Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout011 09 CC'. J:H '.);L/3{ if{ \ (C'Q.S " STATE OF WASHINGTON County of Jefferson Resolution to Reallocate Conservation Futures Funds } And Transfer $7,500 from the Tarboo Creek } Conservation Project to the Upper Tarboo Creek } Conservation Easement Project in Accord with } Ordinance No. 06-0708-02 to Provide A System of } Public Open Spaces } RESOLUTION NO. 11-09 WHEREAS. Conservation Futures Tax Levy collections, authorized under RCW 84.34.230 are an important means of retaining community character and accomplishing open space policies and objectives ofthe Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan that encourage the coordinated acquisition of key open space lands for long term protection, WHEREAS, Jefferson County is authorized by RCW 84.34.210 and 84.34.220 to acquire open space land, agricultural and timber lands, as defined in RCW 84.34.220, WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 07-0708-02 allows the reallocation of unexpended project allocations, WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners awarded the Tarboo Creek Conservation Project $7,500 in conservation futures funds on July 14,2008 but those funds are no longer needed to complete the project, WHEREAS, the project sponsor, Northwest Watershed Institute, has requested that these funds be reallocated to the Upper Tarboo Creek Conservation Easement Project which was granted partial conservation futures funding on June 4,2007, WHEREAS, no conservation futures funds have been expended to complete the Tarboo Creek Conservation Project, WHEREAS, the Conservation Futures Citizen Oversight Committee recommends that the request by Northwest Watershed Institute be granted, Page 1 of2 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED, that: 1. Jefferson County hereby reallocates $7,500 from the Tarboo Creek Conservation Project to the Upper Tarboo Creek Conservation Easement Project. 2. Jefferson County hereby removes the Tarboo Creek Conservation Project from the list of projects approved for funding using the county's Conservation Futures Fund. February ,2009 in Port Townsend, Page 2 of2 Northwest Watershed Institute 3407 Eddy Street I Port Townsend, Washington 98368 voice 360.385.6786 fax 360.385.2839 emaii peter@nwwatershed.org I www.nwwatershed.org December 19,2008 Jefferson County Conservation Futures Committee Jefferson County PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, W A 98368 Dear Conservation Futures Committee, I would first like to thank you for your support over the years for the Tarboo Creek conservation work. The committee recommended $7,500 in 2008 Conservation Futures funds toward the Tarboo Creek project. However, we have been able to find other sources of funds. The property was purchased by NWI on December 17,2008. This 24 acre property, including important springs, wetlands and forest in the Tarboo valley, will be added to the Tarboo Fish and Wildlife Preserve for management by NWI and permanently protected with a conservation easement donated to the Jefferson Land Trust. Although NWI no longer needs the funds for this project, we definitely do to successfully complete another Conservation Futures project in the Tarboo watershed that received partial funding. I would like to propose that the Conservation Futures Committee recommend dedicating this $7,500 toward the 2007 Conservation Futures Project for Upper Tarboo Creek. This project is for the purchase of a conservation easement on 50 acres along 1/3 mile of upper Tarboo Creek near the junction ofDabob and Center Road. Conservation Futures approved $150,000 of a $163,819 request due to a lack of sufficient funds. The approved funding pays Y2 of the value of a conservation easement, but none of the associated costs of an appraisal, drafting the conservation easement, real estate transaction costs, baseline report or NWI staff costs. NWI purchased the Upper Tarboo property in 2007 under a time-limited option agreement with Pope Resources and with the help of a private loan. We are seeking matching funds to secure the property for conservation before the loan is due and before the end of the Conservation Futures time period for projects expires. If possible, NWI would appreciate this additional $7,500 in funding dedicated to the project as we continue to work hard to seek matching funds. Sincerely, fJ~ Peter Bahls Director DRAFT Jefferson County Conservation Futures Committee Monday, January 5, 2009 3:00 - 6:00 PM Chimacum Community Center, Chimacum, WA DRAFT Minutes * Decisions and action items are indicated in bold font. Members Present: Phil Andrus, District 2; Herb Beck, District 3; George Bush, District 1; Jerry Gorsline, District 2; Janet Kearsley, District 1; Chris Llewellyn, Agriculture; Barbara McColgan Pastore, City of Port Townsend; Sarah Spaeth, Jefferson Land Trust; John Wood, District 1 Members Absent: Lige Christian, District 2 (Excused); Dennis Schultz, Conservation District (Resigned) Guests: Peter Bahls County Staff Present: Tami Pokorny, Water Quality Division Alison Campfield, Water Quality Division Gail Bernhard, Recorder I. Call to Order: Chair Chris Llewellyn called the meeting to order at 3:00 PM on January 5, 2009. II. Review of Aoenda: Members approved the agenda as written, but agreed that the NWI proposal item would be moved to earlier in the agenda