Socioeconomic Impact Analysis - Direct and Indirect. Wolf Creek Village

Transcription

1 Socioeconomic Impact Analysis - Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences for: Wolf Creek Village Mineral County, Colorado Prepared for: Prepared by: SE Group Doug Kennedy Advisors P.O. Box 858 Norwich, Vermont May 24, 2012 v. 1.5 Job 1109

2 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences Introduction A socioeconomic impact analysis was completed to assess the potential impact of the Village at Wolf Creek Land Exchange, in terms of potential employment creation, wages/income and other dollar flows generated, impacts on growth trends and impacts on the private and public economies. The analysis focused on the potential impacts of the Alternatives currently under consideration. The three Alternatives are: 1. No Action Alternative 1 has no significant socioeconomic impacts and has not been addressed in this analysis. 2. Alternative 2/Land Exchange Alternative 2 has the potential to allow the proponent to pursue development of the Village at Wolf Creek. The economic consequences of this Alternative have been assessed under three potential development scenarios: a) Low Density; b) Medium Density; and c) High Density. 3. Alternative 3/ANILCA Alternative 3 has the potential to allow the proponent to pursue development of the Village at Wolf Creek. The economic consequences of this Alternative have been assessed under three potential development scenarios: a) Low Density; b) Medium Density; and c) High Density. Significantly, the potential development of the Village at Wolf Creek is regarded as an indirect impact under Alternatives 2 and 3. Nevertheless, the potential development of the Village under the Low, Medium and High Density scenarios for Alternatives 2 and 3, is the major focus of the socioeconomic analysis. Economic Impact Theory A significant body of prior research regarding mountain resort operations and mountain resort development operations makes it clear that by drawing non-local visitation to a region mountain resorts generate economic activity in the form of employment, wages/income and other dollar flows, tax revenues and services. Further, these impacts accrue to both the mountain resort and to regional businesses that benefit from spending by visitors. Perhaps just as importantly, the direct dollars spent at mountain resorts and local businesses have a secondary (multiplier) impact, creating more dollar flows/jobs in the local and regional economy. These secondary impacts can also affect regional growth rates and housing markets. Economic impacts employment and dollar flows - are typically defined at three levels: 2

3 Direct employment created as a direct impact of a business. On and off-site construction jobs, resort-based jobs and non-resort jobs generated by visitor expenditures are included in this category. The majority of these jobs will be created in a small geographic area typically within the resort and study area. Indirect employment created by industry-to-industry spending. For instance, increased food & beverage spending at the Village at Wolf Creek would result in the purchase of supplies from food vendors. This revenue will allow the food vendors to create more employment. These are indirect jobs. These jobs would be created both locally and throughout the geographic area in which the village regularly conducts business. Induced employment created by increased household spending. The additional jobs and income created by the development and operation of the Village at Wolf Creek would allow consumers to increase their spending on goods and services. This spending will allow a number of businesses to create more jobs. These are induced jobs. Induced jobs would be generated over a relatively broad geographic area. Methodology The direct and secondary impacts of the Alternatives/Density Scenarios were projected using a powerful computer-based model IMPLAN 3. IMPLAN 3 is a broadly accepted model used for making projections regarding employment and economic impacts and is often used by the Forest Service in Environmental Impact Statements prepared as part of the NEPA process. IMPLAN 3 is briefly described as follows: IMPLAN 3 software guides users though the task of creating an impact study that tracks the effects of a modeled event (such as the Alternatives) on 440 unique sectors in the United States. The result is a detailed summary of economic impacts including: changes in jobs, household incomes, tax impacts, and gross regional product, that can be used to show the effect of firms moving into an area, special events, introduction of new technologies, recreation and tourism, military base closures, changes in government spending and many more events. All underlying data used for economic projections can be quickly reviewed or modified with the software s advanced functions, or can be exported as reports for review and printing. IMPLAN s Social Accounting Matrices (SAMs) capture the actual dollar amounts of all business transactions taking place in a regional economy as reported each year by businesses and governmental agencies. SAM accounts are a better measure of economic flow than traditional input-output accounts because they include non-market transactions. Examples of these transactions would be taxes and unemployment benefits. 3

4 Social Accounting Matrices can be constructed to show the effects of a given change on the economy of interest. These are called Multiplier Models. Multiplier Models study the impacts of a user-specified change in the chosen economy for 440 different industries. Because the Multiplier Models are built directly from the region specific Social Accounting Matrices, they will reflect the region s unique structure and trade situation. Multiplier Models are the framework for building impact analysis questions. Derived mathematically, these models estimate the magnitude and distribution of economic impacts, and measure three types of effects that are displayed in the final report. These are the direct, indirect, and induced changes within the economy. Direct effects are determined by the Event as defined by the user (i.e. a $10 million dollar order is a $10 million dollar direct effect). The indirect effects are determined by the amount of the direct effect spent within the study region on supplies, services, labor and taxes. Finally the induced effect measures the money that is re-spent in the analysis area as a result of spending from the indirect effect. Each of these steps recognizes an important leakage from the economic study region spent on purchases outside of the defined area. Eventually these leakages will stop the cycle. 1 The IMPLAN 3 model was used to measure the Alternatives economic impact in two ways: 1. Construction Impacts private and public sector employment and dollar flows generated by the construction of the Village at Wolf Creek under Alternatives 2 and 3 for the Low, Medium and High density scenarios. Construction impacts are typically regarded as short-term, as economic activity ceases upon completion of individual construction projects. However, under the High Density scenarios for Alternatives 2 and 3, construction activity for the entire Village at Wolf Creek could occur over a 30 year period. Low Density construction activity for Alternatives 2 and 3 has been projected over a nine year timeframe. 2. The impacts of ongoing Village at Wolf Creek operations. These are regarded as long-term impacts, as it is assumed that the operation of each of the scenarios will continue into the future; past the point of completion of construction. It is expected that the Alternatives impacts will be primarily felt locally and in the Mineral/Archuleta/Rio Grande County area. However, the secondary impacts will extend through a broader region. Operational impacts are assumed to increase over the period of scenario development and reach a steady state upon the completion of the village scenario. Operational impacts have been projected based on: The proponents projections regarding Village at Wolf Creek-based employment for the Medium and High Density scenarios for Alternatives 2 and 3; 1 Source: MIG, Inc. 4

5 The impact of visitor spending on employment and dollar flows with regard to: Direct Employment outside the Village at Wolf Creek and Indirect and Induced Employment outside the Village at Wolf Creek as projected by IMPLAN 3. Employment/Full-Time Equivalents For purposes of the Alternatives analyses, prospective new jobs are defined in terms of Full-Time-Equivalents (FTEs) one FTE is sufficient work to keep one person employed full-time for one year. In seasonal industries such as mountain resorts one FTE may represent several employment positions. Dollars all figures are presented in current (2012) dollars. Inputs to the IMPLAN 3 Model As noted above, the IMPLAN3 model was used to project economic impacts in terms of: 1) Construction of the Village at Wolf Creek under the specified Alternatives/Scenarios; and 2) Operation of the Village at Wolf Creek under the specified Alternatives/Scenarios. Construction Inputs in the instance of construction impacts, the inputs to the model are simply the phased (Year-by-Year) costs of constructing the scenarios. In the instance of the Medium and High Density scenarios (for Alternatives 2 and 3), the proponent provided construction estimates broken down as follows: Hotel $300 per square foot; Condominiums $250 per square foot; Townhomes $200 per square foot; Single Family $200 per square foot; Non-Residential (assumed to include amenity space, administrative space, etc.) $300 per square foot; Infrastructure (assumed to include roads, utilities, sewer/water, etc.) the proponent provided a lump cost for all elements; Internal Parking cost per parking space: $30,000 per space for Hotel parking; $30,000 per space for Condominium parking; $5,000 per space for Townhouse parking; $5,000 per space for Single Family parking; $1,000 per space for Non- Residential parking. Architecture/Engineering costs based on percent of building and infrastructure costs; estimated at seven percent of construction cost for building design/engineering and five percent of construction cost for infrastructure design/engineering. 2 2 The proponents cost estimates do not include an allocation for architecture & engineering cost. However, it is apparent based on experience that these are significant cost elements in a project of this type. 5

6 Operational Inputs from an operational perspective, the socioeconomic impacts of the Alternatives would be generated by visitor spending. Spending by visitors to the Village at Wolf Creek and at other area businesses would support employment both within the village and at other area businesses. Dollar inputs to the model were computed in two steps: 1. Estimate Visitation the proponent provided phased estimates of unit occupancy for the Alternative 2 Medium and High Density scenarios; occupancy projections for Alternative 3 (Medium and High Density) were based on these figures, under the assumption that occupancy for each unit type would be consistent. 3 The estimates show the average number of persons staying within the village for each month of the year, based on the phased build-up of the village. 4 Visitation estimates include overnight visitors only. 2. Estimate Expenditures - a number of studies and data sources have been utilized to estimate average, detailed per diem expenditures, by category of visitor (Ski Season, Non Ski-Season). These studies are based on direct research surveys of visitors that gather data on actual expenditures. 5 Table 1 below shows actual, daily expenditures by Colorado visitors, broken down by: o Visitor Season Ski Season, Non-Ski Season; o Expenditures Inside and Outside the village village visitors will make expenditures (and support employment) outside of the village (Gas, Meals, Shopping, etc.); o Expenditures by Category Lodging, Food & Beverage, etc. 3 The proponent did not provide specific occupancy projections for Alternative 3. 4 Seasonal visitation is a significant factor visitors during ski months tend to spend more per capita than do warm season visitors. 5 Sources: Colorado Tourism Office Office of Economic Development and Trade, Colorado Ski Country, Longwoods International, Dean Runyan Associates. 6

7 Table 1: Colorado Visitor Daily Expenditures by Type Expenditure Type Per Capita Daily Expenditures - Overnight Visitors In Village Ski Season Outside Village Non-Ski Season In Village Outside Village Accommodation $65.34 $0.00 $45.71 $0.00 Food & Beverage $19.21 $22.74 $14.73 $17.44 Retail $8.20 $17.75 $8.41 $18.20 Recreation $4.28 $38.51 $2.45 $22.01 Groceries $2.28 $6.85 $1.69 $5.06 Entertainment $3.79 $2.53 $3.25 $2.17 Transportation $0.70 $13.22 $0.17 $3.30 Totals $ $ $76.41 $68.18 Totals Per Visitor $ $ It is significant to note that average per capita expenditures by Non-Ski Season visitors are lower than those for Ski Season visitors. As such, equal numbers of Non-Ski Season and Ski Season visitors would produce higher expenditures during the ski season. Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Alternative 2 impacts have been analyzed in terms of three potential development scenarios: a. Low Density; b. Medium Density; c. High Density. Low Density Scenario The Low Density scenario envisions the creation of a straightforward nine lot single family subdivision with individual lots exceeding 35 acres in area, to include: Construction of an access road with a total length of 8,382 feet. It is assumed that the roadway will be constructed in phases. A construction cost of $220 per linear foot has been assumed; 6 6 Sources: Western Ecological Resource, Inc., TST Inc. of Denver a TTG Company. 7

8 Construction of nine single family residential structures, spread out over several years. Based on experience with similar single family subdivisions in mountain resort environments in Colorado, it has been assumed that the single family structures will be relatively large 7,500 square feet of living space and that per square foot construction cost will reflect high quality construction and finishes - $325 per square foot assumed. Further, it is assumed that the units will be constructed primarily for the purpose of seasonal/vacation use and that the units are unlikely to house full-time residents. Finally, it has been assumed that the construction of each structure will occur over an 18 month timeframe. 7 Table 2 below shows the assumed phase-in of the roadway and the single family structures: Table 2 Alternative 2/Low Density Scenario Phased Completion Road Construction % Completed in Year 25% 25% 25% 15% 10% Linear Feet-Annual 2,096 2,096 2,096 1, Linear Feet-Cumulative 2,096 4,191 6,287 7,544 8,382 Single Family Construction Units Initiated in Year Cumulative Units Alternative 2 construction impacts would occur over an eight year period (2015 to 2022). Estimated (Annual and Cumulative) construction costs are show in Table 3 below. Table 3: Estimated Annual/Cumulative Construction Costs Alternative 2/Low Density Scenario Construction Cost - $Thousands Annual Cost $484 $3,979 $3,953 $4,646 $3,662 $4,356 $3,469 $861 Cumulative Cost $484 $4,463 $8,416 $13,062 $16,724 $21,080 $24,549 $25,409 $25,409 The cumulative construction cost (Road, Single Family Units, Engineering/Architecture) of the Alternative 2/Low Density scenario would be approximately $25.4 million. 7 Construction costs include architecture/engineering costs based on: five percent of road construction cost and seven percent of single family construction cost. 8

9 The operational impacts of the Low Density scenario would be minimal, but have been measured based on projected expenditures by users of the single family units, as shown in Table 4 below. 8 Table 4: Annual Visitor Expenditures; Alternative 2/Low Density Scenario Total Annual Expenditures by Unit Visitors - $Thousands Annual Expenditures $0 $0 $38 $58 $96 $115 $154 $173 Year 2022 total would continue in future years. The values in Tables 3 and 4 above were input to the IMPLAN 3 model; resulting in a variety of outputs regarding private and public sectors. Table 5 below shows projected employment impacts for both construction and operations. Employment is shown in terms of FTEs, including both annual and cumulative totals over the 2015 to 2023 timeframe. Table 5: Construction and Operations Employment (FTEs); Alternative 2/Low Density Scenario Construction Employment Operations Employment Construction: Cumulative Direct Indirect Induced Annual Totals Operations: Continuing Value Direct Indirect Induced Annual Totals Unit occupancy/visitation based on assumption of 31 annual days of use by an average of five persons per night. Visitor spending includes expenditures on services to residential units (unit management/maintenance). With the exception of services to residential units, all expenditures would be completed outside the village, as the Low Density scenario does not include any commercial activity. 9

10 Overall, Alternative 2/Low Density Scenario construction would generate 242 FTEs over an eight year construction period. These jobs will cease following the completion of construction. The continuing (Operations) impact of the scenario would be minor; the creation of three ongoing FTEs. Alternative 2/Low Density Scenario Impacts Population and Demographics this scenario would have no significant impact on ongoing population change or the demographic makeup of the three county study area. The single family units would be occupied on a seasonal basis and the employment generated by the scenario would be insufficient to draw new households to the area. Age Distribution no significant impact. Race no significant impact. Households no significant impact. The single family units will not be occupied on a fulltime basis Educational Attainment/Enrollment no significant impact. Housing the scenario would result in the development of nine new housing units over an eight year period. Between 2000 and 2010, the analysis area s housing stock increased by 3,259 units, at a rate of 326 units annually. No significant impact. Property Values the construction value of the single family units would be approximately $21.9 million (See Table 3). Typically, the market value of new residential units is 2.0 to 2.5 times the construction value. Assuming a 2.0 multiple, the market value of the nine units would be approximately $43.2 million; for 2011/12, Colorado residential property is assessed at 8.77 percent resulting in a project assessment of $3.79 million. 9 The combined, current total valuation of the three county area is $535.9 million. 10 The impact would be to increase the current valuation by approximately 0.7 percent. Economy/Economic Sectors on average during the eight year construction period, the construction of Alternative 2/Low Density would generate 30 FTEs in each year; when complete, the operation of the project and expenditures by unit visitors would generate only three long-term FTEs. Overall, the employment impact of the project would increase analysis area employment by less than one percent an insignificant impact. 9 Value adjusted by assessment rate for single family properties in Mineral County. Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Colorado Assessed Values Manual. Estimated Residential Assessment Rate of , Division of Property Taxation. 10 Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Colorado Assessed Values Manual. 10

11 The scenarios would create the most jobs in the residential construction sector. In 2010, analysis area employment in the construction sector totaled 378; the project could increase this value by approximately 7.9 percent. Employment Status in 2011, there were 1,227 unemployed persons in the analysis area. The project could generate new jobs in residential construction. Overall, the impact would be insignificant. Tourism based on assumed average occupancy (see Footnote #8 above), the completed project would generate approximately 1,400 person-nights on an annual basis or 3.8 persons on an average night over the course of one year. Adjacent Wolf Creek Ski Area alone generates in excess of 225,000 skier visits on an annual basis. 11 Alternate 2/Low Density s impact on tourism would be insignificant. Individual Prosperity during the eight year construction period, the project would cumulatively generate $12.43 million in labor income, including $6.86 million in direct labor wages and $5.57 million in secondary impacts. The project would generate personal income, primarily in the residential construction sector. Overall, the project s impact on the analysis area s prosperity level would be insignificant. At completion, project operations (Management/Maintenance) would annually generate approximately $85,000 in labor income. Public Revenues any development project would generate a range of public revenues at the county and state level. The most significant revenues generated by Alternative 2/Low Density would include: Property Taxes using the projected assessed value of the completed nine single family units (See Above) and current tax rates (Mineral County - $26.291; Creede Consolidated School District - $ ), it is estimated that the completed project would annually generate $96,646 in County Property Tax Revenues and $85,444 in school district revenues. Sales Taxes IMPLAN 3 model output indicates that the cumulative Sales Tax revenues generated by construction of Alternative 2/Low Density would be $368,000. Upon completion, ongoing operation and unit visitor expenditures would generate approximately $5,256 in Sales Taxes on an annual basis. 11 Source: Wolf Creek Ski Area website. 12 Sources: Colorado Department of Revenue, Certification of Levies and Revenues, Mineral County Clerk. 11

12 Education the single family units that would be constructed as part of Alternative 2/Low Density would be intended for vacation/seasonal use and would be unlikely to be occupied by Mineral County residents. As such, they would not be expected to have any impact on school enrollment. Public Services when completed, Alternative 2/Low Density would consist of only nine single family units that would be occupied for a small percentage of the year. Further, they would be located in the immediate vicinity of an active land use (Wolf Creek Ski Area) that is already served by a network of public services. The residential units will require services but the impact on existing systems will not be significant. Summary Alternative 2/Low Density Overall, the analysis suggests that the socioeconomic impacts of Alternative 2/Low Density would be minimal. The project would create jobs as a result of construction activity, but the number of jobs would be insufficient to affect area growth rates or to affect the housing market; a minimal number of long-term jobs would result following construction. Given the limits of the project and its location adjacent to an active land use (Wolf Creek Ski Area) it is unlikely that the project would generate any notable service impacts. Alternative 2/Medium Density Scenario The Medium Density scenario envisions the creation of a multi-faceted resort village incorporating a variety of lodging, vacation/residential units, commercial, administrative, recreational, parking and infrastructure elements, to include: 13 A cumulative total of 71 hotel units. A cumulative total of 426 vacation residential units, in Condominium, Townhouse and Single Family configurations. It is assumed that the units would be constructed primarily for the purpose of seasonal/vacation use and that the units would be unlikely to house full-time residents. Construction of 49,600 square feet of non-residential structures and facilities to include: o Food & Beverage Operations; o Retail Space; o Activity/Leisure Space/Facilities; o Support & Administrative Space. Construction of a total of 764 interior parking spaces to serve lodging, residential and non-residential spaces. Construction of all support infrastructure (Road, Water, Sewer, Utilities, etc.). 13 Based on materials provided by the proponent. 12

13 Assumed architectural and engineering fees for project design. 14 The Medium Density project would occur over a nine year timeframe ( ) involving phased development of each of the project s major components. Tables 6, 7, 8 and 9 below show phased development of each major component. 15 Table 6: Phased Development of Lodging/Residential Components; Alternative 2/Medium Density Units Hotel Annual Units Cumulative Residential Annual Units Cumulative Table 7: Phased Development of Non-Residential Building Components; Alternative 2/Medium Density Square Feet Building Space Food & Beverage ,241 2,241 3,129 3,554 3,593 2,241 1,043 Annual Construction (Sq. Ft.) Retail ,222 1,388 1, Activity/ Leisure ,692 1,692 2,363 2,684 2,713 1, Support & Admin. Services ,369 1,555 1, Annual Totals (Sq. Ft.) 1,297 1,697 5,788 5,788 8,084 9,181 9,281 5,788 2,695 Cumulative Totals (Sq. Ft.) 1,297 2,994 8,782 14,571 22,654 31,836 41,117 46,905 49, Based on assumption of 7.0 percent of construction cost for building design and 5.0 percent of construction cost for parking and infrastructure design. 15 Phasing based on Development Concept and Project Occupancy data provided by the proponent. Actual phasing particularly of hotel and residential units would likely vary from these estimates. However, the cumulative values are those presented by the proponent. 13

14 Table 8: Phased Development of Interior Parking (Number of Spaces) &; Infrastructure (Construction $Dollars); Alternative 2/Medium Density Parking Spaces Infrastructure Construction Cost ($Millions) Annual Cumulative Annual $31.1 $22.2 $13.3 $8.9 $4.4 $4.4 $4.4 $0.0 $0.0 Cumulative $31.1 $53.2 $66.5 $75.4 $79.9 $84.3 $88.7 $88.7 $88.7 Table 9: Phased Architectural/Engineering Costs; Alternative 2/Medium Density A & E Costs - $Thousands A & E Costs - Buildings $440 $575 $1,961 $1,961 $2,739 $3,111 $3,145 $1,961 $913 A & E Costs - Parking/Infrastructure $1,572 $1,134 $752 $530 $342 $358 $360 $86 $40 Totals/Annual $2,012 $1,709 $2,713 $2,491 $3,081 $3,470 $3,505 $2,047 $953 Cumulative Costs $2,012 $3,721 $6,434 $8,925 $12,006 $15,476 $18,981 $21,028 $21,981 The phased development plan was converted to construction costs based on values and costs provided by the Proponent. 16 Annual and cumulative totals are shown in Table 10 below. 16 Construction values as follows: Hotel Units Avg. 1,196 Sq. $300 per Sq. Ft.; Condominium Units Avg. 1,680 Sq. $250 per Sq. Ft.; Townhouse Units Avg. 1,600 Sq. $200 per Sq. Ft.; Single Family Avg. 5,200 Sq. $200 per Sq. Ft. All Non-Residential building space construction cost $300 per Sq. Ft. Parking: Hotel - $30,000 per space; Condominium - $30,000 per space; Townhouses & Single Family - $5,000 per space; Non-Residential - $1,000 per space. Infrastructure and Architecture/Engineering costs as shown in Tables 8 and 9 above. 14

