Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM112700District No. 1 Commissioner: Dan Harpole District No. 2 Commissioner: Glen Huntingford District No. 3 Commissioner: Richard Wojt County Administrator: Charles Saddler Deputy Administrator: David Goldsmith Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney MINUTES Week of November 27, 2000 Chairman Richard Wojt called the meeting to order at the appointed time. Commissioners Dan Harpole and Glen Huntingford were both present. Letter of Support for Appointment to the State Forest Practices Board: Commissioner Huntingford moved to send a letter in support of Commissioner John Kaino of Pacific County for appointment to the Forest Practices Board. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion which carded by a unanimous vote. Approval of Minutes: Commissioner Harpole moved to approve the minutes of November 6, 2000. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carded by a unanimous vote. Appointment of the First Port Ludlow Drainage District Board of Commissioners: Commissioner Huntingford moved to appoint Richard P. Regan, William N. Wilke, and Walter L. Cairns to serve as the first Board of Commissioners for the Port Ludlow Drainage District, as recommended by the Ludlow Maintenance Commission. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion which carded by a unanimous vote. COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS BRIEFING SESSION: County Administrator Charles Saddler reported that last week was spent working on the 2001 budget. Information has been put together to answer some of the Board's questions. The information on the jail use still has to be compiled. Time has been scheduled this week for the Board to review the 2001 budget issues. The system for the Departments to respond to questions from Commissioners on behalf of constituents will be reviewed to assure that the Commissioners receive a timely answers from the Departments. Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 27, 2000 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made: the 2001 budget document presented is totally unacceptable and the suggestion was made to provide clear narratives that tell what went into the assumptions, an organization chart, job descriptions, and staffing schedules; there is a lack of information to the public about the budget; levies in Brinnon have barely passed in the last few years and if there are higher taxes another levy may never pass; how is a person on Social Security supposed to pay their taxes if taxes keep increasing as they have in the past?; how long does the County need to study things like flood control and how many employees are there in Planning?; progress is being stopped in the County; absentee voters cannot vote for Precinct Committee Officers; many citizens are against the tax rate increase; Referendum 47 clearly states that voters should approve any tax increase above the rate of inflation; any funding increase should be placed in the form of a broad based sales tax; a request for an accounting of how many Planners there are and their salaries, and how many people there are working in each department; what are the Planners planning for since they have stopped growth?; why aren't gardens or landscaping businesses allowed in certain zones according to the UDC?; nurseries and public storage are not addressed in the UDC; the Board shouldn't be voting on the UDC when Commissioner Harpole is leaving office and the State; the Board needs to review the UDC in greater detail before considering adoption; a new County Administrator's Department is being set up in the 2001 budget and the Board needs to be very careful about this because this office could develop a life of its own; the new County Administrator's Department needs more public review and discussion; and when will the newsletter on the UDC be released? (Charles Saddler reported that the newsletter is scheduled to be released on December 1, 2000. Commissioner Huntingford explained that there is a Budgetary Perspective available which outlines how many employees there are in each department, how much they are paid, and what the department does.) APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Harpole commented on the on-going administrative extension on the Jakeway property (this is the 4th extension) and asked the Department of Community Development to assure that some progress is made on the Jakeway Acres Short Plat within the next year. Regarding Gabe Omelas' resignation from the Marine Resources Committee, Commissioner Harpole advised that he supported the Chair's concerns about Fred Beck's attendance, but not the tone or attitude of the letter. Commissioner Huntingford moved to approve all of the items on the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Harpole seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. TWO (2) AGREEMENTS, Amendment No. 1 re: Professional Services for Public Outreach and Education in the Breast and Cervical Cancer Health Program (BCHP); Extend Contract Termination to December 31, 2000; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; 1) Komelia Smith; and 2) Linda Kehrli 2. AGREEMENT, Amendment No. 2 re: Community Access Services for Individuals with Disabilities to Experience Opportunities that Increase Personal Independence through a Variety of Activities; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Concerned Citizens of Forks Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 27, 2000 4. 5. 6. 7. AGREEMENT re: Professional Services; Advocacy Services in the Developmental Disabilities Program; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Leslie Bunton Notice of Completion of Day Labor Projects; 1) CR1494, N. Andrew Avenue; 2) CR1495, E. Island View Avenue; and 3) CR1274, Country Ridge RID#4; Jefferson County Public Works Request for 12 Month Administrative Extension SUB97-0008; Jakeway Acres Short Plat; to Divide 39 Acres into 3 Residential Lots; Expiring December 23, 2001; Alvin Jakeway, Applicant Accept Resignation of Person Serving on the Substance Abuse Program Advisory Board; Diane Kelly Accept Resignation of Person Serving on the Marine Resource Committee (MRC); Gabe Ornelas Appointment to the Jefferson County Noxious Weed Control Board: Commissioner Harpole moved to appoint Robert Henderson to a term on the Jefferson County Noxious Weed Control Board. Commissioner Huntingford seconded motion which carded by a unanimous vote. Robert Henderson will represent District #5 and his term will expire November 27, 2004. The Board met with the County Administrator for a workshop on the 2001 budget from 10:30 a.m. to Noon. HEARING re: Proposed Ordinance Imposing a Conservation Futures Tax; Providing for the Administration and Collection of Said Tax; Establishing a Conservation Futures Tax Fun& and A ctivating the Conservation Futures Advisory Board (Established by Resolution No. 43-99): Approximately 60 people were present when County Administrator Charles Saddler explained that this proposed ordinance, if passed, would impose a Conservation Futures Tax on all properties within Jefferson County at a rate of six and one-quarter cents ($.0625) per thousand dollars ($1,000) of assessed valuation per RCW 84.34.230. Commissioner Harpole suggested that the effective date of the ordinance be changed to January 1, 2001 if it is passed so that it will coincide with the County's budget year. The Chair opened the hearing. John Pitts, Quilcene, said that he was raised in East Los Angeles and he feels that it is imperative that the County provide, and protect, space for wildlife. He doesn't consider this to be a tax, he considers it an investment. He encouraged the Board to vote positive. Kees Kolff, Jefferson Land Trust, explained that their organization has been doing this type of work for over a decade and they have helped to protect over 800 acres of land in the County. Most of the land has been donated to the Land Trust; but many people can't afford to make such a donation. There is public support for this type of tax. They have results from open space tax proposals around the country. Certain Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 27, 2000 lands must be protected. This tax is $6.25 per $100,000 of assessed value. He read a letter from Tonia and David Schmidt who support the tax. (See microfilmed document.) The Land Trust has a long list of people who are in favor of the Board levying this tax. He asked for those present who are in favor of the tax to stand up and acknowledged that the majority of the people at the hearing support it. He added that it is important to establish an advisory board that will oversee the use of this fund; and they have already identified eight fully qualified individuals. The Board will be up and running as soon as the levy is passed and the call goes out for board members. He presented a map that indicates properties that need to be protected and stated that the priorities for preservation in the County have already been set. The cost of implementing this fund will be