when Peter Bahls arrived. III. Aooroval of Minutes: Phil Andrus moved for approval of the minutes for October 13, 2008; Janet Kearsley seconded. The minutes were approved, as written, all in favor. IV. Observer comments: None v. Old Business: Presentation of Recommendations to the BOCC and Legal Opinion Jerry Gorsline reported that he had presented his letter to the BOCC, who were receptive to all the recommendations regarding program changes. (The letter had been previewed by allCFFC members.) The BOCC had requested a legal review, which has since been provided. Copies of the review by Deputy Prosecutor David Alvarez, dated December 2, were distributed. Page 10f9 DRAFT Sarah Spaeth offered a friendly amendment to the effect that the appraisal currency requirement be consistent with other programs. She said that some programs, such as the State, allow extension up to 18 months, upon request. Chris Llewellyn spoke in favor of leaving the maximum at two years. She questioned whether adjustment of value up or down, at the discretion of the CFFC, may also be possible. Barbara McColgan Pastore commented that any such flexibility could be considered arbitrary and that an expert opinion was required. Herb Beck added that the decisions of the CFFC must be defensible and backed up with expert advice. Tami Pokorny suggested that, if the goal is consistency, the language should be changed to link the appraisal shelf life to the State's Recreation Conservation Office timeline, Le. 12 to 18 months. Barbara McColgan Pastore restated the motion incorporating the friendly amendment: Modify the language in the draft to specify that the appraisal must be no more than a year old unless the applicant requests an extended period, up to a total of 18 months, and furnishes supporting documentation for the extension consistent with State grant funding. John Woods said that he was reading the memo from David Alvarez differently. He read aloud the beginning of the response to question 2 regarding what constitutes a gift. He also cited the portion regarding the courts. Mr. Wood said, "What it means is, all the court is going to say is 'Did you get something? The court will not look at whether you got adequate consideration." In response to a follow up question by Mr. Beck, Mr. Wood explained that it means that the 'whole appraisal business is unnecessary'. That is, you may have an appraisal process, but it is not required. Mr. Wood suggested that if there is an appraisal process, the applicant may submit an appraisal that is two years old, but within 90 days before receiving the funds, you must get an update from the appraiser to confirm that the value has not dropped. There was a discussion noting that this need not be unduly complicated or expensive because the appraiser can base his/her judgment on the prevailing upward or downward market trends in the area. Sarah Spaeth agreed, but noted that under certain market conditions, the seller may find himself in a position where he has not lined up sufficient grant money to complete the project. Several members noted that that possibility should not drive the CFFC requirements. John Woods said that the greater risk for the County is an out of date appraisal following a downturn in the market. George Bush said that it made more sense to follow the typical/standard State process and timeliness requirement than to invent a unique one. John Wood said he agreed that the process should be simpler, but in a different way. He repeated that he did not think an expert appraisal was needed, but if it is used, it must be very current. He maintained that the appropriate function of the CFFC is to exercise their combined wisdom/best judgment, to ensure the best value for the County without relying on outside opinion, using assessed value as the starting point. Page3of9 DRAFT $150,000 CF award. NWI had purchased the Upper Tarboo property in 2007 under a time-limited option agreement with Pope Resources and with the help of a private loan. It is seeking matching funds to secure the property for conservation before the loan is due and before the Conservation Futures time period for the project expires. Herb Beck stated that he is in favor of CF funds being applied only to the purchase of the easement and not to the associated costs listed in paragraph two of the letter. Peter Bahls reviewed the budget for the project, noting that the $150,000 would pay for half the easement, and that they were still trying to find the matching funds and money for this $13,819 shortfall between the request and the CF award. Janet Kearsley and other members clarified that Conservation Futures does pay for associated costs such as appraisal, real estate transaction costs, etc. Ms. Kearsely inquired as to whether the CFFC has authority to transfer the funds. Tami Pokorny said it is within the purview of the committee to make a recommendation. She pointed out that some decision must be made to deal with the unused funds. That is, the project must be closed and the funds reallocated either to another project or into the pool of available funds. The BOCC would make the final decision. George Bush noted that the original intention had been to fund the full $163,819 but sufficient CF funds were not available. This would be an opportunity to follow through on the original process and therefore would not constitute an addition of funds. He