15 Table 10: Annual and Cumulative Construction Costs; Alternative 2/Medium Density Construction Costs - In $Millions Hotel Units $0.6 $0.8 $2.8 $2.8 $3.9 $4.5 $4.5 $2.8 $1.3 Residential Units $5.3 $6.9 $23.5 $23.5 $32.8 $37.2 $37.6 $23.5 $10.9 Non-Residential Space $0.4 $0.5 $1.7 $1.7 $2.4 $2.8 $2.8 $1.7 $0.8 Parking $0.4 $0.5 $1.7 $1.7 $2.4 $2.7 $2.8 $1.7 $0.8 Infrastructure $31.1 $22.2 $13.3 $8.9 $4.4 $4.4 $4.4 $0.0 $0.0 A & E $2.0 $1.7 $2.7 $2.5 $3.1 $3.5 $3.5 $2.0 $1.0 Annual Totals $39.7 $32.6 $45.8 $41.1 $49.1 $55.1 $55.6 $31.8 $14.8 Cumulative Totals $39.7 $72.3 $118.1 $159.2 $208.3 $263.4 $319.0 $350.8 $365.6 In total, Alternative 2/Medium Density is projected to have a cumulative construction cost exceeding $365 million, spread out over the 2015 to 2023 period. The operational economic impacts of Alternative 2/Medium Density would be generated by visitor spending. Again, expenditures by visitors to Wolf Creek Village would support employment and wages both within and outside the village. Medium Density visitation is based on Occupancy Projections provided by the client. Annual visitation (Ski Season & Non-Ski Season) is shown in Table 11 below. 15

16 Table 11: Village Visitation; Alternative 2/Medium Density Village Visits - Person/Nights Ski Season Visits 4,040 9,583 27,152 44,673 69,570 98, , , ,139 Non-Ski Season Visits 2,576 6,111 17,316 28,490 44,368 62,583 80,947 92,361 97,664 Total Annual Visits 6,616 15,694 44,468 73, , , , , ,803 At completion, the village would be expected to attract approximately 251,000 visits annually. This level of visitation would be expected to continue as long as the village operates. Total annual visitor expenditures were projected using the Colorado Visitor Daily Expenditures by Type (See Table 1) by projected visitation. Estimated visitor expenditures within and outside the village are shown in Table 12 below. Table 12: Annual Visitor Expenditures Within & Outside the Village at Wolf Creek; Alternative 2/Medium Density Scenario ($Millions) Annual Visitor Expenditures - $Millions Within Village $0.6 $1.5 $4.1 $6.8 $10.6 $15.0 $19.4 $22.1 $23.4 Outside Village $0.6 $1.4 $3.9 $6.5 $10.1 $14.2 $18.4 $21.0 $22.2 Total Expenditures $1.2 $2.9 $8.1 $13.3 $20.7 $29.2 $37.8 $43.1 $45.6 At completion (Year 2023) village visitors would generate over $45 million in annual expenditures, inside and outside the village. The year 2023 level of expenditures would be expected to continue in future years. The values in Tables 10 and 12 above (Construction Spending, Visitor Expenditures) were input to the IMPLAN 3 model; resulting in a variety of outputs regarding private and public sectors. Table 13 below shows projected employment impacts for both construction and operations. Employment is shown in terms of FTEs, including both annual and cumulative totals over the 2015 to 2023 timeframe. Operational employment values include FTEs both within and outside the village. 16

17 With regard to Operational impacts note that Direct employment within the village is based on employment projections provided by the Proponent, rather than output from the IMPLAN 3 model. 17 All other figures are based on output from the IMPLAN 3 model. Table 13: Construction and Operations Employment (FTEs); Alternative 2/Medium Density Scenario Construction Employment Construction: Cumulative Direct ,825 Indirect Induced Construction Totals ,521 Operations Employment Within Village Operations: Continuing Values Direct* Outside Village Direct Indirect Induced Operations Totals Total Employment Continuing Values Direct Indirect Induced Annual Totals , * Based on proponent projections. During the nine year phase-in period, Alternative 2/Medium Density would generate a cumulative total of over 3,500 construction FTEs, or an average of 391 construction FTEs in each year. Approximately 52 percent of these construction FTEs would be Direct, with the remainder being generated in a secondary basis (Indirect and Induced FTEs) The Proponent s projections indicate that, at completion, the Medium Density village will support 275 jobs. The IMPLAN 3 model projects a total of 225 FTEs. Again, the Proponent s value was used for purposes of impact assessment. 18 Overall, the multiplier for construction activity is calculated at 1.93 for every 100 FTEs generated on a direct basis, an additional 93 jobs are generated on a secondary basis. 17

18 Upon completion in year 2023, ongoing village operations would generate a total of 659 FTEs this value would continue into the future for as long as the village maintains operations. Only 42 percent (275) of these jobs would be located in the village, with the remainder generated by direct visitor spending outside the village and secondary impacts. During the phase-in period, a peak employment point would occur in year 2021, when construction activity would remain at a high level and operational employment would have reached a relatively high level. Employment impacts would drop to a lower steady state level once construction is complete. This is shown in Table 14 below. Table 14: Employment (FTE) Trend During Phase-In; Alternative 2/Medium Density 1,200 1, Operations Secondary Operations Direct Construction Secondary Construction Direct FTEs

19 Alternative 2/Medium Density Scenario Impacts Note to Discussion of Impacts the background discussion(s) and documentation of impacts under a number of impact areas is common to the potential impacts under several other Alternatives/Scenarios. As such, the detailed discussions (shown below) under each impact topic area have also been referenced in the discussion of impacts under the following Alternatives/Scenarios: o Alternative 2/High Density Scenario o Alternative 3/Medium Density Scenario o Alternative 3/High Density Scenario Population and Demographics Alternative 2/Medium Density's direct impact on population would be minimal, as full-time residency would be nominal within the village. However, the project would create employment and increased economic activity both on direct and indirect bases that could result in local and regional growth. It is this projected employment and economic activity upon which growth impact estimates have primarily been developed. 19 As shown in Table 13, construction and ongoing operation of Alternative 2/Medium Density would result in the generation of significant employment, both on Direct and Indirect/Induced bases. While construction related employment would cease following the completion of the Medium Density scenario, village operations employment would continue into the future. There is a positive relationship between increases in employment and growth. A substantial increase in employment can be expected to draw workers to a region and to create population growth. However, in most instances a relatively small segment of new jobs are filled by persons that move expressly for that purpose; as the local/regional labor force can be expected to provide many of the required workers. New jobs typically go to unemployed persons, persons taking on a second job, persons entering the work force or to persons changing jobs. 20 For purposes of this analysis the migration rate is the percentage of total new FTEs that will be occupied by persons who move to the area expressly for that purpose. 19 Year-round residency would occur in the village if the proponent were to make some of the housing available to workers. However, this potential is not detailed in project documentation made available by the proponent. 20 Because many of the jobs generated by resort activity are either seasonal or part-time (or both seasonal and part-time), they offer local residents opportunities to take on a second job or to create supplemental income. 19

20 The scenario s impact would be related to cycles in the economy. In a growth economy, with accompanying low unemployment rates, it is reasonable to expect an above average migration rate. Conversely, in a recessionary economy, with high unemployment rates, it is reasonable to expect a below average migration rate, as the local/regional labor force can supply more of the required workers. As of the date of this writing, it is apparent that U.S. is in a slow recovery from a severe recession. It is reasonable to expect that the economy could go through an up/down cycle during the course of nine years construction of the Medium Density scenario. Factors considered in estimating migration rates are summarized below: Colorado Migration Rate between year 2000 and year 2011, Colorado s total population is estimated to have increased by 897,827 persons. During that time period, Natural Increase (the excess of births over deaths) accounted for an increase of 435,256 persons, while Net Migration (the excess of persons moving to the state over the number of persons moving out of the state) accounted for an increase of 462,571 persons. Thus, net migration accounted for 52 percent of Colorado s population increase during the 2000 to 2011 period. 21 Study area Migration Rate - between year 2000 and year 2010, the study area s total population increased by 1,636 persons. During that time period, Natural Increase (the excess of births over deaths) accounted for an increase of 1,055 persons, while Net Migration (the excess of persons moving to the analysis area over the number of persons moving out of the study area) accounted for an increase of 581 persons. Thus, net migration accounted for 36 percent of the study area s population increase during the 2000 to 2010 period a lower rate than that for the state as a whole. 22 This is not an indication that 36 percent of the new jobs created by the project would be taken by in-migrants as current residents would take a significant segment of the jobs. Study area Migration Rate & Employment Creation - The percentage of new jobs taken by in-migrants during the 2000 to 2010 period was calculated by dividing the number of jobs created during the two periods by the net number of migrant households that moved to the study area during that period. The number of households was calculated by dividing total migrants by average household size. These calculations are shown in Table 15 below: Data Sources: Colorado Department of Local Affairs, U.S. Bureau of the Census. 22 Data Sources: Colorado Department of Local Affairs, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Colorado Department of Public Health. 23 Data Sources: Colorado Department of Labor, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Colorado Department of Local Affairs. Year 2010 average households size for all Colorado households used 2.41 persons per household. 20

21 Table 15: Percent of New Study Area Jobs Taken by In-Migrant Households Employment Change ,841 Net Migration (Persons) ,285 Avg. HH Size 2.49 Migration Rate Change 1,444 Migrant HHs % The calculated migration rate for the 2000 to 2010 time period is 16.2 percent. The calculated migration rate overstates the actual rate, for at least two reasons: 1) Not all migrant households move to Colorado/Analysis area for purposes of employment migrants include retirees and persons who do not need employment income and; 2) In many households, more than one household member takes a new job. Thus, the actual migration rate is closer to 14 percent. Labor Force and Labor Availability between year 2000 and year 2011, the study area s labor force increased from 11,278 to 13,289 persons, a net increase of 2,011 workers; and an average increase of 183 workers per year. During the 2000 to 2011 period, an average of 773 workers were unemployed in each year. However, the unemployment average for the 2009 to 2011 period was 1,161 workers (1,227 in Year 2011), reflecting the impact of the recent recession. While the unemployment rate averaged 5.9 percent during the 12 year period, the unemployment rate was 9.2 percent in As a result, the number of workers available to fill new jobs increased in recent years. 24 Potential impacts on migration and population/demographics are addressed below. Construction - the Medium Density scenario would generate a significant number of jobs during the nine year construction period (See Table 13 above); both on Direct and Indirect/Induced bases. Cumulatively (Nine Years), the scenario would generate 1,825 Direct FTEs and 1,696 Indirect/Induced FTEs. During the peak year of construction activity (Year 2020) a total of 507 FTEs would be generated, including 260 direct FTEs. The great majority of direct FTEs would be generated within the study area, while indirect/induced FTEs could be generated both inside and outside the three county area. Construction jobs are not created in the same sense that long-term, village-based jobs would increase employment. The great majority of construction workers simply move from one job site to the next; at the completion of a contract, they move on to the next job. Contractors consistently report that the number of jobs on any project that are taken by 24 Data Source: Colorado Department of Labor. 21

22 persons who move permanently for that purpose is negligible; typically estimated at two to three percent. Virtually all contractors maintain a list of local job applicants who they can call upon if necessary for single jobs. As such, jobs created by construction projects are less likely to have secondary growth impacts in a community than long-term jobs, as workers are unlikely to change their permanent place of residence for any single job during Colorado s construction season. However, it is reasonable to assume that steady construction activity in one location over a period of years such as that under the Alternative 2/Medium Density scenario - would induce some workers to move to the study area. The scale of construction required for completion of Alternative 2/Medium Density is substantially larger than other, typical, construction projects in the study area. As such, it is likely that non-local contractors would be hired to handle major components of project construction. o Major projects entail the hiring of a series of sub-contractors, each of which is typically on the site for only 30 to 60 days. As such, there is typically insufficient continuity for workers to be tempted to move to a project area. Further, the construction season is relatively short in a high elevation location such as Wolf Creek Pass. o In general, the persons working for non-local contractors tend to fall into one of three categories: 1) Non-local workers housed temporarily near the site (Rental Houses/Apartments, Motels, etc.) accounting for 50 percent of the workforce; 2) Workers who travel into the area on a daily basis accounting for 30 to 35 percent of the workforce and; 3) Workers hired locally for the job accounting for 15 to 20 percent of the workforce. o Although construction-related migration is low, regional growth in the construction industry will result in the creation of new jobs and eventually, in-migration. Thus, it is reasonable to project some migration even in the face of evidence that suggests that relatively little occurs. o In the three-county study area, the number of persons employed in the construction industry in year 2005 was 668; this value had decreased to 378 workers in year 2010 a net decrease of 290 construction workers. 25 This type of fluctuation is common in the construction industry as workers move into and out of the industry dependent on economic cycles and the volume of work available at any given time. Thus, while it would appear that there are only 378 available construction workers in the analysis 25 Source: Colorado Department of Labor. Construction wages are frequently higher than those in other available industries; thus, the availability of construction work often induces workers to change jobs often from a different industry. 22

23 area, it is possible that /- workers would be willing to move back into the industry in the event that jobs become available. 26 Summary Construction o Direct Construction FTEs - Based on the background findings, a migration rate of four percent is reasonable for FTEs that would be created on a direct basis by project construction. In this instance in consideration of the project s geographic isolation from larger markets and the project s magnitude in comparison with existing construction projects in the analysis area a migration rate of seven percent was assumed. All workers that would be attracted to the area by direct jobs are expected to locate (become residents) within the study area. Construction employment impacts would be cumulative migrant employees will remain in the analysis area, subject to the following: - The estimates assume that 30 percent of the construction workers who move to the study area will leave in each subsequent year most likely in response to a construction opportunity in another community. 27 o Indirect/Induced Construction FTEs - Based on the background findings, a migration rate of 14 percent is reasonable for FTEs that would be created on an indirect and induced basis by project construction (these jobs would not be in the Construction Industry). 65 percent of workers that would be attracted to the area by indirect jobs are expected to locate (become residents) within the study area and only 25 percent of the workers that would be attracted to the area by induced jobs are expected to locate (become residents) within the study area. 28 Employment impacts would be cumulative migrant employees will remain in the analysis area, subject to the following: - The estimates assume that 20 percent of the workers who move to the analysis area will leave in each subsequent year Construction work often has higher wages than the employment that is available in other sectors. 27 Over time (beyond the nine year construction period), the direct employment/growth impacts of the project would gradually diminish to a negligible level. 28 The indirect jobs generated by the project will not be located within the village and will be primarily created in industries/businesses that are suppliers to construction activity; in many instances, these businesses will not be located within the analysis area particularly given the limited business base within the three counties. The geographic distribution of induced jobs is even more dispersed. 29 Over time (beyond the nine year construction period), the indirect/induced employment/growth impacts of the project would gradually diminish to a negligible level. 23

24 Table 16 below shows projections regarding the number of workers expected to move to the study area, in response to construction activity. 30 Table 16: Employment Migration to Analysis area in Response to; Construction of Alternative 2/Medium Density Scenario Workers Attracted to Analysis area by Construction Activity - Cumulative Construction Complete Direct Impact Indirect Impact Induced Impact Totals Operations as shown in Table 13 above, village-based employment under Alternative 2/Medium Density would gradually build up over the nine year phase-in period and hold at the nine year level for the foreseeable future. The same would hold true of off-site indirect/induced employment generated by operation activity. At the point of completion, Alternative 2/Medium Density would support 275 FTEs directly (within the village). FTEs generated directly by visitor expenditures outside the village and indirect/induced FTEs would total 392 at the point of project completion. Summary Operations o 14 percent of the Direct employment created both within and outside the village would be expected to draw migrant households to the region. Because these jobs would be long-term, the number of migrant households would build to the point of project completion and hold at that level for the foreseeable future. 100 percent of the migrants attracted to in-village direct FTEs and 80 percent of the migrants attracted to outside-village direct FTEs would be expected to live within the study area Table 16 shows projected impacts to a point four years following completion of construction (2027). Construction related impacts would continue to decline to a negligible level over the following decade. 31 Direct employment generated outside the Village at Wolf Creek would likely be generated in communities such as Pagosa Springs, South Fork, Del Norte, Monte Vista, etc. A segment of the employees in these communities commute to their jobs from outside the study area. 24

25 o 14 percent of the Indirect and Induced employment created by the project would be expected to draw migrant households to the region. Because these jobs would be long-term, the number of migrant households would build to the point of project completion and hold at that level for the foreseeable future. 65 percent of workers that would be attracted to the area by indirect jobs are expected to locate (become residents) within the analysis area and only 25 percent of the workers that would be attracted to the area by induced jobs are expected to locate (become residents) within the study area. 32 Table 17 below shows projections regarding the number of workers expected to move to the study area, in response to operations activity. 33 Table 17: Employment Migration to Study Area in Response to; Operations; Alternative 2/Medium Density Scenario Workers Attracted to Study Area by Operations/Secondary Activity - Cumulative Project Complete Direct/ In-Village Direct/ Out- Village Indirect Impact Induced Impact Totals Combined Migrant Impact Table 18 below summarizes the long-term migration impact of Alternative 2/Medium Density, showing the number of households that would migrate to the study area related to construction or operations employment. 32 The indirect jobs generated by the project would not be located within the village and would be primarily created in industries/businesses that are suppliers to operations activity; in many instances, these businesses will not be located within the study area particularly given the limited business base within the three counties. The geographic distribution of induced jobs is even more dispersed. 33 Table 17 shows projected impacts to a point four years following completion of construction (2027). 25

26 Table 18: Household Migration of Construction & Operations; Alternative 2/Medium Density 180 Migrant HHs Moving to Study Area 160 Operations Related Construction Related In the shorter run (2021, 2022) the project could attract approximately 167 households to the study area. However, the longer run impact (Year 2035) would be an increase of approximately 77 + /- households. The number of households that could be attracted to the study area can be converted to population using the average household size value for the study area persons per household. 34 The projection is shown in Table 19 below. 34 Based on weighted 2010 average for the three county area. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. 26

27 Table 19: Population Growth Attributable to Project; Alternative 2/Medium Density Scenario 450 Population Attributable to Project The project s population impact in the analysis area would peak in 2021/22 at approximately 392 persons, and would then gradually decline to a level of approximately 180 persons. o Colorado projections for the 2010 to 2020 period indicate that the analysis area will grow by approximately 6,900 persons (from 24,778 to 31,679; an annual rate of increase of 2.49 percent. Alternative 2/Medium Density would have the effect of increasing the annual rate of change to 2.61 percent. o Colorado projections for the 2010 to 2035 period indicate that the analysis area will grow by 18,654 persons (from 24,778 to 43,432 an annual rate of increase of 2.27 percent. Alternative 2/Medium Density would have the effect of increasing the annual rate of change to 2.29 percent. Overall, the population impact of the project is not expected to be significant given the already expected rate of growth in the analysis area. Age Distribution during the past decade (2000 to 2010), there was a clear aging trend in the analysis area. Among the following age groups: 0 to 7 Years; 8 to 14 Years; Years; 25 to 34 Years; 35 to 44 Years only the 25 to 34 Years group showed an absolute increase. In contrast, all age groups from 45 years and up showed increases during the ten year period. This aging trend is not atypical in the U.S., particularly as the baby boom group ages. The project s potential impact on age distribution in the analysis area is not likely to be significant. 27

28 o The hypothesis that new construction jobs would bring a wave of younger persons to the study is likely inaccurate. Recent research shows that the average age of construction workers in the U.S. was 40.4 years in year 2008, an increase of 4.4 years over the 1985 figure. 35 o A number of service-oriented positions in resort villages tend to be lower paid, younger workers. However, it is significant to note that part-time, seasonal positions are not the jobs that would attract household to move to the study area. Rather, these positions tend to be taken by seasonal or part-time residents or by persons taking on a second job. The households that move to the analysis area would likely be drawn by relatively higher paying full-time work. Race the project is not expected to significantly affect the current racial distribution in the analysis area. Households as shown in Table 18 above, the project could have the short-term effect (2021/22) of attracting approximately 167 new households to the study area and the longer term effect of attracting 75 to 80 households to the study area. Educational Attainment/Enrollment Alternative 2/Medium density could attract new households to the study area. This, in turn, would be expected to result in increased enrollments in the involved public school districts. 36 Enrollment impacts were calculated using projections based on the average number of public school children generated per household in the study area. Table 20 below shows for each of the three counties: the total number of households (2010 Data); the Fall Membership by County (Enrollment) (2011 Data) and the calculated average number of school children by county and for the entire analysis area. Table 20: Average Number of School Children Generated Per Household; Mineral, Archuleta & Rio Grande Counties, Analysis area Total HHs School Membership Average School Children Per HH Mineral Archuleta 5,258 1, Rio Grande 4,713 2, Analysis area 10,325 3, Source: Occupational Health & Safety, March The following school districts are located within the study area: Mineral County Creede School District; Archuleta County Archuleta County District; Rio Grande County Del Norte, Monte Vista and Sargent Districts. 28

29 For the entire study area, the average household generates public school children. This value was used to project potential enrollment impacts in the analysis area, as shown in Table 21 below. Table 21: Public School Enrollment Impact: Alternative 2/Medium Density Scenario 70 Public School Enrollment Attributable to Project During the peak period of impact (2021/22) the project could increase analysis area school enrollment by approximately 59 students a 1.6 percent increase over the current level (3,659 Students). 37 This impact would decrease in subsequent years down to a level of approximately 27 students a 0.7 percent increase over current levels. Housing Alternative 2/Medium Density s direct impact on housing in the study area would be a notable increase in the study area s Seasonal/Vacation housing stock. At completion, the project would include 426 Condominium, Townhouse and Single Family units intended for the Seasonal/Recreational market. Although this would constitute a significant project, the study area already includes 4,463 housing units held for Seasonal/Recreational use, accounting for 27 percent of the study area s total housing 37 Based on the current distribution of students between the three counties, the addition of 59 students could result in the following impacts in each county: Mineral 1 to 2 Students; Archuleta 23 + /- Students; Rio Grande 35 + /- Students. 29

