HomeMy WebLinkAbout052lr) T:T T\F-T\NE'
APR Z 0 201s
Memorandum
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
EA Engineering, Science,
and Technology, lnc., PBC
2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 707
Seattle, WA 98121
Telephone: 206.452.5350
Fax: 206.443.7646
David Johnson and Craig Peck
Kristy Hollinger and Rich Schipanski
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, lnc., PBC.
Following is an overview of fiscal-related comments (tax and job issues) that were raised on the
Draff SE/S, together with a summary of items which will need to be addressed by a technical
expert. 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
(por7 Townsend), These entities have free reign as to where and how it's spent, and
citizens of Brinnon bear brunt of traffic and safety. Levies attached to our propefty taxes
will not be available until Phase 4 and Full Build Out are achieved"
a
a
April20, 2015
Proposed Amendment Final SEIS - Response to Fiscal Gomments
Letter 7, Comment 6 - "Local government and all county taxpayers will experience high
taxes/fewer se/vlces" "Developer does not pay sufficient taxes to cover costs of
infrastructure and public servlces needed by the resort itself, resort members, and resort
employees"
Letter 8 Comment 5 - "What costs will be put to the area and state citizens? For
instance, road repair from additional traffic the resort will bring. Utility costs. Medical
facilities. Taxation."
a
Letter 9, CommentlT - "revealthe true impacts on the localeconomy from the
proposed MPR during construction and operation"
Letter 9, Comment f I - "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
services during and after construction and anange to pay fhose cosfs, above what is
paid in taxes, to local and county government."
Letter 7, Comment 10 - "Taxpayers will subsidize road improvement and repair for
heavy equipment. Developer to prepare analysis of true cosfs of road improvement and
repair and make provisions to pay for those services fo sfafe and local government
entities."
Letter 7, Comment 1 -'lt [resoft] may raise utility rates for south county.
Letter 7, Comment 37 - "Developer to present agreement with PUD for public review,
including possibility of rate rncreases for all rate payers".
Letter 7, Comment I - "prepare a report of the services used by employees with wages
below the Brinnon AMI and an estimate of the cosf of fhose services. Developer to pay
for cosfs of servlces to these 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 seryices. "
Letter 40, Comment 6- Most of the jobs will be below family wage so there will be a
high rate of poverty. Most of the jobs are seasonal, minimum wage, and part time. Could
leave more people added to the community in poverty, on Medicaid, and straining limited
local resources. Mosf 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:
ldentifit/quantifo the tax revenue that could be generated by the operation and
construction of the resort, employees and visitors.
ldentify how wil! 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.
PTEASANT HARBOR FINAL SEIS
Response to Fiscal Comments
lR,r0t;,ul't/iDIl i
APR 2 0 2015
rtrtitl${Jil| l]tltJIIIY D[D
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 - "Stote toxes collected mostly go to Olympio and County seot (port
Townsend). These entities have free reign os to where and how it's spent, and citizens of Brinnon
bear brunt of troffic ond sofety. Levies attoched to our property toxes will not be ovoiloble until
Phose 4 ond Full Build Out ore ochieved"
a
a
a
a
a
a
Letter 7, Comment 6 - "Locol government ond oll county toxpoyers will experience high
taxes/fewer services" "Developer does not pay sufficient toxes to cover costs of infrqstructure
and public services needed by the resort itself, resort members, ond resort employees"
Letter 8 Comment 5 - "What costs will be put to the area and state citizens? For instance, road
repair from additional traffic the resort will bring. Utility costs. Medical facilities. Taxation."
Letter 9, CommentLT - "reveal the 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
capital facilities 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 true costs of infrastructure ond public services
during ond ofter construction and orronge to poy those costs, above whot is poid in toxes, to
locol ond county gove rnment."
Letter 7, Comment 70 - "Taxpayers will subsidize road improvement and repoir for heavy
equipment. Developer to prepare onolysis of true costs of rood improvement and repair ond
moke provisions to poy for those services to stote and local government entities".
a
a
Letter 7, Comment 7 - "lt [resort] moy roise utility rotes for south county.
Letter 7, Comment 37 - "Developer to present ogreement with PUD for public review, including
possibility of rote increoses for oll rote poyers.
a
a
a
Letter 7, Comment I "prepore o report of the services used by employees with woges below the
Brinnon AMI ond an estimote of the cost of those services. Developer to poy for costs of services
to these employees provided by tax funded entities. "
Letter30, Comment 5 The promised jobs would likely poy poorly, ond not enoble workers to be
finonciolly independent. We would end up supporting them through our community services.
Letter 40, Comment 6- Most of the jobs will be below fomily wage so there will be a high rate of
poverty. Most of the jobs are seosonol, minimum wage, and part time. Could leave more people
odded to the community in poverty, on Medicoid, ond straining limited locol resources. Most
construction jobs will go with the large compony hired to build resort. Might not hire locolly.
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. will the
project cost more than the tax revenue it brings in?)
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)
a
a
a
a
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 is now based on an outdated phasing plan, and a7-year
buildout, as opposed to 10-year buildout that is assumed in the 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 EIS and the other technical reports. ln particular, the estimates
of operational and construction employment must match those in Wright Johnson report.
a