did question whether or not the matching funds would be found. Peter Bahls said that while that is always a concern, NWI has a track record of getting all of its projects done, including those not funded by the CFF. Barbara McColgan Pastore explained two reservations. First, she believes that transfer of funds would constitute an action totally outside the established transparent funding cycle process. Second, although the CFFC is obligated to work within the funding cycle process, the BOCC is responsible for all decisions. She believes that Mr. Bahls is free to make his request to the BOCC. Per the policies that have been set up, it would not be appropriate for the CFFC to approve the transfer. She said that the only appropriate option would be for the $7,500 to be returned to the CF pool for disbursement in the next year. She pointed out that there were several other unfunded projects. Jerry Gorsline asked for clarification on whether or not all associated costs listed are covered, particularly NWI staff costs. Tami Pokorny said that staff costs are limited to 5% of total project costs, but all of that had been documented in the original application. John Wood expressed his concern with re-opening what is actually a closed case. He offered another example of a request to send funds from one project to another. He said that it would seem that any type of change in funding would require re-application in a subsequent funding cycle. Any other transaction would have the appearance of an insider deal. Jerry Gorsline asked if there is any precedent. Sarah Spaeth relayed what she considered to be a slight precedent. The Land Trust had applied for funding for Winona Page 5of9 DRAFT CFF Manual Update and Review Tami Pokorny noted that since the Manual was not approved in December, there would be opportunity for additions and refinements before adoption for the 2010 funding round. In addition to the appraisal requirement changes, the topic of option agreements (versus actual closings) should be considered and included. Barbara McColgan Pastore cited the NWI Tarboo Project and the time-limited option from Pope Resources as an example. Tami said that options from the State lock in the value of the property as if it had been purchased outright. She said the Manual should provide clarity for sponsors/applicants on this and other topics. Tami Pokorny mentioned the PDN article and other helpful press from The Leader and the Forks Forum. One error was that the PDN had reported this meeting as being one of the workshops. Regarding the first workshop in Forks on January 6, Tami said she had contacted a number of people on the west side of the County, and there was interest. Tami Pokorny had also developed a list of potential sponsors in Jefferson County: Land Trust, Jefferson County Historical Society; Northwest Maritime Center, Northwest Watershed Institute; Northwest Natural Resources Group; Organic Seed Alliance; Port Townsend Marine Science Center and NOSC (North Olympic Salmon Coalition); the Audubon Society is also a possibility. Jefferson Land Trust is the only organization that has co-held easements. The RCW that is applicable to the CF program references does not mention federal agencies, but references 64.04.130 which expands the pOSSible sponsor list. There was a discussion about the rationale and ramifications of requiring a local sponsor. Sarah Spaeth said that this could pOSSibly result in a capacity issue for Jefferson Land Trust in the future. There is also recognition of voter sensitivity to maintaining local control and assessment of the needs of the County. There was agreement to retain the local sponsor requirement and to review it further if problems arise in the future. There was also acknowledgement that organizations outside the County should find ways to partner with local sponsors, as appropriate and necessary. Chris Llewellyn expressed her hope that the series of CFF workshops will help expand the number of sponsors and applicants. There was also discussion about the location of the DNR Forks headquarters, which is outside the County, versus their jurisdiction, which includes the County. Tami clarified that the application checklist language indicates that the organization must based in Jefferson County. A target date of March 1, 2009 was set for committee members to submit edits to the Manual draft to Tami Pokorny. Tami confirmed that the Manual had been pulled from legal review temporarily and would not be officially adopted until the 2010 funding cycle. [At this point in the meeting, after clarification about the status of the draft minutes, the committee approved the minutes of the October 13 meeting; see above, IlL] Page 7 of 9 DRAFT Sarah Spaeth noted that questions for her had been raised at the October 13 meeting, which she did not attend. She provided a summary of Land Trust policy and practice relatedto stewardship costs and enforcementauthority. Recalling an earlier presentation for the CFFC by the Land Trust Stewardship Director, she said there are two elements to stewardship: monitoring on an annual basis and enforcement when the terms of an agreement have been violated. The Land Trust sets aside funding from each project; the interest can pay for monitoring. This is a pooled fund, based on formulas provided by the national Land Trust movement, which can be applied to legal process, as