totally covered by the funds generated. The Land Trust can apply for grant funding and use the funds through creative leveraging. The time to act is now and the Land Trust is willing to work with the County. Scott Walker,712 H Street in Port Townsend, stated that land needs to be protected Land is getting more expensive; but there is still property available to purchase. He encouraged the Board to support this measure. Dana Roberts, 438 22nd Street, Port Townsend, read and submitted a letter. (See microfilmed document.) Don White supports the tax. Gordon James, 3447 Oak Bay Road, Port Hadlock stated that he supports the tax and it should be priority number one if tax increases are considered. Sylvia White, 90 Bayview Lane, Port Townsend, said that she supports the tax. It is a way for the County to preserve land for the future. Mium Rubin-Crump, Chimacum, stated that she supports the tax. This is an opportunity to be able to buy property that will cost much more in the future. In1988, the Olympic Discovery Trail could have been purchased for $800,000. Now 7 miles of the trail is being purchased for $600,000. Lee Springgate, said that he is in support of the tax. He spent 30 years in parks and recreation, most of that time was spent working for the City of Bellevue. He has had lots of experience with this tax and has never had anyone complain about it or how it was spent. It is a prudent investment for multiple benefits for the dollar. This tax source can be used to generate a lot of additional income fi.om private foundations. This is a non-coercive tax. Tom Jay, stated that he has lived in the County for over 26 years. The community is at a turning point because of the declining salmon runs. The "commons" have been used for private use; and it isn't fair to ask people who own land that effect the commons to bear the cost of public use. This tax treats the private property owners with respect. This tax is a tool to heal the community. Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 27, 2000 Nancy Dorgan, read and submitted a letter. (See microfilmed document.) Robert Merrit, Cape George, stated that the purpose of this tax is to protect critical lands for future generations. It is less than $20 per year for a $300,000 house. This is an opportunity to work with land owners. It's important to have local control over this rather than Federal or State control. He recommends that the Board approve this tax. Doug Soeh[ read his email sent previously. (See microfilmed document.) Larry Dennison, 1224 Cleveland Street, Port Townsend, stated that this may be the last, best opportunity to do what can be done with this tax. This is a benefit to the County because it will allow the County to implement an open space plan and get ahead of the ESA regulations. It is good for landowners because it gives them compensation for a use they give up and it is a good deal for taxpayers because it can be leveraged into more funding. He urged the Board to give this a positive vote. John Lockwood, 1510 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend stated that on-site growth in the County is paid for by the developer; but the off-site costs are enormous and they are not borne by developers. It takes between 15 and 25 years for the taxes to pay for the infrastructure costs of growth. One of these costs is preserving open space. He encouraged the Board to not follow the lead of the City Council members because the City is falling behind in its capacity to deal with infrastructure needs. The Board owes it to the public to pass this tax. Ron Sikes, supports the Conservation Futures Tax. It's critical to the well being of the County to protect resources. Chairman Wojt asked if anyone wants to speak against the tax. After checking with the people standing in the hall, Commissioner Harpole reported that no one present asked to speak against the proposed ordinance. Chairman Wojt asked if, in the interest of time, anyone would object to the Board assuming that everyone wants to speak in favor? No one objected to that assumption. Sara Mall Johani, representing Soul Salmon. The northwest is special because of the salmon. The Country is split. If we can celebrate salmon we can use it as a unification symbol. The landowners that would be giving up their property would be paid for it. She urged the Board to implement this tax. Freida Fenn, Port Townsend, stated that there are tax protesters outside handing out flyers against higher taxes, but one lady handing out flyers said that she supports the Conservation Futures Tax. There is a book titled Better, Not Bigger that suggests that purchasing open space can save money over time. Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of November 27, 2000 Lynn Nadeau, stated that this says what is important to us and what people value here. The consciousness of stewardship of the people who move here is astounding. Rather than seeing this as a tax, see it as an investment in all of the things that people have spoken of and in the human quality of life. Michelle Sandoval, stated that this isn't the type of tax that will continue to go up. The $6.25 per $100,000 is the maximum amount for the tax. She urged the Board to pass the tax. Janet Kearslv, Port Hadlock, stated that she works for Island County Public Works and they have been able to acquire an incredible amount of land. She urged the Board to consider this proposal and adopt the ordinance. Marjorie Bonar, stated that she agrees with everyone who has testified. Hearing no further comments for or against the proposed ordinance, Chairman Wojt closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. Commissioner Huntingford explained that he has been a member of the Conservation District Board for many years. They work with landowners in the County on restoration projects. His concem is that the proposed ordinance doesn't list priorities, it just says "open space." Is it clear to the public what they will get for their money? Do they understand what it will be used for? Rather than saying the funds will be used for open space, he suggested that the wording "critical habitat areas" be added. He asked about the make up of the Advisory Board and if there is a sunset on this tax? Won't the amount of tax go up as the value of a home goes up? There are so many State and Federal regulations coming down, will the County really be able to maintain local control? Will the landowner still have access to their property? Does the public have access to the property? All of the County's citizens need to be educated about this tax, not just the people who support it. Commissioner Harpole noted that this is a small amount and it is easy for him to justify it compared to the other tax issues the County is facing this year. The topic has been around for many years. Commissioner Huntingford raised some good questions. The County had planned to do a survey, but found costs too great. This is a funding strategy that needs to be put in place. This will not do all for all; but it will be one tool of many. This community needs tools to bring discordant parties together to talk about solutions. The County needs to look at solution strategies that aren't just regulatory in nature. This could be a community healing tool and it is ethically a good thing to do. He supports this tax, but shares some of the concerns that have been raised. If the proposed ordinance is approved, he asked the County Administrator to look into the make up of the Advisory Board and the process to determine the types of properties to be purchased. He also asked that those present support the County in law and justice issues and liabilities. Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of Novembe[ 27, 2000 Commissioner Harpole moved to support the ordinance with a request that the effective date be amended to be January 1,2001. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion. He asked to also amend the ordinance language, if legal, to say "critical habitat areas" instead of "open Space." He agrees that providing compensation for landowners who have restrictions on their property is the fight thing to do. However, there needs to be an education element for the public and the public should vote on the tax. The voters need to be educated on what this tax will do for the County. He stated that he is supportive of the idea but is against the motion. Commissioner Harpole noted that the ordinance says "use of funds as allowed by the law." He supports an amendment to the proposed ordinance to say "critical habitat areas." Chairman Wojt restated that the first change to the proposed ordinance would be in the third "WHEREAS" with the addition of the wording "and critical habitat areas" and on Page 2, Section 8, the effective date will be changed to January 1,2001. Chairman Wojt called for a vote on the amendments to the ordinance as presented. The amendments were approved by a unanimous vote. Chairman Wojt then called for a vote on the motion to approve ORDINANCE NO. 10-1127-00. Commissioner Harpole and Chairman Wojt voted for the motion Commissioner Huntingford voted against the motion. The motion carded. Commissioner Harpole moved to request that the County Administrator bring a proposal to the Board for review that outlines the composition of the Advisory Board and their work on determining priority areas. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The Board met in Executive Session from 3:00 to 3:30 p.m. with the Prosecuting Attorney, the County Administrator and the Director of Community Development regarding potential litigation. "Lorna DelaneY, CMO Clerk of the Board J EF F.F~-gON COUNTY G~unti~ Dan HarpoIe, ~ber -' Page 7 JEFFERSON COUNTY ,dx~ ~l GUEST LIST HEARING: Conservation Futures Tax Hrg. ~ // DATE: Monday, November 27, 2000 at 2:00 p.m. PLACE: County Commissioners' Chambers NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE ,/)oa i,~/~.'¢-~ ~a ~r~,~,~ ~ . ~ ~, ~ / I JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: Conservation Futures Tax Hrg. DATE: Monday, November 27, 2000 at 2:00 p.m. PLACE: County Commissioners' Chambers NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: Conservation Futures Tax Hrg. DATE: Monday, November 27, 2000 at 2:00 p.m. PLACE: County Commissioners' Chambers NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE - ' ~ .... /'"'~1- - 5' JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: Conservation Futures Tax Hrg. .- DATE: Monday, November 27, 2000 at 2:00 p.m. PLACE: County Commissioners' Chambers NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: Conservation Futures Tax Hrg. DATE: Monday, November 27, 2000 at 2:00 p.m. PLACE: County Commissioners' Chambers NAME/i,/, 4¢(PLease,9~/'¢///Print)(~/~ ¢/ STREETcarS_ ADDRESS~¢~ ~ .c.~ % CITY~ /~ ~ ~timony?YES ~ MAYBE Good afternoon--I'm Dana Roberts [from 438-22d St. in PT] Thanks for holding this hearing. FILE COP ~ I'll be brief. I support this program: At the price of a 6-pack per $100,000 property valuation, this HAS to be a bargain for Resource Land Conservation. We all can see that a lot of habitat on which Fish & Wildlife depend & provides groundwater re-charge been lost or damaged in our County. Whether that resulted from development for human occupancy or for economic gain, those places no longer provide the Resource Support, Open Space & Habitat value that they formerly did. Helpfully, Responsible Landowners, the Conservation District, Land Trust, Trout Unlimited, Wild Olympic Salmon, North Olympic Salmon Coalition, the County's Environmental Health & DOT plus others, have re-gained some lost ground. This program will support & build on that good work. We also know that Endangered Species Listings will likely impose additional constraints on our use of Land. This program will help us demonstrate that we in Jeffco are already taking responsible steps to permanently protect those special parts of our County that can & should continue forever as watershed & wildlife habitat. Let's be Pre-Active, & Be Responsible on our own, Rather than because we're forced to do so. Thank You for carefully considering this Great Opportunity. November 27, 2000 ,Tefferson County Board of County Commissioners Public Hearing: Enactment of Cons~rvot/on Futue~s Levy Commissioners: I find it interesting that the name of this program is "~onserva?/on Fufurcg'. Use of the plural form "?uture.d' implies that we have more than one future ahead of us here in ,Tefferson County, and I think that is absolutely true. One such future consists of county/city homogenotion of services, creeping exurbia, sprawl, and continuing loss of our natural and rural environment. It's not a pretty future, but likely one if we do nothing but watch it happen. A different kind of future is envisioned by the Conservation Futures program, which is a very small but still a very positive way to preserve at least a few of the things that are precious to us now, and which will be even more precious decades from now. Exactly which precious bits of habitat, shoreline, creekbed, or openspace are purchased and saved for our present and somebody else's future is yet to be determined, but regardless of the final selections, they will be priceless and they will belong to the public. Z hope this board will agree to implement the tiny levy that will make this possible. There is a difficult-to-grasp philosophical idea that there actually is no past or future, but just now, and now, and now. Regardless of whether this is true or whether there really is something called the future, the time for you to act is now. Please vote for the habitat levy now. There is an urgent need now. Please don't wait. There will never be better prices or a better time. Thank you~, Nnn~c~ borgan~ 2137 Washington .St. Port Townsend WA Page 1 of 1 From: Douglas Soehl <cutthroat@waypt.com> l~l~0py To: Glen Huntingford <ghuntincjford@co.jefferson.wa. us>; Dan Harpole <dharpole@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Richard Wojt <rwojt@co.jefferson.wa. us> Date: Monday, November 27, 2000 11:25 AM Subject: Conservation Futures Tax Jefferson County Commissioners, I am writing this to urge your support of the Conservation Futures Tax that is now before you. The CFT will provide a valuable tool for Jefferson County to preserve it's unique character. The CFT will also benefit restoration and preservation efforts in the County by providing the funding to purchase property, acquire easements, and/or provide matching funds for cooperative efforts. Many Jefferson County residents cannot afford to leave their properties in the natural state that they would like to. The profit that they would gain by development is hard to reconcile against a stand of alders, a herd of cattle grazing in a pasture, or a stream that provides fish habitat. The Conservation Futures Tax would be a powerful tool to provide landowners compensation, while preserving their land. I strongly urge you to pass the Conservation Futures Tax immediately! Please enter this email in the public record. Thank You Doug Soehl 11/27/00 People for a Liveable Community P.O. Box 667 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Jefferson Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County Courthouse Port Townsend, WA 98368 Nov. 27,2000 Dear Commissioners, People for a Liveable Community is a public interest group, committed to the long-term health and well being of Jefferson County. The Steering Committee of People for a Liveable Community wants to go on record as unanimously, heartily in support of the establishment of a Conservation Futures Fund for this County. Other Washington counties have already done so, and are glad they did. On July 6, 1992, Island County implemented a Conservation Futures Program. In the last 9 years, the citizens of that County and the state, have gained substantial benefit from the public acquisition of open space, wetlands, habitat areas, farm and timber lands which were under increasing development pressure. For the County's use and information, we submit information on Island County's open space Ordinance C-055-92. We have an opportunity to learn from their successes and refinements. This is a crucial moment in Jefferson County's history. For the last 10 years, this has been one of the fastest growing Counties in Washington State. That rate has slowed recently. Let's seize the opportunity to take a breath and look to the future. I was born and raised in Western Washington. I have witnessed the extremely rapid conversion of forest and farmland to residential acreage. On It_~, the Peninsula Daily News stated that 30,000 acres ofu0 ~fa~ land are lost to residential development, each year in this state. We need more tools to deal with the extreme levels of development pressure likely to continue into the future. The beauty of the Northwest attracts people. Let us conserve our forests, farms and streams so that our children and grandchildren can enjoy this amazing ecosystem. Last week, some Republicans organized a tax protest here at the Courthouse. I would like to speak directly to some of the concerns voiced. There is a long-term tax benefit to preserving open space. Acquisition of land for conservation often saves local taxpayers money over time, according to Ebon Fodor, author of the book, Better not Bigger: "A 1968 Study of Closter, New Jersey found the cost of acquiring 80 acres of land to be less than the tax deficit that would result if the land were developed with 160 houses. · A 1970 study for the city of Palo Alto, California found that it was considerably cheaper for the city to purchase open land in its foothills rather than allowing it to be developed. · A 1991 study found that the town of Yarmouth, Maine would incur a cost of $140,000 annually if a certain parcel of land were developed. By purchasing the land the town's annual cost would be on $76,000, an annual savings of $64,000. The same study reports on a parcel in Huntsville, Alabama that, if developed, would have infrastructure costs of $5 million and annual service costs of $2,500 to 3,000 per acre. By contrast, acquisition would cost on $3.3 million and annual service costs were $75 per acre. · A 1996 Study prepared for the Trust for Public Land found that the town of Londonderry, New Hampshire could save money by purchasing the developments rights on 269 acres of land known as Mack Orchards. The alternative of allowing the land to be development with 87 houses would have cost the town $600,000 more over the 23-eyar study period assumed for the conservation bond repayment. By purchasing developments fights and conserving the land in perpetuity, annual property taxes on existing homes in the town would be several dollars less than if it were developed."