Destination Resort Matters To Powell Butte

By Scott R. Cooper, Crook County Judge
Published in the Powell Butte View, May 2002

Much of the discussion regarding Powell Butte these days has centered around whether the county should adopt legislation authorizing destination resorts within its borders. Across the border in Deschutes County, destinations resorts have been significant contributors to the tax base of the county and are significant employers. By promoting tourism, they also bring business interest to the community. In the 1970s, Sunriver was the engine that led to the development of southern Deschutes County while prior to the arrival of Black Butte, Sisters was just another sleepy stop in the road. Some of Redmond’s development as a commercial and industrial center can be attributed to the presence of Eagle Crest, which provided necessary executive-level housing and provided a necessary level of business support. Destination resorts, in short, have helped economic development and often provide the necessary catalyst to move a community into a new phase of economic progress.

But under Oregon’s restrictive land-use laws, a destination resort cannot site just anywhere. Before a county can even consider an application for siting of such a facility, the county must go through a rigorous process of determining lands eligible for such a resort and adopting an ordinance governing how applications will be evaluated. Only six of Oregon’s 36 counties—Deschutes, Douglas, Jackson, Josephine, Klamath and Tillamook--have adopted destination resort ordinances at this time. Thus, a destination resort looking to locate or expand in Oregon has few options. Given the limited competition, the position of the County Court is that it makes sense for an economically distressed community such as Crook County to be one them.

To this point, however, the sheer expense of mapping eligible lands has precluded the county from moving forward. Early this year, however, Eagle Crest, with an eye on an expansion project, stepped forward with an offer to pay the costs of the mapping process. With resources in hand, Crook County began a six-month undertaking at no cost to taxpayers which has resulted in the maps currently under consideration.

The mapping methodology is defined by state law. The law requires certain properties be excluded from eligibility for destination resort siting, including critical wildlife habitat and prime and unique soils But Crook County has gone far beyond the state minimums in preparing its maps and ordinance. Crook County has also excluded all big game habitat, all public lands, all irrigated farms. (A farm is defined as 160 acres or more under Crook County’s ordinances.) The result is a set of mapping criteria which are the most environmentally protective in the state so far.

The eventual map yielded by this process identified about 34,000 acres of eligible lands in Crook County, representing approximately 1.5 percent of the county. By contrast, in Deschutes County about 6-7 percent of the lands are eligible. All of the eligible lands turned out to be in the area southwest of Powell Butte.

But the map is just the beginning of the process. Adopting the map and accompanying ordinance only creates a framework through which a destination resort can make an application to the county to site a destination resort. At the time a destination resort applies, additional studies of transportation impact, economic impact, impact on groundwater, impact on neighborhoods and nuisance issues such as noise, light, etc. would have to be conducted. All that information and more would have to be shared at public hearings scheduled in conjunction with conditional use permit hearings before the first shovel of dirt could be turned.

So far, the County Court and Planning Commission have held two hearings on the issues of how and whether to develop a framework for considering destination resort applications. Two more are scheduled, May 8 and May 22 at 10 a.m. Limited public comment has been received. Some of the comments received have raised good issues. Some lands have been deleted from the map as a result of the public comment process. Some changes have been and will be made to the proposed destination resort ordinance as a result of the comments. Some of the comment is site-specific, and the county has no plans to follow through with expensive studies to address these issues until it actually has an application in hand.

Two “camps” have emerged in the course of discussion about destination resort siting. One camp believes that the potential economic benefits of a destination resort can’t be overlooked. Such resorts can employ several hundred people. Destination resorts add significantly to the tax base of the county. (In Deschutes County, the taxable value of the destination resorts exceeds the taxable value of the rest of the commercial/industrial sector combined.) Resorts bring tourism dollars to the county which recirculate through gas stations, grocery stores and the retail sector. Finally, a destination resort often serves as a doorway through which individuals owning and operating businesses may pass, creating new opportunities for economic development and recruitment.

The point of view of the other camp boils down to this: residents of Powell Butte moved to the community to enjoy the quiet of the countryside and enjoy a more rural lifestyle. A destination resort will bring lots of outsiders and traffic. Views of cattle grazing among the sagebrush and juniper stands may be obliterated by golf courses and houses. Water for farming and domestic use might be diverted to irrigation use by the resort. Crook County doesn’t need a destination resort because residents like things just the way they are.

Regrettably, the two views force the Court to make a stark choice: to allow destination resort or to not allow them. Little of the testimony received to date has been useful in determining how destination resorts can be allowed as potential engines of economic growth while best mitigating the impact. It’s an either-or scenario. Your either for us or against us. It’s the kind of debate which every elected official dreads.

Sometimes politics is about seeking consensus. That’s when its fun. Sometimes its about making hard choices between competing positions so that the community is not paralyzed by indecision. This is the latter kind of choice.

The Court will make it between now and May 22, and in the meantime, we welcome your views.