30 stock. 38 The project would increase the current total by 9.5 percent, but it is apparent that this is already a housing market in which Seasonal/Recreational housing has a significant market impact. The project could have a secondary impact on housing as a result of demand for housing created by employees moving to the study area. During the peak period of growth (between 2015 and 2021) approximately 167 households would move to the study area; an average of 24 + /- households annually. Following the 2021/22 period, the number of new households would decrease. o Between 2000 and 2010, a total of 3,451 residential building permits were granted in the analysis area an average of 345 annually. 94 percent of the permits were for single family units. 39 o Although 3,451 residential permits were granted during the 2000s, the number of analysis area occupied units increased by only 1,343, an indication that most of the new housing development was likely for the purpose of Seasonal/Recreational use. o The increase in occupied housing units included an increase of 800 owneroccupied units (80 Annually) and 543 renter occupied units (54 annually). o 2010 U.S. Bureau of the Census data indicates that there were 648 vacant for-rent units and 374 vacant for-sale units in the analysis area in that year. While the census data likely overstates the number of vacant units available to year-round residents (many of the vacant units are likely intended for the Seasonal/Recreational market), it appears that there is a substantial stock of housing available for new households. However, statewide, the rental housing vacancy rate decreased from 10.9 percent in 2009 to 7.4 percent in Given the ongoing pace of new housing development in the analysis area, it appears that the housing stock can comfortably handle the addition of 24 + /- new households on an annual basis without creating a major excess of demand over supply. Property Values Alternative 2/Medium Density would include significant new real property development and, as a result, have a significant impact on taxable property in Mineral County (the project would be wholly located within Mineral County). The following values (provided by the Proponent) were used the estimate the market value of the project: Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Source: HUD, State of the Cities Database. 40 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Housing Vacancies and Ownership. 41 Note that Market Value differs from the construction values summarized in this report. In the instance of hotel and residential units, market value is the retail value at which the units would be sold to end-users. In the instance of non-residential buildings, market value is the value at which it is 30

31 o Non-Residential Space (Food & Beverage; Retail; Activity/Leisure; Support & Admin. Services) 49,600 total Sq. Ft. of Space; Market Value at $400 per Sq. Ft.; o Hotel Units Average Unit 1,136 Sq. Ft.; Market Value at $700 per Sq. Ft.; o Condominium Units - Average Unit 1,680 Sq. Ft.; Market Value at $600 per Sq. Ft.; o Townhouse Units - Average Unit 1,600 Sq. Ft.; Market Value at $600 per Sq. Ft.; o Single Family Units - Average Unit 5,200 Sq. Ft.; Market Value at $700 per Sq. Ft. Based on the above figures, Alternative 2/Medium Density total market value during the phase-in period has been estimated and is shown in Table 22 below. Table 22: Total Market Value: Alternative 2/Medium Density Scenario Market Value ($Millions) $700 $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 Single Family Townhomes Condominium Hotel Support & Admin. Services Activity/Leisure Retail Food & Beverage $100 $ At completion in 2023, the total market value of the project is estimated at $644.7 million. Non-residential components would account for only three percent of the total, estimated that these structures would be assessed by county authorities. Note that infrastructure and parking have not been included in estimates of project values. 31

32 hotel units would account for nine percent of the total and residential units would account for 88 percent of the total. In Colorado, commercial property is assessed at 29 percent of market value, while residential property is assessed at 8.77 percent of market value. 42 These assessment rates were applied to the market values shown above to estimate impacts on assessed value in Mineral County, as shown in Table 23 below. Table 23: Assessed Values: Alternative 2/Medium Density Scenario ($Millions) Commercial Cumulative Assessed Value - $Millions Non-Residential $0.2 $0.3 $1.0 $1.7 $2.6 $3.7 $4.8 $5.4 $5.8 Hotel $0.4 $1.0 $2.9 $4.8 $7.5 $10.5 $13.6 $15.5 $16.4 Commercial Totals $0.6 $1.3 $3.9 $6.5 $10.1 $14.2 $18.3 $20.9 $22.1 Residential $1.3 $3.0 $8.8 $14.6 $22.8 $32.0 $41.3 $47.1 $49.8 Total Assessed Value $1.9 $4.3 $12.7 $21.1 $32.9 $46.2 $59.7 $68.1 $72.0 The project could result in increases in Mineral County assessments of $22.1 million for commercial property and $49.8 million for residential property; a total assessment of $72.0 million. These possible increases are compared with current assessments in Mineral County in Table 24 below. 43 Table 24: Impacts of Alternative 2/Medium Density Scenario on; Assessed Values in Mineral County Assessed Values in $Millions Current Mineral County Assessment Completed Project Assessment Impact (Percent Increase) Commercial $6.6 $ % Residential $18.0 $ % Totals $37.2 $ % 42 Source: Colorado Division of Property Taxation. Residential assessment figure for 2011/12. The commercial assessment rate was applied to the non-residential and hotel properties, while the residential assessment rate was applied to condominiums, townhouses and single family. 43 Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Division of Property Taxes. Assessment data for

33 The impact on Mineral County s current assessed property totals would be substantial overall, assessed value would increase by 193 percent as a result of Alternative 2/Medium Density. Economy/Economic Sectors Alternative 2/Medium Density would generate significant employment in the study area, both as a short term result of construction and as a long term impact of village operations. Table 25 below shows estimated FTE creation in the study area - during implementation. 44 Table 25: FTE/Employment Generated; in Study Area; Alternative 2/Medium Density Scenario Operations FTEs Construction FTEs FTEs o Over the past 11 years (2000 to 2011) analysis area employment increased by 1,221, an average increase of 111 annually. At its peak level (Year 2021; the 7 th Year of Project Activity), the project would generate 843 FTEs in the study area resulting in an average annual increment to study area employment of 121 more than doubling the rate of increase of the past 11 years. The longer term and stable impact of the project would be to increase analysis area employment by 568 FTEs (Year 2024; 10 th Year of project activity). From this perspective the average annual increase in project area employment 44 It has been assumed that: 100 percent of the Direct FTEs; 65 percent of the Indirect FTEs; and 25 percent of the Induced FTEs will be created within the study area. 33

34 attributable to the project would be 57 jobs; this would remain a notable uptick in the rate of job creation in the analysis area. The jobs generated by the project would primarily affect the following economic sectors: 45 o Construction activity would have a primary impact on the following five economic sub-sectors: 1. Residential Construction; 2. Non-Residential Construction; 3. Architecture/Engineering & Related Services; 4. Food Services & Drinking Places; 5. Real estate establishments. o Operation activity would have a primary impact on the following five economic sub-sectors: 1. Hotels & Motels; 2. Food Services & Drinking Places; 3. Performing Arts, Independent Performers, Entertainment; 4. Retail Stores; 5. Amusement & Recreation. Overall, the project would make the study area labor market more attractive to workers, creating more employment opportunities for current residents and attracting new workers to the study area. Employment Status in 2011, there were 1,227 unemployed persons in the study area. Even at its peak level of employment (843 Study Area FTEs in 2021) the project would not provide complete employment in the study area. Moreover, it is apparent that currently unemployed persons within the study area would not necessarily have the appropriate qualifications nor choose to be employed at the Village at Wolf Creek nor in the secondary jobs generated by project activity. Nevertheless, it is apparent that the creation of a significant number of new jobs would offer new employment opportunities for unemployed study area residents. This is particularly true in the Construction industry, in which study area employment decreased by 290 persons between 2005 and Clearly, a number of these workers could potentially find employment at the project. Tourism based on average occupancy as projected by the proponent (see Table 11 above), the completed Alternative 2/Medium Density scenario would attract over 250,000 person/nights on an annual basis; or an average of 687 visitors on every night during a 45 Based on output from IMPLAN 3 model. 34

35 year. 46 When compared with annual skier-visits of approximately 225,000 persons at adjacent Wolf Creek Ski Area, it is apparent that the project would significantly increase tourism/visitation in the study area. These additional visits, and the expenditures that visitors will complete, will support additional employment in the study area, as detailed above. Moreover, increased tourism activity creates an effective increase in population, with attendant increases in public service demands. Individual Prosperity Alternative 2/Medium Density would generate significant Labor Income, both during the nine year construction period and on an ongoing/operations basis, both during the phase-up and following completion of the project. o Construction output from the IMPLAN 3 model indicates that construction of the project would generate a total of $181.9 million in labor income, including $102.1 million in direct income and $79.8 in indirect/induced labor income. o Operations output from the IMPLAN 3 model indicate that project operations at the point of completion would generate $17.4 million annually in labor income in the study area, including $10.3 million in direct income and $7.1 in indirect/induced labor income. The construction and operations labor income was adjusted to account for the portion that would be generated within the study area. 47 Total labor income during the phase-in period is summarized in Table 26 below ,803 Person/Nights/365 Nights = 687 Average. Realistically, the number of persons in the village on any single night would vary dramatically according to the season. Peak visitation would be expected to occur during ski season holiday periods. 47 Direct 100 percent of Labor Income; Indirect 65 percent of Labor Income; Induced 25 percent of Labor Income. 35

36 Table 26: Labor Income Generated in Study Area; Alternative 2/Medium Density Scenario ($Millions) $35.0 $30.0 Operations Labor Income ($Millions) Construction $25.0 $10.7 $8.4 $6.2 $20.0 $2.5 $0.4 $4.0 $11.9 $15.0 $0.9 $12.3 $10.0 $19.8 $17.6 $18.1 $19.6 $18.0 $15.5 $13.7 $10.9 $12.3 $5.0 $5.0 $0.0 $ During the peak year of activity (2021), the project could generate $30.2 million in labor income in the study area. Following project completion (2024) the project would generate $12.3 million in study area labor income on an annual basis going forward. For purposes of context, total personal income in the study area (Year 2009) was $797.9 million. 48 During the peak year (2021) the project would increase this value by 3.8 percent. Public Revenues & Fiscal Impact any development project would generate a range of public revenues at the county and state level. The most significant revenues generated by Alternative 2/Medium Density include: o Property Taxes using the projected assessed project value during the phase-in of Alternative 2/Medium Density (See Table 23 above) and current tax rates (Mineral 48 Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 36

37 County - $26.291; Creede Consolidated School District - $ ), property tax collections are summarized in Table 27 below. 50 Table 27: Property Tax Collections During Phase-In; Alternative 2/Medium Density Scenario ($Thousands) Property Tax Collections - $Thousands School Taxes $42 $98 $287 $477 $741 $1,041 $1,345 $1,534 $1,623 County Taxes $49 $114 $335 $556 $864 $1,215 $1,569 $1,790 $1,892 Totals $92 $212 $622 $1,033 $1,605 $2,256 $2,914 $3,324 $3,515 Property tax collections would be substantial; at the point of completion (2023 Values), the project would annually generate $1.62 million in Creede Consolidated District taxes and $1.89 million in annual Mineral County taxes (using the current tax rate). These values would be expected to continue into the future. For reference purposes, current (2011) collections were $755,676 for the school district and $881,275 for Mineral County. 51 o Sales Taxes the IMPLAN 3 model output indicates that the cumulative Sales Tax revenues generated by construction of Alternative 2/Medium Density would be $5,162,715. Upon completion, ongoing operation and unit visitor expenditures would generate approximately $1,310,000 in Sales Taxes on an annual basis. Because the project would be located in Mineral County, most of this revenue would flow to the county. An analysis of projected visitor expenditures in the village alone indicates that, a project completion, annual sales taxes generated would total approximately $632, County service costs were assessed as follows: 49 Sources: Colorado Department of Revenue, Certification of Levies and Revenues, Mineral County Clerk. Tax rates are applied per $1,000 of assessed value. The county tax rate includes: General, Road & Bridge, Public Welfare. 50 The calculations are based on the current (2011) tax rate. The tax rate will change over the period of project development. 51 Source: Colorado Department of Revenue, Certification of Levies and Revenues, Mineral County. 52 Although not computed as part of this analysis, IMPLAN 3 indicates that project construction and operations would generate a number of other taxes, including: Motor Vehicle License fees; Severance Tax; Corporate Profits Tax; Personal Income Tax; etc. 37

38 o The ongoing operation of Alternative 2/Medium Density would generate public costs, primarily in the form of public service provision (Fire, Law Enforcement, Public Administration, etc.) Any new development has associated, ongoing costs relating to the provision of services to residential and non-residential property as well as to the maintenance of the public infrastructure base. A number of standardized fiscal impact methodologies are available for estimating the costs of providing services to new development. In this instance, the Per Capita Multiplier methodology was used to estimate the annual service costs to be generated by the proposed residential units while the Proportional Valuation methodology was used to estimate the annual service costs to be generated by the non-residential elements of the plan. 53 Both methodologies use local (County) budget data to estimate prospective project costs. The methodologies do not take into account the areas in which the project may privately mitigate the service costs the plan generates (such as roadways). As such, the projected service costs may overstate actual operational costs this is particularly true in the instance of a resort village in which many services are typically provided on a private basis. 54 The results of these analyses indicate that, upon completion in year 2023, Alternative 2/Medium Density s residential components would have public service costs of $800,495 on an annual basis, and that the project s non-residential components would have service costs of $474,115 on an annual basis. Creede Consolidated District school costs as borne directly by county residents property taxes - can be assessed as follows: o County property owners paid $755,676 in property taxes to the Creede Consolidated School District in 2011; with an enrollment of 81 students (See Table 21 above) the 53 The Per Capita Multiplier approach uses county budget and assessment data to estimate the portion of the county budget that is expended providing services to residential properties. The per capita or per unit cost is then estimated by dividing the total amount allocated to residential properties by the population or number of housing units. In this instance, the methodology was modified to use number of housing units as the basic unit of cost, rather than year-round population. The Proportional Valuation methodology also estimates the portion of the county budget that is expended providing services to residential properties. The methodology then estimates the cost of providing services to the incoming non-residential property by comparing the value of that property to the average value of existing non-residential properties in the county. Larger value properties are assumed to have relatively lower service costs while smaller properties are assumed to have relatively higher service costs. 54 The Per Capita Multiplier and Proportional Valuation models used the total county budget as a basis for projecting project-generated expenditures. Note that Property Tax Revenues support only 50+/- percent of total County General Fund Revenues. As such, the service costs as calculated by the models overstates project service costs as supported by property taxes. 38

39 average property tax cost per student was $9, At its peak (2021/22) the project is unlikely to generate more than five students in Mineral County (See Educational Attainment/Enrollment above). On that basis, the annual school district cost would be approximately $46,650. The net annual fiscal impact of the project on Mineral County can be estimated by comparing project generated revenues (County & School Property Taxes, Sales Tax) with project generated service costs. This is shown in Table 28 below, based on ongoing project operations at the point of completion (Year 2023). Table 28: Net Annual Fiscal Impact Generated by; Alternative 2/Medium Density Scenario at Completion Revenues County Services Annual - Recurring - Values School Services Mineral County; Total Impact Property Taxes $1,892,325 $1,622,630 $3,514,955 Sales Tax $687,900 $687,900 Total Revenues $2,580,225 $1,622,630 $4,202,855 Service Costs County Services $1,274,610 $1,274,610 School Services $46,650 $46,650 - Total Costs $1,274,610 $46,650 $1,321,260 = Net Annual Impact +$1,305,615 +$1,575,980 +$2,881,595 The fiscal analysis indicates that the project would show a substantial, annual fiscal benefit to both the county and school, with revenues far exceeding costs. In reality, municipal and public school entities do not operate with significant surpluses; rather, the tax rate would be adjusted to account for the differential between revenues and costs. Education the residential units to be constructed as part of Alternative 2/Medium Density would be intended for vacation/seasonal use and would be highly unlikely to be occupied by Mineral County residents. As such, they would not be expected to have a significant impact on school enrollment. However, employment and expected migration to the study area could have an impact on enrollment in public schools. Possible enrollment impacts 55 Source: Certification of Levies and Revenues, Mineral County, Per student cost computed as: $755,676/81 (Students) = $9,329 Per Student. 39

40 are shown in Table 21 above; showing a shorter term impact (2021/22) of approximately 59 new students and a longer term impact of 25 to 30 students. Public Services when completed, Alternative 2/Medium Density would constitute a significant concentration of activity, both in terms of structures and people-activity. Accordingly, it is reasonable to expect that the village would generate new demands for public services: o The Mineral County Sheriff s Office currently provides services to Wolf Creek Pass providing law enforcement coverage and response to emergency calls. The Sheriff s Office employs three full time officers (a Sheriff, Undersheriff, and a deputy) and one full time administrative employee. Mineral County Sheriff s Office work-force also includes two part time dispatch and two part time deputies, as well as two reserve deputies. 56 Although the project would not have a major impact on Mineral County or study area population, it is apparent that the concentration of structures and activity would generate increased need for law enforcement at Wolf Creek Pass. The project would increase the number of housing units in Mineral County by 35 percent and generate a substantial increase in commercial activity by as a result of visitation activity. As noted in Table 24 above, Mineral County s current assessed value would increase by 193 percent as a result of the project. Given these factors, it is likely that Mineral County would choose to either expand the existing sheriff s operation or contract with sheriff s offices in adjacent counties (Archuleta, Rio Grande) to assist with the provision of services to the village. Given the scale of the village, this expansion could include provision of an on-site office and law enforcement personnel. o Fire Services - Wolf Creek Pass and the ski area are currently provided Fire Protection Services through South Fork Fire and Rescue. The Pagosa Springs FPD may also respond to calls at the Ski Area if it is believed they can get on the scene quicker or assistance is required. Travel distances and dispersed rural populations generally make response times long in the analysis area, often upwards of half an hour. For emergency calls at Wolf Creek Pass the response time is generally between 35 and 40 minutes coming from Pagosa Springs and between 20 and 30 minutes from South Fork. 57 It is apparent that the village s concentration of structures and activity would generate increased need for fire services at Wolf Creek Pass. The concentration of people- 56 Mineral County Sheriff s Office, Batchelor,

41 activity and structures within the village would increase the number of assistance calls generated from Wolf Creek Pass. Moreover, increased activity could potentially result in requests to decrease response times. Finally, the structures proposed within Alternative 2/Medium Density would likely require the acquisition of specialized firefighting equipment. Ultimately, it is probable that it would become necessary to house fire-fighting equipment within the village and to have trained fire-fighter included in village staff. o Emergency Care/EMS Ambulance - Emergency care services to Wolf Creek Pass are currently dispatched out of Pagosa Springs in Archuleta County, which is about 30 miles away. The Archuleta County Emergency Operation Center (part of the Sheriff s Office) serves Archuleta County, Pagosa Springs, Arboles, Chromo, Chimney Rock, Wolf Creek Pass, and the southern areas of Hinsdale and Mineral Counties. 58 Again, increased people-activity levels resulting from the development of and visitation to the village would result in an increase in service calls from Wolf Creek Pass; this increased activity could also result in requests to decrease response times. Ultimately, it is possible that it would become necessary to house emergency equipment within the village and to have trained EMS included in village staff. o Medical Services At adjacent Wolf Creek Ski Area, First Aid stations are located in BASE CAMP, at the top of Treasure and Bonanza chairlifts, and the Knife Ridge Outpost. Wolf Creek Ski Patrollers are all certified as Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) at the basic, intermediate or paramedic level. Ambulance/EMS services to the Ski Area are dispatched out of Pagosa Springs in Archuleta County, which is about 30 miles away. Persons requiring substantial medical care are transported to the facility that can best serve their medical needs. The closest hospital is the Pagosa Mountain Hospital, approximately 30 miles from Wolf Creek Pass. Summary Alternative 2/Medium Density Overall, the analysis indicates the following regarding the socioeconomic impacts of Alternative 2/Medium Density: The project s impacts on growth rates would not be substantial, but would clearly induce a number of households to the move to the study area, given the employment that project construction/operations will generate. Given ongoing rates of population 58 Archuleta County,

42 growth, enrollments and housing development in the three county area, this impact can be comfortably handled. The project would have a clear impact on employment and wage generation in the study area. The combination of on-site employment (Construction and Operations) as well as off-site jobs generated by visitor spending and secondary impacts, will increase employment opportunities for current residents and induce new households to move to the study area. Further, these new jobs will increase personal income in the study area. At completion, the project would dramatically increase Mineral County s property tax base and result in enhanced local public revenue. Although Archuleta and Rio Grande Counties will not benefit from a property tax perspective, a substantial portion (49 percent) of the village visitor s expenditures will occur outside the village, resulting in enhanced sales tax revenues in both counties. The project s most significant impact would be on public service provision as virtually all public services (law enforcement, fire, etc.) are situated remotely from Wolf Creek Pass. The size and activity level of the village will clearly generate increase service demands and faster response times. This will result in a need to enhance/expand existing services to meet these needs including the likely location of service capability within the project. Property taxes and sales taxes generated by the project will be more than sufficient to cover the associated increased costs. Alternative 2/High Density Scenario Note to Discussion of Alternative 2/High Density Scenario as documented by the proponent, the plan scenario would be constructed over a 30 year period. The assessment addresses the full period of project implementation; however, it is important to note that any long-term projection carries a great deal of uncertainty, as potential economic cycles, regional demographics, societal shifts and technology shifts result in many unknowns. The High Density scenario envisions the creation of a major, multi-faceted resort village incorporating a variety of lodging, vacation/residential units, commercial, administrative, recreational, parking and infrastructure elements, to include: 59 A cumulative total of 200 hotel units. 59 Based on materials provided by the proponent. 42