--Better not Bigger, 1999, by Ebon Fodor. People for a Liveable Community asserts that implementing a Conservation Futures tax in Jefferson County will save crucial salmon habitat and open space, and could well save tax payers money in the long run. According to a brand new fiscal study called "The Cost of Growth in Washington State", commissioned by the Columbia Public Interest Policy Institute, the cost of each new residence built in Washington state costs an astonishing $83,216 in public infrastructure, per new house. (I have a copy for each Co. Commissioner, and the record keeper. I hope you will read it carefully, at your leisure.) In summery, conservation makes sense from a fiscal point of view. More importantly, we must become passionate stewards of the land, or the health of the human community, as well as the salmon, will weaken. We live in a common watershed. I ask the Commissioners to vote for the future today. Vote for the beauty and health of Jefferson County. Please implement the Conservation Futures Fund. Sincerely, Freida Fenn, "People for a Liveable Community" 'Jul-21-O0 12:45 ISLAND CNTY COMMISSIONER 360 679-7381 P.01 BEFORE THE ~OARD OF COUNTY COMY. ISSIONERS · ' OF ISLAND COUNTY, WASHINGTON IN THE 5~TTER OF CREATI~:G AN ISLAND COUNTY CONSERVATION FUTURES PROGRAM CITIZENS' ADVISORY BOARD AND CONSERVATION'FUTURES TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP AND ADDITION OF NEW CHAPTER 3.22A ICC ORDINANCE WH..EREAS, existing policies and regulations, by themselves, are likely to be ineffec%ive in providing long-term protection of open space, wetlands, "~bitat areas~ farm, agricultural, and timber lands, which ar under the pressure of increasing urban development. The acqui ition of property interests as provided by this Chapter is in the public interest and constitutes a public purpose of Island County; and WHEREAS, it is the purpose of this Chapter, together with ICC Chapter 3.22, to implement Chapter 84.34 RCW as it relates to Conservation Futures; and WHEREAS, it is further the purpose of this Chapter to ac~uire by purchase, gift, grant, bequest, devise, lease, or otherwise, except by eminent domain, the fee simple or any lesser property interest, development right, easement, covenant, or other contractural right necessary to protect, preserve, maintain, improve, restore, or limit the future use of, or otherwise conserve selected open space, wetlands, habitat areas, farm, agricultural, public tidelands access, timber lands, shore!ands and tidelands for the public use and enjo.~rment; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to adopt this ordinance to create an Island County Conservation Futures Program citizens' Advisory Board and Conservation Futures Technical Advisory Group; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED by the Board of island County Commissioners that an Island County Conservation Futures Program Citizens' Advisory Board and Conservation Futures Technical Advisory Group is created and an Addition of New Chapter 3.22A ICC is approved as provided on Exhibit A attached hereto. REVIEWED this 4th day of May, 1992 and-set for public hearinq on the 1st day of June, 1992 at 1:45 P.M. County Auditor & Ex-Officio Clerk of the Board BOARD OF COUNTY COMiMISSIONERS · ~.%~ )WELi~,~ COI.~LMISSION~R DW~I~ ~. COLBY, CO~'ISSIONER Jul-21-O0 12:46 ISLAND CNTY COMMISSIONER 360 679-'7381 P.02 ORDINANCE NO. C-055-92 ORDINANCE NO. C-055-92, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of ~~ , 19 ~2- , following public hearing. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF~ ~.~IS ND COUNTY, WASHINGTON %oR oN D~AIV A. COLBY, gOMMI~'~iONER ATTEST: ART HYLAND County Auditor & Ex-Officio Clerk of the Board /~PROVED AS TO FOP~M:% and Isla~/~unty Code Reviser Jul-21-O0 12:46 ISLAND CNTY COMMISSIONER 360 679-7381 ............... ~.~03 CONSERVATION FUTURES PROGRAM. CITIZENS' ADVISORY BOARD AND CONSERVATION FUTURES TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP 3.22A EXHIBIT "A" CHAPTER 3.22A CONSERVATION FUTURES PROGRAM CITIZENS' ADVISORY BOARD A/~D CONSERVATION FUTUKES TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP Sectian 3.22A.010 3.22A.020 3.22A.030 3.22A 040 3.22A 050 3.22A 060 3.22A 070 3.22A 080 3.22A.090 . 3.22A 100 3.22A.!i0 3.22A.Z20 3.22A.i30 3.22A.!40 3.22A.150 3.22A.160 Findings and Declaration of Purpose Definitions Incorporation by Reference Establishment cf a Conservation Futures Program citizens' Advisory Board Duties of the Conservation Futures Program Citizens' Advisory Board Establishment of a Conservation Futures Tecknical Advisory Group Duties of the Conservation Futures Technical Advisory Group Annual Allocation Application Process Property Acquisition Casts - Notices Review of Fund Allocation and Selection Criteria Conflict of Interest Property Management Authority Board and Group Staffing Responsibilities Severability ~~ec~lve Date of Adoption Cross Reference Chapter 84.34 RCW 3.22A.010 Findings and Declaration of. Purpose. Exis~q- ~_,~g policies and regulations, by themselves, have been ineffective in providing long-te-~m protecuion of open space, wetlands, habitat areas, far~, agricultural, and timber lands, which are under the pressure of ~ ~= _nc._asing urban development. The acquisition of property interests am provided by this Chapter is in the public interest and constitutes a public purpose of Island County. It is the purpose cf this Chapter, together with ICC Chapter 3.22, to implement Chapter 84.34 RCW as it relates to Conservation Futures. 1992 PAGE I OF !2 Ju~-21-O0 12:46 ISLAND CNTY COMMISSIONER 360 679-7381 P.04 3.22A.010 CONSERVATION FUTURES PROGR3~ CITIZENS' ADVISORY BOARD A_ND CONSERVATION FUTURES TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP It is further the purpose of this Chapter to acquire by purchase, gift, grant, bequest', devise, lease, or otherwise, except by eminent domain, the fee simple or any lesser property interest, development right, easement, covenant, or other contractural right necessary to protect, preserve, maintain, improve, restore, or limit the future use of, or otherwise conserve selected open space, wetlands, habitat areas, farm, agricultura!~ and timber lands for the public use and enjoyment. 3.22A.020 Definitions. The definitions contained in RC~{ 84.34.020 are hereby adopted and by this reference incorporated herein. As used in this Chapter, the following words shall have the following meanings: · C.A.B.: The Conservation Futures Program Citizens' Advisory Board. T.A.G.: The Conservation Advisory Group. Futures Technical CO~LMISSIONERS: Commissioners. The Island County Board of MAY OR SHOULD: Optional and Permissive and does not impose a requirement. SHALL: Mandatory and imposes a requirement. 3.22A.030 Incorporation by Reference. The provisions of RCW 84.34.200, .210~ and 220, are hereby incorporated by reference into this Chapter. 3.22A.040 Establisb~ent of the Conservation Futures Program Citizens, Advisory Board. A Conservation Futures Program Citizens' Advisory Board (C.A.B.) is hereby established. PAGE 2 OF 12 1992 Jul-21-O0 12:47 ISLAND CNTY COMMISSIONER 360 679-7381 F~ .05 CONSERVATION FUTURES PROGRAM CITIZENS' ADVISORY BOARD AND .CONSERVATION FUTURES TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP 3.22A.040 The C.A.B. shall be as follows: One (1) C.A.B. member shall be appointed from each incorporated area of Island County. Three (3) C.A.B. members shall be appointed from unincorporated areas of Whidbey Island (one (1) from each geographic area, i.e., coincident with the South Whidbey, Coupevilie, and Oak Harbor school districts boundaries). Two (2) C.A.B. members shall be appointed from Camano Island. One (!) C.A.B. member representing the Island County Parks Board. C.A.B. members shall be appointed by the Commissioners and shall serve Three (3) year terms. C.A.B. members may be removed by the Commissioners only for good cause. C.A.B. members shall not be compensated for their services. C.A.B. members may be re-appointed to a second term. No C.A.B. member shall serve more than Two (2) consecutive full te.~n.,s. Ail' C.A.B. members shall have been residents of Island County for at least One (1) year prior to their appointment to the C.A.B.. Ail appointments to the C.A.B. shall ensure that the background of the C.A.B. members as a whole is broad based. Ail C.A.B. meetings shall be open to the public and conducted as if subject to the Open Public Meetings Act, Chapter 42.30 RCW. A quorum of the C.A.B. for the purposes of conducting business shall be five (5) members. Any action taken by five (5) or more members at any given mee~ing shall constitute a recommendation by the C.A.B.. However, actions taken by the C.A.B. shall not be considered conclusive unless approved by a majority of the total C.A.B. membership. 