economist Edward Glaeser is one of the world's foremost land use thinkers. He made the following remarks: When it comes to public policy decisions,what I believe in...is cost-benefit analysis....The ultimate question is: whatever our argument is for saying"no", can we plausibly put down numbers that tell us that, in this neighbourhood (sic),the 2 The Chamber considers these hypotheses to be based on reasonable assumptions regarding the project. They are not based on fact.The Chamber acknowledges that one or more may prove to be wrong. PO Box 774 I Quilcene,WA 98376-0774 360.765.4999 Visitor Center I www.emeraldtowns.com David W. Johnson From: commtech.us@gmail.com on behalf of Mark Rose<mark@markrose.org> Sent: Monday, January 04, 2016 5:43 PM To: David W. Johnson Subject:Testimony concerning the FSEIS and UDC Amendment for Proposed Brinnon MPR Attachments: MLA02-00014-MarkRoseSEPA-Appeal.pdf; 12.16.15.JeffCounty.PleasantHarborletter-1.pdf January 4, 2016 Mark Rose 687 Pulali Point Road Brinnon, WA 98320 360-301-2600 I have been a resident of Brinnon, WA for 16 years. This is my testimony concerning the matter of Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLC Master Planned Resort Case Nos: MLA08- 00188, ZON08-0056. This concerns the FSEIS and notice of intent to amend the UDC. In 2001 I argued an appeal before the SEPA Hearing Examiner on the Jefferson County plan for commercial re-zoning in Brinnon, including a proposed MPR at Black Point. The determination of the Jefferson County Hearing Examiner Iry Berteig is attached. As the Hearing Examiner cites, the country-wide FEIS is a deeply flawed document that basically says that any development anywhere in the County will have no environmental impact. It was sobering to realize that Jefferson County had no understanding of the purpose and process of SEPA review and there was no baseline to determine adverse environmental impacts of development. The ruling is instructional because it details to process for SEPA review and how it integrates into all phases of a development project. I urge all county officials with any involvement in this latest MPR proposal to read this document carefully. Here we are again, 15 years later, and it is disturbing to see that Jefferson County officials still do not understand the purpose and process of SEPA. The current MPR proposal at t Black Point in Brinnon by the Canadian developer has not been through the proper SEPA review and is open to a highly credible legal challenge. The current MPR proposal is much bigger than the 2001 MPR plan. A proposal of this magnitude has the potential to cause devastating, long-term, and possibly irreparable damage to our fragile ecosystem. I urge county officials to extend the comment and review period for the FSEIS at least 60 days as requested by the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe in the letter dated December 16, 2015. Please, for the sake of all of us in Jefferson County, consult the Tribes, consult all the impacted parties, and understand the baseline ecology and the potential impacts BEFORE you issue a FSEIS or amend the UDC. At some point, Jefferson County needs to establish a credible process to review the environmental impact of development proposals. We can't repeat the same mistakes over and over again. Sincerely, Mark Rose attached: 1. File No. MLA02-00014 before the Hearing Examiner For Jefferson County, 12/12/2001 2. Letter from Jeromy Sullivan, Chair, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, 12/16/2015 Mark Rose 2 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY 2 Iry Berteig, Hearing Examiner 3 RE: Appeal by Mark Rose, Better ) File No. MLA02-00014 4 Brinnon Coalition, to the SEPA 5 Determination of Non-Significance ) DNS] issued on 12/12/2001 by the ) 6 Jefferson County Department of FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, Community Development 7 AND DECISION 8 9 10 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 11 In November 1999 the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners 12 [BOCC] initiated the Brinnon Subarea planning process and appointed a 13 citizen Brinnon Subarea Planning Group [BSPG or BPG] . The BSPG 14 recommended a draft plan to the BOCC on August 28, 2001. The BOCC, in 15 turn, forwarded the draft plan to the Planning Commission for their 16 consideration. Meanwhile, the Department of Community Development 17 [DCD] prepared an Environmental Checklist and Staff memorandum 18 covering possible directions for State Environmental Policy Act [SEPA] 19 actions. Al Scalf, DCD Director and SEPA Responsible Official, issued 20 a combined DNS and adoption of existing environmental documents. On 21 January 7, 2002, Mark Rose, Better Brinnon Coalition, filed a timely 22 appeal to the DNS issuance. 23 PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 24 Open Record Appeal Hearing Date: February 19, 2002. 25 The appeal hearing was opened at 1:00 p.m. in the Courthouse First 26 Floor Conference Room. After the procedures and the Examiner' s role 27 were explained, testimony was accepted. A verbatim recording of the 28 public hearing was made. The tape is maintained in the Jefferson 29 Permit Center file. Mark Rose SEPA Appeal Page 1 of 23 Findings,Conclusions MLA02-00014 Brinnon Subarea Plan" and Decision 1 Participants: 2 Mark Rose, Appellant, and Al Scalf, Respondent, met briefly with the 3 Examiner in an administrative pre-hearing conference to discuss the 4 number of parties each would ask to testify for them. 5 Josh D. Peters, Associate Planner 6 Mark Rose, Appellant 7 Peter Siefert, for the Appellant g Ted Labbe, Habitat Biologist, Port Gamble S' Klallam Tribe, for the 9 Appellant 10 Walt Parks, for the Appellant 11 Nancy Dorgan, People for a Livable Community, for the Appellant 12 Other parties present: 13 Lori Beringer, PO Box 639, Brinnon, WA 14 George Sickel, PO Box 228, Brinnon, WA 15 Tom McNerney, 354 Point Whitney Road 16 Bud Schindler, 270 Rhododendron Lane 17 Kirie Pedersen, 687 Pulali Pt Rd, Brinnon 18 Debbie Siefert, PO Box 412, Brinnon 19 The Hearing Examiner closed the public hearing at 4:40 pm, and 20 provided for the ability to re-open the record to obtain copies 21 of documents identified in the GMA file logs. 22 23 TABLE OF EXHIBITS: 29 EXHIBIT DOCUMENT DATE 1 Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner together 2/11/2002 25 with attachments noted on detailed logs: 26 1-1 MLA02-00014 File Log No date 1-2 Memo from C Halvorson, GMA File Clerk to HE 2/8/2002 27 1-3 GMA 2046 Comp Plan file log for Brinnon 2/8/2002 28 1-4 GMA 2046e Comp Plan Public Comments file log 1/17/2002 2 Mark Rose Written Testimony (28 pages) , 2/19/2002 29 together with Attachments (112 pages) : Mark Rose SEPA Appeal Page 2 of 23 Findings,Conclusions MLA02-00014 Brinnon Subarea Plan" and Decision 1 EXHIBIT DOCUMENT DATE 2-1 WDFW (J Davis) letter to JeffCo DCD 12/24/2001 2 2-2 Four Tribes joint letter to JeffCo DCD 12/21/2001 3 2-3 Nancy Dorgan letter to J Peters, DCD 12/24/2001 4 2-4 Email exchange: A Scalf and T Labbe 12/21/2001 2-5 Email from T Labbe to L Tudor 6/13/2001 2-6 Email from P Mackrow to L Tudor 6/14/2001 6 2-7 Email exchange: E Rodrick WSFW and K Pedersen 4/11/2001 2-8 Email exchange: C Corrigan DOE and K Pedersen 4/10/2001 2-9 K Pedersen: Questions & Concerns Regarding 4/10/2001 8 Brinnon Sub Area Plan 2-10 K Pedersen: Shoreline Habitat in Jefferson No date 9 County - Attachment to Ex 2-9 2-11 Email from J Peters to BPG members 3/1/2001 10 2-12 K Pedersen - duplicate of Ex 2-9 4/12/2001 11 2-13 , Email exchange: M Peter DOE and K Pedersen 4/25/2001 12 2-14 Email exchange: J Wells BSA and K Pedersen 5/21/2001 2-15 Email from K Pedersen to "Planners" 5/15/2001 132-16 Email from K Pedersen to J Peters 6/13/2001 14 2-17 Web page: Brinnon' s Wildlife & Habitat 10/1/2001 2-18 Email from M Rose to J Peters fwd J Marti DOE 8/15/2001 15 2-19 Email from K Pedersen to R Kline 2/21/2001 16 2-20 Letter from M Rose to A Scalf (7 pages) 12/24/2001 2-21 Planning Commission Minority Report to BOCC 2/6/2002 17 by T McGuire and D Wipple 18 2-22 "Brinnon' s Wildlife & Habitat" update 6/15/2001 2-23 Email from K Pedersen to R Kline DCD 2/27/2001 19 2-24 Email exchange: J Gorsline and K Pedersen 3/27/2001 20 2-25 Email exchange: J Gorsline and K Pedersen 4/5/2001 2-26 Web site: Pleasant Harbor Golf 2/11/2002 21 2-27 North Olympic Salmon Coalition "Canlefish" No date 22 2-28 Letter from H Beale, Puget Sound Water 11/22/1999 Quality Action Team, to BOCC 23 2-29 Letter from G Schroer, Resouces Northwest to 5/11/1993 24 Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe 2-30 "Elk in Olympic National Park: Will They 1990 25 Persist Over Time?" Natural Areas Journal, vol 10 (1) , 1990 262-31 Email from M Rose to J Peters w/attach 7/28/2001 27 2-32 Email from M Rose to J Peters w/attach 7/15/2001 2-33 M Rose Comments submitted via email 1 7/15/2001282-34 Comments from T Labbe to BSPG 8/8/2001 29 2-35 "Teeing up resort in Brinnon" PT Leader 1 7/25/2001 Mark Rose SEPA Appeal Page 3 of 23 Findings, Conclusions MLA02-000l4 Brinnon Subarea Plan" and Decision ME-- 1 EXHIBIT DOCUMENT DATE 2-36 "Putting Chinook, chum salmon habitat on map" 12/5/2001 2 3 Peter R. Siefert SEPA Hearing Testimony 1 2/19/2002 3 4 Ted Labbe Testimony 1 2/19/2002 4 5 6 REVIEW CRITERIA 7 Applicable Plans, Environmental Documents, and Regulations: g Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, adopted August 28, 1998 9 Draft Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan EIS, February 24, 1997 10 Final Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan EIS, May 27, 1997 11 Jefferson County Unified Development Code [UDC] 12 Chapter 36.70B RCW, Local Project Review [a/k/a Regulatory Reform] 13 Chapter 43.21C RCW, State Environmental Policy Act 14 Title 197-11 WAC, SEPA Rules 15 PC & DCD Recommended Draft, Brinnon Subarea Plan, January 16, 2002 16 Scope of Review: 17 Appeals of SEPA Threshold Determinations for Type V Actions are 18 reviewed de novo. The Examiner gives ". . .deference to and affords 19 substantial weight to the decision of the responsible official."1 The 20 Examiner can grant, modify or deny the appeal; however, the actual 21 proposed Brinnon Plan and UDC amendments are not before the Examiner. 22 Decision Organization: 23 The following Findings of Fact may include Conclusions, and the 24 Conclusions of Law may include Findings . Both sections will contain 25 headings for the purpose of organizing subject matter. 26 27 28 29 1 UDC 8. 12.i Scope of Review Mark Rose SEPA Appeal Page 4 of 23 Findings,Conclusions MLA02-00014 Brinnon Subarea Plan" and Decision 1 FINDINGS OF FACT 2 What is the Proposal? 3 1 . Jefferson County proposes to adopt a Subarea Plan for Planning 4 Area #11 (Brinnon) as a chapter of the Jefferson County Comprehensive 5 Plan, and concurrently adopt associated amendments to the Unified 6 Development Code [UDC] . This is a nonproject action under SEPA. 7 2 . The SEPA Responsible Official issued a DNS and Adoption by 8 reference of the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements for 9 the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed action would make five 10 elemental changes to the current policies and regulations of the 1998 11 Comprehensive Plan and UDC, described in the following table:2 12 ELEMENTAL CHANGE Comp Plan DEIS/FEIS Coverage 13 1- Expanded Brinnon Rural The area is within the 1994 zoning analyzed Village Center boundary. in the Comp Plan DEIA/FEIS except a portion 14 of one parcel east of Hwy 101. DNS considers the one parcel to not be an IMPACT. 15 2- New 17-acre light The proposed LI district was not within the industrial (LI) district alternatives in the Comp Plan DEIS/FEIS. DNS 16 north of Dosewallips Road considers standards at UDC 4.22 to control within proposed RVC. any IMPACT. 17 3- New Small-scale SRT uses were included in alternatives of 18 Recreational & Tourist Comp Plan DEIS/FEIS, although silent on the Use (SRT) overlay creation of SRT overlay districts. WaWa 19 district at WaWa Point. Point is in the Comp Plan as an existing SRT. Proposal would be an intensification 20 and expansion. 4- Elimination or DNS considers these as nearly identical to 21 relaxation of regulations standards for the West End. The Comp Plan of home business and discusses need for measures for South County 22 cottage industry under economic development. DNS contends UDC UDC new Remote Rural Area amendments not an IMPACT. 23 RRA) overlay district. 24 5- Recommended Master DNS considers MRP only as a recommendation. Planned Resort (MRP) at A future application would go the review 25 Black Point. process, including project action, site- specific SEPA review. 26 27 28 2 MLA02-00014 File Log GMA 2046 #120c. Minor paraphrasing to fit table. 29 "IMPACT" is used in the table to represent the phrase: probable significant adverse environmental impact. Mark Rose SEPA Appeal Page 5 of 23 Findings, Conclusions MLA02-00014 Brinnon Subarea Plan" and Decision 1 3. On January 30, 2002, the Responsible Official submitted a SEPA 2 Addendum to the Threshold Determination for the Proposed Brinnon 3 Subarea Plan, a non-project action. The Addendum incorporates by 4 reference the following items:3 1- Minutes from a January 22, 2002 public meeting in Brinnon 6 concerning the potential environmental impacts of the proposed BSAP. 7 2- A collection of nine composite maps depicting environmentally sensitive areas at Black Point, Brinnon Flats, and WaWa Point. 8 3- The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) for the Glen Cove/Tri-Area "Special Study," which discusses the 9 distribution of commercially and industrially zoned acres to a provisional urban growth area, with surplus acres allocated to 10 rural centers, such as Brinnon. 11 4- A compilation index of previous development proposals that underwent SEPA project action review in Planning Area #11, as an 12 example of how SEPA review has influenced development in the Brinnon area in the past and is likely to influence development in 13 the Brinnon area in the future. 5- SEPA threshold determination (Determination of Significance and 14 Adoption of an Existing Environmental Document) published November 14, 2001 for the year 2001 Comprehensive Plan amendments, 15 which included a mechanism for approving master planned resorts in Jefferson County in addition to the existing Port Ludlow MPR. 16 6- A commitment to update a data sharing agreement with the 17 Washington State Office of Community Development for use of archeological and cultural site information in the review of 18 development proposals in Jefferson County. The State information will be supplemented with information provided by the member 19 Tribes of the Point-No-Point Treaty Council. 20 4. The Department completed a SEPA Environmental Checklist, signed 21 by Josh Peters, Associate Planner, on December 10, 2001.4 22 a. The proposed action is identified as: Brinnon Subarea Plan 23 hereinafter referred to as "BSAP") , a chapter of the Jefferson 24 County Comprehensive Plan, and associated amendments to the 25 Unified Development Code (UDC) .5 26 27 28 3 MLA02-00014 File Log GMA 2046 #150 and 151 5 Environmental Checklist, MLA02-00014 File Log GMA 2046 #120b 29 5 Id. at 1, #A.1 . Mark Rose SEPA Appeal Page 6 of 23 Findings,Conclusions MLA02-00014 Brinnon Subarea Plan" and Decision 1 b. The Checklist identifies the Comprehensive Plan DEIS/FEIS, 2 and "implementing regulations" for the Comprehensive Plan.6 3 c. Virtually all questions regarding B. Environmental Elements 4 are answered with a statement similar to: N/A. Future 5 development proposals to be reviewed as project actions under 6 SEPA. 7 d. A Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions was completed.? 8 Generally, the responses note that the proposals "may result 9 in increased number and density of buildings" and "Any impacts 10 will be evaluated per project action, site-specific SEPA and UDC 11 regulations to development proposals." 12 Regarding the Appeal Documents: 13 5. On January 7, 2002, Mark Rose, on behalf of the Better Brinnon 14 Coalition, submitted a timely appeal to the SEPA DNS. In filing the 15 appeal, Appellant Mark Rose cited reasons for the appeal, summarized:8 16 The DNS does not adequately address impact to water quality. impact to salmon habitat. 17 impact to the Brinnon floodplain. 18 impact to wetlands. impact to native foliage. 19 impact of stormwater runoff. impact to native species. 20 impact to shorelines. 21 impact to acceptable noise levels. impact to quality of life. 22 impact on roads, education and services. 23 The DNS does not adequately address the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. 24 address the Executive Order 11990, May 24, 1997: Protection of Wetlands. 25 address the Executive Order 11988, May 24, 1977: 26 Floodplain Management. 27 28 6 Id. at 2, #A.B. 7 Id. at 10-11 29 8 MLA02-00014 File Log GMA 2046 #128a Mark Rose SEPA Appeal Page 7 of 23 Findings, Conclusions MLA02-00014 Brinnon Subarea Plan" and Decision 1 address The Endangered Species Act of 1973, As Amended. address The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. 2 The DNS does not comply with the county's Draft Environmental 3 Impact Statement and Final Environmental Impact Statement, companion documents (DEIS/FEIS) . 4 5 6. The appeal documents and testimony focused on the elements of the 6 County' s proposal listed below. Exhibits 2, 3 and 4 contain relevant 7 testimony and information. 8 Brinnon Rural Village Center [RVC] 9 WaWa Point Convenience Crossroads [CC] 10 Black Point, Rural Commercial and future Master Planned Resort 11 Home Business and Cottage Industries 12 Regarding the Environmental Documents in Adoption Notice: 13 7. The Department simultaneously adopted environment documents with 14 the DNS, and later submitted an Addendum to the Threshold 15 Determination that incorporated six items by reference. The Department 16 first asked procedural questions from the proper authorities in DOE. 17 Barbara Ritchie, DOE SEPA Unit Supervisor, in her 9/6/2001 email to 18 Josh Peters suggests several questions that should be asked when 19 adopting existing environmental documents. Three substantive 20 questions were:9 21 What are the probable environmental impacts of the current proposal? 22 Have those impacts been adequately addressed in an existing 23 environmental document? 24 If some impacts are not addressed and need additional review, are 25 the impacts likely to be significant? 26 27 28 29 9 MLA02-00014 File Log GMA 2046 #114a. Mark Rose SEPA Appeal Page 8 of 23 Findings, Conclusions MLA02-00014 Brinnon Subarea Plan" and Decision 1 8. In accordance with the three questions suggested by DOE, the 2 Examiner has reviewed each of the existing environmental documents and 3 now makes the following observations: 4 a. 1998 Comprehensive Plan DEIS: 5 PAGE Observations 6 1-1: The EIS is a "phased environmental review" and framework for future community plans, development regulations and 7 projects. 1-2: Community Plans will follow to come into conformance with 8 the overall Plan and consistent with GMA requirements. 1-3: The Preferred Alternative recommends four "villages" of 9 Port Hadlock, Port Ludlow, Quilcene and Brinnon as Rural Community Centers - and that they are not to be regarded as 10 future urban growth areas. 11 1-4: The No Action Alternative was the Comprehensive Plan in effect prior to the GMA plan. 12 3-3: Preferred Alternative for Rural Community Centers is described as: The type and intensity of future commercial 13 growth within the business district zone boundaries . . . will be strictly regulated so as to allow for only "infill" 14 development. 15 3-4: No Action Alternative evaluated was that in effect prior to adoption of interim regulations in the course of complying 16 with GMA requirements. 3-4 to Each of the Alternatives was illustrated with a full page 17 3-9: map, with the Preferred Alternative mapped in color. There was no map for the No Action Alternative. 18 4-3: The chapter on Affected Environment, Impacts and Mitigations includes a section on Alternatives for each 19 topic. The first topic, Seismic Areas, states: However, each alternative, except the no action, can incorporate 20 appropriate mitigating policies to avoid inappropriate development in these hazard areas. See pages 4-9, 4-10, 4- 21 23, 4-28, 4-57, 4-60, 4-77, 4-142, and 4-145. 22 4-73: Under the category of Land Constraints, Brinnon is noted as having the most constraints, and areas on the Quimper 23 Peninsula as the least constrained. 4-77: The County worked with population growth forecasts prepared 24 by the Watterson West Group—updated in 1995. The Watterson Forecasts did not address whether each Subarea actually 25 possessed the capacity to accommodate the allocated growth. 26 4-160: Regarding sewers, the DEIS states that no additional sanitary sewers are planned in the rural areas. 27 28 29 Mark Rose SEPA Appeal Page 9 of 23 Findings, Conclusions MLA02-00014 Brinnon Subarea Plan" and Decision 1 b. 1998 Comprehensive Plan FEIS: 2 PAGE Observations 1-1: The Phased Review comment of the DEIS is repeated. 3 1-5: The intent to strictly regulate the Brinnon RVC to only infill" and not to be regarded as future urban growth 4 areas is repeated from the DEIS 5 1-6: WaWa Point is identified as one of Rural Crossroads. Black Point is not listed. 6 2-19 to Lloyd Calhoon, General Mgr. Port of Port Townsend, writes 2-26: regarding the level of detail appropriate detail and 7 adequacy of the alternatives (WAC 197-11-440 (5) (b) . The Department' s response at 2-25 was to explain that ". . . the 8 County elected to proceed with an overall county plan framework approach and to then revisit the community plans 9 and make them consistent with the overall vision. " 10 2-27: Peter Bahls, Habitat Biologist for the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe made the summary comment: "The Port Gamble 11 S'Klallam Tribe and other Point No Point Treaty Council Tribes have treaty-reserved resources within eastern 12 Jefferson County that will be severely impacted by implementation of the proposed Comprehensive Plan. The 13 DEIS does not fully address many of these impacts, nor propose adequate mitigating measures. " 14 2-31: Bruce Freeland, Port Townsend BCD Director, noted that the DEIS "falls short" with alternatives inconsistent with the 15 GMA, lack of quantification and analysis, infrastructure needs not adequately addressed, and ". . .no discussion of 16 how alternative contribute to or detract from the success of existing or potential urban growth areas. " This issue 17 will be addressed further. 18 2-113 Linda Tudor, while arguing that commercial zoning at Black to Point should be reinstated, commented regarding natural 2-116 constraints at other locations within the Brinnon Subarea 19 Planning area. 20 21 c. Proposed Amendments to the UDC:'° 22 UDC§ Observations 3.6.12 Home-based business section would exempt number of non- 23 a. resident employees, types of on-site retail sales and hours of operation. 24 3.6.12 Cottage industries section would EXEMPT number of non- b• resident employees, prohibition of specific occupations, 25 indoor use and retail sales, hours of operation, and 26 outdoor storage/parking provisions. 27 28 29 " Labeled as "Consistent with the Recommendations of the 8/28/01 Draft Brinnon Subarea Plan" and a copy contained in MLA02-00014 File Log GMA 4120 Mark Rose SEPA Appeal Page l0 of 23 Findings, Conclusions MLA02-00014 Brinnon Subarea Plan" and Decision 1 UDC§ Observations 4.17.2 Cottage industries prohibition of specific occupations 2 EXEMPTED include 1- Auto, truck or heavy equipment repair shop; 2- Autobody work or paint shop; and 3- Large-scale 3 furniture stripping; provided direct access to Hwy-101. 4 4.20 Home business EXEMPTED from size permitted in §3.6.12, which refers to RCW 36.70A.070 (5) (d) (iii)—which in turn 5 refers to the siting of isolated small-scale businesses. 4.35 Provides for an exception to UDC Table 3-1 for uses in 6 Small-scale Recreation and Tourist (SRT) overlay districts as established in adopted Subarea plans." 7 8 9. On January 30, 2002, the Department issued an Addendum to the 9 December 12, 2001 "SEPA" Threshold Determination for the Brinnon 10 Subarea Plan. The Addendum incorporated by reference a series of 11 documents and maps, which the Examiner has reviewed and now makes the 12 following observations: 13 a. Brinnon Community Meeting 1/22/2002 Minutes: 14 PAGE Observations 1 The purpose of the meeting was the review of the Brinnon 15 Subarea Plan and specifically the environmental impacts of that plan. 16 2 to The minutes reflect an extensive discussion. Generally, 17 16 the staff described their actions and participants responded with questions, information and observations. 18 b. Nine Sensitive Area Maps for Black Point, Brinnon Flats and 19 WaWa Point: PAGE Observations 20 Memo Three maps cover 1- Landslide, erosion and seismic hazards; plus 9 2- Fish and wildlife habitat areas; and 3- Streams, 21 maps wetland, frequently flooded areas, and susceptible aquifer 22 recharge areas—for Black Point, Brinnon RVC, & WaWa Point. c. Final Supplemental EIS for Glen Cove and Jefferson County23ComprehensivePlan1999Amendments: 2 4 PAGE Observations 1 page The Notice contains a hand written statement: 25 Note: The FEIS, including maps and addendum, is approximately 240 pages. 26 d. Index of previous SEPA project reviews in Area #11: 27 PAGE Observations 28 4 The Index contains summary descriptions of 39 projects that pages had SEPA Review. The projects, according to file number 29 dates, appear to span the period 1991 through 2000. Mark Rose SEPA Appeal Page 11 of 23 Findings, Conclusions MLA02-00014 Brinnon Subarea Plan" and Decision 1 e. SEPA Threshold Determination (DS & Adoption of an Environmental Document) for the 2001 Comprehensive Plan 2 Amendments: 3 PAGE Observations 1 Identifies two suggested policy amendments by Jefferson 4 County that could affect the Brinnon planning area. 2 Identifies one proposed site-specific amendment requesting 5 a land use designation change. 6 2 The DS adopts the DEIS/FEIS for the 1998 Comprehensive Plan and states: "The DEIS/FEIS are not subject to a pending 7 appeal." 8 f. Commitment to update a data sharing agreement with the Washington State Office of Community Development for use of 9 archeological and cultural site information. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Mark Rose SEPA Appeal Page 12 of 23 Findings, Conclusions MLA02-00014 Brinnon Subarea Plan" and Decision 1 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 2Plans, Regulations and SEPA in Context: 3 1. Planning, as we know it in this county, strives to put order to 4 the various forces on the environment in order to ensure that certain 5 sets of goals are achieved. A system of plans, policies, regulations, 6 and procedures was developed into a hierarchy that is reflected in the 7 law 11 g This hierarchy can be illustrated in its traditional form g [Comprehensive Plans—Zoning—Subdivision—Building Permits] as follows: 10 Comprehensive Planning looks at all elements and functions of the 11 Comprehensive Plans environment. 12 13 Zoning is the regulation of land use and its application to the individual parcel. Zoning must be Zoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan(sometimes stated as to"not be inconsistent"). 19 15 Subdivision governs the division of land into parcels. Subdivision must be Subdivision consistent with Zoning(and by definition is therefore also consistent with the 16 Comprehensive Plan). 17 Building Permits. Building Permits are governed by the Uniform Building Code,which is a 18 regulation on the construction of buildings. The buildings(and their intended uses)must be consistent with both Zoning and Subdivision. 19 20 The hierarchy remains when SEPA is applied; however, SEPA alone 21 is unique because it applies to all of the above levels of the 22 hierarchy from comprehensive plans to building permits.12 This 23 fundamental system of planning remains inviolate. When 24 interpretations or actions conflict with this hierarchy, it is usually 25 26 27 11 Durocher v. King County, 80 Wn.2d 139 (1972) . See also Convention Center v. Seattle, 107 Wn.2d 370, 730 P.2d 636 (1986) . An enactment by a local 28 legislative body is legislative in nature if it sets out a new policy or plan. It is administrative if it executes an existing policy or plan. 29 12 West Main Associates v. Bellevue, 49 Wn.App. 513, 525, 742 P.2d 1266 (1987) . Mark Rose SEPA Appeal Page 13 of 23 Findings,Conclusions MLA02-00014 Brinnon Subarea Plan" and Decision 1 a sign that something is being taken out of context or that these 2 relationships are simply not understood. 3 In 1995 the Legislature enacted revisions to the Regulatory 4 Reform Act with an objective of interrelating SEPA, GMA, SMA and the 5 permit review process." Significant to the case at hand are the 6 legislative directions given to reduce duplication and repetition in 7 SEPA reviews. The Legislature recognized that the environmental 8 reviews during the plan adoption stage should not be re-analyzed at 9 the project stage for questions of types of land use, density of 10 development, and availability/adequacy of public facilities.14 11 The SEPA Review Process : 12 2. Reading Chapters 41.23C, 36.70A and 36.70B together with an 13 understanding of the planning hierarchy described above, the hierarchy 14 holds with the Comprehensive Plans (including Subarea Plans) providing 15 the basis for future environmental analysis. SEPA policies encourage 16 agencies to integrate the requirements of SEPA with the agency' s 17 planning processes." Hence, the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 18 was accompanied by a Draft Environmental Impact Statement [DEIS] and a 19 Final Environmental Impact Statement [FEIS] , followed now by a 20 proposed Subarea Plan as a Chapter of that Comprehensive Plan. A 21 purpose of the Subarea Plan is to formulate a new level of detail for 22 the planning of the Brinnon area, which will give guidance for future 23 land use project applications. 24 25 26 27 13 Laws of 1995 Chapter 347 28 14 RCW 43.21C.240 The Legislature stated their intent in 1995 c 347 § 202. See also Citizens for Responsible & Organized Planning v. Chelan County, 29 105 Wn. App. 753, 762, 21 P.3d 304 (2001) . is RCW 43.21C.010 and WAC 197-11-030 Mark Rose SEPA Appeal Page 14 of 23 Findings,Conclusions MLA02-00014 Brinnon Subarea Plan" and Decision 1 3. The 1995 legislative reforms were addressed in a recent Court of 2 Appeals published decision involving SEPA, GMA and Regulatory Reform.16 3 Although Moss v. City of Bellingham involved a project (an 80-acre, 4 172-lot residential subdivision in an environmentally sensitive area) 5 as opposed to a nonproject Subarea plan, the Court' s rationale in 6 applying the 1995 reform legislation is useful. The streamlining of 7 SEPA and regulatory processes was upheld in Moss because Bellingham 8 had prepared a more comprehensive environmental analysis in their 9 plans and in their programmatic environmental impact statements.17 The 10 Moss Court found that Bellingham had properly prepared the 11 environmental analysis at the earlier nonproject plan stage. 12 4. A purpose of SEPA is to examine environmental factors at the 13 earliest possible stage, a position taken by the State Supreme Court 14 on a nonproject action, involving GMA, SEPA, and the Boundary Review 15 Board [BRB] Act.19 This case focused on the King County BRB approval 16 of two proposed annexations to the City of Black Diamond. The Court 17 upheld the reversal of the BRB' s approval with respect to SEPA, and 18 remanded the matter for preparation of an EIS. The Court' s analysis 19 is particularly parallel to the issue at hand, and excerpted here:19 Decision-making based on complete disclosure would be thwarted if20fullenvironmentalreviewcouldbeevadedsimplybecausenoland use changes would occur as a direct result of a proposed 21 government action. Even a boundary change, like the one in this case, may begin a process of government action which can 22 snowball" and acquire virtually unstoppable administrative inertia. . . . Even if adverse environmental effects are discovered 23 later, the inertia generated by the initial government decisions made without environmental impact statements) may carry the 24 project forward regardless. When government decisions may have such snowballing effect, decision-makers need to be apprised of 25 the environmental consequences before the project picks up momentum, not after. [Emphasis in decision] 26 27 19 Moss v. City of Bellingham, 109 Wn. App. 6, - P.3d - (2001) . 28 17 Id. at 15 18 King County v. Boundary Review Board, 122 Wn.2d 648, 663, B60 P.2d 1024 (1993) . 29 19 Id. at 664 Mark Rose SEPA Appeal Page 15 of 23 Findings,Conclusions MLA02-00014 Brinnon Subarea Plan" and Decision 1 The Court injected a footnote comment: I°. . . (the risk of postponing 2 environmental review is "a dangerous incrementalism where the 3 obligation to decide is postponed successively while project momentum 4 builds") ,20 and then concluded:21 5 We therefore hold that a proposed land use related action is not insulated from full environmental review simply 6 because there are no existing specific proposals to develop the land in question or because there are no immediate land 7 use changes which will flow from the proposed action. Instead, an EIS should be prepared where the responsible 8 agency determines that significant adverse environmental impacts are probable following the government action. 9 10 The Department's Choice to Defer SEPA Analysis: 11 5. In simplistic terms, the Department chose to defer SEPA analysis 12 to a future project stage, and relied on the Comprehensive Plan 13 DEIS/FEIS and the UDC regulations to support a DNS.22 The Department' s 14 concept of deferral conflicts with SEPA, as noted in Conclusions 2 15 through 4 above, and therefore, is in error. 16 Regarding Procedural Questions to Department of Ecology: 17 6. The Department asked procedural questions from the proper 18 authorities in DOE, namely, Barbara Ritchie, SEPA Unit Supervisor. 19 After describing the need to first ask several questions, Ms. Ritchie 20 concluded: "So, yes it is possible to do what you suggest, it is just 21 a question whether all impacts have been evaluated and, if not, how 22 significant are the remaining impacts." [Emphasis added] 23 Although Ms. Ritchie qualified her answer with the substantive need 24 for determining the potential impact, the Department only acted on the 25 procedural answer." 26 27 20 Id. at 669, Footnote 10 28 21 Id. at 669 22 Findings 1 through 4 29 23 Finding 7 and MLA02-00014 File Log GMA 2096 #114a. Mark Rose SEPA Appeal Page 16 of 23 Findings,Conclusions MLA02-00014 Brinnon Subarea Plan" and Decision 1 Were the Existing SEPA Documents Adequate? 2 7. The question is not whether the DEIS/FEIS were adequate for their 3 original purpose in adopting the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. That issue 4 is not before the Examiner. The issue here is whether the adopted 5 existing environmental documents are adequate to support the Brinnon 6 Subarea Plan DNS under appeal. 7 8. The adopted documents are extensive, with many internal 8 references to other documents. In spite of the volume, there is a 9 great deal of repetition, long on descriptions and short on analysis. 10 The DEIS/FEIS supported the adoption of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan, 11 but lacks substantive guidance for a Subarea plan, as identified in 12 Finding 8 a. and b. , above. 13 Does the "No Action" Alternative provide guidance? 14 9. A "No Action" alternative is mandated for a SEPA EIS, and must be 15 evaluated and compared to other alternatives.24 There are a number of 16 issues related to the No Action alternative for the DEIS/FEIS because 17 of the GMA inconsistency of Jefferson County' s plans and regulations, 18 as ruled by the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 19 in 1994—before the 1998 Comprehensive Plan was drafted.26 Although the 20 SEPA Rules define `reasonable alternative" to mean actions that could 21 feasibly attain the proposed objectives at a lower environmental 22 cost,26 the "no action" alternative can be used as a benchmark. The 23 "reasonable alternatives" have some flexibility in their legal status 24 according to a recent Washington Supreme Court decision.27 25 24 WAC 197-11-440 (5) (ii) 26 26 Finding 8.b. FEIS at 2.31, Bruce Freeland' s comments. See also City of 27 Port Townsend v. Jefferson County, WWGPHB No. 94-2-0006, (Final Order, August 10, 1994) . 28 E6 WAC 197-11-440 (5) (i) and (iii) 29 27 King County v. Centr. Puget Sound Bd. , 138 Wn.2d 161, 189-5, 979 P.2d 374 1999) . Mark Rose SEPA Appeal Page 17 of 23 Findings, Conclusions MLA02-0001 4 Brinnon Subarea Plan" and Decision 1 10. An issue before the Examiner is whether the "No Action" 2 alternative used for the 1998 Comprehensive Plan DEIS/FEIS is now 3 applicable for the Brinnon Subarea Plan DNS. The 1998 Comprehensive 4 Plan and UDC have been adopted and now govern the current status. For 5 instance, the previous commercial zoning at Black Point was eliminated 6 and existing commercial uses were placed in a non-conforming status 7 because it was clear that such commercial zoning was in conflict with 8 the GMA. If an EIS or Supplemental EIS for the Brinnon Subarea Plan 9 were required, the "No Action" scenario changes dramatically. 10 11. The DEIS/FEIS describe the "No Action" alternative and then under 11 "environmental impacts" generally state that there would be greater 12 impacts with the "No Action" alternative, such as loss of forest and 13 agricultural soils, increased erosion, potential risk of aquifer 14 contamination, loss of habitat, proliferation of wells and septic 15 systems, and continuation of urban sprawl in rural areas. The DEIS 16 contained maps for each alternative—except the no action alternative. 17 12. The Department argued that based on the "No Action" alternative, 18 ". . . nearly each element of the proposed BSP is within the range of 19 alternatives analyzed in the adopted environmental documents." To 20 paraphrase a recent case in Chelan County, the Department argues that 21 the proposal is consistent with pre-GMA Plans and regulations. But 22 legally the question is whether the proposals are consistent with the 23 Comprehensive Plan and GMA ". . . Not, have we done this before?"28 As 24 noted in Finding 8 a & b, there was no real analysis for the "No 25 Action" alternative. One could argue that the conclusory statements 26 were sufficient to serve as a benchmark—but not as analysis. The 27 Department is in error in relying on the "No Action" alternative. 28 29 28 Citizens for Responsible & Organized Planning v. Chelan County, 105 Wn. App. 753, 760, 21 P.3d 304 (2001) . Mark Rose SEPA Appeal Page 18 of 23 Findings, Conclusions MLA02-00014 Brinnon Subarea Plan" and Decision 1 Were the DEIS/FEIS and other adopted environmental documents 2 sufficient to support the DNS? 3 13. The DEIS/FEIS and other adopted environmental documents did not 4 contain actual analysis. The Environmental Checklist—especially the 5 Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions—should have addressed the 6 manner in •which the other adopted environmental documents contributed 7 to an understanding of possible adverse impacts. The Department does 8 not understand or misuses the statutory concept of "consistency 9 review." Consistency review means analyzing types of land use, 10 density of development, and availability/adequacy of public facilities 11 at the planning stage.29 Then, when individual applications are 12 submitted, those elements are not to be re-analyzed. Under that 13 consistency review, the environmental analysis at the project 14 application can be limited to site-specific examination given the 15 characteristics of the proposed development. 16Does the 1998 Comprehensive Plan provide sufficient analysis to 17 bridge to the future projects? 18 14. The 1998 Comprehensive Plan achieved compliance with the Growth 19 Management Act, and focused on reducing non-rural zoning and non-rural 20 land use areas in Plans. The Plan called for only limited "in-fill" 21 in the Brinnon RVC and WaWa Point, and converted existing commercial 22 uses to nonconforming status at Black Point. Neither the 23 Comprehensive Plan nor its DEIS/FEIS provide guidance for future 24 expansions proposed in a Subarea plan. 25 Do the Proposed Amendments to the UDC exceed the Brinnon Area? 26 15. As delineated in Finding 8 c, portions of proposed amendments 27 would apply outside the Brinnon Planning Area. If adopted as 28 29 29 RCW 43.21C.240 and Laws of 1995 c 347 § 202. Mark Rose SEPA Appeal Page 19 of 23 Findings,Conclusions MLA02-00014 Brinnon Subarea Plan" and Decision 1 proposed, the resulting impacts could extend over a larger geographic 2 area—the extent of which was not determined or impacts analyzed. 3 Can the Deferral of Environmental Analysis be Defended? 4 16. No. The Department is relying on the Uniform Development Code to 5 remedy all impacts—which essentially is the equivalent of saying that 6 any land use development can go anywhere because the UDC will protect 7 the environment. The premise fails in most instances because 8 development is incremental. The predominant environmental issue often 9 requires a broad analysis (if for no other reason than the cumulative 10 impact) beyond the financial capability of an individual property 11 owner. 12 17 . The County already has experience in coping with incremental 13 development applications. A series of shoreline permit applications 14 for riverbank armament stimulated a Docketed Item, asking for 15 Shoreline Policy Guidance after the following experience:3o 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 An application for armament on the Duckabush River revealed a lack of applicable policy guidance from the Shoreline Master Program. The case before me was not difficult to decide—even the initially opposed neighbor across the river supported approval, and both DOE and DF&W did not oppose even after expressing concern. The broad goals of preserving the natural setting are in place—as are the conflicting goals of protecting public and private property improvements. The easy cases can be decided within the existing policies . My concerns are the future applications which are getting incrementally more "gray" and which in turn may set precedents. The solutions are outside the 27 28 29 30 See Quarters 2 & 3 1999 Report of the Hearing Examiner, October 8, 1999. Mark Rose SEPA Appeal Page 20 of 23 Findings,Conclusions MLA02-00014 Brinnon Subarea Plan" and Decision 1 scope of the Examiner, and are better addressed by the Planning 2 Commission and Department plus help from DOE and Fish & Wildlife. 3 Does the record indicate that the DNS was clearly erroneous? 4 18. "For the MDNS to survive judicial scrutiny, the record must 5 demonstrate that 'environmental factors were considered in a manner 6 sufficient to amount to prima facie compliance with the procedural 7 requirements of SEPA, ' and that the decision to issue an MDNS was 8 based on information sufficient to evaluate the proposal 's 9 environmental impact. "31 Since the Department took the consistent 10 position that all environmental analysis was deferred to future 11 project applications, and since the environmental discussions in the 12 record consists of descriptions of the proposals, general conclusions 13 without adequate explanation of the basis leading to such conclusions, 14 the Examiner is left with the clear conclusion the Department was in 15 error. 16 Summary Conclusions: 17 19. There has not been an analysis of likely adverse environmental 18 impacts. The Department' s actions were to circumvent all 19 environmental analysis at the Subarea plan stage. 20 20. A community meeting two weeks after the appeal, followed a week 21 later by an Addendum to the DNS did little more than add to an already 22 voluminous record by reference and with little understanding. 23 21. The precedent set by allowing this approach in itself warrants 24 decisive action. 25 26 27 31 Moss v. City of Bellingham, 109 Wn. App. 6, 23, - P.3d - (2001) citing 28 Anderson v. Pierce County, 86 Wn. App. 290, 936 P.2d 432 (1997) , in turn quoting Pease Hill v. County of Spokane, 62 Wn. App. 800, 816 P.2d 37 (1991) . 29 Mark Rose SEPA Appeal Page 2l of 23 Findings, Conclusions MLA02-00014 Brinnon Subarea Plan" and Decision 1 22 . The Department' s approach to the DNS was neither proper phased 2 review nor valid innovative zoning techniques.32 3 23. To repeat from Conclusion 4, "the risk of postponing 4 environmental review is "a dangerous incrementalism where the 5 obligation to decide is postponed successively while project momentum 6 builds. " 7 24 . Consideration of the individual complaints in the subject appeal 8 was not reached because of the fundamental error in the Department' s 9 approach to the DNS. The appeal must be granted and a proper 10 Environmental Impact Statement or Supplemental EIS prepared. 11 12 DECISION 13 Based upon the testimony presented at the Open Record Appeal Hearing, 14 the documents and exhibits admitted into the record, and the above 15 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby the decision of 16 the Hearing Examiner that the appeal of the decision of the SEPA 17 Responsible Official to issue a Determination of NonSignificance and 18 adoption of existing environmental documents is hereby GRANTED. The 19 matter is remanded to the Responsible Official to prepare either an 20 Environmental Impact Statement or a Supplemental EIS for the proposed 21 nonproject actions. 22 DATED this 12th day of March 2002. 23 24 A-t‘ 25 26 Iry Berteig Jefferson County Hearing Examiner 27 ib 28 29 32 King County v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd. , 142 Wn.2d 543, 560, 19 P.3d 133 (2000) . Mark Rose SEPA Appeal Page 22 of 23 Findings,Conclusions MLA02-00014 Brinnon Subarea Plan" and Decision 1 Transmitted by the Jefferson Count Permit Center to the 2 Participants listed above at page 2 . 3 DATE TRANSMITTED: 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Mark Rose SEPA Appeal Page 23'of 23 Findings,Conclusions MLA02-00014 Brinnon Subarea Plan" and Decision CI')PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE—Kingston,WA 98346 December 16,2015 Jefferson County Planning Commission 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 Email: PlanComm@co.jefferson.wa.us David Wayne Johnson Pleasant Harbor FSEIS c/o Jefferson County DCD 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend WA 98368 Email: dwjohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us Subject: Pleasant Harbor Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, December 2015,Case No's: MLA08-00188,ZON08-00056 Dear Planning Commission Members and Mr. Johnson, With regard to the December 9 Notice ofAvailability ofthe Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement(FSEIS) and Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing and Notice of Intent to Amend the Unified Development Code for the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLC Master Planned Resort,I am submitting this letter on behalf of the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe(POST). While we appreciate the February 18, 2015 meeting,the tribal consultation process is not yet finished. We understood that Jefferson County DCD would work with PGST staff to address the concerns raised at the meeting and in our comments. However,PGST staff were not consulted after the February meeting and were not given any notification ofthe FSEIS prior to its release. In view of the incomplete consultation process,and as stated in our January 5, 2015 letter,we continue to oppose this project. We request a 60-day extension ofthe process in order to allow time to complete the Tribe's consultation. The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe is the successor in interest to Indian bands and tribes signatory to the 1855 Treaty of Point No Point, 12 Stat. 933.1 Today the Tribe retains deep cultural and economic ties to the surrounding waters and to their fisheries in its usual and accustomed grounds and stations(U&A). More than a century of federal court decisions have fleshed out the components ofthe treaty right,including the right ofaccess to places,the right to a share ofharvest to meet tribal moderate living needs, and the right to protection offish habitat in all areas of the Tribe's U&A. The proposed Pleasant Harbor project is located within the Tribe's U&A, in an area where tribal members depend on fish, shellfish and wildlife. We are concerned that the proposed project would jeopardize the Tribe's treaty right to fish and hunt in the project area. As stated in our previous comments in 2001, 2006,2007 and 2015 regarding this project and at the February meeting,we are concerned about the potential for adverse impacts from increased traffic, intensity of land use, and environmental effects. The proposed project would United States v. Washington,459 F.Supp. 1020, 1039(W.D.Wash. 1978)(hereinafter Boldt 10. o PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE 31912 Little Boston Rd.NE—Kingston,WA 98346 77 be located in an aquifer recharge area and the potential water quality and water quantity impacts to local groundwater, streams and wetlands are significant. We are concerned about the potential for significant adverse effects to fish habitat and the Tribe's fisheries as a result ofthese impacts. Additionally,numerous environmentally sensitive features are located within the project area,including unique kettle ponds. We are concerned about the potential adverse effects to these habitats from the proposed stormwater management system. An elk herd forages within the forested uplands to the northwest ofthe project between the Dosewallips and Duckabush river valleys. We are concerned about the development ofhighly attractive elk and deer forage from the proposed project lawns and fairways and the risk that the elk will cross the highway to get to the food. Couple that with the projected increase of 4,000 vehicle trips per day on the highway and it poses a significant risk to the viability of the elk herd. We are also concerned about the possible increase in recreational shellfish harvesting from project residents,which would have the potential to impact shellfish habitat and the Tribe's harvest.Tribal members harvest between 13,000 and 21,000 pounds of manila clam and between 13,000 and 48,000 pounds ofPacific oyster from the Duckabush alone. These issues were not satisfactorily addressed in the FSEIS. Although the document covers potential environmental effects to some extent, we are concerned that it does not go nearly far enough to resolve the potentially significant impacts to tribal treaty rights.In order to adequately address the Tribe's concerns, we are requesting a 60-day period to work with Jefferson County staff as needed to complete the tribal consultation process. We would appreciate your consideration and timely response. Thank you. Since y t J omy Sullivan Chair,Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe 9 David W. Johnson From: Morgan Oslake<oslake@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2016 1:51 PM To: David W.Johnson; Planning Commission Desk Subject:RE: Proposed MPR on Black Point To:Jefferson County Planning Commission 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend,WA 98368 To: David Johnson Department of Community Development Jefferson County,Washington State Regarding: Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLC Master Planned Resort Case No's: MLA08-00188, ZON08-0056. Dear Mr.Johnson, After further consideration of the MPR options, I would like to reiterate my preference for the"No Action Alternative" and preference that the MPR proposal is*not*approved. My concerns cited below in my previous email sent 1/5/2015 remain unchanged. Please include this email and my previous email for the record. Sincerely, Morgan Oslake From: David W.Johnson Sent: 12/15/2015 8:18 To: Morgan Oslake Cc: David W.Johnson Subject: RE: Proposed MPR on Black Point Please see the attached notice of availability. From: Morgan Oslake (mailto:oslake@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday,January 05, 2015 9:29 PM To: David W.Johnson<djohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us> Cc: Morgan Oslake<oslake@yahoo.com> Subject: Proposed MPR on Black Point David Johnson Department of Community Development Jefferson County,Washington State Dear Mr.Johnson, I am writing regarding the proposed Master Planned Resort(MPR)and golf course south of Brinnon on the Black Point peninsula along Hood Canal. After reviewing the MPR options, I would like to register my preference that the resort proposal is*not* approved and that no action is taken. My primary concern is environmental impact including forest clearing, natural habitat loss, 1 pollutant risks to Hood Canal, well water stress,and increased traffic. I own a home in Brinnon and am very supportive in seeing the Brinnon area thrive and be a vibrant community, but I do not think that the resort and golf course is the right path toward that goal. Sincerely, Morgan Oslake 2 David W. Johnson From: Haylie Clement Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2016 3:11 PM To: David W.Johnson Subject:FW: Comments for Black Point resort hearing Attachments: Black Point hearing.docx From:jeff cawley [mailto:jeffcawley@gmail.corn] Sent: Monday,January 04, 2016 8:29 PM To: Planning Commission Desk<PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject:Comments for Black Point resort hearing Attached are comments for the hearing on the Black Point resort. Thank you. Jeff Cawley 3421 SW Kelly Ave. Portland, OR 97239 971-221-2408 The best way to predict the future is to create it. 1 For Official Record of comments on Black Point FSEIS December 2015 Goeke/Cawley Family Trust Box 95 253 Overbrook Lane Brinnon, WA 98320 We are writing to express our strong voice of disapproval for the proposed Pleasant Harbor FSEIS. We have many reasons for our disapproval. 1. Environmental Damage -The most important item is the damage to the environmental quality of the canal with the polluting drain off of traffic, building construction, many additional houses and possible golf course. 2. Waste and waste management- How is garbage from new development going to be managed. If trucked, this is another ongoing stress on our fragile 101 highway. This would more than double solid waste to be processed at the Quilcene site. 3. Housing for service staff- Where are the resort workers, often non english speakers, going to live and school their children? How is this not an expense to an unprepared community for both affordable housing and classroom resources. 4. Medical and mental health emergencies. It is a fact that resorts have higher levels of alcohol and drug incidents which require professional intervention. Where is this help coming from?. Is the resort prepared to staff onsite medical and mental health crisis staff. 5. Traffic- How can this location with only one access from 101 accommodate the trucks during construction and then the cars for the resort?This will cause more damage to this 101 which is already under near constant repair from wash outs. More delay and highway repair causes great hardship to existing property owners, visitors and businesses which depend on daily reliable travel on 101. 6. The scale is inappropriate to the area. A smaller water based recreation area would enhance the community and provide some employment. This proposal is too large and will damage our community. As proposed, the development will create havoc for the many for the benefit of the few. Elizabeth Goeke Jeffery Cawley Richard Cawley Matthew Cawley Sarah Cawley David W. Johnson From: Haylie Clement Sent: Tuesday,January 05, 2016 3:06 PM To: David W.Johnson Subject:FW: Comment on Pleasant Harbor FSEIS Attachments: Testimony re Pleasant Harbor FSEIS.docx From:kirie pedersen [mailto:kirie.pedersen@gmail.comi Sent: Monday,January 04, 2016 5:34 PM To: Planning Commission Desk<PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Planning Commission Desk PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject:Comment on Pleasant Harbor FSEIS 4 January 2016 Kirie C. Pedersen,M.A. 687 Pulali Point Road Post Office Box 687 Brinnon, WA 98320 Jefferson County Planning Commission 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend,WA 98368 pcommissiondesk@co.iefferson.wa.us P1anComm(a,co.iefferson.wa.us Regarding: PLEASANT HARBOR MARINA AND GOLF RESORT LLC MASTER PLANNED RESORT CASE No's: MLA08-00188, ZON08-00056 Recommendation: No Action Alternative(Alternative 4) 1 Members of the Planning Commission: My family has lived on Pulali Point since 1946. I was born here, returning after college to purchase land and construct a home from the ground up, including well, septic, electric, and plumbing,relying entirely on local builders and artisans. I have devoted much of my life to working with Washington State biologists to study the impacts ofdevelopment on the fragile ecosystems ofHood Canal. The FSEIS for the Pleasant Harbor Marine and Golf Resort LLC Master Planned Resort, with the case numbers identified above, despite its volume, fails to sufficiently address the adverse impacts or provide sufficient mitigation for Alternatives 1, 2, or 3. I therefore recommend Alternative 4, the No Action Alternative. A Master Planned Resort with Golf Course as proposed would negatively impact the human and natural communities of South County. Although I know that at this juncture, the Planning Commission is not specifically charged with recommending an alternative, but only addressing ZON08-00056, I urge you to pay careful attention to the testimony of those ofus who remain deeply concerned about this proposal. My concerns include but are not limited to the following: In other counties where similar developments have been allowed to go forward despite lack of proof of available potable water, counties have been sued. The costs of such suits trickle down to the taxpayers. According to the Department of Ecology, senior water users have"first rights." In this proposal, senior water users bear the burden of having to prove their wells are impacted by the drawdown of the water systems for the proposed resort and golf course. Anyone who has experienced water shortages in the Brinnon area, as many have for years,knows the difficulty ofdocumenting such proof. Samples must be taken before the proposed development starts, and then maintained over a period of years. How would a homeowner function during the stipulated three years if he or she suffers saltwater intrusion? And then, as I read this plan, the non-senior landowner,the resort developer, makes the final decision as to whether the resort and golf course caused the seawater intrusion and only then addresses the senior users' compromised water systems. In addition, during my six decades with a front-row seat to Hood Canal, the water quality in Hood Canal has visibly deteriorated. In the southern parts of Hood Canal,where I grew up swimming at my grandparents' cabin, some areas are at times contaminated with fecal matter from failed septic systems. Where I live, in Dabob Bay, not far from Pleasant Harbor, algal bloom now appears almost daily during the warmer months. I have taken samples to send to NOAA, and others have completed more complex studies that document deteriorating water quality. However, a simple stroll along the shoreline and visual bird counts over my lifetime indicate that numerous species that once predominated in the near shore algal community, on the shoreline, in the bay, and on the bluffs have significantly diminished or vanished entirely. Damage to the environment is incremental. Something that starts out small, a house here and a house there, begins to compound when fragile ecosystems are involved. When I kayak around Dabob Bay and Hood Canal now, I see slides along the waterfront. These then destroy oyster and clam beds which attract tourists and provide livelihoods for tribal communities and other citizens. In every case,the slides are below either a clear- 2 cut or a place where the upland has been disturbed, even by minor development. This is true, sadly, even in the rare cases where geologists researched the fragile slope prior to the approval ofthe building permit. My other concerns about the proposed Master Planned Resort, Alternatives 1, 2, and 3,include but are not limited to: Increased traffic along narrow two-lane highways which also increases toxic run-off into the shorelines and streams; lack ofresources for increased traffic accidents and medical events in an isolated area; the density ofthe proposed land use; the location of the resort and golf course in an aquifer recharge area with a history ofknown water shortages and seawater intrusion; potential damage to wetlands, streams, groundwater, and kettle ponds on the site; impact to fish habitat essential to native fisheries as well as for recreational use; lack of appropriate storm water management to protect from run-off; impact on the local elk herd and other protected species; adverse impacts to the shellfish essential to the livelihood of tribes and other citizens as well as for recreational use; and potentially toxic septic disposal methods. Based on my reading of the proposals available on the Jefferson County website and attendance at meetings over the years,the narrative about the proposed Master Planned Resort is based on two myths. The first, promoted by the developer, is that this is a"green resort."In this fragile and stunningly diverse part ofJefferson County, described by many,tourists and scientists alike, as one ofthe most beautiful and rare spots on earth, green development"is an oxymoron. Those of us who have built our homes here have undergone rigorous scrutiny every step ofthe way to build just one house with one well and septic. We have paid taxes here our entire adult lives. We have worked, volunteered in, and are dedicated to this community. We revere the natural resources that cause our campgrounds to fill and and attract hikers,walkers,boaters, and bicyclists from all over the world. The second myth that I've heard, including from my elected officials, is that this proposed resort will "help" South County by providing jobs. For one thing,the developer is not a local or even American; the majority of the profit, if any,will not reside within our community. In addition,the provision ofjobs has already proved not to be the case. I've watched families I've known for decades actually driven out; the promises to support local businesses and hire locals are already unfulfilled. In addition,resorts are seasonal. What happens to part-time workers,whether local or imported from outside the area, when they are laid off before the first October storm? Did these workers earn sufficient wages during our tourist months ofJuly,August and September to survive during the lean and long winter months? Do these workers then become dependent on public resources? Ultimately, taxpayers often end up paying the costs for a failed resort, particularly a golf resort in a time when the popularity of golf is diminishing world-wide, and when the chemicals and maintenance for a golf course further impact a drought-affected area. To mitigate this impact, a substantial bond must be required ofthis developer. 