43 A cumulative total of 1,511 vacation residential units, in Condominium, Townhouse and Single Family configurations. It is assumed that the units would be constructed primarily for the purpose of seasonal/vacation use and that the units would be unlikely to house full-time residents. Construction of 221,000 square feet of non-residential structures and facilities to include: o Food & Beverage Operations; o Retail Space; o Activity/Leisure Space/Facilities; o Support & Administrative Space. Construction of a total of 2,459 interior parking spaces to serve lodging, residential and non-residential spaces. Construction of all support infrastructure (Road, Water, Sewer, Utilities, etc.). Assumed architectural and engineering fees for project design. 60 Viewed in total, Alternative 2/High Density would result in a development that would far exceed any existing recreation/resort-oriented project within the study area. The scope of building infrastructure and resultant people activity create a level of economic activity and service demand far beyond the current experience in the three county area. The High Density project would occur in six phases over a 30 year timeframe ( ) involving phased development of each of the project s major components. Tables 29, 30, 31 and 32 below show phased development of each major component. 61 The tables show cumulative totals at the end of each of the projects six phases. According to the proponent, the completion of each phase would occur in the following years: Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase Based on assumption of 7.0 percent of construction cost for building design and 5.0 percent of construction cost for parking and infrastructure design. 61 Phasing based on Development Concept and Project Occupancy data provided by the Proponent. Actual phasing particularly of hotel and residential units would likely vary from these estimates. However, the cumulative values are those presented by the Proponent. 43

44 Table 29: Phased Development of Lodging/Residential Components; Alternative 2/High Density In-Phase & Cumulative by Phase Units - By Phase & Cumulative Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase Hotel Units Constructed During Phase Cumulative Residential Units Constructed During Phase Cumulative ,095 1,287 1,511 Table 30: Phased Development of Non-Residential Building Components; Alternative 2/High Density In-Phase & Cumulative by Phase Square Footage - By Phase & Cumulative Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase Food & Beverage Retail Constructed During Phase 19,200 27,200 34,200 34,200 39,200 39,200 Cumulative 19,200 8,000 7, ,000 0 Constructed During Phase 7,500 21,500 47,500 57,500 61,900 61,900 Cumulative 7,500 14,000 26,000 10,000 4,400 0 Activity/ Leisure Support & Admin. Services Totals Non-Resid. Constructed During Phase 14,500 17,500 36,500 36,500 38,500 38,500 Cumulative 14,500 3,000 19, ,000 0 Constructed During Phase 8,400 28,400 67,400 76,400 81,400 81,400 Cumulative 8,400 20,000 39,000 9,000 5,000 0 Constructed During Phase 49,600 94, , , , ,000 Cumulative 49,600 45,000 91,000 19,000 16,

45 Table 31: Phased Development of Interior Parking (Number of Spaces) &; Infrastructure (Construction $Dollars); Alternative 2/High Density; In-Phase & Cumulative by Phase Parking Spaces & Infrastructure Cost ($Millions) Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase 6 Parking Spaces Infrastructure Construction Cost ($Millions) Constructed During Phase Cumulative 764 1,217 1,570 2,020 2,324 2,659 Constructed During Phase $88.7 $0.0 $14.8 $14.8 $14.8 $0.0 Cumulative $88.7 $88.7 $103.5 $118.3 $133.1 $133.1 Table 32: Phased Architectural/Engineering Costs; Alternative 2/High Density; In-Phase & Cumulative by Phase A & E Costs - $Millions Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase 6 A&E Costs Buildings A&E Costs Parking/Infrastruct. A&E Costs Totals Cost During Phase $16.8 $9.3 $7.8 $9.7 $6.2 $6.2 Cumulative $16.8 $26.1 $33.8 $43.6 $49.7 $56.0 Cost During Phase $5.2 $0.5 $1.0 $1.1 $1.0 $0.3 Cumulative $5.2 $5.7 $6.6 $7.7 $8.8 $9.1 Cost During Phase $22.0 $9.7 $8.8 $10.8 $7.2 $6.5 Cumulative $22.0 $31.7 $40.5 $51.3 $58.5 $

46 The phased development plan was converted to construction costs based on values and costs provided by the Proponent. 62 Totals by phase and cumulative totals are shown in Table 33 below. Table 33: By-Phase and Cumulative Construction Costs; Alternative 2/High Density Project Costs - $Millions Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase 6 Hotel Units Residential Units Non- Residential Space Parking Spaces Infrastructure A & E Project Totals Cost During Phase $24.2 $44.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Cumulative $24.2 $68.2 $68.2 $68.2 $68.2 $68.2 Cost During Phase $201.0 $74.8 $83.8 $133.2 $83.4 $88.8 Cumulative $201.0 $275.8 $359.6 $492.8 $576.2 $665.0 Cost During Phase $14.9 $13.5 $27.3 $5.7 $4.9 $0.0 Cumulative $14.9 $28.4 $55.7 $61.4 $66.3 $66.3 Cost During Phase $14.8 $9.6 $4.7 $7.6 $5.3 $6.2 Cumulative $14.8 $24.4 $29.1 $36.6 $42.0 $48.1 Cost During Phase $88.7 $0.0 $14.8 $14.8 $14.8 $0.0 Cumulative $88.7 $88.7 $103.5 $118.3 $133.1 $133.1 Cost During Phase $22.0 $9.7 $30.7 $20.6 $37.9 $27.1 Cumulative $22.0 $31.7 $40.5 $51.3 $58.5 $65.0 Cost During Phase $365.6 $151.5 $161.3 $181.9 $146.3 $122.1 Cumulative $365.6 $517.1 $656.5 $828.6 $944.2 $1, Construction values as follows: Hotel Units Avg. 1,196 Sq. $300 per Sq. Ft.; Condominium Units Avg. 1,680 Sq. $250 per Sq. Ft.; Townhouse Units Avg. 1,600 Sq. $200 per Sq. Ft.; Single Family Avg. 5,200 Sq. $200 per Sq. Ft. All Non-Residential building space construction cost $300 per Sq. Ft. Parking: Hotel - $30,000 per space; Condominium - $30,000 per space; Townhouses & Single Family - $5,000 per space; Non-Residential - $1,000 per space. Infrastructure and Architecture/Engineering costs as shown in Tables 31 and 32 above. 46

47 In total, Alternative 2/High Density is projected to have a cumulative construction cost of $1.045 billion, spread out over the 2015 to 2044 period. The operational economic impacts of Alternative 2/High Density would be generated by visitor spending. Again, expenditures by visitors to Wolf Creek Village would support employment and wages both within and outside the village. High Density visitation is based on Occupancy Projections provided by the proponent. Annual visitation (Ski Season & Non- Ski Season) is shown in Table 34 below. Table 34: Village Visitation at End of Each Phase; Alternative 2/High Density Annual Village Visitation - At End of Each Phase Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase Ski Season Visits 153, , , , , ,802 Non-Ski Season Visits 97, , , , , ,849 Total Annual Visits 250, , , , , ,651 At completion, the village would be expected to attract approximately 830,000 visits annually. This level of visitation would be expected to continue as long as the village operates. Total annual visitor expenditures were projected using the Colorado Visitor Daily Expenditures by Type (See Table 1) by projected visitation. Estimated visitor expenditures within and outside the village are shown in Table 35 below. Table 35: Annual Visitor Expenditures Within & Outside the Village at Wolf Creek; At End of Each Phase; Alternative 2/High Density Scenario ($Millions) Annual Visitor Expenditures at End of Each Phase - $Millions Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase Within Village $23.4 $35.7 $48.7 $66.4 $71.3 $77.5 Outside Village $22.2 $34.0 $46.3 $63.2 $67.8 $73.7 Total Expenditures $45.6 $69.7 $95.0 $129.6 $139.1 $

48 At completion (Year 2044) village visitors would generate over $151 million in annual expenditures, inside and outside the village. Year 2044 level of expenditures would be expected to continue in future years. The values in Tables 33 and 35 above (Construction Spending, Visitor Expenditures) were input to the IMPLAN 3 model; resulting in a variety of outputs regarding private and public sectors. Table 36 below shows projected employment impacts for both construction and operations. Employment is shown in terms of FTEs, including both annual and cumulative totals over the 2015 to 2044 timeframe. Operational employment values include FTEs both within and outside the village. With regard to Operational impacts note that Direct employment within the village is based on employment projections provided by the Proponent, rather than the output from the IMPLAN 3 model. 63 All other figures are based on output from the IMPLAN 3 model. 63 The Proponent s projections indicate that, at completion, the Medium Density village would support 984 jobs. The IMPLAN 3 model projects a total of 597 FTEs based on projected visitor expenditures. Again, the Proponent s value was used for purposes of impact assessment. 48

49 49 Table 36: Construction and Operations Employment (FTEs); Alternative 2/High Density Scenario Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase Cumu - lative Totals Construct. Employment Direct ,494 Indirect ,877 Induced ,342 Constructio n Totals ,713 Operations Employment Within Village Direct* ,456 Outside Village Direct ,811 Indirect ,225 Induced ,350 Operations Totals ,100 1,224 1,345 1,442 1,518 1,640 1,739 1,801 1,831 1,892 1,939 1,960 1,983 2,026 2,070 2,091 34,842 Total Employment Direct ,014 1,130 1,213 1,259 1,358 1,518 1,546 1,511 1,529 1,649 1,652 1,593 1,622 1,716 1,734 1,697 31,761 Indirect ,102 Induced ,692 Annual Totals , ,163 1,178 1,237 1,385 1,523 1,613 1,643 1,811 2,079 2,094 2,003 2,017 2,216 2,192 2,065 2,113 2,281 2,300 2,215 43,555

50 During the 30 year phase in period, Alternative 2/High Density would generate a cumulative total of over 8,700 construction FTEs, or an average of 290 construction FTEs in each year. Approximately 52 percent of these construction FTEs would be Direct, with the remainder being generated in a secondary basis (Indirect and Induced FTEs). 64 Upon completion in year 2044, ongoing village operations would generate a total of 2,091 FTEs this value would continue into the future for as long as the village maintains operations. 47 percent (984) of these jobs would be located in the village, with the remainder generated by direct visitor spending outside the village and by secondary impact. 65 During the phase-in period, the peak employment year would occur in 2043, a point when construction would be winding down but operational employment would have reached a high level. Employment impacts would drop to a slightly lower steady state level once construction is complete. This is shown in Table 37 below. Table37: Employment (FTE) Trend During Phase-In; Alternative 2/High Density 2,500 Operations Secondary 2,000 Operations Direct Construction Secondary Construction Direct 1,500 FTEs 1, Overall, the multiplier for construction activity is calculated at 1.93 for every 100 FTEs generated on a direct basis, an additional 93 jobs are generated on a secondary basis. 65 The 984 village-based employees figure is based on the proponent s employment projections. 50

51 Alternative 2/High Density Scenario Impacts Note to Discussion of Impacts the background documentation/discussion(s) for a number of impacts addressed below is shown in detail under Alternative 2/Medium Density Impacts. Unless otherwise noted, the impacts addressed for this scenario follow upon the previous discussions. Population and Demographics Alternative 2/High Density's direct impact on population would be minimal, as full-time residency would be nominal within the village. However, the project would create employment and increased economic activity both on direct and indirect bases that could result in local and regional growth. It is this projected employment and economic activity upon which growth impact estimates have primarily been developed. 66 As shown in Table36, construction and ongoing operation of Alternative 2/High Density scenario would result in the generation of significant employment, both on Direct and Indirect/Induced bases. While construction related employment would cease following the completion of the High Density scenario, village operations employment would continue into the future. Construction - the High Density scenario would generate a significant number of jobs during the 30 year construction period (See Table 36 above); both on Direct and Indirect/Induced bases. Cumulatively (30 Years), the scenario would generate 4,494 Direct FTEs and 4,219 Indirect/Induced FTEs. During the peak year of construction activity (Year 2020) a total of 507 FTEs would be generated, including 260 direct FTEs. The great majority of direct FTEs would be generated within the study area, while indirect/induced FTEs could be generated both inside and outside the three county area. Direct Construction FTEs - Based on the background findings, a migration rate of four percent is reasonable for FTEs that would be created on a direct basis by project construction. In this instance in consideration of the project s geographic isolation from larger markets and the project s magnitude in comparison with existing construction projects in the analysis area a migration rate of seven percent was assumed. Al of the workers that would be attracted to the area by direct jobs would be expected to locate (become residents) within the analysis area. Construction 66 Year-round residency would occur in the village if the proponent were to make some of the housing available to workers. However, this potential is not detailed in project documentation made available by the proponent. 51

52 employment impacts would be cumulative migrant employees will remain in the analysis area, subject to the following: - The estimates assume that 30 percent of the construction workers that move to the analysis area would leave in each subsequent year most likely in response to a construction opportunity in another community. 67 o Indirect/Induced Construction FTEs - Based on the background findings, a migration rate of 14 percent is reasonable for FTEs that would be created on an indirect and induced basis by project construction (these jobs would not be in the Construction Industry). 65 percent of workers that would be attracted to the area by indirect jobs are expected to locate (become residents) within the study area and only 25 percent of the workers that would be attracted to the area by induced jobs would be expected to locate (become residents) within the study area. 68 Employment impacts would be cumulative migrant employees will remain in the analysis area, subject to the following: - The estimates assume that 20 percent of the workers who move to the study area will leave in each subsequent year. 69 Table 38 below shows projections regarding the number of workers expected to move to the study area, in response to construction activity the table shows cumulative totals at the end of each project phase Over time (beyond the 30 year construction period), the direct employment/growth impacts of the project would gradually diminish to a negligible level. 68 The indirect jobs generated by the project would not be located within the village and would be primarily created in industries/businesses that are suppliers to construction activity; in many instances, these businesses will not be located within the study area particularly given the limited business base within the three counties. The geographic distribution of induced jobs is even more dispersed. 69 Over time (beyond the 30 year construction period), the indirect/induced employment/growth impacts of the project would gradually diminish to a negligible level. 70 Table 38 shows projected impacts to a point ten years following completion of construction (2054). Construction related impacts would continue to decline to a negligible level over the following decade. 52

53 Table 38: Employment Migration to Analysis area in Response to; Construction of Alternative 2/High Density Scenario; Cumulative Totals at End of Each Phase Workers Attracted to Study Area by Construction Activity - Cumulative Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase 6 Post- Construction Direct Impact Indirect Impact Induced Impact Totals Operations as shown in Table 36 above, village-based employment under Alternative 2/High Density would gradually build up over the 30 year phase-in period and hold at the thirty year level in future years. The same would hold true of off-site indirect/induced employment generated by operation activity. At the point of completion, Alternative 2/High Density would support 984 FTEs directly (within the village). FTEs generated directly by visitor expenditures outside the village and indirect/induced FTEs would total 1,127 at the point of project completion. 14 percent of the Direct employment created both within and outside the village would be expected to draw migrant households to the region. Because these jobs would be longterm, the number of migrant households would build to the point of project completion and hold at that level for the foreseeable future. All of the migrants attracted to in-village direct FTEs and 80 percent of the migrants attracted to outside-village direct FTEs would be expected to live within the analysis area percent of the Indirect and Induced employment created by the project would be expected to draw migrant households to the region. Because these jobs would be longterm, the number of migrant households would build to the point of project completion and hold at that level for the foreseeable future. 65 percent of workers that would be attracted to the area by indirect jobs would be expected to locate (become residents) within the study area and only 25 percent of the workers that would be attracted to the 71 Direct employment generated outside the Village at Wolf Creek would likely be generate in communities such as Pagosa Springs, South Fork, Del Norte, Monte Vista, etc. A segment of the employees in these communities commute to their jobs from outside the analysis area. 53

54 area by induced jobs would be expected to locate (become residents) within the analysis area. 72 Table 39 below shows projections regarding the number of workers expected to move to the study area, in response to operations activity. 73 Table 39: Employment Migration to Analysis area in Response to; Operation of Alternative 2/High Density Scenario; Cumulative Totals at End of Each Phase Workers Attracted to Study Area by Operations Activity - Cumulative Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase Direct Impact Indirect Impact Induced Impact Totals Combined Migrant Impact Table 40 below summarizes the long-term migration impact of Alternative 2/High Density, showing the number of households that would migrate to the study area related to construction and operations employment. 72 The indirect jobs generated by the project would not be located within the village and would be primarily created in industries/businesses that are suppliers to construction activity; in most instances, these businesses would not be located within the analysis area particularly given the limited business base within the three counties. The geographic distribution of induced jobs is even more dispersed. 73 Table 40 shows projected impacts to a point 10 years following completion of construction (2054). Construction related impacts would continue to decline to a negligible level over the following decade. 54

55 Table 40: Household Migration of Construction & Operations; Alternative 2/High Density 350 Migrant HHs Moving to Study Area Operations Related Construction Related During the peak year of impact (Year 2043), the combined impact of the project would be to attract approximately 295 households to the study area. The impact would decrease somewhat after that point, reaching a steady state of approximately 240 to 245 households following the completion of construction activity. The number of households that could be attracted to the analysis area can be converted to population using an average household size value for the study area persons per household. 74 The projection is shown in Table 41 below. 74 Based on weighted 2010 average for the three county area. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. 55

56 Table 41: Population Growth Attributable to Project; Alternative 2/High Density Scenario Population Attributable to Project The project s population impact in the analysis area would peak in year 2043 at approximately 694 persons, and would then gradually decline to a level of approximately 565 to 570 persons. o Colorado projections for the 2010 to 2040 period indicate that the study area will grow by approximately 22,300 persons (from 24,778 to 47,096) an annual rate of increase of 2.16 percent. Alternative 2/High Density would have the effect of increasing the annual rate of change to 2.21 percent. The project could have the impact of increasing the study area s population by almost 700 persons, over the level of growth that has already been projected. While this is a notable impact, the project s potential impact on the rate of population growth in the study area is not dramatic. Age Distribution during the past decade (2000 to 2010), there was a clear aging trend in the analysis area. Among the following age groups: 0 to 7 Years; 8 to 14 Years; Years; 25 to 34 Years; 35 to 44 Years only the 25 to 34 Years group showed an absolute increase. In contrast, all age groups from 45 years and up showed increases during the ten year period. This aging trend is not atypical in the U.S., particularly as the baby boom 56

57 group ages. The project s potential impact on age distribution in the study area is not likely to be significant. o The hypothesis that new construction jobs would bring a wave of younger persons to the study is likely inaccurate. Recent research shows that the average age of construction workers in the U.S. was 40.4 years in year 2008, an increase of 4.4 years over the 1985 figure. 75 o A number of service-oriented positions in resort villages tend to be lower paid, younger workers. However, it is significant to note that part-time, seasonal positions are not the jobs that will attract household to move to the study area. Rather, these positions tend to be taken by seasonal or part-time residents or by persons taking on a second job. The households that move to the analysis area will likely be drawn by relatively higher paying full-time work. Overall, the project s impact on population/age distribution will be to attract new residents of working age. These households will only partially counteract the increase in median age in the study area. Race the project is not expected to significantly affect the current racial distribution in the analysis area. Households as shown in Table 40 above, the project could have the peak effect (2043) of attracting approximately 295 new households to the analysis area and the longer term effect of attracting 240 to 245 households to the study area. Educational Attainment/Enrollment projected impacts on public school enrollments in study area schools are shown in Table 42 below. 75 Source: Occupational Health & Safety, March

58 Table 42: Public School Enrollment Impact in Study Area: Alternative 2/High Density Scenario 120 Public School Enrollment Attributable to Project During the peak years of impact (2039, 2042) the project could increase study area school enrollment by approximately 104 students a 2.8 percent increase over the current level (3,659 Students). 76 This peak level of impact would occur approximately 24 years after project initiation, resulting in an enrollment increase of approximately four to five new students each year. This impact would decrease in subsequent years down to a level of approximately 86 students a 2.4 percent increase over current levels. Housing Alternative 2/High Density s direct impact on housing in the analysis area would be a notable increase in the analysis area s Seasonal/Vacation housing stock. At completion, the project would include 1,511 Condominium, Townhouse and Single Family units, all intended for the Seasonal/Recreational market. The project area already includes 4,463 housing units held for Seasonal/Recreational use, accounting for 27 percent of the analysis area s total housing stock. 77 It is apparent that this is already a housing market in which Seasonal/Recreational housing has a significant market impact. The project would increase the current total by 34 percent, over a period of 30 years, an absolute increase of approximately 50 units annually. Between years 2000 and 2010, the study area s total stock of Seasonal/Recreational units increased by 1,574 units, an 76 Based on the current distribution of students between the three counties, the addition of 105 students could result in the following impacts in each county: Mineral 2 to 3 Students; Archuleta 40 + /- Students; Rio Grande 62 + /- Students. 77 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census,

59 average annual increase of 157 units. 78 The project would clearly add to the study area s stock of Seasonal/Recreational housing, intensifying an already strong growth trend. The project could have a secondary impact on housing as a result of demand for housing created by employees moving to the analysis area. At the point of project completion (Year 2044) the projections indicate that approximately 291 households may have moved to the study area an overall average of nine to ten new households annually. However, the first eight years of the project (2015 to 2022) the projections indicate that approximately 167 households would move to the study area; an average of 20 to 21 new households annually. o Between 2000 and 2010, a total of 3,451 residential building permits were granted in the analysis area an average of 345 annually. 94 percent of the permits were for single family units. 79 o Although 3,450 residential permits were granted during the 2000s, the number of analysis area occupied units increased by only 1,343, an indication that most of the new housing development was likely for the purpose of Seasonal/Recreational use. o The increase in occupied housing units included an increase of 800 owneroccupied units (80 Annually) and 543 renter occupied units (54 annually). o 2010 U.S. Bureau of the Census data indicates that there were 648 vacant for-rent units and 374 vacant for-sale units in the analysis area in that year. While the census data likely overstates the number of vacant units available to year-round residents (many of the vacant units are likely intended for the Seasonal/Recreational market), it appears that there is a substantial stock of housing available for new households. However, statewide, the rental housing vacancy rate decreased from 10.9 percent in 2009 to 7.4 percent in Given the ongoing pace of new housing development in the analysis area, it appears that the housing stock can handle the shorter term impact (Year 2015 to 2022) of 20 to 21 new households on an annual basis without creating a major excess of demand over supply. The longer run impact (Year 2015 to 2024) of nine new households on an annual basis should not have a major impact on the housing market. Housing demand will also include temporary housing for construction workers, likely resulting in higher occupancies in area accommodation facilities and a reduced vacancy rate for rental housing. Property Values Alternative 2/High Density would include significant new real property development and, as a result, have a significant impact on taxable property in Mineral 78 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000, Source: HUD, State of the Cities Database. 80 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Housing Vacancies and Ownership. 59