1992 PAGE 3 OF 12 'jul]21-O0 12:48 ISLAND CNTY COMMISSIONER 360 679-7381 P-O6 3.22A. O40 CONSERVATION FUTURES PROGRAM. CITIZENS' ADVISORY BOARD A_ND CONSERVATION FUTURES TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP The members of the C.A.B. shall select a Chair, a Vice-Chair, and a Secretary at their first meeting. The C.A.B. shall adopt rules for the transaction of its business and shall maintain a written and recorded record of its hearings. Ail records of the C.A.B., unless specifically exempted by State Law, shall be public documents and shall be made available to the public upon request. Each member of the C.A.B. shall be entitled to One (1) vote on any matter duly before the C.A.B.. Actions taken by the C.A.B. shall constitute' an advisory recommendation to the commissioners. Action taken by the C.A.B. shall be considered conclusive only when approved by a majority of the total C.A.B. membership. Any oral presentation to the Commissioners by a C.A.B. member shall only be permitted to clarify the C.A.B.'s written findings, conclusions, and recommendation and any presentation by a C.A.B.- member that goes beyond clarifying the written findings, conclusions, or recommendation shall be considered as a personal recommendation. 3.22A.050 Duties of the Conservation citizens' Advisory Board. (C.A.B.) Futures Program Fund Allocation and Selection Criteria - Establishment. Within Three (3) months following receipt of the T.A.G.,s recommendation regarding the fund allocation criteria and the early action s~rategy program, the C.A.B. shall for~ward its recommendation to the Commissioners for its approval. The C.A.B. shall hold at least One public hearing and provide notice for said hearing(s) by advertising once a week for Two (2) consecutive weeks in the official County newspaper. PAGE 4 OF 12 1992 Jul-21-OO 12:49 ISLAND CNTY COMMISSIONER 360 679-7381 P.07 CONSERVATION FUTURES PROGRAM CITIZENS' ADVISORY BOARD AND .CONSERVATION FUTURES TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP 3.22A.050 1992 Conservation Futures Funds - Annual Allocation. Using the fund allocation and selection criteria, the C.A.B. shall, beginning in April 30, 1993, and no later than every April 30 thereafter, make annual recommendations to the Commissioners for proposals to be funded as part of the Conservation Futures Program. RecommendatiOns. When making recommendations to the Commissioners, the C.A.B. shall provide the Commissioners with the following: Written findings and conclusions as to how its recommendations satisfy the fund allocation and selection criteria and also include an evaluation of the following: Availability of grant or matching funds. ii. Level of support or sponsorship from individuals, organizations, or governmental agencies. iii. Consistency with comprehensive land use ordinances, and park management plans. adopted local plans, zoning and growth 2. A summary of the proceedings before the C.A.B. 3. The C.A.B.'s vote on all matters. The concerns of the C.A.B.' which it desires to be considered by the commissioners. A proposed appropriation forUh the applications recommended for funding. ordinance setting and/or proposals All C.A.B. meetings shall, unless otherwise provided by law, be open to the public and conducted as if subjec~ to the Open Public Meetings Ac~ Chapter 42.30 RCW. All records of the C.A.B. unless specifically exempted by State Law, shall be public documents and shall be made available to the public upon request. PAGE 5 OF 12 tO 0 ~ 0 0 0 z~ Ob,' 0 ~W Jul-21-O0 12:25 ISLAND CNTY COMMISSIONER 360 679-7381 P.01 TO: ~ ~ Phone: Fax Phone: JUST THE FAX ~ Number of pages including cover sheet Phone: (360) 679-7354 Fax: (360)679-738~ IREMARKS: [] Urgent ~For your review [] Reply ASAP Please Comment Jdl'-21-O0 12:25 ISLAND CNTY COMMISS~ONEIq 360 679-7381 P.02 BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF ISLAND COUNTY, WASHINGTON IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING ) ISLAND COUNTY CODE CHAPTER) 3.22A AND ORDINANCES C-055-92 ) AND C-17-94 TO MODIFY ANNUAL ) ALLOCATION AND SELECTION ) CRITERIA ) ORDINANCE NO. C-27 -97 WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 3.22A.110 ICC at least every five (5) years after the effective date of Chapter 3.22A, the Conservation Futures Program Citizens' Advisory Board, C.A.B., the Conservation Futures Technical Advisory Committee, T.A.G., and Board of Island County Commissioners shall review and, if deemed in the public interest, amend the fund allocation and selection criteria; and WHEREAS, Chapter 3.22.A iCC was originally adopted on July 6, 1992 and in accordance with Section 3.22A. 110 ICC and in the public interest the history of fund allocation should be reviewed; and WHEREAS, during the first five years of implementation of the Island County Conservation Futures Program the public has gained substantial benefit from the public acquisition of open space, wetlands, habitat areas, farm, agricultural, and timber lands, which were under the pressure of increasing urban development; and WHEREAS, the existing fund allocation and selection criteria did not include a formula for distributing monies collected under program and during this first five years, program purchases have not been distributed regionally due to the threat of development and the loss of valuable resources within the Central and South Whidbey area of the County as compared to other regions. Furthermore the existing fund allocation and selection criteria did not include guidelines regarding the equitable distribution of expenditures within geographic regions of the County; and WHEREAS, the Conservation Futures Fund revenue is derived from an ad valorem tax levied against the assessed evaluation of all taxable property within the County; NOW THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY ORDAINE© that Sections 3.22A.080 of the Island County Code and County Ordinances C-055-92 and C-17-94 and are hereby amended as shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Lined through material is deleted and underlined material is added. Reviewed this 2nd day of June, i997 and set for Public Hearing at 9:45 a.m. on July 7, 1997. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ISLAND COUNTY, WASHINGTON ATTEST: Margaret Rosenkranz, Mike Sheiton, Chairman [absent - Torn Shaughnessy, Mbr.] Wm. L. 'McDowell, Member Jul-21-O0 ]2:25 ISLAND CNTY COMMISSIONER 360 679-7381 P.03 BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COM}{ISSIONERS OF ISLAND COUNTY, WASHINGTON IN THE MATTER OF APPOINTING MEMBERS ) TO THE ISLAND COUNTY CONSERVATION ) FUTURES PROGRAM CITIZENS' ADVISORY ) BOARD AND CONSERVATION FUTURES ) TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP ) WHEREAS, on July 6, 1992, the Board of Island County Commissioners adopted ~rdinance No. C-055-92 in the matter of creating an Island County Conservation Futures Program citizens' Advisory Board and Conservation Futures Technical Advisory Group and Addition of New Chapter 3.22A ICC; and WHEREAS, existing policies and regulations are likely to be ineffective in providing long-term protection of open space, wetlands, habitat areas, farm, agricultural, and timber lands, which are under the pressure of increasing urban development. The acquisition of property interests as provided by Chapter 3.22A ICC is in the public interest and constitutes a public purpose of Island County; and WHEREAS, the purpose of Chapter 3.22A ICC, together with ICC Chapter 3.22, is to implement Chapter 84.34 RCW as it relates to Conservation Futures; and WHEREAS, the purpose of Chapter 3.22A ICC is to acquire by purchase, gift, grant, .bequest, devise, lease or otherwise, except by eminent domain, the fee simple or any lesser property interest, development right, easement, covenant, or other contractural right necessary to protect, preserve, maintain, improve, restore, or limit the future use of, or otherwise conserve selected open space, wetlands, habitat areas, farm, agricultural, public tidelands access, timber lands, shorelands and tidelands for the public use and enjoyment; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. C-055-92 was 'adopted in order to create an Island County Conservation Futures Program citizens' Advisory Board and Conservation Futures Technical Advisory Group; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Island County Commissioners that members be appointed to serve on the Island County Conservation Futures Program Citi.zens' Advisory Board as provided on Exhibit A attached hereto and the Island County Conservation Futures Technical Advisory Group as provided on Exhibit B attached hereto. Terms of appointments are as specified in 3.22A ICC. Jul-21-O0 12:26 ISLAND CNTY COMMISSIONER 360 679-7381 P 04 ~i~,~,~ - I~ESOLU~ON NO. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _~_, day of 19gDJ . BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS iOUNTY , WASHINGTON ~ C~L~WELL, COPSMISS IONER ATTEST: ART HYLAND County Auditor & Ex-Officio Clerk of the Board j a~/c:/RES06292 Jul-21-O0 12:26 / / ISLAND CNTY COMMISSIONER EXHIBIT A 360 679-7381 P.05 CONSERVATION FUTURES CITIZENS ADVISORY BOARD November 16, 1992 R~PRESENTATIV~ OF EACH INCORPORATED, ~REA OF ISLAND COUNTY OAK HARBOR, LANGLEY, COUPEVILLE Gerry D. Isaacson 3597 - 350 Avenue West Oak Harbor, WA 98277 PHONE: 675-1409 (City of Oak Harbor) Pauline Cruchon 800 Sandy Point Road Langley, WA 98260 PHONE: 321-6460 (City of Langley) James Short P.O. Box 931 Coupeville, WA 98239 PHONE: 678-5368 (Town of Coupeville) T~REE M~MBERS FROM UNInCORPORATeD AREAS OF WHIDBEY.IS,L~ND (1~ FROM EACH G~OGRAPHIC AREA SOUTH WHIQBEY, COUPEVILLE, OAK HARBOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS .~QUNQARIES George J. Rusch 3486 E. Quade Road Clinton, WA 98236 PHONE: 321-6253 (South Whidbey School Districts Boundaries) George R. Volker 2045 w. SH20 Coupeville, WA 98239 PHONE: 678-5298 (Coupeville School Districts Boundaries) Gary C. Fisher 1132 N. Bridle Trail Lane Oak Harbor, WA 98277 PHONE: 678-4868 (Oak Harbor School Districts Boundaries) PAGE 1 Jul-21-O0 12:27 ISLAND CNTY COMMISSIONER 360 679-7381 P.06 TWO MEMBERS FROM CAMANO ISLAND Don J. ~anna 323 Roberts Way Camano Island, WA PHONE: 387-7490 H 629-2167 W 98292 Betty Metz 3968 S. East Camano Drive Camano Island, WA 98292 PHONE: 387-0396 QNE ~B~R REPRESENTING THE ISLAND COUNTY PARKS BOARD Durw&~d G. Roberson P.O. Box 2657 Oak Harbor, WA 98277 PHONE: 675-3256 jaw\c: \CFCA8 PAGE 2 Oul-21-O0 12:27 ISLAND CNTY COMMISSIONER EXHIBIT B 36O 679-7381 P.07 CONSERVATION FUTURES TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP November 16, 1992 Representative ,,of the C.A.B. To Serve as Chair XXXXXXXXXX (Selected after C.A.B. Appointment) Representative_of Central,,~hidbe¥ Island Historic Prese ,.~vation District Robert A. VanDeen 295 S. Harrington Road Coupeville, WA 98239] PHONE: 678-5958 Reg~esentative of Whidbe¥ Camano Land Trust Gloria Koll 6488 S. Admiralty Way Freeland, WA 98249 PHONE: 321-5014 Representative.of IslaNd County P!anninq Commission William R. Applegate 1485 W. Crosby Road Oak Harbor, WA 98277 PHONE: 679-1410 Representative o~ south Wh~dbey Parks & Recreation District Curt s. Gordon P.O. Box 261 Freeland, WA 98249 PHONE: 321-1668 Representative of Trust Board of ~bev's Landin~ N,~Diona! H~stO~ical Reservm Rob Harbour P.O. Box 56 Coupeville, WA 98239 PHONE: 678-5705 PAGE 1 Jul-21-O0 12:28 ISLAND CNTY COMMISSIONER 360 679-7381 ~e'~OLdl~ a~d Representative of Whidbe¥ Audubon Society ~ancy Arnold 3330 S. Smugglers Cove Road Greenbank, WA 98253 PHONE: 678-4801 amd Vorestrv Council Allan D. Derickson 4431 S. North Drive Pro.land, WA ~4~ PHONE: 321-448! Home 321-0598 Work Non-Elected Representative of Incorporated Areas of Island CoO~ty (city of Coupevilte is Assisting in Candidate Selection) P .O8 jau\c:\CFTAG PAGE 2 Jul-21--O0 '12:29 ISLAND CNTY COMMISSIONER 360 679-7381 P.09 IN THE MATTER OF ESTABLISHING ) THE 1992 BUDGET FOR THE ) CONSERVATION FUTURES FUND .) RESOLUTION C- 2__.P -92 WHEREAS, a Conservation Futures Fund has been established by Resolution C-134-91 to levy a property tax of up to 6,25 cents per thousand dollars of assessed valuation for the purpose of purchasing, preserving and conserving open space lands alt as described in the enabling resolution, and WHEREAS, it is necessary to establish a budget in order to utilize any of the proceeds for the above purposes, WHEREAS, it is necessary to hold a public hearing to establish said budget, NOW THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the Board of Cou. nty Com-missioners hereby sets the date of. /./.~-J '/ ~C. ,1992 at · /.' ¥"~' ~,~PM for a public hearing to. establish the budget for this Fund as shown as Exhibit A, ADOPTED this ~ day of April, 1992 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ISLAND COUNTY, WASHINGTON Art blyland, Auditor & Clerk of the Board ""G o rd.~ nK o_.~tj e i Chair~ u~fi'c~: ~"'a~w~ 1L"'IOI~ m b e r Dwai'n Colby, Member t Jul-21-O0 12:30 ISLAND CNTY COMMISSIONER 360 679-7381 P.IO C- 22 -92 WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held on..f/.~,.~,,8,..'~j 2o /?£z.. and the Board of County Commissioners has determined that the budget shown in Exhibit A, as and if amended, is sufficient to carry out the provisions of the law with respect to this Conservation Futures Fund, the Board hereby establishes the budget for this Fund as shown as Exhibit A. ADOPTED this day of April, 1992 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ISLAND COUNTY, WASHINGTON Art i~yland, Auditor & Clerk of the Board DVCk Ca~'~il, "rvlem. ber Odain CoIby,~mber EXHIBIT A 1992 Conservation Futures Fund Budget Source of Funds: 132-000-31110 Application of Funds: 132-000-57685-141 132-000-57685-161 132-000-57685 Property Tax ProfessiOnal Serv. Land Ending Reserve $230,000 $23O,OOO The Cost of Growth in Washington State Columbia Public Interest Policy Institute By Eben Fodor, Fodor & Associates October 2000 Executive Summary While most local governments can quickly and accurately assess the additional tax revenues resulting from a new development, very few can perform the same assessment of costs. This lack of complete information has often resulted in a distorted analysis of development impacts on a local community. A greater understanding of the capital costs associated with providing basic public facilities to serve new development is clearly needed. This study estimates the cost of public facilities to serve new residential development in Washington State, based on the incremental demand generated by a typical new single- family house. Data has been collected and reported in a manner so as to be reasonably representative of the state as a whole. It is important to recognize that each city and county has its own set of regulations, service level standards, land costs, and materials and labor costs that will affect infrastructure costs. Because of this, each location is unique and different. The report does not attempt to provide accurate costs for any specific location. This study uses actual cost data from capital projects that have been completed in Washington within that past two years as the primary data source. Some capital cost data, service standards, and other necessary information are obtained from local and regional government plans and reports, as cited in the report. The data represents a composite of representative costs from around the state. In this sense, the report can be used as a reasonable initial estimate of costs for a given location when there is no local analysis available. Literature Review This study includes an extensive literature review that provides a useful context from which to consider the costs analyzed in this study. The review finds a fairly consistent body of literature on the fiscal impacts of growth, going back more than 25 years. There is growing recognition that sprawling development patterns rarely generate sufficient revenues from the new tax revenues they produce to pay their ongoing costs of Columbia Policy Report Executive Summa[7: The Cost of Growth in Washington State p a g e i public services. However, even standard urban development patterns that include a mix of commercial development have been found to be a net fiscal drain on local governments. A handful of studies have examined the overall effect of growth in population, jobs and urban development on taxes. These studies show that growth tends to result in higher tax rates, contrary to the conventional wisdom of the past that growth increases the tax base and thereby reduces the overall tax burden. A number of statistical studies around the country have found a strong correlation between growth and increasing tax rates. One study (Buchanan and Weber, 1982) found that a 1.0 percent increase in population correlated with an increase in the average residential property tax bill of 0.41 percent. A nationwide study of the 248 largest counties examined per-capita spending to indicate likely impacts of growth rates on local taxes (Ladd, 1994). The study found that capital expenditures increased markedly for all increases in growth rate. The report states: "Clearly, population growth puts significant pressure on capital budgets as communities struggle to increase their investment in roads, water and sewer systems, and public buildings." The report concludes that, not only does population growth increase per-capita tax burdens, it also tends to have a short-run effect of reducing local service quality. Oregon's Governor commissioned a task force in 1998 to review the impacts of growth in that state. The task force's report, Growth and Its Impact in Oregon (January 1999), included a review of fiscal impact literature related to growth. They concluded that the capital costs for off-site public facilities, such as sewer, water, transportation, drainage