needed. Currently, this endowment has a value of about $300,000. She explained that the national movement has been investigating options for an insurance policy for enforcement of conservation easements. Within the last month, they have recommended a program for a pooled insurance fund. This is a trust for any agency that holds easements, at a cost of about $50 per conservation easement; it has a deductible of $5,000 and allowable expenses of up to $500,000 for enforcement. Sarah Spaeth clarified that the Land Trust considers this process to be an upholding of its promise to the original landowner, and they are not concerned about negative public perception if the need arises to take legal enforcement action. Phil Andrus asked if the Jefferson Land Trust could reduce the size of the endowment if the insurance approach is implemented. Sarah Spaeth said that funds are still needed for monitoring and fulfilling other obligations. She noted that on average an easement will need to be legally defended every 60 years; the average cost is about $35,000 to $50,000. In response to a question, she said the endowment is held in low risk investments. There are currently about 35 conservation easements held. Chair Llewellyn reviewed responsibilities for upcoming public workshops: Forks - Jerry Gorsline, Sarah Spaeth and Tami Pokorny will attend; Brinnon - Chris Llewellyn, Sarah and Tami; Port Hadlock - George Bush, Sarah and Tami. The workshop agenda which had been e-mailed to committee members was briefly reviewed. Tami agreed that she would provide a large map, brochures, the draft manual and a few copies of the smaller map that is on the web. New Business Review of Budget Tami Pokorny reported that the fund balance is $847,842.62. To arrive at the amount of money available for the next funding round, there is a calculation based on the ending cash balance for the previous year ($920,331). That figure is found by subtracting all expenses and commitments from the beginning (2008) balance, and adding in revenues. Up to $24,000 in expenses for expenses is allowable. There is a working capital reserve of 10%. The net of that calculation process leaves $275,000 for this funding round. 15% of the 2008 revenue ($ 240,000) is designated for 0 & M, i.e. $36,000. She also listed the standing commitments for various projects. Tami agreed to provide written budget summaries to committee members in the future. Page Bof9 DRAFT Committee Vacancy and Availability Dennis Schultz has sent a letter of resignation to the BOCC, which leaves one vacancy on the Conservation Futures Committee. Tami explained that Mr. Schultz had represented the Conservation District, which is not guaranteed a seat. It may be filled by a person representing any relevant interest. AI Latham, Conservation District, has been notified of the resignation. There was a brief discussion about advertising the position. Tami noted that, to her knowledge, newspaper advertising for a CFFC position has not been effective. She urged members to help find qualified candidates in time for participation in this year's evaluation process. Tami also mentioned that since Lige Christian is out of town during a significant portion of this evaluation cycle, it is important for all other committee members to attend the application meeting and the ranking meeting in order to participate in the ratings. She said the schedule should be adjusted if the planned dates present a problem for anyone. After a review of the calendar, the committee made two changes: applicant presentations were moved to Thursday, March 12 from 2 to 5 PM; the project ranking meeting was moved to Monday, April 20 from 2 to 6 PM. Tami also confirmed that the Ordinance and Bylaws are online. Election of Officers Chair Llewellyn confirmed that she did not wish to serve as Chair for another year, but would remain as a member representing Agricultural Interests. She called for nominations. Sarah Spaeth nominated Jerry Gorsline for the Chair position; Herb Beck seconded the nomination. Mr. Gorsline was elected Chair by unanimous vote. George Bush nominated Phil Andrus for Vice Chair; John Wood seconded the nomination. Mr. Andrus was elected Vice Chair by unanimous vote. Committee members expressed their appreciation to Ms. Llewellyn and Mr. Gorsline for their service of the past year, and congratulated Mr. Gorsline and Mr. Andrus on their elections. Tami Pokorny confirmed that all administrative items had been covered. Observer Comments - None Adjournment Chair Llewellyn adjourned the meeting at 4:56 PM. Page 9of9 Jefferson County Conservation Futures Committee Thursday, April 10, 2007 2:00w6:40 PM WSU Extension, Spruce Room, Port Hadlock, W A EXCERPTS from the FINAL Minutes FUNDING Chair Christian opened a discussion about the committee's strategy for funding. He described several options: partial funding for all or some; or allocation of full funding to one or two projects; or approving one or more projects but acknowledging the constriction of funds. Bill Wheeler noted that, in his opinion, all of the five applicants are worthy of funding, but it is necessary to understand that for some projects, partial funding may be inappropriate and ineffective. Barbara McColgan Pastore said that she believes it important to give the ranking of the projects based on the rating numbers independently of the funding recommendation, If so, if