60 County (the project would be wholly located within Mineral County). Alternative 2/High Density total market value during the phase-in period has been estimated and is shown in Table 43 below. Table 43: Total Market Value: Alternative 2/High Density Scenario Market Value ($Millions) $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 Single Family Townhomes Condominium Hotel Support & Admin. Services Activity/Leisure Retail Food & Beverage $500 $0 At completion in 2044, the total market value of the project is estimated at $2.107 billion. Non-residential components would account for only four percent of the total, hotel units at eight percent of the total and residential units would account for 88 percent of the total. Assessment rates were applied to the market values shown above to estimate impacts on assessed value in Mineral County, as shown in Table 44 below. 60

61 Table 44: Assessed Values: Alternative 2/High Density Scenario; Cumulative at End of Phase ($Millions) Commercial Cumulative Assessed Values - At End of Phase ($Millions) Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase Non-Residential $5.8 $11.0 $21.5 $23.7 $25.6 $25.6 Hotel $16.4 $46.1 $46.1 $46.1 $46.1 $46.1 Commercial Totals $22.1 $57.1 $67.7 $69.9 $71.8 $71.8 Residential $49.8 $67.0 $88.1 $121.7 $142.1 $163.1 Total Assessed Value $72.0 $124.1 $155.7 $191.6 $213.8 $234.9 The project could result in increases in Mineral County assessments of $71.8 million for commercial property and $163.1 million for residential property; a total assessment of $234.9 million. These possible increases are compared with current assessments in Mineral County in Table 45 below. 81 Table 45: Impacts of Alternative 2/High Density Scenario on; Current Assessed Values in Mineral County Assessed Values in $Millions Current Mineral County Assessment Completed Project Assessment Impact (Percent Increase) Commercial $6.6 $ % Residential $18.0 $ % Totals $37.2 $ % The impact on Mineral County s current assessed property totals would be momentous overall, assessed value would increase by 631 percent as a result of Alternative 2/High Density. Again, this would occur over a 30 year period; a period during which other properties would be developed in Mineral County. Economy/Economic Sectors Alternative 2/High Density would generate significant employment in the study area, both as result of construction activity and as a long term 81 Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Division of Property Taxes. Assessment data for

62 impact of village operations. Table 46 below shows estimated FTE creation in the study area - during the implementation of the scenario. 82 Table 46: FTE/Employment Generated; in Study Area; Alternative 2/High Density Scenario 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 Operations FTEs Construction FTEs FTEs 1, ,007 1,122 1,215 1,276 1,293 1,331 1,357 1,369 1,390 1,430 1,469 1, o Over the past 11 years (2000 to 2011) study area employment increased by 1,221, an average annual increase of 111 jobs. o During the early stages of the project (Year 2015 to 2021), the project could generate 808 new jobs in the study area, an annual increase of 115 jobs over a seven year period ( ). This would be a significant impact on the study area market and would likely result in both a decrease in the unemployment rate and as detailed above the attraction of new workers to the area. o The project s longer term (Year 2040 >) impact would be to increase study area employment by 1,500 to 1,600 jobs, an annual increase of 55 to 60 jobs over a 25+ year period ( ). 82 It has been assumed that: 100 percent of the Direct FTEs; 65 percent of the Indirect FTEs; and 25 percent of the Induced FTEs would be generated within the analysis area. 62

63 The jobs generated by the project would primarily affect the following economic sectors: 83 o Construction activity s primary impact would be in the following five economic sub-sectors: 1. Residential Construction; 2. Non-Residential Construction; 3. Architecture/Engineering & Related Services; 4. Food Services & Drinking Places; 5. Real estate establishments. o Operation activity s primary impact would be in the following five economic subsectors: 1. Hotels & Motels; 2. Food Services & Drinking Places; 3. Performing Arts, Independent Performers, Entertainment; 4. Retail Stores; 5. Amusement & Recreation. Overall, the project would make the study area labor market significantly more attractive to workers, creating more employment opportunities for current residents and attracting new workers to the study area. Employment Status in 2011, there were 1,227 unemployed persons in the analysis area. However, the average number of study area unemployed person was 775 between years 2000 and In the shorter term (Year 2021), the project could create 800+ jobs in the study area. Although it is apparent that the project would put downward pressure on the unemployment rate, unemployed persons within the study area would not necessarily have the appropriate qualifications nor choose to be employed at the Village at Wolf Creek nor in secondary jobs generated by project activity. Nevertheless, it is apparent that the creation of a significant number of new jobs would offer new employment opportunities for unemployed study residents. This is particularly true in the Construction industry, in which study area employment decreased by 290 persons between 2005 and Clearly, a number of these workers could potentially find employment at the project. Tourism based on average occupancy as projected by the proponent (see Table 34 above), the completed Alternative 2/High Density would attract over 830,000 person/nights on an 83 Based on output from IMPLAN 3 model. 63

64 annual basis; or an average of 2,278 visitors on every night during a year. 84 When compared with annual skier-visits of approximately 225,000 persons at adjacent Wolf Creek Ski Area, it is apparent that the project would significantly increase tourism/visitation in the study area. These additional visits, and the expenditures that visitors will complete, will support additional employment in the study area, as detailed above. Moreover, tourists represent an effective population during the period of their visit, resulting in service demands over and above those that would be generated by the year-round population alone. Individual Prosperity Alternative 2/High Density would generate significant Labor Income, both during the thirty year construction period and on an ongoing/operations basis, both during the phase-up and completion of the project. o Construction output from the IMPLAN 3 model indicates that construction of the project would cumulatively generate a total of $448.5 million in labor income, including $251.7 million in direct income and $196.9 in indirect/induced labor income. o Operations output from the IMPLAN 3 model indicate that project operations at the point of completion would generate $50.2 million annually in labor income, including $29.6 million in direct income and $20.5 in indirect/induced labor income. The construction and operations labor income was adjusted to account for the portion that would be generated within the study area. 85 Total labor income during the phase-in period is summarized in Table 47 below ,651 Person/Nights/365 Nights = 2,278 Average. Realistically, the number of persons in the village on any single night would vary dramatically according to the season. Peak visitation would be expected to occur during ski season holiday periods. 85 Direct 100 percent of Labor Income; Indirect 65 percent of Labor Income; Induced 25 percent of Labor Income. 64

65 Table 47: Labor Income Generated in Study Area; Alternative 2/High Density Scenario ($Millions) $50.0 Labor Income ($Millions) $45.0 $40.0 $35.0 $30.0 $25.0 $20.0 $15.0 $10.0 $5.0 Operations Construction $0.4 $0.9 $2.6 $4.1 $6.4 $8.7 $11.0 $12.3 $12.8 $16.0 $14.4 $15.8 $16.7 $17.6 $18.9 $20.3 $21.8 $23.1 $24.9 $27.7 $30.0 $31.5 $31.9 $32.9 $33.5 $33.8 $34.3 $35.3 $36.3 $36.7 $17.6 $13.7 $18.1 $15.5 $18.0 $19.8 $19.6 $10.9 $5.0 $7.5 $9.1 $12.2 $10.1 $9.8 $11.2 $11.5 $10.5 $7.9 $11.4 $17.1 $13.8 $7.8 $7.3 $12.6 $9.9 $4.1 $5.0 $9.9 $8.8 $4.8 $ During the peak year of activity (2043), the project could generate $45.1 million in labor income in the study area. Following project completion (2044) the project would generate $41.6 million in labor income on an annual basis going forward. For purposes of context, total personal income in the study area (Year 2009) was $797.9 million. 86 During the peak year (2043) the project would increase this value by 5.2 percent. Public Revenues & Fiscal Impact The most significant public revenues that would be generated by Alternative 2/High Density include: o Property Taxes using the projected assessed project value during the phase-in of Alternative 2/High Density, property tax collections are summarized in Table 48 below. 87 Table 48: Annual Property Tax Collections; Status at End of Phases; Alternative 2/High Density Scenario ($Thousands) 86 Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 87 The calculations are based on the current (2011) tax rate. The tax rate will change over the period of project development. 65

66 Annual Property Tax Collections ($Thousands) Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase School Taxes $1,623 $2,798 $3,510 $4,319 $4,821 $5,295 County Taxes $1,892 $3,263 $4,094 $5,037 $5,622 $6,175 Totals $3,515 $6,060 $7,604 $9,356 $10,443 $11,470 Property tax collections would be substantial; at the point of completion (2044), the project would annually generate $5.29 million in Creede Consolidated District taxes and $6.17 million in annual Mineral County taxes (using current tax rates). These values would be expected to continue into the future. For reference purposes, current (2011) collections were $755,676 for the school district and $881,275 for Mineral County. 88 o Sales Taxes IMPLAN3 model output indicates that the cumulative Sales Tax revenues generated by construction of Alternative 2/High Density would be $12,894,369. Upon completion, ongoing operation and unit visitor expenditures would generate approximately $3,774,000 in Sales Taxes on an annual basis. Because the project would be located in Mineral County, most of this revenue would flow to the county. An analysis of projected visitor expenditures in the village indicates that, at project completion, annual sales taxes generated in Mineral County would total approximately $2,062, The results of the analysis to determine Mineral County service costs are summarized in Table 49 below. The table shows the annualized service costs that would be generated by the project s residential and non-residential components upon the completion of each project phase. 88 Source: Colorado Department of Revenue, Certification of Levies and Revenues, Mineral County. 89 Although not computed as part of this analysis, IMPLAN 3 indicates that project construction and operations would generate a number of other taxes, including: Motor Vehicle License fees; Severance Tax; Corporate Profits Tax; Personal Income Tax; etc. 66

67 Table 49: Annualized Mineral County Service Costs; Status at End of Project Phases; Alternative 2/High Density Scenario Cumulative-Annualized County Service Costs ($Thousands) Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase to Residential Properties $800 $1,173 $1,530 $2,058 $2,418 $2,839 to Non-Residential Properties $474 $1,223 $1,495 $1,580 $1,580 $1,665 Totals $1,275 $2,396 $3,024 $3,637 $3,998 $4,505 At the point of project completion, Alternative 2/High Density s residential components would have public service costs of $2.839 million on an annual basis, and the project s non residential components would have service costs of $1.665 million on an annual basis; total annual service costs would be $4.5 million. These would represent dramatic increases in county spending levels and reflect the substantial service costs that the project would generate. Creede Consolidated District school costs At its peak (2039) the project is unlikely to generate more than ten students in Mineral County. On that basis, the annual school district cost would be approximately $93,290. The net annual fiscal impact of the project on Mineral County can be estimated by comparing project-generated revenues (County & School Property Taxes, Sales Tax) with project generated service costs. This is shown in Table 50 below, showing annualized impacts at the completion of each project phase The calculations do not include revenues from sales taxes generated by construction activity. 67

68 Table 50: Net Annual Fiscal Impact Generated by; Alternative 2/High Density Scenario; Status at End of Phases Annualized Revenues/Costs - in $Millions Phase 1 (2023) Phase 2 (2028) Phase 3 (2032) Phase 4 (2036) Phase 5 (2040) Phase 6 (2044) Revenues: County $1.89 $3.26 $4.09 $5.04 $5.62 $6.17 School $1.62 $2.80 $3.51 $4.32 $4.82 $5.29 Sales Tax $1.31 $0.95 $1.30 $1.77 $1.90 $2.06 Total Revenues $4.83 $7.01 $8.90 $11.12 $12.34 $ Costs County $1.27 $2.40 $3.02 $3.64 $4.00 $4.50 School $0.05 $0.06 $0.07 $0.09 $0.09 $0.09 Total Costs $1.32 $2.45 $3.10 $3.73 $4.09 $4.60 = Net Annual Impact +$3.50 +$4.56 +$5.80 +$7.40 +$8.25 +$8.93 The fiscal analysis indicates that even with the substantial new service costs that the project would generate - the project would show a substantial, annual fiscal benefit to both the county and school, with revenues far exceeding costs at the end of each phase. In reality, municipal and public school entities do not operate with significant surpluses; rather, the tax rate would be adjusted to account for the differential between revenues and costs. Education the residential units to be constructed as part of Alternative 2/High Density would be intended for vacation/seasonal use and would be highly unlikely to be occupied by Mineral County residents. As such, they would not be expected to have any significant impact on school enrollment. However, employment and expected migration to the study area could have an impact on enrollment in public schools. Possible enrollment impacts are shown in Table 42 above; showing a shorter term impact (2021/22) of approximately 59 new students and a longer term impact of /- students. Public Services when completed, Alternative 2/High Density would constitute a major concentration of activity, both in terms of structures and people-activity, far out of scale with any current service demands faced by any of the three counties in the study area. Accordingly, it is reasonable to expect that the village would generate major new demands for public services: o The Mineral County Sheriff s Office currently provides services to Wolf Creek Pass providing law enforcement coverage and response to emergency calls. The Sheriff s 68

69 Office employs three full time officers (a Sheriff, Undersheriff, and a deputy) and one full time administrative employee. Mineral County Sheriff s Office work-force also includes two part time dispatch and two part time deputies, as well as two reserve deputies. 91 It is apparent that the concentration of structures and activity contemplated under Alternative 2/High Density would generate increased need for law enforcement at Wolf Creek Pass. The project would increase the number of housing units in the county by 126 percent over the current level and generate a substantial increase in commercial activity as a result of visitation activity. 92 As noted in Table 44 above, Mineral County s current assessed value would increase by 631 percent as a result of the project. Typically, large-scale relatively isolated mountain villages in resort setting create internal security systems to handle day-to-day matters. Given the scope of Alternative 2/High Density, it is apparent that law enforcement capability would need to be in placed within the project. As such, the project would likely create a need for a substantially enhanced law enforcement system, including new infrastructure and personnel. o Fire Services - Wolf Creek Pass and the ski area are currently provided Fire Protection Services through South Fork Fire and Rescue. The Pagosa Springs FPD may also respond to calls at the Ski Area if it is believed they can get on the scene quicker or assistance is required. Travel distances and dispersed rural populations generally make response times long in the analysis area, often upwards of half an hour. For emergency calls at Wolf Creek Pass the response time is generally between 35 and 40 minutes coming from Pagosa Springs and between 20 and 30 minutes from South Fork. 93 It is apparent that the village s concentration of structures and activity would generate significant need for fire services at Wolf Creek Pass. The concentration of peopleactivity and structures within the village would certainly increase the number of assistance calls generated from Wolf Creek Pass. Moreover, increased activity would result in requests to decrease response times. Finally, the structures proposed within Alternative 2/High Density would likely require the acquisition of specialized firefighting equipment. 91 Mineral County Sheriff s Office, The project would result in 1,511 new housing units (Condominiums, Townhouses, Single Family); there are currently (Year 2010) 1,201 total housing units in Mineral County. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. 93 Batchelor,

70 Ultimately, it would become necessary to house fire-fighting equipment within the village and to have trained fire-fighter included in village staff. As such, the project would likely create a need for a substantially enhanced fire services system, including new infrastructure and personnel. o Emergency Care/EMS Ambulance - Emergency care services to Wolf Creek Pass are currently dispatched out of Pagosa Springs in Archuleta County, which is about 30 miles away. The Archuleta County Emergency Operation Center (part of the Sheriff s Office) serves Archuleta County, Pagosa Springs, Arboles, Chromo, Chimney Rock, Wolf Creek Pass, and the southern areas of Hinsdale and Mineral Counties. 94 Again, increased people-activity levels resulting from the development of and visitation to the village would result in a substantial increase in service calls from Wolf Creek Pass; this increased activity could also result in requests to decrease response times. Ultimately, it is likely that it would become necessary to house emergency equipment within the village and to have trained EMS included in village staff. As such, the project would likely create a need for a substantially enhanced emergency response system, including new infrastructure and personnel. o Medical Services At adjacent Wolf Creek Ski Area, First Aid stations are located in BASE CAMP, at the top of Treasure and Bonanza chairlifts, and the Knife Ridge Outpost. Wolf Creek Ski Patrollers are all certified as Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) at the basic, intermediate or paramedic level. Ambulance/EMS services to the Ski Area are dispatched out of Pagosa Springs in Archuleta County, which is about 30 miles away. Persons requiring substantial medical care are transported to the facility that can best serve their medical needs. The closest hospital is the Pagosa Mountain Hospital, approximately 30 miles from Wolf Creek Pass. The scope of Alternative 2/High Density would likely result in the need to create a clinic operation within the village. Summary Alternative 2/High Density Overall, the analysis indicates the following regarding the socioeconomic impacts of Alternative 2/High Density: The scope of the project would represent a level of development and activity not otherwise found within the three county study area. 94 Archuleta County,

71 Construction activity over a period of 30 years, in combination with the gradual increase in village-based employment and employment generated on a secondary basis would clearly induce a number of workers (and their households) to move to the study area. Because the study area has already been experiencing a relatively strong rate of population growth, the project s long-term impact on the population growth rate would not be dramatic. However, migrating workers would result in increased housing demand both for owned and rental housing. Further, while most construction workers would not move to the study area on a permanent basis, they would create a significant demand for short-term housing. The combination of project construction and operations would generate significant new employment in the study area. In the shorter run, these new jobs would have the potential to lower the study area s unemployment rate and attract workers back to the construction industry. As noted above, these new jobs would also attract new households to the study area. Moreover, new employment and economic activity would result in significant increases in wages in the study area. Both during the phase-in period and at completion, the project would dramatically increase Mineral County s property tax base and result in significantly enhanced local public revenue. Although Archuleta and Rio Grande Counties would not benefit from a property tax perspective, a substantial portion (49 percent) of the village visitor s expenditures would occur outside the village, resulting in enhanced sales tax revenues in both counties. The project s most significant impact would be on public service provision as virtually all public services (law enforcement, fire, etc.) are situated remotely from Wolf Creek Pass. The size and activity level of the village would clearly generate increased service demands and demand for faster response times. This would result in a need to enhance/expand existing services to meet these. Ultimately, the project would have sufficient scale to support its own set of public services and generate sufficient on-site demand to result in the creation of a service base within the village. Property taxes and sales taxes generated by the project would be far more than sufficient to cover the associated increased costs. Alternative 3 (ANILCA) Alternative 3 (ANILCA) impacts have been analyzed in terms of three potential development scenarios: a. Low Density; 71

72 b. Medium Density; c. High Density. Low Density Scenario The Low Density scenario envisions the creation of a straightforward eight lot single family subdivision with individual lots exceeding 35 acres in area, to include: Construction of an access road with a total length of 7,976 feet. It is assumed that the roadway would be constructed in phases. A construction cost of $220 per linear foot has been assumed; 95 Construction of eight single family residential structures, spread out over several years. Based on experience with similar single family subdivisions in mountain resort environments in Colorado, it has been assumed that the single family structures would be relatively large 7,500 square feet of living space and that per square foot construction cost would reflect high quality construction and finishes - $325 per square foot assumed. Further, it is assumed that the units would be constructed primarily for the purpose of seasonal/vacation use and that the units are unlikely to house full-time residents. Finally, it has been assumed that the construction of each structure would occur over an 18 month timeframe. 96 Table 51 below shows the assumed phase-in of the roadway and the single family structures: Table 51 Alternative 3/Low Density Scenario Phased Completion Road Construction % Completed in Year 25% 25% 25% 15% 10% Linear Feet-Annual 1,994 1,994 1,994 1, Linear Feet-Cumulative 1,994 3,988 5,982 7,178 7,976 Single Family Construction Units Initiated in Year Cumulative Units Sources: Western Ecological Resource, Inc., TST Inc. of Denver a TTG Company. 96 Construction costs include architecture/engineering costs based on: five percent of road construction cost and seven percent of single family construction cost. 72

73 Alternative 3/Low Density construction impacts would occur over a seven year period (2015 to 2021). Estimated (Annual and Cumulative) construction costs are show in Table 52 below. Table 52: Estimated Annual/Cumulative Construction Costs Alternative 3/Low Density Scenario Construction Cost - $Thousands Annual Cost $439 $3,705 $3,681 $4,334 $3,417 $4,071 $1,609 $0 $0 Cumulative Cost $439 $4,144 $7,824 $12,158 $15,575 $19,646 $21,255 $21,255 $21,255 The cumulative construction cost (Road, Single Family Units, Engineering/Architecture) of the Alternative 3/Low Density scenario would be approximately $21.2 million. The operational impacts of the Low Density scenario would be minimal, but have been measured based on projected expenditures by users of the single family units, as shown in Table 53 below. 97 Table 53: Annual Visitor Expenditures; Alternative 3/Low Density Scenario Total Annual Expenditures by Unit Visitors - $Thousands Annual Expenditures $0 $0 $38 $58 $96 $115 $154 $154 Year 2022 total to continue in future years. The values in Tables 52 and 53 above were input to the IMPLAN 3 model; resulting in a variety of outputs regarding private and public sectors. Table 54 below shows projected employment impacts for both construction and operations. Employment is shown in terms of FTEs, including both annual and cumulative totals over the 2015 to 2023 timeframe. 97 Unit occupancy/visitation based on assumption of 31 annual days of use by an average of five persons per night. Visitor spending includes expenditures on services to residential units (unit management/maintenance). With the exception of services to residential units, all expenditures would be completed outside the village, as the Low Density scenario does not include any commercial activity. 73

74 Table 54: Construction and Operations Employment (FTEs); Alternative 3/Low Density Scenario Construction Employment Construction: Cumulative Direct Indirect Induced Annual Totals Operations Employment Operations: Continuing Value Direct Indirect Induced Annual Totals Overall, Alternative 3/Low Density Scenario construction would generate 218 FTEs over a seven year construction period. These jobs would cease following the completion of construction. The continuing (Operations) impact of the scenario would be minor; the creation of three ongoing FTEs. Alternative 3/Low Density Scenario Impacts Population and Demographics this scenario would have no significant impact on ongoing population change or the demographic makeup of the three county study area. The single family units would be occupied on a seasonal basis and the employment generated by the scenario would be insufficient to draw new households to the area. Age Distribution no significant impact. Race no significant impact. Households no significant impact. The single family units will not be occupied on a fulltime basis Educational Attainment/Enrollment no significant impact. 74