3 The claims for a green resort providing benefit to a benighted community prove false. When San Juan Island gave itselfover to a Master Planned Resort, with few exceptions,the original people were driven out. They could no longer afford to live in their own community. After a lifetime of service to this community,my parents are buried in the Brinnon graveyard beside Elwell P. and O'Wota(Kate) Brinnon, our generous founders. Inspired by those leaders, I too devoted my life to this area and its diverse and rich natural environment. In respect to our ancestors and on behalf ofthose who follow, please preserve and protect this unique area in perpetuity. Respectfully submitted, Kirie C. Pedersen 4 4 January 2016 Kirie C. Pedersen, M.A. 687 Pulali Point Road Post Office Box 687 Brinnon,WA 98320 Jefferson County Planning Commission 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 pcommissiondeskPco.lefferson.wa.us PlanComm@co.jefferson.vva.us Regarding: PLEASANT HARBOR MARINA AND GOLF RESORT LLC MASTER PLANNED RESORT CASE No's: MLA08-00188, ZON08-00056 Recommendation: No Action Alternative(Alternative 4) Members of the Planning Commission: My family has lived on Pulali Point since 1946. I was born here, returning after college to purchase land and construct a home from the ground up,including well, septic, electric, and plumbing, relying entirely on local builders and artisans. I have devoted much of my life to working with Washington State biologists to study the impacts of development on the fragile ecosystems of Hood Canal. The FSEIS for the Pleasant Harbor Marine and Golf Resort LLC Master Planned Resort, with the case numbers identified above, despite its volume, fails to sufficiently address the adverse impacts or provide sufficient mitigation for Alternatives 1, 2, or 3. I therefore recommend Alternative 4, the No Action Alternative. A Master Planned Resort with Golf Course as proposed would negatively impact the human and natural communities of South County. Although I know that at this juncture, the Planning Commission is not specifically charged with recommending an alternative, but only addressing ZON08-00056, I urge you to pay careful attention to the testimony of those of us who remain deeply concerned about this proposal. My concerns include but are not limited to the following: In other counties where similar developments have been allowed to go forward despite lack of proof of available potable water, counties have been sued. The costs of such suits trickle down to the taxpayers. According to the Department of Ecology, senior water users have"first rights." In this proposal, senior water users bear the burden ofhaving to prove their wells are impacted by the drawdown of the water systems for the proposed resort and golf course. Anyone who has experienced water shortages in the Brinnon area, as many have for years, knows the difficulty of documenting such proof. Samples must be taken before the proposed Comment by Pedersen on FSEIS for Master Planned Resort Pleasant Harbor 2 development starts, and then maintained over a period of years. How would a homeowner function during the stipulated three years if he or she suffers saltwater intrusion? And then, as I read this plan, the non-senior landowner, the resort developer,makes the final decision as to whether the resort and golf course caused the seawater intrusion and only then addresses the senior users' compromised water systems. In addition, during my six decades with a front-row seat to Hood Canal, the water quality in Hood Canal has visibly deteriorated. In the southern parts of Hood Canal, where I grew up swimming at my grandparents' cabin, some areas are at times contaminated with fecal matter from failed septic systems. Where I live, in Dabob Bay, not far from Pleasant Harbor, algal bloom now appears almost daily during the warmer months. I have taken samples to send to NOAA, and others have completed more complex studies that document deteriorating water quality. However, a simple stroll along the shoreline and visual bird counts over my lifetime indicate that numerous species that once predominated in the near shore algal community, on the shoreline, in the bay, and on the bluffs have significantly diminished or vanished entirely. Damage to the environment is incremental. Something that starts out small, a house here and a house there,begins.to compound when fragile ecosystems are involved. When I kayak around Dabob Bay and Hood Canal now, I see slides along the waterfront. These then destroy oyster and clam beds which attract tourists and provide livelihoods for tribal communities and other citizens. In every case, the slides are below either a clear-cut or a place where the upland has been disturbed, even by minor development. This is true, sadly, even in the rare cases where geologists researched the fragile slope prior to the approval of the building permit. My other concerns about the proposed Master Planned Resort, Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, include but are not limited to: Increased traffic along narrow two-lane highways which also increases toxic run-off into the shorelines and streams; lack of resources for increased traffic accidents and medical events in an isolated area; the density of the proposed land use; the location of the resort and golf course in an aquifer recharge area with a history ofknown water shortages and seawater intrusion;potential damage to wetlands, streams, groundwater, and kettle ponds on the site; impact to fish habitat essential to native fisheries as well as for recreational use; lack of appropriate storm water management to protect from run-off; impact on the local elk herd and other protected species; adverse impacts to the shellfish essential to the livelihood of tribes and other citizens as well as for recreational use; and potentially toxic septic disposal methods. Based on my reading of the proposals available on the Jefferson County website and attendance at meetings over the years, the narrative about the proposed Master Planned Resort is based on two myths. The first, promoted by the developer, is that this is a"green resort."In this fragile and stunningly diverse part of Jefferson County, described by many, tourists and scientists alike, as one of the most beautiful and rare spots on earth, "green development"is an oxymoron. Those of us who have built our homes here have undergone rigorous scrutiny every step of the way to build just one house with one well and septic. We have paid taxes here our entire adult lives. We have worked, volunteered in, and are dedicated to this community. We revere the natural resources that cause our campgrounds to fill and and attract hikers, walkers,boaters, and bicyclists from all over the world. Comment by Pedersen on FSEIS for Master Planned Resort Pleasant Harbor 3 The second myth that I've heard, including from my elected officials, is that this proposed resort will "help"South County by providing jobs. For one thing,the developer is not a local or even American;the majority of the profit, if any, will not reside within our community. In addition, the provision ofjobs has already proved not to be the case. I've watched families I've known for decades actually driven out; the promises to support local businesses and hire locals are already unfulfilled. In addition,resorts are seasonal. What happens to part-time workers,whether local or imported from outside the area, when they are laid off before the first October storm? Did these workers earn sufficient wages during our tourist months of July, August and September to survive during the lean and long winter months? Do these workers then become dependent on public resources? Ultimately, taxpayers often end up paying the costs for a failed resort, particularly a golf resort in a time when the popularity of golf is diminishing world-wide, and when the chemicals and maintenance for a golf course further impact a drought-affected area. To mitigate this impact, a substantial bond must be required of this developer. The claims for a green resort providing benefit to a benighted community prove false. When San Juan Island gave itself over to a Master Planned Resort,with few exceptions, the original people were driven out. They could no longer afford to live in their own community. After a lifetime of service to this community,my parents are buried in the Brinnon graveyard beside Elwell P. and O'Wota(Kate) Brinnon, our generous founders. Inspired by those leaders, I too devoted my life to this area and its diverse and rich natural and human environment. In respect to our ancestors and on behalf of those who follow,please preserve and protect this unique area in perpetuity. Respectfully submitted, Kirie C. Pedersen David W. Johnson From: Patty Michak<pmichak@hccc.wa.gov> Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 12:15 PM To: Subject: David W. Johnson Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort-Jan. 6, 2016 public comment Attachments: HCCC Black Point Pleasant Harbor Resort comment letter.doc David, I will be unable to attend the public meeting tonight in Brinnon but would like to submit comments on the proposed Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort FEIS. Please find attached comments from the Hood Canal Coordinating Council regarding wetland mitigation for the proposed project. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Thanks, Patty Michak Mitigation Program Manager Hood Canal Coordinating Council 360 930 8634 360 265 9440 cell 17791 Fjord Drive NE Suite 122 Poulsbo, WA 98370 www.hccc.wa.gov pmichak@hccc.wa.gov Please note: All e-mails sent to and from this address may be subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW. Messages may be viewed by parties other than the intended recipient. 1 loot!119119!CoortIillBhillg Council JEFFERSON,KITSAP&MASON COUNT/ES PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM&SKOKOMISH TRIBES STATE&FEDERAL AGENCIES 17791 Fjord Drive NE Suite 122 Poulsbo, WA 98370 January6, 2015 Mr. David Wayne Johnson Jefferson County Project Planner Dear Mr.Johnson: The Hood Canal Coordinating Council (HCCC)would like to inform the project proponent and Jefferson County that the HCCC In-Lieu Fee(ILF)Program (for mitigation of impacts to aquatic resources) is an alternative to permittee responsible mitigation for mitigating impacts to wetland resources.The HCCC In-Lieu Fee Program was authorized in June 2012 and was established to provide a comprehensive mitigation approach for adverse, unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources within Hood Canal.The ILF Program is overseen by the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,Washington Department of Ecology and a fourteen member interagency review team made up of representatives from federal,state,county and Tribal entities. Completion of the wetland assessment and mitigation plan for the proposed Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort project occurred just prior to the authorization of the Hood Canal Coordinating Council's ILF Program and as a result the proposed wetland mitigation for the project does not consider an alternative mitigation approach of using the In-Lieu Fee Program. Mitigation conducted through the ILF Program provides assurance to regulators that the mitigation will fully compensate for the impacts, that no net loss of aquatic functions will occur and that the mitigation will be effectively monitored and maintained in perpetuity. HCCC works with local land trust partners to secure and protect mitigation site; places very restrictive covenants and/or easements on mitigation properties to protect in perpetuity the land and the ecologic functions provided. HCCC's ILF Program has successfully implemented wetland mitigation in Kitsap and Mason counties and the ILF Program's service area includes the aquatic resources of Hood Canal within Jefferson County as well. If you have questions concerning the ILF Program please contact me. Sincerely, Patty Michak/ Mitigation Program Manager 360 930 8634 office 360 265 9440 cell pmichak@hccc.wa.gov David W. Johnson From: Haylie Clement Sent: Thursday,January 07, 2016 9:42 AM To: David W. Johnson Subject:FW: MPR comments Attachments: MPR letter.docx From:Bill &Roxianne Morris [mailto:uptheduck@embargmail.com] Sent:Wednesday,January 06, 2016 3:35 PM To: Planning Commission Desk<PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: MPR comments 1 MPR comments To Whom It May Concern; Jan. 5, 2016 We have lived in this area since 1979 and have watched the area develop or not. We know that businesses try but most are not successful due to low population. Our concern is that the proposed MPR is too big in scale to maintain itself throughout the year. Look at Alderbrook and Port Ludlow-most struggle. This project needs to be sustainable so our area does not end up with multiple bankruptcies as in Discovery Bay Lodge and Alderbrook. There have been jobs cut or hours cut at the current Marina portion due to lack of Fall/Winter/Spring usage. Another concern is TRAFFIC and hopefully, state and county taxpayers are not funding the roadwork that needs to be done. Highway 101 is narrow and twisty. Any wreck shuts it down for hours. Fatalities close it even longer. We do not feel the traffic study is up to date with statistics on travel and usage. Most wrecks do not necessarily happen at intersections. Highway 101 is probably the best traveled from the Seattle area so the MPR will increase traffic considerably on a 2 lane road. Another concern is our most precious resource WATER. Salt water intrusion will occur-just when it will happen. It is up to the owner to prove the MPR caused it; up to the owner to pay for connection to their water and up to the owner to pay for usage of that water (when their previous usage was free). The aquifer may not replenish quickly with so much demand. Surely, water rationing will also be a problem if droughts like last summer continue. Jobs are a bonus but do not think that they will be family friendly wages or year round. Already know of one person who had to seek other employment as the Marina cut the hours to where that person could support one person let alone a family. Sincerely, William and Roxianne Morris 3261 Duckabush Rd./PO Box 444 Brinnon, WA 98320 David W. Johnson From: Haylie Clement Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2016 9:42 AM To: David W. Johnson Subject:RN: Black Point proposed development Attachments: new black point letter.odt From: Miriam Murdoch [mailto:miriamclaire@embargmail.comj Sent:Wednesday,January 06, 2016 3:06 PM To: Planning Commission Desk<PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: Black Point proposed development Please accept this letter of concern from the 3 of us. 1 To: Jefferson County Planning Commission Re: FSEIS for Pleasant Harbor Resort Date: January 5, 2016 As long time residents and property owners of Jefferson County we were drawn to the area by its pristine quality of life and affordability.We have concerns regarding the proposed Pleasant Harbor Resort including; traffic effects, control of storm water overflows,ecological integrity, local water resources,economic impacts on local businesses and infrastructure. 1.Traffic greatly increases on 101 during the summer months, including RV's, logging trucks and vehicles towing boats. The traffic study done was inadequate, including only intersections. We have witnessednumerous accidents between the south county line and Walker Mountain. A proposed development would only add to this problem(250%population increase in high season),with no room for expansion of the highway. 2.I am concerned about overflow of the greywater retention ponds in the wet season.Greywater contains nitrogen and phosphorus,which may be good for growing grass on a golf course,but will do further damage to the balance of nutrients in Hood Canal that support shellfish and salmon should the overflow seep into the recharge zone. In the stormwater pollution prevention plan, there should be a stipulation that in case of an overflow in the event of heavy rains (which occur often here)that Statesman be heavily fined. And possibly an outside authority have regular inspections of the proper functioning of filters ,valves and fittings within the greywater recycling system. 3.Wetlands in the project area are classified as Category II and therefore provide high levels of some wetland functions that are difficult to replace. The 2006 wetland functions analysis not only used methods that are not up to date with current Washington State protocols but did not include a professional rare plant survey. Wetlands are uncommon in the Puget Sound and Hood Canal area and the no net loss policy dictates that these wetland resources should be maintained.The current project contains no plan for maintaining biodiversity of the remaining wetlands and does not provide adequate mitigation for the loss of wetlands and their ecological, biochemical,hydrological and habitat functions. 4. The FSEIS says there is enough water for 2 years of development and after that another well can be drilled. That can have adverse effects on existing wells for Black Point residents,have you taken a survey to see how they feel about that? They were not willing to share their water rights. 5.It seems odd that the 2007 draft by Statesman stated that they would not displace existing businesses,yet one of the first things they did this summer was open a kayak rental business,displacing the existing and professionally run for 4 years)"Pleasant Harbor Paddle", who rented a slip at their marina, brought in business to the restaurant for them and, being run by a marine biologist,brought quality service to visitors. 6.The attraction of this particular area is the simplicity and natural beauty offered in the uncluttered roads that lead to mountain hikes,the harvesting of shellfish on the beaches and in the water,the abundance of wildlife and the proximity to Olympic National Park. There seem to be enough affordable.vacation rentals and campgrounds to accomodate these people;a resort the size of Alternatives 1,2 or 3 does not fit in. We favor a no action option, scenario B. Or how about 30 vacation rentals and a spa with your nine hole golf course? Miriam Murdoch Rick Whitcomb Scott Black MSc.RpBio. retired teacher retired logger Canadian wildlife biologist 677 Pollock Drive 313788 Hwy 101 parcel#503013007 Brinnon, Wa Brinnon,Wa Brinnon,Wa David W. Johnson From: Haylie Clement Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2016 9:41 AM To: David W. Johnson Subject:FW: HCEC Comments on FSEIS MPR Attachments: HCEC email to JCPC on Pleasant Harbor MPR.docx Original Message From: nana@hctc.com [mailto:nana@hctc.comj Sent:Wednesday,January 06, 2016 1:38 PM To: Planning Commission Desk<PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us> Cc: brinnongroup@gmail.com Subject: HCEC Comments on FSEIS MPR Enclosed please find the Hood Canal Environmental Council's written comments regarding the FSEIS for the proposed Pleasant Harbor MPR. We request that these comments be entered into the public record. Please send confirmation of your receipt of this e-mail and attachment. Thank you. Donna Simmons, President Hood Canal Environmental Council 360)877-5747 nana@hctc.com 1 Date: January 5, 2016 To: Jefferson County Planning Commission From: Hood Canal Environmental Council Re: Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement- Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Hood Canal Environmental Council (HCEC) respectfully requests that the following written comments regarding the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement(FSEIS)for the proposed Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort(MPR) be included in the public record. 1. Inadequate review time. The FSEIS was released by Jefferson County on December 9, 2015 with the public hearing before the Jefferson County Planning Commission scheduled for January 6, 2016. This coincides with the busiest holiday of the year. The public needs more time to review and comment on the FSEIS, especially as this document contains substantial changes compared to the Draft SEIS. We ask that the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) be delayed until all interested parties have had sufficient time to review the new material. 2. Support No-Action Alternative. HCEC continues to oppose the development alternatives (1, 2 and 3)and to support the No-Action Alternative. The newly added Alternative 3, with its smaller 9-hole golf course, would involve less land clearing and leave more natural vegetation intact. However, these benefits are far outweighed by the overall unavoidable environmental impacts which, according to the FSEIS, would remain nearly the same as Alternatives 1 and 2. As for the 2 scenarios presented in the No-Action Alternative, there is insufficient information to make a reasoned choice between the two. Although Scenario A would be preferable from an environmental standpoint, especially if existing regulatory tools are enforced, the information on Alternative B appears to be based more on assumptions rather than specifics. HCEC (or Jefferson County)cannot make a reasoned decision based on "assumed designs and anticipated impacts." 3. Support Brinnon Group opposition. HCEC continues to stand behind the Brinnon Group in its opposition to the proposed MPR. We concur with the comments presented by that organization, especially regarding the potential economic and environmental adverse impacts from construction and operation and the potential for dramatic changes to the rural character of the Brinnon community and surrounding area. 4. Prevent Hood Canal pollution. All alternative proposals entail a significant increase in traffic along Highway 101, which hugs Hood Canal for many miles, and will inevitably increase toxic non-point pollution from chemicals and metals washed by stormwater into Hood Canal, poisoning aquatic life. Puget Sound Partnership's "Storm water Strategic Initiative 2016" see https://pspwa.app.box.com/s/b3iieraenlwhiazkitia0r36klmtr20s) should be applied, costs of potential mitigation determined, bonding required from the developer to pay for all related costs, and funds administered through the Hood Canal Coordinating Council's In Lieu Fee (ILF) Mitigation Program see http://hccc.wa.gov/In+Lieu+Fee+Mitigation+Proqram/default.aspx). 5. National security issues exist. The fact that the U.S. Navy did not provide comments on the Draft SEIS as stated in the FSEIS does not mean that it has no national security concerns about the proposed MPR. In its Draft Joint Land Use Study(JLUS), the U.S. Navy's list of land use developments considered to be potentially incompatible with its operations includes large master planned communities/resorts. Further, the Draft JLUS states that high intensity planned units or planned rural residential development have been identified as a threat to the Hood Canal Military Operational Area and Dabob Bay Complex. Since Jefferson County is a participant in the JLUS project it stands to reason that this issue should be part of the conversation regarding whether allowing another large densely populated resort within the naval range complex(Dabob Bay/Hood Canal) is advisable. This issue is likely to become more important at a time of increased awareness of national security concerns. 6. Incomplete reports and agreements. important reports and agreements have not yet been completed. The Neighborhood Water Policy(NWP) agreement(2011) has not been signed, and needs to better protect neighboring residents from potential financial burden in the event of saltwater intrusion of existing wells. The report being drafted by the Mason County P.U.D. to address the demand, capacity and availability of electric power has not been completed. Other agreements with agencies are still in draft form. The public must review these reports/agreements before any decision to move forward is made. 7. FSEIS inadequate and impacts unacceptable. Issues and concerns raised by HCEC in its December 30, 2014 comment letter on the proposed MPR Draft SEIS have not been adequately addressed in the FSEIS. Any perceived economic benefits from creating another mega resort in this unique watershed are far outweighed by the potential negative environmental impacts. Approval of any of the development alternatives would likely result in significantly higher density, more intensive land uses, major topographic alteration, increased demand on groundwater and risk to the aquifer from saltwater intrusion, significant demand on public services, traffic congestion on highway 101, loss of rural character in the Brinnon area, increased impervious surfaces and stormwater runoff, loss of open spaces, disturbance of wetlands, loss of wildlife habitat and potential security problems for the U.S. Navy's Bangor Sub Base operations. As the Jefferson County Planning Commission deliberates on the FSEIS, Development Agreement and Development Regulations and prepares its recommendation to the Jefferson County BOCC, HCEC is hopeful that the commission will place the highest priority on making sure that the level of development chosen will have the least impact on the rural character and environmental health of the Hood Canal watershed. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the FSEIS for the proposed Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort. HCEC looks forward to your response to these and others' comments. Donna M. Simmons, President Hood Canal Environmental Council P.O. Box 87 Seabeck, Washington 98380 360) 877-5747 nana@hctc.com David W. Johnson From: Haylie Clement Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2016 9:39 AM To: David W. Johnson Subject:RN: Friends of Miller Peninsula State Park comments on the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLC Master Plan. Attachments: BrinnonResort 1-6-16 PingCmsnCmnts.docx;ATT00001.htm Importance: High From: Darlene Schanfald [mailto:darlenes@olympus.netj Sent:Wednesday,January 06,2016 1:26 PM To: Planning Commission Desk<PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Planning Commission Desk PCom missionDesk @co.jefferson.wa.us> Cc:darlenes@olypen.com Subject: Friends of Miller Peninsula State Park comments on the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLC Master Plan. Importance: High Please find attached comments from Friends ofMiller Peninsula State Park on the Pleasant Harbor Golf Resort Master Plan. Please confirm receipt of this document. Thank you, Darlene Schanfald, Ph.D. 1 6 January 2016 To: Jefferson County Planning Commission Fr: Friends of Miller Peninsula State Park (FMPSP) RE: Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement(FSEIS)- Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR) The Friends of Miller Peninsula State Park requests the following comments and hand in documents regarding the FSEIS for the proposed Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort(MPR) be included in the public record. We support the Brinnon Group's position. We support any activity on the property be backed up with a bond. We support additional review time. Most important, we support the NO Option; preferably A but no more than B. In addition, we point out the following. P. 1-7: 87% land disturbance. Claim: temporary disturbance for eagles and other birds. This is NO TEMPORARY DISTURBANCE. This is a 10 year build out proposal. Even if there were to be large gaps between build outs, the territory for these raptors and others will have been permanently ruined as eagle habitat. Consider, too, the light and glare of such a huge project, in addition to the fertilizers and pesticides that will harm the eagles and other animals. Thus, the Claim is unwarranted. P. 1-9: 20,700 sq ft wetland loss. This is a HUGE disturbance! Wetlands are disappearing around the country, including in our parts. Wetlands are needed for migratory birds. Attempts to site new wetlands often fail. Removing these wetlands would be another blow to wildlife needs, both local and migrating. P. 1-12: A 10 year build out. This should require a significant sized bond. P. 1-14: "'Could' result in 225 permanent new employees which could increase housing demands in the area." Is this 225 figure over the 10 year period? It is the number used with all proposed new projects. What is the basis for this number? NOTE the use of their word "could." This large development would increase the cost of living, including property, construction and rent costs in the area. Likely this would be too costly for the employees, especially on minimum wage. P. 1-16: Claim: Sewage would be transported to Shelton for processing. 280,000 gal/day—a city sized load — is a lot of toxic waste to be hauling many trips and for many miles. Please NOTE that the Shelton waste water treatment plant was built in 1979. It is 37 years old. Could it handle a huge daily load of nearly 900 residents and additional guests and employees? P. 1-18: Sewer: 280,000 gal/day Class A. They are correct that(whatever Class)will result in noise, odors and large energy consumption. Too, heavy rains could cause the treatment plant inoperable or to overload. This will result in sewage contaminated flood waters over and into the properties and mold. This will certainly occur due to the removal of so much earth, tree and native vegetation removal and resulting green house gas emissions, leaving the area and humans vulnerable to such flooding. NO option is the safest, wisest and smartest option. Other: • There is NO GUARANTEE that the work will go to local or WA State construction workers. What is meant by the developer's term "a portion." What portion?" This is vague. The City of Port Angeles passed a resolution that any project of$1,000,000 or more must include an apprentice program for local residents— construction, plumbing, etc. http://www.peninsulada ilynews.com/article/20140220/news/302209986/0/SEARCH 3.18.11: Claim: pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers—list will be open to the public. This is good, but not the issue. These are very toxic chemicals and fertilizers often contain toxic sewage solids. The WA State herbicides allowed list alone creates a toxic environment to soils, air, water systems, wildlife, pets and humans. For instance, 11 of these cause cancer, 6 endocrine disorders, 14 reproductive effects, 1 or more neurotoxicity, 17 kidney/liver damage, 17 sensitizers/irritants, 12 detected in groundwater, 12 potentially leach, at least 6 toxic to birds, 17 toxic to fish/aquatic organisms, and at least 3 toxic to bees, and we now the important of saving bees for pollinating our sources of food. Transportation: Claim: during construction there will be 300 trips/day. This is 10% of the build out traffic. OUCH! This means 3000 additional cars on the road when the facility is built. This is no small matter to this rural area. Obviously the costs of road wear, air pollution, litter, and animal and people accidents will be borne by the larger citizen base and even to citizens statewide. WASTEWATER. The Response to Comments to our DSEIS comments on wastewater and sewage shows that the responders are unfamiliar with wastewater issues. To say that other communities or that agencies condone the MPR reuse of wastewater does not mean that wastewater reuse is safe. Indeed, it is not. Class A is nearly as toxic as Class B. Class A does mean further treatment and more minimization of pathogens and pharmaceuticals. This, however, does not mean safe. Not only do many anti-biotic resistant bacteria and genes will enter the treatment plant, but the treatment plants can create their own. This is mixed with the rest of the toxic brew: personal care products included in contaminants of concern, prions, heavy metals, pharmaceuticals, medical wastes, viruses and bacteria, anything flushed and poured down drains, and more. Importantly, it has been shown that pathogens thought"killed" in the treatment process actually are rejuvenated when they touch soil, especially wet soil. Little in this toxic brew is required by EPA to be monitored. NOTE: We will be submitting hard copy documents on this issue, proving waste water is highly toxic, and should not be reused on fields or for putting out fires. And putting wastewater that does not meet Class A standards in open storage should not be kept for more than 24 hours as it attracts flies which can effect disease and certainly is odiferous. Respectfully submitted: Darlene Schanfald, Ph.D. PO Box 2664 Sequim WA 98382 David W. Johnson From: Haylie Clement Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2016 9:38 AM To: David W. Johnson Subject:FW: Comments: Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLC Master Planned Resort Attachments: Cornments_Brinnon_MPR_010516.pdf From:Connie Gallant [mailto:cg@conniegallant.com] Sent:Wednesday,January 06, 2016 12:13 PM To: Planning Commission Desk<PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Planning Commission Desk PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>;jeffbocc<jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us> Cc:brinnongroup@gmail.com; Paul McCollum<paulm@pgst.nsn.us>; Peter Bahls<peter@nwwatershed.org>;OFCO board-ofco@googlegroups.com>;Josey Paul<thegreatstream@gmail.com>; Mark Rose<mark@markrose.org>; Darlene Schanfald<darlenes@olympus.net>; Bob Sextro<robert.sextro@noblis.org>; peter guerrero studio374photography@gmail.com> Subject:Comments: Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLC Master Planned Resort Please find attached comments from Olympic Forest Coalition on the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLC Master Planned Resort proposal. Thank you, Connie Gallant President Olympic Forest Coalition i ym p'c Promoting the protection, conservation and restoration ofnatural forest ecosystems and their Forest processes on the Olympic Peninsula, including fish Coalition and wildlife habitat and surrounding ecosystems January 5, 2016 To: Jefferson County Commissioners, Jefferson County Planning Commission, Jefferson County Department of Community Development. We understand that the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLC Master Planned Resort proposal is under review for approval. We find it difficult to understand why the SEPA review has not been completed for a project of such magnitude, when failing to do so places the county under tremendous potential litigation burden. It has been 15 years and it appears that we are back at square one. We find the FEIS inadequate in addressing the impacts of the project. We are in full agreement with the Brinnon Group when they correctly show concern for adverse effects of higher taxes and impact to our emergency services. Environmental impacts have not been properly assessed and/or studied, especially for a project adjacent to the already unstable waters of Hood Canal. Has the developer mitigated the economic and environmental damage from such a massive resort development? If so, has it been fully examined to determine its accuracy? Does the current Planning Department have the capacity and manpower available for the researching and fact-finding on all the environmental claims made by the developer, in order to avoid any potential litigation resulting from any errors or oversight? We urge you to follow the process and allow an extension of the comment and review period of the FEIS for a minimum of 60 days, as also requested by the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe— after so many years of trying to make a decision on this proposal, another 60 days is a minimum of what the public deserves to have the opportunity to fully review and comment. Respectfully, cM...G. Connie Gallant President cc: Paul McCollum, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Peter Bahls, Northwest Watershed Institute PO Box 461 •Quilcene,WA 98376-0461 • (360) 710-7235 www.olympicforest.org • info@olympicforest.org David W. Johnson From: Haylie Clement Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2016 9:38 AM To: David W. Johnson Subject:FW:Testimony FSEIS Pleasant Harbor MPR From:Windycrest@aol.com [mailto:Windycrest@aol.com] Sent:Wednesday,January 06,2016 12:04 PM To: Planning Commission Desk<PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Planning Commission Desk PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject:Testimony FSEIS Pleasant Harbor MPR Deborah Siefert 378 Pulali Point Road Post Office Box 573 Brinnon, WA 98320 Jefferson County Planning Commission 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 pcornmissiondesk@co.iefferson.wa.us PlanComm@cojefferson.wa.us Regarding: PLEASANT HARBOR MARINA AND GOLF RESORT LLC MASTER PLANNED RESORT CASE No's: MLA08-00188, ZON08-00056 Recommendation:No Action Alternative(Alternative 4) Members ofthe Planning Commission: After reviewing the FSEIS for PLEASANT HARBOR MARINA AND GOLF RESORT LLC MASTER PLANNED RESORT CASE No's: MLA08-00188, ZON08-00056 my preference is Option#4 No Action. The FSEIS fails to address and mitigate the complex impacts of Options#1, #2 and#3 on the citizens ofWashington State, Jefferson County and specifically the residents ofBrinnon and Black Pt. The FSEIS provides no requirements for a bond or process to protect the citizens from liability to repair damages that would be left behind should Statesman's group abandons project. Further,the fact that the MPR has the potential to compromise the aquifer, local well water, and shorelines with saltwater intrusion and runoff was not adequately addressed in the FSEIS. And the fact that It is very likely options 1, 2 and 3 would result in adverse impact on the community,marine environment, fish and wildlife, and commercial and recreation resources was not thoroughly considered by The Statesman Proposal and the FSEIS. i I have owned property in Quilcene for 25 years,bought my home in Brinnon 17 years ago and purchased my slip at Pleasant Harbor Marina in 1996, 19 years ago. Having purchased a slip at Pleasant Harbor Marina with a 30 year lease and surviving the bankruptcy ofthe marina and several years later having to negotiate with the Statesman Group to keep our slip,we have just recently incurred a rather steep assessment for their improvements to the marina. This is after 2 years ofliving with construction site because of delayed permitting. I do not look forward to further to additionally supporting this LLC's profits with my tax dollars,time and loss of quality of life as our environment is further compromised. I participated in the county process for the Brinnon sub area plan and was appointed by the County Commissioners to the Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee in a position for District 3 and served as a science representative for 2 years. I have taken every opportunity to participate in my government process so that my concerns to the proposed development at Black Pt., currently by the Pleasant Harbor and Golf Resort LLC, Statesman Group of Canada,be heard and seriously considered by my representatives. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Deborah Siefert Sent from my IPad 2 10455 £0 710E- mariie Nom4 Zt1 NOn„F SCt4of7L, _U 7 O 3)( GHATOUR. -'l1/1 Gi 1y AL LI) u 1° 'a -C i4w ,F- R-G I O- m., • fna.A.0MN `c-Ikc 6/2( 1 r e c S 40rY-LE it(2t F lizN . Gv6- loo ft__ -11-(c5_-_RoJ L- I PoS 6C(-i (it tri RC-4R`fcNi?lzr li-n vi f JAN 1 1 2016I IL. T,, 1F-Er {lLfd 1 _ "Fpr`q C a UNITY DEVELOPMENT David W. Johnson From: David W. Johnson Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 9:11 AM To: Steve Walker Cc: David W. Johnson Subject:RE: (Ammended) RE: SEPA related question regarding best available and up to date information. Attachments: PHMPR Chronology.doc Steve, I'm not sure where you got the information on the milestones you listed, but I have attached a chronological list of events for the project. You can see from the list that with the resignation of the Vicki Morris in 2011 and subsequent hiring of EA Engineering to write the SEIS,there was approximately two years where no effective work was done on the Draft. Also, the creation of Alternative#3 substantially delayed the release of the Final due to re-evaluation of the affected elements. We wanted to release the Final in Spring 2015, but had to wait until that re-evaluation was completed. So, we released the Final as soon as we could in December. As for your question regarding the adequacy of technical reports and analysis,we generally accept that they are valid until such time as there is either a change in conditions or code that would require a new review. For example,wetlands can change over time, sometimes within a year or two. This is why we will require additional wetland analysis at time of construction to ensure that the development meets code based on current conditions. I hope that answers your questions. Thanks! From:Steve Walker [mailto:walker@mfgis.com] Sent: Monday,January 11, 2016 12:54 PM To: David W.Johnson<djohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: RE: (Ammended) RE: SEPA related question regarding best available and up to date information. Thank you David, Yes, I understand. Best, Steve Walker Original Message Subject: RE: (Ammended) RE: SEPA related question regarding best available and up to date information. From: "David W. Johnson" <diohnsonaco.jefferson.wa.us> Date: Mon, January 11, 2016 12:04 pm To: Steve Walker <walkerftmfgis.com> Cc: "David W. Johnson" <djohnsonOco.jefferson.wa.us> Thanks, Steve. I need to review this more closely and get back to you. From:Steve Walker [mailto:walker@mfgis.com] Sent:Sunday,January 10, 2016 1:47 PM 1 To: David W.Johnson<djohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: (Ammended) RE: SEPA related question regarding best available and up to date information. Mr. Johnson, In the interest of best helping you respond to my previous question(s) regarding the Black Point Resort project,I have attempted to research the timeline of the process from the 2007 programatic/non-project) EIS through the release of the DSEIS in October of 2014. Significant relevant milestones appear to me to include: 2009/02 SEIS Scoping meeting 2009/10 Determination of significance 2010/03 Scoping Memo 2011/01 Decision of the Washington State Court of Appeals 2011/04 Preliminary Development Agreement 2011/12 Draft Project Description 2012/01 Reports and Studies Submitted 2014/10 Applicant's due date for submission of all final reports 2014/11 DSEIS Release With the above as a guiding post, it seems that the January 2011 court decision followed by the April 2011 Preliminary Development Agreement can be used as a reasonable starting era of the formal review process. The next date in the timeline as currently known to me is the December, 2011 Draft Project Description, followed by the January 2012 submission of various consultant studies. Thus, it appears that the bulk of the 2011 calendar year was likely the time frame in which much of the substantive work in preparing the project proposal was carried out. After January of 2012 however, their seems to be mostly a lack of activity on the record until October 2014, when "Applicant's due date for submission of all final reports" is noted. I've also noted that in the revised timeline of 2014/11/24 the County had expected the Planning Commission to hold its Public Hearning on the matter on either April 1 or May 6 of 2015. (The meeting that eventually occurred on January 6 of 2016). I can imagine that this particular delay could be explained by the inclusion of the new, Preferred Alternative C. This leaves me then with a better understanding of the timeline of events. It also allows me to focus attention to the time period roughly defined as between February, 2012 and October, 2014, a period of approximately 32 months. Can you speak to any significant events, or lack thereof, that occurred during this period? Examples could include The primary time frame in which the DSEIS was fundamentally written; and Significant requests made of the Applicant by the County during this time frame, and when responses were receieved; and 2 Any period or periods in which there was a lack of progress due primarily or solely to inactions on the part of the Applicant, including their duration or durations; and Any period or periods in which there was a lack of substantive communication from the Applicant to the County. Thank you again in advance. I hope this helps narrow the scope of my previous question(s). Best regards, Steve Walker 331 Dosewallips Rd Brinnon, WA 98320 Original Message Subject: SEPA related question regarding best available and up to date information. From: "Steve Walker" <walkermfgis.com> Date: Fri, January 08, 2016 11:57 am To: dwjohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us David Wayne Johnson Project Planner Jefferson County Department of Community Development 8 January, 2016 Mr. Johnson, Can you address the issue of when and if an EIS becomes so dated that the original studies lose their legal validity and must be revisited and/or be re-done? I know this is some what of a subjective issue, but there must be some objective guidelines as well. It seems to me in the case of the Black Point MPR, that it could be argued that the project proponent let approximately 3 years lapse due to market conditions (i.e. corresponding to the 2008-2011 global recession and its regional after-effects that persisted through perhaps 2013) and then re-started the proposal when market conditions were perceived to have improved. Would you characterize the above observation as valid, or invalid? Because if there is validity to the argument, then it would appear to me that the county is exposing itself to the potential liability of basing a decision on demonstrably dated, and thus, legally questionable information. The 2008 era traffic study comes to mind as textbook example of dated information the validity of which is highly questionable (and potentially legally actionable) in 2016. The issue goes back to the question of why there was such a delay between the 2008 DEIS and the 2014 FEIS, and whether this was due to action on the part of the county or 3 inaction on the part of the proponent. If the former, then the proponent is in a position to argue that delays were beyond his control and it is not his responsibility to bring the EIS up-to-date. If however, the applicant merely sat on the proposal for a number of years out of market concerns, it could very strongly be argued that the public interest requires that outdated studies be revisited for current validity, and that the proposal's legal viability is questionable in its current form. I shall be interested in learning if the County is on the record with regards to the issue of the long delay between the draft and final EIS documents, and the reason(s) behind that delay. Thank you for any information and clarification you can provide. Naturally, I would expect and understand this letter and any response you may have will be part of the public record. Best regards, Steve Walker 331 Dosewallips Rd Brinnon, WA 98320 4 Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort Chronology 2002-2016 The Brinnon Subarea Plan (BSAP) of 2002 identified the existing, yet idle NACO Campground on Black point (BSAP page 45) as an ideal location for a Master Planned Resort (MPR). A pre-application conference for an MPR on Black Point was requested by The Statesman Group of Calgary, Alberta, Canada and held on January 10, 2006. On March 1, 2006 The Statesman Group submitted to Jefferson County a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to re-zone a portion of Black Point from Rural Residential to MPR (MLA06-87). Initial Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) scoping, conducted in May 2006, identified probable significant adverse impacts. On October 2, 2006, The Statesman Group, formally requested that the Environmental Impact Statement be changed from a permit-level, project EIS to a non-project, or programmatic EIS, necessitating the need for a Supplemental or project level EIS (SEIS) prior to development. In the fall of 2007, a citizen's group opposing the project was formed, which eventually became known as the Brinnon Group. The Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) deliberated and voted to approve MLA06-87 on January 14, 2008, under Ordinance 01-0128-08 with thirty attached conditions. In April of 2008, The Statesman Group applied for a Unified Development Code (UDC) Text Amendment and Development Agreement (MLA08- 00188) to implement the MPR. These Type V applications required an SEIS as condition (b) of Ord. No. 01-0128-08. On March 17, 2009 DCD held a SEIS Team meeting to discuss and plan for Scoping" of the SEIS with the Applicant's Representative Craig Peck, EIS writer Vicki Morris, and DCD's Peer Review Consultant Lloyd Skinner. A public "Scoping Meeting" was held at the Brinnon School house on October 28th, 2009 On March 31, 2010, DCD issued a Scoping Memo to Statesman defining the scope of the SEIS. EIS writer Vicki Morris resigned from the Project on April 6, 2011 On April 20, 2011 DCD assumed authorship of the EIS "in-house." DCD issued a revised Scoping Memo on October 12, 2011 to address applicant initiated changes to the alternatives of the project due to the adoption on new Shoreline regulations. On July 3, 2012, DCD informed the applicant that it would be hiring a third party consultant to draft the SEIS. On February 11, 2013, DCD signed a contract with EA Blumen (now EA Engineering) to author the SEIS. A contract extension required due to plan changes was approved and signed on March 16, 2015. A Draft SEIS was released for public and agency review and comment on November 19, 2014. Re-development and renovation of the Marina under an existing Binding Site plan began in May 2010 and was completed in April 2015. In July 2015, the applicant revised the resort plan to include a new preferred alternative #3, which reduced the size of the golf course from 18 to 9 with a 3-hole practice course. This change necessitated re-review of environmental elements. The Final SEIS was released on December 9, 2015. The FSEIS may be appealed with the Ordinances for either the Development Agreement or Development Regulations as the associated final action. The FSEIS and drafts of the Development Agreement and regulations were presented to the Planning Commission on January 6, 2016 to review, deliberate and make recommendation to the BoCC for approval, approval with modifications, or denial ofthe Development Regulations. The BoCC may either accept the Planning Commission's recommendation, or hold their own public hearing on the development regulations, but they must hold a public hearing before making a decision on the Development Agreement, anticipated in winter/spring 2016. Should the BoCC approve the Development Agreement, development and building permits may be applied for. Christina Maloney Local small business owner& 8 yr. resident ofBrinnon I'd like to start by saying that the final EIS for this project is a vast improvement from previous versions and actually includes a reasonable option for the proposed development—being Scenario B. However, I was disappointed to find that the County yet again scheduled this community meeting during the winter when many of our resident snowbirds are out of town. I was also surprised to find that the discussion included in former drafts ofthe EIS's concerning the displacement ofbusinesses due the project was removed from this version. The earlier drafts stated that no businesses would be displaced due to Garth's projects and as I'm sure you are aware that he has since displaced two local small businesses that operated from the Marina. One of which was my business,Kayak Brinnon. He not only displaced my business but he decided to also compete with me resulting in a 60% decrease to my family's income. I cannot speak for the other business owner who was displaced but can I will tell you that she was forced to completely shut down and liquidate. These actions, among many others, have created a great distrust of this company in our community. One of my greatest concerns, however, is the massive size ofthese projects which are expected to increase our population from 797 people to close to 3,000, a 250% increase in population within the next 10 yrs. I along with many other Brinnon residents came here because it is remote, rural, and un-crowded. We enjoy a quiet life close to nature with no traffic and relatively undisturbed and unpopulated forests,beaches,trails and water ways. Adding 2000 people to our population will NOT be an insignificant impact to our lifestyle as this EIS suggests. And I won't even go into detail about putting up with 10 years of construction traffic. My other great concern is the issue of inviting over 250 low wage workers to this area. The EIS states that 208 ofthese positions are expected to be permanent, however I am highly skeptical of this and would expect that most workers will be laid offevery fall letting our state welfare system, Oly Cap, and our local food bank pick up the slack. The Final EIS also states that 52 apartment units will be built to house these 208 permanent workers(see section 3.11-7 and 3.12-7). It states that these workers will be single and not have families so they can fit 4 workers per apartment. I am curious as to how you can stipulate that the workers do not have families. It seems more likely that these low wage service workers will be commuting from outside the area and have children and spouses. Shelton has a relatively large population ofseasonal workers. It would be expected that many ofthese workers would relocate to the Brinnon area where there is no rental market creating potentially unsanitary conditions for families living in moldy trailers potentially with failing septics or without septic systems or running water at all. To summarize,I am not in favor of Alternatives 1, 2, or 3 as they are inappropriately scaled for our small rural community. The option listed as Scenerio B in the EIS which includes 30 residential homes, a 9 hole golf course and some smaller retail and recreational facilities, I feel,IS scaled appropriately for this tight little spot between the Olympics and the Hood Canal and scaled appropriately for our roads, services and the size of our local workforce. Thank you for your time. t a 1 0 6116iV Date: January 5, 2016 To: Jefferson County Planning Commission From: Hood Canal Environmental Council Re: Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLC, Master Planned Resort Case No's: MLA08-00188, ZON08-00056 Hood Canal Environmental Council (HCEC) respectfully requests that the following written comments regarding the proposed Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR) be included in the public record. 1. Inadequate review time. The FSEIS was released by Jefferson County on December 9, 2015 with the public hearing before the Jefferson County Planning Commission scheduled for January 6, 2016. This coincides with the busiest holiday of the year. The public needs more time to review and comment on the FSEIS, especially as this document contains substantial changes compared to the Draft SEIS. We ask that the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) be delayed until all interested parties have had sufficient time to review the new material. 2. Support No-Action Alternative. HCEC continues to oppose the development alternatives (1, 2 and 3) and to support the No-Action Alternative. The newly added Alternative 3, with its smaller 9-hole golf course, would involve less land clearing and leave more natural vegetation intact. However, these benefits are far outweighed by the overall unavoidable environmental impacts which, according to the FSEIS, would remain nearly the same as Alternatives 1 and 2. As for the 2 scenarios presented in the No-Action Alternative, there is insufficient information to make a reasoned choice between the two. Although Scenario A would be preferable from an environmental standpoint, especially if existing regulatory tools are enforced, the information on Alternative B appears to be based more on assumptions rather than specifics. HCEC (or Jefferson County) cannot make a reasoned decision based on "assumed designs and anticipated impacts." 3. Support Brinnon Group opposition. HCEC continues to stand behind the Brinnon Group in its opposition to the proposed MPR. We concur with the comments presented by that organization, especially regarding the potential economic and environmental adverse impacts from construction and operation and the potential for dramatic changes to the rural character of the Brinnon community and surrounding area. 4. Prevent Hood Canal pollution. All alternative proposals entail a significant increase in traffic along Highway 101, which hugs Hood Canal for many miles, and will inevitably increase toxic non-point pollution from chemicals and metals washed by stormwater into Hood Canal, poisoning aquatic life. Puget Sound Partnership's "Stormwater Strategic Initiative 2016" see https://pspwa.app.box.com/s/b3iieraenlwhiazkjtja0r36klmtr20s) should be applied, costs of potential mitigation determined, bonding required from the developer to pay for all related costs, and funds administered through the Hood Canal Coordinating Council's In Lieu Fee (ILF) Mitigation Program see http://hccc.wa.gov/In+Lieu+Fee+Mitigation+Proqram/default.aspx). 