any project proves to be infeasible, the BoCC will have information to reallocate funds. Chair Christian summarized by saying that full funding only limits the options and makes Tarboo, Glendale and Tamanowas Rock exclusionary to each other. He said that it is a viable action to consider partial funding for all projects. Tami Pokorny verified that the total amount of funding available was $380,000 - 29,000 of which can be 0 & M. Chair Christian noted that based on the raw numbers, the rankings would be: 1. Glendale Farm; 2. Winona; 3. Tarboo; 4. SOth Street; S. Tamanowas. Barbara McColgan Pastore noted that even if the arithmetic error had not been made and the points for Criteria 1 had been added in, it would not have changed the rank of Tamanowas. Chair Christian asked if there was anyone who wished to speak for Tamanowas not being Sth in the final ranking. Tami Pokorny noted that the role of Janet Kearsley in the ranking process should be clarified. It was suggested that Janet Kearsley should not vote on ranking the Upper Tarboo project and should refrain from any comments or references to that project during the discussion. All present were in agreement. There were no comments regarding the Tamanowas ranking. Chair Christian called for a motion. Phil Andrus moved that Tamanowas be ranked as number 5 in the overall project rankings and Barbara McColgan Pastore seconded that. The motion was unanimously approved. Chair Christian noted that, of the remaining four projects, three were very close in ratings. Glendale Farm held the highest rating by a margin of about 10%. He asked if anyone wished to speak in favor or against ranking Glendale Farm as number one. Barbara McColgan Pastore said that she endorsed Glendale Farm as the top project. She said that this is a different type of project than has been funded in the past, extremely worthy of CFCC recognition and support, and moved for it to be ranked as number one. Phil Andrus seconded the motion. Chair Christian opened the floor for discussion. George Bush said the Glendale Farm project is a great project, standing on its own. He said, "However, looking at the county-wide boundaries of these projects, I think the Upper Tarboo project protects a greater extent and amount of wild lands and the dependent wildlife, particularly considering the value of the estuary it feeds. I would rank it ahead of Glendale Farm, but the composite ranklngs do not support that." Dennis Schultz said Conservation Futures Fund has several goals; protecting wildlife is one and protecting agriculture is another of equal importance. George Bush said that he believed the farm would remain a farm regardless of what CFCC does. Dennis Schultz responded that that was not the case, that there were serious discussions in other farm families about breaking land up into 20 acre parcels. There was further discussion about the probabilities of losing the farm land to housing developments. Barbara McColgan Pastore discussed the experience of Clallam County and Sequim, noting that zoning or Comprehensive Plans could not block development. She said that there is a clear threat. Barbara McColgan Pastore also mentioned the worth of organic farming and the possibilities that could arise for related small businesses and employment, such as Port Townsend Creamery. She said that Upper Tarboo is a worthy project but she supported the ranking of Glendale Farm as a clear number one. Jerry Gorsline suggested that the committee seriously consider Upper Tarboo as number two. Barbara McColgan Pastore noted that acting supportively on the Glendale Farm funding could be a very important first step in changing the direction taken by other farms. Chris Llewellyn suggested that later on the committee investigate the possibility of giving tax payers the option of directing contributions to the Conservation Futures Fund. There was support from several members for that idea, and agreement that it could be pursued at a later date. Hearing no further discussion, Chair Christian called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Chair Christian said that the three other projects should be discussed in the order of raw rank: Winona, Tarboo and 50th Street. Jerry Gorsline and Dennis Schultz spoke in favor of Tarboo as number two. Dennis Schultz said that Winona and 50th Street are more of the same type of project for the Wildlife Corridor. Jerry Gorsline said that the breadth of the Tarboo project and its location in the south part of the County were very important. Barbara McColgan Pastore said that both of the other parcels would be purchased by the Land Trust. For Tarboo, the easement would provide more value for the dollar: it stays on the tax rolls; there is active forestry; and the amount of protected land and estuary is greater. She moved that Tarboo be ranked as number two, Winona as number three, and 50th Street as number four. Phil Andrus seconded. Bill Wheeler said that he agreed with the motion, although he did not think the tax revenue was significant. He noted that he also has some issues with the entire financial arrangement for Upper Tarboo. Chris Llewellyn also spoke in favor of the motion, and of ranking Upper Tarboo as second. She said that the other two projects would likely get support from private funding and Port Townsend citizens. Chair Christian restated the motion: Upper Tarboo would be ranked