The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About051Michelle Farfan From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Hollinger, Kristy < khollinger@eaest.com > Monday, April 20, 2015 11:08 AM peckassoc@comcast.neU David W. Johnson (djohnson@cojefferson,wa,us); Schipanski, Rich RE: Fiscal Issues Fiscal Comment Responses Memo.pdf Hi Craig, sorry we lost you there at the end of the call. Attached is the document we discussed this morning, in a memo format. Also, I checked the comment assignments and confirmed that TENW was assigned responsibility for responding to comments about Duckabush Road. Craig, do you know the status of Mike Reed's proposal for responding to comments, is that already finalized? We want to make sure that he adds baseline traffic counts to Duckabush Road to his scope of work. Let me know if you would like me to discuss with Mike. Also, for everyone's reference, I checked the transportation report from the Draft SEIS, and it looks like the trip distribution assumes only 3 percent of trips would go to Duckabush Road - so around 120 trips per day. Thank you, Kristy Kristy M. Hollinger Planner EIT EA Engineering, Science and Technology, lnc., PBC 2200 Sinh Ave, Suite 707 | Seattle, WA 98121 (t) 206.452.5350 ext. 1726 | (f) 206.443.7646 khollinser@eaest.com http://www.eaest.com ^.fl euto." printing, think about ENVTRoNMEI{TAL responsibility From: peckassoc@comcast.net Imailto:peckassoc@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 9:46 AM To: Hollinger, Kristy Cc: David W. Johnson (djohnson @co.jefferson.wa. us); Schipanski, Rich Subject: Re: Fiscal Issues My phone connection stopped. Although I think we were almost finished with our discussion lf there is more - please advise. Thank you, Have a good week. 1 Craig From: "Kristy Hollinger" <khollinqer@eaest.com> To: "David W. Johnson (diohnson@co.iefferson.wa.us)" <diohnson@co.iefferson.wa.us>, "peckassoc@comcast.net" <peckassoc@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 8:16:02 AM Subject: Fiscal lssues Hi David and Craig, Attachedisabrief overviewoffiscalcommentsraisedontheDraftSEIS,andissueswhichneedtobeaddressed. Thisis for your review before Craig sends along to Garth. I have also attached the report which could possibly serve as a starting point for answering these issues, if it is updated and expanded. We will talk to you soon, Kristy Kristy M. Hollinger Planner @b EA Engineering, Science and Technology, Inc., PBC 2200 Sixth Ave, Suite 707 (t) 206.452.5350 exl. 1726 Seattle, WA 98121 (f) 206.443.7646 khollinger@eaest.com http://www.eaest.com $ a"ro." printing, think about ENVIRoNMENTAL responsibility 2 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, lnc., PBC 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 707 Seattle, WA 98121 Telephone: 206.452.5350 Fax: 206.443.7646 Memorandum To: From: Date: Sublect: David Johnson and Craig Peck Kristy Hollinger and Rich Schipanski EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, lnc., PBC. April20,2015 Proposed Amendment Final SEIS - Response to Fiscal Gomments Following is an overuiew of fiscal-related comments (tax and job issues/ that were raised on the Draft SE/S, together with a summary of items which will need to be addressed by a technical expeft. As dlscussed, we assume that Craig will coordinate with Gafth Mann in order to obtain resolution on these issues. A number of fiscal-related comments were raised on the Draft SEIS regarding the project's potential impact to the community in relation to taxes generated v. burdens, as well as potential costs to the community resulting from low wage jobs. Below are examples of representative comments: Letter 38, Comment 24 -'Sfafe taxes collected mostly go to Olympia and County seat (port Townsend). These entities have free reign as to where and how it's spent, and citizens of Binnon bear brunt of traffic and safety. Levies attached to our property taxes will not be available until Phase 4 and Full Build Out are achieved" a a Letter 7, Comment 6 - "Local govemment and all county taxpayers will experience high taxes/fewer se/'vices" "Developer does not pay sufficient taxes to cover costs of infrastructure and public services needed by the resort itself , resort members, and resort employees" Letter 8 Comment 5 - "\y'y'hat costs will be put to the area and state citizens? For instance, road repair from additionaltraffic the resort will bring. Utility costs. Medical facilities. Taxation." a Letter 9, CommentlT - "revealthe true impacts on the local economy from the proposed MPR during construction and operation" Letter 9, Comment 18 - "A study of fiscal and economic impacts of destination resort in Oregon concluded that, after subtracting the costs for services from the gross property and room tax revenue generated by the study resort, only a modest net surplus remained. When cost of capitalfacilities including roads, schools, fire and police stations, and others is also accounted for, the net cost to local taxpayers is substantial even after accounting for all known payments the resort would be required to make" Letter 7, Comment 6 - "Developer to identify frue cosfs of infrastructure and public serylces duing and after construction and arrange to pay those cosfs, above what is paid in faxes, to local and county govemment." Letter 7, Comment 10 - "Taxpayers will subsidize road improvement and repairfor heavy equipment. Developer to prepare analysis of true costs of road imprcvement and repair and make provisions to pay for those services to state and local government entities." Letter 7, Comment 1 - "lt [resort] may raise utility rates for south county Letter 7, Comment 37 - "Developer to present agreement with PUD for public review, including possibility of rateincreases for all rate payers". Letter 7, Comment I - "prepare a report of the services used by employees with wages below the Binnon AMI and an estimate of the cosf of those servlces. Developer to pay forcosfs of seryrbes fo fhese employees provided by tax funded entities." Letter30, Comment 5 - "The promised jobs would likely pay poorly, and not enable workers to be financially independent. We would end up suppofting them through our community services. " Letter 40, Comment 6- Most of the jobs will be below family wage so there will be a high rate of povefty. Most of the jobs are seasona/, minimum wage, and paft time. Could leave more people added to the community in poverty, on Medicaid, and straining limited local resources. Most construction jobs will go with the large company hired to build resoft. Might not hire locally. ln order to adequately respond to these comments in the Final SEIS, and ensure a defensible document, we recommend having a consultant address the following issues: ldentify/quantify the tax revenue that could be generated by the operation and construction of the resort, employees and visitors. ldentify how will this tax revenue be distributed locally (i.e. what is Jefferson County's capture rate). ldentify the tax burden (cost) that the resort, its employees and visitors will result in, in terms of additional population placing demands on public infrastructure and public services (i.e. willthe project cost more than the tax revenue it brings in?) a a a a a a a a a a a a a ldentify the impact of jobs that are at or below 80 percent of the AMI in terms of demand for community/public services that could be generated. (Refer to Letter 7, Comment 8) Some of the above identified issues were addressed in a previous report that was prepared: "Summary of Pleasant Harbor lmpacts: Job Creation and Value Added to National Economy". This report, however, is undated and authored, and appears to be based on an old phasing plan, and a7-year build-out, as opposed to 1O-year build-out that is assumed in the Draft SEIS lf this report is updated to address the fiscal issues, it is essential that it contain information that is consistent with what is analyzed in the Draft SEIS and the other technical reports which support the Draft SEIS. ln particular, the estimates of operational and construction employment must match those in Wright Johnson report of October 2014.