and schools, total $30,000 to $35,000 for a new single-family house. A number of studies have demonstrated a net savings to local taxpayers resulting from land conservation through easements or public land acquisition, as compared with the development alternative. Notes on Methodology There are 15 main categories of public facilities required to serve urban growth, as shown in the figure below. The first 11 categories are typically local government (city or county) or local service district (such as a school or water district). All of these facilities are funded primarily by residents of the local jurisdiction. The final four categories (electric, natural gas, waste disposal and cable/telecom) are typically provided by private utility franchises. These franchises tend to distribute new facility costs across their customer base in a similar manner as local governments use the tax base. This study was limited to an evaluation of the nine categories of infrastructure indicated with a star (*) in the figure. This limitation merely reflects the project's priorities and funding constraints. Columbia Policy Report Executive Summary: The Cost of Growth in Washington State p a g e i i Growth-Related Capital Costs for Public Facilities/Infrastructure · School Facilities (K-12)* · Sanitary Sewer System* · Storm Drainage System* · Transportation System* · Water Service Facilities* · Fire Protection Facilities* · Parkland, Open Space & Recreation Facilities* · Library Facilities* · Police Facilities · Corrections and Jail Facilities · General Government Facilities · Electric Power Generation and Distribution* · Natural Gas Distribution System · Solid Waste Disposal Facilities · Cable and Telecommunications Systems The environmental and social costs of growth are likely to be significant, but are difficult to quantify in absolute monetary terms. The values associated with environmental quality, natural amenities, livability and quality of life can, in many cases, be measured in economic terms. While additional research in this area would undoubtedly be productive, the fact is that even the most readily-quantifiable economic impacts of growth have yet to be adequately studied. The method used here is similar to that used to calculate development impact fees. The full capital costs of public facilities are apportioned to various land uses (residential, commercial and industrial) based on the amount of demand created by each. Unlike impact fee calculations, the costs developed in this study may include more than one jurisdiction. While impact fees are typically charged just for the city's or county's costs, these costs include all public sector cost regardless of whether they are paid through the city, county, state or federal government. The representative house used in this study is assumed to be located within an Urban Growth Area (UGA) with nearby public services. It is assumed that the density in an urban area will be higher than the value in the table below, since this data also includes rural development. Where a density value is required, a fairly typical net density of six units per acre is used. Lower-density sprawling development will usually cost more to serve than the house examined here due to the greater distances required for constructing roads, sewers, water lines, etcetera. Columbia Policy Report Executive Summary: The Cost of Growth in Washington State p a g e ii i Typical New Single-Family House Seattle-Everett Metro Area 'Characteristic New Houses* House Size Floor Area (sq.ft.) 2,095 Bedrooms 2.8 Lot Size (sq.ft.) 13,939 Development Density(units/net acre)** 3.1 Occupancy (total persons) 2.4 Floor Area/Occupant (sqft/person) 873 Land Area/Occupant (sqft/person) 5,808 Source: American Housing Survey. *Based on the median for .new houses constructed from 1993 to 1996. **Excludes land for streets. The capital costs of providing infrastructure to serve new growth is based primarily on actual cost data from recent capital projects around the state. All capital costs in this report are for June of 2000 unless stated otherwise. Costs for other years are adjusted using the Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index. It is important to note that all the costs evaluated here are off-site costs. A typical new subdivision includes local streets, sidewalks, water and sewer lines to serve each new lot. These are on-site costs and are the site development costs typically paid directly by the land developer. By contrast, off-site cost are for the schools, sewage treatment plants, arterial streets, fire stations and other off-site facilities that are need to serve the subdivision. Results The total cost to the public sector to provide the nine categories of infrastructure evaluated here is approximately $83,000 per single-family house, as shown in the table below. Most of these costs are due to the transportation system alone, at $56,000. Schools rank a distant second in terms of cost, but still represent a significant expense, at $9,800. Surprisingly large costs are associated with providing both electric power generation and distribution facilities ($8,100) and parks and recreation facilities ($6,000). A small fraction of these costs are paid directly by the development through impact fees. Assuming that average development impact fees total about $2,500 per new house, the net cost to the local community is still more than $80,000. Columbia Policy Report Executive Summa~: The Cost of Growth in Washington State p a g e i v Growth Cost Summary* New Single-Family House - Washington, 2000 Cost Item Amount Transportation Facilities School Facilities A Electric Power Generation and Distribution Facilities Parks and Recreation Facilities Sanitary Sewerage (plant only)B Library Facilities Water System Facilities (plant only)c Fire Protection Facilities Stormwater Drainage $56,000 $9,815 $8,127 $6,000 $1,930 $665 $348 $331 NAD Total: $83,216 * This is a summary of the capital costs reviewed in this study and is not a complete listing of growth-related costs. A) School facility costs can vary widely depending on local standards and demographics. B) Sewage collection system costs were not available. C) Water distribution system costs were not available. D) These costs are bome by the pdvate sector in Washington. Conclusions Based on the evaluation of costs to provide nine categories of public infrastructure in this study, typical residential growth creates a substantial capital cost burden to the local community of approximately $83,000 per new single-family house. Very little of this cost is paid by the development itself. The total extent of this cost burden is not widely know or reported. A rough estimate of the total annual statewide infrastructure cost associated with residential development is about $2.87 billion) This is equivalent to an annual cost of about $500 per person in the state. As noted in the report, many of these costs are not being paid directly, but are manifesting themselves in declining levels of service. This report helps explain why urban growth so often has a negative fiscal impact, as the new public facilities required - schools, roads, libraries, sewer mains, etc. - create heavy, multi-million-dollar cost burdens for the local governments. Most of these costs are borne by all residents of the community through broad-based taxes and are not paid by the ] This figure is based on a cost of $80,500 per new single-family house, which includes a reduction in costs by $2,500 to account for impact fees. Columbia Policy Report Executive Summary: The Cost of Growth in Washington State p a g e v developer or new home buyer. Fiscal impact analysis appears to be gaining recognition as an important tool for evaluating local land use and development policy decisions. A greater use of this analysis tool by local governments in Washington would shed needed light on how urban growth is impacting communities in the state. The negative fiscal impacts of growth reported in the literature are a result of the system of taxes and policies that acts to subsidize growth at the expense of all taxpayers. Policy- makers, if they wished, could act to remove these subsidies so that growth paid its own way and was not a financial burden on the residents of a community. Development impact fees are being used by some Washington cities and counties to help fund infrastructure. However, most local governments in the state charge no impact fees at all, and those that do often charge less than the full cost to serve new development. The use of impact fees represents an opportunity to better fund infrastructure needs and to achieve greater equity in revenue collection. The findings in this report are consistent with most of the literature on the subject. New urban growth creates demands on local governments for both expanded public services and new capital facilities. The high cost of the capital facilities shown here provides a possible explanation for the increasing tax rates and negative fiscal impacts associated with growth. Since rapid growth will dramatically