5. National security issues exist. The fact that the U.S. Navy did not provide comments on the Draft SEIS as stated in the FSEIS does not mean that it has no national security concerns about the proposed MPR. In its Draft Joint Land Use Study (JLUS), the U.S. Navy's list of land use developments considered to be potentially incompatible with its operations includes large master planned communities/resorts. Further, the Draft JLUS states that high intensity planned units or planned rural residential development have been identified as a threat to the Hood Canal Military Operational Area and Dabob Bay Complex. Since Jefferson County is a participant in the JLUS project it stands to reason that this issue should be part of the conversation regarding whether allowing another large densely populated resort within the naval range complex (Dabob Bay/Hood Canal) is advisable. This issue is likely to become more important at a time of increased awareness of national security concerns. 6. Incomplete reports and agreements. important reports and agreements have not yet been completed. The Neighborhood Water Policy (NWP) agreement (2011) has not been signed, and needs to better protect neighboring residents from potential financial burden in the event of saltwater intrusion of existing wells. The report being drafted by the Mason County P.U.D. to address the demand, capacity and availability of electric power has not been completed. Other agreements with agencies are still in draft form. The public must review these reports/agreements before any decision to move forward is made. 7. FSEIS inadequate and impacts unacceptable. Issues and concerns raised by HCEC in its December 30, 2014 comment letter on the proposed MPR Draft SEIS have not been adequately addressed in the FSEIS. Any perceived economic benefits from creating another mega resort in this unique watershed are far outweighed by the potential negative environmental impacts. Approval of any of the development alternatives would likely result in significantly higher density, more intensive land uses, major topographic alteration, increased demand on groundwater and risk to the aquifer from saltwater intrusion, significant demand on public services, traffic congestion on highway 101, loss of rural character in the Brinnon area, increased impervious surfaces and stormwater runoff, loss of open spaces, disturbance of wetlands, loss of wildlife habitat and potential security problems for the U.S. Navy's Bangor Sub Base operations. As the Jefferson County Planning Commission deliberates on the FSEIS, Development Agreement and Development Regulations and prepares its recommendation to the Jefferson County BOCC, HCEC is hopeful that the commission will place the highest priority on making sure that the level of development chosen will have the least impact on the rural character and environmental health of the Hood Canal watershed. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the FSEIS for the proposed Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort. HCEC looks forward to your response to these and others' comments. Donna M. Simmons, President Hood Canal Environmental Council P.O. Box 87 Seabeck, Washington 98380 360) 877-5747 nana@hctc.com Regarding concerns about environment and commitment of Mr. Mann 1. I've been operating a small business out of Pleasant Harbor Marina since 2002. 2. I've worked with Mr. Mann on projects in the past. I am no longer employed by the marine except for some recreation/educational projects or infrequent maintenance assistance. 3. Regarding concerns about commitment, environmental concerns, safety and compliance Well over 1 million private dollars spent to date a. Dock replacement—exceeds all state and federal requirements for environment protection and safety i. DNR shows our docks to "show how it should be done" b. Fuel system — meets or exceeds all state and federal requirements. i. One of only 3 places on Hood Canal to provide marine gas and diesel to local and visiting boaters c. Stormwater—there was NO meaningful stormwater control prior to recent improvements— marina now meets or exceeds state and county requirements d. Access road— improved access from HWY 101 to meet state safety requirements, paved to improve safety and access, stormwater drainage to meet or exceed DOT state and county requirements e. Potable water—obsolete "conditional" DOH approval prior to upgrades. Now meets and exceeds all health requirements f. Recreational - pool and hot tub — rebuilt and upgraded to meet and exceed all state and county health requirements. Playground added for family activity. g. Restaurant facility—total reconstruction to meet all state and county requirements for health and safety. Provides service not previously possible h. Restroom and shower facility (for tenants and visitors) rebuilt and improved to meet or exceed state and county health requirements. i. I'm sure there is more that I have not mentioned. 4. I've not always agreed with Mr. Mann. I believe he offers the best option available for reasonable growth and job creation in South Jefferson. He has shown a willingness to modify his original plan to respond to concerns of the county and local community. Don Coleman Pacific Adventure Brinnon Wa. To: Jefferson County Planning Commission SAN 0 6 20i6 Re: FSEIS for Pleasant Harbor Resort Date:January 5,2016 As long time residents and property owners of Jefferson County we were drawn to the area by its pristine quality of life and affordability.We have concerns regarding the proposed Pleasant Harbor Resort including; traffic effects,control of storm water overflows,ecological integrity,local water resources,economic impacts on local businesses and infrastructure. 1.Traffic greatly increases on 101 during the summer months,including RV's,logging trucks and vehicles towing boats.The traffic study done was inadequate,including only intersections. We have witnessed numerous accidents between the south county line and Walker Mountain. A proposed development would only add to this problem(250%population increase in high season),with no room for expansion of the highway. 2.I am concerned about overflow of the greywater retention ponds in the wet season.Greywater contains nitrogen and phosphorus,which may be good for growing grass on a golf course,but will do further damage to the balance of nutrients in Hood Canal that support shellfish and salmon should the overflow seep into the recharge zone. In the stormwater pollution prevention plan,there should be a stipulation that in case of an overflow in the event of heavy rains(which occur often here)that Statesman be heavily fined. And possibly an outside authority have regular inspections of the proper functioning of filters ,valves and fittings within the greywater recycling system. 3.Wetlands in the project area are classified as Category II and therefore provide high levels of some wetland functions that are difficult to replace.The 2006 wetland functions analysis not only used methods that are not up to date with current Washington State protocols but did not include a professional rare plant survey.Wetlands are uncommon in the Puget Sound and Hood Canal area and the no net loss policy dictates that these wetland resources should be maintained. The current project contains no plan for maintaining biodiversity of the remaining wetlands and does not provide adequate mitigation for the loss of wetlands and their ecological,biochemical,hydrological and habitat functions. 4. The FSEIS says there is enough water for 2 years of development and after that another well can be drilled. That can have adverse effects on existing wells for Black Point residents,have you taken a survey to see how they feel about that? They were not willing to share their water rights. 5.It seems odd that the 2007 draft by Statesman stated that they would not displace existing businesses, yet one of the first things they did this summer was open a kayak rental business,displacing the existing and professionally run(for 4 years)"Pleasant Harbor Paddle",who rented a slip at their marina,brought in business to the restaurant for them and,being run by a marine biologist,brought quality service to visitors. 6.The attraction of this particular area is the simplicity and natural beauty offered in the uncluttered roads that lead to mountain hikes,the harvesting of shellfish on the beaches and in the water,the abundance of wildlife and the proximity to Olympic National Park. There seem to be enough affordable.vacation rentals and campgrounds to accomodate these people;a resort the size of Alternatives 1, 2 or 3 does not fit in. We favor a no action option,scenario B. Or how about 30 vacation rentals and a spa with your nine hole golf course? Miriam Murdoch Rick Whitcomb Scott Black MSc.RpBio. retired teacher retired logger Canadian wildlife biologist 677 Pollock Drive 313788 Hwy 101 parcel#503013007 Brinnon,Wa Brinnon,Wa Brinnon,Wa Jefferson County Planning Commission January 6,2016 Public Commentary on FSEIS 2016 JAN 0 6 201B Rob Mitchell 4246 Duckabush Rd. Brinnon, Wa. 98320 Once again the FSEIS has been dumped on our Planning Commission and concerned citizens during our holidays. Many residents are not here to comment or review this massive document. The comment period must be extended. The same problems with the DSEIS persist and remain unsolved. 1. Traffic 2. Water Availability 3. Neighborhood Water Plan,which does not protect current homeowners. 4. Noise and Air Pollution from an open pit mining operation and massive cut and fill. 5. Disposal of large volumes ofBio Solids from Sewage Treatment. 6. Use of Sewage Treatment Plant recycled water, which contains drugs and chemicals not removed. 7. Loss of peace and tranquility during and after construction. 8. Over crowding on our limited trail system, rivers and shellfish areas. 9. The late addition of cutting the golf course to 9 holes which only cuts construction costs. 10. The late addition of Scenario B in the No Action Alternative, which is not in the Brinnon Sub Area Plan and is not developed enough to seriously consider. It is full of vague and false negative impacts. Costs to all current residents and tax payers. 1. lack of adequate emergency services. 2. Traffic costs to working commuters,commerce, tourism and added pollution in the Hood Canal Water Shed. Degradation of our only major highway and secondary roads. This directly negatively impacts our Health and Safety. 3. High number ofpoverty level jobs straining our tax payer funded Social Services. 4. Increased property taxes. An MPR at Black point is the worst possible Location for future sustainable growth not only in Brinnon but the entire Olympic Peninsula. We should not hand over our last best resource for a developer's gain. The DSEIS was inadequate and the FSEIS is also inadequate There fore the conclusion is to opt for Scenario A of the No Action Alternative. A) The Traffic Study is highly inadequate. Highway 101 on the East side of the Olympic peninsula is the only non toll direct connection to the I-5 corridor and is used for all major shipments of goods, services as well as residents and tourism both on and off the peninsula. When serious accidents occur along this highway it closes it down for many hours affecting both commerce and quality of life for residents. This has large real monetary costs and in some cases health and safety to not only Brinnon residents but,the entire Peninsula. In the 2007 EIS P.34 Transportation it states. "The County identified 5 specific issues to be addressed as part ofthe Transportation Review."The very first requirement is the most important. 1.) US HWY 101 The Loss of Service(LOS)data was from the year 2000. The actual car trip count data dates back to 2006. Neither ofthese are currant in 2014. Transportation Engineering North West LLC states in Responses to Transportation- Related Public Comments received on SEIS Nov.2009 to an HCEC comment,pg. 18paragraphs6-7 There is no evidence of unsafe driving or roadway conditions through review of historical collision records or review of general geometric conditions in the general vicinity." While collisions do occur along roadway segments there was no evidence noted to suggest specific review along roadways. If WSDOT or Jefferson County had identified specific "high accident corridor"in the vicinity then a review of roadway segment collision statistics would have been conducted. Absent this determination, this analysis was not warranted." Transportation Engineering ofNorth West LLC did not count accidents in non intersection highway segments. Three ofthe most notoriously dangerous sections of roadways are in the immediate vicinity of the MPR. 1.) South bound, 1/10th of a mile from Black Pt. Rd. the sharp down hill rt. Turn prior to Duckabush Rd. 2.) At 2.8 mi. Southbound is McDaniel Cove. 3.) Northbound 6.4 miles from Black Pt. Rd. is Mt.Walker Pass. These 3 locations are sources for hundreds of very serious accidents, including our own Sheriff's Dept. which shuts down this vital commercial route for as long as 6 hours. (See Traffic's Financial Impact Study www.wsdot.wa.gov/.../June2012_Impact_Freight_Congestion.pdf) The traffic analysis shows that out of 4100 car trips a day 30%or 1230 cars a day will pass the first two dangers southbound. 65%or 2665 cars a day will negotiate Mt. Walker Pass. On the two side arterials of Duckabush and Dosewallips Roads it will be 3%or 123 cars a day or over a 10 hour period 12.3 cars/hour. The 2 public trail heads up the Duckabush have a combined parking area of@36 vehicles. The response to the comments regarding excess traffic on these secondary roads it that since we did not find adverse impacts at the intersection of Duckabush Rd. and High Way 101 there are no problems further up the road. That is not logical and avoids the question. The response from Transportation Engineering North West LLC is that"this increase in traffic is common with developments of this size and with the mitigations proposed(the shuttle bus and passenger van)no adverse impact is expected." This is inadequate mitigation. B.) In a 2013 meeting at Department of Ecology while clarifying the awarding of water rights to Statesman Corp. John Pearch,LHG informed us that"No class A water treatment system removes soluble chemicals"The MPR proposes to re-use this water in irrigation, fire suppression and aquifer recharge. This would mean that hundreds of medications people use daily will turn up in the single aquifer under Black Point. The water rights were awarded but additional wells were never drilled. A pump test was attempted on an existing well but was aborted after equipment failure so draw down rate and available volume was never proven. Usage amounts have not and will not be determined until full build out with the caveat that for each phase during the possible decade long construction adequate water must be proven. Ifthe development is stopped who pays to moth ball it or restore it to natural conditions? There is physical evidence of saltwater intrusion having occurred on the edges of the Black Point Aquifer. DOE has conditioned that monitoring must be done and for as long as 10 additional years after build out completion. Statesman has put several restrictive conditions on what an individual well owner has to do to prove their potable well water was lost due to Statesman's actions. This is in conflict with the DOE conditions on the water rights. Statesman condition's that they can demand additional evidence that they are at fault. If they do accept fault the owner may hook up, at Statesman's cost,to their water system and then they will have to pay for it's use. This is also in conflict with the conditions DOE placed. (See Pearch Hydrology Memo Part 1) C.) During part ofthe 10 year construction period there will be a full scale gravel and rock mining operation. "This will include excavation, screening of gravel and rock crushing."(The) "machinery used will be scrapers, excavators, bulldozers, wheeled front loaders; a portable screening plant, feed-hopper,portable gravel crusher, finishing crusher, water trucks, highway/of-road trucks...conveyor belt systems and vibratory/sheep-foot compactor rollers."This will be 1200 feet away from the closest existing residence. This is inadequate mitigation. D.)There is no estimate ofthe tonnage of Bio Solids the treatment plant will produce although,there's mention ofit's transport off site that will increase heavy truck traffic. It's stated that it will be processed at the proposed Shelton Plant yet there is no evidence of this. E.) This resort will also contribute 1415 tons ofrefuse per year to be trucked off site to land fills. F.)The reduction of the resort structure's foot print results in construction savings for Statesman yet raises the elevations of the buildings visible from 101 to as high as 70'. The reduction of the cut and fill necessary while being"Greener"also creates construction savings. The Green Washing ofthis resort does nothing to mitigate the enormous negative impacts on the local roads and community due to the massive scale of the project. Garth Mann and Statesman group state they can build the resort to this scale legally but the real reason is to increase the profit margin. G.)Direct negative impacts on Brinnon and Jefferson County were to be mitigated by Memorandums Of Understanding(MOU's)but achieve little for our citizens. 1.)EMS: In 2013 there were 249 EMS calls per the 797 people of Brinnon(2010 Census) which is 31%. Add the estimated population of 2000 Resort people means that there would be 620 calls per year. While Statesman will pay the Fire Dept$10,000.per quarter or$3,333 per month only during construction that amount is less than it would cost to hire an additional EMT. After full build out the collected taxes are estimated to be enough for increased services and calls but now the estimated construction time is vaguely as long as ten years depending on the economy. Statesman will supply a used ladder truck so our volunteers can fight fires in buildings as tall as 70'. However the Fire Dept. is responsible for all training personnel for it's use and upkeep and mechanical maintenance. 2.) Police: Due to budget shortages the Sub Station in Quilcene was closed. Statesman will supply a 500 sq. ft. room(25'X20' or smaller than a 2 car garage)but without the budget to supply and staffit. 3.)Employee Housing: Since most of the employees will be from out of Brinnon and probably Jefferson County Statesman will build"Affordable"housing for them and collect rent. 4.) Schools: Basically get nothing until collection oftaxes after full build out, use of an on site space for lectures on how green the MPR is. The only money they will receive is 2 dollars per tee time and spa use will be paid to the school district as well as 1 dollar per hour for students hired by statesman for part time, minimum wage jobs. How much this amount will be is not supplied. 5.)Health: Statesman will supply 500 sq. ft. clinic (25'X20') for an LNP or GP for use by resort members. 6.) Construction Jobs: A project of this magnitude is done by Multi National Commercial Company which means that the principle profit will leave town. Sub Contractors would be required to have the commercial level of insurance and usually have worked with the General Construction company before. The only additional workers needed will be Minimum wage day laborers. In the EIS 3.11-5 Construction Employment it states that 1750 jobs will be created but this number is the total for all four phases when in fact many ofthe jobs will be the same for all four phases. For example the site prep, excavation, foundation, framing and finish crews will remain the same so this number is false. In 3.11-16 vague promises are made such as the new-employment-COULD-lower the Jefferson County unemployment rate- depending—on whether the individuals reside there. And, it's POSSIBLE nearby businesses will experience and increase in business. In Appendix N,pg. 29 is the conclusion ofjobs created. The Average Median Income AMI)in Brinnon is $42,679. The number ofjobs created which are At(80%of$42,679. 34,143.)or Below the AMI are 223 people. The conclusion found in Appendix N page 28 based on tables 3-1 through 3-4(pages 8- 11) is that"Construction total and indirect jobs at or below the Brinnon AMI is only 342 jobs with an income of$34,143.00 7.) Finished Resort Employment: While 280 jobs are predicted the majority will still be low income or minimum wage and it's not stated how many of those are part time employment. It's estimated that"Walmart costs surrounding communities$13 million in economic activity and$14.5 million in lost wages over 20 years"(see http://pugetsoundsage.org/downloads/Walmart-Fowler-Report-2012-04-06 1-1.pdf) In Tables 1-20 for all phases of construction these are the total jobs created and annual incomes. 48 jobs are above the AMI ranging in income from$36,000.to $52,914. 108 jobs are from $10,593. to $14,381. 121 jobs are from$19,241. to $28,00. The 2014 Poverty Guides from the US Dept. of Health&Human Services are; Family of 5 annual income of$27,910. 4 23,850. 3 19,790. 2 15,730. In conclusion out of 280 jobs created an incredible 83%are considered Poverty level. See http://aspe.hhs.gov/POVERTY/I4poverty.cfm 8.)Public Use: Is limited to the bike and walking paths. Tee times are restricted and a limited number ofthe Resort's features can be used and paid for by the local community Many amenities such as use ofthe pool and tennis courts are for Resort residents only. 9.) Tax Revenue; State taxes are collected of 9%and sent to Olympia ofwhich 6.5% stays there and the leftover 2.5%is returned to Port Townsend the County seat. Both of these entities have free reign as to where and how it's spent while the citizens ofBrinnon and those communities along Hood Canal bear the brunt oftraffic and safety. Levies attached to our property taxes will go to help our school, fire dept,and County Sheriff. These funds will not be available until Phase 4 and Full Build Out are achieved. This is a development of massive scale. Ifallowed to go ahead with these multiple inadequacies in the DSEIS it will require a large investment but also reaps very large short-term profit for the developer and that revenue leaves. If the developer stays on as the Property Management Co. or contracts to another multinational company In either case property management is still profit driven. Up keep ofthe MPR's infrastructure will be paid for by user fees and Home Owner Association fees, which will rise as deterioration begins and operational costs rise. The PUD created for the operation ofthe Water System and Sewage Treatment Plant has to make enough profit to cover maintenance and future replacement of deteriorating equipment. Some time in the future the entire Sewage Treatment Plant will have to be replaced. Who and how is that paid for? See http://www.fodorandassociates.com/Reports/Destination ResortImpact Studv.pdf Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 85 If Thornburgh Resort is successful, its developer could make $300 million on lot sales, almost doubling its investment. The lucrative profit potential for developers creates a formidable incentive for them to pursue resort projects on Oregon's cheap rural lands in beautiful natural settings. They can afford to spend liberally to make their resort projects possible. Economic Impact Conclusions Many of the economic impact studies provided by developers portray an overly optimistic picture of the development project's benefits by ignoring the costs associated with providing public services, public infrastructure, and the potential adverse impacts on the community and the environment. The "leisure and hospitality" sector(that includes destination resorts) paid average annual wages of only$16,096, the lowest of any employment sector in Deschutes County and about half as much as the average annual wage in the County of$31,492 in2006. Even if two members of a household worked full time at the Thornburgh Resort, they would still make less than the median household income in 2004 and the effect of the resort will be to depress median wages in the County. Household incomes below$21,200 represent the Federal poverty level for a family offour. Most jobs created by the resort will be temporary and when construction is completed, 1,471 jobs will be lost, causing ripple effects in the local economy. The addition of more than 2000 peak new jobs to Deschutes County will have a very significant impact on the local housing market, especially when the temporary jobs arelost. Low-wage jobs created by the resort will increase demand for affordable housing. While the Peterson Housing Report estimates a peak of only 133 new households generated by the resort, it is more realistic that a peak of 978 new households will need to find housing in Deschutes County. After the resort is completed, there will be an estimated permanent demand for 347 new housing units in the County e JAN 0 6 2016 Steven John Walker 331 Dosewallips Rd Brinnon,WA 98320 Before the Planning Commission of Jefferson County,Washington 6 January,2016 T Formal comments The Black Point Resort will Increase , not Decrease Poverty in Brinnon The Statesman Group's own data and statements prove this. The following analysis quantifies the magnitude of that increased poverty. Relevant Extracts from the factual record as documented in the EIS Statesman shall advertise and give written notice at libraries andpost offices in FSEIS 3.11 East Jefferson County and recruit locally to fill opportunities forcontracting and employment,and willprefer local applicants provided they are qualified,available, and competitive in terms ofpricing, [emphasis added] competitive in terms ofpricing'='Willing to work for Minimum Wage-ed It is assumed that the majority ofoperationaljobs associated with theproject under Response to comments from Rob M., Alternatives 1-3 wouldbe seasonal 21 II is estimated that 223 of the 225 total operationaljobs(99 percent)would earn an average wage of80 percent orless ofthe Brinnon area average median income. emphasis added] FSEIS section 4-1 page 4-3 How Much Does a Seasonal Minimum Wage Job Pay? Minimum Wage 9.47 hour 379 140 hourweek Nfemodal--Paym Labor Day 99 days 14.1 weeks Ramp up/W1110 down 2 weeks Employment term 16.1 weeks Expected Gross Wages 6,115 Employee Expenses&Bottom Line Rent paid back to Statesman(30%) $1,834/16.1 weeks typical food budget($250/month) $1,000/4 months 2015 U.S.PovertyiThreshold Values Household size Yearly Monthly Net 4 month earnings after food&housing 3,280 1 $11,770 981 2 $1.5,930: $1,328 Haw much moneydoesthat leaveforthe'rest of the year? 3 $20,090 1,674 Monthly budget,8 months 410/month 4 $24,250 2'02 Includes. food,housing,transportation,health care,et al. aspe.Ifhs.gov/2015-poverty-guidelines individual Poverty Deficit,Additional wages necessary to Workforce Poverty Deficit for223 Employees. escapepoverty Additional community/county wide payroll necessary to keep the employees ofthe Black Point Resort out of Poverty 8 month off- 8 month'off- Household size Monthly season Household size Monthly season 1 $571 I-$5,655 1 •$127,284 -$1,261,,084 9,815 2. •$204,59Q $2,186:.764 3 -51,264 -$13,979. 3 -$281,897 -$3716,444 5 4 4359,204 -$4,044,124 Workforce Poverty Deficit for 223 Employees* 882 This Community and this County wou1 ld need to generate over 000,QQQ in additional annual off-se payroll, merely to keep the employees of the Black Point Resort out of poverty. If the Planning Commission, the Project Proponent, or anybody else can identify, those potential employment opportunitiies, now would be a good time to do so. Year after year experience suggests that no such opportunities currently exist, nor are they likely t° exist in the foreseeable future. Assuming a medianhousehold Size of 2.0,and 16 weeks of Black Point Resort employment at the 2016 minimum wage of 3.47/hour Employee Effective Hourly WageAfter Paying Rent to Statesman Group minimum wage less 30%) 6.63/hour Potential Statesman Group Rental Revenue from Minimum Wage Employees 30%of wages) UpTo 6403,000/year By arrtatorizing employee housing construction costs over an(e.g.)20 yearperiod,the Statesman Group could potentially showa net profit from employee rental housing.This isa time-testedand proven method of exploiting employees even further.(see:Sixteen Tons'byMerle Travis) -ed Could aBrinnon familyafford to buy at BPR? Median Household income 42,731/year The ruleofthumb is to aim for a home that costsabout two-and-a-hal{times yourgross annualsalary. -CNN Money Unless units are priced near$107,000 or lower Amedian income Brinnon family could NOT afford to purchase at Black Point 99% Part Time, Temporary, Seasonal Minimum Wage,Poverty-Level Jobs 80000 County 70000 Brinnon BPR Employee(16 weeks) 60000 50000 al.....II1 . i iiiiIr=1 III.i E 40000 0 2 30000 . 20000 10000 0l _ _ 1 1 11 cYQe y e 4'e yS The bottom economic line for south Jefferson County: 99 Percent of all jobs will be low wage and/or seasonal . Many or most will pay below the poverty threshold 100 Percent of all profits will leave the community and county And that , my friends and neighbors , is how this project will increase the poverty in our community SEWAGE SLUDGE IS SOLD AS COMPOST FOR FOOD & GARDENING S^P S '3 K i k 3 4 s: N :: } A•}ar L-,1 y t .. t<'Y'rac ", P 6'B ,.,- ..C.- Y' _ E"r N,n o n`^f o f^ IT IS YOUR RIGHT TO KNOW. 'q 1. ` r""" z WWTPs create 60%ofWA State's PugetEverythingthatgoesdownthedrainends e `' i 7 a in a Waste Water Treatment Plant(WWTP). 4/ ' mF s Sound pathogen pollution Se to a (sewage in a septic tank) maybe (S . t •• WWTPs create superbugs/antibiotic p g g p s resistant genes and bacteria that hauled there,as well as radioactive waste, .' . .. " \ 4"."-?''.. i transfer to food fracking fluid, superfund leachates and 7''.4,1;'t WWTP contaminants can be taken up hazardous industrial waste. They contain —..% =`— — by crops and sea life humans eat a complex mix of thousands off- WWTP sewage sludge is sold for contaminants and various pathogens. Treat,d`,ev:a,et,omv:zte,ate compost/fertilizer without labeling all a mentpian •twod e o, contents Yet, sewageplants are not designed to Rlu ,rio:;t dmrla,da - -atan,.9 9 0 WWTP wastes harm soils,air,water,void_esWc a rant as":onr an f,t'li r' o0h treat all that enters them. r, :,:a,ncan al, PCB,a a=1,pathoger,:and Th..•:anca!nlra wildlife,plants,food&human health YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT IS IN YOUR FOOD! YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT IS IN YOUR GARDEN COMPOST! All products taken internally,applied,or put down the drain have the potential to r, enter sewage systems or become runoff into streams, lakes and the ocean.iiti l Everyday products such as pharmaceuticals, personal care products, laundry •ge:non vo endetergents,and pesticides contain endocrine disrupting compounds, carcinogens w„,, m„nglementen0 isff and othercontaminants.These enterour soils,our waters andourfood.synthetic clothes . -' , , suffocation ofaquati THEREFORE, IT IS YOUR RIGHT TO KNOW! organisms CosmKks t It is the right of the people to know if their food is grown or otherwise produced in soil to ±7 , y which sewage sludge has been applied as a fertilizer, micronutrient source, soil amendment, soil conditioner or compose. Without disclosure, consum' rs of foodngestonoyoge"s" products may unknowingly ingest broad classes-of toxic metals,chemicals,biochemicals accumulation in lisst gaaermfront Add.,,,” biological effects and microorganisms, many of which accumulate in organisms and through the food moment frompt°„r, chain. These products should be LABELED!w 1"t..eve ? _.... mm 'etwA {:a' _a M. .«tzzi4r' cr.Gc..'!y2it"31rtitt at='t ,tvi:aa 2. §:::n,r,,'%fi*'¢Shd .--A"...` 'r+at A'.d -. ABOUT SEWAGE Jr/N fil V WWTPS CREATE "SUPERBUGS" With the 1972 Clean Water Act (CWA), the U.S. Environmental University-of Michigan School of Public Health research suggests Protection Agency(EPA) implemented pollution control proq ams wastewater treatment processing contributes to the selective such as setting wastewater standards for industry and water((uality increase ofantibiotic resistant bacteria and the occurrence of multi- standards for all contaminants in surface waters.The Act made it drug resistant bacteria("superbugs")in aquatic environments.(2) unlawful to discharge any pollutant from point sources into These strains of bacteria resist several or all antibiotics. Each yea! navigable waters unless a permit was ties obtained.(1) So, with drug-resistant bacteria infect more than 2 million people nationwidegovernmentfinancialhelp, municipalities built wastewater and kill at least 23,000.(3) These even lurk in hospitals.(4)treatment plants. Different municipalities process wastes differently, but they all • In1981,the EPA reported that out of 300 total coliform separate solids (which become "sludge") from liquid (which bacteria inhabiting the colon)isolates: becomes "effluent"). Treatment plants typically do what is called 82%were resistant to two or more antibiotics. secondary treatment." Some do"tertiary treatment,"meaning the effluent discharged into water bodies is "cleaner." This results in 46%of these were capable of transferring antibiotic resistance more toxins and pathogens left in sewage sludge. Regardless,the to a sensitive strain of E.coli.(5) effluent remains full of harmful contaminants. Antimicrobials hinder important WWTP processes, Everything that humans discharge or excrete,as well as materials compromise sewage treatment and promote drug resistance. contributed by medical facilities,businesses and industries,are sent 6.a,b) to sewage plants. Sewage can contain pharmaceuticals,endocrine • WWTP discharges contribute to spreading antibiotic resistantdisruptingchemicals, chemotherapy drugs, toxic metals, and 9 p g synthetic hormones - including estrogens and testosterones,genes in the environment and bacterial communities of a personal care products,hospital wastes,industrial wastes,antibiotic receiving river.(7) resistant bacteria, flame retardants, stormwater runoff, animal • Canadian researchers discovered one of the deadliest kinds of wastes,plastic microbeads, plus viruses,fungi, protozoa, parasites,antibiotic-resistant bacteria in a raw human food raw squid,prions associated with a brain wasting disease, plasmids and bacteriophage that enable the horizontal transfer of gene widening the potential exposure for consumers.(8) sequences between and among bacterial genera and species. a. .,> P.. 7', , . c- g,,,^'Wfrq = c:, r 5'''D 't ..t V A*-,,-; ` .nt, Consequences of human exposure to the food may not beABOUTSEWAGESLUDGErealizedforyears.(12) With sewage now discharged to wastewater treatment plants, something 14 Dr. David L. Lewis, author of Science for Sale, a career USEPA needed to be done with the daily tons of scientist and the agency's only scientist to ever be lead author on sludge generated by every municipality. papers published in Nature and Lancet, received a Science Options for handling sewage sludge were to Achievement Award from USEPA Administrator Carol Browner. landfill it, burn it, or claim it to have At the same time, the USEPA planned to terminate him. His beneficial properties and call it "biosolids." Most "fault?" He denounced sewage sludge as safe for fertilizer and municipalities chose the latter. This toxic substance,if recycled, human health.(13) It is BUYER BEWARE! could now be deemed safe for human use. Sludge consists of complex and unpredictable contaminated HEALTH & PROPERTYwastemixturesthatincludesrobustpathogens, unregulated metals, and tens of thousands of unregulated synthetic Residents living within chemical compounds, many of which are toxic, persistent, and approximately 1 km of x' can enter the food chain,along with PCBs, dioxins, neurotoxins land application sites and mutagens.generally complain of The EPA, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), state agencies and irritation (e.g., skin some universities have analyzed sewage sludge. Findings are rashes and burning of typical. For example, the EPA findings of 84 sewage sludge the eyes, throat, and samples collected from 74 randomly selected publicly owned lungs) after exposure to treatment plants producing 1 million gallons/day in 35 states were: winds blowing from 27 metals,3 steroids,3 pharmaceuticals,4 anions and all but one treated fields. A prevalence ofskin and respiratory tract infections flame retardant(BDE-138)in every sample; have been documented, including 2 deaths, one from 9 pharmaceuticals and 6 steroids in 80 samples; septicaemia and one from pneumonia.(14,15) 4 semivolatile organics andpolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Documented cases exist of food uptake of sewage sludge PAH)in 72 samples;contaminants, loss of property and property values — including BOE 138 flame retardant in54samples.(9) farm land, crops and animals, as well as long term soil damage from sewage sludge in soil.(16.a,b) Elsewhere, 9 different sewage sludge products from 7 states Now you understand why consumers and property owners needwereanalyzedfor87emergingorganiccontaminantsenteringtoBEAWAREofhowfoodisgrownandwhatisincommercial waste water treatment plants: compost. 55 were detected in at least one product imiwo e A, n wervan 30-45 were detected in any one product(10) ABOUT WASTEWATER: SEWAGE EFFLUENT & RECLAIMED WATER BUYER BEWARE!IMPACTS TO SEA LIFE, SOIL & SEWAGE HEALTH Y `:r SLUDGE AS Because current wastewater treatment systems were designed COMPOST ! ! before(many]contaminants were known to be harmful at such low concentrations, treatment does not effectively remove them, and they persist when emptied into water bodies....TheseState, federal and local governments promote land application contaminants are difficult to identify before the waste entersofsewagesludgeasanutrient-rich organic natural fertilizer and streams, rivers and lakes. Reuse of treated sewage effluent on claim it has agricultural (farmland and forest) beneficial landscaping, golf courses, [school and,play grounds] andproperties. Municipalities sell or give it to farmers for fertilizing agricultural fields can contribute to the [pollution and health]their soils on which animals may graze or for other food problems.(17)production purposes, or spread it in forests. Spread on animal feed lots,farm animals can ingest the toxins which recycle back • The USGS found low concentrations of a broad range of to humans who eat these animals or their byproducts. Forest chemicals in streams adjacent to cities and agricultural areas. foragers and those recreating in forests will seldom see posted Included were human and veterinary drugs, natural and warning signs that sewage sludge was spread. synthetic hormones, detergent metabolites, plasticizers, Some municipalities bulk their sewage sludge with wood or insecticides, and fire retardants. One or more of these other materials and sell it to the public by tonnage,or package it chemicals were found in 80%of the streams sampled.(18) for nurseries as "organic" or "natural" compost. Labels only • At the 2014 Salish Sea Conference held in Seattle,WA,over 20needlistarsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, scientific papers were presented on sewage treatment plantcopper, zinc, molybdenum and potassium, nitrogen and contaminants of emerging concern impacts on Salish Seaphosphoruslevels.(11.a,b) There is no requirement to label marine life. Each study researched only one or a few of theseothercontaminantsinthecompost. contaminants. Considered together,the point was made that Human food crops and food animal feed crops, or the seed of treatment plant eliminations harm marine systems.(19) feed crops, therefore, present opportunity for toxins contained in sewage sludge to enter the nutrient cycle of human Indeed, both the WA State Departments of Health and Ecology consumers. Many of the toxins accumulate in our bodies and say 60% of the Puget Sound's pathogens are from WWTPs.(20. can be passed to fetuses, and later to infants via breast milk. a,b) r t ::F When a BOD test is carried out, carbon-eating bugs present it the waste immediately go to work on solids,demanding oxyger all along. Carbon-eating microbes are in full swing by the fifth day of the test(BOD5). Nitrogen-eating bugs are slower getting started as there aren'l many in the waste to begin with. They may not get up to full i speed until maybe the sixth to the eighth day. It can take up to t'*II 30 days for those bugs to digest urine-based waste. m The nitrogen-eating bugs continue eating waste and requiring oxygen from streams where effluent waste is dumped, starving the water of oxygen normally available to fish and other aquatic More studies drive home the point of problems in our waters life. The nitrogen that the bacteria haven't eaten acts as a from sewage effluents: fertilizer and increases algae growth downstream from the sewage plant. Hormones in Land-Applied Biosolids Could Affect Aquatic In sum, point source pollution permits (National PollutantOrganisms(21) Discharge Elimination System permits) are based on biological Intersexed fish is greatest near towns or near heavily farmed oxygen demand of carbon eating bacteria, ignoring nitrogenland. One major source of these endocrine disruptors is eating bacteria needs that,after WWTP"treatment,"enter water thought to be the post-treatment "cleaned" water from bodies and suck up oxygen critical to marine life. municipal sewage treatmentplants.(22) The quantity of heavy metals from sewage treatment plants IN SUMMARY, what is sent to WWTPs ends up indepositedintheFrenchBayofVidyisconsiderableand,because sewage sludge to be spread on soils,and winds back up in waterofsedimentinstability, constitutes a potential hazard for biota. systems. What is emitted directly into water bodies negatively23) impacts marine systems, moves up the food chain to be Tiny plastic particles in facial cleansers and soaps end up in fish consumed by humans who expel it back into WWTPs,and round and shellfish and are spread on land with sewage sludge. A and round it goes. bottle offacial cleanser can have 350,000 microbeads.(24.a-d) The practice of spreading and promoting sewage sludge on land mommomavet.l.w.mr-t-nw, a,...,. , s,c.,v„alsowswfrozw, undermines the basic physics,chemistry,microbiology,structure BIOLOGICAL OXYGEN DEMAND and function of soils. Soil ecosystem disruption from spreading sewage sludge alters and diminishes the native soil microbiome BOD) and diminishes the soil agronomic characteristics and quality. The data is replete with impacts of"treated"sewage to water,air,BOD is the amount of oxygen in a body of water needed by soil, and the health of humans and wildlife. Two excellentorganismstobreakdownorganicmatteratcertainsourcesare:temperatures over a specific time period. In a 2013 Investigate West Story,Killing the Urine-eating Bugs, by Robert McClure, Dr. http://www.sludgefacts.org> Peter Maier criticizes how sewage is considered treated. http://Www.sludgenews.org/resources/> PROMOTE LABELING TO PROTECT LIVES SLUD IE gMandatorylabelingofbothcommerciallysoldhumanfoodsexposedtosewagesludge, ( 1 SLI-1 ) F and composts containing sewage sludge promoted for growing food can provide a i critical method for tracking potential adverse health effects. Identifying seeds produced with or without being grown in or exposed to sewage sludge would protect farmers'rights to know what they are purchasing and protect their 1, right to choose what they grow. r" Certified organic farmers are prohibited from selling human foods or food animals SLUDexposedtosewagesludge. GE FREE it. Numerous US and foreign markets, food processors and distributors refuse foods produced with sewage sludge. These include, but are not limited to, Allen Canning x,*lora Company, Siloam Springs, Campbell Soup Company, Comstock Michigan Fruit Division, i iiikelit- Dean Foods Vegetable Company, Green Bay WI (Birds Eye products), Del Monte, Heinz, National Food Processors Association,Nestle USA,Perez Packing, Firebaugh CA, Progresso (Pillsbury,Green Giant,Totinos,Jenos, Haagen Dazs),Martha White, Old El Paso,Seabrook Farms,Stanislaus County Farm Bureau,Tri Valley Growers,Van Den Berch Food Co,Vermont Family Farms Milk, Western Growers,Whole Foods and others. myerammawmagswmfaxramolsyr.• "• .#„s pa oagommtreosavmo:t1.s.ev . ;amaim€r "' . ,; TwF DO THIS! ve Ask your grocers which products they sell were grown with sewage sludge,and to LABEL all foods(whole or those with ingredients)that were! Ask your compost vendor if the compost contains sewage sludge and to LABEL composts that do! REFERENCES 1.http://www2.epa.aov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act 2.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19321192?dopt=Abstract 3.http://www.cdc.gov/druaresistance/threat-report-2013/ 4.http://www.pbs.org/frontline Hunting the Nightmare Bacteria. October 22,2013 5.http://www.deadlvdeceit.com/antibioticresistance.htmlEffectofUVlightdisinfectiononantibiotic-resistant coliforms in wastewater effluents. EPA Research document.(1981)In APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY,Feb.1982,p.371-377. Mark Meckes,EPA 6. a.http://www.alternet.org/environment/antibacterial-soaps-may-cause-wastewater-treatment-failures b.http://envnewsbits.info/2014/06/24/triclosan-mav-spoil-wastewater 7.http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/iournal.pone.0078906 Prevalence of Antibiotic Resistance Genes and Bacterial Community Composition in a River Influenced by a Wastewater Treatment Plant 8.http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/bacteria-found-in-squid-raises concern-about-spread-of-antibiotic-resistance-study- finds/2014/06/11/a85c296c-f0bc-11e3-9ebc-2ee6f81ed217story.htriml This is a study published by the US Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention. 9.http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/biosolids/tnsss-overview.cfm#resultswater.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/biosolids/tnsss-overview.cfm- Cached-Similar EPA 2006-2007 study,Biosolids:Targeted National Sewage Sludge 10.http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es0603406 Kinney et al.Survey of Organic Wastewater Contaminants in Biosolids Destined for Land Application. Environmental Science&Technology, Vol.40,No.23,2006,pp 7207-7215 11.http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/biosolids/503pe index.cfm http://www.ecv.wa.gov/programs/swfa/biosolids/faq.html 12.http://www.thebradentontimes.com/news/2013/11/16/environment/sewage sludge a pool of_pathogens/#.0 T6lkY zt http://bit.ly/l6avZa>Sewage sludge:A pool ofpathogens 13.Dr.David L.Lewis.SCIENCE FOR SALE: How the US Government Uses Powerful Corporations and Leading Universities to Support Government Policies,Silence Top Scientists,Jeopardize Our Health,and Protect Corporate Profits. 14.http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/2/11 Interactions of pathogens and irritant chemicals in land-applied sewage sludges(biosolids) 15.http://cwmi.css.cornell.edu/case.pdf Case for Caution Revisited:Health and Environmental Impacts of Application of Sewage Sludges6to Agricultural Land 16. a.htto://www.ncbi.nim.nih.gov/pubmed/23250727 Uptake and translocation of organophosphates and other emerging contaminants in food and forage crops. b.http://www.sludgevictims.com/plants/PANTUPTAKEOFDRUGS-CHEMICALS-PATHOGENSFROMSLUDGEBIOSOLIDS.pdf SEPTEMBER 2012- More information on uptake by plants,vegetables,forages of pathogens and harmful chemicals and pollutants in sewage sludge biosolids. 17.CONSUMER PRODUCTS THREATEN AQUATIC LIFE:What Citizens Can Do. A Sierra Club product. 18.http://toxics.usgs.gov/pubs/FS-027-02/index.html USGS basic information on recent studies 19.http://www.wwu.edu/salishseaconference/docs/AbstractsBvTrack.pdf SSEC 2014 Presentation Abstracts-Western Washington University 20. a.Lead Organization Management Conference Engagement Process Listening Sessions.March 18,2014. Repeated by a WA State Dept.of Ecology scientist at the 2014 Salish Sea Conference. b.http://www.doh.wa.aov/Portals/1/Documents/4400/332-132-EPA-Grant-Strateay.odf Approximately 100 wastewater treatment plants discharge to Puget Sound. All the sources of pathogens that enter Puget Sound,reducing impacts from municipal treatment plants and stormwater outfalls is most challenging. ....millions of gallons of wastewater that flow into Puget Sound every day. 21.http://toxics.usgs.aov/highlights/biosolids runoff.html Hormones in Land-Applied Biosolids Could Affect Aquatic Organisms 22.www.inthesetimes.com/article/3688 Piling it High 23.http://www.fabricemonna.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/20041r.pdf The impactofasewage treatmentplant's effluent on sedimentquality in a smallbayin Lake Geneva(Switzerland-France). Part 2:Temporalevolution ofheavymetals. Lakes&Reservoirs:Research and Management 2004 9:53-63. 24. a.http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Skin-cleansing-microbeads-harm-marine-life-5405452.phoSkin Skin-cleansing microbeads harm marine life,targeted for bans b.http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/environmentalists-drawing-a-bead-on-microplastics Environmentalists drawing a bead on microplastics c.http://time.com/2916132/microbeads-microplastic-cosmetics-illinois-ban/ Illinois Bans Cosmetics Containing Microbeads I TIME d.http)/www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-21/microplastics-found-in-svdnev-harbour-floor/5686472 Invisible threat:Microplastic contamination discovered on bottom ofSydney Harbour Some contain flame retardants. t t. h ..n b =..N< ..'vna (F.C, ei.:t3-*'rx"i.,. .l..e "'4. 3 -a31 F.'Y i.L2.i-v^.v"' ,..Y. v-,. }aY..-Rm w`:`*.P 3 i"^t'.. _+,L l'1Twf.?u H;..'Ql"?)':Pt NWTCC PO Box 2664 9 C'. Sequim,WA 98382 LFi4464 northwest toxic communities coalition ArkiiiktkAgAialiisAgit Thisproductis funded by grants from the September 2014 Horizonsfoundation and The Rose Foundation Pcii s N a YWArky ' 4.1 t• ; c. 10 • U -5 to U AiO •3 Qa1aYu9rn3c = `l °N o w "'A '0 5 R VVV4 eu i op4) n3 1 a., 3 7. tj c Y , r. ._\ 72 T Upt - . ` etc• S iv -6- a, 4• .c Z4-. 411^- 4 rt s ,o; "ra 3 a w N r 111 o $. c .c o a A V C 0 '0 C15 ki r V y w L vh Q 4 f' O E v CC C 'b C v VO " V " w O, i y L 1 Eer a CO C O . y' di 'S c o i 0 C w0 G. d 0 [4 q 0 >+ C '" . 3 W a a. u O i 0.. a C .. p cvd H C `L' U4.1 .> .V V 'E ri "' IT ..V. 0 i E 'V 4 N a O>. . oa. b ain 0i O 3 ..i ° ° y " v° v o fi v u "' E o .2, v o u .. , 3 id . c 0.4 0a. o o w u v E x> o .- 1 C > rd a >, V C. v ycd v V i s o -R o U .2 v C 11IIIItill110 C c E O C4 v :d C C o oz > `''So O v n. . n " v 0qv, o u :_ a W O O oa 0 a a va6, .- v uvva -4 C ' o c n. w oit00 -b a b br .. CJ rd > s. 0 -9 sxv b ' O 'OC . O EF,.07S ro u V C44Vu 1-1 w . " v g a ,,, h a O G w oo U -`- N 3VvO. W CO u opvvy •h 'Z 0 .Ouyv O o 50 v - C i V". 3 , oV0wC 'O v C + ro Q ; vO 6 cCCm _oav OEavMro v 3 L V 0 o U1 s.R .r, s C E C .0 7 .0 L' C - a .QQ O p v> a w a `v o. .t < 'x W u LJ C. cd a Q O. v f^ 7 3 h C V C. v 0 .c ...E in.c z Q [° 1 IL .- (.4 Ki v .r, C v a,o -o -0 iA -0 C C a, ,' C C _0 r. CO ca L! F N I Sao, E e o t s V N a °pp g r kn O G! V A 17 'a.. a+ V CI. Sao15 cam01,E.r V Y LJ 7 t vE _ Z M_ E Sof,,, -"gokro m '' a N .2 N C C C N N y cU'b SaJ''J3 To" m m r'quiCSR/ ce ECN 'N u Q u r f 8 C m Vces 1,, mm -v N 3 0 1-ti U N hE W m 040, C ? 0 m 0.0.a m7aCUfmog_c 03 y f0 v Ca .Y N Wce _ CZ SlUorql z 7n z o a C v L TO tO O E p•& le a. n3 L M L F C N al N m- I r , B?f lSplci W m g r. r V/Sr E E0 "' v O A N .0 O a+F a S. . 44,. E n _`m n E O > N r0 aJ `-W r- l90 N $ -5, c p al ,_ = .., C O p NayaJ J4 JSl N O N ui v 0 ° m 7 io J+ Y '' N m i SgnJp uo Jose, l y r I— yr V ra 7 A O C Di 1- S 40'j{.A p C a N o w o N o n o S' Jd00NYO01Z3QmNNrO C c; O A •i ,v, 2; ro co 4i31I1 213d SWV I9OH)IW NI'NOUvu1N3DNOF 1V101 rmi I l7 o rraa > . v c o Fit w o ° a S 9 a S o 2 ° o C w " ° tr a fl v a- n O io n 0. 5- o rwi 3 imam.8 a n, a 'a n G u, A.. a_ w ° = O Q N O -+. pap as O F a C. A' .7'0. 11. •.. - p- 9 E- 9 r' w C y' y O 9 O UO N a N a K•P y• A F N C nHa. ' O p ro . as pC tl0 S ^ a ya. 0. ! a Fx. k' til EA e l t(Di =*. 7 '!p N R,-FL n n • n .n7 O.. '°-n v T ^ n w ro a n '2 y. : a' _• n 0 n N ..-, c c c l77 a 'O a 0.. O E•-• g n n , .Up .7' O n S C n f1 N n a. D ti !E ( 171 n n. was - a UwG^ •- n^ p ]• l D CD Q N S " v v o y " 4•", Co c B S . B y a'b cr n < 5 n F Q c o o N, ry T F 0. O C. 5' au rz ' a r+ N O P eD N n pg o °nr • a o y y x. co 5' < 5. n 1n n c T (yyp y, -• o ... o m <' `-' O 4_. R. y n n a 5 `C f0 Vni 7' E_ ,-O = O T CA O j w` y` ro n'1 i-1 '. w O( p „ tt} uI O' rv . ,°,.o O o a' a .n.. P w .. O Q zm O w '' P- • :^ w •`C N n y n ;w2 O n n a .7 CI Ia1, WO N 7 ^. N Co F 2. o n n 2 n a 'O , G.ry a F a 0. . n7i _ G v, s in S O prc, run -• N ?to n v, O ' _'F n O O O :+ O -rti a•n 0. rn N n, ro w co m N v, yajPP-• n G ro y 0-a P C. {1. . O' G ? g O N n n '^ C n ,i n < N /D -, !D JC- `' a ^ O O a a. E' C a' .nn.- y n a O 0. a' ^. 0.'O 0. n y n 3 rD °; y :o n / o ry 0" g o55T 5' - °' w pas, G ' w o 0., a ro c o c, a Cu 3 X n ° C p ° Q- F. FA a• U ^5 a' rnn W a ° n n a 2 a' _m w f^D 10 1 1rD . 3- f N eY ' (D y n a 0. Gy rasp n v a 0. o P'"' n w rmo n Upa n' a a' .+ OJ '-' -, N (D 7 '• O• .., 7 E 'O• 0. O n G _-• "O a a n .Q 2 pp co'11. O .5, w na4 .- -. O 0.' p 7' N h N N a . n E. a r y . ^ .° ° a n n a G 0. a a w C d CL 7S <0 7 •N N y W o pG T n 0 w 0. P•a q ' ^. rho- n p O 'n'. g 'Q y a r. N a r 7 rDD N Q5ax aO. ' i n n n &S 0. n t O h w- ?' 0. y pap < w0. ;n' a pp ^ x n Q n y Q = vn LA O "0 O Lo O * 7 7 p- n N 0. O N 40 n' N tD rrpp was 0 "C-' • Q 0 n7 'O a 2 • 0..'O y < Fn, 0 G O a_ n e E• t O n O 9 ° O w+ . O^ O n m f' " d < V'• U_UG waOP n „ n4 'O r<p n ;.... n0. y . B- '.aa- a p P- pa, P. y 4 a m 8-•0. F,,' n n a w R. 75aa ° w ° w 0 "w n n P R O n n n n n n w P- O C. C O O N 0.n ° .O T a rt n 'i ,, G 'Cr' y T ° ' 9 Fco.,,-,,i O .Gi n 'n-• 0 A- N Q 7 fD Q. N n a 7' w R w n w o' . n :^ y o a- "' a a- O'-o 5. . 5 'L o b w N 7 O a' CDoyn -a 2 b n. P- rwi n ,,, tno p w O P- n O a" n - ° `< 0 07 :^ 7• N' . a: . 7• ^2' o`' ° p- ;,, . CRs' F « n w 'G " '. vna ti` o P- a 5• fD °' 3 Z'go nf ro oonQ- G- n =• 5. w '0 n U°0'Fi a a w b ' n 0. v,' C w [ni G C rn ,' 0 , p O- I• 3 S u7i 0. a O 2.' .` CrQ' 5 w 5...00 '^n' ,.. 0. n. On R.n y O 'D . n + j a a n P- N y D, "" n N 3 "•r 0.. _' n n C `F' w° n a - O. , • C ° w °"v .c cr o OG °0'0 aap C 7 S K 5 n .n, G , P N ' OO g n O 2 H n • .,9 0- 5 n ,.., '--1 A- ,aT• ay.. R- C n .nn S '• G 'a a, E S `.<< Q O p2in' io O w •^I 5i a n S G '-, w w`w b 5 n 7' n F P- Co a ro 'Cj n a p n n O ,n G as co O" ^ C o n T a• " .n_i C- ° r1 a: O 7 C, * 0 5 Li a',_- i' " 0,9"p pp s,3`a p n m p `C ^a a t 0-. O O^ 'n' < p n- i y' ^ n to 3.D .n 3 a 0 n °- < ° E w p Q < d a' o P 5'a 7 w o a y w n P1 m . d -0 5• o A, a n 0 3 G o E " `r e 5 0 H * •ti a' ^ a 2 5 a., o - n .0 0.'c O Q m 5 m = mV,' P'' y o , w 'o ?' y y w o w w n . Ny, Q. w no` -7. .N+ N mRnCgynwOa0.A' F°a O N NS0...a p ap n _ a n " pap y ° w 5' ° rt y .`y.' H n. Y O' n N 7• (Cp .r0. 5 O 5 n Osf, p " S O Cai.. 0. °i ° «. a '< Uap O 7 0 a "' C . n n G w ', w n -a1 0 en O G. K n N O m n P.a 7 F n. a .G O 5 n O o O n O C a S -mi a N S v N m o O1ar t n n w ^ ° y n ^ ° m 7 C a•y O D'q pp N n O w iC n y a a n n `< n n n Q •7 rt w A a.. a ° 2 P- ° ° n 5' a 'II n of., Cr v O <' O.r O .-. O^ n a a rt' .' w w < n P a0 a n O n c' n.'' O- rD v' N --, ( N n 010,--D AT.0. n Z 2 x r 5' a 5 an• O " - w O w ,.1 n cc • n• n a P<II ymv, ` T '- naaai• a' › '.nC pw .rtwa F0° , P n 7 a w 4v, O: d n 0. aa1 ^ ww °. O O v`,• ^ u;3 c a wro p_ y w as `C 0 0 p .ea 'o n 5 G n 2 S nOOPa • 0 n n7, a O Wn w . 711 O n rtww5' 7na0On roOn .n w O aK y a ° 'O w 1yav, 5' - ro w ^ nao yO Q m w n w aarp vy rtP- nwO OyHnA 0. 1-1 r . n GI 0.a o O yaati QyOa0 ' n II. y na w n w w 0 0 'o w0. ^w0O b0. Ob ro .0. 5. c0. 0 ? <•Q O r° R po `' < Pr -R. FoOpQnoa0nnnnR2aGawyG.y' as, n w 5 y a n a n n n . w S OaN0. a < G n ^ nO. H 0. w N awn ' n L.a Po w as P-Q ,5,,, 0. ° yn < atwannw rtn y 'O n _n ' n • a 1 /Dw ° a0. PC Frn 0. as ^ ° ` 0..'Ux :' wa r.,-.,. El.-, r„. O O ayw ay y O .+, r ^ n nGV , w 5 T ) n CP ] ni ^ as fll0O „ waP' 0 ft. v ' 7 Q' P. n O OE.D.G nv' n -• v, , F on n•COLa0. ow - 1Ry , n a•v, a o IAP 'O n Co0. n . n = y 5pp o Pb- y a yandnnanaa n a w 0 w F, a n , a- a- n 70a . 0. 0- h m a n mnaG as o Tw0. n A) _5 2 G - . O" 5" ^, w P- 2 r. a- w ` 0. O n P "' - a LCwa ` a a O- n u RTO an "-^ nav`'• < m O X 7• 7 m m-n Onav ' 0. n 2 7 nn m-On ro w O o -a np Ow ° .O 0. O • wb n w a G n ^ ° aa- rnnU° 2 p ] 'a l .4,111apRv, n - n a O ° 5 . . n0., p^ rn '7 aOn rn`' F .1 op el n. vn 'O ase O' Q- a''w 0.5 2 .G, r.:2,- P- n. pp n 5 a y p' v, -r.' a .p UvClcaaa 'p n O C w , w cn, r c, ° ° 5' cyo ' n o r5n _ 0. ` 7 n a n, 2 w 7' a m n n 0 C h O O n a. d ^ P- ^ y• N n. . n Q' w 7 0-'J y .~n-. ° O- I (" n 0. n0.G S O y CD DI . w, pp r'"'^ a r^ On n O O C in F a' 'a' 7 p_ p-• o n a o ^ a 3rao Cr W w f" w c a 5 a r<p n p w •P- w a xpa n ^ O .c < `C o ^ 5 0• p'2 5' .v^' `C n R. R. 'yF' y 0 `rnn - n• rap fl.. A-pap ry 0 i' t S io rt ti R Oa^. r •n7n rao .