75 Housing the scenario would result in the development of eight new housing units over a seven year period. Between 2000 and 2010, the analysis area s housing stock increased by 3,259 units. No significant impact. Property Values the construction value of the single family units would be approximately $19.5 million (See Table 52). Typically, the market value of new residential units is 2.0 to 2.5 times the construction value. Assuming a 2.0 multiple, the market value of the eight units will be approximately $38.4 million; for 2011/12, Colorado residential property is assessed at 8.77 percent resulting in a project assessment of $3.37 million. 98 The combined, current total valuation of the three county area is $535.9 million. 99 The impact would be to increase the current valuation by approximately 0.6 percent. Economy/Economic Sectors on average during the seven year phase-in period, the construction of Alternative 3/Low Density would generate 28 FTEs in each year; when complete, the operation of the project and expenditures by unit visitors would generate only three long-term FTEs. Overall, the employment impact of the project would increase analysis area employment by less than one percent an insignificant impact. The scenarios will create the most jobs in the residential construction sector. In 2010, analysis area employment in the construction sector totaled 378; the project could increase this value by approximately 7.2 percent. Employment Status in 2011, there were 1,227 unemployed persons in the analysis area. The project could generate several new jobs in residential construction. Overall, the impact would be insignificant. Tourism based on assumed average occupancy (see Footnote #97 above), the completed project would generate approximately 1,240 person-nights on an annual basis or 3.4 persons on an average night over the course of one year. Adjacent Wolf Creek Ski Area alone generates in excess of 225,000 skier visits on an annual basis. 100 Alternate 3/Low Density s impact on tourism would be insignificant. Individual Prosperity during the seven year construction period, the project would cumulatively generate $11.2 million in labor income, including $6.18 million in direct labor wages and $5.02 million in secondary impacts. The project would generate personal income, primarily in the residential construction sector. Overall, the project s impact on the analysis area s prosperity level would be insignificant. At completion, project 98 Value adjusted by assessment rate for single family properties in Mineral County. Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Colorado Assessed Values Manual. Estimated Residential Assessment Rate of , Division of Property Taxation. 99 Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Colorado Assessed Values Manual. 100 Source: Wolf Creek Ski Area website. 75

76 operations (Management/Maintenance) would annually generate approximately $86,500 in labor income. Public Revenues any development project would generate a range of public revenues at the county and state level. The most significant revenues generated by Alternative 3/Low Density would include: Property Taxes using the projected assessed value of the completed eight single family units (See Above) and current tax rates (Mineral County - $26.291; Creede Consolidated School District - $ ), it is estimated that the completed project would annually generate $88,574 in County Property Tax Revenues and $75,951 in school district revenues. Sales Taxes IMPLAN3 model output indicates that the cumulative Sales Tax revenues generated by construction of Alternative 3/Low Density would be $331,000. Upon completion, ongoing operation and unit visitor expenditures would generate approximately $5,316 in Sales Taxes on an annual basis. Education the single family units to be constructed as part of Alternative 3/Low Density would be intended for vacation/seasonal use and would be unlikely to be occupied by Mineral County residents. As such, they would not be expected to have any impact on school enrollment. Public Services when completed, Alternative 3/Low Density would consist of only eight single family units that will be occupied for a small percentage of the year. Further, they would be located in the immediate vicinity of an active land use (Wolf Creek Ski Area) that is already served by a network of public services. The residential units will require services but the impact on existing systems would not be significant. Summary Alternative 3/Low Density Overall, the analysis suggests that the socioeconomic impacts of Alternative 3/Low Density would be minimal. The project would create jobs as a result of construction activity, but the number of jobs would be insufficient to affect area growth rates or to affect the housing market; a minimal number of long-term jobs would result following construction. Given the limits of the project and its location adjacent to an active land use (Wolf Creek Ski Area) it is unlikely that the project would generate any notable service impacts. 101 Sources: Colorado Department of Revenue, Certification of Levies and Revenues, Mineral County Clerk. 76

77 Alternative 3/Medium Density Scenario The Medium Density scenario envisions the creation of a multi-faceted resort village incorporating a variety of lodging, vacation/residential units, commercial, administrative, recreational, parking and infrastructure elements, to include: 102 A cumulative total of 71 hotel units. A cumulative total of 452 vacation residential units, in Condominium, Townhouse and Single Family configurations. it is assumed that the units will be constructed primarily for the purpose of seasonal/vacation use and that the units are unlikely to house full-time residents. Construction of 57,424 square feet of non-residential structures and facilities to include: 103 o Food & Beverage Operations; o Retail Space; o Activity/Leisure Space/Facilities; o Support & Administrative Space. Construction of a total of 794 interior parking spaces to serve lodging, residential and non-residential spaces. 104 Construction of all support infrastructure (Road, Water, Sewer, Utilities, etc.). 105 Assumed architectural and engineering fees for project design. 106 The Medium Density project would occur over a nine year timeframe ( ) involving phased development of each of the project s major components. Tables 55, 56, 57 and 58 below show phased development of each major component Based on materials provided by the proponent. 103 The proponent did not provide a specific value for square feet of non-residential space under the Alternative 3/Medium Density scenario. Because the Alternative 3/Medium and High Density scenarios include more hotel and residential units that the Alternative 2/Medium and High Density scenarios, it was assumed that additional non-residential space would be required to support the increased accommodation capacity. The estimate of the non-residential space to be included in Alternative 3/Medium Density (and Alternative 3/High Density) was estimated based on the ratio of hotel/residential units in Alternative 3/Medium to Alternative 2/Medium. 104 Alternative 3/Medium and High Density parking space totals were increased over the proponentprovided totals to account for the higher number of hotel/residential units. See Footnote #103 above. 105 Again, it was assumed that additional infrastructure would be required to support Alternative 3/Medium and High Density as the scenarios include more hotel/residential units. See Footnotes #103 and 104 above. 106 Based on assumption of 7.0 percent of construction cost for building design and 5.0 percent of construction cost for parking and infrastructure design. 107 Phasing based on Development Concept and Project Occupancy data provided by the proponent. Actual phasing particularly of hotel and residential units would likely vary from these estimates. However, the cumulative values are those presented by the proponent. 77

78 Table 55: Phased Development of Lodging/Residential Components; Alternative 3/Medium Density Units Hotel Annual Units Cumulative Residential Annual Units Cumulative Table 56: Phased Development of Non-Residential Building Components; Alternative 3/Medium Density Square Feet Building Space Food & Beverage ,594 2,594 3,623 4,115 4,160 3,802 0 Annual Construction (Sq. Ft.) Retail ,013 1,013 1,415 1,607 1,625 1, Activity/ Leisure ,959 1,959 2,736 3,108 3,141 1, Support & Admin. Services ,135 1,135 1,585 1,800 1,820 1, Annual Totals (Sq. Ft.) 1,502 1,964 6,702 6,702 9,359 10,630 10,746 7,909 1,912 Cumulative Totals (Sq. Ft.) 1,502 3,466 10,168 16,870 26,229 36,860 47,605 55,515 57,427 Table 57: Phased Development of Interior Parking (Number of Spaces) &; Infrastructure (Construction $Dollars); Alternative 3/Medium Density Parking Spaces Infrastructure Construction Cost ($Millions) Annual Cumulative Annual $36.0 $25.7 $15.4 $10.3 $5.1 $5.1 $5.1 $0.0 $0.0 Cumulative $36.0 $61.6 $77.0 $87.3 $92.5 $97.6 $102.7 $102.7 $

79 Table 58: Phased Architectural/Engineering Costs; Alternative 3/Medium Density A & E Costs - $Thousands A & E Costs - Buildings $438 $573 $1,955 $1,955 $2,730 $3,100 $3,134 $1,980 $885 A & E Costs - Parking/Infrastructure $1,817 $1,309 $856 $599 $376 $392 $394 $86 $40 Totals/Annual $2,255 $1,882 $2,811 $2,554 $3,106 $3,493 $3,528 $2,065 $924 Cumulative Costs $2,255 $4,137 $6,948 $9,501 $12,607 $16,100 $19,628 $21,694 $22,618 The phased development plan was converted to construction cost based on values and costs provided by the proponent. 108 Annual and cumulative totals are shown in Table 59 below. Table 59: Annual and Cumulative Construction Costs; Alternative 3/Medium Density Construction Costs - In $Millions Hotel Units $0.6 $0.8 $2.8 $2.8 $3.9 $4.5 $4.5 $2.8 $1.3 Residential Units $5.2 $6.8 $23.1 $23.1 $32.2 $36.6 $37.0 $23.1 $10.7 Non-Residential Space $0.5 $0.6 $2.0 $2.0 $2.8 $3.2 $3.2 $2.4 $0.6 Parking $0.4 $0.5 $1.7 $1.7 $2.4 $2.7 $2.7 $1.7 $0.8 Infrastructure $36.0 $25.7 $15.4 $10.3 $5.1 $5.1 $5.1 $0.0 $0.0 A & E $2.3 $1.9 $2.8 $2.6 $3.1 $3.5 $3.5 $2.1 $0.9 Annual Totals $44.9 $36.3 $47.9 $42.5 $49.6 $55.6 $56.2 $32.1 $14.4 Cumulative Totals $44.9 $81.1 $129.0 $171.4 $221.0 $276.7 $332.9 $364.9 $379.3 In total, Alternative 3/Medium Density is projected to have a cumulative construction cost exceeding $379 million, spread out over the 2015 to 2023 period. 108 Construction values as follows: Hotel Units Avg. 1,196 Sq. $300 per Sq. Ft.; Condominium Units Avg. 1,680 Sq. $250 per Sq. Ft.; Townhouse Units Avg. 1,600 Sq. $200 per Sq. Ft.; Single Family Avg. 5,200 Sq. $200 per Sq. Ft. All Non-Residential building space construction cost $300 per Sq. Ft. Parking: Hotel - $30,000 per space; Condominium - $30,000 per space; Townhouses & Single Family - $5,000 per space; Non-Residential - $1,000 per space. Infrastructure and Architecture/Engineering costs as shown in Tables 57 and 58 above. 79

80 The operational economic impacts of Alternative 3/Medium Density would be generated by visitor spending. Again, expenditures by visitors to Wolf Creek Village would support employment and wages both within and outside the village. Medium Density visitation is based on Occupancy Projections provided by the client. Annual visitation (Ski Season & Non-Ski Season) are shown in Table 60 below. Table 60: Village Visitation; Alternative 3/Medium Density Village Visits - Person/Nights Ski Season Visits 4,093 9,446 27,707 45,968 71, , , , ,481 Non-Ski Season Visits 2,610 6,024 17,670 29,316 45,580 64,053 82,727 94,373 99,795 Total Annual Visits 6,703 15,469 45,377 75, , , , , ,275 At completion, the village would be expected to attract approximately 256,000 visits annually. This level of visitation would be expected to continue as long as the village operates. Total annual visitor expenditures were projected using the Colorado Visitor Daily Expenditures by Type (See Table 1) by projected visitation. Estimated visitor expenditures within and outside the village are shown in Table 61 below. Table 61: Annual Visitor Expenditures Inside & Outside the Village at Wolf Creek; Alternative 3/Medium Density Scenario ($Millions) Annual Visitor Expenditures - $Millions Within Village $0.6 $1.4 $4.2 $7.0 $10.9 $15.3 $19.8 $22.6 $23.9 Outside Village $0.6 $1.4 $4.0 $6.7 $10.4 $14.6 $18.8 $21.5 $22.7 Total Expenditures $1.2 $2.8 $8.2 $13.7 $21.3 $29.9 $38.6 $44.0 $46.6 At completion (Year 2023) village visitors would generate $46.6 million in annual expenditures, inside and outside the village. The year 2023 level of expenditures would be expected to continue in future years. 80

81 The values in Tables 59 and 61 above (Construction Spending, Visitor Expenditures) were input to the IMPLAN 3 model; resulting in a variety of outputs regarding private and public sectors. Table 62 below shows projected employment impacts for both construction and operations. Employment is shown in terms of FTEs, including both annual and cumulative totals over the 2015 to 2023 timeframe. Operational employment values include FTEs both within and outside the village. With regard to Operational impacts note that Direct employment within the village is based on employment projections provided by the proponent, rather than the output from the IMPLAN 3 model. 109 All other figures are based on output from the IMPLAN 3 model. Table 62: Construction and Operations Employment (FTEs); Alternative 3/Medium Density Scenario Construction Employment Construction: Cumulative Direct ,906 Indirect Induced Construction Totals ,667 Operations Employment Within Village Operations: Continuing Values Direct* Outside Village Direct Indirect Induced Operations Totals Total Employment Continuing Values Direct Indirect Induced Annual Totals , The proponent s projections indicate that, at completion, the Medium Density village would support 305 jobs. The IMPLAN 3 model projects a total of 225 FTEs. Again, the proponent s value was used for purposes of impact assessment. 81

82 During the nine year phase in period, Alternative 3/Medium Density would generate a cumulative total of 3,667 construction FTEs, or an average of 407 construction FTEs in each year. Approximately 52 percent of these construction FTEs would be Direct, with the remainder being generated in a secondary basis (Indirect and Induced FTEs). 110 Upon completion in year 2023, ongoing village operations would generate a total of 702 FTEs this value would continue into the future for as long as the village maintains operations. Only 44 percent (305) of these jobs would be located in the village, with the remainder generated by direct visitor spending outside the village and secondary impacts. During the phase-in period, a peak employment year would occur in 2021, when construction activity would remain at a high level and operational employment would reach a relatively high level. Employment impacts would drop to a lower steady state level once construction is completed. This is shown in Table 63 below. Table 63: Employment (FTE) Trend During Phase-In; Alternative 3/Medium Density 1,200 1, Operations Secondary Operations Direct Construction Secondary Construction Direct FTEs Overall, the multiplier for construction activity is calculated at 1.93 for every 100 FTEs generated on a direct basis, an additional 93 jobs are generated on a secondary basis. 82

83 Alternative 3/Medium Density Scenario Impacts Note to Discussion of Impacts the background documentation/discussion(s) for a number of impacts addressed below is shown in detail under Alternative 2/Medium Density Scenario Impacts. Unless otherwise noted, the impacts addressed for this scenario follow upon the previous discussion. Population and Demographics Alternative 3/Medium Density direct impact on population would be minimal, as full-time residency would be nominal within the village. However, the project would create employment and increased economic activity both on direct and indirect bases that could result in local and regional growth. It is this projected employment and economic activity upon which growth impact estimates have primarily been developed. 111 As shown in Table 62, construction and ongoing operation of Alternative 3/Medium Density scenario would result in the generation of employment, both on Direct and Indirect/Induced bases. While construction related employment would cease following the completion of the Medium Density scenario, village operations employment would continue into the future. Construction Alternative 3/Medium Density would generate a significant number of jobs during the nine year construction period (See Table 62 above); both on Direct and Indirect/Induced bases. Cumulatively (Nine Years), the scenario would generate 1,906 Direct FTEs and 1,762 Indirect/Induced FTEs. During the peak year of construction activity (Year 2020) a total of 512 FTEs would be generated, including 264 direct FTEs. The great majority of direct FTEs would be generated within the study area, while indirect/induced FTEs could be generated both inside and outside the three county area. Direct Construction FTEs - Based on the background findings, a migration rate of four percent is reasonable for FTEs that would be created on a direct basis by project construction. In this instance in consideration of the project s geographic isolation from larger markets and the project s magnitude in comparison with existing construction projects in the analysis area a migration rate of seven percent was assumed. 100 percent of workers that would be attracted to the area by direct jobs are expected to locate (become residents) within the analysis area. Construction 111 Year-round residency would occur in the village if the proponent were to make some of the housing available to workers. However, this potential is not detailed in project documentation made available by the proponent. 83

84 employment impacts would be cumulative migrant employees will remain in the analysis area, subject to the following: - The estimates assume that 30 percent of the construction workers who move to the analysis area will leave in each subsequent year most likely in response to a construction opportunity in another community. 112 o Indirect/Induced Construction FTEs - Based on the background findings, a migration rate of 14 percent is reasonable for FTEs that would be created on an indirect and induced basis by project construction (these jobs would not be in the Construction Industry). 65 percent of workers that would be attracted to the area by indirect jobs are expected to locate (become residents) within the analysis area and only 25 percent of the workers that would be attracted to the area by induced jobs are expected to locate (become residents) within the analysis area. 113 Employment impacts would be cumulative migrant employees will remain in the analysis area, subject to the following: - The estimates assume that 20 percent of the workers who move to the analysis area will leave in each subsequent year. 114 Table 64 below shows projections regarding the number of workers expected to move to the analysis area, in response to construction activity the table shows cumulative totals at the end of each project phase Over time (beyond the nine year construction period), the direct employment/growth impacts of the project would gradually diminish to a negligible level. 113 The indirect jobs generated by the project will not be located within the village and will be primarily created in industries/businesses that are suppliers to construction activity; in many instances, these businesses will not be located within the analysis area particularly given the limited business base within the three counties. The geographic distribution of induced jobs is even more dispersed. 114 Over time (beyond the nine year construction period), the indirect/induced employment/growth impacts of the constructing the project would gradually diminish to a negligible level. 115 Table 64 shows projected impacts to a point four years following completion of construction (2027). Construction related impacts would continue to decline to a negligible level over the following decade. 84

85 Table 64: Employment Migration to Analysis area in Response to; Construction of Alternative 3/Medium Density Scenario Workers Attracted to Study Area by Construction Activity - Cumulative Construction Complete Direct Impact Indirect Impact Induced Impact Totals Operations as shown in Table 62 above, village-based employment under Alternative 3/Medium Density would build up over the nine year phase-in period and hold at the nine year level in future years. The same would hold true of off-site indirect/induced employment generated by operation activity. At the point of completion, Alternative 3/Medium Density would support 305 FTEs directly (within the village). FTEs generated directly by visitor expenditures outside the village and indirect/induced FTEs would total 396 at the point of project completion. 14 percent of the Direct employment created both within and outside the village would be expected to draw migrant households to the region. Because these jobs would be longterm, the number of migrant households would build to the point of project completion and hold at that level for the foreseeable future. 100 percent of the migrants attracted to in-village direct FTEs and 80 percent of the migrants attracted to outside-village direct FTEs would be expected to live within the analysis area percent of the Indirect and Induced employment created by the project would be expected to draw migrant households to the region. Because these jobs would be longterm, the number of migrant households would build to the point of project completion and hold at that level for the foreseeable future. 65 percent of workers that would be attracted to the area by indirect jobs would be expected to locate (become residents) within the study area and only 25 percent of the workers that would be attracted to the area by induced jobs are expected to locate (become residents) within the study area Direct employment generated outside the Village at Wolf Creek would likely be generate in communities such as Pagosa Springs, South Fork, Del Norte, Monte Vista, etc. A segment of the employees in these communities commute to their jobs from outside the study area. 117 The indirect jobs generated by the project would not be located within the village and would be primarily created in industries/businesses that are suppliers to construction activity; in many instances, these businesses would not be located within the analysis area particularly given the 85

86 Table 65 below shows projections regarding the number of workers expected to move to the study area, in response to operations activity. 118 Table 65: Employment Migration to Study Area in Response to; Operations; Alternative 3/Medium Density Scenario Workers Attracted to Study Area by Operations/Secondary Activity - Cumulative Project Complete Direct/ In-Village Direct/ Out-Village Indirect Impact Induced Impact Totals Combined Migrant Impact Table 66 below summarizes the long-term migration impact of Alternative 3/Medium Density, showing the number of households that would migrate to the study area related to construction or operations employment. limited business base within the three counties. The geographic distribution of induced jobs is even more dispersed. 118 Table 65 shows projected impacts to a point four years following completion of construction (2027). Impacts would hold steady at that level. 86

87 Table 66: Household Migration of Construction & Operations; Alternative 3/Medium Density 250 Migrant HHs Moving to Study Area Operations Related 200 Construction Related The project s maximum migration-related impact would be reached in year 2021 (and 2022) and would then gradually diminish to the point of project completion (2023) and in subsequent years. Ultimately in future years beyond project completion the migrationrelated impact would be approximately 78 households supported by project operations. In the shorter run (2021, 2022) the project could attract approximately 193 households to the study area. The number of households that could be attracted to the study area can be converted to population using an average household size value for the study area persons per household. 119 The projection is shown in Table 67 below. 119 Based on weighted 2010 average for the three county area. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. 87

88 Table 67: Population Growth Attributable to Project; Alternative 3/Medium Density Scenario Population Attributable to Project The project s population impact in the analysis area would peak in 2021/22 at approximately 454 persons. The impact would gradually decline in subsequent years, ultimately reaching a level of approximately 265 persons supported by ongoing project activity. o Colorado projections for the 2010 to 2020 period indicate that the analysis area will grow by approximately 6,900 persons (from 24,778 to 31,679); an annual rate of increase of 2.49 percent. Alternative 3/Medium Density would have the effect of increasing the annual rate of change to 2.63 percent. o Colorado projections for the 2010 to 2035 period indicate that the analysis area will grow by approximately 18,650 persons (from 24,778 to 43,432; an annual rate of increase of 2.27 percent. Alternative 3/Medium Density would have the effect of increasing the annual rate of change to 2.29 percent. Overall, the population impact of the project is not expected to be significant given the already expected rate of growth in the analysis area. Age Distribution during the past decade (2000 to 2010), there was a clear aging trend in the analysis area. Among the following age groups: 0 to 7 Years; 8 to 14 Years; Years; 25 to 34 Years; 35 to 44 Years only the 25 to 34 Years group showed an absolute increase. In contrast, all age groups from 45 years and up showed increases during the ten 88