two, Winona would be three, and 5tP' Street would be ranked four in the overall rankings. He noted that the impact is that Tarboo and Winona would change places from where they stood in the raw rankings, where they differed by only a few points. The motion was approved unanimously, with one abstention by Janet Kearsley. The final ranking in order from first to last was: (1) Glendale Farm, (2) Upper Tarboo, (3) Winona, (4) 50th Street, and (5) Tamanowas - Phase II. Chair Christian asked for a motion regarding the recommendation of all five projects to the BoCC. Barbara McColgan Pastore moved that in our communication to BoCC, we endorse all five projects as being worthy of funding, but however specified, on their merits we rated all five projects in the following order: (~)Glendale Farm, (2) Upper Tarboo Creek, (3) Quimper Wildlife Corridor - Winona Wetlands, (4) Quimper Wildlife Corridor - 5tP' Street, and (5) Tamanowas - Phase IL The motion was seconded by Phil Andrus. All those voting were in favor; Janet Kearsleyabstained. Funding Allocation Discussion Bill Wheeler said that due to the complexity, long term nature and other steps needed in the Glendale Farm situation, he would not recommend using the bulk of available funds, but would indicate our substantial interest in the project by allocating some amount. Janet Kearsley said that 50% would be $150,000; he responded that that was perhaps more than substantial. Dennis Schultz noted that most of the farm funding available is brand new and that processes are still . ' being worked out. Therefore, those who apply earliest with the most matching funds will probably receive significant funding. Phil Andrus said he believed Glendale was probably less urgent than Tarboo, so would suggest fully funding the Tarboo request and give the balance to Glendale. Barbara McColgan Pastore said that her initial inclination was to give $300,000 to Glendale Farm, to ensure that the stage was set for the rest of the funding through other agencies. However, she noted that Mr. Andrus's proposal made sense. That is Upper Tarboo could be funded with $163,000 leaving Glendale Farm with about $200,000, a substantial commitment. She raised the question of whether or not such an arrangement would cause the Glendale deal to fall through. Chris Llewellyn reported that she had printed out the Farm and Ranch lands protection program information: NRCS would provide up to 50% of the cost of an easement in perpetuity to keep the land in agriculture, with a funding limit of $4,000,000. This confirms that 50% is the upper limit for NRCS; if CFCC does not fund 50%, the applicant must find the shortfall elsewhere. Dennis Schultz noted that arrangements for multiple sources of funding are not unusual. Bill Wheeler said that it is important to help Glendale start what will likely be a multi-year process, and there may be more funds available next year. Janet Kearsley suggested that some funds be left for Tamanowas wetland protection, i.e. that partial funding for several or all projects be attempted. Chris Llewellyn spoke in favor of funding the top two projects, leaving the other projects for future years. George Bush agreed that partially funding all projects would be less likely to be effective and may not ensure success for any project. He was in favor of funding Glendale and Tarboo, and leaving the others for another year. Barbara McColgan Pastore said that if CFCC were to give partial funding for Tamanowas Phase II, there is no provision in the application that the protection plan would be carried out, in full or in part. With the limited funds of $380,000, she believes the key question is how to portion that out to Glendale and Tarboo. Additionally, she suggested that it would be cleaner and clearer not to award any 0 & M funds; they should be left in the pool. Chair Christian recognized Dennis Schultz to speak and clarified who was in the queue for speaking next. Dennis Schultz noted that 1. the CFCC cannot commit next year's funds; 2. applicants are aware that there are insufficient funds for all projects; 3. he agrees with Phil Andrus's proposal to fund Tarboo with the remainder allocated to Glendale. Lige Christian said that 1. it would be difficult to justify funding Glendale and Tarboo, down to Tamanowas, and would not be able to support that; 2. he is in favor of funding Tarboo at least close to their request, leaving some need for both the Land Trust and Upper Tarboo to stretch. (He noted that he, as Chair, could not make that motion.) Bill Wheeler said he was concerned that the deliberation end with a solid project, but noted there were significant uncertainties for both Glendale and Tarboo, if not fully funded by CFCC, and neither was likely to get match funds this year by other entities. Chris Llewellyn added that having been involved in grant funding before, it is normal practice to disqualify the entire application, as in the Tamanowas case. She recommended that funding for it should not be considered. Chair Christian ruled the comment out of order because a preceding and precluding motion had already been passed. With the intention of helping to focus the conversation, Barbara McColgan Pastore suggested that Glendale Farm be funded for $230,000 and Tarboo at $150,000. She added that this shorts Glendale by about $70,000, which has a longer term to find the funds, and Tarboo by $13,000. Phil Andrus questioned why this apportionment made more sense than fully funding Tarboo, and funding Glendale with the balance - which was determined to be $216,181. Dennis Schultz said that neither of the two lead projects has commitments, and that this situation has been encountered before, e.g. with Sunfield Farm. There is a time period for using the money, and if not used, the funds revert back to CFCC. Janet Kearsley spoke in favor of funding the Winona wetland (about $31,000) in full, along with Glendale and Tarboo, thus achieving the goal of a successful project for this year, as well as making significant contributions to the other two. George Bush said that he was in support of Phil Andrus's notion. He said he had faith that Tarboo would make the project work; he said he would prefer to fund it fully, and award the remainder to Glendale. He was not in favor of lessening the funds for those projects in order to fund Winona. Bill Wheeler asked if in the previous case of Sunfield, they had a committed source of funding. Dennis Schultz replied that they had not, and confirmed that the case was similar in that way to Glendale Farm. There was discussion about the variations of funding. Chris Llewellyn spoke in favor of $150,000 for Tarboo, and leaving less of a gap for Glendale, which she believed gave each project a reasonable chance of succeeding. Jerry Gorsline noted that he had not spoken before, and wished to support Phil Andrus's proposal to full fund Tarboo and give the remainder to Glendale Farm. Barbara McColgan Pastore said she was definitely in favor of funding the top two projects. However, she was concerned about funding the second place project fully, while under funding the top project, which received significantly higher raw scores. This may also indicate that there problems with the rating scheme itself. Lige Christian asked that if the committee fully funds the number two, there must be some help with documenting the rationale, so that the process and reasoning can be well presented to the BoCC. Phil Andrus noted that the rationale or arguments in favor that usually accompany the recommendations of an advisory body are called "findings"; he said the inclusion of findings would definitely be a good idea. Phil Andrus added that the total project cost for Glendale would be $948,000. Therefore, to use the $300,000 figure as the most significant figure is misleading. He said Glendale has significantly more money to raise than the 80,000 in question. Phil Andrus moved that $216,181 dollars be awarded to the Glendale project and $163,819 be awarded to Upper Tarboo. The motion was seconded by George Bush. Chair Christian called for discussion. Bill Wheeler said he would speak further to the justification issue. He said that the Glendale situation is one of providing seed money for a project, whereas the funding for Tarboo would finish up a known funding plan. Therefore, he did not think this would appear unreasonable to the BoCC or others. He noted that the 300,000 for Glendale is somewhat arbitrary in that they do not know how much other sources can or may provide. Chair Christian said he would argue that the $10,000 spent in the project by the Tarboo applicant should not be included in the CFCC award. After a clarifying discussion to sort out the components of the financial arrangements, it was determined that the 10,000 is 1. not part of the match, and 2. would not be returned to the applicant if the CFCC funded the $163, 819. (The $10,000 was a non- refundable sum by which NWIS obtained the option to buy within an 18 month period.) Chair Christian called for the vote. There were 5 ayes. There were 3 nayes, and one abstention. The motion passed: 5 ayes; 3 nayes; and 1 abstention. Chair Christian asked for verification that the full rationale had been recorded. Phil Andrus noted that he had intended to mention the time constraint that the Tarboo project faces. Barbara McColgan Pastore restated: "You also said that it was the last piece in a funding plan, as opposed to being seed money that the other one was, so therefore it was timelier." Chris Llewellyn asked if, in the event that the Upper Tarboo project did not go through, the money could be awarded to Glendale. Committee members responded that there would be no way to know before submitting the recommendation to the BoCC. Chris Llewellyn began to make a motion regarding that eventuality. At this point, Chair Christian announced that the previous motion had failed. He said that an absolute majority is needed, i.e. six of the full eleven members must be favor of the motion. Barbara McColgan Pastore moved that Glendale Farm be funded at $230,000 and Upper Tarboo at $150,000, all in capital funds, with no 0 & M. Chris Llewellyn seconded. Dennis Schultz called for the question. The motion passed: 7 in favor, 1 opposed and 1 abstention. VII. other Administrative CALENDAR: Tami Pokorny said that if all went in accordance with the schedule, there would be a hearing on the recommendations on May 21. The next meeting is tentatively scheduled for Thursday, June 7. Several members advised that they may be unable to attend on that date. Tami Pokorny will poll members and arrange an optimal date via e-mail. Possible additions for the rating sheet and checklist should be sent to Tami Pokorny. VIII. Observer Comments: Joel Peterson thanked the committee