` a" N1 Copyright Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles 2014 • All rights reserved. • Medical Alert—antibiotic resistant bacteria are not only due to over- prescribing Jun 10, 2013 This report was written by PSR-LA member John Ackerman, MD(johnmackerman@gmail.com). Introduction One of the most essential tools of modern medicine is at risk. The discovery and use of antibiotics hailed a new era in the treatment of bacterial illnesses. However, the multiplication of antibiotic resistant bacteria that may include multi-antibiotic resistant pathogens (MAR) and their multi- antibiotic resistant genes might be threatening this life saving tool. Scientists have documented the presence of antibiotic resistant bacteria (ARB) and their antibiotic resistant genes (ARG) in the three byproducts of wastewater treatment plants: 1.) biosolids often used as a fertilizer additive on agricultural land; 2.), recycled water used to irrigate leafy green crops consumed raw as well as grass in public parks and other playing fields; and 3.) effluent that is discharged to lakes, rivers, and oceans. The presence of these contaminants should be a call for federal, state, and local policy . makers to take action regarding our wastewater treatment plants to reduce the spread of ARBs, their resistant genes, and their water delivery systems. As physician advocates, we must make the case for redesigning our existing water treatment systems and their water delivery pipe systems in order to continue to protect public health particularly from water borne antibiotic resistant pathogens and their antibiotic resistant genes. The presence of these contaminants should spur more physicians to become knowledgeable about how antibiotic resistant pathogens multiply in wastewater treatment plants and also within their delivery pipe systems. Given this ever increasing threat to the effectiveness of antibiotics, medical professionals must once again show leadership by pushing for improved potable water, waste water treatment and the waste water treatment plant water delivery systems. Medical professionals have considerable experience giving direction for public health policy how to decrease ARB in clinical settings by eliminating excessive prescriptions of antibiotics, utilizing adequate hand washing technique plus proper disposal of antibiotics. While private practice, clinics and hospitals have focused on this issue, the inadvertent proliferation of ARB by waste water treatment plants and their distribution to the environment vis-a-vis wastewater treatment byproducts remains unaddressed. Background The Medical Hydropathology Working Group', which includes a physician and two other researchers, tested recycled water from two wastewater treatment sewer plants in southern California. That testing verified data found in the scientific literature. There is a growing body of published scientific evidence that ARBs are becoming more virulent, prevalent and resistant. Other published scientific data regarding one of the nation's most modern wastewater treatment facilities documented the presence of ARB and their antibiotic resistant genes in its effluent. Such contaminated effluent puts people living downstream of these facilities at public health risk. Clearly, this is unsatisfactory stewardship of our water resources. Modern medicine without antibiotics? Since penicillin was first discovered in 1929, antibiotics have been a critical tool of modern medicine. During WWII, penicillin was widely used to treat bacterial infection. Today, other antibiotics are commonly utilized after surgery as well as for the treatment of various wounds .Prior to the availability of antibiotics, doctors were forced to amputate limbs to prevent the spread of infections. Minor cuts or strep throat were sometimes fatal. The sewage treatment process inadvertently promotes the lateral transfer of pathogenic antibiotic resistant genes from antibiotic resistant pathogens found within untreated waste water to digestive bacteria purposefully utilized by and necessary in sewage treatment. Such lateral transfer of antibiotic resistant genes continues within our open environment outside of waste water treatment plants between different living types of strains and even various species. htlp://www.thenational.ae/new/uae-newsJtechnology/masdar-institute-project-to-refine-uses-of- waste-water Masdar Institute project to refine uses of waste water Last Updated:June 26, 2011 Meeting developed-world expectations of lifestyle and green landscaped beauty in desert cities poses a particular challenge in places like Abu Dhabi. Water is scarce, so we need innovative, practical, and efficient systems and practices. We can borrow from advanced horticulture-using salt-tolerant plants, for example-to reduce demand. Even then, we still need a reliable, healthy and sustainable stream of water. Abu Dhabi has managed to provide that through innovative water-treatment systems like high-capacity desalination. That, though, uses a lot of energy. In a more limited manner, Abu Dhabi has used less energy-intensive processes to change waterborne waste from domestic, commercial and industrial activity into non-potable water. The UAE ranks as one of the leading nations in the world in treated waste-water reuse. Abu Dhabi recently introduced its first indigenous regulations for treated waste water.The rules, based on World Health Organisation best practices and other precedents in local and international law, define the amount of microbes, chemicals and other parameters allowed in recycled water and biosolids. Implementing these new regulations requires a deeper understanding of the risks of residual contaminants in treated water,which is commonly used in cooling towers, municipal irrigation and firefighting. A quantitative assessment of the risk of long-term exposure to contaminants present in the environment determines environmental standards in much of the developed world. Without this assessment exercise, the link between public health and environment quality remains uncertain. The new regulations require the treated waste-water provider or disposal licensee -the company that turns waste water into recycled water-to develop a safety plan for various end users that includes an environmental risk assessment. While the general guidelines are based on those used elsewhere,when it comes to the actual potential impacts of the UAE's treated waste water on a given population or profession,we need precise information specific to local-usage patterns, climate, lifestyle and work patterns. By studying the potential impact of treated waste water, and drawing up guidelines for its use,the Masdar Institute of Science and Technology's water and environmental engineering programme is hoping to answer questions such as: How can a work lifetime of exposure to treated water potentially affect a fireman's health?What could playing in a lawn sprinkler mean for a child with compromised immunity? Do common painkillers and antibiotics remain in treated water, and could they affect the environment or people's health? Can treated waste water be used in more ways to save on energy? Can the byproducts of disinfection practices, many of which are suspected carcinogens, cause significant harm over prolonged exposure? Our project aims to articulate a plan to characterise regional recycled water, evaluate toxicity, develop a framework for determining end-use based on potential for human exposure and develop recommendations for recycled water evaluation based on human health risk. Having a detailed methodology for assessing the potential risks will give the government the information it needs to draw up guidelines that allow the emirate to make the best use of its wastewater while limiting its potential harm. The benefits are huge. Water consumption, and particularly desalination, forms a large part of the UAE's overall ecological footprint. By reusing waste water,Abu Dhabi's need to desalinate is reduced. Not only that,the research could potentially unlock further uses for treated waste water. It could also help other sustainable cities of the future. Water reuse standards vary according to what the water will be used for. By looking at the whole water cycle it is likely that future sustainable cities like Masdar could use treated waste water as normal municipal water after additional treatment, as Singapore already does to a degree. Unfortunately, water reuse standards are based primarily on the likelihood of it carrying disease, rather than containing residual chemicals. As the concept of eco-friendliness becomes more defined and enforced, governments and regulators everywhere will be looking for new rules based on latest data and research. And it is only fitting that as an emirate that leads in waste-water reuse, Abu Dhabi should contribute to the scientific understanding and regulation of that necessary resource. Dr Farrukh Ahmad is an assistant professor in water and environmental engineering at the Masdar Institute of Science and Technology r -i.Y r G ,14f^ L{`C i 1{+ r rt Y i. 4 r t y t,t 1:::k1S - I t Asyxet.. 2-Fi - .{C ias s i;'F . 'F>i t t ",nLyj'a'Ff Y r n `..as3, `t_k Jr' f•-.. . .p t 7,:---.---r-...r .4 . 4 y Wir 4-- s-1' U 7 i t z7 `` -7`e-'=.4 i, ',+ fi T Y.' +t, % . r ,tib. e L'-,' '{w,hal '$ "'r f.i.4+1 r-pa, r+z -l I ,i r.Y fi ++ slk q,{4' `n.lr 4yY Y x i..., A X41. rl L ., j-p,l Waters :rGomes or.. . 7 ` ,; e r hr sA,hrs l . .. ...4 f a , i i js,, r,-' P a ,ZE ^4 ,. p Fye r4toffi.,,,--li q ira h l 1 4 2 Ste J. -arumUMy r ,t' .a V _ t _- ` Lr•, A s ale:Ii r ti r- t4,. a.`s' .40.14 —"`^ aU ',Ny .. 'T ,xcx -, 41 A ' Ytti* dF F - P,tatay.,"x.f ,nr.Y y ,P`reif `'7: &;' i" ` f+$ d` , K t 3, ate V-$ ESe "Y?'.d' F tC$ {'T# kjt","l", :'. F. 1,; 44,:.:-.-..: , 4 .a,,,, .a., , d ' '- u....*.-.. .I, 1+._ i i $ iYJi?'--i f.. . of t 4- S . "'i., j` b,.' + '- ` t . 7 . , . S,k "+ y f r i Y n ,:4 n -r gg' 4't u 9 d' `r+e S ay.0. fVii. "4,1,r j4 c .d•fi r i ti4.q.. off . e ' E `o 4 4F ,a"' + t ..`° !e'1p-iqy4t;`r°,i, _4- P 4, «x, ,_ pf arA o%G. 7 ,,i. _ _sett' .+ ' ^r,;.,.;rdav'?4',-`S, Toxic flame retardants have been turning up in our waterways since at least 1981,when scientists 3 ih discovered the persistent toxic compounds known as PBDEs polluting a Swedish river.Since then, r,ioflameretardantshavebeenfoundinfreshandsalt w~ ' y hs water,sediment,fish,and marine mammals.And a < w" re e i yf} i3 `Tit's not just PBDEs—a whole alphabet soup of flame s r ter . ; e A * 1110 yretardantsthatcausecancerhormonedisruption, and other toxic effects are now known tok r s3to iti f t 76'1:hx drr'T rhe r contaminate waters and wildlife around the world. F z s But how are they getting there?flame retardants Ci ,t,41-are used indoors,in products like couches.It's not obvious how a toxic chemical could be making its g k" 01-na way from our couches to our rivers. So scientists ai s'oviiie.t. ,3i'i. +=: have been hot on the trail of these compounds to trace their path from products we use in our homes to pollution in rivers,lakes,and salt water. 1.3F ,-pl, r The Washington Toxics Coalition designed a study r to investigate a hidden but possibly important pathway:through the home laundry.We know that flame retardants collect in household dust and indoor air.Could it be that they then settle on our clothes,wash out in the washing machine,and leave the home to travel directly to the wastewater treatment plant,which discharges to waterways? laundry water.We sent the samples to a chemist,at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science,who The Studyspecializes in analysis of flame retardants.He was able to test the samples for 22 flame retardants. To find out,we recruited 20 households in the We also collected samples at two wastewater Longview and Vancouver,WA communities to treatment plants,so we could compare the levels in participate in a study,In each of those households, wastewater leaving the house with the influent we took a sample of household dust.We also entering the plants,and the effluent leaving the plants asked participants to collect a load of laundry,of after treatment.We took samples of influent and clothing worn primarily around the home.Then effluent at the Marine Park plant in Vancouver and the we did the wash—and took a sample of the Three Rivers plant in Longview. a f ti i c Frk - k WAASHINGT,t [r''''''-i'',: -'.'"ng.'rrr r t Nyy ¢ >-K -^ irecF ? i t d <i i T`Q e t , 1 '' a-r a 2".Y 1 Y tt' , vs s s.+-„+-,a i _ More tt'tf"oormationat wwwwataxtesorglho e -tovnater ,„ , T L> ,_4: T r7 I' CS` r,-,,_,,,,:.,.,,- 7 , ' r ''''''''':'rr ;p c r r r r F p i m, ,. x , r n d r„ fi s .i 's i wl d`r ? t ril Ede LITI N r ' ^Tt 4 c ' .,_ t AJ , kS v Ey y rr `- WA State allows different 28 herbicides. I reviewed 22 from the Beyond Pesticide site. I reviewed 4 from Thurston Co.,which I could not find on the Beyond Pesticide site. I reviewed 2 on the web that were not on the above two sites. Beyond Pesticides looked at the following criteria. The number following each is how many of the 22 herbicides have these effects. ND=Non Documented. This could mean tested and found none or never tested for. Cancer 11, 11 ND)) Endocrine Disorders (6, 16 ND) Reproductive Effects(14, 8 ND) Neurotoxicity(1, 21 ND) Kidney/Liver Damage (17, 5 ND) Sensitizer/Irritant (17, 5 ND) Birth/Development (11, 11 ND) Detected in groundwater (12, 10 ND) Potential leacher (12, 10 ND) Toxic to Birds(6, 16 ND) Toxic to Fish/aquatic organisms (17, 5 ND) Toxic to Bees (3, 19 ND) Thurston County failed one herbicide, chlorsulfuron. These are harmful to birds, aquatics and bees. Thurston Co. gave two herbicides conditional-metsulfuron methyl and sulfometuron methyl. The latter affects aquatics. Both are highly persistent,the first is highly mobile, and the latter is a human toxic.. Oxidiazon causes thyroid problems and in dogs, organ toxicity, and affects aquatic life. Tebuthiuron pollutes groundwater and affects the pancreas. C C V O T v ffE p a) C C E C CC co L fU SC O N m v E 9 ? d E s ro c a 'p E c C ` 0N c O O p ,9- i 0 0 . a0 m C al a/O OV co .O N 7 °/ C x J 0>, c '$ E ` C - Z~ m .] ro 0 O- ,p LE JC p j, c0 O D N N V" O L a) V O .0 C v N C ' .N c E E v ¢„ E ro r ` o o d L' a u Z c o o V c 0 L u °l a ro L. >•-• r0 ',f', 01'- Z = L •A '.F 1-3. .,T, ,, r N 2 N a a N- O - H' C x LLIo O N V u a) a`. al 'X , 'S, N ° m O00 HIU 0 oro vFIflC =00 - VN = ap- v0iii8r. o `Lo -5 o n ro _ c a c d rca I.--;:- w v v 1 o }= a r all o 'G o v F E E'O N ->,-2 O O. ' E C m Q N O rraa 0 '' +L-' O O T °J N Y C a W m S u C n -2 T •C rru O 0 -:-.- c o a. p c) J cc, iDcc) = F E N N ,- R L ° L I- Z L •_ a)a) d' 1:3 -e _ V N ro V C '' >." O rCa N - >` C 1] a) V a Y r-+ a_ p rn C O a T ai V O p a1 F N O ro fa y O 2 0 V 2 m > co ... 4. ..4O = O C O N d' al al L C V x E Q O C ro V ... 7 a) a) .a — c E O O ro N ' .- x io °1 . 0 c, 0 -0 .- ,- C C ?` N V Xp E O O - E ai Z O E J .` E O .0 > ro 0 a p v o0 a) a) _C .0 ep O C O C C V Weu C N • V -O al a C 0 a 0 0 Cl) E C m E c ., N m .0 O -c . ^S a v c •C d >. 0 O p W O a Q m a) o 0 ro .a O _o - "' O :p '0 N EO F1 A, tri O Y C rti O N v rVa T. ^ N a 5 O. O - L •o0 Co m C ai Q ` V a0+ ro a) _ ro C y C O CO a) .n 'N .p t '''-z.r, . V L 26 V d'a+ y u O N YC O a/ . wU v E v; v EI- 0 (-1. cN c >, E o u w mu o .. -0` Va) _ tic 0 .E - a, H Cr' E c 73 O G V 'j C a C N C '- L o_ m> L L C ~a) 00 W a 7 c 'O .c'v w rC .- a ~ E "..E. 7 p) N •0 ? O O fO V . c 0 • ` '` ai .1'd t °' Np C c or a m N m O fca `e 1-_-E a E N c Y L0 O v ro ~ - W w `ro al ro 0 C li 7 a C 7 O N T r° L 'O N e6 m = V W V - O 2 O Q W L.U. s E_ m0UU °: C m L7 E L L d o p 1.1 c C ac/ T O U Al c -,5 IN 0 a N f` c aj E 4- V o C o m C E E tv V0 v N ro ro O ° C C O W 2 a a O O E al J Q 1 W C ra ry a 0i T a) 'y N H .33 E Q 1 0 .2 •N o , L c J o 0 L c ° .0 0 L W _, E v z E U ni (.1., o c ,5 E o X O ori rca " w o a) N la 0 R ra T ra X V °J O L p O al C C p. - _C ` o u E ai O C C L.W !_ y U O&I •y d y0 XO p N IO0 I— .- C O ,-6O C . Ui Q N ro c a C 'a N O C faa V 'Q ,. E, rC 2 Ft,) % ro .rF° 2 y E ro al u E -0 V N z E a o O o V rad c Y c A O M W Z o C_ X V allCIV7 .4 > as LCI C ¢ L 0 a O _c fa al -0 a+ O 0 i N W L O V +.) d *' a) O FP C 00 W 3 a C m V W E D N - 5 U L Q E ra N E fa I N O"i ,'9`N O al ''' al U •c C 4_ V ^ m OV a ro 1r ro [ cu 2 O '^ C O x A -O w0 L O ' 'O v ori al w O V m 0 al rco O c ori Cr O to ~ +p- 4 = N J E C _ 0 V >i ,N O >.,4- O w C Y D -c L L i m C co , co.. C N yL V C 0 -,+ 01 N O .O. OE " E p) O a`i 2 E o 0 r L. ar = a c .2 w e Z ' ori b _C . w cr, a) v a) o u •o E CP c o N r..l N c . r0 a) t O O V C ) g O 0 C v r. O V v L .O `N, C 4' ' C vai O N m C •O Ln C T *' L.. U- -00 41'-0 v"i fj coVVc0 a0+ rn a a,- ' W - ro I coCh M V N >. 00 4.L CO C p10 O m ut a a1i Ln V C C 01 >, aall , C CO ro a L C L c V m ro p aamJEal3ECE "O a n ri' r--o o + Q .O c OV •C O W 0 Cl- W ori C d x •r0 L _ 0 0 ria C.0 O 0 c = c 0 -0 O a LId. ,o rN a a w ai 'V C W r2L '- C C/ C a) V m cZ 0 :2 a- C E v • 0 'C N . N ro • O 'c cD O -00 W a) N r+1• ` •C C V iN c0 d' .- Z OQ V O Vl r0 m (V0 L U ai d. U O a U L al Vi 0' }' CO Cl) o COcV E N C a O.73 ' C E O 0 X Q .- al L V b. i '0 L U 0 C al >. 0 E ro 0Va C N W ljJ r t .c N 0 Y ,O 0 N r0 r ro p C C l.L O'ori Y C " AI c aro, N m W C C o L E C C O 0 V a 0 LaNa-. C E.0 0+ YO E E o x r0 O a TTi, T c al C a v A)>,d ¢ N u ¢ 'V L Vii c EJ .` v o3 ` L-. 0. a) O coi1-. 0 q 0 .cw —>a, Y v c '" AI 2 w E p x o 0 Z r---73 oogrou, C N >' LLI C a) V O , a/ O ' d c N C L O N in 0 E c . r ,'o c a o. o - 0 v c Qpj L E 1=E . a C c a, L >.,ro C c x - o a CTO_ E N L o w c >0 c 0 •O 'C a Cl) z I Z c 0 x d p m r 0 ` a .0 .ro 'u C p v o N 0 7 j E 0 X 0 2 ¢ c " [oC' N L ° 13 y U c °"v v o L o o ° co a W cu n Q1 E a v o Q.- w o m LL E '' ,, L O > O O ,u. -0 O b L 0 L C C , U EL- a) V v L N ti uj a N ai a) u O Z `^ L W O In 0 `° 2L o¢ o ° E o v2 x 1° _ En_ rcaa 0 c a 0 omv ar ° s h o o c > 0 _a v 0 E j U mi 0 ,,i C L ro W N '' Q •- L i+ N C L a L '10 Cl) C 0i V Q O r'aYWaE ' 7 c C a`1u ,2 0 3U C .a ' 7O aim =aF y -ro '04 L.. 0 ' 0 E .L. c 0 o 0 - E E ro -C E f0 w V `r' > O` "O G i I to W *' N O = C r_ 'p W prttC O 0 0 L ra i Ti p ;O N 0, m al E vi .E N j u O CO rri v r....:.° 3 O -p . a s j L S X C U N U et0 u 11 .E •-i....-._. ro = rU2 ;p E p .> CO U O ri N en rry U -c V •Y E C = V V d O f0 lJ N ¢ C X O cx '7 ori 1Y! O) N a 'n 0 7.N rri ro V ra r M r„,-,- N ~ L Q >-.'E V CO . .",7-1 tL 1 _a) -O ~ CC ai 'U O N (Cp Q 2 00 -, O CC CS N U i U N U ` fV C ,— , C a O .- _ -p N -O ¢ .0 O to C N C x ° Ca 4S_ O H 0`V E u °/ ` O E O Iv •XO o O u rc° E O N ¢ -p C O. IO C _ pL„ V, C C O 'n -a O O 0 al O ea > a O c ryA C 0 L.L. O -0 x n z m N V a. `O Ur.a Cr 2 E ° C - .c L p1 V., V L NF- V G roapi OS ti al a7Q CU G X C „ ar`o al 0 .5V Oa) E C O a.O rri .0 • - c LE, L C .O y O cc NOOi, ` fp "J O O n ori V i.3 0 H N ,°N) U "› < _ ro a c c E C 'r1 u E }0,i- c C fl ' c v CCa E a d v •c la c .0 Q7 x a ai -C 2 j p L cV ¢ `'c ii 5 „ p ro O O al az,- N O a) C N >, '' V S .E -O c W C C 'E c L a .raNl7 ,..._ 0 '° 2 u; .x r 3 rn ' c C "O ori O >•',00_ ° U rn >. m E v, LI al v ii vyr _ 46:, ;-PC N N E .E E ra .....E d o o ° c'r t.,°U -c„,d C ox a m y N 0 a.)- N a .V E ' O E v. E N - v 0 o u .....1.-2, EQ.' t t01 c w ° 2p c =t c'- E o m '.L.,-.. C o 'o aa)) '% r Z Lqp •- i 0 rraa rr,3 al C a>,N .>Z v W O r6r c `— E ,_ ., al gi `d O o h. ¢ -O b ~ o ¢ O. L u axi C 2 O 4, N a c r"Oa •3 0 W O O +. C ro rVa .c O , v, N cm d c _ro e v 0 o f ar E ro C '^ c o r 0 =u x = N N l.9 H .o W W N a 'A ,., , a 0 -o p N a m C >' o N v 0 'u O v a9 E E u N N aS ¢ t a m a ^ > 0 0 a C ..o o ro x Ga p , = a 6 al 0 0 E w :p C i l3 Z ° m rLa r>_a F'e' T MI Z N +-. E N a) 01 Ew . a ? S •E m C Cr`r v 9 0 oz1_ Luav oa Eo 44roV o ? Ql a ' Le) Al:f,'1 '- F .F% 7 l N Q aL <I' O -' 4- oL lO ) 7 ,;71.. I— 2 = LL N N 2 L v=j NVa+ L to a RICHARD R. HORNER,PH.D. 230 NW 55Th STREET TELEPHONE: (206) 782-7400 SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98107 E-MAIL: rrhorner(a)msn.com December 6, 2007 JAN0216 Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 To Whom It May Concern: I was requested by Northwest Watershed Institute to review the Brinnon Master Planned Resort(MPR) proposal regarding the potential effects of stormwater runoff from the project on the water quality of Hood Canal and the groundwater in the vicinity. I present my findings after stating my qualifications to perform this review. BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE I have 30 years of experience in the urban stormwater management field and 11 additional years of engineering practice. During this period I have performed research,taught,and offered consulting services on all aspects of the subject,including investigating the sources ofpollutants and other causes of aquatic ecological damage,impacts on organisms in waters receiving urban stormwater drainage, and the full range ofmethods of avoiding or reducing these impacts. I received a Ph.D. in Civil and Environmental Engineering from the University of Washington in 1978, following two Mechanical Engineering degrees from the University ofPennsylvania. Although my degrees are all in engineering, I have had substantial course work and practical experience in aquatic biology and chemistry. For 12 years beginning in 1981 I was a full-time research professor in the University of Washington's Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. I now serve halftime in that position and spend the remainder ofmy time in private consulting through a sole proprietorship. Serving as a principal or co-principal investigator on more than 40 research studies, my work has produced three books, approximately 30 papers in the peer-reviewed literature, over 20 reviewed papers in conference proceedings, and approximately 100 scientific or technical reports. My consulting clients include federal, state,and local government agencies; citizens' environmental groups; and private firms that work for these entities. My full curriculum vitae are attached. FINDINGS General Findings As stated by section 3.3.7 of the Brinnon MPR Final Environmental Impact Statement(FEIS),the basis ofthe stormwater management program is the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (Washington Department of Ecology [WDOE] 2005),together with the Low Impact To Whom It May Concern December 6,2007 Page 2 Development Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound(Puget Sound Action Team [PSAT] 2005). The proponent goes on to state that the stormwater management plan will be designed to meet the project's requirement for zero discharge ofwater to the Hood Canal from the golf course resort area and the full treatment of all site water from the marina area before discharge to the harbor. I now give my general impressions ofthis basic plan,to be followed with more detailed observations on each point. It is first necessary to recognize that application of the WDOE stormwater manual in no way guarantees reaching a goal of zero discharge. That manual does not feature management practices strong toazero discharge. The PSAT low impact development(LID)manual shows having how to design capability drainageachieve feahues that could reach zero discharge: However,that manual has none of the prescriptive requirements of the WDOE manual and is just a"how to"guide to employ once the components of the stormwater management system are selected. Hence, it does not appear at all that the zero-discharge goal for the golf course resort has any force behind it. Even ifthe resort can be held to zero discharge, the FEIS presents insufficient information, even for the level of a rezoning application, for a reviewer, and the public at large,to judge well the prospects for achieving the goal. While I recognize that more detail will be presented at a later stage ofproject development,the public needs some more information beyond that given in the FEIS to have any confidence that the project will function as advertised and to countenance a major rezone. The marina portion of the project will not be held to the zero-discharge standard. While the FEIS states that its discharge will receive "full treatment,"it gives no information at all on what that treatment might be and what is meant by"full." As with the plan for the resort, the public must be given a more complete basis upon which to evaluate the quality ofthe plan at this point in project development. Outside of the immediate project area,the FEIS does not assess the water quality impacts of anticipated traffic additions associated with the development. The Transportation Impact Study indicates increases on a number of local roads and highways ofhundreds ofcars a day on average. Automobiles emit or mobilize numerous pollutants that enter water bodies and degrade aquatic ecosystems. The FEIS is inadequate as long as it does not give the public a means by which to understand the full environmental impact before being willing to see rural zoning changed to accommodate this project. Further Observations Zero Dischargefrom Resort Achieving zero discharge depends on effective implementation of the types ofsite design and stormwater management practices presented in the PSAT LID manual. Fundamentally,these practices come down to infiltrating rainfall into the ground or harvesting water from roofs and other surfaces for a use such as landscape irrigation or"gray water"system supply(e.g.,toilet flushing). The FEIS states that both of these methods will be used but not the role each would play. The intention is to store runoff in existing"kettles,"use it to meet"water demands" , and direct the excess into the ground(by To Whom It May Concern December 6,2007 Page 3 what means revealed). I hmuch information to go on, I feel safe in assuming thatis thenot project will haveEven to makethough substandidnottialave use ucof infiltration to reach zero discharge. Successful water quality protection by infiltration depends of having soils that will percolate water rapidly enough to drain surface holding areas in time to prevent various problems that can occur with excessive ponding times(generally,within 72 hours),but not so fast that contaminants will reach groundwater and pollute it. The natural soils do not necessarily have to possess desirable soil pore storage space and hydraulic conductivities themselves,but can be amended(usually,with organic compost)to function well. However, clays cannot be sufficiently amended to provide enough pore storage and hydraulic conductivity to percolate rapidly enough; and, conversely, coarse sands and gravels cannot be amended to slow percolation enough to ensure groundwater protection. The authors of Chapter 3 of the FEIS made no reference to the site soil and hydrogeologic data in Appendix 4 and did not use it to assess in even the most rudimentary way what it means for the prospective success of their plan. The data are very sparse,with the soils information consisting of only the U.S. Department ofAgriculture soil survey results. Soil survey data are generally not site- specific enough for conclusive determinations of infiltration potential,which often varies considerable in quite small distances. The reported data show very gravelly loamy sand predominating,which if actually the case would tend to encourage the belief that water could be infiltrated successfully but could penetrate too rapidly. Nevertheless, an informed judgment requires more site-specific data. The public cannot be expected to accept a major rezone in their county until they are told enough to gauge potential success. Insufficient soil storage and hydraulic conductivity will render zero discharge an illusion. Overly rapid percolation will threaten groundwater, a potable supply source in a rural area, and reach streams on the site and other nearby surface waters as seepage. There is heightened concern about groundwater quality when a golf course is involved. Golf courses are large consumers of fertilizer and pesticide chemicals, as well as irrigation water. The common water pollutant least capable of interdiction in soils is nitrate-nitrogen,which is introduced to the surface in large quantities with fertilization, from where it can be carried along with percolating irrigation or rain water to the water table. Nitrate is the agent causing methemoglobinemia,generally in infants,when consumed with drinking water. Pesticides reaching drinking supplies are obviously also a major health concern. Treatment ofMarina Discharge The term"full treatment" as promised for the marina is simply meaningless. Different treatment systems have varying efficiencies in treating different pollutants. In addition to terrestrial runoff from upland areas,marinas are sources of all the pollutants associated with engines and petroleum products, cleaning agents, and household chemicals,used right on the water. Their potential for release and in what quantities depend on marina activities,particularly how much maintenance is performed, but they are always a factor. Also,it can be expected that a resort ofthis size will lead to greatly increased use of the existing marina,which would itself increase pollutant loading. Some treatment systems can do an excellent job in capturing these various pollutants, others are poor overall, and some are mixed depending on the pollutant in question. The project proponents must state how they would handle and treat marina discharge before the public can consider their plan. To Whom It May Concern December 6,2007 Page 4 Potential Traffic Impacts Table 11 ofthe Transportation Impact Study shows the "Statesman"alternative to increase traffic by 6 to 89 percent on the various roads and highways in the project vicinity,with a 41 percent rise at one point on highway U.S. 101 (near Woodpecker Road). However,the origin of these figures is unclear and probably in error. My calculations do not agree when comparing the cited"Statesman"alternative traffic volumes with either the"Without Project"or"No Action" columns. For example, I got increases of 875 and 225 percent comparing"Statesman"Black Point Road traffic with"Without Project"and"No Action,"respectively. I found the"Statesman"increase.on U.S. 101 near Woodpecker to be 69 or 51 percent with the same respective comparisons. I was likewise unable to reproduce Table 11's percentages for the "Brinnon"and"Hybrid"alternatives. It would be inappropriate,in my opinion, to go forward on this major action with such anomalies in key information supplied in its support. Motor vehicles are responsible for water body contamination from many sources. Brake pad and tire wear introduce copper and zinc,respectively, both highly toxic to aquatic life. Wear of engine parts contributes these and other toxic metals, like lead, cadmium, chromium, and nickel. Petroleum products leak from engines,transmissions, and braking systems. Sediments drop onto roads from chassis and undercarriages. These pollutants wash immediately into receiving waters during rainy periods but also stay on and around roads for later wash off when rains come. It is reasonable to assume that the roads around the resort and marina complex would experience the most elevated traffic in the summer months. Even though there is not much rain then,the remnants would be in concentrated form in the first flush offall rains. Concentration of toxic materials, such as the various metals in road runoff, is the condition most dangerous to aquatic life. The FEIS is an incomplete and thoroughly inadequate document in not addressing these potential impacts atall SUMMARY The Comprehensive Plan amendment application should be denied unless the Brinnon MPR proponent can provide convincing evidence that: (1)zero discharge from the golf course resort can be achieved; 2) soils are conducive to the intended infiltration either in their natural condition or after amendment; 3) infiltration will not contaminate groundwater or result in below-ground delivery ofpollutants to surface receiving waters,with particular attention to golf course irrigation and rain water discharge; (4) marina discharge will be treated with a specific system to reduce harbor contamination from that source to the greatest extent possible; and(5)increased traffic will not degrade the water quality of Hood Canal and its tributary waters or threaten the survival and well being of their resident and anadromous aquatic organisms. This evidence must be made available to the public for another review ofthe proposal before its official consideration. I would be please to discuss my comments with you and invite you to contact me if you wish. Sincerely, D Richard R.Horner 2 C5464 ieV/71 T771, 677/a06,a f"/eV/ AMM JO/-7-61 6°,47,4/2//va. aziie-",5„es 77745. 8 yE/ JAN 062Q1 6 y 744,, 41. 5 d_LiAt lc-Lae)/ 07/W77/Vg_, te ems/A/ gpseeiorvigm le. dot to r1-/A= 52 femi; * 4 7-0 77-/-45 //0 pnve.:Le9/9/n Agx/ r rge. rt MAI p v 4// vitiorvir Glaci,ers andGlimate Change-Olympic National Park(U.S.National... http://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/nature/glaciers.l Try out these interactives! Interactive Glacier Mao www.nps gov/olym/learn/nature/interactive- glacier-map.htm) Glacial Mass Balance(http://www.nps.gov/olvm/natureacience/interactive- glacier-glacial-mass-balance.htm) F'rvWs v v Researchertaking GPSmeasurements on upperBlueGlacier Courtesy TJ Fudge,Univ.ofWosldngton What can be 900 feet thick, move several feet a day, and carve out any solid rock in its way?The Blue Glacier, a 2.6-mile long glacier that descends from 7,980-foot Mount Olympus, the highest peak in the Olympic Mountains. Blue Glacier is one of the park's largest; one researcher calculated it would be equivalent to 20 trillion ice cubes! The glaciers of the Olympic Mountains and the neighboring Cascades helped sculpt the wild, beautiful landscape that attracts millions of visitors to Olympic, North Cascades and Mount Rainier National Parks.They comprise the most glaciated area of the United States outside of Alaska. Their meltwater combines with annual snowpack to feed rivers, forests and lowland communities en route to the sea, and nurture cold-water-loving fish like salmon and bull trout.The yawning crevasses challenge climbers who use ropes, crampons and ice axes to ascend the high peaks. They have had a powerful role in the past but also offer insights into our future. Continental icesheetatits maximumextent, approximately 15,000 yearsago. Glaciers ofthe Past Over thousands of years gravel embedded in glacial ice has carved away at Olympic rock as the glaciers flow downhill, leaving behind smoothed rocks, sharp ridges and 2 of 7 1/4/2016 1:10 P1 G1.11liers and Climate Change-Olympic National Park(U.S.National... http://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/nature/glaciers.l lake-filled basins. In the fastest sections,the Blue Glacier is moving about 3 feet a day. At the top, glacial ice eats away at the mountain embracing it, eventually carving a bowl-like cirque where lakes often form. Continental Glaciers These huge ice sheets spread from the north during the last ice age. The westernmost ice sheet split when it hit the Olympic Mountains, one lobe flowing out what is now the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the other lobe through what is now Puget Sound. At its thickest the ice sheet was more than 3,500 feet(1,100 m) thick. By about 14,000 years ago the ice retreated, leaving behind rounded foothills, a rugged mountainous core and an isolated peninsula with saltwater on three sides. Olympic National Park - Blue Glacier 1899 L*"u f 4k\r' :1'''', .: ,L.41 y:;4a' i tiSwAe.h 2008 01c. AalIllGleP T Comparison photographsshow thinningandretreatofthe BlueGlacieron MountOlympus. 5899:OhimpicNational P,rk archives 2008:JimPatterson,ONP Glaciers in the Present and Future The Olympic Mountains are tall enough and far enough north (48° latitude)that much of the moisture they rake from storms falls as snow. Each year 50-70 feet 15-22 m) of snow can fall on Mount Olympus, feeding the Blue and other glaciers on Its flanks. The Blue Glacier is one of the most studied glaciers in the world. For decades researchers have been observing, photographing, drilling and measuring 3 of 7 1/4/2016 1:10 P] Gladiers and'Climate Change-Olympic National Park(U.S.National... http://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/nature/glaciers.i the glacier to read the stories written on its icy pages. The Climate Story Told in Ice Because they grow or shrink in response to snowfall and snowmelt, glaciers are sensitive indicators of changes in regional and global climate.To grow, a glacier must receive more snow in winter than melts or evaporates the following summer. If more melts than accumulates, a glacier will shrink. As Earth's climate warms, rapid loss of glacial ice is being documented around the world. Olympic is no different; in fact temperatures at higher elevations and latitudes are warming the fastest. As a result, more of the precipitation that used to fall as snow, feeding the glaciers, is now falling as rain. Olympic National Park - Lillian Glacier 1905 2017:4' ' Yg *, yaw 4. a V, 2 y N a Comparison photographsillustrate thatthe Lillian Glacierdisappeared completelybetween 19o5 androw. Oty mpicNationalPork Disappearing Glaciers What does that mean for Olympic's glaciers? Since these rivers of ice are critical resources, in 2009 Olympic National Park did a new glacier inventory examining 4 of7 1/4/2016 1:10 P G1ars andiClimate Change-Olympic National Park(U.S.National... http://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/nature/glaciers./ surface area as well as elevations of larger glaciers to calculate the volume of ice loss and impacts on the park's glacial-fed rivers. In an area known for its rain, summers are actually quite dry. Glacier melt is an important part of maintaining summer flows for aquatic life that depends on these lifelines. Results were sobering. In 1982, the park had 266 glaciers; in 2009 there were 184. Comparison photographs clearly show glaciers in retreat. By comparing aerial photos from the late 1970s to 2009, researchers detected a 34% loss of glacier surface area in only 30 years. The terminus (bottom end) of the Blue Glacier retreated about 325 feet(100 m) in the 20 years from 1995-2006. On Mount Anderson, a rugged peak in the southeastern part of the park, its south-facing Anderson Glacier receded to less than 10% of its former size between 1927 and 2009! But length is only a small part of the story; the glaciers are also getting thinner. Researchers found the volume of ice decreased by at least 15% in the 22 years from 1987-2009. For example, surface measurements revealed Blue Glacier terminus lost 178 feet(55 m) of thickness between 1987 and 2009. Even the snowier upper glacier lost 32-48 feet(10-15 m). These critical and beautiful rivers of ice have shaped and adorned the Olympic Mountains for millennia, but have rapidly shrunk in just decades, stark evidence of the ongoing impact of human-driven climate change. Their ice is an essential resource for creatures from tiny ice worms found only on glacial ice, to steelhead and salmon returning up snow and ice-fed rivers, and even to humans living downstream or climbing to the icy heights.The data and photographs are clear. What's unclear is if humans will to make the changes necessary to help these icons of the Pacific Northwest summits persist. 5 of7 1/4/2016 1:10 F Glaeipis and Climate Change-Olympic National Park(U.S.National... h //www.n s. ov/ottp: p g lym/leam/nature/glaciers.l Olympic National Park - Anderson Glacier m . ir 3 p Dr kat err t)l 1 2b r— . Comparison photographsshow the dramatic nnneatofAnderson Gia©er. 1936:Asahelawns 2004:"11°att Hoffin m,PortlandState Univ. Links for more Information See links below for how you can help or to learn more about glacier and climate change studies. http://www.alobalchanae.aov(http://www.alobalchanae.aov/) -This site integrates federal research on climate and global change. http://nsidc.ora/sotc(htto://nsidc.ora/sotc) - Site for the National Snow and Ice Data Center. htto://www.nps.aov/climatechanae (htto://www.nps.aov gram page.climatechange) National Park Service Climate Change Response Pro See/athome for ideas on things to do at home to reduce your carbon footprint. http://www.ess.washinaton.edu/surface/Glacioloav/ Droiects/blue alac blue.html (http://www.ess.washinaton.edu/surface/Glacioloav/ 6of7 1/4/20161:10P Glaciers an&Climate Change-Olympic National Park(U.S.National... http://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/nature/glaciers.l proiects/blue glaclblue.html) - University of Washington site for Blue Glacier research. http://glaciers.us (http://olaciers.us/) - Glaciers of the American West site, a project at Portland State University with funding from the National Science Foundation, NASA, the US Geological Survey, and the National Park Service. Park Tools View Park Map htta://www.naa.¢ovsmodal- IMMUMMIti httw/www.npa.gov tacts.htm) hograidwariv.npa.gov teindex.html 0 bookatore.htm) Find Us On Pav book http://www.faeebook.com MkgataieNPS) htip://twitter.com angippigN19 httaa://www.fiickr,com fLIMMAMMtiranLoom aiVomimatioualnerk_p PARK http://www.nps.gov olym/getinvolved aor6.htm) http://www.doLgov/) http://www.doi,gov/) 7of7 1/4/2016 1:10 P] Wfrm waters send salmon to Canada,not Washington http://www.king5.com/story/tech/science/environment/2014/08/28/w 8% Annual Annuity Return Get guaranteed lifetime income and reduced risks to retirees all here. Warm waters send salmon to Canada, not Washington Associated Press 3:15p.m.PDTAugust 28,2014 IIIIBELLINGHAM,Wash.-Unusually warm water off the Washington coast is sending the vast majority of the sockeye salmon run to Canadian waters,leaving Puget Sound fishermen with nearly empty nets. According to data from the Pacific Salmon Commission,nearly 2.9 million sockeye salmon have been caught in Canadian waters,while only about 98,000 have been netted in Washington through Aug. 19. That means 99 percent of sockeye salmon havegone through the Johnstone Strait around the northern part of Photo:KING) Vancouver Island into Canadian waters. During a typical sockeye salmon run,about 50 percent ofthe run goes around the south end of Vancouver Island through the Strait of Juan de Fuca,putting them in U.S.waters,the Bellingham Herald reported(http://bit.ly/1g6oegm). This year's diversion rate is unusual.If it stays around this level,itwould be the highest diversion rate on record,dating from 1953,said Mike Lapointe, chief biologist forthe Pacific Salmon Commission. The sockeye salmon run is expected to continue for several more weeks,so U.S.fishermen like Pete Granger hope to salvage what they can.Granger is a reefnetfisher who is operating his boat near Lummi Island.He has been catching fish for the Lummi Island Wild Co-op forthe past eight years. It could be one ofthe worst seasons we've had in a long time,"Granger said.The fishing numbers in U.S.waters started to improve atthe end of last week,with several weeks left in the season. Several factors could be behind why sockeye salmon decided to head for the Johnstone Strait this summer,but researchers are looking closely at an area ofocean wateroff the coast that is about 3 degrees Celsius warmer than normal.Nick Bond,a research scientist for the University of Washington, refers to this area as a"warm blob"that developed lastwinter as the Pacific Northwest went through a period of unusually quiet weather.Lastwinter,the area had stretches of cool,windless and foggy days. The calm weather meantthe ocean didn't do its usual churning of deeper,colder water up to the surface.With this pattern continuing into summer,the warm area has persisted.Sockeye salmon prefer cooler water,which may be why most of the run went north around Vancouver Island. Bond believes the development of the warm blob is not a direct result of global warming but more ofa fluke.Looking back at past data,there has been the occasional season when a cold area has developed off the coast,sending the sockeye salmon south ofVancouver Island into U.S.waters. This season's event is giving scientists a chance to learn what impacta warmer ocean would have on this area's ecosystem,giving them more information to make better predictions. Given the current weather models,Bond said the warm blob could be around for a while,possibly well into 2015.There's also the potential of El Nino developing laterthis year,bringing warm water to the area.If that's the case,it could be disruptive for next year's pink salmon run aswell. Read or Share this story:http://www.kirg5.com/storyttech/science/environment/2014/08/28/warm-water-sockeye-salmon-condo-washington 14759893/ Health-Seasonal Depression I 1 of 3 1/4/2016 1:01 1 GLACIOLOGY GROUP UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON http://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/glaciaV/Glaciology/Home.h Home People Courses Projects Meetings GLACIOLOGY GROUP UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SIH Glaciology Lunch: 12:30 Tuesdays in ATG 406 Welcome to the Glaciology Group Glaciology is the study of ice in the environment.Important components are seasonal snow,sea ice,glaciers,ice sheets and frozen ground.Glaciology atthe University of Washington includes course curriculum and research Join the Glaciology Listserve related to all ofthese components of ice in the environment Glaciological research at the University of Washington is carried out by faculty and graduate students in the Department of Earth and Space Sciences, Atmospheric Sciences,Quaternary Research Center and Applied Physics News and Links: Laboratory. The 2014 Northwest Glaciologists'Meeting wit be hosted by University of Alaska-Fairbanks. Several UWGlaciology research teams are What is Glaciology? currently in Antarctica doing fieldwork.Check Glaciology is the study of ice in the environment.Important components areoutMaxStevens'bldg about the Beardmore Glacier. seasonal snow,sea ice,glaciers,ice sheets and frozen ground.The extent ofthese types of ice reflects the present and past climate. The WAIS Divide Ice Core project recently retrieved a deep ice core intothe West Examples are:hemispheric snow cover in winter,thidcness of sea ice on theAntarcticIceSheet. polaroceans,depth of frozen ground,volumes of glaciers and the physical Regina Cams started a bldg during fieldwork and chemical properties in layers cored from ice sheets. and continues toupdatewith glaciology-The ice also affects climate.For example,posts.Check out Regina's blog from the large areas covered by snow the ice. and sea ice reflect solar radiation away from the Earth'ssurface and thereby Recent dissertations by UWglaaologists can influence the heat balance of the earth. befound here. Because these ice components are only decimeters to meters thick,they Check outthe UW PCC Climate Calendar and can change on time scales as short as seasons and can influence climate at keep up on climate-related events at the uw. all time scales.Glaciers and ice sheets are hundreds to more than one thousand meters thick and change significantly only on decadal or muchForK-12 girls:Girls on Ice 2011,a program longer time scale.On these longer time scales theycan influencefoundedattheUniverstyofWashington,now gg based out of UAF. atmospheric circulation and global sea level.More locally all of these types ofice influence hydrology,geomorphic processes and pose various natural The Blue Glacier webpage forthe UW hazards. monitoring project. Website maintained by Max Stevens::maxstev'ar uw.edu 1 of 1 1/4/2016 1:041 JAN 0 6 21116 Jefferson County Planning Commission: We are writing to comment on the Final Supplemental Impact Statement(FSEIS)for Pleasant Harbor Resort. We have written to the county about the proposed resort several times during the past 10 years, and our objections to this project have not changed. If approved, it would affect the quality of life of our entire community and surrounding ecosystem. Financially, it would affect the entire county. Please consider all of these comments as you make your decision regarding this project. The negative effects of the resort project include impacts on our traffic, environment, emergency services,and county finances. Mitigation measures in the F5EIS for the.economic and environmental damage created by this massive development are not adequate to the havoc it will create here. Highway 101 is the only transportation route on the Olympic Peninsula; It is used to transport goods, as well as medical, residential and tourist traffic. It is 2 lanes wide and cannot be widened because it is on the water and crosses 2 lane bridges. The volume of resort traffic would affect our ability to travel, especially during construction. When there is an accident,the road is closed for hours. This road is already dangerous enough! We have lost several friends due to accidents on Highway 101.The developer's claims of few accidents are based on studies of intersections, although Highway 101 is not an "intersection" highway. Exhaust fumes from the added traffic and highway runoff will increase pollution in Hood Canal. Other environmental impacts include the construction of the project itself, moving 1-2 million cubic yards of earth and removing all the undergrowth around Pleasant Harbor for building construction. The plan calls for stormwater to be moyed to retention ponds made from natural wetlands on the resort land. Destroying these wetlands will destroy the natural filtration that is now in place. Disturbing the ground wilt create less stability and will cause more stormwater to run off, be absorbed into the aquifer, or go into Hood Canal. Potential pollutants are oils and antifreeze from construction equipment, and fertilizers from the golf course. Construction could take up to 10 years,so the problem would be ongoing. All of Black Point draws water from a single aquifer. Some wells already have salt-water intrusion. According to the plan, neighboring property owners must prove,over a three-year period,that the resort causes any salt-water intrusion into their wells, and the developer decides if their claims are valid. This needs to be done by the county health department instead. The waste water from the resort is to be treated and reused, but its' Class A treatment will still leave it toxic for people or wildlife once it is used to water the golf course. The plan is to transport the biosolids to Mason County for treatment, causing more traffic on Highway 101. There have been claims that the resort will provide lots of employment for local people during the construction period and later. The fact is that there aren't enough people in this area to fill the jobs we have! Most of our population is retirement age. We both still work, and at both our places of employment it is necessary to go outside our community to find people who will work: People are Commuting from Sequim, Port Townsend, and Port Ludlow to work in Quilcene and Brinnon. Another issue is the financial impact to all state and county residents for traffic impact on public roads, and for life safety services needed by county residents and resort visitors. Local taxpayers will be paying for increased traffic contrpl, crime, and fire and emergency services. To mitigate potential losses, if this project fails prior to completion,the developer should be required to post a significant bond by a highly rated insurer to cover all potential costs that cannot be ascertained, including repairing environmental damage incurred over a 50-year period because of the development and the costs of cleanup and restoration if the project is started but abandoned. [In Mason County such a requirement caused the halt to a similar resort proposal.] In addition,the developer should be required to deposit the amount of all ascertainable direct and indirect costs regarding services and infrastructure into a fund available to local government to cover the costs as they are incurred. Development of a Master Planned Resort at Pleasant Harbor will likely cost local taxpayers in terms of increased taxes, damage to lifestyle and safety, and degradation of resources far beyond any benefit to Jefferson County. We want to be stewards of our land and waters; this project will not do anything to preserve our area for the future. Changes appearing in the FSEIS include an option for a 9-hole golf course and the building of 30 luxury homes. Golf course construction is not an environmentally responsible choice for Black Point; it is surrounded by water on three sides. Of the choices available to you on this issue,the most responsible choice is the no action choice. It is better for the people and the environment of Jefferson County. Sincerely, Eric Hendricks Joan Hendricks Park Ranger, Washington State Parks Larvae Department Manager,Taylor Shellfish For Official Record of comments on Black Point FSEIS December 2015 SAN 0 6 Goeke/Cawley Family Trust Box 95 253 Overbrook Lane Brinnon, WA 98320 We are writing to express our strong voice of disapproval for the proposed Pleasant Harbor FSEIS. We have many reasons for our disapproval. 1. Environmental Damage-The most important item is the damage to the environmental quality of the canal with the polluting drain off of traffic, building construction, many additional houses and possible golf course. 2. Waste and waste management How isgarbagefrom new development going to be managed. If trucked, this is another ongoing stress on our fragile 101 highway. This would more than double solid waste to be processed at the Quilcene site. 3. Housing for service staff Where are the resort workers, often non english speakers, going to live and school their children? How is this not an expense to an unprepared community for both affordable housing and classroom resources. 4. Medical and mental health emergencies. It is a fact that resorts have higher levels of alcohol and drug incidents which require professional intervention. Where is this help coming from?. Is the resort prepared to staff onsite medical and mental health crisis staff. 5. Traffic- How can this location with only one access from 101 accommodate the trucks during construction and then the cars for the resort?This will cause more damage to this 101 which is already under near constant repair from wash outs. More delay and highway repair causes great hardship to existing property owners, visitors and businesses which depend on daily reliable travel on 101. 6. The scale is inappropriate to the area. A smaller water based recreation area would enhance the community and provide some employment. This proposal is too large and will damage our community. As proposed, the development will create havoc for the many forthe benefit of the few. Elizabeth Goeke Jeffery Cawley Richard Cawley Matthew Cawley Sarah Cawley JAN 0 6 20iS Public Testimony: Pleasant Harbour Marina and GolfResort Bud Schrodter The testimony that I am about to offer is not aimed specifically at the County nor at ani specific individual, rather it is a criticism of the entire regulation process and those intent on slowing down or stopping any development that craws people away from the urnan areas ofJefferson County. First please recall that I was a planning commissioner about eight years ago when we as a Planning Commission had a number ofpublic subcommittee meeting here at the Brinnon Community Center. I chaired those meetings and our objective was to inform the community about the development effort and its environmental and financial expectations. We also excepted public comments that were largely positive but did have some in the community that were concerned about endangered birds, frogs,traffic and too many people. Change is often tough even though at times it is for the good or for the bad. However, most people were positive realizing that the synergy from the resort would stimulate the local economy providing jobs to compensate for the logging bust that had gone on for the past forty years. For the past eight years it seem too many in our community that the development effort has not been allowed to proceed. Rather, it seems that the effort has had to endure roadblock after roadblock. Certainly we can't put all the blame for this on the County. They only do what is required by the State DOE and their own regulations. However,we in rural South County have always believed that if it doesn't happen in the Port Townsend area. it doesn't deserve anything more than half a thumbs up by the building department. So here we are today and the development effort has had to downsize the size of the golf course from eighteen to nine. This due to road blocks by who we call the radical environmentalists. At one time we in the community had hones that the resort would become identified as a destination resort where people all over the county and world would come to relax. play a round of golf and enjoy the recreational aspects ofthe area. With c ti v a nine-hole course where many others in the,area are offering.eighteen holes LMP feel that the demand to consider this area as a destination resort will decline and the financial success of the development effort will certainly be more risky. This all seems to be due to roadblocks. Because of parity between the financial success of the resort and the community,the community as well as the county will-likely not realize the fmanciat success as originally expected. So in the future.if many more roadblocks are encountered we expect that the resort rather than having a nine-hole course will be limited to a put-put golf course surrounded by lots of trees. Thank you for your patience. Bud Schindler 270 Rhododendron Ln Brinnon. WA 98320 J ''t7) aly 6 January 2016 Jefferson County Department of Community Development /J A,U M)c Attention: David Johnson 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 On behalf of Sierra Club North Olympic Group and our hundreds of members, activists, and supporters here on the Olympic Peninsula, we wish to submit comments on the FSEIS for the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort proposed for development in Brinnon at Blackpoint. Please include these comments in the administrative record. Sierra Club North Olympic Group respectfully requests more time for public input on this proposal and more time to inspect the FSEIS for additional deficits and insertions that did not come up for comment in the Draft SEIS. Our concerns regarding this project remain. Here is an outline ofthose concerns. The Dosewallips and Duckabush rivers and deltas serve as critical habitat for threatened salmon runs, and other fish runs and any degradation of habitat in the near shore and river mouths would affect their numbers and viability,especially in a changing climate. Elk migration patterns and use ofwildlands as corridors would be disrupted. Shellfish beds critical to tribes, residents,wildlife and businesses and the Hood Canal ecosystem itself are vulnerable. Estuarine hypoxia noted in Hood Canal is primarily caused by pollutants from development on land,and while monitoring is in place(but not in greater number or frequency)there is little to prevent various types ofnon-source pollution, Water availability for the project is questionable, and salt-water intrusion ofexisting wells and areas are a concernf rC. 1Y Ct k . Sensitive wetlands and a kettle pond are slated for destruction through construction and grading of slopes and other landscape-scale changes. Mitigation calls for"created wetlands"as ifthat is something easily produced and monitored for effective ecosystem service. These are not adequate mitigations and would result in net loss ofwetlands. The spread of sewage waste on land is harmful to wildlife,human health, soil,water and air. Traffic patterns will change drastically,affecting the ability of schoolbuses, ambulances, grocery trucks,mill chip trucks,and the residents of Jefferson and Clallam towns across the Peninsula to travel this corridor with assurance ofaccess. The location is ripe for becoming afrequentifnotconstantbottleneckbetweenlargepopulationssouthandnorthofthesite. Resorts are better located at the end of a road,not mid-way on a two-lane highway access. Increased traffic will also be a source of spills,accidents,runoff and non-point source of pollutants. Respectively submitted, 7/11/244' Monica Fletcher North Olympic Group, Washington State Chapter, Sierra Club 2/2-- 2iAA-ua 9u, 4- 2_0/5. 4 is" c0- - 4 'ea:CT er1cdfurvL 1 e_ cup,444,e,t, ca-a-14-0,10,e4 Z[cu,./r- Pcc-iJ sc9 4 ii uocr. m. A e.. r tom t4.uple- /x(44/ v1tR s `fie' - - Io-Ca U6-e14444, ev;1Q- pL c 1.u cr. . caLi 4.9-tavt- e l 40 kg1 . Fc,n i2,ce7vz- _Lit, a- .o (ycc, kettle- s ilt e u,1- a,& c' -ccs . Z 4 a,, cone. cz i kt Q,,e cal Il`e, hello-Otte-6- Codes JAR, t fCe. ?ori i s a`" l d s 0_241o1 a A_ to cv n71,e, cc-t-- 3 i't l( -s Gene c cc6,144 ftati`tatted 4-ti hec 11 JAN 0 0206 Pmf c Gym-acid, Rg 363 Date: January 5, 2016 Jo © 6 2 b To: Jefferson County Planning Commission From: Hood Canal Environmental Council Re: Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLC, Master Planned Resort Case No's: MLA08-00188, ZON08-00056 Hood Canal Environmental Council (HCEC) respectfully requests that the following written comments regarding the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) for the proposed Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort (MPR) be included in the public record. 1. Inadequate review time. The FSEIS was released by Jefferson County on December 9, 2015 with the public hearing before the Jefferson County Planning Commission scheduled for January 6, 2016. This coincides with the busiest holiday of the year. The public needs more time to review and comment on the FSEIS, especially as this document contains substantial changes compared to the Draft SEIS. We ask that the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) be delayed until all interested parties have had sufficient time to review the new material. 2. Support No-Action Alternative. HCEC continues to oppose the development alternatives (1, 2 and 3) and to support the No-Action Alternative. The newly added Alternative 3, with its smaller 9-hole golf course, would involve less land clearing and leave more natural vegetation intact. However, these benefits are far outweighed by the overall unavoidable environmental impacts which, according to the FSEIS, would remain nearly the same as Alternatives 1 and 2. As for the 2 scenarios presented in the No-Action Alternative, there is insufficient information to make a reasoned choice between the two. Although Scenario A would be preferable from an environmental standpoint, especially if existing regulatory tools are enforced, the information on Alternative B appears to be based more on assumptions rather than specifics. HCEC (or Jefferson County) cannot make a reasoned decision based on "assumed designs and anticipated impacts." 3. Support Brinnon Group opposition. HCEC continues to stand behind the Brinnon Group in its opposition to the proposed MPR. We concur with the comments presented by that organization, especially regarding the potential economic and environmental adverse impacts from construction and operation and the potential for dramatic changes to the rural character of the Brinnon community and surrounding area. 4. Prevent Hood Canal pollution. All alternative proposals entail a significant increase in traffic along Highway 101, which hugs Hood Canal for many miles, and will inevitably increase toxic non-point pollution from chemicals and metals washed by stormwater into Hood Canal, poisoning aquatic life. Puget Sound Partnership's "Stormwater Strategic Initiative 2016" see https://pspwa.app.box.com/s/b3iieraenlwhiazkitia0r36klmtr20s) should be applied, costs of potential mitigation determined, bonding required from the developer to pay for all related costs, and funds administered through the Hood Canal Coordinating Council's In Lieu Fee (ILF) Mitigation Program see http://hccc.wa.gov/In+Lieu+Fee+Mitigation+Proqram/default.aspx). im06 BENEFITS OF DESTINATION RESORTS TO DESCHUTES COUNTY A REPORT TO SUNRIVER RESORT BY Ak ELESCO, LTD. P.O. Box 3539 Sunriver, OR 97707 FEBRUARY 2009 POSSMVE IMPACTS OF DESTINATION RESORTS ON DESCHUTES COUNTY 2,500,000 annual visitors to Central Oregon. 