89 year period. This aging trend is not atypical in the U.S., particularly as the baby boom group ages. The project s potential impact on age distribution in the analysis area is not likely to be significant. o The hypothesis that new construction jobs would bring a wave of younger persons to the study is likely inaccurate. Recent research shows that the average age of construction workers in the U.S. was 40.4 years in year 2008, an increase of 4.4 years over the 1985 figure. 120 o A number of service-oriented positions in resort villages tend to be lower paid, younger workers. However, it is significant to note that part-time, seasonal positions are not the jobs that will attract household to move to the analysis area. Rather, these positions tend to be taken by seasonal or part-time residents or by persons taking on a second job. The households that move to the analysis area will likely be drawn by relatively higher paying full-time work. Race the project is not expected to significantly affect the current racial distribution in the analysis area. Households as shown in Table 66 above, the project could have the short-term effect (2021/22) of attracting 190 to 195 new households to the analysis area and the longer term effect of attracting 85 to 90 households to the study area. Educational Attainment/Enrollment Alternative 3/Medium density could attract new households to the analysis area. This, in turn, would be expected to result in increased enrollments in the involved public school districts. 121 Enrollment impacts were calculated using projections based on the average number of public school children generated per household in the analysis area. For the entire analysis area, the average household generates public school children. This value was used to project potential enrollment impacts in the study area, as shown in Table 68 below. 120 Source: Occupational Health & Safety, March The following school districts are located within the study area: Mineral County Creede School District; Archuleta County Archuleta County District; Rio Grande County Del Norte, Monte Vista and Sargent Districts. 89

90 Table 68: Public School Enrollment Impact: Alternative 3/Medium Density Scenario 80 Public School Enrollment Attributable to Project During the peak period of impact (2021/22) the project could increase study area school enrollment by approximately 68 students a 1.9 percent increase over the current level (3,659 Students). 122 This impact would decrease in subsequent years down to a level of approximately 31 students a 0.8 percent increase over current levels. Housing Alternative 3/Medium Density s direct impact on housing in the analysis area would be a notable increase in the analysis area s Seasonal/Vacation housing stock. At completion, the project would include 452 Condominium, Townhouse and Single Family units, assumed intended for the Seasonal/Recreational market. Although this would constitute a significant project, the project area already includes 4,463 housing units held for Seasonal/Recreational use, accounting for 27 percent of the analysis area s total housing stock. 123 The project would increase the current total by 10.1 percent, but it is apparent that this is already a housing market in which Seasonal/Recreational housing has a significant market impact. The project could have a secondary impact on housing as a result of demand for housing created by employees moving to the analysis area. As noted, the peak impact would occur between 2015 and 2021, when approximately 193 households would be attracted to the study area, an average of 27 to 28 new households annually. 122 Based on the current distribution of students between the three counties, the addition of 68 students could result in the following impacts in each county: Mineral 1 to 2 Students; Archuleta 26 + /- Students; Rio Grande 40 + /- Students. 123 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census,

91 o Between 2000 and 2010, a total of 3,451 residential building permits were granted in the analysis area an average of 345 annually. 94 percent of the permits were for single family units. 124 o Although 3,450 residential permits were granted during the 2000s, the number of analysis area occupied units increased by only 1,343, an indication that most of the new housing development was likely for the purpose of Seasonal/Recreational use. o The increase in occupied housing units included an increase of 800 owneroccupied units (80 Annually) and 543 renter occupied units (54 annually). o 2010 U.S. Bureau of the Census data indicates that there were 648 vacant for-rent units and 374 vacant for-sale units in the analysis area in that year. While the census data likely overstates the number of vacant units available to year-round residents (many of the vacant units are likely intended for the Seasonal/Recreational market), it appears that there is a substantial stock of housing available for new households. However, statewide, the rental housing vacancy rate decreased from 10.9 percent in 2009 to 7.4 percent in Given the ongoing pace of new housing development in the analysis area, it appears that the housing stock can comfortably handle the addition of 27 to 28 new households on an annual basis without creating a major excess of demand over supply. However, the project would increase demand for housing oriented toward working households. Property Values Alternative 3/Medium Density would include significant new real property development and, as a result, have a significant impact on taxable property in Mineral County (the project would be wholly located within Mineral County). Alternative 3/Medium Density scenario s total market value during the phase-in period was estimated and is shown in Table 69 below. 124 Source: HUD, State of the Cities Database. 125 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Housing Vacancies and Ownership. 91

92 Table 69: Total Market Value: Alternative 3/Medium Density Scenario Market Value ($Millions) $700 $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 Single Family Townhomes Condominium Hotel Support & Admin. Services Activity/Leisure Retail Food & Beverage $100 $ At completion in 2023, the total market value of the project is estimated at $632.3 million. Non-residential components would account for only four percent of the total, hotel units at nine percent of the total and residential units would account for 87 percent of the total. Assessment rates were applied to the market values shown above to estimate impacts on assessed value in Mineral County, as shown in Table 70 below. Table 70: Assessed Values: Alternative 3/Medium Density Scenario; Cumulative ($Millions) Commercial Cumulative Assessed Value - $Millions Non-Residential $0.2 $0.4 $1.2 $2.0 $3.0 $4.3 $5.5 $6.4 $6.7 Hotel $0.4 $1.0 $2.9 $4.8 $7.5 $10.5 $13.6 $15.5 $16.4 Commercial Totals $0.6 $1.4 $4.1 $6.8 $10.5 $14.8 $19.1 $21.9 $23.0 Residential $1.3 $2.9 $8.6 $14.2 $22.1 $31.1 $40.2 $45.8 $48.5 Total Assessed Value $1.9 $4.3 $12.7 $21.0 $32.7 $45.9 $59.3 $67.8 $

93 The project could result in increases in Mineral County assessments of $23.0 million for commercial property and $48.5 million for residential property; a total assessment of $71.5 million. These possible increases are compared with current assessments in Mineral County in Table 71 below. 126 Table 71: Impacts of Alternative 3/Medium Density Scenario on; Assessed Values in Mineral County Assessed Values in $Millions Current Mineral County Assessment Completed Project Assessment Impact (Percent Increase) Commercial $6.6 $ % Residential $18.0 $ % Totals $37.2 $ % The impact on Mineral County s current assessed property totals would be significant overall, assessed value would increase by 192 percent as a result of Alternative 3/Medium Density Scenario. Again, this would occur over a nine year period. Economy/Economic Sectors Alternative 3/Medium Density would generate significant employment in the analysis area, both as a short term result of construction and as a longterm impact of village operations. Table 72 below shows estimated FTE creation in the study area - during the implementation of the scenario Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Division of Property Taxes. Assessment data for It has been assumed that: 100 percent of the Direct FTEs; 65 percent of the Indirect FTEs; and 25 percent of the Induced FTEs will be created within the analysis area. 93

94 Table 72: FTE/Employment Generated; in Study Area; Alternative 3/Medium Density Scenario Operations FTEs Construction FTEs FTEs o Over the past 11 years (2000 to 2011) study area employment increased by 1,221, an average increase of 111 annually. At its peak level (Year 2021 the 7 th Year of Project Activity), the project would generate 879 FTEs in the analysis area resulting in an average annual increment to study area employment of 125 more than doubling the rate of increase of the past 11 years. The longer term and stable impact of the project would be to increase analysis area employment by 606 FTEs (Year 2024 the 10 th Year of project activity). From this perspective the average annual increase in project area employment attributable to the project would be 61 jobs; this would remain a notable uptick in the rate of job creation in the analysis area. The jobs generated by the project would primarily affect the following economic sectors: 128 o Construction activity would have a primary impact on the following five economic sub-sectors: 1. Residential Construction; 2. Non-Residential Construction; 3. Architecture/Engineering & Related Services; 4. Food Services & Drinking Places; 128 Based on output from IMPLAN 3 model. 94

95 5. Real estate establishments. o Operation activity will have a primary impact on the following five economic sub-sectors: 1. Hotels & Motels; 2. Food Services & Drinking Places; 3. Performing Arts, Independent Performers, Entertainment; 4. Retail Stores; 5. Amusement & Recreation. Overall, the project would make the study area labor market more attractive to workers, creating more employment opportunities for current residents and attracting new workers to the study area. Employment Status in 2011, there were 1,227 unemployed persons in the analysis area. Even at its peak level of employment (845 Study Area FTEs in 2021) the project would not provide complete employment in the analysis area, based on current unemployment status. Moreover, it is apparent that currently unemployed persons within the study area would not necessarily have the appropriate qualifications nor choose to be employed at the Village at Wolf Creek nor in secondary jobs generated by project activity. Nevertheless, it is apparent that the creation of a significant number of new jobs would offer new employment opportunities for unemployed study residents. This is particularly true in the Construction industry, in which study area employment decreased by 290 persons between 2005 and Clearly, a number of these workers would find employment at the project, or among the secondary employment positions generated by the project s economic activity. Tourism based on average occupancy as projected by the proponent (see Table 60 above), completed Alternative 3/Medium Density would attract over 256,000 person/nights on an annual basis; or an average of 702 visitors on every night during a year. 129 When compared with annual skier-visits of approximately 225,000 persons at adjacent Wolf Creek Ski Area, it is apparent that the project would significantly increase tourism/visitation in the study area. These additional visits, and the expenditures that visitors will complete, would support additional employment in the study area, as detailed above. Moreover, increased tourism activity creates an effective increase in population, with attendant increases in public service demands ,000 Person/Nights/365 Nights = 702 Average. Realistically, the number of persons in the village on any single night would vary dramatically according to the season. Peak visitation would be expected to occur during ski season holiday periods. 95

96 Individual Prosperity Alternative 3/Medium Density would generate significant Labor Income, both during the nine year construction period and on an ongoing/operations basis, both during the phase-up and completion of the project. o Construction output from the IMPLAN 3 model indicate that construction of the project would generate a total of $189.7 million in labor income, including $106.6 million in direct income and $83.1 in indirect/induced labor income. o Operations output from the IMPLAN 3 model indicate that project operations at the point of completion would generate $18.0 million annually in labor income, including $10.6 million in direct income and $7.5 in indirect/induced labor income. The construction and operations labor income was adjusted to account for the portion that would be generated within the study area alone. 130 Total labor income during the phasein period is summarized in Table 73 below. Table 73: Labor Income Generated in Study Area; Alternative 3/Medium Density Scenario ($Millions) Labor Income ($Millions) $35.0 $30.0 $25.0 $20.0$0.4 $15.0 Operations Construction $0.9 $2.6 $4.2 $6.4 $12.8 $10.0$19.9 $18.9 $20.0 $18.2 $19.8 $15.3 $16.0 $12.8 $5.0 $10.9 $5.0 $0.0 $ $8.8 $11.1 $12.5 During the peak year of activity (2021), the project could generate $30.9 million in labor income in the study area. Following project completion (2024) the project would generate $12.8 million in labor income on an annual basis going forward. 130 Direct 100 percent of Labor Income; Indirect 65 percent of Labor Income; Induced 25 percent of Labor Income. 96

97 For purposes of context, total personal income in the study area (Year 2009) was $797.9 million. 131 During the peak year (2021) the project would increase this value by 3.9 percent. Public Revenues & Fiscal Impact any development project would generate a range of public revenues at the county and state level. The most significant public revenues that would be generated by Alternative 3/Medium Density include: o Property Taxes using the projected assessed project values during the phase-in of Alternative 2/Medium Density (See Table 70 above) and current tax rates (Mineral County - $26.291; Creede Consolidated School District - $ ), property tax collections are summarized in Table 74 below. 133 Table 74: Property Tax Collections During Phase-In; Alternative 3/Medium Density Scenario ($Thousands) Property Tax Collections - $Thousands School Taxes $42 $97 $285 $474 $736 $1,035 $1,337 $1,528 $1,612 County Taxes $49 $113 $333 $552 $859 $1,207 $1,559 $1,782 $1,880 Totals $91 $211 $618 $1,026 $1,595 $2,242 $2,895 $3,310 $3,493 Property tax collections would be substantial; at the point of completion (2023 Values), the project would annually generate $1.61 million in Creede Consolidated District taxes and $1.88 million in annual Mineral County taxes (using the current tax rate). These values would be expected to continue into the future. For reference purposes, current (2011) collections were $755,676 for the school district and $881,275 for Mineral County. 134 Clearly, the project would have a major impact on Mineral County finance, greatly increasing the county s revenue generation ability. 131 Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 132 Sources: Colorado Department of Revenue, Certification of Levies and Revenues, Mineral County Clerk. Tax rates are applied per $1,000 of assessed value. The county tax rate includes: General, Road & Bridge, Public Welfare. 133 The calculations are based on the current (2011) tax rate. The tax rate will change over the period of project development. 134 Source: Colorado Department of Revenue, Certification of Levies and Revenues, Mineral County. 97

98 o Sales Taxes the IMPLAN 3 model output indicates that the cumulative Sales Tax revenues generated by construction of Alternative 3/Medium Density would be $5,360,311. Upon completion, ongoing operation and unit visitor expenditures would generate approximately $1,344,000 in Sales Taxes on an annual basis. Because the project would be located in Mineral County, most of this revenue would flow to the county. An analysis of projected visitor expenditures in the village alone indicates that, at project completion, annual sales taxes generated would total approximately $635, County service costs were assessed as follows: o The ongoing operation of Alternative 3/Medium Density would also generate significant new public costs, primarily in the form of public service provision (Fire, Law Enforcement, Public Administration, etc.) Any new development has associated, ongoing costs relating to the provision of services to residential and non-residential property as well as to the maintenance of the public infrastructure base. The results of these analyses indicate that, upon completion in year 2023, Alternative 3/Medium Density s residential components would have public service costs of $849,352 on an annual basis, and that the project s non-residential components would have service costs of $493,569 on an annual basis. Creede Consolidated District school costs as borne directly by county residents property taxes - can be assessed as follows: o County property owners paid $755,676 in property taxes to the Creede Consolidated School District in 2011; with an enrollment of 81 students (See Table 68 above) the average property tax cost per student was $9, At its peak (2021/22) the project is unlikely to generate more than five students in Mineral County (See Educational Attainment/Enrollment above). On that basis, the annual school district cost would be approximately $46,650. The net annual fiscal impact of the project on Mineral County can be estimated by comparing project generated revenues (County & School Property Taxes, Sales Tax) with project generated service costs. This is shown in Table 75 below, based on ongoing project operations at the point of completion (Year 2023). 135 Although not computed as part of this analysis, IMPLAN 3 indicates that project construction and operations would generate a number of other taxes, including: Motor Vehicle License fees; Severance Tax; Corporate Profits Tax; Personal Income Tax; etc. 136 Source: Certification of Levies and Revenues, Mineral County, Per student cost computed as: $755,676/81 (Students) = $9,329 Per Student. 98

99 Table 75: Net Annual Fiscal Impact Generated by; Alternative 3/Medium Density Scenario at Completion (2023) Annual - Recurring - Values County Services School Services Mineral County; Total Impact Revenues Property Taxes $1,880,281 $1,612,303 $3,492,585 Sales Tax $635,400 $635,400 Total Revenues $2,515,681 $1,612,303 $4,127,985 Service Costs County Services $1,342,921 $1,342,921 School Services $46,650 $46,650 - Total Costs $1,342,921 $46,650 $1,389,571 = Net Annual Impact +$1,172,760 +$1,565,653 +$2,738,414 The fiscal analysis indicates that the project would show a substantial, annual fiscal benefit to both the county and school, with revenues far exceeding costs. In reality, municipal and public school entities do not operate with significant surpluses; rather, the tax rate would be adjusted to account for the differential between revenues and costs. Education the residential units to be constructed as part of Alternative 3/Medium Density would be intended for vacation/seasonal use and would be highly unlikely to be occupied by Mineral County residents. As such, they would not be expected to have any impact on school enrollment. However, employment and expected migration to the study area could have an impact on enrollment in public schools. Possible enrollment impacts are shown in Table 68 above; showing a shorter term impact (2021/22) of approximately 68 new students and a longer term impact of 30 to 35 students. Public Services when completed, Alternative 3/Medium Density would constitute a significant concentration of activity, both in terms of structures and people-activity. Accordingly, it is reasonable to expect that the village would generate new demands for public services: o Although the project would not have a major impact on Mineral County or study area population, it is apparent that the concentration of structures and activity would generate increased need for law enforcement at Wolf Creek Pass. The project would increase the number of housing units in the county by 37.6 percent and generate a 99

100 substantial increase in commercial activity by as a result of visitation activity. Moreover, village visitation would create an effective population within the village, with attendant service demands. As noted in Table 71 above, Mineral County s current assessed value would increase by 192 percent as a result of the project. Given these factors, it is likely that Mineral County would choose to either expand its operation or contract with sheriff s offices in adjacent counties (Archuleta, Rio Grande) to assist with the provision of services to the village. Given the scope of the project, it is most likely that law enforcement officials would feel the need to locate law enforcement capability within the village. o Fire Services - It is apparent that the village s concentration of structures and activity would generate increased need for fire services at Wolf Creek Pass. The concentration of people-activity and structures within the village would increase the number of assistance calls generated from Wolf Creek Pass. Moreover, increased activity could potentially result in requests to decrease response times. Finally, the structures proposed within Alternative 3/Medium Density would likely require the acquisition of specialized fire-fighting equipment. Ultimately, it is likely that it would become necessary to house fire-fighting equipment within the village and to have trained fire-fighter included in village staff. o Emergency Care/EMS Ambulance - Again, increased people-activity levels resulting from the development of and visitation to the village would result in an increase in service calls from Wolf Creek Pass; this increased activity could also result in requests to decrease response times. Ultimately, it is possible that it would become necessary to house emergency equipment within the village and to have trained EMS included in village staff. o Medical Services At adjacent Wolf Creek Ski Area, First Aid stations are located in BASE CAMP, at the top of Treasure and Bonanza chairlifts, and the Knife Ridge Outpost. Wolf Creek Ski Patrollers are all certified as Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) at the basic, intermediate or paramedic level. Ambulance/EMS services to the Ski Area are dispatched out of Pagosa Springs in Archuleta County, which is about 30 miles away. Persons requiring substantial medical care are transported to the facility that can best serve their medical needs. The closest hospital is the Pagosa Mountain Hospital, approximately 30 miles from Wolf Creek Pass. Summary Alternative 3/Medium Density Overall, the analysis indicates the following regarding the socioeconomic impacts of Alternative 3/Medium Density: 100

101 The project s impacts on growth rates would not be substantial, but would clearly induce a number of households to the move to the study area, given the employment that project construction/operations will generate. Given ongoing rates of population growth, enrollments and housing development in the three county area, this impact can be comfortably handled. The project would have a clear impact on employment and wage generation in the study area. The combination of on-site employment (Construction and Operations) as well as off-site jobs generated by visitor spending and secondary impacts, will increase employment opportunities for current residents and induce new households to move to the study area. Further, these new jobs will increase personal income in the study area. At completion, the project would dramatically increase Mineral County s property tax base and result in enhanced local public revenue. Although Archuleta and Rio Grande Counties will not benefit from a property tax perspective, a substantial portion (49 percent) of the village visitor s expenditures will occur outside the village, resulting in enhanced sales tax revenues in both counties. The project s most significant impact would be on public service provision as virtually all public services (law enforcement, fire, etc.) are situated remotely from Wolf Creek Pass. The size and activity level of the village will clearly generate increased service demands and faster response times. This will result in a need to enhance/expand existing services to meet these needs including the likely location of service capability within the project. Property taxes and sales taxes generated by the project will be more than sufficient to cover the associated increased costs. Alternative 3/High Density Scenario Note to Discussion of Alternative 3/High Density Scenario as documented by the proponent, the plan scenario would be constructed over a 30 year period. The assessment addresses the full period of project implementation; however, it is important to note that any long-term projection carries a great deal of uncertainty, as potential economic cycles, regional demographics, societal shifts and technology shifts result in many unknowns. 101

102 The Alternative 3/High Density scenario envisions the creation of a major, multi-faceted resort village incorporating a variety of lodging, vacation/residential units, commercial, administrative, recreational, parking and infrastructure elements, to include: 137 A cumulative total of 403 hotel units. A cumulative total of 1,578 vacation residential units, in Condominium, Townhouse and Single Family configurations. It is assumed that the units will be constructed primarily for the purpose of seasonal/vacation use and that the units are unlikely to house full-time residents. Construction of 255,874 square feet of non-residential structures and facilities to include: 138 o Food & Beverage Operations; o Retail Space; o Activity/Leisure Space/Facilities; o Support & Administrative Space. Construction of a total of 2,928 interior parking spaces to serve lodging, residential and non-residential spaces. 139 Construction of all support infrastructure (Road, Water, Sewer, Utilities, etc.). 140 Assumed architectural and engineering fees for project design. 141 Viewed in total, Alternative 3/High Density would result in a development that would far exceed any existing recreation/resort-oriented project within the study area. The scope of building infrastructure and resultant people activity would create a level of economic activity and service demand far beyond the current experience in the three county area. The High Density project would occur in six phases over a 30 year timeframe ( ) involving phased development of each of the project s major components. Tables 76, 77, Based on materials provided by the proponent. 138 The proponent did not provide a specific value for square feet of non-residential space under the Alternative 3/High Density scenario. Because the Alternative 3/Medium and High Density scenarios include more hotel and residential units that the Alternative 2/Medium and High Density scenarios, it was assumed that additional non-residential space would be required to support the increased accommodation capacity. The estimate of the non-residential space to be included in Alternative 3/High Density was estimated based on the ratio of hotel/residential units in Alternative 3/High to Alternative 2/High. 139 Alternative 3/High parking space totals were increased over the proponent-provided totals for Alternative 2/High Density to account for the higher number of hotel/residential units. See Footnote #138 above. 140 Again, it was assumed that additional infrastructure would be required to support Alternative 3/High Density as the scenario includes more hotel/residential units than Alternative 2/High Density. See Footnotes #138 and 139 above. 141 Based on assumption of 7.0 percent of construction cost for building design and 5.0 percent of construction cost for parking and infrastructure design. 102