for the opportunity to participate in the meeting. He said he was impressed with the ranking of the sites. He said that he had been through similar processes before and made several suggestions. He noted that it is always helpful to have terms well defined. He also noted that he had some questions about how the criteria were applied, and some disagreements, Mr. Peterson said that there seemed to be some pressure for consensus and/or adjustment of individual ratings, and that it would be better to allow the numbers to flow through to the end. He also advised the committee to document the multipliers very well, noting that sometimes they can obfuscate the final outcome. IX. Adiournment A motion to adjourn was moved and seconded. Chair Christian adjourned the meeting at 6:40 PM ., -- :! ".,,('Ii c, ~'Ji:.()% JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH ~,:~,?: 615 Sheridan Street · Port Townsend · Washington · 98368 ~,f lilt; 0'( () www.jeffersoncountypublichealth.org JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REQUEST TO: Board of County Commissioners Philip Morley, County Administrator FROM: Neil Harrington, Water Quality Program Manager Tami Pokorny, Environmental Health Specialist II DATE: February 2, 2009 SUBJECT: Agenda Request: Request by Water Quality Staff and Peter Bahls, Northwest Watershed Institute, to Reallocate $7,500 in Conservation Futures Funds from the Tarboo Creek Conservation Project to the Upper Tarboo Creek Conservation Easement Project. STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Water Quality staff and Peter Bahls, executive director of Northwest Watershed Institute (NWI), request BoCC signature on the accompanying resolution to reallocate an unexpended award of conservation futures (CF) funds to another approved CF project. Section 3, paragraph 8 of the Conservation Futures Ordinance (No. 06-0708-02) states, If there are unexpended project allocations, including but not limited to project completion at less than the estimated cost or, alternatively, the abandonment of projects, the project sponsor shall notify Jefferson County, which may reallocate the unexpended fund proceeds to an approved project scope change or to another approved project. The purpose of the Jefferson County Conservation Futures Program and levy is to support a system of public open spaces including sensitive lands with unique characteristics, habitat that supports a variety of flora and fauna, and lands that have significant regional or community benefit. ANALYSIS/STRATEGIC GOALS: In the accompanying letter, Mr. Bahls states that the Tarboo Creek Conservation Project, which was awarded $7,500 in conservation futures funds in 2008, has been COMMUNITY HEALTH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES MAIN: 360385-9400 FAX: 360-385-9401 PUBLIC HEALTH ALWAYS WORKING FOR A SAFER AND HEALTHIER COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH WATER QUALITY MAIN: 360385-9444 FAX: 360-379-4487 .... f!:' completed using monies from other sources. He requests that the BoCC reallocate the Tarboo Creek Conservation Project award to the Upper Tarboo Creek Conservation Easement Project (Upper Tarboo). As indicated on page 12 of the accompanying April 10, 2007 minutes, the Conservation Futures Citizen Oversight Committee endorsed the funding of Upper Tarboo and ranked it second of five projects, behind Glendale Farm. The Upper Tarboo application for CF funding requested $163,819. It was awarded $150,000 by the BoCC, consistent with the Committee's recommendations, because of the limited CF funds available. At its most recent meeting on January 5, 2009, the CF Committee recommended to the BoCCthat the request from NWI be granted. Staff adds that four CF projects are pending at this time, but only Upper Tarboo Creek is seeking the CF funds in question. The four projects are: . Tarboo Creek Conservation (2008) . Upper Tarboo Creek Conservation Easement (2007) . Finnriver Farm (2008): Finnriver Farm Project received the full amount of conservation futures funds requested and has applied for a state farmland grant to complete the project. . Glendale Farm (2007): The Glendale Farm Project, sponsored by the Jefferson Land Trust (JLT), received a partial CF award in 2007. Sarah Spaeth, conservation programs director for JL T, indicates that they are satisfied that the project's funding needs have been met. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no impact to the General Fund of reallocating conservation futures funds between approved CF projects. The awards are granted from the Conservation Futures Fund exclusively. No impact to any other existing CF projects is anticipated. The transfer would increase the funds available to the Upper Tarboo Creek Conservation Easement Project from $150,000 to $157,500 and reduce the amount of CF funds available to the Tarboo Creek Conservation Project from $7,500 to $0. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Chair of the BOCC sign the accompanying resolution consistent with the Conservation Futures Citizen Oversight Committee recommendations. REVIEWED BY: ),0Y~7 Date COMMUNITY HEALTH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES MAIN: 360385-9400 FAX: 360-385-9401 PUBLIC HEALTH ALWAYS WORKING FOR A SAFER AND HEALTHIER COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH WATER QUALITY MAIN: 360385-9444 FAX: 360.3794487