470,000,000 direct visitor spending(2007). 189,000,000 additional indirect related spending(2007) 5,440 direct visitor industry jobs(2007). 1,088 additional indirect jobs(2007). 164,000,000 total wages attributed to the visitor industry(2007). 1,469 Resort jobs in Central Oregon (2007). 40,500,000 Resort payroll(average wage=$27,566/yr or$13.25/hr. in 2007). 7,700,000 transient room taxes collected(2007/08). 20,000,000 paid in property taxes(county and cities only 2007/2008). Primarily transient owners(only 13%of Sunriver owners are year round residents). 72,000,000 payroll for Resort construction and support services(2007). 2.5 BILLION Resort current Real Market Value created by construction. Stimulates economic development of nearby communities(La Pine,Sisters, Redmond). 2.5 BILLION Resort current Real Market Value fuels supporting industries. Promotes and exposes Central Oregon to national markets. Funds and support local charities with money and volunteer time. Provides markets leading to expanded commercial air service. Attraction for business recruitment to region. Enhances awareness of Central Oregon as a great place to live. Attracts home based business professionals. Active promotion of environmental protection and education(Sunriver Nature Center). Protects and promotes the region's history and culture. Provides direct funding for regional transportation improvements(Hwy 97,S.Century). Expands regional fire and police services and facilities(Sunriver, Black Butte service districts). 1 C5 BENEFITS OF DESTINATION RESORTS TO DESCHUTES COUNTY DETAIL REPORT Destination Resorts provide important benefits to Deschutes County, both as a major component of its economy as well as enhancing quality of life for all its residents. This paper describes those benefits and how they contribute to making Deschutes County a better place to live,work,and do business. A DIRECT ECONOMIC BENEFITS Destination Resorts are a "primary"sector of the local economy. That means they pull outside money into the region,which then gets circulated throughout the economy as secondary spending. Without new money coming in,the local economy would shrink as dollars flow out to purchase goods and services from other regions. Primary sectors have higher economic multipliers than the secondary industries that circulate money that is already here. 1. Deschutes County is a major beneficiary of the Oregon visitor industry. Deschutes County's Gross Domestic Product(GDP)in 2006 was measured at$6.011 billion by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis according to a report released on September 25, 2008. That was an increase of 11.5%from the GDP figure for 2005 in current dollars. By comparison, the increase for all U.S. Metropolitan Areas was only 6.35%over that one-year period. The Leisure and Hospitality sector of the economy,which includes Destination Resorts, contributed 5%of that year-to-year growth in Deschutes County while nationally it contributed only 3.4%. The Central Oregon Visitors Association(COVA)estimates in their 2008 Annual Report that approximately 2.5 million people visited Central Oregon in 2006. That was about 12%of the roughly 21.2 million people who visited the whole state of Oregon. About 60%of those who visited Central Oregon,or 1.5 million people,indicated the reason for their visits was destination-oriented vacation travel rather than family or business related. That component was 16%higher than the state norm of 44%. Total direct visitor spending in Deschutes County was$470.7 million in 2007 according to preliminary figures from Dean Runyan Associates for the Oregon Tourism Commission. These expenditures went for a wide variety of products and services: 2 5 Table 1:2007 Travel Impacts in Central Oregon by Commodity Purchased,2007 Accommodations 116.1 million Arts,Entertainment,Recreation $ 59.7 million Food&Beverage Services 122.4 million Retail Sales 56.0 million Food Stores 46.9 million Air Transportation(visitor only) $ 3.4 million Ground Transport&Motor Fuel $ 66.2 million Total Spending at Destination $470.7 million 2. Multiplier effect increases visitor spending in Deschutes County Direct spending by visitors is increased by the"multiplier effect"as those dollars are circulated throughout the economy. According to the IMPLAN model from the Minnesota Implan Group, Inc.,the total output multiplier for this sector is approximately 1.4x,which means every direct dollar spent has a total value to the economy of 1.4 dollars. Under that formula,the$470.7 million spent directly by visitors in Deschutes County in 2007 had a total value of$659 million. 3. Visitor spending creates employment in Deschutes County The 2007 Travel Impacts report showed that 5,440 direct jobs in Deschutes County were attributed to the visitor industry that year. This figure includes both full-and part-time positions of wage and salary workers and proprietors. Because of the seasonal and part-time nature of this sector,the number of full-time equivalent workers would be less. For that reason,the multiplier is also less. A multiplier of 1.2x results in total employment of about 6,528 workers in 2007. Direct employment in this sector was nearly equal to the entire Manufacturing sector in Deschutes County in 2007,which totaled 5,651 workers. It was larger than the Financial Services sector(3,859)or the Professional,Scientific&Technical Services sector(2,737). 4. Travel spending generates industry earnings(wages&salaries)in Deschutes County An estimated$121.6 million of direct visitor spending in 2007 was classified as industry earnings,which includes all wages,salaries,and proprietor incomes after the costs of sales are taken out. These were distributed as shown below: Table 2:2007 Industry Earnings Generated by Travel Spending Accommodations&Food Service $ 85.9 million Arts, Entertainment,Recreation $ 17.8 million Retail(includes gasoline) 14.1 million Auto Rental,other ground trans. $ 0.5 million Air Transportation(visitor only) $ 0.7 million Other Travel 2.5 million Total Direct Earnings 121.6 million 3 These dollars stay in Deschutes County and enable local workers to pay their bills. They are supplemented by the share of vender sales from local firms that are also used to pay wages, salaries and proprietor incomes. The IMPLAN wage multiplier is about 1.35 in Deschutes County,so the total impact of the direct visitor spending on industry earnings was about$164 million in 2007. 5. Destination Resorts attract visitors to Central Oregon;they are not"sagebrush subdivisions" Inquiries to the Sunriver Owners Association revealed that there are 4,206 home sites in the resort community with a current buildout of 94%,which translates to about 3,954 residential units. Of these,the Sunriver Owners Association estimates that about 500 homes,or 12.6%of the total, are occupied full-time by about 1,000 permanent residents. That is down from an estimated 700 homes in the year 2000. Another 1/3`d of the homes,or roughly 1,320 units, have non-resident owners who come to Sunriver for vacations and do not rent their homes to visitors. The remaining 2,134 units,or 54%, are on the rental market and are used by tourists vacationing in Sunriver. These statistics show that Sunriver is primarily a visitor-oriented resort community rather than a residential subdivision. It is believed that other Destination Resorts in Deschutes County follow a similar pattern. 6. Destination Resorts provide the highest economic benefits in Deschutes County's visitor industry Exclusively for this report, data were obtained from the Oregon Employment Department to update a 2007 study comparing the economic impacts of Destination Resorts in Central Oregon versus the overall Leisure&Hospitality industry. That study gave figures for 2005 that have been updated to 2007 in this report. Both the 2005 figures and those for 2007 show that Destination Resorts pay significantly higher wages than the overall industry of which they are a part. Statewide, both the original study and the updated 2007 numbers cover eight Destination Resorts in Oregon, of which five are in Central Oregon. The statewide trends for these eight resorts are shown for both employment and payrolls from 2001 to 2007 in Table 3: Table 3:Average Annual Employment, Oregon 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Destination Resorts 1842 1859 1895 1939 2078 2208 2348 Leisure&Hospitality 149600 149700 151600 155100 159100 164900 172300 Accommodations 21700 21300 21300 21400 21200 21300 21400 4 Employment in Destination Resorts increased 275%statewide from 2001 to 2007,while it increased by only 15.2%in the whole Leisure&Hospitality sector. In the subsector of accommodations,the growth rate was a negative 1.4%. Table 4:Average Annual Payrolls, Oregon (dollars) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Leisure&Hospitality 13633 14063 14206 14535 15099 15555 16104 Destination Resorts 20632 22586 23420 23093 26134 27132 26527 Total All Industries 33202 33685 34446 35621 36591 38070 39564 These figures show that the average annual payroll per worker in Destination Resorts statewide in 2007 was 64.7%higher than the average payroll in the overall Leisure&Hospitality sector. While it was only 67.1%of the average payroll for all industries,that was due largely to the seasonal employment factor. It is also significant that the average annual payrolls at Destination Resorts increased by 28.6% from 2001 to 2007,while it increased only 18.1%in the overall Leisure & Hospitality sector and by 19.2%in the All Industries total. These figures indicate that workers at Destination Resorts have been able to keep pace with inflation better than workers in other sectors of the economy. Central Oregon shows even better results for Destination Resorts than the rest of Oregon. The numbers from the Oregon Employment Department show that the five Destination Resorts in Central Oregon employed 1,469 workers in 2007 with an annual payroll of$40,494,370. That equates to an average annual payroll per worker of$27,566. Table 5: Destination Resort Employment in Oregon:2007 Location Resorts Employment Payroll Ave.Pay Central Oregon 5 1,469 40,494,370 27,566 Rest of Oregon 3 879 21,790,781 24,790 Total 8 2,348 62,285,151 26,527 The three Destination Resorts in the rest of Oregon employed 879 workers in 2007 with an annual payroll of$21,790,781 for an average payroll per worker of$24,790. That put the Central Oregon Destination Resorts at 11.2%higher than the resorts in the rest ofthe state. The list below shows average annual payrolls for several industry sectors in Deschutes County in 2007 for comparison: 5 5 Sector Average Payroll DR as% Destination Resorts(Central Oregon) 27,566 100.0% Agriculture& Forestry Support 28,048 98.3% Food Manufacturing 25,412 108.5% Retail (Total) 26,424 104.3% Air Transportation 22,799 120.9% Real Estate 29,416 93.7% Arts, Entertainment&Recreation 18,195 151.5% Accommodation &Food Services 16,314 169.0% Other Services 24,318 113.4% Converted to a full-time work year of 2,080 hours(52 weeks X 40 hrs/week)the average annual payroll at Destination Resorts in Central Oregon of$27,566 in 2007 translated to an average hourly wage of$13.25. This was notably higher than the equivalent minimum wage and does not include the value of benefits such as health insurance,sick leave,Social Security and Medicare taxes,and other employer contributions. An obvious conclusion is that, on average,the average annual payrolls at Destination Resorts in Central Oregon are significantly higher than the lower wages paid in some other sectors, plus benefits. 7. Destination Resorts generate employment in construction and other service industries Construction workers and their payrolls are also benefits of Destination Resort development, as are the workers and payrolls associated with private businesses located on or near the Destination Resorts. Figures for construction trades associated with Destination Resorts are not broken out in the data but it is assumed that they represent a significant percentage of the total because of the residential housing component of Destination Resorts along with the construction of resort hotel units. In 2007 there were 2,040 workers employed in the construction of buildings in Deschutes County, plus another 5,034 specialty trade contractors. Total annual payrolls of these two groups were$266,264,417 and average annual payrolls per worker were$37,640. Estimating that 15%of those jobs were in Destination Resorts,their share of total payrolls would have been right at$40 million in 2007. The 2007 OED study also showed there were 219 firms in 14 industry sectors supporting just over 1,300 jobs in 2005 within a two-mile radius of seven of Oregon's Destination Resorts and within a three-mile radius of Sunriver Resort. Sectors included construction, real estate,health care services, recreation services, restaurants, retail trade,and more. Those firms supplied more than $31.5 million in payroll to their workers during 2005. 6 5 Adding together the direct Destination Resort jobs, direct construction jobs,and jobs in supporting industries produces an approximate total direct impact of about 9,800 jobs in Deschutes County in 2007 and payrolls of about$112,000,000 based on the assumption of 15% of total construction employment. 8. Destination Resorts provide significant transient room tax revenues to local governments According to COVA's 2008 Annual Report,transient room taxes paid from all sources have added millions of dollars per year to County and City budgets. Table 6:Transient Room Tax Revenues in Deschutes County FY 04/05 FY 05/06 FY 06/07 FY 07/08 Deschutes County 3,034,742 3,273,272 3,310,502 3,535,309 City of Bend 2,776,324 3,094,542 3,295,810 3,417,231 City of Redmond 406,115 463,267 486,121 509,031 City of Sisters 183,786 212,957 222,350 238,789 Total 6,400,967 7,044,038 7,314,783 7,700,360 These payments totaled$28,460,148 over the four-year periods shown above. An additional 2,108,575 of transient room taxes were paid to the City of Prineville and Jefferson County over that period. The share of these transient room taxes paid by the Destination Resorts is not available because information on specific properties is not disclosed. These transient room taxes are used to benefit all of the citizens of Deschutes County by paying directly for essential services. In particular,the Deschutes County Sheriff's office has been a major beneficiary of funding from transient room taxes. The Sheriff's Department has been receiving about$2.6 million annually from the County's general fund and transient room taxes. Transient room taxes are also a major funding source for COVA and are used to promote tourism marketing that benefits Central Oregon. A portion of the County's general fund,which includes room taxes, is used to support the Deschutes County Fair&Expo Center. 9. Destination Resorts provide significant property tax revenues to local governments According to an analysis of property tax revenues in the 2005/06 tax year,three Destination Resorts owners in Deschutes County paid$1,671,121 in property taxes that year. These were: 7 46,. Destination Resort Real Market Value Taxes Pronghorn 71,778,720 671,245 Eagle Crest 61,686,942 548,477 Sunriver 42,720 240 451,399 176,185,902 1,671,121 These figures from the Deschutes County Assessor's Office only include taxes paid directly by the resort owners and do not include the taxes paid by individual property owners in those resorts. Total tax contributions from all properties including private residences located in Destination Resorts are shown below: Destination Resort Real Market Value Taxes Sunriver/Crosswater 1,765,060,905 14,174,961 Eagle Crest Resort 449,779,280 4,096,458 Pronghorn Resort 142,894,880 1,384.649 2,357,735,065 19,656,068 These three resorts in Deschutes County contributed almost$20 million in property taxes to the County in the 2005/06 tax year alone. Those figures only represent what the individual cities and the County assessed;they do not include other assessments from other government agencies or special districts. That means the total property tax impact of the Destination Resorts in Deschutes County was significantly higher. Property taxes paid by the resorts and on-site property owners were used to fund school districts, public safety services, roads,health and welfare services,and a wide range of other public services. However,the resort visitors and property owners generally place lower levels of demand on those services than do property owners outside of the Destination Resorts, in part because of the transient use of their properties as well as generally having older permanent residents. That means these property taxes not only pay for the services required to support the Destination Resorts,but they also are used to subsidize the services required by the population outside of the resorts. These property taxes are increasing as additional lots are sold and homes are built. For example, real market values and property taxes at Sunriver will increase rapidly as the recently- developed Caldera Springs is built out. Caldera Springs will ultimately have 320 lots with privately-owned own homes plus 45 cabins. The total real market value for all residential units is expected to be about$450 million in current dollars at full build-out. At the time this report was written, Caldera Springs was built out to about 30%-35%of its potential. 8 C5 B SECONDARY ECONOMIC BENEFITS Destination Resorts in Deschutes County provide other economic benefits that are not directly measured but are also important. 1. Destination Resorts provide an economic stimulus for nearby communities Destination Resorts in Deschutes County are in sub-urban or rural areas near communities that have depressed economies because of the decline in timber and other resource industries. The Destination Resorts provide a much larger market for businesses in La Pine,Sisters,and Prineville than would otherwise be available without them. 2. Destination Resorts make nearby communities more viable for economic development Smaller rural communities such as La Pine lack the modern housing and other amenities to compete effectively for new businesses and their management staff. Destination Resorts such as Sunriver/Crosswater/Caldera Springs provide the upscale support facilities that make those communities more competitive. 3. Destination Resorts promote Deschutes County and Central Oregon to national markets Events such as the Tradition golf tournament on the Champions Tour are heavily promoted in golf magazines and other media before and during the events. Most of those national events take place at Destination Resorts. The markets for those promotions are people who are attracted to Central Oregon for those events and spend their discretionary dollars with local businesses. 4. Destination Resorts'events help fund local charities Most of the major events hosted at Destination Resorts contribute financially to local charities. For example,the Pacific Amateur Golf Tournament in 2008 raised more than$12,000 for the Boys and Girls Clubs of Central Oregon. In addition,the resorts themselves help to fund non- profit and charitable organizations. At Sunriver,these have included the Sunriver Music Festival and Wonderland Express, Care for Kids, Helping Hands,and numerous others. Property owners at these resorts also support local arts and charities,schools,environmental enrichment programs,and other worthwhile activities and organizations. 9 5 5. Destination Resorts help provide the markets to expand local air services Passenger boardings at Redmond Municipal Airport have risen steadily as new flights and new airline services have been added. Destination Resorts attract visitors who fly into the area from throughout the country in addition to those who drive in from Northwest cities. As a result, Central Oregonians now enjoy direct jet service to/from Salt Lake City and all points east as well as direct service to Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Phoenix and Eugene, complementing historical service to Portland,Seattle,and San Francisco. 6. Destination Resorts support economic development through business recruitment Destination Resorts expose executives to business opportunities available in Central Oregon by providing venues for conventions,conferences,seminars, and other business meetings. The resort image is a strong attraction for catching the attention of companies being recruited to locate facilities in Deschutes County. 7. Destination Resorts create awareness of Central Oregon as a great place to live In 2005,about 61%of vacant lot sales in Deschutes County were valued at$200,000 or more. In Destination Resorts, however,the percentage was 78%. The difference shows that Destination Resorts are effectively attracting residents with higher financial resources. That means greater spending in the Deschutes County economy. 8. Destination Resorts provide a home base for business professionals A major trend in the U.S.economy is the growth of"lone eagles",defined as business professionals who provide services in wide markets by operating from a home base that represents where they want to live. Many of the residents of Destination Resorts fit that description. A survey in Sunriver found that about 400 residences had a home office that served either a full time or part time business. These professional businesses bring outside money into the local economy without requiring the services needed for on-site employees, customers or vendors. 10 G/Q C QUAUTY OF LIFE BENEFITS In addition to direct and secondary economic benefits,Destination Resorts make significant contributions to enhancing the quality of life in Deschutes County and Central Oregon. 1. Destination Resorts have been leaders in developing healthy forest initiatives,wildland fire protection plans, noxious weed removal, habitat protection and restoration,and other environmental initiatives. Destination Resorts have environmental managers and staff to ensure these programs are adequately supported and effective. 2. Destination Resorts create greater awareness of environmental needs and issues through education and proactive programs. The Sunriver Nature Center and Observatory is an example of how an activity in a Destination Resort practices outreach to the community in support of environmental awareness. In addition to its member and visitor services, it hosts school groups and provides community education and information. 3. Destination Resorts protect the region's history and culture. Unlike some residential subdivisions, Destination Resorts focus on the amenities that attract visitors as well as residents. They develop their properties in ways that protect and enhance the historical and cultural features of the region as natural amenities. 4. Destination Resorts provide community resources for local residents in the surrounding areas. These include restaurants, hotels,and other resort-type facilities but some also include a library, post office,and public recreation and entertainment venues. 5. Destination Resorts contribute to improved transportation systems. When the Oregon Department of Transportation has required local participation in funding important highway and road improvements, Destination Resorts have stepped up to meet those requirements. Without the participation of Destination Resorts,some of those projects might have been shelved because of lack of local funding. For example,Sunriver and Crosswater contributed seed money to enable ODOT to proceed with the construction of the Highway 97 interchange at S. Century Drive,and Caldera Springs paid 100%of the costs to construct a new roundabout on S. Century and Abbot Drive at the entrance to Sunriver the first in Central Oregon). 11 5 6. Destination Resorts provide essential public safety support services and facilities. For example,the airport at Sunriver is used as a base for forest fire air support,Air Link ambulance access,and even as a reliever airport for the Bend and Redmond airports when they experience below-minimums weather conditions. Those services are not limited to the resort but are provided to residents throughout southern Deschutes County. These are some of the benefits of Destination Resorts in Deschutes County and Central Oregon that highlight their importance to the economy,the region's economic development,and the quality of life for local residents. There is no question that Destination Resorts have put Deschutes County"on the map"for attracting new capital investment and new businesses that have enhanced economic opportunities and generated substantial revenues for local governments. 12 5 n_ w £ 4, b i3r l''', 17,,,.,. e i a i* 4 + A4=',..,,,:,----,' s raw ' r ==4,-,,Z,..,-..1 F p°"F'' '6 .3 ° r 7 „ _dc_, _' v1` -r_,`'.c a '§'` il`' ^F s xK`w FY 08/09 FY08109 Real Market Value Assessed Value Total Real Property Real Properly Taxes Levied Sunriver 2,362,163,995 1,100,536200 15,212,602 Black Butte Ranch 994,986,015 501,323,570 7,415,779 Eagle Crest 975,263,060 462,466,798 6,476,431 Pronghorn 296,001,100 179,121,287 2,508,433 Tetherow 182,277,980 85,848,470 1,165,831 Crosswater 144,460,820 83,062,510 1,036,429 Inn Of The 7Th Mountain/Nfidgi Creek 186,789,610 81,403,170 986,533 Caldera Springs 152,034,710 72,112,719 872,052 Total Taxes Levied in FY 08-09 5,293,977,290 2'585L874'734 351g141089 r, .Yet.... Deschutes County 3,337,433 Deschutes County Bonds 824,793 Subtotal Deschutes County 4,162,226 Deschutes County Sheriff 3,787,202 Deschutes County 911 1,005,310 Bend La Pine School District 9,051,753 Redmond School District 3,944,997 Sisters School District 3,226,869 COCC 1,819,975 High Desert ESD 247,350 Subtotal Education Districts 18,290,944 Other districts-County Service Districts, Library,RFPD's and othersmall districts 8,428,407 Total Taxes Levied in FY 08-09 n,..6........87088 Recipients of Room Tax Collected In Deschutes County in Fiscal Year 2007-08 Deschutes County Sheriff 2,414,753 Central Oregon Visitors Association 953,524 Fair/Expo Center 30,353 Other/Including Debt Service* 112,318 Total Room Tax Collected in FY 2007-08 M10,948 Debt Service paid in full in FY 2007-08 z FY 08/09 FY 08109 Real Market Value Assessed Value Total Real Property Real Property Taxes Levied Sunriver 2,382,163,995 1,100,538,200 15,212,802 .atBlackButteRanch994,986,015 501,323,570 7,415,779 Eagle Crest 975,263,060 462,466,798 6,476,431 61"71°"' Pronghorn 296,001,100 179,121,297 2,508,433 474 Tetherow 182,277,980 85,848,470 1,165,831 Crosswater 144,480,820 83,062,510 1,036,429 Inn Of The 7Th Mountain/Widgi Creek 186,789,610 81,403,170 986,533 Caldera Springs 152,034,710 72,112,719 872,052 Total Taxes Levied In FY 08-09 5293,9772S0 2 565,874734 35 67-4Ag9 Deschutes County ayay.• re6'4'-'Ad 3,337,433 Deschutes County Bonds 824,793 Subtotal Deschutes County 4,162,226 Deschutes County Sheriff LZ.. 70114 +f/ 3,787,202 17t74°444— 131 Deschutes County 911 1,005,310 Bend La Pine School District 9,051,753 Redmond School District 3,944,997 Sisters Scholl District 3,228,869 COCC 1,819,975 High Desert ESD 247,350 Subtotal Education Districts 18,290,944 Other districts-County Service Districts, `L t Library,RFPD's and other small districts llubl ritaE/Fwealk, 8A28,407 Total Taxes Levied in FY 08-09 35t674L089 J Recipients of Room Tax Collected In Deschutes County in Fiscal Year 2007-08 L 1 e 14474: 6141 Deschutes County Sheriff 2,414,753 Central Oregon Visitors Association 524 di:- 0/ 495 de-Fair/ExpoFair/Expo Center 30,353 Other/Including Debt Service* b(EI!Cfny Com_ 112,318 Com" Total Room Tax Collected In FY 2007-08 3 10 Debt Service paid in full in FY 2007-08 Brinnon Group 4246 Duckabush Road 6 -Brinnon, WA 98230 10 Jefferson County Planning Commission: This document contains comments from the Brinnon Group, a 501(c)3 non profit on behalf of Brinnon residents and property owners. It references the matter of Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLC Master Planned Resort Case Nos: MLA08-00188, ZON08-0056. This concerns the FSEIS and notice of intent to amend the UDC. The Final Supplemental Impact Statement (FSEIS)for Pleasant Harbor is a complex document with enormous impact on the lives of Jefferson County citizens, those of adjoining counties, and all who seek Jefferson County as a recreational haven. The FSEIS was released on December 9, 2015. Citizens have until January 6, 2016 to read and respond. As with the SEIS last year,these are dates when many travel or are occupied with family. We again register our request for additional time to analyze detailed and technical information. There is significant new information in this document that the public has not seen before, including Scenario B, an additional development model. Adverse implications of the proposal include but are not limited to higher taxes, impact on emergency services including fire and medical, and damage to the environment. Construction for this project is projected as being at least 10 years. There is no guarantee that the construction won't last longer. The developer is required to mitigate the economic and environmental damage from the proposed massive resort development. The mitigation contained in this document is inadequate to protect the citizens of this county. Some of the most important issues with inadequate mitigation are summarized below: 1. Increased taxes for ALL state and county residents: research based on similar resorts in Washington and Oregon indicate that destination resorts cost tax-payers millions of dollars more than was recovered in taxes from the development. For example, there will be up to 10 years of heavy equipment moving in and out of Black Point. The developer has made no plans for repair or maintenance of the public roads; that will fall on taxpayers. We request that the developer prepare an analysis of the true cost of road improvements and repair and make provisions such as posting of a specific bond to cover those services to state and local entities. 2. Increased taxes for ALL state and county residents: the developer does not make adequate provision to pay for life safety services that will be needed by both countyresidentsandresortvisitors. 1 Brinnon Group Page 2 For example, there is no provision for additional sheriff staff or equipment. The proposal provides space the size of a garage to house staff, and states the development will have private security. We request that the developer prepare an analysis of the true costs of life safety services and make provisions to pay for those services to local governments. The developer needs to describe the role and training of private security staff. What will be their authority? Will they be able to handle traffic accidents and/or Brinnon resident crimes? 3. Traffic: 101 is the only non toll direct connection to the 1-5 corridor and is used for all major shipment of goods, as well as for medical transport and residential and tourist traffic. The volume of resort traffic and related accidents will significantly affect all of these types of transportation. Whether approaching Black Point from the north or south, these are 2 lane highways that cannot be widened because they are on bodies of water and cross bridges that cannot be widened. For example, during construction there will be heavy equipment on the highway. After construction there will be up to 4100 added daily trips from resort traffic on state and local roads. The developer has used out of date data (from 2000 and 2006)to try to minimize the impact of this traffic. Traffic accidents are "counted" in the analysis only if they took place at intersections when in fact, on Highway 101, many accidents do not take place at intersections (Please see fatality memorials along Highway 101; none are at intersections.) We request that the developer conduct a peer-reviewed traffic analysis with recent data on traffic volumes (actual counts, not computer models) and with all accident data. The developer will calculate road improvements needed from accurate data and make provision to pay for those improvements. There should be special emphasis on mitigating the impacts on medical transport, with the recognition that any head injury or other serious accident or illness requires helicopter transport, the costs of which are often not collectible and falls on local taxpayers. Transport of perishable goods, such as shellfish, must also be addressed.\ The developer argues that most traffic will come from the north. Locals know well that accidents on Mt Walker can close the highway for hours. Potential access from the south, where two road washouts have effectively halted or significantly slowed traffic, must also be addressed by this proposal. 4. Traffic: exhaust from the additional vehicle trips and highway runoff will increase the acidification of Hood Canal and its rivers and streams and will further adversely impact shellfish and fish. In addition to CO2, pollution includes rubber, oil, spilled fuels, asbestos, and copper. 2 Brinnon Group Page 3 Most locals travel to Brinnon south from SeaTac, through Olympia. The alternative is to go through Seattle traffic, difficult at many times of the day, take a ferry, which may involve a wait of several hours, and drive across the Hood Canal Bridge, which closes from time to time. It is likely most traffic will travel along Hood Canal from the south. We request the developer address the pollution impact on Hood Canal of true traffic counts and describe what mitigation will be done that has been proven to be effective. 5. Salt water intrusion: All of Black Point draws water from one aquifer. There is already salt water intrusion in some wells. The developer is required by the ordinance conditions to provide access to the resort water system if saltwater intrusion becomes an issue for them. However, the proposal states in a"Neighborhood Water Policy" 3 years monitoring of private wells, at the citizens' expense, be completed before a claim can be made. The developer decides if the claim is valid. We request that the county health department, to be reimbursed by the developer, decide if a well has salt water intrusion. If so, the developer must give access to the resort water system at the standard county hook up and monthly usage rates. Also the developer must put up a bond that would cover the cost of a desalinization plant. 6. Scenario B of the No Action Alternative: Scenario B is to build 30 houses around a golf course and no other development, including the commercial buildings. The scenario is not developed enough to determine the impacts and essential mitigation. For example: o Scenario B states that 30 homes will be built, but states that only 15-20 residents will be added o The developer states that Scenario B would produce fewer taxes for life safety services, but it will also creating less demand for those services. o Scenario B houses will be developed by others. o Scenario B construction could result in impacts to the bluff. We request a full development of Scenario B with environmental and financial impacts defined and mitigation proposed. We request enough time for the public to discuss this Scenario, as they have the other alternatives of the FSEIS. These are but a few of the potential negative impacts from this proposal. We propose a workgroup of affected parties so that all points of view can be heard. If you make a determination, we ask that you recommend the No Action Alternative with no development. 3 Brinnon Group Page 4 If you do send this to the Commissioners with recommendations for changes, we urge you to include the following requirements. No county should ever allow a speculative investment scheme that could fail at any juncture without requiring the developer to post a bond and to pay for services incurred by the development. Before construction begins, the developer should be required to o Deposit the amount of all ascertainable direct and indirect costs regarding services and infrastructure into a fund available to local government to cover the costs as they are incurred and o Furnish a performance bond issued by a highly rated insurer to cover all potential costs that cannot be ascertained beforehand, including repairing any environmental damage incurred over a 50-year period because of the development and the costs of clean up and restoration if the project is started but abandoned. It is essential that we,the citizens of Jefferson County, and you, the Planning Commission, require development proposals to clearly indicate benefit to the county that outweighs the negative impacts, including public safety, future costs to taxpayers, and degradation of the environment on which we all depend. Attachment: Fiscal and Economic Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon 4 r..;;yBarbaraMoore-Lewis JAN 0 6 L PO Box 1097 Granite Fall,WA 98252 Planning Commission: These comments reference the matter of Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLC Master Planned Resort Case Nos: MLA08-00188,ZON08-0056. This concerns the FSEIS and notice of intent to amend the UDC. County Ordinance 01-0128-08 approves a comprehensive plan amendment for the Master Planned Resort at Black Point. In the ordinance,the county sets out certain conditions in 63 a)through dd). There is no clear accounting in this proposal of if and/or how each condition has been met. Without a clear listing of the conditions and references to parts of the large, complex FSEIS that meet each condition,there is no way for the public and for county officials to look at the mitigation to see if it is appropriate. You cannot approve any plan when you do not know if it meets the specific county ordinance. You must choose the No Action Alternative. Fiscal and Economic Impacts of Destination Resorts in Oregon k f 2 A S s 2 F z pax ,d+ „ . k,m ' r Px t . 4 -f Y j or ry t fit"-.Y+l nPt ah' ur w t2''t' i1E47,;1t4k 'SIA-`.a.,,.';`,,:',4',.`;`-'y .^rSrcu+ .-Pi, @ Y„ S iYz Gpiis f' le JAN d 6 2€116 March 2009 Fiscal and Economic Impacts of Destination Resorts in Oregon March 2009 For: Central Oregon LandWatch By: Eben Fodor FODOR&ASSOCIATES LLc Community Planning Consulting Eugene, Oregon www.FodorandAssociates.com With research and analysis by David Hinkley Cover photo credit:Sandy Lonsdale Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page I Table of Contents Introduction 3 1. Destination Resorts in Oregon 4 2. The Thornburgh Resort Case Study 12 3.Thornburgh Fiscal Impact Analysis 13 4. Revenues from the Thornburgh Resort 17 Property Taxes 17 Room Taxes 22 5. Thornburgh Resort Costs 24 Transportation System Costs 27 School Facilities Costs 40 Fire & EMS System Costs 48 Public Safety System Costs 53 Parks & Rec. System Costs 59 General Government Facilities 64 6. Fiscal Impact Summary 67 Revenue Summary 67 Costs of Facilities 67 Services Impacts 68 Fiscal Impact Conclusions 69 7. Thornburgh Resort's Economic Impacts 70 Job Creation and Employment Impacts 71 Who Will Fill New Resort Jobs: Locals or Newcomers? 76 Housing Impacts of Thornburgh Resort 78 Spending by Destination Resorts 81 Economic Risks 83 Economic Impact Conclusions 85 8. Implications for Impacts ofDestination Resorts in Oregon 86 Appendices 89 A-1. Property Tax Explanation 90 A-2. Transient Room Tax Explanation 94 A-3. Population Projection Used in Study 98 A-4. Tax Bases for Jurisdictions Used in Study 99 A-5. About the Authors 100 Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 2 Introduction The recent proliferation of destination resorts, and the number of new resorts currently being proposed in Oregon, raises concerns about the potential impacts of these resort on local communities, cities and counties. Based on a literature review performed as part of the research for this study,there are no independent,third- party studies evaluating destination resort impacts. The only readily-available sources ofinformation are the resort developers'own studies prepared as part ofthe land-use application materials. This report represents the best effort to date to assess the impact of destination resorts in Oregon. It is a complex task and there are an almost unlimited number of potential impact areas that could be studied. To establish a manageable scope of work within the project budget,the focus of this study is on the fiscal impacts of resorts. Fiscal impacts are those that affect local governments and local taxpayers. They include both the tax revenues that will be generated and the costs to provide the services and infrastructure required to support the development. In addition to fiscal impacts, the economic impact of destination resorts was evaluated in terms of job creation and housing impacts. This study does not address any of the environmental or social impacts associated with residential and recreational development of resorts in the State. Instead this study focuses on the monetary(fiscal and economic) impacts these destination resorts have on the local communities where they are being built. In order to study resort impacts in detail,the proposed Thornburgh Resort in Deschutes County was used as a case study. The Thornburgh Resort is to be located near Redmond and just west of the existing Eagle Crest Resort. The Thornburgh Resort would be a medium-sized resort and was considered to be fairly typical of past and future resorts in the State. This report is intended to be transparent. All sources of information are documented and all the calculations and methodologies are explicit. Where data were not available,reasonable assumptions were made. These assumptions are also clearly stated. In some cases,where good data were not available, alternative scenarios were used to examine a range of possible conditions. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 3 I. Destination Resorts in Oregon Destination resorts typically involve 500 to 3000 single-family homes and various recreational amenities, such as golf courses and clubhouses,in an attractive natural setting located away from existing cities and growth centers. The term "destination resort"has a unique legal meaning in Oregon. Special status was given to "Destination Resorts" allowing them outside urban growth boundaries under Goal 8 (Recreational Needs)of the Land Use Planning Program.' This action appears to be based on the assumption that the tourism benefits would outweigh the costs associated with this form of rural development. In 1987,provisions for destination resorts were enacted into state law and codified in Oregon Revised Statutes(ORS) 197.435 through 197.467. According to ORS 197.440: The Legislative Assembly finds that: 1) It is the policy ofthis state to promote Oregon as a vacation destination and to encourage tourism as a valuable segment ofour state's economy; 2) There is a growing need to provide year-round destination resort accommodations to attract visitors and encourage them to stay longer. The establishment of destination resorts will provide jobs for Oregonians and contribute to the state's economic development; 3) It is a difficult and costly process to site and establish destination resorts in rural areas ofthis state;and 4) The siting ofdestination resortfacilities is an issue ofstatewide concern. The State Legislature attempted to enforce the tourism aspects of these developments by requiring a certain minimum amount of overnight accommodations and certain visitor-oriented facilities? The intent was apparently that without such requirements,destination resorts would likely be little more than the classic,sprawling rural subdivisions that the Land Use Program was intended to prevent. However it is unclear that resorts are actually meeting their overnight accommodations requirements due to a lack of reporting and enforcement mechanisms. In spite of State requirements, residential lots and private homes outnumber overnight accommodations by more than two to one. Residential lot sales represent the primary feature of existing and proposed destination resorts. Questions remain as to whether the destination resorts are essentially rural subdivisions that are increasingly having adverse impacts on cities, counties and the state that are not Goal 8:Recreational Needs(OAR 660-015-0000(8)). 2 State Law requires that destination resorts permanently allocate one overnight housing unit for every two residential units in Western Oregon and two overnight units for every five residential units in Eastern Oregon(see ORS 197.445(4)). Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 4 adequately offset by tourism benefits. Our literature review found no studies examining these impacts in detail,other than those prepared by the individual resort developers themselves. So we are left with an inadequate understanding of the full impacts these development are having across the State. The Growth of Destination Resorts Destination resorts have proliferated rapidly in the State and will have increasingly significant impacts,both positive and negative. At this point,Oregon has eight existing resorts,most of which are historic or pre-Goal 8 resorts. Another seven are approved and under construction,and thirteen more have been proposed. Figure 1-1 shows these existing,approved and proposed resorts on a map of the State. Central Oregon shows the highest concentration of resorts in all stages of development. Southern Oregon and the Coast are also seeing resort development. Deschutes County has seen far more resort development than any other county,but Crook, Jefferson and Jackson counties are also seeing a high level of resort development. Figure 1-1: Destination Resorts in Oregon by Status Columbia id4Chibcha Hood River 4 Multnomah ShermanWashington1111111r WaloweTglamook YamhM ClackamasFor go Unbn Mixon Polk E"...•WacoMarlon Lincolnii me. Jonsson Wheeler Baker Benton aim Mrh tart.. w.ern. Linn Am...Grant Woine BuaatnIt111...117111...117amara . F Ferwa Balding artYan rem..swot Iming vYa+ va a Lane tee..*under 0.1 Crook '.. Deschutes O Pmpn,.d 0Abandonedow P Coos Douglas Lake Harney Malheur OH. .m. Josephine. Jackson Klamath Pa lY ®n7„„zfl1 li t St.V*yRwWnxl /...• Mlamlost Soma q pTn y IYYMIk Soun•e:Toby B.yard Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 5 Table 1-1 provides a more-detailed summary of destination resorts that are completed, under construction,and proposed in the State. The land use and housing unit data from this table is illustrated graphically in Figures 1-2 and 1-3. It is evident that destination resorts are expanding rapidly. If the recently-approved and proposed resorts are built, Oregon's destination resort capacity will approximately triple. The rapid growth in destination resorts raises a number of questions. Is there going to be a market demand for so much resort capacity?Will new resorts compete with established resorts and undermine their viability?And will the economies of Central Oregon and other popular resort locations become vulnerable in the event of a possible downturn or collapse of the resort market? Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 6 Table 1-1 Destination Resorts in Oregon,January 200911) Overnight Existing Resorts Goal 8? County Acres Homesites Unitst'1 Total Units Bandon Dunes Goal 2 exception Coos 2,000 600 150 750 Eagle Crest Yes Deschutes 1,772 891 585 1,476 Sunriver/Crosswater No Deschutes 3,310 3,220 936 4,156 Black Butte Pre-Goal Deschutes 1,300 1,251 425 1,676 Inn of the Seventh Mt. Pre-Goal Deschutes 310 20 210 230 Running Y Ranch Yes Klamath 6,000 896 305 1,201 Otter Crest Pre-Goal Lincoln 35 144 130 274 Salishan Pre-Goal Lincoln 750 369 0 369 Subtotal: 15,477 7,391 2,741 10,132 Under Construction Brasada Ranch Yes Crook 1,800 600 300 900 Hidden Canyon Yes Crook 3,250 2,450 1,225 3,675 Remington Ranch Yes Crook 2,079 800 400 1,200 Caldera Springs Yes Deschutes 390 320 160 480 Pronghom Yes Deschutes 640 430 215 645 Tetherow Yes Deschutes 698 379 298 677 Paradise Ranch Yes Josephine 320 200 67 267 Subtotal: 9,177 5,179 2,665 7,844 Proposed Resorts Crossing Trails Yes Crook 580 490 240 730 Pacific Rogue Ranch No Curry 592 500 150 650 Aspen Lakes Yes Deschutes 550 300 100 400 Skyline Forest No Deschutes 1,500 950 0 950 Thomburg Yes Deschutes 1,970 950 425 1,375 Heaven's Gate Yes Douglas 500 200 200 400 Hidden Valley Ranchl 1 Yes Jackson 883 TBD TBD TBD Table Rock Yes Jackson 2,100 1,200 600 1,800 Ponderosa Land&Cattle Yes Jefferson 3,500 2,500 1,000 3,500 The Metolianl2l Yes Jefferson 640 450 180 630 Crescent Creek Ranch Yes Klamath 5,000 1,965 785 2,750 Naples Gott& Beach Yes Lincoln 576 1,155 0 1,155 Elkhorn Estates Yes Marion 464 150 40 190 Subtotal: 18,855 10,810 3,720 14,530 Totals: 43,509 23,380 9,126 32,506 1)Data Compiled by Toby Bayard and COLW on 2/25/09 2)Data on numberof units notfinal at this time(TBD is to be determined). 3)Dweling units only.Hotel rooms were not Included in the overnightunits when information was availableto separate them from dwelling units.Where data forthe numberof overnight units was not available,required State minimums were applied to Goal 8 resorts. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 7 Figure 1-2 Destination Resort Acres Total=43,509 acres Under Construction, Existing Resorts, 15,477 Proposed, 18,855 Figure 1-3 Destination Resort Housing Units Homes &Overnight Units) Under Construction, Existing Resorts, 7,844 10,132 ill Proposed, 14,530 Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 8 The Destination Resort Controversy The booming growth in destination resorts has led to increasing concern about their impacts and more questions than answers. Do we need more destination resorts,or do we have too many already?Are these resorts beneficial to the local economy,or are they just generating profits for a few and low-wage jobs for the rest? Are local governments reaping giant tax windfalls, or are they incurring more costs than they can recover?Are resorts allowing more Oregonians to vacation in beautiful rural areas,or are they destroying the beauty of the landscape and rural character Oregonians currently enjoy?Are resorts well-planned developments that are carefully integrated with the natural environment,or are they just low-density rural sprawl and ecological disasters that threaten ground water and destroy habitat? Regardless of the answers to these questions,opposition to new resorts has grown. For example,last year residents of conservative,rural Crook County voted 2 to 1 to halt the spread of resorts in that county. According to an editorial in The Oregonian newspaper,3 Crook County opponents have some justification in warning that these projects are essentially large subdivisions under the guise ofdestination resorts. They will, as critics complain, have a significant impact on the county's vehicle traffic,water supply and wildlife habitat. Prineville boosters ofthe new resorts correctly point out that they contribute heavily through property taxes and create hundreds ofjobs. But opponents are equally correct in noting that the influx ofhomes will inflate land values,putting unwelcome pressure onfarmland and making housing unaffordable for workers who willfill all those low-paying new jobs. fobs for Whom? In spite of high unemployment in Central Oregon, alarming information was reported in the Bend Bulletin last year that many of the local resorts were hiring from outside the U.S. to fill their jobs.'According to the article, instead hiring locally,the Sunriver Resort actively recruited foreign workers at overseas job fairs,hiring 85 workers from countries such as Lithuania,Brazil and Mexico. Inn of the Seventh Mountain hired 11 workers from Jamaica and Indonesia. Other resorts may be doing the same. Even ifsome resorts are not hiring foreigners,studies show that many of the new jobs they create will go to newcomers rather than locals.' 3"Putting the Brakes on Destination Resorts,"editorial,The Oregonian,May 27,2008. Unemployment might be high,but resorts still struggle to fill some jobs," The Bulletin,May 11, 2008. s See: Who Benefitsfrom LocalJob Growth,Migrants or the Original Residents,by Timothy J.Bartik, Regional Studies,vol.27,No.4, 1993. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 9 Resort or Rural Subdivision? It is increasingly clear that the primary incentive for building destination resorts is the traditional profit resulting from the real estate sales of residential lots. Developers rarely build more tourism accommodations than they are required to provide by law. The resort-oriented features appear to be little more than the vehicle by which the subdivision is allowed. Certainly the golf courses and resort amenities enhance the value ofthe residential lots,but developers recognize that the resort components are marginal,risky and often unprofitable investments. Meeting the tourism-oriented overnight accommodation requirements of Goal 8 has been challenging for resort developers. Newer resorts are focused more on residential lot sales and less on tourism accommodations. There has been an increased use of smaller,lower-cost units, such as hotels and timeshares,to meet overnight lodging requirements.' Resorts that are close to urban areas may end up functioning more like suburbs. The Eagle Crest Resort, for example,is less than six miles from downtown Redmond, making urban amenities and jobs just a 10-minute drive away. Some resorts may evolve into rural communities or towns of their own. The Hidden Canyon Resort for example,which will be located in Powell Butte(Crook County),will have a population roughly equal to that of the City ofMadras,if it is fully developed. The proposed Ponderosa Resort could have a population three times that of the City of Sisters. Effects of the National Recession The dramatic expansion ofthe destination resort industry in Oregon has been fueled in part by a booming real estate market that seemed to have no end. Ten years of unprecedented growth peaked in 2007 and has declined rapidly since. The economic models for destinations resorts were based on assumptions of continued high land values,high real estate demand,and rapidly expanding tourism. However, the ongoing collapse of the inflated national real estate bubble and the ensuing economic downturn requires that these assumptions be revised. In the past,the residential lots in a destination resort have been largely purchased by individuals as second homes and investment properties. The current economic recession will contract the market for second homes and will reduce the appeal of real estate investing. Unless the national economy has an unexpected,dramatic recovery,more and more potential homebuyers will be economically constrained. Potential tourists are likely to reduce travel and shun expensive vacations to save 6 See:Destination Resort Siting,a presentation by Bob Cortright,DLCD in Prineville,October 15, 2008,htto://www.oreuon.aov/LCD/docs/rulemaking/101508/item4 au D.pdf. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 10 money.'A Central Oregon economic forecast shows tourism to be"extremely weak" and contracting through at least the end of 2010! Owners of second homes may find the cost of owning two homes to be too expensive. Under this scenario,it is likely that more ofthe lots created in destination resorts will be purchased for primary residences. We may see a similar shift in existing resorts, with more second homes and rental properties changing to primary residences. Resort developers may respond to the weak economy by downscaling homes to make them more affordable as primary residences. Infrastructure Needs The residential component of the destination resort functions much like any subdivision in a rural area. It is removed from the retail services and amenities people require. It is lacking adequate infrastructure and services required by an urban population. Greater travel distances are required for commuting and meeting daily needs. This generates demand for more roads with more capacity.When traffic growth is projected in Central Oregon,including destination resorts, the funding gap to bring the state highways to standards for traffic congestion is approximately$750 million over the next 20 years.' Resorts located close to cities and towns run the risk ofbecoming more residential, as residents have access to the nearby urban amenities homeowners desire. The proposed Thornburgh Resort is to be located approximately seven miles from Redmond. Such resorts may have the effect of attracting higher-end housing away from the cities,which undermines the cities'property tax base while increasing their effective populations and adding to demands for more roads and schools. County and municipal governments will be severely squeezed for financial resources over the next few years as a result of: Decreasing property values that reduce property tax revenues; A weak economic outlook that may reduce other sources ofincome; Government costs increasing at rates exceeding Measure 47 and 50 limits on property tax increases of 3%; and, Decreasing Federal payments to counties in lieu of timber revenues. Will the new destination resorts be a golden goose,or the straw that breaks the camel's back?Fiscal impact analysis can provide the answer. Early reports indicate that major tourism destinations such as Las Vegas are seeing significantly lower tourism resulting from the recession.Gaming revenues there are down 25.8%,room rates have declined 14.3%,and many construction projects have been canceled or scaled back,according to the Los Angeles Times(published in The Register-Guard Newspaper,12/26/08). Presentation: United States and Central Oregon Economic Review and Forecast,by Dr.Bill Watkins, Executive Director,UCSB Economic Forecast Project,January 2009,http://www.ucsb- efa.cam/PPT/2009/OR Watkins.00t. 9 Source: Gary Farnsworth(ODOT),Meeting Minutes for Central Oregon Area Commission on Transportation,COACT,September 13,2007,page 3. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page I I 2. The Thornburgh Resort Case Study In order to examine the impacts of destination resorts in detail,a typical resort was selected for in-depth analysis. The proposed Thornburgh Resort has a similar profile to most of the resorts in Oregon. It is typical in terms of its size and mix of development. It is to be located in Deschutes County,home to more destination resorts than any other county in the State. Due to its pending application,extensive current materials are available on the planned resort. As shown in Table 2-1,the proposed Thornburgh Resort is to have 950 residential ownership units and 425 overnight units,for a total of 1,375 residential units. The application proposes a 50-room hotel with restaurant,three golf courses,recreational facilities,and retail space. Table 2-1: Thornburgh Resort Profile for Impact Analysis Peterson Land Use Economic Report Application Used in Impact Metric 1/2005) 2/2005) Study Total acres 1,980 1,970 1,970 Acres open space (incl. Golf) No info 1,293 1,281(1) Residential ownership units 1,400 950 950 Residential overnight units Unclear 425 425 Hotel rooms 100 50 50 Golf courses (regulation 18-hole)3 3 3 Golf courses—par 3 1 0 0 Other facilities: Retail space 20,000 ft2 20,000 ft2 Real Estate Sales office 15,000 ft2 15,000 ft2 Hotel and restaurant 75,000 ft2 75,000 ft2 Recreational 60,000 ft2 60,000 ft2 Convention facility, Unspecified size Assumed part business center of hoteVrest. Water system 6 new wells, 2 6 new wells, 2 reservoirs reservoirs Sewer system 2 drain fields 2 drain fields 1)From Final Master Plan. Since the Thornburgh Resort is unbuilt,certain types of data were not available. For example,the ultimate occupancy rates and vehicle trip generation rates were unavailable. To reflect the most likely scenario for the Thornburgh Resort at full buildout,data was used from the nearby Eagle Crest Resort. Eagle Crest appears to have a similar profile in terms of the mix of uses and relative price ranges for lots and homes. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 12 3. Thornburgh Fiscal Impact Analysis Fiscal impact analysis generally refers to the evaluation of the financial and budgetary effects ofalternative land uses or public policies on local governmental jurisdictions or other local service providers. These may include cities,counties, school districts,special-purpose districts,water and wastewater service districts,and regional authorities. Sometimes state governments are also impacted. While the focus of fiscal impact analysis is on government revenues and costs, the broader public policy question is: How will this action or decision affect local taxpayers and the general public?Answers to this broader question allow elected officials to determine how the proposed action will affect local tax rates or the quality of local services. This question tends to be one of most interesting to local voters and the public in general. As shown in Figure 3-1, the fiscal impact analysis compares the changes in revenues with the changes in costs of a local government entity that result from an action or decision. Revenues include taxes,fees and other income. Costs include operation services)and maintenance(O&M)and new or expanded capital facilities and equipment. Figure 3-1: Diagram of fiscal impacts of land development on local government Fodor&Associates). Revenues Costs Local Property Taxes Government Operation(services) Other Taxes maintenance Other Revenue Capital Facilities& fees, permits,etc.) City, County or Equipment School District) Usually local governments must balance their budgets so that costs don't exceed revenues. While this is true for government services,it is not the case for major capital expenditures. Local governments may issue general obligation bonds for new capital facilities that enable them to carry debt. General obligation debt is a reasonable way to finance facilities that have a broad public benefit. However,when the new facilities are constructed primarily to serve new development,an inherent Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 13 inequity results,and all taxpayers pay to fund facilities that benefit a small segment of the population. One solution to this problem is the LID,or local improvement district,that limits funding ofimprovements to the beneficiaries. Another is the impact fee, or system development charge(SDC) in Oregon,that directly recovers some or all of the costs associate with providing certain facilities to new development. Deschutes County also uses "Community Service Districts"to assess the costs of some public safety, fire protection and library services directly to the geographic districts they serve. Public Infrastructure Required by Thornburgh Resort Development Table 3-1 below summarizes the categories of infrastructure required by new development. The costs associated with all onsite facilities and services(such as local roads and utility lines)are assumed to be borne by the developer. Only the offsite impacts are examined here. Ofthese,transportation and schools typically represent the greatest costs,so much of the analysis work focused on these two categories. Table 3-1: Basic Public Infrastructure Required by New Development All Categories Evaluated Transportation System Yes School Facilities Yes Fire & EMS Facilities Yes Police Facilities Yes Parks & Rec. Facilities Yes Sanitary Sewer System NA Storm Drainage System NA Water Service Facilities NA Library Facilities No General Gov. Facilities Yes Solid Waste Facilities No Public Open Space No The Deschutes County Code10 requires that the resort developer pay for onsite water and sewer systems, so it was assumed that the costs associated with these facilities and services are borne by the resort and its future residents and visitors. The long- term viability ofthese onsite water and sewer systems is unclear. For example,the current plans indicate that the resort's sewer system will rely on drain field disposal for an indefinite period oftime. This method of disposal can contaminate groundwater and has a limited lifespan. The high water demand from the resort may Deschutes County Code,Chapter 18.113.Destination Resorts Zone—DR. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 14 deplete local groundwater supplies and the resort may be obliged to indemnify nearby landowners. The County has no requirements for offsite stormwater management facilities or services, so it was assumed that onsite stormwater management will not have offsite fiscal impacts. These resort developments are contingent on provision of open space within the development." Therefore,additional open space needs may not be generated by the development.' However, any new residential development is likely to increase demands for certain County parks and recreational facilities,so these impacts were included in the study. Electric power,natural gas,telecommunications, and solid waste disposal services to the resort are operated by private businesses. These services also require offsite infrastructure investments. Such costs tend to be added to the utility rates that are paid by all customers, not just resort residents. The costs associated with increased rates for these services were not included in the study because they are not public- sector costs and because it is difficult to obtain the necessary revenue and cost data from private companies. Impact Analysis Methodology In order to evaluate the potential impacts of the Thornburgh Resort, two scenarios are compared: unbuilt and full buildout. The unbuilt scenario assumes no change in current land use. The full buildout scenario assumes the resort is entirely built out all proposed facilities are built and all lots are developed with homes). In all likelihood the resort will take many years to build out and may have undeveloped lots remaining long after most construction is completed. To simplify the impact analysis,both the unbuilt and full buildout scenarios were compared for the year 2008. This simplification enables a direct comparison of before and after costs and revenues and eliminates the time-values of various cash flows in different years. By comparing built and unbuilt scenarios,the vagaries of uncertain approval dates and construction schedules are eliminated. It is intuitively more useful to consider the alternatives of a resort that is either built or unbuilt under current economic and fiscal conditions than to consider one option today and the other 12 years in the future. A destination resort creates both direct and induced impacts. As described in the Economic Impacts section ofthis report, a resort induces additional growth and According to Deschutes County Code,DDC 18.113.060(DX1),"The resort shall have a minimum of50 percent of the total acreage ofthe development dedicated to permanent open space,excluding yards,streets and parking areas."Golf courses are considered open space. 11 Increased use ofpublic lands surrounding resorts by resort residents is common.For example,the Pronghorn Resort recommended that their property owners use adjoining BLM land for exercising dogs in a recent newsletter. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 15 development beyond its physical boundaries. This is primarily the result of new jobs created at the resort.Many ofthese jobs will be filled by newcomers who will require additional housing and have fiscal impacts oftheir own. In this study the induced impacts were evaluated only for schools.All other impact areas reflect only the direct fiscal impacts of onsite development within the resort. The induced impact on schools was addressed because student generation will be significantly increased by influx of new workers at the resort and this information may be useful to school districts for facilities planning purposes. All revenue and cost figures are given in 2008 dollars and values. Costs from other years were adjusted to 2008 values based on the appropriate inflation index or construction cost index. Tax rates were based on the 2008-09 rates. The most recent available data was used throughout the analysis. It is important to note that from an accounting perspective, there are two basic types of costs and revenues: annual streams that occur every year,and one-time costs or payments. Tax revenues and service costs represent the former. Infrastructure costs and any associated System Development Charges are treated as the later. As soon as a new resort development is completed,the residents and visitors will need adequate road capacity,classroom space for their children,fire protection,and public safety services,so these facilities must be in place. There are a number ofstandard methods for estimating the demand for new facilities and infrastructure a new development will generate. Each method has advantages and drawbacks. The methods used here were selected to yield the best estimates of demand given the limitations of available data. In most cases the capacity of services and infrastructure must be adequate to serve peak demands. For example,police and fire protection capacity must be adequate to meet peak demand periods,not just average demand. In such cases, the demand for public facilities was based on peak season resort occupancy,rather than average occupancy. The terms "gross"and "net"are used to describe costs and revenues in this report. In the case of costs, a gross cost would be the total cost to provide a particular facility or service,while the net cost would be the gross cost,minus any payment or revenue from the resort towards that facility or service. In other words,it is the balance of costs after any revenues are deducted. Tax revenues are treated as gross revenues because they are used to pay for government costs. The net revenue for a particular service, if any, is the surplus left over after the costs ofproviding the service are deducted. The fiscal impact reporting begins by evaluating the revenues the resort is likely to generate from property taxes and room taxes. Then the costs are addressed.And finally, the costs are compared with the revenues to determine net impacts. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 16 4. Revenues from the Thornburgh Resort A significant selling point for new destination resorts has been the tax revenues they will generate for county governments. As described later, increased tax revenues are offset by increased costs for public facilities and services required by the resort. In this analysis,both property tax revenues and transient room tax revenues are estimated for the proposed Thornburgh Resort. Property Taxes The Thornburgh Resort Company LLC submitted a report by Peterson Economics, of El Cerrito,California,which provided their estimate ofproperty tax revenues,but made no estimate of room taxes. The property tax revenue estimate provided by the developer was approximately three times greater than the revenue calculated here. This was partly due to use of overinflated real estate values that may have seemed realistic during the 2004-2005 boom period,but are out of line with current real estate prices and the assessed values at the nearby Eagle Crest Resort.13 The annual property tax figures by Peterson were also inflated at an annual 3%rate over the 12- year construction phase so that the final annual tax revenues at completion were given for the year 2016 and are much higher than they would be today. The taxes calculated here are based on the revenues that would be generated if the resort were fully completed in 2008 under the 2008-09 tax rates. Tables 4-1 and 4-2 summarize the estimated property tax revenues from the residential and commercial properties planned for the Thornburgh Resort. The combined total property tax revenues are$5.1 million per year based on a total assessed value of approximately$375 million, as shown in Table 4-3.14 The$5.1 million tax revenue estimate is about one-third of the amount estimated by the applicant in the Peterson Report.15 However the figure calculated here is in line with data reported by other sources for actual tax revenues from other resorts.'6 In order to determine where tax revenues will go in Deschutes County,the individual tax rates for each taxing district applicable to the resort were used and the 13 Eagle Crest Resort is considered to be comparable to the proposed Thornburgh Resort in terms of its real estate values. 1i Assessed values are for tax purposes and not the same as real market values. 15 For comparison purposes,the tax revenues estimated by the applicant in the Peterson Report were adjusted from the 2016 buildout year back to 2008,resulting in an estimate by Peterson of 17,500,000 per year. 16 Tax revenues were reported for 2005-06 tax year by Linda Swearingen(a lobbyist and consultant for destination resorts)for various resorts in a presentation to the League ofWomen Voters, November 2005.She reported annual tax revenues for Eagle Crest at$4,096,058 and for Black Butte at$6,315,414. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 17 results provided in Table 4-4. Technical details on the methodology used for property tax calculations are provided in the Appendix to this report. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 18 N m 2 C gcs m co R r a FF0 8, 4 a) pp,, LL7r c a = aY N 913 i . 3a w i a4 Ci r ch et V 3 w v0 oQ 4949 N 8 CO 46' EoNTs OC O N d p T COG pp EL = N C 0 N m0 N wgNg= ti 1..-0 =W H y H cN _ GminS5ed . EoRS2a3 32cos 3 O csH g oE S i- A m a 3 7 cdNzi OI w E N as y CA CO . 3 o o O • J a N_ A vv s q E E N V cn E ' r r Cco — f7 O Q LQ a o Az coQRyjeaNz ICo Q CX. N v N N w U v n a a Si VN7EdTNaCCOO a. N g.a',B .4 a y gn. b G co m 4 -5 o 2 crani H a5 c 2 g d C = = 6. U) in a9 uCVcsi o m dy 'S £r i. a = pj{ IR b m 4949 a H CI o 0 m ga rr -.cE 0 O cl.— cc d CEJ o.P L_cE ' pop 2 t2PN3a 18 Q F .U C T•V N N N •A N L g.'vsi g .0 s d • o C O O Q N V 9 O N 34 lO, d y s 1 A O.- A • G O nS73 a O 4 G3 co E' /5 0 0 y .B H !9 o S A A cA m C Q O O a CN C O U U ff. N RI ccas o - r i 0YpE: E E cc$E-1 N m 49 49 c .R. a - 73 N e c< al too `a E c xs 30 s e9 co Oi aD V g a E 01 N ve m A a _ r y3 = ' 0.o 19_.n v Lc Le P d Y Aja O O C 6t JPg 998 O.t O a 0?eN Ameaida O vd — to ¢ eN+, ci tpp oAm •N5 0,4Msmr2 E 4949 0' o. igm Ea C.a.- gaC 4gCCas63E °8Z' es-e pr^v SI RI y aya ® e = oho wain o- Vl A N A D A 0. a.:s = =•Q A L Z.Q E - O o A N=1 ra c e ON9 04' N '42 V O. 413 G pp 0 N o & a AZ'2L!G p Oil ae Shu E cd E c = o E W r-Y.c ffC47 w Xe N2Ao o49497' as ycoE L Ii oC' -0 U CI w r n v E c u A = CC... •b u G a O 12 l g us pp co a u7 O N X 3i 3a 25 ' c n=.c O a..' i E CM LO m• .9 =m ma a = 5c wU-Bdc E n o W ZO 0. ca $a0. o¢ Nd.wca.2o yyC 0-E craw, Aoiun'6C mpcc=7a a m T.az m a Gi o LAI E y c c c ig Am.3 v c w Gycf aa o s 0¢F 9 W ea mrNN0. C.E a C.]_. C 2 'Cp p C re Q co• N C N N¢ Q•Np L A Gat 2 C c E%cc = = 2 a 4 o E A 3 en0g a a ;Nv g +'=Baa 'c A A 5 w E A 6¢aO3 O as G c c a' E.tC0 r3 E Q .1C c.t" I. RS E $ nm ui nmv = 4 c; QO' 55 IV= = °U6]Od '2C YN w vNmU v iaVJET,SGG GC Q c6 Nd V O& w d Cr Cr Z vV''„ 4 W t, `- v.. E 2 CD C7 C9 N CD rs. M MN. Q Q CO c)M o Is d A mLnooNcDLn0101. 3 rm d L taV43V)CO CO CD Mr CO04 r r 69 1fl 69 to d9 R S <J E C7 O. N t!9 h o o E QsojeN a c 5 a Lc) CO M CD 069 10.- LO CD0') CO r m rel $ oOQOMLnQCDm@dvC) G dF = CO r V N. U, r- M .. n r M M M N C) N _ACTIDr69696969to69 c r acFOtgooO w a5 E Q mdNEma oQD. m im g s g N =la 0O 5a H= QQQ QvetQ F.a. E $ m 0Co00000oadmm I.. C7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d L+? = m cp I-• 2 69 69 69 69 69 69 G9 a t0 C- 1 R O. 0. Zr., d g .1 Yt c a N- CQ) r- 0C) C) C) OC) o Q m= in 0 CO CO C) M C) C) CJ O) N d ae 0 E- 3 c.) D. E O g CI O^ C N LA a' S M s s w 3 m O. M N z er N V CO C un cv N CCD m '8 ? y'Q a' v .T CD = CO N N N r N r L 32 E pM. 'C f95 R 49 to to a9 as 6967 0 vi d `a m .n ej OQ. 0 'a IA = p p q y d d Du L m n C Q. E C o w= ^ = = £ d is ' R O O O C O C O O O 1a rm o o a' c. 0 O CO COCO o nr co E E a3 -0 0 p£ _ C5 0 O e R C) co"0 M M ccC'7 m = .fl i:.w 'Q¢CL CV C Ng r C L~C) COQVM ti LLD Mr Z C = a 8 m .`8Con n O C) O r 69 d9 b96J9 Me [!9EF1OSC7 Vi c' a, •N °'m C ya1dOddmeLwA3OdydF.,Co G Fi F- C T O C i a V w eV >' o d v35!] m .E a N ec2 z' OOO O O OO w £ E1 ° Aa aeq o -o +a 0000000 f=° = du m = Zt 0000000 L d C a " C-"3C dEi4000000000 .0ao a b 9• m ed Y O O o 0 0 0 0 0 d = 0. m U c O g0omS0000000eaa 0rm >a,p ca d Ln .c C7 Lf; e7 eh c-a' aCa 'iu 4' NggONam. b9 N96969 C9 /A m2cso 2:a 5 n 0 C`Ea "9 O = N 6 9i !ucE .s ni£ O mrm 22' SCC E e Q wy oM N 3d r o m nems a, Ga02 al E N it 9-ar2C Omg C „'w L o a) E oo uo' 0000 d qk w C end d d' N 5 y O V CO CO O Q CO 1pp~ O `1 ; G A, FU m e6 d 'C m 4 W r a cCl O'i co-; C9 co CEJ iCN'z ' >d =d•gi m om H IJrm aCOnQMNnCOeaccomdJrLn0) Q N- Ln `Cr Ca_a+n n ' t D YCCN6.9 64 696969 d p& p vi o E § 0.o -eV e 11) v•-•E es 71 A 4/7 til a« m y A s ¢ d Y i'r LL. CO to O m h . C w 0* m Vl0 .73 m V3oa E yw S-8Jpa '00'00 a c =$ Y! m 511 Say's'c c c C d E = rN Mr Nrr p3 w m 5 'p Cv 'N,''y, CL r n! d d 2. _.p O d o d 0 Z a aogg e.,A =0QvC pp o='...e O d 0..m 0a0 OcN CScmm Dae' C pE miTe gs 2aa o ca-O0Oo oo yIM21m = E C]y 0 Om 0000 ty z9 a y( oS cs n L R d C y 3 y= N m. m T O= la m la mV@@' G a-^^ v rm 5 m oo' s 'm c m a O c „ =2E K N O G 9 ....8O d N y ay N O O w 0 0 Om 0 0 C W d N C. Oa 3 m AC'yp cc a. .l SO CO 6 Y d N0 En• -ms}} t$ y v ...1 o.{ Q1d .R a y 0 t oa e v mm o nm ,00a a T 0 o o ' C7 O rm m m o e n a'y c ei£ y CC C:o ccs''' g at 0 O O m toG = e, V 0 N Coq m 5 c 5 v'o sn o va L0esR! OGJ Om a A.O dy C mm trN mInl()Ou) g. t6)D V LL e E W m s a eO. m C 4Nv-N 1c a O O O Q N O N p q= y r,m y O r N of*of-in f 0- = CS CD CO CC CDS 20 et'-L--.64.'..£'L¢e m 0' Table 4-3 Estimated Total Property Tax Revenues from Thornburgh Resort Assumes full buildout and 2008-09 tax rates and property values) Property Type Total Assessed Value Annual Property Taxes Residential Property 344,313,750 4,677,150 Commercial Property 30,475,067 413,973 Totals: 374,788,817 5,091,123 Table 4-4 Distribution of Property Tax Revenues by Taxing Districts for Thornburgh(l) Assumes full buildout and 2008-09 tax rates.Thornburgh estimated total assessed value of$374,788,817) ID Tax District Tax Rate Property Taxest2) 001 Deschutes County 1.2783 464,720 007 Jail Bond 0.1335 48,533 010 Fairgrounds Bond 0.141 51,260 011 County Library 0.55 199,950 020 Countywide Law Enforcement 0.95 345,368 021 Rural Law Enforcement 1.4 508,963 070 Redmond Library 0.0567 20,613 090 County Extension/4H 0.0224 8,143 093 911 0.1618 58,822 095 911 Local Option 2008 0.23 83,615 202 Rural Fire District#1 1.7542 637,731 351 Redmond Area Park&Rec District 0.3717 135,130 620 School District#2J 5.0251 1,826,851 626 School #2J Bond 92 &93 0.8307 301,997 628 School #2J Bond 2004 0.293 106,519 651 High Desert ESDl31 0.0964 35,046 670 C0CC(4) 0.6204 225,543 671 COCC Bond 0.0889 32,319 Total 14.0041 5,091,123 1)Tax rates from Deschutes County 2008-09 Summary of Assessment and Tax Rob page 80. 2)Tax revenues=(AV/1000)x Tax Rate x 0.97.Amount to taxing districts assuming the property ownertakes advantage of the 3%discount for paying in full prior to 15 November. 3)High Desert Educational Service District. 4)Central Oregon Community College. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 21 Room Taxes Transient Room Tax revenues are generated from hotels and other overnight lodging facilities in Deschutes County. The tax rate is 7% of the total room charge payable to the County. As shown in Table 4-5,the estimated room tax revenue from the Thornburgh Resort is $430,296 per year. A complete technical explanation of room tax calculation is provided in the Appendix to the report. Currently room tax revenues are allocated to rural law enforcement and tourism,as shown in Table 4-6. Table 4-5 Estimated Transient Room Tax Revenues from Proposed Thornburgh Resort Assumes full buildout and 2008-09 tax rates and rental rates) Number Daily Estimated Estimated of Room Occupancy Tax Daily Tax Annual Tax Type of Unit Units"i Rate Ratej3l Rate141 Revenuef5i Revenue00 Hotel Rooms 50 121 29% 7% 123 44,827 Residential Overnight Units 425 $162 29% 7% 1,398 $408,115 Subtotal: $452,943 Less Collection Reimbursementt8l: ($22,647) Revenue to County: $430,296 1.Number of Units available as Visitor-Oriented Units is taken tram page 4 of the Revised Application dated April 21,2008. 2.Estimated Average Room Rate subject to the Room Tax.The rate for the Hotel is based on aweighted average of the rates for Hotels,Motels and Inns located in the Greater Redmond Area.The Inn at Eagle Crest showed standard room rates of$95 to$126 per night,depending on season.The rate for Residential Overnight Units Is the average of the daily ratefor 39 units in the Greater Redmond Oregon Area currently listed on the Vacation Rentals by Ownerwebsiteforthearea.Twenty-eight of these were located in Eagle Crest Resort. 3.While the total monthly Transient Room tax receipts are available,actual occupancy data is extremely difficult to came by.So an occupancy rate of 90% was assumed for the month of August and then adjusted for the other months based on Total Transient Room Taxes paid to the County for that month.From this an average annual occupancy rate of 29%for al rental types was derived. This table was also run assuming an annual occupancy rate of 100%,and 50%for both types of units.The resuting estimated revenue for Deschutes County was$1,818,010 for 100%and $909,005.13 for 50%annual occupancy rates. 4.The current Tax rate as set by Deschutes County Ordinance. 5.The number of units times the occupancy rate,limes the daily room rate,times 7%. 6.The estimated Daily Tax Revenue times 365 days.For residential units,an 80%reporting rate for room taxes was assumed.100%reporting was assumedforhotelrooms. 7.425 is the number of units that would be subjectto a deed restiictbn requiring thatthey be available for ShortTerm Rental at least 38 weeks a year.It is possible that some of the owners of the other 950 housing units in the resort might also want to rent their units at least some ofthelime,so the actual number of avatiable rental units could be higher. 8.Deschutes County Code 4.08.120 requires the operatorto bit the transient forthe Room Tax as a separate line Item on the invoice or receipt and allows the operator to retain a Collection Reimbursement Charge ofupto 5%of all revenues collected.While it is possible for an operatorto retain less then the full 5% permitted,for the purposes of this estimate a full 5%has been assumed. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 22 Table 4-6 Distribution of Room Tax Revenues to County Assumes full buildout and 2008-09 room tax rates and rental values) Share(t) Amount For Rural Law Enforcement 73% 314,116 For Tourism-Related Activities 27% 116,180 Total Room Tax Revenue 100% 430,296 1)This distribution assumes the same 73-27%spit as was used in the FY 2008-09 Budget for the County. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 23 5. Thornburgh Resort Costs This section examines the fiscal impacts of the proposed Thornburgh resort on the following six major service categories: Transportation System Schools Fire &EMS Public Safety System Parks &Recreation System General Government As described previously,costs occur in two basic categories: 1. Capital Costs: Initial,one-time costs for the increment of new or expanded capital(facilities, infrastructure and equipment) necessary to provide adequate levels of service to the resort; and, 2. O&M Costs: Annual costs for operation and maintenance(O&M)of the services provided to the resort. The capital costs for expanding facilities,infrastructure and equipment were calculated for all six of the above service categories. These capital costs tend to be the greatest costs associated with serving new development. The O&M costs for providing services were calculated for fire/EMS,public safety,and parks and recreation. The tax revenues for each of these service areas were also determined, so that service costs could be compared with revenues. For transportation and schools,revenues come from multiple sources(County, State and Federal)and are allocated based on formulas described in the following sections. Since revenues for these two categories could not be tied directly to the resort,it was not possible to compare the annual O&M costs with the revenues resulting from resort development. O&M costs were not calculated for general government services due to the complexity of assigning service costs to the resort. The cost impacts the resort will have on these systems may be offset by tax revenues and impact fees or mitigation fees the resort will pay. The only impact or mitigation fees identified in this study are related to the transportation system. Deschutes County enacted transportation SDC(system development charge)in 2008. The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) is seeking mitigation funding from the resort for impacts to intersections with state highways.Both of these potential revenues are computed and deducted from the transportation system costs. The County collects no other impact fees and the Redmond School District collects no impact fee from new development. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 24 The Thornburgh Resort is also credited with future tax payments that could potentially go towards repaying bonds for the infrastructure needs the resort creates. A new destination resort will increase the local tax base,which will distribute the bond repayment cost more widely. For example,if a new resort increases the local tax base by 5%, it will pay for 5% of the bond costs. The remaining 95%will be paid by the existing community.However,it is the new development that is creating the demand for new facilities that are calculated in this study, not the existing community. Therefore,new development will pay for only a fraction of the facility costs it creates (1/20th in this example). The actual 2008/09 tax bases for each category of service and the potential contribution of the resort towards future bond repayments is provided in the Appendix. To aid in calculating some costs, an estimate of the number of houses used as primary residences at the Thornburgh Resort and an occupancy rate of these residences was developed. Average occupancy per household in Deschutes County was 2.5 persons per the 2000 Census. The Census data is for all existing housing,and therefore does not accurately reflect the occupancy ofnew housing. New housing is typically larger than the average of exiting housing and typically has more occupants per unit. The American Housing Survey provides data on new homes for major cities in the US. The nearest city survey is for Portland where new housing units were found to have 8.2%higher occupancy levels than for all existing units." This same adjustment was applied to Deschutes County to produce an estimated household occupancy rate of 2.7 persons per new house. The percentage of housing in destination resorts used as primary residences has been the subject of some debate. Resort housing could be used for a primary residence,a second home(or vacation home), or a rental home(overnight unit). Undoubtedly,the mix of home uses will vary from resort to resort. The nearby Eagle Crest Resort appears to have a very similar profile to the proposed Thornburgh Resort and was used to establish a likely percentage of owner-occupied homes serving as primary residences. A complete tabulation of residential properties at Eagle Crest was generated by Deschutes County from County tax assessment data."There were 1,538 residential properties that were developed with homes on the tax rolls. Of these, 559 property owners received tax statements at their Eagle Crest address. Tax statements are usually sent to the property owner's primary residence,so this is highly indicative of a primary residence address. American Housing Surveyfor the Portland Metropolitan Area:2002,Issued July 2003,U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development. 18 Result from this tabulation were provided in Excel format to COLW by Tim Berg,Deschutes County Community Development Department on February 26,2009. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 25 According to a survey provided to the County by Eagle Crest Resort, an estimated 252 of the single family homes in the resort were being used as overnight units rental units)in March of 2008.t9 Deducting the 252 overnight units from the 1,538 total residential units leaves 1,286 owner-occupied units (both primary residences and second homes). Based on the addresses of the tax statements, the 559 primary residences represent 43%of the 1,286 owner-occupied units.The actual percentage of primary residences will be higher if some resort residents have tax bills sent to a post office box or to an accountant's address. 19 Letter from Alan VanVliet of Jeld-Wen Development to Catherine Morrow providing results of an annual housing survey, dated March 25,2008. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 26 Transportation System Costs A key issue in destination resort development is the demand they place on the transportation infrastructure. The new travel demand generated by resorts creates costs for the required transportation infrastructure. The full cost of the transportation infrastructure to serve new growth is reflected both in the new infrastructure that must be built and in the existing capacity that is consumed. Travel demand is a function of both the number of new vehicle trips generated and the average trip distance. The combination of the number of daily trips and the average distance of trips results in the daily"vehicle miles traveled"or VMT. VMT reflects actual roadway usage,and therefore provides a good measure for allocating transportation system costs. Another measure of travel demand is "peak-hour trips,"which is intended to reflect demand on the system during the peak period. Peak-hour trips are widely used in transportation studies because they provide an indication of transportation system conditions at the busiest time of day. However,as roads become more congested, travelers shift their travel times to avoid congestion. Instead, they contribute to congestion at other times. As transportation systems become more and more overburdened,peak congestion periods extend to multiple hours and can occur throughout the day. One deficiency of peak-hour trips is that they only capture those trips generated at the peak hour(usually 5-6pm weekdays) and miss traffic generation at other times. Schools,for example generate considerable traffic at other hours. Resorts will also generate most trips at other hours for golf and other recreational activities. With this measure,traffic sources that do not generate peak-hour trips are not counted as impacting the transportation system,despite increased travel demand. Peak-hour trips are based on the peak traffic hour ofthe adjacent roadway,and not the peak for the source of the trips being studied. Destination resorts are typically sited in relatively remote locations outside of Urban Growth Boundaries(UGBs)and away from existing cities and towns. Due to their remote locations, residents and guests will travel farther to reach common destinations,such as employment,grocery stores, department stores, etcetera. As a result,VMT generation will tend to be higher per unit ofdevelopment than it would be in an urban location. Studies show that even in urban areas,the per capita VMT increases by a factor of two to three, or more on the urban fringe compared with the urban core. Daily per- capita VMT was found to be two to four times greater in the Atlanta suburbs than in Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 27 the city's core area20 Similar findings were obtained for Eugene-Springfield in a 1994 travel study by Lane Council of Governments?' According to a study in Rhode Island(1999),rural towns had on average 16.5 miles of local roads per 1,000 housing units,or almost three times as many as urban core communities (6.1 miles per 1,000 housing units).22 Figure 5-1: Time of day for trips in rural Oregon (Oregon Travel Behavior Survey, ODOT, 2000) JSP C. iC}. 3, $ $ Based on the Oregon Travel Behavior Survey,23 Deschutes County's rural households reported an average of 7.31 daily vehicle trips. This is lower than the 9.57 trips that would be estimated using the ITE Trip Generation manual24 Average rural trip time was 16.52 minutes. While this trip time is comparable to that in urban areas,rural trips will tend to cover more distance and be at a higher average speed,requiring 2°Source: Atlanta Journal-Constitution,12/9/02,based on data from Georgia Regional Transportation Authority. 2' 1994 Estimated VMT per Capita by Production Zone,by Lane Council ofGovernments. 22 The Costs ofSuburban Sprawl and Urban Decay in Rhode Island,Executive Summary,by Grow Smart Rhode Island, 1999,Providence,RI,The Rhode Island Foundation. 2'Oregon Travel Behavior Survey,ODOT,2000,Table 4.2.According to ODOT,survey data involves some underreporting,so actual daily trip will be higher than reported(see footnote,page 9 of Oregon Travel Behavior Survey). 24 Institute of Transportation Engineers'reference manual for trip generation,8h Edition. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 28 more road infrastructure. If an average rural speed of 40 mph is assumed,the average trip distance would be 11 miles and household VMT would be 80.5 miles per day.' The Cost of Transportation Facilities The"projection-based" method for estimating transportation system costs uses a planning estimate or projection of the future system improvements that are needed as a basis for allocating costs to the new development that will occur over the planning period. The County has prepared a 20-year list of transportation projects as part of its adoption ofa new transportation System Development Charge(SDC) in 2008. This list covers all projects in the unincorporated areas of the County that are anticipated from 2008 to 2028. The total cost of all projects is$280 million. Project costs are funding by a mix of County, State and Federal sources. Most of these projects are capacity-increasing and will serve the needs of new growth in the County. However,a portion of the projects are maintenance-related and will not expand the system capacity. Only a very brief description is available to characterize each project on the 20-year list and no further information was available from the County. A simplified system was used to allocate individual project costs between capacity expansion and maintenance functions. New roads were allocated 100% to meet the needs of new growth. New bridges were allocated 75% to new growth. Road"widening and overlays"and"road reconstruction and widening," were allocated 50% to new growth. None of the costs for pedestrian and bike lane improvements were allocated to growth as they were considered system-wide upgrades. Based on this cost allocation,$240 million or 86%of these costs are growth-related capacity increasing),while$39 million,or 14%are for maintenance. Table 5-1 provides a summary of the project cost allocation. As shown in column 5 of Table 5- 1,Deschutes County will fund less than one-third of growth-related transportation facilities,while the State will fund two-thirds. (The Federal funding is shown as being fairly small,but Federal transportation funds that are distributed by the State are listed under the State funding,so the actual Federal contribution is larger than shown.) zs The average speed of 40 mph was used to reflect overall average trip speed,including stops,starts and turns on roadways with typical 55 mph speed limits.This was intended to be conservative,as higher trip speeds would result in longer travel distances and greater road costs. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 29 Table 5-1 20-year Transportation System Project List for Unincorporated Area of Deschutes County (2008-2028)"1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Percent Percent of Growth Cost per Total Project of Total Growth-Related Growth Cost per Typical New Funding Entity Costs Costs Project Costs Costs Capital')Housef'1 Deschutes County $96,614,339 35% 70,165,715 29% 2,273 6,137 State of Oregon(21 $157,500,000 56% 157,500,000 66% 5,102 13,775 Federal Gov.1 1 25,431,250 9% 12,715,625 5%412 1,112 Totals: 279,545,589 100%240,381,340 100% 7,787 21,024 1)Source:Deschutes County SDC Project List,2008. 2)State funding includes funds from the Federal Government to the State so this distribution only shows final source of funds. 3)Growth-related costs are divided bythe projected population increase over the same 20-year period. 4)Costs associated with new house are based on an occupancy rate of 2.7 persons,as described earlier in this section of the report. The per-capita cost for population growth can be estimated by allocating the growth- related(capacity increasing)components of the County's total future transportation system costs for the next 20 years ($240,381,340)to the estimated population increase for the same period. During this time period the population ofthe unincorporated County is projected to grow from 56,609 in 2008 to 87,480 in 2028, an increase of 30,871 people.26 This results in a cost of$7,787 per new person column 6 of Table 5-1). The County's share of this cost is$2,273 per person. The cost per new house can be estimated based on the typical occupancy rate of 2.7 persons per new house(calculated earlier). At this occupancy rate, the total cost per new house is$21,024. The County's share of this cost is $6,137 per new house. A new transportation System Development Charge(SDC)was approved by Deschutes County in July of2008 to help recover a portion of the County's share of capacity-increasing transportation costs. 'While the State SDC Statute27 allows for a reimbursement component, the County's fee does not include a reimbursement component to recover the cost of existing roadway capacity that will be consumed by future growth. The SDC fee will be phased in gradually up to$3,504 per new peak- hour vehicle trip by 2011. For a new single-family dwelling, 1.01 peak-hour trips are generated and the SDC is $3,539 per SFD (not including the $45 administrative charge allowed by State Statute). Deducting the SDC (full 2011 rate)from the County's gross cost per new house($6,137) results in a net transportation system cost to the County of$2,598 per new house for the capacity-increasing components. 26 Based on Deschutes County 2000-2025 Coordinated Population Forecast.The forecast was extended to 2028 using the growth rate for the 2020-2025 period of 2.2%/year. 27 ORS 223.297-314. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 30 Reimbursement Value of Existing Transportation Infrastructure As noted, the Deschutes County SDC project list does not address the value of transportation infrastructure capacity that has already been built that will be consumed by new development(also referred to as "excess capacity"). If average roadway congestion levels on existing roads did not increase over the 20-year project timetable, then there would be no loss in mobility(or increase in congestion),and therefore no "consumption" of existing excess capacity. However,it is unlikely that the County will be able to build enough new facilities to prevent such congestion increases. Nationwide the roads have become increasing congested as cities,counties and states across the country have been unable to keep up with demand." To investigate changes in traffic levels on existing roadways,historic traffic count data must be analyzed. The County's traffic count data reports Average Daily Traffic ADT)for 281 roadway segments." Data was obtained from the County for the 11- year period, 1998 to 2008. Data was not available for every year for every segment,so the average of the traffic counts in the first four years (1998-2001)was compared with average of the last four years(2005-2008).Only the 212 road segments that had traffic counts in both time periods were analyzed. The results show that traffic increased from an average ADT per road segment of 1,473 to 1,780,an increased volume of 20.8%on County roads in a roughly seven-year span.30 It is therefore reasonable to conclude that new development in the County is generating transportation system demand faster than the County is building new capacity and that new development is consuming existing excess road capacity. There is no data on the existing excess capacity ofCounty roads. The County's Level-of-Service(LOS) standard for rural roads is"D" or better. A LOS of D represents average daily traffic(ADT)of up to 9,600 vehicles for a two-lane road. Therefore,9,600 vehicles is the effective capacity of the roadway under the LOS standard. The County's 1996 Transportation System Plan shows ADT and LOS for the 36 busiest roadway segments in the County at that time. None of the segments exceeded a LOS ofD and most were rated B or C with 3,000 to 5,000 ADT. Based on this somewhat dated data,it appears that the County had more than 50% excess capacity on its main road network in 1996.3' 2B The 2007 Urban Mobility Report,by the Texas Transportation Institute reports that over last 24 years we have built only 41%of the transportation infrastructure necessary to keep up with growing demand. 39 A sample ofthis data can be found on the Deschutes County Road Department web site at http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/download.cfm?DownloadFile=0D8135CF-BDBD-57C1- 98378109FA737581. The full data set was used for this study. 3°This increase in traffic occurred over a period of approximately seven years,based on using the midpoint ofeach of the two periods compared.The period is approximate because traffic count data was not available for all years. 31 The more-recent County traffic count data referred to earlier shows an average ADT at 212 road locations of 1,780 for the 2005-2008 period.If all ofthese roadways have a capacity of9,600 ADT, Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 31 The value of the County's excess roadway capacity is significant,however, due to data limitation there is no direct way to accurately determine either the value of this capacity or the amount that will be consumed by new development. However,rather than leave this cost area completely unaddressed,a very rough,but conservative estimate was developed. To make this estimate,the following rough assumptions were used: 1. Excess capacity in 2008 is at least 40%of existing roadways. 2. New development over the next 20 years will consume half of the remaining excess capacity. 3. The value of the excess capacity can be indexed based on its replacement costs today and the population increase served by the total value of the capacity- increasing projects on the SDC project list. To roughly estimate the replacement value of the existing transportation system it was assumed that the value could be based on the estimated costs necessary to serve future population growth. The value of the growth-related(capacity increasing) projects in the 20-year SDC project list is$240,381,340. This results in a cost of 7,787 for each new person projected in the County over the 20-year period. Applying the per-capita cost to the 56,609 persons currently living in the unincorporated County in 2008 results in an existing system value of$441 million. This figure is the approximate replacement value for the system required to serve today's population. The figure is low,since it does not account for building the excess capacity that exists today. None-the-less,as a very rough estimate,the value of excess capacity consumed over the next 20 years is 20% of$441 million,or$88 million. Dividing$88 million by the projected population growth over the next 20 years of 30,871 people, results in a reimbursement cost of$2,856 per new person. Based on an occupancy rate for new homes of 2.7,the reimbursement cost per new home is$7,711. Table 5-2 combines the value ofnew facilities and the value ofexcess capacity used to serve new growth in the unincorporated area of the County. As shown,total transportation system costs(from all funding sources) for new growth are$10,637 per person, $28,720 per new house,and$3,929 per daily vehicle trip. Note that the estimates in Table 5-2 are based on planning projections and are therefore only as accurate as the projections they are based upon. then there is approximately 80%a excess capacity in the road network.However,the data is not adequate to assess the actual capacity ofeach roadway segment. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 32 Table 5-2 Estimated Transportation System Costs to Serve New Growth for Unincorporated Area of Deschutes County (2008-2028) County Costs State Costsl5) Federal Costs Total Costs Value of New Capacity for Future Growtho) 70,165,715 $157,500,000 $12,715,625 $240,381,340 Value of Existing Capacity Consumedee) share unknown share unknown share unknown $88,000,000 Total Growth-Related Costs share unknown share unknown share unknown $328,381,340 Cost per Capita for New Populationt3) 10,637 Cost per New Housef'I 28,720 Cost per Daily Vehicle Trip(5) 3,929 1)Derived from Deschutes County SDC Project List,2008. 2)Rough estimate based on estimated excess system capacity consumed by new growth. 3)Growth-related costs are divided by the projected population increase overthe same 20-year period. 4)Cost associated with new house are based on an occupancy rate of 2.7 persons,as described at the beginning of this section. 5)Based on the Oregon Travel Behavior Survey,Deschutes County's rural households reported an average of 7.31 daily vehicle trips.6)State funding includes funds from Federal Government to the State so this distribution only shows final source offunds. Transportation System Impacts of Thornburgh Resort Estimating the transportation system impacts associated with a destination resort is more complex because standardized data on destination resort travel demand is unavailable and the use has unique characteristics. These resorts contain a variety of commercial and residential uses. The commercial uses cannot be readily estimated from the same per-capita basis used for residential land uses. Also,resorts will accommodate a certain percentage of vehicle trips internally. Internal trips are those that do not leave the resort,and would include residents visiting the golf course or resort restaurant. Since the road structure within the resort is funded entirely by the resort developer,these internal trips do not create an impact on the external public road system. There are various estimates for the number ofexternal vehicle trips generated by resorts. The Thornburgh Resort submitted their own traffic study showing that a vast majority of vehicle trips would be accommodated internally and that the resort would generate a total of517 peak PM hour trips(5-6pm weekdays).32 However, the peak PM trips"metric failed to capture the peak trip generation by the resort, which occurred earlier than for the adjacent roadways. Peak resort traffic occurred between 1pm and 4pm. 32 Transportation Impact Analysis,Revision II,by Group McKenzie,September 28,2005,Table 9B. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 33 A study by Kittelson and Associates33 measured the traffic generation from the nearby Eagle Crest Resort by counting trips in and out of the resort for several weekday periods. The study concluded that 4.4 offsite trips are generated per residential unit and suggested that this is an appropriate value to use for destination resorts. These trip counts include all the commercial and recreational activities at the resort,as well as the residences.Therefore,they are an indication of the total trip generation by the resort,indexed to the number ofresidential units. The Thornburgh Resort has 1,375 residential units. Based on the Kittelson Study, the resort would generate at total of 6,050 daily vehicle trips. These would all be external,or offsite trips. For comparison purposes,the trips were estimated using standard trip generation rates for conventional development(see Table 5-3). As a conventional development,the uses at Thornburgh would generate approximately 17,054 daily vehicle trips. However, since destination resorts are likely to accommodate more vehicle trips internally than conventional developments,the empirical data from Kittelson was used instead. Using the estimate based on the Kittelson Study of 6,050 daily trips and the cost per vehicle trip of$3,929 from Table 5-2,the total gross transportation system cost associated with the resort is$23.8 million. To obtain a net cost for the Thornburgh Resort, SDC payments and developer contributions to the transportation system must be deducted. That step is done at the conclusion to this section. Table 5-3 Conventional Trip Generation Estimate for Thornburgh Destination Resort") Expected Expected Daily Description (ITE Code) Units(2) Units Trips Single Family Homes (210) DU 1,375 13,159 Hotel (310)Rooms 50 446 Health/Fitness Club (493) TSF Gross 60 1,976 General Office (710) TSF Gross 15 165 Shopping Center (820) TSF Gross 20 859 Quality Restaurant (931) TSF Gross 5 450 Total Trips: 17,054 1)Based on 17E Trip Generation manual,7"'Edition. 2)DU=dwelling units;TSF=thousand square feet of gross floor area. 33 Central Oregon Resort Trip Generation Study,by Kittelson and Associates,September 12,2006. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 34 Standards-Based Costing Method The transportation system costs calculated above in Table 5-2 are based on the projected population growth of the County and the projected transportation infrastructure needs for the next 20 years. Both projections are estimates for a long period of time and could involve substantial errors. It is notoriously difficult to estimate future population growth,but it is even more difficult to anticipate and accurately estimate all the transportation infrastructure needs for a county 20 years into the future. To examine the transportation system costs from another perspective,a standards- based impact analysis was performed. This method is based on meeting County level-of-service(LOS)standards. Travel demand was used to determine the number of new lane-miles of roads that are needed to serve new homes. A roadway cost per- lane mile was developed and the number of lane-miles required by new development was used to estimate road costs. Estimates of new road costs were not available from Deschutes County,so road costs per lane-mile were compiled from three sources, including the County SDC project list and ODOT in order to develop a reasonable estimate. Values for two-lane,rural roads on flat terrain were selected. As shown in Table 5-4,the average cost per new lane-mile for all sources is$3.4 million. The seven new roads on the Deschutes County Transportation SDC Project List were used to develop one road cost estimate. The average cost of these roads per lane-mile was $3 million. The cost for one road segment included an overpass, so that some other roadway costs are included as well. Representative road costs should include the costs of intersections,signalization, bridges,and other associated system costs. For comparison,Table 5-4 shows the road costs for a rural road on flat terrain from ODOT's Highway Economic Requirement System ($2.7 million/lane-mile)and an estimate for rural roads from the Victoria Transportation Policy Institute($4.5 million/lane-mile). These figures bracketed the Deschutes County road costs, so the 3 million per lane-mile figure was used for road costs. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 35 Table 5-4 Road Cost Estimates from Various Sources All costs adjusted to 2008 dollars) Cost per Lane-Mile Construction Land Source Cost Acquisition Cost Total Cost New Roads in Deschutes Co. SDC Project Listttl $2,807,982 240,000 $3,047,982 ODOT New HERS Improvement Costs 2t 2,461,980 240,000 $2,701,980 Victoria Transportation Policy Instituteja) 4,199,040 263,340 $4,462,380 Average of Sources: 3,404,114 1)Average cost for new roads on list.Land values based on total mad ROW width of 80 feet and land acquisition costs of$50,000 per acre. 2)ODOT New Highway Economic Requirement System(HERS)Improvement Costs,lane-mile costs for constructing new rural major collector onflatterrain. 3)Source:VTPI Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis II—Roadway Costs,Table 5.6.3-4,January 2009.Value for undivided highways in outlying areas.Year 2000 dollars were adjusted to 2008 using Oregon Highway Construction Cast Trends. As described earlier, the Oregon Travel Behavior Survey provides the best available travel demand data for rural households in the unincorporated area of Deschutes County. From this survey data it was estimated that the average daily rural household VMT is 80.5 miles. To translate this into a lane-mile demand for new roadways,a level-of-service standard must be assumed. The County's minimum LOS standard of"D"represents the maximum congestion limits acceptable on County roads. The ADT at LOS D is 9,600 vehicles. A two-lane roadway operating at LOS D could accommodate 4,800 vehicles per day per lane in each direction. At this congestion level, the lane-mile distance required to accommodate the 80.5 miles of daily VMT generated by the typical rural household is 0.017 lane-miles. The cost of building 0.017 lane miles at $3 million per lane-mile,is $51,000 per new household. To maintain a higher LOS standard of"C" (ADT of 5,700, closer to what County residents now enjoy), requires 0.028 lane miles per new household,or$84,000 in new road system costs per new household. The costs on a per-trip basis are shown for both LOS standards in Table 5-5. While costs of$51,000 to$84,000 per household may seem incredibly high,they should be adjusted even higher to reflect the higher occupancy rate that can be expected in a new home compared with the average ofexisting homes from which the travel survey data was derived. Using the 8%higher occupancy rate of a new house relative to an existing house, the costs would be$55,000 to$90,700 for LOS ofD and C respectively. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 36 Table 5-5 Standards-Based Transportation System Costs per New Vehicle Trip Cost Per Household Cost Per New Vehicle Triptil Cost to maintain LOS "D" 51,000 6,977 Cost to maintain LOS "C" 84,000 11,491 1)Based on 7.31 pips per household reported for Deschutes County in the Oregon Travel Behavior Survey. These standards-based costs are much higher than the$28,720 per new house cost estimated by using the County's 20-year projections for new road infrastructure and population growth. One possible reason for the higher standards-based cost is that the County is not planning enough future road capacity to maintain current LOS standards and will see roads become increasingly congested in the future. As mentioned previously,road congestion is increasing nationwide and planned road construction is inadequate to maintain current standards.The high cost of maintaining even the County's minimum LOS standard under continuing growth may be too high for the public to bear. Instead of paying for construction of new roads,county residents will likely pay indirectly through the travel delays and increased fuel use associated with growing congestion. Standards-Based Transportation System Impacts of Thornburgh Resort As noted previously,a destination resort generates a complex mix of uses and accommodates many of its vehicle trip onsite. The trip generation estimate from Kittelson and Associates is a total trip generation rate of 4.4 trips per dwelling unit that includes all uses in the resort(residential and commercial). For Thornburgh this would be 6,050 daily vehicle trips. Using the cost per vehicle trip to maintain a LOS of D of$6,977 from Table 5-5, the cost for building the offsite road capacity for 6,050 new trips is$42.2 million. Depending on the fiscal impact analysis method employed,the gross transportation facilities costs for the Thornburgh Resort would range from $23.3 million to$42.2 million(see Table 5-6).While both figures are reasonable estimates,the higher, standards-based figure probably does a better job of representing the full cost of transportation system impacts. This is because the standards-based method assures that the current minimum LOS standard of D is maintained,while the projection- based method does not.It is also worth reiterating that the LOS standard used here still allows for a considerable increase in average road congestion that is not included in the$42.2 million cost,and therefore is a conservative(low)estimate. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 37 Table 5-6 Estimated Transportation System Costs for Thornburgh Resort Impact Analysis Method Cost Planning projection-based estimate 23.3 million Standards-based estimate (LOS=D) 42.2 million Net Transportation Cost from Thornburgh Resort To obtain a net cost,SDC payments and developer contributions to the transportation system must be deducted. The Thornburgh Resort will pay a Transportation SDC for each development. The SDC may be based on the standard rate indicated in the SDC adoption resolution,or an alternative rate based on the applicant's data showing that a reduced number of vehicle trips will be generated.34 The approximate total SDC payments under both methods range from $1.8 million to$6.5 million,as shown in Table 5-7. Table 5-7 Estimated SDC Payments for Thornburgh Resort—Conventional Method Assumes full rate charged with no trip reductions) ITE Expected PM Trip Cost per Full SDC Code SDC Category Units Units Rate PM Trips Trip(1)Rate 210 SF Detached DU 1375 1.01 1388.8 $3,504 $4,866,180 310 Hotel Rooms 50 0.59 29.5 $3,504 $103,368 493 Athletic Club TSF Gross 60 5.76 345.6 $3,504 $1,210,982 710 General Office TSF Gross 15 1.49 22.4 $3,504 78,314 814 Specialty Retail TSF Gross 20 2.71 54.2 $3,504 $189,917 931 Quality Restaurant TSF Gross 5 2.15 10.8 $3,504 37,668 Totals: 1851.2 5,486,430 Alternative Method with Trip Reductions Resort's Estimated PM Peak Trips)2) 517.0 $3,504 $1,811,568 1)Excludes administrative fees. 2)Transportation Impact Analysis,Revision II,by Group McKenzie,September 28,2005,Table 9B,prepared forThornburgh Resort. According to an unsigned"Cooperative Improvement Agreement"between the Thornburgh Resort and ODOT,the resort will mitigate its immediate,direct Deschutes County Resolution#2008-059 establishes the SDC charge,standard rates,and the allowance for exceptions to the standard rates. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 38 impacts on a nearby intersection with the State highway. This mitigation includes payment of up to$1,125,000 towards improvements at the Cline Falls Hwy/US 20 intersection in Tumalo. The improvement to the Cline Falls Hwy/US 20 intersection is included on the SDC project list,so this contribution should be deducted from the resort's gross transportation system costs. The maximum potential payment of$1,250,000 is applied. The increase in State gas tax revenues resulting from the resort should also be considered. Gas taxes are collected from gasoline sales,but the State distributes them to counties based on the number ofregistered vehicles in the county. The extent to which the resort increases the number of county-wide registered vehicles will determine the increase in gas tax revenues attributed to the resort. Only permanent,year-around residents of the resort are likely to register their vehicles locally. There was no clear method for estimating the increase in the number of register vehicles resulting from the resort,so this impact could not be computed. However, the impact would be quite small. For example,if there were 400 additional registered vehicles,County Road Fund revenue would increase less than$16,000, which would be insignificant relative to the costs.35 The final cost estimate for the transportation system impacts of the Thornburgh Resort assumes that the resort will apply for trip reductions to lower their SDC payment to a total of$1.8 million. As shown in Table 5-8,the final cost range is 20.7 million to $39.1 million, depending on the impact method used. The higher standards-based figure is used in the final impact analysis because it does a better job of reflecting the full impacts of this development, as discussed previously. Table 5-8 Estimated Net Transportation System Costs for Thornburgh Resort Maximum SDC Developer Impact Analysis Method Gross Cost Payments"' Contributions 1 Net Cost Planning projection-based estimate $23,770,450 ($1,811,568) ($1,250,000) $20,708,882 Standards-based estimate (Los=o) $42,210,850 ($1,811,568) ($1,250,000) $39,149,282 1)Assumes alternate SDC calculation method with trip reductions. 2)Maximum possible contribution towards ODOT expenses atthe Cline Falls Hwy/US 20 Intersection. 35 For the 2007-08 fiscal year Deschutes County received$7,963,277 in State Road Funds and had 205,402 registered vehicles,equivalent to$38.77 per registered vehicle(based on Oregon Department of Transportation,Financial Services,Highway Revenues Apportionment data). Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 39 School Facilities Costs Destination resorts will generate new K-12 school students and additional demand for school facilities. This section looks at the likely impacts of the proposed Thornburgh Resort on the revenues and costs of the Redmond School District. The resort will generate school students both from the new resort housing and from the newcomers attracted to fill jobs created by the resort. According the current Working Draft of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan:36 Schools One ofthe basic problems with larger amounts ofresidential development is that it rarely pays in property taxes for the services that must be provided. This is particularly truefor the most expensive public facility--schools.Additional permanent residences require more facilities and teachers. When this plan was written, much of the new development had been providedfor seasonal recreation and was therefore not likely to require schools. However, the County was realizing that much ofthe seasonal development was becoming full-time residences. This forced the school districts to seek additionalfunds for new buildings and more teachers. In addition, costs rose because many ofthe new residences were in rural areas and required ever more expensive busing. Student Generation by Resort Housing The new,private resort homes that are occupied as primary residences will generate new school students,but the specific level of student generation is unknown. There is no data that clearly differentiate the student generation rate of a private home in a destination resort from a typical new home in the same county. If resort homes are occupied full-time by their owners,they may have a similar demographic profile to other new houses in the area. Ifthey are used as part-time second homes(or vacation homes),they will generate few, if any new students. It is assumed that homes built exclusively for overnight lodging purposes will generate no new students. Therefore, homes designated for overnight lodging are not included in the following analysis. As described at the beginning of this section,homes used as primary residences were found to constitute 43%of owner-occupied(non overnight)units in the nearby Eagle Crest Resort. This percentage may vary considerably from resort to resort. In order to examine the potential impacts of the proposed Thornburgh Resort,two scenarios are used to model the range ofpotential student generation by the private, owner occupied homes in the resort: 36 Dorking Draft Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan,draft of5-14-08,Page 3-18. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 40 Scenario #1: High student generation. Private,owner-occupied homes in the resort are assumed to generate the same demand as new private homes elsewhere in the County. (Overnight units are assumed to generate no demand.)This scenario may become increasing likely if resort homes are purchased and used as primary residences. The Thornburgh resort has no age limits or household limitations regarding children,so the market will decide who owns these units and how they are used. A continued weak national economy may encourage consolidation of home ownerships,reducing the number of second homes. A weaker economy may also reduce the sizes and prices of future resort homes,making them more attractive to families. Scenario #2: Low student generation. This is the"vacation resort" scenario. Private, owner-occupied homes in the resort are assumed to be used largely as retirement homes and as second (vacation)homes and to generate only 25%of the new students generated by new homes elsewhere in the County. This scenario would be more applicable if expensive,higher-end housing is constructed,which would favor more-affluent owners and may reduce the number of families with school-age children and increase the percentage of retirees without school-age children. If a resort were age-restricted (such as 55 and above),it might generate no students from the new homes. However,we are not aware of any destination resorts in Oregon with age restrictions. In Deschutes County, 16.1%of the population is of K-12 school age, 5 through 17 years of age.37 This is slightly lower than the statewide school-age figure of 16.9%of the population. Applying the percent of school-age children to the occupancy rate of 2.7 for new homes,yields a school-age generation rate of 0.43 students per new house. State Law requires that destination resorts provide a certain amount ofovernight accommodations to assure that they meet their tourism function. In Deschutes County there must be at least one housing unit available for overnight accommodations for every two private,owner-occupied housing unit created at a destination resort. Most resorts build only the minimum number of overnight units, and therefore adhere closely to this ratio. It is not clear that resorts continue to adhere to the minimum number of overnight units once construction is completed, and some overnight units may convert to owner-occupied status. For the Thornburgh Resort, 950 of the 1,375 housing units will be owner-occupied. A 50-room hotel will be used to meet the balance of the overnight housing requirement. There are no age or demographic restrictions on ownership,so the use 37 The most recent US Census estimates for households in Deschutes County are for 2006.This data includes the incorporated areas of the county. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 41 ofthese homes will be market-driven. These homes may be used either as primary residences or as second homes (vacation homes). Table 5-9: Estimated K-12 student generation by residential housing at Thornburgh Resort. Scenario #1 Scenario #2 Total owner-occupied housing units 950 950 Students generated per housing unit 0.43 0.11 Students generated by resort housing 409 102 Student Generation from Resort Employment In addition to student generation from the housing in a destination resort, there is a secondary demand resulting from the new jobs created at the resort. These new jobs will attract new households to the area and generate new students. Since the construction jobs are temporary,the number of new students generated by resort employment will fluctuate as households move in and out of the area to meet employment needs. Employment impacts are addressed in more detail in the Economic Impacts section of this report. The direct and induced employment resulting from the Thornburgh Resort is estimated to peak in year six at 2,015 jobs and then decline by 1,471 jobs to a steady level of 544 jobs from year twelve onward. There is no straightforward method for estimating school system impacts resulting from short-term employment. Undoubtedly the students generated by the 1,471 temporary jobs will significantly impact the school system. This study evaluates the school impacts resulting from only the permanent jobs generated by the resort. These employment-related school impacts are included in order to better account for the full impact resort development has on the local school district. Based on estimates developed in the Economic Impacts section, 347 new households will be created by the 408 jobs filled by newcomers. Table 5-10: Estimated K-12 student generation by newcomers filling permanent jobs at Thornburgh Resort. Total new housing units for resort-related employment 347 Students generated per housing unit 0.43 Students generated by resort employment 149 Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 42 Table 5-11 shows total student generation for new resort housing and resort employment. Under Scenario #1,resort housing will generate a similar number of new students as other new housing in Deschutes County,resulting in a total of 558 new students. Under Scenario #2,resort housing will generate only 25% of the students of a typical new house in the County, resulting in a total of 253 new students.These two scenarios provide a reasonable range of 251 to 558 new students generated by the Thornburgh Resort. Table 5-11: Total K-12 student generation by Thornburgh Resort housing and employment. Scenario #1 Scenario #2 Students generated by resort housing 409 102 Students generated by resort employment 149 149 Total students generated 558 251 School Funding in Oregon Schools in Oregon are funded primarily by a combination of state and local sources. The primary local source is property taxes. The State School Fund formula determines how much state funding a school district gets. The formula bases the state funding on the number of students served and deducts the local property taxes going to schools. The state funding is directed to school operations,maintenance, repairs and transportation needs. If the local property tax revenues increase due to a new destination resort, the state contribution to local school funding will be reduced by an equal amount. For new students generated by the resort,the district will receive the same funding per student as they do for the rest of their students. Therefore,new developments provide no extra funding to local school districts for general operations. New school facilities needed to serve growth are funded primarily through issuance ofvoter-approved local general obligation bonds that are repaid through local property taxes. Local property tax revenues for bond repayment are not deducted from the State's operation funding. The tax base for the Redmond School District comes from the total assessed values of the District in both Deschutes County and Jefferson County. Table 5-12 shows the total tax base is$4,937,455,942 for 2008-09. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 43 Table 5-12: Assessed value for the Redmond School District 2J tax base. Assessed Value Total County 2008.09(11 Deschutes County 3,594,082,824 Jefferson County 1,343,373,118 Total School District Tax Base: 4,937,455,942 1)Source:Redmond School Disbict. Assuming that the Thornburgh Resort is fully built out as planned,the estimated increase in the assessed value of the school district's tax base would be$374,788,817. At full buildout,Thornburgh would represent 7.1%of the tax base available to the school district. Based on the estimated increase in the total tax base available to the Redmond School District that would be created by the Thornburgh Resort, the resort will pay for approximately 7.1%of facility bonds issued for new construction by the District. This percentage will be deducted from the school facility costs generated by the resort. School Facility Costs To estimate the cost of expanding school facilities to increase student capacity,the total costs for new facilities at all grade levels must be determined. The Redmond School District passed a bond in May of 2008 for a new high school and new elementary school. A new middle school was built by the District in 2006. The costs for these new facilities are added to the land values to obtain a total school facility cost for each grade level, as shown in Table 5-13 below. Table 5-13: School facility costs,Redmond School District,2008. Total School Grade Level Building Cost Land Case Facility Cost High school(1i 80,000,000 $13,600,000 93,600,000 Middle school(1 22,764,955 $3,000,000 25,764,955 Elementary school(" 20,000,000 $2,600,000 22,600,000 Notes: 1)Building costs based on a bond issue by the Redmond SD approved by voters May 20,2008 as Measure 9-56. 2)Building cost based on Elton Gregory Middle School completed in 2006 for$20 million.Costs adjusted to 2008 using ENR Construction Cost Index for closest location(Seattle). 3)Based on actual acreage and a current land vakie estimate of$200,000 per acre. The total school facility cost is divided by the capacity of students for each facility to calculate at cost per unit of student capacity(see Table 5-14). Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 44 Table 5-14: School facility costs per unit student capacity,Redmond School District,2008. Cost per Unit Total School Student Student Grade Level Facility Cost Capacity" Capacity High school 93,600,000 1400 66,857 Middle school 25,764,955 804 32,046 Elementary school 22,600,000 600 37,667 1)Capacity for each schoolfrom Redmond School District. The"cost per unit of student capacity"is then distributed across the student generation rate at each grade level for a typical new house in Deschutes County,as shown in Table 5-15. Based on facility costs in the Redmond School District, the total school facilities cost associated with typical new house is$21,542. Table 5-15: School facility costs per new house,Redmond School District,2008. Cost per Percent of Student School Unit Total Students Generation by Facility Student at Grade Grade Level for Costs per Grade Level Capacity Level" New House New House High school 66,857 47% 0.202 13,507 Middle school 32,046 23% 0.098 3,147 Elementary school $37,667 30% 0.130 4,888 Totals: 100% 0.430 21,542 1)Based on 2007 enrollment data. Estimated School Facilities Costs for Thornburgh Resort The Redmond School District does not charge a school excise fee(a development impact fee authorized by the State Legislature)for new and expanded school facilities,so development makes no direct contribution to school facility costs outside of ordinary property tax payments. If the district were to adopt the fee, it could collect up to$1 per square foot. A new 3,000 square foot house would pay a fee of up to$3,000. Based on the high and low student generation rate scenarios(Scenarios #1 and #2), it is possible to estimate the range of total students generated by the destination resort and the resulting total facility costs. The Thornburgh Resort will generate costs for new and expanded school facilities ranging from a low estimate of$12.6 million to a high of$27.9 million,as shown in Table 5-16. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 45 Table 5-16: Total facility costs for K-12 student generation by Thornburgh Resort housing and employment. Scenario #1 Scenario #2 Number of primary residences in resort(tl 950 238 Number of new households for permanent employees 347 347 Total new households generating school-age students 1297 585 Total students generated (at 0.43 per house) 558 251 School facility costs per new house 21,542 21,542 Total school facilities costs (#houses x$/hse):27,939,974 $12,591,299 Note(1)Scenario#1 assumes that 950 owner-occupied resort houses wil have similar occupancy to typical new houses in Deschutes County,while Scenario#2 assumes that only 25%of resort houses will be similar and the rest will be second homes that generate no school children. For the final fiscal impact on school facilities, only the student generation from Thornburgh Resort housing was included. Impacts from resort employment were not included in order to be consistent with the rest of the impact study,which did not include secondary or induced impacts. The costs associated with only the resort housing range from $5 million to $20 million,as shown in Table 5-17. Table 5-17: Total facility costs for K-12 student generation by Thornburgh Resort housing. Scenario #1 Scenario #2 Number of primary residences in resortt1J 950 238 Total students generated (at 0.43 per house) 409 102 School facility costs per new house 21,542 21,542 Total school facilities costs (#houses x$/hse):20,464,900 $5,116,225 Note(1)Scenario#1 assumes that 950 owner-occupied resort houses will have similar occupancy to typical new houses in Deschutes County,while Scenario#2 assumes that only 25%of resort houses wig be similar and the rest will be second homes that generate no school children. In order to credit the resort for future property tax payments that would potentially contribute to school construction bonds,the estimated 7.1%contribution to the tax base should be deducted from the school facility costs attributed to the resort (see previous discussion on this). Therefore the net costs for school facilities attributed to the resort range from $4.8 million to$19 million,as shown in Table 5-18. To be conservative,the$4.8 million cost associated with the low-student-generation-rate scenario (Scenario #2)was used in the final cost estimates. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 46 Table 5-18: Net K-12 school facilities costs for Thornburgh Resort after deducting future property tax contributions. Net School Facilities Costs Scenario#1 Scenario#2 Total school facilities costs: 20,464,900 5,116,225 Future property tax contribution (at 7.1%) 1,453,008) 363,252) Net school facilities costs:19,011,892 4,752,973 Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 47 Fire & EMS System Costs The Thornburgh resort would receive fire and emergency medical service(EMS) services from the Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection District #1 (DC RFPD#1). Four of the ten existing land parcels that make up the proposed Thornburgh Resort are located within the boundaries of the Fire District and the remaining 6 parcels have been recently annexed within the District at the request of the resort developer. Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection District #1 does not independently provide fire and EMS services,but rather has entered into a cooperative agreement with the City ofRedmond to jointly provide Fire Protection and EMS services to both City and District residents through Redmond Fire and Rescue(RF&R). With an annual budget of$6,483,074 and utilizing the services of 40 career and 23 volunteer fire fighters,Redmond Fire and Rescue provides fire and EMS services to the 42,000 residents of its 145 square mile service area(450 square miles for ambulance service).'To do this it operates four fire stations: The Headquarters Station located within Redmond proper; the Airport Station at Roberts Field; and the Cline Falls and Terrebonne Fire Stations within DC RFPD#1. Operational Capacity Assessing the capacity of a fire department is a difficult task. First,it is impossible, for both fiscal and operational reasons,to have a fire department of sufficient size to meet all possible operational situations. Second,the random nature of emergency calls makes establishing a reasonable base level of service difficult. In 2007 RF&R experienced 4,253 dispatched 9-1-1 service calls,2,864 in the city of Redmond and 1,388 rural calls39 This included 2,894 EMS calls, 830 fire calls and 511 medical transfers. While this averages out to roughly 12 calls per day,or 3 calls per station per day,these call levels are not consistent. They can come in bunches as well as one at a time. Several years ago,a single arsonist,starting fires along Highway 97 managed to overtax the fire departments in three Central Oregon counties4° The impression from Chief Knorr's report on RF&R operations in the agency's 2007 Annual Report is that of an organization operating within its capabilities. Yet one of the unfunded budget requests in the FY 2008-09 RF&R Budget was for three additional firefighter/paramedics to staff a second ambulance to handle non- emergency medical transfers. Because this went unfunded, the Terrebonne position 3'2007 Annual Report,Redmond Fire&Rescue,page 11 and data provided by RF&R staff 392007 Annual Report,Redmond Fire&Rescue,page 3. 40 From phone conversation with Redmond Fire and Rescue staff. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 48 is vacant and they are unable to respond to calls for these transfers." It appears that the Redmond Fire & Rescue has sufficient capacity to provide a reasonable level of Fire Protection for the 42,000 residents living and working within its 145-square mile area of responsibly. Whether the RF&R has sufficient un-utilized operational capacity to provide additional fire protection for the residents of the Thornburgh Resort is not clear. Capital Costs The combined operation provides one fully-equipped fire station for every 10,500 residents.'Z In order to apply this current population-based service standard to the resort, an "effective population" was used that reflects the number of structures at the resort requiring fire protection. This population figure is the number of people typically associated with these structures in the County and is not intended to represent the actual population of the resort at any given time.43 As shown in Table 5-19 the Thornburgh Resort would have an effective population for Fire/EMS demand of 3,813. To meet the standard ofone station for every 10,500 people,an additional 36.3%of a fire station would need to be provided to meet the demand Thornburgh places on the capacity of Redmond Fire &Rescue. Table 5-19 Thornburgh Effective Population Estimate for Fire/EMS System Demand Number of Persons per Persons per Type of Housing Unit units unit° Type') Hotel 50 2 100 Residential Overnight Units(aj 425 2.7 1,148 Houses 950 2.7 2,565 Estimated Population: 3,813 Notes: 1)Hatel room occupancy figure is an estimate.The 2.7 figure used isthe residential occupancy rale for new homes In Deschutes County. 2)Number of Units x Persons perUnit 3)These are the housing units that would be subject to a deed restriction requiring that they be available for short term rental at least 38 weeks a year. 41 Section 2,Fire Fund,City ofRedmond FY2008-09 Budget,page 5 42 It would be preferable to use number ofaddresses or type or number ofstructures located within the district as the main metric in an evaluation of this type,but as Redmond Fire&Rescue does not have that data we were limited to what is available,which is population data. 43 In the case of fire protection,all buildings(empty as well as occupied)have the potential of placing demand on the capacity ofthe system."Effective population"was used here to reflect the number of structures in the resort,relative to those serving the general population.This population figure is different than the figure used in estimating the demand Thornburgh would place on public safety or public parks.In the case ofpublic safety or the park system,it is people who place demand on the capacity of the system. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 49 The Terrebonne Fire Station opened in August of 2007 and is the newest station in the Redmond Fire and Rescue system. It cost $1.3 million dollars to construct. The cost of constructing a similar station in 2008 is about$1,362,920.*`This station is staffed 24/7 by 6 firefighters and has the equipment listed in Table 5-20. Table 5-20 Fire Apparatus at Terrebonne Fire Station Equipment Type)Cost Light Rescue Truck(2) 70,000 Light Brush Truck (Type 6 Fire Engine)t31 80,000 Heavy Brush Truckt4i 150,000 Fire Enginet5l 250,000 Ambulancet5) 150,000 Total 700,000 Notes 1)Equipment list provided by staff at the Tertebonne Station.ki addition to the apparatus fisted that station also has a boatto facilitate access to pails of Smith Rock Park. 2)The cost figure was estimated using prices for used equipment currently fisted on the Internet. 3)The$80,000 is the amount budgeted to purchasethe truck. 4)The cost figure was estimated using prices for used equipment currently listed on the Internet. 5)The cost value used was provided by RF&R staff. The combined cost of constructing a new station and providing it with the same type and number of apparatus is about$2,062,920.' Based on the estimated need to provide 36.3%of a new fire station to serve the Thornburgh Resort, the total capital cost for providing Fire Protection services to the resort is about$748,840. Oregon Law does not permit the imposition of System Development Charges or impact fees to recover the Fire/EMS system capital costs associated with new development. Therefore,these capital costs for expanding the system will fall on all of the property owners within the DCRPD#1,not just those in the Thornburgh Resort. One of the projects RF&R has been undertaking is researching the feasibility of a fire station in DCRFPD#1's southern area. Due to prudent fiscal planning the DCRFPD#1 has$840,800 in its building reserve fund and$77,250 in its equipment Adjusted using the ENR Construction Cost Index for the nearest city(Seattle). 45 In addition to the fire house structure and the fire apparatus there are a large number of other items that are needed for a fully functioning Fire Station.Items such as beds,stove,washer-dryer,hoses, breathing apparatus,tools,lights,hose nozzles,etcetera,were not included in this cost estimate. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 50 reserve.46 However, that is much less then the$2,062,920 needed to build and equip an additional fire station in the District's southern operating area,particularly as those funds would also be needed to cover the eventual replacement of existing buildings and equipment. To obtain the final net fire/EMS system costs,estimated future contributions to the District tax base from the resorts are deducted from the cost above. If fully developed,the Thornburgh Resort would represent 22%of the DCRFPD#1 tax base. Deducting the contribution through future tax payments,leaves a net cost for fire/EMS facilities of$580,813,as shown in Table 5-21. Table 5-21: Net fire/EMS facility cost for Thornburgh Resort after deducting future property tax contributions. Net Fire/EMS Facilities Costs Total fire/EMS facilities cost: 748,840 Future property tax contribution (at 22%) 168,027) Net fire/EMS facilities cost: 580,813 Operational Costs Redmond Fire & Rescue has an annual budget of$6,487,876 of which$5,830,680 is allocated for department operations."'48 That amount includes the replacement of the division commander's vehicle and$27,000 to replace four ambulance gurneys and similar operational expenses. For the service district population,this operations cost amounts to$138.83 per resident per year. For the estimated 3,813 Thornburgh residents,it should take about$529,359 to maintain this level of service. It is important to note that 18 of the firefighter positions in the RF&R are to be filled by volunteers. As such,the value of their labor is not included in that operational cost."At this time, finding individuals with the interest, ability and commitment necessary to become volunteer firefighters is not easy. As reported in the Revenues section of this report,Thornburgh Resort property owners will pay an estimated$637,731 in property taxes to the DCRFPD#1. This exceeds the estimated cost of$529,359 needed to provide the current level of service 46 DCRFPD#1 FY 2008-09 Annual Budget 4'Section 2,Fire Fund,City of Redmond FY 2008-09 Budget,page 4 48 Ibid 49 Section 2,Fire Fund,City of Redmond FY 2008-09 Budget,page 2 Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 5 I for those residents. The revenue surplus of$108,372 would not be adequate to meet the capital costs to build and equip the additional fire station infrastructure necessary to serve the resort. There is another non-monetary operational cost that the rest of the District residents will bear,at least in the short term,because of the development of the Resort within their District: A reduction in the level of service caused by increased driving time. The Thornburgh resort is located at the extreme edge of the district's southwest boundary and,as a result,fire and EMS vehicles going to and coming from Thornburgh will have longer response times to call in other parts ofthe district. The construction of an additional fire station in the southern part of the DCRFPD#1's operating area should mitigate some of this negative impact. Additionally,as the proposed Thornburgh Resort is not intended for permanent full time residents, it is not a likely source of additional volunteer firemen and this burden will fall on the other full-time residents of the District. So while the property taxes should adequately cover the day-to-day costs ofproviding fire protection for the Thornburgh resort,the need to provide volunteer firefighters and to bear the major portion of the capital cost of constructing and equipping an additional station as well as a reduction in service due to extended travel times until it is built means that in the final analysis the current residents ofthe Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection District #1 would incur net costs if the Resort is constructed. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 52 Public Safety System Costs Public safety involves many different functions, including patrols,prosecution, incarceration,parole,911 services, courts, and others. Some resorts provide their own onsite security and patrol services. Sunriver,Black Butte and Pronghorn are examples. Some,such as Eagle Crest provide limited onsite security. These services lack the police powers of the Sheriffs officers and are therefore a limited substitute for County public safety services.50 Thornburgh Resort has not indicated that it will provide any onsite security,so security and patrols are assumed to be provided by the Sheriffs Department. To estimate the impacts of the Thornburgh Resort on public safety facilities and services,data is needed on public safety facility costs and the Sheriffs Department operating budget. This analysis was complicated by the many different public safety functions and the lack ofusable facility cost data. There are three Sheriffs substations that serve unincorporated Deschutes County: Terrebonne, Sisters and La Pine substations. There is no facility cost data for any of these since two are being leased (Sisters and Terrebonne)and one is part of the South County Building that contains multiple uses. The service area for the substation also cannot be determined,since they have no particular boundaries and overlap coverage. The Thornburgh Resort could be served by either the Sisters or Terrebonne substation. In addition, the main Sheriffs office in Bend provides services for the unincorporated area near Bend. Public safety functions include: 911 County Service District Adult Parole and Probation Community Justice-Juvenile District Attorney's Office Justice Court Sheriffs Office Deschutes County Adult Jail Public safety facilities must be adequate to handle peak demands at the height of tourist season. There is very little opportunity to adjust or downsize the system for off-peak periods. For this reason,public safety facilities must have capacity to serve the resort during peak occupancy. so Private security services are limited in their ability to arrest,detain and use force and do not replace the need for true law enforcement services. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 53 The Deschutes County Adult Jail was built in 1994 and has a capacity of 228 beds. According to the Corrections Needs Assessment:Deschutes County,Volume One,Master Plan (January 26,2006),5' the capacity of the jail is currently being exceeded. The 2005 average daily population (ADP)was estimated to be 270 inmates. Modeling of future jail demand results in a projected ADP of 578 in the year 2015,increasing to 818 in 2025. A two-phased plan is proposed for meeting current and future jail expansion needs. Allowing for fluctuations in jail bed demand,the first phase of development would address projected corrections needs through year 2015 at 690 beds,with occupancy of expanded facilities assumed to occur, in the year 2010.A second phase of development would then address projected corrections needs through the year 2025 at 975 beds,with facility occupancy assumed to occur in the year 2020. The cost for phase one is$70,989,839. Phase two,to be constructed starting in 2020,will cost approximately$54 million. Table 5-22 Deschutes Jail Expansion Master Plants) Population Existing Jail Jail Beds Year Estimatet°l Beds ADP)Neededt`I 2005 143,053 228 284 349 2010 166,572 690 427 520 2015 189,443 690 578 690 2020 214,145 975 689 820 2025 240,811 975 818 975 1)Corrections Needs Assessment:Deschutes County,Volume One,Master Plan and Volume Two, Technical Appendices,January 26,2006. 2)Based on Deschutes County 2000-2025 Coordinated Population Forecast. 3)ADP is average daily population from page D.3.3 of Corrections Needs Assessment Current values for ADP are higher than actual to Include early releases. 4)Includes capacity to handle daily fluctuations(peaking factor). Based on the estimated population increase of 3,688 people resulting from the peak occupancy of the Thornburgh Resort(Table 5-23) and the cost for the associated increase in jail capacity,at$1,129 per person(Table 5-24),the associated cost for jail capacity is $4,163,752. Note that jail facility costs are assigned on a population- weighted basis and do not assume that resort residents will be more or less likely to be incarcerated than average residents. In principle,all residents benefit equally from the increased safety that adequate jail facilities provide. 51 Corrections Needs Assessment:Deschutes County,Volume One,Master Plan and Volume Two, Technical Appendices,January 26,2006. See http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/uo/obiectid/29B167F2- BDBD-57C1-9A456F28 8808D927/index.cfm. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 54 Table 5-23 Thornburgh Peak Population Estimate for Public Safety System Demand Peak Number Persons Occupancy Persons per Type of Housing Unit of units per unit111 Rate (2) Type (31 Hotel 50 2 90%90 Residential Overnight Units 14) 425 2.7 90% 1,033 Houses 950 2.7 100% 2,565 Estimated Population: 3,688 Notes: 1)Hotel room occupancy figure is an estimate.The 2.7 figure isthe residential occupancy rate for a new house in Deschutes County.This occupancy rate is applied to overnight housing as well,even though many resort rentals show capacity for 8 to 12 persons. 2)The peak occupancy rates used for the hotel and overnight units are those used to generate the transient room tax data. 3)Number of Units x Persons per Unit x Occupancy Rate. 4)These are the housing units thatwould be subject to a deed restriction requiring that they be available for shorttenn rental atleast 38 weeks a year. Table 5-24 Jail Expansion Costs Associated with Population Growth Phase One Cost(11 70,989,839 Increase in Beds 462 Cost per New Bed: 153,658 Increase in Needed Beds, 2005-2015 341 Cost for increase in needed beds, 2005-2015 52,397,262 Cost per capita for population growth, 2005-2015(21 1,129 1)Cost to meet projected needs in 2015 per Corrections NeedsAssessment:Deschutes County,Volume One,Master Plan and Vobme Two,Technical Appendices,January 26,2006. 2)Population growth for this period was based on the official population forecast for Deschutes County provided in the Appendix. To estimate the costs for other public safety facilities(other than jail facilities),the 2008-09 Deschutes County Capital Asset Query File was used to compile capital costs. It was impossible to determine values for all facilities because some are shared facilities that provide multiple functions and there was no way to separate out the public safety components. These facilities are indicated as zero-values in Table 5-25. Table 5-25 provides the most complete listing possible from the Capital Asset database. Each facility cost was adjusted to 2008 building costs using the ENR Construction Cost Index for the year in which the asset was built or purchased to obtain an estimated current replacement value. The total estimated replacement Impact or Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 55 value ofpublic safety facilities is$22.5 million. This total does not include some shared facilities nor any rented facilities. Land values,patrol cars and Sheriff's equipment costs were adjusted for inflation to 2008 values. Table 5-25 Value of Existing Public Safety Facilities (Excluding Jail)"f Source:Deschutes County 2008-09 Capital Asset Query File All buildings and improvements adjusted to 2008 values using ENR Construction Cost Index) Dept Code Buildings and Land Total Facility Location Code) Facility/Dept Name Improvements Improvements Valuelzt 21 Civil/Special Units 0 0 0 29 Automotive/Communiciations 0 45,536 45,536 33 Investigations/Evidence 7,653 0 7,653 34 Patrol 18,214 0 18,214 35 Records 0 0 0 38 Court Security 0 0 0 39 Emergency Services 0 0 0 41 Special Services 7,819 0 7,819 43 Training 0 132,266 $132,266 75 911 General Operations 200,727 0 $200,727 82 Adult Parole/Probation 152,855 70,222 $223,077 45 Non-Departmentalt3i 45(170002) Sheriff's Office Building 3,863,921 0 $3,863,921 45(170202) Juvenile Community Justice Bldg $10,929,783 0 $10,929,783 45(170302) Regional Correctional Building 3,567,591 0 $3,567,591 Facilities Subtotals: 18,748,562 248,024 $18,996,586 170*** Patrol Cars (VO4)'49 1,688,946 170*** Sheriff Equipment (SE)(4) 488,409 170100 Land for Public Safety Bldg (LA)ml 1,359,059 Total Capital Value: 22,532,999 Notes: 1)Three Sheriffs Substations were not included because they are rented or shared facilities.Other shared faciities alsowere not included. 2)Total costs do notinclude the values of any shared facilities orfacilities used for public safety purposes that are rented,such as the Terrebonne and Sisters Substations. 3)Only public safetyfacilities were included from this department code. 4)Cars,equipment and land costs adjusted forinflation to 2008 values using the Consumer Price Index. To arrive at a per-capita cost for public safety facilities(not including jail cost),the total of facilities values of$22.5 million(from Table 5-25)were distributed across the entire County population.The full County 2008 population of 156,733 persons Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 56 was used because most of the facilities serve the entire County.52 The per-capita cost for these public safety facilities is$144. Based on.the demand resulting from the assumed peak population ofthe Thornburgh Resort of3,688 persons (Table 5-23), the incremental cost for expanding these facilities to serve the resort is$531,072. As shown in Table 5-26,the total public safety facility costs associated with the Thornburgh Resort is $4,694,824. It is important to note that the cost value is understated due to the lack of data mentioned previously. Table 5-26 Total Public Safety Facility Costs for Thornburgh Resort Per New Person For Resort Jail Expansion 1,129 4,163,752 Other Public Safety Facilities 144 531,072 Total Cost: 4,694,824 To obtain net public safety facility costs, estimated future tax contribution by the Thornburgh Resort are deducted from the cost in Table 5-26. At full buildout,the resort would represent 2.2% of the County's tax base and would fund the same percentage of County facility costs. As shown in Table 5-27,the net cost for public safety facilities is $4,591,181. Table 5-27: Net public safety facility cost for Thornburgh Resort after deducting future property tax contributions. Net Public Safety Facilities Costs Total public safety facilities cost: 4,694,824 Future property tax contribution (at 2.2%) 103,643) Net public safety facilities cost: 4,591,181 52 Exceptions are the patrol cars and patrol facility cost,which serve primarily the unincorporated area.These costs are relatively small,so the error is negligible,but the effect is to slightly lower public safety costs attributed to the resort. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 57 Cost ofPublic Safety Services The actual amount spent for the Sheriffs office for the budget year ending June 30, 2008 was$26,844,500.53 This expenditure was allocated to countywide and rural service districts as shown in Table 5-28. The cost for each district was divided by the 2008 population for the district to arrive at per-capita costs. Rural unincorporated residents received service from both districts, so the total per-capita cost is$295 per year. For the estimated 3,688 peak residents ofThornburgh Resort, the cost to provide public safety services is approximately$1,087,960 per year. Table 5-28 Sheriff's Department 2008 Operations Costst Population Per-Capita District Expenditure Served Cost Countywide District $15,908,322 156,733 102 Rural District 10,936,178 56,609 193 Total 26,844,500 295 1)Comprehensive Annual Financial Report,Deschutes County,Oregon,For the Rscal Year Ended June 30,2008,pages 63 and 64. As shown in Table 5-29, the total estimated annual public safety revenues from the proposed Thornburgh Resort are$1,310,884. This is about$223,000 more than the estimated costs to serve the resort. The surplus is due to the allocation of 73%of all room taxes to law enforcement, as described in the Revenues section. Table 5-29 Estimated Public Safety Revenues from Thornburgh Resort Revenue Source Revenue(ti Countywide Law Enforcement 345,368 Rural Law Enforcement 508,963 911 Service 142,437 Share of resort room taxes to law enforcement 314,116 Total: 1,310,884 1)From Table 4-4 in Revenues section. 53 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report,Deschutes County,Oregon,For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30,2008,pages 63 and 64. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 58 Parks & Rec. System Costs The Thornburgh Resort is within the Boundaries of the Redmond Area Park and Recreation District(RAPRD). The District is supported through a combination of user fees and property taxes. The District operates the Cascade Swim Center,with a 25 meter indoor pool,the RAPRD Activity Center with indoor basketball,volley ball courts and batting cage; and multipurpose activity room; the High Desert Sports Center with 4 softball fields a BMX track and a Remote Control Airplane Landing field; Borden Beck Wildlife Preserve a 26-acre park and nature preserve located along the Deschutes River, and Historical Tetherow Crossing,an 11-acre Deschutes River-front park. The recreational opportunities offered by RAPRD at its swim and activity centers directly duplicate those that would be available to Thornburgh residents and guests at Resort-owned and operated facilities. As those facilities are closer and should be available at little to no out-of-pocket expense,it is likely that Thornburgh residents and guests would use the resorts facilities rather then driving long distances to a similar RAPRD facility. Thus it is reasonable to conclude that the Thornburgh Resort would have no measurable impact on the operation of the RAPRD Aquatics and Activity Centers. The facilities provided by the High Desert Sports Center are not duplicated at the Thornburgh Resort. But as the resort is intended to provide short term rentals,and vacation or second homes,it is not likely that many of the residents would be participating in local softball leagues or otherwise using these facilities. The one possible exception would be out of area teams renting a house or houses to stay in while participating at a tournament hosted by the High Desert Sports Center or Cascade swim Center. However,if that should occur,it would be more accurate to say that the sports complexes were utilizing the short term housing capacity of the Resort rather than Resort residents utilizing the capacity of the sports complexes. Thus it is reasonable to conclude that the Thornburgh Resort would have no significant impact on the operation of the High Desert Sports Center. While the resort does intend to provide open space for the use of residents and guests these facilities do not duplicate those provided by Borden Beck Wildlife Preserve and Historical Tetherow Crossing Park. The Deschutes River is one of the significant tourist attractions in Central Oregon. The Thornburgh Resort does not have any river frontage and both ofthese parks include extensive Deschutes River frontage. For this reason it is reasonable to assume that residents and guests of the Thornburgh Resort would utilize these two parks. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 59 Capital Costs The flexible nature of park facilities such as the Borden Beck Wildlife Preserve and Historical Tetherow Crossing Park makes it difficult to determine the maximum number of users that could utilize them at a time. Thus making a determination of whether they are at,over,or below capacity difficult to impossible. It is however, relatively easy to determine what the current level of service that is being provided by these two parks to the 32,000 residents of the Redmond Area Park and Recreation District,and from that determine the amount of similar river front park acreage that would be needed to maintain that level of service.54 Currently RAPRD provides 1.156 acres ofopen space per 1,000 residents.' Table 5-30 Parks and Open Space Operated by RAPRD Facility Acreage Borden Beck Wildlife Preserve 26 Historical Tetherow Crossing Park 11 Total Acreage 37 Park and recreation facilities receive peak demand in the summer months,the same time that resort occupancy will peak. The limited data available for the proposed Thornburgh Resort does not contain any demographic or population figures,but it is possible to arrive at a peak population estimate for the resort by working from the number ofplanned housing units,as shown in Table 5-31. If the advertisements for vacation rentals in the greater Redmond area are any indicator of the occupancy rates,the estimate for the occupancy of residential overnight units of 2.7 persons may be low. Many of these ads indicate that rental homes sleep from 8 to 12 persons. 54 Population figure was provided by RAPRD staff. 55(37 acres/(32000/1000) = 1.156 acres per thousand residents Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 60 Table 5-31 Thornburgh Peak Population Estimate for Park System Demand Peak Number Persons Occupancy Persons per Type of Housing Unit of units per unito) Rate (2) Type (a) Hotel 50 2 90%90 Residential Overnight Units (4) 425 2.7 90% 1,033 Houses 950 2.7 100% 2,565 Estimated Population: 3,688 t)Hotel room occupancy figure is an estimate.The 2.7 figure used is for the residential occupancy rate for a new house In Deschutes County. 2)The peak occupancy rates used for the hotel and overnight units arethe same as those used to generate the transient room tax data. 3)Number of Units x Persons per Unitx Occupancy Rate. 4)These are the housing units that would be subjectto a deed restriction requiring that they be available for short term rental at least 38 weeks a year. To meet the current standard of 1.156 acres per 1000 residents,the RAPRD would need to acquire an additional 4.26 Acres ofparkland with river frontage for the estimated 3,688 new Thornburgh residents.At an acquisition cost of$250,000 an acre,'that 4.26 acres would cost the district$1,065,000. As RAPRD does not impose a Systems Development Charge for Parks the money for this land acquisition would need to come from District Reserve Funds,operating revenues,a Parks Bond or some combination thereof. Given the current political climate and the funds available to the district it is unlikely that this land acquisition would happen. So rather than paying to meet this new demand for service, the existing residents would likely experience a reduction in the level of service. The new level of service would be lowered to 1.036 acres per 1000 residents. Crediting the Thornburgh Resort for future property tax contributions (assuming full buildout),results in a net cost for parks and recreation facilities of$463,562,as shown in Table 5-32. ss Replacement Land cost was provided by RAPRD staff. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 61 Table 5-32: Net parks and recreation facility cost for Thornburgh Resort after deducting future property tax contributions. Net Parks and Recreation Facilities Costs Total parks and recreation facilities cost: 1,065,000 Future property tax contribution (at 56%) 601,438) Net parks and recreation facilities cost: 463,562 Operating Costs As it is unlikely(for the reasons provided above)that Thornburgh residents would be utilizing the Cascade Swim Center,the RAPRD Activity Center,or High Desert Sports Center,there should not be any additional operational costs caused by the resort's demand on the capacity. As for the Borden Beck Wildlife Preserve and Historical Tetherow Crossing Park, which are more likely to be utilized by Thornburgh residents,they do not currently generate General Fund operating expenses. Historic Tetherow Crossing Park is in the public planning phase of development and the limited operations of the Wildlife Preserve are supported by gifts, donations and inter-fund transfers to a special fund. This year the fund's $400-dollar beginning balance was supplemented by a transfer of$500 from the District's General Fund. On the expenditure side,a total of$500 dollars57 has been budgeted for Materials and Services out of the fund's$900-dollar balance. The salary and benefits for the minimal Groundskeeper labor are absorbed into that of the rest of the District's operations. This breaks down to$15.63 per thousand residents. Assuming that the per-capita cost generated by new users is equal to the current per- capita cost,and no new acreage is provided,then the increased operating cost resulting from the 3688 peak Thornburgh residents is$57.63. If the additional 4.26 acres is added to the park so as to maintain current levels of service,then an additional$81.91 would be needed to provide the same level of operations and maintenance expenditures that the Wildlife Preserve currently receives. Conclusion Thornburgh property owners will be paying taxes toward the Redmond Area Parks and Recreation District amounting to an estimated$135,130 per year. This greatly 57 The actual expenditure for FY 2006-07 was$551 (RAPRD 08-09 Annual Budget). Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 62 exceeds the$57.63 operating cost associated with meeting their demand on parks capacity. In terms of level ofservice,District residents would likely see a small drop from 1.156 acres to 1.036 acres per 1000 residents. There is a limit to how many development projects similar to the Thornburgh Resort could be constructed within the District's boundaries before the cumulative negative impacts caused by reductions in the level ofservice are felt by the current population. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 63 General Government Facilities The costs for expanding Deschutes County's general government facilities to accommodate the Thornburgh resort are calculated in this section. None of the infrastructure or facility costs addressed on other sections of this report are included here,so there is no duplication of costs. Deschutes County's Capital Asset Data File was used to identify the costs of all County facilities purchased or built since 1978 (Table 5-33). This database does not include the road system or facilities operated by independent districts,such as schools,fire,and parks.Note that the County rents some facilities,so these costs will not be included here. The costs for each ofthese facilities were adjusted to reflect 2008 replacement values using the ENR Construction Cost Index and the BLS Consumer Price Index. Facilities for the Sheriff's Office and the County Jail were removed from this list,as they were already included in the Public Safety Impacts section of this report. Table 5-33 Deschutes County General Government Facilities Costs(I) All costs adjusted to 2008 values) Buildings and Land Vehicles, Improvements Improvements Equipment Facility BU, BI) LI)Land and Other Total Value All County Facilities 120,614,699 $34,384,960 $18,388,936 $115,653,683 $289,042,278 Deduct Sheriff&Jail ($31,681,617) ($325,792) ($1,359,059) ($2,177,355) ($35,543,823) County-(Sheriff&Jail) $88,933,082 $34,059,169 $17,029,877 $113,476,328 $253,498,455 1)Includes all facilities and equipment purchased since 1978.Buildings and Land Improvement values adjusted with CCI.Land and Equipment values inflated with CPI.Sheriff and Jail facilities were addressed under Public Safety Impacts. The new population added by the Thornburgh Resort that would require general county services was assumed to be limited to the occupants of primary residences. As previously describe in this report,primary residences were found to comprise 43%of the owner-occupied housing at the nearby Eagle Crest Resort,so this figure was applied to Thornburgh. Other property owners at Thornburgh who have second homes may also used County services and facilities,but this impact was considered to be relatively minor. As shown in Table 5-34,the estimated population in primary residences at Thornburgh is 1,103 persons. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 64 Table 5-34 Thornburgh Population Estimate for General Government Facilities Demand Percent Number Persons Primary Type of Housing Unitof units per unit"f Residences( ) Population(af Owner-Occupied Houses 950 2.7 43% 1,103 Notes: 1)The 2.7 occupancy rale Isfor a new houses in Deschutes County. 2)Percent primary residences is based on an analysis of tax records for the Eagle Crest Resort. 3)Number of Units x Persons per Unitx%Primary Residences. Based on the per-capita value of existing County facilities of$1,617 shown in Table 5-35,the cost of expanding general government facilities in Deschutes County to accommodate the Thornburgh Resort is estimated to be $1,783,984. Table 5-35 General Government Facilities Costs Associated with Thornburgh Resort Countywide General Government Facilities Cost (TbI 5-33) 253,498,455 2008 County Population(1) 156,733 Per-Capita Facilities Cost 1,617 Thornburgh Population Estimate (Tbl 5-34) 1,103 General Gov. Facil. Cost:1,783,984 1)From Coordinated Population Forecast. Since the resort will make future tax payments to the County, those payments should be deducted from the facilities cost in Table 5-35. When fully built out, Thornburgh Resort will represent approximately 2.2%of the County's tax base and will therefore fund 2.2%ofthese facility costs. The net cost for general government facilities after deducting future tax revenues is$1,744,601, as shown in Table 5-36. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 65 Table 5-36: Net generadeductingl governmfutureent facilitypropertytaxcost for Thornburgh Resort after Net General Government Facilities Costs Total general gov.facilities cost: 1,783,984 Future property tax contribution (at 2.2%) 39,383) Net general gay.facilities cost: 1,744,601 The costs and revenues associated with general government services were not estimated in this study,as there are many types of services and it would have been very difficult to determine how much demand for each of these services would be created by the Thornburgh Resort. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 66 6. Fiscal Impact Summary The section compares the costs and the revenues calculated in the previous sections to determine the net fiscal impacts for the proposed Thornburgh Resort. Revenue Summary Table 6-1 summarizes the total gross annual tax revenues that are estimated for the Thornburgh Resort. Combined property and room tax revenues total $5,521,419 per year. These gross revenues go to pay for all of the services and facilities provided by local government to the resort and therefore do not represent a net windfall.As shown below,these revenues are more than offset by the infrastructure costs created by the resort. Table 6-1: Annual revenue summary for Thornburgh Resort. Revenue Summary Revenue Category Revenue Property Tax Revenue 5,091,123 Total Room Tax Revenue 430,296 Total Annual Revenues 5,521,419 Costs of Facilities As shown in Table 6-2,the total net cost for the five categories of infrastructure required by the Thornburgh Resort is estimated to be$51,284,705. These are effectively one-time costs to local governments that are"due"upon completion of the resort. As noted previously in the text,some of the transportation system costs will be incurred by the State,so not all ofthese costs will accrue to Deschutes County and its various districts. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 67 Table 6-2: Net cost summary for infrastructure required by Thornburgh Resort. Net Facility Cost Summary Category of Facility Net Cost Estimate ) Transportation System 39,149,282 School Facilities(2) 4,752,973 Fire & EMS Facilities 580,813 Public Safety Facilities 4,591,181 Parks &Rec. Facilities 463,562 Gen Gov. Facilities 1,744,601 Total Net Cost:51,284,705 1)Net costs are total gross costs,minus any payments or revenues from the resort thatfund infrastructure,including future tax payments and SDCs. 2)The school costfigure is for the lower estimate of student generation in Scenario#2. Services Impacts The costs to provide ongoing services were calculated for three of the six impact categories and compared with the tax revenues generated for that same category. It was not practical to calculate comparative values for schools,transportation and general government,as described previously. Table 6-3 summarizes the revenues and costs and gives a net impact for each category of service. The net impacts are positive for each category. The total net impact is a surplus of$466,344 per year. This accrues to the County and its service districts,since each of these services is funded exclusively by either the County or the service district. Table 6-3: Net annual services impact for Thornburgh Resort. Net Annual Services Impacts for Thornburgh Resort Category of Service Revenue Estimate Cost Estimate Net Impact Transportation System") NA NA NA School Facilitiestft NA NA NA Fire & EMS Facilities 637,731 529,359) $108,372 Public Safety Facilities 1,310,884 ($1,087,960) $222,924 Parks & Rec. Facilities 135,130 82) $135,048 Totals: 2,083,745 ($1,617,401) $466,344 1)Direct revenue and service costs were not be calculated far these categories because theyare funded from a combination of sources(Federal,State and County)and revenuesfrom the resort could not be determined. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 68 Fiscal Impact Conclusions The net$51.28 million in infrastructure costs associated with the Thornburgh Resort greatly overshadow the $466,344 annual surplus for County services. In order to consider the overall net fiscal impacts of the resort,the annual surplus for County services was converted to an equivalent amount of capital that could be financed with this cash flow. The$466,344 surplus could service interest and principal payments on a 20-year loan at 6%interest for$5.35 million. Assuming this surplus was used for this purpose,the $51.28 million in infrastructure costs could be reduced to $45.94 million,as shown in Table 6-4. Table 6-4 Net Fiscal Impact of Thornburgh Resort Net Infrastructure Cost 51,284,705 Less Capital Equivalent of Revenue Surplus(1) 5,348,967) Net Fiscal Impact: 45,935,738 t)This is the value of capital facilities that could be financed with a$466,344 annual revenue stream at 6%interest over20 years. In conclusion, local governments and local taxpayers will be left with a net cost burden of$45.94 million if the Thornburgh Resort is fully completed as proposed. This is a net cost after the resort has been credited for all known payments and tax revenues it will generate. The$45.94 million cost will be externalized and will ultimately be borne by other taxpayers(not the resort) through some combination of higher taxes,reduced public services,and lower facility service standards. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 69 7. Thornburgh Resort's Economic Impacts This section provides a review and analysis of the jobs and housing issues resulting from destination resorts by examining the proposed Thornburgh Resort as a representative case study. The resort developer, Thornburgh Resort Company LLC, maintains that the resort will create many new construction and operations jobs and will have little impact on housing in the area. To support their position,they have submitted the following two reports as part of the required application materials: An Economic and Benefit Studyfor the Thornburgh Destination Resort in Deschutes County, Oregon,for Thornburgh Resort Company LLC,by Jon Peterson of Peterson Economics,January 21,2005. An Employee Housing Analysisfor the Thornburgh Destination Resort in Deschutes County, Oregon, for Thornburgh Resort Company LLC,by Jon Peterson of Peterson Economics,August 22, 2005. These reports are referred to here respectively as the Peterson Economic Report and the Peterson Housing Report and collectively as the Peterson Report. The Peterson Economic Report was prepared as part of the required application materials for the Thornburgh Resort. Deschutes County Code Chapter 18.113($)(19) requires the destination resort applicant to provide: An economic impact andfeasibility analysis ofthe proposed developmentprepared by a qualified professional economist(s)orfinancial analyst(s)shall be provided which includes: a.An analysis which addresses the economic viability ofthe proposed development; b. Fiscal impacts ofthe project including changes in employment, increased tax revenue,demands for new or increased levels ofpublic services, housing for employees and the effects ofloss ofresource lands during the life ofthe project. [Emphasis added.] In spite of the Code requirement,the Peterson report lacks a complete analysis of the fiscal impacts of the project and instead focuses on the property tax revenues that may be generated if the resort is completed. Absent from the report is any analysis of the demands for new or increase levels of public services. The report also neglects to report transient room tax revenues from overnight lodging. The Peterson study,like many economic impact studies provided by developers, portrays an unrealistically optimistic and beneficial picture of the development Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 70 project. Tax revenues, for example,are projected by Peterson to be three times greater than for comparable resorts located nearby. According to a separate study comparing projected tax revenues for commercial developments with actual tax revenues after the developments were completed,projected revenues were found to be overstated by an average of 39%.55 The portrayal ofresort development as beneficial is also achieved by ignoring the costs and negative impacts of the project. The Peterson Report ignores all external costs associate with the Thornburgh Resort development. While new jobs, employment compensation and property tax revenues are presented in explicit detail,there is little to no effort made to address the many costs associated with providing public services,public infrastructure,or any of the potential adverse impacts on the community and the environment. In this case,most of the costs are likely to be borne by the current and future residents of Deschutes County via increased taxes or declining services, or both. Costs that are externalized by the developer and shifted onto the local community improve the developer's profitability at the expense of local residents. Job Creation and Employment Impacts The employment and compensation data in the Peterson Economic Report(as Table II-1)was revised downward seven months later in the Peterson Housing Report (as Table 1), so the more-recent Housing Report data is used here. The Housing Report bases projected wages for the Thornburgh Resort on a past projection for an analysis the company did for the Suncadia Resort in Roslyn,WA in 2002 and inflated to 2005 values. By their own figures,almost half ofemployees(49%)will make less than $21,000 per year and 67%will make less than$26,000 per year. As shown in Table 7-1,Federal guidelines indicate that household incomes below$21,200 represent the poverty level for a family of four. Such households may qualify for Federal aid from the Food Stamp Program,the National School Lunch Program, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program,and the Children's Health Insurance Program. sa Commercial Development:ImpactAnalysis Before andAfter Construction,by C.Fred DeKay,Ph.D.and Barbara M.Yates,Ph.D.,Economic Development Journal,fall 2005,p 7. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 71 Table 7-1: 2008 US Poverty Guidelines. Persons 48 Contiguous in Family or Household States and D.C. 1 10,400 2 14,000 3 17,600 4 21,200 5 24,800 6 28,400 7 32,000 8 35,600 For each additional person, add: 3,600 Source: Federal Register,Vol.73,No.15,January 23,2008,pp.3971-3972 Resorts are notoriously low-paying businesses. The "leisure and hospitality" sector, that includes destination resorts,pays the lowest of any employment sector in Deschutes County. This sector paid average annual wages ofonly$16,096,about half as much as the average annual wage in Deschutes County of$31,492 in 2006, according to the Oregon Employment Department.59 The Peterson Report appears to be considerably overestimating wages for the proposed Thornburgh Resort. Peterson claims that only 7%of jobs will pay less than 16,000 per year. This contrasts sharply with the$16,096 average wage in this sector. Many more than 7%of the jobs created at the resort will likely pay minimum wage. Such jobs include maids,waitresses, dishwashers, groundskeepers, landscape maintenance workers, janitors,and laborers. Minimum wage in Oregon was$7.25 per hour,or about$14,500 in 2005 when the Peterson report was written. In 2008 the State's minimum wage was$7.95 per hour, or approximately$15,900 before taxes. According to Oregon's Report on Poverty 200660 for Deschutes County: The 2005 average[monthly]wage of$2,624, however,proved inadequate for single parents.Deschutes County's 2005 average wage could notfund the basicfamily budgetfor a single adult and one child or more. The second largest industry in Deschutes County, leisure and hospitality,paid an average wage nearly halfof the county average—$1,342 a month. ... Families earningpoverty level wages could afford no more than 40.2 percent ofbasicfamily expenses in Deschutes County. 59 Oregon Employment Department,2006,as quoted in 2007 Central Oregon Area Profile,by Economic Development for Central Oregon. Oregon Housing and Community Services. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 72 Based on the Peterson Housing Report,61 the median wage offered at Thornburgh would be about$21,000. Median household income in Deschutes County was 45,894 in 200462,more than twice as much as the resort will pay. Even if two members of a household worked full time at the Thornburgh Resort, they would still make less than the median County household income in 2004 and the effect of the resort will be to depress median wages in the County. Peterson uses "induced jobs"to enhance the total employment-related compensation associated with the resort. However,this induced employment works both ways: increasing jobs when hiring,but decreasing jobs in a similar proportion when firing. Using Peterson's assumption of 0.5 induced jobs per construction job and 0.2 induced jobs per operations job,total employment associated with the resort will peak at 2,015 jobs in the sixth year of development. However,when construction is completed, 1,471 of these jobs will be lost. The loss of 1,471 jobs is roughly equivalent to the closing of Central Oregon's second largest employer,Les Schwab Tire Centers(1500 employees). It will have an even greater impact due to the relatively higher salaries paid to construction workers. The loss of these jobs will have a profound impact on the region as these households struggle to pay bills and seek to relocate to other areas in search of employment. The lost jobs are likely to increase local demand for social services and public assistance and may result in evictions,foreclosures and bankruptcies. The magnitude of these job losses could negatively impact the local economy for years after the resort is completed. 61 Peterson Housing Report,Table 2. 62 According to the US Census Bureau. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 73 Figure 7-1: Direct employment at the proposed Thornburgh Resort estimated by Peterson(based on Peterson Housing Report,Table 1). Projected Direct Jobs,Thornburgh Resort 1200 1000 800 600 I 400 a 200 0 Itrit . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Project Year I®Construction Jobs 0 Operations Jobs Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 74 Figure 7-2: Total direct and induced employment at the proposed Thornburgh Resort estimated by Peterson (based on Peterson Housing Report,Table 1). Projected Jobs, Thornburgh Resort 2500 2000 1500 - 1000 4o 500 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Project Year o Direct Jobs 0 hduced Jobs Total Jobs Figure 7-3: Employment changes resulting from the Thornburgh Resort development (based on Peterson Housing Report). Annual Changes in Projected Employment,Thornburgh Resort 1000 - 899 800 44 566 600 - 411 400 - 185 200 izA 0 k 200 - 69 51 -52 mAll 179 -188400 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 600 - 490 512 Project Year Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 75 Theoretically,the only way to prevent such employment shocks from impacting the local economy(other than not building the resort in the first place) is to continually and indefinitely build more resorts at a steady and even pace in Deschutes County. However, this approach is completely impractical as the County could not sustain such development over the long term,and it would be impossible to transition seamlessly from one development to the next for employment purposes. Who Will Fill New Resort Jobs: Locals or Newcomers? The Peterson Report claims that "in excess of 90%" of employees will live in Deschutes County. To support this,they cite anecdotal evidence from conversations with the management ofBlack Butte and Eagle Crest Resorts that a"vast majority" ofemployees live within the County.Without additional evidence,Peterson claims that these employees were also local County residents before their employment at these resorts 63 This apparently forms the bases for Peterson's conclusion that only 8%to 10%of jobs created at Thornburgh Resort will be filled by newcomers. However, empirical data and studies indicated that the percentage of newcomers moving into Deschutes County to fill resort jobs will be much higher. Recently it came to light in a Bend Bulletin article that not only are resorts filling some of their jobs from out of the area,they are actively recruiting foreigners64 The Sunriver Resort filled 85 jobs last year with people from as far away as Lithuania, Brazil and Mexico. People may move to a new county for a variety of reasons. Deschutes County has outstanding recreational opportunities and natural amenities that attract people from all over the country. A limiting factor to County in-migration is employment. While there may be a large number ofpeople who would like to live there, most will need employment to make such a move successful. Thus, the more jobs created in the County,the more people will be able to move there. To a large extent this same phenomenon applies statewide in Oregon. The State is viewed as offering attractive natural amenities and a desirable quality of life that act to stimulate in-migration. But the limiting factor to in-migration is the lack of employment opportunities. As a result of this "pent up" demand, new jobs created in the State are rapidly absorbed by newcomers and unemployment levels tend to remain consistently above the national average. This was the case even during the 1990s,a decade of the most rapid economic expansion and job creation in the State's history. 63 Job seekers who move to a new location seeking work often obtain a local address to use for job applications,so employers may not know if they are hiring new arrivals. 64"Unemployment might be high,but resorts still struggle to fill some jobs," The Bulletin,May 11, 2008. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 76 As shown in Figure 7-4,the US Census found that"work-related" reasons accounted for 31.1%ofall intercounty moves65 More specifically, 24%of all moves were either for new jobs/transfers or to look for work. "New jobs and job transfers"accounted for the most moves of any category in the Census survey. Clearly,employment is a major motivational factor in migration. This factor is amplified when a region offers additional amenities and quality-of-life benefits as found in Central Oregon. Figure 7-4: Reasons for moving to another county(US Census). Intel-county movers Other reasons 10.1 Family-related reasons 26.9 mr Work-related reasons 31.1 1' j film 1F. Housing-related reasons 31.9 Source:U.S.Census Bureau,Current Population Survey,March 2000. When new jobs are created in a community by a development project, its proponents often claim that the jobs will go to local workers. However,studies show that in the near term,40% to 60%of new jobs go to newcomers and in the longer term, 60%to 90%ofthese jobs are filled by newcomers.'Applying the midpoint estimates to the Thornburgh Resort,we can assume that construction jobs are shorter-term jobs that are filled by 50%newcomers and operations jobs are longer-term and are filled by 75%newcomers. As shown in Table 7-2,at peak employment, the resort will generate an estimated net in-migration of 1,150 workers to fill the jobs. This is considerably more than the 133 newcomers identified in the Peterson report. 65 Why People Move:Exploring the March 2000 Current Population Survey,Special Studies,US Census Bureau,March 2001. 66 See: Who Benefits from Locallob Growth,Migrants or the Original Residents,by Timothy J.Bartik, Regional Studies,vol.27,No.4, 1993. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 77 Table 7-2: Peak In-Migration to Deschutes County Due to Direct and Induced Jobs at Proposed Thornburgh Resort. Peak Percent Jobs to Jobs to Job Source Employmento) Newcomers12'Newcomers Construction 964 50% 482 Const. Induced 482 50% 241 Operations 474 75% 356 Oper. Induced 95 75% 71 Total: 2,015 1,150 1)Based on Peterson Housing Report;(2)From Bartik,1993. Housing Impacts of Thornburgh Resort Increased demand for housing will tend to increase prices, especially when there is a relatively fixed supply of housing and a marked increase in demand. Unless housing is expanded to meet the new demand,prices will increase and housing will become less affordable in the County. The loss of housing affordability becomes a regional cost associated with the resort. The Peterson Housing Report states that, due to the vacancy rate in Deschutes County,all housing needs generated by construction and ongoing operations at the resort will not"pose a problem." This conclusion seems to imply that the resort will have no significant impacts on the local housing demand or supply in Deschutes County. To the contrary,we find that the resort will have substantial impacts on the needs and demands for local housing. Peterson indicates that additional offsite job creation will be induced by the onsite jobs at the resort. However,no consideration is given to the housing demand created by the induced employment. Peterson reports that induced jobs peak in year six of the development at 577 jobs. Total jobs are estimated to peak at 2,015 at that time, including construction,operations and induced employment. The addition of more than 2000 new jobs to Deschutes County,many of which are temporary and low- paying,will have a very significant impact on the local housing market. This effect on the housing market is aggravated by the fact that most of these jobs 985 by Peterson's estimate)will be temporary. Temporary demands for a significant quantity oflocal housing can create multiple problems. As the demand grows rapidly,housing prices go up,housing availability and affordability decline,and additional home construction may be stimulated. As the temporary demand comes to an end,there is a glut of housing with a sharp increase in vacancies and unsold homes that may leave the housing market in worse shape than before the resort started. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 78 Most ongoing jobs will be low-paying groundskeepers, maids,and maintenance positions. Such jobs may attract workers who will require low income housing assistance and will increase demand for affordable housing in the County. Furthermore,many of the lower-paying jobs will be seasonal,or have significant seasonal variations in employment. Seasonal jobs will further stress households that are struggling to afford market-rate housing as their employment varies from season to season. Lower-paid workers will have more difficulty finding affordable housing near the resort and they will need to travel farther to meet their housing needs.The additional commuting requirements will further exacerbate their financial stress. Renters in Deschutes County are currently struggling to meet housing costs. According to the US Census,41% of the County's renters are paying more than 30% of their income for rent67 New destination resorts will increase local housing demand and push up rental prices forcing more local residents to spend a greater share of their incomes on housing. Peterson estimates that during the 11-year period of resort construction,between 37 and 133 housing units will be required to supply the new workers (both construction and resort operations)and that all of these units can be met from the current inventory ofvacant housing. However,this conclusion is based partly on the unrealistic assumption that more than 90%of jobs will be filled by local residents and that only 8-10%will be filled by people moving into the county. As shown previously,the Thornburgh Resort is likely to attract newcomers to fill 1,150 of the peak jobs generated by the resort. Most of these newcomers will create new households in the County. However, some may live with others or have a spouse that is also employed by the resort. To estimate new households it was assumed that 30%ofthe newcomers will either live with others who work at the resort or have a spouse also working at the resort. These cohabitating workers would reduce demand for new housing by 15% (half of 30%). The newcomers will therefore generate a peak demand for 978 housing units in Deschutes County(Table 7-3). 67 Source: U.S.Census Bureau,2005American Community Survey,Deschutes County. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 79 Table 7-3: Estimated new households created by peak employment at Thornburgh Resort. Jobs & Households Generated Number Peak jobs at Thornburgh 2,015 Peak jobs to newcomers (from Table 7-2)1,150 Newcomers cohabitating (30% assumed) 345 Households by new cohabitating workers 173 Households by other new workers 805 Total new households by newcomers: 978 The Peterson Housing Report states that there was "an existing vacancy inventory of more than 320 rental units in Deschutes County" in order to show that the County can absorb the modest demand they predict from resort employees without generating any need for additional housing. However, the Peterson data does not appear to be accurate and there is no source cited. The Central Oregon Rental Survey Results for 2004 showed 411 vacant units for all of Central Oregon. The most recent Central Oregon Rental Survey Results for 2007 (1"Quarter)showed 270 vacancies for all of Central Oregon with a 6.86%vacancy rate. However,this survey provides only a partial account of vacancies, since the US Census 2005 American Community Survey shows there were 18,552 rental units in Deschutes County in 2005 with a vacancy rate of 6.4%, or about 1,187 vacant units. Vacancies always exist in the rental housing market and don't necessarily represent housing availability. Vacancies are a natural part of the rental housing business. Turnover of rental units typically requires a period ofvacancy between tenants so that the unit can be cleaned,marketed and leased. Rental units also require repairs and improvements during unoccupied periods. Less-desirable,substandard, or overpriced units may take longer to rent. Rental vacancy rates in 2005 were 9.8% nationally and 8.3%in Oregon,much higher than the 6.4%rate in Deschutes County. The likely demand for housing resulting from resort employment will be much greater than Peterson has estimated. Peterson estimated a peak demand of 133 housing units,compared with the estimate here of 978 housing units. It is unrealistic for the Thornburgh Resort to rely on local rental vacancy rates to meet the housing needs for the estimated 1,150 peak jobs filled by newcomers. As shown in Table 7-4,the Thornburgh Resort is projected to create direct and induced long-term employment of 544 persons from year 12 ofthe project onwards. An estimated 75%of these jobs will be filled by newcomers. Of the 408 permanent jobs filled by newcomers,an estimated 347 new households will be created by these Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 80 employees."This will result in a permanent demand for 347 new housing units in the County. Table 7-4: Newcomers to Deschutes County Filling Permanent Direct and Induced Jobs at Proposed Thornburgh Resort(year 12 of project and onwards). Permanent Percent Jobs to Jobs to Job Source Employment"i Newcomersm Newcomers Operations 453 75% 340 Oper. Induced 91 75% 68 Total: 544 408 1)Based on Peterson Housing Report. 2)From Bartik,1993. Spending by Destination Resorts The typical economic analysis presented by a developer estimates the total gross spending in connection with the development as a net benefit to the local community. The spending estimate is often magnified by use of multiplier-effects to show even greater benefit to the local community as direct spending ripples through the local economy. Thus, spending figures typically include both direct and induced secondary)spending for wages, construction materials and services. Such spending figures tend to greatly overstate local benefits. For example, assumptions are made that 100%of spending for construction, including materials and supplies,will stay in the local county. However, construction materials such as lumber,cement,appliances,cabinets,flooring,plumbing fixtures,lighting, doors, windows,plaster and paint are obtained through a national and international supply network. It is highly unlikely that a significant portion of these construction materials will be produced within the county. Therefore,most of this spending quickly leaves the county. Many economic studies also assume that other construction-related spending,such as design,engineering, and construction labor,will stay in the local county. However, many of the design firms and construction companies are likely to be based out of the area, or even out of state. Most of the expenditures to firms and employees based out ofthe area will leave the local county. 6$Estimate assumes that 30%of employees will share housing with another employee,reducing household generation by 15 percent. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 81 Use of"multiplier effects" is a common practice in economic analysis. Multipliers are used to show how money can be recycled in a community or region and can significantly inflate the apparent economic benefits. In contrast,empirical studies show that local growth does not result in real benefits to the community in terms of increased per-capita income.69 Therefore,it must be assumed that much of the direct and indirect economic activity flows out of the community and does not significantly benefit local residents. In this case, "multiplier effects"are likely to be offset by national builders,national building materials suppliers,and non-local workers who will take much of the money out ofthe community. Ifmultipliers are to be used in impact analysis,they should be applied to cost as well as revenues (see sidebar on this topic). Use of multipliers An increasingly common method among the building industry and some governments for projecting fiscal impacts involves the use of multipliers derived from economic models.Using data from the models, an analyst might take the estimated direct economic activity in dollars associated with a project and"multiply' it by a given amount to account also for indirect, secondary impacts.The total measure of economic activity is then used to estimate revenues for the purpose of determining fiscal impacts. Such multiplier approaches to fiscal impact analysis suffer from several shortcomings.First,the multipliers are usually obtained from economic models of large regions or states. But they are applied at the level of an individual local jurisdiction that is usually only a fraction of a region's or state's economy.The smaller the jurisdiction relative to the economic region for which the multipliers have been derived,the less reliable the multipliers will be for that jurisdiction. Furthermore,while the multipliers are applied to the revenue side of the budget,few such analyses ever apply a multiplier to the cost side of the local budget.The implicit(but often wrong)assumption is that local governments can generate revenue from secondary,induced,or indirect development without incurring increased costs in providing services to that development.Another shortcoming of the multiplier approach is its tendency to"double-count"revenues.A multiplier-based fiscal analysis of a project might credit it with the additional revenue impacts as derived from 1,000 new jobs elsewhere in the jurisdiction. But,when the separate fiscal impact analysis of the development where these jobs are located is(or was)prepared by its developer,the revenues would also be claimed on behalt of that development. Source:Developments andDollars:An Introduction to Fiscal Impact Analysis in Land Use Planning,by Michael L. Siegel, May 2000, Natural Resources Defense Council. In the case of the Peterson Economic Report for the proposed Thornburgh Resort, compensation is estimated for both direct and induced jobs. While totaling all the wages paid for direct and induced employees is straightforward,it is far less clear how this spending should be counted in terms of net benefits to Deschutes County. b9 Gottlieb,Paul D.,Growth Without Growth:AnAlternative Economic Development Goal For Metropolitan Areas,Center for Regional Economic Issues,Weatherhead School ofManagement,Case Western Reserve University,A Discussion Paper Prepared for The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy,February 2002. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 82 Wages benefit the individual employee,but he or she must exchange their time and labor for the wage. Employment is therefore an economic transaction exchanging labor for money. From the local perspective,existing residents of Deschutes County will benefit from resort employment if: 1. They are currently unemployed and obtain employment at the resort,or 2. They are working part-time and obtain full-time employment at the resort, or 3. They are currently employed,but are able to obtain higher wages at the resort. On the other hand,existing residents of Deschutes County will not benefit from resort employment if newcomers move into the County to fill the jobs. Only the incremental increase in the incomes of existing local residents resulting from resort employment can be counted as a clear economic benefit. This incremental increase in income is a fraction of the total compensation figure estimated for the resort and does not include the 40%to 90%of new jobs likely to go to newcomers. Economic Risks In addition to considering the likely economic impacts of a successful and completed resort, there are emerging risks associated with resort development that could dramatically affect local homebuyers,local government investments,and the local economy. The national economic downturn has revealed structural weaknesses in the real estate markets. Property values became over-inflated and banking institutions lent too much money to unqualified buyers. The supply ofhomes grew at record levels until supply greatly exceeded demand. It may take several years before the real estate market stabilizes. In the mean time,foreclosures and bankruptcies are at levels not seen since the Great Depression. In the past,California provided many of the second home and investment home buyers in Oregon. Many were able to transfer equity from their California homes to make these purchases. But California's real estate market has suffered greatly. The median price of a home in that state dropped 38%in December from a year earlier.70 Under any circumstances, a destination resort is a risky business venture. If it goes well,it is a potential bonanza to investors. But a great deal of investment is required up front. Typically a hundred million dollars or more must be borrowed and spent to build these resorts. The Thornburgh Resort estimates the total project cost at 160 million.71 What happens ifrevenue streams don't match projections?What if 70 December median home prices in California dropped to$249,000 from$402,000 a year earlier the Associated Press reported January 22,2009. 71 Peterson Economic Report,Table IV-1. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 83 lots don't sell,or prices drop?If one resort fails,how will other resorts in the area be impacted? In Deschutes County the Tetherow Resort's golf course was heralded as the"Best New Course of 2008"by GolfMagazine. However, lot sales have stalled,investors are unable to make loan payments,and the bank is foreclosing on properties.'Z The large,upscale Tamarack Resort in Idaho made the Wall StreetJournal last year when investor money dried up and the resort went into default on loans.73 Construction of resort facilities stopped and the bank filed for foreclosure. Homebuyers had already committed more than$500 million for fancy homes, condos and building sites. The resort village remains unfinished,home sales have withered and the local economy is suffering. The resort closed on March 4,2009 and 250 employees were fired. Of 2,100 planned chalets, condos and town homes,only 250 are completed." The Vineyards Resort in Yakima,WA declared bankruptcy last year.75 It was to be a destination resort in wine country designed as a Tuscan-themed village with 500 acres,600 homes, an 18-hole golf course,clubhouse,hotel,and recreation center. They were unable to obtain financing for the$100 million investment needed. The posh Yellowstone Club resort in Montana is also declaring bankruptcy.76 According to the Wall Street Journal article on the Tamarack Resort, A resort's success was often staked to real-estate sales:As a Tamarack lender recounted in recent courtfilings, the resort had a business model in which "operating expenses would exceed revenues and the primary source ofprofit would be generated by the sale ofreal estate." Destination resorts are following the same business model as the rural subdivision: buy large tracts of cheap rural land to make hundreds, or thousands,of buildable residential lots for a large profit. The resort elements are often unprofitable,but make the residential subdivision possible. The Tetherow and Pronghorn Resorts in Deschutes County have been unable to build the required amount of overnight housing,which is intended to support tourism.According articles in the Bend Bulletin,Pronghorn was to have completed a hotel by 2006."It has received four time extension from the County and cut its planned hotel expenditure in half. 72"Tetherow housing lots are entering foreclosure," The Bend Bulletin,January 15,2009. Wall StreetJournal,"In Idaho,Ski Resort's Promise Fades," 7/7/2008. 7A"Tamarack Resort closes;employees cut loose,"Seattle Post-Intelligencer,March 4,2009. 73 Reported by the Associated Press,November 23,2008 in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. 76 See http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=ai WwtVGzHrY&refer=news. 77"Without financing,Tetherow on hold indefinitely:Hotel won't open in spring 2009 as planned," The Bend Bulletin,October 15,2008. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 84 If Thornburgh Resort is successful,its developer could make$300 million on lot sales,almost doubling its investment. The lucrative profit potential for developers creates a formidable incentive for them to pursue resort projects on Oregon's cheap rural lands in beautiful natural settings. They can afford to spend liberally to make their resort projects possible. Economic Impact Conclusions Many of the economic impact studies provided by developers portray an overly optimistic picture of the development project's benefits by ignoring the costs associated with providing public services,public infrastructure,and the potential adverse impacts on the community and the environment. The"leisure and hospitality"sector(that includes destination resorts)paid average annual wages of only$16,096, the lowest of any employment sector in Deschutes County and about half as much as the average annual wage in the County of$31,492 in 2006. Even if two members ofa household worked full time at the Thornburgh Resort, they would still make less than the median household income in 2004 and the effect of the resort will be to depress median wages in the County. Household incomes below $21,200 represent the Federal poverty level for a family of four. Most jobs created by the resort will be temporary and when construction is completed, 1,471 jobs will be lost,causing ripple effects in the localeconom The addition of more than 2000 peak new jobs to Deschutes Countywill have a very significant impact on the local housing market,especially when the temporary jobs are lost. Low-wage jobs created by the resort will increase demand for affordable housing. While the Peterson Housing Report estimates a peak of only 133 new households generated by the resort,it is more realistic that a peak of 978 new households will need to find housing in Deschutes County. After the resort is completed,there will be an estimated permanent demand for 347 new housing units in the County. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 85 8. Implications for Impacts of Destination Resorts in Oregon This section considers the potential statewide and regional impacts that may result from the resorts that are currently under construction and those that are proposed. In order to examine the potential statewide impacts of destination resorts in Oregon, total figures for the number of residential units were calculated for all resorts that are currently planned or under construction. The total number of residential units was then used as an index for gauging statewide impacts. The impact per residential unit is based on the impact analysis for the Thornburgh Resort. As described previously,the Thornburgh Resort is fairly typical of destination resorts in Oregon in terms of its overall profile(land area, mix of homes and overnight units,and recreational facilities). Some factors affecting impact will vary from place to place. For example,sewage treatment,water supply, and stormwater management may involve offsite public expenses for some resorts,but did not in the case of Thornburgh. Such cost factors may be governed by county policies and individual siting issues.The transportation system impacts of the Thornburgh Resort were partially mitigated by the transportation SDC implemented recently by Deschutes County. Total estimated transportation SDC payments for the resort were deducted from the transportation system costs. Most counties in Oregon have no transportation SDC,so the costs will be higher in those counties. It should also be noted that no impacts were calculated for Thornburgh Resort for libraries. As a result of these factors,Thornburgh's fiscal cost impacts maybe somewhat less than for the typical new resort. None-the-less,it serves as the best available gauge at this time. The net fiscal impact per residential unit for the Thornburgh Resort is a cost of$33,408.78 Based on the 22,374 residential units in destination resorts that are either under construction or proposed in Oregon,the total fiscal impact is estimated to be a net cost of$747 million. As shown graphically in Figure 8-1,almost two-thirds of this cost will come from the resorts that are proposed. Note that these net infrastructure costs are the externalized costs from the resorts after all payments and contributions are deducted. 78 This net cost incorporates the projected revenue surplus from services in the form ofthe capital cost that could be financed with the same annual revenue stream,as described in the Fiscal Impact Conclusions section. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 86 Figure 8-1 Future Statewide Resort Costs Total Net Cost=$747,455,211) Resorts Under Construction, x ! , $262,039,728 Resorts Planned, 485,415,483 Destination resorts have regional impacts that often receive little or no consideration in the resort planning and siting process. Resorts located near cities tend to create a fundamental fiscal inequity. The counties receive all the tax revenues,and the nearby cities receive much of the impacts, especially from increased traffic. Resort residents and visitors will avail themselves of the urban services and amenities of the city. They may travel to the cities to purchase necessities,for entertainment, or to commute to work in these cities. They may also travel through these cities going to and from the resort and to visit other attractions in the area. Resort employees are likely to find housing in the nearby cities and will create additional traffic. The City of Redmond will be especially impacted by new resort development,as four new destination resorts are planned nearby: Remington Ranch,Hidden Canyon, Brasada Ranch,and Thornburg Resort. The Remington Ranch Resort is just 5 miles from Redmond and it is estimated that 75% of the trips generated by the resort will use the city's road network. An estimate 35%of the trips from the proposed Hidden Canyon Resort will be to, or through,Redmond. According to City ofRedmond Public Works Director,Chris Doty,the city's growth is currently constrained by road capacity and by requirements ofthe State's Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 87 Transportation Planning Rule.79 Yet resort development can continue to burden these transportation facilities without having to mitigate their impacts. Housing needs for resort employees put added pressure on nearby cities to provide additional affordable housing,as resort workers are among the lowest-paid in the State. Impacts of resorts on nearby cities are beyond the cities'control and occur outside of the cities'planning processes. Redmond,for example, collects a Transportation System Development Charge on new development within the city,but is unable to collect such charges from resort development. Resorts have the potential to function like suburban subdivisions or bedroom communities,taking advantage of a nearby city's urban amenities,but paying no taxes to the city. Revenue sharing by the county, or mitigation requirements from the resort developers,could offset some of these impacts. 79 Letter from Chris Doty regarding Remington Ranch Resort to Bill Zelenka,Crook County Planning Department,September 7,2006. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 88 Appendices Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 89 A-I. Property Tax Explanation The single largest revenue source for local governments,school districts and agencies in Oregon is the property tax. Property subject to taxation includes all privately owned real property(land,buildings, and improvements). This tax is collected by the county tax collector for all agencies within the county. As the boundaries of the various taxing districts do not align the county is divided into Code Areas. Each Code Area represents a unique combination of taxing districts. For the 2008/09 tax year,the proposed Thornburgh Resort was located in two different Code Areas: 2-003,with a total tax rate of$12.2499 per thousand dollars of Assessed Value; and,2-004 with a total tax rate of$14.0041 thousand dollars of Assessed Value. The difference being that property in 2-004 is subject to a tax from Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection District #1. Table A-1 Tax Code Area 2-00380 Id District Total Rate Education Government Non-Limited 001 Deschutes County 1.2783 1.2783 007 Jail Bond 0.1335 0.1335 010 Fairgrounds Bond, 0.1410 0.1410 011 County Library 0.5500 0.5500 020 Countywide Law Enforcement 0.9500 0.9500 021 Rural Law Enforcement 1.4000 1.4000 070 Redmond Library 0.0567 0.0567 090 County Extension/4h 0.0224 0.0224 093 911 0.1618 0.1618 095 911 Local Option 2008 0.2300 02300 351 Redmond Area Park&Rec District 0.3717 0.3717 620 School District#21 5.0251 5.0251 626 School#2j Bond 92&93 0.8307 0.8307 628 School#21 Bond 2004 0.2930 0.2930 651 High Desert Esd 0.0964 0.0964 670 C 0 C C, 0.6204 0.6204 671 C 0 C C Bond 0.0889 0.0889 Total 12.2499 5.7419 4.9642 1.5438 80 Data from Deschutes County 2008-09 Summary ofAssessment and Tax Roll page 80. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 90 Table A-2 Tax Code Area 2-004°1 Id District Total Rate Education Government Non-Limited 001 Deschutes County 1.2783 1.2783 007 Jail Bond 0.1335 0.1335 010 Fairgrounds Bond, 0.1410 0.1410 011 County Library 0.5500 0.5500 020 Countywide Law Enforcement 0.9500 0.9500 021 Rural Law Enforcement 1.4000 1.4000 070 Redmond Library 0.0567 0.0567 090 County Extension/4h 0.0224 0.0224 093 911 0.1618 0.1618 095 911 Local Option 2008 0.2300 0.2300 202 Rural Fire District#1 1.7542 1.7542 351 Redmond Area Park&Rec District 0.3717 0.3717 620 School District#2j 5.0251 5.0251 626 School#2j Bond 92&93 0.8307 0.8307 628 School#2j Bond 2004 0.2930 0.2930 651 High Desert Esd 0.0964 0.0964 670 C 0 C C, 0.6204 0.6204 671 C 0 C C Bond 0.0889 0.0889 Total 14.0041 5.7419 6.7184 1.5438 Since 199782 the assessed value(AV) of a property,and not its real market value RMV), is used to calculate the amount ofproperty tax due. This assessed value was initially established in 1997 by rolling back the RMV of a property to 90%of its 1995 level. As long as the resulting AV is less then the current RMV this value is allowed to increase by 3%annually. For new properties,like the proposed Thornburgh Resort,the County Tax Assessor's Office appraises the property and sets a RMV for the land and its improvements. Then,an Exception Value Ratio is applied for the property class" of the parcel to arrive at the properties initial RMV. For example, the AV of a parcel in a property class with a ratio of 0.46 and a RMV of$100,000 would be$46,000. The Exception Value Ratio is calculated annually and is the ratio between AV and RMV for properties of the same property class. The Current Exception Value Ratio for resort properties is 0.491 83 Property tax is levied on July 1 and due on November 15 each year. It can be paid either in a single payment on or before November 15, in which case a 3% discount can be taken,or in three payments due on the 15th of November, February and May. If taxes are not paid within three years the property is subject to foreclosure. 81 Data from Deschutes County 2008-09 Summary ofAssessment and Tax Roll page 80. 82 A relatively detailed history of the Oregon Property Tax system can be found as Appendix B of Oregon Property Tax Statistics an annual publication ofthe Oregon Department of Revenue. 83 Deschutes County 2008-09 Summary of Assessment and Tax Roll,page 9. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 91 Property Tax Revenue Methodology The basic formula for calculating the initial property tax84 on a new development such as Thornburgh is simple and straight forward. It is: Property Tax = ((RMV x Exception Value Ratio)/1000)x Tax Rate The (RMV x Exception Ratio)establishes the initial AV for a new property. All that is necessary is to supply values for the RMV,Exception Ratio and Tax Rate. The Property Class"for the Thornburgh Resort is"#8 Resort,"and the Exception Value for all properties in the Resort for 2008-09 is 0.491 which was the value used. As pointed out earlier,the Thornburgh Resort was located in two different Code Areas(2-003 and 2-004)with different tax rates. But, as those parcels not in Code Area 2-004 are to be annexed into the Deschutes County Rural Fire Prevention District #1,85 it was assumed that the$14.0041 tax rate of Code Area 2-004 would apply to all properties in the resort. Establishing a RMV for each type of property was difficult as only the briefest of descriptions was provided in the Thornburgh Resort Application. These descriptions lacked information as to parcel or lot size,building size, construction materials to be used,amenities or expected or proposed costs. Three different methodologies were used to establish a RMV for the various types of properties. For the 1,375 residential properties86 proposed for the Thornburgh Resort a single methodology was used. The land-use application for the resort contained very little information on the characteristics of the residential development,so for calculation purposes,it was assumed that all the residential units and lot sizes would be similar. To arrive at a value for these properties, a sample of 49 residential properties located in the nearby Eagle Crest Resort87 was obtained by selecting a number of parcels from each of the tax maps containing part of Eagle Crest. The current RMV for the land and improvements for each of these parcels was obtained from Deschutes County's D.I.A.L system88 Townhouses were excluded from the sample. Average values were calculated for a sample of 38 lots and 35 houses. 84 In subsequent years the formula is the same as all other property,(AV/1000)*Tax Rate. 85 Letter from Fire ChiefTim Moor of DCRFPD#1 to Deschutes County Commissioners dated 25 March 2008. 86 The total includes 425 with deed restrictions that they be available for short term rental and 950 without the deed restrictions. 87 Eagle Crest Resort is an existing Destination Resort similar in concept to and located in close proximity to the proposed Thornburgh Resort for which property tax records were available. 88 This is an online tax record system. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 92 The County RMV data from 2008 reflects the peak prices ofthe real estate bubble should be adjusted downward to reflect current market conditions. The Standard and Poor's/Case-Shiller 20-city housing price index fell 18% in October of2008 from a year earlier.89 It appears that this downward trend in real estate values is likely to continue through 2009 and possibly longer. To reflect the decline in values,average values from the Eagle Crest sample were reduced by 20%to obtain the RMV of the residential land and improvements in our calculations. For Commercial and resort-owned properties,90 total building square footage was provided in the application. A$200 per square foot construction cost was used to establish an RMV for the commercial improvements. To determine the RMV of the land it was assumed that the lot associated with a building would be twice the square footage of the building (i.e. 50%lot coverage). To reflect declining real estate values, the value of comparable developed commercial parcels at Eagle Crest were reduce by 20 percent in the same manner as residential property. For the Golf Courses it was assumed that they would be 150 acres each and would cost$3 million dollars each to construct.91 The land value was obtained by averaging the cost per acre of5 Eagle Crest parcels identified as containing significant parts of a golfcourse. 89 Year-over-year declines in property values were reported in the Standard and Poor's/Case-Shiller 20-city housing price index. See Home Prices post 18 percent annual drop in October,by J.W Elphinstone,AP,December 30,2008. 90 Hotel,Recreation Centers,Golf Club Houses,SPA and Retail Center 91 The web sites for the United States GolfAssociation and American Society of Golf Course Architects both contain a$1.6 to 4.5 million range for the construction cost ofa Golf Course,$3 million is roughly the midpoint in that range. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 93 A-2. Transient Room Tax Explanation Deschutes County imposes a Transient Room Tax on the guest of any Hotel or short term rental housing92 located in an unincorporated part of the county. This tax is in the amount of 7%of the full rent charged by the rental manager for the occupancy of a room. The room tax is not imposed on items separate and independent from the use of the room93 nor is it imposed on recreational fees". If the room is rented as part of a package deal that includes food and or recreational activities the Hotel operator is permitted to exclude from the rent the cost of providing the food or activities. The hotel operator collects this tax on behalf ofDeschutes County at the time the room rate is paid. Monthly,the hotel or rental operator remits the amount oftaxes collected minus a 5% "Collection Reimbursement Charge." Revenues from the Transient Room Tax are currently being used to fund services provided by the Sheriffs Office and for tourism through the Central Oregon Visitors Association's By state law the minimum proportion spent on tourism promotion and tourism-related facilities can not be less then that allocated on 1 July 2003. The current division is about 73°/W27%with the majority going to the Sheriffs Office.96 In the FY 2008-09 Annual Budget$2,435,020 or about 19.6%of the operating funds devoted to Rural Law Enforcement came from Transient Room Taxes97 Room Tax Methodology In its most basic form estimating the amount of revenue raised by the Deschutes County Room Tax from a hotel is a very straight forward process. The revenue equals the room rate,times the occupancy rate, times .07,times 365 days,minus 5% of the total. Making an estimate of a proposed hotel where the only information is 92 The Deschutes County Code(DCC)defines"Hotel"as"...any structure or space,or any portion of any structure or space which is or intended or designed for Transient Occupancy for 30 days or less, for dwelling,lodging or sleeping purposes,and includes,but is not limited to any Hotel,inn,tourist home,tourist accommodation,condominium,motel,studio Hotel,hostel,bachelor Hotel,lodging house,bed and breakfast,vacation home,vacation rental home,rooming house, apartment house, public or private dormitory, fraternity, sorority, public or private club,mobile home,R.V.or trailer park,campgrounds private home, or similar structure or portions thereofso occupied. [DCC 4.08.045] 93 Items such as Food service,Room Service,Pay for view movies long distance telephone. 94"Recreation Fee"means a fee charged,assessed,or allocated by a Hotel to a Hotel occupant or occupants for use of Destination Resort recreation facilities, whether the Hotel charging the Recreation Fee is a Destination Resort or has a contract or agreement with a Destination Resort for use by the Hotel's guests ofthe recreation facilities of the Destination Resort. [DCC4.08.065] 95 Deschutes County Annual Budget for Fiscal Year 2008-09 page iii. 96 Deschutes County Annual Budget for Fiscal Year 2008-09 pages 332 and 370 97 Deschutes County Annual Budget for Fiscal Year 2008-09 page 370 Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 94 the number of rooms,as is the case here,requires a number of assumptions to be made. In order to estimate the average room rate,it was assumed that the Hotel and other rental units would meet the American Automobile Association's Three-Diamond Rating" criteria. This rating is the middle of a 5 level scale and is typical of the ratings held by other resorts in Oregon'. There are 14 Three-Diamond Hotels operating in Deschutes County ofwhich rate information is available for 12 of them. The rates range from a low of$89 to a high of$439 per night. Based on the number of distribution of room types in the AAA Guide, it was assumed that there are four times as many inexpensive rooms as there are expensive rooms. The weighted average room rate is$121 per night. Just as there is little information on the configuration of the hotel there is little information on the configuration of the 450 houses that will be available for short- term rental. In order to estimate vacation home rental rates,the assumption was made that they would resemble those currently on the short term rental market for the Greater Redmond area. The Vacation Rentals by Owner web site listed 39 vacation homes available for vacation rental in Redmond,Oregon.10°Twenty-eight of these listings were for rentals in Eagle Crest Resort. The rates for these houses run from$100 to$300 a night,with an average rate of$162. The last variable is the occupancy rates for each type of unit. While the total monthly Transient Room tax receipts paid by all operations subject to Transient Room Taxes are available, actual occupancy data is extremely difficult to come by. To develop an annual occupancy rate estimate,a peak occupancy rate of 90%was assumed for the month of August and then an adjusted occupancy rates for each of the other months was calculated based on the actual monthly Transient Room Taxes paid to the County for that month. From this an average annual occupancy rate for all rental types was derived,as described below. Occupancy Rates for Room Tax Revenues Room tax revenues are difficult to estimate for a planned,but unbuilt resort such as Thornburgh. Occupancy rates and reporting rates (the percent of private rentals for which room taxes are paid) must be estimated. To estimate occupancy rates, County- wide room tax revenues101 were examined and adjusted to reflect the likely seasonal According to AAA,"Three diamond lodgings offer a distinguished style.Properties are multi- faceted with marked upgrades in physical attributes,amenities and guest comforts."(AAA Oregon and Washington Tour Book,AAA Publishing,Heathrow,Florida,2008,page 21) The 2008 AAA Oregon and Washington Tour book lists 7 Oregon Resorts,one Two-Diamond,five Three-Diamond and one Four-Diamond. 10D Data collected on 21 December 2008 from http:www.vrhbo.com/vacation- rentals/region/usa/Oregon/central-oregon. 101 Data from Deschutes County Treasurer Marty Wynn. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor 8c Associates March 2009 page 95 nature of this resort. The County-wide vacancy rate was estimated based on the assumption that a peak occupancy rate of 90% is achieved during the peak month of August. This may be overly optimistic, as many private rentals will be occupied by owners during this month. However, this peak occupancy rate was used as a reference to estimate occupancy rates for the rest of the year(see Figure A-1). Average annual occupancy for the County was estimated to be 33%based on this method. Hotels and lodging in Bend,and resorts such as Sunriver and Inn ofthe Seventh Mountain,are close to Mt. Bachelor and can maintain modest winter occupancy rates. However,resorts such as Thornburgh are located too far away to benefit from skiing. Since Thornburgh would lack off-season appeal, it was assumed that rental occupancy would drop to an average of 10%from November through April. For the remainder of the season,County-wide vacancy rates are applied(see Figure A-2). This results in an average annual occupancy rate at Thornburgh of 29%. Figure A-1: Deschutes County occupancy rates based on monthly room tax revenues. Estimated Rental Occupancy Rates, Deschutes County,2007 100% 90% d 80% - Ig 70%cc t 60% a 50% 3 40% 8 30% O 20% - 10% oO/Q i 1 I 1 1 1 1 4 LL 22 Q y 02Q 2 O Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 96 Figure A-2: Occupancy rates used for Thornburgh Resort. Estimated Rental Occupancy Rates for Thornburgh Resort 100% - 90% - 80% 70% ate. 60% g 50% - g 40% 0 %30 20% 10% • • 0%I I 1 I I I i I 1 1 u a' ` d~' °z Resort vacation homes that are managed by a property management firm will tend to fully report room taxes, as the room tax revenues provides compensation to these firms to offset administrative and collection costs. However,privately-owned vacation homes that are owner-managed may not fully report room taxes to the County. This situation may occur at Eagle Crest Resort,where a recent property owner survey conducted by Jen-Weld specifically mentioned that survey respondents would not be reported to the County if they were renting their house. For Thornburgh,it was assumed that 80%ofprivately-owned rental homes are fully reporting room taxes,and that 100%of hotel room rentals are reported. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 97 A-3. Population Projection Used in Study The population figures used throughout this study are from the Deschutes County 2000-2025 Coordinated Population Forecast. The forecast data for each of the 5-year increments was interpolated using exponential growth rates to create data for each year in between,making it possible to examine population changes over any period of time. In order to create a 20-year forecast through 2028,the projection data was expanded beyond 2025 to 2028 using the same growth rate as in the final 5-year period(2020-2025). Table A-3 interpolated Population Data for Every Year to 2028 Based on Deschutes County 2000-2025 Coordinated Population Forecast Bend Redmond Sisters Unincorp. Total Year UGB UGB UGB County County 2005 69,004 19,249 1,768 53,032 143,053 2006 71,294 20,100 1,864 54,199 147,475 2007 73,661 20,989 1,966 55,391 152,033 2008 76,106 21,916 2,074 56,609 156,733 2009 78,632 22,885 2,187 57,854 161,578 2010 81,242 23,897 2,306 59,127 166,572 2011 83,135 24,953 2,379 60,428 170,914 2012 85,072 26,056 2,454 61,757 175,369 2013 87,054 27,208 2,532 63,116 179,940 2014 89,082 28,411 2,611 64,505 184,630 2015 91,158 29,667 2,694 65,924 189,443 2016 92,981 30,979 2,782 67,374 194,144 2017 94,841 32,348 2,874 68,857 198,962 2018 96,738 33,778 2,968 70,372 203,900 2019 98,673 35,272 3,065 71,920 208,959 2020 100,646 36,831 3,166 73,502 214,145 2021 102,337 38,459 3,275 75,119 219,231 2022 104,056 40,159 3,387 76,772 224,437 2023 105,804 41,935 3,503 78,461 229,768 2024 107,582 43,788 3,623 80,187 235,225 2025 109,389 45,724 3,747 81,951 240,811 2026 111,227 47,745 3,875 83,754 246,530 2027 113,095 49,856 4,008 85,597 252,385 2028 114,995 52,060 4,146 87,480 258,379 Data from County(population for intemiedlate years are added). Added projections based on previous 5-year growth rates. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 98 A-4. Tax Bases for Jurisdictions Used in Study The total assessed values of the tax base for each of the local jurisdictions used in this study are provide in Table A-4. The final column of the table shows the percentage of each tax base that would be represented by the Thornburgh Resort if fully developed. This percentage was treated as the potential future contribution by the resort towards repayment of bonds associated with the infrastructures costs generated. Table A-4 Potential Contribution to Infrastructure Costs Through Future Tax Payments Percent of Future Taxes Assessed Value Paid by Category of Infrastructure Jurisdiction of Tax Base") Thornburghm Transportation Systeml3l Deschutes County NA NA School Facilities Redmond School Dist. $4,937,455,942 7.1% Fire & EMS Facilities DCRFPD#1 1,295,518,889 22.4% Public Safety Facilities Deschutes County 16,602,476,500 2.2% Parks and Rec. Facilities RAPRD 288,870,875 56.5% Gen Gov. Facilities Deschutes County 16,602,476,500 2.2% 1)Data from the 2008.09 District Summary Table on page 16 ofthe 2008-09 Summary of Assessment and Tax Rag published by the Deschutes County Assessors Office.Assessed value of school district from Redmond School District 2)The percent of the total future tax base represented by the resort based on a fully-developed resort with a total assessed tax value of 374,788,817. 3)Transportation system is notfunded by property taxes. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 99 A-5. About the Authors Eben Fodor,Principal Author Mr. Fodor is Founder and Principal of Fodor & Associates, a consulting firm based in Eugene,Oregon since 1993. The firm specializes in community planning and land use consulting,including fiscal impact analysis,growth management,land-use planning,economic forecasting,and research and analysis. He is an expert in development impact analysis. He created a development impact model for the City of San Diego that quickly estimates infrastructure and service costs for new developments of any size and mix of uses. He has examined the fiscal impacts of development proposals in Washington,Oregon,Maryland and Wyoming for various clients. He conducted statewide assessments of infrastructure impacts of residential development in Oregon and Washington. Mr. Fodor holds a Masters in Urban and Regional Planning and a M.S. degree in Environmental Studies,both from the University of Oregon. He holds a B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Wisconsin -Madison. David Hinkley,Research and Analysis Mr. Hinkley has worked since 1996 providing public policy research,analysis and advocacy services to lobbyists,candidates,businesses and individuals.Areas of expertise include land use codes,government budgeting,tax increment financing, development impacts,state land use programs,systems development charges, transportation issues, disability issues,bottle bills,campaign contributions,and liquor laws.He served 8 years on the City of Eugene's Public Works Rates Advisory Committee helping to revise the City's System Development Charge methodologies for transportation,waste water and parks systems. Mr. Hinkley holds a Bachelors of Arts degree in History from the University of San Francisco and a B.S. degree with Honors in Criminal Justice Administration from San Jose State University. Impact of Destination Resorts in Oregon Fodor&Associates March 2009 page 100