increase demand for public facilities, this may explain findings in the literature showing that areas with the highest growth rates also have the highest tax increases. The research for this report would have been greatly facilitated had more local governments collected and reported capital costs associated with serving new growth in a useful way. While most local governments carefully distinguish dozens of line items, very few can distinguish growth-related costs from other costs. As citizens are becoming increasingly aware of the fiscal impacts of growth, local governments are beginning to provide better reporting of growth-related costs. Copies of the full report may be obtained from the Columbia Public Interest Policy Institute for a nominal charge: Columbia Public Interest Policy Institute 10020 Main Street, Suite A #358 Bellevue, WA 98004 1-888-200-6160 www.columbiapolicy, orfl Columbia Policy Report Executive Summary: The Cost of Growth in Washington State p a g e v i Dear County Commissioners. My name is Tonia Schmidt, and I live with my husband David close to where Center Road crosses highway 104. One branch of Chimacum Creek starts on our property, in a beautiful 10 acre forest. We are currently selling a conservation easement on this forest to Jefferson Land Trust so that the area around the creek will be protected forever and improve the stream for the returning salmon. I strongly support the proposed Conservation Futures Tax so that the county will have money to pay landowners like us who want to help preserve those special lands that deserve to be protected in Jefferson County. Thank you To the Board Of County Commissioners 11/27/00 .. Dear Richard Wojt, Dan Harpole, and Glenn Huntingford: My name is Kees Kolff and on behalf of Jefferson Land Trust I want to thank you for holding this hearing today on the Conservation Futures Tax which would help fund the protection of critical natural resources in Jefferson County. As you are well aware, your local land trust, which is a community-based nonprofit organization has been doing exactly this type of work already for over a decade in your county. We have extensive experience in working with private landowners on how they can voluntarily protect the lands they choose to preserve. Already we help protect over 800 acres of land, representing successful negotiations with over 35 landowners. For most of the acreage we protect, the land or a conservation easement was donated to the land trust. We know how people feel about land protection when it comes to their private property. Many people however can not afford to make such a donation, and therefore need to be compensated if their land is of critical value to the public, hence the need for this new tax. YOU HAVE PUBLIC SUPPORT We have the latest statistics from referenda on public open-space funding around the U.S. and they clearly show initiatives passing by an average of 75°/°: · More and more people are realizing that certain lands MUST be protected and that the time is now if we are going to be able to afford it. I believe that an article in the Leader recently stated that the Conservation Futures Tax would amount to $6.25 per $1,000 of property value, when in fact we are only talking about this amount of tax on $100,000 of assessed value. Let me read to you a letter from Tonia and David Schmidt, a wonderful young couple with strong roots in this county. (quote) We have received notice from dozens of other individuals who could not be here today, urging the same thing. And there are many in this room who came to show their support but in order to not waste too much of your time, have agreed to not testify. LOCAL CONTROL VIA AN ADVISORY BOARD The beauty of this program is that it allows for local control by the County with advice from a Conservation Futures Advisory Board We can assure you that the call for people to fill these positions will yield a prompt response, since we have already identified 8 qualified people who would be eager to so. SELECTION OF LANDS TO BE PROTECTED Many individuals and organizations collaborated with the County several years ago to develop a map depicting what at that time seemed to be the most critical areas for "future collaborative protection efforts". It includes most of the watersheds in the county. This map is currently part of the County's Comprehensive Plan, and though it will require some updating, it can serve as a useful starting point when the full Advisory Board begins the process of prioritization for land protection. COST OF IMPLEMENTING THE FUND The costs of implementing this program can be totally supported by funds generated. Through creative agreements with other local entities such as the land trust, the county will be able to maximize the lands it seeks to protect and have the community involved in long-term management and monitoring. Through creative leveraging, this small fund could yeild almost $3 million for land protection purposes. SUMMARY Jefferson Land Trust has worked with you and County staff over the past few years to help educate all of us on the experience of others and the options open to us for this type of funding. The time to act is now. The precious natural resources that need protection in Jefferson County will never be cheaper. We would be happy to work with you in the future to help make this important source of revenue for open space preservation a reality. Sincerely, !~___~ Kees Kolff, President Jefferson Land Trust $6.9 Billion Committed To Open Space Protection Page 1 of 3 LAND TRUST ALLIANCE tlE1. PING PEOPLE PROTEC'F I. AND FHROUGH I'HE NATION'S I~AND TRU3'TS 83 Percent Of Referenda Passed More Than $7.3 Billion Committed To Open Space Protection State-by-State Listing~ -- Summary. of Results -- Voters Invest Report -- Contact Us Nov. 15, 2000 - Voters overwhelmingly approved ballot measures to fund open space protection in 2000, according to the Land Trust Alliance (LTA), which has gathered' the results of such elections for the past three years. So far, LTA data show that 168 of 205 such ballot questions passed in 2000, providing more than $7.3 billiOn for land conservation. In most of these referenda, voters approved tax increases to pay for land conservation. LTA is still tracking results for referenda that were on ballots Election Day. The 2000 results reflect voters' continuing support for open space protection. In 1999, voters passed 90 percent of the 102 referenda, authorizing more than $1.8 billion in local taxing authority and bonds for open space preservation In 1998, voters passed 84 percent of 148 referenda across the country, providing approximately $8.3 billion to open space protection. "Clearly, people are tremendously concerned about what their communities will look like in the future, and they are very willing to invest their tax money to protect parks, farms, forests and fields," noted LTA Public Policy Director Russ Shay. State-by-State Listings (Only states with referenda are listed.) Provisional Results Updated Regularly Last Update: 11/15/00 http ://www. lta. org/policy/referenda2000.html 11/22/00 $6.9 Billion Committed To Open Space ProteCtion Page 2 of 3 AZ CA CO CT FL GA IL MA MD ME MI MN MO MT NC NJ_ NM .NV NY OH OK OR PA RI SC TX VA WA WI All Referenda Summary of Results to Date (Includes both November 7th elections and elections held earlier in 2000) Total # of Passage rate to Total funds Referenda Passed Failed date Committed by Voters* 205 168 35 83% $7,308,892,754 *Click here for an explanation of how we calculate this. Voters Invest in Open Space Available in Print As in 1999 and 1998, LTA will publish the detailed final results of referenda. Every LTA Sponsor and Affiliate member will receive a free copy of the report, Voters Invest in Open Space: 2000 Referenda Results, shipped February 2001. If you would like to be notified via e-mail when this publication is available for purchase, please send a message to votersinvest~lta.org. Referendum Not Listed Here? Contact Us! If your community's referendum for parks and open space is not listed here, please send that information to Lynn Scherer (email: LSCHERER~lta.org). The Land Trust Alliance appreciates the help of the Trust for Public Land in assembling the data. © Do not reprOduce, distribute, or use without the permission of the Land Trust Alliance. (updated 11/20/00) Return to LTA's Public Policy page. Learn more about LTA's Land Trust ADVOCATES E-mail Network. http://www.lta.org/policy/referenda2000.html 11/22/00 : $6.9 Billion Committed To Open Sp.ace Protection Page 3 of 3 [Home] [News] [Standards & Practices] [Regional Programs] [.Useful Web Sites] [Books from LTA] [What is a Land Trust ] [Protect Your Land.] The Land Trust Alliance 1331 H St NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20005 phone 202-638-4725; fax 202-638-4730 ~ Feedback Major funding provided by the Liz Claiborne & Art Ortenberg Foundation and the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation. © Copyright 2000 Land Trust Alliance http ://www.lta.org/policy/referenda2000.html 11/22/00