103 and 79 below show phased development of each major component. 142 The tables show cumulative totals at the end of each of the projects six phases. According to the proponent, the completion of each phase would occur in the following years: Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase Table 76: Phased Development of Lodging/Residential Components; Alternative 3/High Density In-Phase & Cumulative by Phase Units - By Phase & Cumulative Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase 6 Hotel Units Residential Units Constructed During Phase Cumulative Constructed During Phase Cumulative ,138 1,339 1, Phasing based on Development Concept and Project Occupancy data provided by the Proponent. Actual phasing particularly of hotel and residential units would likely vary from these estimates. However, the cumulative values are those presented by the Proponent. 103

104 Table 77: Phased Development of Non-Residential Building Components; Alternative 3/High Density In-Phase & Cumulative by Phase Square Footage - By Phase & Cumulative Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase 6 Food & Beverage Retail Activity/ Leisure Support & Admin. Services Totals Non-Resid Constructed During Phase 22,230 9,262 8, ,789 0 Cumulative 22,230 31,492 39,597 39,597 45,386 45,386 Constructed During Phase 8,212 16,681 30,103 11,578 5,094 0 Cumulative 8,212 24,893 54,996 66,574 71,668 71,668 Constructed During Phase 16,788 3,473 21, ,316 0 Cumulative 16,788 20,262 42,260 42,260 44,575 44,575 Constructed During Phase 9,726 23,156 45,154 10,420 5,789 0 Cumulative 9,726 32,882 78,036 88,456 94,245 94,245 Constructed During Phase 56,955 52, ,360 21,998 18,988 0 Cumulative 56, , , , , ,

105 Table 78: Phased Development of Interior Parking (Number of Spaces) &; Infrastructure (Construction $Dollars); Alternative 3/High Density; In-Phase & Cumulative by Phase Parking Spaces & Infrastructure Cost ($Millions) Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase Parking Spaces Constructed During Phase Infrastructure Cumulative 794 1,460 1,811 2,259 2,572 2,928 Construction Cost Constructed During Phase $102.7 $0.0 $17.1 $17.1 $17.1 $0.0 ($Millions) Cumulative $102.7 $102.7 $119.9 $137.0 $154.1 $154.1 Table 79: Phased Architectural/Engineering Costs; Alternative 3/High Density; In-Phase & Cumulative by Phase A & E Costs - $Millions Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase 6 A&E Costs Buildings A&E Costs Parking/Infrastruct. A&E Costs Totals Cost During Phase $16.7 $14.6 $7.8 $9.2 $6.2 $6.6 Cumulative $16.7 $31.3 $39.1 $48.4 $54.6 $61.2 Cost During Phase $5.9 $0.9 $1.1 $1.3 $1.2 $0.4 Cumulative $5.9 $6.8 $7.9 $9.2 $10.4 $10.8 Cost During Phase $22.6 $15.5 $8.9 $10.5 $7.4 $6.9 Cumulative $22.6 $38.2 $47.1 $57.6 $65.0 $71.9 The phased development plan was converted to construction cost based on values and costs provided by the proponent. 143 Totals by phase and cumulative totals are shown in Table 80 below. 143 Construction values as follows: Hotel Units Avg. 1,196 Sq. $300 per Sq. Ft.; Condominium Units Avg. 1,680 Sq. $250 per Sq. Ft.; Townhouse Units Avg. 1,600 Sq. $200 per Sq. Ft.; Single Family Avg. 5,200 Sq. $200 per Sq. Ft. All Non-Residential building space construction cost $300 per Sq. Ft. Parking: Hotel - $30,000 per space; Condominium 105

106 Table 80: By-Phase and Cumulative Construction Costs; Alternative 3/High Density Project Costs - $Millions Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase Hotel Units Residential Units Non- Residential Space Parking Spaces Infrastructure A & E Project Totals Cost During Phase $24.2 $113.1 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Cumulative $24.2 $137.3 $137.3 $137.3 $137.3 $137.3 Cost During Phase $197.8 $79.6 $79.9 $125.0 $83.3 $93.8 Cumulative $197.8 $277.5 $357.4 $482.3 $565.6 $659.5 Cost During Phase $17.2 $15.6 $31.6 $6.6 $5.7 $0.0 Cumulative $17.2 $32.9 $64.5 $71.1 $76.8 $76.8 Cost During Phase $14.7 $18.9 $5.4 $8.7 $6.2 $7.2 Cumulative $14.7 $33.6 $39.0 $47.7 $53.9 $61.1 Cost During Phase $102.7 $0.0 $17.1 $17.1 $17.1 $0.0 Cumulative $102.7 $102.7 $119.9 $137.0 $154.1 $154.1 Cost During Phase $22.6 $15.5 $8.9 $10.5 $7.4 $6.9 Cumulative $22.6 $38.2 $47.1 $57.6 $65.0 $71.9 Cost During Phase $379.3 $242.8 $143.0 $167.9 $119.7 $108.0 Cumulative $379.3 $622.1 $765.1 $933.0 $1,052.7 $1,160.7 In total, Alternative 3/High Density is projected to have a cumulative construction cost of $1.16 billion, spread out over the 2015 to 2044 period. The operational, economic impacts of Alternative 3/High Density would be generated by visitor spending. Again, expenditures by visitors to Wolf Creek Village would support employment and wages both within and outside the village. High Density visitation is based on Occupancy Projections provided by the proponent. Annual visitation (Ski Season & Non- Ski Season) is shown in Table 81 below. - $30,000 per space; Townhouses & Single Family - $5,000 per space; Non-Residential - $1,000 per space. Infrastructure and Architecture/Engineering costs as shown in Tables 78 and 79 above. 106

107 Table 81: Village Visitation at End of Each Phase; Alternative 3/High Density Annual Village Visitation - At End of Each Phase Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase Ski Season Visits 156, , , , , ,242 Non-Ski Season Visits 99, , , , , ,521 Total Annual Visits 256, , , , , ,763 At completion, the village would be expected to attract approximately 867,000 visits annually. This level of visitation would be expected to continue as long as the village operates. Total annual visitor expenditures were projected using the Colorado Visitor Daily Expenditures by Type (See Table 1) by projected visitation. Estimated visitor expenditures within and outside the village are shown in Table 82 below. Table 82: Annual Visitor Expenditures Within & Outside the Village at Wolf Creek; At End of Each Phase; Alternative 3/High Density Scenario ($Millions) Annual Visitor Expenditures at End of Each Phase - $Millions Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase Within Village $23.9 $33.9 $43.1 $57.5 $68.0 $80.7 Outside Village $22.7 $32.3 $41.0 $54.7 $64.7 $76.8 Total Expenditures $46.6 $66.2 $84.2 $112.3 $132.7 $157.5 At completion (Year 2044) village visitors would generate over $157 million in annual expenditures, inside and outside the village. The year 2044 level of expenditures would be expected to continue in future years. The values in Tables 80 and 82 above (Construction Spending, Visitor Expenditures were input to the IMPLAN 3 model; resulting in a variety of outputs regarding private and public sectors. Table 83 below shows projected employment impacts for both construction and operations. Employment is shown in terms of FTEs, including both annual and cumulative 107

108 totals over the 2015 to 2044 timeframe. Operational employment values include FTEs both within and outside the village. With regard to Operational impacts note that Direct employment within the village is based on employment projections provided by the Proponent, rather than the output from the IMPLAN 3 model. 144 All other figures are based on output from the IMPLAN 3 model. 144 The Proponent s projections indicate that, at completion, the Maximum Development Scenario village would support 1,181 jobs. The IMPLAN3 model projects a total of 605 FTEs. Again, the Proponent s value was used for purposes of impact assessment. 108

109 109 Table 83: Construction and Operations Employment (FTEs); Alternative 3/High Density Scenario Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase Cumu - lative Totals Construct. Employment Direct ,062 Indirect ,043 Induced ,618 Constructio n Totals ,723 Operations Employment Within Village Direct* ,005 1,025 1,045 1,085 1,116 1,129 1,138 1,156 1,173 1,181 19,735 Outside Village Direct ,639 Indirect ,293 Induced ,378 Operations Totals ,098 1,206 1,304 1,415 1,524 1,612 1,670 1,763 1,838 1,882 1,923 2,004 2,066 2,093 2,123 2,183 2,242 2,271 38,044 Total Employment Direct ,041 1,080 1,158 1,183 1,296 1,377 1,420 1,505 1,646 1,663 1,621 1,655 1,789 1,801 1,745 1,781 1,890 1,928 1,881 35,435 Indirect ,336 Induced ,996 Annual Totals , ,096 1,235 1,497 1,517 1,611 1,595 1,722 1,796 1,814 1,956 2,186 2,181 2,076 2,118 2,338 2,328 2,202 2,263 2,457 2,509 2,405 47,767

110 During the 30 year phase in period, the Alternative 3/High Density scenario would generate a cumulative total of over 9,723 construction FTEs, or an average of 324 construction related FTEs in each year. Approximately 52 percent of these construction FTEs would be Direct, with the remainder being generated in a secondary basis (Indirect and Induced FTEs). 145 Upon completion in year 2044, ongoing village operations would generate a total of 2,271 FTEs this value would continue into the future for as long as the village maintains operations. 52 percent (1,181) of these jobs would be located in the village, with the remainder generated by direct visitor spending outside the village and secondary impacts. 146 During the phase-in period, the peak employment year would occur in 2043, a point when construction would be winding down but operational employment would have reached a high level. Employment impacts would drop to a slightly lower steady state level once construction is complete. This is shown in Table 84 below. Table 84: Employment (FTE) Trend During Phase-In; Alternative 3/High Density 3,000 2,500 2,000 Operations Secondary Operations Direct Construction Secondary Construction Direct FTEs 1,500 1, Overall, the multiplier for construction activity is calculated at 1.93 for every 100 FTEs generated on a direct basis, an additional 93 jobs are generated on a secondary basis. 146 Again, village-based operational jobs were estimated by the proponent, rather than by the IMPLAN 3 model. 110

111 Alternative 3/High Density Scenario Impacts Note to Discussion of Impacts the background documentation/discussion(s) for a number of impacts addressed below is shown in detail under Alternative 2/Medium Density Impacts. Unless otherwise noted, the impacts addressed for this scenario follow upon the previous discussions. Population and Demographics Alternative 3/High Density's direct impact on population would be minimal, as full-time residency would be nominal within the village. However, the project would create employment and increased economic activity both on direct and indirect bases that could result in local and regional growth. It is this projected employment and economic activity upon which growth impact estimates have primarily been developed. 147 As shown in Table 83, construction and ongoing operation of Alternative 3/High Density would result in the generation of significant employment, both on Direct and Indirect/Induced bases. While construction related employment would cease following the completion of the High Density scenario, village operations employment would continue into the future. Construction the High Density scenario would generate a significant number of jobs during the 30 year construction period (See Table 83 above); both on Direct and Indirect/Induced bases. Cumulatively (30 Years), the scenario would generate 5,062 Direct FTEs and 4,661 Indirect/Induced FTEs. During the peak year of construction activity (Year 2020) a total of 512 FTEs would be generated, including 264 direct FTEs. The great majority of direct FTEs would be generated within the study area, while indirect/induced FTEs could be generated both inside and outside the three county area. Direct Construction FTEs - Based on the background findings, a migration rate of four percent is reasonable for FTEs that would be created on a direct basis by project construction. In this instance in consideration of the project s geographic isolation from larger markets and the project s magnitude in comparison with existing construction projects in the analysis area a migration rate of seven percent was assumed. 100 percent of workers that would be attracted to the area by direct jobs are expected to locate (become residents) within the analysis area. Construction 147 Year-round residency would occur in the village if the proponent were to make some of the housing available to workers. However, this potential is not detailed in project documentation made available by the proponent. 111

112 employment impacts would be cumulative migrant employees will remain in the analysis area, subject to the following: - The estimates assume that 30 percent of the construction workers who move to the analysis area would leave in each subsequent year most likely in response to a construction opportunity in another community. 148 o Indirect/Induced Construction FTEs - Based on the background findings, a migration rate of 14 percent is reasonable for FTEs that would be created on an indirect and induced basis by project construction (these jobs would not be in the Construction Industry). 65 percent of workers that would be attracted to the area by indirect jobs are expected to locate (become residents) within the analysis area and only 25 percent of the workers that would be attracted to the area by induced jobs are expected to locate (become residents) within the analysis area. 149 Employment impacts would be cumulative migrant employees would remain in the analysis area, subject to the following: - The estimates assume that 20 percent of the workers who move to the analysis area would leave in each subsequent year. 150 Table 85 below shows projections regarding the number of workers expected to move to the study area, in response to construction activity the table shows cumulative totals at the end of each project phase Over time (beyond the 30 year construction period), the direct employment/growth impacts of the project would gradually diminish to a negligible level. 149 The indirect jobs generated by the project would not be located within the village and would be primarily created in industries/businesses that are suppliers to construction activity; in many instances, these businesses would not be located within the study area particularly given the limited business base within the three counties. The geographic distribution of induced jobs is even more dispersed. 150 Over time (beyond the 30 year construction period), the indirect/induced employment/growth impacts of the project would gradually diminish to a negligible level. 151 Table 85 shows projected impacts to a point ten years following completion of construction (2054). Construction related impacts would continue to decline to a negligible level over the following decade. 112

113 Table 85: Employment Migration to Study Area in Response to; Construction of Alternative 3/High Density Scenario; Cumulative Totals at End of Each Phase Workers Attracted to Study Area by Construction Activity - Cumulative Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase 6 Post- Construction Direct Impact Indirect Impact Induced Impact Totals Operations as shown in Table 83 above, village-based employment under Alternative 3/High Density would gradually build up over the 30 year phase-in period and hold at the thirty year level in future years. The same would hold true of off-site indirect/induced employment generated by operation activity. At the point of completion, Alternative 3/High Density would support 1,181 FTEs directly (within the village). FTEs generated directly by visitor expenditures outside the village and indirect/induced FTEs would total 1,090 at the point of project completion. 14 percent of the Direct employment created both within and outside the village would be expected to draw migrant households to the region. Because these jobs would be longterm, the number of migrant households would build to the point of project completion and hold at that level for the foreseeable future. 100 percent of the migrants attracted to in-village direct FTEs and 80 percent of the migrants attracted to outside-village direct FTEs would be expected to live within the analysis area percent of the Indirect and Induced employment created by the project would be expected to draw migrant households to the region. Because these jobs would be longterm, the number of migrant households would build to the point of project completion and hold at that level for the foreseeable future. 65 percent of workers that would be attracted to the area by indirect jobs are expected to locate (become residents) within the 152 Direct employment generated outside the Village at Wolf Creek would likely be generate in communities such as Pagosa Springs, South Fork, Del Norte, Monte Vista, etc. A segment of the employees in these communities commute to their jobs from outside the analysis area. 113

114 analysis area and only 25 percent of the workers that would be attracted to the area by induced jobs would be expected to locate (become residents) within the analysis area. 153 Table 86 below shows projections regarding the number of workers expected to move to the study area, in response to operations activity. 154 Table 86: Employment Migration to Study Area in Response to; Operation of Alternative 3/High Density Scenario; Cumulative Totals at End of Each Phase Workers Attracted to Study Area by Operations Activity - Cumulative Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase Direct Impact Indirect Impact Induced Impact Totals Combined Migrant Impact - Table 87 below summarizes the long-term migration impact of Alternative 3/High Density, showing the number of households that would migrate to the study area related to construction and operations employment. 153 The indirect jobs generated by the project will not be located within the village and will be primarily created in industries/businesses that are suppliers to construction activity; in many instances, these businesses will not be located within the analysis area particularly given the limited business base within the three counties. The geographic distribution of induced jobs is even more dispersed. 154 Table 87 shows projected impacts to a point 10 years following completion of construction (2054). Construction related impacts would continue to decline to a negligible level over the following decade. 114

115 Table 87: Household Migration Impact of Construction & Operations; Alternative 3/High Density 350 Migrant HHs Moving to Study Area Operations Related Construction Related At the peak (2043), the combined impact of the project would be to attract approximately 324 households to the study area. The impact would decrease somewhat after that point, reaching a steady state of approximately 265 to 270 households following the completion of construction activity. The number of households that could be attracted to the analysis area can be converted to population using an average household size value for the analysis area persons per household. 155 The projection is shown in Table 88 below. 155 Based on weighted 2010 average for the three county area. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. 115

116 Table 88: Population Growth Attributable to Project; Alternative 3/High Density Scenario Population Attributable to Project The project s population impact in the analysis area would peak in 2043 at approximately 763 persons, and would then gradually decline to a level of approximately /- persons. o Colorado projections for the 2010 to 2040 period indicate that the study area will grow by approximately 22,300 persons (from 24,778 to 47,096) an annual rate of increase of 2.16 percent. Alternative 3/High Density would have the effect of increasing the annual rate of change to 2.22 percent. The project could have the impact of increasing the study area s population by more than 700 persons in the long-term, over the level of growth that has already been projected. While this is a notable impact, the project s overall impact on the rate of population growth in the study area is not dramatic. Age Distribution during the past decade (2000 to 2010), there was a clear aging trend in the study area. Among the following age groups: 0 to 7 Years; 8 to 14 Years; Years; 25 to 34 Years; 35 to 44 Years only the 25 to 34 Years group showed an absolute increase. In contrast, all age groups from 45 years and up showed increases during the ten year period. This aging trend is not atypical in the U.S., particularly as the baby boom group ages. The project s potential impact on age distribution in the analysis area is not likely to be significant. 116

117 o The hypothesis that new construction jobs would bring a wave of younger persons to the study is likely inaccurate. Recent research shows that the average age of construction workers in the U.S. was 40.4 years in year 2008, an increase of 4.4 years over the 1985 figure. 156 o A number of service-oriented positions in resort villages tend to be lower paid, younger workers. However, it is significant to note that part-time, seasonal positions are not the jobs that will attract household to move to the study area. Rather, these positions tend to be taken by seasonal or part-time residents or by persons taking on a second job. The households that move to the analysis area will likely be drawn by relatively higher paying full-time work. Overall, the project s impact on population/age distribution will be to attract new residents of working age. These households will only partially counteract the increase in median age in the study area. Race the project is not expected to significantly affect the current racial distribution in the analysis area. Households as shown in Table 87 above, the project could have the peak effect (2043) of attracting approximately 324 new households to the study area and the longer term effect of attracting 265 to 270 households to the study area. Educational Attainment/Enrollment projected impacts on public school enrollments in study area schools are shown in Table 89 below. 156 Source: Occupational Health & Safety, March

118 Table 89: Public School Enrollment Impact: Alternative 3/High Density Scenario 140 Public School Enrollment Attributable to Project During the peak period of impact ( ) the project could increase study area school enrollment by approximately 115 students a 3.1 percent increase over the current level (3,659 Students). 157 This peak level of impact would occur approximately 24 years after project initiation, resulting in an enrollment increase of approximately four to five new students each year. This impact would decrease in subsequent years down to a level of approximately 95 students a 2.6 percent increase over current levels. Housing Alternative 3/High Density s direct impact on housing in the analysis area would be a notable increase in the analysis area s Seasonal/Vacation housing stock. At completion, the project would include 1,578 Condominium, Townhouse and Single Family units, assumed intended for the Seasonal/Recreational market. The project area already includes 4,463 housing units held for Seasonal/Recreational use, accounting for 27 percent of the analysis area s total housing stock. 158 It is apparent that this is already a housing market in which Seasonal/Recreational housing has a significant market impact. 157 Based on the current distribution of students between the three counties, the addition of 105 students could result in the following impacts in each county: Mineral 2 to 3 Students; Archuleta 40 + /- Students; Rio Grande 62 + /- Students. 158 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census,

119 The project would increase the current total by 35.4 percent, over a period of 30 years, an absolute increase of approximately 53 units annually. Between years 2000 and 2010, the study area s total stock of Seasonal/Recreational units increased by 1,574 units, an average annual increase of 157 units. 159 The project would clearly add to the study area s stock of Seasonal/Recreational housing, intensifying an already strong growth trend. The project would have a secondary impact on housing as a result of demand for housing created by employees moving to the study area. During the seven year period 2015 to 2021, the estimates indicate that 174 households could move to the study area, an average of 25 + /- new households annually. o Between 2000 and 2010, a total of 3,451 residential building permits were granted in the analysis area an average of 345 annually. 94 percent of the permits were for single family units. 160 o Although 3,450 residential permits were granted during the 2000s, the number of analysis area occupied units increased by only 1,343, an indication that most of the new housing development was likely for the purpose of Seasonal/Recreational use. o The increase in occupied housing units included an increase of 800 owneroccupied units (80 Annually) and 543 renter occupied units (54 annually). o 2010 U.S. Bureau of the Census data indicates that there were 648 vacant for-rent units and 374 vacant for-sale units in the analysis area in that year. While the census data likely overstates the number of vacant units available to year-round residents (many of the vacant units are likely intended for the Seasonal/Recreational market), it appears that there is a substantial stock of housing available for new households. However, statewide, the rental housing vacancy rate decreased from 10.9 percent in 2009 to 7.4 percent in Given the ongoing pace of new housing development in the analysis area, it appears that the housing stock can handle the addition of 25 new households on an annual basis without creating a major excess of demand over supply. Housing demand will also include temporary housing for construction workers, likely resulting in higher occupancies in area accommodation facilities and a reduced vacancy rate for rental housing. Property Values Alternative 3/High Density would include significant new real property development and, as a result, have a significant impact on taxable property in Mineral County (the project would be wholly located within Mineral County). Alternative 3/High 159 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000, Source: HUD, State of the Cities Database. 161 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Housing Vacancies and Ownership. 119

120 Density scenario s total market value during the phase-in period has been estimated and is shown in Table 90 below. Table 90: Total Market Value: Alternative 3/High Density Scenario Market Value ($Millions) $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 Single Family Townhomes Condominium Hotel Support & Admin. Services Activity/Leisure Retail Food & Beverage $ At completion in 2044, the total market value of the project is estimated at $2.189 billion. Non-residential components would account for only five percent of the total, hotel units at 15 percent of the total and residential units would account for 81 percent of the total. Assessment rates were applied to the market values shown in Table 90 above to estimate impacts on assessed value in Mineral County, as shown in Table 91 below. 120